By Jaevon Marseille
Mary Ann Cotton was Britain's first female serial killer reported to have killed more people than Jack the Ripper although the exact number of people she killed is unknown. The details of Cotton's murderous career and how she committed the crimes are also murky. The range of people murdered has been speculated to be from four confirmed up to twenty-five with the final number assumed as seventeen. How she managed to evade imprisonment for as long as she did is cause for speculation. Not much is recorded about Cotton's background; however, what is known is that she was the youngest of five children and that she constantly moved around after she left home. Additionally, a lack of documentation such as birth and death certificates, leave much of Mary Ann Cotton's life up for discussion, but it is assumed that her birth name was Mary Ann Robson.
Martin Connolly explains in his book, Mary Ann Cotton: Britain's First Female Serial Killer that Mary Ann Robson was born on October 31, 1832. Mary Ann Robson was baptized at St. Mary's Church in West Rainton on November 11th of that same year. Reverend Tiffin, the local curate, administered the baptism, intoned the blessing, and then poured holy water onto the baby's head. He spoke the name that the parents had chosen for their firstborn. Thus, Mary was welcomed into the Christian community. She would grow in her Methodist faith under the instruction of her mother, but her father would also insist on a strict observation of the rules and rights associated with the Methodist faith. Connolly also wrote, at the time of her trial, that a Wesleyan minister who knew her made this report in The Northern Echo: "Mr. Hold Forth, who is now a class leader in connection with the Wesleyan body in West Hartlepool, made his acquaintance with the condemned woman upwards 30-years ago, when as he described her, she was a most exemplary and regular attender at a Wesleyan Sunday school at Murton village in which he occasionally officiated as the superintendent." At that time, she was regarded as a girl of innocent disposition and average intelligence. Michael Robson, her father who was a sinker at Murton Colliery, was much respected in the neighborhood and saw that his daughter received as good an education as obtainable at the village school. Due to her general behavior, Mary Ann managed to win over the good opinion of all who knew her, and she was distinguished for her particularly clean and tidy appearance. However, this account of Mary Ann Cotton is in stark contrast to the one we now know today. At this time in her life, we would have found an intelligent and well-presented young girl well thought of in her community. After being introduced to the Methodist circuit, Mary Ann took on the role of Sunday school teacher during her adolescent years, teaching to the younger children of Methodist parents. Even though she was intelligent and generous, nobody could have had any idea what would become of this woman later in her life including Mr. Hold Forth. No foreshadowing presented itself to show what she would become.
Meanwhile, in 1842, Mary's Ann's father, Mr. Robson, eked out a living in the coalfields where his was the dangerous job of sinking shafts in the new mines being discovered. The Robson family moved into East Rainton where Mr. Robson found work at the hazard pit. On July 28, 1834, Margaret Mary Ann's mother had a baby girl, and the baby was granted the same name as her mother. However, the younger Margaret only lived a matter of months before falling ill and dying from the many illnesses that plagued the poor. After the baby's death, the Robson family moved again, this time to the North Hetton Colliery, then made a further move to the east Murton Colliery in 1835. In 1835, Mrs. Margaret announced that she was carrying another child, and at three years old, Mary Ann became a sister to a brother, Robert. Robert was born on October 5th, 1835. From that point on, she would have to learn to share the meagre resources of this poor family.
In 1841, the census indicates that the Robson family was residing in Dirham Place at Murton. The census also shows that around this time, Mary Ann was eight years old, and her brother Robert was five years old. Her father Mr. Robson was still engaged in the dangerous work of sinking shafts at the Murton Colliery for the South Hetton Coal company. The success in the coalfields in those days was always a cost of human life. Six-months after the report was in the press at Murton, Mary Ann's father paid the price for a most celebrated event. There would be many more lives lost in the mining business. Mr. Potter, the viewer engineer at the company was triumphant in the success at the sinking of the pit. A report by The Newcastle Journal stated that "The South Hetton Colliery, the South Coal Company (COL). Bradyll and partners have conquered all difficulty and succeeded in sinking through the sand at their extensive new winnings of a colliery at Murton, near Dalton-le-Dale. This great achievement in the mining world was affected on Thursday, when great rejoicing took place among the workers by whose exertions and zeal, guided by the ability and energy of Mr. Potter, the viewer and engineer, the magnificent work was accomplished." This report pointed to the danger of sinking shafts into difficult ground where shifting sands were a hazard. It was Mary Ann's father and men like him who brought the company its success; however, in February 1842, at the age of twenty-six, Mr. Robson found himself working again in a shaft at the Murton Colliery. The shaft that Mr. Robson was working in was not steep, but the difficult sandy conditions were not helpful. Whatever the cause, Mr. Robson fell to his death, and the shaft gave way crushing him in the process. The broken and shattered body of Mr. Robson was dragged out of the mine and wrapped in a sack bearing the stamp, Property of The South Hetton Coal Company. The body was delivered to his grieving widow on a small wooden coal cart. Young Mary Ann and her brother stood nearby witnessing the horrible scene unfold. The death of Mr. Robson not only meant the loss of a husband and a father but the loss of income and a roof over their heads. Mr. Robson was buried at West Rainton. The tragedy was that in the coal fields, the loss of the miner in a tied cottage meant that the remainder of the family would be evicted. Connolly wrote that local newspapers such as The Northern Echo suggested the possibility that later, Margaret Cotton, in order to make ends meet, took a position at the South Hetton House and became a domestic laundry servant. However, Mrs. Robson, being an ever-resourceful woman, remarried in September 18th 1843, to a man whose name was George Stott, also a miner. Having only recently lost her father, Mary Ann did not take too kindly to George Stott even though he raised the children as his own.
