Murder in Monte Carlo

by Michael Sheridan

  This afternoon the examining magistrate with the assistance of an expert went through the letters and other documents found at the Villa Menesini, where the Goolds lived, and which was the scene of the murder. For the most part they were love letters exchanged by the prisoners when they were in London. Mlle Giroudin communicated to the magistrate various letters which she has received since the murder which contain all sorts of suggestions.

  Grey River Argus

  August 16th 1907

  THE MONTE CARLO TRAGEDY

  THE REPORTED SUICIDE OF GOOLD

  THE GOOLDS CONFESS

  Paris, August 15th

  The Goolds ordered a Marseilles hotel waiter to provide them with a deal box. It is surmised that they intended to transfer the head and legs from the bag.

  Madame Levin lost heavily while gambling at Monte Carlo. She told a chambermaid that she was unable to resist the attraction.

  Mrs Goold, replying to an examining magistrate, confessed that her husband murdered Madame Levin with an Indian knife. She was not present when the deed was done. On entering the room she saw Madame Levin dead on the floor and her husband covered with blood. He implored her to help him so to avert all suspicion. He was too drunk to begin cleaning up the remains and this was done the next day. Mrs Goold was unable to explain why her husband had killed Madame Levin.

  Goold explained to the magistrate that the day before the murder, Madame Levin had asked him to lend her 500 francs. When she came to his villa she asked him for another 500 francs, explaining that she wanted to give it to her banker. Goold refused and heated words followed and in a fit of rage, accentuated by drink, he stabbed her in the back but only dealt one blow. His wife did not participate in the deed and he alone had cut up the body and placed the dismembered body in the trunk and the valise. Robbery was not the motive and he had ample means to live on.

  London August 15th

  The Daily Telegraph’s Marseilles correspondent reports that after the magistrate’s departure, Goold hanged himself in prison.

  Paris, August 15th

  Nobody believes Goold’s statement that he possessed ample means and that his motive for the crime was not robbery. The Marseilles newspapers deny that Goold has committed suicide.

  Paris, August 15th

  The examining magistrate found in the ante-room of Goolds’ villa at Monte Carlo, a tray containing two used glasses and a third upside down on the tray which was bloodstained. This is inferred to mean that Madame Levin was attacked soon after she entered the house, the third unused glass having been placed for her to drink from. The French magistrate is enquiring into the antecedents of the prisoners in England, Lasone and Montreal.

  Irish Times

  Saturday, August 17th, 1907

  TRUNK MURDER MYSTERY

  DISCOVERIES IN THE MONTE CARLO

  CRIME

  Not for years has any crime possessed so much interest for so many places widely apart as the Monte Carlo tragedy. Even Canada and Australia are dragged into the grim story. For the accused couple, Mr and Mrs Goold, charged with murdering and mutilating Mme Levin in their flat in the gambling Mecca, sojourned in Canada in their chequered career and the male prisoner’s brother, Sir Stephen Goold, a baronet of Irish blood made his home in Australia many years ago.

  In Liverpool and London the Goolds also lived, and many remember him with respect and esteem. They were married at the Roman Catholic Church of St Mary of the Angels, Paddington. They were equally well known in Ireland, Paris and the Riviera. Their alleged victim Mme Levin was a native of Malmo in Sweden, the widow of a prosperous merchant of Stockholm and Copenhagen. Thus the tentacles of tragedy spread far and near commanding worldwide attention.

  Mr Goold, for years assumed the title of Sir Vere Goold, presuming his brother’s death in the Antipodes, while his wife passed as Lady Goold. From the latest facts disclosed, there seems little doubt that gambling, borrowing and debt were the motive springs of the tragedy. Mme Levin, the victim, had lent the Goolds £40 and was pressing for repayment. She was known to possess valuable jewels and a large quantity of these were discovered in the possession of the accused couple.

