11. The Trumpet Call: The Trial Ends

The artillery of the heavens this morning sounded the trumpet call of the approaching conflict. On this day, the 25th of November, is being fought the real battle for the life of Ray Lamphere.

Four days were required to decide upon a jury, a board of reviewers. Ten days more were consumed in the taking of evidence. During these days, each side built its fleet. The prosecution constructed a powerful, first-class battleship. The defense adopted different tactics, relying on a multitude of small craft, such as torpedo boats and submarines, to do the damage, and so harass the maneuvers of the enemy as to render it incapable of infliction of serious damage.

This morning the two fleets got together in the presence of His Honor Judge Richter, whose rulings have been eminently fair and impartial, the jury, and a courtroom crowded with spectators. As of yet, the armor of the big warship has proved of sufficient thickness to resist the fire of innumerable theories from the opposing flotilla.

—La Porte Argus

On Wednesday, November 25, to the ominous roll of unseasonable thunder, Ray Lamphere once more entered the courtroom. He was hardened by this time. He would no longer change color or flinch or start forward in anger, no matter what they said about him. Only his burning eyes, fixed on the speaker, would show the strain he felt as the lawyers fought for his life.

Beside him, the imaginative could again see the menacing figure of the vanished murderess, placed there by the defense to stand trial in Ray’s place for the very same crimes with which he was charged—murder and arson.

The jury listened in grave quiet as Martin R. Sutherland, for the prosecution, rose to demand Ray’s death. His height and breadth, his commanding nose made him impressive. His mild voice was the voice of common sense as he began:

“I apprehend, gentlemen of the jury, that you join with us in being glad that this case is nearing its end. I want to thank you for your careful attention. Our government is made up of three parts, the legislative, the executive, and the judicial. You elect a sheriff to serve the writs of this court, to ferret out and detect every criminal and every crime that occurs in his county. You have elected a prosecuting attorney to arrange the facts of crime and present them to you for final determination.

“The defense has sought to belittle the Sheriff in his zeal in doing his duties. I presume that they would have you believe that a law should be enacted reading something like this:

“‘Be it enacted that the Sheriff shall be confined to his office when a crime has been committed and only seen by his family and that when he seeks to find a criminal he must give ten days’ notice and be followed by a brass band.’

“I am not attempting to be humorous, but to set forth and by exaggeration to show the attitude of the defense.

“First let us consider the corpus delicti. It has been contended that the adult body was not the body of Mrs. Gunness. Now, we do not ask you to use your imagination, but just good common sense.

“On the morning of April twenty-eighth the house was destroyed. In the debris there were found four bodies. Ordinary common sense would lead us to believe that those were the bodies of those who inhabited that dwelling.”

To prove that the body was Belle’s, the speaker adduced her watch, her rings, and her teeth, all found in the ashes—“not false teeth easily removed, but bridgework fastened to the natural teeth of Mrs. Gunness. Yet the defense has asked you to let your imagination run with Mr. Hutson, who testified that he recognized Mrs. Gunness even with two veils over her face. It is very probable, isn’t it, that Belle Gunness would come to La Porte, hire a livery wagon, and drive out to the scene of her murders! Gentlemen of the jury, your common sense teaches you better. And by using that same common sense you will realize that we have established the corpus delicti beyond a reasonable doubt.

“Now consider the motive. Testimony we have introduced shows that Lamphere, the easygoing Lamphere, the hard-drinking Lamphere, the fellow-about-town, had an easy berth out with Mrs. Gunness. Testimony further shows that Andrew Helgelien replanted Lamphere in Belle Gunness’ affections. This aroused jealousy in the suspicious Lamphere, who did not want to trade his Gunness berth for a bed at the home of Nigger Liz.

“On the night of January fourteenth Helgelien disappeared, never to be seen alive again. Lamphere did notstay at Michigan City, as Mrs. Gunness had instructed him. The scene that he saw that night was such as to satisfy his desire of getting Helgelien out of the way. A compact was probably made over the body of Helgelien. What that was we have no positive evidence, but we have a right to infer that she agreed to pay him money. From receipts it was evident that there was no money due him for labor, yet his whole cry was that she owed him money and he would get even with her.

