Speaker 1: You are listening to History on Trial, a production of
Speaker 1: iHeart Podcasts. Listener Discretion Advised. Welcome to History on Trial.
Speaker 1: I'm your host, Mira Hayward. Every episode will go behind
Speaker 1: the scenes of a famous trial from American history. We'll
Speaker 1: meet the real people who make up the legal system,
Speaker 1: from victims and defendants to lawyers and judges. Will follow
Speaker 1: their stories as they duke it out in the courtrooms
Speaker 1: of the past and learn how their cases irrevocally shaped
Speaker 1: the present. Will watch the law as it evolves along
Speaker 1: with the country, or as it fails to do so.
Speaker 1: Every trial is a battle, and what we choose to
Speaker 1: fight over and how we choose to do it can
Speaker 1: be revealing. Trial by trial will gain new insight into
Speaker 1: the story of America. This week The People v Levi Weeks.
Speaker 1: On a cold January morning in Manhattan, a crowd gathered
Speaker 1: to watch something strange. The spot where they stood would
Speaker 1: one day become Soho, the fashionable New York City neighborhood
Speaker 1: filled with clothing stores and expensive lofts. But on this day,
Speaker 1: January second, eighteen hundred, the area was a sprawling wildland
Speaker 1: called Lispynard's Meadow, nestled between the settled southern tip of
Speaker 1: Manhattan and Greenwich Village. The meadow was more often the
Speaker 1: site of courting couples or small hunting parties rather than
Speaker 1: large crowds. But today was different. Today, at a well
Speaker 1: in the southwest corner of the meadow, something was happening.
Speaker 1: Half a dozen men were straining to lift a makeshift
Speaker 1: net and its heavy cargo from the well. As they
Speaker 1: heaved and grunted their burdens, slowly rose into view a
Speaker 1: flash of white fab a mass of dark hair, too pale,
Speaker 1: bare feet. It was a woman long dead. An onlooker
Speaker 1: ran to fetch the police. When the constable arrived, he
Speaker 1: found the woman's body laid out on a plank, her
Speaker 1: head at an odd angle. The men who had lifted
Speaker 1: her out explained how they had found her. The woman,
Speaker 1: whose name was Julielma Sands, known to all as Elma,
Speaker 1: had been missing for nearly two weeks since December twenty second.
Speaker 1: Not a trace of Elma had been seen until her muff,
Speaker 1: a tube of fabric worn as a handwarmer, had turned
Speaker 1: up in the well. When Elma's landlord, Eli Ring and
Speaker 1: neighbor Joseph Watkins heard of the discovery. They raced to
Speaker 1: the meadow, sounding the well with poles. They felt the body.
Speaker 1: Now with the question of where Alma had gone tragically answered,
Speaker 1: a new question arose. She ended up in the well.
Speaker 1: Someone in the crowd thought they knew Levi Weeks is
Speaker 1: to blame. He's who she was last with. A man
Speaker 1: called out to the constable. Levi Weeks. The crowd quickly
Speaker 1: learned was a fellow boarding house resident of Elma's, and
Speaker 1: the two were rumored to be romantically involved. Seizing the lead,
Speaker 1: the constable and a group of men set out to
Speaker 1: locate Levi. They found the young carpenter at his workshop.
Speaker 1: When the Constable tapped him on the shoulder, Levi turned startled.
Speaker 1: He saw the angry, confused faces of the men and
Speaker 1: burst into speech. It is too hard, he started, before pausing.
Speaker 1: Then is it the Manhattan well she was found in?
Speaker 1: It was? The men shared a look. How could he
Speaker 1: have known that Alma was found in a well? How
Speaker 1: could he have known it was Manhattan Well? In particular?
Speaker 1: None of them had mentioned it. Levi was placed under arrest.
Speaker 1: It didn't take long for word to spread through New
Speaker 1: York City that a beautiful young woman was dead, and
Speaker 1: that a handsome young man was under arrest for her murder.
Speaker 1: It was said that Levi and Elma had been courting
Speaker 1: and planned to marry, but something had gone terribly wrong.
Speaker 1: People spoke of the case in the streets, and journalists
Speaker 1: wrote of it in the papers. One poet, Philip Freneau,
Speaker 1: even wrote a poem about it. If thou injured Elma
Speaker 1: had not fallen a prey to fierce revenge that sees
Speaker 1: thy life away, not through the glooms of conscious night,
Speaker 1: been led to find a funeral for a nuptial bed,
Speaker 1: when by the power of midnight fiends you fell plunged
Speaker 1: in the abyss of Manhattan. Well, but the media friends
Speaker 1: you was only beginning. Soon, Levi Weeks would go to trial,
Speaker 1: and thanks to his family ca connections, two of the
Speaker 1: city's most prominent lawyers would be defending him. Their names
Speaker 1: Aaron Burr and Alexander Hamilton. In fact, if you're familiar
Speaker 1: with the musical Hamilton, the name Levi Weeks might ring
Speaker 1: a bell. The case gets a mention in the song
Speaker 1: non Stop when Alexander Hamilton sings, this is the first
Speaker 1: murder trial of our brand new nation. The liberty behind deliberation.
Speaker 1: I intend to prove, beyond the shadow of a doubt,
Speaker 1: our client, Levi Weeks, is innocent. The song isn't entirely
Speaker 1: historically accurate. Levi Weeks's trial wasn't actually the first murder
Speaker 1: trial in American history, but it is the first murder
Speaker 1: trial that we have a complete transcript from, and that transcript,
Speaker 1: published only weeks after the trial, gives us some amazing insights.
Speaker 1: It lets us see the American legal system in its
Speaker 1: earliest days, as it struggled to figure out just how
Speaker 1: trials should work work. And it also reveals incredible parallels
Speaker 1: between people two hundred years ago and people today, our
Speaker 1: shared desire for justice, our interest in the darker sides
Speaker 1: of human nature, our determination to get to the bottom
Speaker 1: of things. But most of all, the transcript provides a
Speaker 1: riveting portrait of one of the juiciest, most shocking trials
Speaker 1: of the early nineteenth century. Because the story of Levi
Speaker 1: and Elma may have seemed like a straightforward one of
Speaker 1: love gone very wrong, but as everyone would soon learn,
Speaker 1: this case was anything but simple. On January third, the
Speaker 1: day after the discovery of Elma's body, the physicians Benjamin
Speaker 1: Prince and William Macintosh conducted the post mortem examination. Elma
Speaker 1: was long dead. The state of decomposition made it clear
Speaker 1: that the body had been in the well for quite
Speaker 1: some time, probably since the night she went missing, so
Speaker 1: the doctors didn't expect to find much. The most pressing
Speaker 1: question was whether Elma was pregnant or not. Newspapers were
Speaker 1: already speculating that an unplanned pregnancy had been Levi's motive
Speaker 1: for murder, but Princeton Macintosh found no evidence of pregnancy.
Speaker 1: They found barely anything on the body at all, only
Speaker 1: some slight bruising and scraping on the face and knees,
Speaker 1: but decomposition made it hard to determine when or how
Speaker 1: Elma had incurred these small injuries. Despite the lack of evidence, however,
Speaker 1: the city coroner announced a verdict of murder. He likely
Speaker 1: did so to avoid public outrage. New Yorkers had rioted
Speaker 1: in the past over what they saw as miscarriages of justice,
Speaker 1: and a finding of unknown cause of death might have
Speaker 1: sent the city over the edge, and the public was
Speaker 1: about to get even more invested in the case. After
Speaker 1: the inquest, Elma's body was released to Catherine and Eli
Speaker 1: ring Catherine and Elma were related, and the Rings had
Speaker 1: been happy to give Elma a spot in their boarding
Speaker 1: house when she arrived in the city from upstate New
Speaker 1: York in seventeen ninety six. Now they opened their doors
Speaker 1: for her body. The family was Quaker, and their funeral
Speaker 1: practices were normally simple in private, but the Rings decided
Speaker 1: that such a horrifying death warranted something different, and so
Speaker 1: they set Elma's body in their living room, inviting neighbors
Speaker 1: into mourn for her and bare witness to be evil done.
