Read an Excerpt
CHAPTER 1
the world's first murder
According to the Bible, the world's first murderer was Cain, the son of Adam and Eve, who slew his own brother Abel in cold blood: Now Cain said to his brother Abel, 'Let's go out to the field.' While they were in the field, Cain attacked his brother Abel and killed him.
Genesis 4:8
The story goes that Cain, a farmer, and Abel, a shepherd, both made sacrifices to God, but that the Almighty favoured Abel's. A furious Cain then murdered his brother.
Science, however, has highlighted other early victims of intentional slaughter going right back to our ancient ancestors. In 1991 a mummified body was found in melting ice high in the Italian Alps. It was originally thought to have been of a dead mountaineer. On closer examination by experts, the corpse turned out to be more than 5,000 years old. Dubbed 'Ötzi the Iceman', this Bronze Age body was remarkably well preserved, allowing numerous tests to be undertaken. Initially it was thought that Ötzi might have frozen to death, but thanks to a CT scan it emerged that he had an arrow wound in his left shoulder. Further analysis showed that the victim had also suffered a blow to the head and appeared to have suffered defensive injuries to his hands.
Whether Ötzi died from the head injury or bled to death, he had clearly met a violent end at the hands of another. But his was by no means the first homicide. Archaeologists have found evidence of the slaying of a Neanderthal male who lived around 50,000 years ago. Known as 'Shanidar-3', the victim had a cut on one of his left ribs that suggests that he was intentionally killed with a spear. An even earlier murder victim appears to have been found buried deep in Spain's Atapuerca Mountains at a location known as the 'pit of bones'. This cavern is located down a 43ft chimney only accessible after scrambling through a cave system. Over a twenty-year period, painstaking excavations have so far unearthed the remains of twenty-eight skeletons at the site belonging to the species Homo heidelbergensis, an early human ancestor pre-dating the Neanderthals.
One skull, belonging to a young adult and dating back some 430,000 years, was carefully reassembled from fifty-two separate pieces. Cranium 17 turned out to be of particular fascination when it was found to have two gaping holes above the left eye socket. Scientists applied modern forensic techniques, including 3D imaging and a CT scan, to the skull and compared the fractures to modern cases of injury. They determined that the wounds had occurred before death but that they did not seem to have been the result of a fall. Nor did they show any signs of healing. The holes were a similar shape and seemed to have been inflicted with a blunt instrument striking at different angles. These multiple blows suggested violence administered face-to-face. Either strike, perhaps by a wooden spear or stone hand-axe, would probably have been fatal. The conclusion was that the victim was intentionally hit twice over the head before being purposely plunged down the hole. This, the earliest case of homicide so far identified, suggests that murder was a behaviour associated with our earliest origins.
Recognition that the crime was something abhorrent goes a long way back too. The earliest-known recorded law against murder comes from the Sumerian Code of Ur-Nammu, set down on clay tablets sometime between 2100 and 2050 BC. It states that 'If a man commits a murder, that man must be killed.' The earliest recorded murder trial comes from another clay tablet dating to just a little later, 1850 BC. It was recovered from the same region of modern-day Iraq and reveals that three men, from the city of Nippur, were accused of murdering a temple official. They told his wife that her husband was dead, but perhaps under pressure, she stayed quiet about the crime. Somehow the killing came to light. The case was first brought before King Ur-Ninurta, who sent the three culprits and the woman for trial in front of the Citizens Assembly in Nippur. There was much debate as to whether the woman was guilty as an accessory. In the end, however, it was only the three men who were found guilty of murder and executed. Symbolically, their punishment was carried out in front of a chair belonging to the dead man.
One of the first murder victims we can name is the pharaoh Rameses III, whose throat was cut by an assassin in 1155 BC. Before long, cases of serial killers were being recorded too. Roman writer Pliny the Elder recorded that, in 56 BC, Calpurnius Bestia was accused of murdering a string of wives by rubbing the poison aconite into their genitalia. In the same era, in what is modern-day Sri Lanka, Queen Anula of Anuradhapura poisoned several husbands who weren't to her liking, and was eventually burned alive for her crimes. A man from Yemen, Zu Shenatir, is known to have raped a series of young boys in the fifth century AD, after luring them to his house with promises of food and money. He then threw them to their deaths out of a window. Shenatir's killing spree ended when one boy, named Zerash, managed to stab him before avoiding the same fate.
CHAPTER 2
missing bodies, in the case of the 'Princes in the Tower'
During July 1674 workmen were demolishing a ruinous turret and staircase at the Tower of London. In the rubble, at the foot of some old stairs once used as a private entrance for the royal chapel, they found an intriguing wooden chest. Inside were two skeletons, seemingly of two young boys. One would have stood about 4ft 10in tall; the other, 4ft 6in. Still clinging to the bones were traces of aristocratic velvet. Word soon went round that these were the remains of murdered royalty.
