Esteemed Detectives,
Thanks to your swift attention, the Death on the Heath has been explained and the true murderer has been apprehended. While we were not able to save Ethel White from her demise, your work undoubtedly means that this killer won't have a chance at naming any new victims!
As per usual, Holmes has quite a few things to say regarding this case too, so if you haven't already, be sure to check out his theory. It seems evidence is always hiding in the trickiest of places...
We'll be in touch soon,
The Dear Holmes Team
——
6 June, 1908
Dear Watson,
I must thank you, my friend, for sending on the details of this most peculiar case. It has managed to distract me from the tedium of my solitary existence.
Having weighed up all the evidence I have come to a number of conclusions, which I shall expound upon in due course. But let us first consider the known facts: a maidservant was coming home from church on a sunny Sunday morning. She was shot to death on a busy Hampstead Heath. How is it, then, that no one witnesses the fatal moment? In fact, the death occurs during a fracas over an open-air meeting of suffragists in which various missiles are being thrown by a group of local rowdies. The police leap to the conclusion that these boys are responsible for the tragic accident. After all, who would want to deliberately end the life of so ordinary-seeming a young woman?
Yet you, Watson, threw a proverbial spanner in the works by observing that the killing must have been deliberate, since the shot fired was at near point-blank range. So then the question must be asked, what could have made Ethel White the object of a murderer?
In attempting to unravel the mystery, as you and Charlotte Booth have most creditably done, a veritable tangle of possibilities has emerged, involving the case against several young men, Ethel White’s personal life, the Grace household, and indeed the Hampstead police force.
Let us first consider the case against the youths.
Since there is no evidence whatsoever that Ethel was known to the boys involved in the riot, save for James, we should have been able to dismiss them from our investigation, especially given the fact that Mrs. Courtenay, the suffragist speaker, kept her eye on them during their little riot, and observed them wielding nothing but tomato, eggs, and sod.
Against that, there is the matter of the British Bulldog pistol discovered concealed at the home of one of the boys, the very type of weapon used in the killing. The vehement insistence of the boy’s mother, Mrs. Ebbs, that the gun was not there before the police search is hardly firm evidence. After all, a mother cannot be a disinterested party. Furthermore, if we take her word for it, then we must ask who planted it? It could only have been a policeman, but, if so, to what end? Simply to bolster their case against the boys? Perhaps. There was also the matter of the not-so-young man, James Page, who was supposedly with the boys on that fateful day. According to the boys, and Page himself, this was far from the case. Not only that, but it seemed that even Mrs. Ebbs knew the boys were not friendly. Curious, but like all else, easily explained with the right evidence. We will return to this.
Let us next turn our attention to the Grace household. Charlotte Booth has done excellent work investigating the family and servants in the house where Miss White worked. But does the answer to her death lie there?
The contents of the note passed to Mrs. Plunkett at church indicate that Miss White was extremely worried about something. This is further borne out by the diary discovered under her mattress at the Grace house.
As was evident from her diary, she had been present during a flaming row between Lady Grace and Selina de Vial, mother of Benjamin, during which Selina announced that she and Godfrey would be going to Austria (or Australia!), taking the boy with them. This would not at all accord with Lady Grace’s plans, considering that her grandson, Benjamin, is heir to the family name, after the ailing Godfrey. Later, Miss White observed Lady Grace furtively dropping something into Godfrey’s drink. Lady Grace caught her, and threatened her, but does Lady Grace truly need to get rid of Ethel because of what she witnessed? Or are the maid’s suspicions merely a product of the sensational literature she favours. The drops in the drink might well have been medicinal, since Booth did uncover Fowlers, a remedy for syphilis, among Lady Grace’s effects. I would agree with Booth’s conclusion. Her Ladyship is likely treating her son for that dread disease, as well as an opium addiction, the symptoms of which she has noted in him. The question remains, however, how far would Lady Grace go to keep Benjamin with her, the only person, it seems, that she cares for?
It cannot be ruled out that she might have poisoned her son. She is, by all accounts, a formidable and controlling woman. Never mind the rat poison, Fowlers solution itself contains arsenic, a high dose of which could prove fatal. Given that knowledge, one is right to question: would Lady Grace commit, or arrange for, the killing of a witness to her crimes?
Everyone knew the route Ethel took returning from church, and the chaos around the suffragists would have provided a convenient cover for an attack. One can also assume that her ladyship, given her class, would have been familiar with firearms from attending hunting parties. She might have used the cover of that chaos, and an overcoat, to attack Miss White unseen. On the other hand, she has compliant people surrounding her too. The valet Briggs, who boasted about handling “embarrassment” for the family, or her lover, the coachman, could have carried out the assault at her behest. Nevertheless, I am inclined to discount the lot. I doubt somebody of Lady Grace’s status would go through such lengths to kill somebody whose testimony would ultimately be weak, to say the least. The Graces are powerful, with powerful friends, and Godfrey’s death could conveniently be put down to an accident if it were ever queried. Not to mention, the evidence detailed in your most recent letter leads us to our true culprit.
