An Unsolved Christmas Day Killing

When a woman was found dead beneath a Liverpool office block one Christmas Day there was insufficient evidence to charge the only suspect in the case.

At around 830am on 25th December 1919 two messenger boys from the Union Telegraph Cable Company were running down Covent Garden when they came across a horrific find. The badly bruised and bloodied naked body of a female was huddled up in a recess overlooking the basement of the Oriel Chambers office block.

The boys found a policeman who on searching the immediate area located a pile of rain soaked clothing on the opposite side of the road. On examination it was found to be badly torn and was believed to belong to the woman. A purse with some coins was also discovered in the roadway.

Police enquiries established that the woman went by the names of both Elizabeth McDermott and Isabella Wilson. She was described as an 'Unfortunate' who was aged in her fifties and lived in a lodging house in Richmond Row. The keeper there had not seen her for 24 hours before she was found, but had not raised any alarm as she was often being taken into custody by the police.

On Saturday 27th December John Brien, a 23 year old seaman, was arrested on a steamer in the docks on suspicion of being implicated in the death. Magistrates granted a remand until the Monday so further enquiries could be conducted. Brien admitted leaving his ship on Christmas Eve and spending four hours with a friend and another female on Scotland Road. The female had then shown him to the Pier Head around midnight, and the next he knew he was being woken and arrested by the police. 

An inquest was opened on 29th December. The lodging house keeper, Mary Maguire, said she knew the victim as Elizabeth Wilson and that she had recently spent time in the workhouse hospital with injuries to her arm after being run over by a tramcar.  A police officer said that the woman was originally from Greenock, had been in court many times and usually gave the name Elizabeth McDermott. It was not known if she had ever married but McDermott was her father's name and her mother was Wilson. The coroner adjourned the inquest pending further enquiries while over at the police court, a prosecution request for a further remand of eight days for Brien was agreed. 

On 6th January 1920 Brien was again remanded for a week, appearing unmoved by the ongoing delay. His relaxed attitude was arguably vindicated the following week, when he was freed. At another hearing, the prosecutor said to the stipendiary magistrate "Although the circumstances under which the arrest was effected were distinctly suspicious there was not sufficient evidence to ask the bench to send the prisoner for trial at the assizes. I am now satisfied there is no evidence to place before the court". 

On being told he could go free, Brien bowed his head to the bench and left the court. Nobody was ever convicted in relation to the death of whoever the female was that was found dead at Covent Garden on Christmas Day 1919.

Pub Kettle Killing

A pub customer unhappy at being asked to leave threw a kettle at the landlord, causing scalding which led to his death. 

On the evening of Sunday 14th October 1860 George Simpson, his wife, brother and sister in law were in Roberts' Spirit Vaults, Copperas Hill. When they were refused service for being drunk, the manager William Evans told them to leave. 

George rushed behind the bar and picked up a kettle from a stove, throwing it at William. The kettle hit him on the head and as William fell down, his face was heavily splashed with boiling water. 

William died five days later from delirium tremens, the onset of which had been brought about by shock due to scalding. An inquest returned a verdict of manslaughter against George Simpson and a warrant was made out for his arrest by the coroner. 

At the assizes on 14th December, George did not dispute the facts of the case. His employer, a furniture dealer in Church Street, was a witness to his good character, referring to him as "strictly honest, peaceable and well conducted". Mr Justice Blackburn then sentenced him to nine months imprisonment with hard labour.

A Fatal Quarrel Over change

When a row erupted in a Yate's Wine Lodge over some change, one man was left dead but following a trial, the other was acquitted.

On the afternoon of Thursday 15th October 1925 James Shevlin, a 42 year old engineer, was drinking in Yate's Wine Lodge in Great Charlotte Street. He paid for a drink with half a crown and when his change of a shilling and eleven pence was placed on the bar, it was quickly picked up by 29 year old hawker James Varley. 

Shevlin demanded the money back and Varley gave it to him, saying they should meet up outside. Varley went out of the Great Charlotte Street exit but Shevlin, keen to avoid confrontation, left by the door that led to Deane Street. Sensing this, Varley went round to Deane Street and struck Shevlin, who didn't respond and ran off towards Ranelagh Street. Varley gave chase and struck Shevlin again opposite Lewis's, but this time Shevlin fought back. He was seen by an excited crowd to take something small and shiny out of his pocket and hold it out to Varley, who fell down bleeding.

Varley was rushed to the Royal Infirmary but died soon after admission. Shevlin, who had been detained by a passer was at Warren Street bridewell, where he was told he would be charged with wilful murder. A small penknife and pair of tweezers were found in his overcoat pocket.

A post mortem established that there were three stab wounds around Varley's groin. One of these had severed he femoral artery and vein, causing a hemorrhage that led to death. The cuts were consistent with having been caused by a penknife. 

At the inquest the following Monday Shevlin cross examined Dr Brown who had treated Varley at the hospital. When asked if the injuries could have been caused by tweezers rather than a penknife Dr Brown replied that it was "possible but not probable". Shevlin then gave a frank explanation of what happened. He said "I have only one eye and was frightened of having that hurt. I wanted no quarrel with Varley so as he continued to hit me took a pair of tweezers out of my pocket to defend myself and held them out towards him hoping that the crowd would separate us." Shevlin denied that he had been running away and stated that he was just trying to find a policeman. 

