The Cretingham Murder (12 page)

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 regard 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

M
EMBERS
OF
THE
I
NQUEST
J
URY

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.)