It was noticed that Hadfield was in an excitable condition and his hands were shaking badly. He then took the police upstairs – to the very place he had just come from – and showed them a heap of clothing in a bedroom. Something had been burning. Hadfield told them, ‘You may find a body under there.’ Sure enough, a foot could be seen portruding and once a blanket had been lifted up, the back and shoulders of a body could be seen. Hadfield seemed to be surprised and cried, ‘My God! There it is!’

By the body were two postcards. Hadfield told PS Whapham, ‘These are the two postcards I sent her. I want you to take charge of them as they will show you what I came here today for.’ One was postmarked 7 July and the other for the following day and they both concerned letting a house. These seemed to be above board. Yet Detective Inspector Baker found another postcard in the bedroom. This was also from Hadfield, but was bloodstained. It was undated. There was a blurred fingerprint on it, of a thumb which had a scar on it. Hadfield’s left thumb was similarly marked. Copies of the Daily Express for 7–9 July were found behind the doormat, whilst one for 6 July was located in the woman’s bedroom, this pointing to 6 July being the day of the murder.

The widow had last been seen alive in her back garden on Monday afternoon, 6 July, by Mrs Alice Colledge, a neighbour. According to initial medical estimates, she had died between then and 8 July. Sir Bernard Spilsbury was called to examine the body, which was, of course, that of the late widow. He found numerous stab wounds on her back and neck, amounting to fortysix in all. There was also a bruise on her head and he surmised that she had been knocked unconscious and then repeatedly knifed. The item used to hit her was a heavy ornament which was found in the sideboard cupboard. Death would have resulted in fifteen minutes. He thought death could have occurred on either 6 or 7 July. The weapon used was not a penknife, but a weapon similar to a sailor’s jack knife.

There was also an examination of the house. It seemed that the killer was probably known to his victim, because there was no sign of forced entry, on either the windows or doors. Nor was robbery a probable motive because sums of money were found throughout the house, and there seemed to have been no search for any valuables in the house. Under the wardrobe were ten £1 notes and other money and money orders to the value of £208. In the kitchen, a handbag contained £2 in notes, plus silver and bronze. Possibly the crime was caused because the killer wanted to destroy something which might incriminate him, as there was evidence that a pile of papers had been burnt, and these were found near to the body.

Police called at Hadfield’s house, on 13 July, when he did everything he could to assist them. They were shown his clothing, including his cycling breeches and stockings, and his mackintosh. He told them that the breeches might show traces of creosote, as he had been creosoting the fence recently.

He emerged as the leading suspect. There was certainly some evidence against him. First, Mrs Florence Dickinson, of Bedford Road, Twickenham, had been waiting for a bus on Hampton Road on 6 July and heard a noise in Mrs Mordaunt-Chapman’s house. She then saw a man nearby, who was cleaning something, but she could not make out his features. When she returned from her journey, an hour and a half later, she saw the same man coming out of the house by the side gate. She later identified him as Hadfield, whom she had seen before at his shop in Whitton. When seen in July 1936, he was wearing knee breeches and had a bicycle. She also saw him there on 8 and 9 July, but her identification of him may have been mistaken. A neighbour, Mrs Elkins, had seen Hadfield knocking on the door on 8 July, but received no reply. Hadfield denied he had been near the house when Mrs Colledge claimed he had.

As to motive, it was shortly ascertained that in July 1935, Hadfield borrowed £550 from Mrs Mordaunt-Chapman, at 5% interest, but he assured the police that he had kept up with the interest payments.

There was some other evidence against Hadfield. Firstly, his relationship with the dead woman was strained at times. Letters from him were located. Some extracts from them read as follows, ‘I am very much surprised at your treatment. I have always been loyal to you.’ Another read, ‘I am worth my weight in gold to you the amount of money I save you.’ Yet another read ‘Why you wrote that scandalous letter I cannot imagine.’ Another read, ‘Let me find you in a better frame of mind tonight or there will be fireworks.’ These comments suggest that Hadfield saw Mrs Mordaunt-Chapman as a difficult woman. Whether his annoyance at her perceived treatment of him could have led to violence is another question.

