Katherine and Church came to an agreement that he would pay her £68 for the furniture and goods, giving her £18 on account. The day for the removal of these items, which included iron bedsteads, carpets, chairs, looking glasses, book cases, sofa, couch and other household goods, was Tuesday 18 March. Church brought a van around with some workmen. Mrs Ives made enquiries, ‘What are you doing with those goods? The workmen explained that they were taking them away to be sold. She then said, ‘You cannot take the goods. Mrs Thomas has taken the house for a term of years, and we are the owners. Where is Mrs Thomas?’ The men asked for Katherine, who, not suspecting the nature of their enquiry, came into Mrs Ives’ vision. Mrs Ives addressed her, ‘This is very strange moving your mistress’ goods. Where is Mrs Thomas?’ This puzzled the workmen, who had been led to believe that Katherine was Mrs Thomas. Katherine told Miss Ives, ‘Mrs Thomas has sold the things and this man can show you the receipt. Mr Westcomb is to take them to Hammersmith.’ She was evasive about where Mrs Thomas was.

Katherine did not stay around for much longer. That day she returned to the Porter’s house, where she had left her son a few days ago. Taking him and borrowing a guinea from Mrs Porter, they took a cab to Hammersmith station and then a train from there to King’s Cross station. They then travelled from there by train to Liverpool and on 21 March the two reached Enniscorthy in Ireland. She announced that she was the widow of Captain John Webster and that she had lost four children.

Meanwhile, other discoveries of a disturbing nature were being found near Richmond, though at first no connection was made between them and Katherine Webster. On 5 March, Henry Wrigley, of Mortlake, a coal porter, was walking by the towpath near Barnes. He saw an unusual sight, as he later recalled:

I saw a box in the Thames about 6.45 am on Wednesday, March 5, on the lower side of Barnes Bridge – the tide was not ebbing from the top of it – it was half afloat – it had a cord twice around it, across – I kicked it and broke it to pieces – the handle was off, I believe – I went to the station and fetched someone, leaving a man named Kerrison in charge of it … before I went I saw a lot of what looked like cooked meat inside it – it was quite full.

PS Tomas Childs arrived to take charge of the box, and he reported that the contents of the box seemed to be human remains, each piece wrapped in brown paper. Clearly murder had been committed. He called Dr Adams, of Barnes, who briefly examined them. He concluded that these mutilated remains belonged to a woman aged between twenty and thirty, judging by the brown hair on an armpit. The CID and the divisional police were informed and a search was made along the Thames near Barnes to see if anyone was missing. It transpired that a young German woman employed as a servant had recently left her post in East Sheen and had not been seen since. She was also known to have had a box like the one in which the human remains had been found. This supported Dr Adams’ theory about the age of the victim. There was an inquest at the Red Lion Hotel on 10 March, which was adjourned for a week.

Other body parts were found in the following days. On 12 March, Edward Shaw found the remains of a human foot in a dung pile and two weeks later the police found a carpet bag with burnt bones, a chopper and female clothing. However, no head was ever found and the body was never definitely identified, as is the case when a body is chopped up and never wholly located – there was a similar case in 1873 when parts of a female body was found in the Thames (detailed in the author’s Unsolved Murders in Victorian and Edwardian London).

Eventually, Thomas Bond, a lecturer in forensic science who was also employed at Westminster Hospital, was brought to the mortuary to see the remains (in 1888 he examined a number of the victims of Jack the Ripper). He made a rather more thorough examination and came to radically different conclusions than Dr Adams. He concluded that the remains were those of a short middle-aged woman, and that the body had been sawn into pieces by someone with no anatomical skill.

Meanwhile, on 19 March, Church returned to Park Road and tried to talk to Miss Ives, but she slammed the door in his face. In the meantime, the clothing taken from the house was examined by Church. He found a letter addressed to Mrs Thomas from her friends, the Menhennicks, in Finsbury, whom he informed on 21 March, as well as telling them about his dealings with Katherine. They passed this information onto Mr Hughes, Mrs Thomas’ solicitor. Hughes made enquiries in Richmond and was told that this client of his had not been seen for three weeks and there had been great commotion in the house in the past weeks. He contacted Inspector John Pearman of the Richmond Police, who was already investigating the case of the human remains found in the box in the Thames. He became very suspicious.

