justice in heaven - murderpedia · 2012. 7. 10. · justice in heaven the trial of ann bilansky...

J U S T I C EI N H E AV E N

The Trial of Ann Bilansky

Ramsey County courthouse, site of the 1859 trial of Ann Bilanksy, accused of murdering her husband

On March 23, 1860, Sheriff Aaron W. Tullis led 40-year-old Ann Bilansky, convicted of

killing her husband with arsenic, from her cell in St. Paul’s Ramsey County Jail. Bilansky

and 22 others, including clergy, jail officials, and several “gentlemen” brought there by

morbid curiosity, marched to the gallows hastily erected in Court House Square at the

M AT T H E W C E C I L

MN History Text 55/8 8/20/07 12:02 PM Page 350

MH 55-8 Winter 97-98.pdf 20MH 55-8 Winter 97-98.pdf 20 8/20/07 12:31:35 PM8/20/07 12:31:35 PM

corner of Fifth and Cedar Streets. After fiveminutes of prayer on the steps of the platform,Bilansky moved up to the drop, where shedeclared,“I die without having had any mercyshown me, or justice. I die for the good of mysoul, and not for murder. . . . Your courts of jus-tice are not courts of justice—but I will yet getjustice in Heaven.”1

A black cloth bag was placed over Bilansky’shead to cover her face, and the noose wasslipped around her neck. Tullis released thedrop, and the rope went taut as Bilansky’s bodyfell four feet, twitched once, and then was still.Perhaps 100 people watched from inside thecourtyard, while others peered out of office win-dows in the jail building. Thousands more hadgathered outside a fence erected to provide pri-vacy. The body was left hanging for 20 minutes.

In 1903 Nicholas Pottgeiser recalled thescene. “I was determined to see that hanging,and when I failed to get on the inside, I pusheda large knot out of one of the boards in thefence and seated on a barrel I took it all in; butI don’t know as I would care to see anotherone,” he told the St. Paul Globe. “I can see thatwoman yet, as she looked when brought fromthe jail and marched to the gallows.” GovernorAlexander Ramsey, who had refused to com-mute the death sentence despite receivingmany petitions for mercy, recorded the event ina matter-of-fact diary entry: “Mrs. Anna Bilanski[sic] for the murder of her husband in March1859 was executed.”2

By 1860 St. Paul, the setting for this drama,was a bustling city of 10,000, the capital ofMinnesota, the state’s largest community, andhome to its biggest newspapers, the first dailies.Connected to the rest of the world to the southand east by steamboats, the city was quiet andisolated for five or six months each year whenthe Mississippi River was frozen. The Bilanskycase, with its sensational details, was frequentlythe leading story in the city broadsheets, mostprominently editor Earle S. Goodrich’s Pioneerand Democrat. The trial dominated the newsfrom March 23 to June 3, 1859, leading the edi-torial column and undoubtedly generatinggreat interest in and around the city.3

Notorious in its own time, this case remainssignificant for several reasons. Bilansky was thefirst white person and the only woman ever tobe legally executed in Minnesota. In addition,the case raised questions about extra-judicialinfluences: mainly, the power of the press andresulting public pressure to sway a jury and, sec-ondly, the intertwining of politics and justice,which might well have contributed to GovernorRamsey’s unwillingness to commute Bilansky’ssentence. Finally, the case is notable because itappears possible that Bilansky was innocentand, in any event, she did not receive a fair trial.

Several accounts of the affair have appearedin the historical literature. The most promi-nent, a chapter in Walter N. Trenerry’s Murderin Minnesota, was based almost exclusively onnewspaper accounts, particularly the storiespublished in the Pioneer and Democrat. Thosereports, however, presented an incompletepicture of the trial evidence, ignoring thedefense case and focusing on the more luridaspects of the evidence against Bilansky. In hisstudy of Minnesota newspapers, George S.Hage termed the Pioneer and Democrat cov-erage “outrageous despite the fact that averdict had beenreached.”4 Other docu-

1 Here and below, Daily Pioneer and Democrat (St.Paul), Mar. 24, 1860, p. 3, St. Paul Globe, Feb. 15, 1903,p. 23.

2 St. Paul Globe, Feb. 15, 1903, p. 23; AlexanderRamsey, diary, vol. 33, Mar. 23, 1860, AlexanderRamsey Papers, microfilm copy, R[oll] 39, F[rame]548, Minnesota Historical Society (MHS), St. Paul.

3 George E. Warner and Charles M. Foote, eds.,History of Ramsey County and the City of St. Paul (Minne-apolis: North Star Publishing, 1881), 323; Jane LammCarroll, “Criminal Justice on the Minnesota Frontier,”(Ph.D. diss., University of Minnesota, 1991), 93.

4 George S. Hage, Newspapers on the MinnesotaFrontier, 1849–1860 (St. Paul: Minnesota HistoricalSociety, 1967), 116; Walter N. Trenerry, Murder inMinnesota: A Collection of True Cases (St. Paul:Minnesota Historical Society, 1962), 25–41. J. FletcherWilliams, a contemporary of Bilansky, also recordedher guilt in A History of the City of Saint Paul to 1875(1876; reprint, MHS Press, 1983), 121, 388–89, 392.

Matthew Cecil is a Ph.D. student atthe University of Iowa School of Journalism

and Mass Communication.



