The Investigations of Mr. Whicher

[Mayerling]

The one aspect of the case that's always bugged me is the apparent lack of blood at the supposed murder-scene, i.e., the water-closet. This suggests that the child was actually killed elsewhere, possibly in the house, and at least one medical man who examined the body thought that it showed signs of asphyxia.

I'm not sure that Mr Kent's actions immediately after Saville was found to be missing were all that odd: after all, his son had disappeared, probably been abducted for all he knew, and his understandable reaction was to fetch the police; or at least a police-officer in whom he had some confidence. Maybe he should have stayed at Road Hill House to organise the search, but by the time he left the place there were plenty of people involved in searching the house and grounds. But I do see that it could be argued that Kent was well aware that his son would be found dead, and sought to put some distance between himself and Road Hill House - just in case. Given his history and reputation I do think he was lucky not to have been on the receiving end of a very full investigation.

However, even if, as has been suggested, Saville did see his father and Elizabeth Gough having it off, I don't think that even in 1860 this would have been sufficient reason to kill the child who was, after all, only 3 and a bit years old and perhaps would have responded to a spot of paternal 'mind-adjustment'.


Graham

Hi Graham,

It is a remarkably complex case, with so many strands getting wound and unwound. As I said earlier, it resembles in its structure and social situations the American Lizzie Borden Case.

As to Francis seeling his father and Gough having sex, being 3 really does not matter. Francis might not have understood the behavior of his father and the nanny, but he was beginning to communicate and could easily have blurted out something to his mother about what he saw and how funny it looked. Mrs. Kent (whose own history with Mr. Kent and her sickly predecessor was not one to boast about) could easily have figured out what happened - and then there would have been hell for Mr. Kent to pay. I'm afraid that the guilty father and the guilty nanny may have thought they had little choice if they were to avoid any unpleasant repercussions. That is, of course, if they were responsible (a big if!).

Jeff

[Graham]

Hi Graham,

It is a remarkably complex case, with so many strands getting wound and unwound. As I said earlier, it resembles in its structure and social situations the American Lizzie Borden Case.

As to Francis seeling his father and Gough having sex, being 3 really does not matter. Francis might not have understood the behavior of his father and the nanny, but he was beginning to communicate and could easily have blurted out something to his mother about what he saw and how funny it looked. Mrs. Kent (whose own history with Mr. Kent and her sickly predecessor was not one to boast about) could easily have figured out what happened - and then there would have been hell for Mr. Kent to pay. I'm afraid that the guilty father and the guilty nanny may have thought they had little choice if they were to avoid any unpleasant repercussions. That is, of course, if they were responsible (a big if!).

Jeff

Hi Jeff,

it also parallels the Charles Bravo Case (which I recall you have a big interest in). Either Bravo killed himself, or he was killed by his wife or his housekeeper, and the authorities were never able to raise sufficient proof to nail either of them.

I think Whicher was shrewd enough to have pursued Mr Kent and Gough if he had any evidence at all against them; and I don't think he did. Of course, by the time he came on the scene, the local coppers had made a right pig's ear of the initial investigation. It's also interesting that at least a couple of local dignitaries, such as the Kents' doctor, believed that Constance did it. The villagers wanted to think Kent did it because they disliked him.

For what it's worth, I think the evidence points to Constance and William being equally involved. I suggest that Saville was suffocated in the house, otherwise how could he have been carried all the way to the privy without waking him? And how could Constance open the drawing-room window unless she could either put Saville down while she did so, or had someone with her to assist?

Graham

[Mayerling]

Hi Jeff,

it also parallels the Charles Bravo Case (which I recall you have a big interest in). Either Bravo killed himself, or he was killed by his wife or his housekeeper, and the authorities were never able to raise sufficient proof to nail either of them.

I think Whicher was shrewd enough to have pursued Mr Kent and Gough if he had any evidence at all against them; and I don't think he did. Of course, by the time he came on the scene, the local coppers had made a right pig's ear of the initial investigation. It's also interesting that at least a couple of local dignitaries, such as the Kents' doctor, believed that Constance did it. The villagers wanted to think Kent did it because they disliked him.

For what it's worth, I think the evidence points to Constance and William being equally involved. I suggest that Saville was suffocated in the house, otherwise how could he have been carried all the way to the privy without waking him? And how could Constance open the drawing-room window unless she could either put Saville down while she did so, or had someone with her to assist?

Graham

Hi Graham,

I have to write this response in several parts again. The crappy system is refusing to let me put down a full response.

Bravo Case:

It too is as neat a puzzle, but by her confession Constant enabled the legal system to mark the Road Murder closed. Lizzie Borden stood trial and was acquitted (whether correctly or not we can't say). Charles Bravo's death did result in a public demand for a more in-depth coroner's court hearing. That revealled that the suspects were Florence, Jane Cox, Dr. Gully(Florence's old boyfriend), and (by accident) Charles himself. There was also a vengeful coach/stable hand Charles discharged, Joseph Bravo (Charles' stepfather, who argued with him about money), possibly some other neighbor (Charles had such a "lovely" personality), and maybe a fellow law inn member of dubious background. The Coroner's Jury had too many suspects to choose from.

End of part one.

Jeff

[Mayerling]

Part two:

Jane Cox was the paid companion friend to Florence Bravo, not the housekeeper. Florence did use Jane to help control the household, but she kept Jane as a amenuensis. This drove Charles Bravo wild because he did not understand why she was in his house, and he did not like the extra person who not only was he paying a salary to (for his wife) but who he had to feed and a roof to. If he had his way Cox would have been on hers. That was supposed t be her motive in killing Charles if she did. Jane's behavior at the coroner's court hearing (where she basically pointed out to Florence and Dr. Gully as more likely the guilty pair) showed tht Florene could really pick "loyal" companions.