Following the death of Edward IV in 1483, Richard, Duke of Gloucester, had seized the throne of England, while his nephews, the 12-year-old Edward V and 9-year-old Richard, Duke of York, were thrown in the Tower of London, never to be seen again. After Richard III himself was killed at the Battle of Bosworth in 1485, his successor, Henry VII, let it be known that the princes had been killed on Richard's orders. Indeed, Tudor writer Thomas More said that one of Richard's men, Sir James Tyrrell, had confessed to carrying out the crime before his execution for treason in 1502. More had even given a clue as to the whereabouts of the bodies, stating that they were buried at the foot of a set of stairs under some stones. Now, it appeared, they had turned up after nearly 200 years.
Physicians who examined the skeletons on behalf of Charles II pronounced that they were indeed the princes, and the king ordered that the bodies be interred in a marble urn at the Henry VII Lady Chapel in Westminster Abbey. But that wasn't the end of the story. In 1933, under pressure from those who believed Richard III was innocent of the murder, the authorities agreed that the bodies could be disinterred and examined. Two medical experts found that the bones matched the ages of the princes at the time of their disappearance and that the velvet found with them was from the correct period. They also found evidence that the older individual had been suffering from an infection of the jaw (Edward was known to be unwell) and even that he might have been suffocated. They could not, however, establish the gender of the bodies, and subsequent analysis of the findings in the 1950s led to scepticism about their conclusions. By this time the bodies had been reinterred, and despite a more recent campaign for the bones to undergo DNA testing, both the Church of England and the Queen have refused permission for further forensic analysis, leaving their identity – and the exact fate of the boys – a much-debated mystery.
The disappearance of the princes remains the ultimate cold case. But it is not the only instance where murder has been assumed, and a culprit accused, without a body. Indeed, there have been many convictions in the absence of a corpse. In the United States there have been more than 250 trials without a body, dating as far back as 1843 when several crew members of the ship Sarah Lavinia were found guilty of throwing shipmate Walter Nicoll overboard.
In Britain, however, one infamous seventeenth-century scandal meant that the presence of a cadaver would effectively become an essential prerequisite in order to prosecute murder for three centuries. On 16 August 1660, 70-year-old estate manager William Harrison set out from his home in Chipping Campden, Gloucestershire, to collect rents at a nearby village. When Harrison failed to return home that night, his wife sent servant John Perry to look for him. It seemed there was no trace of Harrison, apart from some bloodstained clothes found on a nearby road. When suspicion fell on Perry himself, he suddenly accused his own brother and mother of murdering Harrison for money. A year later all three were found guilty and hanged for the crime. Yet, in 1662 Harrison sensationally turned up alive, claiming to have been abducted and sold into slavery.
The 'Campden Wonder', as it became known, led to the adoption of a 'no body rule', but that began to change in the twentieth century. A landmark case in 1954 concerned decorated Polish soldier Michael Onufrejczyk, who had decided to stay in Britain after the Second World War and run a farm. He took on fellow Pole Stanislaw Sykut as a business partner. But when the pair fell out over money, Sykut mysteriously vanished from the property. Onufrejczyk maintained that Sykut had returned to Poland. Suspicious, police found 2,000 tiny bloodstains at the farm, but no body. Nevertheless, amid rumours that Sykut had been slain and fed to the farm pigs, Onufrejczyk was charged with the killing and convicted of murder, going on to serve a life sentence.
The ensuing decades have seen many more convictions in cases without a corpse, but there have continued to be some notable miscarriages of justice too. In 1982 Lindy Chamberlain was convicted of murdering her 9-week-old daughter Azaria in the Australian Outback despite her pleas that a dingo had taken the baby. In 1987 she was given a pardon after some of Azaria's bloodied clothing was found near a dingo's den. Those who believe Richard III did not slay the princes in the tower are still hopeful that new evidence might emerge to clear the monarch of murder.
CHAPTER 3
times that murderer John Lee was unsuccessfully hanged
Many people have got away with murder over the centuries, but some evaded the death penalty even after being caught and convicted. In the past a killer could be given a reprieve if their execution failed, with the event usually deemed to be a sign of divine intervention. There was, for instance, the case of Maggie Dickson, hanged in Edinburgh for infanticide in 1724. She was left dangling from the end of a rope for thirty minutes, but for some reason had survived the ordeal. Maggie was later found to be alive, after knocking was heard from inside her coffin. She was given a full pardon.
Like all forms of capital punishment, hanging is, of course, an expert business, and even by the nineteenth century professional executioners could get things badly wrong. James Berry hanged 131 people during his time as an official public executioner and helped refine the so-called 'long drop' method, where the height and weight of the condemned individual were taken into account in order to establish how much slack would be needed in the rope to break their neck. This was deemed a 'cleaner' end than death by strangulation, which was often the result of a hanging. However, the long drop technique was still in its infancy. In November 1885, Berry oversaw the hanging of wife murderer Robert Goodale at Norwich, but the calculations were flawed and the culprit was decapitated by the rope.