T352 MINNESOTA HISTORY

ments in the Alexander Ramsey Papers at theMinnesota Historical Society, including the trialtranscript and a series of letters and petitionsurging that he commute the death sentence,provide a broader and fairer basis for an exami-nation of the case.

rained as a tailor, Stanislaus Bilansky was 52years old in 1859. A short, heavyset man withbrown hair and a sallow complexion, he hadmoved to St. Paul from Wisconsin in 1842 andwas one of the community’s earliest pioneers.He purchased a claim and built a cabinbetween Phelan’s Creek and Trout Brook, at aspot then called Oak Point (today just east ofSt. Paul’s lowertown warehouse district, in therailroad corridor). Married twice during his

time in St. Paul and three times in all, Bilanskywas, according to friends and acquaintances, anunlovable, melancholy, abusive, and unpleasantman. He drank heavily and became irritable,excitable, and violent when drunk. Bilansky fre-quently complained that he was ill, often pre-dicted that he was near death, and visited hisdoctor for treatment 15 or 20 times annually.5

In the early 1850s Bilansky gave up tailoringand opened a bar and grocery in his cabin,which sat 200 yards from a flour mill onStillwater Road (now East Seventh Street). Thesingle-story structure had three main rooms.The front of the house was split into two rooms,one of which served as a bar and grocery, withits door to the adjoining sleeping room mostoften left open. The kitchen spanned the fullwidth of the back of the house. A 10-by-12-foot

5 Minnesota Manuscript Census Schedule, 1857, Ramsey Co., microfilm copy, R4, F114, MHS; Williams,History of . . . Saint Paul, 121; State of Minnesota v. Anne [sic] Bilansky, handwritten trancript, Ramsey papers,R12A, F531, 544, 578, hereinafter cited as transcript. All but census microfilm citations are in the Ramsey papers.

Pioneer and Democrat newspaper office at St. Paul’s Third and Jackson Streets, about 1859

MN History Text 55/8 8/20/07 12:02 PM 52


WINTER 1997–98 353

at the request of her nephew John Walker, whowas ill with typhoid fever. (She and her husbandhad lived in Fayetteville, North Carolina, forseveral years before he was killed in a railroadaccident.) Wright, who went by her middlename, Ann, was described as tall with sharp fea-tures and overlapping front teeth. She was intel-ligent and spirited with gray eyes, light hair, anda prominent nose. She had no children of herown and apparently took good care of the threeBilansky children, quickly settling into life inthe small house on Stillwater Road. At Stan-islaus Bilansky’s request, John Walker moved

cellar below and a two-room shanty behind themain structure made up the remainder ofBilansky’s holdings.6

Bilansky’s second wife, Ellen, left him in1856 after nine years of marriage. The couplehad four children. The three surviving—Benjamin, Rinaldo, and Kate, ages 10, 8, and 6in 1860—remained with Bilansky after thedivorce.7

Despite his unpleasant demeanor, Bilanskymarried for the third time in September 1858.Mary Ann Evards Wright had moved to Min-nesota from Pleasant Hill, Illinois, in April 1858

6 Transcript, R12A, F491–92, 545, 576, 578.7 U.S. Manuscript Census Schedules, 1860, Ramsey Co., microfilm copy, R573, F68, MHS; transcript, R12A,

F576.

St. Paul city map, drawn by G. H. Beldin and published in 1857 by Goodrich and Sommers; Phalen (Phelan’s) Creek and Trout Brook (large box) mark the eastern edge of development.

Court House Square (small box) was the site of the hanging.



8 Transcript, R12A, F485, 509, 586, 595, 596; Pioneer and Democrat, July 27, 1859, Mar. 24,1860, both p. 3; Williams, History of . . . Saint Paul, 388.

9 Transcript, R12A, F484, 531–32, 644.10 Transcript, R12A, F497, 506, 524, 531, 533.11 Transcript, R12A, F592; Pioneer and Democrat, Mar. 12, 1859, p. 3.12 Pioneer and Democrat, Mar. 15, 1859, p. 3.13 Pioneer and Democrat, Mar. 16, 1859, p. 3.

into the shanty behind the Bilansky home andlived there for several months.8

In December 1858, after a long hunting trip,Bilansky became ill. He recovered but in lateFebruary 1859 fell ill again. At first it was a mildstomach ailment. Bilansky complained of aburning sensation in his stomach, was verythirsty, overly warm, and vomited several timeseach day, according to Rosa Scharf, who washired to help around the house during this ill-ness. On March 6, Dr. Alfred Berthier wascalled. The night before, Bilansky’s conditionhad worsened. Sore and exhausted from fre-quent vomiting, Bilansky told Berthier he hadeaten too much meat and had gotten his feetwet the day before. Berthier was not alarmed.“He did not seem then to be in any danger,” thedoctor testified two months later.9

Berthier prescribed a tonic of absinthe andwater to be taken before each meal. Bilanskysupplemented the treatment with frequentdoses of a favorite patent medicine, Graffen-

burg pills. The patient was able to movefrom room to room in the house, but formuch of the remaining five days of hislife, he remained in bed. On Thursday,March 10, Bilansky told a visiting neigh-bor, Lucinda Kilpatrick, that he “had as

leave die as live.” At 3:30 a.m. onFriday, March 11, Bilansky called

his eldest son to his bedside andasked him to bring a tumbler ofliquor from the bar. Bilanskydrank the liquor. One-half hourlater, he was dead.10

Later that morning, Walker,still living in Bilansky’s shanty,assisted with funeral arrange-ments. He paid for the coffinand burial plot, as Ann Bilanskyhad no money. The funeralwas scheduled for Saturday,March 12, and a death noticeappeared in the Pioneer andDemocrat lamenting the passingof a Ramsey County pioneer.11

