Age: 73
Sex: female
Date: 12 Oct 1962
Place: 32 Victoria Dwellings, Clerkenwell Road, Clerkenwell, London
Annie Mary O'Donnell was killed in her religious bookshop at 32 Victoria Dwellings, Clerkenwell Road in Clerkenwell, London on 12 October 1962.
An 18-year-old butcher was tried three times for her murder but acquitted.
The jury failed to reach a verdict at the first two trials and the prosecution presented no evidence at the third. The dates of the trials at the Old Bailey were:
However, it was noted that following the release of the butcher he assaulted a woman in Petty France, Westminster, with intent to rob her on 3 May 1963, for which he was convicted on 29 May 1963.
Victoria Dwellings has since been demolished and the plot redeveloped, however, Herbal Hill and Clerkenwell Road are still there along with many other period buildings.
Background and Habits of Annie O'Donnell
Annie O'Donnell had been a single woman, born in Clonmel, Eire on 4 December 1887, however, the police were unable to trace any blood relatives.
Although she was 74 years of age, she was described as a well preserved woman in good health.
She had been a staunch Roman Catholic and attended church twice a day, living an insular life and having no close friends, her acquaintances all being people concerned in her religious activities.
She had lived in a single-roomed flat at 39 Coldbath Buildings in Rosebery Avenue, WC1, but the greater part of her day was spent at her shop, the Catholic Repository at 32 Victoria Dwellings at the corner of Clerkenwell Road and Herbal Hill where she sold a miscellaneous assortment of articles, all to do with the Roman Catholic faith, such as statues, crucifixes, rosaries, holy medals, prayer books, religious cards and calendars.
The police report stated that it was difficult to assess the volume of her business carried on at the shop, but noted that it had been variously described as 'quiet' and 'busy'.
However, it was noted that Annie O'Donnell was a person of some substance, it being found that at the time of her death she had had a belt containing £599 sewn into her underskirt.
The nearest person traced to her was her god-daughter who lived at 5 Cave Road, E13. She said that when she was young that she also lived in Coldbath Buildings after her parents separated and Annie O'Donnell helped her out. She said that it was through Annie O'Donnell's influence that she embraced the Roman Catholic religion.
She said that she visited Annie O'Donnell regularly, but that the last time she saw her was on Sunday 7 October 1962.
Annie O'Donnell's god-daughter confirmed that Annie O'Donnell had been a very quiet person, with no friends, who spent almost her entire day either in her shop or in St Peter's Church nearby in Clerkenwell Road. She added that church and her religion were her sole topics of conversation, and that she didn't disclose her financial status with her but that she always had the impression that she was 'comfortably off'.
First Police Officer on the Scene
The first police officer on the scene had known Annie O'Donnell as keeping her shop at 32 Victoria Dwellings for 24 years. It was he and the neighbour at 32 Victoria Dwellings who identified her body.
Neighbour
Annie O'Donnell's neighbour at 33 Victoria Dwellings, opposite 32, knew most about Annie O'Donnell's habits and movements. She described her as very quiet, but that she had little to do with her over the four years that she had lived at the address.
She said that Annie O'Donnell would close her shop between 6pm and 6.30pm and then go up Clerkenwell Road towards St Peter's Church, which was close by and would generally return about 7pm. She said that she thought that Annie O'Donnell would then cook herself a meal before going to the 8pm Mass, also at St Peter's Church. It was noted that by Mass, the neighbour meant the 8pm Benediction Service. The neighbour added that on some occasions Annie O'Donnell would return and stay in the shop until about 9pm.
The neighbour further noted that at about 7.50pm, the bell at St Peter's Church would be run, calling people to the 8pm Benediction Service and that it was usually immediately after that that she would hear Annie O'Donnell locking up and leaving for church. It was additionally noted that the noise of the bell, in the nearby dwellings, was deafening, and obliterated all other sounds.
The neighbour said that it was her recollection that after business hours, that Annie O'Donnell would lock her door from the inside if she was in the shop and would not answer to any knocking. However, it was noted that if the evidence of another neighbour was accepted, then that would not have appeared to have been the case on the evening of the murder.
It was noted that the neighbour at 33 Victoria Dwellings was the last person known to have seen Annie O'Donnell before her murder, that being about 7.10pm or 7.15pm on 12 October 1962.
Father at St Peter's Italian Church
The Father at St Peter's Italian Church in Clerkenwell Road said that he knew Annie O'Donnell extremely well and that to his recollection that she would attend every night for the Evening Benediction at 8pm and that he had never known her to be late and that she would also attend at other times during the day, especially on Friday evenings. He noted that Friday evenings were a particular day of devotion in the Roman Catholic faith and the Father said that it was his belief that Annie O'Donnell would attend at about 6.30pm to 7pm to perform the Stations of the Cross privately.
The Father noted that Annie O'Donnell didn't attend the Benediction on Friday 12 October 1962 and the police said that they were unable to trace anyone who could say that she had attended church earlier that day.
Woman from 11 Griffin Mansions
A woman from 11 Griffin Mansions said it had been Annie O'Donnell's habit to leave her shop for church every evening at about 7.50pm and that she understood her to have money, but had no reason for knowing that apart from local gossip.
Description of Scene
The attack on Annie O'Donnell took place in her shop, which was a single ground floor corner room of a block of flats, 32 Victoria Dwellings, bounded on one side by Clerkenwell Road and on the other by Herbal Hill, plans of which were made for the Court hearing.
There was but one door that opened from a passageway leading from the common entrance to the flats in Herbal Hill. The door was fitted with one mortice type lock, and although other locks had been fitted at one time or another, they were no longer operative.
The door was panelled in wood and an electric light switch was situated just inside the door on the wall. There were two windows, one overlooking Clerkenwell Road and the other the corner of Herbal Hill, both of which were used for display purposes and hung with religious cards and calendars along with a number of religious statues.
The room was noted for being a peculiar shape, the walls being of different lengths:
Running for almost the length of the shop, from south to north, there was a counter, 2ft 2in wide, to which had been added a desk which was 3ft long, leaving a space of 2ft 4½in between the end of the desk and the wall. It was noted that the desk had been described in some people's evidence as a 'table'. It was in that space between the end of the table and the wall, near to the gas stove, that Annie O'Donnell usually stood in the shop, and it was on the customer's side of the counter at that point where her body was later found.
The room was illuminated by two naked electric light bulbs, one being above the display window in Clerkenwell Road, and the other hanging from the ceiling approximately over the centre of the counter. However, it was noted that the street lighting was sufficient to light the room to some extent otherwise.
Discovery of the Crime
Annie O'Donnell's body was found by a woman that had lived at 38 Victoria Dwellings and her brother. The woman had left her flat at about 7.45pm to 8pm to visit her brother, a bank messenger, who lived in a different block of the same dwellings, 122 Victoria Dwellings. On her way out she noticed that the door to Annie O'Donnell's shop was ajar, but said that she couldn't say whether there had been any lights on in the room at the time. She later returned home at about 10.30pm with her brother, and noticed that the door was still ajar and that there were no lights on in the room.