Connolly wrote that Mary Ann was not only raised as a strict Methodist by her biological father but by her stepfather as well. Her connection with the Methodist circuit and status as a Sunday school teacher would have instilled in her a sense of right and wrong. Despite a strict upbringing and background, Mary Ann took the first opportunity and left home when she was only sixteen years old. Mary Ann's first job was as an under nurse for Edward Potter, the same man that Mr. Robson worked for when he was a miner. Connolly suggested, it is likely that because Mr. Potter felt responsible for Mary Ann's father's death, for he was sympathetic towards Mary Ann. The Potters lived well in a large South Hetton house and had a range of domestic help. In 1841, there were five children and six domestic servants living with Mr. Potter and his wife. It would be an eye opener for Mary Ann moving from a miner's cottage to a grand house and would make Mary Ann realize how much power money could hold. The intelligent young woman would soon realize that the Potter's success was built on the hardworking miners who lost their lives to the pits; however, this would become the lifestyle that Mary Ann aspired to, and her journey from here would always be in search of a husband who could deliver it. It was proposed that as a young woman hired to watch over the Potter's large family, the experience must have been a challenge. Despite this, newspapers would later report that Mary Ann did a fine job, and Potter's wife spoke highly of her. Connolly also wrote that no harm was inflicted on the children or anybody else in Potter's household while Mary Ann was there. After the Potter children were sent off to boarding schools around Darlington, Mary Ann's services were no longer needed. Her post ended, and she returned to her stepfather's house. Connolly stated that the 1851 census reflected that Mary Ann, her mother, and stepfather were all living at Murton Colliery. At that time, Mary Ann was eighteen years old.
Due to the poor conditions at this time, Mary Ann did what was necessary to keep herself afloat and took another job as an apprentice dressmaker, a job that would help her create the beautiful clothes she longed for. However, Mary Ann started to show a characteristic that would stick with her throughout her life. Connolly explained that although she was never described as beautiful, Mary Ann was "pleasant looking" or "pretty," and it became clear she could attract men. So, it was speculated that Mary Ann's ability to attract men is what allowed her to trap twenty-six-year-old William Mowbray under her spell. Mowbray was born in Shotley, Northumberland. It was thought that he had come to the north of England from the area of Peterborough Cathedral and Cambridgeshire, although census information would suggest he was born in Shotley. Later in life, Mary Ann used her seductive powers to gain advantage over William and became pregnant by him. On July 18, 1852, William found himself married to the young Mary Ann who passed herself off as twenty-one when in reality, she was only nineteen years old. They got married at St. Andrews Church in Newcastle as reported by local newspapers. While there was no formal record of the marriage, it is possible that such irregular unions, while quite common and still considered a blessing, were not officially registered. Connolly also wrote that the evidence of a non-church wedding for the Methodist Mary Ann would confirm that this was a hurried marriage of convenience to legitimize the pregnancy. It can only be speculated as to what happened next. What we do know is after 1856, Mary Ann was pregnant on a regular basis; however, each child died soon suddenly or soon after birth.
On June 23, 1856, Mary Ann gave birth to a baby girl and her name was Margaret Jane. On April fifth, 1857, the young Margaret was brought into the church community at St. Andrews in Dalton Le Dale church. Two years later, Mary Ann became pregnant again, this time giving birth to another baby girl Isabella Jane. Isabella was born in December 1858 and was baptized on December nineteenth, 1859. In June 1860, Margaret Jane, the first born died at the age of only four-years old. Connolly also wrote that, there was a great deal of confusion regarding the child at Mary Ann's trial because the name Margaret Mowbray was often quoted, but it was due to an error on the parish burial register. In the records, it indicated that the mother's name was accidently placed in the deceased column. According to the 1861 Census that kept track, Mary Ann became pregnant once again. On October second, 1861, another daughter arrived and was baptized, and her name was recorded as Margaret Mowbray. Two years later, Mary Ann was once again pregnant, and in November 1863, she delivered a baby boy whose name was christened John Robert. However, the young boy did not live long. He died of gastric fever in September 1864, but his death records incorrectly reported his name as John Robert William.
