Paper Trail

This is exactly right.

Old cases, new waters.

We're taking buried bones on a cruise.

This October, we're setting sail with Virgin Voyages on the first ever true crime podcast cruise, and we want you to join us.

We've got five nights of events, meetups, and mystery on board, plus a live taping of buried bones that you won't want to miss.

This is an all-inclusive experience.

No kids, no stress.

Join the true crime experience to the Dominican Republic and Bippini, Bahamas.

Book now at virginvoyages.com/slash true crime.

That's virginvoyages.com/slash true crime.

We'll see you on the ship.

Want a bourbon with the story?

American-made wild turkey never compromises, like a good story, and never watered down.

Our pre-prohibition-style bourbons are distilled and barreled at a low proof to retain the most flavor.

Most bourbons aren't.

Well, we aren't most bourbons.

Wild Turkey 101 Bourbon makes an old-fashioned or bold fashion for bold nights out or at home.

Now that's a story worth telling.

Wild Turkey, trust your spirit.

Copyright 2025, Capari America, New York, New York.

Never compromised, drink responsibly.

This is Andrea Gunning from Betrayal.

Are there two sides to every story?

Academy Award nominee Robin Wright stars in The Girlfriend on Prime.

A psychological thriller that will make you question everything.

Laura has the perfect life and a son she'd die for.

But when he brings home his new girlfriend Cherry, played by Olivia Cook, something feels off.

Also starring Lori Davidson, The Girlfriend is a twisted game of cat and mouse where nothing is what it seems.

Don't miss the girlfriend, streaming now exclusively on Prime.

Sometimes the truth is just a matter of perspective.

I'm Kate Winkler-Dawson.

I'm a journalist who's spent the last 25 years writing about true crime.

And I'm Paul Holes, a retired cold case investigator who's worked some of America's most complicated cases and solved them.

Each week, I present Paul with one of history's most compelling true crimes.

And I weigh in using modern forensic techniques to bring new insights to old mysteries.

Together, using our individual expertise, we're examining historical true crime cases through a 21st century lens.

Some are solved and some are cold.

Very cold.

This is Buried Bones.

Hey, Paul.

Hey, Kate.

How are you?

I'm doing great.

How about you?

I'm doing good.

What's been going on with you?

Well, I've been watching a lot of true crime.

Oh, good guy.

I probably need another project.

You know, I mean, the book has been out.

The Center's Hall Val has been out and the book tour stuff is over.

And I know you have endless book tours.

I do not.

So now I'm, you know, I've been writing my first mystery thriller.

I've been doing different things, but I have an extraordinary amount of time to watch True Crime.

And I know this is not something that you really do, right?

No, no, I don't.

That's a hard no.

Yeah, I'm obviously very well planted in the true crime space.

I don't consume the content, rarely consume the content.

Well, I had a question.

So I've mentioned this course before.

I teach a true crime podcast course at the University of Texas.

It's very popular.

I have, I think, probably about 230 students each semester.

You know, we talk about cases that are meaningful to them, that are meaningful to me.

There is a generational divide for sure about the cases that my students, who are somewhere between 18 and 22, what they think are sort of these groundbreaking, everybody knows everything about them, binge-worthy type of crimes, and then my generation.

So I want to ask you about what you feel like from your generation, you know, growing up, what was that case that really sort of made you either think about, you know, criminal investigation or think about something that was you had never heard of before.

And I'd love to make a joke about maybe Charles Manson, but I'm not going to because I think it's probably going to be a little more modern than that.

Maybe not, though.

I don't know.

No, I'd say, you know, if you're, you're talking about, you know, when I was growing up, I did not pay attention to any of the crime cases out there.

You know, I think, of course, you know, the story of me glomming on to getting into the field I got into was because of a TV show, Quincy.

But I'm not remembering, you know, paying attention to the newspaper headlines or listening to the radio.

I would say say the first true crime case

that I really dug into was David Carpenter.

He was the trailside killer out there on Mount Tamil Pias.

And I remember I had already started working for the sheriff's office, but as a toxicologist, and I'm reading this book about the serial killer, and it's in the Bay Area, and he is going to restaurants in places where I knew where they were at.

I was just now reading a book, you know, many years after he had actually gone to these restaurants.

And so I became fascinated, going, wow, this is real, you know, and that was sort of what I would say really catapulted me into doing a deeper dive

into

true crime, if you will.

But I was really focused on serial predators.

I wasn't really paying attention to other types of cases.

Yeah, I understand that.

I think when I was younger, I did pay pay attention to a lot of true crime stuff.

One was the yogurt shop murders because I was their age when these four girls were murdered and it's still an unsolved case.

I remember Columbine feeling shaken to my bones that something like that would have happened because again, that's my time period.

And then John Benet, I had never heard of anything like that happening before.

Yeah, you know, and of course, I remember I had not heard of the yogurt shop murders until I got into the true crime space, but I've now familiar.

I've talked to people who are working on that case within an official capacity.

But of course, John Benet Ramsey, I remember that hitting the headlines and Columbine, which I don't know if

there was a school shooting prior to that, but that was the one case that really, you know, brought to public awareness, you know, the school shooter.

And unfortunately, you know, there's been a rash of copycats, you know, ever since.

That's just, it's like a domino effect, you know, one copying the other.

You know, for where I was at, I would say sort of the watershed case was polyclass.

And that was a case I was with the sheriff's office, but the

idea that an offender.

you know, this Richard Allen Davis, who, you know, basically had been in and out of prison his entire life, was able to go inside a house where this little girl was at and abduct her while her parents were still inside that house.

And then some of the communication problems between law enforcement agencies possibly, I wouldn't say they could have saved her, but they could have caught him sooner if

other agencies were aware that there was this abducted girl.

But that was a big case out, sort of like I imagine you're in Texas.

So, you know, yogurt shop murders is something that was in that geosphere.

Yeah.

And Polly Klass was one of the notable ones early on in my career out there in the Bay Area.

Yeah, absolutely.

And I think when I talk to my students and I say, what are the cases that just haunt you guys?

I mean, it's no surprise.

They're in college.

They're saying Gabby Petito and they're saying the Idaho for the college students who were murdered in Idaho.

And it makes sense because

it's their peers, that group, influencers,

young people who are on campus feeling vulnerable.

And so it was just interesting because they had never heard of one of the cases maybe it was scott peterson that i brought up they were going what so everybody has a has a different you know lens of which they look through true crime well and i think if the case is happening while you are paying attention to that type of content you're going to be invested in it and when when you and i were growing up we didn't have the pervasiveness of information on the cases like everybody does today you know you might hear you'd read it in the newspaper or you'd see it on the news.

That was it.

You couldn't go online to find out more information about the case or to track the case as, you know, different aspects developed and became newsworthy.

Whereas today, most certainly like with Idaho, you know, you can.

follow the trial, you know, online.

You know, so it's, it's a very different environment than when we grew up for sure.

Yeah, absolutely.

And I think so much more misinformation that, you know, as our, as our show goes along over the years, I'm definitely going to want to start dipping into the rights and wrongs that happen in TrueCrime in the TrueCrime community.

As far as, you know, Polly Klass, I just read an article.

It's a little bit older that was written by her sister in the New York Times that just talked about the re-traumatizing of her family every time something happens.

They've never approved of any, you know, program that has gone on about Polly Klass and just saying this is it's just over and over again for decades.

This has been going on.

Yeah.

You know, and I've seen that firsthand.

We had another case out in the Bay Area of Ziana Fairchild, girl abducted and ultimately killed out of Vallejo.