As the funeral processionprepared to leave for the ceme-

tery at about 2 p.m., officials of the RamseyCounty coroner’s office arrived and halted thepreparations. A brief search was made of theBilansky house, a doctor examined the body,and testimony was taken from several of thosepresent. Kilpatrick, Scharf, Walker, and otherstestified before a hastily gathered coroner’s jury,each swearing that he or she had seen nothingamiss. The jury concluded that Bilansky’s deathcame of natural causes, although the newspaperreported that the jury was critical of AnnBilansky’s alleged “great want of care in properattention being given him in his sickness”because she had not recalled the doctor. At 5p.m., Stanislaus Bilansky was buried.12

Saturday evening, however, Kilpatrick recon-sidered her testimony. She had not told thecoroner’s jury about a shopping trip she andAnn Bilansky had taken two weeks earlier. Atthe urging of her husband, Andrew, a carpen-ter, Kilpatrick told St. Paul Chief of PoliceJohn W. Crosby that on February 28 Bilanskyhad purchased arsenic from Day and Jenks drugstore. Bilansky had told Kilpatrick at the timethat her husband asked her to buy arsenic topoison rats that were gnawing vegetables in thecellar after the Bilanskys’ cat was given away. Onthe basis of Kilpatrick’s testimony, officialsexhumed the body the next morning. A med-ical team assembled to perform a post-mortemexamination. Bilansky and Walker were arrestedSunday afternoon, and a second coroner’s jurywas gathered on Tuesday, March 15.13

Kilpatrick and Scharf provided new testimo-ny to the panel, and the first scientific evidenceof poisoning was offered. A druggist, W. H.Wolff, and Dr. J. C. Goodrich testified about thepreliminary results of the post-mortem exami-nation. Wolff said one of the chemical analyseshad yielded a single crystal which, “under themicroscope, resembled arsenic.” In his testimo-ny, Goodrich was even less certain of the pres-ence of arsenic, prompting the editor of thePioneer and Democrat to comment that the evi-dence “was about as unsatisfactory as it was pos-sible to make it. The medical testimony was asguarded and non-committal as modesty andprofessional abstruseness could make it.”

Stomach Bitters, a popularpatent medicine manufac-tured by Hostetter and Smithof Pittsburgh, 1860–84

354 MINNESOTA HISTORY



WWINTER 1997–98 355

Nevertheless, the coroner’s jury ruled thatBilansky died of arsenic poisoning. A grand juryagreed and indicted Bilansky for the murder ofher husband. District Court Judge Edward C.Palmer set the trial for May 23. At her arraign-ment on that date, Bilansky’s attorney entered anot-guilty plea.14

hile life in Minnesota in 1859 could bedescribed as dirty, disorderly, and sometimesdrunken, recent scholarship has challenged theimpression of excessive violence so often associ-ated with the frontier West. Historian Jane L.Carroll found that by 1857 a stable criminal-justice system with relatively advanced judicialprocedures and standards of evidence existed inMinnesota Territory. Further, life in the smallcities of Minnesota in the 1850s was far less vio-lent than the contemporaneous mining frontier

of the Sierra Nevada. “Crime and violencenever became so routine as to become accept-able aspects of life,” she concluded.15

Thus, when Bilansky appeared in court onMay 23 with her legal team, led by a prominentand wealthy St. Paul lawyer, John Ball Brisbin,there was great public interest in the case. Bornin Saratoga, New York, in 1827, Brisbin was edu-cated at Yale College before moving to St. Paulin 1853. A Democrat, he was reporter for theMinnesota Territorial Supreme Court in themid-1850s and president of the territorial coun-cil from 1856 to 1857. He had served two termsin the state House of Representatives and, in1857, had been mayor of St. Paul. OpposingBrisbin was a young lawyer also from New YorkState, Ramsey County District Attorney IsaacV. D. Heard, who had lived in St. Paul sinceApril 1852 and had been first elected districtattorney in 1855.16

14 Pioneer and Democrat, Mar. 17, 1859, p. 3; Second District Court, General Term Docket, May 10, May 23,1859, R12A, F679–80.

15 Carroll, “Criminal Justice,” 177, 262–63.16 U.S. Manuscript Census, 1860, Ramsey Co., 251, R573, F305; Warner and Foote, History of Ramsey County,

244, 499. The census lists Brisbin’s assets as $35,000 in property and $25,000 in personal holdings.

View of St. Paul taken from the steeple of the county courthouse, looking toward the Mississippi River. The three-story building behind the church spire is Day and Jenks drug store.




Jury selection proceeded quickly, with only afew potential jurors dismissed because they hadformed an opinion from news coverage orbecause they were scheduled to testify as wit-nesses. The 12-man jury included one particu-larly noteworthy member, Justus C. Ramsey, thegovernor’s 35-year-old brother.17

In his opening statement, Heard describedthe three key arguments that made up the pros-

ecution’s circumstantial caseagainst Bilansky. He asserted,

first, that Bilansky pur-chased arsenic and thus

had the means for mur-der at her disposal.Second, Bilansky had“lived on improperterms” and had “oc-cupied the sameroom” with Walker.Heard suggestedthat Walker wasnot Ann Bilansky’snephew and thatan adulterous af-fair was the motivefor murder. Finally,

Heard charged, Bi-lansky made com-

ments that suggestedshe had contemplatedmurder. All of thisadded up to proof ofmurder in the firstdegree, according tothe prosecutor.18

Lucinda Kilpatrickwas the principal wit-ness for the prosecu-tion. Kilpatrick, who

had moved to St. Paul from Grand Rapids,Michigan, in mid-1857, rented a room in ahouse separated from the Bilansky residence bya vacant lot. Her testimony alleged that Bilanskyhad purchased arsenic and had made murder-ous comments. The direct examination wasbrief. Kilpatrick said she and the defendant hadgone “up-town” on February 28. After purchas-ing some fabric, Bilansky told Kilpatrick that

her husband had asked her to buy some arsenicto poison the rats that were in their cellar. “Sheasked me to purchase it,” Kilpatrick asserted. “Isaid no, if I want it I’ll get it.”19

