Cordelia Botkin

Once again I have chosen and “old” case that involves a murder that was said to have been committed by a woman. Unlike the case of The Cold Spring Murders in which I just posted, there is much more information on this case, especially the evidence again Cordelia Botkin. This case is notorious because it is said to have been the first case in which the United States Postal Service was used to commit murder.

John Dunning married Mary Penington on February 12, 1891 in Dover Delaware. The Penington's were prestigious and wealth as her father served as Congressman. Within a short period the couple moved to the San Francisco area and they became parents. One strange thing about this case is I was never able to learn if their child was a boy or a girl as it always referred to the child as “the infant” or baby or simply their child.

It has been said John Dunning would meet Cordelia Botkin sometime around 1892 or 1893 and they began a secret affair. Cordelia, who was born in 1854 would have been nearly forty years old at the time but I could not determine how old John Dunning was at this time. It is reasonable to believe he was close to the same age. Mary Penington was twenty-eight when the couple married, a significant age for the time period. Apparently, for reasons unknown not long after the affair began Mary Dunning took their child and moved back to Delaware to live with her parents. It was said that now, despite the fact that Cordelia was still married to her husband, Welcome Botkin, the two carried on their affair but no longer in secrecy. At some point the two lived in the same building which obviously made it more convenient for them. It is not clear just what kind of relationship remained between Mary and John. In fact, I have questioned whether the year that John and Cordelia met and began their affair may have been off by some years.

In March of 1898 John would tell Cordelia that his new job as an Associate Press war correspondent was taking him to Puerto Rico. She allegedly begged him to stay but not only did he refuse, it was stated that he had no intentions of returning to San Francisco. While it was never stated it was apparently assumed that Cordelia must have expected that to mean that John intended to go back to Delaware and be with his wife and child. This is part of the reason that I question what year John and Cordelia met. Research indicates that Mary and John had now been separated for three to four years. It was not completely unheard of for couples to separate, yet not divorce, and still reconcile, especially in that time period but it still seems to me to be a bit of a stretch. I cannot say just how long it would have taken to send a package, or even a letter through the postal service in 1898 from California to Delaware so it is unclear just how quickly Cordelia put a plan in action.

It seems that it was not long after John Dunning left California that Mary, who was still living with her parents in Delaware, received a letter from San Francisco telling her that her husband was being unfaithful. The letter was not signed and was sent anonymously. Here again this is where I wonder about the timeline of the affair and how long the couple had been separated. I feel as if even today if a couple had been separated for as long as has been indicated here it would be reasonable to believe that both had “moved on” with their lives in many ways, including taking a lover. To add that this was before even 1900 it would be reasonable to believe that not only would it not be a surprise to Mary that her husband was “unfaithful” but expected and maybe a non issue for her. It seemed to be tolerated from men. Apparently the letter was kept but nothing was done about it legally, morally or otherwise.

On August 9, 1898 Mary Dunning got a package delivered to her. By now Mary's sister, Ida Deane, along with Ida's husband Joshua and their two children were also living in the Penington home. There was little mention of the Dunning child after Mary went to Delaware but if we believe the timeline the child would now be about six or seven years old. There was no mention of a death of the child, but in the same respect when discussing who lived in the home in August of 1898 even this child was not mentioned. After dinner that night Mary opened the package. Inside was a box of candy. There was a handkerchief and a note inside. The note simply stated “With love to yourself and baby, Mrs. C.” It was alleged that Mary indicated she had no idea who this was from but decided to eat, and share the candy with others. It seems that Mary was outside eating the candy with her sister, Ida Deane, Ida's two children and two neighbors, Miss Millington and Miss Bateman, who allegedly happened by as they were outside. Everyone that ate the candy would become ill that night with stomach pains and vomiting. Miss Millington, Miss Bateman and the Deane children would recover but on August 11^th Ida Deane would die and her sister, Mary Dunning, would follow her the following day.

