Futility Closet - 310-The Case of Bobby Dunbar

Episode Date: September 7, 2020

In 1912, 4-year-old Bobby Dunbar went missing during a family fishing trip in Louisiana. Eight months later, a boy matching his description appeared in Mississippi. But was it Bobby Dunbar? In this week's episode of the Futility Closet podcast we'll describe the dispute over the boy's identity. We'll also contemplate a scholarship for idlers and puzzle over an ignorant army. Intro: During his solo circumnavigation of 1895-98, Joshua Slocum met the pilot of the Pinta. In 1868, inventor William Carr made a mousetrap for burglars. Sources for our feature on Bobby Dunbar: Tal McThenia and Margaret Dunbar Cutright, A Case for Solomon: Bobby Dunbar and the Kidnapping That Haunted a Nation, 2013. Cathy Pickens, True Crime Stories of Eastern North Carolina, Sept. 28, 2020. "Questions Remain in Bobby Dunbar Case," [Opelousas, La.] Daily World, Aug. 22, 2018, A.3. "The Mystery Continues: One Century Later, Bobby Dunbar Kidnapping Case Remains Unsolved," [Opelousas, La.] Daily World, July 20, 2018, A.2. Duncan McMonagle, "'World Famous' Kidnapping Saga Starts Well, Ends Badly," Winnipeg Free Press, Aug. 18, 2012, J.7. Steve Weinberg, "Famed Crime's Shock Recalled," Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Aug. 5, 2012, E.6. William Johnson, "Dunbar Case to Receive National Spotlight," [Opelousas, La.] Daily World, Dec. 26, 2007. "Man Convicted of Kidnapping 90 Years Ago Cleared," [Cranbrook, B.C.] Daily Townsman, May 5, 2004, 18. "DNA Clears Up 1914 Case," Washington Times, May 5, 2004. William Johnson, "Dunbar Rumors at Last Answered," [Opelousas, La.] Daily World, May 4, 2004. Robert Marchant, "Unraveling," [White Plains, N.Y.] Journal News, Feb. 21, 2004, A.1. Allen G. Breed, "Finding Bobby Dunbar," Associated Press, Feb. 1, 2004. "Real Dunbar Boy in New Orleans, Says a Letter," Hattiesburg [Miss.] News, June 18, 1914, 2. "Dunbars Will Not Go to New Orleans," [Opelousas, La.] St. Landry Clarion 23:30 (May 10, 1913). "Walters Guilty as Charged, Without Capital Punishment," [Franklinton, La.] Era-Leader, April 30, 1914. "Jury to Be Given Case by To-night," [Opelousas, La.] St. Landry Clarion 24:28 (April 25, 1914). "Fighting for Life on Kidnaping Charge," [Columbia, La.] Caldwell Watchman 28:17 (April 17, 1914). "Bobby Dunbar's Father Traces Clue to Location of Boy Bruce Anderson," Hattiesburg [Miss.] News 17:122 (May 22, 1913). Photo: The disputed child with Deputy Sheriff Charles Day, from the New Orleans Times-Democrat, April 1913. Listener mail: John M. Shutske et al., "Notes From the Field: Death of a Farm Worker After Exposure to Manure Gas in an Open Air Environment -- Wisconsin, August 2016," MMWR: Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 66:32 (Aug. 18, 2017), 861-862. Angela Giuffrida, "'Italy's Robinson Crusoe' Despairs as Eviction From Island Paradise Looms," Guardian, July 15, 2020. Silvia Marchetti, "Paradise Lost: Eviction Looms for Hermit Living Alone on Italian Island," CNN, July 28, 2020. Wikipedia, "Budelli" (accessed Aug. 31, 2020). Schule der Folgenlosigkeit: Übungen für ein anderes Leben, University of Fine Arts of Hamburg (accessed Aug. 31, 2020). Firefighters drying hoses, from Richard Scarry's 1968 book What Do People Do All Day? This week's lateral thinking puzzle was contributed by listener Samuel Yeo. You can listen using the player above, download this episode directly, or subscribe on Google Podcasts, on Apple Podcasts, or via the RSS feed at https://futilitycloset.libsyn.com/rss. Please consider becoming a patron of Futility Closet -- you can choose the amount you want to pledge, and we've set up some rewards to help thank you for your support. You can also make a one-time donation on the Support Us page 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 the Futility Closet podcast, forgotten stories from the pages of history. Visit us online to sample more than 11,000 quirky curiosities from a mid-sea apparition to a trap for burglars. This is episode 310. I'm Greg Ross. And I'm Sharon Ross. In 1912, four-year-old Bobby Dunbar went missing during a family fishing trip in Louisiana. Eight months later, a boy matching his description appeared in Mississippi, but was it Bobby Dunbar? In today's show, we'll describe the dispute over the boy's identity.

