Speaker 1: You're listening to History on Trial, a production of iHeart Podcasts.
Speaker 1: Listener discretion advised. On May fourth, eighteen eighty a crowd
Speaker 1: gathered at the Art Association on Pine Street in San Francisco.
Speaker 1: They dutifully paid the fifty cent admission fee, filed into
Speaker 1: the gallery room, and took their seats. They had been
Speaker 1: drawn in by a newspaper advertisement that promised a show
Speaker 1: unlike any other, and it was true. The viewers there
Speaker 1: that night were about to witness history being made. At
Speaker 1: the back of the room stood a man with a
Speaker 1: long gray beard. He was Edward Moybridge, the noted photographer.
Speaker 1: People had always said Moybridge seemed older than his actual age,
Speaker 1: though he looked to be in his sixties. Now he
Speaker 1: was only forty nine. Moybridge was bent over a device
Speaker 1: three feet tall and three feet wide, a wood and
Speaker 1: brass and glass contraption of his own invention. Once the
Speaker 1: crowd was settled, Moybridge dimmed the gaslights. He ignited the
Speaker 1: gas jet inside his device, directing the flame towards a
Speaker 1: brick of lime, which generated a bright light. The light
Speaker 1: illuminated a glass disc, projecting its images onto the screen.
Speaker 1: As Moybridge spun the disc, and then the magic happened
Speaker 1: on the screen in front of them. The crowd watched
Speaker 1: in astonishment as the image of a horse appeared and
Speaker 1: then miraculously began to run. For two seconds, the horse
Speaker 1: galloped across the screen, then did it again. It looked,
Speaker 1: said one reporter, like a living moving horse. Nothing was
Speaker 1: wanting but the clatter of the hoofs upon the turf,
Speaker 1: and an occasional breath of steam from the nostrils to
Speaker 1: make the spectator believe that he had before him genuine
Speaker 1: flesh and blood steeds. And the wonder did not end there.
Speaker 1: Moybridge switched the disc and now came a horse leaping
Speaker 1: that a bull charging, a greyhound racing a bird's soaring
Speaker 1: through the air. The audience was astonished. They had just
Speaker 1: seen something that almost no one alive in eighteen eighty
Speaker 1: had ever seen before, real living animals in motion, photographed
Speaker 1: and projected in front of them. People were familiar with zootropes,
Speaker 1: small toys with illustrated or photographic strips that you could spin,
Speaker 1: producing the illusion of motion, and they may have seen
Speaker 1: magic lantern shows in which early projectors cast images onto
Speaker 1: a screen But Edward Moybridge's machine, which he would come
Speaker 1: to call the zoapraxoscope or life action view in Greek,
Speaker 1: was something new. He had done something revolutionary. First, he
Speaker 1: had figured out how to photograph animals in motion, using
Speaker 1: an inventive series of trip wires and fast shutters. You
Speaker 1: might be familiar with some of these photos. The most
Speaker 1: famous is a black and white set of a man
Speaker 1: riding a horse. Then he had worked out how to
Speaker 1: transfer these images to a glass disc and project them
Speaker 1: in sequence, playing back the moment in time he had captured,
Speaker 1: preserving and replicating it. He had set into motion a
Speaker 1: series of inventions and innovations that would lead soon enough
Speaker 1: to the birth of the movie. But our story today
Speaker 1: is not about what happened on that May night in
Speaker 1: eighteen eighty It's about a crime that happened six years earlier,
Speaker 1: in eighteen seventy four, a crime that led to a
Speaker 1: dramatic trial that caught the nation's attention and sparked discussions
Speaker 1: on the role of the law. It's an incredible tale,
Speaker 1: one of love, betrayal, vengeance and justice in the still
Speaker 1: somewhat wild West. And at the heart of it all
Speaker 1: was the man you've just met, because Edward Moybridge was
Speaker 1: not just the father of motion pictures. He was also
Speaker 1: a murderer. Welcome to history on trial. I'm your host,
Speaker 1: Mirah Hayward. This week California v. Edward Moybridge. Edward Moybridge
Speaker 1: was not always Edward Moybridge. Born April ninth, eighteen thirty,
Speaker 1: Moybridge was christened Edward James Muggeridge, the second of four sons.
Speaker 1: Throughout his life, Moybridge changed his name several times. For
Speaker 1: consistency's sake, I'll call him Edward Moybridge throughout, since this
Speaker 1: was a name he was known by. At the time
Speaker 1: of the trial. As a child, friends and family called
Speaker 1: him Ted. A cousin described Ted as an eccentric boy,
Speaker 1: rather mischievous, always doing something or saying something unusual, or
Speaker 1: inventing a new toy or a fresh trick. His family
Speaker 1: was lower middle class, and life in Kingston upon Thames,
Speaker 1: the small town fifteen miles southwest of London where Moybridge
Speaker 1: grew up, did not offer many opportunities. In eighteen fifty,
Speaker 1: age twenty, Moybridge decided to seek his fortune in America.
Speaker 1: He arranged with a London publisher to become their sales
Speaker 1: representative in New York and headed across the Atlantic. In Manhattan,
Speaker 1: Moybridge got his first taste of the photography business after
Speaker 1: befriending a man named Silas Selik, who worked in Matthew
Speaker 1: Brady's photography studio. Selik and Moybridge became close, and when
Speaker 1: Selik decided to move to California, Moybridge eventually followed him,
Speaker 1: heading west in the autumn of eighteen fifty five. On
Speaker 1: arrival in San Francisco, Moybridge subtly changed his name, shortening
Speaker 1: his birth name of Muggridge to Muggridge. Less than a
Speaker 1: year later, he changed it again, this time to Moygridge.
Speaker 1: It was under this name that he applied for U
Speaker 1: s citizenship in November eighteen fifty six. Moybridge did well
Speaker 1: for himself as a publisher in San Francisco. He had
Speaker 1: a knack for knowing what would sell. He joined the
Speaker 1: board of the Mercantile Library, an oasis of culture in
Speaker 1: the rough and tumble town. He made social connections. He prospered,
Speaker 1: but then in early eighteen fifty nine, Moybridge decided to
Speaker 1: return to England. Why exactly he did so is unknown,
Speaker 1: but over the course of the year he sold off
Speaker 1: his remaining inventory and wrapped up his business in San Francisco.
Speaker 1: On July second, eighteen sixty, he boarded the Butterfield Stage
Speaker 1: bound for Saint Louis. Traveling by stagecoach was miserable. The
Speaker 1: Butterfield Overland Mail Company and other companies like it contracted
Speaker 1: with the Post Office to carry mail across the country.
Speaker 1: Passengers could hitch a ride along the way, and the
Speaker 1: price was cheap for a reason. The small horse drawn
Speaker 1: wagons took twenty five days to complete the twenty eight
Speaker 1: hundred mile route, three weeks of bone shaking travel across
Speaker 1: rocky roads, breathing in dust and your fellow passenger's stench.
Speaker 1: The ride was also dangerous. The coaches were attacked by bandits,
Speaker 1: vulnerable to bad weather, accident prone. On July twenty second,
Speaker 1: three weeks into the journey, Moybridge's coach was traveling near
Speaker 1: what is now Fort Worth, Texas, when the horses panicked
Speaker 1: and broke into a wild run. The driver could not
Speaker 1: control the coach and it sped down the road, going
Speaker 1: faster and faster until it hit a stump and sent
Speaker 1: its passengers flying, Edward Moybridge was thrown from the coach
Speaker 1: and landed on his head. He would not regain consciousness
Speaker 1: for nine days. When Moybridge came to, he found that
Speaker 1: both his vision and his hearing had been impacted by
Speaker 1: the accident. After resting for several weeks in Arkansas, Moybridge
Speaker 1: of eventually made his way to New York, where, after
Speaker 1: filing a suit against the Butterfield Stage Company, he boarded
Speaker 1: a ship for England. Upon his return to England, Moybridge
Speaker 1: gave up the publishing business and tried his hand at inventing.
Speaker 1: When he failed to make money from his inventions, he
Speaker 1: turned to business, joining a relative in banking, but his
Speaker 1: time as a banker was a disaster, his investments evaporated.