Back to Constance and poor Francis:

I would not be surprised if Constance did have an accomplice if she did the killing. William would have been a good choice.

Jeff

[Bob Hinton]

Really?

Most murderous partnerships have a very strong connection between the partners, they are often married, West’s, in a strong relationship, Handle, or related, Hillside stranglers.

Strangely though it is usually the related partnerships that crack, Buono gave evidence against his cousin, and so on. Those bonded by sex, such as marriage like the West’s or Brady and Hyndley are often the strongest to break.

With children this bond is far less strong and in extremis will break down rapidly. In the Bulger case each blamed the other for the actual murder.
In a case I am researching now which has echoes of the Bulger case the murder was carried out by two brothers who at first denied everything then blamed each other.

If Constance and William had carried out the crime I would have expected the weaker of the two, William, to have cracked under the scrutiny and given Constance up. Nothing of the sort happened.

I am still not convinced that Constance did it.

[Celesta]

I'm sorry I missed this discussion, because I read the book last year and thought it quite good. I kept thinking that in the end Saville would be further implicated, or that he would break down eventually and betray some involvement, but apparently not. As it was, he turned out not to be such a good person.

[Versa]

I'm going to stand up for Constance here! I don't think she had any hand in the murder at all. I think she was an intelligent young woman with a flair for theatre and adventure. I think she had a very hard time in a strict Victorian household and her efforts to rebel were seen (as was common at the time) as hints of insanity. I think her mother suffered the same tarring too.

I believe she confessed to Saville's murder because her brother (who i believe was trying to become an artist?) was also under suspicion and it might of been hindering his attempts to get on in the world. she went to live with him and his family in the end.

My suspicions fall on the nanny, a child had died in her care before. I know child mortality in Victorian England was high but she was in the room with him the night he was killed and she's now been in charge of two children that have died. I'd like to know more about her and the circumstances of the death of the child that had previously died in her care. I'd like to know what became of her too and whether any more children died in her care...

I live a few miles from Rode Hill House, they have an open day there once a year on the anniversary of the murder i think.

[louisa]

Would Constance honestly 'take the wrap' for such a horrible crime? I can imagine that she might try and take some of blame if she thought that her brother was responsible, but not all the blame, surely?

The crime itself sounds as though it was committed either by young people or by peasants. To think they could get rid of a body in a water closet is just too naive.

I have only read the one book on the subject 'The Suspicions of Detective Whicher' and from that I would say that Savile's father Samuel sounded distraught at his son's death so plainly had no hand in it.

I can't help but wonder how Samuel got his money though. He had a fairly ordinary job but managed to support a large household and staff.

[Mayerling]

Yesterday I pointed out on the threads on R. M. S . Titanic and W. T. Stead that a new biography had come out by Francis Wilson about White Star Line President J. Bruce Ismay (which was about time). I also noticed while googling that the author of THE INVESTIGATIONS OF MR. WHICHER has written a second book about the first known railway murder in England in 1864 (the murder led to the chase and extradition and trial and execution of Franz Muller in the same year).

Jeff

[Phil H]

I think the Railway Murder book is by a different author - I've read it and was not so impressed.

Mr Whicher is by Kate Summerscale .

Railway Murder by Kate Colquhoun.

Phil

[Mayerling]

Thanks Phil. I thought it was by the same party.

Jeff

[louisa]

Thanks to you both for reminding me about this interesting case.

I have just bought this book from Amazon:

Mr Briggs' Hat: A Sensational Account of Britain's First Railway Murder"
Kate Colquhoun

[Phil H]

I'll be interested to know what you think, louisa.

The TV coverage at time of publication pushed the railway book as a similar volume to the Road House murder book. I bought it on that basis.

I love Kate Summerscale's book (which I have read twice) because of its layered approach.

We get a good description of the case and a potential solution;

We have a sociological discussion about the impact of working class police on middle class families; and

We have an examination of the development of the detective in fiction and the evolution of the "language" of detection - "sleuthing" etc.

I found it fascinating.

I'll keep my comments on the railway book for until you have read it, although I have already (earlier post) given away some of my feelings. Sorry, I didn't want to influence anyone.

Phil

[Stewart P Evans]

Bernard Taylor

I'll be interested to know what you think, louisa.
The TV coverage at time of publication pushed the railway book as a similar volume to the Road House murder book. I bought it on that basis.
I love Kate Summerscale's book (which I have read twice) because of its layered approach.
We get a good description of the case and a potential solution;
We have a sociological discussion about the impact of working class police on middle class families; and
We have an examination of the development of the detective in fiction and the evolution of the "language" of detection - "sleuthing" etc.
I found it fascinating.
I'll keep my comments on the railway book for until you have read it, although I have already (earlier post) given away some of my feelings. Sorry, I didn't want to influence anyone.
Phil

Kate Summerscale spent two days here researching for the Whicher book. A very nice lady. Have you read Cruelly Murdered by Bernard Taylor, London, Souvenir Press, 1979, for me the defining book on the Constance Kent case? If you haven't read it, you should.

[Phil H]

Stewart,

I have another title on the case on my shelves - I'll check. Thanks for the reccommendation.

With Whicher - I was fascinated to see something of the early career of Dolly Williamson.

Phil