|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** This is an archived, static copy of the Casebook messages boards dating from 1998 to 2003. These threads cannot be replied to here. If you want to participate in our current forums please go to https://forum.casebook.org **
West Ham Mystery - The Death of Charles Wagner, 4/1/1882
Casebook Message Boards: General Discussion: General Topics:
West Ham Mystery - The Death of Charles Wagner, 4/1/1882
Author: Jeff Bloomfield
Sunday, 17 June 2001 - 05:30 pm |        | This is a continuation of the work I put on the
Board two weeks ago, on the thread about
Disappearances in London. That dealt with the
strangulation murder of Amelia Sarah Jeffs in
a deserted building on the Portway, in West Ham
on January 31, 1890. I was able to show that
while no prosecution resulted, the inquest was
able to show that a grandfather-father-and son
(connected with the building that was the site
of the murder) were most likely to know what actually happened, and were telling stories that
seemed to contradict each other. But this is not
revealled whenever the Jeffs case in the retelling
of "the West Ham Disappearances" - after all, it
does not help keeping a mystery alive if you
admit it wasn't much of a mystery.
As one should expect, the same is true about
Charles Wagner. In the story of the "disappearance" legend, like Amelia, his was one
of the few corpses that reappeared, but it was
found in Ramsgate, over 70 miles, at the base of
a cliff.
Due to lack of time for investigation purposes,
I was unable to fully complete this, but I hope
to do so in a week or two. I reviewed The Times
of London for the month of April 1882. Interestingly enough, I did not notice what was
the most notable event of that month, at least in
the west and midwest of the United States: the
assassination of Jesse James by Bob Ford in James'
home in St. Joseph, Missouri. Apparently The
Times did not consider it worthwhile discussing.
The main criminal event of April 1882, in the
eyes of The Times, was the conviction and execution of Dr. George Henry Lamson, for the
poisoning of his brother-in-law Percy Johns the
previous December.
The first item is in The Times of Friday, April
7, 1882, p. 4 F:
Supposed Murder at Ramsgate.
"The West Ham police yesterday handed over to an officer of the Ramsgate Police Force a man
named James Walters, whom the had detained at the
Plaistow police-station, on suspicion of having
caused the death of a young man named Charles
Wagner, son of a porkbutcher carrying on business
at 104, Victoria Dock-road, Canning-town, whose
body was found at 1 o'clock on Sunday morning last
under the east Cliff, Ramsgate, by a coastguardsman. It seems that on Saturday morning
last Mr. Wagner, sen., sent his son Charles to the
bank with the sum of 150 pounds, which he was
instructed to deposit in his father's name. He left the house with the money, but did not reach
the bank, and was not seen alive again by his
parents. Walters was in the employ of Mr. Wagner as assistant at one of his shops, and he absconded
on Saturday, and is supposed to have joined his master's son at some appointed place. It is alleged that Walters was in the company of young Wagner when he arrived at Ramsgate by the last train from London on Saturday night last, and that
Wagner bought for him some collars and a nectie;
but when Wagner was found dead on Saturday morning
last, with a wound on his head, no money or valuables were found on him, and the clothes he
was wearing were not those he was attired in when the he left London. Upon finding of the body, the father of the deceased being apprised of the event met Walters in Canning-town on Monday night
and gave him into custody; but as there was no
apparent reasonable ground for detaining him, he
was released. On Tuesday, however, the Ramsgate
police forwarded a description of the man who
was seen with the deceased on Saturday last, and,
as this tallied with the appearance of Walters, the West Ham police again set to work and on Wednesday rearrested Walters. In his possession were found a gold watch, a large sum of money, and valuables, none of which he was able to give a
satisfactory account of. Mr. Wagner, the father
of the deceased, is well known in Canning-town. The adjourned inquest was resumed at Ramsgate
yesterday, and was again adjourned to Thursday
next pending the identification of the accused
by the persons who saw the deceased and his
companion at Ramsgate."
This was followed only four days later by this
brief announcement (The Times, Tuesday, April 11,
1882, p. 10b):
"THE RAMSGATE MURDER -- Evidence will be forthcoming at the inquest to show that if the prisoner, James Walters, was not at Ramsgate on
the Saturday night, he was at Canterbury on the
Sunday morning. A gentleman who lives at Waltham
Abbey, in Essex, has recognized the accused as a
man who rode in the same railway carriage with him
from Canterbury to London that morning, and told him he had walked to Canterbury from Ramsgate. Walters has been removed from Plaistow police station to Ramsgate. No clue whatever has as yet
been found as to what has become of the 150 pounds
which Wagner was to have taken to the bank at
Stratford."
The next account was longer than the others:
[The Times, Thursday, April 20, 1882, p. 12b]
THE ALLEGED MURDER AT RAMSGATE.
"Yesterday, at the Town-hall, Ramsgate, the
adjourned inquest upon the body of Charles Wagner,
aged 17, who was found dead at the foot of East
Cliff, Ramsgate, on the 2d inst., in circumstances
of a grave character, was resumed before Mr. Martin, the coroner for Sandwich and its liberties. Mr. Superintendent Buss represented
the Ramsgate Police, who hold in custody a man charged with the murder of the deceased; Mr. W. A.
Hubbard, a solicitor, appeared for the father of the deceased' and Mr. Metcalf, a solicitor, appeared in the interests of the accused man, whose name is James Walters and who is 28 years of
age.
