Original New Criminologist publication date 7/15/2006

All wickedness is but little to the wickedness of a woman. - Bible, Ecclesiasticus (ch. XXV, v. 19)

On October 20, 1891 in a field near the Glenshelloch Road, Oban, Argyll, Mrs. Jessie McAllister gave birth to her tenth child, a daughter whom she named Susan. The McAllister’s were travelling folk, or to use the vernacular of the time, “tinkers”. Both were heavy drinkers.

From all accounts, Susan was an average child, with no special gifts or qualities. She was not even particularly bright. Indeed, were it not for the events some years later, we may never have known of her existence. As a young girl Susan was employed in various jobs, including that of a domestic servant. Like her parents, however, she was given to drink and could not keep a job for long. She was also said to have been a rather immoral young woman, especially when drunk.

Between the years 1908 and 1910, she had several convictions in the police court. These ranged in severity from breaches of the peace to the oldest profession known to man: Prostitution. Around 1910 Susan left Oban and headed for Glasgow. The city was as much a magnet to youngsters in Scotland then, as London is today. However, she remained there for only a short time. While in Glasgow she became friendly with a man named Robert McLeod with whom she eventually lived.

On September 10, 1914, Susan gave birth to a daughter, whom she named Janet. With the arrival of the baby, however, living conditions became extremely cramped and they had to look for alternative accommodation. This proved difficult at first, but eventually they would find rooms which they occupied in two separate houses at 39 Braid Street, Glasgow.

A pattern soon emerged which was to follow them wherever the couple and their child went. Because of Susan’s drunken, quarrelsome and aggressive behaviour, they were soon asked to leave the Braid Street rooms. The fact that they were asked to leave because of her behaviour, came as no surprise to those who knew the couple. In August 1917, they moved on to rooms at a house in Shawpark Street, which was in the Maryhill district of the city. From all accounts the couple remained here for a considerable time.

In 1922, however, they were once more asked to move on. In July of that year McLeod, who had been ill for some time, was taken to Stobhill Hospital, where he subsequently died on July 3 from Congestion of the lungs, a common illness then and, usually fatal. When Henry, brother of the deceased registered his death, he did so in the knowledge that Susan McAllister was his wife. From my research, there would appear, however, to have been no legal ground for this. Rather it seemed that Henry McLeod, knowing that the couple had lived together for many years, had assumed them to have been married. Indeed, he never thought to question the fact.

During McLeod’s brief stay in hospital, and around two weeks before his death, Susan met John Newall. This meeting took place casually in Glasgow’s famous Sauchiehall Street. The pair became increasingly friendly, and a short time after McLeod’s death, they moved in together. Towards the end of October that year, not to anyone’s great surprise, the couple were asked to leave, again on account of her drinking. They moved this time to Coatbridge where they had obtained furnished lodgings in Burnbank Street.

November 24, 1922, must have been a date John Newell lived to regret, for it was on this date that he had finally consented to marry Susan, and off they went to the Registrar’s Office in Glasgow’s Port Dundas Road. They argued almost constantly and remained at the Burnbank Street rooms for only a few months.

Finally, towards the end of March 1923 they were asked to leave. The reasons given were always the same, neighbours complained of her behaviour when drunk. Saying she was loud, abusive and violent. Their landlady said that Susan Newell spent every penny she had on drink, even taking sheets off the bed and pawning them, to spend the proceeds on alcohol. It is often said that there is nothing worse than a drunken woman. Susan Newell’s husband would certainly have agreed with this. Their landlady said he was in terror of his violent wife.

In fact, the police were called by John Newell, on at least one occasion. They next found lodgings at a house in Moor Street, Coatbridge where they remained only until May that year. It can be seen that throughout her entire adult life, Susan Newell spent a large amount of her time drunk, quarrelsome and violent. It was also said that she kept very late hours. These factors are worth noting in light of subsequent events. Events which would lead to her notoriety.

The arguments in the Newell household continued, indeed, John Newell was said to be in terror of his wife when she was drunk, several times by all who knew the couple.. Finally, he threatened to take his life by drowning, telling friends he could stand his life no longer. This was the last straw for his landlord, and once more the Newells were asked to move on. One would have thought it easier to leave his wife, but here was a man obviously being driven out of his mind by this violent and abusive woman. The violence and the arguments in the Newell household was often witnessed by young Janet, as was the drinking.

One can only speculate as to the effect this would have had on the small girl, now approaching eight years of age. The next time Susan Newell was to move would be her last. On Monday May 28, the Newells got a furnished room in a house at 2 Newland Street, Coatbridge, from Mrs. Annie Young. This house was of a common type, housing more than one family. Each with a single room or a room and kitchen. Mrs. Young’s house contained a room and kitchen. She agreed to live in the kitchen of her house while letting the room to the Newells. This was not an uncommon practice for the time.

Not long after the couple moved in, a familiar pattern emerged. By now, Susan Newell’s drinking had worsened and there were frequent arguments. This so upset their elderly and nervous landlady, who was in poor health, that she enlisted the help of a friend to ask the Newells to leave her house.

The crucial day was Wednesday 20 June, when a friend of Mrs. Young approached Susan Newell at approximately 6.30pm asking her and her husband to leave by the 23rd. John Newell was not present when this request was made; he had left the house on 19 June. Susan Newell asked to be allowed to stay until the following Monday, if she paid that week’s rent on Saturday. Mrs. Young agreed to this.

Meantime, young John Johnston, a 13-year-old schoolboy, was helping a friend who had a paper round to split some newspapers with him. This gave the young lad some pocket money. After dividing the papers, John started his round. Some of the newspapers were for delivery to regular customers, others he kept to sell in the street. In all he had nine newspapers when he left his friend. He called at 2 Newland Street to deliver the papers to the Newell house; a neighbour heard Susan Newell shout angrily; “shut that door!” John Johnston was not seen alive again. Once young John was inside that house, Susan Newell committed the crime all mothers fear. His young life was snatched in a most violent manner.

She beat the lad several times on the head with a blunt instrument, and then throttled him with such force; it resulted in dislocating his spinal column. At some stage in the proceedings, he had either stumbled on a lit gas ring, burning the side of his head, or she had pushed his head onto the ring causing the burning. The crime took place little more than half-an-hour after she had been asked to leave. No motive was ever given. The only person, to whom Susan Newell made a statement, was her doctor while in prison. It was rumoured that she killed the boy to steal his paper money, a paultry handful of coppers.