At Mary Ann's trial, newspapers reported that they felt like something was not right with the John Robert's death especially since it was linked with Mary Ann's husband William sudden death at the age of 39. However, testimony from the doctor at the time, reported that William's death was in fact natural due to typhus fever. Connolly also wrote that a daughter named Mary Jane died due to gastric fever in May 1865. It is noted that William and his family were insured, and when he died; Mary Ann would receive 35 British pounds along with money from the children's deaths. A report in the Pall Mall Gazette, tried to cast the aspersion that the deaths of the Mowbrays were linked to an insurance claim. The reporter got some facts wrong regarding the trial and joined in the hysteria that surrounded the trial by stating, "this hysteria sought to link every death around Mary Ann as an act of murder." This statement did not have any sound basis to it as, according to other newspapers, William was confined to his home with a sore foot. Then suddenly, on a Saturday night, he developed severe diarrhea, succumbed to a fever, and by Sunday he was dead. Connolly also wrote that this may have been simple sensationalism as William was certified as dying from typhus fever. It is important to note that that, the symptoms of typhus disease are very different from arsenic poisoning. Connolly also wrote that, Typhus symptoms include abdominal pain, backache, diarrhea, dull red rash that begins on the middle of the body and spreads, extremely high fever, hacking, dry cough, headache, joint and muscle pain, nausea, and vomiting. Meanwhile, arsenic poisoning symptoms include drowsiness, headaches, confusion, terrible diarrhea, convulsions, vomiting and blood. Although both diseases have many things in common, what stands out is the rash in typhus fever, and therefore, it would be hard but not impossible for a doctor to get the two diseases mixed up. Mary Ann did receive the insurance money from both her husband and children's deaths. In 1865, Margaret Jane would meet the same fate as her father and siblings and died before even reaching the age of four. Since death was common in the 1800s due to any number of diseases, there was no suspicion of foul play. In the summer of 1865, Mary Ann handed her remaining child Isabella to her mother, and her grandparents took care of her.
According to Connolly, at some point, Mary Ann sought employment at the old Sunderland Infirmary. The Northern Echo reported that she took over the post of fever nurse from one Isabella Smith. In later testimony, Isabella Smith took the stand to tell what she knew about Mary Ann. Isabella stated, "I was a nurse at the old Sunderland Infirmary for a great number of years, and I left about 1865 or 1866 to get married. Prisoner Mary Ann came into my place when I left. Her name was then Mowbray. She took my place and remained about eleven or twelve months. A man named George Ward was a patient in the infirmary when she was there and she attended to him, and afterwards married him." Isabella would confirm that Mary Ann had access to poisons and that they were labeled correctly. It was common knowledge that Mary Ann could read, and so the inference was left to the minds of the court.
On August 28th, 1865, Mary Ann married George Ward at St. Peters Church in Monkwearmouth Sunderland. Although there's little known about George Ward's early life, there is much known about his final days. Connolly also wrote that, in a report in The Sunderland Times, it was reported that George suffered an illness, and a Dr. Dixon was initially called in to care for him. However, as Mr. Ward's condition did not improve, Mary Ann called and asked a former contact at the infirmary, Dr. Maling, for a second opinion. Connolly also wrote that, George's condition included nosebleeds, and all the doctors' efforts brought no improvement. George constantly complained of feeling tired and weak. Dr. Dixon was completely puzzled as to why George was deteriorating, looked to a common solution that was favored in the 1800s, and instructed Mary Ann to apply twelve leeches to George's body. Connolly wrote that leeches draw an average of 3GMS of blood every 15-minutes. With twelve leeches and regular nosebleeds, a weakened George would have been losing a significant amount of blood. It appeared that the situation was complicated by the wounds left by the leeches which continued to bleed overnight. Dr. Dixon's assistant came over to clean and dress the wounds. Dr. Maling was once again called in, and this caused Dr. Dixon to take umbrage and leave Maling in the care of George. This dispute was referred to at the time of the trial. Although the cause of death was stated as typhus fever, the symptoms show that Ward's death was caused by arsenic poisoning. The case of Ward and the resulting controversy, in which Dr. Maling and Dr. Dixon were participants, created some stir in Sunderland at the time. Ward died, however, and the parish buried him. It was reported by The Northern Echo that, "it was sensationally claimed that symptoms were the same as if death had resulted from arsenical poisoning." Connolly also wrote that the report incorrectly stated the cause death as "typhus," when in fact it was noted on the death certificate as English cholera and typhoid. Although Dr. Maling remained in charge of George's care, he also decided to leave eventually. He reported that "Ward was beginning to display signs of paralysation in his hands and feet." At the time of the trial, Mr. Gammage who had previously attended George, stated that "George Ward, died on October twenty-one, 1865, at the age of thirty-three years old," and that although he was an ailing man, Gammage considered that he dropped off very suddenly. Mary Ann, a widower with one daughter, nursed and married her patient and buried him all in the same year.
