The times. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1897-1901, 1900-01-31
MIR. GouId's Argument.

| Mr. Gould's Argument.
MIR. Gould said that the defence Of in
sanity had been expected. when this
man had been arrested for the crime, did
be say that traumatic, or psychic, OF
masked epilepsy had been responsible for
| his act? Did he say that a great-great-
granduncle hal had epilepsy sixty-three
| years ago. No! He attributed his crime
! 10 what ] feel to be responsible for his
/ relations with the young girl whose throat
! he cut with the keen edge of his razor
whisky. There is not one scintilla of evil
dence TO show that on the morning of the
9Th Of last August this defendant was an
| insane man.
IF you were allowed to assume insanity
) from the brutality Of the crime, all the in
/ tending murderer would have TO do would
! be TO make his crime brutal enough to
shock all humanity. and he would have
sound basis upon which 10 establish his
innocence behind the shield of insanity,
and. therefore, jrTesponsibility.
Did il not occur to you" went on the
speaker, when the witnesses for the defence
were on the stand that every fl of epilepsy
which he had had was in the evening. in
the seclusion of his own home? Did it
not occur 10 you that it was rather re-
markable that in all the nine years of his
career as a clerk in the Pension Office
he had never had stroke Of epilepsy in
the daytime, or on the street, but always
in his own house?
rs il not rather remarkable that not
one OF his fellow clerks had ever seen
him have fit of any kind. and that only
his daughter and son-in-law had testified
that they had seen him in such a condi-
tion?"
Mr.. Gould reviewed chronologically
every phase and feature of the testimony
from the first witness.
NO man has seen the brain of this
man, and no man can say that the skull
impinges on the brain and subjects him
TO epileptic mania and produces a differ
ence in size between the right and the
left sides OF his body. il is an attempt to
base his responsibility for the murder OF
this girl upon the fact that the limbs of
one side OF his body are larger than they
are on the other side. But the law of this
country shall not be set aside and violated
because man may have left arm or a
left leg that is smaller or larger than
those limbs on the right side of his body
The Insanity Theory.
The court viii tell you that you can
not dcduce insanity from the crime. for
when ! took the hypothetical question Of
the defence and used it. word for word,
substituting only the assumption that the
man had gone home and gone TO bed in
stead Of killing the girl. the experts on
the stand then said that the defendant
was a sane man. Why was it that he
was sane man If he had gone home. but
an insane and legally irresponsible man
because he had committed an atrocious
murder
Argument for the Dcfen.e
Mr.. Mitchell began the argument for the
defence at once upon the temporary pause
Of the Government.
THE fact of The killing we do not deny"
he said, but I ask you. gentlemen. 10
deduce from the testimony the strength OF
the charge and the elements that brought
it about l ask you 10 consider the treat
ment of this little child in the home of The
defendant which treatment was as that
accorded daughter Consider every fea-
ture Of the child's stay there, and you
will find that tho Government has failed
10 prove that the motive for the killing
was the relations Of the defendant and the
child. and you will find that no motive
has been proven"
Mr. Mitchell dilated upon every detail of
the case and said. with reference TO one OF
the charges of the prosecution:
How much better TO have let this child
lie in her grave-;he victim Of a maniac
but pure and unsullled-than to have
dragged her innocence into this trial, the
burden OF which is the charge of murder"
The court adjourned at $3.50 O'Clock until
this morning at 10 o'clock, when the argyll
men;s Of counsel viii be concluded and the
jury instructed and given the case