Quantcast
Channel: Murder by Gaslight
Viewing all 701 articles
Browse latest View live
↧

Settling an Old Feud.

May 4, 2013, 5:51 am
$
0
0
Little Murders
 
(From New York Herald, New York, New York, October 20, 1885)
 

Settling an Old Feud.

 
A serious stabbing affray occurred in a lonely portion of South Orange, N. J., on Sunday night, which will probably result in a murder. About eleven o’clock on Sunday night Morris Foran, of South Orange, entered the tavern kept by Mrs. Mary Briarton on the Ridgewood road. James Tanzey, of Milburn; William P. Brown and Ira Smith, of South Orange, entered the barroom a little later, and, having drunk some whiskey, were about to leave, when Tanzey saw Foran and scowled. His companions left the saloon, but he stood in the doorway until Mrs. Briarton went into a back room. He then walked over to Foran, and inquired in a surly tone, “Are you Morris Foran?”

Mrs. Briarton could not hear the answer, but in a minute she heard a scuffle and heard Foran exclaim, “I am stabbed!”

Rushing into the room, she saw Tanzey and Foran struggling on the floor. Tanzey had a large clasp-knife in his hand and Foran was making desperate efforts to wrest it from him. He was covered with blood, and after shaking off his antagonist by a desperate effort, he fainted. Fanzey was about to rush upon him again when Brown and Smith seized him and dragged him from the saloon.

Dr. Chandler was summoned, and when he arrived he found that Foran was terribly wounded. There was a gash in his stomach five inches long, from which the entrails protruded. He was moved to Memorial Hospital in Orange, where he lingers in a critical condition.

Justice of the Peace O’Reilly arrested Tanzey, whom he found on the Valley road. On being asked the cause of the stabbing, Tanzey, who bore two slight cuts on his face, replied that it was a woman affair. Becoming excited, he waved his fist in the air and exclaimed:--

“I’ve been waiting two years for this chance.”

“For what chance?” asked the Justice, “To stab Foran or go to jail?”

“Go to jail,” replied Taney quickly.

The prisoner formerly kept a saloon in Millburn, but lately he was employed as a mason in Short Hills. It is rumored that two years ago he and Foran quarreled about a woman. Foran is a contractor and has a wife and three children.

 

New York Herald, New York, New York, October 20, 1885
↧
Search

Guest Blogger: ExecutedToday.com

May 11, 2013, 5:53 am
$
0
0
 
ExecutedToday.com recently celebrated its 2,000th consecutive day posting execution stories from all times and places—that’s every day since October 31, 2007. You’d think they would run out of material but there is no end in sight.
 
This is the second guest post from ExecutedToday.com and once again it is an honor to include one of their gallows tales on Murder by Gaslight. This one is a hanging in Nebraska for a murder that was never committed.

1887: William Jackson Marion, who’d be pardoned 100 years later

Originally posted on ExecutedToday.com March 25th, 2011 by Headsman
         
On this date in 1887, William Jackson Marion was executed in Nebraska for the murder of his best
friend, John Cameron.

Jackson had always upheld his innocence and his ignorance of Cameron’s fate; he was the picture of “utmost coolness” on the scaffold, declaring only “that I am a sinner, the same as other men. I have made no confession and have none to make. Go to the court dockets and see where men have been tried and acquitted and compare my case with them.”

And then, as given by the Gage County Democrat, the first, last, and only man hanged in Beatrice“stood erect upon the trap-door while his hands and feet were bound, the black cap drawn over his face, and the noose adjusted,” the trap sprung, and after a thousand-plus people had taken the opportunity to view this infamous corpse, it was buried in the potter’s field.
It was then 15 years since young “Jack” Marion and John Cameron had hauled out from Grasshopper Falls, Kansas, looking for work on a railroad.

Somewhere in the wilderness, John Cameron disappeared, and Marion returned to his mother-in-law’s saying his buddy had left. Marion’s whereabouts fade; he’s supposed to have drifted in Indian country: was it flight? It sure looked that way a year later, when a body turned up with clothes that matched Cameron’s … and bullet wounds in the head.

Only a decade after those railroad recruits had rolled out their mule-packs was Marion finally apprehended and tried, and even then, it would take four years (and two trials, and several appeals) to resolve this circumstantial and very cold case.

The matter was indeterminate; the newspapers in town sniped at each other over the proper course — “there is a strong under current of public sentiment that is opposed to hanging, and particularly upon circumstantial evidence, collected ten years after the trial [sic], and connected by the testimony of his mother-in-law who showed … personal malice” complained the Gage County Democrat. Up to the very last, the governor postponed hanging by two weeks in response to a citizens’ petition. As is so often the case, though, the will to grant outright executive clemency went begging.
In 1891, under the headline The Dead Is Alive!, the Beatrice Daily Express delivered a thunderbolt to its readers.
There has always lingered, and always will linger, in the minds of a number of people … a doubt of Jack Marion’s guilt of the murder of John Cameron, and for which crime he was executed in this city four years ago.
The Express has today received almost indisputable information which establishes the startling fact of Jack Marion’s innocence. In other words John Cameron is still alive and was seen at LaCrosse, Kansas, one week ago Saturday, and a statement was obtained of him regarding his whereabouts from the time he and Jack Marion separated … and upon which day the law says Jack Marion killed his boon companion and friend.
The “victim” hadn’t been killed at all — he’s just up and blown town, just like Jack Marion said.
Although John Cameron turned up alive four years after the hanging, it would take another ninety-five for John Law to set things right.

That was when the executed man’s grandson, Elbert Marion, officially petitioned for Jack Marion’s posthumous pardon.*

Considering the century’s wait, the Board acted with relative dispatch on the hand-written petition. The evidence, Elbert pointed out, “has been accepted as fact by many many people including the Nebraska State Historical Society” and the living Cameron’s identity considered well-established by his contemporaries.** Elbert’s documentary history was considerable; in the minutes of the meeting, it’s handled by unanimous vote with no more than a few minutes’ conversation — one board member (the Attorney General, no less) observing of a proposal to kick the can down the road to a later evidentiary hearing, “we have sufficient information now on which to act responsibly.”
Now that’s bureaucracy for you.
In 1986, the Nebraska Pardons Board unanimously voted to issue a posthumous pardon to William Jackson Marion, hanged on March 25, 1887, for the murder of John Cameron. Secretary of State Allen Beermann, a member of the Board, noted that this was only the second request for a posthumous pardon the board has heard during his 16-year tenure. Marion’s grandson, Elbert Marion, requested the pardon, arguing that the coroner had misidentified a skeleton as Cameron, and maintaining that Cameron was seen alive by two of Marion’s relatives four years after Marion’s execution. The Board justified the unconditional pardon by stating “that the public good would be served by granting such application and that a posthumous pardon should be bestowed by the government through its duly authorized officers, as an act of grace.” (Source, a pdf)
Nebraska’s In the Matter of a Posthumous Pardon to William Jackson Marion, under the signature of Gov. Bob Kerrey, took formal effect on the 100th anniversary of its title character’s death — March 25, 1987.

* Elbert Marion’s hypothesis — and it is only that — was that Cameron, fleeing a potential paternity suit, swapped outfits with an Indian who might also have been on the run from his own trouble. Elbert reckons that the trick might have worked a little too well, and Cameron’s pursuers ambushed the Indian by mistake.

** One of Elbert Marion’s letters to the Pardons Board contains an offhanded reference to Kansas’s 1907 abolition of the death penalty; Elbert Marion believed (or had heard) that his grandfather’s execution had helped influence the legislature’s decision, but I have not been able to further substantiate this notion.

With special thanks to Sonya Fauver at the Nebraska Pardons Board and Allen Beermann, Nebraska’s Secretary of State at the time (and one of the signatories on the posthumous pardon) for
↧
↧

Mrs. Sarah Rhodes.

May 18, 2013, 6:26 am
$
0
0
Little Murders:
From Defenders and Offenders:


Mrs. Sarah Rhodes.

“This remarkable woman, who sports a moustache, is accused of murdering Farmer Blizzard, a married man, and who seemed to be infatuated with this woman.  He called upon her at Greenville, Va., where she resided on the evening of January 28, and took her riding in his buggy. At a lonely spot while crossing a bridge, the woman first shot the farmer and then hacked his body with an axe. She then dragged him from the wagon and threw his body over the bridge to the river below.”
 

Defenders and offenders. New York: D. Buchner & Co., 1888.

↧

The Walworth Patricide.

May 25, 2013, 5:30 am
$
0
0

The name Walworth was an old and venerable one in the state of New York. William Walworth arrived there from London in 1689; during the American Revolution, Benjamin Walworth fought in the Battle of White Plains; Reuben Hyde Walworth, in 1828, was named Chancellor of New York, the state’s highest judicial office. But in 1873 the name Walworth was forever tarnished when Frank Walworth murdered his father Mansfield Walworth.

Date: June 3, 1873

Location:   New York, New York

Victim:  Mansfield Walworth

Cause of Death:  Gunshot

Accused:   Frank Walworth

Synopsis:
Reuben Walworth was an up and coming young attorney when he married Maria Avery of Plattsburg, New York. They settled in at Pine Grove, outside of Saratoga Springs, which would become the Walworth estate.  Maria died in1848 leaving Reuben a widower with five children. Two years later, on a trip to Louisville, Kentucky, he met a thirty-nine-year-old widow named Sarah Hardin. After only one meeting he proposed to her and she accepted. That is when the trouble began.

Sarah and her children, two sons and a daughter, moved in with Reuben’s family at Pine Grove. Reuben’s youngest son, nineteen year old Mansfield, became infatuated with Sarah’s daughter Ellen, also nineteen, and they began courting in secret. In 1852 Mansfield and Ellen revealed their romance and were married in a lavish ceremony at Pine Grove.

Reuben Walworth had educated his son to follow in his footsteps, but Mansfield had no love for the law and instead became a novelist. Though prolific, as an author Mansfield Walworth was not particularly successful either critically or financially and had to rely on his father’s money to support his family. Reuben Walworth had little respect for the life his son had chosen and on his death he left Mansfield a small portion of his fortune, to be held in trust by his older brother, to support Mansfield’s wife and children. Mansfield felt emasculated by this disinheritance and took out his frustrations on his wife.

The marriage had always been tumultuous and Mansfield Walworth was an abusive husband. He spent extended periods away from his wife and had affairs with other women. At the time of Reuben’s death, Mansfield and Ellen were separated; she had taken their children back to Kentucky. They tried several times to reconcile, in Kentucky and at Pine Grove, and though they always began with the best of intentions, the meetings invariably would end with Mansfield beating Ellen over some perceived insult or jealousy. And Ellen, bruised and often pregnant, would leave him once more.

Ellen Hardin Walworth
In January 1871, while Ellen was pregnant with their eighth child, she and Mansfield tried one last time to reconcile. While they were in Ellen’s New York City apartment, calmly discussing where and how they would live, Mansfield went into a rage and accused Ellen of conspiring with his family to drag him back to Saratoga. Ellen raised her arms to shield herself from Mansfield’s blows, and he grabbed her hand and bit one of her fingers to the bone. Her screaming awakened everyone in the household, and their seventeen year old son Frank broke up the fight. Two weeks later Ellen filed for divorce and never saw her husband again.