  In a box room where it is believed the body was put into a trunk, blood splashes told of the grim tragedy enacted there. Four names stand out in the appalling drama. They are: Emma Eriken Levin, a Swedish woman aged 37, widow of M. Levin, merchant of Stockholm, a Dane, frequented Monte Carlo and fond of jewellery; Vere St Leger Goold, born October 2nd, 1853, brother of Sir James Goold Baronet of Adelaide, South Australia; Mrs Goold, Violet, daughter of Hippolyte Giroudin of Isère, France; Mlle Giroudin, niece of the accused, aged 24, daughter of Mrs Goold’s brother who was taken charge of by her aunt and uncle when her father died some years ago, but not implicated in the crime.

  The crime was committed on Sunday August 4th at the Goold’s house and the mangled remains of the victim were found in the trunk at Marseilles station the next day. Mrs and Mrs Goold were arrested there. A dagger and evidences from the murder were afterwards found in their rooms at Monte Carlo. A servant girl says that she heard noise and a struggle on Sunday. Splashes of blood were in the drawing room and box room.

  Mrs Goold Goes Into Hysterics In Court

  After passing through many stages in rapid succession the case now goes to Monte Carlo from Marseilles where the trunk and its gruesome contents were discovered and opened. All the evidence will be sent to Monte Carlo with the prisoners as soon as the extradition formalities are completed. The examination of the accused couple in Marseilles was dramatic in the extreme. In accordance with French criminal procedure, the commissioner of police informed the accused of the results of the post mortem and the discoveries made by the police in the Villa Menesini at Monte Carlo where the murder is alleged to have been committed and asked them to explain the circumstantial evidence obtained by the gendarmes.

  Their replies were unsatisfactory and suddenly the magistrate with a stern voice and accusing gesture said: “You stunned your victim with a heavy instrument and then stabbed her to the heart with a knife. You cut her to pieces and dismembered her. She has jewels worth £3,200 upon her when you killed her and you made away with them. You are a pair of murderers, confess your crime.

  “Confess your crime!” he roared bringing his clenched fist down on the desk.

  The woman began to answer him and the magistrate, pointing a finger at her, shouted, “You are a murderer and you know it, come confess.”

  Goold’s face paled and he hung his head but the effect on his wife was more startling. She uttered a shriek and fell into a violent fit of hysteria. All efforts to compose her proved in vain and she had to be removed to the infirmary.

  When asked where the jewellery found in his wife’s possession came from. Goold replied that it was given to his wife a few days before her death by Mme Levin, who was in financial straits and wished Lady Goold to ‘dispose of it.’ Goold repeated that he had no hand in the abominable murder of which he is suspected. He admits doing wrong in cutting up the body but says he only did it in order to get rid of it so as to avoid a scandal.

  When the prisoners left the Palais De Justice, and angry mob surged around with cries of “Lynch him, lynch him”.

  Method Of The Murder

  The prosecution seems to have come to the conclusion that Mme Levin was suddenly stunned and then simultaneously stabbed in two places, either wound being instantaneously fatal. The dismemberment was performed in the bath. A search in the Villa Menesini resulted in the finding of two handsaws and a dagger lying on a bloodstained box with a large revolver. There was also a parasol belonging to Mme Levin.

  The post mortem found that there were two stabs through the heart, from front and behind, and the victim had been first stunned with a blunt instrument.

  A correspondent reports that it has been confirmed that Goold sent a letter to a family of his acquaintance in Ballina looking for money to ease his financial difficulties the day before the murder.


  Monday, August 19th

  Marseilles

  Despite efforts of the defence counsel to make it appear that Goold because of his erratic behaviour is insane, he is reported to have quietened down and had a good night’s sleep. Prison authorities do not plan to send him to an asylum. This morning Goold who has since his incarceration been restricted to a milk diet told warders he was hungry and begged for roast beef. As a favour he was allowed to have it and ate it with a healthy appetite. Mrs Goold was reported to be in good health.

