St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1895-03-08
BLIxT A GREAT LIAR.
The Attorney Says He Continu;ii-i
Iy Contradicts Himself.

The Attorney Says He Continual
Iy Contradicts Himself.
The question of the credibility Of
Claus A. Blixt Is the very focal point
of this mental struggle which you now
have in your minds. l realize that. .
and am trying now to aid you, to the
very best of my ability, in analyzing
the testimony and the evidence, so
that from a consideration of the testi-
mony and the evidence you can see
whether that mans story is credible,
ought to be believed, in, this solemn
matter which is put UPON you to de-
eide.
Claus A. Blixt Is contradicted, not
only by himself, contradicted not only
by innumerable differences vast, ire
concilable differences, when you come
to consider the character of his mind,
made in his former statement, but on
the witness stand here before you ne
exhibited that careless character in
regard to the exact truth, in regard to
the exact truth Of what he himself had
said had been done, and what he had
iaScribed as motive. Do you recollect
that asked him whether he didn't as
cribe the motive in the first confession
tf. the TACT that Adry was testifylng2
Did he not absolutely deny before you
that he had ever said any such thing,
and didn't Mr.. Hitchcock, the stenog-
rapher, go on the stand and didn't he,
produce in his testimony this repro
duced statement of Blixt's own words?
In. all the impeachment questions
which / asked him, and which I will
not take up the time to go over now,
did he not say to the majority of them
'No? Does not the written state
ment read in your hearing contra
dict his answers "No?" Proving
to you that this man BIixt
upon the stand, when his ra!nd
is called directly and specifically to his
former statements, right in the face
of the statement itself. when that
statement violated the. posture and
condition of the present testimony.
dared to answer mo, no, no." and vet
he has been contradicted by Mr.. Hitch
COCK and those statements which are
contradictory in former statements
those parts of this testimony which
We're contradictory In the former state
ments. but which We're Of truthful
character, not fastening upon him the
fact that he was perjuring himself by
mathematical precision, how did he get
around those things? Have you got
1t IN the paper there?' he said. YES,
:ir.WelI, then, / may have said IT." .T
may have said it, "You see, GENTLE
men, he says, you see, 1 had no
mind then My mind didn't come back
10, me until this statement to nv at
torney- He has got it In that state.
ment- If you take that statement
there, Mr. Erwin, you will see it. He
mas got 1t in my statement
tneEe, And then I asked the
attorney to hand me the statement
ana was rebuked by the court. L ex-
piooeu tnere before you this DOS.
ture tnat this man took to explain his
ooii'i oi dolc tIons. Now, In the light OF
common sense, right before Your. own
eyes, is an explanation and a demon
stratlon of the character of a. man who
udEed under oath, who dared under
suen circumstances, shift, evade, plant
ms Justilcatlon In the statement to an
attorney, which is found to be in VIOLA
'ion oI all these other statements
Whether on the witness stand or in
tne statement made to the officers
Twice before. How can you view such
testimony as that? Bring that to the
rule and criterion of common sense
ana you must discard 1t. Treat IT
with, the suspicious and cringing NOR
piulty, using 1t as stilt and means to 4
an end, to prop verdict already found
In the mind instead of to sustain the
MIND TO find a verdict, and then you do
not act with common sense nor up to I
the nigh duties of your trust. go
over these things at length before Won. 4
not 10 spur you to act, have no reason
TO doubt what your act will be. But i
go over these things before these peopla
IN your presence that they may UNDER
stand when you do act, that you could
not nave acted otherwise had you lived
up to the God-given powers of the mind
and soul which you may possess to be
Jurors.
Ii Claus A. Blixt's contradictions were
In some other character of the case
ana confined to lapses of memory, they
might be passed up trivially, perhaps-
by jury under certain circumstances.
BUT this case is a different case in
murder and accusation than any YOU
nave ever seen tried in this country be-
lore Mark you, it is not plain that
Harry Hayward was present when the
murder was committed, or was within
hve miles Of the place where Kate
cling was murdered This is not plain.
IL IS not plain that the blood of Cath
crime Cling was found upon his hands.
or on his clothes, or that his tracks
were in the vicinity of the murder. or
that he was seen in the vicinity of the
murder, or that he dropped the body
OUT or that he drove the horse home.
or anything, either in manner or In
means, by which the cruel murder of
Kitty Cling was committed. That IS
not charged here. In ordinary muir
der cases accomplices are charged with
a direct participation in the circuln-
stances, manner and means of tha
crime; and in that case slight corrob-
Grafton of confessing accomplice Is
deemed enough sometimes by the re-
viewing courts to sustain verdicts OF
guilty. But this Is an entirely different
case from that. This is a. case where
it is admitted on the one side that
Claus A. Blixt alone. without any one
else with him, murdered Catherine
Cling; and claimed on the other side.
from the testimony as shown, that
Claus A. Blixt and another, unknown.
Continued an Third po~