Check the Fine Print
01:09:02 Share

This is exactly right. Experience the glamour and danger of the roaring 20s from the palm of your hand in

In June's Journey, you have the chance to solve a captivating murder mystery and reveal deep-seated family secrets. Use your keen eye and detective skills to guide June Parker through this thrilling hidden object mystery game. June's Journey is a mobile game that follows June Parker, a New York socialite living in London. Play as June Parker and investigate beautifully detailed scenes of the 1920s

while uncovering the mystery of her sister's murder. There are twists, turns, and catchy tunes, all leading you deeper into the thrilling storyline. This is your chance to test your detective skills. And if you play well enough, you could make it to the detective club. There, you'll chat with other players and compete with or against them. June needs your help, but watch out.

You never know which character might be a villain. Shocking family secrets will be revealed, but will you crack this case? Find out as you escape this world and dive into June's world of mystery, murder, and romance. Can you crack the case? Download June's Journey for free today on iOS and Android.

Discover your inner detective when you download June's Journey for free today on iOS and Android. That's June's Journey. Download the game for free on iOS and Android.

I'm Kate Winkler-Dawson. I'm a journalist who's spent the last 25 years writing about true crime. And I'm Paul Holes, a retired cold case investigator who's worked some of America's most complicated cases and solved them. Each week, I present Paul with one of history's most compelling true crimes. And I weigh in using modern forensic techniques to bring new insights to old mysteries. Together, using our individual expertise, we're examining historical tragedies

♪♪

Hey, Kate. How are you doing today? I'm doing well. How about you? I am doing very well. Good. Well, we are in Halloween mode in our house. Are you in Halloween mode? I know we've talked about it. You sent me the funniest photo. You sent me the funniest photo of deer eating pumpkin in your neighborhood. Yes.

So you don't put your pumpkins out because of that, because you don't want it to fall victim to a deer ravaging it in the middle of the night. That is true. You know, that's, you know, learning Colorado and the differences, you know, not only do we have these pumpkins

pumpkin predators. But it also, it's not unusual to have a white Halloween here. So it can start to snow. And, you know, I've never, I can't think, even though I've lived across the United States growing up, you know, my entire adult life, I was in California and

I can't think of a time when I was out trick-or-treating as a kid and there was snow on the ground, but it happens here. Well, that sounds wonderful. I would love that, being from Texas. I would love that. You know, we had to start some new traditions when the pandemic came. The girls were 10, right?

and of course really into trick-or-treating. They still trick-or-treat. And we just didn't trick-or-treat in October of 2020. You know, we just didn't feel like it was safe at that time like a lot of people. And so we had to come up with this new tradition. We decided we have kind of a foresty area in our backyard, even though we have a fence around it. It's a pretty large, woodsy area. And we have a fire pit back there and some chairs set up and everything. And so I decided, rather than trick-or-treating, I was going to make these bags out

you know, like lunch paper bags and fill them with candy. And I had initials on them and they each had like 20 of them. And we hit them all over the yard and let them go. It was like Easter except for

my dad and I, my stepfather and I, would hide and scare the shit out of them because it was pitch black. We turned every light out that was just the fire and that was it. And we would hide and then my mom would even hide and scare them. So every time they'd grab a bag, we would shout out.

Jump out. Were you dressed up? Did you have like some scary mask on? One time I had a scary mask on. I had a Guy Fawkes mask, which scared them pretty badly. And I've had a plague mask on before. So we've tried to do a variety of things together.

But it's really, then I started playing spooky music from the forest. I've always been a big fan of that. And the kids loved it. And now we do it in addition to trick-or-treating. So I have roped myself into not only

following them around while they trick-or-treat and get all kinds of candy. But then we do a second night where we make like a big chocolate cake that is a red velvet. So it's red. And then we put like red icing on it. It's just like we kind of go a little bit crazy. But it's nice to set up that kind of tradition, especially in a year that was so difficult for them. We just figured out a way to make it work. And they loved it so much that I'm sure we're going to be doing this until they're in their 30s. And then I'll be with grandchildren doing this.

Either that or they're traumatized for life with all the jump scares they've been subjected to. That's exactly it. That's it. One is traumatized and the other one loves every scary movie. She and my mom will watch everything together. They'll watch Halloween, Friday the 13th. I mean, just like everything you can think of, all the classic stuff, they love it. And I hate all that stuff. I made it through Alien and I think that was pretty much that did it for me.

Now you're talking. That's my kind of movie. Aliens is awesome, the sequel. I love that movie. Oh, really? Okay. Well, I was thinking Predator, but we're going to see what happens going forward. So my mom, I said, you know, why don't you show Ella Poltergeist, which is such a classic movie and I think super creepy. And my mom...

She's going to kill me when she hears this. She misunderstood, and she thought I said exorcist. Oh, okay. Two very different movies. I came home, and she said, I don't really ever want to see that movie again. And I said, I cannot believe Greeny didn't realize that. Yeah.

And now she doesn't want to see Poltergeist because she doesn't believe me that I say. Poltergeist is, I think, okay. I mean, Ella is pretty, she really can take some scares and some blood and stuff. Yeah. Anyway, I think she's sticking with some of the more traditional movies. She does not want to see Poltergeist. And I said, it's okay. I'll watch Poltergeist. So anyway, well, let's get into this story. This is not a particularly creepy Halloween-y story, but it's...

It is, to me, so interesting because you and I have not really, really talked in depth for a while about fingerprinting. And this is a significant case because it's the first fingerprint evidence in the UK. We talked about a long time ago, you'll remember, the first fingerprint case in America.

Yes. And this is in the UK. It's earlier and controversial. And I have really good photos for you. And we can really talk about the whirls and swirls and all the other technical things and expert witnesses. And who do we believe here? And how does this all work? So let's go ahead and jump into it. And let's set the scene.

We are going to England, where I love spending a lot of time. You see a trend with some of the stories that I pick. You're right. So we are in South London, and we're at a oil and color shop, which is called Chapman's. This is in 1905, so a little more contemporary than the place. Yeah, wow. Oh, my God. We're in the 20th century. Holy moly.

