True Crime All The Time - Kate Webster

Episode Date: April 21, 2025

The murder of Julia Martha Thomas, also known as the Barnes Mystery or the Richmond Murder, was one of the most infamous crimes of 19th-century Britain. Julia was murdered by her servant Kate Webster, who dismembered her remains and impersonated her for two weeks before fleeing the country. Join Mike and Gibby as they discuss Kate Webster. Kate was 30 years old when she murdered her employer. But it's the way that the murder occurred and what Kate did afterwards that shocks so many people about this case. There is also a possible theory that Kate planned this out before she even took the job.You can help support the show at patreon.com/truecrimeallthetimeVisit the show's website at truecrimeallthetime.com for contact, merchandise, and donation informationAn Emash Digital productionSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Hello everyone and welcome to episode 431 of the True Crime All the Time podcast. I'm Mike Ferguson. And with me as always is my partner in True Crime, Mike Gibson. How are you? Hey, I'm doing good. How about you? I'm doing great. Awesome.

We just got done taping our weekly Patreon minisode where we talked about what's going on in our lives, our kids, what we're watching and previewed, you know, our episodes, what we do every week. It's tough. Good stuff. It's fun. Yeah. Let's go ahead and give our Patreon shout out. We had Kelly Riker.

Hey, Riker. Mallory Foster. What's going on, Mallory? Amanda Collins. Hey, Collins. Janice Regine. Hey, Janice. Kelsey Turner.

What's happening, Kelsey? Josh Peters. There's Peters. Rachel Black. Hey, Rachel. M.J. Himmlestine jumped out higher than our highest level. Of the famous nursery rhyme.

The Himalstein nursery rhyme? Yeah. As you talked about on Patreon. I did. Nilly Asades. I like that. Aesides. Yeah.

and last but not least, Alicia Delisa. Hey Alicia. And then if we go back into the vault, this week, we selected Sarah Prosser. Prosser in the house. Yeah. Appreciate the new support,

the continued support. So Gibbs, we have an episode out right now on True Crime All the Time Unsolved, where we're talking about Branson Perry. He went missing after leaving his house in April 2001. We're over 20 years later. and authorities believe he was murdered, but his body's never been found. There's a lot going on with this case because they think there's a drug connection.

They also believe that the people in the town of Skidmore, Missouri, where he disappeared from, are hiding information. That could break the case wide open. It makes it difficult when people hold out on you. Yeah. So we'll get into all of that. All right, buddy, are you ready to get into this episode of True Crime? all the time. I am. We're talking about Kate Webster and we're headed across the pond to Britain

to really dive into the murder of Julia Martha Thomas. In this case is also known as the Barnes Mystery or the Richmond murder. It's one of the most infamous crimes of 19th century Britain. Julia was murdered by her servant Kate Webster, who then dismembered her remains. and impersonated her for weeks before fleeing the country. So a little synopsis of the case there, but there's a lot to get into. Julia Martha Thomas was born in 1823 in England. She was a former schoolteacher and was twice widowed. Her second husband died in 1873.

So this is like old school in England. Was that an attempt at an accent, or did something happen to you? you as you were formulating that sentence. I'm not really sure. That old school really came out strangely. I got to be honest with you. Yeah, but, you know, I was just trying to, you know, accentuate. The positives?

Yes. Let's talk about, you know, this woman being widowed twice. People died much younger back then. They did. So I think the chances of, you know, being a widower, even multiple times was much greater. In September 1878, Julia moved into a house in Richmond, southwest London. She lived alone, but she was an active member of her local Presbyterian church,

and it was said that she had a lot of friends. Julia's doctor described her as a small, well-dressed lady. She was said to have an excitable temperament and was considered eccentric. by some people. Excitable temperament. Well, you know, you are not a small, well-dressed lady, but you have been considered by some as eccentric. I would say you do not have an excitable temperament.

You're very even keeled. I am. I, on the other hand, can get very agitated. Quickly. excited is not quite the word, but yeah, I can go off in a heartbeat. Do you have a problem with rage? Hmm. Yeah, I don't know if it's rage.

I have had road rage issues. Oh, you have. You know, over the years for sure. Julia traveled often without telling her family and friends where she was going and was sometimes gone for weeks at a time. Julia was a lower middle-class woman, but she typically wore nicer clothing and jewelry to appear more wealthy than she actually was. She also wanted to have a live-in domestic servant. However, she was known for being a strict employer, and her frequent travel meant she had difficulty keeping a servant long-term.

I mean, to be lower-middle-class woman, lower-middle class. Sounds funny saying that. It does, but it also then makes it seem as though, okay, was she living beyond her means? Did she have the money to have a live-in domestic servant? Seems like that would be expensive. It seems like it would be reserved for wealthier people than she's being described as. Yeah, like higher middle income people. Okay.

