# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
Illustration by Megan Irwin, retrieved from The New Yorker

# data[].attributes.body
This case first caught my attention while I was scouring the old newspapers of the 1920s in search of a case. During my search, I came across a recurring 1927 entry in newspapers around the country. It was a dramatic entry, titled in thick, bold font, "Perplexing Riddle of the very many Unsolved Crimes." Within it was a dramatically-articulated list of unsolved murders from the previous decade, including the double murder of the Reverend Edward Hall and Mrs. Eleanor Mills. The spiteful, seemingly personal nature of this crime piqued my interest, so I decided to dig deeper. Eventually, I discovered a 1984 article from the Journal of the Rutgers University Libraries, from which I discovered the facts of this case.
In September of 1922, the bodies of New Bunswick, NJ residents Edward Hall and Eleanor Mills were discovered side-by-side beneath a crab apple tree (Hartman 4). Reverend Hall had been shot once in the head, while Mrs. Mills had been shot three times, had her throat viciously slit, and had her tongue and vocal cords cut out (Hartman 4-5). The two had been engaged in an illicit affair, incriminating love letters from which had been placed beside them (Hartman 4). Though the two spurned spouses of the victims were prime suspects, numerous complications such as jurisdictional disputes, scene contamination, and a media circus caused the case to go unsolved (Hartman 8-9).

Works Cited

Hartman, Mary S. "The Hall-Mills Murder Case: The Most Fascinating Unsolved Homicide in America." The Journal of the Rutgers University Libraries, vol. 46, no. 1, 12 June 2012, pp. 4-15, https://doi.org/10.14713/jrul.v46i1.1633. Accessed 21 Oct. 2023.

# data[].attributes.headline
Research Source One - The Deposition of John F. Anderson

# data[].attributes.subject
Research Source One - The Deposition of John F. Anderson

# data[].attributes.body
This source is testimony from the original 1922 Hall-Mills murder investigation, provided by the New Brunswick Free Public Library's George Wilson collection. To provide some background, this was during the deliberations of a 1922 jury as to whether or not to issue an indictment and officially bring charges against any suspect(s) in relation to the murders. This jury decided not to issue an indictment, though much of the evidence presented at this time was revisited when charges were finally brought against the widowed Mrs. Hall, her brothers, and a cousin in 1926. (The 1926 sources from this collection will not be released until 2026).

The questioning attorney was Prosecutor Azariah M. Beekman. The deponent, Dr. John F. Anderson, testified that he was "in charge of the laboratories of J.R. Squibb & Sons" and recounted his forensic analysis of five soil samples from the scene of the murder (Anderson 200). The main goal of the analysis was to determine the blood content of the soil to surmise whether Mrs. Mills' throat was cut before or after she was shot in the head. The analysis determined that all five soil samples combined only contained "approximately... 0.8 pints of blood" (Anderson 203). Dr. Anderson then testified that perimortem carotid bleeding would produce "at least 6.1 pints of blood," while postmortem bleeding would produce "as little as one pint" of blood (Anderson 204). Thus, Dr. Anderson concluded that it was very likely that "Mrs. Mills was shot, before her throat was cut" (Anderson 204).

In my opinion, this is an excellent source for my background research for several reasons. First and foremost, it consists of first-hand legal testimony, which lends it substantial credibility and authenticity. Further, it provides a detailed account of forensic analysis conducted during the initial investigation. Though other sources all attest that it was determined that Mrs. Mills' throat injuries were sustained postmortem, this source demonstrates and explains how that conclusion was reached, lending me invaluable perspective that has greatly aided my understanding of the case.

As this source is a file within a collection, the link provided doesn't go directly to the individual source. To access this source from the link, click the "Box5 Depositions" button. The file for this source should appear at the top of the list, which is arranged alphabetically by the last names of the deponents. The same can be done for Research Source Two.

Works Cited

Anderson, John F. Interview by Azariah M. Beekman. Depositions, Interviews, and Statements: Texts from Box 5 of The Paper Documents Collection of Mr. George Wilson, 21 Nov. 1922, www.nbfpl.org/george-wilson-collection.

# data[].attributes.headline
Research Source Two - The Deposition of Arthur L. Smith

# data[].attributes.subject
Research Source Two - The Deposition of Arthur L. Smith

# data[].attributes.body
This source is another piece of testimony from the original 1922 investigation, and comes from the same collection provided by the New Brunswick Free Public Library. This is the testimony of Dr. Arthur L. Smith, one of the physicans involved in the autopsy of Mrs. Mills. He mentions numerous important details, including that "the body was quite badly decomposed, discolored," and that the bullet wounds were "in the middle of the forehead," in the zygomatic bone beneath the right eye, and "in the right temporal region" (Smith 118-119). Dr. Smith also noted that most of Mrs. Mills' neck was severed, aside from "about four inches in the back," and that "her head was nearly off" (Smith 119). He also noted that "the brain substance was badly decomposed and liquified" (Smith 119).

