Yorkville enquirer. [volume] (Yorkville, S.C.) 1855-2006, 1886-10-06
Mistellaueuns &eadiug.
CURIOSlTIES IN CRIMES.
THE WEIGHT OF INDIRECT PROOFS CON-
SIDERED

CURIOSlTIES IN CRIMES.
THE WEIGHT OF INDIRECT PROOFS CON-
SIDERED.
1t is common error, said lawyer to a
reporter for the Herald, to suppose that cir
cumstantial evidence is of an inferior quail
ity to direct evidence. This fallacy is much
insisted upon in criminal defenses, and
there are innumerable cases in the books
which apparently sustain the idea. Yet the
idea is wrong, as very slight consldera-
tion of the nature of the testimony will
show. Indirect proofs of crime have been
far more convincing in some cases than di-
rect proofs in others.
Take the case of Professor Webster in
Boston thirty-six years ago, tried for the
murder of DR.. Parkman. Webster was a
professor in the medical department OF Har-
ward University, and was indebted to Park
man, who was Shylock and most persist
ent and annoying creditor. Webster was
extravagant and lived beyond his means.
He could not pay, but he made an appoint
ment for Parkman to call at his rooms in
the college. The latter was seen going to
the college, but was never seen alive after
ward. A week later there was found in
the furnace connected with the prisoners
laboratory in the college fused with the
Stag and cinders great number of human
bones, block of mineral teeth and small
quantity of melted gold. Other bones were
discovered in vault under the prisoner 3
rooms, and the entire trunk Of a human
body was found in tea-chest, imbedded in
a quantity of tea which had belonged to
Webster. These different parts, when put
together by anatomists, went to make up
the body of person of DIR. Parkman's age,
sixty years, and the form of the reconstruct
ed body had the peculiarities shown to be
possessed by him. No duplicate bones were
found, over and above what was necessary
to compose one body The remains were
further shown to have been separated by q
person possessed of anatomical skill, but not
for anatomical purposes. Three dentists
testified to the mineral teeth as being made
for DIR. Parkman, and that the amount OF
gold found was about the quantity used in
plate. Webster made solemn assertion OF
his innocence, stated that Parkman had
called and that he had paid him and ne
had gone away. But the jury convicted
him, and he was] sentenced to be hanged
On the eve of his execution he confessed his
crime.
In another case of murder by a pistol shot
it was proved that the wadding of the pis-
tol found in the wound was portion of
letter belonging to the person accused, OF
which the other part was found in the pock-
ct, and that some property of the murdered
person was found on the prisoner. These
circumstances clearly prove and unexplain-
ed are just as convincing as the direct testi-
mony of person who saw the murder.
There are instances where accusing cir
cumstances envelope an innocent man, and
plenty of cases occur where the testimony
has been fabricated, both direct and indi-
rect, to convict the innocent. The admins
tration of justice is not perfect, and the oc-
casional condemnation of the innocent is an
evil that will happen under all systems.
But by the safeguards thrown about prls'
oner we have reduced the chances of such
an event to the minimum. Lord Brough-
I1du was OuC6 dShSo IL lSlhSotA1StohSSo SS~AN
lie. "Yes," he replied, eff the witnesses
lie."
A young man was accused of crime.
Three witnesses swore positively that they
saw him commit it at a particular place
and time. He did not cross-examine them,
and he introduced no witnesses. He asked
the Judge to turn to the courts record of
the day on which the alleged crime was
committed. The record showed that on
that day the prisoner was being tried for
another crime concerning which he had
proven an alibi. He was acquitted. That
was case where one circumstance, the fact
of his presence in court, overturned the di-
rect testimony of three witnesses.
There is grim old story told in ancient
law books of murder committed at an inn.
Three guests were entertained one Wintry
night. Two were friends travelling togeth-
er; the other was an elderly gentleman of
wealth, accompanied by his servant. The
two friends occupied one room, and the 9TH
er gentleman an adjoining room. In the
night the two friends were aroused by groans
in the adjoining chamber. Striking light
and fastening to the room they saw the
landlord standing by the bedside with a
bloody knife in his hand, and on the bed lay
the elderly gentleman dead with wound in
his throat. The landlord was arrested for
murder. He declared his innocence, and
said that he had heard groans, and, fearing
robbers, he had armed himself with knife,
and had just reached the room when the
two gentlemen entered. His assertions
proved of no avail, and he was finally con-
victed of the murder and executed. Prior
to his execution he asserted his innocence,
but said that he had gone to the room for
the purpose of committing the murder and
robbing his guest, but reached there just
as some one else had perpetrated the crime
and escaped. Strange as this confession
was. it turned out to be true. Years af-
terward the servant of the murdered man
confessed on his deathbed that he had muir
dered his master and robbed him. The
old law reporter sums up the case with the
formula: "Thus the innocence of the other
man was completely vindicated." One of
Balzacs stories turns upon incidents of a
similar kind.
In that very ancient case where Benja-
min was arrested for being in possession of
his brother Joseph's silver cup, the breth-
rem might have had hard time of explain
ing away the ugly circumstances had not
Joseph revealed himself. But such circum-
stances, striking as they are, do not initiate
the value of circumstantial evidence. They
are simply warnings not to draw too large an
inference from single facts. Circumstances