unsolved-murders.co.uk
Unsolved Murders
Tags

Walter Beaumont

Age: 27

Sex: male

Date: 12 May 1956

Place: Bluebird Cafe, Mytongate, Hull

Walter Beaumont was stabbed in a Hull dockland cafe, the Bluebird Cafe in Mytongate, on 4 May 1956.

He was taken to Hull Royal Infirmary with a stab wound to his abdomen but died a week later on 12 May 1956 at 12.20pm.

Four coloured American Airmen were detained in police custody shortly after his death accused of maliciously wounding him and were later charged with his murder after he died.

However, following a trial, only one of them, a US Corporal was convicted of his murder on Friday 20 July 1956 and sentenced to death but his conviction was quashed. He had been convicted with a strong recommendation to mercy.

The court of appeal heard that Walter Beaumont's death was due to bronchial pneumonia which was not the result of the stabbing but because of an 'error of judgement' in the hospital treatment that Walter Beaumont had been given which included the use of the anti-biotic drug terramycin.

The judge noted that additional evidence that had not been available at the trial had been called and said, 'We feel that if the jury had heard two doctors of the standing of these new doctors giving the same evidence they might have hesitated very long before saying that they were satisfied that death was due to the stab wound'.

It was further heard that the evidence of the same two doctors was sufficient to point out that Walter Beaumont's treatment was not normal, but in the opinion of the doctors, palpably wrong.

The judge added, 'We recognize that the judge, with this material before him, would have had to direct the jury as to how far these supervening matters could have been regarded as interrupting the chain of causation. In the end it would have been a question of fact for the jury to decide. Whatever the directions, the jury would have felt precluded from saying, 'we are satisfied that the death was due to the stab wound'.

However, a later medical enquiry exonerated Hull Royal Infirmary from blame and said that Walter Beaumont's life could not have been saved and that his death was not in any way attributable to the treatment that he had received at the hospital.

Following the acquittal of the US Corporal the inquiry was held into the medical evidence and on 14 September 1956 the full facts of the case were submitted to the Leeds Regional Hospital Board at its meeting in Harrogate. The investigation consisted of a number of experts, including:

  • Medical and senior members of the Leeds Regional Hospital Board.
  • Two legal advisers.
  • Professor of Pathology and Dean of the Faculty of Medicine, Queen's University, Belfast.
  • Regius Professor of Clinical Surgery, University of Edinburgh.
  • Assistant Director of MRC Surgical Research Unit, Leeds General Infirmary.

It was said that after hearing the evidence the assessors were invited to submit a written report which related to the case-history of Walter Beaumont and that the report ended, 'In the light of all the evidence this man's life was unsavable and his death was not in any way attributable to the treatment he received in hospital'.

The report dealing with the investigation said, 'The morning newspapers published on Wednesday, August 22 carried reports of proceedings in the Court of Criminal Appeal resulting in the quashing of the conviction of the American Airman for the murder of Walter Beaumont who had died at the Hull Royal Infirmary on May 12. Medical evidence called on behalf of the appellant in the Appeal Court suggested that the treatment given to Walter Beaumont at the Hull Royal Infirmary had been not normal and palpably wrong. Immediate representations were received from the chairman of the Hull 'A' Group Hospital Management Committee as to the need for an investigation.

The chairman of the Management Committee was told that if this was a question of suggested malpractice or one affecting the general administration of the hospital, there would be proper grounds for a full inquiry, but that if it were one which might resolve itself into a matter of treatment and patients it was necessary that neither the Board nor the Management Committee should take any action that could be regarded as an unwarranted interference with the clinical freedom of the doctors who were responsible for the patient's treatment'.

The report when on to state that the assessors were afforded every opportunity of perusing the case records and statements of those in care of Walter Beaumont and said, 'We were greatly impressed by the frankness of these discussions and the readiness with which all our questions were carefully and scrupulously answered. We also had the advantage of examining he material and the histological preparations pertaining to the autopsy.

We consider, therefore, that all the relevant evidence was placed at our disposal. Before enunciating the observations we wish to make we want to place on record our opinion that Beaumont's treatment at Hull Infirmary was exemplary, and in  particular we wish to pay a tribute to the care and devotion shown by the surgical registrar, who, at the surgeons request, moved into residence in the hospital and stayed there, scarcely leaving the patients side from the time his post-operative state took an obviously serious course'.

