Charles Bravo: Choose Your Own Verdict

[Mayerling]

Though I doubt you'd get a conviction.

Well, I have shown the directions my own thoughts were travelling on this case, but if I were to restrict myself to the big five, suspects (Charles, by accident self poisoning, Florence, Jane, Dr. Gully, and the former coachman who was fired and said something about getting revenge), I would opt for either Florence or Jane (in that group it is too close to call - a joint effort is possible, but not likely after Jane's behavior at the second inquiry).

Jeff

[ColdCaseJury]

Standard of Proof

Though I doubt you'd get a conviction.

I agree that a conviction is not possible because it entails that the prosecution has made its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. However, a Cold Case Juror only has to decide what most likely happened, after reading the evidence and different theories in the book.

[ColdCaseJury]

Well, I have shown the directions my own thoughts were travelling on this case, but if I were to restrict myself to the big five, suspects (Charles, by accident self poisoning, Florence, Jane, Dr. Gully, and the former coachman who was fired and said something about getting revenge), I would opt for either Florence or Jane (in that group it is too close to call - a joint effort is possible, but not likely after Jane's behavior at the second inquiry).

Jeff

Jeff, if it was murder, then Mrs Cox was involved because it implies that she lied when she told the doctors about Charles' confessional (about taking poison for Gully).

[Mayerling]

Jeff, if it was murder, then Mrs Cox was involved because it implies that she lied when she told the doctors about Charles' confessional (about taking poison for Gully).

I do see your point, but in spilling the beans on Florence's relations with Dr. Gully and her problems with Charles at the second inquest, Jane (as Florence's partner) might have had Florence turn on her in response. In fact, I'm surprised Florence did nothing of the kind at all.

Jeff

[ColdCaseJury]

I do see your point, but in spilling the beans on Florence's relations with Dr. Gully and her problems with Charles at the second inquest, Jane (as Florence's partner) might have had Florence turn on her in response. In fact, I'm surprised Florence did nothing of the kind at all.

Jeff

But what could Florence say? She had testified in her June 1 treasury statements that Charles was aggressive and suicidal. Her hands at the inquest were tied by this. It seems to me the major problem with pinning the blame on Mrs Cox alone is why would Florence go along with Mrs Cox's story? I suggest a theory on this point in the book.

My point for now is this. If it was murder, it was either Mrs Cox or Mrs Cox and Florence. Which is the simplest hypothesis according to the evidence? This is up for debate, but as I say in my Postscript to the case, poisoners often work alone.

[Mayerling]

But what could Florence say? She had testified in her June 1 treasury statements that Charles was aggressive and suicidal. Her hands at the inquest were tied by this. It seems to me the major problem with pinning the blame on Mrs Cox alone is why would Florence go along with Mrs Cox's story? I suggest a theory on this point in the book.

My point for now is this. If it was murder, it was either Mrs Cox or Mrs Cox and Florence. Which is the simplest hypothesis according to the evidence? This is up for debate, but as I say in my Postscript to the case, poisoners often work alone.

Good point again. The only cases that I know of two poisoners working together are those of the Marchioness de Brinvilliers, and her lover (and he got killed in an accident while making some more poison), and (in Victorian England) an 1884 case in Liverpool about two sisters Flanagan and Higgins (I think the first was named Flanagan) who were killing people for insurance money. There was also Susi Olah, a Hungarian poisoner, who was assisted by various women in the villages around her town, who used her services to get rid of unwanted relatives or enemies (this was in the 1920s and 1930s).

I think most poisoners work alone (as do most murderers) to protect themselves from possible betrayal.

Jeff

[Graham]

Couple of quick points:

1] Jane Cox was inheritrix to large estates in the West Indies, and I don't suppose it would have mattered much to her financially if Charles Bravo had terminated her employment. (Incidentally, I have seen Jane Cox described as a 'maid'; she was not. She was companion to Florence Bravo, a very respectable situation in Victorian England.

2] Charles Bravo had been described as being of a 'suicidal' nature (amongst other character defects). In those days attempted suicide was a criminal offence, so little wonder as he lay suffering from the effects of antimony poisoning that he didn't own up to trying to kill himself; had he recovered he'd have been up in front of the Beak.

I therefore still think that Charles took the poison by accident; either that, or Florence had administered it. But if she had, she must have had a stronger motive for murdering her husband than anything I can think of.

