The Cretingham Murder by Sheila Hardy Read Free Book Online Page B

‘Isn’t he alive?’
    After the formalities regarding the superintendent’s need for time to complete his enquiries, a remand in custody was requested. The clerk then asked Arthur if he had any cause to show why he should not be remanded on the charge. To this Arthur responded with ‘I don’t think there is any charge made out. I am not aware that Mr Farley is dead.’
    Granting a remand for three days, the magistrate cautioned Arthur to say nothing until the proper examination took place. He then enquired of Supt Balls if the prisoner’s friends had been informed. On learning that this had been done, the magistrate, who, as a member of the local clergy may well have met Arthur on social occasions, then asked him if there was any particular friend he wished to be informed. Arthur said there was no one, adding, ‘I don’t know anything about it at all. I am not aware, as I said before, that Mr Farley is dead; I don’t think he is.’
    ‘But,’ Mr Martin, the magistrates’ clerk responded, ‘We understand that he is dead and you are charged with the murder.’ ‘I don’t think he is,’ Arthur persisted.
    John Martin gave up and reminded Arthur that the best advice had already been given to him, namely to say nothing until the next hearing. That was then set for 11 a.m. on the coming Thursday.
    In Cretingham they were preparing for the inquest. Before the formal proceedings were opened at The Bell Inn, at that time situated opposite the church, those who were to form the jury were summoned to the village clubroom which stood in the vicarage grounds. Here twenty-two men from the surrounding area were sworn in ( see Appendix for list). Samuel Stearn, a small farmer and pig-breeder from Brandeston, was elected to act as their foreman. The all-male jury was a mixed group, mainly farmers with a sprinkling of craftsmen; blacksmith, builder, wheelwright, miller and an innkeeper. Most were of middle age. It was unfortunate that two pairs had the same surname and since forenames or initials did not always appear in the press reports, there is, for example, no way of knowing when we come to the inquest, which Mr Juby it was who adopted the aggressive line of questioning.
    The presiding coroner was Mr Cooper Charles Brooke whose first task was to lead the jury into the vicarage to view the scene of the crime. In the vicar’s bedroom the ‘horrible gash in the victim’s throat was exposed’. (Something that has puzzled me was Farley’s full beard. Two photographs show it to be long enough to touch his collar bone. It was never made clear if it had been trimmed before his death. If it had not and if Farley had been lying on his pillow at the time of the murder, how had Arthur been able to find his victim’s neck with such accuracy?)
    The bloodstains on the carpet which showed the position in which Mrs Farley had found the body were also inspected closely. The jury noted too the padlock which fastened the intercommunicating door before moving on to look at the curate’s room. This too, had been left untouched, so they were able to see for themselves the rumpled bed which suggested that Arthur had been tossing from side to side.
    Having completed their examination of the premises, the coroner and jury moved on to The Bell Inn where Major Heigham, the Chief Constable, the witnesses and the gentlemen of the Press and as many others as could squeeze in had already assembled.
    One can imagine the hush when Arthur was brought in by Supt Balls and Sgt Bragg. He was still wearing his clerical garb topped by a thick overcoat and a round soft hat. He failed to remove his hat and one of the police officers took it off for him. We are told that he was given a seat among (beside?) the jury. Although at first he seemed somewhat bemused by it all, after a while he appeared to be taking an intelligent interest in the proceedings.
    The first witness was, naturally, the widow. Most of the newspaper accounts were to comment on how calmly