New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1883-09-30
sTR4TFORUS TRAGIC PROBLEM

| STRlTFORUS TRAGIC PROBLEM.
| The horrible Connecticut mystery seems TO
have staggered officials, reporters and detect
ives alike. The very abundance and apparent
inconsistency of evidence confuse them. In
such cases, it is generally true thatlthe explana-
ton which reconcilrs apparently conflicting
| evidence, however improbable 1t may SEEM ls
| the correct one. Rose Clark was walking, says
enc witness, on the road toward her house WIN
| a man not recognized by the witness, some time
! after her departure from the house OF Lewis.
| 1t does not vet appear that this evidence mas
| been shaken. The witness knew Lewis, and
doubtless would have recognized him there
| fore the man with whom the woman was walk
| ing was probably not her intended husband.
| Again, her clothes were dry, though it had
rained heavily after she left Lewiss house.
| Dry dust was found between the sole and upper
| leather CT her shoes. If these statements ale
| correct. the woman came or her body WIS
| brought to the spot where 1t was found after
| IL o'clock at night. Then somebody believed
| to be Lewis was driving fuIiously, i'll wagon
| stnted to be his, on back road between his
| house and the place where the body MAS found,
and this occurred after the storm had passed.
| IF the last evidence is to be believed, Lewis
| has testified falsely to conceal something.
These morsels OF evidence seem to be irrecon-
cilable, and the perplexity of the detectives and
the iury is not strange unless they car see rea-
| son to drop one item or the other as false.
But il is not impossible that the three are true.
| The woman may have walked with a strange
man after leaving Lewis's house; she may
| have remained under some shelter with HIM
| during the rain and Lewis may have beo0
moved by jealousy to search for her after size
| left him. There is absolutely nothing III the
evidence thus far published to exclude these
suggestions.
| 1t is PLAIN that the woman was not killed for
the purpose of robbery. Had any stranger COM
n,itted or attempted lustful crime, he could
| have fed in Il dark night and on Il lonely road
without committing murder. The theory that
somebody chOked the woman to prevent her
| outcries, and unintentOnally chOked her TO
death, has nothing TO support it. To all APP
| pearance, she was murdered by somebody who
| meant to kill her, either from fear of exIOFAre
or in frenzy of jealousy. 1t is conceivable
| that she might have been with some person So
circulnstanced that even the risk of murder
would have seemed to him preferable to an eX-
| pOsure of his conduct. Or II is conceivable that
| Lewis, having followed her in fit of jealousy,
might have killed her in rage, and then
placed the body where it WAS found. TO sup
| pose that he killed her merely to avoid a mar.
rage is not sensible Nor is it sensible to sup
| pose that he killed her because she would not
| consent to his wishes. Even if he was abroad
that night, with rage in his heart, and searching
for the woman, it does not necessarily follow
| that he found her. 1t is now said that the
| stains discovered IN the barn and wagon may
not be of human blood. And even in that
case, the supposition that the victim was muir
| dered in Lewis's barn must be abardoned, I'M
| less the evidence of those who saw her walking
homeward with a stranger is set aside.
Assuming that all the evidence thus far
given is correct, it must be inferred that Rose
Clark was killed either 10y an unknown man
who walked hOmeward with her. or by ieal-
Gus aud passionate man who was engaged to be
married to her. and who followed her after she
had started hOmeward. 7 he evidence as it
stands does not exclude either explanation.
The examination of stains supposed to be
blood, in the barn or the carriage OF Lewis,
lessons the evidence against him, and there APP
pears to be small foundation as yet for the story
that somebody else had blOod-stained garments
to hide after the night OF the tragedy. But an
inquiry into the previous life and associations
of the murdered woman seems to be at least
as likely to serve the ends of justice as any pull
pit denunciatiOn of the person whom clergy
man suppOses to be guilty. The COroner's jury
in the case apparently halted between two
opinions, and then agreed upon a compromise
verdict which practically is verdict of mot
prover." This seems decidedly hard on Lewis.
fha their minds
that the man was guilty they should have hesi-
ated before placing upon him a burden OF sus-
picion which he has no means of casting OF.