Futility Closet - 338-A Point of Law

Episode Date: April 5, 2021

One dark night in 1804, a London excise officer mistook a bricklayer for a ghost and shot him. This raised a difficult question: Was he guilty of murder? In this week's episode of the Futility Closet... podcast we'll consider the case of the Hammersmith ghost, which has been called "one of the greatest curiosities in English criminal law." We'll also worry about British spiders and puzzle over some duplicative dog names. Intro: In 1850, an English doctor claimed to have given first aid to a pike. In 1970, Air Force pilot Gary Foust ejected from his F-106 and watched it land itself. Sources for our feature on the Hammersmith ghost: W.M. Medland and Charles Weobly, A Collection of Remarkable and Interesting Criminal Trials, Actions at Law, &c., 1804. Thomas Faulkner, The History and Antiquities of the Parish of Hammersmith, 1839. James Paterson, Curiosities of Law and Lawyers, 1899. Thomas Faulkner, An Historical and Topographical Account of Fulham: Including the Hamlet of Hammersmith, 1813. R.S. Kirby, Kirby's Wonderful and Scientific Museum: Or, Magazine of Remarkable Characters, Volume 2, 1804. Jacob Middleton, "An Aristocratic Spectre," History Today 61:2 (February 2011), 44-45. Alfred Whitman, "A Hundred Years Ago -- 1804," Strand 28:168 (December 1904), 632-638. Augustus K. Stephenson, "Ghost Stories of 100 Years Ago," Journal of the Society for Psychical Research 208:11 (April 1904), 214-220. John Ezard, "Ghostly Murder Haunts Lawyers 200 Years On," Guardian, Jan. 2, 2004. "The Case of the Murdered Ghost," BBC News, Jan. 3, 2004. "Killing of a 'Ghost' That Haunted Courts for 180 Years," [Glasgow] Herald, Jan. 3, 2004. "Experts to Remember Spectral Shooting," Birmingham Post, Jan. 3, 2004. Arifa Akbar, "Club Hosts Gathering in Honour of Famous Ghost Case," Independent, Jan. 3, 2004. Martin Baggoley, "The Hammersmith Ghost and the Strange Death of Thomas Millwood," Crime Magazine, April 9, 2015. "'Laying' a Ghost," [Brisbane] Telegraph, March 8, 1924. "A Ghost Story of 100 Years Ago," Port Macquarie News and Hastings River Advocate, Oct. 29, 1910. "From the Courts," Brisbane Courier, Dec. 22, 1906. "Strange Stories of London Ghosts," [Melbourne] Leader, Oct. 6, 1900. "Dream Evidence," [Adelaide] Express and Telegraph, Feb. 21, 1891. "Ghosts, Witches, and Hangmen," Moreton [Qld.] Mail, Nov. 22, 1889. "Glimpses of the Past," Bury and Norwich Post, Sept. 7, 1886. "Resuscitation of the Hammersmith Ghost," [London] Examiner, Dec. 15, 1833. "The Hammersmith Ghost," [London] Morning Post, Dec. 6, 1824. "A New Hammersmith Ghost," [London] Morning Chronicle, Dec. 4, 1824. "Old Bailey," Aberdeen Journal, Jan. 25, 1804. "Murder -- Hammersmith Ghost," Bury and Norwich Post, Jan. 18, 1804. "From the London Gazette," Hampshire Telegraph and Naval Chronicle, Jan. 16, 1804. "The Hammersmith Ghost," Caledonian Mercury, Jan. 14, 1804. "The Real Hammersmith Ghost," Staffordshire Advertiser, Jan. 14, 1804. Trial proceedings from the Old Bailey. Jane Alexander, "The Time Someone Shot a Ghost Dead in Hammersmith," Londonist, Oct. 25, 2019. Ross Macfarlane, "The Hammersmith Ghost," Wellcome Library blog, Oct. 31, 2009. Kelly Buchanan, "The Case of a Ghost Haunted England for Over Two Hundred Years," In Custodia Legis, Library of Congress, Oct. 30, 2015. Gabrielle Keane, Locating Literature in the Ghost Hoax: An Exploration of 19th-Century Print News Media, dissertation, University of Pittsburgh, 2019. Jen Cadwallader, Spirits of the Age: Ghost Stories and the Victorian Psyche, dissertation, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, 2009. Listener mail: "Bing (TV series)," Wikipedia (accessed March 24, 2021). "List of Bing episodes," Wikipedia (accessed March 24, 2021). Amber Tully, "Should You Put Ice on a Burn (or Not)?" Cleveland Clinic, June 12, 2018. "Minor Burns - Aftercare," MedLine Plus, Aug. 13, 2020. Anahad O'Connor, "The Claim: Ice Is Good for a Skin Burn," New York Times, June 10, 2008. Luis Villazon, "How Many UK Spiders Are Actually Dangerous?" BBC Science Focus (accessed March 24, 2021). "Spider," Wikipedia (accessed March 30, 2021). "Not So False After All: Venom of the Noble False Widow Spider Very Similar to the Venom of 'True' Black Widows," NUI Galway, June 18, 2020. John P. Dunbar et al., "Venomics Approach Reveals a High Proportion of Lactrodectus-Like Toxins in the Venom of the Noble False Widow Spider Steatoda nobilis," Toxins, 12:6 (June 18, 2020), 402. "Study Finds Noble False Widow Spiders Bite Can Transmit Harmful Antibiotic-Resistant Bacteria to Humans," NUI Galway, Dec. 1, 2020. This week's lateral thinking puzzle was contributed by listener Stephen Harvey, who sent these corroborating links (warning -- these spoil the puzzle). 