Sunday's Obituary - Deciphering the Zombies in my Family

Last week I shared a Census Record Sunday post about my 2nd great uncle, Neil Brown Jr, who apparently died in 1937, but was feeling plucky enough to be included in the 1940 US Federal Census with his family. So because of my relative's desire to be way ahead of his time for auditioning for the AMC's The Walking Dead I've decided to take some time to go through the obituaries for his offspring. The newspaper for the time of his wife's death isn't available yet, but hopefully someday. I do have her death certificate thought so unless reanimation was a common thing I'm fairly certain of when she died.

I've shared Neil Brown Jr's death certificate (excerpts) and a link to his obituary last Sunday. The next logical course would be to start with his oldest child and work my way down the list. That would be Nancy. I don't have an obituary for her though and her marriage to John Patrick Harkins needs to be researched more. The information was given to me by a cousin who passed so I can only use it as a guide, but I'm currently in the process of piecing it together.

The second oldest child of Neil and Bridget Brown nee Brown was Eleanor Prosser nee Brown, but I've already posted an obituary on here that you can read here. There were no surprises in this obituary. Every was pretty much who I expected them to be (dead and alive) and it helps to confirm Nancy's husband's name is Harkins.

The Standard Speaker -
30MAR1997, pg C6

The next in line to share is Mary Barth nee Brown and it would appear that I never transcribed her obituary, so let's see what we find.

"Mary L. Barth

Mary L. Brown Barth, 84, of 70 S. Pine St., Hazleton, died Friday at the Mountain City Convalescent Center, after a lengthy illness.

Born in Hazleton, she was the daughter of the late Neil and Bridget (Brown) Brown.

She was a member of St. Gabriel's Roman Catholic Church, Hazleton, and was previously active in St. Joseph's Hospital Auxiliary.

Preceding her in death, in addition to her parents, were her husband, Clyde O., who died in 1968; sisters, Nancy Harkins, Eleanor Prosser, Rita Dermot and Joan Cann; and brothers, Neil, Eugene 'Cy,' John and James.

Surviving are brothers, Charles, hazleton, and Paul, Erie; nieces and nephews.

The funeral will be held Monday at 10 a.m. from the Boyle Funeral Home, 100 S. Wyoming St., Hazleton.

A Mass of Christian Burial will be celebrated at 10:30 a.m. in St. Gabriel's Roman Catholic Church, Hazleton.

Burial will be in Calvary Cemetery, Drums.

Friends may call Monday from 9 a.m. until the time of the Mass."

After transcribing this obituary I was able to create a memorial on FindAGrave for Mary. Her husband already had one. No stone for either of them, but I've linked them and requested a photo. If one isn't taken I'll be able to grab one when I go to Pennsylvania this summer. It would also appear from this obituary that Mary and Clyde didn't have any children.

Then I decided to go onto Newspapers.com and pull Clyde's obituary since the FindAGrave memorial for him listed his death date. I was not prepared for what I found. Let's just say that April of 1968 was not a good year for Mary. The first newspaper hit I got wasn't for Clyde's obituary, but for Mary's brother, Neil Brown III. I knew when this Neil had died. I just hadn't realized that he died the day before Mary's husband! Bad year. Bad month. Bad WEEK!

Well there is nothing here that pulls Mary out of my family tree. Her obituary fits perfectly in where she should be. The only surprise aside from the deaths of her husband and brother was that she was buried in Calvary Cemetery and not St. Gabriel's. She was raised Catholic. There are Catholics in Calvary, but her funeral was in St. Gabe's too. The answer to that was found in her husband's obituary which I will share at some point in the future. He was Lutheran. They weren't the same religion. Now it wouldn't be such a big deal to have someone of another faith buried in a Catholic cemetery. That wasn't always the case though and it was most likely the situation then.

So nothing unusual. Until next Sunday!

Thriller Thursday - Wrapping Up the Villers Trial, Part 7

The Jamestown Weekly Alert,
20JAN1898, pg1

This week we actually get into some of the details of the case. Well, when I say details I mean that there is a summation of the defense. The clipping praises the defense attorney for doing a good job despite being on the unpopular side. The defense, as far as what is presented, isn't extraordinarily strong.

"Plea For Defense.

