Tag Archive for Virginia

The Mayor Pays His Debt

Samuel McCue

The citizens of Charlottesville harbored a love-hate relationship with their former mayor and municipal court judge J. Samuel McCue. While Sam did have friends and admirers, for the most part local feelings tended toward an intense and passionate dislike.
In 1904, Samuel McCue, 45, was a ruthlessly successful attorney in Virginia specializing in debt collection and domestic relations cases. He had been a powerful mayor for three terms and sat on the bench of the municipal court where he was known for his unyielding tough-on-crime stance.
Gossips around the courthouse were convinced that Sam had the largest loan portfolio of any member of the county bar association, but some clients suspected he was financing his sideline business with their money in the form of collected, but undeclared, debt payments. One published account reflected the commonly held belief that Sam’s professional duties provided him with a hold over some of the community’s leading citizens who might have over-extended themselves financially, legally or romantically.
Lesser known generally, but also a dangerous activity on his part, Sam was a philanderer.
Any of these actions makes accumulation of enemies almost a certainty.
After his execution, the Bluefield (Maryland) Daily Telegraph — perhaps the only newspaper in the area that did not support the verdict — speculated that Sam’s reputation had more than a little to do with his conviction.
“There was another thing that worked to his undoing. He was a man of overbearing disposition, and hated the poor and the humble with lofty disdain and frequently with insulting demeanor,” an editorial in the newspaper read. “When the first breath of suspicion came, these people fanned it into a flame.”
The Daily Telegraph did not comment on the fact that the jurors were brought in from various locations around the state — Fredericksburg, Petersburg, Warrenton and Richmond) and were unaffected by the local mood immediately after the crime.
In the end, Sam reaped the same kind of justice that he sowed after he killed his 42-year-old wife, Fanny, in a violent frenzy. For his crime he died on the gallows in February 1905.
At the turn of the 20th century, the McCue clan — Sam, along with his brothers Judge Edward O. McCue and Dr. Frank McCue and various kin created by decades of marriages among the elite — was among Albermarle County’s leading families.
“The McCues have always been prominent in Albermarle, exhibiting on all occasions positive and masterful dispositions in the conduct of their affairs,” according to The McCue Murder: Complete story of the crime and the famous trial published by reporters James H. Lindsay and John S. Patton shortly after the case reached its conclusion.
According to the book — a pamphlet, really — the McCue family fortune came from its large farming and cattle operation. Sam McCue was educated on the farm by a private tutor, later entering a prep school which led to a study of the law at nearby University of Virginia.
Sam maintained at best a gentleman’s C average until he left school to learn the law directly from those who practiced it, Lindsay and Patton wrote.

It is not likely that he took to books from a love of letters, but with the well-defined purpose to make use of his attainments as an asset in getting along in the world. The sparkling of the cadmean waters did not tempt him to deep and frequent draughts, and when he hung out his shingle as a young lawyer in 1884, his academic achievements and legal attainments were probably unattested by parchments.

Diplomas or not, Sam quickly established himself as an aggressive and skilled legal collections enforcer for local businesses. One client said “I turned over to him accounts I failed to collect, no matter how urgently I sought payment. Invariably, Sam McCue got the money.”
Those who were pursued by McCue cursed his name and sang a ditty that summarized their feelings: “Maunfra, maunfra, what’ll I do/To keep out o’ the hands of Sam McCue.
The attorney entered politics and was elected alderman in 1888, serving in that position until 1894. His first run for the mayoralty resulted in a third-place finish but Sam’s second try was successful. After he defeated the incumbent who had trounced him previously rumors of Sam’s stranglehold over some of the town fathers began to surface.
He served two terms as mayor and Sam’s draconian presence on the municipal bench drove the citizens to change the city charter. They established a city police court with an elected judge and stripped the mayor of all judicial duties.
Despite being the sole cause of its creation, Sam chose to seek the newly created judgeship rather than a third term as mayor. In that race Sam faced off against his brother who, to the surprise of no one but the now ex-mayor, beat him handily.
Based on the character sketch of Judge Edward McCue in The McCue Murder, it is easy to see why voters chose Edward over Sam:
“Samuel McCue had been a hard man,” wrote one contemporary reporter summarizing Sam’s murder case. “He had sent scores to jail, and had seldom tempered justice with clemency. Many who were the recipients of his justice insisted that the quality of his mercy was badly strained.”
Regarding Edward, the authors had high praise.
“It is no exaggeration to say that there has never been a better administrator of justice in any petty court than Justice McCue,” said the authors. “Even the people whom he convicts love him for his moderation and just findings.”
In 1902 Sam was reelected to the mayor’s office. When Fannie was killed, he had just retired from that position to concentrate on his private practice and his position as deacon of the local Presbyterian church.

