slate river ramblings . . . .

Buckingham Courthouse.  Photo by Joanne Yeck

The Case of Charlie Forbes

Lastly, as part of the preliminary trial, the charges were heard against Charlie Forbes. The special report in the June 1, 1904 edition of The Times-Dispatch told how Edloe Spencer once again took the stand. He had arrested Charlie on the train between Prospect and Farmville and told the court:

I swore out the warrant and arrested him on suspicion. He came within one-half a mile of his kinpeople Saturday and did not visit them. He got on the train at Prospect. When I searched him, he had on his person two pocket knives, a pistol, a hundred and one dollars in money, and a ticket from Prospect to Norfolk.

Judge Crute, for the defense, rigorously cross-examined Spencer, suggesting that Forbes was induced to confess. Crute failed in his approach.

Another witness testified that an oil can was found in the tobacco barn. The prosecution set to work identifying this new piece of evidence.

According to the June 1^st issue of the Appomattox and Buckingham Times, Charlie’s brother, Annis, was brought to the witness stand to testify against him:

The witness said he left Thursday morning at eight o’clock for Farmville. He got back about dark Friday. His brother had left when he got back. He has been in the habit of leaving this way. He is twenty-four or twenty-five years of age. Three years ago he stayed [away] from June to November. The fire that year in which father had $400 stolen from him occurred in April. He wrote to a sister while away.

As the questioning came to an end, it was becoming increasingly clear that much, if not all, of the initial testimony was circumstantial.

Still, the court sent all three cases on to the grand jury, releasing Dan Wooldridge on $750 bail. Janie Forbes, who saved her elderly father from the burning house, was present in the village but did not appear in court. She talked with her brother and Cliff Wooldridge spoke with his wife.

The Times-Dispatch closed this opening chapter of the trials by reminding its readers that this promised to be “one of the most sensational cases in the criminal annals of Virginia.”

A few days later, The Farmville Herald confidently noted: “Rumors of every sort fly thick and fast, but still, the truth will yet prevail and justice be meted out to the guilty.”

This remained to be seen.

Coming Next: Can you trust what you read in the newspaper?

Need to catch up? Click here for The Famous Forbes Case of Buckingham County: Part I

Shoes Fitted the Tracks

During the preliminary trial, a pair of brogans belonging to E. C. Wooldridge were brought into court as an exhibit. The tracks believed to be made the night of the fires had been measured. According to a special report in The Times-Dispatch, the shoes exactly matched the tracks made on John S. Forbes’ property.

Edloe Spencer continued his testimony saying that Wooldridge told him that Charlie Forbes had “got him into this.” Spencer himself was unclear as to whether Wooldridge meant that Charlie’s actions got him arrested or involved him in the crime. In either case, Spencer said that Wooldridge talked too much. The Times-Dispatch explained, quoting Spencer’s memory of the day of the arrest:

[Wooldridge] showed excitement; he attempted to read a letter and was too nervous to complete it. He went in the house, dressed and told the youngest child good-bye, Wooldridge’s wife said: “Charlie Forbes gave his father money in the morning, and came back that night and got it.” Her husband told her to hush.

The correspondent for The Times-Dispatch observed Wooldridge’s behavior during the preliminary trial:

The accused was not looking well when he arrived from Farmville this morning, but seemed to brighten up and took a keen interest in the examination of the witness. He himself at one time wanted to take a hand in the cross examination of a witness for the Commonwealth.

Wooldridge, it seemed, took a very peculiar attitude towards his case and had to suppress his experience as an attorney.

Coming Next: The Case of Charlie Forbes

Need to catch up? Click here for The Famous Forbes Case of Buckingham County: Part I

The Preliminary Trial

Once E. C. Wooldridge and Charles Forbes were behind bars in Farmville, the hyperbole in the press really took off. This was the “Most Interesting Case” to ever come to public notice in central Virginia. Why? According to The Times-Dispatch, “the heinousness of the crime” and “the prominence of the family which suffered, as well as the prominence of the arrested parties” gave it celebrity status. The newspaper predicted that the trial would draw “nearly every freeholder in the county” to the courthouse.

