Unsolved murders in London 1840-1910?

[Parker_Pyne79]

I need some unsolved murder cases. I know about the torso victims and Jack the Ripper victims, I need some more unknown ones. Many Thanks.

[Mayerling]

I need some unsolved murder cases. I know about the torso victims and Jack the Ripper victims, I need some more unknown ones. Many Thanks.

There are more than you can imagine. Some even ended with cases in the law courts that did not explain what happened or who done them. Here are a few:

1866 - The Cannon Street Mystery. This was the murder of a Mrs. Sarah Milsom, who was one of two women who were the night staff at a warehouse on Cannon-Street. Mrs. Milsom was requently interrupted when at her job by somebody who may have been blackmailing her. One night she went downstairs to answer a doorbell. When she did not return upstairs within twenty minutes her companion went down and found her beaten to death. In this case witnesses claimed they saw a young man around the warehouse up to an hour or so before the crime, and it turned out Mrs. Milsom had a nephew who was somewhat shiftless. This may have been the one who visited her on other occasions. He was traced and arrested, and charged with the murder. The trial seemed (to the prosecution) open and shut. They were surprised when it was the turn for the defense to open it's side of the case. About twenty witnesses showed up who showed the defendant was gambling in a distant part of London at the time, thus establishing his alibi.
Of course he was acquitted, and the case never solved.

1872 - The Hoxton Murder Mystery - a large number of people saw a young man tearing out of the store owned and run by a Mrs. Squires (with her daughter) in Hoxton. Somebody entered and found both ladies bludgeoned.
Despite it happening in daylight, with dozens of witnesses seeing the young man fleeing, no adequate description of the young man led to any arrest. What made this case particularly upsetting when one reads about it - a bottle found near the dead women had a FINGERPRINT on it. Unfortunately the use of fingerprinting as a weapon against crime did not become fully established in Great Britain until 1905. In fact there was no fingerprint record kept anywhere at the time. As a result the case was unsolved.

1881 - The Chatham Barracks Murder Mystery - In February 1881 there was some excitement among young army officers of the prospect for foreign warfare. The first Anglo-Boer War was being fought in South Africa, and some of the new younger officers were hoping to be sent there. One was Lt. Percy Roper. One afternoon, while his fellows were gathering for dinner, they noticed Percy was not there. There was the sound of a gunshot. They went upstairs to find he was in his rooms, shot in the head with a pistol - but no pistol was found, so it was obviously a murder. Now it becomes interesting. Scotland Yard and the army cooperated to find the killer and soon suspects appeared and disappeared. A Sergeant who was near the Chatham Barracks committed suicide - but he was never linked to Roper! The issue of the coming military expedition and who was going on it was looked into, but nobody could say if Roper was chosen to go on it or not.
As it turned out the First Anglo-Boer War was a wash-out anyway, with only one major battle fought (at Majuba Hill) and with the British commander Sir George Colley Pomeroy not only losing to the Boers but being killed in the bargain - so the war ended in defeat and not glory.

It irritated the public that the Yard had failed on another case again, and the Roper Mystery was entering the long list of the unsolved. Then it briefly seemed about to be solved by a confession. In November 1881 another Percy, Percy Lefroy Mapleton, was awaiting execution for the murder in June 1881 of one Frederick Isaac Gold on a railway train going to Brighton. While in the death cell Mapleton made a confession that he was the one who shot and killed Roper, possibly over a romantic triangle. The public really never learned the full details, because a day later Mapleton said he lied about the Roper Murder. Shortly this issue became moot because Mapleton was hung. The Roper Mystery rejoined the list of cases.

1886 - The Pimlico Mystery. Edwin Bartlett was an eccentric, upper class grocery store owner who had a young wife named Adelaide. Adelaide already had one mystery in her background because she had an unknown father, but it was rumored he was of noble lineage and possibly close to the friends of the Prince of Wales (it doesn't pay to really try to look into that). Adelaide Bartlett was involved with a lover, who was the Rev. George Dyson, the Wesleyan minister who was the spiritual advisor of Edwin Bartlett. Bartlett was suffering from illnesses, some connected to bad dental hygiene requiring the extraction of his teeth. He was recuperating in the flat he and Adelaide lived in Pimlico. Aside from Rev. Dyson, the only visitor they got was Edwin's father, who never liked Adelaide, and who suspected her and Dyson. However Adelaide fully returned this opinion of her father-in-law. By the way, given later events it pays to keep in mind that the elder Bartlett would have inherited his son's estate if anything knocked Adelaide out of legal possession of it (i.e. proof she murdered her husband).

One of the medicines in the house turned out to be liquid chloroform, used (supposedly) to help Edwin sleep at night. On Dec. 31, 1885 Edwin was having a restless day. If we are to believe Dyson, Edwin had been depressed and talking about what would happen to Adelaide if he died, and somehow this led to whether dear old George would marry her. [I'm not making this up, incredible as it may all sound.] For a depressed man, however, Edwin told the family cook to serve him a large fish meal for New Year's Day on the morrow - going into considerable detail about it. When night came, the bottle of chloroform was on a convenient mantelpiece in the room Edwin slept in. The next morning Edwin was found to be dead. The bottle was empty.

Mr. Bartlett Sr. came when he heard the news and began crying near his son's body. This did not prevent him from stopping his grim sobbing, and sniffing his son's lips as though trying to see if there was any odd odor there.
Since the death was sudden there was an autopsy. Edwin's stomach was full of liquid chloroform. Now we can establish that he died from poisoning, but the issue becomes was this a murder or not?

The choice of poison does not help. It later turned out (during the police investigation) that the chloroform was not bought in the bottle was in - rather several orders were filled for it, and the person who signed the chemist's book for the orders (all at different chemists or pharmacists) was not Adelaide, but George. Dyson would later claim Adelaide had asked him to do this, which is just possible, but he somehow muddied such a confession by the act (when he learned what killed Edwin) of throwing the incriminating smaller bottles of chloroform out of a railway coach window when alone - which of course looks guilty too. The other reason for the problem of the use of liquid chloroform in a murder when it ends up in a stomach in any quantities is that liquid chloroform is very hard to drink - it burns the throat and causes one to scream in pain. Nobody (including neighbors) heard Edwin screaming.

Eventually Adelaide and George were arrested for Edwin's murder, the motives being their love affair and greed to get rid of Edwin for his estate. The latter idea was gleefully pushed by Edwin's dad. The prosecution (because it was a poisoning case) was in the hands of the then Attorney General, Sir Charles Russell. Russell was one of the two greatest barristers in England. Adelaide would soon find herself facing Russell alone, as Reverend Dyson decided to accept a fair offer - charges were dropped against him, and he was a witness for the prosecution. Keeping her head, Adelaide hired the other greatest barrister in England at the time to defend her, Sir Edward Clarke.

The trial is still fascinating, especially Clarke's defense. A good account of it is in Edgar Lustgarten's book, "Defender's Triumph". Russell was not at his sharpest in this case, because of the issue of "Home Rule" for Ireland which he supported as did his boss, Prime Minister Gladstone. So he had to concentrate on political matters when his concentration should have been more sharply on the case. As a result Clarke was able to score vital points against the prosecution. First he did get a jab in at Mr. Bartlett Sr., bringing out his long dislike for his daughter-in-law, and his greed for the estate falling into his hands. Next the Reverend was questioned, and admitted that Bartlett was in a depressed state of mind on his health matters, and that the doctor had ordered the chloroform he had purchased for Edwin. Clarke did not bother about the relations between Adelaide and George (quite wisely) but then Russell could not bring it up either, as he could only have brought it out if Clarke had done so - and it would have been embarrassing if he had as it would have reminded the court of the quid-pro-quo bargain he had used to get Dyson to testify as a prosecution witness. The treating doctor was also questioned, and proved able to show how Edwin was depressed due to his long standing health issues.

Overlooked though was the servant's testimony about Edwin looking forward to that fish dinner he ordered for the next day. Also, and a problem for the prosecution was how Edwin got the liquid chloroform into his belly. The best that could be suggested was that Edwin, who could be hypnotized, was put under, and then made to drink the contents of the bottle. Problem is the burning would have reawaken him out of the hypnotic state and he'd been screaming. Clarke gave a possible (I find it shaky) alternative. Given Edwin's apparent concern for Adelaide's future (and his requesting Dyson marry her) and his depressed mental state, he might have willingly drunk the chloroform quickly to kill himself. Murder or suicide then. Adelaide would hear from the 12 jurors that although there were strong reasons to be suspect about her behavior, she was acquitted of killing Edwin.

Officially then Adelaide Bartlett was innocent, and the mystery left unsolved.
Most people still feel it was the wrong decision, but the matter of how that particular poison got into Edwin perplexes us to this day. Sir James Paget, one of the leading surgeons of the day, would say, "Now that we know she is innocent, and cannot be tried ever again, in the name of science she should tell us how she did it!" We still can't figure it out - some burning should have been noticed if Edwin drank the chloroform, in his throat. None was found.

[I once had an idea about it, but I never have really considered it fully: if the doctor, who had found a tape worm inside Edwin a few weeks earlier, had for reason recommended use of an enema bag, maybe that could have been used shooting the liquid up through the rear of Edwin. When he was found dead he was lying on his stomach. Earlier he might have been given chloroform on a handkerchief and put to sleep that way. But would he still have not noticed the fire of the liquid chloroform the other way too - or would the tubing of the bag prevented his knowing until too late?]

During the trial the doctor had been asked about how close the relationship of Adelaide and her husband seemed, and he reported she was quite concerned about his condition, and seemed loving. He did report that Edwin was apparently (for health reasons) practicing sexual abstinence with his wife. Oddly enough, when some of the evidence was brought into the case, the trial judge noted that Edwin had what were called "French Letters" on his person. "French Letters" are what we would call "rubbers" or contraceptives.
The trial judge did sum up fairly, but he sort of dismissed the sexual abstinence idea given these items. He also considered the discussion of George marrying Adelaide with a jaundice eye, suggesting that if a husband heard such a discussion his life would not be one an insurance company would consider a good risk.

To me Adelaide was fortunate in her advocate, in the somewhat weaker activity of the usually abler prosecutor, and in the below character marks of her father-in-law and her former lover (now seen as a lowlife turncoat). What happened to Adelaide? We don't really know. Julian Symons wrote a novel about thirty years ago, "Sweet Adelaide" (a kind of joke on "Sweet Adeline") and said she may have ended up like Mrs. Florence Maybrick, living in Connecticut and dying there in 1933 or so. A similar mystery engulfs Rev. Dyson - although with more sinister overtones. The criminal historian Richard Whittington-Egan wrote a biography of the Scottish writer and criminologist William Roughead, and in one of his footnotes (dealing with Roughead's essay on the case) mentions that in the 1930s Roughead got a letter from some woman in Chevy Chase, Maryland regarding Dyson. In it the woman said that her younger sister married Dyson, now using another name, around 1914, and that sister died suddenly under mysterious circumstances leaving her estate to Dyson. The writer had not liked Dyson, and said she found a photograph of him dressed as a clergyman - and his features resembled pictures of George Dyson. Could this have been true? Whittington-Egan found nothing further in Roughead's correspondence about the author of that letter.

Jeff

[Rosella]

There's the officially unsolved murder of Lucy Clark. She was an ex ladies maid to Lady Lonsdale, living in comfortable circumstances alone (except for her cat) above a shop at 86 George St Portman Square, London.

In January 1888 she was killed. She had last been seen on the 15th, had opened a business letter on the 18th and on the 23rd was found lying in a pool of blood with deep skull fractures and her throat cut from ear to ear, at the bottom of stairs leading from her flat, by an estate agent. It was believed that a mallet had been used on her head, but the murder weapon was never found.

Lucy's bedroom was ransacked and her jewellery, gold rings, bracelets, a gold watch, earrings were gone from her jewellery box, though money, bank stock and her bank book showing her account of £240 had not been found.

Inspector Robson found a letter in her room addressed to her nephew Harry, in which Lucy complained that he had not contacted her about damage to a gold chain and the stealing of gold stoppers, which she had written to him about previously. The letter was dated Jan 13th. It appears that at the beginning of January Lucy was ill and at her mother's house. Harry and his brother Walter had gone to her house to feed her cat either at her request or they had volunteered. When Lucy had returned home her jewellery box had been forced and two gold stoppers taken and a gold chain and ring badly damaged.

Inspector Robson visited Harry Chadwick aged 21 at his home. He denied any quarrel with his aunt. He was a surveyer at an architects office. His brother Walter was 19 and unemployed. Harry eventually admitted that they had both broke into their aunt's jewellery box when they had been drunk and in her home feeding her cat. They had taken her gold stoppers, pawned them and damaged a chain.

He stated that he had visited his aunt on the 16th of January, feeling very ashamed, had apologised and offered to pay for the damage and restitution. His aunt had kissed him, enquired about his mother and invited him in, as they had been talking on the front step, but he had refused. She had said she had written him a letter but hadn't posted it as the language was too strong.

The police arrested the Chadwick brothers and while they were detained in custody searches went on at their home and Lucy's. Pawnbrokers were checked and even drains. The Chadwicks clothing was examined but nothing was found. They were released and placed under surveillance, but they didn't say or do anything suspicious.

A coachman reported that he had seen two men leaving Miss Clark's address in a Hansom cab at 11 pm on Friday the 20th Jan but had only caught a glimpse of them. Lucy's gold watch had been pawned for £3 under the name of Gill and a fictitious address by a pale young man in an overcoat and top hat, but the pawnbroker couldn't identify him.

Mrs Chadwick, mother of the young men, was interviewed by reporters. She bore 'signs of mental anguish', but averred that although it had been very wrong of her boys to steal and damage their aunt's jewellery, they would never have murdered her as they were too fond of her. She pointed out that there had been several burglaries in the neighbourhood, and her family had consistently warned Lucy against living alone.

On the 27th January the Inquest on Lucy Clark was held. Harry and Walter Chadwick gave evidence. Walter had been drinking at pubs and had gone away for a day, but couldn't remember when in mid January. He said he had borrowed money from his brother for these pursuits. The Coroner clearly regarded Walter as an unsatisfactory witness and said so. The authorities were clearly suspicious of the two young men but there was no evidence against them. The jury therefore brought in a verdict of 'wilful murder against some person or persons unknown'. The police went on searching and enquiring but the case grew cold. No one ever went to trial.

[jerryd]

Here is a link I posted awhile back on the other forum. It covers murders in 1888 but it's a good start.

https://www.google.com/fusiontables/DataSource?docid=14K3_dHaS4_tyu1Vd-FcvoL-R-yvwN_bKMWSptmg

[Rosella]

I don't know whether 1908 is too late, but there is the unsolved murder of Esther Praager. On October 16th 1908 and calling herself Miss Smith, and to other lodgers, Mrs Marx, she moved into a shady boarding house at 3 Bernard St Bloomsbury. She went out that same night, a Friday, and returned at midnight with a male companion. At around 2am one of the other lodgers heard a cry of 'Oy gevait' (Help) 'Police!' He thought it was from a drunken quarrel and didn't get up.

When some of the lodgers were having lunch the next day it appears that several had heard the cry. The housekeeper and the landlady's son, Arthur Chapple (who lived nearby) investigated. The room was unlocked and 'Miss Smith' was laying on the bed murdered. There was a towel wrapped around her neck. The mattress and bedclothes were torn, as if a terrible struggle had taken place.

Some electrical flex had been tied around the woman's neck and more around the bed post. The local doctor, Dr O' Donnell, believed that the victim had been suffocated. The wash basin had been used. The murderer had covered the body with a sheet and then walked out, undisturbed by any other lodger

On the 18th October the victim was identified by Mrs Selina Cooper of Colegate Mansions, Whitechapel as her sister, 17 year old Esther Praager. The sisters were Polish Jews from Warsaw. Esther had joined her sister in London and lodged with the Cooper family. Selina and her husband had taught her English and got her a job as a seamstress. However Esther wanted money and nice clothes and left to earn money elsewhere. She became a prostitute, after which the Coopers disowned her.

At the Coroners Inquest several Bloomsbury prostitutes gave evidence. Esther had been known as 'die Kleine' (little one) because she was only 5ft tall. She had been walking the streets for a year. One, Ange Motzmer, had walked around with Esther on that Friday evening from 9:30pm to 10:30pm. She had later seen her with a young man in a grey striped suit and Esther told her 'We are going home for the night.' Another had seen her with a very short, broad shouldered man. A shopkeeper had sold Esther sandwiches at midnight and said that she was in a hurry. A short man in a dark suit waited outside for her.

The Home Office pathologist, Professor Pepper, told the Inquest that Esther had been suffocated, presumably by a strong man holding a towel over her face. A verdict of wilful murder against some person unknown was returned by the jury.
The police had managed to recover fingerprints from the washbasin and bedpost in Esther's room but they were not of good quality. The short man was never traced and the case remained unsolved.

[Rosella]

PS. Julius Cooper, a chemical dealer of Myrtle St, and Esther's brother in law, was apparently a police suspect for the above murder for a time!

[Rosella]

In 1880 there was the 'Harley St Mystery'. Harley St was and is a street of wealthy residents, many connected with physicians. At number 139 the tenant was Mr Jacob Henriques, a wealthy retired banker and merchant. He lived there with his wife and three adult unmarried daughters. When the family travelled abroad, which they did regularly, a caretaker and his wife looked after the place. When the family returned they would hire a full staff under a butler each time.

In June 1880 the family had been home for 18 months. The Henriques' butler, John Spendlove, noticed a persistent noxious smell coming from the cellars and a plumber was called. In a large front cellar which extended under the pavement, was a large cistern and under it a wooden barrel. When the barrel was moved it proved to be heavy and the butler peered inside. He could see a body. The police came and turned the barrel upside down. A badly decomposed, partly mummified female body fell out.

Professor Pepper the pathologist found it to have been a very short woman (4ft 7ins tall) aged between 40 and 50 with dark brown hair and strange filed short front teeth. She had been stabbed fatally in the chest.

The police scoured London and the Home Counties for Henriques former servants of the last five years. They were all well and accounted for and knew nothing of any woman in a barrel. A former butler, Henry Smith, who had been dismissed for drunkenness in 1878 was now a soldier. He testified at the Inquest that in his time at no. 39 the gate leading down to the area steps (going down from the street to the basement servants and kitchen quarters) had been regularly kept unlocked so the servants could pop out at night or their visitors could go in. (The Henriques obviously knew nothing of this.)

Bricks in the cellar floor were loose but Smith readily told the police that he was in the habit of burying stale loaves of bread in the cellar so that Mr Henriques wouldn't complain about wastefulness! The inquest didn't uncover anything of interest, though there was some amusement when the plumber, named Goodley, stated that he hadn't smelled anything rotten, since 'plumbers don't notice them as much as other people'! The Inquest verdict was 'wilful murder by some person unknown', the victim, (probably a prostitute smuggled into the house) was never identified, and the case remains unsolved.

[Pcdunn]

Book

I need some unsolved murder cases. I know about the torso victims and Jack the Ripper victims, I need some more unknown ones. Many Thanks.

This book might also be helpful:

http://www.amazon.com/Unsolved-Murders-Victorian-Edwardian-London/dp/1845630459