The report then went into the technical details of the investigation and concluded, 'It is our impression that Beaumont was on the point of death on the fifth post-operative day when, in view of the gravity of his condition, the surgeon found it necessary to advise the police authorities to take a dying deposition. The fact that he survived for a further three days was due in our opinion to the energetic and competent measures adopted by the staff of the hospital. In the event and in the light of all the evidence however, this man's life was unsavable and his death was not in any way attributable to the treatment he received in hospital'.

Walter Beaumont was a plasterer's labourer and had lived in Seaton Street in Hull.

The US Corporal and three other service men were all airmen with the United States Forces and had all been charged with Walter Beaumont's murder following the disturbance at the Bluebird Cafe in Mytongate which resulted in Walter Beaumont being stabbed with a knife. However, when the case came to court it was heard that there was no evidence that any of the other service men had used a knife on Walter Beaumont or evidence that any of them had acted in concert with the US Corporal that did stab Walter Beaumont and the judge directed their acquittal even though there was conflicting evidence.

It was also heard that whilst the US Corporal had initially denied the charge, he did ultimately concede that he had used the knife and that he had stabbed Walter Beaumont.

It was noted that Walter Beaumont had been admitted to hospital very promptly and his wound was stitched up but that he had died shortly after nonetheless after which the US Corporal was charged with murder.

During the proceedings several defences were raised, including self-defence, provocation and stabbing in the course of a quarrel and it was noted that when the judge summed up that his direction on the defences was not challenged, but that the jury rejected the defences and found the US Corporal guilty of murder.

It was heard also that following the conviction that it was the original intention of those advising the US Corporal was that he should not appeal. However, it was said that certain information later reached the United States authorities which then resulted in enquiries being undertaken which then allowed the defence to put forward certain further evidence, in particular that of the two doctors, highlighting the inadequacy of Walter Beaumont's treatment at hospital.

As such, application to the court for leave to call additional evidence, namely the evidence of the two doctors, was made and the US Corporal's conviction quashed.

The Bluebird Cafe was on Mytongate, now the A63, Castle Street, at the corner of Vicar Lane.

The police report covering the case, written on 11 May 1956, had the subject heading, 'Walter Beaumont, 27 years, stabbed in the abdomen by one of four coloured American service men in a cafe in this City on 4.5.1956'.

It was stated detectives were called out to the incident at 10.37pm on 4 May 1956 after a policeman called them to say that he had attended the Bluebird Cafe in Mytongate and that a coloured man had used a knife and injured another man. When the detectives arrived at cafe, which was also known as Jama's Cafe, there was already an ambulance there and Walter Beaumont was being carried to it on a stretcher, and appeared to be unconscious. Another man also had facial injuries but was able to walk to the ambulance after which they were both taken away to Hull Royal Infirmary.

When the police made enquiries amongst the witnesses there they said that it appeared that four coloured American servicemen had attacked the two men in the cafe and that Walter Beaumont had then been in the abdomen with a knife.

The police were then handed a knife that was found on the floor of the cafe, however, it was not generally thought that it had been the murder weapon which it was later suggested was supported by the fact that it didn't have any blood on it.

The four US airmen were:

  1. Airman 2nd Class, US Corporal, 20-years-old, (accused)
  2. Air Police Airman 3rd Class, 22-years-old.
  3. Airman 1st Class, 26-years-old.
  4. Airman 2nd Class, 19-years-old.

All but the fourth airman were still at the cafe when the police arrived. The fourth airman had left the scene and had caught the American service men's bus back to his base at Holme-on-Spalding Moor, however, he was detained before he left the city and brought back to the CID.

When statements were first taken from the witnesses it appeared that Walter Beaumont and his friend had been drinking in a public house in Mytongate earlier in the evening and that after 10pm they had gone to the Bluebird Cafe where they ordered a meal and sat down at a table. It was noted that the cafe was crowded at that time and that before their meal arrived that the four coloured American service men, wearing civilian clothes, entered the cafe and stood near their table.

It was said then that the cafe proprietor, another coloured man, then came in and Walter Beaumont's friend again asked for his meal to which one of the Americans told him to be quiet and an argument developed during which Walter Beaumont's friend was knocked to the ground. Walter Beaumont then stood up either to help his friend or to protect himself and that he was then attacked and stabbed by one of the coloured men in the abdomen with a knife causing him to fall to the floor.

