_The Trial of Burke and M'Dougal--Circumstantial Evidence--Hare's
Account of the Murder of Docherty--What he Declined to Answer--Mrs.
Hare and her Child._
The first witness called for the Crown was James Braidwood, a builder, and
master of the Edinburgh fire brigade, who attested the correctness of the
plan of the houses in Wester Portsburgh prepared for use in the trial, and
which has been reproduced in this volume. He was followed by Mary Stewart,
in whose house, in the Pleasance, Mrs. Docherty's son resided, and in
which that unfortunate woman had slept the night before the murder. She
remembered the circumstances well. The old woman was in good health when
she last saw her in life, but she had no difficulty in recognising the
body in the Police Office on the Sunday following. Further, she identified
the clothing found in Burke's house, and produced in court, as having
belonged to the deceased. Charles M'Lachlan, a lodger, corroborated this
testimony. The shop-boy of Rymer, the grocer in the West Port, in whose
premises Burke met Docherty, described what took place between them on the
memorable Friday morning, and also mentioned the purchase by Burke on the
Saturday of a tea-chest similar to the one in which the body had been
conveyed to Knox's rooms. But the relationship between the prisoners and
Docherty was brought out by a neighbour, Mrs. Connoway, who related that
she had seen the old woman in their house during the day, and that it had
been explained to her by M'Dougal that the stranger was a friend of
Burke. Later in the evening the old woman was in her house, when they were
joined by Hare and his wife and the two prisoners. A dram was going round,
and they began to be merry, until at last some of them took to dancing. In
the course of this Docherty hurt her feet. The company afterwards returned
to Burke's house, and Mrs. Connoway went to bed, but heard no noise or
disturbance during the night. Next day she went in to see M'Dougal, and,
missing the stranger, she asked what had become of her, when she was told
that "Burke and her had been _ower_ friendly together, and she [M'Dougal]
had turned her out of doors: that she had kicked her out of the house."
The evidence of Mrs. Law, another neighbour, was similar in effect, with
the addition that in the course of the night she had heard the noise of
"shuffling or fighting" proceed from the house of the prisoners. More to
the point, however, was the testimony of Hugh Alston, a grocer, residing
in the same property. Between eleven and twelve o'clock on the night of
Friday, the 31st October, while going along the passage that led from his
house to the street, he heard a noise proceeding from Burke's house. The
sound was as if two men were quarrelling, but what most attracted his
attention was a woman's voice calling "murder." He went towards the door
and listened, and he heard the two men making a great noise as if
wrangling or quarreling. This continued for a few minutes, and then he
heard something give a cry--a sound which seemed to proceed from a person
or animal being strangled. After this remarkable sound had ceased he again
heard a female voice cry "murder," and there was a knocking on the floor
of the house. As he was afraid of fire, Alston went to look for a
policeman. Not finding one he returned to his old stance, but the noise by
this time had ceased. When he heard next night of the body having been
found in the house the whole incident of the previous evening came back to
him.
Interesting as all this evidence was, the testimony of David Paterson,
"keeper of the museum belonging to Dr. Knox," as bearing on what was
termed "the complicity of the doctors," attracted more attention. This
witness gave an account of how, about midnight, Burke called on him and
took him to his house in Portsburgh, to point out that he had a subject
for him. He identified Burke, M'Dougal, and Hare and his wife as being in
the house while he was there, and he further stated that he had seen them
the night after, when he paid the two men an instalment of the price of
the body. He was examined at some length as to the appearance of the body
when he gave it up to the police, and said the marks and the look of the
face indicated that death had been caused by suffocation or strangulation,
while the general appearance showed that the corpse had never been
interred. He knew Burke and Hare, and had often had dealings with them for
bodies. There were, he knew, people in the town who sold bodies that had
never been interred; and he had known gentlemen who had attended poor
patients, and who, on their death, gave a note of their place of abode,
and this in turn was handed to men such as he supposed Burke and Hare to
be, to get the bodies. This was startling information to the bulk of the
people of Scotland, but, as has been shown in some of the early chapters
of this work, it was nothing new to a certain class of the population of
Edinburgh and other towns. The succeeding witnesses were Broggan, Mr. and
Mrs. Gray, and Fisher the detective, but as their evidence has been
embodied in the account of the murder itself, it need not be repeated
here.
[Illustration: PLAN OF HOUSES IN WESTER PORTSBURGH.
PREPARED FOR USE AT THE TRIAL OF BURKE & MCDOUGAL. For Explanatory Key See
Page XII.]
William Hare was next brought forward, and his appearance caused quite a
sensation in court. It was known that on his evidence and that of his wife
the case for the Crown principally rested, and "expectation stood on
tiptoe" to hear the account he would give of the foul transaction in which
he was a prominent actor. His position as an informer was peculiar, and
Lord Meadowbank cautioned him "that whatever share you may have had in the
transaction, if you now speak the truth, you can never afterwards be
questioned in a court of justice," but if he should prevaricate he might
be assured that the result would be condign punishment. The Lord Justice
Clerk further informed him that he was called as a witness regarding the
death of Docherty, and in reply to this he asked--"T' ould woman, sir?" He
was then put on oath, being sworn on a New Testament having on it a
representation of the cross, a mode only adopted in Scotland when the
witness belongs to the Roman Catholic Church. In answer to the Lord
Advocate he said he had known Burke for about a year. On the 31st October
he had a gill with Burke, and the latter then told him that in his house
there was an old woman whom he had taken off the street, and who would be
a good _shot_ to take to the doctors. From this word _shot_ he understood
that Burke intended murdering her. His evidence of the events up to the
time of the quarrel about eleven o'clock was quite consistent with all
that has already been related, but his account of the actual murder is
worthy of reproduction. Having described the fight, during which the woman
tumbled over the stool, he said, in answer to the Lord Advocate:--
He [Burke] stood on the floor;--he then got stride-legs on the top of the
woman on the floor, and she cried out a little, and he kept in her breath.
