The Anderson intelligencer. [volume] (Anderson Court House, S.C.) 1860-1914, 1880-05-27
The Whitaker Case.

Point entered Cadet Whittaker's room
while he was away and stole the paper
on which to write note warning him
that he was to be "fxed." It is possible
that there is person at West Point so
good hand at forging, and who has 80
thoroughly studied Whittaker's writing
that he could initiate it in such way as
to deceive five very studious experts,
though this would imply that the person
is more skilful in that line than any de-
tected rogue who ever went to State
prison. It is possible, as Whitaker pre-.
tends, that the resemblances in paper
which seem so strong a point against him
are only general. 1t is possible even for
Whitaker to have so torn sheet of
paper that piece torn by another man
from another sheet would fit with Whit
takers pieces so as to make the apparent
reconstruction of a perfect sheet. All
these points are possible. But what is
the probability of their occurrence? Or,
above all, what is the probability of the
coincidence of so many of them as must
coincide to establish Whittaker's inno-
cence?
Perhaps the reader scarcely needs to
be informed that the probability of the
occurrence in one train of circumstances
of so many barely or remotely possible
facts is infinitely small. But if we sup
pose that copies of Whittaker's chirog.
raphy had been secured, that they had
been studied so we'll as to make possible
wonderfully successful limitations, that
paper from his own room had been stolen,
the note written upon this and safely de.
posted where he alone would find it,
and if we suppose that all the Italian or
Machiavellian traits thus implied are to
be found in the bold and sometimes OBJ
streperous boys with which West Point
is filled up, what must we suppose. was
the motive? Was it friendly intima-
tion? Why would that friend wish to
initiate Whittaker's hand? Was it the
act of an enemy? Would an enemy
warn man if be knew him to be in
danger, but not in such danger as to in
yolve loss of life? In order to get any
motive at all which will connect all these
Machiayellian proceedings with the send
ing of the note of warning we must sup
pose that the shadowy personages who
did the hazlng imagined that Whitaker
would be accused of outraging himself,
and they must have imagined this not at
the last moment but from the first step,
and have counterfeited his hand to make
the note part of the evidence against
him. This is a violent hypothesis
Does even Professor Greener believe that
this is possible?
But it requires neither the admission
of very violent hypothesis nor the re-
cognition of the likelihood of the occur
renee of whole range of unlikely facts
if we suppose that Whitaker himself
wrote the warning and did his own out.
rage. For this it requires only that we
should believe Whitaker to be clumsy
trickster and deceitful rogue. Is it like
ly that Whitaker would deceive any
one? In judging the possibilities on
this score we have some facts to measure
by. Whitaker said that he was beaten
with an Indian club, and the bloody club
was found in his room. No bruises were
found on him, however, that the club
could have given, and the doctors say
blood was drawn from him only at the
ears. He himself testi6es that his ears
we're cut only after the clubbing was done
With. Who, then, daubed the club with
blood There is a decided appearance
that it was Whitaker. He pretended
that he was unconscious for several
hours; but his own testimony shows that
he was in sound and conscious condi.
ton at the very time at which his theory
of the outrage supposed him to be help
less and senseless. He pretended be was
so tied that he could not escape; but his
hands we're practically free and the knots
were within his reach.
These points will indicate whether
Whitaker would try to deceive anybody.
He is reported to have said that the dis
crepancies in his testimony prove his in
nocence, since if he had invented his
story he would not have varied from it.
This only indicates that he has never
studied the subject of evidence, and that
he does not understand all that is meant
by the ancient law, which declares that
"Liars must have good memories" He
is not strong as to memory.-New York
Herald.