How Holmes Saw the Writing on the Wall(paper)

Esteemed Investigators,

Kathryn Maitland’s case seemed dire, and Mr. Maitland’s guilt seemed certain, until your dogged work saw through the dazzling decorations. Without your efforts, Maitland Sr.’s Death by Design would have gone unnoticed— his killer free. Thank you.

If you still find yourself wondering about the Maitland case, it wouldn’t hurt to look through Holmes’ review of the crime. We often find that he catches onto just a few more details than we might’ve imagined were there all along…

Stay sleuthing,

The Dear Holmes Team

——

14 December, 1894

Dear Mrs. Maitland,

By now, I hope, your husband has been released and is back at home with you and your children–although I realise it must be an uneasy reunion for you. I have been informed, after speaking with Inspector Lestrade of Scotland Yard, that the real killer has been apprehended.

This case certainly proved challenging. There were so many possible suspects, all of whom seemed to have both motive and opportunity. As a result, narrowing it down posed difficulties.

I first considered your brother- and sister-in-law, due primarily to the fact that Mr. Maitland seemed to rally after leaving their home in London. While his improvement offered proof of the benefits of clean country air, it also suggested that something in his rooms here in the city was proving deleterious to his health.

That promising theory of the crime was undermined by one equally enticing – the arrival of his son, David, bearing a bottle of Mr. Maitland’s favourite single malt, Ardbeg. Your suspicion of the spirit was not unfounded, after all, somebody might have introduced a poison to the bottle. However, your description of Ardbeg's peculiar, and indeed, acquired taste, was precisely what I would expect to sense when quaffing even a small amount of it. This, taken together with the rest of the evidence you gathered, allowed me to dismiss this peace offering as the cause of Mr. Maitland’s illness.

Complicating matters further was the visit of your sister-in-law, Ida, to Mr. Maitland. People who find themselves placed in desperate situations will often act in ways contrary to their nature. Given her pressing financial problems, I wondered if she might have introduced something into Mr. Maitland’s diet by means of either the cider or the muffins she had given to him, or both. I handled a case last year in which a woman used berries from an English Laurel plant, which resemble blueberries to some degree, in an attempt to despatch her daughter-in-law after her son had made what she considered an inferior match. And you well know the dangers of the unripe berries of black nightshade – I suspect your garden may feature such plants, and that it was for that reason Mr. Barker was so fixated on your flowers. However, I digress.

Working backwards, I soon eliminated Ida from my list of plausible killers, simply because she had come to her uncle for a loan. If necessary she could have appealed for more, and Mr. Maitland was the only individual who could solve her financial difficulties without any undue delays. Since the terms of the will were unknown at the time, killing him would have been against her best interest.

Putting her aside, I returned to your brother- and sister-in-law, Matthew and Camilla. In your first letter you explained how they had set aside a suite of rooms for Mr. Maitland. You also mentioned that Camilla had decorated the rooms with vivid colours. I wondered why she would not let her guest, who was planning to live there for some time, decorate what were to be his own rooms to his own taste.

When you described the wall papers which had been selected, my theory began to take proper shape. Namely, I suspected the appurtenances in Mr. Maitland’s wing of the estate had played some role in his illness. And when I considered that against his diet in London, which featured an array of various green leafy vegetables, as well as an abundance of fish, I knew I was on the right path. Bear with me for the explanation.

As you already know, arsenic has many applications, such as the control of pests and the preservation of wood. However, you should know that it has also been frequently employed as a dye for wall papers and coverings. In 1775 Carl Wilhelm Scheele, a Swedish-German chemist, derived a new pigment of green, which is known as “Scheele’s Green”. I will not bore you with the complete chemical makeup of this artificial colourant, but one of the principal ingredients used by Scheele was arsenic in the form of arsenious oxide.

Prolonged exposure to arsenic resulted in sores and an array of other maladies for those tasked with making the wallpaper. William Morris, who produced such paper for decades, eventually bowed to public pressure in 1870 and began using arsenic-free greens in his workshops. However, there are still hundreds perhaps thousands of rolls available for purchase.

