I am a huge fan of detective fiction and, over the last year, I’ve been reading through Agatha Christie’s iconic stories, in which she mentions several times the real-life case of Charles Bravo, who was poisoned with antimony in 1876 at his home in Balham:
It reminds me, you know, of the Bravo case – nearly a hundred years ago now, I suppose, but books are still being written about it; making out a perfectly good case for his wife having done it, or Gully – or even for Charles Bravo having taken the poison in spite of the Coroner’s verdict. All quite plausible theories – but no one now can ever know the truth.
Dr MacMaster, Ordeal by Innocence, 1958
Almost 150 years after his death, the mystery of who killed Charles Bravo remains unsolved and it is a popular case to debate – even the Queen of Crime herself had an opinion as to the identity of his murderer. Following her lead, I’ve begun investigating this historical homicide for a possible new project. Here’s what happened…
Tuesday 18 April 1876 had started badly for 30-year-old barrister Charles Bravo – he had had an argument in the carriage with his wife on their way into London after which she had requested the driver to turn back, and Charles had had to persuade her to continue with their journey. Later, after finishing his day’s work in the City, he had gone riding, but the pony had run away with him, which had left him shaken and agitated. When Charles finally returned to his comfortable home at The Priory in Balham between 6 and 7 pm, he had taken a long, hot bath, which had restored his spirits. Half an hour later, he was refreshed and ready for dinner with his wife, Florence, and her friend and live-in companion, Jane Cox.
The household’s cook, Mrs Hunt, served a splendid mid-week dinner, consisting of soup, sole fillets, roast lamb and poached eggs on toast. Charles only partook of the lamb and eggs, which he washed down with three or four glasses of Burgundy. Both the female diners ate the lamb, and Mrs Cox also had the eggs on toast. Neither drank the wine. After the threesome had finished their dinner, which lasted an hour, they moved into the morning room, where they stayed for a further thirty minutes, until Charles suggested his wife retire to her room, as she had been unwell. They wished each other a good night and Jane left with her.
Charles remained in the morning room until about 9.15 pm, after which he went up to his bedroom. As he climbed the stairs, he passed the housemaid, Mary Ann Keeber, carrying a bottle of sherry to his wife. The maid later told the police that he appeared pale, and he looked at her twice without speaking as they passed each other, which. was unusual. Before going to his room, Charles went in to see Florence, whose bedroom was adjoining his, and accused her (apparently in French!) of already having drunk wine all day. Clearly annoyed, as she did not reply, he stamped out again.
Shortly after settling in his own quarters, Charles called for Mary Ann to bring him some hot water. On her way to the kitchen, she told Mrs Cox that he was complaining of being ill. When the housemaid finally brought the hot water to her employer’s room, she found Jane with him, who instructed her to get some mustard, which she did. Mrs Cox mixed it with water and gave it to the sick man to drink, presumably to make him vomit. She also placed his hands and feet in bowls of the diluted condiment. As his condition seemed to worsen, she called for the doctor.
By the time Dr Moore arrived at the Priory, at about 10.30 pm, Charles Bravo had lost consciousness. The doctor was soon joined by Dr Harrison of Streatham Hill, who had also been called to attend the patient. At the doctors’ request Florence, who had now been made aware of her husband’s decline, sent word to his relative, Dr Royes Bell of Harley Street. He arrived at 2.30 am, accompanied by Dr Johnson of Savile Row. Jane Cox informed these two experienced medical men that Charles had confided to her that he had taken poison.
Following the attentions of the four doctors, Charles came to about two hours later and remained conscious for the next two days. When they questioned him about his taking poison, he told them that he had only taken laudanum, which didn’t account for his sickness. During that time, he also dictated his will to Dr Bell, in which he left everything to his wife. Soon after, Charles’ condition deteriorated again, and Sir William Gull, one of Queen Victoria’s physicians, was sent for. He spent two hours at the patient’s bedside during the afternoon of Thursday 20 April and conferred with the other medical experts. However, despite their concerted efforts, Charles Bravo died at 5.30 am the following morning.
The post-mortem examination was undertaken by Dr Payne, also from Savile Row, and samples of the victim’s stomach and vomit were sent for analysis by Professor Redwood of the Pharmaceutical Hall, Bloomsbury Square, who later estimated that Charles had ingested between 20 and 40 grains of antimony, which had undoubtedly caused his death and it seemed likely that he had been murdered.
The inquest into Charles Bravo’s death opened on 25 April 1876, and after a further session which lasted 23 days, the jury returned a verdict of poisoning by tartar emetic (antimony) by a person or persons unknown. Although the three main suspects – Florence Bravo, her companion Jane Cox, and her former lover, Dr James Manby Gully had testified – there was no evidence to suggest if any of them had poisoned him. The coroner and jury had also considered that Charles might have taken his own life but his stepfather, Joseph Bravo, and his friends and acquaintances were adamant that he would not have committed suicide. In the meantime, Detective Chief Inspector George Clarke of Scotland Yard had been investigating the matter.
After Charles’ death, Clarke went straight to the Priory to examine the crime scene, which unfortunately had not been preserved. After a thorough search of the house and the gardens, he could find no traces of antimony, and only recovered some laudanum and chloroform, which Charles took for neuralgia. The detective collected 13 empty wine bottles from the evening that Charles had taken ill – four others had already been returned to the supplier and were irretrievable.
There was no other material evidence and DCI Clarke spent many weeks interviewing current and former members of the Bravo household, as well as the prime suspects. He was able to create a timeline of the events which led to Charles’ death, but he could not account for his likely poisoning. In the end, Clarke came to the conclusion that ‘nothing has been elicited to show by what means the deceased met with his death.’ The case was closed.
You can read more about this baffling case in my new book, The Mysterious Poisoning of Charles Bravo, which is coming soon...
