Judith A. Yates's Blog, page 4

Following Trace Evidence To The 1800s: Locard's Exchange Principle

Anyone who loves true crime is familiar with, “a thread matching the victim’s clothing was found…” or “a shoeprint was traced to a shoe in the suspect’s closet…” which helps catch the killer and put him or her away. Sometimes it is soil, plant matter, shards of glass, hair (human or animal), and is as minuscule as DNA or as evident as a large bloodstain. The term is “trace evidence,” also known as “fragmentary evidence.” In forensic science, it is Locard’s Exchange Principle. Common in today’s investigative work, it was pioneered in the late 1800s by one of Criminal Justice’s most influential figureheads. Dr. Edmond Locard
 (1877 – 1966)  Dr. Edmond Locard (1877 – 1966) studied both law and medicine in the esteemed city of Lyon, France. He became a student and later Assistant to Alexandre Lacassagne, a pioneering criminologist, where he stayed until 1910. Dr. Locard was also a medical examiner with the French Secret Service during WWI. Lyon’s police department finally agreed to donate two of its attic rooms to Dr. Locard, along with two officers to assist: the first forensic laboratory. But in 1910, it was called a “police laboratory.”Dr. Locard’s work went far beyond his Exchange Principal. He penned a seven-volume work, Traité de Criminalistique (“Criminal Traits”). Famous crime fiction author Georges Simenon attended Dr. Locard’s lectures and used the information in his books, some of which were adapted to the screen. Dr. Locard was posthumously nominated to the French Forensic Science Hall of Fame of the Association Québécoise de Criminalistique. Today, he remains “The Father of Modern Forensic Science” in part because his Exchange Principal is the cornerstone of forensic work.He would work with another pioneer, Alphonse Bertillon, who based criminal typing by body measurements. One of Edmond Locard ‘s contributions to criminology was the study of fingerprints: dactylography. “Locard believed that if twelve points of comparison could be found between two fingerprints, then that would be enough for a positive identification. This was adopted as a preferred means of identification over Bertillon’s method of anthropometry.”But crime show junkies will most likely recognize “Locard’s Exchange Principle.” In layman’s terms, we can't walk into an area without leaving a part of ourselves and exiting the space without taking something with us. As Dr. Locard explained:
“It is impossible for a criminal to act, especially considering the intensity of a crime, without leaving traces of this presence.”(Crime Library)
At the time, this theory seemed unusual and near impossible. Today, it is a fact. And law enforcement agencies maintain databases to utilize the method. As an example, the FBI maintains the National Automotive Paint File Trace Evidence Samples: Hairs database, where over 45,000 automotive paint samples from manufactures date back to the 1930s. And Sherwin-Williams department, Automotive Finishes, keeps a database that assists in “identifying year, make, and model based on color availability.” The National Institute of Justice has its databases. All used to match paint trace evidence (FBI).In the last 20 years, Locard’s Principal has expanded to the field of what criminologists are now calling “Digital Forensics.” Originally called “Computer Forensics,” the term has had to develop due to electronic changes: handheld devices, Internet, fax machines, GPS, black boxes on land (i.e., trucks). “Delete” does not occur just because a button is pressed. The majority of files can be retrieved using the right set of tools and skills. What we put out there can be retrieved. So true crime lovers can follow “trace evidence” back to the early 1900s. It will come back to Dr. Edmond Locard and his “unusual” theory. Mystery solved. 


References
Association Québécoise de Criminalistique. "Liste des intronises au Pantheon francophone de la criminalistique.” “Sur les traces d’Edmond Locard.”http://www.criminalistique.org/Panthe...
Bowen, R. & Schneider, J. (October 1, 2007). Forensic Databases: Paint, Shoe, Prints, and Beyond. National Institute of Justice. NIJ Journal Issue No. 258. https://nij.ojp.gov/topics/articles/f...
Daniel, L.E., Daniel L. (2012) “Digital Forensics for Legal Professionals.” Digital Forensics. Elsevier: The Netherlands.
Geneanet: Alexandre Arnould Edmond. https://gw.geneanet.org/pierfit?lang=...
The Crime Library. Crime Museum Online. Retrieved from: https://www.crimemuseum.org/crime-lib...
Photos: Dr. Locard (Wiki photos) Hairs (Thinglink.com) both labeled free usage rights

Bonnie Parker and Clyde Barrow Facebook Page Includes Unique Photos, Documents

During the Great Depression, two rag-tag, small-time criminals named Bonnie Parker and Clyde Barrow crisscrossed the American back roads to rob small stores, armories, and a few banks. At least nine law enforcement officers and four civilians died in the couple’s wake as they eluded the cops until killed in a 1934 ambush. Americans were fascinated with their story and gobbled up news of their exploits. Today, their lives continue to hold people’s interest, including that of an Alabama man named Ted Prince. Prince has set up a A 1933 Habeas Corpus for Bonnie Parker (as seen
on Facebook page "Remembering Bonnie & Clyde"Facebook page to share information on the criminal’s history. It includes some rare and unique photos and copies of documents.Prince operates the Facebook page “Remembering Bonnie And Clyde,” where he posts hard-to-find photos of Bonnie Parker, Clyde Barrow, their cohorts, family, and friends. It includes copies of newspaper accounts and official paperwork, such as a Habeas Corpus and a letter to the FBI. Among his friends, Prince counts Bonnie Parker’s niece and Clyde Barrow’s nephew, who also contribute comments and photos when possible. “When I was a little kid, I would watch (television show) ‘The Untouchables,’” Ted Prince says. “I loved the old cars, machine guns, and cops and robbers in general. My father started telling me stories of John Dillinger and Clyde Barrow.” In 1933 Prince’s father was 18 and working in Atlanta when headlines about a Joplin, Missouri shootout between the “Barrow gang” and the cops made headlines. The elder Prince kept up with the Barrows after seeing that headline. Ted Prince inherited the interest. Clyde Barrow & Bonnie Parker Debate about Bonnie Parker (b. 1910) has always existed in the world of criminologists. Was she a vicious gun moll who found excitement in shooting and death, or was she just an ignorant girl, swept up in love with the wrong man and cast her fate? Ted Prince has his theory. “From what I understand, she was just a normal woman. She just had bad taste in men.” Bonnie’s first and only husband was serving time in prison when she met and fell for Clyde. When Bonnie Parker fell, it was true love, and she vowed to stay with him until the end. “Someday they’ll go down together/they’ll bury them side by side,” Bonnie penned in her famous poem called “The Trail's End.” Prince agrees that Bonnie Parker must have had a “wild” side. “Some girls are attracted to bad boys. And she found one.”Clyde Barrow’s (b. 1909) family came from extreme poverty. Petty crime landed him in the harsh Texas prison system where he was brutally assaulted and killed his first man, a rapist who preyed on Clyde. When he was released, he became one of the targets of local Dallas police: if a local crime occurred, immediately Clyde Barrow was a suspect. So he took to the criminal life. “Clyde Barrow wasn’t a cold-blooded murderer,” says Ted Prince. “He never went out of his way to kill anyone. He would rather run than shoot.”Ted Prince says he finds the Bonnie and Clyde story interesting for the same reason other people are attracted to their history: it’s a boy meets girl “great love story. It’s a crime team.” And their legend lives on in history; there is a “Bonnie and ClydeTrade Days” flea market and a Bonnie and Clyde Museum (you can purchase Frisbees, snow globes, and a lunch box bearing the criminal couple’s likeness.) Both located in the city where they stopped just before dying in the ambush.  Ted Prince’s interest is turning into a book about Clyde Barrow and Bonnie Parker. “It’s not going to be a ‘regular’ book about the Barrows,” he explains. “It’s going to be day by day, month by month account of the crime spree starting after Clyde was paroled in 1932 until they were killed. The chronicles will cover their own crimes, crimes they were accused of, and crimes they most likely committed that most historians overlooked.” The book is in the working stages, with a release date to be determined. Readers can keep updated by going to Prince’s Facebook page.Ted Prince is not glorifying criminals but understands crime is part of history. Even today, each time a man and woman go on a crime spree together, they are dubbed “Bonnie and Clyde.” The couple was able to elude police for so long because, at the time, cops did not have access to big guns and fast cars. And the depression era contributed to people’s attitudes towards certain criminals. Bonnie Parker and Clyde Barrow's story resides in crime history for multiple reasons. So many people, including Ted Prince, are drawn to their story; his Facebook page reveals there is no end to available information and public interest. It appears they will go down in history, just as Bonnie penned in one of her poems, despite the fact they were two small-time criminals who just loved one another.

