rough on rats

Rough on Rats: From the Office of Cynical Speculation

Finder of Lost ThingsLeave a comment

Since using dangerous and/or addictive compounds in patent “medicines” was common and we know Ephraim had large quantities of arsenic on his hands, I wonder how many of his other products contained traces of this dangerous element. A number of the claims made in the ads for Wells’ beauty aids and “medicines” sound remarkably similar to the effects (the crazy people during the Victorian era) achieved by applying arsenic to their skin or by eating small quantities. 

Though I’ve no clue if Ephraim Wells added arsenic to any of his pills, tonics, or syrups — I do know what he put in Wells’ Hair Basalm for Gray Hair:

“…a perfumed mixture of sulphur with aqueous solution of lead acetate and glycerol…”

In 1912, the US government via the 1906 Pure Foods and Medicines Act caught up with Ephraim’s claims that his basalm was “harmless and not a dye.” The chemists not only proved the basalm contained dye but also consisted of lead. A heavy metal that was finally proven highly toxic in the mid-1800s. Making me wonder how many women suffered lead poisoning from the habitual use of Wells’ basalm. 

In any case, Ephraim plead non-vult or no-contest to the charge. Though, unlike the majority of his contemporaries tried for similar offenses, the court didn’t levy a fine against Ephraim.

Probably, and this is speculation on my part, because he was pretty sick at that point in time.

My 52 Weeks With Christie: A.Miner©2023

Rough on Rats: Bad Taste

Finder of Lost ThingsLeave a comment

(Head in the sand or in this case underwater….)

Whilst it’s impossible for me to say if Ephraim Stockton Wells was aware of either Gertrude Taylor or Ella Holdridge, I cannot imagine him unaware of the unintended consequences of his patent product. Accidental deaths, suicides, and murders abounded for years in “all civilized nations of the earth” where Rough on Rats was sold. The comic below, which he included in one of his ads, proves at least by 1901, Ephraim knew of one common misuse of Rough on Rats. 

At best, including this comic strip was in poor taste. At worst, it shows his contempt for the multitudes of people who’d used his product for this purpose.

More likely, and this is conjecture on my part, he was thumbing his nose at all the physicians, lawyers, and scientists who’d criticized him and Rough on Rats for DECADES. Not only did they take exception to the lack of information about Rough on Rats’ composition on the label. (Remember it was a patent product: Meaning the name, not the formula, was trademarked. Hence, it did need to include this info.) These professionals also laid a portion of the blame for the product’s misuse at his door.

And I don’t think they are wrong.

Very few ads, which Ephraim Stockton Wells proudly boasted he wrote and illustrated himself, mention Rough on Rats in the same breath as poison. In fact, the only ones I found that clearly state Rough on Rats is a poison was after 1901 when state governments started catching up with what their residents had already figured out: Rough on Rats killed people just as well as rodents. And started requiring Ephraim’s most popular product (and those like it) be “plainly labeled as poison.” 

Which he did. 

However, Rough on Roches, Ants & Bedbugs — and — Rough on Moth, Fly & Flea are clearly marketed as non-poisonous. The only problem is, up until now, Rough on Rats claimed to kill these same pests. While I suppose it is possible Ephraim changed his formula to something akin to Diatomaceous Earth (a non-toxic substance that can deal with these bugs), which started being mined in Germany around 1863, I’m not totally sold on the idea he swapped formulas as, as far as I can tell, Ephraim still didn’t disclose the ingredients for either of these insecticides. Though, in fairness, I’ve not found them linked to any human deaths.

Above and beyond Ephraim’s failure to disclose arsenic as Rough on Rats’ primary ingredient, I think what critics really took exception to was his recommended mechanisms for delivering Rough on Rats to rodents and other pests.

One of the main difficulties facing any rodenticide is poison shyness.

Poison shyness is where rats and mice learn to associate the smell, taste, or similar types of food with becoming sick after eating it. (Hence, why they nibble at food before wholesale scarfing ensues.) Once said aversion is triggered, it can take weeks or months for rodents to forget why they won’t snack on whatever made them sick. This explains why premade poisonous pellets, cakes, and blocks rapidly lose their effectiveness. 

Ephraim skirted this thorny problem by asking his customers to mix their own bait. For indoor mouse issues, he suggested blending Rough on Rats with bacon grease, lard, or butter, then spreading it on a piece of bread or meat. Upon completing this step, he instructed his customers to place the adulterated food wherever they’d seen them scurrying around in the past.

As strategies go, it’s sound.  

By giving your vermin morsels they’ve already taste-tested, you avoid triggering their evolutionary adaptation. Unfortunately, despite the bit of coal dust added in for coloring to help make Rough on Rats’ addition to food & drink more obvious, in the middle of the night, bleary eyes accompanied by a growling stomach only see the triangles of buttered bread left on a kitchen counter as a tempting snack — not as bait. (BTW: This really happened and the midnight-snacker didn’t make it.) 

Then, there’s the secondary poisoning risk presented by Ephraim’s directions for dispatching sparrows, squirrels, chipmunks, skunks, gophers, and moles. He asked customers to combine the thinly disguised powdered arsenic with cornmeal or boiled potatoes and then spread the amalgamation about the yard, field, or undergrowth. This method, of course, led to numerous pet and livestock deaths.

Moreover, prior to Rough on Rats’ 1901 schism from insects, Ephraim’s instructions on how to administer the Rough on Rats to eradicate infestations of flies, fleas, ticks, lice, gnats, water bugs, ants, cockroaches, beetles, potato bugs, and bedbugs virtually ensured accidental exposure (and sometimes death) to pets, children, and adults. Because no matter how carefully one crams arsenic-laded grease into the seams of a bed frame, floorboards, or baseboards — you either get the stuff on your fingers during the application process, while you sleep, or walk across the floor. (To deal with bedbugs, fleas, and beetles.) Never mind dusting shelves in pantries, cupboards, or inside kitchen drawers with a mixture of confectioners sugar and Rough on Rats. (To dispatch cockroaches and beetles.) 

