However, opium has several other side effects that did not correspond at all with Frank’s behavior. Its use has been shown to bring on a calm, comfortable, serene feeling. As the user begins to feel more self-assured, worries drift away, and a kind, understanding patience sets in. It would, in fact, be out of character for a person under the influence of opium to just suddenly kill someone.
Others did not believe Frank was an opium user. That was not the only rumor going around about his strange and long-standing mental condition. Some people who knew him were claiming he was constantly resorting to the use of cocaine, starting from just before or just after the time of his wife’s death.
Again, several effects of this drug could easily explain Frank’s behavior. Cocaine causes the user to experience increased oxygen intake, which brings about a strange kind of talkativeness and a very high level of energy. But just as the opium addiction theory didn’t exactly match Frank’s profile, neither did the theory of cocaine addiction. Frank talked of being hungry and eager to obtain a meal while riding the Bay Queen to Rocky Point. He ate a large meal when he arrived at the dinner hall and had eaten a large meal at his sister’s house the night before. While opium tends to make a person very hungry, cocaine nearly erases the appetite, causing users to go for days without eating.
Like opium, cocaine was sold over the counter at pharmacies, both in pure form and as an ingredient in medicines for babies, children and adults. In 1886, it even became the main ingredient in a new soft drink that soared in popularity. Cocaine was almost revered for its miraculous power, and psychologist Sigmund Freud highly recommended its use after utilizing himself as a guinea pig and performing several experiments with the drug. In 1884, he published On Coca and began touting cocaine as a sure cure for opium addiction.
Perhaps Frank was using opium. Perhaps he was using cocaine, too. It’s possible he was using one drug to cease his reliance on the other. Or maybe he wasn’t using any drugs at all. There were still those who believed that Frank was simply out of his mind through no fault of his own.
8
THE TRIAL
I Don’t Think the Man Is Crazy
On October 9, 1893, the State of Rhode Island v. Frank H. Sheffield on the charge of murder came to fruition.
Thirty-four-year-old Coventry constable James B. Fish had picked up the prisoner from the jailhouse that morning and brought him in for trial. Frank entered the courtroom neatly clad in a Prince Albert coat over a black suit. Everyone noticed that his usually close-cut beard had grown nearly two inches in length since the murder. However, the beard did little to conceal the look of utter despair on his face.
He was brought to the seat between that of his attorney, Nathan Lewis, and that of his brother-in-law, George Brightman. The courtroom was packed with witnesses and spectators, and as more people continued to file in, they found that there was standing room only.
The jury included no women, no mothers of little girls who would have felt sickened by the nightmarish act that had taken place that terrible day at Rocky Point. Instead, a panel of mostly middle-aged male farmers was selected to decide the fate of the man before them.
Selected as jury foreman was forty-eight-year-old Fenner Kent, a farmer from Coventry. Also serving on the panel were William H. Brown, fifty years old and also a farmer from Coventry; Atmore Robinson Brown, age forty-five, a West Greenwich farmer; fifty-seven-year-old Ichabod Fish, another farmer from West Greenwich; George A. Carr, a twenty-seven-year-old farmer from Coventry; Wanton Lillibridge Albro, a forty-nine-year-old team driver from West Greenwich; fifty-two-year-old stable owner Joshua Clarke Arnold from East Greenwich; Lafayette Blanchard, age forty-two, a carpenter from Coventry; Byron Killon, a thirty-three-year-old from Coventry; and Warwick resident Frank Oscar Johnson.
A sketch of Frank Sheffield. Drawn by Joseph Roland Sullivan.
Of the jury members selected, two of them stated that they knew absolutely nothing about the case, although it had been front-page news.
Frank H. Gardiner, a thirty-four-year-old teamster from Warwick, was excused from the jury pool when he admitted that he did indeed know about the case and had been reading about it in the local newspapers. He stated that he had already formed an opinion on the guilt of Frank Sheffield.
John B. Gendron of Warwick was also excused, as he was employed by the town as a constable, making him an unsuitable juror.
West Greenwich resident Frank H. Capwell was not accepted to the jury when it was discovered that he was only twenty-two years of age, which was too young to serve.
Charles H. Battey from Coventry, a fifty-one-year-old farmer, also admitted that he had been reading all about the case in the local newspapers, and his opinion on whether Frank was guilty of murder had already been formed. He stated that he couldn’t honestly say whether any evidence presented during the trail would alter his opinion. He was thereby excused from jury duty as well.
Also excused was Swedish-born August Abramson, who did not understand the English language well enough to fill the position efficiently.
When Frank’s wife, Nancy, entered the courtroom at fifteen minutes past eleven, he made no acknowledgement of her presence. Dressed appropriately in refined mourning clothes, she appeared to be quite nervous. The indictment charging her husband with murder was read, and the defendant entered a plea of not guilty.