To join Ted Prince's Facebook page “Remembering Bonnie And Clyde” CLICK HEREPlease mention this blog!

Weinstein & Cosby Victims: Did They Ask For It?

In a 2020 trial, Hollywood producer Harvey Weinstein was found guilty of rape and sexual abuse but acquitted of two counts of predatory sexual assault and one count of first-degree rape. In 2018, actor and comedian Bill Cosby was found guilty of three counts of aggravated indecent assault.  Two men with vast fortunes and massive power, falling off their pedestals after reported years of sexual misconduct. It took many years, untold amounts of money, and numerous women to come forth for this to happen. Still, arguments and accusations continue against the women that reported and charged these men. The comments usually have two themes:These women are looking for money/fame by reporting “abuse.”Why did they keep working with these men if they were harassed?Ask any woman who has ever been sexually abused, including verbal sexual harassment, “what amount of money would make up for the experience: One million dollars? Ten million?” In reality, it will never be enough. Anything purchased with the settlement – a mansion, a car - is blood money; a “payoff” is a reminder of that abuse. The mansion walls are a reminder of the victim’s pain; driving the car is reliving the experience. Playing devil’s advocate, let’s say the woman did falsely accuse the individual. The cost is high, legally, and emotionally.  How much will this lawsuit cost? How much time is involved? How much is a person’s time worth? What amount of public humiliation can someone endure? Taxes alone on lawsuit settlements vary, and there are new tax laws on settlements from sexual harassment. (For information, click here.)  The offender can declare bankruptcy, which means the victim might never see a settlement or receive restitution. Winning a million-dollar lawsuit does not mean someone skips happily out of the courtroom with a huge check. In my second book, “When Nashville Bled,” I focus on victimization while telling the story of serial killer Paul Reid. One of the points I make is a victim/survivor has two lives: 1. Before the crime and 2. After the crime. The second life is colored by the crime. The survivor must work to keep her life from being characterized by the crime. The crime defines everything, to include her identity. For example, Sarah Jackson, a vivacious and pretty sixteen-year-old who was a dynamic softball player, became “Sarah Jackson the victim of Paul Reid” after February 16, 1997 when Reid murdered her. Even Sarah’s mother, a lovely, sweet woman, became “Gina Jackson, mother of Sarah the victim of Paul Reid.” It is an identity that no matter how hard they scrub, it will never wash. Thus talented actresses will now be known as “… one of the women who accused ____ of sexual assault” despite their accolades, their philanthropy, their talents. Women who are retired or no longer in the acting business will have the tag added to their names. Their lives are now forever shadowed. Even if they made false allegations, Jane Doe becomes “Jane Doe the raped woman.” Everyone will see her as a raped woman, envision the sexual assault, and she may become the brunt of jokes and blackballed in certain societies.  Hooray for-?
The majority of the women who were sexually abused by both Weinstein or Cosby reported the same feelings the first time these men made his inappropriate advances: the women expressed disbelief. This is a normal response. “This cannot be happening.” “I must be imagining it.” “He is so nice, so this must be ‘off’ behavior.” “Maybe it’s me.” Psychologically when experiencing any crime, women tend to self-blame, so naturally, women would self-blame during these unwanted advances. So it only makes sense that, after the initial occurrence, the woman would have contact with this person again. Perhaps they feel they can “handle it” this time. One victim even reported holding her tiny lapdog in front of her for a barrier when Weinstein approached her a second time. Or the women self-blame. The woman blames alcohol, drugs (“I had too much to drink”), or the situation. (“We were in his private suite. Next time, we’ll meet in public.”) The “average” woman in her mid-twenties is raped on a date when both are intoxicated (which is the highest percentage of rapes), and we question, “Is she lying?” Think of how a blossoming starlet meeting a movie mogul considers, “Who is going to believe me?”Sexual predators, like any predator, go for the weak. A jungle cat in the wild does not seek the most energetic, biggest deer to catch and kill. It looks for the lame, the old, or the youngest (least experienced) because they are the easiest prey. The softest, vulnerable one is the easiest to manipulate, and the predator can make the victim feel safe so quickly with words, promises, knowing what the victim needs. Moreover, it is so much easier for a man of power, prestige - America’s Dad, for example, or a powerful, well-like producer who can make or break a career with one word. Are these women looking for money/fame by reporting “abuse”? Who would want to be famous by being labeled “slut,” ‘victim,” “whore,” or “manipulating gold digger” while dedicating her life to making money she will probably never see?Why did they keep working with these men if they were being harassed? These women’s lives, their dreams, all of their hopes set on “making it” in a business they think they understand, trusting someone who appears kind, a respected and revered leader, dedicated to their well-being. Alternatively, no one bothered to warn them. Women have fallen for less. Women have lain on a cold slab wearing a toe tag for less. Nevertheless, they always seem to be blamed by too many who have never been in their heels.

The National SexualViolence Resource Center information, hotline, and resources: CLICK HERE
Judith A. Yates recently appeared on The Oxygen Channel’s “Murdered By Morning” discussing the Shannon Sanderson case. This is one example of predatory behavior. CLICK HERE to view.
Photo: Thomas Wolf, www.foto-tw.de, CC BY-SA 3.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index...

