The Maidstone Journal of 4th August 1857, gave details of a case of Fratricide held at the Kent Summer Assizes on 3rd August. George Kebble Edwards aged 18, was charged with the wilful murder of his brother Thomas Edwards on the 19th March, at Maidstone. Sir Walter Riddell, Bart., and Mr Russell appeared for the prosecution and Mr Denham for the prisoner.

In opening the case Sir Walter Riddell said “it was his painful duty, on the part of the prosecution, in this case to lay before you the circumstances under which the prisoner at the bar is charged with the wilful murder of his own brother. It is impossible to say anything beyond that, as necessary to induce you to give your anxious consideration to this case. In the whole of the serious calendar of the assizes there has not been one case which more deserves the attention of a jury than the one I have now to lay before you. I shall state the circumstances as they occurred without evasion, and at sometime without reserve; and it will be for you to give your opinion and to say whether you are satisfied the prisoner committed, that which undoubtedly was committed – namely, the most savage and sanguinary murder of Thomas Edwards.”

Thomas Edwards was the eldest son of Daniel Edwards and his wife Mary Anne Edwards, who lived at 21 Bedford Row, on the Boxley Road, at the back of the gaol. The family consisted of the deceased Thomas, who was 24 years of age, the defendant George, 18 years of age and a younger brother named Samuel, aged about 9. They all lived together and the father, mother and Samuel slept in the front bedroom of the house, whilst the deceased and the defendant in the back bedroom. It was described as an ordinary four roomed house, with a cellar underneath. The front room opening with a door to the street and a small back kitchen, which opened into a yard. From the kitchen, there was a staircase up to the bedrooms and another staircase to the cellar. Thomas was described as a steady, well conducted, hard working young man, whilst his brother was described as an idle lad, who was often absent from the family home. On the monday, two days prior to the murder on 19th March, the family were all at home, and Daniel Edwards informed his son George, that he had obtained some work for him with his employer Mr Ames. George stated he had work elsewhere and a quarrel ensued between the brothers. They were both very angry but went up to bed as usual. The next day passed and the 19th, howevere without any renewal of the quarrel. In the evening at about eight o’clock, Daniel Edwards and young Samuel retired to bed, whilst Mary and Thomas remained downstairs. After a half hour had passed, Thomas also went to bed, whilst Mary waited downstairs for George to return home. She busied herself with preparations for the next day, going into the cellar, to chop firewood. Leaving the axe in the cellar, she went later back upstairs and George returned home at half past nine. No conversation was held between them and Mary went upstairs to bed, at about a quarter past ten. As she went to her bedroom, she observed  Thomas asleep in his bed. George remained downstairs, and was heard  to go to the bedroom after about ten minutes. Mrs Edwards returned downstairs to check if the doors was locked, as George was in the habit of leaving the house, late at night. Having checked the doors, she returned to the bedroom, and fell fast asleep at about half past ten. The family resided at No 21 Bedford Row and a person named King at No 20 and on the other side a person named Lee. In the front of the house was the street, and at the back there was a narrow causeway, which between Nos, 15 and 16, was communicated by an archway with the street. The causeway run under the back windows of all the houses. In the neighbouring back bedroom at No.20, a young girl Frances King slept.

