Murder in the Family

by Jeff Blackstock

  – Its [sic] bothered me I’ve got docus I’ll show 1 forte’ls 2 opened won [illegible]

  It’s not clear from the notes which documents he was talking about, or who had written the letter in question and to whom. And why was it so important to him that the letter showed that “they” had not discovered Carol’s cause of death (“c.o.d.”) by September 12, 1959? Who were “they”?

  These documents were obviously highly significant to Dad. Yet in the next line of his notes, he scrawled,

  bury them! Remove crutch of having somebody something to blame

  By this point, his notes have all the coherence of a man howling at the moon. He wrote that he feared any action on his part might “do harm” by opening a “Pandora’s Box” or unleashing “a whirlwind” where he might “lose control”—a state that was anathema to George.

  Nevertheless, he did note some possible courses of action he might take, including family counselling. So we were going to straighten all this out through therapy! He professed a faint hope that making a sincere effort to uncover what had happened to Carol might help convince us of his innocence.

  I can’t see that I can prove anything, but perhaps if they see that I am doing all I can to throw light on the matter, and that it is almost impossible to prove I had nothing to do with it…perhaps they will be disposed to…change their minds about me.

  It’s very strange that, even if you give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he didn’t kill Carol, George nowhere expressed any personal desire to discover who did. His entire concern was with what we thought and how he could persuade us he was innocent. Wouldn’t any bereaved husband who was genuinely innocent want to know for himself how his wife, the mother of his children, had come to a horrible death?

  He speculated that he might just be fortunate enough to find out what actually did happen to Carol.

  [What if] I should stumble on the truth of what really did happen – Lord knows there are fw [sic] enough possibilities – few enough other people (4) who could have had anything to do with it.

  I can’t be absolutely sure who the four other people were, but very likely he was thinking of the live-in household staff in Buenos Aires: Alejandra, the cook; María; María’s husband, Martín; and their daughter, Cristina. Neither Dad, Julie, or I, or anyone else for that matter, ever considered any of them a genuine suspect. As far as I know, he didn’t do anything with this line of inquiry either. To use one of his favourite phrases, he was “grasping at straws.”

  As I puzzled over Dad’s notes, I asked myself, “Am I reading the thoughts of an innocent man, however emotionally inept? A bewildered man struggling to get at ‘the truth of what really did happen’? Did somebody else kill Carol and get away with it, leaving George looking like the guilty party?” I really couldn’t say, since his notes didn’t follow through to arrive at any conclusions. They were all questions and no answers.

  Surprisingly, Dad’s notes finally professed anguish over Mom’s death:

  I don’t want to die leaving things as they are now.

  It was + is a trajedy [sic]

  Loved her – love them

  we’re all victims.

  If Dad was a “victim” of the tragedy of Mom’s death, this was the first I’d heard of it. He never expressed any sorrow about her loss to me—not once over the course of a lifetime.

  He also bemoaned the loss of Julie and me.

  I’d give anything to get my kids back and for them to have peace of mind. How can I do it.

  Apparently bereft of answers to that question, he consoled himself in the end with the wisdom of the ages.

  There are some things you can’t set straight in life.

  Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof.

  The past and the future belong to God.

  After hours of reading over Dad’s notes, I was left shaken. I felt I’d been reading the thoughts of a man who was losing his mind, a man trapped in a mental maze from which he saw no escape. Julie and I hadn’t been the only ones fixated on our mother’s death. Dad too had been consumed by it, if only by his inability to disprove our accusations of guilt.

  I shared my misgivings with Julie. “I was troubled by Dad’s scribblings,” I told her. “What if you and I are wrong? What if he didn’t do it?”

  Julie was far more tough-minded about it. “They’re notes for posterity to make himself look good,” she replied without hesitation.

  So, was this just another of his performances, a post-mortem bill of goods?

  There was one key fact I could check to verify whether he was telling the truth: the date when he claimed to have met Ingrid for the first time. He’d always said it was during our holiday at the Fischers’ estancia in February 1960. I’d noticed two letters in the box written to him by Ingrid. One in particular had struck me, because it was sent from the Llao Llao, the same hotel in Bariloche where Carol herself had stayed the year before.