It was a very different problem that had led to the botched execution of convicted murderer John Lee earlier the same year, with Berry again overseeing proceedings. Lee, 20, had been found guilty of slitting the throat of his employer, Emma Keyse, at her home in Babbacombe, Devon – albeit on flimsy evidence. He was due to be hanged on 23 February at Exeter Prison, and Berry duly tested his equipment beforehand, including the trapdoor through which Lee was set to plunge. As was traditional, Lee emerged from his cell at 8 a.m. that day and was led to the gallows. A belt was tied around his ankles, a hood put over his head, then the rope placed around his neck. Asked if he had any last words, Lee said calmly, 'No, drop away.' Berry duly pulled the lever. Nothing happened. Lee was led away and the mechanism tested again. It worked perfectly. Lee was brought back and the lever was pulled a second time. Again, nothing happened. With both Lee and Berry now frantic, the whole exercise was repeated a third time, only to end without a hanging. The whole execution was temporarily called off. The home secretary, Sir William Harcourt, became involved and soon decided to commute Lee's sentence to life. He would serve twenty-two years in jail.
Lee was dubbed 'the man they couldn't hang'. Yet Lee's case was not the first. Australian Joseph Samuel, convicted of murdering policeman Joseph Luker in 1803, was hanged near Sydney three times, but on each occasion the rope unravelled or snapped. The country's governor intervened and also decided that the guilty man should serve life imprisonment instead of being executed a fourth time.
A different kind of escape from the noose occurred in the case of Reginald Woolmington. A jury at the Bristol Assizes had taken just 69 minutes to find the 21-year-old guilty of murder, and he was sentenced to death on 14 February 1935. He had been convicted of killing his 17-year-old estranged wife, Violet, in what appeared to be a crime of passion. Violet had left Woolmington, running away to her mother's home, but Reginald was desperate to get her back. Reginald went to Violet's mother's house in Milborne Port, Somerset, and when Violet refused to return with him she was shot through the heart. Woolmington was quickly arrested, charged and even told police, 'I done it.'
The farm labourer had admitted that he'd brought a shotgun to the house, but he maintained that he had not intended to shoot Violet and had actually meant to kill himself with it if she could not be persuaded to renew their relationship. The gun, Woolmington said, had gone off by mistake, killing the woman he loved. The judge who condemned him to death had directed the jury that it was the job of Woolmington's defence to demonstrate that the shooting was accidental. But, after the verdict, an appeal was brought and the case eventually came before the House of Lords. It found that 'No matter what the charge or where the trial, the principle that the prosecution must prove the guilt of the prisoner is part of the common law of England.' Woolmington was acquitted in what would become a defining moment in English law regarding the presumption of innocence in cases of murder.
CHAPTER 4
assassins who murdered Thomas Becket
Thomas Becket was not the only person to be savagely murdered in a cathedral. In 1478 Giuliano de' Medici, co-ruler of Renaissance Florence, was stabbed to death during High Mass inside the city's duomo as part of a failed conspiracy to overthrow him and his brother. But it is Becket's death, in Canterbury Cathedral, on the evening of 29 December 1170, that is much better known today. At the time it sent shock waves through medieval Europe, and his murder remains the most notorious of the period.
'Will no one rid me of this turbulent priest?' Henry II's famous frustrated plea came after the king of England had finally lost all patience with Becket, his former friend. Henry had ascended to the throne at just 21, in 1154, and soon appointed Becket as chancellor – effectively his right-hand man – on the advice of the then Archbishop of Canterbury, Theobald. Becket, the son of a London merchant, had been Theobald's own clerk and shown himself to be highly competent. Henry was initially delighted with the choice. Becket reliably carried out the king's bidding and the pair spent time carousing and hunting together.
It was only when Henry made a reluctant Becket take up the position of Archbishop of Canterbury, in 1162, that the trouble began. Becket had never been a priest, but once in England's most senior ecclesiastical post he promptly resigned as chancellor, became increasingly devout and a strident defender of Church power. Rather than helping Henry control the institution as the monarch had hoped, Becket became a thorn in his side. The pair clashed over issues such as the right of clergy to be tried by the Church's own courts, and Becket incurred the king's wrath by excommunicating one of his senior barons. When Henry tried to put Becket on trial, the Archbishop fled abroad.
(Continues…)
Excerpted from "Murder by Numbers"
by .
Copyright © 2018 James Moore.
Excerpted by permission of The History Press.
All rights reserved. No part of this excerpt may be reproduced or reprinted without permission in writing from the publisher.
Excerpts are provided by Dial-A-Book Inc. solely for the personal use of visitors to this web site.