This remains the common theory. A few coppers would buy a jug of beer in the Twenties. Susan Newell did some remarkable things after committing this crime, yet appeared to those who came in contact with her, and who knew her, to be quite her usual self. With the aid of her young daughter, she tried to put the blame on her Husband. However, John Newell, as will be seen, had an alibi corroborating his movements on the day the crime was committed. After killing the boy, Newell rolled his body in a bed mat, leaving the bundle lying on the couch in her room.

Next morning, she removed a go-cart, which was under her bed, and which belonged to Mrs. Young. She then put the bundle on the go-cart and left early on June 21 with her daughter, both were seen walking towards Glasgow. Occasionally, when Janet became tired, Newell would sit her on top of the bundle and give her a ride. On the road to Glasgow, a woman who felt sorry for her, asked a lorry driver to give the woman and her daughter a life into the city, which he did. Newell told the driver, she was going to Glasgow to look for rooms.

Once, just outside the city, the lorry driver stopped to let his passengers off. Newell refused his help in getting the go-cart off the back of his lorry. She was next seen by a woman who was standing close to where the lorry had left his passengers, trying to push the boy’s head and foot back into the bundle. The journey had obviously shaken loose the contents of the go-cart. The woman on seeing this then summoned a policeman and told him what she had just seen. Susan Newell was then followed and eventually the officer stopped her. She had left the boy’s body in a back-court at a house in Duke Street, somewhat ironically, as will later be seen.

The officer met her coming out of the close leading to the back-court, as he was entering. When confronted she said she was in the process of hiding the boy’s body to protect her husband. John Newell was subsequently arrested; both were then charged with the boy’s murder. According to his parents, and those who knew him, John Johnston was a typical lad for his age, likeable, fun loving and high spirited. Like most children, he probably trusted women. Women, it seems, never hold any fears for children, they are to be trusted. It is women who are the comforters in times of need. Our mothers and grandmothers are usually the people who spoil us most, and mend the broken bits. However, there exists that rare group of women for whom none of the above is true.

Few women are capable of using extreme violence towards children. Fewer still of murdering a child. We see now the movements of the various parties involved in this awful crime, as these were recalled later at the trial of the Newells.

The trial of John and Susan Newell opened at the High Court of Justiciary in Glasgow on Tuesday September 18 1923. The trial attracted a lot of public interest. It had become known as “The Go-Cart Murder”. Several hundred people stood outside the court from early in the morning until the van carrying the couple arrived. Because of the large numbers, the police could admit only a small number of people to the courtroom due to the restricted space within.

The trial began at 10.30am, before Lord Alness. There was also in attendance, Dr. A. Cameron Reid, who opened the proceedings with prayer, not an uncommon occurrence at the time. The accused appeared somewhat nervous on entering the court. John Newell was dressed in a dark suit, somewhat the worse for wear, with a muffler around his neck, but the woman was wearing a long brown coat, and a small hat. She appeared to be the more collected of the two. Immediately the accused took their places in the dock, the Charge against them was read out……… “JOHN NEWELL AND SUSAN NEWELL, YOU ARE CHARGED WITH HAVING, ON JUNE 20, 1923, IN A ROOM OCCUPIED BY YOU IN THE HOUSE AT 2 NEWLANDS STREET, COATBRIDGE, OCCUPIED BY MRS. YOUNG, A WIDOW, ASSAULTED JOHN JOHNSTON, AGED 13, A SON OF ROBERT JOHNSTON, 230 WHIFFLET STREET, COATBRIDGE, DID BEAT HIM ON THE HEAD WITH A BLUNT INSTRUMENT, SEIZE HOLD OF HIM AND COMPRESS HIS THROAT, AND DID THROTTLE HIM AND DISLOCATE THE SPINAL COLUMN OF HIS NECK, AND DID MURDER HIM……..”

Appearing for the Crown were Lord Kinross assisted by Mr. T.B. Simpson. Mr. T.A. Gentles, K.C. and Mr. M.G. Fisher, Advocate, represented Mrs. Newell, and John Newell was defended by Mr. Archibald Crawford, Advocate, and Mr. N.M.L. Walker, Advocate. Immediately the trial was called, and after the charge was read, Mr. Gentles rose and intimated on behalf of Mrs. Newell a special plea of insanity on the date of the crime.

The jury was then empanelled. All the women jurors whose names were called in the course of the ballot were challenged by Mr. Gentles. No fewer than ten were balloted, and each of them as she came forward was informed that her services would not be required. The jury was thus entirely composed by men. This was a well intended move by Mr. Gentles on behalf of his client. As it was widely believed that men were less likely to return a guilty verdict against a woman. Something which was of great significance, since the mandatory penalty then for murder, was death by hanging.

A special defence had been lodged on behalf of the husband of Susan Newell, setting out an alibi, and it was read to the jury. It stated that on June 20, 1923 on which date the alleged crime was said to have been committed, Newell was not present at 2 Newlands Street, Coatbridge. In fact, he was elsewhere in Glasgow and Coatbridge, and on the road between these places during that time. It was declared that Newell was in Glasgow from 12.30am until shortly after 9pm, and was spoken to by William Gibson, Quarry Brae Street, Parkhead, where he remained until the afternoon; by Alexander Pollock at the premises of the Shettleston Co-operative Society, where he made a purchase and obtained a receipt; by Jeanie Wands, at whose shop he purchased a clay pipe; and by James Bulloch, an employee at the Olympia Theatre, Bridgeton. He was there from 6.45pm until 9pm.

It was also declared that he was on the road between Glasgow and Coatbridge in a tramcar and motor bus from about 9pm until 10.30pm and in the house of his sister, Mrs. Shanks, 183 Buchanan Street, Coatbridge from 10.30pm until 11.30pm; that he was on the road to the police station at Coatbridge and was in the police station from 11.30pm till midnight, and had a conversation with an officer regarding the conduct of his wife towards him on June 17.

It was stated, that from shortly after midnight, he proceeded from the police station to Lamont house model lodging-house, Coatbridge, where he spent the night, leaving about 6am on June 21; that he went to the house of his father at 16 South Row, Summerlee, Coatbridge, shortly after 6am where he spoke with David Newell, and left about 6.30am; that he went to call upon Samuel Dale, King Street, Coatbridge with whom he had a conversation, leaving about 7am; that he called upon Robert Laird, 9 Blair Grove, Coatbridge, whom he left at 7.30am and then proceeded to Rochsolloch Model Lodging-House, Coatdyke, Airdrie, where he arrived about 8am and where he remained until 9am; that he then proceeded into the town of Airdrie, where he obtained a lift in a motor lorry which took him to Leith.

