Speaker 1: I'm Kate Winkler Dawson.
Speaker 2: I'm a journalist who's spent the last twenty five years
Speaker 2: writing about true crime.
Speaker 3: And I'm Paul Hols, a retired cold case investigator who's
Speaker 3: worked some of America's most complicated cases and solve them.
Speaker 2: Each week, I present Paul with one of history's most
Speaker 2: compelling true crimes.
Speaker 3: And I weigh in using modern forensic techniques to bring
Speaker 3: new insights to old mysteries.
Speaker 2: Together, using our individual expertise, we're examining historical true crime
Speaker 2: cases through a twenty first century lens.
Speaker 4: Some are solved and some are cold, very cold.
Speaker 1: This is Buried Bones.
Speaker 4: Hey Paul, Hey Kate, how are you.
Speaker 2: I'm doing great. How about you?
Speaker 3: I'm doing good. What's been going on with you?
Speaker 2: Well, I've been watching a lot of true crime?
Speaker 4: Oh good guy.
Speaker 2: I probably need another project, you know. I mean, the
Speaker 2: book has been out, Listener's all val has been out,
Speaker 2: and the book tour stuff is over, and I know
Speaker 2: you have endless book tours. I do not, so now
Speaker 2: I'm you know, I've been writing my first mystery thriller.
Speaker 2: I've been doing different things, but I have an extraordinary
Speaker 2: amount of time to watch true crime, and I know
Speaker 2: this is not something that you really do, right, No.
Speaker 4: No, I don't.
Speaker 2: It's a hard note.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I'm obviously very well planted in the true crime space.
Speaker 3: I don't consume the content, rarely consume the content.
Speaker 2: Well, I had a question. So I've mentioned this course before.
Speaker 2: I teach a true crime podcast course at the University
Speaker 2: of Texas. It's very popular. I have I think probably
Speaker 2: about two hundred and thirty students each semester. You know,
Speaker 2: we talk about cases that are meaningful to them, that
Speaker 2: are meaningful to me. There is a generational divide for
Speaker 2: sure about the cases that my students, who are somewhere
Speaker 2: between eighteen and twenty two, what they think are sort
Speaker 2: of these groundbreaking everybody knows everything about them, binge worthy
Speaker 2: type of crimes. And then my generation. So I want
Speaker 2: to ask you about what you feel like from your generation,
Speaker 2: you know, growing up, what was that case that really
Speaker 2: sort of made you either think about, you know, criminal
Speaker 2: investigation or think about something that was you had never
Speaker 2: heard of before. And I'd love to make a joke
Speaker 2: about maybe Charles Manson, but I'm not going to because
Speaker 2: I think it's probably going to be a little more
Speaker 2: modern than that. Maybe not, though I don't know.
Speaker 3: Now, i'd say, you know, if you're talking about you know,
Speaker 3: when I was growing up, I did not pay attention
Speaker 3: to any of the crime cases out there, you know.
Speaker 3: I think, of course, you know, the story of me
Speaker 3: glomming on to getting into the field I got into
Speaker 3: was because of a TV show, Quincy, But I'm not remembering,
Speaker 3: you know, paying attention to the newspaper headlines or listening
Speaker 3: to the radio. I would say the first true crime
Speaker 3: case that I really dug into was David Carpenter. He
Speaker 3: was the trail side killer out there on Mount tamil Pious.
Speaker 3: And I remember I had already started working for the
Speaker 3: Sheriff's office, but as a toxicologist, and I'm reading this
Speaker 3: book about the serial killer, and it's in the Bay Area,
Speaker 3: and he is going to restaurants in places where I
Speaker 3: knew where they were at. I was just now reading
Speaker 3: a book, you know, many years after he had actually
Speaker 3: gone to these restaurants, and so I became fascinated, going, Wow,
Speaker 3: this is real, you know. And that was sort of
Speaker 3: what I would say really catapulted me into doing a
Speaker 3: deeper dive into true crime, if you will, but I
Speaker 3: was really focused on serial predators. I wasn't really paying
Speaker 3: attention to other types of cases.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I understand that. I think when I was younger,
Speaker 2: I did pay attention to a lot of true crime stuff.
Speaker 2: One was the yogurt Chop murders because I was their
Speaker 2: age when these four girls were murdered and it's still
Speaker 2: an unsolved case. I remember Columbine feeling shaken to my
Speaker 2: bones that something like that would have happened, because again
Speaker 2: that's my time period. And then John Benay, I had
Speaker 2: never heard of anything like that happening before.
Speaker 3: Yeah, you know, And of course I remember I had
Speaker 3: not heard of the yogurt chop murders until I got
Speaker 3: into the true crime space.
Speaker 4: But I've now familiar.
Speaker 3: I've talked to people who are working on that case
Speaker 3: within an official capacity. But of course, John Binney Ramsey,
Speaker 3: I remember that hitting the headlines and Columbine, which I
Speaker 3: don't know if there were if there was a school
Speaker 3: shooting prior to that, but that was the one case
Speaker 3: that really, you know, brought to public awareness, you know,
Speaker 3: the school shooter. And unfortunately, you know, there's been a
Speaker 3: rash of copycats, you know, ever since that's just it.
Speaker 3: It's like a domino effect, you know, one copying the other.
Speaker 4: You know.
Speaker 3: For where I was at, I would say sort of
Speaker 3: the watershed case was poly Class, and that was a
Speaker 3: case I was with the Sheriff's office.
Speaker 4: But the the idea.
Speaker 3: That an offender, you know, this Richard Allen Davis, who
Speaker 3: you know basically had been in and out of prison
Speaker 3: his entire life, was able to go inside a house
Speaker 3: where this little girl was at an abduct her while
Speaker 3: her parents were still inside that house. And then some
Speaker 3: of the communication problems between law enforcement agencies. Possibly I
Speaker 3: wouldn't say they could have saved her, but they could
Speaker 3: have caught him sooner, if you know, other agencies were
Speaker 3: aware that there was a subducted girl. But that was
Speaker 3: a big case out sort of like a man in
Speaker 3: Texas or you know, yogurt shot murders is something that
Speaker 3: was in that geosphere, and poly Class was one of
Speaker 3: the notable ones early on in my career out there
Speaker 3: in the Bay Area.
Speaker 4: Yeah.
Speaker 2: Absolutely, And I think when I talk to my students
Speaker 2: and I say, what are the cases that just haunt
Speaker 2: you guys? I mean, it's no surprise they're in college.
Speaker 2: They're saying Gabby Patito, and they're saying the Idaho for
Speaker 2: the college students who were murdered in Idaho. And it
Speaker 2: makes sense because it's it's there, it's their peers, that
Speaker 2: group influencers, you know, young people who were on campus
Speaker 2: feeling vulnerable. And so it was just interesting because they
Speaker 2: had never heard of one of the cases. Maybe it
Speaker 2: was called Peterson that I brought up. They were going, what,
Speaker 2: so everybody has a has a different you know, lens
Speaker 2: of which they look through true crime.
Speaker 3: Well, and I think if the case is happening while
Speaker 3: you are paying attention to that type of content, you're
Speaker 3: going to be invested in it. And when when you
Speaker 3: and I were growing up, we didn't have the pervasiveness
Speaker 3: of information on the cases like everybody does today. You know,
Speaker 3: you might hear you'd read it in the newspaper, or
Speaker 3: you'd see it on the news.
Speaker 4: That was it.
Speaker 3: You couldn't go online to find out more information about
Speaker 3: the case or to track the case. As you know,
Speaker 3: different aspects developed and became newsworthy, whereas today most certainly
Speaker 3: like with Idaho, you know, you can follow the trial
Speaker 3: you know online, you know, so it's it's a very
Speaker 3: different environment than when we grew up, for sure.
Speaker 2: Yeah, absolutely, and I think so much more misinformation that
Speaker 2: you know, as our show goes along over the years,
Speaker 2: I'm definitely going to want to start dipping into the
Speaker 2: rights and wrongs that happened in true crime, in the
Speaker 2: true crime community as far as you know polyclass. I
Speaker 2: just read an article it's a little bit older, that
Speaker 2: was written by her sister in the New York Times
Speaker 2: that just talked about the retraumatizing of her family every
Speaker 2: time something happens. They've never approved of any you know,
Speaker 2: program that has gone on about polyclass and just saying
Speaker 2: this is it just over and over again for decades.
Speaker 2: This has been going on.
Speaker 3: Yeah, you know, and I've seen that firsthand. We had
Speaker 3: another case out in the Bay Area of Zianna, fairchild
Speaker 3: girl abducted and ultimately killed out of a leo, and
Speaker 3: I became.
Speaker 4: Friends with her mom.
Speaker 3: Biologically it's her great aunt, Stephanie Cahliculu, but in essence,
Speaker 3: Stephanie's the one that raised Theanna, and I've seen Stephanie
Speaker 3: go through those same types of waves of being traumatized.
Speaker 3: Because of the public attention, you know, something becomes newsworthy
Speaker 3: and now she's thrust in front of the cameras again.
Speaker 3: And early on she was doing it because first she
Speaker 3: was trying to find her daughter, and then once it
Speaker 3: became obvious when Xianna Skull was found that she wasn't
Speaker 3: going to get her daughter back, then it was we
Speaker 3: need to get the killer. And that's when I got involved.