Frank Walworth assumed the role of protector for his mother, who was now living at Pine Grove. Though Mansfield could no longer physically abuse Ellen, he would send her abusive and threatening letters. Frank was able to intercept these letters before they could disturb his mother. But Frank had his own problems; he was subject to spells where he would lie stiff and pallid, his face unnaturally “convulsed.” He became absentminded and forgetful and would sometimes cry out in his sleep.
Frank never forgave his father for the way he treated Ellen. During a chance meeting with his father in Saratoga Frank told him if he did not leave Ellen alone he would shoot him.
“There are bounds,” Frank told him, “which I will not allow any man to go beyond with impunity, especially when my mother is being insulted.”
On June 2, 1873, Frank intercepted another letter from his father to his mother. In it Mansfield accused Ellen of turning his children against him. He said that unless she convinced him that she had not taught their children to hate him he would kill her and himself. This was the last straw for Frank; he took the train to New York City and went to the boarding house where his father was living. His father was out so he left a note with the landlady:
“I want to settle some family matters. Call at the Sturtevant House. If I am not there I will leave word with the clerk. Frank Walworth.”
Mansfield did not return until midnight so did not go to the Sturtevant House until six o’clock the next morning. The bellman escorted Mansfield to room 267 where his son was waiting for him. After the door was shut, guests in adjoining rooms heard shouting, then four gunshots fired in quick succession. Frank walked out of the room and went quickly to the front desk; he told the clerk that he had shot his father and wanted a policeman.

Trial: June 24, 1873

Frank Walworth’s trial was a sensation in an era when murders always generated headlines in New York City. His fellow inmates in the Tombs prison included other famous murderers such as Edward Stokes and William Sharkey, whose stories had been followed in daily papers throughout America. All of the Walworth family’s dirty linen—though hardly a secret in Saratoga—would be exposed by the New York press.

There was no question that Frank Walworth had murdered his father; what was at issue was whether the murder was in self-defense, and whether or not Frank Walworth was insane at the time. There was some debate over the extent that Mansfield Walworth’s letters constituted direct threats and the judge hesitated to include them. He finally allowed all to be read except those that were “entirely too filthy to be repeated.” If nothing else, the letters made the trial as much about Mansfield’s behavior as about Frank’s.

The defense brought out evidence of Frank Walworth’s deteriorating mental health. They examined an expert witness who declared that Frank Walworth was epileptic. The prosecution countered with their own experts who asserted that Frank was not having a fit when he committed murder.
This would be the first murder case tried under a new state law that distinguished between first and second degree murder—both were intentional murder but first degree required “deliberation and premeditation.” The jury took advantage of the new law and found Frank Walworth guilty of second degree murder. It meant life in prison rather than execution.

Verdict: Guilty of second degree murder

Aftermath:
Frank Walworth was taken first to Sing Sing prison then within the first year he was transferred to Auburn Prison; fellow inmates there included murderers, Kate Stoddard and Henrietta Robinson. In 1877, after four years in prison, Frank was pardoned by newly elected Governor Lucius Robinson who, as a lawyer, had served before Chancellor Walworth. Frank returned to Pine Grove where he lived until his death in 1886 from a lung condition contracted in prison.

The death of her husband had been liberating for Ellen Hardin Walworth; she became an author, a lawyer and an educator. She was one of the founders of the Daughters of the American Revolution.

Another of her sons, Clarence Augustus Walworth, wrote The Walworths of America, a history of the Walworth family which makes no mention of the murder.

Sources:
 
Books:

Brien, Geoffrey. The fall of the house of Walworth: a tale of madness and murder in gilded age America. New York: Henry Holt and Co., 2010.

Walworth, Clarence A.. The Walworths of America: comprising five chapters of family history, with additional chapters of genealogy. Albany, N.Y: Weed-Parsons Printing, 1897.

Walworth, Frank H.. The Walworth parricide a full account of the astounding murder of Mansfield T. Walworth by his son, Frank H. Walworth, with the trial and conviction of the parricide and his sentence for life to the state penitentiary at Sing Sing.. New York: Thomas O'Kane, 1873.

↧

A Visit to the Tombs.

June 1, 2013, 6:00 am
$
0
0
Reprinted from New York Herald, December 22, 1868.

A Visit to the Tombs.


An Interview with the Prisoners Committed for murder—What They Say and Think—Drink and Bad Company the Pathway to the Gallows—Pistol, Knife and Stiletto Freely Used.

The Tombs (NYPL)
The Tombs of New York has become as familiar to the people of America s the Bastille of Paris to the people of France. There the contrast ends. Once in the living tomb of the Bastile the victim might exclaim with Sterne’s Starling, “I can’t get out, I can’t get out;” for the grave was the only release to the poor victim of some petty tyrant’s hate whom a lettre de cachet swept from his path.

How different in the Tombs! Though human laws and the good society demand the punishment of criminals, it is divine to temper justice with mercy and kindness, and this, it is believed, is done there. The prisoners are treated kindly, allowed to partake of the sympathy of their friends, and even more substantial favors.

The exterior of the Tombs is massive, gloomy and imposing. Its interior, though watered with bitter tears of remorse and regret, is clean, orderly and well kept. At present it contains about 250 inmates, charged with various crimes, form simple drunkenness up to the high crime of murder.

THE MEN’S PRISON.

The keys turned harshly in the bold and an iron door swung slowly back on the hinges, admitting to the men’s prison. The gates of Dante’s Inferno never treated more harshly upon its victim’s ears than these have upon many a hardened criminal’s. They were barriers that closed them in form the frenzied excitement of rude enjoyments of bacchanalian allurements.

This wing of the prison id divided into three tiers rising above each other. A flight of metal stairs leads to the second tier, where the prisoner for murder are confined the Cells are about eight feet by ten, with a grated iron door in front.

JOHN REAL.

John Real who is charged with the murder of officer Smedick, in First avenue, last July, is a smart an rather intelligent looking young man. He states that he is twenty-eight years of age. He is of medium height, rather good looking and sports a very nobby mustache. John was well dressed, too, and keeps his cell scrupulously clean and neat. He has converted old newspapers int covers and carpets and thus tries to shut off the bareness of bare walls and floor. Some pictures, including a Madonna, hang on the walls, while several books lay upon a kind of shelf. He also had sharing his captivity a bull pup called Spot. Spot appeared as little please with prison life as his master, for he frequently jumped against the iron door. “Spot is great comfort to me.” Says the prisoner, in reply to some remark of mine; “he plays with me and keeps me form thinking, and you know that is a great relief.”

He talked freely about the murder of Smedick, says the public has heard only one side of the question and that he shot him in self-defense; that he had persecuted the prisoner and boated that if he ever got a chance he would kill him (Real). He even went so far as to try and get him discharged form several employments. He says that Smedick swore false against him before, when he charged him with attempting to fire at him. How it was he was with a party in Cook’s saloon; one of the party reported to Smedick that Real had a pistol to shoot him. Smedic rapped for other officers, and Real left the back way and gave himself up at the station house.

He was walking up first avenue last July somewhat under the influence of drink; when he approached the deceased he drew hid club as if to strike him. Some angry words passed between them when he shot the deceased. Real appears to be a young man who was given to sociable company. Thought there is nothing bad in his appearance, he is evidently impulsive and one who would resent injury.

GEORE REINHARDT.

Cell 64 is occupied by a German named Geprge Reinhardt, accused of being am accomplice of Gertrude Pfeiffer in the murder of her husband Jacob Pfeiffer. The prisoner is an old man, of a mild appearance, and anything but the picture of a gay Lothario. He speaks little or no English, and all we could get out of him was an expression, “Me no kill no man.”

JOHN CARSON.

John Carson occupies cell 61. He is charged with the murder of his wife, Rebecca Carson, in West Thirty-eighth street, on the 21st of November. John attributes all to whiskey. He says he did not kill her; that on the day of her death he had returned from work about six o’clock and found the door of the room closed. He called in a neighbor and opened the door; does not recollect what happened afterwards. He was very drunk at the time. His wife was seldom sober and had pawned her clothes at the time. Some little time before $300 was stolen from her while drunk. “Drink,” says he, “was all the trouble; drink brought her to her grave and me here.” Carson is not a hardened looking man. He is evidently an unfortunate victim of the base vice of drunkenness and is naturally passionate. He is about forty years of age, wears large, full whiskers and is not bad looking.

PATRICK KERRIGAN.

In cell No. 64 we found Patrick Kerrigan, charged with killing Eliza Tracy, at No.. 14 Mulberry street, on the 25th of October. Thought Eliza was not Patrick’s lawful wife, he eschewed all ceremonies and lived with her as such for two years. They occasionally had a jolly time of it and now and then followed the example of married people, and quarreled. Quarrels will come to blows, and the fair Eliza came to her death on the 2th of October. Patrick was drunk at the time and, of course, knows nothing of how it occurred. She was also drunk when she died, and burned herself to death in Patrick’s belief. He is a middle aged man, with rather a sinister, dissipated look, who evidently imbibed hughly in his day.

DONATO MAGALDO.

Donato Magaldo, an Italian, occupies cell NO. 52, charged with the murder of John Ryland on the 4th of July. He and deceased quarreled on the day mentioned. After separating prisoner followed deceased and stabbed him in the back, killing him instantly. Magaldo is of strong, wiry build, dark complexion and hair, with a heavy mustache.

PATRICK RIELY.

Cell No. 51 is occupied by Patrick Riely, charged with killing his wife on the 15th of last November. “Well, Riely, how to you feel?” we asked, by way of introduction. “Begor, glorious, sir; happy as a lord, for I am innocent.” “So you did not kill your wife?” “sorra a bit, sir. This is how it happened:—I went hoe one Saturday night a little tight myself, to be sure, and I found her dead drunk on the floor. I went to bed and she went out again, and when I woke up next day she was stretched on the floor; so I took and puts her on the bed, and in the morning when Mrs. Rice brought in a cup of tea to her she was stone cowld.” As Patrick would be admitted to bail if he could find sufficient bail, there may be some truth in his statement.

JOHN SIEBERT.

Cell 59 is occupied by John Siebert, charged with killing Jacob Stellwagen on the 18th of August. He lived in Fourteenth street, between avenues B and C; Stellwagen kept a saloon; was in there; recollects something about a quarrel, but was so drunk that he cannot say how it happened. He is rather a smart looing young man, with curled hair and is good looking. Whiskey and company keeping brought him into trouble.

ROBERT TILMAN.

Robert Tilman, a fine looking specimen negro, occupies cell 47, charged with killing another colored man named William Carey. Tilman was enjoying a drink with a few colored gentlemen in a saloon in Thirty-third street, when he asked the deceased to drink. Deceased refused, which riled Tilman. A quarrel ensued and Tilman left the saloon. Carney followed and attempted to stab him with a knife, when Telman drew his revolver and shot him. This, at least, is the substance of Tilman’s story.

JEREMIAH HARRINGTON.

