by Payne, Chris
Berkeley, after publicly denying that he had any involvement with the Society, had written to Walters seeking compensation for the ‘injuries he had sustained’ by his apparent association with the fraud. In response, Walters had sent Berkeley some letters which he had unwisely signed, in his own handwriting, as ‘W. Osborne’. Berkeley decided to use these letters against Walters to try to negotiate financial compensation, suspecting that Walters must have raised substantial sums of money from the fraud. Certainly Walters was already living in style, having rented a large property, and was seen driving around in a carriage and pair; the carriage having armorial bearings and the motto Qualis ab incepto (’the same as from the beginning’) – rather apt for a villain who started young and continued in the same vein.64
When attempts to obtain financial compensation from Walters had not achieved resolution, Berkeley, together with two of his friends, Manning and Portch, fixed a meeting with Walters through Walters’ partner in crime, Murray. Murray took them to a property in the Holloway Road where they found Walters and a man named Kerr. Berkeley later gave an account in court of what followed:
Portch began reading the letters, upon which Walters said those were the ones he had wanted. The door was then opened by Kerr, and four or five ‘roughs’ came in, from the upper part of the house and seized Portch, threw him down on his back on a sofa, and after seizing him by the throat, took the letters from him. Portch was a stout man and he became very black in the face. The door had been previously locked on the inside by Kerr. Witness [Berkeley] was pushed back in a chair. After the papers had been taken from Portch it was suggested that Walters should go out and see if they were those he had wanted. He went out and, returning, said they were ‘all right’. Manning was seized and some papers were taken from him and thrown into the fire. Witness was searched by Murray who took from him a batch of documents and threw them into the fire. Before that he had asked witness if any of the papers referred to Walters. Witness said they did, and it was then Murray took them and threw them on the fire. One was a legal document, which witness, by the advice of his solicitor, had submitted to Mr. Montagu Williams. Then they made witness sit down and sign a paper which Walters had dictated. In that, witness was made to apologize for stating that he had any papers seized by Walters relating to betting transactions either in London or elsewhere. Immediately after witness had signed the document, the men who had come from upstairs, with Walters and Kerr, left the place. Walters had previously said that theirs ‘was a very hot mob’ and that he had done better jobs than that in America. Murray pulled out a handful of notes and said to witness he had better have a ‘fiver’. Witness declined, upon which Manning signified to him that he had better take it. Witness afterwards went with Portch and Manning to consult his solicitor.65
These events had led to the arrest of Walters and Murray by Clarke, on a charge of assault. There were four other men named in the arrest warrant but Clarke had not been able to locate them.66 One of these was Kerr who, though not yet arrested, soon had a representative in court watching the case on his behalf. By 2 March the Home Office was showing close interest and confirmed that the Treasury Solicitor would take over the prosecution which now included an additional charge of conspiracy to defraud.67 After due deliberation, the Clerkenwell magistrate informed the court that he felt that the case for assault had not been ‘made’, probably because suspicion was attached to aspects of the evidence given by Berkeley and Portch. Anticipating these events, Clarke and a colleague were waiting outside the court when Walters and Murray were released, and the two men were re-arrested, this time on a warrant issued in the City charging them with defrauding persons in France, Germany and Russia.68
