The Chieftain: Victorian True Crime Through The Eyes of a Scotland Yard Detective

by Payne, Chris

  I have again seen Dr. Gully, and he solemnly declares that he has never seen Mrs. Bravo, or held any communication with her since her marriage, and has only seen Mrs. Cox on the two occasions mentioned in my former report, and after careful enquiry of the servants and neighbours, I cannot find that he has done so.

  I beg respectfully to again draw attention to what took place on the evening of the 18th ult. They having commenced dinner at half past seven, it may reasonably be assumed that the greater part of the wine was drunk by a quarter past eight. The sickness did not occur until about a quarter to ten – certainly not before half past nine – and it is the opinion of many medical Gentlemen that if the poison was taken in the wine, during dinner, it must have shewn itself before that time. Some are of opinion that if taken on a full stomach, it might not have shewn itself before, but all say that an hour and half is quite an outside time, and that it generally operates in about fifteen or twenty minutes.

  I cannot ascertain that he took anything after dinner until he entered his bedroom … indeed the evidence of the servants shew that he did not – and if this can be relied upon (and I believe it) he must have taken the poison after he retired to his room, but whether it was with his own knowledge, or whether placed there secretly by some other person, I refrain from giving an opinion. The poison could only have been placed there, by some other person, in the water bottle or glass upon the chance of his drinking it, and I would here remark upon the behaviour of Mr. Bravo after he was seized with illness. He first calls for hot water, which would indicate a knowledge that he had taken poison, and during his two day’s illness I cannot find that he expressed any surprise as to it, or asked any question how it could have been brought about. He said he had taken laudanum, but I cannot find that he had done so – it could only have been a very small quantity – and I cannot but believe that he knew laudanum was not causing his illness. His friends are still strongly of opinion that he did not commit suicide, and aver that he had no cause to induce him to do so, but in making these enquiries, it appears to me that his marriage was not altogether a happy one, although it does not appear that he complained.

  Both Mrs. Bravo and Mrs. Cox are much given to drink and Mrs. Bravo admits to me, that on several occasions when he attempted to make any change in their domestic arrangements, she reminded him that she found the money and does not appear to have had that sympathy and love for him that he might have expected, and she certainly shews no grief at his death.19

  Clarke’s investigations had not yet proved successful in identifying the source of the poison. Instead, he had focused his attention on the time at which Bravo had ingested the poison and the likelihood that he had swallowed it in his bedroom rather than at the dinner table. In addition, Bravo also appeared to be well aware that he had taken a poisonous substance and was likely to die. Clarke was beginning to give some greater credence (than in his first report) to the possibility that Bravo may have poisoned himself but he nonetheless continued to consider all options.

  On 17 May the Home Office, noting the increasing public interest in the case and the strong views of Joseph Bravo and others, had directed the solicitor to the Treasury to take charge of the enquiry. At 11.15 a.m. on 18 May, Clarke had visited the Treasury to receive his instructions.20 On the same day The Times commented that the first inquest had been procedurally unsatisfactory and that a further inquest was needed. The Daily Telegraph had also initiated a campaign in favour of a new inquest. The Home Secretary, Richard Cross, was questioned in the House of Commons about the situation. He replied:

  So far as the inquest and the Coroner’s verdict are concerned, the House knows that I have no power over the Coroner. All I can say is that, from the facts I have stated, I, for one, am entirely dissatisfied with the way in which the inquest was carried on; and after much consideration I have thought it best to place the whole of the papers in the hands of the Law Officers of the Crown who will advise me … whether any and what further steps ought to be taken.21

  On 26 June 1876 at the Court of Queens Bench, the coroner, Mr W. Carter, was felt to have performed his duties in a perfunctory and unsatisfactory manner and a panel of judges, including Lord Chief Justice Cockburn, quashed the verdict of the first inquest and confirmed that a second inquest with a new jury would be required.22 This eventually started on 22 July 1876.

