Thank you for visiting SNEWPapers!
Sign up freeThe Daily Cincinnati Republican, And Commercial Register
Cincinnati, Hamilton County, Ohio
What is this article about?
Report on Dr. Powell's phrenological examinations of over 40 convicts in Virginia Penitentiary on Feb 14, 1834, accurately predicting crimes like murder, theft, and revenge based on skull features, convincing skeptic Col. Morgan.
OCR Quality
Full Text
SATURDAY DECEMBER 27, 1834
PHRENOLOGICAL EXAMINATIONS,
Made by Dr Powell, in the Penitentiary of Virginia,
February 14, 1834.
Present, Dr. Atkinson, a member of the Senate, John
Hoo, Esq., of Prince William Co., Mr. Nelson, of Rich-
mond, and Col. Morgan, keeper of the prison.
More than forty of the convicts were brought into the
keeper's office, one at a time, and subjected to the Doc-
tor's examination. He reported his opinion in writing
and then gave it to the Colonel, who wrote below, the
offence or which the individual was imprisoned. He
made one incorrect judgment, but in this case it was
conceded that the man's brain was diseased, a circum-
stance which the skull, of course, could not indicate.
As the science is producing much interest in the city,
we have selected the following cases, from the register
of them, not as being the most correct, but the most brief
and pointed, for the purpose of showing our readers how
far the science is determinate in its application to the
head.
If many examinations had not recently been made in
our city by the same gentleman, equally as determinate,
which are well known to many, we would not expect to
be believed by those who are not much acquainted with
the subject. These examinations, and those he has made
in this place, are facts, however, from which every one
can draw his own conclusions.
Daniel M—
Sentiments small; acquisitiveness, combativeness and
destructiveness large. In the way of crime he would
have a tendency to burglary, piracy, &c. Charge, high-
way robbery.
S. J—
This man's tendency is decidedly to Murder. Charge,
murder by stabbing a man, and sentenced to 16 years im-
prisonment.
D. S—
Sentiments all small, except firmness—acquisitiveness
very large—tendency to theft. Charge, stealing dry
goods.
John D
Pronounced him a thief at sight. Charge, stealing,
for which, in small matters, he is now imprisoned the
fourth time.
E. B—
This man's tendency is decidedly murderous—pro-
nounced at a distance of 20 feet. Charge, murder of an
aggravated nature.
B.
Destructiveness and combativeness very large—ten-
dency to murder and manslaughter—pronounced at the
distance of many feet. Charge, attempted to kill his
father-in-law by shooting him through the body.
Moses S—
Pronounced him a thief at seeing him through a win-
dow, before he entered the office. Charge, horse stealing
On a former occasion he was convicted of theft and pub-
licly whipped.
M. W.
Judged at a distance of many feet, perhaps 30, that this
man's imprisonment should be for the exercise of RE-
VENGE, to be in relation with his natural character.—
Charge, burning wheat stacks and killing the horses and
cattle of persons who had given evidence against him in
a law suit.
W. McC
Acquisitiveness very large, destructiveness and sus-
piciousness large—having a strong mind, his tendency
to crime would take a higher range than most criminals,
but it would be to the infringement of the laws of prop-
erty—and under excitement, (with his suspiciousness or
jealousy,) murder. Charge, Polygamy. This appears
to be a Phrenological blunder; but what are the circum-
stances of the case.
Question to the convict
What did you marry the first wife for? Answer. She
was an old maid and I married her for her property, and
left her because I never loved her.
Question. Why did you marry the second? Answer.
Because I loved her.
Question. Why did you leave her? Answer. Because
I suspected her fidelity
It is now evident that the Phrenologist clearly pointed
out his natural character.
He married the first for her
property and the second he left because of his suspicious-
ness.
Col. Morgan, the keeper of the prison, an intelligent
gentleman, was an entire unbeliever in the science at
the time of the Doctor's visit, but the above examina-
tions produced an entire conviction. And though a gen-
tleman who subsequently travelled with him and a Rev-
erend gentleman, we learn that the latter denounced the
science warmly, of which the colonel said to him, "I be-
lieve that you are an honest and a good man, but if Dr.
Powell were to tell me that you were a thief or a mur-
derer I should believe him."
What sub-type of article is it?
What themes does it cover?
What keywords are associated?
What entities or persons were involved?
Where did it happen?
Story Details
Key Persons
Location
Penitentiary Of Virginia
Event Date
February 14, 1834
Story Details
Dr. Powell examined over 40 convicts' heads phrenologically, accurately predicting tendencies to crimes like robbery, murder, theft, and revenge, with one exception due to brain disease; cases include Daniel M— (highway robbery), S. J— (murder), and W. McC (polygamy explained by acquisitiveness and suspiciousness); convinced skeptic Col. Morgan.