Memory, rumour and the Murder Mine
THIS tale deals with someone completely lost to us now. The purpose in writing is to set the record straight, give a little dignity to the lady involved, and to show how memory and rumour have given birth to a the story of the ‘Murder Mine’.
A video on constant rotation in Dudley Museum relates that a mine inspector once visited of a cave adjacent to the Dudley canal back in 1951. Concerned that a limestone slab constituted a trip hazard, he instructed that it be removed. Upon removal, the skeleton of a young lady was found underneath. She remains unidentified to this day. Some old clothes and part of a whalebone corset were present, and the rusty blade of a knife, without a handle, was found under the body which could have fallen though the skeleton as the body decomposed.
To find the truth we need to turn to the real evidence, which actually comes from 1961, not 1951.
Abandoned
The mine had long since been abandoned by 1961, part of the subterranean workings through the limestone outcrop on which Dudley Castle was built; they fed the kilns that are now located within the Black Country Museum and were operated from the 1770s until the 1930s.
The report made by Detective Inspector Macdougall to the Chief Constable of Dudley Borough Police in May 1961 first described the location of the cavern, it being: ‘in the Dudley Zoo grounds between Castle Mill Lodge and Forest Road, approximately forty yards from a disused canal basin which forms the junction of two underground canals’.
On the morning of Tuesday 16 May 1961 two workmen from a mining engineering company were working in the canal tunnel between Castle Mill basin and Severn Sisters Cavern. Around thirty yards into the cavern the two men came across something ‘round and brown in colour underneath a piece of rock’. One thought it was a child’s ball but they soon realised it was a human skull.
The two quickly uncovered a human skeleton. The bones were located on a flat area between two very large pieces of rock, each weighing up to a ton.
The medical report states: ‘the spine [including the ribs], pectoral girdle, pelvic bones, and lower limb bones were found as though the body had been placed or pinned down face downwards’. Only one full arm (ulna and radius) and one full leg (tibia and fibula) were found according to the medical report. The Coroner’s file suggested that rats could have taken them.
Bizarrely the two workmen decided to form a pile out of the bones instead of leaving them in-situ. The police arrived in the form of Superintendent Hullah, Detective Inspector Alexander Macdougall, Police Constable Douthwaite and the police photographer. At around 3pm Dr Barron, the police surgeon, arrived. His initial thoughts were that the ‘death occurred many years ago’.
Following Barron’s advice the police called in a forensic team, and that evening and the following day a further search was made and further bones recovered. Along with the skeletal remains were recovered articles of clothing, a set of dentures and part of an umbrella.
Blade
Dr Walter Montgomery examined the items but the entire Coroner file does not mention a rusty blade. No item other than clothing was mentioned at any time other than the dentures and the umbrella.
With the body some 100 feet inside the cavern, there was also no evidence found of any lantern, torch or candle holder that must have lit the way to that spot.
The shoes were made of black hide and had ‘toe caps and low heels’ – seemingly practical for cave exploration.
The remains of the shoes were taken to an expert: Enoch Merrington, from Messers Collins, High Street, Dudley, who ‘was of the opinion that the footware were manufactured about 40 years ago’. Allowing a margin of error, this would have placed the shoes in the period 1914 to 1926.
The skeleton was examined by Dr Griffiths, who opined that the body had been placed or pinned down face downwards, was female and was over 25 years old at the time of death. The skull showed dried blood and revealed a number of defects to the right side. But there was no evidence as to whether the injuries had been sustained by the deceased before or after death.
The dentures were sent to various local dentists in the hope of matching them to a patient, but none were found who had records going back far enough.
Missing persons
Macdougall then made enquiries into persons missing from home over 25 years ago. There were reports of a woman described as ‘a frequenter of the caverns ... 35 years in age, 5’ 5” in height and of plump build’ when she went missing around 1936. She was a married woman, a native of Kidderminster and, it was believed, left with a gentleman that was lodging at her house, a native of Manchester. By 1961, the husband of the lady had died and her daughter, who had been 13 years old at the time, could offer no assistance and so the trail went cold. DNA testing was not available then.
