The Truth about Belle Gunness

by Lillian de la Torre

  A. Yes, sir, I had several. He told me he stayed at Lizzie Smith’s that night, and set the alarm clock for three A.M. At that time he said he got up and found it was raining a little, and he lay down again. He drank a bottle of beer. Then he went across to the Lake Shore tracks. He saw a man and woman coming with a baby in a gocart. He hid behind the signalman’s tower until they had passed.

  Wirt Worden resolved to redouble his efforts to find that family of three with their gocart; but he never found them. The prosecutor went on:

  Q. Did Lamphere tell you why he hid, Mr. Anstiss?

  A. He said he did not want to be seen coming from Mrs. Smith’s.

  Q. What else did Lamphere say?

  A. He claimed to have gone out Park Road. He said he left Park Road and hid in a small clump of trees, then crossed to a stone road leading to the Gunness farm. According to the story he told me, he first saw smoke coming out of the Gunness house at this time. He said that finally he left the road and went across the fields to his cousin’s. After I had investigated his story, I went to Ray in jail and said, “Ray, you’ve been lying to me. You’ll put your foot into it this way. When you went through that clump of trees you went over a rail fence, didn’t you?”

  Lamphere answered yes. I asked him whether he wasn’t running when he went down a slope, and Ray answered, “Yes, I guess I was running.”

  When I wanted to know why, he said he was in a hurry to get to his work. I told him he did not take the stone road, as he said, because a man was working there and would have seen him. Then Lamphere said he went only a short distance on the stone road.

  Q. Did Lamphere tell you anything about the Gunness cellar?

  A. Yes, sir. He told me that Mrs. Gunness never kept the outside cellar door locked. He said he made that cellar door himself and that as a matter of fact it had no lock on it. I asked him if she didn’t lock the inside door from the cellar to the first floor. He said no; that that door opened into a little corridor. I asked him how a man could get into the rooms of the house if he went through the cellar and up into that little hallway. Lamphere said that was easy, you could get into the kitchen and the lean-to bedroom, because she only locked the door into the brick part of the house and never locked the door into the wooden part.

  Then Ray Lamphere—or anybody else—could easily have got in the lean-to to fetch the kerosene under the stairs and spill it in the cellar before applying a match. If Anstiss’ testimony was accurate, opportunity was as solidly proved as motive.

  The afternoon was growing late. Anstiss had still some damaging testimony to report. Smith led him forward:

  Q. Now, Mr. Anstiss, what else did Lamphere tell you?

  A. In one of my early talks with Lamphere, he told me that he had stayed in Michigan City on the night of January fourteenth, when he went to trade horses with Mr. Moo. When I discovered that he had returned on the eight-o’clock trolley, I questioned him again. I said, “Ray, I want to be fair with you, but you have been lying to me. If you are innocent it is bad business to lie about anything. Why didn’t you tell me you got off at the icehouse switch that night? You don’t deny it now, do you?”

  “No,” said Lamphere, “I did get off.”

  Then I asked him, “Why didn’t you come and tell us when you caught her killing Helgelien? Why didn’t you do it, instead of telling that stuff about Helgelien going away?”

  “I didn’t do it because—” Lamphere, said, stopping suddenly and looking directly into my eyes.

  “But you don’t deny you saw her killing Helgelien?” I said.

  “No, I don’t deny it,” Lamphere said, “but I don’t want to talk about it. It wouldn’t be fair to my lawyer.”

  At this sensational admission, Ray Lamphere fidgeted uneasily, the listeners murmured, the reporters’ pencils raced, and even the solid jury looked impressed. What lay behind this admission of guilty knowledge? Guilty deeds? Was the man on trial an accomplice in those multiple murders? If so, he deserved to die, whether he burned up Mrs. Gunness or not!

  At the nadir of hope for Ray, in the gloom of the afternoon, court adjourned.

  Overnight the town was abuzz. It was the general belief that Anstiss’ testimony had driven the final nail in the accused man’s coffin. How could the defense find a way to repair the damage?

