South Foreland September - December 1938

Folkestone Express 10-9-1938

Local News

The Folkestone murder charge will open at the Old Bailey, London, on Monday, that day having been fixed after the opening of the Sessions on Tuesday. The case will, it is expected, last for at least two days.

William Whiting, a Folkestone 38 year old widower, is charged with the wilful murder of Mrs. Phyllis May Spiers, aged 22, who was found dead at the foot of Caesar’s Camp with a green scarf round her neck. It was stated at the Police Court proceedings in July that she had been strangled.

Amongst the witnesses for the prosecution will be Sir Bernard Spilsbury, Dr. Roche Lynch, Chief Inspector Parker and Det. Sergt. Skardon, two officers sent down by Scotland Yard, to carry out the investigations into the crime.

Mr. Roland Oliver, K.C., the Recorder of Folkestone, will appear for the prosecution, and Mr. St. J. Hutchinson, K.C., will be the leading counsel for the defence.

Folkestone Herald 10-9-1938

Local News

The trial of William Whiting, 38, a general labourer, of Folkestone, who was committed for trial by the Folkestone Magistrates in July on a charge of mur­dering Mrs. Phyllis May Spiers, a Folke­stone woman, will open at the Central Criminal Court next Monday.

The Folkestone Herald understands that the Recorder of Folkestone (Mr. Roland Oliver, K.C.) will conduct the case for the Crown, and Mr. St. John Hutchinson, K.C., will lead the defence.

A large number of witnesses from Folkestone will give evidence.

Folkestone Express 17-9-1938

Local News

The Folkestone murder trial at the Old Bailey has occupied three days this week, and last (Thursday) evening, when the Court rose shortly before six o’clock, all the evidence for the prosecution and de­fence and the counsels’ closing speeches bad been heard. Mr. Justice Wrottesley, before whom the case is being heard, will give his summing up this (Friday) morn­ing, and it is expected that the jury, of whom three are women, will give their verdict today.

The large number of exhibits were dis­played in the Court, and the branches of a tree in a frame were placed in front of the dock. This was closely inspected by the jury on Wednesday when the Court rose for luncheon. It was alleged by the prosecution that the accused man came through the branches backwards, drag­ging the body of the murdered woman, and that a barb in a portion of the wire fence tore his coat on the shoulder.

The case was fixed to start on Monday, but owing to another case, which was not finished last week, occupying the greater portion of the day, it was decided that a start should not be made until the following day.   

When Mrs. Rose Woodbridge was giv­ing evidence on Wednesday the accused man cried in the dock.

The trial opened on Tuesday, when William Whiting, aged 38, a well-known Folkestone labourer, was placed in the dock on the charge of the wilful murder of Mrs. Phyllis May Spiers, aged 22, of Folkestone, on or about May 23^rd, near Caesar’s Camp. She was found lying dead, covered with a coat, having apparently been strangled, on the evening of May 26^th. When the charge was put to him Whiting pleaded not guilty.

Mr. Roland Oliver, K.C., the Recorder of Folkestone, and Mr. B.H. Waddy were for the prosecution, and Mr. St. J. Hutchinson, K.C., and Mr. J. Stuart Daniel appeared on Whiting’s behalf.

Mr. Roland Oliver said the object of his opening speech was to try to place the story before the jury so that they could have the general case of the prosecution. The best way, he said, was to put be­fore the jury plans. At the top of one they would see marked three hills, form­ing the prominent feature of the landscape. A dotted line marked a line of thickets expanding the whole length of the foot of the hills. In places the thicket was extremely thick. Continuing, he said one way of getting to the thickets would be to go through various streets of the town. When they arrived at the golf course they walked to the left, which brought them into a road called Cherry Garden Avenue. When they got to Cherry Garden Avenue they turned to their right and went up towards Castle Hill. There was a stile which they could get over, and in that way walk along the hill side of the thicket. It was a very solitary place, and a very secluded place. The body was found some three-quarters of a mile round the thicket in the neighbourhood of Sugar Loaf Hill. She, and presumably her murderer, must have walked along that track to the secluded spot where she was murdered. It was a rough walk, and the jury would probably come to the conclusion that a man and woman would not go to such a place as that on a mere pleasure walk. Several reasons might occur to them. From that point of view it was right that they should know something about the woman. Mrs. Spiers was 22, and was married before she was 17. She lived with her husband for two years, until 1934, and then they parted, and her husband had never seen her again. “I am afraid there is no doubt that she was a young woman who was of an ex­tremely immoral character’,’ continued Mr. Oliver. “She had affairs with a great many men, and was, therefore, a young woman who might have gone to that place with almost any type of man, certainly a good many. The prisoner knew her quite well”. Mrs. Spiers, he said, was practically destitute. She made a practice of stay­ing a night or two at lodgings, without any luggage, and invariably disappeared without paying. The manner of her murder, explained Mr. Oliver, was apparently plainly writ­ten on the scene of the crime and on her body. She had obviously been vio­lently attacked, probably with fists, and beaten into a state of unconsciousness before she was actually murdered. After that she had been dragged further into the thicket, because the place where she was first attacked could be seen from part of one of the hills that overlooked the thicket. The body was dragged by the murderer deeper into the thicket to a place where it could not be seen unless somebody went right into the thing. “Our case is that, the body lay there from May 23^rd to the 26^th”, he added. A blue coat was thrown over the body, and round the neck, tied twice and tightly knotted, was a green scarf which was one of the salient pieces of evidence in the case. Whether the scarf was tied round after or before death did not mat­ter. Whether the scarf murdered her or bare hands, it did not matter. The murderer had to drag the body, and he, presumably, walked backwards, dragging the body by the feet. He had to go past a piece of barbed wire in an obstruction, and the jury would see that someone walking backwards dragging a body must run a considerable chance of damaging his clothing in the spikes of barbed wire. It was clear that the woman’s body had been dragged. The whole of her clothing had been torn up and filled with twigs and brambles. Her hair was pulled right out behind her head as it had been dragged along the ground. Round the woman’s neck was tied the scarf, and the members of the jury would be asked by the prosecution to say whether or not they were satisfied that the green scarf belonged to the man who murdered her. They had a quantity of evidence that she never had such a scarf herself. She was, by a curious coincidence, snap-shotted on that very day of her death, walking with another man in Folkestone, and the scarf that the photo­graph depicted her wearing was quite obviously nothing like the green scarf. In her handbag, when the body was discovered, was found a piece of the scarf she was wearing. Most of it had disappeared, but a little piece had been pushed in her handbag. There was conclusive evidence that she was wearing that scarf on that day, and that the green scarf was not hers, but the murderer’s. The prosecution said the murder took place on May 23^rd sometime after 2.30 p.m. He was aware that there were witnesses who were coming to say that she was alive after May 23^rd. The jury would have to consider very carefully their evidence when they came. They would be glad to hear that those witnesses were found by the police. So far as they could tell, he went on, the people who knew her best, people who were habitually seeing her, said that was the last day they ever saw her. They had been unable to find any place where she stopped after May 23^rd. They would have in evidence that when the body was discovered there was a smell of decomposition. If she had died on May 25^th or 26^th that would be very unlikely. The last known meal the woman had was breakfast consisting of bread find butter on Monday, May 23^rd at about nine o’clock. On the Sunday morning she bad de­posited her luggage at the offices of the East Kent Road Car Company in Sandgate Road. If May 23^rd was accepted as the day on which the young woman was murdered the last person she was seen alive with was the prisoner, walking in the direc­tion of the stile that led to the scene of the crime. Mr. Oliver said Whiting had associated with a woman named Rose Woodbridge, a married woman, who left her husband in September, 1936, and went to live with the prisoner at Dover. She lived with him until somewhere about November last. Phyllis Spiers was a very close friend of Rose Woodbridge, and saw a lot of her and the prisoner at the time. Whiting did not approve of Phyllis` association with Rose. One evening Rose came home and told him she had been out with Phyllis and had met a couple of men who had asked the two of them to go and live with them. Whit­ing told Rose that if she did not stop sroing about with Phyllis he would do something wron.tr. Then he threatened he would strangle Phyllis. "Beware of Rose Woodbridge. You may not think her a very reliable sort of wit­ness, but that does not mean she cannot tell the truth. It is for you to determine the value of these things”, added Mr. Oliver. “It was quite clear the prisoner was very fond of her. Whiting and Mrs. Woodbridge separated - her mother, I think, took her away - and this made him very jealous. He was anxious to find out who had brought about the separation. He was desperately in love with her. In a statement to the police he said he worshipped her, and in his mind Phyllis was the person really responsible for coming between them”. Concerning the green scarf, Mr. Oliver said it was probably the most reliable piece of evidence in that case Whiting had denied not only that it was not his scarf, but that he had never had a scarf like it. He has asserted that he was not wearing a scarf on the day of the mur­der. The prosecution had evidence that right up to the day of the murder he was wearing a similar green scarf, but that on the day of the murder he was not. Another piece of evidence, found on a post in the thicket, was a hair similar to Whiting's. On July 1<sup>st</sup> Whiting made a long statement to the police in which he said that he and Phyllis walked to the golf course and sat on the grass. Phyllis was very quiet. “I said, ‘What is the matter?` the statement proceeded She said `I am fed up, and am going to do myself in.’ I said `How are you go­ing to do it?’ and she said, ^`Strangle myself with a scarf round my neck.’ She was wearing a green spotted scarf.” He contended that Mrs. Spiers could not have strangled herself.

Kenneth George Andrews (16), of 23, Ethelbert Road, Folkestone, a grocer’s roundsman, said on Thursday, 26^th May, fee went to a coppice at the foot of Caesar’s Camp bird-nesting. At about 6 p.m. he saw what appeared to be a bundle, but, looking closer, he saw it was a body of a woman covered with a coat. He shouted, and touched the head with & stick. He realised the woman was not sleeping, and later spoke to a police officer. He saw the body again, and it had not been interfered with.

Mr. Geoffrey Poole, an assistant in the Borough Surveyor’s office, produced a street plan of Folkestone. He said he went to the scene and took measure­ments of the gap and checked the posi­tion of the gap after it was framed. It was the same as it was when growing.

Cross-examined, witness said standing on the sixteenth tee of the golf course it was possible to see up Castle Hill. There was a hut connected with the Kent Agri­cultural Show and some trees on the corner, but it was possible to see past them.

Dr. William Claude Percy Barrett, said Stanley Seymour Harrison, a photo­grapher, was a patient of his, and was so ill as not to be able to travel.

Mr. Roland Oliver read the deposition of Mr. Harrison’s evidence given at the Police Court proceedings.

Mr. Arthur Charles Spiers, 29, Sidney Street, Bexhill-on-Sea, a milk roundsman, said on May 27th he identified the body Of his wife, aged 22 years. In the photo­graphs produced he recognised his wife as the young woman wearing a dark coat. They were married on April 11^th, 1932, ad parted on April 13^th, 1934. He last saw his wife alive in August, 1934, at Hastings. Before her death he had com­menced divorce proceedings against her.

Chief Inspector Hollands said he went with the witness Andrews and the Coro­ner’s Officer to the coppice, where the body was found, and caused the book of photographs to be taken. The body had apparently been dragged to the place through the gap framed in Court. When he raised the coat from the body he noticed a strong smell of putrefaction. On Monday, 23rrd, it was a fine day, but on Tuesday it rained from 1.30 to 2.30 p.m. On Wednesday it rained all the afternoon. On the day when the body was found it was fine. The coat over the body was damp, and there were rain marks on the handbag. There were little pitmarks on the ground, and there were dirt marks on the woman’s hand and arms where the rain had splashed up. The ground under the body was dry. In the place where he found the body there was no sign of a struggle. Round the woman’s neck was tied the green-spotted scarf. It was twisted round twice very tightly, and knotted.

Mr. Hutchinson: Whoever it was who pulled this body through all these brambles, you would expect their coat to be very much scratched with brambles?

Witness: No.

How can you push through these sort of brambles without any mark, tear, scratch, or any result on your coat? - I went through them, and my coat did not get scratched with brambles.

Dealing with the question of the tear In the prisoner’s coat, Mr. Hutchinson asked: When the man made the experiment he knew there was a tear in the left-hand shoulder of the defendant’s coat?

Chief Inspector Hollands: Yes.

Did you think that was very much use as an experiment? When you went through you did not tear yours? - When I felt it tearing I went down and wriggled through.

Did you smell putrefaction? - Yes.

Did you see any signs of putrefaction?  - No.

One man confessed he had done the murder? - Not to me.

He confessed, and police enquired into it, but took no further steps? - I do not know.

Det. Sergt. Johnson said on the even­ing of May 26^th he saw the body at the coppice. He took possession of the hand­bag produced and examined its contents. He found the piece of material (pro­duced) in the handbag. If it had been torn from a large piece he could find no trace of the larger piece. The following day he made a search of the place and found a broken comb. He examined the ground from the spot where he found the comb to the barrier, and it had the appearance of having had a heavy object dragged over it. He also found a long hair.

Mr. Roland Oliver said they had eliminated a great deal of evidence about the hairs, and they were dealing with only one or two.

Continuing, witness said he found an­other hair on the back of the post which formed part of the barrier. He also took three hairs from a hat, and other hairs from the head of the dead woman. On July 11^th he obtained four hairs from the head of the prisoner. He handed the hairs to Chief Inspector Parker. Continuing, Det. Sergt. Johnson said he went to a common lodging-house in Dover Street on May 31^st and obtained a suitcase of property from the man in charge. He found the pair of braces (pro­duced) in the suitcase. On July 7^th he purchased half a pound of butter.

Mr. Hutchinson: After you get through the gap, how far was it, to the other gap where the body was found?

Det. Sergt. Johnson: Ten or eleven yards.

It is a very low tunnel? - Not when you get through the tunnel.

Bits would catch your coat? - Possibly.

Mr. Hutchinson suggested it was im­possible that the hair found on the post of the barrier had anything to do with the murder. He submitted it was a wild deduction, because anyone going through the barrier backwards could not have got into such a position to leave a hair in that spot.

Mr. Roland Oliver; It has been sug­gested that his head could not have touched that post. Do you agree that it could or could not have touched it?

Witness: I say it could have touched it.

Mr. Roland Oliver said he had had an opportunity of getting information from Sir Bernard Spilsbury and there was no point in the fly eggs at all and he was not calling any evidence about it.

The Coroner’s Officer, Det. Con. Bates, said at 6.30 p.m. on May 26^th he went to the coppice and saw the body. There was a smell of putrefaction. He later showed the body to a Mr. Spiers, Mr. Santer and Mr. Wanstall. On May 31^st he purchased a complete change of clothing for the prisoner and took possession of all the clothing Whiting was wearing. The hat, trousers, braces and jacket with the tear produced all belonged to the prisoner. A small green zip fastener purse was found in the left hand pocket of the jacket.

