“A Devil and Her Deeds”; Charlotte Lamb and the Murders of Trimbelle, Wisconsin

Kaitlyn Reneson History 489

Professor Pederson HHH 705

Copyright for this work is owned by the author. This digital version is published by McIntyre Library, University of Wisconsin Eau Claire with the consent of the author.

i

Abstract

Charlotte Lamb was a hero and a murderer in the 1800s. She was born in Maine,

in the 1830s. Her exact birth date is not specified on the census records. Charlotte

married Chancy Lamb becoming his second wife. Together they had three children

Oliver, Daniel, and Sarah. Charlotte was a known woman in the late 1800s because she

killed her husband, two children, a neighbor, and employer. Originally, her fame started

when she saved her children from the Sioux Indians who were on the warpath during the

1860s. Every newspaper depicted Charlotte as a devoted mother who walked forty miles

to St. Paul, Minnesota with two young children carrying a sick baby to flee the Sioux

Indians. The depiction of Charlotte as a devoted mother fell apart a few years later in

1871 when she murdered those same children, murdered her husband, and killed her

neighbor, Irene Hall Ottoman and her employer, Royal Garland. Charlotte no longer fit

the depiction of the heroic mother and instead became known as a murderer. Charlotte

Lamb was arrested August 31, 1872 and on June 11, 1873 she was charged with

murdering Sarah and Orin (Daniel) Lamb, Royal Garland, and Jane Ottoman. Charlotte

admitted to the death of those four, but did not admit to her husband’s murder. Charlotte

Lamb was sentenced to life in the Waupun Prison.

Charlotte Lamb was analyzed through modes of religion and gender, which were

popular in the 19th century. The media and courts interpreted Charlotte’s crimes as a

result of insanity and lack of femininity. However, analyzing Charlotte through the

modes of gender and religion are not appropriate for her case. It is more beneficial to

analyze Charlotte as a sociopath.

ii

Table of Contents

Introduction 1

A Glimpse Into Charlotte’s Life 4

Representation of Charlotte 8

Insanity and Religion 14

Why She Killed 17

What Happened To Charlotte 24

Conclusion 25

Appendix 27

Bibliography 29

1

Introduction

“A Devil And Her Deeds: She kills her Husband, Two Children, A Former Neighbor and Possibly Two Others—Attempts to Poison Another Child and a Lady Friend-An Unparalleled Tale of Crime” --A Devil and her Deeds” New York Herald. September 12, 1872.

In the fall of 1871, Charlotte Lamb sat drinking tea with her friend [Mrs.] Carr.

The two women had become intimate friends after Charlotte’s husband, Chancy Lamb,

died from an apparent heart attack. Charlotte Lamb admired Carr and her husband and

became a frequent visitor in their home. In the fall of 1871, as Charlotte and Carr sat

drinking tea, Charlotte shared that she had seen a fortune-teller recently. This came as a

Figure 1. Charlotte Lamb, Wisconsin Serial Killer, 1872. Source: “The Unknown History of Misandry.” http://unknownmisandry.blogspot.com/2011/09/charlotte-lamb-wisconsin-serial-killer.html. (Accessed January 12, 2013).

2

shock to Carr because Charlotte had been a devoted Christian and member of the church.

Charlotte cheerfully told [Mrs.] Carr that, “she had recently been at Red Wing and while

there she had consulted a fortune-teller who had informed her that she was soon to lose a

dear friend, and that she (Charlotte Lamb) would eventually marry the husband of the

dear friend.”1 Carr was repelled by the cheerful statement and closed the conversation

with the words, “Mrs. Lamb I am not going to die.”2 Charlotte left and Carr told her

husband the conversation between her and charlotte. The Carrs consented to not share

the conversation and both kept friendly relations.

A few days later, Carr visited Charlotte at her home where they were going to

have tea once again. Charlotte poured Carr a cup, which she took a sip of. The tea was

bitter to Carr, so she tried to pour the contents back into the teapot. Charlotte grabbed the

teacup and threw the contents out of the window.3 Upon returning home, Carr was

overcome with violent pains and when she tried to vomit her jaw clenched.4 Carr forced

her jaw open and removed the contents in her stomach.5

Charlotte Lamb’s attempt to poison Carr failed, but this did not stop her.

Charlotte succeeded in killing her husband, Chauncey Lamb, her children Sarah and

Daniel (Orrin) Lamb, her neighbor Jane Ottoman, and her employer Royal Garland. Her

case was renown around the country because prior to the murders she was known for

travelling on foot with her children from Trimbelle, Wisconsin to St. Paul to flee the

1 “The Wholesale Poisoning at Trimbelle, Wisconsin, Neosho Valley Register, October 5, 1872. 2 Ibid. 3 Ibid. 4 Ibid. 5 Ibid.

3

Sioux Indians’ warpath during the Sioux Indian’s War.6 Newspapers described how

Charlotte fled to St. Paul, “carrying her sick baby on a pillow in one arm, and with the

free hand steadying the steps of her little boy.”7 The depiction of Charlotte carrying her

baby and steadying her two boys is a heartfelt story that depicted Charlotte as nothing

less than a heroine. It is no surprise that the country was shocked to hear that a women

who was so devoted to her family was on trial for murdering them all by poison.

Charlotte’s case was heard all over the country and the depiction of Charlotte

Lamb as a devoted mother quickly became, “the devil and her deeds.”8 How could a

woman who was so devoted to her family, turn around and kill them all? During the

nineteenth century, the question of how a woman could have committed such horrific

crimes was addressed using the analysis of religion and gender expectations. Charlotte’s

transition from the devoted mother and wife to the devil was blamed on her “spiritual

insanity” and her lack of femininity. Prior to the murders Charlotte had been known as a

devoted Christian and a woman of virtue, but once arrested for the murders, there were

rumors of her deviating from the Christian faith and seeking fortune-tellers along with

participating in spiritualism.9 However, there is more to Charlotte’s story than being a

woman who went insane due to her lack of religion and femininity, which caused her to

kill five people. While, the media and courts interpreted Charlotte’s crimes as a result of

insanity and lack of femininity, today Charlotte fits what is known today as a sociopath.

6 “Charlotte Lamb,” Coshocton Democrat, June 17, 1873. 7 Ibid. 8 “A Devil and her Deeds,” New York Herald, September 12, 1872

9 “Charlotte Lamb,” Coshocton Democrat, June 17, 1873.

