The Anatomy of Murder. Helen Simpson

would be able to tame the intractable child. But all efforts in this direction failed. She took a delight in scandalizing her new teachers, and it would appear that after some months they refused to take charge of her any longer. Yet another attempt was made. Constance was sent as a boarder to Beckington, a village within a mile of two of the Kents’ house. Here she remained off and on until shortly before the commission of the crime.

      It is now time to consider the attitude adopted by Constance during the investigations which followed the crime. Her first appearance was as a witness at the inquest on July 2nd. On this occasion she is described as “a robust young lady, rather tall for her age”, and we are told “that she gave her evidence in a subdued but audible tone, without betraying any special emotion, her eyes fixed on the ground”.¹ Answering the questions of the coroner she declared that she knew nothing about this affair until her brother was found. About half-past ten on Friday night she had gone to bed and she knew nothing until after eleven o’clock. She generally slept soundly. She did not leave her bed during the night. She did not know of anyone having any spite against the boy. There had been no disagreement in the house, and she was not aware of anyone owing any grudge against the deceased, The nurse had always been kind and attentive to him. On Saturday morning she heard that he was dead. She was then getting up.

      We have already seen that the news reached her through the nurse’s visit to her sisters’ room which was next door to her own.

      The next public appearance of Constance was in the dock before the Trowbridge magistrates after her arrest by Inspector Whicher. Whicher had put into practice the principles of sound detection. He had arrived at Constance’s guilt by simple deduction. How he had done so, may shortly be stated in his own words.²

      Whoever did the deed, doubtless did it in their nightclothes. When Constance Kent went to bed that night she had three nightdresses belonging to her in the house. After the murder she had but two. What then became of the third? It was not lost in the wash as it was so craftily endeavoured to make it appear, but it was lost in some other way. Where is it, then, and what became of it?

      The evidence on the subject of this nightdress must be given at some length. Sarah Cox, the housemaid, deposed as follows.¹

      I had to collect dirty linen from the room on Monday morning. That of Miss Constance is generally thrown down either in the room or on the landing, some of it on Sunday and some of it on Monday. It was so on this occasion, Monday, July 2nd. I found a nightdress of hers on the landing on Monday morning, and took it down with the rest to the lumber-room on the first floor to sort it out. I then called Miss Kent to come and put the number on the book. [This Miss Kent was Mary Ann, the eldest daughter.] I perfectly remember putting this nightdress of Miss Constance’s in the basket after the murder. I left the basket in the lumber-room when I went down to the inquest about eleven o’clock with the nurse. Mr. and Mrs. Kent, the three young ladies, Master Kent, the young children, and the cook remained in the house. The baskets were covered up with the kitchen tablecloth and Mrs. Kent’s dress, and the lumber-room was not locked. The laundress was to come for them about twelve or one o’clock that day. I know that I put three nightdresses into one basket and beside them Miss Elizabeth Kent made up her own bundle for herself. Miss Constance came to the door of the lumber-room after the things were in the basket, but I had not quite finished packing them. She asked me if I would look in her slip pocket and see if she had left her purse there. I looked in the basket and told her it was not there. She then asked me to go down and get her a glass of water. I did so, and she followed me to the top of the back stairs as I went out of the room. I found her there when I returned with the water, and I think I was not gone near a minute, for I went very quickly. The lumber-room is on the same floor as the nursery. She drank the water and went up the other back stairs towards her own room. There was no further conversation between us. I covered down the basket and did not return to it. It was on Tuesday evening that I heard of the missing nightshirt, and I have never seen it since.

      In cross-examination Sarah Cox amplified her statement:

      On Saturday, June 30th, I took down a clean nightdress of Miss Constance’s to be aired. I have heard that she had three altogether, but I did not know until after this. I took another clean nightdress to be aired on the following Saturday, Miss Constance’s nightdresses are easily distinguishable from the other Misses Kents’. I never look over the clothes when they come from the wash. The dirty one put into the basket on the Monday after the murder, and the two I aired would make the three. I am clear that these were all Miss Constance’s nightdresses. I did not observe any mark or stain upon the one that was put in the basket on the Monday, July 2nd. It appeared to have been dirtied as one would have been which had been nearly worn a week by Miss Constance.

      The book in which the linen is entered is sent with clothes to the washerwoman. The clothes were entered in the book on the Monday after the murder by Miss Kent. On the Monday next after that, July 9th, the clothes were not sent to the wash in the usual way. Mrs. Holly is the name of the washerwoman to whom the clothes were sent on the Monday after the murder. The washerwoman would not have the clothes on July 9th, because there was some dispute about the nightdress. I first heard that the nightdress was missing on the Tuesday evening after the murder. A message was sent from Mrs. Holly’s daughter which I received from her. She said that there were three nightdresses put down on Mrs. Kent’s book and only two sent, and her mother said that it was Miss Constance’s that was missing and that I must send another as the policeman had been there that day to know if she had the same number of clothes sent that week as she always had, and that her mother had told him that she had. She said that her mother said that she must have another one sent, as she was afraid that the policeman was coming again and that if one was not sent, she must go to the policeman about it.

      I told her that I was sure that she had made a mistake, as I was certain that I had put three nightdresses in the basket, and that I was quite sure one of those was Miss Constance’s. The clothes, including the nightdress worn by Miss Constance during the week after the murder were not sent to the wash at all. On the following Saturday, I believe, Miss Constance borrowed a nightdress of her sister’s, there being then the two dirty ones belonging to her in the house, which had been worn by her between June 30th and July 7th and 14th. I am certain that I put the nightdress of Miss Constance into the basket, but I can’t swear that it went out of the house, as I was not in the house at the time.

      Mrs. Holly, the laundress, then gave evidence.

      I recollect going for the clothes on the Monday after the murder. When I got to the house I saw the cook. We went upstairs to the spare room where the clothes were generally kept. The cook brought down one basket and I the other. I then secured the clothes in the basket and went out and called my daughter, Martha. The clothes were in the same state as I always receive them. Mrs. Kent’s dress was on one basket and something else on the other. I and my daughter went straight home with the clothes. We heard that there was a nightdress missing and we opened the basket within five minutes after we got home and found that one was missing. It was not our usual custom to open the clothes so soon after receiving them. We heard a rumour that the nightdress was missing.

      Where this rumour originated is something of a mystery. The police, as will be seen, did not visit Mrs. Holly until the Tuesday after the murder. Superintendent Foley of Trowbridge searched Road Hill House on the morning of Saturday, June 30th, and requested Dr. Parsons to assist him. The latter, in his evidence before the inquiry said:

      I accompanied Mr. Foley in searching the house and went into Miss Constance Kent’s room. I examined the linen in her drawers and the nightcap and nightgown which were on the bed. They were all perfectly free from any stains of blood. The nightdress was very clean, but I cannot say how long it had been worn.

      It seems possible that Dr. Parsons may have been indiscreet. Perhaps he talked about the cleanliness of the nightgown and the obvious inference to be drawn from this. The rumour which reached Mrs. Holly’s ears can only be accounted for by some such inference.

      Mrs. Holly said that she had not seen anything of the missing nightdress. Her house and her two