Following the death of husband Ward, Mary Ann later became a housekeeper for the Robinson family using the name Mowbray rather than Ward. Connolly wrote that, James Robinson saw something in Mary Ann that he was attracted to. Mr. Robinson appointed Mary Ann as housekeeper, and she moved in on December 20th. Connolly wrote that, at the time of the appointment, Mr. Robinson's son John was very ill, and he had been under the care of the doctor for some time. On December twenty-first, the day after Mary Ann moved in, baby John died. Though, she was not reported to have murdered baby John, people assume that she did. Mary Ann made herself right at home at the Robinson's and was soon very attentive to James. So attentive was Mary Ann to James that by March or April of 1866, they were sharing a bed. Connolly wrote that, becoming pregnant by James would very likely lead to marriage. However, In March 1866, Mary Ann was informed that her mother Margaret Stott was ill, so before marriage could happen, Mary Ann would leave to attend to her sickly mother.
It was stated that her mother was ill but able to sit up in bed before her daughter got there, but nine days after Mary Ann arrived, the mother was dead. According to The Northern Echo, reporters suggest that Mary Ann was involved in her own mother's death. At the time of death, there were no suspicions that Mary Ann was involved, but at the trial, that allegation was made and stuck with Mary Ann in every sense. Soon after, Mary Ann returned to the Robinson house carrying her mother's goods with her daughter Isabella at her side. Upon her return to the Robinson house, Dr. Shaw was called to the Robinson's residence because the children had fallen ill. Dr. Shaw would describe the children's conditions quite graphically. According to newspapers The Northern Echo and The Morpeth Herald, "they rolled about on the bed. They foamed at the mouth. When given a drink of water, a hand basin had to be ready as they retched it up." James Jr. was the first to pass. On April 20th, he became unconscious and died of what was described as continued fever. He was only six-years old. Then his sister Elizabeth, who fought on but succumbed to her conditions, died on April 25th, 1867. Her death was attributed to gastric fever. She was only eight-years old, but an interesting fact is that neither Mary Ann nor Mr. Robinson reported the deaths. Ironically, Mary Ann's daughter fell victim to the same disease as the other children. Dr. Shaw would report that "the child would go on to retch in her mother's face" causing Mary Ann to fall victim to the disease, but she quickly recovered. Isabella struggled for some time, but she too succumbed, at the age of nine, to her condition.
Later, even Mr. Robinson accused her of murdering his children, stating that "I am convinced that my children were poisoned. I suspected it at the time, but I did not want my mind to dwell on the subject. They were healthy and strong, and only in a few days before they died. Anytime she gave them anything, they vomited and were sick and purged." As the previous cases, the bodies were buried with any evidence they may have provided. Despite his suspicions, Mr. Robinson went ahead and married Mary Ann on August 11th, 1867, at the Parish church in Bishopwearmouth. The marriage certificate showed that there were issues surrounding the ceremony. Connolly wrote that Mary Ann was at this time Mary Ann Ward, yet she used the name Mowbray. On her wedding day, Mary Ann was over five months pregnant. To keep the baby bump from showing, Mary Ann had the dress altered. It is also important to note that Mary Ann's signature was bold and strong suggesting reading and writing wasn't a problem for her.
Soon after the marriage, Mary Ann settled into Mr. Robinson's home and was trusted with his financial affairs. On November 29th, she gave birth to another baby girl whose name was Margaret Isabell; however, the baptismal entry shows her name as Mary Isabella. She died in February 28th from convulsions not certified. The appellation not certified was an indication that the doctor arrived too late to confirm the symptoms and cause of death. Meanwhile, Mary Ann was once again pregnant, and this newborn was a baby boy born on June eighteenth, 1868. The boy was given the name George. Now, the family consisted of William, baby George, and Mary Ann. Incredibly, Mary Ann told James that "neighbors were saying that she had not done to the children as she ought." James reassured her that the rumors meant nothing and to ignore them. Again, a strange response of someone who was convince she had poisoned his children. How Mary Ann treated James in response to his trust does not give her any credit. At the time of their marriage, Mr. Robinson was in excellent employment with a good income, in housing, and with good savings for the future for Mary Ann would have been quite rosy. Under the circumstances, the question arose of why Mary Ann would want to ruin the set up. It was also around this time that Mary Ann was later accused of traveling to Newcastle to purchase arsenic soap.
