Aylesbury, page 1
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
* * *
I would like to express my gratitude to the following people who have all contributed to the completion of this book in their own way: Catherine Houghton, for her endurance during the long hours of research and her understanding when frustration besieged me; Ed Grimsdale, a legend and mentor for aspiring historians; the staff at the Centre for Buckinghamshire Studies, for their invaluable assistance; the Bucks Herald, for their creditable journalism; Ian Costar; Pam Reed; and Danielle Robson at Slough Library.
CONTENTS
* * *
Title
Acknowledgements
Introduction
Case One
1837
‘My days are gone like a shadow’
Case Two
1845
‘Give, and it shall be given to you’
Case Three
1864
‘Oh death where is thy sting?’
Case Four
1870
‘Fear not them which kill the body’
Case Five
1870
‘The mouth of a righteous man is a well of life’
Case Six
1873
‘Our sorrows and our tears we pour’
Case Seven
1880
‘Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed’
Bibliography
Copyright
INTRODUCTION
* * *
When I decided to write this book I had anticipated fewer capital crimes and more crimes of a milder nature. The murders I have covered tend to be committed in a sudden frenzy of violence, often in an attempt to prevent the victim from identifying their attacker for a much lesser crime than that of murder. The favoured weapon is the knife which can be perceived as a somewhat ‘personal’ weapon to kill with; a more ‘personal’ way to murder. If one were to shoot somebody or poison them say, the murderer would be quite disassociated from the victim and could achieve their aim from a distance. When inflicting wounds with a knife, the perpetrator is close to the victim. The knife becomes an extension of the body, replicating each fluid and deliberate movement of the arm. The murderer is invariably contaminated with the blood of their victim, can hear their desperate cries for help, see the terror in their eyes, and witness their last gasp for breath.
The murderers in this book were all hanged in Aylesbury. The crimes were committed in the Aylesbury area and the accused (with two exceptions) were tried at the Aylesbury Assizes. Until 1810, hangings were conducted at Stone Bridge, nicknamed ‘Gallows Bridge’, just outside of the parish boundary on a site that now forms part of the Bicester Road. This meant conveying prisoners some distance, so executions from 1810 were carried out in the town: first outside the County Hall (now the County Court) then outside Aylesbury Gaol (the current Aylesbury Prison) until an act was passed in 1868 prohibiting public executions. From this time all further executions took place inside the gaol on a site which is now simply a lawn.
I have recounted the murders to include the inquests, trials and executions as these provide a fuller account of the circumstances surrounding the crimes and on what grounds the suspects were convicted and subsequently hanged.
It was not until the 1880s that defendants at trials were allowed to give evidence in their defence or under cross-examination and even then it was only permissable for certain crimes. In 1898, however, the defendants were allowed to give evidence at their own trial regardless of the crime.
I have attempted to include as many names as possible of the people involved in these crimes and the places they lived, so those of you who are interested in genealogy can maybe trace a good or bad ancestor. Which will yours be?
Scott Houghton, 2012
CASE ONE 1837
‘MY DAYS ARE GONE LIKE A SHADOW’
* * *
Soulbury, Heath and Reach
* * *
Suspect:
Thomas Bates
Age:
22
Charge:
Murder
* * *
Shortly after ten o’clock on the morning of Tuesday, 30 August 1836, and after an hour’s searching, Jonathan Chew – gardener to Colonel Hanmer the then MP for Stockgrove, Buckinghamshire – discovered the corpse of his colleague, James Giltrow, abandoned in a copse on the west side of Bragenham Warren, situated between Leighton Buzzard and Great Brickhill.
Until his untimely demise, James Giltrow had been in the employ of Colonel Hanmer as his gamekeeper. Giltrow had not returned home from work the previous evening, causing his concerned wife to raise the alarm early the following morning when she travelled to Stockgrove House, the home of Colonel Hanmer. As Giltrow was a gamekeeper it was perfectly feasible that he may work at night, hence why the alarm was not raised until the following morning.
* * *
‘the corpse of his colleague’
* * *
When Chew discovered his colleague’s lifeless remains he was initially unable to identify him as his face had been so battered and mutilated no discernible features remained.
Giltrow’s identity was established by the presence of his shot belt, clothes and his still-loaded double-barrelled shot gun that lay alongside him. Chew raised the alarm and people rushed to the scene. First to arrive were some labourers who had been working in the adjoining fields owned by Mr Mortimer. Shortly afterwards they were joined by the inhabitants of the surrounding towns and villages.
The first constable to arrive was handed a discarded broken gunstock found at the scene, which peculiarly had a wax end. He immediately recognised it as belonging to Thomas Bates, from whom he had once borrowed the gun from which the gunstock came. Bates, aged twenty-two, was a labourer at the time of the murder and resided in Heath with his wife and two children. Knowing Bates was in employment on the railway nearby, the constable went at once to arrest and despatch him to Soulbury, where he would remain in custody until his trial. Initially, Bates denied knowledge of the gunstock or the murder of James Giltrow. However, it was not long before he confessed to the crime of which he stood accused.