The first witness called for the prosecution was Robert Dobbie who submitted photographs of the exterior of the house at 2 Newlands Street and also of the room occupied by the Newells. Plans of the interior of the house described by John Spence, assistant burgh surveyor, Coatbridge. Next in the witness box was Robert Johnston, father of the dead boy. He stated that he was 37 years of age and that he was a tube worker. He gave his address as 118 Buchanan Street, Coatbridge.

Mr. Johnston told the court that in June last year, he was living at 230 Whifflet Street. His boy John was 13 years of age on May 15. It was on June 20 that he disappeared. Robert Johnston said he came home from work at ten past five, and his son was not then at home. There was a cattle show that day, and his wife had arranged to go to it in the evening. They accordingly went, returning home at 9.15pm. He said, John was not home by that time and he was greatly surprised. But, he was told that he had gone to the Garden Picture House, and his mind was therefore quite easy. Mr. Johnston explained that the boy was in the habit of selling papers he got from another boy, and for this he received a small commission. Since the picture house did not close till 10.30pm, Robert Johnston did not feel uneasy until then.

A little later he got quite annoyed, but he decided to get ready for bed, expecting that John would be in shortly. About eleven o’clock, he got very anxious, so he got dressed and went down to the picture house. When he arrived the cinema was closed. He returned home expecting John to be there. He then went back out to look for his son, but when he could find no trace, Robert Johnston did what any worried father would do. He reported his son’s disappearance to the small police office at Whifflet. This was around midnight. He was told that if the police saw any boys out, they would be told to go home. This was not an unrealistic approach by the police, as children, in those days, took great heed of what the police told them to do. Robert Johnston next went to the field where the cattle show had been, but the men were clearing up when he arrived. He then went to the Coatbridge Police Office and reported the boy’s disappearance. He had done everything possible.

As a married man on a low wage, Robert Johnston could ill afford to lose a day’s wages. Next morning he went to work as usual, but was later told that someone wished to see him at the main gate. Detective Lockhart of the Eastern Police Division, spoke to him for a short time with regard to his son’s disappearance, and thereafter accompanied him to the Eastern police office, where he was shown the boy’s body.

Robert Johnston, his voice trembling, told the court that he identified the body as that of his son John. He further explained that on Friday, June 22, he went to the Central Police office and formally identified the body in the presence of the eminent Professor John Glaister, Professor of Forensic Medicine at Glasgow University and Dr. Anderson prior to a post-mortem examination being conducted. One of the saddest moments in the trial came, when Mr. Johnston was shown several items of clothing which he identified as belonging to his son. These were a jersey, a striped sweater, pair of trousers and braces, and a pair of boots. During the examination of the clothing Robert Johnston was visibly grief-stricken.

Next to give evidence was the boy’s mother. Mrs. Margaret Johnston. She was a small woman, dressed in deep mourning, and when entering the witness-box cast a long look in the direction of the prisoners. Her answers were given in a clear voice and were chiefly in corroboration of the evidence previously given by her husband. Her lips quivered when she told of the anxiety she and her husband had experienced during the all-night search for their son, and especially when she added -… “but we never found him…”

Then, amidst a hushed courtroom, she too was given the clothing to identify. The mother’s worse nightmare was about to hit home. As the court usher handed her the little blue jersey, Mrs. Johnston stared at it, turned deadly white, and slowly sank into the seat in the witness-box. Dr. Garry of Duke Street Prison, attended to Mrs. Johnston, and she was taken from the witness-box. Mrs. Mary Lewis, of Airdrie, grandmother of the dead boy, was next to give evidence. She told the court that she too identified the body of her grandson.

Mary Johnston, the 14-year-old sister of the deceased told the court that her brother was in the house about 6pm on the evening of June 20, and went out about ten past six. She told the court, she never saw him alive again. Thomas Esson, a constable in Coatbridge, told the court that he was on duty in the police office when Mr. and Mrs. Johnston reported early on Thursday morning that their boy was missing. He said he circulated a description of the boy.

The next person in the witness box was James McGhee, the twelve-year-old friend of John Johnston. He told the court that he knew the boy Johnston, because he helped him to sell newspapers. He explained that he paid Johnston according to the number of papers he sold. On June 20, he said he met Johnston after six o’clock in Dundyvan Road and gave him nine newspapers to sell. He said he left John at twenty minutes past six, but he never saw him again. From the place he left him to Newlands Street would be about 200 yards. Asked by Lord Alness, if he was to sell the newspapers, or delivery them. James McGhee replied; “To sell them.”

In reply to Mr. Gentles with regard to the time involved in selling the newspapers, McGhee replied that it usually took John about half-an-hour. He had only one customer, the rest was chance. So far as he knew, Johnston had no money of his own that night. Alexander Cook, from Coatbridge, said that he had been at school with John Johnston. He saw him at 7 o’clock on the night in question, and that John had some papers with him, but not many. He told the court that the lad spoke in passing, and then walked away in the direction of Newlands Street.

The next person to give evidence was the landlady of the Newell’s. Mrs. Annie young, a widow, was dressed in black; it appeared to the court that she did not seem too well. Mrs. Young said that she lived at 2 Newlands Street and occupied a room and kitchen house. She lived in the kitchen and let out the room. About June 20 she had Mr. & Mrs. Newell as tenants. They became tenants towards the end of May she said. They had a little girl who was the daughter of Mrs. Newell from a previous marriage. She said she was not prepared to keep the Newells because of “rows”. Finally, on June 17, there was a row between the couple which lasted, she said, from 10 o’clock at night until 1 o’clock in the morning. She told the court; “they were storming at each other.” She further explained that, on the following Monday Mrs. Newell came to her in the kitchen to apologize for the row. However, Mrs. Young was no longer prepared to keep the Newells, and enlisted the help of a friend to call on the Newells and ask them to leave.

On the Wednesday, the day of the boy’s disappearance, Mrs. Young told the court, her friend, Mrs. Morgan came to her house. When she arrived, another friend, Mrs. Brown was also present. Mrs. Young said she saw Mr. Newell on the Tuesday, and never saw him again after that. The little girl was not in the house when Mrs. Morgan called, but was playing in the street with another girl. She explained that when Mrs. Morgan came in to her house, she went to the Newells’ door and tapped it. However, Mrs. Young told the court that she could not hear what was said. Mrs. Young continued that, in the evening Mrs. Newell came into her room and suggested that if she paid her rent on the Saturday, she should be allowed to stay until the Monday, which Mrs. Young agreed to.