After a period of deliberation, the jury found that Shevlin had stabbed Varley with the penknife. However they acknowledged it was under a great deal of provocation and there was no intent to kill. He was then committed to the assizes on a coroner's warrant for trial on a charge of manslaughter.

On 2nd November prosecutors acknowledged that Varley had struck Shevlin first but the use of a knife was a disproportionate form of self defence. Shevlin gave evidence himself, denying thrusting any weapon. He maintained that he carried small instruments to fix watches, and did not even know what he had in his hand. All he was concerned about, he testified, was saving his remaining eye. Summing up, his defence counsel said the wound would not have proved fatal if it was half an inch either way.

In summing up, Mr Justice McKinnon said that all parties had agreed on the fact that Varley was the aggressor up until the final few seconds. If it was to be accepted as self defence, then the force needed to have been adequate. He also drew attention to the fact that implement caught Varley in a very unlucky spot hence causing death. Finally, the judge said that if they were satisfied Shevlin held out the instruments as a deterrent, but Varley threw himself upon them, then it should be an acquittal.

Without leaving their box, the jury found Shevlin not guilty and he was free to return to his home in Chesterfield Street. 

Death of a Teamowner

When a Liverpool teamowner was killed by one of his employees after a row, the jury took a lenient view and found him guilty only of manslaughter. 

On 25th March 1889 George Godfrey, was in the fruit rooms at Victoria Street with one of his employees, a porter named  Samuel Vaughan. After some words were exchanged between the two over an outstanding delivery to a Blackburn trader, Godfrey punched Vaughan, causing him to fall to the ground.

An hour later, Vaughan confronted 25 year old Godfrey in his office which was upstairs in the same building, demanding a shilling. The request was refused and as Godfrey was leaving via some stairs, Vaughan hit him from behind with an adze (a cutting tool). Godfrey was taken to the Northern Hospital.

Vaughan was apprehended later that evening at a public house in Conway Street. As he was being conveyed to the Bridewell he said to the police officer "I struck him with the flat end, not the sharp end". Four days later Godfrey died from inflammation of the brain having never fully regain consciousness. He was just twenty five years old.

The funeral of Godfrey took place on 2nd April and was attended by a number of master carters and fruit merchants. There were nine mourning coaches and 3,000 lining the streets around his home in Rose Vale, Everton. Around 400 mourners were at Anfield Cemetery, where he was buried in the Roman Catholic section. It was the second tragedy within a year for his widow, the couple had lost their baby daughter the previous May.

The day after the funeral Vaughan, who had initially been charged with wounding, was brought before the Police Court and committed to the assizes to stand trial for murder. A crucial factor behind this decision was that he had an hour to calm down after being struck by Godfrey and that he had told another porter he would "knock his brains out" and intended to "do for him".

On 23rd May Vaughan stood trial and unusually for the time, gave his own statement. He claimed that  Godfrey had again hit him in the office and that he found the adze used was on a table there. Prosecutors acknowledged that an adze was not usually carried by porters. In the closing statement, Vaughan's defence counsel described him as "an uneducated passionate man who was smarting under the blow which he had received". It was also pointed out that although nobody had seen or heard Godfrey strike Vaughan at the top of the stairs, it was the same case in relation to the blow with the adze.

After deliberating for ten minutes the jury returned a verdict of manslaughter. However Mr Justice Stephens was in no mood for leniency. He told Vaughan that due to his use of an implement and having gone to the office intending to cause harm, a murder verdict would have been justifiable. Saying it was for the protection of the public, he then imposed a sentence of fifteen years penal servitude.

The Dale Street Skeleton

In 1862 some workmen in Dale Street uncovered a skeleton, believed to be that of somebody who met a violent end some years earlier. 

On 17th September that year workmen were digging up newly vacant land, making it ready for the construction of  Municipal Building. They came across a skeleton and quickly summoned the police who placed the grisly find in a sack and took it to the detective office to await an order from the coroner.  

The land had previously been occupied by a number of what the Daily Post described as 'disreputable houses' and speculation was rife that the person had met their end by 'foul means'.

Woman's Murder Solved 39 Years Later

The murder of a young mother in 1970 remained unsolved until 2009. It was only when a written confession detailing the killing was found amongst the belongings of a man who died that the police could finally close the case.

At 8am on Wednesday 2nd September that year binmen found the body of nineteen year old Lorraine Jacobs in an alley off Rodney Street. Lorraine's knickers had been removed and by her side were three rain sodden bags of chips. As her back was dry, police concluded she had died prior to the rain starting at 3am. A pathologist later put the time of death as around midnight.

Lorraine had been on her way to her home in Russell Street where she lived with her mum, fourteen month old daughter and baby son. Enquiries established she had last been seen alive in Pilgrim Street at 11pm and bought the chips in Great George Street. Earlier in the evening she had been drinking in Yates' Wine Lodge in Great Charlotte Street.

Detectives interviewed 900 people who lived, worked or had been in the area on the night of the killing and handed out 3,500 questionnaires. However the trail went cold and the murder remained unsolved until a dramatic discovery by decorators in 2008. Whilst cleaning out the house of 78 year old Harvey Richardson, who had recently died of bowel cancer, they found an envelope marked 'private and confidential'. Inside was a nine page confession to the murder, written on yellowing paper, as well as a pair of blue knickers.

