Part 3
The witness then proceeded to state that, in his opinion, some blows must have been given to the deceased with a blunt stick, bludgeon, or other blunt instrument, or even by the fist of a strong man. It was impossible that the indigestion could have produced such effects. The body, in every other respect, was perfectly healthy. A fall, to occasion death, would have left some more serious external appearances. The heart and lungs were perfectly healthy, and upon removing the contents of the stomach, and pouring them into a basin, for the purpose of being analyzed, he observed that it was of a perfectly healthy structure; digestion was going on at the time of death. He did not believe that the body had ever been interred. The stomach contained a tolerably full meal, and smelt slightly of rum (this circumstance is accounted for in the confession of Bishop). Unquestionably the deceased _did not die from suffocation_ or strangulation.
Mr. THOMAS here intimated to the coroner, that the Rev. Mr. Bernasconi had just seen the body, and recognized the boy as one of his flock, but could not tell his name.
Mr. RICHARD PARTRIDGE, of No. 8, Lancaster-place, Surgeon, sworn. I am Demonstrator of Anatomy at the King's College. I know nothing of the men now in custody; but on Saturday last, I saw two men, Bishop and May, as I have since understood their names to be, at the College, and I agreed to purchase of them the dead body of a youth aged about fourteen years. The body of the deceased was brought to the College that same afternoon, and in consequence of a message brought to me by the witness Hill, I went and examined the body, and on a second examination, the suspicious appearances which it presented struck me forcibly. I then went to the secretary's office, and having strong suspicions that all was not right, I procured some police-officers, who in my presence apprehended May and Bishop, and the other two men who were waiting outside. I delayed May and Bishop until the officers arrived, by showing them a fifty-pound note, which I told them I wanted the change of in order to pay them for the body.
The evidence of Mr. Beaman was here read over by the coroner, who asked Mr. Partridge if he coincided with the testimony given by that gentleman, with regard to the appearances of the body.
Mr. PARTRIDGE observed, that he perfectly agreed with all that Mr. Beaman had said, with regard to the appearances described by him, and considered that the cause of death had probably arisen from the injuries described to have taken place at the back of the neck. Those injuries might have occasioned death, certainly, but all the other appearances, as described by Mr. Beaman, might have resulted from a natural death.
THOMAS DAVIS examined.--I am porter at the dissecting-rooms, Guy's Hospital. On Friday evening last, May and Bishop brought to the hospital a sack, containing, as they said, a dead body, which they offered to sell. I told them that it was not wanted, as the gentlemen were already supplied. They then asked permission to leave it that night in the hospital, which I allowed. The next morning (Saturday), between, I think, eleven and twelve o'clock, I saw May and Bishop about the hospital. I went out, and on my return found that the body had been taken away, and that it had been removed at half-past twelve or one o'clock. My assistant, James Wix, delivered the sack containing the body to some persons, but to whom I cannot say.
By the CORONER.--I am persuaded that the body was never taken out of the sack whilst in the hospital.
Mr. CHARLES STARBUCK, Stockbroker, of No. 10, Broad-street Buildings, City, one of the Society of Friends, on his solemn affirmation, deposed as follows:--In consequence of the report which I read in the _Times_ newspaper of Monday last, I went to see the body of the deceased, and have no doubt that it is the body of an Italian boy, whom I have frequently seen at the Bank. On last Thursday evening, the 3d instant, between half-past six and eight, I saw an Italian lad, whom I _suppose_ to be the deceased, sitting near the Bank, with his face almost in his lap. He attracted attention from his position, having a mouse-trap under his arm. A youth told him to get up, as the police were coming, or words to that effect. I remarked to my brother, I think he is unwell; and my brother replied, I think he is a humbug, for I have frequently seen him in that position. There were several men and women around him. I have seen the body yesterday and to-day, and have little doubt but it is that of the Italian boy so described. I have not seen the boy since alive.
