The Proof is in the Dumplings

by Melissa Allen

First published in Winter, 2009, Volume 6, Issue 3, The Hatchet: Journal of Lizzie Borden Studies.

THE DOUGH LANGUISHED IN A PAN IN FRONT OF THE FIRE AS ELIZA SET ABOUT COMPLETING OTHER ASSIGNED DUTIES. IT DID NOT RISE AS IT SHOULD. NEVERTHELESS, IT WAS PORTIONED INTO RICE SIZED DUMPLINGS FOR THE EVENING DINNER. THEY WERE QUITE UNLIKE THE DUMPLINGS SHE MADE JUST THE DAY BEFORE.

Eliza requested this yeast from the brewer without consulting her employer for the express purpose of preparing this meal. She took great pride in her dumplings. She often proclaimed to her mistress, Mrs. Charlotte Turner, what a famous hand she was at them. In fact, the batch the night before had been quite tasty. But only the servants and apprentices had partaken of them. Eliza seemed very set on showing off this culinary skill, asking on several occasions for permission to cook some up. Mrs. Turner had kindly prepared a nice sauce to accompany them. She instructed Eliza not to leave the kitchen after the dough was made. It was at about 12:30 when Mrs. Turner first saw the dumplings sitting before the fire. She was in and out of the kitchen several times, and each time Eliza was there, working alone. 

The dumplings made the day before had been light and airy. These turned black and were quite heavy. The maid Sarah Peer, who’d been given permission to go out for the evening, carried them to the dining table at around 3 o’clock before taking leave. The meal consisted of beefsteak, dumplings, and potatoes. Sometime after 3 o’clock, Robert Gadsden, one of the apprentices, wandered into the kitchen. He noticed the remains in the pan and decided to eat some. Eliza promptly scolded, “Gadsden, do not eat that: it is cold and heavy; it will do you no good” (Chambers 13). Regardless, he ate a piece he estimated to be about the size of a walnut. A short time later, anyone that had ingested any of the dumplings became violently ill. Including Miss Eliza Fenning herself. The date was Tuesday, 21 March 1815—a day that was soon to go down in history as the occasion of one of the most controversial crimes of the century. 

The first to begin showing signs of sickness was Charlotte Turner. Mrs. Turner testified she ingested about a quarter of a dumpling when she felt faint. She experienced an immediate intense pain that seemed to radiate through her, and increased with each passing minute. Due to the serious nature of her symptoms, she excused herself from the table around half past three to retire to her room upstairs. She hoped her illness might run its course. But she soon found herself in utter agony. The symptoms evolved in their intensity until her head, chest, and tongue were literally swollen. She vomited copiously and painfully until around 9 o’clock that evening. The symptoms finally abated, but it would be a while before they ceased outright. 

Mr. Robert Gregson Turner, the head of the household, fared no better. In fact, he suffered the most severely. The same excruciating pain his wife endured in her room overcame him. He got up from the table and hurried downstairs. His father, Orlibar, had been a guest at dinner that evening, and remained at the table a short time without an inkling that either of them were afflicted. Then he began to feel the effects himself. He soon followed his son’s hasty retreat down the stairs. He met Robert at the foot of the stairs and was shocked by his appearance, but had only enough time to register the degree of his illness by realizing his eyes had swollen in their sockets before white-hot pain seared through his chest as he lost his dinner in the yard below. Gadsden, the apprentice, took ill about ten minutes after eating his share of the infamous dumplings. He was not so ill he could not be sent to fetch the elder Mrs. Turner. When Mrs. Margaret Turner arrived, she questioned Eliza about the contents of the meal. Eliza began exhibiting signs of discomfort by this time as well. The elder Mrs. Turner cried, “Oh, those devilish dumplings!” To which Eliza replied, “Not the dumplings, but the milk, madam” (Newgate 176).

The sickness persisted well into the evening. Sarah Peer returned to the house at 9 o’clock. She did not eat any of the dumplings and was not afflicted. Thankfully, everyone survived the ordeal. By the day’s end however, the seed of poison was firmly planted in Olibar Turner’s mind. When he awoke the morning of the 22^nd, he set about inspecting the pan and what remained of the dumplings. Orlibar added a bit of water to the pan, stirred it with a spoon, and then tilted it at an angle in order to get a look at the sediment that lay in the bottom. He observed a white powdery substance that in his estimation did not share the characteristics of the flour used. He collected a sample and kept this in his possession until Mr. Marshall came. During the trial, Olibar also produced the knives used at the dinner table that day. They had turned black. It was asserted to be a reaction caused by the arsenic. 

In his testimony before the Recorder, he perceived Eliza to have shown no sympathy for the plight of her employers. According to him, she remained unconcerned and offered no assistance. This unwarranted calmness gave rise to the certainty that she was somehow responsible. Could it be that Miss Eliza did not attend to her ailing employers because she herself was suffering? 

 Margaret Turner decided the lovely cook was involved because she believed her to be the only one who had the opportunity. It is possible that she thought that Eliza tried to cast the eye of blame on Sarah by implying the milk used in the sauce had been tampered with. 