  On the morning of Friday, November 20, drained of hope, numb to fear, Ray Lamphere dragged himself wearily into court after a sleepless night on his hard jail cot. His indomitable attorney gave him a reassuring glance, and rose to cross-examine William Anstiss. Worden soon punctured the witness’ certainty as he asked:

  Q. Mr. Anstiss, didn’t you tell a reporter you were doubtful about Lamphere being guilty of arson?

  A. I said I was positive about his having seen the killing of Helgelien, but that some things that had happened made me less positive of his guilt on the arson charge.

  Q. Was that when you heard about there being poison found in the bodies taken from the Gunness house?

  A. Yes, that was it—but [hastily] I understand that matter now.

  Q. On the fifth of May, didn’t I say to you that if you would hunt more for Helgelien’s body and less for evidence against Lamphere, the public would be better served, and didn’t you reply: “I saw Helgelien go down and get on the five-o’clock train myself?”

  A. No, sir, I did not.

  Q. Did you ever ask Ray if he set the fire?

  A. Yes, sir, several times.

  Q. What did he tell you?

  A. He said no.

  Worden thought that was a good place to stop.

  So did the state. As ten A.M. was striking, with corpus deliciti, means, motive, and opportunity all neatly wrapped up, the state suddenly rested.

  10. The Bobtail Flush: The Defense

  On Friday, November 20, at midmorning, Wirt Worden rose to open for the defense. The courtroom was in a ferment. Supporters of Ray Lamphere were on pins and needles to hear what unexpected evidence the defense was going to offer to back up the lurid suggestions Wirt Worden had been advancing in cross-examination, and how he was going to lift the heavy shadow of the gallows hanging over the white-faced defendant.

  Nobody knew better than Worden how dark that shadow was, and how little clear light he could bring to dispel it. The defense attorney had been taken by surprise, but neither his earnest manner nor his resonant voice betrayed it. He had his case at his fingertips. Speaking slowly and with fervor and sincerity, he put his case before the jury:

  “In order for the state to prove its case, the first thing that is necessary is to prove the corpus delicti—that is, the identification of the body.

  “Now, we have our ideas as to whether it was the body of Mrs. Gunness. We believe our evidence will show you that it was not her body. Whether it was or not, this does not in any way determine the question of the guilt or innocence of Ray Lamphere.…

  “Our evidence will show that Mrs. Gunness is still alive. She had motive to set fire to the house and escape. Previous to the time of the fire there were certain murders committed at the farm. Some of our evidence has been submitted by the state, and among this is the fact of these crimes having been committed. The evidence will show that at least ten bodies were dug up on the place. The evidence will show the condition of these bodies as to mutilation.

  “Mrs. Gunness was one of the most notorious of women criminals. Her crimes were of the most dastardly nature. We will show that she had a clear motive in burning down her house and poisoning her children on that memorable night. We will show that that was the crisis in her life of crime, and that she was afraid that any hour her career of crime might be uncovered.

  “We will show that the trial of Lamphere at Stillwell before Justice Kincaid on a charge of trespass preferred by Belle Gunness gave Mrs. Gunness a very good reason to fear an exposé of her criminal record. At this trial it came out that her first husband had come to his end in a mysterious manner and that she had realized on his life insurance. It also came out
that her second husband came to his end by the sausage-cutter route. She was asked when Jennie Olson would return. Mrs. Gunness had a very good hunch that something would be doing and in a very short time.

  “I believe that the evidence will show that on April twenty-seventh there was a crisis in her life, that she was expecting Helgelien here to investigate about his brother, and that she thought that Ray Lamphere knew more of these things than she would have him know.

  “Our evidence will show that Bella Gunness had reason to commit the crime that was committed. The evidence will show that she did commit the act. On the afternoon before the fire she went to Minich’s grocery and bought an unusual quantity of kerosene,’ more than she was in the habit of buying.

  “We will prove by testimony that on the afternoon of April twenty-seventh Mrs. Gunness had a conversation in front of the First National Bank building with a certain man in which she said, ‘It will have to be done tonight, and you will have to do it.’

  “Something was done that night. A torch was applied to the Gunness house, and the bodies of the three Gunness children were found in the ruins.