So that's why I know you love the photography. I like to dip into the 20th century every once in a while and climb out of, you know, the 17th century. So this is Monday, March 27th, 1905. And this is a paint shop in Deptford, South London. And it was managed by a

70-year-old man named Thomas Farrow, and he was there as a manager for 24 years, very committed. He lived on the property for security probably also with his 65-year-old wife, Ann. This starts where a bad movie would start, which is someone enters the shop, an employee enters the shop, and so many of our stories happen like this, and they step into a really terrible scene and

that probably happened the night before. And this happens to an unfortunate teenager named William Jones,

who arrives at the shop at 8.30 in the morning to, you know, start his shift. The operating hours for Chapman's Oil and Color store were 8 a.m. to 9.30 p.m. I don't know who's buying paints at 9.30 p.m., but he kept very long hours. William turns the door. He says it's closed. It's locked up. I am totally confused because Thomas lives here, and he's always opening the store on time.

So he gets worried because this is very unusual because Thomas has a very strict schedule. And he looks through one of the windows. He sees some of the furniture knocked around inside. He gets worried. He goes next door to a man named Louis Kidman. He's working nearby and they break into the store together.

So they walk in and there's sort of a parlor room, sitting room, which is just behind, beyond the retail area of the store. And they find Thomas Farrow dead. He's lying underneath an overturned chair and there's a pool of blood beneath him. His head was so badly bludgeoned that his brain was visible. And this sounds traumatizing to, I'm sure, a teenager who is witnessing this.

So we've talked about this before. I have always been under the impression that it would take a lot to bash through a skull to show a brain visible to a person, you know, a lay person who could say, I know that's a brain. Is that an indication of extreme violence or could that not be very difficult for someone who is trying to perhaps rob them? Well, it really depends on the weapon that was used.

You know, the human skull, when it's intact, is very resistant to being crushed in. I mean, its job is to protect the brain. When you're dealing with what I would consider a massive weapon, something that has a lot of weight to it, such as a pipe wrench, and even though the surface of the pipe wrench, if it's on the side, is fairly broad,

because of the weight and the amount of force, because there's a length to the handle. Yes, definitely a single blow with something like a pipe wrench could completely compromise the integrity of a human skull. And, you know, once the skull's integrity is compromised, subsequent blows could absolutely open up the human head, you know. And I've seen these, I've had these cases in which, you know, there's bludgeoning and stabbing

brain matter is exposed. You know, but also a weapon that has a, when you think about something like a hammer, I mean, this is something that has a very focused force when it's used. It

punches holes in the human skull if it hits the face, the hammer hits straight on. But it's not going to be something that somebody would be saying, oh, I see his brain. So when I'm hearing, okay, this victim's brain is exposed, but still contained within the open skull, that suggests to me that, yeah, you possibly are dealing with a more massive weapon, possibly a few blows. But if the

a massive weapon had been used, and let's say this is a frenzied-style homicide to where people would utilize the term dramatic overkill.

oftentimes the human head could be completely crushed in. And now you're not even looking at something that's recognizable as a head for the most part. Awful, and I'm sure traumatizing to William and to Lewis, who came to his rescue when they came in. And we'll see in a minute, you're lucky because we have a pretty extensive autopsy report, but we have to address Anne first. So remember, his wife is there also. She's 65.

They live there. And William and Lewis know this, and they're both panicked over Anne. While William and Lewis are trying to take in what's happened to Thomas, I think they're both scared that the perpetrator, the offender, is still hanging around. So they go find a police officer, and then

The police officer goes upstairs with Lewis to the bedroom area, and that's where they find Ann. She's in the bedroom. She's still alive, but really injured, and she's in shock.

So some sources say she was completely unconscious at this point. Some say she was moaning in pain. She had been badly bludgeoned in the head. No signs of sexual assault. I always say that caveat doesn't mean anything, but it doesn't appear to be a sexual assault. She's taken to the hospital and she dies of her injuries four days later.

And we do have an autopsy report. So we can talk about that. I don't know how important you're going to think it is, but I think it's important to talk about the details and the kind of details that they could surmise in 1905, which I always find impressive. I always, when I'm working a case and I first open up the case file, I immediately turn to autopsy reports.

Because I need to know what has been done to the victim. And then I go to the crime scene and correlate what's been done to the victim, the victim's injuries, et cetera, and look at, okay, how does the evidence at the crime scene, you know, inform me as to what happened?

So knowing the types of injuries the victims had helps me reconstruct what's going on in the crime scene, which can oftentimes provide the potential motive that the offender has. You're right. We don't have a motive yet. We don't know if this was robbery. We don't know if this was personal. It could have been Lewis and William who had set this whole thing up, knowing their routine. So let's start with the autopsy, and you can tell me what you think. The majority of this is Thomas. Yes.

And then the divisional surgeon of the police, who's the one who did this examination, addresses a little bit about Anne. So this is what Dudley Burney, who is the surgeon of the police, said.

I mean, gosh, this guy really got it in the face.

And there's one more weird wound thing that I want to point out and then a little bit more detail.

Above that, the somewhat circular-shaped thing, there was a triangular wound also going down to the skull. Also some bruising on the back of the skull. On removing the scalp, I found the bone had been fractured in one place. There was...

Commutative? Comminuted, yeah, where you have fractures that are joining up. The bone was broken into several pieces at one particular place. That was in the region of the temple in front of the ear. The cheekbone was also fractured on the right side. It was further around than the wound by the nose. There had been hemorrhage from the blood vessels of the brain. Apart from the injuries, the body was healthy, well-preserved.

He says that the death was due to shock and hemorrhage, the direct result of the injuries in my judgment. There were, for Thomas, about six blows. The major portion of them must have been inflicted with a heavy and blunt instrument, such as a bar or a flat steel weapon one or two inches in width and of some considerable length. Six blows to a 70-year-old man?

