Scott Mausoleum Burglary & Extortion

In February 08, 1911, a macabre crime took place in the Erie Cemetery. There was a break-in at the Scott Mausoleum, disturbing the body of the late Congressman William L Scott — a wealthy railroad man. The grave robbers carried away the body of his sister in law, Mrs. McCullum. Several of the crypts were broken into, the copper cases holding the caskets had been opened, apparently with chisels, and two or three of the caskets had been opened, apparently with chisels, and two or three of the caskets themselves practically demolished, while one was taken away entirely.

Private Detectives investigating the desecration of the Scott Mausoleum in the Erie Cemetery reported a body had been taken. Later it was announced that the marauders entered the mausoleum, removed the body, and it was later found in another crypt. The detectives were the only ones giving out information, and most, if not all of it, was false. The detectives formulated a theory that the robbers were after jewels that might have been on the women’s bodies in the tomb. Reporting that the bodies of Mrs. McCullum and Mrs. W. L. Scott were the only ones taken from the caskets, and the jewelry was taken from their corpses — most of which later was found not to be true or correct.

Louis Wadlinger, a milkman, told the police that he saw men come through a hole in he cemetery fence and heard hammering in the mausoleum as the thieves were evidently at work. The break-in though was discovered by two women, passing through the cemetery during the afternoon. When the women approached the mausoleum, on coming to the heavy bronze gates, they noticed that the lock of the other gates were not fastened. A closer view showed them that the panel of one of the inner doors seemed to have been tampered with. One of the women reached in through the bars and touched the panel, whereupon it fell into the mausoleum with a crash. The women then fled and told what they had seen to an acquaintance.

A year later, the two detectives directing the man hunt with the case would be arrested and charged with mail fraud.

The Perkins’ Detective Agency became involved with the case after the mausoleum of the late Honorable William L. Scott was broken into and desecrated in an unsuccessful attempt to remove the remains of its occupants. Mrs. Annie W. S. Strong, who resided at Erie and was a daughter of Mr. Scott, immediately telephoned the Pittsburgh Detective Agency, which, some two years before, had done work for Mr. Strong, to come to Erie and take charge of the case. At the same time, she sent word of the outrage to her sister and the trustee of her father’s estate, both of whom lived elsewhere. In pursuance of her request, two men from the detective agency came to Erie and took charge of the investigation. Mr. Perkins arrived in Erie from his home in Pittsburgh on February 10th, and remained until February 18th; and Franklin from his home in Philadelphia on February 10th, and remained until February 13th. While in Erie both men stayed at the Reed House. They at once went to work on the case, employing ten men, and bringing bloodhounds to Erie from Indianapolis, Indiana. Soon friction developed in the search for the perpetrators. Franklin had been at one time a licensed detective in Erie county, but through a legal investigation of the Erie county courts, which had been the outgrowth of an article concerning Franklin in a newspaper owned by the Strongs, his license was revoked. As a result of this, and of matters called to Mr. Strong’s attention by letters and reports, he insisted, as soon as he learned of Franklin’s employment, that he be dismissed from the case. In addition to this, the trustee of the estate had also employed another detective agency on the case, their men had declined to co-operate with Perkins and Franklin whose agency was on the verge of losing the arrangement they had with the Strongs.

In response, to regroup and capitalize on the situation, Mr. Perkins began working on a plan to create fear within the Strong family, for the personal safety of Mrs. Strong and her family, by telling her that she was in the hands of desperate men. To further this exploitation, and the devising of a plot to extort money from the Strongs, on a Saturday night, February 11th, or Sunday morning, February 12th, a bullet was fired through the window of Mr. Strong’s office. Following the shooting, on February 13th, Mr. Strong received by mail first of the two letters that would be sent to him. Erie’s Chief of Police would also receive a letter on February 23d.

The first letter postmarked on February 13th, read:

P. S. or your bouse will be blown up.

Mr. Strong

Leave $50,000

at 31″ st and

Pennsylvania

Ave

on night of Feb.

29″ at 12 P. M. or you will have

your mausoleum

blown up and

if you bring any

police on 29th of Feb.

my men will shoot

them.

Black Hand

The second letter followed on February 15th, which read:

C. Strong.

You leave $50,000

at 11 P. M. Feb. 28, 1911

at 31 st ant Pennsilvanea

Avenue or you will have

your branes

blowed out. Either you

or your wife. If you

brung eny police along

hey will be shot and

my men will take a

strong battle.

(You

(son-of-a-b ) Black Hand

Deth

They were followed on the 23rd of February by one addressed to the Chief of Police of Erie, which read:

Cheef of Police.

Dont you dare

to send any police

to 31″ st Pennsylvania

Ave on night of Feb. 28

at 11 P. M.

as your men

and mle men will

have a pitched

battle.

We demanded $50,000

from Strongs

Black Hand

deth

Before Mrs. Strong even received the first letter written to her husband, in Perkins’ attempt to support his contention of a threat to the Strong family, Perkins asked Mrs. Strong if she had any threatening letters, to which she replied, "No." Perkins then stated to her “You will have them; they will come, this Is a desperate case. Mrs. Strong. This entire thing is a desperate case, and you will have some letters.”

When Mrs. Strong finally received the first letter Mr. Perkins then asked her if she notice how the letter was torn, then Perkins stated to her “The probabilities are that you will get another letter that was written on a piece of paper that fits into that exactly. It is to show you that it is the same people and that they mean business. They are desperate.”

