Oxford Democrat. [volume] (Paris, Me.) 1833-1933, 1907-10-29

At the opening OF the court Iuesday
morning Judge Strout charged the jury.
After defining briefly the degrees Of
homicide, he said that there had been a
suggestion in this case of possibility of
a verdict of manslaughter. he instruct
ed them, however, that such verdict
could not be returned in this case. The
verdict must be guilty of murder, or it
must be not guilty.
Circumstantial evidence, said the
Judge, may be and often is satisfactory
proof of guilt. But it must be very care
fully weighed, and all the circumstances
must point in one direction, and they
must harmonize and make continuous
chain. II there is one link missing,
circumstances will not be sufficient to
Justify a verdict of guilty.
Taking up the circumstances OF this
case, Judge Strout referred to the ques-
ton whether the dynamite house was
blown up from the inside or the outside,
and cited the testimony of Mr.. Batchel.
Ter and DR.. Hennig that in their opinion
it was blown up from the inside, and
asked the jury if they were satisfied be-
yond reasonable doubt that the burns
on the limbs could have been received
from an explosion under the floor of the
{ building. That is a question of fact for
the jury.
Much evidence has been introduced on
the point of the explosiveness OF dy-
uamite. Are you able to say beyond a
reasonable doubt that dynamite would
not explode by fall9
! There we're fuses found near the scene,
said Judge Strout. One was in the road,
with stone on it. 1t Is difficult to avoid
the suspicion that human agency had
something to do with putting that there.
The other was said to be fresh, but ex.
pert witnesses had testified that 1t had
been long exposed to the weather.
There were several blood spots on the
ground. Is that any thing surprising, in
view of the conditions? There were also
blood spots on the knife. That might
be expected, considering the quantity OF
blood on the ground in the immediate
vicinity. But there was no blood on the
point of the blade.
With regard to the motive, something
has been brought In about we'll bust.
ness, and you have heard Mrs Radcliffe's
testimony. That is denied by the re-
spondent, and it is for you to decide as
to the truth. Did not Radcliffe and the
respondent continue friendly after
| wards?
With regard to the insurance, Judge
Strout instructed the jury that as the as.
signment of policies was made to secure
Everett, he could hold the insurance only
as trustee, and could keep only what he
had put into it.
Taking up the testimony of Professor
Robinson as to the contents of Radcliffe
stomach, Judge Strout said that We have
no testimony as to whore Radcliffe was
between the time he left C0lby's and the
explosion, and instructed the jury that
they were not to decide the case on
probabilities or suspicion, but on facts
Up to the time of the explosion, are
not all the circumstances consistent with
the innocence of the respondent, or are
they absolutely inconsistent?
| 1t does not appear that there was any
suspicion Of foul play until the autopsy
and the case practically rests upon the
question whether after the explosion tht
throat was cut by the respondent. Was
the cut in the throat made by the ex
plosion, or by the act Of manp
You have heard the testimony OF DR.
Bradbury, who has given his opinion
There was another physician at the
u CONTINUED on page four)