Mary Edwards was awakened by hearing, what she thought was a moaning noise and found the deceased Thomas Edwards, lying on his bed, insensible and covered in blood. A candle lit the room and the window was open and George was missing from the room. At about the same time, Frances King, in the neighbouring bedroom, was alarmed by a noise, she then heard the window open and someone run past underneath. By this time, Daniel Edwards was calling for assistance at No 20, Francis King got up and with her mother went into the Edward’s cottage. Daniel Edwards was unsure, if the doors to the house were unlatched, when he gave the alarm to his neighbours. It was now about 20 minutes to one o’clock. A broken flower pot was found and a window pane broken in the window below, broken by someone climbing from the upper window.  Police Constable Leney came to the house, and he found the axe from the cellar under the bed, concealed by some clothes; covered with blood and human hair. Thomas lay with his head hewn to pieces, with two severe cuts, each of which divided both scalp and skull. His father was holding him and the bedding was saturated with blood. Thomas never regained consciousness and died about eight o’clock in the morning.  The whereabouts of George were unknown at this time. In the morning, it was found that George had gone to his uncle’s house at Brompton, near Chatham, some nine  miles away. His uncle also named Thomas Edwards, had not seen him for many years, and after he explained, who he was, he said he had been up all night, having taken a young woman home to Boxley. He remained there and went to bed. He got up at about 5 o’clock in the afternoon, stating that if he did not return home, he would return to his uncle’s house. He did not return and was apprehended in Rochester, the next morning.

On cross examination at the trial, Mary Anne Edwards stated her son had not worked for over a year and had been at home with herself. He used to worked for Mr Franklin and looked after his stock. He was a quiet, inoffensive lad, very silent who did not appear to keep any company, and shunned the company of acquaintances, preferring to stay home with his mother, whilst his brother and father were at work.  He did not drink and when visitors came to the house, he would sometimes hide in the cellar or his bedroom, remaining there for an hour or two, by himself. He was fond of pretending to use a razor, making lather, for an hour or two at a time, sometimes once or twice a day in his room or in front of the mirror, downstairs. He often did not respond to questioning and would frequently burst out into fits of laughter, apparently without any cause. When asked why he was laughing, he would not answer. On one occasion, when a man had come to paper the rooms, George shut himself in the bedroom, for the whole day, refusing to take any food. If he saw any one in the garden, he would not leave the house, hiding himself in the cellar or bedroom. He only went out at night and was frightened of the little girl Francis King, who lived next door. George liked flowers and was fond of “dumb” animals like the cat!

The surgeon Godfrey Sanders gave evidence, stating that he was called to see the deceased on the morning of the 19 March and found him in the back bedroom. He was struggling and quite insensible. He examined him and found a wound on the left side of the head five inches in length and passing completely through the skull and scalp, and dividing the membrane of the brain. There was a second cut on the back of the head, which has also cut through the skull and was about three inches in length. There was another wound upon the mouth and chin and another on the throat, which had perfectly severed the windpipe. He stated the blood was quite fresh and believed the wounds were inflicted, whilst he was lying in his bed, asleep. The wounds inflicted with considerable force, the blood would have flowed, rather than spurted as it was principally venous. He was in no doubt that the wounds inflicted by an axe, were the cause of death.

Thomas Smith, a police constable from the City of the Rochester, stated he met the prisoner in the High Street, Rochester, going towards Gravesend, at half past five in the morning. He had stopped him and asked his name. He had asked him, when he left Maidstone and about his brothers. He informed him, that he was taking him into custody for ill treating or murdering his brother, as he was unaware if Thomas had died at that time. George denied this and stated he could not take him into custody as he was not a constable, to which Thomas Smith had replied, that he was not a constable of Maidstone, but was a constable of Rochester. He took him to the station and sat with him for half an hour. After placing him in a cell, he asked George to remove his coat. he hesitated at first, stating “What for? you’ll find no spots of blood on me!” He searched George and found no traces of blood and told him, he was charged with chopping his brother with an axe, to which he replied “Not me!”

