Monday (Before Sir Fitzroy Kelly,
Knight.)
THE LONGDEN MURDER
TRIAL OF JOHN MAPP
SENTENCE OF DEATH.
John Mapp, 35, labourer, was indicted for the wilful murder of
Catherine Lewis, at Longden, on the 22nd December last. The
following gentlemen were sworn upon the petty jury: - Messrs.
Charles George Bailey, Francis Arthur Chaplin, John Cock, Joseph
Chune, William Colwick, Edward John Davies, Francis Dicken,
Matthew Edwards, William Pratt Harley, Price Richard Hinton,
Thomas Minter, and Thomas Purslow. Messrs. Boughey and Warren
prosecuted.
In reply to his Lordship, the prisoner said he had no counsel
to defend him, but he should be glad to have one. His lordship
thereupon requested Mr. Harrington to defend him. Mapp, with a
slight stammer, to which he is at all times subject, pleaded not
guilty. He appeared to have altered but little since he was
brought before the coroner's jury, looking, although perhaps a
little paler, even more stout since his confinement than before
it.
Mr. Boughey opened the case. He said the crime they were about
to enquire into was one of the most solemn and serious that could
be committed against the laws of this country, and he was sure he
need say nothing more than this to ensure for the case their most
careful, patient, and undivided attention. His duty at that point
was merely to state the facts of the case, and he would endeavour
to do so coolly and clearly, notwithstanding the emotions that he
must feel upon entering into so solemn an inquiry. Mr. Boughey
then went carefully through the facts of the case, and at
considerable length. In reference to the brooch he said he did
not venture to suggest that the wish to gain possession of that
valueless article was the motive for the committing of so great a
crime, but, at the same time, their experience showed them that
every variety of crime was committed, and that from motives quite
out of comparison and inadequate, he might say, as compared with
the offence committed. He admitted that where the facts of the
case admitted to any doubt as to the identity of the person, or
as to the exact nature of the charge - whether it was
manslaughter or murder - then there was some weight to be laid
upon the motive, but here, where all the facts pointed one way
and so clearly to one and the same conclusion, then the absence
of apparent motive ought not to affect the weight of the facts.
In conclusion, he asked them to weigh well and dispassionately
the whole of the evidence which had already been adduced in
reference to the blood found upon the clothes the prisoner wore
upon the Monday, would not be adduced, as it was just as probable
that it got there from his handling the hat on the Monday morning
with Aston, as by any other means.
Thomas Tisdale, examined by Mr. Warren, said: I am Borough
Surveyor of Shrewsbury. I made the plan produced. The distance
from the Oaks at Pulverbatch to the lane turning down to
Whitfield's house is 696 yards. From that turning to the
holly-bush is 152 yards. I went with Police-constable Caswell
through fields Nos. 3, 4, and 5, from the holly-bush to the
hovel, a distance of 442 yards. - By Mr. Harrington: The hedge
between Nos. 3 and 5 fields was an ordinary one, with no exact
gaps, but room for a small body to pass through. There is a gate
out of the field into the long lane, leading to Mr. Whitfield's
house. At the point that meets the short lane there is also a
gate. - By the Court: There is an ordinary field gate from No. 3
field to the long lane.
Ann Davies said: I am the wife of John Davies, of Longden. I
knew the deceased. She was in the habit of coming to our house.
She came at twelve o'clock on Sunday, the 22nd Dec., and remained
till six o'clock. She left with a girl named Morgan to go to
chapel. She asked me to pin a brooch into her dress, which I did.
The brooch produced is the one I pinned in the deceased's shawl.
I said to her, "What a smart brooch you have got." She said,
"Yes, it is my mother's; not my own mother's, but my
step-mother's." Deceased wore a blck straw hat at the time, with
purple ribbon on it. The hat produced is the one she wore on that
day. (The hat was here produced. It was dirty outside, and very
bloody inside the lining.- By Mr. Harrington: It is a common
brooch. the stuff in the middle is only glass, and the brass work
was not valuable. I only called it a smart brooch to please the
child. I never saw the brooch before that day. I saw it on the
24th Dec., the day sfter the child was found. The brooch was
shown to me by the police, and they asked me what sort of brooch
the child had, after asking me if she had one. i told them I
should know the brooch by the bent pin in it, and by the stone. I
took paticualr notice of it then, but I don't know made made me
do so.- By the Court: I have no doubt that is the brooch I put in
the child's shawl before she went out of the house.
