|
{1} Introduction
Recently on DU, there have been some interesting discussions about the case where the minister's wife shot her husband. Opinions ranged from her being a cold-blooded assassin, to her being a victim, to her acting to protect her children. In truth, no one on DU is privy to the inside scoop on the case, and all we really know is what the media has reported: he was shot in the back; she was caught with her young daughters a couple states away; she apparently was going towards a place she rented in advance; and she has admitted to the shooting.
The lawyer who is representing her has made a few statements to the media that suggest she may have psychological issues that will come into play if she goes to trial. Also, at least one person from the community has reportedly made statements that suggest that domestic violence other than the shooting could be at issue.
I have found the responses of people who call in or e-mail the news shows, and some on DU, interesting. Some have decided that she is nothing but that cold-blooded assassin, who is clearly guilty as charged. I think that it may be more complicated than that -- and even if the evidence points toward her being 100% guilty, the case may hold surprises.
On the other hand, on one news show, the first caller said she could tell from a family photo that the middle child was the victim of sexual abuse, and hence the mother shot the father to protect that child. The second caller noted that she had been married to an abusive minister, and that the woman killed her husband to protect herself. While these are extreme examples of people projecting their own demons, and lacking any objectivity, they are only different in degree from some of the expert opinions being voiced.
There are brutal murderers who kill without conscience, just as there are terrible cases of abuse of innocent victims, including adults and children of both sexes. Yet before we could reasonably come to any conclusion about this case, we would need to first look closely at the woman, and evaluate her status, and then view the crime with her role in that context. And then, and only then, should we consider her husband's role.
By coincidence, I am preparing to play a minor role in a documentary being done by an area group, concerning a strange case of murder that took place in rural upstate New York on December 27, 1874. The group has asked me to review records from the case, including court transcripts and newspaper accounts, and to evaluate the mental status of the killer. I think this might be of interest to others, perhaps even to help people see a structured way of looking at a person charged with a violent crime.
{2} The Crime
On Sunday morning, two days after Christmas in 1874, John Hall was warming his axe near the kitchen stove, before going out to split wood for the day. Hall lived in a mansion built by his wife's aunt and uncle about 40 years before. The aunt and late uncle, who were childless, had adopted a local boy years before; he was now living in Hoboken, NJ, working first as the city's Chief Magistrate and then as the superintendent of the school system. Because the house was too large for the elderly aunt, she had put it and 200 acres of land in her niece's name.
At the time of the murder, John and his wife lived in the home, along with her mother and another aunt. Also, a hired hand and his wife lived in a section of the house. John's seven children had moved out over the past few years. However, a number of relatives had gathered to celebrate the hliday there, including the aunt who formerly owned the property.
That morning, as she sat near the wood stove in a rocking chair, reading a book she was given for Christmas, Mr. Hall raised the axe over his head, then drove it through the elderly woman's skull, literally creating a woundseven inches long -- going from an inch above one ear to two inches above the other. As the old woman lay dying, two other people stepped into the room, and asked what was happening? Mr. Hall said, "Auntie Fitch has had a spell. Nothing will come of it." As he wiped blood from his axe, his wife asked why he hit her aunt? He calmly said he didn't, and went out to split wood.
Within an hour, the house was filled with neighbors, doctors, and a deputy sheriff. Mr. Hall was uninterested in the excitment, and even when told the elderly woman had died, he insisted she had merely had a "fit," and would be back in her feet at any minute. He told those who said he killed her that he had nothing to do with her ailment. When the deputy prepared to bring him to the county jail, he said he needed to consider the weather, as he may need to be home to do some raking.
Was he simply a cold-blooded killer? Did the victim do something to drive him to commit the crime? Let's take a look, loosely using a system of evaluation that we will base on a mental health model.
{3} Evaluating Mr. Hall's Level of Functioning
It's really not possible to evaluate people based on media reports. That is just as true for crimes committed today, as those that happened in 1874. Luckily, there was a two week "examination as to the lunacy of John Hall," which included a detailed family history, as well as information about Mr. Hall from the mid-1840s on. Parts of it are fascinating, including two doctors who testify that Hall is suffering from dementia, and two who give what they believe is a cutting-edge psychiatric diagnosis: Hall has congestion of the brain, as evidenced by his eyes.
The science known as psychology was young, of course. Sigmund Freud had not yet graduated as a medical student from Vienna, and was a decade away from his studies under Charot. But the doctors clearly understand Mr. Hall is severely mentally ill. Their testimony reflects a compassion that indicates they view Hall as a victim of his illness, though they do not fully understand what brain disease he actually has.
Let's start with what today is called "Axis 1," or the major mental illness. From his family history, we find that Mr. Hall's father had been a high-functioning adult until his late 20s. Then, he began a rapid decline, and went from being able to provide well for his family, to being shunned by them. He was shipped out, and rented a room at an early "group home" setting, in Oneida. There, the young boys were entertained by his standing outside, bashing a fence with a cane, and howling life a wolf or screaming "murder!" for several hours per day. The old man also was known for twisting his body into "strange arrangements," and then talking to the door of a vacant building.
John Hall had several younger brothers who testified they suffered from the same anxiety their father did, and were clearly afraid of what the future held for them. John had been gainfully employed in New York City until his mid-30s, and then began to lose the ability to do his job. His decline was associated with alcohol consumption by most of the people around him, until he eventually quit drinking. At that time, his psychotic behaviors became more obvious to family and friends.