Well, when you start taking a look at the distribution of the blows, and you've got these blows that are occurring both on the right side and the left side of his head, the center of his face with the nose, this suggests to me that the early blows are occurring while the victim is still conscious and is moving around. So you have this dynamic target that the offender is trying to hit but is focusing the blows on the victim's head.

Once the victim is no longer dynamically moving, now you're seeing the more forceful blows where now you're getting this, you know, crushing injury, if you will, causing that depressed skull fracture. The interesting aspect that I, you know, without a photo of the injuries, I'm hearing this, what was described as somewhat of an incisive circular wound as well as a triangular-shaped wound.

This potentially suggests that this weapon has some irregular surfaces. And the circular incisive aspect is interesting because if it truly is incisive around its margins, that would indicate that there is somewhat of a almost like a punch-like circular cookie cutter formation.

in which now that surface of the weapon hits that part of the victim's scalp and does like that cookie cutter style incisive breaking of the skin. It's cutting through the skin versus smashing the skin. Even if there is no murder weapon recovered, this is where now looking at it, I can start looking at, okay, I've got a weapon that has certain features. What

what kind of objects in everyday life would have these features, and I might be able to figure out what was the murder weapon. Well, I'll tell you. Let's go through first what Ann's autopsy resulted in, and then I'll tell you what Bernie thinks, Dr. Bernie thinks happened. Okay. So Bernie said, and this sounds exactly what you're talking about. So this is, again, I find it so interesting. Does Paul Holes agree with an essentially pathologist from 1905? No.

Dr. Burney says that Thomas did not die instantly, that he may have lived up to two or three hours after the beating as his brain was hemorrhaging. Does that sound right? Yeah, for sure. You know, and one of the things I failed to comment on, you know, the two teenage boys were saying we saw his brains. But at least with what I am envisioning based, you know, on the pathologist description of the victim's wounds, you

I don't think his brains were exposed. Probably what was being seen is, you know, within this depressed skull fracture, there's going to be a lot of bleeding. There is possibly some brain matter that may be present within the wound itself. But it's not like the victim's head is completely crushed open to where his brains are exposed. So these are just two teenage boys not knowing what they're looking at. Yeah.

But to the layperson who just feels terrible for Thomas, this sounds like a really painful death. Well, it's not a fun way to go. Not at all. You know, because he's conscious, he's receiving blows. Now, these blows can be inflicted very quickly. You

Once he loses consciousness, he's probably not in a suffering state, but he's bleeding out due to the hemorrhaging from inside his head. Well, let me tell you about Anne. So Dr. Birney examines Anne immediately.

He says she was only struck twice with a blunt instrument while she was lying in bed. She had, again with this word, she had a what fracture? A comminuted fracture. On the left side of her skull, on the parietal region, and a fracture at the base of her skull.

Okay, the fracture at the base of the skull could be something that is a result of the forces to the blow on her head causing the base of the skull to fracture. But it sounds like if she has this very large injury to the left side of her head,

sounds like she's laying in her bed on her likely more her right side, at least her head, the left side of her head is facing up. And now you have a very forceful blow being delivered to the left side of her head. The interesting thing is, is if she's beaten in her bed, which it sounds like she is, but I would also be looking at evidence, you know, like blood patterns, et cetera, to form that opinion. Her head is supported by a soft surface, right?

And so that mitigates some of the force. So if you think about this, the male victim being on the floor, and let's say some of these blows to his skull are occurring while his head is against this hard floor surface, then all the force from the weapon is delivered to his, is absorbed by the skull because it doesn't have anywhere to kind of deflect. It just has got that hard surface supporting it.

versus the woman victim, if her head is on a pillow, on a mattress, now some of that force is not completely absorbed by the skull. Which probably helped her survive four days before she ultimately died. Yes. And also incredibly painful, we know. Okay, so Dr. Birney starts guessing about some things. He thinks there were at least two weapons that were used to beat Thomas. He didn't say two people, but two weapons. Yes.

Neither were ever recovered, so one was the same blunt object used on both victims' heads.

And the other weapon used on Thomas was the one that was the triangle-shaped wound on his skull. And Bernie thinks that it was caused by something with a point, and he said probably a crowbar, which makes sense to me. What do you think? You know, that's where you imagine a crowbar, and it has at one end typically kind of the flat prying surface, and then at the other end it has the hook part.

with the, it also is a prying tool, but also has the ability to hook onto something like a nail. It has that triangular. Now, so not knowing exactly what triangular shape he's looking at or how large it is, it's hard for me to be able to say, yeah, it's this end or that end of this crowbar. But a crowbar, if it's being used to inflict damage

these blows, first, it satisfies the requirement that, yes, this is a massive weapon. Secondly, it has irregular surfaces. So as it's inflicting blows, as those surfaces turn, you get different shaped injuries. And so this makes sense to me. It seems consistent.

Okay. So that all makes sense. They start, now that we have the injuries down, the police start investigating and they figure out that there were no signs of forced entry. So they check all of the windows and doors. And actually, this is a great time for me to show you

the exterior. I only have the exterior of the building, but it'll at least give you a sense of the neighborhood. You see the front of it, Chapman Oil and Color stores. It's urban. I mean, it doesn't tell you very much, except that there are stores on either side of this store. Yeah. So, you know, in this photo, I am seeing the, you know, it's a black and white photo, of course, and I'm seeing the front of the Chapman Oil and Color store. And it appears that

The front door is right there, you know, facing the street. And then right next to it, as you pointed out, appears to be other storefronts on either side. But also kind of on the second story, it appears I see windows that would suggest that there's residential space.

areas, you know, above the Chapman storefront as well as on these other storefronts. And that wouldn't surprise me. You know, having been to London several times now, I've seen these old buildings that look just like this. And you see the stores at street level, and then you see, I'm assuming, you know, the store owners, the residences of

are above the stores. And that's what this appears to be. Yeah, there are a couple of windows and you could see there's a pull down shades on either one. It looks like a residence. I'm sure this was a lovely place for them to be. The area was not quite poverty stricken at this time, but this is, you know, pre-World War I areas.

