The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1900-03-11

ing man was DR.. E. E. Hume, whose Of
ice is in the basement of the Capital
Hotel. Goebel was carried to this office
and DR.. Hume made a hasty examination,
pronouncing the wound one that must
cause death in a short time. Goebel was
then carried to his room on the second
floor of the Capital Hotel. In the treat
ment afterward there were engaged Drs.
Hume, Mccormick Ely, McMurtry, Walk
er, cambridge, Chinn, Mckenzie, Barrow,
Tobin, Milligan, Bosworth, Welch, Vance
and Cartledge-fifteen doctors in all. Yet
but one of them, DR.. Vance, has made
any public statement to his Observa-
tlon of the wound. 1t is, however, agreed
that there was a perforation with large
orifice between the right nipple and arm
pit, and smaller orifice lower down aud
at the back, to the left of the spine.
DR.. Vance says:
] would certainly have been of the opinion,
after the examination which | made of the wound,
that Mr. Goebel had been shot from behind were
IL not for a prior examination which had made
OF his clothing.
The wound just in front of the right armpit
was fully three times as large as the one in the
back With this condition apparent, and with
only an exterior examination OF the wound, the
theory that the bullet had entered at the back
could hardly have been disputed However, upon
entering the room where Goebel lay | first inquir
ed for his clothing.
took his coat and vest, and at my request Dr.
Tom Welch put them on. Then perceived that
the hbres OF the cloth around the edge of the
bullet hole in front all projected inward toward
the body, while those torn by the bullet in the
rear thrust, their jagged edges outward. This
discovery decided me in the belief that the
wound OF entrance was in front.
Thus there is apparently irreconcilable
antagonism between the testimnOy of the
wound and the testimony of the clothing
which by the way had not been under
observation for five hours when DR.
Vance examined it.
In refutation of the doctors deduction
from the fibres of the garments; in con-
flict with the r-witnesses; in corrobo
ration of the evidence of the wound,
there is the following clear statement
from a living witness who makes refer
ence to two other witnesses in support
of her testimony. This witness is the
woman who saved Whitaker's life when
they were going to lynch him by calling
out, ooh, don't hang him; he is not the
man who did it," / quote from Louis
vile newspaper:
The widow SafcI, who keeps q boarding house
in Broadway, near the State House Square, in
Frankfort. says she witness to the shoot
ing or william GOeDcl jan 80 last. she nau
just gone into the State House yard on her way
TO the Adutant Generals office, on business,
when Senator Goebel passed her and tipped his
hat. She did not know the man. she says she
saw walking slightly behind him. She knew the
man several steps in front of him, and he was
Eph Lillard, Warden Of the Penitentiary.
When Mr.. Goebel reached point just TO the
right of the fountain. she says, she the man
behind him draw pistol with his left hand and
shoot toward Gocbc She says there was the
faintest kind of puff OF white smoke from the
fhl
the State House. reaching the steps as Eph Lii
lard closed the glass doors.
He then out and ran to Goebels side. She
says she saw shots nor heard any fired from
the Executive Building. She is positive that she
saw the fire the shot which killed Goebei,
and she says that woman who lives in Frank
fort. and travelling man who comes TO that
city every week, also witnessed the shooting;
that all of them have made written statements
of the facts and that these statements are in
the hands of Gov. Taylor who VIII probably
make them public in few days.
She declines TO go into details, saying that she
cannot violate her pledge to Gov. Taylor. she
declares that newspaper has offered her SouU
or more il necessary, If she would make pubnc
statement of what she saw. but she declined m
dignantly. She says she was AFRAID that the mon
would hang an innocent man when tney arrested
Whitaker and that was the reason she cried
out and said not to hang him, as he dld not
shoot Mr.. Goebel.
These matters to which / have called
attention all tend to increase the wonder
as to why there has been no official in
uuiry; for it must be remembered that
there has not even been Coroner S IN
quest into the murder of Mr.. Goebel. The
decision to hold no inquest in face OF the
mystery, in face of the invariable GUS
tom in this State of holding an inquest
where a crime has been committed, was
reached by Mr.. Goebefs friends and fami-
Iy The Coroner issued a certificate OF
the cause of death without the formality
of an inquest.
An autopsy was held, but none of the
facts developed there was given out--this
in spite of the fact that DR.. Vance, un-
convinced by the fbres in the clothing,
said: THE autopsy should show conclu-
sively the direction from which the bullet
was fired, because the parts of the shat
tered bones must have been forced away
from the wound of entrance"
There is a theory advanced both by
Goebel's friends and foes, to account for
the unusually large aperture at the per-
foration in the front of his body. This
theory is that he wore coat of mail.
Indeed it has been asserted in print.
coming from one of the surgeons, but not
naming him, that a coat of mail was
and that splinters from it's steel meshes
aggravated the wound.
Assuming for the moment that Goebei
was wearing a coat of mail, and that the
f1attening or expansion of the bullet caus-
ed the large oriflce at the entering place
i'm front-how, then, was the bullet after
ward compressed so as to make small
hole in leaving the body?
If there was coat of mail it would be
an indispensable witness as TO the direc-
tion in which the links were bent. And
how important it would be TO know
whether it was pierced on the supposed
further side. Why are the surgeons sill
ent? What but evil can come from sup
preston?
In further excuse for the failure to hold
an inquest it has been suggested that
something needless might have been de-