The discovery led to Merseyside Police being called in and tests dated the paper to around the time of the murder. The confession contained information never previously in the public domain, detailing how Richardson, who had never been a suspect, had rowed with Lorraine over a camera she had taken from his Huskisson Street flat a couple of months earlier. This had happened as she was unhappy about him taking photographs of her children with it, although there was no reason to believe there was anything sinister about that. The letter said Richardson had been drinking all day after finding out he had failed his exams to become a librarian, then gone to Upper Duke Street looking for prostitutes. After coming across Lorraine, he strangled her then headed to Greenheys Gardens, where he had recently moved after being evicted from Huskisson Street.

Despite the length of time since the murder, detectives were able to corroborate 90% of the letters contents and there were DNA matches to both Lorraine and Richardson on the knickers. The Crown Prosecution Service confirmed that if Richardson were still alive, then he would be charged with the killing. This led to the police closing the case and Detective Superintendent Ian Kemble stating 'It means a lot to me to close this case for the Jacob family, I can not appreciate the suffering they have been through all these years and hope this outcome will bring them some comfort.'

Scandinavian Shooting

A Norwegian sailor who shot his friend dead was sentenced to just a year's imprisonment. 

For three weeks over the Christmas period at the end of 1911 two Norwegian sailors, Alfred Martinsen and Alfred Karlsen, slept in a dormitory at the Scandinavian Hotel in Great George Street. The pair got on well but things took a turn for the worse at on Saturday 6th January 1912 when drink got the better of them.

 At around 11pm they returned to their lodgings with Karlsen being in a merry mood. He put on cap then pretended to be an officer, walking up and down the aisles giving orders to men who were asleep. Without warning, Martinsen appeared and produced a revolver, firing it straight at Karlsen. A bullet entered Karlsen's eye and he collapsed and died instantly. 

Martinsen, realising what he had done, desperately tried to revive his friend but could not do so and after surrendering the gun went to his bed where he laid down to await his inevitable arrest. He offered no resistance when taken into custody by Constable Jennings, saying he could not bear the thought of what he had done. On being told he would be charged with murder he said simply 'Go ahead.' He appeared before magistrates on the Monday morning and was remanded in custody.

On 25th January Martinsen was brought before the police court, where the prosecutor Mr Duder asked for the case to be sent to the assizes before the inquest had taken place. This was an unusual step, but Mr Duder stated that they were imminent and the cost of bringing witnesses from Norway later in the year would be expensive. Mr Duder admitted he could find no motive for the attack and suggested that Martinsen was in a state of semi drunkenness and mistakenly thought he had quarrelled with his friend. 

Another Norwegian seaman named Segrid Wille said that shortly before the incident he had been in a public house with the two men and Martinsen had shown them the gun. The licensee asked them to leave and they did so, being best of friends at that time. A lady called Mathilde Odegaard recalled seeing Martinsen and Karlsen together on the night of the tragedy and they had been on good terms. One of the men who had been asleep in the dormitory, Hilding Olsson, recalled that Karlsen was parading up and down shouting to people 'Get up and work'. Olsson went on to say that on hearing a gunshot, he got up and saw Martinsen leaning over the body of his friend, who had blood coming from his eye. 

The shooting had been witnessed by Sedberg Hermansson, who described both men as being sober but having had some drink. He said that they were only ten feet apart when the shot was fired and Martinsen immediately went forward and said 'What is the matter Karlsen are you dead.'  Martinsen, who was rubbing Karlsen's head, immediately handed the revolver to a Danish seaman when asked to do so.

Dr Naughton Dunn from the Southern Hospital revealed the results of the postmortem which took place after Karlsen had been pronounced dead at 11.45pm. The bullet had passed through the eye and passed right through the brain and bounded off the skull, causing instant death. After Constable Jennings gave evidence as to the arrest, Martinsen was committed for trial at the forthcoming assizes which were just two weeks away.

When Martinsen appeared at the assizes on 12th February, it was accepted by the jury that he had not had any malice aforethought and not intended to kill. He was found guilty of the lesser charge of manslaughter and sentenced to twelve months imprisonment. 

Abnormally Thin Skull Saves Defendant

A man who was charged with murder after killing a man with one punch avoided trial due to medical evidence finding abnormalities with the victim's skull.

At 3pm on 25th October 1938 a stonemason named Albert Shaw noticed three young males loitering around the back of an empty house in Jervis Street (which was situated off Russell Street). 

Shaw reported the suspicious behaviour to the police in nearby Warren Street and the males were moved on. Shaw returned to work ten minutes later but soon afterwards they returned and an argument broke out. One of the males, eighteen year old William Nicholls, punched 53 year old Shaw leading to him falling back and striking his head on some steps.

Nicholls tried to escape by climbing a wall into Back Gill Street, but he was followed by a police officer who apprehended him. An unconscious Shaw was taken to the Royal Infirmary where he died later that evening, his skull having been fractured. On being charged with murder Nicholls replied 'He struck me and I hit him in self defence.'

On 10th November Nicholls appeared at the Magistrates' Court for a committal hearing. Medical evidence was heard that Shaw had an abnormally thin skull. Given this the magistrate decided there was not enough evidence to justify any charges. Nicholls was released from the dock and was free to return to his home in Leander Street, off Brownlow Hill.