It was said that by then the cafe was in an uproar.

When the first policeman turned up, a man pointed the US Corporal out to him as the man that had stabbed Walter Beaumont.

When Walter Beaumont was admitted to the Hull Royal Infirmary he was found to be suffering from an incised wound on the left side of his abdomen about an inch in length through which a small intestine was protruding. His condition was determined to be serious and an operation was carried out on him shortly afterwards.

Walter Beaumont's friend was found to have a half-inch cut above his left eye and a one inch cut below it, the larger of which was stitched after which he was sent home.

It was noted that the Bluebird Cafe was one of low repute and often frequented by seamen, coloured men and prostitutes and it was further noted that the fact that the witnesses to the fight were at the cafe in the first place suggested that they were all of low moral character.

When Walter Beaumont's friend made a statement he was able to describe the argument between himself and the coloured men starting, but said that he didn't see Walter Beaumont stabbed and that he did not remember how the wound to his face was caused other than by a blow from a fist. However, he did say that he remembered another men, not one of the US Airmen, coming into the cafe after Walter Beaumont had been stabbed and most people had left the cafe and kicking him. The police noted that they did interview the man that Walter Beaumont's friend said had kicked Walter Beaumont after he was stabbed, but he denied doing so.

A barge captain that lived in Beverly Road said that he had been in the Blue Bird at the time of the fight and the police report stated that his account of the events was probably the best out of all the witnesses, it being noted that his version of events corroborated Walter Beaumont's friend 's account and that he was the only person that correctly differentiated  between the attacks on Walter Beaumont and the attacks on Walter Beaumont's friend. However, although it was noted that the barge captains account agreed with what was known to have happened,, he was described generally by the detective that took his statement as a person included to romance.

An engineer that lived in Kent Road, Goole said that he saw the US Corporal with a knife in his hand when he had made an undercutting motion towards Walter Beaumont's stomach.

Five other witnesses also said that they all saw a coloured American with a knife in his hand during the fight in the cafe whilst all the male witnesses, with the exception of Walter Beaumont's friend, saw either all or some of the four Americans kicking Walter Beaumont whilst he was on the floor.

It was also noted that four women that gave statements said that they had either prior to the night of 4 May 1956 or on the night seen one or more of the four US Airmen in possession of knives.

The police later took a statement from a director of a retail tool merchants who stocked knives that were identical to the one that was found on the floor in the cafe after the fight who said that she recalled selling such a knife to one of two coloured men sometime after 19 March 1956. She said that the knife was the 'IXL' brand. The director of the retail tool merchants noted that there were four other tool shops, to the best of her knowledge, in the city that also sold the IXL knives, but the police visited them and found that none of then had had any knives identical to the one found at the cafe in stock.

After Walter Beaumont died the four men were charged with murder. The police then went to the USAF Base at RAF Station Holme-on-Spalding Moor where they were assisted by two American Air Force Special Agents in interviewing and obtaining statements from eight American airmen at the base, three of who were black. It was noted that three of them were coloured and that of these three, two of them were loath to make statements. One of them had not wanted to make a statement as he was due to return to the United States in 40 days’ time whilst the other coloured airman that was loath to make a statement said that he had not wanted to say anything that might have been harmful to any of the four men that had been arrested.

It was further noted that the second coloured airman that had been loath to make a statement for fear of getting the four men arrested into trouble had admitted to picking up a knife that the fourth airman that was charge had dropped on the service man's bus on the night of 4 May 1956 and then handing it to the third of the other coloured airmen that they questioned at the airbase. However, the police said that when they spoke to the other coloured airman that he denied that. However, it was also noted that the third of the coloured airmen was described as a person who had the impression that white people despised the coloured races and had even claimed that he was being picked on because he was coloured.

Whilst a search was made of the personal effects of the four accused men at the American Air Base the police found four brown packets about the size of a shilling in a sock belonging to the fourth of the accused US Airman which were each found to contain about a teaspoonful of Indian Hemp, which it was noted was followed up by Special Agents.

