Murder in Monte Carlo

by Michael Sheridan

  In the effects contained in a trunk belonging to the Goolds, a dagger with a jagged blade and bearing suspicious stains has been handed to the judicial authorities.

  Paris, August 10th

  The Matin has received information from Saint-Marcellin (Isère) concerning Mrs Goold. Marie Girodin who lived with her father and mother was first married to a young man of Saint-Marcellin contrary to her parents’ wishes. A week after the wedding, the young woman left her new house with a little money. She went to Geneva where she worked for some time as a dressmaker and then she proceeded to London.

  She became a companion to an English lady and went with her to India two years later. There she met Capt Wilkinson, whom she married, her first husband having died in the meantime. After three years, she once more became a widow, and penniless was forced to sell her jewels. She then returned to London, where with the money raised from the sale of her jewellery she opened a dressmaking establishment. It was at this period that she became acquainted with Mr Goold and married him.

  The Times

  Tuesday, August 13th

  Monte Carlo, August 12th

  M. Savard, the examining magistrate, this morning again questioned the Spaniard, Fausto Etcheveria, an acquaintance of Mme Levin. His examination brought no new facts to light, but when the jewels forwarded by the Marseilles authorities were shown to the witness, he recognised several of the items as having belonged to Mme Levin. The inquiry here is now finished, and the conclusion of formalities for extradition or provisional transfer of the prisoners are being awaited.

  Marseilles, August 12th

  Dr Durfour who was entrusted with the examination of Mrs Goold in consequence of the discovery of injuries, supposed to have been caused in a struggle, has placed his report in the hands of the examining magistrate. The report shows that Mrs Goold has 13 bruises on her body, most of them being on her arms and legs. Mrs Goold explained that these injuries were a result of a fall when getting out of the carriage, when she was being brought back to the station with her husband after the discovery of the crime.

  According to the doctor, however, this explanation is not sufficient to account for the bruises, which he states might well date from the time of the murder. Dr Durfour declares that it is impossible that one and not very serious fall could have caused the injuries both on the right and left side of the prisoner. Some of the bruises might, he says, have been due to a fall, but the others must have been caused in some other way, which can only be determined by judicial inquiry.

  This morning, the examining magistrate had an interview with the Danish consul, who communicated to him the following telegram which he had just received from Copenhagen: “Please inform the proper authorities that the murdered widow, Emma Levin, a Danish subject, made a will here of which I am the executor. It provided that the bequests contained in it shall be made here.” This telegram comes from a lawyer in Copenhagen.

  The examining magistrate intimated to the Consul that the identity of the victim of the Monte Carlo crime had not been established, and that he would not say whether she was really the same Mme Levin who was mentioned in the telegram. The Swedish Consul interrogated Mrs Goold today concerning the identity of Mme Levin. Mrs Goold declared that she had a slight acquaintance with her, having been introduced to her two months ago and received only three visits from her. Mrs Goold admitted that she had in her possession the greater part of Mme Levin’s jewellery and intended to get rid of it, by throwing it into the sea.

  The Times

  August 15th, Thursday

  MONTE CARLO MURDER

  In his confession to the examining magistrate, Goold stated that on the day before the murder, he met Mme Levin who asked him to lend her 500 francs. She came to the villa the following afternoon, whereupon she asked him for another 500 francs in order to give it to Edward Barker. The prisoner refused, harsh words followed and in an access of rage, accentuated by drink, he stabbed her in the back. There was, he claimed, only one blow. His wife had no share in the murder, and it was he, unaided, cut up the body and placed the dismembered parts in the trunk and a valise where they were discovered. Robbery was not the motive, as he had ample means to live on.

  In the concluding portion of the interrogation, which turned on the prisoner’s identity, Goold stated that his grandfather was created a baronet. His father was a magistrate in an Irish town, and he, Vere Goold, and one brother, who was at present in Australia, were his only surviving sons. He, himself had been in the public service in Dublin and London. He made the acquaintance of his present wife in London and they married in Bayswater.

