Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1897-08-15
The Proof of Death in Murder Cases.

(NeW lOfk SUM-
In the discussion that has been going
on over the Gieldsensuppe homicide case,
It 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 il Is said that
the law demands proof Of the corpus
deficit. II Is not meant that some one
must be able to testify that he has seen
the dead body Of the murdered man.
Take, for instance, the case or Two men
in a row boat, where one IS seen TO strike
the other. knock him overheard, and row
away while his victim sinks beneath the
water. and finally disappears The corpse
may never be recovered, and yet proof
Of these facts by an eyewitness would
fulfil the requirements Of the law in re-
spect 10 the character and cogency OF the
evidence necessary TO establish the death
Of the person alleged "a have been killed
mo person can be convicted Of murder
or manslaughter" says the New lorh
Code Of Criminal Procedure. unless the
death Of the person alleged TO have been
killed, and the fact OF killing by the de
PENDANT as alleged, are each established
as Independent facts. the former by direct
proof. and the latter beyond reason
able doubt"
There must be direct proof Of the death
OF the ALLEGED victim. Circumstantlal eyl-
dence will not suffice as TO this branch or
a murder case. In many Of the decisions
dealing with this subject VIII be FOUND
quoted the celebrated declaration or Loid
Hale. who said: II would never convict
any person OF murder or manslaughter,
unless the fact was proved 70 be done, or
4 n ar.INf fHf
may be proved 10 have been done, how
ever. by TIE testimony OF an eyewitness.
as IN the supposed case OF the murderous
drowning; so that while ordinarily there
ought 10 be, and is, evidence Of witnesses
who have identified the corpse, such testi-
mony Is not indispensable. where there is
other direct proof OF the death.
An interesting statement was published
yesterday concerning a precedent which
is believed 10 be applicable 70 the case
Of Gieldsensuppe:
Deputy Assistant District Attorney
Rosalsky, who is still al work preparing
ahidavits OF witnesses 20 be called at the
trial. said yesterday that the authorities
rely upon a decision Of the Court OF APP
peals covering a case exactly parallel to
the Gleldsensuppe murder. IL IL that OF
man named Beckwith who, in 1882,
lured one Nandercook 10 hts home, IN
Columbia county, and. after stabbng him
to death. dismembered the body and
burned *. lie failed 20 burn the clothing
ana this was identified. The Court Of
Appeals held that the Identification OF
the clothing was sufficient 70 establish
the fact that it was Nancercook who had
been murdered"
In the celebrated Bockwith case there
WAS much more proof of the death OF the
ALLEGED victim than the foregoing state
nent would indicate. IL Is true. the head
was missing; but fragments Of the body
were found watch. when placed in proper
iuxtaposltioR, made man resembling
Nandercrook; and the clothing, which was
proven 10 be his, was cut just where II
would be cut In order 10 infiict the
wounds which were discovered upon the
shoulder and in the lungs Of the heacless
trunk. Furthermore. and what is sof' nlos'
Importance, there was proof OF contes-
sion b. Beckwith 10 the effect that van
| dercrcok had come 20 his cabin and got
| killed.: and this. with the other evidence
which we have mentioned, was held oy
the Court OF Appeals 10 be direct PROOF
within the meaning OF the Code Oh Cflhhi'
nal Procedure.
| Whether In the Gieldsensuppe case the
| District Attorney has any available PROOF
OF a confession by Thorn, We 90 not