Before we look closer at the symptoms of his illness, let's consider some information that might be related to what we'll politely call "personality disorders." These are not easy to determine 130 or more years after the events in question, but let's look at a few things that show up. First, Mr. Hall did not get married until he was 38. He had been employed as a book-keeper for NYC attorneys, and had a good position in Customs, before getting married. After his marriage, he moved upstate and was a well-to-do merchant, running the business on his wife's family's property, near a railroad that connected NYC with the Great Lakes. It became too much for him, and he tried his hand at other ventures, without success. Eventually, he was "unemployed," living as a dependent with his wife, her mother and aunt, and a few "farm hands." By 1865, he begins to have numerous intense arguments with the female in-laws. They are reportedly about issues such as if the corn they eat should be served on the cob, or as succotash. This, as well as the fact that he gets along quite well with everyone else in his family, as well as with neighbors, indicates there are some personality issues at play in the household.
The third thing we'll look at is his physical health. While he had been described as being a tall, handsome man with long white hair and a flowing white beard, those around him noted he had declined in the past two years before the murder. Newspaper reports noted his "health is clearly failing rapidly," and refer to him as an "imbicle of the state, both physically and mentally." He had also exhibited twitches similar to his father's. We also have the advantage of knowing that he would die less than a year after the murder, at the age of 65. His father had lived until his mid-80s. It seems likely that Mr. Hall was suffering from both serious mental and physical disease on the day he murdered the elderly woman.
Next, we shall consider his level of functioning. In mental health evaluations, when we would "staff" a case, these were somewhat subjective, as people were rated on a scale of 1 to 100. But let's consider: Mr. Hall was well-educated, well-read, was very good at chess, was employed in good positions, and was considered as an esteemed citizen up until he was about 35. The reasons he was not married are not known, but by all indications, he was functioning at a high level for most of his young adult life.
In 1865, family and friends noted marked differences. He lost his position as a merchant, though this could well have been because of stiff competition brought by the changes brought by trains. Self-sufficient, small farm communities began to turn towards larger, milk-producing towns. In this area, rates of mental illness, suicide, and violent crime increased dramatically after the Civil War. Hall tried teaching, and book-keeping, but was unable to recognize his own work a day after he did it. He also was not able to organize his thoughts and plans well enough to run the 200-acre farm he lived on.
By 1873, he was being treated by a local doctor for his anxiety. Many neighbors cut off communication with him, because of his odd behavior. Some expressed hopes that he would be institutionalized in the local "poor house," for his own good. In his neighborhood, however, several people continued to have good relationships with him, so long as they didn't discuss his family. He played checkers at the depot, though he no longer had skills in that or chess.
A home, he had odd behaviors, including walking from room to room, blowing out candles that were not burning, in a daily ritual. He became suspicious that the older women were attempting to poison him. When his favorite daughter challenged this belief, he became convinced that she was in on the plot. Twice he threatened his wife's mother and aunt that lived in the same house. It reached a point where the only person he got along well with was the aunt who had given his wife the house and property. She was described as his best friend.
Two days before Christmas, neighbors noted that Mr. Hall was extremely anxious. He was dressed oddly, with a deer-skin vest outside his coat, was talking to himself at the Post Office. He refused to believe he had no mail, and pestered everyone there to check his empty box, to see if they could find whatever he was looking for. He then went to a neighbor's house, and asked if he could stay there for a week? The neighbor agreed he could; Hall asked the same question five times in a row. After a meal, Hall walked home.
He returned the next day, again asking to stay there. This time, though his family doctor had recently died, the late doctor's son -- himself a doctor -- prescribed an unknown medication for "nerves." The only description of Hall's behavior between then and the morning of the murder was when he picked up his wife's aunt at the depot. He was described as filled with joy to see his favorite relative.
He continued taking the medicine, and Christmas passed without incident. On Sunday, he slept several hours later than usual, rising at 10. He then ate breakfast, and decided to warm his axe before splitting wood for the day.
{4} Conclusion
After the crime, Mr. Hall was convinced he had not hit the woman with his axe. He felt no connection to the deed. He even expressed doubt that she had been injured by an axe. He was sure she had simply had "a fit," and would recover.
In jail, Mr. Hall felt bad that anyone would associate him with the crime. A variety of witnesses said that his mood ranged from calm to hyper in jail, but that he consistently denied that he hit the woman.
While preparing for the "lunacy hearing," Mr. Hall was primarily concerned that people would think he was losing control of his mind. The single most important thing, to him, was that people recognize that he was perfectly sane. The only person who thought he might be faking was a sheriff, who had no previous interactions with Mr. Hall.
The court ruled that he "was laboring under such a defect of reason from disease of mind, as not to know the nature and quality of the act he was doing .... and did not know he was doing rong and that he had not a capacity to distinguish between right and wrong at the time..." He was sent to the Insane Asylum at the Auburn State Prison, where his only documented request was to be allowed to return home to complete the raking he planned to do the day of the murder. He died in the fall of 1875.
I hate to think of how this case would be reported on Fox News today. It is, of course, tragic. The violent death of the elderly victim, and the suffering the experience caused the extended family and indeed, the neighborhood, would not be respected by news crews today. Nor, I suspect, would the tragic nature of the mental illness that robbed Hall of his life be viewed with any compassion.
It would, however, be interesting to know what medicine the doctor gave to Mr. Hall. I've looked through his father's "medicine bag," and I wonder if it is possible, even likely, that Mr. Hall had a serious reaction to that medicine.
Obviously, this case is distinct from the minister's wife. Yet it may be helpful for people to look at a distant crime, to see how evaluating the person who commits the crime should be the first step in understanding and appreciating what may have happened.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
