Murder at the Brown Palace

by Dick Kreck

  Henwood’s attorney denied all the speculation. “There is no ground for asserting that the quarrel between von Phul and Henwood was over a woman. When I say this, I speak advisedly. There was no woman with whom both men were infatuated, or in whom they were interested, or over whom they were jealous.” He dropped a hint, however, that there was more to the case than what both men were saying. “We have no intention of drawing any woman into it. When von Phul tore up Henwood’s pictures...it was simply an act of malice. It was significant not in relation to any woman but merely as an expression of malice which von Phul might have shown in any other way.” The next day, Henwood, speaking from his cell in the County Jail, warned that the papers “have done a great injustice by bringing my dearest friend into this matter. I think it is an outrage to bring that woman’s name into the affair, when she had nothing to do with it.”

  Despite the denials, the papers avidly continued their pursuit linking Mrs. Springer to the incident. In the first days after the shooting she was “the woman in the case,” “a Denver girl,” or “a Denver society woman.” By the time two days passed, she was named, and her photograph appeared in The Post. The lid was off. By June 5, The Post was convinced of the cause and printed the headline, “Von Phul Shot in Row Over Mrs. Springer, Friends Say.” By this time, John Springer, ignorant of what had been going on between his wife and the St. Louis aeronaut, had seen and heard enough. He filed for divorce, based mainly on eight letters found in von Phul’s hotel room, indicating, said The Post, “that Mrs. Springer enjoyed the most friendly relations with Von Phul.”

  Elliott’s decision to try Henwood for the murder of Copeland was based not on protecting the reputations of the Springers, but on the relative merits of the case and on the likelihood of gaining a conviction. No matter which killing Henwood was tried for, von Phul and Mrs. Springer would be key figures. From the beginning, Bottom claimed that Henwood fired in mortal fear of his life and that self-defense would be the

  cornerstone of his case. Faced with a highly emotional scenario involving a prominent society couple and two headstrong

  gentlemen, the district attorney could not be sure that a jury wouldn’t be sympathetic to Henwood’s stance that he was only protecting his friend’s marriage and convict him of manslaughter or even find him not guilty. Instead, Elliott invoked three sections of the Colorado Revised Statutes, 1908:

  Section 1624—All murder which shall be perpetrated by means of poison etc. or perpetrated by any act greatly dangerous to the lives of others, and indicating a depraved mind, regardless of human life, shall be deemed murder in the first degree.

  Section 1632—Justifiable homicide is the killing of a human being in necessary self-defense or in the defense of habitation, property or person against one who manifestly intends or endeavors by violence or surprise to commit a known felony, such as murder...upon either person or property or against any person or person, who manifestly intend and endeavor in a violent, riotous or tumultuous manner to enter the habitation of another for the purpose of assaulting or offering personal violence to any person, dwelling or being therein.

  Section 1634—If a person kills another in self-defense it must appear that the danger was so urgent and pressing that, in order to save his own life or to prevent his receiving great bodily harm, the killing of the other must be absolutely necessary. And it must appear that the person killed was the assailant or that the slayer had really and in good faith endeavored to decline any further struggle before the mortal blow was given.

  If von Phul fit the role of the aggressor in the barroom confrontation, Copeland, an uninvolved bystander, clearly did not. Henwood was to be tried for killing Copeland, whose name was barely mentioned, even though von Phul’s name was called up frequently, and his relationship to Henwood explored repeatedly.

  Bottom immediately called for a continuance, arguing that he was not prepared to fight the Copeland charge, that he was having trouble locating witnesses, that the district attorney’s office would not let him look at Mrs. Springer’s letters, that sensational newspaper coverage had prejudiced community opinion and, finally, that Mrs. Springer, the linchpin of the defense’s arguments, was too ill to appear in court. Determined that the trial would proceed at a jaunty pace, Judge Whitford quickly dispensed with all the arguments and ruled that the trial would move ahead. One of the greatest legal battles in the history of criminal cases in Denver was launched.

