The St. Louis Republic. [volume] (St. Louis, Mo.) 1888-1919, 1902-04-13
Would Not Have Granted Respite
Had He Known Nature of
New Evidence
ONLY MISTAKE WAS RESPITE
Testimony of Bertha Goesler Was
Neither New nor Valuable and
only Helped to Disprove the
Claim of Self-Defense. g.

jefferson City. No. April Ex-Governor
Doclery to-day further discussed the mat
ter OF The ceprieve he granted for Henry
Fqutcher. the negro who Was hanged IN st.
Louis yesterday twenty-five minutes before
the Governors telegram granting the re-
spite was received a the, -Four Courts,
Governor Dockery said:
The only ground upon which a mistake
could be alleged in this case is the fact
that the further respite was issued at all.
Il - very doubtful whether / was warranted
in granting the respite. even upon the re-
quest Of 80 distinguished an attorney as
Mr.. Folk.
Il was absolutely familiar with every
phase of The case. II had been called 10
my attention over and over again. and over
and over again l had declined 10 grant a
further respite.
Miss Goexicr's Evidence Not New
81 had. in 1a,t. although l did not know
# al ;he time az the issuance OF the re-
sp.te. pussed upon the alleged new EVIL
d-nre 4 Bertha Gossler. and II / had known
hat this Was the new testimony referred 20
Ay Circuit Attorney Folk 1 should not have
bIGIl@l lA= IETplAFS G'NoN~N
ard attached no Importance whatever to II
THE fact Of this alleged new testimony
was called to my attention By butchers
attorney on last Wednesday and specifically
detailed to me by Mr.. Crenshaw on Thurs
day afternoon in a conversation through
the Iong-distance telephone. Mr. Crenshaw,
after detailing the testimony which was
stated to him by the witness in his office.
expressed to me the opinion that 1t was
not sufficient to warrant executive inter-
ference.
If Mr.. Crenshaw had been familiar with
ell the facts as developed at the trial OF
the case he would have suggested the In
suhiciency OF the testimony for another
reason. and that IS that it absolutely con-
nlcts with the testimony of Flutcher HIM
sci. or o-iaI, and the witnesses he intro
duced TO sustain his testimony.
Neither Was it Valuable.
the time this witness was In the Of
fee Of Mr.. Crenshaw on Thursday she was
accompanied by Mrs. Miller. and Mrs. NIL
Ter stated to Mr.. Crenshaw at that time
that the name Of Miss Goehler had been
given 10 the police officer who arrested
Fletcher as a witness before the trial OF the
case in the Circuit Court.
1T does not appear, therefore. that the
evidence was either new or valuable. For
some reason Miss Goehler was not called by
the defense at the trial, and It may be for
the reason that her testimony Is wholly at
variance with the testimony Of F1utcher
himself and other witnesses introduced on
the trial of the case by Flutcher's attorney.
As shown by the evidence. Flutcher was
a negro tcamster. and at the time he muir
dered Louis Roth, on August q. 1900, was
employed by the Ratican Sprinkling Com
pany. Louis Roth was a young white man.
o. NaaNr M a9a anO "a In 70 rnanfnrfn0
and belonged to the carpenters union
Supreme Courts Opinion.
"Flutcher endeavored to support the the
DRY Of self-defense. The Supreme Court,
in an opinion written by Judge Sherwood,
in passing upon this plea. says:
He Qlutcher) pleaded not guilty, and
also pleaded self-defense. On the part of
the defense there was the testimony of the
defendant. corroborated to a greater or less
extent by several other witnesses, that de-
PENDANT was assaulted by Louis Roth.
struck twice with a baseball bat. and
knocked to his knees, when he fired IN self
protection the shot which killed Louis
Roth. The court below gave an excellent
set Of Instructions, embracing murder In
the first and second degrees. granddaughter
in the fourth degree, and the law Of SELF
defense. The jury. returned q verdict OF
guilty Of murder In the first degree"
1T appears, therefore. from the opinion of
the Supreme Court, which is supported by
the testimony on file in this office, that De-
PENDANT F1utcher endeayored to secure ac-
quittal by testimony showing that he was
struck twice with a baseball bat and
knocked to his knees before he shot Louis
Roth. The Jury heard the evidence and re-
tected It in toto. The jury ought to be COM
petent judges. The law devolved upon them
the high duty OF trying this defendant.
They heard his testimony and that of his
witnesses. and obviously they disbelieved.
Now comes an alleged witness. Bertha
Goehle-, the statement OF whose testimony
had been recited TO me by Mr.. Crenshaw
on Thursday. She says. as reported. that
F1utcher and Roth were on opposite sides
Of the street and that Roth did not strike
Flutcher, because the white man was too
far away from the negro to hit him II he
wanted TO. She insisted, however, that he
held a baseball bat in a menacing atti-
tude.
Theory of Defense Broken.
at is obvious. therefore. that the tes-
timony of this xo-called new witness con-
tradicts the testimony of F1utcher and
overturns the whole theory Of self-defense.
attempted by the defendant at the time of
the trial
Il am not. therefore. surprised that Cir
cult Attorney Folk should say that I have
no hesitancy IN saying that from my
knowledge Of the evidence in the case the
man was properly punished
Also, that in commenting upon the tes-
tiro1y OF the so-ca1led new witness. he
should have added this significant remark:
The physical facts n the F1u.cher muir
der case as developed on trial seem to COM
bat the testimony which 1t is declared this
latest witness could give. and l do not think
her evidence would change the status of the
case
1T IS manifest, therefore. that II the tes-
timony OF Bertha Goehler is true. Flutcher,
in killing Roth. was not acting in self-de-
Tense, and It IS also apparent that her tes-
timony. as detailed in the Globe-Democrat.
contradicts the testimony Of Flutcher and
the witnesses introduced at his trial"