The circumstances of the case were now entered into de novo, the Coroner stating that this course was necessary, in order to afford the representative of the deceased's father an opportunity of cross-examining the witnesses who had already given evidence. The deceased, it will be remembered, was the son of Mr. Wagner,
a butcher, carrying on business in Victoria-Dock
road, at the extreme east of London, and the accused, who is also a butcher, was in Mr. Wagner's employment, but was under notice to leave. On Saturday afternoon, the 1st inst., before 2 o'clock, the lad was sent by his father
with 150 pounds to bank, and the prisoner followed him out. The lad did not return, and on
the next morning, about 1 o'clock, less than 12
hours after lhis departure from Canning-town, his
dead body was found below the East Cliff, Ramsgate, near the walls of Sir Moses Montefiore's proberty. Evidence has been adduced
with a view to showing that the prisoner Walters
was in the lad's company at Ramsgate shortly before his body was found.
The first witness was John Williams, a coastguard man, who deposed to finding the body of the deceased at the foot of the East Cliff at a quarter to 1 o'clock on the morning of the 2d
inst. The cliff at that spot is 80ft. or 90ft.
in height. It was moonlight. He found that the
body was warm. It was lying across the highwater mark of that night's tide, but the clothes were
not wet. The tide had been high (and in the place
where the body was) about two hours before the body was found. He heard no cries in the course of the night.
In cross-examination, the witness said he did not search the body, but went at once for the
police.
Sergeant Petler, of the Ramsgate Police, deposed to being brought by the last witness to the dead body. The deceased's clothes were searched by the police; no money was found in them. There were dollars and a necktie, and a
bill for clothes which had been bought in London
to replace the butcher's clothes in which the
deceased left home. The witness also deposed to finding the man Walters in custody at Canning-town on the succeeding Thursday on a charge of stealing the one hundred fifty from the deceased.
The prisoner was delivered to the witness. On
the was to Ramsgate the prisoner remarked,"It looks very black against me, as there is no money found on the boy." The prisoner was cautioned and
told that he might be charged with a more serious
offence than robbery. On hearing this the prisoner was much concerned, and then, confessing that he had brought the boy to Ramsgate from London, went on to say that at the deceased boy's
wish the two went at night to walk on the cliff.
They walked on towards a place which the witness thought was St. Peter's. The prisoner declared that he lost the boy in the fields beyond the Granville Hotel, and asked whether any marks of
violence were found upon the body of the deceased.
In the course of his conversation with the witness, the prisoner narrated circumstances
showing that he was on the sands at Ramsgate on the Sunday some few hours after the body was found. He added that he tried to get a bed at
St. Peter's but from the lateness of the hour
(about 11:30 on Saturday night) was unable to do
so.
In cross-examination by Mr. Metcalf and in reply to questions by the Coroner, the witness said that on the sands where the body was found
the only footprints were those of the coastguardsman. The spot was searched and nothing was found. The body was searched at the mortuary by the police. There certainly had been no one on the spot where the body was found, after
the last tide, except the coastguardsman, until the police went with a stretcher. Questioned as to marks on the top of the cliff, the witness said the ground there was hard and dry at the time, and there was grass at the edge of the cliff. No signs of a struggle were visible. Several persons were present when the body was
searched.
Dr. Lyddon stated that the lad died from internal hemorrhage, and also that there was evidence, in the broken bones on the left foot, that he fell upon one foot.
In cross-examination, Dr. Lyddon said he could not say that the deceased would have fallen otherwise if he had been pushed over the cliff. The witness declined to enter into any speculations as to the manner in which a person might be supposed to fall if he had been pushed and if he had slipped over the top of the cliff.
Mrs. Selina Simes stated that the deceased and the prisoner Walters came into her husband's shop in High-street, Ramegate, on the night of Saturday, the 1st inst., and some collars and a necktie were bought for the deceased. She picked out the prisoner as the man who with the deceased
from the number of other men.
George Hobbs, a journeyman butcher, in the employ of Mr. Britton, butcher, Queen-street, Ramsgate, stated that the prisoner Walters called
upon him in company with a lad between half-past
9 and 10 o'clock on the night of Saturday, the 1st
inst. Walters had beein in the same employment
some six years ago, and asked the witness to give
him a bed. The witness told the prisoner to go to a place in York-street. Before leaving the witness, the prisoner said he was going to take
the lad to Paris. The prisoner went with the lad to the opposite direction to that in which he has been told to go for the bed.
In cross-examination, the witness stated that when in Mr. Britton's service the prisoner bore a
very good character.
James Target, a coastguardsman, deposed to seeing the prisoner Walter on the edge of the cliff, near Sir Moses Montefiore's wall, about
11 o'clock on the night of the 1st inst. The prisoner was then alone, and held his head down,
with his face to the sea. The witness made his
presence known by coughing, and the prisoner then walked away inland.
In cross-examination, the witness said he was speaking to his chief boatman when he saw the prisoner. He picked the prisoner out of seven or eight persons in ordinary dress as the man he saw on the cliff. The passage across the cliff at this point was not dangerous if the path were kept. A person would have to leave the path to get to the edge of the cliff. A person could not
stray, without knowing it, from the path, which was very much worn, and to step out of it a person would have to step upwards. The witness was relieved at night by James Williams.