These widely published methods of assassinating pests, in a roundabout way, also gave the idea of how to dispatch other humans. Because if rats didn’t taste the poison, how could humans?

So, while you could argue Ephraim’s doesn’t bear all the blame for the deaths linked to Rough on Rats….his conscience isn’t exactly clear either.

Though whether or not Ephraim felt this burden is unknown, as according to people more learned than I, he didn’t leave any writing (open to public perusal at least) on the subject upon his death in 1913. Nor did his sons, who’d taken over the day-to-day operations of Ephraim’s empire around 1903. 

Happily, Rough on Rats eventually faded from store shelves and popularity as other rodenticides and pesticides surged in popularity. (DDT, Thallium, and Warfarin, for example — all of which caused their own chaos.) In 1955, Ephraim’s family sold the brand Rough on Rats to Brown Manufacturing Co. in Le Roy, New York. They, in turn, went out of business sometime in the sixties.

Ending Rough on Rats reign.

My 52 Weeks With Christie: A.Miner©2023

Rough on Rats: Pressing Her Luck

Finder of Lost ThingsLeave a comment

Flush with success and brimming with confidence over her first induced funeral, Ella Holdridge waited (about) five days before feeding her obsession with death, funerals, and wakes. 

Only this time, Ella made a mistake.

Whilst plenty of people noticed the two girls playing together on the day Leona fell ill, no one for a moment suspected Ella played a role in the toddler’s lingering death. Mainly because of the two-year-old’s inability to utter anything sensible after ingesting the water Ella polluted with Rough on Rats. 

However, this time, Ella targeted a pair of sisters — Susie & Jennie Eggleston.

Due to the sensationalization of this case, there’s some ambiguity on what exactly happened next. (Newspapers of this era absolutely loved to hype up crimes like this — often at the expense of the facts.) However, these things seem certain: In and around July 16, 1892, Mrs. Eggelston decided to go shopping in Buffalo, NY (about twelve miles from their neighborhood in Tonawanda) — leaving her daughters at home. Now, one way or another, either knowing beforehand via the neighborhood grapevine or sussing out the intelligence from the pair as they played on their front porch — Ella realized the lack of adult supervision afforded her an opportunity to generate a double funeral. 

Using her status as an older kid (as she was fourteen to their ten and five) and the promise of making them “something nice,” Ella managed to herd the two inside their house. After (possibly) locking the doors after they went inside, Ella made a pot of cocoa with a generous measure of her secret ingredient, Rough on Rats, thrown in. When one of the sisters complained about the cocoa’s taste and refused to drink anymore, Ella compelled the girl to drink it: Through either verbal coercion, pushing her onto a sofa and pouring it down her throat, or throwing her onto the floor and forcing the liquid between her lips. After ensuring Susie and Jennie finished their mugs of cocoa, Ella told them not to tell anyone about what happened and left.

Later that evening, both girls became extraordinarily ill and their parents sent for Dr. Edmunds.

As both Susie and Jennie had been the picture of health prior to their mother’s trip into Buffalo and they’d pretty much identical symptoms which started nearly simultaneously — Dr. Edmunds suspected they’d gotten into something poisonous. Can you imagine his surprise upon learning about Ella’s strange-tasting hot chocolate and even stranger behavior? Then word reached him about another kid a few doors down who was desperately sick — with the same symptoms as the Eggelston sisters.

Seems sometime during the day, Ella also administered some Rough on Rats to five-year-old Ervin Garlock.

Whilst doctors worked diligently to save the lives of the three kids — news of Ella’s possibly poisonous food and drink spread like wildfire around the neighborhood of Kohler and Morgan Street. Leading every parent hither, thither, and yon to interrogate their children as to whether they’d eaten anything given to them by Ella.

After Susie, Jennie, and Ervin’s lives were back on solid footing, Dr. Edmunds and Dr. Harris compared notes….and discovered Leona’s symptoms mirrored those of the other poisoned children. Unsurprisingly, the duo of doctors took their suspicions to Justice of the Peace Rogers and Coroner Hardleben — who called Ella in for questioning posts haste.

At first, the fourteen-year-old denied everything. 

However, when one of the officials bluffed and told Ella someone had seen her making the cocoa, and they knew she’d put poison in it — she opened her eyes wide and said….“Dear me, is that so?” And went on to make a full confession. Telling the adults she’d poisoned Susie and Jennie: “…because she wanted to go to a funeral, and thought they would look so nice dead.” When they asked after Leona’s murder: “Yes, she’s dead. Poor L{eona} But she looked awful pretty and her funeral was awful nice.” When Justice of the Peace Richard asked why she used Rough on Rats, Ella replied: “If it killed rats and mice it would kill children.”

(Prompting authorities to exhume poor Leona’s body and send her stomach to Dr. Vandenbergh for analysis.)

On July 16, 1892, Ella was charged with murder.….and this is where things get a bit murky. 

I know on July 18, 1892, Franklin Holdridge (Ella’s Dad) committed Ella to the care of Father Baker’s Institution at Limestone Hill. I believe the “institution” the papers referenced was a protectory. 

(The above picture was printed in an atlas about thirty-five years prior to Ella’s hasty trip to said Institution.)

Protectories are akin to nonreligious reform or industrial schools. They took in all kinds of kids, from orphans to juvenile delinquents — educated them in religion, morals, and science, then trained them in a trade or for a manufacturing position. Whilst not a prison, Father Baker’s protectory would afford far more supervision and possible rehabilitation for a budding poisoner. (It undoubtedly gave Ella space from her obsession because I can’t imagine the nuns or priests in charge would’ve allowed her to attend funerals or visit the graveyard — given her history.)

In any case, this prompt change of address not only kept the children in Ella’s old neighborhood safe, including her much younger siblings, it might’ve also (possibly) given the jury a reason to find her not guilty. 

I say possibly because, unfortunately, I can’t find any direct news pieces on Ella’s trial. Save a blurb written just under eight years after the events of July 1892. It states that despite Ella’s confession and testimony in which she reiterated her belief that Leona and the others would “…look well dead…” a “…jury didn’t see fit to punish her.” 

