Part 2 — CHAPTER XXIII SOME POISON ASPECTS OF THE ILFORD MURDER CASE

The mystery surrounding the murder of Percy Thompson at Ilford caused considerable interest in this country towards the end of 1922. On the night of October 3rd, Percy Thompson, a city clerk, when returning from the theatre with his wife, was stabbed to death in a dark street near his home in Endsleigh Gardens, Ilford. His body was found propped up against a wall and by his side in a state of hysteria stood his wife. It was first thought by the doctor who had been called and made a brief examination in the street by the light of a match, that death was due to internal hæmorrhage. It was only when the body was taken to the mortuary that it was discovered that there were twelve or fourteen wounds in the neck and arms, and that the man must have been killed by an assailant armed with a knife or a stiletto. A few days later Frederick Bywaters, a young ships’ writer, was arrested and charged with the murder, together with Mrs. Thompson, the widow of the murdered man.

The youth of both—the man was only twenty, and the woman twenty-seven years of age—who had apparently conspired together to carry out the crime, impressed the imagination of the public to an unusual degree. When the case came before the magistrates, the police produced an alleged confession made by Bywaters, according to which he stated he had become deeply attached to Mrs. Thompson, and attacked her husband “because he never acted like a man to his wife.”

From a long series of letters which had passed between Bywaters and Mrs. Thompson which were produced in Court, the coroner, after consultation with the Home Office, decided 402that the body of Mr. Thompson should be exhumed and a post-mortem examination made. From the contents of the letters it appeared that Mrs. Thompson had for a considerable period, with the connivance of Bywaters, been attempting to put an end to the life of her husband.

These extraordinary letters, which were read in court, contained allusions to several poisons and are noteworthy from a toxicological point of view, as there is mention of the use of powdered glass, which has rarely been employed for criminal purposes in this country.

Bywaters and Mrs. Thompson were brought to trial at the Old Bailey, the man being charged with murdering Percy Thompson and conspiring and agreeing between June 1, 1921, and October 4, 1922, to murder him. Mrs. Thompson was further charged with administering poison to her husband between June 1, 1921, and October 4, 1922, and inciting to murder, also with soliciting and proposing to Bywaters, her fellow prisoner, to murder her husband and agreeing with him to murder her husband.

According to the Solicitor-General, who opened the case for the Crown, although Bywaters’ was the hand that struck the blow, Mrs. Thompson’s was the mind that conceived the crime, and it was under her controlling influence that Bywaters murdered the man.

The story as revealed at the trial was one of love and passionate hate, recorded in the letters of Mrs. Thompson to her lover, who, strangely enough, had preserved them, and thus stored up indisputable evidence against them both, of their nefarious plot against the life of the unfortunate man.

“He complained that it tasted bitter, as if something had been put into it,” is an extract from one letter of Mrs. Thompson to Bywaters.

“I am going to try the glass again occasionally when it is safe. I have an electric light globe this time” is from another.

Again she wrote “I used the light bulb three times; the first time he found a piece, so I have given it up until you come home.”

That Bywaters had been aiding her was evidenced in another letter in which she remarks, “I do not think we are failures in other things and we must not be in this. The dose was enough 403for an elephant, but you did not allow for the taste making a small quantity to be taken. I was buoyed with the hope of the light bulb and I used a lot of big pieces, but it had no effect.” ... “Would not the stuff make small pills coated with soap, and dipped in liquorice. Try while you are away.”

In other letters many suggestions were made by the woman to encompass her husband’s death, and in one which is worth noting she alludes to a novel entitled “Bella Donna,” and quoted a passage which says “Digitaline is a cumulative poison, harmless if taken once; frequently repeated, it becomes deadly.” She referred constantly in other letters to this book. In another she asks “Have you thought of bichloride of mercury?”

In a later letter allusion was made to aromatic tincture of opium which she said her husband had in his possession.

In the cross-examination of Bywaters he stated that what Mrs. Thompson alluded to in the letter was simply quinine, and it was that to which she alluded when referring to the dose being enough for an elephant.

Mrs. Thompson, giving evidence on her own behalf, denied ever having any of the poisons mentioned in her possession or using them.

Mr. Webster, analyst to the Home Office, said he had examined the organs from the body of Percy Thompson which was exhumed and found traces of an alkaloid giving a reaction for morphine in the liver and kidneys, but no other poisonous substances whatever.