The Crime

Fannie McCueThe crime that put the noose around Sam’s neck began after he and Fannie returned home from a Sunday night service at the Presbyterian Church where Sam was a deacon.
“The McCues were a church-going people,” a retrospective on the crime published the day after the ex-mayor’s execution the Harrisburg (Virginia) Daily News reported. “Deacon McCue invariably sat well to the front in the sacred auditorium, and Mrs. McCue, always looking trim, sat primly at his side.”
Later, witness after witness would recount how the McCues appeared to be quarreling and did not, as was their custom, walk to their pew together. Sam explained this away as a red herring caused by an ill-timed bathroom break on his part.
Following the service the husband and his wife of nearly 20 years walked home together in silence.
“Mrs. McCue’s manner, as afterward testified to in court, appeared depressed and preoccupied, failing to observe or respond to the greetings of friends who they passed on the way,” the The Daily News told its readers.
It was only a few minutes after the couple entered their home and closed the door that Dr. Frank McCue came running to the house clutching his medical bag and a pistol. Charlottesville beat cop Daniel C. Grady was close behind him. Something was very wrong behind the doors of the mansion on Park Street.
There were plenty of people strolling down the exclusive thoroughfare where the McCues lived, and many, alerted by the hubbub, turned from walkers to gawkers.
“In a few minutes a piece of news — startling, horrifying news — spread with the rapidity with which bad news alone seems to travel,” according to one contemporary report. “Crowds hurried to the McCue home to learn the worst, and how it had happened.”
The worst was the brutal murder of Fannie McCue; how it had happened was proven in court to have been at the hands of ex-Mayor Sam McCue. The “why” — motive — was disagreement over Sam’s infidelities.
Exactly what transpired in the upstairs of the McCue home on September 4, 1904, that led to Fannie’s death is unclear; Sam gave a number of statements that were variations on a theme, but with enough differences regarding important details that make deconstructing the events connected to the crime difficult.
Other witnesses gave strong statements that incriminated the ex-mayor but later recanted them on the stand.
Sam’s testimony at the Coroner’s Inquest was the only version of events he gave under oath. It is not too lengthy, the relevant parts are included here, and — as Sam admitted later in the shadow of the noose — is a complete fabrication.
It begins with the couple in their bedroom, preparing for bed.

I picked up a paper, reading the last Council proceedings, and I think Mrs. McCue was undressing in the meantime and talking about the affair. She laid her clothes on a chair. I had gone over to my chiffonier and took my coat off and my collar and negligee shirt.
I was standing at my buffet and I noticed some figure moving toward me. I think I rushed over towards the gun which stands in the corner — we keep it there — and that is all I remember. I think I must have been unconscious after that. He and I had a scuffle. I am pretty positive he was a white man, a kind of dirty white man. I think his beard was out a little.
…I could not say which door he came through, for my back must have been to the door. It seems to me I heard a sound, when he came in, some sound of a click like. I do not know how long after this sound before he came in.
I do not know if he had anything in his hand, but possibly he did.

mccue home mapDr. McCue testified at the inquest and his brother’s trial about what he found when he reached his brother’s home.
He said he received a call from his brother about 9:15 p.m.
“Come down here,” the doctor remembers his brother saying. “Someone has knocked me senseless and I think has murdered Fannie.”
When Dr. McCue got to the scene, he found that Sam was “dazed and could not give a good account of himself.”
“Arriving, I found the front door ajar and went directly upstairs,” he testified at trial. “I saw my brother’s wound when I got to the hall, blood was dripping to his undershirt. One hand was pressed to his head.”
Dr. McCue said his brother was incapable of providing any assistance due to his head wound.
“Go on. Go and find Fannie,” Sam told his brother. “Go and find Fannie.” Sam pushed his brother in the back toward the stairs.
Entering the second floor, Dr. McCue said he smelled the odor of burnt gunpowder and heard the sound of running water from the bathroom.
The bathroom was dark; he turned up a gas burner and in the flickering light he saw Fannie McCue dressed in a nightgown, bent backward over the tub. Her head was submerged. The running water had washed away most of the blood from Fannie’s body and diluted some of the blood stains on her gown, but there was a great deal of blood ringing the tub. A bloody baseball bat lay on the floor of the bathroom.

