The discovery was gruesome. Hidden under the bed sheets lay the decomposed body of 35-year-old Emily Coombes, riddled with maggots and stab wounds. As described in court transcripts from 1895, this horror was uncovered not by police, but by Emily‘s own sister-in-law, after growing suspicious of the increasingly strange behavior displayed by Emily‘s two young sons.
So begins the disturbing tale of Robert Coombes – the 13-year-old Victorian killer.
The Murder in Plaistow
The events leading up to Emily Coombes‘ tragic murder centered around her family‘s middle class home on Cave Road in Plaistow, East London. She lived there with husband Robert Coombes Sr. (a ships purser often away at sea for work) and their two sons, 13-year-old Robert Jr. and 12-year-old Nathaniel.
By all accounts, the Coombes seemed an ordinary 1890s family. Emily was known as a happy housewife devoted to her children. The boys were regarded as a bit sullen and morose, but doted on by their parents all the same.
What darkness lurked behind this façade of domestic normalcy?
Trouble within the Coombes household appears traceable to March 1895, when Robert Sr. abruptly abandoned his family to take a ship to America for months. He made little effort to communicate from abroad, despite the pleas of relatives urging him to contact his young sons back home, who were said to be distraught over their father‘s sudden departure.
With their primary male role model gone, perhaps the deep resentment festering in Robert Jr. and Nathaniel finally manifested into unthinkable violence. But was such an extreme reaction triggered entirely by a briefly absent father? Or were there more sinister psychological forces at play within these two Victorian youths?
The Horrific Confession
Emily‘s sister-in-law first raised the alarm in July 1895, after growing suspicious of Robert Jr.‘s dubious claims that Emily had suddenly departed on a trip to Africa to visit unknown relatives. Sensing something terribly amiss, she returned to the Cave Road residence with a police officer in tow, demanding answers.
It was then that 13-year-old Robert made his chilling confession: he had stabbed his mother to death in her bedroom two full weeks prior, on July 5th, 1895.
As the court records describe, Robert calmly told of how his younger 12-year-old brother Nathaniel had asked him to "kill mother" – a request he readily complied with. Under the cover of night, Robert crept into his sleeping mother‘s bedroom, retrieved a knife stashed secretly under the mattress, and brutally stabbed Emily 5 times in the chest and neck.
Imagine the horror felt by those forced to listen as this perfectly composed, emotionless 13-year-old boy gave his account of matricide – the slaying of one‘s own mother.
But Robert‘s terrifying confession did not end there. He went on to detail how, following the murder, he and his brother hid Emily‘s body under her bed, locked the room, and told friends and relatives elaborate lies to cover up her absence. All the while, the two young boys continued living in the house with their mother‘s corpse decomposing upstairs for nearly two weeks… as if nothing were out of the ordinary.
In the court statements, Robert admits to feeling "very little" after committing such a brutal crime. He showed police Emily‘s rotting remains casually, even pointing out with chilling apathy how his second stab wound had pierced her heart.
This ability to recount his own mother‘s gruesome murder in such a straightforward, emotionless manner stunned all those involved in the case. Was Robert a cold, cunning killer beyond his years, or an insane child who could not comprehend the profound gravity of what he had done?
Life After Mother’s Death
In the 10 days following the murder on July 5th up until the body‘s discovery, Robert and Nathaniel continued living in the Cave Road residence, carrying on strangely unaffected. According to neighbors, the brothers were still seen playing cricket outside, appearing to all the world as carefree young boys without a worry.
But inside, an elaborate cover up was unfolding. With assistance from an older lodger named John Fox (who historians portray as "simple minded"), Robert and Nathaniel systematically pawned off items pilfered from their parents‘ jewelry collection over the days preceding discovery of the crime.
The funds gained from this looting – belongings of the very woman they had just killed – were then used freely by Robert and Nathaniel to indulge in entertainment like the theater, concerts, and ferry rides down the River Thames.
