A HEARTBREAKING TALE (part two)

Wm. Chas. Sullivan, medical officer at Holloway Prison, said Mrs. Rowell was brought to the prison from Cambridge. He had frequent interviews with her and kept her under observation. She was very depressed at first, and it was impossible to get her to attend or to answer questions. She was afraid of the other prisoners in the ward, and said she did not like to eat her food because she had not earned it, and did not deserve it. She had a good memory, and was able to give an account of the crime with which she was now charged. She said that whenever she was pregnant she was unable to do her work, and the children got out of control. She stated that the child Emma worried her, and she took her upstairs to punish her. She locked the child in a room, and as she continued to cry she placed her on the floor and put her foot on her. When she removed her foot the child did not come round, and she tried to revive her and failed to do so, so she left her and went downstairs. She did not in the least recognise the seriousness of her own position, and when it was pointed out to her she said she did not mind.
When the last child was taken away from her while she was in prison she did not to mind, and did not even ask about it. She got brighter as soon as the child was weaned, and this improvement had continued. In reply to Mr. Brodie. the witness stated that it was by no means uncommon for a woman’s mind to be affected as the time of child-birth drew near. In his opinion the prisoner was insane three weeks after the birth of the last child.
Mr. Brodie, addressing the jury, urged that there could not be the slightest doubt, after the evidence given, that prisoner was insane at the time she committed this act. The evidence of Dr. Sullivan, who had doubtless had a great deal of experience in such cases, must be regarded as conclusive. In summing up, Mr Avory reminded the jury that in law everyone was presumed to be sane until they were proved to be otherwise. There was a legal definition of insanity which alone could excuse crime, and the jury must be satisfied that at the time the woman committed this act she either did not know the nature and quality of the act - in other words she did not know that she was killing the child or was doing something likely to kill it. The jury must be of the opinion that she did not know when she committed the act that she was doing wrong. The jury returned a verdict to the effect that the prisoner was guilty, but at the time she committed the act she was not responsible for her actions. Mr Avory ordered that she be detained as a criminal lunatic during His Majesty’s Pleasure.

Note well that Rebecca Rowell gave birth to her latest child while she was under arrest in Wisbech Police Station. It is hardly surprising that the baby was taken away from her. By the press reports, it seems that Rebecca Rowell was in an almost constant state of pregnancy. The un-named infant was her tenth. 

Skipping on a couple of years, we look at the 1911 census. Husband Harry Rowell is bringing up four children - Harry junior, George, Elizabeth and Robert. Poor, dead Emma makes five. The un-named child born in Wisbech Police Station makes six. We can only assume that four other children have either died or been taken into care.

On August 3rd, 1914, Foreign Secretary Sir Edward Grey uttered the words which have become the stuff of legend. He said,

"The lamps are going out all over Europe.

We shall not see them lit again in our lifetime"

Sir Edward Grey

Across the country, in hamlet, village, town and city, young men from humble backgrounds queued for hours around the block, some lying about their age, all desperate to be part of the greatest adventure for a generation. Men who were better connected called in favours via their parents, and went off to train as officers. Meanwhile, the tiny regular army, designated the British Expeditionary Force, reeled from the onslaught of overwhelming German forces in the fields and towns of Flanders. It seems that young Harry Rowell, sixteen in 1911, enlisted as a private in The Norfolk Regiment, and joined what was called 'The New Army', or 'Kitchener's Army'. His battalion, the 9th Norfolks, were not involved on that bloodiest day in British military history - July 1st 1916 - but as the fighting on The Somme stretched throughout that long hot summer, and into autumn, they were part of the 71st Brigade during what was officially known as The Battle of Flers-Courcelette. 

Their main objective was a heavily fortified German redoubt east of the village of Ginchy, known as The Quadrilateral. On the morning of September 15th, the attack began, but despite an artillery barrage, and conscientious planning, the attack failed. The Battalion diary records that four officers were killed, and twelve wounded. It also notes that among 'Other Ranks', there were 431 casualties.

One of these 'Other Ranks' casualties was Harry Rowell, from Foul Anchor, one of the surviving children of poor, mad Rebecca Rowell, possibly still languishing in a mental institution, at His Majesty's Pleasure.

Harry's name is on the simple but dignified Foul Anchor war memorial. It is also inscribed on the overwhelming and powerful memorial at Thiepval, along with 72,193 other men whose bodies were never found. 

There is a trend among modern historians to view the carnage of The Somme as an unfortunate, but necessary ingredient which led to the collapse of the German Army in 1918. The casualty figures, however, are astonishing. Between July and November 1916, the total casualties for the Allies was 623,907, of which 146,431 were killed. The German losses were 465,000 including 164,055 dead.

