Microbiology and Homicide (The Trial of Jeannie Ewen or Donald)

Microbiology and Homicide (The Trial of Jeannie Ewen or Donald) E. C. BARTON-WRIGHT Consultant Biochemist and Microbiologist Haldane Place, Garratt Lane, London s.W.18 The disappearance of a little girl On Friday, April 20th, 1934, an eight year old girl, Helen Priestly, who lived with her parents on the first floor of the tenement house, 61 Urquhart Road, Aberdeen, came home from school for lunch. After the meal, about 1-10 p.m., her mother sent her out to the local Co-operative Bakery, a distance of about 100 or 150 yards to buy a half-loaf of bread, a message which should not have taken more than five minutes. That she actually went to the shop and bought the loaf was afterwards proved beyond all possible doubt. She was noticed on her way home and was last seen alive walking between 59 and 61 Urquhart Road with a brown paper parcel in her hand. Identification here was again proved beyond all possible doubt, as she was seen by school friends and a neighbour. Then she disappeared as though the earth had swallowed her. After the child had been absent for 10 or 15 minutes her mother became anxious and as the afternoon wore on, really distracted. She got in touch with neighbours, the school, her husband, hospitals and the police, and eventually search parties were organised who scoured the city. The searchers returned exhausted at 12-30 that night and it was agreed that they should re-assemble at the Police Station at 4-30 or 5 in the morning and continue the search. Between 4-30 and 5 a.m. on the Saturday morning, a Mr. Duncan, who had driven the missing girl's father all over Aberdeen on the previous afternoon, came to fetch him again in his car. A Mr. Porter, who lived on the opposite side of the road from the Priestly's, came across and spoke to Duncan and then went into the lobby of No. 61 and there found the sadly mutilated body of Helen Priestly thrust head first into a sack, which was lying in a recess under the common stair near the back door. Then complete pandemonium seems to have broken out : People from all the flats in that tenement house came pouring out, with two exceptions, both on the ground floor, the Topps and the Donalds. The Topps had an adequate excuse, Topp was a t the Police Station with Priestly, and Mrs. Topp was in an advanced condition of pregnancy. But the Donald family were strangely unmoved and their flat remained in total darkness. Almost from the first the Police were convinced that the child had been murdered in one of the flats in No. 61 and the body later dumped under the common stair, and their attention, for reasons which will become apparent later, were directed against the Donalds. In the meantime they were misled by a false circumstantial tale of the girl's abduction told by a nine year old boy, Richard Sutton. I t was not until five days later (April 25th) that Mr. and Mrs. Donald were arrested and much can be done in five days to clear away any evidence of crime. Some weeks later Mr. Donald was released, because he could prove an unimpeachable alibi for the time when the child was killed.

A wave of violent, almost hysterical fury and indignation swept over Aberdeen at this appalling crime, and the venue of the trial was therefore transferred to Edinburgh where it opened on July 16th, 1934. 97

