On 31 October 1908, twelve-year-old Edwin Richard Haskell of Meadow Road, Fisherton in Salisbury went to bed at about ten o’clock at night. Edwin was disabled, having only one leg, but, in spite of his physical handicap, he was a cheerful boy who managed to play football and do all of the things that most boys of his age could do, although with the aid of crutch. However, it was Edwin’s dream to buy himself a cork leg and, to that end, he saved every penny of his pocket money. Neighbours had taken pity on the boy and had contributed heavily to the fund and Edwin had amassed more than £8, which he kept in a box in his bedroom.
With Edwin tucked up in bed, his mother Flora, a widow, seized the opportunity to slip out to the shop, leaving her son alone in the house. She was gone for only fifteen minutes and had just returned home when her nephew, Percy Noble, called at the house. When Percy knocked on the back door at about half-past ten, he heard a loud thumping noise then his aunt shout out, ‘Stop that man; he has murdered my Teddy.’ Percy immediately ran to the front of the house, where he met his aunt who had run through the house and out of the front door, screaming loudly.
Her frantic cries brought a number of her neighbours out of their houses, none of whom saw any signs of a fleeing stranger in the dark street. One neighbour, Walter Steer, ran off down the road in the direction in which Flora was pointing and, as he turned the corner into York Road, he spotted two men standing by a public house. He knew one of the men by sight and asked him if he knew his companion. When the man said no, Steer followed the stranger for some distance, but, since he could still hear Flora screaming hysterically, he eventually abandoned his pursuit and went back to help her. He rushed into the Haskell’s house, seizing a lantern on his way and climbing the stairs. He found Edwin Haskell lying dead in his bed, his throat slashed from ear to ear and his bedclothes soaked in blood. Steer called out to ask someone to summon a doctor and the police.
When the police arrived, Flora Haskell told them that just as her nephew had knocked on the back door, she had heard a thumping noise coming from Edwin’s room. Suddenly, a strange man ran downstairs and out through the front door, throwing a knife at her as he made his escape. Flora was able to describe the intruder as being between thirty and forty years old, 5ft 6in tall, clean-shaven and dressed in a dark suit and a collarless shirt. He wore a light cap and may have also had a light overcoat.
Having collected a bloodstained knife, which lay on the floor at the bottom of the stairs, the police immediately launched a search for the man using bloodhounds and borrowing bicycles from members of the public to enable them to search further afield. However, only two days later it became obvious that the intensive manhunt was being scaled down. The bloodhounds were sent back to their kennels at Shrewton and the borrowed bicycles were returned to their owners. Mark Richardson, the Chief Constable of Wiltshire, enigmatically announced to the press that their inquiries into the murder of Edwin Haskell were now being chiefly confined to the neighbourhood of the crime.
The boy’s funeral took place on 4 November, his coffin followed by twelve of his classmates from the Fisherton elementary school, each carrying a posy of white flowers. Numerous local dignitaries sent wreaths including Lady Hulse, Lady Tennant and Sir Walter and Lady Palmer, the former Member of Parliament for Salisbury and his wife. Salisbury Football Club also sent a wreath and there was another with the message ‘In ever-loving memory of darling little Teddy from his loving mother and grandma.’ At half-past ten that evening, his ‘loving mother’, Flora Fanny Haskell, was arrested, charged with the wilful murder of her son.
Richardson himself made the arrest, accompanied by Superintendent Stephens of the Wiltshire County Police and Chief Inspector Dew of Scotland Yard, who had been called in immediately after the murder to assist the local force with their investigations. Flora Haskell, described in the contemporary newspapers as ‘a frail woman’, could only repeat the words ‘No, no, no’ on her arrest.
An inquest into Edwin’s death was opened at the Council House, Salisbury under City Coroner Mr S. Buchanan Smith. The first person to give evidence was John Stanley Wyatt, an assistant at the Co-operative Society Stores in Salisbury. On the night of the murder, Wyatt had tried to deliver a parcel to Mrs Haskell’s neighbour, but had found nobody at home. He had knocked at Flora Haskell’s door at about twenty-five past ten and asked her to take in the parcel, which she agreed to do. According to Wyatt, Flora Haskell appeared calm and collected and there was nothing unusual about her appearance.
Gertrude Steer had visited Flora at about 9.45 p.m. to deliver a coat that she had made for her. She too noticed nothing abnormal. Gertrude’s father, Walter, was the neighbour who had found Edwin dead in his bed. He told the inquest that, having heard Flora screaming, he had rushed outside and immediately run in the direction in which Flora was pointing and saying ‘man round the corner’.
Having heard evidence from the investigating officers, the coroner’s jury delivered a verdict of wilful murder against Flora Haskell and she was committed for trial at the next Wiltshire Assizes.
Salisbury in the 1920s. (Author’s collection)
Her trial opened at Devizes on 15 February 1909, presided over by Mr Justice Ridley. Mr Foote KC and Mr Parr prosecuted, while Mrs Haskell’s defence was conducted by Mr Rayner Goddard and Mr Schuster.
