Left-Luggage Murders

Auckland Star, Volume LXIX, Issue 286, 3 December 1938, Page 8 (Supplement)

Left-Luggage Murders

t By Alan Brock

1(1 SEVERAL murderers Have availed themselves of the ** facilities provided by the lefl is luggage office as offering a solur. tion of that most urgent problem —disposal of the body. A disadvantage of this method is its temporary nature. Sooner or later the contents of the package must declare them-elves. but at least a teniporan 1e..,. , , 1 • respite ts aciii.-vcd, so long as no othet ; factor occurs to cause a premature ex'u animation. MnhonV carelessness in lea\ ing the v ticket, issued at Waterloo Station e agaiu-t the deposit of the suitcase continuing remain- of his victim, where it: could In; discovered, led to discovery of his crime. It is possible that John Robinson intended to profit b.v Million's experience, when almost exactly three years later, having left a Mack dress-basket in the g cloak room at (.'haling Cross, he threw a away the ticket before leaving the i- station premises. Within a few minutes 11 it had liecn picked up by a bootblack and returned to its place of origin. This .5 circumstance lir-t drew attention to the black trunk, and when, some days later, ii it became apparent to the occupants of the cloak room, through their sense of v smell, that it.s contents were, to say the least, abnormal, Scotland Yard was communicated with. s The trunk when opened was found to contain the dismembered remains of a 11 woman wrapped in various articles of s clothing. One garment was marked with s the name of its previous owner, and publication of a photograph of the name-tab caused her to communicate t with the police. Identification of the 1 v ict im follow ed. Minnie Jionati, wife of an Italian waiter living apart from her f husband, followed at times the occupalion of cook, at others s| l( . seems to 1 have alignmentcd her earnings by fol--1 lowing a less reputable profession. It i was while working as a cook at South Kensington that she had helped Jier- ? self to the garment in question. , Photographs In ■ The Newspapers 1 Jhe next step was identification of the trunk, also by means of a photo- ■ ? ri 'i'h the Presn. The man who hail . sold it came forward, but was unable to fix the date more definitely than one ot three days—.May 2, ii or 4. Xor was he able to give a helpful description of the purchaser. Next—again as a result of Press publicity—a taxi-driver reported having driven a man with a black trunk from Rochester Row to Charing Cross Station on May 6, at a time corresponding w itli that at which the trunk was deposited there. He remembered noticing how heavy it was and recalled a jocular question of hits to the owner as to whether it was filled with money. His fare laughed and replied it contained books. Inquiries in Rochester Row resulted in discovery of an occupant of one of the houses who rememliered seeing the trunk or one like it standing in the passage. It was now found that a tenant of one of the rooms, ,T. Robinson, had departed somewhat hurriedly, leaving behind him a note saying that he was not coming back, as lie was "broke," notwithstanding that he had paid his rent in advance up to May 22. A telegram was found in the office, which had been returned owing to a misunderstanding about its delivery. It was addressed to Mrs. Robinson, Greyhound Hotel. Hammersmith, and there Robinson s wife was found by the police. Through her the missing man was run to earth and taken to Scotland Yard for questioning. He gave an account of his doings and denied any knowledge of Bonati or the trunk, and he was allowed, for the time, to go.