4

A Glimpse into Charlotte’s Life

“The Ill-Starred Family” --“The Wholesale Poisoning at Trimbelle, Wisconsin. Neosho Valley Register. October 5, 1872. Charlotte Lamb was born in Maine, in the 1830s. Charlotte married Chauncey

Lamb becoming his second wife. Charlotte and Chancy had been intimate friends

through his first marriage. After Chauncey’s first wife died unexpectedly, Chancy began

to see another woman, but she too died suddenly. According to the Neosho Valley

Register, “her past life may have been

criminal also.”10

Shortly after marrying Chauncey,

they moved from Maine to Trimbelle,

Wisconsin. While living in Trimbelle,

Charlotte and Chancy had three children,

Oliver, Daniel (Orrin), and Sarah. Around

1862, the Sioux Indians were on the

warpath and were rumored to attack

Trimbelle, Wisconsin. Charlotte’s

husband, Chauncey had been in St. Paul,

about forty miles away, which left

Charlotte to take care of herself and her

children.11 Fearful of her children’s lives

10 “The Wholesale Poisoning at Trimbelle, Wisconsin,” Neosho Valley Register, 1872. 11 “Charlotte Lamb,” Coshocton Democrat. June 17, 1873.

Figure 2. Chauncey Lamb Homestead Entry Original. Source: Ancestry Library Edition. Proquest. UW Eau Claire. Accessed (January 12, 2013).

5

being taken by the Sioux Indians, Charlotte traveled on foot with her daughter in her

arms, and her two sons to St. Paul.12 Hearing this story makes Charlotte appear as a

devoted and loving mother. However, shortly after Charlotte had fled on foot with her

children to St. Paul, Charlotte’s devotion to her children and husband changed drastically.

On September 18, 1871, Charlotte’s husband Chauncey had been working out in

the cornfields by their home. While working in the fields, Chauncey was overcome with

a peculiar malady.13 Chauncey lost control of his ability to move his arms and started to

seize and vomit. In a short amount of time, Chancy died and heart disease was the cause

according to his wife Charlotte.14 Shortly after Chauncey’s death, Charlotte became a

frequent visitor of her neighbors the Carrs. After frequent visits between the two homes,

Mrs. Carr suffered from pains in her stomach and her arms started to seize. Carr forced

herself to throw up and survived the peculiar malady. Carr’s life was saved and she

became known as one of Charlotte’s attempted murders.

A short time later in the spring of 1872, Charlotte brought to the attention of her

neighbors that her children had been acting strange and there was something wrong with

their hearts.15 Although, the neighbors failed to detect anything wrong with the children,

they took Charlotte’s word and assumed the children had inherited the heart condition

that had inflicted their father, Chancy.16 Charlotte continued to tell her neighbors that a

12 Ibid. 13 “A Devil and her Deeds,” New York Herald, September 12, 1872.

14 Ibid. 15 Ibid. 16 “The Wholesale Poisoning at Trimbelle, Wisconsin, Neosho Valley Register, October 5, 1872.

6

“calamity” had come upon her home.17 May 24, 1872, indeed, did bring a calamity to

the home of Charlotte Lamb. Her young son Orrin (Daniel) was playing with his friend

Sears, when Charlotte called Orrin (Daniel) in to eat some bread and milk. Orrin

(Daniel) did not want to and claimed that it tasted bitter. Charlotte told her son, “You

must eat it. I put some medicine in it.18 Orrin (Daniel) ate the bread and milk like his

mother had told him and his young friend Sears was allowed to taste it. Orrin (Daniel)

died within a half hour and Sears went home with a “bad stomach and could hardly keep

his legs on the ground.”19 Young Sears fully recovered. Shortly after Orrin (Daniel) had

been buried, Charlotte expressed fear about her youngest, Sarah. On June 24, 1872 Sarah

experienced the same symptoms as the ones previous to her. Sarah’s arms, legs, and

throat convulsed and she died.

After the death of her two children, Charlotte began to visit the home of her

neighbor Irene Ottoman. Charlotte expressed a liking for Irene’s husband.20 August 2,

1872 Irene called upon Charlotte to come to her home. After Charlotte had left, Irene

told her husband she had an “odd sensation in her stomach” and that Charlotte had given

her some medicine to make her feel better, but it had not agreed with her.21 Irene ran her

finger down her throat and forced herself to throw and after she told her husband that she

felt better. During that night, Irene was overcome spasmodic symptoms. A physician

17 Ibid. 18 Ibid. 19 Ibid. 20 Ibid. 21 Ibid.

7

was called and he prescribed Jane some powders.22 The next day Irene felt better and

Charlotte came and prepared her some toast and pretended to give her some of the

powders prescribed by the physician to help take care of her.23 Instead of giving the

powders prescribed by the physician, Charlotte added strychnine. Fifteen minutes later,

Irene died.

After Irene Ottoman died, Charlotte was employed by Royal Garland as a cook

during harvest time at Diamond Bluff Township. Garland had just divorced his wife and

was 32 years of age. Garland proposed marriage to Charlotte, but she had a “strong

dislike for him and rejected his offer.”24 Charlotte admitted to the death of those four,

but did not admit to her husband’s murder.25 In mid-August while cooking him and his

other workers dinner, she poured tea for all of the men except Garland. After she had

assisted all except him, she remarked she “had missed him” and went to the stove to pour

him some tea. After dinner as Garland was heading back to the fields, he complained of

pain. Within an hour, Garland was dead. Due to the suspicious circumstances, people in

the town of Trimbelle, Wisconsin started to voice their suspicions about Charlotte.

Once arrested, Charlotte pled spiritual insanity. Charlotte’s plea of spiritual

insanity led her to be analyzed through modes of gender expectations and religion. While

awaiting trial, newspapers consistently described Charlotte based on her appearances and

her participation or lack of involvement in the church. On August 31, 1872 Charlotte

was arrested Sherriff Mason and on June 11, 1873, she was charged with murdering

22 Ibid. 23 Ibid. 24 Ibid. 25 “Personal,” The Jackson Sentinel, June 12, 1873.

8

Sarah and Orrin (Daniel) Lamb, Royal Garland, and Irene Ottoman.26 Charlotte admitted

to the death of those four, but did not admit to her husband’s murder.27 Charlotte was

sentenced to life in prison.28

As noted before, Charlotte had three children, two of which were murdered.

Charlotte’s third child, Oliver Lamb survived. Oliver moved into the home of the Baileys

where he became a tenant and worked on their farm. According to the index there is no

relation between Oliver Lamb and the family, he was simply a tenant in their home.29

Representation of Charlotte

“The Ghastly Record Open At Last.” --“A Devil and her Deeds” New York Herald. September 12, 1872.

In the nineteenth century gender expectations and religion were used as sources of

analysis when analyzing people like Charlotte, who committed violent crimes. Scholars

like Gordon Morris and Brenda Farrington the authors of Women Who Kill Men:

California Courts, Gender and the Press, Cheree Carlson the author of The Crimes of

Womanhood, Peterson Del Mar the author of Beaten Down: A History of Interpersonal

Violence in the West, and Eric H. Monkkonen the author of Murder in New York City

analyze how gender affects representations of people accused in the courtroom.