We'll also contemplate a scholarship for idlers and puzzle over an ignorant army. On August 23, 1912, Percy and Lessie Dunbar of Opelousas, Louisiana, took their two young sons to Swayze Lake in St. Landry Parish for a fishing trip with some friends. Just before noon, when the families returned to their cabins for lunch, four-year-old Bobby Dunbar wandered away from the group. When they realized he was gone, the others went looking for him. They found some footprints leading south along a wagon trail. Those ended at a railroad track just a few yards west of a wooden trestle that

crossed the lake. On the tracks, the footprints headed west, away from the bridge, and disappeared. There was no sign of Bobby. As word spread, hundreds of volunteers and law enforcement officers joined in an increasingly frantic search. They blasted the lake with dynamite, hoping to raise a body, and they cut open alligators looking for the boy's remains. But there was no trace of him. The citizens of Opelousas offered a reward of $1,000 for Bobby's return. His father, a respected real estate and insurance businessman, engaged a detective agency which printed up postcards with a picture and description of the missing boy and mailed them to town and county officials from East Texas to Florida. The description read, Large, round, blue eyes, hair light but turning dark,

complexion very fair with rosy cheeks, well-developed, stout but not very fat, big toe on left foot, badly scarred from burn when a baby. Meanwhile, rumors began to circulate that a stranger had been seen wandering in the area, and by the end of August, when no sign of their son had surfaced, Bobby's parents became convinced that he'd been kidnapped. Eight months later, in April 1913, they received a wire from the little town of Hub, Mississippi. Residents there had found a boy who matched Bobby's description in the keeping of a traveling handyman and piano tuner named William Cantwell Walters. Walters insisted that this was a mistake.

He said that the boy with him was really Bruce Anderson, the illegitimate son of Walters' brother and a servant named Julia Anderson. She had given William permission to take the boy on a trip, and the two of them had traveled together through the South in the summer of 1912. Walters said he didn't know anything about Bobby Dunbar, but the boy who was traveling with him matched Bobby's description. The police arrested Walters and summoned the Dunbars to Mississippi to try to identify the boy. The Dunbars came, but they found they weren't sure

this was their son. When Lussie Dunbar first set eyes on the boy as he slept, the New Orleans Daily Picayune quotes her as saying, I do not know. I am not quite sure. She found a mole behind his ear and kissed it. But the distinctive scar on Bobby's foot was not visible on this child, and when she woke him, he screamed and thrashed. She said later that she didn't recognize his eyes. She said they, quote, did not seem large enough, and I couldn't recognize the light in them. And his voice didn't sound like Bobby's. Bobby had been four years old when he disappeared, and eight months had passed, so I guess it's possible that he'd changed somewhat. Although you wouldn't expect a bad scar to disappear.

No, that's hard to explain. A scar that he'd had since he was a baby. Yeah. Also, I should mention that the news accounts in all of this are terribly inconsistent. The reporters tended to embellish and alter the story to add drama, so it's often hard to tell what really happened. The next day, the boy fought Leslie Dunbar again, and again she was troubled by his eyes. At one point, he asked to see his brother Alonzo, which heartened her, but the boy had heard Alonzo's name mentioned within the past two days, and possibly he was just repeating it.

She got permission to bathe him and thought his hair seemed darker than she remembered. But afterward, as she was dressing him, she put sandals on his feet and he said, Mama, they're just like the ones I had before I left home. That seemed like a breakthrough. Bobby had worn that style of sandal on the day of his disappearance. And the boy had called her Mama. She said, Thank God it is my boy, and almost collapsed. The Dunbars took the boy back to Louisiana, where they were greeted with parades,

