door to the prisoner Bishop, on the 17th of October last; lived there
till the prisoners were apprehended, but not since; had reason to
believe that the prisoner Williams lived along with the prisoner
Bishop; does not recollect ever to have seen the prisoner Bishop till
he saw him at Bow-street; but saw Williams on two Sundays. On one
of these occasions witness was digging in the bottom of the garden
attached to his residence No. 2, when he was accosted by the prisoner
Williams, and recommended not to dig in that part of the garden, but
in another which he pointed out. On the night of Guy Fawkes' day, went
to bed about half-past nine. Had been asleep about four hours when he
awoke, and heard a noise in the adjoining (Bishop's) cottage. He then
roused himself completely from sleep, and distinctly heard the sound
of three footsteps. He did not rise, because the noise was not in his
own house. He heard a scuffle which lasted for a couple of minutes,
when all became silent. After the silence, and before he went again to
sleep, he heard the side-entrance door to No. 3 open, and distinctly
heard the footsteps of two persons run by his (witness's) window. He
also heard the footsteps of one person in No. 3, before the other two
returned. There elapsed but about one minute between their going out
and return. He then recognized the voice of the prisoner Williams. The
partition wall between the cottages was about four inches thick.
On cross-examination, the witness said that he had no particular reason
for saying or believing that Williams lived with Bishop, other than he
heard it reported, and because he knew him to be his son-in-law. When
he heard the scuffle, he did not rise, supposing it to be some family
quarrel, with which he had no concern.
ANNA WOODCOCK, wife of the last witness, gave evidence to the effect
that the prisoner Williams was an inmate of Bishop's cottage.
JOSEPH HIGGINS (of the New Police) was sent by his officer to the
cottage, No. 3, Nova Scotia Gardens, tenanted by the prisoner Bishop;
and on searching it, found a chisel and some tools. He then went to the
prisoner May's lodgings, near the New Kent-road, and found these awls
and screws (here shown to the jury). On one of the awls he discovered
drops of blood apparently fresh. He also found a pair of breeches, with
marks of apparently fresh blood upon them.
Mr. MILLS, the dentist, was here recalled for the purpose of examining
the awls and tools found at the prisoner May's residence. They were
such as would serve to extract teeth in the coarse manner in which
those sold to him had been evidently extracted.
JOSEPH HIGGINS'S examination resumed.--On the 19th of November, he
again went to Bishop's residence, accompanied by another policeman.
They minutely searched the premises, and with an iron rod probed the
garden in several places. The rod met with resistance in one part
of the garden, and on digging they discovered a jacket, a pair of
trowsers, and a small shirt. In another part they dug up a blue coat,
a drab striped waistcoat, altered from man's size so as to fit a boy,
and a pair of trowsers with the braces attached to them. The waistcoat
had stains of blood on the collar and shoulders. They were buried about
twelve inches under the surface, and were covered with cinders and
ashes.
The clothes thus dug up were shown to the jury. The trowsers and coat
sworn to by preceding witnesses as like to those worn by the Italian
boy were part of them.
The evidence of this witness was corroborated by that of James Wadey,
the police-officer who accompanied him in his search.
EDWARD WARD, a child aged six years and a half, was next called. He was
previously to being sworn examined as to the nature of an oath. The
child, with infantine simplicity, said that he knew it to be a very bad
thing to tell a lie; that it was a great sin; and that he who would
swear falsely would go to h--l, to be burnt with brimstone and sulphur.
He was then sworn.--He stated that he lived with his father near to
the Nova Scotia cottages. That a few days before Guy Fawkes's day, his
mother having given him a half holiday, he went to Bishop's cottage to
play with Bishop's children, three in number, a boy older than himself,
a little girl, and a boy about his own age. As a toy, Bishop's children
produced a cage, which went round, and which contained two white mice.
He never before saw either a cage or mice with Bishop's children. On
his return home, he told his brother, who is much older than himself,
all the circumstances.
JOHN WARD, brother of the last witness, deposed to the fact of his
young brother having told him that he had been playing at Bishop's
cottage with Bishop's children, and that their toy was a cage
containing two white mice, which went round and round.