And I became friends with her mom.

Biologically, it's her great aunt, Stephanie Kahalakulu, but in essence, Stephanie is the one that raised Ziana.

And I've seen Stephanie go through those same types of waves of being traumatized because of the public attention.

You know, something becomes newsworthy and now she's thrust in front of the cameras again.

And early on, she was doing it because first she was trying to find her daughter.

And then once it became obvious when Zianna's skull was found that she wasn't going to get her daughter back, then it was, we need to get the killer.

And that's when I got involved in that case.

But since then, there's been multiple reasons for Stephanie to have been put out there.

And she really

struggles with that.

And I actually did present Zianna's case in Mitzi Sanchez, which is also a corresponding case out there at CrimeCon.

And before I did that, I talked to Stephanie.

I got her permission to make sure that was something that she was okay with.

So when you and I talk about these cases that really catch people's attention and then sort of live in infamy, there are definitely cases that you and I talk about that that I think have been forgotten in history, but at that time period were just so infamous.

They can't all be Lizzie Bordens and Jack the Rippers.

And so, you know, that's our goal is to bring these stories back to see what we can learn.

Well, and I think, you know, when you think about it, it's, you know, it's, it's very much like celebrities.

You think about some of these individuals that, you know, Hollywood.

you know, and they were so famous, let's say back in the 1920s.

There's a few exceptions, but many of them have just kind of faded because now new generations of celebrities have occurred and the new generations of consumers are paying attention to that.

And so I think the same thing happens, you know, within the crime stories.

You know, of course, a huge case, O.J.

Simpson, you know, for our generation, you know, that was momentous in terms of so many, for so many reasons.

But I imagine a lot of the kids that you are teaching, they may have have heard of the case, but it probably doesn't resonate the same way.

I think that my students, when we've talked about O.J.

Simpson, they understand the facts of the case.

They understand the controversy around it.

They had heard of Marsha Clark.

I don't think they understand.

the social context around why it was so momentous, you know, around racial inequalities and everything was so polarizing.

I don't remember a case, not even Manson, that was as polarizing, particularly along racial lines, as O.J.

Simpson.

So when I talk about that, they just kind of look at me like, what?

I just thought it was this

ex-football Heisman Trophy winner who killed his ex-wife and her friend.

And it's so much deeper than that.

And I think sometimes you just have to live through it to understand the impact.

Absolutely.

You have a celebrity that many people looked up to as a hero.

He had a very engaging personality.

You know, I know I was stunned, you know, when that case happened, when that crime happened.

And so there's, I think, with that type of offender, you get to where,

you know, you have a personal attachment to that celebrity.

And

to be frank, you know, O.J.

Simpson killed Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman.

I don't want to tap dance around that.

Well, now let's talk about a case that I found really interesting because

while it was not polarizing along racial lines, it is polarizing around gender.

And we are going really far back, 1850s.

And it's, I think, been a while since we've dipped our toe

into something this far back.

But

I think you'll find this case really interesting.

It seems simple, sort of from the beginning, but then it gets more complicated as we move along.

So let's go ahead and set the scene.

So this story takes place in the mid-1850s in Miami County, Ohio, Ohio, which is between the towns of Piqua and Colesville.

I don't know how large these places are now, but then they were small.

Piqua is about 30 miles north of Dayton and it has a population of about 3,300 at the time.

Colesville is a rural community that's about 10 miles south of Piqua.

So we've got two different places that we're talking about here.

We are in April, April 3rd, 1855.

It's a Tuesday.

And the main person at the middle of this story is a guy named Arthur Reagan.

He is very, very, very sick.

He is suffering from severe stomach illness.

And his physician, who is a guy named Dr.

Brownell, says that Arthur has all the symptoms of gastritis or stomach inflammation with vomiting.

If we're talking about that now and it's something that you've ingested, leave off the poison because I know that'll be your go-to.

Is there anything, is it gastritis or what he's experiencing?

Is that, could that be food poisoning?

Could that be taking the wrong medicine and having a bad interaction?

What would that be in today's terms?

I think all of the above, you know, the first thing that came to my mind would be like a food poisoning.

You know, we've all had that.

You know, and that oftentimes is some sort of nasty bacteria, you know, that, you know, got out of control on the food.

But of course, you could have all sorts of different substances that aren't necessarily intended to be poisons, but

they have irritating properties.

This show is sponsored by Better Help.

When life gets overwhelming, who do you turn to?

Maybe it's a friend or a family member.

Talking helps, but a licensed therapist has the training to help you work through what's weighing on you, not just listen.

BetterHelp has over 30,000 therapists and has helped more than 5 million people worldwide, making it the largest online therapy platform out there.

And it works with an average rating of 4.9 out of 5 for a live session based on over 1.7 million client reviews.

BetterHelp is convenient too.

You can join a session with a therapist at the click of a button, helping you fit therapy into your busy life.

Plus, switch therapists at any time.

Sometimes you need to talk to someone who doesn't have some stake in whatever you're discussing.

I think everyone can benefit from therapy.

As the largest online therapy provider in the world, BetterHelp can provide access to mental health professionals with a diverse variety of expertise.

Find the one with BetterHelp.

Our listeners get 10% off their first month at betterhelp.com/slash buried bones.

That's better

H-E-L-P dot com slash buried bones.

This October, we're doing something very different.

We'll be recording Buried Bones live at sea.

That's right.

Kate and I will both be part of the first ever true crime podcast voyage, hosted by Virgin Voyages and iHeart Podcasts.

This is five nights of mystery, luxury, and Halloween fun, sailing to the Dominican Republic and Bimini Bahamas, adults only.

No kids, no stress.

Expect a live podcast recording of buried bones, crime-themed trivia, behind-the-scenes sessions with iHeart hosts, and yes, plenty of surprises.

And it's all wrapped in the full Virgin Voyages experience.

20-plus eateries, Michelin star chef-curated menus, luxe staterooms, Wi-Fi, and entertainment included.

It's not just a cruise, it's a celebration of thoughtful true crime storytelling, and we want you to join us.

Book your cabin now at virginvoyages.com/slash true crime.

That's virginvoyages.com/slash true crime.

We'll see you on board.

Fall is here, and it's the perfect time to update your wardrobe with pieces that feel great and look even better.

Quince makes it simple to stay warm, look sharp, and save while you do it.

Quince has all the elevated essentials for fall.

Think 100% Mongolian cashmere from $50,

washable silk tops and skirts, and perfectly tailored denim.

The best part?

Everything with Quince is half the cost of similar brands, and Quince only works with factories that use safe, ethical, and responsible manufacturing practices and premium fabrics and finishes.

I think my favorite favorite thing is this lightweight cotton cashmere v-neck sweater, which is the one I have that I love, is charcoal gray, and actually, I have a black one too.

Keep it classy and cozy this fall with long-lasting staples from Quince.

Right now, go to quince.com/slash bones to get free shipping and 365-day returns on your next order.

That's q-u-in-ce-e.com/slash bones for free shipping and 365-day returns.

Quince.com slash bones.

So I was wondering about milk pasteurization.

Is there a risk?

I know there's a risk for pregnant women if you are having cheese or milk that's not pasteurized now.

And why is that?

Well, the pasteurization process is, in essence, to eliminate the bacteria that are present during the milking process.

Kind of contaminates the milk.

And so they bring the temperature of the milk up to a certain level to kill the microorganisms, you know, to a point.

You know, of course, after a period of time, milk will still go bad,

but the pasteurization gives it a longer shelf life.

