Cambridgeshire Murders (23 page)

To ascertain the extent that the divorce may have had on Tebbutt's state of mind, his solicitor Albert Alexander was called. He explained that the first Mrs Tebbutt had brought the proceedings and, although Mr Tebbutt had entered a defence, he had not contested them. Tebbutt had not been happy at the amount and terms of the settlement.

It seems that Tebbutt had no real grounds for withholding either the £300 annual maintenance or the associated securities, although Alexander admitted that the amount had been calculated ‘rather by default' and that ‘certain papers were not filed and the information before the [divorce] court was not complete'.

On the subject of the size of the settlement the coroner also asked whether it would have left Tebbutt with sufficient funds to maintain Meads End. Alexander explained that it had left Tebbutt needing to delve into his capital to make it possible. He had been trying to get in touch with his client to persuade him to hand over the securities. The last time he had seen him he had warned him that a writ of attachment was about to be issued and that this could result in Tebbutt's arrest.

A four-day notice had already been served on Tebbutt and there was no excuse for him not to have obeyed the order. Evidence heard later in the day showed that the writ would most probably have been executed on Monday 30 May.

Alexander's opinion of Tebbutt's temper corresponded with the statements made by other witnesses; he had been quick to anger, but equally quick to cool off. Alexander had also helped to draw up Tebbutt's will, which made careful provision for Williams and Tebbutt's two young sons.

The will had been discovered among Tebbutt's personal effects and included a codicil that which had been added on 15 May 1932. Perhaps because Tebbutt seemed to be avoiding his solicitor, it was not Alexander who had been the witness to the change.

Mr and Mrs Martin, the steward and stewardess at the Constitutional Club, had witnessed the addition. Martin stated that Tebbutt had seemed quite normal and had remarked that it was only fair to ‘fix things up' for those that came after him. The codicil made provision for Betty Williams in addition to the provision he had already made for his own two children.

The
Cambridge Daily News
printed a couple of paragraphs relating to Tebbutt's temper, the first was purportedly the observations of ‘a member' of the Constitutional Club who observed that Tebbutt was a man ‘who got every pleasure out of life but of late had developed a rather uncertain temper'. Tebbutt apparently ‘always carried a revolver and would often flourish it, even when he was in business at Messrs Bailey and Tebbutt's brewery'.

This was followed by the following paragraph: ‘An example of Mr Tebbutt's temper was shown recently when a person called in connection with the divorce proceedings and not only had a dog set on him but water thrown from the first floor window.'

Alexander's opinion of Tebbutt seemed at odds with this; he thought the household at Meads End was normal and that his client seemed like a caring family man with nothing but good things to say about Williams and the children. From Alexander's knowledge of Tebbutt the described action seemed totally out of character.

When Wootten summed up he said that it was clear that Tebbutt had shot the others before turning the gun on himself and that a man who carried unlicensed firearms was likely to be a danger, both to himself and to others. Wootten also accepted that the divorce and outstanding problems with the settlement could have preyed on Tebbutt's mind, although he felt that there was nothing in his current living arrangements that seemed likely to have driven him to such drastic action. Addressing the jury he said: ‘I am going to ask you to say that the said Herbert Charles Tebbutt did feloniously and wilfully and with malice aforethought, kill and murder the said Helen Margaret Williams, Elizabeth Rosemary Williams, Michael Charles Hazeldene Tebbutt Williams and Anthony Richard Hazeldene Tebbutt. It is also for you to say that he subsequently committed suicide by shooting himself. I think perhaps you might mercifully say in this case he did it while temporarily insane.' The jury did not retire and were happy to agree with the coroner's assessment of the case.

The funeral of all five took place on Monday 30 May at the borough cemetery in Newmarket Road, Cambridge. Tebbutt was buried first without a chapel service and only a short service at the grave. Alexander and a few friends attended, leaving two wreaths and a lily cross at the grave.

For Williams and the children there was a chapel service where just close friends and family were admitted. The mourners included Helen's brother, George Jenks, and his wife. Two girls from Betty's school attended and brought a simple wreath. The four coffins were taken to a different part of the cemetery from Tebbutt's. Florence Southgate followed the children's coffins and cried throughout. Michael and Dickie were buried in one grave, while Williams and Betty were buried together in a third grave.

There is nothing to suggest that the verdict from the inquest was in any way incorrect, but since this type of crime has gained more attention so has the understanding of what motivates fathers to commit these rare but terrible crimes. The fact that Herbert Tebbutt went about his business in a seemingly normal and responsible way was used by the inquest as an indication that he had not planned to kill the family but did so during a ‘brainstorm'.

It could be argued that the opposite is true: it is not uncommon for suicides to put their affairs in order and the amendments to Tebbutt's will could have been put to use if one of the children had in fact survived.

Tebbutt's seemingly normal behaviour was also no indicator; many fathers who have killed in this way have done so after successfully repressing their fears and stresses until they feel their problems have grown too large to cope with and equally too complex for it to be worth confiding in anyone else.

As close as Tebbutt appeared to be to Williams he may have felt that his dwindling assets and the lifestyle adjustment that his poor change in fortune was beginning to indicate were a threat to their relationship. She had been upset at leaving Little St Bernards and it had been he who insisted on moving the family to Meads End; it is therefore reasonable to assume that the possibility of losing Meads End and moving the family for a second time was extremely hard for him to contemplate.