Speaker 1: Two days later, on Monday the sixth, the body was
Speaker 1: readied for burial, slipped into a simple wooden coffin, and
Speaker 1: carried from the home. But as the coffin traveled through
Speaker 1: the streets, the Rings, still reeling, were struck by an idea.
Speaker 1: It wasn't enough for just their neighbors to see Elma.
Speaker 1: They thought the whole city needed to understand the depths
Speaker 1: of the tragedy. The funeral procession came to a halt
Speaker 1: and the coffin was set down. The lid cracked open,
Speaker 1: Elma's pale face and unseeing eyes peered out. A crowd
Speaker 1: began to gather, soon numbering in the thousands, all shocked
Speaker 1: by the sight. Death was not unknown in this disease ridden,
Speaker 1: poverty stricken city. But something about the vision of this
Speaker 1: dead young woman, taken too soon, laid bare for all
Speaker 1: to see, struck a chord with New Yorkers. Levi Weeks,
Speaker 1: they said, needed to pay. As the public gawned at
Speaker 1: Elma's corpse, Levi Weeks languished in jail. Though conditions were
Speaker 1: wretched in Bridewell Jail, Levi was luckier than most of
Speaker 1: the inmates. He had a powerful brother who was working
Speaker 1: tirelessly on his defense. Ezra Weeks was one of the
Speaker 1: city's most prominent contractors, with no shortage of fun or
Speaker 1: influential connections. One of those connections was Alexander Hamilton, who
Speaker 1: just so happened to owe Ezra Weeks thousands of dollars
Speaker 1: for construction done on Hamilton's summer home in Harlem Heights. So,
Speaker 1: of course Hamilton would be happy to help Ezra's younger
Speaker 1: brother with his legal troubles. Ezra had a connection to
Speaker 1: Hamilton's longtime frenemy, Aaron Burr, as well. In seventeen ninety nine,
Speaker 1: Burr had presided over the creation of the Manhattan Company,
Speaker 1: a company with the stated goal of providing fresh water
Speaker 1: to New York City. But the Manhattan Company was much
Speaker 1: more than a simple utility. Because of clever corporate organization,
Speaker 1: the company could also function as a bank of sorts,
Speaker 1: which Burr and his Republican colleagues could use to fund
Speaker 1: political candidates. To maximize the money the bank brought in, though,
Speaker 1: the company needed to actually build water infrastructure, and so
Speaker 1: they had hired Ezra Wheat to build and lay wooden
Speaker 1: pipes to carry fresh water into the city. This fresh
Speaker 1: water came from wells dug in Lisbernard's Meadow, including the
Speaker 1: well that Elma Sands's body was found in. Having a
Speaker 1: dead body turn up in your company as well is
Speaker 1: bad publicity, and Burr wanted to control the narrative. There
Speaker 1: was no better way to do this than to serve
Speaker 1: as Levi Weeks's attorney. Plus Burr could use the work.
Speaker 1: Like Hamilton, he was deeply in debt. Rounding out Levi's
Speaker 1: defense team was h. Brockholst Livingstone, a political ally of
Speaker 1: Burrs and a member of the Manhattan Company board. He
Speaker 1: was one of the top lawyers in the city, known
Speaker 1: for his sharp mind and quick temper. Hamilton, Burr and
Speaker 1: Livingston quickly got to work getting Levi out on bail
Speaker 1: and gathering evidence for his defense. They would have to
Speaker 1: work hard. They were up against an ambitious young prosecutor
Speaker 1: with something to prove. Cadwalader Colden, the Assistant Attorney General,
Speaker 1: had recently suffered a major legal humiliation at the hands
Speaker 1: of none other than Brockholst Livingstone. In October seventeen ninety nine,
Speaker 1: a man named John Pistano had been convicted of the
Speaker 1: brutal murder of his landlord, Mary Castro. The jury had
Speaker 1: taken only minutes to sentence Pistano to death, unconvinced by
Speaker 1: Livingstone's assertions that Pistano was not responsible because he was insane.
Speaker 1: After all, insanity was not at that time a leal defense,
Speaker 1: but as Livingstone had predicted, Pistano's insanity won him sympathy
Speaker 1: the New York State Legislature and Governor John Jay, having
Speaker 1: reviewed the facts of the case, found that quote at
Speaker 1: the time of the conmission of the Act aforesaid he
Speaker 1: was insane and is therefore a proper object of mercy.
Speaker 1: As an aside, the Pistonano's story is wild. Both his
Speaker 1: guilt and his mental instability are pretty well established. Take
Speaker 1: for example, the story of his capture, which came when
Speaker 1: Pistano was spotted at a public water pump holding his hat,
Speaker 1: which he had filled with his victim's blood. The police
Speaker 1: came quickly, and as they arrested Postano, he protested clumsily
Speaker 1: in English, his second language, why you catch me, me
Speaker 1: not do it, which would be a lot more convincing
Speaker 1: if he wasn't holding a hat full of blood. But
Speaker 1: in any case, Pistano was pardoned, his sentence commuted, and
Speaker 1: he was deported to his home country of Portugal. Many
Speaker 1: believed Pistano should never have been charged at all, given
Speaker 1: his insanity. It was a devastating reversal for the Attorney
Speaker 1: General's office, and Colden was determined to not let it
Speaker 1: happen again. Colden also carried the weight of public opinion
Speaker 1: on his back. The story of Elma Sands's murder had
Speaker 1: traveled the whole Eastern seaboard. Seemed like no one spoke
Speaker 1: of anything else. When the trial began on March thirty first,
Speaker 1: eighteen hundred, hundreds of angry citizens flocked to watch the
Speaker 1: proceedings at City Hall, packing the hallways and spilling out
Speaker 1: into the street, and they were all convinced of one thing,
Speaker 1: Levi Weeks's guilt. Colden could not fail his public. As
Speaker 1: I mentioned before, New Yorkers loved nothing more than rioting
Speaker 1: over legal matters, and Colden needed to maintain the peace
Speaker 1: at any cost. So he had prepared tirelessly, tracking down
Speaker 1: and interviewing witnesses, establishing timelines, and conducting research. When he
Speaker 1: entered the courtroom that morning, he was confident in his
Speaker 1: case and in Levi Weeks's guilt. All he had to
Speaker 1: do now was convinced the jury. At ten am on
Speaker 1: March thirty, first Court Clerk William Coleman called court to order,
Speaker 1: with the Right Honorable John Lansing presiding as judge. A
Speaker 1: jury was quickly selected, made up mainly of local merchants
Speaker 1: at the time. Jurors had to be tax paying land
Speaker 1: owning men between the ages of twenty one and sixty,
Speaker 1: with property worth at least two hundred and fifty dollars,
Speaker 1: the equivalent of a year's salary for a common man.
Speaker 1: As Paul Collins puts it in his wonderful book on
Speaker 1: the Trial Duel with the Devil, the jury box was
Speaker 1: what women and the poor faced, not what they sat in.
Speaker 1: With the jury seated, Cadwalader Colden took to his feet
Speaker 1: to deliver his opening argument. He knew that his high
Speaker 1: profile opponents were drawing attention, so he addressed them head on.