brass bands, and parties. The whole thing might have ended there, except for the vociferous objections of William Walters. Walters insisted that the child was his nephew, Bruce Anderson, and that the two had been traveling innocently in Mississippi. If the child was deemed to be Bobby Dunbar, then Walters faced the charge of kidnapping, which was a capital offense in Louisiana. From his jail cell, he wrote to the Dunbars, begging them to contact Julia Anderson in North Carolina, who he said was the boy's real mother. He wrote, I know by now you have decided. You are wrong. It is very likely I will lose my life on account of that, and if I do, the great God will hold you accountable. To resolve the matter, a New Orleans newspaper contacted Julia Anderson and paid her way to Louisiana to see the boy herself. But when she arrived, she found that she too couldn't be sure of his identity. When she reached for the boy, he slapped her hands and twisted away. When she offered him an orange, he clapped his hands,

seeming to register an old game that they'd played together. But he wouldn't respond to the name Bruce or to the name of a friend back in North Carolina. It seems strange that he wouldn't respond to either woman. One of them was ostensibly his mother. Well, but it seems like in either case, he would have been away from his mother for quite some time, and he was pretty young. I suppose that's true. So there could be him not recognizing his actual mother himself, or just the stress of not having seen the person for some time. Yeah. If Julie Anderson was his mother, then she hadn't seen him in 15 months.

Wow. Which is a long time. And if he was the other woman's child, he hadn't seen her for at least eight months. Yeah. So it had been a significant amount of time either way. And there were reporters all over the house. I mean, there's just an awful lot of pressure on a little boy. Yeah.

Which would change his behavior. Also, and I don't know how much weight to give this, one observer points out that since the Dunbars had claimed him, he now found himself in a nice home with a pony and a bicycle. Those were considerably better circumstances than Bruce Anderson had lived in, but I don't know if a young child would let that separate him from his mother. Or would be able to think about it that carefully. Cynically. Yeah, that, cynically. Finally, Leslie Dunbar told Julia Anderson, Madam, this is my child and I am its mother. You have failed to identify him and he is mine. Anderson called out to the boy, but he ignored her. But the next day she was allowed to undress him and expressed somewhat more certainty. She found a mole on his left hip that she recognized, and she said, his actions and his general features are like Bruce's, though she couldn't point to any proof. But her initial

uncertainty had damned her now, and her character was questioned. She was poor and uneducated, and she'd had three children out of wedlock, and the boy before her still made no sign of recognizing her or remembering her name. She said, gentlemen, I believe from the bottom of my heart that this is my child. In my heart, I know it's Bruce. But Opelousas had already made up its mind. It sided with the Dunbars, and her opponents condemned her in sometimes awful tones. One newspaper wrote, animals don't forget, but this big, coarse country woman, several times a mother, she forgot. Children were only regrettable incidents in her life. She hopes her son isn't dead, just as she hopes that the cotton crop will be good this year. Of true mother love, she has none. Percy Dunbar, Bobby Dunbar's father, said,

There is one thing certain. This is the last time my child is going to be examined. I am tired of this foolishness. Somebody is going to get their head shot off if this doesn't stop. The newspaper that had financed Julia Anderson's trip sent her home. That was a resolution of a sort, but it left some difficult questions. The New Orleans Daily States wrote, suppose for purposes of argument that the boy is Robert Dunbar Jr. Answer these. Where is Bruce Anderson? Why, if he had Robert in his possession, didn't Walters get out of this part of the country when he had a chance? Why did he send Julia Anderson a picture of Robert Dunbar Jr.?

Why didn't Mrs. Dunbar identify the child as soon as she saw him? If Bruce Anderson still is alive and is not the boy at Opelousas, why hasn't some evidence turned up to show who has him now? That's true. If the child was Bobby Dunbar, it solves one mystery, but it opens a new one. It's not really a resolution. There were two missing children and one available one. Yeah. Right. So there's still a child missing. Just not the one they thought. Unable to convince anyone that the child was really Bruce Anderson and had been legally in

his custody, William Walters now stood accused of kidnapping Bobby Dunbar. In his jail cell, he wrote, it seems that I must suffer now for an imaginary sin or crime that has never been committed. The trial convened in St. Landry Parish, Louisiana in April 1914. The newspaper Caldwell Watchman wrote, this is probably the most famous case that has ever been in a Louisiana court, and but few in other states can equal it in the apparent impenetrableness of its mystery and of the intensity of interest manifested in its outcome. Walters was not without allies. Julia Anderson came back from North Carolina to support his claim that the boy was her son, and many residents of Poplarville, Mississippi also pleaded Walters' innocence.

