Historic True Crime

A guide to miscreants from ages past

  • Home
  • The Blog
  • Disclosure Statement
  • About
  • Donate

History’s Black Widows

May 16, 2017 by Tonya Blust Leave a Comment

History's Black Widows

A “black widow” is a woman who kills her significant other—or, in some cases, a series of significant others—for any of several indefensible reasons: to get his life insurance, to pursue a new love, or simply for the morbid thrill of the kill. Following are three women who did away with their husbands, proving to be as lethal as the poisonous spider that gave them their name.

——————–

1. In 1908 Clara Carl began her adult life in a way most other young women would have envied: marriage to her childhood sweetheart and the anticipation of a lifetime of domestic bliss. However, in March 1920 the unthinkable happened—her husband, Robert Gibson, died in Missouri of an unknown ailment after 12 years of marriage. Gibson’s $3,000 life insurance policy helped lessen the widow’s grief, and it wasn’t long before Clara cast aside her mourning veil and wed again, this time to a man named Frank Carl. Upon their September 1920 nuptials, the couple settled in Philadelphia, Indiana, where they invited Frank’s father, Alonzo, to live with them. Less than a year later, Alonzo was dead. Two months after that, Frank followed his father to the grave. In the span of a year and a half, Clara had experienced the deaths of three relatives—a spate of misfortune that aroused the community’s suspicions. An investigation ensued and found that both Carl men, as well as Gibson, had died of arsenic poisoning. Clara was arrested, found guilty of second-degree murder, and sentenced to life in prison. She was paroled in 1937.

——————–

2. Ada LeBoeuf suffered from migraines painful enough to require continual medical attention. It was lucky, then, that Dr. Tom Dreher always had time for house calls—though suspicious neighbors noted that Dreher’s visits often occurred when Ada’s husband, Jim, was away from home. Ada and the doctor were having an affair, and though it took two years, Jim LeBoeuf eventually found out about it. The thwarted lovers decided that something had to be done, and that something was murder. In the early morning hours of July 1, 1927, Jim and Ada took a moonlit boat ride across Louisiana’s Lake Palourde. Amidst the darkness of the summer night, someone from a nearby boat raised a gun and fired at Jim, killing him. His body was found in the lake a few days later. Ada and the doctor confessed to the murder plot, but claimed that though Dreher had been in the neighboring boat, it was handyman James Beadle who had pulled the trigger. All three were found guilty of Jim LaBoeuf’s murder; Beadle received a life sentence, while Ada and Dreher were executed.

——————–

3. When Tillie Klimek‘s husband Joseph fell ill in the couple’s modest Chicago home, tests confirmed the cause—arsenic poisoning. The source of the arsenic? The meals that Tillie had prepared for him. Joseph survived his ordeal, but not everyone who consumed Tillie’s concoctions was so lucky. After her arrest for Joseph’s poisoning, authorities discovered that several of Tillie’s relatives and neighbors (including her three known husbands before Joseph) had died or become gravely ill. In fact, Tillie, a Polish immigrant, was said to have the ability to predict when those around her would die—a feat that was initially a source of amazement and fear to her neighbors, but that later became explainable once it was understood that Tillie had, in all likelihood, caused the deaths she predicted. In March 1923, Tillie was found guilty of the murder of her third husband, Frank Kupczyk, and received a life sentence. She didn’t stand trial for any other crimes, and died in prison in 1936.

Filed Under: True Crime Stories

The True Story Behind “Anatomy of a Murder”

February 28, 2017 by Tonya Blust Leave a Comment

The film Anatomy of a Murder is a classic of 1950s noir movie making, telling the story of a young woman who claims she was raped by the town playboy. Her husband, in a fit of rage, kills his wife’s attacker and stands trial for first-degree murder. It’s up to the husband’s attorney to create a defense that will set his client free…an almost-impossible task given that several witnesses saw the defendant shoot his victim in cold blood.

The movie is based on a novel by attorney John Voelker (who wrote it under the pen name “Robert Traver”). The book itself is based on an actual case in which Voelker secured an acquittal for his client, Coleman Peterson, who shot tavern owner Mike Chenoweth after Peterson’s wife accused the latter man of rape in the sleepy town of Big Bay, in Michigan’s Upper Peninsula, in July 1952.

Peterson was a first lieutenant in the United States Army who had come to Big Bay in June 1952 with his wife, Charlotte, after being assigned to an anti-aircraft artillery range in the area. Peterson didn’t know many of his fellow soldiers, having just returned from service in Korea, so he and his wife socialized with their civilian neighbors. The Lumberjack Tavern, owned by Chenoweth, a former state policeman, was a hot spot for residents who lacked other entertainment options during their off hours. Coleman and Charlotte Peterson stopped at the Lumberjack for occasional drinks and got to know Chenoweth on a casual basis.

Chenoweth, despite his background as a cop, was something of a “dirty dog” who had a reputation as a womanizer and who, according to a member of the jury that would eventually acquit Peterson, had raped other women prior to his fateful encounter with Charlotte. (Chenoweth never stood trial for any of these alleged assaults.) Though Chenoweth was arrogant and disrespectful, his bar was a popular place, enjoying a steady stream of customers looking to chase their cares away with a pint or two.

That all changed in the early morning hours of July 31, 1952. According to testimony Charlotte gave during Peterson’s murder trial, she had spent the evening at the Lumberjack, playing shuffleboard and drinking. When she returned around 11:45 p.m. on July 30 to the trailer she shared with her husband, she was hysterical and crying. Charlotte told Peterson that Chenoweth had offered to drive her home. However, instead of taking Charlotte back to the trailer, she said, Chenoweth had driven her into the woods, where he had beaten and sexually assaulted her.

(It should be noted that some students of the case question Charlotte’s story, citing the fact that Peterson was known to have a quick temper, and that Charlotte may have concocted the tale to cover up a consensual sexual encounter with Chenoweth, or out of fear of her husband’s wrath upon her return home so late in the evening. A subsequent medical test could not confirm whether she had been assaulted. However, regardless of what happened between Chenoweth and Charlotte, Peterson’s response to it became the ultimate issue of debate, as he believed Chenoweth had engaged in some sort of sexual contact with his wife that night.)

Enraged about the story his wife told him, Peterson grabbed a loaded nine-millimeter Luger and sped toward the Lumberjack. The lieutenant later claimed that, when he left for the tavern, he had no intention of killing Chenoweth; he said he had brought along the gun simply for protection, as he knew Chenoweth kept firearms in the bar. However, when Peterson arrived at the Lumberjack shortly after midnight on July 31, he stepped inside, saw Chenoweth behind the counter, strode toward him, and emptied his gun into the barkeep. Peterson then turned around, drove back home, and eventually surrendered to the caretaker at his trailer park, who happened to be a police deputy.

Faced with a charge of first-degree murder, Peterson retained attorney Voelker, who prepared a novel defense. Voelker advised Peterson to plead not guilty because of temporary insanity, and placed on the witness stand a psychiatrist, Dr. Thomas Petty, who stated that Peterson’s act could be considered an “irresistible impulse” resulting from his wife’s allegations of sexual assault. Petty testified that the anger Peterson felt upon learning of his wife’s alleged encounter with Chenoweth could have created a frame of mind that left Peterson unable to distinguish right from wrong. A man in a situation similar to Peterson’s, Petty said, would deal with the tension by dissociating himself and entering a “trance-like state or spell” during which he would be temporarily insane and unaccountable for his actions. Because Peterson had been unable to distinguish right from wrong, the defense argued, he could not be convicted of the crime with which he was charged.

The prosecution countered with the argument that Peterson had killed Chenoweth in a fit of jealousy or revenge. However, the jury rejected that claim and returned from its deliberations with a verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity. Psychiatrists subsequently examined Peterson and determined that he was no longer insane, which meant he did not require institutionalization. Now a free man, Peterson returned to the trailer he shared with Charlotte and, in a move that was ungracious to say the least, skipped town without paying the attorney who had saved him from a murder rap.