Mr. Robinson had to make a regular payment into a Mr. Wayman's building society. It was reported to James that arrears had arisen in the account. In the other building society run by a Mr. Trewhitt, society, officials, were making up Mr. Robinson's passbook when they discovered forged alterations amounting to five British pounds had been made in deposit entries. Mr. Robinson entered a dispute with the society strenuously defending his wife's honor. When the society demanded the money be paid, Mary Ann lied to James stated that "the society wanted it paying the following week." However, James was alerted to an attempt by Mary Ann to secure a loan of five British pounds from a local loan company. She had tried to use the names of his uncle and his brother in law to secure the loan. James by now reeling with shock and disappointment was upset further still when he discovered that Mary Ann had also raided his post office savings account. Instead of 21 British pounds being in the account, he found only twenty shillings. Mary Ann had tried to tell James that her stepfather Mr. Stott would make it alright. James had made arrangements with Mary Ann to meet him at the savings bank, but Mary Ann never showed up. At that point, James was finished with her. Mary Ann had gone off and taken baby George with her. Mr. Robinson closed down his house and moved into his sister's house with William and Mary Jane, the remaining children.
On New Year's Eve in 1869, Mary Ann brought baby George to a friend's house and left him there. Mary Ann stated that she had to deliver a letter, but she never returned to pick up George. Connolly also wrote that, George was taken to James's sister's house, and when James returned from a Watch Night service in the early hours of January first, 1870, he was overjoyed to discover his son's return, but also alarmed at reports suggesting that George had not been properly cared for. In 1871, James moved to another home in Bishopwearmouth with his three surviving children. The question is what Mary Ann was doing with the money. If she was spending it on dresses and clothing, Mr. Robinson would have noticed this. Connolly wrote that, later reports influenced by the trial suggested that Mary Ann went to the races, but there is no real evidence of this in the records. It is speculated that Mary Ann was aware that she was going to be exposed for stealing and thus prepared herself to move on with another man.
In 1870, Mary Ann began a relationship with Fredrick Cotton. Connolly wrote that, her move to Spennymoor could come before Mary Ann realized that she was pregnant. What is for certain though is that Mary Ann's penchant for stealing followed her from the Mr. Robinson relationship to this new relationship. Connolly wrote that Dr. Hefferman would appear to have left much of the activity around the house to his assistant Dr. Brereton, and Mary Ann took full advantage. As Mary Ann became aware of her pregnancy, she realized that she would soon lose her post. Plans had to be made, and that's when various items went missing from the household in the similar way things went missing at the Robinson house when Mary Ann resided there. Connolly wrote that, reports say that the doctor confronted Mary Ann, who of course denied all knowledge of any missing goods. The police were not called in to investigate, but two people were dismissed including Mary Ann. The groom was speculated to be in relationship with Mary Ann, and the child Mary Ann was carrying was the groom's. Connolly wrote that, at this point, Mary Ann was made housekeeper to Fredrick and settled into the domesticity of life at Walbottle. Fred was not aware that Mary Ann was still married to Mr. Robinson. In his ignorance, he agreed to marry Mary Ann, and on September 17th, 1870, Fredrick and Mary Ann were married at St. Andrew's church in Newcastle. Mary Ann signed the register as Mary Ann Mowbray, and under the status entry, she signed "widow." Connolly wrote that there was no argument that Mary Ann Robinson did in fact commit the crime of bigamy. Bigamy laws were enforced in the 1600s, and the penalty for this crime was hanging on conviction. By the 1800s though, the sentence penal servitude for between 2/7 years had she been convicted. As an offender, Mary Ann was taking a risk marrying Fredrick Cotton. Furthermore, as the marriage was illegal, Mary Ann would have no right to utilize the name Cotton. Connolly wrote that, Walbottle was not a good place for Mary Ann. She was apparently disliked by her neighbors. Stories of poisonings were revealed after Mary Ann's arrest and were soon confirmed. On February 8, 1871, Mary Ann gave birth to a boy and named him after her deceased brother, Robert Robson Cotton. Connolly wrote that since people could count and the birth a mere five months after her marriage, this would set many tongues wagging; Walbottle became a stressful place for the family.
