All Blog Posts

No Private Spaces

Written by Lillian Stockford

Visual Description: A photo of the children’s dorms. There are twin-sized beds on metal frames very close together, an estimated 6 inches to a foot apart. The beds all have the same bedding. The walls are painted bricks. There are small children’s character-themed murals on the walls, such as Goofy and Donald Duck.

The taking away of one’s privacy is in many ways dehumanizing. It removes a person’s freedom and creates an environment where it is a struggle to truly be an individual. 

Looking at the Mansfield Training School dorms, a few descriptors come to mind. A minimum security prison. A place stripped bare of personalization. Sterile and unwelcoming. 

The image of the children’s dorms is especially damning. The beds are so close together that they almost form one continuous bunk. The lack of privacy and personal effects. One may argue that it was for resident safety. However safety does not have to mean inhumane. Not giving residents any space to have as their own does not make them safer, it simply takes away a basic human need.  It exposes the insidious belief that people with disabilities do not need or deserve privacy. And this belief further leads to a lack of respect and understanding.

Even in spaces meant to be “homey” there is a cold feeling. The decals of cartoon animals on the walls of the children’s dorm do not do much to brighten the space. If anything they make the space feel more empty as they make the deficits of the room more obvious. There was a “day room” to function as a lounge space for residents but it was also depressingly bare: empty tile floors, minimal furniture, and naked walls come together to make a less-than-comforting environment. It feels almost clinical, like a doctor’s office waiting room. The “day room,” much like the dorm room, lacks warmth and a feeling that this is a home. The institution may have handled medical matters but it also was a place of living for over a thousand people at its peak and it is clear that making the institution a comfortable home was not valued by the administration.

The day room of Merritt Hall in the 1950s. It has a black and white checkered floor and painted brick or cinderblock walls. The visible walls are bare save for a clock and a small blackboard. The furniture is concentrated on the edges of the room. There are three tables scattered in the middle of the room, each with two chairs.

It is also interesting considering the largeness of the superintendent’s home. It has pillars, a feature that tends to be associated with power and wealth, but the residents can’t have two feet of space between the beds? Can’t have stall doors in the bathroom? When placed side by side it is disturbing to see the differences. MTS was a home for its residents. Many didn’t have the option to go anywhere else if they found their lodgings less than satisfactory. For those who had entered the institution as young children or toddlers, MTS was the only home they had ever really known. For those unequipped by the system with the tools to leave, there were not many options available. For children, even less so, as some were wards of the state and given no choice concerning where they lived. Some residents had medical needs that stopped them from leaving, as the resources were not available outside the institution. They were living in a system that pushed them towards institutionalization and then failed to support them once they were admitted. A system that did not value choice and freedom. 

It speaks to a larger trend of not viewing residents as people with feelings and preferences. 

It also makes one wonder why it was necessary to have the beds so close together. Was it simply a lack of care? Or does it allude to a larger systemic issue of overcrowding? Not all of the dorms had this sort of layout, though the others were not objectively good, which I will come back to later. If a facility has to have this sort of layout in order to fit the number of people they need to then there is inherently a structural issue. This sort of design should not have been considered a norm but rather a failure. 

A photo of the Merritt Dorm in 1956. The floor is tiled and the walls are painted brick. There is a drain visible on the floor. There are short walls organized in a cubicle- formation. There are no doors to the cubicles. In each cubicle, there are three beds to a “wall”, with a nightstand and a chair dividing them. The chair is in front of the nightstand.

This is a picture of a dorm called the Merritt Dorm, from 1956 which is better than the children’s dorm, with at least wall structures present, but it is still not adequate.  Better than nothing is still not good. There is still a complete lack of privacy, just assuaged a bit by the cubicle-style walls. It still does not look like a home or even a dorm—still no privacy, a feeling of overcrowdedness, and blank walls. 

Even with improvements, the systemic issues within institutions still leak in. Even the newer, better option does not fix the issue, merely putting a bandaid on it. There is a lack of respect for residents, for their needs, for their wants, and for their space. Especially if you consider the length of time that people were living in the institution. It was generally not as short as a hospital stay. People were entering the institution as young children and then not leaving, living in these dorms for decades upon decades. It is also important to consider the accessibility of these dorm setups. The tight spaces would not have worked well for residents who use wheelchairs or other mobility devices. The dorms allude to a larger trend with the institution of not considering the comfort of residents. Of not giving them the freedoms they would otherwise have been afforded. They demonstrate the systemic failures of the institution and a lack of respect for the people who lived there. 