“We find on the day before” the fire Mrs. Gunness was tracked by Lamphere. Mrs. Gunness, weeping, entered Minich’s store and bought some groceries. Lamphere, as an excuse for entrance, bought a five-cent plug of tobacco. Lamphere followed Mrs. Gunness out of the store, glaring at Mrs. Gunness.

“What is the evidence now to show that Lamphere committed the crime of the morning of April twenty-eighth? We find Lamphere skulking and hiding before the fire started; then again after the fire started. We find Lamphere flatly contradicting himself in the stories he told to Jury Bailiff Marr and Deputy Sheriff Anstiss. First he told one thing and then he told another to the several officers. Finally, he practically made a confession of arson to Sheriff Anstiss.

“It is enough!

“Now as to the defense. If you are able to tell what it is, you can do better than the prosecution.

“They would attempt to prove by one witness that she was alive, and by the next witness that she was dead. By one witness they try to show that the teeth were clipped off and left in the fire, by another witness they try to show that they were not her teeth. The fallacy of the statement that she was lying on the bottom of the cellar floor is apparent when it is noted that her back was burned off so that the spinal cord was exposed, and the breast was not burned to any extent.

“The expert testified that he found poison in the mass of the stomachs and Mr. Cutler testified that … poisonous fluids … were used on the bodies.

“From all the facts, we ask you to sum up the whole matter and use your good common sense!”

Mr. Sutherland sat down. Ellsworth Weir, associate defense attorney, rose to reply. Tall, slender, well turned out, Weir was of the old school of forensic oratory. His high-pitched voice would vibrate with emotion, his long arms would wave in theatrical gestures; at the proper moment tears would stream unchecked down his thin cheeks. Having less to work with than the prosecution, the seasoned courtroom performer was to spice his arguments with raillery and sweeten them with sentiment, smothering Sutherland’s searchlight logic in a haze of emotion. He began with a laugh:

“I want to say to you that you have seen the greatest legal somersault of the present century! The gentleman who preceded me charged us with trying to lead you into realms of imagination. Yet the gentleman himself used no facts to substantiate the statements of Lamphere’s movements on the night of the fire.

“This is a case of great importance, since it involves the life or liberty of a human being. We do not propose that this case shall degenerate into sarcasm or personalities. I want no compromise, no begging of the questions.

“That a crime was committed we all agree, and as good citizens we feel that if the criminal can be apprehended he should be convicted. If Ray Lamphere is guilty, he should be hanged by the neck until he is dead.

“But I do not believe Ray Lamphere is guilty of the crime which is charged against him. Ray Lamphere may be ever so bad, but he did not commit this crime, and as he did not, he should be freed by you gentlemen.

“The first burden to be proved is what is called in law corpus delicti. Let us see if that has been done. Mr. Sutherland said that the fact that the back of the adult was burned through proved that the bodies could not have lain on the floor, as someone testified. But Mr. Sutherland has not taken into account the fact of the presence of kerosene oil. On the day before the fire Mrs. Gunness had bought two gallons of coal oil. This can was placed in the frame portion of the house. On the next day after the fire the can was found in the cellar near the bodies under the brick part. No one had access to the house but Mrs. Gunness and Maxson.

“As reasonable men you must believe someone had a hand in these crimes which she had committed. A confederate might have had a purpose in getting rid of this woman. Whatever theory you take, it is merely a guess, and you cannot guess this defendant into the penitentiary or hang him by guessing!

“There has not been a scintilla of evidence outside of Dr. Norton that there was a portion of the head left. Yet Dr. Norton not only identified the jawbone as that of a human being, but the sex and age as well. Six or seven other physicians could not tell what it was. I do not charge Dr. Norton with falsifying, but rather as being ignorant.

“Now as to the teeth. Mr. Schultz was employed. Where is he now? Why do they not bring him here? The most important witness not here! The teeth were shown to witnesses in the morning about eight o’clock and they were not shown to Smutzer until about eleven o’clock. I believe that Dr. Norton is mistaken. The plan was given to Smutzer two weeks before they were found and they could have been made and substituted.

