Murder & Crime in London Read online

  MURDER

  & CRIME

  LONDON

  MURDER

  & CRIME

  LONDON

  PETER DE LORIOL

  For Sophie

  First published 2010

  The History Press

  The Mill, Brimscombe Port

  Stroud, Gloucestershire, GL5 2QG

  www.thehistorypress.co.uk

  This ebook edition first published in 2013

  All rights reserved

  © Peter de Loriol, 2010, 2013

  The right of Peter de Loriol to be identified as the Author of this work has been asserted in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.

  This ebook is copyright material and must not be copied, reproduced, transferred, distributed, leased, licensed or publicly performed or used in any way except as specifically permitted in writing by the publishers, as allowed under the terms and conditions under which it was purchased or as strictly permitted by applicable copyright law. Any unauthorised distribution or use of this text may be a direct infringement of the author’s and publisher’s rights, and those responsible may be liable in law accordingly.

  EPUB ISBN 978 0 7509 5436 5

  Original typesetting by The History Press

  CONTENTS

  Acknowledgements

  Introduction

  1.

  The Weapon of the Weak Pretending to be Strong

  2.

  A Man of Probity

  3.

  He that sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed

  4.

  Money, Money, Money

  5.

  Honesty is the Best Policy

  6.

  Cherchez La Femme

  7.

  Because You’re Worth It

  8.

  Jack the Ripper

  9.

  ‘The abominable crime of buggery’

  10.

  Have some medicine m’dear

  11.

  The Real Demon Barber

  12.

  For the Love of a Good Woman

  13.

  The Final Curtain

  14.

  May God have Mercy on Your Soul

  15.

  True to Yourself

  16.

  Saved by the Rain

  17.

  The Blackout Ripper

  18.

  Reggie’s Revenge

  Bibliography

  ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

  I would like to thank the London Library, my Alma Mater, whose resources are unparalleled, and the British Library, the London Boroughs of Borough, Lambeth, Wandsworth and Westminster Local Studies Libraries for their invaluable assistance. I would also like to thank Sarah Hodgson and Rupert Willoughby for their unstinting support.

  I should like to thank Nicola Guy, my publisher, for her help and advice. A belated thanks to Adam Fremantle, my cousin, whose untimely death robbed me of a model of encouragement, and last but not least, my wife, Janey, whose suggestions and editing skills I could not do without.

  INTRODUCTION

  The sheer brutal savagery of life in London, irrespective of the outwardly prosperous and organised exterior, is reflected in its crimes.

  All cities have a larger share of the national crime figures – London is no exception. London’s sheer size, diversity and density since the end of the sixteenth-century has given it a pre-eminence in all spheres. Its greatness lies not just in the monstrous powerhouse that it is, but in some of the most sadistic, ferocious and elaborate crimes the world has ever seen.

  It is not just the lust for life that created some of the heinous crimes that litter these pages, it is passion in all its colours; greed, jealousy and fear, not forgetting righting a perceived wrong or deep psychological problems.

  Some crimes may have been politically motivated, such as the murdered magistrate Sir Edmund Berry Godfrey in the seventeenth-century, or Guy Fawkes’ attempt to blow up Parliament. Was one, or both, a deliberate attempt by the Government of the day to garner public opinion? The deliberate City fraud in the early nineteenth-century, did it really warrant an execution? Its results laid the foundations of changes in the law.

  Foreigners have been given asylum in Britain, but when a crime was committed, or perceived to have been committed by one, the public and the law demanded satisfaction. Foreigners also add a bit of glamour to the crime, making the public bay for more, as seen in chapter six when a well-turned out Swiss woman – one Mrs Manning – was involved in a murder based on greed and revenge.

  Butchered remains were found in two of the most notorious crimes in London history, one of which continues to enthral and disgust the public to this day. The tentacles of the nascent press, eager to make a fortune, fed the voracious appetite of the world by making the unpalatable a drug that one can’t do without. One press baron claimed: ‘whatever benefits the newspapers is justifiable and it is not my business to consider the effect of their content on the public mind.’

