1912: “A Man Is Killed By A Woman Every Day!” - Petticoats Confer Immunity

FULL TEXT from October 6, 1912: 

Increase of Homicides by Women. Especially in West and South. Accompanied by Growing Unwillingness of Juries to Convict Female Offenders – Petticoats Confer Immunity – Men Usually Victims – Prominent Attorney Analyzes Stagecraft by Which Women Defendants Work on Sympathy of Male Jurors – Three Recent Cases in St. Louis in Which Women Were Acquitted ----

Some future historian of the feminist revolution will attempt to explain why the rise of woman towards equal suffrage and economic independence was concomitant, in the first part of the twentieth century, with a remarkable crescendo of feminine crime, particularly murder; and will trace the curious process by which the human savage, who more than any other mammal held his females in abject servility, became gradually so uxorious that he not only failed to avenge homicidal rebellions effected against his own sex by his former underlings, but, through the voice of his juries, even pardoned and justified them in their crimes.

The murder of men by women, is proved by criminal records to be steadily on the increase, especially in the South and West; and this deplorable phenomenon accompanies, and is no doubt partly due to, a waxing unwillingness on the part of men to convict any woman of a capital offense. The defendant may be ignorant, homely and and depraved; she may be in all respects inferior to the average man and even to criminal man; her guilt of a cowardly and revolting crime may be obvious to every impartial mind; but her petticoats hedge her about with a mysterious divinity which practically assures her of immunity. It is declared that on an average a man is slain by a woman every day in the United States, and that scarcely one conviction occurs in 50 such cases.

The historian will point out that, while women were on every hand asserting their equality with men in nearly every field, those accused of crime instantly betook themselves for defense to the ancient fortress of the sex – male pity aroused by woman’s weakness; and that the defendants hastened to emphasize their pose of hopelessness with every means afforded by dress, falsehood and tears.

The annalist will relate that dexterous lawyers her husband to death: Women are spiteful. They would show no mercy to a woman. They would take pleasure in convicting me.

Mrs. Louise Lindloff, indicted for seven deaths by poison: I want justice and woman have been pretty successful to getting justice from juries composed of men. I want no women to sit on the jury that tries me.

Lulu Blackwell, charged with killing Charles Vaughn: It would be foolish to consent to have a jury of women try me. I want a man’s jury to sit on my case.

Margaret McCabe, charged with killing Edward Lee: No women for me. If the State’s Attorney wants women juries, that is reason enough why I should not want them.

Elizabeth Buchanan, charged with the killing of Josephine Rice: I would never consent to be tried by women.

In a recent interview Attorney Wayman skillfully dissected the mental processes which actuate male jurors holding the fate of women criminals in their hands. His text was the case of Mrs. Minnie Bernstein of Chicago, who was accused of murdering her sleeping husband, and against whom, according to Wayman, the evidence was so clear that, “had a man been the defendant, he would have been convicted by any jury in the world.” Nevertheless, Mrs. Bernstein was acquitted, the jury declaring she was insane when she killed her husband.

“In acquitting Mrs. Bernstein,” said the attorney, “the jury gave a typical illustration of the attitudes of American juries towards women charged with murder. Mrs. Bernstein is not pretty, yet in her widow’s weeds there was much in her appearance that would appeal to any man of susceptible nature and tender heart.

“She, like all women, was a sufficiently clever actress to make the most of her looks and the dramatic possibilities of her situation. With her pallid face and dark eyes she looked wistful, helpless and appealing. At times she wept into a dainty lace handkerchief – this is a fetching trick o’ women defendants – and again she bowed her head upon her arms while her shoulders shook with sobs.

“The ordinary man such as the juror is feels sure that this woman who looks so much like the woman who looks so much like the women of his own family must have been abused and hounded and driven insane by the cruelty of the man she killed. So in almost all cases the juror, unsophisticated in the subtle psychology of the woman criminal, has made up his mind long before he retires to the jury room that the woman on trial committed her crime during some violent brainstorm that rendered her irresponsible.

“There is but one remedy. That is, to give women the right to serve on juries.

“Only a woman can understand a woman. Only a woman can can be uninfluenced by sentiment. Only a woman would punish a woman guilty of murder. Only a woman could construe the law impartially where a woman is concerned. A jury of women would look upon a woman criminal with cold, sexless, unsentimental eyes and return a verdict in accordance with the merits of the case.”

Wayman pointed out that in the last nine years in Chicago 38 women charged with murder, 20 of whom were accused of killing men, were acquitted. During the same period only seven women arraigned for killing men were found guilty. Wayman declared that if men had been accused they would have been hanged in nearly every instance.

Mrs. Rene B. Morrow, a poetess and writer, was acquitted only a few weeks ago of the murder of her husband, who was found dead on the back porch of their home in the fashionable Hyde  Park district, Chicago, with two bullets in his body.The State showed that they were estranged and had been heard in violent quarrel on the night of Morrow’s death.

While Mrs. Dora McDonald and Webster Guerin, with whom she was engaged in a Hason [sic], were alone in a Chicago office, Guerin was shot and instantly killed. The defense was that he shot himself while in a scuffle with the woman for possession of a pistol. She was acquitted.

Lucille McLeod, a girl still in her teens, and William Nieman Jr. were found in a Chicago hotel, the man dying and the girl severely wounded. She recovered, was tried for murder, and asserted that the shooting was done by Nieman. She was acquitted.

Mrs. Minnie, a trained nurse, was arraigned for the murder of her husband, who was asphyxiated by gas flowing from a range in a room adjoining that in which he slept. He had insurance of several thousands of dollars on his life. A jury found that his death was due to murder, but acquitted his widow.

Mrs. Jane Quinn was arraigned a few weeks ago on a charge of killing her husband, who was shot as he lay asleep in bed. Two former husbands, heaving insured, had died under mysterious circumstances. Mrs. Quinn said her husband had been killed by a burglar, and was acquitted.