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 podcast@futilitycloset.com. Thanks for listening!

Transcript
Discussion (0)
Starting point is 00:00:00 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 fish surgery to an escaped jet. This is episode 338. I'm Greg Ross. And I'm Sharon Ross. One dark night in 1804, a London excise officer mistook a bricklayer for a ghost and shot him. This raised a difficult question. Was he guilty of murder? In today's show, we'll consider the case of the Hammersmith ghost, which has been called one of the greatest curiosities in English criminal law.
Starting point is 00:00:46 We'll also worry about British spiders and puzzle over some duplicative dog names. And just a quick programming note, we'll be off next week, so we'll be back with a new episode on April 19th. In November 1803, something began to haunt the West London district of Hammersmith. What it was was not clear at first. Its description seemed to vary with the witness. Some said it dressed in white, others that it wore the skin of a beast, perhaps a garment of calfskin. It might or might not have had horns, and its eyes were either large and glassy or glowed in the dark. The more dramatic witnesses said it breathed fire and smoke and sank into the earth. A man in the neighborhood had cut his own throat the previous year and been buried in the local churchyard, and it was said that suicide victims could not rest in consecrated ground,
Starting point is 00:01:40 so perhaps it was his ghost that now wandered the district. These rumors spread fear through the neighborhood. It was said that both an elderly lady and a young pregnant woman had been so overcome at seeing the ghost that they'd taken to their beds and died of fright. Others had heard that the ghost had assailed a wagon pulled by eight horses and carrying 16 people and so frightened the driver that he'd fled on foot, leaving horses, wagon, and passengers to their fate. But skeptics found the ghost a bit less impressive. A brewer's servant named Thomas Groom said that he'd been walking through the churchyard with a companion around nine o'clock one night when something had risen from behind a tombstone and seized him by the throat. When his companion
Starting point is 00:02:19 turned, he said, the ghost, quote, gave me a twist round and I saw nothing. I gave a bit of a push out with my fist and felt something soft like a great coat. And on December 29th, when a night watchman chased the ghost near Beaver Lane, he'd seen it collect its shroud above its shoulders in order to better escape among the narrow alleyways of the district. Still, as the city had no organized police force at the time and many people were very much frightened, several citizens began organizing armed patrols hoping to apprehend the ghost before any more harm was done. One of these young men was a 29-year-old excise officer named Francis Smith. On January 3, 1804, a night watchman named William Girdler met Smith at the corner of Beaver Lane at around half past 10. Smith was carrying a fouling piece and told Girdler he was going to
Starting point is 00:03:05 look for the ghost. Girdler said that he'd join him after calling the hour at eleven and that together they would take the ghost if possible. Girdler went off on his usual beat and Smith took up a position in Black Lion Lane, where the ghost had been seen to make its escape after several earlier apparitions. The night was very dark and the lane passed between two high hedges, so it would be very difficult to see another person even quite close by. Just after 11 p.m., a figure in white appeared in the lane. Smith called, Damn you, who are you and what are you?
