by Jones, Kaye;
In about ten minutes after eating it I had a very strange sensation in my head. I felt as if my eyes were coming out; something seemed to strain them. I then got up and tried to get a glass of water. I got the water but could not put it to my mouth because my hands and arms shook. I then felt that I was losing the use of my limbs altogether. With a great effort I got upstairs and fell down on a chair in the parlour. I was quite alone in the house … not able to reach the front or back door to call anyone.9
It was forty-five minutes before Henry returned to the house and could fetch help for his mother. Like many of Christiana’s other victims, Caroline was fortunate enough to make a full recovery without medical intervention but did not report the incident to the police nor to John Maynard. Christiana had not yet done enough to arouse suspicion of wholesale poisoning but, when she received a notice to attend Sidney Barker’s inquest, it appeared that her efforts had finally paid off. The police had heard about her analysis at Schweitzer’s and had cited her to give evidence against John Maynard. Christiana rushed to Grand Parade to inform Dr Beard, in the hope that he might finally believe her story about the attempt on Emily. But Dr Beard was working away and his wife did not want to inform him of the inquest by letter, much to Christiana’s distress. Nevertheless, appearing at the inquest was an opportunity she relished because it gave her the chance to play the innocent victim, to encourage popular hatred of John Maynard and, more importantly, to be noticed again by Dr Beard.
In the nineteenth century, it was usual practice to hold an inquest within a few days of a suspicious death. This involved the coroner calling on between twelve and twenty-four men of good repute to act as jurors and to appear at the specified time and place. Brighton’s coroner, David Black, had postponed Sidney Barker’s inquest pending the results of Dr Letheby’s investigation but, once he had them, he called on his jury to assemble on the afternoon of Thursday, 22 June. Victorian inquests were held in the pub and David Black liked to use one close to his home and office at 58 Ship Street. Like the majority of coroners in this period, Black was a lawyer by trade and a partner in the law firm, Black and Freeman. He was appointed Brighton’s first coroner on 1 January 1855 and had some experience of poisoning cases, having directed the inquests of Mary Ann Day in 1863 and Dr Alfred Warder’s wife, Ellen, three years later, but he had never seen a case which had resulted in such a violent death for a little boy.
The inquest into the death of Sidney Barker opened like any other: the jury had the opportunity to view his body before hearing the evidence of witnesses with relevant information, like Christiana, or who were present at the death. Charles Miller, Sidney’s uncle, and Richard Rugg retold the events of that fateful day before Dr Letheby gave the much-anticipated results of his chemical analysis. He explained that he had found a quarter of a grain of strychnine inside Sidney’s stomach and this was more than enough to kill a small child. He had also analysed for traces of poison some of the individual chocolate creams which were delivered to him by Inspector Gibbs. He found the red, pink and brown ones were perfectly safe to consume but the white creams had tested positive for strychnine. At this point, David Black interjected and informed the jury that strychnine was used extensively in the preparation of vermin killers. It was a poison with a distinctive bitter taste which made it unsuitable in the colouring or flavouring of confectionery. If strychnine was not part of the manufacturing process, said the coroner, it followed that Sidney Barker had been deliberately poisoned. But before the jury retired to discuss a verdict, David Black called Christiana Edmunds, one of John Maynard’s alleged victims.
This was the opportunity that Christiana had been waiting for and she intended to make the most of her testimony. In her dramatic fabrication, she described in detail the events which took place in the previous September, without any reference to Emily Beard. She instead talked of the ‘violent internal pains’ that she experienced after eating one of Maynard’s chocolate creams – and again in March when she bought another bag. This time, she felt even worse: ‘I was seized as before, but more violently and in a slightly different way. There was the same burning in the throat, and a feeling of lightness in that region. The saliva kept flowing into the mouth and I was seized with a trembling all over and felt an indescribable sensation’. Only a glass of brandy and water and some castor oil, she told the jury, could relieve her of this incredible suffering. Christiana’s testimony had the jury gripped and she was now ready to deliver the final blow to John Maynard’s reputation as she described the occasion on which she made her complaint:
On the same day I took the remainder of the chocolate creams to Mr Maynard and told him of what had occurred. He assured me that I was mistaken in supposing that it was the chocolate creams which had affected me … Some more were brought and tasted but they seemed all right. Mrs Maynard also tasted one of the creams I had originally bought and found that there was nothing the matter with it. Mr Maynard told me he was much obliged to me for coming and he would communicate with his French agents. He also said he should be willing for me to have any analysis made that I desired. As I did not feel satisfied I went straight from Mr Maynard’s to Mr Schweitzer’s.
At this point, John Penfold, the solicitor appearing on behalf of John Maynard, asked Christiana why she did not present the results of Schweitzer’s analysis to his client. She said there seemed no point because Maynard had been sceptical and prejudiced towards herself and her complaint.
