Evening times-Republican. [volume] (Marshalltown, Iowa) 1890-1923, 1907-09-25
ylirsa5 542eeamtacaa aXhrstaltnau,L gprua s%,r}iennh1~ IS 1907

method, and never referred to the sub.
ject again.
The witness Trevarthan wa also ex.
amined in the absence of the jury. FL
testified thai after the death of Mrs
B%lydenburgh, the defendant asket
him one day what he knew about poi
sons, and the witness replied that he
knew nothing,
II this conversation had occurred
before the death, 1t would have beer
Very significant and properly admiss-
ible in evidence; but it occurred after
the death and after the defendant !at
been accused by the sisters of the de-
| ceased, with having administered poi
son to her.
The fact that he should then seek {:
inform himself on the subject of poi
son could not by any fair inference be
This, then. il .ie states whole case.
and includes all the evidence offered
by it. 1t falls so far short of showing
q state of circumstances inconsistent
with a rational theory of innocence,
that a verdict Of not guilty must be
ordered.
There is another thing in my mind
which is not necessary to be said, and
vet I think / ought to say it. 1t is not
necessary that jury or judge should be
convinced of defendants innocence In
order to find him not guilty. 1t is
enough if there be failure of proof, or
reasonable doubt OF his guilt.
Taking this evidence as a whole.
however, 1 am deeply impressed from
1t. and from it alone, with the great
probability of the innocence of the de-
PENDANT. Without any doubt, the
great preponderance of the evidence
is against the proposition that Mrs.
R~lydenburgh died of arsenic poison
ing. II she did not, there can be no
guilt in this case.
There is n matter / a not ruled
on. That Isl the letter offered in evil
enc by the defense. 1t appears to
be u letter written by DR.. Vaughn in
September, 1903, to the then county
attorney of this county, stating what
his evidence would be.
Under the circumstances l will not
rule upon it. 1t may stay in the rec
ord as an offer of the defendant.
knoW of no rule Of evidence that
would admit 1t, until it We're first shown
to DR.. Vaughn on cross examination.
AS his testimony has been read from
transcript, that of course could not be
done.
Ii the testimony in this ase had
otherwise sufficient to go to the
jury. the disclosures of this letter
would have placed upon the our n
added responsibility Independent of
the question of its admissibility in wi
dence. AS tbs writer of it has had no
OF explanation, ] do nos
CAFE to comment upon it.
Its statements are not consistent
with the expert testimony upon which
the state rests it's proof of corpus de-
lecti. They are consistent with the x
pert testimony of the defense.
Nor do l understand how this letter
could properly be delivered by the ex-
attorney to the attorney Of de-
1t was written to him as
attorney for the state. When he
ceased to represent the state, he should
delivered 1t to his successor. II
he had done so and If the letter is en-
titled to the significance which on its
face it appears to have, the present
county attorney would presumably
nave laid it before the court before the
commencement of the trial.
In any view of this letter, it illus
rates the f1exibility and uncertainty Of
opinion as already discussed
while o that subject.
Gentlemen of the jury: AS a mat
ter of form, the reporter will prepare
4 verdict,T and one of your number will
sign it as foreman.