Later during Mary Ann's trial, the doctor that testified stated that Mary Ann arrived in West Auckland in April 1871, and he soon became the family doctor. In September 1871, Mr. Cotton became ill working at the pits and within a fortnight had died at the age of 39-years old. His death was deemed natural by the doctor, and the death certificate stated his death as typhoid fever and hepatitis which was certified fourteen days later. The death as dated was September 20, 1871. The medical certificate certifies the same record. Connolly wrote that Mary Ann was noted to be affected by the death and as things moved on, Mary Ann was excepted as a grieving widow. In March 1872, Young Fredrick Cotton Jr. became ill, and on March 10th he died of gastric fever. Before March was over, Mary Ann lost another child. Three weeks later, Robert Cotton was certified as dying on March 28th from "teething 3 weeks convulsions." Connolly wrote that these tragedies that were seen by the village as a tragedy which moved them compassion. The coal company had supplied Mary Ann with free coal and allowed her to live free following the death of Fredrick senior. The people of the village organized a small subscription collection in which the coal company contributed to as well. The Prudential insurance company had insured these three family members for small amounts of about seven British pounds. Connolly wrote that around this time, Mary Ann became pregnant again. The lodger, Joseph Nattrass, who moved in with Mary Ann died soon after Robert Cotton. On April first, 1872, Nattrass died, and the cause of death was certified as typhoid fever. Mary Ann benefitted financially from the death of Joseph Nattrass, receiving about fifteen British pounds from Shildon Friendly Burial society as well as clothing and a decent watch which had a value of about thirty British pounds. Connolly wrote that by May, Mary Ann moved out, packed up the Johnson Terrace house, and moved with Charles Edward to 13 Front Street West Auckland. A tailor and his brother moved in with her, and nothing was out of the ordinary and life moved on. In July, the final child of Fredrick took ill and died on July 12th. The boy was insured but the payment was never made to Mary Ann.
On July 18th, Superintendent Henderson arrested Mary Ann for the murder of Charles Cotton. Connolly wrote that, the superintendent made a sworn deposition that described what happened. The deposition stated that the superintendent received a warrant to arrest Mary Ann for the murder of Charles Cotton. The superintendent proceeded to read the warrant to Mary Ann to which she did not reply. Along with the sergeants, the superintendent of the police department in the presence of the Dr. Kailbern searched the house for any trace of poison. They found several articles, which they submitted to Dr. Kailbern for testing. Afterward, the evidence was given to the sergeant in charge. After the search was finished, Mary Ann was taken to the police station in Bondgate, Bishop. On July 19th, she appeared in the upstairs room of the station, and from there, she was remanded into the custody of Durham jail to await a committal hearing. That afternoon, the clock to the Justices of The Peace at Bishop Auckland wrote to the Home Secretary requesting an order for the exhumation of the body of young Charles Cotton. Connolly wrote that, the grounds given for this was the evidence discovered by Dr. Kailbern and the police department. Although the inquest jury had returned a vertical of natural cause, suspicion had arisen about the death of Charles Cotton and others from the household. On July 26th, Sergeant Hutchinson, Thomas Riley, Dr Kailbern, and Dr. Chalmers, along with others, exhumed the body of Charles Cotton at St. Helen's Auckland Churchyard. Connolly wrote that because the sites of graves for parish burials were not marked, several other bodies were exposed. The young boy's body was transported to an empty house nearby. The viscera and tissue that were removed by Dr. Kailbern were put into clean glass bottles along with the stomach, and the contents that remained. The tissue from Dr. Kailbern's analysis was also bottled up. A sample of the boy's feces were also included. Sergeant Hutchinson took the evidence and delivered them to Dr. Scattergood who was an expert in poisons.
On July twenty-first, 1872, Mary Ann Cotton made her appearance for her first hearing in the upper room of the police station in Bondgate, Bishop Auckland. The first witness to give testimony was friend and neighbor, Mary Ann Dodds, who cleaned house for Mary Ann. Miss Dodds proceeded to give an account of Charles's illness and death explaining how she washed the boy and laid him out. She also went on to say that she gave Dr. Kailbern the napkin with the boy's motion in it: "About dinner time, Dr. Kailbern's assistant came in and saw the boy, and about 2 o'clock. I went to Dr. Kailbern's surgery for some medicine which I gave to the prisoner. The medicine was also in a bottle and also a powder. On the following day, I was at the prisoner's house and saw the boy. I asked him if he was any better, but he did not answer me. On the Wednesday, I again went to the prisoner's house and saw the boy Charles Edward Cotton, he was then asleep."
Miss Dodds went on stating that: "I thought he was worse and said to the prisoner, I thought he would not be long here if he kept at that." "The boy Charles Edward Cotton died on the Friday morning the twelfth July, and I washed and laid him out. The prisoner told me that the deceased had fits about twelve o'clock the previous night. The deceased died on a sofa in the upstairs room. He had previously slept in bed with the prisoner. At the time of the death, no one lived in the house with the prisoner and deceased, and the prisoner herself waited on the deceased."