So unpasteurized milk potentially has a greater likelihood of having a microorganism that your body isn't going to like.

So this story is in 1855, and I was just thinking about this in 1862 is when louis pasteur came up with the germ theory which is just what you're saying you know the boiling of milk bringing it to a high temperature actually can kill the bacteria and the yeast because before there were these contaminations that were were coming out like um tuberculosis so i was thinking that when he was complaining to his doctor about stomach pains right now he's sort of on on a farm and between cities and and what he could be eating that is not nefarious at this point.

No, not at all.

And, you know, you think it's not necessarily something that he purposely ingested.

You know, he could have, you know, working on the farm, you know, imagine the hygiene, how many times he's putting his fingers, you know, into his mouth or something like that and how dirty his hands could be, you know, contaminate it.

Let's not to be too graphic, but contaminate it like with animal fecal matter, you know, and of course the bacteria that are present there or just the meats that they're eating.

Now you get into the food side and potential contamination with microorganisms that the body doesn't like.

Now I'd like you to come up with a new list of possible natural contaminations based on what Arthur does for a living.

And there might not be any there there.

I'll tell you.

Have you heard of a craftsman called a cooper?

No.

So it seems like a present tense term, actually, from when I looked at it, but a cooper in the 1800s was someone who makes tubs and vats and wooden barrels that could be used for wine making.

And I first thought, when I thought about his symptoms, I had done a story on a man who had asthma and was working, you know, with spraying all kinds of paint on, spraying paint on cars.

And sometimes he wouldn't wear a mask and it just sounded awful.

So I was wondering if any of those processes that you would do to make those, even in the 1800s, 1800s, they must have involved some kind of chemical, right?

I would think.

You know, I imagine that there's some sort of sealant

that they're using.

And so that'd be my first guess.

Tubs and vats, you know, at least with what I am picturing from this timeframe, they're probably having to shape, you know, form wood,

you know, steam it.

form it and somehow get it bound together and there's mechanical ways to bind it together so the planks you know stay in place but if it's going to be watertight then I think that there's going to be some sort of sealant whether it's a tar-based sealant or

you know

are they use using you know rubber you know sealant you know you know more of a natural type of thing but it also could be something from uh crude oil you know that they've processed out just like vaseline you know petrol atom jelly it you know is something that comes ultimately from crude you know so is there something that they are they're a waxy substance that they get from crude oil and then of course there could potentially be a variety of whether it be mineral-based toxins to even organic benzene for example could be present I'll just tell you sort of what what was used commonly and this does not mean this is what Arthur was doing but these wooden tubs were sort of temporary tubs.

They basically looked like barrels or sometimes they were like water troughs.

So you would dunk yourself in there.

So they were heavy wood, and then they would use iron bands to reinforce the wooden vertical parts of it.

And then sometimes they had a linen cloth to protect the bather from getting a little splinter in your bum.

So essentially, you know, the iron bands, and you're right, there must have also been a sealant in there somewhere.

So we don't really know if if that contributes to it.

I'm just saying this is something that he does that we have to look at too.

This October, we're doing something very different.

We'll be recording buried bones live at sea.

That's right.

Kate and I will both be part of the first ever true crime podcast voyage hosted by Virgin Voyages and iHeart Podcasts.

This is five nights of mystery, luxury, and Halloween fun, sailing to the Dominican Republic, Ambimini, Bahamas, adults only.

No kids, no stress.

Expect a live podcast recording of buried bones, crime-themed trivia, behind-the-scenes sessions with iHeart hosts, and yes, plenty of surprises.

And it's all wrapped in the full Virgin Voyages experience.

20-plus eateries, Michelin star chef-curated menus, lux staterooms, Wi-Fi, and entertainment included.

It's not just a cruise, it's a celebration of thoughtful true crime storytelling, and we want you to join us.

Book your cabin now at virginvoyages.com/slash true crime.

That's virginvoyages.com/slash true crime.

We'll see you on board.

The secret to a great outfit is having the right foundation.

Honey Love makes bras and shapewear that are supportive, lightweight, and designed to move with you.

Start every outfit with Honey Love, and the rest falls into place.

Honey Love is an independent, female-founded brand.

All Honey Love products are intelligently designed by women who actually wear them.

They recently launched their new cloud embrace bra.

It's a wireless bra for people who love underwire.

This style is bound to sell out again, so don't wait to try it.

Honey Love Shapewear is designed to move with you.

It uses targeted compression to enhance your curves instead of squeeze them.

It's designed to work with your body, not against it.

Treat yourself to the most advanced bras and shapewear on the market.

Save 20% off Honey Love at honeylove.com/slash buried.

Use our exclusive link to get 20% off honeylove.com slash buried to find your perfect fit.

After you purchase, they ask you where you heard about them.

Please support our show and tell them we sent you.

Experience the new standard in bras and shapewear with Honey Love.

Every business has an ambition.

PayPal Open is the platform designed to help you grow into yours with business loans so you can expand and access to hundreds of millions of PayPal customers worldwide.

And your customers can pay all the ways they want with PayPal, Venmo, Pay Later, and all major cards.

So you can focus on scaling up.

When it's time to get growing, there's one platform for all business, PayPal Open.

Grow today at paypalopen.com.

Loan subject to approval in available locations.

So Arthur first became sick on Friday.

So when he gets really, really sick is two is the following Tuesday.

So I'll give you kind of the chronology.

So he becomes sick on Friday.

He gets better when Dr.

Brunel takes care of him on Sunday.

We have had several cases of a doctor coming to the aid of someone, and they turn out to be the killer.

This is still a true crime show.

So you can imagine this is not a simple illness.

And I'm not saying the doctor is a suspect, but you do have that access.

You have somebody there and he's administering medicine.

Dr.

Brunel leaves and then Monday he's back to being sick again.

And it doesn't seem like like he's recovering.

So he got better, then he got worse.

Floating around and trying to take care of Arthur is his wife, who is 22 years old.

She is a church-going woman.

Her name is Jane, but everybody calls her Elizabeth Reagan.

She's pregnant at the time.

She talks to the doctor and she says that she thinks that Arthur has purposely poisoned himself

to make himself sick and then potentially take his own life.

She doesn't give a great explanation for this, that he's been troubled.

He's lived a hard life.

This is probably the 10th story that I've done where 50%

turn out to be someone who has intentionally poisoned themselves and 50% it's the spouse saying, yeah, he's this and that.

And then it turns out that they're poisoning them.

Is she expressing that he has any suicidal ideations?

You know, is there a life insurance policy, et cetera?

You know, sometimes people will commit suicide, but they need to make it look like a homicide in order for these policies to actually be dispersed.

And, you know, so that's part of what I would be looking at on this front, you know, with Arthur.

So Arthur does not have a life insurance policy that I can find.

He is not particularly wealthy.

I don't have his exact age, but it looks quite a bit older.

You know, there are not a lot of people who can sort of come around and talk about their marriage in general.

She is saying that he has a troubled mind and that this is what she thinks is happening with him, but she's being pretty vague about it.

You know, like I said, I had thought with these excruciating symptoms, this is not the way most people would have chosen to, you know, take in their own life.

That being said, you have, and don't go into this, Paul, but you have told me about some pretty horrific ways, including a table saw where people have decided to take their own lives.

So now I'm done being incredulous about something like that and expecting anything.

Sure.

You know, but for somebody to poison themselves, they're not necessarily wanting to do it over a long period of time.

They're trying to do an acute poisoning so they die rapidly.