However, Voelker made lemonade out of the lemons his client handed him, using the case as the basis for Anatomy of a Murder. Though the novel presents a fictionalized version of the Peterson trial, most of the main players in the “real-life” case have counterparts in the book. In 1959, director Otto Preminger brought to screen the critically acclaimied movie version, which featured Ben Gazzara as “Frederick Manion” (the fictional version of Peterson), Lee Remick as his wife “Laura,” and Jimmy Stewart in the Voelker-esque role of defense attorney “Paul Biegler.” Preminger filmed the movie on location in Big Bay, as well as in other Upper Peninsula communities. Several sites related to both the movie and the crime still exist and are open to tourists, who can visit Perkins Park (where the Petersons lived in their trailer) or gaze upon the bullet holes that still pockmark the Lumberjack’s walls and ponder their connection to a case that made legal—and cinematic—history.

Filed Under: Hollywood Crimes, True Crime Stories

The Disappearance of Bobby Dunbar

October 16, 2016 by Tonya Blust 3 Comments

The Disappearance of Bobby Dunbar

During the spring of 1913, two mothers found themselves in a peculiar situation—each insisting that the cherub-faced boy who had been found in the company of a travelling handyman in Mississippi was her son.

The first of the two women, a stout, unmarried field hand named Julia Anderson, insisted that the child was her son Charles, who was known by his middle name, Bruce. Anderson said she had allowed the handyman, an acquaintance of hers, to take Bruce on his travels for a few days—not for the 15 months the boy had actually been away.

The other woman, a well-dressed, married housewife named Lessie Dunbar, said the boy was her son Bobby, who had gone missing from a family fishing trip eight months earlier. At the time of the events in Mississippi, Lessie had already attained national recognition, as the search for Bobby Dunbar had generated headlines and attracted the attention of concerned parents across America. Now, as the drama surrounding the boy’s identity unfolded, the nation held its collective breath, wondering whether the mystery of Bobby’s fate had finally been solved.

How could two mothers look at the same child and each insist he was theirs, ultimately leaving it up to a court to determine the matter of custody? And with the boy being about five years of age—certainly old enough to acknowledge one or the other as his parent—why hadn’t he done so? With more than a century of hindsight, the answers now seem clear enough, though the passage of time has also raised additional, perhaps unanswerable, questions about the sad, confusing case of Bobby Dunbar.

The saga had begun almost a year earlier, in the summer of 1912, when the Dunbar family—parents Percy and Lessie, and sons four-year-old Robert (known as Bobby) and two-year-old Alonzo, went on a trip with relatives to central Louisiana’s Swayze Lake. During the outing, Bobby disappeared. A search was immediately undertaken, first by the family, then by hundreds of volunteers who combed the lake’s cloudy waters, looking for any sign of the missing boy. Had Bobby drowned? Had he fallen victim to one of the many alligators that roamed the lake’s waters? Had he been kidnapped? The latter seemed possible, as rumors swirled that an unknown man had been seen in the area. Yet, despite the extensive search, no firm clue was ever found indicating Bobby Dunbar’s fate or whereabouts.

Then, in April 1913, with the story of Bobby’s disappearance having spread throughout the country, the Dunbars learned that a child roughly fitting Bobby’s description had been found in the company of William Cantwell Walters, a vagrant who earned a meager living traveling the South and working as a handyman. Percy and Lessie traveled from their hometown of Opelousas, Louisiana to southern Mississippi, where Walters had been arrested for kidnapping and where the boy was currently being held by authorities.

Reporters from that era couldn’t seem to agree on whether the Dunbars immediately recognized the child as their son. Some stated that the parents weren’t sure the boy was Bobby and that the child himself didn’t seem to know either them or Alonzo. (Another account painted an altogether different—and almost certainly invented—portrait of the scene: the boy running into Lessie’s arms at first sight, embracing her as he called out “Mother!”) It wasn’t until a day after their initial meeting, when Lessie gave the boy a bath and said that she recognized markings on his body, that she identified him as her missing son. The child returned to Opelousas with the Dunbars, receiving a hero’s welcome complete with a parade and other festivities

However, the resolution to this mystery wasn’t quite as clear-cut as the Dunbars—and, indeed, anyone following the strange saga of the missing boy—hoped to believe. In fact, one could say the mystery was only beginning. The handyman, Walters, who was awaiting trial in Louisiana on charges of kidnapping, insisted that the boy the Dunbars had claimed as their own wasn’t Bobby. Instead, Walters said, the child who had been traveling the American South with him since February 1912—before Bobby’s disappearance—was named Bruce Anderson, and he was the son of Julia Anderson, an acquaintance who had allowed Walters to take Bruce on his travels.

Upon hearing of Walters’ arrest and the discovery of the boy, Anderson traveled from North Carolina to Louisiana to attempt her own identification. Like Lessie Dunbar, at first Anderson had trouble determining whether the boy was her son. Also like Lessie Dunbar, a day after her first attempt, Anderson stated that the boy found in Walters’ care was, in fact, her child. However, unlike Lessie Dunbar, Anderson had born three children out of wedlock, which earned her a tongue lashing from the press over her supposed moral failings and unfitness as a parent. Anderson also had little money with which to fight for custody. Therefore, despite the disputed identification, a court-appointed arbitrator ultimately awarded custody to Percy and Lessie, officially establishing the child’s identity as Bobby Dunbar.

In 1914 Walters went on trial in St. Landry Parish, Louisiana (where Swayze Lake was located) for kidnapping Bobby Dunbar, a charge for which he faced the possibility of the death penalty. Despite testimony from Julia Anderson (who asserted that the child was, in fact, Bruce) and from residents of Poplarville, Mississippi, who said they had seen the boy in Walters’ company before Bobby disappeared, Walters was convicted and sentenced to life in prison. The verdict was overturned a few years later on a technicality. Prosecutors decided not to seek a new trial, so Walters was set free. He died in the late 1930s of blood poisoning from a splinter he received while working for a family in Florida.

Following the trial, life returned to whatever semblance of normality the parties involved in the incident could establish. Julia Anderson got married and had seven additional children. She settled in Mississippi, where she worked as a nurse and midwife until her death in 1940. She never forgot the son from whom she had been separated, and made sure her younger children knew about the existence of their older brother Bruce.

For Percy and Lessie Dunbar, the passage of time was less kind. In 1927 they obtained a divorce that had been preceded by years of clashes over parenting decisions and allegations of infidelity. Percy died a few years later, in 1931, while Lessie died in the 1970s.

Bobby himself got married in 1935 and, despite the turmoil of his early years, led a happy life as an adult, working as a salesman and raising four children of his own before passing away in 1966. Though the whispered questions surrounding his identity had never completely faded, it seemed that, with Bobby’s death and the passage of time, those queries would eventually come to an end.

And perhaps they might have had technology not advanced to the point that DNA tests became capable of determining whether or not individuals were genetically related. In 2004, after much debate (and facing opposition from some of his relatives, who wanted to let the matter rest), Bobby’s son, Bobby Dunbar, Jr., took a DNA test, with his results compared to those of one of his uncle Alonzo’s sons.

The result?

No match. The child whom Percy and Lessie Dunbar had taken home and raised as Bobby Dunbar hadn’t been their biological son.

And with that discovery, new questions suddenly arose. How could such a misidentification have occurred, one that led to a child being raised by a family that, genetically, was not his own? Likely, several factors came into play, chief among them classism. Julia Anderson had little money and had born children out of wedlock. On the other hand, Lessie Dunbar was a married woman who enjoyed a comfortable lifestyle and social status in her community. With all the attention Americans had paid to the loss and eventual “discovery” of Bobby Dunbar, it came as no surprise that the public wanted a resolution that would give the sad story a happy ending: a lost child reunited with married parents who could give him the lifestyle and material comfort he wouldn’t have enjoyed with Julia Anderson.

How can one explain the fact that both sets of parents, despite initial uncertainty, insisted the child was theirs? In the Dunbars’ case, because the boy wasn’t, in fact, Bobby, the reason for such doubt is clear. Yet what led them to eventually identify the child as Bobby? Perhaps their shattered minds didn’t want to face the reality of what had likely happened to the “real” Bobby at Swayze Lake and therefore worked overtime to convince them that the child was, in fact, their lost son. Conversely, maybe they knew at heart that the child wasn’t Bobby, but sought a resolution that would restore their family and remove them from the limelight that had shone on them for the past several months.