Mr. Hutchinson: Did you notice any signs of putrefaction?

Witness: No, but the smell was very strong.

He was not arrested until June 25th? - I think that was the date.

You will agree that the tear you have pointed out might have been caused by anything? - The tear was on the jacket when I took it from the prisoner.

You do not suggest it could only be done by barbed wire? - No.

Mr. Douglas Scott Moncrieff, in charge of the Meteorological Department at Folkestone, said on May 23rd the maxi­mum temperature was 60 deg. F. and the minimum 42 deg. F. The minimum grass temperature was 36 deg. There was no rainfall. On the Tuesday the maxi­mum temperature was 63 deg. F. and the minimum grass temperature was 38. There was no rainfall at 10 a.m., but at 6 p.m. there was .01 inch recorded. On the Wednesday the maximum tempera­ture was 59 deg. and the minimum 48. There was a fair amount of rain, less than .005 inches at 10 a.m., and at 6 p.rn, .3 inch. On the Thursday the rain­fall at 10 a.m. was .02 inches, and at 6 p.m. nil.

Robert John Reid, the deputy of a lodging house in Dover Street, Folkestone, said he had known the prisoner for about 19 to 20 years. He had stayed at his house for about three months. On May 23^rd the prisoner spent the night at the lodging-house. He remained there until May 26^th. He handed the prisoner’s suit­case to a police officer.

Mr. Hutchinson: How many men are there in the same room?

Witness:  Five.

It would be quite fair to say that people’s properly gets mixed up some­times? - Yes.

Dr. William Claude Percy Barrett said on May 26^th at 7.30 p.m. he went to the coppice and saw the body. The position was consistent with the body having been dragged on its back. He did not notice any smell from the body, which was covered. At 9.10 p.m. the same night he saw the body in the mortuary, and there was a definite smell of putrefaction. He would not expect any smell from a body under the conditions present for at least three days. He would expect rigor mortis to set in after 12 to 18 hours and last from 48 to 72 hours. Of that body in those circumstances it would be 72 hours. When he saw the body in the thicket there was rigor mortis. At 8.30 p.m. on Friday, May 27^th, the rigor mortis had completely gone. There were several bruises on the face and front of the body. The nose had been flattened by a violent blow. He was present when Sir Bernard Spilsbury made his examination, which revealed bruises in the neck. Dr. Barrett said he considered that the bruises were due to the ligature and death, in his view, was by garrotting with the scarf.

Mr. Oliver: How long before you saw the body do you think it likely that the woman met her death?

Witness: Forty-eight to seventy-two hours.

Mr. Hutchinson questioned witness about his report of the post-mortem examination to the Coroner.

Did you say the stomach contained ten lumps of potatoes?

Dr.  Barrett: I did.

Is that correct? - Apparently no, when the lumps were put under the micro­scope.

And the brownish fluid? - There was a brownish fund in the stomach.

At the inquest, when you were on oath, you said “The deceased, in my opinion, had been dead not longer than two days”; what did you mean by that?

Witness: I rather expected the Coroner to take the question further, to tell you the truth.

Why did you tell him that; it must have been what you thought? – Why? Because I had heard rumours that she had been seen shopping. It seemed rattier absurd to certify somebody dead if she had been seen shopping.

Because of the chit-chat you heard you altered your opinion? - Put it that way if you like.

Are you changing your opinion because Sir Bernard Spilsbury has said anything different? - No.

You were the only one who gave evidence about this matter to the Coroner, and you said “The deceased, in my opinion, had been dead not longer than two days”, and you now tell us you did not honestly say that. Do you deny saying that? - No, I do not. I cannot swear to saying that.

Did you tell the Coroner something that is not your honest opinion on the chance of the Coroner asking you something more? - No.

Do you think that the woman was more likely to have been killed on the 24^th than the 23^rd? - I still think it was 23^rd.

You agree that it is a matter of opinion? - Absolutely a matter of opinion.

She certainly may have been living on the 24^th? - It is possible, but I do not think it is at all likely.

Supposing twelve witnesses come here and say so, would that make you think she was probably alive on the 24^th? - No.

You say she died from garrotting? - I consider it so.

You know Sir Bernard Spilsbury does not agree? - I know.

You thought the scratches were caused before death, and Sir Bernard after death? - The scratches on the legs.

You agree that all these questions are matters of grave difficulty where people may honestly make a mistake? - Yes. I agree that Sir Bernard Spilsbury’s ex­perience must be greater than mine. I have only had two cases of murder.

Sir Bernard Spilbury said he made a post-mortem examination with Dr. Bar­rett. He found the body was that of a well-nourished young woman. He saw the mark of the ligature round the neck and a number of external injuries on the face and body. He examined the tissues of the neck and found bruising, just such as would be caused by the grip of the hand in manual strangulation. Strangulation in some form caused her death, and in his view it was manual strangulation. He would not have expected her to have been dead for three days, but he could not say definitely within 24 hours.

Mr. Roland Oliver: Is it, in your opinion, possible that this young woman, in the circumstances in which you saw her, had committed suicide by strangling herself with the scarf?

Witness: Quite out of the question.

Mr. Hutchinson: Supposing she had had a long walk, little food, and a ter­rible struggle, would that bring on rigor mortis very quickly?

Sir Bernard Spilsbury: Much more quickly.

Is not putrefaction caused or stimulated by the passing of rigor mortis? - It hap­pens to be coincidal.

Supposing rigor mortis was acceler­ated, would that accelerate putrefaction? - Not necessarily.

Would you go as far as to say it was impossible for her to be alive on the 24^th? - I hardly think it is possible.

Dr. Roche Lynch, Senior Official Analyst to the Home Office, described the tear on the prisoner’s coat. At the apex of the tear, he said, there was a tiny round hole as though a round sharp pointed object had gone through the fabric before it had been torn. The tear must have been downwards and to the right. When the tear was made the coat would be on a man who was going back­wards. Witness said he had looked at the bar­rier (produced), and part of the barbed wire could have made a similar tear as the one in the coat. Continuing, he said the woman’s stomach contained butter fat. The last meal was taken at least three hours be­fore death. He was shown the green scarf. The ends of it showed signs of wear, and there were marks which could have been accounted for by the ends of the scarf being made fast in the braces produced. He compared the hairs from the girl’s head with the hair found near the comb, and they closely resembled each other. Both were bleached. The accused’s hair and the hair from the post on the barrier closely resembled each other. The hair on the post could have come from anybody who had similar hair.

Mr. Hutchinson: Did you examine the coat by any chance to see if there were any scratches? - The tear was the only item of note. Dealing with the braces Mr. Hutchin­son said the braces which could have made the marks on the scarf might have been a new pair. There were no signs of them being used.

Dr. Roche Lynch said there were signs that they had been used.

Mr. Hutchinson: I am suggesting that they might be a new pair, and in any case have hardly been used at all?

Witness: They have had some wear.

People who go to common lodging-houses do not have a couple of pairs of braces? -I bow to your superior know­ledge.

To leave the marks that you found, or some of the marks, it must have been worn very often in that way? - If holes had been produced in the way I men­tioned they must have been worn several times, but the linear marks could be pro­duced in twenty minutes.

Robert Henry Rird, of Margate, and Alfred James Carter, of Ramsgate, em­ployed by a firm of holiday snaps, gave evidence of taking photographs of the murdered woman.

Bernice C. Hegarty, of Mead Road, Folkestone, said she recognised one of the women in the holiday snaps (pro­duced) as Phyllis Minter, whom she had known for 3½ years. She spoke to Phyllis at 9.45 a.m. on Monday, and re­cognised the handbag (produced) as her’s. The green zip fastener purse (pro­duced) was very like the dead woman’s purse. Continuing she said the deceased had a dark check scarf similar to the piece of material (produced), but she had never seen her wearing a green spotted scarf.

Cross-examined, witness said the purse was something like the one Phyllis had.

Mr. Hutchinson: About the scarf, you say there was a fringe on it? - There was.

When was it you last saw Phyllis? -  Monday morning at about a quarter to ten.

Mr. Hutchinson pointed out that the witness said she had last seen the mur­dered woman on Saturday morning.

The witness then explained that she had seen her on both days.

Pte. Harold Wall, of the Royal Berk­shire Regiment, stationed at Shomcliffe, said he lived with the murdered woman from May 15^th to the 19^th, at Sandgate. He first saw her in February or the be­ginning of March, and gave her the scarf somewhere about April. Origin­ally, it had a fringe on it, hut he cut it off before he gave it to her. The piece of material produced was part of the scarf he gave to Phyllis. He had never seen her wearing the green spotted scarf. Continuing, witness said some of the letters in the suitcase (produced) were written by him to the murdered woman.

Mr. Hutchinson: What sort of place did you stay with her at?           _;

Pte. Wall: It was a one room affair.

Did either of you have any luggage?  - I was living at the camp. She had no luggage.

How many days were you there? -  Four days.

Mr. Hutchinson went on to question the witness about statements that were taken from him.

Was it found that you had scratches? - One on the arm.

Did not the police discover that a car had been taken from Aldershot and taken back that night, the 23^rd or 24^th? - I heard something about it.

You do not know the distance shown on that car was exactly the distance from Aldershot to Folkestone? - No.

Mr. Hutchinson said he was not sug­gesting the witness committed the murder, but he did suggest that there was just as much evidence in some ways against others as against the prisoner.

The witness said he had nothing to do with taking the car from Aldershot, and the scratches on his arm happened while he was carrying meat.

Mr. Roland Oliver: Did you leave Aldershot at all between May 19^th and the date of the discovery of the body?

Pte. Wall: No.

At this stage the Court rose until the following day.

The case was resumed at 10.30 a.m. on Wednesday.

Mr. Harold Henry Parker, 73, Dover Rood, Folkestone, a Press photographer, said the previous day he took a photo­graph from the sixteenth tee on Folke­stone golf course. It was possible to see the junction of Cherry Garden Avenue and Cherry Garden Lane and to see people going towards Caesar’s Camp over the hedge. After a fleeting glance of people walk­ing along Cherry Garden Avenue, a person on the sixteenth tee would see them when they reached the junction of the two roads.

It was decided by both defence and prosecution to have witnesses make observations from the sixteenth tee.

Chief Inspector Hollands, re-called, said the suitcase produced he got from the East Kent Road Car Company’s office at Folkestone on June 1^st. He made a list of the contents, which included a packet of letters, all addressed to Miss P. Butcher.

Mr. Ernest Edward Curtis an Inspector employed by the East Kent Road Car Company, said the blue case produced was like a case he saw on May 22^nd or 23^rd. On that occasion a young lady asked the next through bus to Margate and then left the office. After she had gone he noticed a dark bag there.

Pte. Harold Wall, re-called, said three of the letters produced were written by him to the murdered woman. They were addressed to Miss Phyllis Butcher, the name he knew her by.

Cross-examined, witness said he wrote the letters before May 19^th, when she was in hospital. After he left her in May she gave him “G.P.O., Folkestone”, as her address.

Chief Inspector W. Parker, New Scot­land Yard, said on the afternoon of May 27^th, he went to the coppice near Caesar’s Camp. He supervised the fram­ing of the barrier produced in the Court. On the side of the coppice nearer Folke­stone there was an agricultural field. On May 30^th, with Det. Sgt. Skardon, he interviewed the prisoner at Folke­stone Police Station. He admitted that he knew the murdered woman. He said he would tell them what he knew and he made a long statement, which he made willingly. Witness said he was endeavouring to find out the prisoner’s movements for several days. The statement was read and during the course of it Whiting stated: “I am a widower, my wife died on 3^rd May, 1936. She was strangled by George Arthur Bryant, who was afterwards exe­cuted at Wandsworth. I was at the time of her death living apart from my wife. I had three children by her. . . My wife left me in 1935”. Later, went on the statement, he lived in Dover with a Mrs. Woodbridge. She left him in November, 1937, after her mother received a letter from a land­lord in Folkestone saying that her daughter was drinking in public houses. While he was living with Mrs. Woodbridge a young girl, who Mrs. Woodbridge said was named Phyllis Minter, came to see her. In his statement Whiting said he met the murdered woman on Monday, May 23^rd, at about 12.30 p.m., and they went to the Globe public house on The Bayle. They stayed for about ten minutes. While they were there she said she could get married again. "I said ‘Can you?’”, continued Whit­ing’s statement, “and read the divorce papers. She said ‘Why don’t you marry me and let’s go back to Dover?' ” The statement then went on to describe how Whiting and the girl went to the golf links. “We sat down on the grass”, it con­tinued, when she pulled out something wrapped in brown paper Some stitches and a ring, a little bone ring She said they were stitches which had been taken out of her operation. We were both thinking. I don’t know what was the matter with her that day. She was not cheerful. She did not speak much. I believe there was something worrying her. I have seen her like it at Dover when she came in staring at me. I cannot say what was on her mind. Perhaps it was because she was down and out. I said nothing to upset her”. Continuing, the statement described how they made their way to Cherry Garden Lane and into Cheriton Road, after crossing the golf links. "I told her that I worshipped Rose”, it continued, “I said ‘If Rose does not come back I shall never settle down again’. ... I did not see Phyllis at all on Tuesday. . . Phyllis and I did not discuss living together before last Mon­day”. Continuing, witness said after the statement had been taken the matter of the jacket was mentioned. He noticed there was a tear in the prisoner’s jacket on the left shoulder. He said “I don’t know where or when I did it." He was asked about the green spotted scarf, and be said “I have never seen it before. I have not worn a scarf myself for a long while, and I have never had one like that.” Whiting made another statement on June 1^st, in which he said: “When we went on to the golf course on the Monday, thee day I have already told you about, I mean when I was with Phyllis and when we were sitting on ihe grass, she was very quiet, and I said ‘What is the matter?’ She said `I am fed up and I am going to do myself in’. I said `How are you going to do it?’ and she said ‘Strangle myself with a scarf round my neck’. She was wearing a green spotted scarf. After we got up and walked across the golf links. She was very quiet, and kept saying she was fed up. I have not seen her since that Monday, 23^rd May, 1938. . . . I might tell you that she was partly the cause of Rose Woodbridge leaving me.” Continuing, witness said he showed the contents of the suit-case to the prisoner. The suitcase was taken from the lodging-house in Dover Street, and Whit­ing said the articles in the case belonged to him.

Mr. Oliver: Did you endeavour to find out in Folkestone any house at which Phyllis had slept after May 23rrd?

Witness: Yes.

Were you unsuccessful? - Yes.

