Part 21

Mr. CLARKSON, who stated that he had been directed by the Sheriffs to conduct the prisoner's case, here made an objection to the manner in which the indictment was drawn up. He said that the prisoner was charged with causing the deceased's death, by squeezing and pressing about the neck. This description of the manner in which the murder had been perpetrated, he contended to be of too vague a nature, and in support of his argument referred to the 2d volume of Lord Hale's Pleas of the Crown, where it was laid down, that if a wound was inflicted on the breast, arm, or head, it was bad to say that it was inflicted 'about the breast, &c,' (_circiter pectus_, _super brachium_, or, _super manum_) for the particular part of the breast, arm, or hand, must be specified. He conceived that no distinction could be drawn with respect to this point, between a death caused by a wound and one by suffocation; and he was therefore of opinion, that the words in the indictment, 'about the neck,' did not fix with sufficient distinctness the part of the neck to which violence had been applied.

Mr. ADOLPHUS, in answer to the objection, said, that _circiter_ had a particular meaning in Latin; but every person knew that '_about_' was capable of two significations. The learned Counsel was prevented from proceeding further by

Mr. Justice J. PARKE, who said, that the Court was of opinion that the objection was not valid. The word 'about' in the indictment was to be taken in the sense of 'around,' death having been caused by pressing the hand around the neck. The learned Judge then informed the prisoner, that it was now the time for her to say whatever she wished in her defence.

The PRISONER, who, during the whole of the proceedings, had exhibited no signs of feeling much interest in a matter which affected her life, rose and answered with great indifference, 'I have nothing to say, except that I am innocent of the crime with which I am charged.'

Witnesses were then examined for the prisoner, of whom the first was--

JANE DUGGAN.--I am married, and the mother of twelve children. I live at No. 6, George-yard. My husband is a stone-mason. The prisoner lived with me as a nurse to one of my children. She is kind and affectionate to children, and has always borne that character.

Another witness, living in the same place.--I have known the prisoner for twelve months. She has always borne the character of being kind, humane, and fond of children.

ELIZABETH MARTIN.--I live in Golden-lane. I have known the prisoner for seven years. I should readily intrust her with the care of my children. I am a married woman.

JULIA COCHRANE, another married woman, deposed to the kindness and humanity of the prisoner.

MARY FLANAGAN, a person of the same description, gave similar evidence.

ELLEN MACDONNELL was examined to the same effect; as were MARY BRUCE, TERENCE DOUGHTY, PETER MACDERMOT, DANIEL MANNING, JOHN M'HUGH, CHRISTOPHER SUGGON, HENRY PRITCHARD, BRIDGET GROGAN, and several other witnesses.

No evidence as to facts were offered.

