Murder in Monte Carlo

by Michael Sheridan

  Madame Castellazi recounted that her friend had one night in the casino brought up the matter and Marie Goold had been dismissive, almost rude to her.

  “I objected about this uncalled-for attitude and I am sorry to say that, with more provocation, a screaming match ensued between myself and Mrs Goold which transpired to be extremely embarrassing when the casino security were called to intervene. It was the next morning that Emma told me she was determined to leave Monte Carlo and return home to Copenhagen but was not going to go without her money being paid back. It wasn’t so much the money that motivated her, but the scandal that Mrs Goold had caused that night by her vehemence and aggressiveness. She wrote letters to the Goolds about the matter several times without reply.”

  She said that this ultimately led to the invitation by the Goolds to their apartment to settle the debt. To this very moment she reproved herself for not being more forthright and preventing Emma Levin from having anything to do with the Goolds. She relived that moment of weakness ten times a day and ten times a night, every day and night.

  Dupin put down his notebook. “There was nothing you could do any more than you did. There were other forces at play over which you had no control, namely in the life, circumstances and minds of the Goolds. You have been of great assistance to the investigation, madame. No doubt the examining magistrate will be needing your help in more straightforward manner.”

  He referred to one more thing which, he added, was not part of the investigation but would no doubt be a subject of press speculation.

  “I will try to put this as delicately as possible. The matter of Madame Levin’s, let us say, moral behaviour here?”

  Her friend explained that she had led a closeted life during her marriage to an older man and was somewhat like a bird that escaped the cage when she arrived in Monte Carlo. She was intoxicated by the atmosphere, but was not alone in that. There were one or two unsuitable liaisons which she was warned off and did eventually recognise that the men were motivated by anything but romance.

  “Not an unfamiliar tale in Monte Carlo,” she added, addressing Inspector Garonne.

  “Indeed not, madame, far too common I would say.”

  “But she then seemed to have settled down to simply enjoy herself – until of course she met the Goolds.”

  Her statement completed, Madame Castellazi left, having impressed Dupin despite his initial wariness.

  Then the detectives, with Lazare and Froissart and a member of the local force had a quick conference. Copies of the statements of other witnesses were handed over to the French force. All agreed to continue the very satisfactory level of co-operation.

  It was time for Dupin and his men to think about returning to Marseilles.

  The Inspector looked upwards toward the clock on the wall. Unlike in his dream, both numbers and hands were there. Time was moving on and so should he.

  Back at Gare Saint-Charles in Marseilles, Dupin and the team were met by what seemed a massive army of reporters from local, national and English newspapers and a large contingent from the wire services. The detective, as Hennion suggested, was open without giving too much away. The basic details of the events were communicated and then the team moved on to the Préfecture.

  They were happy because they would be now well out of the public eye as the very next day the examining magistrate, Monsieur Malavialle, would begin his work at the first of a long line of preliminary hearings where the press would be literally hanging from the rafters. Their reports would go all over the world.

  11

  LE QUATRIÈME POUVOIR

  The newspapers, as Dupin’s team expected and feared, had a veritable field day at the first hearing – with other such days to follow. The newspapers of the English-speaking world reported the crime with great gusto but little accuracy, as evident from the contradictory versions the different newspapers published – on occasion even contradicting themselves within the same report. Indeed, one wonders whether much was lost in translation. Nevertheless they got the essential story over to the public and made sensational reading, which was their aim.

  The following are samples from the great deluge of reportage that reached the English-speaking public.

  MONTE CARLO MURDER

  THRILLING DETAILS

  Reuters Reports

  August 9th, 1907

  An elderly lady accompanied by a middle-aged man arrived at Marseilles by the 5.40 train last Tuesday from Monte Carlo. The gentleman gave porter Berard a luggage ticket telling him it was for a trunk which he desired to have forwarded by goods train to Charing Cross in London, to be left till called for.

  After giving instructions, the gentleman told the cabman to drive to the Hotel du Louvre. When the cab had driven away, Berard called an out-porter named Pons, gave him the ticket with the necessary instructions and thought no more about the matter. At ten o’clock, Pons went to the luggage office, took over the trunk, placed it on a truck and started for the goods station.

  On the way he noted, to his horror, that blood was trickling through a corner of the trunk. He ran to the Station Commissaire who ordered the trunk to be forced open. When the lid was forced a gruesome spectacle met the eye. A woman’s body without the head or legs. To trace the owners was an easy matter as Berard had heard the name of the hotel. Without loss of time, the police proceeded to the Hotel du Louvre and arrested the gentleman and lady and seized their other luggage.

  The arrested couple proved to be Vere Goold, a moneylender residing at Monte Carlo, and his wife. Taken before a Judge d’Instruction they denied responsibility for the murder but admitted that they were responsible for the dismembering of the corpse. The victim, it appears, was Emma Levin, widow of a wealthy Danish company director, possessor of a valuable collection of jewellery which she was in the habit of carrying about with her.

  The theory of the police is that Goold and his wife enticed the woman to their villa and there murdered her for the sake of her valuables. The Goolds, however, deny that they are guilty of the crime and tell a peculiar story. Levin, they say, came to their villa to borrow money. Goold was out but, whilst his wife was in conversation with Mme Levin, a young man burst suddenly in upon them.