  The victim has been identified to the satisfaction of the examining magistrate as Emma Levin, a widow (née Alquist) 48 years of age. A few days ago Marseilles police received a letter from Cambridge signed Frederick Alquist and believed the murdered woman to be his sister. He enclosed a photograph of the late Mme Levin and his brother in law Leopold Levin, a moneychanger in Copenhagen who died two and a half years ago. He begged the police to show the photograph to persons who had known the deceased to establish her identity beyond doubt.

  The letter and photograph were forwarded to M. Malavialle, the examining magistrate, who in turn communicated it to M. Savard, examining magistrate at Monte Carlo. Her features were immediately recognised by those who knew her.

  Dr Corniglion who has been analysing the intestines found at Larvotto has now made his report which shows conclusively that the remains in question are portions of human viscera, but in such a state of advanced decomposition that it is impossible to say what they may have contained. M. Savard yesterday summoned Madame Castellazi and another witness acquainted with Mme Levin in order to obtain identification of shred of clothing found in the Villa Menesini as those belonging to the murder victim.

  New York Times

  Sunday, August 18th 1907

  Paris, August 17th

  Dramatic stories of the Monte Carlo Trunk Murder have been told to the examining magistrate at Marseilles by Vere St Leger Goold and his wife. Withdrawing his assertion that the murder was committed by a third person, Goold confessed that Emma Levin died by his hand alone. The substance of the confession is that she asked Goold to lend her 100 dollars to accommodate a young man to whom she had taken a fancy. When he refused, she abused him; he lost his temper, seized a dagger and killed her in a fit of blind fury.

  This version is considered unconvincing. The first improbability is in the assertion of Goold’s wife, that she being in a negligée costume and not expecting visitors, left Emma Levin with Goold; whereas the victim came to the house at 5 o’clock in the afternoon in consequence of an invitation to tea. She did not make a casual call.

  The Goold woman also asserted that she became insensible when she saw the body. But the neighbours say she appeared on the balcony of the house and remained there a few minutes immediately after the Levin woman’s voice was heard for the last time. A further fact tending to disprove Goold’s assertion that his victim needed money, is that she paid her hotel bill the day before her death and left 140 dollars in cash and valuable jewellery in a drawer; whereas the Goolds possessed hardly any money and had considerable debts. Their portable property was hardly worth 300 dollars.

  The murder and motive thus being established, the only point remaining for elucidation is the relative degree of guilt. All the evidence tends to show that Goold was entirely under his companion’s influence. He never displayed the least initiative. No one ever saw him in the state of alcoholic fury, to which the accused attributes his crime. The theory of the prosecution is that the murder was thought out by the woman, who persuaded the man that the only way out of their money difficulties was to kill Emma Levin, dispose of her body and obtain her valuables.

  The victim was known as an easy-going woman, always ready to make friends, somewhat vain, and fond of display. The Goolds knew that if she accepted an invitation to their house, she would be certain to wear plenty of jewellery. One theory is that the Goolds tried to make her sign a promissory note and killed her on her refusal in order to obtain the jewellery she wore. What she wore was valued at 5,000 dollars and afterwards found in their possession. The investigation of these points is likely to occupy the Marseilles magistrates for a considerable time. The question of the transfer of the prisoners to Monaco is still undecided, owing to the difficulty of ascertaining the Goold woman’s nationality and whether the Goolds were ever married.

  A further obstacle is the unwillingness of those who knew the parties at Monte Carlo to give evidence. All betray a strong desire not to be mixed up in the case. The victim herself was one of the most singular personalities in the affair. She belonged to a class of women who, though quite respectable, love to be regarded as demi-mondaines. She gambled at the Monte Carlo casino, beyond her means and often remained in a well known café until 2 o’clock in the morning. Friends repeatedly warned her against making promiscuous acquaintances but the attraction of appearing to live a dissipated life proved too strong for her.

  Late last night, Goold suddenly jumped out of bed, hammered frantically at the door and clamoured for help against imaginary enemies, who he said, were trying to cut off his legs and put them in a sack. This morning when he was allowed see his lawyer, he was seized with another fit of fury and attacked his visitor with his fists. The lawyer now declines to see his client again. Goold’s condition will be used in his trial in support of a plea that he is a madman.

