The Objectionable Matilda Hacker

Matilda Hacker was born in 1811 in Canterbury. She was the daughter of a stone engraver, John Hacker, and had one sister, Amelia. John Hacker was skilled in his trade to the extent he became fairly wealthy, being able to buy several properties in the ancient city, including an entire row of houses in Blackfriars. His position was prominent, organising funding for the city’s famous clock on St George’s Tower.

Their father doted on the two daughters, and lavishly funded their lifestyles. However, by the 1860s, it became quite clear that Matilda and Amelia didn’t quite fit into the expectations of Victorian society. Neither was married, which itself was highly unusual for the era, and their manner of dress was said to be more suitable for teenagers than women in their 50s. The two were often seen strolling together, winning them the name of “the Canterbury Belles”, and sadly, the two began to be seen as the local eccentrics, often the target of ridicule from others in the area.

While the behaviour of Matilda and Amelia was unusual for their age, it seems likely that they were the victims of gossip, with their lives different but certainly not malicious. It seems they could have lived something of a free spirit lifestyle, unwilling to conform to expectations. This would seem to be reinforced by the fact that Matilda refused to pay tax on properties that she controlled. Such was the stubbornness of Matilda to pay what she owed; she was sent to Westgate prison and had her jewellery seized to pay the debts, despite the fact she could probably have paid with ease.

While some may see her anti-tax stance as admirable, it was still a criminal offence, all be it one that hurt only herself. That would change when she refused to connect mains water to her properties, again unwilling to pay. This time, she fled Canterbury and headed first to Brighton and then to London, taking assumed names.

While she was in London, both John Hacker and Amelia died, meaning that in 1873 she came into a large amount of property and the rental money it brought in. However, once again, she refused to pay the rate demands and used her income to keep moving regularly and dodge the authorities.

By 1877, Matilda, then 66, lived at 4 Euston Square, London, under the false name of “Miss Huish.” The house was a lodging house, and Matilda’s room was on the second floor at the front. Severin Bastendorff, 32, a fine bamboo craftsman from Luxembourg, owned the house. He lived there with his English wife, Mary Bastendorff, with his workshop adjoining the back of the house. For his work, he employed ten men, including his brothers Joseph, Peter and Antony. At the time, there was a growing number of immigrants from the Germanic states in London, and Severin made himself active in the community.

The Bastendorffs had moved into the house in March 1876, a large property situated over four floors and in a nice but declining area of the city, Bloomsbury. The couple had four children aged between seven and 18 months old. Also in the house was a servant, Hannah Dobbs, alongside other lodgers. Dobbs joined the house a few months after the Bastendorffs and attended to the lodgers. Indeed, Dobbs’ role amounted to something more than being a servant, being more of a manager than anything. While Mary Bastendorff was always consulted, Dobbs left the rooms and ensured that every requirement was taken care of. She left the house in September 1878.

In October, Matilda Hacker seemingly once again decided to leave her dwelling and move on. Dobbs informed Mary Bastendorff of this fact and, after being given a bill, brought down a five-pound note to settle her account. Nobody seemingly saw Matilda leave except Hannah. A few days later, Dobbs and Mary Bastendorff went up to her room to check on it, with Mary finding a broken lamp glass and a mysterious faded stain on the carpet, which appeared to have been washed out…

The Euston Square Mystery

It wouldn’t be until May 9, 1879, that anyone realised that Matilda Hacker had, in fact, never left 4 Euston Square. At this time, the cellar was to be cleared out for a lodger, with Charles Stickham, William Strohman, and other boys tasked with the job. There were two cellars in the house, one for coke and lumber and the other for coal. The cellar space was connected to the kitchen through a passage. As he made to sweep out the coal cellar, 15-year-old Strohman quickly came across a decomposed body.

“I went to the cellar with a basket and shovel to clean it up — there were some coals there and some old broken bottles and other dirt — I first found a large bone like a person’s leg, which came up with the shovel,” Strohman would later tell the Old Bailey. “[I] ran up and told Albert Savage, who went down to the cellar with me — Joseph Savage went down also and pulled the body out from the corner where it was — information was given, and a policeman came.”