Mr Denham, for the defense. made an illusion to the prisoner’s state of mind. Evidence had been given to him, having an odd character and the prisoner himself had expressly desired that no defense of insanity should be entered, as he was simply innocent of the crime. The evidence against the prisoner was purely of a circumstantial nature and he reminded the jury of the words of the late Baron Alderson, that in cases of circumstantial evidence before a jury to find a prisoner guilty, they must be satisfied that his guilt is not only consistent with the facts, but inconsistent with any other rational conclusion than, that the prisoner is the guilty person. Mr Denham proceeded to contend that, although there was evidence to show the doors were fastened, it was equally clear the  windows were not fastened. That being so and with evidence of the irregular behaviour of the defendant, was it improbable that he gone out again, and that some midnight marauder had got in and attacked the first person, discovered in his midnight prowl. It was obvious that the prisoner had never been in bed, his mother was soundly asleep in a few minutes – what proof was there that he had not gone out? His father did not state if the door was fastened, when he went out to give the alarm. He went over the evidence of the defendant’s behaviour, and contended that there was nothing inconsistent with his innocence. His assertion that no spots on blood would be found upon him, were not remarkable, when it was remembered that Police Constable Smith (whose evidence the defense regarded as most disgraceful) had told him, that he had taken him into custody for murdering his brother. He reiterated the evidence of Mary Edwards, regarding her son’s eccentric manners and inoffensive conduct. Also the lack of blood found upon the George’s clothes, when it was evident that he had not had time to change, was worthy of consideration and the defense concluded that a merciful exercise of discretion, be given by the jury, so the poor people might not be deprived of both of their sons.

The Learned Judge, in summing up, discussed the two points raised by the counsel for the defense, namely that is was not established that he had committed the offence and secondly, that if he had, he was not in the right mind. Regarding the second, his mother had spoken of his eccentric habits, but the Judge stated that it was not possible, that a father, would not have been aware of his son’s insanity. The learned judge stated in all his experience, he had never heard a defense of that kind, put forward upon so small an amount of evidence. To the question of whether the prisoner was responsible for the murder of his brother, his Lordship stated given the experienced poverty of the household and its position, this was inconsistent with the idea of a desperado going in to rob and murder. No robbery had taken place, the supposed desperado who firstly would have needed to fetch the axe from the cellar and then gone upstairs to murder the deceased. If the facts adduced, failed to produce in their minds a conviction that he must be the murderer of his brother, they should find the prisoner not guilty, but if of a contrary opinion, it was their solemn duty to pronounce  him guilty.

The jury retired to consider their verdict and returned after ten minutes and delivered a verdict of Guilty, to which George replied “Thank God, I am innocent for all that!”

His Lordship. assuming the black cap, immediately passed sentence as follows:- George Kebble Edwards, you have been convicted of the wilful murder of your own brother. The facts proved against you were too strong, with all the chances – I should say fair play – the law gives to prisoners in our courts of justice, to allow the jury to find any other verdict, that they have done. Your unhappy mother, like a drowning person clutching at a straw, spoke of some of your former eccentricities of yours, to show that you were insane when you committed the dreadful act – it was but a straw. It is impossible to look at you in any other light than that of a person who has repeated the offence of the first murderer. There are but a few days intervening between you and the grave, and I entrust you to take advantage of the assistance you will have, and endeavour by a sincere repentance to make amends for your terrible offence. The sentence of the Court is that you be hanged until you are dead and buried with in the precincts of the Gaol. The prisoner was led from the dock, apparently slightly excited, but unmoved.