Perhaps Ella pleaded insanity? Or, due to her age, her lawyers argued she didn’t understand the enormity of her actions? Or maybe they didn’t want to send a pretty young girl to jail for the rest of her life. I don’t honestly know. However, I suspect it didn’t hurt that of her four victims — Susie, Jennie, and Ervin managed to live through the ordeal she put them through.

I also reckon Ella remained in Father Baker’s care for a spell after her trial, though this is purely conjecture on my part. (Mostly because I can’t see a way for her to return home to Tonawanda after killing a child, no matter the outcome of a trial. Though again, it is possible.)

(Ella, from later in life. From findagrave.com)

However, I do know that by the time Ella was about 24, she was married to a man named Neil McGilvray with a baby daughter on the way. In 1905, they had another daughter. In 1908, the family moved to Monessen, Pennsylvania, where Ella would remain for the next 37 years until her death in 1945 at the age of 65.

Rough on Rats: Ella’s Deadly Obssession

Finder of Lost ThingsLeave a comment

Roughly forty years after the publication of Moby Dick and seventy years before Graham Young’s initial poisoning spree — a fourteen-year-old girl named Ella Holdridge lived with her family and three siblings in the small town of Tonawanda in Erie County, New York. Unlike Captain Ahab, who was obsessed with a great white whale or Graham Young, who’s idée fixe was poisons — Ella was spellbound by death.

Whenever she discovered someone in the community passed away — Ella would (according to her stepmother) literally jump for joy, clap her hands, and exclaim, “He’s Dead! He’s Dead!” Her excitement not only stemmed from the death itself but from the knowledge there would be a funeral, a wake, and a fresh grave in her near future. Because, irregardless if she was invited or not, if Ella could attend — she would turn up….Shouldering her way to the front of the queue at the viewing, then to the grave’s edge to witness the coffin being lowered into the earth.

(Some illustrations of Jack the Ripper from UK papers.)

It’s unclear from where Ella’s fascination with death and funerals sprung. Perhaps Ella dimly recalled watching her mother slowly succumb to TB, the inevitable funeral, and the wake that followed. Though as Ella was only 2 or 3 years old at the time, those memories would be murky — but still echoing somewhere within her mind. Or maybe her interest was sparked by newspaper reports of Jack the Ripper’s bloody exploits in Whitechapel — the serial killer’s frenzied attacks roughly spanned the years between Ella’s ninth and thirteenth birthdays. It’s also possible Ella was just naturally inclined towards the macabre. Irregardless of whatever sparked Ella’s interest in death and all its trappings — she was hooked. 

Unfortunately, in the summer of 1892, a drought occurred in the local cemeteries — i.e., a distinct lack of funerals.

Okay, so here’s the thing: During my research, I found a number of GLARING inconsistencies in the news reports pertaining to this case. So, I fact-checked this case as well as I could after 130 years….Which led to a vexing urge to box the ears of the original reporters….

(From a 1866 Map of Tonawanda Village)

Unlike some of the articles I’ve read from around this time, none of the newspapers (I found) list Ella’s address. However, the Buffalo Weekly Express does mention Ella’s neighborhood. Using a helpful map ap, I discovered three cemeteries lie less than a mile from the cross-streets mentioned: Tonawanda City Cemetery, Saint Francis Cemetery, and Salem Church Cemetery. All of whom were in operation at this time and aligned with Ella’s stepmother’s intelligence.

(The Three Cemeteries Ella would visit from a 1915 map of the town of Tonawanda)

Next, I found between the three aforementioned cemeteries, there were only 14 burials between January – April, 0 in May and 2 in June. Assuming Ella could only attend a fraction of these 16 funerals — due to things like school, family commitments, and whether or not the deceased family actually held a service. I imagine Ella was desperate to satiate her obsession by the time July of 1892 rolled around.

Which might help to explain what happened next. 

Unlike Graham Young, whose idée fixe I sincerely doubt would allow him to stoop to using a poison as inelegant as Rough on Rats (unless he’d no other options, in other words, during his incarcerations) it suited Ella Holdridge’s purposes just fine. 

On July 7, 1892 — while playing with two-year-old Leona Stermer, Ella gave her a glass of adulterated water. Within hours, Leona was writhing in pain and violently ill. Leona’s parents called in Dr. Harris, who thought she’d contracted cholera morbus (what we now call gastroenteritis) and treated her thusly. Sadly he was unsuccessful as Leona died two days later. (And yes her name is Leona Stermer — not Louisa Sterner, Zoena Stuermer, or Lena as reported in various newspapers. It took some serious crosschecking, but I finally pinned down Leona’s correct name.)

Unbeknownst to the Stermers and Dr. Harris — whilst Leona lay dying, Ella would regularly sidled up and surreptitiously watched the goings on inside the house. After gauging the distress she’d witnessed, Ella would dash back home and say things to her stepmother like: “I guess she’d almost dead now!” (Interestingly enough, this behavior lines up with Graham Young’s during his second poisoning spree. Apparently, he would repeatedly call the hospitals, where his colleagues lay dying of the poison he administered to them, to “check” on them. Presumably so he could update his scientific journals with the most accurate information he could obtain.)

Needless to say, when Leona Stermer was buried on July 11, 1892 — Ella was front and center during the planning, preparation, and execution of Leona’s funeral rites….And no one, not even Ella’s parent’s, suspected anything was amiss with the toddler’s death.

Yet.

My 52 Weeks With Christie: A.Miner©2023

Rough on Rats: Obsession, Melville, & the Tea Cup Poisoner

Finder of Lost ThingsLeave a comment

Captain Ahab & The Whale — a bleak tale about a great man who gradually immolating every part of himself on a pyre of obsession until all that remains is ash and a single all-consuming desire for revenge. Beyond laying bare a treacherous side of the human psyche, Melville’s masterpiece, Moby Dick, shows us how a person caught in the grips of a powerful obsession can justify nearly anything — including the sacrifice of a ship and its entire crew (save Ishmael). While I realize scouring the high seas for a giant white leg-eating sperm whale doesn’t occupy most people’s minds the way it did Ahab’s — it’s still a compelling tale…..and a cautionary one as well.