Mr. Louise Vermilya, charged with murdering nine persons with poison, was arraigned for the death of Arthur Bisonette. The arraignment resulted in a disagreement of the jury. She is to be tried a second time for the murder of Richard T. Smith.

One of the most theatrical trials in St. Louis was that of Mrs. Dora Doxey, accused of poisoning William J. Erder, whom she was charged with having married bigamously and whose insurance she collected. Despite a formidable array of circumstantial evidence she was acquitted.

Mrs. Clara Murray of St. Louis, charged with killing her husband, pleaded that she did not know the rifle she pointed at him was loaded, and that, anyhow, he had treated her cruelly. She was acquitted in February.

Mrs. Alma James was tried in St. Louis last March for shooting her husband, Leo James, as he lay asleep in their flat. The jurors, who significantly bound themselves not to discuss for publication the manner in which they reached a decision, reported the following double-barreled verdict:

“We, the jury, find the defendant not guilty on the ground that she was insane at the time she committed the offense as charged in the indictment, and she has at this time entirely and completely recovered from such insanity.”

Mrs. Moses Felton of Mexico, Mo., who shot her husband while he lay asleep, was exonerated by a Coroner’s jury on her plea of self-defense.

Mrs. Lucy Matheson of Fort Worth, Tex., traced her husband to the house of a negress and killed him. A jury freed her in 10 minutes.

Mrs. Assunta Mollicone was not brought to trial in Denver for killing her husband after she told the Prosecuting Attorney Mollicone had misused her and that she shot in self-defense.

Mrs. Frances O’Shaughnessy shot her husband in New York “to save his soul” and was freed on the ground that she was insane.

Mrs. Laura Stannard of Ontonogan, Mich., was acquitted by a jury of the murder of her husband, who died from poison administered in a drink cure.

Mrs. Sudall shot her husband in the back and was acquitted of murder by a San Francisco jury.

A plea of self-defense acquitted Mrs. Eleanor Valentine of Denver, who shot her husband.

Mrs. Maude Lee Allen of  Sherman, Tex., shot her husband five times. Arrested for murder, she worked on the sympathies of a grand jury with a plea of self-defense until the jurors voted “no bill” and took up a collection of $12 for her among themselves.

Only a month ago the spectators in a court at Harrodsburg, Ky., applauded for 30 minutes when the Judge dismissed Mrs. Dora Russell on a charge of murdering her husband. She testified that she met Russell at the door and on declaring he would killer and the children, whipped a revolver from behind her back and shot him four times.

Mrs. Lizzie Brooks of Fort Worth killed Mrs. Mary Binford, with whom Brooks was said to have been intimate. At her trial, after resisting how her home had been shattered, Mrs. Brooks’ attorney closed his argument to the jury by singing “Home, Sweet Home.” The defendant was instantly acquitted.

Other women charged with murdering men and acquitted in recent years include Mrs. Gertrude G. Patterson, Estelle Stout, Mrs. Antoinette Tolla, the Baroness de Mansey, Florence Burns, Nan Patterson, Josephine Terranova and Mrs. Annie Birdsong.

[“A Man Is Killed By A Woman Every Day!” St. Louis Post-Dispatch (Mo.), Oct. 6, 1912, Sunday Magazine, p. 3]

***

***

***

***

***

***

***

***

***

***

***

***

***

For more on this topic, see Chivalry Justice Checklist & Links

***
[2043-1/25/19]
***

Chivalry Justice in 1907 USA

FULL TEXT: Is there a “dementia Americana” for women murderers?

Are women who kill men protected from capital punishment by an “unwritten law” which, says they shall not be hanged?

The plea of the eloquent California lawyer who defended Thaw that the “unwritten law” justifies a man in killing another under certain circumstances finds an equally strong counterpart in a public sentiment firmly fixed in most States which silently protests against capital punishment for women.

Is this sentiment, which may be called the new “unwritten law,” the incentive to recent numerous murders of men by women.

The question whether women become murderesses because they are, through a maudlin public sentiment, immune from the severest penalty of the law, is one which criminologists and the legal profession now discuss without reaching a solution which will receive general approval.

The hanging of a. woman in Vermont a few years ago for the murder of her husband, though the people of the State protested, proved that the executive of the State was firm in heeding the cold demand of the law. On the other hand, the commutation of the death penalty to life imprisonment. In the case of Mrs. Aggie Myers would indicate that the chief executive of this State yielded to the almost unanimous prejudice against capital punishment for women.

The recent killing of Walter S. Guerin, a young artist, by Mrs. Dora McDonald, wife of an ex-gambling and political boss of Chicago, has given rise to the question whether the woman committed the deed in the full realization that the sentiment opposing capital punishment for women would save her from the severe penalty of the law, or whether she counted on the strong political influence and wealth of her husband to extricate her.

~ Chicago Sentiment Divided. ~

Although in Chicago sentiment is divided as to justification or lack of justification for the killing, the feeling is strong that she ought not, and probably will not, have to face the risk of the extreme penalty should she be convicted.

The actual motive of this still very recent crime is as yet unexplained. The murderess has since the day of the tragedy been suffering from real or feigned mental derangement, and in lucid moments has declared that she killed the artist in self-defense and again has stated that she went to Guerin’s studio to put an end to a burden of blackmail which he had forced upon her.

On the other hand, Guerin’s relatives say it was murderous jealousy which led to the crime, that Dora McDonald was so infatuated with the young man that on hearing a false report that he was to wed another she was driven to frenzy, and determined to kill him rather than permit another woman to take her place in his affections.

Mrs. McDonald has obtained her liberty temporarily, under heavy bail, and while already indicted for murder in the first degree, remains safe from inquisitors m her luxurious home. While juries in Illinois have not been too reluctant in punishing women for murder, they have invariably disregarded the State’s plea for capital punishment.