Mary's father, John Brown Penington, would recognize the handwriting on the note from the candy as being obviously similar to the handwriting on the anonymous letter sent several months before. The candy was taken to a chemist and it was determined that there was arson in the candy, or at least the box itself. John Dunning was sent a telegram and immediately went to Delaware. Once there he examined the letters and was certain that the handwriting on both items belonged to Cordelia Botkin. He also told investigators that he was certain he had told Botkin that his wife enjoyed candy and she had been good friends with a Mrs. Corbaley.

An investigator from Delaware headed to San Francisco with the candy, the note and the name Cordelia Botkin. Investigators in California took over the investigation of the case at this point. Later there would be questions as to who was or would be in charge of the case. If you know anything about the law, the one number question that is asked before any case can go forward is who has jurisdiction. A lot can come into play in determining jurisdiction. For example if a person is kidnapped in one county or state and yet killed in another oftentimes who has the right to prosecute is questioned. It becomes a little clearer if the person was kidnapped and murdered in one county, even if the body is disposed in another. Sometimes ego will come into play to get a “big win” but in extreme cases a judge will settle the argument if law enforcement or prosecutors cannot agree. This case was unusual, and even then unique, in the fact that it would be argued that while Mary Dunning died in Delaware, the plan for her murder, as well as the “weapon” had been in California. But, in the beginning when the Delaware investigators gave the case to the California ones it is reasonable to believe that was policy at the time and that it was to avoid stepping on toes. It appears that the investigators from Delaware expected California to follow the leads and information they were given, finish the investigation and if warranted send Cordelia Botkin to Delaware to face trial. I will go into what really happened in just a bit.

Investigators would determine that Cordelia left San Francisco on August 4^th for St. Helena California. It would be alleged that this was the exact day that the candy had been mailed to Mary Dunning. Even still Cordelia actually lived in Stockton, nearly ninety miles from San Francisco. The investigation would find several witnesses that placed Cordelia smack dab in the middle of the crime and it was decided that charges would be filed against her. Now the fight for jurisdiction would begin. In the end a judge would decide that the trial would take place in California. I am on the fence on who I believe should have been able to try her considering that either way there would have been a lot of traveling of witnesses. Witnesses in California included friends Cordelia's as well as those who alleged they had witness her buying the candy, buying arsenic, and even mailing the box. Witnesses in Delaware would consist of Mary and Ida's family members who's only real contribution would be the existence of the previous letter and the events of the night the package arrived and the pain the victims went through. A doctor who cared for them could have also been on that list as well as the chemist who identified the arsenic but the latter could have also been found in California. Once it was determined that Cordelia would be tried in California she was officially indicted for murder on October 28, 1898. Her trial would begin on December 9^th.

Aside from the already sensationalism of the trial in which the postal service was used and the fact that a woman had sent poison in the mail to the wife of her lover, John Dunning's testimony also caused a stir. On December 19^th he was testifying in the trial and he was asked to name any other women in which he had been intimate with. I can only presume that this was asked in attempts to show the jury that Cordelia was not the only woman who had a motive to murder Mary Dunning. John Dunning refused to answer the question even when ordered by the court. The judge found him in contempt of court and it was said that he was jailed for several days before the court decided to withdraw the question.

It seems the prosecution had this case sewn up! First they had a woman named Almura Ruoff who testified that she had a conversation with Cordelia on July 27^th in Stockton. Ruoff claimed that Cordelia had asked her about what effects different poisons had on a person. She also testified that Cordelia asked her if it was necessary to sign a person's name when sending a package in the mail. Then they had Sylvia Heney and Kittie Dittmer. Dittmer would testify she witnessed Cordelia buy the box of candy at a local candy store on July 31^st and Heney would testify that she had heard Cordelia ask that the candy be put in a fancy box that did not include the business name and not completely filled. It is not clear due to other evidence if this request was fulfilled.

