The Sunday tatler and Jersey City express. (Jersey City, N.J.) 1883-1886, 1885-02-08
SUNDAY. FEBRUARY s, 1885.


The great Wainwright murder trial at
Toms River was notable at its opening
mainly because Of the mystery surround
ing the crime, and because it put five necks
in jeopardy at once. It has been made
more notable since by the manner in
which it has been conducted on both
sides. Attorney General Stockton did not
consider it worth his while to attend it,
and the Court-the presiding Judge-se-
lected lawyer to assist the State in the
prosecution. That is very unusual pro-
ceeding on the part of Judge, it seems to
us. 1t is but natural Of course for him to
desire that the wisdom of his choice shall
be justified by tze success of his friend in
achieving conviction, and to that ex-
tent at least he may be presumed to have
an interest in the case for the State that
must affect his impartiality as an arblter
between it and the defendants. The main
purpose the assistant whom the Court
selected, seems to have had in view so far
is to spin it out as much as possible. He
is paid by the day, and the force of his ex-
aminations of the witnesses, direct and
cross. has been weakened by their unnec-
essary prolixity. He spent whole day,
for instance. in having the map covering
the scene of the murder explained to the
jury. Left to himself, Surveyor Irons
could have told the story of each line upon
the cardboard drawing in half an hour.
But Mr.. Lindabury found it profitable, if
not wise, to have its features described by
the tedious question and answer system.
The putting of unnecessary questions has
destroyed the whole effect of the case;
and points of the examination. where
striking clsmaxes might have arrested
the attention of the jury, have fallen
fat, and possibly unnoticed by them. If
the story of the killing and the method of
tracing it home to Rockwell and the VAIN
wright family had been skillfully and con-
secutively developed, the proofs of their
guilt would have been SO forcibIy present.
ed to the intelligence of the jurors that
escape would have been impossible; but
the testimony has been shoveled in, after a
hotch potch fashion that will make it
necessary for the State to pick up the bits,
and piece them together before the jurors
will appreciate their significance. Beyond
all that, the State seems to have carelessly
failed to present the strongest proofs with
In their reach, upon the question of con-
spiracy between Rockwell and the family.
which is of the very essence of the States
case. The body of the murdered VAIN
wright was, it will be remembered, stripped
of every bit of clothing before it was hid
den in the creek at Bamber; when it was
hidden, it was weighted down under the
waters surface with log, and the clothing
was burned. These precautions could
have had but one purpose. It was hoped
that the body would not be discovered
until decay had SO far done its work as to
efface every clue it might itself have af-
forded for its Identification, and the cloth
ing was taken from it and burned so as to
make Identification by that means equally
impossible. 1t was plainly part of the
scheme of the murderers to escape prose-
cution by the failure of satisfactory proof
that the corpus deficit was that of the miss
ing Wainwright, and it might have been ex-
pected that every person engaged in the
conspiracy to kill him would deny, if the
body were not found till such denial
was safe, that it was his body that the
State had produced. That was Just what
The family did, as they looked upon the
bloated figure that had been taken from
the creek at Bamber. Mrs. Wainwright
and Emma were specially certain that it
was not that of the head of their family.
The denial was the necessary sequence of
the attempt to destroy proofs of its iden-
tity, and the making of it showed com
mon purpose between them and the per-
sons who concealed the naked corpse. The
preof that the mans own family had re-
fused to recognize it, when it was patent
that a part of the scheme of the conspira-
tors was to prevent Identification, would
have linked them directly with the con-
spiracy TO murder. But the State failed to
offer single witness on that point,
though many were on hand, and SO al
lowed the most important branch of their
case to go by default. The defence have
had very much more difficult task before
them, but they have managed their part
with skill that must be commended. Even
they, however, have uncovered the weak
ness of their case by the apparent hest
fancy they have shown about the placing
of their clients on the stand. A bold
stroke of policy might have been the clos
ing Of the case without any defence at all. i
and an appeal to the jury that as not
enough had been shown to justify con-
yiction the quintette were entitled to |
prompt acquittal Such o course would |
have been as dangerous as it would have
been bold, and the lawyers decided to put
in testimony. Having concluded to do /
that, there was no room for two opinions |
upon the question whether their clients
should be sworn or not. The States case is
one Of Prescriptions and differences. The
failure to put the defendants upon the
stand would have had the effect of strength
ening every adverse inference into an adj
mitted fact, and there was nothing left,
after it was concluded to make defence,
but to put the accused under oath for
Cross examination. This should have been
done without any hesitation, or manifest
fear Of results. All The defendants should
have been put on the stand with readiness
that indicated that they had nothing to
conceal nor anything to fear. Charles and