~ Transferred His Affections. ~

More sensational, perhaps, was the recent killing of former United States senator Arthur Brown, of Utah, at Washington, D. C. , by Mrs Annie M. Bradley. The man, according to the woman’s story had often promised to obtain a divorce from his wife and marry her. At other times, it is claimed, he promised to and did acknowledge publicly that Mrs. Bradley’s two younger children were his. When she discovered this he had transferred his affections, after his wife’s death, to another woman, whom it was rumored he was about to marry. Mrs. Bradley followed him to the National Capital and killed him.

Whether the “new unwritten law” will prevail to save Mrs. Bradley from capital punishment in the event she is convicted is a problem. Though possessing no means she has many influential friends, who are standing by her. A half dozen able lawyers have been engaged to defend her and they are sanguine they will secure acquittal.

~ The Case of Mrs. Tolla. ~

There nas been one recent case, though, where a jury scorned the new “unwritten law” and did not hesitate to convict a woman for murder. It was in Jersey City that Mrs. Antoinette Tolla in defense from the persecution of Joseph Santo shot and killed him. Even the wife of the slam man justified the killing, but the jury failed to see any extenuating circumstances or to be influenced by the defendant’s sex and found her guilty of murder in the first degree. However public sentiment proved powerful enough to save the woman from an ignominious fate and influence brought to bear upon the State board of pardons resulted in a commutation to life imprisonment.

A different wrong from the one usually actuating women to slay men figures in the mysterious case of the Baroness, de Massey. She came to this country a few months ago and in New York killed Gustav Simon a wealthy shirt manufacturer who she alleges, murdered her husband in France. It was to avenge her husband’s murder she declares, that she followed Simon and killed him. The family of Simon deny the woman’s story and assert that she attempted to blackmail her victim and failing and fearing exposure, she slew him.

There are the same elements of mystery and contradiction in this murder by a woman as in the McDonald-Guerin tragedy in Chicago. The trial will doubtless reveal the truth and demonstrate whether the now “unwritten law” which safeguards murderesses will prevail to save the Baroness de Massey, should she be convicted.

~ May Escape Death Penalty. ~

There are, however, numerous precedents to make the baroness hopeful that she will either be acquitted or escape the death penalty. There are the cases of Florence Burns, Rosa, Salza, Josephine Terranova, and Nan Patterson. The first three named who killed men were set free by juries in the case of Nan Patterson, the former show girl was placed on trial three times for the alleged murder of Caesar Young, an English sporting man, who died from a pistol shot while in a cab with her. There was no proof that Nan Patterson shot the man but his severance of his relations with her was claimed by the prosecution to furnish the motive which probably led her to kill him.

The prosecution amassed much circumstantial evidence to show that Nan Patterson committed the crime, but on each one of the trials as many different juries failed to be convinced and disagreed. She was given her freedom. Since then she became reconciled to her husband, and the two are living together. Only her trial will determine whether Goldie O’Neil, a once popular chorus girl will fare better, as well, or worse than Nan Patterson. She stabbed her husband to death with a hatpin. She claims self-defense, and her friends and relative’s sustain that plea.

~ Sentiment Favors the Women. ~

On the other hand, the State declares it will prove that Goldie O’Nell, chafing under the matrimonial yoke, deliberately drove a hatpin through her husband’s heart. In jail at Bridgeport, she awaits her trial. Sentiment in the community, as in most others in America, favors the new “unwritten law” for women.

In the South, where the ancient “unwritten law” is still strong in turning men, the new “unwritten law,” which saves murderesses from capital punishment, does not appear from a recent instance to grant them absolute immunity. Mrs. Annie Birdsong, member of a prominent family of Mississippi, and a cousin of former United States Senate McDaurin, of South Carolina, shot and killed Dr. Butler, an intimate friend of her husband. The woman’s plea was that her victim had slandered her without cause.

The prosecution claimed that Mrs Birdsong was infatuated with Dr Butler, and that she was enraged at his coolness toward her. The ablest lawyers of Mississippi were arrayed on both sides, former Senator McLaurln appearing as one of the counsel for his relative. The defense felt that their case was so strong that Mrs. Birdsong must easily go free. But, contrary to general expectation, the jury thought otherwise, though it exercised a large degree of mercy.

She was found guilty of manslaughter, and received a term of several years in State’s prison. A motion for a new trial was made, successfully in the near future, Mrs Birdsong will face a jury for the second time, and the impression is that the verdict may be acquittal.

~ The Case of Judge Favrot. ~

Differing from the Birdsong case only in that the accused slayer is a man, instead of a woman, but in all other essential circumstances the same, is that of former Judge Favrot, now a Louisiana Congressman-elect, who on the day he was elected, shot and killed his most intimate friend, also a physician, for the same cause Mrs. Birdsong claims impelled her crime, only that Congressman Favrot asserts that his victim slandered the good name of his wife.

Favrot still being judge of the court whose duty it was to summon a grand jury to take up his case could not act, but after considerable delay, a special judge was named, a grand jury impaneled and an indictment for murder in the first degree returned. This bill, however, sustained by the lower court, has been quashed by a higher tribunal, and while it is almost certain that a new indictment will be found against Favrot, it is believed certain that the “unwritten law” will prove effectual in saving him. The two cases are cited merely because they are similar in circumstances and to show that while the only difference is the sex of the slayer, juries are differently swayed by what has recently been called “dementia Americana,” a new name coined by the chief counsel in Thaw’s defense for a public sentiment which has abided with and influenced Americans from the earliest time.