Speaker 1: The only souvenir that would remain from this time was
Speaker 1: a new name, Edward Moigridge. Ney Muggridge had now become
Speaker 1: Edward Moybridge, But it was not as Edward Moybridge that
Speaker 1: he returned to San Francisco in eighteen sixty six. It
Speaker 1: was as Helios. Helios was his new name and his
Speaker 1: new persona an artist, a photographer to be exact. During
Speaker 1: his stint as an inventor, Moybridge had spent time in Paris,
Speaker 1: where he crossed paths with three French brothers, the Berteaux,
Speaker 1: who ran a photography studio called Maison AliOS. For a time,
Speaker 1: Moybridge used Mason Elios as his nailing address in Paris.
Speaker 1: Edward Ball, in his book The Inventor in the Tycoon
Speaker 1: feorizes that the Burteaus taught Moybridge their craft. The Englishman
Speaker 1: borrowed more than just the brother's technique. He also borrowed
Speaker 1: their name, using the English pronunciation of AliOS to become Helios.
Speaker 1: While working as a publisher, inventor, and banker, Moybridge had
Speaker 1: always appeared like a conventional man. He wore suits, trimmed
Speaker 1: his hair, and maintained a neat appearance. But now as
Speaker 1: an artist, Moybridge changed. His beard, grew long and unkempt.
Speaker 1: His hair sprouted in unruly waves. He wore ragged clothes,
Speaker 1: floppy hats, a hostile expression. His appearance seemed to say
Speaker 1: that he cared for only one thing, his art, and
Speaker 1: his actions backed up this impression. Moybridge had become obsessed
Speaker 1: with photography. He even designed a portable dark room in
Speaker 1: a wagon so that he could develop prints whenever he wanted.
Speaker 1: His breakthrough as an artist came with pictures he took
Speaker 1: of Yosemite. Moybridge's photos captured the splendor and the scale
Speaker 1: of the valley, its awe inspiring rock formations and waterfalls,
Speaker 1: and newspapers around the world printed the pictures. He also
Speaker 1: gained recognition in San Francisco for his photographs of houses.
Speaker 1: California's railbarons, including Leland Stanford and Charles Crocker, built sprawling
Speaker 1: mansions in the city and commissioned Moybridge to document their opulence.
Speaker 1: Within three years of returning to California, Moybridge was likely
Speaker 1: the best known photographer in the state. In April eighteen
Speaker 1: sixty nine, he signed with one of San Francisco's most
Speaker 1: prestigious galleries, run by the Nall Brothers. It was at
Speaker 1: the Knall's gallery that Edward Moybridge met Flora Downs. Flora
Speaker 1: worked as a photo retoucher for the brothers, a job
Speaker 1: that in those days meant fixing scratches in photo negatives
Speaker 1: or using wax and paint to apply color to photographs.
Speaker 1: Born in eighteen fifty one, Flora had had a difficult childhood,
Speaker 1: her mother had died young and her stepmother had been
Speaker 1: uninterested in raising her. At twelve, Flora was sent to
Speaker 1: live with her aunt and uncle in Kentucky. Two years later,
Speaker 1: the family moved to California. Upon the family's arrival in Marysville, California,
Speaker 1: Flora's aunt and uncle left the girl with another aunt
Speaker 1: and traveled to Oregon. Flora Downs, only fourteen years old,
Speaker 1: had now been left behind by two families. Some historians
Speaker 1: have claimed that Downs was next sent to Mills Seminary,
Speaker 1: a boarding school for girls, but there is no record
Speaker 1: of her attending the school. There is, however, a record
Speaker 1: of Downs getting a job as a sales clerk at
Speaker 1: a store in San Francisco. She would not work there
Speaker 1: for long. At some point, sixteen year old Flora met
Speaker 1: twenty four year old Lucius Stone, scion of a wealthy
Speaker 1: saddle making family. Flora married Stone in July eighteen sixty
Speaker 1: seven and went to live in his family home, but
Speaker 1: the marriage was not a happy one. Flora hated her
Speaker 1: mother in law, who she called cruel and tyrannical, and
Speaker 1: less than two years after the wedding, Flora moved out,
Speaker 1: possibly using a small settlement from the Stone family to
Speaker 1: pay for a rented room. With little formal education and
Speaker 1: few family ties, Flora needed to learn to support herself. Somehow,
Speaker 1: she discovered a talent for photo retouching. When Edward Moybridge
Speaker 1: and Flora Downs met, he was thirty nine and she
Speaker 1: was eighteen. She was petite and pretty, with wavy brown
Speaker 1: hair and a doll's face. He was a committed artist
Speaker 1: with little interest in personal grooming. She liked the theater, nights, dresses,
Speaker 1: nights on the town. He preferred the wilderness, his work,
Speaker 1: and solitude. We don't know what drew the unlikely pair together.
Speaker 1: Perhaps Flora was lonely. Her last family member in California
Speaker 1: died in September eighteen seventy, and her divorce from Lucius
Speaker 1: Stone was finalized three months later. Perhaps she was attracted
Speaker 1: to Moybridge's success or perhaps she didn't have much say
Speaker 1: in the matter. Flora would later claim that Moybridge paid
Speaker 1: for her divorce from Stone and coerced her into marrying
Speaker 1: him by threatening to get her fired from the gallery.
Speaker 1: Or maybe, against all odds, this was a love story. Okay,
Speaker 1: maybe not, but whatever the case. On May twentieth, eighteen
Speaker 1: seventy one, twenty year old Flora Downs and forty one
Speaker 1: year old Edward Moybridge were married. Two months after the wedding,
Speaker 1: Moybridge began traveling for work. He was away from home
Speaker 1: for more than half of the first year of their marriage.
Speaker 1: Flora grew increasingly lonely, a pain that only compounded when
Speaker 1: she suffered two stillbirths in a row. In the spring
Speaker 1: of eighteen seventy two, the Nall Brothers closed their gallery.
Speaker 1: Moybridge moved to Bradley and Rulufsen, a gallery and photography
Speaker 1: studio known for taking pictures of celebrities. Flora got a
Speaker 1: job a retouching photos for the studio. She enjoyed the work.
Speaker 1: She collected copies of the pictures of stage actors who
Speaker 1: Bradley and Rulefsen photographed, and made her own album, pasting
Speaker 1: the glamorous celebrity shots next to princes of Moybridge's nature pictures.
Speaker 1: The moy Bridges may not have been a perfect couple,
Speaker 1: or even a particularly happy one, but things were fine. Fine,
Speaker 1: that is until the arrival of Harry Larkins, and then
Speaker 1: things would fall apart with deadly consequences. Harry Larkins was
Speaker 1: well known in San Francisco, though few people knew his
Speaker 1: true background. They knew he was handsome, with a charming
Speaker 1: British accent and charisma to spare. They knew he dressed well,
Speaker 1: if flashily, sometimes wearing a peacock feather in his hat.
Speaker 1: They knew he'd fought in some war somewhere, or at
Speaker 1: least he told people to call him Major Larkins. But
Speaker 1: just exactly who he was and what life he'd lived
Speaker 1: before he arrived in San Francisco was a bit of
Speaker 1: a mystery, and would remain a mystery until the present day.
Speaker 1: But we'll come back to that. In eighteen seventy three,
Speaker 1: there were only two things San Franciscans knew for sure
Speaker 1: about Harry Larkins. He was excellent company, and he had
Speaker 1: trouble staying on the right side of the law. In
Speaker 1: March eighteen seventy three, Larkins was thrown in jail for
Speaker 1: charges of obtaining money under false pretenses. The charges had
Speaker 1: been brought by Larkins's former friend, one Arthur Neil. The
Speaker 1: two men had first met in London and reconnected by
Speaker 1: chance in Salt Lake City in mid eighteen seventy two.
Speaker 1: They then decided to travel to San Francisco together. For months,
Speaker 1: they'd lived it up, Larkins providing the entertainment and Neil
Speaker 1: providing the funds. Neil said that Larkins claim to have
Speaker 1: a wealthy family who would cover his expenses eventually, but
Speaker 1: after five months without repayment, Neil grew impatient. He filed
Speaker 1: a police report against Larkins and then took his story
Speaker 1: to the newspaper. The San Francisco Chronicle jumped on the
Speaker 1: juicy story, publishing Nil's tale of woe with the headline
Speaker 1: financial genius the Prince of Confidence. Men in limbo Major
Speaker 1: Harry Larkins arrested for swindling, and noted that Larkins had
Speaker 1: racked up quote hotel bills that would make a millionaire shudder.