1907 Murder-Suicide: Truth Comes Out When True Love Is Revealed

Mrs. Jennie Schnack[1], 32, and her two children Johnnie,[2] aged 8 and Stella aged 3, moved from Ottawa, Kansas to their home on King Street, Centropolis, arriving Saturday, February 2, 1907. Mr. Frank Schnack, her husband, did not join his family. Neighbors guessed he stayed in Ottawa. They were correct; Frank was in Ottawa and had lived there for “some time.” But the neighbors didn’t have long to gossip about the Schnack family, because the woman and her children had less than three days to live.Jennie had been born a Harshman, a respected, well-to-do family. Besides being shrewd in real estate, her father was a Dunkard minister (also called German Baptists). Before his death, Mr. Harshman sold a large chunk of his land, drew up a will, and left a large amount of money from the sale to each of his children. Frank took Jennie’s portion and wasted it. Jennie also had cash to purchase the King Street house in Centropolis. She duly gave the money to Frank to buy the home in full, believing they outright owned it until she learned Frank had taken out a mortgage, forging her name, squandering the leftover cash. They fought bitterly. They separated. It was eleven years of marriage marked by strife. Finally, Jennie packed up Johnnie and Stella and left Frank in Ottawa to go live in the Centropolis home.Jennie, Johnnie, and Stella Schnack were found dead in their King Street home on the Monday morning of February 4. All three had their throats cut. The children were found “in bed” with their mother “lying on the floor” in the same room. Neighbors had found the bodies, and officials ruled the three “had evidently been dead for some hours,” the crime occurring Sunday the third.Someone notified Coroner H.L. Kennedy and Sheriff W. R. Cody, who drove to the Schnack home. Here they determined that Jennie cut her children’s throats, and then took her own life. Ottawa undersheriff Latimer located Frank Schnack, who arrived at the Ottawa Sheriff’s offices at 3:00 p.m. the same day.According to an unidentified journalist, Frank already knew his family was dead, but “manifested ignorance of its nature.”  Ottawa Daily Republic (02-04-1907)And when told that it was a murder-suicide, Frank “received the intelligence coolly” (Their Throats Cut!).After conferring with Latimer as to what he should do, Frank left Ottawa for the twelve-mile trip to Centropolis.But Frank was not off the hook. At the coroner’s inquest on February 5, the jury eyed the death scene and determined the three victims “came to their deaths by knife wounds” (Coroner’s Inquest). Whoever had slit the children’s throats had closed their eyes, leaving bloodied thumb and fingerprints on their eyelids and foreheads. One of the jurors compared his own thumb to one of the prints on the child’s face; the print size revealed it was a man’s print. A burglary was out of the question – Jennie’s valuables were undisturbed. Johnnie’s pocketknife was in the room, but it was too dull to make such a horrific cut. And the people who had discovered the bodies had done so by walking through unlocked doors, doors that usually stayed locked.Witnesses began to come forth, to include an old friend of Jennie’s: a Mr. Calvin, former Justice of the Peace. He was happy to tell the press of an alleged conversation he had with Jennie Schnack. “Mrs. Schnack came to me (on January 31 or February 1) …” Frank and his wife had fought over the mortgage, which Frank was not paying.“She said that she had asked Frank to straighten up the mortgage on their home in Centropolis and to return to live with her and support her and the children … he refused …” Jennie threatened divorce. Frank swore at Jennie and told her that was exactly what he wished.It seemed a pattern in the marriage: Frank asked her for a divorce; she would refuse. Jennie would threaten him with a divorce in an attempt to make him act right. He would beg her to go through with the threat, and she would renege.Then Jennie told Mr. Calvin, “I’m afraid Frank will kill me.”Mr. Calvin pooh-poohed the idea. “I told her she was unduly alarmed.”“I tell you, you don’t know him,” Jennie insisted. “He would kill anyone that crossed him. I am afraid of him and have been for years.”Mr. Calvin suggested putting Frank under a “bond,” the equivalent of today’s restraining order. Jennie replied Frank was sure to kill her then.She had also confided in Mr. Calvin that she suspected Frank had a girlfriend.Frank’s father Eli, who lived in Ottawa, was taking Jennie’s side. So with Eli as a buffer, Jennie was moving back to Ottawa with the children. Jennie’s nephew arrived at her house on Saturday to help her pack and moved her things back to Ottawa. Armed with the evidence and the witness testimony, officers arrested Frank Schneck on February 4. He was reportedly just as aloof when arrested as when he learned his wife and children were dead.Eli told the coroner, “It may be murder. If it is, I am afraid Frank is done for. If he did it, he ought to hang” (Verdict of Murder, p.1).Jennie, along with Johnnie and Stella, was laid to rest on February 7. Frank was in jail and not allowed to attend services.But a witness named T.E. Stewart came forth saying Frank had been at the Stewart house in Ottawa all night on Sunday the third. He told reporters that Frank had lived with his family “for just a month before the murder.” Frank had spent all day with the family, and he and T.E. Stewart had played cards and dominos late into the night. T.E.’s wife, Mollie Stewart, said she understood that Jennie had voiced suicidal ideations several times. “She has often been heard to say that she ‘wished she was dead.’” Both Stewarts agreed Frank’s coat and boots were dry and undisturbed on Monday, and their horses had not been out of their stalls. And their “little girl” chatted with a reporter, telling him that Frank had been with the family all of Sunday. (Verdict of Murder, p. 5).In late February the same year, T. E. Stewart was arrested for stealing hogs. He would be charged jointly with Frank Schnack. And later, Frank would be charged in a fraud scheme concerning cattle. Cops offered T.E. a deal: Come clean about Frank’s whereabouts on the night of Sunday, February 3, and they’d drop the hog theft charges. No, T.E. refused. He was not going to tell lies just to get himself a deal. He was an honest thief.Then came a bombshell: Frank Schneck and Mollie Stewart were having an affair. They were in love, seeing one another all along. It was true love, Frank and Mollie insisted when confronted.From witness testimony and little evidence, police believed Frank and Mollie planned the demise of his wife so they could be together. Mollie supplied the butcher knife used to slit the victim’s throats, then they both rode out through a storm to the house on King Street that Sunday evening. Mollie held the horses and waited in the wagon while Frank slipped into the home to commit murder. Mollie assisted in burning and washing evidence. It was all circumstantial evidence, much testimony supplied by her husband, but cops arrested Mollie for murder.Frank and Mollie sat in jail while awaiting trial. A ventilator ran through the jail cells, and Frank and Mollie had conversations through these ventilators, calling out and listening. They were not the only ones listening. They also wrote letters to one another. They were not the only ones reading them. During the trial, witnesses testified as to what they heard and read. Frank told Mollie that on the night of February 3, he had snuck through a window and slashed Jennie’s throat. Johnnie had awaked and cried, “Oh papa, don’t do that!” To silence his witnesses, he had to kill both children. Mollie swore her undying love and to keep mum. “They can starve me, but I won’t tell.” (The Stewart Trial).The defense still tried to prove Frank and Mollie’s’ innocence, maintaining that Jennie had committed the murder-suicide. A letter written from Jennie to Mollie was read aloud in court: “I don’t know whether to live or die. I don’t know if you ever get the blues that bad or not. If you see Frank Schneck down there, tell him that his widow woman wants to talk to him here at Centropolis as I get tired of talking to the kids all the time.” (Nearly Ready For The Jury).Frank Schneck was found guilty for the murder of Jennie, Johnnie, and Stella. He was sentenced to hard labor at the state penitentiary for “not more than one year.” Unless the governor commuted his sentence, he would “hang by the neck” (Sentenced To Hang). Mollie was convicted of murder in the first degree. She received a life sentence. Frank and Mollie began their sentences at Lansing Prison in 1908. From 1907 to 1908, the triple homicide was called the worst, the most sensational, and most gruesome crime to occur in Kansas.