She said that she pointed that out to her brother who then pushed the door, but it only opened a little way, after which he switched the light on, the switch being just inside the door, and when he looked in he saw Annie O'Donnell lying on the floor just inside the door, with her feet pointing to the left wall, and her head, which was in a pool of blood, near to the table.
The woman's brother then ran off to the Hat and Tun public house nearby and telephoned for the police, the call being made at 10.30pm.
Meanwhile, a man was called by his wife and he entered the room and felt Annie O'Donnell's wrist and found her to be cold, but still breathing.
The woman's brother by then returned from telephoning the police, and when he entered the room he removed the chair from where it had been behind the door, to where it was when the room was photographed.
The police arrived at 10.45pm and when one of them examined Annie O'Donnell, he heard her gurgle and then immediately went off to telephone for an ambulance.
Before she was taken away by the ambulance, a priest from St Peter's Church nearby and a father gave her absolution.
When the ambulance arrived at St Bartholemew's Hospital, Annie O'Donnell was examined in the ambulance by the medical registrar, who found her to be dead, that being at 11.05pm. He added that he formed the opinion that she had been recently dead.
He said that when he examined her body that he found no obvious disarrangement of the clothing.
Her body was then removed to the mortuary, but upon the insistence of a police constable with the City of London Police, it was removed to the City of London's Coroner's Mortuary in Golden Lane.
Following that, photographs of her body and her room were taken by the police and the room examined for fingerprints.
At 3.30am, the police searched Annie O'Donnell's body and removed an underskirt, in which a strip of canvas in the shape of a belt was securely stitched to the inside front. The belt was in four compartments and it was obvious that it contained bank notes. It was noted that the police decided to wait for the call of a relative before opening the belt, however, as no relative was forthcoming by 4.15pm on 14 October 1962, the belt was opened in the presence of a father, and found to contain £599.
It was noted that no other money was found on her body, nor in the room itself, apart from a tin box that contained 43 shilling pieces and another tin box containing 7/4d in copper.
Post Mortem Examination
The post mortem examination was carried out at 8.30am on 13 October 1962 at the City of London Mortuary in Golden Lane.
The pathologist said that he found injuries to her right lower jaw, left temple, left ear and cheek, which he said he thought were consistent with blows from a flat surfaced blunt instrument, but more suggestive of heavy falls against furniture or the floor and less consistent with blows from a fist. He added that a bruise behind her left shoulder was similarly consistent with a fall.
He said that he also found bruises on the back of her hands and right arm which he said were consistent with Annie O'Donnell trying to protect herself.
He also found split wounds to her scalp, which gave clear evidence of a single, and possibly the first disabling, blow to the front of her head, along with seven others in two areas, delivered at three different angles, possibly when she was no longer standing. He added that those to the back of her head were probably the last to be sustained and added that they were all suggestive of the use of some weapon such as a tyre lever or poker.
He said that he found her skull to be fractured and thrust into the surface of her brain above the right ear and concluded that her cause of death was intercranial haemorrhage due to a fractured skull and lacerated brain.
Following the post mortem examination, the pathologist went to 32 Victoria Dwellings along with the Laboratory Liaison Officer, and it was established that the only blood splashes found were the two series near to the gas stove, giving support to the pathologists observations that certain of the blows were struck when Annie O'Donnell was no longer standing.
It was considered that the attack on Annie O'Donnell had been confined to the part of the shop that lay behind the door and to the front, or public side, of the counter where there was a large pool of blood congealing. There was little evidence of blood splattering found, but the two signs of it were:
There was also bloodstaining at the foot of the table extension of the counter, but that was smeared and consistent to having been caused by involuntary movements of Annie O'Donnell's head whilst she lay on the floor. There was also some lesser staining that was cause by the ambulance men when they placed Annie O'Donnell on the stretcher.
It was noted that the customer's side of the counter had not been disturbed to any great extent. However, the other side of the counter was utter confusion, with a cupboard that was built into the north wall having been opened and ransacked. The drawers to the table had also been pulled out and the contents scattered. It was noted that it was fair to say that the back of the counter was not normally tidy, but that it had never been in the condition that it was found following the murder.
Enquiries At The Scene
Immediately following upon the discovery of the crime, officers, both uniformed and CID, were mustered and an organised search of the vicinity was made which continued for days to follow.
During the search the police received the utmost co-operation from the local authorities, even to the extent of opening sewers and disused drains. However, it was stated that it could not be said with any certainty that the murder weapon had been found, however, a thin cold chisel was found in a wet drain near to the scene which gave a slight reaction to the Benzedine test, the presumptive test for blood, but apart from that, there was no other evidence to connect it to the crime.
On 15 October 1962, whilst undertaking an organised search of the electrified railway lines that ran under Vine Street Bridge, a police detective found a Roman Catholic Identity card and a buff envelope containing a wartime Identity Card, both being in the name of Annie O'Donnell, along with some 1½d postage stamps and a sheet of printed paper. They were all taken to the Fingerprint Department, but certain prints found were eliminated as being those of the police detective who found them.
Other officers were directed to make a house to house search in the vicinity to trace possible witnesses which disclosed a number of people who could speak of the condition of the door of the shop and the lights during the evening of 12 October 1962, the statements being summarised as:
It was noted by the police that the only information really out of place was that given by the unreliable woman who said that the lights were on at 9pm.
Woman From 9-10 Victoria Buildings
A 38-year-old woman who had been the tenant of the first floor flats at 9-10 Victoria Buildings said that she had been there for nearly 20 years and had seen the lady in the statue shop on various occasions, but had never spoken or associated with her herself.
She said that on 12 October 1962 she stayed in until 1.40pm when she went to work at Holborn and returned home at about 5.30pm.
She noted that she had never noticed if the shop had been open as she had never had occasion to enter the dwellings.
She said that she then stayed in until 8.15pm at which time she happened to look out of her kitchen window which overlooked the junction of Herbal Hill and Clerkenwell Road, and saw a youth standing in the street looking nervous. She described him as:
The youth that she saw, allegedly the butcher, was later tried for Annie O'Donnell's murder but acquitted.
She said that she had never seen him before and that he didn't appear to see her at first. She said that he was standing at the west footway at the junction.
She said that the reason she was looking out of her window was because her son, who should have been home at 6pm, had not arrived.
She said that the youth had been standing at the junction and that after a couple of seconds he started to cross the road and that she noticed that he was touching his face with what appeared to be a cloth and walking to the opposite side and then back again and that he gave her the impression that he was nervous and she became suspicious of him.
She said that her husband had gone to the police station to see if anything had happened to her son and that after watching the youth opposite the flats she decided to go and find her husband to see what was happening and that in doing so she passed the youth in the middle of the road and that as she passed she looked straight at him. She noted that she later spoke to her husband and found that he had also seen the youth.
