The Providence news. (Providence [R.I.]) 1891-1906, 1902-11-29

clothing. But you have not told us what
evidence you find in the coat which is not
stained"
you have not examined the vest
What do you find there?"
THE vest adds TO the cha In. said Mr..
Barnes. handing II TO Mr., Mitchell See
how badly the lining Is stained on one
side and how little blood has soaked
through.
Now. then, Preacher Jim" said Mr..
Mitchell what do you make out OF the
coat
II thought likely that YOU would find
some stain on the vest II you had not
done so. my theory would have been up
set As II is. YOU see that the murderer
got n bad stain upon himself above the
waist. probably I'm the struggle with the
man after he was wounded. II he had
been dressed in this coat the stain would
have been on H."
True" interposed Mr.. Mitchell. but
he might have removed his coat when he
saw that the struggle was inevitable"
Very good. In that case the vest
would have had this blood fresh upon the
outside. and the lining Of the coat would
have soaked up the moist blood where the
garment was put on again"
You are right. said Mr.. Mitchell.
'Then Il stands proved by these bloody
marks that the murderer did not wear
these clothes during the killing OF Mr..
Mora"
pAll this is very pretty and I give
Preacher Jim credit" said Mr. Barnes,
FOR capital reasoning. at least In this
case. STILL l do not see that ID aids us
much. We are still no nearer to the iden-
tify Of the murderer We are forced To
believe that no one went I'm or out OF that
house that night, except the man In the
plaid suit IL the murderer was not so
Ar.o anA ~. 49,
the premises and must have committed
the crime after young Mora came home,
or he would not have been able To take
the clothes as disguise when going out -
You are carrying us In too deep and
20 no purpose" said Mr. Mitchell. That
theory is untenablc for YOU must re-
member that II Mora came home in the
suit II must have been ne who went out
again. Otherwise no could not have re-
turned at I'm the morning But. " he
it was who wore the suit in and then out
of the house how about tho tale which
these STAINS seem 10 tell7 What do YOU
make OF a. Preacher Jim?
II believe that tho murderer wore the
suit going In and coming out but that
during the killing
by heavens. you have guessed the
truth exclaimed Mr. Rarnes. Mora
came home ard dlsrobed partially. pre-
pairing TO retire. Then be must have visit
ed his fathers room for some purpose.
4 quarrel ensued. during which he killed
the old man. No; he must have gone to
the room contemplating the crime. for
ne carried the weapon with him. After
ward he dressed again and went down Go
his Essex street place. where he must
have destroyed his underciothing II was
not until yesterday that he remembered
the possibility OF the outer garments being
also stained
lis that your opinion. Preacher Jim?
asked Mr. Mitchell. speaking slowly and
watching the man closely II " your be-
lief that Mr.. Mora was killed by mis- son %
Since you insist upon having my views
YES" replied Preacher Jim. gazing baci,
Into Mr.. Mitchers eyes unmoscd. n be-
iieve that AR Mora was killed by his
son
so then. We are oil Of one mind" said
Nr Parnes.
~Ars we7" asked Mr. Mitchell