Speaker 4: In that case.
Speaker 3: But since then, there's been multiple reasons for Stephanie to
Speaker 3: have been put out there, and she really, you know,
Speaker 3: struggles with that. And I actually did present Zianna's case
Speaker 3: in Mitzi Sanchez, which is also a corresponding case out
Speaker 3: there at Crime Con And before I did that, I
Speaker 3: talked to Stephanie. I got her permission to make sure
Speaker 3: that was something that she was okay with.
Speaker 2: So when you and I talk about these cases that
Speaker 2: really catch people's attention and then sort of live in infamy,
Speaker 2: there are definitely cases that you and I talk about
Speaker 2: that I think have been forgotten in history. But at
Speaker 2: that time period, we're just so infamous. They can't all
Speaker 2: be Lizzie Borden's and Jack the Rippers, and so you know,
Speaker 2: that's our goal is to bring these stories back to
Speaker 2: see what we can learn.
Speaker 3: Well, I think, you know, when you think about it, it's,
Speaker 3: you know, it's very much like celebrities. You think about
Speaker 3: some of these individuals that you know, Hollywood, you know,
Speaker 3: and they were so famous, let's say back in the
Speaker 3: nineteen twenties. M there's a few exceptions, but many of
Speaker 3: them have just kind of faded because now new generations
Speaker 3: the celebrities have occurred, and the new generations of consumers
Speaker 3: are paying attention to that. And so I think the
Speaker 3: same thing happens, you know, within the crime stories. You know,
Speaker 3: of course, a huge case O. J. Simpson, you know,
Speaker 3: for our generation, you know, that was momentous in terms
Speaker 3: of so many for so many reasons. But I imagine
Speaker 3: a lot of the kids that you are teaching, they
Speaker 3: may have heard of the case, but it probably doesn't
Speaker 3: resonate the same way.
Speaker 2: I think that my students when we've talked about OJ Simpson,
Speaker 2: they understand the facts of the case, they understand the
Speaker 2: controversy around it. They had heard of Marcia Clark. I
Speaker 2: don't think they understand the social context around why it
Speaker 2: was so momentous, you know, around I racial inequalities and
Speaker 2: everything was so polarizing. I don't remember a case not
Speaker 2: even Manson that was as polarizing, particularly along you know,
Speaker 2: racial lines, as OJ Simpson. So when I talk about that,
Speaker 2: they just kind of look at me like what I
Speaker 2: just thought? It was this you know, ex football Heisman
Speaker 2: Trophy winner who killed his ex wife and her you
Speaker 2: know friend, And it's so much deeper than that, and
Speaker 2: I think sometimes you just have to live through it
Speaker 2: to understand the impact.
Speaker 4: Absolutely.
Speaker 3: You know, you have a celebrity that many people looked
Speaker 3: up to as a hero. You know, he had a
Speaker 3: very engaging personality. You know, I know I was stunned,
Speaker 3: you know when that case happened, when that crime happened,
Speaker 3: And so there's I think with that type of offender,
Speaker 3: you get to where, you know, you have a personal
Speaker 3: attachment to that celebrity. And to be frank, you know,
Speaker 3: O J. Simpson killed Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman, I
Speaker 3: don't want to dance around that.
Speaker 2: Well, now, let's talk about a case that I found
Speaker 2: really interesting because while it was not polarizing along racial lines,
Speaker 2: it is polarizing around gender. And we are going really
Speaker 2: far back eighteen fifties and it's I think been a
Speaker 2: while since we've dipped our tone into something this far back,
Speaker 2: but I think you'll find this case really interesting. It
Speaker 2: seems simple sort of from the beginning, but then it
Speaker 2: gets more complicated as we move along. So let's go
Speaker 2: ahead and set the scene. So this story takes place
Speaker 2: in the mid eighteen fifties in Miami County, Ohio, which
Speaker 2: is between the towns of Piqua and Colesville. I don't
Speaker 2: know how large these places are now, but then they
Speaker 2: were small. Piqua is about thirty miles north of Dayton
Speaker 2: and as a population of about three thy three hundred
Speaker 2: at the time. Colesville is a rural community. It's about
Speaker 2: ten miles south of Piquas. So we've got two different
Speaker 2: places that we're talking about.
Speaker 3: Here.
Speaker 2: We are in April, April third, eighteen fifty five. It's
Speaker 2: a Tuesday, and the main person at the middle of
Speaker 2: this story is a guy named Arthur Reagan. He is very, very,
Speaker 2: very sick. He is suffering from severe stomach illness. And
Speaker 2: his physician, who is a guy named doctor Brownell, says
Speaker 2: that Arthur has all the symptoms of gastritis or stomach
Speaker 2: inflammation with vomiting. If we're talking about that now and
Speaker 2: it's something that you've ingested, leave off the poison because
Speaker 2: I know that'll be your go to. Is there anything
Speaker 2: is it gastritis or what he's experiencing? Is that Could
Speaker 2: that be food poisoning? Could that be taking the wrong
Speaker 2: medicine and having a bad interaction. What would that be
Speaker 2: in today's terms?
Speaker 4: I think all of the above. You know.
Speaker 3: The first thing that came to my mind would would
Speaker 3: be like a food poisoning. You know, we've all had that.
Speaker 3: You know that oftentimes is some sort of nasty bacteria
Speaker 3: you know, you know, got out of control on the food.
Speaker 3: But of course you could have all sorts of different
Speaker 3: substances that aren't necessarily intended to be poisons, but they
Speaker 3: have they have irritating properties.
Speaker 2: So I was wondering about milk pasteurization. Is there a risk?
Speaker 2: I know there's a risk for pregnant women if you
Speaker 2: are having cheese or milk that's not pasteurized. Now And
Speaker 2: why is that?
Speaker 3: Well, the pasturization process is in essence to eliminate the
Speaker 3: bacteria that are present during the milking process kind of
Speaker 3: contaminates the milk, and so they bring the temperature of
Speaker 3: the milk up to a certain level to kill the
Speaker 3: the microorganisms.
Speaker 4: You know to a point.
Speaker 3: You know, of course, after a period of time, milk
Speaker 3: will still go bad, but the pasturization gives a logger
Speaker 3: shelf life. So unpasteurized milk potentially has a greater likelihood
Speaker 3: of having a microorganism that your body isn't going to like.
Speaker 2: So this story is in eighteen fifty five, and I
Speaker 2: was just thinking about this. In eighteen sixty two is
Speaker 2: when Louis Pastor came up with the germ theory, which
Speaker 2: is just what you're saying. You know, the boiling and milk,
Speaker 2: bringing it to a high temperature actually can kill the
Speaker 2: bacteria in the yeast because before there were these contaminations
Speaker 2: that were coming out, like tuberculosis. So I was thinking
Speaker 2: that when he was complaining to his doctor about stomach pains.
Speaker 2: Right now, he's sort of on a farm in between cities,
Speaker 2: and what he could be eating that is not nefarious
Speaker 2: at this.
Speaker 3: Point, no, not at all. And you know, you think
Speaker 3: it's not necessarily something that he purposely ingested. You know,
Speaker 3: he could have, you know, working on the farm. You know,
Speaker 3: imagine the hygiene. How many times he's putting his his fingers,
Speaker 3: you know, into his mouth or something like that, and
Speaker 3: how dirty his hands could be. You know, contaminate it.
Speaker 3: Let's not to be too too graphic, but contaminate it
Speaker 3: like with animal fecal matter, you know, and of course
Speaker 3: the bacteria that are present there, or just the meats
Speaker 3: that they're eating. Now you get into the food side
Speaker 3: and you know potential contamination with you know, microorganisms that
Speaker 3: the body doesn't like.
Speaker 2: Now, I'd like you to come up with a new
Speaker 2: list of possible natural contaminations based on what Arthur does
Speaker 2: for a living. And there might not be any there there. Well,
Speaker 2: I'll tell you. Have you heard of a craftsman called
Speaker 2: a cooper? No, so it seems like a present tense
Speaker 2: term actually from when I looked at it, But a
Speaker 2: cooper in the eighteen hundreds, with someone who makes tubs
Speaker 2: and vats and wooden barrels that could be used for
Speaker 2: wine making. And I first thought when I thought about
Speaker 2: his symptoms, I had done a story on a man
Speaker 2: who had asthma and was working, you know, with spraying
Speaker 2: all kinds of paint on, spraying paint on cars, and
Speaker 2: sometimes you wouldn't wear a mask, and it just sounded awful.
Speaker 2: So I was wondering if any of those proses that
Speaker 2: you would do to make those even in the eighteen hundreds,
Speaker 2: they must have involved some kind of chemical, right, I
Speaker 2: would think.
Speaker 3: You know, I imagine that there's some sort of sealant that
Speaker 3: they're using, and so that'd be my first guess. Tubs
Speaker 3: in vats, you know, at least with what I am
Speaker 3: picturing from this time frame, they're probably having to shape
Speaker 3: you know, form wood, you know, steam it form it
Speaker 3: and somehow get it bound together. And there's mechanical ways
Speaker 3: to bind it together so the planks you know, stay
Speaker 3: in place. But if there it's going to be water tight,
Speaker 3: then I think that there's going to be some sort
Speaker 3: of seal it, whether it's a tar based sealant or
Speaker 3: you know they using you know, rubber, you know selant,
Speaker 3: you know, you know, more of a natural type of thing.