Specifically, Charlotte Lamb’s gender based representation led to representing her as

26 Criminal Charge, 1872, The State of Wisconsin vs. Charlotte Lamb, Case No. 182, Box 3, Pierce County Criminal Court Case Files, Pierce County Series 163, UW-River Falls Area Research Center, River Falls, Wisconsin.

27 “Personal,” The Jackson Sentinel, June 12, 1873. 28 Criminal Charge, 1872, The State of Wisconsin vs. Charlotte Lamb, Case

No. 182, Box 3, Pierce County Criminal Court Case Files, Pierce County Series 163, UW-River Falls Area Research Center, River Falls, Wisconsin.

29 Trimbelle, Pierce County, Wisconsin, 1880 United States Federal Census Record for Oliver Lamb, Ancestry Library Edition, Proquest, UW Eau Claire, Ancestry.com.

9

insane because she did not fit the gender stereotypes in the nineteenth century. Women

like Charlotte Lamb that broke their gender and moral constraints, led society to believe

that women like Charlotte had an inability to perform their womanly roles because of

they lacked moral or religious values.

Society scrutinized Charlotte Lamb’s femininity and womanhood, which shaped

her representation in the courtroom. The book Women Who Kill Men: California Courts,

Gender, and the Press by Gordon Morris Bakken and Brenda Farrington is a useful

source to analyze how women in the late nineteenth century were represented in the

courtroom and how their representation affected their trial and treatment.30 Bakken and

Farrington found that women in the nineteenth century were represented based upon their

femininity. Purity and submissiveness defined women and women’s natural inferiority to

men left them with an inability to control their emotions.31 Women’s inability to control

their emotions led to attorneys representing women who killed as insane women who had

become lost in their emotions.

Newspapers all over the country (see Appendix) focused on Charlotte’s personal

appearance and how it resembled more masculine traits. The Neosho Valley Register

described Charlotte as a masculine woman stating, “She is medium height, heavy bodied,

and of masculine appearance, with a slight beard perceptible on her chin.”32 Describing

Charlotte’s masculine appearance was specified in most newspapers to depict her in an

unfeminine way. Describing Charlotte with “a slight beard” and “of masculine

30 Bakken, Gordan and Brenda Farrington, Women Who Kill Men : California Courts,

Gender, and the Press , (Nebraska: University of Nebraska, 2009) 17.

31 Ibid. 32 “The Wholesale Poisoning at Trimbelle, Wisconsin. Neosho Valley Register. October 5, 1872.

10

appearance” enforces what scholars like Carlson, Bakken, and Farrington argued in

regard to women’s representation in the courtroom. Charlotte Lamb’s representation was

based on her femininity or lack of femininity. Representing Charlotte as a masculine

woman engraved an image of her as an evil, unemotional woman.

The evil and masculine image of Charlotte was reinforced, when newspapers

labeled her as “the devil.”33 The Neosho Valley Register described Charlotte’s eyes as

“gray, small and keen,” and continued to describe her dark hair, sallow complexion, and

face that is “heavy and projecting.”34 The description of Charlotte in the Neosho Valley

Register contributed to the depiction of Charlotte as “the devil.” The descriptions of

Charlotte’s “sallow complexion” and “small, keen eyes” give Charlotte a sinister

appearance. Portraying Charlotte as a sinister woman with the looks to match were

manipulations of her gender. Manipulating how the public viewed Charlotte by depicting

Charlotte as evil, influenced her trial because jurors in the nineteenth century were all

males that had standards on how women should look, act, and behave based on their

femininity. Carlson argues that women were represented in the courtroom based on their

womanhood or femininity and this representation blurred how jurors viewed the women

because they were only analyzing the woman based on her gender roles, not the crime she

committed.35 Carlson adds that women’s representations and cases were based more so

33 “Charlotte Lamb,” Coshocton Democrat, June 17, 1873. 34 “The Wholesale Poisoning at Trimbelle, Wisconsin, Neosho Valley Register, October 5, 1872. 35 Carlson, Cheree A, The Crimes of Womanhood, Chicago (University of Illinois Pres2009) 1.

11

on morality tales.36 To Carlson, the ability to represent a woman fairly in the courtroom

without gendered constructions interfering rarely occurred.

Depicting Charlotte as sinister and devilish enforced the idea that Charlotte did

not fit the gender ideals of femininity. The negative representation of Charlotte in the

media carried over into the courtroom. As Cheree Carlson states, “Narratives produced

outside of the courtroom are often viewed as “contaminating” the process of rational

decision making.”37 In the nineteenth century, when a person committed a crime, they

were not judged based on their crime alone but on gender and the stories associated with

their lack of appropriate gender behaviors. Charlotte Lamb’s representation in the

courtroom was an indication of the public’s attitudes on morals and values in the

nineteenth century.38 The public viewed Charlotte as a woman who had not only

murdered, but also broke the morals of a good citizen, mother, and wife. The public

opinions of morals and values interfered with representing Charlotte based on her crime

alone.

Although gender representation in the courtroom damaged the case and character,

in some cases, representation based on gender had its advantages. For Charlotte, there

were some advantages in how she was represented and can be seen in the Neosho Valley

Register report on Charlotte’s condition after her arrest. Charlotte is described as

“greatly depressed and for days together has not consumed more than a mouthful of

36 Ibid.

37 Carlson, Cheree A, The Crimes of Womanhood, Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 2009, 16. 38 Ibid.

12

food.”39 Describing Charlotte’s depression and inability to eat portrays Charlotte as

feeble and emotional. This description portrays Charlotte as somewhat feminine. To be

able to portray Charlotte as feminine in any way was beneficial because then she would

fit the “ideal” woman. Since, gender stereotypes shaped analysis of crimes committed by

women in the nineteenth century, there was an advantage to Charlotte being represented

as feminine. Representing Charlotte based on her femininity in the media and the

courtroom fit society’s views on how women should act and behave in the nineteenth

century because femininity shaped the definition of masculinity. Femininity shaped a

man’s masculinity because men dealt with women and they constructed normalcy

between sexes and with making decisions about women.40 In the courtroom, Charlotte’s

ability to act and behave femininely was crucial because she was in the presence of an all

male jury. Questioning the femininity of women accused, allowed the punishments or

assessment of guilt to sway depending on the woman.41

Charlotte did have some representation that was positive to her trial, but it did not

sway the jury to charge Charlotte as “guilty.” The fact that Charlotte was represented in

a positive way demonstrates how crucial gender was in the nineteenth century. Gender

stereotypes and assumptions were crucial modes of analysis when examining a case like

Charlotte Lamb’s. Charlotte Lamb’s representation is a perfect example of using gender

to manipulate how a person is represented. Charlotte committed horrific crimes and there

existed little doubt that she was guilty, but she was still represented in ways that

39 “The Wholesale Poisoning at Trimbelle, Wisconsin, Neosho Valley Register, October 5, 1872. 40 Carlson, 10.