She noted that when she got to Hatton Garden that she found her husband at Slade & Woolf's and that it took her a couple of minutes to get there and she had a short conversation with him after which she noted that Banda's, the watch people's clock, said 8pm.
She said that when she came back the youth had gone.
The woman later attended an identification parade on 16 October 1962 at 1.45pm at Gray's Inn Police Station. She noted that although she had looked at him in the road, that she felt that she would not know the man for certain again. She said that there was only one man in the identification parade that she had to look at several times, who had in fact been the butcher, stating that he had fitted exactly the height, build and general appearance of the youth that she had seen, however, she didn’t identify him as the person she had seen. although the fact that she had hesitated at him and none of the other men was noted in the police case.
Banda's clock
The police report noted that in fact, Banda's clock had three faces, with one of them facing Hatton Gardens, the one the woman saw, another facing Farringdon Road, which was also seen by the man that saw the unknown blonde woman in the shop, and the third, facing Clerkenwell Road, towards Gray's Inn Road.
However, it was noted that the clock faces were known to be unreliable, with each face showing a different time. When the secretary of Banda Limited, at 136 Clerkenwell Road was interviewed, she said that the clocks were unreliable and it was noted that although the clocks had been put right on the morning her statement was taken, that by the time she was interviewed, the faces showed:
Man That Saw Unknown Blonde Woman In Shop
The man that saw the unknown blonde woman in the shop had also seen the clock on the day of the murder, and noted that it was wrong. He said that it had been the fifth time that he had visited Annie O'Donnell's shop and had done so on each occasion with a woman friend, and that each visit had been on a Friday and usually around 5.30pm and had lasted about half an hour or probably a little more.
He said that as you entered the shop that there was a counter that ran down the middle of the shop on the right with a small table adjoining on which goods were displayed. He said that there was a narrow gap between the table and the gas stove that was against the wall and that it was in that gap that Annie O'Donnell stood facing the table whenever he visited her. He noted that she would, of course, move from that position to get goods from cupboards or shelves, but that for conversation she always took up that position. He added that it was in that position that he was stood in when he entered the shop on 12 October 1962 and also when he left.
He said that he had followed his woman friend into the shop at about 5.30pm and that she walked along the counter looking at the display goods after having spoken to Annie O'Donnell. He said that he then put his package and raincoat down on a chair that stood on the left side and turned and faced the counter and that at that moment Annie O'Donnell left her position and walked behind the counter and joined his woman friend at the far end of the counter.
He said that as he faced the counter that his attention was drawn immediately to a clean sheet of what appeared to be plastic coated paper with unusual colouring, and that having studied photography for two and a half years he was immediately interested and pulled it towards him and looked at the picture. He said that it appeared to have been a printer's 'throw-out', noting that the colour was blue/green and that it appeared to have been a double print. He said that the sheet had been lying on top of a miscellaneous assortment of goods that were on display on the table and that there had been a crease in the paper but that apart from that it was perfectly clean.
He said that he was later shown a piece of paper at New Scotland Yard that was identical in every respect, down to the crease, with the exception that it then had marks, figures and had been treated in some way.
He said that on none of the previous occasions that he had visited Annie O'Donnell's shop that the piece of paper or similar paper had been on the little table or the counter and that he had not seen that sort of paper in the shop before at all. He said that there had been nothing on top of the paper at all and that that was its condition and position when he left the shop at 6.05pm.
He noted that he knew it was 6.05pm when he left because when they went outside into Clerkenwell Road his watch, which was accurate, showed seven and a half minutes past six. He further noted that two other clocks in the road showed different times, with Banda's clock showing 6.15pm, the face looking towards Farringdon Road, whilst the clock on the opposite side of the road showed between nine and ten minutes past six. He said that is woman friend had pointed out that it had been 6.15pm which was why he looked at his watch, which he knew was accurate.
Brother Of Woman From 9-10 Victoria Buildings
The brother of the woman who lived at 9-10 Victoria Buildings, a 19-year-old cabinet maker with no traced convictions, who lived at 38 Catherine House in Phillip Street, said that he visited his sister's address, 9-10 Victoria Gardens, at about 7.15pm on 12 October 1962. He said that upon finding that she was concerned about her son who had not returned home yet, that he went off to Hatton Garden to look for him and got as far as Slade & Woolf Limited where the son had been employed and found that it was in darkness.
He said that he then returned to 9-10 Victoria Buildings and a short time later went out again, upon which occasion he saw a man who he knew as Bobby Regan, the butcher, standing on the corner of Herbal Hill and Clerkenwell Road outside the religious shop. He said that he was certain of his identification as he had known Bobby Regan for about seven years since they were schoolboys and had seen him from time to time over the years since. However, he noted that he was not friendly with the youth and didn't speak to him.
He said that he went on but still found no sign of his sister's son and so went back to 9-10 Victoria Buildings, noting that Bobby Regan was still outside the shop. He said that shortly after he came out again with his sister and that Bobby Regan was still outside the shop. He said that he then crossed Clerkenwell Road with his sister and then stood on the opposite side of Clerkenwell Road whilst his sister continued on to Hatton Garden.
He said that he then re-crossed Clerkenwell Road, at which time Bobby Regan was still there and went to his car in Herbal Hill and took a book from it and went back to 9-10 Victoria Buildings and told his aunt that he would then visit some other relatives to look for his sister's son. He said that he then drove to 32 Emberton Court in St John Street, visited another sister and then went home, but having failed to find the missing son, he went back to 9-10 Victoria Buildings, by which time the person he knew as Bobby Regan was gone.
He said that after visiting his sister's flat that he then walked back up Clerkenwell Road where he noticed a police officer put a piece of paper on a car windscreen, which it was stated fixed the time that that happened to be 8.30pm.
It was noted that the woman's brother initially gave times that he later agreed were incorrect, and stated two definite times, the first being 7.30pm when he had gone out, just after a television programme had commenced, and then later at 8.30pm, when he saw the police constable put the warning notice on the car, which was proved by the police constable that did it.
In an effort to establish the correct time when the brother saw Bobby Regan outside the shop, the police accompanied him on the car journey he said he took, it being noted that his estimate of 15 minutes for the journey was wrong, with it later being agreed that the journey took 25 minutes, which it was noted would have brought the last sighting of Bobby Regan back to 8.00pm, which was getting nearer to the time when his sister was in Hatton Garden.
The brother described the person he knew as Bobby Regan as:
The police stated that they thought that the brother had been wrong about the suit, but noted that he had known the man as Bobby Regan for years and had seen him many times over the years. The brother told the police that Bobby Regan had attended the Hugh Myddleton School and had used to live in Clerkenwell Close, EC1 with his father and mother but that he believed he had since moved from that house but still lived in the neighbourhood. The brother said that the last time that he saw Bobby Regan before 12 October 1962 was about three weeks earlier in a barber's shop in Clerkenwell Close.