Continuing her evidence, Mrs. Young stated that at about five minutes to seven that evening, she saw a paper boy go into the Newells’ house. She was able to see quite clearly, because when the door of her house was open she got a view of the passageway between the room she occupied, and that which she let to the Newells. She said she knew the lad by sight and that his name was John Johnston. When asked why the boy went into the house, she replied that he was selling newspapers. She then stated that she heard Mrs. Newell shout to the lad; “shut that door.”

Mrs. Young also said that she did not see the boy leave the Newell’s house. Further questioning of Mrs. Young revealed that she heard noises coming from the Newells’ house while the boy was inside. She described these sounds as “dumps, dumps,” which she had heard about three times, stating that the noises were loud. She was pressed to tell the court if anything had been said during these noises, but she made no reply. The Advocate-depute, having some regard to the fact that Mrs. Young was obviously suffering from extreme nervousness, passed on to further questions She explained that there was a toilet in the house and, that this was against the wall of the Newells’ room. She went into the toilet, but heard nothing except the noises described earlier. Later, she said, Mrs. Newell came to her room and asked for a box – Mrs. Young thought the box was to pack things in for the Newells’ removal. But she told Susan Newell she did not have any boxes.

A short time later, Mrs. Young said she saw Mrs. Newell leave the house, locking the door behind her, and that she watched as Mrs. Newell crossed to the other side of the road. She “had the wee lassie with her”, said Mrs. Young, and she was carrying an empty jug. She indicated to the court, that there was a public house above five minutes’ walk from her house in the direction in which Newell went. Newell returned about ten minutes later, still carrying the jug, and went into her room, locking the door. Her daughter was with her.

Mrs. Young then told the court, that a short time later, Susan Newell came to her room, saying she was going out and would not be long, in case the police came. When asked why the police were coming, Newell told Mrs. Young that she had wanted her husband arrested for assaulting Janet. The witness continued that Mrs. Newell then left returning with her daughter at about half-past eleven, but went out again, ten minutes later, locking her door. Newell did not return till around half-past two in the morning. Mrs. Young knew this because she heard Mrs. Newell lock the outside door and then her own. The Advocate-depute then asked Mrs. Young if she smelled anything, after Newell’s return. “Yes, I smelt cigarette smoke coming from Newell’s room.”

She continued that she wondered who was smoking cigarettes, but added that she had sometimes bought cigarettes and given them to Mrs. Newell. She said that the following morning, at about eight o’clock she went out to take in the milk, and found that the outside door was opened. She said it surprised her because she had heard it being locked during the night, and had not, therefore, expected it to be unlocked so early. She then knocked at Mrs. Newell’s door, but got no reply and found that the door was locked. Mrs. Young then told the court that the Chief Constable of Airdrie called at her house at half-past two in the afternoon and got into the room by means of a key which he got from Mrs. Bell, another resident of 2 Newlands Street. She said the police asked her about a go-cart, and she advised them that she had one; she kept it under the bed in the Newells’ room. When asked by Lord Kinross if the go-cart was under the bed when she looked, Mrs. Young said that it was not, and that she had never loaned it to anyone, including Mrs. Newell.

The next time Mrs. Young saw the go-cart was at the police office. She was taken there to identify it, and had stated that, when she last saw it, the cart was in good condition, but when she saw it subsequently it was broken at the back. Mrs. Young also said she saw the boy’s body when she was at the police office on June 22. “It was the wee laddie that I saw going into Mrs. Newell’s room.” Mrs. Young identified a broken poker as having belonged to part of the furniture of the room occupied by the Newells, but stated that when she had previously seen it, the poker was whole.

She also told the court that Mrs. Newell had borrowed money from her earlier in the week, and had returned again for more which she refused. This was before the Newells were asked to leave. Mr. Gentles, Q.C. for the Newells then cross-examined Mrs. Young. She told the court that anyone talking loudly in the room of her house could be heard in the kitchen even if the doors were closed. The rent of the room was 9 shillings per week. She further stated that when Mrs. Morgan, at her request, went to ask the Newells to leave the room, she had a suspicion that Mr. Newell had left his wife. She was quite sure he had gone for good, leaving his wife with no money.

She told the court that when the police were in the Newells’ room, they found a quantity of ashes of burnt paper. Mrs. Young also told the court that on the occasions she saw Mrs. Newell, there was nothing unusual in her manner. At the end of her evidence before the court, Mrs. Young must have been greatly relieved, as she was in poor health, and of a somewhat nervous disposition. Mrs. Elizabeth Brown, sister of Mrs. Young was then called to give evidence. She told the court that she had often gone to the house of her sister, to help with housework, because her sister did not keep well. She said that on June 20 she went to the house at 10 o’clock in the morning, and remained there till about 9 o’clock at night.

She said that Mrs. Morgan, a neighbour, was there in the evening, and she heard her tell Mrs. Newell that Mrs. Young needed the room for the week-end. Later, Mrs. Morgan left, and shortly thereafter, Mrs. Newell came into Mrs. Young’s house and asked if she could stay until Monday, which was agreed to. Mrs. Brown stated that when she and Mrs. Morgan were washing dishes, someone came up the stairs, and Mrs. Young remarked that it was the paper boy.

Two or three minutes later, the boy went into Mrs. Newell’s room. This witness stated that she heard noises, which she described as, “knocks.” A short time later, she said, Mrs. Newell came into her sister’s house and asked for a box, but was told there were none. When asked by the Advocate-depute about Mrs. Newell’s manner, the witness replied; “she seemed quite cool.” Nothing in Mrs. Newell’s behaviour seemed unusual. Mrs. Brown also stated that she never saw the paper boy come out of the Newells’ room. Referring to the noises, Mrs. Brown stated that she got a fright when she heard them. She wondered what the noises were and what Mrs. Newell was doing, but added that she thought she might be packing. Another resident of 2 Newlands Street, Mrs. Margaret Bell was next in the witness box. She told the court that her bedroom was next to the room occupied by the Newells, and that she could hear what went on.