It was noted that in several statements made by the American servicemen at the base that it was mentioned that the fourth accused US Airmen had stopped the bus on the way out of Hull so that he could make a telephone call to find out what had happened to his three friends but the police report noted that so far they had been unable to find any trace of the call being received at the Central Police Station or the Criminal Investigation Department.

After it was determined that Walter Beaumont was not likely to recover from his injuries it was arranged for him to make a dying deposition on 9 May 1956. His dying deposition read:

'My full name is Walter Beaumont, and I am 27 years of age, and I live at Seaton Street, Hull. I remember so much about last Friday the 4th of May, I met a friend of mine. I met him at the Tivoli Tavern at about 7 o'clock at a guess. I spent the evening with him. I remained in the public house until closing time at 10pm. I left with him and went to James Cafe. I got a cup of tea there. I think my cousin was in the Cafe when I arrived there. I cannot remember whether I was sat in the Cafe, but I think I was. I was knifed in my chest. By one of those present. I would not be sure, but I think it was that one (indicating the fourth of the arrested US Airmen). I could not tell you how many were with this man who knifed me, but there was a few. They were all coloured men. They were in civilian clothes. I saw a knife about that big (here Walter Beaumont gave an indication of about 9in in length). I could not tell you how many times I was struck with the knife. I think they caused it all.

At the trial Walter Beaumont's friend said:

'I live in Nornabell Street, Holderness, Hull and I am employed as a flour miller. On Friday the 4th May last, I met my friend, the deceased man, Walter Beaumont, at the Tivoli Hotel in Mytongate. After closing time at ten o'clock, he and I went into the Blue Bird Cafe, and took seats and ordered a hot meal. We arrived at the Cafe at about 10.40pm approximately. When we came outside of the Tivoli Hotel we were talking for some time and then went to the Blue Bird Cafe. I did not know the time I mean approximately 10.40. Beaumont and I were sat near to the door which goes to the kitchen, that is, the first table on the right hand side of the kitchen doorway as I now look at the Exhibit 1. I can see the four men in the dock, I think I saw the US Corporal in the Cafe on that night and there were three other coloured men with him dressed in civilian clothes. I cannot recognise any of the other three men in the dock. When we went into the Cafe I did not see the men then, I think they arrived after we did. The Cafe was pretty full. I asked the proprietor if our supper was ready. The proprietor was talking to the four coloured men and we sat there waiting and eventually I asked the proprietor again if the suppers were ready, one of the coloured men said, 'Why don't you shut up?'. At first I didn't hear what was said. I said, 'What did you say friend?'. I always say friend. One of the coloured men then hit me in the eye and I went down to the ground. I got up again, straightaway. Then I was hit again by the same man below my left eye. I went to the floor. Up to then I had hit no one. I never saw Beaumont hit anyone, he was sat down. I heard no argument about a girl addressed to the coloured Americans. I did not tell them off about speaking to a girl, I never spoke to the Americans.

When I recovered consciousness again the coloured men had then gone. I remember two persons helping me up when I had gone down the second time. I did not see anything of what went on in the Cafe after I had gone down to the ground for the second time. I came to the Cafe and I remember receiving some attention to my face before I was taken to the Hospital. When I got up the second time Beaumont was on the floor, this was just before we went to the hospital. There was a pool of blood on the floor from the wounds in Beaumont's stomach. I never saw Beaumont get struck. When Beaumont was on the floor I saw one man come into the Cafe and that man started kicking Beaumont and said, 'I'll get him, I'll get him'. Beaumont was actually then kicked. It thought it was the man that had the fit. I could not say that I saw anyone trying to help the man that had the fit or trying to restrain him. I could recollect what I then saw. Beaumont was kicked in the stomach. He was kicked about four times. They were kicks, heavy blows, I should not like to have been kicked like that. I was taken to the Hospital in the ambulance'.

Walter Beaumont's friend noted that all the coloured men had been wearing civilian clothes.

The barge captain said:

'On the evening of the 4th May last I was in the Blue Bird Cafe, Mytongate, Hull. I was with some boatmen, I do not know their names. We had ordered a meal. On looking at the plan, the Exhibit 1, I say I was sat at the table now shown underneath the word 'stove' on the Exhibit 1. I saw Walter Beaumont's friend and another person sat at a table in the Cafe, on a form to the right of the kitchen doorway as one looks at the plan. I did not know Walter Beaumont's friend, or the other man with him. The cafe was very crowded people were standing up as well as sitting down. It was hard to say how many were there.