Samuel Fisher, chief boatman of the Ramsgate
coastguards station, deposed that a little before 11 o'clock on the 1st inst. he was near the spot spoken of by Target and saw the prisoner on the cliff. The witness heard no cries or alarm that night. He had identified the prisoner.
In cross-examination, the witness said the spot on the East Cliff might be considered dangerous to drunken persons or children, but not
to persons with their wits about them.
Evidence was also given that the prisoner asked
at St.Peter's at midnight on April 1 to be directed to lodgings, saying that he had walked on the way home with a young friend and had been
locked out. He did not mention having lost or
missed his companion.
Testimony was also given that the prisoner left Ramsgate by the first train on Sunday, April
2, six hours after young Wagner's dead body was found. The prisoner said to the passenger with whom he sat, "I have not been long in Ramsgate
this time, only getting here yesterday; but I have
been here long enough to see a man who has ballen over the cliff and is dead."
Surperintendent Buss asked for a remand, saying he could not finish the evidence he had to
offer at that sitting.
The inquiry was then adjourned until next
Thursday.
The re-examination of the prisoner before the magistrate will be held this morning."
The next item was in The Times on Monday, April
24, 1882, p. 9b:
"THE ALLEGED MURDER AT RAMSGATE. -- The
Ramsgate police have found a large screwdriver near the spot on the East Cliff beneath which the body of Charles Wagner was discovered. It is under consderation whether this was used as a weapon in causing the death of the unfortunate
lad, it being suggested that a cent on the lad's
hard felt cap could seem to show that he was struck before he disappeared over the cliff. The
police have come into the possession of a suggestive piece of evidence -- that on Saturday
night, the 1st inst., on which the lad disappeared, a man inquired of a local tradesman as to the time of high tide that night. Formerly
at high tide, the sea would give about 10 or 12 feet of water at the foot of the East cliff, but now, through, it is believed, the building of the
Marina below the cliff, a little to the southward, the ordinary high tide mark is some
10ft. from the base of the cliff. On the 1st
inst. an east wind was blowing hence the tide, a
neap [sic?] one (the full moon being on the Monday), was far below the average even neap tides, and the body fell on the mark made by the
previous tide. The estimated height of the cliff
at 80 or 90 feet was incorrect; its exact measurement has been found to be 52ft. The spot where the deceased fell is even with the southern boundary of Sir Moses Montefiore's property. A
public pathway runs down the field and then, at some few feet from the edge of the cliff, curves
round to the south. The path is a well worn and distinct one; a person would have to step to the
right if coming from Ramsgate, along the cliff,
to reach the corner, but if coming from the east,
from the upper town, the direction to go "straight
on," would leand any one to step off the path, and
go over at the spot where it is alleged the prisoner stood at 11 o'clock, looking out to sea,
and without the deceased, with whom he was half
an hour before in Ramsgate."
The final item I got was in THE TIME of Friday,
April 28, 1882, on p. 7b:
THE ALLEGED MURDER AT RAMSGATE.
"Yesterday, at the Ramsgate Town-hall, the inquiry as the death of Charles Wagner, the lad who, it is alleged, was murdered by being thrown
over the East Cliff, near the town was resumed
before Mr. J.C. Martin, the coroner for Sandwich
and its Liberties. The circumstances of the case
have been reported. Superintendent Buss, of the
Ramsgate Police, represented the prosecution. Mr.
Hubbard appeared for the father of the deceased, and Mr. Metcalf represented the prisoner Walters, who is charged with the murder of the lad.
The evidence of Mr. Sunderland Thwaites,
clothier, of Wilton-road, Victoria Station, London, showed that on the Saturday afternoon the prisoner and the deceased came into his shop. The deceased was nervous and trembling, and reluctant to put on a new pair of trousers which the prisoner insisted on buying.
The prisoner and the lad were next seen, according to the testimony of several witnesses,
at Ramsgate, at night, at about 10 o'clock, and at nearly half-past 10. The prisoner was then seen on the East Cliff at 11 o'clock at night,
alone, peering into the sea. The body of the
deceased was found the same night beneath the spot where the prisoner had been seen standing. Some further evidence having been given, the coroner summed up, and the jury returned a verdict
of "Wilful Murder against James Walters." The
foreman stated that this was the unanimous verdict of the 15 jurymen summoned."
It is obvious that Walters was traced as being
with Charles Wagner from the time Charles left
his father's shop with the 150 pounds. The latter
(at least) was still wearing his butcher apron
(I can say, "leather apron", but remember this
is 1882, not 1888). A few hours later they were
in London, with Walters buying street clothes for
Charles at the store of the absurdly named Thwaites, near Victoria Station. Charles seemed
very nervous - why?
When they get to Ramsgate they buy more street
clothes, including collars and a necktie (which
Charles still had on him when he died). They visit Walters friend Hobbs, where he hopes to
find a bed, and mentions they are going to France.
They leave, going in the opposite direction to
where Hobbs said they could find beds. It is
10. At 11, Target and Fisher see Walters on the
top of the cliff, and when he hears Target's cough, he leaves. Both men state Walters was looking out to sea. Somewhere earlier, somebody
had inquired when was high tide at the cliff.
It was supposed to be at that time. However,
the police discovered a new Marina had reduced the
height of high tide at the cliff by two feet.
Charles' body had been discovered at a quarter to
one A.M. on Sunday morning, the 2nd of April, by
Williams, the coastguardsman who relieved Target.