There was a row on Sunday, June 17, when she heard them talking aloud. She saw the man Newell on Monday going to his work, and saw him again on Tuesday between 10 and 11 am., but she did not see him at the house on the 19th or 20th. Mrs. Bell then told the court that she was in Mrs. Young’s kitchen on the morning of the 20th when Mrs Newell came in. She said that Newell told her she did not know where her husband was, but suspected he was in jail because she had him arrested for thrashing little Janet.

The most sensational aspect of this trial came later in the day when the daughter of Susan Newell gave her evidence, amidst a hushed courtroom. With no parents to care for her, nine-year-old Janet was being cared for at Old Monkland Parish Hospital. The child, who was a bright little girl, stood on a chair in the well of the court to give her evidence. After a few tears, this little girl soon regained her composure enough to speak. Her answers in a clear, but low voice being heard by only a few of those present.

She told the court that she remembered the paper boy disappearing. She said she remembered him going upstairs to her house while she was playing in the street, but did not see him come out again. She told how her mother later took her to a public-house, leaving her waiting outside. When her mother came out of the public-house she was carrying, whiskey, wine and beer in a jug. Lord Kinross asked; “where did you go when you left the public house?” “We went home.” “Did you see anything?” “A little wee boy dead on the couch.” “How did you know, he was dead?” “I went over to look.” “What did your mother say?” “She said, Keep quiet.” “Did your mother do anything?” “She drank the beer.” “Did she do anything about the boy?” “She was trying to get up the floor.” “Did she touch the boy?” “Yes.” “Was that when he was lying on the sofa?” “Yes.” “What did she do?” “She took my father’s pair of drawers and put them over the boy’s face.” “What was it you told us about the floor?” “She got a poker to get up the floor, to try and get the wee boy in, and we tried to get a box from Mrs. Young.” “You went out for a walk?” “Yes.” “Did you walk far?” “We were out a long time, and went to Glasgow and got a hurl.” “But the same night, where did you sleep?” “In the house.”

She told the court she did not see her stepfather that night or that day. She saw him on Tuesday when he went to a funeral, and he did not come back. Lord Kinross reminded the child that she met two ladies and asked if she told them the same story she told the court. She replied that she did not. She told the ladies that it was her step-father who choked the boy, because her “mammie told me to say that.” When asked by Lord Kinross if she had seen anyone harm the boy, young Janet said she had not. She was next asked what happened the following morning. “We got up very early and went into Glasgow.” At first the child said she and her mother walked all the way, and then they got a lift in a lorry. “What did you do with the wee laddie?” “We put him in a bag.” She said they put the boy in the go-cart and that she got a lift on it.

When asked what she got a lift on, the child said, she got a lift on the bundle containing the body of the boy on top of the go-cart. With all the innocence of a child, little Janet most certainly helped put the noose around her mother’s neck with her evidence. Next to give evidence was the lorry driver who gave Susan Newell and her daughter a lift to Glasgow.

A woman, it was stated, had watched Newell push the go-cart with the little girl. The woman felt sorry for her and asked him to give her a lift. Lorry Driver, Thomas Dickson told the court how he helped the woman lift the go-cart into the lorry, and then helped her and the child into the lorry. She told him she was going to Glasgow to look for rooms. At a suitable place where he thought she might be likely to get rooms, he stopped the lorry and made to help the woman, but she would not let him. He said he stopped at the corner of Netherfield Street and Duke Street, the woman told him to go on with his lorry, and she would manage herself.

Mr. Dickson then told the court, that the woman said, “you don’t require to get off, just steady the bundles of the cart and I’ll get it off myself.” However, in lowering the go-cart, the bundle fell, and Mr. Dickson said to the woman, “You’re in an awful hurry!”

The next time he saw the woman was two days later when he identified her at the police office in Airdrie. This witness also identified Susan Newell in the dock, as the woman to whom he had given the lift. Evidence was then given as to the detection of the woman with the bundle in a back court in Duke Street, Glasgow. Mrs. Helen Elliott, who lived in Duke Street, said that from her window she saw the bundle fall from the go-cart. Mrs. Elliott said that while Newell was trying to sort the foot the head “toppled” over.

Newell got hold of the head, which was sticking through the bundle, and tried to tie it with either an old blouse or a rag. She then went towards the city. Mrs. Elliott told two women what she had seen, and asked them to keep the woman under observation. After going along the road a little way the woman turned into a gateway leading to a coup [waste ground].

Mrs. Elliott and her sister ran across to the coup, and when the woman with the go-cart saw them, she was sitting on the bundle inside the gateway; she got the bundle on her back and left the little girl to wheel the go-cart. She carried the bundle up to 650 Duke Street. A police officer came along at the time, and Mrs. Elliott told the officer that a woman was going up a close with a bundle which she suspected was a corpse. When they reached the close, Newell was coming out cleaning her hands. Mrs Elliott stated that she and the police officer then went into the close and found the bundle at the back lying on the ground. The Officer opened it, and at this point Newell said; “my husband did it!”

There then followed the police evidence with regard to Newell’s accusation against her husband. She had stated that on the previous night, June 20, she and her husband had quarrelled, the boy was present and had tried to intervene when her husband was about to strike her.

Her statement continued that her husband threw the boy on the bed and choked him, meantime, she said, while this was happening, she fainted. She further alleged that when she came round her husband was gone and the boy lay dead on the bed. She then rolled the body in a bedcover and in the morning, after giving her child breakfast early, left for the trundle to Glasgow, having put the bundle on the go-cart. Dr Greenhill of Rutherglen, who was casualty surgeon of the then Eastern Police Office, next gave evidence to the effect that he had seen the body of the boy.

He described the marks found on the body. He also testified that he had examined Mrs. Newell and found her to be perfectly sane, perhaps a little subdued, she was cool and answered questions freely and intelligently. There then followed a statement made to Chief Constable William MacDonald, of the Coatbridge Police by Mr. Newell. Newell said that he had left 2 Newlands Street, the day before the murder at about 10.45am, to attend his brother’s funeral. After the funeral he went to his father’s house, where he stayed until the evening. He told the officer, that as he was leaving there, he met his wife coming towards the house. She made to strike him and caught hold of him. He said he broke away from her and ran to get clear of her. The remainder of this evidence has already been set out as to Mr. Newell’s movements when the crime was committed.

The following day he read of the tragedy and that police were looking for the husband of the arrested woman. It was at this point that he gave himself up at Haddington Police Office. During the trial there were no witnesses called on behalf of Susan Newell. On the second day of the trial, medical evidence was led at some length as to the sanity of Mrs. Newell.

