The Portland daily press., 1890-03-13

/ ] WIUuJ5oJ
and different witnesses, who differ am0ns
themselves only in slight and not in essen
tlal respects. 1t is not whether one witness
may be mistaken. nor several, but whether
20 or more Witnesses, testlfying independ-
emily of each other, who saw the prisoners
at different places. at different hours, and
| whose testimony is fully supported and for
tilted by other facts and circumstances. can
be mistaken. Nor is 1t whether they may be
mistaken as to one man, but as to two men
seen under the same circumstances. They
would be much more likely to be mistaken
as to one man than they would as to two
men, with the very marked characteristics
pertaining to these two men. They differed
| In height, in dress, in the manner of their
bearing, one being short, stout and erect, the
other one taller and STOPPING or round shoul-
dered 1t would be remarkable. to say the
least, IL the persons are not the strangers
VINO VINO were seen and identified by so many
dliferent witnesses, and If so many differ
ent witnesses have been mistaken about
| their Identity when the facts and circum.
stances corrOborating sthem are so varied
and numerous. The witnesses appear to be
| people of business standing and respecta-
| bility. But the defense is, that this is all
mistake and error on their part, that they
| nave mistaken the prisoners for some other
persons. NO one, however, with such a
body OF evidence, can say that there were
not TWO or three persons, strangers to all, in
the town OF Dexter on the day of the murder
One class OF witnesses identify David l..
cfass Itftuea9 of those strangers-another
| OF those strangers. and still aroJner sffatbar
more numerous class identify both Stain and
Cromwell as two of these strangers. If
there is any force in human testimony 1t
must be admitted that two of these strangers
whoever they were, happened to look not
| only like one man but they happened TO look
| like two different men. Ii it be true that
| two casual strangers who happened to be in
| Dexter on that particular day bore this strik-
| Ing and remarkable resemblance, one to
Stain and the other to Cromwell and it was
| case of mistaken identity, would not long
dals have been found? Would not at
least one Of the men, or both, who lore this
| curious and remarkable resemblance, so as
| TO deceive everybody who saw him, have
been discovered? 1t Is reasonable to believe
that the energy and exhaustless fertility and
| th0roughness of research which has charac-
| terized this defence, would have been direct
| ed towards this vital branch of it, If there
had been possibility Of success. The de-
| fence has had the free use of the county
treasury for the payment of every witness
called at the trial and since the trial, the ex-
| penses of commissioners, of printing and
miscellaneous bills up to the time the case
| was laid before this court. But no witnesses
have ever appeared to account for these
| strangers, except those introduced by the
| government, who identify them with the
prisoners.
From the grea5 mass of testimony upon
4 buIS QucSllUu VI Lu6 COuCtuSlOu
| to be drawn is irresistible that two of the
| strangers were these prisoners, and that
| that they were seen in the village of Dexter
and around the savings bank upon the day
| of Barron's DEATH
Nor is this chain of evidence weakened by
the theory OF suicide set up in defense. To
| dispose of that theory requires but a passing
| word. A candid and careful examination of
the evidence cannot fail to convince the
mind seeking after truth and unbiased by
nraiu0icn that Suah a thpnrU IL UrOnndIa2g-
| If not tanatical. 1t Ignores consistent aud
| convincing facts and all reasonable presump-
| tion, and grasps at trivial circumstances and
groundless suspicion. The brief summary
| of facts to which we have already alluded
| facts which left no reasonable doubt in the
minds of the jury who heard them-militates
absolutely against any such theory as suicide.
There is no reasonable or consistent hypo-
thesis developed from the evidence in the
case upon which it can be based. Barron
was not defaulter of the moneys of the
bank at the time of his death. The evidence
nowhere indicates it. Nor was this at
fore, the books of the bank had been sub
| jected to most thorough and critical ex-
animation by auditors of business experience
and ability appointed by this court, and
it was of sum so small that it could have
been easily supplied by Barrol a
any time. No man had bette
credit in the community, and he ha
sufficient means of his own with which to
make good any sum that might be shown to
be due from him. He was treasurer of the
town as well as cashier of the bank, and
was custodian of moneys for other people.
No suggestion is to be found that he was
ever guilty Of default orsfraud towards any
of them for the slightest amount. II his
death resulted from suicide, what remark
able coincidence of events surrounded it.
Why should it happen at the exact moment
when strangers, not only to him and his de-
signs, but to every person in the community,
were were IN IN town town Tor the the very purpose of rob
if. as claimed by the defense, he committed
suicide to give the appearance of robbery,
strangers were upon the very premises at
the same time for the purpose of commit
tleg real r0bbery,-0r murder,-or both?
But to go step further. What wonder
full concurrence of events, that, on the very
day and hour that Barron killed himself to
give the impression to the world that he
had been robbed, there were three stran-
gers on the spot.-seen by many. but un-
known to all,-upon whom suspicion fell
at once as soon as Barron was found, and
yet of whose business and whereabouts
from that time to the present not an iota
| of information has been discovered; stran-
| gers disclosing no business to any one,
| though in town, upon the streets, and in and
around the bank building the greater part of
| the day, speaking to but two persons, STOP
| ping at no house, and disappearing as mys-
| ron was lying unconscious and dying within
| the vault of the bank. If these strangers
| were innocent of Barr0n's death, it adds to
| the mystery that they should flee at the very
| moment when they would have fled if guilty
| either of robbery or of murder. And what
| can we say of the additional coincidence of
| facts and events, If this be suicide, when we
| consider the proof of Identification of these
strangers with that of these two respondents
| and to which we have before alluded? 1t is
| ineXplicable. to say the least.
This theory Of suicide presents no suffi-
| cient motive for such an act While it is an
| axiom. as true as it is old, that all the ac-
| tions of sane men depend upon motive as
the power which prompts or propels them to
the performance of those acts, in this case
the evidence, mostly introduced by the de-
fence, indicates anything but motive, and
Furthermore, dispr0ves any intention of sui
facts to establish this. We have al al.
ready spoken of the fact that no financial
embarrassment was pressing upon him. The
| alleged Irregularities upon the books OF the
bank and which to some extent are relied on
| as the excuse for the origination of the theo-
| ry of suicide, in ne way affected the bank or
any of the depositors. The four deposit0rs,
in whose accounts the apparent irregqlari-
ties exist, testify that in no instance have
they lost anything by these seeming irregu-
larities. That there were some changes and
peculiarities in the manner of keeping the
| accounts OF the bank is OBVIOUS, but That
either the bank or any depositor was in any
way injured thereby is not established by
the evidence.
Nor is there any motive even for the al
| legged act of apparent unintentionai suicide
or of having thrown himself into a stupeted
condition by the use of some narcotic, as If
by some act of burglars, and that in SO doing
death resulted unintentionally. This theory
| is as groundess as the former. 1t not only
lacks motive. but evidence to support it. The
inference legitimately deducible from such
| theory can be no other than that there was
no motive sufficient to induce intended
death. The two theories are totally inconsis-
tent with each other.
Considerable space is devoted by the de-
cisive 20 the attempt Of the defense to prove
an alibi for the respondents, the opion ibeing
that the evidence not only failed to prove
that they were in Medfeld, Mass, on the day
of the death of Barron but that it did show
that they were absent from that town. The
rules of law governing the granting of new
trials are reviewed in the decision to show
| that in order to Justify such action, the new