The Chieftain: Victorian True Crime Through The Eyes of a Scotland Yard Detective
Page 28
2nd That after receiving such a wound as is indicated by the blood on her hat which I have carefully examined, she could alone have reached the spot where she lay dead. I have seen the lady’s dress and her boots which bear distinct marks of having been scratched and torn behind as if the wearer had been dragged on her back. In spite of these facts the Austrian authorities have set M. de Tourville free. There are ugly rumours afloat as to money having been paid by him to the officials at Botzen, and though this wants confirmation, the prevalence of the report among the natives, shews that such a proceeding is not deemed improbable.
M. de Tourville said his wife was labouring under monomania but this rests on his evidence only, the Commissioner having liberated him without requiring any testimony from England as to her state of mind. The lady is said to have had considerable property, and there is a general conviction in that part of the Tyrol that she has been the victim of foul play. De Tourville gives her name as Madeline Miller and states that she was 47 years of age. Those who saw her describe her to have been a tall fine looking woman inclined to corpulence. The lady has been buried in the Cemetery at Meran. Her late address I could not learn but the maid stated her mistress lived in one of the best parts of London and was the owner of large houses.
I need scarcely ask your lordship to regard my letter as strictly confidential. My information has been obtained principally from the pastor of the parish, the postmaster and an officer of Austrian Customs who was present when the body was found. I make this statement in the interests of humanity only, the parties being quite unknown to me.
John Rogers Jennings.58
This information seemed to come from a trustworthy source and added further to the suspicions surrounding Madeline de Tourville’s death. However, as her death had occurred in Austrian territory, any criminal proceedings would require the Austrian authorities to review the case. If de Tourville was required again to face justice in Austria that would first require his extradition from Britain.
By early September the Austrian consulate had been informed of Clarke’s enquiries. In response, the Austrian Consul General had asked Scotland Yard to provide him with some further information. Clarke replied on 22 September, including further background to his 1868 Lymm investigation, as well as details of Madeline de Tourville’s will, and reports of recent interviews with some of her friends and associates.59 His report also included a surprising re-evaluation of his 1868 investigation, and the suspicions he had of ‘Perreau’, which he now claimed he would have pursued further if the coroner’s inquest had not already returned a verdict of accidental death on Mrs Brigham:
Had this verdict not been returned I certainly should have felt it my duty to prefer a charge of murder against Perreau, as I found many of the circumstances attending Mrs. Brigham’s death most suspicious. The circumstances were:
Perreau who was a Frenchman by birth was believed to be an adventurer, he had no estate or means of his own; he had not introduced his young wife to any of his family nor had they learned anything of his previous history, and by the death of his mother-in-law, he came into possession through his wife (herself of weak intellect) of a fortune of £40,000.
The fact that Perreau had but a short time previous to Mrs. Brigham’s death, purchased the revolver in London, without any apparent reason or having any use for such an article.
That he should have found it necessary to place a ball cartridge in the weapon, merely to explain its action.
That the ball struck her on the side of the head, taking a slanting direction, as if fired from behind, and not in the front of the head, as might have been expected, and it was the opinion of myself, and other competent persons with whom I consulted, that it was physically impossible for the wound to have been inflicted in the way described by Perreau.60
Clarke’s report then added information about de Tourville’s second wife, obtained from the trustees of her will, friends and associates:
… She leaves legacies of £10,000 to each of her two sisters, and other legacies amounting in total to £5,000; the remainder £35,000 she left to her husband of which he now takes possession, she being dead … It is believed by the executors Messrs. Wilding and Robertson that de Tourville as the husband of the deceased lady would have a full knowledge of the will, but no direct evidence can be obtained to shew this fact … I have seen Miss Scott of 42, Addison Road Kensington; she states that she has known the late Mrs. de Tourville for many years, and receives a legacy of £1000 under her will. About the later end of May last, she was told by the Chevalier de Guillenan (Secretary to the Portugese Embassy 12, Gloucester Place Portman Square) that that gentleman had heard, that Mrs. de Tourville was unhappy and likely to commit suicide, in consequence of being threatened to be called as a witness in a divorce case about to be instituted by the wife of Mr. Warwick Hunt. Miss Scott accordingly wrote to Madame de Tourville at the Grand Hotel Paris … telling her about the rumour she had heard; about the 5th June Miss Scott received a reply from Madame de Tourvillle in her handwriting stating that it was untrue, and that she was about the last person in the world to commit suicide, but if Miss Scott were to hear of her death, she might be certain she had been murdered. Miss Scott shewed this letter to Mr. Warwick Hunt and it was then destroyed.