Wounds, Fatal and Otherwise

Dr. McCue was quickly joined by two other physicians, Charles S. Venable and Emmett Early, who removed Fannie’s body from the tub and carried it to her bedroom.
Venable and Early examined the dead woman’s wounds. It was clear that the struggle had been violent.
The lace at the collar of her nightgown was torn away. Her right ear had been struck with a blunt instrument — presumably the bat — hard enough that it split her outer ear in half. She suffered a small laceration on her nose, which Venable said had bled profusely. One of her fingernails was bent nearly at a 90-degree angle, evidence Fannie fought with her killer.
The doctors agreed that at least one wound was inflicted post-mortem.
“The third wound was a small transverse wound on the back of the head, but it gave out little blood,” Venable said in testimony confirmed by Early. “I concluded that that wound happened afterwards. I believe it would be produced by falling with her head back and hitting the bath tub.”
But neither the head wound nor submersion in the tub was the cause of death. That came from a shotgun fired at close range.
“There were powder marks right in the wound; it was black,” Venable testified at trial. “Leather wadding was taken from the spinal column.”
The examination revealed the shot had gone downward and front to back, the pellets destroying several ribs, which in turn stopped them from passing completely through her body.
“There was a great deal of disorganized blood in the cavity,” Venable said. “We turned the corpse over, which caused blood to pour out.”
The consensus among physicians was that Fannie could not have been shot and been able to get to the tub afterwards.
“Death from a gunshot wound like Mrs. McCue would result almost instantaneously,” Early testified. “The person would drop in his tracks after receiving such an injury.”
Dr. McCue was the only one of four physicians who testified about a wound on Sam’s cheek who said he saw it bleeding. His story, however, changed from the inquest to the trial with Dr. McCue increasing the severity of the wounds. At the inquest Dr. McCue referred to the wound on his brother’s cheek as bleeding. At trial, however, he testified that he “saw his nose was bleeding. Blood was oozing from his nose; I saw it. After any injury to the head we often look for bleeding from the nose. It is one of the symptoms we carefully observe.”
Another doctor who examined Sam the day after the murder said the wound was not serious.
“I have most frequently seen it on football players who have been scraped on the ground,” said Venable. “I don’t think the wound on McCue’s face was such a one as would indicate an injury sufficient to cause unconsciousness.”
The fourth doctor who saw Sam at the crime scene gave a much different account of the wound.
“I saw what seemed to be a scratch on Mr. McCue’s right cheek bone,” said Dr. Hugh T. Nelson. “The wound seemed to be very slight. It was like a child had scraped his knee on the ground.”
He soundly rejected Dr. McCue’s belief that it was an assailant carrying a sand-filled cosh who killed Fannie and rendered Sam unconscious. Unlike Dr. McCue, Nelson had seen injuries caused by blackjacks.
“A blow on the cheek to have produced unconsciousness would have produced discoloration and a ‘puffing up,'” he said. “Unless done with the fist, it would almost certainly have fractured the jaw bone. It probably would have caused some vomiting and would have a tendency to make the pulse slow.”
Sam failed to exhibit any symptoms of a closed-head injury in the time following the murder.

A Possible Fall Guy?

