The Cambria freeman. [volume] (Ebensburg, Pa.) 1867-1938, 1872-06-15

kind of wilful, deliberate and prens,,
gree thus clearly indicating the siashrstdt
murder of the first degree. 1t Is moi ntalehtS q :
% "a 6 t,n sptI t5e 5oS OF me crime IN
premeditatfon as IS tnken by the Oh n sai
and the lurking assassin; but # is absoIsSo,o.s,
meditation. WITHOUT these there co,,ssed ssed ps
framed in the human mind a fully forTGE.aaot.s :
pose to kill, and without this, the kiiiInSe p9t
In the eve Of the law Intentional and tbs sngt
not murder OF the first degree. Then 'elos
1. Unlawful killing, without malice, I,
II. Unlawful killing, with malice. bD, -..
out intent to XIII, is murder Of the seco1s u
III. Unlawful killing, with malice an,
intent to kill-that Is, fully formed IN
to kill, which necessarily includes wfIfT,psa
deliberation and premeditatlon-is murdstss
the first degree
of the'crime-brief, because all that seen Is
80 be demanded by the evidence in this csa sya
we shall proceed TO make some observation = .
the law Of the evidence.
prove the commission Of a crime eyiF,,.
is of two kinds-either positive OF cireum.,--f
tial Positive, where the crime as charos452-
testified to by an ey e-witness; circumstsssegls 81
where certain facts or circumstance are Dro- F.
ed WHICH warrant the belief that the crime :,
said in the argument about the cOmparar--
value of the kinds of evidence, with, il sesr'
shown that each has lis advantages and ns!
gers. and that we can be absolutely cerrsiT- f
fact Wh1cn 0epenOS IOT existence Du ~
testimony OF human witnesses; nor can We -
absolutely certain that any Inference drawn = F
the human intellect is correct: But neithertG.
law nor the conscience requires absolute cs-
tainty; for all the purposes of life, II is sg4
cient if the evidence produces belief-notaI1 H.
lief that fact is probable, but a hXed, unvl.
yeriEg belief that IL is a fact.
II an entirely credible witness swears thar h,
saw the accused kill the deceased with k1,is
by striking it into the body, this would lie No..
tive evidence, and, the witness being credb.
we must believe
+bo ,load body Of he daceasad
covered soon after death, with mortal po1rT
from a knife in the breast-the pockets rfssi
of their contenUs-not far from the BODY gri
in the act OF escaping, the accused-in his Dad
session the purse and watch OF the deceased
in his hand a bloody knife, which knife, on b.
ing compared with the wound in the body, wa
found TO fit 1T exactly-that the accused bsF
been seen dogging the 1I IoS1tIs'cps cps; OF deceased
clude that the accused had inflicted the mortE
wound; in other words, would believe in cir
cumstantial evidence. The proof in the On.
case is as satisfactory as In the other;-lt a..
not invite belief simply, il forces IL. In fS.
first case we cannot be absolutely certain tbT,
the witness was credible in the second O.
we cannot be absolutely certain that the =.
ness who testified to the circumstaDces =,
credible. nor are we absolutely certain that's
inference is the correct one. 1t might bs a
the accused drew the knife from the bs,.
picked the purse and watch from the Rroul
where the real assassin had left them, and ~
hastening after help. But because the witnes
a mistaken one, our belief remains nIed: y
have not reasonable doubt-we have no doub
One further observation seems to be IDsts
necessary 10y the character OF the evidence IN
this case, and that is, that where the circum-
stances and the differences 10 be drawn firm
them are numerous. and the circumstances ars
proven to have occurred a different dates and
different places by different witnesses, the in
probability Of perjury is far greater. " lille The
opportunities for contradiction are more M
more reliable than where the facts are few az
well as the witnesses who testify to them.