One of the biggest issues of the case was the timing of the events of 31 October. It had now been established that delivery boy John Wyatt had actually seen Flora at 10.17 p.m. rather than, as first thought, at 10.25 p.m., when, according to him, she had been completely normal in both appearance and behaviour. The prosecution maintained that the murder had been committed between 10.25 p.m. and 10.30 p.m. Shortly afterwards, Percy Noble had come to the back door of the house and heard first a thump, then a scream. Flora Haskell’s frantic shouts had sent him straight back to the street to summon help.
The kitchen sink was close to the back door and the prosecution suggested that Flora had had more than enough time to rinse the blood from her hands between first speaking to Noble and running screaming out of the front door shortly afterwards.
It was pointed out that after the intruder had run downstairs and left the house, throwing the knife at Flora on his way out, she had made no real attempt to either follow him herself, or even to go upstairs to check on her son. The first person to go up and see Edwin had been Walter Steer and that had been after he had followed the strange man for some time. In fact, nobody had checked to see if Edwin were alive or dead, although Flora had told several people that Teddy had been murdered by the time Steer had confirmed that fact. The bedroom in which Teddy was sleeping had appeared in perfect order, with nothing disturbed – with the obvious exception of the dead child lying in his blood-soaked bed.
The knife that had allegedly been thrown at Flora Haskell was a sharpened table knife, taken from her own kitchen. In addition, Flora had a great number of bloodstains on her blouse and skirt – far more than would have been expected from simply having a knife thrown at her. A bloody handkerchief had also been found in her pocket, although Flora insisted that Edwin had cut his head and the handkerchief had become stained when she had wiped the blood from the wound.
When the police arrived at her house after her son’s murder, Flora had said nothing about her son’s savings, only thinking to ask if they were still in his room at 3.30 a.m., some five hours after the murder. According to her, there should have been £8 2s in the tin where the money was kept, but police found only £3 10s. In her initial statements to the police, Flora had mentioned a man who, on the day before Edwin’s death, had asked her for lodgings. It was also discovered that a Mr Mold had, on occasions, stayed with Flora at her home, although no suspicion of any involvement with Edwin’s death was attached to him.
Percy Noble and his father, Alfred, told the court that Flora was always affectionate and loving towards Edwin, although Alfred did state that Flora had told him that she was contemplating marrying again.
The court next heard from a succession of residents of Meadow Road who had responded to Flora’s hysterical screams. The first, dairyman Thomas Rawlings, also related that Flora had always appeared very fond of her son and seemed to be a good mother.
Emily Sweetman had noticed that Flora Haskell had a small scratch on her nose immediately after the murder, but was sure that it was not bleeding. On the following day, Emily had asked Flora if it had happened when the man threw the knife at her but had been told that Flora had caused the scratch herself with her ring.
William Golding, one of the first police officers on the scene, had sat on a chair outside the kitchen at Flora’s house all night. While there, he had allowed Flora’s mother, Mrs Carter, to sweep the floor of the kitchen and hallway and to wash the hall floor. Golding told the court that he had understood that this would be all right as long as nothing was done upstairs. ‘I think it was a great piece of folly to do that,’ remarked the judge.
The court then heard from medical witnesses. Dr Wilkes, the first doctor to attend, was at the scene within minutes of being called and was of the opinion that Edwin had been killed only about a quarter of an hour before his arrival. The boy’s throat had been slashed and his windpipe cut, injuries that would, in Wilkes’ opinion, have taken considerable force to inflict. Wilkes testified that Flora had leaned over and kissed Edwin after he had finished his examination of the boy, but stated that her clothes had not come into contact with any blood in the boy’s bedroom.
Dr Rowe and Dr Kempe of Salisbury corroborated Wilkes’ evidence. The final medical witness was Professor Pepper, an expert on bloodstains and adviser to the Home Office. Pepper had examined Flora’s clothes and believed that the blood found on them could not result from a knife being thrown at her. He pointed out that some of the stains were elongated and were more likely to have been caused by blood dropping onto the clothes from some unidentified object or by a spray of blood projecting from a wound.
The last witness called was a police matron who told the court that, while in custody, Flora Haskell had said, ‘If I did it, I do not remember it.’
Mr Foote, for the prosecution, simply stated that there was no doubt that the boy was murdered and that Flora Haskell and her son were alone in the house when the murder occurred. He reminded the court that nobody had seen anyone either at the house, leaving the house after the murder, or out in the street.
The defence counsel, Mr Goddard, having called no witnesses, then addressed the jury. The prisoner had always been most affectionate to her son and the crime, if done by her, must have been done on impulse. The prosecution, said Mr Goddard, had shown absolutely no motive whatsoever for the murder and, in effect, the only evidence that they had that Flora had committed it were the bloodstains on her clothes. After summarising the medical evidence for the jury in detail, Mr Goddard insisted that it in no way amounted to proof of guilt. He therefore suggested that the only reasonable verdict for the jury was one of acquittal.