Thirty-five-year-old Attorney General Willard Brooks Tanner opened for the State of Rhode Island by describing for the jury what had transpired on the day of the murder. Moses Fifield was the first witness called to the stand. After raising his right hand and swearing to tell the truth, he described in detail the nature of the wounds on Maggie’s head.
Robert Quinn, the teenaged house painter who had accompanied Harrington to the murder scene, was called to the stand next. He stated that he had been at Rocky Point Park on the afternoon of August 28 and first saw Maggie at about quarter past four. He said she was lying in the woods near the park, and he believed her to be dead. Quinn described picking up the little dying girl off the ground and carrying her into the park’s theater.
Michael Lynch testified in regards to the conversation he’d had with Frank at the county jail at the time the warrant was served.
Newell Belcher and Frank Holden told the jury what they had seen of Frank’s behavior that fateful day, as did two employees of the Shore Dinner Hall who described the way Frank oddly stared at the ceiling and occasionally gawked around in a strange manner instead of focusing his attention on his little daughter as she chatted away excitedly.
Tanner closed the state’s case that morning at forty minutes past eleven.
Lewis opened for the defense by explaining that he would not try to deny the fact that a terrible killing had taken place that day at Rocky Point but would provide testimony that would prove that Frank had absolutely no motive to murder his daughter.
“It takes something beyond the mere physical act of killing to produce murder,” Lewis told the jury. “If Frank Sheffield were acquitted and cured today, he could never expect to enjoy life again. But to his relatives who sit in the shadows of a great grief, your verdict, gentlemen, means something. Will you add to this sorrow the tingle of shame by branding the husband and father a felon?”
Lewis spent twenty minutes setting the stage for his arguments before Nancy was called to the witness stand and placed under oath. After she was asked to describe her husband’s behavior prior to Maggie’s death, she told the court that, in addition to her husband’s recent unannounced trip to Attleboro, he had inexplicably wandered away from home on two previous occasions.
Nancy recounted how, the year before, he had left his home in Pawcatuck one cold, winter day and ventured out on the snow-covered ground with apparently no idea where he was going. He later explained to her that hours after he had wandered off, he came to his senses and suddenly realized that he was in Mystic, although he had no recollection of how he had gotten there.
The following month, she
recalled, he disappeared from home again, this time finding himself in Preston, Connecticut. He continued on to Norwich, where he called his family and told them his whereabouts, explaining that he didn’t know how he had arrived at that destination. Nancy told the court that when her husband had talked to her about his abrupt excursions, he explained that he never knew what was happening until something snapped in his head, making him rational again and able to start on his way back home.
Frank’s demeanor, as the trial went on, seemed to change by the minute. The expression of despair soon turned to one that seemed to indicate little concern about what was happening around him. His apparent lack of interest in the proceedings was noticed by many who thought it odd, considering the fact that his fate was hanging in the balance. Seemingly overcome with boredom and unaware of the whispering crowd behind him, he remained strangely idle while witnesses filed passed him to take the stand and recount the events of his life for the twelve men who would determine whether he was, legally, a coldblooded killer.
George Brightman was called to the stand to give his opinion on the mental condition of his brother-in-law. George said that he believed Frank was insane and informed the court that he had even suggested to Frank’s father in the past the idea of having him placed in an asylum. He testified that he had been shocked by his brother-in-law’s appearance on that August day when he showed up at the house. He described Frank as looking haggard, unshaven and wearing an unnatural expression.
George stated that he was also surprised at, and concerned by, the demanding manner and urgent determination Frank exhibited as he announced repeatedly that he was taking Maggie home. “There was a peculiar glitter in his eyes when he looked at her so much that she asked him why he was staring at her that way,” he testified.
Dr. George F. Keene, of the Rhode Island State Hospital for the Insane, who had finally been allowed to examine Frank in jail, told the court that he believed the defendant to be undoubtedly suffering from insanity. The forty-year-old doctor had been appointed the visiting physician of Rhode Island Institutions on March 1, 1883. He then served as deputy superintendent of the Asylum for the Chronic Insane. He would go on to be appointed superintendent of the Rhode Island State Hospital for the Insane on May 21, 1897.
Keene described in detail the psychological tests that he had performed on Frank. He then explained in a strangely confusing way how a truly insane person was likely to hurt not only his enemies but also those he loved. A person pretending to be insane, he said, usually had a violent manner and a disheveled, unkempt appearance. It wasn’t immediately clear how such a testimony would help to prove that Frank was unquestionably insane, as numerous people had commented on his haggard appearance, which, according to Keene’s beliefs, indicated merely a façade of insanity.
“Do you think that a man who has shown such symptoms as those that have been described and attributed to Frank Sheffield would be responsible for such acts?” Keene was asked, hypothetically.
“I would have grave doubts about such a man’s responsibility,” the doctor answered.
Other witnesses took the stand to give their opinions of Frank’s personal appearance.
“He could hardly be recognized,” stated one man who had seen him at the jail. He described Frank’s face as being “all distorted and care-worn.”
