The Possible Murder of Georgina Byrne

[Herlock Sholmes]

Maybe because she was employed?

Pat,

I think that I need to take my brain out and stick it in a bucket of cold water overnight!

I've been a bit slow over the last couple of days. My excuse is that I've had a bad head cold!

[curious]

I have a theory, based on her father's not knowing what she was doing in London.

I recently saw on Find My Past an article about "unregistered marriages" which might mean the couple had eloped, among other reasons for not registering their marriage.

Maybe Mrs. Bryne and TSH Man had not been given permission to marry, so had decided to elope together. He did, after all, claim to be her husband (though it is impossible to know if the ceremony had been performed yet-- indeed, I think they might have just arrived in town).
But with Georgina's heart attack, her new husband opted to steal away in order to avoid answering awkward questions. Supporting this interpretation is the fact that her family identifies her as "Mrs. Bryne, a widow."

Very interesting. Thank you.

Then, he could not have been after her money.

curious

[Pcdunn]

Very interesting. Thank you.

Then, he could not have been after her money.

curious

Agreed. My first theory is weakened considerably.

[curious]

Agreed. My first theory is weakened considerably.

Don't you hate it when that happens?

At 34 years old, would she have needed permission from anyone to remarry?

Since her husband appears to have been some sort of officer (I'm not clear whether police or military) could she have been receiving a pension that would have ceased upon her remarriage?

BTW, I have an entirely different theory about why Daddy didn't know what she was doing in London.

curious

[drstrange169]

Fascinating little mystery, thanks for pointing it out David.

On a side note, I can't understand what Mizen has to do with it?

Other than both being policeman, I cannot see any other comparisons.

[Callmebill]

What sort of boots?

Two blokes kneeling over woman at night, she's on her own, marked about the shoulder? The same night as the Hanbury killing – nothing to see here move along.
I wonder what sort of boots?

[harry]

Inquest report from the Whistable times and Herne Bay Herald,Saturday,September 15 1888.
Byrne was found lying in Blackfriars Road by police.
She died on her way to hospital.
She was attended by two men who were trying to raise her up.
There were hundreds of people in Blackfriars road at the time.
There were no signs of violence.
Her heart was diseased.
The Jury returned a verdict in accordance with the medical evidence,namely,that the deceased died from natural causes.
What is strange about her death?
Of course I could be making this up.
Found by police? Obviously police were not the first at the scene,but,as in the case with Nichols,a policeman was reported as finding her.

[John G]

This is an interesting article on Victorian courtship etiquette: http://www.literary-liaisons.com/article009.html

Under the 1753 Marriage Act both men and women could marry at 21 without parental consent. However, under the 1823 Marriage Act a boy could marry at 14, and a girl at 12, without parental consent.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Fascinating little mystery, thanks for pointing it out David.

On a side note, I can't understand what Mizen has to do with it?

Other than both being policeman, I cannot see any other comparisons.

Hi drstrange,

The point that David was making on discovering and posting this incident was that Mizen has been criticised for allowing CL and Paul to go on their way without taking their details. To be honest most people (including myself) thought that Mizen was in error and it had been suggested (by myself and others) that he might have lied about what what CL and Paul told him to cover for that error. David showed, however, that as per the Police Code a Police Officer is only obliged to take details if an accident or a crime had been reported. This was the case in Buck's Row as it was in Blackfriars Road.
It's frustrating because I think that we'd all agree that the two men, especially Top Hat Man, deserved a serious question or two. As with Nichols, who was later found to have been murdered, the police would have wanted to question CL and Paul about events with the benefit of hindsight. The big difference of course is that CL and Paul turned up at the Inquest whereas our two mystery men have vanished.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Inquest report from the Whistable times and Herne Bay Herald,Saturday,September 15 1888.
Byrne was found lying in Blackfriars Road by police.
She died on her way to hospital.
She was attended by two men who were trying to raise her up.
There were hundreds of people in Blackfriars road at the time.
There were no signs of violence.
Her heart was diseased.
The Jury returned a verdict in accordance with the medical evidence,namely,that the deceased died from natural causes.
What is strange about her death?
Of course I could be making this up.
Found by police? Obviously police were not the first at the scene,but,as in the case with Nichols,a policeman was reported as finding her.