On Saturday 6 March, Clarke and Harry Poland were rushing from one courtroom to another. For part of the day they were at Lambeth Police Court presenting prosecution evidence in a betting house case in Southwark. The rest of the day was spent at the Mansion House, before the lord mayor. By now Scotland Yard had assembled evidence of the turf fraud against Walters and Murray which Clarke presented. At least four detectives from the detective department were working on the case, including those with foreign language skills such as George Greenham. Several witnesses were called who had let office accommodation to Walters and Murray, with one female witness stating that she thought that at least seven men had been involved to her knowledge. The prisoners were remanded without bail. At later hearings during March and April, Berkeley was again called to give evidence, as were other ‘directors’ who had been listed on the advertisements, all of whom denied knowledge of, or involvement in, the scheme. Representatives of the postal authorities and parcels agency who had delivered items to the suspect offices were also called. Fifty-eight packages that had been detained in December 1874 were opened in court; all were found to be from Russia and contained remittances of money. By the conclusion of the prosecution evidence the Treasury authorities estimated that upwards of £16,000 had been received from abroad in response to the advertisements.69
On 11 April Clarke received a visit at his home from a London-based accountant, Mr Frederick Andrews, who informed Clarke that a business colleague in Shanklin, Mr George Yonge, could give some information about the turf fraud. Waiving Andrews’ offer of travel expenses, Clarke decided to travel down to see Yonge the following day, after first clearing the visit with Superintendent Williamson. Arriving in the evening, Clarke interviewed Yonge and also breakfasted with him the following day before returning to London. Yonge was a cripple, apparently from injuries received in a railway accident, and could only walk small distances with the aid of two sticks; though being of slight build he was frequently carried about by his manservant. During their discussions, Yonge admitted that he had been indirectly involved with Walters and Murray, having translated a prospectus for them but, as he was a cripple, he would appreciate Clarke’s help to make it unnecessary for him to have to travel to court, adding that he could provide Clarke with £100 if that would help. Spurning the offer of money, Clarke returned to London and reported to Williamson that he had seen Yonge, who he regarded as an ‘infernal scoundrel’, but who might be able to help in the Walters and Murray case.70
On 27 April the lord mayor, having heard sufficient details from both the prosecution and the defence representatives, committed Walters and Murray for trial at the Old Bailey and they were remanded in custody. Much to Clarke’s concern, on 5 May an application was made for bail, which was granted.71 As Clarke had feared, when their trial date arrived there was no sign of Walters and Murray.72 It later became known that they had absconded to America where their fraudulent skills and gangster-like propensities made sure that they could earn a living. Murray returned to Britain in 1876 and was soon back in prison. Precisely when Walters returned is not clear. However, when he did return he had added forgery to his other criminal attributes. As one of Clarke’s colleagues was to comment in 1894:
Probably there has been no criminal in the last quarter of a century who has given the detective police – not only those of the metropolitan force and of the City of London, but also those of the provinces and Ireland – so much work to do as the notorious forger, William Walters, the king of a very dangerous gang of ‘cheque raisers’ … The members of the ‘mob’ regarded him as a genius and looked up to him as their leader.73
Nonetheless, even criminal geniuses can get caught and Walters was tried at the Old Bailey in March 1880, pleading ‘guilty’ to forging and uttering a cheque and was sentenced to twenty years’ penal servitude.74
What became apparent with hindsight was that Walters and Murray were essentially the ‘front men’ for the gang involved in the 1874 Society turf fraud case. There were at least two others behind the scenes who were responsible for the design and implementation of the fraudulent scheme. One was Kerr, who avoided arrest and who would emerge in another turf fraud in 1876 as ‘William Kurr’. The other was Kurr’s partner in this and other ventures, Mr G.H. Yonge, the physically crippled but ment
ally alert Isle of Wight resident who had been so keen to talk to Clarke, and whose real name was Harry Benson. Unknowingly, by walking through Mr Yonge’s front door in Shanklin, Clarke had met his nemesis – but he was not to realise that for some time yet.
6
SUICIDE, ACCIDENTAL DEATH OR MURDER?
1876–77
When lovely woman stoops to folly
And finds her husband in the way,
What charm can soothe her melancholy
What art can turn him into clay?
The only means her aim to cover,
And save herself from prison locks.
And repossess her ancient lover
Are Burgundy and Mrs Cox!