It was left for Mr Justice Ridley to sum up the case. He reminded the jury that the only point they really needed to consider was whether or not there was any person in the house other than Flora Haskell and the victim at the time the murder was committed. Although Flora had consistently said that there was a strange man present, he had never been traced, in spite of the fact that every conceivable effort had been made to find him. Percy Noble’s evidence was the key to the case, said the judge. He reiterated the point that Flora Haskell had said that Teddy had been murdered before anyone had even been upstairs to check. The murder weapon belonged to the accused and bloodstains were found on her clothes, although the judge urged the jury to treat the medical evidence with caution. No blood had been found on Flora Haskell’s hands, which the judge said was a point in her favour. However, according to the prosecution, when Percy Noble knocked on the door, his aunt could well have been washing her hands in the kitchen sink.
Finally, the judge instructed the jury to exercise ‘reasonable minds’ on the evidence that had been presented to them. Bearing in mind that Flora Haskell had absolutely no memory of committing the murder then if the jury had any doubt about her guilt, they must acquit her.
The jury retired, returning three hours later to inform the judge that they were unable to make a decision. The judge asked if more time for deliberation would help, but the jury were adamant that they could not agree. This left Mr Justice Ridley with no alternative but to declare a mistrial and dismiss the jury. He ordered that Flora Haskell should remain in custody and face a new trial at the next Wiltshire Assizes.
The second trial opened on 2 April at Devizes, this time presided over by Mr Justice Darling. Most of the witnesses from the original trial repeated their testimony, but there was also some new evidence that had emerged in the intervening months. Miss Haskell, a sister-in-law of the defendant, had been unable to testify at the first trial. She now stated that Flora had spoken to her about her intentions to marry again and that she had also admitted ‘borrowing’ some of Teddy’s savings to pay the rent, adding that she hoped to be able to repay it. Miss Haskell insisted that Flora had been a good mother to her son, as indeed did every single witness who testified at both trials.
Neighbour Thomas Rawlings spoke of some bloodstains that he had observed on a tablecloth downstairs. At the judge’s request, Rawlings arranged a table, the cloth and three chairs as he had seen them in the defendant’s home on the night of the murder. According to Rawlings, he had specifically pointed out the stains to the police superintendent in attendance, but the officer had seemed uninterested.
More medical witnesses were called and gave their opinions that Edwin’s death had been caused by a single stroke of a knife across his throat, the assailant standing by the boy’s head, either just above or just below him. In the former position, whoever had killed Edwin would have been in the direct line of the spray of arterial blood from the wound.
Pepper repeated his evidence that the stains on Flora Haskell’s skirt and blouse could not have been the result of a knife being thrown at her in passing. William Golding again tried to justify allowing the downstairs floors to be washed in the aftermath of the murder, saying that he didn’t consider that it was his duty to prevent it.
The counsels for the defence and prosecution then delivered their closing speeches, with the prosecution insisting that there had been no other person present to murder Edwin other than his mother and the defence resting on the complete absence of any motive for the murder, coupled with the numerous assertions heard in court that Flora Haskell was a good, caring, loving mother to the boy.
Mr Justice Darling then summed up the case and, if the contemporary news reports of the trial are to be believed, his summary was somewhat biased in favour of the prosecution. The judge first commended Mr Goddard on defending the prisoner with ‘remarkable ability’, then appeared to refute almost every aspect of the defence.
It was suggested, said Darling, that there was a man who committed the murder – but who was that man and what was his motive for killing Edwin? No money had been taken and no man who bore any ill will towards the victim had ever been found. How did Flora Haskell know that someone had killed her son before she went upstairs to check? The defence had suggested that the blood on Flora’s handkerchief came from the scratch on her nose, but this was pure conjecture since Flora had never mentioned the scratch in any of her statements.
Mr Justice Darling seemed puzzled as to why Flora Haskell had not been called to the stand. Ordinarily, he said, he did not make this kind of remark, but if the prisoner could have given explanations, now was the time to make them. An opportunity had been lost by not calling the defendant to testify.
However, the jury eventually returned a verdict of ‘Not Guilty on the grounds of insufficient evidence’. Flora Haskell was discharged and left the court to a background of loud cheering.
Looking at the facts of the case, as reported in the newspapers of the time, it does indeed seem strange that Flora did not give evidence in court. Why did her defence counsel, Mr Goddard, make the decision not to call her? Was he afraid of what she might reveal under cross-examination by the prosecution? Or was he not totally convinced of her innocence? Who could possibly have had a motive for killing Edwin?
Miss Haskell and Alfred Noble both testified that Flora had discussed her intentions of marrying again with them. Whoever her intended future husband was, he does not appear to have been called as a witness in court – was it possible that he wanted to marry Flora, but didn’t want the additional responsibility of a disabled child? Did Edwin stand in the way of her marriage plans? Whatever the reason for his death, the murder of Edwin Richard Haskell remains unsolved.
[Note: Some contemporary sources give the date of the murder as 1 November rather than 31 October. Flora Haskell’s middle name is sometimes shown as Fanny, sometimes as Annie. As the 1901 census records a Flora F. Haskell residing at her address, I have used Fanny, even though Annie is more commonly used.]