So ends a story which begins with a poor, mentally fragile woman, driven mad by constant pregnancy and worry. The story ends seven years later with her son, probably scared out of his wits, climbing out of a trench at the officer's whistle, and walking headlong into a hail of enemy fire which was to end his life.

                             A HEARTBREAKING TALE (part one)
 
THE WORD TRAGEDY is over-used, but tonight's tale fits the bill like none other. We have a woman living in an isolated hamlet, mother of many children due to the constant demands of her husband. She is mentally unstable, and her children cause her more grief than happiness. She lives in the bizarrely named settlement of Foul Anchor. 

Locals will know it as a place that is more driven past than visited. It is a virtual island. To the south, huge empty fields. To the east, the tidal River Nene. To the north, the main outflow of the North Level Main Drain with its sinister sluice. To the west, more fields. 

There is one road in, and one road out. It is the same road. Even today, it is a secluded and silent place. To add another adjective - sinister - would be a step too far, but in 1909, it was no place for a sick woman and her children. In 1909, there was actually a neat little railway station for passengers wishing to use the The Midland and Great Northern Joint Railway, popularly known as the 'Muddle & Going Nowhere'. The station building was, until the 1970s a presentable place, but is now a shambles of incomplete work and rusting used cars. Should anyone need lessons in how to destroy a pleasant and evocative group of buildings, please contact the current owners.

Regarding the unfortunate woman central to our story, let the newspapers of the time take up the narrative.

THE FEN TRAGEDY. Rebecca Rowell, Foul Anchor, Tydd St. Giles, in the Fen district on the borders of Lincolnshire and Cambridgeshire, who, accused of murdering ring her four year-old child under circumstances already reported, has been further remanded for a week, not being able at present to attend and answer the charge. Mrs. Rowell and her child who was born at Wisbech Police Station on Sunday, the 10th inst, are doing well. The mother, it is reported, making excellent progress.

1909 CAMBS. SUMMER ASSIZES. WISBECH CHILD MURDER: AN INSANE MOTHERS CRIME.  The Summer Assizes for Cambridge. were opened at the Shirehall, Chesterton, Saturday, before Horace Avory Esq. His Majesty’s Commissioner. The calendar included a charge against Wisbech woman of murdering her infant child, The Commissioner, giving the charge to the Grand Jury, there was only one charge of any gravity to come before them, and that was a charge against woman named Rebecca Rowell, aged 39, of murdering her infant daughter, at Tydd St. Giles, on January 7th. The Jury would see whether there was “prima facie” evidence that she did take the life of this child by violence, and if they were opinion that there was such evidence, was their duty to return a True Bill against her for murder. They would find that she herself called the attention of a neighbour to what she had done, and invited her to upstairs to a bedroom, using the expression "I'm afraid I have done for Emma.”
 
The child was found upstairs, dead, from suffocation, apparently the result of pressure being applied to the throat and chest, and probably to the mouth. The Jury concern was merely to impute whether this woman did take the life of her child. It had been suggested that she was insane at the time when the act was committed, but they had nothing to do with this question, which would be investigated by the Petty Jury. 

INSANE MOTHER’S CRIME. Rebecca Rowell, aged 39, a married woman, of Tydd St. Giles’ Wisbech, was charged with the murder of her daughter Emma Rowell, aged 4 years, on January 6th. This was postponed from the January Assizes. The woman pleaded not guilty when charged. She hung her head and did not utter word during the proceedings. Mr. Theobald Mathew and Mr. W. R. appeared for the Treasury, and Mr. Brodie for the defence. Mr. Theobald Mathew said he did not think that as to one part of the case the Jury would have any difficulty, for he believed that his learned friend was not going to dispute that :his poor woman did kill her child. He thought the evidence was too plain to enable them to suppose that she did not do so, and what they had to determine was as to the state of her mind at the time, whether she understood nature and quality of the act she was committing, whether she knew the difference between right and wrong. If they came to the conclusion that she did not, they would return such a verdict as would enable her to taken proper care of. 

The court was informed that on two occasions before this crime was committed, the prisoner had been confined in a lunatic asylum. In 1904 she was confined in the county asylum, and while she was there was born the child into whose death they were now inquiring. She was apparently released from the asylum cured in September, but in January,1905, it was again found necessary to confine her there. They would hear what the condition of her mind was on that second occasion. She was subject to delusions, made strange accusations against her own relatives, and spoke of self-destruction, saying she had intended to destroy herself before she came to the asylum. She left the asylum in January 1906. and so far as he knew there was nothing wrong with her from that time until the date of the crime with which she was now charged.
In January of this year she was expecting her confinement, and the neighbour (who would be called) would say that from time to time they noticed something strange in her manner. The rest of Mr. Matthew’s statement was, borne out in the evidence of the witnesses. 