Starting point is 00:03:34 Damn you, I'll shoot you. The figure made no response and advanced straight toward him, and Smith fired. At the sound of the shot, Girdler came running, along with two other gentlemen. In the lane, they discovered Smith, who appeared very much agitated. In a cross lane, on his back, was the body of Thomas Millwood. Millwood was, or had been, a bricklayer, about 23 years old. He had just visited his parents and sister and had been heading to another house to meet his wife. Unfortunately, he was wearing what bricklayers wore in those days,
Starting point is 00:04:03 white linen trousers, a white flannel waistcoat, and a white apron. Smith's shot had hit him in the jaw and neck, killing him. A constable took Smith into custody, and the killing made headlines across the country. Smith was tried for willful murder the following week. He admitted to shooting and killing Millwood, but pleaded not guilty to the charges. He said, My lord, I went out with a good intention, and when this unhappy affair took place, I did not know what I did. Speaking to the deceased twice, and he not answering, I was so much agitated, I did not know what I did. I solemnly declare my innocence,
Starting point is 00:04:35 and that I had no intention to take away the life of the unfortunate deceased, or any other man whatever. His mistake certainly seems understandable. Millwood, in his white bricklayer's clothing, had already been mistaken for the ghost once before. His mother-in-law, Phoebe Fulbrook, testified that three nights earlier he'd frightened two ladies and a gentleman who were coming along the terrace in a carriage. The man had said, there goes the ghost, and Millwood had said, I am no more a ghost than yourself. Do you want a punch in the head? Still, Fulbrook had urged him to change his dress. She told him, Thomas, as there is a piece of work about the ghost and your clothes look white, pray do put on your greatcoat that you may not run any danger. But he dismissed her concerns.
Starting point is 00:05:14 Twelve witnesses testified to Smith's good character, but the chief judge, Lord Chief Baron Sir Archibald MacDonald, told the jury that if they accepted the facts of the case, the act amounted plainly to murder. Smith had taken another man's life. It didn't matter that he'd never met him and harbored no spite against him. He hadn't shot him by accident or in self-defense, and Millwood hadn't provoked him or committed any offense that could justify the shooting. The judge said, I should betray my duty and injure the public security if I did not persist in asserting that this is a clear case of murder, if the facts be proved to your satisfaction. All killing whatever amounts to
Starting point is 00:05:50 murder, unless justified by the law or in self-defense. After an hour's consideration, the jury returned a verdict of manslaughter. MacDonald told them that the court could not receive such a verdict and said they must either find Smith guilty of murder or acquit him. There was no circumstance in the case that could reduce the crime to manslaughter. They considered again and returned a verdict of guilty. MacDonald passed the customary sentence of death, but, sensitive to the great public interest that the case had aroused, he reported the outcome to the king, who commuted the sentence to a year's hard labor. The case raised the question whether someone could be held liable for their actions if they used force as the result of a mistaken belief. In this case, Smith was effectively
Starting point is 00:06:29 saying, I did kill a man, but I honestly thought he was a ghost. In offering the verdict of manslaughter, the jury seemed to want to accept this. Smith had been laboring under a mistaken belief, but that belief was honest. He thought that firing his gun had been necessary, but had misunderstood the situation. It is a little confusing that he fired a gun at a ghost. I don't know, maybe guns stop ghosts, but yeah, it seemed almost like he had more of the idea that it was probably a person, and he was going to try to catch the person out and figure out who had been doing it, but that then maybe he just got really, really spooked. That's my impression. I mean, the fact that you'd go out with a gun in the first place sort of shows that
Starting point is 00:07:08 he thought he was, seemed to apprehend a person. What does a person think they're going to do against a ghost anyway? I mean, how can you catch a ghost? I mean, and again, right, why bring the gun? But it seems like, I mean, it's understandable, though, when the other man didn't answer him and was advancing towards him looking like a ghost. I mean, I can imagine he panicked. In a way, at least as I understand the legal question here, it's as if the law is saying, all right, suppose this had all unfolded in broad daylight, and you're standing in the lane, and a stranger comes walking down it toward you, and you raise your gun and shoot him.