 John Marshall, one of the attending surgeons, also inspected the pan that same morning. He acknowledged the pan had contained traces of arsenic. He proved this to his satisfaction by washing the pan with a teakettle full of water, stirring it, and then putting it aside to settle. After decanting it off, he claimed to have found a half-teaspoon full of white powder. This was washed a second time and discovered to be arsenic. Marshall also found the yeast and flour tub to be devoid of poison. 

 Regardless as to whether the suspicions were grounded in fact, Eliza became the prime suspect. The flour that was used to make the dumplings had also been used to make the crust for a beef pie eaten by the servants on the same day. Since they suffered no undue effects, the milk and yeast were next suspected. Eliza had contended that she had seen red sediment in the yeast as she was kneading the dough. However, it was determined that the milk and the yeast were not tainted. The possibility that the perpetrator had added the arsenic after the dumplings were in the pan was disputed when Charlotte Turner swore under oath no other person had been in the kitchen after the dumplings were prepared. Sarah Peer had been instructed to mend a counterpane on one of the beds. Sarah testified she went upstairs around 11:15 and was busy with her duties, having no opportunity to slip poison into the pan. However, she did admit accepting the yeast delivery from Joseph Penson, the brewer’s assistant, on 20 March. Sarah had worked for the Turner’s for eleven months and was considered very reliable. 

 Members of the household testified that there were packets of arsenic kept in a drawer in Robert’s office. These were clearly marked “Arsenic, deadly poison.” The arsenic was used for the killing of rats and mice on the property. Not only was arsenic readily available, but also some had disappeared a short time before the attempted poisoning. Robert Gadsden was quoted as noticing the arsenic had gone missing around 8 March. Robert Turner confirmed Eliza could have known where it was kept, because she used scrap paper from his office to start her fire. In her statement for her defense, Eliza claimed, “I had no concern with that drawer at all; when I wanted a piece of paper I always asked for it” (Newgate 178). This was openly contradicted by the witness Robert Gadsden.

 The authorities were certainly convinced they had enough circumstantial evidence to show means and opportunity, but what could have motivated Eliza to try and murder her employers? Eliza had only been employed by the Turners for seven weeks. Sometime around her third week of service, Charlotte Turner had reproved her for what she considered “levity of conduct” (Chambers 13) between Fenning and the young apprentices, and she threatened to discharge her. But Eliza spoke with Margaret Turner, who appears to have smoothed the matter over. What exactly did Charlotte Turner consider levity of conduct? This is taken from her trial testimony: 

About seven weeks before the accident the prisoner came into my service as cook; and about three weeks after I had occasion to reprove her, for I observed her, one night, go into the young men’s room partly undressed. … There were two young men, about seventeen or eighteen years old. I reproved her severely next morning for her conduct: the excuse was, that she was going to fetch the candle. I threatened to discharge her and gave her warning to quit; but she showed contrition; I forgave her for it, and retained her (Newgate, Vol. IV, 172-3). 

 There were two young apprentices living on the premises: Robert Gadsden and another young man by the name of King. When asked directly about this incident, Eliza protested that Gadsden had taken liberties with her. Both Sarah Peer and Charlotte Turner admitted Eliza had been noticeably sullen after the rapprochement. Sarah stated that Eliza told her she would not feel the same about Mrs. Turner again. 

 Eliza’s trial took place at the Old Bailey in London on 11 April 1815. She was ultimately found guilty and sentenced to be hanged. Due to overwhelming public opinion that she had been unjustly accused, her execution was stayed for three months pending further investigation. 

Some of the most well-known and respected figures of her day were among her defenders. A petition pleading to show Eliza mercy was signed by thousands and sent to the King. The prosecution’s case was considered purely circumstantial. Their strongest piece of evidence was simply that no one else appeared to have had the opportunity to contaminate the dumplings. 

 What evidence did the authorities actually have against Eliza? We can do a brief summary. They took into account her repeated request to make the dumplings. They contended that no one else had any opportunity to put poison in the pan. Eliza cooked dumplings for the servants the night before, which obviously were not tainted. She chastised Gadsden in an attempt to stop him from eating any. Mrs. Turner reproached her for entering the boys’ room at night, in a state considered “undressed.” She had a reportedly sullen attitude afterwards. She had ready access to arsenic. The allegation was that she had changed her story, claiming it was the milk, then the yeast, that had been compromised. She had not consulted Mrs. Turner about buying the yeast from the brewer. Mrs. Turner testified that she usually got her yeast from the baker. Many of those involved felt Eliza only became ill when it became apparent poison was suspected. This was considered an attempt to cover up her guilt. 

 On 25 July 1815, a Mr. Gibson, accompanied by the clerk for the secretary of state, gave statements to the Recorder. Gibson alleged that Robert Gregson Turner had come to him six months before the incident. Mr. Turner had been in a deranged state, and pleaded to be restrained from harming himself and his family. Mr. Gibson, who was connected with the chemist firm Corbyn and Co., stated that he informed the family of this incident. The Recorder refused to hear the evidence. He informed Mr. Gibson that to bring forward any evidence of this nature would be wholly useless. The ruling was upheld, and on 26 July 1815, Eliza Fenning was executed. 

