This 1890 Photo of Siblings Holding Hands Looked Sweet — Until the Restoration Revealed the Worst

Two young children stand together in what appears to be a simple portrait.

A girl approximately 9 years old and her younger brother around five.

They’re holding hands.

At first glance, it looks like a sweet, innocent portrait of sibling affection.

The photograph is severely damaged.

Water stains, fading, foxing have obscured many details over 134 years.

But in 2023, when a photograph restoration specialist in Vermont digitally enhanced this image for a family history project, she discovered something in the photograph that made her immediately contact local police because what she found wasn’t evidence of sibling love.

It was evidence of captivity.

This wasn’t a portrait of two children posing together.

This was a photograph of a kidnapped girl and the little boy she was forced to pretend was her brother.

In August 2023, photograph conservator Emily Richardson received a box of old family photographs from a client named David Hendris in Burlington, Vermont.

David’s elderly aunt had recently passed away, and while sorting through her belongings, he’d found a collection of Victorian era photographs he wanted preserved and identified.

Most were typical late 1800s family portraits, serious-faced ancestors in formal clothing, group photos, wedding pictures.

But one photograph stood out as different.

The photograph showed two children, a girl and a younger boy, standing together against a plain backdrop.

The girl appeared to be approximately 9 years old, wearing a simple dark dress.

The boy appeared to be around five, also in plain clothing.

They were holding hands.

What made the photograph unusual was the notation on the back written in faded pencil.

Sarah and Thomas.

1,890.

May God have mercy on their souls.

David had never heard of Sarah or Thomas in his family tree.

He’d researched his aunt’s genealogy extensively, and these names didn’t appear anywhere.

No Sarah, no Thomas, no children who died young or went missing.

It was as if these children didn’t exist in the family records.

Emily began the restoration work.

The photograph was in terrible condition.

Severe water damage, extreme fading, heavy foxing, significant tears and creases.

It would take weeks of digital enhancement to recover the obscure details, but as Emily worked, she began to notice things about the photograph that disturbed her.

The first thing she noticed was the children’s expressions.

In Victorian photography, children typically looked serious or neutral due to long exposure times and cultural norms.

But these children’s expressions went beyond typical Victorian seriousness.

The girl’s face showed something Emily had seen before in her restoration work on historical crime photographs.

Fear.

The second thing Emily noticed was the way the children were holding hands.

It wasn’t the casual handholding of siblings posing together.

The girl’s grip on the boy’s hand appeared forceful.

Her knuckles showed tension.

Her fingers wrapped tightly around his small hand.

and the boy’s body language suggested he was being held in place, not voluntarily posing.

The third thing Emily noticed, the detail that made her blood run cold, came when she enhanced the background of the photograph behind the children, barely visible in the damaged original, was a wall.

And on that wall, Emily could see something that had been completely obscured by 134 years of deterioration.

Chains, iron chains, mounted to the wall, hanging down approximately 3 to 4 ft, positioned at a height that would be appropriate for restraining a child.

Emily immediately contacted David Hendris with her findings.

Together, they began researching the photograph’s origins.

David’s aunt, Margaret Hris, had never spoken about this photograph.

She’d kept it hidden in a locked box in her attic, along with a small collection of newspaper clippings that David had initially ignored.

When David retrieved those clippings and read them, the story began to emerge.

The Burlington Daily News, September 14th, 1890.

Local girl missing 9-year-old Sarah Mitchell vanished from home.

family desperate for information.

The Burlington Daily News, October 3rd, 1890.

Missing girl’s mother dies of grief.

Sarah Mitchell still missing after 3 weeks.

Community mourns double tragedy.

The Burlington Daily News, November 21st, 1890.

Mysterious deaths in Woodstock.

Two children found dead in abandoned house identities unknown.

Investigation ongoing.

David’s aunt Margaret had been born in 1888.

She would have been just 2 years old in 1890, too young to remember events clearly.