Joseph Savage, who had been employed by Severin Bastendorff for six years, would add further details about the body in the cellar. The corpse lay flat on the floor at a diagonal angle, with the head in the corner of the room and the legs toward the centre. Savage said that before the police arrived, he uncovered the body and asked Mary Bastendorff for chloride of lime to combat any smell that might arise. The body was moved from its original location at the far end of the cellar toward the front.

Amongst others working at the scene were Inspector William De Maid of E-Division and Detective Inspector Charles Hagan of Scotland Yard. The body was attired in a silk dress, with parts of the material lying by the corpse. There was a cloth cloak, a black silk petticoat, and some brown-coloured lace that had once been part of a shawl. Investigating, police could clearly see a rope around the neck, turned twice and pulled tight. De Maid attempted to lift the rope with a knife, breaking it because of how rotten it was. He ascertained that the rope had been a clothesline. At the scene, Hagan found a broach which seemed likely to have belonged to the deceased, with De Maid finding some small bones which he believed belonged to a hand or foot.

Speaking later, Henry Parnell Davis of the Royal College of Surgeons would describe the scene inside the cellar at 4 Euston Road.

“I could see nothing but a black mass, a black mound, but on more closely examining, I found at the end of the mound the head of a female — the remains had coal dust on them, from which they were quite black,” said Davis. “The head was exposed, there was a very small portion of hair on the scalp at the back of the head, but I could not notice the colour then — the body was flexed, and the back was uppermost — the arms were flexed across the breast and the body resting on them — the arms were attached to the body, but there were no hands — the legs were severed from the knees.”

Davis ascertained that the separation of the limbs from the body had been part of natural processes and not dismemberment, with the corpse being in an advanced state of decomposition. The face and front of the neck were gone from the body. Equally, as Inspector De Maid found out, the rope was in bad condition, meaning that Davis couldn’t ascertain whether it had been tied at the autopsy. Given the state of the body, Davis could not be entirely sure of the cause of death, despite the obvious suggestion of strangulation.

Indeed, there was a suggestion that, despite the circumstances, the body in the cellar may not have been a murder victim.

Speaking at the Old Bailey in 1879, pathologist Augustus Joseph Pepper of St. Mary’s Hospital made a startling revelation. Pepper made one of the two examinations of the body alongside Davis and stated that the angle of the rope around the neck was suggestive of hanging and not strangulation.

“The cord in the neck was at an angle of 45 degrees, which is consistent with death by hanging, and it is not the angle you would expect to get by death from strangulation,” said Pepper. However, he was cautious to point out that this didn’t necessarily mean suicide, adding, “If the body had been tied round the neck by a cord after death and dragged, that would be consistent with what I saw.”

Augustus Joseph Pepper. Photograph by the London Stereoscopic & Photographic Company. Public domain.

Despite the length of time, the body had spent in the cellar, identification was not much of an issue, despite little help from those in the house who suggested that it may have been a drunk who had taken shelter. Alongside the clothing and broach, a few other items were found at the scene, including an eyeglass that had seemingly been hidden in the attic in the tray out of a wicker basket. A cash box was found that had once been prised open, with Severin claiming that he’d found his children playing with it and taken it to store some documents.

For a short while, there was some suspicion that the deceased may have been Hannah Dobbs, with her parents reading of the discovery in the press and having not been in contact with Hannah for some time.

In November 1878, Hannah had visited her home in Devon and brought a man she claimed to be her husband — Peter Bastendorff, Severin’s brother. She told her parents she would soon be visiting Germany with the man, meaning that the lack of contact hadn’t initially been alarming. What the police made of this revelation, we can’t be sure. Still, it seems likely that they quickly ruled out the corpse being Hannah given the condition of the body and, in any case, everyone in the household had already been traced, with the maid being safe and well and in prison. Hannah had been charged with theft and wasn’t married to Peter Bastendorff, but the two were indeed engaged.