On May 31, 1904, the prisoners were transferred from Farmville to Buckingham Courthouse. “No case in Buckingham in a decade has caused as much excitement, and a large crowd was present,” declared The Times-Dispatch.

Three Magistrates – A. C. Garnett, Jr., E. V. Anderson, and C. I. Taylor – occupied the bench for the preliminary trial. Attorneys for the prosecution were Commonwealth’s Attorney E. W. Hubard and A. E. Strode, who was employed by the Forbes family. H. D. Flood and Judge J. M. Crute were present for the defense of E. C. Wooldridge. Mrs. Wooldridge and her fifteen-year-old daughter were in the courtroom. When her son, Dan, entered, Mrs. Wooldridge wept and shook his hand.

The case of Dan Wooldridge was heard first. The Appomattox and Buckingham Times changed its report about Dan and now stated that he was accused of participating in the burning of the Forbes property. Just one witness was brought to the stand, a Miss O’Brien. As reported in The Times-Dispatch, her testimony was confusing and weak. She said that Dan Wooldridge commented to her that “if Charlie [Forbes] had had any sense he could have saved the buggies.” Dan, seemingly unconcerned about the charges against him, looking “cheerful” during her testimony.

Next came the case against E. C. Wooldridge. Edloe Spencer, one of the men who had arrested Wooldridge, took the stand. Spencer, a cousin of the Forbes family, explained that he had heard the rumor that Charlie Forbes had been murdered.  In response to the rumor, Spencer traveled from Farmville into Buckingham, then heard that Forbes had hired a buggy in Appomattox County and had driven towards Wooldridge’s farm. Again, the testimony, as reported, comes across as incomplete, even a bit incoherent.

The article did not say that Spencer had a warrant or was an official of Prince Edward County yet he must have had some authority to make the arrest. It also reads as if he acted alone or, at the very least, instigated the arrest. At the time of his arrest, Wooldridge said he didn’t know where Charlie Forbes was and Spencer insisted on taking him to Farmville. Then, according to Spencer, Wooldridge admitted that he had been expecting arrest for several days and that he would help lynch the man who did the burning.

If Wooldridge actually suggested a lynching as part of declaring his own innocence, he displayed a volatile personality and poor judgement. Despite this outburst, Wooldridge did not resist arrest and the men proceeded towards the jail at Farmville.

Spencer’s version, as reported, makes him the lone captor of Wooldridge. Where were Officer Fogus of the Farmville police force, Hopkins H. Gilliam of Farmville and Richard and Reece Morgan of Buckingham, all of whom figured in the original report of the arrest?

~

As they traveled towards the Farmville jail, Wooldridge suddenly indicated that Charlie Forbes was about four and a half miles away at Forbes’s Post Office. He asked for a pencil and paper, writing:

Phone Winston McKinney, deputy sheriff of Appomattox depot, to see Joe Harvey, and find out positively about Charlie Forbes, and go by Joe Goins’s and Jones’s old place; there are three of us; you have me, now get the others.

Spencer continued, “Before we got to Farmville, he said the shoes he had on when arrested made those tracks.”

Had Wooldridge provided Edloe Spencer with a written confession and identified Charlie Forbes as an accomplice?

Coming Next: Shoes Fitted the Tracks

Need to catch up? Click here for The Famous Forbes Case of Buckingham County: Part I

A Woman in the Case?

Once again, on May 29, 1904, The Famous Forbes Case made the front page of Richmond’s The Times-Dispatch, this time with the truly sensational statement that footprints at the scene of the crime indicated a woman was involved the night of the burning of John S. Forbes’ house and outbuildings. What detectives and others deduced from the prints exceeded the talents of Sherlock Holmes!