  I found the letters, written in Ingrid’s handwriting. Both were dated December 1959—the first one December 15, the second December 31—some two months before Dad claimed they’d been introduced by the Fischers.

  Dad had saved these letters (quoted in full in chapter 9) for the rest of his life. For him, no doubt, they were mementoes of the early stages of one of his most important relationships. It was impossible to deduce from them exactly how long he and Ingrid had known each other before December 15, or how well. But in her first letter, Ingrid had written, “I needed to write to you right away.” And in the second, “You can’t imagine how happy [your previous letter] made me.” From those words, it was not only possible but unavoidable to infer that they’d known each other long enough before then to kindle a warm relationship. That made one thing very clear: Dad had lied to us about the date of their meeting by a significant margin.

  Very likely Dad had never expected his notes to wind up in the same box as the letters that contradicted them. The letters weren’t invented. But the content of his notes, at least this part of them, was a fabrication.

  * * *

  —

  ANY ILLUSIONS I still entertained about Dad’s sincerity were dispelled by what the box revealed next.

  This was a letter from Dr. J.B.R. Cosgrove, the head of our mother’s medical team at the Montreal Neurological Institute, addressed to Assistant Deputy Minister H. Leslie Brown, George’s boss at the Department of Trade and Commerce. Dr. Cosgrove said he’d written the letter on George’s behalf, and at his request, to explain to his superior the situation when Carol died. The copy in Dad’s papers was evidently a duplicate. It bore Cosgrove’s signature in ink, but, as we’ll see, its original was definitely received by Brown.

  The letter read in its entirety,

  September 12th 1959.

  Mr. H. Leslie Brown

  Assist. Deputy Minister

  Dept. of Trade and Commerce

  OTTOWA [sic]. ONTARIO. CANADA

  Dear Mr. Brown,

  Mr. George Blackstock has asked me to write you about the recent loss of his wife and the circumstances accompanying this tradgedy [sic].

  I am enclosing a formal letter for your information, but George felt if I wrote you personally I would be able to explain more fully some of the recent events.

  As you are aware Carol had not responded to treatment in Buenos Aires. She had been vomiting intermittently for about ten days and I personally believe that George did the right thing to bring his wife to a neurological institute.

  The cause of Carol’s illness was obscure, and unfortunately we had so little time to make a definite diagnosis. However, we did think of the possibility of some unknown toxin and consequently both Dr. Graham and myself felt that the coroner should be called.

  Of course this has been a nuisance for both George and ourselves, but we felt we have done the corre
ct thing. At present we know that the autopsy showed no obvious cause of death. However the toxicological and histological tests and work will not be complete for several months.

  It was fortunate that George came to Montreal yesterday as the coroner wanted to obtain further details from him. We were fortunate to be able to arrange a meeting at the Institute.

  As soon as we have any further information I will of course let George know.

  Yours sincerely,

  JBR Cosgrove

  The letter is a very strange document from start to finish. First, it is typewritten on plain stationery, instead of Montreal Neurological Institute letterhead. The letter is signed, but not as “Dr.” JBR Cosgrove; nor does it state his official association with the Institute or as the lead physician on the case in question.

  It is not at all clear why a “personal” letter was necessary when a “formal” letter on the same subject was enclosed in the same envelope. More fundamentally, it’s difficult to see why Dr. Cosgrove was writing to Brown at all. Was he really doing a favour to George, who had requested it?

  These questions are only partially answered in the third and fourth paragraphs of the letter. If Dr. Cosgrove knew Brown was aware of the case, why did he write that Carol “had been vomiting intermittently for about ten days”? Anyone familiar with her case knew she’d been sick in Buenos Aires for almost three months before she died. Was this an attempt to suggest that her illness was some kind of surprise, with a sudden onset? It would appear so, since Cosgrove goes on to lament that the cause of Carol’s illness was obscure, and there was insufficient time for a proper diagnosis.