Continual exposure to such wallpaper, especially if it is flaking, can result in arsenic poisoning, though brief exposure can cause illness. Indeed it is said that even Queen Victoria had all the green wall papers torn down in Buckingham Palace after a visiting dignitary became ill in 1879. Parliament may have passed the Factory Workshop Acts of 1883, which regulates conditions in factories where workers regularly encounter arsenic, but I am afraid that still more needs to be done.

As for the guilty party... I suspect that it will have been no challenge for the authorities to compel your sister-in-law, Camilla, to confess to her crimes. She, apparently, harboured a deep, long-lived, resentment against Mr. Maitland, stemming from his professional endeavours. You will recall writing of both, Mr. Maitland’s hand in realloting Boer-controlled lands in Natal, and Camilla’s father’s “unfortunate investments” in South Africa. There is little doubt in my mind that these two events are entwined with each other; that Britain’s victory and Baden-Powell’s heroics in South Africa proved an unmitigated disaster for Camilla’s father; and that she blamed Maitland’s political accomplishments for her family’s financial hardships.

Some time after the events in Natal took place, Matthew presumably began courting Camilla, and it appears a desire for revenge outweighed her attraction to the man’s charms. Then, her vengeful opportunity finally arrived when Mr. Maitland agreed to take up quarters at The Willows, whose lavish settings were to his taste.

Knowing of her father’s background in chemical manufacturing, I surmise that Camilla was sufficiently educated on the properties of arsenic to be capable of employing it as a weapon. By means of brightly decorative wall papers, she ensured that the poison was slowly being introduced to Mr. Maitland, all the while enhancing its properties with a convenient diet. Mr. Maitland obviously had a preference for beef and fowl, but was constantly served fish with green leafy vegetables whilst with Camilla and Matthew. Traces of arsenic can be found in various fish, as well as in such greens as broccoli, sprouts and kale. To a healthy person, that would pose little danger. However, I am quite certain that your sister-in-law saw the changes in his diet as a way to bolster the amount of arsenic he was being exposed to, and thus speed his deterioration, while lessening risks to others in her family or employ. I also speculate that Camilla introduced amounts of arsenic to the man’s brandy after dinners, though this detail I cannot fully confirm.

The fact that she and her husband, along with their children, never visited his quarters was most telling. More telling was the fact that Mr. Maitland seemed to rally during his first visit to your home. But the final point came when you informed me that “since Mr. Maitland’s passing, all of his rooms have been decorated anew by a grieving Camilla”. No doubt, she was keen to remove and replace the poison she had brought into her own home.

Your husband’s implication was also a result of her drive for vengeance. She believed that with his simple faith in the British system of justice and “stiff upper lip” that he would be the ideal person to draw suspicion away from herself. And to cast further doubt upon your husband, she authored a “poison pen” letter, which referred to Maitland as a “heartless Master of Finance”, and which, more curious still, implored you to confront Camilla about the allegations. Had you done so, Camilla would have slyly been able to corroborate her own accusations, whilst driving a wedge between you and your husband.

With regard to your brother-in-law, I am of the opinion that he knows nothing of the poisoning, for it was he who instructed Edmund Barker to help identify the killer. Nevertheless, he was no innocent. It is without a doubt that the government meetings Mr. Maitland was called to, in the same week that David was visiting, were, as Maitland later said, “unnecessary nonsense”.

My brother Mycroft, with some annoyance, has made inquiries in Maitland’s former department and has assured me that the man was not meeting with any officials of Her Majesty’s government. Based on Mr. Maitland’s statements, we believe the men he met – at clubs and hotels, none of whom he recognised – were but actors, hired by Matthew. This, which I posit was an attempt at distancing the man from his estranged son, explains the astonishing lack of decorum noted by Mr. Maitland.

Mrs. Maitland, I pray that you will take this information in solace, and that your family recovers from this dreadful ordeal in due time. Camilla’s actions cannot be undone, but I expect it will bring great relief to know that neither accusations, nor a killer, continue to lurk about your family.

If you have any questions or require my services in the future, please feel free to contact me.

I remain your devoted servant.

PS. As a further note, I should add that my associate, Dr. Watson was good enough to read the Blue Chateau (as you know, I cannot abide fiction ). You will appreciate his report, that it was “skillfully written and jolly good fun.”