How Holmes Caught a Violet Criminal
Dearest Detectives,
Thanks to your astute investigative efforts, The Curious Affliction of Mr. Brown has been brought to light, and the Browns and Harpers have been spared from any further illness-inducing “gifts”. Had you not helped Watson and Dr. Anstruther get to the bottom of this, Lady Elizabeth might have taken one rose-scented bath too many, and ended up hospitalized, or worse!
Fingers crossed the next case is less poisonous...
The Dear Holmes Team
——
18 June, 1890
Dear Dr. Anstruther,
I am most grateful that you were both able and willing to comply with Watson’s call for assistance, for the information you so readily supplied to him has allowed us to lay rest to this case. The appropriate authorities have been informed of our findings, and although some harm has already been done, know that there is no chance of these childish attacks continuing. It took more than a moment of contemplation, but the truth behind these poisonings and the violet-scented talcum powder is rather uncomplicated, albeit difficult to perceive. I will explain forthwith.
In Watson’s initial letter to me, he described the symptoms presented by Mr. Brown and quite rightly proposed that they could be caused by several illnesses. Given Brown’s occupation and his daily exposure to elements of toxicity, the first and most obvious possibility was that the sewers were the source of his illness. On the other hand, the suggestion that another person might have been at the root of his curious affliction was troubling, and that was compounded by Ernest Brown’s reluctance to deny the notion.
After reading your first letter and learning of your visit to Mr. Brown’s home, and the samples of “talc” you collected, two possibilities called my attention. The first, which I have already alluded to, was that of an act of revenge. Your physical examination of Brown could have supported this theory, as the neuropathy of his feet suggested poisoning, and your questioning made clear that there was some ill feeling between Brown and his colleague Charley Flinders. Although that feeling did not seem enough to incite murder, I had to consider the fact that Brown’s employment allows easy access to thallium in the form of rat poison. Whether Flinders was our culprit or not, Brown could have inadvertently brought poison home to his wife, perhaps on his clothes, and that would have accounted for her similar symptoms. I might have given this additional thought, were it not for the white powder you noted and subsequently collected.
Knowing that the “talc” had been a gift to Mrs. Brown, I was certain that she and Mr. Brown’s malaise was irrelevant to the sewers of London. Furthermore, knowing that they were both suffering from the same condition, I was confident that she had not intentionally caused it. On the contrary, the gifted powder cast doubt on Lady Elizabeth Harper, who had given it to Annie Brown. It also brought forth two other lines of inquiry: If Lady Elizabeth meant for Mrs. Brown to receive poisoned talc, then what was her motive? Conversely, if she inadvertently passed along the poison, then who had tampered with her present, and why?
Fortunately, both you and Watson were already familiar with Lady Elizabeth’s neighbours on Upper Wimpole, the Fenwicks. This greatly expedited your investigation and of course the process of answering the aforementioned questions.
Your second letter to Watson, detailing your conversation with the Fenwicks, yielded crucial information regarding the Harpers, especially Lady Elizabeth and her relationship to this case. Beyond Ethel and Bedford Fenwick’s opinions of Lady Elizabeth, the fact that she too seemed to be exhibiting the symptoms of thallium poisoning cleared her of my suspicions. In fact, it was more likely that she herself was the target. My growing suspicion, with your first two letters in hand, was that Lady Elizabeth’s poisoner would be found within the Harper residence.
To begin with, the timing of her poisoning made little sense. How would she have become poisoned by the same powder as the Browns after having given it away? I speculated she might have kept an additional quantity for herself, but upon being interviewed, she denied having touched the substance at all and discredited that theory. Thus, the poison must have been introduced to Lady Elizabeth’s body by some other means, and, I wagered, by one of the people residing in her home, who were all in “rude health”.
In light of Lady Sarah’s death and the Harpers’ otherwise singular circumstances, it was plausible that one of Sir William’s children might have been driven to act against their stepmother. Sir William’s twins were excused, so to speak, as they were away at boarding school; still, one might have expected Sir William or Emily Harper to be displaying Lady Elizabeth’s latest symptoms, yet they were not. Mrs. Fenwick also noted several details about the young Emily that made her worthy of scrutiny, given a case of thallium poisoning, but it was not until reading your last message to Watson that I was able to catch sight of our culprit.
The letter you sent yesterday made it plain to see that our poisoner was not necessarily a resident of the Harpers’ home, but rather a person within their family circle. Specifically, one of those who partook in the Harpers’ most recent holiday gathering. There was the slight, if not farcical, possibility that the person who had given Lady Elizabeth the powder had themselves received it as a gift, but your subsequent report indicated that this was unlikely. So, you will be asking, who was responsible?
First of all, let us consider Emily Harper. She seemed dubious, for the most part, for two reasons. Her contentious relationship with Lady Elizabeth, for one, presented a plausible motive, as the former friend of her mother was now, in more than a few ways, acting as her “replacement”. There was also the matter of Emily’s affinity for specific sciences, namely botany, mycology, and mineralogy, which so often are associated with poisons and toxins (and indeed witchcraft, I should mention). Despite this, several facts make me certain that Emily is but a grieving child, and assuredly innocent in this ordeal.
