The Chieftain: Victorian True Crime Through The Eyes of a Scotland Yard Detective (12 page)

The chopper was promptly sent for forensic analysis to Dr Henry Letheby, Professor of Chemistry at the London Hospital, who later appeared as a prosecution witness. Meanwhile, Köhl, who had no legal representation and who clearly had failed to understand much of the day’s proceedings, was again further remanded in custody until 19 November. The prisoner was then heard to say: ‘What for then I come to-day? Why you not settle and I go away?’
¹¹²
There then followed a conversation between the prisoner, the magistrate and Superintendent Howie in which the magistrate commented that ‘it is a great pity he has not got any legal assistance’.
¹¹³

For a day or so prior to the hearing on 12 November, Clarke had probably been distracted by having to deal with Baron de Camin’s intervention into the Briggs murder case, but on 14 November (the date of Müller’s execution) he was again actively involved on the Plaistow Marshes case.
¹¹⁴
There was still work to be done on the motive for the murder, and on Köhl’s alibi, as well as further confirmation of the identity of the victim. On this last point, Captain Harris, an assistant commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, had been in contact with the police authorities in Hamburg and had just received information that ‘George Führhop … brother of Theodore C. Führhop … declared that by the description received … he undoubtedly recognises his brother’.
¹¹⁵

Between 14 and 16 November, Clarke investigated the large number of pawnbroker receipts that he had found in Köhl’s clothes and at Köhl’s house on the night after the body had been discovered. The detail that materialised from Clarke’s visits to the pawnbrokers was presented in evidence later at the magistrate’s hearing on 25 November and at the Old Bailey trial. In short, the majority of items pledged had been taken into the pawnbrokers by Köhl and his wife using lightly disguised versions of their names. But to whom had these items originally belonged? This aspect would take further work to disentangle. Clarke had one apparently reliable witness, Elizabeth Warren, at whose house Führhop had first stayed when he arrived in London. She had a reasonable knowledge of Führhop’s effects as he had asked her to look after some of his things, and indeed she was able to identify some, but not all, of the pawned items as having belonged to Führhop. Führhop’s relatives would presumably have more knowledge of his possessions, but they were all living in Germany. Finally, and as pointed out in one of Howie’s reports to Mayne, with one exception, all the receipts were for items pawned before Führhop had been murdered. Had Führhop therefore intended them to be pawned or was he unaware that they had been?

Literally and metaphorically, Clarke already had the key to help answer some of these questions – it was the unusual key that he had found in Köhl’s pockets in Stratford Police Station on the night of 8 November, which proved to be the key to Führhop’s boxes.
¹¹⁶
Clarke and Howie had also realised that they had some important potential witnesses amongst the family of Köhl’s wife, Hannah. As early as 16 November, Howie commented to Mayne that ‘from what I have seen of the wife of Köhl and her relations I am inclined to think that they are more likely to assist the prosecution than to aid the prisoner in a defence’.
¹¹⁷
That was to prove to be the case. Clarke had already heard from the women, Mary Wade and Eliza Whitmore, that, on the night of 3 November after Führhop had gone missing earlier that day, Köhl went up and broke into Führhop’s boxes using a poker after expressly asking his wife’s cousin, Joseph Skeldon, to go with him. Skeldon later confirmed, as a prosecution witness, that he had seen that the two boxes broken into contained very few items, only a few collars and some old clothes, which would be consistent with the increasing evidence that Köhl had pawned several of Führhop’s belongings well before 3 November.
¹¹⁸
Köhl accounted for the almost-empty boxes as evidence that Führhop had left, taking most of his things with him. The reason why Skeldon had specifically been asked to accompany Köhl to break into the boxes was now seen by the police as a ploy to disguise the earlier removal of Führhop’s clothing if, as they had concluded, Köhl had acquired the key to Führhop’s boxes early in October.

Other members of Hannah Köhl’s family, her mother Esther Williams and her brother Thomas Williams, eventually gave evidence for the prosecution, stating that Köhl was always short of money and that he had either borrowed money from them or had obtained money from them through Hannah. Esther Williams confirmed that ‘he never did any work after his marriage with my daughter. He never repaid me any of the money that had been borrowed.’
¹¹⁹
So Köhl had been unemployed since returning from Germany, was financially hard-pressed and had directly and indirectly tapped his in-laws (and others) for cash on several occasions. By asking around the shopkeepers in the immediate area in Plaistow, the police team also unearthed at least one shopkeeper who had seen Köhl with more money than usual on 5 November.
¹²⁰
It was looking increasingly likely that theft was the principal motive behind Führhop’s murder and, as with the other evidence, the finger pointed directly at Köhl.