I have also seen Mr. Hunt, who is a clerk in the War Office; he states that he saw the letter spoken of by Miss Scott, and he confirms her statements as to the contents; he further states that there were no grounds for the statement that Mrs. de Tourville would have been called as a witness in his divorce case.
I have further seen Mr. Brown solicitor to Mrs. Hunt 11, Pall Mall who states that Madame de Tourville had no knowledge of any of the circumstances relating to the divorce case and could not have been called as a witness.
I have lastly seen Monsieur de Guillenan; he informs me that the rumour of Madame de Tourville being wanted as a witness in the Hunt divorce case originated with Monsieur de Tourville.
The inquiries in this matter are being continued and any further information obtained will be submitted.61
Apart from revealing that Clarke had previous suspicions about Perreau at the time of the death of Mrs Brigham (which we will return to later), he had now confirmed the very substantial sum that de Tourville would gain from the death of his second wife. From a close friend of de Tourville’s wife, Miss Scott, Clarke had also heard that her death was unlikely to have occurred as a result of suicide.
By 25 September the press had started to publish articles linking the death of Madeline de Tourville with the earlier death of Mrs Brigham.62 Concerned by this, de Tourville’s solicitors wrote a letter to the Standard (that was also published in other newspapers) to present their client’s version of events.63 Despite this attempt to dampen press interest, the Austrian authorities decided on 11 October that there was now sufficient information to re-examine the death of Madeline de Tourville and they wrote to Commissioner Henderson requesting de Tourville’s arrest so that a case for his extradition could be heard.64 The arrest was not made until 28 October, probably because of delays in obtaining the extradition warrant and because Clarke was busy running the detective department in Williamson’s absence, as well as engaged in the Old Bailey trial of Charles Howard.65 However, on the evening of 28 October, assisted by Detective Sergeants Greenham and von Tornow, Clarke arrested de Tourville at his home.66
There was some confusion whether the Austrian authorities or the Treasury legal team would take the lead in the prosecution, and de Tourville’s solicitors seized the opportunity to assemble a strong team for the defence by appointing Harry Poland as lead counsel, together with Montagu Williams, thereby depriving the Treasury team of their usual ‘Sleuth Hound’. Both were present at Bow Street Police Court on the following Monday when Clarke brought de Tourville before the magistrate, Mr Vaughan, on an extradition warrant charging him with the wilful murder of his second wife. Williams later described his client’s appearance: ‘The accused was a man who might be any
age between forty and sixty, and his hair, moustache and other hirsute appendages were of a glossy blackness that was suggestive of meretricious applications. He was somewhat showily dressed, and had on an open-worked shirt, decorated with handsome studs. Altogether, de Tourville was certainly not a very prepossessing-looking person.’67 De Tourville appeared at Bow Street on several occasions between 30 October and 6 December 1876 before the magistrate’s decision was made. The courtroom was always crowded, patronised particularly by female friends of the late Madeline de Tourville.
