Cambridgeshire Murders Read online

  Joshua Slade’s alibi at first appeared to be equally watertight. He had been drinking at the Swan public house until one or two o’clock on Tuesday morning and from there had travelled to Godmanchester to invite his married sister to Stukeley feast. He had visited two other public houses, the Horse and Jockey, in Huntingdon, and the Rose and Crown, in Godmanchester. Apart from that he had remained at his sister’s house for the whole day, returning to Little Stukeley at seven in the evening. His sister voluntarily offered a statement to corroborate his story, and Slade was released without charge.

  On the Friday following the murder John Richardson, a constable of Hunt-ingdon, apprehended Slade in order to check his alibi and accompanied him to both the Rose and Crown and the Horse and Jockey. It soon became obvious that Slade’s story was a fabrication. Before long his brother-in-law, Joshua Rowledge, also retracted the statement his wife had made. Slade then amended his story, claiming that after leaving the Swan he had spent the day in a hay field sleeping off his hangover and had known nothing of the murder until his mother had told him when he returned home in the evening. He swore that he had invented the original story to protect himself from the villagers, who he was sure would try to blame him.

  Slade was arrested and very soon a body of largely circumstantial evidence began to accumulate against him. The first villager to come forward was Peter Sabey, an old man who lived in a cottage opposite the rectory. Sabey claimed that he had seen a person climbing over the rectory wall at about three in the morning, and, despite the darkness at the time, asserted that the man’s general appearance and distinctive gait led him to believe it was Joshua Slade.

  An examination of Slade’s clothes, revealed blood on the inside of the coat, and the shoes perfectly matched the footprints that had been found in the tunnel.

  Another local employee volunteered that he had heard Slade saying he would murder Waterhouse and that he had keys to the rectory. Further investigation revealed that a few weeks before his death Waterhouse had been robbed during his sleep, losing approximately £2 and a pocket watch. Waterhouse had immediately suspected Slade and his sister, who had been an employee at the time and whom he immediately dismissed: it was this event that had prompted Slade to threaten Waterhouse.

  Joshua Slade’s family was not held in high regard in the village and a warrant was issued allowing the search of his parents’ home. This was an attempt not only to prove Joshua’s guilt but also to see if there was any evidence that might implicate his parents. It was noted that the house boasted a range of foodstuffs inconsistent with the family’s lack of legitimate funds, but a far more interesting discovery was a cleaver stained with blood and matter that appeared to contain grey hairs. The magistrates arrested Slade’s mother and father. Probably prompted by this event Joshua’s brother John handed himself over to the police on the following day, admitting his robbing spree with Joshua and Heddings.

  A warrant was issued for Heddings’s arrest but he had already fled. On Monday 9 July 1827 a public examination took place in the Town Hall. Peter Sabey confirmed his statement that the person he had witnessed was Joshua Slade and the surgeon verified that he had found blood on the defendant’s clothing. On Thursday Mr and Mrs Slade and their sons, John and Joshua, were charged with a string of burglaries linked to the items found in their home. John and Joshua confessed to these crimes, stating that Heddings was an accomplice. They were committed for trial at the assizes, while their mother and father were charged with having received stolen goods.

  Late that same evening, Heddings, who had hidden in a hovel for the previous four days, handed himself in to the house of correction. He admitted burglary to Mr Sweeting and stated that Joshua Slade had confessed to him that he had murdered Joshua Waterhouse. Given Heddings’ known bad character it was decided that his statement should be heard in the council chamber and in the presence of Joshua Slade. At one o’clock on Monday afternoon, Heddings made the following statement :

  On Wednesday night after the murder, I saw Joshua Slade on the turnpike road in Little Stukeley, near nine o’clock. The inquest was then over. I jogged him on the elbow, and called him on one side, and asked him what he thought of this concern. He said, ‘I don’t know.’ I made answer, ‘Damn it, how came you to lay hands on him?’ He said, ‘I was forced; I was in the low kitchen, plundering; Mr. Waterhouse catched hold of me; I drew my knife, and began to stab him where I could; he then called out ‘murder’, and I got him down on the floor, and got a weapon, with which I hit him a hard blow on the face, and knocked him down; then I hit him several times on the arms, and where I could, to prevent him rising up again. I then heard the dog bark very vehemently at the door, I went to see if any person was coming; there being nobody there, I went back to Mr. Waterhouse again, and he had risen up on his legs. I then hit him another hard blow on the head, and knocked him into the tub. I then ran out at the garden door and left him. I ran down the close of grass leading to Great Stukeley.

