Futility Closet - 040-The Mary Celeste: A Great Sea Mystery

Episode Date: January 5, 2015

In 1872 the British merchant ship Mary Celeste was discovered drifting and apparently abandoned 600 miles off the coast of Portugal. In this episode of the Futility Closet podcast we'll review this classic mystery of the sea: Why would 10 people flee a well-provisioned, seaworthy ship in fine weather? We'll also get an update on the legal rights of apes and puzzle over why a woman would not intervene when her sister is drugged. Sources for our segment on the Mary Celeste: Paul Begg, Mary Celeste: The Greatest Mystery of the Sea, 2005. Charles Edey Fay, Mary Celeste: The Odyssey of an Abandoned Ship, 1942. J.L. Hornibrook, "The Case of the 'Mary Celeste': An Ocean Mystery," Chambers Journal, Sept. 17, 1904. Listener mail: George M. Walsh, "Chimpanzees Don't Have The Same Rights As Humans, New York Court Rules," Associated Press, Dec. 5, 2014. The opinion from the New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division: The People of the State of New York ex rel. The Nonhuman Rights Project, Inc., on Behalf of Tommy, Appellant, v. Patrick C. Lavery, Individually and as an Officer of Circle L Trailer Sales, Inc., et al. "Orangutan in Argentina Zoo Recognised by Court as 'Non-Human Person'," Guardian, Dec. 21, 2014. Coffitivity "recreates the ambient sounds of a cafe to boost your creativity and help you work better." This week's lateral thinking puzzle was submitted by listener Nick Madrid. You can listen using the player above, download this episode directly, or subscribe on iTunes or via the RSS feed at http://feedpress.me/futilitycloset. Please consider becoming a patron of Futility Closet -- on our Patreon page you can pledge any amount per episode, and all contributions are greatly appreciated. You can change or cancel your pledge at any time, and we've set up some rewards to help thank you for your support. You can also make a one-time donation via the Donate button in the sidebar of the Futility Closet website. Many thanks to Doug Ross for the music in this episode. If you have any questions or comments you can reach us at [e-mail]. Thanks for listening!

Welcome to Futility Closet, a celebration of the quirky and the curious, the thought-provoking and the simply amusing. This is the audio companion to the website that catalogs more than 8,000 curiosities in history, language, mathematics, literature, philosophy, and art. You can find us online at futilitycloset.com. Thanks for joining us. Welcome to Episode 40. I'm Greg Ross. And I'm Sharon Ross. And I'm Sharon Ross. In today's show, we'll learn about the Mary Celeste, a British merchant ship that was mysteriously abandoned by her passengers and crew off the coast of Portugal in 1872. We'll also get an update on the legal rights of apes and puzzle over why a woman doesn't intervene when her sister is drugged.

The Mary Celeste is probably the most famous ghost ship, I guess, in history now. It's kind of a classic locked room mystery at sea. She was a British merchant brigantine, a two-masted sailing vessel that was discovered in 1872, drifting and apparently abandoned 600 miles off the coast of Portugal. And no one knows why. There were a crew of eight and two passengers who were all missing, and it appears that they had abandoned the boat, had put off in the ship's only lifeboat, for no apparent reason. Mary Celeste was perfectly seaworthy.

It had six months of provisions. It was near land, and it's just hard to think of why they might have felt such alarm that they felt they had to abandon the ship, apparently, and go to their own deaths rather than stay there. And to this day, no one knows what happened, but it's a fascinating question. The facts are actually pretty simple to relate. On November 5th, 1872, the ship docked in New York City and took on a cargo of 1,700 barrels of alcohol and then set sail. They were headed across the Atlantic through the Straits of Gibraltar and ultimately for Genoa in Italy, which they never reached. The captain, his name was Benjamin Briggs,

and he spent most of his life at sea and had in fact captained five ships. He was quite experienced. He had a crew of seven, and the passengers were his wife and his two-year-old daughter, Sophia. And the crew, by all accounts, were experienced and trustworthy. There was nothing odd about that, as far as anyone knows. So the Mary Celeste departed New York, and then seven days later, another British merchant ship, the Dei Gratia, departed seven days later. And so the two would have experienced much the same general conditions in crossing the Atlantic. And the Dei Gratia found that it was very heavy weather, continuous gale force winds, and tempestuous seas, so it seems reasonable to suppose that that's what the Mary Celeste encountered herself.

