Hello Grthumongous,
Ruth Snyder's trial for the murder of her husband Albert Snyder was a
widely-covered story in New York City in 1927.
Several dozen long, detailed articles about the case were published in
the New York Times between March 20, 1927, the date of Albert Snyder's
death, and May 9, 1927 when Ruth Snyder and her accomplice Henry Judd
Gray were convicted of murder. You may obtain those articles from the
New York Times historical archive (you can read abstracts free by
clicking on each headline) :
http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/nytimes/results.html?st=advanced&QryTxt=%22albert+snyder%22&By=&Title=&datetype=6&frommonth=03&fromday=20&fromyear=1927&tomonth=06&today=01&toyear=1927&restrict=articles&sortby=CHRON
I have access to the New York Times archive, and I've spent the last
few hours reading articles about the case.
Based on what I've read, phrenology does NOT appear to have been a
deciding factor in the case. In fact, I could not find any reference
at all to Dr Edgar Beall or his testimony or phrenology in the New
York Times articles about the case.
Ample "reliable" evidence was presented against Ruth Snyder.
First of all, Ruth Snyder's initial story was that her husband had
been murdered by burglars who had stolen various items of jewelry from
her. However, when the "stolen" jewelry was found hidden under a
mattress in the Snyder home, Mrs Snyder confessed that her story was a
hoax and that she and her "paramour" Henry Judd Gray had strangled her
husband to death in order to collect his life insurance.
When Gray was arrested, he initially denied involvement in the crime,
but he quickly confessed as well and implicated Mrs Snyder in all
aspects of the crime.
At trial, the prosecution introduced evidence that Mrs Snyder had
taken out large life insurance policies on her husband (totally almost
$100,000) and had concealed the policies by keeping the paperwork in a
safety deposit box under her maiden name and "losing" check stubs
after she paid the insurance premiums.
Henry Judd Gray asserted that he and Ruth Snyder were having an affair
and acted together to kill her husband. He claimed that Mrs Snyder had
actually tried to kill her husband several times before, including by
leaving a gas jet on in a room where Albert Snyder was sleeping and by
placing a poisonous tablet in her husband's pill container.
Mrs Snyder conceded quite a bit of the prosecution's case against
her, even essentially admitting that she had let Gray enter the home
with knowledge that he was there to murder her husband, but she
claimed that she had backed out of the scheme at the last minute and
had only gone along with the burglary hoax because she was afraid of
Gray.
Jurors reported that they found Gray's story credible but simply
disbelieved Mrs Snyder.
In short, I can find no evidence to support the idea that phrenology
was the basis of Ruth Snyder's conviction. On the contrary, the New
York Times' reports of the trial indicate that Mrs Snyder's conviction
was the result of: (1) her own admission that she had lied about the
burglary; (2) her initial confession to the crime; (3) her actions
with respect to taking out insurance policies on her husband's life;
and (4) the damning testimony against her by her accomplice.
----------
search strategy:
new york times, archive: 1927, "ruth snyder", "ruth brown snyder", "albert snyder"
I hope this helps. If you have any questions about the case, please
let me know. Thanks. |
