jury the evidence that had been laid before them on the present
trial, and to accompany it with such remarks as the circumstances of
the extraordinary case suggested to his mind. The offence with which
the prisoner stood charged was that of wilful murder, the indictment
stating, that, with her hands about the neck of the deceased, she
so grasped or squeezed the throat of the said Margaret Duffy, as by
choking, suffocation, or strangulation, to occasion her death. If they
were satisfied that the deceased came to her death in consequence of
suffocation or strangulation, the particular mode in which that crime
happened to be perpetrated was immaterial. It was immaterial, for
example, whether the prisoner did it with her own hands, or was present
when the crime was committed by some other person. He meant by being
present, was in such a situation that she could see the act done, and
was near enough to interfere for its prevention. If they believed that
she committed the crime with her own hands, they would, of course,
find her guilty; or if they thought that she was present, aiding and
abetting at the time it was committed, they were by their oaths bound
to find a verdict of guilty. If, upon a candid and dispassionate
consideration of the evidence, they arrived at the conclusion that the
evidence was not sufficient to sustain either of those charges, the
prisoner was entitled to a verdict of acquittal. Before he proceeded
to recapitulate to them the substance of the evidence which had been
offered for their consideration, he could not refrain from earnestly
requesting them to dismiss from their minds anything they might have
heard or read on the subject. He begged that they would use their best
endeavours to free their minds from all prejudice, and approach the
solemn duty which they had to perform with minds as much as possible
freed from any prepossession whatsoever, and decide solely upon the
evidence that day offered in Court. The evidence given on the trial
was of the description called circumstantial, or indirect testimony;
but it often happened, that some of the very greatest crimes were
detected, exposed, and the offenders convicted upon indirect evidence.
No doubt direct testimony was the most satisfactory, for that gave
the Jury the advantage of hearing the facts sworn to in the plainest
manner by eye-witnesses; and when their veracity could be relied upon,
nothing, of course, could be better than testimony of this nature. It
happened, however, that in some cases circumstantial evidence led the
mind as directly to a conclusion as direct evidence; for facts were
in such cases positively sworn to by such a number of witnesses as
could seldom be obtained to testify directly, and were free from the
suspicion of being actuated by a bad motive to give evidence against
the party accused. The first point to which they would direct their
attention was, did they believe the witnesses examined had spoken the
truth? Secondly, could they reconcile the facts sworn to, with no
other supposition, than that the prisoner at the bar was guilty of
the crime of which she stood accused? If it was impossible for them
to reconcile it with any other supposition in the ordinary course
of human affairs, then were they bound to pronounce a verdict of
guilty. There was another point of view in which they might consider
the evidence--namely, that though the prisoner neither committed the
murder, nor was present at its commission, yet that she might have
spirited away the child with a view to its being deprived of life, and
have delivered her over to others for that purpose. Should they take
such a view as that of the evidence, the prisoner would be undoubtedly
entitled to their acquittal; for then she would be in the eye of the
law an accessory before the fact, and, as such, she could not be found
guilty under the present indictment. He had further to call their
attention to that which was the duty of jurors, in all cases, which
was, to give the prisoner the benefit of any reasonable doubt which,
upon a careful review of the evidence, presented itself to their minds;
she was entitled to the full benefit of that doubt, and, if it existed,
to be discharged from their bar; that there was, as they must fully
remember, no direct evidence against the prisoner, proving that she
actually committed the murder with her own hands--nay, it had been
shown that she was of a humane disposition, and affectionate in her
conduct towards children. Neither did it appear that she was under the
influence of any feelings leading to the commission of a crime of that
nature; but, unfortunately, the experience they had had in that court
enabled them to assign a motive of no very ordinary character--that
of selling the human body to those who wanted it for dissection; or,
as might possibly be the case with the prisoner, of delivering over
the unfortunate child to those who would put an end to her existence
for purposes of that nature. When he should have restated to them the
evidence, they would say whether or not the prisoner had been actuated
by such a motive. His lordship then recapitulated, most minutely,
the whole of the evidence. When he got to the end of the first part,
he observed, that he presumed they would not have much difficulty in
saying whether or not the child died a natural death, or lost her
life through violent means. If they were of opinion that she had been
murdered, then they would consider whether or not the circumstantial
evidence brought home the guilt of the offence to the prisoner then
at the bar. There certainly was no direct positive proof, yet the
prisoner was seen with the child at a time near to that at which she
was murdered. Again, some child was seen with her still nearer to the
important moment; and in the absence of all proof that she had in the
interval taken up another child, the jury would say how far there was
proof upon which to convict her. The learned Judge then proceeded to
enumerate the leading facts of this point of the evidence, and to
detail the conduct of the prisoner upon being taxed with the crime,
observing, that doubtless the natural and proper course for all persons
accused of such a crime was, if innocent, at once to explain the whole
matter, by a full and candid statement of the truth; at the same time,
it was by no means uncommon for ill-educated persons, when wrongfully
charged with an offence, to endeavour to get rid of it by some false
statement. He then proceeded to the evidence of the surgeons, and
having thus gone through the whole case for the prosecution, he
repeated, that if the jury could not reconcile that body of evidence
with any other supposition than that she was not entirely innocent,
they were bound to find the prisoner guilty. It was, he then said, the
opinion of some of the surgeons, that considerable violence had been
used, such a degree of violence as a female would not be likely to
inflict. It was, therefore, probable that some other person was engaged
in the atrocious transaction, and it was for them to say whether they
considered the man and woman, whom the boy Newton swore to have rushed
from the privy, to be the murderers. Finally, he had to tell them, that
if they could reconcile the facts to any possible supposition but that
the prisoner was a principal--that is, was either the actual murderer,
or present, aiding and abetting--then they must acquit her. Again,
even though they might suppose her an accessory before the fact, she
was still entitled to an acquittal, in a word, if they entertained
any reasonable doubt whatever that she was according to the legal
definition a principal, they could not find her guilty.
The Jury retired a few minutes to six o'clock, and did not return
till half-past seven. In the mean time the prisoner was removed from
the bar, maintaining her self-possession to the last. When the jury
returned into Court, at the end of nearly two hours, the accused woman
was again placed at the bar; in the interval she had become much paler
than during the trial, and she was then attended by two men, one at
each side, as well as by the female attendant of the prison.
Mr. Justice JAMES PARK and Mr. Baron BOLAND, who with the other Judge
had retired, then appeared on the bench, and a verdict of _not guilty_
was returned.
The prisoner was removed in custody.
On considering the actions which were committed by such men as Bishop
and his colleagues, we cannot regard them in any other light than as
human monsters, divested of every gentle feeling, and so immersed in
brutality, as to hold no fellowship with their kindred. Revolting,
however, as the spectacle must be which has been exhibited in this
country by the atrocious acts of the London Burkers, doubly must
our feelings be harrowed when the same spectacle is held before us,
in which females are the principal actors, and who appear in many
instances to have exceeded the other sex in the atrocity and cruelty of
their acts. In the case of Calkin, although a jury has acquitted her of
the crime with which she was charged, yet of the question of her actual
guilt very little doubt remains in the mind of the public in general;
and the universal regret is, that a delinquent of her stamp should have
escaped the fate, so justly her due, through any of the technicalities
or constructions of the law. It may be that the perpetration of the
crime could not be brought so home to her as to warrant the jury in
bringing in their verdict of guilty; and therefore Mercy and Humanity
stepped in to give her the full benefit of the doubts. But to the cool
and impartial observer, the evidence against her must have appeared
as conclusive and confirmatory of her guilt, as the intricate and, in
many instances, inconsistent evidence which was adduced against Bishop
and Williams. Her life has, however, been spared for the present; but
from the criminal practices to which she has been long addicted, and
her well-known connexion with the resurrectionists, it may be safely
prognosticated, that the laws of the country will, ere long, claim her
as one of their victims.
In point of atrocity, however, there is scarcely any act connected with
the horrid practices of the resurrectionists which exceeds, in its
cold-blooded ferocity, the murder committed by Mrs. Ross, alias Cook,
alias Reardon, on the body of Mrs. Walsh, a woman of nearly eighty-five
years of age. For some time she had been missing from her accustomed
haunts; and some suspicion having been excited that she had come to an
untimely end, a warrant for the apprehension of Mrs. Cook was issued;
and on the 29th of October, she, with her husband, and their son (a lad
about twelve years of age) were brought before Mr. Norton, by Lea, the
officer of Lambeth-street Office, charged on suspicion of the Wilful
Murder of Caroline Walsh.
The prisoners, who had been kept apart during the day, were then
examined separately, and their accounts were of so conflicting a
nature, as to add considerably to the suspicion of their having
improperly disposed of the old woman. The boy said, that on the
Friday night on which the missing female slept at his father's and
mother's room, in Goodman's-yard, Goodman's-fields, they had had bread
and cheese for supper; and they all, including the old woman, after
partaking of it, went to bed at eight o'clock. The mother said, that
their supper consisted of tea, bread and butter, and cold meat, and
they went to bed at nine o'clock; while the father said they did not
go to bed until eleven o'clock, and had had some hot meat for supper.
There was also a great discrepancy in their account of the departure of
the old woman from the house on the Saturday morning.
The female prisoner said, that she got up about half-past six o'clock,
and prepared breakfast, and gave Walsh some tea and bread and butter.
While they were taking breakfast, her husband, who had been out since
five o'clock, came in, and had his breakfast. She then left her husband
and Walsh together, smoking their pipes, and went out; and on her
return, in about half an hour afterwards, the latter was gone. The
husband, on the contrary, said, that he came home to breakfast on the
morning in question about eight o'clock, and found no person in the
house but the old woman; and he was not certain whether he had left
her there when he came away, or she had left before him; but he was
satisfied that he had not seen his wife from the time he came home to
his breakfast until he went away again.
A lad, who lodged in the same house with the prisoner, said, that
on the morning of Saturday, the 20th of August, at five o'clock, he
saw Mrs. Cook come up the stairs leading to a cellar, and closing a
trap-door. This she positively denied, and said that she was not up
before half-past six o'clock.
It was also stated that coffins had been frequently seen in Cook's
room; and one witness swore positively, that in the month of July last,
at two o'clock in the morning, he saw the three prisoners come down the
Minories, the boy with a sack on his shoulders, with what appeared to
him to be the body of a child of eight or ten years of age in it, and
the mother assisting him to carry it, by holding it by the bottom; and
they all turned into the court where they lived.
After an examination, which lasted for upwards of four hours, Mr.
Norton remanded the prisoners until the following Wednesday, and at the
same time gave strict injunctions that they should be kept apart in
prison, and not allowed to have any communication with each other.
Accordingly, on Wednesday, the 2nd of November, they were brought up
for further examination. The boy, since the previous examination,
had made such disclosures to his fellow-prisoners at the House of
Correction, as left no doubt of the guilt of his parents of the
horrible offence alleged against them; but his statement, which was
committed to writing, and which was handed to the magistrates, was
unconnected and unsatisfactory. While in one of the strong rooms
belonging to the office, Lea, the officer who had apprehended the
prisoners, sent for the master and mistress of Aldgate Parochial
School, at which the boy was in the habit of attending for two or three
years past, and left them with him for some time, when he disclosed to
them the outline of the appalling statement of the occurrence which he
subsequently made on oath before the magistrates in the presence of his
parents.
At three o'clock, Cook, and the female Ross, who had always passed as
his wife, were placed at the bar, before the Hon. G. C. Norton, and J.
Hardwicke, Esq.; and their astonishment on perceiving that their own
child was about to be admitted as a witness against them, was quite
apparent.
The magistrates asked the boy if he was quite willing to make a full
disclosure of what he knew as to the disappearance of the old lady,
Elizabeth Walsh, and he having answered in the affirmative, he was
sworn, and made the following statement, which was taken down by Mr.
Osman, the chief clerk:--'He recollected the old woman, Elizabeth
Walsh, coming to his father and mother, at No. 7, Goodman's-yard,
Minories. About ten o'clock on Friday morning (Friday the 19th of
August last), and bringing some bread in a basket, a part of which she
gave to him for his breakfast. She went away shortly afterwards and
returned about tea-time in the evening, when she as well as himself and
his mother had some coffee. His father was not present at the time,
though he was when she came in the morning. They had coffee about
half-past nine o'clock on the same night for supper. He, witness, took
part of it, and it made him sleepy, but not sick. The old woman also
took some of it, and it seemed to make her drowsy, as she shortly
afterwards stretched herself on his father and mother's bed, and placed
her hand under her head. She did not at the time complain of illness,
on the contrary, she appeared in good health. Some time after he saw
his mother go towards the bed, and place her right hand over the
mouth of the old woman, and her left on her body. (The boy here burst
into tears, and said he was sorry to be obliged to state such things
against his own mother.) When his mother placed her hand on the old
lady's mouth, her arm fell down, and she laid flat on her back on the
bed. And his mother continued to keep one hand on her mouth, and the
other on her person for at least half an hour. The old woman did not
struggle much, but her eyes stared, and rolled very much. He (witness)
stood by the fire at this time, and his father, who was in the room
at the time, stood looking out at the window. His father stood so all
the time, and he was sure he never once turned round to see what was
going forward, and that he had nothing to do with it. In about an hour
afterwards, his mother raised the body of the old woman from the bed,
and carried it down stairs, but to where he did not know. The body was
not undressed at the time. He and his father went to bed some time
afterwards, and he could not say what time his mother returned, as he
had not seen her again on that night after she left the room with the
body in her arms, nor did he see where she had taken it to. On the
following morning he got up about seven o'clock. His father and mother
were then up, and in the room. He had occasion, previous to his going
to school at eight o'clock, to go into the cellar to the privy, and
while searching through the cellar he saw the body of the old woman in
a sack which was placed underneath the stair, a portion of the head was
out of the sack, and the body appeared to be partly bent, and reclining
against the stairs. There was sufficient light in the cellar for him
to discern the colour of the hair, on the head. It was partly gray
and black; but he could not say whether or not the body was dressed
or otherwise. The sack which it was in was one belonging to a person
named Jones, with whom his father worked. He had frequently seen it
in their room, and he thought it was there on the night before. He
went to school shortly afterwards, and never mentioned a word then or
since about what had occurred, or his seeing the body in the cellar.
On returning home at twelve o'clock in the day, he found his father
beating his mother. He thought the cause to be that the latter had been
out drinking with a young woman, the granddaughter of the old lady who
had called to inquire after her. His mother, he believed, while his
father was beating her, called him a villainous murderer, but he had
no recollection of her threatening to give any information of him. He
(witness), after getting his dinner, went out to play, and did not come
home until late. Himself, his father, and mother, supped together on
the Saturday night, and at about ten o'clock his mother left the room,
and in about half an hour afterwards he was standing at the window,
and saw her go past with the body in the sack on her shoulder. It was
in the same state in which he saw it on that morning, except that the
mouth of the sack was tied; the body appeared to be partly bent. (The
female prisoner, in an audible voice, here exclaimed--'Good God! how
could I have borne a son to hang me?') The lad again burst into tears,
and said he could not help it; that he was telling the truth. He then
proceeded with his statement. He did not know at what time his mother
had returned on Saturday night, as he and his father, who remained
in the room, went to bed, and he was asleep when she came in. On the
Sunday morning his mother told him that she had taken the body to the
London Hospital. The boy here, as in many parts of his statement, said
his father had nothing whatever to do in the business. The magistrates
examined him very minutely as to what had taken place on the Friday
night, and what conversation, if any, had taken place between his
father, mother, or himself, previous to and after the horrid deed had
been perpetrated. He said that no words or quarrel had taken place;
the old woman and his father and mother were on good terms, and nothing
particular had occurred during the evening, until his mother placed her
hand, as he had before described, on the mouth of the old lady; nor did
she say a word to him or his father, while she so held her hand on her
mouth. He recollected she had been saying something to herself about
taking the body to an hospital. He did not see his father lay a single
hand on the old woman.