Williams get Police Sgt. Petler, who sees only
Williams set of footprints near Charles' body.
Others (who are unnamed) come with a stretcher come. No money is found, nor does it seem to
appear again, although later a gold watch and some
money is found on Walters, who can't explain where
he got them.
Walters goes to St. Peters for a bed, but is turned away. At some point he admits he was on
the beach in the early morning. At 7 A.M. he takes the train from Ramsgate to Canterbury. He
tells the gentleman from Waltham Abbey he walked
to Canterbury. He also tells someone he saw a
man fall to his death from the cliff. He will later say that Charles wanted to walk on the cliff
at night, but he and Charles got seperated in a
field.
By Monday, Walters is back in West Ham. Mr. Wagner finds him, after he learns that Charles is
dead. Wagner tries to have Walters arrested, but
he is released due to a lack of evidence for holding him. But descriptions of the man with
Charles come in, so by Wednesday, April 5, 1882,
Walters is rearrested. He is only charged with
suspicion of robbery (of the 150 pounds. He is
turned over to Sgt. Petler, and soon realizes that
more serious charges are being considered.
The Ramsgate Police presumably think this is the
murder plan: Walters takes a nervous and fearful
Charles to the cliff, hits him on the head, pushes
him over, and hopes that the high tide will carry
the body out to sea. They even locate a possible
weapon for hitting Charles on the head - the
screwdriver. Possibly they are right. It would
be for a jury to discover if the evidence bore up
to such scrutiny. The trial was held in late
July 1882, and was reported in THE TIMES for July
25 and 26, and will be looked into when I get another chance to visit the library. However,
I suspect something went wrong, as I did not see
any reference to the execution of James Walters
for the murder of Charles Wagner.
The plot (if it was Walters' plot) is somewhat like that of John Watson Laurie/"Annandale" in
the 1889 murder of Edwin Rose on the Isle of Arran, though there it was throwing a man down a
mountain, and hiding the body beneath boulders.
In both, the motive was believed to be robbery.
But in both there seems an underlying second
motive - Rose met Laurie on the cruise to Arran,
and it may have been a homosexual fling on a
vacation that got out of hand. Here, the issue
becomes if the 27 year old Walters and the 17
year old Charlie had struck up too close a relationship. Two things suggest they did. First, the newspaper reported that Walters was
given his dismissal that day that Charlie left
with the money. Exactly why is not explained,
although in the first article Walters is called
an absconder (but surely that refers to the 150
pounds). Secondly, when they were with Hobbs,
Walters said he and Charlie were going to Paris.
That's peculiar. Was it a flight to be together,
that Charlie slowly got frightened of (especially
as he had robbed his father to do it), or was
Walters lying to Hobbs at that point to reassure
Charlie, whom he actually intended to either leave
behind (disgraced and ruined) or to rob and kill.
In any event, even though the trial did not
perfectly resolve everything, the open-ended
segment of the West Ham Disappearances, regarding
Charlie Wagner, is not totally deserved.
Jeff |
Author: Jeff Bloomfield
Sunday, 08 July 2001 - 12:15 am | | In the unread tradition of this thread, I am now
completing the material that I got out of the
TIMES of London regarding the trial of James
Walter, for the murder of Charles Wagner at
Ramsgate.
THE TIMES, Monday, 24 JULY 1882 (P. 10, col. b):
THE ASSIZES
SOUTH-EASTERN CIRCUIT
At Maidstone on Saturday [22 JULY 1882],
before Mr. Justice [Sir Henry "'Angin'"] Hawkins,
James Walter, described as a butcher, 28 years
of age, was indicted for the willful murder of
Charles Wagner, at St. Lawrence's, Ramsgate, on the night of the 1st of April last. He was also
arraigned upon the coroner's inquisition, the
coroner's jury having found him guilty of wilful
murder. The prosecution was conducted on behalf
of the Treasury.
Mr. Biron and Mr. Snagge appeared for the prosecution: Mr. Kemp, Q.C., and Mr. George
Denham appeared for the prisoner.
The facts of the case stated by Mr. Biron as to be
proved in evidence were, in substance, as follow; - The prisoner was in the service of the father of the deceased - a youth of 17 - at 104 Victoriia
Dock-road, East, and had become intimate with the
yourh, and knew that he was sometimes sent by his father to the Bank. On Saturday, April 1, a little before 2, the youth was, in the prisoner's
hearing, sent by his father, with the sum of 150
pounds in gold, to the Bank, but never went there and never returned. The money was in a canvas
bag, tied up. At 2 o'clock the youth was seen walking towards Stratford in the company of the
prisoner. At a quarter to 3 the prisoner and
the youth went into a shop near the Victoria Station of the London, Chatham, and Dover Railway,
and the prisoner purchased for the youth a pair of trowsers, and for himself a coat (giving the
youth his own), paying for the articles out of
money in a bag he ha, and which appeared, the
witness said, to contain a considerable sum. The youth, as the witness said, appeared to be in a very nervous state, and the prisoner said he had
"gone to the bad," and that he was desirous of
giving him a chance. Between 9 and 10 in the
evening the prisoner was with the youth at Ramsgate, a place with which he was familiar, as
he had been in the service of a butcher there.