MARGARET PERRIGALLI, of No. 11, Parker-street, Drury-lane, sworn.--On Sunday morning last I saw the body of the deceased. I do not know the name of the boy; he was an Italian. I have known him for the whole of last summer, _and I am quite certain_ the dead body is that of the boy I have known so long. On Tuesday the 1st instant, I saw him alive in Oxford-street, carrying a mouse-trap.
Mr. GEORGE DUCHOZ, surgeon, of 34, Golden-square, was then sworn and examined. I attended the _post mortem_ examination of the boy on Sunday evening last, and my opinion is, that he died suddenly, from external violence, and that the injuries at the back of the neck were quite sufficient to have caused death. I have seen similar appearances, however, in the body of a man, who died from having fallen down stairs. There is no doubt but that death, in this instance, must have been instantaneous, and might certainly have been produced by a blow from a bludgeon on the back of the neck. I observed a mark on the right wrist, apparently produced by pressure. Mr. Duchoz _stated his firm opinion that the boy had first been stunned by a blow on the head, and afterwards that his neck had been dislocated, in the same manner as it was usual to wring the neck of a duck_.
We have given the latter part of this opinion in Italics, as, when we come to contrast it with the confession of Bishop, it will be found that just as much value ought to be attached to it, and that it was just as consistent with the real truth, as if Mr. Duchoz had declared that the boy had died by natural means. We speak it not personally, but it is sometimes deplorable to hear the opinion of professional men touching certain points connected with life and death, and which are afterwards to be made the groundwork of a criminal prosecution. We see no reason to dispute the veracity of Bishop or Williams' confessions; for in the awful situation in which they stood, falsehood could not avail them anything, nor can any ostensible motive be discovered for their leaving behind them an erroneous statement, which went to exonerate no one from any imputed charge, nor which subtracted in the least degree from their own criminality. They confess not only to one but to other murders; but they declare that the boy, whose corpse they attempted to sell at King's College, and on which they were apprehended, was not Carlo Ferrari, but a Lincolnshire youth, who had brought a drove of cattle from that county. What then becomes of the identity of Bernasconi, Starbuck, and Perrigalli? What becomes of the evidence of the professional men as to the cause of the death of the presumed Carlo Ferrari, when it is found, by the confession of the murderers themselves, to have been effected by wholly different means? And, lastly, we may ask, (and we shall have occasion, at a future period, to dilate more fully on the subject,) what sort of a character does the prosecution itself exhibit to the country, when three individuals can be arraigned at the bar for the murder of a certain boy by a blow or blows on the back of the neck with an instrument, according to the jargon of the law, _of no value whatever_; that these same individuals shall be convicted of the crime, according to the declaration of the Recorder, on the most _conclusive_ and _incontrovertible_ evidence; and then, in less than twenty-four hours afterwards, it shall transpire, that the boy so murdered was not the boy for whose murder the parties were arraigned--that his death was not occasioned by any blow, but actually by suffocation, and consequently that the conviction took place on evidence which, throughout, was decidedly false.
We are willing to bestow on Mr. Thomas all the credit which he deserves for his meritorious exertions in bringing the miscreants to the bar of their country to answer for their crimes; but we cannot refrain from observing, that in collecting the evidence for the prosecution, recourse has been had to some measures which appear highly overstrained, and which, in fact, could never be received as evidence in any English court of justice. We will select the following as an instance.