And there was certainly a big gulf between the very wealthy and the very poor in London. But this seemed to be, you know, a good life for these folks. And boy, what a tragedy. So let's get back to the story. So we are now looking for any reason why they would have, you know, done this and who this was. Police now think that this must have been motivated by robbery because the store's cash box

was emptied and discarded on the Pharaoh's bedroom floor where they killed Anne. Okay. What the police think happened is that, and I don't know if this makes sense, honestly, Paul, if we think that Anne was in bed...

I don't know if the whoever came in, if these were in fact robbers after they killed Thomas, if they looked around and couldn't find a cash box, which they would have had because it's a business. If Ann heard and called out to them, the police said maybe she had, you know, heard the ruckus and said something and they came upstairs. But if she's in bed asleep, I'm

I'm not sure if she would have called out. I wonder if they just went upstairs because they knew there was a residence up there. But then they encountered her and to keep her quiet, they killed her. And then they find this cash box. I'm not saying they knew where the cash box was.

I'm just saying, you know, it was upstairs for safekeeping and they somehow found it and eliminated another witness at the same time. Yeah. Right now, it appears, you know, the offenders get into a physical confrontation with the male victim, kill him. Now, they may not be aware. You know, at this point, you know, don't know if the offenders knew anything about the victims, had previously worked for the victims, like this is an inside job, etc.,

So right now I'm just kind of reconstructing the likely scenario. It appears the male victim is still awake, is down in the store. Offenders come in. They get into a physical fight and maybe one or more offenders, don't know.

eliminate the mail, now they have time to kind of find what they're there for, which is, you know, the money. And they may have searched the store, recognize, hey, you know, maybe, you know, the occupants upstairs, that's where the safe box is, where the cash is. They go up there and happen to see Ann and decide, well, she's in bed, take her out and

and, you know, grab the cash and leave. That right now is probably the simplest explanation for what happened. Well, they scored some money. They had about 10 pounds, which now would have been in the $300 to $400 American dollar range. So they had the money and they left behind, not very smartly, they left behind something, two masks and

that they made from women's stockings were left behind. And I have pictures of these. Very rudimentary. I'll show you. I don't know if a mask means that they knew Thomas and that's why they wore a mask, or if they just saw in a movie that all robbers wear masks. But it's to cover your identity, so I wonder if they thought they were going to get caught. But these are very... These are low-budget masks, to say the least, in a time where they had no money, so...

This is not what I was expecting. So I'm taking a look at...

These two masks, you know, when you said made out of women's, what did you say? Women's? It's stockings. So women's stockings. I was expecting, you know, where you see you pull the pantyhose over the head, you know, and you're just looking through the, you know, the nylon mesh. Here, these masks look like kids' Halloween costumes. Yeah.

I mean, these are terrible. These are like Scooby-Doo masks. Brown square pieces of fabric in which eye holes have been cut out of, and then some sort of twine has been applied to hold this fabric over their face. This is very, I want to use the term juvenile. Oh, yeah. You know, it's really rudimentary and unsophisticated.

And it looks annoying to me. One of them is a little bit longer and you would think every time you take a breath, the bottom of this piece is going to probably flip up. They are not intimidating looking at all. And does this give you the impression, because they are not willing to invest in a real mask, that this is maybe their first time doing this? And they left

them behind, which doesn't seem very smart. Again, it's so rudimentary. The fact that there's two masks would suggest we are dealing with two offenders. There you go. Now, you mentioned the wearing of the mask. Does that mean that the victims possibly knew these offenders and they're trying to prevent them from identifying them? That is a possibility. But, you know, offenders will utilize masks to

to also prevent witnesses from seeing who they are, getting any physical characteristics of them. Also, the use of the mask could be suggestive that the offenders went into this crime without the intention of killing the victims.

So they are disguising themselves with the thought that, well, I don't want the victims to be able to relay, you know, what I look like. So that's a possibility as well, as there may not have been intent to kill, but they escalated when the male victim fell.

thought back. It's not black and white that way. These are just different possible scenarios trying to get into the, you know, the mind of the offenders as to, okay, why wear the mask? What are the possible scenarios that the offenders are thinking of for the use of the mask? Well, I have a question about the injuries because you're bringing up fighting back.

So if we think about this, the police think that there are two people. They knock on the door early as kind of early bird customers. Apparently Thomas had some of those. He opens up the door, which is why we don't have forced entry. They come in. They put on their masks because why would you open a door for somebody wearing masks?

They come in or they push past him. And the fighting back part, to me, the six blows and the turn chairs, that makes sense because that's a lot of blows. They needed to contain him. But I did not see in the autopsy report anywhere about bruising on his hands or his arms or scrapes or anything. It all seemed to be focused on his head.

Does that mean that he just didn't ever get a blow in and he couldn't protect himself? I just don't see any defensive wounds at all. Well, that is a possibility. I mean, you could have a scenario where with two offenders...

you know, as they go in, you know, one offender from behind, as an example, and this is just a hypothetical, but one offender grabs the male victim like a bear hug. So now his arms are completely contained. The other offender is now able to freely inflict blows to his head. And these initial blows, you know, let's say to his face, they're causing lacerations, but they're not necessarily just

devastating blows and crushing in, you know, the eye orbits and the nose that you see with something as massive as a crowbar. There may have been initially just what I would call control blows. You know, it's we're going to let you know we're serious. You know, once the male victim is now all of a sudden receiving some of these control blows, he's recognizing, uh-oh,

you know, I need to fight for my life. And he steps up his physical resistance. And now the offenders who have the advantage in numbers, the advantage in having a weapon, and possibly the advantage of being younger or maybe stronger, you know, they just escalate the violence up to homicide. But this is like a hypothetical scenario in which even though I believe the male in this scenario is aware that he's being attacked,

but he's not able to ward off the blows because his arms are contained, potentially. Or he's just blitzed and he's on the floor and unconscious before he even recognizes what's going on. Experience the glamour and danger of the Roaring Twenties from the palm of your hand. In