There the prisoner bought some collars and a tie
for the youth. Th prisoner soon after asked a witness if he could have a bed at his house, and was told that he could if he was in at 11. About
half-past 10 the prisoner was seen in the company
of the youth, and that was the last time the youth
was seen alive. At 12.20 that night the body of the youth was found on the sands beneath the cliff
near Sir Moses Monteifiore's seat, where the cliff
is 80 or 90 feet high. He was dead, though the body was still warm, and the appearance showed that death had been caused by the fall. The body was found about eight or ten feet from the base of the cliff, just across the line of high tide,
but the clothes were dry, so that the water had not touched it. The tidetables showed that the time of high tide that night was eight minutes
to eleven, but as there was a strong easterly wind high tide would be earlier, and would have
reached the height at half-past 10, but the water
would have been kept back from the shore. At a few minutes past 11 the prisoner was seen by a
coastguardsman on the cliff alone near Sir Moses
Montefiore's seat. He then said he had missed his friend, but did not ask the coastguardsman whether he had seen him. Next morning at 6 o'clock he was on the sands and saw a man who had been told that a dead body had been found beneath the cliff, and had been shown the spot, and
he asked where Sir Moses Montefiore's seat was, and added that it had been a favorite walk of his
at one time. Here was then told that a man had
fallen over the cliff on the night, and he said, "My friend and me were out, and I lost him." The
witness said, "It could not be him surely," to which he replied, "I hope not, for he had a lot of
money about him." Witness said, "If I were you I
should see the police, and ask them to let you
see the body if it is he," and he said "I will;"
but never went, and, on the contrary, went at once
off by the railway. He said to another witness
in the train," I have not been long in Ramsgate, but long enough to see a man who had fallen over
a cliff." To another witness he said, "I heard
early this morning that a man had fallen over the
cliff, and went to recognize him to see if he was
my mate, but it was not." In point of fact, he
never went to see the body, and never saw it. On the Sunday the prisoner went to town, and early
on the next day, the Monday, he was at his residence, not far from the house of his employer,
who had given him a notice of leave, which would
expire on the Thursday, but in whose service he
still was. Having been seen in the company of the youth, the father went to him and asked him,
"Where is my son?" The prisoner answered, "I have
not seen him since he left home," and he continued to deny having seen him until the body
was recognized. He said he had slept at a certain
house in Dalton, which was proved to be untrue.
On the Wednesday, the father went down to Ramsgate, and recognized the body of his son. At 7 o'clock on that day the prisoner became aware of this, the police who had arrested him saying to him that the charge against him might be more serious than robbery, as the body had been found under the cliff, and he said, "It looks black
against me, as no money was found upon the body,"
and he afterwards said, "I took him to Ramsgate on
Saturday night. I have denied all knowledge of him up to now, for I did not want to get myself
into trouble: the boy said he wanted to go on to Ramsgate cliffs; I advised him not to do so at night, but we went, and were there abouth half-past 10, and then I lost sight of him."
Mr. Biron, in opening the case for the prosecution, said there could be no doubt that the prisoner had been a party to the robbery
by the youth of the money, and he suggested that he had the design of getting hold of the money for himself and getting rid of the youth, who
otherwise might inform against him. He pointed
out that when they were at the clothier's at Victoria the prisoner had the money in the bag, and the youth was trembling, as was natural enough, having just made up his mind to rob his
father. He painted out, also that the prisoner entirely redressed the youth, causing him to put on new trousers, &ct., and also to put on his own coat and this, he suggested, was in the hope that the body, if found, might not be recognized by the description of the dress, &ct. supposing it
was not (as perhaps the prisoner hoped) carried out to sea. The prisoner, he observed, was acquainted with Ramsgate and the cliffs, and probably aware of the time of the tide. And he suggested that all the circumstances, and especially the unturths told by the prisoner, pointed to the conclusion that he had taken the youth on the cliff with the intention of getting
rid of him, so as to secure himself in appropriating the money, and that he had done so by pushing him suddenly over the edge of the cliff.
Evidence at great length having been given in support of the prosecution, the case was, at
6 o'clock, adjourned till Monday."
The TIMES (Tuesday, July 25, 1882, page 4, col.d):
The Assizes
South-Eastern Circuit.
At Maidstone, yesterday [Monday, July 24, 1882], before Sir H. Hawkins, the trial of the man Walter for the murder at Ramsgate of Charles
Wagner, a youth of 17, on Saturday, the 1st of
April last, was resumed. As the close of the
evidence for the prosecution, the prisoner's
counsel intimated that he did not intend to call
any witnesses for the defence (except as to character), and
Mr. Biron then summed up the case for the
prosecution, suggesting that the prisoner had tempted and induced the youth to rob his father, and having got possession of the money, had taken
him up the cliff and pushed him off, to order to get rid of him. The case started, it was clear,
with a bases and heartless robbery on the part of
the prisoner, for no one could doubt that he was privy to it, and few could doubt that tbut for the incitements of the prisoner the poor boy would not have committed it, and would been now alive. He pointed out that about 3 in the afternoon - that is, about an hour after the boy had taken the money away - the prisoner had the
money, and it became necessary to get rid of youth
in order to secure the spoil, and also secure
himself by getting rid of the boy, who might
otherwise inform against him. It might, perhaps,
be suggested that he could have easily given the
lad the slip and got away, and so he might; but
then he would have been in fear of detection and pursuit, for the boy was no hardened offender. He already, on that very afternoon, and all through the journey, showed signs of compunction, and it was certain that when the prisoner left
him and went off with the money, he would have gone back to his father and told the story, and there would at once have been a hue and cry after
the prisoner, and he would probably have been
taken, whereas by pushing him off the cliff, the
prisoner hoped he had got rid of him for ever,
and that the body would be washed out to sea.
