Ratcliff Highway Murders - A Break in The Case

A Break in The Case

On December 24, now more than two weeks after the Marr murders and five days after the Williamsons had been killed, the maul was finally identified as belonging to a seaman named John Peterson, who was away at sea. The information was volunteered by a Mr. Vermiloe, the landlord of the "Pear Tree" lodging house, who was incarcerated in Newgate Prison for debt. Police searched the premises and found Petersen's trunk, which was missing a maul. Vermiloe recalled that not only had the maul been in the chest, but that he, himself, had used it and was responsible for chipping it. That was a significant lead. It has been noted that the substantial reward money for information leading to the arrest of the murderers would have cleared Vermiloe's debts.

Before an open forum of witnesses that day, John Turner was asked if he could identify John Williams as the man he had seen standing over the deceased Mrs. Williamson. Turner could not, but stated he knew Williams from prior visits to the tavern. Williams' laundress was called on to see if she had washed any bloody clothing; two weeks earlier, she noticed that one shirt was torn, and another that had blood on the collar, as if from bloody fingers. She assumed Williams had been in a fight, and had not washed any clothing for him since before the Williamson murder.

Williams claimed the torn and bloodstained shirt was the result of a card-game brawl, but was silenced by the magistrates, and was returned to prison. The next day was Christmas.

The facts in evidence against John Williams were that he'd had an opportunity to take the maul, he had money after the murder but not before, he'd returned to his room just after the killer had fled the second crime scene, and he allegedly had a bloody and torn shirt. Although an attempt was made to identify the maul and ascertain whether Williams' shirt actually had bloodstains on it, the courts of that time gave greater weight to logic and eyewitness testimony than to any forensic evidence. The concept was that if a narrative fit the facts and made sense, then more than likely that person was guilty. Investigators did not even conceive of the possibility of processing and matching blood evidence, let alone possess the actual ability to interpret blood-spatter patterns, look for fingerprints, or make a soil analysis.