Stockgrove: Colonel Hanmer’s estate where Thomas Bates was caught poaching. (Author’s collection)
Bates admitted that on Monday evening he had gone to Six Acre Wood in order to shoot rabbits, but while sitting on a gate he noticed a cock pheasant. He shot at and hit the pheasant but it was not killed and managed to escape. Bates then went through the warren into a corn stubble field under Chew’s charge and concealed himself beneath a hedge. However, the gamekeeper James Giltrow appeared almost immediately, running towards Bates as fast as he could. Bates ducked back through the hedge and attempted to conceal himself in a ditch but was soon discovered by Giltrow who, according to Bates, said, ‘I have looked for you many times and now I have you.’ At first, Bates refused to leave his hiding place but soon realised he had been discovered and surrendered himself to Giltrow’s mercy.
Bates claimed he told Giltrow, ‘it is the first time you have caught me, and I hope you will forgive me.’ Giltrow was unimpressed with this plea and insisted the poacher accompany him to the authorities. They set off together but before long Bates was confronted with the opportunity to escape and knocked Giltrow to the ground using the butt of his gun.
The staggering ferocity of the blow to the hapless Giltrow caused Bates’ gun to break into three separate pieces. He attacked Giltrow’s face and head with the barrel and then the lock of the broken gun.
Upon cessation of the frenzied attack, Bates was only able to recover two parts of his broken gun. The butt with the distinctive wax end could not be found, so Bates hid the remaining pieces, including the final butt piece and the barrel, in the nearby Rushmere Pond.
Bates returned home and retired to his bed around eight-thirty that evening. He rose at five o’clock the following morning to hunt for the remaining piece of the gun which would ultimately lead to his identification, trial and execution. Fortunately the moon was bright, enabling Bates to search for an hour. Although he was able to find many splintered shards of his gun he was unable to locate the incriminating piece that would identify him as Giltrow’s murderer. He even rolled Giltrow’s cold and bloodied corpse over to see if the slain man concealed the errant weapon part, but to no avail. Concerned he would be discovered near his victim and that the body was exposed, Bates pulled a stake from the hedge and laid it over the body. Unsatisfied in his quest to find the gun piece, he then made off for work as usual.
Rushmere Pond, where Thomas Bates hid the pieces of the murder weapon. (Author’s collection)
It was a cruel trick of fate for Bates that he had been unable to locate the missing gun piece, for when the crowds arrived upon the scene a few hours later, the distinctive butt was discovered almost immediately just yards from the body.
On Wednesday, 31 August 1836, just two days after the murder, the coroner’s inquest was conducted at The Boot public house in Soulbury, under the direction of the coroner, J.W. Cowley, surgeon Dr Penrose, and an appointed jury.
Several witnesses were called upon who gave evidence that they had seen Thomas Bates in the vicinity of the copse around the time of the murder. One Bernard Fossey, just fourteen years old, confirmed that he had seen Bates between seven and eight o’clock at Baker’s Wood.
Bates was granted permission to speak to his wife, whereupon he fell to tears and promised he ‘would tell all about it’. Bates went on to confess his crime to the coroner’s court and the case was adjourned unt
The Boot, Soulbury, where the coroner’s inquest was held. (Author’s collection)
When the court reconvened on Thursday morning, the two pieces of the gun Bates had concealed at Rushmere Pond had been recovered and were identified as belonging to him. Bates declared that no one had abetted or aided him during the crime and he had no malice aforethought. The jury took little time in declaring a verdict of ‘wilful murder’ and Bates was relayed to Aylesbury Gaol to await trial at the Lent County Assizes.
March 1837 saw the beginning of the trial of Thomas Bates for the murder of John Giltrow, before Justice Allan Park. Surprisingly, considering he had previously confessed to the crime at the coroner’s inquest, Bates pleaded not guilty and challenged various members of the jury.
Messrs Storks and Roberts led the prosecution, while Mr Byles conducted the defence.
Bernard Fossey, the boy who had given evidence at the coroner’s court, first gave his evidence that he had seen Bates at Baker’s Wood on Monday 29 August at half past seven in the evening. Jonathan Chew, who had discovered Giltrow’s battered corpse, was the next called to give his evidence.
Baker’s Wood, where Thomas Bates was spotted on the evening of the murder. (Author’s collection)
Chew described how he found the dead and mutilated body of his colleague at around ten o’clock on the morning of 30 August.
Giltrow’s stiff and cold body was lying on its back with the head a little to the left. His gun lay to the side and a large pointed hedge stake was between the body and the gun. After inspecting the stake, he noticed it was daubed in blood at the pointed end. He also remarked that Giltrow’s right eye had popped out. The corner of the warren where the body lay was covered with high fern and oak trees whose boughs almost touched the ground; the body was concealed quite naturally in this location.