Hi Harry,

For me the mystery is:

1. What was a 'respectable' woman doing out alone at 11pm.
2. Why the cash and valuables?
3. Why the report of bruising on the shoulders?
4. Why the newspaper report saying that one of the men appeared to be searching her clothing?
5. Why did Top Hat Man claim to be her husband?
6. Why did the 2 men disappear (especially as it seems rather callous when THM was supposed to fetch a doctor who may have saved her life?)
7. Why was she carrying a pair of boots?

It's possible that there's an innocent explaination but I think that there's enough there to call it a mystery. David's original reason for posting it though was as a comparison with events in Buck's Row.

[curious]

This is an interesting article on Victorian courtship etiquette: http://www.literary-liaisons.com/article009.html

Under the 1753 Marriage Act both men and women could marry at 21 without parental consent. However, under the 1823 Marriage Act a boy could marry at 14, and a girl at 12, without parental consent.

Very interesting, John. Thanks.

Nothing about widows, and according to "Gone with the Wind," widows in the U.S. at least were allowed almost nothing. Scarlett, being Scarlett, and it being a time of war, did not allow widowhood to keep her from living a full life. There is always what is "proper" and what people really do.

Do you think that with an estate of just over 100 pounds Mrs. Byrne was not really in the upper crust but in the "respectable" class?

See, that was one of my questions: did clubs for people of both genders exist there in Blackfriars at the time? That was what I meant I needed to research. While the extra pair of shoes and no luggage for an overnight says "dancing" to me, I have no idea if such places existed. On the other hand, during Prohibition here in the States, when things were very much stricter than they are today, speakeasies were certainly available for people to attend.

I don't know what was in Blackfriars in 1888.

Sorry, David, I know we've wandered far from your intended subject of the police action on this one.

curious

[curious]

Hi Harry,

For me the mystery is:

1. What was a 'respectable' woman doing out alone at 11pm.
2. Why the cash and valuables?
3. Why the report of bruising on the shoulders?
4. Why the newspaper report saying that one of the men appeared to be searching her clothing?
5. Why did Top Hat Man claim to be her husband?
6. Why did the 2 men disappear (especially as it seems rather callous when THM was supposed to fetch a doctor who may have saved her life?)
7. Why was she carrying a pair of boots?

It's possible that there's an innocent explaination but I think that there's enough there to call it a mystery. David's original reason for posting it though was as a comparison with events in Buck's Row.

Hi, Herlock,
1. But was she alone? I don't really think so. I think she was with top-hat guy, so it is his actions and their association that become questionable.

2. Cash and valuables -- if she had come to London to stay overnight without any family members knowing, would she not need the cash for an inn or hotel, food, cabs, etc.? I think she was kicking up her heels a bit, privately, and not necessarily engaged in anything illegal or immoral.

3. Shoulder bruising -- In Post No. 16 David pointed out that was not mentioned at the inquest and appeared to have been wrong in the original newspaper article. "Yes I read that about the bruises in one report but it wasn't (apparently) mentioned at the inquest so presumably not true."

4. Someone appearing to search clothing could be:
a. Feeling for a heartbeat or pulse;
b. I believe that women sometimes carried "Smelling Salts" in their pockets. Today, people with asthma and allergies carry inhalers and epi pins, so if her companions thought Mrs. Byran had fainted they could have been looking for smelling salts to revive her.

5. The 64-million dollar question

6. so they would not be involved or have their names in official reports or the newspapers. Perhaps to keep from answering questions that would ruin her reputation -- and theirs -- depending upon what was really going on.