There could be little doubt, therefore, that the
prisoner had taken the lad down to Ramsgate, and had taken him on the cliff with the object of thus
getting rid of him. Certainly they were on the cliff together at half-past 10 at night, and at
11 o'clock the prisoner was seen there alone and the lad was gone. It would be suggested, probably, for the prisoner, that the lad fell over after half-past 10 or a quarter to 11, and at a later time, when the prisoner was by himself,
and if that could be shown, no doubt the case for the prosecution would bail, but how could that be
shown? If the prisoner had not seen the lad go
over, how could his conduct and demeanour be accounted for? THe two coastguardsmen saw him at a quarter to 11 standing on the edge of the cliff just at the spot, looking towards the sea. If he had, indeed, lost the boy, and had not seen him go over the cliff, why did ne not ask the men
about him? His own story was that he knew the
cliffs were dangerous, and had cautioned the youth
as to the danger; but there was no danger to any grown-up person in his senses by daylight or bright moonlight - there was no danger unless a person stood quite on the edge of the cliff. It was idle to talk of danger or accident; but if a
person were standing a foot or two from the edge nothing was easier than to give him a push and send him over. It would perhaps be suggested that the coastguardsmen must have seen them, but they did not see the prisoner (who certainly was
there), being engaged in conversation. It would be suggested that the prisoner, who knew Ramsgate and knew the cliffs, ran a dreadful risk. No doubt; but no murder ever yet was perpetrated which did not involve a risk; and probably if criminals were wise crimes would not be so often found out, and indeed, crimes would not be
committed. But the act was the act of a moment,
at night, in the darkness of the corner of a wall,
in the hope that the body would soon be carried out to sea; only one of those unforseen circumstance which so often embarrassed, and
sometimes detected, criminals, caused the tide to be earlier and kept it from the shore, and so the body was not reached by it. The prisoner, after doing the act, had left the place without waiting
to see the body, thought he had told a witness that he should go to see whether he could identify
it, and he went at once off by the railway, and then he told a number of falsehhods which could have had no nature of object, except the conciousness of guilt.
Mr. Kemp, Q.C., then addressed the jury on
behalf of the prisoner. He avowed, he said, a
certain amount of anxietyon account of the prejudice which unfortunately attached to the
prisoner, not from the conduct of the prosecution
(which had been conducted most fairly), but by
reason of the prisoner himself, who had not only told lies, but had certainly been party to the boy's robbery of his father, himself intending to share the spoil. He felt that, as the counsel for the prosecution had said, he had, to start
with, committed a hearless robbery. But a thief was not necessarily a murderer, and if the jury could only get rid of the prejudice against the
prisoner, he did not despair of convincing them that the case for the prosecution on the charge of murder failed. That theory was that the prisoner had taken the youth away with the intention of getting rid of him. No doubt they
started together; but the theory of premeditated
murder failed. The prisoner knew Ramsgate, it was
true, but he was also known at Ramsgate, and there were other places where there were cliffs equally steep, and where he was not known. Yet of all places in the world, he took the youth to
Ramsgate, where the prisoner was well-known, and
where his having some one with him would be noted.
The prisoner purchased the youth new clothes, and
it was suggested that this was with a view of preventing identification by means of the dress;
but surely that was hardly probable or reasonable.
Was it probable that he bought new clothes for the boy with the intention of murdering him?
He shad said they were going to Paris - certainly
they were going away; and he was making provision for a journey. Again, he had gone to see an acquaintance and asked after a bed for himself and then went to another person asking if he could be accomodated with a bed. Surely these
circumstances showed not premeditaion and a design to murder, but the absence of it. Could the man be such a monster as to go about the murder with such coolness? The conciousness of a design of murder must have distured his mind. But of this there was no trace in the conduct or
demeanour of the prisoner before the fatal event.
Then the dreadful nature of the act suggested --
done in a bright light, the light of a bright moonligh -- under the watch of coastguardsman, almost in their presence -- probably the most dangerous spot that could have been selected for the act. The event might well have happened by accident. There was a strange fascination in the danger which often led visitors to go close to the edge of the cliff and look over. It might well have been that the youth did this and fell over; and there was the mark of the heel of a boot a few inches below the edge. If the boy had been pushed the impulse would have been given on the upper part of the person, and the heels would have been thrown up; but there was the mark of a
heel as if the foot had slipped, and the heel was marked with chalk. So, again, the body fell upon the feet and that looked more as though the youth had slipped over the cliff. It had been suggested that the duration of high tide had been altered by the east wind, but that had not been
proved. The time for high water was eight minutes to 11 according to the tide tables, and all that the coastguardsman could say was that by the wind the tide was a little earlier than that.
