Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1902-12-05
AUGUSTA. MAINE. FRIDAY MORNING. DECEMBER s. 1902
"GONE IN CANADA"
In BIondin's Handwriting on
Letter to His Wife
Is Presented as Evidence Against
BIondin by the Prosecution.
Only Three Witnesses on Stand-AlI
Rigidly Examined.

Poston, Dec. "A legal skirmish be-
tween Lawyer Morrison for the de-
PENDANT and Attorney Gen. Parker for
the prosecution, over the admission as
evidence of jack-knife which the at
toney general used, Wednesday, in con-
nection with the examination of a wit
ness, opened Thursdays proceedings in
the Blondin wife murder trial and
strengthened the belief that the jack
knife will figure prominently in the
case.
Immediately after the opening of
court, Counsel Morrison asked that the
jury be excused while counsel argued
certain points suggested by the intro
duction of the knife into the case. The
court decided it would not be necessary
to excuse the jury under the circum-
stances and Mr.. Morrison proceeded to
explain that the appearance of the knife.
Wednesday, came as an entire surprise
to him. He never knew of it's exist
ence until that time. AS it seems evil
dent that the weapon is an important
feature in the case of the government,
counsel believed the defense should be
allowed the privilege of submitting it
to experts provided for the defense for
examination for traces of blood spots.
Attorney General Parker objected to
the proceeding on the ground that the
knife had not yet been introduced in
evidence. The court, however. ruled
that inasmuch as the weapon had fig
ured in crOss-eXaminatiOn it should be
considered that to all intents and pur-
poses it was now a portion of the evil
dence in the case.
The attorney general explained that
the knife would be at the disposition of
the defense before it was allowed to
take any weighty part in the proceed
ings. He further stated that in his
opinion the defense attached too much
to the part the knife was
to play.
Finally, Mr.. Morrison agreed to defer
the matter until later time and DIR.
Meigs, the medical examiner, who Oc-
clpied the stand during the afternoon
session, Wednesday. was recalled, cross
by Mr.. Morrison being
The conclusion. of the witness that
death resulted from asphyxiation was
the first point taken up. Witness was
asked if he meant that death was due
to strangulation. The doctor replied
that strangulation was one form of as
He agreed with Mr.. Nor
rison that where death ordinarily re-
suited from stranguiation or throttling
the eyes and tongue of the victim pro-
truded And he admitted these condi-
lions did not prevail in the case in
question. He would not say that these
conditions invariably prevailed, but
admitted that he could not say from
practical experience that they did not
MIR. Morrison then produced certi-
fed copy of the report of the medical
examiner to the Lowell police court on
the autopsy and it was marked de
PENDANTS exhibit No. !"
He then called the attention OF DR..
Meigs to statement in that report to
the effect that the wounds of the head
probably had been made by sharp
axe or some similar instrument and
asked him how he reconciled that with
his statement, Wednesday, that the
wounds could have been made by an
axe. The doctor denied that he made
such Il statement, saying that he an
swercd that the would could have been
caused by the axe shown him. He was
of the opinion, however. as the result
of much thought. that the statement in
the report was incorrect and that the
wounds really were not made by an
axe. He admitted that this was con-
,rary to the opinion held by him i'm
mediately after the autopsy.
At the conclusion of the cross-exarli-
nation the attorney general proceeded
TO smooth out apparent contradictions
in DR.. Meigs' testimony produced by
the questions of Mr. Morrison. The
physician explained that the retractfon
of the edges Of the wound. which SUD-
iect received much attention from the
cross examining attorney, who had at
tempted to draw from the witness an
admission that the retraction of these
yarts proved that the decapitation took
place almost Immediately after death
might have been the result of putrifica-
ton. He explained that the immersion
Of the head in water tended to preserve
the normal conditions. The fact that
the eyes and tongue did not protrude
he said. did not in any way effect his
belief that death resulted from stran-
gulation.
In reply to a question from the at
torney general. Dr.. Meigs said that In
mis- opinion, the body could have beer
placed in an ordinary trunk, and added
in reply to another question that ti1F
fractured rib might have resulted from
pressure of the knee in forcing the body
into a trunk.
Mr.. Morrison objected to this ques.
ton and reply. but the objection was
ovcrruled. Mr.. Morrison then asked
a question or two which brought Out
nothing of Importance, save a passags
between the witness and the lawyer.
Il don't think you put your questions
very clearly. 1 don't understand
them" said DR.. Meigs.
You probably understand me az wei
as 1 understand you," replied the at
l fornoy