Play
The Dover candy box
In August 1898 a box of candy reached Mary Elizabeth Dunning in Dover by mail, with a penciled note signed “Mrs. C.” After she ate it she fell ill, and within days the case was murder. The trail led 3,000 miles west, to a San Francisco candy store.
Work the case from the same records before you read how it ended. Free, in your browser.
Play the caseAt a glance
- When
- August 9, 1898
- Where
- Dover, Delaware, and San Francisco
- Poison
- Arsenic, in candy sent by U.S. mail
- Record
- People v. Botkin, 9 Cal. App. 244 (1908)
Timeline
Candy is sold over the Haas & Son counter in San Francisco on a Sunday afternoon.
The box reaches the Dover post office. Her nephew carries it to her father’s house.
Everyone who ate the candy falls ill, with signs of arsenic.
Mrs. Dunning dies, and suspicion turns west to San Francisco.
From the record
With love to yourself and baby.Signed “Mrs. C.” · People v. Botkin, 9 Cal. App. 244
Mrs. McGinnis … sold candy on Sunday afternoon, July 31, 1898.Trial testimony · People v. Botkin
Show who sent it (spoils the game)
The case supported by the circumstantial evidence was that Mrs. Botkin prepared poisoned candy in San Francisco and sent it through the United States mail to Mary Elizabeth Dunning in Dover. The box reached the Dover post-office at 5:58 P.M. on August 9, was carried to Mrs. Dunning, and contained a penciled note signed “Mrs. C.” The candy contained arsenic, and the Haas & Son evidence pointed away from factory manufacture and toward poison added after sale.
Mrs. Botkin was first convicted, but the California Supreme Court reversed the judgment because of an erroneous instruction and sent the cause back. On retrial she was convicted of murder in the first degree and sentenced to life imprisonment. Her appeal argued that California lacked jurisdiction because Mrs. Dunning received and ate the candy in Delaware. The District Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment, and the California Supreme Court denied a further hearing on December 21, 1908.
Sources
Lines marked “reconstructed” restate the court’s summary in the form of the original document; they are not facsimiles.