The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1893-12-22

Il
! or sorrow 70 at least one fellow-belng. II
Is not a pleasant duty that you are called
upon, as triers of this case, to perform
| The defendant stands before you charged
| with the murder Of Clara Koesters by adj
I mlnlstering poison. 1t is not necessary for
me to again read to you the Indictment re-
turned against her. / said AZ the very out
start of this case that the guilt of the de-
Iehdant should be established beyond a
reasonable doubt by all the evidence. AMI
1 now reiterate ii. and here, at this point.
1 VIII read to you. from Garfield VS. the
STATE deiliition of reasonable doubt. This
doctrine will undoubtedly be argued to you
| long and forcibiy by opposing counsel"
MT duncan then read from the State re-
ports definition of the extent to which
ene uOCume or reasonable doubt is TO be
appled The counsel for the defense" he
! said, have told you that the state d.
penaed upon eircumstantial evidence. This
| Is true; the State does depend upon cir
cumstantial evidence" He then read ar-
9sIorlueS upon circumstantial evidence de-
imihhg the degree of gertrude to be estab.
nsned by this character OF evidence In
d ms connection he again merged into the
o"CtilhS OF reasonable doubt, upon which
| = NUMBER or authorities were read He
argued from these authorities that though
.ne eeIense would probably ask IL II was
aS,ida aOr the jury to separate and divide the
Isolated bits. They were to Consider TN
eV1dence IN its entirety and as a whole
while IL Viii he MI m, Duncan said: Now.
a,,idonn YIN oe my purpose to discuss the
eniueiice IN detail t. you, shall also dis
o gu 81, IL IN its entirfty. AS you have heard
t tho through TINS case, 1t is our contention
G Gdt the defendant wanted to marry
Charies koesters, the son of Clara Koas-
u. ana that certain lives were in the
way or the accomplishment of her MIR
U.s. now, gentlemen, have we proven
1nat TINS woman desired to become the
TnS 0I charles Koesters. and to that
that is LOT 49, q tlne call your attention II
tba is proven IL paves the way to all
the rest. IL is in evidence that Koesters
anu anu ms wife had lived happily until her
ueath, on Oct 10. 1892. For a year prior to
| .hat time the defendant was employed in
! tne FAMILY as domestic. 1t is I'm evidence
Tia. IL, marriage. o. thought of marriage,
VAS III lne DEFENDANTS mind prior to the
death of Mrs. Mary Koesters The Defend
ant said to Mrs. Ohleyer that she Cthe de-
tbe an1, Intended to get married or go
Mrs. koesters has 1t too good Within a
Few days after the death of the wife Annie
Wagner went to the house of Mrs John
| Chleyer, and the latter told her. BE good
10 the children, Annie, and you may be-
| come the mistress OF the house The de-
lehdant SAID nothing, but smiled.
NO SOCIAL BAR.
There was no social impeachment to such
a marriage. She was. in all probability.
| the social equal of the man for whom she
worked. They were Of the same national
| ity and parishioners of the same church
| 1t is in evidence that prior to the death
| OF Mrs. Koesters. the defendant performed
| her work faithfully, but she did not dis
| play any unusual affection for the chill
dren and was not buying clothes for them
with her own money. She did give them
some presents, she says great many more
than anybody else knows anything of. Be-
fore the death of Mrs. Koesters she did
not lay out Mr.. Koesters clothes, place his
| collar buttons In his shirts, brush his
clothes. take his laundry to the branch
| office for him, and it is in evidence by
! Charles KOesters that his wife never did
his wife to do such things. a mans Wife Wife
| is his companion, and not his servant.
| This defendant knew what manner of life
the wife of Charles Koesters lived. She
| knew that he owned property and held
| shares in the building and loan association
These people were not related to one an
other; they were strangers until the time
| she entered their employ as a servant
| There is nothing to show that Charles
Koesters had right to ask her to do
| what she says he told her to do. She says
| that he told her to do just as his wife had
done. She was to have full control and en-
| tire care Of the children. She never did
| Have We a key 10 why this girl remained
| in that family after she had desired TO go
to Europe?
What were the attentions she paid to
Charles Koesters? He tells you OF the
slippers placed by his chair, his clothes
arranged for him and the other little
things that is shown in evidence that she
performed for him. 1t Is also shown that
| she purchased food for the family. Mr..
| Spaan will no doubt tell you that Mr.;
| Koesters was mean and stingy. and tried
| TO Starve his family. He had her testify
| on the stand that she used her money to
provide for the table. Was she trying to
| show what a great manager she was and
how far she could make little money go?
Mr.. Duncan then went into detail as TO
| house and the times when the defendant
said she went hungry because there was in
sufficient meat in the house
Continuing, he said: After the death OF
| Mrs. Koesters she began tending the store:
in fact, she began to do everything that
would make her a necessity in the house
t,.lI II -.1o 10 ,fr no NOD
the children? There is another circuln-
stance in the case that seems to me
markable and shows that the defendant
Koestcrs. 1t is not often that you find
person who is willing to reduce their wages
Counsel then went into the evidence as to
the English lessons and the giving up of
her afternoons off, and asked If the jury
the love of Charles Koesters's children. The
incident Of the valentines was also con-
sdered at length. and counsel urged that
Continuing. he said why cid the de-
PENDANT stay at the house If , she was
worked to death ana ana stared n, TO dea ft al
curtain poles and for the clothes she
burned. Why gentlemen in this day, when
q servant breaks anything you have to
thank her instead of deducting the amount
from her wages, she will leave. 1t has
been shown 10 you that, after the death OF
his WIFE this woman wanted Charles Koes-
| tiers to quit visiting the grave of the mother
of his children. She told him to forget the
dead"
THE DEFENDANT WEEPS.
AS Mr. Duncan talked to the jury on this
subject he spoke in eloquent and touching
terms of the memory Of the dead. AS he
alluded to the feelings that could not be
restrained within the breast of a man with
the memory Of departed dear ones fresh in
mind the defendant cried silently but Bit
terly. She sat with her face buried in her
handkerchief, and as she raised her head
one could see the sharp lines about her face
that betokened q heroic effort to patiently
endure untold misery.
Mr.. Duncan then said he would call the
attention OF the jury to another phase of
the way of the accomplishment of her pur-
pose? 1t is shown that after the death or
| his wife Charles KoesterS did not want to
| live in the house alone with this woman,
and he induced his parents to come and
live with him. He then went into the de-
| of feelings that existed between the old man
| and the defendant and the facts surround
ing his death. He also referred to the
| statement or KoeSters, as TO the hopes he
entertained of his daughter Mamie taking
his wifes place and the childs statement
that she did not want a stepmother, and
| the death of the child soon afterwards.
Continuing, he said: What the mo-
| tive of the defendant? She Swore upon the
| witness stand that the thought Of marry
4 ing Charles KoesterS never entered her
head. Place alongside OF that sworn state
| the testimony in this case and will it
stand? If she is not to be credited in this
statement in what is she to be credited?'
The evidence Of George Borst and his