Jane Richards said: I am a single woman, and live at Longden
Wood, at Mr. Whitfield's. I was at chapel on the night of the
22nd of December. Mary Hartshorn was with me, and I left her at
the top of the Long-lane. I saw John Mapp standing close to the
turnpike-road, and a little girl about 5 yards off. I asked the
girl if she was coming my way, and she said, "Only to the next
house, where Mr. Whitfield lives." Prisoner said she lives near
to me. we went down the Long lane, and Mary Hartshorn along the
turnpike-road to the right. I went down the Long-lane as far as
the turning to Mr. Whitfield's. I then went my way, and they went
further down the lane when I left. I wished them a good night.
She had on a black straw hat, and a white pinafore. I did not
notice whether she had a shawl on or not, as it was dark. I did
not know her before. On the Monday after, Aston told me
something. It was about coming home, and Mapp. the prisoner came
into the cow-house on Monday after-noon to me about five o'clock.
I was milking at the time. I asked him how he came to tell Aston
such a lie. Aston says that you said to him "I left the little
girl talking to her (meaning witness) at the top of the lane." he
said "I never did say so." In a short time afterwards, Aston came
into the cow-house, and the prisoner asked Aston how he came to
say that he had left the little girl with witness at the top of
the lane?" Aston said "You did say so," and the prisoner denied
it. after that, I asked Mapp where he had left her? He said "I
walked slowly after you left, and the little girl walked faster
and got before me." He also said "I never saw her after," or
words to that effect. By Mr. Harrington: He said he parted with
her as soon as he left me. It was quite a dark night; there was
no moon, but there were some stars. Aston said that Mapp told him
he had left the little girl in the lane, and Aston was called in
by Mapp, when he denied it. I have known the prisoner some time,
and he has a great impediment in his speech, and speaks with
difficulty.- By the Court: I was at chapel that night, and saw
the little girl there.
Mr. Tisdale, recalled by his Lordship: The distance from Mrs.
Davies's house to the chapel is 990 yards, and from the chapel to
the corner of the lang lane 541 yards, and from there to the
turning to Mr. Whitfield's house is 677 yards, and from there to
the cottage is 594 yards, and from the cottage of Edward Lewis,
the dedceased father, is 250 yards. He then gave some further
details in explanation of the plan.
John Aston said: I am a waggoner to Mr. Whitfield. I am
sixteen years of age. the prisoner Mapp worked with Mr. Whitfield
from June to December last year. On Monday, 23rd of December, I
recollect going to plough in a stubble field belonging to Mr.
Whitfield. It was the second field down the lane from Mr.
Whitfield's house. I got to work about seven o'clock, and went in
near a holly bush. There were manure heaps in the filed. Saw
prisoner there about ten minutes after I went. He was spreading
the manure. He was about one hundred yards from the gate when I
first saw him. From ten to half-past I went to have luncheon. We
had luncheon in the field. I called and asked him if he were
coming to luncheon, and he came. He was about twenty yards from
me when I called to him. He went up the field before me to the
gate, when he spread two heaps of manure. before that he had been
spreading manure at the far end of the field by the pasture, and
away from the lane. When he had spread the manure he came up to
me by the holly bush to eat his luncheon. While I was eating my
luncheon I was looking into the holly bush for a whip-stick, and
I found a straw hat pushed into the holly bush. I pulled it out,
and saw that it was covered with blood. It was almost flat. The
hat produced is the one. It was fresh blood. Prisoner was close
by me when I found the hat. I said, "I wonder what brings this
here?" He said, "I don't know, I am sure." I said, "get over to
the hedge, and see if anything is there in the ditch, for the one
that's had a blow like this is sure to be dead." Mapp looked over
the hedge and into the ditch, saying there was nothing there.
Mapp then said, "Take it (the hat) and bury it; put it in the
furrow under the plough." I then throw it down, and said that I
would have no more to do with it. Mapp picked it up, and said he
would have the ribbon off it. I said, "You nasty b-- put it
down." Mapp then went on with his work. He went back to the
middle of the field. There were then some unspread heaps of
manure near the gate. I afterwards pointed out to Caswell the
place, near the gate, where the manure was spread by Mapp. About
one o'clock I picked the hat up and took it to Bowen, the
roadman, to show him. I saw no one before Bowen after I had found
the hat. Having shown it to him, I put it down by the gate.