Speaker 1: While the defendant might have clever lawyers, he told the
Speaker 1: jury he had something more important, the truth. And what
Speaker 1: was that truth? Here? Coldon laid out his theory of
Speaker 1: the case, one that had been god in newspapers across
Speaker 1: the region for the past few months. Levi Weeks was
Speaker 1: a player. He was handsome as everyone in the court
Speaker 1: could see, and charming, and he was fickle in his attentions.
Speaker 1: He liked to flirt with the women in his boarding house,
Speaker 1: and he had eventually fixed his sights on the naive,
Speaker 1: innocent Alma Sands. We expect to prove to you that
Speaker 1: the prisoner won her affections, Colden declared, and that her
Speaker 1: virtue fell a sacrifice to his assiduity. Once he had
Speaker 1: gotten what he wanted from Alma Sands, Colden continued, Levi
Speaker 1: grew tired of her cleanness and affection and made a
Speaker 1: plan to shake her off for good. Quote after a
Speaker 1: long period of criminal intercourse between them. He deluded her
Speaker 1: from the house of her protector, under the pretense of
Speaker 1: marrying her, carried her away to a well in the
Speaker 1: suburbs of this city, and there her here cold and
Speaker 1: dramatically paused and seemed to lose himself. Then turned to
Speaker 1: the jury and said, no wonder, gentlemen, that my mind
Speaker 1: shudders at this picture and requires a moment to recollect itself.
Speaker 1: He then laid out for the jury the path he
Speaker 1: would take to prove Weeks's guilt, a path that would
Speaker 1: now begin with the testimony of Levi and Elma's landlords,
Speaker 1: Katherine and Eli Ring. Catherine Ring was now called to
Speaker 1: the stand, a pale, blue eyed woman in her late
Speaker 1: twenties with auburn hair tucked under a lace cap. Catherine
Speaker 1: was a respectable Quaker woman, a good person for Coldon
Speaker 1: to begin his case with. Unfortunately for the prosecutor, things
Speaker 1: got off to a rocky start. Much of Catherine Ring's
Speaker 1: testimony had to do with things that she had been
Speaker 1: told by Elma Sands. Because Elma Sans had not made
Speaker 1: these statements under oath, and because she could not now
Speaker 1: testify to them in court being dead. Anything Catherine reported
Speaker 1: Elma as having said was pure hearsay and thus an
Speaker 1: admissible in court. When Hamilton objected on these grounds, Colden
Speaker 1: tried to argue that these statements were allowed because they
Speaker 1: showed Elma's state of mind. To support this argument, he
Speaker 1: cited several legal cases. But here was the strange thing
Speaker 1: about being a lawyer in early America. The country was
Speaker 1: too young to have legal precedence of its own, so
Speaker 1: lawyers had to rely on British cases, one vestige of
Speaker 1: colonial rule that they still could not shake. Colden had
Speaker 1: a few relevant British examples, but unfortunately he was up
Speaker 1: against seasoned lawyers. Burrn Livingstone quickly replied that of the
Speaker 1: cases Colden had cited, one argued against hearsay being admitted
Speaker 1: in this fashion, and the other came from the Scottish court,
Speaker 1: which had an entirely different legal system. Oops are quickly
Speaker 1: ruled against allowing the testimony. Colden recovered, guiding Catherine instead
Speaker 1: through her impressions of Elma and Levi's relationship. It had begun,
Speaker 1: Catherine said when Levi's previous love interest, another boarder named Margaret,
Speaker 1: went off to the country to escape the yellow fever
Speaker 1: epidemic in the city. Catherine herself soon did the same.
Speaker 1: Upon her return to Manhattan six weeks later, she observed
Speaker 1: quote an appearance of mutual attachment between Levi and Elma.
Speaker 1: After covering the events of the night of Alma's disappearance
Speaker 1: December twenty second, coldon led Catherine through the following days,
Speaker 1: during which she said she observed Levi acting strangely. On
Speaker 1: Tuesday the twenty fourth, Catherine told the court she decided
Speaker 1: to confront Levi with something. Alma had told Catherine on
Speaker 1: the day of her disappearance that she and Levi were
Speaker 1: to be married that very night. Levi had been shocked
Speaker 1: by Catherine's revelation. I had not proceeded much further, Catherine
Speaker 1: testified before he turned pale, trembled to a great degree,
Speaker 1: was much agitated, and began to cry. Clasping his hands together,
Speaker 1: he cried out, I'm ruined, I'm ruined, I'm undone forever
Speaker 1: unless she appears to clear me. Catherine's suspicions only deepened
Speaker 1: on Thursday the twenty sixth, when, during a discussion amongst
Speaker 1: borders over Elma's fate, Levi declared missus Ring, it's my
Speaker 1: firm belief she's now in eternity. How could he know that?
Speaker 1: Levi explained that he believed Alma had committed suicide. The
Speaker 1: whole house knew that she was frequently in poor health
Speaker 1: and had more than once said that she wished to die.
Speaker 1: But in Catherine's opinion, these were only the melodramatic statements
Speaker 1: of an impressionable young woman. Her suspicions were not assuaged.
Speaker 1: Now it was Hamilton's turn to cross examine. He went
Speaker 1: easy on Catherine, only asking her general questions about Levi's
Speaker 1: character and behavior, all of which she agreed were quote
Speaker 1: very good. He also asked a peculiar question about whether
Speaker 1: Elma's bedroom shared a wall with the bedroom of their neighbor,
Speaker 1: Joseph Watkins. It did, Catherine said, but Hamilton moved on
Speaker 1: before explaining why he cared. Catherine was dismissed. Eli Ring.
Speaker 1: Catherine's husband picked up the story. He had once heard
Speaker 1: noise in a vacant room, he said, and in the
Speaker 1: morning had found the bed rumpled and Alma's clothes from
Speaker 1: the previous day scattered through the room. The only people
Speaker 1: in the house that night had been himself, Elma, Levi,
Speaker 1: and Levi's young apprentice. Despite the seemingly damning nature of
Speaker 1: Eli's testimony, Hamilton didn't press him much on cross only
Speaker 1: asking him whether or not he knew that Levi and
Speaker 1: Elma had been in bed together. Eli said he did not,
Speaker 1: as in Catherine's cross examination. Hamilton asked Eli about their neighbor,
Speaker 1: Joseph Watkins. Was he a clever man and a good neighbor?
Speaker 1: Hamilton asked yes, Eli replied, and what was the wall
Speaker 1: between the Rings and Watkins house made of wood and plaster?
Speaker 1: Eli said again. Hamilton did not explain himself. He moved
Speaker 1: on asking Eli if he had ever threatened Lee by weeks.
Speaker 1: Eli denied it, saying I never threatened him that I
Speaker 1: know of. I had a conversation with him in which
Speaker 1: he asked me if I had not said certain things
Speaker 1: about him, respecting Elma being missing, and he said if
Speaker 1: I told such things of him, he would tell of
Speaker 1: me and Croucher. Before Hamilton could act ask what things
Speaker 1: Levi could tell about Eli and Croucher, Colden jumped in
Speaker 1: with a question. Unlike trials today, where who can ask
Speaker 1: questions and when is tightly regulated, things were looser in
Speaker 1: the early nineteenth century. The transcript is littered with examples
Speaker 1: of opposing attorneys, the judge, and even jurors jumping in
Speaker 1: mid examination to ask the witnesses something. Colden's clever interjection
Speaker 1: here changed the subject, and Hamilton did not return to it,
Speaker 1: wrapping up his cross examination shortly after the next three
Speaker 1: witnesses were all fellow borders at the rings. The first
Speaker 1: said she had not seen any relationship between Levi and Elma,
Speaker 1: the second said he had, and the third, Richard Croucher,
Speaker 1: shocked the court by declaring that he had not only
Speaker 1: seen Levi spend two nights in Elma's room, but quote
Speaker 1: once too, at a time when they were less cautious
Speaker 1: than usual. I saw them in a very intimate situation.
