Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1886-02-11

srme Object he had IN view. aud which he
a<tmed important What object could ne
except TIC &c nee himself o. that part Of Ashain
70 which gold key would be most probably
attached None other can be well con-
s.ised e 5 Ms Insw the, be nse '1s'
been found or not Ifhe could set rid OF the
chain ef arm, there would be nothing 10
which such key wonld probably be as
sehsd. Hence It's absence would be bene'
Ioss not such conduct sustain the testi..
chy OF Judge Foster, OF 0atewood 81
Walker and ot JoelS We submit that,
win The testimony o. the witness la,,
besonsing 10 the prisoner. Hence we insist
that the Key icing the prisoners. 10 proves
that he was with the Sill that night ~ the
reservoir and was her murderer. IL proves
his presence, without billiard. Tyler.
tucker Williams, or stratton. But win
them, II proves beyond all reasonable doubt
that the prisoner. who had seduced Ma
cousin, murdered her.
THAT LONELY sPor.
with whom bnt the prisoner would she
have gone 10 that lonely spot that nignts
Who eould have led her by false promises
10 herdeafh save he who. by false promises.
lad led her TO The loss OF her virtue In
whom would she have had such confluence
chastity an the probabilities, all the IN
fsfsbces, all the facts. point 10 me prisoner'
here 'all the circumstance OF fine, ptas.,
scfsce. means, and opportunity" concur IN
polptiDg to the prisoner as the pefPellhipI
~ The erilne' We will now show that the
eircpmsta noes OF conduct also point TO nun.
when such Is the case, says tsls court IN
mora. n NOT an absolute certainty OF MS
guilt
Is pa Was seen at the Davis Hotel that
night about ~ o'clock. Where BE was uu-
ring The day. and where be was during tne
ealiy part OF the night. up 10 nearly 10
o'clock. ihe record does not show, unless ne
was The man whom 80 many persons
thought they saw with the glfl. tie maze
no attempt TO sccount for himself during
inc day or the night. And yet when ar
resied he told The officers that ~ would be
easy enough for me To prove where was
livery place went 70 met somebody that
knew me This remark was not only
falso but II showed upon It's face that ~
was false lie lad been asked what lriends
had been with him during the day, and
aap n be supposed that an Innocent man
would have nade such an indennlte
answer? a man free or guilt would nave
given the details OF hIs life that day naming
specifically where ne went ana WIN WHO'LL .'.,.,
With innocence would have strengthened
his defence IL Is true that a man sometimes |
when overcome with fear or anxiety. makes
innocontly an injurious remark. But this
man Is conduct can be explained on no such |
theory. From the very flrst moment OF ms
arrest and always afterwards, he dlsp'ayeu |
remarkable GOODNESS and calmness-coOiness
and calmnesstoo extreme 10 be consistent |
with Innocence. Noman, at all respectable, |
would not have been at least Indignant at |
the charge OF having murdered MS cousin
who had been found both murdered and /
pregnant.
BEHAVIOR WHEN ARRESTED.
A few minutes after his arrest he asked |
what evidence was had against him; and |
hen The officer refused TO tell him he said. |
should like to know, sir, so that may |
know what line OF defence TO prepare
Thus IL appears that whatever he said after |
his arrest cannot be accounted for upon the |
theory that he was overcome with fear or |
excitement. Hence he calmly and pur-
posely declined Ia toll where he was. or
with whom be was. during the day and
early night OF March 18th.
Again: When he was arrested ne was tOld
that II Was upon the charge OF murder. lie
made no exclamation OF surprise, OF fear. or
OF Indignation. He does not even ask the
ma me OF the party whom he Is charged with
having murdered. surely such question
would have sprung instantly. almost invol'
unfairly, from the lips OF an innocent man.
GONE IN AND TAKE SUPPER"
Instead Of SO doing. he says 10 the officer
who had just arrested him for murder.
Such GOODNESS was not consistent with inno-
cence. The most innocent man would have
shown more indignation, or would At least
have shown some desire TO know the name
OF the person he was charged with murder
ing Such GOODNESS. such calmness such IN
difference. could only have been shown by
one who was anticipating some such event
and who he I'd nerYed himself 10 meetlt. We
have already noticed his conduct as to his
cha rm. chain. Such an attempt 10 destroy
evidence is an act tending strongly TO prove
criminality. lie would never have attempt |
I'D TO get rid OF his charm-chain had he not |
feared the finding OF the key he lost that |
night In his haste on the reservOlr.ground. |
THE SCRATCHED HAND.
Again: We ask the attention Of the Court |
10 the testimony as 10 the scratches on the |
prisoners hand. Dr. Beale and DR.. Cabell |
prove the character of the scratches. "They |
were then circular. &c. The wounds were |
not like they were made by briars splin- |
tiers. think they were of such nature as |
might have been made by hnger-rails.
Again: They were nearly circular-might |
have been made by finger nails; don't think |
striking against furniture or fence could |
have made them" The scratches were first |
seen at Centreville ON March l4th, before |
be and his father started home. kstls and |
Pierce testified that they heard him tell his |
father that he got the hurt by striking his |
hand against the car railing.
Mr.. Il ID. Workman testified TO the efforts /
OF the prisoner in the Police Court to keep |
from view the back Of the hand upon which |
were the scratches.
HIS FATHERS EVIDENCE.
When he reached Richmond. under arrest
he told Policeman sweeney that IL was "a
kind Of eruption" When upon trial, his
father attempts 10 account for them by
stating that be saw him slip and scratch
bis hand against knot.hole in fence at
Centreville when they were starting home.
We submit that the account given By his
father appears from the evidence to be most
improbable. IL is contradicted by the ex-
pert testimony-by the testimony OF Ests, |
Pierce, and sweeney. Do not such contra
dictory statements-does not the attempt
TO hide the scratches-dOes not the attempt
TO hide the charm chain-does not his per-
feet Indifference when charged with muir
der-does not his continued Indifference
when told that IL was his pregnant cousin
whom he was charged with numbering
do not they all show that his conduct was
that OF q guilty man?
THE VERDICT JUSTIFIED.
Then. all the circumstances OF time,
place, motive means. opportunity, and con-
duct. concur In pointing to the prisoner as
the perpetrator OF the crime" Such proof
" must pi oduce moral If not absolute GER
tainty." The jury, then, were well justified
in finding their verdict; the lower court did