For Julia Anderson’s part, it seems fair to say that 15 months is a significant amount of time to be separated from one’s child, especially when that child is four years old and growing rapidly. The boy who left her care in February 1912 may have looked much different when he was discovered nearly a year and a half later, thereby accounting for her initial uncertainty as to his identity.

Also perplexing was the fact that the child himself hadn’t initially identified either the Dunbars or Julia Anderson as his parent(s). Again, in the Dunbars’ case, this isn’t a surprise, as the boy truly didn’t know them. With respect to his inability to identify Anderson, it seems likely that Bruce—if, indeed, that’s who the child was—either didn’t recognize Julia Anderson as his mother or felt no familial connection to her. The suggestion has also been raised that Bruce was hesitant to give up the material comforts to which he had become accustomed during his brief time with the Dunbars; this, coupled with the fact that he was being told over and over that he was Bobby Dunbar, led his young and confused mind to seek the easiest resolution: life with the Dunbars at the expense of identifying Julia Anderson as his mother.

The next question: Was the boy found in Mississippi and raised as Bobby Dunbar actually Bruce Anderson? The DNA test that proved Bobby Dunbar wasn’t, in fact, Bobby Dunbar, relied on genetic material passed along through the father (in this case, Percy Dunbar, Bobby Dunbar, Sr., and Alonzo Dunbar). Therefore, the same test couldn’t be used to determine whether Bobby was Bruce Anderson, as it wouldn’t have revealed genetic links between Bobby Jr. and relatives of Julia Anderson. In order to establish Bobby Sr.’s maternity, his body would have had to be exhumed, a course of action that neither the Dunbars nor Julia’s family wanted to take. Still, it seems a likely conclusion that the Dunbars had actually raised Julia Anderson’s child—Bruce Anderson.

Perhaps the most shattering question of all is: What happened to the “real” Bobby Dunbar? Though, of course, his true fate has never been determined, it seems logical to assume that Bobby wandered off and fell victim to misfortune, perhaps by drowning or succumbing to an animal along the lake. Therein lies the true tragedy of the story, for although the boy who grew up as Bobby Dunbar lived most of his life separated from his biological relatives, his ultimate destiny was a happy adulthood, which was certainly better than the fate that likely befell his namesake on the shores of a Louisiana lake more than a century ago.

Filed Under: True Crime Mysteries, True Crime Stories

The Tragedy of Henry and Clara Rathbone

October 2, 2016 by Tonya Blust 2 Comments

the-tragedy-of-henry-and-clara-rathbone

The bullet that pierced Abraham Lincoln’s skull on the evening of April 14, 1865 put an end to the life of a man whom many believe to be the greatest American president. Lincoln was certainly the best-known victim of the projectile that assassin John Wilkes Booth fired from his Derringer pistol at Ford’s Theatre on that spring night so many years ago. However, nearly two decades after Lincoln’s death, Booth’s bullet would claim another life, this one the victim of the effects the ill-fated piece of metal had on the psyche of a troubled and guilt-stricken man.

Accompanying Lincoln and his wife, Mary, to the theater that night were Henry Rathbone and his fiancée, Clara Harris, both young and respected members of Washington, D.C. society. Harris was a well-known socialite and the daughter of a U.S. Senator. Rathbone was an army major and the son of a former mayor of Albany, New York. He was also a wealthy man, having inherited a large estate upon his father’s death. Though Rathbone and Harris had grown up as stepsiblings (with Rathbone’s widowed mother marrying Harris’s widowed father), they shared a bond beyond friendship and ultimately became engaged, committed to spending the rest of their lives together as husband and wife.

On their way to Ford’s Theatre, as the Lincolns and their guests travelled by carriage through the fog-shrouded streets of D.C., they may have discussed the surrender five days earlier of Confederate General Robert E. Lee’s troops to Union General Ulysses S. Grant. This laying down of arms had essentially ended the Civil War, which for four years had torn apart the nation and dotted its landscape with the bodies of more than 600,000 men. Though Lincoln had proven victorious in his efforts to reunite the North and South, years of strain now showed upon his face as he confronted both the ire of the defeated Confederacy and—perhaps more troubling—recent dreams of his own impending death.

Once at the theater, the Lincolns and their guests ascended to the Presidential Box and joined 1,700 other patrons in watching a comedy called “Our American Cousin.” The mood was lively, with the crowd giving Lincoln a standing ovation and the orchestra playing “Hail to the Chief” as he entered the theater. Yet creating a cloud of darkness in the otherwise pleasant atmosphere was a man whose thoughts were far more sinister. This man, a Confederate sympathizer, was at the playhouse not for mirth, but for murder. His plan? To assassinate the president.

Two years earlier, actor John Wilkes Booth, had trod the Ford’s Theatre stage in a play called “The Marble Heart,” a performance that Lincoln had attended. Booth had also appeared in several of Shakespeare’s plays, including as the titular male character in “Romeo and Juliet” and as Marc Antony in “Julius Caesar.” Yet hidden beneath the façade of a distinguished thespian was an embittered man seething with hatred for the president. Booth, an ardent anti-abolitionist, saw Lincoln as a tyrant and hoped to cripple the federal government as it began the precarious work of reuniting the nation. To Booth, the president’s death would accomplish just that.

Through his familiarity with the evening’s play, Booth knew of a scene when the audience would break into laughter loud enough to mask the sound of a gunshot. At that moment, Booth, having entered the Presidential Box, pointed his gun at Lincoln. He took aim, steadied his hand, and shot the president behind the left ear at point-blank range.

For a few moments, confusion paralyzed Lincoln’s companions. Then, as the first lady screamed and the president slumped in his chair, Henry Rathbone leapt to action. He rushed toward Booth in an attempt to prevent the assassin from escaping. Booth slashed at Rathbone with a dagger, then plunged the weapon into the latter man’s arm. Despite his injury, Rathbone again tried to detain Booth. He managed to grab the assailant’s coat before Booth jumped from the box and onto the stage, from there crossing the floorboards and making his escape. (Twelve days later, federal soldiers tracked Booth to a Virginia farm, where he was shot in a barn the troops had set on fire; Booth would die a few hours later.)

Back at Ford’s Theatre, the scene of chaos that reigned in the Presidential Box soon spread throughout the building. Lincoln was still alive, but upon examining him, doctors determined he was mortally wounded. The president was rushed through the rain to a boarding house across the street. It was there where he died the following morning, having never regained consciousness. “Now he belongs to the ages,” Secretary of War Edwin Stanton is reported to have said upon the president’s passing.

As the government officials, family members, and physicians in attendance at Lincoln’s death grappled with their feelings of bewilderment and despair, lost was the fact that Rathbone had received a wound so severe it threatened his own life. Booth’s knife had plunged into Rathbone’s arm almost to the bone, severing an artery in the process. Rathbone lost a significant amount of blood and faded in and out of consciousness. He eventually received care for his injury and recovered. Yet as Rathbone’s body healed and the country, both North and South, settled into a period of extended mourning, the young major’s presence at the assassination—as well as his belief, however misguided, that he could have done more to help the president—started a mental deterioration that, years later, would affect Rathbone and his family in an appalling way.

After the tumult surrounding Lincoln’s death had subsided, Henry Rathbone married Clara Harris in July 1867. The couple settled into a spacious home in Washington, D.C. where they raised their three children—two sons and a daughter. Yet though the Rathbones enjoyed the privileges of wealth and an elevated position in society, all was not well. Henry’s feelings of guilt over the assassination—feelings aggravated every year when, on the anniversary of Lincoln’s death, journalists sought him out for interviews—led him to drink and gamble heavily. Though he had always tended toward depression, Henry became increasingly paranoid, believing that Clara was having an affair, or that she was planning a divorce and would take the children away from him. His mental instability was such that it prevented Henry from holding a steady job, a fact that likely aggravated his feelings of distrust and inadequacy.

To a degree, Clara was sympathetic to her husband’s plight. She had noted to a friend: “I understand his distress…in every hotel we’re in, as soon as people get wind of our presence, we feel ourselves becom[ing] objects of morbid scrutiny.” She added: “Henry…imagines that the whispering is more…malicious than it can possibly be.” Modern-day medical professionals have speculated that Henry Rathbone suffered from schizophrenia or perhaps a severe form of post-traumatic stress disorder induced by his presence at Lincoln’s assassination. However, the state of mental health treatment at his time was such that Henry received no substantive help for the psychological issues that plagued his mind and that seemed to grow worse every year.