Mr. Hutchinson: This man is a very uneducated man?

Witness  Yes.

Why was it necessary to take a statement from him, you a trained police officer, from ten o’clock at night as you say, and I say later, until 2 in the morn­ing? - I wanted to get as much detail on this man as possible.

Do you think that it is a usual time to take a statement fairly? - It was the most convenient time at that stage of the en­quiry.

He was arrested on June 25^th? - Yes.

Do you mean to say that you were in such a hurry that it had to be taken from 10 p.m. to 2 a.m.? - Yes.

"Why? - There were quite a number of people waiting at the Police Station to be seen on that particular evening.

Do you think it fair? Have you not heard of it being done in third degree in other countries? - I was endeavouring to discover who perpetrated this crime.

Surely it was not necessary to take a man at 10 at night and cross-examine him till 2 a.m. Did he get into a muddle? - No.

Did not he get ready to agree to any thing you put to him? - No.

Did you ask whether he had had any food? - Yes.

Had he? - I was told he had been given refreshment.

You examined him very severely? - Yes. I asked him numerous questions.

Is not that third degree?

Judge Wrottesley: I do not know strictly what third degree means.

Mr. Hutchinson (to Chief Inspector Parker): Do you know what it means when people say third degree?

Witness: I have heard of the term, but I do not know what it means.

Chief Inspector Parker said neither he nor Det. Sergt. Skardon suggested it was a case of suicide and that if it was it would let the prisoner out.

Mr. Hutchinson: What happened was ^on 27^th or 28^th he had an interview with the Chief Constable? -Yes.

Then he had this long sojourn at the Police Station on the 30^th, leaving round about three, I am suggesting, in the morning, and the next day he was taken again and his clothes were taken away from him, and the next day he was sent for again? - Yes.

Witness said there were no scratches on the prisoner’s body, and none, beyond the tear, on his coat. Continuing, witness said there were a whole lot of brambles around the branches produced.

The two nights preceding the murder she was with Mrs. Wright?

Witness: Yes.

Had you in your possession on May 30^th anything like the whole of the evidence that has been called in this case? - No.

Det. Sergt. Skardon said he was present when the two statements wore taken from prisoner, and actually wrote them down. The suggestion of suicide came from the prisoner.

Mr. Oliver: Did you or Chief Inspector Parker ever put the suggestion into the prisoner’s mind about suicide?

Witness: No.

Continuing, witness said he went through the gap backwards and tore his jacket. He knew the barb of wire was there. Apart from the tear in his jacket he did not tear his clothes with the brambles as he walked about.

Cross-examined, witness said the brambles pulled at the fabric of his clothes. The tear in his coat was not very like the tear in the other coat.

Mr. Hutchinson: There were, of course a good many brambles about?

Witness: Yes.

Anyone going where you did would get their clothes, not torn, but scratched? -  Possibly, it would depend on the material.

Witness said when he went through the barrier he knew the barb was there, and that the prisoner was supposed to have torn his coat. He (witness) could not have gone through the barrier, pulling the dummy, without tearing his coat.

Mr. Hutchinson: I am suggesting that the suggestion was made to him that this might have been suicide, and that would clear him?

Witness: It was not made.

You are sure? -Quite positive.

Neither directly nor indirectly? - Neither.

Neither by hint nor suggestion? - No.

Are you quite certain of that? -Quite certain,

John Joseph Hurst, of Joyes Road, Folke­stone, manager of Messrs. Hepworth. Ltd., of Folkestone, said he stocked scarves similar to the one produced from October, 1936, to February, 1937, and again from October, 1937, to February or March, 1938.

Cross-examined, witness admitted it was quite a popular scarf.

In reply to Mr. Oliver, witness said all the scarves were not green. They were in four different shades.

Mr. Joseph Charles Kember, an em­ployment clerk at the Folkestone Employ­ment Exchange, said he had interviewed the prisoner in connection with his duty. He last sent the prisoner on a job of work on March 19^th. At the time he was wearing a green scarf with white spots. The scarf produced was similar to the scarf the prisoner was wearing. Witness said he saw the prisoner again March 21^st and between the 16^th and 19^th May. He wore the scarf knotted on the left-hand side of the neck, and it appeared to be wound twice round his neck.

Cross-examined, witness said he could see the ends of the scarf.

P.C. Pearce, Dover Borough Police said on April 9^th the accused was in his charge at Dover for something like three-quarters of an hour. He was wearing a green scarf with dirty white spots. It was wound twice round the neck and knotted on the left-hand side.

Mr. John McKinnon Taylor, 24, Walton Gardens, a clerk at the Folkestone Employment Exchange, said he went on leave on May 23^rd to the following Sat­urday. Before he went on leave he saw the prisoner on May 20^th, and he was wearing a green scarf tied with a double knot on one side. After returning from his leave he saw the prisoner on May 30^th, and he was not wearing the scarf. He had not seen him wearing the scarf since. The one produced was similar to the scarf the pris­oner was wearing on May 20^th.

Det. Sergt. Johnson, re-called, said lie made a list of the contents of the hand­bag found beside the body Among the articles in the bag was a piece of a cigarette packet with the name “H. Pyneart,” printed on it in pencil.

Cross-examined, witness said there were a great many statements taken be­fore 30^th May.

Mrs. Adelaide Maude Wright, a widow, of 9, Garden Road, Folkestone, said she knew the murdered woman as Phyllis Minter. She let her a room on May 21^st. On Monday, the 23^rd, the woman had bread and butter and a cup of tea for breakfast. The woman had nothing more than what she stood up in. On May 23^rd she went into the town with Phyllis. They went into Woolworth’s at about 10 a.m., and witness bought a roll of white paper. Phyllis was wearing a blue coat and a grey coloured scarf. She had never seen her wearing a green scarf. Phyllis had a brown comb with a piece broken off the end. She was able to pick out the girl who served in Woolworth’s.

Cross-examined, witness said Phyllis told her that she came from Tooting, and that she had a job at The Lido. She said she had left her luggage with friends, and witness was surprised when she did not return on the Monday. When witness arrived home on Monday night she saw a man without a hat and wearing a mackintosh waiting outside her house.

When the proceedings were continued in the afternoon the jury wished to know whether the barbed wire on the barrier was the same height from the ground as it was from the floor of the Court. The jury had examined the barrier during the luncheon adjournment.

Det. Sergt. Skardon said the heights were the same. According to the theory of the prosecution the murderer dragged rhe body downhill through the gap. The gradient was one in four.

Mr. Hubert Pyneart, a waiter employed at the Royal Pavilion Hotel, Folkestone, said he knew Mrs. Spiers by sight. A year ago she worked at the hotel. He met her on the morning of May 23^rd at about 10.40 and walked with her round Folkestone. He was with her until 12.30 p.m., and during the morning walked with her in Sandgate Road. He had never walked with her before in the morning. While he was with her he wrote his name on a piece of card and gave it. to the murdered woman. Witness said the scarf Mrs. Spiers was wearing was of a dark colour, very simi­lar to the piece of material produced.

Mr. Charles Leonard Varner, of 13, New Street, Folkestone, said he knew the ac­cused and also the murdered woman. He knew her as Minter, and he last saw her on the Monday before her body was found. She was at the corner of New Street. He saw prisoner enter Philpott’s shop and then go over to the girl and give her a cigarette. They both went up Bradstone Road.

Cross-examined, witness said Weatherhead had not asked him to say anything about Longley.

Mrs. Lilian Maude Varrier the wife of the last witness, said on Monday, May 23^rd, she saw the prisoner in Philpott’s shop at about 1.20 p.m. She saw him leave the shop and meet the murdered woman. They went together towards Bradstone Road.

Mrs. Laura Laws, of 68, Foord Road Folkestone, said she knew the murdered woman as Phyllis Butcher. She let her a room on May 18^th. She stayed there on Thursday and Friday, and left with­out paying. Witness saw the deceased on the following Monday in Bradstone Avenue. There was a man with her, but she ran after and spoke to witness. Afterwards rhe deceased went back to the man, and they walked towards the Public Baths.

 Cross-examined, witness said the de­ceased told her that she was a maid at the Longford Hotel. She had no luggage, but she said she came from London.

Mr. William David Marsh, of Clarence Road, Folkestone, a pavior employed by the Folkestone Corporation, said on Monday, May 23^rd, he was working in Radnor Park Avenue, and saw the prisoner pass with a young woman. They were walking in the direction of the golf course.

Mr. William John Harbird said he saw the prisoner with a young woman by the Peter Pan’s Pool on May 23^rd.

Mr. Hutchinson: At the Police Court you said it was the 23^rd or 24^th.

Witness: I was wrong on the dates.

Are you still certain it was not the 24^th? - Yes, now.

Mr. Harry James Santer, of 5, Pavilion Road, a groundsman employed at the

Folkestone golf course, said on Monday, May 23^rd, at 1.35 p.m., he saw the mur­dered woman with the prisoner walking along the road across the golf course. The woman looked as though she had been crying.

Frederick Wanstall, of Invicta Road, Folkestone, a gardener at the Folkestone golf course, said he saw the body of a girl at the mortuary. He saw her on Monday, May 23^rd, with the prisoner. When he saw them, he was cutting the 16th tee near Cherry Garden Avenue. The prisoner and the girl were walking to­wards Caesar’s Camp. He saw them as far as the point where the road they were walking on joined Cherry Garden Lane. The time was somewhere about two, or just after.

Mr. Hutchinson: You were not certain about the date?

Witness: Yes.

Mr. Hutchinson: What you mean is that you saw this man with some girl. You saw him walking along this lane on some day that you are not really certain. Is that what it comes to? Has it weighed on your mind very much, this case? - It has.

You did try to kill yourself because of it? - No. I do not think it was because of that. It was because I had left my wife because she had treated me unfairly.

Mr. A.S. Beesley, Chief Constable of Folkestone, said on June 25^th, when he cautioned the prisoner, he said he was not guilty.

Mr. Hutchinson: On 4^th June you were trying to find where Mrs. Spiers stayed on Tuesday?

Witness: Yes.

Florence Thompson, of 19, Hamilton Road, Dover, said she had a conversation with the prisoner about Phyllis. She told him that it was a shame that Phyllis was murdered. The prisoner asked her if she would like a scarf round her neck. He told her that if she did not keep her mouth shut about Phyllis he would put her on the spot. He said “You can do a murder without leaving finger prints and foot marks”. They went to three public-houses together.

Cross-examined, witness said she did not have a great deal to drink. She never got drunk.

Mr. Hutchinson : I am suggesting that this man never said this to you at all. Did he?

Witness: He did.

There was nothing to call forth this man’s anger in what you said? - I do not know.

Did he really say “You can murder without leaving linger prints or loot marks”? - Yes.

You are not a friend of his? - No.

Hardly know him? - Only by sight.

Robert William Weatherhead, of 35, Darlington Street, Folkestone, said he remembered a day when there was a row at the Guildhall public house. It must have been after May 31^st. Witness took the prisoner as a partner at darts. Whiting was abusive to the landlord, who came round to put him out. The prisoner said to the landlord “I will serve you as I served the blondie”. Whiting had had enough drink to make him talk.

Mr. Hutchinson: I suggest he did not say that?

Witness: I say he did.

Percy Ernest Wootton, licensee of the Guildhall Hotel, Folkestone, said on Friday, 3^rd June, there was a row, arid he had occasion to caution the prisoner, who begged him to let him stay, and he did so. He did not hear the prisoner say anything else.

Mr. William Hall, of 16, Great, Fenchurch Street, Folkestone, said he knew the murdered woman, Rose Woodbridge and the prisoner.

In March the prisoner stayed at his house for two weeks. While he was there he said if Rose was willing to come back to him he was willing to make a home for her. He said he worshipped her. In fact he often mentioned her.

Mrs. Daisy Emily Hall, wife of the pre­vious witness, said in March the pris­oner lived at her house for a time. While he was there he said he was sorry Rose had left him. He often spoke of her.

Cross-examined, witness said the pris­oner did not like Mrs. Flynn, and she did not like him. She never saw the prisoner with two pairs of braces while he was at her house.

In reply to Mr. Oliver witness said Mrs. Flynn came to see her “now and again”.

Mrs. Elvey Flynn, of 21, Great Fenchurch Street, Folkestone, said she knew Rose and the prisoner. She went some­times to Mr. and Mrs. Hall's place, and remembered the time when the prisoner was staying there. When she went there the prisoner asked her if she knew any body who told Rose Woodbridge any­thing about him. He said when he found out anyone who had told Rose Wood bridge anything about him he would strangle them.

Cross-examined, witness said on one occasion the prisoner jumped up and ran upstairs when she went into the house, but on another occasion he spoke to her.

Mrs. Rose Woodbridge, Eight Bells lodging-house, King Street, Canterbury said she was married on September 4^th, 1935. She lived with her husband for a month or two, and after leaving him she lived with Whiting for a year, and left him a fortnight before last Christmas.

Phyllis was a great friend of hers. Whiting told her that she must stop go­ing about with Phyllis when she told him about two fellows arranging to take them to London. Whiting said if she did not keep away from Phyllis he would do something wrong. She told him that walls had ears.

The prisoner was present when her mother took her away.

This concluded the case for the Crown.

