The Richmond child murder was the case of Amy Gregory who was convicted in 1895 of strangling to death her daughter, Frances Maud Gregory, whose dead body was found on the ice in the Old Deer Park, Richmond, England. She was granted a reprieve from execution by the Home Secretary.
The case was widely reported at a time when women on trial for killing their babies were increasingly charged with manslaughter instead of murder and eventually led to a change in the law for infanticide.
Early life
She was born Amy Smart in West Brighton on 16 February 18721939 RegisterAncestry.com. England, Select Births and Christenings, 1538-1975. FHL Film Number:919117 and married Frederick James Gregory (born 5 June 1867, Worthing) in Richmond in 1889. Her first child, Amy Sarah Ann, was born on 13 May that year and this was followed by the birth of a son, James William Walter, on 27 January 1892.Ancestry.com. Surrey, England, Church of England Baptisms, 1813–1912. Reference Number:P7/1/27 In 1891 they were living at Albert Road, Richmond. Frederick was variously described as a groom, coachman, house-painter, 'paperhanger' (1911) or paper monger (1939). Her parents, John and Ann Smart, were living at Sheendale Terrace in 1891,United Kingdom census, 1891 and at 96 Mortlake Road in 1901.United Kingdom census, 1901
The murder The events leading up to her being charged are outlined in the witness statements from the inquest and trial and reported widely in the press.CRIM 1/41/5: Defendant: GREGORY, Amy. Charge: Murder. Session: March 1895. The National Archives
The birth At the time that Amy gave birth to Frances witnesses said that she had not been living with her husband for about 15 months. According to a neighbour, Mrs Priest, he and the children were staying with his parents. The reason for the separation from her husband and children was never made clear.
Amy entered the workhouse in Richmond on 12 December, describing herself as being single. Her daughter was born in Richmond Workhouse on 31 December 1894, registered as Frances Maud Smart on 12 January, and baptised on 20 January 1895.
Frances Jones, a nurse at the Richmond Workhouse, described how the baby was born in the lying-in ward on 31 December. The mother identified herself as Amy Smart, of 3 Sheen Dale Mortlake Road, Domestic Servant, and she left the ward on 7 January. Amy left the workhouse on 24 January "of her own accord, she was not compelled in any way. She might have remained in." according to Isobel Preston, another nurse at the Richmond Workhouse.
Discovery of the body
The body of the child was discovered by William Walker, a coach smith from Hounslow, on the early morning of 21 February, who reported it to Constable John Adams on duty at Asgill Lane. The body was found naked, lying face downwards on the ice in the Ha-ha, about halfway between the Railway Bridge and the Richmond Lock footbridge and about two yards from the towpath. A white pocket handkerchief was tied very tightly twice round its neck and knotted. The body was taken to the police station where it was examined by Dr Matthew Gardiner who determined that death was caused by strangulation. "The hands were clenched, the eyes wide open, the tongue prominent between the gums and deeply congested. On the left side of the face were two abraded wounds, which had been caused either during life or immediately after death. There were two broad bands round the neck separated at places by a lite ridge of skin. The neck was squeezed in all round." There were no marks of violence, however the child was described as very emaciated, weighing only 5½ lb.
The body was identified by James French, a plumber at 25 Raleigh Road, as the child of Amy Gregory, who had been lodging with him since 5 February. Mrs Williams and her daughter, of 2 St George Place, Mortlake Road, also identified the body.
The case According to Amy, after she left the workhouse, she went to her parents’ house but her father refused to let her in. When she returned a couple of days later her mother gave her 2d but again her father refused to let her in.
Sarah Burrage, of 58 Alexander Road, saw Amy on the night of 25 January, when she asked about finding a furnished room. Amy told Mrs Burrage that she had been working at the Steam Laundry, and that she "had not a friend or a home to go to and that if I did not take her in, she had no alternative but to walk the streets all night." Amy stayed there two or three weeks and four days, without charge. The baby was not with Amy all that time but was brought back by Mrs Williams on Sunday 10 February. Sarah Burrage said that she "never saw her with any money" and that Mrs Williams was looking after "the baby because the mother went to work."
Charlotte Williams of 2 St George's Place, Mortlake Road, met Amy on 29 January at Mrs Burrage's house and agreed to take the baby for nursing for 5 shillings a week, feeding it condensed milk. After 12 days, 10 February, as she had not received any payment she returned the baby, which was "strong and healthy". Amy had told Mrs Williams that "she did not work at the Steam Laundry but close by." and that she was not getting any support from the father.