The two women stopped at Wolff’s drugstore, where the druggist offered not arsenicpowder but a more expensive form. Short onmoney, Bilansky refused and instead bought 10cents worth of arsenic, a white powder in asmall jar, at Day and Jenks store. Kilpatricktestified that Bilansky had said she “would notmind giving Bilansky a pill if the doctor was notattending him.” According to Kilpatrick, thedefendant had continued that if her husband“should drop away sudden,” authorities might“have suspicion on her.” Nothing more was saiduntil after Stanislaus Bilansky’s death when,according to Kilpatrick, Ann Bilansky attemptedto cover up her purchase. When the first coro-ner’s inquest was called, Kilpatrick alleged,Bilansky had taken her aside. “She asked me toswear I bought the arsenic,” Kilpatrick testified.“I said to her . . . if they do not find arsenic inthe stomach they can do nothing with you.She answered and said suppose he took ithimself.”20

Kilpatrick’s testimony next revealed thatStanislaus Bilansky had told her he “didn’t like”the relationship between Walker and his wife.Lastly, Kilpatrick testified, after Bilansky’s deathshe saw no “manifestation of grief by the de-fendant, no tears.”21

Brisbin’s vigorous cross-examination re-vealed that Kilpatrick may have had a strongmotive to lie. He repeatedly attempted to ques-tion her about her personal relationships,attempting to show that she was promiscuousand had an improper relationship of her ownwith Walker. “Did you have, since your returnfrom St. Anthony and previous to your mar-riage, have illicit intercourse with a great num-ber of persons?” Brisbin asked. Kilpatrickrefused to answer, and Judge Palmer sustainedHeard’s objections to this and most other ques-tions. The ones Kilpatrick did answer suggestedshe had a relationship with Walker. “Our friend-ly terms were broken up over a month ago,”Kilpatrick said, referring to Walker. “[I] can’ttell the time when the coldness commenced.”22

17 District Court docket, May 23, 1859, R12A, F680–81.18 Transcript, R12A, F482.19 Transcript, R12A, F482, 486, 491.20 Transcript, R12A, F482–83.21 Transcript, R12A, F485–86.22 Here and below, transcript, R12A, F489–91.

John B. Brisbin, anonymous paintingfrom about 1857 when he was mayor

of St. Paul



KWINTER 1997–98 357

Brisbin then tried to establish direct evi-dence of the relationship with several anony-mous letters. “I offer to show that during themonths of January and February 1859 she sentpresents and letters of affection to Walker,”Brisbin told Judge Palmer. When the missiveswere shown and Kilpatrick was asked whethershe had written them to Walker, she refused torespond, and the judge did not force her.Brisbin then introduced a breastpin and a ringinto evidence and asked Kilpatrick whether shehad given them to Walker. Again, she would notanswer. It seems unlikely that Brisbin wouldhave produced these items unless he was certainthat Kilpatrick was their source.

In his cross-examination, Brisbin did notchallenge the assertion that Bilansky had pur-chased arsenic. Instead, he tried to impeach thetrustworthiness and elicit possible ulteriormotives of the prosecution witnesses. Kilpatrickhad lived in St. Paul for only one year. She hadrefused to answer questions about her past jobs,homes, and relationships. Finally, confrontedwith apparent physical evidence of her relation-ship with Walker, Kilpatrick said nothing.

The next witness, housekeeper Rosa Scharf,had been hired on March 2, 1859, to helparound the house because of Bilansky’s illness.Her testimony consisted of a series of percep-tions and several alleged incidents, many ofwhich, on cross-examination, were revealed tobe less than they at first appeared. Scharf testi-fied that Walker had visited the house twice dur-ing Bilansky’s illness and early on the morningfollowing his death. During the morning visit,she could not hear what was said, but “attentionwas called to them [Walker and Ann Bilansky]by their looks.” Further, “they did not look nat-ural.” In addition, Scharf testified that Bilanskydid not treat her husband “as I think a husbandshould be treated.” Most scandalous of all—anddamning, in public opinion—was Scharf’s testi-mony that on the night after the funeral thedefendant had undressed in front of Walker.The Pioneer and Democrat reported Scharf’s testi-mony, and the undressing story seemed to con-vince the writer of Bilansky’s adultery. While thenewspaper ignored the direct evidence present-ed in court of Kilpatrick’s promiscuous nature,it condemned Bilansky on the basis of a house-keeper’s impressions.23

In reality, the undressing incident was notthe sensual event that Scharf and the newspa-per at first suggested. According to Scharf’s fur-ther testimony, Bilansky put on her nightclothesin the sleeping room as Walker readied for bedin the bar room. The door between them wasopen, but the two were neither together in thesame room nor isolated from others staying inthe small house. Scharf was present, as were thechildren, when Bilansky changed into her bed-clothes. The two women and the children sleptin the sleeping room while Walker slept on thefloor of the adjoining bar room. “I asked herthe next morning how she could do so beforeWalker,” Scharf testified. “She said she was soused to him that she didn’t mind him.” Appar-ently more modest, Scharf removed only herdress and slept in her underclothes.24