Mr. Duchoz having informed the jury that the neck of the boy appeared to be dislocated in the same manner _as it is usual to wring the neck of a duck_, Mr. Thomas proceeded to state, that in consequence of a communication which he received on Saturday afternoon from the King's College, he sent officers to that place to take the four men into custody, which was done, after a desperate resistance had been made by the prisoners. Witness sent for the body, and asked Bishop what he was. He replied, "A b----y body-snatcher." He had seen the four prisoners within the last fifteen minutes, and asked them if they had any wish to see the jury. May replied, "Not I--I have nothing to say about it." Bishop said, "The body is mine; and if you want to know how I got it, you may find it out if you can." Shields' answer was, that he was employed by Bishop to carry the body from Guy's Hospital to the King's College. The prisoner Williams said, that he knew nothing at all about the matter, and that he merely went with the prisoners to see the King's College. Mr. Thomas added, that he received a letter that afternoon, stating that a tortoise, similar to the one which it is supposed the deceased was in the habit of carrying about, was exhibited for sale in a shop in Middle Row, Holborn. He immediately went to the shop, and took possession of the tortoise now produced, (for which act Mr. Thomas rendered himself liable to an action for felony). He asked the woman of the shop how she became possessed of it; and she answered, that her husband had purchased it in Leadenhall Market, of a person whom she did not know; adding, that such things were usually bought and sold there.
Joseph Perrigalli, husband of the woman already examined, was then sworn, and stated, that he had known the deceased boy for nearly twelve months, and well recollected his having carried a tortoise with him. The tortoise, which he was in the habit of carrying, was _very like the one_ now produced; and he, witness, saw it in the possession of the deceased about a month ago. The deceased used to carry mice as well. He examined the body last Sunday morning, and _was quite certain_ it was the boy whom he knew so well.
Now, would the evidence of the tortoise have been admitted in any court of justice whatever? It was well known that the Italian boy carried a tortoise; Mr. Thomas hears of a tortoise being in Middle Row, Holborn--hurries to take possession of it--produces it before the jury--and calls a Frenchman to depose that it is _very like_ the tortoise which the Italian boy carried about with him. We believe that all tortoises are alike, and that it would not be so easy to prove the identity of any individual of the species, as has been evinced in the proof of the identity of Carlo Ferrari. If Mr. Thomas had received a letter, stating that a tortoise was in either of the two great Zoological Gardens, and it is just as probable that the tortoise of Carlo Ferrari should have fallen into the possession of the proprietors of those establishments, as into that of the woman in Middle Row,--would Mr. Thomas have so far committed himself, as to repair to the Gardens, and bring the animal away with him? It is by no means an uncommon thing to see a tortoise exposed for sale in Leadenhall Market, and Mr. Thomas had it not in his power to produce an iota of proof, that the tortoise which the woman purchased in that market, was the identical one of Carlo Ferrari, but simply that _it was very like it_. It is true, that the configurations of the shell of the tortoise are not always similar; but on that point no proof is produced that the tortoise of Carlo Ferrari, and of the woman in Middle Row, resembled each other; and, therefore, we cannot forbear expressing our regret, that any recourse should have been had to such a flimsy evidence, and which would have been immediately rejected by the judge appointed to try the criminals.
Mr. Thomas, in continuation of the statement, said, that since the deceased had been brought to the Station House, he had had no less than eight applications to see the body by parents, who had, within a very short space of time, lost their sons, who were generally described as boys about the age of thirteen or fourteen. The parents could in no way account for their absence, and they all appeared in the greatest distress of mind. One of the boys so lost was deaf and dumb.
The coroner and the jury expressed their greatest surprise at the statement, and Mr. Cribb, the foreman of the jury, observed, that he had no doubt whatever of the fact, for he had himself seen the parents of two boys who had disappeared, call at the Station House on Sunday morning, in order to see the body of the deceased.
A juryman said, that the fact stated by Mr. Thomas afforded the strongest possible reason for pursuing the present inquiry to the utmost.
After some further conversation, the jury wished the room to be cleared, in order, we believe, to discuss the propriety, either of adjourning the inquest, with a view to obtain further evidence, or to call the parties charged before them, in order to hear any further explanation touching their possession of the body, which they might feel inclined to give.
The room was accordingly cleared at seven o'clock, and after remaining together about twenty minutes, it was announced that the inquest was adjourned until five o'clock on Thursday evening next.
Mr. Corder, the vestry clerk of St. Paul's, Covent Garden, was present, and took notes of the proceedings on behalf of the parish, who, in the event of the case being sent for trial to the Old Bailey, will become the prosecutors.