Inquest and Investigation

The inquest into the affair began on May 16, 1879. It ignited something of a sensation, with Severin Bastendorff revealing that he had entered the cellar and discovered a bone the previous Christmas. Bastendorff claimed it still had flesh on it when he took it into the kitchen to show his wife, seemingly outraged that Hannah Dobbs had thrown away what he believed was a leg of mutton. While this may sound unusual, the woman who replaced Hannah, Sarah Carpenter, also revealed she’d discovered bones just a few weeks before the discovery of the body and believed it was a human foot. Again, the bone had been shown to Mary Bastendorff and dismissed, this time as part of a wild boar that her husband had brought back from Germany. Severin was fond of shooting.

Medical opinions, which would become vital to the case, were varied at the inquest, with no agreement found on how long the corpse had laid in the cellar. The collected opinion was somewhere between one year and four years, meaning that attempts at identification would be problematic. Indeed, this confusion over the time of death meant that the body could have been hidden before the Bastendorffs owned the house and placed into the period when the house stood empty, opening up the possibilities even wider.

Luckily for the police, Inspector Hagan was on the ball and theorised that the body was certainly no unfortunate who was seeking shelter. She had been dressed in fine attire and clearly cared for her appearance. Hagen thought this self-care would extend to the teeth, with no lady willing to be seen out and about with missing teeth, of which the skull showed several. Contacting dentists, one close to Euston Square soon reported that a patient had never returned after having a cast made of her mouth. The cast still existed, and Hagan fit it perfectly to the remains of the jaw at the mortuary — it was Matilda Hacker.

Identification was reinforced when Hacker’s brother, Edward, contacted police and could identify what remained of the corpse by her hair and clothing. Additionally, Matilda Hacker’s brooch had been noticed by her solicitor back in October of 1877, and others also recognised her eyeglass. Several other people were brought to identify the body, including Hannah Dobbs, who interestingly dissented from the consensus, saying that the hair that remained wasn’t that of Matilda Hacker as Hacker’s hair was grey, not auburn. Despite this, there can be no doubt that the body in the cellar was indeed Matilda Hacker.

Regarding the time of death, correspondence between Matilda and others was able to place the date of death sometime after October 10, 1877. Both Bastendorffs were frequently away from the house, particularly on Sundays, with police favouring the 14th day as the one Hacker was murdered. Upon analysis, the stain on the carpet in Hacker’s former room was confirmed to have been blood.

While there was a remote possibility that the death of Matilda Hacker may have been a suicide by hanging, subsequently covered up, the bloodstain told a different story. It seemed likely that Hacker had been violently murdered in her room, perhaps with the broken lamp, and then a rope was attached around the neck for somebody to more easily drag the body down the stairs and into the cellar. Such a scenario would suggest that the killer didn’t have the strength to simply lift or drag the large Hacker without aid.

However, this was by no means certain. The autopsy showed no certain signs of a violent attack, such as a fractured skull, and Pepper points out that there be other explanations for the bloodstain on the carpet. One such theory was the bursting of a varicose vein, though this was debunked as highly unlikely.

The police essentially went by a process of logical elimination. With the killing seemingly taking place in Hacker’s own room, the body would have had to have been moved down the stairs, meaning that had either of the Bastendorffs or a lodger been guilty, then Hannah Dobbs would have been alerted. Therefore, only Hannah herself could have had the opportunity on Sunday when the Bastendorffs and other lodgers weren’t present. On October 14, 1877, Severin Bastendorff had been at a shoot in Erith, having travelled there the night before. This fact is confirmed as he was spoken to by a policeman for shooting too close to the highway and his details were taken. As was her custom when her husband was away, Mary had taken her daughter to visit her sister, Margaret Pearce. She believed had left the other children in the care of Hannah. Mary was somewhat vague and couldn’t remember for sure; the events were some time ago.

Investigating further, police ascertained that Dobbs referred to Hacker by her real name since her disappearance, despite having only been known as Miss Huish at the lodging house. A witness also claimed to have heard a scream on Sunday the 14th, though how reliable this was debatable given the fact that over eighteen months had passed. Furthermore, Hannah had told Mrs Bastendorff that she had cut her hand on the lamp, though she could see no injury, and the bloodstain was considerable and stained the floorboards beneath the carpet. However, Severin’s brother and Hannah’s fiancé, Peter Bastendorff, claimed that he knew this to be true and had seen Hannah with a bandage on her hand. Still, the key evidence against her was Hacker’s watch and other possessions.