Starting point is 00:07:38 That's murder. That's plainly murder. And Smith's point is, well, that's just the point. It didn't unfold in broad daylight. and Smith's point is, well, that's just the point. It didn't unfold in broad daylight. The fact that it happened in deep darkness allowed me to form this mistaken belief, and that's the only reason I shot him.
Starting point is 00:07:50 Yeah. And the law just didn't address that possibility at the time. The judge had rejected the manslaughter verdict because under the law at the time, it was simply not an option in the case. An act was murder if the perpetrator showed a disposition to kill and a disregard of human life, even if he didn't know the victim or feel spite toward him. He gave two examples. In one,
Starting point is 00:08:14 a person fires a gun into a room full of strangers and kills one of them without intending to hurt any individual in particular. In the other, a man intends to kill one man, but by mistake, kills another. In both these cases, he said the man was guilty of murder, just as much as if he'd really intended to kill the victim of his actions. Mitigating factors might sometimes come into play, but those weren't present here. The shooting hadn't been accidental, and Smith hadn't been defending himself against Millwood. At the time of the shooting, Millwood had not been committing an offense, but even if he'd been the miscreant who'd been dressing up as a ghost, that was only a misdemeanor punishable by a small fine and couldn't justify the shooting.
Starting point is 00:08:46 McDonald said, Therefore, if the prisoner at the bar had taken away the life of another without authority, permission, or in defense of his own life, then his offense went to murder. He added, It would be impossible to calculate the dangerous consequences which would ensue if men were permitted to take upon themselves the right of shooting others for certain crimes. If a man goes out with an intention of shooting robbers and kills a person that is offering him no violence, he is
Starting point is 00:09:09 guilty of murder. However much the people of Hammersmith might be disgusted and irritated at the conduct of this abominable person who disturbed the neighborhood by pretending to be a ghost, the act of the prisoner in carrying out a gun to fire at him was a rashness which the law cannot excuse. It was not for the prisoner to take upon himself to determine that an imposter of this The publicity that the case attracted had one other notable effect. It induced the real ghost to come forward. An elderly shoemaker named John Graham turned himself over to the magistrates, confessing that he was the Hammersmith ghost. Graham explained that he had three children, and his apprentice had been frightening them by telling ghost stories and scratching on the walls.