Yeah. You want to go that route. but is it unusual for people to you know maybe wear nicer clothing or jewelry to to make it seem as they're doing better than what they really are and I would say no it's not unheard of no I mean I know you know you routinely wear you know this Gucci fanny pack which I think is way over the top I've said it a lot I mean I know you think you think think it makes you look more affluent? I think it does.

I disagree. I mean, I got a good deal on it. I bought it in that alley. The guy said it was real. In January 1879, Julie hired 30-year-old Kate Webster, an Irish woman. Kate, whose birth name was Catherine Lawler, was born in 1849, near County, Waxford, Ireland. Kate said she changed her last name to Webster. after marrying a sea captain whom she claimed to have four children with.

However, there's seemingly no records to prove this. But I don't know what the record keeping was like in the 1800s. I'm guessing not that great. I was thinking hit or miss. You know, maybe some places had it down and some places were pretty, you know, blacks about it. I'm wondering how it would have been to marry a sea captain. It's like, I'm going to marry this sea captain, but I know I probably won't see him very often because he's going to be out on the sea. Where sea captains tend to be quite a bit.

Yeah. What we do know is that Kate had a long criminal history. She was caught stealing as a child and had a reputation for being dishonest. Well, that's not a good reputation. No. As a young teenager, Kate stole money to sail to live. Liverpool, England, where she spent the next few years stealing and pickpocketing to support herself. And I'm getting a real gangs of New York vibe here. Okay. Have you seen that movie,

right? I have. It's one of my favorites. I know a lot of people, it's probably not their cup of tea, but this is reminding me very much of the Cameron Diaz character. Character. Character. You know, she supported herself by going around and thieving, essentially. She was a good pickpocket. So you're thinking that, and the part of my brain is thinking all of a twist. Because Oliver, because you have to say it like that. Oliver. Do you?

Okay. Was out on the streets pickpocketing to make that big guy, all that money? I got you. Yeah. Got you. At 18, Kate was sentenced to four years in prison. for theft when she was released. Now 22-year-old Kate traveled to London,

where she worked as a cleaner and did sex work part-time, according to some sources. You know, you know when you've been watching too many spy shows, when I think when we say she's worked as a cleaner, I'm thinking she worked as somebody that came in and cleaned up the mess. Oh, as like a cleaner of rich people's,

indiscretions. Yes. Kate often stole from her employers and she moved often. Kate then started stealing from the boarding houses. She stayed at she would rent a room, sell whatever was inside, and then quickly leave the area.

She was arrested multiple times, but the sentences were always short. Pretty good gig though. Yeah. Quick money. Yeah, I mean, you are selling things that you do not own. But by the very,

very nature of what you're doing. I mean, you would have to move around quite often. Very often. Kate eventually met a man with the last name strong and became pregnant. Her son was born in April 1874 and the father soon abandoned them. Kate went back to theft to support herself and her son. And for the next five years, Kate would steal from her employers. She used the last names Loller and Webster to try to keep. keep the police off her trail. But she wasn't always successful. And her friend Sarah Crease, another domestic servant,

cared for her son when she was in prison. In 1875, Kate was sentenced to 18 months and was not released until 1877. So not a great person far as morals. Yeah, I mean, obviously we know stealing is wrong. Now, could you look at it or could someone look at it is, you know, she was doing what she had to do to survive and to take care of her son. Yeah, you could look at it that way. Obviously, it's illegal.

There's no doubt about that. In January 1879, Kate's friend Sarah became sick. Kate worked as a temporary replacement at the home of Lucy Loder. Miss Loder was friends with Julia Thomas and knew that Julia was looking for a domestic servant, so she recommended Kate. When Julia met Kate, she hired her on the spot without asking any questions about her background or work history. It's good to be referred.

It is, and maybe that had something to do with it. Also, I'm assuming in the 1800s, it was not as easy to kind of check up on people's backgrounds as it is today. Probably difficult. You know, today you can go on to your computer. and for like, you know, what, five bucks, do some type of background check, which I routinely have done over the years on my girlfriend's boyfriends. And I also know that you do it on me on a regular basis for some strange reason. Well, I just have a subscription for you because you never know

when your situation is going to change or be updated. Kate and Julia were friendly at first, but their relationship quickly sour. Julia was disposed. Julia was disposed. pleased with the quality of Kate's work. Kate spent many hours at local pubs, which irritated Julia. Okay. So you hired this woman on the spot. She was referred to you, but she gets into doing the work and it's not up to your standards. Yeah. You're paying her. So you're going to be a little irritated by that. Yeah. And sounds like she's spending too much time at the pubs drinking instead of being there taking care of business. Yeah, it didn't say that specifically she was at the pub when she was supposed to be working,

but maybe that was part of it. Or maybe she was just there all night and then by the time she got to work at the house the next day, she was hung over, unable to function. I don't know. Kate later said in her confession, at first, I thought her a nice old lady, but I found her very trying, and she used to do many things to annoy me during my work. When I had finished my work in my rooms, she used to go over it again after me and point out places where she said I didn't clean, showing evidence of a nasty spirit towards me. So your boss took you through the work you just did,

just to let you know what she didn't like about it. Isn't that kind of what a boss does? QC, your progress? Your performance, your work. Yeah. Now, you know, we don't know the full breath and scope of this thing. You know, was it, as you kind of described, you know, Julia merely pointing out that she wasn't getting the job done correctly. You know, you missed this spot and that spot.