Toward October 1877, when Matilda was killed, Hannah told Mrs Bastendorff that she wished to return home to Bideford as her uncle had died. Dobbs claimed that her uncle had left her a watch and chain and some money. Around the same time, Mary discovered that Hannah had pawned some items, failing to make a link with Matilda Hacker. However, the chief constable in Canterbury could identify the watch, which was also later pawned and found by police. It was Matilda’s, as was a chain. Other witnesses reported that she had given a ring to her sister on her trip home and had been seen with the eyeglass. Others confirmed that she had sold Matilda’s clothes and that Matilda had been in the habit of keeping a large sum of money in a cash box.

Investigating Dobbs, police soon discovered something about her background. She left home at 16 and started her work life as a dairy maid, something she wasn’t unfamiliar with as she grew up on a farm. During these years, she was engaged to a young man and had been in trouble with the law, trying to pass off a stolen cheque to pay for a hat. Disgraced, she was sacked, and her engagement was in ruins. Two years later, she headed to London and, after finding work as a maid just outside the city, was sacked again for stealing a piece of silk and 13 pounds in money, a huge sum for a maid. Following that, she found work as a cook and then moved to Euston Square, where again she was accused of theft and sacked by Mary Bastendorff in September 1878.

Hannah Dobbs was arrested for murder.

A Twist in the Tale

Hannah was brought to trial in June of 1879, and the Old Bailey likely expected to hear an open and shut case. Hannah Dobbs had murdered Matilda Hacker in her room with the motive of money, then proceeded to drag the body down the stairs with a rope while everyone else was out of the house. She hid Hacker in the coal cellar and stole her possessions, taking a watch, jewellery and some money. However, before the full trial could occur, the relationship between Hannah and Peter Bastendorff was revealed in the press. Unmarried, she had been pregnant with his baby before a miscarriage, adding even further hint of scandal.

At trial, the court heard the medical evidence that said the cause of death was uncertain. The possibility of suicide was there, as was the possibility that Matilda Hacker died of natural causes. While it may seem incredulous that the case isn’t one of murder given the location of the body, it could very well have been that an opportunistic Hannah simply came across the body and took advantage, hiding it away and stealing her possessions. It’s also worth remembering that Hannah may have had the Bastendorff’s children with her all day, giving her little opportunity for murder and the disposal of a body.

Given that the trial was a capital one and a guilty verdict would send Hannah to the gallows, the jury acquitted, finding her not guilty of murder in just 25 minutes.

However, other sensational allegations would soon come to light that, in many ways, would put the verdict into the shadows. At the trial, allegations were heard that Severin Bastendorff had been seen socialising with Dobbs. In Victorian London, the master of the house being seen in such situations with a servant would be quite improper, let alone given the possibility that Hannah may have been responsible for a murder in his household.

During the trial, Severin was asked whether he’d ever been out with Hannah, with witnesses existing to place the pair at a pub and a hotel. Severin denied such a suggestion but admitted that he was fond of Her, and the two had exchanged small gifts, with Hannah on one occasion lending him money for a cask of claret when he had no cash in the house. Severin had given her one of the Japanese cabinets he had imported, and the court heard that it was Severin who had given Hannah the gold watch that belonged to Matilda. The closeness of the relationship was reinforced by Peter Bastendorff, who told the courtroom that he had confronted his brother about the nature of the relationship with his fiancé. The picture that begins to be painted differs from the normal relationship between the master of his household and a servant.

Was it a case that Hannah was involved with both of the brothers? If these claims raised eyebrows, they would be nothing to what came next.

The murder and trial had already been a sensation, with the rabid Victorian newspapers always eager to report on a juicy murder. This one, with a servant seemingly hiding a body in the cellar of a respectable family and a love triangle between a gentleman, his brother and a servant, had it all. Even with the trial over, the press wanted to know more, and now one of the most recognised names in London, perhaps Hannah Dobbs was worried about her prospects of employment elsewhere when she decided to sell her side of the story to the Illustrated Police News, one of the most sensationalist tabloids of the day.