  The cause may have been “obscure” at the moment when she arrived at the MNI. But if Carol’s doctors had thoroughly reviewed Dr. Mercer’s clinical record, which accompanied her from Buenos Aires, as well as her condition on arrival in Montreal, they should have set off alarm bells right away—in a teaching hospital, of all places—that her symptoms were consistent with at least one possible cause: poisoning. That cause certainly wasn’t obscure by the time Dr. Cosgrove wrote his letter to Brown on September 12. More than six weeks earlier, on July 27, Dr. Valcourt had performed his autopsy, with “findings [that] may be consistent with an arsenical poisoning.”

  The next sentence in Dr. Cosgrove’s “personal” letter showed that the cause couldn’t have been as obscure as all that.

  However, we did think of the possibility of some unknown toxin and consequently both Dr. Graham and myself felt that the coroner should be called.

  After all Dr. Cosgrove’s self-justifying palaver, here is the real reason for his letter: to put on record “some unknown toxin” and the consequent involvement of the coroner. Here at last, among Dad’s own papers, is proof positive that he knew, shortly after Mom died, that the MNI doctors thought there was at least a possibility she’d been poisoned.

  Dr. Cosgrove’s next sentence serves as a huge distraction, but is so outrageous that it demands comment. Calling in the coroner to investigate a potential murder was, he writes, a “nuisance” for “both George and ourselves.” The statement is beyond callous. It is so cynical and absurd that I asked myself whether Dr. Cosgrove was being sarcastic. Either that, or he’d forgotten that Carol, not George, was his patient.

  His letter went on to make the even more egregious and disturbing statement that “At present we know that the autopsy showed no obvious cause of death.” This was simply false. The autopsy, performed more than six weeks earlier by Dr. Valcourt with a team directed by Dr. Cosgrove in attendance, had concluded that the findings indicated arsenic poisoning, although the diagnosis had to be verified by toxicological testing. That’s a very far cry from there being no obvious cause of death.

  Dr. Cosgrove told Brown that “the toxicological and histological tests and work will not be complete for several months.” Just ten days later, however, on September 22, 1959, the “Preliminary Toxicological Report” would conclude that Carol’s viscera “contained some large doses of arsenic…situated in the limits of those observed in poisoning cases.”

  Dr. Cosgrove’s letter states that only the day before, the coroner had met with George at the MNI “to obtain further details from him.” Whether this was any business of Brown’s was debatable, but obviously Dr. Cosgrove wanted to make it his business.

  From what we know now, Cosgrove’s letter to Brown was intentionally misleading—or more accurately put, untruthful. Nevertheless, a letter combining the words “toxin” and “coroner” in the same sentence would have been sufficient cause for alarm on Brown’s part.

  Why did Dr. Cosgrove write the letter at all? Almost certainly, he had protection of the institute and its medical staff, including himself, foremost in his mind. Carol Blackstock had died of arsenic poisoning under their care. Arsenic poisoning immediately calls to mind suspicious circumstances—murder, for instance. Everybody knows that a coroner, whom Dr. Cosgrove pointedly mentioned in his letter, has a police function that includes investigating homicides. All this added up to a very nasty, messy business from which Dr. Cosgrove wished to distance himself and the MNI immediately.

  Sending the letter to Brown shifted responsibility for the case from the institute to the Government of Canada. George Blackstock was their man; they should deal with the problem. Apparently, the letter wound up serving that purpose very well.

  And what was George’s perception of Dr. Cosgrove’s letter? What did he think about the references to an “unknown toxin” and calling in the coroner? They must have alarmed him at the very least. No doubt he would have preferred Dr. Cosgrove to omit the references, which inevitably would have led anyone reading the letter to ask, What was the toxin, and what did the coroner conclude about it?

  * * *

  —

  THE BOX OF Dad’s papers we received from Bob Borden also included a one-page document that was, in all likelihood, the “formal” letter Dr. Cosgrove had mentioned in his “personal” letter to Brown.

  TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:   re: MRS. CAROL BLACKSTOCK.

  THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT I WAS THE PHYSICIAN WHO SUPERVISED THE CARE OF MRS. CAROL BLACKSTOCK WHO WAS ADMITTED TO THE MONTREAL NEUROLOGICAL INSTITUTE ON JULY 23RD 1959 ON MY RECOMMENDATION.

  SHE WAS A SERIOUSLY ILL PATIENT WHO SUFFERED FROM NAUSEA AND VOMITING AND PERIPHERAL NEURITIS.

  IN MY OPINION SHE HAD A THOROUGH INVESTIGATION IN HOSPITAL AT BUENOS AIRES BUT NO DEFINITE CAUSE FOR HER ILLNESS COULD BE FOUND WITH THE FACILITIES THEY HAD AVAILABLE THERE.

  IN MY VIEW THE TRANSFER TO A NEUROLOGICAL INSTITUTE WHERE SPECIALIZED ATTENTION COULD BE GIVEN WAS JUSTIFIED. THE MONTREAL NEUROLOGICAL INSTITUTE WITH 150 BEDS IS CONSIDERED SUCH AN INSTITUTION BY THE MEDICAL PROFESSION.

  UNFORTUNATELY MRS. BLACKSTOCK’S CONDITION WAS SO SERIOUS THAT THERE WAS INSUFFICIENT TIME FOR TREATMENT TO TAKE EFFECT AND SHE DIED ON THE 25TH JULY. 1959.

  FROM A CLINICAL POINT OF VIEW, IT SEEMS HIGHLY PROBABLE THAT THIS ILLNESS WAS RELATED TO HER DOMICILE IN ARGENTINA.

  YOURS TRULY,

  J.B.R. COSGROVE, M.D.

  The document is not dated. But it appears to serve the function of an official statement, signed by Dr. Cosgrove and intended for the eyes of those—especially in the federal government—who might require a medical explanation of Carol Blackstock’s “transfer” at public expense from Buenos Aires to the MNI. While perhaps justifying the costs to the government, the statement is conspicuously vague and uninformative about the “illness” itself—except to say that there was a high probability it “was related to her domicile in Argentina.” There is no mention here of “an unknown toxin.”

  * * *

  —

  BUT MOST IMPORTANT of all was the way in which Assistant Deputy Minister Leslie Brown reacted to the two letters.

  Julie and I found, tucked away in the box of George’s papers, an extraordinary letter to him from Brown. It looked o
rdinary enough at first glance. Dated September 12, 1959, the same date as Cosgrove’s “personal” letter to Brown, it was addressed “Dear George.” Like Cosgrove’s letter, it wasn’t written on official letterhead. Brown had used his personal stationery, with his home address printed across the top. Not only that, the letter wasn’t typed but handwritten by Brown, and signed without identifying his position in the government.

  Brown’s letter is phrased as a receipt for George, acknowledging, among other things, two letters from Dr. Cosgrove that George had personally delivered to Brown that very day: the “personal” letter quoted above, and a “general” one, which I believe was the formal “To Whom It May Concern” letter. In addition, Brown acknowledged receipt of various medical bills and documents related to Carol’s death, which George had also delivered to him. But it was clearly all about the first two items on the list.

  Here is Brown’s letter in its entirety.

  358 Somerset Street East

  Ottawa 2

  Sept 12/59

  Dear George –

  I have today received from you the following documents concerned with Carol’s death and related expenses:

  General letter from Dr. Cosgrove (in duplicate)

  Personal “  “  “  “  “  “

  Receipt dated Aug/Sept 12 (in duplicate) Dr. Cosgrove’s bill for $100

  Receipt in duplicate and single copy of statement from Drs. Dossiter and Beck Sept 12/59 for $85.00

  Letter of Sept 12, from Dr. Cosgrove (in duplicate) to effect that nurse must accompany Mrs Blackstock

  Receipt, in duplicate, & single copy of statement, also receipted, for $487.85 from Montreal Neurological Institute