Or was it more of a very overbearing white glass? love kind of, you know, no matter what you do, I'm going to find something. We don't know. That would be irritating. After several reprimands, Julia gave Kate a notice of termination. Her last day was supposed to be February 28, 1879. Julia wrote in one of her final diary entries, Give Catherine warning to leave. So she had enough.

Julia was wary of Kate during the notice period. She knew that Kate was angry with her. And she was so nervous, she asked friends from church and relatives to stay with her. And I was getting the picture that, you know, there must have been quite a bit of tension, you know, in the home. Because, you know, Kate's living there, right? She's a live-in servant. So when you're not getting along, it's going to be pretty awkward.

You're going to fill that tension in the air. When February 28th arrived, Kate had not found a new job or housing and pleaded with Julie to let her stay over the weekend. Julia agreed, which was a fatal decision. That's why you should never change your terms. Set them. Stick to them. Stick to your guns. Is that what you're saying?

But this is also an example of something that you and I have been talking quite a bit about lately, which is kind of one relatively. small decision and the ramifications that it's later going to have. Yeah, huge. On Sunday, March 2nd, Julia went to church as usual. Kate had Sunday afternoons off, but was expected to be back in time to help Julia prepare for the evening service. Kate went to visit her son and then went to a pub. She got back late, which angered Julia.

She reprimanded Kate and the two argues. before Julia rushed off to the evening service. And let's just think about more modern times, right? People get fired. And normally, if that happens, you're not sticking around for two more weeks. No. You know, because that would be very awkward. You're leaving that day.

Maybe you get to pack your stuff up. Maybe it's packed up for you and shipped to you. But, you know, let's say I came to you. and said, Gibbs, you're just not cutting it. And I'm letting you go. Again.

Again, for the second time, I'm giving you your two week termination notice. First of all, what's your mindset going to be during those two weeks? You know, probably even shittier than it was before.

You're going to be less productive. You're also going to be angry. I'm going to have to keep my head on a swivel. That's right. It just seems like a, pretty bad situation. Yeah, I mean, does the word sabotage come into mind? It's not below you.

Oh, nothing's below me. Congregation members noticed Julia was agitated, and she said she was laid due to the neglect of her servant to return home at a proper time. She also mentioned that Kate had flown into a terrible passion at her rebut. A terrible passion. You don't hear it talk like that anymore. No, and there's a reason for it. But, you know, I'm assuming they got into it pretty good.

Julia left church before service ended and got home around 9 p.m. She and Kate got into another argument. And Kate pushed her down the stairs in a fit of rage. After realizing she had seriously injured Julia, Kate strangled her to death. Just trying to think of the logic here. You know, you push her down. you're like, oh my gosh, I really hurt you. I think I'm going to have to just finish this off.

Well, let's not forget, you know, Kate was a woman who had been arrested. She had spent time incarcerated. You know, what was going through her mind? Okay, we got into this fight. I pushed her down the stairs. I'm going to be the one to get in trouble. And I'm not going back to jail or prison or whatever. So I'm going to cover this up.

Quieter for good. Kate later confessed. Mrs. Thomas came in and went upstairs. I went up after her and we had an argument which ripened into a quarrel. And in the height of my anger and rage, I threw her from the top of the stairs to the ground floor. She had a heavy fall. I felt that she was seriously injured. And I became agitated at what had occurred, lost all conditions.

of myself and to prevent her screaming and getting me into trouble, I caught her by the throat. And in the struggle, she was choked and I threw her on the floor. Well, she didn't just push her down the stairs. She threw her. That's a pretty aggressive move. Yeah, this kind of detailed description of what happened is a little bit different than what we just talked about, right? It made it sound like, okay, they, got into an argument, maybe there was a slight scuffle. And in that scuffle, you know, Julia fell down the stairs. But when Kate says, I threw her from the top of the stairs to the ground floor, that's much different. It's a big difference. But you can tell she's really angry because while she's choking,

Julia, she says that she picks her up and throws her on the floor again. Yeah, I was caught a little off guard or I was perplexed a little bit by the, um, I caught her by the throat and in the struggle she was choked. It's almost as if she's saying, I just didn't outright choke her. I just happened to have her by the throat. You know, we were struggling around and, you know, I strangled her to death. Well, that's not how it happens. We know that. Julia's next door neighbor, Mrs. I was heard a thud that sounded like a chair falling over, followed by silence. She didn't think much of it at the time. And we always talk about the similarities, right, between, you know, a case like this, which is very old, right, hundreds of years old, to a more modern case. And this is something

that you could see happening. You know, let's say you lived in an apartment complex and you heard a thud from upstairs. But then you didn't hear anything else. Could you? Could you? you rationalize that that was a chair falling over? Or do you feel like you need to pick up the phone right away and call 911? And I would say most people wouldn't. I agree with you. After killing her employer, Kate had to figure out how to dispose of the body. She said, I determined to do away with the body as best as I could. I chopped the head from the body with the assistance of a razor, which I used to cut through the flesh afterwards. I also use the meat salt and the carving knife to cut the body up with.

