Burlington weekly free press. [volume] (Burlington, Vt.) 1866-1928, 1905-05-25

organs, as described by Drs. Daley and
Potter is consistent with death from
either cause.
But the presence of a fractured skull
is wholly at variance with the entire
theory of the prosecution and with the
evidence upon which this respondent
was convicted as well as with the
means described in the indictment.
If violence sufficient to fracture the
skull of Marcus Rogers was applied to
him, then the entire testimony of Leon
Perham is unquestionabiy false. SO far
as it describes the actual occurrences
connected with the alleged homicide.
Perham is the only witness directly
discriminating this petitioner, and his
testimony was the sole direct testi-
mony upon which she was convicted
of this crime. 1t was the claim OF the
prosecution that, aside from the petit
TONER and her husband. he was the
only person present at the commission
of the crime. If in point of fact the
petitioner had inflicted this forcible
injury upon her husband ,Perham would
I've had no object to conceal this
feat. That it was concealed and falsi-
fed. if a fact, canno be disputed.
n the sole purpose for such falsi-
fication would be to tighten the burden
of blame upon Perham himself, who
was the only other person who could
have possibly done it in the very M
ture of things. 1t is therefore quite
apparent in what respects Perham
must have falsifed his testimony at the
trial. On January 81. 1905. he admits
having falsiied, and says that he did
it TO save his own neck"
From these four affidavits taken to-
gether it may fairly be said hat the
deceased. Marcus Rogers. met his death
in a manner n by means entirely
different from those laid before the
jury which condemned the petitioner,
and that the force most instrumental
on producing death was probably APP
piled by Perham himself. Such force
does not seem to have been one Of the
means contemplated by the petitioner.
according to Pcrham's testimony. and
for aught that appears, If indicted by
Pcrham. 1T was inflicted on his own
motion and without coercion. order or
concurrence of the petitioner.
Attention of the court is respectful.
~ called to the description of the al.
legged crime as given by Perham. His
entire testimony including his cross
examination should be closely examin.
ed for this purpose. The occurrence
as he relates it is extremely improba-
BILE. That "A strong man could be over
come in such a manner and under
such circumstances. within s feet of an
inhabited dwelling. and in the middle
Of the village. without any out-cry or
alarm. or even II attempted out-cry
and scarcely any resistance, seems ex.
tremely improbable. Far more likely
Is the theory that he was felled by a
blow which produced unconsciousness
if not death. -
The question is, would this evidence
be likely to result in a different yer-
diet that is different generally or djf.
ferent in degree of guilt?"
Ihe evidence taken together il neither
cumulative nor impeaching solely in ito
character.
Where the conviction of n defendant
rests largely upon the evidence OF one
witness who afterwards admits that he
mad perJured himself at the trial of the
accused and tells an entirely different
story concerning the transaction, yet inn
pilcating the defendant and giving a diff.
iercnt version of his connection with it.
ON a proper showing it is sufficient cause
for a new trial. Such evidence is more
than cumulative or impeaching."
Newly discovered evidence although i'm
peaching, if it shows that the respondent
was convicted upon false testimony. is
good ground for a new trial. This ought
to be more especially true in a case in
volving a human life.
INSANITY OF MRS. ROGERS.
Assuming all the evidence I'm the record
TO be true, there Is nothing there incon-
sisient with the idea that the petitioner
was insane mt the time of the commission
of the crime; in fact. the evidence taken
at the trial. in and of itself. gives rise Ia
Il strong suspicion that the prisoner was
insane.