Speaker 3: But it also could be something from crude oil, you know,
Speaker 3: that they've processed out, just like vacoline, you know, petrol, adam,
Speaker 3: jelly you know, is something that comes ultimately from crude
Speaker 3: you know, So is there something that they are they're
Speaker 3: a waxy substance that they get from crude oil, and
Speaker 3: then of course there could potentially be a variety of
Speaker 3: whether it be mineral based toxins to even organic benzene
Speaker 3: for example, could be present.
Speaker 2: I'll just tell you sort of what was used commonly,
Speaker 2: and this does not mean this is what Arthur was doing.
Speaker 2: But these wooden hubs were sort of temporary tubs. They
Speaker 2: basically looked like barrels or sometimes they were like water troughs,
Speaker 2: so you would dunk yourself in there. So they were
Speaker 2: heavy wood, and then they would use iron bands to
Speaker 2: reinforce the wooden vertical parts of it, and then sometimes
Speaker 2: they had a linen cloth to protect the bather from
Speaker 2: getting a little splinter in your bum. So essentially you
Speaker 2: know the iron bands and you're right. There must have
Speaker 2: also been a seilant in there somewhere, so we don't
Speaker 2: really know if that contributes to it. I'm just saying
Speaker 2: this is something that he does that we have to
Speaker 2: look at too. So Arthur first became sick on Friday.
Speaker 2: So when he gets really really sick too, is the
Speaker 2: following Tuesday. So I'll give you kind of the chronology,
Speaker 2: so he can becomes sick on Friday, he gets better
Speaker 2: when doctor Brunelle takes care of him on Sunday. We
Speaker 2: have had several cases of a doctor coming to the
Speaker 2: aid of someone and they turn out to be the killer.
Speaker 2: This is still a true crime show, so you can
Speaker 2: imagine this is not a simple illness. And I'm not
Speaker 2: saying the doctor is a suspect, but you do have
Speaker 2: that access. You have somebody there and he's administering medicine.
Speaker 2: Doctor Burnelle leaves and then Monday back to being sick again,
Speaker 2: and it doesn't seem like he's recovering. So he got
Speaker 2: better than he got worse. Floating around and trying to
Speaker 2: take care of Arthur is his wife, who is twenty
Speaker 2: two years old. She is a church going woman. Her
Speaker 2: name is Jane, but everybody calls her Elizabeth Reagan. She's
Speaker 2: pregnant at the time. She talks to the doctor and
Speaker 2: she says that she thinks that Arthur has purposely poisoned himself, okay,
Speaker 2: to make himself sick and then potentially take his own life.
Speaker 2: She doesn't give a great explanation for this, that he's
Speaker 2: been troubled, he's lived a hard life. This is probably
Speaker 2: the tenth story that I've done where fifty percent turn
Speaker 2: out to be someone who has intentionally poisoned themselves. In
Speaker 2: fifty percent. It's the spouse saying, yeah, he's this and that,
Speaker 2: and then it turns out that they're poisoning them.
Speaker 3: Is she expressing that he has any suicidal ideas, you know,
Speaker 3: is there a life insurance policy, et cetera. You know,
Speaker 3: sometimes people will commit suicide, but they need to make
Speaker 3: it look like a homicide in order for these policies
Speaker 3: to actually be dispersed. Yeah, and you know, so that's
Speaker 3: you know, part of what I would be looking at
Speaker 3: on this front.
Speaker 4: You know, with Arthur.
Speaker 2: So, Arthur does not have a life insurance policy that
Speaker 2: I can find. He is not particularly wealthy. I don't
Speaker 2: have his exact age, but it looks quite a bit older.
Speaker 2: You know, there are not a lot of people who
Speaker 2: can sort of come around and talk about their marriage
Speaker 2: in general. She is saying that he has a troubled
Speaker 2: mind and that this is what she thinks is happening
Speaker 2: with him, but she's being pretty vague about it. You know,
Speaker 2: Like I said, I had thought, with these excruciating symptoms,
Speaker 2: this is not the way most people would have chosen to,
Speaker 2: you know, take in their own life. That being said,
Speaker 2: you have and no go into this, Paul, but you
Speaker 2: have told me about some pretty horrific ways, including a
Speaker 2: table where people have decided to take their own lives.
Speaker 2: So now I'm done being incredulous about something like that
Speaker 2: and expecting anything.
Speaker 3: Sure, but for somebody to poison themselves, they're not necessarily
Speaker 3: wanting to do it over a long period of time.
Speaker 3: They're trying to do an acute poisoning, so they die rapidly.
Speaker 2: Okay, let's continue on and see what we come up
Speaker 2: with with Arthur. Elizabeth. When the doctor says, what are
Speaker 2: you talking about? You think he's poisoning himself, Elizabeth said
Speaker 2: that he had eaten cream of tartar the night before,
Speaker 2: which she now suspects was laced with arsenic. I know
Speaker 2: what arsenic is. My mom kept a container in the
Speaker 2: spice rack of cream of tartar. I know it's used
Speaker 2: in baking. I can't remember or ever using it, but
Speaker 2: I know it's there, and I think it's still there. Frankly,
Speaker 2: it's thirty years old. I have a list of things
Speaker 2: that they would have used it in. But just off
Speaker 2: the top of your head, do you have any idea
Speaker 2: what that's use would be in a kitchen?
Speaker 4: It's the cream of tartar.
Speaker 3: As far as I know as a baking ingredient, I
Speaker 3: think it's you know, I don't know anything more about it.
Speaker 3: I'm not a baker. It doesn't seem like it's something
Speaker 3: that you would take by itself. It would be something
Speaker 3: that'd be added, you know, to you know, something that's
Speaker 3: cooked or something that's baked.
Speaker 4: But that's all I know.
Speaker 2: One of the things I found out is that cream
Speaker 2: of tartar in the eighteen hundreds was used medicinally for heartburn.
Speaker 2: And I think it would be mixed with milk, I
Speaker 2: would suspect, or you know, like a fiber powder would
Speaker 2: be today, so you know, it was mixed up. And
Speaker 2: I think she's saying that he had an upset stomach
Speaker 2: and he took it. Now she says, I actually think
Speaker 2: that this is arsenic that he took, and he was
Speaker 2: pretending to take the cream of tartar to. I don't
Speaker 2: know what it would be. Spare her feelings, I will
Speaker 2: say cream of tartar was used also in the making
Speaker 2: of wine, and we know that, you know, he would
Speaker 2: make wine barrels. So all of this is connected in
Speaker 2: an odd way. So I don't know.
Speaker 3: Is who makes up this cream a tartar, who gives
Speaker 3: it to him or does he go and get it himself?
Speaker 4: You know what is the wife saying?
Speaker 2: She says that he did it. So he got it, okay,
Speaker 2: and took it. He consumed it. I don't think he
Speaker 2: was taking it by this spoonful. I think because it
Speaker 2: was medicinal. The insinuation is is that he was using
Speaker 2: it because he had an upset stomach or some heartburn.
Speaker 3: So obviously, if there's still the source of this cream
Speaker 3: a tartar, that's evidence.
Speaker 2: Yeah. And then on top of that, Arthur has been vomiting,
Speaker 2: and so there the doctor had the foresight of making
Speaker 2: sure he knew where all of this vomit was because
Speaker 2: it was in multiple places, to make sure that if
Speaker 2: something was going awry here with Arthur, that there would
Speaker 2: be some kind of evidence. And the reason is that
Speaker 2: Arthur denied it. When he came back on Monday, Arthur
Speaker 2: had improved and then he started to go downhill and
Speaker 2: he had a conversation with the doctor and he said,
Speaker 2: I did not take it myself, despite what Elizabeth said,
Speaker 2: And he said, I think I'm being poisoned. And when
Speaker 2: the doctor pressed him on it, he would not say
Speaker 2: who did it? He just said, I'm pretty sure I'm
Speaker 2: being poisoned.
Speaker 3: I think you know two thoughts. You know, the doctor
Speaker 3: shows up and Arthur starts feeling better, and whether the
Speaker 3: doctor gave him something, you know, charcoal or whatever. But
Speaker 3: the presence of the doctor may have prevented the offender
Speaker 3: from being able to add to whatever poison is being used.
Speaker 3: Maybe it is this arsenic you know, on that particular day,
Speaker 3: and now Arthur's starting to recover, either from the medicinal
Speaker 3: intervention or just from the lack of ingesting more poison.
Speaker 3: But then starting Monday, he's back to feeling symptoms and
Speaker 3: either the medicinal intervention or off or now he's starting
Speaker 3: to ingest more poison. And then, of course, who has
Speaker 3: you know, the access to Arthur. We know the wife
Speaker 3: Elizabeth does, but is there anybody else that is accessing
Speaker 3: either Arthur directly or anything that he might be ingesting
Speaker 3: inside the house. Let's say a maid going into the
Speaker 3: pantry and spiking the cream of tartar with arsenic.
Speaker 2: Well, let's keep going and find out. Arthur gets worse
Speaker 2: and worse, and that day that the doctor's there, he
Speaker 2: dies because of what he said and of course what
Speaker 2: Elizabeth said. The doctor calls in the authorities, which in
Speaker 2: the eighteen fifties could have been just like a local constable.