Mr. St. John Hutchinson, in opening the case for the defence, said one of the essential points of the prosecution was that the woman was killed on May 23^rd. The accused was walking with the de­ceased, and was seen by many people with her on that day. If the jury thought the evidence was so strong that she was undoubtedly killed on the 23^rd, they would probably find Whiting guilty.  Would it be possible for them to hon­estly say to themselves “I have no reasonable doubt that the day this woman was killed was on the 23^rd May and not on the 24^th”? This is a case of circumstantial evidence. Sometimes a case of circumstantial evidence could be the strongest they could have, and some­times it could be the weakest. They could imagine sometimes it might be one of the most difficult to have to decide. He sug­gested that that case would be very diffi­cult for the jury to decide. Dealing with the green scarf, Mr. Hut­chinson said Whiting lied when he told the police he had never had a green scarf and that he knew nothing about it. The fact that he has told such a lie showed in no way that he was a guilty man. It was only by the help of the State that the prisoner could be defended. He was a man of no position and no educa­tion. He was taken to the Police Station. The murder was well known in Folke­stone, and the jury could realise that it caused a tremendous sensation. The scarf, which he knew was his, he knew J was found on the dead woman. Was it, therefore, extraordinary for a man like that to deny the scarf was his? It was not very extraordinary for him to think if he admitted the scarf was his he was "done for”. “Looking at it from a common-sense point of view”, Mr. St. J. Hutchinson continued, “did they really think any murderer was such a fool when this woman has a scarf of her own, to deliberately take away that scarf, for that is what he must have done, and substi­tute it with his own scarf - leave one of his visiting cards, as it were, upon the corpse - after strangling her with his own hands deliberately take his own scarf and bind it round her throat for no apparent reason unless than for the reason to make people think she had committed suicide? He tied it like that, and no one out of Bedlam would think she had committed suicide. The prisoner was going to tell them that he gave her the green scarf. Whit­ing was a man who was in a desperate position, who was literally fighting for his life. What they had to ask them­selves was, was the evidence of the pro­secution true; were they reasonably con­vinced of the truth of the evidence? That was what they had to say before they acted upon the evidence of the pro­secution. With regard to the evidence for the defence they had to ask them­selves whether it was reasonably true. “There might he many with a motive against this unhappy girl on the flotsam and jetsam of life”, he said. “Supposing she was killed by someone else on May 24^th or 25^th, that she was wearing a green scarf, then the murderer would probably leave it tied round her neck. That is much more likely than that this man would”. He did not know whether the jury noticed the prisoner crying when Rose Woodbridge gave evidence and also when he (Mr. Hutchinson) was cross-examining her. His affection for her was real; perhaps a decent thing. His affection for her was now being used as evidence of motive. Of course it was not necessary to prove any motive at all, but most juries did look for some motive. The prisoner might have been annoyed with this woman, but what a gulf lay between annoyance and murder. With regard to the taking of the state­ments, he said, was he exaggerating when he said that that was as near third degree as they were ever likely to get in that country? The police, of course, at that time were trying to find a murderer, and they had tried to find a motive. He asked the jury if they were really going to act on that statement. They would hear from the defendant that he had nothing to do with it. People who knew her well would say they saw her on the 24^th. Some would say they saw her on the 25^th. Was that not going to raise a reasonable doubt in their minds? One witness was going to say she saw her with a green scarf on May 25^th.

Whiting then went into the witness box, and Mr. Hutchinson’s first question to him was “Did you murder this girl?”

Whiting: No, sir.

You had lived with Mrs. Woodbridge? - Yes.

You were very fond of her? - Yes.

Are you still desperately fond of her? - Yes.

She left you, did she not? - Yes.

She was taken away by her mother? - Yes.

How much did you know Phyllis? - I did not know her hardly at all.

Had she been over to see you when you and Rose lived together? - She used to come and see Rose now and again.

When did you see Phyllis at Folke­stone? - On the Friday.

The Friday before the Monday when you saw her again? – Yes

Tell us what happened on that Friday?  - I came out of the Guildhall at about ten past ten in the evening I was walking towards home, and I saw Phyllis on the corner. Continuing, Whiting said Phyllis said “Hello, Bill, do you miss Flo much?” He said “Yes, and I would like to have her back.” She told him that she was down and out and hungry. He gave her half-a-crown, for she said she had had some trouble with the Labour Exchange.

The scarf produced was his property, and he was wearing it on the Friday, when he gave it to Phyllis. She had an open-necked blouse, and she had just come out of the Savoy Picture Palace. She was cold, and asked for his scarf, which he took off and gave to her. She thanked him for it. He had no idea that Phyllis tried to take Rose from him. She was a good little soul. He next saw Phyllis on the Monday, May 23^rd, at about 12.30 p.m. She was looking at some postcards in South Street. He had seen her before with the Belgian at 10.30 a.m. before going up Sandgate Road. When he saw her in South Street she asked if he was going to treat her. She said “Let’s go up to the Globe”, a public house on The Bayle. When they got to the Globe she had a brown ale, and he had a pint of beer. She then showed him some divorce papers in her handbag. She said “Why don’t you get married, Bill?” He said “I will do, but I have got to get a job first”. She said ’’Let’s go to Dover and live, and got married afterwards.” He was not in love with Phyllis, but he was alone, and wanted a home. He also wanted his daughter and eldest boy home. He told her that he would marry her, but he had to have a job first. She was not wearing his green scarf that day. From the Globe they went to the Public Library, and then into New Street, where he bought a box of matches at Philpott’s. Going along Sussex Road Phyllis met Mrs. Laws and spoke to her. When she returned he asked her where she was going, and she said “Home”. He asked her where her home was, and she said "89, Ashley Avenue”. They went along and stopped opposite the Baths to look at the pictures. She said she was going to the pictures that even­ing with her landlady. She then said "Come on, let’s go home”. Continuing, prisoner said they went up St. John’s Church Road and past the Hos­pital. She pointed to a room in the Hospital and she said she would show him something. They went along to the golf links and sat on a bank. She kept talking about getting married, and showed him some stitches and a bone ring. She said the stitches were from her operation. They then got up and walked across the golf links and got into Cherry Garden Avenue. They crossed the road and went round to the left into Cherry Garden Lane, and then into Cherry Garden Avenue again. They turned right into Cheriton Road, but she did not want him to go where she lived. A fellow went past on a motor bike, and she waved to him and he to her. She said he was one of her boys. She asked him not to come any further with her, as she did not want her land­lady to see him. She kissed him and walked on. That was the last he saw of her.

Mr. Hutchinson: Did you take her up to Caesar’s Camp and along there and strangle her?

Whiting: No.

A few clays afterwards he went along to the Chief Constable. He was kept at the Police Station all that day and next night.

On May 30^th he was told that Inspector Hollands wished to see him He went to the Police Station at about six o’clock. He was not given any food. Chief In­spector Parker commenced taking the statement at about eight o’clock. Before that he was kept in a room for about two hours. They then took him upstairs, where he saw Mr. Skardon, who said “Come into the torture chamber”.

Mr. Hutchinson: He was being funny?

Witness: I suppose he was?

Continuing, witness said he was asked to sit down by Chief Inspector Parker, who had entered the room with him. He made a statement, and they kept putting questions to him. They took a statement and then put him below again for about half-an-hour, and then took him back into the room. Chief Inspector Parker, Det. Sergt. Skardon and Chief Inspector Hollands were there, and they kept questioning him until about a quarter or half-­past two. They never read anything out to him, but said “Just sign here and walk out a free man”. He had been at the Police Station since six o’clock, examined verbally for four hours, and then stripped and examined physically.

Mr. Hutchinson: What was in your mind at 2.20 m the morning? How were you feeling?

Whiting: I was beat.

Whiting further said he did not think that Phyllis wanted to take Rose away from him, and he had no reason to think that Phyllis was the cause of the trouble between him and Rose. He denied that the scarf was his be­cause he had read in the paper that she was strangled with a green scarf.

With regard to the second statement, when he went into the room Chief Inspec­tor Parker asked him to sit down. He took hold of the scarf, tied it twice round his neck and knotted it. Chief Inspector Parker said suicide could easily be done. Witness replied “No, it was not suicide. Whoever done that was the murderer”.

Continuing, Whiting said Chief Inspec­tor Parker kept leaving the room and go­ing into the Chief Constable’s office. When he came back he asked him whether he had made his mind up. In the intervals Det. Sergt. Skardon said “Come on, Bill, tell him. Don’t be a damn fool; he is trying to help you. You won’t have any more trouble. You will walk out a free man. We can go back to London, and our case is settled”.

Mr. Hutchinson: Did you think you would be able to walk out a free man?

Whiting: Yes.

Prisoner said Chief Inspector Parker said “You don’t know what I am. I don’t want to be rough. I am going to help you”. Det.-Sergt. Skardon kept saying “Go on, tell him. Tell him it is a case of suicide. We want our case cleared up. You were the last man seen with her; we don’t want to charge you with min­der”. He handed prisoner his hat and said “Sign this and walk out”.

Mr. Hutchinson: You did sign it and walk out.

Judge Wrottesly: You had nothing to do with the wording of the statement?

Whiting: I simply said “Yes”.

They invented the story and you signed it? - Yes.

With regard to the incident in the Guildhall public house, he was singing, and the landlord caught hold of him. He (prisoner) said “I will handle you the same as you handle me outside.” He denied saying he would serve him as he served the blondie. Whiting admitted that he hated the sight of Mrs. Thompson. He denied say­ing he would put her on the spot, but said he told her that he loved Mrs. Wood­bridge. He bought the green purse at Dover Woolworth’s before Christmas.

Mr. Hutchinson: Had you any feeling of hatred or revenge against Phyllis at all?

Whiting: No. She was a good little soul.

This concluded the examination of the prisoner, and the Court rose at twenty minutes to seven.

When the hearing was resumed yes­terday (Thursday) Whiting was cross- examined by Mr. Roland Oliver.

Mr. Oliver: Will you look at the scarf - look at it carefully - is that actually your scarf?

Whiting: Yes.

When did you tell anybody that the scarf round this murdered woman’s neck was yours? - I told my counsel.

When? - Two or three days ago.

Mr. Hutchinson said he had been told before Wednesday morning.

Mr. Oliver: Two or three days ago you told your counsel that it was your scarf. You did not tell anybody before then?

Whiting: Yes.

You see the ends of your scarf are frayed as if they had been in contact with some hard object? - Yes.

Can you tell the jury how that hap­pened to your scarf? - It was never there when I had that scarf.

You mean those frayed marks were not there at all? - They were not there.

Since you gave it to her that came about  - Yes.

Did you ever put the ends of your scarf in the clip of any braces to hold it? - No.    

            .

You say you gave her that scarf on Friday, May 20^th? - Yes.

You heard a landlady say she had never seen any such scarf? - Yes.

You last saw her with it when she put It round, her neck on Friday? - Yes.

You never saw that scarf again, did you, according to your case? – No.

She did not wear it on the Monday when you went for a walk with her? – No.

She was wearing a different scarf? – I did not notice.

You are a Folkestone man, aren`t you? – Yes.

You know these three beehive-looking hills? – Yes.

Did you know there was a thicket along the bottom of them? - No, I never go up there.

You have never been up there in your life? - No.

Have you ever been up as far as the stile along the road called Castle Hill? -  I came down that road last August, past that stile.

This girl Phyllis was a loose sort of girl? - According to what some people say.

She would have gone to a place like that with a good number of men if they had asked her, according to your knowledge of her? - Yes, she would.

You knew she would have gone with you if you had asked her? - I do not think she would.

In reply to other questions, Whiting said he loved Rose Woodbridge and he was sorry when she left him.

You thought some interfering person brought about Rose Woodbridge leaving you? - Something about a letter the landlord sent to her mother.

Were you anxious to find out who made that mischief? - No.

You never tried to find out who had done that? - No.

Would you have been angry with the person who had done that? - I would have asked them what they had done it for, that is all.

Can you tell the jury at all when your jacket got torn? It was the only jacket you wore on every day? - I never noticed it.

That purse which was in your pocket, you said you bought that before Christ­mas and had had it for months and months? - Yes.

A good many people might have seen you with it if it was yours? - I expect so.

Replying to a question by Mr. Justice Wrottesley, the prisoner said when he was in London he kept cigarette ends and papers in the purse. He also used it for money.

Mr. Oliver: You know Elvey Flynn?

Whiting: Yes.

Did you have any conversation with her about Rose Woodbridge? - I would not speak to her at all.

Why would you not speak to her? - Because I don’t like her. She is mis­chief making and always has been.

Did you never ask her if she knew anything about Rose Woodbridge, or whether anybody had made mischief about Rose Woodbridge? - No.

You said you hated and detested Florence Thompson. Is that right? - Yes.

Were you with her one afternoon in the Guildhall? - She came in there.

Were you afterwards with her in Jordan’s? - Yes.

Did you talk to her? - Yes. She asked me if I would treat her to a dinner in the South Foreland.

Did Mrs. Thompson say to you “It is a shame Phyllis has been murdered”? - She did not say anything like that.

Did you say “If you don’t keep your mouth shut about Phyllis I will put you on the spot? - No.

It is sheer invention? - Yes.

Did you say “How would you like a scarf round your neck?” - Pure inven­tion.

Weatherhead is a friend of yours? -  No friend of mine.

Is that an invention of his? -  Absolutely

You never said you would serve any­one like you served the blondie? - No. There were other people in the bar.

Mr. Oliver then questioned Whiting about the long statement he had made.

Mr. Oliver; Do you say that the police wrote down things you did not say?

Whiting: Yes.

They invented things, and then you say they wrote them down, and you never said them at all? - Yes.

You gave them, no doubt, in answer to questions getting a detailed account of your movements with Phyllis on 23^rd May? - Yes.

Is that part of the statement right? Did you tell them those things? - Yes.

They have written down a lot of things you have said about Mrs. Wood­bridge. Did you say anything about Mrs. Woodbridge? - They put it to me that I had been living with Mrs. Wood­bridge and I told them I had been living with her. They said “When you were there did a young girl named Phyllis Minter come there?” and I said “Yes”. They said “You say Phyllis was the cause of Mrs. Woodbridge leav­ing you?” They kept on putting that to me and I suppose I must have said “Yes”. Continuing, Whiting said he did not hear that she had been in hospital.

Can you think why the police should talk about her being in hospital? Are you sure you did not say that? - I am sure I did not.

Continuing, Whiting said he did say that he would be annoyed with anyone who led Rose astray. The police kept putting it to him and he said “Yes”. He did not say he thought Phyllis was the cause of the trouble between Rose and him.

Mr. Oliver: What the police have done, according to you, is to write down a lot you did say and put in little bits they invented themselves? - Yes.

If you wanted to get Phyllis to that thicket for immoral purposes you may have talked about marrying her and living with her? - It never entered my mind.

After saying you would marry her on the afternoon of Monday. May 23^rd, and knowing where you thought she lived, 89, Ashley Avenue, did you make any attempt to see her again after that Monday? - No.

You were lonely and wanted to marry; you had arranged to marry this woman. She had told you her address where you thought she lived. How came it you never tried to find her until her body was discovered? - She said she would see me next day in the Library. She never turned up and I forgot all about her.

Did you say to the police “I am al­ways worried since Mrs. Woodbridge left me”? - Yes.

Whiting said the statement was not read over to him and the statement “This statement has been read over to me and is true”, was put in after his signature was put on it. With regard to the second statement dealing with the question of suicide, Whiting said he did not see Phyllis wearing the green scarf on the Monday evening.

Mr. Oliver: Every word in that is a lie invented by the police?

Whiting_: They kept saying it them­selves.

Mr. Oliver asked Whiting to look at the scarf and said “Was that how it was when the police showed it to you?”

Whiting: Yes.

Mr. Oliver then reminded Whiting what he had said the previous day about Chief Inspector Parker tying the scarf twice round his neck, knotting it and saying “Look Bill, easy”. “You show the jury what Chief Inspector Parker did with that scarf”, added Mr. Oliver.

Whiting took the scarf, wound it twice round his neck and knotted it in the front.

