The following account of an extraordinary criminal trial which took
place in Hertfordshire in the year 1628, we have extracted from
_Reilly's Dublin News Letter_ of the 16th of August 1740. It was
published for the first time in London in the preceding year (1739) by
Dr Rawlinson, who had discovered it among the papers of the eminent
lawyer, Sir John Maynard, formerly one of the Lords Commissioners of
the Great Seal of England.
"The case, or rather history of a case, that happened in the county
of Hertford, I thought good to report here, though it happened in the
fourth year of King Charles the First, that the memory of it may not be
lost by miscarriage of my papers, or otherwise. I wrote the evidence
that was given, which I and others did hear; and I wrote it exactly
according to what was deposed at the trial, at the bar of the King's
Bench, namely,
Johan Norkott, wife of Arthur Norkott, being murdered, the question
was, How she came by her death? The coroner's inquest on view of the
body, and depositions of Mary Norkott, John Okeman, and Agnes his
wife, inclined to find Johan Norkott _felo de se_; for they informed
the coroner and jury that she was found dead in her bed, the knife
sticking in the floor, and her throat cut: That the night before she
went to bed with her child, her husband being absent, and that no other
person after such time as she was gone to bed came into the house,
the examinants lying in the outer room, and they must needs have seen
or known if any stranger had come in. Whereupon the jury gave up to
the coroner their verdict, that she was _felo de se_; but afterwards,
upon rumour among the neighbourhood, and their observation of divers
circumstances, which manifested that she did not, nor, according to
those circumstances, could possibly murder herself, thereupon the jury,
whose verdict was not yet drawn into form by the coroner, desired the
coroner that the body, which was buried, might be taken up out of the
grave, which the coroner assented to; and thirty days after her death,
she was taken up in the presence of the jury and a great number of the
people: whereupon the jury changed their verdict. The persons being
tried at Hertford assizes, were acquitted; but so much against the
evidence, that Judge Hervey let fall his opinion that it were better
an appeal were brought, than so foul a murder escape unpunished. And
Pascha 4 Car., they were tried on the appeal, which was brought by the
young child, against his father, grandmother, and aunt, and her husband
Okeman. And because the evidence was so strange, I took exact and
particular notice, and it was as follows:--
After the manner above mentioned related, an ancient and grave person,
minister to the parish where the fact was committed (being sworn to
give evidence according to custom), deposed, that the body being taken
up out of the grave thirty days after the party's death, and lying on
the grass, and the four defendants present, they were required each of
them to touch the dead body. Okeman's wife fell upon her knees, and
prayed God to show a token of her innocency, or to some such purpose;
her very words I have forgot. The appellees did touch the dead body;
whereupon the brow of the dead, which was before a livid and carrion
colour (that was the verbal expression _interminis_ of the witness),
began to have a dew or gentle sweat arise on it, which increased by
degrees till the sweat ran down in drops on the face; the brow turned
and changed to a lively and fresh colour, and the dead opened one of
her eyes and shut it again; and this opening of the eye was done three
several times. She likewise thrust out the ring or marriage finger
three times, and pulled it in again, and the finger dropped blood from
it on the grass.
Sir Nicholas Hide, Chief Justice, seeming to doubt the evidence, asked
the witness, Who saw this besides you?
Witness--I cannot swear what others saw; but, my Lord, (said he) I do
believe the whole company saw it; and if it had been thought a doubt,
proof would have been made of it, and many would have attested with me.
Then the witness observing some admiration in the auditors, he spoke
further. My Lord, I am minister of the parish, and have long known all
the parties, but never had any occasion of displeasure against any of
them, nor had to do with them, or they with me, but as I was minister.
The thing was wonderful to me; but I have no interest in the matter but
as called upon to testify the truth I have done.
This witness was a very reverend person, and, as I guessed, was
about seventy years of age; his testimony was delivered gravely and
temperately, but to the great admiration of the auditory. Whereupon
applying himself to the Chief Justice, he said:--
My Lord, my brother, here present, is minister of the next parish
adjacent, and I am assured saw all done that I have affirmed.
Therefore that person was also sworn to give evidence, and did depose
in every point--to the sweating of the brow, the change of its colour,
opening of the eye, and the thrice motion of the finger, and drawing
it in again. Only the first witness added, that he himself dipped his
finger in the blood which came from the dead body, to examine it, and
he swore he believed it was blood.
I conferred afterwards with Sir Edmund Powell, barrister-at-law, and
others, who all concurred in the observation. For myself, if I were
upon oath, I can depose that these depositions, especially of the first
witness, are truly reported in substance.
The other evidence was given against the prisoners, namely, the
grandmother of the plaintiff, and against Okeman and his wife; that
they confessed that they lay in the next room to the dead person that
night, and that none came into the house till they found her dead the
next morning; therefore, if she did not murder herself, they must be
the murderers. To that end further proof was made.
First--That she lay in a composed manner in her bed, the bed-clothes
nothing at all disturbed, and her child by her in bed.
Secondly--Her throat cut from ear to ear, and her neck broken; and if
she first cut her throat, she could not break her neck in the bed, nor
_contra_.
Thirdly--There was no blood in the bed, saving there was a tincture of
blood on the bolster whereon her head lay; but no substance of blood at
all.
Fourthly--From the bed's head there was a stream of blood on the floor,
which ran along till it ponded in the bendings of the floor to a very
great quantity; and there was also another stream of blood on the floor
at the bed's feet, which ponded also on the floor to another great
quantity, but no continuance or communication of blood of either of
these two places from one to the other, neither upon the bed; so that
she bled in two places severally. And it was deposed, turning up the
mat of the bed, there were clots of congealed blood in the straw of the
mat underneath.
Fifthly--The bloody knife was found in the morning sticking in the
floor a good distance from the bed; but the point of the knife as it
stuck was towards the bed, and the haft from the bed.
Lastly--There was a print of the thumb and four fingers of the left
hand.
Sir Nicholas Hide, Chief Justice, said to the witness--How can you know
the print of a left hand from the print of a right hand in such a case?
Witness--My Lord, it is hard to describe; but if it please that
honourable judge to put his left hand upon your left hand, you cannot
possibly place your right hand in the same posture. Which being done,
and appearing so, the defendants had time to make their defence, but
gave no evidence to any purpose.
The jury departed from the bar, and, returning, acquitted Okeman, and
found the other three guilty; who being severally demanded what they
could say why judgment should not be pronounced, said, 'Nothing;' but
each of them said, 'I did not do it, I did not do it.'
Judgment was given, and the grandmother and the husband executed; but
the aunt had the privilege to be spared execution, being with child.
I inquired, did they confess any thing at their execution; but they did
not, as I was told."