Mrs. Green, wife of John Green, stated that she lived near Mrs. Rowell, and knew her well. The deceased child frequently came to witness's house for her meals. She asked on the morning of her death if she might stay that day, and the witness replied in the affirmative. Later in the day witness heard the child crying in Mrs. Rowell’s house, and recognised the voice of little Emma. She knew then that prisoner was about to be confined. She was neglectful in her ways, and used lie in bed during the daytime and neglect her work.
Mr. Brodie said that the prisoner had had four children previously, since the witness had known her, and on each occasion she had seemed strange her manner, previous to her confinement. Mrs. Sarah Jane Betts, wife of William, stated that she lived near the prisoner. She had intended to nurse the prisoner in her confinement. She visited the prisoner’s house the morning of 6th, to see how she was. After seeing the prisoner she left the house, returning about quarter to 12. She went into the house and saw the prisoner, who came down stairs to speak to her. Mrs Rowley said "Go upstairs and see what I have done.’’ Witness asked her several times what she had done, and eventually she said, "I believe I have done for Emma." 
The witness then went outside and fetched her sister,  Mrs Colbey, who went upstairs and said, when she returned. “It is too true.” The prisoner was then sitting quietly the fire, nursing another of her children.
Mr. Brodie said, "The prisoner did not appear to realise in the least the seriousness of she had done. She was nursing the other child as if nothing unusual had happened."

Mrs Colbey, wife of John Colbey, said she went to Mrs. Rowley’s house on the day in question. When the prisoner said, "I've done for Emma”, the witness asked her why she did it, and she replied that she did not know. The witness went upstairs and found the child Emma lying the floor on her back. She was quite dead and cold, and there was froth upon her mouth. Upon going downstairs witness asked prisoner if she should fetch the child’s father, and she replied “I don’t know,” this being the only reply she would give to any question.
The father was fetched and the police were afterwards informed. Witness corroborated what had been said by the other neighbour as to the strangeness of Mrs. Rowell s behaviour at the approach of her confinement on previous occasions. PC Dunmore said he was called to the house on January 6th, and found the prisoner there, went upstairs with her husband and found the body of the deceased child. He ascertained that the child was quite dead, and then went down and spoke to the prisoner. He told her that he would arrest her for the murder of her child, and she replied, “I can’t think what made me do it.”  PC Dunmore took her to Wisbech police-station. She went very quietly, but cried almost the whole of the time. 

Florence Barnes said she was the female searcher at Wisbech police station. The  prisoner was brought to the police-station at 6.30 on the evening of January 6th. She asked the prisoner if she knew what she had done, and the prisoner replied that she did not know much about it. She said "I don’t think I can tell you.”
The prisoner eventually stated that she had killed her little girl, and added that she did not know what made her do it, and when she found out what she had done she tried to bring her round again. She said the child worried her and she took her upstairs to punish her. She said she had had a lot of trouble, and the child about to be born would her ninth. Prisoner was confined on January 10th, and the child was still alive.
The prisoner had been very quiet while under the witness’s care, and did not seem to realise the nature of the act she had committed. She quite thought she was going home when she got better. Dr. Crofton of Sutton Bridge, said he was sent for to prisoner’s house on January 6th. In the back bedroom he found the deceased child, which had then been dead for some time. Going downstairs he asked the prisoner, who was nursing another child by the fire, if she felt ill, and she replied that she did. He afterwards made a post-mortem examination of the dead child. He found the child to be fairly well-nourished. There was a bruise upon the neck and a scratch below  the left ear, and a mark between the ear and the chin looked if it might have been made by a finger. There was also a bruise upon the chest, made before death. The cause of death was undoubtedly suffocation caused, by pressure upon the chest. The Commissioner asked, "How long would such pressure have to be maintained in order to produce the symptoms you found? The doctor replied, "l should say for at least five minutes.

IN PART TWO - the conclusion to the trial, and a sad link to The Battle Of The Somme, 1916 .

A BOY'S BEST FRIEND IS HIS MOTHER

After the last tale where the unfortunate Mr Pygot came to a fiery end for his religious beliefs, we are back tonight with good old fashioned murder. 

WISBECH, Spring 1895. What was happening in the world? What did the town look like? If we were transported back in time, what would we recognise? Here's an OS map of the town, dating from 1900. 