  Still pursuing enquiries, on 29 May, Clarke was told that a substantial quantity of antimony, in the form of tartar emetic, had been sold in the middle of April in Abingdon, some 15 miles from the family estate of the Campbells (the parents of Florence Bravo), at Buscot. Detective Sergeant Walter Andrews was sent to Abingdon to investigate, but found no link with the death of Charles Bravo and concluded that the statement had been made with a view to obtain a £500 reward that had been offered by Joseph Bravo for information leading to the identification of the source of the antimony that had poisoned his stepson.23

  On 31 May Clarke was instructed by the solicitor to the Treasury to provide more detail of what Mrs Cox was doing on 18 April (the day of the poisoning), to enquire further about the fate of the missing burgundy bottles and to provide more information on a meeting that Clarke had had with a Dr Dill in Brighton (who had been a medical adviser and confidant to Florence Bravo).24 Clarke reported back on 5 June confirming that, on 18 April, Mrs Cox had travelled to Worthing to rent a property on behalf of Mrs Bravo, who was convalescing from a miscarriage that had occurred earlier in April. Mrs Cox had returned from Worthing the same day, just in time for dinner. However, during his latest interview with Mrs Cox, she had been much more revealing about the relationship between Florence and Charles Bravo:

  Mrs. Cox also states that on the night of the 18th before Mr. Bravo retired to his room, he came into his wife’s room and said in French ‘You have drunk one bottle of wine today; I hoped that would be sufficient but you have sent for another’. Mrs. Bravo made no answer and he seemed very much annoyed, and went to his room. He had passed the housemaid (Keeber) on the stairs with a bottle of wine and which she had fetched from the cellaret in the dining room by the directions of Mrs. Bravo.

  Mary Ann Keeber further states that when she saw Mr. Bravo on the stairs (as mentioned in her previous statement) she was then taking a bottle of sherry to her mistress.

  Mrs. Cox also states that on their way to London that morning [18 April] Mr. and Mrs. Bravo had some unpleasant words and Mr. Bravo ordered the Coachman to turn back, but in a few minutes was prevailed on by his wife to continue the journey, but he said ‘you will see what I will do when I get home’. She only knows this from what Mrs. Bravo has told her.

  Edward Smith (Footman) states that the carriage was turned round and went a short distance towards home, when they were a little on the London side of Clapham Common but he thought it was owing to the weather as it came on to snow. The carriage was open when they started but at this time he closed it. The Coachman (Parton) says he does not remember having turned round on that occasion.

  Mrs. [Cox] further states that on Good Friday [14 April], Mr. and Mrs. Bravo had a desperate quarrel; he said he despised himself for having married her and would not live with her but leave the house at once. Mrs. Cox followed him to his room and begged of him to consider his wife’s feelings, when he said ‘She can go to Dr. Gully’.

  She also says that on one evening (previous to the Good Friday) he did actually leave the house during a quarrel but she (Mrs. Cox) followed him and prevailed on him to return, and that they frequently quarrelled owing to Mrs. Bravo giving way to drink and (as he thought) extravagance; he was very much opposed to going to Worthing on these grounds.

  She states as her reason for not mentioning this to me on my other visits, that she was anxious not to expose the unpleasantness between them, as at times they appeared very affectionate to each other.25

  Clarke then described Mrs Cox’s background and how she had become acquainted with, and employed by, Florence Bravo, before moving on to report on the other tasks given
to him by the Treasury, namely Dr Dill, and the wine bottles:

  I also again saw Dr Dill who states that the communication made to him by Mrs. Bravo was after the death of her husband, when she said he was very persistent in that line of conduct. He further states that Mr. Bravo called upon him after his marriage and bitterly complained of his wife’s drinking propensity and begged that he would see her and endeavour to pursuade her to refrain from it, as he knew he had great influence over her. Dr. Dill promised to do this and said he knew she drank a great deal more than was good for her, and should be stopped. He said that he had spoken to her about this and her behaviour with Dr. Gully, at the request of Mr. Campbell, her father, last autumn, before her marriage, and that on Saturday last she was in a most excited state and for the time had lost her reason, partly arising from drink and excitement consequent upon this enquiry.