Interestingly, Schweitzer’s analysis did not reveal the presence of strychnine. Perhaps he lacked the necessary skill to uncover Christiana’s poison, or perhaps she deliberately gave him a batch of unadulterated chocolate creams. If Maynard was found to be in possession of strychnine-laced confectionery then her poisoning spree would be over long before her much-anticipated reunion with Dr Beard. Schweitzer’s analysis, however, did find something unusual:
The cream cocoa consists of small, irregular round cakes, filled with a soft, white sugar composition. After examination, it was found that this white composition of some of these cakes, or balls, had a distinct metallic taste, whilst others were perfectly free from it … The metal with which the so-called cream … is impregnated is, in fact, zinc.
While zinc can be hazardous to human health in large doses it was commonly used by confectioners to add colour to sweets and chocolate. Schweitzer’s analysis, then, had done little to convince the jury of Maynard’s guilt. When questioned, the confectioner could not account for the presence of strychnine in his stock. He told the jury that he did not keep any poison on his premises because his pet cat took care of any vermin. Since February, he obtained all of his French stock, including the creams that killed Sidney Barker, from a confectionery wholesaler in London and had conducted a thorough investigation after Christiana complained to him. Two of his assistants, Kate Page and Annie Meadows, testified to this fact and neither could think of a way in which strychnine might have found its way into his shop.
If the shop was not the source of contamination then it was not unreasonable to suggest that strychnine had entered the chocolate creams at the point of manufacture. The coroner now called George Ware, the wholesaler from whom John Maynard bought his stock. He had travelled from London for the inquest and had been in business there since 1839. He claimed that this was the first complaint he had received about the creams and did not keep any poisons in his factory. When it came to making the chocolate creams, he used only sugar and cream of tartar to make the filling, some vanilla for flavouring and a dye called cochineal, made from the dried body of an insect. Ware admitted, however, that the factory did have a problem with vermin and that he hired exterminators to kill them and his team of exterminators used dogs, traps and poison but he could not say for certain if this contained any strychnine.
David Black was now out of ideas. If the poison did not originate at the point of manufacture nor the point of sale, he could not understand how Sidney Barker might have ingested it. In summing up, he said to the jury that
the ‘most reasonable hypothesis’ was that it happened through some ‘misadventure’ at Ware’s factory but a charge of criminal negligence did not seem appropriate for a man who had operated without complaint for over three decades. As for John Maynard, Black believed that he had taken every ‘reasonable precaution’ after Christina made her complaint but it was unfortunate that she did not communicate to him the results of her analysis. Black thus recommended that the jury follow the medical evidence and declare that Sidney Barker had died as a result of strychnine poisoning but acknowledge that how he came to ingest it remained a mystery. When the jury later returned their verdict, they agreed completely with David Black but made one recommendation to George Ware: that better care be taken when using vermin poison at his factory.10
For John Maynard, the verdict came as a great relief. The jury had found him innocent of any wrongdoing, though he volunteered to destroy his supply of French stock to ensure the prevention of another tragedy. Christiana’s campaign to slur his reputation had failed and, had she ceased her poisoning campaign after the inquest, her crimes would have gone undetected in history. But the thrill of the chase was too enticing and she was not hampered by feelings of remorse towards Sidney Barker. In fact, his death had given her another reason to communicate with Dr Beard and she penned the following letter in the days after the inquest:
Caro Mio, I have been so miserable since my last letter to you. I can’t go on without ever speaking to you. What made me write so? I thought, perhaps, it would be better for both of us, but I have not strength of mind to bear it. We met La Sposa [wife] the day after her return, and were glad to see her back again. La Madre [mother] thought she looked very thin and careworn; I hope she will feel the good now from her change. You must have missed her. I didn’t enter on the poisoning case on the street, but I called and told her that I was obliged to appear at the inquest in a few days, and I hoped she would send you a paper and let you know; but she said ‘No, she did not wish to unsettle you’. However, dear, I mean you to know about this dreadful poisoning case, especially as I had to give evidence; and I know how interested you would be in it, as you told me you would give anything to know what La Sposa swallowed. I sent you the analysis and have no means of knowing if it was sent you. Yes, through my analysis, the police found me out, and cited me to appear. You can fancy what I felt; such an array of gentlemen; and that clever Dr Letheby, looking so ugly and so terrific frightened me more than anyone else; for, if I gave wrong symptoms, of course he would have known. You fancy my feelings, standing therefore before the public, looking very rosy and frightened as I was. When I saw the reporters’ pens going and taking down all I uttered, Burns’ lines rushed to my memory: ‘the chield amang them taking notes, and faith he’ll prent it’.