  After Heddings had completed and signed his testimony Slade was asked whether he had anything to say in response. He replied, ‘No, your honour; but he has told some false tales: I did not say a word of what he says on the Wednesday night. He wants to hang me without judge or jury, damn him, he should have been hanged years ago himself.’

  Before Slade was returned to prison he was questioned about a clasp knife that the prison keeper, Mr Cole, had found in his possession. The knife appeared to have some reddish-brown stains on it which Slade was asked to explain: ‘They a’’n’t blood, nor aught like it,’ he answered.

  The cross-examination of Heddings continued, and in the course of all the testimony relating to the series of thefts, a man named Lansdale Wright was found to have purchased a variety of stolen items from Joshua Slade. On the evidence of Maria Sharpe, Mr Waterhouse’s former housekeeper, they were identified as items taken from the rectory. Therefore, while William Heddings was far from the most reliable of witnesses, his account of Slade’s confession seemed to tie in with the evidence pointing to Slade being guilty. At the very least, it corresponded with the theft from Waterhouse.

  The circumstances surrounding Slade’s connections to both Waterhouse and Heddings supported this. He was born on 14 January 1809 in Great Stukeley and was one of nine children. His first known meeting with Joshua Waterhouse was on 18 December 1824 when he travelled to Huntingdon to watch the hanging of a Somersham arsonist, Thomas Savage. As he approached Huntingdon, the 15-year-old old Slade happened to meet Joshua Waterhouse, and the two of them watched the execution together.

  Later Slade had worked as a labourer for, among others, Mr Waterhouse. Then from November 1826 he laboured for a Little Stukeley farmer named Mr Hall. He was dismissed by Mr Hall in May 1827 after being found responsible for a petty theft. This was not the first time he had been caught stealing and he had no further regular employment, just odd days of casual work in the weeks leading up Waterhouse’s death.

  By this time Slade had already become close to his neighbour William Heddings. Working as a team, often with John Slade as an accomplice, they were eventually found to be responsible for a large spate of local night-time thefts, particularly those involving the rustling of livestock. The villagers of Little Stukeley had often witnessed them returning with stolen property but had kept their silence for fear of reprisals.

  Heddings was a more experienced criminal. He was also an adept lock-picker and passed this skill on to Slade.

  In the weeks leading up the assizes the rectory became a curiosity and was visited by many people. On Monday 30 July a huge crowd gathered in the market place to await the start of the trial. Of all the cases heard that day, only the dismissal of charges against Slade’s parents and Lansdale Wright were in any way connected with the Waterhouse murder. At exactly 9 a.m. the following morning Lord Chief Baron Alexander entered the packed courtroom and Slade was brought before him. The charges were read out and when asked to plead Slade replied ‘not guilty’.

  There were six
key points on which the prosecution based its case: the blood stains on Slade’s clothes; the blood stains on Slade’s knife and Sykes’s bill (see page 36); the footprints found at the rectory and in the tunnel; witnesses identifying Slade by his distinctive gait; the fabrication of Slade’s alibi; and the statement from Heddings.

  Sergeant Storks testified that he had noticed blood on Slade’s clothes when he had first interviewed the prisoner on Thursday 12 July, nine days after the killing. He stated:

  I was struck with the appearance of his trousers down the front. He wore slop fustian trousers and jacket, of a dirty brown colour, and a blue cravat; the front of his trousers, I noticed, had a dark greasy shining appearance. It struck me, but not at that moment, that it was blood and dirt rubbed together . . .