Smith was also asked about the autopsy of Reverend Hall, in which he was also a participant. The body was in similar condition to that of Mrs. Mills, but with some interesting differences. One such difference was the presence of "quite a number of... ante mortem scratches and wounds" on his hands (Smith 121). Another difference was the path of the fatal bullet, which, unlike the bullets that killed Mrs. Mills, entered "just above the hairline" before "going through the brain and medulla" and exiting "out the back of his neck" (Smith 121). From this observation, Dr. Smith hypothesized that Hall attempted to duck out of the bullet's path (Smith 122).

The revelations of Dr. Smith's testimony are especially valuable to my research. As with Source One, this source provides a direct, first-hand insight into the case from the perspective of a participating forensic specialist. It also describes the evidence of the case in very specific detail, which is critical to my goal of understanding the case on the most fundamental level.

Works Cited

Smith, Arthur L. Interview by Wilbur A. Mott & Azariah M. Beekman. Depositions, Interviews, and Statements: Texts from Box 5 of The Paper Documents Collection of Mr. George Wilson, 21 Nov. 1922, www.nbfpl.org/george-wilson-collection.

# data[].attributes.headline
Research Source Three - Article from New York Herald

# data[].attributes.subject
Research Source Three - Article from New York Herald

# data[].attributes.body
This source is a 1922 newspaper article in the New York Herald discussing the details of the original grand jury pretrial deliberations and the circumstances surrounding them. As its bold-faced title implies, one important development was Mrs. Hall's demand to testify before the grand jury, though it also mentions that the grand jury reserved the right to call upon witnesses and likely wouldn't grant her request (New York Herald 3). The article also discussed Barbara Tough, Mrs. Hall's maid, and her reluctance to testify before the grand jury (New York Herald 3). The article also discusses the claims made by Jane Gibson, who would later be dubbed the "pig woman" during the 1926 trial. Mrs. Gibson claimed to have seen Mrs. Hall at the farm adjacent to the murder scene on September 14th, the night of the murder, a claim that Mrs. Hall vehemently denied (New York Herald 3). The article went on to mention that investigators "were receiving scores of freak letters" offering ridiculous claims based on strange algebraic equations or "divine communication" (New York Herald 3). Needless to say, the flood of false tips, public meddling, and strange testimony ultimately doomed the 1922 investigation. It wouldn't be until 1926 that an indictment was finally issued and the infamous trial began.

This source is important to my research for a few different reasons, but mainly because it enhances my understanding of the case. It can be difficult to piece details together from fragmented court testimonies and sensational true crime pieces written decades later, so a news article from the time that explains the most important aspects of the case in a way that is easy to understand is an especially useful piece of perspective. This is especially true concerning the initial 1922 investigation, which is mostly overlooked in contemporary sources.

Works Cited

The New York Herald. "Mrs. Hall Demands to be Put on Stand." The New York Herald, 5 Nov. 1922, p. 3. Chronicling America: Historic American Newspapers, chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn83045774/1922-11-05/ed-1/seq-3/.

# data[].attributes.headline
Research Source Four - Newspaper Article

# data[].attributes.subject
Research Source Four - Newspaper Article

# data[].attributes.body
This source is a digitized version of an article from 1964 discussing a then-newly-written book about the Hall-Mills murder case. While reading the book itself would be ideal, this article nonetheless provides an excellent summary of the many failures that occurred during both the investigation and trial of the case. First, it discusses the egregious failure of police to secure the murder scene and prevent contamination of evidence (New York Times 1). "One of the two policemen first to arrive at the scene" stood idly by, averting his eyes from Mrs. Mills' maggot-filled slit throat as "sightseers came and jostled around, trampled the grass, despoiled the crab-apple tree, and passed from hand to hand the calling card of Hall which had been propped against the heel of his left shoe" (New York Times 1). The article goes on to track the path of the stolen calling card from the Somerset prosecutor to "'someone'; in the office of the Middlesex prosecutor," to a fingerprint expert, "to the editor of the Mirror," to another fingerprint expert, "then back to prosecutor's office in Somerville," before finally being given to special prosecutor Alexander Simpson (New York Times 1). Simpson then made the "ludicrous and appalling" decision to present the ridiculously contaminated card as evidence in the trial (New York Times 1). The article then discussed the prosecution's main witness, the "Pig WonIan [sic]" Jane Gibson, describing her as a "bizarre accuser," an "outlandish creature," and "a chronic liar so indifferent to truth that she was uncertain about her own name" (New York Times 1).