“As Mr. Worden stated in the opening statement, it does not make a bit of difference whether Mrs. Gunness is alive or dead. The children were not identified as those of Mrs. Gunness. Not a bit of evidence was produced to show that they were her children.

“Then there is the poison that Mr. Sutherland brushes away with a wave of his hand. Granted that the undertaker used a pure arsenic powder, yet the eminent Dr. Haines said there was strychnine sufficient to have killed three people.

“There isn’t a crime committed without a motive. There must have been a reason for Lamphere setting fire to the house if he did. Mr. Sutherland took a flight into the realms of fancy which he charges us with using. He pictures the scene when Lamphere sees Mrs. Gunness killing Helgelien. And then because they are partners in crime they want to kill each other.…

“So far as Ray Lamphere is concerned, there is no evidence that he did anything except occasionally to drink, and many good men drink. No evidence is shown against Lamphere other than those charges which Mrs. Gunness brought against him.…

“For Lamphere to have committed the crime of murder, it would have been necessary for him to have gone into the house, administered the poison, and then carried them to the cellar and set fire to the building. But Lamphere could not gain admission to that house. It was locked up tight.”

For his final effect, the old stager pulled out all the stops. His voice quivered with emotion and tears rolled down his cheeks as he appealed to the tender feelings of the jury:

“Tomorrow is Thanksgiving. You of the jury will go home tomorrow, your task completed, to the hearts of your families. This man”—pointing dramatically to Ray Lamphere’s bent head—“this man, if you condemn him, will have nothing before him! Think! Think long and hard, before you seal the doom of a human life!”

The jury was visibly moved.

Wirt Worden followed. Satisfied with the effect of his colleague’s eloquence, he changed pace, starting out with the old homely story of the boy who found a lost horse by using horse sense. The hero of Worden’s version was a tongue-tied boy, which made the anecdote, in Worden’s comical rendition, twice as appealing to the earthy fellows on the jury:

“‘How come, son, you found the horse when nobody else could?’

“‘By uthing horthe thenthe.’

“‘What do you mean, by using horse sense?’

“‘Well, I thought what I would do if I wath a horthe. I thaid to mythelf, if I wath a horthe, I think I’d go to the meadow and eat gwath. Then I’d go to the thade of the big oak twee and woll over. Then I’d go to the bwook to get a dwink. Tho—I went to the meadow, but the horthe wathn’t there. I went to the twee, and the horthe wathn’t there. Tho then I went to the bwook—and there he wath dwinking. Thee? I jutht uthed common horthe thenthe!’

“So I will ask the jury not merely to use common sense, as Mr. Sutherland put it, but just plain common horse sense!

“This case against Ray Lamphere is entirely built up of circumstantial evidence. Therefore you must be satisfied that there is no other reasonable explanation of the evidence than the one presented in the indictment, that Lamphere is guilty. Otherwise he is entitled to be acquitted.

“The state has made an excellent case—against Mrs. Gunness. I used to have some doubt about it, but I believe now that she is alive. She had abundant motive for the commission of this crime, in the questions about her past crimes that were asked of her at Stillwell, and in the coming of Helgelien to find out about his brother. She made preparation for the fire. Even in her will, she made provision for the disposal of her property in the event of the death of all her children.…

“What of the four bodies? I believe it impossible for four bodies to fall from the second story, and still to be found together, laid out in regular rows. The remains of the piano were found on top of the bodies. If we are to believe the state, those bodies falling from the second floor beat the piano to the basement!

“There has been no definite identification of the rings. As to the teeth, Dr. Norton’s testimony is prejudiced. I say to you that these teeth never went through the fire from the manner in which they were found and the condition in which they are now! The head found in the vault had no lawer jaw, and the only portion found in the fire was the supposed jawbone. Is not this significant?

“They say that Lamphere made damaging admissions. Suppose you agree that Lamphere lied to Anstiss, would you hang him for lying? Then we must all prepare for death! But I believe if you act as your conscience dictates and according to the law and the evidence, there will be no question about your verdict!”

