Burlington weekly free press. [volume] (Burlington, Vt.) 1866-1928, 1905-05-25
THE BURLINGTON FREE PRESS: THURSDAY NAY Is. 1905

hIlU I'll % tuS 0LAtS y tVIuCTCC teuus
ed to show On trial. II ne had told a.
thing tending to qualify and Fstract any
specific statement he made when he testi-
fed, we may be sure these %affidavits
would disclose It. II ne had said a word
tending to qualify the substance Of tho
story of the crime as he testified to II.
we know II would fully appear In these
afidavits.
'rhe court has the right to understand
from these afldavits that PerhAm on the
eve Of tho execution Of the woman who
led him to participate In this crime. with
the excitement. the v strain Of such
nn occasion, brought before the officers
in whose control and custody he was
sentenced to remain for the rest Of his
natural life, cross examined by a skill
full attorney acting in behalf Of the re-
spondent. who was attempting to wiring
from him some sentence or some word
upon which TO hang the hope for n re-
prieve, that he In that situation and on
such an occasion. aid In response to
leading questions the substance Of what
these atlantis state. And the court has
the right tn understand that. in all that
talk had for that purpose at that time,
he said not another word which could
in any way he considered as of aid to
the petitioner in the extremity she then
was.
Now, what these atlantis say ne said
.is no more in substance than he said
when he testified. The record shows what
kind OF a witness he was. how he crossed
and re.crossed himself many, many
times, how he testified to one thing in
one moment and took it back the next.
The record shows hat in response to
leading questions on cross examination
he said in substance that he was testify
ing as he did solely because of the prom
Use that had been made to him that II
he would so testify he would get only
two or three years in prison for his par
ticipation in the crime. We cannot doubt
that had he been asked at that point
in his cross examination whether. In
fact. he was not lying to save his W
neck. he would have said Yes" and we
cannot doubt that if he had so testified.
the jury still. without hesitation. would
have given credence to the substance of
his story of the crime, because the cor
roboration of that story is absolute; the
truth of 1t SO certain.
LOUIS HAUSsLER'S AFFIDAVIT.
This man Is the undertaken at Hoosick
III wiz tIbtI tuC upuN VI 40
T;ogcrs for burial. Before this under
taker ever had custody Of the body. It
had undergone the autopsy at the Ter
ham house and the walbridse undcrtak-
ing rooms at Bennington. tSee testimony
Of Dr. Daley, Vol. II, p. 169: Of DR.. Pot
ter. Vol. II, F. PA: John Nash. II. l..
Stillson. Vol. RI. =. $40, and other wit
ncsses).
srLo to.ti,,4av ~ tI,o Ioofnr- ,,crfOYp1
ing the autopsy shows that they exam
incd the head before commencing the
autopsy of the head: noticed certain
bruises apparent on the exterior. They
removed the scalp, opened the k in
some manner and lemoved the brain
and examined the brain and found il
normal. 1t is impossible that there could
have been a fracture OF the skull as
described by this affiant and the physi-
Glars performing the autopsy not dis
cover it. The only effect that a fracture
Of the skull could have upon the case
would be that the blow which caused
the fracture. and the fracture itself,
caused an injury to the brain. Any such
theory as this is absolutely refuted by
the testimony of the physicians trat the
brain was normal. but more than all
WIS, tHP RlSlClduS tHtIIS'INtS Htu ~
break through the skull in some manner
to get at tine brain. The only possible
explanation of what this man Haussle,
found is that he discovered the fracture
in the skull. which the doctors them
solves made in getting at the brain.
This undertaken. Hausslcr. had he gone
far enough. might have discovered that
the mans stomach was missing. for the
,--< L>u, tlnt tI,t nv~an .t-nr -np
to the State laboratory at Burlington.
DIR. MwAYNE ON INSANITY.
This dcponent says that he has
been a practicing physician for 90
years at HOosick Falls. and was the
physician for the petitioner for several
years previous to August. 1902.
If he was. he knew better than any
one else whether she was insane. II
she had inherited insanity. no one
would have been more competent 70
testify to it, apparently. than DR.. Nc
Wayne. II the order of Intelligence
the mental weakness and the other
characteristics, as described by the
witnesses. of the father. the mother
and the uncle had been manifest in the
petitioner to the extent OF making her
irresponsible for her acts. DR.. Nc
Wayne ought TO be able to tell us so
The fact that this witness falls to dis
close the slightest indication of any
insanity in the petitioner or the frs,
bit OF evidence of responsibility or
her part up to August 10. 1902. must
OF itself refute the testimony of thu
Opponents hereinbefore mentioned.
What this deponent says as to the
statement OF Marcus Rogers. made al
or about August Z, 1902, cannot be re-
ceived az evidence. Marcus Rogers Is
not a party to this cause. The insanity