The Investigations of Mr. Whicher

[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.

[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

[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

[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]

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]

Agreed!

Hers is by no means the first book about the Road Hill House Case, but so far it's the best.

Graham

[Stephen Thomas]

Sorry about the length of this post, but I think this an absolutely fascinating case.

And to my mind a fascinating book per se too, Graham. I work with second hand books and many many copies of this book passed through my hands and I wasn't tempted to read it at all but when I finally did take up a recommendation from a friend to do so I was quite amazed at how good it is. The first 2 or 3 chapters are a little confusing with so many different characters being introduced but after that the reader is totally sucked into the drama of this weird historical murder case thanks to the brilliant writing by Ms Summerscale. Her success here is very very well deserved.

[Graham]

I thought it was a fairly reasonable reflection of Kate Summerscale's book, but perhaps not of the case itself. Paddy Considine was a bit wooden, now you mention it, Bob.

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'.

Constance said she used one of her father's razors to kill the child, yet the body exhibited definite stab-wounds as well as slashes. Odd. For what it's worth, I think Constance was up to her neck in it, but did not necessarily actually kill the child. And if she didn't, then the finger would very likely point towards William, of whom Constance was very protective. I don't think Samuel Kent and/or Elizabeth Gough were involved - but who knows? The police and judicial investigation was a total balls-up, even by the standards of the day.

Purely out of personal interest, my brother was once curate at St Paul's Brighton, one of the churches founded by the neo-Papist Arthur Douglas Wagner, to whom Constance confessed to the murder. Poor old Wagner came out of the whole thing rather the worst for wear, through no fault of his own.

Sorry about the length of this post, but I think this an absolutely fascinating case.

Graham

[Bob Hinton]

Tv Production Of The Suspicions Of Mr Whicher

I've just finished watching this and I don't know if anyone agrees with me but was Paddy Considine's performance the most wooden in TV history?

I'm at a loss to explain this as I have seen him in other films and he's been excellent.

I also thought the film did not do justice to the case by not exposing the really strange behaviour of Mr Kent after the body was found.

I've always thought that Constance did not do it.

[Mayerling]

Constance's Off Screen film appearance

One of the classic British "Horror Films" is DEAD OF NIGHT, which is best recalled for Michael Redgrave's episode as an insane ventriloquist who is so attached to his male dummy Hugo that he nearly kills fellow ventriloquist Hartley Powers as a result (and the worst follows, as psychiatrist Frederick Valk discovers). But earlier there was an epsode in the film with Sally Ann Howes at a Christmas party in a large house with a history. She is playing hide and seek, and hears a chid crying, and finds a little boy whos says his sister has been really mean to him recently. After conforting the little fellow, Howes goes back to the party, only to learn the little fellow was the ghost of Francis Kent, and his mean sister (of course - we never see her) is the murderous Constance. I suppose the house is the one (still standing) at Road.

There is also hint of the tragedy in the play and film THE CHALK GARDEN (by Enid Bagnold) in which the new Nanny trying to care for a wild young girl is revealled to have been the murderer of a sibling years earlier, who had been tired before a visiting judge. The Nanny in the fim was Deborah Kerr, her charge was Hayley Mills, and the judge was Felix Aylmer.

As DEAD OF NIGHT came out in 1945 or 1946 it was made just after Constance had died in Australia at the age of 100. Had she lived a few more years and saw it she might have been surprised to be recalled.

[apricot]

Just settling down to watch the ITV dramatisation of " The Suspicions of Mr Whicher" I do hope they do justice to what is a very good book.

[sdreid]

I just watched the Moonstone film the other night - straight off Poverty Row.

[HollyDolly]

The Investigation of Mr.Wicher

I read the book and it was very interesting. I wonder if maybe Constance had the help of her brother in killing Francis Saville Kent. it's possible she could have done it herself, and not the father and the new nanny.Surely the children would have cause to get rid of him ,since Constance I think wasn't very found of her stepmother.
For some reason, I just wasn't fond of Constance. Sometimes you can read about a criminal who had a horrible childhood and one can see why perhasp they turned out the way the way they did,and you think to yourself, what a waste of a life, and how if they could have had some outside influence,they might have turned out different.

Didn't know there might be some connection between the royal family and Samuel kent, so of course, even though he might have been an illegitamte son of the Duke of Kent, it would explain any investigation halt.
Does anyone know if he got any monies from the royals?

[Graham]

Hi Jeff,

personally I think Samuel Kent and the nanny (who were almost certainly having it off) were very lucky not to end up in jail, or even on the gallows.
I did hear about the possible connection between Kent and the royal family, but wonder if this was really the reason why Whicher's investigation failed.

One aspect of the case is how poor old Wagner, to whom Constance confessed, came out of it with his reputation damaged. To my mind he acted very correctly, even turning down Constance's offer of about £800 for his church's poor-box, presumably to ease her conscience.

Coicidentally my brother was once curate of Wagner's church, St Paul's Brighton.

Graham

[Mayerling]

I just read Paul Chambers' Murder Most Foul about the Road Hill House mystery. Not as well-written as Kate Summerscale's book, but well-researched. He came to the conclusion that it was Constant Kent acting alone, but I would beg to differ. What puzzled me slightly was Chambers' apparent animosity towards Rev Arthur Wagner, to whom Constance allegedly confessed.

One of the most mysterious and intriguing murder cases of the last couple of centuries, IMHO.

Graham

Hi Graham,

I agree it is a fascinating case - I usually think it is the equivalent of the Lizzie Borden case in the U.S. because the evidence would seem to point to the women involved but public opinion saved Constance from arrest (and ruined Whicher) until her confession, and Lizzie got acquitted. And ever since the mystery in both cases remains to perplex us.

At the time many thought Samuel Kent was the guilty party - Charles Dickens wrote that Samuel Kent was having an affair with the new Nanny (his second wife was the original Nanny), and poor little Francis was seen by Mr. Kent and his employee watching them. So Dickens figured that was the reason for the murder - not jealousy or anger from Constance.

Whicher was a friend of Dickens - he was written up in a series of articles about Scotland Yard by Dickens as "Inspector Whichum".

There has been a small mystery about the Kent family - Was Mr. Samuel Kent an illegitimate son of Edward Duke of Kent, the fourth son of King George III, and father of Queen Victoria. That would make Samuel the Queen's illegitimate half-brother, and Constance her illegitimate niece. If so it might help explain the way Whicher's investigation was interfered with and stopped.

Whicher survived the disaster of Road Hill Case. He became a private detective, and proved his real worth again in 1871-72 when he found that the so called "Sir Roger Tichborne" known as "the Tichborne Claimant" was actually Arthur Orton from Wapping in London.

As for Wilkie Collins' THE MOONSTONE, yes elements of the murder (the business of the burning of the tell-tale nightgown - another similarity to the Borden Case where clothing was burned for no reason) appears in the story. But THE MOONSTONE is about the theft of a valuable jewel. A murder does occur, but not in the mansion where the crime occurs. Also Collins used another incident, the 1861 Northumberland Avenue Affair, at one point when a character is waylaid into an empty house and attacked.

Jeff