Mr. Hutchinson:  In this statement the police nut questions to you?

Whiting: Yes.

You say it is the answers to these questions that they put down in some instances wrong? - Yes.

Mr. Henry Allen, of 4, Margaret Street, Folkestone, a labourer, said he made a statement to the police on June 2^nd. He had known the murdered woman well by sight for about eight years. He saw her on May 24^th at 9.30 p.m. in Margaret Street smoking a cigarette.

Cross-examined, witness said he saw Phyllis practically every day.

Mr. John Brookes, of 4, Margaret Street, Folkestone, a labourer, said he made a statement to the police on June 2^nd. He knew the murdered woman by sight and saw her on May 24^th be­tween 9.30 p.m. and 9.45 p.m. in Mar­garet Street, when he was with the pre­vious witness.

Cross-examined, witness said he saw the murdered woman practically every weekend in a public-house. He did not see her every day.

Mrs. Ella Hall, of Station Cottages, Folkestone, said the police sent for her and she told them she went to Sainsbury’s on the 24^th or 25^th of May at about 10 a.m. She got off the bus at West Cliff Gardens and saw the murdered woman talking to two men. She said “Hello” to her.

Cross-examined, witness said she did not see Phyllis very often. She was not sure whether it was the 24^th or 25^th, but she knew it would not be the Monday.

Mr. Justice Wrottesley: Are you sure it was not the 17^th or 18^th that you saw Phyllis?

Witness: It was not as far back as that.

Miss Hilda Miller, of 28, Harvey Street Folkestone, a shop assistant at the Folkestone Woolworth’s, said the police sent for her on May 28^th. She knew Phyllis by sight and last saw her on May 25^th between 11.30 and 12 noon in the store. She was with another woman, who bought a roll of grease­proof paper. Phyllis was wearing a navy blue coat and a green scarf similar to the one produced. She had seen the murdered woman the day before and she was wearing the same coat. She was able to fix the dates because it was the same week the woman was murdered.

Cross-examined, witness said she did not remember the murdered woman coming with Mrs. Wright to the shop on Monday. She first knew that the murdered woman had a green scarf tied round her neck when she heard the other girls talking about it. Witness said she was serving on a counter where paper was sold.

Mr. Hutchinson: Did you notice any­thing about Phyllis? What drew your attention to her?

Witness: I looked at her hair.

What did you notice about her hair?  - It had been dyed.

Mrs. Wright, re-called, said she recog­nised Miss Miller as the young lady from whom she made her purchase on the Monday at Woolworth’s.

Mr. Edward Marwood, a newsvendor, of 29. Tontine Street, Folkestone, said he was sent for by the police on May 29^th. During the week previous, on the Wednesday morning, at about 9.50, he saw the murdered woman near Milky Way. She had a book in her hand. He was able to fix the time because he was going to the Labour Exchange to sign on. He had seen the girl on Monday at about 10.50 a.m. or 11 a.m. outside Wood’s, in Tontine Street. She was then talking to a big, stout lady. He had also seen her on the Sunday morning, when she asked him where the East Kent booking office was. She had a case in her hand and said she was going to Margate.

Cross-examined, witness said he saw Phyllis a good many times during a week.

Mr. Hutchinson: Are you certain after you had seen her on Sunday that you saw her on two days after?

Witness: On Monday and Wednesday.

Mr. John Henry Turner, of 8, Mill Bay, Folkestone, a newsvendor, said on May 29^th he gave a statement to the police. He knew Phyllis Minter by sight and saw her on Wednesday, May 25^th. He was locking the “Star” office up at about 7.45 a.m., when Phyllis said “Good morning” to him. He walked with her as far as the Shakespeare public house. He saw her again at 8.20 a.m. and she said she was waiting for her pal.

Miss Lucille Godden, of 43, Bridge Street, Folkestone, a waitress, said she was sent for by the police. She had known the murdered woman all her life. On May 22^nd she saw Phyllis in the Alexandra Hotel. Phyllis said she had had a phone call from somebody and did not know who it was. She next saw Phyllis again on the Wednesday evening in Dover Road, be­tween 10.30 and 11 at night. She saw Phyllis coming up the road on the pillion seat of a motor cycle. She was wearing a navy blue coat and green scarf, but no hat. A medium aged man was driving the motor cycle. He was wearing a light raincoat, but no hat. She was able to fix the date because on the Monday and Tuesday she went to a dance arid did not leave until 12 o’clock.

Mr. Oliver: I am going to suggest you are quite mistaken that you saw Phyllis between 10.30 p.m. and 11 p.m. on Wed­nesday.

Mr. Oliver: You are able to say she was dressed in a blue coat?

Witness: Yes.

And a green scarf? - Yes.

When did you first remember seeing her wearing a green scarf? - Different times I saw she was wearing a green scarf.

How long before this Wednesday had you seen her with a green scarf? - On Sunday.

Did you ever see her before with that green scarf? - I cannot remember what day.

A week before? - About that.

Did the police ask you how this woman was dressed? - Yes.

Why did you not tell them amongst other things she had a green scarf? - I thought I told them she had a green scarf on.

Has not your imagination been getting to work? - No.

In reply to a question by Mr. Justice Wrottesley, witness said she thought the scarf Phyllis was wearing was darker than the one produced.

Miss Lilian Beasley, of 37, Marshall Street, Folkestone, said she was with Miss Godden on the Wednesday when they saw Phyllis on the back of a motor cycle in Dover Road. She only saw the back of the murdered girl, but knew her because of her coat and hair.

Cross-examined, witness said she would not have seen Phyllis unless Miss Godden had said “There is Phyllis Minter”.

Mr. Charles Butler, of 23, St. John’s Street, Folkestone, a fisherman, said he had known the girl known as Phyllis Minter since she was three or four years of age. On May 27th he saw a newspaper photograph of the murdered girl. He had seen her on Wednesday, May 25^th at the Dover bus stop at the top of Tontine Street. Witness said it was the 24^th or the 25^th when he saw the girl. She was talking to a man about six feet tall, who looked like a soldier. They appeared to be quarrelling and Phyllis looked to be on the point of crying.

Cross-examined, witness said he came ashore at about 10.05 p.m. and saw Phyllis at 10.35 p.m.

Mr. Oliver: You had just come from the sea every evening that week, includ­ing Monday?

Witness: Yes.

After the luncheon adjournment, Mr. Justice Wrottesley said that he had received a note from the jury. “If I thought it possible to do whatt is asked in accordance with the ad­ministration of justice in this country”, he said, “I would do so, but it is quite impossible. I can only say ‘No`”.

The contents of the note were not made public.

Mr. Richard Brazier, of 23, St. John’s Street, Folkestone, a platelayer, said he lodged with Butler. He had known Phyllis Minter by sight for six months at the most. Looking at the photograph (produced) witness said he could not say he knew either of the girls depicted, but he knew Rose Woodbridge. On the Tuesday he met Mr. Butler at the bottom of Tontine Street. They passed the Congregational Church and he saw a woman and man standing on the kerb having a row. The man was tall and wore a light raincoat.

Mr. Hutchinson: You would not give the defence a statement?

Witness: I have been away working for the last 16 weeks.

Did you tell everything you could remember to the police – Yes.

Did you tell them more than you could remember? - No.

Mr. Hutchinson asked leave to treat Brazier as a hostile witness and asked Mr. Justice Wrottesley to read the state­ment given by the witness to the police.

Mr. Justice Wrottesley said he could see no signs of hostility.

In reply to his lordship, witness said he did not recognise the man or woman ho saw at the bus stop.

Mr. Hutchinson: How do you know they were having a row?

Witness: They were arguing.

Cross-examined, witness said the in­cident happened on the Tuesday. He never went out on the Wednesday. He had only seen Phyllis once before.

Mr. Oliver: Is your memory a rather weak one?

Witness: No.

Mr. George Neville, of Dudley Road, Folkestone, said he had known the murdered girl for seven or eight years. He heard about her death on May 26^th. He last saw her on May 25^th at the bottom of Tontine Street at about 11.15 a.m. She was with two other women, and was wearing a blue coat with white spots on it and had no stockings on. He had no doubt at all that the girl was Phyllis.

Cross-examined, witness said the blue coat produced was not the coat he saw Phyllis wearing.

Mr. William Alfred Richards, of 60, Dover Street, Folkestone, a mechanic, said he had known the murdered woman ever since she was quite a small girl. On May 22^nd he bought a rowing boat at Dover and on the Tuesday he rowed it from Dover to Folkestone. He reached Folkestone at 5.30 p.m. and he worked on it until about 9 p.m. The next day, Wednesday, he went to his father’s house in Foord Road, and on the way passed Phyllis by Messrs. Rye`s stores at about 10.15 a.m. He had no doubt at all that the girl was Phyllis Minter.

Mr. William Knott, of 13, New Street, Folkestone, a labourer, said he knew Whiting and Weatherhead. On the Friday night, when there was a row in the Guildhall, he was in the public bar. The landlord told Whiting that if he did not keep quiet he would put him out. He heard no threats.

Cross-examined, witness said there was not a great deal of noise, although it was a bit “jangley”.

Miss Iris Horton, of 114, Buckland Avenue, Dover, employed by Messrs. Woolworth’s, at Dover, said she had been in charge of the leather counter since before September, 1937. They sold many purses like the green purse pro­duced.

Cross-examined, witness said that it was very rare they sold such a purse to a man.

Closing the case for the defence, Mr. Hutchinson, addressing the jury, said it was a very terrible murder. A young girl on the threshold of life had been done to death very brutally. “My submission is going to be”, he continued, “that throughout this case there is not enough evidence here for you to say that the prosecution have done what they are bound to do. That is to prove to you beyond all reasonable doubt the guilt of the prisoner”. There was one point for them, he said, in that case. Had it been proved to them beyond all reasonable doubt that the girl was killed on May 23^rd? If they thought the evidence was so overwhelm­ing as to be safe to act upon, that the woman was killed on May 23^rd, they would get a very long way towards proving the guilt of the prisoner. Twelve reputable people had all given evidence that they had seen the woman alive after May 23^rd. If they found that those twelve people must have been mis­taken, they need not attend to any other part of the case at all. Continuing, he said the prisoner denied it-was his scarf, but he was lying. There was no doubt about that. Were they surprised that he told lies about it? It was wrong for him to tell lies. It would be dangerous if people were convicted merely because they told untruths to themselves out of trouble. Dealing with the statement about suicide, Mr. Hutchinson said it was one of the most extraordinary parts of the case. They knew the prisoner made a state­ment to the Chief Constable, but he never made any suggestion that the murdered woman was depressed or likely to commit suicide. He then made a statement of four hours, and he never breathed that she was going to commit suicide; in fact, he said he was going to marry her. Did it not seem extraordinary that he next suddenly evolved that theory? Were not four hours taken up by this wretched man being cross-examined by a clever police officer? “Really, I do protest as strongly as I can against that form of statement”, he added. Continuing, Mr. Hutchinson said why not let the man write it himself; there was plenty of time? They kept him in the Police Station for four or five hours without food before they asked him a single question. Next day the man’s clothes were taken from him, and he was given others. The next night he was sent for again, and at 11.15 he was cross-examined again. Why on earth did that man, out of the blue, suddenly make that sug­gestion of suicide?

Mr. Oliver, addressing the jury, said it was the prosecution’s case that the woman was murdered on Monday, May 23^rd. Since then no one could be found at whose house she had slept or in whose presence she had eaten. One suggestion came from a witness that she might have slept out. Did the jury think it at all likely that she would leave her belongings at the bus office unclaimed? When the body was found on May 26^th at six o’clock it was smelling of decomposition. Did they require scientists to tell them that the girl was not living at ten o’clock the previous evening as some of those reliable witnesses say? Were they impressed by Sir Bernard Spilsbury when he said could not be alive on Wednesday? It was possible that she was alive on Tuesday, but riot probable. That she died on May 23^rd was consistent with her disappearing from any house where she lived.

Folkestone Herald 17-9-1938

Local News

William Whiting (38), a labourer, of Folkestone, was found Not Guilty at the Old Bailey yesterday of the murder of Mrs. Phyllis May Spiers, whose body was found in a coppice at the bottom of Caesar`s Camp, with a green scarf round the neck, on the evening of May 26^th.

The trial, before Mr. Justice Wrottesley, lasted four days and at its conclusion, when the foreman of the jury announced the verdict, there was some applause in Court. This was at once suppressed by Mr. Jus­tice Wrottesley. Whiting was dis­charged shortly after the jury, up­on which three women served, had given their verdict.

During the trial Whiting stated that certain passages in an alleged statement to the police had not been made by him. He admitted that the green scarf found round the neck of the murdered woman was his, but said that he had given it to Mrs. Spiers some days before her body was found. Four branches of a tree were exhi­bited in Court. They were enclosed in a frame along the front of the dock and beside them were four suitcases.

Whiting, who pleaded Not Guilty, went into the witness box on Wednesday and in answer to his Counsel’s question “Did you murder this girl?” said in quiet tones “No, sir”. He was subjected to a lengthy cross-examination by Counsel for the prosecution.

Mr. Roland Oliver, K.C., and Mr. B.M. Waddy prosecuted, and Mr. St. John Hutchinson and Mr. J. Stuart Daniel were for the defence.

