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

iContinued from, 13th paEe.)

OF person cannot be proved by repu-
Ration. dawson on insanity, supra)
What is the fact aoout August 10
1902, the date that is tixcd positively
by McWayne as the time that Mary
Rogers visited him and showed signs
OF puerperal insanity? First, IL what
he says Is true about her visit that
nay, and what he found. we can then
give to his evidence in that regard no
more weight than if he had taken the
stand and testified in the very words
of the affidavit There is no medical
Testimony in tho case to show the the
Cry. the cause, the effect of child bear
ing upon the mental condition of the
mother. Pucrpcral insanity. according
TO all authority, Is the disease of the
mothers mind obtaining after the
birth of the child The child was not
born until December. There Is no tes-
timony in the case other than the last
sentence of McWaync's affidavit to
show that there exists such thing as
Insanity in pregnancy.
NO SIGNS or INSANITY.
The crime of Mary Rogers, committed
m August r. WAS not from an acute
MANIA we have seen: nor was it from
nelanchola. There was no depreciation,
800 sense of personal unworthincss on her
part. The desire in her mind was to rid
herself of her husband, TO get his life
insurance and to marry Morris Knapp.
DR.. McWaync fails to describe any
other symptom upon which TO base his
opinion than her violent passion and
threat to kill him.
Tho opinion Of a medical expert must
be based upon facts learned and those
facts must appear in order that tho tosti-
fnony have any force. So all the weight
: we can give this testimony. if it is to
DC considered at all. is upon the theory
~nat the only symptom of insanity he
Round was what he describes in his
sfidavit as a violent passion in which
lame the threat to kill him if he did
.aot grant her request. We think the
.rourt will take judicial notice that all
~his is no evidence of insanity.
It is TO he noted too that McWaync
defines 1t as temporary insanity tSoc
last paragraph of depository Tho effect
IF this is to exclude the idea that she
had inherited insanity.
MARY ROGERS NOT THERE.
But Mary Rogers was not at rIoosick
Falls upon Sunday, August 10. 1902 She
was at Bennington all day. She at
Che Pcrham house and went on walk
in the afternoon and evening of that
day. all there in Bennington. 1t was on
Saturday night, August 3, that Levi Fer
ham came home. She was there then.
and as he says. was there all next day.
and in the evening Of that Sunday,
August TO- she went to walk with Per-
ham and Estcla Bates, and there planned
with Levi the murder Of her husband by
giving him chloroform. She was there
all day. August u. Mrs. Laura Per-
ham testities: as Levi Pcrham tcstifics
II was on August 10 in the afternoon
that Marcus Rogers came to see her.
THE events of that day were the sub
Sect Of much testimony The witnesses
concerning them We're examined at
length. The date was established by Mrs.
Perham by her memorandum book. which
was produced in court. The cross-cXam-
ination Of Levi and of Mrs. Perham
shows that the petitioner must have
prompted her counsel for the cross-ex-
animation.
~iWAYNE SHOULD HAVE BEEN \ |
WITNESS.
II, in fact, she had spent that day or o |