Pursuant to the adjournment, the jury again met on Thursday evening, the 10th of November, at the same house, and the room, as before, was crowded in every part, and a crowd of persons were outside, anxious to hear the verdict.
After the jury had been sworn, Mr. Cribb, the foreman, produced a letter, which he said he had received from Mr. Starbuck, the stock-broker in the city. The letter was handed to the coroner, who read it to the jury. It stated that Mr. Starbuck _had been mistaken_ with regard to the identity of the boy whom he supposed to be an Italian lad, and whom he had seen near the Bank on the night of Thursday. He had since seen that boy alive.
Here then, we find one individual retracting his opinion of the identity of the boy; and it therefore now solely rests on the testimony of Mr. and Mrs. Parragalli, who are just as likely to have been mistaken as the worthy Quaker.
The evidence of the witnesses was then resumed.
JOSEPH HIGGINS, constable of the F division of police, sworn.--I live at No. 8, Newton Street, Holborn. Yesterday, about four o'clock, I went to a public-house in Giltspur Street, called the Fortune of War. I there saw Mrs. Bishop, and Mrs. Williams her daughter, coming out, and I told them I must take them to the Station House. Mrs. Bishop begged of me to let her go home for her child, which I consented to do, but I said I must go with her. I then went with them to No. 3, Nova Scotia Gardens, Crabtree Row, Hackney Road. I proceeded to search the house, and found the implements I now produce. I said, "I know what those are for;" and she replied, "I dare say you do, but do not speak before the children." I found two crooked chisels, which Mrs. Bishop admitted were for opening coffins. I also found a brad-awl with dry blood upon it; I said, "this is for punching out teeth." She replied, "her husband had used it for mending shoes." I also found a file. I then searched Mrs. Bishop, and found upon her the petition which I now produce. She told me it was from her husband, and three other persons for pecuniary assistance, saying that they were resurrectionists, and they had no means of defending themselves from the offence for which they were charged. The petition, which was as follows, was then read:--
The humble Petition of JOHN BISHOP, and three others, Most humbly showeth,
'That your petitioners have supplied many subjects on various occasions to the several hospitals; and being now in custody, they are conscious in their own minds that they have done nothing more _than they have been in the constant habit of doing_ as resurrectionists, but, being unable to prove their innocence without professional advice, they humbly crave the commiseration of gentlemen who may feel inclined to give some trifling assistance, in order to afford them the opportunity of clearing away the imputation alleged against them. The most trifling sum will be gratefully acknowledged; and your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.'
This petition was not signed.
She admitted, that Williams was not her son-in-law's right name, but said, he did not wish it to be known, as he had been out with her husband not more than two or three times. She added, that her husband went out the night before he was taken into custody, accompanied by her son-in-law, Williams, and that he came home the next morning, and washed his hands in a basin, at the bottom of which she saw a great deal of mud.
JAMES WEEKS, examined.--I am assistant to Mr. Davis, porter at the dissecting-room, Guy's Hospital. I know May and Bishop; and on Friday the 4th instant, about five minutes past seven, I went to the hospital and saw them there. They left a sack at the hospital, containing something, and I saw projecting through a hole in the sack a portion of a knee of a human being. I heard May say to Mr. Davis, 'The fact is, the subject don't belong to me, but to Bishop.' Mr. Davis on this request allowed them to leave the sack with its contents in the hospital. They then went away, and came to the hospital the next morning about one o'clock, with two other persons, and I delivered the sack, with its contents to May and Bishop. The sack was locked up in a room the whole of the night, and it was delivered just as it was received the night before. The body could not have been changed. I do not think the subject was a full-grown person. The parties brought a hamper with them, into which they put the sack.