Christiana’s reference to Robert Burns is from the poem, On the Late Captain Groses’s Peregrinations Thro’ Scotland, which was published in 1789. By mentioning these lines, she was doing more than just displaying her literary knowledge; she echoed Burns’ famous warning to be wary of her words, for any fault or flaw in her testimony would not pass unnoticed. We have to wonder if Dr Beard understood her cryptic message or simply interpreted her reference as a fear of standing before the jury. Her letter continued:
I did the best I could, thankful when I had finished. It seemed so long and my evidence [Blank here]. As the jury had nothing to say, my heart was thankful. When Mr Gell and Penfold attacked me – Mr G.: ‘Why didn’t I show Maynard the analysis?’ – it was so sudden, my ideas all left me, and I merely said because I found Mr Maynard so sceptical and prejudiced, and I thought I had done sufficient. Oh! Why didn’t I say as I meant ‘Because I supposed Mr M. would take the same steps as I had done, or else destroyed his stock, and that, if those sold to Mr Miller were from the same stock, I had warned him against these, – he was answerable’. If I had only said that – for I had no friendly feeling toward Mr M. – that man’s chocolates had been the cause of great suffering to me. The Inspector said he wished I had spoken as I felt and as I did to him when came to me, earnestly and energetically. But La Madre told me I should be thought flippant: so you see I was subdued … You see there were two poisons. Zinc was in La Sposa’s and mine. I was troubled to describe the taste. The reporters smiled when I said castor oil and brandy. The coroner said, ‘Ah! Your usual remedy’. I was stupid. He is so deaf. I was told to stand close to him. I took care to turn my back on the jury all I could. They were all very polite to me, even that fierce Mr Penfold. Dr Letheby’s evidence was so interesting, and showed the different sweets in one glass tube, yet separated. His physique is large and grand, like his mind. Now, darling, rest assured, through the whole affair, I have never mentioned your name or La Sposa’s, and if I had been asked to mention a friend, I should say Mrs Dix. She is very kind and fond of me, and would have come forward had they wanted her to help me. No; the rack shouldn’t have torn your name from me; and the only reason I said September was, that you might see I had concealed nothing.
Christiana here implies that she omitted Emily Beard’s name from the inquest in an effort to save the Beards’ involvement in such a tragic and scandalous case. But in reality, she could never mention Emily because, if questioned by the coroner, her version of events would point the finger of suspicion firmly in Christiana’s direction. Christiana cleverly disguises her deceit in exaggerated terms of affection which make her letter read like a conversation between lovesick teenagers. Her desperate plea for vindication continues in the closing paragraph:
My dear boy, do esteem me now. I am sure you must. What a trial it was to go through, that inquest! La Madre was angry I ever had the analysis; but you know why I had it – to clear myself in my dear friend’s eyes. She always says nothing was meant by you. No, darling; you wanted an excuse for my being so slighted. I never think of it; it was all a mistake. I called on La Sposa and told her how I got on. She said my evidence was very nice. She didn’t ask me to come; but perhaps she mustn’t. Now there is no reason. La Madre says if you were at home she is sure you would ask me just the same as ever.
Come and see us, darling; you have time now. La Madre and I have been looking forward to your holiday to see you. She wants to know how you get on and how you like the North. Don’t be biased by any relatives; act as your kind heart tells you, and make a poor little thing happy, and fancy a long, long, bacio [kiss] from
DOROTHEA.
Christiana’s reinvention as Dorothea is all part of her plan to deceive Dr Beard and portray herself as the innocent victim of John Maynard’s adulteration. She was perhaps inspired by Saint Dorothea, a fourth-century woman who was tried and tortured for her Christian beliefs. On the way to her execution, Dorothea met a lawyer called Theophilus who mockingly asked her to send fruits from God’s garden when she arrived there. When Theophilus later received a basket of fruit and flowers, he realised that Dorothea was telling the truth and he converted to Christianity. In this imagination of events, then, Christiana was a tortured woman, waiting desperately for Dr Beard to believe her so that a reunion might take place. But there was to be no reconciliation nor a long, long ‘bacio’. Christiana’s appearance at the inquest did nothing to change Dr Beard’s opinion of her: he did not rush to Gloucester Place to see her on his return from the North nor did he respond to her letter. In Christiana’s mind, her only option was to step up her campaign and destroy John Maynard, once and for all.
St John’s Church in Margate was William Edmund’s first commission and still stands today. (Reproduced with kind permission of Anthony Lee)
16 Hawley Square (far right) was Christiana’s childhood home in Margate. (Reproduced with kind permission of Raymond Godfrey)
Sir William C. Ellis was an advocate of moral treatment and founded Southall Park Asylum in 1839. (Wellcome Library, London)
Christiana in the dock, sketched here with Dr Beard and his wife, Emily. (Source unknown)
Marine Terrace was the final home of Louisa Edmunds and the sad stage of he
r demise in 1867. (Reproduced with kind permission of Anthony Lee)
The seaside town of Brighton thrived in the nineteenth century and was one of the most fashionable resorts in the country. (Creative Commons)
Electropathic belts were a popular way of treating nervous disorders, like hysteria, and were widely advertised in the popular press. (Wellcome Library, London)
Strychnine is a highly poisonous substance and is derived from the seeds of the Strychnos Nux-Vomica. (Creative Commons)
West Street was home to Maynard’s confectionery shop and was the scene of Sidney Barker’s murder in June 1871. (Author’s own collection)
69 Grand Parade was the home of Elizabeth Boys, one of the recipients of the poisoned parcels. (Creative Commons)
John Humffreys Parry was a highly-respected Serjeant-at-Law and the man tasked with defending Christiana at her trial in 1872. (Creative Commons)