Counsel recapitulated a remarkable list of the chemical substances that had been mentioned in this case which included hyoscine, cocaine, potassium cyanide, antimony tartrate, bichloride of mercury, digitalin and aromatic tincture of opium, all of which Mr. Webster had defined as poisons. Counsel, when referring to the allusion to ground glass, asked the analyst if he called that destructive and injurious, to which he replied in the affirmative if the powder was in fragmentary form. Administered as such it had been known to cause death. He further added, that ground glass if taken in any quantity might have a serious effect on the linings of the stomach and intestines. He found no evidence of any quantity having been taken in this case. 404Aromatic tincture of opium contained morphine and was used as a sedative to relieve pain.

Dr. Spilsbury, who made the post-mortem examination, said he found no signs of poisoning or scars in the intestines. Asked “If glass was administered, would you necessarily expect to find indications of it in the organs?” he replied that he would not, and went on to explain that the administration of broken glass and powdered glass produced different results. Large fragments of glass might produce injury by cutting the wall of the gullet or intestines, and if not fatal, scars might be found afterwards.

Given in powdered form, the immediate effect of powdered glass would be to produce innumerable minute injuries to the delicate membranes of the stomach and would result in illness. If the person recovered, the glass would disappear entirely, with the possible exception of the appendix, where it might lodge and remain for a long time. He found no indication of ground glass in the appendix in this case.

The Solicitor-General asked: “Is the negative result of your examination consistent with glass having been administered?”—Dr. Spilsbury replied: “Some time previously, yes.”

“Is it possible that large pieces would have passed through the system without injury to the organs or without leaving any signs behind?”—“It is possible,” was the reply.

“Is the negative result of your examination also consistent with powdered glass passing through the system?”—“Yes.”

Regarding the poisons, Dr. Spilsbury said he would not expect necessarily to find indication of them if they were administered a considerable time ago. Some poisons left no trace at any time; others produced an effect that might last a few days, or even a few weeks, but after that, there were few poisons which would leave indications, except those that were corrosive or irritant. Hyoscine and cocaine were not irritant poisons. Cyanide of potassium was irritant, but he doubted if it would leave any permanent damage.

Counsel for the prisoner asked: “All that comes to this, that there is no trace whatever, post-mortem, of any glass having been administered?”—“That is so,” replied the witness.

405The judge, in summing up the case, said the question the jury would have to consider was, was it arranged between Bywaters and Mrs. Thompson that the murder should be committed. “If you think,” he continued, “that the letters of this woman are genuine and mean what they say, that would mean that she was inciting the man Bywaters to assist her in poisoning her husband. It might be that they found poisoning was no longer possible, and they might naturally turn their minds to some other means to effect their object. These letters form a very strong case, that the woman was writing to this man, asking him to assist her to remove her husband by the administration of poison. If they are accurate, she administered it, but the important part is that she was plotting and planning.”

The jury returned a verdict of “Guilty,” and both prisoners were sentenced to death.

This case is noteworthy from the fact that the evidence of attempted poisoning was entirely circumstantial. No one had ever seen Mrs. Thompson in the possession of the poisons mentioned in her letters, with the exception of the aromatic tincture of opium, and there was no evidence to prove that she had ever purchased them or administered them to her husband, beyond that contained in her letters.

From this study of some of the more famous poison trials of the past hundred years, it is clearly demonstrated that the toxicologist and scientific chemist are the most formidable enemies of the criminal poisoner.

It may be safely said, that the days have gone by when a person could administer a poison with intent to kill, without much fear of detection.

In the course of the past century, as science has advanced and new poisonous substances have been discovered, the chemist has been able to find a means of detecting nearly every poison known to science. Even in those cases where the poisoner has been one with skilled knowledge, and had the means of choosing the most subtle weapon of its kind and selected it with the greatest cunning, chemical experts have yet been able to find and reveal the cause of death.

The criminal poisoner, like other murderers, generally 406leaves some indelible traces that eventually prove his guilt. Such traces, as instanced in many cases, remain detectable even after the lapse of years. Thus the chance of successfully evading detection is gradually being reduced to a minimum, and as time goes on it is hoped that it will be brought to a practical impossibility.

407