Mr. JAMES CORDER (the vestry-clerk of Covent-garden) was apprised of
the discovery of the body of an Italian boy at King's College, at five
o'clock of the evening of Saturday on which it was brought there. At
the instance of the parish, a coroner's inquest was held on the body,
and proceedings instituted. At the inquest the prisoner Bishop was
examined, and was told that he was not called on to criminate himself,
to be cautious in his answers, for that what fell from him would be
taken down word for word, and might be used so as to affect his life.
Witness here read the declarations of the prisoners Bishop, Williams,
and May, as given at the coroner's inquest, to the following effect:--
'I dug of the body out of the grave. The reason why I decline to say
the grave I took it out of is, that there were two watchmen in the
ground, and they intrusted me, and being men of family, I don't wish to
"deceive" them. I don't think I can say anything more. I took it for
sale to Guy's Hospital, and as they did not want it, I left it there
all night and part of the next day, and then I removed it to the King's
College. That is all I can say about it. I mean to say that this is the
truth. I shall certainly keep it a secret where I got the body. I know
nothing as to how it died.'
'May said he wished to say what he knew, and would speak the truth. He
then said his name was James May, and that he lived in Dorset-street,
Newington. He went into the country on Sunday week, and returned on
the evening of Wednesday, and went to Mr. Grainger's, in Webb-street,
with a couple of subjects. On the following morning (Thursday) he
removed them to Mr. Davis's, at Guy's, and after receiving the money he
went away to the Fortune of War, in Smithfield, and stayed there about
two or three hours. Between four and five o'clock, to the best of his
recollection, he went to Nag's-head-court, Golden-lane, and there he
stopped with a female until between eleven and twelve o'clock the next
day (Friday). From Golden-lane he went to the Fortune of War again,
and stopped drinking there until six o'clock or half-past. Williams
and Bishop both came in there, and asked him if he would "stand any
thing" to drink, which he did. Bishop then called him out, and asked
him where he could get the best price for "things." He told him where
he had sold two, meaning Guy's, and he (Bishop) then told him that he
had got a good subject, and had been offered eight guineas for it. He
(May) replied, that he could get more for it, and then Bishop said that
all he could get over nine guineas he might have for himself. He agreed
to it, and they went from thence to the Old Bailey, and had some tea
at the watering-house there, leaving Williams at the Fortune of War.
After tea they called a chariot off the stand, and drove to Bishop's
house. When there, Bishop showed him the lad in a box or trunk. He
(May) then put it into a sack, and brought it to the chariot, and
conveyed it to Mr. Davis's, at Guy's. Mr. Davis said, "You know, John,
I cannot take it: because I took two of you yesterday, and I have not
got names enough down for one, or I would take it." He (May) then asked
him if he could leave the body there that night, and he said he might.
Bishop then desired Mr. Davis not to let any person have it, as it was
his subject, but to deliver it to his own self. He (May) also told Mr.
Davis not to let the body go without him, or he should be money out
of pocket. May then went on to say, that he went to his own house and
slept there that night, and the next morning he went to Guy's, and
Bishop and Shields came in with a hamper, which was taken to King's
College, where he was taken into custody.'
'JOHN WILLIAMS stated, that in the first place he met Bishop on last
Saturday morning (Nov. 5), in Long-lane, Smithfield, and asked him
where he was going. He said he was going to the King's College. They
then went into the Fortune of War public-house, and after that Bishop
went to Guy's Hospital, and then to the King's College. May and the
porter met them against the gate. Bishop went in, and he (Williams)
asked him to let him go in with him. That was all he had got to say,
except that a porter took a basket from the Fortune of War to Guy's
Hospital, and he (Williams) helped him part of the way with it.'
WILLIAM D. BURNABY, magistrate's clerk at Bow-street, was present at
the examination of the prisoners at Bow-street, and remembers that when
the prisoner May was examined as to the use of the awl found at his
residence, he stated that 'that was the instrument he usually employed
to punch out the teeth from dead bodies.'
