New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1907-02-06

anything; will you endeavor to do SO? A-cer-
wat evidence there n the s facts Scc sm
that this defendant was insane? A-The place: the
manner and demeanor OF the man and his declara-
Q.-Is It any evidence Of insanity that one kills
Q-Then the place would not show that the man
was insane? At would lot show that he was
o~Do you consider the place to be an important
element IN determining his insanity II Is ele-
oEwould YOU consider # important? A-Yes
O-AIhoueb YOU say that tho place would not
show he was insane, stin you would consider It
important? A.-The place Of the act, not the place
o.You do NOT consider then that the theatre IS
DO gu consider thar when man is moved
by deadly hatred Of another and gets up and goes
revolver Shooting so close to him that the powder
marks burn his face. that that is evidence of in
Q.-T'Hen the getting up and going over to the
object of his vengeance and shooting him dead
not evidences of insanity per Sc? A-Not per sc.
JEROME SPRINGS TRAP
so far as il appears in evidence that l of
mat occurred at Madison Square Garden that night,
anu you nave said that each fact alone would not
enable you to reach conclusion, opinion that
ms defendant was of unsound mind, and I have
aaQed me next one as we have gone through the
case chronologically, and you have just said that
facts of the occurrence at Madison Square Garden
eid not enable you to express the opinion
mind Is that right? If you had nothing before
you except tho facts of the occurrence at Madison
Square Garden that night as narrated TO you YOU
would not be able TO give your opinion that the
DEFENDANTS mind was unsound? A.-Not a positive
ON your opinion as scientific man, can you.
OF the night of the 25fh OF June 19O6can you
give an opinion scientific those facts
aione Whether or not this defendant that night at
that place. was of sound unsound mind? A
Q-On those facts alone? A.-Taken in coniuno-
ton with them. yes. SIR.
Wa eta NTH 4ho
we have each fact narrated to you and did you
81? Do you want TO go over that again? A.-Taken
alone they DO not; but taken together they do.
wife. at public theatre, got up. across 10
where man was; that he killed him: that IN or
ger 10 avert panic he lifted the revolver up; that
he yielded peaceably 10 uniformed fireman OF
He has ruined my wife!' and said to her Fiat
has probably saved your Hfe'-those facts and
this defendant Of unsound mind-ihose facts
and those alone would they? A.-No: but I would
have a very strong impression.
that you earnestly endeavored to conane yourself
within the lines which the law of this state said
were proper for an expert to testify in? A-Yes.
lines said you must answer questions? Now. aid
YOU Understand me TO ask for your impression
ask Tor? A.-Wel my impression-my opinion
which Is based upon my impression a conclusion.
Mr.. jerome showed an unusual knowledge of
insanity tests well Of anatomy in his fol-
lowing questions TO DR.. Wiley and got the wit
ness BADLY tangled. Mr. Jerome asked him TO
describe the "Romberg test" but DR. Wiley. after
trying in vain to evade an answer said he
couldn't tell what 1t was. Asked what books
he had read on the subject, he again failed to
state what the writer's had written. He told the
THAI he had examined from 500 10
LOO persons for insanity in his career. Asked
by Mr.. Jerome TO describe the "consentual test"
for insanity, he could not do So
JEROME ENJOYS DISCONTINUE.
Mr.. Jerome then asked him the symptoms OF
epilepsy and hemorrhage of the pons alcoholic
hts and fracture of the base Of the skull The
witness could not say how he would tell the DIFF
ference except by a clinical history. He in
a badly demora2ized condition when Justice Fitz-
gerald asked if his -exarina ton would last
much longer Mr. Jerome, chuckling like a
replied: "Oh. yes. sir. think quite
Bit am much interested In this subject"
There was only one topic Of discussion about
the courtroom and in the corridors during the
luncheon recess--the mercLess way in which Mr..
Jerome had forced the witness TO plead igno-
rance of subjects which expert would surely
know and the District Attorneys expert knowl-
edge of his subject
Dr.. TVylie resumed the stand at the afternoon
session for continued re-cross-examination Thaw
looked better in the afternoon than in the morn
ing He saw his wife and Miss May Mckenzie
during the recess. and they cheered him consider
ably He entered court with his usual brisk step
placed his coat over his chair, turned and smiled
at his brother and then began anew to write
letters.
Mr.. Jerome did not continue his technical ex-
animation at once, but asked the witness about
what had happened during the noon recess He
found that the witness had talked with some Of
the experts for the defence, but DIR. Wiley would
not. or could not say which they were. He said
they discussed the Romberg test This made
the prosecutor laugh, and he laughed still more
when the witness said the test was for Iocopotor
ataxia. In the morning session he had said he
knew nothing about 1t test for insanity.
The District Attorney then went into a deep
discussion on nerves and their functions The
witness had qualified as an expert on nervous
diseases. as well as insanity, yet showed the
same lack Of knowledge about this subject Mr.
Jerome asked, among other questions. the fol-
lowing:
Q.-Being a specialist IN nervous diseases and