The Anatomy of Murder, page 28
Have you talked with Dr. O’D. about how ‘Rats’ is? Goodness, there is so much I want to know! Please ask Irene to give you a few bobbing pins for my hair. I think they will be allowed.
On Thursday morning Miss Riggs woke at 6.30 and heard Stoner already getting up. He left the house at 6.50, came back about ten minutes later, and then left again. Later in the day—where, when, or in what circumstances we are not told—he was arrested by Detective-Inspector Carter and taken to Bournemouth Police Station. When charged, he replied, “I understand.” There is no information as to whether Stoner’s arrest was unexpected by himself or whether he gave himself up; but if the former, we may at any rate give him credit for the right intention. Stoner may not have been a pleasing character, but he had at any rate this elementary decency once he realized that Mrs. Rattenbury’s position really was a serious one.
On this day Mr. Rattenbury died, at the nursing-home, without having recovered consciousness. It was therefore with his murder that Stoner was charged.
The next day, in the detention-room of the Bournemouth police-court, Stoner remarked to the constable on duty: “Do you know Mrs. Rattenbury had nothing to do with this affair?”
The constable cautioned him, but Stoner went on:
When I did the job I believe he was asleep. I hit him and then went upstairs and told Mrs. Rattenbury. She rushed down then. You see, I watched through the french window and saw her kiss him good night—then leave the room. I waited, and then crept in through the french window, which was unlocked. I think he must have been asleep when I hit him. Still, it ain’t much use saying anything. I don’t suppose they will let her out yet. You know, there should be a doctor with her when they tell her I’m arrested, because she will go out of her mind.
This statement seems spontaneous, and its interest needs no underlining. In view of what was suggested later, however, it is worth noting here that this statement is important not only for what it includes but for what it omits. There is, for instance, no hint that Stoner had been inhaling cocaine on the Sunday evening.
Mrs. Rattenbury had appeared first before the magistrates on March 25th, and been remanded. When she appeared again, with Stoner, on April 3rd, she was charged with murder, jointly with Stoner. The case opened on April 11th, and continued from week to week in the usual way.
In the meantime the inquest on Mr. Rattenbury had been opened on April 2nd, for formal evidence of death only. The police surgeon gave evidence that the cause of death was laceration of and haemorrhage into the brain and into the skull, as a result of a compound fracture produced by injuries. The coroner pressed him to add that the injury was produced by a blow, but the surgeon very properly refused. The inquest was then adjourned till June 27th. By that date the trial was over, and a non-committal verdict was returned to the effect that the damage as detailed by the police surgeon had been produced by “a violent injury”.
On April 18th Mrs. Rattenbury wrote a letter to Miss Riggs containing the following passages:
Oh, Lord! To-morrow Good Friday and I dare not think of the children. I have been pretending I have not any here. If one thought for five minutes they would go mad. Good Friday will be like Sunday here. Of all the days in the week, Sunday is the worst.
I have to control my mind like the devil not to think of little John. Yes, take him out on Sundays, darling. C. was awfully pleased to hear from you. My M. not doing anything. Can you? Messages of love are not much use to me now, I want your help.… However, I feel awfully sad being separated in such a ghastly way from everything that one loves. S.’s feelings must take some weighing up, but he will be the same and not allow himself to think.
Should think his remorse at what he has brought upon my head, the children, etc.—smashed life—would drive him a raving lunatic. Frightful responsibility to hold in one person’s hands. God deliver me from such a hellish responsibility. I cannot have courage enough to bear that pain. My own is more than enough in a hundred lifetimes as it is.
At times have found my feelings very hard and bitter. Oh, my God, appallingly so, but have managed to drown these feelings and get one’s heart soft again. Darling, God bless you; bless us all and get us out of this nightmare. My love to your M. and F. My love be with you always.
LOZANNE
Those interested in human problems may speculate why Mrs. Rattenbury should have signed this letter to Miss Riggs “Lozanne”, a name which had never been used between them before.
The magistrates having duly committed both Mrs. Rattenbury and Stoner, and the grand jury having returned a true bill, their joint trial began at the Old Bailey on Monday, May 27th, only just over two months from the date of the murder. Queues waited hours for the opening of the court, and unemployed men offered to sell their places for large sums.