  He and his wife went to Montreal and afterwards settled in Waterloo, near Liverpool. There he started a laundry business, in which he lost a considerable amount of money, and he afterwards went to Monte Carlo to try his luck by means of a system.

  Irish Times

  Wednesday August 14th, 1907

  MONTE CARLO MURDER

  CONFESSION BY THE GOOLDS

  HOW MADAME LEVIN WAS KILLED

  Press Association Foreign Special

  Marseilles, August 13

  The examining magistrate, M. Malavialle attended the Prison des Presentines, where Mrs Goold is incarcerated, for the purpose of interrogating her in reference to the crime with which she and her husband Vere Goold are charged. The magistrate was accompanied by his clerk and Maître Gravier, the advocate, who has been retained by the female prisoner to conduct her defence.

  The interrogation, which lasted four hours, took place in the room known as Parloir des Avocats whither Mrs Goold was conducted as soon as M. Malavialle arrived. In reply to the first question, addressed to her, Mrs Goold stated that down to the present she had not told the truth, so as not to incriminate her husband; but she had decided to make a full confession.

  She thereupon commenced a fresh recital of the murder in the Villa Menesini, in which she strove to minimise her own share of responsibility.

  “Yes,” said Mrs Goold, “I confess that it was my husband who killed Emma Levin. I have not said so hitherto, in order to screen him, but I now prefer to tell the whole truth.

  “It was on Saturday at 5.30 that the murder was committed. At that hour the villa bell was rung. The visitor was Emma Levin, who came to see my husband about certain business matters. She was temporarily short of cash and my husband had promised to lend her 1,000 francs (£40). Naturally, I thought it right to leave them alone while they discussed the transaction. Suddenly I heard piercing cries and the sounds of a struggle.

  “Terrified, I hurried from my room to the drawing room where I had left Emma Levin and my husband. I had a presentiment that something dreadful had happened. Then I saw a terrible sight. Emma Levin was lying dead on the floor and beside her was my husband, covered in blood. I received such a shock that I fainted. When I recovered consciousness, my first impulse was to go and tell the police, but my husband implored me not to do so, but rather help to conceal his crime.

  “My husband, however, was so drunk that it was out of the question for him to begin cutting up the body, as we had decided to do. We dragged the body to the bathroom, and it was not until the next day that my husband proceeded to cut it up. Part of Mme Levin’s clothes were burned, the remainder were put away in a trunk. All of this happened in the absence of my niece, who on her return, noticed nothing, except, perhaps that we were upset.

  “To explain this, I said that my husband had a sudden attack and had vomited a quantity of blood. During these two days, I was quite beside myself and did not know what I was doing. It was with an Indian knife, which was in the dining room, that my husband killed Mme Levin.”

  Answering a question by the examining magistrate, as to whether she had not invited Mme Levin to the villa that day, Mrs Goold said that she had not anyone home for a long time. “Our means did not permit of our entertaining. Emma Levin only came for the purpose of borrowing money from my husband.” The examining magistrate called the prisoner’s attention to the fact that
most of Mme Levin’s jewellery was found in possession of herself and her husband.

  She replied: “That is true but we had only one desire and that was to get rid of it, so that we should not be suspected of the crime. Our intention was to get rid of the body into the sea.”

  In the concluding portion of the examination, Mrs Goold furnished the magistrate with the following particulars of her life:

  “I was born at Saone in the Department of the Isere, where my father was in the grain trade. There were five children. Three sons and two daughters but they are all dead except myself and a brother named Hyppolite. It is four years since my other brothers and sister died. My first marriage took place in 1869, when I married M. Borrulier. He died three years later at La Saone. I then left my native country and settled in Geneva where I found employment in a dressmaking establishment in the Rue du Rhone. I afterwards worked in two similar situations as a dressmaker with M. Ricard and M. Wolf.

  “Together with another dressmaker of whom I had made an acquaintance, I went to England and after four years in London as a modiste’s employee, I set up in business for myself and had a dressmaking establishment in Abbey Street and Hereford Road. I was married to Vere Goold in 1891 at The Church of St Marys of the Angels, but I did not wish him to know that my previous husband was a Frenchman.

