Cambridgeshire Murders by Alison Bruce Read Free Book Online Page B

congealed blood, Ashby had declared ‘he’s not dead, he’s tipsy’.
    William Harrison had worked for Waterhouse as a labourer for nine years and observed that both purse and keys had been left on the body and therefore the motive seemed to be revenge rather than theft.
    A villager named Sarah Leach stated that she had heard a conversation connected to the case: another villager, Mrs Heddings, had remarked that on the Sunday before last her husband had noted that Waterhouse’s servants had all left him and that he should not be surprised if he cut his throat ‘before another Sabbath day’. Mrs Heddings was summoned from her bed at midnight. She denied any such conversation and had no suspicions of anyone.
    The inquest was adjourned to the following afternoon. The parishioners had no great respect for Revd Waterhouse, and by the time the inquest reconvened at 5 p.m. on Wednesday afternoon suspicion had fallen on William Heddings and Joshua Slade. However, each produced a witness confirming that they had worked in a hay field during the whole of Tuesday. Heddings’ wife was recalled but again denied stating that her husband had alluded to Waterhouse’s death before it had occurred.
    Other witnesses were called. Anne Elby was walking near the Horse Shoes at Great Stukeley when she saw a man passing from the rectory towards the road. He headed towards the tunnel that joined the two Stukeleys, then disappeared. She arrived at the Swan at Little Stukeley at exactly eleven o’clock. Two further witnesses, Mr Francis and Mr Woods, investigated this sighting and stated that on examining the tunnel their only discovery was of footprints made by shoes with large nails in the soles.
    In his summing up the coroner concluded that person or persons familiar with both the rectory and Waterhouse’s habits had committed the murder and that the motive was one of jealousy or revenge. The jury returned a unanimous verdict of ‘wilful murder against some person or persons unknown’.
    The alibis of the two suspects were closely scrutinised. William Heddings firstly came under suspicion because he had been convicted of burglary in 1823. His sentence had been commuted to three years’ imprisonment in the house of correction, but after twenty months his good behaviour had secured his early release. He returned to find that his wife had been willed a house and some money, leaving them financially secure. Despite these improved circumstances he soon returned to crime, and although he had so far avoided being caught it was well known in the village that, along with brothers John and Joshua Slade, he had been the perpetrator of numerous burglaries. Despite this, he soon proved to the coroner that he had been working in Huntingdon since the previous Sunday, and that on the Tuesday in question he had been employed by a Mr Maile to mow a field near Huntingdon.
    Joshua Slade’s alibi at first appeared to be equally watertight. He had been drinking at the Swan public house until one or two o’clock on Tuesday morning and from there had travelled to Godmanchester to invite his married sister to Stukeley feast. He had visited two other public houses, the Horse and Jockey, in Huntingdon, and the Rose and Crown, in Godmanchester. Apart from that he had remained at his sister’s house for the whole day, returning to Little Stukeley at seven in the evening. His sister voluntarily offered a statement to corroborate his story, and Slade was released without charge.
    On the Friday following the murder John Richardson, a constable of Hunt-ingdon, apprehended Slade in order to check his alibi and accompanied him to both the Rose and Crown and the Horse and Jockey. It soon became obvious that Slade’s story was a fabrication. Before long his brother-in-law, Joshua Rowledge, also retracted the statement his wife had made. Slade then amended his story, claiming that after leaving the Swan he had spent