Afterwards saw Mary Hartshorn coming down the Long-lane. She
picked it up, and called me to show it to me. Mapp was by at this
time, and heard what was said. Mary Hartshorn was in the road and
we were in the field, and she spoke to us over the hedge. She
said, "I think I have a slight idea of the hat. I think I saw the
little girl at chapel last night." Mapp said, "I went along with
the servant girl, and the little girl went on towards home." Mary
Hartshorn then left us. Asked he what she would do with the hat,
and she said she would take it to Mr. Jones, the policeman. she
then went away, and I and the prisoner went on with our work. The
same afternoon I was in the cow-house at Mr. Whitfield's. this
was about 5 o'clock. Jane Richards was there. From something
prisoner had said to me I went to see her. Prisoner came to meet
me there. Mapp asked me, did did e tell me that he left the
little girl talking to Jane at the Short-lane gate. I said he
did, and he said he had told me no such thing. I now swear that
he did say so; he told me so three or four times over in the
field where he found the hat. I heard of the girl being missed on
Monday afternoon. the girl's mother had been looking for her. I
heard of her being missed before we had the conversation in the
cowhouse.-Cross examined: Mapp has an impediment in his speech.
he told me he came with Jane and the little girl down the lane
from chapel. he told me this about an hour and a half after Mary
Hartshorn went away. I saw Mapp looking from one end of the field
to the other, and then I asked him about the girl. It was then he
told me he had come out of chapel with the little girl. The only
entrance to the field is through the gate on the road side. We
did not spread all the manure that day. About half was spread.
Mapp only spread two heaps near the gate. While he was doing so,
I called to him to come and have his luncheon. He did not come
till had spread the heap. it is a six-acre field. I ploughed
about one acre that day. I was ploughing where the manure was
spread about. Mary Hartshorn said the person who had the blow
must be dead. I said the same thing before. I told the roadman I
thought some one must have been fighting. Mapp said, "Take it
(the hat) and bury it" He did not say anything about the furrow,
but he meant I was to bury it there. I explained, at the inquest,
that that was what he did mean. the hat was in the same condition
than as it is now. I saw no blood when I was in the field except
what I saw on the hat.- To Mr. Boughey: I leave off work at three
o'clock. That is what I call evening. Mapp told me he left the
girl at the gate three times together, not on different
occasions.- To th Court: There was blood on my hands after I had
hold of the hat. There was sufficient blood on the hat to mark
Mapp's hands when he took hold of it.
Mary Hartshorn said: I am the wife of Edward Hartshorn, of
Longden Common. I was at Longden Chapel on the 22nd December, at
night. I knew Catherine Lewis, and have done for some time. I saw
her at chapel that night. I did not notice her dress
particularly. I did not see her again that night to know that it
was her. I accompanied Jane Richards to the top of the Long
Lane.-By his Lordship: She went down the long lane, and I went on
home along the road, I saw the prisoner there, and a little girl
near him, when I left Jane Richards. Catherine Richards [sic,
means Lewis?] sat in a pew in front of me. it was over about
half-past seven o'clock. She had a black straw hat on at the
time.-By Mr. Warren: On the Monday I was going down the Long
Lane, about half-past two o'clock. I saw a man breaking stones
near the gate. There was a black straw hat by the gate. I picked
it up, but had no notion whose it was at the time. I asked the
man who was breaking stones to let me put the hat under his coat.
Afterwards I took it along the lane to the place opposite where
Mapp and Aston were working. I asked them 'do you know anything
about this hat?' John Aston said, "I threw the hat over the gate,
and I think there is something about these ditches or fields
worse than the hat." I then went to the butcher's and afterwards
in the direction of John Lewis's, deceased father, I asked a
person to see whether Catherine Lewis, (the deceased) had come
home last night, and they said that she had not. Mapp's brother
came to the hedge, and I showed him the hat, and also showed
deceased's mother the hat, when she was very much affected. I
received the hat back from Lewis. I then went in the direction of
home, which was also the way to the police. I was afterwards
going up the Long Lane, when the prisoner was coming behind me,
and he shouted to me. I then went slower, and he overtook me. He
was walking at a great rate. He asked me where I was going so
fast? I said with this hat to the police. He had tears in his
eyes, and said to me "Mary, Mary, this is come to send me back
again." (He was a ticket of leave man.) I told him to cheer up,
when he said "Jack told me this morning that I did it." He told
me afterwards that he went along the lane towards Whitfiled's
house and the deceased went in the direction of her own house. He
also said to me, "Mary, never against me, and I'll tell them
nothing." he then went away, and I don't know where he went. I
took the hat home, and my little girl gave it to the police. I
have known the prisoner Mapp a long time.- Cross-examined by Mr.
