A Murder in Salem
In 1830, a brutal crime in Massachusetts riveted the nation—and inspired the writings of Edgar Allan Poe and Nathaniel Hawthorne
- By E.J. Wagner
- Photographs by Chris Beatrice
- Smithsonian magazine, November 2010, Subscribe
(Page 5 of 7)
The Commonwealth of Massachusetts, it seemed, had been cheated out of an open-and-shut case, unless the state could find a legal basis for putting the other three men on trial. Newspaper reporters descended on Salem from as far away as New York City—ostensibly with the lofty goal of ensuring that justice be achieved. In the words of pioneering journalist James Gordon Bennett, then a correspondent for the New York Courier: “The press is the living jury of the Nation!”
The prosecution in the White case faced a quandary. Not only was there no prior conviction of the principal (due to Richard Crowninshield’s suicide), but Joe Knapp was refusing to testify and uphold his confession. So the prosecution turned to Senator Daniel Webster of Boston, the New Hampshire-born lawyer, lawmaker and future secretary of state, perhaps best remembered for his efforts to hammer out compromises between Northern and Southern states that he believed would forestall civil war.
Webster, then 48, had served several terms in the House of Representatives before being elected to the U.S. Senate in 1827. He was a close friend of such Salem area notables as Stephen White and Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story. Webster’s commanding presence, his dramatic dark coloring and his relentless gaze had earned him the sobriquet “Black Dan.” In the courtroom he was known to be fierce at cross-examination and riveting at summation—“the immortal Daniel,” the New Hampshire Patriot and States Gazette had called him.
Asked by Stephen White to aid prosecutors at the murder trial, Webster was torn. Throughout his lengthy legal career, he had always stood for the defense. A large part of his reputation rested on his passionate oratory on behalf of the accused. Further, his personal connections with the victim’s friends and relatives raised delicate issues of legal ethics.
On the other hand, if he stood by his friends, the favor would someday be repaid. Then there was the handsome fee of $1,000 that Stephen White had discreetly arranged for his services. Webster, a heavy drinker who had a tendency to spend beyond his means and was chronically in debt, agreed to “assist” the prosecution—which meant, of course, that he would lead it.
The accused men had chosen to be tried separately, and the first to come to trial, in August 1830, was Frank Knapp. Interest ran high. Bennett reported that the crowds trying to enter the courtroom to see Webster were “like the tide boiling up on the rocks.” With Richard Crowninshield dead—“There is no refuge from confession but suicide, and suicide is confession,” Webster famously said—Webster’s intent was to establish Frank Knapp as a principal rather than an accessory. Several witnesses testified they had seen a man wearing a “camlet cloak” and a “glazed cap,” such as Frank often wore, late on the night of the murder, on Brown Street, behind the White property. Webster argued that Frank was there to give direct aid to the murderer, and was therefore a prime actor. The defense challenged the witnesses’ identification and scoffed that Frank’s mere presence on Brown Street could have provided vital aid. The jury deliberated for 25 hours before announcing they were deadlocked. The judge declared a mistrial. The case was scheduled to be retried two days later.
The second trial brought debate over the forensic evidence to the fore. In the first trial, only Dr. Johnson had testified. But this time the prosecution included the formal testimony of Dr. Peirson. His dissenting opinion on the autopsy—that there possibly had been two assailants—had been widely read in the Salem Gazette. Now Peirson was being used as an expert witness in an apparent attempt to cast doubt on the theory that Richard Crowninshield had acted alone in the lethal assault upon Joseph White. Webster speculated that Knapp might have delivered the “finishing stroke;” or that the other wounds had been inflicted “from mere wantonness.” Knapp’s defense attorney ridiculed the argument, wondering aloud why Knapp would return to the house to stab a dead body: “Like another Falstaff did he envy the perpetrator the glory of the deed and mean to claim it as his own?”
In the interim between the two trials, the new jury had been exposed to newspaper accounts of the first hearing, as well as to heavy criticism leveled at the previous jury for its failure to convict. Thus encouraged, the second jury listened intently as Webster captivated the courtroom with a dramatic re-creation of the crime: “A healthful old man, to whom sleep was sweet, the first sound slumbers of the night held him in their soft but strong embrace. The assassin enters, through the window already prepared . . . With noiseless foot he paces the lonely hall, half-lighted by the moon; he winds up the ascent of the stairs, and reaches the door of the chamber. Of this, he moves the lock, by soft and continued pressure, till it turns on its hinges without noise; and he enters, and beholds his victim before him....”
Single Page « Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next »
Subscribe now for more of Smithsonian's coverage on history, science and nature.









Comments (10)
i wanna cite dis 4 a project dude!
Posted by Billy on January 16,2013 | 11:55 AM
Was Poe really inspired by this article?
Posted by Dawson Warner on November 15,2012 | 09:30 AM
Actually, crimes in those days were usually reported in a highly inaccurate and sensational fashion. Poe did not feel he had "solved" the Mary Rogers case through newspaper reports--they truly led him astray--but because he claimed to have "inside information." (It's anyone's guess if that was the truth or not.)
Posted by Undine on October 31,2012 | 06:44 PM
wat u kill that man fer.
Posted by Bubba McBillybob Jr. III on April 9,2012 | 02:29 PM
interesting.... wow!
Posted by me on December 14,2010 | 05:54 PM
@ bcarter3 - Well, it isn't a murder mystery, it's a historical piece, and the murderer is a matter of public record. We get a capsule of what happened, and then a detailed article on the event, investigation, trial and its legacy.
I agree this was a great article, which is one I read aloud to my vision-impaired grandmother, who enjoyed it as well.
Posted by Daniel (no relation) Hawthorn on November 26,2010 | 08:42 PM
was such a misterious article, but a pretty good one.. i hope to find next time something relative with korean singers or bands, they could be even more interesting ..
Posted by Milagros on November 11,2010 | 11:07 AM
Indeed, a fascinating story. One can almost taste the times of E.A. Poe and Hawthorne. I think Arthur C. Doyle was familiar with the story too. Modern journalists can learn something from their 19th century forerunners. Crimes were related so accurate in the newspapers of those days, Poe was able to solve the crime of Mary Rogers by reading the papers (so I've been told.)
Try that today.
Roland
Netherlands
Posted by Roland on November 11,2010 | 07:47 AM
Great article but I agree with the above comment; disappointed about the caption!
Posted by Donna on November 10,2010 | 02:09 AM
This is a fascinating and beautifully written story.
But why on earth do you reveal the identity of the murderer in the caption for the illustration at the beginning of the article?
Posted by bcarter3 on October 31,2010 | 03:28 PM