I prepared the copper, which apparently is a laundry vessel with water, to boil the body to prevent identity. And as soon as I had succeeded in cutting it up, I placed it in the copper and boiled it. I opened the stomach with the carving knife and burned up as much of the parts as I could. Wow. Yeah, wow. Think about all that right there. First of all, that's a boatload of work.

You know, if you really boil it down, no pun intended, because she actually did boil her down. But imagine the work that goes in to what some of these killers do in trying to hide a body. I get it. You don't want to get caught. So you're willing to put in that work. also pretty gruesome for a relatively young woman to do. Yeah, I mean, cutting head off with a razor, moving on down to the rest of the body parts, cutting open the stomach.

But there again, when you talk about cases from different centuries, is this case that much different than something that's happened in the last five, ten years? And I would say no. No. How does she know how to do this? And how does she know to boil the body parts in the water to distort them? Well, you could make the argument that maybe she's killed and dismembered before. But you could also make the argument that some of this stuff is for some of these killers, just trial and error.

Or common sense. Meaning, obviously, if I use a really sharp tool or. a saw designed to cut through bone. I should be able to do this, this, and this. Very disturbing. It is. Nearby neighbors noticed an unusual foul odor. But again, they didn't think much of it.

They also saw Kate cleaning and making frequent visits to the pub. Now, today, if you smelled, you know, a really foul odor, it's probably going to get your attention pretty quickly. Oh, I would think so and hope so. Yeah, I kind of go back to, you know, somebody like Jeffrey Dahmer. You know, it was said that some of the other tenants in the apartment building, you know, they started smelling this foul odor. And one of the, the women was so determined to figure it out that she started going to everybody's door and kind of smelling up against the door. Yeah. And quickly realized it was coming from, you know,

Jeffrey Dahmer's house. But my other thing is in, you know, 1800s Great Britain, I'm not sure everything smelled like roses and lavender. Yeah, I think you're probably right. I think people probably didn't bay the frequent rate they bathe the day. So you probably had just normal body odor smells and, The smells of the plumbing back then versus today.

Yeah, maybe raw sewage. Yeah, I don't know if people were still throwing their piss pots out the window, you know, things like that. But you see that in movies and you're just like, ooh, okay, that must have been a rough time. Yeah, I'm thinking the same thing. Like, is that a puddle of water out in front of the house or is that a puddle of piss? Or a baby Ruth. Or baby Ruth. Kate later admitted she was greatly overcome, both from the horrible sight before me and the smell.

I bet she was. How could you not be? You know, set aside the fact that you took someone's life. You are now living with a dismembered decomposing body and all of the sights and smells that would come along with it. Kate put most of the remains in a box, but Julia's head and foot would not fit. Authorities believe she put the head in a black bag to dispose of it in a separate location. I'm surprised she didn't try to get rid of all this earlier. It does sound like she waited a little while.

It was also reported but not proven that Kate offered the fat drippings from the remains to neighbors and local children, telling them it was pigs lard. Hey, I got some fat drippings for you, for your cooking. You know, I'll charge you less than you would if you bought it from the butcher. And you know someone probably bought it. Yeah, I don't know if she was selling it. I don't know if she was giving it away. But it's a revolting thought, right?

To think about a family sitting down to enjoy a meal having no idea. that some of that meal was cooked in the fat drippings from a woman who was killed. And what happens when you find that out later? Yeah, you're like, now I know why those potatoes tasted a little different. On March 4th, 1879, Kate traveled to Hammersmith, West London, to visit her old neighbors, Henry and Ann Porter. She hadn't seen them since 1873 when she moved away from the area. She introduced herself as Mrs. Thomas and told the Porter's that she had been married, had a child, was widowed, and an aunt who recently passed away, left her a house in Richmond.

She wanted to sell the furniture and contents of the house because she decided to return to Ireland. She asked Henry Porter if he knew someone who could help her. Mr. Porter suggested that a man named John Church might be interested in buying some of the items. as he was trying to furnish his pub. So not only has she killed Julia Thomas, now we see that she is taking on her life in a sense. She's passing herself off as her, using her name,

saying this is her house. Henry Porter and his son Robert accompanied Kate to a pub on Hammersmith Bridge Road. Kate had a black black. back with her. And both Porter and his son carried it at different points. They noticed it was very heavy, around 50 to 60 pounds. So it sounds like more than just a head. Yeah, I don't think anybody's head weighs 50 to 60 pounds. At one point, Kate left them to go over the bridge, saying she wanted to meet a friend. She returned about 15 minutes later without the back. She then asked Henry if he would

allow his son to accompany her to Richmond to help her with something. He agreed as long as she would send him back on the last train of the night. Kate took Robert to Julia Thomas's house, where she showed him the box that contained human remains. She asked him to help her carry it over Richmond Bridge, and he agreed. Once they got to the bridge, Kate asked him to leave for a moment because she was going to meet a friend. Robert walked away, but he didn't go far because it was getting dark. He heard a splash in the water when he was just a few yards away from Kate. He didn't think anything suspicious was going on at this time.

