Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1905-04-26
CASE OF DIR. OHLENDORF
STATE MOVES TO EXCLUDE WIT
NEsSEs FROM THE ROOM.
Court Divided and Motion Did Not
Prevail-Evidence for the
Prosecution.
Special Dispatch to The Star.

ulSted loi iudhSldu6HtSi III tobLcStloi win
the death of Madge Hale at the Brentmar
Sanitarium was resumed here this morn
ing States Attorney Magruder asked that
all witnesses be excluded Counsel for de-
tense objected and the court divided, Judge
Crane holding that the witnesses should not
be excluded and Judge Merrick holding
with the state. The witnesses therefore re-
manned.
The question of the admissbility of the
book showing entry of sale of instruments
alleged to have been purchased by the
United States Medical Institute was argued.
The court held that the testimony of the
witness was that to the best of his knowl-
edge he did sell the instrument.
DR.. Sigmund A. Zarra of Hyattsville was
called to prove DIR. Ohendorfs connection
with the United States Medical Institute, to
which the instrument was alleged to have
been sold Drs. M D. Hume and l.. A
Griffith of Upper Marlboro were called to
state what caused the death of the woman
from the condition revealed by an autopsy.
Detective Sergeant Chas. A. Evans of
Washington testified as to the substance of
a conversation had with accused after Miss
Hale's death, in which Ohendorf stated
that the woman died of endocartis.
A recess was taken while the witness was
detailing the contents of a paper which DR..
Ohlendorf stated was the diagnosis of the
case.
Case Outlined by Prosecutor.
When court reconvened at l o'clock yes
terday afternoon for retrial of DR.. Jos. c.
Ohlendorf on the charge of mansaughter
in connection with the death of Madge Hale.
at Brentmar Santarium, Mr.. ]. c. Rogers.
of counsel for the state, outlined to the
jury what proposed to be proved by
the people. He stated that the state would
show that Madge Hale went to the office
of DR.. Jos. c. Ohlendorf, in Washington,
the 10th day of November, and the same
day he sent her out to his institution at
Brentwood known as the Brentmar SAM
tarium, which institution the state would
show an abortioniSt institution, more
delicately termed by the accused as lying
in hospital He said, according to the state
ment the defendant made under oath at
the former trial, the woman remained at
Brentmar under his sole care until the day
she died, November "A, 1903, that Ohlen-
DORIS death certificate that she died
from endOCartlS, when, in point of fact,
she died from the effects of a criminal ope-
ration which must have been performed
within the time that she was at his insti-
tuition, and probably not more than four
days preceding her death; that the autopsy
developed that her heart was in a perfectly
normal condition as well as her lungs. and
that in the opinion of counsel the sole
cause of her death resulted from crmi-
nal operation in an attept to produce an
abortion. Ohlendorf had stated while on
the stand in the former trial, he said. that
there was nothing about the woman;s APP
pearance to indicate delicate condition,
while the state would offer evidence to
show that her probable condition was mani
fest and could have been observed by any
one not blind; that Ohlendorf had stated to
the detectives, which statement he admit
ted on the stand he had made, that while
he had delivered hundreds of women in
childbirth, this was the only time he had
ever allowed a patient to be taken to his
sanitarium for troubles other than child
birth, and he did in this case because
other DatipQtS at the lnStltu-
ton at that time, when in point OF fact,
the state would prove that there were three
other patients being treated there during
the same period for this woman's com
plant.
Counsel for the defense reserved their
opening statement.
First Witness for State.
The first witness for the state was DR..
Glazebrook, deputy coroner of the District
of Columbia who performed the autopsy.
In his opinion death was the result of
criminal operation. He did not state that
there evidence of decomposition.
Witness found no evidence in any of the
other organs to show blood poisoning. The
woman could not have died of heart dis
ease. This question was answered after
counsel for the defense had objected, upon
the ground that counsel for the state was
conducting a DISCRIMINATION of their
own witnesses. Witness also stated that
the woman could not have died from lung
trouble. In answer to question as to
whether the accused was present when the
autopsy was performed the witness stated
he was part of the time. Witness did not
know it was DIR. Ohlendorf, but thought he
was one of his assistants. Witness stated
that there was no evidence showing general
pertonitis although there might have been
some local touch of the disease.
On crOss-eXamnatiOn by Attorney George
S. Hoover of Washington, witness stated
that he did not make notes at the time of
what he found. but did make such notes
Immediately after the autopsy, and had eX-
amined these notes to refresh his memory
Witness stated that the wound which, in
his opinion, caused death, might have been
made with a pencil or stick. The witness
stated that the conditions We're not such as
to warrant the belief that the wounds had
been caused the result of a legitimate
opera ton for abortion performed by man
competent to do such work. Witness did
not make any chemical analysis of the wo-
mans stomach, nor did he make any such
analysis of the blood. Witness thought
death resulted from local peritonitis. There
was no enlargement of the heart. The wo-
man was in an emaciated condition: was
not very robust-lOoking woman; thought
she weighed about 115 pounds and her
height was probably five six feet.
Specialist Called to Stand.
DR. Henry d. Fry, specialist on diseases
OF women, OF Washington, was the next
witness. The direct question was asked
him: What was the cause of Margaret
Hale's death?" Objection was made, and
the question was changed. The witness re-
piled that death resulted either from shock
or hemorrhage, or the two causes COM
blned. A puncture in the region of the
wound might have resulted in a hemor-
rhage. Witness stated that under the con-
dltions described by DR.. Glazebrook, the
wounds might have been inflicted twenty
TOUR hours before the death of the woman.
Deceased might have lived two weeks with
blood poisoning. Witness was positive that
wounds could not have been inflicted five
days prior to death. He stated that, in his
opinion, at least forty-eight hours ELAPSED
between the time the wounds We're inflicted
and death. The doctor thought the testf-
mony of DR.. Glazebrook eliminated the
theory that death might have resulted from
blood poisoning He again asserted that
death in all probability resulted from the
shock caused by some surgical operation.
Witness was of the opinion that, had death
resulted from endocartis there should have
been no difficulty in discovering the fact.
On cross examination, conducted by Mr.
Chas. II. Stanley, witness stated that the
embalming process would not affect any
blood outside of the tissues. In answer to
question witness stated that he did not set