How Holmes Proved a Case of Poisoning
Dearest Detectives,
The mystery of Sir Short’s death has been properly investigated, and thanks to your efforts, his Brush with Death will not be mistaken for a mere accident. While the officials apprehend our culprit and inform those involved, let’s look forward to the next case on the horizon…
We also encourage you to review Holmes’ letter explaining this curious case. Even if you caught onto the true villain, there may have been a couple of clever details you missed!
Until next time,
The Dear Holmes Team
——
21 August, 1894
Dear Doctor Weaver,
I am most grateful that you have been able to continue the fine work of Doctor Watson and assist with this case. My brother, Mycroft, did indeed make a wise choice in calling on you. Though my absence from Baker Street precluded my direct involvement, your carefully detailed letters have provided me with all the information needed to discern a solution. I will demonstrate.
From the outset, this case was full of intrigue. Sir Charles Cavendish Short was clearly a valuable asset to Her Majesty’s government, and furthermore, his knowledge of affairs in Southern Africa and the developing situation with the Boers, made him a plausible target. This made his untimely death all the more worthy of swift investigation.
The key question to be answered was that of the nature of Sir Charles’ death: had he truly succumbed to natural causes, or had there been a malefactor, or malefactors, working against him. If the latter was true, then the question of course became that of “Who and Why?” Who was it that managed to carry out an attack against him, and what was their motivation? For in spite of Sir Charles’ connection to contentious international affairs, there was no evidence directly suggesting a politically motivated assassination.
With Watson’s initial report in hand, the only definitively relevant information we had concerned the reason for Sir Charles’ presence in Guildford and the manner of his death, which I will confess, suggested poison to me straight away. I would need greater evidence to confirm that suspicion, but nevertheless, there were a number of other details in Watson’s letter that pointed to possible suspects.
Most plain to see was Mycroft’s revelation that a Dutchman had been questioned regarding Sir Charles’ death. This certainly gave weight to the idea that we were uncovering a plot by the Boers, however, Watson was correct to question De Witt’s guilt, for why he would have remained in the hotel after the crime had been committed? If he were an assassin, then surely he would have fled upon confirming Sir Charles’ death.
In addition to this, Doctor Watson’s “mystery” tobacco purchases at Schroder & Gagne provided an ideal method by which to determine De Witt was bona fide. In light of his deft assessment of the tobacco samples, it was not difficult to believe that he was a tobacco salesman from Rotterdam. But unfortunately, his capacity to identify tobacco did not mean that he was absolved from involvement in Sir Charles’ death. Who is to say that an assassin cannot have a penchant for tobacco?
In further scrutiny of the man, I will note that De Witt, without hesitation, provided information on his meetings with the deceased; even mentioning his curious paintbrush habit. Had De Witt exploited that habit to harm Sir Charles, I doubt he would have so flippantly referred to it. I will add too that Watson’s clever device– to allude to the reason for De Witt’s police questioning, by employing Afrikaans– produced a straightforward response from the man, rather than a suspicious reaction.
Putting aside Jacob De Witt and the prospect of an international ploy, Watson’s initial report illuminated Sir Charles’ “brusque manner” as well, and thereby, two other suspicious individuals. There were scarce details, but the man’s unsavoury encounter with the rat catcher, and his “excessively spirited discussion” with a retired Army officer, each presented us with another somewhat plausible culprit. But as you well know, the information at our disposal was yet limited.
This was fortunately remedied by your continuation of the investigation after Watson’s departure. Your subsequent letter, dated August the 17th, made it possible to start delineating a much stronger hypothesis. I am grateful for your detailed descriptions.
First of all, the outcome of your examination of the body of Sir Charles was telling, and as you had surmised, its unnatural posture called attention to something that had not been revealed by the report left for you at the Watts Cemetery Chapel. As you later realised, this contorted posture was strikingly reminiscent of the effects of cyanide poisoning. The personal effects of Sir Charles were equally telling, especially his golden watch. The cartouche on it bore his initials intertwined with those of one “MK”. Those, I suspect, relate to the maiden name of his wife, a theory which I will return to after expounding several other facts.
With regard to the thought of cyanide poisoning, what made this theory difficult to pursue was, as is often the case, a lack of substantial evidence. As you had observed, the levels of heavy metals detected in Sir Charles were such that they would, at first glance, be seen by a coroner as a cause of death. And your inspection of Sir Charles’ painting regalia only worked to support that theory– more than that of cyanide poisoning– for you would have quickly detected the chemical agent’s almond aroma had it been present in the man’s paint box. Even so, it was impossible to ignore the state of Sir Charles’ body, which so plainly indicated the effects of cyanide.
Thus, I faced a new question at this stage; that of the source of the cyanide. If it had not been introduced to his body by means of his paint or paintbrush, then it must have occurred somewhere, or somehow, else. For this reason, it was imperative to know Sir Charles’ movements prior to his death.
Auspiciously, you were able to verify those very movements in your conversations with Mr. De Witt. His description of the visit to the tea-shop brought forth a number of potentially relevant facts, some of which would go on to illuminate the truth behind Sir Charles’ death.
