Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1894-05-12

/ ou' ~ ID cseciudl tHat Tie ClfCulustduCe'
should be OF conclusive n ture and ten
dency. That il, those circumstances il
which re)isnce is placed shouli have di
rect, necessary tendency to establi.h the
proposition sought to be proved.
4th. tits essential that the circumstance.
should, to moral C. r,ainiy, actually ex
clude every hypothesis but the one pro-
posed to be proved.
If the facts proved are consistent with
any hypothesis other than the one sought to
be stsbishej, the proof fails. Therefore
if the material circumstances in this cas-
may be explained 10 any reasonable hypothe-
| 81, other than the guilt of the prisoner, she
must be acquitted, though that may be also
explained 10 the hypothesis that she is
gully.
That is, gentlemen, If from the facts
which were established to your satisfaction,
you could draw the conclu sion that she was
guilty, but they were also consistent with
any other reasonable explanation, then the
proof of course would only amount at the
most to probability of guilt, and that is
not sufh mt to convict.
Nv IN the trial of criminal cases it is in
the frs, Instance necessary for the govern
charged in the indictment for which YER
dict of lilty could be rendered against
somebody, and this must be done beyond
a reasonable doubt. Tits includes first the
d ath Of the person alleged to have been
murdered II is Admitted that he died on
the 9th of December last. Next, that the
death was not accidental nor caused by nat
ursl causes, but was caused by the unlaw-
full act of another. The government relies
upon the story of the death as bearing upon
these issu s. 1t is claimed that for week
previous to his death he was in good health !:
that sometime before he had procured in
this city prescription Ct gin snl sulphur
which he took home and was taking during
that eek that Saturday morning OF the
day of his death he did his work about the
barn, took Ii, medicine as usual, and after
eating breakfast started for his woodlot in
company with one John T. Fowler who had
been at work with him during the
whole of that week. The government
relies upon Fowler's testimony as to the
fact that the medicine was taken that morn
ing and as to the subsequent events of that
forenoon. 1t is claimed that neither Fow-
Ter nor Getchell had anything to eat or
drink, and that at noon they came to dinner
and went Immediately into the house, and
while Fowler was washing at the sink he
saw the deceased drink from the bottle of
gin in the adjoining pantry. There is no
great controversy as to this, except that the
defence claims that h, went a short dis
lance to the well for water, coming back in
few minutes, and that Fowler did not see
bin take his medicine. He sat down to
dioncr onI Inc short inn fol inly
and died that afternoon. He was buried
and subsequently his remains were dis
inferred and a post mortem examination
was made. The government claims to have
shown that he did not die from natural
causes, all the vital organs being sounl. A
chemical examination of portions of the iu-
ternal organs disclosed the presence of
strychnine, and, as testified, sufficient to
cause death. And we come to the question
of suicide or accident, which have been
suggested by the covnsel. 1t is not neces-
sary that the government should prove sui
eide. 1t is only necessary you should have
a reasonable doubt in regard to it. And, as
bearing upon this, reference has been made
to the testimony of various witnesses as to
declarations of the deceased that
he desired to die. The government says
this testimony is exaggerated and you should
not believe it. You will give it such
weight as you fairly and honestly
believe it to be worth. The government
say that the conduct of the deceased was
Inconsistent with this theory; that he sat at
the table to eat ard was anxious for a doc
tor, and when he was being trea ted by the
physician did not disclose that he had taken
poison. Give this suggestion as much
weight as it is entitled to and no more and
then say in your own minds whether or not
you are satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt
in regard to this suggested explanation c
his death.
Various suggestions have been made by
counsel for the defence as to accidents |
death. One if that upon the Sunday pre-
vious to his deCease he procured quantity
of cider at the house of his brother and 1t
is suggested that he may have drank from
that and it may have contained the stryc h.
nine which was afterwards found III
bis body. You have heard the evidence in
regard to that the evidence of Laforest
Trssk that on the Sunday preceding the
death he met Mr.. Getchell with cider and
Getchell offered to treat Trask, and that
Trask refused and that Getchell drank then
and there. The government have intro
duccd testimony to show that the deceased
was not at Iii, brothers for four or five
weeks previous TO his death And you will
remember the cross-exsmination of the it
nesses on that point. 1t is suggested that
when the deceased went to the well for
water he might possibly have gone
into the cellar and partaken of cider or
some other liquid containing strychninc
Upon that question call your attention to
the testimony of Minnie Jones who said she
saw him 60 for the water, but did not watch
him all the way to the well but saw him
when he got off the piazza aud when he got
most up to the piazza, and that he was gone
but few minutes. If you are not salts
fed beyond reasonable doubt that his
death was not accidental you need not come
to the other branch of the case. If you are
satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the
death was caused by the wrongful act of
another then you come to the next question
in the case, not who killed William Henry
Getchell, because it is not necessary for you
to solve that mystery. The question is,was
it committed by the prisoner, Clara Emma
Getchell. The governments theory is that
the poison was in the bottle of gin at noon
and was not in the morning, because he had
drank from it in the morning. as they
claim without harm; that he had
hot