Anonymous1
Clarke’s first major case in 1876 did not appear until March. Before then he had held the fort at Scotland Yard while Superintendent Williamson was overseas, investigating mutiny and murder on the British merchant ship Lennie.2 In February the hazards of the job were highlighted by the unexpected death of Detective Inspector Davey, who had been sent to Naples to extradite a prisoner. While in Italy, Davey had gone down ‘with an attack of a malarious fever’ but had insisted on returning to Britain with his prisoner. On arrival he had collapsed and died; his prisoner escaped but was later re-arrested by Detective Sergeant Greenham.3 Davey’s position was promptly filled by John Meiklejohn, who had previously been overlooked for promotion in 1875.4 Meiklejohn’s replacement as detective sergeant was German-born Charles von Tornow; ‘blessed with a rare amount of courage, daring, and resourcefulness’, he would work closely with Clarke during the next two years.5
A Curious Case of Conspiracy to Murder
At the end of March, Clarke’s attention was alerted to some correspondence from the post office ‘dead letter office’ that contained intriguing references to death by poison. The letter, addressed to ‘M.Q.’, had been written on 23 February 1876 and was delivered to the Junction Road post office in Kentish Town. It had remained uncollected for a month and had been transferred to the dead letter office, where it was read by a clerk who reported its contents to his superiors. It had then been forwarded to Scotland Yard.
No one reading the lengthy letter could doubt that the writer (who signed himself ‘W.K.V.’, from 59 Euston Road) was responding to an individual who intended to poison someone with chloral in a manner that would not cause undue suspicion. Extracts included:
I must say there is a risk of discovery with whatever mode of death … The peculiarity of my suggestion is that although the actual cause of death is found out, and that a narcotic, yet the verdict will be the most lenient – viz., ‘by misadventure,’ or as it is phrased sometimes more specifically, ‘the deceased was in the habit of taking chloral, and died from an overdose incautiously administered by himself’ … The cases of the poisoners Pritchard and Palmer, both doctors, were ingenious, yet they were detected. They lived before these chloral times…6
Fortunately, the letter contained sufficient clues to discover the writer: ‘I write this letter at 52, Brady-street, Bethnal-green where I am since yesterday doing full duty for Surgeon Mainwaring. We have a surgery here, and I have access to the drugs, bottles and labels…’7
When Clarke had located the surgeon, the author was identified from his handwriting as one of Mainwaring’s locums, William Kingston Vance. However, the identity of the intended recipient was unknown. Here Clarke had some good luck, as the post office authorities told him that they had received a letter from a ‘William Quarll’ asking for poste restante letters addressed to ‘M.Q.’ and ‘Q.W.’ to be returned to Junction Road post office for collection. The authorities did as requested and Clarke arranged for the post office to be kept under surveillance. When a woman arrived to collect the letter she was followed to her lodgings in Camden Town by Detective Sergeants Manton and Robson. She was identified as Ellen Snee, a married woman whose husband, Frederick, was often overseas. By keeping Snee under surveillance, the connection was established between her and Vance when she purchased a money order in the name of ‘W. Quarll’, made payable to ‘William K. Vance’, at a Camden Town post office. By 21 April, Clarke had sufficient information to obtain warrants for the arrest of both Vance and Snee on charges of conspiracy to commit murder.