The rat catcher John Hardwick’s presence did not go unnoticed by me, after all, his tampering with Sir Charles’ paints could have been an attempt at poisoning them, and thereby Sir Charles himself. I would have lent more credence to this theory were it not for other curious details that were mentioned in your report; and the fact that you detected nothing unusual in the paint box.
You will recall that De Witt gave you an account of his time enjoying cake with Sir Charles. It was in this account that he delivered the clues which would first enable me to solve our mystery. Amongst other things, De Witt stated that he had not had the opportunity to enjoy the same sort of cake that his acquaintance did– a piece of fruit cake, generously topped with almonds, which he did not request, but rather received as a gift of gratitude from his waitress. That same waitress, you confirmed, referred to Sir Charles by his name, something which would not be highly unusual under ordinary circumstances, but... ordinary circumstances these were not.
You are a man of keen intellect, Doctor Weaver, so I predict you will have already started arriving at my conclusion by now. If you have not, then let us proceed by analysing the contents of your most recent correspondence to me, dated August the 19th. In this letter, you provided the final pieces of this puzzle, all of which, in turn, supported my final hypothesis: Sir Charles’ death was in fact brought about by a poison, and the person responsible was a close relative of his, from whom he was ironically quite distant. What’s more, “international intrigue” had little to do with the man’s demise.
The truth came into sight like a thunderclap once I read that the “tea-shop is owned by one Miss Annie Knight”. The name stood out for three reasons. The first, your earlier letters had referred to Sir Charles’ daughter as “Annie”; the second, you had noted that Sir Charles’ pocket watch was inscribed with two intertwining sets of initials, “CCS” and “MK”; the third, Annie Knight’s brooch. In the photograph in Sir Charles’ watch, his wife wore a brooch, all the while Miss Knight’s brooch seemed familiar to you for reasons you could not perceive. In light of that, and the date on the watch, 1868, and Annie’s appearance at the time of the photograph, relative to Annie Knight’s current appearance, I realised that this young proprietor was none other than Sir Charles’ daughter, whose whereabouts had been, until then, unknown to us.
Knight, in an attempt to distance herself from her crime, also went on to claim that she did not witness any painters at, or even nearby, the tea-shop– a claim which might have been more credible had she not also previously referred to one such painter, Sir Charles, by his name.
Now, you might still wonder how Annie Knight was able to ensure her estranged father’s death, and more so than this, why she was driven to commit the crime. I will address these two questions, “the how” and “the why”, in turn.
With regard to the former question, we must look at what Sir Charles was served during his visit to the tea-shop, and how that varied with the food during your own visit. When Sir Charles and Mr. De Witt patronised the shop, De Witt was told that his friend had been given the last piece of fruit cake. Whether this was a lie or not, I can assure you that De Witt was better off forgoing the aromatic cake, for that is how Sir Charles came to be murdered. But it was not the cake itself that had been poisoned, rather it was the “neat layer of almonds”, which on your visit to the shop, was curiously absent from the cake. Perhaps they had recently altered the recipe, or merely ran out of almonds on the occasion of your visit, one might presume, however, Miss Knight boldly declared that her shop’s fruit cake was simply not served with a topping of almonds, or any sorts of nuts. Another point in favour of my hypothesis, and another lie conjured by Miss Knight in the hopes of warding off suspicion.
As for the almonds themselves, I posit that Mr. De Witt mistook the actual poison atop the cake for almonds, for I am certain that the layer of “almonds” he witnessed was but a generous amount of greengage kernels, which Miss Knight would have easily harvested from The Orchard’s own gardens.
The greengage, a cousin of the plum, with its plump, yellow-green fruits, contains soft, pale cream coloured seeds, which themselves are a source of cyanide. Miss Knight’s interest in botany and her employment at Kew Gardens are both testament to her knowledge of plants, and more specifically, to her knowledge of greengage’s potentially fatal toxicity. And let us not forget that she also would have known of Sir Charles’ work with paints, and from that, that his body was regularly exposed to a fair amount of toxic chemicals. In other words, she was aware of the fact that it would likely take less cyanide than expected to push her father’s body past its Earthly boundaries, so to speak.
With this in mind, what might then be a sufficient motive for a daughter to kill her father? I believe that Miss Knight answered this herself when you asked of her family, and if her father had accompanied her to Guildford. In response to your enquiry, she mentioned how her father had left his family under circumstances that she described “as harsh, if not violent”, then subsequently, and in some haste, she left you at your table. A final pair of points in favour of my theory, and against our culprit.
I expect you will be wondering “What happens next?” I myself am not entirely sure, but you can undoubtedly expect a resolution in the imminent future. As a result of our investigation, or more so Your investigation, good sir, I have sent a telegram to Mycroft asking him to call on The Orchard Tea Shop, where he might have a more thorough conversation with Miss Knight. Thereafter, he will help determine the most appropriate course of action, for although she has committed a crime, the truth behind the “harsh, if not violent” circumstances of her father’s departure may well influence the severity of her punishment.
In any event, we must now await the law as it takes its course.
I thank you again for your assistance, and should the need ever arise, do not hesitate to call on me. Even in my absence, Watson would be pleased to lend a hand. We are indebted to you.
God speed,