Speaker 1: The two men eventually settled their case out of court
Speaker 1: and the charges against Larkins were dismissed, but his reputation
Speaker 1: was ruined and he was broke. He began moving freight
Speaker 1: at the docks, hard labor, but at least it paid
Speaker 1: soon though, his charm and intelligence earned him the opportunity
Speaker 1: to become the theater critic for the San Francisco Evening Post.
Speaker 1: It was likely because of this role that he ended
Speaker 1: up at Bradley and Rulffson's gallery, where all the theater stars
Speaker 1: got their pictures taken. This, in turn, is likely how
Speaker 1: he met Flora and Edward Moybridge. Sometime in eighteen seventy three.
Speaker 1: Larkin started out as a friend of both Moybridges. He
Speaker 1: got free theater tickets through his job and offered to
Speaker 1: take the couple out one night. Flora enjoyed the outing,
Speaker 1: Edward did not. Larkins invited them to another show. Edward declined,
Speaker 1: but Flora said yes. Soon Flora and Larkins were spending
Speaker 1: quite a bit of time together. The two found they
Speaker 1: had much in common, similarly lonely childhood's a shared love
Speaker 1: for theater. In May eighteen seventy three, Moybridge left on
Speaker 1: a photography assignment for the U. S. Army. Upon his return,
Speaker 1: he was troubled by reports of his wife's new friendship
Speaker 1: and warned Larkins off I want you to let her alone,
Speaker 1: he recalled. He told Larkins, I do not request it
Speaker 1: of you, but I command you to keep away from her.
Speaker 1: You know my rights as a married man, so do I,
Speaker 1: and I shall defend them. Larkins agreed to stop seeing Flora,
Speaker 1: but the break didn't last long. In the summer of
Speaker 1: eighteen seventy three, Flora learned she was pregnant again. The
Speaker 1: Moybridges hired a woman named Susan Smith to serve as
Speaker 1: Flora's midwife and baby nurse, but Smith would later allege
Speaker 1: that she had another role, that of go between for
Speaker 1: Flora and Larkins. Smith said she carried notes for the couple,
Speaker 1: who saw each other whenever Moybridge was out of town working.
Speaker 1: In April eighteen seventy four, while Moybridge was yet again
Speaker 1: got an assignment, Flora went into labor. Harry Larkins was
Speaker 1: with her and summoned Smith. After a twelve hour labor,
Speaker 1: Flora gave birth to a healthy baby boy. Smith wrote
Speaker 1: to Moybridge and he returned to town, though he only
Speaker 1: stayed for a week or ten days before leaving to
Speaker 1: work again. He does not seem to have particularly bonded
Speaker 1: with his son. Smith would later say that Moybridge refused
Speaker 1: to name the baby. Flora eventually named the boy George
Speaker 1: Down's Moybridge. George was the name of Moybridge's deceased brother,
Speaker 1: but it also happened to be the name of Harry
Speaker 1: Larkins's deceased father. Larkins visited George and Flora frequently. In May,
Speaker 1: Larkins lost his newspaper job, possibly because his colleagues were
Speaker 1: tired of people showing up at the newsroom to demand
Speaker 1: that he pay them back for various debts. Desperate for money,
Speaker 1: Larkins took a job as a publicist for a traveling circus.
Speaker 1: While he was away from Flora, he wrote her secret
Speaker 1: messages in the paper using his middle initial Tea. In June,
Speaker 1: he left a note in the chronicle, f do write
Speaker 1: to me. I am utterly miserable without you, your devoted Tea.
Speaker 1: But by this time Flora was no longer in San
Speaker 1: Francisco to see the message. In mid June, Moybridge had
Speaker 1: sent her and George to Oregon to stay with relatives.
Speaker 1: He said it was so she would have company while
Speaker 1: he traveled on a multi month job, but some people
Speaker 1: wondered whether it was an attempt to keep Flora and
Speaker 1: Larkins apart. Absence, however, only made the heart grow fond.
Speaker 1: Flora and Harry both wrote to Susan Smith and her
Speaker 1: daughter Sarah about how they missed one another. There are
Speaker 1: indications that Larkins and Flora were planning to start a
Speaker 1: life together, but to do that, Larkins would need money.
Speaker 1: He took a new job writing about mining for a newspaper.
Speaker 1: His work took him into the mountains around California's Napa Valley,
Speaker 1: where he reported on the area's silver mines. He had
Speaker 1: high hopes for the future, but a dark cloud was looming.
Speaker 1: In October eighteen seventy four, Edward Moybridge returned to San Francisco.
Speaker 1: He was quickly confronted by Susan Smith, Flora's midwife and
Speaker 1: baby nurse, who claimed that she had not received her pay.
Speaker 1: On October thirteenth, Smith went to court over the matter,
Speaker 1: and one a judgment of one hundred dollars against Moybridge.
Speaker 1: Moybridge claimed that he had given Flora the money to
Speaker 1: pay Smith, but Smith produced a letter from Flora that
Speaker 1: claimed that Edward would pay the money. This letter, to
Speaker 1: Moybridge's consternation, contained a mention of Harry Larkins. After the hearing,
Speaker 1: Moybridge asked Smith if she had any other letters from Flora.
Speaker 1: Smith apparently trying to secure her payment, said she would
Speaker 1: give the letters to Moybridge. She gave him the letters
Speaker 1: on October fifteenth. The next day, Moybridge showed up at
Speaker 1: her house demanding more letters. The first batch of letters,
Speaker 1: he said, only showed a flirtation between Flora and Harry.
Speaker 1: He wanted letters that proved the affair that he was
Speaker 1: certain existed. Smith gave him more letters. She also showed
Speaker 1: him a picture of his baby's son, on which Flora
Speaker 1: had written either little Harry or Little George Harry. The
Speaker 1: next morning, October seventeenth, Moybridge went to the Arts Association,
Speaker 1: a social club. People who saw him there reported that
Speaker 1: he was quote perfectly cool and self possessed. He next
Speaker 1: went to Bradley and Rulfson's, where he ran into an
Speaker 1: acquaintance and the two men discussed bugs. Moybridge mentioned that
Speaker 1: he quote had some business up country and intended to
Speaker 1: leave by the afternoon. Boat Then he went upstairs and
Speaker 1: had a conversation with William Rulifson, the gallery owner. Moybridge
Speaker 1: gave Rulifsen a set of documents, which he said would
Speaker 1: organize his business in case anything were to happen to him.
Speaker 1: When Moybridge said he was going to Napa to see
Speaker 1: Harry Larkins, rul Offsen tried to stop him, but Moybridge
Speaker 1: would not be deterred. He left Rulufsen's office at three
Speaker 1: fifty six pm and sprinted to the Ferry Docks, barely
Speaker 1: making the four o'clock steamboat. He disembarked at Vallejoe at
Speaker 1: six p m. Then boarded the northbound train. Three hours later.
Speaker 1: He got off at the last stop, Calistoga. He stopped
Speaker 1: in at a saloon, then went to a buggy. He
Speaker 1: told the stableman he wanted to find Harry Larkins. Moybridge
Speaker 1: thought Larkins was at Pine Flat mining camp. That's where
Speaker 1: Larkins had written his last newspaper dispatch. From the stableman, however,
Speaker 1: knew that Larkins was spending the night at a miner's
Speaker 1: cottage by the Yellowjacket mine. The stableman tried to convince
Speaker 1: Moybridge to wait until morning, since Larkins would be traveling
Speaker 1: into Calistoga, but Moybridge refused. The stableman relented and told
Speaker 1: one of his drivers, George Wolf, to bring Moybridge up
Speaker 1: to the Yellowjacket cottage. The drive of the slopes of
Speaker 1: Mount Saint Helena took more than an hour. Moybridge, Wolf
Speaker 1: would later say, appeared calm, though he did ask if
Speaker 1: he could fire his pistol two, he claimed scare off robbers.
Speaker 1: When Wolf asked what he wanted with Larkins, Moybridge said
Speaker 1: he wanted to quote give him an unexpected mesa. He
Speaker 1: would certainly do that. Around eleven PM, Moybridge arrived at
Speaker 1: the Yellowjacket Cottage, so named because of a nest of
Speaker 1: yellowjackets that lived nearby. Inside, a group of men and
Speaker 1: women were playing cards and talking. Harry Larkins was playing
Speaker 1: cribbage with one of the miners. Edward Moybridge got down
Speaker 1: from the buggy and greeted a group of men standing
Speaker 1: by the door. He asked for Harry Larkins. One of
Speaker 1: the men invited him into the house, but Moybridge said
Speaker 1: he wanted to see Larkins outside. The men leaned into
Speaker 1: the doorframe and called for Larkins, who excused himself from
Speaker 1: the card game and walked to the door. When he
Speaker 1: reached it, he peered out into the darkness. Edward Moybridge
Speaker 1: stared back, I have a message from my wife Moybridge said.