~ The “Unwritten Law” and Its Power. ~

In considering the force and power of the new “unwritten law” which comes to juries from the people and virtually tells these arbiters of the fate of murderesses that they shall not hang a woman only crimes in which men are the victims of wronged women’s passion or jealousy are cited. There are many other murder cases in which females are the slayers, but in which women or children are the victims.

The mercy of the new “unwritten law” extends to the latter as well as to those who take the life of men. Around the men slayers, though, there is more of the glamour of romance, sentiment, and human sympathy than there is for the woman or girl who kills either another of her sex or children. Mercy is the softening factor in punishment for a woman who, through jealousy or cruelty, slays one of her sex or a helpless child. But no real sympathy is aroused for such an offender, and punishment tempered with leniency, is the inevitable decree.

The woman who kills a man to redress a wrong done her which the law will not right for her rarely risks the extreme penalty. This fact, for fact it is, and based on precedents and recurring precedents in new crimes, is argued by criminologists to be the cause of the sudden and appalling increase in the number of murders by women-killings in which men are the victims.

~ Many Still to Be Tried. ~

There are a large number of murderesses yet to be tried for their deeds, too recent and with the details too fresh in mind, to prove that the new “unwritten law” is inflexible. It remains to be seen how jurors will act in some very remarkable cases in which women are the defendants.

An Italian girl, Maria Schabara, while in one of the crowds which daily assembled to catch a glimpse of Evelyn Thaw, little dreamed that she would speedily become the occupant of a cell in the jail. In the throng she espied Nicola Ferrance, a young countryman who had cast her off. She was at his side. In a moment and pleading with him to do her justice. He pushed her from him and laughed Maria drew a revolver and shot him. Her sole and strong hope of escape is that her story will move the jury to comply with the new “unwritten law.”

Emma Ripkie, not quite twenty, awaits in a cell at Council Bluffs, Iowa, her trial for the murder of Frank K Potts, her affianced. She discovered letters written to him by another woman, and shot him to death while he was asleep. In his room Miss Ripkie exhibits not the least fear of the outcome of her crime.

~ Killed Six Weeks After Marriage. ~

Mrs. Margery Clark enticed Algernon S. Atwood to Boston six weeks after his marriage, shot him to death on his arrival and then mortally wounded herself. She had wired Atwood that she was dying and prompted by his former affection for Mrs. Clark he went on to his death.

Mrs. William Robinson, of Terre Haute and accused her husband of being untrue to her He laughed at the charge and she became enraged and shot him. She feels confident, that she will go free.

Jennie Ruth Burch, a half-breed young Indian nursegirl killed her three-year-old baby charge because she feared punishment for burning a barn owned by the child’s parents at White Plains, N. Y. The youth of the murderess, and the fact of her Indian blood, while it may save her from the electric chair will probably result in her confinement under strict restaint in the State reformatory. The new “unwritten law” will not be a factor, it is assumed, in deciding her fate.

~ Girl Shot by Sister. ~

More thrilling was the shooting of Ida Goff, a girl in her early teens, by her sister Mrs Josephine Kelly, who charged alienating her husband’s affection. At Atlanta, Ga., Mrs. E. M. Standifer shot her seventeen-year-old sister to death for the same reason, and the jury set her free. Mrs Kelly, from the present status of public feelings in Baltimore, where the tragedy occurred, will probably suffer light punishment.

Several women are to be tried in Kentucky in the near future for the killing of the women who they believed robbed the slayers of their husband’s affections. Likely as not the new “unwritten law” which extenuates the crimes of women who slay men will prevail to save them.

Acquittals of women recently who murdered men who wronged them are numerous enough to prove how strong is the trend of the public mind in its opposition to punishing slayers of the gentler sex.

[“Does the New ‘Unwritten Law’ Shelter Women Who Shed Blood,” (from: St. Louis Post-Dispatch) Washington Post (D. C.), May 12, 1907, p. 10]

***

***

For more on this topic, see Chivalry Justice Checklist & Links

***

[591-11/1/21]

***

Chicago’s Women Who Got Away With Murder – 1935 Report

Cases discussed or mentioned: Dorothy Pollak, Beulah Mary Annan, Belva Gaertner, Cora Orthwein, Catherine Cassler, Sabelle Nitti Crudelle, Maggie Titter, Mrs. Tillie Klimek, Mrs. Kittie Malm, Mts. Elizabeth Unkafer, Mrs. Eliza Nusbaum, Mrs. Margaret Summers, Mrs. Wynekoop, Mrs. Kittle Maum, Florence Stokes, Mrs. Elizabeth Unkafer, Mrs. Florence Leeney, Mrs. Rose Franks (alias Emerich), Bertha Hellman, Bernice O’Connor, Mrs. Lillian Schaede, Mrs. Katie Kraft, Mrs. Mary Kuna, Mrs. Bernice Zalimas, Mrs. Blanche Dunkel & Evelyn Smith, Mrs. Margaret Rose.

FULL TEXT: A woman still can commit murder in Cook county and stand a better than even chance of escaping punishment, especially if she chooses her husband as the victim, more especially if she is young and attractive. The statement is borne out by records of the Criminal court, which shows that only two out of every nine women tried for murder in Cook county since 1906 have paid any penalty. The greater number of these women killed their husbands. The few who were sentenced to prison were either old, unattractive, or both.

The extreme penalty for conviction on a charge of first murder in Illinois is death, but no woman ever has been hanged or electrocuted in Cook county. Since 1840 three women ever has been hanged or electrocuted in Cook county. Of the three, two were subsequently given freedom. Sixty-three women tried for murder in this county since 1906 were freed, the majority by jury acquittals.