7. another 64-million dollar question -- especially since she did not have any other luggage for an overnight stay in London. There were theaters in the district, but I don't think you take extra shoes to watch a show. Dancing is the only thing I can come up with, and I don't know the Blackfriars district well enough to know what entertainment venues were available there in 1888.

I agree with you -- enough to call it a mystery. Probably enough to besmirch her reputation, but less perhaps than it would have been if her "husband" had stayed around long enough to answer questions.

curious

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi, Herlock,
1. But was she alone? I don't really think so. I think she was with top-hat guy, so it is his actions and their association that become questionable.

I agree, and said it in an earlier post, that it's possible/likely that she was with Top Hat Man.

2. Cash and valuables -- if she had come to London to stay overnight without any family members knowing, would she not need the cash for an inn or hotel, food, cabs, etc.? I think she was kicking up her heels a bit, privately, and not necessarily engaged in anything illegal or immoral.

It would be interesting to know if it was a man's watch and, if so, who it belonged to?

3. Shoulder bruising -- In Post No. 16 David pointed out that was not mentioned at the inquest and appeared to have been wrong in the original newspaper article. "Yes I read that about the bruises in one report but it wasn't (apparently) mentioned at the inquest so presumably not true."

True. I wonder where the story of the bruises came from? It wouldn't have been from anyone at the scene though. You would have thought that it could only have come from those present when she was fully examined (after death?)

4. Someone appearing to search clothing could be:
a. Feeling for a heartbeat or pulse;
b. I believe that women sometimes carried "Smelling Salts" in their pockets. Today, people with asthma and allergies carry inhalers and epi pins, so if her companions thought Mrs. Byran had fainted they could have been looking for smelling salts to revive her.

Possibly. Seems a bit strange to me though.

5. The 64-million dollar question

I think that, as it's likely that he was with her, that he told the other man that she was his wife when he came over to help to avoid embarrassment. He then had to continue the lie when Duffin showed up.

6. so they would not be involved or have their names in official reports or the newspapers. Perhaps to keep from answering questions that would ruin her reputation -- and theirs -- depending upon what was really going on.

Agreed. A bit heartless though. He could have informed a doctor and then fled?

7. another 64-million dollar question -- especially since she did not have any other luggage for an overnight stay in London. There were theaters in the district, but I don't think you take extra shoes to watch a show. Dancing is the only thing I can come up with, and I don't know the Blackfriars district well enough to know what entertainment venues were available there in 1888.

Maybe she'd collected them from being repaired?

I agree with you -- enough to call it a mystery. Probably enough to besmirch her reputation, but less perhaps than it would have been if her "husband" had stayed around long enough to answer questions.

We would certainly like to know more. It's a petty that Duffin didn't ask a few more questions of the second man when Top Hat Man went for the 'Doctor?'

curious

I bet that there are hundreds of curious little episodes just waiting to be discovered?

[David Orsam]

The point that David was making on discovering and posting this incident was that Mizen has been criticised for allowing CL and Paul to go on their way without taking their details. To be honest most people (including myself) thought that Mizen was in error and it had been suggested (by myself and others) that he might have lied about what what CL and Paul told him to cover for that error. David showed, however, that as per the Police Code a Police Officer is only obliged to take details if an accident or a crime had been reported. This was the case in Buck's Row as it was in Blackfriars Road.

This is correct.

That is why I started this in the police officials and procedures thread.

Here we have an officer who literally finds two men standing over the body of a woman lying on the pavement in the dark. The woman could be dead or drunk or anything else. The officer, when he arrives on the scene, cannot possibly know what has happened to her or that she has a diseased heart. She might have been murdered or there might have been an accident. At least one of the men, possibly both, leave the crime scene, with one of the men telling a direct lie in order to provide an excuse to leave. The officer, apparently, takes no details of the men.

All seems eerily familiar to me.

[David Orsam]

Sorry, David, I know we've wandered far from your intended subject of the police action on this one.

No problem!