The newspaper explained:

It is evident to the many who visited the scene of the burning shortly after it occurred that there were three persons who were directly connected with the crime. Three distinct tracks were found around and about the buildings: three persons crossed the field while the houses were burning and stopped and turned back to see the blaze, and three broke into a run probably when it was suspected that the fire would draw neighbors to the scene. And one of the three was a woman. This was evident from the track.

And it is the well-nigh unanimous opinion that the woman was white and of some degree of prominence in her community. Officers have had in contemplation several who were strongly suspected, but no arrest has as yet been made. A number of names have been mentioned, but of course nothing definite can be reported to the press until the arrest is made. Then will come the real sensation of the case.

The woman was Caucasian and socially prominent? This could be deduced from her shoe print?

Coming Next: The Preliminary Trial

Need to catch up? Click here for The Famous Forbes Case of Buckingham County: Part I

Awaiting Trial

Why had the warrants for the arrests of E.C. Wooldridge and Charles Forbes for the burning of John S. Forbes’ property been issued from Prince Edward County? Despite the fact that the Forbes farm was located in the southern part of Buckingham County, near Farmville, the crime took place in Buckingham. Why was Buckingham’s sheriff, William Williams, not involved in Wooldridge’s arrest?

On May 26, 1904, The Times-Dispatch printed front-page news from Farmville. Charlie Forbes had been arrested and was being held with E.C. Wooldridge in the Prince Edward County jail. The men were separated, Wooldridge was held in a steel cell upstairs and Forbes was in a small cage on the lower floor.

Wooldridge “talked freely” in front of the press, adding that nothing he said was for publication except his insistence that he was completely innocent of the charges against him. He admitted that he had many enemies, “as nearly all men who hold places of public trust do.” According to The Times-Dispatch:

He deplored his predicament, and said while he might go free yet he could never recover from the disgrace of his incarceration in a felon’s cell. He referred with emotion to his small children left at home, and to one, a boy, sixteen years old who, he stated, has been arrested and lodged in the jail at Buckingham Courthouse. Woolridge says he has retained as his counsel, Hon. Hal. Flood and Judge J. M. Crute. . . .

As reported, young Dan Wooldridge was being held not only for threatening Annis Forbes by also for participation in the crimes against John S. Forbes. No mention was made of the evidence that pointed to Dan’s involvement in the case.

When Charlie Forbes spoke to the press, he expressed surprise at his arrest, saying he was not in Buckingham County on the night of March 3^rd when his father’s property was destroyed. He also declared that, after returning to Buckingham, he had not seen E. C. Wooldridge until he reached the jail in Prince Edward County. Forbes also commented that his arrest was due to enemies and that “many an innocent man hanged or [was] sent to the penitentiary for life.”

While two men may have seen Forbes head towards Wooldridge’s house, as yet no one had reported seeing them together. This detail will be just the beginning of a case overflowing with circumstantial evidence.

Coming Next: A Woman in the Case?

Need to catch up? Click here for The Famous Forbes Case of Buckingham County: Part I

JAILED: Part II

On May 25, 1904, following Quoit’s letter, the Appomattox and Buckingham Times continued its coverage of the arrests of E. C. Wooldridge and Charlie Forbes. It also offered a full explanation of the arrest of E. C. Wooldridge’s son, Daniel, which differs from the report in The Times-Dispatch. Additionally, this part of the story expands on the previous burglary at the home of John S. Forbes, something The Times-Dispatch tended to downplay. According to the Appomattox and Buckingham Times:

Several years ago a decoy fire was started in the woods on Forbes property, and while the family was fighting the fire the residence was entered and $370 was stolen. Three parties were arrested and received terms in the penitentiary ranging up to ten years. Soon after the incarceration of these prisoners, one of them wrote a letter to the [illegible] of the Baptist church in this county protesting his innocence, and implicating if not directly charging Wooldridge with the robbery. It is said the letter was read from the pulpit of Hollywood [Baptist] church [in Appomattox County]. It is hard for the human mind to contemplate so dastardly and bold a scheme to convict innocent people of so heinous a crime, but it is said there are many people in the community who now believe in the innocence of the convicted prisoners and guilt of Wooldridge – not that there is any convicting evidence, but it seems that strong suspicion and the circumstances surrounding this late horror, and his arrest, confirm that he and Charlie Forbes are guilty of both burnings and that the Fergusons who are now serving time in the penitentiary ought to be pardoned. It was reported here [in Buckingham County?] that Wooldridge had confessed, but this is positively denied.