  I examined his jacket on the Sunday following, and his shoes three days ago; I found a large stain of blood on the inner side of the covering of the skirt of his jacket, and also a stain on the inner side of the left shoulder; the right thigh of the trousers appeared to me to have been washed, or some liquid put upon it to take out the stain.

  Living as part of the Slade family was a man named Thomas Sykes, who owned a woodman’s bill which he stored in a cupboard within the house. Sykes testified that the last time he had used the bill was in the spring when he had cleaned it and put it away. This became one of two possible murder weapons, the other being the clasp knife found in Slade’s possession while he was awaiting trial. About this Storks stated:

  I examined the bill with a magnifying glass and could discover grey-coloured human hair and blood, and dirt appeared to have been put on afterwards. I knew Mr. Waterhouse – he was an old man, and had grey hair, and the hair on the bill corresponded. There were several cuts on the tub; they must have been given with great violence, and, in my opinion, with a bill.

  The next witness to take the stand was W. Francis who had been at the Swan public house with Slade on the evening before the murder. He testified that, at somewhere between one and two in the morning, they had left the pub. The last that Francis had seen of Slade was as his drinking companion headed in the direction of both the church and his home.

  On the following Monday, Francis and another man named Woods had taken one of the prisoner’s shoes and gone to Mr Waterhouse’s field across a stile and a ditch where, in the bank, they had found an imprint of a shoe. Comparing this to the one they carried they found it a perfect match.

  When Peter Sabey took the stand his identification of Joshua Slade had become far more specific than it had been when he had made his earlier statement and included the following remark:

  The man lobbed a little in his gait, and appeared to be a young man, about five feet six inches in height. My opinion was, that it was the prisoner Slade; but I did not see his features, and could not swear it was him.

  The fifth point made by the prosecution, and potentially one of the most damning for Slade, was the proof that he had fabricated his alibi and therefore had demonstrated himself to be a liar. The constable, John Richardson, took the stand and made a short but thorough statement undoing every part of Slade’s original story. Joshua Slade’s defence argued that as he was disliked in the village he had felt the need to protect himself from malicious gossip with the invention of an alibi.

  The final evidence from the prosecution was Heddings’ testimony. Despite Heddings’s bad reputation his statement was the single most important element of the prosecution’s case.

  Heddings repeated his previous statement virtually word for word, recounting everything that Joshua Slade had purportedly told him as they walked towards the Swan public house. The judge asked Slade whether he wished to question the witness. Slade replied, ‘He has told a false story, my Lord.’

  When cross-examined by the defence Heddings was asked whether he thought he would be shown mercy in return for making his statement and Heddings admitted ‘I hope so.’

  The defence was keen to discredit Heddings as quickly as possible. Although Heddings claimed that he had been in the company of several others when Slade had confessed, no one else was able to corroborate his statement.

  Joshua Slade was then invited to give his version of events:

  I saw Heddings come from the Bell, as I was in the Swan along with John Hawkes. Hawkes said, ‘Tell Heddings to come in.’ I went out to him and tapped him on the shoulder; he said ‘What do you think of this concern?’ I said, ‘I don’t know.’

  He said, ‘I have a strong suspicion of old Wright.’ These were his very words. He then said, ‘I am sorry the old man is dead; I would as leave half the parish had died as him, for I counted on having a quarter of barley from him this week.’ Hawkes can prove that I was in the Swan, and only went out for a minute to call Heddings to have some drink.

  Hawkes was called to give evidence, but did not appear.

  The defence addressed each of the prosecution’s points. With regards to the blood on Slade’s clothes Mrs Garner clearly remembered that Slade had cut his finger and thumb while cutting bread and that this had occurred on Monday 24 June. Under cross-examination Sergeant Storks admitted, ‘I said the only mark of blood I could swear to was on the left side of the trousers, and the prisoner gave a very probable cause for it’. When asked about the blood on Sykes’ bill he continued, ‘It is a very difficult thing to swear to blood. To the best of my belief it was human hair on the bill, and there was some stain on the handle. What I thought was human hair might have been the hair of a sheep’s face, but it was not wool.’

