The Washington herald., 1908-03-29
REVIEW OF THE CASE.
II. Ralph Burton. Hau's Attorney,
Gives His Views.

Gives His Views.
IN an interview with Mr.. H. Ralph Bur
ton. Mr. Hau's attorney. Mr.. Burton
said:
The murder OF Mrs. SIolitOr. at the
time that Alr. Hau was in Baden-Baden.
was one OF those inexplicable eoinci-
dences which so often occur. There IS
nothing at all Of the evidence presented
which shows that he was in any way
I connected with the murder Of Mrs. Moli-
tor or that he had any reason 10 be. The
/ law reports are fun OF stranger cases
than this one. cases where the Circum-
stantial evidence was far more cOnvinc-
/ ing and where there was every reason
/ for a motive, and yet the person under
suspicion has been absolutely vIndicated-
/ In establishing the guilt Of a person
charged with murder. motive Is one OF
4 the most essential things 10 be proved
( II no motive be shown. there IS usually
little chance Of conviction. especially
where the case depends upon circum-
stantial evidence. In the trial Of Carl
/ Hau the prosecution failed entirely 10
show a motive. The evidence shows.
I first. that Mr.. Hau had renowned all
| right 10 his wife's Inheritance and, sec
I ond. several persons testified unGer oath
| that they would at his mere request have
4 supplied him with more money than he
/ could have hoped 10 gain through the
l death Of his mOther-in-laW. and that they
would still do so. Therefore there could
have been TO monetary motive. Mrs.
/ HaU was bounded by the officials. and
| her family, IN an endeavOr 10 force her
/ 20 testify against her husband Tie evi-
! Tauoa o1auwTr~ cnoFrc rf7ur hn T7ofn nT-nrT-
/ effort 10 prevent her from taking her own
life and had he been allowed 10 speak
! with his wife alone for a few moments.
( as in all justice he should have been. I
/ believe she would have been living to-day
\ Her mail was cOnfscated. opened. and
read by the police officials, which was
in violation of the law. but in this par
/ Jicular case overlooked and apparently
sanctioned
Before he left London Mr. Hau gave
bis wife permission 10 write her mother
1 that he had 10 return 10 the Continent
/ Would he have done So II he had any
intention OF numbering her? Would he
have disguised himself in such a way
as 10 be conspicuous man OF the
| smallest intelligence would not have gone
about il in such a bungling. careless man
ner. and we have in Carl Hau not man
OF small intelligence. but man Of the
highest intellectual attainments. and an
able LAWYER This should convince any
one that he had no intention OF commit
ting a crime when he returned 10 the Con-
tinent. When you consider this. together
With the lack Of motive and the entire
absence of any direct evidence of his con-
nection with the crime il is hard 10 be-
Iieve that a jury could bring in verdict
Of guilty.
The Paris telegram episode was dwelt
| upon al length but no relation what
ever was established between il and the
crime in question. Mr.. Hau gave his
reason for sending the telegram. which,
in view Of all the circumstances, was
sound and commendabie.
THE testimony OF Olga MolltOr was lit
tie else than farcical. She was never
cross questioned. and she was never asked
10 explain the Inconsistencies in her testi-
mOny. She stated first that the only
| thing she noticed when her mother was
shot was a flowing cloak, and that she
saw nothing Of the murderer because she
did not turn around A little later she
admitted having stated that she thought
that the peTpetratOr might have been Mr..
Hau on account Of his stature. but that
considering the swiftness with which the
man moved il was utterly impossible
10 determine the exact height How
could she determine anything regarding
the stature Of the murderer if she had
seen nothing but a flowing cloak2 A few
moments later she was asked Il one Of
the male servants Of Mrs. Molitor could
have been the murderer, and she re-
piled that they could not have been be-
| cause they were al too short. First.
she saw only a flowing cloak sec
/, ond. she could not determine the exact
| stature because the murderer fed so
! swiftly. and here she stated that il could
not have been a male servant Of Mrs
ATolitor because they were all too short.
. Which statement should be believed? {?
II was a most noticeable fact. when
! the servant Wieland was brought into
? court. that he was practically the same
height as the defendant. and mere
over, resembIed him very closely in gen
eral appearance
throughout the trial the attitude OF
the court was not only one In opposition
TO the defendant. but showed a determi-
nation to convict him regardless OF the
! lack Of motive or evidence. No courtesy
) was shown either to him or 10 his at
tOrney- A great part Of the examination
of the defendant consisted in criticising
! his business and personal habits. and per
, tanned in no way 10 the crime With
which he was charged
The bearing Of Mr.. Hau and the forti-
J tude and patience with which he stood
J the so-caIled trial cannot but win the
I admiration OF any one who reads the
record Of the case, and believe Il would
have required an American jury but a
few moments TO have absolutely ac-
quilted him"