Louise Vermilyea

It has long been said that a woman's choice for murder is poison. In fact this will be my third post just recently about women murderers in which they used arsenic as their weapon. I promise the next case will be different. The cases of Lizzie Borden may not be one of the earliest cases in which poison was suspected to be used, but few can argue that it is not one of the most infamous. However, most people do not remember or realize that arsenic was even thought of in that case. When you think of Lizzie Borden you think of the rhyme that talks about the ax and the “wacks” she gave her father and mother, even though it was her step-mother. But, there was talk that arsenic had been used the night before when the family ate dinner and had made them sick. Prosecutors in that case were looking to put arsenic in Lizzie's hand. In 1892 when that case went to trial one could walk into a pharmacy and ask for arsenic. It was used to get rid of pests like rats and mice but it was also said to be used as a cleaner, something Lizzie Borden would claim she had obtained arsenic for. But, it really did not matter because it was fairly easily available at that time. Some believe that is why it was a weapon of choice for women. It was, and is, easy to add to food and no one seemed to be the wiser for it. Often in these stories of women who were accused of poisoning with arsenic, they are initially looked upon as being the doting and caring family member who would sit at their loved one's bedside and feed them lovingly. It would only be later discovered that it was likely that same food that people had thought was so nicely made that had killed the person. In the story of Blanche Taylor-Moore it was said that she visited her victim regularly in the hospital, bringing him food, and the victim so loved her that he would be depressed if she missed a day of visits.

Like so many cases that involve poisoning it seems to take a while before others become suspicious of the perpetrator, this gives them the opportunity to have more victims but I would almost guarantee it also gives them confidence that they will not be caught. In the last case I discussed, that of Janie Lou Gibbs, it was not until the fifth member of her family in just under two years died before it was discovered just what was going on. In the Moore case it was suspected that she had several victims in the late 1960's and early 1970's (only one officially confirmed). Her ex-boyfriend would died in 1986 and then her second husband became ill in 1989. It is suspected that had her husband not lived there may have been more victims before she was caught. In the case of Louise Vermilyea it has been suspected that despite having at least nine victims in her wake it was not until she poisoned a police officer who was living at her boarding house that she was caught. While it is not as a prevalent idea today as it has been in decades past, there are still those who believe women could not do such a thing as commit multiple murders. This was especially true in the early 1900's. People wanted to believe the best in women and often these poisoners would get vast amounts of sympathy from friends, family and the community until finally someone would pique the interest of authorities or the perpetrator had “messed” with the wrong person. Think of the “Bloody Benders.” They were active in the 1870's in Kansas. They ran an “inn” and a general store. Several transients had visited the area, never to leave but no one seemed to catch on until a doctor, who had very high placed friends and family, went looking for a friend of his who had seemingly disappeared and then he too went missing. The Benders did not know that the doctor had informed many of his plans and travels so when the doctor went missing too, a posse was formed to look for him. The Benders were never officially caught but it was because of the missing doctor that it was eventually discovered the Benders were not who they said they were and many bodies were found on their property.

I mentioned in the Janie Gibbs case that information was very conflicting, that is even more so here. Initially it was said that Louise's victims included at least two husbands, two daughters, two stepsons, a granddaughter and two acquaintances. Well, the two husbands part is true, as well as the two daughters. One of the “stepsons” was at some point said to be a son she had with her first husband and the granddaughter was likely a step-granddaughter. While in my own family we do not use the word “step” and rarely have, (my grandfather, who I adored, was legally my step-grandfather) I find it appropriate in two areas, the law (which crimes fall into) and genealogy. I think when it comes to true crime stories it is important to show the true, if not legal, relationship between people involved. There were two other areas of conflict I found. One was just when Louise died. One report says she committed suicide in December of 1911 while under “home confinement” ( I.E. house arrest) using the same method she had used with her victims while another site states she died sometime after 1915. And yet Wikipedia (yes, I know not the most reliable site to use) states her death date as February 9, 1910 despite the fact that the page goes on to speak of actions taken as late as 1915 and describes a trial conducted. I thought maybe findagrave.com would help resolve this but surprisingly while finding three Louise Vermilyea's none appeared to be this one.

The next conflict I found revolved around Louise's first husband, Fred Brinkamp. One report lists a marriage date for the couple as being April 2, 1885. Now, this part could in fact be true considering that it one of her children was around eight years old sometime between 1893 and 1894. However, this same report stated that Fred was twenty-four when they married but yet most reports say that when he died in 1893 he was around sixty years old and because of his age little attention was given to his death. To add to this the granddaughter, Lillian Brinkamp was said to be twenty-six when she died in 1906 at a time when Louise was allegedly only thirty-eight years old herself. Some reports say that Louise was born in July of 1868. Let's just say my calculator has gone into overtime doing this case in figuring ages and dates. While today it would seem unreasonable that the Fred and Louise would have had a thirty-five year age difference, in the times of this crime it was not as unusual. If Fred was born in 1833, as I suspect, then he would have obviously been old enough to be the grandfather to Lillian who was likely born around 1880, about five years before Fred and Louise were likely married. This would also make Fred fifty-nine/sixty when he died in 1893 which goes with most accounts. In the same respect it would still make Louise young enough to conceive children after her marriage. Some reports say she was nineteen at their marriage but she could have been as young as seventeen. Using this determination I suspect Frank Brinkamp, who is often referred to as a step-son was her actual son. When he died in 1910 it was said that he was twenty-three years old which means he would have been born around 1887, after the marriage. It would also make since that Frank would have likely been Louise's second of three children based on their ages. Fred allegedly had six children at the time of his death. That would include the three with Louise and then three prior, a son the father of Lillian. Now, if I have not lost you in all this confusion I will attempt to put it all together for you.