A typical case, revealing the ease with which a young nd fairly pretty woman quickly won an acquittal after shooting her husband, Joseph Pollak, a death, was that of Mrs. Dorothy Pollak. The prosecutors in this case realized that their greatest difficulty in securing a conviction was not the evidence, but the attractiveness of the defendant. They demanded that several women be chosen for the jury, believed that women would be less susceptible to the defendant’s charms. Defense attorneys adroitly blocked this move by waiving their client’s right to a jury trial and trusting her fate entirely to the ruling of the presiding judge, Harry Fisher, who then (1932) was chief justice of the Criminal court. The hearing was the quickest murder trial on record in Cook county. When the judge read his decision, acquitting the comely defendant, there was a wild burst of cheering from scores of men and women who had packed the courtroom to hear the proceedings. Afterward Mrs. Pollak said: “Judge Fisher is a nice man. He looked at it sensibly.”

At the time of the murder Mrs. Pollak had characterized the shooting as “the dirty trick I did to poor Joe,” and both before and after the trial she had killed her husband in self-defense, which the judge characterized “the law of nature and the right of every human being.”

~ Keep Drunken Vigil Over Victim as Phonograph Blares Her Favorite Tunes ~

Probably the most sensational similar case in the annals of Cook county’s woman slayers was that of Beulah Mary Annan, who was widely publicized as “Chicago’s most beautiful murderess.” Beulah shot and killed her lover, Harry Kalstedt, during a drinking bout in her in her apartment in 1924.

After shooting Kalstedt, whom Beulah entertained in her home while her husband was at work, the slayer kept a drunken vigil over him while a phonograph blared out her favorite tunes until he died in her apartment in 1924.

At the time of her arrest Beulah told police she had killed Kalstedt because he threatened to leave her. But at her trial, dressed in a fashionable gown and frequently smiling at the jury, she testified that she was a virtuous wife who had been wronged. At times during the recital she sobbed. The jury acquitted her, and within a few weeks she left her husband. It was reported she had gone to Hollywood in search of a movie contract.

Another woman slayer who received kind treatment from a jury was Belva Gaertner. She shot and killed Walter Law, married salesman, following a gin party. Her case was similar to that of Miss Cora Orthwein, who shot and killed her married sweetheart, Herbert Zeigler, in 1921. Cora’s explanation was she “loved him so.” On the witness stand she said she fired in self-defense and was acquitted.

Women accused of murder in Cook county and who were later freed were not all attractive or young. The case of Mrs. Catherine Cassler is illustrative. This woman, portly, past forty, and unromantic looking, was the principal figure in a murder conspiracy case. With a Mrs. Lillian Fraser and a younger man, Loren Patrick, she was charged by the state with having murdered William Lindstrom, a cabinetmaker, in order to collect a share of Lindstrom’s $7,500 life insurance, of which the Fraser woman was beneficiary. When the three were arrested Patrick and Mrs. Fraser confessed and were granted separate trials. They both testified for the state of Mrs. Cassler’s trial. She was found guilty and sentenced to death. Within forty-eight hours of the data of execution her attorneys won a stay. Later the state Supreme court ordered a new trial, but the state did not retry the case and Mrs. Cassler was freed.

It was a case similar in some respects is that of Mrs. Sabelle Nitti Crudelle, who, with her second husband, Peter Crudelle, was accused of murdering her husband, Frank Nitti, owner of a small truck farm near Stickney. Crudelle at the time of the murder was the hired hand on the farm. Both defendants were found guilty. Two of Mrs. Crudelle’s sons by her first marriage testified for the state. Mr. and Mrs. Crudelle were given death sentences. The state Supreme court, however, ruled that they had been convicted on insufficient evidence and the state dropped the case. The Crudelles went back to the truck farm.

~ Some of the Few Who Found Juries Unsympathetic to Their Pleas ~

The only other woman ever sentenced to death for murder in Cook county was a Creole, Maggie Titter, who killed her husband. The sentence, however, was committed to life imprisonment.

In the last twelve years the number of women convicted of murder has not increased. Among the few who found it impossible to sway juries were Mrs. Tillie Klimek, Mrs. Kittie Malm, Mts. Elizabeth Unkafer, Mrs. Eliza Nusbaum, Mrs. Margaret Summers, Mrs. Wynekoop. [Note: Klimek and Summers were serial killers.]

The case of Dr. Wynekoop is still fresh in the memories of most newspaper readers. It was a sensational murder because of her age and previous record as a useful citizen. Dr. Wynekoop was found guilty of killing her daughter in law, Rheta, and was sentenced to serve 25 years in prison. Her trial was complicated because of her weakened physical condition, which caused a postponement. Dr. Wynekoop was brought into the courtroom each day in an invalid chair and was constantly attended by physician a nurse. She was sentenced in 1933.

Another woman who used arsenic as a lethal weapon was Margaret Summers. She poisoned her nephew Thomas Meyer. She was convicted and given a 14-year prison term. It may be noted that the pictures of Mrs. Summers and Mrs. Cassler bear a resemblance.

~ Four More Who Were Given Prison Terms ~

Mrs. Nusbaum was tried in 1926 to the murder of her husband, Albert. It was a particularly brutal and revolting crime, and her accomplice, John Walton Winn, was convicted and hanged. But the jury which heard the evidence against the woman in the case did not break the precedent that women are not executed in Cook county. Mrs. Nusbaum, found guilty, was sentenced to life imprisonment.

Mrs. Kittle Maum, who died in the Joliet penitentiary in 1932, was given a life sentence in 1924 for the murder of Edward Lehman.

Florence Stokes was given a sentence of one year to life on a manslaughter charge, and Mrs. Elizabeth Unkafer was given life imprisonment for killing Sam Belchoff.

The great majority  of Cook county’s woman slayers were adjudged not guilty not guilty in court. Mention of some of the more sensational cases follows:

Bernice O’Connor, youthful and attractive, who had been employed as a cabaret cigaret girl, was arrested for the murder of her divorced husband, Edward, 1931. O’Connor was shot killed killed in his former wife’s apartment. Witness testified that he had threatened to kill Bernice, who did not take the stand. She was acquitted.