41 Carlson, 12.

13

described her feminine characteristics. The Neosho Valley Register depicted Charlotte as

incapable of consuming food and depressed.42 Charlotte’s inability to eat and her

depression could be viewed as feminine qualities of a woman who is deeply affected by

the crimes she committed. Also, women in the nineteenth century accused of crimes

were thought to be insane because of demonic influences. Charlotte’s plea of spiritual

insanity reinforces the idea that she was a victim of demonic influences because she had

previously been known as a good Christian woman that was influenced by unchristian

beliefs like fortune telling.43 The belief that insanity was caused by lack of religion or

demonic influences enabled Charlotte to be viewed with some pity because potentially

anyone could have had a similar occurrence.

The positive representation of Charlotte’s gender shows that there are advantages

to gender stereotypes in the courtroom and that representation based on gender was an

extremely detrimental way to examine Charlotte case. It was detrimental because when

gender stereotypes were strategically used, the court system was easily manipulated in

the nineteenth century.44

Representing Charlotte in both positive and negative ways, illustrates that crimes

were examined through modes of gender analysis. Gender analysis formed expectations

how each sex should act, behave, and conduct themselves in society and at home.

Charlotte Lamb rarely fit the gender expectations placed upon her. When Charlotte did,

it appears that she was simply manipulating the media so that they would see her as

42 “The Wholesale Poisoning at Trimbelle, Wisconsin, Neosho Valley Register, October 5, 1872. 43 Ibid. 44 Cruikshank, Barbara, “Feminism and Punishment,” Signs 24, no. 4 (1999): 1115.

14

feminine, which would help boost the image of Charlotte as a true woman, not a

masculine devil.

Insanity and Religion

“A crime of such magnitude as to stagger one’s belief in the sufficiency of the grand atonement of the Nazarene to cover such stupendous wrong to kindred, to nature, and to God.” -- “The Wholesale Poisoning at Trimbelle, Wisconsin. Neosho Valley Register. October 5, 1872 During the nineteenth century women that committed crimes, were analyzed

based on their religion and gender, which usually led to a diagnosis of insanity. During

the nineteenth century, “the insane were possessed with demonic influences.”45 Viewing

the insane as people possessed by demons allowed people to explain why a horrific crime

occurred. Before Charlotte’s arrest, she was known for her participation in church and

for being a devote Christian. Neosho Valley Register described that Charlotte, “gradually

won general esteem by her Christian deportment, and eventually became conspicuous for

her ready assistance in all causes of sickness and her efficient works in all religious

enterprises.”46 The Nashville Union and American depicted Charlotte as, “a an angel of

the bedside and a patron of purity and religious zeal.”47 These depictions quickly

changed as Charlotte’s case became more popular.

As popularity of Charlotte’s case spread, it was said that, “there were some in the

community who could not become attached to the kindly nurse and Christian worker,

being repelled by an indefinable something which they neither pretended to explain nor

45 Crotty, Homer D, “The History of Insanity in Criminal Law,” California Law Review 12,

1976, 105.

46 “The Wholesale Poisoning at Trimbelle, Wisconsin, Neosho Valley Register, October 5, 1872. 47 “A Medicine Woman,” Nashville Union and American, June 10, 1873.

15

to account for.”48 The complete switch of opinions is likely due Charlotte’s participation

in fortune-tellers and spiritualism.49 Charlotte’s participation in non-Christian forms of

spirituality led to an assumption that she was insane. Cheree Carlson argues that, if a

woman does not participate in the community’s accepted religion, she will be classified

as insane.50 This would explain why Charlotte plead “spiritual insanity,” which in the

most basic form is “a mixed nature - - partly moral and partly physical.”51 McCandless’s

reference to “partly physical” simply refers to the fact that the person accused of insanity

was a woman.

In the nineteenth century, female bodies were thought to be the cause of insanity

in women. Peter McCandless studied women accused of insanity in the nineteenth

century and he found that insanity was due to a woman’s uteruses deviating in their

bodies.52 He states that a popular notion in the nineteenth century viewed, “women’s

insanity as a function of their reproductive systems and viewed deviation from normal

female roles as both symptoms and cause of madness.”53 Charlotte’s plea of spiritual

insanity was a common plea for women in the nineteenth century. Charlotte claimed that,

“she was impelled to the murderous acts by the advice of the spirits.”54 Charlotte’s

48 Ibid. 49 “Personal,” The Jackson Sentinel, June 12, 1873. 50 Carlson, 29 51 McCandless, Peter, “A Female Malady? Women at the South Carolina Lunatic Asylum 1828-

1915,” Journal of the History of Medicine 54 (1999): 562. 52 Ibid, 562. 53 Ibid, 545. 54 “Personal,” The Jackson Sentinel, June 12, 1873.

16

deviation from Christianity to fortune telling and her supposed “natural” susceptibility to

evil was a common analysis for women who committed crimes because her insanity was

due to her lack of religion.55 Analyzing women through religious modes led to a popular

belief that women lost their senses or moral values, which led them to become morally or

emotionally insane without losing their intellectual sanity.56 Throughout the whole trial,

society and the media constantly analyzed Charlotte through a religious mode of marking

her as spiritually insane: intellectually sane, morally insane.57 Newspapers repeatedly

referenced her visiting fortune-tellers and delving into spiritualism.58 The Charleston

Daily News stated, “a case sufficient in all its horrible details to almost cause the human

mind to believe that Satan takes mortal form in which to work out his superhuman

iniquities.”59 Comparing Charlotte to Satan enforces an idea that Charlotte was

consumed by something evil and that the murders she committed were not her own

doing. Instead, they were the works of something demonic consuming her. While this

mode of analysis worked during the nineteenth century, it does not fit the uniqueness of

Charlotte Lamb’s case. Charlotte’s case is more complicated. Charlotte did not kill

sporadically or instantaneously. Instead, Charlotte’s crimes were detailed and carefully

55 Ulrich, Laurel Thatcher, A Midwive’s Tale: The Life of Martha Ballard, Based on Her Diary

1785-1812, New York: A Division of Random House Inc., 1990, 295. 56 Ireland, Robert, “Insanity and the Unwritten Law, The American Journal of Legal History 32,

no.2 April 1988, 166. 57 McCandless, Peter, “A Female Malady? Women at the South Carolina Lunatic Asylum

1828-1915,” Journal of the History of Medicine 54 (1999): 543.

58 “Personal,” The Jackson Sentinel, June 12, 1873. 59 “The Wisconsin Borgia,” The Charleston Daily News, September 16, 1872.

17

constructed. Charlotte took time and consideration with victims, showing that she is far

from the emotional, insane woman depicted in the late nineteenth century.

Why She Killed

“No motive is assigned for the murder, and the defense is insanity.” --“Charlotte Lamb.” Coshocton Democrat. June 17, 1873.