Especially when it concerns children. 

Hyperfocusing on things like space, dinosaurs, books, animals, or other similar subjects is a well-known phenomenon. This intense interest in a single subject gives natural parameters for their exploration of the world while allowing their curiosity to flourish. This zeroed-in interest often dilutes or fades when they hit school — as they’re exposed to all sorts of new ideas, people, and tedium. 

However, sometimes, just sometimes, a kid’s fascination takes a darker turn and doesn’t dissipate like so much smoke in the wind. 

(The pics of the trial of William Palmer and the arrest of Dr. Crippen.)

Couple this all-consuming passion with immature moral muscles — you occasionally find yourself facing a kid like Graham Young. Who started wending his way down the pathway of obsession at an early age. It started with reading true crime (no biggie). Then, he became a fanboy of either Dr. Crippen or William Palmer and their poisons. (I’ve read accounts identifying one or the other as Young’s role model. Whichever way it went — labeling either as your idol isn’t exactly great.) Not to mention his enthusiasm for black magic and the Nazis.

Then Young found his calling.

At the age of twelve, Young entered secondary-school and started taking chemistry — which dovetailed nicely with his fascination with toxic metalloids, plants, and elements. At first, he satiated his idée fixe by studying books on advanced toxicology. Then, at the age of thirteen, armed with an extensive knowledge of both subjects — Young hoodwinked a local chemist into selling him antimony, digitalis, arsenic, and thallium.

Whereupon Young moved on to the practical application of poisons. 

At first, Young experimented on a fellow student, but when the boy’s parents pulled him from school, Young moved on….And began conducting his research on his relations. Amongst other appalling familial poisoning episodes: Young sent his sister, Winifred, to the hospital by lacing her tea with belladonna. Next, Young committed what he thought of as a perfect murder by slowly killing his stepmother with thallium. (While Young confessed to Molly Young’s murder nine years later, this claim has never been verified — mainly because, at Young’s suggestion, her remains were cremated.) At Molly’s wake, Young tipped antimony into a jar of mustard pickles, sickening another relative. Finally, Young turned his full attention onto his father, whom he nearly sent to an early grave via antimony poisoning less than a month after murdering his stepmother.

However, Young’s preoccupation with poisons was not unknown.

Aware of the trouble befalling his family and others around him, Young’s science teacher searched his school desk and found several vials of poison and notebooks detailing things like dosages and symptoms. Taking his suspicions to the school’s headmaster, the two devised a trap: They arranged an interview between a careers counselor, who was actually a trained psychiatrist, and Young. During their discourse, the professional headshrinker managed to get Young to reveal his comprehensive and sweeping knowledge of his favorite subjects — poisons and toxicology. Weighing his troubling conversation against the spat of the “illnesses” plaguing those within Young’s sphere — the mental health professional took his misgivings to the authorities……Who saw fit to arrest Young on May 23, 1964, at which point they found his store of thallium and antimony.

In short order, Graham confessed, pleaded guilty, and became one of the youngest inmates in Broadmoor’s history at the age of fourteen. (For Those of You Who Don’t Know: Broadmoor’s the oldest high-security psychiatric hospital in England and second only in fame/infamy to Bethlem Royal Hospital, aka Bedlam.)

Pictures of Broadmoor the first is from 1867 and the second from 1952.

This change of address barely slowed Young down. 

Soon after Young arrived at Broadmoor, another patient died after ingesting cyanide, a nurse discovered his coffee laced with toilet cleaner, and a caustic cleaning powder somehow found its way into a communal tea urn. Whilst an obvious suspect, Young was not brought up on charges in any of these incidences — as it’s unclear if he actually committed them. Young only ceased his claims of poisoning people during his incarceration after figuring out that if he feigned being cured of his fascination, he could win his freedom — which he did in 1971 at the age of (around) 24.

Unable or unwilling to eschew his love of bottles bearing a skull and crossbones, it didn’t take long for Young to return to his old ways.

Mere months after his release, Young once again secured an array of toxics — which he didn’t hesitate to dispense. By misrepresenting himself to a prospective employer, Young obtained a job where no one knew of his past offenses, which allowed him to poison with impunity. Before the shadows of suspicion thickened around him, Young administered thallium or antimony to his coworkers en masse via his tea trolly duties, targeting five individuals specifically and killing two others. 

Earning him the moniker: The Tea Cup Poisoner — a nickname Young apparently loathed.

Thankfully, by the summer of 1972, Young was back behind bars — where he’d stay until his death in 1990 at the age of 42. (This is a vastly simplified history of Young’s life and crimes. For a more thorough account of his diabolical deeds, listen to episode #6 of The Poisoner’s Cabinet.)

Whilst the lion’s share of youthful passions don’t end up creating a poisoner, Graham Young demonstrates how many steps beyond the pale an idée fixe can take a kid. But here’s the horrible thing: whilst Young is one of the most infamous killer kids — he’s not the only one who’s journeyed down this treacherous path and left a body count in their wake…..

My 52 Weeks With Christie: A.Miner©2023

Rough on Rats: Who Really Put the Arsenic in the Coffee?

Finder of Lost Things2 Comments

Whilst there weren’t any reports of jiggery-pokery in Gertrude’s trial, there are several odd discrepancies when you compare Gertrude’s single unguarded statement to a reporter against her, Robert, Laura, and (her mother) Sarah’s subsequent testimony.

(Gertrude’s remarks to a reporter)

Ignoring Gertrude’s denial of adding Rough on Rats to the coffee pot, the first disparity between this newspaper clipping and courtroom testimony comes when Gertrude explains what prompted her to buy the box of Rough on Rats. Above, she claims her father sent her to the drugstore to buy the rat poison. In the courtroom, Gertrude switched her story, stating the purchase was made because the night before the murder, her mother commented on how “rats {were} going to take the place.” A statement Sarah, her mother, corroborated under oath. 