In October 1879, the Illustrated Police News published a special edition entitled “The Euston Square Mystery,” telling the entire story from the perspective of Dobbs. Severin Bastendorff had attempted to block publication in the courts and failed, and it’s easy to see why he was concerned.

Hannah alleged that far from being the picture of Victorian values that 4 Euston Road portrayed, it was, in fact, a den of vice and scandal. Hannah claimed that she had known Severin before she ever joined the household, having met him while in her previous position as a cook elsewhere. He had fallen for her and brought her into his household under his wife’s nose. Despite his apparent feelings for her, Bastendorff failed to pay her for several months, and Hannah admitted that she began to steal items to get by.

During her time at the house, Severin Bastendorff would leave his marital bed and sneak into her room for sex, a room which she shared with the Bastendorff children. Hannah became pregnant, and Bastendorff agreed to support her financially, but on one condition. She must start sleeping with his brother, Peter, and claim the baby is his. She would then introduce Peter Bastendorff to her parents as her husband, avoiding any scandal or questions about a baby out of wedlock. Peter was seemingly unaware of the plan and proposed marriage upon finding her pregnant. By all accounts, it wasn’t just to avoid the child’s illegitimacy. Peter had actually fallen in love with Hannah, all while she continued the affair with Severin after she left service at Euston Square.

The claims certainly fit the facts, explaining why Peter visited Hannah’s parents as “her husband” and the duel allegations that Hannah had been romantically involved with both men. That said, there is also the possibility that the allegations were deliberately calculated to put sympathy upon Hannah. After all, tales of innocent English girls coming under the influence of dastardly foreigners have been prime fodder for the tabloids ever since the invention of the printing press.

However, that wouldn’t be all that Hannah Dobbs had to say.

Severin Bastendorff: Serial Killer?

During the trial, it was revealed that amongst the lodgers at 4 Euston Road during Hannah’s time, there had been an American, Mr Finlay (given in other documents as Mr Findlay.) On her way back to prison from the court, Hannah had spoken of the man in question and suggested that he may have been the murderer.

“She said there had been a lodger of the name of Finlay, living in the house in Euston Square, and he was in the habit of carrying a seven-chambered pistol loaded,” chief warden Robert Vermulin had said. “She also stated that he had committed a murder, and wanted to confide the secret to her keeping, and offered her 50 pounds to go to America with him, but she refused.”

Both Severin and Mary Bastendorff said that Finlay had left their lodging house in August of 1877, meaning that if he had truly spoken of a murder, it could not have been that of Matilda Hacker. In any case, with the trial over, Hannah started to ask very publicly just what had happened to Finlay, saying that he had vanished without a trace and that afterwards, Severin had gifted her a watch.

Recalling later, Hannah seemingly had an almost exact recall of how the conversation with Severin had taken place:

“It was about a week after my return that the defendant gave me the watch and chain which corresponded with Mr Finlay’s — he had often promised me a present, and he came down one morning and said, ‘I have got a present for you at last’ he gave it me, I looked at it and said ‘It is like Mr Finlay’s;’ he handed me the watch and chain at the same time — he said ‘How do you know it is like Mr Findlay’s?’ I said ‘Because I have seen it many times;’ he said ‘It is not Mr Finlay’s, I bought it at a sale;’ I said ‘It is just like it;’ he said ‘There are many watches alike;’ I said ‘it is too large for me, this is a gentleman’s watch;’ he said ‘You can wear that before I can get you smaller one’”

Indeed, rather than blaming Finlay, Hannah was now accusing Severin Bastendorff of killing Matilda. By her account of events, Hannah had gone to Matilda’s room to collect the five pounds for rent she later presented to Mary. In doing so, Hannah noticed that Matilda kept a large sum of money about her person and later mentioned this to Severin. On the Sunday of the supposed murder, she had been out all day with the children and discovered that Matilda was gone when she returned. A few days later, Severin gifted her a watch for a second time, this time belonging to Matilda. It was Severin, she alleged, who came up with the lie that she’d received it from a dead uncle.