While clearly opinionated and staunchly both defensive of Mrs. Mills and condemning of Mrs. Gibson, this article provides a good piece of perspective both of the case's failures and of its legacy in the following decades. It also provides a good summary of the case in general and the 1926 trial, providing extra explanations ommitted in earlier sources due to their being common knowledge at the time. Using this and my other sources, I have a thorough understanding of the murders, the initial 1922 investigation, and the theatrical 1926 trial. This knowledge should be invaluable as the project progresses.

Works Cited

New York Times. "Was the Murderer in the Jury Box?; The Minister and the Choir Singer." The New York Times, 2 Feb. 1964, p. 1, www.nytimes.com/1964/02/02/archives/was-the-murderer-in-the-jury-box-the-minister-and-the-choir-singer.html.

# data[].attributes.headline
Research Source Five - Julius Bolyog Radio Broadcast Transcript

# data[].attributes.subject
Research Source Five - Julius Bolyog Radio Broadcast Transcript

# data[].attributes.body
This source is the transcript of a radio broadcast by the New York City radio station WINS, hosted by Virgil Scudder, circa 1969. It includes parts of an interview with Julius Bolyog, a known acquaintance of one of the suspects, Mrs. Hall's brother Willie Stevens. Around 1969, Bolyog came forward with the seemingly-outrageous claim that he had been recruited by Willie Stevens to make a delivery of $6000 from Frances Mills to "two local hoodlums" around the time of the murders (Scudder 1). Though his claims were rightfully met with a great deal of skepticism, Bolyog later passed two polygraph tests and a psychiatric evaluation, determining that "Julius Bolyog, to the best of his recollection, [was] telling the truth" (Scudder 5). Bolyog's apparent honesty intruiged New Brunswick police to begin to look into his claims. Eventually, police confirmed that "Bolyog really had passed money to the two men," and even managed to identify one of the men as "Ike Gutman," a man who had been "charged with kidnapping in a later case" (Scudder 6). Police and reporters apparently also "found small pieces of corroboration in the original statements given by [defendants and witnesses] between 1922 and 1926" (Scudder 7). Most of these small details were apparently "never publicized," lending further credence to Bolyog's claims (Scudder 7).

Interestingly, I first read of Julius Bolyog and his claims in the journal article by Mary S. Hartman of Rutgers University, the article I used for my proposal. When I came across the transcripts in the New Brunswick Free Public Library's collection, it was a golden opportunity. While far from conclusive, this source and its revelations add yet another perspective to the countless stories and claims surrounding this case. This source supports the general sentiment surrounding the case, that the murders were most likely contracted by Mrs. Mills, but both the investigation and trial were severely botched. Still, evidence remains elusive, nowhere near enough to dispel reasonable doubt.

Works Cited

"[Hall Mills WINS Broadcast]." Hosted by Virgil Scudder, 1969. New Brunswick Free Public Library Hall-Mills Murder Case Collection, www.nbfpl.org/local-history/hall-mills-murder-radio-broadcast.

# data[].attributes.headline
Scene Photo 1 - Overall Scene from North

# data[].attributes.subject
Scene Photo 1 - Overall Scene from North

# data[].attributes.headline
Scene Photo 2 - Overall Scene from South

# data[].attributes.subject
Scene Photo 2 - Overall Scene from South

# data[].attributes.body
(Reconstructed to the best of my ability)

# data[].attributes.body
(Each Manikin is 8 inches long)

# data[].attributes.headline
Scene Photo 9 - Evidence #1 - Mrs Mills' Hat

# data[].attributes.subject
Scene Photo 9 - Evidence #1 - Mrs Mills' Hat

# data[].attributes.headline
Scene Photo 10 - Evidence #2: Rev. Hall's Calling Card

# data[].attributes.subject
Scene Photo 10 - Evidence #2: Rev. Hall's Calling Card

# data[].attributes.headline
Scene Photo 11 - Evidence #3: Mrs. Mills' Scarf

# data[].attributes.subject
Scene Photo 11 - Evidence #3: Mrs. Mills' Scarf

# data[].attributes.headline
Scene Photo 12 - Evidence #4: Love Letters

# data[].attributes.subject
Scene Photo 12 - Evidence #4: Love Letters

# data[].attributes.headline
Scene Photo 13 - Evidence #5: Rev. Hall's Hat

# data[].attributes.subject
Scene Photo 13 - Evidence #5: Rev. Hall's Hat

# data[].attributes.headline
Scene Photo 14 - Evidence #6: Rev. Hall's Glasses

# data[].attributes.subject
Scene Photo 14 - Evidence #6: Rev. Hall's Glasses

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
(I couldn't fit the ruler on the scene for most evidence without disturbing the arrangement)

