The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1875-12-04 00:00:00

by the most flimsy and unreliable evidence. Turning first to the
testimony of Mrs Wells, he thought her statemeet as to the
Identification of Thomas Wainwright as Frieake was unsatis-
factory. The whole of her opportunities of seeing him, taken
by the space of time they occupied, might be compressed into
sentences. She had not seen the persou calling himself Frieake
since January, 1874, and not having had more than alight op-
portunities of seeing him at • hat time, was her evidence satis-
factery as to his identific etiom? When she did see him it was
in the dock, and with all the surrounding circumstances to
' assist her, and yet she was not positive in her identifica-
tion. The evidence given by Mrs. 'Foster with reference to
the identity of Thomas as Frieake was also founded upon
equally limited opportunities of seeing the person who
called. She only say/ himewice, and then only for a moment
or a couple of moments, and then never again for about
thirteen months. She was not positive as to his identity.
Commenting on the evidence of Miss Wilmore, Mrs Wells,
and one 'or two other witnessess, he pointed out that their
recollection was not so perfect as it should he, and contended
that in so serious a case as a charge of murder, evidence of
Identity, to be reliable, ought to be given without doubt or
hesitation. As to the evidence of Mr. Humphreys, the pub-
lican, he maintained that it was not conceivable that two
persons engaged in plotting a murder would go to a public-
house exactly opposite the house of their victim and remain
there, where theymight easily be seen and identified, foran
hour or an hour and a half. If the two prisoners were at
Mr. Humphrey's house under the circumstances detailed in
the evidence, it was clear that they would not be there
n order to carry out such a plot as they were charged
with framing. Mr. Moody then proceeded to address himself
to the letter written by Harriet Lane to Frieake, and re-
ceived by him on the last Monday in August, 1874. Mr.
Healey had called the attention of the jury to that letter, and
It he (Mr. Moody) set the circumstances before them from a
different point of view it was not done to injure Mr. Besley's
client. As there was a possibility that Mr. Besley's views
might not have commended itself to their minds, he would
try to show what really might have been the object of this
Frieake episode if it had really occurred. All the evidence
that Thomas Wainwright had taken ease in it was of the most
flimsy description, and had been contradicted by evidence
which had been 'given. But if they ilioule believe that
the Frieake episode had had any existence, and that
, Thomas Wainwright had been concerned in it, what was
there to show that it was for the purpose alleged by the
prosecution? In the first place, it was difficult to believe
that the writer of the letter could have had any notion of
establishing improper relations with the person to whom •
it was addressed. Harriet Lane wrote :—" If Harry and
yourself could see me to-morrow evening we might arrange
matters satisfactorily." Now, one could hardly imagine that
a woman living under the protection of one man would
write to another proposing an interview between him and-
the person with whom she was living, with a view to esta-
blish improper relations with the other person. When such
designs were entertained, things were generally concealed
from the person against whom they were formed. The
contents of the letter showed that it was not written with
a view to some arrangement for transferring herself from
Henry Wainwright to the person addressed. It was rather
the language of a woman to a person rather above her in
position, from whom she had received benefits and looked
for more. There were greet doubts as to the reality of
this Frieake episode at all, but if it did happen its
object was quite different. The letter, which had been
often read, began, "I trust you will pardon my writing
to you." Further on she said, "I apologise to you for my
rude behaviour last evening after the kindness I have re-
ceived from you. I had been so Worried during the day,"
ex. -His explanation of the letter and its object would be
this :—lt appeared from the evidence that some time about
May Henry Wainwright was in money difficulties. Now
it was probable that Henry Wainwright was desirous for
some time that the relations between himself and Harriet
Lane should be placed on a different footing. He could
conecive Henry Wainwright desiring that she should • suffer
as little inconvenience as possible, desiring to make some
provision for her, and yet hoping that she might be' able to
contribute to her own support by reverting to dressmaking.
At the same time it would not have been consistent with '
his state of pecuniary difficulty to appear to be advancing
any considerable sum out of his own means. He might thus
have obtained the aid of some friend, but certainly he was
not likely to seek the aid of his brother, as he was the very
person ss ho would be most likely to be found out by Harriet
Lane if he were to represent him as his friend, E. Frieake,
who was advancing the money. On such a supposition the
letter of Harriet Lane was precisely such a one as would be
written by a woman who had at first received the proposal
ungraciously, but who afterwards wished to re-open the
negotiation. if that was consistent, what became of the
Frieake theory, as something prepared and leading up
to what for the purposes of argument he would
call a murder? Indeed, the whole thing went, and, so far
from its being a murder, it became one of those laudable
pieces of deceit which we were all at times obliged to adopt,
and had nothing whatever to do with the disappearance of
this woman. He had not treated on all the topics with re-
ference to the charge of Thomas Wainwright being an ac-
cessory before the fact. But the jury might say, although
the charge of being accessory before the fact had been dis-
posed of, the arguments did not disapprove the suggestion of
his being accessory after the fact. He might, therefore, have
to advert to this part of the case again at a later period.'
The allegation of the prosecution was that, contemplating
the disappearance of Harriet Lane, its order to have a blind
and a screen for that disappearance, a man called Frieake
was introduced to the woman, and matters were so arranged
that it would appear she had gone away with him If
things were laid in train for so elaborate a scheme, what
would one expect but that the persons who had made the
preparations would have made use of them? But did they?
When Miss Wilmore and Mrs Taylor callel on Henry
Waiu wright, the name of Frieake was never mentioned at
the first interview. But, if such elaborate preparations had
been made; why was not the name of Frieake mentioned at
that time? If this Frieake leot was intended to conceal
the disappearance of Harriet Lane, the object of the persons
engaged in it must have been not only to baffle inquiry, but
to avert it, and the reasonable course would have been to
have had letters and telegrams forwarded to different
persons interested in Harriet Lane, in order to prevent
visits from Miss Wilmore or the relatives et the missing
woman. He came now to the Charing-cross Hotel letter.
It was received-before the 17th of October, the date of the
telegrams. Well, he had not asked one single question in
cross-examination founded upon that letter. The hand-
writing had been spoken to by Rogers, Archer' and Lewis.
But the only question he put was to Mr. Chabot, whom
he asked whether the writing was undisguised, and he
said that it was undisguised, honest, handwriting. But
the prosecution would have the jury believe that a man who
was a party to a murder, and who had worked to bring the
murder about, would voluntarily and without any reason
write a letter of that kind, which was perfectly honest
In the character of the writing. He denied that at the
time that letter was written there could have been pre-
sent to the mind of the writer any guilty motive. But
no e.oubt there was something present to the mind )
Thomas from the time Henry Wainwright was taken into
custody. From the time of the arrest there was not a
street in the metropolis which was not placarded with
sensational advertisements on the subject, how a body had
been found, and the name and address of the person con-
nected with the possession of the remains were given
Until the matter shaped itself into an accusation, it would
have been simply an astonishment to him. But when it
came before the police court it must have come to Thomas's
ears that the person whose remains had been found in the
possession of his brother was a woman said to be Harriet
Lane, and yet from the 11th of September until the 2nd of
Oceober we had him remaining in London, as if waiting to
be arrested, and the Attorney-General would have us be-
lieve that he remained to be prosecuted for the crime of
which his brother was accused. The jury would see that
this was a theory too improbable to be true. They would
see that it was a strong argument in faVour of Thomas that
withfull means of taking to flight he abstained from doing
so. And then, when the purchase of are chopper and spade
was brought to his mind, he said at once he bought them.
At that time there'was no mention of the letter, and Thomas
Wainwright said, "I was not coming forward to give evi-
dence against my brother." He did not think any attempt
would be made to strain that, expression into anything
which one brother would not do for another. And as
to the letter, it was not improbable that Henry Wainwright
had confided to him that he had committed some lapse
from morality, that inquiries were likely to be
made which might be hurtful to his bueiness, and
Injurious to his family, and what would be more
natural than that he should say, "The woman with whom
I have been connected has disappeared; her friends are
making enquiries; I have reason to believe that she has gone
away with so-and-so; will you help me ? " A man might be
convivial and yet be an affectionate brother. Could any one
say that, if a lean went to his brother and said he was in a
dilemma ard wanted to get out of it, suggesting at the same
time the writing a letter to throw people off the scent, there
were not men under such circumst au ces, who would write such
a letter? There was another topic in reference to the letter, and
that was the telegram, as to which there was no evidence that
It ever readhed the hands of Thomas Wainwright The prose-
cution had failed to sinew that at that time Thomas was
living at- Walham-green. If there had been anything ap-
proaching to actual residence there it would have been
easy to prove it. Therefore, the jury had the fact that on
the 17th of October the telegram was sent to a place where
It did not reach him. No man could be made responsible
for what was intended to reach him, but which never did.