While the doctors were examining Fanny’s corpse, Officer Grady was searching the house for evidence. What he saw did not provide much support for Sam McCue’s version of events.
Grady found no signs of a struggle in any room, and no evidence of a crime anywhere except in the bathroom. A blood-stained baseball bat was on the floor near the corpse, and McCue’s shotgun, a Winchester pump, was found outside the bathroom door, an empty shell with No. 6 birdshot still chambered.
Briefly burglary was considered the motive, but that was quickly discarded. Nothing was taken from the home, it was early in the evening on a Sunday and was still light out. Only the most foolhardy thief would have committed a break-in under those circumstances.
One scenario that did interest investigators was the chance that one of the ex-mayor’s many enemies came to collect a debt of his own.
In short order two witnesses came forward with information that around the time of the murder a white man ran up to the home occupied by Judge Edward McCue and knocked violently on the front door. The man waited about 30 seconds then ran across the street to Sam’s house.
“The few minutes which elapsed between this incident and the announcement of the crime at Sam McCue’s may have been sufficient for the accomplishment of the tragedy,” reported the Daily News.
Although never conclusively shown, the state’s theory is that the witnesses saw another concerned citizen alerting Judge McCue to the events across the street. No one ever identified the man or came forward to acknowledge the act.
Owing to his position on the bench and his brother’s time as judge, Edward McCue theorized that someone who previously appeared in dock came to settle accounts.
“(The judge) had in mind a man whom he and his brother had caused to be punished more than once for misdemeanors, and it was understood that this man was very resentful toward them,” read the article in the Daily News. “His brother’s description of the man who assaulted him fitted this one as well as any other.”
Edward theorized that the man — Leslie Marshall — planned to eliminate the two McCue brothers “in one grand performance.”
Marshall recently appeared before Judge McCue and was punished for public drunkenness. The crime not only resulted in a fine, but because Marshall violated an order “to be on good behavior” handed down by Sam McCue when he was municipal court judge, Marshall forfeited a bond.
Beyond his ill feelings toward the McCue brothers, Marshall had a strong reason to hate the ex-mayor with a vengeance: Sam McCue was not only the divorce lawyer for Marshall’s wife 22-year-old Hattie, Sam and his client were lovers.
But it would have been nigh impossible for Leslie Marshall to have a better alibi for the time of Fannie’s murder: He was in church with his mother.
“Well for him that he had an alibi so easily and perfectly established,” an anonymous wire service reporter wrote. “If he had been arrested and brought to Charlottesville charged with the murder of Mrs. McCue he would have been in grave danger, even if he had not been lynched.”
Marshall struck back against his accusers by sharing his own theory of the crime — or at least his potential involvement in it.
“He did not hesitate to charge that there was a conspiracy in which (his) wife was involved to connect him with the crime — and that the conspiracy antedated the murder by at least two days,” read a wire story in the Burlington (Iowa) Evening Gazette
Hattie MarshallHattie Marshall filed for divorce in August and moved from the family home in Earleysville, a town about 10 miles from Charlottesville, where she took up residence.
Speaking to reporters who smelled a story, Leslie Marshall said two days before the crime Hattie sent him a “long gossipy and affectionate letter” urging him to come to her on Monday morning — the morning after the murder.
“I wish you could arrange it so you could come to town Monday,” she wrote. “I will give you money to pay your way to Proffitt’s (the railway station closest to Earleysville). If you could come early Monday morning and go back Monday eve, that would be the very thing.”
Despite his hopes that Hattie wanted to reconcile, Marshall was unable to make it to Charlottesville on Monday, appearing there on Tuesday. He was disappointed by the reception.
A wire story that received play across the country, reported that “his wife received him coldly, he said, and refused to make up.”
According to the article, when Marshall questioned his soon-to-be ex-wife why she summoned him, her response was chilling.
“Her reply was that for a few hours after the murder he was under suspicion and she wanted him to come clear himself. ‘How was it, then, that you wrote to me before the crime?’ was his next question, the answer to which was not reported.”
It should be noted that the Marshalls were involved in a most-contentious child custody issue, with Leslie attempting to get custody of two of the couple’s three children. To the youngest he denied paternity and wanted nothing to do with it. Once the investigation zeroed-in on Sam McCue, the theory that there was any kind of murder plot involving Marshall as the fall-guy was not pursued.
Hattie strongly repudiated any improper relationship with her divorce lawyer, although evidence introduced at his trial indicated they had a rendezvous in Washington, D.C., over Thursday, Friday and Saturday before the murder. It was apparently the second time Fannie confronted her husband over this particular infidelity. The first was shortly before her murder when she said she “found him locked in with another woman, and when he came to the door he looked ‘sheepish,'” was how her brother recalled the incident.
Letters Hattie sent to Sam while he was awaiting trial show that their relationship was intimate, but there was never any indication she was a participant in the crime.
When the evidence failed to support the revenge theory, Sam McCue became the primary suspect.
He was arrested for the crime the day after his wife’s funeral. Sam’s brother recused himself from the bench when the police applied for the arrest warrant, so he would not have to sign it.