But her mother, David’s greatg grandmother, had apparently kept these clippings and this photograph for a reason Emily and David brought the photograph and the newspaper clippings to Dr.

Katherine Morris, a historian specializing in Victorian era crime at the University of Vermont.

Dr.

Morris accessed the historical archives and found the complete file on the Sarah Mitchell abduction case.

A case that had shocked Burlington in 1890 and then been quietly buried and forgotten.

What she found was a story of predatory evil failed investigation and two children who suffered unimaginable horror before their deaths.

And the photograph Emily had restored turned out to be the only existing image of Sarah Mitchell and the boy she died trying to protect.

A photograph taken by her abductor as a twisted trophy.

When Emily completed the digital restoration of the children’s faces, the details that emerged were heartbreaking.

Dr.

Morris brought in Dr.

James Patterson, a forensic psychologist who specialized in analyzing facial expressions in historical photographs and crime evidence.

The girl’s face, Sarah.

Sarah’s expression was not the neutral, serious face typical of Victorian child photography.

Her face showed multiple physiological markers of acute fear and psychological distress.

Eyes.

Sarah’s eyes were opened wider than normal, showing significant white above and below the irises, a classic fear response.

Her pupils appeared dilated even in the bright photographic lighting.

Exposure to extreme stress causes persistent pupil dilation.

Most significantly, Sarah’s eyes were not looking at the camera.

They were looking slightly to the left of the camera toward whoever was operating the camera with an expression Dr.

Patterson described as desperate appeal or silent pleading.

Eyebrows raised and drawn together in the center creating deep vertical lines between her brows.

The universal human expression of fear, distress, and pleading.

mouth.

Sarah’s mouth was not neutral.

Her lips were pressed together so tightly that they appeared pale, bloodless, almost white, visible even in the black and white photograph.

The corners of her mouth were pulled down.

Her jaw showed visible tension.

The muscles clenched so hard they created shadows under her cheekbones.

Overall facial structure.

Sarah’s face appeared gaunt, hollow.

Her cheekbones were prominent.

Her eyes appeared sunken.

This was not a healthy, well-fed child.

This was a child suffering from malnutrition and chronic [clears throat] stress.

Dr.

Patterson’s analysis stated, “This child is exhibiting every physiological marker of sustained trauma, acute fear, and psychological imprisonment.

This is not a child briefly scared during a photograph.

This is a child living in a state of constant terror who has been experiencing severe abuse for an extended period, likely weeks or months.

The facial muscle tension, the eye expression, the body language, all indicate a child who knows she is in immediate danger and is desperately trying to communicate that danger to whoever might see this photograph.

But the most heartbreaking detail came when Emily examined Sarah’s eyes at maximum magnification.

In the reflection in Sarah’s dilated pupils, Emily could see the faint outline of the person behind the camera, a tall adult male figure standing with what appeared to be something long and thin in his right hand.

Based on the shape and positioning, it appeared to be a cane or rod, an implement of punishment.

Sarah wasn’t just afraid.

She was posing under threat of immediate violence the boy’s face, likely Thomas.

The younger boy’s expression was different, but equally disturbing.

His face showed no fear.

Instead, it showed complete emotional flatness.

His eyes were vacant, unfocused, staring at nothing.

His mouth hung slightly open.

His face was absolutely expressionless.

No fear, no happiness, no curiosity, nothing.

Dr.

Patterson’s analysis.

This child is exhibiting signs of severe dissociation and learned helplessness.

This is the face of a child who has been so traumatized that he has psychologically shut down.

He’s not present in this photograph.

His mind has retreated to protect itself from whatever horror he’s experiencing.

This level of dissociation in a child this young indicates prolonged severe abuse.

The boy appeared severely malnourished.

His face was skeletal.

His eyes sunken deep into his skull.

His skin appeared to hang loosely on his face.

Physical condition.