 Queen Victoria was nearing the end of her wonderful reign, Wilde's The Importance Of Being Ernest had premiered in London, Archibald Primrose, 5th Earl of Rosebery was Prime Minister, and Arthur Brand was MP for Wisbech. Leach's Mill still towered above the town, the canal was still open for business, and Robert Godard's high class tailor shop first opened for business. You could also walk along Norfolk Street and not hear another language except English - or at least NE Cambridgeshire's strange version of English.

Arthur Brand M.P.

Meanwhile, unaware of the golden glow of an empire on which the sun never set, a deluded and mentally fragile local man was on the verge of murdering his dear old mum. He and said mater lived at 26 Upper Hill Street, more or less where Prams  & Toys is now. Let the newspapers tell the lurid tale.

MARCH 1895 - MURDER OF A MOTHER. The Press Association's Wisbech correspondent telegraphs that David Bullamore (35), hairdresser, was arrested there this morning charged with murdering his mother, an old woman aged 70, evidently by strangulation. Bullamore is subject to fits of mental derangement, and has been in an asylum. At five o'clock on Saturday morning, a neighbour - a man named Dunn -  heard shrieks and summoned the police, who forcibly entered the house and found the woman dead, having been strangled. Another witness, Porter Smith said that Bullamore was so strange in his manner that he had sat up with him until the early hours of the morning.

26 Hill Street

The inquest on the body of the woman was opened on Saturday. Robert Bullamore, brother of the man in custody, deposed that David had been queer in his manner all the week. He was an inmate of asylum eight years ago. Brant Smith, a porter, said he saw David at ten on Friday night, and he asked the witness whether he had seen a doctor go in his house. He was strange in his manner, and would not enter the house unless the witness went in with him. Witness did so, and then Mrs. Bullamore went to bed, but afterwards got up owing to the noisy behaviour of David. Mrs. Bullamore made some tea, and when witness left at half-past two the morning, David being then quiet, the table was set and a large bread knife was upon it. The knife was afterwards found on the floor near the dead woman. The inquest was adjourned.

The inquest was resumed on Monday. Dr. Groom deposed that death was due to asphyxia, which must have been caused by the son standing on her throat The arteries were gorged, and the symptoms were not compatible with death from natural causes. On Tuesday the police produced a shawl which was found near to the deceased, and also a large carving knife. Dr. H. Groom declared that the shawl had been placed over the deceased’s mouth with sufficient pressure that it would produce the asphyxia, which was the cause of death. There would then be no marks on the trachea or larynx. The police evidence showed that a struggle had taken place near the window, that some flower pots were broken, that a small table was smashed, that chairs were overturned and broken, that the window blinds were torn down, and that a part of a curtain was over the deceased’s face.

The coroner, in summing up, referred to the tardiness of the neighbours in rendering assistance when the shrieks of the deceased were heard, and said that in the face of the medical evidence there was no alternative but to return a verdict of wilful murder. After twenty minutes’ deliberation the jury unanimously returned verdict of Wilful Murder” against David Bullamore, and added a rider to the effect that the proper authorities were greatly to blame in not having had David Bullamore taken care of.

MARCH - WISBECH MURDER. PRISONER AGAIN BEFORE THE MAGISTRATES. David Bullamore was again charged with murdering his mother at Wisbech today. P.C.'s Green and Jacobs repeated their evidence and Dr. Harry Groom, Dr. William Groom, and Dr. Wherry, of Cambridge, gave evidence as to the cause of death, which they all agreed was to asphyxia. Dr. Wherry stated that he had made a fresh post mortem examination on Friday. Bullamore appeared perfectly calm and rational whilst before the Court. The magistrates committed him for trial at Cambridge Assizes. 

THE WISBECH MURDER, APRIL 1895. The man Bullamore, who is awaiting trial for the murder of his mother in Wisbech, is confined at H. M. Prison at Chesterton. He Is being closely observed by the prison doctor, as there is no doubt that the defence of insanity will be set up. Bullamore will arraigned at the next Cambridge Assizes which open on the 1st June.

Fulbourne Hospital

MONDAY 3 JUNE 1895 - THE WISBECH MURDER PRISONER DECLARED INSANE. David Bullamore, accused of murdering his mother. Bullamore, of 26, Upper Hill Street, Wisbech, on  9 March last, was brought before the Lord Chief Justice at Cambridge Assizes on Saturday. The circumstances of the case were reported in these columns at the time of the murder. Since he was committed for trial Bullamore has been carefully watched in gaol by medical men, and at the trial on Saturday it was decided that his mental condition was such that he was unable to plead. Medical gentlemen were called to give evidence as to the state of the prisoner's mind, and they declared that be was insane. Under these circumstances the Lord Chief Justice ordered Bullamore to be detailed at a criminal lunatic asylum during her Majesty's pleasure. As was leaving the dock Bullamore explained that be would rather be tried, as he was perfectly sane. Bullamore probably went for a prolonged stay in Fulbourne Hospital, and the exact nature of his illness is not known, but as the register of patients shows, there were only a few conditions recognised by medical science in those days, one of the most catch-all being 'mania'

The title of this latest blog? Well, it comes from a dire sentimental song from the early years of the twentieth century. Clearly David Bullamore had never heard these plaintive tones, or if he did, they meant nothing to him.