Starting point is 00:09:52 So on December 29th, Graham had sent the apprentice out on an errand and then wrapped himself in a blanket and leapt out at him as he'd returned. The magistrates don't seem to have known what to do with Graham. They granted him bail while they looked into the matter, but there's no record that they took any further action. It doesn't appear that Graham accounts for all of the ghost's appearances. He took credit for only one of them, and the ghost was active for five weeks before Smith shot Millwood. Smith was eventually pardoned, and his case faded into history, but the belief persisted that it had exposed a flaw in the legal code. It seemed that no defense was available to a person who believed that an action was necessary and had acted in good faith, but had misunderstood the
Starting point is 00:10:29 situation. The Hammersmith ghost case was mentioned in a number of trials down the years, but the matter wasn't settled until 1983, when the case of Regina v. Williams came before the Court of Appeal. Gladstone Williams had seen a man shouting for help while another dragged him violently along the street. Williams believed that an assault was taking place, so he hit and injured the man he took to be the attacker. But he'd misunderstood the situation. The actual offender was the man who was being dragged, who was a suspected thief. The other man had been trying to detain him until the police could arrive. Williams was arrested and convicted of assault, but he appealed successfully and the
Starting point is 00:11:05 appeal established a new understanding. If an individual believed mistakenly that force was necessary to protect himself or to prevent a crime from being committed, then as long as that belief was reasonably held and the prosecution couldn't prove otherwise, no crime could be said to have taken place. Reaching that resolution had taken nearly two centuries. At the appeal, Lord Chief Justice Lane wrote, the case raised issues of law which have been the subject of debate for more years than one likes to think about and the subject of more learned academic articles than one would care to read in an evening. The appeal was allowed, the conviction was quashed, and the decision was written into the law of the United Kingdom. That new understanding seems to have satisfied Thomas
Starting point is 00:11:43 Millwood. a local legend held that every 50 years the ghost of the dead bricklayer had appeared in the bar that now stands at the site of his death, ironically haunting the spot where he'd been mistaken for a ghost. The Williams case finally laid the matter to rest in 1983, and this is a spoiler, was about how an episode of the British children's television show Peppa Pig was banned in Australia because it gave the message that spiders are friendly and harmless. Patrick Fenner wrote, Hi, Futilitarians. I was listening to episode 331 and I was able to listen to Greg struggle with pleasure at the banned children's TV show as I came across the answer
Starting point is 00:12:37 a few years ago. There is also another seemingly innocuous children's TV episode that has been withdrawn from broadcast, this time in the UK. Season 1, episode 54 of Bing, is not shown on UK TV, as the characters treat a burn with an ice cube. Running cold water is the better treatment, because there's no risk of additional tissue damage from freezing. The episode is listed in the Wikipedia list of episodes, but the BBC on-demand service just skips over the episode
Starting point is 00:13:05 as if it never existed. Bing, Wikipedia tells me, is a British animated series aimed at younger children about a little bunny named Bing. According to Wikipedia, the episode that Patrick wrote about was called Dragon Breath and originally aired in August 2008. The episode is described as being about Bing and a friend playing outside, making steamy dragon breath in the cold, with Bing later burning his fingers on some hot chocolate. The episode description then says, note, this episode was pulled off the air by the BBC due to medical concerns about inappropriate use of ice to treat burns. And I can imagine that that's a real issue, not wanting TV shows to give messages that could be potentially harmful, especially to children.
Starting point is 00:13:47 And yes, the general medical advice is to not use ice or even ice cold water on a burn because, as Patrick said, the extreme cold can damage the tissue even more. So use cool water instead. I didn't know that. Well, apparently you don't watch the right children's TV shows, right? Maybe there's episodes that teach you that. I mean, it sort of makes intuitive sense that you'd want to... Make it as cold as possible, right? If you're not thinking about it.
Starting point is 00:14:11 Right. So maybe they just need more TV shows that tell you the proper way to treat a burn. Yeah. And Jules Redding in Norwich, UK wrote, Dear Closeteers, I was in that rare situation of immediately knowing the answer to the lateral thinking puzzle while listening to episode 331. I actually blurted out, ooh, ooh, spider, which given that I was out in public may have confused some people. In a previous life, I was a content compliance editor. My job was to make edits to episodes of television to make the program comply with local broadcast standards or the distributor's rules.