Okay, let's continue on and see what we come up with with Arthur.

Elizabeth, when the doctor says, what are you talking about?

You think he's poisoning himself?

Elizabeth said that he had eaten cream cream of tartar the night before which she now suspects was laced with arsenic i know what arsenic is my mom kept a container in the spice rack of cream of tartar i know it's used in baking i can't remember her ever using it but i know it's there and i think it's still there frankly it's 30 years old right um i have a list of things that they would have used it in but just off the top of your head do you have any idea what what that's use would be in a kitchen it's yeah cream of tartar as far as i know is a baking ingredient.

I think it's, you know, I don't know anything more about it.

I'm not a baker.

It doesn't seem like it's something that you would take by itself.

It would be something that'd be added, you know, to, you know, something that's cooked or something that's baked, but that's all I know.

One of the things I found out is that cream of tartar in the 1800s was used medicinally for heartburn.

And I think it would be mixed with milk, I would suspect, or, you know, like a fiber powder would be today.

So, you know, it was mixed up.

And I think she's saying that he had an upset stomach and he took it.

Now she says, I actually think that this is arsenic that he took.

And he was pretending to take the cream of tartar to, I don't know what it would be, spare her feelings.

I will say cream of tartar was used also in the making of wine.

And we know that, you know, he would make wine barrels.

So all of this is connected in an odd way.

So I don't know.

Is who makes up this cream of tartar?

Who gives it to him or does he go and get it himself?

You know, what is the wife saying?

She says that he did it.

So he got it and took it.

He consumed it.

I don't think he was taking it by the spoonful.

I think because it was medicinal, the insinuation is, is that he was using it because he had an upset stomach or some heartburn.

So obviously, if there's still the source of this cream of tartar, that's evidence.

Yeah.

And then on top of that, Arthur has been vomiting.

And so the doctor had the foresight of making sure he knew where all of this vomit was because it was in multiple places to make sure that if something was going awry here with Arthur, that there would be some kind of evidence.

And the reason is that Arthur denied it.

When he came back on Monday, Arthur had improved and then he started to go downhill and he had a conversation with the doctor and he said, I did not take it myself despite what Elizabeth said.

And he said, I think I'm being poisoned.

And when the doctor pressed him on it, he would not say who did it.

He just said, I'm pretty sure I'm being poisoned.

I think, you know, two thoughts.

You know, the doctor shows up and Arthur starts feeling better.

And whether the doctor gave him something, you know, charcoal or whatever, but the presence of the doctor may have prevented the offender from being able to add to whatever poison is being used.

Maybe it is this arsenic, you know, on that particular day.

And now Arthur's starting to recover either from the medicinal intervention or just from the lack of ingesting more poison.

But then starting Monday, he's back to feeling symptoms.

And either the medicinal intervention wore off

or now he's starting to ingest more poison.

And then of course, who has

the access to Arthur?

We know the wife Elizabeth does, but is there anybody else that is accessing either Arthur directly or anything that he might be ingesting inside the house?

Let's say a maid going into the pantry and spiking the cream of tartar with arsenic.

Well, let's keep going and find out.

Arthur gets worse and worse.

And that day that the doctor's there, he dies because of what he said.

And of course, what Elizabeth said.

The doctor calls in the authorities, which in the 1850s could have been just like a local constable.

It could have been a deputy.

It could have been, you know, various people.

No one, I don't think, with in-depth experience.

However, I think you're going to be a little surprised by this.

They gather the stomach contents once there's an autopsy and they get a dirt sample from outside the Reagan home.

And they get this dirt sample because when he threw up, somebody who was in the house, probably Elizabeth, collected it and threw it outside to get rid of it.

And so they collect this dirt sample and they send it off for analysis in Columbus, Ohio, big city.

They run five different tests.

So they had the capability of looking for arsenic and it comes back arsenic, positive, positive for arsenic.

And I was wondering if you were going to be surprised if they had that capability back then to look for arsenic.

I'm not shocked, I guess is the way to put it.

You know, like I do have the, you know, this Essentials of Forensic Medicine book from 1892, and it's surprising in terms of the depth of chemistry knowledge that the toxicology experts back in the day actually had.

And so the soil that they're looking at, they're obviously not using modern instrumental techniques, nor are they utilizing anything really advanced.

They're in essence reacting that soil with various compounds that they know respond a certain way in the presence of a certain toxin.

And so they, a compound, I don't know what they would have used, but they probably reacted that soil with a compound and maybe microscopically saw a certain shape of crystal.

And they go, ah, that's positive for arsenic.

In this day and age, it's just a presumptive test.

But back then,

they probably

concluded, yes, this is arsenic.

There's arsenic in the soil sample and his vomit is mixed with that dirt.

And then you have to think with arsenic in so many products that were so easily available.

I mean, mostly rough on rats and products used to kill animals.

They're on a farm type situation.

Is this something that he would have ingested accidentally somehow, some way?

But there's a newspaper in 1910 that says that he had ingested enough arsenic, according to the people who tested it, to kill, quote, half a dozen men.

Now that's vague, but I

sounds like a shit ton of arsenic to me.

Is that the scientific term?

Yeah, you know, I think, well, I kind of have a problem because I don't think that there would be any way back in 1850 for them to do what we would call a quantitative analysis.

You know, in essence, there's probably a subjective opinion by the, I'm going to call the person a toxicologist, that is going, this is a strong reaction, stronger than what they typically see.

But it's, in many ways, it's out of context.

You know, you're dealing with something that, you know, is it, has it been concentrated because of the, you know, the vomit aspect and in the soil?

And is there something going on there?

So I don't know.

I really am skeptical about an opinion like that.

But

I think what I would conclude is, is that if this person actually has some experience testing a variety of arsenic containing samples, that they saw a very strong and quick reaction and concluded, oh, there's a lot of arsenic here.

That's probably about the extent that they can say.

Well, of course, the suspicion is on Elizabeth.

I don't think anybody believes, including the doctor, that he took all this stuff himself.

It would have been so painful.

And as you said, over such a long period of time, right?

It just seemed sure.

And especially after Arthur said, I think I'm being poisoned.

I don't know why he didn't say anything.

Maybe he didn't have conclusive proof that it was his wife or a neighbor.

We've certainly heard about, you know, neighbor disputes.

So there's a list of suspects that could pop up.

Right now, they're really homing in on Elizabeth, though.

Well, I think with Arthur making that statement about, I think I'm being poisoned, you know, in many ways that negates him doing this to himself.

Because if he was,

he's now undoing the reason he would be poisoning himself.

You know, now he's saying it's a homicide, right?

Or somebody's trying to hurt me.

And ultimately, it's a homicide through poisoning.

So this does seem to indicate that somebody, with Elizabeth, the primary person having access, is trying to kill him, him

utilizing the arsenic.

Now, Elizabeth is prime suspect for sure, but I also go to, well, if Arthur's going in himself to the cream of tartar, is there somebody else that could be adding arsenic to that cream of tartar, yet, versus just Elizabeth?

I don't believe they're finding arsenic anywhere in the house.

I don't believe they find the cream of tartar anywhere that, you know, we're talking about, but that's not reported.

So I don't know.

It could have been there.

And I think that if it had been tested, there probably would have been a note about that.

But the way we're going into this is because of what he said and because of Elizabeth planting it very early that she believed that he was trying to take his own life.

People, of course, are looking at the wife.

Sure.

So the police are thinking, what kind of physical evidence do we have?

And so far they don't.