Harrington: I say it was the short-lane. I don't know whether I
mentioned the Short-lane to the Coroner or the Magistrates, but I
believe I did. I will not undertake to swear whether I said the
"Short-lane" to the Coroner or the magistrates, but I believe I
did. I will not undertake to swear whether the "Short-lane" was
mentioned by prisoner or myself. It would take me half an hour to
go from the field to the butcher's shop and back, and I stopped a
quarter of an hour there, making three quarters of an hour
altogether.
Edward Lewis said: I am a labourer at Longden, and the father
of the deceased. She was nine years of age on the 19th last May.
Saw her on 22nd December, about 9 o'clock. She left my house that
morning to go to Mrs. Davies. she started to go there that
morning. She had a hat on. The hat produced is the one. She had a
shawl on which was fastened by the brooch produced. She did not
return that evening. She slept there sometimes. On Monday, 23rd
December, I saw the hat. It was shown to me by Mary Hartshorn and
another woman. I then went in search of the girl. When I got
opposite a ploughed field in Long-lane I saw Mapp at work
spreading manure. He was in the field and I was in the lane. I
asked him had he seen my little girl that night. He said, "I
did." She came down the lane with me, and Jane, and Jane and I
went on to the house, and she (the girl) went on down the lane. I
then went away up the lane and over the field where Mapp was
spreading the manure. I crossed the fence into another field, and
over other fences till I came to a little patch where there was a
hovel. I saw a mark of something have been dragged along, and in
the hovel I found the body. The hovel was open, but there were
like two apartments. I found the body in a place like a "bing" in
the further apartment. A "bing" is a place for putting the fodder
in for the animals to eat. My girl had a pinafore on, and this,
when I found her, was turned over her face. The shawl she had
worn was tied around her neck, and one end was pushed into her
mouth. Went with Superintendent Caswell to the place. Found with
him traces of blood near the holly bush. Caswell raked some
manure off the ground near the gate, and we found marks of blood
beneath it. Also found a hair net [produced] which resembled the
one worn by my little girl. She wore such a net when she left my
house on the Sunday morning. Cross-examined: I can swear
positively to the hair-net. It is my little girl's. Many other
little girls in our neighbourhood wear the same sort of net. I do
not swear that the net was my little girl's, but it was one like
like it. The prisoner said he and the servant girl went towards
the house. I am quite positive the brooch was my daughter's. Her
step-mother gave it to her. she brought it for her. It cost 1s.,
I think.- To the Court: I have been married to my present wife
since MAy last. She is poorly, and could not attend today, but
she was here on Saturday. The deceased was the eldest of five
children. the brooch was given to the little girl soon after I
was last married. She used to wear it almost every Sunday. I have
no doubt whatever it is the brooch.
Police-constable Edward Jones, of Longden, said: From
information I went to a hovel on the 23rd of December. It was in
a field near the Long-lane at Longden. I found the body of the
deceased there. I employed four men to take the body to the
Tankerville Inn, at Longden, and they did so in my company. At
seven o'clock that night I apprehended the prisoner. I asked him
where he was last night, and he said at Longden Chapel, and that
he came from it with the servant from Mr. whitfield's and the
deceased. The one went down the lane and the other through the
gate, and I left for home. I then went to Mapp's house, to look
for his clothes. I went up stairs, and locked the door. his
mother showed me his clothes, in a bundle. In the coat pocket I
found the brooch produced. It was a brown coat, and was worn by
the prisoner. Prisoner's mother gave me the clothes. The prisoner
said something to me at the police station, Shrewsbury, about the
clothes. I pointed out the blood on the trousers (produced). They
were common cord trowsers, and the spots are still visible.
Prisoner said, "That is blood from my nose." It had the
appearance of fresh blood, lighter than it is now. There was a
spot of blood on the right arm of the coat. I held the jacket up,
when the prisoner said, "that is the jacket I wore last night,
and the brooch is mine." I showed the prisoner the stain on the
jacket; but I could not swear it was blood.-By his Lordship: The
prisoner said, "The blood on my clothes is from my nose." By Mr.
