The Buzzell Shooting Case.

Susan Hanson

Susan Hanson of Brookfield, New Hampshire, was sitting in the kitchen with her mother and brother on the evening of November 2, 1874. Susan was knitting, trying to relax in preparation for a court appearance the following day. She was suing Joseph Buzzell for breach of promise. Around 7:00, peace in the Hanson kitchen was shattered by a shotgun blast fired through the window. Buckshot and lead hit Susan in the face and neck, killing her instantly.

The obvious suspect in the murder was Joseph Buzzell. He and Susan had grown up together in Brookfield, and in their teens, they began courting. She was now 35, and he 38. They had been engaged, but each time a wedding day approached, he found a reason to put it off. Then, without warning, Buzzell married another, a girl less than half his age, probably pregnant with his child.

Susan was devastated and sued Buzzell for breach of promise. Usually, these cases were settled out of court to spare everyone the embarrassment. Susan wanted a public hearing.

The police arrested Buzzell for murder. Near the Hanson’s window, they found footprints matching Buzzell’s boots and marks from the wheels and horseshoes that matched Buzzell’s gig and horse. But Buzzell had an alibi. A stone mason by trade, he was working on the Wolfeboro Bridge, and his way home would not pass the Hanson’s. Several witnesses saw him at home around 7:00. He would not have had time to commit the murder.

Joseph Buzzell

Susan Hanson was well-liked and had no enemies besides Joseph Buzzell, but his attorneys found another suspect. In 1861, arson destroyed John Churchill’s farm buildings, killing twenty head of cattle and other livestock. Charles E. West was convicted of the crime, and Susan, they said, was a principal witness against him. However, though Susan was sent for as a witness, she did not testify. West, who was released from prison, said he had no ill feelings against Susan, and he had an alibi for the night of the murder.

Buzzell’s murder trial began in Ossipee, New Hampshire, on May 4, 1875. Over 100 witnesses testified, and the jury was taken by train to view the murder scene in Brookfield. But the circumstantial evidence against him was so weak that the jury returned a not guilty verdict after deliberating just two and a half hours.

Joseph Buzzell was a free man, but his freedom did not last long. In 1877, two Boston private detectives, Samuel Cohen and John Conway, investigating the Churchill arson, questioned Charles Cook, an employee of Buzzell. 22-year-old Charles Cook—“not considered of sound mind”— confessed to murdering Susan Hanson. He said the murder was arranged by Buzzell beforehand, and he promised to pay Cook $500. Cook had the loaded gun and met Buzzell on the road, and they went together to the Hanson house. When they saw Susan through the window, Buzzell told Cook to fire the gun. When Cook refused, Buzzell threatened to kill him. Cook took the gun and fired the fatal shot. Buzzell thrust the weapon into a haymow, and they ran their separate ways. In Buzzell’s trial, Cook testified that he saw Buzzell at home at 7:00 that night. 

Charles Cook

The authorities reopened the case and arrested both Cook and Buzzell. Buzzell had been found not guilty of the murder, so they could not charge him again. However, instead of charging Cook with the murder, they charged Buzzell as an accessory to murder and allowed Cook to turn state’s evidence against him.

The grand jury indicted Buzzell for “counseling, hiring, and procuring one Cook to commit the murder.” Needless to say, Buzzell’s attorneys were not happy with the indictment. They called it double jeopardy, and in December 1877, they argued the case before the New Hampshire Supreme Court. The following March, the Court ruled that Buzzell’s acquittal as principal in the murder did not bar him from trial as an accessory.

In July 1878, Buzzell was tried again in Ossipee. Charles Cook was the primary witness against him. This time, the jury deliberated for four hours before finding Buzzell guilty. The judge sentenced him to hang on July 10, 1879, and the police took him to Concord State Prison. Buzzell’s attorneys went again to the Supreme Court, this time raising some exceptions to the judge’s instructions to the jury and revisiting the double jeopardy issue.

Samuel Cohen

While the Supreme Court pondered legalities, the evidence changed again. Detectives Cohen and Conway were arrested in Boston. These “twin sons of evil”  had a racket where they would “investigate” a crime and find a solution that pleased whoever paid them. Sometimes, they would commit crimes and then “solve” them for the reward money by framing someone else. In this case, they were caught tampering with a switch at a Boston and Providence Railroad depot, hoping to cause a trainwreck.

Interviewed separately, Conway turned on his partner. He swore an affidavit saying that Charles Cook's confession was a “put-up job.”  He and Cohen arrested and confined Charles Cook for a week while they manipulated him to accuse Buzzell, threatening him with punishment for arson. As far as Conway knew, Buzzell was innocent. Conway was upset because Cohen did not give him his share of the money for the “put-up job.”  He did not say who was paying for the job.