Speaker 2: It could have been a deputy, it could have been
Speaker 2: you know, various people, no one, I don't think with
Speaker 2: in depth experience, however, I think you're going to be
Speaker 2: a little surprised by this. They gather the stomach contents
Speaker 2: once there's an autopsy, and they get a dirt sample
Speaker 2: from outside the Reagan home. And they get this dirt
Speaker 2: sample because when he threw up, somebody who was in
Speaker 2: the house, probably Elizabeth, collected it and threw it outside
Speaker 2: to get rid of it. And so they collect this
Speaker 2: dirt sample and they send it off for analysis in Columbus, Ohio,
Speaker 2: big city. They run five different tests, so they had
Speaker 2: the capability of looking for arsenic and it comes back
Speaker 2: arsenic positive, positive for arsenic. And I was wondering if
Speaker 2: you were going to be surprised if they had that
Speaker 2: capability back then to look for arsenic.
Speaker 3: I'm not shocked, I guess is the way to put it,
Speaker 3: you know, like I do have the you know, the
Speaker 3: Essentials of Forensic Medicine book from eighteen ninety two, and
Speaker 3: it's surprising in terms of the depth of chemistry knowledge
Speaker 3: that the toxicology experts.
Speaker 4: Back in the day actually had.
Speaker 3: And so the soil that they're looking at, they're obviously
Speaker 3: not using modern instrumental techniques, nor are they utilizing anything
Speaker 3: really advanced. There in essence reacting that soil with various
Speaker 3: compounds that they know respond a certain way in the
Speaker 3: presence of a certain toxic and so they a compound.
Speaker 3: I don't know what they would have used, but they
Speaker 3: probably reacted that soil oil with a compound and maybe
Speaker 3: microscopically saw a certain shape of crystal and they go up,
Speaker 3: that's positive for arsenic. In this day and age, it's
Speaker 3: just a presumptive test, but back then that's they probably concluded, Yes,
Speaker 3: this is arsenic. There's arsenic in this soil sample, and
Speaker 3: his vomit is mixed with that dirt.
Speaker 2: And then you have to think, with arsenic in so
Speaker 2: many products that were so easily available, I mean, mostly
Speaker 2: rough on rats and products used to kill animals. They're
Speaker 2: on a farm type situation, is this something that he
Speaker 2: would have ingested accidentally somehow, some way. But there's a
Speaker 2: newspaper in nineteen ten that says that he had ingested
Speaker 2: enough arsenic according to the people who tested it, to
Speaker 2: kill quote half a dozen men. Now that's vague, but well,
Speaker 2: it sounds like a shit ton of arsenic to me?
Speaker 2: Is that the scientific term?
Speaker 4: Yeah?
Speaker 3: You know, I think, well, I kind of have a
Speaker 3: problem because I don't think that there would be any
Speaker 3: way back in eighteen fifty for them to do what
Speaker 3: we would call a quantitative analysis. You know, in essence,
Speaker 3: there's probably a subjective opinion by the I'm going to
Speaker 3: call the person a toxicologist that is going this is
Speaker 3: a strong reaction, stronger than what they typically see. But
Speaker 3: it's in many ways it's out of context. You know,
Speaker 3: you're dealing with something that you know, is it hasn't
Speaker 3: been concentrated because of you know, the vomit aspect and
Speaker 3: in the soil, and is there something going on there?
Speaker 3: So I don't know, I really am skeptical about an
Speaker 3: opinion like that, but I think what I would conclude
Speaker 3: is is that if this person actually has some experience
Speaker 3: testing a variety of arsenic containing samples, that they saw
Speaker 3: a very strong and quick reaction and concluded, oh, there's
Speaker 3: a lot of arsenic here.
Speaker 4: That's probably about the extent that they can say.
Speaker 2: Well, of course the suspicion is on Elizabeth. I don't
Speaker 2: think anybody believes, including the doctor, that he took all
Speaker 2: this stuff himself. It would have been so painful and
Speaker 2: as he said, over such a long period of time, right,
Speaker 2: It just seemed sure, especially after Arthur said I think
Speaker 2: I'm being poisoned. I don't know why he didn't say anything.
Speaker 2: Maybe he didn't have conclusive proof that it was his
Speaker 2: wife or a neighbor. We've certainly heard about, you know,
Speaker 2: neighbor disputes, So there's a list of suspects that could
Speaker 2: pop up right now. They're really homing in on Elizabeth, though.
Speaker 3: Well, I think with Arthur making that statement about I
Speaker 3: think I'm being poisoned, you know, in many ways, that
Speaker 3: negates him doing this to himself, because if he was,
Speaker 3: he's now undoing the reason he would be poisoning himself,
Speaker 3: you know. And now he's saying it's a homicide, right
Speaker 3: or somebody's trying to hurt me, and ultimately it's a
Speaker 3: homicide through poisoning. So this does seem to indicate that
Speaker 3: somebody with Elizabeth the primary person having access, is trying
Speaker 3: to kill him utilizing the arsenic. Now, Elizabeth is prime
Speaker 3: suspect for sure, but I also go to, well, if
Speaker 3: Arthur's going in himself to the cream of tartar, is
Speaker 3: there somebody else that could be adding arsenic to that
Speaker 3: cream of tartar?
Speaker 4: Yeah? Oh, versus just Elizabeth.
Speaker 2: I don't believe they're finding arsenic anywhere in the house.
Speaker 2: I don't believe they find the cream of tartar anywhere
Speaker 2: that you know we're talking about, But that's not reported,
Speaker 2: so I don't know it could have been there, and
Speaker 2: I think that if it had been tested, there probably
Speaker 2: would have been a note about that. But the way
Speaker 2: we're going into this is because of what he said
Speaker 2: and because of Elizabeth planting it very early that she
Speaker 2: believed that he was trying to take his own life.
Speaker 2: People of course, are looking at the wife. Sure, so
Speaker 2: the police are thinking what kind of physical evidence do
Speaker 2: we have? And so far they don't. They don't have
Speaker 2: any physical evidence that they can say that would prove
Speaker 2: aside from his statement you know that I didn't do this.
Speaker 2: Who would have done this to him? If the doors
Speaker 2: are unlocked and there are other people in his life?
Speaker 3: Well, and that's where you know it's his victimology. You
Speaker 3: have the spouse and you know what is that relationship, Like,
Speaker 3: how would she benefit if Arthur is no longer around
Speaker 3: and has died. But then what else has Arthur been
Speaker 3: involved with? And is there a way for somebody on
Speaker 3: the outside to have accomplished this poisoning if Arthur is
Speaker 3: not leaving the house during this time that he's ill.
Speaker 2: Okay, well, let's get into what becomes the more scandalous
Speaker 2: parts of this story, which are to me with some
Speaker 2: of the most interesting. So a simple mistake leads to
Speaker 2: some pretty big accusations. So here's what happens around this
Speaker 2: time when the investigators are working on the case and
Speaker 2: the doctor is trying to figure out what happened. There
Speaker 2: is a man who shows up to the investigators. His
Speaker 2: name is J. L. Temple. He is the assistant postmaster
Speaker 2: of a town nearby Colesville called Troy, and he comes
Speaker 2: with this I think damning information months earlier, so January.
Speaker 2: We're in April when Arthur dies. So in January he
Speaker 2: had gotten a letter that he found really troubling. It
Speaker 2: was returned to the post office after it had been
Speaker 2: given to the wrong person. Eventually, when he gets this
Speaker 2: letter back, and there's a man named Murray who returns
Speaker 2: this letter and says, this is not me, It's meant
Speaker 2: for somebody else. Then JAYL Temple looks at this letter
Speaker 2: and realizes that he gave it to the wrong person.
Speaker 2: The letter was not meant for a man named Murray.
Speaker 2: It was meant for a man whose last name was Maori.
Speaker 2: So James Maury was supposed to get this letter. And
Speaker 2: it was dated December sixth, about a month earlier, and
Speaker 2: it was sent from a different town, the Piqua town
Speaker 2: that I was telling you about before. So it was
Speaker 2: so disturbing that the postmaster made a copy and then
Speaker 2: gave it to the rightful owner of this who was
Speaker 2: James Mawy. This is kind of a long letter, but
Speaker 2: I feel like you're going to want to hear all
Speaker 2: of it. So this guy's name is James. It's written
Speaker 2: to James, and it says, dear Jimmy, once again, I
Speaker 2: am seeded to write a few lines to you. I
Speaker 2: said I would not write anymore, but you know I
Speaker 2: can't refrain from it, and as I have been living
Speaker 2: in a perfect hell. If you will allow me the
Speaker 2: expression it is a hard one, but nevertheless true. And
Speaker 2: I have been tormented day and night since I came home.
Speaker 2: He so we don't know who he is, saw me
Speaker 2: kiss you and that was enough. Oh, I have had
Speaker 2: to suffer for it. I did not think he saw me,
Speaker 2: but he was watching me. I'm so near beside myself.
Speaker 2: I hardly know what I am doing. He says, I
Speaker 2: shall not go home anymore, and he says he will
Speaker 2: not get me any more clothes, and then I can't
Speaker 2: go as much as I have. Now, I can't stand
Speaker 2: this any longer, and I appeal for your help. There
Speaker 2: is another part of this letter, Paul, but it's unsigned.
