The Chieftain: Victorian True Crime Through The Eyes of a Scotland Yard Detective (37 page)

Clarke then described Mrs Cox’s background and how she had become acquainted with, and employed by, Florence Bravo, before moving on to report on the other tasks given to him by the Treasury, namely Dr Dill, and the wine bottles:

I also again saw Dr Dill who states that the communication made to him by Mrs. Bravo was after the death of her husband, when she said he was very persistent in that line of conduct. He further states that Mr. Bravo called upon him after his marriage and bitterly complained of his wife’s drinking propensity and begged that he would see her and endeavour to pursuade her to refrain from it, as he knew he had great influence over her. Dr. Dill promised to do this and said he knew she drank a great deal more than was good for her, and should be stopped. He said that he had spoken to her about this and her behaviour with Dr. Gully, at the request of Mr. Campbell, her father, last autumn, before her marriage, and that on Saturday last she was in a most excited state and for the time had lost her reason, partly arising from drink and excitement consequent upon this enquiry.

On enquiry at Messrs. Todd Heatly’s, I am informed that the wine was ordered on the 27th April by Mrs. Cox and the order was executed the same day. The wine was taken by Thomas Horley who states that he brought back two dozen bottles – sherry and claret, but believes there were no Burgundy bottles with them. On his return they were put in the cellar with thousands of others and it is now impossible to find them.
²⁶

These interviews added no fresh light on the key aspects of the case: the source of the poison or the manner in which it might have been administered. In this regard the police investigations got no further. Suicide, murder or even accidental death therefore remained possibilities, as there was no forensic evidence that pointed specifically to any one of these options. The chance of tracing any missing burgundy bottles that might have contained residues of any antimony-contaminated wine had now finally disappeared too. However, the information gleaned from Mrs Cox (if accurate) suggested that, after only four months, the Bravos’ marriage was far from happy. Indeed, her information suggested that the deteriorating relationship between Florence and Charles Bravo could have reached a point where either partner might contemplate suicide or murder. What is not mentioned in Clarke’s reports, but did emerge at the second inquest, was that Mrs Cox might have her own motive to murder Charles Bravo, as Bravo had expressed the view that Florence no longer needed a female companion now that she had a husband and Mrs Cox’s employment at the Priory was therefore under threat.

Clarke’s report is also intriguing in its reference to his conversation with Dr Dill, and the phrase: ‘he [Charles Bravo] was very persistent in that line of conduct.’ The precise context of that phrase has been variously interpreted by different commentators to have been a reference either to the possibility that Bravo had persisted with sexual intercourse despite having a venereal disease (of which no confirmatory evidence was given by post-mortem evidence); or that he regularly sodomised his wife; or that he was suspected of adding low doses of antimony to her wine and sherry to induce vomiting as a means of discouraging her from drinking.
²⁷
This matter was not resolved, as Dr Dill was not called to attend the second inquest, presumably because of issues of doctor-patient confidentiality.

By now the case was proving fascinating to the British press and public; with a dramatic ‘cast’ consisting of a beautiful widow (Florence), a former and much older lover (Dr Gully), a mysterious ladies’ companion (Mrs Cox) and a husband who, prior to his marriage, had maintained another woman and fathered her child (Charles Bravo). As the second inquest got underway at the Bedford Hotel, Balham, the ‘disgusting public exhibition’, as
The Times
was later to call it, was about to start. For more than a month, public attention was wholly absorbed in the proceedings.
²⁸

The inquest lasted from 11 July to 12 August under the control (or lack of control) of the coroner, Mr Carter. The Crown was represented by Attorney General Sir John Holker (known as ‘Sleepy Jack’ to his colleagues), Mr John Gorst and the ubiquitous Harry Poland. Mrs Florence Bravo, Mrs Jane Cox, Dr James Gully and Mr Joseph Bravo were each independently represented in court by leading solicitors or counsels who were given the opportunity during the proceedings to cross-examine witnesses.
²⁹
One of the most strident and effective of these was the solicitor George Lewis (representing Joseph Bravo) who, though not a barrister, had the authority to cross-examine witnesses in a coroner’s court and grasped the chance to demonstrate his interrogation skills with great vigour.
³⁰
Clarke attended the inquest but was not required to give evidence. As the precise cause and mechanism of death had not been formally confirmed no one was on trial, and there had been insufficient evidence to arrest anyone. Thus Clarke’s role in the proceedings was effectively as an observer, collecting any new evidence and following up any new leads that might emerge during the witness examinations.

