How Holmes Saved Madame Le Fevre & Solved “The Chalfont Outrages”
Dear Investigators,
Congratulations. Your dogged work has brought swift closure to not only the Chalfont Estate, but several Buckinghamshire locals — plus you’ve solved a murder, and saved the life of one Madame Le Fevre. Needless to say, your work quelling The Chalfont Outrages will not be forgotten anytime soon. In case you’d like to see how your process matches up against Holmes’ method, make sure to read through his overview of the case below!
We’ll be in touch soon,
The Dear Holmes Team
——
1 July, 1924
Dear Mr. Bradley,
You initially expressed concern that these mysterious attacks were too trivial for a detective such as myself to investigate. Au contraire, my friend. This case was a satisfying puzzle to piece together, and I need not remind you, attacks on animals are treated as a serious offence in this country. As it happened, I was even “invited” to investigate these incidents by the Buckinghamshire police, though this was not until 28 June. You were wise to involve me as soon as the first attack transpired. Had you not, a new victim would have soon turned up on the Chalfont Estate.
Now let me set out my modus operandi in solving this odd case.
When your first letter arrived, it imparted two crucial bits of information – the first, there had been an attack on a dog. The second, more salient point, was that it appeared somebody had attempted to get into the bear cage in Lord Chalfont’s private menagerie. I will return to this detail. As for suspects, I theorised the attacker would have come from the Chalfont estate, given the limitations on access that you described; but that was far from conclusive and even so I could discern few motives. Mr. Bertram and Lewington both could have had access to the animals, I thought, and it was possible for Mr. Allison to have snuck into the estate. Of course, none of these men seemed to display a strong motive.
Your later letters, however, rapidly shed light on the Chalfont estate and its surrounding community. From its start, your second letter, dated 24 June, complicated matters. If the attacks had been carried out by the same individual, then it appeared their motivation was unrelated to Lord Chalfont, as the latest victims were not his animals. Somebody had clearly been compelled to assault three hounds, and possibly a bear, but to what end?
Reviewing your two missives, I considered the possibility of Mr. Allison’s involvement. Although he might have easily had the opportunity to harm Mrs. Mercer’s dog, and Mr. Howard Grant’s, it seemed highly unlikely that he would have carried out the crime on Lord Chalfont’s estate. Even if he had, and had not been spotted by anybody, I surmised, poor Bundo (and no doubt the uninjured hounds) would have been reminded of his scent. Knowing that Mr. Allison’s arrival did not stir the animals, I could dismiss him as a suspect. This left me questioning Jackie Dowse – the delivery boy Violet Harper had mentioned – and scrutinising two individuals, whose connection to The Pheasant Inn was dubious under the light of recent circumstances. Alphonse Chalfont and your assistant, Mr. Derry, both would have had the opportunity to commit all three of the crimes thus far, and indeed, both could have accessed Lord Chalfont’s animals without causing a commotion. Still, neither displayed a reasonable motive for wanting to commit such a crime. Dowse, on the other hand, I thought was worthy of surveilling. Then came your following letter, of 26 June, which finally laid our villain’s motive, alongside several plausible others, before me.
Going through the dramatis personae you so kindly provided, I saw nothing relevant to the crimes in your description of Lord Chalfont. I could see unusual, if not dubious, characteristics in his son Alphonse, but a fledgling revolutionary is unlikely to advance his cause by attacks on animals. His background in biology piqued my interest, but these crimes were far from “experiments”. And had Alphonse truly wished to conduct any sorts of experimentations, he could have easily accessed a laboratory. This, taken with the knowledge of his fear of animals, led me to dismiss him as a suspect. The zoo-keeper, Mr. Lewington, despite his gambling, did not appear to have a substantial motive either, in fact, he seemed concerned with protecting Lord Chalfont’s menagerie. This left Lord Chalfont’s secretary, Mr. Horace Edalji; the butler, Mr. Summers, with his demanding mistress; your assistant, Mr. Derry, whose treatment of animals you observed to be objectionable; the chef’s assistant, John Leage; and the chef himself, Monsieur le Fevre, with the ailing wife.
Upon first reading the name Edalji, I thought of a case involving a solicitor, also Edalji, from some twenty odd years ago. My dear associate, Watson, has since reminded me that the similar names are no coincidence. Lord Chalfont’s Mr. Edalji is the brother of the aforementioned solicitor, who had been given a seven-year sentence after being falsely accused of several gruesome attacks on animals. He was only freed after a respected writer raised concerns with what he saw as a miscarriage of justice – I assisted with some of the investigative details. As for the present, I could see nothing in your descriptions of Horace Edalji which would imply a motive for the attacks.