Mr. Justice Humphreys was on the bench, and Mr. R. P. Croom-Johnson, K.C., M.P., led for the prosecution, assisted by Mr. Anthony Hawke. For Mrs. Rattenbury were Mr. T. J. O’Connor, K.C., and the Hon. E. E. Montague. Mr. J. D. Casswell, fresh from a successful appeal for murder before the House of Lords, appeared for Stoner. Both prisoners are reported as pleading not guilty in “faint but firm voices”.
While the jury were being sworn Mr. Casswell made an application that the accused should be tried separately, and on the direction of the judge the jury left the box while the case was argued. Mr. Casswell quoted the letter written by Mrs. Rattenbury to Miss Riggs on April 18th and submitted that it showed a distinct intention to throw responsibility on the other prisoner. Mr. Justice Humphreys held that there was no ground for directing that there should be separate trials. Mr. Croom-Johnson accordingly opened the case for the prosecution.
He outlined the relations between Mrs. Rattenbury and Stoner, gave a short account of the events which took place on the night of March 24th, and produced the fatal mallet, suggesting that this was the ‘heavyinstrument’ which had made the three wounds on Mr. Rattenbury’s head: which, in view of the human hairs and skin found upon it, it undoubtedly was. Mr. Croom-Johnson also quoted the various ‘statements’ made by the accused and, concerning that made by Mrs. Rattenbury to Inspector Mills at 3.30 a.m., counsel commented:
In the submission of the prosecution, if those words are right, blows were struck, according to this statement, by Mrs. Rattenbury, and the reason why they had not killed Mr. Rattenbury outright was that her physical strength was not sufficient.
It is a sign of the fairness with which Mr. Croom-Johnson conducted the prosecution, both in this speech and subsequently, that he should have qualified the submission of the prosecution so pointedly. It may also be a sign of Mr. Croom-Johnson’s own opinion of the case which he had to present against the female prisoner.
Evidence was then called to prove the possession of the mallet by Stoner on the evening of March 24th. This mallet belonged to Stoner’s uncle, and Stoner had borrowed it from his grandparents’ house in the early evening of March 24th. He said that he wanted to drive in some tent-pegs with it. (In the reports of the trial as published in the daily press, no question is recorded to elucidate whether or not any tent-pegs were to be driven in during the next day or two at the Villa Madeira, so that one cannot judge whether this was a genuine reason for borrowing the mallet or an excuse. If no such question was ever put, this would seem a curious omission on the part of the prosecution, for the importance of this point is obvious so far as the degree of premeditation is concerned.)
The first important witness was Miss Irene Riggs, whose evidence occupied all the rest of the day. It included, however, nothing of importance which has not already been stated in this narrative. Miss Riggs was in the box five hours, and everyone, including the judge, was kind to her. In reply to Mr. Justice Humphreys Miss Riggs said that she had never known Mrs. Rattenbury take drugs, such as cocaine, morphia, or heroin.
Mrs. Rattenbury and Stoner had listened to the hearing intently but with expressionless faces. They sat at opposite ends of the dock, and took no notice of each other, not even by a glance. Mrs. Rattenbury kept her eyes fixed most of the time on the judge. Stoner, a little pale, appeared almost indifferent. Mrs. Rattenbury was wearing blue.
At midnight the queue began to form for the next day’s hearing.
Police and medical evidence occupied the second day. A hare had been started to the effect that Mrs. Rattenbury drugged, in consequence of the finding of the hypodermic syringe and needles in the bathroom cupboard, and some time was wasted in chasing it before the explanation was reached that the syringe had been used for injections into Mrs. Rattenbury’s elder son two years earlier. It was therefore finally accepted that Mrs. Rattenbury did not drug.