Mrs Ann French, of 25 Raleigh Road, saw Amy on the night of 12 February, who was looking for a furnished room. She stayed there 10 days. On 20 February at about 8:40pm Mrs French "heard the baby crying being hushed by the mother as she left the house." Amy returned about 10:15pm without the baby saying that it was with a Mrs Whitrod. Then on the Friday Amy left and never returned.
Mrs Mary Priest, of Garden Road, Mortlake, who had known Amy for about 2½ years, met Amy on 25 January when Amy was looking for furnished rooms and said that she would go home to her mother's. Then on 22 February in the morning Amy returned with the baby clothes, saying that the baby was with Mrs Whitrod at 101 Princes Road, and gave the clothes to Mary for her child. On 23 February she said that "she was going to meet the father of the child and take some money to Mrs Whitrod."
Amy was then arrested about 11:15pm on 24 February at 23, Springfield Terrace, Sandycombe Road, Richmond. At first she tried to deny it was her child but then asked "How did you find it out? I wish I had went [sic] some miles away."
When Amy was charged on 25 February she denied murdering her child saying "it died of starvation. My milk went away through worry. I had no money and no work."
Inquest The inquest before the coroner, Braxton Hicks, took place on 1 March at the Vestry Hall, Richmond. The jury, who returned a verdict of "Wilful Murder", agreed to subscribe towards her defense and added to their verdict that "Should the woman be convicted the Coroner's jury wish to recommend her the merciful consideration of the Court."
Frances Maud Gregory was buried in Richmond Old Burial Ground on 4 March 1895.E43, Old Burial Ground Cemetery List (Excel Spreadsheet), Richmond Cemetery
Trial The trial took place at the Old Bailey and on 27 March Amy was convicted of "wilful murder" and sentenced to death.
A PITIFUL TALE WHY AMY GREGORY MURDERED HER LITTLE ONE SENTENCED TO DEATHAmy Gregory, charged with the murder of her infant child, Florence Maud Smart, whose body was found on the ice in the Old Park at Richmond, was brought up for trial at the Old Bailey, London, recently. The woman pleaded not guilty, and wept as she faced the Court. The case for the prosecution was opened by Mr. C. F. Gill. When the child was born, he said, the woman was very poor. She doubtless could not keep it. The story was a pitiful one. So far as could be learned, when the child was a few weeks old she went out with it one evening, telling the woman with whom she lodged that she was taking the child to a woman who would take care of it for her. The following day, a police officer found the child naked, with the exception of a handkerchief tied round its neck, lying on the ice of the Old Deer Park, Richmond. When charged at the police station, Gregory said she did not murder her child. "It died of starvation," she said, "and I didn’t know what to do with it." Frances Jones, a nurse from the Richmond Workhouse Hospital, testified to the birth of the child in the lying-in ward in December last. The mother was known in the workhouse as Amy Smart. Isabel Preston, another nurse, said the woman went into the workhouse for the purpose of her confinement, and told the officials she was a single woman. The child was healthy, and the woman left the house of her own accord. Mrs. Sarah Burridge, of 7, Alexandra Road, Richmond, a respectable-looking middle-aged woman, gave evidence as to Gregory living with her for a fortnight but being too poor to pay for her lodgings. She seemed attached to the child and kind to it. Mrs. Burridge described the mother taking the child out with her on February 11 and returning without it. Mrs. Burridge was called to the mortuary next day, and identified the body of the child. Mrs. Williams, of 2, St. George's Place, Richmond, gave another incident of the tragic history. The mother took the child to her on January 30, and asked her to take care of it. The arrangement was that the mother should pay 5s a week. As the payments were not made, Mrs. Williams took the baby back to the mother at Mrs. Burridge's on February 10. The day it was found dead was February 12. It transpired that prisoner was a married woman, the whereabouts of whose husband the police have failed to discover.
THE CASE FOR THE DEFENCE. For the defence it was urged that at the time she disposed of the child the woman was suffering from want of food, and was unable to feed it. The woman walked about looking for work with the child in her arms on one of the coldest days and nights of our late Arctic winter. The child had probably died in the mother's arms in the cold, and was disposed of by her after death, where it was found, or, her counsel urged, if she was guilty of murder she had committed the act when her suffering from want deprived her of the full power and responsibility of controlling her actions. The child was emaciated, and had had no food for some time before death. After half an hour's consultation the jury returned a verdict of guilty, and strongly recommended the prisoner to mercy because of the distressed state of her mind at the time of the deed. On the jury returning their verdict a most painful scene ensued.