Ottumwa semi-weekly courier. [volume] (Ottumwa, Iowa) 1899-1903, 1903-07-23
OPINION IS FILED
M'ARTHUR SETS FORTH REASONS
FOR DIscHAReINe GREENWICH.
TESTIMONY GIVEN IN DETAIL
Evidence is Summed UP in Extradition
Case and Declared Not Reasonable
Ground for uspcion-Accused of
Killing Man in Mexico.

Ground for uspicion-Accused of
Killing Man in Mexico.
Many Ottumwans have watched with
considerable interest the eXtradition
case of j. H. Greenwich in which it was
sought to obtain authority to return the
defendant to Mexico to answer to the
charge of killing J. l.. Stanfield. Yes
terday afternoon EXtradition Commits
sioner w G. Macarthur filed his opin-
ion with the federal court in, Des
Moines in which he set forth his reas-
on why he did not deem it sufficient
to hold Greenwich for extradition.
Greenwich has been discharged.
The commissioners conclusion is
preceded by chronological abstract
of the evidence introduced by the pros
ecution and defense during the pro-
| gress of the hearing. Beginning at the
time ]. H. Greenwich and ]. L. Stan
| field left Knoxville, Tenn, March 81,
1892 to go to Tampico, Mexico, to en-
gage in the business of rafting sugar
down the river from the interior of
| Mexico to the ports. Commissioner
corning their movements and those
| men by paragraphs and in the margin
| sets down the date. Weighing the
| evidence he concludes that to be gull
| ty the accused man would have to trav-
ell twenty miles,, walk out in the sand
hills, kill his man and return to his
hotel within an hour to resume with
composure game of pool.
Commissioners Conclusion.
From the facts deduced from the
testimony, Commissioner Macarthur
drew the following conclusion:
| TWO American railroadmen leave Knox
vile. Tenn. in March, Iyoz. for Mexico
to embark in business together. Both are
men of good character and habits. ]. L.
4 Stanield, whom the defendant is accused
| of having murdered at La Barra. Mexico
prior to April il, 1902 was sick man
| when he left home-was sick on the way
| undecided whether to go on-wrote his
wife two postal cards, in both of which
he refers to his physical ailments; reaches
| 'TampicO, is dissa tisfied Win the country,
backs out from going into business. takes
leave of Greenwich at Tampico sometime
| during April 5, and is never heard of
| again, unless the body founu at La Barra
be his. Grant it so. Also accept MS true
the two contradictory findings of the In
QUESTION held over the body. The one
on April II. 1902, the day the body was
found, which discovered no marks Of
violence. (Remember this examination
was held under the supposition that 4
murder had been committed.) The other,
February 10, 1902 at which otileiated six
j of the same functionaries, including the
I Judge. the inspector of police, the lieu
tenant of police. the ..eNpcrt DOCTOR two
4 policemen, and A. II. Pena. who on April
II, 1903 found no marks of violence, ten
months later with the assistance of n sec
ond expert DOCTOR" another judge and
one De Auheran. discover and testify to
various fractures. four distinct losses of
substance, four assures. n fortv-fonr cali
bra bullet. and a generally collapsed con
i dition of the Uranium. They fixed the age
of the exhumed body mt from four TO nine
years above what Mrs. Stanfeld testified
her husbands age was at that time. IT
) still seems conclusive that the defendant
is not responsible for the death of the
person found near La Barra on April II
1902.
A Physical InpossihiIity.
Under the evidence it would have been
a physical impossibilty for the defendant
to have murdered the person whose body
, was thus found on the beach The place
where the pody was discovered was nearly
ten miles from Tampco, where the two
men separated. thus it would have re
ouired the defendant whom I4emperly. 9
dislntcrested witness, testified was witt
him Mt the hotel at Tampico, practically
i'll the fifth of April and slept with hin
! that night, to have travelled twenty miles
murdered his victim and returned witt
sufficient sef-possession to continue thei
, pool playing at the hotel, all within thu
space of an hour-or two Mt the outside
! The next day, April 6, 1902, defendant LEFT
for San Luis Potnsi, still with Lemperly
was recognized by the conductor, Simpson
who further swore positively that HI
saw the defendant every day Mt San Lui
, Potosi for over one week subsequent t.
! April g. (See abstract April 9, 1902) Tn
, der the evidence the only opportunity tn,
which he was charged, was during the da,
! of April 5, 1902. Simpsons testimony il
, connection with Lemperly's makes 1t i'm
! possible for him to have done So The.
: are both Intelligent and apparently cred
! lille witnesses whose testimony stands un
i impeached.
. In this connection consider the conduc
, of the defendant before and since. Their
, is evidence that he told In Knoxville be
fore his departure that he was hard up.
Ignoring his own testimony as to wha
money he had 1t Is shown he paid hi
4 own way and that If any one compliance
! of high prices it was Stanfield. Whe
1 first appraised of the continued absenc
!. of Stanield. what did the defendant do
: May IL, 1902, he wrote Mrs. Stanfeld h
!, would look into it for her as soon as Ii
;. returned from court at FL Paso, Texas
whittier he had been called as witnes
4 In a lawsuit. He could have attempte
{ flight then. But after testifying in tn
G case he returned to San Luis Potosi, tax
g ing his wife with him, the latter part o
{ May. 1908. There he met w. II. Hodge
: whose business in Mexico was to fin
J. out what had become of Stanfeld. wa
e with him all day at San Luis Potos an
e Hodge, who testified here that he neve
took Il note or made single memorandum
of any of his findings or doings willis
;, clearing up the Stantield disappearance,
=, u Whom Greenwich had told of his havin
Stantield's watch, who only the day befor
, lodged an information against Greenwe
for the murder Of Stanfeld, never stoppe
;, to have him arrested and prosecuted q
J, that time, but continued on his way I
the states, the defendant bidding hir
goodbye Mt the train.
On May 81. 1902 the defendant. VIII
3 still remained at San Luis Potos, wa
A arrested charged with the very crime fc
& which his extradition is now asked. Afte