JOHN KIRKMAN (of the new police) was on duty at the station-house,
Covent-garden, when the inquest was held there on the body of the
Italian boy. Behind where the prisoners sat was a printed bill relating
to the transaction. On seeing it the prisoner Bishop said in a low tone
of voice to the prisoner May, 'It was the blood that sold us;' and
looking at the bill again, said aloud, 'The marks of violence were only
breakings out on the skin.'
Mr. THOMAS, the superintendent of police, deposed that on examining the
body of the boy it appeared to him that there were marks on the left
arm as if from the violent compression of fingers, and there was dirt
on the chest. He also saw on the neck, from the forehead to the breast,
the traces of blood but clumsily wiped away.
Mr. ADOLPHUS stated that this was the case for the prosecution.
The prisoners were then called upon for their defence.
Mr. CURWOOD, on the part of the prisoner Williams, said he felt it
to be his duty to object to that person's being further proceeded
with under the present indictment. That indictment distinctly charged
Williams with being a principal in the murder, and he appealed to the
Court whether the evidence at all went to bear out the indictment, so
far as it applied to that prisoner. It might be that the evidence would
go to show that he was an accessory after the crime, but that was quite
another question from the present indictment, which distinctly charged
him with being a principal.
Lord Chief Justice TINDAL could not admit the force of the learned
counsel's objection. It would be for the jury to determine not only the
fact of guilt or innocence, but the degrees of both.
Mr. CURWOOD bowed to the decision of the Court, and only performed what
he conceived to be his duty in urging the objection.
JOHN DAVIS was then recalled for the purpose of showing that he had
very recently purchased two subjects from the prisoner May. He brought
them the day before the date of the murder.
The Court then informed the prisoners, that if they wished to address
any observations to the jury on the evidence just given against them,
that that was the time.
Three written defences were then read by the officer of the Court.
The prisoner BISHOP, in his defence, stated that he was 33 years of
age, and had followed the occupation of carrier till the last five
years, during which he had occasionally obtained a livelihood by
supplying surgeons with subjects. He most solemnly declared that he
had never disposed of any body that had not died a natural death. He
had been in the habit of obtaining bodies from workhouses, with their
clothes on, so that he could have no difficulty in procuring them after
a natural death. The statement then went on to describe the localities
of the prisoner's residence, in order to show that they admitted of
great facilities of ingress and egress, to all persons resident in the
neighbourhood. His garden and premises were open to them, and theirs to
him. With respect to the clothes found in his garden, he knew nothing.
As to the cap, he should be able to prove that it was bought by his
wife from a woman named Dodswell, who resided in Old Hoxton Town. The
green cape he sewed on himself. The prisoner called upon the jury to
divest their minds of all undue prejudices, and judge his case by the
evidence alone. By so doing, they would be discharging their duty, and
would acquit him of the crime then charged against him. In conclusion,
the prisoner declared that neither Williams nor May knew how he
procured the body.
WILLIAMS'S defence briefly stated, that he had never been engaged in
the calling of resurrectionist; and had only by accident accompanied
Bishop on the occasion of the sale of the Italian boy's body.
MAY, in his defence, admitted that, for the last six years, he
had followed the occupation of supplying the medical schools with
anatomical subjects; but disclaimed ever having had anything to do with
the sale of bodies which had not died a natural death. The remainder of
his defence was a recapitulation of his declaration at the coroner's
inquest, to the effect that he had accidentally met with Bishop at the
Fortune of War public-house, on the Friday on which the body was taken
for sale to Guy's Hospital.
ROSINA CARPENTER, on behalf of the prisoner May, deposed, that she
lived at Macbeth-court, Golden-lane; that she was acquainted with May
for the last fourteen or fifteen years. That May came to her between
four and five o'clock on Thursday, the 3d of November, and stayed with
her till twelve o'clock next day.
On cross-examination, the witness stated, that she had slept several
nights with the prisoner May before the 3d of November, and that nobody
saw them together on that occasion.
SARAH TRUBY was recalled, in order to show that she had never, at any
time, seen white mice in Bishop's possession.
The prisoner BISHOP.--What! did you never see any?
WITNESS.--No; never.
BISHOP.--Not about six months ago? Don't you recollect your cat having
killed some in my garden.
WITNESS.--Never.