Speaker 2: I will say this eventually does get tied to Elizabeth Reagan.
Speaker 3: Yeah, that's what I kind of figured. I mean stating
Speaker 3: the obvious. Obviously, Elizabeth seems to have a relationship with James,
Speaker 3: and that relationship was discovered by Arthur. Now she is
Speaker 3: confiding in James on how her life at home is
Speaker 3: miserable because he's basically taking over control and what she's
Speaker 3: doing as well. As it sounds like Elizabeth under the
Speaker 3: guise of going to see her parents is possibly when
Speaker 3: she's slipping out to go see James, and so Arthur
Speaker 3: is going You're not doing that anymore, You're staying home.
Speaker 3: This letter, at least with what you've read so far,
Speaker 3: makes it sound like Elizabeth is feeling trapped. Now, she's
Speaker 3: having to figure out how do I get out of
Speaker 3: this trap? And it sounds like she's possibly appealing to
Speaker 3: James to help her at this point in the letter.
Speaker 3: What a letter to be delivered to the wrong person.
Speaker 2: I know this isn't me and this is somebody else?
Speaker 2: Can you not read? It is not Marie, it's mottle Boy,
Speaker 2: it's Maori. Well do you want to hear the second
Speaker 2: half of this because then it gets really specific?
Speaker 3: Of course, I do you know? Of course you know
Speaker 3: I'm now questioning the pregnancy and who's the father?
Speaker 2: This is what else? Now it says is Elizabeth is
Speaker 2: the letter writer here, even though it's not signed. I
Speaker 2: have thought of one more plan. I'm going to make
Speaker 2: one more proposition to you, and if you will do it,
Speaker 2: I will grant you the request you have so long
Speaker 2: asked of me, as soon as you do what I
Speaker 2: want you to do or before, if you will only
Speaker 2: do what I want you now, it is this, You
Speaker 2: make a proposition to him to go with you to
Speaker 2: look at some new country to Oregon or Wisconsin or
Speaker 2: some other place, and name the period right off. And
Speaker 2: if he says he has not the means, you tell
Speaker 2: him you will furnish him with the means if he
Speaker 2: will go for company. So clearly James and Arthur know
Speaker 2: each other. Ye, And then I will persuade him to go.
Speaker 2: And then you can go on horseback or on the cars.
Speaker 2: And you can take your two horses and go part
Speaker 2: of the way on the cars, and you can take
Speaker 2: the horses and go the rest of the way, that
Speaker 2: is till you get a good ways away from here.
Speaker 2: And you can procure your poison and administer it in
Speaker 2: his oysters, and he will never know the difference. You
Speaker 2: can eat your oysters on the road, or you can
Speaker 2: give them to some farmhouse. They will never know the difference.
Speaker 2: And you can pretend to take it hard, to think
Speaker 2: you have to turn back.
Speaker 4: So to pretend to take it hard.
Speaker 3: Like if Arthur dies as a result of eating oysters.
Speaker 2: Oh that's it. And then he's so upset he has
Speaker 2: to move. He gets to go back home.
Speaker 3: He gets to go back. And now she's promising him.
Speaker 3: I guess the way that I'm interpreting the early part
Speaker 3: of the second part of the letter is it sounds
Speaker 3: like James has been asking for a more involved relationship
Speaker 3: with Elizabeth, and so she's now saying, you do this, basically,
Speaker 3: kill Arthur, and I will do what you've been asking for,
Speaker 3: which sounds like whether that's a marriage or something more
Speaker 3: involved than what they've been able to do while she's
Speaker 3: been married with Arthur.
Speaker 2: I will inform you now that James is married with children,
Speaker 2: So then it gets more complicated. Well maybe not, I
Speaker 2: mean a little look on your face and maybe not.
Speaker 3: Well what tangled?
Speaker 4: Well they weave? No, yea.
Speaker 3: I was just thinking oysters in the middle of the country.
Speaker 3: I've never had oysters. I don't think I can ingest
Speaker 3: a whole creature like that.
Speaker 4: I'm very picky when it comes to.
Speaker 2: Eating food, jesting whole creatures.
Speaker 3: Maybe one of these days, with a sufficient bourbon in me,
Speaker 3: I might try.
Speaker 2: Yeah, not with me, buddy, I don't like oysters either.
Speaker 3: Oh, but I was just thinking why specifically oysters, and
Speaker 3: I imagine oysters in the middle of the country were
Speaker 3: probably a common source of food poisoning.
Speaker 2: They were a delicacy in the eighteen hundreds in certain parts,
Speaker 2: and certainly I would think Ohio, I would think it
Speaker 2: would be very difficult, no matter what the risk is,
Speaker 2: for somebody like Arthur Reagan to say no to something
Speaker 2: like that, because it would have been pricey for them
Speaker 2: to get them, and I wonder if they're packed correctly,
Speaker 2: they would be salty, like with salt water. I don't
Speaker 2: know what arsenic tastes like, but for some reason, I
Speaker 2: have heard of oil being poisoned with arsenic before. So
Speaker 2: this doesn't seem novel, but it's definitely a choice. Cream
Speaker 2: of tartar seems like it's looking pretty good at this point.
Speaker 3: Okay, so the use of the oysters is really just
Speaker 3: you know, it's like offering up you know.
Speaker 4: Nice chocolate, right, It's yeah, Okay.
Speaker 3: So she has devised a plan and she is manipulating
Speaker 3: James in order to in essence, take care of Arthur
Speaker 3: for her.
Speaker 4: That's interesting.
Speaker 3: It'll be interesting to see how Arthur ends up being
Speaker 3: poisoned in his own house, because it doesn't sound like
Speaker 3: this trip must have happened. He didn't receive this well.
Speaker 3: He received the letter well before. Arthur actually ends up
Speaker 3: being poisoned.
Speaker 2: Right, it's January, yes, so that's what three or four
Speaker 2: months before.
Speaker 3: I wondered, did the postmaster actually tell James, hey, this
Speaker 3: was accidentally delivered to somebody else who opened it and
Speaker 3: read it. Or did he just kind of repackage the
Speaker 3: the letter and give it to James without divulging that
Speaker 3: you know. And so now James is kicking into motion
Speaker 3: what Elizabeth wants, but later in time than what Elizabeth
Speaker 3: initially thought would happen.
Speaker 2: So the postmaster copies this letter. So to me, that
Speaker 2: means he clearly didn't turn it over to the investigators.
Speaker 2: So he turned this back over to James, but kept
Speaker 2: a copy of the letter, which is very smart. There's
Speaker 2: a little bit left. Tell me if this makes sense
Speaker 2: to you. So the last thing she says to him
Speaker 2: is pretend like this is terrible and that you're so
Speaker 2: upset you have to go back home. When you have
Speaker 2: accomplished what I have told you. Mayah, she's manipulative. When
Speaker 2: you accomplish what I have told you, then you can
Speaker 2: telegraph to me that he is dead. I will tell
Speaker 2: the templars and have them make up thirty dollars and
Speaker 2: send to you to bear his expenses, So Arthur must
Speaker 2: have been a member, is what I'm assuming. If you
Speaker 2: will come up as soon as you get this, I
Speaker 2: will tell you better. Now, dear, do come. You know
Speaker 2: I love you, you are well aware of it. I
Speaker 2: will write no more till I see you come up
Speaker 2: right away. My ink is pale. You're right, it sounds
Speaker 2: like he wants more because she seems to be emphasizing
Speaker 2: to him and reassuring him how much that she loves him,
Speaker 2: and then she's asking this huge thing. She obviously trusts
Speaker 2: him enough to not go to authorities.
Speaker 3: Yeah, but also there's there's a two way street here,
Speaker 3: or maybe a three way street, because James is married himself,
Speaker 3: you know. So now even if he carries out this
Speaker 3: plot that Elizabeth is launching and gets rid of Arthur,
Speaker 3: well that frees up Elizabeth. But he has a family
Speaker 3: at home that isn't necessarily going to be very accepting
Speaker 3: of Elizabeth in his life, you know. So James is
Speaker 3: sort of in a in a pinch from that perspective.
Speaker 3: So something has you know, I guess what are the
Speaker 3: quest since I have? Did James and Arthur actually go
Speaker 3: on a trip to find this plot of land or
Speaker 3: did that just dissolve over time for one reason like
Speaker 3: Arthur's Like, now I'm not interested, and so now Elizabeth
Speaker 3: and James have to concoct a different way of getting
Speaker 3: rid of Arthur.
Speaker 2: Yeah. I think once we get into the legal part
Speaker 2: of this, maybe that'll answer some questions. I don't believe
Speaker 2: the trip ever happened, and I think that they had
Speaker 2: to kind of punt regarding James's family. I don't think
Speaker 2: James is thinking very far ahead, is the impression I'm getting.
Speaker 2: So James is thirty two, married with children. As I mentioned,
Speaker 2: he has brought. Now explain this to me. He's brought
Speaker 2: to court for a preliminary trial. Is that the same thing?
Speaker 2: Do you think as a preliminary hearing? This is not
Speaker 2: a murder trial. It sounds like it's in for questioning.
Speaker 2: But there are people testifying, including Elizabeth.