At the first hearing Clarke gave evidence of the arrest and read the warrant which, the magistrate noted, required some further signatures from the Austrian Embassy to be regularised. Mr Jennings and Miss Scott were brought forward as prosecution witnesses. Not surprisingly, Poland objected to the hearsay evidence of Jennings being presented, an objection which the magistrate allowed. Miss Scott, on the two occasions she was called, indicated that her friend was most unlikely to have committed suicide, and that de Tourville had changed his story about the cause of his wife’s death: he had first told Miss Scott that she had fallen accidentally, only later had he said that Madeline had attempted to commit suicide by jumping down the mountainside. At the end of proceedings de Tourville was remanded in custody and was taken by Clarke to the Clerkenwell House of Detention.68
On 4 November Poland sought de Tourville’s release on technical grounds: firstly, the Austrian warrant described the prisoner as a native of France, whereas he was in fact a naturalised British citizen; secondly, that it was a rule with governments never to give up their own subjects for extradition. Fortunately for Clarke and the Treasury team, the magistrate did not accept Poland’s arguments.69 On 4 November and in subsequent hearings, translated written depositions from Austrian witnesses were read in court. These included statements from the driver who had taken de Tourville and his wife on to the Stelvio Pass on 17 July 1876, the owners and staff of the inns in Spondinig and Trafoi where de Tourville and his wife had stayed, as well as from witnesses who had been involved in the search for Madeline de Tourville’s body. Their statements broadly concurred with the information contained in the letter from John Jennings, and confirmed that there was considerable suspicion of de Tourville’s actions. The evidence of Frederick Hoffer, the manager of the inn at Trafoi, was one example:
De Tourville returned and told witness his wife had fallen. He did not seem at all excited and witness did not think the fall was serious … At halfpast 8 or a quarter to 9, Zoller and Asper returned and said the lady was dead. Everybody said she could not have fallen where she was found and that she must have been murdered and dragged down … the circumstance of the stripe in the grass being so narrow that it could only be caused by dragging a body, and the fact that from the nature of the ground it was very improbable anybody could have fallen so far. Witness tried whether stones would roll so far but they would not … It was also suspicious that he should ask for four men to go and fetch his wife when, if she had not been dead, two would have been sufficient to assist her.70
After his wife’s body had been found, de Tourville had been moved to a hotel in Spondinig and had been kept under guard between 18 and 22 July, while witness depositions were collected by the Austrian police authorities. De Tourville had then appeared before a district judge, when the decision was made to release him with no further charge. Adolph Schmidt, an interpreter at that event, reported that the proceedings in Austria had been to some extent unsatisfactory: ‘De Tourville’s statement before the Judge was not taken down at all; but after hearing it, the Judge said “I have heard enough”, and then discharged de Tourville.’71
At Bow Street on 6 December the magistrate’s hearings ended. The maid, Sarah Clappinson, denied that she had ever told anyone that ‘of course he killed her’.72 Despite Poland’s objection the written reports by Austrian doctors on Madeline de Tourville’s injuries were interpreted for the court by Dr Thomas Bond, who stated that the injuries could not have been caused by a fall but were consistent with her receiving several severe blows to the face and head.73 Poland, in his defence statement, observed that:
… this was a case altogether unprecedented in its character and importance. It was asked that a British subject, amenable to the British law, should be given up as a fugitive criminal after the offence of which he was now accused had been investigated by the judicial authorities of the district in which it was said to have occurred, and the accused had been honourably acquitted.74
Nonetheless, the magistrate concluded that it was his duty to commit de Tourville for trial in Austria. Arrangements were then put in place for de Tourville to be handed over to the Austrian authorities at their consulate in Hamburg. Several days later than planned, because of bad weather and the frozen state of the river at Hamburg, Clarke left England with his prisoner on 2 January 1877 and handed de Tourville over to the Austrians.75