The Trial and the Evidence The evidence of the various witnesses and police occupied the first three days of the trial. I t was not until the fourth day that the medical and scientific evidence was called. Now to understand this evidence I must go back and recapitulate the facts about the state of the body in the sack and the condition of the sack itself. The sack in which the body was found was a jute bag with the word or letters "BOSS" printed on it. There was a hole 4 or 5 inches from the mouth. Except for a wet mark about the position occupied by the child's mouth, the sack was quite dry and it was not wrinkled as though it had been carried any distance. The external condition of the sack was important, because the weather the previous evening had been very wet and there had been continuous rain from 7 p.m. to midnight. As a result there was a pool of water lying outside the back door and the ground was soft, but when examined on the Saturday morning no footprints were discovered and the lobby floor was dry. When the body of the child was removed from the sack it was bareheaded and her knickers were missing, but otherwise she was completely clothed. There were bloodstains on the thighs and combinations, which were torn, and the private parts were badly damaged. Inside the bag were cinders, and one small cinder was found sticking between the child's teeth and three more were found in the child's hair. These cinders were peculiar, because they had been washed so that they could be used again, and the only person in all those flats who did this was Mrs. Donald. She was apparently a thrifty soul. There were signs of vomit on the dress and round the cinder in the mouth. The post-mortem examination was carried out by Dr. Richards and the late Professor Shennan, who found that the wounds round the private parts were not due to a male organ and there was complete absence of seminal fluid on the clothes of the child, on the sack and on the body. There was a bruise on the right side of the neck, an inch from the middle line. On dissection vomited food was found at the back of the nose, in the throat, gullet and windpipe. The thymus gland was larger than usual and thereby hangs a tale as we shall see in the sequel. The stomach was full of a mixture of undigested meat and potatoes and very little had passed into the bowel. The conclusions of the medical experts were : (1)Death was due to asphyxiation possibly due to pressure applied to the neck. (2) From the early stage of digestion, death took place approximately one to two hours after a meal, with an outside limit of 3 o'clock. (3) Apart from the enlarged thymus gland the deceased was a healthy child. (4) Extreme violence had been applied to the private parts. (5) There was no evidence to show that these injuries were due to an outrage by a male. (6) As regards the lower injuries, the act was committed from the front with a foreign object about 314 inches in length and something which had penetrated from one passage to the other. In cross examination Professor Shennan said he was satisfied that the attack on the private parts produced a reflex action resulting in the drawing of the vomited matter into the air passage and that this was the cause of the child's death. Now let us see what the Crown had proved and what it still had to prove to bring the crime home to the accused woman : 1. The Crown had shown that the sack in which the child's body was discovered had not been carried any distance, and that it was in the highest degree unlikely that it had ever been outside that tenement block. 2. They had established the time of death. 3. They had shown that the child had not been raped and that the injuries had been artificially inflicted. 4. Hairs found in the sack showed a "striking" similarity with those of accused, but Professor Glaister, who dealt with this part of the case, would go no further and very fairly refused to say there was identity. 98

One hair found in the Donald's house showed a "striking" similarity with Helen Priestly's hair, but again Professor Glaister would go no further. 6. Pieces of fluff found inside the sack, not part of the sack itself, compared with fluff taken from cinders found in the accused's house showed a strong suggestion of a common origin and was totally different from fluff taken from the other dwelling houses in that tenement block. 7. Of 9 sacks found in the accused's house, 5 had a hole in exactly the same place as the one in which the child's body was discovered. 8. The Crown had established the fact that the child was last seen alive almost a t her own front door. These facts taken together appear formidable, but can it be said that they prove beyond all reasonable doubt that the child's body had been in the accused's house ? The answer surely must be a very definite "no". Undoubtedly it was all extremely suspicious, but the case still lacked the one clinching fact that would have resolved the matter beyond all reasonable doubt. The Police had made extremely heavy weather of the case. The first bungle, which was perhaps not entirely their fault, although they cannot be entirely exonerated, was that they were completely hoodwinked by Master Sutton. But even after young Sutton had confessed to his fairy tale, they showed a curious dilatoriness in action. What they should have done and did not do, was to adhere to their first idea that the murder had been committed in one of the flats of No. 61, with the strong probability that it was the accused's, and searched the place a t once instead of waiting 5 days.

5.