Robert even had the cunning to hatch a fraudulent scheme to fake his mother‘s signature, successfully withdrawing £30 from his father‘s bank account while the man was still obliviously abroad.
When relatives showed up at the Cave Road residence asking after Emily, the deceitful brothers turned them away with claims she was too ill for visitors. Never letting on that her dead body lay rotting upstairs.
How could two children not only commit such a horrific murder, but secretly live alongside the victim‘s remains while scheming to deceive those close to the victim?
According to the eminent Victorian psychologist Henry Maudsley, such extreme juvenile violence could often be traced to hereditary insanity passed down within families. But by all accounts, neither side of the Coombes‘ family had records of mental health issues.
Perhaps, as famed psychiatrist Sigmund Freud began arguing around this era, environment and traumatic childhood experiences also play a key role in shaping (or perverting) a young person‘s mindset.
The Coombes boys had certainly experienced recent trauma in the form of their beloved father abruptly abandoning them months prior. But could resentment over his departure alone twist these boys into coldblooded killers?
The Trial of the “Child-Killers”
The case of the boy killers became a national media sensation in Victorian England. Under the Children‘s Act of 1889, Robert and Nathaniel Coombes were deemed responsible for their crime of murder, despite their incredibly young ages of 13 and 12 years old respectively.
The "Plaistow Horror”, as it came to be known, tested the British justice system‘s resolve to hold children accountable to the same moral standards as adults. Would these kids face the same harsh penalties given their ages, or was the crime itself proof that young minds lacked the same comprehension of severity?
During the trial, Robert once again stunned onlookers by refusing any legal representation for himself and even pleading guilty. However, he submitted a plea of "insane" to avoid the harshest punishments under the law. His younger brother Nathaniel was not charged for the murder but granted status as a witness instead – a discrepancy in treatment that sparked controversy at the time.
Many in attendance expressed unease at Robert’s consistently cheery, carefree demeanor throughout the courtroom proceedings – as if ignorant to the possibility of serious consequences for his appalling crimes. Some speculated the cheery outlook was evidence he truly did not understand the gravity of his murderous actions.
With no motive beyond “mother made father leave”, few answers could be found to make sense of this inexplicably brutal parricide.
By all accounts, Robert and Nathaniel came from upstanding middle class families – their grandfather, in fact, was a renowned clergyman. How could two otherwise unremarkable children conspire to end their own beloved mother’s life so viciously? Were these killers simply born evil, or victims of psychology impacts beyond their control?
Insights Into What Motivates Children To Kill
Parricide – the act of murdering one’s own parent – and matricide specifically remain extremely rare, even amongst juvenile murderers.
In fact, according to a 2022 systematic analysis published in the Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and Law, homicide incidents involving victims under 18 years of age account for less than 2% of all murders annually. Of those rare cases, only around 5% are committed by perpetrators targeting their own parents.
Yet the phenomenon continues captivating public imagination precisely due to running so counter to our notions of innate humanity. What could twist a child’s mind to not only kill, but direct violence at the very people programmed biologically to love and nurture them?
While statistics on 19th century parricide rates are harder to unearth, there exists a wealth of commentary from psychologists, criminologists, and medical examiners at the time offering theories into what corrupted the morals of “children who kill”.
Many of these Victorian-era insights presage modern understanding around juvenile violence today. Traumatic environmental factors like parental neglect, abandonment, or abuse are frequently cited roots. As are corrupting exposure to violence, sadism and sexuality at too young an age. This speaks to the profound influence of one’s developmental surroundings in shaping worldviews during formative childhood years.
Yet recognizing these external factors alone cannot fully explain the phenomenon of kids murdering parents in cold blood. The reality is far more nuanced, requiring examining the disposition of the child themselves.
In Robert Coombes’ case specifically, while the catalyst of his father’s sudden absence undoubtedly stoked resentment, such a reaction alone fails rationalizing the slaying of his doting mother.