 Eliza protested her innocence clear up until the noose was secured around her neck. She was to have been married just a few days from the date she was executed. Instead of wearing her wedding gown to walk down the aisle to meet her beloved, she wore it up the scaffold steps to meet her death. She drew her last breath wearing the white, muslin wedding gown and cap she had made herself. Reverend Mr. Cotton stepped up to her at the last and pleaded with her to confess her sins so her soul might be saved. Eliza simply said, “Before the just and Almighty God, and by the faith of the holy sacrament I have taken, I am innocent of the offence with which I am charged” (Phillips, C. 77). The crowd broke into prayer, and some openly wept. Miss Elizabeth Fenning is said to have maintained her composure to the last. 

 She was waked for five days in the home of her parents. Thousands of people came to see her. Donations of money were offered up to her parents, who had to borrow the money to claim her body from the executioner. Her funeral took place on 31 July. It is estimated that over ten thousand people followed the procession to St. George the Martyr Cemetery. Even more people leaned out of windows and gathered on rooftops. There had been riots outside the Turner home and the office of the prosecuting attorney. Peace officers were dispatched to keep the crowd under control. Six young women, dressed in white, carried her coffin. The rest of the procession solemnly followed two by two. There was a simple inscription on the coffin lid—“Elizabeth Fenning, died July 26, 1815, aged 22 years” (Blackwood’s 236).

 Elizabeth (Eliza) Fenning was born on 10 June 1793, in the Isle of Dominica in the West Indies. Her father was a native of Suffolk, England. Her mother hailed from Cork, Ireland. The Fennings met and married in 1787 while William was quartered in Ireland with the first battalion of the 15th regiment of infantry. In 1790 the couple sailed to Barbados, and then on to Dominica, a lovely island nation in the Caribbean Sea nicknamed the “Nature Isle of the Caribbean.” 

 By the time he was discharged in 1802, William Fenning had risen to the rank of Non-Commissioned Officer. The fact he obtained such a rank could speak towards Fenning’s character. These officers are now often referred to as the backbone of the armed forces. The family eventually settled down to a modest life in London. Mr. Fenning worked for a time with his brother as a potato dealer in Holborn, while his wife worked as an upholsterer. Though Mrs. Fenning gave birth to ten children, all but Eliza died at a very young age. Little Eliza was placed in servitude to earn her own living at age fourteen. The Turner family hired her on in January of 1815, at the age of twenty-two. 

 She was described as possessing a high degree of intellect for someone from her station in life. According to various accounts, her religious principles were correct, her professions sincere, she carried herself with propriety of deportment, and was a dutiful daughter. The testimonials to her physical beauty were numerous. Miss Fenning was portrayed as short in stature yet perfectly proportioned. Her features delicate and pleasing to the eye, “her countenance evinced a heart at ease, and a mind at once intellectual and lively” (Newgate 182). The Fennings were considered respectable members of the community. At the time of the incident, Miss Eliza was betrothed to a man she reportedly loved very deeply. 

 Did Elizabeth Fenning really conspire to kill her employers? It is said that years later a member of the family confessed on his deathbed to committing the crime. Was this Robert Gregson Turner? Or is this just a myth surrounding the case? Either way, the case of Elizabeth Fenning may forever be a mystery in some minds. 

Works Cited

Appleton’s Journal of Literature, Science, and Art, Volume Fifteenth. January 1- June 24, 1876. NY: D. Appleton and Company, 1876.

Celebrated Trials of All Countries, and Remarkable Cases of Criminal Jurisprudence. Philadelphia: E.L. Carey & A. Hart, 1843.

“Judicial Puzzles- Eliza Fenning.” Blackwood’s Edinburgh Magazine .V. 89. American Edition. Vol. LII. January-June. 236- 244. NY: Leonard Scott and Co., 1861. 

Napp, Andrew and William Baldwin. “Elizabeth Fenning Executed For Attempting To Poison A Family.” The Newgate calendar: Comprising Interesting Memoirs of The Most Notorious Characters Who Have Been Convicted of Outrages on The Laws of England. Vol. IV. London: J. Robins and Co., 1828.

Phillips, Charles A.B. Vacation Thoughts On Capital Punishments. London: W.& F.G Cash, 1857.

Phillips, S.M. Famous Cases of Circumstantial Evidence With an Introduction on the Theory of Presumptive Proof. Second Edition. Chapter XIII. Boston: Estes and Lauriat, 1874.

Timbs, John, ed. The Book of Modern Legal Anecodes. The Bar, Bench, and Woolsack. NY: George Routledge & Sons, 1873.

W. & R. Chambers. “Judicial Puzzles-Eliza Fenning.” Chamber’s Journal of Popular Literature Science and Arts. Vol 5. London and Edinburgh: W. & R. Chambers, 1875.