Jeremiah Harrington occupies cell 41, charged with the murder of Mary Ann Robinson. He is an old offender, well known ta the Tombs. He was arrested on the 31st July, charged with the murder of Ann Callaghan, and by some quibble of law gout out on the 12th of August, while he is charged with murdering Anne Robinson on the 20th of October.

MARGARET BROWN.

Margaret Brown, a low sized, squat, white advocate of miscegenation, is committed for cutting the throat of Upton Murray, her colored lover. She states that she was about leaving Murray when he threatened to cut her throat if she did; that she snapped the razor out of his hand and made a dahs at him, which cut his throat.

GERTRUDE PFEIFFER.

Gertrude Pheiffer is charged with the murder of her husband, Jacob Pfeiffer, in June last. She states that Reinhardt who is in as an accomplice, is quite innocent. To judge from appearances there is nothing romantic or lover like about the pair. Reinhardt is a harmless looking old man, while she looks so unwieldy that one would thing she was nursed on lager, bred on lager and at last became a huge lager barrel. Poor woman! She cries and sobs all the time.

MARGART WALSH.

The murder of officer McChesney by Margaret Walsh is fresh in the memories of our readers. She was tried, convicted and sentence to the State prison for live on the 23rd of December, 1857. On motion, by writ of error, a new trial was granted, and she was brought back to the Tombs and will be arraigned for trial again to-day. Margaret has been a fine looking woman , but her incarceration has considerably preyed upon her.

ELIZA JOHNSON.

Eliza Johnson is charged with killing her husband, Norman Johnson of 178 Forsyth street. She state that her husband kept a disreputable house against her wish. This led to frequent quarrels. On the day of the murder he was in the front room with a woman. She looked into the room; he beat her. She snatched a razor and killed him. She appear to feel her position acutely and is evidently suffering much agony of mind.

"A Visit to the Tombs." New York Herald 22 Oct. 1868
↧
↧

James H. Jacobs.

June 8, 2013, 6:00 am
$
0
0
Little Murders:
From Defenders and Offenders:


James H. Jacobs.

“On the night of 11th of December 1886, Jacobs stabbed Elmer E. Quigley in the stomach with a butcher knife. The affair occurred near Jacobs house, at Lancaster, Pa. Jacobs was abusing his children, who were outside the house. Quigley came along and remonstrated with Jacobs for abusing his children, who were crying. After some words, Jacobs went into the house, got a knife, came out and plunged it into Quigley, killing him.”
 

Defenders and offenders. New York: D. Buchner & Co., 1888.

↧

The Vanderpool-Field Tragedy.

June 15, 2013, 5:19 am
$
0
0

Though he was only twenty-one years old in 1869, Herbert Field had already faced death numerous times in a variety of exotic locations. Field had lived an adventurous life and seemed to attract danger, but he never encountered a danger he could not overcome until he settled down in Michigan to become a banker.

Date:  September 5, 1869

Location:   Manistee, Michigan

Victim: Herbert Field

Cause of Death:  Blows to the head

Accused:   George H. Vanderpool

Synopsis:

Herbert Field was born in1848 in Lewiston, Maine. As a child he was saved from drowning on three separate occasions, was nearly killed when a rifle he was loading discharged prematurely, and was badly burned and nearly suffocated when his house caught fire. At age 13, during the Civil War, he left home and joined a Maine army regiment encamped in Virginia, then joined the crew of a transport ship carrying supplies to the Union army in New Orleans.

At age fifteen he sailed from Boston on the schooner John Tucker bound for South America. The men aboard the John Tucker were harshly treated and poorly fed and the ship was nearly destroyed in a storm. When Field left the ship at Cape Horn he was arrested and held for three weeks in a Valparaiso jail. After returning to the States, Field boarded an English ship bound for Liverpool and then on to Russia. In the Baltic Sea, the ship was wrecked near Riga. While he managing to survive the shipwreck, Field lost all of his clothing and a large amount of gold.

Herbert Field returned to the United States bent on settling down and entering the business world. He studied at the Commercial College in Auburn, New York, but unable to find a position upon graduation, Field took to the lecture circuit, speaking of his travels in South America.

While speaking in the town of Manistee, Michigan, Field met Miss Rachel Hill, a fifty-five year old woman who was quite interested in the lecture and offered to help Field obtain a better education. He accepted her offer and began living in Miss Hill’s house. She passed herself as Field’s aunt and this was accepted by the people of Manistee, though it was rumored that their relationship was much more intimate.

Around the same time, another young man arrived in Manistee. George Vanderpool, who had
experience in the lumber business, came with money borrowed from men in a neighboring town, intent on starting a bank. The bank opened in December 1868 and two months later Herbert Field, investing $7,000 given to him by Miss Hill, became a partner in the new enterprise.

The partners had complementary skills—Vanderpool was the better businessman, while Field was the more affable— and the firm of Vanderpool and Field did quite well. But by September 1869 all was not well between the partners. Vanderpool believed that Field was drawing money without accounting for it. He changed the combination of the safe and began taking the petty cash home with him at night. According to Vanderpool, Field wanted out of the partnership, either by buying Vanderpool’s share or by selling his own. Vanderpool did not want to sell so they decided to dissolve the partnership.

They drew up the necessary papers and on the morning of Sunday, September 5, 1869 their
signatures were witnessed by shopkeepers in stores abutting the bank. The following day Herbert Field could not be found in Manistee. Field had many friends in town and his absence was immediately noticed. Vanderpool speculated that Field had run away; gone off on another adventure. Field’s friends were skeptical, especially Miss Hill who knew that Field had left behind $2,000 of his own money.

After Field had been gone several days, the people of Manistee began to speculate that he had been the victim of foul play and suspicion fell upon his partner George Vanderpool. Though Field’s body had not been found and the general opinion was that Vanderpool was incapable of murder, he was arrested on Wednesday, September 8, and held on suspicion. Meanwhile the sheriff offered rewards for information on the whereabouts of Herbert Fields—$50 if alive, and $300 for the body if dead. $300 was later raised to $500.

On September 17, a body was found on the shore of Lake Michigan, twenty-eight miles north of Manistee. The body was brought by steamer back to the town where it was positively identified as that of Herbert Field. He had not drowned; his skull had been crushed and his body had been tied to a weight before being thrown into the water. The line had broken setting the body free to be washed ashore.

Vanderpool’s behavior before his arrest was now examined more closely by the sheriff and prosecutors. He had been seen mopping the floor of his office the morning of his arrest, cleaning up what appeared to be a large amount of blood. A section had been cut out of the middle of the carpet and from the ashes in the stove, investigators could tell that it had been burned there. A pair of Vanderpool’s trousers had also been burned in the stove and witnesses remembered seeing Vanderpool wearing Field’s clothes on September 5. Witnesses also remembered sounds of a scuffle coming from the bank that morning.

The explanations that Vanderpool gave for these events were far from satisfying. The blood, he said, had come from a bloody nose. He had bled into the spittoon and had later filled the spittoon with water, preparing to clean it. The spittoon had been knocked over and the contents spilled on the floor, the water augmenting the size of the resulting blood stains. He had cut out the section of carpet because it was worn and dirty. He said that on September 5 he had a bad case of diarrhea and had soiled his pants so badly decided to burn them and wear a pair that Field had kept in the office. The sounds from the bank were made by Field playing with his dog.

On September 18, the coroner’s jury indicted George Vanderpool for the murder of Herbert Field

Trials: 1. December 21, 1869, 2. October 23, 1870, 3. August 8, 1871
 
The courtroom was filled to capacity on December 21, 1869, opening day of the trial, as more than five hundred people came to get a look at the accused murderer. A quick look was all they got because after pleading “not guilty" Venderpool was removed from the courtroom and the trial was continued until the next term due to the absence of some material witnesses for the defense.

The trial commenced again on February 1, 1870. The prosecution presented all of the now familiar circumstantial evidence against Vanderpool along with testimony from medical experts that the wounds on Field’s head were consistent with the blunt end of a hatchet kept in the bank office.

The defense countered with the explanations Vanderpool had previously given, along with the assertion that had he murdered Field, Vanderpool would have immediately cleaned his office and not waited until the following Wednesday. The prosecution asserted that there was too much blood to be accounted for by the spittoon story; the defense said there was not enough blood in the office if Field was killed there by a blow the head. But most importantly, several witnesses testified that they had seen Herbert Field alive at 2:00 the afternoon of September 5. All of George Vanderpool’s time was accounted for that afternoon so if Felid was alive at 2:00 he could not have been murdered by Vanderpool.

The testimony took thirteen days, closing arguments lasted six days. Then Vanderpool himself spoke directly to the jury for three hours, asserting his innocence. The jury deliberated for six hours then returned a verdict of guilty of first degree murder. George Vanderpool was sentenced to life in solitary confinement at Jackson Prison.

As Vanderpool was beginning his sentence, there was a growing sentiment in Michigan that he had not received an impartial trial in Manistee. Money was raised to meet the expenses of seeking a new trial, and a new trial was secured, with the venue changed to Kalamazoo. This trial was called “a battle of giants” because attorneys on both sides included some of the greatest lawyers in Michigan.

The second trial followed much the same lines as the first, with the additional assertion by the defense—including a minute-by-minute breakdown—that even if the murder had been committed the morning of September 5, Vanderpool would not have had time to dispose of the body and return home by the time witnesses saw him there. The trial ended in a hung jury—nine for conviction, three for acquittal.

Vanderpool’s third trail, in August 1871, was held in Barry Michigan. The most dramatic feature of this trial was the appearance of Herbert Field’s mother who, on the first day, confronted a man she thought was George Vanderpool and exclaimed,
“Where is my son; where is Herbert Field? Oh, wretched man!”
This time the defense challenged the identification of the body, claiming it was not conclusively proven to be that of Herbert Field. They also introduced evidence of a strange man in a rowboat rescued in Lake Michigan near the Manistee River around the time of Field’s disappearance. He was carrying a large sum of money and later fled to Canada. The defense speculated that he could have been the murderer.

This time the jury deliberated for six hours and returned a verdict of not guilty.
 
Verdicts:1. Guilty of first degree murder, 2. Hung jury, 3. Not guilty.

Aftermath:

As Vanderpool’s attorneys were entering a carriage to take them to the train depot, Herbert Field’s mother stepped up and exclaimed:
“The blood of my son is in Michigan, and will yet be avenged upon Vanderpool and his defenders! You will have your share of the punishment, and I shall meet you at the judgment!”

After leaving prison George Vanderpool did not return to banking. He tried his hand on the lecture circuit for a time, but found less interest in his case than he anticipated. Following that he did his best to escape the notoriety of the Michigan murder by working as a traveling salesman for an Ohio shoe company.


Sources:
Books:
Donovan, Joseph Wesley. Modern jury trials and advocates containing condensed cases, with sketches and speeches of American advocates : the art of winning cases and manner of counsel described : with notes and rules of practice. New York: G.A. Jennings Co., 1881.

Vanderpool, George. History of the trial of George Vanderpool for the murder of Herbert Field, including a brief sketch of the life of both parties, the judge and attorneys in the case. Detroit: Printed by the Tunis Steam Print. Co., 1870.
 