Mrs. MARY DODSWELL lived at 26, Hoxton Old Town: kept a second-hand
clothes and sale shop. Knew the prisoner Bishop's wife. Sold a cap to
her about two years ago. The cap was a cloth one, with a black leather
cape.
[The cap found at Bishop's, and alleged to have been that worn by the
Italian boy, was a brown hair one, with green leather front.]
The prisoner BISHOP.--Mrs. Dodswell, don't you recollect your having
sold my wife two caps at the same time?
WITNESS.--No, I sold but one.
On behalf of the prisoner May, MARY ANN HALL and JANE LEWIS, who both
admitted themselves to be in the habit of 'seeing gentlemen,' were
called and examined, in order to show that they lived in the same
street with May, and that the appearance of blood on his clothes was
wholly owing to an accident which happened to a jackdaw, and which was
followed by the loss of blood.
Mr. THOMAS (the Police Superintendent) here deposed, that he was
inclined to believe, from the glutinous and fresh appearance of the
blood on the prisoner May's clothes, that it was shed since his being
taken into custody.
The CHIEF JUSTICE then proceeded to recapitulate the evidence to the
jury, first warning them of the justice of founding their decision
on the evidence then adduced, without being at all influenced by
statements made elsewhere. The indictment contained two counts--one
charging the prisoners at the bar with the murder of Carlo Ferrari, an
Italian boy; the other with the murder of a boy, name unknown. The jury
would learn from this circumstance, that it was by no means necessary
that the name of the murdered party should be known, and that all that
they need have to decide was, the fact itself. They accordingly would
first direct their attention to the determining the fact, whether the
body which the prisoners had proffered for sale had come by a natural
death or not; and next, whether, if they were of opinion that it had
not, the prisoners were the murderers, and to what degree they were
implicated. With respect to the first point, he thought they would
experience but little trouble after the explicit evidence of the
medical gentlemen who had been that day examined, and whose conduct,
it was but justice to say, was an honourable rebuke to any calumnious
imputations on the medical profession to which the present case may
have given birth. The learned Judge then went through the evidence
with the most pains-taking minuteness, commenting on those points
which, in his mind, would enable the jury to determine the guilt of the
prisoners, and their probable share in the crime. The jury had heard
evidence which traced the Italian boy close to the premises of Bishop,
at twelve o'clock of the 3d of November, on the night of which it was
probable the murder was committed. They had evidence also to show,
that on that night a scuffle took place in Bishop's cottage, in which
Williams's voice was discernible. The evidence, however, to show that
May was present, or participated in the actual offence, was by no means
decisive; so that the jury would have to determine how far he was, or
was not, a principal or accessory. It might be that they would arrive
at the conclusion that Bishop alone, or Bishop and Williams, were the
criminals, and in such case they would find a verdict of acquittal for
May; or it might be, that they would find that all three were equally
guilty, or that they were guilty, but not in an equal degree. Their
verdict would be according to their decision on this point, rendering
it incumbent on them to cautiously weigh those parts of the evidence
which bore particularly on Bishop and Williams, and on the other
prisoner. He left it to their unbiassed judgment to find according to
the evidence which had been submitted to them.
At eight o'clock the jury retired to consider their verdict, and
the prisoners were removed from the bar, and taken out of court.
The interval between that and the return of the jury was a period
of intense anxiety to every one in court; and, as is usual on such
occasions, there were various conjectures hazarded as to what would
be the verdict as to all the prisoners. That a verdict of 'guilty'
would be returned against two of the prisoners--namely, Bishop and
Williams,--none who heard the evidence and the summing up of the
learned Judge, could entertain any rational doubt; but the same
confident opinion by no means existed with respect to the fate of the
prisoner May. The general opinion, as far as we could judge from what
was passing around us, was, that the circumstantial proof not being, in
his case, so strong as it was in that of his fellow-prisoners, the jury
would acquit him: but still there were many who thought the proof of a
participation in the murder clear and perfect as to all the parties.
These conjectures and speculations were put an end to by the return of
the jury at half-past eight o'clock.
The most death-like silence now prevailed through the court,
interrupted only by a slight buzz on the re-introduction of the
prisoners.
