LAUNDRY MARK CLUE.

Star (Christchurch), Volume LXVI, Issue 20233, 17 February 1934, Page 22 (Supplement)

LAUNDRY MARK CLUE.

BENNETT, THE BEACH MURDERER

•‘MOST DRAMATIC TRIAL OF THE CENTURY”—BODY OF MARRIED WOMAN FOUND AT YARMOUTH—STRANGLED BY KNOTTED BOOTLACE—YOUNG COUPLE’S UNHAPPY MARRIED LIFE—STRONG CHAIN OF CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE—MARSHAL HALL’S MOST DIFFICULT TASK.

On the night of September 22, 1900, when Marshall Hall had gone down to Southport to open his Parliamentary campaign, at about eleven o'clock a young fellow named Mason had taken his sweetheart to a secluded part of the beach at Yarmouth to enjoy her company. About 30 yards away they noticed another couple, who seemed to be talking to each other in loud tones; they then heard the woman cry, “Mercy, mercy.” The two young people got up and walked unconcernedly past the scene without lifting a finger to help the young woman whose cries they had heard. Slie was now lying beside a man in a dark suit, who moved his head to look at them as they passed within five yards. The night, however, was too dark for them to notice his features. This behaviour was afterwards described by Lord Chief Justice Alverstone as “’miserable cowardice”; but. of course, they completely misunderstood what was happening and did not think it their business to interfere. Knotted Bootlace. In the place where these two had seen the struggling couple, next morning at about six o’clock a workman found the body of a young woman, her skirt pulled above her knees. She had been strangled by a knotted mohair bootlace tied so tightly round her neck that the flesh had closed over it; the bootlace was skilfully tied by a reef knot. The woman proved

to be a “Mrs. Hood,” who, with her baby, had been staying since September 15 at a lodging house in the Rows kept by a Mrs. Rudrum. On the same morning Mason saw a young man, wearing a blue suit and a. cap, walking up and down the beach in the neighbourhood of the scene of; £he murder, in a*state of agitation and apparently searching for something. Mason, however, lost touch with him. The woman had no mark of identification except‘ the laundry mark “599” found on her baby's underclothing. The landlady could add nothing useful, except that a watch and chain, which the dead woman had been wearing, were missing; \but her daughter, Alice Rudrum, said that on Friday night she had seen Mrs. Hood standing outaide the house under an arch. A man’s voice said, “You understand, don’t you? I am placed in an awkward position just now.” Then she had distinctly hieard through the open window the “sound of a kiss.” At Yarmouth, on October 29, a coroner’s jury had returned a verdict of murder of a woman unknown by a man unknown, and little else was talked of in the town except the murder; indeed, all over England the interest of the “khaki” election was eclipsed by this unsolved mystery, Naturally the Rudrums talked over everything connected with, their ill-starred lodger, and went again and again over that eventful week which Ehe had spent with them before her death, searching their memories for any incident that might prove important. Both Mrs. Rudrum and her daughter remembered that she had talked of a jealous brother-in-law, and that a letter had arrived for Mrs. Hood, a day or two before her death, in a blue envelope. Mrs. Hood had been out at the time and Mrs. Rudrum had examined the postmark, which she remembered was “Woolwich.” This did not seem of any importance to them, but, when the police heard of it, they were at once interested. They verified the story, and determined to narrow their inquiries with regard to the laundry mark to the region of Woolwich; in this comparatively narrow area it might lead to something. Police on the Track. The police were right. The mark was traced to a Woolwich laundry, and the mark was used for the clothes of a Mrs. Bennett, who had recently lived at No. 1, Glencoe Villas. Bexley Heath: she had come to live there in July, 1900. Mrs. Bennett had been ill in August and a telegram had been sent for her husband. He had come to see her, and periodically letters arrived for him addressed to “J. H. Bartlett.” She had packed her things and left with her baby on September 15, but had never been seen again. Afterwards Bennett had come and fetched away their little dog which had been left behind. The police had traced the laundry mark, through the postmark, on November 5; by the 6th, Inspector Leach had all this information. and set about to find the bereaved husband. He found him through a shop assistant named Allen, who had a grievance against Bennett. Inspector Leach asked Allen to put him in touch with Bennett. On November 6, the day after “Mrs. Hood’s” identity was discovered. Leach, in plain clothes, was “introduced” by Allen to Bennett, whom he promptly- arrested in the name of the law. He charged him with the murder of “a woman named Hood” at Yarmouth. Bennett, taken completely by surprise, gave a curious answer. “I don’t understand what you mean,” he said. “I have never been to Yarmouth. I have never lived with m.v wife since January, as I found a lot of letters in her pocket from another man.” Inquiries made immediately afterwards •eemed to justify the inspired arrest made by Inspector Leach, which was certainly supported at the time by very slender evidence.