Her counsel closely cross-examined the doctors as to the possibility of a sudden lapse on the day of the crime. The great interest shown in the ‘go-cart murder’, was more than maintained throughout the course of the trial, as large numbers of people gathered in the vicinity of the Justiciary buildings from the early hours of the morning.

Police made special arrangements to cope with the crowds and only those who had a professional or business interest in the case were admitted to the body of the court. In fact, so strict was the watch kept by the police that, contrary to custom, some students who as a rule attended such trials were refused admission. The number of those desiring admission to the public gallery was far in excess of the seating accommodation, and when the doors of the gallery were closed, several hundreds of people remained in the streets.

Indeed, throughout the mornings, the open space in front of Glasgow Green was filled with people anxious to get a glimpse of prominent officials and all those who were taking an active part in the case. It was said at the time, that as the unfolding of the story by witnesses who had been chiefly connected with the leading points provided a thrilling day’s sitting, one of the most thrilling sittings that had taken place in the Judiciary Buildings for a number of years.

This was particularly so during the medical evidence on the second day of the trial. Both of the accused entered the dock about ten minutes before His Lordship took his seat on the bench. Susan Newell was dressed in the same blue suit and wore a dark hat, as she had been on the first day of the trial. She had a somewhat worried expression on her face and also appeared somewhat ill at ease.

However, she did follow all the evidence closely, frequently glancing in the direction of the jury and the bench. Professor John Glaister was the first of the medical witnesses called for the Crown. He stated that along with Dr. Anderson he made a post-mortem examination on the body of the boy Johnston. They formed the opinion as the result of this examination; (1) That the cause of death of the said John Johnston was throttling, caused from asphyxia by preventing air entering into the lungs, coupled with dislocation of the spinal column of the neck. (2) That the throttling was due to compression of the windpipe by the hand or hands of the assailant, and that not improbably the extension of that violence produced the dislocation of the neck. (3) That the marks found in the deep tissues of the scalp on the right side of the head were produced by the forcible application of a blunt instrument by more than one blow. (4) That the marks of burning on the left side of the head were due to the head of the deceased having come in contact with fire when he was yet living, as shown by the blisters found. Professor Glaister was then questioned by the Lord-Advocate; “Taking the marks of throttling on the neck, what degree of violence do these marks denote to your mind?” Professor Glaister; “They denoted considerable depression of the air passages, and possibly forcible extension of the head backwards” Lord Advocate; “Which extension of the head backwards produced the dislocation?” Professor Glaister; “Yes.” Lord Advocate; “The marks of the fingers were on the left side of the neck?” Professor Glaister; “Yes.” Lord Advocate; “With regard to the marks on the head, what degree of violence would be required to produce the results to the brain you found?” Professor Glaister; “This might have been produced by a blunt instrument hitting the head of the deceased, or it may have been produced by the head of the deceased coming into violent contact with some projecting substance, such as a chair.”

Questioned as to the woman’s mental condition, Professor Glaister stated that he had failed to find any sign of insanity. The Lord-Advocate; “I think you were asked in the last day or two to examine the female accused with regard to her insanity at the time this took place. Have you made a report?” Professor Glaister; “I made a report to the Procurator Fiscal ” The Lord-Advocate; “What was the result of your examination?” Professor Glaister; “I did not think the prisoner was a person of unsound mind, or that she was not perfectly competent to plead to the offence of which she is charged.” Lord-Advocate; “That was with regard to her present mental state” Professor Glaister; “That was the condition on Monday of this week.” Lord-Advocate; “Did you form any opinion with regard to her recollection of what took place?” Professor Glaister; “I never ask prisoners in an examination of this kind any details in regard to the offence with which they are charged. Consequently I only tested her memory up to the point of the day when the incident took place, and it seemed to me to be perfectly accurate. She was able to give full particulars regarding her whole history from the time she was at school up to the time she was apprehended.” Lord-Advocate; “Did you see any sign of insanity of any sort?” Professor Glaister; “I did not.”

When cross-examined by Mr. Gentles, Professor Glaister said that the boy Johnston was a well-nourished lad, well grown for his age, and, as regards muscular strength, probably fairly active. The bruising would necessitate the use of considerable violence on the part of the assailant. As regards the burns, his opinion was that they were probably caused by the boy’s head coming into contact with an iron gas-ring then in a state of combustion. On the question of Mrs. Newell’s sanity, he agreed that the state of a person’s mind at a particular time was, or might be, indicated by the action at that time. Actions sometimes indicated insanity, even if only of a temporary character. He would not describe Mrs. Newell as a woman of a high type of intelligence. She had intelligence enough to carry on domestic duties as she had done for years, and to look after money matters, so far as they were under her control, and do other ordinary things. Mr. Gentles; “Are women, suddenly subjected to a great trial, more easily affected than men?” Professor Glaister; “Yes, more particularly if hard pressed.” Mr. Gentles; “You have heard evidence which showed that this woman was deserted by her husband and left with no money, and about to be turned into the street. Is that the kind of thing that might affect the mental balance of a woman of this type?” Professor Glaister; “It might make her desperate owing to the cruelty of the situation.” Mr. Gentles; “Is it possible for a woman to become desperate, in a frenzy taking the life of a boy?” Professor Glaister; “It depends altogether on the object she had in view. If the object in view was to get money, frenzy might go a long way, although not intending to kill the boy.” Mr. Gentles; “Supposing no motive that would appeal to any rational person, could be discovered for the offence, you would think there might be indication of the state of mind?” Professor Glaister; “Inferences would be so problematical as to be valueless.”

Mr. Gentles; “Would you agree that so far as the jury are concerned the absence of premeditation and of rational motive are factors to be considered in coming to a finding?” Professor Glaister; “One should, as far as possible, in coming to a conclusion regarding a person’s sanity, take all the factors into consideration.”

In re-examination the Advocate-Depute remarked that if a woman in such a state of frenzy committed the acts alleged, would it be expected that she would show it in her demeanour to people she saw shortly afterwards? To this Professor Glaster replied; “Certainly, unless she had great command of her faculties. I gather that she talked quite collectedly to people on the evening after this incident is said to have taken place.” If you were told that within less than an hour she evinced no signs of unnatural excitement, what would you induce from that? In reply, Professor Glaister said, “That she either had unusual command of her faculties, or that the frenzy had quickly passed away.”