Cross-examination by the defence showed that Mrs. Rattenbury’s own doctor was definitely sympathetic. He had no exalted opinion of Mrs. Rattenbury, but succeeded in making it plain between the words that he did not consider her capable of committing or planning this very crude murder. Discussing Mrs. Rattenbury’s peculiar temperament with the witness, Mr. O’Connor put one telling question which the judge disallowed on the grounds that it was a matter for the jury to decide. Mr. O’Connor had, however, made his point:
As her medical attendant, and one who had every opportunity for seeing her temperament at close quarters, do you think it would be possible for Mrs. Rattenbury to take part in a crime of this description and then act perfectly normally and peacefully with her maid?
The witness’s negative reply must have sounded almost as emphatically as if he had actually made it.
In his cross-examination for Stoner Mr. Casswell put his foot well down on the cocaine pedal and kept it there till he had forced the witness to admit that he had believed Stoner to be taking cocaine; the inference, which Mr. Casswell was too wily to press, being that the doctor still believed that Stoner had been taking cocaine. Another point which Mr. Casswell brought out was that when driving the doctor back from the nursing-home on the night of March 24th, Stoner had not appeared at all agitated or apprehensive.
The surgeon who had made the post-mortem testified that the three blows must have been dealt with very considerable force.
Mr. O’Connor made another cunning point for Mrs. Rattenbury in his cross-examination of Inspector Mills:
Did you follow up her statement, “I will tell you in the morning where the mallet is”?—No, I did not question her.
Was not that because you did not think she was in a fit condition to give intelligent answers?—No.
Why not ask her where the mallet was?—I did not ask her.
MR. JUSTICE HUMPHREYS (to MR. O’CONNOR): Do you really suggest that in these circumstances the police-officer should have cross-examined her?
MR. O’CONNOR: I do not suggest that. I do not blame him for not having pursued the point.
The judge, of course, knew perfectly well what Mr. O’Connor was really suggesting: that if Mrs. Rattenbury, having shown willingness to hand over the mallet, had at that point been pressed to do so, she would have been unable, because she did not know where it was—ergo it was not she who had hidden it, ergo it was not she who had used it. One cannot, of course, blame the Inspector for not having pressed this inquiry when Mrs. Rattenbury was in such a condition; nevertheless it is a pity that, fairly or unfairly, he did not do so. The result would at least have been interesting. It might even have settled definitely the question of Mrs. Rattenbury’s complicity, for or against.
On the third day it was first the turn of the experts.
Dr. Roche Lynch gave the weight of the mallet as 2 lb. 7 oz., and stated a cautious opinion that the hairs on it “in all probability” came from the head of the deceased. In cross-examination, Mr. Casswell tried hard to persuade him to admit that a person who had shown such characteristics as Stoner had, together with such symptoms as counsel was apparently inferring Stoner had felt, though no very satisfactory evidence was ever called to prove them, must be a cocaine addict. Mr. Casswell put his questions in such a way that Dr. Roche Lynch could not help replying to many of them in the affirmative; but Mr. Croom-Johnson destroyed, in re-examination, much more than Mr. Casswell had gained, by two or three simple questions, eliciting the facts that anyone who had taken two eggspoonfuls of cocaine would, even if a mild addict, become desperately ill and would certainly not be able to drive a car within a few hours.
It seems to have been in Brixton Prison, whither he was transferred from Dorchester on May 14th, that Stoner began to develop this drug-fiend defence; possibly as a result of a certain successful interview which he had had at Dorchester. The senior medical officer of the former prison, Dr. Grierson, deposed that Stoner had told him that he used to take cocaine between slices of bread, and that at about 4.30 p.m. on March 24th he had scoffed two eggspoonfuls of it. If so, he must have been almost more than habituated; yet on May 14th he was rational in behaviour and conversation, and since then had eaten and slept normally and gained 8 lb. in weight. Mr. Casswell, with his usual ingenuity, got round all these difficulties by suggesting that the interval at Dorchester Prison had been enough to wean Stoner from his craving and restore him to physical normality, and that cocaine is usually sold illegally in a much diluted form, so that it would be quite possible to take as much as two eggspoonfuls of a sufficiently diluted mixture. With this evident fact Dr. Grierson had to agree. Once more, however, Mr. Croom-Johnson spiked his opponent’s gun. Eliciting from the witness that Stoner had confided to him that cocaine always made him excited, causing him to curse and swear, Mr. Croom-Johnson asked simply: “Is that the usual effect of taking cocaine?” The witness replied that it was not; the usual effect of cocaine was to make people feel happy and contented. But the most unfortunate item for Mr. Casswell in this witness’s evidence was the fact that Stoner had described cocaine to Dr. Grierson as “a brown powder with black spots in it”. There was no way of getting round this howler.