In June's Journey, you have the chance to solve a captivating murder mystery and reveal deep-seated family secrets. Use your keen eye and detective skills to guide June Parker through this thrilling hidden object mystery game. June's Journey is a mobile game that follows June Parker, a New York socialite living in London. Play as June Parker and investigate beautifully detailed scenes of the 1920s while uncovering the mystery of her sister's murder. There are twists

turns, and catchy tunes, all leading you deeper into the thrilling storyline. This is your chance to test your detective skills. And if you play well enough, you could make it to the detective club. There, you'll chat with other players and compete with or against them. June needs your help, but watch out. You never know which character might be a villain. Shocking family secrets will be revealed, but will you crack this case? Find out as you escape this world

and dive into June's world of mystery, murder, and romance. Can you crack the case? Download June's Journey for free today on iOS and Android. Discover your inner detective when you download June's Journey for free today on iOS and Android. That's June's Journey. Download the game for free on iOS and Android.

Of the things that you have heard, the items that we've talked about, so we've got masks, we've got cash box, we've got furniture, we don't have any weapons. Scotland Yard says we're going to pull fingerprints because it's 1905. It's early, even in Europe. I mean, we're just maybe a decade or two of pulling fingerprints. They've been using fingerprints for a very long time, but in criminal cases...

It's not used very often, but Scotland Yard has started a fingerprinting bureau. They send a detective out who analyzes prints. What are the things that we're able to pull from? I know that we've talked about fabric. Is it just impossible to get any kind of fingerprint off of these masks?

So typically fabric has a woven aspect to it that would not record those small details. You could see, let's say a bloody finger touches fabric. You could see the outline of the finger. You could say, yeah, that looks like a finger has touched that location. But

due to the texture of the fabric, it doesn't record the ridge detail as well as the really minute kind of what we call points, the ending ridge, the bifurcations, trifurcations.

even the class characteristics such as your loops and whirls. So typically you need a smoother surface in order to be able to see, to have that fine detail that can be used in a comparison. So the masks themselves, you know, that does look like a fairly rough fabric. In fact, even though you said it's, you know, from a woman's stocking, it almost looks like a canvas.

canvas-like material to my eyes. You know, so if they're processing surfaces for fingerprints, they're likely processing smooth surfaces, and I imagine they're using a powder of some sort during this time frame. You're right. The detective inspector, Charles Collins, who's with the Fingerprinting Bureau of Scotland Yard, says...

bingo, let's look at this cash box because the guys didn't wear gloves. They looked at the cash box. They knew enough to not touch it with their own fingerprints. They used a piece of paper, which, of course, is not ideal, but they used a piece of paper to avoid getting their own prints on it. Detective Inspector Collins looks at a really clear, he says, a clear print, good clear imprint with what he says is ample ridge detail.

that was caused by perspiration, he says, from somebody's thumb. I have the cash box to show you, and I also have the actual fingerprint that was taken and a comparison. So do you want to see the cash box, what they pulled this from first?

Sure. I was impressed. This seems so early on to be able to start really kind of getting in and comparing these. So perspiration, is that what happens? Is that actually what happens, what it is that causes a greasy fingerprint? The fingerprint residue is actually a combination of

of an aqueous and lipid components. You know, so when you think about your skin, of course you have sweat and that's going to be your aqueous aspect, right? But you also, you think about the oil that your skin produces. You know, I'm like my face, I'm notoriously greasy. You know, I'm constantly putting out that oil that helps keep the skin somewhat nourished.

moist. You know, it's why like if I'm doing TV stuff, they're constantly having to powder me up so I'm not like super shiny. But that is a kind of a lipid or fat component. And so both these aqueous and fat components is what make up fingerprint residues. And so those components are deposited on the surface and

And then when that surface is dusted with these powders, the powder sticks to this. It's not just sweat. Well, let me show you this cash box. They compared the print. Oh, yeah. There it is. See, and they're pointing to it. They compared the print to Ann and Thomas. They took postmortem. Doesn't match. So what are you looking at here? This is a metal, clearly metal cash box. And it looks like they've, I see powder everywhere. They're trying to figure this out.

So what I'm looking at, it almost looks, you know, without any scale for reference, but this looks like a metal box that has a hinged lid on top that flips back to open up.

up. It appears to be roughly the size of a standard shoebox. It's much smaller than what I was thinking. I do see a keyhole on the front surface, the front side of this cash box. And then I'm assuming what has been propped on top of this open cash box is a tray that normally would be inside, kind of just like a toolbox, an old-style metal toolbox. And

When I'm evaluating this cash box, what I'm focusing in on in terms of for latent prints is the surface. And in this photograph, this cash box has a very smooth surface everywhere I'm seeing. So it appears to be ideal to record latent prints. The other thing that I'm looking for is...

signs of forced entry. And right now, I'm not seeing anywhere where the metal has been pried. The keyhole itself does not appear to be damaged. So if this was locked, I'm kind of wondering, well, how did the offenders get into it? This appears to be a very, I wouldn't necessarily say it's not a toy, but it's not, does not appear to be something that is

robust to really prevent somebody who wants to get into it from getting into it like a true safe. And I imagine that this style lock that's in here is probably very easy to pick.

You wouldn't need any sophistication in order to be able to open up this cash box. But right now, I would say, yeah, this cash box appears to be something that is very amenable to fingerprint processing.

You know, and on top of that, if you're thinking about when you would lock the cash box, it would be downstairs with all of these people floating around. He's showing people paint all day and you would want to lock it up when it's downstairs. When it's upstairs in your private residence, maybe he keeps it unlocked because he's constantly taking cash out to pay bills, but also maybe he makes deposits at the bank. So I wouldn't be surprised if they kept it unlocked.

you know, early in the morning, maybe he unlocked it first thing in the morning to kind of, you know, do something. And then they came in and got it then. So you're right. It also probably is not that difficult just to bust it open. It's hard to tell that. But they have taken this fingerprint and

And Scotland Yard has created a database of thousands of fingerprints, I'm presuming of standard residents, but also of known criminals that was, you know, done and people who were in prison. So they compared this fingerprint, and I'm going to show you the fingerprint, to all of these different people. And none of them were a match, including, as I said, to the victim. This is, they say, enlarged and marked up image of the fingerprint.