  Addressing Levin, he cried: “Wretched woman, you have ruined me”, then stabbed her with a knife. Mme Goold alleges that she fainted and remembers no more. When she recovered the young man had gone and Emma Levin was lying dead before her. She and her husband, who had returned home, feared the responsibility and, dreading they might be accused of the crime, cut up the body, placed part in the trunk and the remainder in a handbag and took a train to Marseilles in order to dispose of the remains.

  The story by the pair is by no means in agreement. Goold stated that Mme Levin was killed at his villa in Monte Carlo by a man named Burker while he and Mrs Goold were absent. It was only on their return that they found the body, so they put “the head and legs in their portmanteau”. Mrs Goold, on the other hand, asserted they were at home when the tragedy occurred and Mme Levin was paying a visit when the young man entered the villa. Seeing Mme Levin, he said: “You wretched woman, you have ruined me, now I am going to kill you.” He then dealt her severe blows on the head with a heavy stick, immediately afterwards leaving the villa. Neither of these statements are supported by the result of enquiries, for no trace of the man named Burker has been found.

  At a post mortem examination, the doctors diagnosed severe blows with a dagger to the chest and wounds on the head. They are of the opinion that a struggle took place with the victim and her assailants. In the Goold suite has been found a twisted dagger, stained with blood, a chopper and a saw. The sunshade of the victim was found in a box.

  When the magistrate paid a visit to the Goolds’ villa at Monte Carlo, Mme Isabel Giraudin, their niece aged 24, was there. She was not at home on Sunday afternoon when Mme Levin was supposed to have been murdered and she professed absolute ignorance of the crime and astonishment at the magistrate’s visit.

 
; The walls of the dining room in which the crime was supposed to have been committed are splashed with blood and there are also bloodstains on the carpet. A young girl in the service of the concierge of the villa states that about 5 o’clock on Sunday evening, she heard sounds of a struggle going on in the residence and someone cried: “Let me alone.” But thinking it was just a domestic squabble, the girl paid no attention.

  The victim’s name is now given as Mme Emma Levin. Contrary to previous reports received here, she is described by those who knew her of a woman of high respectability, the widow of an engineer who died two years ago. She possessed fine diamonds, her jewellery being estimated as worth more than £2,000 and on Sunday evening she left the Hotel Bristol where she was staying, wearing the greater part of them.

  Some time ago Mme Levin lent £40 to someone and she was heard to complain that she could not get her money back. In the course of a search made in the rooms occupied by Mme Levin at the Hotel Bristol, the magistrate found a card bearing the name of Goold on which she had written: “I await repayment of the money borrowed. Send it by telegraph, I need it.” The signature is illegible but it is believed to be that of the murdered woman.

  The crime has caused the greatest sensation in the Riviera. The victim, a beautiful woman, was the widow of a businessman and always wore magnificent jewels. She was extremely well known at the Casino. Mme Levin belonged to Stockholm, where her mother still lives at 13 Nebrogatan. She has stayed for the last two months at the Hotel Bristol.

  Here she formed an acquaintance with the Goolds at the Casino. Mr and Mrs Goold have for three years occupied a charming suite on the first floor of the Villa Menesini, situated in the Boulevard des Moulins. In appearance, they were most respectable. They have with them their niece Mme Giraudin. Although numbering many acquaintances among the cosmopolitan society of the place, they received very little, and indeed rarely at home.

  Mrs Goold was born at Isere, France. Her name was Maria Violette Giraudin (or Girodon). Twenty-five years ago she was a milliner at Montreal, Canada. There she became acquainted with Vere Goold from Clonmel, Ireland, aged 54. He was at Montreal in the silk trade but his business was unsuccessful. Mr Goold insists on calling himself a baronet.

  The murder, most experts think, has been committed by at least two persons. First Mme Levin was knocked down and then she was stabbed to the heart. Her head and legs were cut off and forced into the small portmanteau which Mr Goold was carrying in his hands. The body was put into the trunk, a pillow being placed underneath it. The abdomen had been opened and the intestines removed to prevent putrefaction.

  As to the story that Mme Levin’s lover had pursued her, no confirmation has been obtained of the existence of any such person.

  Liverpool Friends Amazed

  It seems that cards found in the Goold’s luggage, as telegraphed by a Marseilles correspondent yesterday were addressed 18 Adelaide Terrace, Waterloo, Liverpool, not London, as the French police, naturally assumed. Some of the cards bore the title Lady Goold. Our Liverpool correspondent ascertains that a husband and wife known as Sir Vere and Lady Goold did live at that address up to 18 months ago. Waterloo is a better class suburb of Liverpool and Adelaide Terrace is a row of large houses with long gardens in front, the promenade facing the Mersey.

  By a section of society in Waterloo, Sir Vere and Lady Goold were received as thorough gentlefolk of high degree but according to their acquaintances they had a rather adventurous and chequered career. One lady, moving in the highest circle, who had been an intimate friend, indignantly put down the idea yesterday that anything of unworthy conduct could possibly be attributed to her friends. They were, she said, of the highest respectability and perfectly correct in all of their behaviour.

