In June 1806, two murders took place in the small Worcestershire village of Oddingley. Although one was investigated immediately, the second was not discovered until twenty four years later, when it led to the surprise solution of the first. Although neither case resulted in a conviction they underlined the need for reform of the tithe system, a constant source of rural conflict; and reaffirmed the importance of the rule of law.
In the late afternoon of 24 June 1806 George Parker, Rector of Oddingley, was found in a glebe meadow in the village, dying from a gunshot wound to the stomach. The sound of a shot and a faint cry of 'Murder, murder!' had been heard by two travellers on a nearby road, who entered the field in time to see the assailant running away. From their description he was identified as Richard Heming, a local odd-job man not known to have any connection with the murdered vicar. A search failed to find Heming, who was rumoured to have fled to America.
Twenty-four years later a skeleton was discovered buried beside the wall of a barn at the nearby Netherwood Farm, and items found with it strongly suggested the remains were those of Heming.[1] At the time of his disappearance a farmer named Thomas Clewes had held the lease of the farm. Clewes was arrested. In jail he confessed fully to having witnessed the death of Heming, detailed the circumstances in which he was murdered, and named the killers. The confession strongly implicated at least three substantial local farmers in a conspiracy to murder their late rector because of a long-running dispute about tithes. They had paid Richard Heming £50 to commit the crime, and then a day later Heming himself had been bludgeoned to death.
The original murder had been a significant news story but the discovery of the murderer's skeleton, followed by a confession which dramatically solved a 24-year-old mystery, raised it to national interest. The trial of Clewes, John Barnett and George Banks (the two surviving conspirators his confession had implicated) was confidently expected to result in a triple hanging.
1830: The trial
Despite these expectations, due to a legal technicality the three farmers could not be tried for the first death, the shooting of Parker. Under the law as it had stood in 1806 they might have been accessories to his murder but Heming, who fired the actual shot, had in law been the 'principal'. In 1806 accessories to murder could not be tried unless the principal was also tried, and although in the intervening period the law had been altered, the change had not been made retroactive. This meant the three men could only be charged with Parker's murder if Heming were so charged: and he was dead.
Furthermore, though in his confession Clewes had admitted sheltering the man he knew had murdered Parker, he swore the death of Heming had happened without either his foreknowledge or consent. The mastermind of the conspiracy against Parker had been a Captain Evans of Church Farm, a retired army officer and local magistrate, who had since died. Clewes claimed that the day after Parker's murder Evans had told him he must allow Heming to hide in his barn, and after Clewes reluctantly consented, Evans then told him to meet up at the barn at 11 o'clock that night 'to do something with him (Heming) to send him off'. When Clewes arrived Evans entered the barn along with a local bad character, a farrier called James Taylor, who had with him a heavy club-like instrument known as a 'blood stick' normally used to let blood from horses. In the dim light Evans called out 'Get up Heming I have got something for thee', and as Heming rose into a sitting position Taylor swung the blood stick, smashing his skull. The corpse was then hastily buried.
Clewes was charged with aiding and abetting Heming's murder, and the other two defendants similarly charged on the strength of his accusation. Apart from Clewes's confession there was little valid evidence: too long a time had elapsed, witnesses contradicted themselves on details and several significant persons, including the ringleader of the conspiracy Captain Evans, and Heming's actual killer James Taylor, had died.
Clewes's defence first argued that his confession was inadmissible, due to his having wrongly been promised a royal pardon by an inexperienced magistrate. This argument was rejected. They then countered that his confession, if accepted, must be accepted in its entirety - and in that case it nowhere showed foreknowledge of, or participation in, Heming's murder. On the contrary, Clewes' confession showed he had had no idea of what Evans and Taylor planned to do to Heming. Therefore, on the only reliable evidence before the court, Clewes was innocent of the only charge on which he was being tried - aiding and abetting the murder of Richard Heming.
The complexities of the case confused the jury, who initially brought in a verdict of 'guilty as accessory after the fact' - which was not the charge Clewes faced. Rebuked by the judge, they reconsidered and brought in a verdict of 'not guilty of aiding and abetting': and if there was not enough evidence to convict Clewes, then the two other men implicated solely on his accusation must also be released.
Thus, although it was generally accepted that the three defendants had conspired to have Parker killed, that two of them had at the least been present at the death of Heming, had not intervened to save him or remonstrated with his killers and had subsequently concealed the crime for a quarter of a century, all three returned quietly to private life.
Public response
Response to the acquittals was varied and to some extent class-based. In Oddingley it caused wild relief among at least some of the villagers who, while their current rector was absent, broke into the church and rang the bells in celebration. This perceived levity caused indignant comment in the press.[2]
Over subsequent months newspaper editorials, while careful not to disagree with the verdict, generally took the view that in difficult circumstances an important principle of law had been upheld, even though guilt might not have been properly punished: 'He (Clewes) was acquitted in strict accordance with a known rule of law, and though the application of a general principle may...enable a great criminal to escape, it is far more consistent with the due application of justice that general and known rules exist.'[3]
The then-popular author Mary Martha Sherwood, who was herself daughter of a Worcestershire rector and who had personally known some of those involved, wrote two studies of the case.