The inquest had been reconvened in August, although again adjourned, before being brought to a close on 24 October. With Macdougall drawing a blank on identification, the actual verdict of the court on the death were left open as no definitive evidence could be found to suggest either unlawful killing, misadventure or accidental death. It was Griffiths’ final conclusions that showed how little could be ascertained:
Examination of the skeleton did not reveal a cause of death. The position of the skeleton in relation to the rock and rubble suggest that the deceased may have been pinned down by a fall of rock from the roof of the cavern.
Theories
So, what are the theories? Murder or accident, it seems. I fall to the accident theory, but first a comment as a layman on the frustrations of the case file: the witnesses do not seem to approach some vital questions, which even an acknowledgement that they could not answer would at least be of evidential value.
This lack of exploration may be illustrated if we take our cave frequenter as the model for our victim. First, a historical context was missing: at her disappearance, around 1936, it was likely the zoo, which opened in 1937, had not been constructed and it is also possible that the canal system and mining operations were no longer working – suggesting that cave exploration was a reasonable assumption. The dentures dated from at least from 1939, but could be somewhat older, so fit with this.
The phrase ‘frequenter of the caverns’, when linked to the disappearing at the same time as the lodger, may imply that our lady was of shady character and making the murder scenario more likely – as she was alone. What if she wasn’t alone? The possibility of other remains wasn’t discussed. The Birmingham Daily Post correspondent said the cave was partially blocked after her body position and the evidence from the inquest said there was fall debris all around – including whole slabs of limestone. Is it not possible that the lodger, now simply an innocent caving companion, could still lie buried, lantern and all, under it?
Another disappointment is the lack of apparent interest in the rubble – the one piece that had lain over the head and had been removed by the two workmen. A proper description, forensic analysis and expert opinion on what damage such a rock would do to a skull (if it struck a direct or glancing blow) would have been useful. Soil samples were taken, but nothing was ever used as evidence at the findings.
Perhaps the most frustrating is the umbrella. The design, if ascertainable, would be useful first for dating – as the pocket umbrella had only been invented in the 1920s. Second, if it was a standard type, then it could be assumed there was no wrist-strap and she must have been carrying it when she fell at the spot she was found – if she received injuries elsewhere why would she take her umbrella? And if her body was dragged there, why go back to the scene to deposit an umbrella when it could be easily disposed of in the canal?
Injuries
The partial covering of the body makes little sense unless it was a natural event: if it were a case of murder, surely you would either leave the body hoping the cave itself would hide it, or you would cover it all. The injuries could have been cause by a human hand, but are perhaps more suggestive, as Griffiths said, that she was struck, fell and pinned through a rock fall, or tripped and hit her head.
The investigating officers do touch upon the murder aspect. Macdougall, at the end of his first report in May, simply says ‘the local press have published various stories regarding the skeleton, and have even suggested it was a case of murder’, while Superintendent Hullah initially said ‘we can’t rule out foul play’.
So, many of the details as recalled by the museum’s video have been proved unfounded: 1951, rusty blades, method of discovery, trip hazards and so on. In truth, the death remains unexplained but ‘Murder Mine’ is a misnomer – it should really be called Mystery Mine.
In trying to give the deceased a little dignity it would have been nice to visit the grave of the lady concerned; but when Dudley Council checked their records, there wasn’t a grave for an unknown lady for that period. And so another mystery started.
As there is nothing in the Coroner’s file to suggest that he, or Dudley Borough Police, received the remains back from the Forensic Laboratory in Birmingham, a Freedom of Information request was sent to West Midlands Police, as the successor body to Dudley Borough Police, asking if they had any information on the case.
They replied that they had none. The request was sent to the Home Office as it was their pathologist who carried out the examination. They politely replied that they had no record of the case either, as they seemed to have passed this responsibility onto Forensic Archive Ltd.
A West Midlands Forensic Laboratory file does survive in the National Archives for the period up to the late 1930s, so I am hopeful the files for the 1960s exist and may provide an answer as to what happened to the remains after August 1961. Their reply is awaited.