The handkerchief in the candy box still had the tag on it so it was easily traced back to the store in which it was bought. The clerk, Grace Harris, at the store claimed to remember Cordelia because she had been shocked at how much Cordelia resembled her dead mother. It was said that she showed a picture to the court of her mother to show the similarities. A drug store employee testified that Cordelia was a woman who had come in and purchased two ounces of arsenic. It seemed to be the practice at that time (think Lizzie Borden) for the store to inquire as to how the customer intended to use the arsenic. The clerk would say that Cordelia claimed she wanted to bleach a straw hat and still insisted on the arsenic after they had suggested other, better ways of bleaching the hat. The postal clerk, John Dunnigan, testified that he recalled Cordelia sending a package on August 4^th because the name on the package “Mrs. John Dunning” was so similar to his. There were also employees of a hotel who testified that Cordelia has spent time in a room there and that after she had left and the room was cleaned they found a “seal” similar to what would have originally been on the candy box as well as the wrapping from the box, both of which could be traced back to the candy store she allegedly bought from on July 31^st. For the record it was said that the wrapping was not on the box when it was received and this seems reasonable since the handkerchief was placed inside.

On December 20, 1898 the jury found Cordelia guilty of murder. She was sentenced to life on February 4, 1899. During this time another, unrelated case had been taken up by the California Supreme Court. It had argued that an instruction to the jury had been improper. It was not clear what this instruction was, or if it had come from a particular judge, or widely used but it was said that many cases were affected by this instruction and this ruling helped many receive new trials, including Cordelia. On August 2, 1904 Cordelia Botkin would once again be convicted and sentenced to life.

Cordelia's husband, Welcome had filed for and received a divorce on the grounds that she was a convicted felony soon after her conviction in 1899. Just before her second conviction her ex-husband would die on May 2, 1904. Their son, Beverly would die the following year on May 3, 1905.

Her conviction would be appealed and she apparently was intending to stay in the local jail to await the decision of the courts. It was said that one day the judge from her case got wind to the fact that Cordelia may have been given a lot of special treatment while in jail, including possibly being allowed to come and go as she pleased and asked that things be looked into. Research was not clear exactly how the judge came about seeing Cordelia returning to the jail seemingly unaccompanied. It seems he was driving by and had witnessed it and then looked in to it. It would be said that it would be revealed that she had been given “every comfort” in jail and it was likely that she was intimate with more than one guard there. However, no one would admit that she had been out on the day the judge claimed to have seen her. That did not stop Cordelia, or her defense I suppose, from attempting to argue that while the judge was obviously mistaken in who he saw that day as she denied it her, that he had seen someone who had looked so much like her that person must have been the woman all the people at her trial testified to seeing. In fairness my research said that “no-one took her seriously” on this claim. But, whether she asked to be transferred or she was forced to transfer to San Quentin she was so on May 16, 1906. The California Supreme Court affirmed her conviction on October 29, 1908.

One of the articles I read on this case stated that soon after her conviction “her lover, her mother, sister, son and ex-husband died” died in short order. I cannot say who the “lover” was unless they were talking about John Dunning. I attempted to find out what happened to him but I was unsuccessful. But, according to findagrave.com while her father died in 1900, her mother did not died until 1916. I also found no evidence of a sister, let alone her death. She did apparently suffer from depression and “melancholy.” In February of 1910 she applied for an early release from jail due to her health, it was denied.

Cordelia Botkin would die on March 7, 1910 at the age of fifty-six. It was said that her death certificate shows her cause of death as being “softening of the brain due to melancholy.” I found this interesting and did a bit of a search. As a genealogist I have seen several causes of death, especially in this era and earlier, that seem questionable. Some things have changed names over time. For example if you see a death certificate state the cause of death was “gravel” that is what is commonly known today as kidney stones, although generally people do not die of kidney stones as they die from something else associated with non-treatment. I did a search on this particular cause and found nothing that indicated that melancholy could produce this result. This obviously does not mean that she was not sick or that her request for release was not reasonable, or even that she did not have “softening of the brain.” Many things can cause a softening of the brain including a head injury, or bleeding on the brain, or even a stroke (which can cause bleeding). She is buried in Oak Mound Cemetery in California.