Then, Miss Dodds, made a statement that would not only be crucial but the new focus of the case. Miss Dodds stated that six weeks before the little boy's death, she overheard Mary Ann request the little boy to go to the shop to get soft soap and arsenic; however, the shop's owner would not give the items to Charles. So, Mary Ann requested Miss Dodds to go get the items. Mary Ann then requested Miss Dodds to rub the bedsteads with it. It was to kill bugs. Miss Dodds did what she was told, and afterward, she put the rest of the mixture she did not use in the room upstairs. The hearing then turned to Thomas Riley as their next witness. Connolly wrote that he was a on a personal crusade against Mary Ann, and he wished to ensure that everyone knew of his views. Mr. Riley stated that: "O Saturday the sixth of July last, I saw the Prisoner Mary Ann. I asked her to attend to a small pock's patient, she replied she could not because the deceased Charles Cotton tied her at home. She also told me, she had applied to the deceased uncle to take him, but he had declined, she also said it was very hard for her to keep the boy as he was not her boy, and she had the opportunity of taking a respectable lodger, if it was not for him being with her."
Mr. Riley goes on to say: "she also stated she had made an application for the boy to be put in the workhouse and had been refused, and she wished me then to take steps to get him in the workhouse."
Mr. Riley informed Mary Ann that Charles could not go to the workhouse unless Mary Ann went along with him. Mr. Riley continued his testimony by saying "I also said to the prisoner, I suppose you are going to get married to Mr. Man the excise officer." Mary Ann said perhaps so, but he may have to go like the rest. Mr. Riley said, "nonsense he appears to be a very healthy little fellow." On Friday morning, Mr. Riley passed by Mary Ann's, and she was standing within her own door apparently in great trouble. He proceeded to ask her "what was the matter."
Mary Ann informed Mr. Riley that the boy was deceased and asked him to go in. Mr. Riley refused and reported the boy's death to the police. Connolly wrote that, this was a powerful testimony, as it painted the picture of Mary Ann being lumbered with a child who was in the way and that she wanted rid of. On the next day, Dr. Kailbern testified stating that the last time he saw Charles Cotton was on July 11th at 6:00 at night. Charles was suffering from vomiting, some purging pain over the stomach not very incephant, his bowels were relaxed, his countenance was pale and waxy, and his pulse was at 120. The Dr. Kailbern sent him some medicine, but he visited the boy that night per the request of Mary Ann because she informed Dr. Kailbern that young Charles vomited the medicine. Dr. Kailbern proceeded to give Mary Ann Bismuth and Hydrocyallic to administer to the boy in the morning and at night; however, that was the last time Dr. Kailbern saw young Charles alive. Connolly wrote that Dr. Kailbern caried out a postmortem examination which Dr. Kailbern gave a very graphic account of: "The external appearances were emaciation, a good deal of distention across the bowels. I did not notice any contusions or marks at all external violence."
Dr. Kailbern continued his testimony by saying that he opened the chest to exam it. The lungs were adherent to the walls of the chest, and there was some congestion of the left lung. The adhesions were indication of old standing inflammation. Dr. Kailbern did state that Charles heart was quite healthy but when he opened the stomach, he found it distended with flatus. Afterwards, Dr. Kailbern tied up the end of the stomach to secure the content within it. He examined the content with a small microscope and saw two or more three particles of some white powder that Charles had before dying and concluded that he died from natural causes as he previously stated. He confirmed that Miss Dodds gave him a napkin with a bowel motion in it. The napkin given to him was sent to Leeds. Connolly wrote that he then took the stomach, part of the liver, and the contents of the stomach and locked it all inside his house. When the corners jury asked for the analysis, he buried the stomach contents in the backyard of his house and kept the stomach. He recounted his testing for arsenic and gave all the evidence to the sergeant. Because Dr. Kailbern had a reputation to uphold suggested incompetence.
Dr. Kailbern's assistant reported that he did not prescribe any medicine for Charles, and the medicines he took should have relieved him, but they did not. He went on to say that Charles was visited by five doctors during his illness. Due to all this testimony, it was stated that Mary Ann was not trying to help the little boy live. Dr. Scattergood took the stand, but it was only to underline the competence of his conclusions. He confirmed the chain of evidence of the samples from Kailbern. Dr. Scattergood stated that, "I examined the stomach and parts of the bowels, kidney's, heart, spleen, and a portion of the lung and liver" from young Charles. Scattergood's findings concluded with him finding inflammation of such a kind as are produced by an irritant poison. Although Scattergood reported that there was no evidence of gastric fever, his evidence did leave a harming blow to Mary Ann. Dr. Scattergood stated that, he did find evidence of arsenic in the places he examined except for the spleen. The quantities of arsenic found were over half a grain of white arsenic or arsenic acid in the stomach content and about a fifth of a grain in the other tissues. Connolly wrote that, he confirmed that the articles taken by the police from Mary Ann's home contained no arsenic. Dr. Scattergood made his conclusion very clear by sating the death of Charles was caused by arsenic.