A Perfect Hell

For those in the McCue inner circle — particularly those from Fannie’s family — the crime almost came as no surprise given the terrible state of the marriage.
Sam McCue, much of the testimony at the murder trial revealed, was as tough on his wife as he was on debtors. One witness called for the defense admitted on cross-examination that Sam McCue recently told him his domestic life was not a happy one.
“‘My life here on Earth for the past four or five years has been a perfect hell,'” quoted lawyer John S. White, who had worked with Sam McCue on legal issues. White recalled Sam said Fannie was “the most jealous woman I had ever known.”
Her brother, Ernest Crawford, also an attorney, boarded at the McCue home between 1899 and 1901 and testified that “It was the most unhappy couple I ever saw.”
“The quarrels were always about other women,” he testified. “I never saw him kick or strike her, but have heard him curse her in the most violent manner repeatedly.”
Willie McCue, 17, one of the four McCue children, reportedly said his parents fought viciously. To police investigators and before the Coroner’s jury, Willie not only confirmed what his parents fought, but said near-homicidal violence had occurred in his presence.
“For the past three or four years it has been a perfect hell on earth,” Willie said. “My father and mother lived like cats and dogs.”
Willie told Detective Alfred Baldwin that he recently had to protect his mother from an enraged Sam who was chasing her with a pistol. He said that his father threatened his life when he became involved.
N.R. Martin, a jailer, testified to to a conversation he overheard between Willie and his father about the event.
“You know what Crawford said about my drawing a pistol on your mother is not true,” Sam said.
“Yes it is,” Martin recalls Willie as responding. “You know she ran and got in my bed and asked me to defend her.”
“Didn’t Mrs. McCue have the pistol?” Sam asked.
“How could she have had the pistol when she ran and got in bed with me?” Willie retorted.
Willie made his claims in sworn testimony, as well as in repeated interviews with police, conversations with relatives on both sides of the family and in multiple letters to his maternal aunt, and was considered so reliable that he was included on the prosecution’s list of witnesses.
In a letter to his maternal aunt Willie described his position.


Aunt Sallie, I am fighting one of the greatest battles now. I am among all my father’s people, and they, of course, wonder why I took such a step in this case, but I am going to do what I think is right…I will never be in worse trouble than this. I cannot sleep, and when I go to bed and wake up with the same trouble, I feel as though I cannot stand it.

On the stand during his father’s trial, however, Willie recanted what he could and denied what he couldn’t. When confronted with claims of other witnesses that he talked of the bad state of affairs between his parents, Willie simply said over and over: “No. I deny it emphatically.”
“Verily, it was a case of the quick or the dead! And the quick was the winner,” according to a report the day after Willie’s trial testimony. The writer waxed eloquently about his motivation for changing his story.

Mayhap the memory of the unhappy woman, upon whose grave the flowers hardly yet have withered, still touch the heart of the son, who was wildly hysterical on the night she perished by an assassin’s hand. And mayhap he will never forget the wretched but tender little woman who one ran to him, then a mere stripling, for protection from her husband. But the living are even stronger than the dead; the present from the absent. Not ten feet from the witness chair where young William sat gleamed the metallic blue eyes of his father, boring into the very heart of the son like an augur of steel. Those cold blue eyes have subdued others. Yesterday they subdued young William McCue.

Because Willie was considered a hostile witness, the prosecution was allowed to impeach his testimony.
“On 14 important matters he was been contradicted by independent witnesses. I do not count the detectives,” said Col. Micah Woods, one of the prosecution team in his summation. Woods accused the McCue clan of exerting undue influence on the boy.
“He perhaps was told that his father was standing on the scaffold near the trap door, and that if he were to repeat what he told…he would spring the trap and would send his father to his death,” Woods orated. “I think that what he may have done in this case should provoke sorrow and pity rather than abuse and vituperation.”