  New York Times

  August 14th

  August 13th, Marseilles

  Vere St Leger Goold confessed here today that he was the murderer of Emma Levin, a wealthy Swedish woman, whose dismembered body was found in the baggage of Mr Goold and his wife on their arrival on August 6 from Monte Carlo. This trunk mystery created much excitement, especially as it was learned that the Goolds, who are English, were of good family. Their explanation of how the body came to be in their baggage was unconvincing, and the confession of today does not come as a surprise.

  Goold made his confession to the Examining Magistrate. He related coolly all the details of the crime. He alone had slain the woman, he declared, and it was he who cut up the body, although his wife helped him pack it away in their baggage. After this had been done, they both agreed to journey to Marseilles where they planned to cast the body into the sea.

  Mrs Goold, whose first name is Violet, confessed her part in the crime. He said her husband had promised to give Mrs Levin $100 dollars for a certain reason, but she wanted to give it to a man friend. To this Mr Goold objected, saying he would not pay the extra hundred. Referring to what happened next, Goold said in his confession: “I had been drinking and becoming angry I seized a hunting knife and buried it in Emma’s back. She fell dead. The next day I dismembered the body with a saw and a knife and placed the torso in a trunk and the head and legs in a valise. I only stabbed the woman once. The other wounds on her body must have been caused by shaking around in the trunk.”

  Goold said they carried off Emma’s jewels, not for their value but to prevent their discovery in his apartment. Referring to his family, Goold said his grandfather was a baronet and his father an Irish magistrate. He said he had at one time served secretly on the Land Commission in Dublin. In 1893 he moved to Montreal, where he said he made a fortune. He then went to Holland and later moved to Monte Carlo. Mrs Goold corroborated all her husband said.

  The discovery that a crime had been committed was made by a railway porter on August 6. He noticed blood oozing from the trunk in which the torso was later found. Goold and his wife had gone to a hotel for breakfast. They hurried back and got their luggage into a hack but the porter ran after them and took a seat on the box with a driver. Mrs Goold offered him 60 francs to go away but he stuck to his seat and called attention of the police to the luggage. The arrests followed.

  At the time of the discovery, the couple told a story about Mrs Levin, having been murdered in their apartment by a man named Burker, saying they had simply started for England to bury the body in order to avoid any complications with the Monte Carlo authorities. The explanation was not believed and the Goolds were locked up. Up to yesterday, the police were not able to get anything but falsehoods out of the two prisoners, though they subjected the couple to the process which is called in French slang “cooking”.

  The murder created a great deal of talk all over Europe. Its developments here have been followed with as much interest as the Guldensuppe murder in this country. The London papers learned that Goold’s brother Sir James Stephen Goold, Bart, lived at Gladstone in Australia, and though he is a real baronet he is working as a labourer on a railway train.

  The baronet tried to conceal his identity by burying himself in South Australia, saying as he did not have the means to support his title, he didn’t care to claim it. Sir Vere Goold as the aged murderer called himself in London and elsewhere was well thought of in England. He studied at Trinity University, Dublin, and was known as a man of breeding and country manners.

  Irish Times

  August 15th, 1907

  MONTE CARLO MURDER

  GOOLD’S CONFESSION

  HOW THE CRIME WAS COMMITTED

  THE ALLEGED MOTIVE

  Press Association Foreign Special

  Marseilles, Tuesday

  The examination of the prisoner Vere Goold by the Judge D’Instruction lasted for five hours from 3 till 8. The accused whose statement was translated by an interpreter, made the following avowals: “I do not remember what I said at my first examination. Here is the whole truth. On Saturday, August 3rd, I met Mme Levin at the Casino. She asked me to lend her 50 francs. I agreed and told her to come for the money the following day, Sunday at about 5 o clock. She came in and I handed her the sum as arranged.

  “She then asked me for 500 more and I said for what purpose?”