The community had come to know the man and boy well during their travels in Mississippi, and several residents insisted they'd seen Walters with the boy before Bobby Dunbar had disappeared, and that Walters had been nowhere near Swayze Lake on the date Bobby had gone missing. But it wasn't enough. After a sensational two-week trial, the court decided that the boy was in fact Bobby Dunbar. Walters was convicted of kidnapping and sentenced to life in prison. He spent two years behind bars, and then his attorney managed to appeal the conviction. The town of Opelousas decided not to press the case any further, and Walters was released and faded into obscurity. He died in 1945, and his grandchildren said that he had always maintained his innocence. Julia Anderson eventually moved from North Carolina to Mississippi and

raised eight more children, who grew up understanding that they had a brother who'd been taken from them by a family in Louisiana. The disputed child grew up in the Dunbar home and lived the rest of his life as Bobby Dunbar. Eventually, he married and raised four children of his own. He died in 1966. Then, in 1999, one of his granddaughters, Margaret Dunbar Cutright, took an interest in the case and began to investigate. Her father had a scrapbook with some details, and she was able to get the 900-page defense file from the granddaughter of Walters' attorney. That convinced her William Walters could not have kidnapped Bobby Dunbar, and she says

she grieved for two weeks at this conclusion. William Walters and Julia Anderson had likely been telling the truth. The boy in Walters' keeping really had been Bruce Anderson. It was Bobby Dunbar who had disappeared, and his desperate mother had thought she found him in an unrelated little boy. Cutright visited the railroad trestle where Bobby had vanished. She said, I felt that it was the first time anyone in my family had gone and acknowledged that a little boy had died there. In 2004, Bobby's son, Bob Dunbar Jr., took a DNA test that showed that he wasn't related by blood to Alonzo's son, his supposed cousin. That confirmed that he was not a blood relative of the Dunbar family, and the boy who'd been found traveling with William Walters in 1913 was not Bobby Dunbar.

the boy who'd been found traveling with William Walters in 1913, was not Bobby Dunbar. His identity can't be confirmed conclusively, but most likely he was Julia Anderson's son, as William Walters had insisted from the first. The fate of the real Bobby Dunbar is unknown. It's thought that he fell into Swayze Lake and drowned that dramatic day in 1912, or possibly an alligator took him. Cutright said that the new findings brought joy and vindication to the families of Anderson and Walters and some recrimination from her own family, many of whom had considered themselves Dunbar's for generations and resented her looking into the matter and bringing it again to public attention. The disputed child appears to have harbored doubts of his own into adulthood. In 2008, the radio program This American Life found that he had secretly sought

out and visited several members of Julia Anderson's family over the years, apparently to learn more about the story. It's not clear what he learned. Once, in 1954, his son had asked him, how do you know that you're Bobby Dunbar? His father said, I know who I am, and I know who you are, and nothing else matters. It's how we live our lives that counts. The puzzle in episode 297, spoiler alert, asked about the purpose of towers for fire stations in the early 1800s, with the answer being that they were to hang the hoses in so that they could dry. I'd never heard of such a thing, but some of our listeners had seen such towers in action, especially in other countries, and I ran some follow-ups to

that in episode 304. And then we very coincidentally got a similar follow-up from two different listeners a few days apart. Ken Somolinos in Denver sent an email with the subject line, a very scary fire hose tower, and said, hello, futilitarians. The key to a recent lateral thinking puzzle hinged on towers being used to hang fire hoses to dry. I confess I had never heard of them or seen any. Then, of course, a week later, I was reading an old Richard Scarry book, What Do People Do All Day, to my three-year-old and was gobsmacked to see the attached photo. Who knows, maybe I had seen it before the lateral thinking puzzle and it just didn't stick in my head since there was no Baader-Meinhof effect to make it sticky. And Wren Garverick wrote, Hello, Greg and Sharon.

I dug out my childhood books from storage this weekend to read with my one-year-old and just had to share this page from Richard Scarry's What Do People Do All Day? we read at bedtime last night. And both Ken and Wren sent a copy of the same page from Scarry's 1968 children's book that describes the occupations and activities of the animal citizens of Busytown. This page has an illustration of anthropomorphic pigs as firefighters using pulleys to hoist up wet fire hoses in a kind of a frame for them to hang in and says of the activity, The firemen went back to the firehouse. They hung the wet hose up to dry. And we'll have a copy of that page in the show notes for anyone who wants to see the cute illustration, including what interesting things pig firefighters wear on their heads. The whole point of that puzzle was that I thought it was really obscure.

