The Cretingham Murder (6 page)

Presumably this account was based on statements made by the police but the reporter also managed to obtain an interview with William Emmerson who gave the information, mentioned earlier, of his conversation with Mrs Farley as to Arthur’s state of mind and the likelihood of her getting Mr Allen to take the service.

However, the second reporter, in his piece, makes a conflicting reference as to who should take the Sunday service:

On Saturday there was nothing in his [Cooper’s] conduct to excite alarm, although it is understood that Mrs Farley felt some concern about him. He complained of want of sleep; he was anxious that some other clergyman should be called in to take the Sunday service; and he added, somewhat ominously, that while he should be bad on the coming Sunday, he should be worse still on the Sunday after that. No arrangement, however, seems to have been made to relieve him of his duties.

Unfortunately, the journalist does not name his source for this overheard conversation. If it was not Emmerson, then it must have been either Bilney or Annie Wightman, they being the only others in the house, but strangely, this information that Arthur himself wished to be relieved of his duties was not to appear again.

This same representative of the press mentions in passing that Arthur frequently accompanied Mrs Farley to Framlingham and elsewhere and then goes on to make some pertinent comments on the case:

Although in all the main particulars, the tragedy seems to be as simple as it was horrible, there are two or three mysterious circumstances which have yet to be explained. Mrs Farley was under the impression that the curate, after he committed the murder, took his own candlestick with him to light the way back to his room. Afterwards, however, both candlesticks were found in the room of the murdered man. How that came about is still a mystery.

So it was, that by the time the inquest was held on that Monday afternoon, most, if not all of those who were called to take part, would have been fully acquainted with what had been written in the
East Anglian Daily Times
.

That this was no run-of-the-mill case is borne out by the fact that after Supt Balls of Framlingham had visited the scene on Sunday morning, he immediately sent a telegram to the Deputy Chief Constable, Mr F. Fisher. He, accompanied by Inspector Shipp and several more constables, arrived later in the day and having been fully informed as to what had occurred, took the preliminary measures for setting up the inquest at the Bell Inn at 2 o’clock on Monday.

Arthur, meanwhile, had been placed in an ordinary cell in Framlingham police station, but under the close supervision of a constable. He was reported as saying nothing either during the journey or thereafter but presented ‘a quiet but sullen demeanour’. Both reporters commented that he dozed fitfully most of the time, the more ‘atmospheric’ writer ascribing this to weariness following his wandering around the countryside during the night.

As Sunday drew to a close, telegrams must have been sent and delivered all over the country. Farley’s sons and daughters had to be informed of the awful fate that had overtaken their father, while in Kent, the Revd and Mrs Gilbert-Cooper must have been distraught to learn that their son, whose last letter had suggested he was depressed, now stood accused of murder.

4

MONDAY 3 OCTOBER 1887

Early Monday morning, Sgt Bragg and PC Codd, who had been detailed to guard Arthur throughout the night, were able to announce that the prisoner had slept soundly from 10 p.m. the night before right through to 8 a.m. that morning. After washing and dressing he had eaten a hearty breakfast. The two police officers described his behaviour at times as eccentric, though without any elaboration as to what that involved, but what struck them most was that he did not seem to appreciate the gravity of the situation in which he found himself.

Promptly at 11 o’clock he was brought up from the cells to the courtroom. Since this was only a remand session, there was only one magistrate present, the Revd R.G. Gorton. The only others in attendance were John Martin, the magistrates’ clerk and two members of the press.

Before the prisoner was taken into the court, Supt Balls made his sworn statement that he had ‘just cause to believe and suspect, and did believe and suspect that on the second day of October at the parish of Cretingham, one Arthur Edward Gilbert-Cooper did feloniously, wilfully and with malice aforethought, kill and murder one William Meymott Farley, against the peace of our Lady the Queen, her crown and dignity.’

When Arthur was led in he appeared bewildered as he looked about him. He flatly refused to stand on the raised platform used as a dock and when Supt Balls tried to force him forward, he resisted, throwing his arms back and shaking himself free. The magistrate decided that he should be allowed to stay in the body of the court while the formal charge was read.

