In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

2 SENSATIONAL CRIME COMES OF AGE The Cluverius Case of 1885 WE CONFESS THAT THE WIDESPREAD CURIOSITY WHICH HAS BEEN MANIFESTED ABOUT THE MATTER HAS PAINED US. THE EYES AND EARS OF THE CITY HAVE BEEN MORBIDLY GREEDY. . . . THE DEATH OF THIS GIRL IS A PUBLIC EVENT, AND WE SYMPATHIZE WITH THE EAGERNESS TO RIP OFF ITS MYSTERY AND PROBE TO ITS REAL EXPLANATION. THIS, HOWEVER, IS A DIFFERENT THING FROM THAT GAPING AND RAVENOUS CURIOSITY WHICH HAS BEEN SO RAMPANT IN THE CITY. RICHMOND HAS FAIRLY EMPTIED ITSELF AT THE OLD RESERVOIR, THE SCENE OF THE TRAGEDY. MEN, WOMEN AND CHILDREN HAVE STREAMED OUT IN A CEASELESS PROCESSION—ALL STEADILY BENT ON THE POOR PLEASURE OF VIEWING THE SPOT WHERE THE SAD YOUNG LIFE MET ITS LAST DISASTROUS STRUGGLE. THEN, TOO, WHENEVER THE PRISONER—AS YET INNOCENT IN THE SIGHT OF THE LAW AND ENTITLED TO THE CHARITY OF EVERY DOUBT—HAS BEEN BROUGHT FORTH FROM HIS CELL, SURGING THRONGS HAVE HUNG UPON HIS PATH AND SCRAMBLED FOR A SIGHT OF HIM. THE JAIL HAS BEEN INFESTED BY HORDES OF LOUNGERS PRAYING FOR A PEEP AT THE PRISONER. WE WILL NOT SAY THAT CURIOSITY IS A CRIME, BUT CURIOSITY ABOUT A CRIME IS NOT BECOMING. IT IS A FEVERISH, ABNORMAL FEELING, WHICH, IF NOT CHECKED, WILL LEAD TO SOMETHING WORSE. SELF-RESPECT SHOULD FORTIFY US AGAINST YEARNING AFTER THE SENSATIONAL. Richmond Religious Herald, 30 April 1885 44 S E N S A T I O N A L C R I M E C O M E S O F A G E Awakening this “feverish, abnormal feeling” in Richmond in the spring of 1885 was the discovery of Lillian Madison’s body in the reservoir. Days later, Thomas Cluverius sat in jail, facing a capital charge for her murder. But the case against Cluverius rested upon circumstantial evidence, and many questioned whether he would be convicted. The indeterminacy of this evidence transfixed Richmond. Reverend William E. Hatcher, a local minister who spoke regularly with the accused, wrote that the murder was “the one absorbing topic in Richmond and many persons say that they cannot think or dream of anything else.” This may be hyperbole, but newspapers likewise began to report not simply the developments in the crime investigation, but also the public’s response to the case: describing the circulating rumors, for instance, or calculating the number of people viewing the body, the reservoir, and Madison’s grave. The State claimed that the murder “is discussed at the clubs, on the streets, at the dinner-table, around the fireside and at business places, and is the all-absorbing topic.”1 The Whig echoed this sentiment, adding a democratic flavor to the interest : “every word in reference to the case, and every suggestion as to the murderer and the cause is listened to with the greatest avidity, no matter from whom they come.” Indeed, it seemed to affect all of Richmond. Crowds were described as black and white, male and female, and a variety of Richmonders wrote about the case in letters and diaries and cut out newspaper articles on the case for their scrapbooks. When asked in court why he had discussed openly a conversation with Cluverius, one witness replied commonsensically, “from the simple fact that everybody was discussing it and I discussed it with everybody else.”2 Throughout Mayand into June 1885, Richmonders centered their attention on the makeshift courtroom of Richmond’s hustings court where Cluverius was on trial for his life.3 For almost a month, the lawyers, prisoner, judge, and a crowd of hundreds gathered to find a jury, introduce evidence, and to make the final appeals of the defense and prosecution to the jury.The Cluverius case of 1885 left behind it a rich vein of sources illuminating what occurred in the press, among the broader populace, and in the lives of the accused and the victim. This chapter explores the stories told about Lillian and Thomas alongside the broader historical record of them, drawing on court testimony, lawyers’ arguments, and press reports as well as evidence from family letters and census records. It tells of the crime and the histories of the individuals but is chiefly concerned with stories: the ways in which Richmond’s press, public, and lawyers turned, embellished, ignored, and shaped the histories of these people. Using the raw material of their own histories, Richmonders fashioned somewhat different stories of the couple, [18.218.169.50] Project MUSE (2024...

Share