I read about it in a history of firearms. And I thought, no one will ever know this. And it's in a children's book. And we got mail from around the world. That's true. And it turns out Richard Scarry, who's a big deal. I mean, that's even within a Richard Scarry book, I think this is an incredibly obscure thing to write about.

I'm just kind of stunned at this. Maybe it's just more common than we realize. We're just super ignorant about the care and maintenance of fire hoses. But I was glad to see the illustration because that wasn't in the book I read, and they just tried to describe it in words. So it helps to be able to see what the apparatus actually looks like. Yeah, although I think the one in the scary book is more sort of like a frame. It's not like a whole tower like you were describing. But it's maybe a similar concept. Still helps, yeah.

Ren also said, this morning we drove to pick up breakfast and I asked my husband why there was a small tree on top of a newly constructed building. He didn't know and we didn't think any more about it. And then tonight at bedtime, I came across this in the same book. And she sent a page with an illustration of a cat carpenter building a house with part of a tree perched on top of it that said, carpenters have a custom of nailing a tree branch to the roof of a new house. Wren said, I'm starting to think the book is spying on me. The main story in episode 288 was about how on New Year's Day in 1963, two bodies were discovered

on an Australian riverbank. Weeks of intensive investigation failed to uncover a cause or motive for their deaths, but eventually the theory was put forth that they had died from chemical asphyxiation by hydrogen sulfide that had collected in the hollow they'd been lying in. Mark Nord wrote, I recently listened to episode 288, Death at the Lane Cove River. The podcast was particularly interesting to me because I work as a hazmat responder. The podcast reminded me of a death investigation of a death investigation of a Wisconsin farm worker that I read about. One of the many dangers of working on a farm is exposure to manure gas. The gas is produced by the decomposition of manure.

It can contain hydrogen sulfide, methane, ammonia, and carbon dioxide. These gases are most dangerous when encountered in a confined space such as a pit, but the gases are normally not a problem in an open air environment. However, this worker was found dead near a manure storage basin along with 13 dead cattle. Lab testing confirmed the worker died of exposure to hydrogen sulfide. Similar to the podcast, the investigation suggests that weather conditions likely played a role. Here is a link to the CDC website that describes the incident. I love the podcast. Keep up the good work. In August 2016, a 29-year-old employee of a Wisconsin beef farm was found dead near the edge of a 60,400 square foot manure storage basin with 13 dead cattle and three others so weak that they had to be euthanized nearby. Blood testing of the

employee was consistent with hydrogen sulfide as the cause of death. As Mark noted, this is an uncommon occurrence in the outdoors, but it may have been due to unusual weather conditions, including a temperature inversion, where colder air sits closer to the ground with warmer air above it, and possibly combined with the victim having recently agitated the manure with a tractor-powered agitator. And it was interesting to see that these kinds of accidental deaths from hydrogen sulfide do actually occur, even in outdoor settings. Yeah, those conditions are similar to what happened at Lane Cove, where the air was cool and still, which sort of forms, as I understand it, kind of a blanket that gas can pass along

underneath. And Bogle and Chandler were within a depression next to the river. So there's a lot that they have in common. That's really scary. Yeah, exactly. That people don't realize the risks of this. Yeah, I don't, I mean, I hate to say it. That must happen, hopefully not very commonly, but more than once.

And maybe we just don't even know how often it happens. Yeah, that's true. One detail of the Wisconsin incident that caught my interest was that the victim was discovered at about 6.30 a.m. And they were able to narrow down the time of his death by his having posted on social media at 4.10 a.m. And that's not something where they were able to use at the Lane Cove River incident back in 1963. No, they both happened in the early morning, though. That's interesting. Yeah, I wonder if that plays a factor, too. But I just thought it was interesting they were able to narrow down the window so tightly because he'd posted on social media.

