The Roanoke times. [volume] (Roanoke, Va.) 1890-1895, 1892-03-08

to the law of the land-that every man
is presumed innocent until he is proven
guilty. He then spoke OF the side is
sues that have been brought into this
case.
st is an outrage to try man upon
single charge for three separate offenses.
The two vital questions in this case
are: Did Mrs. Baker die from poison?
Was the poison administered by DR..
Baker, her husband. If the prisoner is
to be found guilty on circums ia tial
evidence every circumstance must be
fully proved, and you must implicitly
believe 1t as each and all of tho OF her
circumstances.
The whole chain is no stronger than
its weakest link. Let us Look at the
material circumstances in this case;
and first let us take up the chemical
analysis. l will not say anything
about the legality of the exclamation
except to say that when that body was
eXhumed in order to obtain evidence
against the prisoner, the prisoner ought
to have been there with his counsel and
physicians to sec that everything was
legally and properly done.
But to pass on, DR.. Taylor took tho
organs to Richmond and made his
analysis. He found in tho liver arsenic,
zinc and peculiar aromatic odor.
Now tho zinc certainly camo from tho
embalming fluid; SO did the aromatic
odor. Arsenic is more diffusable than
zinc. How can you say that the arsenic
did not come from the same source? 1t
has been proved by experiment that
MI in, no
will, within fourteen days, diifuse
itself through every part Of the body"
MIR. buchanan passed on to the tcsti-
mony OF Mrs. Gilmer, and gave various
reasons why sho should not believed.
The strongest point he made in this
line of argument was the fact that she
swears away every statement damaging
to herself-~even swears away tho most
sacred oaths that she took in the letters
and thus after revising them swears
the remaining passages are true.
"Buv Mr.. Bailey says tho letters will
not lie?' Either these l4tters lie or the
witness lied when she came on the
stand. Then She swears that she never
intended to deceive DIR. Baker, but
when pressed admits that she did"
''She lied to her sister, and invoked
the spirit of her dead child to witness
the truth of what she said. She stated
on the witness stand that she did not 60
to Paramount with the intention of COM
hitting adultery. She has been false
to her husband, false to her children,
false to her church and oven false to
her paramount. Her letter to DR.. Baker
since the former trial shows that she is
still false-false either to her husband
or to the prisoner.
but they say that DR.. Bakers an
swer is an admission OF his guilt. Are
his protesta tions of innocence in that
letter an admission of his guilt? He
told her that She was not compelled to
testify. lie meant, of course, that she
could not be made to testify as to che
fact of adultery for this would have
been to eliminate herself She saws
herself that She IS not worthy of belief
and yet you are asked to believe her.
Mr.. Wysor said she was attempting
subterfuges on the Standard yet you
are asked to believe her,
MIR. buchanan closed his speech with
an allusion to st. Paul standing before
the Roman judge and demanding with
Inc lnui gnation OF Innocence trial ac-
cording to law. He spoke two hours
and twenty minutes, and covered every
detail of the case.
Commemorative Attorney T. b. Hut
ton closed the pleading He began a
few minutes before eleven. He said he
did not propose to quote poetry or at
tempt wit; that he came, representing
the people of Washington county and
the State OF Virginia to charge the pris-
oner with poisoning his wife; that il
makes no difference whether Dr. Baker
seduced Margaret Gilmer, or whether
Margaret Gilmer seduced DR. Baker. the
question to be considered is: Did DIR.
Baker poison his wife? He took up first
the circumstances that tend to raise a
presumption of his guilt.
what is this case? | want to argue
it fairly.
" The question for you to consider is:
Did DIR. Baker kill his wife by poison?
You are not called upon to hang him;
you are called upon to say whether or
not he is guilty of the charge. If he is
guilty he deserves to die. Let us see
whether he has been proved guilty be.
Yond reasonable doubt.
Il will first discuss the question: Did
Mrs. Gilmer tell the truth? What
motive could she have had for testifyinr
falsely? You saw her motives; you saw
that she did not want to testify. She
said that her whole life was a lie; but
what reason could she have for coming
here and swearing the prisoners life
away? She told the truth. Let us sec
how her story is corroborated."
The testimony in corroboratian of
Mrs. Gilmer was then examined.
81 say that the adultery and the at.
tempted poisoning of Wyndham Gilmer
show the intent of the prisoner; they in.
tensify the remark: All barriers shall
be burned away Ii he had the poison.
ing OF Gilmer in his mind at the time
he poisoned his wife tbs q part OF the
same transaction. q part OF the res
gestae. even il II was not attempted till
years after Mrs. Raker's death.
Mr. Hutton PASSED on uext 70 the d