Newspapers:
"Personal Points." Cincinnati Daily Times 22 Oct. 1872.
"The Northwest." Daily Inter Ocean [Chicago] 25 Apr. 1874: 2.
"The Vanderpool-Field Tragedy." Plain Dealer [Cleveland ] 19 Nov. 1870.

↧

Deserved Double Lynching.

June 22, 2013, 5:54 am
$
0
0
Little Murders
 
(From The Wheeling Register, Wheeling, West Virginia, June 6, 1885)

Deserved Double Lynching.
 
Two Brothers Swing for Murder – Wholesale Murder Plot Revealed
 
Marshalltown, Iowa, June5. – Fin and Mans Rainsbarger were taken from jail at Eldora, Hardin county, at 1 o’clock this morning, by a mob of seventy-five masked men and riddled with bullets, so as to be unrecognizable. They are brothers of the two Rainsbargers now in the Marshal county jail here, for the murder of Enoch Johnson, and were arrested yesterday for an alleged attack on Doctor Underwood, who is prominent in the Rainsbarger prosecution.

Results of a Feud

The lynching of Rainsbarger at Eldora, last night, is the result of an old feud that has be brewing in Harden county for many years. It originated in a family quarrel a great many years ago and culminated last year in the murder of Johnson. For this crime the two Rainsbarers, Nathaniel and Frank, are now in jail at Marshalltown, charged with murder. Accusation was made by the wife of Nathanial, who is a daughter of Johnson. Among the most prominent men in the county , who testified at the preliminary examination was Dr. Underwood, of Eldora. His life was threatened by the gang a few days ago. Suspicious movements were discovered by a party upon whom a watch was set. It was discovered in a secret communication with the Rainsbagers. It was finally found that a plot was being concocted

To Murder a Number of Leading Citizens

of the county. These facts developed only a day or two ago. Night before last Dr. Underwood and Dr. Riedenour, a dentist, were shot as they were driving along in the country. The former was wounded and hit once. Only though a number of shots were fired, this attempt drove the citizens to desperation, and Rainsbargers having  been arrested  last evening, were, during the night, taken out and lynched as stated. The brothers lynched were known as Fin and Mans. Fin was a pardoned convict charged with murder. The family and their followers are hard characters and have given peaceable a great deal of trouble. Great excitement prevails. Public sentiment, however, generally approves of the lynching. It is doubtful if any prosecutions are made.


 

The Wheeling Register, Wheeling, West Virginia, June 6, 1885
↧
Search

Arthur Spring Jr. vs. Arthur Spring Sr.

June 29, 2013, 6:08 am
$
0
0
On the morning of June 11, 1853, the bodies of  Mrs. Honora Shaw and her sister Mrs. Ellen Lynch were found brutally stabbed and beaten in the front room of their home on Federal Street in Philadelphia. Circumstantial evidence pointed to Arthur Spring, a frequent guest of Mrs. Shaw’s, as the murderer. But the most damning evidence against Spring was the testimony of his nineteen-year-old son, Arthur Jr. who directly accused his father of the murders.  Arthur Spring vehemently denied the charge and countered by pinning the murders on his son.

Date:  June 10, 1853

Location:   Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

Victim:  Mrs. Honora Shaw and Mrs. Ellen Lynch

Cause of Death:  Beating, Stabbing

Accused:  Arthur Spring Sr.

Synopsis:
Arthur Spring was nineteen years old in 1833 when he emigrated to America from Ireland. He settled in Philadelphia and that same year married a sixteen year old girl who had also come from Ireland. They were together for about eleven years before Mrs. Spring died, leaving Arthur to care for a son and two daughters.

Spring had tried his hand at a number of businesses; he had been a saloonkeeper, a grocer and a confectioner. The candy store was the most successful, but the return was too slow to please Spring so he augmented his income with robbery. As a result he served several terms in prison.

In 1852, all but destitute, Arthur Spring was living in a Philadelphia boarding house with his son, Arthur Jr. – his two daughters had been sent to an orphanage in Washington, D.C. In Philadelphia Spring became reacquainted with Honora Donavan, whom he had known as a boy in Ireland. She was now Mrs. Honora Shaw, though her husband had left her for the California goldfields and was presumed dead. The exact nature of Arthur Spring’s relationship with Honora Shaw is not clear; he would later claim that they were engaged, and were to be married on the confirmation of her husband’s death, others said she did not like him, but helped Spring and his son out of pity.

Honora Shaw was living with her sister Ellen and Ellen’s husband Bartholomew Lynch in an apartment on Federal Street, sublet from Mr. and Mrs. John Carroll who occupied most of the house. Ellen Lynch had recently given birth to twins and her sister had moved in to help her with the babies. Arthur Spring began calling on Honora Shaw at the Federal Street house, much to the disapproval of the Lynches and the Carrolls.

The night of March 10, 1853 Honora Shaw and Ellen Lynch were alone in the house. Bartholomew Lynch had left that day to spend several days in New York on business, and the Carrols had gone to a ball that night. Mrs. Carroll returned from the ball around 7:30 the next morning and in the front room, on the first floor, she found the bodies of Honora Shaw and Ellen Lynch lying in a pool of blood. They had been beaten and stabbed multiple times. Mrs. Shaw appeared to have been attacked suddenly, as there was no sign of a struggle. Mrs. Lynch had gashes on her hands and arms indicating that she had tried in vain to ward off her attacker. Mrs. Shaw had been stabbed seventeen times, Mrs. Lynch forty-one.

The sheaf of a knife was found under one of the bodies and a piece of heavy lead pipe was found in the room, covered with blood and hair. Blood stains on doors and walls showed that the killer had gone to Mrs. Lynch’s room and broken into her trunk. The tip of a knife—a three cornered dirk—was lying on the floor where it had been used to pry open the hasp of the trunk.

Though the motive of the killings was apparently robbery, the killer was probably someone known to the household. Mrs. Lynch had been dressed in her nightclothes and it is unlikely that she would have left her babies and come downstairs if a stranger had broken into the house. Suspicion fell upon Arthur Spring—in addition to being a frequent visitor to the house, he was left-handed, and from the bloodstains on the doors it appeared that they had been opened by the killer’s left hand. In Arthur Spring’s room police found a shirt with bloodstains in the breast. Spring and his son were arrested for murder the following day.

At the preliminary hearing, Arthur Spring Jr. wasted no time bringing testimony against his father. He said that on the night of the murder his father had pretended to go to bed early but had actually gone out, unseen by anyone in their boarding house. Between 10:00 and 11:00 that night Arthur Jr. met his father coming in the backdoor. His shirt was bloody and he was carrying his shoes. Spring showed his son seventy dollars in gold coins and told him he had robbed the Lynches and murdered Mrs. Shaw and Mrs. Lynch in the process. He had known that the Carrolls would be out and that Mr. Lynch had gone to New York. He took the opportunity to steal the money Lynch had left for his wife. One censored account reported that Spring told his son, “Mrs. Shaw and Mrs. Lynch were two d—d –––, and that it was no sin to kill them.”

Arthur Sr. called his son a liar and said that it was Arthur Jr., along with some of his companions, who murdered the women. Arthur Jr.'s story was believed, Arthur Sr.'s was not. Arthur Spring Sr. was held for trial.

Trials: March 21, 1853; April 4, 1853

The morning of Monday, March 21, 1853 the Philadelphia Court House was filled to capacity with spectators anxious to see the trial of Arthur. A large crowd had also gathered on Sixth Street, along the route the prison van would be taking to the courthouse. Fearful of a lynch mob, the police took the precaution of placing an imposter in the prison van driven down Sixth Street. They brought Spring to the courthouse in a hack taking a different route.

The evidence against Arthur Spring was all circumstantial except for the testimony of his son, and that was quite compelling. Arthur Jr. testified for three hours, relating all he had seen and heard that night, declaring his father’s guilt while stressing that he himself had no involvement in the murders.

The defense contended that one man alone could not have overpowered two strong women. The use of two distinct weapons would indicate at least two killers. They characterized Arthur Spring Jr.’s testimony against his father as unnatural and self-serving, and they spoke against his character and that of his friends, a group of idlers known as the Outlaws, who hung out on street corners and read the Police Gazette in saloons.

On the fourth day of the trial the case was given to the jury who deliberated for three hours before finding Arthur Spring Sr. guilty of murder in the first degree.

Soon after the trial ended, Spring’s attorneys received an anonymous letter explaining that there had been an irregularity in the jury selection. At that time a man named Charles McQuillan had answered to the name Bernard Corr when Mr. Corr was summoned. McQuillan continued the impersonation after being impanelled as a juror and never revealed his true identity. The attorneys filed a motion for a new trial and the motion was granted.

With the exception of meticulous jury selections, Arthur Spring’s second trial, which began on April 4, 1853, was essentially a replay of the first. Spring was once again found guilty of first degree murder.

Verdicts: Guilty of first degree murder (overturned); Guilty of first degree murder.

Aftermath:
As is often the case with convicted murderers, then and now, Arthur Spring “…was made a hero by romantic women.” They had taken a fancy to portraits of him that had been published in several illustrated newspapers. This adoration was short-lived; Arthur Spring was hanged in Moyamensing Prison on June 10, 1853. Spring maintained his innocence to the end. On the scaffold he reiterated that he had not murdered Honora Shaw and Ellen Lynch, but he also declared that his son was innocent as well.

After his execution, the body of Arthur Spring was taken to the dissecting room of the Philadelphia College of Medicine where, with the permission of Arthur Jr., the body was given a post mortem examination. His head was examined by phrenologists who found:
“Benevolence and other organs, which are indications of a good disposition, were found to be very poorly developed, while selfishness and firmness were large, and cautiousness was well developed. Secretiveness was large and the animal organs such as combativeness and destructiveness were enormous. The base of the brain was very large. The forepart of the head was very small and the back very large, indicating sensuality and cruelty. The professor styled the cranium of the deceased as a ‘bull dog head.’”
When the examinations were concluded the body was sent in a coffin to the coroner but somewhere along the way the remains had disappeared. When the coffin was opened it was found to contain a log of wood and some clothing. The coffin was interred nonetheless.

While the people of Philadelphia were happy to see Arthur Spring Sr. hang, very few had any positive words for the son who had betrayed him. Arthur Spring Jr. moved to Washington D.C. where his sisters were still residing in an orphanage. There he took an appointment as messenger in the Register’s office of the Treasury.

Sources:
 
Books:
Jackson, Joseph.America's Most Historic Highway: Market Street, Philadelphia,. Philadelphia: Joseph Jackson, 1918.

Spring, Arthur. The Life and Adventures Arthur Spring. Philadelphia: T.B. Peterson, 1853.
 
Newspapers:
"Arthur Spring." Adams Sentinel [Gettysburg] 15 Aug. 1855.

"Examination of the Remains of Arthur Spring." The New York Times 14 June 1853.

"Execution of Arthur Spring." The New York Times 11 June 1853.

"Spring's Body Not Buried." Racine Daily Advocate 27 June 1853.
↧
↧

Clement Arthur Day.

