Murder At Bigges Main: Part Two

Welcome back to our series of blogs on the murder at Bigges Main in January 1919. Last time we heard how John Thomas Bianchi died as the result of an operation to remove a bullet, which had been fired by an unknown man. How his cousin, Elizabeth Phillipson, was assaulted by the same man and, the initial investigations by the police.

This time we are going to look at some of the police theories and see if they provide any clue as to who the murderer was, and his motive.

In the police file we have two interesting pieces of paper regarding the police’s lines of enquiry. Firstly, a statement by Sergeant Russell who, on the 31^st of January 1919, whilst making enquiries at Walkergate Hospital (the place where Elizabeth Philipson worked) speaks to the matron. The matron recalls a complaint that she dealt with concerning a woman who complained that her husband, was “carrying on” with one of the nurses that worked in the laundry. The nurse was interviewed, and denied the affair, but implicated another woman, also employed in the laundry and with the first name of Elizabeth (surname Moore). Russell reports that the matron had spoken to the women concerned and had reprimanded them at the time of the complaint.

Elizabeth Moore was called in for questioning by Sergeant Russell, she explained that a Robert Leightley had been a patient in the sanatorium and whilst there they had argued twice. On the last occasion, he had struck her on the face and told her that if he got the chance, he would…

“Do for her”.

She also said that he had been involved with another nurse, Maggie Nash, and that they had been writing to each other. Maggie Nash, when interviewed says a letter was sent to Leightley’s wife to tell her of his affairs and that he came to see her on the 10^th of January, just over two weeks before the shooting. Sergeant Russell then writes in his report what he calls a true copy of the letter, it reads…

“Dear May, Just a little line to tell you I must see you this afternoon about 3 o’clock beside the bridge you will understand where I mean so come off duty to meet me. Perhaps you will know what this is about if not I’ve lots to tell you I looked all over for you yesterday until 10 o’clock last night, send word back if you are coming just say alright I am asking Blagton (Gate Porter) to bring this to you so don’t forget to come as it is important, From yours Bob. P.S Try Dear and get down to the gate at Dinner time, I will wait there, if not come at 3 to meet me. Bob.”

PC Russell asks if she was threatened by Robert Leightley and she says not. He then goes to speak with five men who claim to have been with Robert Leightley on the night of the shooting. They give him an alibi for the night of the murder from 8pm to midnight. Saying that he never left North Seaton and Ashington. No statements from the men appear in the file and it would appear that their word is accepted without challenge. Even more shockingly no statement from Robert Leightley appears in the file. Was he ever interviewed?

It seems significant that we have reports of a violent man arranging to meet a laundry hospital worker, near the bridge where the murder was committed, after having assaulted another laundry worker with the first name of Elizabeth, same first name as the woman assaulted. Remember John was accompanying his cousin because there had been reports of a man harassing workers from the hospital. Perhaps the letter written to Leightley’s wife revealing his affairs was sufficient to push an already violent man to more desperate actions!? No description of Robert Leightley exists in the file, nor any investigation into his background, naval or otherwise, could he have gained access to a gun? So, we have a suspect and motive and perhaps an explanation as to why John and Elizabeth were targeted, because they were mistaken for someone else. But this is where we have to guess at what the evidence presents as this murder was never solved.

After more than a year had passed since John’s murder and the brutal assault on Elizabeth, the police continued investigating the case and continued to talk to the Bianchi family.

Let’s look at the next interesting piece of information in the police file.

On the 10^th of March 1920, Sergeant Russell writes in another statement to the Chief Constable that he had spoken to Margaret Bianchi, John’s mother, who had told him about a quarrelsome couple, that lived nearby at the time of the murder. The man, a Mr Smith, was in the military police and she claims his wife looked like and sounded like Elizabeth Phillipson. Elizabeth originally came from the Blackpool area, so presumably had a Lancashire accent.

Could the killer have been listening for a Lancashire accent on that night in January the previous year? Would he have been seeking to harm Mr or Mrs Smith rather than John or Elizabeth? The sergeant makes some inquiries and discovers that Mrs Smith had subsequently moved to Nottingham.

So, on the 13^th of March 1920 the Superintendent at Wallsend Police writes to the Chief Constable at Nottingham Police, asking him to make discreet enquiries of Mrs Kate Smith, giving the address at which, she was living in Nottingham. He asks for her to tell them the whereabouts of her husband on the night of the murder and whether…

“She had any fear that her husband would do her any bodily harm?”

The response comes back from Nottingham City Police seven days later. They tell us that having spoken to Mrs Smith she informs them that whilst her and her husband are now separated, she did not fear him, she remembers the murder and that her husband…

“Was on duty at the time it was committed.”

The Chief Constable of Northumberland writes to the Assistant Provost Marshall, A. Area, Northern Command, Jesmond (the person in charge of the military police). The Chief gives a brief history of the case and says that investigations have produced the name of a Walter Frederick Smith, a member of the Military Foot Police in Jesmond at the time of the murder. He asks,

“Will you please inform me whether this man was on duty and where, or off duty and if his whereabouts at the time of the murder were known, and any other information respecting his movements.”

The Assistant Provost Marshall replies…

“To the best of my belief L/C Smith was at the date you mentioned stationed at Tynemouth, but it is impossible for me to state definitely if he was on duty at the hour specified”.

 he goes on to explain that…

“All the personnel who were with me at that time have now gone.”

He offers to get in touch with the NCO in charge at Tynemouth at the time, presumably to further check Mr Smith’s alibi.

The file does not record if this offer was taken up or not and so this line of enquiry simply peters out. However, as mentioned in the previous blog on this case, the 1999 police review of the case gives us a little bit more information as to Smith’s whereabouts on the night of the murder. They state that the Assistant Provost Marshall says that

“L/Cpl Smith was thought to have been on “Cook House duty at Tynemouth Castle at day and time in question”.

But as we know this line of enquiry was dropped and we have to wait until the next year before the file continues.

So, we move to 1921, with a letter from the Chief Constable to police stations and ports around the country, and Northern Ireland enquiring into the whereabouts of the crew of the E40.

Like the G6 mentioned in the first blog the E40 was a submarine, although this one was in the Tyne on the night of the murder, so much nearer to the place of the shooting than the river Blyth. The investigations switch to this submarine on information received by the police from the Armament Supply Officer (Admiralty). The Chief explains that the gun used in the shooting has now been traced to having been issued to the E40 in 1917, some two years before the murder. He says that after some considerable delay he has now received a list of the personnel aboard the E40 on the 1^st to the 26^th of January 1919 and asks the various police and ports to make enquiries of the men named, regarding their whereabouts and whether they know of a “William Stewart, native of Wick” from the Ship the “Kildagan” based on Gosport. Or a Gunner “H C Tucker” who served on the E40. And if so whether they know of Tucker’s address.

We have the list of personnel of the E40, see photo below.

Two days later the Chief Constable sends a memo to Wallsend police explaining that the receipt for the pistol used in the murder was signed for by a H.C. Tucker on the 4^th of June 1917.

He also mentions showing the list of submariners names to someone called Nancy Boyd, nee Bell,

“And to others who may have known submarine crews, whilst in the river at this particular time.”

So, who was Nancy Boyd? Again, this lead goes cold, and we are left to speculate about her possible link to the submarine crews.

Join us next time for our third blog in this series, where we will hear evidence from some of the witnesses who saw a man standing in the dark lane on the night of the shooting and we will examine the route the shooter took when fleeing the scene.

Please note that the file about the murder and assault at Bigges Main is currently uncatalogued so is not yet available to the public in the Study Centre.