But it might have been very little earlier, and if not, it might have been proved, and it had not been proved, that the duration of high water was altered. The body must, it was said, have gone over about five minutes to 11, and it lay across high water mark. If so, it must have been wet, but it was not; therefore it must have gone over after five minutes to 11, and at that time the prisoner was seen alone on the cliff. It was admitted that if the prisoner was alone before the body went over, the case for the prosecution failed, and surely the evidence showed that he was so, for he was seen alone at five minutes to 11 and the body could not have gone over until after that. At the time -- five minutes to 11 -- he spoke to the coastguardsman and courted identification. No doubt he had told lies, but they were told under a conciousness of the robbery, not of a murder. That accounted for his
not not going to the mortuary and making inquiry of the police. It accounted for the falsehoods he had told; it accounted for everything in his conduct and demeanour which was pressed against him. It was for the prosecution to make out the prisoner's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and he
begged the jury not without deliberation to come
to a fatal conclusion, and invited them to take a merciful course, which would relieve them from all chances of self-reproach.
Evidence was then given as to the character of the prisoner. Two witnesses who had lodged with
him stated that he was married, appeared fond of
his family, and was quiet and harmless.
The learned JUDGE then summed up the case to the jury with great care. It was the case for the prosecution, he said, that the prisoner and the lad were on the cliff at half-past 10 or a little later. The prisoner said he "lost" the lad there. Was that true? It was a bright
moonlight night, and the ground was open. If the lad had gone hastily to the edge of the cliff and
had fallen over it might have happened suddenly, but it was some distance to the spot beneath
which the body was found. If he "lost" the lad
why did he not call out for him? Why did he not inquire for him? He did not appear to have endeavoured to find him, but to have left the cliff.
At about ten minutes past 2 the jury retired to consider their verdict. At 20 minutes to 4,
after an hour and a half-s deliberation, they came back into Court, and their foreman being asked what was their verdict, pronounced the
verdict of NOT GUILTY, adding, "we give him the benefit of the doubt."
The prisoner was then discharged."
Something went wrong in the trial that the
coverage in the Times just does not explain. There had been a solid case against Walter when
he was indicted by the coroner's court, that
did not successfully translate to that jury at
the trial.
My suspicion is that the business about the
tides, which seems somewhat complicated, may
have turned off the jurors, for it became the
cornerstone for the speech of Walter's barrister. But if one thinks about it, it is
still a weak cornerstone. Indeed, the overconcentration on the tides takes away from
other matters - especially the clothes, the choice
of Ramsgate, and the actual relationship between
Charles Wagner and James Walter.
Let's start with Ramsgate. Mr. Kemp very rightly
admitted that Walter knew Ramsgate, and then said
that he was well known in Ramsgate. This was
never shown. He was known to some people in
Ramsgate, such as his old co-worker Hobbs. But
not everyone would know a man who worked there
once as a butcher. Usually, people who are celebrities or important are well known in towns
and cities, not people who once worked there
(in Walter's case, over half-a-dozen years before). But more important, why are the pair in Ramsgate? Charley was 17 years old, and usually resided in West Ham. Was he familiar with Ramsgate? Was he well known in Ramsgate? It
doesn't seem that way. They are presumably in
Ramsgate because Charley has been talked into it
by Walter, and Walter has some motive to bring
him there. I doubt it was to introduce Charley
to Hobbs, or to buy him a tie and new collar.
More likely it was to kill Charley, and the way
to lure Charley to Ramsgate was to say that it is
a good take-off spot for France. [By the way,
Kemp mentioned the trip to France quickly but
avoided some problems about it: Why was Walter
going to take Charley to France? There are also some other messy questions involving this and
Walter's so-called good family life.]
In discussing the matter of the tides, Kemp
dismissed the idea of the purchase of the clothes as a disguise for the body of Charley. Actually, in the 1880s, there would have been nothing
preposterous about it at all. There was no extensive modern forensic labs as we know them...at least not in England (France was way
ahead on this). They had no DNA testing for
identification, and nothing like a fingerprinting system (even Bertillion had not developed his
anthropomorphage system in 1882). Moreover, there is an intriguing additional piece of information that Mr. Biron, the prosecuting barrister, mentioned. When Charley and Walter went into the clothing store of Mr. Thwaites, Walter bought a coat for himself, and gave his coat to Charley. If it was solely to get new clothes, he could have bought them both coats. But by giving Charley his coat, was Walter pusing the murder
plot one step further?
If the plot was to throw Charley off the cliff at Ramsgate, at high tide, so that his body would be washed into the sea, then (hopefully) it would never be recovered. But suppose, as an added
precaution, the corpse was wearing James Walter's coat! If, after a few days in the sea, it was a bloated corpse, then identification would be based on the clothing, and if it is a new pair of pants, and a coat identified as Walter's, the
authorities and Mr. Wagner (and Walter's wife and family) would think it was his corpse, not Charley's. As a result, if a hue and cry occurred, the public would be seeking Charles Wagner for theft, and possibly for murder. James Walter could just disappear into France or any other country.
Finally, there is the intriguing detail of a blissful homelife for Walter. Not much is told about this. But if it was so good, why was
Charley so willing to take Walter's word about taking him to France? What was behind this peculiar decision to steal the 150 pounds and
go to France? If Charley and Walter had a homosexual relationship, where does that leave that blissful homelife that Kemp talked of?
One might think that the actions of Walter, in
returning to West Ham from Ramsgate, suggests a return to a contented home. Actually we can;t
be sure about that. Having killed Charlie, he
had sought to find out if the corpse floated out to sea. Instead, he realized by 6 on Sunday morning that Charley was dead, but his corpse was intact, not damaged an unidentifiable, and in
the hands of the Ramsgate authorities. To remain in Ramsgate or head for France would be useless (the French police would return him quickly, and his fleeing would increase public belief in his guilt). It was better to try to return to normal. He just forgot that he had been too
visibly with Charley for an entire day to disappear into the background.
