Grand Rapids morning telegram., 1884-12-11
WILLARD MURDER CASE.
TESTIMONY OF PROF. PRESCOTT.
The Question of Admitting the Pro-
fessor as an Expert-His Tesfi-
monY Not Yet Complete.

Interest in the Miilard case continues.
The audience yesterday was large when the
court was called To order. After the roll call
of jurors the prosecution continued the ex-
animation of
DIR. Gundrum-l did not finish my evi-
dence yesterday, In regard 10 opening the
chest of the deceased: said nothing about
the face being covered with moles: Iremem-
Der there was more gas In the infesfines
than anticipated; the heart aud lungs ap-
peared healthy: this examination was about
10th of September, the time when the body
WAS re-exbumed; the brain was taken out
and put into a jar and given 10 Mr.. johnson:
Twas there with the jury the second time;
the same process of rinslng the Jars Was
used as at the first time.
Cross-examined-Did not say the jars were
sealed with wax: the string was sealed 10 the
jar over in the little hotel: never assisted In
such an examination before. and had no ex-
perience In arsenicai poisoning cases except
what learned from books: the nearest cases
of the kind handled were In the dissecfing
room had no experience with body before
that had been In the grave so long:I think
the rectum was not red; do not remember
whether testified in the Circuit Court of its
redness: have testified twice before this as to
the size of liver taken of: now testify the
amount was about a pound; didn't think the
evidence IN regdfu 10 III 80 Important. am
now convinced; didn't handle any of the or
gans, examined with the eye; / mean by the
lungs appearing in a healthy condition that
the air cells appeared so, from what saw of
their inside, and from several incisions: also
made incisions in the heart; did not make
examination of the spinal cord; the brain
was so decomposed did not examine il; the
second disenterment was made toward
o'clock: think Mr.. Davis was present: the
object of second disenterment-(o objection
raised by the prosecution don't know
special object except to take out the brain:
can't say l acted as medical expert for prose-
cutting attorney, but as adviser, answering
his questions put to me. Collection raised.)
The defense stated to the Court here, that
their position was that the prosecution made
the second examination of the corpse with
knowledge of the claim of the defense that
the arsenic was introduced after death; that
proper care was not exercised by them: that
the defense would show how much care was
exercised, thus affecting the credibility of
the witness, and that if proper examina-
ton had been made, il would have shown the
presence of arsenic in the body did not re-
suit from any other causes. The prosecu-
ton denied the assertion of the claim being
made at the first that arsenic had been used
in embalming the body, but that sfrychnine
had been said TO have been used. and when
the tests found arsenic and no strychnine,
the defence wanted to claim they had said
arsenic. The claim of the prosecution is that
the symptoms. manner of treatment and
the arsenic so fonnd shows it was used be-
fore death. Counsel for the defense claimed
the second exhumation was merely fishing
for evidence. In reply, the prosecution
said. that such a position, and of
of arsenic having been used to en-
balm the body had not been taken
in the previous trial, until after the trial was
l,1f sls<..~ L,1 Aal l.
former trial IN formulating a hypothetical
case that had been ruled upon adversely by
the Supreme Court, and it was to avoid snch
rulings that they wanted this evidence now
ruled out. The Court in admitting the
question, 'Is it not fact that the BRAN and
muscle was removed for the purpose of trac-
ing the presence of arsenic?" said that the
infallibility of the Supreme Court would be
recognized upon any point ii has passed
upon, but this court can't assume that the
facts now to be presented will be the same
as at the former trial. This trial is de moro
In which the evidence may be entirely new
and it cannot be assumed it will be identical.
The question was read.
Witness-"I presume that was the pur-
pose"
Re-direct-Both cans used for holding the
parts taken were of the same size; Mr.. Davis
was there think. (The prosecution receiv-
ing some uncertain or indefinite replies,
counsel for defence remarked to the oppos-
ing counsel: IF you are trying to show that
the witness's memory is unreliable. we are
willing to concede that
DEAD MANS EVIDENCE
BE- mutual consent of counsel, the stenog-
rapher's notes of the evidence of Eton 8.
Johnson, deceased since the former trial, was
read. He resided at Palo: was coroner August
p, when the body was taken out of the grave;
jury was sworn at grave: storm came up:
body was taken TO hall, then TO Baptist
Church shed: stomach. part of intestines,
liver and portion of kidneys were taken out:
got home about O'Clock al night after In
quest; sealed the box. tea box, and on
morning of oath sent il by American Express
TO Prof. Alfred b. Prescott at Ann Arbor:
directed the body to be put back IN the grave;
about month after disinferred body. re-
moved brain and some muscles of calf Of
legs.
Cross-examined--Cofin was opened while
swearing jury: twenty or thirty other persons
were present; read oath from a piece oi
paper: body was considerably decompoeed;
got the jars of Squire Halpin: washed them:
September ~ case was adjourned; got the
body out of the same grave.
The redirect examination of the deceased.
witness gave no new evidence. and the court
vas here adjourned until $50 p. IN. 70 await
the arrival of Prof. A. r. Prescott