  “I want to give them to Edward Barker,” she replied.

  “Very well,” I rejoined, “if the money is for him, I will see him hanged first.”

  “Madame Levin then became very abusive calling me an old beast of a souteneur. I had been drinking a little and these insults incited me to such a point that I seized a hunting knife which was on the table and stabbed her in the back, and she fell down dead. It was the only blow that I struck. At the sounds of the struggle and the shrieks of Mme Levin, my wife came running in. “A Mon Dieu!” she cried. “What have you done? How often have I told you drinking would be your undoing?” Then in a hysterical fit, she fainted.

  “I took advantage of her unconsciousness to carry the body to an adjoining room. My niece who had gone for a walk to Cap Martin, noticed nothing unusual on her return. My wife helped me to conceal the corpse and we agreed to go to Marseilles. On Monday August 5th I started cutting up the body by means of a knife and a saw. It was I alone who dismembered the remains of Mme Levin and placed part of the body in a trunk and the rest in a travelling bag.”

  “Did you not invite her to come to your house?” asked the examining magistrate.

  “No,” replied the prisoner. “I repeat that on the previous day, she asked me for 500 francs and that she came on the Sunday for the money which I promised her.”

  With regard to the jewellery of the murdered woman which was found in the baggage of the accused, Goold declared that he took it with him, not to turn it into account for himself but simply to avoid being accused of the murder, if it was discovered in his house.

  The concluding part of the interrogation turned on the prisoner’s identity. He stated that his grandfather was created a baronet. His father was a magistrate in an Irish town and head of a family composed of seven children, six sons and a daughter.

  “All my brothers are dead,” said the accused, “with the exception of George Charles who is at present in Australia and who was born in 1847. One of my brothers was a captain in the Post Office service. Brother Ernest was an engineer in London. Another brother William died of smallpox in Dublin as did my sister who succumbed in hospital. I was settled in Dublin where I was appointed secretary of The Municipal Boundaries Commission of Inquiry into the Land Act.

  “I got the appointm
ent as an Inspector of Civil Service in 1891. It was in London that I made the acquaintance of my present wife at the house of a friend who lived in a square. We were married in August of the same year in the parish of Bayswater. My marriage certificate was in the handbag which contained the head and limbs of Madame Levin. At that time I had an income of £400 a year which I received from the Earl of Cork.

  “As to my wife, she continued to manage her dressmaking shop which brought her £1,500 a year. Four years later we went to Montreal where we lived at 56 Drummond Street. After having made out fortune we returned to England and settled at Adelaide, Waterloo, near Liverpool. I started a laundry in which I lost a considerable amount of money. A friend then advised me to liquidate my affairs and to go to Monte Carlo and try my luck by means of a system which he said was infallible.

  “I did not lose, my winnings and losings about balancing themselves. I at present possess 10,500 $1 shares and 1,500 £1 shares. I also receive from my tenant an annual rent which is sufficient to live on. I did not kill Madame Levin in order to rob her. I acted in a fit of passion and under the influence of drink.”

  In terminating this extraordinary recital Goold repeated that his wife had nothing to do with the crime.

  Identification of the Jewellery

  Monte Carlo, Tuesday

  At 11 o’clock, M. Savard, the Examining Magistrate, took the evidence of Mme Giroudin, niece of the prisoner Goold. The jewellery sent here by the Marseilles police was shown to her and she recognised several of the trinkets as property of her relatives. Madame Castellazi was next examined and stated unhesitatingly that apart from the jewels identified by Mlle Giroudin belonging to her aunt and uncle, all the others belonged to the deceased Madame Levin.

  The report on what are supposed to be the human remains found at Larvotto has not yet been received. Dr Corniglion, to whom they were sent for examination is waiting until the alcohol in which they have been placed has produced the effect necessary to permit conclusive analysis to be carried out. No further announcement has been made concerning the application for the extradition of the prisoners or their proposed temporary removal to Monaco for a “confrontation” and the reconstitution of the crime.