July 6, 2013, 6:29 am
$
0
0
Little Murders:
From Defenders and Offenders:


Clement Arthur Day.

"Clement Arthur Day, who murdered Josie Rosa on the morning of June 9th, 1887, was hanged at Utica, Feb’y 9th 1888. Day killed the woman, who was living with him, by stabbing her twelve or fifteen times, because she was going to leave him and go home to her sick mother. He felt no concern on account of his crime on the morning of his execution, ate a hearty meal, then sang several songs, danced a jig, &c. He twanged a guitar, laughed and joked, and altogether entertained his keepers, and at the gallows even assisted in putting the noose around his neck."
 

Defenders and offenders. New York: D. Buchner & Co., 1888.

↧

A Savage Ruffian!

July 13, 2013, 6:12 am
$
0
0

Author James Fennimore Cooper recalled a day in June 1806 when he joined the population of Cooperstown, New York, to witness an eclipse of the sun. The eclipse was not the only memorable sight he saw that day, a prisoner had been brought up from his windowless dungeon to view the event. The man “with haggard face and fettered arms…the very picture of utter misery,” was Stephen Arnold, convicted of beating to death his six-year-old adopted daughter Betsey Van Amburgh for mispronouncing a word.

Date:  January 10, 1805

Location:   Burlington, New York

Victim:  Betsey Van Amburgh

Cause of Death:  Beating

Accused:   Stephen Arnold

Synopsis:
Stephen Arnold was the son of a wealthy Rhode Island farmer, but his family determined early on that Stephen did not have the temperament to manage a large farm. He did have an aptitude for scholarship, though, and he studied at a nearby academy. By the time he was eighteen he had joined the faculty there. He went to Massachusetts to learn medicine but after five months of intensive study, Arnold suffered what could probably be called a nervous breakdown and gave up his schooling.

After a couple of shiftless years Arnold went to stay with an uncle in the town of Burlington, in Otsego County, New York. Arnold became a teacher again; the area was still frontier country and the Yankee farmers who settled there welcomed a learned New Englander to educate their children. He was paid by the student and at its peak, Arnold’s school had 150 pupils. By 1803 Stephen Arnold had earned enough to buy several hundred acres of farmland.

Around 1800 he married a farmer’s daughter named Susannah Van Amburgh. Though they had no children of their own, the Arnold’s adopted Susannah’s niece Betsey Van Amburgh. In the winter months, Stephen would spend the day teaching his paying students then come home and tutor Betsey.

In 1805 Stephen Arnold was described as “about 34 years of age, sandy hair, a little bald, speaks through his nose, has something of a down look, shews his upper teeth when speaking, [and] is very abstemious to strong drink.” Teaching so many pupils who, in Arnold’s words “did not appear to be really civilized,” was taking a toll on his nerves. On January 10, 1805 after a day in which, Arnold would later say, “I was provoked even to madness, through the ill-behavior of my pupils,” He came home to teach Betsey.

Betsey Van Amburgh was described as a lively child, good natured and always dancing. She may have had a speech impediment that Arnold was trying to remedy, in any case on January 10 he was trying to have her correctly pronounce the word “gig” (a two-wheeled horse cart) and Betsey continually pronounced it as “jig.” Arnold thought that she was just being obstinate. He and his wife had previously punished Betsey by whipping her and observed that it had a positive effect. Believing he could whip the stubbornness out of Betsey he went outside and cut eight beechwood switches, each three feet long and the size of his little finger, and heated them over the fire to make the supple. He then took Betsey outside in the cold for her punishment.

He laid her over a post, raised her dress over her head, laying bare her backside from the ankles to the shoulders, then proceeded to whip her with a switch. When he thought she had learned her lesson, Arnold took Betsey back inside to try the word again. But once again she pronounced it “jig” and once again he took her out for a whipping. They went outside six times and each time Betsey came back in unable to pronounce the word. If Betsey screamed or cried out in pain during her punishment,  it was not heard inside the house or by any of the neighbors but on the sixth time out she was heard to say “Do uncle, let me thaw my feet for they are almost froze.”

The whippings had gone on for an hour with no success. When Betsey failed to pronounce the word correctly after her sixth whipping, Arnold completely lost control. He took her outside once again and beat her savagely for a half hour more. Betsey then pronounced the word correctly before becoming delirious with fever. She was taken to bed where she would pass in and out of consciousness.
When Betsey’s condition did not improve after two days the Arnolds send for a doctor. They explained the symptoms but not the cause and the doctor diagnosed her as having worms. On January 13 it became clear that Betsey was dying and Arnold went to Dr. Gaines Smith saying,
“I want to tell you something and can’t—I’m ruined. I will tell you – I have whipped it to death, and if you will go and cure it and keep it a secret, I will give you half my property, – even all.”
Mrs. Arnold did not want to show the doctor the wounds, but Stephen convinced her that it was their only hope. The doctor found cuts and bruises from her legs to the middle of her back, with the bruised parts appearing “black, withered, dead and sunk down.” Dr. Smith called in two other physicians, but there was nothing to be done. Betsey died the following day. Stephen Arnold was not there to witness her death, he had already fled to the woods and was bound for Pennsylvania.

Elihu Phinney, publisher of the Otsego Herald took an interest in the case. Under the headline “A Savage Ruffian!” he told the story of Betsey’s death and announced a $200 reward, offered by the county, for the capture of Stephen Arnold. The story was picked up by nearly every newspaper in America.

A man named Thomas Cahoon of neighboring Chenango County decide to seek the reward. He tracked Arnold to Pittsburgh Pennsylvania and found him in a tavern. When Cahoon approached him, Arnold took out a pistol and attempted to shoot himself in the head. Before he could pull the trigger someone knocked his arm and the shot went up, just grazing Arnold’s head. Arnold was taken to jail in Pittsburgh and Cahoon claimed the reward.

Arnold was brought back to Burlington and put into the county jail. A grand jury, with Elihu Phinney as its foreman, indicted Stephen Arnold for the murder of Betsey Van Amburgh. Though they heard testimony that Susannah Arnold had abetted the beating and had attempted to hide the wounds, she was not incited; Stephen Arnold was held solely responsible.

Trial: June 6, 1805

Stephen Arnold was tried before the Otsego County Court of Oyer and Terminer in Cooperstown, New York. Interest in the case was so high that the courtroom could only accommodate half of those who desired to attend. The trial did not last long, there were only six witnesses, all testifying for the prosecution. There was no question that Stephen Arnold had killed Betsey Van Amburgh, what was at issue was whether his excessive punishment had criminally exceeded the parental right of corporal punishment. The prosecution said:
“Such an outrageous correction as this can never be allowed by law.”
The defense countered that the death was an accident, provoked because
“the child persisted in its perverseness, when it could and had pronounced the word right.”
The jury deliberated for two hours before returning a verdict of guilty.

Verdict: Guilty of murder

Aftermath:
Stephen Arnold was sentenced to be hanged on July 19, 1805. In the six weeks between the end of the trial and the scheduled hanging, Arnold received a multitude of visitors, including clergymen and other prominent citizens. As they viewed the contrite and sorrowful prisoner, shackled to the floor of his windowless stone dungeon, in nearly every case, anger gave way to pity and then to sympathy for the pathetic man’s plight.

A petition was started to ask the governor for clemency in the case. Leading the drive was Elihu Phinney who had been foreman of the jury who indicted Arnold, and whose newspaper, the Otsego Herald had forcefully condemned him. Phinney had done an about-face, his sympathies now sided with the prisoner—the “Savage Ruffian” had become “the unhappy Arnold.” Two thousand residents of Otsego County signed the petition, two hundred of them from Burlington.

As impressive as those numbers sound, it became clear that public sentiment was still against Arnold when at least 12,000 people from all across New York State came to Cooperstown on July 19 to witness Stephen Arnold's hanging. The event promised to be instructive as well as entertaining, with prayer and  sermons on the wages of sin, so the spectators brought along their children.

It would be the first execution in Otsego County and Sheriff Solomon Martin was determined to do it right, including all the required pomp and pageantry. At noon the sheriff on horseback, led a procession from the jailhouse to the gallows outside of town. Behind the sheriff were “The Reverend Clergy and other gentlemen,” then a band playing funeral dirges, followed by a wagon bearing the prisoner seated on his coffin. Bringing up the rear were two companies of state militia with muskets and bayonets.

After they arrived at the gallows, the Reverend Mr. Williams of Springfield Center, led the gathering in prayer, Reverend Isaac Lewis of Cooperstown delivered a sermon and Elder Ebenezer Vining of Winfield offered a prayer of forgiveness. Stephen Arnold was given the opportunity to address the crowd. He urged the people to improve by his fatal example and place strict guard upon their passions. The noose was placed around Arnold’s neck. Elihu Phinney described what happened next:
“the thousands of spectators were waiting in silent and gloomy suspense for the fatal catastrophe, when the sheriff, after a few concise and pertinent remarks to the prisoner, produced a letter from his Excellency Governor Morgan Lewis containing directions for “A Respite of the Execution” until further orders—the prisoner swooned, the countenances of the vast concourse assumed a different expression and the whole scene changed.”

Phinney reported that the crowd “dispersed without any tumultuous conduct,” but George Peck, another observer, saw a different scene:
“Wild excitement followed. Arnold fell as if he had been shot through the heart. Women shrieked; some of them wept aloud; some feinted; men raged and swore. The criminal was so detested for his cruelty that his escape from execution provoked a storm of fury. So indignant were the people that some rough fellows captured a dog, named him ‘Arnold,’ and hung him on the gallows which had failed to do justice to his namesake.”

Earlier in the week, Jacob Ford of Cooperstown had taken the petition to Governor Lewis, but the governor proved hard to track down. When he was finally found, visiting the home of a friend, Governor Lewis was sympathetic, but being away from his office could only order a temporary stay of execution. Ford managed to make it back to Cooperstown on the morning of the hanging. Sheriff Martin, fearing a riot, decided to give the crowd all of the show except the climax. Though he has been criticized for it, the sheriff probably made the right decision.

Stephen Arnold remained in Ostego County’s dank dungeon, still under sentence of death, until March 1807 when the state legislature commuted his sentence to life in prison. He was transferred to Newgate Prison in New York City where he would at least be able to see the sun through his cell window.

Sources:

Books:
Arnold, Stephen. The trial of Stephen Arnold for the murder of Betsey Van Amburgh, a child six years of age: before the Court of Oyer and Terminer and General Goal Delivery, for the county of Otsego, at the court house in Cooperstown, June 4th, 1805. Hartford: Printed by Lincoln & Gleason, 1806. 

Hoffman, Ronald, Mechal Sobel, and Fredrika J. Teute. Through a glass darkly: reflections on personal identity in early America. Chapel Hill: Published for the Omohundro Institute of Early American History & Culture, Williamsburg, Virginia, by the University of North Carolina Press, 1997. 

Magazines/Newspapers:
Cooper, James Fennimore "The Eclipse." Putnam's Monthly Magazine of American Literature Sep. 1869: 352. 

Jones, Louis C.. "The Crime and Punishment Stephen Arnold." New York History July 1966: 248. 