In 1882, the Rathbones moved to Germany, as Henry had been appointed U.S. consul to the city of Hanover. Perhaps Clara regarded this as an opportunity for a fresh start, a chance to escape the stares and discreetly pointed fingers that seemed to drive Henry’s paranoia. Yet it was there, on December 23, 1883, that Henry’s madness came to a head. Though accounts differ as to what exactly happened, early that morning, two days before Christmas, Henry either tried to enter his children’s bedroom or actually attacked them. To protect their offspring, Clara distracted Henry; whatever events ensued between husband and wife ended with Henry shooting Clara several times, stabbing her, and then, in an effort to kill himself, plunging the same knife five times into his own chest.

Henry Rathbone survived his suicide attempt; Clara Rathbone succumbed to her injuries. The news that the heroic figure from Lincoln’s assassination had, in a fit of madness, become a murderer himself made banner headlines across the Atlantic. It was quickly determined that Henry wasn’t competent to stand trial, so he was placed in an asylum in Hildesheim, where he spent the remaining 27 years of his life. Henry died in August 1911 at the age of 74 and was buried in a city cemetery in Hanover alongside Clara. In 1952, some of the cemetery’s graves—including the Rathbones’—were cleared for reuse; thus, the disposition of the remains of Henry and Clara Rathbone is unknown.

Such was the degrading end for a couple who, in their younger years, had anticipated a long and loving future together. Clara had been a bright, respected woman, a shining star of Washington, D.C. society. Henry would leave behind a more ambiguous legacy: one of bravery for his heroic attempt to detain the president’s murderer, and heartbreak for the fact that Lincoln’s assassination and Henry’s own mental illness would cause the hero to become a murderer himself.

Filed Under: True Crime Stories

The Robison Family Murders

September 1, 2016 by Tonya Blust 1 Comment

The Robison Family Murders

The smell was overwhelming one July day in 1968 as Chauncey Bliss approached the cabin he had built years earlier near the community of Good Hart, on the northwest coast of Michigan’s Lower Peninsula. Bliss was a carpenter who had constructed many vacation homes along the glistening shore of Lake Michigan. Now he served as caretaker of those homes, which he had collectively named “Blisswood.” Among their number was a residence occupied by the Robisons, a wealthy family from the Detroit suburb of Lathrup Village.

Drawn to the Robison home by a woman who lived near the family, and who had called him to complain about an ungodly smell, Bliss stepped up to the log-cabin-style residence. No one had seen the Robisons for several weeks, but the family had told acquaintances they were planning a trip out of town, so their absences hadn’t alarmed anyone. The smell probably came from a dead raccoon in the crawl space, thought Bliss, steeling himself to face the odor he knew would be more pungent inside.

Bliss knocked at the front door, but got no response. He entered the house. Immediately, he saw a woman’s body sprawled in the entryway, her clothing in disarray. Behind her, Bliss caught a glimpse of several other bodies lying on the floor in pools of congealed blood. Bliss hurried away and called the police.

An initial investigation revealed that the cabin contained six bodies, which accounted for every member of the Robison family, from 42-year-old father Richard to 7-year-old daughter Susan. Both Richard and Susan had been bludgeoned with a hammer as well as shot with a pistol. The other family members—40-year-old mother Shirley, and sons Richie, 19, Gary, 16, and Randy, 12—had been shot with the same weapon that had been used on Richard and Susan; however, this latter group had not been struck with the hammer. Due to the condition of the bodies, which were heavily decomposed, officers estimated the murders had taken place about a month before the Robisons were found. Authorities placed the date and time of death as the late afternoon or early evening of Tuesday, June 25, 1968.

Initially, facing the devastating scene in front of them, the police were at a loss. The Robisons were an upstanding family that attended church regularly and had no known enemies. Richard was an advertising executive and published an arts magazine called “Impresario,” while Shirley took care of the family’s home. Richie, the eldest son, attended Eastern Michigan University. The younger Robisons did well in their studies, and family acquaintances said they were smart and polite children. Why would someone have killed the family in such a violent manner, then left their bodies to decay in the northwest Michigan woods?

However, as officers dug into Richard Robison’s business dealings, they came up with a lead. Though Robison presented himself as a prosperous executive, his companies were actually in trouble. Robison had been engaging in some not-altogether-ethical activities in terms of the finances for “Impresario,” and had told colleagues and family members about various deals he had in the works, though no one knew much about them. One of the most revealing discoveries was that, while in Good Hart, Robison had left his business in the hands of 30-year-old Joseph Scolaro III, an employee who had been embezzling money from Robison. (The amount was later revealed to be about $60,000.) Police theorized that, during a phone call between Robison and Scolaro hours before the murder, Robison revealed that he had found out about the embezzlement. At that point, according to police, a panicked Scolaro took off from Detroit, drove several hours north to Good Hart, and killed the family before Richard Robison could come forward with details about Scolaro’s crime.

Circumstantial evidence supported this conclusion. Scolaro had been out of contact with friends, business associates, and family members for twelve hours on the day of the murder, and police couldn’t find anyone to support Scolaro’s alibis as to where he had been. Officers also discovered that shell casings found at a shooting range Scolaro frequented matched casings that police found at the scene of the crime. In addition, Scolaro failed two polygraph tests and delivered inconclusive results on a third. To officers, Scolaro became a prime suspect.

However, because police couldn’t find the murder weapons, nor any eyewitnesses to the crime, the prosecutor in Emmet County, where the Robison’s cabin was located, didn’t press charges. Frustrated, state police officers worked with prosecutors in Oakland County, where the Robisons lived, to continue the investigation. In 1973, Oakland County Prosecutor L. Brooks Patterson was ready to charge Scolaro with conspiracy to commit murder. However, before officers could apprehend their suspect, Scolaro shot himself in the head, effectively ending Brooks’ attempt to prosecute him. Scolaro left behind a suicide note in which he said he did not kill the family. However, many students of the case, as well as the state police and the Emmet County Sheriff’s Department, still consider him the prime suspect.

That’s not to say Scolaro is the only person who has been accused of killing Richard Robison and his family. Critics of the “Scolaro as killer” theory say that Scolaro couldn’t have driven to Good Hart, shot the Robison family, and driven back to the Detroit area in the amount of time for which he didn’t have an alibi. Some people suspect that John Norman Collins, who was convicted in 1970 of killing a female college student in Ypsilanti (and who is a suspect in the killings of several other co-eds, a series of crimes that has become known as “The Michigan Murders”), was somehow involved in the Robison murders. Collins attended Eastern Michigan University at the same time Richie Robison did, and is even said to have possibly roomed with Robison during orientation week.

Another proposed suspect is Blisswood’s caretaker, Chauncey Bliss, who had found the bodies. Bliss was known as a bit of an eccentric and some Good Hart locals believe he committed the murders after his son, who was friends with the Robison boys, died in a motorcycle accident shortly before the Robison murders. According to this theory, Bliss felt slighted by Richard Robison in the days following the younger Bliss’s death and took his revenge by killing the family. (Police didn’t regard Bliss as a suspect in the Robison murders.)

Other suspects have been suggested and discarded, and the case is officially unsolved. Nearly 50 years after the murders, the community of Good Hart remains a popular vacation destination for tourists looking to get away from it all. Unfortunately, for the Robisons, their attempt to “get away from it all” ended during a violent encounter after which they would never return.

For more reading:

Filed Under: True Crime Mysteries, True Crime Stories

Kitty Genovese: The Truth, the Myth, the Murder

August 15, 2016 by Tonya Blust Leave a Comment

Kitty Genovese

It was around 3:15 a.m. when Catherine “Kitty” Genovese drove into a parking lot near her apartment in Kew Gardens, a residential neighborhood located in the New York City borough of Queens. Genovese had just finished her shift as manager of a bar called Ev’s Eleventh Hour, and after a full night of pouring drinks and chatting with beer-soaked customers, the 28-year-old probably looked forward to nothing more than putting up her feet and getting some well-deserved rest.