Speaker 1: Unlike the previous witnesses, who had only insinuated or guessed
Speaker 1: at a romantic relationship between Levi and Alma, Croucher had
Speaker 1: actually seen it. But Hamilton had some questions about Croucher's credibility.
Speaker 1: On cross he got Croucher to admit that he and
Speaker 1: Levi had once argued and the argument had started over Elma.
Speaker 1: Croucher said that he had once surprised Alma while running
Speaker 1: up the stairs, and Alma had fainted. Levi appeared and
Speaker 1: angrily declared that this was not the first time Croucher
Speaker 1: had insulted Elma. Croucher in turn called Levi an impertinent puppy,
Speaker 1: which is one of the sickest burns in history. So
Speaker 1: Levi apologized to Croucher. Despite this run in, Croucher claimed
Speaker 1: to bear Levi no malice, but added that I despise
Speaker 1: every man who does not behave in character. After questioning
Speaker 1: Croucher about his own where on the night of the
Speaker 1: murder a birthday party, Croucher said Hamilton let him go.
Speaker 1: Now that Colden had established a potential motive for Levi,
Speaker 1: the desire to get rid of an unwonted lover, he
Speaker 1: needed to establish opportunity. Levi had a relatively strong alibi
Speaker 1: for the night of the disappearance. He had been at
Speaker 1: his brother's house in the early evening, then returned to
Speaker 1: the Ring house around eight pm. Thirty minutes later. He
Speaker 1: had returned to his brother's house, according to the testimony
Speaker 1: of Ezra, his wife, and his apprentice. The Rings next
Speaker 1: saw him around ten pm. Assuming that the week's household
Speaker 1: was being truthful, that gave Levi only thirty minutes to
Speaker 1: kill Elma, who had been at the Ring House until
Speaker 1: at least eight, and put her body in the well.
Speaker 1: How could he have pulled it off? Colden had a
Speaker 1: theory about that, and it involved a sleigh he now
Speaker 1: called Susannah Broad to the stand. Missus Brod was an
Speaker 1: elderly woman who lived across the street from Ezra Weeks.
Speaker 1: She testified that on the night of Elma's disappearance, she
Speaker 1: had heard a gate open and a sleigh come out.
Speaker 1: The sleigh, unusually had no bells. Bells were a crucial
Speaker 1: safety device, giving pedestrians warning to get out of the way,
Speaker 1: so a sleigh traveling without them caught her attention. Why
Speaker 1: was the sleigh trying to hide? The relevance of Broad's
Speaker 1: testimony soon became clear with his subsequent witnesses, who all
Speaker 1: testified to seeing a sleigh similar in appearance to Zbres
Speaker 1: near Greenwitch Street, where the Ring Boarding House was, and
Speaker 1: then traveling up Broadway in the direction of the Manhattan Well.
Speaker 1: Colden painted a picture of how Levi could have committed
Speaker 1: the crime. By borrowing his brother's sleigh. Levi could have
Speaker 1: traveled back to Greenwitch Street, picked up Elma, and traveled
Speaker 1: to the well relatively quickly. In fact, Colden had timed
Speaker 1: it in a thoroughly CSI sounding move. He'd hired a
Speaker 1: man to drive a horse from the Ring House to
Speaker 1: the Manhattan Well and then to Ezra's house. The man
Speaker 1: reported back that he had made the trip in only
Speaker 1: fifteen minutes, without going faster than a trot. With both
Speaker 1: motive and opportunity now established, Colden began introducing witnesses who
Speaker 1: lived near the Manhattan Well. Several of these witnesses had
Speaker 1: heard a woman crying out on that December night. Altogether,
Speaker 1: Colden had called nearly twenty witnesses. It was one thirty am,
Speaker 1: and he hadn't yet rested his case. The crowd was exhausted.
Speaker 1: Most of them had expected a traditionally speedy trial. The
Speaker 1: average length of a murder case in England at the
Speaker 1: time was only thirty minutes. The defense called for an adjournment.
Speaker 1: Judge Lancing wanted to continue, but the jurors, who had
Speaker 1: now been watching proceedings for more than fifteen hours, needed
Speaker 1: a break. Lancing agreed to the adjournment, but he wasn't
Speaker 1: about to let the jurors go home where they could
Speaker 1: be influenced by friends, family, and public opinion. He ordered
Speaker 1: that they be sequestered or kept away from the public. Unfortunately,
Speaker 1: at one point thirty in the morning, no inn in
Speaker 1: the city was open to new customers, so the jurors
Speaker 1: were taken to the second floor of City Hall, where
Speaker 1: they passed an uncomfortable night in the drafty portrait Hall,
Speaker 1: huddled on the cold floor. At ten am the next morning,
Speaker 1: the trial resumed. After several more witnesses, Colden wrapped up
Speaker 1: his case by addressing what he was sure was a
Speaker 1: pressing concern for the jury, the circumstantial nature of the case.
Speaker 1: Colden had no witness who could definitively place Levi and
Speaker 1: Elma together after eight pm on the night of Elma's disappearance,
Speaker 1: no smoking gun. But citing John Morgan's influential book Essays
Speaker 1: upon the Law of Evidence, Colden argued that circumstantial evidence
Speaker 1: could be just as, if not more powerful, than eyewitness testimony.
Speaker 1: A positive allegation, he read aloud, maybe founded in mistake
Speaker 1: or what is too common in the perjury of the witness.
Speaker 1: But circumstances can't not lie brick by testimonial brick, Colden
Speaker 1: had painstakingly built up a circumstantial wall of guilt around
Speaker 1: Levi Weeks. Now it was up to the defense to
Speaker 1: try to knock it down, and to do that they
Speaker 1: had a very special weapon of their sleeve, a witness
Speaker 1: with the secret to share. Aaron Burr now rose to
Speaker 1: deliver the defense's opening argument methodically. He broke down the
Speaker 1: prosecution's case, promising the jurors that the defense would rebut
Speaker 1: Colden's arguments on every point in a case, depending on
Speaker 1: a chain of circumstances. Burr said, all the fabric must
Speaker 1: hang together or the whole must tumble down. The prosecution's
Speaker 1: case was based on assumptions, Burr's opening implied, and all
Speaker 1: of those assumptions were about to be challenged. Assumption number one,
Speaker 1: Levi Weeks had taken a sleigh from his brother's home
Speaker 1: on the night of the murder. The defense had actually
Speaker 1: gone a long way towards disproving this assumption during the
Speaker 1: prosecution's own case. The lynchpin of Colden's argument was the
Speaker 1: testimony of Susannah broad Ezra Weeks's neighbor, who said she
Speaker 1: had seen a sleigh furtively slip out of Weeks's yard
Speaker 1: on the night in question. Without this evidence of Levi
Speaker 1: having access to a sleigh, the testimony of the other
Speaker 1: witnesses to a sleigh driving from Greenwich Street up Broadway
Speaker 1: were irrelevant and on cross Hamilton had raised serious questions
Speaker 1: about Susannah Brod's memory. Question when was this? What month
Speaker 1: was it? Answer? I don't know the month I know
Speaker 1: it was. So question was it after Christmas or before Christmas? Answer?
Speaker 1: It was after I believe it was in January. Question
Speaker 1: that you are sure of it was in January? You say?