Attorney Ellsworth made a strong plea for his client. He attacked the circumstantial evidence in detail, going through it step by step and estimating its worth. He handled the case throughout without assistance showing good generalship and most honorable methods. His was not the popular side and in this he was hampered from the outset.

He dwelt upon the mightiness of the state to prosecute, secure witness and evidence no matter what the cost; and to secure the best legal talent to conduct the trial to a conclusion. The fact that the soil over the body in the grave was loose indicated to him the body had been interred but a short time; no one had testified a straw stack had ever stood there even though cinder of some fire were plowed up upon the site of the grave. Portions of a human body were found and what more natural that the skull and body had been torn and broken by the badgers as testified they were very powerful animals and had burrowed into the grave. Other men had disappeared from that locality and who could say this was the body of Aug. Tromer or Jacob Walker? The age, sickness and good character and reputation of the witness were all in favor of the prisoner, who must be presumed to be innocent until proven guilty. The presumption was such until beyond a reasonable doubt he was proven guilty. Cupidity was not a motive as Tromer was in debt to him for $72. It could not have been in anger for they were on friendly terms."

An understandable defense to claim that the body may not have been Tromer's, but with Villers' luck it still would have been blamed on him. Using the loose soil as a sign that the body had been recently buried could have been helpful to his defense since Villers was in jail and if it had been buried recently, he couldn't have done it. Unfortunately he was in jail for the attempted murder of Tromer's wife so it would be more believable to the jury that any loose soil was caused by the badgers mentioned. The statement that somehow Villers couldn't have killed Tromer because the latter owed him $72 is ludicrous. Tell that to the numerous people that have been killed by organized crime lords for not paying their debts. As for anger, well there was a previous article that I had come across a few years ago that speculated that it could have been self-defense on Villers' part because Tromer was known to be the sort of person to fly off in a rage. I did a quick search on my blog and didn't find that article. I'll add it to the list of things I need to post.

Memorial Monday - IAFF Fallen Fire Fighter Memorial 1920-1922

IAFF FFFM Panel 1920-1922

The next panel recognizing IAFF Fallen Fire Fighters cover the last few of 1920, all of 1921, and the first few from 1922.

"Joseph A. Hopwood   L345   KY
Stephen J. Finn   L94   NY
Ward A. Rishall   L22   PA
John Halpin   L2   IL
William J. Cox   L718   MA
Edwin Falch   L215   WI
Ambrose E. Sherman   L22   PA
Joseph Howard   L299   PA
John Keupp   L94   NY
George Dutt   L345   KY

1921

Charles Young   L689   CA
Douglas Sivewright   L42   MO
Carl Schultz   L447   ON
Fred W. Hambly   L230   CA
Nelson Poirier   L162   ON
William McIllhagga   L867   MB
William Haley   L93   OH
William Steele   L345   KY
J. B. Galliher   L995   VA
J. R. Guthrie   L995   VA
T. R. Johnson   L995   VA
G. C. Richardson   L995   VA
Wenzel Wasicek   L215   WI
Abraham Brown   L758   IN
Frank Novatny   L2   IL
Raymond B. Lawrence   L282   NY
Patrick Galligan   L58   TX
James Kent   L740   ME
Frank C. Milien   L345   KY
Patrick Jordan   L93   OH
William Sholten   L758 IN
Karl Gunster   L43   OR
Garrett Hefferman   L2   IL
Bernard F. McDermott   L798   CA
Joseph A. Flanagan   L94   NY
Thomas Behan   L94   NY
William F. Selliger   L94   NY
John B. Henry   L522   CA
Manuel Peters   L522   CA
Oscar Lehman   L43   OR
Edward N. Frost   L1116   MA
George Atkinson   L22   PA
Patrick Deasy   L2   IL
Robert Edwards   L42   MO
Gust Seban   L2   IL
J. H. Penn   L58   TX
James English   L2   IL
William J. Carr   L27   WA
William Jobson   L1064   NJ
Edwiin W. Winkleman   L48   OH
Arthur A. Stiers   L653   IL
Alfred Godette   L21   MN
George S. Mumford   L416   IN
Charles O. Keller   L345   KY

1922

Patrick Dixon   L2   IL
William Gelis   L2   IL
Alfred Little   L2   IL
Franklin Lazarus   L735   PA
William S. Copper   L798   CA
William S. Kirkpatrick   L798   CA
Anton Logar   L798   CA
Martin Carrigan   L788   NJ
Frank Hart   L215   WI
James T. Brown   L94   NY
Walter C. Farrell   L282   NY
Harry J. Custer   L112 CA"

May the never be forgotten.