They don't have any physical evidence that they can say that would prove, aside from his statement, you know, that I didn't do this, who would have done this to him if the doors are unlocked and there are other people in his life.

Well, and that's where, you know, it's his victimology.

You have the spouse and, you know, what is that relationship like?

How would she benefit if Arthur is no longer around and has died?

But then what else has Arthur been involved with?

And is there a way for somebody on the outside to have accomplished this poisoning if Arthur is not leaving the house during this time that he's ill?

Okay.

Well, let's get into what becomes the more scandalous parts of this story, which are, to me, some of the most interesting.

So a simple mistake leads to some pretty big accusations.

So here's what happens.

Around this time, when the investigators are working on the case and the doctor is trying to figure out what happened, there is a man who shows up to, you know, the investigators.

His name is J.L.

Temple.

He is the assistant postmaster of a town nearby Colesville called Troy.

And he comes with this, I think, damning information.

Months earlier, so January, we're in April when Arthur dies.

So in January, he had gotten a letter that he found really troubling.

It was returned to the post office after it had been given to the wrong person.

Eventually, when he gets this letter back, and there's there's a man named Murray who returns this letter and says, this is not me.

It's meant for somebody else.

Then J.L.

Temple looks at this letter and realizes that he gave it to the wrong person.

The letter was not meant for a man named Murray.

It was meant for a man whose last name was Maori.

So James Mowry was supposed to get this letter, and it was dated December 6th, about a month earlier.

And it was sent from a different town, the Piqua town that i was telling you about before

so it was so disturbing that the postmaster made a copy and then gave it to the rightful you know owner of this who was james mowry this is kind of a long letter but i feel like you're going to want to hear all of it so this guy's name is james it's written to james and it says dear jimmy once again i am seated to write a few lines to you i said i would not write anymore but you know i can't refrain from it and as i have been living in a perfect hell, if you will allow me the expression, it is a hard one, but nevertheless true.

And I have been tormented day and night since I came home.

He, so we don't know who he is, saw me kiss you, and that was enough.

Oh, I have had to suffer for it.

I did not think he saw me, but he was watching me.

I'm so near beside myself.

I hardly know what I am doing.

He says I shall not go home anymore, And he says he will not get me any more clothes.

And then I can't go as much as I have.

Now I can't stand this any longer.

And I appeal for your help.

There is another part of this letter, Paul, but it's unsigned.

I will say this eventually does get tied to Elizabeth Reagan.

Yeah, that's what I kind of figured.

I mean, stating the obvious, obviously Elizabeth seems to have a relationship with James, and that relationship was discovered by Arthur.

Now she is confiding in James on how her life at home is miserable because he's basically taking over control and

what she's doing, as well as it sounds like Elizabeth under the guise of going to see her parents is possibly when she's slipping out to go see James.

And so Arthur is going, uh-uh, you're not doing that anymore.

You're staying home.

This letter, at least with what you've read so far, makes it sound like Elizabeth is feeling trapped.

Now she's having to figure out how do I get out of this trap?

And it sounds like she's possibly appealing to James to help her at this point in the letter.

What a letter to be delivered to the wrong person.

I know.

This isn't me.

This is somebody else.

Can you not read?

It is not Marie.

It's Maury.

Oh, boy.

It's Maori.

Well, do you want to hear the second half of this?

Because then it gets really specific.

Of course, I do.

You know, of course, you know, I'm now questioning the pregnancy and who's the father.

This is what else.

But now it says is Elizabeth is the letter writer here, even though it's not signed.

I have thought of one more plan.

I'm going to make one more proposition to you.

And if you will do it, I will grant you the request you have so long asked of me as soon as you do what I want you to do or before,

if you will only do what I want you.

Now it is this.

You make a proposition to him to go with you to look at some new country to Oregon or Wisconsin or some other place and name the period right off.

And if he says he has not the means, you tell him you will furnish him with the means if he will go for company.

So clearly James and Arthur know each other.

And then I will persuade him to go.

And then you can go on horseback or on the cars and you can take your two horses and go part of the way on the cars and you can take the horses and go the rest of the way that is till you get a good ways away from here and you can procure your poison and administer it in his oysters and he will never know the difference.

You can eat your oysters on the road or you can give them to some farmhouse.

They will never know the difference.

And you can pretend to take it hard to think you have to turn back.

So to pretend to take it hard, like if Arthur dies as a result of eating oysters.

Oh, that's it.

And then he's so upset,

he gets to go back home.

He gets to go back, and now

she's promising him.

I guess the way that I'm interpreting the early part of the second part of the letter is it sounds like James has been asking for a more involved relationship with Elizabeth.

And so she's now saying, you do this, basically kill Arthur,

and I will do what you've been asking for, which sounds like whether that's a marriage or something more involved than what they've been able to do while she's been married with Arthur.

I will inform you now that James is married with children.

So then it gets more complicated.

Well, maybe not.

I mean,

a little look on your face said, maybe not.

What a tangled web they weaved, right?

Yeah, I was just thinking, oysters in the middle of the country.

I've never had oysters.

I don't think I can ingest a whole creature like that.

I'm very picky when it comes to eating food.

Ingesting whole creatures.

Maybe one of these days

with a sufficient bourbon in me, I might try.

Yeah, not with me, buddy.

I don't like oysters either.

Oh, but I was just thinking why.

specifically oysters and i imagine oysters in the middle of the country were probably a a common source source of food poisoning.

They were a delicacy in the 1800s in certain parts.

And certainly I would think Ohio.

I would think it would be very difficult, no matter what the risk is, for somebody like Arthur Reagan to say no to something like that because it would have been pricey for them to get them.

And I wonder if they're packed correctly.

They would be salty, like with salt water.

I don't know what arsenic tastes like, but for some reason, I have heard of oysters being poisoned with arsenic before.

So this doesn't seem novel, but it's definitely a choice.

Cream of tartar seems like it's looking pretty good at this point.

Okay, so the use of the oysters is really just, you know, it's like offering up, you know, nice chocolate, right?

It's just,

okay, so she has devised a plan

and she is manipulating James in order to, in essence, take care of Arthur.

for her.

That's interesting.

It'll be interesting to see how Arthur Arthur ends up being poisoned in his own house, because it doesn't sound like this trip must have happened.

He didn't receive this letter.

Well, he received the letter well before Arthur actually ends up being poisoned, right?

It's January, yes.

So that's what, three or four months before.

I wonder, did the postmaster actually tell James, hey, this was accidentally delivered to somebody else who opened it and read it?

Or did he just kind of repackage the

letter and give it to James without divulging that?

You know, and so now James is kicking into motion what Elizabeth wants, but later in time than what Elizabeth initially thought would happen.

So the postmaster copies this letter.

So to me, that means he clearly didn't turn it over to the investigators.

So he turned this back over to James, but kept a copy of the letter, which is very smart.

There's a little bit left.

Tell me if this makes sense to you.

So the last thing she says to him is pretend like this is terrible and that you're so upset you have to go back home.

When you have accomplished what I have told you, man, she's manipulative.

When you accomplish what I have told you, then you can telegraph to me that he is dead.

I will tell the Templars and have them make up $30

and send to you to bear his expenses.

So, Arthur must have been a member is what I'm assuming.

If you will come up as soon as you get this, I will tell you better.

Now, dear, do come.

You know I love you.

You are well aware of it.

I will write no more till I see you.

Come up right away.

My ink is pale.

You're right.

It sounds like he wants more because she seems to be emphasizing to him and reassuring him how much that she loves him.

And then she's asking this huge thing.