For the new jury, events started with a gruesome visit to observe the exhumed body of Charles Bravo before returning to the crowded room at the Bedford Hotel. On the second day, the coroner comfortingly informed the tightly packed participants and spectators that a surveyor had checked the beams supporting the floor and had said that there was no danger of the floor collapsing from the great weight of the crowd. On the ninth day, potential new evidence emerged when the former coachman at the Priory, George Griffiths, stated that it had been his habit to purchase tartar emetic as a treatment for his horses, a technique that he had learnt from a book entitled
Every Man His Own Farrier
, and he had used this antimony-based product during his time at the Priory (though none had been found during Clarke’s searches). As a result, Clarke sent Detective Sergeant Roots with Griffiths to Stroud Park in Kent, where Griffiths was now employed, to retrieve the book and any tartar emetic that he might still have (none was found).
³¹
Griffiths was subsequently recalled for further cross-examination but the incident threw more heat than light on the proceedings.

On the thirteenth day there was a great stir when Mrs Cox was called. This rose to a crescendo in the Bedford Hotel, and more widely in prurient Victorian society when, under cross-examination by George Lewis, Mrs Cox admitted that she had been told by her mistress that she had had a ‘criminal intimacy’ (had committed adultery) with Dr Gully, who was still married though long separated from his much older wife. Mrs Cox was followed to the witness stand by Florence Bravo, who received a merciless cross-examination from George Lewis. This eventually caused Florence to ‘appeal to the Coroner and to the jury as men and Britons to protect me’; an emotional outburst that prompted the spectators in court to stamp their feet in applause and sympathy.
³²
James Gully gave evidence on the twenty-second and penultimate day, having expressed a wish to be examined, though Clarke had earlier reported to the solicitor to the Treasury that ‘I see no reason to attach the slightest suspicion to Dr. Gully’.
³³

When the time arrived for the coroner to sum up, he did a more adequate job than at the first inquest. After two and a half hours the jury issued their verdict: ‘We find that Mr. Charles Delauney Turner Bravo did not commit suicide: that he did not meet with his death by misadventure, but that he was wilfully murdered by the administration of tartar emetic, but that there is not sufficient evidence to fix the guilt on any person or persons.’
³⁴
This went down well with the public but not with a contributor to the
British Medical Journal
:

The verdict of the last jury has been eminently satisfactory to a large number of the public, consisting chiefly, if not entirely, of those persons who, without waiting to hear the evidence, had come to the same conclusion at which the jury arrived. For my own part, having read the evidence daily in the
Times
’ reports, I had come to think that, on the whole an open verdict would be the proper one…
³⁵

Clarke effectively concurred: ‘I would respectfully call the Commissioner’s attention to the fact that during this long enquiry nothing has been elicited to shew by what means the deceased met with his death other than is contained in my former reports.’
³⁶

Though the police efforts to obtain sufficient evidence for any arrest appeared to have been exhausted, the inquest verdict obliged them to do something so, on 14 August 1876, a reward poster was issued offering £250 for information leading to the arrest and conviction of the murderer or murderers.
³⁷
No substantive new evidence was forthcoming, and the ‘Balham Mystery’ was never solved. Florence Bravo, shunned by society, retreated to Southsea and died of causes related to excessive drinking in September 1878, while James Gully, ostracised by some of his family and friends, died in Malvern in March 1883 from cancer. The resilient Mrs Cox immigrated to Jamaica, later returning to London where she died aged 90 in 1917.
³⁸