And it looks like it's doing, you know, the examiner is making all these points. He's pointing and numbering the different breaks, right? The unique features. Is that what your read is on this? Well, oftentimes, yes. And this is a very routine way that fingerprint examiners will go through and highlight the important features that they utilize for comparison.

So you see where they've numbered them, you know, one, two, three, four, five, and have drawn a line. And you see where the line terminates inside the fingerprint image, where it's terminating at an ending ridge. As an example, let's see here, number three, the line goes down and they're pointing out what is a bifurcation. And that's an interesting bifurcation because this ridge detail bifurcates at point number three and then at...

Point number five, that now two ridge details immediately converges back into a single ridge. So you see how now they've shown that you got kind of a mirror image of a bifurcation that is connected. So that's what, I mean, even to this day, this is how fingerprint examiners will point out the various features within the print that they're utilizing to affect a comparison.

Well, now we have something else that's sort of dubious, which is the eyewitness. The break in the case is not from the fingerprinting, because remember I said Scotland Yard compared it to all of these prints, thousands of prints that they have, and they could not find, with those unique features, they could not find a match.

But there were multiple people outside the store because this is a busy street in South London in the very beginning of the day. They saw two men leaving the paint store around 7.15 in the morning. So this is an hour and 15 minutes before he's even supposed to open.

And two witnesses identified one of the men as a guy named Alfred Stratton. He's 22 years old. And he and his younger brother, Albert, so there's Alfred and Albert, 22 and 20, were very well known to the police.

But they were never convicted of a crime, which is why they didn't have the fingerprints. So this is the turn in the case where the brothers, of course, you will hear deny everything. But you've got these witnesses that say we saw at least one of them run out of this store right before this guy was killed.

So the reliability of witnesses, if they know the person, is that still considered very reliable? Or can they make a mistake even if they say, I know that guy, I know Alfred, and I saw him leave. Is there any chance that...

that aside from lying, that a witness could be wrong? There's always a chance, you know, a witness could be wrong. But if the witness is able to say, I know this person, you know, it's like, well, how do you know this person? How well do you know this person? That level of familiarity, you know, there are times when

where you may have met somebody once, you know, and you kind of remember what they look like. And then you see somebody on the street that looks like that person and you think it's them. And the reality is it's your doppelganger type of scenario. But

But if you have a witness that's like, yeah, I interact with that person every day. I'm chasing him off. He's sitting in front of my store, as an example. I'm constantly having to chase him off. Now, I put greater weight on that witness because of the level of familiarity. So the

the likelihood of a mis-ID in that scenario is less. It still can happen, especially if it's a very dynamic, unexpected situation where the witness looks out, hears a scream, there's stuff going on, and they think, oh, that looks like one of the Stratton brothers. Well, it may look like a Stratton brother, but is it the Stratton brother? But if the

person is saying, I deal with the Stratton brothers all the time, then I'm going, okay, you know, I put a lot of weight on what that witness is saying.

Okay. And these guys are troublemakers. They're young, 20 and 22. So we get to the alibi. And finally, I am relieved that there are two loved ones who refuse to alibi and lie for these guys. They both have girlfriends. I don't know if they chose poorly or not, but they both have girlfriends. Alibi.

Alfred, who is the one that we think was spotted coming out of the store, positively spotted, has a girlfriend named Annie Comerty. And she says, yeah, he spent the night with me the night that this happened, you know, the night into the morning that this happened. But I have no idea if he actually stayed the whole night. I went to sleep. So she said, I'm not giving this guy an alibi. And she did say something interesting that I'm not sure what this means, but

She said when she woke up on Monday morning, which is after the robbery takes place, Alfred was already fully dressed and he smelled like paraffin, as in the wax. What would that mean? Can you think of what that would mean in this scenario? You know, those masks, you know, is it possible that they dipped that fabric in like molten paraffin? Could have because...

He asks his girlfriend for some stockings. He said, do you have a pair of stockings I can have, please? He had also gotten rid of all the clothing he had worn that night, I'm assuming because it had blood on it. And there was new money. So there's a whole bunch of circumstantial evidence. But the paraffin, I don't know why they would smell like paraffin, but she said it was a very strong smell. Yeah, you know, that's because I know, again, I'm just

Right now, with just the only things that I've actually seen, you know, those masks, that fabric looks like it's relatively stiff. Like I kind of described it before, it almost has like a canvas look to it versus a stocking look to it. And so I wonder if the stocking material was so flimsy, you know, where it wasn't hanging right, that they just, you know, melted some candles. Yeah.

some wax and dipped that in, you know, but that's just an absolute guess right now. That makes sense to me because the masks don't look like a traditional stocking. And by the way, Albert, the brother, his girlfriend, whose name is Kate Wade, also refused to provide an alibi and said in the past month or so that he wanted to know, hey, do you have any extra socks or stockings that I could have? If that's right, if Kate's right,

And I'm sure she is. They've been talking about this for a while, and they targeted this store for a reason. Probably when you guess it's because Thomas is elderly and they thought that he probably has money. It's probably a busy store. They watched him go in and out. They knew his routine, and they thought that they could take him if he fought back.

That's an important point right there, is oftentimes when you see elderly victims, and this even goes over to where you're dealing with sexually motivated homicides in particular, it suggests you might be dealing with a younger offender because that offender doesn't have the self-confidence to take on a younger victim who might be able to put up greater resistance.

And we're dealing here with two offenders that are, you know, 22 and 20, you know, so I could see that. But what also I want to point out is even though they are now being looked at for this double homicide, this robbery, double homicide. Mm-hmm.