Meanwhile, a further examination of . the contents of the trunk resulted in a discovery that a duster of unusual colour, wrapped round the head, bore the word '"Greyhound." It was recognised by a barmaid, who shared a room with Mrs. Robinson, as one that she n had used. Following this discovery Robl- inson was again questioned and eventut. ally made a statement. He now admitf ted taking the dead woman, whom he had met at Victoria Station, up to his . office. She had demanded money, and .. when told he had none to give her, became violent. e A struggle had followed, during which,v as the result of a blow—struck, he dee dared, in self-defence—she had fallen s and liecome unconscious. He then left :1 her, and was surprised on returning to s the office next morning to find her still '■ there—dead. He admitted cutting tip and ■, disposing of the body, for fear he might f be accused of murder. ' His trial at the Central Criminal' Court ended in a verdict of "guilty." He was 8 ,-xecuted at Pentonville Prison 011 April 12. 1027. Arthur Devereux, chemist's assistant, j who wa;s hanged in 190") for murder of ( his wife and twin children, must l>e I jjiven credit for introduction of two refine incuts into this method of dealing 1 with the chief evidence of murder. Use ~ of a tin trunk, which he sealed I>V plae- '- ing above its grim contents a jmrtition r of wood and canvas, rendered gas-tight with a mixture of glue and boric acid. > effectively prevented any smell escaping. Instead of the railway left-luggage j. office, be selected a furniture repository l as a more suitable resting-place for the Imix. which, to account for its unusual weight, he deserilied as containing valuable books and chemicals. There is little doubt that the evidence of his crime would have remained long undisturbed had it not lieen for the determination and detective ability of . his mother-in-law. who alone was responsible for bringing the murder home to him. Devereux was working in a chemist's shop at Hastings when lie met and fell in love with Beatrice Gregory, a young music teacher. As a result of their association a child was born, and rather than face the girl's family. Devereux threw up his job and decamped. The baby died and Beatrice followed her lover to London, where she obtained employment as a barmaid. After a search which occupied the whole of her leisure hours, she ran the truant to earth in the chemist's shop where he now worked. The association was renewed. and after living together for a time, they were married. Three children were born, a lwiv. and later, twins. Devereux. who passed monotonously from one job to another, found the cost of keeping his family beyond his limited means, and proceeded to overcome the difficulty bv a drastic reduction of its i numbers. One evening Mrs. Devereux. returned to their flat in Stonebridge Park after an afternoon's shopping with her mother. That was the last occasion she was seen alive by anyone but her murderer. It is not without interest that a few days previously Devereux had applied unsuccessfully for a post as assistant at Hull, describing himself as a widower with one child. A week later he was selling the household effects, including his wife's clothing and the twins' perambulator. explaining that his wife and the twins were staying in the countrv. Then, having arranged for storage of the trunk, he took lodgings in the Harrow Road for himself and eldest son.

Two months later Mrs. Gregory, wh had not heard from her daughter dur ing that period, became alarmed for he safety. After painstaking inquiries sin learned of the trunk at the warehousi and, guessing what it contained, de manded that it should be opened. Tlii; its custodians refused to agree to. Mrs Gregory, however, was not to be denied and a day or two later she made appli cation to the same effect at North lx>n don Police Court. The magistrate, having heard her reasons, granted an order and in duo course the bodies of Mrs Dt'vereux and her children were brouglr to 1 i<»lit. Devereux was arrested at Coventry where he had obtained a situation undei the name of Taylor. The defence he pin forward at his trial was that on re turning home one evening he found that his wife had poisoned her twins am herself with morphia taken from his desk. where lie kept it for use "in tlu event of wis'hing to end my own lift rather than face starvation." Tin amount of credence accorded this state ment is reflected in the length of time the jury occupied in reaching their verdict—l 2 minutes. ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ One murderer who seems successfully to have made use of the "left-luggage" method of disposal is the author r.l what was known as the Brighton Trunk Murder Xo. 1, to distinguish it from a later, also unsolved, crime. On June 10, 1934, a cabin trunk that had been lying in the cloak room

tio at the Brighton railway station for 10 r- days and to which attention had been jr drawn owing to the unpleasant smell id emanating from it, was opened and ;e found to contain tlie torso of a woman. ?- While intensive inquiries were beinc is made, two lops, which on examination a. were found to belong to the same bodv, rl. were discovered in a suit-case at King's i- Cross Station. Tliu fact that no other l- marks of violence were apparent and that the head was missing suggested r, head injuries as the cause of death. The s. woman being five months advanced in it pregnancy suggested a not unusual motive for the crime. Xo clue to her r, identity lias so far hoen forthcoming. t Appeals published in the Press and it broadcast by wireless for assist-nnee j n '* tracing the purchase of the trunk, saw t or knives, the paper and cotton-wool in d which the body was wrapped, or the s cord with which it was bound, or disu posal of the victim's clothing, or re- <? mainder of the corpse, brought in a mass e of information that yielded little or no ! * result. e The inquest, opened on June 1!>, 1934, adjourned from time to time, and ended with an open verdict on February 20, 193.3. During the interval over' 2000 women reported to the police as missin" v had been traced. " Hundreds of statements had been in.f vestigated. thousands of clues had been k followed up without the place where a the murder had been committed, the identity of the dead woman, or, needle less to add, that of her murderer beinc ii discovered.