Vance was arrested at 59 Euston Road, and ‘came quietly’, obligingly providing Clarke with a copy of an advertisement in the Daily Telegraph which had prompted the correspondence: ‘To medical men in need of money, or to students well up in chymistry [sic] and anatomy. A gentleman engaged in an interesting experiment is willing to give liberal remuneration for professional assistance, Q.W., Post office, Junction-road, Kentish-town, N.W.’8 Having replied to the advertisement, Vance had then received a letter, which had later caused him to write his uncollected response. The letter read as follows:
I am tired of my life. I could do a great deal of good to a person I am interested in by leaving the world just now, and, one way or another, I am resolved to do so, but if possible I should prefer not to wound the feelings of the person who will gain most by my death, by allowing it to be supposed voluntary. Besides, the most merciful verdict of a coroner’s jury would be sufficient to invalidate my will. Now, although I have some acquaintance with medicine and chymistry [sic], I know of no drug or combination of drugs which would do this for me without risk of discovery. It is possible you may … I am willing to allow time for experiments, and have no objection to a personal interview. I will give any assurance of bona fides that may be thought necessary. I only request that this communication be considered strictly private.9
Vance had never met his curiously suicidal correspondent, and was indeed surprised to discover that a woman was involved. His lodgings were searched by Clarke and a large quantity of drugs were removed. These were sent for analysis to Dr Thomas Bond, lecturer on forensic medicine at Westminster Hospital (later to become known for his forensic association with the Jack the Ripper murders and as one of the first individuals to attempt offender profiling). The detectives then travelled to Camden Town to arrest Ellen Snee, who was ‘a good deal alarmed and surprised’.10
Snee and Vance appeared at Bow Street Police Court on three occasions between 21 April and 5 May, during which time Clarke and his colleagues were adding to the evidence against the two prisoners. Five more letters relevant to the case were found at the Kentish Town post office; Snee’s landlady described her as ‘a person who was suffering’, and one of the bottles removed from Vance’s house was found to contain chloral, a drug that Thomas Bond confirmed would provide a death whose symptoms would appear similar to natural causes. At the end of the hearing on 5 May the prisoners were committed for trial at the Old Bailey, both being charged with conspiracy to murder Ellen Snee; Vance additionally being charged with unlawfully encouraging Snee to commit self-murder.11 (It was only in 1961 that the Suicide Act decriminalised suicide in England and Wales.)
This strange case, which ‘excited much interest’, came to trial on 31 May. Clarke was the first prosecution witness to appear, adding to his previous evidence by stating that an impression of the name ‘William Quarll’ had been found in Ellen Snee’s diary. Snee’s landlady informed the court that her tenant often suffered much pain and had three cats, one of which had recently been sick, the implication being that it had been used as a ‘guinea-pig’ to evaluate the effect of chloral. Snee’s defence counsel contended that an attempt to commit suicide was not an attempt to commit murder, but was overruled. The jury retired for thirty minutes before reaching a ‘guilty’ verdict, but recommended both prisoners to mercy – Vance on the basis of his previously good character, and Snee because of the frequent absence of her husband. Snee received six months’ imprisonment and Vance eighteen months, though the judge showed some regret that the relevant statute did not allow him to sentence Vance to ten years’ penal servitude.12 By 1881 William Vance had resumed his medical career; however, Ellen Snee had already achieved her objective of an early death. She died on 18 April 1880, n
ot from chloral poisoning, but from tuberculosis.
The Balham Mystery
Before Clarke had completed the Vance and Snee inquiry, another poisoning case landed on his desk on 1 May 1876. The coincidence of the two events occurring within weeks of one another was noted in The Times on 18 May: ‘The investigations have been made by one of the most experienced detectives, Inspector G. Clarke, under Superintendent Williamson … they have come to the conclusion that there is no reason to suppose that there is any … connexion.’13 The second case was nevertheless to become the public sensation of 1876.
On the morning of 21 April 1876 Charles Bravo, a barrister in his thirties, had died at his home, the Priory in Balham. It was an unexplained death (though as far as his wife was concerned, a suspected suicide). A post-mortem was undertaken and the inquest took place at the Priory. Neither the coroner nor Bravo’s family or friends took any early action to notify the police or the press. However, the police were brought in when the inquest jury returned an open verdict on 28 April, ‘that the deceased died from the effects of a poison – antimony – but we have not sufficient evidence under what circumstances it came into his body’.14 Certain members of Bravo’s family, including his stepfather Joseph Bravo and a work colleague Carlyle Willoughby, were convinced that Bravo was not a person likely to commit suicide. On Monday 1 May Willoughby contacted Scotland Yard, and the detective department was asked to investigate.15 That same day Superintendent Williamson passed the case to Clarke. Though still busy with the Vance and Snee inquiry, Clarke immediately headed off to Balham ten days after Bravo had died, to a ‘crime’ scene that had not been preserved:
