The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1903-02-16
Jurors Who Believed I'm DIR. Alexan-
der's Innocence Pleaded to No Pur-
pose with the Others.
NEW TRIAL WILL BE ORDERED
1T MAY BE DELAYED, HOWEVER,
FOR AT LEAST A MONTH.
Probable Result Of the Jury's Action
Upon Others Under Conviction
Opinions Expressed.

community is unchanged. He is neither
the convicted felon of the heinous crime of
completely with ghouls and neither is he
wholly absolved from the accusations
made against him by the states attorney.
which were not substantiated sufficiently
to secure his conviction by the jury OF
twelve men which has tried him for two
weeks in the Criminal Court. Yesterday
morning at 10 O'Clock. after celebrating
since the same hour Friday morning, the
jury reported through its foreman. WIZ
liam H. Gimble. that it had not arrived at
verdict and undoubtedly would be unable
to do so, and it was discharged from
further service by Specia. Judge John NJ
Bailey. The disagreement was not a sur
prise. To Alexander and his attorneys it
came as expected. and the only fact about
which they were curious was as to the
standing of the jury when the final ballot
was taken.
After the jury had reported through
Foreman Gimble. who said. 1--WE have
been unable to reach an agreement and 1t
is my opinion that verdict from this jury
is improbable" an effort was made to
find how the jury had voted on the last
ballot, taken early yesterday morning.
The vote stood: For acquittal-C. I.
Faulkner. Thomas w. Brown. Harry l.
Davis, Harry A. Eickmann. William III.
Gimble, John B. Pasquier and Robert Lin
genfelter. For conviction-Timothy Hussey.
William j. Lister. Stephen Cook and James
ID. White. There were four jurors for a
finding of guilty and eight for verdict OF
not guilty.
WAITING FOR THE VERDICT
The jury was called from its room at 10
o'clock yesterday morning by Judge Bailey.
who had sent 1t back for further delibera-
tion at 5 o'clock on the day preceding. The
jury came downstairs and faced the small
crowd OF men in the courtroom, there TO
hear the report. DIR. Alexander, with his
attorneys, Henry n. Spaan, Martin Hugg
and John o. Spahr. and the attorneys for
the State. John c. Ruckleshaus and Charles
Benedict, were present Fully twenty or
thirty newspaper reporters and deputy
sheriffs, with several curious persons TO
swell the crowd, were in the courtroom,
also waiting only to learn the result of the
last ballot Of the jurors, DR.. Alexander
came into court shortly before 10 o'clock.
and, after shaking hands with several ac-
quaintances who greeted him, took the
seat he has occupied for two weeks and
awaited his fate. He seemed to be I'm a
better humor than ever before during the
trial, and his face showed a determination
and nerve seldom seen I'm the Criminal
Court. The defendant seemed to be, as ms
attorneys have declared him, an innocent
man. and in no manner did he evince the
least fear OF the jury's verdict. Mrs. Alex
ander was not with him, and only few OF
his close friends, who have remained by
his side since the beginning OF the trial.
were there to comfort him should the pre-
dictions OF the newspapers and attorneys
have been erroneous.
When the jury was brought downstairs
and the members had seated themselves
the silence in the courtroom was impress
sive. Judge Bailey addressed the direct
question to the jury:
Gentlemen. have you agreed upon a
Nothing was heard i'm the courtroom, and
In the brief interval until Foreman Gimble
had replied the anxiety of the defendant
and his attorneys was reflected on the faces
of all present
When the definite determination of the
jury had been announced and Judge Bailey
had discharged the twelve men from sery-
ice Dr. Alexander smiled, and. without
showing his emotion or his disa appointment
slowly stretched his hand out 20 his attor-
neys and expressed TO them his apprecia-
tion of the honesty of the jury i'm Impair
TALLY deciding the case solely on its merits
and the evidence and law regulating its
conclusions.
HOW BALLOTS WERE TAKEN.
After the jury had been dismissed at
torneys for both the defense and for the
prosecution shook the hands OF the Jurors.
and few minutes was spent by the Jurors
in talking 10 the acquaintance formed
during the trial After the confusion had
been quieted talk with juror secured the
facts of the deliberations I'm the jury room.
According to one of the jurors the first
ballot taken resulted in vote OF TO 5
for acauittal. Those voting TO convict Dr.
A Lev aar In a,
Theisng, Stephen Cook. w. j. Lister and
Timothy Hussey. The others favored his
acquittal After argument and CONVERSE
tion of several minutes the second ballot
showed Theising 10 have joined the forces
for acquittal and the vote stood 10 4. The
jury. although considering the case for
some hours, was unable to come 10 an
agreement Finally Juror White became
very i'll. and his condition was such that
a continuation OF the consideration OF the
case was impossible. While lying on his
yinced OF the innocence Of Alexander and
voted for acquttal. His vote was the last
for acquittal. and his change OF mind and
reasonable doubt provisions OF the IndiaEa
statutes. Then the vote stood TO 3 for
acquittal, and all possible effort was made
10 change IL, but with no avail
Juror White who had changed and voted
for acouittal in the hope that the others
would follow his example. finally changed
his vote again TO convicuon and remained
lieyed that Alexander was guilty, but. act
ing on the suggestion of Stephen Cook he
had changed his vote TO influence Lister.
He believed that reasonable doubt existed
and an acquittal might be just. and. there
fore changed his vote. Cook and Hussey
also offered 10 change. but when they heard
Listers emphatic declaration they refused.
and Cook advised White 10 vote his senti-
ments again. White voted for conviction.
and his change was the last The jury
concluded that an agreement was beyond
question. and when the report OF . dis
agreement was made there remained eight