Mr. Summers had the opportunity to attack the Chalfont animals, but he had been on the estate overnight when the attacks in town occurred. Mr. Derry too became an unlikely suspect with this letter. Besides a lack of motive, he continued to work with Lord Chalfont’s hounds throughout the investigation. Much like with Mr. Allison, the dogs would not have allowed Derry to go on so casually about them were he the attacker.
Thus, I was left with two candidates: Monsieur le Fevre and his assistant John. John, as did many of his fellow staff, had ample opportunity to commit the first crimes. Nevertheless, his presence in the Chalfont kitchen on the morning of 24 June makes his involvement in the latter assaults improbable. Simply put, he would not have had the time to carry out two separate attacks in town on that same morning, all the while returning to the estate – unnoticed – and readying both himself and the kitchen for breakfast. This leaves but one individual, who moved undetected until I read your report on the Chalfont staff. Your description of Monsieur le Fevre, and his ailing wife, provided me with our villain’s motive and indeed the key to this whole matter.
First and foremost, Le Fevre was unaccounted for on every single occasion marked by an attack. Indeed, the role reversal recently taking place in the estate’s kitchen was not as innocuous as it seemed, though I am sure Mr. Leage would be quite pleased to continue taking charge. You also noted in your third letter that Le Fevre had taken part in the “disastrous” exploratory mission led by Douglas Mawson, before the Great War. This brought to mind one of the very first odd details you had reported – that it seemed as if somebody had attempted to get into the bear enclosure.
Mawson’s expedition resulted in a most unfortunate accident and the deaths of several men, though Le Fevre, among others, lived. It was later learned that some of those who perished only did so after consuming their canine companions in an attempt to survive. It is now more commonly known, I presume especially to those who survived the ordeal, that the entrails – particularly the liver – of certain animals, such as dogs or bears, can have a toxic effect on humans.
Now, let us return to the nearly broken lock to the bear enclosure, and the multiple wounded hounds; and to Monsieur Le Fevre. Considering the man’s “colourful” background, I am certain he was familiar with the peculiar nature of canine and ursine liver. And as you well know, dogs and bears were singled out from all other animals on the Chalfont Estate, in spite of the presence of possums, racoons, crocodiles, and more. Add to this his dalliance with the scullery maid, and the fact that Le Fevre fed his wife separately, and would grow angry if anybody so much as touched her “special” meals, and our culprit seems clear as day. Had I any doubts then, they would have been swiftly assuaged on receipt of your letter dated 29 June.
Mr. Derry’s death suggested the man was not responsible for the ongoing crimes. Rather, I posit that he witnessed our true culprit in the act and bravely intervened, as he stumbled out of the Pheasant Inn early on the 29th. Knowing that Derry recognised him, Le Fevre felt more than physically cornered; and though Derry was once a soldier, he was inebriated and facing a knife. The rest of your last letter only continued to support my hypothesis, as Mr. Bertram’s dog was discovered in – rescued from, that is – Monsieur Le Fevre’s room. This, I need not remind you, is the same Le Fevre who is known to call on both Mr. Grant and Mrs. Mercer, the owners of the other dogs attacked.
The Buckinghamshire police were initially sceptical of my findings – their chief inspector perhaps does not have such a keen interest in obscure poisons as I do. But after a proper introduction, my theory was taken under more serious consideration. They have since verified that, thankfully, Catherine Le Fevre remains alive and, arguably, well. With regard to Monsieur Le Fevre, by the time
you have read this letter, I expect he will have been escorted from the estate by Sergeant Milton and his men. Whether his relationship with Miss Blounce was truly sanctioned by Madame Le Fevre or not will soon come to light, nevertheless, the man was eager to hurry along his wife’s sickness.
It is unclear the extent to which her ailment is a result of her husband’s actions, but there was some peeling of the skin and I understand that she confessed to occasional nausea as well as intracranial pressure. These are uncharacteristic of her consumption, yet not indicative of severe poisoning either. I theorise that Le Fevre has been working with small, or insufficient quantities of his special “ingredient”, hence his recent attempts to harvest larger amounts. Madame Le Fevre’s condition should be reviewed by a medical professional in any case, to ensure she is receiving adequate treatment. I would be pleased to despatch Watson to help in this capacity, should she find it agreeable. You need only send word.
Mr. Bradley, this affair, though sordid and unfortunate, could have been far worse were it not for your intervention. I commend your dedication to the law, and to protecting those around you who might not be able to fend for themselves. If you should ever need my assistance again, regarding Lord Chalfont, his hounds, or otherwise, make no mistake: it would be my pleasure to lend my mind.
I remain with best wishes,