Killing at the Corn Exchange

A corn porter whose anger at not being given any wages led to him killing a foreman was transported for life.

On Saturday 12th July 1856 at about 2pm a master porter named Francis Welch was stood at the corner of Fenwick and Brunswick Streets. This was a popular place where corn porters would seek work. He was approached by a man named Miles Melia, who aggressively asked him for half a days pay.

When Welch refused the payment, saying he didn't know who Melia was he was struck three times and fell down. After being helped up Melia hit him again, causing him to fall down. More passers by helped Welch but Melia pushed them aside and struck another violent blow, causing him to fall and hit his head on a flag and grid. 

Blood was pouring out of the back of Welch's head and nostrils. He was taken to the Northern Dispensary where the wound was dressed and he was sent to his home in Cunliffe Street. Melia as apprehended by police in the Brunswick Building and as he was being taken to the bridewell said that no man would stand in the way of him claiming his wages.  

That evening Welch passed away and a postmortem revealed he had died from effusion on the brain as a result of the blows. An inquest returned a verdict of wilful murder against Melia, who claimed that he was drunk and could remember very little.

Melia was committed to the assizes on a coroner's warrant and appeared before Justice Willies on 20th August. He claimed that Welch struck him first but witnesses said that his victim was not aggressive. They continued that Melia acted violently after being refused any wages by a man who said he had not worked for.

The defence counsel stated that Melia had no motive for murder and no weapon was used. In summing up the judge said that drink was no excuse and that if it the actions could reasonably have led him to believe grievous bodily harm would be caused, then it was murder.

After the jury returned a verdict of manslaughter, the judge said it was a brutal savage attack and manslaughter of the most aggravated character.  He then sentenced Melia to transportation for life. On 1st January 1858 he landed in Western Australia after a three and a half month voyage on board the Nile.

Dead Baby in a Wash Basin

When the body of a newborn baby was found in a wash basin, the mother was charged with murder but acquitted as the prosecution could not prove that she had been the cause of death.

On the morning of 29th March 1852 Alice Shaw, a servant to Thomas Ripley at 21 Abercromby Square, joined her colleagues for breakfast as normal. She then went upstairs to attended to her duties, with nobody suspecting that she was 'in the family way'.

When Alice was called down to dinner she didn't respond, leading to her being discovered lying on the floor in an insensible state. A doctor was called and established that she had recently given birth to a child, leading to a terrible discovery in an adjoining bedroom. There, in a wash basin, was the body of a newborn girl with a handkerchief tied around her neck and the tongue protruding.

A postmortem revealed that the baby had been born alive and died from congestion on the lungs. Dr Nottage said he was 'not of the slightest doubt' that this was as a result of suffocation and drowning. This led to the coroners inquest returning a verdict of wilful murder. Alice, who had been held in custody at Mr Ripley's house, was then removed to Kirkdale gaol.

At the assizes on 20th August Alice appeared before Lord Chief Justice Campbell. Alice's defence suggested that even if the child had been born alive there was no evidence to show that it was Alice that had caused the death. With this doubt in their minds the jury returned a verdict of not guilty and Alice was acquitted.

Killing of a Brothel Keeper

A man who stabbed a brothel keeper after being turned out of the house was found guilty of manslaughter and transported for twelve years.

On 12th June 1841 James White took a female into a brothel in Preston Street that was run by William and Bridget Crummer. Shortly after they retired to an upstairs room a cry of 'murder' was heard, leading to Bridget running up to investigate. She heard the female say she would return White's sixpence if he let her go, which he did so when he realised Bridget was there.

White then followed Bridget downstairs and tried to hit her, leading to thirty year old William telling him that it was not a manly thing to do. White said he would hit William instead and did so after being told to go about his business because nobody wanted conversation with him. William then took hold of White and threw him out of the front door.

After disappearing for a moment White came back and stabbed William in the stomach, causing his bowels to fall out. Bridget bravely ran after White and managed to grab his coattails for long enough before a passing police constable took him into custody. A surgeon named Dr Cripps was sent for and sewed the wound, but also informed William that he needed to prepare to face Almighty God. 

William was able to give a deposition to a magistrate in which he identified White as the man who stabbed him. He died at 5pm on the Sunday and when White was informed by the Bridewell keeper of William's death he replied 'Then I am an unfortunate man'. An inquest took place before the Coroner Mr P F Curry on 16th June. Bridget gave evidence, William's deposition was read out and Dr Cripp described the wound as 'of great extent' and caused by a sharp instrument. After hearing all the facts the jury returned a verdict of wilful murder.

At the assizes on 27th August Bridget and some others who had been at the house at the time gave evidence. White's defence counsel Mr Wilkins pointed to the fact that the knife was never recovered and said that the witnesses as of 'the worst description of human beings.' Two cabinet makers then gave forty one year old White excellent character references, describing him as someone of 'honesty and humanity.'

In summing up, the judge said that the jury had to decide whether White had used a knife with the malicious intent of causing death. After retiring for about ten minutes, they returned and gave a verdict of manslaughter.