  Lawyer John Bottom’s first order of business was to protest the method of selecting the jury. A recently passed ordinance had changed the jury system, one in which a group of “professional” jurors would sit for an entire term of the court, to a system in which the jury commissioner drew up a pool of names. Bottom, recognizing some of the potential jurors as “hanging jurors” from previous trials, said the jury should be selected under the new system. He was overruled.

  In anticipation of the appearance of the principals in the case, a large crowd waited patiently in the morning sun until the doors to the three-story court building were opened. Spectators rushed the courtroom and jostled for chairs. The losers had to be content with standing room along the walls. They had come to see Isabel Springer, who was expected to testify early in the trial. She did not appear, causing great disappointment. The Post reported, “Women with pompadours angrily jabbed them with nervous fingers; several girls forgot the amenities and measured the atmosphere with gum drawn through red lips; men shuffled their feet and a trio of daring youths started for the exit when reminded by the bailiff that those who were in could not get out, say, more than those who were out could not get in because Judge Whitford, jealous of his dignity and the order of the court, had ruled for locked doors.”

  If John and Isabel Springer, expected to have their first face-to-face meeting since he had filed for divorce, were no-shows, the star of the drama was front and center. Henwood, looking confident and walking erect and effortlessly, entered the courtroom and took his place next to Bottom. Women who had come to court to see if the prisoner was as attractive as some said were not let down. The reporter for The Denver Times noted,

  Henwood is fashioned after the model so conspicuously popular in the days when Reynolds, Rasburn and Lawrence painted belles and beaux. He is straight and lean, his shoulders are narrow, his head is small, having a slight sensual bulge at the base; his mouth, full-lipped and red, might belong to a stubborn, petulant girl who had known no other than her own way—a century ago he would have been a bravado of the road or court; today he is busy preparing to prove that he is not guilty of murder of Copeland since death came as the result of accident.

  As he watched the selection of jurymen (women were not allowed to serve), Henwood’s expression rarely changed. It became his habit to make notes in pencil on a pad and pass them to Bottom when he had a question or opinion. Except for the attorneys’ brief squabble over how prospective jurors should be chosen, selection moved quickly. Bottom exercised all fifteen of his peremptory challenges before accepting the panel in its final form. On the jury were John Baxter, 67, solicitor; W. I. Bossler, 44, undertaker; James F. Buckley, 59, salesman; Albert Campbell, 41, locomotive engineer; M. Joseph Duval, 48, railroad man; Edward Erickson, 41, grocer; Bernard McCann, 30, clerk; John Reed, 70, real estate man; Martin Van Buren Sheldon, 71, retired railroad engineer; Charles E. Warren, 69, restaurant man; William L. Walker, 64, locomotive engineer; and William Wilshin, 64, bookkeeper. Nine of the twelve were married; Baxter had nine children.

  Both sides outlined their cases in opening statements. Prominently displayed in one corner of the court, near the witness box, was a large drawing of the layout of the barroom. Prosecutor Elliott spoke first and took only four minutes to explain the state’s case—that it was Henwood who pursued von Phul, purchased a gun, and shot the St. Louisan in the back, the last a charge the defense disputed. Defense attorney Bottom took his time to dispute newspaper accounts of what had happened on the night of May 24 and emphasized that Mrs. Springer had asked Hen
wood to retrieve the

  damaging letters with which von Phul threatened her. Henwood agreed to do it, argued Bottom, based on his friendship with Mr. Springer. He detailed, day by day, events leading up to the shooting.

  

  On June 23, the moment everyone had been waiting for arrived. Isabel Springer took the stand for the defense. Bottom hoped that she would bolster the defense’s claims that Henwood fired out of fear for his safety by telling the jury about threats von Phul made toward Henwood. Bottom was convinced that the case would be won on her testimony.

  Isabel was spirited from her room at the Savoy Hotel without the public knowing she would be testifying and was brought into court through the offices of the West Side Court building instead of through the usual courtroom entrance. She appeared at the witnesses’ door to the courtroom without announcement, catching onlookers off guard. First to appear was her attorney, John T. Barnett, then her brother, Arthur Patterson, followed by Bottom and, finally, her personal physician, Dr. William Jayne, with Isabel supporting herself on his arm. She was said to be suffering from fatigue brought on by her fear of testifying and by the stress of her pending divorce.