Well, they could have burglarized or robbed other storefronts that did not result in homicide. And so they've been doing this crime for a period of time. And then they go into Chapman's and now you have the old man putting up much greater resistance than what they they thought. And they utilized what they brought their burglary tool. Let's say it's a crowbar.

You know, the crowbar may not have been intended to be a bludgeoning weapon. It just was, well, we're going to use this to pry open the cash box, whatever that is. You know, maybe it's, you know, they're thinking it's like a safe or it's, you know, it turns out it's just like almost like this little toy metal box.

So they may have been committing a string of either robberies or burglaries on commercial establishments up until the time that this double homicide occurred because something went sideways on them. Yeah, and that's what I think the police are wondering, too. When they arrest the guys, they both say, you know, our girlfriends are wrong. We were there. You know, of course, they plead not guilty when it's time. Yeah.

and they're taken to Old Bailey. They take both of the fingerprints of the brothers, and Alfred's appears to be a match to the one found on the cash box.

And we'll talk about that because it's a big point. This is a big deal because fingerprints had been used, as I said before, in criminal cases, but it's usually like burglary, not things that are going to be capital cases where they could be executed. So this was a monumental, important case in precedent setting because a double murder would have resulted in a hanging here. So everybody wanted to be very careful. And when the defense finds out that Alfred's fingerprint was

thumbprint is a match to the one on the cash box, they start gathering their resources and they also hire a fingerprint expert. Okay. So there is a coroner's inquest. It is a verdict of will for murder. The trial is scheduled for May 2nd, 1905. And this all centers on the fingerprint expert, which for the public, they are very skeptical. There's just, it's very new.

And they don't understand it. And so the fingerprint expert from Scotland Yard, Collins, who was the one who would end up testifying on behalf of the Crown...

He does something that I think is interesting, which maybe explains a little bit about the print that we've seen. While the two brothers are saying we've been set up, we were terrible boyfriends and the girlfriends are not giving us the alibis that we really have. Detective Collins takes these images and enlarges them. So he has an image of Albert's thumb and he also has an image that was found on the cash box and he makes them huge.

which Oscar Heinrich from my book, "American Sherlock," used to do all the time. It was the only way to get it across, right? So they make it huge and they bring it in for the trial. The defense calls their own expert, a guy named Dr. John Carson, who will become problematic here in a little bit. He actually was the one who trained

the Detective Collins from Scotland Yard's Fingerprint Bureau himself. So these are two heavyweight experts. Now let's just talk about the idea of will a jury get it?

Will they be able to see Alfred's fingerprint blown up in a photo next to the cash box fingerprint? And is this now up to Collins to really do a good job explaining ridges and whirls and all of the like nightmare points? And I don't know. I think people would glass over at a certain point when you think when you talk to sciencey to them. Well, anytime, you know, this is part of when you start talking about being a forensic scientist.

The most important aspect of the job is being able to convey your opinions, your findings in a court of law. You know, that's what forensics means. People assume forensics is of science and no, you know, forensics is

is of legal matter. You know, I was in a position of hiring people in forensic science capacities. And part of the interview process that was so important wasn't, well, are they super smart in the science? It's, can they explain to me in a fashion in which an average layperson can understand that answer?

So it is so important for anybody that is involved within forensic science to have that skill set and not – there are some very brilliant scientists out there that suck at testimony. And in my opinion –

They fail as a forensic scientist. That's a large part of my book about Oscar Heinrich and American Sherlock is how it takes him a decade to understand what you said very simply. You cannot use three or four syllable scientific terms to people in the 1920s who had very little education, potentially, who were sitting on a jury table.

He was very haughty. He was egotistical. People sensed that. And he lost cases, not because he didn't know what he was doing, but because he didn't know how to talk. And that was it. And he had to learn the hard way after losing to smooth talking experts how to finally do it. And much of it, Paul, was visuals. He was able to show through visuals everything.

This is how it's almost like how I do sometimes when I when I have a hard time with my lectures, you know, and I have to look at a PowerPoint just to keep myself straight. That's what he did with photos. And that's what worked for him. Right. And, you know, particularly with the comparative types of evidence, the visuals are so important, you know, and especially in this day and age where we've we've had these these discussions because of the.

the scrutiny that the comparative sciences have come under is the, let's say, the opinion of identification, like in fingerprints or with doing the firearms comparisons with the stria on the side of the bullets or the tool marks. Can these experts truly form an opinion that these marks are unique and that they've identified the person or the object that left these marks?

But what can be very important is for the jurors themselves to see visually this comparison, just like what your experts are doing in this case. And they form their opinion. As long as they have been informed as to what to look at, then they can form their opinion and put weight on how unique or how not unique this comparison is. Right.

And so that's kind of where I'm really curious now to see, okay, what kind of exhibit was put in front of the jurors and see if I can, if I agree with what these experts are debating about during their testimony. Well, we don't have their actual, the comparison, the big photos. I wish I could give those to you, but we don't have those. What I can say is,

Detective Inspector Collins, who was trained by Dr. John Carson. Carson is already discredited by the judge pretty quickly because, I mean, this guy, he went to both the Crown and

and the defense and basically said, "Who wants to pay me more money? And I'll testify." I mean, are you serious? And the judge said that Dr. Carson with the defense was an unreliable witness. And he said to the jury, "Listen, fingerprinting is in its infancy. Please don't lean too heavily on the fingerprint evidence here. We need to look at other factors because the lives of two men are at stake."

I want to give Scott Lanyard in 1905 huge credit for not depending so much on one forensic tool, which is what we talk about all the time. So they found out that the Stratton brothers had tried to pressure people into giving them alibis when they didn't have it.

They found out that the brothers had recently completely changed their appearances, and they also had a huge amount of money. So the inspectors with Scotland Yard went above and beyond to gather circumstantial evidence. Thank goodness, because when the judge said, listen to the jury, you really have to lean on other things and not on the fingerprinting because, one, this is new, and two, the defense made a huge mistake by hiring this guy.

