Staunton vindicator. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 1860-1896, 1886-11-19

I her over the picket-fence on the reservoir
embankment. certainly do not believe
that such man could have taken such q
woman in such condition and stood her
up inside of the picket fence, with her
back to the fence, and held her and placed
his hand on her back and showed her into
| the reservoir face foremost. The position
of her body in the water was consistent
with her own act Of plunging from the
inside of the picket fence into the water
head foremost, and both of her hands
going before her to the bottom Of the res
ervoir and clutchlng the mud fron the
bottom.
PRISONER AND MOZART HALL.
Your brother stated to Police Officer
Robins on his way to Richmond in GUS
| tody that on the night of the 18th OF
March, when Lille Madison met her
death at the reservoir, he was at Mozart
Hall. You remember that that is in evil
dence. Well, now, how IS it that your
brother has never bsen able to produce
witnesses to testify that they saw him at
the Mozart2
do not know what my brother said to
Police Officer Robbins, nor do know why
he has been unable to produce witnesses
| to prove that he was at the Mozart Friday
night, but the evidence on his trial shows
that he was at the Mozart in the after
noon, and that there was but one person
there on that occasion who knew him and
saw him (Thomas P. Bagby, Esq.,, of West
Point, and Mr.. Bagby testified that he
only got glimpse of him in the audience.
If Mr. Bagby had not thus casually seen
him it would not have been proven that
he was at the Mozart at all. 1t follows.
therefore, that he was not so we'll known
in Richmond, and that he did not know
so many persons as to be able to prove his
movements in the city. 1t is reasonable,
therefore, to believe that there was no one
at the Mozart Friday night whom he saw
and knew, or who saw and knew him.
| think the chances would be against a
stranger visiting large city and going
alone to a theatre or place of amusement,
largely attended, being able to prove that
he was there, and the life and liberty of
such stranger, if dependent on such
proof, would be in great peril.
| WHY HE DID NOT ACCOUNT FOR
HIMSELF.
don't know that it is true, but have
heard it said that at the beginning of the
trial, or rather before the trial began,
your brother promised to account for him
self every hour during the day of March
ID, 1885. Can you explain how 1t was
that he failed to do so ?
cannot explain IN any other way than
the following: 1t was an easy matter, as
the proceedings in the trial court will
show, and as every one will admit, for the
Commonwealth, through the agencies EN-
ployed, and pressed on by public seDti
ment and prejudice, to produce any num-
Der of witnesses from all the walks of life
to support the charges against my brother
but it was difficult 10 find persons so will
I ing to be identified with my brother as
witnesses in his behalf. Your paper, the
Richmond "Dlspltch," was publishing
everything that it could obtain to keep uI
and feed the morbid demand of the people
for something observation-disclosures its
columns prosecuted, tried, and convicted
my brother at the bar of.the public before
he was tried in CORTLAND | do not be-
'lieye, from the effort that was made in
my brothers. behalf, that he could prove
that he ate mouthful in the city of Rich
mond during his visit in March, except
that Mr.. Davis proved that he ate an apple
at the Davis House on the night of the
18th with his usual composure and pleas
antness of manner.
JURY AND PUBLIC CLAMOR.
Do you think that the jury we're inau
enced by anyspublic clamor to find tht
verdict that they did?
do not know what to believe or say al
to the jury being Influenced by public
clamor. But do know that the Jury
might have known that it was very 4dif
fcult matter to find persons to serve who
had not formed and expressed an opinion
from what they had read in the newspa-
pers; they knew from various sourc es-
from what they could hear..and see what
the public demanded. and that there wal
a demand for my brothers. life. They saw
bouquets brought into the courtroom II
their presence and placed upon the desks
OF the attorneys who prosecuted him, anG
the indications and apprehensIons that The
Judge had either by observation or by
what he heard, or from his O WI reasonings
or convictions, were such that when the
Jury took the paper and retired to consult
as to their verdict, the Judge had six stal
wart policemen placed over the prisoner
in the box to guard against some demon.
stration of an unusual characterize what
nature know not; surely not to prevent
the escape of my brother.
WHY THEY WENT TO TRIAL WHEN
THEY DID.
Well, knowing that the public mind was
excited-that the whole population was
enraged-how was it that your brother
and his counsel consented to go into
trial when they did-at the first call
ing of the case?
don't know, unless it was because my
brother and his counsel thought that the
newspapers had furnished them all that
could be found out or obtained, and that
there was nothing but circumstantial evi
dence to convict my brother Of the muir
der, and that there was not sufficlency
of evidence to do this, and the defence
could gain nothing by allowing the Com
monwealth additional time to marshal its
witnesses or harmonize their testimony
and nv brothers. consciousness of his in