As a schoolboy Worden had won medals for oratory. Simple though his words were now, his appeal for Ray’s life carried a deep sincerity that moved his hearers more than his partner’s tears. The Argus reported in ecstasy:

Before a body of his peers a man could have plead for his own life with no greater force and intensity. He fought for the prisoner as though the prisoner was his own brother, desperately, mightily, eloquently, with his whole soul shedding passion and sincerity over his argument; he fought to save a man who he said was innocent from the clutches of a merciless justice. He anticipated the gruelling denunciation of the prosecutor, and left no table unturned to make the jury “fireproof” against the blazing bonfires in the face of Ralph N. Smith. He won the admiration of “every mother’s son of them” in the audience and the undying love of the defendant, his client.

When Ralph N. Smith arose to close for the state, there were no blazing bonfires in his face, and no sign of grueling denunciation. He began chatting easily and familiarly with the jury:

“I am not here to make a political speech. I want to talk to you a little bit about this case. I appreciate the fact that for fourteen or fifteen days you have been closely confined. I am not trying to throw bouquets to you, but merely to express a recognition that is due you. It is sometimes hard to do your duty when you see it. Officers will always have the criticism of people. I shall not be led astray into defending the officers by the attorneys of the other side. I am going to show you beyond a reasonable doubt that Lamphere set fire to the house and burned up those people.

“I cannot conceive on what theory the defense is trying this case. One moment they say Belle Gunness is alive and the next that she is dead.

“The defense complains about circumstantial evidence, that direct evidence of Lamphere’s movements is lacking. Of course the evidence is circumstantial. When men start out to burn houses or commit crimes, they do not give notice nor go around with a brass band.

“We agree with them that the fire started with the kerosene can. No one knew how to get to it but Mrs. Gunness and Ray Lamphere.

“They cannot paint Mrs. Gunness any too black for me. She was rottener than Hell itself—and Lamphere was going to marry her!

“Where is there any evidence that Dr. Norton told anything but the absolute truth about the teeth? When the dental experts for the defense testified, they stated that the teeth were made for and had been worn in the same mouth, and further that they had been through fire.”

By the time Smith got around to the state’s theory about Ray’s complicity in Belle’s crimes, the easy manner was dropped and the fires had begun to blaze. He brandished his fist under Lamphere’s nose as he thundered out denunciatory questions:

“What did you tell John Rye you would get even with the old woman for?

“And when you were being tried in the justice court at Stillwell, who was it sat beside Attorney Worden and told him to ask Mrs. Gunness whether she had not murdered her husbands?

“‘Where is Schultz?’ they ask. ‘Where is Nigger Liz?’ we ask. Why don’t they establish an alibi by her? What was the defendant doing during the one hour and forty-five minutes which, according to his own statements, was consumed in going a mile and a quarter?

“If the time that has been stated is not correct, why don’t they bring in Nigger Liz? She knows. Why don’t they bring her in?

“They say we have a feeling in this case. We have a feeling when three innocent children are slain by a man who … hides behind towers and slips along and sets a fire with such consequences!

“I say to you that if you don’t believe that Lamphere is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, then don’t bring in a verdict of guilty. I do not ask you to vindicate the bad woman, but I have a right to plead in the name of God in behalf of those three innocent children!”

Smith sat down and Judge Richter gave the jury a chance to cool off while he delivered a long charge. They must, the Judge said, give the defendant the benefit of every reasonable doubt. According to how they viewed the evidence, they could acquit, or bring in a verdict of murder in any degree, or find the defendant guilty of simple arson. Over the legality of the last possibility, a verdict of arson upon an indictment for murder, the defense protested, and the attorneys wrangled, but the state prevailed, and the instruction stood.

At five-thirty on Thanksgiving Eve, the twelve jurors went out and the argument started.

You, the reader, are the thirteenth juror. As the twelve weigh the evidence, how does it look to you?

Is Belle Gunness dead? Is the charred corpse hers? Is it big enough? Where is the head? Could a head have burned away to nothing?

But the teeth are proved hers. Could they have been removed from her jaws in life, by herself or anybody else, without any signs of damage? Then surely she must be dead.