When Emily enhanced the children’s clothing and visible skin, additional disturbing details emerged.

Both children’s clothing appeared dirty, torn, and ill-fitting.

Not the clean, carefully pressed clothing typical of Victorian portrait photography.

Sarah’s dress appeared to be stained with what might be blood or other bodily fluids around the collar and sleeves.

Both children’s hands and wrists showed what appeared to be marks.

Dark linear shadows consistent with ligature marks from ropes or shackles.

The boy’s neck showed what appeared to be bruising, dark patches on his visible skin.

Both children appeared painfully thin.

Their visible wrists and hands showed prominent bones.

No healthy flesh.

This was not a portrait of healthy, cared for children.

This was a portrait of two children being actively abused, starved, and restrained.

And the photograph documented their suffering.

The detail that transformed this from a disturbing photograph into criminal evidence was what Emily discovered in the background.

In the original damaged photograph, the background appeared to be a plain dark wall, typical of Victorian photography backdrops.

But as Emily removed water damage, corrected fading, and enhanced contrast, the background revealed something horrifying.

The wall was not puo, a photographers’s backdrop.

It was the wall of a room, specifically what appeared to be a basement or cellar based on the visible stone or brick texture.

And mounted on that wall approximately 4 to 5 ft above the floor at a height appropriate for a child standing were iron restraints.

The restraints Emily consulted with Dr.

for Robert Hayes, a historian specializing in 19th century architecture and household objects to identify what she was seeing.

Dr.

Hayes’s analysis.

These are iron wall shackles or chains likely originally used in the 1800s for restraining prisoners or mentally ill patients in institutions.

They consist of iron brackets mounted to the wall with heavy chains attached ending in iron cuffs.

The positioning and size visible in this photograph are consistent with restraints designed for children or small adults.

The restraints were clearly visible in the enhanced image.

Heavy iron brackets bolted to the stone brick wall.

Chains hanging down approximately 3 to 4 ft.

The chains appeared to be positioned on either side of where the children were standing, as if the children had been removed from the restraints just before the photograph and positioned in front of them.

The chains showed signs of use.

They appeared worn, darkened with visible rust.

Most disturbingly, when Emily examined the area of the floor visible beneath the chains, she could see dark staining on the floor.

irregular dark patches on the stone or wood floor that could be consistent with bodily fluids, blood, or evidence of prolonged human presence in restraints.

The room, as Emily continued enhancing the background, more details of the room emerged.

The walls were rough stone or old brick.

This was not a finished room, but a cellar or basement.

Small high windows were visible near the ceiling, typical of basement construction, but they appeared to be blocked or covered.

No light was coming through them.

The only illumination in the photograph was artificial light from the photographers’s equipment.

In one corner of the visible background, what appeared to be a small mattress or pile of straw on the floor, makeshift bedding, suggesting someone was being kept in this room for extended periods.

On the floor near the children’s feet, partially visible, was what appeared to be a metal bucket or chamber pot, suggesting the children had no access to proper sanitation facilities.

The overall impression was unmistakable.

This was a prison cell, a room specifically designed and equipped for holding people, specifically children, captive.

The photographic setup.

Dr.

Morris worked with photography historians to analyze the technical aspects of the photograph.

The photograph was taken with professional equipment.

The lighting, focus, and composition indicated someone with photographic knowledge.

The backdrop placement, the positioning of the children, the camera angle, all showed deliberate artistic choices.

This was not a quickly snapped photograph.

This was a carefully composed portrait.

Whoever took this photograph had set up professional photographic equipment in a basement prison cell, removed two abused and starving children from their restraints, positioned them carefully, and created an artistic portrait, all while keeping them under threat of violence based on the reflection in Sarah’s eyes.

The photograph was not documentation of a crime scene by law enforcement.

This was a portrait taken by the abductor himself, a trophy photograph documenting his captives and based on the dating of the photograph, 1890, and the newspaper reports of Sarah Mitchell’s disappearance and the subsequent discovery of two children’s bodies.

