by Jones, Kaye;
The prosecutor, William Ballantine, was sceptical of Christiana’s insanity plea and believed she knew the difference between right and wrong. (Creative Commons)
Christiana was incarcerated here, at Newgate Prison, before facing trial at the Old Bailey in January 1872. (Creative Commons)
The interior of a typical cell in Newgate. (Creative Commons)
The exterior of Broadmoor, the country’s first asylum for the criminally insane. (Wellcome Library, London)
Patients relax as part of their moral treatment at Broadmoor. (Wellcome Library, London)
Chapter Seven
“Who Knows Where This May End”
On the afternoon on 27 June, Sidney Barker’s father, Albert, received the following anonymous letter:
Sussex Square, June 27, 1871.
Sir, – Having seen the result of the investigation of the inquest Thursday last, I feel great surprise to find that no blame is attached to anyone. I have felt great interest in the case, and fully sympathise in your sad loss. Great dissatisfaction is felt at the result by most of the inhabitants, and we all feel it rests with yourself now to take proceedings against Mr Maynard. As a parent myself I could not rest satisfied, nor would one in a hundred. I trust you will come forward for your own sake and the public good. You shall have all the assistance possible. I feel sure the young lady will willingly come forward, as I know, from good authority, she was very dissatisfied with Maynard’s conduct; of course suppose he would have taken the same step she did and have them analysed. I can only say that Mr Maynard, after being duly warned that his chocolates were injurious, and had made three persons ill, ought to have them analysed or destroy them. The public mind is not satisfied; and feel great blame is attached to him for selling to your family chocolates from the same stocks he had been warned against. He spoke of investigating, and what was in his investigating? Merely looking over and tasting a few chocolates with his shopwoman. Why, the young lady, was not satisfied with that, even; and, as to writing to his French agent, it appears he never did. I hope no monetary considerations will prevent you from taking proceedings. The Brighton inhabitants are all up in arms at the laxity of proceedings in the want of justice, and will assist you in every way, and, with the facts tried before unbiased and unprejudiced men, I think Mr Maynard will not escape scot free. My feeling of disgust is felt by most of the influential and respectable inhabitants of this town.
I am, Sir,
An Old Inhabitant And Seeker of Justice
P.S. The Town Council cannot take up the case again; it rests with you, and you shall receive all the aid we can offer. The papers are taking this up, both Brighton and London. See the London Observer.
This mysterious letter was followed the next day by another:
Vernon Terrace, June 28, 1871
Sir – I hear there is a general feeling of indignation at the termination of the proceedings of the inquest of Thursday last; that a jury should be so lenient, and attach no blame to anyone, is unheard of. All that can be done now is for you to make further investigations, and it certainly seems a duty to yourself and the public, who will, I am assured, never let the matter rest. Why is Mr Maynard to be screened, and the whole affair glossed over? He was warned of his sweets, and yet he deliberately sells some of the very same to your family, and you are lose your poor child through his great negligence. Why didn’t he investigate or destroy his sweets at once? Are people’s complaints to be disregarded because he excuses himself by saying the witnesses’ versions are fanciful? Why didn’t he see her friend? I say he took no means to ascertain what was wrong, and is certainly answerable for selling those sweets after being warned. Your lawyer (excuse me for saying it) did very little on your behalf. He never taxed Mr Maynard with not taking steps to know what the sweets really contained, and for daring to sell them without a proper investigation, never even waiting to inquire of the French agent he had them from. Of course you cannot rest supine; no one could sustain the loss you have done and rest satisfied. There is a report current that you are going to take proceedings against Maynard. We all hope to hear, if you do not, someone will take the matter up, and you may feel certain when the case is tried before the intelligent men, you may get redress for the wrongs you have received. In our local paper of yesterday, there is a paragraph saying ‘what a strange verdict,’ and you cannot of course rest satisfied with. Such a deadly poison as strychnine ought hardly to be in existence. I believe other evidence might be brought forward, having heard of several who have been made ill by Maynard’s sweets. I have no doubt that you will take some further steps. No parent could let the loss of his child be passed over in this cursory way. The Brighton public earnestly hope you will do something, for who knows where this may end? More of these sweets may be sold by the maker, and other lives lost. The greatest sympathy is felt for yourself and family; and in saying what I have, I have only expressed the feelings of most of the Brighton inhabitants.