So, which is true? 

Did her defense team decide to put forth the trial version, as it had someone who could truthfully attest to its accuracy and doesn’t wholly negate Gertrude’s initial statement to the paper? Or was a convenient circumstance, recalled later, used to mask Gertrude’s childish revenge plan? And if you owned two reasonable explanations for purchasing the poison, why keep mum during Dr. Kaltenbach and her Aunt’s initial inquisitions? Unless you hadn’t anything other than the ugly truth to tell….

However, the most telling inconsistencies betwixt Gertrude’s unscripted answers and later testimony occur over the family’s upright organ and Gertrude’s state of mind. 

1) Robert: “…no trouble existed between himself…and Gertrude or between his wife and Gertrude….we never had any trouble about the family organ, and had no intention of removing it, from the home of my parents…”

—— I suppose it’s just possible that a newly married older brother could’ve been entirely oblivious to his younger sister’s upset….. 

2) Laura: “She seemed envious at times, but this lasted only a short time, and there was no positive enmity between them….Her husband had stated to her that he did not intend to take the organ with them….”

—— ….Laura, however, was not oblivious to Gertrude’s jealousy, which conflicts with Robert’s rosy view of their relationship with Gertrude. I also find it difficult to believe Laura didn’t bring up Gertrude’s envy issues with her husband. Because, in theory, he’d have a better idea of how to handle a green-eyed little sister.

Moreover, I think this bit, “Her husband had stated…he did not intend to take the organ…” is a potential lie by omission as Laura’s not revealing her intentions on the organ but simply regurgitating her husband’s. Yes, I know at that point in time, a wife was expected to abide by her husband’s decisions…..But this calls to mind an axiom from My Big Fat Greek Wedding — “The man is the head {of the family}, but the woman is the neck. And she can turn the head any way she wants.” 

3) Sarah: “…Gertie always treated her father as well as any child could. There had never been any trouble between members of the family or children only what would naturally arise.”

—— A belief Sarah could’ve held right up until she poured the poison-laced coffee that night.

On the whole, the testimony of Gertrude’s kin successfully contradicted, or at least partially mitigated, Gertrude’s spontaneous answers on March 20th (above) — and weakened the motive of jealousy the prosecution was trying to establish as the basis for the murder. Though, frankly, I believe Gertrude’s off-the-cuff answers hold more honesty than those of her relations. I think her family split hairs and told what was technically true in order to keep Gertrude from the gallows. 

(And yes, I do believe the prosecution would’ve sought the death penalty against the thirteen-year-old — as five jurors were excused from service due to their “conscientious scruples” against a sentence of death. Hauntingly enough, one of the newspaper articles I found advertised that if Gertrude had been anything other than an attractive young girl, the townspeople would’ve lynched her for allegedly murdering Dillon Taylor. 

Especially since the townspeople of Craig found Gertrude’s unscripted admission of anger and hate tantamount to a confession. On top of this,  Gertrude’s utter lack of emotion and concern at being accused of patricide during her court appearances didn’t help her cause either. A situation Gertrude later remedied by breaking down and weeping whilst on the stand, in front of the all male jury, during her trial.)

In any case, mitigating Gertrude’s motive is all well and good, but her defense needed more. They needed to give the jury an alternate, credible explanation the twelve men could use to find Gertrude not guilty.

The only problem was the classic formula of offering a substitute suspect for the jury to blame wouldn’t work in this case. The only outsider to enter the Taylor home that day was Tyler Cristman, and despite choosing of milk over coffee that evening (the near identical choice Gertrude made, which landed her in the hot seat) — it doesn’t seem anyone ever considered him a suspect in Dillon’s murder. Moreover, during Sarah’s testimony, she stated no one other than Tyler entered their house that day. 

Leaving Gertrude’s attorney only the immediate family to offer up in Gertrude’s place….

Speculation on the Baseness of Human Behavior à la Miss Marple: Sex & Money: Interestingly enough, of these two archetypical motives for murder, Sarah owned half of this quintessential duo — inheriting $100,000 worth of land upon Dillon’s death. 

As for the sex? Perhaps Gertrude correctly recognized her father’s shift of affection but misidentified from whom they moved. Not realizing, in the throws of egocentric youth, Dillon hadn’t transferred his affections from her — but from his wife to his daughter-in-law? If Dillon and Laura started an affair, it would explain why he refused to relent to Gertrude’s pleas over the organ.

BTW — I’m not pulling this theory from thin air.

While both women possessed the opportunity to put the poison in the coffeepot — Gertrude passed through the kitchen when she returned home from her trip to the drugstore, and Sarah prepared supper that night, alone…It was Sarah who poured everyone’s coffee that evening. An ordinary act that could’ve allowed her to guarantee her husband received a lethal amount of arsenic whilst administering smaller doses to herself and the rest of her family. (Hence why only Dillon died. While Robert & Laura recovered a week later.)

Thanks to Asa Sharp’s testimony, we know he kept a store of arsenic on his farm and used it frequently. This could explain how Sarah got ahold of the dangerous element without linking her name to a purchase record. What’s more chilling? Thanks to the bevy of highly publicized poisoning cases, the rodenticide’s main ingredient was less than secret. So what if Sarah purposely prompted her daughter’s purchase of Rough on Rats? Banking on Gertrude’s youth & good looks, her parent’s influence, and her brothers’ money to get her daughter cleared of all charges.

Can you imagine how wild A.C. & Arthur Sharp would’ve become if Gertrude’s attorney presented Sarah as his alternative suspect? Or Robert? Who, according to his own testimony, was alone in the kitchen when Gertrude arrived home — giving him at least the opportunity to put arsenic in the coffee pot.

As it was, Gertrude’s legal team found an entirely different pretext to present to the jury. In an oddly serendipitous event, one week before Gertrude’s trial started, two farmhands found a box of Rough on Rats right around the area where Gertrude told her Aunt she’d lost it. Not only was the box appropriately weathered, having spent nearly two months exposed to the elements — it still bore the druggist’s wrappings.