Hinckley spoke about the poor physical image of his friend and added that he did not expect Frank to live much longer, given his condition. Even the purser of the Bay Queen, who had spoken to Frank on that summer day in question, testified about his neglected face, aimless movements and vacant staring.
Still more witnesses were presented, one testifying that Frank had been fired from his job at the railroad station six months prior to the murder because of his inability to keep the freight accounts straight. In all, there were about a dozen witness testimonies for the jury to consider.
Lewis told the court that there were additional people he had planned to put under oath, but not expecting the state’s case to be presented so quickly, he had not asked them to appear that day. Not wanting to prolong the trial, he stated that he would not ask them to appear at another time, as he believed the jury would be sufficiently convinced by the testimonies of that day of Frank’s mental deficiencies.
The author addresses the East Greenwich Preservation Society from the witness stand that was used at Frank Sheffield’s trial. Photograph by Marylou Fiske.
Of all the witness statements presented that day, the most disturbing undoubtedly came from the forty-nine-year-old physician Frank had been visiting regularly at his office on High Street in Westerly. Dr. John Howard Morgan admitted to the court that Frank had actually been subject to past impulses to kill his daughter.
Dr. John Howard Morgan, who knew of Frank Sheffield’s drive to kill his daughter. Vintage photograph, author’s collection.
During his visits with Morgan, Frank had talked about how worried he was about not being able to hold a job. He was heavily concerned about his financial welfare and told his doctor that there were occasions when he was consumed with strife about this. At those times, he considered killing Maggie to prevent her from suffering or becoming a financial burden on someone else.
According to Morgan, Frank had a morbid fear of not being able to maintain secure employment and provide for his children. Frank had told him that, during such times of worry, he often had to struggle to keep the impulse to kill his daughter subdued. Morgan obviously had legitimate reasons to instruct Nancy not to let Frank out of her sight. However, he had failed to take any serious precautions that would prevent his patient from acting on his murderous impulses.
Morgan testified that a few days before the unspeakable crime was committed, Frank had tried to commit suicide with laudanum, a ruby-colored liquid composed of wine, saffron, cinnamon and opium. The drug was regularly prescribed for pain, and while it is possible that one of Frank’s physicians prescribed it for him, there was never any mention of how he obtained it.
A man who had worked with Frank at the depot said that there were several times when Frank had told him that he was afraid his eventual death would be a fearful one. He was always despondent, said the man, and very scared of the future.
A teacher and former co-worker of Frank’s at the Palmer Street School testified that although there had been times when Frank was ill and unable to carry out his duties, there was nothing about him that would have called attention to the matter any more than it would have if any other person had been feeling ill. All of the teachers and students greatly admired him, she said, and the only oddity she ever noticed was that sometimes he acted as if he was extremely nervous.
Frank’s attorney put much effort into his argument that, despite his client’s having taken his five-year-old child to an amusement park and killing her there, he should not be held accountable for it. There were a number of things beyond Frank’s control that Lewis felt could have caused his behavior and actions on that day. He brought the court’s attention to the fact that Frank had contracted a skin disease called erysipelas in 1891. Erysipelas is an infection caused by bacteria that originates in the back of a host’s nose and throat. Eventually, the disease spreads to the lymphatic vessels, causing lymph node swelling, chills, fever, a distorted facial expression and a lumpy skin surface.
Preexisting factors that may lead to erysipelas are those that cause ulcerations in the back of the nose and throat, leaving a breeding ground for the bacteria. While it is not known how Frank Sheffield used cocaine—if he used it at all—snorting the drug can cause severe ulceration in that very area. Opium use, on the other hand, is known to cause dry, scaly skin and other dermatological disorders that might bring about skin ulcerations, abscesses and infections such as erysipelas.
His painful bout with the disease had left Frank in a distorted state of mind, his lawyer explained, rendering him depressed and despondent from that time on.
The defense was determined to convince the jury that Frank was not
the type of man who, in a normal state of mind, would have killed his own child. He was the son of a preacher and had been known as a man of excellent character. He had a reputation for being especially kind toward children and had even held the position of school principal. He had been an innocent victim of fate and suffered a traumatic head injury from being struck by a school bell. His mind had been forever altered by a serious bacterial infection. He experienced regular involuntary lapses of memory. And besides all those things, Frank had absolutely no motive for killing his daughter. Apparently, the defense chose to completely ignore the testimony of Frank’s own doctor.
There was a very important decision to be made, not only by the jurors, but also in the heads of those who knew Frank and those who had been following the case. Everyone needed to come up with their own determination concerning whether Frank was a coldblooded killer. That which the jury decided would mean his incarceration or freedom. That which the general public decided would determine his future reputation. Was Frank Sheffield truly insane? Had his mind been altered through no fault of his own by a skin problem or a blow to the head? Or was he a drug user whose habit had spiraled out of control?
“I think he is daft,” was the opinion of Rocky Point Park manager Harrington.
Murder at Rocky Point Park:: Tragedy in Rhode Island's Summer Paradise Page 5