ResourcesCoroner’s Inquest. (February 7, 1907). Lawrence Weekly World. Lawrence, Kansas. P. 8
Nearly Ready For The Jury. (July 10, 1908). The Ottawa Daily Republic. Ottawa, Kansas. P. 4.
Sentenced To Hang. (June 6, 1908). Lawrence Journal. Lawrence, Kansas. P. 5.
Their Throats Cut! (February 4, 1907). The Ottawa Daily Republic. Ottawa, Kansas. P. 1.
The Stewart Trial. (July 10, 1908) Baldwin Republic. Baldwin, Kansas.
Verdict of Murder. (February 5, 1907). The Ottawa Daily Republic. Ottawa, Kansas. P. 1-5.
  [1] In some accounts it is spelled “Schneck”[2] In some accounts he is called “Jimmie”

The Night Shannon Sanderson’s Luck Ran Out – Murdered For Her Casino Winnings

Gerald Powers, dressed in a yellow shirt, jeans, and a red ball cap, was leaning casually on the railing of the second floor of Sam’s Town Hotel and Gambling Hall in Tunica, Mississippi. Below, gamblers were meandering across the casino floor, deciding where to place their chips, and hoping luck would find them that night of April 18, 1996. There were blackjack tables full of players who eyed their cards and slid their chips across the cool green of the tables, hoping to score big. One of those players was a pretty, dark-haired woman named Shannon Sanderson. Gerald Powers was not interested in the strolling people or the hopefuls at the tables. He was watching Shannon because she was winning big. The petite lady knew her game. The chips kept sliding her way. Shannon Sanderson was good at blackjack, but tonight she was perturbed. Her husband should have been at her side, celebrating his birthday with her. Shannon had even dressed carefully in a black dress, a jacket with silver buttons, high heels, and false pink nails.  But Robert Sanderson had opted out when his daughter from a previous marriage arrived at the large home with a surprise birthday cake. Shannon and Robert argued bitterly. Shannon was quite a bit younger than Robert. They had met when she worked for him at his lucrative alarm company. Lately, turmoil seemed to be tearing them apart. So Shannon left him that night with his daughter. She dropped off her children with their paternal grandparents, Ed and Caroline Holland, at about 6:30 p.m. and pointed her car towards Tunica, determined to trade her anger for cash in at blackjack. Not that they needed the money – Robert was a self-made millionaire. It was a little after 3:00 a.m. when Shannon decided to cash in her chips and head home. She brought the chips to the cashier’s window, $5,000. The cashier suggested a check, but Shannon wanted cash in one hundred dollar bills. The money was carefully counted out and slid through, under the safety glass. Per policy, a casino security officer walked Shannon to her car. Unbeknownst to all parties, they had a follower. Gerald Powers had walked down the stairs when he saw Shannon leave the table. His eyes followed her as she cashed in. He was trailing her when she exited. And now he paid careful attention as Shannon got into her car, and the security officer made sure she was locked in. Shannon Sanderson was attacked and murdered on
 April 19, 1996, because she won big at BlackjackShannon had a fifty-six-mile drive back home and only a few hours to live.Rebecca Coradini lived in the same neighborhood as Holland’s and was on her front porch a few minutes after 4:00 a.m. A van caught her eye because it drove down the street and then drove past again. Then she saw Shannon’s car drive past with a maroon vehicle following. The incident meant nothing until she watched the news the next day. A man who also lived in the same neighborhood was just coming home from work. As he parked at his house and got out of his car, he saw Shannon drive by. It was approximately 4:30 a.m. A second car, dark and possibly a Chevrolet Beretta, followed her. This second car turned in a driveway to park at the Holland’s. Gerald Powers followed Shannon into the neighborhood and pulled over as she drove up and parked at the curb in front of her former in-laws’ home. It was approximately 4:45 a.m. The predator he was, Powers knew it was time to strike.Ed Holland, Shannon’s former father-in-law, awoke when neighborhood dogs began a crescendo of barking. He moved a curtain aside to see Shannon bending over next to her car. “Don’t! Don’t!” He heard her cry. Edward grabbed a shirt and ran outside. The Dillons live beside the Hollands. Mr. Dillon heard dogs barking and looked out of his window to see someone crouching near Shannon’s car. That person had a red ball cap snuggled down over their head. His wife would later report she heard “a scream and a thud.” She looked out to see a car parked curbside with its dome light on. Whoever was driving was pushing something down into the backseat, and then they quickly drove off.Shannon was gone. Her car sat in mute testimony to whatever had taken place. The sky turned a dark purple, a dusky rose, and soon it was a full morning with the smell of coffee wafting through the neighborhood. There was still no sign of Shannon. Shannon’s family notified law enforcement. Near Shannon’s car, a fake pink nail lay in the street; nearby, a silver button from her jacket. Alonzo Jeans had pushed his school bus north down Highway 301 near Eudora, Mississippi every school day, and every day he drove it past an abandoned house. He never saw a car, never observed anyone at the house. Alonzo was an observant person; it came from years of trucking a busload of children from the safety of their homes to school. But today, April 19, Alonzo noticed a white male backing a maroon Beretta into the house’s driveway. It was about 6:40 a.m. Sharon Powers was in the home she shared with her husband Gerald when he came busting in about 9:30 a.m. She knew he had spent the evening gambling at Sam’s Town Hotel and Gambling Hall in Tunica, Mississippi. Gerald was jovial but kept looking out the window, yanking on the blinds. He gave her a one hundred dollar bill, bragging he’d won big at the casino. Sharon looked out the window herself, wondering what her husband could be watching. Gerald had driven her maroon Beretta. Her car had been washed. Closer inspection would reveal it was vacuumed and detailed. Sharon could think of only one reason why Gerald would act this way.“You’re having an affair!” Sharon snarled at him.“I’m not having an affair,” he told her. But she kept hammering him with questions, accusations, and so he told her the truth about his early morning activates.  He didn’t have an affair. He had watched a woman play blackjack, and she won big. So he followed her home, snuck up behind her, and jumped her. He dragged this woman into his car. Gerald said he had to drive her to an abandoned Mississippi house. He had to stop once to stuff her into the trunk. Gerald took the woman’s jewelry and cash, and then killed her. Tossing her purse and the gun into the river near the location of the old Splash Casino, he did wonder if the victim’s neighbor and a bus driver had seen him, but decided they couldn’t identify him. Later that day, Gerald Powers visited a woman named Margaret York. He asked her to provide an alibi for him on the night of April 18. “Sure,” York laughed. “As long as you didn’t kill anybody.” Powers didn’t seem to think this was funny.Gerald Powers felt law enforcement was closing in. He was already on parole. So Gerald hurriedly packed a bag and told Sharon he buried the stolen cash in their yard. “If anyone asks, I’m visiting my mother in Murfreesboro, Tennessee,” he instructed. Then he was gone, driving the maroon Beretta. As he sped off, Sharon was picking up the telephone to call authorities. “My husband might be involved in the murder of that woman,” she hedged. She did not tell of his confession. Not yet. Gerald Powers was back in a week for more cash. He told his wife the stolen jewelry was also buried in the yard. He wrote a note about his unhappiness with his marriage and sped off again. It was not until May 9, 1996, that some people who were clearing the land discovered Sharon’s body in the abandoned house near Eudora. She had a single gunshot wound to the head. Someone had struck her so hard an upper right front tooth was missing, and another tooth chipped. Some of her facial bones were fractured. She still wore her dress. Her jewelry was missing. It is chilling to think of the fear that Shannon must have felt, abducted only so many feet away from her children and loved ones. The tiny woman’s terror of being drug into a car, then tossed into the trunk, wondering where she was, is beyond comprehension. Shannon was laid to rest on May 15. She was only twenty-five years old. Gerald Powers was still driving the Beretta through Hebronville, Texas, when he observed an INS checkpoint. He made a quick turn to avoid the checkpoint when agents spotted him and made a traffic stop. Evidently, he never heard “don’t bring a knife to a gunfight” because Powers pulled a knife on agents who had guns strapped to their belts. Powers was arrested with fourteen one hundred dollar bills stuffed in his pockets. A call confirmed he was on parole. Powers was soon sitting in jail.Investigators discovered a fiber consistent with Shannon Sanderson’s clothing in the back seat of the Beretta. Sharon Powers would eventually confess the entire story. She would lead police to Shannon’s jewelry. Investigators could not locate the gun or purse. But every casino has security cameras recording every move, and the cameras in Sam’s Town Hotel and Gambling Hall recorded Gerald Powers’ each step, tracking Shannon as she moved through the casino with Powers following.A jury convicted Gerald Powers of aggravated robbery and first-degree murder in the perpetration of a robbery. He received a death sentence for the murder of Shannon Sanderson.Of course, the sentence never brought Shannon back, but it took a dangerous man off the street. Shannon was not the only woman Powers had ruthlessly attacked. 1979, Rutherford Country, TN.: Powers followed Emily Dodson home at night. Emily was exiting her vehicle when Powers attacked her, holding a knife to her throat. Emily fought, and Powers used a crescent wrench to smack her in the head. Emily still managed to escape and identify Powers, who pleaded guilty to aggravated assault.1980, Murfreesboro, TN.: Karen Cannon was giving Powers a ride. He pulled a knife on her, breaking her nose. Karen drove to the county jail and hit the car horn. Again, Powers pleaded guilty to aggravated assault.1984, Hinds County, Mississippi: Powers entered the home of Ms. Clyo Griffin. He beat her with an iron skillet and then stole her credit cards, jewelry, and a pistol. And again, Powers pleaded guilty to robbery and aggravated assault.Gerald Powers resides in Nashville, Tennessee’s Riverbend Maximum Security Unit in on death row. He is 65 years old. Beautiful Shannon is interred at the Memorial Park Cemetery in Memphis, Tennessee. Husband Robert, who died in 2007, is laid to rest beside her.