# data[].attributes.headline
Evidence Photo 1 - Mrs. Mills' Hat (with scale)

# data[].attributes.subject
Evidence Photo 1 - Mrs. Mills' Hat (with scale)

# data[].attributes.headline
Evidence Photo 2 - Rev. Hall's Calling Card (with scale)

# data[].attributes.subject
Evidence Photo 2 - Rev. Hall's Calling Card (with scale)

# data[].attributes.headline
Evidence Photo 3 - Mrs. Mills' Scarf (with scale)

# data[].attributes.subject
Evidence Photo 3 - Mrs. Mills' Scarf (with scale)

# data[].attributes.headline
Evidence Photo 4 - Love Letters (with scale)

# data[].attributes.subject
Evidence Photo 4 - Love Letters (with scale)

# data[].attributes.headline
Evidence Photo 5 - Rev. Hall's Hat (with scale)

# data[].attributes.subject
Evidence Photo 5 - Rev. Hall's Hat (with scale)

# data[].attributes.headline
Evidence Photo 6 - Rev. Hall's Glasses (with scale)

# data[].attributes.subject
Evidence Photo 6 - Rev. Hall's Glasses (with scale)

# data[].attributes.body
Because my crime scene reconstruction was in miniature, the crime scene sketch has two scales:

1. First, the scale of the sketch to my miniature reconstruction, which is denoted as 1/2 inch for every quarter-inch square. In other words, 1:2.

2. Second, the scale of the sketch approximated to a life-sized crime scene. I calculated this based on the estimated height of Reverend Mills compared to the height of the doll, arriving at a ratio of 1:8.625. Combined with the existing 1:2 ratio, this resulted in a final scale of 1:17.25 from the sketch to a possible real-life crime scene.

Throughout the sketch, the measurements are given in the order of (reconstruction; real-life).

As my scene was composed of 6 in x 6 in grass squares, I used a rectangular coordinate style for my sketch. However, I utilized two sets of parallel baselines to keep the sketch from becoming inundated with lines and virtually illegible.

# data[].attributes.body
The crime scene is in a relatively open, grassy area surrounded by a light assortment of bushes, taller grass, and small trees. The only notable landmark is a crabapple tree at the northern end of the scene. The two bodies of the deceased are lying about 1 foot south from the base of the tree, supine, with their feet pointed northwards toward the tree. Reverend Hall is wearing a white suit and white pants, while Mrs. Mills is wearing a blue dress. The bodies are directly next to each other and seem to be purposefully posed with Reverend Hall's right arm under Mrs. Mills' head and Mrs. Mills' left hand on Reverend Hall's right thigh. Mrs. Mills' hat is about seven inches east of her arm, where it lies in the short grass. Reverend Mills' calling card is propped against his left foot. A bloody brown scarf is wrapped around Mrs. Mills' neck. Love letters are strewn between and around the two bodies. Reverend Hall has both his glasses and hat placed over his face, with the hat on top. He has sustained a single gunshot, with an entry wound in the front top right of his head and an exit wound in the back bottom left. Mrs. Mills has sustained three gunshots, one through her forehead, one through her right temple, and one beneath her right eye with the entry and exit wounds close together.

# data[].attributes.headline
Applying Today's Forensic Science - Part 1

# data[].attributes.subject
Applying Today's Forensic Science - Part 1

# data[].attributes.body
The Hall-Mills murder case was a cultural staple of the 1920s, a sensational media circus that enthralled the public for years through two dramatic trials, and yet, the case went unsolved. A perpetrator was never identified, a conviction was never read, and a sentence was never passed. The reasons for this failure were many, but it leaves one to wonder: What would have happened if yesterday’s investigators had access to today’s forensic tools and techniques?