The medical officer of Dorchester Prison then deposed that during the time Stoner was under his care he showed none of the usual signs of a cocaine addict deprived of his drug; he seemed perfectly healthy and normal. Mr. Casswell prudently did not cross-examine this witness.
The case for the prosecution ended with witnesses to the stay of Mrs. Rattenbury and Stoner in London on March 19th and the purchases made for Stoner. Mr. O’Connor then at once called Mrs. Rattenbury.
For the third day in succession no recognition had passed between the prisoners. Mrs. Rattenbury now seemed tired, though she declined an offer of a chair in the witness-box, and a doctor was with her in the dock all day, as well as a wardress. Her evidence lasted three hours; and for those to whom a precedent may be welcome, it may be added that she wore “a smart blue dress and fur cape, with elbow-length blue gloves”.
As has been said, Mrs. Rattenbury made a very favourable impression in the witness-box. She answered naturally, often using gesture to help out her meaning, and with composure; only when she was telling how she went downstairs and found her husband injured did she show emotion. She answered unpleasant questions with great frankness, and all those who heard her believed that what she said in the witness-box could really be relied on as the truth.
Nor did she try to gloss over or excuse her own conduct, as most witnesses do. In this connexion one passage during her cross-examination is peculiarly illuminating in more than one respect:
Did you tell your husband that you were buying clothes for Stoner?—I never told him that I was buying clothes even for little John.
You bought silk pyjamas at 60s. a suit?—That might seem absurd, but that is my disposition.
You have told us that on the Sunday night Stoner came into your bedroom and got into bed with you. That was something which happened frequently?—Oh, always.
Were you fond of your little boy John?—I love both my children.
Were you fond of John?—Naturally.
Did John sleep in the same room?—Yes, but in another bed on the other side of the room.
Not a very large room?—No, but little John was always asleep.
Are you suggesting to members of the jury that you, a mother, fond of her little boy of 6, was permitting this man to get into bed with you in the same room where your little innocent child was asleep?—I do not consider that that was frightful or dreadful.
The pluckiness no less than the honesty of that last answer is commendable. Mrs. Rattenbury did not, of course, consider her conduct frightful or dreadful, because it had been she who had ordered it, and she knew just how it had come about, how ordinary and inevitable it had been, how exceptional the circumstances were, and, therefore, how it had been anything but frightful or dreadful; though if she had been one of the ten million British wives and mothers who avidly read these words the next morning, and if the words and the circumstances had been somebody else’s, Mrs. Rattenbury would doubtless have agreed with counsel for the prosecution that such a thing was both frightful and dreadful. (The more sophisticated readers would, perhaps, not mind the immorality so much as the bad taste.) As it was, however, the question (which we may hope was not intended as an incidental lesson in grammar) could only have been designed to show what a callous, inhuman, and abandoned fiend the prisoner must be; and Mrs. Rattenbury, instead of wriggling before this spear-thrust under her ribs, bravely accepted the challenge and replied, in effect, that counsel might think so but she did not.
With all the information which Mrs. Rattenbury’s evidence afforded, we have already dealt; but there were one or two items not under this heading which may be quoted. It was plain that she had been thoroughly deceived by Stoner’s drug-taking fantasy, and she denied with great emphasis that she had ever taken drugs herself. She showed considerable reluctance to speak of the wish her husband had expressed on the afternoon of March 24th to commit suicide. When counsel suggested that her feeling for Stoner was “just an infatuation”, Mrs. Rattenbury replied: “I think it was more than that.” “You fell in love with him?” asked counsel. “Absolutely,” Mrs. Rattenbury answered. The word was her favourite one, and she used it often instead of a mere ‘Yes’; a little character-pointer which is not without its interest.
