The Croydon Poisonings

[louisa]

The definitive case history on the Croydon Poisoning is the book 'The Riddle of Birdhurst Rise' by Richard Whittington-Egan.

You'll find it fascinating. Guaranteed.

[belinda]

I saw this on A Most Mysterious Murder. It is certainly very interesting. I don't know much about it. I would certainly like to know more. I wonder if there wasn't more than one murderer

[sdreid]

I found the Fellowes theory interesting but was not won over. Since I am not any kind of expert on the case, I suppose I was able to enjoy the presentation blissfully.

[louisa]

....And another thing - Grace did not know that her Aunt Gwen was visiting until the morning of the SAME day. Fellowes tells us that she knew the day before. It's an important point that he managed to get very wrong.

[louisa]

I've just watched the 'Julian Fellowes Investigates..' DVD and I was disappointed.

I know this story backwards, sideways - every which way! So I started spotting errors in this film immediately.

The first scene shows Violet taking medicine from a FULL bottle. Anyone interested in this true life crime will know that Violet took the last liquid from the bottle (which was laced with arsenic).

They made Grace into a blonde when in fact she was a 'striking brunette'.

This is one movie where I suspect the real life characters were actually better looking than the actors portraying them!

Kate Noakes was happy at 29 Birdhurst Rise. She was not the fat miserable slattern portrayed by Fellowes.

Tom and his American wife Margaret were a happy couple and if they ever argued, which they probably did as most couples do, then it was never reported. Tom was also very successful in his line of work and had plenty of jobs lined up. He had a lot of money in the bank as well so the couple and their children could easily have gone to America if they had wanted to.

They only decided to go to America after the murders when they were 'advised by Scotland Yard to put as much distance as possible between himself and his sister'.

On a more trivial note - the furnishings were all wrong for the 1920's. People lived in dark rooms crowded with big furniture and knick knacks on every surface. The paintwork was always brown and there would have been dreary wallpaper. The furnishings and colour schemes in the Fellowes film were of present day - plain pale aqua coloured walls and bright white paintwork.

Other details were incorrect as well. Edmund didn't just turn up (back home from his fishing holiday) during a garden party. He was met at the station by his wife Grace and his son John.

Grace HAD to be the murderer. It seems that Fellowes imbellished the truth in order to fit the facts to his theory, albeit an interesting one.

[sdreid]

The Erroll case was the subject of the movies White Mischief and The Happy Valley.

In the DVD extra, Fellows says that they might do more including cases from other countries such as America but apparently those plans didn't workout. If I recall, the only limits were that the murder happened after the development of photography and before the end of capital punishment so, in Britain at least, that would be roughly 1840-1964; certainly a rich reservoir.

[louisa]

Hi Penny

I've just purchased the Julian Fellowes DVD from eBay. It was £17.95 so I'll copy it and then put the original back on eBay.

I'm looking forward to it. I see it contains other interesting murders.

I'm going to take a LOT of convincing that Grace wasn't the murderer though. She had the motive (always short of cash) and the opportunity. She also appeared to have rather a suppressed neuroticism, prone to hysteria, if witnesses are to be believed.

Tom was always very open in his dealings with the police and the Coroner.

It's probably quite easy for a writer to fit the facts to his theory. Diane Janes accused RWE of doing exactly that. However she herself was guilty of exactly the same thing in her book.

[Penny_Dredfull]

the Croydon Poisonings

Louisa- hope you enjoy the series if you find it.

To answer your question- the other two murders covered are those of Rose Harsent, a servant girl, in England 1902; and the Earl of Erroll in Kenya 1941.

I wish Mr. Fellowes would make a new series as well- but I think he's too busy with his latest series Downton Abbey, a period drama being shown now on PBS.

[sdreid]

Yes, Fellowes had some interesting "solutions" but the only one I agreed with was Errol.

[kidtwist]

I have the Jullian Fellowes DVDs and I agree those are excellent shows. I wonder why BBC America doesn't show things like that rather than endless reruns of Star Trek: The Next Generation.

In any case, while I was impressed by Fellowes theory, I still think Grace Duff is the most likely to have been the poisoner. Fellowes' theories for all those cases are quite ingenious. I wish he'd do another series of that show.

[louisa]

Hi Penny

Thanks for that information. I'm going to try and track down that DVD and I'll post again with my (maybe) revised opinion.

I am interested in the Bravo case and the Storrs case but I don't know the others you mention. I'll be Googling those. Are they interesting cases?

I'm mainly interested in crimes of the last century. Anything further back than that doesn't seem real to me.

[Penny_Dredfull]

the Croydon Poisonings

Louisa- if you're interested in the Julian Fellowes take on the case, it's not a book but rather an episode in his TV series entitled Julian Fellowes Investigates A Most Mysterious Murder . I'd be interested to see if you change your mind about Tom as I did after viewing it! I watched the series when it aired originally on the BBC, but viewed it again recently by checking a copy out on DVD from my local library- and copying it, of course! You may also enjoy some of the other episodes in the series, which includes the Bravo case, the Peasenhall murder, George Harry Storrs, and the Earl of Erroll.

[louisa]

Hi Penny

This is also my favourite case. It has all the ingredients of a whodunnit.

I am going to have to find the Julian Fellowes book, or at least find out what he had to say about the case.

Tom Sidney had independent means and wasn't hard up like Grace. His demeanour throughout the case was exactly as one might expect, whereas Grace seemed rather sneaky. They say that poisoning is a 'woman's crime' and in this instance I think it was.

Grace had the motives and the opportunities. The only thing that stopped her going to trial (although Inspector Hedges was pressing for her arrest) was her demure and convincing demeanour that seemed to hoodwink and beguile the Coroner and the jury (all male). Nobody could believe that this sweet faced genteel lady with the big blue eyes could possibly be capable of murdering members of her own family.

Tom seemed far more open about everything, and frankly I can't see him as the murderer.

[Penny_Dredfull]

the Croydon Poisonings

This has always been one of my favourite classic unsolved mysteries- it has so many interesting facets to it, one of the reasons that I find poisoning cases such as this so intriguing.
I've read the Whittington-Egan book and seen the A Most Mysterious Murder Episode version- however, I'm not familiar with what some of you refer to here as "Jane's book".
I must say that for some time I found Whittington-Egan's solution to be the correct one, considering Grace Duff to be some kind of cold, ruthless sufferer of Munchausen's by Proxy. However, after viewing Julian Fellowes's take on the case, I reconsidered and changed my mind. I think he made a very logical and compelling case for the brother Tom as the murderer. I think his insight into Tom's potential motivation, the order in which the deaths occured and their timing, and his use of Grace as a scapegoat are spot on. Tom's throwing the finger of suspicion onto his nephew and mother are also telling. As was his insistence to travel himself some distance and at some inconvenience up to Newcastle( wasn't it?) to inform the aunt of his mother's death- affording another opportunity to implicate Grace and distance himself.
I never considered either the young son or Violet to be the culprit- any attempt at arguing the opposite strains logic in the extreme.

[louisa]

That's the same as me then Mark.