The Jersey City news. (Jersey City [N.J.]) 1889-1906, 1899-03-25
The washington Hotel Clue.

The Arlington 6otel C1ues
Three days ago. "The News made ex-
elusive publication of the latest dis
rovery of the New York District Attor-
hey's office in the ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Molineux poisoning case. 1t was the To-
cation at the Hotel Washington of a
parasol, left there some months ago, by
a lady who was known there as Mrs.
Barnet or Barnett, and who was regis
tered with a gentleman purporting to be
her husband
The scheme of the New York officials is
to identify this lady with Miss Blanche
Cheeseborough, who is now Mrs. Roland
o. Molineux. This Identification would, of
course. involve the existence of an ir-
regular liaison between the lady and the
late Barnet. and thus a motive would be
suggested for the poisoning of Barnet by
her present husband. The dates of the
registry of the Barnet couple at the
Washington would besides prove that
Miss Cheeseborough was acquainted with
Barnet at a period earlier than that to
which she and her husband swore at the
Adams Coroner's inquest.
Now, we nave no hesitation in saying
that the Hotel Washington discoveries,
taken at their face value, do not in any
way warrant the proposed differences. II
Barnet took Miss Cheeseborough to the
hotel in the way suggested, it is simply
incredible that he would register under his
own name. One must be a child in the
affairs of the world to imagine it for q
moment.
But even grant that Barnet used his
own name, is it then credible that he
would misspell it? That he would use his
own name and misspell it for disguise is
too absurd even for Mr.. Asa Bird Gar
diner to suggest. That he would spell It
wrong Inadvertently is even more pre-
posterous. In a word, the presence of
the name Barnet on the register of the
hotel amounts to something like conclusive
proof that the Barnet of this case was
not there.
Of course, If Barnet was not there, there
is not a particle of evidence to suggest
that Miss C-heeseborough was, for she is
not the only woman in the world who
may have owned a lace parasol. But
even if she were there with some other
man han Barnet, all the bearing of the
incident upon the great poison mystery
would be destroyed.
The alleged ,ide~ntifcations by the hotel
clerk and others from photographs and
newspaper pictures, are simply worthy
of no attention, even if any positive iden-
tifcation had been made, and there is no
evidence as yet that they have-rather
the contrary. Equally fallacious are the
New York newspapers guesses as to the
results of expert examination of the
handwriting in the register. Nobody
knows yet what the experts have to say
about it, and, even if we knew, it is very
doubtful how much stress should be laid
upon expert testimony as to handwriting,
anyway
Just how these worthless Clues will
develop in the hands of so utterly UNI
~scrupulous an inquisitor as Gardiner has
shown himself, it is hard to foresee. There
seems to be hardly any villainy that he is
incapable of in this case. But certainly,
as matters stand now, the woman, whose
appeal we print conspicuously today. is
entitled to the poor justice Of a suspen-
sion of public opinion, until all the facts
are truly known-if they ever are.