This photograph was likely taken within days or weeks before the children’s deaths.

This was one of the last photographs ever taken of Sarah Mitchell and possibly the only photograph of the boy she died with.

Dr.

Morris accessed the complete historical records of the Sarah Mitchell case from the Vermont State Archives, and what she found was a story of investigative failure and corruption that allowed two children to die.

The abduction Sarah Mitchell, age nine, disappeared from her home in Burlington, Vermont on September 12th, 1890.

She had been playing in her front yard at approximately 400 p.

m.

when her mother called her inside for supper.

Sarah was gone.

No witnesses, no signs of struggle, no trace.

Her mother, Elizabeth Mitchell, a widow Sarah’s father had died two years earlier, reported her missing immediately.

Burlington police began an investigation.

The investigation.

The lead investigator was Detective Robert Carrington, age 52, a 20-year veteran of the Burlington Police Force.

According to the investigation files, Detective Carrington’s work was minimal.

He interviewed neighbors.

No one saw anything.

He checked local train stations.

No child matching Sarah’s description had been seen.

He searched nearby woods.

No trace found.

And then after just 2 weeks, Detective Carrington declared that Sarah had likely run away or drowned in Lake Champlain and closed the active investigation.

Elizabeth Mitchell begged him to continue searching.

She told him Sarah would never run away.

She pleaded for more investigation.

Detective Carrington told her to accept that the girl is gone and moved on to other cases.

3 weeks after Sarah’s disappearance, Elizabeth Mitchell died officially of pneumonia.

But family members said she died of a broken heart, having given up hope of finding her daughter.

The suspect no one investigated.

Dr.

Morris found something shocking in the archived investigation files.

There had been a suspect.

Multiple neighbors had reported seeing a man in the area on the day of Sarah’s disappearance.

a man who didn’t live in the neighborhood, who had been seen watching children playing, who had left the area shortly before Sarah went missing.

Neighbors described him as male, approximately 45 to 55 years old, tall, well-dressed, carrying a leather bag, possibly camera equipment, driving a small wagon.

One neighbor had even taken down the wagon’s identification number and given it to police.

Detective Carrington’s report noted this information and then did absolutely nothing with it.

He never tracked down the wagon owner, never interviewed the man, never followed up.

Why? Dr.

Morris found the answer in a separate archive, the Burlington Social Register for 1890.

The wagon was registered to Harold Peton, age 51, a wealthy local businessman and amateur photographer.

Peton was a prominent member of Burlington Society.

He was on the board of several local businesses, a member of the town council, a donor to the police department.

He was also a friend and business associate of Detective Robert Carrington.

Detective Carrington had protected his friend by refusing to investigate the only credible lead in Sarah Mitchell’s disappearance.

The discovery.

On November 20th, 1890, more than 2 months after Sarah’s disappearance, two hunters stumbled upon an abandoned house in the woods near Woodstock, Vermont, approximately 60 m from Burlington.

Inside the basement, they found two children’s bodies.

A girl approximately 9 to 10 years old.

A boy approximately 5 to 6 years old.

Both had died of starvation and exposure.

Both showed signs of prolonged abuse, old scars, healed fractures, evidence of malnutrition.

Both had liature marks on their wrists and ankles.

The boy’s body was never identified.

He remains unknown child Woodstock 1890.

In the records, the girl was eventually identified as Sarah Mitchell through a distinctive birthark on her left shoulder that her mother had reported.

The non-investigation police investigated Harold Peton’s connection to the abandoned house.

They discovered he had purchased the property 6 months before Sarah’s disappearance using a false name.

But Harold Peton was never arrested, never charged, never even publicly questioned.

Why? Because Detective Carrington, the same detective who had failed to investigate Peton when Sarah disappeared, was assigned to the murder investigation.

and Carrington declared there was insufficient evidence to connect Peton to the deaths and the case was closed as death by unknown perpetrator.