Pearman and Hughes found out about Church and searched his premises on 22 March, finding rings belonging to the missing woman, as identified by the Menhennicks. Church told them about his transaction with Katherine. That same day they then went to Mrs Thomas’ house, and were given access by Miss Ives. Leaving Porter and Church outside, the other two entered. Pearman later explained:

We found everything in great confusion – the furniture packed up, and bed linen and wearing apparel packed up in three large boxes, which corded. The carpets were up in the three back bedrooms, while the dining room and drawing room carpets were partly turned up at the sides of the rooms. There was no one in the house.

Some of Mrs Thomas’ jewellery was found in the house. Next day, the police heard Robert Porter’s tale of helping Katherine with a box. On 24 March, Pearman returned to Park Road. He went to the basement to search the scullery and the kitchen and made a number of sinister discoveries, as he explained:

I searched the ashes under the kitchen grate and found a quantity of charred bones and some burnt buttons of a woman’s dress … I found more charred bones, these being in the copper furnace … taking the copper out of the brick work, I found, half way down, a fatty substance adhering to the sides … I found what appeared to be a bloodstain on the wainscot of the room called the long bedroom.

He took samples of his finds away, and also found a chopper and a knife, but not a saw. He also found Mrs Thomas’ diary with a comment about giving her servant notice to leave. Furthermore, a letter was found addressed to Katherine from her friends in Ireland, giving their address – so the police now knew where to go to find her.

Inspector John Dowdell was despatched to Ireland to apprehend Katherine Webster. He was joined by Inspector Jones and together they made their way from Dublin to Wexford. She had been detained by one William Roche of the Irish police already and on 28 March he had the wanted woman in his custody. He told her she would be charged with murder, but she did not reply. Mr Robinson, a magistrate there, made out a warrant for her to be committed to Richmond magistrates. Her uncle, a small farmer, did not accept her son, so he was committed to Enniscorthy workhouse. The two policemen went back to England with their prisoner by ferry to Holyhead. She said to him, ‘Is there any other person in custody for the murder?’ They did not reply, so she added, ‘There ought to be; the innocent should not suffer for the guilty.’

Her story concerned Church, whom she said she had known for seven years and was seeing a great deal of. He talked of killing Mrs Thomas and selling her goods. On 3 March she said he visited the house and Katherine left. On her return she said she saw Mrs Thomas dying, having been stabbed to death by Church, who threatened to do the same to her if she breathed a word to anyone. In subsequent days they disposed of the body and began to sell the goods. The police seemed to have been impressed with the story.

The magistrates in Richmond began to examine the case in the Vestry Hall on 31 March. There was great local excitement about this case and crowds gathered around, but few could gain admittance into the court room. Katherine was described thus:

The woman was pale, but she was firm and self possessed, with no trace of excitement in her demeanour. She has no characteristics of a criminal in her face, and, though not handsome, is not ill-looking. Her jacket was of shabby cloth, trimmed with imitation fur, and her dress of the material and cut usually favoured by respectable servants. Her hat was stylish and out of keeping with a servant’s position.

She was charged with murder and robbery, but because of her statement to Pearman, Church was also accused. The hearings at Richmond continued for several days as all the witnesses gave evidence. The case of the prosecution was that Mrs Thomas was last seen alive on 2 March, and that Katherine had killed her on that day. She had then boiled down the body, chopped it into pieces, and had packed it up. On 4 March she enlisted the help of the Porters to try and dispose of the body in the Thames. This had only been partially successful, for although the remains in the bag had not been found, and never were, those in the other box were enough. She then proceeded to sell the dead woman’s belongings.

Eventually, Church was cleared of all charges because nothing could be found to substantiate any of the claims made against him by Katherine. She, however, was committed for trial at the Old Bailey. She had remained calm and resolute throughout the whole proceedings. She was sent to Clerkenwell gaol in the meantime. As with the examinations in Richmond, the case at the Old Bailey in July proceeded for several days. Her defence argued that there was no definite proof that the human remains found in the river were those of Mrs Thomas, and if she could not have been proved to have been deceased, Katherine could not be charged with her murder. It was also said that even if they were her remains, there was no way of knowing how she had met her death – it could have been accidental, not murder. A witness gave evidence of Katherine’s good character, a woman stating how ‘loving and motherly’ she was towards her little son. Yet, the weight of the evidence was such that Katherine was found guilty and so sentenced to death. She then claimed she was pregnant, but upon investigation this was found to be untrue.