Starting point is 00:14:48 For instance, some territories don't allow certain content, profanity, violence, nudity, etc., before a certain time, known as the watershed. In the UK, this is 9 p.m. I might be misremembering, but I think in South Africa it's 8 p.m., but with a greater tolerance for profanity. And in India, it's 11 p.m., but with a much stricter zero tolerance for nudity and even kissing. Additionally, the distributor in my case was the BBC, which has a policy of banning undue prominence for brands, which meant removing product placement. That is all to say that this led to often making multiple versions of the same episode of TV, with the reasonably
Starting point is 00:15:22 high stakes of offending cultural values by missing a bleep. So when a batch of kids' TV came in, it was considered an easy day, as it just meant adding some labels and not making any compliance edits. Imagine my confusion and subsequent delight then when the notes for an episode of the children's program Hey Dougie came in with a huge red bar at the top reading, Not for broadcast in Australia. And after reading further, discovered that the episode revolved around the anthropomorphized animal children not being afraid of and being friendly to a spider they found. As it's a British program, it makes total sense,
Starting point is 00:15:57 as there are no venomous spiders native to the UK, that I know of, citation needed, I guess. Whereas in Australia, seemingly every bit of wildlife wants to kill you. There were other programs that had similar notes for snakes too, though we do have some venomous snakes in the UK, so friendly snake episodes were less common. Thanks for all your continuing excellent work. The podcast consistently jumps to the top of my podcast queue when it lands on Monday morning. So I thought that was interesting about the content compliance edits that need to be made for different countries, and also that there was
Starting point is 00:16:30 another British animated children's show that had an episode about being friendly to spiders. And I took Jules's statement about needing a citation on the question of venomous spiders in the UK as a bit of a challenge to see what I could find out. Technically, most spiders are considered to be venomous in that they produce venom to subdue prey, often insects. But only a relatively small number of spider species have venom that is considered dangerous to humans, which is what many people mean when they say venomous. It does seem that it is commonly held that there aren't any spiders in the UK that pose a real threat to people. For example, there's an article on the BBC Science Focus magazine site titled,
Starting point is 00:17:11 How Many UK Spiders Are Actually Dangerous? that answers its question with, essentially none, though the article states that there are some common spiders in the UK that might potentially bite people, that their bites may be painful and could cause swelling, and also that in 2014 a woman died after being bitten by a false widow spider, but notes that the cause of death was actually a bacterial infection of the wound and not the bite itself. However, a team of researchers published an article in the journal Toxins in June 2020 that disputes this a bit and presents evidence that the false widow spider might
Starting point is 00:17:45 actually have a more toxic bite than has been previously recognized. The false widow spider, which is similar in appearance to the potently venomous black widow spider, is originally from Madeira and the Canary Islands and is currently considered to be one of the world's most invasive species of spiders. It has been spreading significantly in the last two decades, to the point that it now has established populations through Western Europe, Western Asia, and North and South America, and is currently one of the most common spiders in parts of the UK and Ireland. While it was known that the bite of a false widow can cause a fair amount of pain and swelling, this study was the first to demonstrate that the bite
Starting point is 00:18:25 of these spiders does actually contain a range of toxins that are similar to those found in the black widow spider, though the study did not assess the degree of potency of the toxin to humans. To put this all in context, the lead author of the study said, Although our study shows that the venom of false widow spiders may be more potent than previously thought, it does not mean we need to fear them. In many parts of the world, even true black widow bites rarely require medical attention. However, this new discovery will ultimately help medical professionals to diagnose and treat severe false widow bites. And to be fair to Jules, he did say in his email that he didn't think there were any dangerous spiders native to the UK, and he may still be right about that.