Census Record Sunday - My Uncle, The Walking Dead

Neil Brown Jr
(possibly in baseball uniform)

I've blogged about Neil Brown Jr before. He was the son of Neil/Neal and Nancy "Annie" Brown nee McCoy. He married Bridget Brown (yes, same surname, but no known connection yet) on July 10, 1908 according to my cousin, Nancy O'Donoghue, but that date is unconfirmed and Nancy has passed so I'll have to do some of my own research on that one. They had 11 known children: Nancy, Eleanor, Mary, Neil III, James, Rita, Eugene, Paul, John, Joan, and Charles. This was also information given to me from Nancy and corroborated by census records, death certificates, tombstones, and obituaries. In that previous post on Neil Brown Jr. I transcribed his obituary. It was from The Plain Speaker, Saturday, October 30th 1937.

I've found the death certificate for Neil Jr on Ancestry quite easily as well (below). The information on it is quite clear and it was given by his wife, Bridget. His parents are correct. His address looks good. My Neil died on October 30th 1937 and was buried in St. Gabriel's Roman Catholic Cemetery on November 2nd of that year. I have no doubt in my genealogical mind.

Death Certificate - Neil Brown living on South Wyoming Street, Hazleton, PA

Date and Cause of Death and Autopsy Performed

So why is he with his family in the 1940 US Federal Census? Seriously. He's there so help me reason this out. It was brought to my attention in an email recently. I had posted a memorial for Neil Jr. and linked him to family on FindAGrave. I was contacted by a fellow genealogist whose daughter-in-law turns out to be a distant cousin of mine through this line just the other week. We've talked before, but in this email she let me know that she noticed something "off". She pointed out that he was in the 1940 census so perhaps the death certificate wasn't for our Neil. The thing is the death certificate is most definitely for our Neil...but the census would appear to be too.  All the names are right on the certificate (you can see additional images from the death certificate at the bottom of this post)...and in the census.

1940 U.S Federal Census - Neil Brown household, S. Wyoming Street

Now help me through this one. I had heard recently that if no one was home when the census taker came that they could ask a neighbor for information. Could the census taker merely have asked who Bridget's husband was and made the assumption that he was alive? Or is it more likely that this Neil  was really her son? If it was her son they got the rest of the information wrong. Thoughts? In the 1940 US Census the census taker was supposed to mark an "x" with a circle around it to indicate who gave the information. Now that mark after their daughter, Nancy's, name could be that or it could be just a middle initial if no one from the family gave the information. What you can also see from the census (here) is that zombie-Neil wasn't employed and wasn't looking for work. A good thing too because he would have looked terrible after that autopsy! It does list Bridget as having an "other" source of income...but her income is listed as $0. Gosh I'm so confused.

Here's a clip from the U.S. City Directory collection. It's Hazleton, Pennsylvania in 1935 and there are THREE Neil/Neal Browns all living in or South Wyoming Street. While there are multiple Neil/Neal Browns in my tree there should only be two alive and old enough to be in a directory. They all live in the same or a nearby home though. So there's that to add to the confusion.

1935 Hazleton - US City Directory

Could there really have been another family living on Wyoming Street in Hazleton, Pennsylvania that had not only a husband and wife team of Neil and Bridget, but also had the kids with the same names? Even with taking Irish naming conventions into consideration that's a bit hard to swallow. For sanity's sake I'll be posting the obituaries I have for his family in upcoming posts. Perhaps something will appear there that hasn't been considered, but by first glance at all the ones I have they just confirm that this is the right Neil.

All I can say is that I'd love some input on this. The link to the obituary on Neil is in the first paragraph if anyone would like to take a look. This death certificate is for our Neil. I'm positive. The obituary is for my Neil. Again...positive...it confirms everything in the death certificate. The census should be my Neil's family, but he most certainly should not be listed there. Can anyone bring some sanity to this or do I call in Rick Grimes?

The zombie, Neil Brown Jr, is my 2nd great uncle.

