The Findlay Jeffersonian. [volume] (Findlay, Hancock County, Ohio) 1870-1881, 1877-02-16
Fine Job Work q Specially.
TWELFTH DAYS PROCEEDINGS.

vi Duihet Eesunleu MS argument Tor
he defense. When the testimony be
came closely analyzed, 1t would appear
hat suspicion for the alleged crime
would as reasonably rest upon any other
residents of the community, as upon this
defendant. In referring to motives for
he commission of the crime, counsel did
not consider it in evidence that hatred
and i'll will existed between the broth
ers. REGARDING the theory that the ac-
cumulatiOn of property would have con
sltuteda a motive, he thought the foun-
dation was not good and as to the char
ges of forgery, they had not been clearly
established, and they had nothing to do
| with this case, even had they been. That
the visit of Thomas ) Charles and family
to the house of his father, ON Thurs
day, June 10th, was purely accidental
on the day it occurred, is mat
er of proof Isaac himself must
have been ignorant of this visit, rs it
had not been pre-arranged. 1t would
not do to presume that Laac had knowl-
edge of the contemplated visit of Thomas
any more than that Elijah and family
had such fore-knowledge. He repudi-
a;ed the idea that property accumulation
would have been rational motive, as
he would have so many to kill outside
the two families of Elijah and Thomas.
| Taken altogether, then, there could have
been no motive to induce him to per
petrate a crime of such enormity. 1t is
easy to suspect motives. The acts of
some people, however guileless, are. by
a certain class of people, misunderstood
and nlisinterpreted. Ii evidently has
been so with regard to the acts and ut
terances of this defendant When priso-
ner heard. at Ada, intelligence of the
poisoning of his brothers family, it is in
evidence that he was excited. Had he
not right to be excited? Who would
not have been excited? If those not of
his kindred were excited, how more deep
\ would have been the excitement of bro
ther. His very acts Of brotherly charity
were misinterpreted and turned against
him. Defendant obtained his theory that
the poison was in the bread, and tit the
| flour might have been made of sick
wheat" from DIR. Sturgeon. who commu-
Gated the same opinion to others. Sub
sequently, the doctor came to the con-
clusion that arsenic had been placed in
| tie flour, of which the bread was made
L DOl lllC IlRul W ldlk
about the poisoning and discuss the pro-
bable causes of the great misfortune; as
all other people had He only repeated
the opinions given by the doctor; bnt
neither he nor others, when they would
state that the poison was in the bread"
would give the authority upOr which
| lhei opinions we're based But the poi It
is made against him that he told his wife
not to eat any of that bread. Why should
he not warn her and all others against
eating the bread? Had he said nothing
to her, and she had eaten of it and death
resulted, he would then have been
charged with having murdered her also,
in order to have an opportunity OF mar
rying anothe woman. 1t is proved that
he had some knr wledge of the general
effect of certain poisons. Well, what In
telligent man has not?
| Defendant had administered the
medicine, quite naturally enough, at
the request of his brother Elijah, who
had no suspicion of defe, dant's integ.
rity until his mind, as well as bis body
had become poisoned by excited and
ignorant people The question OF
poisons was generally discussed by all
visitors at theIhouse. Mrs. Parks testi-
fed that she prepared the supper on
the evening of the day of the poison
ing, while Mrs. Binkley swore that she
prepared it. As between this conflict
ing testimony, he preferred to credit
the evidence of Mrs. Parks who had
the appearance of candid, truthful
woman. But the point is not one of
Importance. AT supper he inquired,
naturally enough, about the bread
whether it was of the baking that was
supposed to have communicated the
poison, and this circumstance it is
sought to make against him. When
assured that the bread on the table
fnd been furnished by Mrs. Harman,
he expressed himself satisfied, and re-
marked that his wife and himself had
brought loaf. Why should facts like
these be arrayede against him more
! than against any one else who were to
have supper at that table, as at that
time they had all reached the conclu-
sion that the poison was in the bread.
Like others, Isaac b. Charles had
become satisfied that the poison
had got into the bread. DIR. Sturgeon
swears that he gave the medicine
into the hands of Isaac, and
requested him to administer the medi-
cine. Is there anything strange in this,
that DIR. Sturgeon should select, OF all
others, Isaac b. Charles, the irtelli-
gent and younger brother of Elijah, to
have charge of the medicine? He was
faithfully performing the Office of
brother and kinsman of the afflicted
family. But some women had ga-h-
cred into the house, and in discussion
among themselves worked up sheir
morbid imaginations to the belieI that
Isaac was guilty of the poisoning, and
this suspicion once lodged III their
crazy minds, every act and word of
Isaac were tortured into the most gro
{ ,sque forms. When it reached the
point that some requested defendantto to
leave, he replied that he would gladly
do 50 il they would give reasonable
guarantee that the sick would be as
well cared for as they had been while
lie mad charge of them.
DIR. Sturgeon swore that Melissa was
lconvalescing so long as Is &C had
cha re of them Mrs. Baughma a,
Who was for hanging defendant, swore
ItldL SIZE uClELudnk "
Anna that unless she would take his
medicine and stop accusing bim, he
would give her something that would
stretch her out. But both Mrs. and
Miss Anna Charles heard no such re-
mark from Isaac Had he made
any such expression one or both the
two Annas would certainly have
heard it, Mrs. Boughman said that
defendant said the patients acted
inst as my wife did" Now, Isaac's
wife died of spinal meneDgitis, and
the symptoms developed in that dis
ease were something similar TO those
which manifested themselves in .he
poisoned persons. And this was said
at time when the patients, ac-
cording to DIR. Surgeons testimony,
were all getting better On Friday
Mr. Fuller, reporter for the Toledo
Blade, had talk, so be testified, with
Melissa, and on Friday, June 3, 1876,
was at the bed side of Melissa Charles,
when defendant came up, and Melissa
accused Isaac of having placed poison
10 the dry yeast. And on being asked
by her what he had done with the bal
ance of the yeast, he stated that he had
|, put il where it would not make against
him. Now this was a volunteer wit
ness. because he was outside the juris-
jiction of this courr, and e was under
, no obligation to come here Now, in
/, his testimony before the eoroners
Jury, and in his letter to the Toledo
: Blade he made no mention OF
this conversation. Before that in
!, quest he was sworn to ''tell the truth,
j the whole truth and nothing but tie
truth" and now he comes all the way
, from Michigan to make this new revel-
alton. Counsel believed this witness
. unreliable and that there was not a