CLICK ON THE LINK BELOW TO HEAR THE SONG IN ALL ITS GLORY

A Boy's Best Friend Is His Mother

A WISBECH MARTYR

Tonight's tale of doom and death is a little different. The victim was a Wisbech man, but he actually died in full view of the public on Ely's picturesque Cathedral Green - and there wasn't an American or Japanese tourist anywhere in sight. For this was October 1555, and the whole country was suffering the righteous anger of a woman who came to be known as Bloody Mary. And, before anyone asks, she didn't invent the rather delicious cocktail made from vodka, tomato juice, celery salt and Worcester Sauce. 

So, who was Bloody Mary? Well, we may have to have a quick history lesson. As you know, Henry VIII was not known for his success as a husband. He went through wives like most of us go through socks, except that few of his ladies lived long enough to wear out. After giving birth to a son, Jane Seymour died from postnatal complications. 

That son went on to rule as Edward VI, but he was a sickly little fellow, and died of a lung disease. He had a big sister Mary, or rather half-sister, who was the daughter of Henry VIII and Catharine of Aragon. She seized the throne, and she was an extremely ardent Roman Catholic,  so she set about restoring England 's religion to what it had been before her father started defying The Pope. This meant a fair amount of trade for firewood dealers, as her favourite penalty for heretics was to set fire to them.

And this is where we come back to Wisbech, and a rather unfortune gentleman called Robert Pygot. Pygot and another man from Upwell were arrested for not attending church, and they were sent to appear before a religious court in Ely.  The story continues in the words of a contemporary account.

Queen Mary

In court, the judge, Sir Clement Higham, asked him: “How chance ye came not to the church?”  
Pygot, who believed Jesus was always present in a believer’s heart, replied: “I am not out of church, I trust in God.”  
“This is no church,” said the Judge. “This is a hall.”
“I know very well it is a hall,” answered Pygot. “But he that is in the true faith of Jesus Christ, is never absent, but present in the Church of God.”  

On 9th October  1555, Wolsey and Pygot were brought before a Commission which included John Fuller and the Dean of Norwich, John Christopherson, who tried them both for heresy.
By now, Fuller had already dismissed Wolsey as “an obstinate fellow” but he believed that Pygot could be persuaded to recant.  So Christopherson called for a pen and paper and Pygot was asked to sign a document saying he believed the catholic doctrine of transubstantiation.

When questioned about the sacrament of the altar (the Mass), the two Wisbech Martyrs, Wolsey and Pygot, made the following answer: “The sacrament of the altar is an idol and the natural body and blood of Christ are not present in the said sacrament.” He refused, and the two men were sentenced to death.  

They refused to recant their denial of the sacrament, believing this was not heresy, but the truth, and were condemned to death.

A week later, on 16 October, they were executed by burning on the Cathedral Green at Ely, the same day that Bishops Latimer and Ridley were martyred at Oxford. The sentence of condemnation was read and a sermon preached, and then they were led out to the stake. With them were burnt copies of the Bible in English, and Wolsey and Pygot seized copies of these, reciting Psalm 116, and imploring all present to say, ‘Amen’. And so, records Foxe, in his Book Of English Martys, they ‘received the fire most thankfully.’

DEATH BY NEGLECT

As they are heard to say on BBC radio from time, "Some listeners may find this next item disturbing..." What follows is not a happy read, but although not legally a murder, it is every bit as grim as the Wisbech murders featured in earlier blogs. We live in what some people call a Nanny State. Rightly or wrongly, if things go wrong domestically, through illness or incapacity, there is supposed to be a community safety net, in the form of Social Services. Some might argue that the net has too many holes in it, but provided that when you fall, you don't hit one of the holes, there is still something there.

In 1920s Wisbech, there was no net, tattered or otherwise. This a digest of newspaper reports concerning the tragic - and painful - death of Annie Lizzie Rennison.

NEGLECTED WIFE. BONES PROTRUDING
THROUGH WOMAN'S FLESH. 