Speaker 1: Answer yes, I am sure it was in January. The
Speaker 1: night in question was December twenty second. So Susannah Brod's
Speaker 1: testimony was suspect and there was about to be another
Speaker 1: blow to Colden's sleigh theory. The defense called Demus Mead
Speaker 1: to the stand. Demus Mead was Ezra Weeks's apprentice. He
Speaker 1: lived with the Week's family, and, among other duties, was
Speaker 1: tasked with looking after Ezra's horse and sleigh. On December
Speaker 1: twenty second, he was certain that he had locked the
Speaker 1: gate around seven thirty pm and then put the key
Speaker 1: on either the mantelpiece of the room he slept in
Speaker 1: or in his pocket, just as he did every night.
Speaker 1: Unlike Susannah Broad, he was a confident and reliable witness.
Speaker 1: When a juror asked him, was this a weekday or
Speaker 1: a Sunday, Demas quickly and correctly answered on Sunday. Further,
Speaker 1: he testified that the horse's harness had bells tied to it,
Speaker 1: that those bells would take some time to remove, and
Speaker 1: that setting up the horse and the sleigh for a
Speaker 1: journey took some ten to fifteen minutes. It was looking
Speaker 1: less and less likely that Levi Weeks could have taken
Speaker 1: his brother's sleigh, leaving him with little opportunity to commit
Speaker 1: the murder. One assumption down on to the next. When
Speaker 1: Levi Weeks was arrested, he had asked if Elma had
Speaker 1: been found in the Manhattan well, but no one in
Speaker 1: the arresting party had mentioned the well. Assumption number two,
Speaker 1: Levi Weeks had no way of knowing the body's location
Speaker 1: besides being the murderer. The next defense witness would put
Speaker 1: this assumption to rest. Loreena Forrest, a neighbor of Levi
Speaker 1: Weeks who ran a grocery store with her husband, testified
Speaker 1: that at one o'clock on January Tewod, the day Alma's
Speaker 1: body was found, Levi had visited her store. Missus Forrest
Speaker 1: had updated him on something she'd just heard from Missus Ring.
Speaker 1: Alma's muff had been found in a well near Bayard's Lane.
Speaker 1: An hour later, Levi went to lunch at Ezra's house
Speaker 1: and shared this news with his brother. Ezra testified that
Speaker 1: upon hearing this, he'd told Levi, I suppose it must
Speaker 1: be Manhattan well. Thus, when Levi was arrested later that afternoon,
Speaker 1: his question of is it the Manhattan well she was
Speaker 1: found in? Was not a slip of the tongue, an
Speaker 1: inadvertent admission of guilt, but a natural follow up to
Speaker 1: the information he had heard earlier in the day. Two
Speaker 1: assumptions down, Now it was time for the big one,
Speaker 1: the foundation upon which months of gossip news and the
Speaker 1: very trial itself were based. Assumption number three, Levi Weeks
Speaker 1: and Elma Sands were romantically involved, giving him motive to
Speaker 1: murder her. For the prosecution, Cadwalader Colden had elicited testimony
Speaker 1: from Eli and Catherine Ring about a romantic relationship between
Speaker 1: Levi and Elma. In Cross examining the Rings, Hamilton hadn't
Speaker 1: achieved much in shaking them from their stories, but he had,
Speaker 1: if you'll remember, asked them strange questions about their neighbor,
Speaker 1: Joseph Watkins and his house. And now the defense was
Speaker 1: calling Joseph Watkins to the stand. Watkins had been among
Speaker 1: the party who helped recover Elma's body from the well,
Speaker 1: but the story of the discovery had been thoroughly covered
Speaker 1: by the prosecution. What could he add now, Hamilton dove
Speaker 1: right in. Do you remember anything in the conduct of
Speaker 1: mister Ring that led you to suspicions of improper conduct
Speaker 1: between him and Elma? He asked, shock rippled through the courtroom.
Speaker 1: Mister Ring Eli Elma's landlord, who had testified only the
Speaker 1: day before to hearing a couple in an empty room
Speaker 1: and finding Elma's discarded clothing there in the morning, that
Speaker 1: mister Ring Yes, him and Watkins had in fact noticed
Speaker 1: many things in mister Ring's conduct to make him suspicious. Namely,
Speaker 1: in the middle of September, when Catherine Ring had been
Speaker 1: away in the country, he had heard noise coming through
Speaker 1: his bedroom wall, a wall shared per Catherine Ring's own
Speaker 1: testimony with Elma's bedroom. He heard the sound of a
Speaker 1: bed moving. The noise was so loud and lasted so
Speaker 1: long that it woke him up. He heard a woman's voice.
Speaker 1: He heard a man's voice, and this man's voice he
Speaker 1: was certain was not Levi Weeks's. Levi had a low,
Speaker 1: soft pitched voice. Eli Ring, by contrast, had a high
Speaker 1: pitched voice. Joseph turned to his wife on that September
Speaker 1: night and said, it is Ring's voice that girl will
Speaker 1: be ruined. He heard the same noises at least eight times,
Speaker 1: possibly more, throughout September and October. Then at the same
Speaker 1: time that Catherine Ring returned to the city, the noises stopped.
Speaker 1: Watkins's testimony was stunning. The entire foundation that the prosecution's
Speaker 1: case of the public suspicion was a supposed relationship between
Speaker 1: Elma and Levi. But what if that relationship never existed.
Speaker 1: What if Elma had instead, or additionally been engaged in
Speaker 1: an affair with Eli Ring. This revelation might seem like
Speaker 1: it served the prosecution. Jealousy of Elma's relationship with Eli
Speaker 1: Ring could have given Levi a stronger motive to kill Elma.
Speaker 1: But watkins testimony benefited the defense even more because it
Speaker 1: discredited the Rings. Their testimony had been key to establishing
Speaker 1: the relationship between Levi and Alma, but now it seemed
Speaker 1: that they might have had ulterior motives. The rest of
Speaker 1: Watkins's testimony and that of his daughter, who also testified,
Speaker 1: further complicated the prosecution narrative. During their testimony, Eli and
Speaker 1: Catherine Ring had implied that they had suspected Levi from
Speaker 1: the moment of Elma's desay disappearance, but the watkinsons both
Speaker 1: said that the couple had had nothing but good things
Speaker 1: to say about Levi and had never mentioned a relationship
Speaker 1: between Levi and Elma up until the inquest. That was
Speaker 1: the Rings weren't even the ones who had first drawn
Speaker 1: attention to Levi as a suspect. It turned out that
Speaker 1: dubious honor went to someone else, Richard Croucher. Croucher was
Speaker 1: the same tenant who had once gotten into a fight
Speaker 1: with Levi and called him an impertinent puppy. A British
Speaker 1: immigrant and cloth merchant, Croucher had a poor reputation with
Speaker 1: his neighbors given his habit of dropping by unannounced at
Speaker 1: meal times and overseeing his welcome but his behavior after
Speaker 1: Elma's disappearance had been particularly galling. A neighbor named Hugh
Speaker 1: McDougall testified that on the day Alma's body was found,
Speaker 1: Croucher was quote extremely busy among the crew to spread
Speaker 1: improper insinuations and prejudices against the prisoner who was then taken.
Speaker 1: Croucher didn't stop there, dropping by McDougall's house a week
Speaker 1: before the trial and telling McDougall, quote, the thing has
Speaker 1: all come out, the thing is settled. There is point
Speaker 1: blank proof, to which MacDougall replied that he quote thought
Speaker 1: it wrong and highly improper that Croucher should persecute Weeks
Speaker 1: in such a manner when he had a difference with him,
Speaker 1: that for my own part, I wanted some further evidence
Speaker 1: before I should condemn the man. Croucher's crusade was not
Speaker 1: limited to McDougall. Several shopkeepers now testified to bizarre incidents
Speaker 1: where Croucher walked into their stores, announced that Levi Weeks
Speaker 1: was guilty, and then walked out without buying anything. His
Speaker 1: sole purpose, it seemed, was to turn the public against
Speaker 1: Leevi Weeks, and the Rings had been fully complicit in
Speaker 1: this campaign. Further, defense witnesses confirmed what the Watkinsons has
Speaker 1: said that despite the Rings claiming to have immediately suspected
Speaker 1: Levi of murdering Elma, the couple had both spoken warmly
Speaker 1: about Levi's comforting presence in the days after her disappearance,
Speaker 1: and further that Eli Ring had organized a search of
Speaker 1: the waterfront believing that Alma had committed suicide, But only
Speaker 1: weeks later, Eli Ring was heard saying that if he
Speaker 1: encountered Levi weeks in a dark alley, he wouldn't hesitate
Speaker 1: to shoot him. So certain was he of Levi's guilt.