As she stepped out of her car on that early morning of March 13, 1964, Genovese began walking toward her apartment, located at the far end of a two-story structure that also housed a bar, a coffee shop, and other businesses. She had made the same trip many times before. Despite the late hour, Genovese—known for her confident, friendly nature—had little to fear. Kew Gardens was a quiet, middle-class community, and she had less than a city block to cover before she would be out of the late winter chill and into her modest but warm flat, which she would enter via a door at the rear of the building.

That night, however, Kew Gardens wasn’t as quiet as usual. From behind Genovese, a car door slammed. Then came the sound of approaching footsteps. Realizing she was being followed, Genovese ran to the front of the building, hoping to avoid trouble by staying within sight of the road and the Mowbray apartment complex across the street. She hurried by the drug store on the corner, and had just made it past a bookstore when the car’s occupant caught up to her. With no motive and no warning, the pursuer plunged a hunting knife twice into her back.

Genovese’s panicked screams alerted a man in the Mowbray, who opened his window and shouted at the attacker to leave Genovese alone. The assailant ran away, giving a critically injured Genovese the chance to stagger to the rear of the building and the sought-after safety of her apartment.

Her respite was brief. About 10 minutes later, Genovese’s assailant returned, determined to see his crime through to completion. After searching the area, he found Genovese lying in a first-floor vestibule. The man stabbed her several more times, then sexually assaulted her before leaving with $49 he had taken from her wallet. At that point a neighbor who lived in Genovese’s building called the police. A rescue crew arrived, but not soon enough to save Genovese, who died on her way to the hospital.

Only an hour had passed between the time Genovese left her vehicle and the time she died in the back of an ambulance, but it must have been the longest hour of Genovese’s life—and one that would become the focus of intense media and academic scrutiny for decades to come.

The sad story of Kitty Genovese is perhaps best known not for the grisly details of the murder itself, but for what was said to be the reluctance of Kew Gardens residents to come to her aid or notify the police despite the fact that they had allegedly heard Genovese’s screams—and, in some cases, had actually witnessed the crime in progress. A story published in The New York Times two weeks after Genovese’s death claimed that 38 people had seen the attack and essentially done nothing. The idea that more than three dozen people could peer at the street from behind the safety of their curtains and refuse to stop a murder in progress scandalized the city and the nation. So foreign was the concept to popular assumptions regarding human decency and behavior that it inspired a new realm of social psychological research—the “bystander effect,” a phenomenon in which individuals who know that a victim is in peril, but who also know that other people are aware of the same fact, will refrain from offering assistance, assuming that someone else will come forward instead.

In the five decades since Genovese’s murder, psychology students have read her story in their textbooks. Television viewers have watched fictionalized versions of the event portrayed on screen, and pundits have lambasted the residents of Kew Gardens—and, by extension, humanity itself—for the apathy that led to the young woman’s death. However, the passage of time has revealed that the scenario described in The New York Times was not entirely accurate. In fact, in an effort to sensationalize an already heart-wrenching story, the paper may have done a disservice not only to the memory of Genovese, but to the reputations of her neighbors in Kew Gardens, many of whom did more to help Genovese than society has been led to believe.

The Times story, published on March 27, 1964, boldly stated that of the 38 people who allegedly witnessed the attack, “not one…made the slightest effort to save her, to scream at the killer, or even to call the police.” However, contemporary scholars of the case have established that no one person who heard Genovese’s cries had a complete view of the incident from beginning to end. Because the worst of the attack took place behind Genovese’s apartment building, in a vestibule hidden from public view, people who witnessed the assault or heard Genovese’s cries during the initial assault at the front of the building weren’t aware of the second incident. Many people who saw the first stabbing didn’t realize the severity of the crime and assumed they were merely witnessing a spat between lovers or drunks. Some even called the police to report the incident as such, but no authorities responded to those initial calls, deeming them not serious enough to merit attention.

In addition, despite The Times’ statement to the contrary, one of Genovese’s neighbors, as previously mentioned, did call out to the attacker. This neighbor was unaware that Genovese had been stabbed; he assumed, like others, that what he was witnessing was a minor squabble. Further complicating the situation was the fact that several residents had closed their windows against the cold night air, preventing them from identifying Genovese’s screams as coming from a woman in peril or from hearing the screams altogether.

To be fair, at least two Kew Gardens residents were aware of the severity of the attack and either did nothing or offered assistance only after it was too late. A superintendent of the Mowbray witnessed the attack on Genovese and knew she was being stabbed, but instead of soliciting help, he went to sleep. In addition, the neighbor who placed the call that ultimately brought authorities to the scene had opened his apartment door and seen the assailant stabbing Genovese in the vestibule, but had done nothing to intervene and had actually waited 20 minutes to call the police, a period of time during which Genovese’s life slowly bled out of her.

Still, the inability of two residents to respond with courage and compassion to a horrifying crime doesn’t negate the fact that The Times had published a grossly inaccurate account demonizing the entire community. In fact, after Genovese’s murderer died in prison in 2016, the newspaper acknowledged in his obituary that the original article, which it called “flawed,” had “grossly exaggerated the number of witnesses and what they had perceived.”

Ultimately, perhaps, one of the article’s primary effects was to vilify the residents of Kew Gardens at the expense of the true criminal, a 29-year-old machine operator named Winston Moseley. On that fateful night, Moseley left his sleeping family in their Queens home and hit the borough’s streets for the sole purpose of finding a woman to kill. He had murdered two other people before that night—15-year-old Barbara Kralik in July 1963 and 24-year-old Annie Mae Johnson in February 1964. A month after Johnson’s death, Moseley caught a glimpse of Genovese during her drive home from Ev’s Eleventh Hour and followed her to Kew Gardens. After his attack on Genovese, Moseley evaded capture, but police eventually apprehended him during a burglary six days later. Despite pleading not guilty by reason of insanity, Moseley was convicted of Genovese’s murder and sentenced to death. (Due to a technicality, he ended up serving a life sentence instead.) Moseley escaped from custody in March 1968 and took two separate families hostage in upstate New York before ultimately surrendering. He received two additional 15-year sentences for those crimes. He died in March 2016 at the age of 81. Moseley had spent almost 52 years behind bars, making him one of New York State’s longest-serving prisoners.

For more reading:

Filed Under: True Crime Stories

The Architect and the Show Girl: The Murder of Stanford White

July 19, 2016 by Tonya Blust Leave a Comment

Evelyn Nesbit

Evelyn Nesbit was the toast of Gilded Age America. One couldn’t open a magazine or walk into a store without seeing the model’s peaches-and-cream complexion on everything from print advertisements to promotional calendars. Gentlemen who opened packages of cigarettes saw Evelyn’s face on tobacco cards, while women primped themselves with hand mirrors displaying the teenager’s winsome gaze. From the cover of Vanity Fair to the sheet music for a song called “Sprinkle Me With Kisses,” Nesbit seemed to be in every shop, home, and entertainment venue in America.

Her popularity wasn’t surprising, as Nesbit was a sight to behold. Photos from her teenage years show the girl with dark, wavy hair, often piled into an elegant pompadour. Nesbit’s mouth formed a perfect heart-shaped pout, and a corset cinched her waist to create an impeccable hourglass figure. So flawless were her features, so alluring her aura, that Nesbit served as one of the models for the Gibson Girl, artist Charles Dana Gibson’s illustration of the epitome of American womanhood.

Yet despite the perfection of her outer appearance, Evelyn Nesbit led a personal life few would envy. Her dalliance with renowned architect Stanford White (a womanizer 31 years her senior) and her subsequent marriage to a sociopath named Harry Thaw led to a 1906 murder trial that rocked New York society—and the nation. In the ensuing media frenzy, Nesbit watched as her private life become fodder for every reporter who, despite the era’s genteel manners, dished out the tawdry details—Sex! Secrets! A Red Velvet Swing!—that came to light during the so-called “Trial of the Century.”

The fiery nature of the New York press was a far cry from Tarentum, Pennsylvania, a Pittsburgh suburb where Florence Evelyn Nesbit was born on Christmas Day 1884 (or 1886, depending on the source). Young Florence (as she was then known) had a happy childhood, but came to know pain early in life when her father died when she was 11 years old.