Analyzing Charlotte as insane due to her lack of religion was the acceptable mode of

analysis in the nineteenth century; however, analyzing Charlotte through a religious mode

to categorize her as insane does not fit her unique case. To plead insanity implies that the

person “did not know the difference between right and wrong,” which excused them from

the crime.60 In the case of Charlotte Lamb, it appears that she did in fact know the

difference between right and wrong. Charlotte planned her murders carefully and she

took her time to commit them. Her first victim may have been her husband, Chancy

Lamb. Charlotte murdered him in September 1871. Prior to Chauncey’s death in March

1871, Charlotte expressed a desire to have a portion of land set aside for her and put into

a deed.61

Chancy initially denied Charlotte’s request, but the dispute continued.62 Finally,

Chancy Lamb gave Charlotte two hundred dollars worth of land in her own deed.

Chancy died in September 1871, which does not appear to be a coincidence. It appears

that Charlotte planned his murder very carefully and made sure that after his death she

would own property and be taken care of. Peterson Del Mar claims that women commit

60 Crotty, Homer D, “The History of Insanity in Criminal Law,” California Law Review 12, 1976,

157. 61 “The Wholesale Poisoning at Trimbelle, Wisconsin, Neosho Valley Register, October 5, 1872. 62 Ibid.

18

violence toward their husbands as a way to “assert their autonomy.”63 Peterson Del Mar

also claims violence is a result of power struggles.64 As two people are exercising their

power over each other, one is forced to be the subordinate.65 It appears, that Charlotte

was simply looking out for her own interests and was getting rid of anyone who got in

her way. Not too long after Chauncey’s death, Charlotte expressed a desire to have all

the land put in her name, with no land left to her children.66 Neighbors told Charlotte

that her children will take care of her so there is no need to have all the land her name, to

which Charlotte replied, “They would turn her outdoors when she got old.”67

Unsurprisingly, in May, her son Orrin (Daniel) was murdered and Sarah shortly after.

Her family’s deaths were carefully planned and it appears that Charlotte killed them out

of her own selfish desires.

Irene Ottoman’s death is also another example of careful planning. After the

death of her children, Charlotte became a frequent visitor in the home of the Ottomans.

According to the Neosho Valley Register, Charlotte frequently expressed admiration for

Irene Ottoman’s husband and “pronounced him the best man in the world.”68 Charlotte’s

first attempt to poison Jane failed, but after a visit the following day, she succeeded.69

63 Ibid. 87. 64 Peterson Del Mar, David, Beaten Down: A History of Interpersonal Violence in the

West, (Washington: University of Washington Press, 2002) 7.

65Ibid. 66 “The Wholesale Poisoning at Trimbelle, Wisconsin, Neosho Valley Register, October 5, 1872.

67 Ibid. 68 Ibid. 69 Ibid.

19

Irene Ottoman’s death suggests that Charlotte once again knew exactly what she was

doing and would go to great lengths to succeed. It also suggests that Charlotte was

interested in Jane’s husband and wanted her out of the picture. Charlotte’s attempt to

murder Jane Ottoman is similar to why Charlotte had potentially wanted to murder [Mrs.]

Carr, but did not succeed. In both cases, Charlotte had expressed admiration for the

women’s husbands. Charlotte appears to have wanted the husbands for her and thought if

the wives were dead, they would come to her. This story is also similar to how Charlotte

had met her husband, Chancy. As mentioned previously, Chancy first wife died

unexpectedly and the woman he was seeing afterwards did too. Charlotte was

Chauncey’s “intimate” friend through both women’s deaths.

Royal Garland’s murder indicates that Charlotte was far from the legal definition

of insanity. Charlotte had been employed by Royal Garland for whom she had a strong

dislike towards. Royal Garland on the other hand, had a strong liking for Charlotte and

had proposed to her a few times throughout her short employment with him.70 Royal

Garland quickly became Charlotte’s last victim. Charlotte Lamb’s victims were planned

and they took time. Charlotte appears to have known the difference between right and

wrong because she always made sure that she could gain something from the murders.

Her husband’s death ensured her a portion of the land, her children’s death entitled her all

of the land, and Jane Ottoman’s death along with the attempt to kill [Mrs.] Carr appears

to have been an attempt for Charlotte to marry Irene or Carr’s husband. Charlotte’s lack

of empathy and the fact that she had close relations with all of her victims are all

characteristics of a sociopath.

70 Ibid.

20

A sociopath is defined as, “a lack of empathy, guilt, or remorse, and manipulative

skill, as consciously chosen behavioral traits, without regard to the person’s

socioeconomic background.”71 Charlotte Lamb fits the criteria of a sociopath because

she really had no reason to kill her victims besides how own selfish desires that were

obscure. After Charlotte’s arrest, the only time she had appeared remorseful was while

she was in prison. However, as soon as Charlotte was sent to the Bracket House in River

Falls, her condition changed and newspapers described how, “She ate heartily and

seemed to appreciate the change from the plain but wholesome diet of the prison.”72 If

Charlotte had been truly remorseful, the switch from the prison to the Bracket House

would not have changed her demeanor. Instead, Charlotte appears to have no remorse

and was simply unhappy with her living arrangements. The only remorse that Charlotte

had was that she was caught. Charlotte fits the description of what Ronald and Stephen

Holmes the authors of Murder in America, describes as a comfort killer. Holmes defines

the comfort killer motivation is more material based and is “internal to their physical

psyche. There are no voices or visions from God of the devil demanding a murder.”73

When Dr. Hoyt examined the stomachs of her victims, large amounts of

strychnine were found. In Royal Garland’s stomach, there were sixteen grains of

strychnine found. The amount of strychnine found in Garland’s body could have easily

killed eighty men.74 The large amount of strychnine found shows that Charlotte wanted

71 Federman, Carey, Holmes, and Jacobs, “Deconstructing the Psychopath: A Critical Discursive

Analysis,” Social Sciences 72, Spring 2009, 39. 72 “The Wholesale Poisoning of Trimbelle, Wisconsin,” Neosho Valley Register, 1872. 73 Holmes, 120. 74 “The Wholesale Poisoning of Trimbelle, Wisconsin,” Neosho Valley Register, 1872.

21

to make sure that Garland would die and that he died painfully. Royal Garland did die

painfully, along with her other victims because strychnine is extremely powerful and is

one of the most violent poisons in the body.75 In Charlotte’s children’s stomachs, there

was also an ample amount of strychnine found, which shows her lack of empathy. Most

mothers would do anything to avoid having their children in pain, but Charlotte lacked

the emotions to care.