Did he lay himself down upon her? Yes; he pressed down her head with his
breast.
She gave a kind of a cry, did she? Yes.
Did she give that more than once? She moaned a little after the first cry.
How did he apply his hand towards her? He put one hand under the nose, and
the other under her chin, under her mouth.
He stopped her breath, do you mean? Yes.
Did he continue this for any length of time? I could not exactly say the
time; ten or fifteen minutes.
Did he say anything to you when this was going on? No, he said nothing.
Did he then come off her? Yes; he got up off her.
Did she appear dead then? Yes; she appeared dead _a wee_.
Did she appear to be quite dead? She was not moving; I could not say
whether she was dead or not.
What did he do then? He put his hand across her mouth.
Did he keep it there for any length of time? He kept it two or three
minutes.
What were you doing all this time? I was sitting on the chair.
What did he do with the body? He stripped off the clothes. He took it and
threw it at the foot of the bed, doubled her up, and threw a sheet over
her; he tied her head to her feet.
While this was going on, Hare continued, the two women had run into the
passage, and they did not return until all was over. He then detailed the
proceedings of the Saturday, as already described.
Hare's cross-examination, however, gave rise to an animated discussion.
Mr. Cockburn, senior counsel for M'Dougal, asked him--"Have you been
connected in supplying the doctors with subjects upon other occasions than
those you have not spoken to yet?" The answer was--"No,--than what I have
mentioned"; but the Lord Advocate objected to this line of examination.
Mr. Cockburn appealed to the bench, and the witness was withdrawn while
the question was being discussed. He insisted he was within his right in
putting such a question, though the witness might answer it or not as he
chose, but it would be for the jury to judge of the credit due to his
evidence after it was seen how he treated the question. The Lord Advocate,
on the other hand, contended that the caution given the witness when he
entered the box precluded examination on any subject other than what was
involved in the case they were trying. Authorities were again cited by
both sides, and after considerable discussion, the judges pronounced an
interlocutor declaring that the question might be put, but that the
witness must be warned by the court that he was not bound to answer any
question that might criminate himself.
Hare was recalled, and Mr. Cockburn resumed his cross-examination.
"Were you," said the counsel, "ever concerned in carrying any other body
to any surgeon?"
"I never was concerned about any but the one that I have mentioned,"
replied Hare.
"Now, were you concerned in furnishing that one?" asked Mr. Cockburn.
"No," responded the witness, "but I saw them doing it."
"It is now my duty," interposed the Lord Justice Clerk, addressing Hare,
"to state to you, in reference to a question in writing, to be put to you,
that you are not bound to make any answer to it so as to criminate
yourself. If you do answer it, and if you criminate yourself, you are not
under the protection of the court. If you have been concerned in raising
dead bodies, it is illegal; and you are not bound to answer that
question."
"Now, Hare," said Mr. Cockburn, after he had repeated the judge's warning,
"you told me a little ago that you had been concerned in furnishing one
subject to the doctors, and you had seen them doing it--how often have you
seen them doing it?"
The witness thought a moment, and then declined to answer the question.
"Was this of the old woman the first murder that you had been concerned
in? Do you choose to answer or not?"
"Not to answer," replied Hare, after a minute's consideration.
"Was there murder committed in your house in the last October?" persisted
Mr. Cockburn.
"Not to answer that," was all the reply Hare would give.
The rest of the cross-examination was confined chiefly to the murder of
Docherty, but Hare's original evidence was in no way shaken by it, and he
was removed from court still in custody.
If Hare's appearance created interest in court, that of his wife caused
quite as much. She was ushered into the witness-box carrying her infant
child in her arms. The poor creature was suffering from whooping-cough,
and every now and then its "kinks" interrupted the examination, sometimes
very opportunely, when the questions put required a little consideration
on the part of the witness. Mrs. Hare's evidence contained only one point
calling for special notice. That was when, after relating how she ran out
of the house when she saw Burke get upon Docherty, and returned to the
house and did not see the woman, she was asked--"Seeing nothing of her,
what did you suppose?" Her answer was--"I had a supposition that she had
been murdered. _I have seen such tricks before._" This hint was not
followed up. But the remarkable fact about her whole testimony was that it
corroborated, with exception of one or two points, that of her husband.
There can be no doubt that they had conned their story together before
they were apprehended--for it was not likely they would have an
opportunity of making it up while they were in custody. Be that as it may,
their evidence was wonderfully alike.
The evidence of the police surgeon and of the medical men who made an
examination of the body, was next taken up, and it all tended to show that
death had been caused by suffocation or strangulation, the result of
violence and not of intoxication. The reading of the prisoners'
declarations concluded the case for the prosecution, and no evidence was
brought forward for the defence.