After a few years of financial struggle, Nesbit’s family—consisting of her mother and younger brother—moved to Philadelphia, where each worked in a department store to make ends meet. It was there, at Philadelphia’s famed Wanamaker’s, that 14-year-old Nesbit’s beauty attracted the attention of an artist, who paid her a dollar to pose for a portrait. Soon other local artists commissioned Nesbit to serve as their muse. The teenager enjoyed the attention and, a few years later, became even better known when the family moved to New York City.

It was in the Big Apple where Nesbit really thrived. Respected artists like James Carroll Beckwith painted her portrait, while magazines like Harper’s Bazaar featured her on their covers. Nesbit appeared in calendars for Coca-Cola and Prudential Life Insurance, and in fashion shots taken by photographer Joel Feder. In what surely would have been Nesbit’s most famous endeavor had future events not played out the way they did, artist Charles Dana Gibson snagged her services as a model for his “Gibson Girl.” The era’s Nesbit mania was so all-encompassing that it seemed as though a person couldn’t go a day without seeing her seductive eyes peering out from the printed page.

By 1901, Nesbit had grown tired of modeling. With an eye toward the stage, she secured a spot in the chorus of a popular Broadway play, Floradora. It was at this point that Florence Nesbit became known by her middle name, Evelyn. Nesbit’s role in Floradora was minor, but led to a featured role in a play called The Wild Rose. For any other girl with Evelyn’s ambitions, this would be an auspicious start to a flourishing career, but in Evelyn’s case, the role played a small part in the deadly events to come.

Each of the 40 times Harry Kendall Thaw watched The Wild Rose on Broadway, his eyes lighted on Nesbit, who played the Gypsy girl Vashti. Thaw was a beady-eyed, baby-faced heir to a coal and railroad fortune and, like Nesbit, hailed from Pittsburgh. The 31-year-old playboy was 13 years older than the object of his affection, but despite—or maybe because of—this age difference, he was infatuated. As Nesbit danced across the stage in her layered skirts and shoulder-baring blouse, Thaw knew he had to meet her. At first, Nesbit wasn’t enamored of Thaw, but he was persistent and attentive. He also lavished Nesbit with the finest gifts his multi-million-dollar fortune could buy. Despite Nesbit’s initial misgivings, the two eventually began a tentative courtship.

However, there was a problem. While starring in Floradora in 1901, Evelyn had met Stanford White, one of New York City’s most prominent architects. The burly, mustachioed 47-year-old, a principal in the firm of McKim, Mead, & White, had designed Washington Square Arch, the Bowery Savings Bank, and several other New York landmarks. He had also designed the second version of Madison Square Garden, an indoor arena that hosted a variety of entertainment and sporting events. At the time of their meeting, Nesbit was just 16 (or 14, depending on which of her two stated birthdates is correct), but this wasn’t a problem for White, who was known to seduce teenaged girls. He set his sights on Evelyn and one night, after White plied her with champagne, she lost her virginity to him in the famed “Mirror Room” of his opulent mansion.

Though White served as a de facto benefactor of the Nesbit family, his and Evelyn’s relationship, such as it was, never became serious. Consequently, when Harry Thaw suggested that Nesbit and her mother accompany him to Europe, they accepted. After a whirlwind tour during which Thaw attempted to distance Evelyn from her mother by creating tension between the two of them, Mrs. Nesbit headed back to the States early, leaving her daughter alone with their host. Throughout the remainder of the trip, Thaw repeatedly proposed marriage, but Evelyn turned him down. Ultimately, she told him about her dalliance with White. Thaw, who was a drug addict and mentally ill, became enraged. He was livid at what he saw as White’s exploitation of Evelyn, but because White wasn’t available for a confrontation, Thaw took out his fury on Nesbit, holding her captive and assaulting her in an Austrian castle for two weeks before returning with her to the United States.

Back home, a contrite Thaw promised to reform. Despite Thaw’s abusive treatment of her, Evelyn— realizing that her marriage prospects would be limited if the relationship with White became public—finally accepted Thaw’s proposal. The couple wed in 1905 and lived in Pittsburgh. Yet despite the fact that Thaw had won the object of affection, his obsession with—and hatred for—Stanford White only grew, fueled by Thaw’s belief that White was a “beast” who deserved punishment for his exploitation of the new Mrs. Evelyn Thaw.

That hatred came to a head on June 25, 1906, a steamy day in New York City. Harry Thaw and his young wife were spending time in the Big Apple before a European vacation, so Thaw made plans for himself, Evelyn, and two acquaintances to attend a play, Mam’zelle Champagne, in the rooftop theater of Madison Square Garden. It was an event that Stanford White would be attending. Though the evening was warm, Thaw wore an overcoat, which he would not remove. The reason for this became apparent when, toward the end of the show, Thaw approached White’s table, withdrew a pistol from beneath his coat, and fired three shots into the architect, who died instantly. At first, spectators thought they were witnessing part of the show, but the grim reality soon dawned on them and Thaw was arrested.

As news of the crime spread, the same papers that had celebrated Evelyn Nesbit’s beauty and virtue began luxuriating in lurid details about her affair with White. Ultimately, the press portrayed her as a victim of White’s predation, but this fact didn’t mitigate the mortifying effect of having every aspect of her dalliance published for the world to see. Evelyn became known as the “Girl in the Red Velvet Swing” (owing to the fact that White’s mansion contained just such a conveyance, on which he entertained female visitors), and she secluded herself to avoid scrutiny. Surprisingly, her husband fared better in the media glare—many reporters celebrated what they saw as a chivalrous act meant to protect his wife’s honor.

As Thaw headed toward trial six months after the murder, his family secured the finest attorneys and witnesses money could buy. A defense was established—temporary insanity. To avoid embarrassing Thaw’s family by bringing up details of their son’s mental instability and drug use, Thaw’s defense called to the stand a parade of doctors who testified that Thaw’s action was the result of a momentary loss of reason, not a chronic state of insanity. Evelyn also took the stand in support of her husband, relating details of her affair with White (and, some said, getting paid handsomely by the Thaw family for her testimony). The combined effect of this evidence wasn’t enough to sway jurors one way or another, as seven of them voted “guilty” and five voted “not guilty.” In 1908, a second trial was held, during which Thaw was found not guilty by reason of insanity. He was sent to Matteawan State Hospital for the Criminally Insane, about sixty miles north of New York City, to serve a life sentence. Thaw was released in 1915 after securing a new trial and being found not guilty of the crime for which he had been incarcerated. Evelyn divorced him that same year, and Thaw died in February 1947 at the age of 76.

Evelyn’s post-trial life included a surprising new occupation: mother. Her son, Russell, had been born in 1910, and though Evelyn said she had conceived the boy during a conjugal visit with her husband, Thaw denied that he was the father. In the ensuing years, Nesbit married and divorced again, dabbled in show business, and ultimately died in January 1967 at the age of 82.

Filed Under: True Crime Stories

The Fiery Fate of Bridget Cleary

June 29, 2016 by Tonya Blust Leave a Comment

The Fiery Fate of Bridget Cleary

In the late 19th century, the issue of “Home Rule” – Ireland’s desire for independence from the United Kingdom – was a subject of intense political debate. For decades, Irish nationalists had been seeking autonomy from the UK, to whose rule Ireland had been subject since 1801. Yet while the argument over Irish sovereignty was loudest in London, where Parliament held the Emerald Isle’s future in its hands, it was a small Irish village that made headlines as the scene of a grisly crime that called into question the ability of Ireland’s citizens to govern themselves and achieve the independence so many of them sought.

In March of 1895, 26-year-old Bridget Cleary had been married to her husband, Michael, for almost eight years. The couple had no children, though they did care for Bridget’s widowed father, Patrick Boland, who lived with them in a cottage in the County Tipperary community of Clonmel. Michael worked as a cooper – a barrel maker – while Bridget brought in money by making dresses and hats. Professional endeavors were unusual among married women in 19th-century Ireland, so her vocation established Bridget as an independent-minded woman whose nonconformity, some believe, may have played a role in the events that ultimately led to her death.