  The perfect crime, without bloodshed, would remain a mystery for twenty-five years and its perpetrator would become the darling of the press and the public, while bored middle-class men’s proclivities would touch all spheres of society.

  The deranged minds of several individuals created a miasma of serial deaths that shocked London and the nation alike, questioning the powers of the police, the establishment, and the very fabric of society.

  Crime has no boundaries. It covers all spheres of society, all areas and all methods, from mind games to guns, from knives to poison and gas. The litany of London crimes is immense and this is just a start!

  Peter de Loriol, 2010

  one

  THE WEAPON OF THE WEAK

  PRETENDING TO BE STRONG

  History, like fashion, is cyclical. Middle England would currently have it that Parliament is riddled with Scotsmen. The Government is highly unpopular. The question of religion is also a hot topic, particularly imported religion. Politics, it seems, never changes.

  This was also the case when Elizabeth I died in 1603. There was a debate as to who would succeed. Elizabeth favoured King James VI of Scotland, and accordingly James succeeded Elizabeth I as the closest living relative of the unmarried, childless English monarch, through his descent from one of Henry VIII’s sisters. There was no denying that whilst Elizabeth gave England a new sense of identity, a self-confidence and a feeling of sovereignty, people were not altogether sad that she had died. The Tudors had emptied the country’s coffers, and whilst it was a newly Protestant country with a strong sense of identity, the Queen had refrained, in her later years, from totally scinding from Catholics, as she had courtiers who were both Catholic and loyal to her. There were, however, very strong penalties for Catholics who openly flouted the laws that banned Mass. James VI of Scotland and I of England was initially seen as a breath of fresh air . . .

  Unfortunately, James I, possibly the most intellectual, and certainly the most open-minded British monarch, had other ideas that were anathema to English hearts, specifically Catholic English hearts. He transported his Scottish Court to London, bestowing honours and power to his Scottish favourites.

  The Scots were openly derided and almost universally hated by Parliament and the people. They were ‘an effusion of people from Northern parts’. The Scots were also considered uncouth, filthy, lousy and jeered at because of their accent. There was also talk in Parliament of ‘plants which are transported from barren ground into a more fertile one and how they grow and overgrow’. King James, furthermore, committed the cardinal sin of suggesting that the entire island should be known as ‘Britain’ – this met with the most disgusted response.

 
; Catholics who thought there might be some change for the better were swiftly disillusioned with the escalation of fines on the Catholic recusants. Fines, totaling an average of £3,500 per year, rose to epic proportions by 1604 – so draconian were these that many saw their estates sequestered and were reduced to penury. Some of these estates were then given, by Royal largesse, to the ‘parvenu’ Scots! It was as a result of such laws, the new monarch and his Scottish favourites that the ‘Gunpowder Plot’ was supposedly hatched.

  Robert Catesby, son of a distinguished Catholic line, was related to other distinguished Catholic families, the Treshams, Throckmortons, Vaux, and Wintours – Midland gentry. His cousin had also married Lord Monteagle, a powerful personage at Court. Catesby was a bright, attractive man, with exceptional ability to command and much admired by many of his contemporaries. Unfortunately this gentle, emotional man’s Protestant wife died early, leaving him directionless. He reverted to extreme Catholicism and was heavily involved with the Earl of Essex’s abortive coup in 1601. His recklessness lost him a fortune. By being labeled a rebel he had to forfeit his estate. This led him down the path of Catholic theology and towards the idea of a new Catholic State. The overriding problem in the eyes of most English Catholics was that whilst Elizabeth I was considered illegitimate, James I had rightfully acceded to the throne. Any action against the ‘rightful king’ would contradict the loyalties of the rest of the English Catholics.