Phinney, Elihu. "A Savage Ruffian!." Otsego Herald [Cooperstown] 31 Jan. 1805.
↧

Scenes from Smuttynose.

July 20, 2013, 5:39 am
$
0
0
Haley Dock and Homestead. The murder occurred in the third house from the left.
An article in the October 1874 issue of Harper’s Magazine describes a trip to the Isles of Shoals off the coast of New Hampshire and Maine. Though it discusses the current inhabitants and the long history of the islands, the article and its illustrations center on the memory of the brutal murders of Anethe and Karen Christensen, just a year and a half earlier.



The stunning black and white illustrations from Harper’s Magazine express the stark beauty and harsh isolation of the Isles of Shoals, including scenes from Smuttynose Island where the murder occurred. The Isles of Shoal lay off the Atlantic coast, partially in New Hampshire and partially in Maine, not far from the city of Portsmouth, New Hampshire.



White Island lighthouse.

The night of March 6, 1873, LouisWagner rowed from Portsmouth to Smuttynose Island, guided by the beacon from the lighthouse on White Island. Knowing that the Christensen men were away fishing, Wagner was on his way to rob their house.


Ledge of rocks, Smuttynose.

Three women were sleeping in the house when Wagner arrived: Maren Hontvet, her sister Karen Christensen, and her sister-in-law Anethe Christensen. Wagner murdered Karen and Anethe with an axe he found in the house. Maren managed to escape and hid, in her nightclothes, in the rocks along the coast of the Island until dawn.

Smuttynose Island.
Wagner left the island with less than sixteen dollars. He rowed back to Portsmouth and managed to flee as far as Boston before he was captured and extradited to Maine where he was tried and executed.

Here is the full story: The Smuttynose Murders.

Croskey, Julian. "The Isles of Shoals." Harper's New Monthly Magazine Oct. 1874: 663.
↧

The Horrible Murder in Division Street.

July 27, 2013, 6:29 am
$
0
0
 An editorial on ruffianism from the New York Herald, June 11, 1872:

The Horrible Murder in Division Street.
 
 
We are becoming so used to the reign of ruffianism that it requires some outrage of unusual barbarity to thoroughly arouse our indignation. But even the meekest citizen will be of opinion that the murder of Augustus Brown, on Saturday night, ought to be followed by vigorous action looking towards the suppression of rowdyism.It will not do to allow gangs of loafing ruffians to assemble at street corners and insult peaceable passers-by. As we have before pointed out, these assemblages are constantly leading to murder and robbery. The judicial authorities are as much to blame in this matter as are the police, for the cure for this crying evil is very simple. Instead of allowing members of gang to come into court and swear an alibi, every man known to have been present at the time of a murder ought to  be held as an accessory, unless he give such information as will aid the cause of justice. So long as ruffians can find immunity from the law by swearing for each other the respectable classes of the community will always be at the mercy of the scum of our population. Murder succeeds murder with alarming rapidity in our midst and unless the law can afford the citizen better protection than it does at present the citizen will be forced in self-defense to take action independent of the authorities.

We have constantly urged the suppression of the corner loafer gangs, and this last murder, by its cold-blooded atrocity, must bring home to every man the necessity which exists for the course we have strenuously recommended. The best was of striking terror into the gangs of rowdies by whom we are beset is by making every individual responsible for the crimes of his companions. There can be no just objection to such a course; it is followed in all cases of crime against property, and ought to be enforced with double stringency incases of crime against the person. If one of a gang rob a house the whole gang may be punished, and if one of a gang commit murder his companions and encouragers ought also to be exposed to the action of the law. If the judges and juries would act on this principle for six months and  decline to be influence by representations of politicians, the violence and aggressiveness of our rowdy population would soon cease.

 

"The Horrible Murder in Division Street."New York Herald 11 Jun 1872: 7.



↧
↧

The Boston Belfry Tragedy.

August 3, 2013, 5:44 am
$
0
0


In the early 1870s, the city of Boston experienced a rash of gruesome murders. In October 1871, 18-year-old Kate Leehan was raped and murdered. A year later the dismembered body of Abjah Ellis was found floating in the Charles River. In 1874, Jesse Pomeroy killed two children and tortured several others. And, perhaps most disturbing to the people of Boston, a series of violent sexual assaults committed between 1871 and 1875 resulted in the deaths of two young women. These crimes remained unsolved until a Sunday in May 1875 when the body of five-year-old Mabel Young was found in the bell tower of the Warren Avenue Baptist church shortly after Thomas W. Piper, was seen leaping from the belfry.

Date:  May 23, 1875

Location:   Boston, Massachusetts

Victim:  Mabel H. Young

Cause of Death:  Blows to the head

Accused:  Thomas W. Piper

Synopsis:

Warren Avenue Baptist Church
When Sunday school classes at the Warren Avenue Baptist Church let out around 3:30, on May 23, 1875, Miss Augusta Hobbs was at the church to meet her five-year-old niece Mabel Young. Mabel stood by her aunt’s side as Miss Hobbs conversed for several minutes with Rev. Pentecost but when the conversation was over Mabel was nowhere to be found.

While Miss Hobbs and some other women of the church were searching for Mabel they heard an agonized cry coming from the church belfry. Three men broke down a locked door and rushed up the stairs into the tower. At the first landing they saw a fresh puddle of blood and under a loose floorboard found a bloodstained cricket bat. They hurried up to the next level and pushed open a heavy trapdoor. Dozens of pigeons flew out of the way as the men entered the belfry and found Mabel Young lying on the floor. Her skull was crushed and her hair and clothes were covered with blood but she was still alive. The men carried her down from the belfry and, though she never regained consciousness, Mabel managed to live until 8:00 the following evening.

A young boy outside the church had seen a man leap from the belfry and run away. When Chief of Police Savage heard of the attack he had a good idea who that man was. Savage lived not far from the Warren Avenue Baptist Church and he knew that sexton of the church had been a suspect in a similar murder a year and a half earlier. On December 5, 1873, near Dorchester, a man heard a noise in the bushes and when he investigated a cloaked figure jumped from the bushes and ran away. He had interrupted the rape of a woman who was later identified a domestic servant named Bridget Landregan. Her skull had been crushed and she was naked from the waist down. Nearby was a bloody “bat-like” club. A few hours later the rapist accomplished his goal with the assault and rape of Minnie Sullivan. Though she survived the attack, Miss Sullivan could give no description of her attacker. The police were able to trace the club to a shop where Thomas W. Piper was working. They did not have enough evidence to arrest him but the police kept Thomas Piper under scrutiny.

Not long after this Piper was hired as sexton of the Warren Avenue Baptist Church on the recommendation of his brother, a member of the church who was studying for the ministry. Even without knowing his suspicious past, members of the church had reason to be wary of Thomas Piper. The twenty-six-year-old Piper was described as melancholy but quiet and agreeable until the sixteen-year-old daughter of a minister met him in the vestry one Sunday evening. It was not revealed what he proposed to her but she hurried home to tell her parents “she thought he was a very bad man indeed, and was afraid of him.”


Illustration from Cord and Creese
The Reverend Pentecost had found Piper reading a racy adventure novel called Cord and Creese. The prosecutor at Piper’s trial would later say that the book’s publishers “ought to be sent to the House of Correction for the rest of their lives.” It was also discovered that Piper kept bottles of whiskey in his room and had one hidden in the pews at the church, laced with laudanum.

Thomas Piper was already in police custody when Mabel Young died. At least three more little girls came forward to say that Piper had tried to lure them into the belfry, offering to show them the pigeons. The cricket bat, used on church outings, was usually kept in the sexton’s room. Piper had deliberately brought it out in preparation for the crime.

Trials: December 11, 1875; January 31, 1876

While Piper was being questioned in police custody, Assistant Deputy Chief of Police John Hamm told him “it would go better if you confessed. He then brought Reverend George Pentecost into Piper’s cell and Piper apparently complied, making some incriminating statements to his spiritual advisor. 

When the prosecution tried to enter the confession as evidence, Piper’s attorney vehemently objected saying that Pentecost had deliberately brought Pentecost to encourage Piper to confess. When the judges sitting on the trial ruled for the defense, the prosecutor argued that he was not offering the testimony as evidence of a confession but to show the defendant’s “consciousness of guilt.” On this fine point of law, the testimony was allowed. Nonetheless, Piper’s first trial ended in a hung jury.

In his second trial, prosecutors entered evidence of the “evil literature” that Piper enjoyed reading. This seemed to be enough to sway the jury to convict Thomas Piper of first degree murder.

Verdicts: Hung jury; Guilty of murder

Aftermath:

Throughout his trials, Thomas Piper maintained that he was innocent of the murder of Mabel Young, however on May 7, 1876 he sent for his attorney and confessed to the crime. In addition, he confessed to the murder of Bridget Landregan and the attack on Minnie Sullivan. He also confessed to the murder of Mary Tynam, a crime for which he had not been a suspect. Mary Tynam was a prostitute and Piper had spent the night with her. In the morning he smashed her head with the blunt end of an axe so he could get his money back. He told the police where they could find the murder weapon.

Thomas W. Piper was hanged on May 26, 1876 inside Suffolk County Jail in front of a crowd of four hundred people. Tickets to the hanging had been selling for as much as $50. Outside the jail another thousand people waited for the announcement of Piper’s death. At 10:35 the sheriff said to the hushed crowd “I proceed to execute the sentence of the law, and may God in His infinite mercy have pity on his soul.” The trap was sprung, Piper fell eight feet and died instantly.

In 1920 the congregation of the Warren Avenue Baptist Church joined the First Baptist Church on Commonwealth Avenue and sold the church building on the corner of Warren and Canton Streets. In 1969 it was razed by the city and eventually replaced by Hayes Park. Today the small, but beautifully landscaped park includes an original sculpture called “West Canton Street Child” by former West Canton Street resident Kahil Gibran. Though not specifically intended as a memorial to Mabel Young, it is a fitting monument for the site of her death.










Sources:
 

Books:

deMille, James.  Cord and Creese: A Novel (Classic Reprint)Harper & Bros.: New York, 1869.

Dempewolff, Robert F. Famous Old New England Murders: And Some That Are Infamous. Brattleboro: Stephen Daye Press, 1942

Piper, Thomas W., and J. M. W. Yerrinton. The Official Report of the Trial of Thomas W. Piper for the Murder of Mabel H. Young, in the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, from Notes of Mr.J.M.W. Yerrinton. Boston: Wright & Potter, 1887.

Rogers, Alan. Murder and the Death Penalty in Massachusetts. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press, 2008.

Sammarco, Anthony Mitchell. Boston's South End (MA) (Then & Now). Dover, N.H.: Arcadia, 1998.

Wilson, Colin, and Damon Wilson. A Plague of Murder: the rise and rise of serial killing in the modern age. London: Robinson, 1995.

Newspapers:
"Piper's Punishment." National Aegis [Worcester] 27 May 1876.

"Piper's Threefold Confession." Boston Journal 8 May 1876.

"The Belfry Murder." Boston Daily Advertiser 25 May 1875.

"The Murder of Mabel H. Young." Boston Daily Advertiser 11 Dec. 1875.