The grandfather of George Kebble Edwards was a native of Wales, and came to Coxheath as a Paymaster Sergeant in 1793, at the time the camp was located there. A prudent and careful man, he saved sufficient money to purchase a farm at Coxheath and soon afterwards was married. At his death, the farm passed to Daniel Edwards (George’s father), he however got into financial diffculties and was obliged to give up the farm and move to Maidstone, becoming a labourer. Daniel had several sons, all appeared to be respectable and anxious to do their duty in the state of the life, in which they were placed and generally respected, with the exception of George. Statements at the trial of George’s idle and irregular habits, were justified by facts, and it was more than certain that he had a close connection with a woman of bad character in the town, and through her, with a number of others of the like abandoned lives. From the time of his conviction, he was regulary visited by the Reverend Joseph Knott. a minister of the dissenting congregation, who worshipped at a place known as the “Tabernacle” in Romney Place. Until the day before his execution, George had constantly affirmed his innocence and on several occasions, when spoken to on the subject, had exclaimed “it served him right” in reference to his brother. Mr Knott had continually pressed upon him the importance of confession, and on the Wednesday before his execution, George made a statement, which he afterwards wrote and handed to the Governor of the Gaol, Mr Hillyard. He wrote “Sir – Its being your desire for me to write the particulars of my case, concerning the death of my brother, I am determined to speak the truth and nothing else but the truth. You know all along I have persisted in my innocence – that has not only been a matter of pleading. Pleading not guilty is not telling a falsehood. The reason I persisted in my innocency so long, I shall not mention it – not because I expected to get a reprieve now. The night of affair happened, I went out after my mother went to bed. I walked down town and met with a young woman that I knew. I went with her round to Boxley and back to Maidstone again. I stopped with her till about twelve o’clock at night- then went home and went upstairs to bed. I pulled off my jacket and was going to undress to get in bed, when the deceased said he should lock me out another night if I came in so late, and was a good mind to do it that night. I being under the influence of liquor, high words began to rise between us. There was a lot of walking sticks in the corner of the room. He took one of them up, and struck me with it on the head. It happened to hit the bedpost before it hit my head – that made it come on my head all the lighter. If it had happened to hit me first on the head, it would have killed me on the spot. If I had not bobbed on one side when he struck that blow it would have been fatal. I bobbing on one side, that made him hit the bedpost before it hit my head. I being so excited at the time, I ran downstairs, and got the axe, and went up stairs again; and just as I got top of the stairs he struck me with the stick. It hit me on the arm, where I carried the marks several days. As he struck me with the stick I ran in at him with the axe, and then we has a regular duel. He fell backwards on the bed – that is when I struck the blows. After that I put the axe under the bed, and opened the window and throwed the jacket out, that knocked the flowerpots out of the window and some of the flower pots hit on the fence below and bounced across and hit the window and broke one of the panes. So I can assure you it was done in great excitement and irritation. Then I left the house and went down town and stopped in a brothel till about three o’clock in the morning. Then I started off and went to Chatham. If he had not spoken to me that night in question, I being under the influence of liquor that my temper rose all the quicker. I should not have committed that atrocious, horrible and diabolical deed. All what I have stated here is perfectly true. Though I struck too hard at the deceased, I never had no intention of doing what I did. However it is done now, and I am very sorry for what I have done. I hope he is now in Paradise – that is all the harm I wish him. That is all I can say about it. After the duel was over I went down stairs and out of the front door.” No truth was given to the confession, a quantity of walking sticks were found in a corner of the bedroom, but no duel had taken place. On the wednesday afternoon and evening, George also wrote two other letters, one addressed to his parents, expressing regret for his crime and contained a hymn, he had copied from a hymn book. The other was intended for the abandoned woman, who in confession to Mr Knott, he admitted to having spent the remainder of that night after the murder. It was enclosed with a letter of thanks to Mr Knott, he asked for the letter to be sent to Mr Reynolds’ press office, so the woman could see it. The letter commenced with terms of endearment and then launched into details of loose women, some named and others alluded to, with the “occasional expressions of the vilest sort.” he finished the letter stating “A few more hours that I shall be launched into eternity, So farewell my beloved pet, from your sincerely affectionate and loving George Edwards.”

On the morning of the execution, 20 August 1857, he was taken to the gaol chapel for the ordinary daily service and he handed the letters to Mr Knott. As the hour of the execution approached, he became less confident and could not maintain his outward appearance of calmness, without great effort. He was hanged alongside Stephen Fox (who had murdered Mary Ann Hadley) in front of the gaol, before a large, but orderly crowd, by the infamous hangman William Calcraft.

The last execution of a fratricide in Maidstone had taken place on 21st August 1655, Master Freeman Sonds, second son of Sir George Sonds, of Lees Court, was executed at Penenden Heath for the murder of his older brother. He was buried in Bearsted Church.

©grimcrimesandunfortunateevents

Home