A Study in the Fine Art of Murder. A
STUDY
IN
THE
FINE
ART
OF
515
MURDER.»
BY H. GERALD CHAPÍN.
DE QL'INCEY, in an endeavor to classify murder among' the fine arts only succeeded in establishing a contrary propo sition. There is no art, fine or other wise, in brutally rending soul from body when it is accomplished under such cir cumstances that the exercise of a reason able amount of ingenuity on the part of the detective force will ' result in the discovery of the criminal. Edgar Allan Poe in his "Imp of the Peverse," far more suc cessfully described a well-executed murder than has the eulogist of Williams. Nasdtur, non fit—one is almost tempted to apply the phrase to the homicide. While science, ait, literature have advanced with giant strides, the gentle art of disencumbering oneself of those inconvenient individuals whose sole mission in life appears to be the obstructing of our road to happiness, has decidedly retrograded since the days of the Borgias, or at the best, remained stationary. Just why it should take an exceptionally brilliant man to perpetrate an undetected murder, a thing which at first blush must be looked upon as comparatively easy of accomplishment, is somewhat of a mystery until we study more closely the psychology of the criminal. True it is that the individual of intelligence far above the average, in committing this crime,
is almost certain to perpetrate me most puerile errors of judgment. While these propositions are applicable to the subject of murder in general, they are peculiarly true of what is probably the great est insurance fraud ever perpetrated, a crime with the details of which the press teemed but a comparatively short time ago. The affair was considerably more than a ninedays wonder, though, like most matters of its kind, it has now somewhat faded from public recollection. The case of the Com monwealth of Pennsylvania v. Herman W. Mudgett, alias H. H. Holmes, is, however, of far too interesting a character to permit of its being consigned to oblivion. At the time of his trial, Mudgett, or Holmes, as we prefer to call him (for by the latter name he has been generally known), was in the neighborhood of thirty-five years. There was nothing particularly distinctive in his appearance1, though a follower of the Italian school would no doubt be able to point out many traits of physiognomy peculiar to the instinctive criminal; but then while the world owes much to Lombroso, as the true father of the science of criminal anthropology, his most fervent admirers are compelled to admit the existence of a tem perament far too ready to draw conclusions of a nature somewhat a priori. Undoubtedly a composite photograph of a number of criminals w:ill reveal a certain similarity of type. A glance, however, at the picture of one whose face is absolutely normal or very nearly so (as is that of "Ian Maclaren") will
- In presenting this analysis of the notorious Holmes
case, the author desires to express his deep appreciation of the courtesy of Thomas W. Barlow, Esq., of the Philadelphia Bar, who appeared as Special Assistant District Attorney at the trial. To the careful prepara tions of Mr. Barlow, was due in large measure the secur ing of a verdict of conviction and it is certain that with out his valuable assistance, cheerfully given, this article could only have been written under great difficulty.
1 " Holmes was a man of moderate education," wrote Mr. Barlow in a letter to the author. " He was not a college graduate, neither would either you or I call him very refined in his deportment. He was not a gentleman as the word is generally understood, though he was par ticularly anxious to be considered one. He was free from outward evidences of vulgarity. In all my interviews with him, I never heard him use a vulgar or a profane word and his voice was singularly mild."
"That was a strange story, gentlemen. If you and I had read it in fiction, we would say, perhaps, that the novelist had overdrawn or overstated the facts; that he had overdrawn the story and made it stronger than our imagination or fancy could toler ate."— Address of Hon. George S. Graham, District Attorney.