Speaker 1: Larkin stepped forward, Moybridge shot him in the chest. Larkins
Speaker 1: staggered and turned, stumbling back into the house, his hands
Speaker 1: clutched over his wound. Moybridge followed him, still holding the gun.
Speaker 1: Larkins went back out the front door and collapsed. Moybridge
Speaker 1: raised his arm as if to shoot again, but one
Speaker 1: of the other men stopped him. Two men carried Larkins
Speaker 1: back inside, where he lay groaning for several minutes. Then
Speaker 1: Harry Larkins tied. Moybridge offered no resistance when the miners
Speaker 1: surrounded him. He apologized for frightening the women present and
Speaker 1: explained that quote Larkins had destroyed his happiness. Then he
Speaker 1: asked for a glass of water and sat down to
Speaker 1: read the newspaper. The miners decided to take him to
Speaker 1: the sheriff's office at Calistoga. Around one a m a
Speaker 1: local constable took Moybridge into custody. The constable found Moybridge
Speaker 1: to be quote very cool for one who had just
Speaker 1: killed a man. The photographer explained his placid mood to
Speaker 1: the constable. Hiring a lawyer might cost a lot, Moybridge said,
Speaker 1: but quote, I won't have any trouble to get clear.
Speaker 1: In other words, Edward Moybridge believed he could get away
Speaker 1: with murder. Despite Moybridge's initial confidence about being acquitted, his
Speaker 1: assurance seems to have wavered in the months he spent
Speaker 1: in jail before his trial. In December, he agreed to
Speaker 1: an interview with the San Francisco Chronicle. In the interview,
Speaker 1: Moybridge presented a new version of the murder, facing criticism
Speaker 1: for having shot a man who had no chance to
Speaker 1: defend himself. Moybridge now claimed that Larkins had tried to run.
Speaker 1: I did not intend to shoot him so quickly, but
Speaker 1: thought to talk to him and hear what he had
Speaker 1: to say an excuse. But he turned to run like
Speaker 1: a guilty craven when I pronounced my name, so I
Speaker 1: had to shoot him or let him go unpunished. No
Speaker 1: other witness account of the murder had Larkins running from Moybridge.
Speaker 1: Despite his attempt to reframe his actions, Moybridge still expressed
Speaker 1: no remorse. The only thing I am sorry for in
Speaker 1: connection with the affair is that he died so quickly.
Speaker 1: I would have wished that he could have lived long enough,
Speaker 1: at least to acknowledge the wrong he had done me,
Speaker 1: that his punishment was deserved, and that my act was
Speaker 1: a justifiable defense of my marital rights. This last line
Speaker 1: was an especially important point for Moybridge to make. The
Speaker 1: idea that killing Larkins was a justifiable defense of his
Speaker 1: marital rights would be central to his legal defense. In
Speaker 1: this defense, Moybridge would be assisted by able lawyers. Leading
Speaker 1: his defense was William Wirt Pendegast, a man in his
Speaker 1: thirties known for his luxuriant hair and his magnificent courtroom speeches,
Speaker 1: and Cameron H. King, a young, ambitious lawyer whose uncle
Speaker 1: had been Governor of California. Pendigast and King each had
Speaker 1: an assistant attorney as well. The prosecution was led by
Speaker 1: Dennis Spencer, district attorney for NAPA. The thirty year old
Speaker 1: Spencer had trained under Pendigast, but was much less experienced.
Speaker 1: Spencer was deeply concerned about prosecuting such a high profile case.
Speaker 1: He begged the county Board of Supervisors to provide him
Speaker 1: with an associate council, but they refused until the day
Speaker 1: before the trial, that is, on February second, eighteen seventy five,
Speaker 1: the board agreed to bring on Thomas P. Stoney, Pendigast's
Speaker 1: former law partner and a current county judge, to assist Spencer.
Speaker 1: Stoney had only hours to prepare for the case. That afternoon,
Speaker 1: Moybridge pled not guilty to the charge of murder. After
Speaker 1: his plea, a reporter noted Moybridge laughed quietly and muttered
Speaker 1: to kill a man and yet plead not guilty. The
Speaker 1: now offended reporter described Moybridge as carrying himself quote with
Speaker 1: the air of a man who had done a noble action.
Speaker 1: The next day, February third, jury selection began. In choosing jurors,
Speaker 1: the defense mainly looked for married men who might be
Speaker 1: sympathetic to their argument that Moybridge was defending his so
Speaker 1: called marital rights. The prosecution looked for men who would
Speaker 1: be comfortable sentencing someone to death. Selection didn't take long.
Speaker 1: Twelve men, all either farmers and carpenters, all but one married,
Speaker 1: were soon seated. Stoney gave the opening statement for the
Speaker 1: defense that afternoon. He laid out the facts of the
Speaker 1: case quote, there is no doubt that on the seventeenth
Speaker 1: day of October, Harry Larkins, who was unarmed, was shot
Speaker 1: down and murdered. Stony reminded jurors that it did not
Speaker 1: matter what Harry Larkins had done. It mattered what Edward
Speaker 1: Moybridge had done. There is no question of the rights
Speaker 1: or wrongs of the two men with regard to their
Speaker 1: relations with one another. The question is this, Has the
Speaker 1: defendant violated the law in this question? Stoney said, the
Speaker 1: answer was clear, Quote the defendant is as guilty as possible.
Speaker 1: He ended by telling jurors that, in the eyes of
Speaker 1: the law, quote, nothing but actual self defense authorizes a
Speaker 1: man to take the life of another. No other provocation
Speaker 1: justifies such an act. The prosecution's witnesses, including the doctor
Speaker 1: who attended to Larkin's body, the man who had driven
Speaker 1: Moybridge to the Yellow Jacket, and the miners who had
Speaker 1: seen the shooting, laid out a clear and consistent story
Speaker 1: of Moybridge's actions on the day of the murder. The
Speaker 1: witnesses from the Yellowjacket cottage all described the same scene,
Speaker 1: Moybridge's arrival, the summoning of Harry Larkin's the shot. They
Speaker 1: only differed on one aspect. Right before shooting, Moybridge had
Speaker 1: either said I have brought you a message from my wife,
Speaker 1: or I have brought you a message about my wife.
Speaker 1: James MacArthur, the man who had disarmed Moybridge, described Moybridge's
Speaker 1: calm attitude following the murder. Moybridge, MacArthur testified, had said
Speaker 1: that quote, he intended to kill Larkins, and that since quote,
Speaker 1: miners were a pretty rough lot and he did not
Speaker 1: know what the consequences would be, he had ensured that
Speaker 1: all his business affairs were settled should he be killed
Speaker 1: after killing Larkins. Moybridge had also, MacArthur, continued, described firing
Speaker 1: off his gun during the buggy ride up to the
Speaker 1: mine because the pistol quote had been laying a long time, unused,
Speaker 1: and he wanted to test that it worked well. It
Speaker 1: was a pretty picture of premeditation. On cross examination, the
Speaker 1: defense lawyers began to raise the specter of justifiable homicide.
Speaker 1: Did he say, as one of his excuses, this man
Speaker 1: has seduced my wife, Pendigast asked MacArthur. MacArthur said that
Speaker 1: this was what he understood Moybridge to mean. Justifiable homicide
Speaker 1: was not a legal defense. No law permitted killing a
Speaker 1: man because he had slept with your wife, But it
Speaker 1: was a powerful emotional one. After the prosecution rested, Cameron
Speaker 1: King delivered the defense's opening statement and doubled down on
Speaker 1: the justifiable homicide argument. Harry Larkins, in King's depiction, had
Speaker 1: practically asked to be killed. We will prove that Harry
Speaker 1: Larkins was a man of bad character, King said, before
Speaker 1: detailing how Larkins had quote slowly undermined Flora's heart and
Speaker 1: attacked her citadel of virtue. Stony and Spencer kept objecting
Speaker 1: to King's speech. He was making claims that would not
Speaker 1: be allowed as evidence. Judge Wallace kept up holding their objections,
Speaker 1: but King would not be contained, relentlessly attacking Larkins. Eventually
Speaker 1: moving on, King said, we will also prove insanity. Edward
Speaker 1: Moybridge had initially been resistant to the insanity defense. He
Speaker 1: did not believe himself insane and he did not want
Speaker 1: to end up in an asylum if he were found
Speaker 1: insane in court, But as the trial approached and his
Speaker 1: confidence in his acquittal seemed to falter, he agreed to
Speaker 1: allow his lawyers to pursue the insanity defense. King's explanation
Speaker 1: of Moybridge's insanity was twofold. First, the lawyer said Moybridge
Speaker 1: had been sent into a kind of insane frenzy by
Speaker 1: the news of his wife's infidelity. In this state, Moybridge
Speaker 1: was quote not himself slung up to the pitch of insanity.