     

Mr. Oliver said on the evening of May 26^th, a boy of 16, named Andrews, was bird-nesting in a remote thicket near Folkestone when he came across the body of a woman. The police found that she had been strangled, and, he would ask the jury to say, murdered by a man. It was a case that might cause them a good deal of anxiety. There were a great many witnesses and the case in the main was one of circumstantial evidence. It was a murder of great brutality. The woman had received the most ferocious violence from her assailant. Mr Oliver said that the path to the thicket was very rough, more like a cattle track than a path. Mrs. Spiers was 22, and was married before she was 17. She lived with her husband for two years until 1934, and then they parted and her husband had never seen her again. “I am afraid there is no doubt she was a woman of immoral habits”, continued Mr. Oliver. “She had affairs with many men and was therefore a young woman who might have gone to that place with a good many men. Whiting knew her quite well. Mrs. Spiers was practically desti­tute. She had twice stayed at lodgings with luggage and left without paying. The manner of her murder was fairly plainly written on the scene of the crime and on her body. She had obviously been violently attacked, perhaps with fists, and beaten into a state of unconsciousness. The murderer must have then dragged her further into the thicket. A blue coat was thrown over her, and tied and knotted tightly around her neck was a green scarf. That scarf is one of the most salient pieces of evidence in this case. Whether she was strangled by it, by the hands, or died in some other way is not known, but it was clear she was murdered. The scarf might have belonged to the murderer”. By a curious coincidence, continued Mr. Oliver, Mrs. Spiers was “snapped” on the Folkestone front on the day of her death and the scarf she was wearing was obviously nothing like the green scarf. One portion of what the prosecution said was her own scarf was found in her handbag. The rest disappeared – they might think with the murderer. It was the case for the prosecution that her death took place on May 23^rd, although he understood witnesses were to be called to say they saw her after that date. If the jury accepted that date it was quite significant that the last person who was seen with her was Whiting. Mr. Oliver then came to the question of motive. Whiting, he said, had lived at Dover for about a year with a married woman named Rose Woodbridge. She was a close friend of Mrs. Spiers, and Whiting did not approve of the association. One evening when Mrs. Woodbridge came home she told Whiting she had been out with “Phyllis”, and that they met a couple of men who asked the women to live with them. That, according to Mrs. Woodbridge, made Whiting angry, and he said “If you don`t stop going about with Phyllis I shall do something wrong”. He threatened he would strangle Phyllis. “Be careful of Mrs. Woodbridge’s evidence”, Mr. Oliver warned the jury. “You may not think her a very reliable sort of woman, but that does not mean she cannot tell the truth. Whiting and Mrs. Woodbridge separated - her mother, I think, took her away - and this made him very jealous. He was anxious to find out who had brought about the separation. He was desperately in love with her. In a statement to the police he said he worshipped her and in his mind Phyllis was the person really responsible for coming between them”. Mr. Oliver returned to the green scarf – “perhaps the most important piece of evidence in the case”. Whiting had denied that it was his scarf, or that he ever had one like it. The prosecution had evidence that right up to the day of the murder he was wearing a similar green scarf, but on the day of the murder he was not. Another piece of evidence, found on a post in the thicket, was a hair similar to Whiting`s. On July ist Whiting made a long statement to the police, in which he said that he and Phyllis walked to the golf course and sat on the grass. Phyllis was very quiet. “I said `What is the matter?`”, the alleged statement proceeded. She said “I am fed up and I am going to do myself in” I said “How are you going to do it?”, and she said “Strangle myself with a scarf round my neck”. She was wearing a green scarf. Mr. Oliver submitted that Mrs. Spiers could not have strangled herself; she was murdered by someone. “How could she have said to anybody `I am going to strangle myself with a green scarf`” he concluded, “and then someone have come along and murdered her with a green scarf?”

Evidence was then called for the prosecution.

Arthur Charles Spiers, husband of the dead woman, living at Bexhill-on-Sea, said that shortly before her death he began divorce proceedings against her.

Inspector Johnson, of Folkestone, was asked by Mr. Hutchinson whether a man had confessed to the police that he had committed the crime and that the police, after making enquiries, took no further steps with regard to the man

The officer said that he did not know. It was not a matter that he dealt with.

Dr. W. C. P. Barrett, the Folkestone police surgeon, expressed the view that the woman`s death was caused by garrotting. He agreed that before the Coroner he gave his opinion that she had not been dead longer than two days when the body was found. He had heard “chit-chat” that Mrs. Spiers had been seen shopping after May 23^rd. His original opinion and his present opinion were that death had taken place within two or three days.

Mr. Hutchinson: Do you know that Sir Bernard Spilsbury does not agree with your opinion about garrotting?

Dr. Barrett: Yes.

Mr. Hutchinson: You thought scratches were cause before death, and Sir Bernard after death?

Dr. Barrett: Yes.

Mr. Hutchinson: You agree that all these questions are matters of grave difficulty in which people may honestly make mistakes?

Dr. Barrett: Yes, and Sir Bernard`s experience is much greater than mine. I have only had two cases of murder.

Sir Bernard Spilsbury said that he thought death was due to manual strangulation rather than garrotting with the green scarf.

Mr. Oliver: I don't think it matters whether it was manual strangulation or strangulation with a ligature. There is no doubt it was strangulation?

Sir Bernard Spilsbury: None at all.

Mr. Oliver: Is it in your opinion possible that she committed suicide by strangling herself with a scarf?

Sir Bernard Spilsbury: No, that it quite out of the question, in my view.

Replying to Mr. Hutchinson, Sir Bernard agreed that it was very diffi­cult to fix the exact time of death. It might have been on May 23^rd or May 24^th.

Mr. Hutchinson: The police have told us of people who thought they saw Mrs. Spiers alive on May 25^th. Could you go so far as to say she could not have been alive on the 25^th?

Sir Bernard Spilsbury: I hardly think it possible.

Does that mean it is just possible, but very unlikely? – It is very difficult indeed to say.

When the case was resumed on Wednesday the jury asked if they might have an opportunity of examining more closely the tree branches which formed an exhibit.

Mr. Justice Wrottesley agreed to the request, and said they could be taken to the jury room and examined during the luncheon interval.

Chief Inspector Parker produced a long statement alleged to have been made by Whiting on May 30^th. It began “I am a widower and my wife died on May 3^rd, 1936. She was strangled by George Arthur Bryant, who was afterwards executed at Wandsworth. I was at the time of her death living apart from my wife. I had three children by her. She left me in December, 1935”. The alleged statement went on to tell of his association with a young married woman named Rose Woodbridge, and of Mrs. Woodbridge leaving him in November last, and added “I loved Rose, and in my mind I thought Phyllis Spiers was the cause of the trouble between us. I wor­shipped Rose”. On May 23^rd he had a drink with Mrs. Spiers, and she showed him some divorce papers and said that she could get married again. The alleged statement continued “She asked me ‘Why don’t you marry me and let us go back to Dover?’ I said ‘I want to get mar­ried, and have some of my children home’”. They walked to the golf links. Something seemed to be wor­rying her, “perhaps because she was down and out. If Rose does not come back I shall never settle down again”.

Inspector Parker said that he showed a green scarf to Whiting and he declared that he had never seen it before and had never had one like it.

Later Whiting made another alleged statement, said the witness, in which he said that while on the golf links Mrs. Spiers said she would “Do her­self in”. He (Whiting) asked how, and she replied “Strangle myself with a scarf round my neck”. She was wearing a green spotted scarf. Inspector Parker said that he had tried to find any place where Mrs. Spiers might have slept or taken a meal after May 23^rd, but had been unsuccessful.

Mr. Hutchinson: That did not sur­prise you, did it? She was continu­ally in different places?

Inspector Parker: She was a resi­dent of Folkestone, and I expected she would have been found after May 23^rd had she been alive.

Asked why the alleged statement should have taken from 10 p.m. to 2 a.m., Inspector Parker said that he was endeavouring to discover the per­petrator of a crime. He agreed that he asked Whiting a good many ques­tions.

Mr. Hutchinson: Can you tell me the difference between that and third degree methods?

Mr. Justice Wrottesley: I don’t know what third degree means.

Mr. Hutchinson: I thought a police officer would know (to Inspector Par­ker): Do you know?

Inspector Parker: I have heard of the term but I do not know what it means.

Mr. Hutchinson: Do you generally, when making inquiries, cross-examine a man not only on what he is saying but on statements by other people? - I did not ask him about other people’s statements. I was endeavouring to test the accuracy of his statement.

 Inspector Parker agreed that there were no scratches on Whiting. There was a tear on his coat but no scratches on it. Several other men were examined by the police, he said.

Mr. Hutchinson: And there was the usual fake confession by a lunatic? – Yes.

A representative of a firm of outfitters at Folkestone said that during the winters of 1936 and 1937 his firm sold two or three dozen green scarves.

When evidence was called as to Whiting having worn a green scarf on various dates up to May 20^th, Mr. Hutchinson said that it was not disputed.

The jury, during the luncheon in­terval, examined the tree branches and on their return discussed a point with counsel and the Judge as to the position of a piece of barbed wire.

Mrs. Wright, of Garden Road, Folkestone, said that Mrs. Spiers took a room at her house on May 21^st in the name of Phyllis Minter. She had no luggage and said she came from Tooting and had a job at the Lido, Folkestone

.

Mr. Hutchinson:  Were you sur­prised she did not turn up on the night of May 23^rd?

Witness: I was.

You know she has gone off before without paying? - I know that now.

Mrs. Wright added that later that night she saw a man without a hat and wearing a light mackintosh, ap­parently waiting outside her house.

Alfred Sidney Beesley, Chief Con­stable of Folkestone, agreed, in reply to Mr. Hutchinson, that in June he caused an inquiry to be made as to where Mrs. Spiers stayed on May 23^rd and 24^th. He explained that he had had statements that Mrs. Spiers had been seen on May 24^th and he had done all he could to find out if it were correct. He could not find any place where she had stayed although she was sup­posed to have been seen in Folke­stone.

Florence Thompson, who described herself as a friend of Mrs. Spiers, said that she had some drinks with Whiting on May 28^th. “I remarked that it was a shame that Phyllis had been murdered”, she continued, “and he asked me how I would like a scarf round my neck”. “He said `If you don’t keep your mouth shut about Phyllis, I will put you on the spot. You can do a murder without finding fingerprints or foot marks’. I said: ‘No. Wherever you go they will always trace you’”.

Mr. Oliver: What was his manner?  - He was quite quiet.

Replying to Mr. Hutchinson, Mrs. Thompson said that she had come over for the day from Dover. She and Whiting went to three public houses. She had a gin and peppermint in one; a port wine and a cherry wine in an­other, and a port and a cocktail at the third.

Mr. Hutchinson: Were you not a little imaginative? - No. I never get drunk.

I suggest he never said this at all?  - He did.

Why should he say it? - Phyllis hap­pened to be a friend of mine.

Robert William Weatherhead, a seaman, spoke of an alleged incident in a public house. Whiting, he said, became abusive and when the landlord came round to put him out he swore and said “I will serve you the same as I served the blondie”.

Mr. Hutchinson: He had had a drink or two? – He had had enough to make him talk.

Rose Woodbridge, who said that she was living in a lodging house in Canterbury, gave evidence that she knew Phyllis Spiers as “Phyllis Minter”. Mrs. Woodbridge said she (witness) was married in September, 1935, and parted from her husband a month later. Subsequently she lived with Whiting, leaving him a fortnight be­fore last Christmas. Phyllis Spiers lived in the same street at Dover, and they were very friendly. Mrs. Woodbridge said that one day she told Whiting about “two fellows” arranging to take her and Phyllis to London. He was very angry and said that he would do something wrong if she did not keep away from Phyllis. He did not say what he meant by it.

The Judge: What did you say? - “Walls have ears”. She added that her mother took her away from Whit­ing. He was there, and she gave him a reason.

Mr. Oliver: Did you hear your mother’s reason for taking you away? - No.

This concluded the case for the pro­secution.

Mr. Hutchinson, opening the case for the defence, said that Whiting was a man of no education and it was only by the help of the State that he was defended. That he had lied when he said he had never had a green scarf was true but because he told a lie about that it did not show he was guilty. They could imagine his feelings when he heard that a green scarf had been found round the woman’s neck and his saying “If I admit the scarf is mine I am done for”. “Would a man be such a fool as to take away a woman’s scarf and sub­stitute his own to strangle a woman?” asked Mr. Hutchinson. Whiting would tell the jury that, not on Monday, May 23^rd but on the previous Friday, he gave Mrs. Spiers the scarf he was wearing. He did not think she was wearing it on the Monday when he went out with her. “Supposing someone else was with her - and there might be many with a motive against this unhappy girl on the Flotsam and Jetsam of life. Sup­posing she was killed by someone else on May 24^th or May 25^th, that she was then wearing a green scarf, then the murderer would probably leave it tied round her neck. That is much more likely than that this man would”. There would be evidence by people who knew her well, who would swear that they saw Mrs. Spiers on May 24^th, and some on May 25^th. One of them would say that she was then wearing a green scarf.

Whiting then went into the wit­ness box.

Mr. Hutchinson’s first question to him was “Did you murder this girl?” “No, sir”, he replied quietly. Whiting said that he was a married man, and that his wife was murdered and a man named Bryant was hanged for it. He (Whiting) lived with Mrs. Woodbridge. He was very fond of her then and he was now. After Mrs. Woodbridge had left him he met Mrs. Spiers on one occasion. She asked him if he missed Rose, and he said he did, and would like her back. On May 20^th she asked him for his scarf, saying that she felt cold, and he gave it to her.

Mr. Hutchinson: Had you any idea that Phyllis, wanted to take Rose away from you? - No, she was a good little soul, and would not do it.

Describing his meeting with Mrs. Spiers on May 23rrd, he said she showed him some divorce papers and said to him “Why not get married?” He said that he would marry her, but he had to get a job first.

Mr. Hutchinson: You were not in love with Phyllis? – No, but I wanted a home and my two children back. I was alone.

Whiting said that on this day Phyllis was not wearing the green scarf which he had given her. They went for a walk, and near the golf links she waved to a young man on a motorcycle, saying that he was “one of her boys”. Soon afterwards she kissed him, and they parted. That was the last he saw of her.

Mr. Hutchinson: Did you take her by Caesar’s Camp and strangle her? - No, sir.

Asked about his alleged statement, Whiting said the police officers kept asking him questions and he hardly knew what he was saying. He had denied that the green scarf was his because he had read about the scarf in the paper and he was frightened. Asked why he had suggested that Mrs. Spiers had committed suicide, Whiting replied “Inspector Parker put it to me telling me that if I told him that, I would walk out a free man - if I told him about it being a suicide with a green scarf”.

Whiting continued: “Inspector Parker said ‘Sit down, Bill’. He got the scarf, tied it twice round his neck, knotted it and said ‘Quite easy, Bill. A case of suicide. It could easily be done.’I said ‘ No, it is not suicide, whatever it was it was murder’. He kept pressing me for nearly two hours and saying ‘Have you made up your mind?’” “While he was away, Sergeant Scarden said ‘Go on Bill, tell him. Don’t be a damned fool. He is trying to help you. You will have no more trouble. You will walk out free. We will go back to London and our case is settled`”. Whiting said that Mrs. Spiers was a “happy-go-lucky girl and would not commit suicide”.

Mr. Hutchinson: Are you a friend of Mrs. Thompson?

Whiting: I hate the sight of her.

Whiting denied having said either that a murder could be done without leaving foormarks, or anything to the landlord of the public house about “Blondie”. He concluded by saying that he bore no animosity towards Phyllis.

Mr. Roland Oliver, K.C., began his cross-examination on Thursday morn­ing. His first question to Whiting was “When did you first tell anybody the scarf round Mrs. Spiers’ neck was yours?” Whiting replied:  I told my coun­sel two or three days ago”.

Mr. Oliver: Did you hear your coun­sel ask a witness yesterday about scores of scarves being sold in Folke­stone? - Yes.