Bennett had been first a newspaper lad, then a grocer’s assistant. At the age of seventeen, against the wish of his parents, he had married Mary Clarke, a young woman two years his senior, who was pregnant by him. She was an accomplished pianist; he was musical, and they met as mistress and pupil. Tn 1898 a baby was born; in February, 190 U, he opened a grocery shop at Westgate; soon afterwards it was burnt clown and Bennett recovered over £2OO from an insurance company. The South African War was still continuing. and Bennett had paid a mysterious trip to South Africa, but not in khaki, with liis wife, staying only four days at the Cape before his return in May. Oil coming back they took rooms at Plumstead at the house of a Mrs. Elliston. Mrs. K 1 list on said that the wife was always crying and that Bennett was always illtreating her. At the end of June they separated; the wife took the house at Glencoe Villas, and Bennett went to lodge at Union Street, Woolwich, with a Mrs. Pankhurst, near the Arsenal, where he had now obtained employment. When Bennett was arrested his keys were taken from him; the lodgings at Mis. Pankhurst's were searched, and in his portmanteau were found a receipt from the Crown and Anchor at Yarmouth, a revolver, a false moustache, wigs for a man and a woman, a much-dented watch with a long gold link chain.

First Alibi Breaks. Bennett, on his arrest, at once stated that two young men named Parritt and Cameron could prove that he was at Rose's Distillery, Woolwich, on the night of September 22. These young men denied this; they had met him there on September 29, but not on the 22nd. Thus liis first alibi broke down. It will be seen that a most damaging chain of circumstantial evidence had already gathered round Bennett. His double life and • liis lies had already prejudiced him with public opinion. But the rope was being drawn tighter round liis neck day by day. The discovery of the watch and chain in hjs box was almost conclusive evidence of his guilt, for it seemed that this watch and chain had been left to Mary Bennett by her grandmother, and that she had been photographed wearing it round her neck at Yarmouth a few days before her death. Moreover, fresh, witnesses came forward to prove his presence in Yarmouth on September 22. ■—- As Bennett was conveyed through the streets of Yarmouth to appear before the magistrates, he was the subject of bitter and hostile demonstrations, and had been hooted by the crowd. This feeling had been fostered by a series of articles presupposing the prisoner’s guilt, and copies of scurrilous verses, which had been widely circulated throughout the county of Norfolk. A thick moustache had been added to a photograph of Bennett published, because it was known that witnesses were saying that the man seen at Yarmouth on the 22nd had one. . An application was made to the King’s Bench for a rule to remove the trial from Norfolk to the Central Criminal Court on the ground of local prejudice. This was obtained without difficulty, Mr. Justice Phillimore observing “that there was a grave probability that a fair trial would not be had in Norfolk.” Marshall Hall had thus a seemingly hopeless task when Mr. Elvey Robb delivered his brief for the defence; it was marked fifty guineas. Charles Gill was retained by the Treasury, with the fee of a hundred guineas, almost unprecedented at the time, with Muir as his junior. The evidence against the prisoner was overwhelming, and the general opinion in the Temple was that Marshall Hall could make nothing of it. The young men in liis chambers spent their whole time in puzzling over the case and working out every conceivable defence, but the more they worked at it the more hopeless it seemed. , “This case is dead,” said Max Labouchere. The defence knew well that Bennett’s first alibi had broken down. Marshall Hall at first shared that view, but, after his first interview with the prisoner, completely changed his mind. The fact that Bennett had told so many lies did not shake the faith of his leading counsel. He saw at once that, Bennett was a man who could not tell the truth. The defence must therefore come from the facts themselves: these could not prove that he had done it; they could only prove that he must have done it. Chain of Evidence. Now the most deadly links in the chain of circumstantial evidence against Bennett were as follows: The evidence which went to show Bennett had ill-used liis wife and threatened to kill her; his infatuation for Alice Meadows. This evidence showed motive and intention. There was Bennett’s presence in Yarmouth during September, as attested by many witnesses. There was the evidence of Allen and the others to whom he had lied about his wife after her death. There was Bennett’s fatal slip when Inspector Leacli arrested him on a charge of murdering “Mrs. Hood.” His answer, “I have

