​

Information of Note

​

 

• According to Farrow’s book, at the time of murders there had been rumors that some members of the Parke family resented John B. Parke’s “high regard” for John Carter

• Apparently there was a dog at John B. Parke’s house which according to testimony by Jesse Force did not bark the night of the murders (Farrow)

• The Mansfield church was about 30 to 40 yards from Joe Carter’s house (Farrow).  However, the Carter house was at some point razed (153)

• Despite being jailed, both Joe Carter and Peter Parke received their inheritance from John B. Parke’s estate on April 18, 1845 (Farrow)

• After the murders, the John B. Parke’s house was remodeled by John Castner Jr. and the frame part of the house was  detached from the stone else and moved (Farrow)

• Re: Rounsavell foot log -- “The stone house near the foot log has been out of Rounsavell family ownership over ninety years.  The foot log itself is gone and the road up which the mysterious wagon passed on that rainy May night in 1843 has been abandoned and is now almost completely overgrown.” (Farrow, 162, 1973)

• The Parke farm was on Stacy Bowlby’s left as he went from the Hunterdon County side of the river on his way to Port Colden and came to a very large sinkhole and it had been raining heavily the night before (Dale)

• According to Dale, when the combined reward of $1800 was offered “some felt that a farmer about to lose his farm might accuse someone unjustly or give false information in order to collect this large reward” (9)

• It had been raining heavily on the days before the murder (Meekers and The Washington Star), meaning that the sinkhole would have been filled with water.  Also according to the 1943 article in The Washington Star, the sink hole had been repeatedly filled in, but would wash out with every rain storm

• “It was common knowledge that the crime had probably occurred between 9:00 and 10:00 PM on Monday night.  Several people in New Hampton who lived near the bridge at Simonton’s Mill had reported hearing a horse and wagon cross the bridge about 9:00 PM and turn toward Changewater.”  (Meeker 49)

• “The Sussex Register reporter put it best.  He wrote:  Joe Carter so far satisfied the magistrates that they did not dare to risk their reputation by making out his mittimus.  The grand jury, however, with no more evidence than had been elicited before the magistrates, with not enough proof of guilt to have sent a vagrant pilferer to the whipping post, indicted Joe Carter for the high crime of murder.”  (Meeker 62)

• There are no transcripts for the trials, only court clerk minutes which held very basic information.  All court testimony came out of the court via reporters.  “The testimony of each witness was presented as a series of statements, but the questions asked by the attorneys were usually not reported.” (Meeker 66)

• “Peter Parke wrote in his Protest that he didn’t even know Jesse Tiger until about a month after the murders when William Hulshizer brought Jesse into Peter’s shoe shop during one of his ‘noonspells.’ “ (Case Closed 24)  Interesting to note that Tige and Hulshizer were friends.  

• Heim points out that according to their verbal contract, Joe Carter could stay at the Mansfield farm for as long as John B. Parke was ALIVE.  Killing him would have been contrary to Joe’s own best interests because once Parke died, Joe would have essentially been homeless (39)

• Another point made Heim (one of the few good ones) was that anyone who had committed these murders would have definitely been covered in blood and gore afterwards.  (106-107)  The question then becomes, what happened to the bloody clothing?  Keep in mind that in 1843 people, especially farming people, didn’t have that many sets of clothing.  Work clothes and Sunday clothes were usually the norm.  If any of the men had done this, their wives would have known because it would have been impossible to explain the bloody clothing or the lack of a pair of clothes to their wives.  

• It is Peter Parke who first puts forward, in writing, the idea that the murderers never completed their mission of stealing all the money/goods in the house because they were put off by the state of Sarah’s room (her clothes left out, her bed unmade), making the assumption that she had just escaped, running off to alert neighbors.  This also, he surmises, saved the young boys’ lives (Parke 4)

 

Lisa’s Notes

 

• The assumption of the day was that the reason for the murders was theft, but when the bodies were found there was no evidence that the house had been searched

 

• I don’t think that John B. Parke’s will had anything to do with the murders because someone would have wanted the will changed before killing him or would have stolen the will the night of the murders, or at least searched the house for it after the murders.  The most likely suspects, other than P. Parke or J. Carter, are those that did not get anything from the will.  Was the house ransacked?  According to Dale it was (9), but I don’t believe Farrow mentions this fact at all.

 

• If Joe Carter had killed J. Parke and stolen a crazy amount of money (which was the assumption of the day), then why was he only in possession of small amounts of money?  Where were the thousands assumed stolen by Carter and Parke?

•  

• According to the first trial by the state, Joe Carter had taken a wagon and horse to go and murder everyone.  Why would he have taken a wagon and horse?  Wouldn’t a horse alone have been much less conspicuous?  Not to mention that the horse prints that were used as evidence in the trial were on the Hunterdon side of the river.  Both Carter and Parke lived on the Warren side.  Why would they have tied their horses on the other side of the river?  What would the purpose be in doing that?

 

• In looking at William Hulshizer as a suspect, both the Meekers and Heim state that his motive would have been the inheritance.  I disagree.  Hulshizer tried to rape a neighbor’s wife.  Was he motivated by money for that?  No, he was motivated by his own personality defects.  Why would money HAVE to be the motivation in these murders?  He simply did not like John B. Parke nor Joe Carter.  If he was guilty, it was possible that his motive was just that.  And then he did all in his power to help frame Joe Carter for the same reason -- hatred.  Murders have been committed for far less.  Heim does point out several times that the murder of John B. Parke was detrimental to Joe Carter because he was living on his land and was only there for as long as Parke was alive.  

 

• One thing that bothers me throughout all the trials is that the same judges were used for everything.  I would have to wonder if because of this justice was really and actually served in these cases?  

 

According to the Meekers:

 

Joe’s hearing before the New Jersey Supreme Court was scheduled for the February Term.  The Chief Justice was Joseph C. Hornblower and the Associate Justices were James S. Nevius and Ira C. Whitehead.  Nevios had been the judge at Joe’s first trial and Whitehead was scheduled to be the judge at his second trial.  These same men would make a ruling on Joe’s case before the Supreme Court.  This was standard practice at the time.  Supreme Court justices were responsible for holding circuit courts as well and rotated the assignments in each county.  Therefore, any appeal to the Supreme Court was usually heard by at least one of the judges who had made the ruling in the first place.  In this system, few cases were overturned. (81)

 

Joe and Pete’s attorneys made plans to take the case to the Court of Errors and Appeals, New Jersey’s court of last resort.  They were not dissuaded by the remarks made by the Chief Justice in court.  Hornblower announced that he and the associate justices (all of whom were also members of the Court of Errors and Appeals) did not think there were any grounds on which the cases might be overturned.  (93)

​

Supreme Court judges had presided over all the trials.  When it came time for appeals to be heard, these same judges turned a deaf ear to all arguments presented.  What judge would risk his reputation or career on a reversal or commutation of sentence.  What judge would reverse or overrule a decision made by one of his colleagues on the court, knowing full well that he would incur the wrath of that judge which would then reflect on decisions of his own made in the future. (97)