The Windsor-Ramhill Tragedies

Feilding Star, Volume XIII, Issue 131, 3 May 1892, Page 2

The Windsor-Ramhill Tragedies

(per tress association. Melbourne, May 1. Williams, in hi* defence, has adopted .1 new line. He will assert through his c< tinsel ihat Miss Mather, whom he married in England, is still alive, and that she cleared out, that the body found nt Windsor was that nf another woman who might have been murdered six months n so, and further that the body was so decomposed that it was impossible to identify it. His counsel, though not bringing cvi« dence to support these contentions, submits them to the jury for comideration. The mpdical eyidence has strengthened the belief of the detectives that Williams is identical with " Jack the Ripper." May 2. Tho jury returned a verdict of wilful murder acainst Deeming, finding that he was not insane at the lime of the murder, nor is he insane now. Sentence of death was passed, INCIDENTS OF THE TRIAL. PRISONER DEFIANT to the LAST. (Received May 3, 11 a.m.) Melbourne, This Day. During yesterday's sitting of the court Williams looked less haggard and more brisk and businesslike than he did during the earlier stages of the trial. Dr Springthorpe, who was examined at great length, related to a conversation he had with the prisoner, in which the latter told extraordinary tales and made shocking brutal charges against his family. A portion of the accused's statement to the doctor was so shocking that it was read in Court. Williams accused Miss Mather of being an accomplice of the Rainhill crime before the fact, and also declared that she was previously married to a man named Hughes, and subsequently cleared out with him. Deakin's address to the jury on behalf of the prisoner was an able and exhaustive one, lasting two hours and a half. Walsh, Crown Prosecutor, ridiculed the idea of insanity under the circumstances, saying the murder was deliberately planned, denoting a series of pre-arranged events. Despite his counsel's advice, Williams persisted in making a statement containing his version of the tragedy. This statement was a palpable mixture of mendacity, audacity, and impudence, and an extraordinary propensity for outraging the truth, which was manifested immediately he protested that he had not received a fair trial, and that public feeling went against him. Williams spoke clearly and without the slightest trace of emotion. In his summing up the Judge was remarkably fair in his treatment of the evidence. The ,]ury were absent an hour, and the verdict caused prisoner to smile. After sentence was pronounced he walked boldly from the Court.