Why I’m Here-Ashten

Hello! My name is Ashten 🙂 

I first heard about Mansfield Training School through other students. Mostly whisperings about “haunting.” I was already deeply interested in the history of deinstitutionalization and Disability Studies. I couldn’t get the thought of MTS out of my head. Especially as a UConn student, the erasure of Mansfield Training School’s history was hard to grapple with. I had been to the site and paid my respects, but I felt like a proper acknowledgement of the site was needed. 

That next semester, I was taking Brenda’s course on Disability in American Literature and Culture. During one of the classes, Jess and Brenda presented the work they had done on the Mansfield Training School Project. I was so overcome with appreciation that there were people out there working on a project like this. I knew that I had to try to learn all that I could about the project. Luckily, I was able to join an amazing team of researchers to continue the project. 

I feel an obligation to honor the residents of MTS and those impacted by its legacy. The history of institutionalization in this country is egregious. It is so ingrained in our society that one has to make a conscious effort to understand and dissect the role it has played for so long and the power structures that enable it, and continue to perpetuate carceral modalities of “care.” As a kid and teenager, I was institutionalized. I will never forget how much the pain that has caused me and how it continues to impact me today. As a result, I was unsure if I would have the opportunity to attend college. Now that the university I am attending is so closely tied with institutionalization, I cannot ignore it. I will never understand what it was like to be a resident at MTS, but I do understand the importance of helping the stories be told. I am so lucky that I get to work alongside such an amazing, thoughtful, and dedicated group of people on this project. I am hopeful for the education, conversations, and change that this project will bring. 

Why I’m Here-Madison

Hi, I’m Madison!

To be frank, I had no idea what disability studies was until I met Brenda. I knew people who were disabled, that people struggle with disability, and that there were probably some ways that the world could be more accommodating to human beings, but never realized how deep the concept of “disability” runs through everything we do, see, participate in, and so on. 

I began working with her (and Ashten, too!) when I became a moderator for the Disability & Access Collective Blog, aiming to elevate community voices and prompt discussions about accessibility on and off of the UConn campus. When I learned that Brenda was looking for students to join her and Jess’ project on MTS, I very quickly and eagerly began my application. Having begun this work surrounding access and disability on the UConn campus through the DAC blog, I became fascinated with how UConn might be tied to the greater legacies of institutionalization that shapes the current landscape and discourse today.  

I am so grateful to be working on this project with such an amazing group of people, and hope that this project will empower those who have their own stories about Mansfield to voice their experiences. While I feel incredibly lucky to have been given the opportunity to excavate Mansfield’s history and bring light to what has happened – both inside and outside the walls of the institution – I hope to see the work that we’re doing validate and elucidate the experiences of surviving residents of MTS and their families. 

Why I’m Here- Ally

Hello, my name is Ally 

My interest in disability studies began after I took Disability in American Literature during my junior year at UConn, where I first heard about Mansfield Training School. I originally approached both the class and the legacy of MTS through a sort of detached lens—  I was interested in learning more about disability, but disability wasn’t an experience I or the people around me were a part of. As I began to participate in discussions and read more about disability through the perspective of activists and authors like Riva Lehrer or Cece Bell, I realized how my own familial ties to disability had been swept under the rug and purposefully overlooked since I was a child. 

I’ve always believed in the power of storytelling to prevent erasure. Disability history, on both an institutional and personal level, continues to be buried by the passage of time. This burial is seen on a macro and micro scale with the lack of history taught in K-12 schools as well as the family stories of disability not being discussed at home. The only way we can prevent people and their experiences from being forgotten is to tell their story in full, the best way we can. Our research team has spent hours at the archives, pouring over documents left behind at the Mansfield Training School (MTS), but our job is just one piece of the complex puzzle. I hope the work our research team conducts will shed light on the wrongs done to residents at MTS as well as encourage survivors of institutional abuse to share their stories.  

Why I’m Here: Where Have We Been, And Where Are We Going? -Jess

As we round closer and closer to the day this project (or at least the idea for it) began just two years ago, I honestly still can’t believe this is just the beginning. To me, the years we spent working, researching, writing, and thinking just blurred together. Every moment leading to this blog was a learning experience—a time to sit back, listen, learn, and try to understand the history of MTS and how we can best engage with the residents who still live today. Community should always be at the center of any restorative justice project. And, there are always moments that stick out even in these very early moments. The moments that grab you by the shoulders and shake you awake: realizing how large of an impact UConn had on the lives of residents at MTS, discovering pages upon pages of documented charitable donations without seeing a single narrative from a resident themselves, and discovering just how many medical violations, malpractices, and insufficient documentation occurred at MTS.  In truth, I never knew what would spur out of this project or where we’d go from here. 

