The wavering fortunes of the day were watched with the greatest attention and wherever a brilliant stroke of play was made it was greeted with loud applause. The weather during the greater part of the afternoon was beautifully fine, and beside the attractions afforded by the contests, many appeared to appreciate those of the promenade during the intervals that succeeded each game. The band of the 77th Regiment, by permission of Colonel Kent, attended and excellently played a selection of music, which considerably added to the pleasantness of the occasion.
The play being confined to gentleman’s doubles, no ladies took part in this, the commencing portion of the contest. As from bat to bat the ball was struck, caught again and on the bat of the antagonist, and again came the whistling through the air, to be eagerly watched and as quickly followed with a ready and skilful blow, the scene presented by the players was animated and extremely interesting. Beside the ball and the simple bats used, there are no other artificial adjuncts to this play, with the exception of a red-topped netting stretched across between the divisions, chalked in white on the soft green grass-grown ground.
Considered as a means of affording the beautiful open-air exercise without even a suspicion of danger or a temptation for injurious over-exertion, the game of lawn tennis must unquestionably meet with the approval of all. The play yesterday continued to the fall of evening and had not concluded until after 8 o’clock. Three rounds of doubles were played and the first prize was won by Messrs Elliot and Kellie of the 82nd Regiment.”
One of the players involved in the doubles was Vere St Leger Goold partnered by Phillips who progressed to the third round where they were defeated by CD Barry and Aungier 6-4, 2-6, 6-2. Their victorious opponents were defeated by Elliot and Kellie in the final round 2-6, 6-3, 8-7. But there would be glory waiting for Goold in the men’s singles final which he won defeating CD Barry in straight sets 8-6, 8-6.
He was the star of Fitzwilliam in this period. His name was so prominent that when the colours of the club were changed to chocolate and maize, the second colour was more often referred to as ‘gold’ in honour of the club champion. As another outstanding player was E de S.H. Browne, the club colours became to be known as Brown and Gold.
A man with the world at his feet it seemed. In the very same year as he took the inaugural Irish Open championship title, he would go on to reach the Wimbledon final and his opponent Rev J.T. Hartley would say of him later: “At that time he was a happy impetuous Irishman, the champion of his own country and all in all a fine player. He was given to volley more than any of the rest would but there must have been something amiss with his game, for after a good night’s sleep I would beat him easily in three sets.”
J.G. Heathcote had been defeated by Rev Hartley in the quarter finals. A large proportion of the competitors in 1879 adopted a very safe style of play, introduced by the previous year’s champion and Hartley was pre-eminent in that style. Over a thousand spectators watched him defeat Goold in the All Comers Final. Hartley was renowned as a steady basecourt player, with a persistent return of serve.
He did not expect to reach the final which was being played on Monday and had arranged to cover for Sunday service back in his Yorkshire parish. He made a 500-mile round trip by train to fulfil his ecclesiastical duties. He was the only clergyman ever to win a Wimbledon final. The format in those years was that the All Comers winner would play the defending champion in a one-off challenge to decide the championship.
But in that year Patrick Hadow did not defend his title, so Hartley was awarded the championship on a walk over. He took prize money of 12 guineas and a silver cup worth 25 guineas. As defending champion the following year he defeated the All Comers winner Fortescue Lawford over four sets 6-3, 6-2, 2-6, 6-3.
How good Goold was considered as a tennis player of his time was not in doubt. The great player J.G. Heathcote and an equally good commentator put him up with the best. In the matter of the hugely popular game of the time, his subsequent switching to gambling had no part in his game of tennis.
That there is little luck in tennis, Heathcote maintained, may be inferred from the fact that a “bisque” taken or received will materially alter the chances of success, while the odds of “half-fifteen” or approximately one stroke in eight, would make an issue of a match between two equal players nearly a certainty. The surest key therefore to success, is practice, aided by an ambition and encouraged by elation consequent on well earned victory.
In this year, 1879, Heathcote recalled, was also inaugurated the Championship of Ireland played in Dublin and repeated with ever increasing prestige every year. The prize was won by Mr V. Goold at the time better known by the name of St Leger under which he played. The meeting was further remarkable as being the first occasion in which ladies competed for a championship, on this occasion, secured by Miss P. Langrishe, whose name occurs frequently in lawn tennis annals.
A proof of the increasing popularity of the game, as well as the general possibility of success not at that time limited, as now is the case, to three or four well known players, is furnished by the fact that there were forty-five competitors for the All England Championship of 1879, of whom nine had taken part in previous contests at Wimbledon. Mr P. F. Hadow the holder, being in Ceylon, could not defend his title but the list in addition to Messrs Erskine and Lawford, the second and third prize winners of the previous year, included Messrs W. Renshaw, E. Renshaw, A. J. Mulholland, O.E. Wodehouse, E. Lubbock, C.F. Parr, V. Goold, the Irish champion, C.D. Barry who had taken second honours in Dublin and J.T. Hartley, of whom the last, though quite unknown at Wimbledon came from Yorkshire with a great reputation.