White was told by the judge that he had committed a manslaughter of the most aggravated character given he had been excluded from the house then returned with a knife. He was then sentenced to be 'transported to such a place beyond the seas as Her Majesty by the advice of her Privy Council, may direct and appoint, for a period of twelve years.'

Horror at Princes Dock

There was a terrible scene at Princes Dock in 1841 when a ship's crew member was stabbed to death by a passenger who was later declared to be insane.

On 1st June that year the United States arrived at Princes Dock after a voyage from New Orleans that had lasted six weeks. As passengers prepared to disembark Patrick Cahill, who had been in steerage class, began to argue with a steward named Eli Robinson over some tobacco. Second Mate Robert Deakin observed Cahill threaten to kill Robinson and then chase him to the starboard side of the ship. Once there, Cahill struck him in the neck and then plunged a knife into the abdomen two or three times.

Deakin managed to use a rope to tie Cahill to a mast and he then turned his attentions to Robinson, who was bleeding heavily. Fifty five year old Robinson was rushed to the Northern Hospital where he was dead on arrival. Assistant house surgeon Edward Parker carried out a postmortem and found five wounds in all, one of which had pierced the heart.

At the inquest the following day Deakin described how Cahill had been a quiet and sober passenger throughout the crossing. It was only when the ship reached Holyhead that his mood changed and he began pacing the deck all night. Other witnesses  said that they had seen Cahill use the knife and Dr Parker said the wound to the heart as the cause of death. 

After a verdict of wilful murder was returned, the borough coroner made out a warrant for Cahill's trial at the next assizes and the twenty eight year old was taken to Kirkdale Gaol.

When Cahill appeared before Mr Justice Wightman on 25th August the first witness was a woman called Sarah Barrow. She had been stood on the dockside and said that she saw Cahill run after Robinson with a knife. One of the Liverpool pilots told how he boarded the United States as Cahill came out of a cabin carrying a knife and appeared sober at the time. Under cross examination, the second mate Deakin admitted that Cahill had talked of little men dancing on the bow the night before the ship reached Liverpool.

Cahill's defence counsel argued  that he had carried out the act under mental aberration and had no motive. The fact that there were so many present, it was argued, showed that Cahill was the slave of some supernatural agency as he had no hope of escape after carrying out the stabbing. Cahill's Irish father gave evidence as to his background, stating that his son had fractured his skull in 1838 at a fair and gone to America unexpectedly. He visited his son in gaol and been told that the devil was from Yorkshire, leading him to believe him of unsound mind.

The Governor of Kirkdale Gaol, Mr Amos, described Cahill as odd, singular and troublesome since he had been committed there. Without having to leave the box, the jury acquitted Cahill on the grounds of insanity and he was detained at Her Majesty's pleasure.

Man Kills wife Over Lodger

A man who killed his wife as he was unhappy at her relationship with their lodger was convicted of manslaughter and transported.

In the early hours of Sunday 28th July 1844 Owen Leonard, a tailor who lived at 37 Peter Street, accused his wife Bridget of what the Liverpool Mail described as 'being in terms of more than ordinary intimacy' with one of their lodgers. The man denied the accusation but Bridget refunded his rent so that he would leave and the peace be kept, or so she thought.

Bridget then went upstairs to light a candle in the room of two other lodgers, Mr and Mrs Livingston. Her husband remained downstairs and locked the door but when Bridget returned downstairs she was punched to the ground. Leonard then grabbed her hair and slit her throat with a razor. He then cut her nose, arms and legs whilst their terrified fourteen year old son James looked on. Her screams woke several people in the neighbourhood who began to gather outside the door, leading to Leonard opening it and kicking his wife down the steps. A stretcher was procured and Bridget was rushed to the Northern Hospital, where she was pronounced dead on arrival.

Police officers arrested Leonard as he was washing his hands and recovered a blood stained razor from under the table. He was sixty years old and described as being of diminutive stature. Both he and Bridget had been born in Ireland.

An inquest took place before the borough coroner Mr P F Curry on the Monday. As it opened Leonard sat in a state of anxiety and trepidation but he grew calmer as the proceedings went on. The principle witness was their son James, who explained how a row had broken out around midnight and that Leonard was 'tipsy but sufficiently sober to know what he was about.' James then described how after the lodger had left the door was bolted, window blinds shut and then his father set about beating and slashing his mother. James said that he managed to escape to look for a policeman but when he returned his mother was on the steps unable to speak.

After giving his evidence James was then challenged by his father over his account. This led to him admitting that his mother had struck his father first, but only after some ill language was used against her. Police Constable Thomas Dunn said that when he arrested Leonard he replied that he had done what he did as his wife was an 'old bitch.'  Mr Livingston said that he saw the disagreement take place between Leonard and the other lodger, then went to bed with his wife, chatting for a few moments as Bridget lit the candle. The next he heard was the screams of James, who was outside the house begging for help as his father was killing his mother.

Michael Hambleton, who lived opposite, said that he was woken by screams and went over to see Leonard stood over his wife, whose nose was cut off. He ran for a policeman and when he returned Bridget was on the steps. Another neighbour Margaret Peacock told how she tried to stem the flow of blood with her apron and when Leonard saw her do this said to her 'I will do the same to you.'