  An Idea For Roosevelt.

  London, August 17th

  The sensation caused by the trunk murder case has induced a correspondent of the London Times to suggest yet another field of activity for President Roosevelt – nothing more or less than the suppression of Monte Carlo. The correspondent says: “Before the hideous Monte Carlo tragedy ceases to be a nine-day wonder, I would suggest that it’s time for attention to be drawn to the fons et origo mali – the gambling rooms in that notorious place.”

  The correspondent goes on to say that the Goolds are merely two among many victims of the vicious circumstances engendered by the place, and urges that the nations combine to wipe out such a plague spot. “President Roosevelt,” he adds, “might well assume the initiative of this righteous crusade for American plutocrats are as prominent at the tables as the aristocracy of Europe.”

  Irish Times

  Wednesday, August 21st 1907

  Monte Carlo, August 20th

  The jeweller who was called into value the trinkets found in Mme Levin’s room at the Hotel Bristol had declared them to be worth 2,300 francs (£92). The examining magistrate had before him today the street porter Gratta Gaetan who took the trunk containing the murdered woman’s remains to the railway station and the commissaire who opened it. Their evidence served to corroborate the original statement of the concierge that she was entirely ignorant of the contents. Both witnesses spoke of having noticed the agitated condition of the Goolds.

  A copy of Mlle Giroudin’s birth cert was received today by the examining magistrate. It proves that she is the niece, not the daughter of the prisoners and shows her to be 27 years of age. The magistrate has intimated that the present position of the case makes it incumbent on him to be much more reserved in his communications with the press.

  Irish Times

  Thursday, August 22nd 1907

  MONTE CARLO MURDER

  WHAT THE TRUNK CONTAINED

  Press Association Foreign Special

  Marseilles August 21st

  M. Hwas, an advocate of the Copenhagen Bar, as executor of the late Madame Levin’s estate arrived here this morning and, accompanied by the Danish consul, attended the Palace Of Justice, placing himself at the disposal of the examining magistrate, and volunteering all the information in his power as to the affairs and relationships of the murdered lady. The magistrate enquired of the extent of Mme Levin’s fortune.

  M. Hwas replied that she had an income of 8,000 kroner (£445) a year and besides this she had money on deposit in a Copenhagen bank. Therefore if she was in want of cash, she had only to telegraph for it. There was no need for her to borrow cash from
the Goolds. With regard to disposal of Mme Levin’s remains, M. Hwas said he had received no instructions on that point from the family. In the circumstances, the body would remain, for the present, in the communal grave in the cemetery of St Pierre where it had been interred.

  The Examining Magistrate made an inventory of the articles found in the trunk containing the mutilated remains, the particular purpose being to discover whether among them was a salmon-coloured bodice belonging to Mrs Goold and which she was wearing when Mme Levin called at the villa on the fatal afternoon and it is supposed to have been taken off after the crime.

  It is slightly stained with blood but seeing that it had been placed in the trunk along with the recently dismembered corpse, the blood spots do not necessarily prove that bodice was bespattered while the crime was actually being committed. The inventory also includes a broken fan, which is believed to have belonged to the deceased woman, with a dress and another bodice belonging to Mrs Goold and various other articles of apparel belonging to the accused including a man’s shirt, with the cuffs cut off.

  M. Hwas left tonight for Monte Carlo to confer with the examining magistrate there on behalf of the victim’s family. Mme Levin’s jewellery will not be given up until after the trial.

  Monte Carlo, August 21st

  A gentleman named Halo at present residing here is reported to have made a statement to the effect that he was acquainted with Madame Levin and had a conversation with her at about 11 o’clock the night before the crime, when she mentioned she had 500 francs (£20) in her possession at that moment. It is presumed if she still had that sum the following day and if the prisoners took it, then this would account for the money found on them when they were arrested at Marseilles. Thanks to the good offices of the examining magistrate, Mlle Giroudin has obtained a post as a governess in a respectable family residing in the Principality.