  On 20 May 1604, a group of people assembled at the Duck and Drake Inn in the Strand. Robert Catesby summoned Tom Wintour (Winter), Jack (John) Wright, Thomas Percy and Guido Fawkes. His scheme was simple – to blow up Parliament House when the King and his Parliament would be in residence. He believed he had tried all other means to make the Catholics be heard, but now the King must be called to account as he had a contractual obligation towards his people. Princess Elizabeth, furthermore, would be abducted and placed as a titular queen. He and other Catholics had tried to enlist the help of Catholic Spain, but despite the fancy Spanish rhetoric, Spain had promised but not donated funds, nor had Spain promised any military support. Spain, in the wake of a very expensive war and a failed campaign in Ireland, was ultra cautious. They had, however, managed to inveigle Guido (Guy) Fawkes, a Catholic Yorkshireman, a captain in Sir William Stanley’s mercenary troops presently in the pay of Spain, and an expert in gunpowder.

  Unlike the others, Guy Fawkes was not related to any of them, but had been to school with Jack Wright and had met Thomas Wintour in 1603 in Spain. Both men had been sent there secretly by an Englishman living on the Continent. This Englishman remains unknown to this day and is only referred to as the ‘Caballero Ingles’ by Spanish sources. Both had actively tried to galvanise the Court of King Philip to supply arms, soldiers and money to assist the Catholics in England, but nothing had come of it. Fawkes, fluent in both French and Spanish, was far more of a nationalist than simply pro-Catholic. He told the Spanish that:

  …there is a natural hostility between the English and the Scots. There has always been one, and at present it keeps increasing through these grievances, so that even were there but one religion in England it would not be possible to reconcile these two nations, as they are, for very long.

  The plotters had a lucky break in 1604. Thomas Percy was appointed a Gentleman Pensioner in June. This meant that he needed to have quarters near Parliament. He chose a small apartment in the precincts of Westminster, John Whynniard’s house. Fawkes was placed as caretaker under the assumed name of John Johnson, servitor to Mr Percy.

  Guido Fawkes.

  The conspirators.

  That summer was a tense time for Catholics. Anti-Catholic legislation was pushed through Parliament and priests were put to death. The autumn brought no solace as recusant fines were back in full force and James I asked Lord Ellesmere to ‘exterminate priests and other corrupt people’. Parliament’s adjournment enabled the plotters to regroup in the country, returning in October with a new member, Robert Keyes. Robert Keyes would be the one to arrange for gunpowder to be stored at Catesby’s house on the Lambeth shores.

  Gunpowder was now relatively easy to obtain as the previous monarch’s wars had made the Council encourage home production of gunpowder and the new Anglo-Spanish peace meant that there was a glut of it. There were several gunpowder factories around London and a little subterfuge could always supply the requisite amount. Catesby’s manservant, Robert Bates, was to join them in December 1604. They were now seven-strong and preparing for action when Parliament returned in February 1605.

  The official New Year, 25 March 1605, heralded three new plotters; Robert Wintour, John Grant and Kit Wright, bringing the total to ten. It was also the date when a lease was secured on a cellar directly under the House of Lords, close to Whynniard’s house. A total of thirty-six barrels of gunpowder were eventually ferried to the cellar in the ensuing months. Secrecy was paramount, as was military and financial aid. Fawkes was sent back to the Continent, to return by August, and was detected by the Earl of Salisbury’s spy network. The network also picked up Catesby’s name.

  A secret shared is a secret no more, and the larger the group, the greater the risk. Certainly wives would have had a notion of what was going on. Priests accustomed to taking confessions would also hear the unthinkable. A chance indiscretion by a close female relative alerted the possibility of some plot to the Government and the further indiscretions of two priests, Fathers Garnett and Greenaway, applied more pressure. Fears over the plague resulted in a setback for the plotters as Parliament prorogued its return until October 1605.

  The gunpowder in the cellars.