I can’t help but think, though, that despite the past year this is really just the beginning. 

On September 24th, 2021, I scheduled my first appointment to view the Mansfield Training School files at the Dodd Center for Human Rights. Following my meeting with Brenda that served as a catalyst for this project surrounding what happened to Mansfield Training School a week prior, I went in with the mindset of if  I find anything about MTS then maybe we could see how UConn’s history with disability began to form into what we see today. 

Brenda and Jess in the Connecticut State Library Archives in 2022, viewing black and white photo boards taken of MTS residents from the 1960s.

Traditionally, higher education has always been an institution where millions of disabled students have felt discriminated against due to the lack of access, support, and acceptance of disability culture/identity in university spaces. I can personally attest to this feeling. I wanted to know, as a student, where UConn had been. At first, I wanted to see some semblance of the past, some bit of history I could see that would give me any inclination as to why so many of us faced bias and discrimination on-campus. 

What was UConn’s connection to disability historically? 

At first, I wasn’t too hopeful I’d find the answer. After combing through search after search on Google, Bing, Yahoo (you name the search engine, I tried it) I really couldn’t find much on UConn’s connection to the Mansfield Training School at all. It almost felt like any remains of the institution, prior to its closure, had been erased. It was simply a thing of the past. A memory. 

I was even less hopeful when I learned that the Mansfield Training School files at the Dodd Center only amounted to a few boxes (plus some scattered folders in other collections from the then-president Homer D. Babbidge). I still felt like there was more to the story that we can see online, which mainly consists of ghost hunters and urban explorers breaking into the site to see “ghosts.” After all, UConn was given all of the property of MTS after its closure, at which point it was renamed the “UConn Depot Campus.” So, I started digging through as many files as possible and amped up my online searches. 

If I could go back in time to talk to the very-very-new-to-research, freshman scholar version of myself (I’d classify myself as a ‘sophomore’ now…at least…maybe, not even?) I’d tell them that sometimes just one word—a name, an organization, a face—can change the entire course of your research. A single piece can change everything and uncover a vast amount of information that you could never have guessed would have ever existed. 

The reason I’m here is to not just learn more about MTS and UConn’s connection through the archives. I’m here because I hope to engage with stories from residents at MTS and learn more about their experiences there. I hope that through this project we can work to center the community and seek the sort of accountability they want to see from a government, university, and institution that was responsible for so much harm. Whether this accountability is through a memorial, reparations, preservation initiative, oral history documentation or film, writings, or any other avenue—I hope that this project can be a first step to creating the change they want to see in Connecticut. 

The largest gap across every archival collection that housed history related to MTS was the lack of perspectives from the residents. Those who lived there and spent nearly their entire lives within that campus. After checking nearly every file, folder, or box, not a single narrative came through that wasn’t under the control of administrators from the institution itself. This really made me focus on, and ask:  

How do power and privilege play a role in whose stories we see in archival documents and history as a whole?

Why I’m Here! -Paula

Hi, I’m Paula! 🙂

As a long-time museum lover, when Brenda reached out with the opportunity to apply to be part of the MTS team, I was immediately intrigued. I’ve always been interested in “untold stories” and the amplification of voices who historically haven’t been heard in different fields. For museums, this was a very clear area for me to explore: when working as an interpreter in high school, my supervisors and mentors were excellent advocates, especially for people who typically weren’t represented at all in the museum sphere. One specific observation that I remember hearing from a coworker was something along the lines of, “Older white men wrote all the stuff in this museum in the 1900s and it never changes. How are we supposed to connect with the information now?” 

From there, I realized (as so many other people have before me!) that this applies to almost all areas of our lives–if we don’t have access to a wider array of people’s experiences and stories, then we are limited to an all-too-familiar narrative, which, honestly, most of the time doesn’t click with a lot of people. The MTS project is one of these opportunities to uncover and publicize the stories of people who have been mistreated and silenced, and I am more than honored to be a part of the awesome team that’s working so hard to give those stories a platform.

Why I’m Here-Lillian

I fell in love with the archives after touring the university’s shelves. The vast amounts of material in particular drew me in, the amount of information held on those shelves was staggering. 