It has been said that Louise's first victim was her husband Fred Brinkamp. He would die on their farm in Barrington Illinois, a “suburban village” near Chicago. It was reported that upon his death Louise received $5,000. While it was not clear, I tend to doubt that was $5,000 in actual dollars unless that amount has been “raised” to show what it would be in more modern times. It is just as likely that the amount was to reflect money and property but again, that is not clear. All that could be determined was that “soon” after Fred's death both of Louise's daughters, eight year old Cora and four year old Florence would die. I found nothing that gave any indication what any of these first three victims were said to have suffered from. Louise's next alleged victim was Lillian Brinkamp who died in Chicago in January of 1906. Her cause of death was said to be “acute hepatitis.”

Sometime before this, or around this time, Louise would remarry to a man named Charles Vermilyea. They would apparently live in the Chicago area. In 1909 Charles would die. Again it would say that Louise received a benefit of $1,000. It is unclear exactly when Charles' son, Harry would die at the age of thirty-one. Once again no specific cause of death was given here. It was said that he had recently argued with Louise over the sale of a house apparently from his father's estate. Sometime in 1910 twenty-three year old Frank Brinkamp would die. He had allegedly told his fiance' that he was suspicious of his mother and that he was dying the same way his father had. From his death it was said that Louise would receive some $1,200 but it is unclear if this was through insurance or simply money Frank had recently inherited himself. Most reports give no specific date of his death and he is generally listed as her next victim after Harry Vermilyea but according to findagrave.com Frank would die on November 2, 1910. In fact, while the dates were given it was reported on there that his father's name was Charles Brinkamp, which is once again something that is not true. His father's name was allegedly Fred, while the first name of his step-father was Charles. But at this point I was left to wonder which things were true and which were not. There is no picture of a tombstone to confirm this date of death but if this is true there were two more alleged victims between the deaths of Harry and Frank.

On January 15, 1910 it is said that boarder and railroad fireman, Jason Ruppert had dinner with Louise. Two days later he would die. Next would be another boarder, Richard Smith. Some reports say that Louise married Smith in February of 1910 and he would die the following month. His initial cause of death was said to be gastritis. Smith's previous wife was allegedly suspicious of his death but nothing seemed to come of it at first. Then later in the year apparently came the death of her son Frank. Authorities and historians alike maintained that many of the deaths involving family members had been for insurance or financial gain and that the motives behind the deaths of boarders and acquaintances is unknown. If in fact she did marry Smith it would appear that he would fall into the category of family and it could be thought she expected to receive financial benefits but it does not seem that it happened.

Most agree that what got Louise caught was the death of Arthur Bissonette. Arthur was a police officer. Both Arthur and his father had eaten with Louise at the boarding house in October of 1911. Father and son both began having abdominal pain. Arthur would die and fellow officers became suspicious. They talked to Arthur's father who would tell of eating at Louise's home and that he had seen her sprinkle what she had called “white pepper” on their food before serving their dinner. An autopsy was conducted on Arthur's body and high levels of arsenic were found. Soon after Louise was arrested.

What happened next seems to be in dispute. There are reports that she was put in essence on “house arrest” after she was taken into custody and that she slowly began poisoning herself with arsenic, dying in December of 1911 of what was called to be a suicide. There are also alleged reports that while she had made this attempt, she had been only successful in causing severe damage to her body and had survived. Those reports go on to say that two trials were held in early 1912 but that they both had ended in hung juries. It was speculated that many of the men who had been selected for those juries were reluctant to sentence a woman to death, which is ultimately what would have happened had they convicted Louise. By 1915 it was said that it had been decided that it would be too difficult to prosecute and charges were dropped. I can only assume that because of this line of the story the idea that she died “sometime after 1915” came about. There seems to be no other information about her after these charges were allegedly dropped.

I understand that so much of this information was confusing and likely hard to keep up with. These cases are so difficult to research some times and bring me much frustration. But, in the same respect it is just these sorts of cases, many that have been forgotten, that fascinate me. I try my best to find the accurate information or the best that I can come up with and report it, as well as state when things are not completely clear in my research. In fact, aside from the fact that I would at least like an accurate approximate date of death I believe a definitive one is less important than attempting to get the names of especially victims correct. Maybe that has to do with feeling as if while the crime itself was important to report, it is the innocent who should be remembered more accurately. That becomes harder and harder to do as we live in a world that will tell us all about the perpetrator, their lives and their motives and so little about their victims. The least we can do is get their names correct.