  She was attired in a demure blue serge suit with a wide white sailor collar, white gloves, and a wide-brimmed black straw hat covered with a veil of blue chiffon. Spectators couldn’t help noticing the similarity of her outfit to the one worn by Evelyn Nesbit Thaw in the celebrated New York City trial that followed the shooting of architect Stanford White in 1906. There were a remarkable number of parallels between the two cases, both of which involved wealthy, high-profile individuals, a beautiful woman, and two ardent pursuers, and a murder carried out in a public place in front of dozens of witnesses. Newspaper readers all over the country breathlessly followed the case in which the beautiful young Nesbit was seduced by White after an evening of champagne drinking. She later married a wealthy young Pittsburgh millionaire, Harry K. Thaw, “known for wide swings of personality, from kind and gentle to beastly cruel.” After their marriage, he nagged Evelyn for the sordid details of her encounters with White and she spilled everything to him, causing him to go into a rage. On June 26, 1906, Thaw confronted White with a pistol at Madison Square Garden’s rooftop theater and fired three times. Some thought the gunshots were part of the show until Evelyn shouted, “My God! He’s shot him!’’

  Two sensational trials followed. The first, in 1907, ended in a hung jury and, after a second trial, Thaw was sent in February 1908 to an asylum for the criminally insane. In 1913, Thaw walked out of the asylum and fled to Canada. Two years later, another jury found him sane but declined to retry him because he had acted in a jealous rage. He continued to lead a dissolute life until his death in 1947 at the age of seventy-six. In an odd bit of historical convergence, Thaw visited Denver on a cross-country automobile vacation in 1915 and stayed in the bridal suite at the Brown Palace, where a large crowd waited almost two hours for him to emerge from the hotel’s dining room.

  If lovers of scandal were hypnotized by the Thaw case, they were no less so with the Brown Palace murder and with the beautiful Isabel Springer. They watched, fascinated,

  as she walked to the witness chair and sat with her hands nervously clutching her purse. Bottom began the questioning on which the trial, and Henwood’s future, would turn. Mrs. Springer performed as either a clever avoider of direct responses or as a woman disoriented and under the influence of drugs. She had a difficult time understanding the questions and grew forgetful when it came time to respond.

  Question: You may state your name, Mrs. Springer.

  Answer: My name?

  Q: Yes.

  A: Isabel Springer.

  Q: You are the wife of John W. Springer?

  A: Yes, sir.

  Q: Are you acquainted with Harold F. Henwood?

  A: I am.

  Q: Were you acquainted with Sylvester von Phul?

  A: Yes, sir.

  Q: On or about the 23rd day of May, did you know of a conversation had between Mr. Henwood and Mr. von Phul relating to the return of certain letters belonging to you?

  At this point, prosecutor Elliott, not wanting testimony about Henwood’s fear of von Phul to enter the record, began a series of interruptions. He found a willing accomplice in Judge Whitford.

  Elliott: Objected to as incompetent, irrelevant and immaterial.

  Court: Objection sustained.

  Q: On the 24th day of May, which was the day, Mrs. Springer, preceding the night of the trouble in the barroom of the Brown Palace Hotel, did you have any conversation with Mr. von Phul relating to Mr. Henwood?

  A: I don’t understand your question.

  Q: Did you have any conversation on that day?

  A: On what day?

  Q: The day of the night they had their trouble at the Brown Palace Hotel.

  A: Did I what?

  Q: Have any conversation with Mr. von Phul relating to Mr. Henwood?

  A: May I have a minute, please? I cannot get your question clearly, Mr. Bottom.

  Q: Did you have any conversation on the day of the shooting in the Brown Palace Hotel?

  A: Did I have any conversation with...?

  Q: With Mr. von Phul wherein Mr. von Phul spoke about Mr. Henwood?

  A: Yes, sir.

  Q: Did you ever have any conversation with Mr. von Phul after the dinner hour the evening before?