Warren: On the following morning I showed the hovel to
police-sergeant Caswell.- Cross-examined by Mr. Harrington: The
brooch has been in my possession ever since the time of the
murder, and it is in the same state as when I found it, with the
exception of a private mark I made upon it. Sergeant Evan Jones
said: On Tuesday, the 24th December, I went to the prisoner's
house and found the knife produced there. It was on the dresser.
when I took it outside the door I noticed some slight traces of
blood on it, inside the hat. The marks were recent. I produced
the knife when the prisoner was before the magistrate.-
Cross-examined: I believe the marks to be blood. It was not in a
liquid state when I saw it first.
Superintendent Caswell said: Went to Longden on the 23rd
December, and was there again on the following morning. Was shown
a hovel by Police-constable Edward Jones, and also a holly bush,
where it was said the hat was found. Pointed out those places to
Mr. Tisdale, the surveyor. Near the holly-bush I found some
slight traces of blood. They were near the gate. There were two
or three heaps of manure spread about, and when I removed them I
found a large quantity of blood, and a hair net. which has
already been produced. I then traced down the field a track,
which had the appearance of something having been dragged. There
were, also, occasional spots of blood. I traced it to near the
corner of the field, and then I found that the hedge had been
trodden down. Over the hedge in the grass field I saw the track
again, and I followed it to the hovel. I saw the clothes the
prisoner had on on the Monday.
Police-constable Edward Jones, recalled, deposed that the
prisoner wore the clothes produced on the Monday and when before
the coroner. Superintendent Caswell continued: I have examined
the clothes. There were spots of blood on the coat, on the legs
of the trousers, and on the waistcoat. I found blood in one place
on the waistcoat, in three on the trousers, and in one place on
the coat. The blood was then quite recent.- Cross-examined: I am
not so positive about the spot on the waistcoat as of those on
other places. There may have been five heaps of manure spread
about, but I think not more than three. The ground had been
trodden upon after the manure had been spread. Many people had
been in the field before I got there. The ground was hard where
the hedge was trodden down. There was a frost at that time, but
the weather was open. I was unable to find any foot-marks. The
body being dragged after a person walking, would obliterate the
foot-marks. Aston re-called: I saw the clothes Mapp wore on the
Monday. They are the same as those now produced.
John Davies Harries said: I am a surgeon practising in
Shrewsbury. On Tuesday, the 24th December, I made a post mortem
examination of the body of the deceased at the Tankerville Inn,
Longden. I found a shawl round the neck and shoulders of the
deceased, and about eight inches of it was stuffed in the mouth.
On removing the shawl I found a wound five inches long, which
extended from right to left. There were five other wounds on the
throat all terminating at the ear. There appeared to be five
cuts, commencing at the left side, and one of the cuts extended,
without intermission, to the right side of the neck. The windpipe
was cut through, and some of the smaller blood vessels severed,
and they occasion great loss of blood. There was also a bruise on
the left side of the forehead. It looked as if the body had been
dragged along the ground, as the thorns were sticking in the
cheeks, hair, and other parts. The hair was also matted. The
outsides of the thighs were much scratched like the cheeks. The
shawl and pinafore were marked very much with blood. I attribute
the cause of death to suffocation and loss of blood, the
suffocation occasioned by the stuffing of the shawl in the mouth.
There was a little blood in the heart, and the lungs were very
pale. I examined the knife produced before the Coroner and the
magistrates, and it had marks of blood upon it, of recent date. I
was shown the prisoner's Sunday clothes, at the examination, and
I found marks of blood on them, quite fresh, particularly on the
trousers; the patch on the front of the left leg was quite damp,
as if it had recently been pressed on wet soil. The mark on the
brown coat sleeve was that of blood also. I can swear it was
blood. The front part of the shawl was much saturated with
blood.-By the Court: The smaller blade of the knife produced
could have inflicted the wounds on the deceased.- Cross-examined
by Mr. Harrington: I have not examined the marks of blood with a
microscope, but I did so with a lens. My opinion is, that the
greater part of the blood had come from deceased before the shawl
was put round the neck. The outside of the jugular vein had been
cut. The severing of the windpipe would not allow her to shout,
but she would struggle. I think they were on the ground when the
wounds were inflicted.-By the Court: I think the head must have
been held to inflict the wounds. Cross-examined by Mr.
