New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1885-06-06
THE CLTVERI US CASE.

The case of Thomas Cluverius, convicted AT
Richmond, Va, after a long trial, OF the murder
of his cousin. Lillian Madison, Is one OF those
difficult problems the solution of which depends
unon circumstantial evidence alone. The body
Of the girl was found floating in a reservoir, and
ot first suicide was suspected, but as inquiry
proceeded facts were encountered when sug-
gested foul play, and by degrees the clrcuhi-
stances seemed to point more and more strongly
to Cluverius rs the criminal. 1T was known
that he and the dead girl had been on very IN
innate terms Ii was supposed at one time that
they were to be married, but 1t appeared that
Cluyerius mad recently developed other views.
There was proof that certain young woman.
not clearly identified had gone to hotel, ana
that there she had been called upon by an I'M
known Young man. with whom she had walked
ont. The prosecution undertook to prove that
This voung woman was Lillian Madison, and
that the Young man was Cluyerius. One of the
strongest pieces of evidence was watch-key
found on the bank of the reservoir. Several
witnesses swore that they had seen Cluvenus
wearing Just such a key before the murder.
The web of testimony woven about Cluverius
became stronger every day as the prosecution
developed its case. The theory put forward
was that the defendant had scduced his cousin
under promise OF marriage; that she had I'M
plored him to redeem his pledge; that he
meantime had become engaged elsewhere and
that finally he determined TO get rid of Lillian,
trusting that she would be believed to have
drowned herself.
But man who happened to be near the
reservoir on the night of the murder had heard a
IL IN, oil tul nj
There were also marks of n struggle on the
bank and marks of violence on the body.
Cluvcrius failed to establish an alibi. He
could not disprove the notorious intimacy be-
tween himself and his cousin. Nothing was
brought forward to support the theory OF sui
eide and the interviews at the hotel were
shown 10 have been between Cluvcrlus and
Lillian The Identification was not absolutely
complete. Ii can rarely be 40 in such a case.
But the defence could not fit in any other per-
son than the defendant TO the facts, and no
doubt this was one reason why their case broke
down. The presumption is that the jury, III
finding verdict of murder In the first degree
were largely influenced by the consideration
that if the chain of proof was not complete no
other person than Cluverius had any possible
interest in putting Lillian Madison ont OF the
way and he had. But the jury must also have
been satisfied that the circumstantial evidence
was su ficent TO base conviction upon. and 1t Is
clear that the verdict Is heartily indoIscd by
the people of the ncighborhood. who have
evinced the deepest interest in the trial from
the first, and have followed it carefully
throughout.
1t was difficult case, but it cannot be
doubted that the verdict is a just one. In fact,
the trial developed a singular neglect of prccau-
sions on the part of the defendant so that his
own carelessness In more than one instance
furnished testimony which n more shrewd
criminal would have rendered unattainable.
In nearly all cases of circumstaEtial evidence
there is some room for doubt, but here the
demonstration that the victim did not kill her
self seems to have led almost directly to the
cumulative evidence upon which Cluvcrius has
been found guilty of her murder and in this
conviction there is good ground for believing
that justice has been done.