Edward Parker, the house surgeon at the Northern Hospital, explained that on carrying out a postmortem he found that the jugular vein had been severed. Two other arteries were cut in half and some of the wounds were as long as eight inches. In his opinion, no single wound had caused death, rather a haemorrhage had occurred from all of them. After the jury returned a verdict of wilful murder, Leonard was committed to the forthcoming assizes for trial.

On 29th August Leonard appeared before Baron Pollock, looking about the court with an air of indifference. The prosecutor Mr Hulton outlined the facts of the case and then called the same witnesses who had given evidence at the coroner's inquest. Dr Chalmer, surgeon to Kirkdale gaol, then gave his opinion that Leonard was of sound mind and fully conscious of what was going on.

Mr McAubrey, defending Leonard, contested that Leonard had no prior motive and acted out of passion. He then called two of his daughters, Margaret and Ann, who both said his mood had changed in recent years and that he had become more paranoid about his wife's activities, even refusing to drink tea that she had made for him. John Goodwin, a master tailor, said he had employed Leonard at times and he could be irrational and rambling, often walking away when given instructions. 

In summing up, Baron Pollock asked the jury to consider to what extent Leonard was destitute of reason and how much control he had of his actions. A verdict if manslaughter was returned and he was sentenced to be transported for life. In September the following year, he was one of 250 convicts to arrive at Norfolk Island n board the Hyberadad.

Mother and Daughter Killed by Falling Cask

A mother and daughter were killed instantly when a cask fell from a warehouse window, leading to the owner being convicted of manslaughter.

On Friday 10th August 1832 forty six year old Margaret Kearsley, the wife of a coal merchant who resided in Beau Street, went into Liverpool with her fifteen year old daughter, also named Margaret. On their way home, they turned from Dale Street into Byrom Street only for the terrible tragedy to strike. As they passed the warehouse of Rigmaiden's wine merchants, a cask fell from a height of four storeys straight onto the head of the daughter, removing the scalp of the mother as it did so.

Both women were crushed into the earth. Miss Kearsley convulsed briefly with blood coming from her mouth then she immediately expired. Mrs Kearsley showed some signs of life and she was rushed to a surgery in Dale Street, but she was beyond recovery.

Mrs Kearsley was described by the Liverpool Mercury as a healthy elegant woman. The paper commented that 'we never remember any accident that produced a deeper feeling of sorrow and consideration in the public mind.' Calling for a change in the law so that warehouse owners would be compelled to employ someone on the ground warning passers by to cross the road, it lamented the 'culpable carelessness' of Mr Rigmaiden.

The day after the deaths an inquest was opened and then adjourned until the Monday. A baker named Mr Worthington said that he had seen Rigmaiden struggling to get the cask into the door and that he was trying to turn it another way. It was held, he said, by just a single rope. A labourer named John Mahoney told how he heard someone comment how dangerous it was to hoist the cask using just the rope and no hooks. When he was taken into custody, Rigmaiden said that the cask had got caught on a sack of flour and as he tried to adjust its position, it slipped through the rope and fell. 

The inquest returned a verdict of manslaughter and the following day Rigmaiden, described as now being in a state of deepest depression, travelled to Lancaster Castle to be tried at the ongoing assizes. His case was heard on 16th August and in his defence he said that he hoisted the cask in a manner that he always had done. He also said how he wished he had been the victim of the accident due to the anxiety and suffering he had endured. The Mercury reported that Rigmaiden was in a state of great agitation during his trial. 

Statements of good character were made by several local gentlemen, including the Treasurer of the Parish of Liverpool. After a short consultation the jury found Rigmaiden guilty but recommended mercy, leading to the judge imposing a sentence of one months imprisonment.

Half Wits Death Sentence Reprive

In 1887 a man described as a half wit in the press was found guilty of murder but reprieved from the death penalty. 

John Anderson was twenty two years old and lived in a court in Roscoe Street with his widowed mother. He was from a very poor family, having been in and out of the workhouse and unemployed for some time. His widowed sister and two young children lived in a neighbouring property, and he often went without food for two days at a time to ensure they were fed. 

For reasons that were never fully established, Anderson got into a long running dispute with  George Mason. He was a twenty seven year old carter living in Gray Street, off Windsor Street, with his mother and father. The incident that led to Mason's death, described by the Liverpool Mercury as a 'diabolical outrage', took place on the afternoon of Saturday 23rd July 1887. Mason was stood at the corner of Jamaica Street and St James Street when he saw Anderson walking towards him from Park Lane. On seeing Mason, Anderson ran at him with a knife, stabbing him in the abdomen. 

Mason ran away but Anderson continued to chase him until he sought refuge in a public house. A large crowd surrounded the attacker and he was detained by a police constable who used a baton to knock the knife out of his hand.

Anderson was taken to the Argyle Street bridewell and Mason was helped into a cart to be conveyed to the Southern Hospital. On being questioned Anderson said he had been 'ill used' by Mason two days earlier but he did not have enough money to take out a summons. The knife, he said, was on his person for his own protection.

Dr Wigmore at the Southern Hospital was concerned for Mason's condition and called for depositions to be taken with immediate effect. This was made in front of a magistrate, police sergeant and Anderson. Mason stated that they had fought on the Thursday night but that the attack on the Saturday was unprovoked. When challenged by Anderson about shaking his first, Mason said all he was doing was pointing at him.  

