The Somerset reporter. [volume] (Skowhegan, Me.) 1868-1909, 1890-03-20

!
Cromwell, although admitting other
crimes 10 Harvey, Ms former Associate
had never ackno wledged his guilt In ,hi-
affair No. The defense strike, deeper
and bolder than that. II Il thu Tbs,
farron died by his own hand. aud that
the prisoners had no connection Rhst
ever with his death, that they ueyer
made any preliminary excursions into
Maine prior - his death and that they
were never In Dexter in their lives. and
that the testimony u Young stain aud
Harvey is wholly false ami devoid u any
foundation.
That these respondents had not only
made two former excursions Of erpiora.
ton into Maine, aud into Dexter once
IN the summer aud o1ce ia tie fan before
this tragedy-aud had been transported
across the country from this point 70
Corinna and Madison there can be NJ
shadow of doubt, as the evidence from
numerous witnesses upon that point de-
failing facts and circumstance, is both
convincing aud conclusive Upon this
question the testimony OF Charles +.
Stain Is incontroyertbly corroborated
While his testimony Is attacked upon
minor matters Of details, aud 10 some ex-
tent in relation to dates given by him.
| II Is nevertheless supported and forfeit
ed by an array Of facts and crcumstanc-
es too strong TO be overcome. /. The es-
sential question was not over dates but
over events. II was not so much what
month those trips were made, as whether
or not they were made, and whether
these respondents were Ia Dexter and
were carried across the country to other
points on two occasions prior to this
tragedy. This was a strong point in be-
half of the government. 1t was so con-
clusively proved, independently of the
testimony of young Stain, that its effects
was materially felt by the defense which
asserted as boldly that the prisoners
were never in Dexter in their lives as
that they had no connection with the
death of Barron.
But the most important evidence, per-
haps, in the case is that which was Of
fercd to prove that the prisoners were
seen In Dexter during the day of Barron's
death. Upon this, as well as in e1plans-
ton and corroboration of the other evil
dence. depended the great power Of the
governments case. The important and
convincing facts which overthrow all
defense. in connection with the fact that
these respondents had made other and
previous visits into Maine, and which
went to prove the guilt If til - :wo men,
were, that witness after witness OF intel
ligence and resp liability saw and identi-
fled them under great variety of circum-
stances; sometimes singly sometimes
together and picked them out as being
two of the men, and strangers, wham
they saw in the town of Dexter on that
fatal day. This evidence in relation to
Identification is both direct and circum-
stsntisl. 1t comes from large number
OF witnesses.
Some saw them while going to Dexter,
others saw them in Dexter, and others
identify them in their hight on the even
ing of the day of the tragedy, and still
others in the early morning and in the
forenoon of the next day, still in their
flight Fl IN town. Some witnesses pos
itively identify these men, while others
do this indirectly and corroborate num-
erous witnesses by the description of
their msnner ard bearing, hs .tsS- color . :
their dress and the appearance of the
horse driven by them. All the witnesses
give reasons for their remembering as
they do, and state circumstances. The
proof of identity Is not confined to the
| single fact of the recognition of the faces
of the prisoners. There are many cir
cumstances and condolences combining
with that, which have great weight on
| the question of identification, and which
are detailed in connection with the gen.
eral statement of the witnesses. 1t may
seem strange at first thought that the
| witnesses are enabled to remember and
| identify these men after so long q time.
Under ordinary circumstances this would
| be true. But it must be borne in mind
that in consequence of the sudden and
dreadful shock produced by the death of
Barron, every person in the community
Immediately sought to reproduce in his
own mind the presence and appearance
of any stranges seen on that eveEtful
day, and the impression then received by
those who saw strange persons IN town
aud in that vicinity have been wildly re-
tanned in their minds ever since. The
startling event, shrouded in mystery dur
ing all these years, have served to stamp
indelibly upon their minds and memories
the impressions received at that time ;
and their testimony is bat the reproduc-
ton Of what they saw and noted, and
even discussed when every circumstance
was fresh In their recollecton-wheu
every incident was carefully treasured up
in the storehouse of their memories. 1t
was an old picture brought out into clear
light after having been laid away for
wears. The presence of strangers in a
village of the size of Dexter, and In spar
sely settled towns, is mach more readily
noticed than in cities or larger places.
1t is q significant fact that the indenti-
tication Of these men is not dependent
upon the testimony of one witness, but
upon many and different witnesses, who
differ among themselves only IN slight
and not in essential respects. 1t Is not
whether one witness may be mistaken,
nor several but whether twenty or more
witnesses, lestifying independently OF
each other, who saw the prisoners at dit
ferent places. at different hours. and
whose testimony is fully supported aud
fortified by other facts aud circumstances
can be mistaken. Nor is it whether they
may be mistaken as to one man, but as to
two men seen under the same circum-
stances. They would be much more like
ly to be mistaken rs to one man than they
would as to two men, with the very mark
ed characteristics pertaining to these two
men They differ in height, in dress. In
the manner of their bearing, ore being
short, stout and erect, the other one tall
would be remarkable, to say the least, If
the persons are not the strangers who
were seen and identified by so many DIFF
ferent witnesses, snd II so many
witnesses have been mistaken about
their identity when the facts aud
circumstance. corroborsting them are SO
varied aud numerous. The witnesses APP
pear to be people OF business standing
aud responsibility. But the defense 5,
that this Is all mistake and error on
their part, aud they have mistaken the
prisoners for some other persons. No
one, however with such body of evil
denca, eau say that there were not two or
or three persons, strangers TO ALL in the
town of Dexter on the day of the murder.
One class of witnesses identify David l..
Stain as one of those strangers, -another
class identify Oliver Cromwell as another
of those strangers, and still another and
the more numerous class identify both
Stain and Cromwell as two of the strsng-
ers. If there Is any force in human tes-
timouy |. must be admitted that two OF
those strangers, whoever they were, hap
pened to look not only like one man but
they happened to look like two different
men. II II be true that two casual strang-
ers who happened to be in Dexter on
that particular day, bore this striking and
remarkable resemblance. one to Stain and
the other to Cromwell, and 1t was case
Of mistaken identity. would not long be-
fore this time at least one Of the originals
have been found? Would not at least
one of the men. or both, who bore this
curious and remarkable resemblance, so
as to deceive everybody who saw him, have
been discovered? 1t Is reasonable to be-
lieve that the energy and exhaustless fer
tility and thoroughness of research, which
has characterized this defense would have
been directed towards this vital branch Of
IT, ~ there had been A possibility Of sue