Starting point is 00:19:08 But to further add to the topic of how safe it is or isn't to be bitten by a spider in the British Isles, an article published in December in the journal Scientific Reports found that common European house spiders can carry harmful bacteria that can be transmitted through their bites. Although it's been known that spider bites can get infected, and even potentially seriously so, it's been thought by many that spider bite infections were the result of secondary infections, when bacteria invaded the bite wound. But a team of zoologists and microbiologists at the National University of Ireland Galway demonstrated that not only do common spiders carry bacteria harmful to humans, but also that the bacteria can be transmitted by a spider bite,
Starting point is 00:19:51 potentially directly causing an infection. And the false widow spider kicks this up another notch by harboring bacteria strains that are resistant to multiple antibiotics, meaning that it would be difficult to successfully treat such an infected bite with common medications. So while I don't dispute that Australian spiders may top British spiders for their dangerousness, it still seems that it also might not be the best idea to give British children the message that spiders are friendly and can't hurt you. It sounds like spider, that means that spiders in general as a class might be somewhat more dangerous than we
Starting point is 00:20:24 thought. Than we've realized previously, yeah. Not all of them bite humans. So I mean, but yeah, any of them that do bite could potentially be a threat, at least from the bacteria. And Sally and Ryan Smistifer wrote to let us know that as a takeoff on lateral thinking puzzles, they have developed what they call catarole thinking puzzles to try to explain their cat's amusing and sometimes strange behavior. Examples include, puzzle, our cat is very tired and cranky but cannot go to bed. Why not? Answer, the humans are still awake and have not yet
Starting point is 00:20:58 escorted her upstairs to bed. Therefore, as per protocol, she must remain awake as well. bed. Therefore, as per protocol, she must remain awake as well. And puzzle. The cat is starving, but there is food in her dish. What gives? This one has multiple answers. One, there is food in the dish, but it's arranged in such a way that she can see the bottom of the dish. Two, there are too many broken kibbles in the dish, and everyone knows broken kibbles are unfit for feline consumption. Three, no one has petted her recently, therefore she obviously cannot eat. So kudos to the Smithsifer's cat for obviously training them so well. I do think you would have to be very familiar with the mind of a cat to try to guess at the answers to catteral thinking puzzles. Although having had some finicky cats ourselves, the answers did
Starting point is 00:21:41 mostly make sense to me. They are kind of lateral. Thanks so much to everyone who writes to us. We really appreciate hearing from our listeners. So if you have anything you'd like to add, please send that to podcast at futilitycloset.com. It's Greg's turn to try to solve a lateral thinking puzzle. I'm going to give him an odd sounding situation, and he's going to see if he can figure out what's going on, asking yes or no questions. This puzzle comes from Supreme Emperor Thargon the Destructor, also known as Stephen Harvey in Wellington, New Zealand, who says that the puzzle is based on something he learned from an episode of a podcast of unnecessary detail.
Starting point is 00:22:28 I added in a bit of explanation to the puzzle. The American Kennel Club, which maintains a registry of purebred dog pedigrees in the U.S., permits at most 37 dogs of each breed to be registered with the same name. Why 37? Wow. What an interesting question. All right. So if I have a purebred dog and I want to register it with the, what is it? The American Kennel Club? American Kennel Club. Only 37 dogs of each breed can be registered. Right. So like if you pick the name Spot for your Dalmatian and there's already 37 of those, you can't use Spot.
Starting point is 00:23:10 Wow. What a very interesting. Okay. Does this have. Where do you start? If a 38th dog were somehow registered with that name, would it create a problem for the society? Yes. Record keeping?
Starting point is 00:23:31 Yes. Okay. Well, let's say that happened then. Let's say I register spot number 38. They wouldn't let you, but you're saying if you somehow managed to by mistake? Yeah. Somebody didn't realize that he was the 38th spot? 38 as a number doesn't really lead you to think anything in particular.
Starting point is 00:23:55 Is there a historical reason for this, that it became the convention arbitrarily? No, if I understand your question correctly. Like, you know, 100 years ago, whatever, they just picked a number. That's obviously not it. Right. That wouldn't make much of a puzzle. It was the president's favorite number back when the Kennel Club was established. But the idea is that they're trying to avoid some problem.
Starting point is 00:24:22 I would say so. And the problem would be borne by the society, not by, say, the owner of the dog. Correct. Do I need to know more about why people register dogs with the society? No. It's just a registry of the dog pedigrees. Okay. So it's like they're officially registered.