Between 17 and 26 November both the inquest and the magistrate’s hearing were resumed. At the inquest on 17 November the evidence that had emerged from the witnesses Mary Wade, Eliza Whitmore and Joseph Skeldon was presented; about the muddy state of Köhl on 3 November and his opening of Führhop’s boxes on the same day. The other significant new information for the jury came from Clarke – whose evidence on the pawned items had previously been deferred – and from a new witness, John Atkinson, who reported finding a clasp knife about 20ft from the location of Führhop’s body on 9 November. The knife had subsequently been identified as belonging to Köhl, by Mary Wade, who also stated that she had seen Köhl using it at his home as recently as Sunday 6 November. When the inquest was again resumed for the final time on 23 November, Köhl appeared before the inquest jury for the first time, and Dr Letheby of the London Hospital presented the findings of his forensic analysis of the chopper and of Köhl’s clothes. On the chopper he had found wool fibres from clothing, blood (though he was unable to confirm that it was human blood) and human skin; on the clothes he had also found some drops of blood. After the coroner’s summing-up, the inquest jury concluded their deliberations with a verdict of wilful murder, against Köhl.
¹²¹

The magistrate’s hearing was concluded two days later at Ilford Gaol, with a similar outcome. For the first time Köhl was represented by legal counsel and the prosecution was led on behalf of the Crown by Hardinge Giffard. The most interesting new witness was Mary Cooper, who had come forward to say that she had seen Köhl near the reed bed on Monday 7 November, the day before the body was discovered. The potential implication of this evidence was that this could have been the day on which the head was removed from the body. Satisfied with the prosecution case, the chairman of the magistrates committed Köhl for trial at the next sessions of the Central Criminal Court, ‘for the wilful murder of Theodor Christian Führhop’.
¹²²

Following this satisfactory outcome as far as the police were concerned, Superintendent Howie produced a summary report of the case for Mayne and for the Treasury Solicitor’s Office. There had been some investigation of Köhl’s German background, which confirmed that he was a native of Splietau near Dannenberg, and had returned from Germany to Britain on board the ship
Berlin
in company with Führhop.
¹²³
During the next few weeks Clarke and Howie spent time with the Treasury Solicitor’s team, helping to build the case for the prosecution. This included some work on Clarke’s part to investigate the alibi that Köhl’s defence team would present on his behalf – more of that later. The Treasury also reconsidered the need to obtain further background information on Köhl and the identification of Führhop’s effects.

In the Plaistow Murder Case some further evidence has been thought necessary for the identification of the clothes and effects of the deceased – and as to the previous acquaintance of the prisoner and the deceased, and the relations existing between their families. For this purpose it is proposed to send an intelligent and trustworthy person to Hamburg – Probably no better person could be suggested than Mr. Clarke (in the Detective Force) who has been engaged in the case throughout. But if you could suggest a better man and would kindly allow us his services we should be extremely obliged.
¹²⁴

On 21 December, following confirmation from Inspector Williamson that no better man could be found, Clarke headed off on his international travels again, this time to Germany. Clarke subsequently reported his visit:

I arrived at Hamburg on the 23rd and delivered the letter of introduction to Mr. Ward, Her Majesty’s Consul in that town, who granted me every assistance. I shewed [sic] the property to the family of the deceased and it was all identified by Carl Henry Theodor Fuhrhop, the youngest brother, who I brought with me to London. On the 25th I left Hamburg for Splietau in Hanover, accompanied by an interpreter for the purpose of ascertaining the antecedents of the prisoner ‘Köhl’ which I found to be generally bad. He enlisted in the Kings Regiment of Hussars in 1860 for ten years but after serving 2½ years he was convicted and sentenced to three months in a Military Prison for stealing from his comrades, and was then dismissed the service. In the early part of 1864 he was charged with stealing a quantity of harness at Ledorf near Splietau, but he then absconded to avoid punishment and came to England.
¹²⁵