In Chauncey’s body, strychnine was not found and Charlotte denied poisoning

him even though his symptoms were the exact same as the others. After the bodies had

been examined, Charlotte was informed that strychnine was found in almost all of the

bodies. Charlotte replied, “Well, they will have to prove who put the strychnine in their

bodies. Charlotte’s reply exemplifies her intelligence and cunning behavior, while also

providing more proof that she had no remorse. 76 Charlotte did not even defend her

innocence; instead she nonchalantly pushed the news aside. For most, hearing that

poison was found in the bodies of their loved ones would have been horrible, but to

Charlotte it was a moment that she used to sway the judgment away from herself.

Classifying Charlotte Lamb in the nineteenth century was not possible because as

stated before, religion and gender were the common modes of analysis. However, today,

it is possible. The main problem with this classification is that Charlotte is a woman.

Using gender as a source of analysis still occurs. There is reluctance to accept that

women can commit such horrific crimes for no solid reason and that women are capable

75 Smith, Henry, “Strychnine Poisoning, “ The British Medical Journal 2 no. 3735, 1932, 274. 76 Ibid.

22

of taking the lives of multiple people for no apparent reason.77 Men that commit multiple

murders are not as shocking to the public because men have been known to be capable of

that kind of violence, but women however, are perceived to be incapable of taking

multiple lives for no apparent reason.78

Eric H. Monkkonen analyzes murder and how gender is associated with it.

Monkkonen examines how the definitions of gender misconstrue the representations of

why people murder. Mokkonen first asks the question: “How do we account for male

violence?”79 Monkkonen addresses this point by stating that there is no full proof way to

argue what makes males and females commit violence. While there are arguments that

males commit more murder because they have more testosterone or because of how

society has perceived males as being dominant, it is not accurate or fair because then why

do females commit murder?80 On top of that, Monkkonen asks, “What makes women

less likely to commit murder? Is it mothering or oppression?”81 All these questions leave

historians with an inability to convincingly answer how gender differences affect why

males or females murder. Monkkonen claims that one way to answer these questions is

to look at the history of murder from a Marxist view, which claims murder occurs

because of power struggles.82

77 Holmes, Ronald and Stephen, Murder In America, California: Sage Publications, Inc.,

1994, 116.

78 Ibid. 79 Monkkonen, Eric H, Murder in New York City, (California: University of California

Press, 2001) 56.

80 Ibid, 56. 81 Ibid, 56. 82 Ibid, 59

23

Monkkonen is firm in his argument that gender biases cannot explain why either

sex kill, so the theory that women are incapable of committing horrific crimes for no

reason or because of their lack of empathy is not correct. Viewing women like Charlotte,

as a sociopath is difficult because women have been and still are viewed as emotional and

it has been commonly thought that women’s emotions were what caused them to kill not

the lack of them. According to Holmes, “Women have been historically viewed as

nurturing and vulnerable, not physically or psychologically capable of murder unless

provoked in an abusive situation.83 Charlotte’s case does not state that there was any

violence or abuse inflicted upon her. According to the Neosho Valley Register Charlotte

lived her life in a comfortable home that was well supplied with a husband who was

respected and cared for his family.84

With no reason to believe that Charlotte was abused or treated poorly, there is

little reason to believe that Charlotte committed the crimes because she was provoked.

Charlotte appears anything but nurturing and vulnerable. Instead, Charlotte appears to be

manipulative and cunning. Holmes also makes the argument that women who kill as a

reaction to an abusive situation usually “do not become involved in serial murders.”85

Charlotte’s murders do not appear to have been done for any reason other than Charlotte’

lack of empathy and because of her selfish motives.

83 Holmes, Ronald and Stephen, Murder In America, California: Sage Publications, Inc.,

1994, 116.

84 “Wholesale Poisoning: A Woman Arrested in Wisconsin on a Charge of Killing Five Persons,” New York World. September 1, 1872.

85 Holmes, Ronald and Stephen, Murder In America, California: Sage Publications, Inc., 1994, 116.

24

At times Charlotte was nurturing and vulnerable, especially when she is depicted

as a caring nurse and bedside angel.86 These characteristics, however, were only tools of

manipulation. Charlotte continuously won over her neighbors and society by putting on

her facade of being a true feminine and Christian woman.87 Charlotte’s convincing acts

of true virtue, femininity, and Christianity shows how manipulative and intelligent she

was. Charlotte’s manipulation and intelligence do not fit the definition of insanity in the

nineteenth century. Throughout her murders there was not a time that Charlotte appeared

to be acting of emotional distress. Her plans were articulate and carefully thought out.

Charlotte had a determination to complete her crimes and as shown with Irene Ottoman,

when she did not succeed to the first time, she did not stop until she had. Charlotte was

aware of the crimes she was committing, which shows that she simply did not have the

empathy to care. Charlotte’s awareness of the crimes she had committed and her lack of

empathy fit the definition of a sociopath mentioned previously.

What Happened to Charlotte Lamb

“The only occasion for regret in the matter is that no severer punishment can be visited upon the woman who poisoned two of her own children and six other persons than ‘imprisonment for life.’” --Easton, Augustus B. History of The Saint Croix Valley, Volume 1. South Carolina: Nabu Press, 2011. After sentencing Charlotte Lamb to life in prison, she was sent from the Ellsworth

Jail to the Waupun Prison.88 While in prison, Charlotte had intimate relations with a

prison officer, Hiram Schoonover and became pregnant. After Charlotte found out that

86 “A Medicine Woman,” Nashville Union and American, June 10, 1873. 87 “The Wholesale Poisoning at Trimbelle, Wisconsin, Neosho Valley Register, October 5, 1872.

88 Wisconsin, Public documents of the State of Wisconsin Volume 2 ; being the reports of

the various state officers, departments and institutions, Wisconsin: RareBooksClub.com, 2012, 25.

25

she was pregnant she furnished herself with instruments to abort the child by the matron

of the female prison, Martha Cliff because Charlotte was “determined to never bear it.”89

After the abortion, Charlotte was in bed for weeks and investigations followed to confirm

the incidents, which was confirmed by several witnesses.90 Charlotte was later removed

to an insane asylum because of her insanity plea.91 About twenty years later, Charlotte

Lamb was discharged from the insane asylum as cured.92

Conclusion

“The simple truth is that the sudden and horrifying revelations of the past few days have paralyzed every friendly impulse in the hearts of her neighbors and acquaintances, and so profound is the conviction of her enormous guilt that she will undoubtedly be shot or killed without mercy immediately upon her reappearance at her old home.” --“The Wholesale Poisoning at Trimbelle, Wisconsin. Neosho Valley Register. October 5, 1872.

Charlotte Lamb’s crimes were unique because of the strategic planning and lack

of empathy she had towards her victims. Not only did Charlotte strategically plan her

murders, but she also manipulated the religious and gender expectations that were placed

upon her by acting out society’s idea of femininity. Charlotte’s manipulation of religious

and gender modes of analysis is seen through her ability to convince a community that

she was the ideal Christian and feminine woman. As stated previously, Charlotte “won

the general esteem by her Christian department.”93 Charlotte’s construction of herself as

a devote Christian woman allowed her to continue committing the horrific crimes without

89 Ibid, 25. 90 Ibid, 25. 91 Easton, Augustus B, History of The Saint Croix Valley, Volume 1, South Carolina: Nabu Press,

2011, 674.