Judith A. Yates comments on Shannon’s story on the Oxygen Channel’s “Murdered By Morning” in episode#109, “Gambling With Death.”

Resources
Find-A-Grave.com https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/89362244/shannon-marie-sanderson
State of Tennessee v. Gerald Powers. (Decided: January 06, 2003) No. W1999-02348-SC-DDT-DD.  Supreme Court of Tennessee, at Jackson.

What We Need To Know About The Gabriel Fernandez Torture/Murder Case

Netflix has debuted another true crime case series; “The Trials of Gabriel Fernandez” covers the torture-murder of a severely abused eight-year-old boy, Gabriel Fernandez, at the hands of his mother, Pearl Fernandez, and her boyfriend Isauro Aguirre. Four Los Angeles social workers were charged with child abuse and falsifying records. The case was exposed in May 2013 when Pearl called 911 to report Gabriel had stopped breathing. Netflix’s series is a recap of this abuse, blow by blow. Besides emotion, what can we take from this case? And what do we need to know about the Gabriel Fernandez torture/murder case?If we learn nothing from a horrific event, true crime filmmakers have wasted time reporting and audiences watched for naught. Becoming angry, disgusted, saddened, and appalled are easy enough. What is most important is what we can learn? The intent here should be to prevent horrific incidents in the future. It’s easy to anger or sicken your audience. It’s harder to make them act.But it is difficult to take action when we have no idea where to start. So we seek scapegoats. Or we try to clean up a mess. And we begin a blame game. In this case, a decision made to prosecute the social workers that “failed” at “protecting” Gabriel Fernandez. But is this fair?Prosecuting people who “failed” at “protecting” Gabriel could begin with the hospital where he was born. According to family members, Pearl abandoned Gabriel there. Next, Gabriel went to a loving, same-sexed couple; but because of family homophobia, they allegedly gave him up. The child then went to live with a woman (grandmother) who was abusive. And then he landed in the middle of his mother’s house. So, who failed Gabriel first? Gabriel’s biological mother, Pearl Fernandez, pleaded guilty to first-degree murder in 2018 and was sentenced to life without parole. Isauro Aguirre, Pearl’s boyfriend, was found guilty of first-degree murder and was sentenced to death. They will die in prison, despised by many. They are called “monsters.” But were they always such?Somewhere along their way in life, Pearl Fernandez and Isauro Aguirre learned that harming a child was acceptable. While Isauro meted out the blows, Pearl encouraged the abuse. Between starving and the bindings, the shootings and punishments, Gabriel did what kids all over the world do: longed for his mother’s love. An emotion that Pearl had long lost touch with before she ever gave birth. Pearl Fernandez’s family has explained that Pearl “started using drugs at an early age which stopped brain development.” Pearl grew up in a home of abuse; she began using methamphetamine and drinking as a 9-year-old. Unable to tolerate her mother’s beatings and a father who ping-ponged between the family house and jail, Pearl ran to the streets at eleven. “She was diagnosed with depression, bipolar disorder, PTSD, suffered from eating disorders and had abnormalities on her scans. She was also a victim of gang rape” when a group of men held her hostage for several days. Then there was the “rape by an uncle at an early age” (Verhoeven, 2020). By the time she began having children, Pearl Fernandez was an angry, sad, uneducated woman. Not surprisingly, Pearl had a history of abusing her children, losing custody of one child, and abandoning another. She had a history of domestic violence, including at the hands of Isauro. Before Gabrielle’s death, Pearl was numbing the pain by disappearing into the fog of opioid painkillers. During the trial, the judge chastised her for starting trouble with jail staff and inmates. (Hard to believe anyone should think her personality, carved since she was a child, would change once behind bars) Pearl Fernandez was a train without brakes speeding towards tragedy. Yet no one will be prosecuted for “failing” to “protect” in Pearl’s case. There is little public information about boyfriend Isauro Aguirre. A former coworker described him as “gentle” with patients at a nursing home. Who knows if this is true? His abusive behavior did not happen overnight. His twisted sense of wrong and right, what equals “corrective action,” and why it’s acceptable to maltreat a child did not emerge upon meeting Pearl. If statistics prove correct, Isauro’s personality most likely shaped and molded as he grew from a horrific childhood into a problematic youth that no one would wish upon a boy. During the trial, onlookers marveled at Isauro’s sitting in court “without emotion;” this is because Isauro is without certain emotions. Otherwise, he could have never been able to do what he did to Gabrielle. (Again: hard to believe anyone should think his personality, carved since he was a child, would change once behind bars.)Both Pearl Fernandez and Isauro Aguirre understand their treatment of Gabrielle was ethically wrong and illegal: They hid it from officials and family. They kept the boy out of school. They kept him hidden and gagged when people came to the home. But both of them lacked a moral compass. Pearl doesn’t seem to understand why meting out such punishment on Gabrielle, why making him a punching bag for the lifetime hurt she experienced, is wrong. Isauro did her bidding, enjoyed her attention, and relished being the brute. Yes, he knew the blows were painful; but this time, it was him making the fists and not dodging them. This is not condoning their behavior, but an attempt to understand their behavior. If we don’t attempt to understand what created Pearl Fernandez and Isauro Aguirre, we will never understand what creates a child abuser, a child torturer. Burning them at stake, beating them, or making them die an agonizing, prolonged death – all suggestions by social media surfers – might make someone feel vindicated, but it will not solve the problem. We need to set aside emotions and learn from this case. We already know Gabriel Fernandez. We know there is no one group of individuals to blame. And we are certainly aware that, even as Gabriel Fernandez was becoming a household name, there are thousands of others like him, and even more Pearls and Isauros. It's time we start taking action and educate ourselves. This is all we need to know about the Gabrielle Fernandez torture/murder case.
Resources Knappenberger, B. (Filmmaker). Mussman, B. (Executive Producer).  (2020). “The Trials of Gabriel Hernandez.” NetFlix. Verhoeven, B. (February 26, 2020). “Trials of Gabriel Fernandez’: 9 Most Shocking Details About The Murder at Heart of Netflix Documentary.” The Wrap. https://www.thewrap.com/trials-of-gab...