  A: After dinner the evening before?

  Q: Yes, immediately after you had had your dinner.

  Here, even the attorneys became confused. Elliott couldn’t follow the sequence of events and queried Bottom before both sides debated over the admissibility of Isabel’s testimony. She sat silent on the stand while they argued.

  Elliott: That is, on the twenty-third?

  Bottom: Yes, in your apartment?

  A: Did I have any conversation with him?

  Q: With Mr. von Phul, yes, or did he have any with you?

  Court: That is to be answered by yes or no.

  A: Yes.

  Q: You may state what occurred just as briefly as you can.

  A: On that evening?

  Q: On that evening.

  Elliott vigorously blocked further questions about what the two had talked about, and when. Bottom again tried without success to introduce von Phul’s threats against Henwood made to Isabel. Again, Elliott, with the judge’s assistance, succeeded in preventing that from happening.

  Finally, Bottom gave up and noted an exception (accepting the judge’s ruling without agreeing to it): “Your honor. Now, may it please the court, as I understand the law, after an assault has been made by the deceased, testimony of the character that I am about to offer is proper to show the malice of the deceased toward the defendant in making the assault, and it is immaterial whether the assault is shown by the People in their main case or by the defendant in the defendant’s case. Now, I understand that, your honor, to be the law.

  Elliott: If your honor please, we have been over the law and there isn’t any question about the law. We have been here since 9 o’clock and we have been examining one short witness that should have been examined in fifteen minutes.... It seems to me that this jury don’t want to sit here until the Fourth of July.

  Court: We are going to move.

  After more wrangling with the judge over the admissibility of testimony, Bottom decided to bring Isabel’s testimony to a close.

  Bottom: If I understand the court now correctly, and I want to be advised, the court will not permit this witness to testify regarding any conversation had between her and Mr. von Phul wherein Mr. von Phul may have made threats toward Mr. Henwood, notwithstanding she may have communicated them to the defendant.

  Court: In the present state of the record we will not receive the testimony.

  Bottom: That is all, Mrs. Springer. You may stand aside for the present.

  Isabel was helped from the witness stand by Dr. Jayne. She and Henwood, seated a few feet away, did not acknowledge each other. Her disorient
ed demeanor and testimony had done nothing to help the defendant.

  

  Elliott’s legal maneuvering and the rulings of Judge Whitford left the defense attorney unable to enter Isabel Springer’s testimony regarding threats von Phul may have made toward Henwood. Instead Bottom set about establishing a legal foundation on which to question Isabel: He called Henwood to the stand.

  For his part, Henwood, with direction by his attorney, told his account of the events of May 23 and 24 that

  preceded the shooting. He emphasized that he was only trying to help a friend by getting Mrs. Springer’s letters back from von Phul, and he told of his tussle with the St. Louisan in the latter’s room at the Brown, in which a gun was pointed at him, and how he was so afraid that he took the precaution of purchasing a gun. He also made it clear that when he saw von Phul face-to-face in the hotel lobby on May 23, it was the first time they had met, contradicting pretrial rumors that the two men had fought over Isabel in St. Louis and in Denver.

  Henwood insisted that he fired the fatal shots in self-defense. He told of his friendship with John Springer and his determination to protect his friend’s marriage from ruin.

  Bottom asked, “What conversation occurred between you and von Phul [at the bar]?”

  Henwood answered, “I said, ‘Tony, or Mr. von Phul,’ because he objected to the name of Tony, ‘won’t you reconsider what you said this afternoon?’ He said, ‘I am going upstairs and get that gray-headed son of a bitch and pull him out of there and show him who is master here.’ And I said, ‘You can’t get that over on me.’”

  He told how von Phul knocked him down with one punch, then described the moment he emptied the gun at von Phul. “I got up and as I lifted myself there was only one thought in my mind, that was to see that man reach for a gun. I was almost certain that I did see him put his hand on his right hip. It was simply a movement on my part to protect myself and my life, and I pulled my pistol out and shot him.” He insisted that von Phul was standing over him with “an expression of deadly hatred” when he fired the first shot.