On a hearthrug in front of the fire was the child’s bath full of water and the body of his baby son, little Albert was lying, submerged in the water. Of his wife Mary Ann there was no sign. Needless to say a full search of the town was made for her, but it was unsuccessful until she returned back to the house later that night and was taken into custody. Needless to say, Mary Ann Richardson was brought before the Sheffield Stipendiary magistrate Mr E M Welby on Tuesday 11 July charged with the wilful murder of her son. Given the publicity of the case, the bench for spectators watching the courts proceedings was full.
Mary Ann was placed before the clerk’s desk, where it was reported that ‘she made a pathetic figure as she stood with a careworn expression, listening to the charge read out to her.’ The prisoner was described as wearing a black dress, shawl and a matching straw hat. When called forward to testify, it was noted that Mary Ann pulled her black shawl tighter around her shoulders as if for protection. Superintendent Moody asked the clerk Mr Welby to remand the prisoner for a week, as an inquest on the baby was due to be held in a couple of days which was agreed. The prisoner was then removed by a female searcher employed by the Sheffield Police force.
Accordingly on Thursday 13 July, the inquest on the body of little Albert Richardson was held in the City Mortuary. Mary Ann did not try to hide her guilt, as she frankly told the Coroner, Mr D Wightman:
‘I could not help it. I put the baby in the bath and watched him for a few minutes. Then I took him out and tried to bring him around, but I could not. So I put him back in and went out. I know what I am doing now, but I did not know then.’
Dr Godfrey Carter, who had held the post mortem on the little body, told the inquest that the child had died through immersion in water, although all his organs appeared to be healthy. Mary Ann’s husband Edward Richardson was the next witness, and he stated that his wife had always seemed to be in a low spirited manner since she came out of the Jessops Hospital for women, soon after the birth. He described finding his baby son in the bath who, he said was completely dressed with the exception of his shoes and socks. Edward described how, upon returning home around 1 pm, he found the door to be locked. Knowing that Mary Ann always left a key with a neighbour, he went into the house and found the body of his son.
When the coroner asked him whether his wife had shown any mental health issues before, he told him that eight years previously she had been sent to Wadsley Asylum. He said that she always seemed to be brooding about something or other. A neighbour Amelia Senior, confirmed Edward’s account and stated that the family had always appeared respectable and she had never heard either of them quarrelling. However, she too had noticed that Mary Ann was in poor spirits as she was in the habit of keeping the kitchen blinds closed all day long. Police Constable Surgey told the inquest of how he had been called to the prisoners house following her return on 10 July around 6.30 pm. There the prisoner had openly admitted that she had drowned her baby.
Mary Ann was asked if she had anything to say, but she made no reply before the jury brought back a verdict of wilful murder against her. On Tuesday 18 July she was brought before the magistrates at the Sheffield Court House, charged with the wilful murder of her son, Albert Edward Richardson. Prosecution Mr J E Wing outlined the case for the bench, before another neighbour, Mrs Agnes Stebbing described seeing Mary Ann leaving the yard around 10 am. She said that her neighbour appeared normal as she wished her ‘good morning.’ The witness said that after Edward had picked up the spare key, he had called her into his house and that’s when she saw the body of the child in the water.
Dr Carter gave evidence of the post mortem, before the accused was asked if she had anything to say. Almost in a whisper Mary Ann murmured ‘no’ before being committed to take her trial at the assizes, which were being heard in Leeds at that time. Accordingly, Mary Ann Richardson was brought before the judge, Mr Justice Jelf on Monday 31 July 1905. When she was placed in the dock, the seriousness of her situation seemed to hit the prisoner and the poor woman began to cry. However she soon managed to pull herself together. Prosecution, Mr Kenneth Marshall told the jury that there was little doubt about the fact that Mary Ann Richardson had drowned her own child. However, he told the jury that what they must consider is her state of mind at the time.
Dr Clarke of Wakefield Prison stated that he had been able to observe the prisoner whilst she had been awaiting her trial. He then briefly told the story of Mary Ann Richardson’s tragic life. Dr Clarke described how the couple’s first child died soon after it was born, some nine years previously. This fact had weighed so heavily on her mind, that Mary Ann became insane and ended up as an inmate of Wadsley Asylum, where she remained for three months. Since then, the surgeon said that she had suffered from periodic bouts of deep depression. This had been accentuated in April when Albert was born when during the birth, she had sustained an internal rupture.
The hospital told her at the time that they could not operate on her until September, when they might be able to do something about it. Dr Clarke told the jury categorically that at that moment in time the prisoner was thought to be quite sane and fit to plead. However they, the jury had to judge whether or not the act was done whilst she was suffering from acute melancholia. He had therefore concluded that from what the prisoner had told him, he had formed the opinion that the prisoner was not of sound mind at the time the deed was done. Neighbour Amelia Senior once more gave her opinion that on the day in question Mary Ann had seemed quite normal in her manner.
She told the court that she ‘had fair worshipped’ the little boy, Albert. In the neighbours opinion, she stated that she would have expected her to do something to herself rather than to harm the child. Another neighbour, Agnes Stebbings told the judge that Edward Richardson had been so concerned about his wife’s mental health that he had been forced to send her two older children away to live with relatives. This also had preyed on the poor woman’s mind. PC Surgey stated that when Mary Ann returned back to the house after her husband had found body of little Albert she had seemed to be in a very excited state. That officer described how she was perspiring very much.
Nevertheless, he added that she had seemed quite rational when she made her statement admitting to what she had done. In answer to a question from one of the jury, Dr Carter stated that acute melancholia was apt to re-occur from time to time. Therefore he should not consider someone who had suffered from acute melancholia to be ‘safe’ even after many years. Mr Justice Jelf in his summing up, told the jury that he could not see any motive for the crime and therefore, he could only guess that at the time the prisoner was not responsible for her actions. The jury, without leaving the courtroom agreed, and brought in a verdict accordingly.
The judge therefore said it was the order of the court that the prisoner was to be kept in custody in a criminal lunatic asylum until His Majesty’s pleasure was known. It was reported that Mary Ann ‘seemed to not thoroughly realise the meaning of the verdict and sentence, and went below without showing any sign of emotion.’ Had Mary Ann Richardson got away with murder? I think not! Being confined in a lunatic asylum was no easy life in the nineteenth century. There was no treatment available, nor drugs to be given in the huge, state-run asylums. Patients therefore tended to, very quickly, becoming institutionalised by confinement, until their lives came thankfully to an end!