Speaker 4: It was this related to Arthur's death.
Speaker 2: Then yes, it's not a murder trial. It sounds like
Speaker 2: a pulmonary hearing. But they're calling it a trial just
Speaker 2: to see if it should go on to trial.
Speaker 3: That sounds more I think akin to like a grand jury. Okay,
Speaker 3: with preliminary hearings, that's after somebody has been arrested, charged,
Speaker 3: or reigned, right, and so there you have a defendant.
Speaker 3: So if there isn't a if you don't have a
Speaker 3: defendant and they're just hearing the facts of the case,
Speaker 3: it sounds like either a coroner's inquest or maybe a
Speaker 3: grand jury.
Speaker 2: I think this is probably you're right, akin to a
Speaker 2: grand jury. He's not under arrest, and I think they're
Speaker 2: just trying to figure out if there's any there there.
Speaker 2: And we do have Elizabeth explaining a lot. So now
Speaker 2: tell me what you think if you are a defense
Speaker 2: attorney for James and a defense attorney for Elizabeth, what
Speaker 2: is the best way to go. The only thing implicating
Speaker 2: James right now is this letter, the stinking letter. We
Speaker 2: know a fingerprint. They're not doing any of that kind
Speaker 2: of stuff. They're not putting arsenic in his hand. But
Speaker 2: then he knows that his girlfriend is going to sit
Speaker 2: on the stand and you know, testify maybe against him,
Speaker 2: maybe not. I don't know if he knows. So I'm
Speaker 2: not quite sure what the best tact is for either
Speaker 2: of these people who are now under suspicion for killing
Speaker 2: Arthur Reagan.
Speaker 3: Well, the defense is going to be these two pointing
Speaker 3: fingers at each other. But you think about James. You know,
Speaker 3: this letter, it's addressed to him, but it's not signed
Speaker 3: by Elizabeth, you know, so of course Elizabeth's attorney is
Speaker 3: going to say Bett didn't come from Elizabeth. How can
Speaker 3: you prove it came from Elizabeth? You know in eighteen fifty,
Speaker 3: like you said, no, no fingerprints, no DNA, no signature,
Speaker 3: handwriting analysis. You know, maybe somebody says, well, it looks
Speaker 3: like her handwriting. So that's that's pretty weak, you know,
Speaker 3: from just the letter itself. Nor does does it even
Speaker 3: Arthur's name?
Speaker 4: It's he, you know.
Speaker 3: So there's a lot of wiggle room that I could
Speaker 3: see a defense attorney exploiting under those types of circumstances
Speaker 3: with that letter to defend Elizabeth. You know, right now,
Speaker 3: the biggest thing is is arsenic is found. Elizabeth has
Speaker 3: access to Arthur has access to the cream of tartar.
Speaker 3: The doctor has been inside the house, you know, he
Speaker 3: mostly you know, has to be considered, and you could
Speaker 3: see a defense pointing at the doctor and saying the
Speaker 3: doctor's one that did this. It would be really tough.
Speaker 3: I think James is in the best position, you know,
Speaker 3: at least with what you've told me is he lives
Speaker 3: a distance away. Unless somebody have witnesses that could put James,
Speaker 3: you know, lurking around the house around the time Arthur
Speaker 3: starts getting sick, It's going to be tough to put
Speaker 3: the poisoning on James from the distance. But it sounds
Speaker 3: like Elizabeth in this letter is asking James to come
Speaker 3: visit her. So does that visit a her?
Speaker 2: Well, let's get into what everybody says here. Elizabeth has
Speaker 2: been romantically involved with James in the past before they
Speaker 2: both got married. Okay, so when she is talking at this,
Speaker 2: let's just call this grand jury testimony. When she is
Speaker 2: doing this, she is saying, you know, we were together
Speaker 2: before we met our spouses, then we stopped being together
Speaker 2: after that. What she says how they reconnected is interesting.
Speaker 2: She reconnected with him. So Maren was confused, as am
Speaker 2: I about this last summer a year ago, so you know,
Speaker 2: she hasn't seen She says that they have not seen
Speaker 2: each other for a while, and she was visiting her
Speaker 2: father's home in Colesville. She says she was nursing her
Speaker 2: baby at her dad's house when James, who lived in
Speaker 2: the area, showed up and declared his love for her.
Speaker 2: You know, that is kind of a pretty bold statement.
Speaker 2: She says that she said, I'm not interested James. I've
Speaker 2: got a baby. But at some point the baby passes away.
Speaker 2: She sees James again a few months later. She's in
Speaker 2: a state of grief. She's very vulnerable, and she succumbs
Speaker 2: and they start this affair. There doesn't seem to be
Speaker 2: anything nefarious about the baby dying. I'm sure it was
Speaker 2: like bacterial effecture something like that. They're not suspecting anything,
Speaker 2: but it sounds like from the beginning of this testimony
Speaker 2: she's definitely sort of setting herself up as the vulnerable
Speaker 2: young woman slash young girl. So she would have been
Speaker 2: probably twenty twenty one when this started. James is ten
Speaker 2: years older, so you know, who is sort of falling
Speaker 2: for this and this affair begins. So she sounds like
Speaker 2: she's being honest. She's saying, yes, we were having an affair,
Speaker 2: we were sleeping together, which in the eighteen fifties would
Speaker 2: have been something else to say, but she's being honest
Speaker 2: about it. So what do you think so far?
Speaker 3: Well, this is just you know, typical human relationships. You know,
Speaker 3: whether you've got the marriages or you have you know,
Speaker 3: some partner that you're with, but then you've also got
Speaker 3: you know, feelings for somebody else. I mean, this is
Speaker 3: a long term relationship between the two relatively speaking, something
Speaker 3: caused both of them to marry somebody else. But then
Speaker 3: most early it sounds like James is still pining for Elizabeth.
Speaker 3: I guess Elizabeth actually has also got emotions for him.
Speaker 3: When they restart and rekindle this affair, you know, and
Speaker 3: this is possibly the pregnancy, maybe a result of the
Speaker 3: sexual interactions you know, during this affair. But then Elizabeth,
Speaker 3: you know, Arthur finds out and now Elizabeth is capitalizing
Speaker 3: on James's emotions for her to manipulate him to get
Speaker 3: rid of Arthur. And I imagine in eighteen fifties, the
Speaker 3: idea of a divorce is probably a tough thing to accept.
Speaker 2: It would be difficult. But do you see anything any
Speaker 2: credibility in what she's saying, which she is I just
Speaker 2: lost my baby, And probably she's framing Arthur as crotchety,
Speaker 2: maybe not the best husband in the world. She's having
Speaker 2: this affair that she was manipulated into. She doesn't know
Speaker 2: how to get out of it. And so she's saying,
Speaker 2: do you see how that there's a world where that
Speaker 2: could also be happening when you have an older person
Speaker 2: like James sort of pressing against her constantly, because she says,
Speaker 2: Paul that James said, run away with me. Every single
Speaker 2: time she was in town visiting her dad, he would
Speaker 2: find her. And then he says, let's poison Arthur to
Speaker 2: make this much easier on both of us. That's what
Speaker 2: she says.
Speaker 3: He says her perspective is a possibility, but also sounds
Speaker 3: like she's minimizing, you know, in essence, she's saying, he's
Speaker 3: the manipulator. I kind of succumbed to the manipulation, and
Speaker 3: he's the one that is like, let's get rid of Arthur. Well,
Speaker 3: that's I think possible.
Speaker 4: But if we.
Speaker 3: Believe the letter came from Elizabeth, that's not what the
Speaker 3: letter says.
Speaker 4: She's the one.
Speaker 3: I mean, she's she's still saying he's really pining for
Speaker 3: her in that letter, But she's launching the plot, a
Speaker 3: very sophisticated plot, relatively speaking, you know, to get Arthur
Speaker 3: out away from the small town and to poison him
Speaker 3: with these tainted oysters. You know and then James can
Speaker 3: finally get what he's been asking for. So at that point,
Speaker 3: she really is the manipulator. I think, Elizabeth, there's probably
Speaker 3: a lot of truth in terms of how the relationship
Speaker 3: occurred in James feelings for her that she's expressing while
Speaker 3: she's testifying.
Speaker 4: But I'm not buying that.
Speaker 3: You know, James is the one that is, you know,
Speaker 3: behind Arthur's death, is the one that is coming up
Speaker 3: with that idea. I think she's the one. She's the
Speaker 3: one that's expressing she's feeling trapped because Arthur found out
Speaker 3: about her and James, and Arthur probably knew that those
Speaker 3: two had previous relationships before the marriage has occurred.
Speaker 2: Well, this is what Elizabeth said about exactly what you're
Speaker 2: talking about. She said, I thought he was crazy. I
Speaker 2: was not interested in doing that. I was not interested
Speaker 2: in leaving Arthur or killing him, especially until Arthur put
Speaker 2: his hands on me. And then that's when things changed
Speaker 2: for me. She said. James put it in my head
Speaker 2: a little bit that this was a possibility. Let's poison him.
Speaker 2: I'll leave my wife, He'll be dead. Whatever money Arthur
Speaker 2: has could be ours. She mentions in that letter she
Speaker 2: reiterates that Arthur saw her kissing James and Arthur freaked out.