I remain yours truly,
G.C.B.
The author of these anonymous letters was, of course, Christiana. She had decided to appeal directly to the family of Albert Baker in her attempt to frame John Maynard for the death of their son. It is interesting to note her sympathetic sentiments towards the grieving family and we have to wonder if they were an expression of genuine remorse. Her slander towards John Maynard, however, make it more reasonable to suggest that she used the family’s grief as a means of manipulating them into action. Her letters are increasingly assertive in tone, yet smack of her desperation. She penned a third letter two days later:
Brighton, July 1 1871
Dear Sir – Having seen your letter in the Daily News,1 permit me to say that, as you seem doubtful as to whom you are to proceed against, it is generally thought that the seller of the chocolate is the proper person, and it is the firm conviction, with all who know the case that this man, after being warned, and making no investigation, is certainly answerable. Had he taken common precautions – had his sweets properly examined – this sad event might never have occurred. Are persons’ warnings to be disregarded because he chooses to think them nervously fanciful? Such negligence ought not to be tolerated. A letter from Mr Ware’s solicitor makes the case worse, for he says if the sweetmeats were supplied by him, the poison must have got into them after leaving the premises. Now you have good grounds for pursuing your investigations, for who supplied these chocolates to the seller? As the Brighton Times observed to-day, the case cannot be dropped; that you are the person to take proceedings, and of course cannot rest satisfied – the public will not, I frankly confess. Had I lost my child in such a sad way, as a parent I should feel myself in duty bound to take proceedings against the seller of the sweets. Justice I would have, and you have certainly not had it shown in your case. Excuse the liberty I take in advising you, but you may not read the papers, and know what it hoped for and expected from you.
I am, Sir, respectfully yours,
A London Tradesman Now A Visitor At Brighton
P.S. I am sure that many London tradesmen, with myself, will second you in your efforts.2
Christiana had now exhausted every possible method of persuading Albert to take action against Mr Maynard. She had talked of his parental responsibilities, of public safety, outrage among the press, a general need for justice and had even identified herself as a London tradesman, in an attempt to portray unity with Albert, a humble, dressing-case maker from Clapham. But, for Albert, her letters had become a growing nuisance and he handed them over to the Metropolitan Police who, it appears, took no further action on the matter.
Back in Brighton, Christiana’s attention was temporarily diverted from John Maynard by an unexpected visit from Dr Beard. This was the first time she had seen him in six months and, like the last time, it was her deepest hope that he might renew their friendship. But Dr Beard intended this meeting to be their last. He could suffer her bombardment of letters no longer and told her ‘this correspondence must cease; it is not g
ood for either of us’.3 Her reaction was surprisingly positive, prompting the doctor to confess that he had shown all of her letters to his wife, Emily. Christiana was completely stunned by this revelation and could not understand why Dr Beard would show such intimate correspondence to an outside party. In her mind, Emily’s knowledge accounted for Dr Beard’s coolness towards her and the decline of their friendship but, when asked, he claimed he had not ‘respected her so much’ since the attempt on his wife in September 1870. After he left Gloucester Place, Ann found Christiana pacing the room and saying ‘I shall go mad! I shall go mad!’ Ann tried to calm her daughter down but her efforts were in vain. She warned her instead of the dangers of becoming a slave to her passions: ‘You are mad already’, she told Christiana, ‘you of all people, ought to be particular’. Ann was, of course, referring to the family history of insanity4 but this reminder was not enough to pacify her daughter’s mind or make her realise that her fairy tale romance with Dr Beard would never end in the manner she most desired.