92 Ibid. 93 “The Wholesale Poisoning at Trimbelle, Wisconsin, Neosho Valley Register, October 5, 1872.

26

being caught until her last victim, Royal Garland was killed. The uses of religion and

gender expectations, as sources of analysis were the only known strategies in the

nineteenth century. Newspapers depicted Charlotte as masculine and unfeminine, which

did not fit society’s expectation that women were supposed to act submissive and pure.94

The media’s conversation of Charlotte’s case discussed her masculine image and her

participation in non-Christian beliefs like fortune telling. These modes of religion and

gender were used because of the cultural and societal beliefs of gender and religion.

Charlotte’s representation was based on her lack of femininity and in return was

represented as insane because she did not fit the gender stereotypes. As stated previously

insanity was correlated with a demonic possession.95 The beliefs revolving around

insanity and lack of religion are due to the inability to accept that women were actually

capable of committing horrific crimes for no apparent reason. To accept that women like

Charlotte Lamb, could kill in cold-blood simply because of her lack of emotion would

have complicated the gender confines placed upon women. Women in the nineteenth

century were believed to be emotional and when their emotions were out of control, they

committed crimes that were uncharacteristic of their gender norms. Portraying Charlotte

as a sociopath: a person with a lack of empathy; would not have fit the beliefs of gender

and religion. Instead, the media and courts interpreted Charlotte’s crimes as a result of

insanity and lack of femininity because it was uncharacteristic for a woman to be a

sociopath.

94 Carlson, 16. 95 Crotty, 105

27

Appendix

States: The Location of Newspapers

• “A Devil and her Deeds.” New York Herald. September 12, 1872. o New York

• “A Medicine Woman.” Nashville Union and American. June 10, 1873.

o Tennessee

• “A Woman Under Arrest.” Iowa State Reporter. September 11, 1872. o Iowa

• “Charlotte Lamb.” The Daily Phoenix. June 13, 1873.

o Arizona

• “Charlotte Lamb, Wisconsin Serial Killer, 1872,” The Daily Phoenix, June 13, 1873.

o Arizona

• “Charlotte Lamb.” Coshocton Democrat. June 17, 1873. o Ohio

• “Personal.” The Jackson Sentinel. June 12, 1873.

o Iowa

• “Minnesota: A Wholesale Murder.” Titusville Herald. September 2, 1872. o Pennsylvania

• “The Trial of Mrs. Charlotte Lamb,” New York Times, June 3, 1873.

o New York

• “The Wholesale Poisoning at Trimbelle, Wisconsin. Neosho Valley Register. October 5, 1872.

o Kansas

• “The Wisconsin Borgia.” The Charleston Daily News. September 16, 1872. o West Virginia

• “Wholesale Poisoning: A Woman Arrested in Wisconsin on a Charge of Killing

Five Persons.” New York World. September 1, 1872. o New York

28

“Office of State Prison Commissioner” June 11, 1873

Source: The State of Wisconsin vs. Charlotte Lamb. Case No. 182, Box 3. Pierce County Criminal Court Case Files, Pierce County Series 163. UW-River Falls Area Research Center. River Falls, Wisconsin.

29

Bibliography

Primary Sources

“A Devil and her Deeds.” New York Herald. September 12, 1872.

“A Medicine Woman.” Nashville Union and American. June 10, 1873.

“A Woman Under Arrest.” Iowa State Reporter. September 11, 1872.

“Charlotte Lamb.” The Daily Phoenix. June 13, 1873.

“Charlotte Lamb, Wisconsin Serial Killer, 1872,” The Daily Phoenix, June 13, 1873.

“Charlotte Lamb.” Coshocton Democrat. June 17, 1873. Criminal Charge, 1872. The State of Wisconsin vs. Charlotte Lamb. Case

No. 182, Box 3. Pierce County Criminal Court Case Files, Pierce County Series 163. UW-River Falls Area Research Center. River Falls, Wisconsin.

“Personal.” The Jackson Sentinel. June 12, 1873. Prison Record, June 11, 1873. The State of Wisconsin vs. Charlotte Lamb. Case

No. 182, Box 3. Pierce County Criminal Court Case Files, Pierce County Series 163. UW-River Falls Area Research Center. River Falls, Wisconsin.

“Minnesota: A Wholesale Murder.” Titusville Herald. September 2, 1872. Subpoena, November 4, 1872. The State of Wisconsin vs. Charlotte Lamb. Case

No. 182, Box 3. Pierce County Criminal Court Case Files, Pierce County Series 163. UW-River Falls Area Research Center. River Falls, Wisconsin.

“The Trial of Mrs. Charlotte Lamb,” New York Times, June 3, 1873.

“The Wholesale Poisoning at Trimbelle, Wisconsin. Neosho Valley Register. October 5, 1872. Pierce Country. 7 Jan 1864. Royal Garland Marriage License. Ancestry Library

Edition. Proquest. UW Eau Claire. Ancestry.com Trimbelle, Pierce County, Wisconsin. March 10 1871. Chauncey Lamb Homestead Entry Original. Ancestry Library Edition. Proquest. UW Eau Claire. Trimbelle, Pierce County, Wisconsin. 24 May 1872. David Orin Lamb Grave Index.

Ancestry Library Edition. Proquest. UW Eau Claire. Ancestry.com

30

Trimbelle, Pierce County, Wisconsin. 21 June 1872. Sarah Lamb Grave Index.

Ancestry Library Edition. Proquest. UW Eau Claire. Ancestry.com Trimbelle, Pierce County, Wisconsin. 1870 United States Federal Census Record for

Charlotte Lamb. Ancestry Library Edition. Proquest. UW Eau Claire. Ancestry.com

Trimbelle, Pierce County, Wisconsin. 1880 United States Federal Census Record for

Oliver Lamb. Ancestry Library Edition. Proquest. UW Eau Claire. Ancestry.com Trimbelle, Pierce County, Wisconsin. 1870 United States Federal Census Record for

Chancy Lamb. Ancestry Library Edition. Proquest. UW Eau Claire. Ancestry.com Trimbelle, Pierce County, Wisconsin. Irene Hall Ottoman’s Grave Index. Ancestry

Library Edition. Proquest. UW Eau Claire. Ancesry.com “The Wisconsin Borgia.” The Charleston Daily News. September 16, 1872.

“Wholesale Poisoning: A Woman Arrested in Wisconsin on a Charge of Killing Five Persons.” New York World. September 1, 1872.