So they went out and they spent two hours and they came back with a guilty verdict. Do you and I think that the Stratton brothers were guilty? Yes. Do you think that the jury, despite what the judge said, you cannot put the genie back in the bottle. The judge said, just kind of ignore everything you just heard and all those pretty photos. But do you think the jury had no choice but to remember that you have a scapegoat

Scotland Yard detectives say, this is your guy. This is your guy. Look at the whorls. Look at the swirls. This is it. You know, that's that is so hard to assess in terms of, you know, from the jurors perspective as how much they either consciously or even subconsciously were influenced by this novel science being put in front of them.

Yeah, and that's part of what we see happening over the course of the last few decades within forensic science is, you know, really trying to make sure that before something is utilized in court, that the science itself is proven. Because, like here, you're dealing with a double murder and death sentence. So...

And this was recognized, you know, back in the day. And so you have your Kelly Fry hearings or your Daubert type style to evaluate the validity of the science prior to being admitted into court. But we've seen some failings, you know, with even that process.

And it often has to do with the bar hasn't been put too high. You can be qualified as an expert if you just know more than the average layperson. That is really what the definition of an expert is in a court of law. And then when you start talking about the validity of the science, is it something that has been accepted within the relevant scientific community? You know, that's one of the standards.

And sometimes the scientific community is relatively sparse, you know? And so if you just have a few people who are looking at it, then yes, those are the people that accept it.

And so I think there's definitely more robust scrutiny on any new science that's coming in. Now, back in 1905, these jurors heard this novel science. Now, with that being said, if that truly was the developed latent and it was matched to one of the Stratton brothers—

I don't doubt he's the one that left the print. And there seems to be some circumstantial evidence. But, you know, right now, I'm assuming they did not find the murder weapon. They did not find the bloody clothing. This is part of where I'm looking at the case. If I'm working this case and trying to get something, a package ready to go over here in the United States to the D.A.,

You know, I want to be able to show involvement in the homicides, in the violence. The print on the cash box might indicate, yes, they were involved in a theft. But can I show that they were responsible for killing these two victims?

Is there enough evidence? If you remove the idea of the print, can we even prove that they were there? Aside from the witness that says, I know that guy, I saw him leave the store. Is that enough, do you think, to convict even now if you ignored, oh, we could have gotten DNA and all this other stuff? If we ignore that, just the circumstantial evidence, do you think this would have gotten past a jury, you know, in 2023, 2024? With what you've presented...

I'm confident Stratton brothers are likely involved, but do I think that this case is proven beyond a reasonable doubt with what has been presented during this time? No. You know, if this were happening today, I'd expect...

a lot more work to be done to show their involvement in the homicide. Because quite frankly, the defense in this case is, yeah, the Stratton brothers were going around, they're burglarizing commercial establishments. They had previously been in Chapman's. They stole money out of the cash box there. That's why his print is on the cash box.

But they weren't there that morning. And this witness who's saying that they saw one of the brothers emerging out of the store that morning, well, that's just mistaken identity. And all you need is, over here in the United States, you just need one juror to go, yeah. Yeah.

You know, and a DA assesses that kind of thing going, oh, this is an easy defense. I need a stronger case before I risk taking this to trial. Because the last thing a DA wants is to put a weak case in front of a jury and get an acquittal and never be able to go after that person who likely is responsible for two murders. They're just now off scot-free, you know? Yep.

Well, these guys are convicted and they are sentenced to death and they are executed. And this completely freaks out a guy named Dr. Henry Folds, who was a pioneer in forensic fingerprinting. And he said, this is crazy. Why did you do this? And he said, those prints are not perfect. The ones that you're pulling from a cash box. The whole thing is too unreliable and we cannot use this evidence alone.

alone to convict someone, even as this pioneer of fingerprinting. He said this should not be used alone. Now, it wasn't. But as you're saying, you can poke holes in the other stuff. And I think, you know, Dr. Faulds' opinion was they should have been given life sentences. But I mean, honestly, 1905 in an English prison, probably the execution might have been better. Who knows? But

But this set a precedent. It began to be used more often. But the pioneer of forensic fingerprinting said, hold on a second. I think this might have been a mistake. It doesn't mean they're not guilty. It just means you now have said it doesn't take very much aside from fingerprinting to send somebody to the gallows. And that's a problem.

So the bottom line with this case is this is not the creepy Halloween case that I have brought you in the past. But boy, it's important because it is, you know, an expert for sale. Question whether or not the witnesses, what the witnesses did, what the motivation is. There's a lot that is relevant for today. And that's why I wanted to bring you the case. I love a good Halloween story, but this was a really important one and I think pretty compelling. Yeah.

Well, you've got masks. You do have really bad masks. Yeah, there is a nexus to Halloween. I mean, those masks look like, you know, how you take a bed sheet to make a ghost and you cut the, you know, crude eyes out. That's exactly what those masks look like. Okay, good. Well, I'm glad that you were happy with the case. I would love for you to have a nice Halloween. Keep your pumpkins inside. Keep them away from those crafty...

stinking deer that you have out there that love to make a meal out of them or not. You know, you can do a deer a favor and I will see you next week. All right. Sounds good. Thanks a lot, Kate. Thanks.

This has been an Exactly Right production. For our sources and show notes, go to exactlyrightmedia.com slash buriedbonessources. Our senior producer is Alexis Amorosi. Research by Maren McClashan, Allie Elkin, and Kate Winkler-Dawson.

Our mixing engineer is Ben Talladay. Our theme song is by Tom Breifogle. Our artwork is by Vanessa Lilac. Executive produced by Karen Kilgariff, Georgia Hardstark, and Danielle Kramer. You can follow Buried Bones on Instagram and Facebook at BuriedBonesPod.

Kate's most recent book, All That Is Wicked, a Gilded Age story of murder and the race to decode the criminal mind, is available now. And Paul's best-selling memoir, Unmasked, My Life Solving America's Cold Cases, is also available now.