Witnesses Tell What They Know

But the prosecution had other witnesses who could and would share what they saw and heard on the night of the murder.
The first witness was coachman Charles A. Skinner, who was employed by a neighbor of the McCues and whose room was close enough to their house to hear crying and screaming around the time of Fannie’s murder.
Skinner said the screaming went on for several minutes until he heard a single gunshot. Watching from his window that overlooked the McCues’, Skinner saw Dr. McCue and Officer Grady arrive on the scene.
More important to the prosecution’s case was the testimony of 17-year-old John Perry, a houseboy in the McCue home.
On the night of the murder Perry, whose room was adjacent to the bathroom, testified that he heard Fannie being beaten, and fleeing to the bathroom, begging for her life until the fatal shot was fired. On the stand, like Willie McCue, Perry was loathe to convict his boss. He changed his testimony between the inquest and the trial, backing away from his earlier statements that Fanny had been begging Sam not to kill her.
At the trial, Perry denied telling detectives that he heard Fannie from the bathroom say, “Oh, Sam, Sam, don’t kill me. I am going to die anyhow.”
Instead, Perry claimed he told the police she said: “Sam, Sam, he is killing me!”
Although Perry could hear the assault, he was powerless to help — the servants’ quarters door to the second floor of the house was always locked. The servants were expected to use the back stairs which led to the kitchen.
The prosecution explained away the servant’s recantation by positing that Perry, was a black man concerned for his position with the McCues, and so denied he ever implicated his employer.
The prosecutors introduced a written statement from Willie McCue drafted the morning after the murder — before Willie had a change of heart — where Perry provided a more detailed version of events.

I said “John, I want you to tell me just what you heard.” The first thing he said was “You know last night I was afraid to tell those gentlemen on Mr. McCue. I heard him slap her first because I got up and put my head out the window. Then it sounded like he was hitting her and thumping. Then I head him choke her and heard her like she was strangled. She said, “Sam, you out not to treat me like this. I promise not to do it again.”

The only physical evidence indicating that Sam had been involved in any crime was his wet shirt that bore signs of diluted blood on the cuffs. The blood was perhaps the most important clue because Sam claimed from the beginning that he had not seen Fanny after he regained consciousness. Sam never touched Fannie’s corpse or the bathtub, in fact, he never went into that room during the post-crime investigation. Thus, blood could only have gotten there because Sam was the killer, the prosecution argued.
The shirt was taken by Dr. McCue and placed in the laundry. It was rescued before it was washed, and Dr. McCue denied that he was trying to hide it.
A baseball bat covered in blood was assumed to be the weapon that Sam used to beat his wife to the point where her ear was nearly severed. There was some testimony that the day following the murder Fannie’s throat showed signs of strangulation, but there was no proof that the marks on her neck were put there by the killer — the discoloration may have been caused by her submersion in water or were simply signs of decomposition. On the other hand, strangulation marks on her neck could account for the wet, bloody cuffs on Sam’s shirt.
Some of the most interesting rhetoric was reserved for the summation of lead defense attorney John L. Lee, who compared Fannie McCue’s murder to Jesus’ crucifixion.

Gentlemen, what was the most important event in all the history of the world? Was it not the scene enacted upon Calvary, when Jesus Christ, the Savior of mankind, gave up his life for humanity…I trust that you will receive what I saw with reverence for this Holy Book upon which you have already taken your oath. The life and liberty of a man is at stake, and only in this crisis do I venture to use the inspired words to save him.
Now, gentlemen of the jury, are you prepared to say that the main fact of the crucifixion did not occur because four different accounts of it, written by the saints themselves, differ — and differ radically?

His eloquence in trying to make McCue into a martyr was unsuccessful. After enough time to make it look like they were seriously deliberating, jurors convicted Sam McCue for the murder of his wife. He was sentenced to hang.
After the sentencing was over and the jury had been dismissed, one juror approached Sam and extended his hand.
“You have done me a great injustice,” Sam said.
“That rested with you,” said John A. Traylor of Richmond. “I did my duty as I saw it.”