  Sir Vere was described as an amiable and clever gentleman whose title was old Irish. They were in very good circumstances and spent much of their time in France. Their stay in Waterloo was merely temporary, as they did not want England as a permanent residence, having a great fondness for the South of France. Lady Goold she described as a thorough genteel woman and French lady to her fingertips, accomplished, amiable, most generous and good mannered. She possessed certain landed property in France.

  Sir Vere Goold was said to be a gifted amateur photographer. It was especially noted that they were both strict teetotallers and there was nothing mysterious about their conduct before departing for Monte Carlo and in advance made a round of adieu calls.

  The Baronetcy Claim

  How Goold unsuccessfully claimed his title to his brother’s baronetcy, though Sir James Stephen Goold is still alive, forms a curious narrative. Even if Sir James was dead, Vere Goold would not be justified in using the title of Sir Vere, as there are three sons and one grandson of his brother who would take precedence before him.

  The family of the brother are all residing in Australia but are not in a position to keep up the title. In 1900 a paragraph appeared in Canadian and Australian newspapers stating that, in consequence of the death of the titleholder, Mr Vere St Leger Goold of Montreal had succeeded to it. The only foundation for the story was the fact that a brother named Frederick Edward Michael Goold, who came between James Stephen and Vere St Leger, died in hospital in Australia, leaving no heirs.

  Vere St Leger seems to have fastened on to this fact and circulated a statement that it was the elder brother, holder of the title, who had died without family.

  In May 1901 he wrote to the editors of leading books of reference, telling them of his brother’s death. While not wanting to use the title “until proofs came to hand” he said he would like to establish his position as a baronet “for my wife’s sake.” He also informed the editors that he had no children and that he travelled a good deal.

  His friends, he explained, wished to call him “Sir Vere” but he told everyone that it would be “somewhat premature” to do so. He wound up by disingenuously stating that he had not seen or heard of anything of his brother James Stephen Goold since 1863.

  That statement was denounced the following year by the real baronet as a falsehood. He had seen the newspaper paragraphs and had written to the editors to inform them that while he was not in a position to keep up the title, he wished to preserve the rights of his three sons and the children that they might have.

  In relation to the matter that Vere had not seen or heard of him since 1863, he settled the question by proving he had frequent communication with him on the matter of the use of the title since 1897. In subsequent letters, Sir James Stephen Goold said that Vere St Leger wrote to him offering him £100 if he would sign a document waiving his and his children’s claim to the title. The money was never sent and either way it was not in anyone’s power to abandon a title in that manner.

  One of those letters from Vere was written from 18 Adelaide Terrace, Waterloo, Liverpool. Other letters had been written from Montreal.

  Irish Times

  Friday, August 9th

  MONTE CARLO MURDER

  GOOLDS CROSS-EXAMINED

  ANTECEDENTS OF THE PRISONERS

  The newspapers state that the British consul has asked that the trunk mystery be withdrawn from the French courts and placed before those of Monaco. The Goolds will be removed from Marseilles to Monte Carlo as soon as their extradition has been obtained.

  The depths of the wounds on the corpse and the strength necessary for their infliction make it appear unlikely that Mme Goold could have actually committed the crime.

  Nevertheless, the instruments used have been found in her apartment. At the present moment, the authorities are endeavouring to trace the real means of existence of the Goolds and the manner in which they became acquainted with Emma Levin. It has been ascertained that Mme Goold sent away her niece on Saturday and had informed the people that her husband was subject to blood-spitting. A note signed by Emma Levin has been found in a notebook in which she states that she lent 1,000 francs to the Goolds.

  Marseilles, Thursday

  The Goolds were subjec
ted to a searching cross-examination today by the examining magistrate. He put it to them that they first stunned the woman Levin with a blunt instrument, and after killing her with a dagger, dismembered the body and removed the intestines. In accordance with French legal usage, the magistrate then urged the Goolds to confess that they were guilty. The man simply hung his head, without replying while the woman who was seized with a violent fit of hysterics and had to be treated at the ambulance station at the courthouse.

  The prosecution contends that the Goolds also took jewels to the value of 80,000 francs from Miss Levin.

  Evening

  This afternoon, the examining magistrate heard the depositions of various witnesses concerned in the arrest of the Goolds. The witnesses were the porter who carried the Goolds’ luggage to the cloakroom, the Commissionaire Pons, the cabman who drove the Goolds to the Station Hotel and the police who arrested them. All witnesses confirmed the statements previously made to the railway police. The two prisoners today addressed a request to the public prosecutor asking that they may be defended by Maître Granier of the Marseilles bar. They will not be subjected to further cross-examination here and will be removed to Monte Carlo.

  London

  A remarkable story of the prisoners was told to a Star reporter by Mr T. J. Reilly, the Monte Carlo chemist who is spending a holiday in London. According to him Mr and Mrs Goold arrived in Monte Carlo last October, giving their names as Sir Vere and Lady Goold. They remained at Monte Carlo throughout the whole of the season and when Mr Reilly left at the end of May they were still residing with their niece at Villa Menesini.