Tithes as a source of conflict
For a clergyman to be murdered was rare in Georgian England, but for his death to result from a conspiracy between a magistrate and yeomen farmers was unique. Although a clash of strong personalities contributed at Oddingley, the dysfunctional tithe system was the root of the conflict. Parker's income as rector came from his 'tithe', his right to a one-tenth share in everything the parish produced. At Oddingley as in most parishes farmers had switched to paying money annually rather than giving actual produce, but by 1800 there was often a mismatch between whatever long-agreed sum they gave as tithe, and the real value of a tenth of their crops. Parker's annual income from his tithes was £135, then a respectable amount; but one which had not altered for decades, while years of war had caused rampant inflation. After Parker tried to renegotiate his payment and the farmers refused, for several years he collected his tithes in kind. This procedure caused smouldering resentment and sometimes violence: when it did, Parker simply took the recalcitrant farmer to court. His stubborn refusal to be intimidated exasperated them and his success in gathering a tenth of their produce cost them money. After five years of attrition they were ready to yield the increase he had asked - but at this point Parker demanded a further sum of £150 compensation for costs incurred in collecting his tithes. With the resentful farmers under the sway of Captain Evans, an ex-military man already familiar with the process of delegating violence, a fairly commonplace quarrel over tithes ended in double murder.
Notes
↑ Lees, Edwin (1830). "The Oddingley Murders". The Worcestershire Miscellany. 5.
↑ ‘When the news of the result of this trial reached Oddingley, some persons ordered the bells to be set ringing; not contented with this, a party actually assembled in the church to drink and smoke, and while so doing a quarrel took place, which ended in a fight.’ The Times, March 20, 1830, p. 6: (quoting from the Worcester Journal.)
↑ Berrow's Worcester Journal, quoted in Moore, p.294
Further reading
Flick, Carlos (1991). The Oddingley Murders. Newark: University of Delaware Press. ISBN978-0874134179.
Sources
Moore, Peter (2012). Damn His Blood. London: Chatto and Windus. ISBN9780701186449.
Related Research Articles
Moore et al. v. Dempsey, 261 U.S. 86 (1923), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled 6–2 that the defendants' mob-dominated trials deprived them of due process guaranteed by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. It reversed the district court's decision declining the petitioners' writ of habeas corpus. This case was a precedent for the Supreme Court's review of state criminal trials in terms of their compliance with the Bill of Rights.
Bathsheba Ruggles Spooner was the first woman in American history to be executed following the Declaration of Independence.
An accessory is a person who assists in, but does not actually participate in, the commission of a crime. The distinction between an accessory and a principal is a question of fact and degree:
Captain Robert Laurence Nairac was a British Army officer in the Grenadier Guards who was abducted from a pub in Dromintee, south County Armagh, during an undercover operation and killed by the Provisional Irish Republican Army (IRA) on his fourth tour of duty in Northern Ireland as a Military Intelligence Liaison Officer.
A false confession is an admission of guilt for a crime which the individual did not commit. Although such confessions seem counterintuitive, they can be made voluntarily, perhaps to protect a third party, or induced through coercive interrogation techniques. When some degree of coercion is involved, studies have found that subjects with highly sophisticated intelligence or manipulated by their so called "friends" are more likely to make such confessions. Young people are particularly vulnerable to confessing, especially when stressed, tired, or traumatized, and have a significantly higher rate of false confessions than adults. Hundreds of innocent people have been convicted, imprisoned, and sometimes sentenced to death after confessing to crimes they did not commit—but years later, have been exonerated. It was not until several shocking false confession cases were publicized in the late 1980s, combined with the introduction of DNA evidence, that the extent of wrongful convictions began to emerge—and how often false confessions played a role in these.
Emperor vs Aurobindo Ghosh and others, colloquially referred to as the Alipore Bomb Case, the Muraripukur conspiracy, or the Manicktolla bomb conspiracy, was a criminal case held in India in 1908. The case saw the trial of a number of Indian nationalists of the Anushilan Samiti in Calcutta, under charges of "Waging war against the Government" of the British Raj. The trial was held at Alipore Sessions Court, Calcutta, between May 1908 and May 1909. The trial followed in the wake of the attempt on the life of Presidency Magistrate Douglas Kingsford in Muzaffarpur by Bengali nationalists Khudiram Bose and Prafulla Chaki in April 1908, which was recognised by the Bengal police as linked to attacks against the Raj in the preceding years, including attempts to derail the train carrying Lieutenant-Governor Sir Andrew Fraser in December 1907.
Complicity is the participation in a completed criminal act of an accomplice, a partner in the crime who aids or encourages (abets) other perpetrators of that crime, and who shared with them an intent to act to complete the crime. A person is an accomplice of another person in the commission of a crime if they purpose the completion of a crime, and toward that end, if that person solicits or encourages the other person, or aids or attempts to aid in planning or committing the crime, or has legal duty to prevent that crime but fails to make an effort to prevent it properly.
