About Connections: Love it or hate it, history is a map. Those who hate history think it irrelevant; many who love history think it escapism. In truth, history is the clearest road map to how we got here: America in the 21st century.
Editor’s note: To read Part 1 of “The Gentleman Burglar,” click here.
Because they seemed to strain themselves to import a British eccentricity with other European treasures to adorn their estates, the hostesses whose houses were not robbed complained. True or apocryphal to illustrate the eccentricities of staggering wealth, the story goes: not receiving a visit from the thief was taken as an insult. Did the slight imply that the jewels were paste, the artwork copied and the coffers empty? Worse, absent a visit from the Gentleman Burglar, one might be left out of the conversation at the dinner table. One didn’t like to lose the telling of a good story, so some made up stories. These placed the Gentleman Burglar knocking politely at the door and gaining entrance to the cottages of Lenox. Truth is: the Gentleman Burglar was Stockbridge’s own.
In Stockbridge, response was less fanciful. Mr. Charles Butler promptly offered a reward of $500 for the arrest and conviction of the burglar, the authorities added $500 more and Mrs. Field added $200.
The state detective came over from Lee and said, with sagacity, that the big reward spoiled the case, for it would cause the robber “to hide his light for a time under his bushel.”
Stockbridge cottagers fell to solving the crimes. The consensus was that the robberies were committed by a person thoroughly conversant with the cottages and the habits of the occupants.
The fact that he covered his hands and feet as well as his face was an additional precaution against detection. This seemed to mean he was known to the cottagers.
Several points indicated the burglar was a novice. He used no regular burglar tools and no skeleton key. He cut out no windows or panels of doors, climbed no piazzas and had broken open no cellar doors.
The New York Times reported: “All his victims bear witness to the soothing voice, almost mesmeric influence of his voice… his coolness, deliberation in word and act, impressed some with the suggestion that he was conversant with human nature.”
When Miss Stetson deliberately called him back in order to catch a glimpse of his eyes, she noted that his dress was that of a gentleman, that his clothing was of mixed material and of fashionable cut, that his three-button cutaway coat fitted his figure to a nicety, and that his trousers were of a quiet pattern. He wore a white shirt. His eyes were dark and mild and soft in expression. His ears were small and shapely, and his hair closely trimmed and dark colored. His figure was erect and was carried with dignity and ease.
The Times also noted, “He invariably drove off in a buggy and his horses were fast.”
The 19th-century reader understood that the reporter for the New York Times and Miss Stetson as well as Miss Moore were describing a gentleman. Miss Stetson and the Widow Moore were alternately credited with giving him the title of “The Gentleman Burglar.” Imagine the dismay when the burglar was apprehended.
The Gentleman Burglar was a Stockbridge resident who worked as a stonecutter. His name was Thomas Kinsella. In 1885 he was employed by Joseph Choate while building his estate, Naumkeag. In 1887 he accidentally shot and killed his mother-in-law and served a three-year term for manslaughter. It was rumored he served as extra footman at fancy parties in the cottages. The town tax assessor listed his assets as $1,430 – a house ($200), barn ($230), mountain lot ($800) and brick yard ($200). His tax bill was marked paid.
A descendant of Thomas Kinsella and present-day resident of Stockbridge does not believe that the story of the Gentleman Burglar ended with the arrest of Thomas. It is his belief that it was a ring of men and poor Thomas was the only one caught. That would explain the three different color handkerchiefs. It would explain why different victims described him differently. Perhaps differing descriptions were of different men. It would explain why three men were questioned and more than one was identified as the Gentleman Burglar.
The reports of conversations between victim and burglar sounded more like Oscar Wilde than any police report. The tales multiplied, the area affected widened and the details were exaggerated. Finally, the Gentleman Burglar became mythic and descriptions myth. However, the man himself was prosaic. Kinsella served his time and, when released, returned to stonecutting.