Of these, the two Renshaws were prevented from putting in an appearance, but the absence of two men of 18 years of age was hardly noticed at the time amid the host of competitors; and no forecast could at that time be made of their coming greatness. At the end of six rounds, made necessary by the large number of entries, Mr J.T. Hartley emerged as the winner, like his predecessor an old Harrovian, but unlike him a tennis player that had represented Oxford in 1870.
His closest struggle was in the second round against Mr L.P. Erskine, but the practice he had in the earlier matches was of the highest value to him and when on the final day he met and vanquished Mr V. Goold, he was undoubtedly a much stronger player than he had been on the occasion of his first match on the All England ground, a week before. The result of the play was summed up by a writer in a daily paper: “Safety is the first requisite in lawn tennis and brilliancy the second” and this remark, from which as a general proposition large deductions should be made, was certainly true of the tournament of 1879.
The showy and attractive style of Mr Goold, with all its brilliancy, could achieve no success against the unfailing judgement which was the most conspicuous characteristic of Mr Hartley’s game. The French proverb, “La belle recherche, le bon joueur” might indeed be applied to the lawn tennis championship of 1879. It was not so much he who went after the ball as the ball went after him. The accuracy of his return, too, was equal to that of his judgement, and though tested, by modern standards, he might not be classed as a hard hitter, he nevertheless made the ball travel at a good pace. Seldom volleying himself, he would repeatedly defeat the tactics of a volleyer by passing him in the most dexterous manner.
In short, he was more accurate than hard hitters, and hit harder than the accurate players of his day, and this combination of qualities secured for him victory, which was as popular as it was unexpected. Mr V. Goold took the second and Mr Parr the third prize.
It may have been accidental circumstances or due to the prevailing type of play, that service in this tournament more than maintained its old supremacy, the analysis showing that, with the service line unaltered and excluding hollow matches and those played on one day when the wind was excessive, service won 352 games and lost 295, a proportion of about eleven to nine, while the strokes won by the server were to those won by the striker out, in the proportion of twenty-four to t
wenty-three.
One more open tournament was played in Cheltenham in October, partly outdoor on asphalt and partly on a covered court and was won by Mr W. Renshaw who defeated Mr V. Goold. It was a hard-fought and close contest all the way going to five sets, 6-4, 6-3, 5-6,5-6, 6-4, Goold having been up 4-1 in the final set.
The future achievements of his opponent Renshaw would only serve to underline the undoubted talents of the Irish player who could mix it with an opponent who would go on to create Wimbledon history. A reporter summed up the winner: “With more experience he will trouble the best players in the Kingdom. He is most active in the court and seldom misses a return.”
It was an accurate prediction. The following year, W. Renshaw won the Irish Championship, defeating successively R.T. Richardson, H.F. Lawford, M.G. McNamara, E. S. de Browne and V. Goold, the previous year’s champion. He was only 19 and considered amongst the strongest players in England and Ireland.
In dealing with the encroaching monotony of the game it was remarked that some originality had been given to it by the versatile genius of Gore, the unerring judgement of Hartley and the unstudied grace of Goold – the opposite of mechanical precision.
In 1881, W. Renshaw retained the Irish title, won the Princes tournament and won Wimbledon at the age of 20. He also won the doubles title with his brother Ernest at Oxford and Dublin. He won all Wimbledon titles from that year until 1887 after which he retired as a result of tennis elbow.
Goold just once again displayed the talent which, if disciplined and honed, would have led to even greater heights when in an international doubles game he and his partner W.H. Daly defeated the number one English duo of H. Lawford and A.J. Mulholland.
But by the end of 1883 his tennis career was effectively finished. Other infinitely less healthy pursuits had replaced the racket and the ball.
Professor Lacassagne summed up:
“It would seem to me, gentlemen, that quite apart from the well established facts of M. Gould’s recent history, addiction to gambling and alcohol, he was a man of seemingly impeccable family history and an athlete in his youth of great promise. He had, as the saying goes, everything in life going for him. He has during his incarceration achieved with the help of chaplains and reading, something of what could be described as a process of rehabilitation. Yet the enormity of the crime seems to overwhelm all his past and present situation.” He paused. “I open the forum.”
Dr Dufour posited that his addictions to gambling and alcohol had got the better of any of his best instincts and that his relationship with a dominating woman imbued with fantasies bred from a relatively modest background had added to these acquired weaknesses. She, he added, was determined to acquire a status of life that would prove continually beyond both of their means, and an ambition that defied her husband’s innate weakness of character.
Goold, when he first examined him showed signs of hopeless addiction to alcohol. He had to treat him for the effects of delirium tremens. Such a man was open to suggestion of a stronger more effective partner in a relationship. He would literally do anything to please this woman, including the fantastical act of coming to Monte Carlo, to beat a bank that, despite well-publicised acts of this nature could not in the end of the day be beaten.
Magistrate Savard, with the benefit of plenty experience of this kind in the Principality, agreed. The streets of Monaco were paved with such hopeless ambitions, not much publicised because it did not suit the ambitions of the administration. The Graveyard of the Suicides provided enough evidence of such destroyed fantasy. This case, he felt, was a form of suicide by any other name. Unfortunately the victim was not given that option; the perpetrators took that route by their crazy action, which in his opinion had no chance of success.