What We Need To Know About The Gabrielle Fernandez Torture/Murder Case

Netflix has debuted another true crime case series; “The Trials of Gabriel Fernandez” covers the torture-murder of a severely abused eight-year-old boy, Gabriel Fernandez, at the hands of his mother, Pearl Fernandez, and her boyfriend Isauro Aguirre. Four Los Angeles social workers were charged with child abuse and falsifying records. The case was exposed in May 2013 when Pearl called 911 to report Gabriel had stopped breathing. Netflix’s series is a recap of this abuse, blow by blow. Besides emotion, what can we take from this case? And what do we need to know about the Gabriel Fernandez torture/murder case?If we learn nothing from a horrific event, true crime filmmakers have wasted time reporting and audiences watched for naught. Becoming angry, disgusted, saddened, and appalled are easy enough. What is most important is what we can learn? The intent here should be to prevent horrific incidents in the future. It’s easy to anger or sicken your audience. It’s harder to make them act.But it is difficult to take action when we have no idea where to start. So we seek scapegoats. Or we try to clean up a mess. And we begin a blame game. In this case, a decision made to prosecute the social workers that “failed” at “protecting” Gabriel Fernandez. But is this fair?Prosecuting people who “failed” at “protecting” Gabriel could begin with the hospital where he was born. According to family members, Pearl abandoned Gabriel there. Next, Gabriel went to a loving, same-sexed couple; but because of family homophobia, they allegedly gave him up. The child then went to live with a woman (grandmother) who was abusive. And then he landed in the middle of his mother’s house. So, who failed Gabriel first? Gabriel’s biological mother, Pearl Fernandez, pleaded guilty to first-degree murder in 2018 and was sentenced to life without parole. Isauro Aguirre, Pearl’s boyfriend, was found guilty of first-degree murder and was sentenced to death. They will die in prison, despised by many. They are called “monsters.” But were they always such?Somewhere along their way in life, Pearl Fernandez and Isauro Aguirre learned that harming a child was acceptable. While Isauro meted out the blows, Pearl encouraged the abuse. Between starving and the bindings, the shootings and punishments, Gabriel did what kids all over the world do: longed for his mother’s love. An emotion that Pearl had long lost touch with before she ever gave birth. Pearl Fernandez’s family has explained that Pearl “started using drugs at an early age which stopped brain development.” Pearl grew up in a home of abuse; she began using methamphetamine and drinking as a 9-year-old. Unable to tolerate her mother’s beatings and a father who ping-ponged between the family house and jail, Pearl ran to the streets at eleven. “She was diagnosed with depression, bipolar disorder, PTSD, suffered from eating disorders and had abnormalities on her scans. She was also a victim of gang rape” when a group of men held her hostage for several days. Then there was the “rape by an uncle at an early age” (Verhoeven, 2020). By the time she began having children, Pearl Fernandez was an angry, sad, uneducated woman. Not surprisingly, Pearl had a history of abusing her children, losing custody of one child, and abandoning another. She had a history of domestic violence, including at the hands of Isauro. Before Gabrielle’s death, Pearl was numbing the pain by disappearing into the fog of opioid painkillers. During the trial, the judge chastised her for starting trouble with jail staff and inmates. (Hard to believe anyone should think her personality, carved since she was a child, would change once behind bars) Pearl Fernandez was a train without brakes speeding towards tragedy. Yet no one will be prosecuted for “failing” to “protect” in Pearl’s case. There is little public information about boyfriend Isauro Aguirre. A former coworker described him as “gentle” with patients at a nursing home. Who knows if this is true? His abusive behavior did not happen overnight. His twisted sense of wrong and right, what equals “corrective action,” and why it’s acceptable to maltreat a child did not emerge upon meeting Pearl. If statistics prove correct, Isauro’s personality most likely shaped and molded as he grew from a horrific childhood into a problematic youth that no one would wish upon a boy. During the trial, onlookers marveled at Isauro’s sitting in court “without emotion;” this is because Isauro is without certain emotions. Otherwise, he could have never been able to do what he did to Gabrielle. (Again: hard to believe anyone should think his personality, carved since he was a child, would change once behind bars.)Both Pearl Fernandez and Isauro Aguirre understand their treatment of Gabrielle was ethically wrong and illegal: They hid it from officials and family. They kept the boy out of school. They kept him hidden and gagged when people came to the home. But both of them lacked a moral compass. Pearl doesn’t seem to understand why meting out such punishment on Gabrielle, why making him a punching bag for the lifetime hurt she experienced, is wrong. Isauro did her bidding, enjoyed her attention, and relished being the brute. Yes, he knew the blows were painful; but this time, it was him making the fists and not dodging them. This is not condoning their behavior, but an attempt to understand their behavior. If we don’t attempt to understand what created Pearl Fernandez and Isauro Aguirre, we will never understand what creates a child abuser, a child torturer. Burning them at stake, beating them, or making them die an agonizing, prolonged death – all suggestions by social media surfers – might make someone feel vindicated, but it will not solve the problem. We need to set aside emotions and learn from this case. We already know Gabriel Fernandez. We know there is no one group of individuals to blame. And we are certainly aware that, even as Gabriel Fernandez was becoming a household name, there are thousands of others like him, and even more Pearls and Isauros. It's time we start taking action and educate ourselves. This is all we need to know about the Gabrielle Fernandez torture/murder case.
Resources Knappenberger, B. (Filmmaker). Mussman, B. (Executive Producer).  (2020). “The Trials of Gabriel Hernandez.” NetFlix. Verhoeven, B. (February 26, 2020). “Trials of Gabriel Fernandez’: 9 Most Shocking Details About The Murder at Heart of Netflix Documentary.” The Wrap. https://www.thewrap.com/trials-of-gab...

Leonarda Cianciulli: Italy’s 1st Female Serial Killer Fed Victim’s Flesh To Unsuspecting Public