Harrington: He must have had one hand holding her head, and the
other cutting her throat. The person who inflicted the wounds
must have occupied some time in doing so, and deceased must
necessarily have been held the whole of the time. The shawl was
just pulled up her back, and brought round the neck about once,
and then the end put in the mouth. The wounds were not very deep.
The windpipe was cut, but it was near the surface. there were no
other wounds on the body, except the scratches on the thighs,
which appeared to be from dragging.-By Mr. Boughey: There was no
great artery severed. The largest veins were cut, and the
external jugular was also cut, but no great artery besides.
The statement of Mapp before the magistrates (which has
already appeared) was read, accounting for the blood on his
clothes, and his buying the brooch for 3d. or 4d., on Sunday
night, from some one he did not know.
Edward Lewis, the father of the deceased, was recalled, and
said he had frequent opportunities of seeing the brooch produced,
but noticed nothing particular about it, except that the pin was
bent.
This completed the case for the prosecution, and Mr.
Harrington, in defence, said it now become his duty, he might
almost say his unfortunate duty, to have to address to them a few
observations, and to undertake one of the most arduous, most
responsible, and the most difficult duties that could fall to the
duty of a counsel to perform. The prisoner had no means of
procuring counsel for the defence, and would have had no one to
defend him but for the interference of his Lordship. If this had
been a question of stealing the brooch the prisoner would have
had to conduct his case unless he could find counsel for himself,
but where life was concerned it was the practice - and a most
merciful practice - to request some counsel to watch the
interests of the prisoner, so that it may not be said that he had
been sent to the gallows without a word on his behalf. He (the
speaker) then explained that as he had been so recently been
called upon he had had no means of getting evidence, and the only
guide he had as to his mode of defence was derived through the
kindness of his Lordship, who had allowed him to see the
depositions taken before the magistrates. It was rather a
misnomer to call him the counsel for the defence, for although he
had to say to them what he could for the defence, yet the only
means he had of preparing anything was from what had been adduced
for the prosecution. The evidence adduced for the prosecution was
entirely circumstantial. Of course it seldom did happen that a
crime of that sort was committed at the time any witness was by,
and juries generally had to rely upon this sort of evidence. Some
considered that class of evidence to be the most valuable, but at
times it was the most dangerous of all human testimony. It had
been said that circumstances cannot lie, but he said that there
was a fallacy about them which it did not do always to put too
great faith in. Circumstances may exist, and have existed, in
such cases, and that probably within the memory of many gentlemen
on the jury, which at first pointed irresistably to one
conclusion, yet they had turned out after further consideration,
and, when, examined altogether, to point to another conclusion.
Mr. Harrington here referred to a work by Mr. Wills, from which
he read an extract upon circumstantial evidence, and he then
proceeded to show that, although circumstantial evidence, where
all the links were complete, was, to a certain extent, to be
relied upon, yet, if a link were wanting it was not reliable, and
yet men were most apt to add such missing links, and so complete
the chain of evidence. He (the speaker) did not pretend to any
powers of oratory; he should not attempt to make any impression
upon them by using fine language, but what he should ask them to
do was what he was sure they would gladly and willingly do - to
follow him carefully and dispassionately through all the
different circumstances that had been laid before them in elation
to this case, and which, according to the theory of his learned
friend, are to point clearly to the guilt of the prisoner. Now he
should show them that no one of the circumstances against the
prisoner was conclusive in itself, nor were the circumstances
conclusive as a whole. These points they would have to consider,
and they would have also to consider whether some of the
circumstances alleged against the prisoner, were, if not
absolutely, at least partly, incompatible with the guilt of the
prisoner. With such evidence as that on which they had to depend,
it was important the circumstances should fit and adapt
themselves one to another in proof of the prisoner's guilt. THey
must have the same class of circumstances. If they saw in one
part of the case that the success of the prosecution depended
upon it being shown that the prisoner committed acts of one
class, while in another part the theory of the prosecution
depended upon its being shown that prisoner committed acts of
another description - if they saw that this had been the case,
they would see and they must decide undoubtedly that that
evidence did not fit, and therefore that it was not to be relied
upon. He would now endevour to go through the circumstances of
the case as they had been given, and examine them in detail. He
did wish to deny, nor should he attempt to deny, that the
prisoner and Jane Richards were the last persons seen with the
murdered girl on the night that the murder was committed. Nor did
he deny that a most diabolical murder had been committed by some
one, but he must warn them to take care lest the horror they felt
at the atrocity of the crime should induce them to form a
prejudice against the prisoner , who was only charged with
committing that crime. It was said that the prisoner had made
different and contradictory statements as to the lace where he
parted from the little girl. The first question was - are these
statements contradictory, or were not,perhaps, misunderstood. the
prisoner, as they had heard, was afflicted with an impediment in
his speech, which made it very difficult for him to be
understood. Again, although the statements made by Mapp to the
different witnesses did not that day in each case appear the
same, yet they must remember that human nature could not
recollect accurately every word that was used in any
conversation. A few words in this respect would make a great
difference.