Speaker 1: What had caused this abrupt about face? Again, Joseph Watkins
Speaker 1: provided an answer. The only person besides his wife that
Speaker 1: he had told of the possible affair between Eli Ring
Speaker 1: and Alma Sans he revealed, was Richard Croucher, and he
Speaker 1: had told Croucher about it at the inquest, the event
Speaker 1: after which the Rings had suddenly begun accusing Levi. Could
Speaker 1: Croucher have blackmailed Eli Ring into pinning the blame on
Speaker 1: Levi weeks by threatening to reveal his affair, But why
Speaker 1: would Croucher want to do this? He didn't like Levi?
Speaker 1: Sure but that seemed like a thin reason to accuse
Speaker 1: a man of murder. Why was he so desperate for someone,
Speaker 1: anyone to take the blame for the crime. After all,
Speaker 1: he had a strong alibi for the night of the murder,
Speaker 1: a birthday party at one Anne Ashmore's house. The defense
Speaker 1: didn't have any real dirt on Croucher, but his suspicious
Speaker 1: behavior and the shocking evidence about the rings were certainly
Speaker 1: damaging to the prosecution case, and that was on top
Speaker 1: of all of the other gaps beginning to appear in
Speaker 1: Colton's assumptions. Satisfied that they had done enough, the defense
Speaker 1: rested with Burr reading a quote from Matthew Hale's foundational
Speaker 1: legal text History of the Pleas of the Crown, to
Speaker 1: conclude quote, In some cases, presumptive evidences go far to
Speaker 1: prove a person guilty, though there be no express proof
Speaker 1: of the fact to be committed by him. But then
Speaker 1: it must be warily pressed, for it is better that
Speaker 1: five guilty persons should escape unpunished than one innocent man
Speaker 1: should die. It was now two thirty am. The jury,
Speaker 1: running on a poor night's sleep and forced to focus
Speaker 1: for more than sixteen hours, were exhausted so too was
Speaker 1: kudwalad Or Coldon, who stated that he had not slept
Speaker 1: in forty four hours and begged for an adjournment before
Speaker 1: closing arguments, but Judge Lancing refused, saying that the jurors
Speaker 1: could not be made to sleep another night in city Hall.
Speaker 1: The defense quickly chimed in, saying that they were happy
Speaker 1: to forego closing arguments and begin jury deliberations right away.
Speaker 1: Judge Lancing agreed no closing arguments would be made. It
Speaker 1: was a blow to Coldon he had no real chance
Speaker 1: to rebut the defense case and what came next would
Speaker 1: be worse. Judge Lancing now instructed the jury on their
Speaker 1: duty quote to find the prisoner guilty if in their
Speaker 1: consciences they believed him so from the evidence, and to
Speaker 1: acquit him if they thought him innocent. He didn't talk
Speaker 1: about the concept of beyond a reasonable doubt, which most
Speaker 1: of us are familiar with today. This was a relatively
Speaker 1: new legal idea at the time, which had only just
Speaker 1: begun to appear in trials, but the idea of innocent
Speaker 1: until proven guilty was well established. Legal authorities of the
Speaker 1: time constantly stressed the same point that Burr had made
Speaker 1: earlier it was better to find a guilty man innocent
Speaker 1: than sentence an innocent man to death, which might explain
Speaker 1: Judge Lancing's shocking final declaration to the jurors. In the
Speaker 1: opinion of the court, he said the proof was insufficient
Speaker 1: to warrant a verdict against the prisoner. From his seat,
Speaker 1: Colden could only pray that the jury disagreed. He wouldn't
Speaker 1: have to wait long time to find out. The jury
Speaker 1: filed out, only to return less than five minutes later
Speaker 1: with a verdict. In the case of the murder of
Speaker 1: Elma Sands, they declared Levi Weeks was found not guilty.
Speaker 1: The not guilty verdict came as a shock to many
Speaker 1: New Yorkers, but the newspapers, who only days earlier had
Speaker 1: been calling for Levi's execution, quickly changed their tune after
Speaker 1: the verdict came down by evidence of the facts alone.
Speaker 1: When an article in the New York Daily Advertiser on
Speaker 1: April second, is this young man's innocence completely established. Not
Speaker 1: a single doubt remains on the minds of any person
Speaker 1: who was president at the trial, and soon even those
Speaker 1: New Yorkers who hadn't managed to cram into the courtroom
Speaker 1: could experience the trial for themselves because an unprecedented publication
Speaker 1: was about to hit the shelves. On April fourteenth, a
Speaker 1: ninety nine page pamphlet went on sale called A Report
Speaker 1: of the Trial of Levi Weeks on an Indictment for
Speaker 1: the Murder of Julielma SAMs on Monday, the thirty first
Speaker 1: day of March and Tuesday, the first day of April
Speaker 1: eighteen hundred, taken in shorthand by a clerk of the court.
Speaker 1: Despite its less than catchy title, the pamphlet was a hit,
Speaker 1: mainly because of its revolutionary contents. For the first time
Speaker 1: in US history, a full transcript of a murder trial
Speaker 1: had been published. William Coleman, the court clerk, had captured
Speaker 1: the trial in vivid detail, including not just the words
Speaker 1: spoken by the lawyers, but their actions too. When Lin
Speaker 1: Manuel Miranda described Levi Weeks's trial as the first murder
Speaker 1: trial in Hamilton, he was only slightly off. Levi Weeks's
Speaker 1: trial was not the first murder trial, but it is
Speaker 1: the first fully documented murder tree in American history. Never
Speaker 1: before had such a complete account been captured and published.
Speaker 1: There were two innovations that allowed for this new kind
Speaker 1: of text. The first was the rise of shorthand, a
Speaker 1: system of coded writing that allows users to quickly and
Speaker 1: accurately capture dialogue as it happens. The second was the
Speaker 1: rise of the adversarial trial system. In previous centuries, when
Speaker 1: trials lasted only a matter of minutes and rarely involved
Speaker 1: much testimony or conflict, a transcript would have been pretty boring.
Speaker 1: But now drama was baked into the judicial process itself,
Speaker 1: guaranteeing a riveting read. The transcript is also an invaluable
Speaker 1: historical and legal resource. In eighteen hundred, America was still
Speaker 1: in its infancy, and so were its institutions. The legal
Speaker 1: system was still clumsily defining itself. You can see that
Speaker 1: throughout the transcript, when Colden struggles to find legal precedents
Speaker 1: to admit hearsay, when the jurors jump in to ask questions,
Speaker 1: when the court is completely unprepared for a trial lasting
Speaker 1: two dates. These problems weren't unique to America. In Britain, too,
Speaker 1: the legal system had been radically changing in the past decades.
