The Sun.
London, England, 1860-10-04 00:00:00

TILE

!D_E'R,

There seems at length to be some prospect of
obtaining at least a clue to the hitherto impene-
trable mystery of the Road murder. The new in-
vestigation now going on at Trowbridge has
brought to light a number of small particulars con-
nected with the crime, and at least one fact that
will probably prove of considerable importance. It
would be improper at this stage of the inquiry to
press in all its force the conclusions suggested by
the facts against any individual who may be sus-
pected, and least of all against the nurse who stands
charged with the murder; but we may note the
course of the investigation, and let the facts it

1 reveals speak for themselves.
Mrs. Kent was publicly examined for the first
time on Monday, and her evidence, though bring-
ing out no new facts of a striking character, has
yet, as a whole, a significant bearing on the main
object of the inquiry. It tends to throw
a further light on the general features of the
case, as well as on the conduct of the ac-
cused before and after the discovery of the
murder. Mrs. Kent deposes that she saw the
murdered child put to bed about 8 o'clock on Fri-
day evening, the nurse being present and assisting.
She went into the room again_to look at the child
n
about an hour after,
thenp d a a final visit at 10
o'clock. The nurse hadcome upstairs for the
night, but when Mrs. Kent entered the bedroom
to look at the child for the last time she was not
ot
there—at least not in the outer room where the
child slept, but in a little room within the
nursery, so that Mrs. Kent had to call her out.
We lay no particular stress on this circumstance,
but simply note it, as any particular is of import-
ance in such an inquiry where the ascertained facts
are so few. Mrs. Kent further deposes that she is
a light sleeper, often waking during the night, and
having frequently on previous nights "heard the
child crying in the nursery." She woke frequently
during this very night, but heard no more till " early
in the mornin, ' when she "heard a noise which
sounded like the drawing-room shutter opening."
It is of course impossible to say precisely at what
time this was, but the "early morning" generally
means when it is getting light; and as it was near
the longest day, it would be light on the morning
in question soon after three. Mrs. Kent states that
" she cannot say she was alarmed," as she thought
the servants were astir. She did not wake again
till a few minutes after seven, when she arose and
began to dress. While she was dressing the nurse
knocked at the door, and inquired, " Are neither
of the children awake, Ma'am ?" The rest of
the dialogue, with the remaining evidence on this
point, may be given in Mrs. Kent's own words.
" I replied, What—neither of them awake,
' nurse ?' because I was astonished at her ask-
ing for two. She then said, as well as I can
remember, Then Master Saville is not in with
you ?' I replied, ' Certainly not.' She then
said, 'He is not in the nursery.' I immediately
went into the nursery to look for him. I sent
her to his sisters' rooms ' • when she came back
I asked her when she had missed him. She
said, 'At 5 o'clock.' I then asked her why she
had not come to tell me before. She said she
had not done so because she thought I had gone
into the nursery and taken him out. I said to her,
How dare you say so ? You know I never do such
a thing.' The boy was a very heavy child, and the
nurse knew that I was not able to carry him ; in
fact, I had never taken him out of his cot—at any
rate, while the nurse was asleep. I had told her
before that if ever anything was to happen in the
nursery to make her uncomfortable in regard to the
children she was to come to me."

Mrs. Kent swears she had never taken the child
from the crib early in the morning when the nurse
was asleep, and had specially charged her, if any-
thing unusual happened with the children, to come
to her at once. Yet, on this particular morning,
when the nurse, according to her own statement,
awoke at 5 o'clock, and found the child gone from
his crib, she made no effort whatever to find him,
but assuming at once that his mother had taken
him—a circumstance, she admits, which had never
before happened during her residence in the family
—turned round and quietly went to sleep again.
This conduct, though no doubt compatible with in-
nocence, is on all principles of judgment quite sin-
gular enough to excite surprise and even suspicion.
For supposing Mrs. Kent had taken tke child, this
was so unusual that, on finding him gone, the
first impulse of the nurse who had charge of him
would naturally be to see where he was, and what
had led to his removal. As she felt no surprise at
the absence of the child, so she appears to have
betrayed neither excitement nor alarm when it was
discovered that he could not be found. At least,
according to the somewhat confused testimony of
the under-nurse, Emily Doel, the accused did not
even mention the child's absence to her when ehe
came in the morning, though she went in and out
of the nursery several timo. wftor Mro. Kent had
been informed of the fact.
The next point of importance brought out in
the evidence is the discrepancy of statement with
regard to the blanket found With the murdered
child, and in which the body had evidently been
wrapped. Two of the constables employed in
looking over the premises on the morning of the
murder deposed that before the body was found
the accused spoke to them of the missing blanket.
Morgan, the parish constable, with Urch, one of the
county police, went upstairs at half-past seven and
asked the nurse to show them the child's crib, which
she did. " The clothes," he adds, " were quite
smooth—smoother than I should have expected.
_ _

I said, ' Do you mean to say that this is where the
child was taken from ?' She replied, ' Yes.' The
clothes were turned down, and I saw the mark of the
little fellow's head on the pillow. I said to the nurse,
' Have you lost anything out of the nursery except
the child ?' She replied there was a blanket taken
or drawn, I forget which word she used, from
the cot ; but there was nothing else missing."
Urch gives the same testimony, adding that te
nurse said the blanket " might have been drawn •
out without removing the quilt." Mrs. Kent, too,
knew, before her husband set out for Trowbridge,
and, therefore, before the body was found, that the
blanket was missing ; and apparently her informant
must also have been the nurse, though this is not
expressly stated in her evidence. On the other
hand, the nurse stated positively to Foley, the.e
superintendent of the Wilts county police; tyntou
f Wolfe,
~ had never missed the blanket till thechild was
found." This was stated in the hearing
another constable; who confirms Fsoley'sc
however, in
on this point. This discrepancy i
e,.
Its value
itself of no very great imporht
nicer the circum-
must very much depend on w t evidence
g the blanket gone
stances under which it comesd?nu
telligible motive or not.
finding
Perfect innocence ;
point to some in-
is, of course, compatible
w the circumstances ; but
indeed, quite natural under
look like a conscious-
knowledge would
certainly
denial comes later, and is no
the
show a desire to conceal the
the subsequent and detlaiibneiryate denial of this simple
If
though inn ()cent. hn. itself, may
ness of guilt.
after-thought, it may
th© which,conscious
quencelt ought to'be stated, however,
ldiscrepaney of statement with regard
knowledgep ear toofgt
News.
that thetothe blanket comes out in the case of Mr.
samuei
Kent as
well as of the nurse.—Daily