Speaker 2: This happened in December. She said, he grew enraged, he
Speaker 2: put his hands on her, he shook her. He said
Speaker 2: exactly what she said. I'm not buying you any more clothes.
Speaker 2: You are never going to your father's again, and you
Speaker 2: are not going to see this guy again. And then
Speaker 2: that's when she sends this letter, just saying I can't
Speaker 2: deal with it. I'm not gonna be able to live
Speaker 2: the next forty years with this guy. And she's pregnant
Speaker 2: and I don't know yet, but of course we're suspecting
Speaker 2: that she's probably not having sex with Arthur. She's having
Speaker 2: sex with James though, so she is feeling trapped. So
Speaker 2: you know, she saw James in January and he had
Speaker 2: not gotten this letter because of this whole like mumbling
Speaker 2: mix up thing that happened. But she said he's the
Speaker 2: one who said, let's spike Arthur's coffee with Arsenic. So
Speaker 2: again he comes back with even though there's this letter
Speaker 2: that's got her plan in it, he's kind of insinuating
Speaker 2: this all sounds like it's going to take too long.
Speaker 2: Why don't you just get arsenic and put it in
Speaker 2: his coffee.
Speaker 3: Well, you know, fundamentally, a crime has occurred and the
Speaker 3: crime resulted in Arthur's death. That's a homicide by poisoning.
Speaker 3: So it really comes down to in the investigation, who
Speaker 3: is the one providing Arthur the arsenic? Who is the one,
Speaker 3: whether it be in his coffee, whether it be in
Speaker 3: the kreama tartar, Who is the one that is doing that.
Speaker 3: It doesn't matter that a discussion occurred months before, even
Speaker 3: if James is the originator of the idea, if he's
Speaker 3: not the one that is actually dosing Arthur with the
Speaker 3: actual murder weapon, the arsenic, you know, he is not
Speaker 3: culpable for the murder. It's the person that is doing it.
Speaker 3: And so that's where we get into Okay, No, obviously
Speaker 3: Elizabeth is inside the house, she most certainly could do this.
Speaker 3: Does James have an alibi? Is do we have anybody
Speaker 3: putting James into a position to either be inside the
Speaker 3: house or to spike something of food stuff that ultimately
Speaker 3: makes its way into the house. You know, And then
Speaker 3: we're talking about, Okay, what is the culpability of the
Speaker 3: person who's providing let's say the kreama tartar that spiked
Speaker 3: versus the person who is actually giving the cream of tartar.
Speaker 3: And then if it's Arthur who is self consuming, you know,
Speaker 3: he goes in, then there's intelligence from inside the house
Speaker 3: to the person outside the house of this is what
Speaker 3: the victim always eats or always drinks. So now you
Speaker 3: could see from a distance how somebody like James could
Speaker 3: be culpable for the homicide because he is now exploiting
Speaker 3: that type of intel in order because he you know,
Speaker 3: just through that information, he is in essence dosing Arthur himself,
Speaker 3: even though it's from a distance.
Speaker 4: If that makes any.
Speaker 2: Sense, Yeah, absolutely, I think that you could believe, as
Speaker 2: a man in the eighteen hundred's, you know, sitting as
Speaker 2: a judger on a jury, that a woman could be
Speaker 2: manipulated by a man who is older than her, for sure.
Speaker 2: But the detail and how well she thought out that
Speaker 2: plan of taking him on a horseback and the whole oysters,
Speaker 2: I mean, she really thought out every detail. So you know,
Speaker 2: I am then leaning him a lot more towards she
Speaker 2: was manipulating James more than anything else. But let's continue.
Speaker 2: So she says, you know, I bought arsenic. He told
Speaker 2: me to. I mixed it into Arthur's coffee. It made
Speaker 2: him sick, but it didn't kill him. So that must
Speaker 2: have been the Friday into the Sunday when the doctor
Speaker 2: shows up, right. She said she tried again after the
Speaker 2: doctor left that Sunday and she put it in his
Speaker 2: chicken soup and he said it tasted great, and then
Speaker 2: he died the next day.
Speaker 3: So she is.
Speaker 2: Fully admitting this, which is what makes this case to
Speaker 2: me even more interesting. We don't know why she testified.
Speaker 2: She was not compelled or made to do it. There
Speaker 2: were some sources that said she did it because she
Speaker 2: was going to be promised sort of immunity later on.
Speaker 2: Because really people did think she was being manipulated, that
Speaker 2: it wasn't him. She had given birth, she was breast
Speaker 2: feeding on the stand, and this would have been really shocking.
Speaker 2: I mean, it would be shocking now, I think, but
Speaker 2: it was really shocking, and she was saying, I have
Speaker 2: to be able to do this. So then you think
Speaker 2: about that. Is that a level of manipulation? What is
Speaker 2: that doing to the people who are listening to this information.
Speaker 3: Yeah, to me, that's blatant manipulation in terms of trying
Speaker 3: to become more sympathetic to the.
Speaker 4: Jurors or to whoever.
Speaker 3: If this was just maybe a you know, you just
Speaker 3: have a judge a magistrate that's hearing the testimony. But
Speaker 3: in essence, here I am, you know now a single mother,
Speaker 3: you know, and I've got to take care of my baby.
Speaker 3: I couldn't imagine a judge actually allowing that to occur
Speaker 3: during session. But eighteen fifties and small little area out
Speaker 3: there in Ohio, who knows how their trials are run.
Speaker 3: But fundamentally, she is confessing to murdering Arthur on the stand.
Speaker 3: She's the one that is putting the arsenic in different
Speaker 3: things that Arthur is ingesting. So it's not just a
Speaker 3: one time thing. She does it in his coffee, she
Speaker 3: does it in his chicken noodle soup, you know. So
Speaker 3: that from my perspective, is cut and dry. You know,
Speaker 3: she murdered Arthur. Now, all this talk about the relationship,
Speaker 3: you know, you've got from Elizabeth's perspective in one of
Speaker 3: the things I wanted to address, I don't disbelieve her
Speaker 3: in terms of Arthur got physical with her after finding
Speaker 3: out about James, right, you know, but does that that's
Speaker 3: not a get out of jail free card in terms
Speaker 3: of this type of homicide, because she's now plotting, She's
Speaker 3: sending the letter with a very detailed plot. She's now
Speaker 3: putting arsenic and multiple food stuff that ultimately kills kills Arthur.
Speaker 3: So standalone, you know she is responsible for murder. The
Speaker 3: reason she murders Arthur could come into play in terms
Speaker 3: of assessing kind of the sentencing you will you know,
Speaker 3: and where the crime charge is. I don't know what
Speaker 3: Ohio's murder statutes are. You know's this a second degree murder?
Speaker 3: Doesn't could You could even argue maybe there's a first
Speaker 3: degree aspect with all the malice, a forethought, you know,
Speaker 3: the pre planning. So from my perspective, she's absolutely responsible
Speaker 3: and it's confessing to the murder of Arthur. It just
Speaker 3: now comes into well, what is James' role in the crime.
Speaker 3: You know, it's one thing to be in a relationship
Speaker 3: and to discuss this, but does James provide the arsenic?
Speaker 3: You know, does he instruct her how to do it?
Speaker 3: You know, there's there. I think there's different levels of
Speaker 3: culpability that may or may not be there for James.
Speaker 2: Well, she admits she bought it herself, and one of
Speaker 2: them doesn't know what they're doing because she didn't give
Speaker 2: him enough to begin with. You know, so if James
Speaker 2: did kind of try to give her advice on how
Speaker 2: much to administer, heate and know what he was doing
Speaker 2: either because he didn't kill Arthur the first time.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I have a hard time, at least within the
Speaker 3: murder of Arthur, seeing how James has any significant culpability.
Speaker 3: Does he lie to the constable or to law enforcement?
Speaker 3: Does he have knowledge and fails to come forward, even
Speaker 3: though that's not necessarily a crime, But if he lied
Speaker 3: while being interviewed to a peace officer or to the court,
Speaker 3: if he testified, then yeah, maybe he could be charged
Speaker 3: with a type of crime. But the mere fact that
Speaker 3: he was aware that Elizabeth was possibly plotting against Arthur
Speaker 3: and had tried to involve him, he could have reported
Speaker 3: Elizabeth at that point. You know, she's in essence trying
Speaker 3: to hire a hitman, right, Yeah, what ended up happening
Speaker 3: to James.
Speaker 2: So here's what happens. James is never tried for Arthur's death. Okay,
Speaker 2: there's any evidence against him? Yeah, and you know, he
Speaker 2: had denied all of this to begin with, so we
Speaker 2: don't know what his role was. He has kept quiet.
Speaker 2: We don't know what happened to him after that that
Speaker 2: he has let go. After her testimony, she is arrested
Speaker 2: and they want to put her on trial for murder.
Speaker 2: I don't know if it was first degree. I can't
Speaker 2: imagine would be for maybe it would be first degree,
Speaker 2: I don't know. Let me kind of preface this by
Speaker 2: telling you what a reporter says, who was in that
Speaker 2: preliminary trial, and it was sort of the sentiment of
Speaker 2: everyone there because it was very clear to them that
Speaker 2: she was confessing when she was giving this testimony. He says.
Speaker 2: We have no desire to injure Missus Reagan to magnify
Speaker 2: her guilt or to lessen the mitigating circumstances in her case.
