The sun., 1897-08-05
The Proof of Death in Murder Gases.

Vuo IroOI OF Doath In n1uruoF Osh0S'
In tho discussion that has been going on
over the Gieldsensuppe homicide case, 1t
seems to be the idea of many persons that
no conviction for murder can be had unless
somebody has seen the body Of the victim
after death.
This Is an error. When It is said that
the law demands proof Of the corpus
deficit, 1t is not meant that some ono must
be able to testify that he has seen the dead
body Of the murdered man. Take, for In
stance, the case Of two men In q rowboat,
where one is seen to strike tho other, knock
him overheard and row away. while his
victim sinks beneath the water and finally
disappears. The corpse may mover be re-
covered, and yet proof Of these facts by an
eyewitness would fulfil tho requirements
of the law in respect to tho character and
cogency Of the evidence necessary to estab-
lish the death of the person alleged to have
been killed.
"No person can be convicted of murder or
manslaughter," says the New York Code Of
Criminal Procedure, "unless the death of
the person alleged to have been killed, and
the fact Of killing by the defendant as al
legged. are each established as independent
facts, the former by direct proof, and the
latter beyond q reasonable doubt"
There must be direct proof Of the death
of the alleged victim. Circumstantial evil
dence will not suffice as to this branch Of a
murder case. In many of the decisions
dealing with this subject will be found
quoted the celebrated declaration of Lord
HALE, who said: "I would never convict
less the fact was proved to be done, or at
least the body found dead" The fact may
be proved to have been done, however, by
the testimony of an eyewitness as in the
supposed case of tho murderous drowning;
so that while ordinarily there ought to be
and is evidence Of witnesses who have iden-
titled the corpse, such testimony is not in
dspensable where there is other direct
proof of the death.
An interesting statement was published
yesterday concerning precedent which is
believed to be applicable to the case of
GIELDsENsUPPE:
Deputy Assistant District Attorney RosALsKr
who is still work preparing afdavits of witnesses
to be called at the trial. said yesterday that the au
thortcs rely upon decision OF the Court or Appeals
covering case exactly parallel to the Geldsensuppe
murder II Is that OF man named BEcKwITH, who,
In 1882 ured one VANpKRcooK TO his homo in Colum.
bia county. and. after stabbng him to death dsmem.
bered the body and burned It, He failed to burn tho
clothing and this identified. The Court OF Ap
peals held that the identnc OF the clothing a.
sufficient 60 establish tho feet that vApERcooK
who had been murdered"
In the celebrated Beckwith case there
was much more proof of the death of the
alleged victim than the foregoing state.
ment would indicate. 1t is true, the head
was missing but fragments of the body
were found which, when placed in proper
juXtaposition, made man resembling
VANDEECooK; and the clothing which was
proven to be his was cut just where it
would be cut in order to infiict the wounds
which were discovered upon the shoulder
and in the lungs of the headlees trunk.
Furthermore, and what is Of most impor-
tance, there was proof Of confession by
BECKwITH to the effect that VANDERCooK
| had come to his cabin and "got killed."
and this, with the other evidence which we
have mentioned was held by the Court of
Appeals to be direct proof within the mean
ing Of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Whether in the Gieldsensuppe case the
District Attorney has any available proof
| of confession by THORN we do not know !;
nor do we desire to discuss the details of
that case at the present stage of the prose
cution. We refer to it simply in order to
elucidate the precise rule of evidence as to
the fact of death which now prevails in our
courts upon trials for felonous homicide.