Neil's Wife and Occupation

Neil's Parents and Burial

Thriller Thursday - Wrapping Up the Villers Trial, Part 6

The Jamestown Weekly Alert,
20JAN1898, pg1

We are getting there. This is the last Charlie-Brown-teacher-talking post. At least I hope it is. The clipping today continues to talk about circumstantial evidence and the role it can play in a case. Now, I'm no lawyer and I've always heard that convicting someone on circumstantial evidence is a no-no, but perhaps that was just an ideal rather than a legal reality. Apparently you can.

"The Conclusion Not Forced.

'Circumstantial evidence, therefore, is found on experience and observed facts and coincidences establishing a connection between the known and proved facts and the fact sought to be proved. From this view it is manifest that great care and caution should be used in drawing inferences from proved facts. It must be a fair and natural and not a forced and artificial conclusion; the inferences to be drawn from the facts must be a reasonable and natural one and of a moral certainty and certain one. It is not sufficient that it is a probable one; it must be reasonably and morally certain. The next consideration is that each fact which is necessary to the conclusion must be distinctly and independently proved by competent evidence. It may and often does happen that in making out a case on circumstantial evidence many facts are given in evidence not because they are necessary to the conclusion sough to be proved but to show that they rebut, not control presumption.

The several circumstances upon which the conclusion depends must be fully established by proof. They are facts from which the main fact is to be inferred; and they are to be proved by competent evidence and by the same weight and force of evidence as if each one were itself the main fact in issue.

Also that all the facts proved must be consistent with each other and with the main fact sought to be proved; that the circumstances taken together should be of a conclusive nature and tendency leading to a wholly satisfactory conclusion and producing in fact a reasonable and moral certainty that the accused and no (sic) else committed the offense charged. It is essential, therefore, that the circumstances taken as a whole and giving them their reasonable and just weight and no more should to a moral certainty include every other hypothesis.

The Jamestown Weekly Alert,
20JAN1898, pg1

The guilt of the accused may be established from circumstantial evidence alone, provided you first have all direct proof beyond a reasonable doubt that August Tromer was killed as charged in the information and provided the facts established by circumstantial evidence are inconsistent with any other view than the the defendant's guilt. To find the accused guilty on circumstantial evidence the facts proved must be wholly inconsistent with the innocence of the accused and incapable of explanation upon any other reasonable hypothesis than that he is guilty.

Three verdicts were given the jury. One finding the prisoner guilty and fixing the punishment at death; another finding him guilty, but placing the penalty at life imprisonment; and the third finding the prisoner innocent."

So we've reached the point where the judge's instructions have been given fully to the jury and he made it pretty clear that you can convict on circumstantial evidence. We already know that he was found guilty so now I'll have to wonder if the reason the death penalty wasn't handed down by the jury was because of the circumstantial nature of the case. Saying that someone is guilty and putting them in jail is much different than saying they are guilty and executing them. Perhaps one of the future posts will deal with the jury. We'll find out together.

Memorial Monday - IAFF Fallen Fire Fighter Memorial 1919-1920

IAFF FFFM Panel 1919-1920

This panel continues the names of those members of the IAFF who died in 1919 and continues into 1920:

"Edward F. Nealis - L94  NY
Charles B. Franssen - L94  NY
Louis Kieger - L21  MN
William Roland - L282  NY
Walter Musgrove - L734  MD
Roman W. Ritters - L112  CA
Archibald MacIntyre - L288  ON
Jacob Loeb - L345  KY
John J. Green - L22  PA
Thomas Innes - L22  PA
Thomas Kelly - L22  PA
Harry LeGrand - L22  PA
Albert Stevenson - L22  PA
Charles Zorr - L22  PA
Hugh Murray - L2  IL
Paul Polatti - L1  PA
Joseph McDonough - L94  NY
Francis H. McCormick - L43  OR
Daniel Rogers - L734  MD
Thomas Tuite - L2  IL
August Danczyk - L2  IL
George S. Wiest - L22  PA
Michael J. Mahon - L950  MA

IAFF FFFM Panel 1919-1920

John Burke - L2  IL
August H. Schafer - L416  IN
Peter Coughlan - L27  WA
John Baynes - L2  IL
John DeBreau - Le  IL