In this case the Commonwealth, excent ~ n
one single point-the fact OF dedtb-rellc. en-.
tirely on circumstantiRi evidence In c11s5-
eTing this evidence you must start with the
presumption that the accused Is innocent. The
fact that he stands charged with n high crims
must not in your minds cast upon him even the
suspicion or guIIt- He IS innocent, unless tia
evidence in this case undnu bteJIy proves him
guilty. As we said, the COMMONWEALTH relic,
on circumstantiai evidence, or a chain OF cir
cumstances for proof of guilt or this chain
or large Dumber of facts, Claimed to be proven
all must be consistent with each other. If any
fact on which the chain depends is Inconsistent
with the others. the prosecution fails. For eI.
ample, il is claimed by the the COmmonw "a N
TO be a material fact, and IL IL a material fsc1 y
proven, that the large track in the snow which
led from the body in the direction OF bis tbs
prisoner's) house, was made by Moore's ro9,.
If IL was made by another foot than MOores
then that is inconsistent with the other fsc5
tending, as is claimed by the Commonwesii'
to establish guilt and the charge fails. 50
any other material fact be inconsistent v
guilt the CommOnW nWe e0lth's chain OF circul.
stances, the prosecution has failed to estsb'ka
guilt. Or il you have reasonable doubt 10
the existence of any material fact, Won must
| give to the prisoner the benedt of that doubt,
and the prosecution fails Again, all the cir
/ point TO the guilt OF the accused, and must HG-
ceSsdTiig point to his guilt, or they do not re
! they make guilt probable or strongly probe
l olei they must make guilt morally certain X
/ the facts adduced and relied on can be explain.
| ed on any other reasonable theory than that o.
guilt, they fall to prove guilt.
Applying. then, TO the evidence toe law -
we have stated 1t To you: you viii consider tas
| evidence you have heard, and all the evidences
and from il inquire
First, Was there murder7 The Common
wealth must prove the delsctl, 10 70
called, or the body of the offence; first, death
second. the Identification of the body rs that
| of the person charged to have been killed
| third, that death was caused by violence used
! upon the deceased hy human hands To prove
death, the Commonw ealth lays before you pos
tive testimony a number OF witnesses swear
positively to the dead body OF female FOUND
township. Cambria county, on the lat OF March
last In proof that the body was that or Annie
T. Moore dIiCs Elizabeth Stevenson. IL Is proved
that near the body were picked up q set Of ar
| tihcial teeth for both upper and lower jaw,
while the mouth OF the body found was tooth
less-that pair OF spectacles one glass out
piece OF wooien scarf, number of pieces OF 3
woman-s hair comb; FEW gray hairs ESIe % AN, An
found near the body These facts, Vim Nne
other evidence bearing on the queSfl0n OF llSn-
der of the evidence tending to establish the
identity is so intimately connected with the
eSloehce onered 10 prove the author OF H lH0
death, that for the present We shall defer call
ing your attention particularly to il, and reclF
TO il when we review that branch OF the evi-
dence.
Second, The prisoner is charged In the indct-
ment only with the murder of Annie E. Moore,
otherwise Elizabeth Stevenson. As the charge
stands in the indictment, the evidence must
satisfy beyond reasonable doubt that ts5
BODY found was hers, or the Commonwealth
failed to prove the charge.
Third, Ii must be shown that the death was
caused oy violence, and by q hand other than
that or the deceased To establish this, the
commonwealth produces testimony TO shOw
mat two tracks, a large and small one, led from
the Ran Road to the spot where the body wss
iound-that but one, the larger, led away from
1t.that few feet from the body there was
what the witnesses say looked like blood-thsi
the bushes near appeared to be sprinkled with
olood-that the ground was trampled-a string
or garter drawn tightly around the neck OF the
BODY and tied in a knot on the hack Of the neck
Dr. Swan, who examined the body, saws that
judging from the indentRtion of the neck tht
string had been draw n sufficiently tight 70 hayt
caused death by strangulation- He also testt-
fies that the protruding tongue Indicated ST ran
gulation. The knot in this string, according 4
the testimony of several witnesses was Tic,
tightly on the back of the neck, where, as
claimed by the Commonwealth, il could no
have been tied by the hands of deceased Their
Is then the evidence that an attempt, partially
successful, was made by some one to burn tht
body, Warranting tie belief that this was don't
Tor the purpose of destroying evidence O
crime. The two tracks, and only two leadinI
20 the body, the larger one only away from Il
shows, as Is claimed. the presence "A nd asca ne of