Richard Jason Ofshe is an American sociologist and professor emeritus of sociology at the University of California, Berkeley. He is known for his expert testimony relating to coercion in small groups, confessions, and interrogations.
Father Nicholas Sheehy (1728–1766) was an 18th-century Irish Roman Catholic priest who was executed on the charge of accessory to murder. Father Sheehy was a prominent and vocal opponent of the Penal Laws, which disenfranchised and persecuted Catholics in Ireland. His conviction is widely regarded as an act of judicial murder amongst supporters of the Irish rebellion.
The Tithe Act 1836, sometimes called the Tithe Commutation Act 1836, is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. It is one of the Tithe Acts 1836 to 1891. It replaced the ancient system of payment of tithes in kind with monetary payments. It is especially noted for the tithe maps which were needed for the valuation process required by the Act. British Parliamentary Paper 1837 XLI 405 was published to give guidance on how landscape features were to be indicated on the maps. It is entitled ′Conventional signs to be used in the plans made under the Act for the Commutation of Tithes in England and Wales′
Daniel Eric Markel was a Canadian-born attorney and a law professor, who wrote important works on retribution in criminal law and sentencing, with a focus on the role of punishment in the criminal justice system. A native of Toronto, he earned a J.D. degree from Harvard in 2001 and after working briefly as a law clerk and junior associate at a law firm, joined the faculty of Florida State University in 2005.
The Arthur Warren murder was the killing of 26-year-old American Arthur Carl ("J.R.") Warren Jr. on July 4, 2000, by two male teens. According to Liz Seaton of the Human Rights Campaign, it had all the earmarks of a hate crime.
Oddingley is a village and civil parish in the English county of Worcestershire, approximately 9 km (5.6 mi) north-east of the county town of Worcester.
R v Betts and Ridley (1930) 22 Cr App R 148 is a 1930 landmark case in English criminal law that established and confirmed that to be convicted of a crime under the doctrine of common purpose, it was not necessary for the accessory to be present "actually" when the offence was carried out.
The Accessories and Abettors Act 1861 is a mainly repealed Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. It consolidated statutory English criminal law related to accomplices, including many classes of encouragers (inciters). Mainly its offences were, according to the draftsman of the Act, replacement enactments with little or no variation in phraseology. It is one of a group of Acts sometimes referred to as the Criminal Law Consolidation Acts 1861. It was passed with the object of simplifying the law. It collected the relevant parts of Peel's Acts and others.
Aiding and abetting is a legal doctrine related to the guilt of someone who aids or abets another person in the commission of a crime. It exists in a number of different countries and generally allows a court to pronounce someone guilty for aiding and abetting in a crime even if he or she is not the principal offender. The words aiding, abetting and accessory are closely used but have differences. While aiding means providing support or assistance to someone, abetting means encouraging someone else to commit a crime. Accessory is someone who in fact assists "commission of a crime committed primarily by someone else".
In English criminal law, an inchoate offence is an offence relating to a criminal act which has not, or not yet, been committed. The main inchoate offences are attempting to commit; encouraging or assisting crime; and conspiring to commit. Attempts, governed by the Criminal Attempts Act 1981, are defined as situations where an individual who intends to commit an offence does an act which is "more than merely preparatory" in the offence's commission. Traditionally this definition has caused problems, with no firm rule on what constitutes a "more than merely preparatory" act, but broad judicial statements give some guidance. Incitement, on the other hand, is an offence under the common law, and covers situations where an individual encourages another person to engage in activities which will result in a criminal act taking place, and intends for this act to occur. As a criminal activity, incitement had a particularly broad remit, covering "a suggestion, proposal, request, exhortation, gesture, argument, persuasion, inducement, goading or the arousal of cupidity". Incitement was abolished by the Serious Crime Act 2007, but continues in other offences and as the basis of the new offence of "encouraging or assisting" the commission of a crime.
Cruz v. New York, 481 U.S. 186 (1987), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States in which the Court held, 5–4, that the Confrontation Clause of the Constitution's Sixth Amendment barred the admission, in a joint trial, of a non-testifying codefendant's confession incriminating the defendant, even if the defendant's own confession was admitted against him.
The Federico murder case was a criminal case which took place in Chesterfield County, Virginia, United States, in which Josh Federico shot his wife, Sarah, killed her boyfriend Lawrence Howell, and attempted to kill her unborn child. Following his arrest, Federico conspired with family members and friends to hire someone to kill his father-in-law and brother-in-law. Five people have been implicated in these crimes.
The Dawson Five were defendants in a criminal court case in Dawson, Georgia, where they were charged with the murder of a white customer in a roadside convenience store. The five young black men, one of whom was a juvenile, became known as "The Dawson Five": Roosevelt Watson, Henderson Watson, J. D. Davenport, Johnnie B. Jackson, and George Poor.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply. Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.
