Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1886-12-05


known, and In the face Of which 10 execu.
cute their verdict would be blow 10 every
principle Of justice and humanity.
(I) That your pesitioner has not had q
fair trial. From the day that the body OF
the dead girl was found In the reservoir
the manner In which the public mind has
been excited by the publishing and circu-
latine OF sensational reports IL not sucn
secret as 10 need anything from your petit
toner TO prove. IL In known TO the world.
lie may be excused for quoting from an
official paper OF this city "that almost
each household IN the city was nest OF
jealous detectives, anxious, ready, ana
striving TO furnish evidence for the convic-
tjou n the criminal" Mayors veto mes.
cage, November IA, 1851 In this condi-
ton Of the public, when every ruu1or was
taken as truth and honest people
we're getting facts and fsncies-what
they knew and what they thought
so mixed, your petitioner, In justice
10 himself, was forced 10 60 to trial
at a time when he believed "fair
and impartial trial "a guarantee to every
man was an impossibilily.
Your petitioner has been relieved OF
what under other circumstances wou'd
have been the responsibility OF this charge
by the published statement OF member OF
the Jury that tried him: alt Is useless TO
deny the fact that while there was no at
tempt directly made TO intimidate the Jury,
they were unqucstionably unduly Innu'
enced." -.
Your petitioner also presents herewith
aflidavits TO prove that one OF the Jurors
that tried him Dad formed and publicly err
pressed an opinion against him before ne
,.l tttrn
Can II be said that your petitioner mas nad
fair trial by such Juror!
Your petitioner simply states the factand
offers the proof, feeling that no comment
could add to It's weight or be needed by
your Excellencv when called on to protect
q citizen OF this Commonwealth.
q, Your petitioner has been convicted
for q crime that has not been proven COM
mitted.
That The girls death was caused by
Drawing In not denied. That she was
epen partially inssnSi0ie when she entered
the water there Is q doubt expressed by the
ptrhaps." Upon this word hangs the
theory OF a crime. Should not your petl.
toner have the benefit Of this doubt? The
only ground for the "perhdpS Is a" knot
or swelling" on her forehead. (See DIR.
Taylor's record, page Coz DR.. Taylor
washed the mud from her face on the EN-
bankment when she was taken from the
water after 10 O'Clock. lie did not then
see the "knot," though he noticed several
",riHing abrasious." Would he have fall
ed 10 have seen It had it been there at that
time. He did not see 1t until merit day.
The body had been pulled along on the
mud for thirty feet before taken out OF
the water. May ii not have been caused
by the forehead coming in contact with
brick or something a. the body was
"pulled along on the mud" and conse-
quenty came there after he had washed
the mud from her faceY This is more rea.
sonabe than TO suppose that 1t was there
and not seen by tins careful expert.
Your petitioner respectfully submits that
the theory OF "scuflle" on the en-
bsnkment is completely disproved by
her "plscid look" and the condi'
ton Of her hair and clothing. The
tracks prove that there had been no
scufe between a man and pomdn,
for In that case the mans tracks would
have remained and the woman's destroyed.
As il was. only the wOnan's tracks were
there and 1.-TWO heel-tracks,' apparently
mans. :,
The food in her stomach and the cOndi.
ton 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 18th. As to the food, DIR.
TAYLOR saws: Add six hours 10 the time
she last partook OF food and you would
have very accurate idea OF the hour OF
her death" = y. She was last
seen 10 partake OF food at dinner between
| and 2 O'Clock p. NJ. the 18th at the no.
Tel. This would bring the hour Of her
death before SP. II. Carefully considering
the evidence az TO her returning to The no.
tel after leaving at about Il. NJ. there is
nothing to prove that this was not about
the hour.
II she ate after her dinner it was not at
the hotel, but after she left there, between
and 7 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 a. the time and the evidence
proved your petitioner at his hotel, nearly
two miles from the reservoir. To saw the
least, the Commonwealth testimony leaves
the hour OF her death in doubt.
DR.. Taylor stated after the p0St.m0Ttem
examination. and when there was no eX-
element about the case, " that 1t was case
OF suicide and not OF violence" And at
the trial the medical facts are not incOnslst-
ent with hctheory OF suicide--they do not
prove il. either for or against it. AS to the
motive to take her life, your petitioner will
content himself with simply but emphdH-
CATH denying the motive charged to him
without proof. To go into the details OF
this charge would cast reflections on the
dead, which your petitioner has no desire
to do, and only result in casting suspicious
upon the living without furnishing cOnclu.
4 l,nI sgH
for taking her life than she. Those reasons
are too apparent TO need beng mentioned
here. They all served to make the seeming
quietness and iorgctfulness OF death pre-
ferable. She gave expression to this feeling
TO the conductor on the train coming to
Richmond. showing that her mind was in
the channel favorable TO suicide. IL may
be presumed that her mind was in this con-
dition when she reached the Dunstan's, on
Reservoir street, the only friends she Is
known TO have had in that part OF the city.
Ii is not for your petitioner to dig down
into the grave OF the dead girl and gather
there the knowledge Of her movements,
which are buried with her dust; but the
1 suppositiOn Is a reasonable one that,
| leaving the red shawl upon their fence,
! she goes down that street until she
reaches the reservoir, only lew
hundred yards beyond, and there. with
/ only Gods eye to pity, she buried all her
shame and faults beneath those waters,
knowing that the worlds cold frowns
would then be mellowed into tears OF pity
and forgiveness.
one Of the Judges Of the Court OF APP
| peals, after admitting all OF the evidence oil
the Commonwealth to be true, and after re-
| jecting the evidence OF your peti Toner, de-
| cllres that the Commonwealth has never
proven that q crime has been committed.
! Your petitioner asks the careful considers
ton OF this opinion, together with all OF
| his evidence in his case. lie respectfully
! submits that 1t would be a physical impos.
sibility for person OF his size and
.trength-undevelope by hard labor-to
take this woman, as heavy as or perhaps
heavier than himself, and raised her, in O
senseiess, timber condition, from the
ground and thrown her over that fence,
clear Of the slsping embankment, into the
water beyond. She certainly could not
nave been stood on her feet inside OF the
fence, and then thrown face foremost into
the water. rs the Commonwealth claims,
for II il also claimed that she was senseless
and timber.
To show how the "presumption OF liz
Docence" operated to protect your petit.
toner, he presents with this petition 0
published interview, that has not been de
MED, with one OF the jurors, who states
that the most damaging thing against your