Speaker 1: The defendant made up his mind that he must slay
Speaker 1: the destroyer of his happiness, the man who had debauched
Speaker 1: his home. But Moybridge's insanity went back further. King argued,
Speaker 1: Remember that stagecoach accident that Moybridge had suffered in eighteen sixty,
Speaker 1: the one that had left him comatose for nine days.
Speaker 1: That accident, King now claimed, had fundamentally changed Moybridge, perhaps
Speaker 1: making him more susceptible to the killing mania that had
Speaker 1: led to his crime. Having heard a day's worth of testimony,
Speaker 1: it may have been hard for jurors to reconcile the
Speaker 1: idea of mania with the prosecution witnesses description of Moybridge's
Speaker 1: level headed premeditation. But even if the jury did not
Speaker 1: believe Moybridge insane, King concluded, the jurors should understand his actions.
Speaker 1: Who is the man, King asked, even though he be
Speaker 1: of the soundest mind, that can say he would have
Speaker 1: acted differently, I assert that he who would not shoot
Speaker 1: the seducer of his wife, even if he were to
Speaker 1: suffer ten thousand deaths, is a coward. In other words,
Speaker 1: the real crime would have been not murdering Larkins. With that,
Speaker 1: the defense called their first witness, Susan Smith. Smith is
Speaker 1: one of the most intriguing and ambiguous people in this story.
Speaker 1: She had begun as a perhaps unwilling accomplice of Flora's,
Speaker 1: helping facilitate her affair with Larkins. Then she had seemingly
Speaker 1: betrayed the pair by revealing the affair to Moybridge, maybe
Speaker 1: in order to get money. After the murder, The press
Speaker 1: had strongly criticized Smith, saying that she had doomed Terry
Speaker 1: Larkins out of her own greed. At the trial, Smith,
Speaker 1: perhaps to rehability her reputation, now claimed that a deranged
Speaker 1: Moybridge had scared her into handing over the letters. His
Speaker 1: appearance was that of a madman. He was haggard and pale,
Speaker 1: his eyes glassy. He trembled from head to foot. Smith described,
Speaker 1: I thought he was insane and would kill me or
Speaker 1: himself if I did not tell him all I knew.
Speaker 1: Whereas Smith had previously told the press that she had
Speaker 1: last seen Moybridge on Friday night. She now alleged that
Speaker 1: he had also come by on Saturday morning, the day
Speaker 1: of the killing, and it was at this meeting that
Speaker 1: she had shown him the worst of the letters. Smith's testimony,
Speaker 1: which contained both lurid descriptions of Flora and Larkins's affair
Speaker 1: and shocking depictions of an unhinged Moybridge, went a long
Speaker 1: way towards supporting the defense's case. On cross examination, Dennis
Speaker 1: Spencer could not shake Smith from her story. He also
Speaker 1: was unsuccessful in trying to attack Smith's character. Judge Walter
Speaker 1: prohibited him from introducing evidence that Smith herself was engaged
Speaker 1: in an adulterous affair. The next defense witness was Smith's
Speaker 1: daughter Sarah, whose testimony aligned with her mother's. She was
Speaker 1: followed by William Rulifson, partner at Bradley and Rulofson's gallery,
Speaker 1: who had met with Moybridge on the day of the murder.
Speaker 1: Ruloffson described Moybridge as eccentric, saying that the photographer was
Speaker 1: difficult to work with, forgetful, and prone to quote strange freaks.
Speaker 1: On the day of the murder, Ruloffson said Moybridge seemed
Speaker 1: to be in a frenzy, leaving Rulofson quote really afraid.
Speaker 1: After Rulufsen, the defense introduced witnesses who could testify to
Speaker 1: Moybridge's changed behavior after his stagecoach accident. These witnesses said
Speaker 1: that whereas Moybridge had once been quote a genial, pleasure
Speaker 1: and quick businessman, after the accident, he had become quote
Speaker 1: very eccentric, not as good a businessman, and sometimes very
Speaker 1: violent and excited in an uncalled for manner. It should
Speaker 1: be noted that many of these witnesses did not see
Speaker 1: Moybridge immediately after his stagecoach accident. They had all known
Speaker 1: him in San Francisco in the late eighteen fifties and
Speaker 1: had only seen him again six years after the accident,
Speaker 1: so they could not truly say whether it was only
Speaker 1: the stagecoach accident or the intervening years, or some combination
Speaker 1: that had changed Moybridge. On Friday, February fifth, Moybridge himself
Speaker 1: took the stand. He did not discuss anything about the
Speaker 1: killing or even about the affair. He talked only about
Speaker 1: the stage coach accident and its effects on him. In
Speaker 1: response to all of this testimony, about insanity. The prosecution
Speaker 1: called doctor G. A. Shirtliffe as a rebuttal witness. Shirtliffe
Speaker 1: was the superintendent of the Stockton Insane Asylum. He had
Speaker 1: been allowed to review the testimony of the murder witnesses.
Speaker 1: Shirtliff contested the idea that the stagecoach accident had caused
Speaker 1: Moybridge's actions. He also testified that given that it was
Speaker 1: testified by the common observer that Moybridge was calm after
Speaker 1: the homicide, it would lead to the opinion that he
Speaker 1: was not insane. The prosecution now recalled several of the
Speaker 1: murder witnesses, who reiterated that Moybridge had indeed been calm
Speaker 1: both before and after the homicide. They also called the
Speaker 1: Chronicle reporter George W. Smith, who had interviewed Moybridge in jail.
Speaker 1: Smith stated that Moybridge had told him he opposed the
Speaker 1: insanity defense. In response to this testimony, the defense brought
Speaker 1: back William Rulifsen, who had visited Moybridge in jail and
Speaker 1: now said that the photographer had not been calm, but
Speaker 1: had been excited and distraught. The prosecution then recalled doctor Shirtliffe,
Speaker 1: who reiterated his earlier conclusions, it would seem to me
Speaker 1: that the act was premeditated. He understood the nature of
Speaker 1: the act and the consequences. He was not irresistibly impelled,
Speaker 1: but was moved by passion and had a motive which
Speaker 1: goes against the idea of madness. In conclusion, Shirtliffe said
Speaker 1: he was quote of the opinion that Moybridge was a
Speaker 1: sane man when he committed the act. With that testimony
Speaker 1: in the trial concluded. Thomas Stoney delivered the first closing
Speaker 1: argument for the prosecution. He responded to the defense's argument
Speaker 1: of justifiable homicide, saying that while he himself had sympathy
Speaker 1: for the prisoner, that did not negate the fact that
Speaker 1: Moybridge had broken the law, though Harry Larkins had done wrong.
Speaker 1: Sony concluded, quote an adulterer does not forfeit his life.
Speaker 1: Moybridge could not be allowed to be quote the judge,
Speaker 1: the jury, and the executioner. Instead, Sony finished, the jury
Speaker 1: must decide upon the law and upon the evidence, even
Speaker 1: if it makes their hearts bleed to do it. Cameron
Speaker 1: King provided the first defense closing in dramatic, flowery language.
Speaker 1: He acknowledged that though adultery was not technically a legal
Speaker 1: justification for homicide, it might be a moral one. After
Speaker 1: discussing Moybridge's insanity and for some reason insulting prosecutor Dennis
Speaker 1: Spencer for kneading Stoney's assistance, King asked the jury to quote,
Speaker 1: consider all the circumstances surrounding this terrible case in the
Speaker 1: light of merciful consideration. William Wirt Pendigast elucidated those circumstances
Speaker 1: further in the final defense closing. Edward Moybridge, he said,
Speaker 1: had loved Flora quote deeply, madly, with all the strong
Speaker 1: love of a strong, self constrained man, And all at once,
Speaker 1: like a clap of thunder from a clear sky, came
Speaker 1: upon him the revelation that his whole life had been
Speaker 1: blasted in such a situation. How could anyone expect Moybridge
Speaker 1: to act responsibly? Pendigast asked the jurors to put themselves
Speaker 1: in Moybridge's position. You gentlemen of the jury, you who
Speaker 1: have wives whom you love, daughters whom you cherish, and
Speaker 1: mother's whom you reverence, will not condone Larkins's crime. I
Speaker 1: cannot ask you to send this man back to his
Speaker 1: happy home. The destroyer has been there, His wife's name
Speaker 1: has been smirched, his child bastardized, and his earthly happiness
Speaker 1: so utterly destroyed, that no hope exists of its reconstruction.