  By October 1605 Catesby had recruited three more to the ranks; Ambrose Rookwood, Francis Tresham and Sir Everard Digby. Digby and Rookwood were by far the youngest plotters. It was also in October that the final preparations were made; Fawkes was to light a long enough fuse to allow him to flee before the explosion, there would be an uprising in the Midlands and Princess Elizabeth would be secured.

  On 26 October Lord Monteagle received an anonymous letter asking him not to attend Parliament as it was to suffer a horrible blow. Monteagle decided to show the letter to Salisbury, who sat on it and waited.

  The ‘Monteagle letter’ has been a source of contention ever since. Was it a letter from someone close to the plotters but who didn’t know the exact plot? Was it from one of the plotters, some of whom were related to Monteagle? Why did Salisbury sit on it – to ensnare the plotters further or to wait for the King’s decision? Or was it a concoction by the Government, who knew what the plotters were up to and wanted to ensure good termination to this episode? There is no doubt that Salisbury had more than an inkling of what was going on and a quick end would mean an end to any Catholic unrest in England. This last theory does hold more water than the others.

  On Monday, 4 November 1605, a first search of the cellars surrounding Westminster was made by Lords Suffolk and Monteagle. Apart from a surprisingly large amount of firewood in Whynniard’s cellar, Whynniard informed them that the current tenant was Thomas Percy. A second search was made in the small hours of 5 November, when a tall man answering to the name of John Johnson was apprehended and kegs of gunpowder discovered. The Government had one name, Thomas Percy.

  John Johnson turned out to be Guy Fawkes. He steadfastly maintained that the plot was to blow the Scots back to Scotland. His torture was to elicit more names. Meanwhile, Londoners lit their very first bonfires in celebration of the averted disaster.

  By the evening of 6 November, the Government had all the names save Bates, Robert Wintour and Digby, but not through the intransigent, brave and mysterious Fawkes. He did crack – two days later. The rest fled to Holbeche House on the Staffordshire border where Catesby, the two Wrights and Thomas Percy were all fatally wounded by the Sheriff of Worcester’s men on 8 November. Robert and Thomas Wintour managed to escape, but were eventually found. Francis Tresham died in the Tower of London.

  The Monteagle letter.

 
On January 27 1606, Digby, Robert Wintour, John Grant, Thomas Bates, Thomas Wintour, Ambrose Rookwood, Robert Keyes and Guy Fawkes were summarily tried. None denied treason and all were condemned to be executed.

  The execution of the conspirators.

  On Thursday 30 January, Digby, Robert Wintour, John Grant and Thomas Bates were hanged in St Paul’s churchyard, then drawn and quartered. Thomas Wintour, Ambrose Rookwood, Robert Keyes and Guy Fawkes met the same fate the next day in the Old Palace Yard at Westminster.

  The unpopular government took full advantage of this ‘evil’ plot. It even concocted a story that the conspirators had dug a mine (which was never discovered) from December 1604 and October 1605 between the rented apartments and Parliament – a beautifully crafted piece of political sleight-of-hand that would encapsulate the evilness of The Wrongdoers and spice up the ‘account’ of the averted danger.

  The question remains, why was Francis Tresham, cousin of Monteagle, alone sent to the Tower, unlike the others? He died of natural causes – or was it poison, administered by himself or by someone else who didn’t want him to talk? There is some evidence that he may have been the one who named names . . .

  two

  A MAN OF PROBITY

  The late seventeenth century was riddled with political fears. England had just come out of a period of enforced austerity under the Cromwells and had been catapulted back to the Franco-Scottish Court of the Stuart dynasty with its plethora of French and Scottish adventurers and its European intrigues. The English had a natural abhorrence of the foreigner, let alone of the French. Their real fear, however, was of the Catholic faith that seemed to permeate the Court circles and the upper echelons of English society, threatening the very fabric of that society. The following murder encapsulates all these fears and remains unsolved to this day.