Speaker 1: On both sides of the Atlantic. The trial process was
Speaker 1: evolving into the adversarial system we know today lawyers became
Speaker 1: more important to the trial process, the rights the defendant changed,
Speaker 1: and so did the role of the judge. The transcript
Speaker 1: of the trial of Levi Weeks let's us see these
Speaker 1: changes in action, transporting us into the moment where our
Speaker 1: modern trial system was born. It also lets us discover
Speaker 1: surprising similarities between early nineteenth century Americans and ourselves. The
Speaker 1: public's obsession with the Levi Week's case feels familiar. A
Speaker 1: beautiful young woman killed in mysterious circumstances, perhaps by the
Speaker 1: man she loved, is a classic of the true crime genre.
Speaker 1: Writing about this cultural obsession, which is commonly called the
Speaker 1: dead girl trope, the author Alex Segura describes an archetypal
Speaker 1: TV example. The camera pans to capture the victim's face
Speaker 1: for the first time. A young, beautiful, virginal woman slight
Speaker 1: superficial wounds on her angelic, sleepy face. This is almost
Speaker 1: exactly the scene that a pedestrian walking along Granite Street
Speaker 1: in eighteen hundred would have seen when they stumbled upon
Speaker 1: Elma Sands's displayed body. The film writer Meg Shields, exploring
Speaker 1: how this trend dehumanizes victims, writes, the beautiful, young dead
Speaker 1: girl is not allowed to exist as a complex, three
Speaker 1: dimensional person with flaws, sins, and jagged edges. Instead, especially
Speaker 1: in America, she's held up as a symbol DuJour of
Speaker 1: innocence lost. This narrative is identical to the one that
Speaker 1: played out at Elma's trial, with the prosecutor describing Elma
Speaker 1: in his opening as a young girl who till her
Speaker 1: fatal acquaintance with the prisoner was virtuous and modest. Burr
Speaker 1: didn't cite the dead girl trope in his opening, obviously,
Speaker 1: but he came close, describing how the public's obsession with
Speaker 1: the case led to Levi's prosecution. We have witnessed the
Speaker 1: extraordinary means which have been adopted to inflame public passions
Speaker 1: and to direct the fury of popular resentment against the prisoner.
Speaker 1: Why has the body been exposed for days in the
Speaker 1: public streets in a manner the most indecent and shocking
Speaker 1: to attract the curiosity and arouse the feelings of numberless spectators.
Speaker 1: Such dreadful scenes speak powerfully to the passions. They petrify
Speaker 1: the mind with horror, congeal the blood within our veins,
Speaker 1: and excite the human bosom with irresistible but undefinable emotions.
Speaker 1: As Burr's speech reminds us, tropes don't just exist in
Speaker 1: books are on TV. They are derived from real cultural
Speaker 1: trends and to have real life consequences. So let's step
Speaker 1: back from the theoretical and return to the real people
Speaker 1: at the heart of this trial. What were the consequences
Speaker 1: for them? First up, Levi Weeks. Despite being found not guilty,
Speaker 1: Levi knew that people were still suspicious of him, and
Speaker 1: after several years he left New York, first for his parents'
Speaker 1: home in Massachusetts. Finding small town life there too sleepy,
Speaker 1: he headed next to Natchez, the capital of the Mississippi Territory.
Speaker 1: A booming frontier town, it was the perfect place for
Speaker 1: Levi to reinvent himself. Drawing on the carpentry and contracting
Speaker 1: skills he had learned from Ezra, Levi became an architect.
Speaker 1: His first client was a good friend of Aaron Burr's,
Speaker 1: for whom Levi built a mansion called Auburn, which today
Speaker 1: is on the National Registry of Historic Places. Levi married
Speaker 1: and had four children before dying in eighteen nineteen. Ezra
Speaker 1: Weeks continued to prosper as a developer. In the years
Speaker 1: after the trial. Cadwalader Colden, despite his failure to secure
Speaker 1: a conviction, also found success after returning to private practice.
Speaker 1: He became the Mayor of New York City in eighteen eighteen.
Speaker 1: William Coleman, the court clerk, became famous as the editor
Speaker 1: of the New York Evening Post. Brockholst Livingston, the third
Speaker 1: defense attorney, went on to be appointed to the Supreme
Speaker 1: Court by President Thomas Jefferson, serving from eighteen oh seven
Speaker 1: to eighteen twenty three. But not everyone involved in the
Speaker 1: trial had such a happy ending. Judge John Lansing, despite
Speaker 1: a long career on the New York Supreme Court, is
Speaker 1: today best remembered for his mysterious disappearance. On December twelfth,
Speaker 1: eighteen twenty nine, Lansing left his hotel room in Manhattan
Speaker 1: to mail a letter and was never seen again. The
Speaker 1: case is still unsolved. The rumours sworld that Lancing had
Speaker 1: been killed by political opponents. Eli Ring, saddled with a
Speaker 1: boarding house best known for hosting a murder victim whom
Speaker 1: he may have had an affair with, lost his house
Speaker 1: within a year of the trial. He soon went bankrupt
Speaker 1: and turned to alcohol. He was kicked out by the
Speaker 1: Quakers for his excessive drinking. In disgrace, Eli moved his
Speaker 1: family to Alabama, but his new start in the South
Speaker 1: did not go as smoothly as Levi's had. He ended
Speaker 1: up dying of yellow fever. Catherine moved her surviving family
Speaker 1: members to upstate New York, where they lived in relative
Speaker 1: anonymity for the rest of their lives. And of course
Speaker 1: there's the tragic fate of Aaron Burr and Alexander Hamilton,
Speaker 1: which we'll come back to in a minute. What about
Speaker 1: the well? The Manhattan well are been largely out of
Speaker 1: use by eighteen hundred, and after the murder, it was
Speaker 1: completely abandoned. Lisbernard's Meadow was soon developed and built over,
Speaker 1: and for the next two hundred years the wells location
Speaker 1: was forgotten and then rediscovered several times. Today, a clothing
Speaker 1: store rests on the remains of the well at one
Speaker 1: hundred and twenty nine Spring Street in New York City.
Speaker 1: The Manhattan Company survived much longer than its first, ill
Speaker 1: fated well. You're likely familiar with its modern incarnation, JP
Speaker 1: Morgan Chase, or as it was once known, Chase Manhattan Bank.
Speaker 1: There is of course, no closure for one trial participant.
Speaker 1: We still don't know who killed Elma sans we likely
Speaker 1: never will, but theories are out there, and there's one
Speaker 1: advanced by Paul Collins that I think deserves particular attention.
Speaker 1: Remember Richard Croucher, the meddling boarding house resident who was
Speaker 1: so involved in spreading accusations against Levi in the trial.
Speaker 1: The defense hadn't tried to explain why Croucher had accused Levi,
Speaker 1: or even put Croucher forward as a suspect. After all,
Speaker 1: he had an alibi for the night of Elma's disappearance,
Speaker 1: or did he. The birthday party Croucher claimed to be
Speaker 1: at that night was hosted by Anne Ashmore, who it
Speaker 1: turns out, ran a brandy distillery out of her house.
Speaker 1: The parties she hosted there were notoriously drunken affairs. In fact,
Speaker 1: at the trial, fellow attendees at the party couldn't even
Speaker 1: consistently remember what day of the month they were supposed
Speaker 1: to have seen Croucher at the party. A shaky alibi
Speaker 1: doesn't imply guilt, of course, but there's more. Unbeknownst to
Speaker 1: any of his New York City acquaintances. Croucher's testimony at
Speaker 1: Levi's trial wasn't his first appearance in a courtroom. In
Speaker 1: seventeen ninety seven, in his home country of England, Croucher
Speaker 1: had appeared at the Old Bailey, this time as a
Speaker 1: defendant accused of stealing a pair of boots. At his trial,
Speaker 1: neighbors testified that Croucher, though once a respectable merchant, now
Speaker 1: behaved so erratically and violently that he was widely known
Speaker 1: as Mad Croucher. Due to his abuse, his wife and
Speaker 1: daughters had received an order of protection against him. He
Speaker 1: once threatened to shoot a neighbor. Drinking seemed to trigger
Speaker 1: his rages, which was unfortunate because he drank heavily and often.