Speaker 1: But let him go forth from here again. Let him
Speaker 1: go once more among the wild and grand beauties of
Speaker 1: nature in the pursuit of his loved profession. Let him
Speaker 1: go where he may perhaps pick up again a few
Speaker 1: of the broken threads of his life, and attains such
Speaker 1: comparative peace as may be attained by one so cruelly
Speaker 1: stricken through the very excess of his love for his wife.
Speaker 1: On this dramatic note, Pendegast sat down. Dennis Spencer rose
Speaker 1: to give the final prosecution closing argument. He pushed back
Speaker 1: on the insanity argument, saying, quote, there is no form
Speaker 1: of insanity that strikes a man like a flash of lightning,
Speaker 1: compelling him to commit an awful crime, and then passes
Speaker 1: away as in a dream, leaving no trace behind. The
Speaker 1: only witnesses who had testified to Moybridge's insanity, he continued,
Speaker 1: were Susan Smith and William Rulifson, two people who had
Speaker 1: business relationships with Moybridge and vested interests in seeing him acquitted.
Speaker 1: Spencer concluded by rebutting the logic of the justifiable homicide argument.
Speaker 1: If Harry Larkins could be killed with no trial, why
Speaker 1: was Edward Moybridge entitled to one the very prisoner? Spencer finished,
Speaker 1: after his act comes here and avails himself of all
Speaker 1: the legal safeguards which he denied his victim. He told
Speaker 1: the jurors that they should find Moybridge guilty of deliberate murder.
Speaker 1: With that the case was finished. Judge Wallace now instructed
Speaker 1: the jury. He explicitly disallowed them from rendering a verdict
Speaker 1: of not guilty with justifiable homicide, but told them they
Speaker 1: could choose from four other verdicts, guilty with a sentence
Speaker 1: of death, guilty with a sentence of life imprisonment, not guilty,
Speaker 1: or not guilty by reason of insanity. At nine thirty pm,
Speaker 1: the jury left to deliberate. Many people expected a quick
Speaker 1: verdict and hung around the courthouse waiting, but by three
Speaker 1: a m. The jurors had still not reached an answer.
Speaker 1: They decided to sleep on the matter and resumed deliberations
Speaker 1: after breakfast the next morning. By noon, they had a verdict.
Speaker 1: Moybridge was brought back from his cell, though the public
Speaker 1: were kept out for the reading of the verdict. In
Speaker 1: the still silent courtroom, the court clerk rose on the
Speaker 1: charges of murdering Harry Larkins. He said the jury had
Speaker 1: found the defendant, Edward Moybridge, not guilty. Edward Moybridge had
Speaker 1: a strange reaction to the verdict. He collapsed and began
Speaker 1: to shake, seeming almost to seize. He moaned and wept.
Speaker 1: His lawyer, Pendegast, tried to rein him in, telling Moybridge
Speaker 1: to get himself together and think the jury. Moybridge could
Speaker 1: not compose himself and was carried out of the courtroom
Speaker 1: for fifteen minutes. The fit seemed to rack his body
Speaker 1: and mind, but finally, when one of Pendigast's partners told
Speaker 1: him to stop, Moybridge fell silent. He walked unaided into
Speaker 1: the courtroom and the judge officially released him. He walked
Speaker 1: into the street, where the waiting crowd erupted in cheers.
Speaker 1: Back in San Francisco, Flora must have been shocked. She
Speaker 1: had filed for divorce from Moybridge six weeks before the
Speaker 1: trial and asked for alimony and child support. A judge
Speaker 1: had initially ruled in her favor, and then dismissed his
Speaker 1: order and postponed the case after pressure from William Pendigast.
Speaker 1: After Moybridge's acquittal, Flora filed again. She claimed that she
Speaker 1: had been coerced into the marriage, that Moybridge had been
Speaker 1: neglectful and even adulteress himself, and that she now feared
Speaker 1: he would kill her. The judge ruled that Moybridge had
Speaker 1: to pay Flora fifty dollars a month in alimony, but
Speaker 1: by the time this ruling came down, Moybridge was long gone.
Speaker 1: Two weeks after the trial, he had boarded a ship
Speaker 1: for Central America to take publicity photographs for the Pacific
Speaker 1: Mail Company. He stayed in Central America for eight months,
Speaker 1: now going by the name of Eduardo Santiago Moybridge. Flora
Speaker 1: meanwhile was living in a boarding house with her son,
Speaker 1: barely scraping by. Her divorce lawyer had been providing her
Speaker 1: with money until the alimony arrived from Moybridge. It would
Speaker 1: never come. In July, Flora fell ill. Her condition worsened quickly,
Speaker 1: and she was admitted to Saint Mary's Hospital, where she
Speaker 1: died on July eighteenth, eighteen seventy five, nine months and
Speaker 1: a day after the murder of Harry Larkins. She was
Speaker 1: twenty four years old. Before the trial, the press had
Speaker 1: excoriated her as a disgusting, promiscuous woman, and even death
Speaker 1: could not grant Flora of reprieve from the public's criticism.
Speaker 1: Death relieves Missus Flora Moybridge from a life of sin
Speaker 1: and shame, read one headline. With Flora dead, Baby George
Speaker 1: was placed with a neighbor's family. In eighteen seventy six, however,
Speaker 1: Edward Moybridge arrived back in the child's life, but did
Speaker 1: not take him in. He instead had the toddler moved
Speaker 1: to the Hayte Street Protestant Orphan asylum. Moybridge also renamed George,
Speaker 1: giving him the unusual name Florado Helios Moybridge. Besides bestowing
Speaker 1: the boy with his artist's moniker, Moybridge also had the
Speaker 1: orphanage record Florado as a half orphan, meaning that he
Speaker 1: had one living parent. These both seemed to be signs
Speaker 1: that Moybridge now believed that he was indeed the boy's father,
Speaker 1: but that did not mean that he wished to be
Speaker 1: involved in Florado's life. The two would rarely see each other.
Speaker 1: When Florado was nine and a half, he left the
Speaker 1: orphanage in search of work. He spent the rest of
Speaker 1: his life as a farm laborer, gardener, and delivery man.
Speaker 1: The mystery of his actual paternity was never solved, and
Speaker 1: though we know that his mother was Flora Moybridge, Florado
Speaker 1: himself apparently did not thanks to a mix up with
Speaker 1: the orphanage records. Florado spent his entire life believing that
Speaker 1: his mother was a frenchwoman. He died in February nineteen
Speaker 1: forty four after being hit by a car in Sacramento.
Speaker 1: Edward Moybridge's outcome was much better than Flora or Florado's.
Speaker 1: In fact, for the most part, he was celebrated by
Speaker 1: the public. After the trial, Some reporters had criticized the verdict,
Speaker 1: with one local paper writing that the jury had outraged
Speaker 1: the law and the facts, and violated their oaths to
Speaker 1: set the assassin free, but the public largely seemed to
Speaker 1: be on Moybridge's sad This position might make more sense
Speaker 1: if we consider the relative frequency of men in this
Speaker 1: period murdering their wives, lovers, and being acquitted by juries
Speaker 1: who found their actions justified. In his book Homicide, Race,
Speaker 1: and Justice in the American West eighteen eighty to nineteen twenty,
Speaker 1: Claire V. McKenna records love triangles as being the cause
Speaker 1: of nearly twenty percent of all murders in three Western counties,
Speaker 1: and in many of these cases, the killers were acquitted.