It was not until the 20th Century that defendants in English murder trials could opt for testifying at the trials. The first to do so was Robert
Wood, a talented illustrator who may or may not have cut the throat of one Phyllis Dimmock in Camden Town in 1907. In 1882, James Walter was legally unable to testify in his own behalf. If he had been able to, maybe the prosecution would have gotten answers that would have solidified their case. Or maybe (like Robert Wood) Walter's testimony would have proved his innocence. Whatever happened to Charley Wagner, Walter's
never had an opportunity to testify and settle
these issues. His jury may have been right to
give him the benefit of the doubt, but only just
so. My suspicion is that he killed Charley in
a very clever scheme, that only missed being
perfect due to a badly misjudged high tide at
a cliff.
Jeff |
Author: Christopher T George
Sunday, 08 July 2001 - 07:39 am | | Hi, Jeff!
The beginning of your post seems to indicate that you don't think people read this thread, or were you being facetious?  I read your posts, and I am sure others do as well. They provide a fascinating sidelight on the times and on another crime almost contemporaneous with the Whitechapel murders. I thank you for posting these details.
Incidentally, the reports in The Times indicate that Charlie Wagner was found next to the southern boundary of Sir Moses Montefiore's property at Ramsgate.
Sir Moses Montefiore (1784-1885) was the most famous British Jew of the nineteenth century. Born in Leghorn, Italy, he was brought up in London. First apprenticed to a firms of grocers and tea merchants, he left to become one of the broker in the City of London.
In 1803 at the age of 19 he became one of the twelve Jewish brokers licensed by the City of London and was allowed to have a seat on the London Stock Exchange. He married Judith Cohen, sister-in-law of stockbroker Mayer Anschel Rothschild. Montefiore's firm acted as brokers for the Rothschilds, which made him wealthy. His personal wealth enabled him to retire from the Exchange at the age of 40 and to devote himself to communal and other interests. He was among the founders of the Imperial Continental Gas Association which extended gas lighting to the major cities of Europe. He was a fellow of the Royal Society, was elected sheriff of the City of London in 1837 and was knighted by Queen Victoria when she ascended the throne that year. He received a baronetcy in 1846 in recognition of his humanitarian efforts on behalf of the Jews. For forty years, from 1834 to 1874, he served as president of the Board of Deputies of British Jews.
Montefiore was so well respected that when visited Russia in 1846 he asked the authorities to stop persecution of the Jews. He also visited Morocco in 1863 and Romania in 1867 for the same purpose. Montefiore's physical stature (he was 6 ft. 3 in. tall), together with his background and his philanthropy, made him highly respected and admired in England and abroad. His 100th birthday in 1884 was a public holiday in Jewish communities around the world. Sir Moses died on July 28, 1885. The Lord Mayor of London spoke of him as "the most distinguished citizen of London" and that he left behind him a memory "which will long be cherished in many lands."
For more information on him, see http://www.montefiorefever.com/montefiore%20history.htm and http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/biography/montefiore.html
East Cliff Lodge in Ramsgate, Kent, became the home of Sir Moses and Lady Judith in 1831. After Sir Moses' death, the house eventually came into the possession of the town. During World War II, soldiers were billeted in the mansion. The house was demolished in 1954. The George VI memorial Park occupies its site. See http://www.montefiorefever.com/THE%20RAMSGATE%20YEARS%20OF%20SIR%20MOSES.htm Although the mansion is gone, the Lodge, stables, and servants quarters remain. as well as a Synagogue and Mausoleum that Sir Moses had built. The Lodge was recently purchased by Mr. Martin Braun who intends to turn it into a museum dedicated to Sir Moses and his wife Lady Judith Montefiore.
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: Jeff Bloomfield
Sunday, 08 July 2001 - 03:13 pm | | Dear Chris,
A little facetious at the beginning.
It is good to see that some attempt is being made
to make a Montefiore museum on the estate grounds.
To bad the mansion is gone though. I wonder if
his personal papers are still around.
Best regards,
Jeff |
Author: Christopher T George
Sunday, 08 July 2001 - 04:28 pm | | Hi, Jeff:
It appears that some of Sir Moses' letters remain but others were destroyed. The following comes from an article by Barry D. Walfish on "The Hovevei Zion Tribute album presented to Moses Montefiore on the occasion of his 100th birthday" on the web at http://www.ifla.org/IV/ifla66/papers/094-174e.htm
". . . after Sir Moses' death, chaos reigned in his estate and unconscionable things were done to his archives and other records. Much of his personal correspondence was destroyed by his private secretary Louis Loewe, after he had published what he felt to be the most important letters among them. Of the 2000 letters of tribute presented to him on various occasions, only about 400 remain. Most were destroyed. When the Montefiore Library was transferred to Jews' College many items seem not to have made it."
Thus it remains to be seen whether any letters relating to the body of Charlie Wagner being found near Montefiore's property remain. It does seem, though, that Jews' College, now part of the University of London, would be the place where Sir Moses Montefiore's papers are kept.
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: Jeff Bloomfield
Sunday, 08 July 2001 - 08:59 pm | | Alas, Chris, the old story of papers being destroyed or lost. Not that Sir Moses's papers
would have told us much, but they might have
mentioned the investigation in passing.
Best wishes,
Jeff |
|
|
|
|