She obviously trusts him enough to not go to authorities.

Yeah.

But also there's there's a two-way street here or maybe a three-way street because James is married himself.

So now, even if he carries out this plot that Elizabeth is launching and gets rid of Arthur, well, that frees up Elizabeth, but he has a family at home that isn't necessarily going to be very accepting of Elizabeth in his life.

So James is sort of in a pinch from that perspective.

So something had, you know, I guess one of the questions I have, did James and Arthur actually go on a trip to find, you know, this plot of land or did that just dissolve over time for one reason?

Like Arthur's like, nah, I'm not interested.

And so now Elizabeth and James have to concoct a different way of getting rid of Arthur.

Yeah, I think once we get into the legal part of this, maybe that'll answer some questions.

I don't believe the trip ever happened.

And I think that they had to kind of punt regarding James's family.

I don't think James is thinking very far ahead is the impression I'm getting.

So James is 32, married with children, as I mentioned.

He is brought, now explain this to me.

He's brought to court for a preliminary trial.

Is that the same thing, do you think, is a preliminary hearing?

This is not a murder trial.

It sounds like it's in for questioning, but there are people testifying, including Elizabeth.

Was this related to Arthur's death then?

Yes, it's not a murder trial.

It sounds like a preliminary hearing, but they're calling it a trial, just to see if it should go on to trial.

That sounds more, I think, akin to like a grand jury.

Okay.

With preliminary hearings, that's after somebody has been arrested, charged, arraigned, right?

And so there, you have a defendant.

So if there isn't a, if you don't have a defendant and they're just hearing the facts of the case, it sounds like either a coroner's inquest or maybe a grand jury.

I think this is probably, you're right, akin to a grand jury.

He's not under arrest.

And I think they're just trying to figure out if there's any there there.

And we do have Elizabeth explaining a lot.

Yeah.

So now tell me what you think.

If you are a defense attorney for James and a defense attorney for Elizabeth, what is the best way to go?

The only thing implicating James right now is this letter, the stinking letter.

We don't have fingerprints.

They're not doing any of that kind of stuff.

They're not putting arsenic in his hand.

But then he knows that his girlfriend is going to sit on the stand and, you know, testify maybe against him, maybe not.

I don't know if he knows.

So I'm not quite sure what the best tact is for either of these people who are now under suspicion for killing Arthur Reagan.

Well, the defense is going to be these two pointing fingers at each other.

But you think about James,

you know, this letter, it's addressed to him, but it's not signed by Elizabeth.

You know, so of course, Elizabeth's attorney is going to say, that didn't come from Elizabeth.

How can you prove it came from Elizabeth?

You know, in 1850, like you said, no fingerprints, no DNA, no signature,

handwriting analysis.

You know, maybe somebody says, well, it looks like her handwriting.

So that's pretty weak, you know, from just the letter itself.

Nor does it even say Arthur's name.

It's he.

So there's a lot of wiggle room that I could see a defense attorney exploiting under those types of circumstances with that letter to defend Elizabeth.

Right now, the biggest thing is arsenic is found.

Elizabeth has access to Arthur, has access to the cream of tartar.

The doctor has been inside the house.

He most certainly

has to be considered.

And you could see a defense pointing at the doctor and saying the doctor is the one that did this.

It would be really tough.

I think James is in the best position,

at least with what you've told me, is he lives a distance away.

Unless somebody have witnesses that could put James lurking around the house around the time Arthur starts getting sick, it's going to be tough to put the poisoning on James from the distance.

But it sounds like Elizabeth in this letter is asking James to come visit her.

So does that visit occur?

Well, let's get into what everybody says here.

Elizabeth has been romantically involved with James in the past before they both got married.

Okay, so when she is talking at this, let's just call this grand jury testimony.

When she is doing this, she is saying, you know, we were together before we met our spouses, then we stopped being together after that.

What she says, how they reconnected is interesting.

She reconnected with him.

So Marin was confused, as am I, about this, last last summer, a year ago.

So, you know, she hasn't seen, she says that they have not seen each other for a while.

And she was visiting her father's home in Colesville.

She says she was nursing her baby at her dad's house when James, who lived in the area, showed up and declared his love for her.

You know, that is kind of a pretty bold statement.

She says that she said, I'm not interested, James.

I've got a baby.

But at some point, the baby passes away.

She sees James again a few months later.

She's in a state of grief.

She's very vulnerable and she succumbs and they start this affair.

There doesn't seem to be anything nefarious about the baby dying.

I'm sure it was like a bacterial effect or something like that.

They're not suspecting anything.

But it sounds like from the beginning of this testimony, she's definitely sort of setting herself up as the vulnerable young woman slash young girl.

So she would have been probably 20, 21 when this started.

James is 10 years older.

So, you know, who is sort of falling for this and this affair begins.

So she sounds like she's being honest.

She's saying, yes, we were having an affair.

We were sleeping together, which in the 1850s would have been something else to say, but she's being honest about it.

So what do you think so far?

Well, this is just, you know, typical human relationships.

You know, whether you've got the marriages or you have, you know, some partner that you're with, with, but then you've also got feelings for somebody else.

I mean, this is a long-term relationship between the two, relatively speaking.

Something caused both of them to marry somebody else.

But then most certainly it sounds like James is still pining for Elizabeth.

I guess Elizabeth actually has also got emotions for him when they restart and rekindle this affair.

Possibly the pregnancy may be a result of

the sexual interactions during affair.

But then Elizabeth, Arthur finds out, and now Elizabeth is capitalizing on James's emotions for her to manipulate him to get rid of Arthur.

And I imagine in 1850s, the idea of a divorce is probably a tough thing to accept.

It would be difficult.

But do you see anything, any credibility in what she's saying, which is, I just lost my baby, and probably she's framing Arthur as crotchety, maybe not the best husband in the world.

She's having this affair that she was manipulated into.

She doesn't know how to get out of it.

And so she's saying, do you see how that there's a world where that could also be happening when you have an older person like James sort of pressing against her constantly?

Because she says, Paul, that James said, run away with me every single time.

She was in town visiting her dad.

He would find find her.

And then he says, let's poison Arthur to make this much easier on both of us.

That's what she says.

He says her perspective is a possibility, but also sounds like she's she's minimizing.

You know, in essence, she's saying, he's the manipulator.

I kind of succumb to the manipulation.

And he's the one that is like, let's get rid of Arthur.

Well, that's, I think, possible.

But if we believe the letter came from Elizabeth, that's not what the letter says.

She's the one.

I mean, she's still saying he's really pining for her in that letter, but she's launching the plot, a very sophisticated plot, relatively speaking, you know, to get Arthur out away from the small town and to poison him with these tainted oysters, you know, and then James can finally get what he's been asking for.

So at that point, she really is the manipulator.

I think Elizabeth, there's probably a lot of truth in terms of how the relationship occurred and James' feelings for her that she's expressing while she's testifying.

But I'm not buying that, you know, James is the one that is, you know, behind Arthur's death is the one that is coming up with that idea.

I think she's the one.

She's the one that's expressing she's feeling trapped because Arthur found out about her and James.

And Arthur probably knew that those two had previous relationships before the marriages occurred.

Well, this is what Elizabeth said about exactly what you're talking about.

She said, I thought he was crazy.

I was not interested in doing that.

I was not interested in leaving Arthur or killing him, especially until Arthur put his hands on me.

And then that's when things changed for me.

She said, James put it in my head a little bit that this was a possibility.

Let's poison him.

I'll leave my wife.

He'll be dead.