As Christiana’s mental state further deteriorated, her poisoning scheme became increasingly complex and her web of deceit even more intricate. The first casualty was Mrs Wood of Hillside, the alter ego she had created to falsely procure strychnine from Isaac Garrett, who was dropped in favour of a new and more ingenious method. By 8 June she was ready to test it out and had a boy deliver the following note to Garrett’s:
Messrs Glaisyer and Kemp will be much obliged if Mr Garrett could supply them with a little strychnia. They are in immediate want of half an ounce, or if not able, a smaller quantity will do. Will Mr Garrett send it in a bottle, and sealed up? The bearer can be safely trusted with it.
Glaisyer and Kemp, 11 and 12 North Street.
John Kemp and Thomas Glaisyer were chemists and business partners with a well-established shop in the centre of Brighton. Christiana’s reinvention as Glaisyer and Kemp was a clever move because she knew that they were well-acquainted with Isaac Garrett and that chemists frequently supplied each other with drugs in times of a shortage. There were only two factors that she had not considered: firstly, that Isaac Garrett only had a drachm, the equivalent to one-eighth of an ounce and, secondly, that he required an order note before he could confirm the purchase. He wrote these requirements in a short letter that was handed to the same errand boy and delivered directly to Christiana. She then penned the following response:
Messrs Glaisyer and Kemp will be quite satisfied with a drachm of strychnia till their own arrives, and thank Mr Garrett for supplying them. Their signature always being sufficient before in their business transactions. Should Mr Garrett feel the least hesitation in supplying them, they must apply elsewhere.
Glaisyer and Kemp, 11 and 12 North Street.
On receipt of this letter, Isaac Garrett was convinced of the order’s authenticity and he placed the drachm of strychnine into a bottle which he labelled with his name and address, in accordance with current legislation. He took two shillings and sixpence from the boy and handed him the poison with one shilling and three pence in change; a small sum for such a deadly substance. Christiana’s plan had worked perfectly and, back at Gloucester Place, she used this measure of strychnine to adulterate a fresh batch of Maynard’s creams. Christiana then paid a boy to return these creams to Maynard’s shop where the assistants would unwittingly pass them on to unsuspecting customers. This was how Sidney Barker had met his tragic end and how Christiana had cleverly avoided detection. Had Christiana returned these in person, she would have been identified as a witness, if not as a suspect, and her poisoning spree brought to an abrupt end. But Christiana had no intention of stopping and it was, perhaps, the success of her fraudulent letter which prompted her to write another. Again, her victim was Isaac Garrett but this time she sought his poison book which contained her historic transactions as Mrs Wood of Hillside. On 14 July, she approached an 11-year-old boy called Adam May who was walking alone along Church Street that afternoon. She asked him to deliver the letter to Garrett’s and accompanied him to Queen’s Road before continuing to Duke Street, where he was to fetch the book, once he had it in his possession. Back on Queen’s Road, Garrett received the following note:
Ship Street, July 1871
Sir, I shall be much obliged if you would allow me the loan of your book wherein you register the poisonous drugs you sell. It is merely in furtherance to an inquiry I am making as to the sale of certain poisons, and bears no reference to anything you have sold or any irregularity in selling, but only to aid me in my investigation. You will tie up your book and send it at once by the bearer: it shall be returned, as you may need it.
