The Wichita daily eagle. [volume] (Wichita, Kan.) 1890-1906, 1900-03-25
Linking Evidence
Continued from Fourteenth Page.
Use of Circumstances
in Locating a Criminal.

| ter, but before executing the gypsy the
| Crown became convinced OF the truth Of
| her alibi and she was pardoned Eliza
| beth Canning was then indicted for per-
| jury. On her trial thirty-six witnesses
| testified to the absence Of the gypsy
| from the vicinity Of the alleged crime,
! while twenty-six witnesses swore they
saw her there about that time. The jury
| found Elizabeth guilty Of false swearing
| and she was transported. England was
| then, and continued to be for many years,
| divided on the case. as all readers are
| TO this day.
Mr.. John Paget, of the London Bar,
| gives the history of an old-time trial in
| Shakespeares Cotswold illustrating the
same theme-the unreliability Of positive
as well as circumstantial evidence. The
steward of Lady Campden went to a
peighboring village to receive some rents,
and not returning at night his servant
John Perry was sent after him. The SER
want did not come back that night and
his master having disappeared and evil
dence pointing to foul play having been
discovered, John was arrested. After be
ing in custody week he confessed that
his mother and brother, who had often
urged him to rob his master, attacked
the latter on the night in question. killed
him and buried the body. No body was
found, but the evidence was deemed
sufficient ard the two brothers and the
mother were executed. Some years after
ward the supposed murdered man re-
turned with a story of kidnapping into
foreign slavery. Here there was the best
" he or,l als
accusation of the accused, duplicating
those nearest and dearest to him-turn-
ing out to be purely insane invention.
The same author tells of a case where
woman disappeared and a man found
lurking in a neighboring wood and be-
traying fear was arrested, confessed the
crime and was executed. In two years
the woman returned. The cases Of the
confessions of alleged witches are strik-
ink instances of insane impulse to self
accusation of fancied crime, but the fol-
lowing cases are perhaps without para
lei: In England, about the middle Of the
present century, a most serious charge
was brought against a physician by the
husband of one of his patients. The
accusation followed upon the discovery
of diary kept by the lady in which was
entered with the utmost minuteness the
rise progress and entire history of an
Overwhelming and passionate attach
ment between herself and the Doctor
But there was nothing to corroborate the
astounding disclosures and it was estab-
lished beyond doubt that the lady al
though otherwise conducting herself
properly, was upon this subject wholly
insane. Here it will be observed that the
absence of circumstantial evidence to
corroborate the confession saved the doc
tor The other case occurred about the
same time, also in England. divorce
action had been pending for several years
against a wife whose cause was viso-
roUsly defended up to the House of Lords
when there Unexpectedly appeared at the
bar an elderly and respectable looking
clergyman who deposed upon cath that
six years or seven -ears before he had
been an actual eyewitness of the guilt
of the lady. No corroboratve circum-
stance was adduced to support his tes-
timony and within a few months the
truth came out The respectable clergy
man gave himself up to justice as having
been guilty of the forgery of certain bills
Of exchange. Upon investigation it turned
out that there had been on forgery, no
such bills Of exchange having ever been
in existence. The poor man was simply
a lunatic with decisions of crime COM
mitted either by himself or others. In
this case, as in the other, positive testi-
mony becomes worthless when confront
ed with facts which cannot lie or when
unsupported by facts which must exist
if the testimony were true.
1t is altogether unknown that persons
condemned upon circumstantial evidence
have been regarded by the community
as innocent victims of the law. This |
was the popular verdict as aginst the |
jury's verdict in a case Occurring eighty |
five years ago in London. The accused, |
Eliza Fenning twenty-five years old, was
a domestic servant. She prepared a meal |
by which the whole family was poisoned |
from arsenic contained in it. She her |
self partook of part of it, but after the |
others were taken ill., and suffered In her |
turn. This circumstance was used both |
for and against her. She had access to a
drawer in which arsenic was kept, and |
this. with certain contradictions in her
testimony and the fact that she had tried |
to prevent one Of the apprentices in the
family, for whom she might be suspected
Of partially, from partaking of the pois-
toned food-which. however. he persisted
in doing-was about all there was against
her Nevertheless the jury, against
some of the best opinions, legal and other
Of the time found her guilty and she was
executed. Her body lay, as it were in
state in her humble home. near High
for five days and was viewed
by an immense throng. A funeral pro-
cession in which the pail was borne by
six young women robed in white at
tended it to the grave. Sir Samuel Ro-
milly recorded his belief in her innno-
,ence. and the eloquent Curran detained
On the injustice OF her fate. Nothing
was ever discovered to solve the doubts
as to her guilt or innocence and the au-
thor last quoted classes the case among
his judicial problems
When the accused in olden times was
J person % rank and influence il took
stronger circumstantiaI evidence to hang
him than it did to do away with a poor
servant maid. The gradfather of the
poet Cowper. who belonged 20 a power
'ul family. was placed on trial two hun
ired years ago for the murder Of a
-oung Quaker lady woh was passioaately
attached 10 him before and after his
marriage 10 another. Il was very CON
,IuSively proved that they left her moth
RS house together late one night. and
he next morning she was found drowned
His account Of his motives for certain
was contradictory, and he
lad what poor Eliza Tanning had not
motive for such a crime But the jury
ave him the benefit Of the doub, and ac-
,uitted him He va subsequently raised !