“I talked with her (Rheta) about going for a walk...”
“I told her that I wanted to go for a walk with her...”
And finally, “Dr. Wynekoop suggested that I ask Rheta to go for a walk with me...”
The walkative Miss Duncan’s testimony established little save that apparently Rheta had been not only alive but in sufficiently good spirits to be carrying a bag full of groceries at three o’clock on the day of her death, and that at seven o’clock in the evening, Dr. Wynekoop had been anxiously calling Rheta’s friends to learn where she might be.
There followed the introduction of People’s Exhibit 28 — Dr. Wynekoop’s statement to police Captain Thomas J. Duffy, made on the night of November 21st, in which she suggested that Rheta might have been the victim of a burglar. Thomas J. Ahearn, the undertaker and old friend of the Wynekoop family, testified to having been called by Dr. Wynekoop after the discovery of the body, and told of his calling the police department. Followed a parade of life insurance agents, establishing a possible motive for the crime.
More police testimony, regarding the scene of the crime. Lt. Samuel Peterson, who “took charge of the revolver,” People’s Exhibit 3, and turned it over to the coroner the next day at the inquest. I can find no mention of fingerprints on the revolver in the transcript of the trial; we must assume there were none clear enough for identification. And finally, Captain John Stege, who told of his examination of the Wynekoop mansion and of his questioning of Dr. Alice. This, of course, was leading up to admitting her confession as testimony, “whereupon the jury were excluded and objection made to proferred statement or confession.”
After considerable argument, and a number of wildly speculative newspaper stories, the confession became People’s Exhibit 32. It was followed by a cross-examination of Captain Stege, who obtained the confession. The cross-examination was, naturally, a bit on the acrimonious side, and dealt almost entirely with the manner in which it had been obtained.
Following all this fuss over People’s Exhibit 32, which was Dr. Alice’s confession that she had fired a shot into Rheta’s body after the latter’s accidental death from chloroform was false, and that Dr. Alice’s financial condition was such that she would cold-bloodedly murder her daughter-in-law for her insurance.
Nothing was said, however, about Earle’s “other girls” or (if that had been the motive) “other girl.” In fact, Earle — who did not testify — was almost conspicuously ignored during the trial.
The State having called a number of medical experts to prove that Dr. Alice’s confession could not have been the truth, the Defense opened with testimony to prove that it had been obtained by duress.
The Chicago Sunday Examiner, for November 26th, had carried a featured interview with Dr. Harry Hoffman, head of the Behavior Clinic of the Criminal Court of Cook County (who had testified for the State). The reporter, Austin O’Malley, had done a remarkably good job of it, and it became Defendant’s Exhibit 2. It, and the testimony regarding it, indicated that Dr. Alice had been tired, ill and upset at the time the confession was made. Guilty or innocent, that information about her should not have surprised anyone.
The defense then went on along the line that Dr. Alice didn’t need Rheta’s insurance money, that she was too fond of Rheta to murder her for it if she had needed it and that “the general reputation of Dr. Alice Wynekoop for being a peaceful and law-abiding citizen is good.”
Again and again that line appears, during a parade of character witnesses. A woman writer and lecturer. A professor of history. A social worker. A newspaper publisher. Director of a private school. The list seems endless, and always the same testimony: “The general reputation of Dr. Alice Wynekoop for being a peaceful and law-abiding citizen is good.” A minister. A former Health Commissioner of the City of Chicago. A member of the school board. A prominent clubwoman. Others.
This is one of the fascinating and curious facts about murder trials. One of the most enchanting murderesses I ever personally encountered was a woman whose “general reputation, etc.” was almost phenomenally good. In that case, however, the defendant was acquitted, although no one doubted that she had cold-bloodedly shot her victim while he lay sleeping. One of the jurors confided in me, some time later, “After what her lawyer told us about him, we figured the so-and-so got what was coming to him.”
On the other hand, a young woman was convicted, wrongly, of murder and nearly went to jail for life, because she was proven to be “of dissolute character, one who consorted with immoral companions.”
The Defense testimony does give us a new picture of Dr. Alice. Consider a few excerpts from the testimony of her younger sister. “She was born at Onargo, Illinois... Our father was a farmer... She attended the country school and then went to a seminary in Onargo... after she completed her course, she went to Northwestern University, to the Woman’s Medical School...”
And the parade of character witnesses does show us the Dr. Alice Lindsay Wynekoop who studied the practice of medicine at a time when well-brought-up young girls were studying china painting, who did social work, taught, helped other woman medical students, was prominent in club work, all without neglecting her duties as a wife and mother.
Excerpts from the testimony of members of Dr. Alice’s family give a picture of her relationship with Rheta entirely different from that indicated by the State’s case. “She was very much interested in Rheta and extremely fond of her... we talked about her future some... Earle had no regular employment. My sister (Dr. Alice) supported him, and also his wife Rheta...”
From the testimony of Walker Wynekoop, Dr. Alice’s son: “She was worrying about the way Earle was treating Rheta. She was worried about the crowd he started to run around with down at the World’s Fair. My mother asked me to talk to him. I did talk to him about his conduct.”
And Dr. Catherine: “I never heard my mother speak an unkind word to Rheta. Whenever my mother bought me a dress, she also bought one for Rheta.”
At last came the moment the newspapers and their readers had been waiting for. Attorney W. W. Smith announced, “The next witness, Judge, is Dr. Alice Wynekoop.”
Her story, too, describes the little farm girl who grew up to be a physician, teacher, social worker, clubwoman, and mother. It tells of the meeting of Earle and Rheta, of their correspondence and marriage, of Rheta’s ill health, of Earle’s restlessness, of Earle’s departure for the Grand Canyon. It gives another picture of Rheta, seen through her mother-in-law’s eyes. “She was fearful of tuberculosis, but there were no indications of it at all... Rheta was always of a very quiet, retiring disposition... I sent her to a violin teacher... she sometimes took one lesson, sometimes two, and sometimes would miss a week or two... In the last month Rheta was rather melancholy, she was of a somewhat morbid disposition... I discussed with her about going into the open air and taking exercise. I discussed this often.”
After testifying as to burglaries that had taken place in the old house on Monroe Street, Dr. Alice told her story of what had happened on November 21, 1933. It had begun like any other day. She rose at about eight o’clock and had breakfast with Rheta. She then went to a hospital where one of her patients was to be operated on.
“I walked home, arriving at perhaps one o’clock. Rheta was waiting for me at the door. She said, ‘I didn’t know what time you would be home, Mother, so I waited lunch.’ I suggested after luncheon that I would like her to do her shopping early. She went shopping and returned between half past two and three. I think she cleared the table and dressed. When she went shopping, I really don’t remember what she wore, but, contrary to her custom, she left her wraps in the library when she returned.”