The sensational events of 1876 have attracted a number of individuals to present their own solutions to the ‘Balham Mystery’. Of those directly involved in the case, George Lewis is reported to have said: ‘Had I been able to do so, I should at once have relieved both Dr Gully and Mrs Bravo from any suggestion that they in any way participated in the crime. I then – and still do – believe them: Not Guilty.’
³⁹
Lewis’ suspicions focused on Mrs Cox, who he saw as a schemer and opportunist, and in every way the most likely suspect. The more measured views of the Treasury counsel, Harry Poland, were:

I am not entitled to give any opinion – for publication. But it is certain that someone in the house poisoned Bravo. It might have been a servant. But if so what was the motive? It might have been Mrs. Cox, who certainly knew that her situation was in jeopardy, but that is a slight motive for murder. It might have been Mrs. Bravo, but would even a revival of her affection for Dr. Gully provide a sufficient motive for such a crime? Then remember that she summoned Sir William Gull, one of the greatest doctors of the day. Her conduct generally was consistent with innocence … Of course I have my own opinion; but what I think is one thing, and legal proof is another: anyway we lacked the evidence to prosecute…
⁴⁰

Amongst several books on the subject,
The Bravo Mystery and Other Cases
dismisses misadventure and suicide and suggests that only Florence Bravo or Mrs Cox could have committed the crime;
Death at the Priory
lays the murder of Charles Bravo’s death at the door of Florence Bravo, with the complicity of Mrs Cox.
⁴¹
In contrast, in
How Charles Bravo died
, the perceived culprit is Charles Bravo himself, accidentally consuming tartar emetic (purchased to control his wife’s drinking habits) instead of Epsom salts and, after realising his mistake, feeling compelled to remain silent about the poison he had consumed as he lay dying.
⁴²
Of course, unlike Clarke and the Treasury legal team, those who have assembled these versions of events have the luxury of not being required to present their evidence to the rigour of legal process.

With no new evidence forthcoming, it was time for Clarke to move on. The Bravo inquest adjourned from Wednesday 9 August until its final day on 12 August. He found time on the Thursday to attend the wedding of his eldest daughter, Emily, to Henry Stableforth Payne, the son of a tailor from Tufton Street, Westminster. The wedding took place on a pleasantly warm day in the splendid baroque church of St John Evangelist in Smith Square, Westminster. The newlyweds spent their honeymoon at Boston, Lincolnshire, at the home of a family friend of the Paynes, William Norfolk, who would provide valuable assistance to Clarke in 1877. Clarke then returned to Balham for the last day of the Bravo inquest on 12 August but, by mid-August, having had little time to draw breath, he was engaged in not just one but two new investigations.

‘Count von Howard’

On 25 August Clarke arrived in Hamburg carrying an extradition warrant for the arrest of ‘Charles Howard’ (also known as Count von Howard of Eisenach, amongst other aliases), on a charge of obtaining £380 by false and fraudulent pretences. By 27 August Clarke was back in England with the prisoner and a sealed portmanteau containing documents and other items that had been found in Howard’s rooms when he had been arrested by German police in February 1876.
⁴³

Back in January of 1875, John Harvey of 13 Upper Thames Street, City of London, had received a ‘private and confidential’ letter from ‘F.C. Judford’, a person not known to him. The letter stated that a ‘Mr. Richard Harvey’ had died in July 1870 and that, although an earlier will had been proved, a more recent will had been found in which John Harvey was a beneficiary and stood to receive a legacy of £40,000 plus approximately £10,000 from a freehold property. The writer said that the most recent will was genuine and was in the hands of a person in humble circumstances. The will would be released if Harvey would agree to pay a small commission to the will holder. After an exchange of correspondence, Judford reported that a ‘hitch’ had arisen in negotiations, as the will holder had placed the will at a bank for safe keeping but, unfortunately, had got into debt with the bank, owing £380, and the bank would not release the will until this amount was paid. However, if Harvey sent £380 to Judford, this would ensure that the bank would release the will. Harvey duly sent the money in instalments during June 1875, and Judford acknowledged the payments. Harvey’s subsequent letters received no reply and were returned to him by the post office ‘dead letter office’. Thus, Harvey had invested £380 and had not received the promised will.
⁴⁴