Even with all the evidence presented, it did not convict Mary Ann Cotton, they still had to prove that she deliberately poisoned Charles. On September fifth, Mr. Trotter wrote to the home secretary demanding in the name of justice, further investigations be conducted to see if Mary Ann murdered the rest of the people that resided in her house. On September 19th, Nattrass's body was exhumed for analysis. After Nattrass's body was analyzed by both Dr. Kailbern and Scattergood, they both confirmed that Nattrass's death was caused by arsenic poisoning. On October 15th, Fredrick's and his two sons' bodies were exhumed. Although Fredrick Cotton Senior body was never found during the exhumation.
Dr. Scattergood confirmed that Mr. Cotton's sons died of arsenic poisoning. All the deaths that were once stated to be caused by gastric fever were now confirmed to be by arsenic poisoning, and Mary Ann Cotton was the primary suspect for all the murders. On January 7th, 1873, Mary Ann Cotton gave birth to a baby girl in prison named Margaret Edith Cotton. After all the testimonies for Fredrick Cotton Jr. murder case, Mary Ann was charged with murdering Fredrick Jr. The hearing for the death of Robert Cotton's murder began immediately after the first verdict. Connolly wrote that, Mary Ann was formally committed for trial at Durham Assizes for the willful murder of Robert Cotton.
In the previous case of Fredrick Jr. murder case, Mary Ann's defense team was a mess, and during the Durham trial nothing had changed. Connolly wrote that, on March third, Justice Archibald asked Charles Russell which counsel was for the prisoner. Mr. Russell replied "no my lord, the counsel who have been mentioned as likely to be instructed, have received no communication." The Treasury had made the controversial decision to take of charge of the prosecution and had appointed Charles Russell. This new appointment proved to be a difficult one for Mary Ann. Connolly wrote that, he had a formidable reputation for extracting the truth and was deemed one of the best lawyers of his day. Justice Archibald requested Mr. Thomas Foster, A Yorkshireman who had not yet taken silk, to represent Mary Ann. He was an able man, very experienced on the Northern Circuit. With the trial on March fifth and Foster only requested to represent Mary Ann on March third, Mr. Foster had very little time to prepare. Considering the lack of time to prepare, the weak arguments made by Mr. Foster, and the strong arguments made by Mr. Russell, the jury found Mary Ann Cotton guilty of murdering Charles Cotton. Mary Ann Cotton was sentenced to death by hanging of the neck until she was dead. After being sentenced to death, Mary Ann had to give up her newborn baby, and a couple called Edwards adopted the young Margaret Cotton.
Connolly wrote that, after the trial and conviction, there was a surprised outcry suggesting that Mary Ann had a bad deal. There were many appeals sent to the home secretary, and the queen was even asked to intervene. Multiple magazines began questioning the case and the possibility of a commutation of the death sentence to imprisonment. Even the most respected medical magazine, The Lancet, went so far to argue that the eminent Dr. Scattergood was wrong in respect of the possibility of arsenic from the air being ingested. Connolly wrote that, the magazine suggested direct evidence against Mary Ann was very slight. The idea of accidental poisoning was also raised. Religious figures, people from Barnard Castle Darlington and Bishop Auckland raised petitions, calling for mercy. All these outcries were of no use, as the home secretary refused all appeals, and the death sentence stayed in effect.
In closing, Cotton was sentenced to the death penalty and hung for her crimes on March 24th, 1873, at the age of forty years old. Even though Mary Ann Cotton is not the first woman that comes to mind when talking about female serial killers because of all the speculations surrounding her murderous career and because of all the notable female serial killers that came after her. It is important to note that Mary Ann Cotton should not be overlooked when talking about female serial killers that exemplifies what a Black Widow serial killer is.
Connolly, Martin. Mary Ann Cotton - Dark Angel: Britain's First Female Serial Killer. Narrated by Rose Akerman, Pen and Sword History, 2021. Audiobook.
Editor's note: this article ran in Serial Killer Magazine and is reproduced as written, and the archive already holds a separate Cotton piece, MARY ANN COTTON: MONSTER IN HUMAN SHAPE; this one is a much longer account drawn from Martin Connolly's book and is published alongside it. The record: Mary Ann Cotton has ONE murder conviction, for Charles Edward Cotton, and this archive attributes around twenty-one deaths to her. The article's own numbers wander, from four confirmed to twenty-five to an assumed seventeen, and none of those is a conviction count. Two passages will confuse a reader and are left as printed. The piece says she was charged with murdering Frederick Jr and committed for trial for the wilful murder of Robert Cotton, then reports the jury convicting her of killing Charles; in fact the further counts were held in reserve and never tried, because the conviction on Charles carried a death sentence. And the opening claim that she killed more people than Jack the Ripper is a comparison of attributions, not of proved counts: this archive records five canonical Ripper victims and one Cotton conviction. She was hanged at Durham on 24 March 1873. The doubts the article closes with, including The Lancet's argument about environmental arsenic, are real and were raised at the time; they did not persuade the Home Secretary and they have not overturned anything since.