HUSBAND GETS FIVE YEARS 

A revolting state of things was brought out in the evidence, the woman apparently never being moved out of her chair, and receiving no attention whatever. The prisoner, was warned on several occasions, and always promised to do something. He spent most of his time in a public-house, and had been heard to say if it was not for risking his neck he would do her in. 

A remarkable case came before Mr Justice Bray at the Cambridgeshire Assizes Cambridge on Wednesday. The prisoner, John Thomas Rennison, aged 60, a, painter, of Wisbech, was charged with killing his wife, Lizzie Rennison, by neglecting her. She suffered from rheumatoid arthritis, and was unable to move. It was alleged that she had been in chair for some time, from which she was never moved for any purpose whatsoever. A curtain shutting out light had been stretched across the living-room, and it was behind this curtain, which shut out the external light, that she spent her life in the chair. She gradually got into a deplorable condition, and eventually died in her chair.

The prisoner was originally indicted for unlawfully killing Annie Lizzie Rennison. his wife at Wisbech, on July l8th 1922 , and was charged with the manslaughter on the Coroner's inquisition. The Grand Jury, however, returned true bill for murder. Medical testimony elicited the fact that the deceased woman was confirmed invalid and was unable to do anything for herself. Owing to inflammation of all structures of the joints, which caused a state of fixation, she was unable to move.

George Lucas, a Wisbech doctor, said he had treated the woman for some time, but found her incurable. If she had been looked after, there was no reason why she should not lived for many year, he said. Police-Sergeant Bush stated that he had visited the prisoner's house from to time, and always found Mrs Rennison in the same position and place, without any food or fire, in filthy condition. Sergeant Bush had warned the prisoner, and told him must see after his wife. Bush said, in evidence,

"I heard the prisoner speak of his wife in a wicked way, and once he said 'If weren't for my damned neck I would do for you once and for all'."

The prisoner was warned on several occasions, and always promised to do something. He spent most of his time in a public house. The prisoner, giving evidence on his own behalf, said he arranged for his wife to be attended to by another woman, and there was always money in a drawer near her, which she could have.

Mrs Bray, who was present when the woman died, and helped lay her out, gave a terrible description of the woman's bodily condition. There were maggots crawling over her, while her bones protruded through her flesh through sitting the same position, and there was a hole in her back caused by lying against the chair. The prisoner, under oath, said his wife could not carried, as it gave her great pain, and he thought it best for her to remain the chair. The curtain was to put up to keep out the draught, and to make her more comfortable. She was difficult to manage, and liked to have her own way. The jury found prisoner guilty of manslaughter, and the passed sentence of five years' penal servitude. 

Rennison did the crime, but never completed the time. A 1926 newspaper carried this passing report.

1926 John Thomas Rennison, a convict at  Parkhurst Prison, 63 years of age, doing a five-years’ sentence for manslaughter, died on Thursday last. He was convicted at the Cambridge Assizes in November, 1922. At the, inquest on Saturday, by the Deputy Coroner for the Island (Mr. Francis Joyce), the evidence showed that he had been suffering from paralysis for a year, and verdict of death as result of that malady, was returned.

Parkhurst Prison, Isle of Wight

It may be (and this is pure speculation) that the paralysis which Rennison suffered was actually General Paresis of the Insane - late stage syphilis. Men could contract the disease when younger. The initial symptoms would disappear, leaving a biological time bomb ticking away in the central nervous system of the afflicted person. 10, 20, 30, years later the disease would re-emerge, first affecting the victim's brain and perceptive powers, but then remorselessly shutting down his physical functions, one by one. If Rennison was suffering from this disease, then he paid a terrible price for the neglect of his wife.

MURDER MOST FOUL (3)

For generations, the fruit fields and orchards of Wisbech attracted pickers from all over the country, but particularly from London. Londoners might head south-east to pick the Kentish hops in September and October, but earlier in the summer the soft fruit grown and harvested around Wisbech would be a major attraction. Most of the pickers would be women and their children, but unemployed men could also find work.

No doubt many a romance blossomed in the fields, but with romance sometimes came jealousy, and in this tragic case, jealousy lead to murder. 

Minnie Morris was an attractive and cheeky 21 year-old who lived with her sister on Nile Street, Hoxton.This busy thoroughfare was completely redeveloped in the 1970s, but the two images below give some idea of what a change it must have been for young Minnie to come north to the clean air and big skies of the Fens in the summer of 1912. The picture (left) shows Nile Street as it looked just before WWI, while the picture on the right shows it just before all the old buildings were demolished.                                                                       

Minnie's flirty charm attracted several male admirers, but one in particular, 27 year-old Robert Galloway, a drifter who had also worked as a seaman, was particularly smitten. He was also very possessive, and jealous of any other men who paid attention to Minnie. As well as his obsession with Minnie, he was partial to strong drink, and most evenings found him more often drunk than sober. On the terrible evening of 16 July, he was convinced that Minnie was playing him for a fool, and he sought her out and strangled her in Burrett Lane. When her body was found, there was little doubt as to who the prime suspect would be, but the matter became clear of doubt when Galloway turned himself in to the police. This is how what became known as The Fen Murder played out in the press.

