Radlett murder

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Radlett murder, also known as the Elstree murder, was a notorious murder committed in Radlett, Hertfordshire, England, in 1823. The victim was killed in Radlett and the body eventually disposed of in a pond in Elstree. It gained a great deal of attention from the press and public at the time, and seventeen books were written about it in the following year, as well as other books since, and several stage plays. It is commemorated by the following rhyme:

They cut his throat from ear to ear,
His head they battered in.
His name was Mr William Weare,
He lived in Lyons Inn.

1 The killing
2 Trial
3 Punishment
4 Notoriety
5 External links

[edit] The killing

William Weare was a solicitor and gambler. His killer was John Thurtell, a sports promoter, amateur boxer, a former Royal Marine officer and the son of the mayor of Norwich. Thurtell owed Weare a gambling debt of £300, an immense sum of money at the time. Thurtell believed that Weare had cheated him of the money. Whatever the truth of this supposition, when Weare demanded payment Thurtell chose to murder him rather than pay up. He invited Weare to join him and his friends - Joseph Hunt, a tavern landlord, and William Probert, a former convict and alcohol merchant - for a weekend of gambling at Probert's cottage in Gill's Hill Lane, Radlett. On October 24, 1823 they journeyed from London in Thurtell's horse-drawn gig, but Weare was killed in a dark lane just short of their destination.

Thurtell shot Weare in the face with a pistol, but this failed to kill him. Weare escaped from the carriage but did not get far before Thurtell caught up with him. As Weare lay injured on the ground, Thurtell slit his throat with a knife before driving the pistol into his head with such force that his brains were literally dashed out over the ground. Assisted by Hunt and Probert he hid the corpse in a pond near to the cottage. This hiding place was judged to be too unsafe for Probert, however, and the body was later moved to another pond in Elstree. By this time both murder weapons had already been found, as Thurtell had left them behind on the road. The pistol was one of a pair, the other one still being in Thurtell's possession. The three culprits were quickly identified and caught. Hunt himself led the authorities to the body.

[edit] Trial

Thurtell, Hunt and Probert were indicted for murder. The foreman of the grand jury which indicted them was William Lamb, who as Lord Melbourne would later become the prime minister. They were tried at Hertford Assize Court. Even though Hunt had provided the greatest cooperation to the authorities, nevertheless it was Probert who was offered the chance to save himself by turning King's evidence: giving evidence against the other two in exchange for his freedom. Hunt was tried as an accessory to murder; his defence counsel was Frederic Thesiger, a future lord chancellor (head of the English judiciary).

The murder and the ensuing trial attracted unprecedented publicity, to the point where questions were raised as to whether the defendants could possibly have a fair trial. Construction of the gallows was begun even before the trial started. The trial judge, Mr Justice Park, lamented: "if these statements of evidence before trial which corrupt the purity of the administration of justice in its source are not checked, I tremble for the fate of our country." Nevertheless he allowed both Thurtell and Hunt to be convicted.

Thurtell and his associates’ actions pursuant to the murder were as widely reported and commented upon as the crime itself. Having temporarily disposed of Weare’s corpse, "the trio entered the house, Hunt was introduced to Mrs. Probert, directions were given to cook some pork chops for supper, and then Thurtell took the two men to the field, where they rifled the body, and left it lying enveloped in the sack. After supper a jovial evening was spent, Hunt sang several songs over the grog, and Thurtell gallantly presented Mrs. Probert with the gold chain he had taken from the body." A contemporary street ballad, The Hertfordshire Tragedy, did not fail to emphasize the particulars:

Although his hands were warm with blood,
He down to supper sat,
And passed the time in merry mood,
With drink and songs and chat.

The singing in particular commanded attention. In discussing post-homicide cold-blooded tranquility, H.B. Irving (a Victorian barrister), author of the Book of Remarkable Criminals remarks, “Such callousness is almost unsurpassed in the annals of criminal insensibility. Nero fiddling over burning Rome, Thurtell fresh from the murder of Weare, inviting Hunt, the singer and his accomplice, to ‘tip them a stave’ after supper . . .” Nor were the proceedings of the trial lacking in amusement, supplied generously by Hunt’s testimony in court. Hunt was questioned about the supper indulged in immediately after the murder took place: “Was the supper postponed?”—“No, it was pork.”

[edit] Punishment

John Thurtell was sentenced to death, and was hanged on January 9, 1824, aged 33. Having always denied his crime, he finally admitted it on the gallows.[1] On the day after his death, Thurtell's body was dissected (this was a standard part of the sentence for murderers at the time). A waxwork model of his body was displayed in Madame Tussauds for around 150 years. Although Thurtell had been surprisingly popular and had received some public sympathy, some of his relatives still chose to change their names to avoid the disgrace of being associated with him.[2]

Joseph Hunt was also sentenced to death, but in belated recognition of his cooperation with the authorities his sentence was commuted to transportation to an Australian penal colony for life. He was taken to Botany Bay, where he completely rehabilitated. After serving his time as a prisoner, he gained his freedom and started a new life in Australia, marrying and raising two daughters. He eventually became such a respected man in his community that he actually became a police constable. He died in 1861.

William Probert was never punished for his role in Weare's death. However the reports of his involvement in the newspapers meant that he was reviled by everybody and he became a social outcast. Unable to find work, he resorted to crime to support himself and his wife, and in 1825, at the age of 33, he was hanged at Newgate Prison for stealing a horse worth £25 from one of his relatives.[3]

[edit] Notoriety

Besides the gruesome details of the killing, the murder was also sensational at the time because it exposed the seedy London underworld of gambling and amateur boxing to a public which had previously been rather ignorant of it. As more and more details were published of the underworld which the likes of Thurtell and Weare had inhabited, there were increasing calls for something to be done about it.

The case retained notoriety throughout the century. Like many others, Sir Walter Scott visited the spot of the murder a few years after it took place. In his diary he wrote of the "labyrinth of intricate lanes, which seemed made on purpose to afford strangers the full benefit of a dark night and a drunk driver, in order to visit Gill’s Hill, famous for the murder of Mr. Weare . . . The principle part of the house is destroyed, and only the kitchen remains standing. The garden has been dismantled, though a few laurels and flowering shrubs, run wild, continue to mark the spot. The fatal pond is now only a green swamp, but so near the house, that one cannot conceive how it was ever chosen as a place of temporary concealment for the murdered body. The dirt of the present habitation equals its desolation . . . [t]he landlord had dismantled the place because no respectable person would live there." Another distinguished essayist, Thomas Babington Macaulay, acidly remarked: "There is a possibility that Thurtell may have killed Weare only in order to give the youth of England an impressive warning against gaming and bad company. There is a possibility that Fauntleroy may have forged powers of attorney, only in order that his fate might turn the attention of the public to the defects of the penal law. These things, we say, are possible. But they are so extravagantly improbable that a man who should act on such suppositions would be fit only for Saint Luke’s [a mental asylum]."