He just thought, well, I helped carry this box over here. Obviously, it's something she wanted to get rid of and she wanted to throw it into the river, I guess. there was nothing in the research about the smell, but I can only imagine what smells were emanating from this box. I don't even want to think about how nasty that had to be. So a little surprising that maybe he wasn't suspicious just because of that. Kate rejoined him a few minutes later. She told Robert, it was too late to send him home on the train.

Since it was around 11.30 p.m., Robert spent the night in Julie. Thomas's house. On March 5th, the coal porter named Henry Wheatley discovered the box in the River Thames at Barnes Bridge. He thought the box might contain the proceeds of a burglary. So he pulled it out of the water and opened it up. Inside, he found what he described as a mass of white flesh. He thought it was butcher's offcuts. But he contacted the police and it was identified. is human remains. Imagine opening that up and seeing that and thinking, it's just those scrap things.

And then finding out later that it was actually human remains. Yeah, we talk about it all the time, right? People finding things. You know, you find a suitcase, right? Are you going to open it up? Here, this guy thinks he's found the booty from some great robbery. Who knows what's in that box? Yeah.

It's going to be pretty tempting to open it. it up. And also, I think, very shocking once you do. And then even more shocking when you find out that what you're looking at are human remains. A doctor examined the remains and gave his opinion that it was a murder case. He initially thought the victim was a 20 to 30 year old woman. And I wonder how he got to that opinion, Gibbs. Well, box full of human remains will do that for you. Yeah, you would think so. You know, I get it. It's his opinion. opinion, this was a murder. I don't know what other way you could go. You're not going to be able to rule it a suicide, right? Nobody cuts off their own head, cuts their body into pieces and then

puts them in a trunk. I think that's physically impossible. I think it would be very impossible. Also, how would that be an accident? You could say, you know, you got in the trunk for whatever reason. It locked on you. Right. But your head would still be with you. Exactly. A few days later, a human foot and ankle were found on a lot in Twickenham, London. An inquest resulted in an open verdict for the cause of death. And the remains were buried at Barn Cemetery on March 19th.

But here's the thing. Julia Thomas had not yet been reported missing. But the papers were reporting on the remains found in the box, which became known as the Barnes mystery. Kate was most likely reading these articles. While she was impersonating Julia, Kate was wearing Julia's clothing when she went out, and she sold Julia's gold bridgework at a poncha.

Got to settle that dental work. She also finalized her agreement with John Church. Church agreed to pay 68 pounds for everything inside the house and made an 18-pound deposit. On March 18th, John, Church, and Henry Porter showed up to the house to collect the furniture. Kate answered the door, and they started moving items into Church's delivery vehicle.

While they were loading up, Julia's neighbor, Mrs. Ives, came outside and asked Henry Porter why they were taking the furniture away. Porter said Mrs. Thomas sold it to them. Mrs. Ives remarked that this was not true. Porter told John Church what happened. Church got suspicious and decided not to take any furniture. Well, if the neighbor gives you some doubts,

you're probably going to stop, maybe look into it before you take any items or maybe you're just going to walk away and say, hey, it's not worth it. I'm not sure if I should be even taking this stuff. Well, you're also paying for it. You don't want to pay for something that is technically not allowed to be sold. Kate asked the men why they were bringing the furniture back into the house.

They relayed what Mrs. Ives said. Kate went over to confront Julia's neighbor. When she returned, she was agitated and said Mrs. Ives knew nothing of her affairs and her intrusion was an act of impertinence. Active impertinence. Easy for you to say. But, you know, I get the feeling. Didn't come out and say it, but I got the feeling that Mrs. Ives was telling these guys,

hey, that's not Mrs. Thomas. So I'm not sure why you're taking her stuff. Yes. Kate talked John Church into taking some dresses, but he wouldn't take any of the furniture. Kate went upstairs while they continued bringing things in. This was the last time the men saw her. Kate fled the house and hired a cab to take her to Hammersmith, where she picked up her son from the point.

Porter household. Kate went to the train station and purchased the ticket back to Ireland. And I think, you know, just from her actions there, you get the sense that she felt as though the walls were closing in around her. She was about to be discovered. Yeah, I think the neighbor would have if she didn't already start making efforts to get a hold of some authorities. Yeah. That would make sense. Meanwhile, John Church confirmed. He had been deceived when he and his wife went through the items in his van inside the fabric of one of the dresses. His wife found a purse and diary belonging to the real Julia Thomas as well as a letter from a Mr. Minhinnick. Henry Porter and John Church visited Mr. Menhinnick based on their conversation.