Brisbin, who had attempted to raise doubtsabout Kilpatrick’s motives, likewise questionedScharf’s credibility. Noting that she had saidnothing about her impressions of an improperrelationship between Walker and Bilansky at thefirst coroner’s inquest, Brisbin asked Scharf ifshe had in the intervening days discussed thecase with Kilpatrick. Scharf replied that she sawKilpatrick “almost every day” after the funeraland that they had frequently talked about thecase. Furthermore, Scharf was living withKilpatrick during the trial and came to courtwith her each day.25 It appears that Brisbin wasattempting to show that Kilpatrick, with herown motive of adultery, initiated a vendettaagainst Bilansky and used Scharf as a tool.

ilpatrick’s testimony was intended to proveopportunity and to suggest that Bilansky con-templated murder. Scharf’s testimony alludedto a motive. After several more witnessesexpanded on those general themes, Heard pre-sented his scientific evidence. The Pioneer andDemocrat reported that the medical testimonyhad improved since the second inquest, but itappears the evidence was still far from fool-proof. Dr. Goodrich, who had been so ambiva-lent about his reading of the scientific evidenceat the second coroner’s inquest, did not appearat the trial. Instead, Dr. Thomas R. Potts tes-tified that he and the other doctors had limited

23 Transcript, R12A, F505–08; Pioneer and Democrat, May 25, 1859, p. 3.24 Transcript, R12A, F509, 515.25 Transcript, R12A, F517.



O


case, and Judge Palmer ordered the defense toproceed. Lead defense attorney Brisbin was illat this key point, when he should have beenoutlining his opening argument. ProsecutorHeard later wrote that Brisbin’s illness renderedit impossible for the defense to define clearly itscase and to present certain evidence that mightprove Bilansky’s innocence. Nonetheless,Palmer ordered the trial to continue.28

Brisbin’s associate, Mr. Williams, proceededto attack inconsistencies in the prosecution’scase, focusing on the motive and scientific evi-dence. Why, Williams asked, had Bilansky beensick for nearly two weeks if, as Morton hadtestified, enough arsenic was found in his stom-ach to cause death in 30 minutes? The testimo-ny of Scharf and Kilpatrick had not establishedthe romance motive, Williams said. “Now whatis the proof, where has there been any evidenceto establish that; — none whatever.” Thedefense, Williams said, would show that theBilansky house, 200 yards from a flour mill, hadbeen plagued by rats after the house cat wasgiven away. Moreover, the defense would raisequestions about Bilansky’s business dealings andpsychological health.29 The clear implicationwas that if Bilansky died of arsenic poisoning,he had taken the fatal dose himself.

The first defense witness called wasBilansky’s second wife, Ellen Truett. She testi-fied that Bilansky was an abusive and melan-choly man who drank and ate heavily and,when drunk, was violent and difficult. She alsooffered a glimpse into Bilansky’s psyche,reporting that he had an odd fixation withdeath, frequently declaring that he would diein March. Bilansky had had a sister who diedin March, and he believed that was a sign.Each year, Truett testified, a few weeks beforethat month began, he would again turnmelancholy and predict his imminent death.Finally, Truett testified that the defendant hadbeen grief-stricken at her husband’s funeraland had cried in the wagon which took the twowomen, along with housekeeper Scharf, homefrom the burial.30

Next, ten-year-old Benjamin Bilansky took

26 Pioneer and Democrat, Mar. 20, 1859, p. 3; transcript, R12A, F557–59, 561–62.27 Transcript, R12A, F565, 570, 573; Pioneer and Democrat, May 28, 1859, p. 3.28 I. V. D. Heard to Alexander Ramsey, Mar. 22, 1860, R12A, F714.29 Pioneer and Democrat, Mar. 28, 1859, p. 3. Mr. Williams may have been Henry L. Williams, a New Englander

who studied at Bowdoin College and was admitted to the Minnesota Bar in January 1861. Perhaps he was studyinglaw under Brisbin and assisting him with the Bilansky trial; C. C. Andrews, History of St. Paul (Syracuse, N.Y.:D. Mason and Co., 1890), 259.

30 Transcript, R12A, F577–79.

their internal examination to Bilansky’s stom-ach and intestines, finding patches of inflamma-tion in the larger portion of the stomach. Thepatches, Potts testified, were consistent witharsenic poisoning. Under cross-examination,Potts said he not previously performed a post-mortem exam on a victim of arsenic poisoningand that the inflammation might have beenconsistent with other syndromes such as chron-ic alcohol abuse, one of several chronic illness-es, or an overdose of patent medication.26

Dr. William H. Morton, who had led thepost-mortem team, next took the stand to testi-fy about the chemical tests on Bilansky’s stom-ach. According to Morton, that organ had con-tained residue of arsenic sufficient to causedeath within 30 minutes. The Pioneer andDemocrat reported this testimony in detail and

published a summary ofthe six chemical-analysistests used to check forarsenic. Under cross-examination, however,Morton admitted that ofthe six, two had failed toproduce evidence ofarsenic, two were consid-ered unreliable, and onehad not been employed.Thus, only one—a re-

duction test in which heatapplied to a chemical solu-tion alleged to containarsenic produced an indi-cator ring in a test tube—

yielded a result consistentwith the presence of

arsenic. Morton alsorevealed that he had not

“applied himself particularly to chemistry” andhad never performed a chemical analysis forarsenic before. Further, he testified that he hadsold Stanislaus Bilansky two boxes ofGraffenburg pills a few weeks before his death.If taken all at once, Morton admitted, thepatent-medicine pills might have been lethal.27

n Friday, May 28, the prosecution rested its

Box for Cayer and Company’scathartic pills, made in Lowell,Massachusetts: another curefrom the nineteenth century’sarsenal of home remedies. Thetiny container is ½ inch high, 2 inches long, and 1 inch wide.