not lived with my wife since January,” was, as it stood, ouly consistent with guilt. Finally, there was his possession of the watch and chain, which had been photographed round his wife’s neck at Yarmouth—if the prosecution could bring this home the defence was at an end. In answer to all this there seemed to be only one weapon ready to Marshall Hall’s hand. That Bennett's fair trial had been grossly prejudiced in advance. This was in itself a good point of prejudice, but nothing else. But it will be seen that there was not one link in this strong chain of evidence which Marshall Hall did not assail until opinion began to veer round and. a disagreement at the least was expected. First, as to the watch and chain; it was a Jink chain, and Mrs. Bennett's father was called to prove that it was a gift of her grandmother. Mrs. Elliston, her former landlady in London, had seen it; Mrs. Rudrum had seen it at Yarmouth; it had been actually photographed at armouth. But Marshall Hall's eyes, keen for any kind of jewellery, at once saw something very interesting. He went round to his old friends Messrs. Wellby, and one of the firm, who was also an amateur photographer, and whom Marshall afterwards called for the defence, confirmed his view, and told him that the chain in the beach photograph was a rope chain, of the “Prince of Wales” pattern, and that the chain found in Bennett's possession was a link chain of an oldfashioned kind, not made nowadays. Directly he rose to cross-examine Conyers, the beach photographer, he put this to him. Score for Defence. The photographer, no doubt anxious to defend his work, agreed that the chain in the photograph was a rope chain, and that the chain found in the defendant's box could not be photographed in such a way as to give a rope effect, and the first point was scored for the defence. Marshall Hall’s old friend, the new Lord Chief Justice, trying his first murder case, saw the importance of this point, and said that the chain appeared to be out of focus. Another Yarmouth photographer said the rope effect might have been achieved by the woman’s breathing. All through the case this controversy raged, and in the end it may be said that Marshall Hall had, even before he had called his own evidence, disposed of that part of the case which was based upon tile chain. Next came the witnesses called to prove that Bennett was in Yarmouth. Mrs. Rudrum was here the most interesting; it was her chance memory of the Woolwich postmark and the “blue envelope” which had led to the arrest of Bennett. Here again Marshall Hall scored a point. At the police court she had said that the letter was on blue-grey paper; at the tiial she now said that it was blue; she said nothing about simple blue before the magistrates. At first. Mrs. Rudrum saw differences between the chain in the photograph and the one produced, but she later became positive. She was certain that “'Mrs. Hood” wore a link chain. Another Opportunity. This was another opportunity. "Though you had doubts before, now that you have been cross-examined you are positive?” Mrs. Rudrum: Yes, I am. What made you doubtful when you first went into the box?—lt was the light. But the photograph has made you certain?—Yes. Are you as sure of that as of everything else?—Yes. As sure as you are of the handwriting?— Yes. The suggestion was now open to the jury that this very positive woman had been mistaken. Bennett had undoubtedly written to her in July for lodgings; she confessed that she had read, the name Bennett for the first time in connection with the murder, and when she had, she searched for and found his application for lodgings in July. Might not her memory have played her a trick? But there was one further line of attack against this witness. At the date of the committal, the identification of “Mrs. Hood” as Mrs. Bennett rested entirely on photographs. The police had searched high and low for some mark which would identify her. Just before the trial, on January 36, a most vital garment was discovered in Mrs. Rudrum’s house. It was a petticoat marked “Bennett”; the ink with which it was marked had run. Marshall Hall suggested that the name was not written in marking ink at all. Mrs. Rudrum was recalled and crossexamined closely as to her spelling of the name. “How did Mrs. Bennett spell her name?” asked Marshall Hall. “How should I know? She never spelt it,” was the reply. How would you spell it?—B-e-n-n-e-t (and then after a pause) -t. You said one “t” first, then two; which is it?—Two. Will you write it down? —I cannot, unless you tell me how to spell it. The defence had scored again. Each point might easily have escaped a less vigilant advocate, and others were to follow. [ln the following day's hearing of the Bennett trial, Marshall Hall sprung a dramatic surprise. The narrative will be continued next week.]