New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1882-05-20

the State has signally failed to fix the crime OF
murder beyond the reasonable doubt y which
is allowed for the benefit OF the prisoners
upon either of the three accused persons. NO
new testimony of any Importance has been
added to that which was brought out IN the
preliminary hearings by the Coroner's jury
and the Justice of the Peace 1t was open to
question whether the evidence was sufficient
in the first instance to warrant the hhuihe vi
bill by the Grand Jury. But there were
WHISPERED rumors that the prosecution hau
testimony of more positive character-possl-
bly the confession of Blanche Douglass, or evil
dence of the recent purchase OF arsenic by the
Malleys-which would connect tie prisoners d.
rectly with the crime. Those rumors, 1t seems,
were without foundation, and the case for the
prosecution is so weak that it is said the conn-
sci for the defence are seriously considering n
proposition to submit it without Offering any
further testimony.
The proceedings have been more in the ma
ture of an inqusition than a trial The pros
ecution could hardly expect to secure convlc-
ton upon the evidence thus far produced and
it could only have been in the hope that III the
course of the proceedings some new facts
might be developed connecting the accused
persons directly with the crime that the pros
ecuting attorney decided to bring them to trial'
OF this hope, as the case stands upon the CLOS
ing of the testimony for the prosecution
nothing remains. The accused may well go to
the Jury resting their case upon the
reasonable doubt of which they are en-
titled to take advantage. That they
are badly mixed up with the circumstances
attending Jennie Cramers death, whether 1t
was by suicide or murder, is very evident.
They are shorn of character, II they es-
cape severer punishment. Even If they shoulu
submit the case as it now stands, relying only
upon the reasonable doubt that remains to
secure acquittal or a divided jury, the faint OF
a strong suspicion of their guilt OF the CRIME
of murder would follow them through LIE. III
is claimed by their counsel and their frlendS
that they are able to remove this by the pro-
duction of testimony conclusvey proving an
alibi. VIII they do this ? VIII they go upon
the witness stand themselves as they are per
mitted to do under the Connecticut law and
testify as to their whereabouts at the time
Jennie Cramer must have met her dcath
One would suppose that if they were con-
sciouslv innocent there would be no question
about it.
But it happens that all three of these prs
oners have in greater or less degree entanged
themselves in contradictions, some OF them IN
volving perjury in the previous hearings
They cannot go upon the stand without the
risk of further involving themselves without
the certainty of being compelled to admit that
they have been guilty already of falsehood and
perjury. They have to consider what would
be the effect of such disclosures upon the
minds of the jury, and to decide whether upon
the whole it would not be wiser to fall back
upon the existing reasonable doubt" than
take the risk of attempting to make
their innocence plain by testimony to
an abb beclouded 10y admitted perjury. The
only remaining chance for their conviction Is
as it seems to us, in their entanglinG them
selves in their own defence. The case that
the prosecution has failed to make out against
them they may possibly make out against
themselves. 1t has not unfrequently happened
in criminal cases that the accused have con-
victed themselves after the prosecution has
failed to produce evidence enough to convict
them. 1t may so happen iii this case. But
present appearances indicate that the mystery
of Jennie Cramer's death Will not be unrav-
elled by this trial. and perhaps never