As such, the police report stated that it could be fairly said that the brother knew Bobby Regan extremely well and that there could be no possible doubt, irrespective of the clothing, of an accurate identification.
Enquiries To Trace Bobby Regan
The police then made immediate enquiries to trace Bobby Regan. It was noted that there had been a large family named Regan in the locality who were bookmakers and owned a number of betting shops, however, it was finally determined that Bobby Regan was not a member of that family. Other Regans were also seen and interviewed, but none answered the description of the man seen outside the shop.
Enquiries were also made at the barber's shop mentioned by the brother in Clerkenwell Close, but with no luck. The police also visited all addresses in Clerkenwell Close, but could not trace him and also stopped all young men and women in the area, but still to no avail.
In connection with this, on Sunday 14 October 1962, a detective constable and a police constable were in plain clothes in Farringdon Road near Clerkenwell Close when they saw the butcher. They stopped him and asked, 'Are you Bobby Regan?', but he replied 'No'. However, it was noted that his real name was not Bobby Regan, although it was similar. The butcher then joined three other men in a van and the driver of the van asked, 'What's the trouble governor?', and the detective constable said, 'We are police officers making enquiries into the murder of the old lady in Clerkenwell Road last Friday night. I wonder if any of you know a chap named Bobby Regan'. However, all three of the men said 'No', although the butcher said nothing. The four men then left on an outing to Brighton that they had arranged previously.
House to house enquiries were continued in Clerkenwell Close on Monday 15 October 1962 and at 10.15am two detectives called at 4 Clerkenwell Close and spoke to the butcher. They asked him:
To which the butcher replied:
The detectives said that it was about the murder and asked whether he could help, but he replied:
The man then went on to explain that he had gone on the outing and that he had not gone into work that day as he felt a bit rough. The police then left him after asking him to call them if he heard anything.
However, it was later found that the occupier of 4 Clerkenwell Close was a man whose son, the butcher, was also known as Bobby and that he had attended the Hugh Hyddleton School and that they had in fact lived next door to the barbers shop which itself was actually 4 Clerkenwell Close.
Later that day, at 5.15pm the police went back to the address and saw the butcher and told him that he matched the description of the Bobby Regan they were looking for. When they asked him where he had been the previous Friday night, he replied:
The police then asked him to come to the station to be interviewed, at which point the man's father intervened, asking, 'What's all this about?'. The police then told him that they were making enquiries about the murder in Clerkenwell Road and that their superintendent would like a word with his son. However, the man's father said:
The man's mother then came to the door and said:
The detectives then said, 'very well', and left.
In consequence of that, at 5.45pm, a detective inspector and a detective sergeant, went to 4 Clerkenwell Close and spoke to the man's father, behind whom the butcher was standing on the stairs. However, when they asked whether it was true that he would not allow his son to attend the police station he denied it, and replied:
He was then told that there would be no objection to that and he agreed to come along with his son.
The man then went upstairs and returned shortly after wearing a suede and wool jacket. The two detectives then left the house and went to their car whilst the man and his father went to a newsagent's shop nearby, with the father going in and his son waiting outside, after which they joined the detectives and were driven to Gray's Inn Road.
Butcher's Statement
The man was then interviewed and asked to account for his movements on Friday 12 October 1962, and in short, he denied having been in the immediate vicinity of the shop on the day of the murder.
He said:
About 2.20pm I went from home to the Red Lion public house at Rosoman Street and just looked in the saloon bar but saw no-one in there that I knew. I continued on to the Three Crowns public house, Rosebery Avenue, and looked in the bar. I asked the man behind the bar if any of my friends had been in there. I was looking for my friends because of an outing we had arranged for Sunday, 14th October. The man behind the bar said my friends had not been there.
From there I went to a friend's house in Percival Street, N1 and I stayed indoors with him until 4.20pm when we went out and got a bus to Chapel Street. There we went into Woolworth's to get a couple of combs, then after that we went into Littlewood's and there had a cup of tea.
We left there and walked through again to the corner of Rosoman Street and it must have been about 5.15pm when we arrived there. We waited on the corner for the Red Lion to open and while we were waiting a friend came along and joined us. Shortly after another friend came along and waited with us until the Red Lion opened and we all went in. Whilst we were in the public house another friend came in. I went in the public house with these men until 6.30pm or 6.45pm when I went home.
I had a wash and clean up then I went for a walk round with my wife. Whilst I was indoors my father and mother and also my wife were present the whole time. My wife and I occupy rooms on the ground and second floor at 4 Clerkenwell Close. My father and mother have the first floor rooms, so that when I went to clean up I had to go upstairs and looked in. My mother was watching television and my father was in the kitchen. Both of them saw me at that time.
I returned downstairs to my wife and at about 8.15pm I took her out for a walk. I went out of the house with her past the Horseshoe, round the other side of Northampton Buildings, through Hugh Myddleton School then through the Court which faces the Red Lion, past the Red Lion, up Rosoman Street and Finch's at the corner of Exmouth Street, crossed the road at the traffic lights and we both went into the Three Crowns public house where I was due to meet my friends regarding the outing to Brighton on Sunday.
Two friends were in there, then about 9pm to 9.15pm others came in. In all, apart from the two I mentioned there were eight of us together, along with the wives of those who were married. There were four unmarried men. We remained there until closing time, 11pm, then the wife and I went home.
I am a Roman Catholic by religion but I do not attend St Peter's Church. I know the shop at Clerkenwell Road selling religious statues. The only time I was in there was about three weeks before I got married which was on 26th May 1962. I went there to get a rosary for my wife.
At no time on Friday was I in Clerkenwell Road standing in the vicinity of the religious shop. By vicinity I mean standing outside the shop. I maintain I was not standing outside that shop on Friday, 12th October 1962.
When I bought the rosary I was served by an old lady who was the only person there. It cost me about fifteen shillings. I gave her a £1 note. I cannot be sure but I remember she took the change from an apron or overall type of garment. I did not know her and this was the only time I saw her.
The police summarised his explanation by stating that there was no doubt that until 6.30pm to 6.45pm the man had been with friends in public houses. They continued by noting that he claimed he then went directly home where he remained until 8.15pm, which his parents and wife all supported, after which he said he took his wife for a walk round the streets until they arrived at the Three Crowns public house in Tysoe Street, Rosebery Avenue, which in effect constituted the extent of his alibi.
The police noted that they checked the times to cover the routes described by the man, finding that even walking at a very slow pace, the route taken by the man and his wife only took ten minutes and five seconds.
They also timed the journey walking at a normal pace from 32 Victoria Buildings to his home address, 4 Clerkenwell Close, and found that the longest time was two minutes fifty seconds, during which journey they crossed Vine Street Bridge, under which the documents in the name of Annie O'Donnell were found on the railway line.
Further Questioning
The police report highlighted vital parts of the interview with the butcher, first in which a detective said:
To which the butcher replied:
The detective then said to him:
To which the butcher replied:
The interview continued:
Detective: So that we do not have any misunderstanding at all, do you know the shop we are talking about?
Butcher: Yes.
Detective: Have you ever been in the shop?
Butcher: No.
Butcher (almost immediately after): Wait a minute, I have. I went in to buy a rosary for my wife.
Detective: When was this?
Butcher: Five or six months ago. I got married in May. It was about three weeks before that. I took it straight into the church next door and the priest blessed it.
Detective: Who served you?
Butcher: The old lady.
Detective: How much did you pay for it?
Butcher: About fifteen bob.
Detective: How did you pay for it?
Butcher: What do you mean?
Detective: Did you give a note or the right money?
Butcher: Oh, a pound note.
Detective: Where did she put it and get the change from?
Butcher: I think it was a sort of apron.
Detective: Now finally, have you ever been in the shop on any other occasion either before you bought the rosary or since?
Butcher: No, never.
The butcher then made his statement.
It was noted however, that apart from the period for which the man could not account by independent witnesses, there was nothing to connect him with the murder, so much so that the police said they had doubts as to the wisdom of keeping him at the station overnight pending the holding of an identification parade. However, after questioning the brother of the woman who lived at 9-10 Victoria Dwellings, who said he had seen the person he knew as Bobby Regan, they decided to keep the man overnight in order that the identification parade could be held, it being noted that efforts had been made to hold one that night, but without success.
The police added that it was also necessary to check his story and statements were taken from his parents and wife.
The Butcher's father
The butcher's father, who had nine convictions for crime including two for assault occasioning actual bodily harm, said that he was employed as a painter and got home from work on the evening of 12 October 1962 at about 6.15pm and had his tea, after which, at about 6.40pm, his son looked into his room. He said that he then heard him go upstairs and then later come down to the ground floor where he heard him talking to his wife and then sometime later heard him call out, 'See you later', before going out, noting that he assumed that his wife had accompanied him, because he didn't see her again later.
The Butcher's Mother
The man's mother said that her son stayed in all day until 7.30pm apart from an hour in the afternoon when he took his younger brother out.
She said that he went out at 7.30pm for a walk and a drink and didn't return until 12.30am on 13 October 1962. She said that when he went out he had been wearing his suede jacket, although other witnesses were traced to say that he had been wearing his blue suit.
The Butcher's Wife
The man's wife said that her husband went out at about 2.45pm and returned about 6.45pm after which they had tea together and stayed in until about 8pm when they went out for a walk together. However, it was noted that when she was asked what streets they had walked through, she couldn't say, and became very distressed when pressed on the point.
She continued to state that they went to the Three Crowns public house and then to a restaurant in Edgeware Road with another man, after which they returned home, had some tea and went to bed at 2am.
She said, in conflict with other witnesses, that when her husband first went out, her husband had been wearing his suede jacket and jeans, but changed into his blue suit to go out later.
She added that her husband gave her a rosary about a week before their marriage on 26 May 1962, which she produced. At first she didn't want to part with it, but later that same day agreed to hand it over to a detective.
She said that her husband had not given her any money for that week, the week of the murder, and that she herself worked and earned about £8 a week.
It was noted that at the time of the interview, the man's wife had had no money. She said that for the week of the murder she only had £3 and had spent that on errands.
It was also noted that at the time she had been heavily pregnant, with the child being expected in mid-November 1962.
Other Men Claimed To Have Been On Night Out With Suspect
The police report noted that the butcher mentioned a number of men that had been in his company on the day of the murder, however, they were only able to immediately trace one of them. He was a 26-year-old man who supported the man's story from approximately 5.15pm until 6.45pm and then again from 9pm till 1am. He initially said that he had left home to go to the Three Crowns at about 8.30pm and had been there for about half-an-hour when the man came in with his wife and that they all stayed until closing time.
He said then that he later left the Three Crowns public house with the butcher and his wife and went to a club in Edgeware Road where they had a bottle of gin and sandwiches, noting that they travelled there and back by taxi cab. He said that apart from giving the man £2 for his share and paying for some extra bottles of tonic water, the man paid all other expenses.
However, the 26-year-old man then became very difficult and most elusive. On Friday 19 October 1962 the police spoke to him on the phone and made an appointment to meet him at Bow Street police station at 12 noon that day, but a few moments later the man telephoned again to say that he had spoken to his solicitor who had told him not to keep the appointment. The police then called the solicitor, who denied having told the 26-year-old man not to keep the appointment. However, the police managed to see the 26-year-old man the following day, at which point he claimed that the man tried and his wife had already been in the Three Crowns public house when he arrived on the evening of Friday 12 October 1962, after having himself visited two other public houses first.
He said that when he entered the Three Crowns that he saw the man's wife sitting in the bar, but didn't see her husband until sometime later when he appeared in the company.
He also stated that the man had been wearing his blue suit on both the occasions that they were in each other’s company on the day.
However, the police report stated that it was reasonable to conclude that the 26-year-old man would support the butcher regardless of where the truth of the matter might lie, or who called him as a witness, and that it was their opinion that he would crumble under cross-examination and that whatever his testimony amounted to, it would be of doubtful value to whoever called him.
Delayed Identity Parade
Due to court commitments of the solicitor for the butcher, it was not possible to hold the identification parade at 10am and it was delayed until 1pm.
When the butcher was in the detention room a detective cautioned him and told him that they wanted to clear up a few points following the interview with the 26-year-old man, noting that he had told them that he had gone home after leaving the Three Crowns public house, to which the man replied:
He then added that he had been accompanied by his wife and the 26-year-old man.
He agreed that they had bought a bottle of gin, but stressed that it had been between them and that they didn't finish it and instead took the remainder home. He also stated that they took a cab to and from Edgeware Road and that he had paid for the drinks, sandwiches and cab fare, estimating that the evenings expenditure was 'about seven or eight quid'.
When it was pointed out to him that he had been away from work and asked whether he had drawn any wages, he replied, 'No'. When he was then asked where he had got the money, he replied, 'I had it put by'.
He was then asked about the rosary he had bought his wife and asked whether she had been a Roman Catholic, and he replied, no, but that her parents were and that she had wanted to carry a rosary at her wedding.
In the interim, arrangements were made for suitable persons to be found to stand on the parade. It was noted that the brother that had seen the man he knew as Bobby Regan, had said he had been wearing a grey suit and officers were instructed to get men dressed in grey suits. However, the ones they obtained were either dressed in dark grey or blue and faintly striped suits. Further, the man's suit, nearest to light grey, which was in fact a mixture of colours, green and light brown check, had been given to him to wear, with his other blue suit being at the laboratory.
Before the man was introduced to the parade the detective and the solicitor went to see the men that were to form the parade as they had anticipated objections from the solicitor and had more men standing by, and in fact the solicitor did object, noting that the man had been wearing a light suit whilst all the other men were wearing dark clothing. The detective said that he agreed immediately and the man's parents brought a change of clothing, a dark brown woollen cardigan coat and dark brown trousers, which the man's solicitor was said to have been well satisfied with. However, when the detective saw what the man was dressed in he immediately objected and the parade was again delayed until the man's blue suit could be brought from the laboratory.
When it arrived, the parade commenced at 1.45pm and the butcher was put in amongst the other men who were all of a similar age, height and general appearance.
When the woman that lived at 9-10 Victoria Dwellings was introduced, she walked quickly down the line of men, hesitated near the butcher, but then turned her back and walked back to the inspector and said, 'No'.
When she was questioned after the parade, she said that the butcher had looked like the man she had seen, so much so that she had to look again, and that all the other men in the parade stated that she only hesitated in front of the suspect.
It was further noted that there was no doubt that the woman had in fact attended the parade with reluctance, and had since adopted an attitude of wishing she had not become involved in the case, with it further being noted that she had attempted to alter her appearance by borrowing clothing to wear on the parade.
However, when her brother was brought into the parade, he stood at an angle at the end of the parade and without hesitation said:
Which was the position occupied by the suspect. However, that didn't satisfy the inspector who asked him to point to him, and so the brother pointed to and touched the suspect on the chest, saying that he had been the man he had seen outside the shop on the day in question.
Following The Identification of Bobby Regan
Following the identification of the suspect as Bobby Regan, the man the brother saw outside the shop, the police said that they were still faced with an impasse as there was still no evidence to connect him with the murder. He was then detained whilst further enquiries were made at his address, however, nothing of any evidential value was found there.
Up until that time the other associates of the butcher had not been traced and the police were having difficulty finding them, but that the very next evening they all attended the office of the butcher's solicitor and made their statements collectively, and the police submitted that there was little doubt that the minds of each of the men had been conditioned as to the times that they mentioned.
They were:
The licensee of the Three Crowns said that he could only say that the butcher had been in his house with his wife that night but could not state when he arrived or when he first saw him.
The licensee's wife said that when she came downstairs at 9pm, that the butcher and his wife were in the bar.
Searches on the butcher's associates were made at the Criminal Record Office, but there was no trace of any of them there.
It was noted that three other men that had been with the group were not traced by the police although it was believed that they had been spoken to by the butcher's solicitor.
Fingerprint Evidence
After the identification parade, during the afternoon, information was received from the fingerprint department at New Scotland Yard that fingerprints had been found on the sheet of glazed paper, which was in fact a printer's 'throw out', that was found on the table at the shop and which were identical to that of the butcher.
It was noted that the sheet was shown in 'photograph 4' in the evidence album, on the 'table' counter extension in the left background with its front corner folded up. The sheet of paper was printed on partially with a two-colour illustration advertising 'Bri-Nylon'.
Immediate enquiries were made to establish the origin of the paper, and how it arrived at Annie O'Donnell's shop, and it was later traced to Linear Litho Ltd, a lithographic plate maker in Exmouth House, Pine Street, EC1. The manager there said that until 7 May 1962, they had occupied premises at 151 Farringdon Road, which was no great distance from Victoria Dwellings and he identified the paper as having been processed by his company, referring to it as 'printer's waste'. He said that the order for that job had been received by his company on 13 March 1961 and the order completed by 27 March 1961.
He said that during the proofing of the plates used for the printing, that forty or fifty sheets of paper were used from which the best were selected and trimmed and sent to the customer with the plates, with the remainder of the paper left at the street entrance in Farringdon Road for collection by the refuse collectors.
As such, it was stated that it was obvious that the paper could have been collected by some person, or even Annie O'Donnell, some eighteen months before the murder. It was further noted that the main suspect had claimed to have had legitimate access to the customer side of Annie O'Donnell's shop in early May 1962.
It was noted that against that, 21 rolls of similar waste paper and one package enclosed in cardboard covers was found behind the shop counter and that none of that paper was found on the customers side of the counter apart from a few sheets scattered on the floor, apparently at the time of the murder.
The police also stated that the paper must have been resting on a hard surface for the impressions to have been left, such as it was in photograph 4 of the evidence album.
It was then recalled that the man that had been in the shop and seen the paper on the table shortly before the murder said that he had taken an interest in it because of his interest in colour photography and that he had pulled it towards him and looked at it and found that it was clean and apparently new, with a crease in it. He further noted that he had been to the shop four times before and never noticed the paper on those earlier occasions.
A woman that had been visiting the shop at least twice a month for the previous five years said that she had never before seen similar paper there. She said that when she called on 12 October 1962, she recalled seeing the paper on top of articles on the table, and that she had placed her shopping bag on top of it. She said that it had appeared to be new and unmarked, apart from the crease.
She later identified the paper at New Scotland Yard, but noted that it had at that time had some markings on it, which appeared to have been made by Annie O'Donnell in calculating a price. The markings were:
4 - 4 -
4 - 4 -
13 -
Cru & Cha 1 - 10 -
---------------
10 - 11 -
£10 - 11 -
It was noted that no definite explanation had been placed on the figures, but that it seemed that the 'Cri & Cha' was an abbreviation for crucifix and chain.
It was noted that the figures and letters did not touch the finger prints found on the paper, although certain of the marks were underneath blood from Annie O'Donnell, although experiments as to the certainty of that factor were still being made.
Butcher Charged
The butcher was charged with murder on 17 October 1962 at 10.53am in the presence of his solicitor. When he was cautioned he made no reply. When he was charged shortly after at 11.15am, he said:
More Fingerprints Found
Following being charged, the police found further fingerprints on a copy of the Catholic Herald, dated 5 October 1962, that was also on the table and to be seen in photograph four, which were found through the use of Ninhydrin, a chemical process for the development of latent prints on paper. It was then noted that the significance of the find was such that unless the man changed his story, his defence of legitimate access to the shop was now not open to him.
It was noted that the Catholic Herald had been a weekly newspaper printed in High Wycombe and published from 67 Fleet Street where the London end of the distribution was dealt with, the paper being received from the printers on Thursday mornings, just after midnight. It was further noted that there had been a standing order for 26 copies to be delivered every week to the Italian Church (St Peter's), in Clerkenwell Road.
Enquiries were made of all newsagents in the area, but no trace could be made of Annie O'Donnell having had an order for the newspaper and it was thought more probable that Annie O'Donnell had obtained her copy from the church itself, where the papers were left stacked and customers helped themselves and left their money in a coin slot near the newspapers. However, no witnesses were found who could say they saw Annie O'Donnell buying the newspaper.
The delivery of the newspapers to the church was found to have been made on 4 October 1962 at about 9am.
Motive
It was assumed that robbery had been the motive for the murder, as the cupboards and drawers had been ransacked. It was thought that the items found on the railway line had been thrown away by the robber and noted that no money was found on the premises other than that found in the tins and in Annie O'Donnell's money belt.
It was noted that there must have been a number of customers in the shop in 12 October 1962, but that only two had been traced.
One customer, a man from 12 Worcester Court in Deansgate, said that he purchased two rosaries for 14/- and paid by cheque drawn on the Midland Bank Ltd, but the cheque was not paid in and was found to be missing following the murder.
The other customers were the man and woman that had seen the piece of paper on the table and seen the unknown blonde woman in the shop when they left. They noted that they paid Annie O'Donnell £1 against an order that she was holding for them and that Annie O'Donnell had made an entry for it in her invoice book, dated 12 October 1962. However, although the invoice book was found, there was no trace of the £1 that had been handed to Annie O'Donnell. The woman noted that Annie O'Donnell had put the £1 into a bag with a drawstring, similar to a bank bag, but no trace of the bag was found either.
The woman also noted that when she had been in the shop that she had noticed two large brass candlesticks, like those used in churches, standing on the counter towards the far side, but no trace of them was ever made.
The last two known customers said that when they left that a blonde woman had come into the shop. They described her as:
The police said that they were anxious to trace the woman to establish the reason for her visit and any possible explanation for the figures and writing on the sheet of paper, as well as any other customers that had been in the shop that day. To that end the police made an appeal through the national press and the BBC radio, but with no response. However, it was noted that the appeal was made during the early stages of the Cuban crisis and was not considered front page news.
A Possible Accomplice
It was noted that in the early stages of the investigation that the police reported that there were two suspects, after they spoke to a garage hand employed at Modern Motors Limited in Clerkenwell Road, on the opposite side of the road to the junction of Herbal Hill who had said that he had seen some girls across the road between 8pm and 8.30pm and then noticed two men standing talking near to the first entrance to Victoria Dwellings, that being the common entrance leading to the shop.
The garage hand had not been able to see their features, but described them as being 28/30, 5ft 8in, medium build and that one of them had been wearing a light coloured raincoat.
The police constable that was seen by the brother to place a warning notice on a car said that he had been in the vicinity at the time dealing with a burglar alarm ringing in Hatton Garden near the junction of Clerkenwell Road. It was recalled that he had placed the warning notice on the car at 8.30pm. He stated that at about 8.35pm he saw two men standing at the corner of Herbal Hill and Clerkenwell Road, one of whom he took to be the woman's brother, who he said had been wearing a red 'V' neck pullover, and it was determined that the woman's brother had in fact been wearing a red 'V' neck jumper that night. As such, it was considered that that had been when the brother had returned from his search for the son and had already stated in his evidence that the man he identified as Bobby Regan had gone.
It was also noted that a woman who lived at 62 Victoria Dwellings had seen a man, about 40-years-old at about 7.50pm walking away from the shop along with two other men that she had seen walking near to the church, one of whom she described as being very tall and the other short and Italian looking and wearing a dark suit and black winkle-picker shoes, whom the police said no significance was attached to, but noted that the woman had obviously spoken to the press who had described the men seen by her in the papers. The police described all the other men reported in the newspapers as red-herrings.
Butcher's Antecedent History
The police report noted that the butcher had been employed as a butcher at a branch of CF Freeman Ltd, 10 Berwick Street. He was described as a good workman but a bad timekeeper. He had been employed since 28 August 1962 and the amounts he had been paid were detailed as:
He was also noted as having been due to draw wages of £5.5.4d, which he had not collected since he went sick and noted that the figures were not in keeping with his claim, when questioned, about money he had spent, and him having 'had some put away'.
Laboratory Evidence
It was noted that both Annie O'Donnell and the man tried were blood group A, and that as such, a small spot of blood found on the man's right trouser pocket of his suit was of no value either for the prosecution or the defence.
Conclusion Of Police Report
The conclusion of the police report stated that there was no doubt that the man identified as Bobby Regan was responsible for the murder. However, he was cleared after two trials with the prosecution offering no evidence at a third trial. The conclusion of the police report read:
An old lady, harmless and quite defenceless who had spent her life in the service of the church, was struck down, savagely battered, murdered and robbed amidst the emblems of her religion whilst preparing to attend her church for a special service known as the 'Stations of the Cross'.
There is no doubt that the butcher was the perpetrator of this vile crime for the sake of a few pounds he must have taken from the dying body of this old lady. Following this he ransacked the cupboard and drawers in the shop, and with the proceeds went to a public house where he joined or was joined by his wife and companions and remained there drinking until the place closed. During this time he made final arrangements with friends for an outing to Brighton the following Sunday, and then with his pregnant wife and a friend went to a club in Edgeware Road, where they purchased a bottle of gin.
What was this 18-year-old married man celebrating? He had drawn no wages for that week, yet on his own admission had spent between seven or eight pounds on the day of the murder. In addition he went on the outing the following Sunday, which quite obviously cost a few pounds. It may be of interest to note that when he was searched at this police station on Monday, 15th October, 1962, he possessed only ten shillings, and this he gave to his father to buy cigarettes.
There is little doubt that the fatal blows were delivered between 7.50pm and 8.00pm. The butcher has positively been identified as being outside the shop at the vital times, this in spite of repeated denials to me in the presence of his father that he was there at any time that day. The story that he was at home will no doubt be supported by his family.
How he will account for his finger and palm prints being in the shop, when this evidence is revealed, is not known, but I have no doubt that with the assistance of his well-known solicitor, some original or ingenious explanation must be anticipated.
It is our belief that the attack was made whilst the deafening bells of St Peter's Church were being tolled, calling the worshippers to church for the 8pm Benediction. This would account for her two neighbours, who were but a few feet away separated only by two flimsy wooden doors and the passageway, hearing nothing.
According to the pathologist, the first blow resulted in the injury shown in Page 4 of Album B. This would have caused her to put her hands to her head, and as she fell was probably struck further blows which caused the 'protective' injuries to the backs of the hands as shown in Pages 6 and 7 of Album B. Having fallen to the floor, she was then subjected to a barrage of brutal and savage blows to either side and back of the head as shown on Pages 2, 3 and 5 of Album B.
The injuries inflicted were far more savage than were necessary to rob this old lady and indicate a premeditated murder by a cold and calculating person, the purpose probably being to prevent any question of identification at a later date, particularly in this case where it is possible that the butcher was known by Miss O'Donnell by sight.
Although this is clearly a murder done in the furtherance of theft, there is no direct evidence to show what was stolen. It is known that Mis O'Donnell had received a £1 note at about 6.05pm and a cheque for 14/- earlier that day. It is also quite reasonable to assume she had other customers , and in any event, must have carried some petty cash on her. Two witnesses described the draw-string type of bag she had. None of this property was in the shop or has been found. In addition personal documents bearing her name and address were found on the railway line 120 yards from her shop, and about midway on the direct route to the butcher's home, which is 150 yards further on.
When the butcher was arraigned at the Central Criminal Court on 6 February 1963, he admitted to having later been to her shop, but still denied any involvement in her murder, saying that he had been there two or three days prior to the murder as a potential customer.