Daniel Wooldridge, the son of the accused, was arrested and lodged in jail at Buckingham Court House Thursday charged with threatening to take the life of the gallant young Annis Forbes, who is diligently at work aiding the Commonwealth in running down and bringing to justice the thieves and murderers who are implicated in this awful tragedy. No good citizen who desires to be safe in his property rights and the walks of life, should hesitate to arrest and hold any parties making threats or bulldozing. This is the oldest and rankest piece of intimidation that was ever perpetrated upon a decent community, and cannot possibly do the cause of his father, who is in jail charged with a serious crime, any good. The people are greatly excited, but are disposed to await the action of the authorities who seem bent on bringing the guilty culprits to justice. But, from what we know of these people, they are in no frame of mind now to even tolerate a suggestion of bulldozing. Young Wooldridge is not thought to be connected the burning.

It is expected that all parties will be taken to Buckingham Tuesday for hearing, when the public will have some sworn evidence in this now celebrated case.

This will not be the last time the crimes against John S. Forbes and his property are elevated to murder, though no murder took place.

Coming Next: Awaiting Trial

Need to catch up? Click here for The Famous Forbes Case of Buckingham County: Part I

JAILED: Part I

During the coming months, the Appomattox and Buckingham Times, a weekly paper published in Appomattox County, often played catch up with the Richmond papers for coverage of “The Famous Forbes Case.” This situation lent itself to editorials and summaries which ran on page four as opposed to front-page news. On May 25, 1904, the newspaper ran the first of many articles concerning the trials of E. C. Wooldridge and Charlie Forbes. This coverage tended to be redundant; however, because these reports ran in the local paper, they sometimes contained nuance and details overlooked by the Richmond newspapers. This headline ran above a virtual word-for-word reprint of the dispatch from New Store that ran on March 24^th in The Times-Dispatch which described the arrests.

JAILED.

C. Wooldridge and Chas. Forbes

Are Confined in Farmville Jail Charged with the Burning of the Forbes Property –

Daniel Wooldridge Jailed at Buckingham for Threats.

Details not printed in The Times-Dispatch expanded the story. Significantly, the Appomattox and Buckingham Times included this, presumably penned by the correspondent in New Store, Buckingham County:

For some time, it is said, Mr. Wooldridge has been suspected of the crime. He was suspected early in the history of the tragedy. He was the close confidential friend of the late Mr. Forbes, it is said, and knew more about his affairs than any man in the neighborhood, and was to some extent his counsel. His farm lies broadside the handsome Forbes’ estate, and he was the close neighbor of the Forbes family. His first wife was a daughter of the late Samuel Forbes, they having eloped to Lynchburg and married. She died without issue. He afterwards married Berta Hitt, of this county, and as a result of this union there are ten children, who together with the mother, have much sympathy in this trouble. Wooldridge is a man of about 55 years of age and sometimes practices law; he is regarded as a shrewd man, and a great bully in his community.

Shortly after the burning, Wooldridge was one of the prominent men in undertaking to ferret out the mystery. Large rewards were offered for the capture of the miscreants by the Governor of the State, the county of Buckingham, and by private citizens. He took an active part in securing these offers of reward. Two detectives, who were employed to work up the case, had their headquarters at his house. [Illegible] – the finger of suspicion began to point to him, and there have been persistent rumors that he would shortly be arrested as an accomplice.

That E. C. Wooldridge eloped with Samuel Forbes’ daughter and that she died, childless, are significant details. This marriage, and presumably her death, could be at the heart of the enmity between the Wooldridge and the Forbes families. Also, Wooldridge’s training as a lawyer was not mentioned in other papers and may help explain some of his actions in court.