B

WINTER 1997–98 359

numerous prosecution objections Palmer sus-tained during the questioning of Kilpatrick andScharf and the illnesses of Brisbin and the jurorBennett. On June 22 Palmer denied the motionto arrest judgment and referred the motion fora new trial to the Minnesota Supreme Court.34

risbin argued two key points before theSupreme Court in July. First, he said thatBilansky should not be subject to the death sen-tence under an archaic tradition of EnglishCommon Law, benefit of clergy. In dismissingthe point, Justice Charles E. Flandrau wrote thatthe benefit-of-clergy tradition, intended tospare literate persons from capital punishment,was outdated and had been superseded bymany subsequent laws. Brisbin’s sec-ond point of law involvedPalmer’s rulings that hadallowed Kilpatrick to avoidanswering questionsabout her relationshipwith Walker. Sinceadultery and fornica-tion were illegal inMinnesota, Flandrauwrote in the courtopinion, Kilpatrickcould legally refuseto answer the ques-tions under the FifthAmendment protec-tion against self-incrimination. Thequestions “did not, it istrue, go directly to thatpoint [adultery], but af-firmative answers to themwould form importantlines in a chain of evi-dence to establish such anoffense.” Further, Palmerhad the right to rule thequestions improper if hebelieved they were intended only to degrade orembarrass the witness. Finally, the court ruledthat Brisbin had failed to provide an offer ofproof that an admission of adultery wouldprove Kilpatrick was lying to implicate Bilansky.On July 25, 1859, the Supreme Court remanded

31 Transcript, R12A, F523, 536, 551, 580, 582, 583, 594, 596.32 Andrews, History of St. Paul, 302; transcript, R12A, F598, 612, 617.33 Pioneer and Democrat, June 4, 1859, p. 3.34 District Court docket, 1860, R12A, F688–90.

the stand, testifying that the family home wasinfested with rats and that he had never seenAnn Bilansky behaving improperly with Walker.Three other witnesses also testified to the pres-ence of rats in the Bilansky home. A three-yearacquaintance and close neighbor, G. B. Galin-ska, stated that Bilansky had money concerns.“A year ago last spring he was troubled abouthard times,” Galinska said. “He often said hehad as soon die as live . . . he owed $200 forwhich he was paying 36 percent.” Three otheracquaintances testified that Bilansky had “bor-rowed a great deal of trouble” and had financialdifficulties.31

The jury went home for the weekend andreceived an extra day off when juror AbrahamBennett was ill. When the trial resumed onTuesday, May 31, the defense turned to the sci-entific evidence. St. Paul’s city physician,Canadian-born Joseph A. Vervais, took thestand. Vervais criticized the scientific analysis,saying that the post-mortem should have includ-ed an examination of the brain, liver, and otherorgans. “Where the post-mortem is confined as .. . has been done in this case, [I] should notthink it sufficient to find the cause of death,” hestated. Vervais further impugned the methodol-ogy and extent of the chemical procedures usedto test for arsenic. The only test that showed apositive indication could have been flawed andwas not sufficient by itself to prove the presenceof arsenic. Further tests should have been per-formed on the ring that formed, Vervais said.“These rings might have formed by overheatingthe glass. The first rings amount to nothing.”Under cross-examination, Vervais testified thathe was not a chemist but defended hisqualifications and added that he had consultedseveral experts in preparing his analysis.32

When the defense rested its case, Palmerinstructed the jury, and deliberations began at12:30 p.m. on June 3. After five hours, the jurorsreturned to court. Bilansky sat quietly as the ver-dict was read: guilty of the charge of murder inthe first degree. The courtroom was silent as thejurors were polled, each answering that heagreed with the guilty verdict.33

The defense immediately entered motionsto arrest judgment and to request a new trial,and Palmer heard arguments on the motionson June 16. The main legal issues were the

Justice Charles E. Flandrau



I

the case to district court for sentencing.35

That afternoon, Walker met with Bilansky atthe Ramsey County jail for two hours. After din-ner that evening, Bilansky was allowed toremain in the hall for an extra two hours, chat-ting with the jailer. When the jailer went to gethis keys in the adjoining office building,Bilansky, her legal appeals at an end, took theopportunity to escape. According to newspaperreports, she ran downstairs, squeezed through

the bars of an open, ground-level win-dow, and traversed Court House

Square. Bilansky walked tothe Lake Como area and

hid in the tall grassabout one mile from

the lake. After a fewdays, she notifiedWalker that sheneeded help.36

On August 1,Walker met Bilan-sky, gave her somemen’s clothes towear, and the twobegan walking to-wards St. Anthony.About two miles

from town, RamseyCounty deputies

caught up with them.Walker was jailed formore than a month,but on September 13,a Ramsey Countygrand jury refused toindict him.

On December 2,1859, Bilansky ap-peared in court forsentencing with a new

attorney, Willis A. Gorman, a prominent andrespected lawyer who had been Minnesota’s sec-ond territorial governor. When allowed tospeak, Bilansky stood and said simply, “If I diein this case, I die an innocent woman. I don’tthink I have had a fair and just trial.” Palmersentenced her to one month in solitary

confinement—possibly to spare outgoingGovernor Henry Hastings Sibley the chore ofissuing a death warrant—with death by hangingto follow upon the order of the new governor.37

It was during Bilansky’s stay in solitaryconfinement that one of the key witnessesagainst her committed suicide. Rosa Scharf,whose impressions had provided the prosecu-tion with the adultery motive, was found deadon January 5, 1860. The coroner’s inquest dis-covered that she had purchased “unusuallystrong” laudanum a few days earlier, and thisempty vial was found in her room. The nightshe died, Scharf had visited the Kilpatricks.Lucinda Kilpatrick told the coroner’s jury thatshe had seen nothing odd about Scharf’s behav-ior that evening. Andrew Kilpatrick testifiedthat Scharf had asked him what would becomeof Bilansky.38 It is possible that Scharf felt guiltyfor her part in the conviction of the con-demned woman and that guilt, at least in part,led to her suicide.