It became clear. Kate was impersonating the real Mrs. Thomas. The three men went to the Richmond police and reported their suspicion. The police searched the house the following day and found an axe, a razor, some charred bones, and the missing handle from the box found in the river. Based on this evidence, it seemed that the remains found in the river were that of Julia Thomas. Well, I think that handle from that box sealed the deal. Yeah. I think that along with the axe, the razor, charred bones.

all of that. On March 23rd, the police released a full description of Kate and announced that she was wanted for murder. On March 28th, 1879, Kate was arrested at her uncle's home in killing Ireland. After local authorities recognized her, she was wearing Julia's clothing and jewelry when she was apprehended. So I get it. These two women get in a fight. Kate's not happy that she's being sacked, at some point she makes the decision that, you know, she's going to kill this woman. Yeah. And then maybe before, maybe after makes the decision that she's going to try to profit from as much of her stuff as she can. And then she's going to, you know, skiddle to Ireland.

But the wearing of the clothes to be caught wearing your victim's clothes. And jewelry. And jewelry. Seems like such a stupid thing to do. Not that any of this at all was smart, but. It was it somewhat greedy of her? Well, I think you can look at this a couple of different ways. But one way is to look at that this was greed all the way around.

She was motivated by greed. Maybe there was some anger and revenge there too. but, you know, given her history as a thief and making money any way she could, whether it was legal or not, it's not that hard to think that she put together a plan to get her hands on this woman's money. I kind of think she shifted into that mode. Yeah. We don't know when, but I agree with you. Kate was quickly brought back to England and was formally charged with murder on March 30th.

Kate then made a statement accusing John Church of the murder. Church was arrested, but the charge was dropped because he had a strong alibi and had assisted the police with the investigation. So again, you know, as you draw parallels between very old cases and new cases, I mean, you see pretty much the same thing has happened for hundreds and hundreds of years. Human nature. Yeah. I'm caught. Who can I shift the blame to? Yeah.

I'm going to blame this John Church guy. And I thought it was rough because they did arrest him basically on the word of this woman. And it was only later that they dropped the charges because they figured out he couldn't have done it. On July 2nd, 1879, Kate Webster went to trial at the central criminal court. The prosecution in. the jury that Julia Thomas hired Kate in January 1879. In March, Julia's neighbors realized they hadn't seen her for some time.

And obviously, we know this was because she had been murdered by Kate, but also think of that timeline. It's not like Julia worked for her for a very long period of time. No, she didn't. One of the key witnesses was a hatmaker named Mary Durdon, who testified that on February 25th, Kate told her she was going to Birmingham to take control of property left to her by a recently deceased

stand. The prosecution argued this was premeditation because it occurred six days before the murder. Oh, well, then they are on there something there. Yeah, and I think that kind of shifts the murder into a different light, right? Kate told the story, hey, we got into this fight. I pushed her down the stairs. or through her, that made it seem like it was the heat of the argument type deal. But now you can start to look at it as if this was kind of in the works for some time. And maybe she took the job, knowing that this woman had a little bit of money. And from the very start, her plan was to fleece her, maybe even kill her.

Maybe she figured because she lived alone, wouldn't be any witnesses. It would be a pretty easy thing to do. And maybe she could get away before, you know, anyone really noticed what was going on. The defense argued that without the head, which had not been found, the remains could not be officially identified as Julia Thomas. And I assume that in the late 1800s, it was. very hard to identify people without a head. Yeah, I think it probably would have been. However, the court heard evidence that all the body parts belong to the same person

and were believed to be a woman in her 50s, which fit Julia's description. And I think, you know, this is where when you think about a jury and what they're up against, you kind of have to ask that question. Okay, can you prove that this is, Julie's? Julia Thomas. Well, with the scientific methods they had back then, no, not really. But when you look at the totality of the evidence, how can it be anyone else? Exactly. This lady worked for her. She lived with her. No one had seen this woman in quite some time. There's the broken handle from the box. Just everything is pointing. Yeah, the axe, the razor. Yeah. Everything's pointing to the

fact that these remains belong to Julia, the defense then tried to argue that Julia could have died of natural causes and they attempted to cast suspicion on Henry Porter and John Church. What else are you going to do if you're the defense? Yeah, you're going to want to deflect and try to put the blame on somebody else. I kind of think a little bit about the Robert Durst case, the one that he had down in Texas. for anybody who, you know, followed that story, watched the jinks, it wasn't in doubt that he killed the man. The question was, was it murder or self-defense? So we're really talking about context here, right? How are you proving that my client actually murdered her? How do we know that she didn't just

die of natural causes? And then my client, my client. tried to take advantage of her financial situation, which wouldn't be great, but then it wouldn't be murder either. Yeah, that's true. And then obviously you have to try to pin it on other people. Six days later on July 8th, 1879, Kate was convicted of murder and sentenced to death. She attempted to save herself from execution by pleading pregnancy. But a jury of matrons examined her and determined she was lost. A thief, a fraud, a liar. I mean, she's got it all. Well, and if you were about ready to be executed, wouldn't you try to come up with anything? Sure. Yeah. Can't hurt, right? Throw caution to the wind at that point.