The stories hidden within the shelves fascinated me as did their preservation. As a history major I knew the importance of reading, of remembering, of recording. That is how history is passed down and preserved. 

I knew I wanted to intern this summer but I struggled to find a position that really drew me in. Then I found this apprenticeship. It had each piece I was looking for. It gave me the opportunity to explore the archives, to help tell a story that needs to be told, and to work with a great team. The fact that MTS is so close to where I go to school also drew me in, as it gave me the chance to explore the history of my own community, especially history that was not properly memorialized. 

Hauntings and Horror: Institutionalization and the Urge to Embrace the Paranormal

By: Jess Gallagher

[D]espite the mostly positive, caring work that went on here 

(and at other similar facilities), there seems to be a story or two of negative incidents, 

any one of which is enough to initiate stories 

of restless souls and troubled spirits.”

 –Damned Connecticut

“Mansfield Training School has gotten plenty of attention, 

for it is believed to be haunted.”

–Abandoned Playgrounds

“A former mental asylum still haunted by its victims… 

Dead animal bones littered the area.  

Old dressers, beds, and a wheelchair were strewn all over. 

The antique board reading “The Mansfield Training School”

–Syfy’s Paranormal Witness “The Haunting of Mansfield Mansion”

It was around 8:30 p.m. on a Monday night in early March. I sat at my desk in our school newspaper’s office. Since I had finished copyediting a good portion of my work for next day’s paper, I spent the rest of my free time line-editing a draft of my honors thesis on Mansfield Training School. Of course, while this was months later than my initial research on the institution, there were still more than a few questions that were left unanswered despite the amount of archival work that we had done. So, naturally, whenever I hear the words “Depot Campus” come out of someone’s mouth I instantly start listening, but I normally always hear the same conversation repeated…

“Oh yeah, have you guys ever been to the Depot campus before.”

“No, what’s that?”

“Isn’t that where the puppet place is?”

“Yeah, I heard it’s pretty haunted.”

This is how most of the conversations I overhear go. And, while it’s interesting to hear people actually talking about Mansfield Training School, this specific conversation really made me start thinking about hauntings and the implications that these narratives have on the past. Though the “haunted” articles on Mansfield Training School outweighed the history on my initial search of the school I really didn’t think much of it. It’s so common after all. 

Screenshot from the “Paranormal Witness” wiki fandom on Mansfield Training School
Image Description: Screenshot from the “Paranormal Witness” wiki fandom on Mansfield Training School

Growing up, I always listened to stories about old hospitals, abandoned prisons, and “insane” asylums. My friends and I watched Paranormal Witness, The Haunted, and Ghost Hunters. And while these shows did tell us a little bit about the history of the buildings and sites they investigated, the main emphasis was on the demonic, the anger, the aggression, and the ‘ghosts’ rather than the people who endured the abuse, suffering, and oppression that those in power inflicted on them. 

In a way, we almost fail to understand the social impact that articles on “hauntings” have when it comes to the United States’ history of institutionalization. Viewing historical sites as “haunted” almost creates distance between the true history of the institutions and (if done frequently enough) can erase the humanity of the people who come to be labeled as just the institution’s “victims.” They become faceless. 

It seems that through the rhetoric utilized when talking about institutionalization if we center hauntings rather than investigate the histories of the “victims” or objects of said haunting, we can lose valuable information that critiques past behaviors and actions, attitudes, and ideals, or spatial and cultural norms that inflicted abuse and supported the oppression of millions of marginalized identities. 

Of course, there is always a degree of temporal distance associated with sites such as Mansfield Training School and its history, but if we use distance and re-frame it as a means to gain clarity and perspective that comes with the passage of time then we can establish a relationship of engagement and insight that can connect us to a past that has long been erased. 

I am in no way, of course, shaming or demeaning the entire genre of ‘ghost stories’ or ‘hauntings’ by talking about the potential harmful effects that can come when we center and sensationalize paranormal narratives over history and people of the past. The attention garnered by these paranormal stories could very well serve as a launching point for where we, as activists and scholars, can begin working. 

But, we must first be conscious of the distance being created (both socially, historically, and culturally) in these paranormal narratives and only then can we truly examine ‘sites of hauntings’ as ‘sites of history.’ In changing that perspective, scholars, activists, and investigators can uplift the stories and histories of those who lost their lives at these institutions. 

