The Cretingham Murder Page 9

  Was it pure coincidence that on the morning of the murder she should arrange to have a sleeping couch placed in the Farleys’ bedroom? Had she suggested to Arthur that such a move from the marital bed would leave her free to slip out easily, perhaps to join him in his? Did he come knocking because the anticipation of her nocturnal visit had become too intense for him? That would certainly account for her alleged words to him ‘Are you mad?’ when she first opened the door.

  In her narration of the events of the night she said that the Revd Farley had said, ‘See what the poor fellow wants’ which had obviously seemed quite rational, yet when a few minutes later her husband called out, ‘Louie, he’s cut my throat!’, she would have us believe that she thought he was delirious. By her own admission, she shrugged that off and followed Arthur to his room. If she thought Farley was delirious, why did she then ask Arthur what he had in his hand? Finding nothing, what made her then seize the razor case and run off to hide it in another room before returning to Farley who was then, according to her version, lying on the floor?

  Is it not strange too, that when Bilney was brought in to see his master, he saw no sign of blood although according to medical evidence, bleeding would have been profuse a few minutes after the incision was made?

  It strains our credulity, as it did that of the inquest jury that Harriet remained so calm initially. They found it hard to believe that having heard her husband utter the fatal words, that she should deliberately endanger her own life by following the killer into his room. She parried this with the assertion that Arthur had said he meant her no harm. Even so, this does seem extraordinarily rash behaviour on her part. And the question remains, why did she not tell Bilney what had happened; why did she send him for the doctor and make no mention of the need for the police?

  Let us invent another scenario. Suppose that things were reversed and that it was Harriet who had made a visit to Arthur’s room sometime before midnight. Suppose that the vicar had awakened, called for her and finding her absent, had attempted to get out of bed and then fallen. The thud of his body hitting the floor must have been heard next door and when Harriet rushed back she found him lying unconscious. She called to Bilney to come and he saw his master before setting off for Dr Jones. Bilney stated in court that he saw Arthur in his room but that he did not speak to him and that Arthur was making moaning sounds. This was later taken as a sign of Arthur’s guilt but could it have been the guilt at being with the vicar’s wife that was troubling him at that point?

  So now we have the unconscious vicar on the floor, the manservant out of the house and here is Harriet Louisa’s opportunity. Did she, like Lady Macbeth, take it and commit the deed herself? She was probably quite capable of handling a razor, and with Farley inert, it would have been possible. Certainly it was her clothing that was covered in blood though this was of course explained by her cradling her husband’s head as he died. Or did she persuade Arthur that now he could take revenge on the vicar for his mistreatment?

  There is another alternative. Suppose that Arthur had rejected Harriet Louisa’s advances to him on his return from holiday and that hostility had grown between them. Harriet took her spite out on him by playing on his mental instability and threatening him with dismissal from his post. This possibility had preyed upon his mind, as we know from his letter to his father. During that Saturday his anxiety had grown to the extent that he felt he must discuss matters with the vicar himself. But Harriet denied him the opportunity. Such was the turmoil in Arthur’s mind that he did in fact attempt the midnight conversation with Farley. Suppose that heated words had passed between vicar and curate and that Farley had then fallen from his bed in the attempt to follow after Arthur. Harriet Louisa then followed Arthur, and borrowing his razor case, used one of the razors from it to finish off her husband, hoping to cast the blame on Arthur and thereby ridding herself of both men.

  There is even a further possibility, one for which Harriet herself offered a clue. When asked at the inquest why she had removed the razor case from Arthur’s room, she replied that it was because she feared he might do himself harm. She had, she said, often had to remove her husband’s razor for the same reason. In suggesting that she thought Arthur might commit suicide, she implied that Farley too had had suicidal tendencies. Let us again suppose that she and Arthur had been together in the adjoining room and that on her return she found that Farley had cut his own throat! In fact, the coroner at the inquest asked Dr Jones if he thought the throat wound might have been self inflicted and the doctor had replied that it was not impossible. One might suppose that such an act would have brought Harriet Louisa relief from her tiresome marriage but there was a snag. In his will, Farley mentioned life insurance policies. If the vicar died by his own hand, would the insurance company pay out?

  Bearing in mind that Harriet may have felt cheated of her just due by her first husband, she would certainly not have tolerated it a second time. So, confronted by a suicide and all its implications, did she snatch at this unlooked-for opportunity to secure her inheritance by foisting the blame on Arthur who was by then in a highly suggestible state?

  We can never know the truth. Had the case been presented nowadays, there would have been much more detailed examination than appears to have happened then. Not only would it have been firmly established if Arthur was right-or left-handed but fingerprints would have been taken from the razors and blood tests would have confirmed exactly whose blood was found on the razor which was discovered lying under the looking glass. (Did no one ever suggest that Arthur might have had a shave before he went out for his nocturnal walk – or more likely before he went to bed if he was indeed expecting a visit from Harriet?) Modern forensic science could tell us how old the bloodstains were on Arthur’s towel and dressing gown as well as to whom the blood belonged.

