Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1894-05-11

| "ooiu NC huSQudte 10 cure. ney say II
you can hold man up long enough to have
the poison eliminated you can save him.
But the process must be carried for hours
TO complete elimination, which isn't ques-
ton In this case.
Ihey left out of all their mental
processes of hypothetical reasoning,
and forgot what stands out
out or a fact in this case; that then this
man ate food and drank tea and Prof. Rob-
lnson found the food undigested in his
stomach, although he lived some hours af-
ter eating. They had to admit that bis
stomach stopped action. That's fact in
this case. The poison was harmless 70
| iong as it lay on the stomach they will adj
NIT. 1t means that the amount of strych-
nine he took into his stomach before the
doctor came, had not digestion stopped,
would have killed him quickly, that it lay
unabsorbed in bis stomach.
You remember the doctor told YOU how
fannie acid forms a compound with strych-
nine, which, if pumped out before it dis
solves, he would be saved. If left in the
stomach the tannate compound would
slowly dissolve, causing slow death. When
Henry Getchell drank the tea he took that
which caused his death to be slow, for the
fannie acid in the tea formed a compound
of tannate of strychina. This shows why
his suffering was intense at first and then
was less.
| You would never convict any person on
the theorizing of these experts. Neither
do expect you to acquit on any theo-
riZing.
Prof. Robinson showed that three-ffth
of the strychnine was in the stomach, where
it did not do harm, the half Of the remain
der wss in his liver and the other half in
the kidneys, ready for elimination. The
marked effects of strychnine poisoning
were not marked because of slow digestion
and slow absorption.
DR.. Giddings answered a purely hypo-
thetical question, with all these conditions
in no way connected with it.
| You of course notice how all these ex-
perts play on the word expect"
| Mr.. Heath argued that all the questions
were purely hypothetical. The fact is, this
man lived to 6 30, with three to four grains
Of strychnine ia him, and yet, according to
the governments theory, he couldn't have
taken any later than o'clock.
| l cannot understand why the government
| lays SO much stress on this "third drink
of gin. The government would have you
believe that this woman sat by her husband,
watching the man, seeing if he was going
to die; then in the presence of
Fowler, gave him second drink,
then, fearing that wasn't enough,
gave him third drink, before Ambrose for
a witness. Why, if she put the poison in
that gin, that is crime enough.
| You are asked to believe that the same
conversation which Jack Fowler narrates
as taking place over the second drink of
gin was all gone over in the presence of
Ambrose, when, as he says, she gave him a
third drink of gin. THERE'S not the eight
est reason to suppose that this same con-
versation should have taken place twice,
almost word for word.
| But Catha, inc Nash says the third drink
was not given. You will believe her, who
was kept off the stand by the government,
as her testimony wonld upset that of Am
brose.
But where did she buy that strychnine?
The government knows where she has trav-
elled. If they have the theory that Trask
bought it, and if so, why not indict him?
Yet either of these people travel about so
little that had they bought strychniae they
could have easily been traced
The counsel read from the law which re-
quires the druggist to record the sale of
stry chime. This lack of proof, while not
emitting the prisoner to acquittal, yet it is
most weighty fact, because the purchase
of strychnine may be so easily traced.
| Have you no reasonable doubt at this
point of the case why you should
not consign this woman to a living death!
Why, if she had this gin for several days,
awaiting an opportunity, why did she choose
this noon time. when Jack Fowler was
there, when he would die, before all those
witnesses? Why did not this intelligent
woman wait until night, when she would be
alone with him, and when he would be
found tbs next morning peaceful in DEATH
as the witnesses say he was? There
wouldn't have been the slightest suspicion
that he died of anything else than heart
trouble This fact alone ought to acquit
the woman.
But more gentlemen. The government
would have you believe that this woman
loaded that liquor with poison, waited that
forenoon for him to come to bis dinner
greeted him with smile and pleasant re-
mark. Yet she must have known that Jack
Fowler might have drank of it.
Did she have exclusive opportunity? Did
not Getchell himself? Did not Mimi
Jones uO IL! bIu HOt uuSh ro"iei w II.
They had opportunities. There's no mo-
tive shown here why they should do it, and
there's no motive why she should do it..
Out of whose mouth came the testimony
that she had the best opp ,rtunity to do it?
Out of the mouth of Clara Emma Getchell
herself.
Do you suppose that this woman would
have told this had she been guilty? She
might have gone to Mr.. Nash's and stai an
hour. and that would have prevented any
case being made Of it.
From the very beginning she made her
self the only good witness against herself.
II doesn't make the slightest difference
10 the world, whether she sent for the doc
tor or not. She knew that inevitably the
} doctor would be on the scene, another wit
, ness of her fiendish crime. Then she got
Andrew Keen to go for the doctor and to
| get Ambrose for another witness of this
fiendish crime. just think of it If she had
, the power for such acting, would she have
: been so stupid as to DO what she did! you
say that it is absolutely incredible in the
, light of common sense that she should have
done this.
I'll Yet the government would have YOU be.