Hannah would allege that she had already discovered the body of Matilda Hacker sometime before and was frightened into silence as she’d pawned the watch, meaning that she would undoubtedly be seen as an accomplice or even the killer. Hannah would suggest that it wasn’t just Severin who knew what was happening, with others from the family being involved.

However, it wasn’t just the murders of Finlay and Hacker that she accused the Bastendorffs of. Hannah would recall how on one occasion, she had gone down into the cellar and found a homeless child taking shelter. Hannah went upstairs to tell the family, and somebody hit the child with a poker in the resulting scuffle. Who this was remained unnamed, perhaps in a small effort to avoid a libel suit. The boy died of his wounds in Severin’s workshop, and his clothes and few possessions were burned in the fire. To add a further level of horror to the tale, Hannah would add that she later discovered part of the boy’s remains in the cellar, with the rest being fed to one of the lodger’s dogs.

If that wasn’t enough, there was one final tale of the true depravity at 4 Euston Square. Hannah would allege that Joseph Bastendorff had got a puppy at one point, quickly becoming bored with his pet. The Bastendorff brothers would use the dog for target practice in the yard, shooting at the defenceless animal before taking it into the workshop, skinning it alive and finally eating it.

Desperate to escape the control of Severin, Hannah once again took to stealing items from the house to try and get some funds together, which eventually led to her sacking by Mary. Her thieving led to the eight months in prison she was serving when the body of Matilda Hacker was found. Hannah would insist that fear of reprisals led to her not saying anything at the time.

The case was covered extensively in the press | Illustrated Police News covers, 1879

While Hannah’s testimony in the press may connect many dots, there must also be some caution. The account exonerates Hannah in every way, even justifying the thefts she was found guilty of. Yet, we also know that Hannah Dobbs was accused of theft in previous employment, suggesting that his criminality might not have been a case of a good character forced into a bad situation. Equally, the story of the young homeless boy is one that conveniently couldn’t be verified. As a homeless urchin, it’s unlikely that police would ever be able to ascertain an identity. Finally, the story about the puppy seems somewhat cliche, the final nail in somebody’s character as a monster.

And yet, Hannah didn’t simply have some wild accusations to fling around; she also had some very good questions.

Had the police asked, she inquired, whether those in the workshop heard the bell being rung in alarm on the day in question? Had the police asked those in the house if gunshots and screams had been heard? Or had the police asked why a man from the workshop went upstairs on that day? Had police interviewed a Mr Ross, who Hannah alleges took Matilda’s room on the day of the supposed murder and later found a pistol in a toilet?

The questions posed were suggestive, and Hannah was painting a picture that Matilda Hacker had been attacked in her room, shot, and then robbed. Throughout the Illustrated Police News special, Hannah suggests that others in the house were involved in what was happening, particularly those the workshop where Severin’s brothers worked.

Severin and Mary Bastendorff publicly denied everything in the Police News special, but the damage to their reputation was done, and their lodging house was ruined. Inspector Hagan of Scotland Yard stated that the allegations were being investigated, which can’t have helped. A libel suit followed, with the Illustrated Police News countering with an allegation of perjury against Bastendorff, reminding everyone that Severin had stated during the trial, under oath, that he had no improper relationship with Hannah Dobbs.

Severin Bastendorff was promptly charged with perjury, and at the trial, witnesses confirmed that they knew he was indeed having an affair with Hannah. Speaking as a witness, Hannah herself went into explicit detail about their affair, seemingly determined that every lurid detail should be splashed all over the press. She even added a new allegation that he also had another woman, a French girl who also became pregnant.

“There was some young person that had a child by Mr. Basteudorff — he gave me the necklet to pawn; he asked me if I would go and pawn it as he wanted the money,” Hannah told the court room. “He said he wanted to pay her off, calling the girl by name, all at once, that she had had a child by him — I don’t remember the girl’s name now; she was a French girl; I had seen her at the house.”

Importantly, the trial also exposed how little Hannah knew of what had been written in the Illustrated Police News. In the lengthy article, it was written that “The police have been too stupid to guess, their officers too imbecile even to accept a broad and startling clue. Dogberry and Noodledum.” In this context, Dogberry and Noodledum were two foolish fictitious names invented to mock the apparently bumbling police force. However, when she took the stand at Bastendorff’s trial and was questioned, Hannah had no idea that the two were humorous fiction, leading to questions of how much of the account were her own words.

