Mr Briggs' Hat: The True Story of a Victorian Railway Murder Read Online Free

only one more question: Was any one present at this pretended examination of the hat at your house before the murder? No , admitted Matthews, I cannot say that there was.
    Sticking to the decision he had made at Bow Street not to question John Death, Thomas Beard declined to cross-examine the jeweller on his statement concerning the exchange of chains. Nor did he further question the dead man’s son over his identification of the articles that had belonged to his father – the watch and hat found in Müller’s box in New York or the chain given up to the jeweller in Cheapside. Thomas James’ uncertainty that this was his father’s hat was continuing to work to their advantage. Earlier that morning Briggs’ son had re-examined the silk hat and had told the coroner that it was considerably shorter, and the lining inside has been cut short and sewn together again under the brim. The underside of the brim is parramatta , and my father usually wore silk .
    When the last witness stepped down, Coroner Humphreys told the jury that their job was nearly done. They would reconvene in six days’ time, at eight o’clock on the following Monday morning. Franz Müller would be called to appear before them in order for his identity to be fully established; then the inquest jury would retire to consider their verdict.

CHAPTER 24
    First Judgement
    No one outside Müller’s legal team knew how he intended to defend himself but it is not expected , reported Reynolds’s Weekly Newspaper , that he will disclose the nature of the defence … until the trial. It was said that the prisoner was eating well but that his spirits were low as he continued to claim his innocence to the officers guarding his cell.
    Snippets of new information that suggested developments in the prosecution’s case began to appear in the press. Inspector Tanner had questioned a shopman employed by Digance hatters in the Royal Exchange (Thomas Briggs’ hatters) and the man was said distinctly to remember selling the hat found in Müller’s luggage to Mr Briggs, recognising it by a peculiar alteration made in the lining to make it fit more comfortably. It was also reported that Mr Digance was in the habit of marking the inside brim of all the hats he sold with the date of their sale. Should that be so , wrote The Times , and the date be found , it will materially affect the issue .
    It also appeared that several people were rushing to gain from the poor tailor’s infamy. The sale of souvenirs relating to causes célèbres was a highly profitable business and copyright piracy was rife. Press reports now confirmed that Thomas Beard was acting on behalf of Mr A. L. Henderson, a ‘photographiartist’ (as he called himself) in the City. Henderson accused another man of copyright infringement in the printing and sale of photographs of Franz Müller and the forgery and sale of a carte-de-visite made earlier that year for the German. Henderson contended that Müller had paid him to take his likeness in December 1863 but had left one print behind, along with its negative. A week or so after the detectives left for New York, realising the value of this image, Henderson had registered copyright and began to publish it. The sale of the photograph , claimed Beard, had been such a great success that it had caused parties to pirate .
    Over the intervening weekend most of the illustrated papers carried drawings of Müller copied from Henderson’s photograph, alongside representations of the surging crowds on his arrival at Bow Street police station the previous Saturday. Not even in the annals of crime can be found a case that has created more general interest than this of the murder of Mr Briggs , wrote the Penny Illustrated Paper under their portrait of the prisoner. It has every element of the sensational kind that a sensation-loving public can possibly desire … Doubt hangs over the affair … Müller’s own behaviour remains as wonderful as ever. He has continued to act