Now, we must consider several facets of Ethel White’s personal life. First and foremost, it must be stated plainly. Miss White’s previous beau, “Herb”, was Constable Herbert Hobbins. This became exceedingly clear to me upon reading of your conversation with Mrs. Verling.
It would seem that by taking up with James Page, the baker’s boy, Miss White antagonised both Hobbins, as well as Jimmy’s previous girlfriend, housemaid Mercy Smith. But could this possibly inspire murderous intent? Page states that Constable Hobbins was “raging”, while fellow housemaid Beryl Woods asserts that Mercy was green with jealousy when Miss White “stole” Jimmy from her, adding that she wouldn’t have put it past Mercy to have “plugged” her rival. However neither of these are reliable testimonies. Never mind Hobbins, it is highly unlikely that a young housemaid would use a gun to kill her rival, when she had subtler and simpler options, such as poison, at her disposal. Moreover, I do not believe that Mercy could have passed herself off as the mysterious man in a heavy overcoat who was seen talking to Ethel just before the shot. We will return to the matter of the overcoat, and who was wearing it, in but a few moments.
From the very start, Watson, you were bemused by the dismissive attitude of the Hampstead police towards the clear forensic evidence of the gunshot residue on Ethel White’s blouse. They seemed in a hurry to dismiss the notion of deliberate murder and to lay the blame on Guzman and company, and you surely wondered, were the police merely aloof or was something more sinister occurring?
I posit that both are true in this case. It is an unfortunate reality that wealth and status can sway or dazzle a certain sort of official, for example, a policeman confined to a local station, who would be aware of the Grace family and their powerful connections.
We know that Miss White had it in mind to confide in “Herb”, undoubtedly Constable Hobbins, regarding Lady Grace. One can imagine the consternation if he had then conveyed her observations to his superior, Inspector Berry. Rather than involve such an eminent family in the sordid murder of a mere maid, how much better to place the guilt firmly elsewhere; and where better than on the shoulders of a group of lads who have been thorns in the flesh of the local police for a long time. I note how Berry, as quoted in your first missive, said with some satisfaction that this killing “would put an end to their gallop.” The man does not strike me from your account as someone of great wit or probity, which renders plausible the crude planting of the gun in Mrs. Ebb’s laundry basket. As I suggested above, few would accept the evidence of a mother defending her son against that of a policeman.
With all this said, I call your attention back to Constable Hobbins, and what you will soon see was his series of lies. The first was asserting that he was absent from the scene at the time of the shooting, in order to procure an ice for himself on a hot day. Booth confirmed that there were no such sellers in the vicinity on that day, as had been explicitly requested by the WFL.
A more serious lie was Hobbins’ failure to identify the body of a young woman he knew very well. Why was he so set on creating a distance between himself and poor Ethel White? Hobbins even attended church with her on several occasions, and was irate when she left him, which leads me to our next question. Exactly how angry was he? Our prejudices tend to make us think of the grand passions only affecting people of a certain class or education, not a humble bobby. Could he have decided in a jealous passion that, “If I can’t have you, no one else can”? I call your attention to the telling fact that the bullet penetrated straight to Ethel’s heart, as reported by the police surgeon.
Thus, with your most recent letter in hand, Hobbins became my prime suspect. He would have known of Ethel’s route home, no doubt having walked it with her on the occasions when he accompanied her to church. And again, Miss Clarke (and others) reported seeing Ethel and a man in an overcoat arguing in the moments before the shot rang out. Hobbins disguised himself, and, throwing a coat over his uniform along with a muffler round his face, approached his former lover on the Heath. After some sort of argument, he shot her and absconded to the closest police box. There, he called to report his own crime, all the while shedding his bloodied disguise and stuffing it behind the box. He emerged from the police box as friendly, innocent Constable Hobbins, and bided his time until he was able to plant the weapon in Mrs. Ebbs’ basket. In one fell swoop, he took revenge on his former love, implicated her new lover, and dealt with Lady Grace’s “problem”.
I suspect that by now, you may have already arrived at this conclusion. Even so, I have sent word to Scotland Yard informing them of the precarious circumstances. You will no doubt hear from Lestrade soon, if you have not already, and I trust that the two of you will devise a way to apprehend the constable, and Berry, without causing too grievous of a commotion at the Hampstead station.
I also leave it to you to inform Guzman, Page, and company, and their parents, of the good news. I wager there will be collective tears of joy, and perhaps a newfound camaraderie between the gentlemen.
For my part, case resolved, I go back to my bees and a brisk stroll across the Downs.
Yours most sincerely,
