The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1895-01-15

iIlIHy respects.
us her testimony entitled to respect in
this case? We do not need to argue that
she has an interest in the case. But, be-
yond that, there are weighty reasons why
her testimony is not entitled to credit. We
have proved that her general moral char
acter is bad. She stands challenged. if
not wholly proved. asoa woman of general
bad moral character. She has admitted
herself, in a statement to the police de-
partment, that she did not sec the trouble
that led up to the murder. Her testimony
is unreliable because it is not in harmony
defendant himself. Then 1 take it that her
story Is not to be believed in this case.
NY TREND Span has dwelt largely upon
acter he stands better than Smith and the
girl. but in many respects they are three
pute; Smith visited her there, and Suss
played the piano in q house of that char
acter. These three witnesses are the only
ones that have said anything derogatory
to the conduct of Western b.. Thomas on
that morning: There is no self-defense in
gree of guilt of WInifred E. Smith. Ac-
cording to the testimony Of Smith, he took
Sells out for a ride. / shall not comment
upon that, but it is indeed strange that
It sh ;n fna be sa said he was s for Ina an 4 hour r,t or
dren before going to Myrtle Oyerturf. They
spent the night at three road houses.these
character.
MIR. Smith says that when he left
Thompson's house he concluded to so over
TO the Beach and get a glass of settler.
Mr.. Span said it was to clear up his
little about barroom ethics that / hesitate
to take him as authority. Now, 1 do not
roms. If smith wanted a glass Of settler.
why did he not get it at Thompson's?
Setter rfre gentlemen, must haEe had a., a pc,
reached Brighton Beach, why did he not
walk into the saloon at the side of that
around through the rear? That is not i'm
portant, however, except to show that his
story is false. Isn't it a pretty story? But
what is 1T for? Let US see. Suss ~testifies
that Smith came into the barroom declar-
ing, that he was to have it out with some
the bright light upon the testimony, of this
DEFENDANT. / am going through the evil
eanse ' If s vou nov DOM he bs seslS the his sf eyigen be
you must find him guilty of murder in the
first or second degrees. He says Mr..
der; Then he says Lynch came UP and
said, Smiths a friend of mine and that
bim Gsmi Phsa ;n +h Lynch msaut away ana sa,d struck Truck
ne was standing at the door, and when
Thomas struck him. stepped back out of
that Mr.. Thomas did not hit Smith at all.
take it that If this was the Only evidence
witness; impeached as a man
of general characterayou would
acting 'i in self tas{ the Th eeeeh has been w no
evidence to show that Thomas made such
an attack upon this man, or that he was
jured. Smith said the second stroke was
outside of the door, but it did not knock
attack as would entitle him to take out
mani i Was thinking Of this case yes
h ,%s ssss Ssi e aPs the wo jsry to n Sss
pocket and open ii during such a struggle
as that. couid you believe for a moment
that Smith, while being choked by the
splendidiy developed Thomas could reach
into his pocket and get his knife? Tile had
that knife open before, and every man on
this jury believes it,
show how much Winifred Smith was hurt.
DR.. Morgan was called by. DR.. Wands to
house. l have no personal acquaintance
with DR.. Morgan, but 1 believe him to be
an estimable gentleman, and think he went
on the witness stand, actuated only with IL
desire to treat this case fairly. He says
there was a scratch on tho lip, but no
blood. A. scratch on the ear. perhaps on
the forehead, but none of these wounds
gave evidence of having bled. Under the
lip the physician could notice that the It's
sues were swollen. Do you believe that
Western b. Thomas, as his frame is de-
scribed by DR.. Marsee, tail. and strong.
anime it ITO to f ifid SfiRfaiff It io1 w sne swollen 1Ueder % Was sas
that such an attack to warrant Smith in
taking a knife and cutting the throat of
Western b. Thomas? Do you believe that
this athlete hit Winnie Smith fun in the
face and left no mark?. If SO, was that
such a blow as justified him in taking the
life of MIR. Thomas? Why, gentlemen, the
marks on Mr.. Smiths face were only such
scratches as would be made by school chill
dren in a rough and tumble encounter. We
might have concluded that this man had a
account of this case. Gentlemen. those
scratches were made by Thomas while en-
d dS,ngid m to light off It the = murderer: Was
went straightway and washed the blood of
the murdered man from his hands. He did
not see the corpse OF the man he had slain.
when he drove back to the resort. after the
deed Then he drove off again. Did he go
70 his mother, to his kind-hearted step
the man with healthy morals would lead
him? No, he did not, but with this harlot
at his side, he went to q hotel at Broad
Ripple and there took a room with her.
7 want to ask you a question Does not
the conduct of this defendant alone show
such depravity as would weaken the testi-
mony he would give? Take Myrtle Over
turf BY her own testimony she has. for
story of the nights doings. up to the time
OF the murder, agrees with Smiths story.
She follows the testimony of Smith as to
the trouble in the saloon, and until the
struggling men get out at the door. Then
her horse got frightened and she did not
see any more of 1T. but we asked her on
cross-examination about her statement to
the coroner. She said Smith left the buggy
in the rear and she drove around to the
side door. She did not know what occurred
between Smith and those men in the saloon.
Put her testimony with that of Smiths.
Weigh them carefully and then ask your
selves, II there were no other witnesses,
would you have any testimony showing the
killing was done in self defense.
Il haven't much to say about Suss. the
piano player. He has. since this murder,
been in jail and associating with Winnie
Smith. His on the whole. indi-
Gates a disposition to favor the defendant
In this case. The State did not make the
circumstances in the affair. 1t is only pre-
sentfng them as they are. The State did not
select these witnesses. 1t is only using
those who We're there and saw the deed.
II anybody has had any influence over
these witnesses it has not been the prose-
cution. But you know George Suss has, at
all times. been ready to say anything in the
world the defense wanted him to say. They
say SusS was drunk. Well, let's see if he
was. The coroner says he was drunk, but
the coroner mistook his statement for that
made by Hunt. The officers of the law say
Suss was sober. He was a man who drank
liquor. There is no question about that,
but he was not so drunk that he could not
do those things he was employed to do. He
had sense enough to pick up that bloody
knife in the yard and carry it to the bar
tender
1.-The State has no disposition to wander
away from the theories it has in the case,
nor will there be any divergence of views
as to how this killing occurred. Outside of
his answers, when he was being led by the
defense, Mr.. Suss's testimony shows that
Winnie Smith was guilty of murder in the
first degree. Western B. Thomas lies cold
in the grave to-day. He can't be here to