  “The evidence will show that the can of kerosene was set by Maxson in the frame part of the house, that this part had no cellar under it, and that on the morning after the fire this same can was found in the middle of the cellar under the brick part of the floor, and there was no debris under it, and no evidence of any explosion.

  “The evidence will further show that between the frame part and the brick there were two doors which were kept locked, and that Mrs. Gunness allowed no one to enter the brick part but herself and her children.

  “On the Saturday night before, she was seen driving out to the place with another woman, slightly smaller than she, who had never been seen before and has never been seen since, unless it was her body that was found in the ruins of the fire.

  “Evidence will be introduced that Mrs. Gunness has been seen alive since the burning of the house. Mr. Hutson, who lived across the road from her, who helped Sheriff Smutzer dig in the ruins, will testify that he saw her at the Gunness place on the ninth of July about four or five in the afternoon. He could distinguish her features; he could describe her dress, her horse and buggy. His two children knew her intimately. They saw her pass them on the road.

  “We will show that the bridgework found in the ruins, and claimed by Dr. Norton to be that which he had made for Belle Gunness, could not have been subjected to the terrific heat which played on the bodies. We will prove to you that teeth that had gone through this heat would have become brittle and crumbled away. The chemical composition of the teeth renders them more easily burned than the jawbone. Heat that would destroy the jawbone would destroy every vestige of those teeth. In at least one of the watches, the gold case had melted so that the metal ran into the works in globules.

  “We will show that it is possible to remove the teeth from the mouth in various ways.

  “These teeth were not found till the nineteenth of May, twenty-one days after the fire.”

  After skating lightly over the question of an alibi, Worden advanced his strongest point:

  “We think we will be able to show you that Mrs. Gunness committed the crime of killing Helgelien; that the stomach was sent to Dr. Walter S. Haines of Chicago University for analysis; that in this stomach there was arsenic and strychnine in fatal quantities. Dr. Haines will testify that in the stomachs of these bodies found in the fire there was also arsenic and strychnine in fatal quantities. In his opinion death was caused by poisoning.

  “We shall show from testimony already introduced that it would have been impossible for Ray Lamphere to have gone there and administered poison.

  “Did Mrs. Gunness poison the children, place the adult body with them, and escape? If this be true, Lamphere could not be guilty. Or if that was Mrs. Gunness’ body and she came to death by poison, then Lamphere could not be found guilty.

  “I am confident that after the evidence is all in, you will be satisfied that Ray Lamphere had nothing to do with the committing of this crime.”

  When Worden had finished, there was a profound quiet. The fighting defender had made a deep impression. Even Ray Lamphere’s bent head came up and he looked at his attorney with silent trust.

  Then Worden began to call witnesses, and rather spoiled his effect.

  The defense of Ray Lamphere is the despair of lawyers. They are infuriated by it, its patchwork of doubts and irrelevancies, its sorties in all directions, its mixed bag of witnesses. But what could Worden do? His experts could not be conjured into court with a snap of the fingers; they were busy men. He dared not put the defendant on the stand. Ray was at the breaking point; and on the best day he ever had, Ray was still an unpredictable liar.

  The prosecution was just longing for’ a chance at Ray.

  “He’ll confess on the stand,” predicted Smith ominously. “I’ll give him a grilling that will put the Evelyn Thaw grilling in the shade!”

  Ray Lamphere was no Evelyn Thaw, either in sex appeal or in quick wits. Worden dared not expose his client to such a grilling. Neither did he dare produce Nigger Liz with an alibi. Nigger Liz would fight back; but would anybody believe her? The one sure result would be further damage to Ray’s already blackened reputation.

  To do him justice, Worden was not trying to put on a show. He was not attempting to impress his fellow lawyers, or to play detective, or to get off bright sayings and Socratic questions that would look good in a book. He had one concern, and one only: to save Ray Lamphere from the gallows, to which, Worden sincerely believed, Belle Gunness had plotted to send her former lover.

  The defense lawyer began a stubborn fight. His weapons were doubt and confusion. No wonder the method of the defense seemed dubious and confused.