That was not the end of the matter for Clarke, as he was asked to attend de Tourville’s trial in Austria in June 1877 on behalf of the Home Office and the solicitors of Madeline de Tourville. Accompanied by his colleague and interpreter, Detective Sergeant von Tornow, he left England on 15 June 1877 for Botzen, where the trial started on 18 July. The trial’s procedures received some criticism from the British press: ‘In accordance with Austrian law and practice which accords very ill with English notions of justice and fair play, every section of the prisoner’s life has been carefully raked up. The tragedy at Foxley Hall has been minutely gone through, with as much formality as though the prisoner was being tried for the wilful murder of Mrs. Brigham.’76 This was reinforced during proceedings on 21 June when Clarke was called to give evidence: ‘The event of the sitting in the afternoon was the evidence of George Clarke the detective officer … He brought with him a piece of bone from that portion of the skull of Mrs. Brigham where the bullet had entered.’77
There then followed a court discussion with three doctors, in which one suggested that the injury could have been inflicted in the way that de Tourville had described in 1868, while two others declared that de Tourville’s description was inconsistent with the location of the bullet holes in the skull. Clarke then revealed information that had not been previously presented, implying that de Tourville may also have attempted to murder his son:
A long discussion occurred about the fire in de Tourville’s house in London in 1871. The police report of the time said that both de Tourville and his son were in great danger and were saved by a policeman … According to Clarke’s account Tourville never took any trouble about the child, and it was almost stifled when he brought it down. He expressed the suspicion that the fire had not originated accidentally, and the opinion of the Fire Brigade was the same. In reply to the question what motive Tourville could have had for acting so, an opinion was expressed that he wanted to get rid of the child. In cross examination the counsel for the defendant asked whether eye-witnesses had not said that Tourville risked his own life to save that of the child. Clarke replied that ‘he could not but come to this conclusion’. The counsel for the defence declared himself satisfied with this admission…78
The remainder of the trial focused on the events in the Tyrol. Other witnesses from Britain included Miss Scott, Sarah Clappinson and Mr Turner (de Tourville’s solicitor, who appeared for the defence). Clappinson’s evidence continued to be supportive of the defendant. Amongst the information presented by de Tourville and his defence team was that he had no knowledge of his wife’s will prior to her death; his apparently indifferent behaviour at Trafoi after his wife had fallen had arisen through a combination of heart disease and the physical exertions he had made to climb down to her; his imperfect understanding of German was responsible for any inconsistency in his responses to questions at the time; and the fact he had initially claimed that she had fallen accidentally was because he did not want to stain her memory with the possibility that she had committed suicide. His friend de Guillenan gave evidence which essentially consisted of the vi
ew that de Tourville ‘was incapable of such a deed’.79
The medical experts concluded that Madeline de Tourville’s injuries were not consistent with a suicide attempt. The district judge who had conducted the first inquiry in July 1876 acknowledged that he may have made some mistakes which showed a partiality for the accused. An Austrian police sergeant denied that de Tourville had tried to bribe the police in 1876 but confirmed that he had given some money as a ‘present’ when he had been discharged; however, the money had been distributed amongst the poor.80 Finally, on 2 July, when asked to consider their verdict, the jury returned an 11:1 majority ‘guilty’ verdict, and de Tourville was sentenced to be hanged.81
British press reaction was mixed. The Warrington Guardian, expressing perceptions linked to the 1868 death of Mrs Brigham, wrote in its leader section: ‘It is perhaps, a hard thing to say, but it is nevertheless true, that the passing of sentence of death on Henri de Tourville was heard of with a feeling of relief. The general impression about the man was that he was so dangerous it was perilous he should be at large.’82 In contrast, Lloyds Weekly Newspaper focused on the conduct of the trial:
The procedure by which this conviction has been obtained resembles, in the main, that of France, and has consequently, many features that are repugnant to our sense of justice. In the first place, every act of De Tourville’s life that could tell against him, every suggestion that could be raised to his prejudice, has been used in order to bring him to the gallows … The prisoner has appealed, and it is to be hoped that a more judicial spirit will preside over the higher court of justice than that which was apparent at the trial.83
De Tourville’s appeal was rejected by the Supreme Court in Vienna, but the sentence of death was later commuted by Emperor Franz Joseph I to eighteen years’ penal servitude, to be served in the fortress of Gradiska. By December 1877, de Tourville’s wax image was on display at Madame Tussauds. He died in prison from influenza on 27 January 1890 and, in his will, left everything in trust for his son.84 The death of his murdered wife, Madeline, was commemorated by a small plaque near the location of her death on the Stelvio Pass, just above Weisse Knott.85