Murder and Crime County Durham E-Book

Paul Heslop

• Herausgeber: The History Press
• Kategorie: Sachliteratur, Reportagen, Biografien
• Sprache: Englisch

Seitenzahl: 193

Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2013

Beschreibung

This collection brings together thirteen criminal cases from County Durham's past that shocked not only the county but also made headline news across the country. Cases featured here include the murder of PC William Smith, who was stoned to death at Butterknowle; the shooting of Superintendent Joseph Scott at Durham by a former colleague; a robbery and murder at Ferryhill, when bank clerk William Byland Abbey was stabbed to death; and the case of Charles Conlin, who killed his grandparents and buried them in a shallow grave at Norton-on-Tees. Paul Heslop's well-illustrated and enthralling text will appeal to everyone interested in true crime and the shadier side of County Durham's past.

Leseprobe

To my children and grandchildren.

CONTENTS

Title Page

Dedication

Forewords

Foreword

Acknowledgements

About the Author

Case One          Falsehood after Falsehood

Sunderland, 1839

Case Two         A Catalogue of Death

West Auckland & Beyond, 1852–72

Case Three        A Factional Dispute

Darlington, 1875

Case Four          Murder so Cruel

Tunstall, 1883

Case Five         ‘The Poor Polis’

Butterknowle, 1884

Case Six          ‘Unhinged in his Mind’

Durham City, 1888

Case Seven       ‘In Most Malignant Spite’

Birtley, 1888

Case Eight        Buoyed up by the Love of a Woman

Gateshead, 1910

Case Nine         Murder on the Railway

Lintz Green, 1911

Case Ten          A Savage and Ferocious Beast

Ferryhill, 1928

Case Eleven     A Scene of Horror

Norton-on-Tees, 1928

Case Twelve    A Bitter Fight for Jobs

South Shields, 1930

Case Thirteen   The Greedy Widow

Hebburn & Windy Nook, 1955–57

Bibliography

Copyright

Foreword

For his most recent work, author and ex-‘polis’ Paul Heslop has returned to his professional and personal roots to provide us with a fascinating glimpse of crimes past.

In an age where moral panics can be whipped up almost instantly by both social and traditional media, it is tempting to imagine ourselves in a simpler, quieter time – an age where everyone obeyed the rules, a policeman’s word was the law and crimes were rare. As Paul reminds us, this mythical ‘golden age’ never existed. Throughout the last 200 years there are countless examples of serious crime and homicide every bit as shocking to local people then as similar incidents are today.

Using his experience as a major crime investigator, Paul establishes the circumstances surrounding the various cases. Some, like the infamous but barely believable story of serial poisoner Mary Ann Cotton, were the result of careful planning and cool deliberation. Others, like the senseless killing of the unfortunate Acting Sergeant William Smith, appear to have been random acts of violence, often fuelled by drink. Paul also highlights the changes between society’s attitudes then and now, and the difference in the criminal justice system.

Much of the ‘evidence’ submitted in the cases in this book would never had made it to court in the twenty-first century, which may lead us to ponder how many trials were ‘fair’ to the suspects. But society is constantly evolving, and it is ultimately futile to judge the processes of the past against those of the present.

Paul has written a fascinating and well-researched account of some of County Durham’s most notorious crimes. The reader cannot fail to be intrigued by his account, which helps shed light on those dark deeds of long ago.

Mike Barton

Chief Constable, Durham Constabulary, 2013

Foreword

You are about to embark on a journey along the criminal highways and byways of County Durham, stretching from the Victorian days of Empire to the present.

Ex-Detective Inspector Paul Heslop is more than qualified to be your guide. Thirty years in the police force have provided him with an in-depth understanding of crime and criminals. He unpicks the most complex cases, so that we can understand the issues with crystal clarity.

An extra dimension is added by Paul’s passionate interest in history. He has lectured widely on topics from Hadrian’s Wall and the trials of Bonnie Prince Charlie, to the development of the British Monarchy; he has walked the length and breadth of Britain, researching its local history and publishing his findings in books such as The Walking Detective and One Man’s County, – a ‘Johnson and Boswell’ journey around Northumberland, his native county. This fascination with history has enabled him to put the crimes he describes into their historical context, vividly bringing to life the periods in which they occur.

What continually surprises in this book is the varied yet repetitious nature of crime, including femme fatale poisons, the late nineteenth-century ‘more bobbys on the beat’ debate, and a 1930s twist on the battle over immigration and jobs. Finally, at the end of each case, Paul provides comment and assessment, illuminating the criminal landscape through which he has so expertly led us.

Nick Cook, 2013

Nick Cook is a freelance journalist, specialising in health and safety and environmental issues. He teaches creative writing in Hertfordshire and is President of the Verulam Writers Circle, St Albans.

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank staff at County Archives, Durham, and South Tyneside libraries and Information Service for their assistance in the research required to produce this book. Also the staff at the Local Studies sections at Sunderland, Darlington, Hartlepool and Newcastle upon Tyne libraries.

Thanks also to Kathy Douglas and staff at St Peter’s Church, Monkwearmouth, for their assistance in my research in Case One; Andrew Clark and George Nairn for permission to reproduce images in Cases One, Four and Eight; Percy Mather for the image used in Case Eight; Elizabeth Errington for the images used in Case Eleven; and Andria Raistrick for providing copies of the two marriage certificates and other material used in Case Twelve.

Also to Mike Barton, Chief Constable of Durham Constabulary, and Nick Cook, for writing their respective forewords; and my wife Kathryn for tolerating my absences caused by research and the need to visit scenes in order to provide photographs.

Please note that in exceptional circumstances some images have been reproduced without sanction of the original publisher, but only after exhausting all means of tracing and identifying them.

About the Author

Paul Heslop joined Newcastle upon Tyne City Police in 1965 (later amalgamated into Northumbria Police). He served his time on the beat, supervised by patrol sergeants and inspectors, when on-the-street contact with the public was an essential ingredient in policing. Thereafter he spent most of his career as a detective in the Northumbria and Hertfordshire forces, including service in the Regional Crime Squads in both, the latter involving the investigation of serious crime in London and the Home Counties. He retired from the force in 1995, and since then has become an established writer on such diverse subjects as health and safety in the workplace, walking and local history. He is the author of nine books to date, and has written about crime for newspapers and periodicals. He lives in the Lake District.

Keelman James Alderson spotted a body in the River Wear around midday on Thursday, 13 June 1839. The body was floating about thirty yards from the north shore of the river, not far from the bridge, and with the assistance of two men from the Atlantic, which was moored nearby, Alderson managed to raise the body which was tied to a large lump of limestone weighing over seven stone.

It was the body of a man wearing only a flannel shirt, stockings, and a cotton shirt. If the man’s identity was a mystery, the cause of his death wasn’t, as it was clear that he had been the victim of a brutal murder for his head had been smashed in by a hammer-like instrument. The manner of disposal suggests that his killer had hoped he would remain undiscovered.

Until the Victorian times, law enforcement in Sunderland had been the responsibility of the parish council who appointed ‘Old Charlies’, elderly men who patrolled the streets, to carry lanterns at night. Then, in 1837, the town’s police force was established and this was the first murder that the Sunderland force had to deal with, two years later. But whether justice was done will forever be in doubt when you consider that of the two suspects one was convicted on the uncorroborated word of the other, when it might just as easily have been the other way around.

Sunderland of old. Ships on the River Wear. (Reproduced by kind permission of Andrew Clark and George Nairn)

The murder enquiry was headed by Superintendent William Brown and his deputy, Inspector Bailes. After having the body removed to the workhouse at Monkwearmouth, the policemen made enquiries on the river, and at eight thirty that evening they boarded a Prussian vessel, the Phoenix, from Stettin (now Szczecin in modern-day Poland). The crew of six men spoke only German, but nevertheless were able to tell them that their captain, Johann Friedrich Berckholtz, had been taken ashore at 4.30 a.m. the previous day, a Wednesday, but had not returned to the vessel.

The ship’s mate accompanied Brown and Bailes to the captain’s cabin where they found ‘the bed made up as if no one had slept in it’. On one of the pillows Brown saw a large bloodstain which appeared to have been recently sponged and was still damp. He examined the partition at the head of the bed finding bloodstains on that too, as well as on a towel that was hanging in the cabin. When Brown mentioned the blood the mate got up to go on deck, but the superintendent ‘put his hand on him’ and arrested him. The mate, identified as twenty-eight-year-old Jacob Frederich Ehlert from Barth, Prussia (now part of Germany), was wearing a brown jacket, waistcoat and a neckerchief, all of which had marks of blood on them, and the jacket looked as though it had recently been washed.

With some difficulty, due to the lack of interpreter, Brown questioned the other crew members and found that only two of them claimed to have known of Captain Berckholtz going ashore on Wednesday morning. One was Ehlert, who said that he had woken the captain at 4 a.m., and the other was Daniel Friedrick Muller, an eighteen-year-old second apprentice, who said that he had rowed the captain ashore. Muller and the rest of the crew were all arrested.

Brown examined the ship ‘very minutely’ from the captain’s berth to the cabin window at the stern, finding ‘smears and streaks of blood’ throughout. He discovered a spot of blood the size of a penny on the top and bottom of the frame of the cabin window, as well as blood on a shutter to the window and the handles of the two fastening bolts, ‘as if some person with a bloody hand had touched them’. On the frame was a splinter with a piece of red wool caught on it that corresponded with the shirt worn by Ehlert, the only one of the crew who wore a red shirt. Brown concluded that the body had been dragged from the cabin and put out of the window at the stern of the vessel.

The murdered man was identified as Captain Berckholtz by two members of the crew. He had been seen to board the Phoenix on Tuesday night, and Ehlert and Muller were the only people who said they had seen him since.

All six members of the crew appeared before the Sunderland magistrates on the Friday morning – even though none of them had been formally charged. Muller was brought before the court after his comrades, thus suggesting he was the main suspect because he had rowed the captain ashore. After hearing the evidence of police and the seamen of other ships, the magistrates remanded the crew in custody until the next day, but shortly afterwards they were informed that the first apprentice, nineteen-year-old Johann Gustav Weidemann, wished to make a statement and he was brought before the court.

A caricature of Ehlert (left) and Muller. (Author’s collection)

Weidemann told the magistrates that at four o’clock on Wednesday morning he saw Ehlert in the captain’s cabin, attempting to wash the floor. Weidemann asked Ehlert where the captain was and his response was that he had gone to shore. He then went on to tell the court that at two o’clock on Wednesday afternoon the ship’s cook, Johann Eichstadt, and Muller had quarrelled. Eichstadt had found six five-franc pieces on Muller and had asked him how he came by the money. Muller said Ehlert had given it to him, but Ehlert declared Muller had stolen it from his trunk, whereupon Eichstadt declared, ‘The mate [Ehlert] is a liar, the money belongs to the captain, and I will keep it until the captain comes on board.’ Ehlert had explained to Weidemann that the floor was wet because he had ‘thrown a glass of water’. On finding that the captain was still absent on Thursday morning, Weidemann thought he had gone to Newcastle.

Having heard Weidemann’s testimony, the magistrates were informed that Muller wished to make ‘a full disclosure of the circumstances attendant on the horrid affair’ as he was ‘unable to bear the tortures of concealed guilt’. Muller appeared before the court and with ‘the greatest firmness and composure’ gave his account.

Muller said that he had the watch shift on the Phoenix between midnight and two o’clock on Wednesday morning, and that at half past one Ehlert came on deck carrying a hammer and asked him to go with him below. Muller was reluctant to leave his post and on asking why he was needed, the mate replied, ‘You must come down’. Muller went below and Ehlert told him to hold a lantern. They went into the captain’s cabin where Ehlert struck the captain, who was in bed, on the head with the hammer. Muller cried out, ‘Mate, what are you doing?’ and Ehlert took hold of him and stated, ‘You must remain here.’

Muller continued his account to the magistrates:

The mate took the body out of bed and slung a rope around the neck. He put a pair of stockings on the body and a pair of trousers, and fetched a bag made of sail-cloth and drew it over the body. I attempted to get out but he would not let me. He said if I would not help him to put away the body he would kill me with a knife which he drew from his pocket. Ehlert said to me, ‘You must help me. If you do not I will kill you, but if you do I will give you £300.’ I went to the roof and the mate went with me and took the skylight off. He cut a long cord from the gear and went below again and tied it round the body and came on deck, and pulled it up the skylight, hand over hand. I did not help to lift the body out of the cabin. He threw the body over the stern. I heard it plunge into the water. He desired me to bring the boat around to the stern. When I got it round he came down into the boat and fastened the line to it. I attempted to get away but he held me back. I had to help him row the boat to the south side of the river. In pulling up the river the body lost off the trousers. The mate went on shore and brought a stone into the boat. The mate pulled the body so it was above water and tied the stone to it. He let the stone and body go into the water. We both returned to the ship. He told me to rest in my berth, where the crew were asleep. He called me at four o’clock, saying, loudly, ‘Fred, you must set the captain on shore’. The others would have heard. I went to the boat and rowed then returned to the ship. He told me to say I had put the captain ashore on the north side. He said if I said anything he would murder me.

Muller’s account depicted that he had played a coerced role in the murder of Captain Berckholtz, and that he had been unable to escape and had been threatened with death by Jacob Ehlert. At the inquest on 15 June the testimonies of other witnesses were heard.

Local policeman Sergeant Holmes said that at about noon on Thursday he was on patrol when a man ran up to him and said a body had been found in the river, and that two men in a boat had recovered it. He saw a stone in the boat which he said ‘weighed upwards of a hundredweight’, and it was obvious to him that the head injury had been the cause of death. He and the men endeavoured to carry the body with the stone but could not.

Surgeon William Dodd formally pronounced death and later said that he was ‘struck with the shocking mutilation’ of the forehead, declaring that ‘the bones were smashed in’.

After being told he need not answer any questions that might incriminate him, Muller declared, ‘I saw blood spurting about when the mate struck the captain with a hammer.’

A report into the murder of Captain Johann Friedrich Berckholtz. The spelling of foreign seamen’s names varies in the documentation covering the case. (Author’s collection)

A juryman asked him, ‘Why did you refuse to go down into the cabin when the mate, your superior officer, called upon you?’

‘I do not know,’ replied Muller. ‘The mate said I might go down to fetch some wine up.’

‘Why did you not give the alarm during the two days which elapsed between the murder of the captain and the finding of his body?’

‘Because I was afraid the mate would kill me,’ replied Muller.

Jacob Ehlert was asked if he understood Muller’s ‘confession’ or if he could explain why Muller had stated that Ehlert had ‘given three blows to the captain’s head’. Ehlert shook his head and declared, ‘These are lies’. He also denied tying a rope about the captain and maintained that he had been in his own cabin before he met Muller at the top of the stairs rushing out of the captain’s cabin. He claimed that at that point Muller had tried to leap overboard. Ehlert’s solicitor, Mr Blech, said that his client wished to confront Muller, which the courtroom agreed to be ‘right’ and ‘fair’, so the witness was brought to appear before the magistrates.

‘Who killed the captain?’ asked Ehlert.

‘You,’ replied Muller.

‘You are the murderer,’ said Ehlert.

‘You are the murderer,’ said Muller.