On January 25, Governor Ramsey issued awarrant charging Sheriff Tullis with the duty ofarranging for Bilansky’s execution on March 23.The Pioneer and Democrat applauded Ramsey’saction: “There is no doubt of her guilt, and wecan conceive of no sufficient reason why the lawshould not be allowed to take its course, or whyanyone should desire for a commutation of thesentence.”39

n spite of the newspaper’s judgment, Bilansky’ssupporters immediately began lobbying Ramseyto commute the sentence to life in prison.Those who opposed the hanging fell into sever-al categories. Some were adamantly opposed tocapital punishment. Others believed Bilanskyhad not received a fair trial. Still others thoughtit wrong to put a woman to death.

Petitioners on Bilansky’s behalf fought a los-ing battle. Practical considerations made itdifficult for the politically pragmatic governorto intervene. Had Ramsey commuted the sen-tence, he might have embarrassed his brother,Justus, who had served on the Bilansky jury. Thetwo brothers worked together closely in busi-

35 Supreme Court of Minnesota, Minnesota Reports, 1859 (St. Paul: John B. West and Co., 1878), 169, 171–88.36 Here and below, Pioneer and Democrat, July 27, 1859, Aug. 3, Aug. 6, Sept. 14, 1859–all p. 3.37 Pioneer and Democrat, Dec. 3, 1859, p. 3. On Gorman, see Warren Upham and Rose B. Dunlap, comps.,

Minnesota Biographies, 1655–1912, Minnesota Historical Collections, vol. 14 (St. Paul: Minnesota Historical Society,1912), 267–68.

38 Pioneer and Democrat, Jan. 10, 1860, p. 3.39 Pioneer and Democrat, Jan. 26, 1860, p. 3.


Alexander Ramsey in an 1863 photograph taken in Mathew Brady’s

Washington, D.C., studio



ness, and Justus, who apparently believed inBilansky’s guilt, likely had a strong influence onthe governor’s deliberations. In addition,Bilansky was represented by Gorman, a Demo-crat and longtime political foe of Ramsey, aWhig turned Republican. Ramsey might haveavoided any action that would bring credit tohis rival. Bilansky’s first defense attorney,Brisbin, was also a politically active Democrat.Perhaps more important than any of thesemotives, commuting Bilansky’s sentence wouldhave been a controversial act, likely to anger apublic skittish about criminal justice. Courtingcontroversy was something a low-key land specu-lator and veteran politician like Ramsey wastrained to avoid. In his diary, Ramsey petulantlydismissed those who pleaded for him to stopthe hanging of Bilansky. On March 20 he wrote,“The approaching execution of Mrs. Bilanskysubjects me to much annoyance on the part ofpersons asking her commutation.”40

That annoyance included an act of the statelegislature, which on March 5 sent to Ramsey abill commuting Bilansky’s sentence. The bill’ssponsors argued that Bilansky had not receiveda fair trial and that it was unsavory forMinnesota to inaugurate capital punishment byexecuting a woman. Ramsey vetoed the mea-sure on March 8, asserting that it violated thegovernor’s constitutionally guaranteed pardon-ing power. He then used his imagination to cre-ate an account of the crime that supported hisdecision:

She procured poison and then administeredit; not in such quantities as at once to destroylife, but little by little, that no suspicion mightarise. She sat by the bedside of her husband,not to foster, but to slay. She watched withoutemotion the tortures she had caused, and, byand by, administered no healing medicine,no cooling draught, but ever, under a guiseof love and tender care, renewed the cup ofdeath.41

This melodramatic message, unsupported byevidence at the trial, made it clear that the gov-ernor would not heed any calls for mercy. Itsstrident tone made it difficult for Ramsey toreverse himself even if last-minute evidence in

support of commutation was incontrovertible.There were many who nevertheless contin-

ued pleading for mercy. Gorman’s petition forcommutation listed 10 reasons why Bilanskyshould not be hanged, among them: thearsenic evidence had not been clear; two jurorshad, since the trial’s end, expressed dissatisfac-tion with the verdict; the press had prejudicedthe public against Bilansky; her attorney had fal-len ill during his argument to the jury; andadditional information had surfaced since thetrial. Finally, Gorman wrote, Bilan-sky should not be hangedbecause “I firmly believe herto be innocent.” SupremeCourt Justice Flandrau,in a letter written inJuly 1859, had urgedGovernor Sibley tocommute the sen-tence on chivalricgrounds. This letterwas included in thepardon and parolerecords of Ramsey’sterm, making itlikely that he wasaware of Flandrau’sopinion. “It is myfirm conviction,” thejustice wrote, “that astrict adherence to thepenal code will have asalutary influence inchecking crime in thestate, but it rathershocks my private senseof humanity to com-mence by inflicting theextreme penalty on awoman.”42

On March 22, 1860, the day before thescheduled execution, another petitioner urgedcommutation. Isaac Heard, the Ramsey Countydistrict attorney who had prosecuted Bilansky,wrote that he considered it his duty to expresshis “grave and serious doubts as to whether thedefendant has had a fair trial,” since the deci-sion to allow jurors to go home in the midst ofthe trial left them open to influence by the

40 Ramsey, diary, vol. 33, Mar. 20, 1860, R39, F548.41 Minnesota, Journal of the House of Representatives, 1860, p. 368, 407, 695–99; Minnesota, Journal of the Senate,

1860, p. 402, 423; Pioneer and Democrat, Feb. 9, 1860, p. 3.42 Gorman to Ramsey, n.d., R12A, F668; Charles E. Flandrau to Governor H. H. Sibley, July 25, 1859, R12A,

F633–34.