And even thought to do that. And a few of our listeners sent us some recent hermit news. For example, Alex Wood said, Hi, guys, came across some more hermit news. A guy I'd not come across before sadly being forced to leave his island. And Mike Oath wrote, more hermit news, a guy I'd not come across before sadly being forced to leave his island. And Mike Oath wrote, I can't tell if hermits are becoming more popular or if it's the Bader Meinhof phenomenon, which of course you have covered, but here's today's hermit story. And they sent links to articles from July about how 81-year-old Mauro Morandi,

called Italy's Robinson Crusoe, has lived on the tiny island of Budelli near Sardinia since he landed there when his catamaran broke down in 1989 while he was attempting to sail from Italy to the South Pacific. When he learned that the island's caretaker was coincidentally planning to retire soon, Morandi sold his boat and took over the position, and has now been the sole inhabitant of the island for more than 30 years, living in a former World War II shelter. Food is delivered to him by boat, he collects rainwater as there is no well or groundwater, and he uses homemade solar panels to power lights, a refrigerator, and an internet connection. Unlike Robinson Crusoe and earlier hermits, Morandi has an active Instagram account with

over 50,000 followers where he posts photos of the island and replies to comments. During nicer weather, Morandi works to keep tourists from spoiling the natural beauties of Budeli, and during the winter when there are no visitors, he spends his time collecting firewood and reading, explaining in an interview that he reads an average of 30 or 40 books a winter, saying, I have always stated that I have many friends, which are my books. Morandi seems to have a deep love of and connection with his island home, but unfortunately the private company that had owned Budeli went bankrupt a few years ago, and the island is now owned by La Maddalena National Park,

meaning that Morandi's position as caretaker is now obsolete. The park authorities plan to renovate his hut and basically want Morandi gone. The president of La Maddalena Park told CNN that since his position of caretaker has been abolished, Morandi is now an illegal occupant of the island. Morandi said, All I ask is if I must be sent away during the renovation works that I can come back after and keep doing what I do each day. Guard the endangered pink coral beach, keep tourists at bay, protect the nature. I fear that if I'm gone, it will be the end of Budeli too. He went on to say, just the other

day I chased away two tourists who were trespassing on the off-limits pink beach. I clean the rubbish off the sand and stop intruders from coming here to do mayhem at night. Truth is, I'm the only one who has so far taken care of Budeli, doing the surveillance task that the park authorities should do. Mirandi said that he hasn't been sick in all the years he's been on Budelli, and although he worries about the coronavirus pandemic in Italy where he has family, self-isolation has not been a problem for him. There was no clear date set for Mirandi's eviction from Budelli in the articles that I saw, and there has been some public support for allowing him to stay. So if anyone sees any updates to this story, please do let us know.

That seems reasonable if they could just let him keep doing these duties that he thought were valuable. Yeah, I guess they're saying there's no official position for him to be doing this, so there's no real reason for him to be there. Yeah. But it does seem really sad. I mean, that he's devoted 30 years of his life to protecting this island, and now they just want him off of it. Yeah, I guess we'll see what happens. And Hanno Zula wrote to us, Here is a contemporary scholarship offer as a follow-up to your Hermit stories.

Hanno sent a link to a page that describes an exhibition entitled School of Consequences, Exercises for a Different Life, to be held at the Museum für Kunst und Gewerbe in Hamburg. The project poses the questions of, what would a life look like that remains as inconsequential as possible? Could a lack of consequences become a new regulative ideal, such as freedom, justice, and equality, unattainable but still desirable? What would be the effects of such a striving on the organization of our everyday life, on the economic and social order, on our faith, and the way we treat each other? Within the framework of the exhibit, three scholarships for doing nothing are being offered. A predetermined jury will award these scholarships for 1,600 euros

or a little less than 2,000, from among the applicants, and if anyone listening wants to apply, the deadline for submissions is September 15th. Anonymized applications will themselves be used as part of the exhibit, which will be on display starting November 6th. The application for the scholarships for Doing Nothing says, We live in a time in which, instead of striving for success and effectiveness, it would be better to strive for a lack of consequences. What action might I refrain from performing in order to prevent my life from having negative consequences for others? In order to promote the lack of consequence, scholarships will be offered for doing nothing. And apparently the scholarship won't be paid until

you actually submit a report of your experiences related to doing nothing, which will also be displayed as part of the exhibition. The questions to be answered on the application form are, what do you want not to do? How long do you want not to do it for? Why is it important not to do this particular thing? And why are you the right person not to do it? So if anyone has good answers to those questions, you might want to consider applying. It's funny this comes up during a lockdown. When it's a lot easier to do nothing. We'll have a flood of application. Thanks so much to everyone who writes to us. We truly appreciate getting your comments and updates. So if you have any to send to us, please send them to podcast at futilitycloset.com.