  On enquiry at Messrs. Todd Heatly’s, I am informed that the wine was ordered on the 27th April by Mrs. Cox and the order was executed the same day. The wine was taken by Thomas Horley who states that he brought back two dozen bottles – sherry and claret, but believes there were no Burgundy bottles with them. On his return they were put in the cellar with thousands of others and it is now impossible to find them.26

  These interviews added no fresh light on the key aspects of the case: the source of the poison or the manner in which it might have been administered. In this regard the police investigations got no further. Suicide, murder or even accidental death therefore remained possibilities, as there was no forensic evidence that pointed specifically to any one of these options. The chance of tracing any missing burgundy bottles that might have contained residues of any antimony-contaminated wine had now finally disappeared too. However, the information gleaned from Mrs Cox (if accurate) suggested that, after only four months, the Bravos’ marriage was far from happy. Indeed, her information suggested that the deteriorating relationship between Florence and Charles Bravo could have reached a point where either partner might contemplate suicide or murder. What is not mentioned in Clarke’s reports, but did emerge at the second inquest, was that Mrs Cox might have her own motive to murder Charles Bravo, as Bravo had expressed the view that Florence no longer needed a female companion now that she had a husband and Mrs Cox’s employment at the Priory was therefore under threat.

  Clarke’s report is also intriguing in its reference to his conversation with Dr Dill, and the phrase: ‘he [Charles Bravo] was very persistent in that line of conduct.’ The precise context of that phrase has been variously interpreted by different commentators to have been a reference either to the possibility that Bravo had persisted with sexual intercourse despite having a venereal disease (of which no confirmatory evidence was given by post-mortem evidence); or that he regularly sodomised his wife; or that he was suspected of adding low doses of antimony to her wine and sherry to induce vomiting as a means of discouraging her from drinking.27 This matter was not resolved, as Dr Dill was not called to attend the second inquest, presumably because of issues of doctor-patient confidentiality.

  By now the case was proving fascinating to the British press and public; with a dramatic ‘cast’ consisting of a beautiful widow (Florence), a former and much older lover (Dr Gully), a mysterious ladies’ companion (Mrs Cox) and a husband who, prior to his marriage, had maintained another woman and fathered her child (Charles Bravo). As the second inquest got underway at the Bedford Hotel, Balham, the ‘disgusting public exhibition’, as The Times was later to call it, was about to start. For more than a month, public attention was wholly absorbed in the proceedings.28

  The inquest lasted from 11 July to 12 August under the control (or lack of control) of the coroner, Mr Carter. The Crown was represented by Attorney General Sir John Holker (known as ‘Sleepy Jack’ to his colleagues), Mr John Gorst and the ubiquitous Harry Poland. Mrs Florence Bravo, Mrs Jane Cox, Dr James Gully and Mr Joseph Bravo were each independently represented in court by leading solicitors or counsels who were given the opportunity during the proceedings to cross-examine witnesses.29 One of the most strident and effective of these was the solicitor George Lewis (representing Joseph Bravo) who, though not a barrister, had the authority to cross-examine witnesses in a coroner’s court and grasped the chance to demonstrate his interrogation skills with great vigour.30 Clarke attended the inquest but was not required to give evidence. As the precise cause and mechanism of death had not been formally confirmed no one was on trial, and there had been insufficient evidence to arrest anyone. Thus Clarke’s role in the proceedings was effectively as an observer, collecting any new evidence and following up any new leads that might emerge during the witness examinations.

  For the new jury, events started with a gruesome visit to observe the exhumed body of Charles Bravo before returning to the crowded room at the Bedford Hotel. On the second day, the coroner comfortingly informed the tightly packed participants and spectators that a surveyor had checked the beams supporting the floor and had said that there was no danger of the floor collapsing from the great weight of the crowd. On the ninth day, potential new evidence emerged when the former coachman at the Priory, George Griffiths, stated that it had been his habit to purchase tartar emetic as a treatment for his horses, a technique that he had learnt from a book entitled Every Man His Own Farrier, and he had used this antimony-based product during his time at the Priory (though none had been found during Clarke’s searches). As a result, Clarke sent Detective Sergeant Roots with Griffiths to Stroud Park in Kent, where Griffiths was now employed, to retrieve the book and any tartar emetic that he might still have (none was found).31 Griffiths was subsequently recalled for further cross-examination but the incident threw more heat than light on the proceedings.