Between 10 and 10.30 some coloured men came into the Cafe. Four of them came in. They are the four accused men now sat in the dock of the court, I recognise some of them now. I recognise the first man in the dock (first accused and man convicted/acquitted of murder, the US Corporal), and I also recognise the third man in the dock (second of accused US Airmen). I can hardly say about the other two men in the dock, it is hard to re-call them to mind now. We had only been in the cafe a matter of a few minutes. It would be just after ten when we arrived. Things were fairly quiet before the four coloured men arrived, people were eating suppers and we ordered ours. The proprietor of the Cafe is a coloured man. I did not take a lot of notice and would not be sure whether they were the only number of coloured men in the cafe. When the coloured men came in the proprietor gave them a chair and told them to sit down, exactly what happened between then and the cause of the trouble I cannot say because I was not listening. I saw the first blow struck, it came from one of the coloured men and it looks to me as though it came from the second of the four US Airmen. He struck Walter Beaumont's friend near his eye. It happened very fast, and the man went to the ground. He got up again. I did not see a second blow struck at Walter Beaumont's friend. I did not see him go to the floor again. I could not see him again just where he was standing.

The man sat with him appeared to me as though he was trying to get up, then the rest of the Americans turned on to him at first three of them, and then I saw a knife flash. Number one in the dock (US Airman tried) had the knife. I saw the knife go down in a downward thrust on two occasions. Everyone seemed to jump up. When the knife had gone down three of the Americans were leaning with their heads against a wall on their elbows and each of them were kicking at the man who was then on the ground who had been stabbed. They were kicking with their toes forward, towards the body. I did not see any of the blows land on a particular part of the body.

The US Corporal turned round to strike another man who then went into a fit. The man did go into a fit. I could not go and help him because we were fastened into the wall by the table. I did not see anything after that. The man who had the fit did no injury to anyone, he went on the floor and bounced about on his back and he made a funny noise. I never heard the man who had been stabbed make any noise or did I see him do anything. The kicking that I have described did not go on many minutes. I did not see the knife after that, only when it was brought to me for identification. I never saw anyone else in the Cafe interfere with the man who was stabbed and kicked other than in the way I have mentioned. I was outside of the Cafe when the police arrived. The police arrived shortly after the stabbing took place. I got out from where I had been sat pinned in by the table and went outside'.

When he was cross-examined he said, 'I was sat with my back to the wall at the table indicated as being under the word 'stove' on the plan. Walter Beaumont's friend was knocked to the floor. Walter Beaumont's friend fell either between a table and a stool or over a stool and went to the floor. I saw Walter Beaumont's friend falling to the floor. I did not see him actually get to the floor. The direction of his fall was towards the top right hand corner of the plan, the Exhibit 1. I did see two blows struck with a knife. I could not say what Walter Beaumont was doing or saying when the blows were struck. I could not then see Walter Beaumont. I saw the US Corporal turn to strike the man who had the fit, that was near to the main entrance. He had been sat at the table against the door with his back to the window, he was sat on the form. He was sat by the side of the door. When the man went into a fit and made a funny noise, he went down on the floor with his head laid in the direction of the table at which he had been sat and his feet laid towards the table at which we were sat. I did not actually see him struck. He got up, stepped sideways and with his back to the door'.

A chipper and painter said:

'I live in Mytongate, Hull, and I am a chipper and painter. I was in the Blue Bird Cafe, Mytongate, Hull, at about quarter past ten on the night of Friday, the 4th of May last. I was sat at the table to the left of the entrance door as shown on exhibit 1 and with my back to the window. The man who had the fit was sat next to me. I was opposite Walter Beaumont's friend. I knew him and his friend Walter Beaumont, who was sat alongside of him. I heard Walter Beaumont's friend complaining about delay in serving his supper.