A Debt is Settled

After two unsuccessful appeals and fruitless request for clemency from an old political comrade, McCue resolved himself to his fate. He became quite religious and eventually confessed to his crime. Publicly, Sam’s confession sought to put the blame on some unnamed “evil power” for the crime and and he denied that anyone else was involved.
Three of his ministers released a statement that McCue “did not wish to leave this world with suspicion resting on any human being but himself. That he alone was responsible for the deed, impelled by an evil power beyond his control; and that he recognized that his sentence was just.”
Privately, Sam confessed that he and Fannie started arguing after his return from Washington and that she had picked up again while they were changing for bed.
Enraged, he struck Fanny in the face and she responded in kind, giving him a slight raspberry on the cheek. They began fighting violently.
She picked up the baseball bat which she brought into the house for protection. He wrestled it from her and began beating her with it. She fled to the bathroom where she had been running water for her bath. Sam followed her, exchanging the bat for his shotgun.
As Fanny knelt on the bathroom floor and pleaded for mercy, Sam pointed the shotgun at his wife and pulled the trigger. The force of the shot pushed her back into the tub. He did not address the issue, but the theory is that Sam’s shirt got wet and covered with blood as he attempted to strangle or drown her before using the shotgun.
He then attempted to cover up the crime with a burglary claim, later changed to a killing motivated by revenge.
At dawn on February 10, 1905, a calm and composed ex-Mayor Sam McCue ascended the gallows and paid his debt to society in full.