When Bridget fell ill in March 1895, the Clearys’ cottage became the setting of a vigil attended by Bridget’s family members and neighbors. Michael Cleary believed that the ailing woman wasn’t, in fact, his wife, but rather a changeling left behind by fairies who had kidnapped the real Bridget and taken her to a ringfort – an earthen structure said to be inhabited by mythical creatures – on the outskirts of town. According to Michael, once the changeling was cast out, the real Bridget would return. Therefore, the people who filled the Clearys’ home performed various rituals while Bridget’s family members threw urine on her and force-fed her herbs, all in an attempt to get rid of the changeling and bring back their missing loved one.

After several days of what must have been a horrific ordeal, Bridget Cleary disappeared. Michael Cleary claimed that this meant the “changeling Bridget” had returned to the ringfort, but Bridget’s actual fate became apparent when her charred body was found on March 22. Authorities arrested nine men – including Bridget’s husband and father – and in August 1895 they went on trial, some of them for “wounding” Bridget and some for murdering her. The story came out that as part of his continuing efforts to cast out the changeling that had allegedly replaced his wife, Michael Cleary had threatened Bridget with a piece of burning wood. When her undergarment caught fire, Michael threw lamp oil on her and prevented anyone in the house from helping the burning woman, insisting that the fire would bring back the “real Bridget.” When that didn’t happen, her body was buried in a shallow grave.

Ultimately, Cleary was convicted of manslaughter and served 15 years in prison. Upon his release in 1910, he moved first to Liverpool, then to Montreal. Other family members received shorter sentences for the “wounding” charge.

The events that took place in Clonmel in March 1895 raised concerns in the minds of many people in the United Kingdom about what they considered to be the primitive nature of the Irish citizenry. How could people be allowed to rule themselves when their beliefs in mythical fairies had led to a very real and gruesome death? However, it should be noted that doubts have been raised as to whether Michael Cleary believed that fairies had, in fact, kidnapped his wife. Though he insisted that this was the reason for his actions and that he had intended only to ensure the safe return of Bridget, some students of the case believe that Michael actually felt threatened by his wife’s independence (or by rumors that Bridget was having an extramarital affair) and used her sickness as a convenient excuse to end their marriage in the most horrifying way possible. Though some of the villagers who attended Bridget in her hour of need may have truly believed that they were saving her from the clutches of fairies, the man who had pledged fidelity to his wife and who held the greatest responsibility for protecting her may have used a “fairy excuse” to cover up the real reason for his lethal actions – distrust, shame, and hatred.

Filed Under: True Crime Stories

The Hinterkaifeck Murders

June 7, 2016 by Tonya Blust Leave a Comment

The Hinterkaifeck Murders

In March 1922, Andreas Gruber’s farm was the setting of some strange—and altogether creepy—occurrences. From a forest at the edge of his property, Gruber had discovered a set of footprints leading to his farm…but no set of footprints leading back. He had heard footsteps in his attic, Gruber told his neighbors, and had also found a newspaper that didn’t belong to anyone in his family. His house keys had even gone missing. Many people in Gruber’s situation would have contacted the authorities, or at the very least sat up nights with a shotgun in hand, waiting for an intruder to appear. However, Gruber must not have been overly concerned; he neither reported the happenings to the police nor moved his family away from the farm where the threat of ominous activity seemed to grow every day.

That lack of action cost Andreas Gruber dearly. By the beginning of April, he was dead, as was every member of his household.

In what has become known as the “Hinterkaifeck murders,” named after the southeastern German farmstead where Gruber and his family met their end, six people—Andreas; his wife, Cäzilia; their widowed daughter Viktoria; their grandchildren, 7-year-old Cäzilia and 2-year-old Josef (who were Viktoria’s children); and the family’s maid, Maria Baumgartner—were brutally slaughtered by an assailant who remains unknown to this day. Though more than 100 suspects have been considered, German police academy students who re-examined the case in 2007 determined that with the passage of time, not to mention the archaic investigatory practices that produced the evidence with which modern-day authorities must work, there is no chance that the murders will ever be definitively solved.

Neighbors who paid a visit to Hinterkaifeck on Tuesday, April 4, 1922, several days after the farm’s inhabitants had last been seen, likely had no idea that they would be encountering the scene of a crime that would occupy the minds of both police and armchair investigators for decades to come. The search party had been drawn to the farm because young Cäzilia had missed school the previous Saturday, while the entire family hadn’t shown up for church on Sunday—incidents unusual enough to merit a visit from concerned townsfolk. The reason for these absences became apparent when the bodies of Andreas, his wife, his daughter, and his granddaughter were found in the barn, their heads destroyed by what investigators would later determine was a mattock, a tool similar to a pickaxe. In the house, neighbors discovered the bodies of Josef and Maria, who had fallen victim to the same method of attack. Investigators were called to the scene and pinned the date of the deaths as Friday, March 31. This determination was especially eerie because neighbors had reported seeing smoke coming from the Grubers’ chimney throughout the weekend—an indication that the murderer had remained on the property for at least a few days following the crime. This belief was supported by the fact that the farm’s animals had been fed, the family’s food had been eaten, and a bed had been slept in, all while the bodies of the Grubers began the slow process of decay.

The destruction of Hinterkaifeck’s residents was a conspicuous end to a family that already had a specter of scandal surrounding it. The Grubers, at least some of them, were not well-liked by members of their community. Andreas was said to be a recluse who beat his wife and children (and, if rumors were to be believed, who had engaged in an incestuous relationship with Viktoria that had resulted in the birth of Josef). In addition, six months before the murders, the Grubers’ previous maid had left the farm in a hurry, claiming that she heard strange voices and footsteps and insisting that the house was haunted. The new maid, Maria Baumgartner, started her job on March 31—the last day of her life.

The police immediately set about in search of a motive, which, they hoped, would lead to a suspect. Robbery was ruled out; although the Grubers were well-off, none of their valuables had been touched. Maybe the motive was revenge. Viktoria had claimed that a local man named Lorenz Schlittenbauer was Josef’s father; at the time of her murder she was planning to sue Schlittenbauer for financial support. Schlittenbauer was one of the neighbors who had discovered the carnage at Hinterkaifeck, and the men with him at the time noted that he seemed oddly unfazed upon finding the body of the woman he had once courted. Police investigated him, but ultimately didn’t find enough evidence to charge Schlittenbauer with the crime.

Another proposed suspect was Viktoria’s husband, Karl Gabriel. He had been declared dead while fighting in World War I, but his body was never found. According to one theory, Gabriel didn’t, in fact, die. Instead, he faked his death with the intention of starting a new life, then changed his mind. When he traveled to Hinterkaifeck and found his wife either engaged in an incestuous relationship with her father or having borne the child of Lorenz Schlittenbauer, Gabriel killed the entire family in a fit of rage. Admittedly, this theory strains credibility, for although Gabriel’s body was missing, several soldiers indicated that they had seen him die in a trench in France.

Not only have a suspect and motive remained elusive for nearly a century, the sequence of events that led to the deaths of the Grubers and their maid can’t be definitively established. With no survivors to describe what happened at Hinterkaifeck on March 31, 1922, any theory is merely conjecture. However, investigators believed that somehow the murderer was able to lure the four eldest Grubers to the barn, one by one, and then kill them. At that point, the murderer entered the house and killed Josef and Maria. Most of the Grubers were found wearing their nightclothes, so the murders probably occurred in the evening, under cover of darkness. The attacks were devastating enough that Andreas, the elder Cäzilia, and Viktoria died immediately, but the younger Cäzilia had apparently been alive for a few hours after the assaults; she was found with tufts of her own hair in her hands, likely pulled out in spasms of pain and despair.

The indignities heaped upon the Grubers didn’t end with their deaths. Their heads were sent to Munich for investigation, but were lost during World War II. Therefore, the six bodies buried in a graveyard in Waidhofen, the municipality in which Hinterkaifeck was located, are headless. One year after the crimes, the farm was demolished so that it would no longer serve as a grim reminder of the violence that had visited the community.

Although the students who investigated the murders in 2007 indicated that the case could never be solved, they did settle on the most likely suspect. However, out of respect for the individual’s descendants, his name was not made public. Thus, the possibility exists that the man who committed the Hinterkaifeck murders will in death—as he did in life—escape the earthly penalty of having his identity exposed as one of history’s most depraved murderers.