Speaker 1: Croucher was found not guilty of the theft, but his
Speaker 1: reputation was clearly damaged by the testimony, and he fled
Speaker 1: to America, where he eventually washed up on the steps
Speaker 1: of Eli and Catherine Rayne's boarding house, and three weeks
Speaker 1: after the week's verdict, Crowchu with lapse into his old
Speaker 1: despicable ways and commit a horrible crime. On April twenty third,
Speaker 1: Croucher lured Margaret Miller, his thirteen year old stepdaughter, from
Speaker 1: his second marriage into his room at the Ring House
Speaker 1: on the pretense of needing her help to clean it.
Speaker 1: Once he had Margaret in the room, he seized her
Speaker 1: and threatened if you scream, I will kill you. Say
Speaker 1: he brutally raped her. Margaret was so badly hurt that
Speaker 1: she could barely walk home the next day. The abuse
Speaker 1: continued for weeks. Two months later, Richard Croucher was back
Speaker 1: in the court room at City Hall, charged with rape.
Speaker 1: In an eerie echo of the week's trial, the prosecutor
Speaker 1: was Cadwalat or Colden and the defense attorney was Brockholst
Speaker 1: to Livingstone, but this time, aided by the brave testimony
Speaker 1: of Margaret Miller, and despite Livingstone's disgusting efforts to portray
Speaker 1: the thirteen year old victim as an eager and consenting party,
Speaker 1: prevailed and Richard Croucher was sentenced to a life of
Speaker 1: hard labor. He got out only three years later after
Speaker 1: a pardon from the governor on the condition that he
Speaker 1: left the country. Croucher, of course did not obey, and
Speaker 1: instead snuck off to Virginia, where he resumed a life
Speaker 1: of crime. His exact fate is unknown, but one of Alexander.
Speaker 1: Hamilton's sons recorded that Croucher did eventually return to England, where, unsurprisingly,
Speaker 1: he met his end on the gallows, executed for yet
Speaker 1: another heinous crime. So Richard Croucher had no real alibi
Speaker 1: for the night of Elma's disappearance. He had a pattern
Speaker 1: of violent behavior, particularly against women, and he for some
Speaker 1: reason seemed dead set on pinning Elma's murder on Levi.
Speaker 1: Of course, this case against Richard Croucher is just as
Speaker 1: circumstantial as the one against Levi Weeks. We will likely
Speaker 1: never find out what happened to Elma Sands that night
Speaker 1: at the Manhattan Well, never know the full story of
Speaker 1: her short life and tragic death. But thanks to court
Speaker 1: William Coleman, we know what happened at the trial of
Speaker 1: Levi Weeks, giving us an amazing window into justice in
Speaker 1: early America. That's the story of the people v Levi Weeks.
Speaker 1: Stay with me after the break for a little more
Speaker 1: on Hamilton Burr and the strange practice of socially sanctioned murder.
Speaker 1: While we will never know for certain whether or not
Speaker 1: Levi Weeks was a murderer, there is no doubt that
Speaker 1: several once and future killers were present in the courtroom
Speaker 1: during his trial, and I'm not just talking about Richard Croucher.
Speaker 1: One of the strangest facts about this case is how
Speaker 1: many of the lawyers and court officials involved killed people
Speaker 1: in the years before and after the trial. Most obviously,
Speaker 1: there's Aaron Burr. Four years after Levi Weeks's trial, Burr
Speaker 1: and Alexander Hamilton faced one another pistols in hand, on
Speaker 1: the banks of the Hudson River in Weehawken, New Jersey.
Speaker 1: Despite their excellent teamwork on the week's trial, the animosity
Speaker 1: between the two men had only grown, and they had
Speaker 1: finally decided to settle their differences via duel. It would
Speaker 1: prove tragic for both men. Burr fatally shot Hamilton, killing
Speaker 1: not just his enemy but also his own reputation in
Speaker 1: the process. And Burr was not the only one with
Speaker 1: a dueling death on his conscience. In seventeen ninety nine,
Speaker 1: Brockholst Livingston made a joke about a political rival, James Jones,
Speaker 1: in a newspaper editorial. Jones responded by physically attacking Livingston
Speaker 1: in the street while he was walking with his wife
Speaker 1: and children. Livingstone challenged Jones to a duel and killed
Speaker 1: him with a single shot. Livingston was not arrested. Court
Speaker 1: clerk William Coleman also killed someon in a duel. In
Speaker 1: early eighteen oh four, he shot the New York Harbor
Speaker 1: Master Captain Jeremiah Thompson in a duel held in the
Speaker 1: middle of a snowstorm. In the minds of most early Americans,
Speaker 1: these deaths were not truly murders. Dueling was extremely common
Speaker 1: at the time. The historian Joanne Freeman, who was written
Speaker 1: extensively on the role of violence in American politics, records
Speaker 1: at least ten other duels taking place near New York
Speaker 1: City just in the time period around the Burr Hamilton duel.
Speaker 1: Duels were used to resolve personal grievances, political squabbles, matters
Speaker 1: of honor, and more. Certain words alone were enough to
Speaker 1: spark a duel. Words like rascal, scoundrel, or even puppy,
Speaker 1: the insult Richard Croucher had used on Levi Weeks seriously.
Speaker 1: Several major duels were fought over men calling each other puppies.
Speaker 1: There are some obvious differences between duels and the murder
Speaker 1: of Elma Sans, of course. Elma was an unwitting victim
Speaker 1: not a willing participant. But to my mind, the line
Speaker 1: drawn between these dueling deaths and other crimes is a
Speaker 1: blurry one. How do we determine when it's acceptable to
Speaker 1: take a life? For many Americans, the answer to that
Speaker 1: question would change after the bur Hamilton duel. The public
Speaker 1: was outraged and horrified over the senseless loss of life.
Speaker 1: The pall of the killing would haunt bur for the
Speaker 1: rest of his life, and though he was vice president
Speaker 1: at the time, he would never achieve his long hoped
Speaker 1: for dream of the presidency. He died in eighteen thirty six,
Speaker 1: broke and alone. However, dueling would not disappear from American
Speaker 1: culture permanently. It would take the traumatizing bloodshed of the
Speaker 1: Civil War for the public appetite for dueling to finally wane. Today,
Speaker 1: dueling is illegal in most US states and prosecuted as
Speaker 1: murder or assault, but in early New York it was
Speaker 1: not uncommon to find an alleged murder being defended in
Speaker 1: court by a confirmed killer. Thank you for listening to
Speaker 1: History on Trial. The main sources for this episode were
Speaker 1: William Coleman's trial transcript and Paul Collins's book Duel with
Speaker 1: the Devil, The true story of how Alexander Hamilton and
Speaker 1: Aaron Burr teamed up to take on America's first sensational
Speaker 1: murder mystery. For a full bibliography, as well as a
Speaker 1: transcript of this episode with citations, please visit our website
Speaker 1: History on Trial podcast dot com. History on Trial is
Speaker 1: written and hosted by me Mira Hayward. The show is
Speaker 1: edited and produced by Jesse Funk, with supervising producer Trevor
Speaker 1: Young and executive producers Dana Schwartz, Alexander Williams, Matt Frederick,
Speaker 1: and Mira Hayward. Learn more about the show at History
Speaker 1: on Trial podcast dot com and follow us on Instagram
Speaker 1: at History on Trial and on Twitter at Underscore History
Speaker 1: on Trial. Find more podcasts from iHeartRadio by visiting the
Speaker 1: iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen to your
Speaker 1: favorite shows.