Whatever money Arthur has could be ours.

She mentions in that letter, she reiterates that Arthur saw her kissing James and Arthur freaked out.

This happened in December.

She said he grew enraged.

He put his hands on her.

He shook her.

He said exactly what she said.

I'm not buying you any more clothes.

You are never going to your father's again.

And you are not going to see this guy again.

Sure.

And then that's when she sends this letter just saying, I can't deal with it.

I'm not going to be able to live the next 40 years with this guy.

And she's pregnant and I don't know yet.

But of course, we're suspecting that she's probably not having sex with Arthur.

She's having sex with James, though.

So she is feeling trapped.

So, you know, she saw James in January and he had not gotten this letter because of this whole like mumbling mix-up thing that happened.

But she said he's the one who said, let's spike Arthur's coffee with arsenic.

So again, he comes back with, even though there's this letter that's got her plan in it, he's kind of insinuating, this all sounds like it's going to take too long.

Why don't you just get arsenic and put it in his coffee?

Well, you know, fundamentally, a crime has occurred and the crime resulted in Arthur's death.

That's a homicide by poisoning.

So it really comes down to in the investigation.

who is the one providing Arthur the arsenic?

Who is the one, whether it be in his coffee, whether it be in the cream of tartar, who is the one that is doing that?

It doesn't matter that a discussion occurred months before, even if James is the originator of the idea, if he's not the one that is actually dosing Arthur with the actual murder weapon, the arsenic, you know, he is not culpable for the murder.

It's the person that is doing it.

And so that's where we get into, okay, now, obviously, Elizabeth is inside the house.

She most certainly could do this.

Does James have an alibi?

Do we have anybody putting James into a position to either be inside the house or to spike something, a foodstuff, that ultimately makes its way into the house?

You know, and then we're talking about, okay, what is the culpability of the person who's providing, let's say, the cream of tartar that's spiked versus the person who is actually giving the cream of tartar.

And then if it's Arthur who is self-consuming, you know, he goes in,

then there's intelligence from inside the house to the person outside the house of this is what the victim always eats or always drinks.

So now you could see from a distance how somebody like James could be culpable for the homicide because he is now exploiting that type of intel in order because he, you know, just through that information, he is, in essence, dosing arthur himself even though it's from a distance if that makes any sense yeah absolutely i think that you could believe as a man in the 1800s you know sitting as a judge or on a jury that a woman could be manipulated by a man who was older than her for sure but the detail and how well she thought out that plan of taking him on a horseback and the whole oysters, I mean, she really thought out every detail.

So, you know, I am then leaning a lot more towards she was manipulating James more than anything else.

But let's continue.

So she says, you know, I bought arsenic.

He told me to.

I mixed it into Arthur's coffee.

It made him sick, but it didn't kill him.

So that must have been the Friday into the Sunday when the doctor shows up, right?

Yeah.

She said she tried again after the doctor left that Sunday and she put it in his chicken soup.

And he said it tasted great.

And then he died the next day.

So she is fully admitting this, which is what makes this case to me even more interesting.

We don't know why she testified.

She was not compelled or made to do it.

There were some sources that said she did it because she was going to be promised sort of immunity later on, because really people did think she was being manipulated, that it wasn't him.

She had given birth.

She was breastfeeding on the stand.

And this would have been really shocking.

I mean, it would be shocking now, I think, but it was really shocking.

And she was saying, I have to be able to do this.

So then you think about that, is that a level of manipulation?

What is that doing to the people who are listening to this information?

Yeah, to me, that's blatant manipulation in terms of trying to become more sympathetic to the jurors or to whoever, if this was just maybe a, you know, you just have a judge, a magistrate that's hearing the testimony.

But in essence, here I am, you know, now a single mother, you know, and I've got to take care of my baby.

I couldn't imagine a judge actually allowing that to occur during session, but 1850s and small little area out there in Ohio, who knows how their trials are run.

But fundamentally,

she is confessing.

to murdering Arthur on the stand.

She's the one that is putting the arsenic in different things that Arthur is ingesting.

So it's not just a one-time thing.

She does it in his coffee.

She does it in his chicken noodle soup.

You know, so that from my perspective is cut and dry.

You know, she murdered Arthur.

Now, all this talk about the relationship, you know, you've got from Elizabeth's perspective, and one of the things I wanted to address, I don't disbelieve her in terms of Arthur got physical with her after finding out about James, right?

You know, but does that

not a get out of jail free card in terms of this type of homicide?

Because she's now plotting.

She's sending the letter with a very detailed plot.

She's now putting arsenic into multiple foodstuffs that ultimately kills Arthur.

So standalone, you know, she is responsible for murder.

The reason she murders Arthur could come into play in terms of assessing kind of the sentencing, if you will,

you know, and

where the crime charge is i don't know what ohio's murder statutes are you know is this a second-degree murder doesn't could you could even argue maybe there's a first degree aspect with all the the malice aforethought you know the pre-planning so from my perspective she's absolutely responsible and is confessing to the murder of arthur it just now comes into well what is james role in the crime

you know it's one thing to be in a relationship and to discuss this but does James provide the arsenic?

You know, does he instruct her how to do it?

You know, there's there, I think there's different levels of culpability that may or may not be there for James.

Well, she admits she bought it herself, and one of them doesn't know what they're doing because she didn't give him enough to begin with, you know.

So if James did kind of try to give her advice on how much to administer, he didn't know what he was doing either because he didn't kill Arthur the first time.

Yeah, I have a hard time,

at least within the murder of Arthur, seeing how James has any significant culpability.

Does he lie to the constable or to law enforcement?

Does he have knowledge and fails to come forward, even though that's not necessarily a crime?

But if he lied while being interviewed to a peace officer or to the court, if he testified, then yeah, maybe he could be charged with a type of crime.

But the mere fact that he was aware that Elizabeth was possibly plotting against Arthur and had tried to involve him, he could have reported Elizabeth at that point.

You know, she's in essence trying to hire a hitman, right?

Yep.

What ended up happening to James?

So here's what happens.

James is never tried for Arthur's death.

Okay.

There just isn't any evidence against him.

Yeah.

And, you know, he had denied all of this to begin with.

So we don't know what his role was.

He is kept quiet.

We don't know what happened to him after that, but he is let go.

After her testimony, she is arrested and they want to put her on trial for murder.

I don't know if it was first degree.

I can't imagine what would be for, maybe it would be first degree.

I don't know.

Let me kind of preface this by telling you what a reporter says who was in that preliminary trial.

And it was sort of the sentiment of everyone there because it was very clear to them that she was confessing when she was giving this testimony.

He says, We have no desire to injure Mrs.

Reagan, to magnify her guilt, or to lessen the mitigating circumstances in her case.

On the other hand, we would gladly see her restored to innocence and happiness if it were possible.

1855.

For the sake of her sex, we would rejoice to see the responsibility of her crime thrown upon man if it could be done justly.

It is more fitting, less shocking that man should commit such a monstrous crime.

But Mrs.

Reagan has placed it out of our power or the power of any man to injure her case.

She is a self-convicted murderer and nothing can save her from death but the clemency of the governor.

Her life may be saved and we hope it will, but she can never be restored to society again.

Now, this is before she's charged with murder, but it will kind of give you an idea of the mindset of particularly the men in this case who just don't want to do this.

They do not, this would have been a capital crime.

Obviously, she would have been executed.

They don't want to do this.

Nobody wants to do this.

And then she's been breastfeeding on the stand for part of her testimony.