Mrs. Florence Leeney shot and killed her husband following a New Year’s day party in 1930. The state charged that she shot the husband, Maurice, a contractor, while he was sleeping on a couch in the parlor. The defense maintained that Mrs. Leeney fired in self-defense when her husband attacked her. The jury deliberated for many hours, finally returning within a not guilty verdict. Mrs. Leeney fired in self-defense when her husband attacked her. The jury deliberated fir many hours, finally returning with a not guilty verdict. Mrs. Leeney, beaming, said: “I just know it couldn’t be anything else. I am going back home and start life all over again.”

The prosecutors in the case and afterward: “It is just the same old story, it is almost impossible to convict a woman for killing her husband. This jury, however, deliberated much longer than is unusual for juries in such cases.”

~ A Few Members of the Majority Who Won Speedy Acquittals ~

Mrs. Rose Franks, alias Emerich, shot and killed her common-law husband, Policeman Paul Emerich, in 1927. The state charged that Emerich was shot while seated at the dining table. The defense denied this and charged that Mrs. Franks fired because Emerich abused her. When both sides had concluded the jury retired. Fifteen minutes later later the jurors returned with a verdict of not guilty.

Another quick verdict of not guilty was returned by the jury which heard the case of Mrs. Bertha Hellman, who in 1926 shot and killed her husband, Herman. Her defense was that her husband and attacked her with a butcher knife. She choked him to death. The jury found her not guilty in 27 minutes.

Mrs. Hellman did not typify the usual husband slayer.  When she was preparing to leave the county jail she said: “I’m sorry to leave. Everyone was so good to me, and I had plenty of time to sew and make some nice things.”

Mrs. Lillian Schaede shot and killed her husband in 1926. The bullet entered his back. In court Mrs. Schaede pleaded self-defense. A jury of business men required only 13 minutes to reach a verdict of not guilty.

“I’m surely ticked at the verdict,” was Mrs. Schaede’s comment as she walked from the courtroom a free woman.

A little unusual was the case of Katie Craft. She was accused of the murder of Frank Falato, a 14-year-old boy. He had entered her apartment to retrieve a ball. Mrs. Craft asserted the shooting was an accident and that she had not intended to fire the gun. The jury agreed and acquitted her.

Mrs. Mary Kuna, who stabbed her husband to death in 1925, was worried when her trial opened. A plain woman, she had heard that juries were only kind to young and pretty slayers. “I wonder if the jury will let me go as they do pretty women?” she was heard to ask her daughter. The jury took three ballots and Mrs. Kuna was freed.

The case of Mrs. Bernice Zalimas was full of sensations. After her first trial she was found guilty of killing her husband with arsenic and was sentenced to serve 14 years in prison. Then the Supreme court reversed the verdict and ordered a new trial.

In the second trial a defense attorney, Eugene McCarthy, asserted that he believed the amount of arsenic found in the victim’s vital organs could not have caused his death. At the suggestion of a prosecutor McGarry then took a dare to swallow some white powder alleged to be poison, an exhibit in the trial. The courtroom was in an uproar a few minutes later when McGarry collapsed, sobbing, but it developed that he had merely been overcome by his own emotions.

~ Prosecutor Says Juries Today Are Growing More “Hard-Boiled” ~

The next sensation occurred when the jury returned and pronounced its verdict of not guilty. Mrs. Zalimas shrieked and ran forward to the jury box. Wildly she embraced all of the jurors in the front row.

The latest murder case involving a woman is that of Mrs. Blanche Dunkel. She has confessed hiring another woman, Evelyn Smith, to kill Ervin Lang, Mrs. Dunkel’s son-in-law. Lang’s body, minus the legs, was found in a Hammond swamp. The legs were found near by in a trunk.

“Juries are considerably more ‘hard boiled’ toward woman slayers today than they have been in the past,” said Wilbert Crowley, first assistant state’s attorney, who pointed to the fact that in recent months convictions have exceeded acquittals.

Mr. Crowley’s statement, it might be pointed out, was made prior to the night of July 24 last, when Mrs. Margaret Rose, comely 22-year-old toe dancer, was acquitted of the murder of her husband, Walter, stabbed to death with a butcher knife on July 4.

[Joseph Dugan, “Find Cook County Juries Kind to ‘Lady Killers’ – Seven of Every Nine Women Tried for Murder Since 1906 Are Acquitted,” Chicago Sunday Tribune (Il.), Jul. 28, 1935, Part 7, p. 5]

***

***

***

***

***

***

***

***

For more on this topic, see Chivalry Justice Checklist & Links

***
[1184-9/9/18; 2314-8/13/21]
***

Chivalry Justice Quotes from Judges, Prosecutors, Legislators & Lawyers: 1912 - 1922

***

Isaac Lipson – New York City lawyer – 1912

“The life of my client [Minor Cortalyou] is in danger,” attorney Isaac Lipson declared. “His wife’s mind has become inflamed as a result of the wholesale freeing of wives charged with murdering their husbands.”

[“Says Women Jeopardize Men – Acquitting Wives of Murder Endangers Male Sex, Asserts Attorney.” New York Tribune (N.Y.), Oct. 5, 1912, p. 6]

***

John E. W. Wayman – Prosecuting attorney of Cook county (Chicago). – 1912

“The ordinary man such as a juror finds it difficult to differentiate between an exceptional and abnormal woman, as most murderesses are, and the everyday woman he has known since he was a boy. When a woman appears for trial before him, straightway in his own mind he manufactures some extenuating circumstances, some excuse to account for her of the murder.”

He feels sure that this woman who looks so much like the women of his own family must have been abused and hounded and driven insane by the cruelty of the man she killed. So in almost all cases the juror, unsophisticated in the subtle psychology of the woman criminal, has made up his mind long before he retires to the jury room that the woman on trial committed her crime during some violent brain storm that rendered her irresponsible.”

