His “very large” Secretiveness and Acquisitiveness doubtless held predominant sway in his character. These, unrestrained, would lay claim to, and appropriate to himself, that which did not belong to him, by fraud, deception, stealth, cheating, pilfering, &c. And Destructiveness “very large” would add to these, robbery and even murder. Having little sympathy or affection, with this organisation, I should not be surprised to learn that even his relatives and friends had fallen victims to his predominating Acquisitiveness and Destructiveness.
There is one faculty in particular which must have entered very largely into the composition of his character—viz. Secretiveness. He was doubtless very sly, artful, and full of plots and stratagems. While he would be cunning, and make few, if any, confessions or acknowledgments, still he did not possess great fore-thought or penetration. But in the art of dissembling, and making false pretensions, he must have been a perfect adept.
Having “moderate” Approbativeness and “small” Conscientiousness, he would have little regard for his character, or for what was thought and said of him, and experience but little shame or remorse. His “very large” Firmness would render him persevering in deception and crime—would carry him through any difficulties, and render him obstinate, wilful, and blindly set upon gratifying his selfish propensities. This organisation would render him vindictive in the highest degree, and whatever he might do or say, he would always justify himself. Another striking fact was the “small” development of Ideality. I have long observed that this organ was almost invariably small in criminals, and its marked deficiency in the present instance struck me with peculiar force. Numerous facts have led me to believe, that a proper development and exercise of Ideality is about as favourable to virtue and morality as even the influence of Conscientiousness. By refining the feelings, it begets a disgust for vice, because it is loathsome, and thereby promotes virtue. The organs of the intellect were not remarkable for either their size or deficiency. But in their exercise, they would be controlled principally by the selfish feelings.
During the examination, allusion was made to the fact, (which he had frequently related before,) that the day previous to the murder he had become very angry, in consequence of meeting with some accident in his mechanical labours, and broke in pieces the object of his resentment. I afterwards was informed, that he was often subject to turns of anger, and that he conducted strangely at such times—that he would neither work, talk, nor eat, but either sit or lie down in silence and sullenness for hours. In view of these facts, the prisoner’s counsel attempted to account for the murder by pleading at the trial partial insanity, but were unsuccessful. I was partly of the opinion, that Destructiveness was morbidly excited prior to the murder. But subsequent facts induced me to change it.
I have thus stated the impressions made upon my mind during the examination, and deduced a few leading features of character, on strictly phrenological principles, without any knowledge of the real character or private history of William Miller, aside from a few immediate facts connected with the murder of Hoffman.
Yours, &c.
O. S. Fowler,
210 Chesnut street.
Philadelphia, October 20th, 1838.
On the reception of the above letter, wishing to learn farther particulars, we addressed a line to the Hon. Ellis Lewis, presiding judge of the court at the trial of William Miller, to which we received the following reply:—
To the Editor of the American Phrenological Journal.