The Chieftain: Victorian True Crime Through The Eyes of a Scotland Yard Detective (36 page)

Enquiries are still being continued to ascertain where the poison was purchased and other particulars and a further report will be submitted.
¹⁶

The death of Charles Bravo was indeed a mystery, although the cause of death appeared clear-cut – he had swallowed poison. However, the means by which it had been administered was not known. Antimony is a corrosive poison quite different in its effect and mode of action from the narcotic laudanum, the only ‘medicine’ which Bravo had admitted taking in a small quantity to ease toothache. No evidence of the source of the antimony that had killed Bravo had been found at the house. It could not have been in the food at dinner as the dishes were shared with others who showed no signs of poisoning. The burgundy drunk by Bravo at dinner could have been a vehicle for the poison; however, the wine that remained undrunk had disappeared. According to the butler it could have been finished by the visiting doctors but they had denied that they had consumed any. Even if they (or the servants) had drunk some burgundy, no one else amongst the household members or visitors had shown signs of antimony poisoning.

In terms of motive, there was scope for further investigation. There were strong differences of opinion on whether or not Bravo was likely to have committed suicide. His wife and her companion, Mrs Cox, expressed the view that suicide was the most likely cause of death, while his friends held a contrary view. Mrs Cox told Clarke that Bravo had declared to her that he had taken poison and had asked her not to tell his wife, but she also had not told the doctors of this immediately upon their arrival. Though the recently married couple had created the perception that they were living happily together, Florence Bravo had told Clarke that her husband was excitable, had hit her and had threatened to cut his own throat. In addition, Clarke had heard sufficient testimony from Florence Bravo for him to conclude that she did not get on with her husband’s mother. Clarke had discounted her suggestion that Charles Bravo was pressed for money. Nonetheless, Florence Bravo had been insistent that her husband should receive the best medical treatment and had been personally responsible for calling out several of the doctors, including Sir William Gull, a friend of her father’s. Overall, Clarke’s report suggests that he had reservations about the information relayed by both Mrs Cox and Florence Bravo. His enquiries had also prompted him to visit Dr James Gully, a well known and respected Victorian proponent of the medical techniques of hydrotherapy and homeopathy, an intimate acquaintance of Florence Bravo. Indeed more would emerge later about the extent of the ‘intimacy’.

The delay between the evening of 18 April, when Bravo first became ill, and 1 May undoubtedly made Clarke’s attempts to locate the source of the antimony poison much more difficult. Having found no evidence at the house itself, a Metropolitan Police ‘Special Enquiry’ was sent out to all divisions on 10 May, asking for urgent enquiries to be made at all chemists and druggists who might have sold a relatively large quantity of antimony on 18 April or shortly before; however, no substantive information was obtained.
¹⁷
The first newspaper report of Bravo’s death and the inquest verdict only appeared on 9 May 1876, though the paucity of news on the case was soon to change dramatically.
¹⁸

On 24 May Clarke provided his second report, belatedly mentioning that on his first visit to the Priory he had searched the house and gardens and had sent away any suspicious bottles and their contents for chemical analysis. Clarke also reported interviews with George Younger, a helper in the stables, who had prepared the cob that Charles Bravo had ridden on 18 April. George Griffiths, the former coachman at the Priory, denied that he had overheard an conversation between Florence Ricardo and Dr Gully in which Gully had apparently said, concerning her then-impending marriage to Charles Bravo, ‘if you do marry him he won’t live long’. Clarke’s second report continued:

I would mention that the wildest rumours are afloat in the neighbourhood of Balham respecting this matter, which no doubt arise from the mysterious nature of the occurrence. I have made enquiry respecting most of them but they afford no information.

A number of letters have been received (many of them anonymous) suggesting that the poison was administered to Mr. Bravo by Mrs. Bravo or Mrs. Cox, or both, and supplied by Dr. Gully for the purpose of getting rid of him to enable Mrs Bravo and Dr. Gully to get married, but after careful enquiry I can find no evidence to support these suggestions. Dr Gully is a married man but living apart from his wife. These suggestions are proffered through the close intimacy known to exist between Dr. Gully and Mrs. Bravo during her widowhood; they are known to have travelled together on the continent, where they stayed at the same Hotels, and when at Streatham and Balham, he had a key of her premises, and their conduct, altogether, was the cause of a deal of scandal, and they were treated very coolly by the other residents.

I have again seen Dr. Gully, and he solemnly declares that he has never seen Mrs. Bravo, or held any communication with her since her marriage, and has only seen Mrs. Cox on the two occasions mentioned in my former report, and after careful enquiry of the servants and neighbours, I cannot find that he has done so.

I beg respectfully to again draw attention to what took place on the evening of the 18th ult. They having commenced dinner at half past seven, it may reasonably be assumed that the greater part of the wine was drunk by a quarter past eight. The sickness did not occur until about a quarter to ten – certainly not before half past nine – and it is the opinion of many medical Gentlemen that if the poison was taken in the wine, during dinner, it must have shewn itself before that time. Some are of opinion that if taken on a full stomach, it might not have shewn itself before, but all say that an hour and half is quite an outside time, and that it generally operates in about fifteen or twenty minutes.

I cannot ascertain that he took anything after dinner until he entered his bedroom … indeed the evidence of the servants shew that he did not – and if this can be relied upon (and I believe it) he must have taken the poison after he retired to his room, but whether it was with his own knowledge, or whether placed there secretly by some other person, I refrain from giving an opinion. The poison could only have been placed there, by some other person, in the water bottle or glass upon the chance of his drinking it, and I would here remark upon the behaviour of Mr. Bravo after he was seized with illness. He first calls for hot water, which would indicate a knowledge that he had taken poison, and during his two day’s illness I cannot find that he expressed any surprise as to it, or asked any question how it could have been brought about. He said he had taken laudanum, but I cannot find that he had done so – it could only have been a very small quantity – and I cannot but believe that he knew laudanum was not causing his illness. His friends are still strongly of opinion that he did not commit suicide, and aver that he had no cause to induce him to do so, but in making these enquiries, it appears to me that his marriage was not altogether a happy one, although it does not appear that he complained.