Mr. Justice JAMES PARKE said, it was then his duty to state to the jury the evidence that had been laid before them on the present trial, and to accompany it with such remarks as the circumstances of the extraordinary case suggested to his mind. The offence with which the prisoner stood charged was that of wilful murder, the indictment stating, that, with her hands about the neck of the deceased, she so grasped or squeezed the throat of the said Margaret Duffy, as by choking, suffocation, or strangulation, to occasion her death. If they were satisfied that the deceased came to her death in consequence of suffocation or strangulation, the particular mode in which that crime happened to be perpetrated was immaterial. It was immaterial, for example, whether the prisoner did it with her own hands, or was present when the crime was committed by some other person. He meant by being present, was in such a situation that she could see the act done, and was near enough to interfere for its prevention. If they believed that she committed the crime with her own hands, they would, of course, find her guilty; or if they thought that she was present, aiding and abetting at the time it was committed, they were by their oaths bound to find a verdict of guilty. If, upon a candid and dispassionate consideration of the evidence, they arrived at the conclusion that the evidence was not sufficient to sustain either of those charges, the prisoner was entitled to a verdict of acquittal. Before he proceeded to recapitulate to them the substance of the evidence which had been offered for their consideration, he could not refrain from earnestly requesting them to dismiss from their minds anything they might have heard or read on the subject. He begged that they would use their best endeavours to free their minds from all prejudice, and approach the solemn duty which they had to perform with minds as much as possible freed from any prepossession whatsoever, and decide solely upon the evidence that day offered in Court. The evidence given on the trial was of the description called circumstantial, or indirect testimony; but it often happened, that some of the very greatest crimes were detected, exposed, and the offenders convicted upon indirect evidence. No doubt direct testimony was the most satisfactory, for that gave the Jury the advantage of hearing the facts sworn to in the plainest manner by eye-witnesses; and when their veracity could be relied upon, nothing, of course, could be better than testimony of this nature. It happened, however, that in some cases circumstantial evidence led the mind as directly to a conclusion as direct evidence; for facts were in such cases positively sworn to by such a number of witnesses as could seldom be obtained to testify directly, and were free from the suspicion of being actuated by a bad motive to give evidence against the party accused. The first point to which they would direct their attention was, did they believe the witnesses examined had spoken the truth? Secondly, could they reconcile the facts sworn to, with no other supposition, than that the prisoner at the bar was guilty of the crime of which she stood accused? If it was impossible for them to reconcile it with any other supposition in the ordinary course of human affairs, then were they bound to pronounce a verdict of guilty. There was another point of view in which they might consider the evidence--namely, that though the prisoner neither committed the murder, nor was present at its commission, yet that she might have spirited away the child with a view to its being deprived of life, and have delivered her over to others for that purpose. Should they take such a view as that of the evidence, the prisoner would be undoubtedly entitled to their acquittal; for then she would be in the eye of the law an accessory before the fact, and, as such, she could not be found guilty under the present indictment. He had further to call their attention to that which was the duty of jurors, in all cases, which was, to give the prisoner the benefit of any reasonable doubt which, upon a careful review of the evidence, presented itself to their minds; she was entitled to the full benefit of that doubt, and, if it existed, to be discharged from their bar; that there was, as they must fully remember, no direct evidence against the prisoner, proving that she actually committed the murder with her own hands--nay, it had been shown that she was of a humane disposition, and affectionate in her conduct towards children. Neither did it appear that she was under the influence of any feelings leading to the commission of a crime of that nature; but, unfortunately, the experience they had had in that court enabled them to assign a motive of no very ordinary character--that of selling the human body to those who wanted it for dissection; or, as might possibly be the case with the prisoner, of delivering over the unfortunate child to those who would put an end to her existence for purposes of that nature. When he should have restated to them the evidence, they would say whether or not the prisoner had been actuated by such a motive. His lordship then recapitulated, most minutely, the whole of the evidence. When he got to the end of the first part, he observed, that he presumed they would not have much difficulty in saying whether or not the child died a natural death, or lost her life through violent means. If they were of opinion that she had been murdered, then they would consider whether or not the circumstantial evidence brought home the guilt of the offence to the prisoner then at the bar. There certainly was no direct positive proof, yet the prisoner was seen with the child at a time near to that at which she was murdered. Again, some child was seen with her still nearer to the important moment; and in the absence of all proof that she had in the interval taken up another child, the jury would say how far there was proof upon which to convict her. The learned Judge then proceeded to enumerate the leading facts of this point of the evidence, and to detail the conduct of the prisoner upon being taxed with the crime, observing, that doubtless the natural and proper course for all persons accused of such a crime was, if innocent, at once to explain the whole matter, by a full and candid statement of the truth; at the same time, it was by no means uncommon for ill-educated persons, when wrongfully charged with an offence, to endeavour to get rid of it by some false statement. He then proceeded to the evidence of the surgeons, and having thus gone through the whole case for the prosecution, he repeated, that if the jury could not reconcile that body of evidence with any other supposition than that she was not entirely innocent, they were bound to find the prisoner guilty. It was, he then said, the opinion of some of the surgeons, that considerable violence had been used, such a degree of violence as a female would not be likely to inflict. It was, therefore, probable that some other person was engaged in the atrocious transaction, and it was for them to say whether they considered the man and woman, whom the boy Newton swore to have rushed from the privy, to be the murderers. Finally, he had to tell them, that if they could reconcile the facts to any possible supposition but that the prisoner was a principal--that is, was either the actual murderer, or present, aiding and abetting--then they must acquit her. Again, even though they might suppose her an accessory before the fact, she was still entitled to an acquittal, in a word, if they entertained any reasonable doubt whatever that she was according to the legal definition a principal, they could not find her guilty.

The Jury retired a few minutes to six o'clock, and did not return till half-past seven. In the mean time the prisoner was removed from the bar, maintaining her self-possession to the last. When the jury returned into Court, at the end of nearly two hours, the accused woman was again placed at the bar; in the interval she had become much paler than during the trial, and she was then attended by two men, one at each side, as well as by the female attendant of the prison.

Mr. Justice JAMES PARK and Mr. Baron BOLAND, who with the other Judge had retired, then appeared on the bench, and a verdict of _not guilty_ was returned.

The prisoner was removed in custody.