When asked for a statement ahead of sentencing, Kate denied the charge, but also said John Church and Henry Porter were innocent. I thought that was kind of an interesting thing because obviously the defense had tried to cast them as the murderers. Now, she's been found guilty, but hasn't been sentenced. Yet she comes out and says that these two guys were innocent. Because she found a hard after all. While in prison, Kate attempted to implicate Mr. Strong, the father of her child, but the police declared her allegations baseless.

And maybe that had something to do with saying that John and Henry were innocent. Maybe she already had it in her head that she was about ready to, you know, cast suspicion on somebody else. I think it'd be hard to believe anything that comes out of her mouth. Oh, absolutely. Absolutely. Kate finally gave a full confession on July 28th the night before she was hanged. Again, as we've talked about many times in these older cases, from the time of sentencing. To the time that capital punishment was carried out was a matter of days, weeks. There was no, you know, 18-year-long appeal process. No, it didn't drag out at all. She told her priest, Father McKinner, I alone committed the murder of Mrs. Thomas. I pushed her

downstairs and strangled her. Kate confessed in detail to the murder and dismemberment of the remains. details that, you know, we talked about earlier in the episode. According to the Guardian, the priest who listened to Kate's confession was of the opinion that the murder was not premeditated, but was the result of sudden passion. He believed that Mrs. Thomas was a very nagging and irritating woman. Well, I'm sure that's what Kate told him. And she might have very well have been. But that doesn't mean that you can just kill anyone who you find irritating. If that was the case, there'd be very few of us left. Like, only one of us in this room? Well, that, yes, that's a given. Now, which one it would be

that we'd have to see. But the problem with Kate saying all this is there is no Mrs. Thomas there to give her side of the story. Oh, yeah, absolutely. And that is the problem in many cases, right? That's why the jury is left with, you know, evidence in cases, but they're also left with the narrative put forth by the prosecution and then usually a very opposite type of narrative put up by the defense. Kate Webster was hanged at Wandsworth Prison on the morning of July 29th. 1879, people gathered near the jail in hopes of witnessing the execution, but it was carried out

within the prison walls. And that kind of surprised me because my thought was back then, I would have thought it would have been much more open to the public in some way, but maybe by that time they had stopped doing that. I don't know. Didn't they used to have them out in the public to help detere? Or deter. You and I have gone over this word many times. I was trying to use the old English version. Oh, detere.

Yes. Okay. You know, that way people didn't go out and do those bad things. Like, this is what happens to you if we catch you. Yeah. So don't do them. Yeah, I think that was part of it, a big part of it. Now, I think, as sad as it is to think about a lot of people,

looked at it as a form of entertainment. Yeah. You know, there's no radio. There's no TV. You want to go down and watch somebody get hanged? All right. I ain't got nothing else to do. I'll meet you down there. Or let's go down there together. The case was considered closed. But Julia Thomas's head remained missing for 131 years. That's a long time. on October 22nd, 2010, workers at the home of presenter and biologists, David Attenborough, were excavating the former hole in the wall pub in Attenborough's garden and found a human skull under the foundation. David Attenborough. It's just amazing that he's kind of brought into the case.

This pub was just 100 yards from Julia Thomas's former residents because of the close proximity and the way the skull was hidden. It was thought that it could be her remains. A coroner's inquest into the skull opened on October 26, 2010. Investigating officer acting detective inspector Dave Bolton said, per the Richmond and Twickenham times, we're keeping an open mind as to whom the skull belonged to and the bones will be subject to further forensic examination.

An anthropological study seeking to a little. establish the cause of death, age of the victim and possible identity. And the one thing I think this does is it shows you how infamous a case this was. Sure. They find a skull and almost immediately think, well, maybe this is the skull of Julia Thomas. It's the one we've been waiting on. That's been missing for 131 year. The police appealed for any relatives of Julia Thomas to.

come forward for a DNA analysis. In July 2011, the Barnes mystery was finally solved when the skull was identified as the remains of Julia Thomas. The police were unable to trace Julia's family, so they relied on other methods for identification. Carbon dating placed the skull between 1650 and 1880. The skull belonged to a white female of menopausal. age who was missing teeth. Julia Thomas wore false teeth at the time of her death.

The skull was found on Victorian era times. And Julia lived down the street from the pub. So obviously by 2010, you know, DNA had advanced pretty significantly. But if you can't find a single person related to her, okay, that makes it pretty tough. It does. The coroner recorded a verdict of unlawful killing and the cause of death as asphyxiation and a head injury, the skull had fracture marks consistent with a fall down the stairs and low collagen levels consistent with being boiled, which fit Kate Webster's confession.