It is also worth noting Hadfield’s remark about the victim, ‘I don’t know of anyone who she would even speak to, she was very eccentric.’ He was perhaps the only person she saw regularly. The police made the following conclusion, ‘He was the only person, as far as we can gather, who was ever admitted to the house. Of recent years and certainly he is the only person who had knowledge of this woman’s habits and intimate affairs.’ They thought Hadfield was guilty. It should also be wondered why Hadfield was at the house on Thursday

– his usual visiting day was Monday. This was never explained and perhaps it was because, if he was guilty, he wanted to be on hand when the police arrived.

A man’s bicycle was also seen outside the house on 6 July, at 1.10 pm, by William Humphries, a dustman. He said it was the same type as Hadfield’s. Moreover, a milkman claimed he saw the figure of an adult in the house at 5am on 9 July.

The police deemed Hadfield to be a ‘cool, calculating individual … a man of patience and ability’. Other assessments of his character varied. One said, he was ‘of quiet disposition and very honest’. A business rival thought differently, ‘He seemed to be of very unfriendly nature’. The police concluded that the killer was either a lunatic or someone who had quarrelled with the deceased and that, ‘The latter assumption appeared to be the more reasonable.’ They had little doubt over whom that individual was.

The case for the prosecution opened at Brentford magistrates’ court on 5 August and from then Hadfield was sent to the Old Bailey for trial a month later. However, both the prosecution and the judge concluded that there was insufficient evidence to proceed. The jury agreed with them and so Hadfield was found to be not guilty. A crowd of well wishers congratulated him, and he and his daughter took a taxicab home.

Although the police were convinced that Hadfield was guilty and one remarked after the trial, ‘I think he is a very lucky fellow,’ Hadfield would not let the matter rest. He began writing letters to Scotland Yard about the police’s incompetence in failing to catch the real killer and in trying to pin the crime on him. For instance, in January 1938, he wrote, ‘I am naturally personally concerned at hearing nothing of any effort to discover the perpetrator of this crime, you will admit I am sure, my right to be anxious, as I have been made to suffer and spend my savings to save my life, through the stupidity and inefficiency of your so called detective officers.’ Hadfield named a neighbour as the guilty party, a man whom Mrs Mordaunt-Chapman was ‘at daggers drawn’. But he was questioned and found not to have been involved. The police had to endure visits from Hadfield, but soon became annoyed by him and ceased to receive him, believing no good would result from these calls.

Another person accused was Mrs Hickling, of East Kirby, Nottinghamshire. In September 1938, one Cyril Harris claimed he was at Mrs Mordaunt-Chapman’s house on 3 July and he said he saw the woman stabbing the widow to death. He was an inmate of a mental asylum and his claim was not taken seriously.

Her brother knew of no enemies of her sister. Albert and John Davies, farmers in Wales, inherited her money as next of kin. It eventually added up to £14, 635 8s after the estate had been resworn, but there is nothing to suggest that they killed to obtain it.

Whether Hadfield was rightly acquitted is another question. Certainly on the available evidence, it was right that he was given the benefit of the doubt, but circumstantial evidence is strong. Firstly, the killer had to be someone well known and trusted by the victim. Given that she had no known relatives or close friends in London, except Hadfield, this narrows down the number of suspects to him. Secondly, because nothing of monetary value was either taken or even searched for, the killer was evidently not a burglar. Hadfield had a financial motive: being in debt to her, and his character was none too good; and relations between them were strained at times. Perhaps there was someone else who had dealings with the victim, but as to who that was, we have no clue. Or perhaps Hadfield did kill her, then telephoned the police and made sure he was on hand at their arrival, to point out to them evidence that he had tried to call on her, unsuccessfully, in previous days. Yet for all the circumstantial evidence against him, there is no direct evidence, so whilst he may have killed her, the truth will never be known.