Once more the Advocate-Depute put it to Professor Glaister; “In your experience you know that a good many people have committed acts of cruelty and callousness. Is that a sign of madness? Professor Glaister; “It might be but not necessarily so” In reply to his Lordship, Professor Glaister expressed the view that the treatment applied was such as to the average person would be likely to prove fatal.

His Lordship continued; “You have had large experience of lunacy and you have heard the most of the evidence in this case. Is there anything in the evidence from the professional point of view to suggest that at the time of the alleged crime this woman was suffering from frenzy or insanity? Professor Glaister; “ I have heard nothing here nor from her to indicate that existed. His Lordship; “Do you think the injuries might have been deliberately inflicted or accidentally? Professor Glaister; “It might have been accidental in the course of the application of the violence.” Next to give evidence was Dr. John Anderson of the Victoria Infirmary, who carried out the examination with Professor Glaister, and who had submitted a medical report regarding Mrs. Newell. He had, he said, conducted an examination with a view to ascertaining her mental condition, and was of the opinion that she was sane and fit to plead, and that she appreciated the gravity of the charge. Lord Kinross; “Have you had any evidence by word or action of the accused which would indicate that she was other than sane on June 20? Dr. Cameron; “No.” Mr. Gentles then asked; “I suppose it is possible for a person to be perfectly sane on September 13 [the day of the report] who was insane on June 20? To which Dr. Anderson replied; “That is so.” Mr. Gentles, then asked Dr. Anderson; “At the date you examined her you had no possible check as to the accuracy of her statements with regard to the night of June 20? “No.” Mr. Gentles; “Have you heard of such a thing as temporary insanity?” Dr. Anderson; “Yes.” Mr. Gentles; “Sudden frenzies in which a person may have lost completely their self control?” “Yes, in some cases.” Mr. Gentles; “Did you find out what sort of class Mrs. Newell came from?” “Yes.” Mr Gentles; “practically of the tinker class?” “Yes” Mr. Gentles; “Not a high type mentally or intellectually?” “No.” Mr. Gentles; “Nor a highly moral type?” “No.” Mr. Gentles, then asked Dr. Anderson; “Might despair or misfortune have an effect on a person’s self control, make them insane for the time being?

To which Dr. Anderson replied; “It might be called insanity or temper.” Mr. Gentles; “The prospect, for instance, of being left penniless on the streets, and with a young child depending on one?” Dr. Anderson; “The sense of right and wrong would still be there.” Mr. Gentles; “So far as the person’s sanity is concerned on June 20, all you have to go by is the way in which she answered your questions?” “Yes.” Lord Alness then asked; “Doctor, have you had experience of the class from which this woman came?” Dr. Anderson; “I have not.”

Further medical evidence was provided by Dr. Garry of Duke Street Prison. He stated that from the day of her arrest until the end of that month, he had kept her under observation. He stated that he had always found her intelligent, quiet, capable of understanding her position, and the charge against her, and all the details.

During the time she had been in prison he saw no evidence of bad temper or viciousness, although he had experienced some prevarications and lies with regard to food and its effect on her. She had always been bright and ready to talk, she was always respectful and ready to talk. Next into the witness box was the brother of John Newell, David Newell. He gave evidence referring to the funeral of his brother on June 19 to which John Newell was also in attendance. He stated that after the funeral he and his brother [the accused] were walking along the street when they met Mrs. Newell. She walked up to Newell and said; “Come home at once.”

A disagreement took place between the two, and Mrs. Newell caught hold of his brother and butted him twice on the face with her head. His brother and he walked away and left her. On the morning of June 21 Newell called at his father’s house and spoke to this witness. He first said that he intended to go to work, but changed his mind and said he would “clear out”, as he could not live with his wife. He left the house at 6.30am. A number of witnesses were examined corroborating the story of the male accused as to his movements on the Tuesday and Wednesday.

Later in the proceedings, the co-accused, John Newell was called to the witness box to give evidence. He stated that he had been born in Coatbridge, and that he had lived there most of his life. In June, and for a period before that, he was living at 2 Newlands Street with his wife. He told the court he had served time in the Army, and was married in July 1922. His wife and he had certain differences. He stated that on Tuesday June 18, he was fully determined to leave his wife and go to England. On that afternoon he attended the funeral of his brother. After the funeral he met his wife between 7 and 7.30pm and they had a quarrel.

From that point onwards Newell gave a detailed account of his movements, telling how he went to his father’s house at 10pm and then walked to Bailliston, taking the tramcar to the lodging house in Quarrybrae Street, where he slept and remained till the next afternoon. He explained further in his evidence that at this time he was not running away from any crime. He was not in his own house on Wednesday and that he did not know the boy Johnston. He stated that he was not guilty of any crime against him. He told of his time in the police station when he informed the police that he was the husband of the woman in custody.

John Newell was not cross-examined. The trial the Advocate-depute rose and stated that he would not be doing his duty if he did not withdraw the charge against Mr. Newell. He said that it was right and proper that the charge be withdrawn and therefore not go before a jury. This was done in order that it might not be said that Mr. Newell was charged and went to trial for the crime of murder. A tense period followed while the necessary documentation was being prepared.

Susan Newell sat in the dock blankly staring at the judge, while the twitching of her husband’s mouth, and the nervous movements of his hands indicated his state of excitement. Throughout this time, there was absolute silence in the courtroom, broken only with the words of Lord Kinross as he addressed the jury. “…..You have heard the learned Advocate-depute say that in the discharge of his duty, he did withdraw the case which was made against the male prisoner; and I feel bound to say that in my judgement, the Advocate-depute has used a wise discretion in following that course. It is now your duty to return a formal verdict as against the prisoner, John Newell.”

This was done by the foreman of the jury, and, turning to the dock, the Lord Justice-Clerk, told Newell that he was discharged, to which the man replied, in a voice touched with great excitement, “Thank you, my Lord.” Newell, without a glance to his wife, then stepped from the dock, and took a seat in the area of the court. His wife, with her arms folded, looked steadily at him, then moved to a seat in the centre of the dock and turned her attention to the address to the jury, which the Advocate-depute immediately began.

The Advocate-depute only occupied about a quarter of an hour in doing so. He reviewed the features of the case as set out during the trial. As regards the circumstances of the crime, he contended that there was no evidence whatever that anyone else was in the room throughout this particular evening but Mrs. Newell. Dealing with the special defence of insanity, there was again no evidence that Mrs. Newell had manifested any signs of insanity at this date or at any time in her life, either since this occasion or before it. It was now the turn of Mr. Gentles, Q.C. for Newell to address the jury. In his argument he set forth the legal position on the question of insanity, and on the point of abnormal condition of mind which would justify the reducing of a murder charge to one of culpable homicide. Considering the facts of the case, Mr. Gentles said that when he first read the story, he said that the woman, if she did it, must have been mad.