Perhaps it was her mother’s curse in 1917 when she married a man of whom her family disapproved. It may have been her criminal mind blossoming into murder. Or a mother’s instinct to protect a beloved son. Something made Leonarda Cianciulli, first known Italian female serial killer, chop up bodies to make soap and teacakes gifts for family and neighbors.
Leonarda Cianciulli (b. April 18, 1894) hailed from Montella, Avellino, Italy. Leonarda’s father, Mariano Cianciulli had raped her mother, Emilia di Nolfi. To save face, Emilia had to marry her rapist once she discovered she was pregnant. Emilia was emotionally abusive to her child, even after a second marriage. The family stayed impoverished.  Leonarda had already made two suicide
attempts before she married. Leonarda had already made two suicide attempts before she married the older Raffaele Pansardi in 1917. He was not one of the wealthy men her parents had selected for her; Leonarda would later explain her mother cursed her for her disobedience. Four years later, the couple moved to southern Italy. Both found work, but Leonarda went to prison for fraud, her first crime. Upon release, they moved twice more, finally settling into the town of Correggio, the province of Reggio Emilia. Here, Leonarda opened a popular soap shop. She also told fortunes and “hypnotized” clients, claiming to have special powers to help make their dreams come true. Leonarda was well-liked and respected in Reggio Emilia. Sometimes an awful smell emulated from her kitchen, but it never lasted long. Her neighbors knew she was quite superstitious, but they told one another that this was due to her tragic history. Leonarda had been pregnant seventeen times, with three miscarriages and ten babies dying of various illnesses. Thus she was overprotective of their four surviving children. So in 1938, when her oldest, Giuseppe Pansardi, announced the army was drafting him, Leonarda was aghast. World War II was looming ahead, and she would protect him at any cost. She would lose no more children, least of all her favorite! And in between the tears, the superstitious Leonarda Cianciulli determined human sacrifice would ensure Giuseppe’s safety. Give God a body so He would not take Giuseppe.Faustina Setti, at 73, was a poor, lonely, unmarried woman, desperate for a husband. She often came to Leonarda for help in finding that husband. “I have someone for you in Pola (now Croatia),” Leonarda told Faustina, “but you must tell no one.” Leonardo took the farce a step further by writing Faustina letters from the "suitor." To keep the secret, Faustina was to pen upbeat postcards and letters and mail them to her family from Pola upon her arrival. An excited Faustina packed her bags, dyed her grey hair, and then visited Leonarda for the last time for final preparations. Leonarda offered her neighbor wine (some accounts say coffee) to celebrate her new life. When Faustina fell drugged, Leonarda hit her with an ax and hid her body. Leonarda Cianciulli chopped Faustina Setti into nine parts, using a basin to collect the blood. At her 1946 murder trial, Leonarda explained:
I waited until it had coagulated, dried it in the oven, ground it, and mixed it with flour, sugar, chocolate, milk, and eggs, as well as a bit of margarine, kneading all the ingredients together. I made lots of crunchy tea cakes and served them to the ladies who came to visit, though Giuseppe and I also ate them.
Leonarda Cianciulli's victims 
She also used some of the blood to make chocolate and shared this with neighbors and the neighborhood children. As for the body parts: “I threw the pieces into a pot, added seven kilos of caustic soda, which I had bought to make soap, and stirred the mixture until the pieces dissolved in a thick, dark mush that I poured into several buckets and emptied in a nearby septic tank.”But one human sacrifice was not enough to ensure Giuseppe’s safety, so Leonarda focused on another lonely neighbor, schoolteacher Francesca Soavi. Francesca was 55. Leonarda repeated the exact pattern, but this time she told Francesca that Leonarda had found her a fantastic job at a girl’s school in northern Italy. Francesca’s last visit with Leonarda Cianciulli was on September 5, 1940, and this is when Leonarda drugged her with tainted wine, used the ax, chopped up the body, and made more teacakes. 
She also used some of the blood to make chocolate to share with neighbors and the neighborhood children. Leonarda may have financially benefitted from the murders. Some sources noted she collected around 30,000 lire total (about $4,900 in today’s U.S. currency). Cook pot and other implements used in
Leonarda's kitchen to cook human flesh Opera singer Virginia Cacioppo’s good friend Leonarda promised Virginia work as a secretary for an impresario in Florence. Virginia could not believe her luck; at 53, here was a chance to turn her memories of glory and life of poverty! She was indebted to Leonarda. But Virginia could not keep her mouth closed, so several friends understood Virginia was about to embark on an adventure, courtesy kindly Leonarda Cianciulli, the soap maker and medium extraordinaire. On September 30, 1940, she went to see Leonarda for one last chance to express her gratitude, and they toasted with wine. At her 1946 trial, Leonarda explained chubby Virginia’s fate:
She ended up in the pot like the other two...her flesh was fat and white, when it had melted, I added a bottle of cologne, and after a long time on the boil, I was able to make some most acceptable creamy soap. I gave bars to neighbors and acquaintances. The cakes, too, were better: that woman was really sweet.
This time, Leonarda received about 50,000 lire, jewelry, and public bonds. She raided Virginia’s house of valuables, and then sold or gifted the victims’ clothing, shoes, and jewelry. And she gave her neighbors gifts of the handmade soap. But this time, the victim had a family member who did care about what happened to her. Virginia Cacioppo’s sister (possibly a sister-in-law) reported her missing, telling police she last saw Virginia walking into Leonarda’s home. The police spoke with Leonarda. When she declared innocence, the investigators decided to focus on her oldest son, Giuseppe. That was all the threat Leonarda needed. She began talking. And she kept talking into her 1946 trial. She discussed the crimes with ease.While in custody, Leonarda wrote her memoirs, titled An Embittered Soul’s Confessions. It includes best practices for turning human body parts into soap. Outside the jail and courtroom walls, people waited for hours to get a seat to watch the proceedings and nearly stampeded once the gates opened to the courthouse. She was proud of the fact that she was assisting her country during wartime. “I gave the copper ladle, which I used to skim the fat off the kettles, to my country, which was so badly in need of metal during the last days of the war,” she would tell the court. Leonarda Cianciulli mugshotStill, it was difficult to believe this woman could dissect a corpse so quickly and without assistance. So the attorneys, judges, and police took Leonarda to the morgue. She demonstrated her talent by dissecting a corpse into nine pieces under 12 minutes. Giuseppe also went to trial but was acquitted. Both Raffaele and Giuseppe Pansardi always claimed innocence of Leonarda’s illegal activities. Giuseppe had mailed cards and letters for her while he was on a trip in Pola, and he had tossed some wrapped bones into a river. But, said Leonarda, he had no idea how these actions connected to her crimes. Leonarda Cianciulli was found guilty of the three murders and given the sentence of thirty years in prison and three years in a criminal asylum. Her family hugged her tight after the sentencing. She died in prison in 1970. She is known as la Saponificatrice di Correggio, the soap-maker of Correggio. 


Resources
“A Copper Ladle.” (June 24, 1946). Timemagazine. “Foreign News” Section.
Mastronardi, V.M. & Sanvitale, F. (2010). “Leonarda Cianciulli, The Soap Maker.” Armando Editore: Italy. Grey, O. (No date posted). “Leonarda Cianciulli: The Deadly Soap-Maker of Correggio.” The Lineup. https://the-line-up.com/leonarda-cian...
Rowlatt, J. (May 3, 2014). “Sodium: Getting Rid of Dirt – And Murder Victims.” BBC News Online. https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-27257822
Unknown Gender History Blog (September 22, 2011). Leonarda Cianciulli, Italian Serial Killer & Cannibal of 1941

“Jack the Ripper” In American Headlines

One of true crime’s most famous unsolved cases occurred in 1800’s Whitechapel District of London. The perpetrator was called Leather Apron, the Whitechapel Murderer, and The Ripper. The killer is most known by the moniker “Jack The Ripper.”The London Metropolitan Police Service’s police docket contained eleven separate murder cases between April 1888 to February 1891 labeled “Whitechapel murders.” As with all serial killers, the true number of victims will never be known. Historians and criminologists argue that five of these Whitechapel murders, all occurring in 1888, are directly connected to Jack The Ripper; they are called the “canonical five”: Mary Ann Nichols (August 31), Annie Chapman (September 8), Elizabeth Stride & Catherine Eddowes (September 30), and Mary Jane Kelly (November 9). “Jack” made headlines all over Europe, but the killer also caught the imaginations of American journalists. The term “serial killer” was far from the invention. There were other fiends in the U.S. headlines. “The Bloody Benders” ran a murderous inn (1872-1873), but escaped prosecution. Jesse Pomeroy, the boy who killed children, was in prison. Killer nurse Jane Toppan (1885-1901) was declared insane. They killed many, but they were all identified. But Jack, whoever they were, was a real nightmare: slinking about in the shadows, striking viciously, then disappearing like smoke. No one even knew if Jack was a man or a woman! The Statue of Liberty had stood in New York Harbor a month shy of two years when the murders of Elizabeth Stride and Catherine Eddowes made the San Francisco Examiner’s front page. One American journalist wrote the “Home Secretary” was an “imbecile of plans” and the “Police Commissioner halting in action,” for not offering a reward for the arrest of the “madman … stealthy assassin” who has now murdered three times. Before profiling became a tool, the writer profiles the killer as a man who “must lodge where people see him come and go…eat, drink, and sleep” near the crime scenes, and “must be aware of the intense abhorrence inspired by his crimes.” The writer notes “a horrible sameness” in the three murders (Bennett).  A short blurb appeared in a Pennsylvania newspaper around this time, stating a London coroner “create(d) the belief” that the Ripper murders “were committed by an American.” This blurb wedged in between a man convicted of polygamy (15 of his wives appearing in court) and the pardon of a millionaire murderer (“Boiled Down,” p.12).The gristly crime scene of Mary Jane Kelly was detailed on page one for all the readers of The Butte Daily Post in Montana, with speculation of her killer’s actions: “Probably no one saw the man … hardly likely he will be identified. He might easily have left the house at any time … without attracting attention” (“Another Whitechapel Murder”).
                                                                     Reynolds' Newspaper, Greater London, England (Oct. 7, 1888)