On considering the actions which were committed by such men as Bishop and his colleagues, we cannot regard them in any other light than as human monsters, divested of every gentle feeling, and so immersed in brutality, as to hold no fellowship with their kindred. Revolting, however, as the spectacle must be which has been exhibited in this country by the atrocious acts of the London Burkers, doubly must our feelings be harrowed when the same spectacle is held before us, in which females are the principal actors, and who appear in many instances to have exceeded the other sex in the atrocity and cruelty of their acts. In the case of Calkin, although a jury has acquitted her of the crime with which she was charged, yet of the question of her actual guilt very little doubt remains in the mind of the public in general; and the universal regret is, that a delinquent of her stamp should have escaped the fate, so justly her due, through any of the technicalities or constructions of the law. It may be that the perpetration of the crime could not be brought so home to her as to warrant the jury in bringing in their verdict of guilty; and therefore Mercy and Humanity stepped in to give her the full benefit of the doubts. But to the cool and impartial observer, the evidence against her must have appeared as conclusive and confirmatory of her guilt, as the intricate and, in many instances, inconsistent evidence which was adduced against Bishop and Williams. Her life has, however, been spared for the present; but from the criminal practices to which she has been long addicted, and her well-known connexion with the resurrectionists, it may be safely prognosticated, that the laws of the country will, ere long, claim her as one of their victims.

In point of atrocity, however, there is scarcely any act connected with the horrid practices of the resurrectionists which exceeds, in its cold-blooded ferocity, the murder committed by Mrs. Ross, alias Cook, alias Reardon, on the body of Mrs. Walsh, a woman of nearly eighty-five years of age. For some time she had been missing from her accustomed haunts; and some suspicion having been excited that she had come to an untimely end, a warrant for the apprehension of Mrs. Cook was issued; and on the 29th of October, she, with her husband, and their son (a lad about twelve years of age) were brought before Mr. Norton, by Lea, the officer of Lambeth-street Office, charged on suspicion of the Wilful Murder of Caroline Walsh.

The prisoners, who had been kept apart during the day, were then examined separately, and their accounts were of so conflicting a nature, as to add considerably to the suspicion of their having improperly disposed of the old woman. The boy said, that on the Friday night on which the missing female slept at his father's and mother's room, in Goodman's-yard, Goodman's-fields, they had had bread and cheese for supper; and they all, including the old woman, after partaking of it, went to bed at eight o'clock. The mother said, that their supper consisted of tea, bread and butter, and cold meat, and they went to bed at nine o'clock; while the father said they did not go to bed until eleven o'clock, and had had some hot meat for supper. There was also a great discrepancy in their account of the departure of the old woman from the house on the Saturday morning.

The female prisoner said, that she got up about half-past six o'clock, and prepared breakfast, and gave Walsh some tea and bread and butter. While they were taking breakfast, her husband, who had been out since five o'clock, came in, and had his breakfast. She then left her husband and Walsh together, smoking their pipes, and went out; and on her return, in about half an hour afterwards, the latter was gone. The husband, on the contrary, said, that he came home to breakfast on the morning in question about eight o'clock, and found no person in the house but the old woman; and he was not certain whether he had left her there when he came away, or she had left before him; but he was satisfied that he had not seen his wife from the time he came home to his breakfast until he went away again.

A lad, who lodged in the same house with the prisoner, said, that on the morning of Saturday, the 20th of August, at five o'clock, he saw Mrs. Cook come up the stairs leading to a cellar, and closing a trap-door. This she positively denied, and said that she was not up before half-past six o'clock.

It was also stated that coffins had been frequently seen in Cook's room; and one witness swore positively, that in the month of July last, at two o'clock in the morning, he saw the three prisoners come down the Minories, the boy with a sack on his shoulders, with what appeared to him to be the body of a child of eight or ten years of age in it, and the mother assisting him to carry it, by holding it by the bottom; and they all turned into the court where they lived.

After an examination, which lasted for upwards of four hours, Mr. Norton remanded the prisoners until the following Wednesday, and at the same time gave strict injunctions that they should be kept apart in prison, and not allowed to have any communication with each other.

Accordingly, on Wednesday, the 2nd of November, they were brought up for further examination. The boy, since the previous examination, had made such disclosures to his fellow-prisoners at the House of Correction, as left no doubt of the guilt of his parents of the horrible offence alleged against them; but his statement, which was committed to writing, and which was handed to the magistrates, was unconnected and unsatisfactory. While in one of the strong rooms belonging to the office, Lea, the officer who had apprehended the prisoners, sent for the master and mistress of Aldgate Parochial School, at which the boy was in the habit of attending for two or three years past, and left them with him for some time, when he disclosed to them the outline of the appalling statement of the occurrence which he subsequently made on oath before the magistrates in the presence of his parents.