1920

Walter E. Reinheimer - L333  OH
Martin J. Haley - L282  NY
Warren Willis - L29  WA
Phillip P. Wagner - L860  PA
John Hade - L73  MO
Peter Buckley - L48  OH
Raymond Norris - L48  OH
Adolph Schonecker - L48  OH
Edward J. Vahling - L48  OH
Oscar H. Sohar - L786  CT
William Egenriether - L73  MO
Joseph Wittgenstein - L73  MO
Charles B. Summers - L34  AR
Thomas F. Brennan - L94  NY
Michael Karkel - L94  NY
James Brennan - L94  NY
Frank A. J. Callmeyer - L94  NY
James J. Hughes - L94  NY
Samuel Brown - L94  NY

Edward Jones - L1  PA
Harry L. Reese - L60  PA
Joseph Walsh - L48  OH
Henry A. Trull - L1116  MA
Charles Lacasse - L27  WA
Herman Grundlach - L1  PA
Charles Parks - L734  MD
Frank Keim - L48  OH
Charles W. Wilson - L101  MN
Owen Williams - L798  CA
Millford Dorff - L22  PA
Eugene Ost - L73  MO
Asa H. Hancock - L1645  UT
Harry Wilson - L94  NY
Edward Schwartzkopf - L22  PA
Harry Wilfrin - L22  PA
Fred Hotel - L48  OH
Joseph Schott - L48  OH
Lee West - L48  OH
Albert P. Schoenig - L48  OH
Denis Donovan - L94  NY
Dennis Martin - L1  PA
William Coe - L527  ON"

May they never be forgotten.

Thriller Thursday - Wrapping Up the Villers Trial, Part 5

The Jamestown Weekly Alert,
20JAN1898, pg1

OK. Sadly this is more on defining evidence from a quick glance. Let's get this out of the way. Perhaps when I'm done transcribing it we'll discover something new...

"What is Circumstantial Evidence?

The evidence offered by the state tending to connect Mr. Villers with the offense charged is what is known as circumstantial evidence. It therefore becomes important to inform you what circumstantial evidence is and to point out the distinction between that and direct evidence in order to give you an idea of the mode in which judicial investigation is to be pursued by the aid of circumstantial evidence. I cannot do better than to quote from the charge of an eminent jurist:

The distinction between direct and circumstantial evidence is this: Direct or positive evidence is when a witness can be called to testify of the precise fact which is a subject of issue on trial. That is, in cases of homicide that the party accused caused the death of the deceased. Whatever may be the kind or force of the evidence this is the act to be proved. But suppose no person was present on the occassion (sic) of the death and of course that no one can be called to testify about it, is it wholly unsusceptible of legal proof? Experience has shown that circumstantial evidence may be offered in such cases; that is, that a body of facts may be proved of so conclusive a character as to warrant and form the belief of the fact quite as strong and certain as that on which discreet men are accostomed (sic) to act in relation to their most important concerns. It would be injurious to the best interests of society if such proof could not avail in judicial proceedings. If it was necessary always to have direct evidence how many criminal acts committed in the community, destructive of its peace and subversive of its order and security would go wholly undetected and unpunished.

The Jamestown Weekly Alert,
20JAN1898, pg1

The necessity therefor of resorting to circumstantial evidence finds a safe and reliable proceeding as obvious as absolute. Crimes are secret. Most men conscious of criminal, and who purpose the execution of criminal acts, seek the security of secresy (sic) and darkness. It is necessary, therefor, to use all other modes of evidence beside that of direct testimony provided such evidence may be relied on as leading to safe and satisfactory conclusions and thus a beneficent providence, the laws of nature and the relations of things to each other are so linked and combined together that a medium of proof is other thereby furnished leading to inferences and conclusions as strong as those rising from direct testimony. Perhaps strong circumstantial evidence in cases of crimes like this committed for the main part in secret is the most satisfactory of any other to draw the conclusion of guilt; for a man may be seduced to perjury by many base motives to which the secret nature of the offense may sometimes afford the temptation; but it can scarcely happen that many circumstances especially if they be of such over which the successor should have no control forming together links of the transaction should all unfortunately concur to fix the presumption of guilt on an individual and yet such a conclusion be erroneous. But in the case of circumstantial evidence where no witnesses can testify directly to the fact to be proved it is arrived at by a series of other facts which by experience have been found so associated with the facts in question that in the relation of cause and effect they lead to a satisfactory and certain conclusion."

Do you feel like you were just listening to the teacher on a Charlie Brown cartoon? I felt that way typing this. At one point I completely disengaged the comprehension part of my brain and was essentially just typing letters without grasping their meaning.