“I was elected superintendent of the [Sabbath] school,” Smith conceded, “for the special purpose of keeping Mrs. Packard straight.”11
Moore was far more interested in the next witness: Mrs. Sybil Dole. She returned without Libby, her cameo having already made her familiar to those who were following the case. As though to soften that initial impression, she was careful to be fair to Elizabeth in a way the other witnesses had not done to date. It’s possible, too, that she did not want to come across as too hard and unforgiving, lest she herself be accused of unfeminine and therefore insane behavior.
“Her natural disposition is very kind and sweet,”12 she said of her sister-in-law.
But then she spun a tale of seeming sickness. Her evidence portrayed an irate Elizabeth demanding that Sybil return her baby after Sybil had taken Arthur ahead of Elizabeth’s committal. “Her appearance was very wild,” Sybil testified disapprovingly. “She was filled with spite toward Mr. Packard.”
She also remembered that Elizabeth had once stormed off from the supper table, having become angry with Theophilus when he called her mad.
“She…told him she would talk what and when she had a mind to,” Sybil avowed. “She…left the room in great violence.”
And in this era when ill-tempered women were seen as crazy, this was far more damning evidence than her husband had managed to muster. Sybil even criticized Elizabeth’s housekeeping, condemning her further as a woman who could not properly perform the role society expected. Of one impromptu supper party, Sybil recalled censoriously, “She was out of bread and had to make biscuit for dinner.”
Other parishioners gave similar accounts. “Mrs. Packard was very pale and angry,” one testified. “She was in an undress, and her hair was down over her face… She would not talk calm. She said Mr. Packard…and the members of his church had made a conspiracy to put her into the Insane Asylum.”13
It was a brick wall made of Elizabeth’s own behavior. As she herself had once described it, “The least mistake, a slip of the tongue, a look, a gesture, are all liable to be interpreted as insanity, and the least difference of opinion, however reasonable or plausible, is liable to share the same reproach.”14
Those differences of opinion came out in the parishioners’ testimonies too. “I approved taking her away,” one said. “I deemed her dangerous to the church; her ideas were contrary to the church, and were wrong.”15 To support her testimony, this parishioner cited a Bible class essay of Elizabeth’s that “bore evidence of insanity.”16 However, when challenged, she said, “I cannot give the contents of the paper now.”17
After the church members had completed their accounts, Bonfield rose and moved graciously forward to speak with the judge. Theophilus’s lawyer conversed “in a decisive, plain and direct way…without superfluity of words or loss of time.”18 Cutting straight to the point, he requested an immediate ten-day adjournment. A key witness had been telegrammed, he said, and their testimony could only be given in ten days’ time, upon their return from traveling. This testimony was “very important.”19 It would be worth the wait.
The name of this most significant witness?
Dr. Andrew McFarland.
CHAPTER 44
Elizabeth’s counsel immediately objected. It was an “unheard-of proceeding”1 to adjourn after a hearing had commenced “to enable a party to hunt up testimony.”2
Starr suggested a compromise: Elizabeth’s lawyers should go ahead and present their case, and after that was concluded, if still needed, the court would rule on whether to pause the trial to await McFarland’s testimony.
Elizabeth’s lawyers consulted with each other and with her. It seems likely Elizabeth was extremely worried about McFarland testifying: she knew from bitter experience how very talented he was at convincing people to think what he wanted them to.
So Moore proposed something extraordinary. The defense was willing, he said, to “submit the case without introducing any testimony.”3 They invited the jury to give their verdict now, before Elizabeth had presented a single witness. They clearly thought the local physicians had been weak on the stand and that it was best to rest now before McFarland’s more expert testimony could be brought to bear.
Naturally, Bonfield objected. He renewed his motion for a delay.
But the court refused it. McFarland would not get his day in court after all.
Elizabeth was delighted, but Bonfield fought back. If they could not have the doctor, they wanted his documentation. Theophilus’s team submitted a request to read to the jury McFarland’s certificate of insanity and his recent correspondence with Theophilus.