Same Streets
← All stories

Acquitted in Five Minutes: The Girl Accused of Poisoning a Child

A packed Seattle courtroom erupts when Hildegard Rundberg is cleared of murdering little Richard Parker with 'Death to Rats' rat poison — the jury needing barely five minutes to set her free.

The story, cleaned up

A cleaned-up reading of the newspaper page: spelling and layout repaired, one story lifted off a crowded page. It follows the original closely but it is not a transcription. The original page is below; read it if a detail matters.

The great murder case of the state against Hildegard Rundberg, accused of having poisoned little Richard Parker by administering to him 'Death to Rats,' was concluded yesterday afternoon and resulted in a verdict of acquittal for the defendant.

Hildegard Rundberg and her mother could scarcely have been more relieved than the hundred spectators who had not only occupied every seat and foot of standing room in Judge Humes' court all day, but had even formed in line several deep to catch glimpses of what was going on within.

The morning had been passed in listening to James Hamilton Lewis' eloquent plea, and at times nearly every one in the room, including some of the jury, were moist about the eyes. The line of defense was ingenious and skilfully developed, and evidently carried conviction to the jury.

There was a tremendous stillness after Prosecuting Attorney Miller had concluded his argument for the state, and Judge Humes proceeded to charge the jury. He dwelt upon the seriousness of the charge, and the necessity that malice be shown. 'Even if it is established,' he said, 'that the child was poisoned, that alone would not be sufficient, unless it was shown that the poison was arsenic, and in the form of a preparation known as "Death to Rats." If you have a reasonable doubt as to any of these questions you must acquit this child.' He then took up the subject of circumstantial evidence, and considered it at length, charging that not only must every link in the chain be consistent with the guilt of the defendant, but they must be consistent with one another before a conviction could be warranted. In conclusion he explained what constitutes a reasonable doubt, and told the jury that if they had a reasonable doubt as to the defendant's guilt it was their duty to acquit her.

When, after an absence of less than five minutes, the jury returned and rendered their verdict of not guilty, a roar went up so loud as to interfere with the proceedings in Judge Osborn's court at the farther side of the courthouse, and to attract the attention of every one in the offices on the floor below. The bailiffs roared for order, and the judge himself sprang to his feet and brandished a water pitcher in his efforts to restore the dignity of his court. The crowd pressed around the defendant and her attorneys as they left the room, and plainly showed the almost hysterical condition in which it had been kept during the whole afternoon.

“When, after an absence of less than five minutes, the jury returned and rendered their verdict of not guilty, a roar went up so loud as to interfere with the proceedings in Judge Osborn's court at the farther side of the courthouse.”

— Printed in The Seattle Post-Intelligencer (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1893
Then · 1893133 years apartNow · 2026

The case turned on circumstantial evidence and the meaning of reasonable doubt — the same fault lines that shape high-profile criminal cases today. The spectacle of a packed courtroom, a weeping jury and a five-minute acquittal shows how little has changed in the way a city consumes a sensational trial.

The original page

The Seattle Post-Intelligencer (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1893-01-28. Library of Congress, Chronicling America.

From readers

No comments yet. If you know something about this story — a correction, a family memory, a source — it belongs here.

About this story

From
The Seattle Post-Intelligencer (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, JAN 28, 1893, Page 5
Rights
Public domain
Place
47.60264, -122.33053 · placed automatically
The paper in the Library of Congress catalog ↗