Yours truly,
D. Black, Borough Coroner.
Christiana knew that Isaac Garrett was a cautious man and that he would not want to hinder the important work of the borough coroner. Just as she predicted, Garrett immediately tied up his book in paper and handed it to Adam May who then delivered it to Christiana. Curiously, she did not tear out the pages detailing the transactions made by her alter ego, Mrs Wood of Hillside, but instead removed the ones on either side before returning the book to Garrett’s shop. The scale and complexity of her poisoning spree tells us that this move was not a mistake on Christiana’s behalf. There was method in her madness, even if her motivation is unclear. She perhaps had no desire to cover her tracks at all and tore out the pages simply to amuse herself and puzzle Isaac Garrett. Whatever the truth, her next move is much easier to understand. She decided to stop using strychnine and turned her attentions to arsenic, the nineteenth century poisoner’s weapon of choice. Her experiences had taught her that strychnine’s bitter taste almost always prevented her victim from ingesting the full dose. In contrast, arsenic is odourless and tasteless, making it impossible for a potential victim to detect in food or drink. On 19 July, she sent a boy to Garrett’s with a note purporting to come from Glaisyer and Kemp. But her plan did not work as well as before. This time, Garrett did not provide her with any poison. By now, his suspicions were aroused and he headed directly to the premises of Glaisyer and Kemp to enquire about the note he had received. Worryingly, Thomas Glaisyer had no knowledge of any note requesting two ounces of arsenic and, even worse, he knew nothing about the drachm of strychnine that Garrett had received on 8 June. Panic and concern now set in as Garrett realised that a person had obtained poison from him by deception and he had no idea for what means. He left Glaisyer and Kemp’s and headed directly to the police station where he explained to Inspector Gibbs what had happened. Gibbs was confident that Garrett had not committed a crime, having followed the rules of the Pharmacy Act to the letter. But there were pages missing from his poison book, a fact which Garrett could not explain, and no discernible reason why the coroner might need to view his historic transactions. Garrett’s narrative left Gibbs feeling baffled but he knew he was on the verge of uncovering his biggest case to date.
While Isaac Garrett had grown wise to Christiana’s deception, she didn’t have to venture too far to find another chemist who would supply her with arsenic. In 1871 Brighton was home to around fifty-six chemists and druggists6 and there was one in particular who had become of great interest to Christiana. His name was Samuel Bradbury and she had recently heard that he was due to cease trading and leave Brighton for good. She thus composed a letter to Bradbury, again purporting to come from Glaisyer and Kemp, and requesting three ounces of arsenic. She quickly found a boy to deliver the note to his premises at 21 North Street and he returned within minutes bearing three one-ounce packets of arsenic, enough to kill hundreds of Brighton’s unsuspecting public.
A few days later, Christiana received an unexpected letter from Inspector Gibbs. This was her first contact with the inspector since the inquest in June and his letter related to the evidence she had provided, specifically the date she had purchased the creams from John Maynard and had the analysis made by Schweitzer, the chemist. Christiana hoped that this request might be the start of an investigation into John Maynard and she therefor
e composed a reply straightaway:
Miss Edmunds begs to inform Mr Gibbs that she bought the last lot of chocolate creams at Mr Maynard’s on the 16th of March and had them analysed the same day at Mr Schweitzer’s.7
She decided to deliver the letter to Inspector Gibbs personally and set out for the police station. He was out when she arrived so she left the letter in his office and walked back to Gloucester Place, via the Pavilion grounds, where she met Gibbs unexpectedly. In the conversation that followed, Gibbs informed her that he was investigating a number of new poisoning cases that had come to his attention in the weeks after Sidney Barker’s death. There had been no more fatalities, to his knowledge, but each victim had become unwell after eating a chocolate cream from Maynard’s. Many of the victims were children, said Gibbs, and he was now in the process of piecing the case together. This was not the information Christiana had hoped for but it still provided an opportunity to slur Maynard’s reputation. She reminded Gibbs that she had twice been poisoned by his chocolate creams and that he had barely acknowledged her complaint in March. The inspector thanked Christiana for the information and she departed the Pavilion grounds, none the wiser to the true purpose of his letter or this meeting. Gibbs had an inkling that Christiana was more involved in the poisoning case than first realised. Every victim that he had interviewed in connection with the chocolate creams had mentioned seeing or meeting with a lady and their descriptions matched Christiana perfectly. But he wanted to make certain of her involvement before questioning her further and he headed back to the police station to look over her letter. Once he had studied the handwriting, he took out the forged note given to him by Isaac Garrett and placed it against her letter to make a comparison. He observed some similarities between the two samples but could not be sure if the handwriting belonged to the same person. Fortunately, Gibbs had someone on whom he could call: a handwriting expert who could determine if Christiana was the person at the heart of Brighton’s poisoning epidemic.