Graham

[Rosella]

Large sugar plantations in the West Indies weren't half as profitable, or as valuable, as they had been early in the century and anyway most of the inheritance went to her eldest son, Leslie.

I have seen a census of, I think 1881 (but I might be mistaken about the date, it's been a while) in which Mrs Cox is back in England and her youngest son (Henry) living with her is 16 and an unemployed clerk. If she'd had that much wealth he would still have been at school and perhaps thinking of university.

[GUT]

Large sugar plantations in the West Indies weren't half as profitable, or as valuable, as they had been early in the century and anyway most of the inheritance went to her eldest son.

I have seen a census of (I think 1891 but I might be mistaken about the date, it's been a while) in which Mrs Cox is back in England and her youngest son living with her is 16 and an unemployed clerk. If she'd had that much wealth he would still have been at school and perhaps thinking of university.

The end of slavery ht the sugar and coffee plantations hard.

[Rosemary]

Sucre

As the great granddaughter of a sugar plantation owner, it sure did. Which is why grandpa found himself in the Caribbean, married, unknowingly, to the granddaughter of a former octoroon slave from yet another sugar plantation.

[GUT]

As the great granddaughter of a sugar plantation owner, it sure did. Which is why grandpa found himself in the Caribbean, married, unknowingly, to the granddaughter of a former octoroon slave from yet another sugar plantation.

Whereas I'm the greatx3 grandson of the a sugar and coffee plantation owner.

He ended up siring kids to a number of (former or not so former) slaves. But he had over 500 to choose from.

Seems at one stage he was probably also a trader.

[Rosella]

In 'Death at the Priory' the author James Ruddick travelled to Jamaica to see the Cox estates for himself. That was in 2001. The land around Content, the demolished family home, had long since been broken up into freehold plots, cultivated by the descendants of slaves.

Jane Cox's son Leslie had married a Jamaican and Ruddick wrote that 'his Creole descendants still lived in the area' and cultivated pimento. The head of the family, Henry Cox, farms near Content producing crops for the perfume industry.

On the other hand, Jane Cox, was a complete fraud. She represented herself as having been born in exotic climes, in the East Indies, and that her father was French, she having been Jane Edouard. Yseult Bridges, an early writer on the Bravo case, said she was Creole.

Bernard Taylor and Kate Clarke, the co-authors of Murder at the Priory, tracked her background. She was in fact Jane Cannon Edwards of Liverpool. She lied on her marriage certificate as well. She was ten years older than the 21 year old groom but stated she was the same age.

[ColdCaseJury]

Couple of quick points:

1] Jane Cox was inheritrix to large estates in the West Indies, and I don't suppose it would have mattered much to her financially if Charles Bravo had terminated her employment. (Incidentally, I have seen Jane Cox described as a 'maid'; she was not. She was companion to Florence Bravo, a very respectable situation in Victorian England.

2] Charles Bravo had been described as being of a 'suicidal' nature (amongst other character defects). In those days attempted suicide was a criminal offence, so little wonder as he lay suffering from the effects of antimony poisoning that he didn't own up to trying to kill himself; had he recovered he'd have been up in front of the Beak.

I therefore still think that Charles took the poison by accident; either that, or Florence had administered it. But if she had, she must have had a stronger motive for murdering her husband than anything I can think of.

Graham

Graham, thanks for your points. As for (1), I cover this in my book Poisoning at the Priory. In early 1876 Jane Cox had no idea WHEN the inheritance would come through, nor whether her aunt Margaret would change her will again (remember she was changing it to make Leslie the beneficiary). A distant legacy does not meet immediate financial needs. She did NOT want to remove her boys from their English education - a massive motivation for a mother. As it happened the legacy came through in 1879 - what would have Jane and her boys done during those three years had she been sacked?

(2) Misadventure was not illegal. Why couldn't Charles SAY he had taken the tartar emetic by accident? He could say he was keeping it to help cure his wife of his drinking problem. Given the misogynistic times, no one would have blinked. And Charles was described as the last person to commit suicide by his friends and family. The only anecdotes of suicidal intent came from... Mrs Cox and Florence.

Again, all the different theories are dramatised and analysed in my book. My belief is only when you the theories side by side can you make the most informed decision. Most authors sharpen and level in favour of their preferred theory - I avoid giving my solution in my book (it is only available online after the reader has given a verdict).

Antony Matthew Brown
Author, Poisoning at the Priory