"Two Executions." Boston Traveler 26 May 1876.

Websites:
The Friends of Hayes Park: The History of Hayes Park
 


↧

Scenes from the Fisk Assassination

August 10, 2013, 5:48 am
$
0
0

Illustrations from the 1872 book Life, Adventures, Strange Career and Assassination of Col. James Fisk, Jr. provide a good graphic presentation of events surrounding the murder of Jim Fisk:


Dramatis Personae

Col James Fisk, Jr.Helen Josephine “Josie” MansfieldEdward S. “Ned” Stokes
Jim Fisk was a self-made millionaire. In partnership with Jay Gould, he was a ruthless financier, railroad tycoon and stock manipulator. He was also a colorful and flamboyant character, much loved in the city of New York.
Josie Mansfield was an actress and an incorrigible gold digger. In 1867, when Jim Fisk met her, she was considered to be extraordinarily beautiful. Fisk became hopelessly infatuated; though he had a wife in Vermont, he and Josie began a torrid affair.
Fisk met Ned Stokes in 1869 and the two became fast friends. Both men liked being the center of attention and enjoyed the sporting life of saloons and racetracks. The difference was that Ned Stokes could seldom pay his own way.

The trouble began on New Year’s Day, 1870, when Fisk brought Ned Stokes to a party at Josie’s house. Stokes was smitten by Josie’s beauty and they began an affair of their own behind Fisk’s back. When Fisk found out he forced Josie to choose between them; she chose Ned Stokes.

What followed was a series of lawsuits between Fisk and Stokes. Stokes demanded $200,000 or he would release to the press, love letters from Fisk to Josie. The courts ruled against Stokes and gave Fisk custody of the letters. Stokes wanted revenge.

On January 6, 1872, Stokes knew that Jim Fisk would be visiting someone at the Grand Hotel. He waited on the landing of the hotel staircase and when Fisk came up, Stokes jumped out and shot him twice with a Colt pistol.

Fisk was carried, wounded and bleeding, to a bed in the hotel. Ned Stokes was captured before he could escape. He was taken to Fisk’s room and, before he died Jim Fisk identified Ned Stokes as his killer.

As Jim Fisk’s body lay in state in the theatre he had owned and managed, twenty thousand New Yorkers passed by to pay their respects.

Ned Stokes was held on Murderer’s Row in the Tombs prison, but Stokes had connections with Tammany Hall so his cell was well furnished and his meals were catered from Delmonico’s. After three trials he was convicted of manslaughter and sentenced to just six years in Sing Sing prison.

Click here for the full story of the murder of Jim Fisk: Jubilee Jim.
Illustrations from:

Barclay, George Lippard. Life, Adventures, Strange Career and Assassination of Col. James Fisk, Jr. Philadelphia: Barclay & Company, 1872
↧
Search

Murder! Murder! Murder!!

August 17, 2013, 6:05 am
$
0
0
Little Murders
 
(From Flake's Bulletin, Galveston, Texas, January 15, 1870)

Murder! Murder! Murder!! 
 
 Last night, about half-past eight o’clock, the residents of Penn street were aroused by hearing the cries of “murder, murder, help, for God’s sake, help!” Visions of cut-throats, robbers and foot-pads arose in the minds of those who heard the terrible cries of distress. For five minutes the cries continued, until the whole vicinity was awakened and had lit their lanters, armed themselves in case of danger, and went forth to relieve the distressed

In a few more moments Messrs. J. L. Cravens, Tomlinson and Bishop, and a few others arrived at the spot where the cries were heard. The scene that they beheld was truly horrible. Two men named Shannessy and Brown, were facing each other, one with a pitchfork and the other with a butcher’s knife. They were both literally covered with blood. Shannessy had stabbed Brown severely with the pitchfork in the shoulder, and Brown had cut his opponent in the face.

The men both boarded with Mr. Chas. Dwyer, and the difficulty had started in the house. How they came to be so far away from their home bare-footed, bare-headed, and without coats on, we are unable to tell. After separating them, the crowd dispersed.

The difficulty occurred in front of the residence of J. K Cravens, Esq, on Penn street. What became of them after that we have yet to learn.—[Kansas City, Mo., News. Jan 3.


 
"Murder ! Murder ! Murder!!" Flake's Bulletin, Galveston, TX,  15 Jan 1870: 1.



↧

Murder Will Out.

August 24, 2013, 6:51 am
$
0
0
Little Murders
 
(From Cincinnati Daily Gazette, Cincinnati, Ohio, April 27, 1880)
 

Murder Will Out.

Startling Developments of a Dying Man in Indiana.

After Sleeping Twelve Years in the Wilds of Brown County, the Spirit of Jamison Arises to Confront his Slayer.

Special Dispatch to the Cincinnati Gazette.
 
Columbus, Ind., April 26.—A few days ago a man by the name of Wm. J. Gillaspy died in Johnson County, and on his deathbed told of a murder that he was a party to that has been a mystery in the vicinity where it happened to the present time. About twelve years ago a prominent farmer and stock trader, of Johnson County, named Jas. Jamison, was missing, and no clew could be found of his whereabouts, and nothing has been heard of him except that his horse, saddle, and bridle were found a short time after the disappearance in the possession of a man by the name of Elias Curry, who lived in Hamblen Township, Brown County. Curry claimed days before that he bought the horse of Jamison a few days before he disappeared and suspicion rested on him at the time, but no steps were taken against him at the time. The man Gillaspy, when he found he was about to die, told that he and Curry, and a son of Curry’s and one of the most prominent citizens of Brown County, shot and killed Jamison on Hurricane Ridge, in Hamblen Township, Brown County, three-fourths of a mile from Curry’s house, and buried his body in a dense thicket by the road. They got $1,665 in cash and $3,000 in notes as the fruits of the foul deed, but the notes were destroyed as nothing was ever heard of them.

Curry, Gillaspy said, took the horse, saddle, and bridle in at $100, in the division of the spoils, which accounts for his being in possession of it. Curry has had an unenviable reputation as a suspicious character, and at one time narrowly escaped being lynched by his neighbors. The revelation of Gillaspy has created great excitement in the community and the matter will be probed to the bottom. John Jamison, son of the murdered man, resided in this place for several years, and lives at the present time in Jonesville, in this county. He left this mooring for Gillaspy’s former home to get all the information he could of the diabolical deed. It hardly seems possible that the man named in the confessions of Gillaspy can be guilty, as he has the respect of all who know him. Nothing has transpired in this part of Indiana for years that has created such widespread amazement, and further developments are looked for with the deepest interest.


Cincinnati Daily Gazette, Cincinnati, Ohio, April 27, 1880
↧
↧

Who Killed Benjamin Nathan?

August 31, 2013, 6:08 am
$
0
0

Benjamin Nathan, a wealthy stockbroker and philanthropist, was found brutally beaten to death in his home the morning of July 29, 1870. Some jewelry and a small amount of cash were stolen and the police were quick to rule the incident a burglary gone bad. But if so, how and when did the burglars enter? And how could four others staying in the house sleep through the violent attack? In fact, the Nathan murder looked more like a classic “locked-room” mystery—a mystery that remains unsolved.


Date:  July 29, 1870

Location:   New York, New York

Victim:  Benjamin Nathan

Cause of Death:  Blows to the Head

Accused:   Washington Nathan, William Kelly, Billy Forester, Daniel Kelly

Synopsis:

July 1870 was oppressively hot in New York City and the Nathan family was staying at their country home in Morristown, New Jersey. Benjamin Nathan, aged 56, came from a prominent Sephardic Jewish family and was a respected member of the New York Stock Exchange. He regularly commuted that summer from New Jersey to his Broad Street office and on occasion would spend the night at his townhouse on West Twenty-Third Street. Nathan and his two sons, Frederick, age 26, and Washington, age 22, surprised Mrs. Kelly, the housekeeper, when they arrived to spend the night on July 28. The house was in the process of being redecorated and the furniture was in disarray. The bedstead in Mr. Nathan’s room had been taken down so he had Mrs. Kelly make a temporary bed of mattresses on the floor of the small reception room leading to his office on the second floor. He had some work he wanted to do before bed. Nathan’s sons slept in their rooms on the third floor. Mrs. Kelly slept in the rear of the second floor and her son William slept on the fourth floor.

Frederick and Washington went out separately that night. Around 11:15 Frederick returned and spoke briefly with his father before retiring. A violent thunderstorm kept Washington out later than he had anticipated. He returned between 12:00 and 1:00, and passing the open door of his father’s room, saw the old man sleeping.
 
The two sons awoke early the next morning, as they planned to accompany their father to the synagogue to offer prayers commemorating the anniversary of his mother’s death a year earlier. Around 6:00 a.m. Washington came downstairs in his nightshirt to awaken his father. He was shocked to find his father lying in a pool of blood with numerous gaping wounds in his skull. Blood was spattered on the walls and furniture and an overturned chair was smeared with blood. Washington screamed for his brother who hurried downstairs and, seeing the carnage, ran to the body and cradled his father’s head in his arms. They ran out to the street, both in their nightshirts, Frederick’s covered with blood, and called for a policeman.

It appeared that Benjamin Nathan had been hit from behind while sitting at his writing desk. The first blow had not been sufficient and there was evidence of a struggle. Two fingers of his left hand had been fractured while warding off a blow. He had at least fifteen wounds on his head, with bone splinters and brain matter exuding in a dozen places. In Nathan’s office, the door of his safe was wide open. Missing from the safe were two to three hundred dollars in cash and a gold medal commemorating Mr. Nathan’s charitable work. Missing from his clothing were a gold watch and three diamond studs, valued at $700. The police made a thorough search of the house, including floorboards and drainpipes, but the stolen goods were not found.
 
Some of the injuries to Nathan’s head had been made by a blunt object, others by something sharp, so it was first thought that there were two assailants using two different weapons. This view changed when, during the search, Frederick Nathan found an iron tool, known as a carpenter’s “dog,” covered with blood and hair, lying on the floor near the front door. It was an eighteen inch iron bar with the ends turned down and sharpened, in the shape of a staple. The “dog” could have inflicted both types of wound and was clearly the murder weapon.
 
The announcement of the murder caused a great sensation in New York and traffic on Twenty-Third Street was blocked all day by sightseers trying to get a look at Nathan’s townhouse. The mayor of New York, together with Mr. Nathan’s widow, offered a $30,000 reward for information leading to the arrest and conviction of the murderer and a total of $7,000 for the recovery of the various stolen objects. The New York Stock Exchange opened that day with the flag flying at half-mast and the Stock Exchange added $10,000 to the reward.
 
Police Chief John Jordan and Chief Detective James J. Kelso took command of the investigation.
Officer John Mangam was put in charge of the crime scene. Officer Mangam, who had been walking the beat on Twenty-Third Street that night, said he had tried the front door of Nathan’s house, once at 1:30 and again at 4:30, as was his custom, and found it locked both times. There were no marks on the lock of the front door to indicate that it had been picked. Mangam later found that the basement door was unlocked—though there was no evidence that anyone entered through the basement, and it was suggested that the killer had unlocked it from the inside for misdirection.  John Nies, a newsboy delivering papers that morning, found the front door open at 5:10 a.m. He also witnessed a man, “dressed as a mason,” pick up a scrap of paper that looked “like a check” from the steps of the Nathan’s house and walk away with it. 
 