When we come to understand the history of institutions like Mansfield Training School, we understand that it was not just a place with “mostly positive, caring work” being conducted that just happens to have one or two angry spirits (like Damn Connecticut would have us believe). Instead, we uncover the politics, experimentation, and cross-institutional connections that went on here and in dozens of institutions across the state of Connecticut. 

While ghost stories and narratives of the paranormal will always remain, I think it’s important that we remain cognizant of the people behind these narratives, their histories, and work to advocate against modern-day forms of institutionalization that currently exist in our society. If not, then years from now, we may see our own history become one of the many haunted stories of the past…

Ambiguity of Responsibility

By: Matthew Iannantuoni

Enraptured by the findings of the termination papers, I dove back into the folders of the “Dismissal and legal action regarding Elly C. Fischer, Florence M. Nichols, James P. Purcell, Dr. Helen T. Warner” where I found another shred of evidence that seems to only muddy the story I was trying to uncover.  On a yellowed piece of legal paper was, in faint handwriting “Overheard in staff dining room by patients (waiters) Dorothy Reynolds on the day of the write up in the paper (Tuesday Dec 14 1944.)” This faded note from some unknown staffer details a conversation between the three medical staff members who would be terminated less than a year later. The conversation goes as follows:

 “Dr Warner said the paper did not blame him enough” 

Mrs. Nichols replied “they’d get something on him yet.” 

Mrs Fischer said “He’s such a damn liar he’d deny it anyway”

“The next day Dr. Warner said to Dorothy Reynolds ‘you’d better look out they may send you to the Superintendent’s office’”  

She replied, “I wouldn’t go to the office and tell anything.”

Dr Warner said “That’s right Dorothy don’t go”

The girl was told not to tell anything she overheard them talking about in the dining room”   

This faded piece of paper gives so much muddying insight into how things at MTS were running at the time. It seems as though the three medical staff members, Warner, Nichols and Fischer all spoke out to a newspaper against Superintendent Neil Dayton, but that the resulting article did not cover all that they were complaining about. The conversation with one of the patients also gives some insight into how Dayton ran the institution; the threat of going to the Superintendent’s office is enough to keep the patient quiet. It really calls into question some of the more intense complaints on the termination letters. Some of the most egregious examples are in Dr. Warner’s termination letter, which states:

 “Incompetency in the service in failure to respond to a call in the case of Louise Seymour, who was suffering from a broken femur. You did not go to see the patient, but ordered her brought to the clinic in the Hospital Building. The patient, with a broken leg, was picked up and, although in great pain, was carried to the Hospital Building by another patient” 

There is also the complaint: 

 “Failure to follow an order to the point of insubordination in not writing out orders in Doctor’s Order Book in William Coursen’s case. Five hypodermics were administered by you without being recorded in either the Doctor’s Order Book or the beside notes, with the result that there is no record of the drugs given by hypodermic at these times by you, or the amount thereof.”   

While these seem like rather appalling offenses from the director of nursing, there are other shreds of evidence that sway in the direction that Dr. Warner was doing the best she could with limited resources. For example, in a letter from  Dayton to the Chairman on the Board of Trustees there is the request to hire a pharmacist because “the work of the Drug Room has been taken care of by Mrs. Nichols and the other registered nurse. However, properly speaking, this is not their work and it has not been a very satisfactory procedure,” Later stating that “We might be in a little better position to stand criticism if we had a pharmacist” of which criticism is probably referring to the newspaper article that started this controversy. 

Another piece of damning evidence is the document titled “REASONS FOR EMPLOYEES LEAVING THE: Mansfield State Training School and Hospital March 1– April 30, 1945” which details that a total of 19 staff members had resigned, retired, or left without notice all in the same short period. While there is little explanation left for this mass exodus it seems as though there was some great discontent when only 2 of the 19 left for reasons pointing toward a consensual and mutual break. 

As mentioned in my previous blog post, this is the rub in doing this kind of archival work, we are left with a few puzzle pieces that can fit together several different ways. Was it truly a bad set of staff that were not fulfilling their job responsibility? Was it poor leadership that set impossible standards in an attempt to rid the institution of workers speaking out against some cruelty in the institution? Was it some unknown third factor that has been lost to time? Given what we know about how patients were treated at the Mansfield Training School it is important to ask who is to blame, which, of course, is never a cut and dry answer. However, any shred of definitive culpability seems to be lost to time, given the documents left behind.    