Home Office statistics for 2001 showed a 40 per cent rise in the number of children and teenagers killed since the previous twelve month period, most of these deaths occurred in domestic situations. These figures were inflated by a significant rise in the numbers of fathers killing their children, (filicide
¹
or familicide),
²
and, in the United States, figures show that on average the country has fifty cases of familicide per year.

Recent research has uncovered the following trends that apply to fathers who commit familicide. They are:

Caucasians in their 30s or 40s.

Bad at handling stress.

Possessive of their families.

Often depressed or drunk.

Controlling.

Often kill with a knife or gun that they have owned for some time.

Believe that their families are completely dependent on them.

Although some people perceive these crimes as largely a modern phenomenon it is clear from the case of Herbert Tebbutt that he fitted the profile. Fathers who commit these acts are often under the illusion that they are doing the best for all concerned. We will never know what was going on in Tebbutt's mind, but for the reader this must be a case that echoes with the most needless waste of life.

Notes

1 Filicide is the murder of a child by parents.

2 Familicide is the murder of an entire family.

O
n 9 March 1935 Sybil Emily Worthington died. But there was never any question that anyone except her husband, Walter Osmond Worthington, had killed her. After an inquest, trial and unsuccessful appeal Walter Worthington became the last Cambridgeshire man to be executed: on 10 July 1935 he was hanged at Bedford gaol. The grounds for his appeal, and the mystery which endures to this day, was whether he had meant to kill her or, as his defence had argued, had he just intended to kill himself.

Sybil Worthington (née Parker) was born in June 1907 and was from a large family from Streatham, London. She worked in Bruton Street, London for Norman Hartnell, the rising star in the world of couture. His most famous creation was the gown worn by Queen Elizabeth at her coronation in 1953.

One of her sisters, Bertha, was married to John Churchill Wright and they lived in Broughton, Huntingdonshire. They ran the village shop and later also took over the Crown pub next door. It was during a visit to her sister that Sybil met a local widower, Walter Worthington. He was thirty years older than her and had lived in Broughton for about five years. Worthington was originally from a village between Southend-on-Sea and Wickford in Essex but his first wife and one of their thirteen children were buried in Broughton.

After a brief courtship Sybil and Walter were married by the vicar of St Anne's, South Lambeth, in November 1933 and moved to Broughton to live at Worthington's home, The Meads. Three of Walter's children also lived there with them – teenagers David and Ronald and 4-year-old Bobby.

Sybil, new to the area, initially spent much time at her sister's pub, the Crown, which was just a few hundred yards from her home. Also living at the pub were Mr and Mrs Wright's son, Lionel, 22, who worked as a local omnibus driver and Mr Worthington's youngest child, aged 5. Lionel had lived in Canada for a while and returned to England in September 1933, in time to attend the wedding of Sybil and Walter. The first visit he made to The Meads was soon after the wedding but, as he was not made to feel welcome at the house, he did not visit again until a comment from his father prompted him to go.

The Worthingtons rarely went out and even their children were very secretive about their home life. As 1934 progressed the Wrights had seen less and less of Sybil, and Bertha, who had always been close to her sister, became concerned. On 17 December that year Mr Wright visited the Worthingtons to find out whether there was a problem.

The Meads at Broughton.
(Author's Collection)

Sybil appeared to look very ill; she was pale and haggard with heavy black shadows under her eyes. Mr Wright asked her if she had been unwell. Worthington replied on her behalf saying that she was quite healthy. Sybil though stayed silent and so Mr Wright asked why she had not been to see her sister for almost six months. But again it was Walter Worthington who spoke: ‘I will not allow her to come,' he said.

When Mr Wright asked why this was the case Worthington continued: ‘I won't let her come because Lionel is there.' Worthington claimed that Lionel had insulted Sybil in the week after their marriage; but he would not say what it was. Wright decided that he would send up his wife and son to sort it out.

Bertha and Lionel visited the next day but when they arrived at The Meads Worthington denied having said anything to Wright. Worthington walked across the room and picked up his shotgun and held it in a ‘threatening manner'. When Lionel told him to put it down he did. At that point John Wright arrived to tell Lionel that someone was waiting for him and the family departed.

Another of Sybil's siblings was soon to intervene in this increasingly unhappy marriage. Ivor Parker's family had made a visit to Broughton over Christmas and Sybil went to the Crown to see them off. Ivor walked her home and, when they arrived back at The Meads, he complained to Worthington that Sybil was not being treated well enough. His understanding was that Worthington had accused his wife of being seen home by a farm labourer on a previous night. In actual fact it had been Ivor and his wife who had walked her back home.

Worthington replied: ‘I know old man. I am so fond of her. That makes me very jealous.' He went on to admit that he had treated her badly and did not know why he had forbidden her to go the Crown to see her sister.

Ivor suggested that John Wright could go to The Meads to pick her up and, after she had visited, drop her off again. Worthington agreed to this. Ivor refused to shake hands with Worthington however, and said he would only do so when he was convinced that his sister was once again living happily.

Sybil did restart her visits to the Crown but it was evident that her home life had not greatly improved. In January 1935 she stayed with the Wrights for a week. Whether Sybil and Lionel were genuinely close or whether Walter let his jealousy towards the younger man spin needlessly out of control is not known. Lionel always denied an affair between himself and Sybil, but what is clear is that Walter became obsessed with the idea that his young wife was being unfaithful with other men. The primary focus of his concern was directed at his wife's nephew.

Lionel bought a motorcycle on 8 January 1935, and the idea that Sybil may have gone out on it became a preoccupation of Walter's. Lionel later swore that he had never taken Sybil out on it.