“A woman’s crime as a rule exhibits a far greater degree of moral turpitude than a man’s. Few murders by women are the result of impulse. They are marked by premeditation, cunning, cruelty and cold blooded diablerie. For the most part the crimes of women have these characteristics in common.”

Women usually take their victim unawares. Many of their victims are killed while asleep. The saving clause for the woman in most cases is that the murder is committed without eye witnesses. Usually the woman and her victim are alone when the murder occurs. This invariably is the result of the woman’s cunning plan. It enables her in court to tell whatever story she chooses and there is no one to contradict her. The charge of murder stands on purely circumstantial grounds.”

Source: “Women Jurors Needed To Try Women For Murder - Men Too Chivalrous to Convict Even in Cases of Guilt, Says State Attorney Wayman of Chicago – Thirty-Eight Women Accused of murder Acquitted There in the Last Nine Years and Only Seven Found Guilty,” The Sun (New York, N.Y.), Sep. 8, 1912, p. 12, Magazine section (Sec. 4), p. 13

John E. W. Wayman – Prosecuting attorney of Cook county (Chicago). – 1912

“It appears absolutely impossible to find 12 men in this country who will convict a woman of murder. This mistaken idea of chivalry has resulted in numerous miscarriages of justice and a reckless abandon, on the part of women who are criminally inclined. All that is necessary for a woman  is to retreat behind the protecting wall of her sex, and an avalanche of tears, and make no other defense.”

Source: “Pleads That Women Juries Try Cases Of Female Slayers - Chicago Prosecuting  Attorney Declares The Only Way To Stop Husband Slaying Is To Make Radical Changes In The Jury System,” Tacoma Times (Wa.), Aug. 20, 1912, p. 1

***

Maclay Hoyne – Illinois State’s Attorney of Cook County – 1914

“The manner in which women who have committed murder in this county have escaped punishment has become a scandal. The blame in the first instance must fall upon the jurors who seem willing to bring in a verdict of acquittal whenever a woman charged with murder is fairly good looking and is able to turn on the flood gates of her tears, or exhibit a capacity for fainting.”

Source: “Decries Freeing Woman Slayers – State’s Attorney Hoyne Raps Juries Which Are Moved by Tears of Pretty Defendants. – Action of Police Flayed – Prosecutor of Cook County Dismisses Charges of Murder Against Mrs. Augusta Dietz, Who is Accused of Slaying Her Husband.” Warsaw Daily Union (In.), Mar. 17, 1914, p. 16

***

Agnes McHugh – Chicago attorney – 1916

“A man jury will not convict a woman murderer in this county, if the prosecutor is a man. I think this leniency may be traced to the chivalry latent in every man. The jurors see two or three big strong men sitting at the prosecutors’ table, and subconsciously feel that these fierce prosecutors are attacking the frail, pretty woman in the prisoner’s chair. Their instinct is to defend her. Perhaps their pity would not be stirred so profoundly if a woman was in the prosecutor’s chair. I believe the leniency of juries with feminine slayers is responsible for the wave of ‘affinity crimes’ sweeping Chicago. The woman criminal will receive justice only when there’s a woman in court to prosecute her. We demand justice for women — not maudlin sympathy or leniency.”

Source: “Women Say Only Woman Can Stop Women Killing Off Their Husbands - With 20 Chicago Women Acquitted of Slaying Husbands or Lovers, Feminine Lawyers Ask for “Justice Instead of Sympathy” of Men.” Sep. 26, 1916, p. 5

***

Judge Frank E. Johnston Jr. – Chicago – 1920

“When women judge members of their own sex, it is a sure thing that no more sentimentality will effect the prisoner’s release. Women jurors will vote to convict a guilty woman every time, and we intend to make Chicago safe for husbands.”

Source: “Make Chicago Safe For Husbands, Task For Women Jurors – Sterner Verdicts Expected By Officials When The Lady Voters Get Busy.” Syndicated, The San Antonio Express (Tx.), Aug. 23, 1920, p. 2

***

Sheriff David H. Knott – New York – 1921

“It is necessary to have women jurors to convict women accused of some crimes, he asserts, and continues: I could cite many examples where women accused of crime are allowed to go free because the attorney for the defendant will play on the sympathy of the men jurors. A year and a half ago in the criminal branch a woman was accused of certain crime before Judge Weeks. We were all absolutely positive that she should have been found guilt and sent up for five years. She was tried twice before a men’s jury, the first time ending in a disagreement and the second time pronounced not guilty. A women’s jury would probably have found her guilty. Woman to-day can commit murder and it almost impossible for the District Attorney to convict her because her sex.”

Source: “New York Women Demand the Right to Sit on Juries; Legislature Is To Be Asked to Amend the Present Law,” New York Tribune (N.Y.), Jan. 23, 1921, p. 1

***

Judge Rhea M Whitehead – Presiding member of the Superior Court of Seattle – 1921

“A husband is going to get a square deal in my court. Too many men are convicted on sobby tales of wives!”

Source: “The Woman Judge Who Gives Husbands A Square Deal – She Is Introducing a Novel Procedure In Seattle Where Tears and Sentiment Carry No Weight and Women Are Not Regarded Today as ‘Helpless and Dependent Children,’” syndicated, Fort Wayne Journal-Gazette (In.), Jun. 26, 1921, sec. 4, p. 1

***

Lloyd Heth – Assistant State’s Attorney, Illinois

“I will demand a woman jury in this case,” Mr. Heth said. “It is impossible to get conviction of affinity slayers by men juries. In the last ten years fourteen women who killed men have been freed. The only two convicted were a woman seventy-two years old and a negress. It would be interesting to see what a woman jury would do.”