Wisconsin. Public documents of the State of Wisconsin Volume 2 ; being the reports of the various state officers, departments and institutions. Wisconsin: RareBooksClub.com, 2012.

This book was useful to understand what happened to Charlotte after she was sentenced to life in prison. There is not much about Charlotte in the census data and this book provided information that was interesting and useful in my analysis of Charlotte Lamb.

Secondary Sources Bakken, Gordan and Brenda Farrington. Women Who Kill Men : California Courts,

Gender, and the Press . Nebraska: University of Nebraska, 2009.

This book is useful because it examines specific cases of women who have been committed of murder. The book examines the specific cases and gives a viewpoint of how society and the press have constructed the gender views of those specific women. This is helpful in studying Charlotte Lamb because there were numerous newspaper articles about Charlotte Lamb and majority of the articles portrayed her in a very negative light, especially since she was initially in the newspapers for being a devoted mother.

31

Carlson, Cheree A. The Crimes of Womanhood. Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 2009.

This book was useful because it discussed how the representation of women in the courtroom was usually based on their insanity. It helped when examining Charlotte Lamb because she was represented based on her gender. Carlson gave great detail and provided numerous examples, which I used to compare to Charlotte’s case. Crotty, Homer D. “The History of Insanity in Criminal Law.” California Law Review 12,

1976, 105-123.

Cruikshank, Barbara. “Feminism and Punishment.” Signs 24, no. 4 (1999): 1113-1117. Daniels, Christine and Michael V. Kenned. Over the Threshold : Intimate Violence in

Early America. New York : Routledge, 1999.

This book examines violence in the homes. It is useful because Charlotte Lamb started by poisoning her family members and then went on to murder her neighbors. This book will give insight as to why violence in the home occurs. Further research on Charlotte Lamb will be able to tie in correlations that the book gives for reasons of violence occurring in the home. Easton, Augustus B. History of The Saint Croix Valley, Volume 1. South Carolina: Nabu

Press, 2011.

This book helped wrap up Charlotte’s story. It provided information as to what happened to Charlotte after she was sentenced to life in prison. It also helped me develop a more rich analysis of Charlotte Lamb and the argument that she is a sociopath.

Farrell, Amanda. “Lethal Ladies: Revisiting What We Know About Female Serial Killers.” Homicide Studies 15, no. 3. August 2011, 228-252. Federman, Carey, Holmes, and Jacobs. “Deconstructing the Psychopath: A Critical

Discursive Analysis.” Social Sciences 72, Spring 2009, 36-65. Frienman, Clarice. Women in the Criminal Justice System. New York: Praeger

Publishers, 1986. Gado, Mark. Death Row Women : Murder, Justice, and the New York press. Westport, Conn. : Praeger Publishers, 2008.

This book gives insight to specific cases of women who were put on death row for murder. It examines how the press and society viewed those women and how their cases were horrific enough to punish them with the death penalty. Although Charlotte Lamb did not face the death penalty, how the press portrayed her to society is very similar. Women were portrayed a lot worse than men who committed murder. This book shows

32

how gender plays a huge role in how society and press categorize and view people. Holmes, Ronald and Stephen. Murder In America. California: Sage Publications, Inc.,

1994. This book was useful because it discussed serial killers in America. Specifically, it discussed the patterns of women who kill. It also provided examples of how women are examined compared to men who commit multiple murders. Jenson, Vickie. Why Women Kill : Homicide and Gender Equality. Boulder : Lynne Rienner Publishers, 2001.

This book examines why women kill and how they face the justice system compared to men. This is a useful source because Charlotte Lamb’s case is portrayed different than a male’s case would have been portrayed. Jones, Ann. Women Who Kill. New York: The Feminist Press, 2012.

This book looks at specific examples of women who have killed. By looking at those cases and the reasons as to why the women killed, insight can be gained about Charlotte Lamb. There are many unanswered questions as to why Charlotte Lamb ended up murdering five people. This book gives possible reasons. Lorentzen, Anne H. “On the Performativity of Murder: The Female Offender Revisited.”

Nordic Journal of Feminist and Gender Research 18, no. 4 (December 2010): 246-265.

Lunde, Donald T. Murder and Madness. California: Standford Alumni Association,

1975. This book was used to analyze insanity in the courtroom and how it is

represented. It was useful when examining Charlotte Lamb’s case because I was able to see if she had signs of insanity through out the trial. The book also gave great definitions of insanity.

Manchester, Jessie. “Beyond Accommodation: Reconstructing the Insanity Defense To

Provide An Adequate Remedy for Post Partum Psychotic Women.” The Journal Of Criminology and Law” 93 (2002): 713-752.

McCandless, Peter. “A Female Malady? Women at the South Carolina Lunatic Asylum

1828-1915.” Journal of the History of Medicine 54 (1999): 543-571. Monkkonen, Eric H. Murder in New York City. California: University of California Press,

2001.

33

This book provided great analysis of why gender stereotypes are harmful when examining murderers. Monkkonen provided numerous cases and examples. He also analyzed each case and gave reasons as to why gender stereotypes cannot be generalized with every case. Peterson Del Mar, David. Beaten Down: A History of Interpersonal Violence in the

West. Washington: University of Washington Press, 2002.

This book was useful because it described why women choose to inflict violence on others. Peterson Del Mar specifically describes the violence that women inflict upon their husbands and why they do it.

Rammey, Jessie B. “Death Row Women: Murder, Justice, and the New York Press.”

Journal of Social History 43 (Winter 2009) Ramsland, Katherine. Inside the Minds of Mass Murderers: Why They Kill. Conneticut:

Praeger, 2005. This book was useful because it gave different reasons as to why murderers kill.

It was helpful when examining the murders committed by Charlotte Lamb because it was useful to see if there were relations between what Ramsland was describing and the murders that Charlotte committed.

Rapaport, Elizabeth. “The Death Penalty and Gender Discrimination.” Law and Society

Review 25, no. 2 (1991): 367-384. Roth, Randolph. American Homicide. Cambridge, Mass. : Belknap Press of Harvard

University Press, 2009.

This book examines homicide in America. It provides a history of homicides through out American history. Smith, Henry. “Strychnine Poisoning. “ The British Medical Journal 2 no. 3735 (1932):

274. Ulrich, Laurel Thatcher. A Midwive’s Tale: The Life of Martha Ballard, Based on Her

Diary 1785-1812. New York: A Division of Random House Inc., 1990.

This book is helpful because Ulrich discusses how religion in the 1800s was used to define every single issue in life. There is one chapter where Ulrich discusses the Purington murders and how the people in the community used religion as a reason for why Mr. Purington committed the murders. Websdale, Neil. Understanding Domestic Homicide. Boston: Northeastern University Press, 1999.

34

This book gives insight as to why domestic homicide occurs. Charlotte Lamb

committed murders within her own home and this book gives possible reasons as to why that happened.