Francis Edeson was convicted of assaulting Ann Sanders on the King’s highway (not Kings Highway) at St Pancras, Middlesex England on 26 September 1826, found guilty and sentenced to death, which was respited to transportation for life (21 years) on 16 December 1826.

Here’s a thought.  What if the original conviction was incorrect?

Having read the trial transcript, I had an uncomfortable feeling that something within its words didn’t quite feel right.  OK, maybe I’ve watched to many episodes of Boston Legal, however the ‘spidey’ senses did start to tingle.

If reading the boring stuff is, well, boring, by all means head down to the bottom of this page and see what conclusion I ended up with, here.

The full manuscript of the trial can be downloaded via the Old Bailey website, or you can see it here as an original Old Bailey .pdf file.  You can also see who the presiding Justice was, along with the members of the Jury, also at the Old Bailey website.

What follows will be highlighted selections of the trail transcript and my comments or facts I have on hand.  It is not foolproof, and I am certainly not a law professional.  Counter arguments will be considered if presented with verifiable evidence.

To begin, I’d like to present the physical and environmental conditions that Francis and Ann Sanders encountered on that day in 1826.  I know most of this because I looked it up and made some conservative conclusions without an actual weather report for the day in question.

The London summer (June, July, August) of 1826 was quite dry, while the autumns of the 1820s were relatively wet with an average rainfall of 196mm and the number of rain days being 30.  Sunset on the day was around 5.49pm, with total darkness at 7.42pm.  The moon was a Waning Crescent on 28 September, with no moonrise on the 26th.

The crime location was quite ‘out of the way’ in the modern sense, however the Camden Town back road would have been a major traffic route between Kentish Town and Battle Bridge, as it would have by-passed the town if heading towards Pancras.  The modern walking time, using roads closest to those from 1825, from Hoxton (near where Francis’ sister lived) to the crime location is 1 hour 20 minutes, via Google Maps.

ANN SANDERS. I am single, and am servant to a gentleman at Kentish-town. On the 26th of September, at half-past eight o'clock in the evening, I was returning home from Holborn - I was alone; it was dark, and not very moon-light, and in the Back-road, by Camden-town - I was going over the bridge in the road, and met the prisoner

This confirms the lighting conditions.  As there was a one in three chance of rain on the day, there is a possibility that the evening in question was also cloudy. The ‘Back-road’ by 1833 was likely named “The King’s Road”.

Q. How long did this last? A. About ten minutes; I could see him by the light which came from the lodgegate - he appeared to be dressed in dark clothes, with a rough light great coat; he appeared to be in a sailor's dress - he had a short jacket under his coat; he had trousers on. I saw him again on the 28th, two days after, at the office, in the lock-up-room, with seven others, and knew him - I fixed on him myself - he stood in the centre of them; I heard him speak in the lock-up-room, and knew his voice again also. Nobody passed while he was robbing me.

In a stressful moment it is difficult to remember every detail (Note 1).  Here Ann remembers details with a statement – ‘he appeared’.  Ann knew what clothing Francis was wearing, his voice and his appearance by the light of the Lodgegate.  Highly stressful moments can appear to stretch time. Also, there weren’t any people nearby even though footsteps could be heard.

Remembering it was a dark night, we can’t ascertain where the Lodgegate was in relation to the robbery at this point, or how far away they were from it, but it is logical to think that the light of perhaps a half a dozen candles (the likely source of light (Note 2)) coming from a window or open door would be enough see and remember an assailant.  By the way, I’m glad he had trousers on!

The lodge is not far from the bridge, about a hundred yards I should think; it was light, for the lodge door was open; I did not observe what light it was - I was over the bridge, exactly opposite the lodge gate, and the door was open

Remember, Ann was on the bridge when the robbery took place. One Hundred yards is Ninety-One point 44 metres.  A positive ID at that distance from the only light source, likely being candlelight seems implausible. 

she said he had longish hair, as if it was whiskers - that he was dressed in a sort of sailor's jacket and trousers

Ann’s fellow servant makes no mention of the Great Coat.

Cross-examined. Q. Then she described him as having whiskers? A. She did. He is materially altered since his apprehension; I cannot say whether he ever had whiskers; he has got his hair cut, and looks cleaner since he was taken; he had on the same jacket and trousers as he has now - it is a jacket used by sailors; she pointed him out in about two moments.
JURY. Q. Did she say to you he had whiskers, or like whiskers? A. When he was at Hatton-garden his hair was brought forward to the side of his face, which would appear like whiskers; she said, "Like whiskers."
ROBERT TEASDALE . I took the prisoner into custody the night before.

Taken into custody on the 27th, no reason for this has been found.  The Great Coat is again not mentioned and how has he materially altered his appearance by having had a haircut and cleaned himself up while he was in custody?

Prisoner's Defence. I know nothing of the robbery. The two officers came to the watch-house in the morning, and said, "Teasdale, did you see that man with a white coat on?" he said, No, and then he said, "He has changed his dress"

Again, the Great Coat. 