Stating that he had murdered a girl, a man, 25, who comes from North

Kensington and is a fruit-picker, gave himself to the Wisbech police on Tuesday night. It was found that a pleasant-looking girl, aged 19, also a London fruit-picker, had been strangled in a lane near Walsoken. A handkerchief was tied tightly round her neck. The man and the girl had been working together at a farm during the fruit season, and were last seen together at Old Walsoken about three o'clock on Tuesday afternoon. At the station the man is said to have remarked: "I have had my revenge, and I don't care."

Robert Galloway was a seaman and Minnie Morris was out fruit picking having travelled down from London for it. They had been drinking and Minnie Morris had been left stranded by her aunt and she told Robert Galloway that she would rather die than walk all the way back to London. He strangled her with a handkerchief and then gave himself up saying he did it out of jealousy. He said that she had asked him "Have you the pluck to end my misery?". Robert Galloway said he had little else recollection of what had happened because he was too drunk.

On Thursday at Wisbech the Police Court proceedings in connection with the Fen murder took place, and some important fresh evidence came to light. Robert Galloway, Angola Mews, North Kensington, was charged with murdering Minnie Morris, aged 21, of Hoxton, strangling her with a handkerchief in a lonely lane at Walsoken on July 16. Mr. Day, who prosecuted, said there was no doubt that the motive for the crime was jealousy, and it was significant that the murder was committed with a handkerchief given to the woman by the man of whom the prisoner was jealous. 

Another picker from London, named William Tucker, said had been seen by Galloway in the company the girl. Galloway asked Morris to leave the witness witness and go with him. She refused to, and Galloway said : "I can find you and  I will find him." He understood that as a threat to take their lives. Galloway here exclaimed with much feeling that had never spoken to Tucker, and what had been stated was a tissue lies. Galloway was committed for trial the next Norwich Assizes, and applied for legal aid under the Poor Prisoners' Defence Act, saying that his defence was insanity. He was told he had not disclosed that in his defence, and would have make application to the Judge. 

OCTOBER 1912 - The Wisbech Murder Case. A Sentence  Of Death. At Norfolk Assizes, Norwich, Saturday, before Mr. Justice Darling, Robert Galloway. 27. described as a seaman, was indicted for murdering Minnie Morris, at Walsoken, near Wisbech, on July 16th. The prisoner had himself confessed  to the police that had murdered Morris, who was twenty-one years of age, and had gone to the Wisbech district from London for the fruit-picking season. She was strangled with a handkerchief, and her body was found at a spot which the prisoner had indicated. The motive for the crime was alleged to jealousy. The deceased lived with a sister Nile Street. Hoxton. Prisoner was found guilty, and sentenced to death.

Robert Galloway  was hanged in Norwich on 5 November 1912, and the hangman was Thomas Pierrepoint. The photo below shows Thomas Pierrepoint seated next to his nephew Albert, who would take over what had almost become a family business. Albert Pierrepoint became the most celebrated hangman of the 20th century, despatching, among others, many Nazi war criminals, and the last woman in Britain to hang, Ruth Ellis.

A WISBECH TRAGEDY

There was one very serious case before the jury at Cambridge Assizes in June 1905. It was a charge against John Day of murdering the woman with whom he was living, Frances Parlett. She was married about six years ago, but left her husband, and for two years she had lived with the accused at 18a Carpenter's Arms-yard. At one o’clock in the morning May 2nd they were in their living room, one of two rooms in which they lived. Day, having fallen asleep, was awakened by the woman, and it was said that either in sudden anger or with malice aforethought, he seized a lighted paraffin lamp which was on the table, and threw it at her. She was at once covered in flames, and screamed and rushed to the front door. A very worthy man who lived near, and who often heard screams, went out and saw the poor creature. With remarkable courage and pluck, this elderly man rushed hack into his house and secured some blankets, with which he put out the flames. Next day the woman died, fearfully burnt. The evidence was that the accused, about 11 o'clock that night, was heard to say to her that he would do something to her when he got home.