  Then there is the question of the razor case. Bilney identified it as belonging to Arthur but he did not recognize the one razor it contained. That, he testified, was not the partner to the one found in Arthur’s room. As valet to both Farley and Arthur, Bilney would have had an intimate knowledge of their razors which he showed when he confirmed the bloodstained one as being Arthur’s. What steps were taken by the police to find the pair to Arthur’s and more to the point, where did the one inside the razor case come from? Fingerprints taken from this vital piece of evidence would have revealed much and the sophisticated scientific methods used today would have shown a great deal more.

  Although the inquest jury noted the rumpled sheets on Arthur’s bed and concluded they were indicative of his restlessness before committing the crime, current procedures would have tested that bed linen looking for signs that would have shown if the bed had been occupied by Harriet Louisa as well as Arthur.

  Perhaps too, a modern investigation would have got to the bottom of the mystery of the candlesticks; why two were found in Arthur’s room and why no one could recall how the second one got there.

  So much for theories and hindsight. It has probably become obvious where my sympathies lie in this case, though I have tried hard to be objective as I looked at the evidence. There is no doubt that Arthur displayed the classic symptoms of schizophrenia: sleeplessness, the hearing of voices dictating actions to be taken and sudden outbursts of irrational behaviour followed by an apparent unawareness of the event. Such would account for his leaving the house after the crime and returning several hours later as if nothing untoward had occurred. With his previous history of breakdowns and the attack he had made with a blunt knife on a fellow patient added to the mental instability within his extended family, it was no wonder that there was a ready acceptance that he had committed the crime. The only concern of his defence was to save him from execution by pleading his insanity, and in this they succeeded.

  Arthur never spoke for himself except for his odd outbursts in court. Of these, can we place any significance on his: ‘I don’t think you need to talk of that matter’ when reference was made to Harriet Louisa’s interference with r
egard to his relationship with ‘other females’? Was part of his problem sexual repression or was he merely trying to save some ladies of his acquaintance from being named in court?

  While Emmerson went out of his way to show Arthur as a normal, kind and understanding human being, the medical specialists brought in for the defence as well as the prosecution sought to establish that Arthur was insane at the time of the murder and continued to be so thereafter.

  Given his mental instability, was it not reasonable that after all he had heard he could believe himself guilty even if he was not? One of the statements made at the Assizes by Dr Wood of St Luke’s Hospital was never questioned by the lawyers. The doctor stated that after discussing the crime he had asked Arthur, ‘Is the act right?’ Arthur had replied: ‘No, it was foolish and wicked but I couldn’t help it. I did not mean to kill him. He is alive now. I suppose I must have been quite mad.’ This was taken as an admission of both his guilt and insanity. Having said that, he had thought about murder on the Saturday morning, Arthur then went on to say: ‘I thought if I did something of this sort I should get off my trouble’ (what ‘trouble’ was never established). He then said: ‘But I knew it would not, therefore I gave it up’.

  All of which leaves us none the wiser! I may not have been able to prove who did or did not murder the Revd Farley but I hope that my examination of the case has been of some interest – not least as a piece of late Victorian social and local history.

  As to the outstanding question of what finally happened to Harriet, perhaps the answer will emerge, just as the piece of wood did, some time in the future.

  APPENDIX

  MEMBERS OF THE INQUEST JURY

  Abbott, Edward; innkeeper from Monk Soham

  Bedwell, James Boon; farmer from Brandeston

  Boon, Edgar; farmer from Cretingham

  Bradlaugh, Thomas; blacksmith from Brandeston

  Clarke, Samuel; from Framsden

  Dykes, James; miller from Brandeston

  Emeny, Neri; bricklayer/builder from Brandeston

  Gocher, Thomas; from Ashfield

  Jeaffreson, Samuel; farmer from Cretingham

  Juby, Arthur (b.1859); farmer from Cretingham

  Juby, William (b.1820); builder/farmer from Cretingham

  Mannall, Samuel; innkeeper from Cretingham

  Meadows, James; farmer from Brandeston

  Nesling, Noah/Horace; farmer from Cretingham

  Peck, John James; from Monewden

  Peck, Samuel; from Kettleburgh

  Pepper, Samuel; from Cretingham

  Scrutton, Edgar; farmer/wheelwright from Brandeston

  Smyth, George Frederick; from Monewden

  Stearn, Samuel Geater; farmer/pig breeder from Brandeston (foreman of the jury)

  Winder, George; farmer from Brandeston

  (The final juror has not been fully identified: some accounts offer a third Peck, others, Gostling and Bradwell.)