Every eye was now fixed upon them; but though their appearance and
manner had undergone a considerable change from what they exhibited
at being first placed at the bar, and during the greater part of the
trial, they did not seem conscious of the additional interest which
their presence at this moment excited. They scarcely raised their eyes
as they entered, beyond a glance or two at the jury box.
Bishop advanced to the bar with a heavy step, and with rather a slight
bend of the body; his arms hung closely down, and it seemed a kind of
relief to him when he took his place to rest his hand on the board
before him. His appearance, when he got in front, was that of a man
who had been for some time labouring under the most intense mental
agony, which had brought on a kind of lethargic stupor. His eye was
sunk, and glassy; his nose drawn and pinched; the jaw fallen, and, of
course, the mouth open: but occasionally the mouth closed, the lips
became compressed, and the shoulders and chest raised, as if he was
struggling to repress some violent emotion. After a few efforts of this
kind, he became apparently calm, and frequently glanced his eye towards
the bench and the jury-box; but this was done without once raising
his head. His face had that pallid blueish appearance which so often
accompanies and betokens great mental suffering.
Williams came forward with a short quick step; and his whole manner
was, we should say, the reverse of that of his companion in guilt. His
face had undergone very little change; but in his eye and his manner
there was a feverish anxiety, which we did not observe during the
trial. When he came in front, and laid his hand on the bar, the rapid
movement of his fingers on the board, the frequent shifting of the
hand, sometimes letting it hang down for an instant by his side, then
replacing it on the board, and then resting his side against the front
of the dock, showed the perturbed state of his feelings. Once or twice
he gave a glance round the bench and the bar, but after that he seldom
took his eye from the jury-box.
May came forward with a more firm step than either of his
fellow-prisoners; but his look was that of a man who thought that all
chance of life was lost. He seemed desponding; but there appeared
that in his despondency which gave an air of--we could not call it
daring, or even confidence,--we should rather say, a physical power
of endurance, which imparted to his whole manner a more firm bearing
than that of the other prisoners. He was very pale, but his eye had
not relaxed from that firmness which was observable in his glance
throughout the whole of the trial.
Ordinary physiognomists who, without having seen the prisoners, had
read the accounts of their examinations at the police-office,--of their
habits and mode of living, and the horrible atrocities with which,
there is now no doubt, they were familiar,--would have been greatly
disappointed in the appearance of all of them as they stood at the
bar. There was nothing in the aspect or manner of any of them which
betokened a predisposition to anything like the outrage on humanity
of which they stood convicted. Thurtell looked, as well as acted, the
'bold-faced villain.' Ings, and one or two others of the companions of
Thistlewood, wore in their countenances, almost as strongly as they
showed in their deeds, the bold daring of the reckless desperado; but
nothing of this kind could be traced in the face of any of the three
who were then at the bar. There was something of heaviness in the
aspect of Bishop, but altogether his countenance was mild. Williams had
that kind of aspect with which men associate the idea of sharpness and
cunning, and something of mischief, but nothing of the villain. May,
who was the best-looking of the three, had a countenance which most
persons would consider open and manly. There was an air of firmness
and determination about him; but neither in him nor his companions was
there the slightest physiognomical trait of a murderer, according to
the common notions on the subject. They were all those kind of vulgar
men in appearance of which one sees hundreds every day, without being
struck with any indication in them of good or evil disposition.
When the three prisoners were placed at the bar, the names of the jury
were called over; and on being asked whether they had agreed to their
verdict, they answered that they had.
The question was then put to them, as to each of the prisoners, and
they returned as their verdict, that John Bishop, Thomas Williams,
_alias_ Head, and James May, were severally _Guilty_ of murder.
The verdict was received in court with becoming silence; but in a
moment it was conveyed to the immense multitude assembled outside, who
evinced their satisfaction at the result by loud and continued cheering
and clapping of hands. To such an extent was this expression of the
popular feeling carried, that the windows of the court were obliged to
be closed, in order that the voice of the Recorder might be heard in
passing sentence.
The prisoners were then severally called upon to say why sentence of
death and execution should not be pronounced upon them; but none of
them availed themselves of this opportunity of saying anything.