Mr. St. John Hutchinson said he did not wish to interrupt but in jus­tice to the prisoner he did not want a false deduction to be made. He had been told about the scarf before yes­terday, but until he had specific in­structions about the matter he thought it right to put the questions about the sale of scarves.

Mr. Oliver: Two or three days ago you told your counsel it was your scarf and you had not told anyone be­fore that. Is that right?

Whiting: Yes.

At counsel’s request Whiting took the green scarf from the cardboard box in which it had been placed as an exhibit and examined it closely. The frayed end was not there, he said, when he gave it to Mrs. Spiers.

Mr. Oliver: It has become frayed since you gave it to her? - Yes, sir.

Did you ever put the end of your scarf into the clip of your braces to hold it?

Whiting said he had not, adding “I will demonstrate how I put my scarf on, if you like, sir’'.

Mr. Oliver: You say you gave her that scarf on Friday, May 20^th? -  Yes.

You heard her landlady say she had never seen any such scarf in her possession? - Yes sir.

You last saw her with it round her neck on the Friday? – Yes

.

She was not wearing it on the Mon­day when you went for a walk with her? - No, sir.

Was she wearing a different scarf?  - I didn’t notice whether she had a scarf at all.

You are a Folkestone man? - Bred and born from good people at Folke­stone.

Whiting said he did not know which of three hills was Caesar’s Camp.

Mr. Oliver: Did you know there was a thicket at the bottom? - No, sir. I have never been there.

Mr. Oliver: It would be a pretty lonely place in that thicket, wouldn’t it? - That I can’t say, sir.

This girl Phyllis was a loose-living sort of girl, wasn’t she? - So some people say. I can’t say.

She would have gone to a place like that with quite a number of men if they had asked her? - Yes, she would do.

She would have gone there with you if you had asked her, wouldn’t she? - Yes, I suppose so.

You knew where Ashley Avenue was. If she wanted to go home when you met her she would never have gone on to the golf links? She would have gone straight along Cheriton Road? - Not necessarily.

It would have been the ordinary way to go home? - I suppose it would.

Mr. Oliver: You were devoted to Rose Woodbridge? - Yes, I love her.

You were bitterly sorry when Rose Woodbridge left you, weren’t you? - Yes.

You thought that some interfering person was responsible for her leaving you? - There was something about a letter through her landlord sent to her mother.

You thought the landlord or some­one had sent a letter to her mother, and that is why her mother took her away? - Her mother did not explain to me why she had taken her away.

Were you anxious to find out who had done that? - No, sir.

And you never tried to find out? - No, sir.

Would you have been angry with whoever did that? - I would have just told him off about it.

How many coats had you in May? - I had a jacket - you have got it - and the light grey overcoat.

You were wearing that on May 21^st?  - Yes, sir.

When did it get torn? - It could have got torn anytime when I was out for mushrooms in the country.

You say it is your only jacket. Can you tell the jury how long it has been torn? - I never noticed it, sir

You bought the purse before Christ­mas and had it for months. A good many people must have seen you with it? - I expect so, yes, sir.

Answering the Judge, Whiting said when he was in London he used the purse for cigarette ends, papers and money.

The Judge: So you took money out of the purse to pay people? - Sometimes I used it for money and sometimes I had not much money.

Mr. Oliver: Did you ever have conversation with a woman named Flynn about Rose Woodbridge? - No conversation at all. I would not speak to her because I don’t like the woman. She is a mischief making woman - always has been.

Did you never ask her if she knew anything about Rose Woodbridge or whether anyone had made mischief about Rose? - No, sir.

Did you never ask her whether she thought Phyllis made mischief about Rose? - No, sir.

The woman Florence Thompson said you hated and detested her. Is that right? - Yes.

Were you with her one night at the Guildhall public house? - I was never with her.

In the afternoon? - The public house was full of men and she came in there.

In answer to further questions, Whiting said he was in the “South Foreland” at dinner time and was conversing with people when she asked him to treat her to a dinner.

Mr. Oliver: Did you hear there that the body of this woman who had been murdered, had been found? Did not Mrs. Thompson say to you ‘It is a shame Phyllis has been mur­dered’? - No.

She did not say anything like that? - No.

Did you say “If you don’t keep your mouth shut about Phyllis I will put you on the spot”? - No.

Nothing like it? - No.

Sheer invention? - Yes, sir.

Did you say “How would you like a scarf round your neck?” - It is a pure invention.

Weatherhead is a friend of yours? - No.

You never said to him anything about “serving anyone as you served the blonde?” - No.

You had had some drinks? - I had had a drink or two.

Mr. Oliver then questioned Whiting at length about his alleged statement and asked “Do you say that the police wrote down things that you did not say?” - Yes, sir.

They actually invented things and said you said them and wrote them down? - Yes.

You gave them, in answer to ques­tions, quite a detailed account of your movements with Phyllis on May 23^rd? - Yes.

Is that part of the statement, stat­ing where you met her, where you went and what you talked about, cor­rect? - Yes.

Whiting, answering further ques­tions, said “The police kept on and on saying `You say Phyllis was the cause of Rose Woodbridge leaving?’ They kept on putting that to me and I suppose I must have said `Yes`” .

Mr. Oliver: Did you say that the first time you saw Phyllis was when you returned to Folkestone? - I don’t know, I can’t remember.

Whiting said he did not discuss the letters which led to Woodbridge leav­ing. He had not heard that she had been in hospital.

Later the Judge asked Whiting: You say the police put down correctly a part of the sentence and not the other. Is that right?

Whiting: Yes.

Mr. Oliver: Would you have been annoyed if Phyllis led Rose astray?

Whiting: I would certainly have been annoyed with anybody who led Rose astray.

Mr. Oliver: Did you say that? - The police kept putting that to me.

Did you tell Rose that she was not to have anything more to do with Phyllis? - I said I could not keep her in food.

Did Rose and Phyllis get drunk and were they ordered out of a public house? - They were merry but they were not ordered out.

Whiting added “I have been through so much. Part of the state­ment is true but it is not true that they were intoxicated”. He denied that he said that Phyllis was really responsible for coming between Rose and him.

Mr. Oliver: Having said you would marry Phyllis on Monday, May 23^rd, did you make any attempt whatever to see her again? - No, sir.

You had arranged to marry this girl. She had told you her address. How is it that you never tried to find her until her body was discovered? -  Because she was a girl who went with anybody.

It is not a question of what sort of girl she was, but what sort of man you are? - She said she would be at the library next day but she did not turn up and I forgot all about her.

Whiting said when he walked with Mrs. Spiers on May 23^rd she was not wearing a green scarf.

Mr. Oliver: If she was not murdered that afternoon she must have had your scarf somewhere about her? - I don't know that she was murdered.

Your scarf was round her neck. If she was murdered that afternoon she must have had it somewhere about her for the murderer to have put it round her neck? - I don’t know, sir.

Mr. Hutchinson (re-examining : Why did you sign the statement? - Because the officers said it would fin­ish their case and they were going back to London.

This concluded Whiting’s evidence and he returned to the dock.

Henry Allen, a general labourer, of Margaret Street, Folkestone said he had known Phyllis Minter by sight for eight years.

Mr. Hutchinson : It is suggested that she was murdered on May 23^rd? - I saw her on May 24^th at 9.30 p.m.

Allen said he fixed the date be­cause on Tuesdays he looked after his children while his wife went to the pictures. She had just returned, and he had just come out. He was walk­ing with Brooks in Margaret Street when they saw Phyllis. She was walking on the other side of the road smoking a cigarette. Allen continued “My friend whistled to her. She walked towards us, and I told my friend I did not want to be seen talking to her. I made a statement to the police on June 2^nd”. Phyllis, he added, was a familiar figure about the streets of Folke­stone. He saw her about practically every day.

John Joseph Brooks, a labourer, and lodger at Allen’s address, said he was with Allen when they saw Phyllis Minter. He knew Phyllis by sight by going in and out of public houses. Brooks added “I was going to speak to her and my landlord said ‘Don’t speak to her. If my missus comes along there will be a row`”. He did not go of his own accord to the police. They sent for him.

Mrs. Ella Hall, of Station Cottages, Folkestone, wife of a station porter at Folkestone Junction, said she saw Phyllis on May 24^th or 25^th when witness was going by bus to Sainsbury’s shop in Sandgate Road. Mrs. Hall said she knew that it was on the Tuesday or Wednesday that she saw Phyllis because she did not go into the town for meat on Mondays. She saw Phyllis talking to two men. Mrs. Hall said she knew her because she worked with her six or seven years. “I have no doubt that this girl was Phyllis Minter”, she said. “She said ‘Hello’ to me as I passed her, and I said ‘Hello’ back”.

Mr. Justice Wrottesley: How do you know it was not the Tuesday or Wednesday of the week before?

Mrs. Hall: Because it would be too far back.

Edward Marwood, a newsvendor, of Tontine Street, Folkestone, who made a statement to the police on May 29^th, described how he saw Phyllis on the Sunday, Monday and Wednesday of the previous week, between the 23^rd and 24^th. On Wednesday, he said, he was walking up the “Milky Way” towards the “Bulldog steps ” when he saw her. He had known Phyllis for years and fixed the time because he was going

to the Labour Exchange to sign on. He went to the .Exchange on Mon­days, Wednesdays and Fridays and on Mondays he did not go that way.

Marwood continued that he saw Phyllis on the Monday previous also, about 11 a.m. in Tontine Street when she was talking to a big, stout woman. She was not wearing a hat.

Mr. St. John Hutchinson: Did you see her the day before, on the Sun­day?

Marwood replied he saw Phyllis be­tween 9.30 and 10 a.m. She came over to West Terrace where he was selling papers and asked to be directed to a bus office because, she said, she was going to Margate to work.

John Henry Turner, of Millbay, Folkestone, another newsvendor, said he saw Phyllis Minter twice on the Wednesday morning.

Lucille Georgina Godden, a waitress, of Bridge Street, Folkestone, who said she had known Phyllis nearly all her life, described how she and a friend saw her in the Alexan­dra public house on the Sunday even­ing. A little girl called Phyllis out of the public house. She returned, bor­rowed the telephone book from the proprietor and said she had had a call from someone she did not know. Miss Godden said she next saw Phyllis on the Wednesday night be­tween 10.30 and 11 o’clock in the Dover Road on the pillion seat of a motorcycle. She was dressed in a blue coat and a green scarf. She had no hat. The machine was driven by a medium aged man in a light rain­coat.

Answering Mr. Oliver, Miss Godden said she was certain it was Phyllis.

Mr. Oliver: Do you know that when the body was found it was al­ready decomposing?

Miss Godden repeated that she was certain she saw Phyllis. She saw her face in the light of a street lamp. She did not put it in her statement about the scarf because she was not asked about that. Miss Godden was shown a scarf and in answer to the Judge said that was not the scarf Phyllis was wearing on the two occasions she saw her. The scarf in Court was of a darker shade.

Lilian Beasley, of Marshall Street, Folkestone, said that while with Miss Godden she saw Phyllis in the public house on the Sunday and a girl on a motor cycle on the Wednesday. Miss Godden told her it was Phyllis. Witness saw the colour of her hair and her coat but could not see her face.

Charles Butler, a fisherman, St. John’s Street, Folkestone, who said he had known Phyllis since she was three or four, said he saw her in Ton­tine Street on the night of May 24^th or 25^th. It was recalled to his mind directly he saw her photograph. Witness added: “She was talking to a soldier about 6 feet tall and they appeared to be quarrelling. The man was in mufti but I know he was a sol­dier. She looked as if she was on the point of crying”.

Richard Brazier a platelayer, also of St. John s Street, said on May 24^th he saw a man and woman standing on the kerb “having a row”. He was a tall man.

George Robert Neville, a motor driver, of Dudley Road, Folkestone, said he saw Phyllis, whom he had known about seven or eight years, on May 25^th, in a street near the Har­bour. The woman looked as if she had been sleeping out. She was dirty and tired looking, as if she had not washed.

Hilda Miller, a shop assistant at Woolworth’s, Folkestone, said she knew Phyllis Spiers by sight. On May 25^th she came to the shop accompanied by a woman who bought a roll of grease-proof paper. Phyllis was wearing a navy bluecoat, a blue-green dress and a green scarf. She had also seen her the day before. The woman with her was not Mrs. Wright.

Mr. Oliver: Mrs. Wright pointed you out in the street as the girl from whom she bought something on the 23^rd and you said you hadn’t sold her anything? - Yes.

When did you first hear this gin had a green scarf round her neck? - When I read it in the paper.

Do you think you imagined the green scarf? - No.

Do you know anyone in the world who saw her in a green scarf? - No.

How well do you know her? - Very well, but not to talk to.

Have you ever seen her with a green scarf before? - No. I had not seen her for two or three years.

If Mrs. Wright bought paper May 23^rd she would come to your counter? - Yes.

Mr. Hutchinson: Was there any­thing which drew your particular at­tention to this girl? - I noticed her hair had been dyed.

Have you any doubt it was Phyllis you saw? - No.

Have you a fiancé, a police officer?  - Yes, sir.

Did you mention it to him?

Mr. Oliver objected to the question, and the witness did not answer it.

William Knott, a labourer, of New Street, Folkestone, said he was in the public house at the time of the inci­dent spoken to by Weatherhead, but he did not hear any threats by Whiting.

Mr. Oliver: Was there a lot of noise that night? - Not particularly, it was a bit jangly.

In his address to the Jury, Mr. St. John Hutchinson submitted that there was not enough evidence to prove that the girl was killed on May 23^rd, and if they came to that conclu­sion, it was their duty to acquit. Criticising the action of the police regarding Whiting’s alleged statement he said “I hope it will go forth that the police should not take statements like this from a man of this character after questioning him for five hours without food.” He said that it was a very evil day when in a crime like murder, they could take a man, shut him up for hours and cross-examine him, without his being able to write his own statement, to try to make a motive. It was wrong for officers to cross- examine a man of Whiting’s men­tality at 10.30 or 11 o’clock at night, without protection.

Mr. Oliver, replying for the prosecu­tion, referred to the witnesses for the defence who stated that they saw Mrs. Spiers after May 23^rd. He said he was not suggesting that they came to say what was untrue but that they were genuinely mistaken as to the date.

            .           '

When the trial started no one knew it was Whiting’s scarf. It was a ter­rible fact. It involved that somehow or other it passed to the possession of the man who murdered her. It was said a man must not be con­victed because he told lies, but if a man lied on a vital matter did it not destroy his evidence? Whiting had previously denied emphatically that the scarf was his. “If you seek to pass criticism on the police with regard to the state­ment”, said Mr. Oliver, “You will re­member their duty. Here was a brutal murder and for the protection of all of us they had to find out who did it. Can you believe that two experi­enced police officers could have been guilty of a tithe of what Whiting al­leged against them? If he had not invented it would not these officers have been asked about it when they were in the witness box?”