One of the yanks, a coloured American then said, 'Why don't you dry up?' There were three other coloured Americans with that one. When he said that Walter Beaumont's friend got up and he hit one of the Americans. He hit him with his fist. It all happened quickly then. The American who had been hit went to the ground and then he got up and he hit Walter Beaumont's friend and that started a fight with Walter Beaumont's friend. Two of the Americans hit Walter Beaumont's friend like and he went down to the ground. One of them grabbed Walter Beaumont and more or less pulled him out of the seat where he was sat and then started fighting. One of them pulled a knife out. There was two knives, two of the Americans had knives. Whilst Walter Beaumont's friend and Walter Beaumont were fighting there were two Americans with knives raised in the air with blades open. There was nothing to stop me seeing. I had a complete view. One of them was going for Walter Beaumont and the other man was going for Walter Beaumont's friend. Two of them who had the knives had the knives raised and the looked round first to see if anyone else was starting anything and then one of the Americans grabbed Walter Beaumont who was then laid over the table more or less, he was laid backwards across the table having been pushed there, and brought the knife and shoved it in his body. With that Walter Beaumont put his hands towards his body, slouched and went down to the floor.

Up to this point there were only the four Americans and the two white men involved. Another man later got up after the stabbing and he hit one of the Americans. The other two Americans who had not got knives, one of them was fighting Walter Beaumont's friend and the other fighting Walter Beaumont, they were fighting with their fists, they had no knives. When Walter Beaumont went to the floor two Americans started to kick him, one of those two was an American who had not a knife, and the other was an American who had a knife. I would recognise the man who stabbed Walter Beaumont, and I say he is the man now in the dock, Number 1, extreme left of the dock, the accused US Corporal. When this happened the man next to me who had seen what happened went into a fit. He went on to the floor and he was kicking in his fit. He did not hit Walter Beaumont. Walter Beaumont's body was then under a form same side on the opposite side of the room further away from our table. I was there when the police arrived fairly soon after'.

The decision to acquit the US Corporal was based on the medical evidence which had concluded that his health treatment was at error, however, the later review held that that was not the case.

The main doctor that treated Walter Beaumont said:

I saw Walter Beaumont at the Hull Royal Infirmary on the morning of the 5th May 1956, and I have been told that before then he was admitted for stab wounds of his abdomen which was operated upon shortly after his admission.

His condition was satisfactory in regard to the nature of his serious injury.

On the 6th May 1956, he was quite satisfactory but still no bowel sounds were heard on examination of his abdomen.

On the 7th May 1956, he was not looking as well as he was and then the same day he started with diarrhoea.

He was put on terramycin intravenous as well as glucose-saline since his operation.

The initial booster dose was 500mg followed by 250mg six hourly. This I believe was given because of the risk of peritonitis after his stab wound.

I was not present when Walter Beaumont was admitted, nor at his operation, but I have been told that he had his intestine prolapsed through his stab wound, apart from two areas of small intestine being stabbed. In this case there is a double risk of contamination by micro-organisms of the small intestine.

On this basis, terramycin I believe was correctly given to counteract the risk of peritonitis.

When his diarrhoea started on the 7th May 1956, I gave instructions for the terramycin to be stopped on the spot, but to continue the intravenous glucose-saline to counteract his state of dehydration.

In spite of the fact that the terramycin was stopped, the diarrhoea did not respond at all and he was incontinent of loose faecal matter all the time.

On the 10th May 1956, I was told that the terramycin was started again on the 9th May 1956, at 9am, only smaller doses of 100mg six hourly.

After the 7.30am dose on the 10th May 1956, I again stopped it.

On the 9th May, the patient was very dehydrated from the diarrhoea that I had to increase his fluid intravenous intake and that was before terramycin had been re-started again, without my knowledge. He also had basal Rhonchi in both lungs, which was noticed on the 9th May 1956.

On the 10th May 1956, when I heard that terramycin had been started again on the smaller doses, I stopped it again. The terramycin still continued. It got very slightly better for 24 hours after that but it was still severe.

On the 11 May 1956, his condition had relapsed again and in spite of the fact that the blood biochemical examination was restored to normal, the diarrhoea was continuing and combated by intravenous therapy.

His urine output on the 11th May 1956 was stopped altogether and his blood urea in spite of restoration of blood chemistry was 174mg per cent.

I noticed that he started to be chesty with crepitations and Rhonchi both sides of the chest denoting broncho-pneumonia. Then on the night of the 11 May 1956, he started to develop recurrent severe convulsions presumably uremic in origin.

As he had no urinary output for about the last twenty four hours, I inserted a catheter the day before he died so as to be able to measure his urine output correctly to distinguish it from wetting the bed.

The convulsions continued and he died at 12.20pm on the 12th May 1956.