All that was known was that a telegram from some One
named Frieake had been sent from the Admiralty Pier at
Dover. It was alleged at one time that Thomas was the
man who sent that telegram, but as to that there was not a
particle of proof. The name given in the Dover eelegraph
was " Freeke," and that might be taken as the correct
name of the sender; but it had never been shown that it
was intended for Thomas Wainwright. nor that it was ever
received by him. Therefore, he could give no explanation
of a document which he had never seen. Thomas had
always been ready to give an explanation of the transaction
if ever he should be pressed to do so. On the 10th of
September he purchased a spade, and that was of a man he
had known for years. As to the chopper, it was a circum-
stance that he was a man in the trade; and it he had
known those articles would he used for re ch a terrible pur-
pose as that suggested by the prosecution, what would
have been easier than to remove the marks from them,
and so destroy all clue to the purchaser? That was a cir-
cumstance in Thomas Wainwright's favour which the jury
would, no doubt, take into account. Referring to the in-
terview on the 11th. of September. Mr. Moody said he
could not understand why persons, if they came forward at
all to give evidence, did not do so promptly. The witnesses
in this case seemed to have slumbered over the matter. Was
It not straining matters to a fearful degree to say that a man
was engaged all one night in a place by himself doing such
ghastly work as that suggested by the prosecution? If there
were two men engaged in the alleged murder, why should
they run such a terrible risk and so many chances of deice-
tion ? If Thomas Wainwright had been engaged in the
matter it would have been madness in him needlessly
to enlarge the risk of discovery? There was another
branch of the case, and that was the episode of the
keys; but the keys, as would be remembered, were
taken back in the most ordinary way. They belonged
to the man in possession of the premises, and what more
natural than that the man in possession of them should
expect the place to be .kept weather-tight? What right
was there to presume from the possession of the keys that
he was cognizant of the ghastly remains in the paint room?
If the keys passed from one brother to another, there was
not a particle of evidence that they did. Referring to
the evidence of the locksmith, that the key found
on Henry would go most properly with the padlock,
Mr. Moody said, it the body was about to be removed for
the purpose of concealment, it would be to a place as to
which the person .removing it had some settled title; but
a solicitor engaged for Thomas Wainwright would be
called, who would nrove that at that time he was positively
engaged in negotiating the occupation of the premises with
the landlord,. The risks of detection would be as great in
one case as in another. As regarded the key part of the
case, therefore, there was nothing to affect Tnomas. More-
over, there was no single fact in the case capable cf sup-
porting the theory of guilty knowledge. In whatever way
the jury looked at the matter, there was still something,
from beginning to end, conspicuous for its absence. The
prosecution had failed to show any motive against Thomas
beyond the desire to relieve his brother.
Al:. Moody then called the following witnesses :
AnuenAlt Anseee, an ironmonger, of Oxford-street, said
he knew the prisoner Thomas Wainwright, who entered his
service March Nth, 1874, and continued in it until 10th Oc-
tober in that emir. Witness employed equines countermen,
and had a sheet for each:day of the takings of each counter-
' man During the time Thomas Wainwright was in witness's
employment he was very regular in his attendance, except
early in the morning He was absent during that time
a -few days. By reference to the sheets witness found
that Thema% Wainwright was absent on May 11th, June
22nd, Auenst 3rd, 4th, sth, and 13th, and October 7th. That
included the August bank holiday and two following days,
which witness gave him. Witness received a telegram from
prisoner dated August 3, sent ,from Ramsgate, and asking
further leave of absence. He used to come to busleese
at eight o'clock in the morning. Business was over at
eight o'clock in the evening, and Themes would be away
about ten minutes or a quarter of an hour later.
During that time the prisoner Thomas Wainwright wore
Er full dark moustache and no whiskers. Witness had
examined the lock produced ; it would cost about a shilling.
There was nothing extraordinary in finding a key to fit It:
any quaetity of keys could be found that would fit. Of the
two keys produced no doubt one fitted the lock better than
the other, but even that one was not-a good fit. He would
not like to say that it was not the original key; but if it
were, it was a bad fit.
Cross-examined by the Attorney-General: One key fitted
the lock much better than the other.
The Attorney-Gefieral referred to the sheet for September,
and pointed out that Thomas's takings on one day were less
than that of the other countermen. • .
Witness could only account for the fact by the supposition
that Thomas was either out collecting or dressing the
window.
The Attorney-General: Should you infer from the amount

r. ;1147t0i