Starting point is 00:24:41 Do I need to know more technically about how the records are kept? Meaning? like they're officially registered. Do I need to know more technically about how the records are kept? Meaning... Well, I don't know. If they have some database or something that has a hard limit at 37, for instance. That's along the right lines. Okay. Well, are they kept digitally somehow? I mean, electronically, the records?
Starting point is 00:25:01 I believe so nowadays, yes. With a database. But the problem is still there. Yeah, yes. With a database. But the problem is still there. Yeah, the problem is still there. Would this problem still have been the case before the advent of computers? I guess they used to do this on paper before we had... Yeah, and I'm not sure. Possibly, though.
Starting point is 00:25:32 Possibly, though. Possibly, yeah. But I think it wouldn't have been as firm of a limit before. That might have been more convention. But is this just the maximum capacity of some record-keeping system? It can't be. It's such a small number. Yeah. I'm not quite sure I can answer that question the way you phrased it, but I think you're sort of on the right lines in a way. Yeah.
Starting point is 00:25:49 So you have like 37 dogs named Spot. I don't know if this will help you, but the American Kennel Club was founded in 1884. So obviously they weren't using computers back then, but they did set something up about their system in 1884 that would have been very unlikely to have been set up this way today. I see.
Starting point is 00:26:08 1880, that's a long time ago. Yeah. So let's say they founded it and they started registering dogs. Yeah. And somebody, people registered 37 of a given breed. Right. Well, then it would all be done just with, I imagine, pen and ink somewhere. Yeah.
Starting point is 00:26:24 Well, then it would all be done just with, I imagine, pen and ink somewhere. Yeah. But there was also just some convention they started using in 1884 that denotes this that's, for instance, issued to the dog? I'm pretty sure dogs wear some little... Yeah, no, that's not it. And there's only so many of those. That's not a very compelling reason. They can't create more of them.
Starting point is 00:27:00 But that's not it. That's not it. But that's not it. That's not it. Well, if you register a dog, I imagine all you're doing is making a record of the dog's breed and its name and whatever particulars else. Right. So you'd write down spot. Right.
Starting point is 00:27:17 And then the breed, let's say. And then you'd put what? The owner's name? No, but it goes along with this puzzle. You'd put a number to denote which number spot it is, right? That's the problem. Spot 37. Right. Right.
Starting point is 00:27:33 And there's something about the way they started doing that in 1884 that we probably wouldn't do today. Roman numerals? Yes, that's exactly it. I'm trying to think what 37 is. Because 37 is XXXVII, and 38 is XXXVIII. Which is a lot. And they only have six spaces. Stephen says, according to the podcast, the American Kennel Club differentiates multiple registrations of the same name for the same breed of dog by assigning a unique number to the registration, but in their database, they only allow six spaces for recording the number. And since they use Roman numerals for those numbers, they have to stop at 37.
Starting point is 00:28:12 Wow. And he sent a link to the American Kennel Club website, which says that you can't include Roman numerals at the end of your dog's name because they reserve the right to assign Roman numerals for identification purposes. You are allowed to use Arabic or ordinal numbers in your dog's name because they don't use those. That's really interesting. Yeah. So thanks to Steven for that joys of outmoded systems puzzle. And if anyone else has a puzzle they'd like to have us try,
Starting point is 00:28:40 please send that to us at podcast at futilitycloset.com. Just a reminder that we're off next week. In the meantime, if you'd like to become one of the awesome supporters of our show and check out some bonus content like outtakes, extralateral thinking puzzles, more discussions on some of the stories and peeks behind the scenes, please see our Patreon page at patreon.com slash futilitycloset, or the support us section of the website at futilitycloset.com. While you're at the site, you can also graze through Greg's collection of over 11,000 handpicked esoterica. Browse the
Starting point is 00:29:16 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 comments or feedback for us, you can email us at podcast at futilitycloset.com. Our music was written and performed by the phenomenal Doug Ross. Thanks for listening, and we'll be back in two weeks.

There aren't comments yet for this episode. Click on any sentence in the transcript to leave a comment.