  As for the knife which had been found in Slade’s possession, Wilson, the surgeon, was cross-examined and conceded: ‘Other instruments of a similar shape and size would inflict such a wound. I believe the corrosion on the knife is caused by coloured animal matter; the blood of a sheep would produce the same effect.’ With regards to the footprints, the Lord Chief Baron argued that as Francis and Woods had not visited the tunnel until six days after the murder it would be reasonable for Joshua Slade to have innocently travelled that route on numerous other occasions.

  In his summing up the Lord Chief Baron addressed the jury. He stressed that the case predominantly rested on the statement of Heddings and that all the other evidence presented had been circumstantial. He warned the jury that Heddings’s testimony was given in the same order and identically worded to the testimony he had given magistrates just over two weeks earlier and suggested that it had all the hallmarks of a prepared story. In conclusion he said that he trusted that the real criminal would soon be arrested.

  By this point the general feeling was that Joshua Slade would be acquitted, but after retiring for a mere twenty minutes the jury returned the verdict of guilty. Lord Chief Baron passed the death sentence adding that Slade’s ‘body afterwards be dissected and anatomised’.

  Immediately following this Heddings’s own trial commenced. He was found guilty of theft, largely on evidence given by Joshua Slade’s brother John. Heddings was also condemned to death.

  John Slade was released and eventually found employment as a labourer.

  On being returned to his cell the chaplain foiled Slade’s attempt at suicide. Slade continued to protest his innocence, insisting that while he had been a thief he had never been a murderer. On the morning he was due to hang, Thursday 2 August 1827, the Lord Chief Baron ordered a twenty-four hour stay of execution.

  On the following day the under-sheriff arrived from Cambridge with a second stay of execution deferring the execution until 1 September. During the day of 3 August Joshua Slade had said final farewells to several members of his family. Later that day he asked to see the chaplain and confessed.

  The under-sheriff consulted the judges who concluded that the stay should remain in force and so should the new execution date of 1 September. The confession was written down by the county clerk, Mr Sweeting, and witnessed by Charles Margetts and John Thomas. Later Slade made an addition that he would have confessed sooner except for the thought of facing his family once they knew he was g
uilty.

  Slade’s confession clarifies all the points made in the trial:

  On the morning of the 3rd of July 1827, I went direct from the Swan public house, at a quarter past two, and got over the garden wall. I was then fresh. I saw Peter Sabey at his door; I went to a straw wall near the dove-house, and laid there while five o’clock in the morning; I had a sword hid in the straw wall about four or five weeks; had stolen it from the Horse and Jockey public-house, Huntingdon; drew the sword out; and left the scabbard in the wall, and put the sword down my trousers by my thigh.

  I went into the garden; saw Mr. Waterhouse then in the yard, but he did not see me; the garden door was not fastened. I opened the door, and went in up stairs and hid myself in the wool-chamber from five o’clock until ten, for the purpose of plundering the house; I meant to have robbed the house at night of any thing I could.

  I was asleep from five to ten among the wool; Mr. Waterhouse, happening to come up stairs, heard me breathe; I dare say I was snoring; upon which Mr. Waterhouse came up to the chamber, and called ‘Holloa! who are you? What do you do here?’

  I then got up, drew the sword, and laid hold of him. Mr. Waterhouse tried to go in at the chamber where his blunderbuss was, but I would not let him. I led him down stairs, Mr. Waterhouse trying all the way to get up stairs. No conversation passed in coming down. When we got down stairs, I said, ‘Now Mr. Waterhouse, if you’ll forgive me, I will forgive you; and if not, this is your death warrant,’ holding up the sword. Mr. Waterhouse said, ‘No, I will suffer any thing first.’

  I was standing opposite to him in the lower passage: When I let him go, Mr. Waterhouse went to run by me to the kitchen-door to call somebody; upon which, just as Mr. Waterhouse was turning into the kitchen, I struck him a back-handed blow, the great cut across the jaw, and he reeled back, caught himself against the tub, and fell backwards into it; he guarded his head with his hands when in the tub; I struck him several blows with the sword; he laid hold of the sword twice; upon which I drew it out of his hands and cut his fingers; I also stabbed him in the throat, which was the last blow.