She most certainly is a sympathetic defendant, you know, young, young female, feeling trapped, possibly being abused.

You know, how they viewed the affair, 1850s,

that probably was

something that really was a mark against both her and james

i can see

22 year old that's how old she was right 22 right 22 at the time you know i've got a daughter that's 10 years older than that but i i know you know what she was like when she was 22 and i've got a daughter that's you know senior in high school you know i mean this this is such a young age you know in some ways you can say this is a bad decision and you feel sorry that she, I mean, you feel sorry for Arthur.

He lost his life,

but she's just showing such poor judgment in terms of how to get out of what she feels trapped in.

Would there have been other

avenues that she could have taken where she doesn't resort to murder?

You know, and that's that's the big thing.

My surprise is the capital punishment side for this case.

And maybe it's it's just speaking to the 1850s.

You know,

it seems like that is kind of excessive punishment, a death penalty for this particular case, even though it is a murder case.

Yeah, I understand that.

I mean, this would be a time period, though, where if you're a habitual thief, they would have put you to death also.

This was pretty extreme.

Let me tell you what happens.

All of this, Paul, is to say that she is never put on trial trial for murder.

I don't know if this is the district attorney or the sentiment in general that they will not convict a woman and sentence her to death, but that would have been the only option, and nobody wanted to do it.

I think there was a feeling that she was manipulated by an older man, that potentially Arthur had been abusive.

She had a baby in her arms.

She was young.

So she is not convicted.

She is let go.

She eventually leaves Pickwa and she goes to Indianapolis.

And the newspapers say that at one point, an old friend was leaving a church and Elizabeth was there working at the church in Indianapolis and went on presumably to live, you know, a hopefully quiet life.

But that's what ended up happening.

They both get out of it.

And we have no, we just know somebody has poisoned Arthur Reagan and nobody's been held responsible ever for this case.

Right.

But you have, you have Elizabeth confessing confessing to doing the poisoning.

Yeah.

The DA does have discretion.

However, you know,

when you are talking about, even with these, you know, Elizabeth talking about the potential abuse, the idea that she's being manipulated by an older man, the 32-year-old, these are what I would call are mitigating circumstances.

And those can be taken into account by the district attorney in terms of, well, how is she going to be charged?

And the judge can also take those mitigating circumstances in terms of the penalty.

I think my primary problem is, is that she had somebody commit murder, admits to committing murder, and they're not held responsible.

I think that the mitigating circumstances could have been used to potentially reduce.

what Elizabeth was convicted of and how long her sentence would have been.

But I still think she needs to be held responsible.

That's kind of the position where I would come in.

You know, this wasn't a self-defense scenario that sometimes you do see with women that are being abused by men.

And we don't, it doesn't sound like it got to that level.

She is able to take her time and poison Arthur and kill him in a very slow, painful way.

Even though she's young and there's those mitigating circumstances, I do feel that she should have at least been held responsible, you know, to a point, for for sure.

I agree.

But I will point this little bit out.

So, you know, we've done stories before about women who feel trapped because they're pregnant by their boyfriends who they're having an affair with.

So if she is pregnant in December or January is what they keep pointing to, saying January, by month four, I'm assuming that Arthur would have started to see signs.

of this pregnancy by April and they're not having sex, I'm presuming.

I could be wrong.

Of course, there could be obviously forced sex, but I I just wonder if there was like this ticking clock with the pregnancy.

She doesn't mention that.

That would not be a good thing for her to mention, obviously.

But that's what I was thinking in my head this whole time: she's pregnant.

He's going to know it's not his.

She's going to get bigger and bigger.

And how much longer can she hold out on this?

And then it would have just been fireworks in that small community in Ohio.

It would have been awful for her.

Yep.

So, yes, to mitigating circumstances.

No, to execution.

Yes, to, I guess, James leaving and getting out of this.

But, you know, of course, we think James is looped in here somehow, some way.

And I wonder what happened with his wife and his kids if she just said, okay, I'm out of this.

That's it.

But in the 1850s, is that the grounds for divorce?

It was like an act of God to get a divorce.

I mean, you had to go to the state legislature to get a divorce in that time period.

I know it was really, it was really difficult.

So you have worked so extraordinarily hard that I think you do need a couple of weeks off.

So we are on a hiatus week next week.

Are we?

I mean, listen, you can come back next week.

I'm not going to be here, but I can leave the fireplace on in the cottage if you want.

And

I can pine for you, hoping that you will

step into your cottage there.

You could just make, I know you could fulfill some kind of a dream for us to switch roles and you can tell me a story and I can pipe in with different information.

There's no way.

Yeah,

I could not hold a candle to your storytelling.

Oh, Paul, Paul, thank you.

Well, I will see you in two weeks.

We'll come back with a case in a completely different era because I need a break already from the 1850s for sure.

Okay, sounds good.

Well, you take care of yourself, and we'll see you in a few weeks.

Okay.

This has been an exactly right production.

For our sources and show notes, go to exactlyrightmedia.com/slash buried bones sources.

Our senior producer is Alexis Emorosi.

Research by Marin McClashin, Allie Elkin, and Kate Winkler-Dawson.

Our mixing engineer is Ben Toliday.

Our theme song is by Tom Breifogel.

Our artwork is by Vanessa Lilac.

Executive produced by Karen Kilgariff, Georgia Hardstark, and Danielle Kramer.

You can follow Buried Bones on Instagram and Facebook at Buried Bones Pod.

Kate's most recent book, All That Is Wicked, A Gilded Age Story of Murder and the Race to Decode the Criminal Mind, is available now.

And Paul's best-selling memoir, Unmasked, My Life Solving America's Cold Cases, is also available now.

Listen to Buried Bones on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.

Old cases, new waters.

We're taking buried bones on a cruise.

This October, we're setting sail with Virgin Voyages on the first ever True Crime podcast cruise, and we want you to join us.

We've got five nights of events, meetups, and mystery on board, plus a live taping of buried bones that you won't want to miss.

This is an all-inclusive experience.

No kids, no stress.

Join the true crime experience to the Dominican Republic and Biomini, Bahamas.

Book now at virginvoyages.com/slash true crime.

That's virginvoyages.com/slash true crime.

We'll see you on on the ship.

This is an ad by BetterHelp.

We've all had that epic rideshare experience.

Halfway through your best friends, and they know your aspirations to go find yourself in Portugal.

It's human.

We're all looking for someone to listen.

But not everyone is equipped to help.

With over a decade of experience, BetterHelp matches you with the right therapist.

See why they have a 4.9 rating out of 1.7 million client session reviews.

Visit betterhelp.com for 10% off your first month.

Time for a sofa upgrade?

Visit washable sofas.com and discover Anibay, where designer style meets budget-friendly prices, with sofas starting at $699.

Anibay brings you the ultimate in furniture innovation with a modular design that allows you to rearrange your space effortlessly.

Perfect for both small and large spaces, Anibay is the only machine-washable sofa inside and out.

Say goodbye to stains and messes with liquid and stain-resistant fabrics that make cleaning easy.

Liquid simply slides right off.

Designed for custom comfort, our high-resilience foam lets you choose between a sink-in feel or a supportive memory foam blend.

Plus, our pet-friendly stain-resistant fabrics ensure your sofa stays beautiful for years.

Don't compromise quality for price.

Visit washablefas.com to upgrade your living space today with no-risk returns and a 30-day money-back guarantee.

Get up to 60% off, plus free shipping and free returns.

Shop now at washable sofas.com.

Offers are subject to change and certain restrictions may apply.