More equally fruitless exchanges were made, and so Johann Eichstadt, the cook, was called upon to testify. He said that at four o’clock on Wednesday morning he had heard Ehlert calling to Muller, ‘Fred, you have to set the captain ashore.’ He also testified that on the Wednesday and Thursday Ehlert was wearing the captain’s hat, and that on Wednesday evening Muller had been drinking; he searched Muller’s berth and found spirits and some money in a box he had earlier seen on the captain’s writing desk. It was French money – six five-franc pieces – and other small coins. He asked Muller about it, but he walked away. Eichstadt then went to Ehlert’s berth and asked him where Muller could have got the money; he responded by laying his head on the table and he did not offer a reply. On Thursday afternoon Eichstadt was shown a body which he formally identified as the captain’s.

The coroner summed up the inquest by telling the jury, ‘I think, gentlemen, you will agree with me that the evidence is perfectly conclusive as to the guilt of the mate. The charge of murder is clearly brought home to him.’ It was hardly conclusive at all, but the jury agreed and found Ehlert guilty of killing Captain Berckholtz, and committed him to the assizes for trial. All of the crew members were detained in custody. A few days later, Ehlert wrote to Superintendent Brown about his ‘unhappy situation’ of being accused of the cruel murder committed by the jungmann (Muller), which gave him the ‘greatest pain’ for he feared he would never confess. Captain Berckholtz was buried in St Peter’s churchyard in Sunderland.

Elhert stood trial at Durham Assizes in July, before Justice Coltman, where he pleaded ‘not guilty’. Daniel Muller appeared as a prosecution witness, and his testimony was long and precise. As well as reiterating what he had said before, he denied ever touching the captain’s body ‘from first to last’, and on the issue of why he did not attempt an escape from Elhert when he went on shore to get the heavy stone, Muller said, ‘The stone was so near the boat that the mate had one foot in the boat and the other on the land.’

Mr Knowles, defending, said the jury were required upon the evidence of one witness to find Ehlert guilty, and that the testimony held little weight because Muller was an accomplice and, therefore, as equally guilty. It was only because Muller had got the head start and turned King’s Evidence that he was allowed to give his evidence on oath, while the prisoner could not – accused persons were not allowed to testify in their own defence at that time.

Knowles went on to say that Muller had, by his own account, been asked by Ehlert to go down to the captain’s cabin, saying, ‘I thought the mate had wanted me to bring up some wine.’ Muller, it seemed, wanted the jury to believe that Ehlert deliberately chose to have a witness to his murder of Captain Berckholtz. For what purpose would he call him down to witness the murder? Not for assistance for he had none, according to Muller. Knowles declared that the only safe course was for the jury to reject Muller’s unreliable evidence altogether. Knowles went on to say:

Captain Berckholtz’s gravestone in St Peter’s churchyard, Monkwearmouth (© Paul Heslop)

Muller said he wanted to get away, but Ehlert stopped him. He went upstairs, leaving Ehlert alone in the cabin. Muller’s companions were within a few feet of him; the slightest cry would have woken them. Muller asserted that the mate said he would have £300. So is he saying Ehlert would commit the murder but he, Muller, was to have the money? There was the story about the body being brought up through the skylight. Muller said he never touched the body, and he gave no assistance. Yet even the prosecution say one person could not raise it without assistance. Muller said he ‘brought the boat around’. Why did he not go away then? He says he did not wish to betray the mate! This is so inconsistent it is impossible for a human being to believe. There is falsehood after falsehood in every story Muller has told.

Muller said Ehlert told him to pretend to put the captain onshore, that he was away a quarter of an hour. What was to prevent him getting away then? A few strokes of the oars and he is on shore, the mate with his knife still on the ship. Instead he rows to the south shore and comes back and says nothing. And when they were all taken into custody, why did he not tell the police that Ehlert had murdered the captain? Instead, he told the police he put the captain on shore!

The judge said it was impossible to regard Muller in any other light than as a willing accomplice and that his testimony was to be heard with great caution. One could also say that his dubious evidence was the only evidence against Ehlert, and that without it there was no proof of his guilt. Both men, said his Lordship, were in this together – but only one stood charged with the murder, and it was in respect of him, and him alone, that the jury had to return a verdict. They took just eight minutes to declare that their verdict was ‘Guilty’.