Nothing remains of Carpenter's Arms-yard today. It was a narrow lane running off what is now West Street, and it ended just short of Tillery Field, which in those days was a cemetery. Its position was more or less where St Paul's Close is now. By all accounts it was one of the meaner streets of the town. I have been unable to find any

image of Carpenter's Arms Yard, but it is safe to imagine that it would have been narrow, dirty and the tiny terraced houses would have been packed with residents  who were at the bottom end of society. The photo on the right is of an existing Wisbech alley which, due to its central position has survived more or less intact, and gives us an idea of what the Yard might have looked like Carpenter's Arms Yard was earmarked for slum clearance in the late 1920s along with its near neighbour Ashworth's Yard, and both were gone before the outbreak of World War II. What is now St Peter's Road was probably more prosperous than either of the Yards, and its terraced houses were spared the redevelopments of the 1930s. It is tempting to look back and wish that more of old Wisbech had been preserved, but we would do well to remember that conditions in these old houses would be awful, even by standards of the time. Damp, insanitary and built on the cheap, these grim places contributed to the general poor health and high death rate of the time. The cemetery at the bottom of the slight slope of Carpenter's Arms Yard was actually instituted as an overflow burial ground when a cholera epidemic struck the town earlier in the 19th century.

Back to the terrible events of May, 1905. Sadly, Frances Parlett died of her burns the next day, and the wheels of the law began to grind. The first step was a Coroner's Inquest.At the inquest, it was reported that:
"Deceased was suffering from extensive superficial burns, extending from the knees to the armpits, and the front part was worse than the back. If deceased had been sitting at a table and the lamp capsized one would have expected more severe burns at one particular spot. There were no marks on her face or chest to show that they had come in contact with a hard substance, and would have expected to have found some marks on the body if it had been struck by the lamp with much violence."

In answer to the Foreman, a witness said he thought the lamp could be thrown with sufficient force on the steel of the deceased’s corsets to break the lamp and not mark the body. The skin was discoloured too much to see any bruise. Herbert Brightwell, bootmaker, 19a, Carpenter’s Arms-yard, said heard the deceased and Day come home about 11 o’clock on the night in question. About one o’clock he was awakened by the shuffling of feet, but he heard no voices. Immediately afterwards he heard a woman scream, and saw a bright light flash across his window. The woman continued to scream, and he went downstairs. When he opened the door of Day’s house the deceased, who was in flames, fell into his arms. Witness attempted to put out the flames by wrapping blankets round her. 

Brightwell  asked Day to assist him, but he did not do so, and said nothing. Having put out the flames, witness ran to tell Deceased's sister, and Day ran after him, saying "What the **** are you exciting yourself about. If you don’t come back here I will jolly well put you through it as well.”

It was also alleged that after the woman was in this fearful condition, Day did nothing to help extinguish the fire except to pour some water on the woman from a small teapot. He was also said to have threatened do the same for a man who was trying put out the flames if he made fuss about it. There was no other possible conclusion at the inquest other than that Frances Parlett had met her painful end through the violent actions of John Day, and that Day must face trial for murder.

At Day's trial in June 1905, much was made of the fractious and often violent relationship between Frances Parlett and himself. The poor woman did not die until the next day, and in the immediate aftermath of the attack initially defended Day, but then the following exchange was relayed to the court. Sergeant Watson took the prisoner upstairs to see the deceased, and they had a conversation.
Day said, " Frances, did I do it ?”
She answered, "Yes, you bad boy, you know you did it,”
Day said, “It’s false.”
Frances repeated, "You did, you bad boy, you know you did.”
She was also heard to say, "You murderer, you have done it this time. You have had a good many tries, and you have done it this time.”

In the event, the defence barrister for Day made great play on the grave

responsibility that the jurors held. If they found Day guilty of murder, he would surely hang. In the words of the newspaper report, Mr Stewart, for the defence, remarked that the punishment for the crime with which the prisoner was charged was death, and it was not necessary to say more than that to bring home the jury the great and terrible responsibility that rested upon them. The onus of proof against the prisoner lay with the prosecution, and it was for them to satisfy the jury beyond the possibility of reasonable doubt that the prisoner was responsible for the deed. He contended that this had not been done. The statement of the woman was not in nature of dying declaration,and it ought not to regarded as more important, or have more credence attached to it than was attached to any of the evidence called before the Court during the day.

The jury baulked at finding Day guilty of murder, but found him guilty of manslaughter, for which he received the sentence of seven years Penal Servitude. It is pointless to speculating over a century later whether Frances Parlett received justice. If John Day had committed the offence in 2014 and had been found guilty of either manslaughter or murder, he would have been spared the hangman's noose. It is also fair to point out that women were not permitted to sit on criminal case juries until well after the Great War, a war which was to claim five more victims from Carpenter's Arms Yard.