Your visit to the Harpers, and the diary entries you discovered therein, established that Lady Elizabeth’s disdain for violets was revealed to Sir William and Emily at his wedding. This is to say, Emily was aware of her stepmother’s aversion to the scent, and if her objective was for Lady Elizabeth to apply thallium-sulphate powder to her skin, then she would have chosen any odour but violet. If anything, Emily’s own dislike of violet may have helped her evade the poison. The only suspicion one might have of her, I believe, is that she may have been responsible for throwing the stone through her house’s window, which the Fenwicks recall occurred a short time before Emily’s own return. If so, it was a somewhat expectable act of frustration driven by, I predict, a sense of loss.
Second, let us consider Sir William as our culprit. No mention has been made of any grave disputes between him and Lady Elizabeth. Even so, as a motive, one might be drawn to consider whether the timing of Sir William’s marriage affected his opinion of Lady Elizabeth. Sir William married her before the details of the coroner’s report were announced. Might he have started blaming or resenting his new wife upon reading the report? One must also consider that, if there had been a growing relationship between Sir William and Elizabeth Walters prior to Lady Sarah’s tragic death, this would have magnified the feeling, without a doubt.
Nevertheless, I do not believe it is feasible to suggest that Sir William is the poisoner. Above all, Sir William, like his daughter, knew that Lady Elizabeth abhors the scent of violets. He would have known that giving her a poisoned tin of violet-scented talc would be a near pointless attempt on her life.
Likewise, Sir William’s parents and Lady Elizabeth’s mother were hardly suspicious. Two of their Christmas presents were unaccounted for, yes, but there was no obvious motive, and they had not been present since their holiday visit. It would have been difficult if not impossible for one of them to coordinate Lady Elizabeth’s recent poisoning. Besides this, Lady Elizabeth’s mother likely knew her opinion of violets as well, as did her husband’s parents, who certainly attended the wedding. This then leads me, finally, to consider the two sons, Harry and James, one of whom you may have already deduced is responsible for these foul poisonings.
To understand how I have reached this conclusion, it is imperative to behold precisely when Lady Elizabeth became ill, and also when the tin of talc was given to Annie Brown. As you know, the boys are boarders, and are generally only allowed to return home on specific term dates determined by the school. Whilst Sir William mentioned that the boys were safe because they were “thank heavens, away at boarding school”, I believe it is more significant to consider what effect their presence at home had on the health of Lady Elizabeth.
The poisoned talc was placed beneath the Christmas tree at a time when both the boys were at home. As regards Lady Elizabeth’s declining health, it is clear that she began to experience pain a little after Easter, presumably from an exposure to thallium. This is after Lent on the school calendar, when Harry and James were paying yet another visit to the house. I would suggest that upon returning in the spring and noting Lady Elizabeth’s unexpectedly thriving health, one of the twins took action again. This time, opting for a rose-scented ploy.
Lady Elizabeth told you that she gains some relief by way of taking a hot bath, into which she adds a quantity of rose-scented salts. After bathing, she claims, the pain “returns with a vengeance”. This indicates to me that the bath salts are most likely the source of her illness, as thallium is soluble in water and could be absorbed through the skin, though I hardly need to explain this to you.
“But which of the twins was responsible?” you may still be wondering. “Or was it both?” I surmise that only one of the Harper boys lays the blame for his mother’s death at Lady Elizabeth’s door, and the diary entries you transcribed for Watson left no doubt as to this.
From Emily Harper’s records, one can deduce three critical facts:
1) that the boys had been absent from their father’s wedding to Lady Elizabeth,
2) that Emily, in jest, had been the one to give Lady Elizabeth the talc, and
3) that one, if not both of her brothers, had secretly tinkered with the gift and wrapped it anew with a purple ribbon.
This last fact says to me that our poisoner was one of the twins, who, having missed their father’s wedding, would not have learned of their stepmother’s aversion to the scent of violets. If they had, then they would have guessed that Emily’s gift was meant to elicit an uproar, and that Lady Elizabeth was unlikely to use the talc, poisoned or not.
As for which of the two brothers was responsible, I again, direct your attention to Miss Harper’s writing, which states that James had brought home “pretty blue bottles”, such as those made to contain poisons. I will also point to James’ supposed idols, which are verily telling. Sir Humphry Davy and Emily Aston are unsurprising choices, as the first is a giant in our country’s history of scientific achievement, and the other is a tour de force who has conquered the male bastion of science. It is the inclusion of William Crookes that I find alarming. If James claims to idolise Mr. Crookes, then he will have undoubtedly researched the many achievements of this man who, as well as his discoveries in the fields of electricity and atomic theory, was the person to “discover” thallium.
James’ interest in the scientist, taken with the fact that Harry Harper shares an amicable relationship with Lady Elizabeth, leads me to dismiss the latter as our elusive poisoner. “Now,” you will be asking, “what of James?” I can only offer a prediction.
Upon receipt of your last letter, I sent an urgent telegram to my associate Lestrade at Scotland Yard, apprising him of everything I have noted thus far, and requesting he personally detain James Harper. If all goes as planned, Mr. Harper will be discreetly located at his school and taken into London for questioning. A separate message was also despatched to the Harpers, wherein I delivered the unfortunate news and directed them to cease use of Lady Elizabeth’s rose-scented bath salts. The police will call upon them to retrieve the sample and further inform them of the situation with James.
Dr. Anstruther, I admire your commitment to assisting Watson, and the Harpers, and Mr. and Mrs. Brown, throughout this sordid investigation. Your willingness to lend your expertise to our endeavours will not soon be forgotten, and though I pray you never find yourself in such circumstances, please do not hesitate to contact our office should you find yourself in need of our services.
With best regards,
PS. Watson would like me to note that he too sends his regards, and his gratitude.