Perhaps most obviously, DNA evidence could have made a big difference. It wasn’t until the 1950s that the double helix was definitively discovered, and it wasn’t until 1985 that Sir Alec Jeffreys and his colleagues discovered DNA loci and realized their potential for forensic identification (Saad, 2005, p. 130). Touch DNA, specifically, wasn’t considered until the late 90s (van Oorschot & Jones, 1997, p. 767). Applied to the Hall-Mills case, touch DNA in particular could have been plentiful. As the bodies of Reverend Hall and Mrs. Mills were doubtlessly arranged postmortem, their clothing would have been an excellent potential source of touch DNA. The love letters strewn around the bodies would also have been a good potential source, as would Reverend Hall’s calling card propped against his foot.

Advances in fingerprint analysis could have also aided the Hall-Mills murder investigation. A fingerprint alleged to belong to Willie Stevens, Mrs. Hall’s brother and one of the potential suspects, was found on the calling card, but its integrity was challenged and it was ultimately not enough to prove Stevens’ guilt. Advances in fingerprint discovery and analysis such as the use of alternate light sources, new lifting materials (such as gels), electrostatic dust print lifting, and ancillary computer technology could have resulted in both more sources of fingerprints and better quality of fingerprint impressions recovered.

# data[].attributes.headline
Applying Today's Forensic Science - Part 2

# data[].attributes.subject
Applying Today's Forensic Science - Part 2

# data[].attributes.body
One of the few adequate analyses done during the investigation was a forensic soil analysis to determine the soil’s blood content and help determine cause of death. This could have benefitted from new developments in blood and soil analysis, but it was otherwise accurate and helpful to the investigation. The main problem was not the evidence’s validity, but rather that it did little other than help determine the location and cause of death.

Forensic pathology is another area that could have benefitted from modern developments. The first autopsies of the victims failed to notice that Mrs. Mills’ vocal cords had been removed and reportedly also failed to make note of the caliber of the bullets recovered (New York Times, 1926, p. 2). Such oversights, though still possible today, are much less likely due to advances in medical knowledge, better standards and training for forensic pathologists, better medical instruments, and new medical imaging methods.

Forensic accounting is an area of particular significance to the Hall-Mills case. Not surprisingly as she was a wealthy heiress, much of the purported evidence implicating Mrs. Hall in the murders is financial. The decades-later testimony of Julius Bolyog alleges suspicious transactions between Mrs. Hall and potential hitmen. Mrs. Hall was also accused throughout the trial of attempting to bribe potential witnesses. Reverend Hall was also in charge of the allowance given to his brother-in-law and suspect Willie Stevens, establishing a clear financial motive. Developments in record-keeping, banking, and accounting in general could have provided better insight into Mrs. Hall’s finances, either vindicating or implicating her in the crime.

# data[].attributes.headline
Applying Today's Forensic Science - Part 3

# data[].attributes.subject
Applying Today's Forensic Science - Part 3

# data[].attributes.body
However, of all areas of forensic science, the most significant to the Hall-Mills case is the chain of custody and handling of evidence. Even with the technological and scientific limitations of 1922, there was a substantial amount of potential evidence at the murder scene. Almost all of the major failures of the Hall-Mills investigation were the result of failures to prevent evidence mishandling and contamination. The first responders failed to secure the area, resulting in complete contamination as onlookers flocked to the scene to take bark from the crabapple tree and disturb the bodies. Evidence was lost, misplaced, mishandled, and even sold off by investigators and authorities. Such egregious failures would not have happened with today’s chain of custody protocols and crime scene investigation procedures. Had the first responders secured the scene with at least two perimeters, preventing interference from the public and the media, much more useful evidence could have been found. Had investigators carefully packaged, preserved, and transported evidence with careful records of where and with whom evidence was at any given time, it would have been preserved long enough to undergo proper forensic analysis.

Unfortunately, the Hall-Mills investigation was hampered by the insufficient technology and techniques of its time. They had neither the tools nor procedures to ensure an accurate, meticulous, scientific forensic investigation, dooming their efforts from the start. Though theories abound, the case remains unsolved to this day. It is a grim reminder of the importance of meticulousness, thoroughness, and integrity in forensic investigations.

References

Saad, R. (2005, April). Discovery, development, and current applications of DNA identity testing. Baylor University Medical Center Proceedings, 18(2), 130-133. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/08998280.2005.11928051

van Oorschot, R., & Jones, M. K. (1997, June 19). DNA fingerprints from fingerprints. Nature, 387, 767. https://doi.org/10.1038/42838

The New York Times. Hall autopsy mum on bullet calibre; Failure to note the type may have important bearing on new investigation. (1926, August 4). The New York Times, p. 2. https://www.nytimes.com/1926/08/04/archives/hall-autopsy-mum-on-bullet-calibre-failure-to-note-the-type-may.html