A missing piece of evidence in a Victorian murder case may have been unearthed by a family dog, according to Paul Phillips. Stanley the Labrador dug up a blue glass vial in the back garden of his family home in Clyst Honiton, Devon. The vial had the words 'Not to be taken' spelled out down the sides. Paul Phillips, 49, initially thought the vial was a pipe, but later found a bright blue bottle in perfect, mint condition with the words 'Not To Be Taken' on it. Research indicated the bottle was a Victorian poison bottle, and Paul Phillips thinks Stanley has found evidence related to the murder.
Only two doors down from the Phillips' home lived Mary Ann Ashford, who killed her husband William in November 1865. Mary Ann Ashford slipped poison into her husband's tea to steal his money and start a new life with her young lover. According to news reports, Mary Ann Ashford killed William to indulge a guilty passion for one of his workmen. William Ashford was a shoemaker by trade and had an estate valued at £120, with Mary Ann as the sole beneficiary of his will. Mary Ann Ashford was hoping to use the money to set up home with Frank Pratt, and she died on Wednesday March 28, 1866, for the murder by arsenic poisoning of her husband William at their home in Honiton Clyst, Devon on November 4, 1865.
Mary Ann's trial took place at Devon Lent Assizes on March 16-17, 1866, as reported in historical accounts. The jury spent barely a few minutes in retirement before finding Mary Ann guilty, and she was sentenced to death, according to trial records. Mary Ann's execution occurred in front of the County Gaol at Exeter before a crowd estimated to be 20,000. The execution did not go smoothly, with reports at the time saying it took as long as three minutes and required improvisation by the executioner. The spectacle of Mary Ann's execution was said to have turned opinion on public hangings and was key in ending them in the country.
It is fascinating to find a bit of history from a woman instrumental in ending corporal punishment 160 years ago.
Stanley the dog had been digging in the same spot in the garden for about a year. The Phillips family patched up the spot and put a paving slab over it, but Stanley was insistent something was there, Paul Phillips noted. This persistence led to the discovery of the bottle, which Paul Phillips described as fascinating to find a bit of history from a woman instrumental in ending corporal punishment 160 years ago.
The Ashfords lived next door to the police station in Clyst Honiton in 1865, which is next door but one to the Phillips' home. The Phillips' property used to be a big cider barn with more land, highlighting the close geographic proximity between the historical murder site and the modern discovery location. This connection has fueled speculation about the bottle's origins and potential link to the crime.
Paul Phillips recalled reading about a hanging in the village years ago and found an old newspaper article about William and Mary Ann Ashford. He believes Mary Ann and her husband used to live there, and she was having an affair with a guy that worked at the local bakery. Paul Phillips suggested the bottle's burial indicates someone was trying to hide it, linking it to the nearby murder.
Why would someone bury a poison bottle if bought for legitimate reasons like killing rats?
However, it remains unknown whether the Victorian poison bottle found by the dog is definitively linked to the 1865 murder of William Ashford. The exact purpose of the burial and who originally buried it are also unclear, leaving historians to ponder if it was discarded evidence or merely a household item.
Forensic or historical evidence beyond proximity has not been confirmed to link the bottle to the Ashford case. The condition and location of other potential evidence from the 1865 murder case are also unknown, raising questions about what additional artifacts might exist. Authorities or historians have not announced plans to investigate the bottle further to establish its provenance, leaving its significance in limbo.
Further unknowns include whether any official analysis will be conducted on the bottle to determine its age and contents, and if local archives hold records that could corroborate its connection to the Ashford household. The discovery has revived interest in the case, but without concrete evidence, the bottle's role remains speculative. Historians note that many Victorian homes had poison bottles for pest control, complicating any direct association with the murder. News reports salaciously stated she killed him, adding to the sensational nature of the case, but this does not confirm the bottle's link.