I'm pretty sure they're feeling pretty good about this. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, can they conclusively say it? No. but all signs, right, are pointing to the fact that this is, you know, her skull, there was still an element of mystery to the case because it was not known where the rest of Julia's remains were buried. And over a century later, this remains an infamous case from

the Victorian era primarily because of the horrific manner in which Kate Webster disposed of Julia Thomas's remains and the way she, attempted to impersonate Julia and sell her property before neighbors became suspicious. And I know I say it a lot, but every time we do one of these older cases, I am struck by how vicious and depraved some of the acts are, you know, we kind of think of some of these really macabre true crime cases being newer. But they're not. I mean, this has been going on for hundreds and hundreds of years and longer.

Just the places and names change. Yeah. Think of, you know, H.H. Holmes and Balgunnis and all of these people who many, many years ago committed just despicable acts. Now, you don't have a Netflix series on them because everything is so old. or if you do you don't have them on tape right you know you got a lot of these newer ones you got bundy's on tape john wayne gasey's on tape domers on tape you're not going to have that type of media on any of these older killers because for one it didn't exist but it doesn't mean that their crimes were any less horrible and look at the reasons for you know as we often say

those reasons are reasons that people kill today. They are. Greed. You know, that word and that emotion is very powerful. The want of money and the number of people willing to do horrible things to get their hands on it, I don't know that that's ever going to change. I don't think it will.

It hasn't at all this time. And if all of a sudden money was replaced by something, else, right, as a form of currency, well, people would just kill to get their hands on that. Yes, they would. But you can see why this is and has been for so many years, such a, an infamous case. It's pretty shocking to think what this 30 year old woman did. You have the killing, but then you also have the dismemberment asking this guy's, son to help you throw the, uh, the box, uh, with some of her remains over the side of a bridge. And let's not forget about the fat drippings. Yeah. Because that, you know, is some Hannibal

Lector type level shit right there. Pretty gross. Robert Picton. I mean, that's some nasty stuff to think about how many people prepared an eight. food that was cooked in the drippings from this murder victim. I don't know how else to say it. Hopefully they never found that out. I guarantee you they did and had to live with that knowledge. Yeah, very sickening. That would probably be enough to turn you vegetarian or vegan real quick. Overnight it would be. But that's it for our episode on Kate Webster. Even though it's a an old one, I just found it to be a very interesting case. I hate that we say it, but it's true, right?

It plays today. Yeah, it does play today. If you changed the names and the dates and told the story, you wouldn't bad an eye. Nope, not at all. That this happened today. Now, you'd still be as disgusted by it. And in some ways, you know, maybe naively, I'm almost more shocked. that this happened in 1800s, I guess.

I don't know why. I'm not sure why. But we got some voicemails Gibbs. You want to check those out? Let's hear him. Hi, this is Savannah from Louisiana. Kind of awkward. I've never done anything like this before,

but I was listening to the Stephen Epparley case. And I thought it was funny. You made a comment about how the young generations now, they stay at home for longer and they live at home and they're more okay with it. I just thought that was so funny. A lot of my coworkers, they still live at home, and they're in their, their mid-20s or their 30s, and it's, it's economical. It's the economy that we're in. I've noticed that it's just not affordable to live alone.

And I thought that was really funny. It's just an interesting commentary that it's something I've picked up on lately. Anyway, keep your head on, Sylville. Bye. Yeah, appreciate the voicemail. I mean, I do think COVID and, And post-COVID, that was a big part of it. But I feel like I was seeing some of that even before.

A little bit. Just a little different mindset than maybe our generation had, which was, all right, I'm getting the heck out of here. And I don't care what I have to do or how many hours I have to work. I'm ready to have my freedom. But I think she hit it on, on the nose. You know, it's more costly today. Well, it is an economics decision.

Yeah. I think for a lot of people. Hi, my name is Alicia. I really love your show. I find it so enjoyable and I love all the episodes. I listen every week. I had a case suggestion for you guys. Could you cover the case of Brett Ryan, aka.

The Cross Bill Killer, here's a brief summary. In the spring of 2016, Brett Ryan's future looked promising. He was living in a waterfront condo. had a job at Toronto tech firm in which just stays away from his big bachelor party weekend. In a few weeks' time, he'd be marrying his beautiful fiancée, and by all outward a period, his things never looked brighter. But like a heat mirage on a stretch of highway, it was all an illusion, and Brett Ryan was about to be exposed. He had killed his two brothers and his mother, and the question is, why did he do it?

And that's a good question. It is a good question. It sounds like a fascinating case. I'm putting it on the list. I don't know if she meant to say more after that or not, but that's kind of where it ended. Left us hanging, like a Clift hanger? Do you say Clift with a T?

Play it back. Here for yourself. Yeah. I don't know. All right, buddy. We had no mail bag. So that is it. For another episode of True Crime All the Time.

So for Mike. And give you. Stay safe and keep your own time ticking.