  The first defense witness was John H. Ball, local undertaker’s helper. Worden proposed to prove by him that the burned body was not that of Mrs. Gunness; but at once he was thrown for a loss. Mr. Smith immediately objected to this testimony, since Mr. Ball was no expert, and therefore his opinions were not evidence. Mr. Ball was silenced. To make matters worse, having canceled the undertaker out as a witness for the defense, Smith proceeded to try to convert him into a witness for the prosecution by asking:

  “Mr. Ball, in handling the body, was any embalming fluid used?”

  Worden gave the questioner a quick look, took a note, and underlined it with a sharp slash. He saw where that question was tending. Mr. Ball’s answer tended nowhere:

  “Not to my knowledge.”

  “It might have been used and you not known it?”

  “Yes, sir.”

  Having helped nobody, Undertaker Ball left the stand. Fishing for witnesses, Worden now brought forward a bystander to impeach Smutzer’s testimony. That too was a fizzle.” The witness could not be heard until the clerk had checked on what Smutzer’s testimony was.

  Wirt Worden was out of witnesses. A recess was taken until after lunch.

  During the recess, Worden was able to muster up his experts. The defense lawyer rightly regarded the mysterious teeth as a crucial piece of evidence. If they had burned inside Mrs. Gunness’ head, as the prosecution sought to prove, then she was dead in the fire. But if the teeth had not gone through the fire, but had been thrown in the ashes afterward, then the headless corpse wasn’t hers, and Ray hadn’t murdered her.

  To prove the latter contention on behalf of the defense, Worden called, in all, three experts, two dentists and a doctor. As soon as court reconvened, he put George Wasser, D.D.S., on the stand.

  Q. I will ask you, Dr. Wasser, if you have made any comparative tests as to the effects of heat upon bone and teeth.

  A. I have. The results were that at the end of four or five minutes the bone showed a good deal of resistance, while the tooth was about collapsed.

  Q. I will ask your opinion, Dr. Wasser, if a head had been consumed, and all the jaw except the fragment produced, could the teeth have been left in the condition of these te
eth?

  A. No, sir.

  Q. Could you state from this piece of bone, Doctor, whether it is the bone of a human being or not?

  A. No, sir.

  Tall Mr. Sutherland was back in court with his medical books, for it was he that had got up the medical aspect of the case for the prosecution. He rose to cross-examine, and soon elicited several points more favorable to the state’s case. Dr. Wasser had to admit that the two sets of charred teeth fitted one another reasonably well, that the color matched, and that they showed signs of having been used in the mouth, thus shaking the defense contention that they might have been faked to order.

  Fighting for lost ground, Worden re-examined:

  Q. Crowns could be removed without burning or destroying them, could they not, Dr. Wasser?

  A. Yes, sir, by splitting the gold.

  But the crowns had not been split. Attorney Sutherland returned to the attack and had the last word:

  Q. Do you think these teeth were removed that way, Dr. Wasser?

  A. I do not know.

  Q. The teeth might have been burned off?

  A. Yes, sir.

  Q. Do you think they have been in a fire?

  A. Yes, they have been through a fire.

  The second dental expert was serious-faced Dr. W. S. Fischer. Worden again produced the contested teeth and the fragment of bone. Ray Lamphere looked at the sinister things with a face drained of emotion. His eyes rested on them a moment, and then his nervous gaze flicked away. Dr. Fischer looked at the exhibits gravely and then said positively that the teeth could not possibly have gone through the fire that destroyed the skull; the porcelain was free of checks and cracks such as an intense fire must have caused.

  On cross-examination this defense expert, like the proceeding one, said that the two sets of teeth were probably made for the same mouth, that they had been worn, that they had passed through fire in some way, and that if fire were applied to the back and top of the skull, it would have to eat its way through the skull before reaching the teeth.

  There was some lively cross fire on the subject of the alleged jawbone. The state produced a copy of Gray’s Anatomy. Wirt Worden capped that, and gave the attorneys a high old time, when he proposed to put in evidence as a test case the lantern jaw of his learned friend Ralph N. Smith.