Mr. Perkins from the very first letter tried to impress upon Mrs. Strong that her situation was of the most serious character, that the people connected with it must be enemies, that she had enemies, that it was done to show her that she had enemies, and they were desperate, and they intended to continue their attempts, and these letter, in other words, was prove to him, as to the fact.

Mr. Walker, Strong’s secretary, received a visited from Mr. Perkins who showed him the letter received as of the 13th, on February 15th; during his visit Perkins commented on the general character of the letter, the way it was torn, and said that the Strong family would probably get another letter. That the other letter would probably be the other half of the one already received, and it would fit right in with the one the Strong family has already, and the possibility, if the writer of the letter was the desecrater of the mausoleum, that the Strongs would receive a piece of copper with it.

Mr. Sobel, the Postmaster at Erie, also received a visit from Mr. Perkins who told him that some threatening letters would likely come, and suggesting the carriers be put on guard so as to locate the mailing place; Mr. Perkins subsequently brought him the first black hand letter that was received; after examining it, Postmaster Sobel called Mr. Perkins’ attention to the fact that several words, which would be misspelled by an illiterate person, were correctly spelled, and that in the second black hand letter subsequently received some of these particular words were misspelled. He also said that Perkins called his attention to the uneven edges of the paper on which the first letter was written, and that he expected to find the corresponding piece in the writer’s possession when he was caught.

Mr. Franklin’s was well known to have hostile feeling toward the Strongs, and expressed them publicly in Erie on the night of February 22d , and on that night, the day before a Black Hand letter to the Chief of Police was mailed, Mr. Perkins had been again seen in Erie. Meanwhile, the United States Postal authorities had investigated the mailing of these letters, and on April 13th, simultaneously ordered the arrest of Mr. Perkins at Indianapolis and Mr. Franklin in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. On his arrest Mr. Perkins was requested to hand over his personal effects, and among them was a large envelope, which he took from his pocket and gave to a Deputy Marshal. Later, Mr. Perkins asked that the envelope be returned, saying it only contained a codicil to his will. The envelope and papers were, however, placed in a large official envelope; the explanation being made to Mr. Perkins that as soon as the papers taken were examined they would be returned to him.

Since the search of Perkins and where he was staying were made under a search warrant issued by the state, rather than the federal courts, the post office inspectors became apprehensive that legal proceedings would be taken in Indianapolis to recover the papers, so they at once left for Columbus, Ohio, taking the papers with them. There they broke the seal of the official envelope, and in the large envelope received from Perkins they found, among others, a sealed envelope having printed on it the name of the Reed House, in Erie. On opening this there were alleged to be found torn fragments of sheets of paper, which would be produced at the trial, and which tallied with the two Black Hand letters received by Mr. Strong. In the meantime, Mr. Franklin had been requested to come to the office of a Post Office Inspector in Philadelphia. While there, on inquiry by the inspector, Franklin gave an account of his connection with the Scott case at Erie, and at his request wrote copies in pencil and ink of the black hand letters; thereafter, the post office authorities arrested Franklin as being the writer of the letters.

In the forthcoming trial, Perkins and Franklin, would go on the stand and deny-in-whole of any involvement with the writing of, or mailing of the letters, or of any knowledge of them, and a most explicit denial by Mr. Perkins of ever having had in his possession the alleged incriminating fragmentary papers, and of any statements alleged to have been made to Postmaster Sobel and Mrs. Strong tending to show predictions by him that black hand letters would be forthcoming.

Both Perkins and Franklin were charged in federal court with placing or causing to be placed letters in a post office in executing a scheme to defraud. In the trial, the government gave in evidence the alleged black hand letters laid in the indictment, and submitted the copies thereof made by Franklin, then called two experts in handwriting, who were examined and cross-examined by the respective parties at great length. These men gave as their opinion that the same man had written both. On their side, the defendants called four handwriting experts, who were likewise examined at length by both sides, and who testified to a contrary conclusion. The testimony, thus adduced by both sides, was received without objection or exception, and was now assigned for error. In the course of the trial it subsequently developed that this whole line of expert testimony given by both sides was open to objection. After a long legal courtroom debate, the court decided to allow all of the testimony of both the governments and the defendant’s handwriting experts to go to the jury for their consideration and verdict. The decision was an important one because the governments case revolved entirely around the letters that was written.

After the trial, which lasted ten days, the case went to the jury, who found the defendants guilty on July 29, 1911, as indicted. On entry of judgment the court imposed separate and different sentences on the defendants to be served at Leavenworth prison. Thereupon the defendants joined in a writ of error to the court. The court’s response to the writ was the following:

As no question was raised as to the propriety of the method of procedure, the court refrain from any discussion of the question whether, in a criminal case, a single and joint writ of error will lie on the petition of two defendants upon whom separate and different sentences have been imposed. We here simply note the fact, lest our silence might hereafter seem to warrant the contention we had decided that question.

In short, the defendant’s appeals were rejected.

It remains a mystery as to whom really burglarized the mausoleum. Did Perkins and Franklin ransack the mausoleum, did they hire someone to do it, or did they had nothing to do with the burglary, but merely took advantage of the situation. It may never be know.

Scott Mausoleum.