~

“Quiot,” whose nom de plume refers to a game similar to horseshoes, was at this time the Buckingham Court House correspondent for the Appomattox and Buckingham Times. His initial thoughts about the case followed the reprint from The Times-Dispatch:

Our Buckingham correspondent writing under date of May 23, says:

News reached here last night of the arrest, at his home, on yesterday of E. C. Wooldridge, charged with the terrible burning which took place upon the plantation of the late John S. Forbes on the 3^rd of March last. The arrest was made by the policeman of Farmville, accompanied by Mr. Edloe Spencer and others. The accused was taken before Justice of the Peace L. D. Jones, who committed him to jail in Farmville – fears being entertained that it was unsafe to take him to the Buckingham jail. This arrest is by no means a surprise to people who have kept in touch with those who were most affected by this fearful piece of incendiarism. We are informed that other arrests will be made to-day, or in the next few days. It is the universal wish of the people of this entire section that this mysterious burning will be so cleared up that there will remain no doubt in the minds of anyone but that the guilty one has been found and duly convicted. It would be an awful thing for such a miserable wretch as the author of this unheard of and fiendish act to go unpunished, but it would be inconceivably awful for an innocent party to suffer for such a terrible crime. We, therefore, sincerely hope that proof may not be lacking when the guilty party is arraigned, and that the hand of the law will not weaken when the penalty is being imposed. For that Divine Law – and we know no other – says that he who take a man’s life shall pay the penalty with his own.

And right here I want to arouse the minds of the thinking people of our counties upon the question of whether or not it is the privilege of an honorable – and I emphasize the word honorable – attorney, who is convinced of the guilt of a client, to endeavor to gain his release by skillfully and deceptively presenting his case to the trial jury. It will be readily conceded by all fair minded and responsible people that the legal profession is an honorable one. It will also be conceded that it is possible to abuse the privileges one conceives to be his while “plying his trade.” Is it, therefore, any less dishonorable for an attorney to win money and fame by deception and art, then it is for a merchant to use false balances, or for a farmer to “nest” his tobacco when offered for sale? I trow not. No man can truthfully lay claim to sincerity and honor while defending a criminal pleading “innocent” when he knows his client is guilty. His only honorable course is to plead “guilty” and ask for the mercy of the jury.

“QUOIT.”

Has “Quoit” previously witnessed the misuse of the legal system in Buckingham County? Is he referring to any particular disreputable attorney of trial that readers would recognize? Or, does Quiot simply not trust lawyers?  If so, he would not be alone.

Next: Jailed: Part II

Need to catch up? Click here for The Famous Forbes Case of Buckingham County: Part I

A Second Warrant

In conjunction with the arrest of Cliff Wooldridge, a second warrant was issued for the arrest of Charlie Forbes, son of John S. Forbes, who was named as Wooldridge’s accomplice. Charlie Forbes had been missing since the day of the fires. Initially, people hesitated to suggest that Charlie could be involved. According to The Times-Dispatch, “his social standing, his age and previous relations toward the family” made such a suggestion “preposterous.” A man of “splendid physique and good appearance,” Charlie had a “retiring disposition” and was little known outside his immediate neighborhood.

Rumors spread that Charlie was dead, thus explaining why he had not returned home during his father’s last illness or for the funeral. Some believed his body had been destroyed and the remains were buried in his father’s grave. These rumors proved false when two young men in West Appomattox (unidentified by The Times-Dispatch) saw Charlie Forbes disembark from a Norfolk and Western train, hire a team, and drive off towards Buckingham County. They followed Charlie to the road leading to the house of E. C. Wooldridge, the Forbes’ nearest neighbor.

Telegrams were sent all along the Norfolk and Western Railroad, from Farmville to Lynchburg, and along the Chesapeake and Ohio, with orders to arrest Charlie Forbes on sight.

Coming Next: JAILED: Part I

Need to catch up? Click here for The Famous Forbes Case of Buckingham County: Part I