Source: “Will Demand Jury Of Women At Trial Of Mrs. Orthwein - Chicago Prosecutor Says Males Won’t Convict Female Slayers of Men.” The World (N.Y.), Apr. 20, 1921, p. 12

***

Alice Robertson – U.S. House of Representatives (Oklahoma) - 1921

“Women who murder get off too easy. They’re not judged according to the same standards as men who murder, but you don’t hear the suffragists demanding equal rights for the men, do you? No the suffragists want equal rights for women with special privileges.”

Source: Mildred Morris, (International News Service Staff Correspondent), “Oklahoma Congress Woman Declares Move As Necessary As For Nations Comments On Murders - She Declares Women Who Commit Crimes Are Let Off Too Easy.” Syndicated (INS), Logansport Pharos-Tribune (In.), Aug. 10, 1921, p. 1

***

Judge Florence E. Allen – First Criminal Court Judge, in 1922 Elected to Ohio Supreme Court – 1922

“Men have always sat on juries and men instinctively shrink from holding women strictly accountable for their misdeeds. Now that women sit on juries I expect the percentage of convictions in cases of women to be greater. Women are more clever than men in arousing sympathy. I had one woman, a hardened criminal, stage a terrific fainting spell in my courtroom after the jury found her guilty. It took four men to carry her to jail. She continued having these spells, so long that I had to defer pronouncing sentence. Finally I sent her word that the longer she acted so, the longer she would be in jail. Within a few moments she sent up word that, she would be good and received her sentence meekly, with no trace of feeling”

Source: “Why Do Juries Acquit Women – Judge, Prosecutor and Defender Tell Reason,” syndicated (NEA), Freeport Journal-Standard (Il.), Nov. 25, 1922, p. 7

***

Thomas Lee Woolwine – Los Angeles District Attorney - 1922

“The reason it is well night impossible to punish women for crimes of violence in particular is simple: It is because they are women, and because sex plays a vital part in every such trial. Men are innately loath to punish women. Women naturally arouse a feeling of false chivalry in men which allays and tempers their judgment upon the evidence. It is more difficult for a prosecutor to overcome this powerful factor than it is to convince a jury upon the state of facts presented.”

Source: “Why Do Juries Acquit Women – Judge, Prosecutor and Defender Tell Reason,” syndicated (NEA), Freeport Journal-Standard (Il.), Nov. 25, 1922, p. 7

***

***

For more on this topic, see Chivalry Justice Checklist & Links

***
[2513-9/8/18]
***

The Verdict That Shocked Paris: Jeanne Fabre-Bulle - 1930

FULL TEXT: Paris, Dec. 12 – After two score women slayers have gone free or escaped with very light sentences in the Paris courts on the plea of “crime of passion” during the past few months, a jury of men has acted with sternness and sent an elegant middle-aged killer to 20 years of hard labor.

Mme. Fabre Bulle dignified, fashionably dressed wife of a wealthy clock maker, used all her feminine wiles in the dock to win the sympathy of the court, but she had committed a horrible double murder and her method was harsh and premeditated. The usual appeal of having been swept away by love fell flat.

Evidence showed that this woman, at the age of 48, bought a revolver and took lessons in marksmanship before she set to work on her victims.

A curious aspect of the case was the fact that for 20 years Mme. Fabre Bulle had been a loyal, faithful wife. The impulse for flirtation came to her while riding in a subway She was then 43 and she made the acquaintance of  Joseph. Merle, a well-to-do business man who was 12 years her junior. They fell in love and the woman deserted her husband, although Merle told her that he was living with Mme. Julliard, sweetheart of 49.

~ Killed for Love ~

When the new love failed to defeat the old, Mme. Fabre Bulle sought to outshine her rival by moving into the Merle household. This went on for some time, with, both women seeking favor without any apparent advantage. Finally, with determined cruelty, the new-comer shot and killed Merle while he was asleep, and then turned her fire on her rival.

“He promised to break with her and he had begged me to divorce my husband,” said Mme. Fabre Bulle when she was asked in court for an explanation of her act. She kept her head bowed, but tried to use her attractive eyes with mournful effect, though her attitude during the trial was one of patient boredom. Some women slayers had put it over and she, with wealth and distinction, seemed to feel secure. After describing the double killing she said:

“Why should I say any more since no one will believe? I tried to kill myself but the trigger was caught and nothing happened I wandered about the place not knowing what to do next.”

~ Husband Testified ~

Evidence showed that she had fled to her husband’s home, but she could not arouse the servants. Scantily dressed, she wandered about the woods during the night, and in the morning stumbled into a police station, barefoot and tired. Medical evidence revealed that both victims might have been saved if an alarm had been given in time. This gave the fair accused a chance to fall in a faint.

When the husband was called to the stand he begged the court to try to understand him. He said:

“I am overwhelmed, but I must emphasize that for 20 years this unfortunate woman was devoted and respectable wife. What happened? What mysterious force dragged her into this gulf it is a mystery. “I am divorced now. She is only a stranger to me. What she did was so unbelievable, so difficult to understand. She was the last person in the world I would have expected to enact such a tragedy. She herself closed the door of her home and never opened it again.”

The jury deliberated for less than an hour and found the woman guilty on every point raised. They agreed to “extenuating circumstances,” which saved her from a sentence to death in addition, she was fined 220,000 francs, which will go to relatives of her victims. When she heard the verdict, Mme. Fabre Bulle fainted again, but this time she did a very serious job of it.

[Minott Saunders, “Crime of ‘Passion’ Plea Fails to Influence Jury - After Freeing Many Women Slayers, Paris Court Turns on Wealthy Woman Who Killed Her Lover and Rival,” syndicated, The Springfield Leader (Mo.), Dec. 12, 1930, p. 12]

***

***

For more on this topic, see Chivalry Justice Checklist & Links

***