Speaker 1: It's a stereotype of the Wild West that the law
Speaker 1: was often taken into individuals hands, but studies of Western
Speaker 1: murder trials during the late nineteenth and early twentieth century
Speaker 1: show that juries regularly acquitted murderers if they believed that
Speaker 1: the crime was justified. In eighteen ninety, the historian Hubert
Speaker 1: Bancroft recorded that quote an average of twenty five homicides
Speaker 1: have taken place yearly in San Francisco for the last decade,
Speaker 1: and that out of two hundred and fifty or more
Speaker 1: homicidal crimes, only four have been punished capitally and seventy
Speaker 1: seven by imprisonment. In all other cases, the juries probably
Speaker 1: agreed that the victim deserved to be killed. This attitude
Speaker 1: seems to have been a Western phenomenon, though not exclusively.
Speaker 1: The New York Times had sneeringly predicted Moybridge's acquittal, saying
Speaker 1: that Moybridge quote now appeals to the fine sense of
Speaker 1: justice and chivalry, which a California public has never been
Speaker 1: found to lack on such occasions. But this wasn't just
Speaker 1: an easterner's stereotype of the West. A study by the
Speaker 1: historian Roger Lane found that conviction rates for murder increased
Speaker 1: over the course of the twentieth century in Philadelphia. In response,
Speaker 1: the historian Robert Tillman studied murder conviction rates in Sacramento
Speaker 1: County over the same period and determined that the conviction
Speaker 1: rate did not increase, lead being Tillman to conclude that
Speaker 1: quote the social reaction to murder, at least as expressed
Speaker 1: in the actions of the courts, did not change significantly.
Speaker 1: The quote lower threshold for the tolerance of violence, found
Speaker 1: elsewhere across the country toward the turn of the century,
Speaker 1: was not in evidence in Sacramento County. One Nevada newspaper,
Speaker 1: reflecting on both the Moybridge trial and the Beecher Tilton case,
Speaker 1: which happened at the same time and which was covered
Speaker 1: in episode two of History on Trial, said that Beecher
Speaker 1: could have used a taste of Western justice. Quote. It
Speaker 1: would have been much better for the world had Tilton
Speaker 1: a year ago blown out Beecher's brains and then his own.
Speaker 1: That isn't to say that all Westerners were so comfortable
Speaker 1: with violence, of course. In eighteen eighty, the Sacramento Daily
Speaker 1: Union published a scathing editorial on what they called sentimental murder,
Speaker 1: saying that the regular acquittal of murderers of this type
Speaker 1: was a sign of social backwardness, and hoping that California
Speaker 1: would soon reach the point at which quote the kind
Speaker 1: of crimes which have heretofore stained the annals of the
Speaker 1: state will cease, and no one will venture to scandalize
Speaker 1: society and outrage the law in that way with any
Speaker 1: expectation or hope of being acquitted through the aid of
Speaker 1: popular sympathy. On the very same day that this editorial
Speaker 1: was published, Edward Moybridge displayed his zoa praxyscope in San Francisco.
Speaker 1: His presentation received national attention, and none of the articles
Speaker 1: mentioned the murder. In the years following the verdict, Moybridge
Speaker 1: had resumed his work as a photographer. He had had
Speaker 1: a particularly fruitful collaboration with Leland Stanford, the Railroad magnet.
Speaker 1: Former California governor and future Stanford University founder Stanford, who
Speaker 1: was obsessed with horses, had wanted to solve the age
Speaker 1: old question of whether all four of a horse's legs
Speaker 1: left the ground at once when it ran. The answer,
Speaker 1: by the way we now know, is yes. This was
Speaker 1: a technical challenge. No photographer had figured out how to
Speaker 1: capture a horse in motion without getting a blurry blob,
Speaker 1: but Moybridge proved just the man for the job. Using
Speaker 1: a series of trip lines and modified shutters, he did
Speaker 1: the formerly impossible. In eighteen seventy three, before the murder,
Speaker 1: Moybridge had captured one of Stanford's horses, mid trot. By
Speaker 1: eighteen seventy eight, he had refined his method and managed
Speaker 1: to take twelve consecutive photos of a horse running. These
Speaker 1: photos made international news and formed the basis for Moybridge's
Speaker 1: zoa Proxyscope show. He had an artist paint his photographs
Speaker 1: on a glass disc and then inserted a shutter between
Speaker 1: each frame so that the images did not blur together
Speaker 1: when he spun the disc. After his successful first day
Speaker 1: demonstruations in eighteen eighty, Moybridge took his show on the
Speaker 1: road he traveled first to France. It was there, in
Speaker 1: eighteen eighty two that Edward Moybridge changed his name for
Speaker 1: a final time, modifying the spelling of his first name
Speaker 1: from the stand Edward to the archaic Anglo saxon Edward
Speaker 1: sounds the same, but spelt ea d w ea r D.
Speaker 1: This is the name he is best known by today.
Speaker 1: In this same year, he fell out with Leland Stanford,
Speaker 1: who published a book of Moybridge's motion photos and took
Speaker 1: credit for the photographer's invention. Moybridge sued Stanford, but a
Speaker 1: judge dismissed the case. In eighteen eighty four, Moybridge was
Speaker 1: hired by the University of Pennsylvania to take more motion pictures.
Speaker 1: At penn he transitioned from photographing animals to photographing people,
Speaker 1: and then to photographing naked people. He gained a reputation
Speaker 1: for eccentricity at the university, eating lemons by the dozen,
Speaker 1: as well as the maggots that spawned in cheese. After
Speaker 1: he failed to sell the photos he'd taken at penn
Speaker 1: and in need of money, he took his zoa praxyscope
Speaker 1: back on the road. In February eighteen eighty eight, Moybridge
Speaker 1: to a motion picture show in New Jersey. Two days later,
Speaker 1: he went to nearby Menlo Park to visit the famous
Speaker 1: laboratory of Thomas Edison. The two men discussed Moybridge's invention.
Speaker 1: Edison would go on to refine Moybridge's work and create
Speaker 1: the kinetoscope box, which would in turn inspire the Loumier Brothers,
Speaker 1: some of history's first filmmakers. By the time the Lumiers
Speaker 1: projected their first motion pictures for an enraptured crowd in
Speaker 1: Paris in December eighteen ninety five, Moybridge was old news.
Speaker 1: He had stopped taking photographs in eighteen eighty six, and
Speaker 1: a zoa praxyscope show at the Chicago's World Fair in
Speaker 1: eighteen ninety three had been poorly attended. In eighteen ninety five,
Speaker 1: Moybridge moved back to Kingston, England, where he had been born.
Speaker 1: He died there in nineteen o four, aged seventy four,
Speaker 1: while trying to dig a hole in his backyard in
Speaker 1: the shape of the Great Lakes very normal today. Edward
Speaker 1: Moybridge is best remembered for his photographic exploits and technological innovations.
Speaker 1: These should not be discounted. His work is beautiful, transformative,
Speaker 1: and revolutionary. He also killed a man. The justice system
Speaker 1: allowed Moybridge to go free, and the social mores of
Speaker 1: the time meant that Moybridge did not suffer professional or
Speaker 1: personal consequences either. Today, the murder is largely a footnote
Speaker 1: in his biography. Even his own son seems not to
Speaker 1: have held the crime against him if he knew about it. Florado,
Speaker 1: who seems not to have known his own mother's name
Speaker 1: and believed her to be French, apparently loved to tell
Speaker 1: new acquaintances that his father was a famous photographer. That's
Speaker 1: the story of California v. Edward Moybridge. Stay with me
Speaker 1: after the Break for a fascinating story of historical research
Speaker 1: and discovery that illuminated the life of one of the
Speaker 1: trial's less well known figures. History has not been kind
Speaker 1: to Harry Larkins. He's been called a confidence man, a rogue,
Speaker 1: and a scoundrel. Up until recently, historians writing about the
Speaker 1: Moybridge case have relied on the judgments of Larkins's American contemporaries,
Speaker 1: who all seemed to agree that the man was a
Speaker 1: lovable rogue, who exaggerated his achievements and connections. His claims
Speaker 1: of being an army major and winning military awards seemed
Speaker 1: especially doubtful, but all of that changed thanks to the
Speaker 1: work of British author Rebecca Gowers. Gowers is the great
Speaker 1: great great granddaughter of Emma Larks, author of a famous
Speaker 1: letter written during the Indian Mutiny of eighteen fifty seven.
Speaker 1: While trying to track down the original copy of this letter,
Speaker 1: Gowers stumbled upon a theory that one of Emma's children,
Speaker 1: a boy named Harry Larkins Larkins spelled with an eye,
Speaker 1: was the same man as Harry Larkins Larkins with a y,
Speaker 1: who was murdered by Edward Moybridge. Digging into the archives,
Speaker 1: Gowers was able to prove the theory true. This discovery
Speaker 1: led her to uncover the true biography of Harry Larkins.