This piece of evidence, combined with her family’s measured testimony, allowed the jury to reach a not-guilty verdict in less than two hours. 

Leaving Dillon Taylor’s murder, as far as I can tell, unsolved to this day. 

An outcome that I find just as insupportable as Sophia Leonides from Crooked House would’ve. Because how can you ever feel safe amongst your nearest and dearest again? Every sugar cookie at Christmas, each pie eaten at Thanksgiving, every piece of candy procured from a family member at Halloween holds a potentially poisonous center — and it’s not paranoia at play here — one of your next of kin proved themselves capable of committing such a dastardly deed. 

What’s to stop them from striking again?

What’s to say they won’t follow Josephine Leonides’ example and kill anyone who crosses them? Or years later, they let something slip, panic, and murder again to cover their original sin? What if one of your fam follows Edith de Haviland’s example but gets it wrong? Or someone, eaten up by uncertainty, sends both the innocent and guilty to the grave — just to stop the relentless spiral of anxiety and dread?

Whilst sitting here and writing this piece, I can better appreciate why so many of Christie’s detectives (or people close to them) need to find the culprit in manor house mysteries — which, weirdly enough, the very non-fictional murder of Dillon Taylor neatly slips into. It creates a cloud of suspicion that forever clings to those involved, like so much smoke that not even death can fully dissipate.

Don’t believe me?

What if I were to tell you Robert Taylor committed suicide on March 30, 1930? Now, there’s a myriad of reasons why he could’ve hung himself: depression, familial estrangement (in 1889, two years after Gertrude’s trial, he sue his mother and siblings – including his 6yr. old sister Nancy, — for what I don’t know, but it doesn’t speak of happy families), or cancer diagnosis (a disease that claimed his younger brother Duke’s life nine years later). 

But doesn’t a tiny part of you wonder, after thirty-four years and twenty days, if his guilty conscience finally caught up with him?

As for Gertrude, she married sometime around 1900-1901 to a man named Marcus Spencer. They had a daughter about 1903 and another two years later. Gertrude was widowed on August 30, 1915, after her husband died of TB (a disease which, apparently, killed his two sisters and brother before him). Gertrude herself passed away on September 12, 1958, from a cerebral thrombosis at the age of 76.

And, despite all my research, I am none the wiser to who actually murder Dillon Taylor. I lean toward Gertrude, but really her original indictment is based solely on Dr. Kaltenbach’s misgivings and one imprudent interview. And, as we’ve seen in other cases, we don’t know how closely the police looked at the other people seat at the supper table on March 10, 1896….

Leaving open the possibility someone other than Gertrude assassinated Dillon Taylor.

My 52 Weeks With Christie: A.Miner©2023

Rough on Rats: One Doctor’s Suspicions

Finder of Lost ThingsLeave a comment

Dubious of Gertrude’s lucky escape, Dr. Kaltenbach swiftly sussed out Gertrude’s choice of water over coffee was inconsistent with her regular suppertime eating habits. With this nugget of knowledge stuck in his craw, Dr. Kaltenbach continued to care for the rest of the poison-stricken Taylor family — who now needed to contend with making funeral arrangements for their patriarch, Dillon. And whilst they and the extended family handled those details — Dr. Kaltenbach quietly started piecing together a case against Gertrude. 

Knowing he’d need more than his gut feeling and deductions to accuse any member of such an influential family, especially a thirteen-year-old girl, Dr. Kaltenbach set about confirming the coffee was indeed how the poison was administered.

Now For a Deduction On My Part: Whilst the gold standard in detecting arsenic, the Marsh Test, had been around since 1836, there’s a good chance a small-town general practitioner had never performed it. It’s also equally possible Dr. Kaltenbach simply didn’t have the time to conduct the highly sensitive test — as he’d seven or eight seriously sick people to treat whilst trying to keep a weather eye on his prime suspect and the extended family from entering the sickrooms (just in case he’d honed in on the wrong person).

Either way or both, Dr. Kaltenbach decided he only needed to prove poison was present in the coffee for the inevitable inquest into Dillon Taylor’s death, so after securing and spiriting away the leftover coffee from the pot and its dredges for later analysis. He then poured the remnants from the family’s coffee cups into the slop buckets of three hogs and fed them the adulterated mash. When the poor piggies exhibited the exact same symptoms as those experienced by the Taylor family and died — Dr. Kaltenbach knew he’d proven the first portion of his theory.

Which, of course, led to the inevitable question: Where did Gertrude get the arsenic?

Assuming he’d a quiet nose around the obvious places one would store caustic chemicals in a home, without finding any, Dr. Kaltenbach moved on to the next obvious means of acquisition — the town druggist. Turns, mere hours prior to the mass poisoning, Gertrude visited the drugstore and bought a bar of soap and a box of Rough on Rats.

With the druggist William Butts’ information in his hip pocket, Dr. Kaltenbach confronted Gertrude.

At first, Gertrude lied and flat denied possessing Rough on Rats. When Dr. Kaltenbach pressed further, telling her he knew she’d bought a box, she eventually admitted to the purchase. With that established, Dr. Kaltenbach asked where it was, and Gertrude told the doctor she’d secreted it away upstairs. Sending her to fetch it so he could (presumably) inspect how much of the rat poison remained — Gertrude left and never returned. A short time after he’d been left hanging, Dr. Kaltenbach asked Gertrude’s Aunt, Mrs. Ada Sharp, if she could get Gertrude to divulge the information. A task which Mrs. Sharp was only partially able to complete as Gertrude refused to tell her Aunt why she’d bought Rough on Rats, though she did confess to losing the box on the way home.