Speaker 2: On the other hand, we would gladly see her restored
Speaker 2: to innocence and happiness if it were possible eighteen fifty five,
Speaker 2: for the sake of her sex. We would rejoice to
Speaker 2: see the responsibility of her crime thrown upon man, if
Speaker 2: it could be done justly. It is more fitting, less
Speaker 2: shocking that man should commit such a monstrous crime. But
Speaker 2: Missus Reagan has placed it out of our power or
Speaker 2: the power of any man to injure her case. She
Speaker 2: is a self convicted murderer and nothing can save her
Speaker 2: from death. But the clemency of the governor her life
Speaker 2: may be saved, and we hope it will, but she
Speaker 2: can never be restored to society again. Now this is
Speaker 2: before she's charged with murder, but it will kind of
Speaker 2: give you an idea of the mindset of particularly the
Speaker 2: men in this case, who just don't want to do this.
Speaker 2: They do not this would have been a capital crime.
Speaker 2: Obviously she would have been executed. They don't want to
Speaker 2: do this. Nobody wants to do this. And then she's
Speaker 2: been breastfeeding on the stand for part of her testimony.
Speaker 3: She most certainly is a sympathetic defendant. You know, young,
Speaker 3: young female, feeling trapped, possibly being abused. You know how
Speaker 3: they viewed the affair eighteen fifth you know that probably
Speaker 3: was something that really was a mark against both her
Speaker 3: and James. I can see twenty two year old, that's
Speaker 3: how old she was, right, twenty.
Speaker 2: Two at the time.
Speaker 3: You know, I've got a daughter that's ten years older
Speaker 3: than that, but I know, you know what she was
Speaker 3: like when she was twenty two. And I've got a
Speaker 3: daughter that's, you know, senior in high school. You know,
Speaker 3: I mean this this is such a young age.
Speaker 4: You know.
Speaker 3: In some ways you can say this is a bad
Speaker 3: decision and you feels sorry that she. I mean, you
Speaker 3: feel sorry for Arthur. He lost his life. But she's
Speaker 3: just showing such poor judgment in terms of how to
Speaker 3: get out of what she feels trapped in. Would there
Speaker 3: have been other avenues that she could have taken where
Speaker 3: she doesn't resort to murder, you know, And that's that's
Speaker 3: the big thing. My surprise is the capital punishment side
Speaker 3: for this case. And maybe it's just speaking to the
Speaker 3: eighteen fifties, you know, it seems like that is a
Speaker 3: kind of excessive punishment, a death penalty for this particular case,
Speaker 3: even though it is a murder case.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I understand that. I mean, this would be a
Speaker 2: time period though, where if you're an habitual thief, they
Speaker 2: would have put you to death. Also, this was pretty extreme.
Speaker 2: Let me tell you what happens all of this, Paul
Speaker 2: is to say that she is never put on trial
Speaker 2: for murder. I don't know if this is the district
Speaker 2: attorney or the sentiment in general that they will not
Speaker 2: convict a woman and sentence her to death, but that
Speaker 2: would have been the only option, and nobody wanted to
Speaker 2: do it. I think there was a feeling that she
Speaker 2: was manipulated by an older man, that potentially Arthur had
Speaker 2: been abusive. She had a baby in her arms, she
Speaker 2: was young, so she is not convicted. She has let go.
Speaker 2: She eventually leaves Piquat and she goes to Indianapolis, and
Speaker 2: that newspapers say that at one point an old friend
Speaker 2: was leaving a church and Elizabeth was there working at
Speaker 2: the church in Indianapolis and went on presumably to live,
Speaker 2: you know, a hopefully quiet life, but that's what ended
Speaker 2: up happening. They both get out of it, and we
Speaker 2: have no We just know somebody has poisoned Arthur Reagan.
Speaker 2: And nobody's been held responsible ever for this case.
Speaker 3: Right, but you have you have Elizabeth confessing to doing
Speaker 3: the poisoning.
Speaker 4: Yeah, the DA does have discretion.
Speaker 3: However, you know, when you when you were talking about
Speaker 3: even with these you know, Elizabeth talking about the potential abuse,
Speaker 3: the idea that she's being manipulated by an older man,
Speaker 3: thirty two year olds, These are what I would call
Speaker 3: her mitigating circumstances, and those can be taken into account
Speaker 3: by the district attorney in terms of how is she
Speaker 3: going to be charged, and the judge can also take
Speaker 3: those mitigating circumstances in terms of the penalty. I think
Speaker 3: my primary problem is is that she had somebody commit murder,
Speaker 3: admits the committing murder, and they're not held responsible. I
Speaker 3: think that the mitigating circumstances could have been used to
Speaker 3: potentially reduce what Elizabeth was convicted of and how long
Speaker 3: her sentence would have been, but I still think she
Speaker 3: needs to be held responsible. That's kind of the position
Speaker 3: where I would come in. This wasn't a self defense
Speaker 3: scenario that sometimes you do see with women that are
Speaker 3: being abused by men, and we don't. It doesn't sound
Speaker 3: like it got to that level. She is able to
Speaker 3: take her time and poison Arthur and kill them in
Speaker 3: a very slow, painful way, even though she's young and
Speaker 3: there's those mitigating circumstances. I do feel that she should
Speaker 3: have at least been responsible, you know, to a point, for.
Speaker 2: Sure, I agree, but I will point this little bit
Speaker 2: out so you know, we've done stories before about women
Speaker 2: who feel trapped because they're pregnant by their boyfriends who
Speaker 2: they're having an affair with. So if she is pregnant
Speaker 2: in December or January is what they keep pointing to,
Speaker 2: saying January by month four, I'm assuming that Arthur would
Speaker 2: have started to see signs of this pregnancy by April
Speaker 2: and they're not having sex. I'm presuming I could be wrong.
Speaker 2: Of course there could be obviously for sex. But I
Speaker 2: just wonder if there was like this ticking clock with
Speaker 2: the pregnancy she doesn't mention that. That would not be
Speaker 2: a good thing for her to mention, obviously, But that's
Speaker 2: what I was thinking in my head this whole time,
Speaker 2: is she's pregnant, He's going to know it's not his.
Speaker 2: She's going to get bigger and bigger, and how much
Speaker 2: longer can she hold out on this? And then it
Speaker 2: would have just been fireworks in that small community in Ohio.
Speaker 2: It would have been awful for her.
Speaker 4: Yep.
Speaker 2: So yes to mitigating circumstances, no to execute. Yes to
Speaker 2: I guess James leaving and getting out of this. But
Speaker 2: you know, of course, we think James is looped in
Speaker 2: here somehow, some way, and I wonder what happened with
Speaker 2: his wife and his kids. If she just said, Okay,
Speaker 2: I'm out of this, that's it.
Speaker 4: But in the eighteen fifties, it's that grounds for divorce.
Speaker 2: It was like an act of God to get a divorce.
Speaker 2: I mean you had to go to the state legislature
Speaker 2: to get a divorce in that time period. I know
Speaker 2: it was really it was really difficult. So you have
Speaker 2: worked so extraordinarily hard that I think you do need
Speaker 2: a couple of weeks off. So we are on a
Speaker 2: hiatus week next week, are we? I mean, listen, you
Speaker 2: can come back next week. I'm not going to be here,
Speaker 2: but I can leave the fireplace on in the cottage.
Speaker 3: And I can pine for you, hoping that you will see.
Speaker 3: You could step into your cottage there you could just.
Speaker 2: Make I know, you could fulfill some kind of a
Speaker 2: dream for us to switch roles and you can tell
Speaker 2: me a story and I can pipe in with different information.
Speaker 3: There's no way, yeah, I could not hold a candle
Speaker 3: to your storytelling.
Speaker 2: So Paul, Paul, thank you.
Speaker 1: Well.
Speaker 2: I will see you in two weeks. We'll come back
Speaker 2: with the case in a completely different era, because I
Speaker 2: need a break already from the eighteen fifties.
Speaker 3: For sure, Okay, sounds good. Well, you take care of
Speaker 3: yourself and we'll see in a few weeks.
Speaker 2: Okay.
Speaker 1: This has been an exactly right production for.
Speaker 3: Our sources and show notes go to Exactlyrightmedia dot com
Speaker 3: slash Buried Bones sources.
Speaker 1: Our senior producer is Alexis Emosi.
Speaker 3: Research by Maren mcclashan, Ali Elkin, and Kate Winkler Dawson.
Speaker 1: Our mixing engineer is Ben Tolliday.
Speaker 4: Our theme song is by Tom Bryfogel.
Speaker 1: Our artwork is by Vanessa Lilac.
Speaker 3: Executive produced by Karen Kilgaroff, Georgia hard Stark, and Daniel Kramer.
Speaker 2: You can follow Buried Bones on Instagram and Facebook at
Speaker 2: Buried Bones pod.
Speaker 3: Kate's most recent book, All That Is Wicked, a Gilded
Speaker 3: Age story of murder and the race to decode the
Speaker 3: criminal mind, is available.
Speaker 2: Now, and Paul's best selling memoir Unmasked, My life Solving
Speaker 2: America's Cold Cases is also available now.
Speaker 3: Listen to Varied Bones on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts,
Speaker 3: or wherever you get your podcasts.