“I do not know who Dogberry is; I never heard of him till I read the pamphlet; I don’t know where he lives — I don’t know anything about it — I do not know who Noodledum is, or what he is, or where he lives.”

Despite this, Severin was found guilty and sentenced to a year’s prison and hard labour. The fallout was immense. Not only was the Bastendorff lodging house in ruins but so was Severin’s bamboo furniture business. With the whole family involved, they were facing hard times that we made even bleaker by the fact that Mary Bastendorff was also once more pregnant, with her marriage to the fertile Severin essentially over.

Upon his release, Severin resumed his libel case against the owner of the Illustrated Police News, George Purkiss, with the case settled out of court for five hundred pounds, about £33,000 in today’s money. With the money, he was able to save his furniture business but could not save his marriage. Finally, after the stress became too much, Severin Bastendorff suffered an emotional breakdown and was committed to the Camberwell Workhouse Lunatic Ward. After his release, his wife applied to permanently admit him to Colney Hatch Lunatic Asylum, where Jack the Ripper suspects Aaron Kosminski and David Cohen would later be committed.

Despite trying to rebuild his life, Severin Bastendorff was unable to do so and, by 1885, was living out of a hotel and continued to struggle with his mental health. That year, he beat his wife Mary about the head with an umbrella after he had become confused over money. Severin wanted Mary charged with theft, but she countered with a claim of assault, and he decided to leave the country, returning home to Luxembourg with the children.

By 1886, he was back and promptly arrested. Mary testified that Severin had always been cruel and had taken their children back home, where they now lived in poverty. The next year, he walked into a police station to loudly announce that his brother, Peter, and his wife murdered Matilda Hacker. Whether Severin meant Hannah Dobbs by this is unknown; by this point, Hannah had vanished from history. He was again committed to an asylum, and reports say that he was hearing the voice of God in his head, being able to ask questions and receive responses. Severin became increasingly paranoid and believed he could perform miracles through God’s will. He died in 1909 from bronchopneumonia.

Summing Up: A Possible Solution

There seem to be many possible solutions to the Euston Square Mystery. Perhaps, Hannah Dobbs was all the police allege she was, and she killed Matilda for money. Perhaps conversely, 4 Euston Square was a den of depravity, with a whole family covering for Severin’s murders. Perhaps neither of these things is true, or Hannah worked in conjunction with another.

Facts in favour of Hannah Dobbs as the killer of Matilda Hacker:

Hannah Dobbs was a known thief.
Only Hannah Dobbs seemingly saw Matilda leave the house.
The rope around the neck may have been used to drag the body, suggesting the killer wasn’t strong.
She pawned Matilda Hacker’s watch and clothes and had excess money.
Hannah had also been seen in possession of the eyeglass and a ring.
She knew who Matilda Hacker was. Did Hannah snoop in her room?
Hannah took responsibility for the bloodstain, saying she cut her hand on the broken lamp.
The Bastendorffs were not in the house on Sunday, October 14.
Hannah tried to implicate Finlay before settling on implicating Severin.
Despite her claims, no medical examiner agreed Matilda was shot.
Hannah said little of her Police Illustrated News account before publication.
The willingness to ruin the Bastendorff household would show a vindictive character if the claims were false.
No bones from a child were found in the cellar.
The lurid claims seem likely to have been exaggerated to sell newspapers.
Severin Bastendorff’s libel claim was settled out of court in his favour.

Facts against Hannah Dobbs as the killer of Matilda Hacker:

Going from petty thief to killer is a leap.
The Bastendorff children may have been with Matilda on Sunday, October 14.
Severin Bastendorff may have given Hannah the watch.
She wore it proudly around the house, which would be brazen if she knew what it was.
The cause of death was never ascertained.
The body lay in the cellar for 18 months without being found, which some find unlikely.
Severin’s affairs and perjury show he is a liar, carrying on an affair under his own roof.
He betrayed his wife and brother with this affair, further showing his character.
Conversely, Hannah was open about her history of theft in her account.
Severin later showed signs of paranoid schizophrenia.