Filed Under: True Crime Mysteries, True Crime Stories

Belle Gunness: The Multiple Murderess

May 1, 2016 by Tonya Blust Leave a Comment

Belle Gunness

A steady stream of gentleman callers showed up at Belle Gunness’s farmhouse in LaPorte, Indiana during the first decade of the 20th century. Bearing flowers, shy grins, and—most important to Gunness—their life savings, the suitors came in response to a matrimonial ad that Gunness had placed in several Midwestern newspapers. The two-time widow was seeking a husband, a man of means whose expertise and money would help Gunness turn her thriving farm into an even more lucrative business.

When Gunness opened her door to the hopeful knocks that fell upon it, her suitors might have felt a jolt of surprise, as the woman who met their eyes wasn’t quite as “comely” as her advertisements had promised. Gunness was a tall, stocky woman whose drab clothing and schoolmarm-ish hair were fitting counterparts to her dour expression, Still, it was the early 20th century, a time when marriage was sometimes a practical matter rather than a romantic pursuit. Union with Gunness would mean a financial windfall for the lucky man who wed her, so suitors overlooked Belle’s aesthetic shortcomings and accepted her invitations to dinner. As the men stepped inside their prospective fiancée’s home, they remained blissfully unaware that they would never leave the property again.

Belle Gunness used her skills of persuasion to become one of the most prolific serial killers in American history. It’s suspected that she robbed and murdered as many as 40 men, whom she invited into her home under the guise of seeking a husband. Gunness is also suspected of killing her five children, two husbands, and various other people who stood in the way of her murderous plans. The combined horror of these deaths is chilling enough, but what’s really unsettling is the fact that no one knows exactly what happened to Gunness after her crimes were discovered. Frightening though the thought may be, Gunness might have escaped punishment and lived the rest of her life in anonymity, perhaps free to pursue her homicidal hobby among a new crop of unsuspecting bachelors.

Born Brynhild Paulsdatter Størseth in Norway in 1859, Gunness immigrated to the United States in 1881. With a new home came a new name—Belle. In 1884, Belle married Mads Sorenson, with whom she had four children. It was at this point when the specter of suspicious death made its way into Belle’s life. Two of her children, Caroline and Axel, died in infancy from colitis (a disease whose symptoms mirror the effects of poisoning). Not long after that, in 1900, Mads Sorenson perished from what doctors said was a heart ailment. Sorenson’s relatives insisted that Belle had played a role in Mads’ death, but records don’t indicate whether authorities investigated those claims. In any event, the $8,500 in insurance money that Belle received following her husband’s demise was a source of consolation in the face of her in-laws’ suspicions. It was with this money that Belle purchased the farm where, in the coming years, her ill-fated suitors would spend their final moments.

Shortly after moving to LaPorte with her remaining children, Myrtle and Lucy, Belle married her second husband, a widower named Peter Gunness, in April 1902. Within a week of the nuptials, Peter’s infant daughter was dead, having succumbed to a mystery ailment while in the care of her new stepmother. By December 1902, Peter himself had died, the victim of an injury he sustained when, according to Belle, a sausage grinder fell on his head. Once again, Belle received a sizable insurance settlement and, despite whispers from suspicious neighbors, carried on with the business of running her farm as a single mother.

Gunness was a savvy and formidable woman, and eventually decided that a third marriage—or at least the prospect of one—would fill her coffers even fuller. She created her matrimonial advertisement and entertained a parade of eligible bachelors, who saw the ad as their ticket to a stable life with home-cooked meals, comfortable living arrangements, and a thriving agricultural business. As Gunness requested, the men often arrived with their life savings, prepared to merge their fortunes with those of their new sweetheart. Yet despite her many romances, Gunness never made it to the altar. In fact, several of her suitors simply disappeared, though Gunness was able to keep the strange goings-on at her farm a secret from her neighbors in LaPorte.

The first inkling that anything was wrong came in the early morning of April 28, 1908, when Gunness’s handyman, Joe Maxson, woke from a sound sleep in his second-floor bedroom to discover that the Gunness farmhouse was on fire. Maxson rushed into town for help, but by the time rescuers arrived, the house was too far gone to save. After the ashes cooled, investigators discovered the bodies of four people in the charred remains. Three of those bodies belonged to Gunness’s children (Myrtle, Lucy, and son Phillip, whose father was Peter Gunness), while the fourth was that of a headless woman whose identity couldn’t be verified. Despite the questions remaining about the unknown victim, the fire seemed an open-and-shut case of arson, with the prime suspect being Ray Lamphere, Gunness’s former handyman, whom she had recently fired. When a young boy stated that he had seen Lamphere run away from the burning farm, the handyman was arrested and charged with arson and murder.

From there, the situation at Gunness’s farm became even more grotesque. Asle Helgelien, the brother of Andrew Helgelien, one of Gunness’s suitors, showed up in LaPorte shortly after the fire and stated his belief that Andrew had met a grisly end at Gunness’s hand. Andrew Helgelien had told his brother about his plans to visit Gunness, but had never returned home—nor contacted Asle—after his stay at the Gunness farm. This fact, coupled with current handyman Maxson’s revelation that Gunness had instructed him to bring wheelbarrows of dirt into the farm’s hog pen—an area now pocked with strange depressions—prompted the men of LaPorte to grab their shovels and start digging.

What they found was astonishing: the bodies of several men (including Andrew Helgelien), one young woman (believed to be Gunness’s adopted daughter, Jennie Olson), and two children. The bodies were in such disarray that authorities couldn’t determine how many they’d actually found; estimates hovered at around twelve victims whose bones lay buried in the Gunness hog yard. As word of the gruesome discovery spread, family members of other missing men contacted authorities to report that their own loved ones had made plans to visit Gunness and had never been heard from again. The list of potential victims climbed until, according to some estimates, it numbered more than forty.

A few weeks after the fire, Lamphere’s trial began. Though the bodies of Gunness’s children were easily identified, uncertainty remained regarding whether the headless body found in Gunness’s home actually belonged to the murderess. Some LaPorte residents who viewed the remains said that the body was too small to have belonged to Gunness. Likewise, though Gunness’s dentist testified that bridgework found on the property belonged to her, tests indicated that the false teeth could not have survived a fire as intense as the one that consumed the Gunness farmhouse. This led to accusations that the bridgework had been planted, likely by the man who found it. Perhaps the biggest argument for Gunness’s demise in the fire was the fact that she hadn’t been seen since it occurred.

Ultimately, Lamphere was convicted of arson but not of murder, and was sentenced to 20 years in prison. He died of tuberculosis after serving only one year of his sentence. A clergyman who spoke to Lamphere before his death claimed that Lamphere had confessed to helping Gunness bury some of her victims, whom she had killed either by poisoning them or by splitting their heads with a meat chopper. According to the clergyman’s version of Lamphere’s testimony, Gunness disposed of the bodies by burying them around the farm or, on occasion, feeding them to her hogs. Lamphere answered the key question—was the headless body that of Gunness?—with a resounding “no.” He claimed, said the clergyman, that the body belonged to a woman whom Gunness had lured into the house and killed for the purpose of staging Gunness’s death. Gunness herself, Lamphere said, had set the fire with Lamphere’s help and had fled LaPorte alive, well, and ready to reestablish herself in a different part of the country.

Gunness’s fate has never been proven. Was she killed in the fire, or had she escaped? The 1931 arrest of a California woman named Esther Carlson, who was accused of poisoning a man, generated support for the latter hypothesis, as some of Gunness’s friends believed that photos of Carlson bore a striking resemblance to Gunness. Students of the case remain divided in their beliefs as to whether Gunness perished in the house fire, or made the greatest escape of her life. Regardless, it can’t be denied that Belle Gunness was an evil, conscience-less woman who, far from evincing a personality evocative of the French meaning of her name, nurtured a nasty side that spelled death for the men who wanted to make her their wife.

Filed Under: True Crime Stories

  • 1
  • 2
  • Next Page »

Welcome

Tonya, your editress

Stay in touch

Facebook  Twitter  Pinterest  Blog Lovin'

Search

Categories

  • Hollywood Crimes
  • True Crime Interviews
  • True Crime Mysteries
  • True Crime Stories

Post Archives

Post Categories

Subscribe to our newsletter!

* indicates required

Copyright © 2025 · Wild on Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in