On hearing the words ‘wilful murder’, Arthur, much surprised, turned to the clerk and said, ‘Isn’t he alive?’

After the formalities regarding the superintendent’s need for time to complete his enquiries, a remand in custody was requested. The clerk then asked Arthur if he had any cause to show why he should not be remanded on the charge. To this Arthur responded with ‘I don’t think there is any charge made out. I am not aware that Mr Farley is dead.’

Granting a remand for three days, the magistrate cautioned Arthur to say nothing until the proper examination took place. He then enquired of Supt Balls if the prisoner’s friends had been informed. On learning that this had been done, the magistrate, who, as a member of the local clergy may well have met Arthur on social occasions, then asked him if there was any particular friend he wished to be informed. Arthur said there was no one, adding, ‘I don’t know anything about it at all. I am not aware, as I said before, that Mr Farley is dead; I don’t think he is.’

‘But,’ Mr Martin, the magistrates’ clerk responded, ‘We understand that he is dead and you are charged with the murder.’ ‘I don’t think he is,’ Arthur persisted.

John Martin gave up and reminded Arthur that the best advice had already been given to him, namely to say nothing until the next hearing. That was then set for 11 a.m. on the coming Thursday.

In Cretingham they were preparing for the inquest. Before the formal proceedings were opened at The Bell Inn, at that time situated opposite the church, those who were to form the jury were summoned to the village clubroom which stood in the vicarage grounds. Here twenty-two men from the surrounding area were sworn in (
see
Appendix for list). Samuel Stearn, a small farmer and pig-breeder from Brandeston, was elected to act as their foreman. The all-male jury was a mixed group, mainly farmers with a sprinkling of craftsmen; blacksmith, builder, wheelwright, miller and an innkeeper. Most were of middle age. It was unfortunate that two pairs had the same surname and since forenames or initials did not always appear in the press reports, there is, for example, no way of knowing when we come to the inquest, which Mr Juby it was who adopted the aggressive line of questioning.

The presiding coroner was Mr Cooper Charles Brooke whose first task was to lead the jury into the vicarage to view the scene of the crime. In the vicar’s bedroom the ‘horrible gash in the victim’s throat was exposed’. (Something that has puzzled me was Farley’s full beard. Two photographs show it to be long enough to touch his collar bone. It was never made clear if it had been trimmed before his death. If it had not and if Farley had been lying on his pillow at the time of the murder, how had Arthur been able to find his victim’s neck with such accuracy?)

The bloodstains on the carpet which showed the position in which Mrs Farley had found the body were also inspected closely. The jury noted too the padlock which fastened the intercommunicating door before moving on to look at the curate’s room. This too, had been left untouched, so they were able to see for themselves the rumpled bed which suggested that Arthur had been tossing from side to side.

Having completed their examination of the premises, the coroner and jury moved on to The Bell Inn where Major Heigham, the Chief Constable, the witnesses and the gentlemen of the Press and as many others as could squeeze in had already assembled.

One can imagine the hush when Arthur was brought in by Supt Balls and Sgt Bragg. He was still wearing his clerical garb topped by a thick overcoat and a round soft hat. He failed to remove his hat and one of the police officers took it off for him. We are told that he was given a seat among (beside?) the jury. Although at first he seemed somewhat bemused by it all, after a while he appeared to be taking an intelligent interest in the proceedings.

The first witness was, naturally, the widow. Most of the newspaper accounts were to comment on how calmly Mrs Farley conducted herself but some were surprisingly critical of the widow. The
Dorset County Chronicle
primly stated, ‘Mrs Farley is still in the prime of life . . . She was wonderfully calm and still wore coloured flowers in her bonnet.’ This was indeed an affront to the Victorian code of decorous behaviour. However, the
Devizes and Wiltshire Gazette
had worse: ‘. . . the wife of the deceased who was the principal witness, in the course of her evidence exhibited extraordinary levity.’

