The Washburn leader. [volume] (Washburn, McLean County, N.D.) 1890-1986, 1913-07-25
We Try to Answer
Questions Asked
Many Witnesses in the Anderson
Case Were Never Given
Chance to Testify.

one of the jurors in the Ander-
son case. Juror Robson asks us
several questions, and in all fair
ness to him and others of the
jury we will try and answer
them. N.
In regard to our not appearing
as witness, say that we were
never consulted by the states
attorney, Mr.. Maennell in
regard to what we knew about
the case, and for certain reasons
we knew that we were not want
ed by the states attorney as a
witness, and we presume the
same would apply to Mr.. johnson:
We should have been only too
glad to have assisted the pro-
secution in this case as no doubt
all the other witnesses whose
names appeared on tn, informa-
tion. We understood that the
states attorney had all the evil
dence and was able te 60 to the
very inception Of this crime and
murder; but the witnesses were
not called, and we personally
know that witnesses who were
called were not, for some reason,
asked to tell all they knew bear
ing upon the case, for instance,
Mrs. Funk did not give the most
important part of her testimony
in regard to the conversation
which she had with Anderson in
the county Jail, in which Ander-
son made damaging admissions,
and she had expected that this
conversation would be brought
out in her testimony, but for
some reason It was not. Certain
ly the jury would have been on,
ly too glad to have had the
admissions Of Anderson made to
Mrs. Funk. It was probably over
looked by the State but it was
very Important for the prosecdIst
ton. a Il
We felt sure that the State
would have no trouble to convict
the defendant and we believe yet
had all the persons who knew
anything about the crime been
called as witnesses the jury would
have brought in a different ver-
dict.
>. We believe it is up to the prose-
cutting officers to make an ex-
planation to the public, for the
reason that this trial has been
very unfortunate for Mclean
county, and every citizen fears
for the protection Of himself and
family if crimes Of this kind can
go unpunished. 44
The jurors say that there was
no evidence on which to base q
verdict Of guilty. We shall
not pass individual Judgment on
the question whether or not there
was any evidence upon which a
juror could concientiously base
q, a,,yerdict. We had personal know
ledge that this crime had been
committed by Anderson as we
were on the ground shortly after
the crime was committed, talked
with Anderson and others, and
convinced ourselves that none
other than he committed the
crime We felt sure that the
State would have no trouble to
prove to a jury that he was
guilty, but it seems to be the
opinion Of the different, persons
we, have talked with since the
trial that much Of the important
testimony was. either overlooked
or not impressed upon the jury. at
the time Of the trial, or at least
from the verdict it seems that not
much credence was placed in the
testimony Of the. state witnesses.
We must say that we are un-
able to say just what we would
have. done had we been juror;
unacquainted with the parties and
the witnesses, but presume it
would much depend upon what
weight one would give to the
testimony Of each witness, and
whether or not upon the whole
testimony there was sufficient
evidence to- support verdict;
that's q question holly for the
jury, and not for US, who did not
attend the trial, and only read
extracts from the printed reports
ofS the trial. 81 I;i.5 ..5 Il
Before the trial we talked with
two sofs the county commissio oners
and suggested, that-in al much af
the defendant had employed Mr..
Bangs. 10 defend him, that the
State should have the Attorney
General, Mr.. Miller Miller is an y