The Judge, summing up, said there were certain facts that had not been disputed and these formed an admit­ted background as to which the Jury need not concern themselves. It was clear that Phyllis Spiers was first battered, possibly into insensibi­lity, and then strangled. It was clear that this happened near the place where the body was found. It was clear that she was dragged to a com­paratively open glade through the gap in the hedge into some bushes. She met her death sometime between the early afternoon of May 23^rd and May 26^th when her body was found. How long before May 26^th was in dispute. It was clear that she was alone in the company of the accused man nn May 23^rd and that they were going in the direction of the spot where she was murdered. How came these two together? Was there anything in the relationship of the dead woman and the accused which might explain the murder? They knew he had lived with Rose Woodbridge until Novem­ber, 1937, that he was very much at­tached to her and that when she left him it was to his great sorrow. If the jury accepted Ills signed statements - and these were chal­lenged - he had said he disapproved of Rose meeting Phyllis at one time, and that Phyllis was the cause of trouble between him and Rose. Ac­cused now denied that, and said in the witness box that that statement was put in his mouth by the police. They had heard the evidence of Sir Bernard Spilsbury, prooably the most experienced man in these mat­ters in the country, and he was of opinion that she had been dead ap­proximately for three days when she was found. It was fair to sum up his opinion, said the Judge, by saying that Sir Bernard thought three days the most probable date; four days the next probable, and then two days in order of probability, and he thought they could rule out the probability of one day. If the case rested merely on suspi­cion that Whiting had the oppor­tunity of murdering the girl it would be far from enough, but it led them to look into the matter further, and the other evidence. If accused did murder the girl on the afternoon of May 23^rd, the Jury might expect to find, and might well ask, whether anything of his was found near the body. First and foremost there was the green scarf found tied tightly round her neck. Where did it come from? At one stage of the trial it seemed to be suggested it was not Whiting’s property at all. He had told the police he had never seen it before. Two or three days ago he decided to abandon that denial and admit that the scarf was his. He now said that he had given it to the girl on May 20^th. The Judge referred to the finding of a purse in Whiting's pocket re­sembling one which Mrs. Spiers had had. Dealing with the difficulty which the murderer would have in dragging the body through the gap, the Judge said that in the urgency of the moment, he would probably not notice some barbed wire. He might well tear his coat in doing so, and Whiting’s coat was torn. Whiting said he had done it while mushroom­ing. By itself, continued the Judge, the tear was not of much value. But it was a remarkable coincidence, and things were accumulating. There was the green scarf, the purse and a tear-mark, which would correspond with the crime as it was reconstructed. An­other coincidence was the finding of a human hair resembling that of Whiting’s on a post in the gap. Science, said the Judge, had not yet, he understood, reached the pitch when it could be said with certainty that a hair found “is my hair”. The most that could be said was that “It was similar to my hair or your hair”. The girl, continued the Judge, dis­appeared from everyone’s view until the following day, when it was said by a number of witnesses for the de­fence that she was seen. “I could not recall any evidence that she was known to have slept anywhere indoors or to have sought shelter”, he added. Referring to the evidence of Flor­ence Thompson, the Judge continued, “I think we are apt to be censorious about people going to public houses. There is clearly nothing-wrong about people going to one, two or three pub­lic houses. On the other hand the memory of such people may not be so valuable as people who have not had drinks”. The Judge advised the Jury to be careful of Weatherhead’s evidence in which he said Whiting had remarked “I will serve you the same as blondie”. “This was at a time’’, said the Judge, “when everyone knew that this girl was murdered, and it would not take very much for that sentence to have been ‘I will serve you the same as the blondie was served’. I should not attach too much import­ance to that evidence although it has been said that truth sometimes does come out when a man is in his cups”. By itself the evidence of Flynn was of no value but with the other the Jury might think that it did some­thing to bear out some of the things in accused’s original written state­ment. The Judge then referred to the third degree which had been mentioned in that case. “Third degree is rather a danger­ous word to use. We have probably read something about it - of pris­oners being locked up, hurt and dam­aged, and awakened in the middle of the night. That is not the kind of thing suggested here. What is said is that the first state­ment took a very long time - from 10 p.m. to 2 a.m. That was recorded in the statement. A statement might take a long time when you have a not very clever man to deal with. Because it takes a long time it does not follow that it is untruthful. You have to remember that when one of us - a member of society - is found dead, it is the duty of the police to pursue their investigations with efficiency and rapidity. Close questioning is not a danger­ous ordeal to an innocent person and it will not have escaped you that in the course of this trial a great many innocent persons have had to be closely questioned. The detection of crime - particularly serious crime - is more likely to be successful if the police work rapidly and do not let the grass grow under their feet”. What was most strongly relied on by the defence was the evidence of wit­nesses who said they had seen Mrs. Spiers after the time the Crown said she was killed. After having been in accused’s company on May 23^rd she disap­peared. No one could say where she slept or bought any food afterwards. The Jury must remember, he said, that she had no settled home and she was a bird of passage, here today and gone tomorrow. They must also remember these witnesses were found by the police themselves and honestly believed what they saw. The Crown, he continued, said it was a case of people making a mis­take, as people did, when asked to recall when they had last seen a per­son whom they did not know very well. But if the Jury thought only one of these witnesses was not making a mistake and that the girl was seen alive after May 23^rd, they had no choice but to find Whiting not guilty. Mr. Justice Wrottesley said he had prepared a time table showing the days and times when these witnesses said they saw her. In some cases their evidence might be open to criticism on the ground that they had made a mistake in identity, in others that they had got the wrong date. The jury would not attach too much importance to the accused`s alleged statements. They would give their attention to more serious and weighty matters. At the same time they had got to remember that if in any way they fell short of satisfying themselves beyond reasonable doubt that this man committed the murder on Monday they had to find him Not Guilty at that stage. If they did not accept the story that he gave this young woman that scarf there was serious material there which might lead them to bring in a verdict of Guilty, putting aside, for the moment, the other evidence. Regarding the bulk of the evidence of the people who said they saw Phyllis Minter on the Tuesday and Wednesday, the evidence that the young woman was seen on Tuesday would probably occur to the jury as being more likely than the evidence of the two young women who said they saw her as late as 10.30 p.m. on Wednesday. But if the Jury accepted the evidence of even one of those persons who said they saw her on Tuesday or Wednesday there would be a doubt which should lead them to find the man Not Guilty, because it was tanta­mount to destroying the whole fabric of the case. It was not necessary for the defence to establish to their satisfaction that accused did not do it. The Judge continued “Persons will in this country, I am afraid - I am not afraid, indeed I am glad - will continue to be found not guilty of a crime which very likely they did because it cannot be proved against them. It is far more important that there should be no risk of a person who is not guilty being found guilty. So let my last words be for you to consider whether, apart from the people who saw this young woman alive, the prosecution’s case is enough to justify you saying whether you are really certain that this man did it. If you get as far as that you must consider the numerous body of evi­dence that this young woman was not dead when the prosecution say she was and if there survives anyone whom you believe was right that the girl was alive, then clearly on that ground alone you shall say Not Guilty.

As stated, the Jury returned a ver­dict of Not Guilty.

Folkestone Express 24-9-1938

Local News

The Folkestone murder trial at the Old Bailey, occupying four days last week, ended on Friday with the jury return­ing a verdict of “Not Guilty’’ against William Whiting (38), the Folkestone labourer, who was charged with the mur­der of Mrs. Phyllis May Spiers, (22), a Folkestone woman. Mrs. Spiers was found strangled at the foot of Caesar’s Camp on May 26^th, and the prosecution alleged that the crime had been committed on May 23^rd.

All the evidence and the closing Speeches of counsel had been given by the time the Court rose on Thursday evening, and this only left the summing up of Mr. Justice Wrottesley, who had heard the case, and the consideration by the jury of their verdict on Fri­day. The summing up occupied nearly two hours, and the jury were absent for about two hours and twenty minutes in arriving at their decision. When the foreman announced that their verdict was “Not Guilty”, there was applause in the Court, but it was immediately sub­dued, and after Whiting had been dis­charged and left the dock, some of the women witnesses kissed him, while some of the men congratulated him and shook him by the hand.

Mr. Roland Oliver, K.C., and Mr. B.H Waddy appeared on behalf of the Crown to prosecute, and Mr. St. J. Hutchison, K.C., and Mr. J. Stuart Daniel (instructed by Mr. Lloyd Bunce, of Folkestone) were tor the defence.

The Judge, in the course of his sum­ming up, said certain facts had not been disputed, and these formed an admitted background over which the jury need not concern themselves. Phyllis Spiers was undoubtedly first bat­tered, possibly into insensibility, and then strangled. It was clear that this happened near the place where the body was found. It was also clear that she was dragged to a comparatively open glade through the gap in the hedge into some bushes. She met her death some­time between the early afternoon of May 23^rd and May 26^th, when her body was found. How long before May 26^th was in dispute. It was clear that she was alive in the company of the accused man on May 23^rd, and that they were going in the direction of the place of the murder. How came those two together? Was there anything in the relationship of the dead woman and the accused which might explain the murder? They knew he had lived with Rose Woodbridge until November, 1937, that he was very much attached to her and that when she left him it was to his great sorrow. If the jury accepted his signed state­ments - and these were challenged by the defence - he said he disapproved of Rose meeting Phyllis at one time, and that Phyllis was the cause of trouble between him and Rose. Accused now denied that, arid he said in the witness box that that statement was put in his mouth by the police. They had heard the evidence of Sir Bernard Spilsbury, probably the most experienced man in these matters in the country, and he was of opinion that she had been dead approximately for three days when she was found. It was fair to sum up his opinion, said the Judge, by saying that Sir Bernard thought three days the most probable date; four days the next probable, and then two days in order of probability, and he thought they could rule out the probability of one day. If the case rested merely on suspicion that Whiting had the opportunity of mur­dering the girl, it would be far from enough, but it led them to look into the matter further, and the other evidence. If Whiting murdered the girl on the afternoon of May 23^rd, the jury might well ask themselves whether anything of his was found near the body. First and foremost there was the green scarf found tied tightly round her neck. Where did it come from?           At one stage of the trial it seemed to be suggested it was not Whiting’s pro­perty at all. He told the police he had never seen it before. Two or three days ago he decided to abandon that denial, and admit that the scarf was his. He now said that he had given it to the girl an May 20^th. A purse was found in Wliiting^Ts pocket and this, the Judge said, resembled one which Mrs. Spiers had had. Mr. Justice Wrottesley then proceeded to refer to the difficulty which the mur­derer would have in dragging the body through the gap, and said in the urgency of the moment he would probably not notice some barbed wire. He might well tear his coat in doing so, and Whiting’s coat was torn. Whiting said he had done it while mushrooming. By itself the tear in his coat was not of much, value. But it was a remarkable coincidence, and things were accumulating. There was the green scarf, the purse and a tear-mark, which would corres­pond with the crime as it was recon­structed. Another coincidence was the finding of a human hair resembling that of Whiting`s on a post in the gap. Science had not yet reached the pitch when it could be said with certainty that a hair found “is my hair”. The most that could be said was that “It is similar to my hair or your hair”. The Judge then commented upon the evidence given by Mrs. Thompson, Weatherhead and Mrs. Flynn. With re­gard to that of Weatherhead, he sug­gested that the jury would not attach too much importance to it when he said that Whiting had said to him “I will serve you the same as the blondie was served”, al­though it had been said that truth some­times did come out when a man was in his cups. Regarding the questions of the defend­ing counsel concerning “Third degree”, Mr, Justice Wrottesley said “`Third de­gree ‘ is rather a dangerous word to use. We have probably read something about prisoners being locked up, hurt and dam­aged, and woke up in the middle of the night. That is not the kind of thing sug­gested here. What is said is that the first statement took a very long time, from 10 p.m. to 2 a.m. That is recorded on the statement. A statement may take a long time when you have not a clever man to deal with, but because it takes a long time it does not follow that it is untruthful”. The judge, continuing, said what was most strongly relied on hy the defence was the evidence of the witnesses who said they had seen Mrs. Spiers after the time the Crown said she was killed. After being in Whiting’s company on May 23^rd she disappeared. No one could say where she slept or bought any food after­wards. The jury must remember that she had no settled home. She was a bird of passage, here today and gone tomor­row. They must also remember that these witnesses were found by the police themselves and honestly believed what they saw. The Crown said it was the case of people making a mistake, as people did when asked to recall when they last saw a person they did not know very well. But if the jury thought only one of these witnesses was not making a mistake, and that the girl was seen alive after May 23^rd, they had no choice but to find Whiting not guilty. He had prepared a time-table showing the days and times when those witnesses said they saw the girl. In some cases their evidence might be open to criticism on the ground that they had made a mis­take in identity; in other cases that they had got the wrong date.

The jury would not attach too much importance, he was sure, to the accused’s alleged statements, but they would give their attention to more serious and weighty questions. At the same time they had got to remember that if in any way they fell short of satisfying them­selves beyond reasonable doubt that this man committed the murder on Monday they had to find him not guilty at that stage. If they did not accept the story that he gave this young woman that scarf there was serious material there which might lead them to bring in a verdict of guilty, putting aside, for the moment, the other evidence. Concerning the bulk of the evidence of the people who said they saw Phyllis Minter on the Tuesday and Wednesday, the evidence that the young woman was seen on Tuesday would probably occur to the jury as being more likely than the evidence of the two young women who said they saw her as late as 10.30 p.m. on Wednesday.

If the jury accepted the evidence of even one of those persons who said they saw her on Tuesday or Wednesday there would he a doubt which should lead them to find the man not guilty, because it was tantamount to destroying the whole fabric of the case. It was not necessary for the defence to establish to their satis­faction that the accused did not do it.

The jury returned the verdict of “Not guilty ’’ as stated earlier.

Folkestone Herald 5-11-1938

Local News

The inquest on Mrs. Phyllis May Spiers, 21 years old Folkestone woman, who was found strangled with a green scarf at the foot of the hills, near Caesar’s Camp, Folkestone, on May 26^th last, had been adjourned to last Monday, but the Borough Coroner (Mr. G.W. Haines) decided to close the enquiry without taking any fur­ther evidence.

Acting in accordance with section 20 of the Coroners’ Amendment Act, 1928, Mr. Haines forwarded to the Registrar, as required, a certificate as to the cause of death (strangulation).

He told a Folkestone Herald representative that he was not bound to record a verdict.

Members of the jury and witnesses were informed beforehand that they need not attend at the Town Hall on Monday afternoon for the adjourned inquest.