There was but one statement which could in any way be looked
upon as a false statement; but how many were there that the
prisoner made that were strictly true? Mr. Harrington then
referred to the evidence given by Lewis, the girl's father,
pointed to that portion of it in which the witness he said, had
contradicted himself. Mary Hartshorn, again, had said more that
day than she said before the coroner; but she afterwards
contradicted herself; and so on with some of the other witnesses.
But the prisoner Mapp, although closely questioned by the police
officer, had said nothing but what had been proved to be strictly
true, excepting what was said about leaving Richards at the gate,
which certainly had been questioned. But there were, as he had
already shown, a great probability that the prisoner was right,
for he might have been misunderstood, and the night was so dark
that Richards could hardly say how far he did really go with the
girl. In reference to the blood found upon the field Mr.
Harrington submitted that this was no evidence against the
prisoner, nor was it all strange that the prisoner should have
spread the manure at this point as it appeared he did. Mr.
Boughey had observed that it was very extraordinary that prisoner
should have done such a thing, but he (the speaker) thought there
was nothing extraordinary in it. Aston had called Mapp up from
that part of the field when he (Mapp) was working to get his
luncheon and prisoner as he went by the gate to get his luncheon
spread this manure. Aston said only two heaps were so scattered
about by the prisoner and that Mapp was going to spread more but
that the lad called him again and having finished spreading the
heap he was at, Mapp went. If Mapp had been anxious to spread the
manure for the purpose of hiding the blood he would have done it
at an hour when no one was about, and not at a time when anyone
might see him, when a man was eating his luncheon within a few
yards of him. He wished the jury particularly to remark that the
manure was spread before the hat was found, and it was not done
therefore, from any fear that had been caused in the mind of the
prisoner from the finding of the hat. Aston had told them that
two or three heaps of manure only were spread by the prisoner,
whereas Caswell said there were three or four. Some heaps,
therefore, were spread which Aston did not see Mapp spread, and
it might be assumed, therefore, that some other person had spread
those heaps beside Mapp in order to hide his own guilt. Mr.
Harrington continued to comment upon the evidence of the
prosecution. Referring to Mapp's crying when he saw Mrs.
Hartshorn, that was, he said, a weakness altogether incompatible
with his behaviour with Aston when they found the hat. What Mapp
said to Mary Hartshorn was nothing but what a man like Mapp, who
had been transported, and was afraid of being innocently charged
of this crime and of being "sent back again," it was nothing but
natural that he should say what he did. Mr. Harrington then
referred at considerable length to the brooch, which, he alleged,
was of common and cheap make, and which had nothing that was not
common to other brooches. He submitted it was probable the blood
on the clothes was from the prisoner's nose, as the prisoner had
stated, and he argued that if the prisoner had committed the
crime, much more blood must have been found upon his clothes than
had been. He contended that such boots as the prisoner wore would
have made a deep impression, and that footmarks, consequently,
would have been visible, although the body of the girl may have
been dragged over them afterwards. the absence of footmarks,
then, made it probable that the person who committed the crime
wore boots without such nails - that he was, in fact, a man in a
better class of life than the prisoner. he pointed out that the
blood on the knife and on the clothes had not been proved to be
human blood, and concluding by showing that there was in this
case an entire absence of motive which was a point that deserved
their most careful consideration.