Armed with all this information, Dr. Kaltenbach related what he’d found out and witnessed during the Coroner’s Inquest held on March 17, 1896. This, in turn, resulted in the exhumation of Dillon Taylor, who’d been buried four days before, for a post-mortem. (During which Dillon’s stomach was removed for chemical analysis….Said testing was performed around May 5, 1896, and the chemist found not only arsenic but powdered glass in Dillon’s organ as well. When the chemist compared what he’d discovered in Dillon’s stomach to a box of Rough on Rats, purchased specifically for this test, the results aligned perfectly. As the fresh two ounce box of Ephraim Well’s rat poison contained about one ounce of powdered arsenic and the rest was powdered glass and starchy substances. The chemist went on to posit each cup of coffee contained about 20 to 24 grains of arsenic — more than enough to kill a man.)

The coroner’s jury also returned a verdict naming Gertrude as the one responsible for her father’s death.

On March 19, 1896 — Gertrude was arrested.

Thanks to a few remarks made to the press prior to the hiring of defense lawyers — we learn that Green Taylor, Dillon’s brother, “….was determined to sift the crime to the bottom and to prosecute the guilty person to the end.” To my ear this sounds a lot like a man who has a doubt or two about his niece’s innocence — but is smart enough to only allude to them when speaking with reporters. However, unlike Edith de Haviland, whose clarity of sight and strength of character allowed her to see what the rest of her family couldn’t or wouldn’t admit to themselves and then act on it, Green Taylor either ended up holding his tongue when he realized thirteen-year-old niece might hang or was persuaded into swallowing Gertrude’s story. 

Whichever way, by the time Gertrude went to trial in May of 1896, Green Taylor sat with his other brother in the court — supporting his niece.

If any influence was exerted on Green Taylor, to shift his stance at least in the public eye, was undoubtedly brought to bear by Gertrude’s other Uncles — A.C. & Arthur Sharp, Gertrude’s mother’s brothers, and most vocal supporters. Not only would they not listen to a word said against their niece, they paid the thirteen-year-old’s $1,000 bail (about $36,000 in today’s money), financed her defense, and told a reporter Gertrude “…would never be convicted if money can save her.” 

As the entire Sharp family was extremely wealthy and prominent in Missouri society — this wasn’t an idle boast. 

My 52 Weeks With Christie: A.Miner©2023

Rough on Rats: (Un)Truth In Advertising

Finder of Lost ThingsLeave a comment

Ever wondered how ‘snake oil’ came to epitomize quack medicine? Or who the first snake oil salesman was? (Well, thanks to a great book called Quackery and some research, I can tell you.) During the 1893 World’s Fair in Chicago, a man named Clark Stanley took to one of the Fair’s many stages. Dressed in the height of frontier fashion, he produced a rattlesnake from a bag and then proceeded to slit it open in front of the crowd. Ignoring the blood and gore, Stanley plunged the snake into boiling water. Then he waited for the snake’s fat to rise to the surface, whereupon he skimmed it off, mixed it into a pre-prepared solution, stoppered the bottles, and sold it to an eager crowd under the name Clark Stanley’s Snake Oil Liniment.

Over the next twenty-three years, Stanley’s liniment would make him a fortune. Then came Upton Sinclair’s graphic and stomach-turning expose on the meat packing industry — which inspired the passage of the 1906 Pure Food and Drug Act. 

From the title of the Act, you can guess where this is going.

The Drug portion of the Act allowed federal authorities to target patent medicines. These proprietary “medicines,” also known as nostrums, salves, powders, balms, elixirs, drafts, syrups, tinctures, essences, and liniments, DID NOT patent their ingredients or formulas. Instead, they trademarked their names, labels, packaging, and/or bottle shapes. Meaning that up until the 1906 Act of Congress, the hucksters of these “medicines” didn’t (generally) need to worry about doctors, chemists, or other interested parties testing their effectiveness. Hence, manufacturers rarely placed an ingredient list on their products or, like Stanley’s Liniment, only provided one or two key (usually “exotic”) components. Whilst claiming they’d cure you of everything from the common cold, aches & pains, cancer, sexually transmitted diseases, and death — amongst other things.

Yeah……You laugh, but common sense often gets tossed out the window when desperation settles in for an extended stay.

In any case, Stanley got away with selling his Snake Oil Liniment until May 20, 1916. When crates of his Snake Oil, bound for Massachusetts, were seized by federal authorities and analyzed by the Bureau of Chemistry. In short order scientists revealed Stanley’s secret formula: “light mineral oil (petroleum product) mixed with about 1 per cent of fatty oil (probably beef fat), capsaicin, and possibly a trace of camphor and turpentine.”

Unsurprisingly, not a single microscopic mote of snake, rattle or otherwise, was found within the liniment. 

As these ingredients did not cure pain, lameness, rheumatism, sciatica, paralysis, inflammation, animal & insect bites, or reptile/insect/animal poison — as the Snake Oil literature claimed…..Led Stanley to plead nolo contendere (which means Stanley accepted the conviction as if he pleaded guilty without actually admitting he did anything wrong) and pay a twenty-dollar fine (about $576 in today’s money).

Now, by comparison to the majority of his contemporaries who used things like grain alcohol, cocaine, opium, morphine, strychnine, lead, uranium, and radium in their products — Stanley’s Snake Oil Liniment was pretty safe (if one followed the recommendation on the advert — “Used Externally Only”). The problem was anyone who picked up a newspaper back then was inundated with adverts for these dodgy cure-all concoctions — because the ad revenue they generated paid the bills. 

Enter Ephraim Stockton Wells. 

By the Spring of 1862, Ephraim owned and operated a drugstore on Monticello & Harrison Avenue in Jersey City, New Jersey. One day, whilst he was helping customers in the front of the shop — rats tucked into his lunch in the back. Upon discovering the sad remains of his midday meal, Ephraim vowed revenge on the vermin who’d left him with an empty stomach. Drawing on all his knowledge of chemistry and drugs, Ephraim concocted a deadly compound to rid the world of the rodent scourge. When he told his wife of his plan, she joked about him being rough on rats — and the name stuck. (This origin story, of which there are several variants, probably contains a small kernel of truth.)

From 1863 to 1880, Rough on Rats would be Ephraim’s side hustle.