Speaker 1: Her twenty twenty book, The Scoundrel Harry Larkins and His
Speaker 1: Pitiless Killing by the photographer Edward Moybridge allows us for
Speaker 1: the first time to flesh out the life of a
Speaker 1: man who has for so long been defined by his death.
Speaker 1: This is his story. Henry Thomas Larkins was born on
Speaker 1: October eighteenth, eighteen forty three in Merritt, India, a town
Speaker 1: northwest of modern day New Delhi. The city, like much
Speaker 1: of India at this time, was controlled by the British
Speaker 1: East India Company, an enormous corporation with its own private
Speaker 1: army in which Harry's father was an officer. Four months
Speaker 1: after Harry's birth, his family returned to England due to
Speaker 1: his father's ill health. The Larkinses stayed for two years,
Speaker 1: but eventually Harry's parents returned to India, leaving Harry and
Speaker 1: his two sisters to be raised by relatives. The Larkinses
Speaker 1: would send their next daughter back to England too, but
Speaker 1: kept Harry's three youngest siblings with them in India. Not
Speaker 1: much is known about Harry's earliest years. His sisters ended
Speaker 1: up with their wealthy aunt, Henrietta, but Harry did not,
Speaker 1: at least not yet. We aren't sure where he was
Speaker 1: between the ages of three and thirteen. Though the four
Speaker 1: elder Larkins children did not live with their parents, their parents'
Speaker 1: influence was certainly felt, especially that of their mother, Emma,
Speaker 1: who monitored their behavior via letter, using a point system
Speaker 1: to weigh their moral worth. Harry does not seem to
Speaker 1: have fared well in Emma's assessments. In the summer of
Speaker 1: eighteen fifty seven, rebellion broke out amongst the Native Indian
Speaker 1: troops of the British East India Company. The Larkinses, now
Speaker 1: stationed in Conport, found themselves at the epicenter of the fighting.
Speaker 1: They and other company families ended up besieged in the barracks.
Speaker 1: Death seems certain, so Emma managed to write a final letter,
Speaker 1: which she had a servant smuggle out. In this extraordinary letter,
Speaker 1: she writes movingly to her daughter's telling them of her love.
Speaker 1: Her note to Harry is very different. She seems to
Speaker 1: blame him for his family's imminent death. Henry, dear boy,
Speaker 1: Emma writes, My heart yearns over you, Oh dear boy,
Speaker 1: If you saw the position your little brother and sisters
Speaker 1: are in at this moment, you would weep over ever,
Speaker 1: having pleased your own desires, seek your God and serve him.
Speaker 1: It was the last letter Harry would ever have from
Speaker 1: his mother. Sometime that summer, along with nearly all the
Speaker 1: British families in conpor, Emma and George Larkins and their
Speaker 1: three young children were killed. Thirteen year old Harry was
Speaker 1: now an orphan. His aunt, Henrietta, who was raising his sisters,
Speaker 1: took charge of his care. She sent him to boarding school,
Speaker 1: first in Brussels and then in England. In eighteen fifty nine,
Speaker 1: Henrietta secured Harry a position as a cadet in the army.
Speaker 1: He sailed to India to join up in January eighteen sixty.
Speaker 1: He bounced from position to position, alternately charming and infuriating
Speaker 1: those around him. By the end of his second year
Speaker 1: in India, Harry had somehow managed to wrap up two
Speaker 1: thousand pounds in debts. His commanding officer wrote to Henrietta
Speaker 1: that if she did not pay off his debts, he
Speaker 1: would be sent to prison. His sister Alice wrote that quote,
Speaker 1: as Harry has been in the habit of stealing all
Speaker 1: his life, prison appears to be the best place for him.
Speaker 1: Poor fellow. Henrietta managed to pay the enormous sum and
Speaker 1: Harry kept his place, but was eventually forced to leave
Speaker 1: the army five years later for disciplinary problems. In eighteen
Speaker 1: sixty seven, aged twenty three, Harry returned to England. He
Speaker 1: did not lose his habit of spending. A cousin describing
Speaker 1: him at this time, said extravagance was evidently his weak point.
Speaker 1: Endowed by nature with an excellent physique, good looks, and
Speaker 1: a ready wit, he was nevertheless generally in debt, exhausting
Speaker 1: the generosity of his friends and family in England, Harry
Speaker 1: traveled to Paris, where he fell in love with a
Speaker 1: famous courtisan. Wanting to impress the woman, Harry scammed a
Speaker 1: jeweler into giving him diamonds, saying that he would pay
Speaker 1: the man back later. When he didn't, he was arrested
Speaker 1: for fraud. On the stand, Harry lied smoothly, promising it
Speaker 1: was all the misunderstanding his wealthy friends in Paris, For
Speaker 1: Harry always managed to make wealthy friends who loved his
Speaker 1: stories and sense of fun, paid the jeweler back and
Speaker 1: Harry was acquitted. Returning to England, Harry once again ran
Speaker 1: out debts and got into legal trouble, but as usual,
Speaker 1: he managed to charm everyone around him and evade punishment.
Speaker 1: In eighteen seventy, perhaps searching for a greater purpose, Harry
Speaker 1: signed up to fight for France in the Franco Prussian War.
Speaker 1: For some reason, he enlisted as Harry Larkins with a
Speaker 1: y instead of an eye, which is the name he
Speaker 1: is now best known by. Harry fought valiantly for France,
Speaker 1: using his facility for languages he spoke good French and German,
Speaker 1: and his charisma to execute daring spy missions. He was
Speaker 1: promoted to Squadron Leader, the equivalent rank of a major
Speaker 1: in the British Army, and though historians have long doubted
Speaker 1: his military credentials, calling his desire to be called Major
Speaker 1: Larkins a vanity, he earned the title. He also earned
Speaker 1: the Legion of Honor, the highest French order of merit,
Speaker 1: which he was awarded in April eighteen seventy one. After
Speaker 1: the war, Harry traveled to America, going first to New
Speaker 1: York before heading west to Nevada. After Nevada, he went
Speaker 1: to Salt Lake City, where he met up with Arthur
Speaker 1: Neil and traveled to San Francisco. Months later, he wound
Speaker 1: up as the theater critic for the San Francisco Evening
Speaker 1: Post and walked into Bradley and Rulufsen's gallery, met Flora
Speaker 1: and Edward Moybridge and sealed his fate. Harry Larkins was
Speaker 1: a rogue yes, and even a scoundrel. He scammed people,
Speaker 1: he lived beyond his means. He got by on charm
Speaker 1: and false promises and pretenses of sophistication. But despite his flaws,
Speaker 1: he did not lie about everything. He did come from
Speaker 1: a wealthy family, he was a military hero, and he
Speaker 1: did truly love Flora Weybridge. None of that stopped Edward
Speaker 1: Moybridge from killing him, or a jury from acquitting Moybridge,
Speaker 1: and none of that stopped the historical record from disparaging
Speaker 1: his character for decades until a persistent and determined researcher
Speaker 1: unearthed the truth. Thank you for listening to History on Trial.
Speaker 1: The main sources for this episode were Rebecca Gowers's book
Speaker 1: The Scoundrel Harry Larkins and his Pitiless Killing by the
Speaker 1: photographer Edward Moybridge, and Edward Ball's book The Inventor and
Speaker 1: the Tycoon, A Gilded Age Murder and the Birth of
Speaker 1: Moving Pictures. I am grateful to Rebecca Gowers for her
Speaker 1: help in resolving several questions I had about the case,
Speaker 1: and would highly recommend her book to learn more about
Speaker 1: the lives of both Harry and Flora. For a full bibliography,
Speaker 1: as well as a transcript of this episode with citations,
Speaker 1: please visit our website History on Trial podcast dot com.
Speaker 1: History on Trial is written and hosted by me Mira Hayward.
Speaker 1: The show is edited and produced by Jesse Funk, with
Speaker 1: supervising producer Trevor Young and executive producers Dana Schwartz, Alexander Williams,
Speaker 1: Matt Frederick, and Mira Hayward. Learn more about the show
Speaker 1: at History on Trial podcast dot com and follow us
Speaker 1: on Instagram at History on Trial and on Twitter at
Speaker 1: Underscore History on Trial. Find more podcasts from iHeartRadio by
Speaker 1: visiting the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen
Speaker 1: to your favorite shows.