But then again, the professor interjected, chance intervened and without that element, the outcome could have been quite different. Also he acknowledged there was a certain incompetence involved, but this is the risk all murderers take – no more than the habitués of the casino. Hindsight is all too fickle in its own way.
Magistrate Malavialle concurred with the professor. It was on appearance an act of incompetence. How could the Goolds hope to escape from the consequences of their action? Sure, it was planned but there was evidence of unrestrained rage. The battering of the head of Madame Levin and the stab wounds to the front and back. The crude cutting of the body and the evidence of bloodstains that could not be effectively cleaned at the site.
Dr Grasset said that it was beyond his imagination that a man of Goold’s lineage, privilege and opportunities had chosen the path that had led him to this pass. It demonstrated that there was an innate weakness in his character, a self-destructive impulse which had driven him to the most desperate measures of survival, aided by attempted obliteration of his circumstances by drink.
“I would not entirely agree with M. Malavialle in the use of the word incompetent. That can too easily seem to be the case after the event. The curious aspect for me was the removal of a portion of the intestines. This displayed some basic medical knowledge of the process of bodily decomposition. The soft organs decomposing first. So where did this come from? I can only guess that Goold may have had a medical student for a friend or tennis partner while an undergraduate at Trinity College. Such a decision was hardly taken during the process of dismemberment. However crude the crime may appear to professionals, it might well have succeeded had the trunk been sufficiently insulated with packing material to prevent any leakage. However much he was dominated by his wife, there was a fatal chink in the character of Goold that allowed him to participate in the ghastly act. Its provenance is not obvious to me from the material we have at our disposal.”
Dupin kept, as did Garonne, his counsel. They were police investigators, they would leave the psychology to the doctors and legal matters to the magistrates but when and if called would give their views. They felt that whatever transpired from the conversation, it would be their role to corroborate the scientific facts.
The Marseilles chief investigator, when asked his opinion, referred briefly to Dr Grasset’s assessment of the matter of the entrails.
“There is little doubt in my mind that the removal during the commission of the crime proved intent in advance. That is allowing that Dr Corniglion could not connect them directly, those found on Larvotto beach, to the victim. But the discovery is beyond coincidence. Where such knowledge came from I could not comment upon with any degree of accuracy. But I would concur that the effort failed on the basis of poor concealment in the aftermath. That undoubtedly led to the discovery of the victim.”
The professor, on the basis of Goold’s biological background, could only deduce in a speculative manner from the evidence that his father was a strong man and probably dominating in the manner of a magistrate who regarded his professional life as far more important than his family life. The elder son Sir Stephen had fled the family coop to Australia where he worked in a position that might be viewed as well below his station but was more than happy in that role. He had wanted to get away.
“We have among the files,” noted the professor, “a letter from Goold’s father to the authorities in relation to an aborted Irish uprising of the time which reveals a lot about his character. It might, considering the religion of the family within the context of its history, be seen as a form of betrayal. He certainly was joined to an English administration which had little to offer the Irish native population in their aspirations towards some sense of freedom. A tough self-serving character, by all accounts.
Vere Goold’s mother died when he was only 17 years of age and his father towards the end of 1879, the year of his greatest achievements. There is not a lot to deduce from that, other than the speculation that he may well have, in his earlier life, as the youngest of seven children, lacked a maternal comfort and perhaps suffered from an overbearing paternal presence. Many, if one was to attempt to take this into account, have suffered worse familial experience without resorting to dubious pra
ctices in later life, not to mind serious crime.
Goold seemed to have more regard for the family lineage than his brother but only when it suited his purpose in the extremities of financial need. His abandonment of his very promising tennis career displayed a weakness of character, not wishing to put in the sweat of practice and sacrifice that brought his rival Renshaw to heights which Goold’s talent could also have brought him. He then married a woman who by her nature played more the role of mother than wife, but with all the expectations of privilege, on her part, which that marriage did not provide. She could and did exploit her husband’s weakness but largely to no avail.
“The accounts provided by the investigators and the examining magistrates suggest to me, along with the utter denial of Mrs Goold of her dominant role in the murder and her propensity to feigned hysteria, that her husband was more her instrument in the crime. He carried out her wishes, as he always did. His deranged behaviour in the commission of the crime urges me to conclude that at no stage in his sociological and psychological development did Goold display any characteristics of the killers that I have had the dubious fortune to study.”
The professor pointed to two photographs of Goold as a young tennis player, one in the Wimbledon championships and another at a tournament some five years later at Fitzwilliam Tennis Club, his alma mater. He noted in the earlier one a man of quiet, handsome demeanour, determined of expression. The latter, he pointed out, placed at the back of a group of which in the front row sat one of the Renshaw brothers, his facial character was much diminished, jaw drawn and his eyes staring in no particular direction. The sense of determination had for some reason vanished.
It appeared that he had abandoned the game of skill to one of chance, a great pity, given his innate ability. And thus forfeit some basic hold over his destiny.
Murder in Monte Carlo Page 25