The officer brought in the prosecutrix, and asked if the man was there - she said, No; he said, "Are you sure of that?" she said, Yes; he pointed to me in the middle, and then she said, "That is the man - I will swear to him."

Some memories (ones under stress) can be influenced by outside sources, or by leading questions (Note 3).  This response by the defendant is almost a classic ‘he said/she said’ moment.  As it is also the first and only time the defendant has been able to speak, it could be given some weight for being in part factual.

WILLIAM LEE . I am carpenter of the Buckingham, East India Company's ship, and live at Blackwall. I have known the prisoner eighteen months - he sailed from India, with me, as caulker's mate

There is no East India Company ship called Buckingham, however there was one called ‘Buckinghamshire’.  A Royal Navy ship of the line was called ‘Buckingham’ which was scrapped in 1745.  One of the recorded journeys of the Buckinghamshire from ‘India’ departed Bombay on 10 June 1822 and was back at Gravesend, England 29 April 1823.

Neither Francis or William Lee could be found as being employed by the East India Company, using threedecks.org and eicships.threedecks.org for searching. Others may be more successful here.

WILLIAM FRANCIS HARDING . I live at Somer's-town, and am a milkman. I have known the prisoner four years - he bore an upright character; I have seen him twenty or thirty times lately. He was at my house on the 26th of September, at Hoxton; I lived then in Whitmore-row - he came about half-past three or four o'clock, and remained with us; I went out at six o'clock, and left him there - I returned about ten, and he was gone.

Harding is the defendant’s brother-in-law.  Make note of the time of departure and the time of return.  Remembering that sunset was at 5.49pm, the time the crime was committed, 8.30pm, and how long it takes to walk from Hoxton to Camden Town (in modern times, about 1 hour 20 minutes).

ELIZA HARDING ….Whitmore-row, Hoxton, where we lodged; Mrs. Drummond, who keeps the house, was at home when he came, and till after tea; we drink tea about six o'clock - the prisoner drank tea with us, and stopped till nine

The defendant departed Hoxton at 9pm and the robbery took place at 8.30pm. Remember the walking time during modern times is about 1hr 20mins. Imagine a pitch dark night, few street lights or paths.

JURY. Q. How was your brother dressed that day? - A. The same as he is; he had fustian trousers as he has now; I never saw him in a shag coat, or heard of his having one

Again, no coat.

WILLIAM FRANCIS HARDING re-examined. I should think Hoxton is three miles and a half or four miles from Kentish-town - I should go down the City-road and Battle-bridge to it.
COURT. Q. How far from your house were you to meet this gentleman? A. In the City, about three quarters of a mile from Hoxton, at the corner of the East India-house; I was to meet him at six o'clock, but the prisoner's coming detained me a little, and it might have struck six before I started; he was dressed in the same clothes as he has now, except the waistcoat, which was kerseymere; he had no great coat

William Harding is the only witness re-examined, giving us the best way to walk to Kentish Town as well as the approximate the distance.  The modern day walk is 3.9 miles to Camden.  Again, no Great Coat.

(Note 1) Remember, the Science of Memory and the Art of Forgetting – Chapter 15, Stressed Out – Lisa Genova, 2021.
(Note 2) “But in 1831, ‘A Rate Payer’ writing in the Times criticises the Camden Town Paving Commission, which ‘raises local taxes yet the streets are muddy, ill-light and ill-kempt’ while opposite Camden Terrace”  A Georgian suburb: revealing place and person in London’s Camden Town - Mark McCarthy (Thesis submitted for the degree of MRes in Historical Research, Institute of Historical Research, School of Advanced Studies, University of London,
September 2018)
(Note 3) Remember, the Science of Memory and the Art of Forgetting – Chapter 7, Your Memories (For What Happened) Are Wrong – Lisa Genova, 2021.

----------------------------------------------------------

It is interesting that Francis didn’t have his parents as witnesses as well.  Both were living in the St Pancras area at the time.

My conclusion?

Let’s revisit some points that raise reasonable doubt for a guilty verdict:

• The lack of visibility for Ann to 100% honestly say Francis committed the crime.
• Ann’s ability to recall fine detail in a moment of stress (certainly not 10 minutes worth).
• The possible memory hint regarding identifying Francis.
• The Great Coat.
• The time it takes to walk from Hoxton to Camden Town (and remember, back in those times, there were few footpaths or street lighting in that part of London).
• The time Francis departed Hoxton.
• The brother-in-law. 

At the end of the day, his sentence of death was respited to 21 years Transportation after being recommended for mercy by everyone involved in the trial. There must have been doubt of his guilt even then. Could they have issued a "No Bill" instead?

The man appeared to be of good character, who was caught up in something beyond his control or experience to defend.  He proved his worth by gaining a Conditional Pardon after 13 years in the colony and his Free Pardon four years later.

Glad he did.

webpage content © Wayne L Jones 2021 or © Wayne L. Jones/Sportz Fotos 2021 unless otherwise indicated.