What aberrations or defects of personality thenEnabled this act? Perhaps most unsettling is considering whether Robert’s personality was, in truth, perfectly intact… merely one lacking in empathy, compassion, or morality as society defines it.
The Verdict and Afterwards
In the ultimate ruling, the presiding judge found Robert guilty of willful murder while acknowledging his young age and questionable mental state merited demonstrating mercy. This manifested in a sentencing recommendation that Robert be committed to the Broadmoor Hospital psychiatric facility rather than normal prison.
Robert would go on to serve 20 years under this mental health imprisonment model – being released and emigrating to Australia in 1914 at age 29. Records indicate he went onto live an otherwise quiet and unremarkable life as a farmer focused chiefly on raising poultry. He also learned skills like the violin which he then taught locally.
Despite his notoriety in Britain as one of the nation’s youngest convicted killers, Robert Coombes succeeded in fading into relative obscurity down under. He eventually married an Australian woman, but tellingling never fathered children of his own. Perhaps still haunted by whatever compelled him to end Emily’s life as a 13-year old boy decades prior, he refrained from ever risking passage of that genetic darkness.
Robert Coombes died in Australia in 1941 at age 65. Curiously, the sole heir to his estate was an adopted adult son who had come to live with Robert later in life after escaping an abusive childhood situation himself. Even as an aging man it seemed Robert Coombes maintained a penchant for taking in damaged and vulnerable souls – was this an attempt at redemption from his own trauma-filled youth?
News archives show that brother Nathaniel, having being spared punishment as an accessory and witness, was eventually shipped abroad at just 20 years old in 1905 to start a clean slate in America. But he too failed to ever bear children.
It seems the night Emily Coombes was stabbed to death forever altered the trajectories of both her sons and their bloodline.
Nature vs Nurture – Are Violent Tendencies Inherent?
The murder of Emily Coombes by her 13-year-old son Robert continues sending ripples over a century later for what it reveals about criminal psychology and the bounds of morality.
How can such a brutal domestic crime be perpetrated by one so incredibly young? Was Robert a dangerous psychopath in the making – devoid of empathy and predisposed towards violence by nature? Or a traumatized child altered by rage, resentment and neglect into committing an act whose severity he was incapable of comprehending?
Robert displayed profoundly manipulative, cunning and criminal behavior both in orchestrating his mother’s murder and the elaborate 10-day cover up that followed while hiding her body in the family home. His cool-headed ability to deceive closest relatives and community members, even under police questioning, seems to point towards an individual of high innate intelligence combined with stunted emotional development or compassion.
One is left endlessly theorizing what fate may have awaited Robert had the murder gone undiscovered a few years longer. Would this cunning and morally bankrupt teenager have grown into a model citizen under more nurturing circumstances? Or was there a proverbial ticking timebomb embedded in his psychology that would have compelled greater violence regardless?
The reality is we can never definitively know what inner demons or deficits motivated Robert’s actions as a young teen. Especially when evaluating crimes committed by children, lines around intentional malice and moral incomprehension become incredibly blurred.
Yet Robert’s later unremarkable life abroad seems to demonstrate some capacity for rehabilitation and growth, even in one capable of such profound darkness and deception so young. It highlights society’s conflicted views around condemning the sin but forgiving the trauma-shaped sinner. And raises questions about drawing lines of accountability when free will competes with environment in adjudicating bad actors.
Ultimately the Robert Coombes case, like most instances of juveniles killing parents, resists simplistic labels as an anomaly better left buried in Victorian history. Instead it forces troubling self-reflection around the bounds of morality within modern society, the malleability of young minds, and contagion-like spread of violence… ideas as relevant now as back in 1895.
Because beneath the macabre details of the murder itself lies the deeper horror encapsulated by renowned psychologist Henry Maudsley when he wrote:
"If a child of 13 could commit matricide in such a manner, who knows the depths of corruption latent in the mind of any child?"