  • Portrait of Superintendent Neil A. Dayton.
  • Handwritten note labeled “Overheard in staff dining room by patient.”
  • Termination letter of Dr. Helen T. Warner from the Mansfield Training School.
  • Continuation of the termination letter of Dr. Helen T. Warner.
  • Letter from Superintendent Dayton to the Board of Trustees requesting a pharmacist hire “to better stand criticism.”
  • Follow-up page of Dayton’s letter requesting the hire of a pharmacist.
  • 1945 document listing reasons for employee departures from the Mansfield Training School and Hospital.

Image 1: Superintendent Neil A. Dayton.

Image 2: “Overheard in staff dining room by patient.”

Images 3 & 4: The termination letter of Dr. Helen T. Warner.

Images 5 & 6: A letter from superintendent Dayton to the Chairman of the Board of Trustees requesting the hire of a pharmacist in order “to better stand criticism.”

Image 7: “Reasons for Employees Leaving the Mansfield Training School and Hospital March 1- April 30, 1945.”

A First Day of Many Questions

By: Matt Iannantuoni

My fellow researchers, Jess and Brenda, had found in the archive inventory list a box titled “Dismissal and legal action regarding Elly C. Fischer, Florence M. Nichols, James P. Purcell, and Dr. Helen T Warner (1942-5.)” Knowing that I am eventually bound for Law School, they suggested I read through it as my entrance into this project. After reading through these folders I have found my problem with this type of archival work is that those doing the research are at once archeologists, storytellers and, ultimately, visitors peaking in on what was once someone’s career. The natural inclination is to put together a story from the documents which tends to be like putting together a puzzle without the picture on the box and with many missing pieces.  As I dug through the minutes and court documents from the Personnel Appellate hearings for four employees of Mansfield Training Schools I was trying to find the through-line of the folder, I kept asking, what did these four major staff members do in the mid-forties?

My question had been answered by a slew of new questions when I came upon a stapled set of papers titled “Termination Letters” and the through-line immediately revealed itself, “Failure to cooperate with and hostility towards, and defiance of the authority of the Superintendent duly appointed by this board.” Each of these employees, an X-Ray Technician (Fischer,) the director of nursing (Nichols,) a business manager (Purcell,) and a Senior Physician (Warner) had all been fired, at the same time, for separate and often seemingly inconsequential missteps besides this one similarity- “defiance of the authority of the Superintendent.” Perhaps this common complaint is just a generalized, boilerplate umbrella phrase, however, the explicit mention of the Superintendent (Neil A. Dayton) seems to point away from this conclusion.

 Each employee had a laundry list of missteps, such as the director of nursing being accused of “Neglect of duty and incompetency in failure to have resertilized for several months certain sterile goods held for routine or emergency use.” Or, in the case of the X-Ray technician, “Language and conduct towards personnel employed in said institution, leading to friction, dissension, and disturbance of the harmonious operation of the institution.”  It’s impossible to say with any certainty how founded or unfounded these claims are, which is the “rub” of doing this kind of work, however, taken with what we know about the overwhelming code of silence which allowed so many cruelties to go on unabated, it seems that those accused may have spoken out against the institution, “broken the code” and were fired soon after. 

Another “mask off” example of this is in the complaints levied against the business manager (Purcell) which, chief among the nine, is “Failure to carry out an order to the point of insubordination in refusing to return an ornamental metal tray left as a gift in your office in 1943 by a business concern doing business with said institution” and then hidden on the second page, at number 8 is “indulging in unwarranted criticisms, charges and accusations against the Superintendent of said institution, at public hearings, in newspapers and in other ways, in a manner tending to bring discredit upon the Superintendent of said institution.” Attempts to find records of the public hearings, newspapers and the ominously ambiguous “in other ways” proved futile, a moment in MTS history that is left open to interpretation. 

As I dug through this box of files I kept finding different documents that did not seem connected to the termination of the staff members, for example, a few patient census files that counted the number of patients at MTS, a copy of an outdated Connecticut act concerning “Training School Recommitments and Transfers,” as well as a letter from the patient’s mother, thanking the Superintendent for the treatment her son received from doctors and nurses. I’m not sure how these relate to the mass termination of 1945, but I’m also not sure why they would be in this folder if they were not. More questions than answers on this first day of research. 

  • Image displaying the termination letter of business manager James P. Purcell.
  • Image displaying the termination letter of business manager James P. Purcell.
  • Image displaying a thank you note from Tommy’s mother.

Image 1 and 2: the termination letter of business manager James P. Purcell.

Image 3: Thank you note from Tommy’s Mother (name omitted for privacy.)