These days, a journey of that nature might be straightforward. In the middle of winter in 1864 it was undoubtedly less so, and Germany was not at that stage an integrated country. The village of Splietau, to which Clarke travelled to seek further information on Köhl, was in the county of Dannenberg (Lower Saxony) and was part of the Kingdom of Hanover until it was later annexed by Prussia in 1866. Hamburg, where Führhop’s family were based, was one of thirty-nine sovereign states of the German confederation.
¹²⁶

Clarke’s expenses claim for the visit totalled £39 19
s
10
d
(about £1,750 today). It included 17
s
for the purchase of a lockable packing case for Führhop’s property; £1 4
s
6
d
for the cost of transporting the extra luggage around northern Europe; £3 6
s
for extra pay while outside the London area (6
s
a day for eleven days); and £1 10
s
‘paid to four persons for loss of time and refreshments whilst assisting me in gaining information of Köhl’s antecedents’. It took some persuasion for the authorities to fully reimburse him, and he was asked to supply further information on expenses claimed ‘which are not strictly in accordance with the Regulations’. Inquisitions in relation to expenses claims were indeed a thorn in the flesh for the poorly paid detectives, but Clarke on this occasion was reimbursed in full.
¹²⁷

Köhl’s trial at the Old Bailey started on Wednesday 11 January 1865. Lord Chief Baron Pollock was the senior judge, as he had been at the Müller trial, but on this occasion was assisted by Mr Justice Blackburn. The prosecution team for the Crown contained some other familiar faces from the Müller trial, including the solicitor general Sir Robert Collier, Serjeant-at-Law Ballantine and Hardinge Giffard. Köhl was represented by Mr Best of the Oxford Circuit and Mr Palmer. The start of the trial was described by
The Times
:

The prisoner is 26 years of age, and was described as a sugar baker. He is a short thick-set man with dark-brown hair and somewhat florid complexion. When asked to plead, he replied ‘Not Guilty’ in an emphatic tone of voice, and speaking in English. He elected to be tried by a mixed jury, and one, composed half of Englishmen and half foreigners, was impanelled, the foreman being Mr Julius Schullze. He folded his arms on the front of the dock and listened with intense interest to the opening statement of the Solicitor General, at parts of which he smiled. At times during the day his manner was unbecoming, and he appeared to have no adequate sense of the peril in which he stood.
¹²⁸

In his introductory statement, the solicitor general emphasised Köhl’s poverty, clearly perceiving that as a contributory factor in the murder. Although Köhl had claimed that he had known Führhop for a long time, the prosecution case was that the two men had met for the first time on the steamer
Berlin
, when Köhl was returning from Germany. With regard to the mud that had been seen on Köhl’s clothes on 3 November, the solicitor general emphasised that it was a lightish colour (consistent with Plaistow Marshes) and not like the mud ‘found on the streets of London’.
¹²⁹
This comment was clearly included in the prosecution’s introductory statement to deal with Köhl’s alibi that, on the morning of 3 November, he and Führhop had gone to Commercial Road where Köhl claimed to have visited a sugar-bakers’ to look for work. After the prosecution statement had been concluded, the battery of witnesses that had been assembled for the earlier magistrate’s hearings were paraded before the court, including Clarke. Köhl’s defence counsel failed to dent the credibility of any of the prosecution witnesses. The few witnesses that had not appeared at any of the preliminary hearings now included Führhop’s brother, who Clarke had brought to England. Carl Führhop confirmed that his brother had left for England in September with plenty of money and clothes for his short-term needs. He recognised the pawned items as having belonged to his brother, and he stated that he did not recognise Köhl as someone who had met his brother when he was living in Germany. Three new witnesses were called to deal with aspects of Köhl’s alibi for the morning of 3 November. James Longman, a gatekeeper at a sugar bakery at Church Lane, Whitechapel, gave evidence that he had never seen Köhl at any time, as did James Thomas, the general manager of a sugar bakery on Commercial Road. Finally, Frederick Kaiger, a surveyor, indicated that the distance from the Plaistow Marshes location, where Köhl and Führhop had been seen together by Lees at around 10 a.m. on the morning of 3 November, was 40yds short of 5 miles from the sugar bakery off Commercial Road, where Köhl claimed to have been that morning. The implication being that Köhl would have had to make a return journey of almost 10 miles, plus visit a sugar bakery, all in two hours or so. The court then adjourned until the following morning.
¹³⁰