A possible scenario is that Hannah was up to her old tricks and stealing, as she admitted in her Police Illustrated News account. Knowing “Miss Huish” to have money, she was snooping in her rooms when she was out, which is how she discovered her name was Matilda Hacker. As was known, Matilda had money in a cash box that had later been found prised open and Hannah would have needed a knife to do this. Unfortunately, Matilda returned and caught her in the act. A struggle broke out, where Matilda used the lamp as a weapon, cutting open Hannah’s hand as she raised it in defence. This was when the neighbour heard the scream. Hannah used the knife she’d brought to the room to stab Matilda. Given the state of decomposition, a single stab wound that avoided the ribs may not have been obvious during the autopsy. It’s unlikely that either Severin or Peter was involved, with the former confirmed to be on his shooting trip and Peter in Maidstone with another brother, Antony.

Hannah then had the problem of getting rid of the body. Here, the rope is the key piece of evidence, and, as suggested at the trial, it seems to have been used to drag the body down into the cellar. Given her size, there was no way Hannah could have moved the corpse without using it. However, it would still have been an immense amount of work to drag the body of a heavyset woman down two flights of stairs and into the cellar, all with the danger of the house being alerted.

We have to remember that Mary Bastendorff was not certain that Matilda had the care of the children on this date, and even if so, they were unlikely to leave their room if this was done at night. But given the amount of work involved and the fact that the body had laid “undiscovered” for so long, could it be that either Severin or Peter had aided her in hiding the body? Peter was in love with Hannah, and Severin not only wanted his affair to continue but had little interest in Hannah being arrested and the truth coming out. Mary didn’t enter the room on Monday, meaning the body could easily have been moved after the two men returned from their respective trips. Neither could admit to what they’d done in court nor when the more lurid suggestions came out later.

Claims of Hannah’s innocence focused on the claim that Severin had given her the watch she pawned, yet she also pawned other items and sold Matilda’s clothes, for which there is little explanation. She also admitted that the blood in Matilda’s room was hers. It seems likely that, despite the allegations in the Illustrated Police News, the only question is how much the brothers truly knew about the murder.

Knowing she would never find work as a servant again and immediately needing money, Hannah allowed the Illustrated Police News to create an account that would fly off the news stands. The tale appealed to every base instinct of the uneducated, something that the tabloid was well known for. Indeed, some have gone as far as to call the newspaper one of the worst to ever be published. Today’s “fake news” is amateur compared to that of Victorian England. The account appealed to the basest of instincts — the fear of the brutal foreigner in the idyllic British midst. Such feelings would later be aroused during the Jack the Ripper killings and continue into the present day.

Faced with the trauma of losing everything, including his business and wife, Severin Bastendorff descended into madness and the lunatic asylum. And while it would be a hardened heart who didn’t feel sympathy for his tale of ruin at the hands of the press, very few people come out of the Euston Square Mystery with any credit.

Severin was at least a liar and a brazen adulterer who took advantage of a young woman who was undoubtedly enamoured with the advances of a gentleman above her station in Victorian life. And yet, it would be foolish to think of Hannah Dobbs as a wide-eyed country girl. She was undoubtedly a thief, and her powers of manipulation were clearly the equal of Severin if the account published in the Illustrated Police News was hers and not the work of creative journalists. By all accounts, Hagan and the police suffered from tunnel vision on the case and wouldn’t hear any possibility that Hannah Dobbs wasn’t the killer or wasn’t working alone. And despite being the victim, even Matilda Hacker can be brought forward for criticism, having only been at 4 Euston Square because she was a tax dodger.

In the end, The Euston Square Mystery strips away the genteel facade of Victorian England. Beneath the stiff upper lips and auras of steely detachment were the same desires and motivations that have driven human beings to murder since the dawn of time — sex, power, and money. While we may not recognise the gas lamps and horse-drawn carriages, while we may find the lack of televisions and the internet to be primitive, these are desires that we can all understand. The differences between this world and our own soon fade when we view history through this lens of human understanding. Time moves on, but murder never does.