Jigsaw Puzzle

Building a criminal case when the only evidence is circumstantial is much like trying to solve a jigsaw puzzle with only a vague outline of what the final picture is supposed to look like. Unlike direct evidence, which expressly proves the existence of a fact, circumstantial evidence requires the jury to infer other facts that can reasonably expected to follow. For example, a person’s internet search history looking for information on poisons (as mine often does) could be considered a link in a chain that ties the murderer to the victim. There is no direct proof, but when examined with the totality of facts, it makes perfect sense.
In the case of Charles Stamper many different pieces of circumstantial evidence combined to create a complete picture in the minds of the jury that convicted him of three counts of murder and sentenced him to death. Despite the absence of any direct evidence linking Stamper to the cold-blooded killing of three restaurant workers, the Henrico County, Virginia, police and prosecutors collected sufficient clues that left no doubt that Stamper was the person responsible for their deaths.
For his crimes, Stamper was executed in 1993 after spending 14 years on death row. Seriously injured in a fight while he was in prison and left partially paralyzed, Stamper created a stir in the weeks leading up to his execution when his attorneys argued that he should not be executed because, as a paraplegic, he did not represent a threat to society.
That plea failed to carry any weight with Governor Douglas Wilder — and angered many in the disabled community who considered it condescending and insulting. It also turned out to be a specious argument when it came to light that Stamper wasn’t as disabled as he claimed.
It was a Saturday morning in March 1978 when Richard Wren, a short-order cook showed up for work at a Shoney’s Restaurant in Richmond. Expecting to be greeted by the restaurant’s overnight custodian Franklin Cooley and morning manager Steven Staples, Wren instead came across a horrific crime scene.
The front door to the restaurant was locked, but the glass had been broken — from the inside. Staples was the only person on the opening shift who had a key, so Wren climbed through the opening in the door and entered the restaurant. He found the bodies of Staples, Cooley and morning shift waitress Agnes Hicks in the cooler. They all had been shot.
Staples and Hicks were dead at the scene and Cooley died several hours later at the hospital without regaining consciousness.
The safe, which had contained $4,500 the night before, was opened and only a few coins remained inside.
Autopsies revealed that all of the victims had been killed by shots fired by a .22-caliber pistol. Gunshot residue on the bodies showed that the shots had been fired from close range. The fatal shots were a mixture of copper-jacketed and plain lead bullets. Staples, the only person present at the scene who knew the combination to the safe, had also been struck on the head by a blunt object.
The police quickly surmised that the robbery-homicide was perpetrated by someone with inside knowledge of the scene and routine at the restaurant. Employing one of the first rules of criminal investigation — that the simplest solution is often the correct one — they started their probe by questioning Shoney’s employees.
When they looked at Stamper, red flags were everywhere. Like Wren, Stamper was a cook at Shoney’s earning $3 per hour. He worked Monday through Friday, 6:30 a.m. to 2 p.m. Stamper recently submitted his resignation to another manager. At the time he told her he was leaving because he was in debt and needed a job that paid better.
Although he was not scheduled to work that Saturday morning, witnesses described seeing a car similar to Stamper’s in the employee parking area of the restaurant between 5:30 a.m. and 5:50 a.m. When he was questioned by police, Stamper claimed to have been asleep at home at the time.
Police looked at Stamper’s finances and uncovered some suspicious behavior that showed Stamper had suddenly become flush with cash and was settling some debts. Stamper had been given notice to quit by his landlord because he was behind on his rent. On March 30, he paid his back rent. On March 8, 1978, a local jewelry store received a civil judgment against Stamper. On April 5, Stamper paid off the judgment, paid $100 as down payment on a $180 watch and cosigned a $395 note for a friend. On March 28, he visited a local car dealer and discussed buying a 1972 Lincoln for $3,500. He told the dealer that he had $1,500 to put down on the purchase.
Before he officially became a suspect, Stamper, like all other employees at the restaurant, was asked to come to the police station for an interview. He drove himself to the police station and while he was inside, an officer looking at Stamper’s locked car observed glass particles on the floor board.
Stamper consented to a search of the car and police collected the glass shards. Without explaining the presence of the glass, Stamper told police he and his wife had gone to a party on the evening of March 24, and then watched television before retiring. His wife, who was almost 8 months pregnant at the time of killings, corroborated his story.
A forensic glass analyst tested the glass found in Stamper’s car. Of the 36 shards found, 20 percent matched, in optical properties, the glass from the front door of the restaurant. The glass in the Shoney’s restaurant — according to court testimony — was comparable with just 4 to 5 percent of all glass made.
“The expert who examined the glass could not, however, say with certainty that the glass found in the car was the same glass contained in the door because of the limited number of tests the small sample size allowed him to run,” the Virginia Supreme Court wrote in summing up the evidence against Stamper.
On May 13, 1978, a set of keys belonging to Staples was found in woods near the home of Stamper’s parents. Police discovered that the keys fit the 1969 Ford that Staples had borrowed from his brother to drive to the restaurant the day he was killed.
In October, a rusty .22-caliber pistol was found in the same area. There were two copper-jacketed bullets and two plain lead slugs in the pistol. The weapon was linked to the Shoney’s killing by a ballistics expert based on the fact that the four fired cartridges in the gun matched the type of bullets in the victims.
Based on the evidence, Stamper was arrested and placed on trial for the three killings.
The prosecution used the circumstantial evidence to paint this picture of the triple homicide:
Stamper, heavily in debt, decided to rob the restaurant where he worked. He knew the best time to rob the restaurant was in the morning before the place opened for business. Although he was not scheduled to work, Stamper showed up before the restaurant opened and used some kind of excuse to get Staples to admit him. Staples then relocked the front door. Cooley, the custodian, and Hicks, the waitress were already at work, preparing for the day. Stamper forced them into the cooler then forced Staples to open the safe, beating him with a blunt object in order to get him to comply. After Staples opened the safe, Stamper shot and killed him because he could identify him as the robber. He then shot Cooley and Hicks.
In his haste to escape, Stamper grabbed one of two sets of keys on Staples’s body, mistaking his car keys for the store keys. When he got to the front door he realized his mistake and rather than go back to find the right key ring — or use the fire exit (which would sound the fire alarm) — he broke the glass and crawled out through the hole. On exiting through the broken glass, Stamper proved Locard’s Principle (which can be read over to the right). Unconsciously, he took with him from the crime scene tiny shards of glass that could only be found at the crime scene.
Sometime on that Saturday, Stamper went to his parents house where his car had been seen on the day of the murder and disposed of Staples’s keys and the murder weapon.
“In the instant action there is an abundance of circumstances from which reasonable inferences can be drawn to lead a rational trier of fact to the conclusion that Stamper was involved in these crimes,” was how the Virginia Supreme Court summed up its decision to uphold the verdict and sentence. For Stamper that was the end of the road except for perfunctory federal court orders that rejected all subsequent requests for review without comment.