Harold Peton died peacefully in his bed in 1903, age 64, a respected member of the community.

He got away with murder.

Dr.

Morris’s final discovery explained why the photograph existed and revealed an even darker truth about the case.

While researching Harold Peton’s history, Dr.

Morris found records that had been sealed for over 100 years and only recently made available to researchers.

Harold Peton had not been a simple child abductor.

He had been part of an organized network, the network.

In the 1880s and 1890s, there existed an underground network of wealthy men who participated in what they called child collection, the abduction, abuse, and exploitation of children.

These men were businessmen, politicians, professionals, respected members of society who used their wealth and influence to protect each other and enable their crimes.

They communicated through coded advertisements in certain newspapers.

They traded photographs of their victims.

They even visited each other’s properties to participate in the abuse.

The photograph of Sarah and the unknown boy was not just a trophy for Peton’s personal collection.

It was a trading card.

Dr.

Morris found evidence that Peton had produced multiple copies of this photograph using the carbon printing process popular in the 1890s.

He had distributed copies to other members of the network through coded mail exchanges.

The photograph served multiple purposes.

One, documentation of his collection for other members.

Two, proof of his access to victims status within the network.

three material for trade with other members or personal momento of his crimes.

The notation on the back Sarah and Thomas 1,890, may God have mercy on their souls, was not written by Peton.

It was added later by someone else.

How David’s family got the photograph.

Dr.

Morris traced the photograph’s providence and discovered the heartbreaking truth.

David’s great-g grandandmother, Martha Hendris, had been Elizabeth Mitchell’s Sarah’s mother’s closest friend.

When Elizabeth died, Martha had promised to never stop looking for answers about Sarah’s disappearance.

In 1903, when Harold Peton died, Martha learned through town gossip that Peton had been the primary suspect in Sarah’s disappearance.

Though this had never been made public, Martha contacted Peton’s housekeeper, who was cleaning out his estate, and asked if there was anything, anything at all, related to Sarah Mitchell.

The housekeeper, who had long suspected her employer of terrible things, secretly gave Martha a box of photographs she’d found hidden in Petton’s study.

Inside were dozens of photographs of children, all showing similar signs of abuse, all taken in similar basement settings.

The housekeeper told Martha to destroy them all, that they were the devil’s work.

Martha kept only one photograph, the image of Sarah Mitchell.

She added the notation on the back, “May God have mercy on their souls,” and locked it away with the newspaper clippings about Sarah’s disappearance and death.

Martha never showed the photograph to anyone.

She couldn’t bear to look at it herself, but she couldn’t destroy it either.

It was the only image of her friend’s daughter, proof that Sarah had existed, proof that she had suffered.

The photograph passed to Martha’s daughter, David’s grandmother, then to Margaret, David’s aunt.

Each generation keeping it hidden.

Each generation unable to look at it, but unable to destroy it until 2023 when David, not knowing the story, sent it for restoration.

And finally, 133 years later, the truth was revealed.

Justice finally.

Based on Dr.

Morris’s research and Emily’s restoration work, the Vermont State Police reopened the Sarah Mitchell case in 2024 as a historical cold case review.

While Harold Peton is long dead and beyond justice, the case review has prompted new investigations into the underground network he belonged to.

Researchers are now working to identify other victims from photographs found in various archives and to document the full scope of this network’s crimes.

Sarah Mitchell and the unknown boy she died with are now memorialized at the Vermont Children’s Memorial in Burlington with a plaque that reads Sarah Mitchell 1881 to 1890.

And an unknown boy who died with her victims of evil that hid behind respectability.

May they rest in peace and may their suffering never be forgotten.

The photograph itself has been donated to the Vermont Historical Society where it serves as a teaching tool about child protection, the abuse of power, and the importance of believing and protecting vulnerable children.