Cambridgeshire Murders (6 page)

Once settled at Little Stukeley Waterhouse's penny-pinching ways earned him a reputation as a miserly minister. He preferred to leave his land uncultivated rather than pay the labourers a decent rate for their time. With equally false economy he hoarded any produce that he could not sell at what he felt was its correct value. This meant that every room in the vicarage, apart from the kitchen and one bedroom, was filled with either wool or grain. Many of the windows were boarded to avoid the payment of window tax and the house became so rat-infested that according to one contemporary account the vermin caused destruction ‘from turret to foundation stone'.

Waterhouse lived alone, employing several villagers to work in the rectory and on the surrounding estate. On the morning of his death he had been seen at various times by several members of staff. The last person thought to have seen him alive was Ann Gale, who had arrived at the house at half past five and had then remained there until half past nine, when she had been sent to hoe thistles. She reported that the rector had appeared in good health.

The Revd Waterhouse was discovered by two of his staff, William Parker, aged 14, and Reuben Briggs, aged only 11. They had spent the morning working outside, mainly attending to Waterhouse's hogs. Between 10.30 and 11 a.m. they went into the back kitchen to have their lunch, and heard a groaning. On investigation, in the passageway leading from the back kitchen to the main kitchen, they saw Waterhouse's legs were protruding from a large brewing tub. The groaning sounds continued, and the boys were so frightened that they ran to the house of a neighbour, Ann Whitney, to seek help. Ann's immediate assumption was that Waterhouse was either drunk or playing a trick on the boys. But as they returned to their work they saw a visitor, Frederick Rogers rapping on the door with his whip in an attempt to get a response from the house. The boys told him what they had seen. After some hesitation Rogers went in and found Waterhouse as they had described.

Meanwhile the boys had summoned the help of the blacksmith, William Ashby, who, with the help of labourer William Harrison, hauled the old man from the tub. At the inquest Harrison stated that it had been half past eleven when he returned home and assisted Ashby in the removal of Revd Waterhouse from the tub, and that the body ‘was then motionless, but quite warm'.

At seven o'clock on the evening of the murder William Margetts, coroner for the Hundred of Hurstingstone, began an inquest into the death. He convened the inquest at the Bell Inn with a group of respectable citizens assembled by the constable. From these a jury was sworn in. Also present were the Revd T. Brown of Conington and Henry Sweeting, Esquire, clerk of the county.

The jury was taken to the rectory where they were required to inspect the body. Witness statements were also taken. The first of these was from George Oakeley, the surgeon who had first examined the body. He stated that he had found a very deep cut near the right ear and a fracture of the right-hand side of the jaw, which had severed a large proportion of it, separating vessels with sufficient severity to cause death. He stated that a heavy weapon, such as an axe, would have inflicted the wounds and that the wounds could not have been self-inflicted.

Oakeley's evidence was supported by that of Jonah Wilson, a surgeon from Huntingdon, who, at 4 p.m., had been the next to examine the body. Revd Waterhouse had suffered at least fourteen stab wounds. There were defence wounds to his wrists and hands in addition to several more serious injuries, including one that had separated his right lower jaw, another that had severed part of his left humerus and a fatal blow to the upper part of his throat, which, according to Wilson, had ‘separated the bone of the tongue from the windpipe, had penetrated the windpipe on its upper part, and completely cut across the large vessels of the neck on the right side, from which blood had spurted most forcibly, and stained the two walls of the passage in which the deed was committed'.

The boys, Parker and Briggs, were next to give evidence. Parker in particular was criticised by Sweeting for showing a lack of courage and humanity in failing to assist Waterhouse sooner. Statements were then heard from all those who had eventually come to Waterhouse's aid.

Mary-Ann Wells of Wandsford testified on Tuesday morning, that between 10 and 11 a.m., the daughter of Ann Whitney had run to her and said ‘the old man is dead', at which time Mary-Ann went to the rectory and assisted in getting him out of the tub. She recalled that his forehead was still warm and, despite a great quantity of congealed blood, Ashby had declared ‘he's not dead, he's tipsy'.

William Harrison had worked for Waterhouse as a labourer for nine years and observed that both purse and keys had been left on the body and therefore the motive seemed to be revenge rather than theft.

A villager named Sarah Leach stated that she had heard a conversation connected to the case: another villager, Mrs Heddings, had remarked that on the Sunday before last her husband had noted that Waterhouse's servants had all left him and that he should not be surprised if he cut his throat ‘before another Sabbath day'. Mrs Heddings was summoned from her bed at midnight. She denied any such conversation and had no suspicions of anyone.

The inquest was adjourned to the following afternoon. The parishioners had no great respect for Revd Waterhouse, and by the time the inquest reconvened at 5 p.m. on Wednesday afternoon suspicion had fallen on William Heddings and Joshua Slade. However, each produced a witness confirming that they had worked in a hay field during the whole of Tuesday. Heddings' wife was recalled but again denied stating that her husband had alluded to Waterhouse's death before it had occurred.

Other witnesses were called. Anne Elby was walking near the Horse Shoes at Great Stukeley when she saw a man passing from the rectory towards the road. He headed towards the tunnel that joined the two Stukeleys, then disappeared. She arrived at the Swan at Little Stukeley at exactly eleven o'clock. Two further witnesses, Mr Francis and Mr Woods, investigated this sighting and stated that on examining the tunnel their only discovery was of footprints made by shoes with large nails in the soles.

In his summing up the coroner concluded that person or persons familiar with both the rectory and Waterhouse's habits had committed the murder and that the motive was one of jealousy or revenge. The jury returned a unanimous verdict of ‘wilful murder against some person or persons unknown'.

The alibis of the two suspects were closely scrutinised. William Heddings firstly came under suspicion because he had been convicted of burglary in 1823. His sentence had been commuted to three years' imprisonment in the house of correction, but after twenty months his good behaviour had secured his early release. He returned to find that his wife had been willed a house and some money, leaving them financially secure. Despite these improved circumstances he soon returned to crime, and although he had so far avoided being caught it was well known in the village that, along with brothers John and Joshua Slade, he had been the perpetrator of numerous burglaries. Despite this, he soon proved to the coroner that he had been working in Huntingdon since the previous Sunday, and that on the Tuesday in question he had been employed by a Mr Maile to mow a field near Huntingdon.

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.