On the Sunday morning Mason died and on being charged with murder, Anderson replied 'I done it in self defence.' Press investigations found that Anderson regularly attended congregational church services, and a minister told the press that he was considered to be 'weak minded and neither physically nor mentally a fit and proper person for the duties of this life.' 

At his trial on 4th August, previous employers of Anderson said that he was weak in the mind, but the surgeon from Walton gaol was of the opinion that he was not insane. Witnesses who had seen the attack stated that there had been no provocation from Mason and the fact Anderson had taken the knife out with him was a major factor. The jury found him guilty of murder but recommended mercy. In sentencing him to death, Justice Day said that no jury could have reached any other conclusion.

Anderson's execution was fixed for 22nd August and he wrote to his mother from the condemned cell at Kirkdale gaol, saying she had been good to him and not to feel any sorrow. However, in light of Anderson's low intellect, with five days to spare the Home Secretary commuted the sentence to life imprisonment. This move was welcomed by the Liverpool Mercury newspaper, which described him as a 'poor half witted creature' who should be in a state asylum rather than gaol. He was however placed at the mainstream Chatham prison in Kent.

Police Officer Cleared Over Mans Death

A police officer charged with murder after a man he arrested for being drunk died was later cleared of any wrongdoing in connection to the death.

In the early hours of 25th January 1864 John Houlsham was found lying on the pavement in Great Crosshall Street and taken to the Bridewell by four policemen, where he was booked in for being drunk and for his own safety. The following morning he was discharged by the magistrate and said nothing of any ill treatment by police officers.

Two days later Houlsham admitted himself to the Toxteth Park workhouse, saying that the bruising on his arms and bloodshot eye had been a result of ill treatment by the police. He also claimed that two sovereigns had been taken from his pocket at the time of his arrest. Houlsham died the following Monday, leading to an inquest taking place at the Woodcroft Inn on 4th February before the coroner Mr Driffield.

Dr Wall, visiting surgeon at the workhouse, told of the postmortem that he carried out on Houlsham's body. In addition to the bruising he also found effusion on the brain, as a result of a blow to the head. He could not say however whether the head injury was as a result of a blow or a fall, but did conclude the arms were bruised as a result of violence. 

Houlsham's brother James said that when he saw John at the workhouse, he was asked to find out which policeman had assaulted him. Mary Newport, a soapboilers wife in Great Crosshall Street, told the coroner that the police officer concerned, who she knew as 'Little John', had kneed Houlsham in the back, hit him on the arm with a weapon and then pulled him up by the neckerchief. She then claimed that there was blood where Houlsham had been lying, which was backed up by a woman named Sarah Canning.

Newport and Canning's evidence was contradicted by Bernard Sands, a cab driver who was in Great Crosshall Street at the time.  He said that Houlsham struck a police officer and no violence was used against him, a statement that was backed up by two constables. The bridewell keeper also said that Houlsham made no complaint of maltreatment when he was admitted.

Inspector Penlington from the police stated that he had told Newport to make any complaint of police violence to the Chief Constable and said how it was common in 'low neighbourhoods' for officers to be accused of wrongdoing. He did admit however that one one of the officers concerned in the arrest, Constable John Rennison, had twice been accused of hitting people in the street. 

The jury returned a verdict that Houlsham had died from his injuries, but there was no evidence to show how they occurred. Despite this, Constable John Renison was charged with murder, perhaps to offer assurance to the public that the police were not above the law. However when his case went before the Grand Jury at the Liverpool Assizes on 21st March, the bill was thrown out and he was discharged. 

Improper Liaison Leads to Killing

A woman who received a sexually transmitted disease after her husband committed adultery was convicted of manslaughter after seeking revenge.

On 18th February 1840 Elizabeth Brown got into a row with Margaret Farrell, who kept a cooperage in Queen Street, off Old Hall Street roughly where the Liverpool Echo offices now are. When Mrs Farrell pushed Brown away, she was struck on the neck by Brown's husband and went inside to get a poker. 

After being struck several times by the poker, Brown fought back leaving Farrell on the ground. This led to Farrell's daughter Mary going back into the house and fetching a customer William Dunn to assist. Dunn saw a man named James Lynch about to strike Farrell with a piece of wood and shouted at him to stop, raising his arm to take the blow himself.

Farrell returned home and Dunn went to his lodgings opposite, but when he came back outside Brown threw a half brick at him, which bounced off his forehead. Lynch then punched Dunn in his wound and kicked him as he fell on the floor. Dunn was taken to a surgeon and had his wound dressed, while Brown and Lynch were charged with assault and fined twenty and forty shillings respectively.

On 2nd March Dunn developed lockjaw and died in the Northern Hospital. A postmortem by Dr Arnott concluded that this had developed specifically as a result of the head wound. Brown and Lynch were then charged with manslaughter and appeared  at the assizes on 27th March. Under cross examination, Farrell admitted having had an 'improper liaison' with Brown's husband, which led to 'a certain disease' being transmitted between all three of them. Lynch claimed that he had taken a knife from Dunn's hand but another man named Fitzgerald said that this was not the case.

Dr Arnott was challenged by the defence counsel over the lockjaw, with it being suggested that Dunn had not looked attended to his wound properly. The jury took half an hour to find both prisoners guilty of manslaughter, leading to Brown receiving one years imprisonment with hard labour and Lynch two years. The judge ordered that both also had to serve a weeks solitary confinement at the beginning and end of their sentences.   

