Evening journal., 1899-10-04
LETTERS FROM THE PEOPLE

Sir: The statement, recently made by
a Philadelphia daily. to the effect that
Eli Shaw had confessed to two Of its
reporters that he had murdered both
his mother and grandmother on which
two charges Shaw was, short while
ago, separately tried and acquitted, has
caused more or less comment concern
ing the probability of the accuracy of
that statement
or course we all know that when a
man or woman has been tried and ac-
quilted of the capital offense, that man
or woman cannot again be indicted for
the same murder or murders. He or
she must be supposed to have commit
ted a fresh homicide, in order to be
again indicted. Perhaps the Scotch
verdict Of Not Proven" is the wisest,
If not the most merciful, course. to
adopt in cases where the element Of
doubt largely enters. Under such prem
ises, and in the event OF eliminating
evidence subsequently turning up, the
accused can again be brought before
the bar Of justice But even assuming
and we only assume: we have no
right to assert-that ELI Shaw did mur-
der his mother and grandmother,
wherein, we would ask, would It bene-
At him to acknowledge to the world
that he had done so? Such q course
Of procedure on his part would most
assuredly not benefit him. On the con-
trary, it would have the reverse or det-
rimental effect. The probability, there
fore, Of Shaw having confessed to the
double murder is exceedingly slim.
True, he could do SO with impunity, so
far as the lex terrae the law Of the
land. is concerned: but, by so doing,
he would have everything to lose, moth
ing whatever to gain Further than
this, Shaw, he having been acquitted
on both homicidal charges, must, ire
spective OF all shades of public opin-
ion, be accounted and regarded as an
innocent man. And no man possesses
the prerogative to dog his footsteps, to
play the part OF an amateur detective,
OF to otherwise, and by some under
hand method or other lay a trap for
him. We repeat, that the man Eli
Shaw must be accepted by the world as
man guiltless Of the crime Of muir
der. and any man who, for the sake OF
creating a sensation, or for some pc
cuniary or other gain, goes out OF his
way to obtain confession from Ell
Shaw (assuming, but only assuming, he
made one) is fool for his pains
The cases Of subsequent confession
SO far as the crime Of murder is con-
cerned, are exceedingly rare. so rare as
to discount the probability Of Ell
Shaw, even II he is guilty, having con
fessed. Constance Kent, Of Old Ken
Road fame, was tried and acquitted OF
the charge OF murder. Some lve years
afterwards she confessed TO the crime
And Mr. Montagu Williams, the once
famous English barrister, tells us how
he once gained a verdict Of acQuitta
for a man charged with murder, onl,
for the man to follow Mr. Williams on
Of court, and exclaim: Am mucl
Obliged to you, Mr.. Williams. for get
ting me of, but did the murder al
right" Such instances Of unmitigate'
gall are however, very rare: in fact
so rare that they can only be accepte,
as truth when testified to by the mos
inimpeachable authority.
The evidence produced against FL
Shaw-we refer to both trials-was en-
tirely and altogether presumptive O
cireumstantisl. No mortal eye, othe
than those Of the murderer or murder
ers was a witness of this most heinou
crime. The presumptive or circum
stantial evidence against Shaw seem
ed" very strong. We invert, with con
mas, the word seemed" because W
wish to relate a couple of instance
where the strongest kind of circun
stantial evidence subsequently turne
out TO be as weak as water. A man wa
tried and convicted for murder, SON
few years ago, at the Liverpool Al
ICES. The implement, with which II
rime was committed, was found in Il
mans own room. The consensus
opinion strongly favored the man
guilt He was sentenced to death, Il
sentence being, a few days late
changed to one Of penal servitude 4
life. Some two or three years elapse
when a former fellow-servant, a W
man, confessed on her death-bed tn
she, and she alone. had done the dee
and then placed the hatchet in t
mans room so as to draw suspici,
upon him. If the men composing 4
jury, the jury trying this man, had 7
heeted for a moment, then they wou
have come to the logical conclusi,
that there was too much eviden
against the man for him TO be gull