The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1898-03-24

che s>hief was present. NHsfe IS no -
os,csiinx these statements. Roth AZ n
rrsa, ard before the board OF rardcnx
Rogers flrs, represents that both pieces
hammer handles. marked subsequently,
ara j were found by the sheriff AZ d
time .f the search on fhe 18th Of Aaen
M wao,ery also testisies that the utSsSH
-,arsed c was found by him az she -. Ii
lime and that he Immediately called q
attention Of the chief or police 10 Z.
afterward testified ;hat it was delivered
ur ts,,.,:nes at the chiefs request a.
"a. cnssf tesrifies on page las and also =
mage III, that he did not see exhibit gni
fha, evening at the police Office ABOUT =
I or s o'clock.
..pn mage iss, upon being asked w.sl
reference 10 other hammers. Mr.. Rooe,I
answered. There we're three-there VI
four of the hammers at the time We ma
the first search Went back the second IN
could find but three. The hammer
which 1 sawed the hammer l could nevs
nna-sawesi a piece about that Dig tlnaS
ra.,rr, of the hammer On pages is a.
10 IN answer 10 the question. 'Aad ~
hammer YOU never got. what about lhsssl
Vs. Rogers said Sawed the end OF IN
r4aumer ont there and never could A ~
the hammer, and went back after it.
40. You sawed the end of the hau
mer oHs'
A. les. sir, sS~eu ~ OH w ny sne12
saw
New Mr.. Rogers told the hoard
narfnns that he did not saw any hamne
handle. but directed Captain Barcx 10 s64
. niece of, which he did. and Sheril
Woolery testihes. page all, thus:
go. Do YOU know whether CapsaiA
Rarck had sawed of exhibit that piee
from the hammer
".A- | have not seen the exhibit. but
saw him saw of that piece OF the han
rner handle
30. Did you see him saw OF u
piece.
"A. Yes. SIR
"And vet Captain Barck was no. pui
upon the witness stand TO testify with m
card TO this matter of the use OF the sawH
The record shows that Officer Cudihee and
Chief Rogers virtually contradict esea
other In the matter of Craemer's bearing {
under the fire of cross-ouestioning by tA3I
chief on the day following the murder,
but more especially regarding the evsdea0
drift of those questions. On page ias MI
Rogers declares he gave no hint OK A.
purpose to arrest. or even OF suspicion
craemer's guilt: while cudihee asserts
was the purpose before going there 70 -
rest Craemer. and that X must have ~
manifest to Craemer from the Drift Of II
chiefs queries that he was under ~
picioa. but he declares that up to the tim
OF the production OF the bloody hamm4
the defendant was cool and self-poseeesef1
and eenversed in a very natural manned
with regard 10 The finding OF the mons
I'm the rnitre box. page 1&9. Mr. Roger
said, Il took il and went outside The plae
and examined II. and put II back in u
pocket and kept II there. and II has hee
I'm my possession ever since This Was r
the afternoon Of the 18th Of August. ~
though he had other officers and seArc9
ers present. he gave no hint at the time
any of them of this important ind. TIM
avoiding the possibility OF any cogroborat
i've evidence by his associates ~ to W.
he found. and where and when. while q
page les he admits that he saw the 1an}
mitre box on the afternoon OF the -
filed up with pieces OF moulding. apoG1
emily put in after the house wan hnishe1
and that he did not disturb q at that tn
nor speak about 1t. or think about Il
pay any attention TO 1t. On page Id
says that on the 18th hammer that ~
there the preceding day was missing: IT,
he had left II page l72) In the shed % :
bench. and that the door OF the shed ~
open when he came there that mornino
NOW supposing that Mr.. Rogers. =
witnc<s 90 truth. is morally invulnefAhA
how Gould such evidence be taken ~ NJ
of the defendants guilt under such e.
cumstanees9 Moreover two other MI
Mr.. George Cave and Mr.. Herman NJ
lock. have since made affidavit that OH
each looked into the same nitro bog ~
the 18th day OF August. and that Il e..
tanned only the pieces OF moulding a.
such traps, bat no can OF any kind. q
was objected by the prosecution at ~
meeting of the board that OF these tn
affiants the former was not deserving
confidence nor his testimony of credencAt
and that the latter though Doubtless O.
honorable gentleman. was simply mtstakfa
with regard 10 the date Of his alleged ~
spection of the mitre box since much tin
had elapsed when the AFFIDAVIT was ms6A
This last objection. however. loses H.
weight when we consider that he had 81
longer time In which to recall dates q
the time OF the trial than any other petH
Sons that gave their testimony At thar
time. The events being fresh. and VIM
their dates impressed deeply upon tn,
mind. would be retained easily to the daf
OF his subsequent affidavit.
Much Confusion.
with regard TO the two pieces NJ han
mer handles marked respectively G ana
there IL much confusion as TO the Tins 4
their Ending I'm the testimony Of SheFiaI
Woolery. and actual contrad iction OF tn
testimony of Chief Rogers. and also Of h:eI
statement bciore the OOaTu. IN p5Ho
the question IA asked, with regard to s1-1
hibi; j. When and where did you hneI
see 10
"a. The day after the murder
80. WhereY
"A At the same place where fosi11l
| the other. back OF Craemer's woodshed.
% Where did you find that with rsf'
erence 10 finding the other. state exhihss|
fs7'
"A. Within foot perhaps Of the sansI
place
@ In whose possession has tiiis teeaI
SINGER
A. My possession Page 81. apdI
| continuing:
q. Where did you say you found e.
| hibit j.
| "A. In the rear OF Mr.. csasmessI
| woodshed'
q Where with reference TO the piaeI
| you found The other piecer'
a. About the same place
O. Which one did he saw OFF,
| "A. couldn't say: | don't know
! q. For all that you know his al
! piece. thar you say you found behind III
| woodshed near that one you have tesH
/ ned about first. exhibit C. may have b.
the one that Barck sawed orr