If Belle Gunness is dead, did Ray Lamphere kill her? Did he set the fire? He had means, motive, and opportunity. Did Mrs. Gunness burn to death in the fire he set?

Wait a minute. Did the dead woman die by fire? What about that strychnine? If the woman died by strychnine, no matter who she was, then Ray Lamhere must be out of it. That house was locked up against him. How could he get in and induce anybody to take poison?

If not Ray, who did administer poison? And to whom?

Had Belle an accomplice besides Ray? Did he secretly gain admittance that night, get ahead of her, perhaps, with poison she meant for him, and fire the house to conceal his crime?

Or was it Mrs. Gunness that administered the strychnine? It wouldn’t be the first time for her. Did she feed it to the unhappy fat girl Anderson saw with her in the buggy three days before the fire? Did she plant the corpse, fire the house, and run away?

Is Belle Gunness alive somewhere, laughing at us all?

Is Ray Lamphere the innocent victim of that wicked, scheming mind? Are we, the jury, to become accomplices in her plot if we condemn Ray to death?

Or did Ray, as wicked as Belle, mete out to her the fate she richly deserved?

Guilty?

Or not guilty?

What is your verdict?

The twelve jurors, weighing such questions, found it difficult to agree. They balloted four times and were still hopelessly divided. As midnight neared, they gave up and went to bed.

They got up on Thanksgiving Day to start the argument anew. They gave up hope of eating Thanksgiving dinner at home as ballot after ballot showed them still divided. As the day passed, some jurors were persuaded to change their minds, until the count stood at ten against two. But the two were stubborn.

Henry Mill, retired farmer, had set his grizzled beard at a stubborn angle. His mind was made up, and nobody was going to budge it. Beside him another farmer had taken his stand. He was Charles Nelson, fortyish, intelligent, dapper, and scrappy.

In a circle around the two, beards wagged and mustaches bristled as the ten tried to swing the stubborn two into line for a verdict before they would have to spend another night on those cots upstairs.

Over at the jail, Ray Lamphere shivered in his chilly cell as the endless hours dragged by. Around the courthouse an impatient crowd milled about under a lowering sky. As the afternoon waned, the lights in the courtroom flashed on, and the mob stormed in. They found nobody but Anstiss, showing some country cousins the sights.

At the nineteenth ballot the long wait came to an end. The lights flashed on again. By the time the Judge mounted the dais, the big courtroom was packed to the doors.

Haggard, eyes downcast, guarded by four men, Ray Lamphere stood to hear his fate. The packed courtroom held its collective breath.

“Gentlement of the jury, have you reached an agreement?”

“We have,” said the foreman, “but I wish to make a statement before I deliver our verdict to the court.”

“I am not at liberty to hear any statement,” said the Judge, “until the verdict has been received and read.”

In painful silence every eye watched the white slip of paper as the bailiff carried it to the Judge and the Judge looked at it. In silence it was copied on the docket. Then the Judge read it out:

“We find the defendant guilty of arson.”

Guilty! Tears sprang into Ray’s eyes, and he turned white. In another moment his color surged back as he realized that his life had been saved.

Wirt Worden had saved him on the turn of the last card, for this was the jury’s rider:

“We hereby say that it was our judgment in the consideration of this case that the adult body found in the ruins of the fire was that of Belle Gunness, and that the case was decided by us on an entirely different proposition.”

The proposition was strychnine. The standout jurymen were convinced that Belle had taken the poison herself. Faced with another night on those cots upstairs, the rest of the jury had accepted this view in a compromise verdict.

At seven-twenty-five P.M. on Thanksgiving night, Ray Lamphere stood up to hear his sentence. He was white as a sheet, and he could not keep his hands from shaking, but otherwise he stood steady. He got two to twenty-one years in the state penitentiary.

Ralph N. Smith was satisfied. He put out a statement thanking everybody, and saying: “While the verdict was in the nature of a compromise, yet we feel that substantial justice has been done.”

But had justice been done?

When Judge Richter put to the prisoner the formal question whether he had any reasons to give why sentence should not be pronounced upon him, Ray gave a strange answer. He said:

“I have none—now.”

When would he speak? Would the whole truth ever be revealed?