Jump to content

Warrington Murder 1851


algy
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 104
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Agreed Gary.

 

Strong and meaningful words from the judge as he passed sentence leaving them no doubt about what they would face.

 

Thanks Algy, very interesting indeed.

 

There is mention of 'Bills' being issued to the jury members not sure what that's about, could the bills be banknotes?, also the newspaper seemed impressed that the trial took six hours I would think that today it would take a lot longer than that - 2 to 6 weeks would be more like to-days duration. :unsure:

 

A few more snippets to follow but nothing as interesting as those two.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The bills were not banknotes Algy.

 

They were 'Bills of Indictment'.

 

The Grand Jury

 

The function of a grand jury was to accuse anyone who might be guilty of an offence and to protect others against unfounded prosecution (such as an accusation made out of malice). The grand jury would decide if there was sufficient evidence in a case to put the defendant on trial.

 

At the start of the Assizes (or Quarter Sessions), they would vet the indictments and statements and hear evidence from the prosecutors and their witnesses, but not defendants. If a grand jury believed the evidence was sufficient to warrant a trial, the case was approved as a "true bill"; those rejected were labelled "ignoramus" (or "not found" or "no bill") and the case was dropped.

 

Above taken from this website about Victorian Crime and Punishment.

 

It's really interesting and you can view people's crimes and punishments too. Damn I'll get nothing done today now

 

My link - Victorian Crime and Punishment

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The bills were not banknotes Algy.

 

They were 'Bills of Indictment'.

 

 

 

Above taken from this website about Victorian Crime and Punishment.

 

It's really interesting and you can view people's crimes and punishments too. Damn I'll get nothing done today now

 

My link - Victorian Crime and Punishment

Thank's Dizz I shall give that a 'coat' of looking at.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Me either. It's not right for them to leave us in suspenders! :huh:

Suspenders!!!, Hey!! Florence don't get me going, next thing I'll be wandering off topic.

Thank goodness I didn't read that before I went to bed or I would never have got to sleep!!! :blink: :blink: :blink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So you are partial to suspenders, eh Aly? How about an added frilly garter with a bunch of little red rosebuds on it? :wink::D:lol:

Sadly Florence I'm afraid that era of life seems to have disappeared, the mystique of courtship has been cast on to the scrapheap of time.index.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(carefully ignores Algy and his suspenders) :unsure:

 

I've become quite fascinated with this story, it was a national story and was reported in the Times quite extensively. I found a small article from the Times on 21 April 1851 which says Bridget was reprived after Patrick exonerated her.

 

It all seems so odd, he said he meant to rob the victim so he could pay a fine which he'd received for failing to whitewash his walls. But he lost his courage and didn't actually take her purse once she was dead, he started to run away (was seen out by Penketh I think) but then came back to pay the fine anyway (why did he need to rob her if he had the money without her purse?!)

 

He went on the run but didn't have the wit to even change his clothes and was found in the same set of blood stained clothes he wore when he killed Peggy.

 

Bridget seems to have known what was going on, telling the female lodger she'd stepped in water, not blood (!) and keeping her upstairs while the 'screeching' took place in the kitchen. Yet he cheerfully went to his death after making peace with God and exonerated Bridget in the process.

 

Odd story but fascinating nonetheless and such a waste of 2 lives.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey! Trace they're not my suspenders it was Cleo who started it!, thanks for searching out what happened to Bridget, I must admit it was a strange case and as you say it was odd that her husband exonerated her.

 

Cleo, there is nothing wrong with Mrs algy and my relationship, however there will be if she find me posting replies with this kind of content, so rapidly backing off this subject and concentrating on murder topics instead of being a victim of one!!!afraid-male-afraid-frightened-smiley-emoticon-000293-large.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...