The authorities questioned Charles Cook again, and this time, he issued a sworn affidavit denying any knowledge of the murder:

I, Charles W. Cook, of Farmington, N. H., on oath, depose and say the testimony I gave at the trial of Joseph B Buzzell in regard to his hiring me to shoot Susan Hanson of Brookfield, N. H. is false. I did not have anything to do with the shooting of Susan A. Hanson of Brookfield, N.H., and the testimony I gave at Wolfeboro Junction was not true. The story that I testified to was made up by Cohen after he had arrested me for setting fires, and he told me that, if I did not swear to the story he madeup, he (Cohen) had evidence to send me for twenty yeasts, and, if I did swear to it, I should come out all right. They refused to let me see any counsel when I requested it and compelled me to do just as they said. I was in their power and could do no better, and I cannot bear the idea of having a man hung on my testimony, which was false. If they shove me for perjury, I had rather stand it than to have a man hung who knows nothing about and it is not guilty. If I had known my rights, no one could have compelled me to have done as did. Charles  W. Cook.

The defense added this evidence to its appeal, but as far as the prosecution was concerned, it didn’t matter. They had two contradictory sworn statements from Cook, and they decided to stick with the first. They arrested Cook for the false affidavit, saying they believed James A. Edgerly, a supporter of Buzzell, wrote it, and Cook signed it without knowing what it said.

On June 8, 1879, the New Hampshire Supreme Court released their ruling. Buzzell’s motion for a new trial was denied. According to the Boston Daily Advertiser, “The opinions are almost entirely of a technical character, and difficult to follow except by lawyers and others well versed in the legal aspects of the case.”

Buzzell’s last hope was gone when Governor Head denied his petition for a commuted sentence. Before he was taken to the gallows on July 10, 1879, various lawmen, prosecutors, and the prison chaplain pressured Buzzell to confess. With tears flowing down his cheeks, Buzzell said:

They have been at me all the time; I have no confidence in the chaplain, the warden, or any of the men who have had charge of me, they have kept at me to make a confession, but I have nothing to say about the matter.

At precisely 11:06, the trap was sprung, and Joseph Buzzell fell to his death. He professed innocence to the end.

---

Sources: 

“Arrested For Murder,” St. Albans Daily Messenger, April 30, 1877.
“The Broockfield Murder,” Independent statesman, November 12, 1874.
“The Brookfield Murder,” Boston Daily Journal, May 19, 1877.
“The Brookfield Murder,” Independent statesman, November 26, 1874.
“The Brookfield Murder Case,” Independent statesman, December 6, 1877.
“The Brookfield Murder Trial,” Daily Patriot., May 5, 1875.
“The Brookfield Murder Trial the Prisoner Acquitted,” New Hampshire Patriot, May 19, 1875.
“The Buzzel Murder,” Independent statesman, May 3, 1877.
“The Buzzell - Hanson Case,” Boston Daily Advertiser, October 19, 1877.
“Buzzell Denied a New Trial,” Boston Daily Advertiser, June 19, 1879.
“The Buzzell Shooting Case,” New Hampshire Patriot, March 27, 1878.
“The Buzzell-Cook-Hanson Tragedy,” Boston Evening Journal, May 7, 1877.
“Buzzell's Final Struggle for Life,” PORTLAND DAILY PRESS., July 9, 1879.
“The Convict Buzzell,” Independent statesman, July 11, 1878.
“Crooked Detectives,” PORTLAND DAILY PRESS., February 25, 1879.
“The Death Warrant,” BOSTON HERALD., July 10, 1879.
“A Diabolical Murder at Brookfield, N,” New Hampshire Sentinel, November 12, 1874.
“A Great Crime,” New York Herald, February 25, 1879.
“The Hanson Girl Murder,” Boston Evening Journal, May 2, 1877.
“The Hanson Murder,” Boston Daily Journal, May 6, 1875.
“The Hanson Murder,” New Hampshire Patriot, May 2, 1877.
“The Hanson Murder Case,” Boston Evening Journal, February 26, 1879.
“Jailed for Making False Afidavits,” LOWELL WEEKLY SUN, April 5, 1879.
“Murder of a Young Lady,” Troy Daily Times., November 3, 1874.
“The Murders in Pembroke and Brookfield,” Independent statesman, May 17, 1877.
“News Article,” Chicago Daily Tribune., November 9, 1874.
“News Article,” Independent statesman, November 19, 1874.
“The Ossipee (N H) Murder Case,” Boston Morning Journal, June 6, 1879.
“The Ossipee Murder Trial,” LEWISTON EVENING JOURNAL., May 14, 1875.
“A Simple Problem,” New Hampshire Sentinel, April 10, 1879.
“Supreme Court,” Independent statesman, December 5, 1878.
“Two Officious Rascals,” Springfield Daily Republican, February 25, 1879.
“A Young Lady Shot Dead in Brookfield, N. H.,” Boston Investigator., November 11, 1874.