His blood pressure was dropping steeply for the last 24 hours. He had intravenous Noradrenaline (Leaevophed - dosage 2cc in one point of glucose-saline). The rate of the drip was 10-15, maximum 20 per minute, as I was there all the time at his bedside but there was no response at all and his blood pressure was dropping, from 90-60, with the addition of his convulsions. He died.

In my opinion I do not think that this man had an overdose of terramycin at all. I would say that he had sufficient dose for his weight and age. It certainly did not exceed the maximum dosage.

In some cases the does is even bigger than that given to Walter Beaumont and it is given without any ill effects whatsoever. It is a known fact that terramycin can give diarrhoea with the smallest dose.

The cause of diarrhoea can be due either to the sensitivity to the drug and in that case even one tablet or one dose may start the diarrhoea, or it can be caused by the normal action of the drug as an anti-biotic to the intestinal flora. It is also known that post-operative diarrhoea can occur after ay abdominal operation though it is not as common as it is with terramycin.

I can say that this man came with a definite serious injury, with a very high risk of contamination. Terramycin was definitely given for his own safety to counteract that risk. He had post-operative diarrhoea. Whether it was due to terramycin or not I am not in a position to say as it can happen not uncommonly without terramycin as well as with terramycin, but as I say it is more common with terramycin.

The terramycin was stopped soon after his diarrhoea started. His diarrhoea did not respond to the stoppage of the terramycin. Admittedly the terramycin had been started again on the 9th May 1956, by another doctor, on a smaller dose and I presume this is because of Walter Beaumont's chest condition. In spite of that the diarrhoea started to get very slightly better next morning on the 10th May 1956.

I do not recall taking part in a discussion in the Doctor’s quarters when the other doctors were present about the cause of Walter Beaumont's death.

I have no doubt that the ultimate cause of death is broncho-pneumonia and there has never been a discussion for doubting the post mortem result'.

The case was later covered in the British Medical Journal, Saturday September 2 1956. The article was titled.

'Medico-Legal - Death After Stabbing

Hospital Treatment Vindicated'

It started:

'A committee of inquiry has found that 'exemplary' treatment was given at the Hull Royal Infirmary to Walter Beaumont, aged 27, after he had been stabbed by the US Corporal, aged 21, a member of the US Air Force. The Leeds Regional Hospital Board has accepted the committee's report and expressed full confidence in the Infirmary's medical and nursing staff.

On July 25 the US Corporal was convicted of the murder of Beaumont by stabbing him in the stomach. On August 21 the Court of Criminal Appeal quashed the conviction after exercising its power, rarely used, to hear fresh evidence. Between the conviction and the appeal a doctor who had observed Beaumont's treatment in hospital communicated to the US Corporal's legal advisers his view that the bronchopneumonia from which Beaumont died resulted not from the stab wound but from the administration of tetracycline after the patient had shown himself to be intolerant to it, and from the injection of excessive amounts of fluid. At the appeal a pathologist from London and a surgeon from London, gave evidence in support of this view.'

The article then detailed the setting up of the committee of inquiry followed by the report of the assessors.

After detailing the inquiry process and willingness of the hospital representatives and their tribute to their efforts to save Walter Beaumont's life, the assessors made six points which they said culminated in the staff being vindicated:

  1. There is histological evidence of severe damage to the kidney tubules (lower nephron nephrosis), which could only have originated soon after his injury, and was sufficient to have resulted in death.
  2. The autopsy showed extensive pulmonary lesions. These were septic in type, and vascular and perivascular in situation, indicating that they had resulted from the transport of small infected clots. The lesions contained coccal organisms, and there is no evidence of the presence of fungi or yeasts such as are sometimes seen in patients treated with antibiotics.
  3. Early meningitis was demonstrable at autopsy, and we regard this as further evidence of a blood-borne infection.
  4. Death was hastened by the development of a catastrophic post-operative enteritis. We have carefully considered the relationship of this to the administration of terramycin. We are aware that this complication sometimes arises in patients treated with terramycin and other broad spectrum antibiotics, but in these cases the cause of enteritis can be established as due to antibiotic-resistant staphylococci rather than to any inherently poisonous property of the drugs. In the present case, culture of the stools failed to yield staphylococci, and we must therefore regard the cause of the enteritis as an open question, since a similar and fulminating enteritis sometimes occurs after operation, especially on the abdomen, without any antibiotic therapy. In one view, the latter type of post-operative enteritis is the sequel to a period of low blood pressure, and the occurrence of hypotensive lesions in the kidney lends support to such a possible explanation in this case.
  5. The use of terramycin initially in Beaumont's case was in our opinion not incorrect, and there is good evidence of its value in the treatment of peritonitis. Its withdrawal at the onset of diarrhoea was correct. By this time, the patient had developed a fulminating gastro-enteritis as well as chest lesions, and these did not respond to penicillin. It was possibly unwise of the resident surgical officer to resort again to terramycin, but since there was reasonable doubt about the cause of the enteritis, and since the patient was gravely ill and febrile despite the administration of penicillin, the renewal of terramycin therapy was not unreasonable and certainly not blameworthy. In any event, the small quantity of terramycin which was then administered had no influence of any kind on the outcome of the case. We believe, in fact, that before the second course was started, the patient's state was irreversible.
  6. It seems to us that the management of the fluid-electrolyte state should be considered in relation to three periods of the man's illness:
  7.  
    1. In the pre-operative and operative period, the management of the fluid-electrolyte situation in our opinion was adequate.
    2. In the early post-operative phase, the control of the fluid therapy was appropriate.
    3. In the late post-operative period, following the development of severe enteritis complicated by serious renal impairment of severe enteritis complicated by serious renal impairment and by lung infection, a highly complicated biochemical disturbance developed. The fluid loss from the bowel was enormous and resulted in profound dehydration, one evidence of which, apart from the careful clinical observations of the doctor, was the concentration of haemoglobin in the blood (114%). As soon as possible the doctor enlisted the aid of the hospital biochemist, who thereafter performed daily estimations on which the day-to-day administration of fluids was based. The amount of fluid administered may appear large to those unfamiliar with the management of severe gastro-enteritis or cholera, which this man's diarrhoea resembled. It was perhaps fortunate that the doctor had had some experience of the treatment of cholera, and had the courage to apply this experience in the management of this extremely difficult case. That the amount of fluid given was in no way excessive is borne out by the absence at autopsy of the usual findings of overhydration, for example, oedema of the lungs, fluid in the serous cavities, or generalised dropsy.'

The article then went on to reiterate the conclusion of the reports technical findings, that Walter Beaumont had been on the point of death on the fifth post-operative day at which point the authorities were informed so that Walter Beaumont could make his dying deposition.

The article then stated that the medical members of the board, after hearing the report of the assessors, endorsed it without reservation and concluded that the report provided a full vindication of the staff of the Hull Royal Infirmary and requested that the following be made known to the board:

  1. Whilst a patient at the Hull Royal Infirmary, the deceased man was treated by a medical team consisting of a consultant surgeon, a surgical registrar, a resident surgical officer, and a house-man. The direct responsibility for the patient at all times vested in the consultant surgeon. Three days before the patient died, the surgical registrar, a Fellow of the Royal College of Surgeons, voluntarily agreed to leave his home and family in Hull and to take up residence at the Infirmary in order that he could give the most constant and close attention to the patient, thus removing all onus of responsibility from the more junior members of the medical team.
  2. In addition to the normal nursing staff on duty in the ward a special nurse was assigned to the patient, who was under constant nursing attention up to the time of his death.

It was noted that following the acquittal of the US Corporal he was Court Marshalled by the American Air Force, being charged with carrying a knife of more than two inches in length and was fined 50 dollars and sentenced to 30 day's detention and that his term of imprisonment would end after 14 days.


*map pointers are rough estimates based on known location details as per Place field above.

see discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk

see National Archives - ASSI 87/81, DPP 2/2531

see British Medical Journal, Saturday September 2 1956, Medico-Legal, Death After Stagging, page 716.

see Hull Daily Mail

see "Death Sentence On American Airman." Times [London, England] 21 July 1956: 2. The Times Digital Archive. Web. 14 June 2015.

see "U.S. Airman's Murder Appeal Allowed." Times [London, England] 22 Aug. 1956: 8. The Times Digital Archive. Web. 14 June 2015.

see Hartlepool Northern Daily Mail - Wednesday 22 August 1956

see Bradford Observer - Friday 14 September 1956