No doubt, given the horror of the circumstances in which she had been embroiled, the spectators had expected a display of heart-rending emotion from the grieving widow. That they were disappointed may have been the result of Harriet Louisa still being in a state of shock. Another possible explanation is that her years spent with the army had taught her rigid self-control.

Had she presented a more pathetic picture, it is possible she would not have been subjected to the rigorous questioning that followed her initial statement of events. As the inquest progressed, so it became clear that not only was she not particularly liked by the local people, but she had in fact been the subject of gossip among them.

Having detailed the events leading up to her going to bed, she was asked about the rap at the door. This, she said, she had not heard herself, yet in the previous account she was reported as saying she had heard what she thought was the maid rattling the candlestick.

The next discrepancy came in her account of what happened when Arthur reached the side of the bed where the vicar was lying. She now said that it was Arthur who had twice said ‘What do you mean?’ The coroner picked her up on that, asking, ‘Mr Farley said so?’ On the contrary, she replied that it was definitely Arthur who had said it and her husband who had laughed. Mr Farley had laughed in his usual bright way as if not sick, as much as to say ‘Don’t be foolish’ or something like that.

The
Suffolk Times and Mercury
report continued:

Coroner
: He said to the prisoner ‘Don’t be foolish?’

Mrs Farley
: No, he didn’t say it, but it was in that kind of way. The vicar made no remark. He only laughed. He saw Mr Cooper was wrong and tried to intimidate him and send him away. When Mr Cooper made the remark, ‘What do you mean?’ I knew there was something wrong, and I went to him and ordered him out of the room. I said to him, ‘What do you mean talking like that? Get out of the room,’ and sent him out and followed him out.

Coroner
: What took place then?

Mrs Farley
: I did not close the door.

Coroner
: Did you observe any blood flowing?

Mrs Farley
: My husband said, ‘Oh Louie, he has’– done so and so.

Coroner
: The deceased said his throat was cut, didn’t he?

[The witness nodded her head]

Coroner
: Was that when Mr Cooper was in the bedroom?

Mrs Farley
: I should say it was when he was passing out. He was most likely on my side of the bed, near the door. I went round immediately to my husband, and said, ‘Nonsense, nonsense, you fancy things’.

Coroner
: Did you see blood flowing then?

Mrs Farley
: No, I did not. I didn’t believe it; didn’t believe it was true.

Coroner
: How long was it before you saw blood?

Mrs Farley
: I followed Mr Cooper to his room, fearing that he had something in his hand. My first thoughts were that he would go to the servants.

Coroner
: Did you go to the prisoner’s room?

Mrs Farley
: Yes.

Coroner
: Was he there?

Mrs Farley
: Yes.

Coroner
: Did he make any observation to you?

Mrs Farley
: No.

Coroner
: Did you see him put a razor or anything of that kind down?

Mrs Farley
: No; he was standing quite upright in his room. He said nothing. I asked him what he had in his hands, and he said ‘I have got nothing.’ I tried to intimidate him, but he held out his hands and said ‘I have got nothing.’

Coroner
: Were his hands open?

Mrs Farley
: Yes.

Coroner
: Both of them?

Mrs Farley
: Yes.

Coroner
: How long did you stay with him?

Mrs Farley
: Not a second. I ran across the room and took his razor case off the dressing-table. He didn’t seem to notice that I took it but I did. I threw it into another room, and then ran back to my husband.

Coroner
: You didn’t know whether the razors were in it or not?

Mrs Farley
: No. I did not. My only thought was that he might make use of them.

Coroner
: On your return to the deceased did you see any blood?

Mrs Farley
: My husband was on the floor.

Coroner
: Did you observe any blood?

[The witness nodded]

Coroner
: Did you see any wound?

[The witness shook her head]

Coroner
: Did you notice where it was flowing from?

[Again the witness shook her head]

Coroner
: Where was your husband lying?

Mrs Farley
: At the foot of the bed.

Coroner
: How long did he live after that?