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.
CORONER.--How long have you known Bishop?
PRISONER.--About eight or nine months, I should think. I don't know,
in particular, how he got his livelihood. I don't know as he dealt in
dead bodies before now; I was never employed 'in this way' by Bishop
before. I was to be paid half-a-crown for this job. I can swear that
May and Williams never employed me to carry dead bodies. I can't say
that I never worked for a resurrectionist before. I had no reason to
suspect, prior to this event, that Bishop, May, and Williams were
resurrectionists. I do not know where they lived. It was on London
Bridge that I met Williams, who had an empty hamper, which I took from
him, and carried it to Guy's Hospital, and some person there took it
from me and brought it in, and I then went to the public-house. I have
carried hampers and boxes before to hospitals and dissecting-rooms.
Mr. CORDER.--Were you at the Fortune of War public-house on Friday last?
PRISONER.--I might have been.
Mr. CORDER.--Did you not see Bishop and May there?
PRISONER.--They might be there. (The prisoner, on being further
pressed, admitted that they were there; and said, that Bishop told him
he should want him the next morning to do a job for him.) I very often
go to the Fortune of War. I remained there for about half an hour, and
I met Bishop and May there by accident. They went away before I left.
When I said that I met Bishop and May in Covent Garden at ten o'clock
on Friday morning, I did not speak the truth. I now state that I met
him at the Fortune of War, on the Friday morning, at eight o'clock.
Mr. CORDER.--I suppose that you know that the Fortune of War is a sort
of house of call for resurrectionists?
PRISONER.--It may be. I have seen several respectable persons there.
Mr. CRIBB.--Now, Shields, answer this question truly. Do you know
anything relating to the death of the deceased?
PRISONER.--Bishop said, while coming to Bow-street, in the van, that
the body was got from the ground, and that he knew where it was got
from. He smiled as he said so, adding, that if he was brought before
the Jury he would give them ease about it.
The examination of Shields having been concluded, the prisoner Bishop
was brought before the Jury; and the Coroner cautioned him as to the
awkward situation in which he stood, there being no doubt but that the
boy had been unfairly dealt by.