Evidence for the prosecution consisted mainly of the following points:
The butcher denied having been involved with her murder and denied making any statement of admission to the police.
It was noted that when the butcher gave his evidence at the trial as to having been in the shop two or three days earlier, that it was the first that the prosecution had heard of the alleged and most opportune visit to the shop. He explained his reason for not revealing the visit to the police earlier as being due to the fact that in 1961 he had been convicted of stealing a ladder, and that that conviction was due to the police telling lies about him and that if he told the police about his more recent visit to the shop on 9 or 10 October 1962, that they would have:
It was further noted that apart from his wife and parents, including his father who had many previous convictions which were not made known to the court, the butcher offered no other evidence.
The jury retired for five hours, but were unable to reach a verdict and were discharged.
The butcher was again arraigned at the Central Criminal Court on 27 February 1962, but the evidence for the Crown was fundamentally the same as the previous trial.
At the conclusion of the trial, the judge told the jury that they had four points to consider:
However, after a retirement of some five and a half hours, the jury returned and said that they could not reach an agreement on the first point.
The butcher was arraigned again on 8 March 1963 at the Central Criminal Court for the third time, but the Crown offered no evidence and the butcher was acquitted with a formal not guilty verdict.
A later police report stated that it was quite impossible to suggest any logical reason why the two juries failed to reach a verdict after two trials lasting five days each.
The report stated that there was an abundance of evidence on which any unbiased jury could have safely convicted the butcher of either capital or non-capital murder, concluding that the point that that posed was whether they had had an unbiased jury, adding that there were grounds for believing that that was not to be so, for the following reasons:
The police report continued:
At the conclusion of this trial on 6th March, 1963, as the Court was beginning to clear, I received the following information. Thirty-three jurors had been empanelled from which the jury for the Mitcham murder were to be selected and as the result of searches at the Criminal Record Office it was discovered that between eight and twelve of them had criminal records. The Superintendent quite naturally objected to these men and the jury was formed from the remainder.
A second jury was formed for a case of rape in another court before a judge, and as this jury came to be sworn, those with convictions were objected to by Counsel for the prosecution. Eight jurors in all were objected to and this was allowed after some caustic comments. My informant told me that all (or some of these eight) formed part of my jury.
Upon receiving this information, I immediately went to the Clerk of No 2 Court and asked for the names of my jurors. He reminded me the case was over and asked why I wanted them. I related what I had been told and he said, 'There has been some trouble over juries. I cannot give you the names. You must apply to the Director.' I told him I had already been refused by the Director of Public Prosecutions and he said ‘I do not wish to discuss it with you'.
I later pressed the Director of Public Prosecutions’ representative for confirmation and he agreed that the story related above was basically true, excepting he assured me that when the eight had been rejected they did not serve on any other jury. I told this gentleman I was bound to accept his explanation, but to completely remove any misunderstanding, I still wanted the names of the jurors who served in our Court. Again I was refused. Thus the matter lies. Did we have a jury of unbiased men or did the jury include eight or less men with criminal convictions who had been rejected from service in a case of rape, yet accepted for service for a case of capital murder. The evasions and secrecy which is being drawn around their identities leaves me as personally in a little doubt that the story told by the informant is true.
There is no doubt that the butcher was the person who brutally murdered Miss O'Donnell for the few pounds she must have had in the shop.
To commit such a callous crime on a defenceless old woman, then to join his friends in a convivial evening on the proceeds, coupled with his apparent indifference throughout the subsequent police investigation and proceedings, stamps this man, despite his years, as a ruthless thug.
Perhaps the answer to the butcher's composure lies in his own words, for during the retirement of the second jury he was asked by one of the prison officers, 'How do you manage to remain so calm?'. His reply was, 'You must remember Guv, I am in the butchery trade'.
The response to the police report was:
What does strike me, and this could be the answer to the detective superintendent's criticism, is that it may well be that there are insufficient numbers of potential jurymen available at the Central Criminal Courts, for empanelling on juries, particularly on occasions such as this when there are three very important cases to be tried.
I appreciate that the Detective Superintendent should feel aggrieved at the decision in this case after all the hard work put into the investigation, but I cannot help feeling that we would be treading on very dangerous ground if we were to try and pursue this matter further, assuming that it were possible (and quite frankly I do not see how it is, as an approach has already been made to the Clerk of the Court and to the DPP representative without any result).
All in all, then, my view is that we should let sleeping dogs lie. No doubt there is a lesson to be learned from this as regards the composition of juries, although I know it is something which has bedevilled police prosecutions since time immemorial, and I cannot see that there is any ready answer to it.
After the trials, on Tuesday 23 April 1963, the police were called to 4 Clerkenwell Close by the butchers mother who she alleged had a few moment earlier severely cut his arm. A police constable at attended said:
The room appeared to be in order except for the bed which was unmade, some of the bedclothes being bloodstained. I told his mother to ring for an ambulance, and rendered first-aid until it arrived at 1.15am.
I accompanied the injured person in the ambulance to the Royal Free Hospital, Gray's Inn Road, WC1 during which time he appeared to remain unconscious. On arrival at the hospital he was examined and treated by a doctor and then detained.
On regaining consciousness at the hospital he became violent and had to be restrained. He said to me, 'What are you doing here?'. I said, 'How did you cut your arm?'. He said, 'You are wasting your time, I'm telling you nothing'. He appeared very belligerent and refused to make any further statement.
His mother said, 'We heard him fall off the bed and rushed upstairs and found him'. His wife said, 'He was annoyed with me. We had a quarrel. He had been upstairs for about five minutes and I came up and found him like this'.
His mother also informed me that her husband had been receiving treatment from his own doctor for a nervous condition. Whilst on the premises of 4 Clerkenwell Close, EC1, I made a search for the instrument used to inflict the wound without success, and members of the family said they did not know what it had been done with.
However, the doctor noted that his wound was not deep and didn't require stitching. Whilst it was first considered to have been a suicide attempt, on 13 May 1963 it was reported that it was not a serious attempt at suicide and rather just another demonstration of his extreme violence, and apart from an entry in the Occurrence Book, no further police action was deemed necessary or contemplated.
However, it was noted that it was only a short time after the incident that he was heard of again, on 3 May 1963 when he was arrested and charged at Rochester Row police station in the name of Morris Spillane, with assault with intent to rob a young woman at the passport office at Clive House, Petty France, SW1. For that he appeared at Bow Street magistrates court on 4 May 1963 until 13 May 1963 at which time he was committed to the Central Criminal Court commencing 21 May 1963 where he was finally convicted on 27 June 1963 and sentenced to 12 months imprisonment.
A detective at Rochester Row police station commented on the sentence in a report, stating:
see National Archives - DPP 2/3561, MEPO 2/10451, CRIM 1/4067
see Liverpool Daily Post - Thursday 07 March 1963
see Daily Herald - Saturday 09 March 1963