  On the thirteenth day there was a great stir when Mrs Cox was called. This rose to a crescendo in the Bedford Hotel, and more widely in prurient Victorian society when, under cross-examination by George Lewis, Mrs Cox admitted that she had been told by her mistress that she had had a ‘criminal intimacy’ (had committed adultery) with Dr Gully, who was still married though long separated from his much older wife. Mrs Cox was followed to the witness stand by Florence Bravo, who received a merciless cross-examination from George Lewis. This eventually caused Florence to ‘appeal to the Coroner and to the jury as men and Britons to protect me’; an emotional outburst that prompted the spectators in court to stamp their feet in applause and sympathy.32 James Gully gave evidence on the twenty-second and penultimate day, having expressed a wish to be examined, though Clarke had earlier reported to the solicitor to the Treasury that ‘I see no reason to attach the slightest suspicion to Dr. Gully’.33

  When the time arrived for the coroner to sum up, he did a more adequate job than at the first inquest. After two and a half hours the jury issued their verdict: ‘We find that Mr. Charles Delauney Turner Bravo did not commit suicide: that he did not meet with his death by misadventure, but that he was wilfully murdered by the administration of tartar emetic, but that there is not sufficient evidence to fix the guilt on any person or persons.’34 This went down well with the public but not with a contributor to the British Medical Journal:

  The verdict of the last jury has been eminently satisfactory to a large number of the public, consisting chiefly, if not entirely, of those persons who, without waiting to hear the evidence, had come to the same conclusion at which the jury arrived. For my own part, having read the evidence daily in the Times’ reports, I had come to think that, on the whole an open verdict would be the proper one…35

  Clarke effectively concurred: ‘I would respectfully call the Commissioner’s attention to the fact that during this long enquiry nothing has been elicited to shew by what means the deceased met with his death other than is contained in my former reports.’36

  Though the police efforts to obtain sufficient evidence for any arrest appeared to have been exhausted, the inquest verdict obliged them to do something so, on 14 August 1876, a reward poster was issued offering £250 for information le
ading to the arrest and conviction of the murderer or murderers.37 No substantive new evidence was forthcoming, and the ‘Balham Mystery’ was never solved. Florence Bravo, shunned by society, retreated to Southsea and died of causes related to excessive drinking in September 1878, while James Gully, ostracised by some of his family and friends, died in Malvern in March 1883 from cancer. The resilient Mrs Cox immigrated to Jamaica, later returning to London where she died aged 90 in 1917.38

  The sensational events of 1876 have attracted a number of individuals to present their own solutions to the ‘Balham Mystery’. Of those directly involved in the case, George Lewis is reported to have said: ‘Had I been able to do so, I should at once have relieved both Dr Gully and Mrs Bravo from any suggestion that they in any way participated in the crime. I then – and still do – believe them: Not Guilty.’39 Lewis’ suspicions focused on Mrs Cox, who he saw as a schemer and opportunist, and in every way the most likely suspect. The more measured views of the Treasury counsel, Harry Poland, were:

  I am not entitled to give any opinion – for publication. But it is certain that someone in the house poisoned Bravo. It might have been a servant. But if so what was the motive? It might have been Mrs. Cox, who certainly knew that her situation was in jeopardy, but that is a slight motive for murder. It might have been Mrs. Bravo, but would even a revival of her affection for Dr. Gully provide a sufficient motive for such a crime? Then remember that she summoned Sir William Gull, one of the greatest doctors of the day. Her conduct generally was consistent with innocence … Of course I have my own opinion; but what I think is one thing, and legal proof is another: anyway we lacked the evidence to prosecute…40