After a lacklustre and probably futile cross-examination by Mr Byles, Bates’ defence counsel, a carpenter by the name of John Adams took to the witness stand. Adams recounted going to the warren where Giltrow’s body lay on the morning after the murder and finding the ‘missing’ part of Bates’ gun. He described the wax end that was to lead to the identity of Bates and his complicity in this heinous crime. Bates’ gun was then produced in court. Adams was with his friend at the time and witnessed the prisoner brought close to the warren and heard him deny that the gun was his. However, shortly afterwards, Adams heard Bates claim that he had hidden the remaining parts of the gun in a pond at Craddock’s Spinney. They subsequently visited Craddock’s Spinney with Bates but he claimed it was not there. The gun parts were recovered the following morning after Bates’ confession at the coroner’s inquest.
John Mortimer, a farmer from Heath and Reach, was then called and related how he had formerly employed Bates and identified the gun as belonging to him. He witnessed Bates in possession of that same gun on a number of occasions, the most recent being three or four weeks before Giltrow’s death. Mortimer had remarked upon its danger as a weapon, such was its parlous state of repair. Mortimer then went on to recite how, at The Boot public house in Soulbury on the day after the murder, he had engaged in a conversation with Bates concerning the death of Giltrow. According to Mortimer’s testimony, Bates confessed in great detail, describing the circumstances of the murder and how he viciously slaughtered his victim, as well as where he had hidden the broken gun parts he still had in his possession.
Mortimer was cross-examined by Mr Byles but it appears Byles made no real effort to uncover any detail that may spare his client from the hangman’s noose. Indeed, more damning evidence was provided when Mortimer recounted a conversation he had with Bates some weeks prior to the murder of Giltrow in The Boot, where he had warned Bates that if he were to be caught in Mortimer’s field he would be ‘taken up’. Re-examined by the prosecution, Mortimer gave Bates’ reply to this as, ‘If I knew any man who would do so, or tell of me I would blow his brains out or knock them out.’ Bates indeed kept his promise.
Following Mortimer on the witness stand was Thomas Henley who had stood guard over the arrested man at The Boot in Soulbury. Handcuffed to Bates, he witnessed a visit from Bates’ wife on 31 August, two days after the murder. Following a tearful conversation with his wife, Bates confessed to killing Giltrow and warned others from poaching in the future. ‘I am the man who killed Giltrow,’ he had exclaimed.
This appears to have been Bates’ fullest confession. He had gone to shoot a rabbit but saw a cock pheasant across the Six Acre turnip field. He hit the pheasant with a shot but it was not a fatal blow and the bird flew over into the warren. Instead of chasing the stricken bird, he decided to head for home by way of Bragenham Lane so if he should be seen by any passers-by they would simply assume he was returning from work on the railway.
Along the way, Bates saw Colonel Hanmer’s gamekeeper, James Giltrow so he hid in a ditch in order to evade detection. However, Giltrow saw where he had attempted to conceal his person and confronted him regarding the shooting of the pheasant. Bates pleaded for forgiveness but Giltrow was aware that Bates had been poaching on a regular basis and had been troublesome to him in the past so sought to take him in.
According to Bates himself, Giltrow refused forgiveness but did still offer to do what he could for him. This kindness was to be repaid with a savage attack that left the victim so disfigured he was unrecognisable to those who knew him.
Giltrow, somewhat trustingly as Bates was armed with a loaded gun, led the way and it must be assumed then that he did not fear for his safety. Bates then set about Giltrow with his gun, not firing it which would have been a kindness as death may have been instantaneous, but striking Giltrow repeatedly around the head and face with such force that the gun shattered into numerous parts. The witness, Thomas Henley, told Bates that he could not imagine how he could continue striking the man once he was upon the ground. Bates replied that he had to ensure Giltrow was dead or else he would report him and provide evidence against him.
Henley continued: Bates had told him that after attacking Giltrow he had returned home, hiding the pieces of the gun under some rushes at the pond near the warren. After a sleepless night, he rose early and on the premise of leaving to collect some mushrooms, Bates returned to the crime scene expecting to find Giltrow still alive and to search for the missing gun part.
Does this mean Giltrow was still breathing when Bates left him at around eight o’clock the previous evening or was guilt and paranoia creeping into the man’s mind?
Bragenham Lane – the route taken by Thomas Bates to avoid being spotted leaving Rushmere Pond. (Author’s collection)
Bates knew that if he could not find the missing part of his gun with the distinctive wax end he would be undone. Unable to locate the missing piece, which was later found some 7 f from Giltrow’s body, Bates entered one of Mortimer’s adjacent fields and tore out a fence stake. He then smeared it with blood that had congealed around Giltrow’s head wounds, in an effort to make it look like the stake was the murder weapon rather than the gun which would indicate his guilt.
Constable Thomas Hopkins of Heath & Reach gave evidence next. He confirmed that he had been present when Bates made the confession to John Mortimer, his former employer, at The Boot two days after the murder had taken place. He told the court how Bates was in his beer shop on the night of the murder with a Thomas Line. The men drank together until four o’clock when they left.
Hopkins then described how he visited the murder site on the morning of 30 August and was presented with the missing gun part that unmistakably implicated Bates. Constable Hopkins had borrowed the very same gun from Bates less than a fortnight before so he was able to identify the owner immediately. Hopkins’ servant, Thomas Cook, also identified the gun, as it was he who had returned the gun to Bates after cleaning it and gave testimony to that effect.