And if anyone has ever mispronounced your name, please do me a favor and let me know how you like it to be said. It's my turn to try to solve a lateral thinking puzzle. Greg is going to give me a strange sounding situation, and I have to try to work out what's going on, asking yes or no questions. This is from listener Samuel Yeo, inspired by Emil Zola's 1892 novel La Débacle. In the Franco-Prussian War of 1870, French soldiers were provided with up-to-date, accurate maps of the Prussian territory. However, in the decisive battle, they were brutally defeated in part because of their poor knowledge of geography. How?

Okay. They were provided with accurate maps. Yes. But in this one battle, they had an inaccurate knowledge of geography or a lacking knowledge of geography. Yes. The a lacking knowledge of geography? Yes. The geography of the place that the battle was in? Yes.

Due to inaccurate maps? No. Due to a lack of maps? I think I will have to say yes to that. Did they have the wrong maps? Like they had a map to a different place? Yes. You're making such strange faces that I can't figure out.

All right. Okay. They were going into battle. Yes. They had at least one map of the area that they thought was where they were going into battle. Yes. I'm just trying to establish some basic facts here and somehow something's not going right. Was the battle in multiple places? No. The battle is in one place. Yes. They had at least some maps. Yes.

Before the battle. Yes. And they believed that at least some of these maps depicted where the battle was going to be held. Something about this isn't right, and I can't figure out what's not right. I'm answering strictly according to how you word the question. Okay, okay. Yes. All right, let's't figure out what's not right. I'm answering strictly according to how you word the question. Okay, okay. Yes. All right, let's back up.

Something's not right here. You said the battle's only in one location. Yes. Does it matter whether it's on like land or the sea or anything like that? No, that wasn't the reason for the trouble. Okay. Was there something odd about the geography of the place? No. Unusual? No. Okay. Was there something odd about the geography of the place? No.

Unusual? No. Okay. Was there something odd about the map that they had? No. And there were maps. Something, like I'm trying to figure out what I'm, what I, I need to break it down here and I'm trying to figure out what I'm not breaking down correctly.

There were maps. Yes. Before the battle. Yes. Some people saw the maps. Yes. The maps were like actually seen. Yes.

And some of the people who saw the maps believed that the maps depicted the place that the battle was being held. No. No. Again, I'm being very... Okay. Careful. They believe that the maps depicted a different place. Yes. Did the maps depict the place that the battle was being held?

No. The maps did depict a different place. Yes. place that the battle was being held no the maps did depict a different place yes did they think that the maps depicted the place that the maps also thought they depicted so there was agreement about this so the question is is why did they have maps that were for something other was other than where the battle was actually held that's yes okay that's what happened did the battle were they intending to get to someplace else yes they were intending to go to the place that the map showed yes okay so they didn't get there for one of possible reasons such as they just didn't manage to get there like the

enemy engaged them before they managed to get where they were going. Yes. Okay. So they were intending to get to place point A and they were on their way. Yes. But before they got there, the enemy showed up, engaged them, and they ended up having to have a battle in a different place. Yes.

And they didn't have maps for the place that they were at. Yes. And there's something still more because you're not telling me I got the puzzle. No, that's basically it. Samuel writes, the battle took place in Sudan, which is in France, not Prussia. The French were overconfident and never assumed that the Prussian troops would make it into France, let alone that they would battle there. Sudan was rural and close to the border, so most soldiers were not familiar with the area.

Although there are many reasons why the French were defeated, their poor understanding of the area didn't help. The Franco-Prussian War was so decisive that Paris was besieged for four months, the French Empire fell and was replaced by a republic, and the loss fundamentally altered the balance of power in Europe. France's fear of another war with Germany lasted for decades and was ultimately a factor in the outbreak of World War I. So, as they say in The Scouts, be prepared. Thanks, Sam. Thank you.

And if anybody else has a puzzle they'd like to send in for us to try, please send that to us at podcast at futilitycloset.com. Futility Closet would not still be here Thank you. see the support us section of the website at futilitycloset.com. If you become one of our phenomenal patrons, you'll help support the show and get access to more information on some of the stories, extralateral thinking puzzles, outtakes, and peeks behind the scenes of the show. At our website, you can also graze through 11,000 exceptional esoterica, browse the Futility Closet store, learn about the Futility Closet books, and see the show notes for the podcast, with links and references for the topics we've covered. If you have any questions or comments for us, you can email us at podcast at futilitycloset.com. All of our music was written and performed by Greg's amazing brother, Doug Ross.

Thanks for listening, and we'll talk to you next week.