The Daily American out of Nashville, Tennessee, dedicated most of page 10 to the crimes, including a lengthy, detailed, full-page walk-through of the Whitechapel District by an American journalist accompanied by a London detective. The journalist noted the guests of one tavern, “Women … with somebody’s babies, blaspheming and drinking spirits with the bullet-headed infants hanging over their shoulders like bundles of rags.” The tour included “Annie Chapman’s death place” described as a lowly brickyard. Next was a tour of “the typical lodging house of the Whitechapel district … revolting. The price for a single bed is but a penny or two. The lowest of all God’s creation may drink, shout, and blaspheme all night for only two pence.” There was much writing space dedicated to describing the filthy rooms housing the criminal elements, drunks, and skinny children, with rats and mice crawling in between people. The rooms were tiny, “no larger than a closet,” with a bed just large enough for one to two bodies. The physical description of the ugliness and filth of the people and their surroundings described at length. This article nearly squeezes out an interview with First Lady Anna (Mrs. William Henry) Harrison and her complaint that the White House has “no feeling of privacy” (July 21, 1889).
Chicago readers opened their February 14, 1891 newspaper to an article that notes a London suspect was arrested “on suspicion” and details the murder of a woman named “Carrotty Nell,” a young prostitute (AKA, “an unfortunate woman”) found with her throat cut. The London police were sure the murderer was Jack The Ripper, without mutilation as an officer came upon the crime too soon. Examining Nell’s clothing, “a second hat was found.” Thus, the theory that “Jack” was a woman because “the second hat was not of the same size as that found on the dead woman’s body” (p.5).Finally, some American journalists found fault with London law enforcement as often as possible. The use of bloodhound dogs to track the killer was useless; it was “plain enough to an American” that “Londoners know very little about the nature of (bloodhounds).” This next to an entire article detailing the reckoned ignorance of a search using tracker dogs. And “sexual perverts” are “practically unknown in America, but in countries where there is less freedom, and where the relations of the sexes are not on such a natural basis…” perverts run amok. The geography of London writes a journalist confuses as it is “built on the most irregular lines” with short, one-way streets, small blocks, alleyways, and narrow, winding lanes. And then the perceived ineptness of the London police force: understaffed, poorly trained, and plainclothes detectives easy to spot in the lower ends of the streets. “I would advise some American to come over (to London) and prove that there is a detective left who can detect” (“The British Ghoul,” p. 12). In another article, an American journalist wishes American detectives could travel to London, as they would quickly solve the crimes. No wonder, many American journalists sniffed, Jack The Ripper cannot be caught. The newspapers of the 1800s make for exciting reading about one of the most famous unsolved crimes in history. Much like today’s criminal justice news, it includes releasing sensational and gory details to the public, amateur profiling, guesswork, “filler” news, harsh judgments, and opinions of what should, and should not, be happening to solve the case. Regardless, the “Jack The Ripper Case File” has never been solved. 


Resources:
 “Another Whitechapel Murder.” (November 9, 1888). The Butte Daily Post. Butte, Montana. P.1. Bennett, J.G. (October 1, 1988). “Filled With Alarm.” The San Francisco Examiner. San Francisco, CA. P.1. “Boiled Down.” (September 30, 1888). The Sunday Leader. Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania. P. 12. Is He Jack The Ripper? (February 14, 1891). The Chicago Tribune. Chicago, ILL. P.5. “Jack The Ripper.” (July 21, 1889). The Daily American. Nashville, Tennessee. P. 10. McNamara, Robert. (February 11, 2020). Decade by Decade Timeline of the 1800s. Retrieved from https://www.thoughtco.com/timeline-18... “No Feeling Of Privacy.” (July 21, 1889). The Daily American. Nashville, Tennessee. P. 10. “The British Ghoul.” (November 1, 1888). The Sumner County Standard. Wellington, Kansas. P. 12.

From 1800s: 9 year old and 5 year old girls kill 7 year old boy in plot

While television series devoted to “killer children” fight for ratings, children who murder are not new phenomena. A crime reported in Richmond, Virginia, in the mid-1980s proves that children had committed murder long before they became headlines. An article in the 1885 issue of The Streator Free Press headlined “Precocious Depravity” gives the details of one such crime. Around March 25, 1885, in Scottsville, a nine-year-old child confessed to killing her seven-year-old cousin by forcing him to hang himself and then beating him with a shovel. Her five-year-old sister, who was present and witnessed the entire incident, assisted in the murder and admitted the crime.Melville Barrett and Mary Cooper lived with their uncle David Cooper in a cabin in Albemarle County.
The Streator Free Press  (03-28-85)Mary became enraged at Melville “for eating her egg.” In retaliation, Mary and her little sister hatched a plan of revenge. First, they asked Melville to “get on a chair” so he could attach a rope to a beam in the cabin ceiling; they wanted to “put up a swing.” (Several reports have them tying the rope to the ceiling of an outhouse, listing Mary as eight.) Details are not given; somehow, Mary made a loop at the end of the rope. The younger sister persuaded Melville to put his head through the loop. “Then (Mary) knocked the chair from under him and struck him several severe blows over the head with a shovel” (P.8), killing Melville.

Uncle David Cooper was the police’s suspect and taken to jail, but from the onset of the crime, the five-year-old girl calmly confessed. Both girls appeared before the grand jury, and each told the same story about the murder. The crime was one of several reported by The Chicago Tribune as “sometimes trivial and even grotesque, and go to show how cheaply human life is considered” (1886, p. 14).The crime never made headlines. When it appeared on page one, it was never a top story. The fate of Mary Cooper and her sister are lost to time; the case failed to make news after the girl’s testifying before the grand jury. No photographs or sketches accompany and of the articles. Little Mary Cooper and her sister are two child murderers of so many that appear in the history books of crime.

Resources:“A Child Murderess.” (March 27, 1885). The Daily Review. Decatur, Illinois. P. 1.“A Young Murderess.” (April 2, 1885). The Norfolk Landmark. Norfolk, Virginia. P.3.“An Eight-Year-Old Girl Confesses.” (March 26, 1885).  The Wilkes-Barre News. Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania. P. 3.“An Eight-Year-Old Girl Confesses To Murdering Her Cousin.” (March 25, 1885). The York Dispatch. York, Pennsylvania. P.1.“Murders.” (January 1, 1886). The Chicago Tribune. Chicago, Illinois. P. 14.“Precocious Depravity” (March 28,1885). The Streator Free Press. Streator, Illinois. P. 8.