The magistrates expressed some surprise that the prisoner should for
a whole day leave the body in the cellar of the house, which was
accessible to all the inmates; but this was satisfactorily explained by
the landlady, who said, that in consequence of it being so dark, and
so infested with rats, the lodgers very seldom indeed entered it. This
witness also deposed to having seen the old woman Walsh enter the house
on the Friday, and go up to the apartment occupied by the prisoners.
This was the last time she was seen alive.
Other witnesses deposed to the old woman taking her bed and bedding to
the prisoners' room, and to the prisoners having solicited her to go
and lodge with them for a length of time before she went.
It being now very late, and there being several witnesses to be
examined, some of whom were not present, the magistrates remanded
the prisoners to the following day. Previous to their being taken
from the bar, they were asked if they had anything to state. The male
prisoner declined saying anything at present; but the female with the
most solemn imprecations declared her innocence, and said that the
whole of the statement of her son was from beginning of to end a lie.
She added that on the morning of Saturday, she had left the old lady
and her husband (the other prisoner) after breakfast smoking their
pipes at the fire when she went out, and from that time to the present
she had not heard of her. They were then taken from the bar, and the
magistrates gave directions that they should be kept separate as before.
On the following evening, Edward Cook, and the female Eliza Cook, alias
Ross, were again brought up to Lambeth-street police-office, and placed
within the bar, before the Hon. G. C. Norton, and J. Hardwick, Esq.,
for final examination. When brought into the office, the female, who
appeared as ferocious as a tigress, on perceiving her son, exclaimed,
'Oh Ned, I hope you are not going to hang your mother,' and seemed at
the moment almost ready to dart at the boy, and tear him to pieces. He,
however, was removed to a distance from her by the officers.
Previous to the examination being entered on, Mr. Norton said he
understood that there were two gentlemen belonging to the London
Hospital present, who wished to say something; and if so, the
magistrates were ready to hear them.
Dr. LUKE, who as well as Dr. Hamilton, was in attendance, said, that
in the report of the proceedings at this office on the day before, in
the morning journals, it was stated that the body of the missing woman
had been taken to the London Hospital. He (Dr. Luke) wished to deny
the truth of such statement, and to say that no such body had been
received at that institution. At the time at which it was stated that
it had been brought there, on the 20th of August, the lecturing and
dissecting rooms were under repair, and none but the tradesmen employed
in doing such repairs entered them. He had besides made inquiries, and
found that during the whole month of August not a single body had been
received at the London Hospital.
Mr. NORTON observed, that so far as the Hospital was concerned, the
statement of Dr. Luke was perfectly satisfactory; at the same time
the representations in the newspapers as to the statement of the boy
respecting his mother saying that she had taken the body to the London
Hospital, were perfectly correct.
LYDIA BASEY, the wife of Thomas Basey, a boot-closer, residing in
Long-lane, Smithfield, stated that she was granddaughter to the missing
woman, whose name was Caroline, and not Elizabeth Walsh. On Friday,
the 19th of August last, she went with her to the residence of the
prisoners, in Goodman's-yard, Minories. She did not go into the room
of the prisoners at the time; but she heard the voice of the female
prisoner as the old lady went up stairs. It was between five and six
o'clock in the afternoon. She understood her grandmother was going to
stop there. She had nothing with her at the time but a small basket;
and she had never seen her since.