Alexandria gazette. [volume] (Alexandria, D.C.) 1834-1974, 1886-12-06

failed to have seen it had it been there at
that time? He did not see ituat:l nert day
The body had been pulled along Oh the
rnad for thirty feet before taken out Of the
water. May it not have been caused by the
forehead coming in contact with brick or
something as the body was pulled along oa
the mud and consequently came there
| 0tttr he had washed tbs mud from her face?
This is moro reasonable than to suppose
that it was there and not seen by this careful
expert. The theory of q 'scuflle' on the EN-.
hankment is completely disprcved by her
/ placid loos' and tbs condition of her hair
and clothing. The tracks prove that there
bad been 10 scutlle between man and
| romdn, Tor in that case the mans tracks
would have remained and the woman's de
stroyed. rs it was only the woman's tracks
were there and two heel tracks, apparent.
ly mans. The food in her stomach and
the condition of her body indicate the hour
Of her death. By the condition of her BODY
the hour would be by or O'Clock Of the
morning OF the fourteenth. As to the food,
DR.. Taylor says: id six hours to the time
she last par;ook Of food and you would
have very accurate idea Of the hour of her
DEATH Sue was last seen to partake of
food ct dinner between l and 2 o'clock p.
N. The 18Th at the hotel This would bring
the hour of her death before p. M. Care.
fully considering the evidence as to her re-
turning to the hotel after leaving at about
p. m. there is nothing to prove that this WIS
not about the hour. If she ate after her
dinner it was not at the hotel, but after she
left there, between and p. m--how long
after Is not knoWn-this would bring the
hour OF her death after II o'clock that night
Take either hour as the time, and the evil
Ccnce proved your petitioner at his hotel.
nearly two miles from the reservoir. To
say the least, the Commonwealth test.
monN leaves the hour Of her death in doubt.
DIR. Taylor stated after the post n,ortcm ex-
animation, and when there was no excite
ment about the cass, that it was a case of
suicide and not of violence And at the
trial the medical facts are not Inconsistent
with the theory OF suicide-they do not
prove 1t, either for or against it. AS to the
motive to take her life, your petitioner will
Econtent himself with simply but emphatical
ly denying the motive charged to him with.
out proof. To 60 into the details of this
charge would cast reflections on the dead,
which your petitioner has no desire to do,
and oul = result IN casting suspicious anon
the living without furnishing conclusive evi
dence. None had stronger reasons for tax.
ing her life than she. She gave expression
to this feeling to the conductor on the train
coming to Richmond, showing that her miud
was in tho channel favorable to suicide II
is not for your petitioner to dig down into
lhc grave OF the dead girl and gather there
the knowledge Of her movements, which
are buried with her dust; but the supposi-
tlon Is reasonable one that, leaving the
red shawl upon the fence, she goes down
that street until she reaches the reservoir,
only few hundred yards beyond, and there,
with ouiy Gods eye to pity, she buried all
her shame and faults beneath those waters.
knowing that the worlds cold frowns would
then be mellowcd into tears of pity and for
giveueSs. One of the judges OF the Court OF
Appeals, after admitting oil of tho evidence
of the Commonwealth to he true and after
rejecting The evidence IF your petitioner
declares that the Co1monwe a!lh has never
proven That crime he's been committed
He respectfully submits that il would be a
physical impcs:ihility fer a person of his siz-
and strength-undevelon by hard labor
to take this woman, as heavy as or perhaps
heavier than himself, and raised her, in
senseeess, Timber condition, from the
ground. and thrown her over that fence
clear Of the slopnS cmhankment into tho
water beyond. She certainly could not have
been stood on her feet inside of the fence,
and then thrown face foremost into the va
ter, as the Common Health claims, for il is
also Claimed Tat she WAS sensciess ami
llmber. l was almost stranger in Rich.
mond at the time, and if the life and liberty
Of a man is made to depend upon his ability
10 prove that he was at certain place at Il
ceFtnlu time, a stranger would be in great
peril III visiting any city and going about
alone. He may, during the day and night,
meet persons, aud the chances are against
him that thoy will remember the time or
place of the casual meeting. Your petition
er could give no account Of himself because
at that time his lips were sealed. He can
now testify as any other witness. This
great and important change in The laws of
this State has heeu mads since your peii
toner was tried. As to the koy, your peti
TONER asserted, and asserts now, that he
never saw that key until produced agains;
him in court. Your petitioner also knew
that the witness bad never fixed kew for
him. Was it, therefore, surprising that his
counsel objected to tho witness opening the
key, not Knowing whether his motives were
honest or that he only wanted in this wav
to strengthen his testimony? No person
would have been more anxious at any time
to have that key opened than your petition
or, could he know that he w;tae:s honestly
| expected to find therein something to helm
him decide whether he did fix the KEY or
not OF those who associated with YOUR ;c
TONER almost daily, not ono could be found
who had seen him with that key On The
other hand, witness for tho Common.
wealth proved that it was in the GIRLS room
the morning Of tie 18th. Your petitioner
produced hiS key, sworn to by the members
of his family-one Of whom gave it to him
and by friends that had seen him with it.
Upon this key they rest the charge that
your petitioner was at the reservoir
Accompanying the petition were the afi
davItS of DR.. Calvin Johnson, who fixed
tooth for Miss Madison between ~ aud
O'Clock on the 18th of March, 1885, together
with dispositions from Robert Bell, jr., John
Lawler, I. Z. Carol and Samuel Jefferson.
of Alexandria, tcstifyng that they heard z.
A. Howell, one of the jurors, express bis
opinion that the accused was guilty bsIore
he took his place as juror; also, similar
papers from j. L. Sherwood and r. W.
French, two other jurors from this city, who
state that they were under the inn.ession