The trial had not produced any evidence of premeditation; on the contrary, the evidence entirely disproved such a possibility. There was no evidence of any malice against the boy; and was there any motive? The suggestion of the Crown was that this woman murdered the boy for the sake of a few coppers. If that was the motive, it was so totally irrational and inadequate as to be significant of insanity, for the time being at any rate, complete loss of mental balance.

There had been no motive shown that could possibly have affected a rational mind at all. What earthly connection could such an act have had with her own hard circumstances in the sense that it was calculated to help her in any conceivable way? Taking a reasonable view of all the circumstances, they were driven to the conclusion that this woman must have been mad at the time. That view was supported by the amazing incident of bringing the body in a go-cart with her own daughter on top of the bundle, onto the teaming streets of Glasgow. This surely was not the act of a rational person. The first signs of emotion displayed by Susan Newell throughout the trial, took place during this address by Mr. Gentles. He was endeavouring to impress upon the jury, the strangeness of the woman’s conduct after the murder and the insaneness of her movements.

“Was it likely, that a sane woman would have turned her back on the country, where the body might have lain hid for a considerable time, and sought to dispose of it in a crowded centre like Glasgow?”

At this point, that tears welled in Mrs. Newell’s eyes, and she furtively wiped them away with a handkerchief. This lapse, however, was but momentary. A minute later she assumed her calm demeanour. Meantime, word had reached the assembled crowds outside the court building, that the Judge would give his summing up to the jury after the lunch adjournment. There had been trouble with crowds rushing the court on the first day of the trial. This was repeated, as several hundred people tried to gain entrance when the gates opened after lunch.

A large body of police officers prevented the crowd from passing through the gates to the courtroom. Outside the calls of abuse and the raised voices of men and women, were clearly heard in the small courtroom. Lord Alness in opening his charge to the jury, said that the story unfolded to them during the past two days was a pathetic and even a poignant one. A young life had been extinguished and an affectionate father and mother had been bereft of their boy. Moreover, it was a strange story.

The sequel to the boy’s death was such that if a novelist had written it a hasty public judgement would have pronounced it to be quite improbable. But, as they knew, truth was very often stranger than fiction, and it was their business to deal with the facts which the evidence of the case revealed. He understood that the case had received wide publicity long before the trial.

They might probably have heard it discussed outside these walls. Indeed, they might have formed certain impressions and not blameworthy, but if so, let him beg to remind them that it was their plain duty to banish from their minds any previous impressions they might have formed, and judge of the issues simply and solely upon the evidence they had heard. Lord Alness went on to point out that there were four chief points the jury had to consider; 1. Was the boy killed by some person; 2. If so, was Mrs. Newell proved to be the assailant; 3. if she was so proved, was she sane at the time when she killed the boy; 4. If she was sane at the time, what was the quality of her act – was it murder or was it culpable homicide? As Lord Alness proceeded with his charge to the jury, Susan Newell sat stiffly upright in the dock, and followed his words with great interest.

The all male jury then retired to consider their verdict. After only thirty-five minutes the jury returned. The foreman intimated that they had reached a majority verdict of guilty as charged, with a strong recommendation for mercy. In answer to the Clerk, the foreman stated that the recommendation was unanimous. The Lord Justice-Clerk, addressing Susan Newell said that the strong recommendation of mercy would be forwarded to the appropriate department. Meantime, he had no option but to pronounce sentence of death. Then the mandatory sentence for murder. Lord Alness then read the Sentence of Death and fixed the date of execution to be October 10, between the hours of 8am and 10am at Duke Street prison. As he said the last four words, he lightly touched the top of his head with the black cap.

Susan Newell showed no emotion as she was led below to the cells. She would later be transferred to Glasgow’s Duke Street prison to await her execution. The very street she had earlier chosen for the disposal of young John Johnston’s body.

Throughout her short stay in prison, moves had been made for her reprieve. A request was also made to the Secretary for Scotland, that her execution, should it go ahead, be delayed for a further two weeks. All attempts failed, however. Then on October 8, two days before the date set for her execution, a letter was received at the City Chambers from the Secretary of State for Scotland. The letter stated that he had been “unable to establish sufficient grounds for him advising interference with the due course of the law.” The duty of informing the condemned woman of the Secretary of State’s decision fell upon the Lord Provost of Glasgow, Sir Thomas Paxton. He said it was “the most distasteful duty that had ever fallen to him.”

He was accompanied to the prison by Sr. John Lindsay, the Town Clerk. The Lord Provost later described Susan Newell as neatly dressed and looking quite confident, she was a “wise-like lassie,” he said. Sir Thomas told Newell who he was, then preceded; “I regret exceedingly, but the Secretary of State for Scotland has not seen his way to grant a reprieve in your case.”

No sooner were the few words uttered than Susan Newell collapsed, and, it was said, a heart-rending scene followed. She was medically attended to, and was finally taken away weeping bitterly, her frantic exclamation mingling with cries for her young daughter. It was believed, that even police officials were astounded at the decision. So rarely did a woman hang in Scotland.

Susan Newell was hanged at Duke Street prison the following morning, October 10, 1923 at 8am. Her executioner was John Ellis assisted by William Ellis. She walked slowly from the condemned cell to the scaffold preceded by two catholic nuns. The only remark she made being, “don’t put that thing over my head!” This occurred as the hangman was in the act of putting the hood over her head prior to her execution.

The final act was brief and carried out without a hitch. It had previously been the custom to hoist the black flag above the prison, when an execution had taken place. However, in accordance with new regulations the black flag was not raised. There was consequently nothing to attract public curiosity on this occasion. When the death sentence was carried out, several city officials were required to attend. As some were to say later, one of the most painful duties of office.

Those in attendance at Susan Newell’s execution were, the city magistrates; Mr. Walkenshaw, the Governor of Duke Street Prison, Dr. Garry, Prison Medical Officer and the Rev. Father Choley. Her executioner was John Ellis. Her execution was the first occasion in seventy-five years, when a woman was hanged in Scotland. Susan Newell was also the last woman to hang in Scotland. Apart from the statement made to police, implicating her husband, and a confidential one made to her doctor while in prison, Susan Newell made no statement in connection with the boy’s murder.