We don't know that because her logbook was lost. Anyway, about a month after leaving port, the Dei Gratia was about 600 miles west of Portugal in the early afternoon of December 5th, 1872, when its helmsman sighted a ship five miles off their port bow. And as they came closer, they saw that the ship was the Mary Celeste, which is confusing because she should have been in Italy by then. She should have reached her destination. So they approached to about 400 yards and just watched her for a while. Something seemed immediately to be wrong. For one thing, she was headed west instead of east.

She was yawing a bit, and her sails were torn, and no one was visible at the helm or on the deck, and she's flying no distress signal. So they concluded, ultimately, that she was drifting and perhaps abandoned. So they sent some men over. The chief mate of the Dei Gratia, a man named Oliver DeVoe, who seems like a very sensible fellow. I like him, and he's sort of central to this whole, all the proceedings that followed.

He was the first one on board. He found no one there and reported that the whole ship was a mess. There was a lot of water between decks and three and a half feet in the hold, which is a lot, although it appeared later. She was perfectly seaworthy. She wasn't leaking. It appeared that most of that water had just washed in when she was drifting into an open hatch. Anyway, three and a half feet of water in the hold.

The ship's only lifeboat, which is a small yawl that had been lashed to the main hatch, was missing. And a piece of the railing nearby had been removed, apparently to facilitate its launching. So the real mystery of the Mary Celeste is not what happened to the ten people aboard. It seems pretty clear what happened to them is that they put off in this boat. Would they all have fit in the lifeboat? Yes. Yeah. So that's not the mystery.

The mystery is why would they do that? The ship was seaworthy and well-provisioned, the weather was fair, and they were close to their destination. So that's what needed to be understood. And to this date, no one's figured it out. DeVille also found that the captain's chronometer, sextant, navigation book, the ship's register, and other papers were missing, apparently taken by the captain. Two of the hatches were open, the forehatch and the lazarette, but the main hatch was sealed. The peak halyard, which is a line that's normally used to hoist the

mainsail, was missing. I'll get to that in a bit. The rope was, by some accounts, found tied to the ship's railing and trailing in the water behind it. The overall impression was one of great haste, that apparently they'd left the ship in a real hurry. DeVoe said the men's clothing was left behind, their oil skins, boots, and even their pipes, as if they had left in a great hurry or haste. People had grabbed navigation instruments, but not extra clothing or supplies or personal possessions. But those things also weren't missing, which means that it didn't seem to be piracy, because the ship, there was no sign of violence. Most things were found in their places, so it doesn't look like any kind of crime on the

seas. The ship was in good shape. There were plenty of provisions. There was no sign of fire or anything like that. DeVoe said, it did not occur to me that there had been any act of violence. It was nothing to induce one to believe or to show that there had been any violence, and the cargo itself was in good order. So it's a puzzle what happened. After some uncertainty, it's a puzzle. What happened? After some uncertainty, the Dei Gratia's master, whose name was Morehouse, divided his crew, kept some on the Dei Gratia, and gave the rest to the Mary Celeste, and they sailed both ships to Gibraltar. Along the way, they discovered, in fact, the Mary Celeste was so seaworthy that she actually leaked less than the Dei Gratia herself. It was just a beautifully buoyant, wonderfully seaworthy vessel

which just compounds the mystery and at gibraltar uh they convened a british admiral admiralty court to hold an inquiry morehouse since he had discovered the mary celeste claimed her as salvage which is just sort of what it was his right uh in those days he could claim salvage to compensate him and his crew for the danger and the risks they'd undergone in saving Mary Celeste. That wasn't uncommon, but finding a perfectly seaworthy and well-provisioned ship is, so it was already kind of this rather famous mystery and not much in the news during the hearing.

And the hearing turned up a lot of facts which are interesting but don't really shed of light on what what uh must have happened out there here's what they were able to put together at 5 a.m on the morning of the abandonment mary celeste had just reached the western end of santa maria which is the last of the azores the last entry in the log slate we don't have the log but there's a slate that they kept up with the most recent information reads at eight eastern point bore south southwest six miles distance so that was made at 8 a.m normally they would have continued making hourly entries on this slate until midday and then a new slate would have been started and they didn't do that since the last entry was made at 8 a.m it seems safe to

assume that whatever happened took place between 8 and 9 a.m. For instance, the captain's bed was unmade, and there was the impression of a child's body, presumably Sophia's, there. And that wouldn't, you know, his bed wouldn't have remained unmade much into a normal day. So something happened early in that morning on November 25th. They abandoned the boat, apparently, and then she sailed 378 miles on her own and was heading westward when Dei Gratia came upon her on December 5th. The Mary Celeste had three hatches. The fore and the main hatch

were opened onto the cargo hold, and what's called the lazarette opened to a small storage space. The fore hatch and the lazarette hatch were both off when she was discovered, and the main hatch was closed. Deveoe, when he was sort of exploring the ship, could see through the forehatch that the cargo was present and seemed to be in good order. The barrels were marked alcohol. He checked the pumps and found little water in the bilge, but three and a half feet of water, as I mentioned, in the hold, which is quite a lot for such a small ship. The hold had the water in it, but because it was also full of 1700 barrels those would have been stacked in 3 or 4 tiers

so you couldn't normally see all the way to the bottom of the hold the way you'd normally assess how much water was down there was to sound the pumps which means to put what's called a sounding rod down into the pumps to see how much water you discover it's sort of like checking the oil in your car with a dipstick and that's important I'll come back to that in a bit.

They found a sounding rod discarded on the deck, which seems to suggest that the crew had been concerned that the ship was taking on water. The sounding rod had not been put back in its proper place, which sort of suggests that they abandoned the ship immediately after sounding the pumps. But as I say, most of the water that had washed into the hold seemed to have happened after the abandonment, which doesn't quite add up. But there's one theory that might help to account for that. There were some dark clues that came up and were considered in the hearing, but were then later dismissed.

John Austin, the surveyor of shipping in Gibraltar, boarded the Mary Celeste and found what he thought were some spots of blood in the captain's cabin on an ornamental cutlass that the captain kept. Also, he thought he saw a gash on the railing of the ship that he thought had been made with a blunt object or an axe. And he also found, this is curious, on the bow, on both sides of the bow, someone he thought had cut a cut on each side about six or seven feet long, about an inch and a quarter wide. He said this injury had been sustained very recently and could not have been affected by the weather and was apparently done by a sharp cutting instrument continuously applied through the whole length of the injury. Unfortunately, all these dark clues were refuted in subsequent testimony. A doctor looked at what was thought to be blood and found it was just simply rust. Oh.

Another witness, R.W. Shufeld, a captain of the USS Plymouth, judged that what was thought to be damage to the bows was no more than, he said, splinters made in the bending of the planks, which were afterwards forced off by the action of the sea. He's very emphatic about that. His report ends with a statement that not by any possible chance could this have been the result of an intention to do so. And there just seems to be confusion about what was thought to be an axe blow on the rail.

It's just some people thought that wasn't significant. It didn't seem to be freshly made. So if you take those back off the record, then it's just a wide open mystery again. There didn't seem to be anything untoward or violent in the ship's recent past. They just simply abandoned it for some reason that wasn't clear. Augustus Anderson of the Dei Gratia crew, in fact, said the vessel was in a fit state to go around the world with a good crew and good sails. After all the hearing had happened, both the Dei Gratia and the Mary Celeste were taken from Gibraltar to Genoa. Dei Gratia took 24 days to make the trip, and Mary Celeste made it in 11 days.

So she was just this beautifully seaworthy vessel. The meteorological records say the weather would have been fair on the day of the abandonment, and they found the skylight in the cabin was open and they left without attending to the sails. The hold was open presumably to air it out. In other words, all these indications were that it had been fair weather when they left. So Paul Begg, whose book I'm largely relying on for these facts, says, From the evidence provided by the ship herself, it is therefore reasonable to deuce

that whatever happened was without warning dramatic and serious enough to greatly alarm an experienced master mariner and to cause the ship to be abandoned in considerable haste, 12, 12 and a half theories that have been advanced over the years as to what might have happened, but none of them seems entirely satisfactory. Here they are, in no particular order. Number one, pirates from the Moroccan coast attacked her. Here they are, in no particular order. Number one, pirates from the Moroccan coast attacked her. There were certainly pirates operating off of the Moroccan coast,

but as I've said, there's no signs of violence on Mary Celeste, and also only the navigation equipment was missing, none of the personal effects or anything. So if there were pirates there, it's not clear. They weren't very good pirates. All they did was shoo the people off the boat. Yeah. So that doesn't seem likely. Two, mutiny. There's just no reason to think this is

the case there's nothing in briggs record to suggest that he was tyrannical or resented by any of his crews the crew by all accounts were trustworthy and experienced and again there was no sign of violence on board so there's just no evidence and for mutiny wouldn't they have just put him off like the crew would have kept the ship why would the crew have all left with him yes good question well that's that's the next theory. I've got his number three, which also doesn't go anywhere. The crew broke into the cargo hold, drank some of the alcohol, got drunk, killed Briggs, and then left by the boat, presumably just to escape the scene of the crime and wander down the West Indies or something.

I see. This was actually a theory advanced by Frederick Solly Flood, who's the Attorney General for Gibraltar. He wrote, My own theory or guess is that the crew got at the alcohol and in the fury of drunkenness murdered the master, whose name was Briggs, and wife and child and the chief mate, that they then damaged the bows of the vessel with the view of giving it the appearance of having struck on rocks

or suffered from a collision, so as to induce the master of any vessel which might pick them up, if they saw her at some distance, to think her not worth attempting to save, and that they did sometime between the 25th of November and the 5th of December escape on board some vessel bound for some North or South American port or the West Indies, which is, I guess, a fine theory, but there's just no evidence supporting it. Briggs was a teetotaler, actually, as it happens, and unlikely to permit drinking at all. Um, Briggs was a teetotaler, actually, as it happens, and unlikely to permit drinking at all.

Uh, DeVoe found, quote, no wine, beer, or spirits whatever in the ship. Uh, there appears to have been no suggestion that the barrels in the cargo hold had been tampered with in any way. Again, there was no trace of a struggle. And it seems to me that if there had been a mutiny and some, you know, any of this had happened, a drunken crew wouldn't have been able to cover up its crime very well. That's true. They're that drunk, yeah. And they would have maybe taken their possessions with them.

Yes. It certainly seems reasonable. So let's dismiss that one as well. Number four. Some people have suggested that the crew of the day, Gratia, had done something evil. They were perhaps pirates themselves. Maybe they boarded Mary Celeste and killed everyone on board. Again, there's no sign of violence. There's also some talk of collusion,

that they had taken Mary Celeste's crew to shore and then invented this story that they'd come across the ship abandoned and planned to share in the salvage reward with them. There's no evidence for that or nothing in anyone's past that would lead us to suspect them capable of that. It's sometimes said, I shouldn't mention, that the captains of the two ships knew each other and had dined before the Mary Celeste left New York. There's no evidence for that. And it would be kind of a coincidence if it had happened.

It certainly didn't come up in the hearing. So there's just no reason to support this. I have down as number five that the Dei Gratia perhaps lured the Siletz crew aboard their own ship, which wasn't searched, and killed them there. But there's just no reason to suppose that they would have done that. And part of my own problem with these theories about the Dei Gratia is, if you were going to do that, you'd come up with some cover story, you know, instead of inventing this resounding mystery that's one of the most famous unsolved mysteries in sea lore.

You'd want to come up with something plausible. And was attracting all his attention. Yeah, yeah. So that doesn't seem likely either. Number six, Captain Benjamin Briggs killed everyone in a religious mania, then came to his senses and killed himself out of remorse. Which has a certain tidiness to it, but there's just no evidence supporting it. And again, there's no sign of violence. And what did he do with his navigational tools?

Right. I just, I mean, it's, they get some points for, you know, that sort of does seem to wrap everything up, but there's just no, nothing supporting it. Number seven. This is by far my favorite theory. This was advanced in the Chambers Journal in 1904 by J.L. Hornibrook. Quote, there is a man stationed at the wheel. He is alone on deck,

all the others having gone below to their midday meal. Suddenly a huge octopus rises from the deep and rearing one of its terrible arms aloft encircles the helmsman. His yells bring every soul on board rushing on deck.

One by one they are caught by the waving, wriggling arms and swept overboard. Then freighted with its living load, the monster sinks slowly into the deep again, leaving no traces of its attack. This went immediately to the top of my list. Unfortunately, there's no evidence for this either.

I don't think giant octopuses behave in this way. Well, and the octopus, again, would have wanted the navigational tools and the captain's log and, I mean, he had to... Right, and carefully open the rail and take the boat as well. Maybe they do that. I don't know. I don't know much about octopi. Number eight, Paul Begg calls this the most contrived theory.

In 1927, the Canadian maritime author Frederick Wallace proposed that perhaps Mary Celeste had been becalmed, and then another ship, perhaps a collier or another vessel that had been loaded with explosives or was on fire, started drifting toward it. Because they were becalmed, they couldn't sail away from it and had to abandon the ship. Oh, I see. This, I think, raises many more questions than it answers. What happened to this other ship? And if the ship was becalmed, why couldn't they simply row back to it when the danger was passed?

I don't know. I like it better than the octopus one, though. Yeah. Okay, fair enough. It's a little more plausible. Number nine, perhaps she was becalmed and threatened to drift onto rocks. There were shoals nearby, but the set of the sails sort of belies that this is what happened. They should have all been set if the ship was becalmed in order to catch any breath of wind, and they weren't found that way.

Also, this doesn't explain this mystery of the sounding rod, which had been apparently abandoned quickly and this hurried exodus from the ship. And probably everyone wouldn't leave a drifting ship until it became absolutely certain that they'd hit the rocks. They would just have had more time to arrange some orderly exit, and they obviously hadn't done that. Number 10, this is probably the most commonly advanced theory. Perhaps fumes had accumulated in the hold

and that Briggs panicked when it was opened. Dei Gratia and Mary Celeste had both been crossing the Atlantic through roughly the same weather. The Dei Gratia found that the weather was so strong that they had to keep their own hatches closed for all but one hour of the trip. So we can presume that Mary Celeste did the same thing. That means that the 1,700 barrels of alcohol in the hold would have been poorly ventilated. When they were finally offloaded in Genoa, it was found that nine of them had leaked,

which is not unusual and apparently not unexpected, but it does mean that there could have been alcohol fumes in the hold. Also, both ships were sailing into somewhat warmer weather, so it was poorly ventilated, there would have been fumes, and it would have been warm in the hold. So the theory is that when they finally opened the hatch in fine weather, enough fumes came out that Briggs kind of panicked at the fear of an explosion, put everyone in the boat so they just put them away from the ship and away from any danger of an explosion,

and then the line parted and the ship just sailed away from them. That's often advanced as a theory as to what happened. There's no evidence of an actual explosion. DeVoe saw none. John Austin, the surveyor of shipping at Gibraltar, saw none. And the cargo itself was found to be in excellent condition when it was unloaded at Genoa. That doesn't mean that the fumes themselves couldn't have scared Briggs enough to cause him to put off the boat. And we don't know that he didn't do that.

Possibly there were strong fumes or perhaps a rumbling or a roaring noise would have scared him into doing that. But Paul Begg at least thinks this is unlikely. For one thing, fumes would have dissipated quickly, and he says, abandoning a ship for a small boat is a desperate measure and not one likely to be taken without extraordinarily good reason. It isn't something one would do because of something that might happen. It's something one does because one is absolutely certain that something will happen. Related to that, I mentioned that the peak halyard was missing. That's a line that's used to hoist the sails. Some theories propose that that had been used to secure the boat to the ship.

So you have this image of the ship sailing along the boat being towed behind it. That doesn't quite add up. The testimony is conflicted. Begg points out that if you think your ship is in danger of exploding or sinking, the last thing you would do is tie your boat to it, which seems to be a good point. And again, he emphasizes abandoning ship is not a decision to be made lightly. There's a lot of money at stake, both tied up in the ship itself and in the cargo. So Briggs, the captain, or the first mate at least,

would likely have remained aboard until they were absolutely certain she was sinking, which she was not. But still, that's a possibility. Among all these theories, I suppose that's the most likely. There's one more that I mentioned just because it's interesting. A water spout or a tornado at sea. The conditions were suitable for this. And what's interesting about this is the pressure differential would have been enough to draw some water up into the pumps so that when they sounded

them, they would have appeared there was more water in the hole than there actually was. So they might have thought they were sinking? Right. And in fact, this was DeVoe's own theory. He said, my idea is that the crew got alarmed and by the sounding rod being found alongside the pump that they had sounded the well and found a quantity of water in the pumps at the moment and thinking she would go down, abandon her. Paul Begg, whose book I quite like, I'll just read his last paragraph verbatim. He doesn't reach any ultimate conclusion, but I just think this is interesting. He says, Whatever caused Mary Celeste to be abandoned, mate Oliver DeVoe's observation about the sounding rod is very likely the key to the solution. Someone had sounded the ship and they had dropped the

sounding rod on the deck instead of replacing it where it was kept. This suggests that Mary Celeste was sounded very shortly before being abandoned and that something about the sounding had caused considerable alarm and the sounding rod had simply been dropped on the deck. We can only assume that the sounding gave the impression that the ship was taking on water, but we know she was not. Whatever those aboard thought had happened, be it an explosion the hold or not, has to have given the impression that the vessel was taking on water. If it wasn't a water spout, what could it have been? And he leaves that question open. He doesn't come to any ultimate conclusion about what actually happened there.

And those are, for the most part, all the theories that have been advanced, at least in my research. I'll leave the last word to R.W. Shufeld, the captain of the Plymouth, who discounted the damage to the bows. the captain of the Plymouth who discounted the damage to the bows. His own thought was that she'd been abandoned in some hasty panic, perhaps after a rough gale in the belief that she was taking on more water than was actually the case. But he said, But if we should never hear of them again, I shall nevertheless think they were lost in the boat in which both master and crew abandoned the Mary Celeste, and shall remember with interest the sad and silent mystery of the sea.

We want to thank everyone who's contributed to our Patreon campaign to support the podcast. We really appreciate every donation we've gotten. If you're not familiar with Patreon, it's a way for fans to support ongoing projects like this podcast. You pledge a recurring donation for every episode we make. You can set that amount yourself, and you can change or cancel it whenever you like. We like doing the podcast, but it takes us almost a full week of work to produce each episode. That was actually quite a surprise for us when we first started doing the show, just how much time it would take us to make a good episode. We rely on Futility Closet for our income, so we need to find a way to support the show in order to keep Thank you. scenes comments, talk with us about the show, and see photos of Sasha, the show mascot. You can learn more about the campaign at patreon.com slash futilitycloset, and I'll put a link in the show notes.

Some of our fans have asked whether there's a way to make a one-time donation rather than an ongoing one like this, and there is. We have a donate button in the sidebar of our website. Thanks again very much to everyone for your support. With your help, we can keep making the show. We have an update to a story I reported on in episode 33. In that episode, I discussed how Stephen Wise and the Non-Human Rights Project was fighting to get intelligent animals freed from captivity by trying to get courts to recognize them as legal persons. The most recent case that this group was fighting was on behalf of Tommy, a chimpanzee living in isolation that the group likens to keeping a human in unlawful solitary confinement. Walker Boyd sent in an update on this trial, letting us know that a decision had been reached and included a link to the written opinion by the New York Supreme Court Appellate Division. Unfortunately for Tommy, the three-judge panel was unanimous in denying legal personhood to Tommy, and thus he is not entitled to the rights and protections afforded by the writ of habeas corpus, as Wise was trying to argue for him. Wise was trying to argue for him. Walker says, interestingly, the rationale of the decision is largely that chimps, unlike humans, do not have duties and therefore have no rights, which is kind

of an interesting basis for a decision. But I read through the court's opinion, and that does seem to actually be the crux of the judge's argument. The judges say that society extends rights in exchange for an express or implied agreement from its members to submit to societal responsibilities. They note that the legal definition of a person is a human being or an entity, such as a corporation, that is recognized by law as having the rights and duties of a human being. So that recognizes he's not shutting the door on the idea of a non-human entity having rights. And there are animals like, you know.

Well, they just have to be able to carry out rights and duties. Because there are some animals like guide dogs and stuff that do that already. It seems like it's hopeful in the long run that this could. Maybe. But the judges conclude that unlike human beings, chimpanzees cannot bear any legal duties, submit to societal responsibilities, or be held legally accountable for their actions. So they say, in our view, it is this incapability to bear any legal responsibilities and societal duties that renders it inappropriate to confer upon chimpanzees the legal rights,

such as the fundamental right to liberty protected by the writ of habeas corpus, that have been afforded to human beings. Although you raise a good point, which is some animals do have maybe societal responsibilities, or could, but they can't really be held legally accountable for their actions, except in medieval Europe when they did try pigs for murder and things like that. But nowadays, we can't. So that was the basis of their rationale, they think, at least in the United States. Because when I reported on this article,

I did report that in other countries, sometimes inanimate objects have been considered legal persons in the eyes of the law. Yeah. Ships or religious books or things like that. But that's in other countries. So that was the decision here. Lawyer Dan Fingerman wrote in to note that it really would be more appropriate

to have this kind of issue changed through new legislation rather than through the courts. Dan's point was that expanding personhood to encompass nonhumans would be a major change in public policy that the representative branches should make, not a court, which is a valid point. I mean, that's a valid perspective. Because then the people have input ultimately through the representatives instead of just having the bench decided. Right. The judges who ruled in Tommy's case did also note themselves that while Tommy's lawyers

have not been able to establish a legal basis for applying habeas corpus to chimpanzees, they can appeal to the legislature to extend more rights or protections to non-humans. I'm sure our lawyers would argue that they think the legislature is very unlikely to make these changes and they're hoping to get it done through the courts. Yeah, but I mean, he's got a good point there. Ultimately, it ought to be the people who decide these things. Right. I thought it was interesting to note that this movement is, this movement to give more rights to intelligent animals, especially non-human primates, it's not just happening in the United States. There are also groups working in various countries towards this end.

And animal rights campaigners in Argentina have been more successful than Tommy's lawyers. There, they filed a habeas corpus petition on behalf of Sandra, a 29-year-old orangutan at the Buenos Aires Zoo. And that court did agree that Sandra deserved the basic rights of a non-human person and thus should be freed from the zoo. Wow. So, yeah, that was in Argentina. So that's interesting, and I wonder what kind of precedent that might end up setting.

That's very interesting. Basically, I'm not a lawyer, but it seems to me like this is a developing issue that's really pretty complex. And I don't think it's going to be easily settled or quickly settled. If you think about it, there are really various categories of animals. And it could take a really long time to work out what would represent fair and reasonable treatment of all the different categories of animals. And where do you draw the line for what's considered an intelligent animal.

It seems to me we're still struggling to work out exactly what rights and protections different groups of people should have, like prisoners or prisoners of war or minority groups or people who are incapacitated in various ways or held in different types of institutions. So, I mean, we can't even get this sorted for people, So if you start trying to sort it for animals, that takes some time. That doesn't mean we shouldn't be considering it. I mean, you know, obviously as a race, we want to be fair and reasonable as much as possible. In addition, it also, just thinking it through myself, it seemed to me that in some cases it could be more humane to have animals in captivity rather than to leave them or release them into what could be dangerous or endangered conditions.

I mean, some zoos probably provide much better conditions for the animals than they would actually get in the wild. So that's, I think, another question, too. And also the last point that I was thinking about this is there's really a question of what should you do with animals who have been raised in captivity as you can't just release them into the wild. I mean, that would just be inhumane. There are sanctuaries for some types of animals, but that's not likely to be the answer for all of them. They would have a limited capacity and they only cover certain types of animals. So there's really a lot to be, I guess, figured out on this whole issue. Yeah, but it's interesting that at least in Argentina, the sun rays are turning. Yeah.

On a very different note, another listener, Jack Roxby, wrote in to say, I've been a devoted reader of Futility Closet for years, but only began listening to the podcast recently. I love the conversational tone of the podcast, especially how Sharon seems to be hearing stories for the first time, even as you relay them to listeners. It helps the listener feel included, like it's a chat among friends. And that really is the case. I often don't know a whole lot about what Greg's going to be talking about. So I'm sitting here going, wow, that's amazing, you know, as I'm hearing for the first time, some of the details of these things.

Jack went on to say, because of this discussion style feeling, I recently started using the site Coffitivity to stream coffee shop background noise while I enjoy the podcast, as it makes me feel like we're all sitting around a table having coffee somewhere and discussing unusual research. So, of course, I had to look into what coffee-tivity is. I had never heard of that. In its own words, coffee-tivity recreates the ambient sounds of a cafe to boost your creativity and help you work better. And apparently for some people, at least, enjoy podcasts more. That's great. I didn't know about that. The site claims that this is backed up by research. They say that there's a peer-reviewed study from the University of Chicago that found that a moderate amount

of ambient noise is conducive to cognition. So Coffitivity says this means that being a tiny bit distracted will help you be more creative. That's their conclusion that they draw. And they helpfully provide a variety of background coffee shop noises for you, such as morning murmur

and Brazil bistro. I want to try that. So you can choose your coffee shop noises for you, such as Morning Murmur and Brazil Bistro. I'm going to try that. So you can choose your coffee shop noises. Great. So thanks to everyone who writes in to us. And if you have any questions or comments for us, please send them to us at podcast at futilitycloset.com. This week, Greg's going to be trying to solve a lateral thinking puzzle. I'm going to give him an odd-sounding situation,

and he has to try to figure it out asking only yes or no questions. Okay? Yes, ma'am. All right. This week's puzzle was sent in by Nick Madrid, who has sent in several that we've used before. Mm-hmm. So this is another Nick Madrid puzzle.