Stabbed Spaniard's Killer Unknown

When a Spanish sailor died after being stabbed in 1861 nobody was convicted due to doubts over who had struck the fatal blow.

At 11pm on 27th December that year a local lady called Mary Jones was accompanied to the Francis dancing saloon in Hood Street by 26 year old Antonio Lopez. Soon afterwards Louis Edmon, a fellow Spaniard whose ship Victoria was berthed in King's Dock, entered the bar along with a man named Garibaldi and began rowing with Jones. 

After striking Jones with a cane, Edmon was then challenged by his fellow countryman and both went outside to fight. Lopez was stabbed and taken to the Royal Infirmary where he died three hours later. Before Lopez slipped into unconsciousness police paraded a number of men, including Edmon and Garibaldi who had been apprehended, before him. After Edmon was picked out the person who carried out the stabbing, he was taken to the central police station where Jones identified him as having been involved in the fight.

The inquest took place on 31st December where the coroner Mr Cobbs addressed the jury to the tune that the facts of the case meant it was manslaughter not murder. After that verdict was returned, nineteen year old Edmon was before the police court on 1st January where he was committed to the assizes for trial. Garibaldi was charged with being an accessory before the fact, it being said he had encouraged Edmon to use  knife in the fight.

On 24th March Edmon appeared at the assizes where the landlady of the dancing hall gave evidence. In cross examination she said that another man named Lloyd had also had a knife and was threatening Lopez in a row over a scarf. Although she had told the police about this, the man had not been traced as they seemed happy with Lopez's identification of Edmon.

In his closing speech for the defence Charles Russell said that the evidence suggested it was unsafe to convict Edmon and even if it was determined he struck the fatal blow, it had been in self defence. After the jury considered the case for half an hour, they returned a verdict of not guilty and Edmon was discharged. This meant the total collapse of any case against Garibaldi, who cold not be guilty to being an accessory now that Edmon was not guilty of the killing itself.

Co-operation Leads to Lenient Sentence

A man who killed another during a clubland fracas was treated leniently by the judge after pleading guilty to manslaughter.

At 10.25pm on Monday 2nd June 1952 police were called to some disorder near the corner of Seel Street and Back Berry Street. Two black men were taken to the Royal Infirmary and one of them, a railway porter named Joseph Williams, died at 5.30am the following morning after never regaining consciousness.

Four white men, three of whom were brothers, had been arrested at the scene and were then charged with the murder of Williams as well as maliciously wounding his friend Thomas Freeman. They all pleaded not guilty and were remanded in custody to await trial. 

On 9th July all four appeared at the Manchester assizes and one of the brothers, 39 year old George Kielty of Laxton Road in Hunts Cross, pleaded guilty to manslaughter. His brother Matthew, who was 29 and lived in Balkan Street, Dingle, took responsibility for the wounding of Freeman. The other two men, 33 year old Hugh Kielty and 43 year old Peter Murphy, were discharged after the prosecution offered no evidence.

The court heard that George Kielty had kicked Williams in the head while he was down. However the head of Liverpool's CID, Chief Superintendent Herbert Balmer, said he had done everything possible to help police with their enquiries after his arrest. In mitigation, his defence counsel Mr Cunningham said that he had seen his brother fighting and went to help. He had no recollection of kicking his victim but accepted that he had done so.

Prior to passing sentence, Mr Justice Byrne said he was of the opinion Freeman's injuries were as a result of cutting himself on broken glass when he fell into the gutter. He then fined Matthew Kielty £20. In respect of George Kielty's actions the judge said they were far more serious but in light of his guilty plea and previous good character he was sentenced to only nine months imprisonment.

Murder and Suicide in Cheapside

A man who killed his wife then committed suicide himself was not given a proper burial due to the traditions of the time and he was instead interred underneath a crossroads.

On 15th February 1815 around 6pm a passer by in Cheapside came across another man named Thomas Cosgrove, who was wearing nothing but a nightcap.  Cosgrove begged to be taken in, saying that he had strangled his wife and cut his own throat. Two other men were brought to the scene and they found Cosgrove's wife lying on a bed covered in blood and quite dead. A constable was sent for and Cosgrove showed no resistance as he was taken into custody. 

Cosgrove's throat was sewn up and he was kept in the Bridewell. An inquest into his wife's death returned a verdict of wilful murder, having heard they lived on bad terms and she had 'frequently expressed her fear of being beaten'.

On 28th February Cosgrove died and an inquest into his death returned a verdict of Felo De Se, literally 'felon of himself'. In those days those who committed suicide were given a shameful burial and Cosgrove was buried with a stake through his body at the crossroads of Vauxhall Road, Great Crosshall Street, Hatton Garden and Tithebarn Street. The idea of this was that by being buried in the centre of a cross, he would never rise again to commit such deeds. It was not until the Burial of Suicide Act of 1823 that this practice was outlawed.

Nearly forty years later, in 1854, workmen were excavating trenches for sewer pipes here when a rotting corpse was discovered. Older locals recalled what had happened between Cosgrove and his wife but rather than re-inter his remains in the Necropolis, they were simply covered over, where they continue to lie under the tarmac to this day.