The Worcester spy. [volume] (Worcester, Mass.) 1898-1904, 1901-10-16
EX-GOV. BLACK
FOR SENIOR
COUNCIL
Continued from Page ~

Continued from Page ~
sci for the people upon the argument
herein, abandoned the claim that there
was anything in common between them
and ingeniously sought to create sin
gle motive out of the alleged forgeries
by the defendant of the names of Bar
net and Cornish. OF course no differences
can be drawn from these alleged for
ger1es without assuming that the Bar
net" and Cornish" letters were all pro-
perly received in evidence and proven
to have been written by the defendant.
We will, therefore, assume that all
OF these letters were properly in evil
dence, that they were written by the
defendant and that he was, therefore,
guilty of the crime of forgery in the
use of each Of these names. Is there
anything in any of the Barnet letters
which sheds a ray of light upon the
question Of motive for the attempt to
XIII Cornish? Not word. Is the mere
fact of forgery sufficient to establish
motive for the forger's alleged at
Tempt to kill the man whose name he
had forged? If so, we are at a loss to
understand what probative force there
Is in the Barnet" letters which does
not also inhere in the Cornish" let
ters.
What has been said about the Bar
net letters is true of all the evidence
relating to the alleged killing of Bar
net. Even If it be admitted that it
proves the commission of an independ :
emit crime with an adequate motive be-
hind it, 1t contributes nothing to the
subject of motive in the case at bar.
AS to intent
The intent ascribed to the defendant
in the alleged killing of Mrs. Adams,
was to kill Cornish.
This is precisely the same as though
he had succeeded in committing the
particular crime he had planned The
agency employed to encompass the
death of Cornish was cyanide of mer-
curry. 1t was disguised in an effer-
vescent salt called "Bromo seltzer"
The bottle containing this mixture was
carefully prepared to create the i'm
preston that it contained nothing but
the harmless "Bromo seltzer."
Could such a foul and cunningly de-
vised act have been innocently done
Could proof of any number of repe-
titions of this act add anything to the
conclusive inference of criminal intent
which proof of the act itself affords
Can it be possible that in the face OF
such irrefragable indications of muir
derous intent it is still necessary OF
proper to prove the commission of 9TH
er similar crimes to establish intent
These questions carry their own an
swers.
Throughout the length and breadth
of the testimony relating to the death
of Barnet there is not a suggestion or
a fact which throws any light upon
the intent with which the poison was
sent to Cornish; or which serves to
support or strengthen the inference, as
to intent, which may be drawn from
the evidence tending to show that the
defendant sent the poison to Cornish.
AS to accident and not intent:
The poison used is clearly and posi-
lively identified The analysis of the
contents of the bromo-seltzer bottle,
the glass from which a portion thereof
was taken by the victim and of her
Internal organs, point unerringly to
the swift and terrible agent of death
employed by the murderer. Was this
poison sent by mistake or accident?
Are not utter depravity, venomous
malignity, murderous design, ffendish
cunning indelibly stamped upon every
fact and circumstance connected with
the act? Tt would be a travesty upon
our Jurisprudence to hold that in a.
case of such appalling and transparent
criminality, it could ever be deemed
necessary or proper to resort to proof
of eXtr3neous crimes to anticipate the
impossible defense of accident or mis-
take.
AS to a common plan or scheme:
The two deaths were caused by the
same means, at different times, in
spired by separate motives and charged
against one person. Is there any
connection between the two crimes?
1t is said that the connection is estab-
lished by the Barnet" and Cornish"
letter box correspondence. The Bar
nett letters should not have been re-
ceived in evidence for any purpose.
but again We shall assume for the
present that they were competent for
all the purposes for which they were
used.
1t is urged that the poison which
caused the death of Mrs. Adams was
one which could only be secretly and
successfully produced and admins
tered by a person who had the re-
quisite knowledge and skill and, there
fore, 1t was proper to show the use
of the same poison in a previous case.
Other evidence had been properly adj
mitted to show that the defendant had
the knowledge. skill, appliances and
opportunity to produce the poison used
in the Adams case. 1t is as plain as
that two and two make four that the
man who could produce it in one case
could do so in another. But the naked
fact that the same means were used
in the two cases simply proves that
two distinct crimes may have been
committed by the same person by
similar means There is not a fact
or circumstance in the Barnet case
that, taken by itself, legitimately
tends to prove any essential fact in
the Adams case until we come to the
subject of the handwriting of the
that will be considered under the head
of handwriting evidence.
AS to identity:
What is there in the evidence of the
alleged killing Of Barnet that tends to
Identify the defendant as the person
who poisoned Mrs. Adams? Assuming
Barnet to have been killed by the de-
PENDANT, the crime has its own separ-
ate motive, intent and plan. This is
equally true of the crime charged in
the indictment The mere fact that
the two crimes are parallel as to the
methods and means employed in their
execution, does not serve to identity
the defendant as the poisoner of Mrs.
Adams unless his guilt of the latter
crime may be inferred from its similar
ity to the former. Such an inference
might be justified If it had been shown
conclusively that the defendant had