JAMES APPLETON, of No. 4, St. George's-road, near New Kent-road, procurator to Mr. Grainger, Surgeon, sworn.--On Friday evening, about half-past seven, May and Bishop came to Mr. Grainger's Theatre of Anatomy, Webb-street, Southwark, where I was, and they asked if I wanted a subject. I inquired the age and sex, and the reply was, a boy about fourteen years old. I declined to purchase it. They told me it was a very fresh subject. They then went away, and came again to me at the theatre next morning (Saturday) about eleven o'clock, and inquired again if I would purchase the body, but I again declined it.
Mr. THOMAS here produced a letter, in which it was stated that Mr. Appleton had declared to a postman, that the body was warm when offered for sale to him, and that he declined the purchase for that reason.
The CORONER asked if the fact were so?
The witness declared he never saw the body, and positively declared that he never spoke a word to a postman on the subject.
Mr. CRIBB, the foreman of the jury, asked the witness whether he had any particular reason for declining to purchase the body.
The witness replied that he had no other reason than that of not wanting it, as the theatre was already supplied.
A JUROR.--What was your motive for asking the sex of the subject?
WITNESS.--Because many of the pupils prefer a male to a female subject.
After a long desultory conversation as to whether the inquiry should proceed further,
Mr. CORDER said, that he really did not think there was any further evidence to produce at present, tending to throw any additional light upon the inquiry. If, however, the jury should return a verdict of wilful murder against some person or persons unknown, the inquiry would be pursued at Bow-street Office, where the four men were now in custody. He (Mr. Corder) had reason to believe that his Majesty's Government, struck with the importance of the inquiry, would lend every facility tending to bring the affair into a proper train, in order that public justice might not be defeated. He then suggested that the accused should be sent for, with a view to see whether or not they felt inclined to account for the possession of the body.
A JUROR observed, that they were as yet proceeding in the dark, inasmuch as they had not yet ascertained the name of the deceased or to whom he belonged.
Mr. CORDER replied, that he understood, from inquiries that he had made, that the name of the murdered boy was Giovanni Montero, and that he was brought to this country, from Italy, about a year ago, by a native of that country, named Peter Massa.
JOSEPH PARRAGALLI here said, that from inquiries he had made at the Alien Office, and from the description given of Massa's boy in his passport, he was quite sure that he could not be the same boy, whose death was now the subject of inquiry.
It was here determined by the Jury to have the prisoners before them.
The Prisoner MICHAEL SHIELDS was then brought forth strongly guarded, and the Coroner addressing him said, 'You are not obliged to answer any questions that may be put to you unless you please, but I tell you fairly, that we have sufficient evidence before us to prove, that the deceased boy came to his death by unfair means; and having traced the body into your custody, we wish to know whether you are inclined to give any explanation touching your possession of the body in question. Should you feel inclined to state what you know, I am anxious to caution you to speak the truth.' The prisoner said, he was willing to speak the truth, and having been sworn, he deposed as follows:-
My name is Michael Shields. I live at No. 6, Eagle Street, Red Lion Square. I am a porter; and on Saturday last, the 5th instant, about ten o'clock in the morning, I was hired by Bishop, whom I met in Covent Garden. Bishop said, he had a little job to do, to go over London Bridge. I said I would go. I then went with him to a public-house, right opposite Guy's Hospital, where he left me, and returned in about an hour, in company with May and Williams. We then went together into Guy's Hospital, and, after waiting there half an hour, I saw a man in a flannel jacket; that man and Bishop had a hamper, directed to ---- Hill, Esq., King's College. They then put the hamper on my knot, telling me to be careful not to fall down. I went off with the hamper over London Bridge, accompanied by May, Bishop, and Williams. Had never been to the King's College before. They went first, and I followed into the College. The door was opened by a man, and they (Bishop, May, and Williams) took the hamper from me, leaving me outside. About three-quarters of an hour after this I was apprehended by the police, previously to which Bishop, Williams, and May, were apprehended also.
CORONER.--Is that all you have to say?
PRISONER.-That is all, your honour; if I was to speak my last words I did not know what the hamper contained. I sometimes assist the grave-digger of St. Giles's parish in digging graves, whenever he is overrun.