Both Mrs. Bravo and Mrs. Cox are much given to drink and Mrs. Bravo admits to me, that on several occasions when he attempted to make any change in their domestic arrangements, she reminded him that she found the money and does not appear to have had that sympathy and love for him that he might have expected, and she certainly shews no grief at his death.
¹⁹

Clarke’s investigations had not yet proved successful in identifying the source of the poison. Instead, he had focused his attention on the time at which Bravo had ingested the poison and the likelihood that he had swallowed it in his bedroom rather than at the dinner table. In addition, Bravo also appeared to be well aware that he had taken a poisonous substance and was likely to die. Clarke was beginning to give some greater credence (than in his first report) to the possibility that Bravo may have poisoned himself but he nonetheless continued to consider all options.

On 17 May the Home Office, noting the increasing public interest in the case and the strong views of Joseph Bravo and others, had directed the solicitor to the Treasury to take charge of the enquiry. At 11.15 a.m. on 18 May, Clarke had visited the Treasury to receive his instructions.
²⁰
On the same day
The Times
commented that the first inquest had been procedurally unsatisfactory and that a further inquest was needed. The
Daily Telegraph
had also initiated a campaign in favour of a new inquest. The Home Secretary, Richard Cross, was questioned in the House of Commons about the situation. He replied:

So far as the inquest and the Coroner’s verdict are concerned, the House knows that I have no power over the Coroner. All I can say is that, from the facts I have stated, I, for one, am entirely dissatisfied with the way in which the inquest was carried on; and after much consideration I have thought it best to place the whole of the papers in the hands of the Law Officers of the Crown who will advise me … whether any and what further steps ought to be taken.
²¹

On 26 June 1876 at the Court of Queens Bench, the coroner, Mr W. Carter, was felt to have performed his duties in a perfunctory and unsatisfactory manner and a panel of judges, including Lord Chief Justice Cockburn, quashed the verdict of the first inquest and confirmed that a second inquest with a new jury would be required.
²²
This eventually started on 22 July 1876.

Still pursuing enquiries, on 29 May, Clarke was told that a substantial quantity of antimony, in the form of tartar emetic, had been sold in the middle of April in Abingdon, some 15 miles from the family estate of the Campbells (the parents of Florence Bravo), at Buscot. Detective Sergeant Walter Andrews was sent to Abingdon to investigate, but found no link with the death of Charles Bravo and concluded that the statement had been made with a view to obtain a £500 reward that had been offered by Joseph Bravo for information leading to the identification of the source of the antimony that had poisoned his stepson.
²³

On 31 May Clarke was instructed by the solicitor to the Treasury to provide more detail of what Mrs Cox was doing on 18 April (the day of the poisoning), to enquire further about the fate of the missing burgundy bottles and to provide more information on a meeting that Clarke had had with a Dr Dill in Brighton (who had been a medical adviser and confidant to Florence Bravo).
²⁴
Clarke reported back on 5 June confirming that, on 18 April, Mrs Cox had travelled to Worthing to rent a property on behalf of Mrs Bravo, who was convalescing from a miscarriage that had occurred earlier in April. Mrs Cox had returned from Worthing the same day, just in time for dinner. However, during his latest interview with Mrs Cox, she had been much more revealing about the relationship between Florence and Charles Bravo:

Mrs. Cox also states that on the night of the 18th before Mr. Bravo retired to his room, he came into his wife’s room and said in French ‘You have drunk one bottle of wine today; I hoped that would be sufficient but you have sent for another’. Mrs. Bravo made no answer and he seemed very much annoyed, and went to his room. He had passed the housemaid (Keeber) on the stairs with a bottle of wine and which she had fetched from the cellaret in the dining room by the directions of Mrs. Bravo.

Mary Ann Keeber further states that when she saw Mr. Bravo on the stairs (as mentioned in her previous statement) she was then taking a bottle of sherry to her mistress.

Mrs. Cox also states that on their way to London that morning [18 April] Mr. and Mrs. Bravo had some unpleasant words and Mr. Bravo ordered the Coachman to turn back, but in a few minutes was prevailed on by his wife to continue the journey, but he said ‘you will see what I will do when I get home’. She only knows this from what Mrs. Bravo has told her.

Edward Smith (Footman) states that the carriage was turned round and went a short distance towards home, when they were a little on the London side of Clapham Common but he thought it was owing to the weather as it came on to snow. The carriage was open when they started but at this time he closed it. The Coachman (Parton) says he does not remember having turned round on that occasion.

Mrs. [Cox] further states that on Good Friday [14 April], Mr. and Mrs. Bravo had a desperate quarrel; he said he despised himself for having married her and would not live with her but leave the house at once. Mrs. Cox followed him to his room and begged of him to consider his wife’s feelings, when he said ‘She can go to Dr. Gully’.

She also says that on one evening (previous to the Good Friday) he did actually leave the house during a quarrel but she (Mrs. Cox) followed him and prevailed on him to return, and that they frequently quarrelled owing to Mrs. Bravo giving way to drink and (as he thought) extravagance; he was very much opposed to going to Worthing on these grounds.

She states as her reason for not mentioning this to me on my other visits, that she was anxious not to expose the unpleasantness between them, as at times they appeared very affectionate to each other.
²⁵