Initially, Wells only sold the deadly rodenticide at his Jersey City drugstore. Then, perhaps, after casting an eye across the shelves of patent medicine his store stocked and his customers bought by the bag full, Ephraim recalled an episode from a few years earlier. After the NYC drugstore he worked at unexpectedly folded, Ephraim placed an advert about himself in a newspaper, and by the next week, he’d a job in Michigan. Either inspired by these real life events or simply following in his contemporaries’ footsteps — Ephraim patented the name Rough on Rats. And in a stroke of genius or foresight, Ephraim also patented similar sounding names, to thwart future competition. (Moreover, Ephraim would end up employing a veritable fleet of lawyers to defend his trademarks.) With his brand now secure Ephraim moved onto phase two, and between 1872-1880 he spent forty-thousand dollars (which is just shy of 1.2 million dollars in today’s money) advertising Rough on Rats in newspapers across the country.

This ambitious gamble nearly bankrupted him. 

However, by 1881, Ephraim’s investment paid off. Allowing him to sell his drugstore, convert another property into a manufacturing facility, and focus all his energies on growing his mail-order business. Which he did with relish. Not only did Ephraim place $140,000 worth of adverts, of his own design, in every magazine and newspaper he could think of every year for the next twelve years — he also expanded his empire into England, New Zealand, and Australia. Seeking trademark protection in each new country to once again keep “imitators” at bay. 

The only problem? Ephraim’s multi-national trademark hid a dirty little secret: Rough on Rats’ primary component was white arsenic.

Known since Cleopatra’s time, refined by the Borgias, and made cheaply available via the Industrial Revolution — by 1862, everyone from emperors to paupers knew of arsenic’s legendary lethality. (Thereby making Ephraim’s claim he “used all his knowledge of chemistry and drugs” to concoct his popular product a bit of a stretch.) And despite Rough on Rats failure to disclose its secret ingredient, it didn’t take long for the general public to work out that Rough on Rats worked just as well on humans as it did on vermin. 

This omission, when taken in conjunction with Rough on Rats adverts, poses an ethical conundrum — i.e. how much responsibility should Ephraim Stockton Wells shoulder in the hundreds, if not thousands, of non-rodent related deaths connected to Rough on Rats? 

In the majority of murders linked to the rodenticide, I’d agree Ephraim’s conscience is clear — except — in one narrow category: Where kids purchased, administered, and murdered with Rough on Rats. Whilst regulation on the sale of arsenic were inconsistent at the state level in the US — by 1872 (the start of Rough on Rats heyday) most restricted the sale of arsenic to minors. Meaning, Ephraim’s omission allowed kids to buy poison they’d otherwise be denied.

A flaw in the law which Gertrude Taylor slipped through in 1896.

My 52 weeks With Christie: A.Miner©2023

Rough on Rats: Crooked House, Kids Who Kill & Two Motives

Finder of Lost ThingsLeave a comment

From the Office of Spoilers: If you’ve not read Crooked House by Agatha Christie, I suggest you do — then read my vintage true crime posts as one directly impacts the other. However, if you’ve no qualms with knowing the ending of a book before you begin it, read on. Either way, you’ve been warned.

Now, on with the show.

According to experts, far more learned than I, Agatha Christie’s publisher, William Collins (of Collins Crime Club fame), found the ending of Crooked House so shocking he requested Christie change it. 

She declined.

By leaving the novel untouched, Crooked House now stands as one of the best twist endings in Christie’s entire catalogue of works (second only to The Murder of Roger Ackroyd — in my humble estimation). Though, on reflection, I’m not sure exactly why the revelation of Aristide Leonides’ murderer harkens such disbelief. Within moments of meeting our malefactor, they give us their motive; Charles Hayward’s Old Man practically spells out the whys & wherefores a few pages later, and Charles himself catches sight of the penultimate clue. Yet, for the past seventy-four years, the solution continues to blindside readers. And therein lies Christie’s cunning, the ability to mark and exploit our collective blindspots….…..Because how often, really, would you look at a kid and see a poisoner?

Turns out, more often than you’d think.

Some follow the pattern set by Crooked House’s thirteen year old baddie Josephine Leonides, whose motive for murdering her grandfather was his refusal to pay for her ballet lessons. By adult eyes, Josephine’s reason seems childish, and despite her being fictional — she’s not alone in this brand of flawed rationale. In my research for this set of posts, I’ve discovered kids who’ve killed because they were rebuked too often by their mother, because their father thwarted their ambition to become a train robber, and because they wanted to see if their “chubby” playmate’s insides resembled that of pig’s (that was a singularly gruesome crime).

However, it’s the crimes of Gertrude Taylor, a case I’ll explore in more detail in this series, which reminded me forcibly of Josephine’s puerile impulse to pick up a bottle of poison. Not only did she target her nearest and dearest, but she did so so her brother wouldn’t take his upright organ with him when he moved house. 

Yet other kids find themselves following (roughly) in the obsessive footsteps of the Tea Cup Poisoner. 

Graham Young’s fascination with poisons not only led to an in-depth study into the subject, at the age of fourteen he started experimenting with them….on his family and friends. In some respects, Young’s diabolical deeds are unique. His ability to dazzle druggists with his knowledge to procure deadly substances like thallium, antimony, atropine, aconitine, and digitalis sets him apart from most other child poisoners. 

However, the overwhelming obsession that led to Young’s abominable “experimentation” is not. 

Seventy years before and across the pond, another fourteen-year-old named Ella Holdridge found herself utterly transfixed, not by poisons, but by death. Whilst her family and friends considered it an odd fixation for a young girl, no one thought much about it. Until the summer of 1892, when, due to a distinct lack of local funerals she could attend, Ella took it upon herself to supply the local churchyard with a fresh corpse….Another case I’ll cover in the next few weeks.

Above and beyond Gertrude Taylor and Ella Holdridge’s ages, alleged crimes, and underdeveloped moral muscles — one more feature unifies this pair of kid killers: A self-made man who built his empire upon the back of dead rats. 

Ephraim Stockton Wells.

My 52 Weeks With Christie: A.Miner©2023