WINTER 1997–98 361

Willis A. Gorman, Bilansky’s second attorney, 1866




community, which had been prejudiced by theone-sided newspaper coverage. Heard cited theextra day off due to juror Bennett’s illness, aswell as Brisbin’s illness and resulting inability tobring out possible exculpatory evidence, as fur-ther proof that Bilansky was not fairly judged byan impartial jury.43

Brisbin, in his petition to the governor,offered a hint at the evidence that he had beenunable to present at the trial: Bilansky had beenhaving money problems, and there existedproof that he had attempted to kill himself ear-lier, about the time that his second wife lefthim. “I hope it is not improper for me to statethat it can be proved that Bilanski attempted to

poison himself . . . and at one time did in facttake poison for self-destruction.”44

Although Brisbin did not specify what theproof might be, he did offer further clarifica-tion on the issue of jury separation. Early in thetrial, Brisbin wrote, members of the jury hadasked that he allow them frequent breaks toattend to their businesses. The lawyer foundhimself in a situation in which any responsecould prejudice the jurors against his client. Ifhe consented to separation, the jurors could beinfluenced by the community and the press. Ifhe refused, the jurors might be angry with himand deflect that anger to his client. Brisbin con-sented, freeing the jury to mingle with the com-

43 Heard to Ramsey, Mar. 22, 1860, R12A, F714–15.44 Here and below, J. B. Brisbin to Ramsey, Mar. 22, 1860, R12A, F717–18, 720.

Long and highly opinionated summary of the Bilansky case and its outcome, also featuring the state’s first interview news story, published in the Pioneer and Democrat, March 24, 1860



I

WINTER 1997–98 363

munity for days at a time during the trial.Six days before her scheduled execution,

Bilansky wrote to Ramsey. In four pages of neat,evenly spaced handwriting, she restated thegrievances repeated in her counsel’s petitionsand again asserted her innocence.

I have now been imprisoned in Ramsey Co.Jail for nearly one year. And for the past halfyear have waited patiently to have an opportu-nity to satisfy the public mind of the inno-cence of the crime on which I have beenimperfectly and unfairly tried. Denied a fairhearing under the form of Law,—that Lawwhich should throw around me the bulwarkof its protection,—I have only to abide ascalmly as I can the result of its great injusticeunless I am shielded from this legal wrong bythe interposition of a higher power than thecourts now constituted in our midst.45

Ignoring the pleas for mercy, Ramsey choseto allow the execution to occur on March 23.The next day, the Pioneer and Democrat publishedthe first interview story in state newspaper histo-ry. (This genre had first appeared in Americanjournalism in 1836 but was not widely used untilafter the Civil War.) On March 22, an unknownPioneer and Democrat writer visited Bilansky inher second-floor jail cell. The day after the exe-cution, the newspaper published the brief inter-view consisting of a handful of quotations inter-spersed with counterpoints of editorial opinion,tacked on to a lengthy recapitulation of theprosecution case. The story reported that Bilan-sky appeared pale, with deep circles under hereyes. First asked to comment upon the actionsof Palmer at her trial, she said, “I earnestly en-treat him, as my dying wish, that he might cor-

45 Ann Bilansky, “Statement of Mrs. Bilansky,” Mar. 17, 1860, R12A, F705.46 Hage, Newspapers, 114; Pioneer and Democrat, Mar. 24, 1860, p. 3.

All images and the two objects, photographed by Peter Latner, are in the MHS collections.

rect the mistakes he made at my trial,” addingthat she believed that Lucinda Kilpatrick andher husband orchestrated her downfall andinfluenced Scharf’s testimony as well.“Mrs. Kilpatrick made a great many false state-ments,” she said. “I always believed that her hus-band forced her to do so. Rosa Scharf alsomade false statements, influenced by theKilpatricks.” The writer concluded his unsympa-thetic interview with the words, “Probably nojail ever contained a criminal, either male orfemale, under imprisonment for a crime, whoexhibited such a complete want of decency orpropriety.”46

t is impossible from a vantage point more than130 years distant to determine with certaintywhether justice was served by the conviction ofAnn Bilansky. Questions can, however, be raisedabout whether the execution should have pro-ceeded. As to the murder charge, reasonabledoubt appears to exist. Witnesses with question-able motives and shaky scientific evidence madeup the majority of the prosecution case. Thedefense offered evidence undercutting prosecu-tion witnesses and pointed out Bilansky’smelancholy nature, raising the possibility thathe took his own life.

Even given the jurors’ verdict, Ramsey’sdecision to allow the execution appears illjudged. Whether unmoved by the substantivepleas for mercy or mindful of practical politicalconsequences of commutation, Ramsey choseto do nothing. But the trial was clearly flawed.Ramsey should have heeded the advice of theprosecutor in the case and intervened to stopthe execution of Ann Bilansky.



Copyright of Minnesota History is the property of the Minnesota Historical Society and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder’s express written permission. Users may print, download, or email articles, however, for individual use. To request permission for educational or commercial use, contact us.

www.mnhs.org/mnhistory

http://www.mnhs.org/mnhistory�

mailto:[email protected]?subject=Minnesota History magazine - Request permission for commercial or educational use�

www.mnhs.org/mnhistory�

http://www.mnhs.org/�

justice in heaven - murderpedia · 2012. 7. 10. · justice in heaven the trial of ann bilansky...

Documents