Thank you, Nick. A young woman goes to a nightclub and tries to have fun. Someone slips a pill into her drink without her noticing. After she finishes it, a dramatic change comes over her. An hour later,

she departs the club with a strange man who had previously filled her with fear. Her sister is also at the club and watches the situation unfold, but does nothing to prevent it. Why not? That's a sinister one. Yes, it does sound very sinister, doesn't it? Okay. Is this true? I don't think so. I hope not. Okay. There's a lot to figure out here. Tries to to have fun does that have some specific meaning was she trying to do something in particular no okay um so young woman young woman and her

sister go to a club yes do i need to know more about the kind of club no um okay and a man are there other people besides these two women and the man? No. And is there some backstory that I need to uncover? Something about their identities or occupations or something? The women. Yeah. There is. Yeah.

Do they know the man? No. Either of them? No. And the man, do I need to know more about him? No. I don't need to know more about the man. Does he have bad intentions? No. Of course't need to know more about the man. Does he have bad intentions? No.

Of course not. All right. But they don't know each other. The sisters know each other. But the sisters don't know the man. Right. And how does this end again? The man goes off with one of the women.

Yes. One of the sisters. Yes. Do I need to know more about what happens after that? No. And could they be said to go off with the other sisters approval yes okay so the main thing i need to know is what the backstory is the two sisters do we need to where this happens or time period or anything so they're just two sisters yes Two sisters. Yes. With some history, but not with this man. Correct. Do I need to know their occupation?

No. But you say they have some history. Has this happened before? No. No, actually not. That's a good question. Are they... How can I ask this?

Does the man give the pill... You say that he puts a pill in the one sister's drink? I did not say that. Can you read it again? Someone slips a pill into her drink without her noticing. Oh, but not the man. Not the man. But you say there are only three people involved. Yes.

Oh, holy cow. So her sister puts a pill in the. Yes. Really? Yes. Really? Yes. All right. Let's keep going. This got even weirder.

All right. Is the... Okay. So one sister, two sisters go to a club. Yes. One puts a pill in the other's drink. Yes. Unbeknownst to her?

Yes. Yes. With the intention of inducing her to go off with this man? Not that specific intention. But with a man? Yeah, let's say yes. With the intention of inducing her to go off with this man? Not that specific intention. But with a man? Yeah, let's say yes. And did I just ask you unbeknownst to her? Unbeknownst to her, yes.

Okay, so can we say then the sister who does go off with the man wouldn't have done so if she hadn't... That is correct. ...drunk or taken the pill? That is correct. Um, okay. That is correct. Drunk or taking the pill. That is correct. Okay. Did they go there with the intent of meeting men, or this one woman did? Yeah. Okay, but she wouldn't have gone.

Is she just anxious about it? Yes. Okay. So her sister wanted to calm her anxiety by giving her a pill, sneaking a pill into her. Yeah. And it worked. She drank it and summoned the, or overcame her anxiety by not going out with a man. Right. That's not as. And it worked. She drank it. Right. And summoned the, or overcame her anxiety without going out with a man. Right.

That's not as sinister as it is. Right. Well, it's kind of. I wouldn't approve of that in any case. If you don't mind sisters drugging each other without their knowledge. There's a little more than that, but it'll be kind of hard to get it. But the back story is that both sisters suffer from social anxiety disorder. Okay.

Oh, right. Because she'd have to have the pill. One of them uses a prescription drug to treat the condition, but the other sister dismisses the drug as a placebo. So to prove the drug's efficacy, the medicated sister slips a pill into the skeptical sister's drink, then watches with satisfaction as her sister loses her inhibitions and gets assertive with an attractive man who used to intimidate her. Okay.

That makes sense. So thanks so much to Nick. And if you have a puzzle you'd like to send in for us to use, please send it to us at podcast at futilitycloset.com. That's another episode for us. If you're looking for more Futility Closet, check out our books on Amazon or visit the website at futilitycloset.com, where you can sample over 8,000 absorbing tidbits.

At the website, you can also see the show notes for the podcast and listen to previous episodes. Just click Podcast in the sidebar. If you'd like to support Futility Closet, please consider becoming a patron to help keep us going. You can find more information at patreon.com slash futilitycloset. You can also help us out by telling your friends about us, by leaving a review of the books or podcast on Amazon or iTunes, or by clicking the donate button in the sidebar of the website. If you have any questions or comments about the show,

you can reach us by email at podcast at futilitycloset.com. Our music was written and produced by Doug Ross. Thanks for listening, and we'll talk to you next week.