Free The Cretingham Murder by Sheila Hardy Page B

the widow. He found her ‘seated by the fire in one of the front rooms and her demeanour gave little indication of the terrible excitement she must lately have undergone.’ Describing the appearance of the house as gloomy in the extreme, he added the further touches that all the blinds in the house were drawn and the body still rested on chairs.
    The reporter did not make clear if it was Harriet Louisa herself who was the source of the information that she had written to Arthur’s father on Sunday evening, even going to the length of sending the letter to be posted in Brandeston to make sure that it caught an earlier post than it would from Cretingham. This snippet was another example provided to show her behaviour not matching expectation. How could the ‘grieving widow’ find the strength to write to the father of her husband’s murderer? Was this not, the article seemed to imply, carrying Christian forgiveness just a bit too far? However, it allowed the reporter to impart other information, namely that Arthur had received a letter from his father who was expected to visit him at the police station on Wednesday.
    In addition, for the titillation of readers, was the revelation that Mr Bedwell of Brandeston was making the coffin which, in view of the vicar’s size, was taking rather longer than usual. The report finished with the comment that at the Magistrates’ Court it was ‘not likely that examination will be allowed to diverge as it did before the coroner into matters of village scandal through the pertinacity of one juryman.’ In this respect, the journalist got it wrong.
    On Wednesday, the Revd William Gilbert-Cooper did indeed arrive in Framlingham to see his son. The visit was described as being distressing, Arthur having reacted violently to the sight of his parent. And once his father had left, he was said to have ‘indulged in a number of strange antics, playing with his pocket-handkerchief.’ It was also said that he had threatened self-destruction and was so emotionally overwrought he had been unable to sleep. No one doubted that ‘the poor fellow’s mind is completely unhinged.’

5
    THURSDAY 6 OCTOBER
1887
    The courtroom in the little town of Framlingham was packed. There was, we are told, even ‘a fair sprinkling of females’ among the spectators. Such was the wide interest in the case that apart from the twelve reporters representing national and county newspapers, the powerful Pall Mall Gazette had sent an artist to make sketches during the proceedings. Unfortunately, none of these was printed.
    This was a special session for the court, one which had caused immediate concern for the local magistrates who usually served as members of the Bench. With the majority of these gentlemen being clergymen, it was questioned if it were not injudicious for clerics to preside in a case involving not one, but two, of themselves. Eventually four lay gentlemen were called for duty that day. Led by the chairman, F.S. Corrance, others were well-known local dignitaries, Col Barlow, C. Austin and J.B. Chevalier.
    The case for the prosecution was presented by H.K. Mosely of Ipswich while for the defence, the Gilbert-Coopers had instructed George Dering of Messrs Woodhouse & Co. of Lincoln’s Inn.A further London barrister, C.E. Machen of Southampton Street, The Strand, was present to ‘watch the case’ on behalf of the widow.
    Perhaps because the inquest had been given so much space, the Magistrates’ Court hearing did not receive such detailed coverage. Despite his lack of sleep the previous night, all the press reports commented on Arthur’s initial composure and the fact that he answered ‘Not Guilty’ to the charge in a clear voice. Thereafter he sat quietly with his arms folded.
    The Dover Express (14 October) gave the following: ‘Mr Mosely for the prosecution related the particulars of the murder. He said the law presumed malice in such a case and it was not for him to suggest a motive but there