The Bacteriological Investigation Five days after the arrest of the Donalds and ten days after the commission of the crime, Professor Sydney Smith (now Sir Sydney Smith), took charge of the investigations. He very quickly realised that the only way in which the crime could be brought home to the accused was through the medical and scientific evidence. I t was his idea that a bacteriological examination should be made of the blood on the child's combinations, which was mixed with intestinal matter, and various articles in the house. I t was a long shot, and luckily in the interests of justice came off, but it shows to what desperate expedients the-crown were reduced thanks to the inefficiency of the Police. The bacteriological investigation was carried out by Professor T. J. Mackie, Professor of Bacteriology in the University of Edinburgh, who examined the child's combinations and 15 different articles in the house. Of these fifteen articles including a blood-stained glove, a newspaper, knitting needle and a mattress, nine were found to be free from coliform organisms. The child's combinations were heavily infected with coliform and other intestinal bacteria, but the predominant strain of coliform organism was an unusual one. On five more articles, which comprised a nail brush, scrubbing brush, a diaper and two floor cloths, coliform organisms and other intestinal bacteria were found. These coliform organisms were isolated and their detailed bacteriological characteristics determined. The strain of coliform bacteria isolated from the scrubbing brush, nail brush and diaper were different in their biological characteristics from the strain present on the combinations, but the strains isolated from the floor cloths showed a close similarity to one another and the predominant strain on the combinations. Cross-examined that this might be due to a coincidence or to mutation, the witness pointed out that this was not a question of differences but similarity, and of the 150 strains of coliform organisms he had examined in the course of the year, none showed similarities to the forms he had isolated from the combinations and floor cloths. In his opinion his findings were very suggestive that the two floor cloths had been contaminated from the same source as the combinations. Questioned by the Court witness said " If it were a case of disease I would recommend action with confidence." Q. . . " Drastic action ? " A. . . " Yes, drastic action." 199

The Crown reserved its heaviest gun to the last, Professor Sydney Smith. He summed up the scientific and medical evidence and his conclusions thereon, in a masterly way. He was very heavily cross-examined, but the Defence made no progress at all. The Professor's evidence closed the case for the Crown and the Court adjourned for the week-end. On the Monday morning, Defence Counsel intimated that lle wished the record to be reopened and to call a witness. Another circumstantial story of the abduction of the child by a tramp-like man was told. The court then recalled Superintendent Gordon, who had been in charge of the police investigations and he said that he had taken about 300 statements from people who had seen Helen Priestly walking about Aberdeen with tramps. I t would seem that on that Friday afternoon there was something of the nature of a Tramps Convention being held in Aberdeen. The inevitable verdict, especially after the very distinct trend of the summing up, was reached in a very few minutes.-"Guilty," " By a majority."

On August 4th a reprieve was recommended, news of which was received in Aberdeen with great indignation and violent disapproval and many letters of protest were sent to the Press. A Reconstruction of the Murder Now in conclusion let us try and reconstruct actually what did happen on that fatal Friday afternoon. I t is probable that Helen Priestly on her way home either rang or knocked on Mrs. Donald's door, two tricks she was extremely fond of playing, or shouted some silly childish remarks through the letter-box, and by another stroke of ill-fortune Mrs. Donald was either near the front door, or had seen Helen going out and was waiting for her return, and when the girl played this childish trick, Mrs. Donald opened the door and either seized Helen by the throat or shook her by the shoulders, and the child, owing to her lymphatic condition, collapsed and looked as though she were dead. Had Mrs. Donald done the sensible thing and not panicked, and immediately called for help and had medical assistance been brought, it is probable that Helen Priestly would be alive today. Mrs. Donald did, however, panic, dragged the seemingly dead body into the house and thrust it under the sink with its head lying in the ash bucket. Incidentally, this ash bucket disappeared and was never found, although the marks on the floor where it had been were clearly discernable. Then what devil entered into the woman we shall never know, and in an attempt to save herself she carried out a simulated rape on the child. Under the shock of attack the child revived and uttered that awful scream which Munro-a witness at the trial-said he heard. She vomited, choked and died from asphyxiation. Thus, what had started as an appalling and shocking accident had drifted into murder. The body was thrust into a sack and now came the weary waiting through the long hours of the night to get the mutilated body out of the house and over the wall of the backyard. Once in the lobby with the sack under her arm she must have heard some noise on the stair or someone walking in the street, so the body was hurriedly thrust into the recess of the common stair and left to take its chance. If one thing is clear in this case, it is that the Defence totally under-estimated the importance of the bacteriological evidence and without that evidence the Crown would have failed to prove its case. As the Lord Justice Clerk said in the course of his summing up : " You may well think it is a very remarkable coincidence that a rare germ, an unusual germ, is found about the clothing of that little girl and the same type of rare germ is found on the floor cloth in the accused's house-a very small fact if you measure it with a footrule, because the thing is microscopic, but it may be a tremendously significant fact in this case." 100