His Lordship then proceeded to sum up the evidence against the
prisoner, and said it was one entirely of circumstantial
evidence, which, however, was not unusual in cases of murder. It
was, however, satisfactory to them to know that the prisoner had
been defended by a gentleman who had done the best he possibly
could for the prisoner. There was no doubt that a most diabolical
murder had been perpetrated by some person or persons, and it
would be their duty to say whether they believed, beyond all
question or reasonable doubt, that the prisoner was guilty of the
murder before they could arrive at a verdict of the prisoner's
guilt. He then went over the whole of the evidence most minutely,
explaining any points of difficulty in the evidence, but his
remarks were delivered in so low a voice as to be at times almost
inaudible. He laid particular stress on the fact of the heaps of
manure being saturated with blood, which the prisoner had gone to
distribute about the field. The remarks he made to Mrs. Hartshorn
in cautioning her to say nothing against him, and his saying that
this thing was sent to take him back, were in themselves very
suspicious circumstances. His Lordship also referred at some
length to the contradictory statements made by the prisoner and
Aston, as to what he (the prisoner) had said about Jane Richards
being last in company with the deceased on the night of the
murder. The prisoner denied saying so, and Aston persisted in
saying he did so, consequently they would have to take that
statement for what they considered it was worth. the clothes of
the prisoner also contained marks of blood, and it has been shown
the prisoner wore those clothes on the night of the murder. They
would have to judge whether the explanation of the prisoner as to
it was satisfactory. It was also a very important fact that told
against the prisoner, that the murder took place within a few
yards of the place where he was last seen with the deceased on
Sunday night, coupled with the fact of blood spots of recent date
being found on the day after the murder upon the trowsers and
coat the prisoner wore on the Sunday, were circumstances that
would receive their earnest attention. it also appeared that the
knife found in the prisoner's house, upon which were spots of
blood, as proved by Mr. Harringon, was such a knife as would have
inflicted the wounds upon the neck of the deceased.
He touched upon the fact of the trowsers being wet at the
knees, as though the prisoner had been kneeling upon the damp or
wet ground. There were marks of the blood within but a very few
yards of the place where the prisoner was last seen with the
deceased, and her bonnet was also found at no great distance off,
which were also strong circumstantial facts against the prisoner.
The identification of the brooch by Mrs. Davies, who says she
pinned it upon the deceased before she went to chapel. She
noticed it because it was a smart brooch, and she remembered that
the pin was bent in the brooch. He had seen the brooch and it
certainly was a very smart brooch for a child of her age, and in
her circumstances. That brooch was missing on the body of the
deceased when it was found in the hovel, and the brooch was found
in the coat pocket of the prisoner in the prisoner's mother's
house the day after the murder. This was also a very serious fact
against the prisoner. Although the prisoner cannot speak here,
yet he has been most ably represented here by his learned
counsel, but he had the opportunity of doing so before the
magistrates. You will take notice of the prisoner's remark that
he brought the brooch for 3d or 4d on his way home on the night
of the murder, and yet the witness Davies put it in her shawl
when she went to chapel. Taking into consideration the late hour
in which he was seen in the deceased's company, the question
arose as to the probability of that statement being true. If he
brought it, as he stated, the presumption was that the child must
have been murdered before he got home that night, and that
somebody sold him the brooch on his way home; and yet when he was
seen with the deceased that night he was within a quarter of a
mile of his home, which could not have taken him ten minutes to
get there. It is probable that anyone could have committed this
murder in ten minutes, taken the brooch from the murdered girl,
ran after the prisoner, and sold it to him before he could have
walked 410 yards. To him (his Lordship) it appeared highly
improbable if not impossible. They had to ask themselves if, in
their consciences, they believed that any murderer could have
been there, committing the murder, and have gone and disposed of
that brooch to the prisoner in ten minutes? Then, as to the
identity of the brooch, it would be something very remarkable if
some other man had done it, and got possession of her brooch,
which was exactly like the one the prisoner had in his
possession, and which had been swore to, was also a serious
matter for their consideration. If such were the case, it was
certainly a most remarkable coincidence. If you think the
evidence is so conclusive as to admit of no doubt of the
prisoner's guilt, it would be their duty, however painful, to
find a verdict of guilty, yet it was their duty to society, and,
however painful, they must do it if they had no doubt of his
guilt. It would be infinitely more painful to do otherwise unless
the doubt on their minds were sufficiently just and reasonable to
doubt it. After a few further remarks his Lordship left the case
in the hands of the jury.
At the conclusion of his Lordship's summing up, the jury,
after a few minutes' absence from the box, returned a verdict
of
GUILTY
His Lordship then assumed the black cap and passed sentence in
the usual way. His Lordship seemed much affected when passing
sentence, the last few words being almost inaudible. The prisoner
seemed in no way affected, but again protested his innocence.
[Shrewsbury Chronicle, (special edition)
Monday, 23 March 1868]
To print: go to File - Print on your
browser. Appoximately 13 pages