At three o'clock, Cook, and the female Ross, who had always passed as his wife, were placed at the bar, before the Hon. G. C. Norton, and J. Hardwicke, Esq.; and their astonishment on perceiving that their own child was about to be admitted as a witness against them, was quite apparent.

The magistrates asked the boy if he was quite willing to make a full disclosure of what he knew as to the disappearance of the old lady, Elizabeth Walsh, and he having answered in the affirmative, he was sworn, and made the following statement, which was taken down by Mr. Osman, the chief clerk:--'He recollected the old woman, Elizabeth Walsh, coming to his father and mother, at No. 7, Goodman's-yard, Minories. About ten o'clock on Friday morning (Friday the 19th of August last), and bringing some bread in a basket, a part of which she gave to him for his breakfast. She went away shortly afterwards and returned about tea-time in the evening, when she as well as himself and his mother had some coffee. His father was not present at the time, though he was when she came in the morning. They had coffee about half-past nine o'clock on the same night for supper. He, witness, took part of it, and it made him sleepy, but not sick. The old woman also took some of it, and it seemed to make her drowsy, as she shortly afterwards stretched herself on his father and mother's bed, and placed her hand under her head. She did not at the time complain of illness, on the contrary, she appeared in good health. Some time after he saw his mother go towards the bed, and place her right hand over the mouth of the old woman, and her left on her body. (The boy here burst into tears, and said he was sorry to be obliged to state such things against his own mother.) When his mother placed her hand on the old lady's mouth, her arm fell down, and she laid flat on her back on the bed. And his mother continued to keep one hand on her mouth, and the other on her person for at least half an hour. The old woman did not struggle much, but her eyes stared, and rolled very much. He (witness) stood by the fire at this time, and his father, who was in the room at the time, stood looking out at the window. His father stood so all the time, and he was sure he never once turned round to see what was going forward, and that he had nothing to do with it. In about an hour afterwards, his mother raised the body of the old woman from the bed, and carried it down stairs, but to where he did not know. The body was not undressed at the time. He and his father went to bed some time afterwards, and he could not say what time his mother returned, as he had not seen her again on that night after she left the room with the body in her arms, nor did he see where she had taken it to. On the following morning he got up about seven o'clock. His father and mother were then up, and in the room. He had occasion, previous to his going to school at eight o'clock, to go into the cellar to the privy, and while searching through the cellar he saw the body of the old woman in a sack which was placed underneath the stair, a portion of the head was out of the sack, and the body appeared to be partly bent, and reclining against the stairs. There was sufficient light in the cellar for him to discern the colour of the hair, on the head. It was partly gray and black; but he could not say whether or not the body was dressed or otherwise. The sack which it was in was one belonging to a person named Jones, with whom his father worked. He had frequently seen it in their room, and he thought it was there on the night before. He went to school shortly afterwards, and never mentioned a word then or since about what had occurred, or his seeing the body in the cellar. On returning home at twelve o'clock in the day, he found his father beating his mother. He thought the cause to be that the latter had been out drinking with a young woman, the granddaughter of the old lady who had called to inquire after her. His mother, he believed, while his father was beating her, called him a villainous murderer, but he had no recollection of her threatening to give any information of him. He (witness), after getting his dinner, went out to play, and did not come home until late. Himself, his father, and mother, supped together on the Saturday night, and at about ten o'clock his mother left the room, and in about half an hour afterwards he was standing at the window, and saw her go past with the body in the sack on her shoulder. It was in the same state in which he saw it on that morning, except that the mouth of the sack was tied; the body appeared to be partly bent. (The female prisoner, in an audible voice, here exclaimed--'Good God! how could I have borne a son to hang me?') The lad again burst into tears, and said he could not help it; that he was telling the truth. He then proceeded with his statement. He did not know at what time his mother had returned on Saturday night, as he and his father, who remained in the room, went to bed, and he was asleep when she came in. On the Sunday morning his mother told him that she had taken the body to the London Hospital. The boy here, as in many parts of his statement, said his father had nothing whatever to do in the business. The magistrates examined him very minutely as to what had taken place on the Friday night, and what conversation, if any, had taken place between his father, mother, or himself, previous to and after the horrid deed had been perpetrated. He said that no words or quarrel had taken place; the old woman and his father and mother were on good terms, and nothing particular had occurred during the evening, until his mother placed her hand, as he had before described, on the mouth of the old lady; nor did she say a word to him or his father, while she so held her hand on her mouth. He recollected she had been saying something to herself about taking the body to an hospital. He did not see his father lay a single hand on the old woman.