Beyond the fact that the murder must have taken place some time between Washington Nathan’s arrival home, and 5:10 when the newsboy saw the front door open, none of the evidence was helpful in identifying the killer. What was baffling everyone was how four people staying in the house that night were able to sleep through what had clearly been a violent struggle.
 
Suspects
 
For the press and the public, the prime suspect in the Nathan murder became Washington Nathan. He was an intemperate man who frequently fought with his father over his “habits of life”—drinking, whoring and reckless spending. His character made him the likely killer, and the press noted that he did not exhibit the same level of emotion as his brother Frederick.
 
But Washington would not benefit from his father’s death. Benjamin Nathan bequeathed $75,000 to each of his eight children, but in Washington’s case, the will stipulated that the money would be held in trust until “he married a lady born in and professing the Hebrew faith” or turned 25; even then his mother would have to sign a declaration stating that he was “living a life of regularity and sobriety” before he would get the money. And in spite of their disagreement over lifestyle, Washington and his father were not bitter enemies; Nathan had recently loaned his son $5,000 to capitalize his business.

The inquest on the murder, which lasted nearly a month, appeared to be as much about exonerating Washington Nathan as determining the true killer. He provided a detailed, unabashed account of his whereabouts the night of July 28; he had drinks at the St. James Hotel on Fifth Avenue, read the paper at Delmonico’s, went back to the St. James for more drinks, then to a house on East Fourteenth Street, where he remained until nearly midnight with a prostitute named Clara Dale. Ms. Dale corroborated his testimony in court. While the murder surely took place after Washington returned home, his doings prior to that time did not indicate a man intent on murder.

Nathans at the Inquest
HarmonWashingtonE.B. HartFrederick
Frederick Nathan was never seriously considered as a suspect. He was devoted to his father and was sincerely grieved by his death. As a successful broker in his own right, Frederick did not need the money and would not be tempted to kill for his inheritance.
 
Mrs. Anne Kelly, the housekeeper, was not a suspect either. She was not physically capable of delivering the kind of beating Benjamin Nathan received and she had nothing to gain by his death. The murder left her unemployed and homeless.
 
However, William Kelly, Mrs. Kelly’s adult son, was considered a suspect. Kelly was living on small army pension and whatever he could earn as a handyman. At the inquest he was thoroughly brow-beaten by the district attorney. He was forced to admit that he was of illegitimate birth, and he was accused on the stand of being a bounty-jumper and deserter in the army, a drunk, and, most importantly, he was accused of consorting with men on the fringes of the criminal world. But no charges were filed against William Kelly; in the end the inquest found that Benjamin Nathan was murdered by a person or persons unknown.
 
From the start the police believed the murder had been committed by professional burglars. They canvassed all of the pawn shops in the city looking for the stolen goods and brought in at least thirty known burglars for questioning. But it brought them no closer to solving the crime. For a number of reasons the murder did not look like the work of professionals. The monetary value of the goods taken was quite small for burglars used to stealing thousands, even hundreds of thousands of dollars. The attack on Mr. Nathan was extraordinarily violent for someone in profession that sought to avoid violence. And with Nathan away from the house most nights that summer, why would they chose a night when he was there? The weapon, the carpenter’s “dog,” was baffling as well. The police learned that it was used in professions as diverse as boat-builder, post-trimmer, ladder-maker, slater, sawyer, scene-shifter in theatres, and iron-molder; but it was not commonly used by burglars.
 
Billy Forester
In spite of its unlikely nature, the burglar theory received a boost in March 1871 when George Ellis, a prisoner in Sing Sing Prison claimed he knew who killed Nathan and asked for a deal. When brought back to New York City he claimed that he had done some burglaries together with professional thief named Billy Forester that summer.  Forrester knew that the Nathans had gone to the country and had talked about robbing their house.
 
Forester became a wanted man but he was not found until more than a year later in September 1872. He immediately called in the law firm of Howe & Hummel, the city’s most effective criminal lawyers. Howe & Hummel specialized in murder cases and recently had defended Jacob Rosenzweig for the murder of Alice Bowlsby. Forester’s case was not that difficult; he had been in prison in New Orleans most of 1870 and prosecutors could not even prove he was in New York at the time of the murder. The charges against him were dropped.
 

Daniel Kelly
The burglar theory was revived again in 1873 when professional criminal John T. Irving, serving time in prison in California, confessed to the Nathan robbery. He was brought to New York where he gave a written confession that he, along with Caleb Gunnion, Nick Jones, Daniel Kelly (no relation to Anne and William Kelly) and a man named McNally, broke into Nathan’s house that night. It was Daniel Kelly, Irving said, who committed the murder. He promised to provide corroborating evidence if charges were dropped on two burglaries he had committed in New York—with stolen property valued at over $200,000. Irving’s story was not believed and the deal fell through; he was returned to prison. 


Speculations
 
The lack of any real evidence in the Nathan case inspired a flood of speculation that continued for years:
  • From the beginning, the police received hundreds of letters from people who claimed to have evidence in the case or had hunches that they knew were correct. None of these proved to be of any value.
  • During the investigation of Billy Forester, George Ellis was questioned by Superintendent Jourdan.  Afterwards he said this to one of the detectives:
    “I’m not in this case, but I’ll tell you the man that killed Benjamin Nathan is killing Superintendent Jourdan. The chief knows who the murderer is, and the secret is taking him to the grave.”
    In fact Jourdan’s health had begun to fail shortly after the crime and he died of pleurisy on October 1, 1872. Any secrets he carried died with him.
  • New York Police Inspector Thomas Byrnes (who did not work the Nathan case) writing in 1886 put much emphasis on John Irving’s confession.
  • Former New York Police Chief George W. Walling (who also did not work the case) in his1887 autobiography, stated that he believed the killer was William Kelly, the son of the housekeeper. He believed that Kelly admitted his confederates into the house with a view of robbing the safe; in doing so they aroused Mr. Nathan, who engaged in a struggle which resulted in his death.
  • Suspicion continually dogged Washington Nathan throughout his life, though he was exonerated by the police. He continued his wayward lifestyle after his father’s death and in 1879 while paying a call on an actress at the Coleman House, he was shot in the neck by another woman; the bullet lodged in his jaw. A plan was conceived to learn the truth by interrogating Washington Nathan while under anesthesia during the operation to remove the bullet. The operation never took place. In 1884 Nathan married a Mrs. Arnett, a widowed opera singer (and a gentile) and took his bride to Europe. He died in Boulogne at age forty-four and never received his inheritance.
  • Years later attorney Abraham Hummel implied that the killer was his client, Billy Forester, saying:
    "I cannot speak fully without violating professional honor, for the man is a client of my office, but I can say this, that from what I learned from him Washington Nathan had no more to do with the killing of his father than I."
  • In 1905, Will M. Clemens, a nephew of Mark Twain, wrote in a magazine article summarizing the crime and giving his thoughts on the murderer. He believed the killer was an intruder, someone known to Nathan and familiar with the house, who had hidden himself inside until early morning. He was not seeking money or jewelry, but documents from Nathan’s safe. When the old man caught him in the act the thief killed him to avoid identification. The thief then staged the scene to look like a burglary and left through the front door with the documents he sought. Clemens further stated that he knew who the murder was:
    "The murderer still lives. Thirty-four years have doubtless changed neither his face, his manner nor his habit. His name? This is not the time nor place."
    Clemens never found the proper time and place and never revealed his suspect’s name in print.
  • Writing in 1924, Edmund Pearson dismissed the notion that the case involved a document (“dear to the hearts of writers of melodrama”) and, finding no logical suspects, was content to leave the murder unsolved.
The Nathan murder continues to baffle. Given the evidence available to the police it would be difficult to prove that a murder had been committed at all, but for the mutilated body in Benjamin Nathan’s office. Questions remain: was the killer an intruder or a member of the household? Had the motive been money, revenge, information, or something else entirely? What was the origin of the peculiar murder weapon? How did four people manage to sleep through the violent struggle? We are no closer to answers today than in 1870. The Nathan case is, as Inspector Byrnes observed, “The most celebrated and certainly the most mysterious murder that has ever been perpetrated in New York City.”

 

Sources:
 
Books:
Byrnes, Thomas. Professional Criminals of America. New York: Castle & Company, Ltd, 1886
Crapsey, Edward. The Nether Side of New York. New York: Sheldon & Co., 1872
Murphy, Cait N.. Scountrels in Law. New York: Harper Collins, 2010
Pearson, Edmund Lester. Studies in Murder. New York: The Macmillan Co., 1924
Walling, George W.. Recollections of a New York Chief of Police. New York: Caxton Book Concern, Ltd., 1887

Magazines/Newspapers:
Clemens, Will M. "The Murder of the Rich Banker."The Era Magazine: Jan 1905.
"The Latest Horror."Daily Enquirer 1 Aug 1870: 4.

Website:
Tablet: A Death in the Family
↧

Samuel Moore Williams.

September 7, 2013, 5:44 am
$
0
0
Little Murders:
From Defenders and Offenders:


Samuel Moore Williams.

"Samuel Moore Williams in 1879 committed a cold blooded murder in Garrard County, Ky. He fled to California, but was followed by detectives. He was then twenty-five years old, 5ft. 11in. He is something of a musician, playing the violin and guitar, and is fond of frequenting saloons. Is in the habit of boasting of being a Southerner and a confederate."

Defenders and offenders. New York: D. Buchner & Co., 1888.

↧

Husband Murder.

September 14, 2013, 5:25 am
$
0
0
Little Murders
 
(FromDaily Inter Ocean , Chicago, Illinois, December 19, 1877)
 

Husband Murder.

Cincinnati, Ohio, Dec. 18—The trial of Mrs. Creighton for the murder of her husband, which has been progressing at Lancaster (Ohio) for several days, was given to the jury at 10 o’clock yesterday. The jury has been out over twenty-four hours. It is thought they will disagree.

Cincinnati, Ohio, Dec. 18—The jury in the Creighton murder case, after a deliberation of twenty-six hours., returned a verdict of manslaughter at 12 o’clock to-day, which is considered a compromise verdict. The first vote stood four for murder in the first and eight for the second degree, which was finally changed to ten for acquittal and two for conviction, the latter two holding out to the end. The particulars of the murder are substantially these: On the 2d of last January Henry Creighton was found dead in his house by neighbors aroused by his wife, who confessed to having killed him in self-defense. There were no witnesses to the murder but Eddie Garland, her 12-year-old son by a former husband. His wife is believed, according to the testimony to have married his property rather than the man, with whom she lived in continuous warfare. On the morning of his death she says he had chased her about the house, shooting at her, and finally, with a broad-ax, drove her to defend herself, when she killed him by throwing an iron mortar and a nail-puller. A motion for a new trial by her counsel is now being entertained by Judge Wright.



"Husband Murder." Daily Inter Ocean 19 Dec 1877: 5.
↧
Viewing all 701 articles
Browse latest View live
Search