New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1914-05-23

llnS ~, Jesse ". NCiiC, ~
. PENDANT 1t is very important IN 'n,s
case for you. gentlemen OF inc Jury, 10
determine whether that testimony wa
true. Did Marshall see this detendant
ard Rose talking together at that place
that night? You remember the testi,
mony OF the officer called upon oena ~,
of the defendant. one or them SAYS
that he went into the defendants house,
ard that he brought the defendaht
| down: others, that they were with the
defendant all the evening until ne to1 1S
the car to return to his home, and dld
not on any occasion that night, coihe
/ in contact with or see Rose
. Now, II Is not denied that the delenu
ant was engaged in raiding so-called
crap game at 230 West l24th ST. ~ "a
not denied that Marshall. the colored
boy, was there.
The fact in issue was whether this
defendant and Rose were together
there upon that occasion. And you
will consider all tho testimony bear
ing upon that subject.
1t appears from the evidence given by
Rose, Weber and Vallon at the last
trial. and IL is offered in evidence on
this trial that they did so-as | re-
member the testimony; that the detehd-
ant said on that occasion that he was
engaged in making raid in Harlem.
and Ii is in evidence, by the testimony
of Vallon given in the last trial. Of
fered IN evidence upon this trial, tnat
Vallon testified then that while they
were talking with this defendant col
ored boy approached them and spoke To
the defendant.
Now. il is for you to say whether you
find in that testimony OF WALTON and the
subsequent appearance and testimony
Of Marshall any circumstance that TENDS
to corroborate the truth of Vallon's
testimony upon this trial.
Was Rose with Becker.
You have got a sharp issue Of fact
there as to whether this defendant met
these men. You have got the testimony
Of the accomplices, Rose, Weber ana
Valon: you have the testimony of Mar
the testimony of Shepar1, OF Shields and
OF Rice. officers of the defendants squad,
who ray that Rose was not there.
Now. some question was raised upon
the argument as to whether or not Mar
shall might not be mistaken In the iden-
tihcatiOn OF Rose. Now. that is an inn
portant thing for you to determine you
will determine whether you think Mar
snail was telling the truth.
You will determine whether or not
you think Marshall was accurate in
his Identification; you are to deter
mine whether or not you think no
would recognize Rose; you are to de.
ternnine whether or not you think Rose
was easily identifiable or not. These
are all circumstances In the case which
the jury have right to consider in de-
termining the question as to whether
or not this so-called Harlem confer
ence was held.
Now. you have the testimony Of Web
Der that he met the defendant pursuant
10 this telephone call In front Of the
Union Square Hotel on the 10th OF July,
and that at this time this defendant
urged the killing OF Rosenthal: the tes
timony in reference to the Garden Res
taurant incident. and you have Roses
testimony that on the day following this
defendant rebuked him for the delay that
had taken place and for not allowing the
gunner to Kill Rosenthal at that time.
You have the testimony OF Rose that be-
fore the Sam Paul outing he talked over
the telephone with this defendant: that
after the Sam Paul outing he talked over
the telephone with the defendant; You
have the testimony Of Weber, that after
the Sam Paul outing he talked over the
telephone with this defendant, and that
1t was arranged later, on July 10, that the
tanned. You are to determine from all
these circumstances and facts whether or
not the so-called Harlem conference was
ever held. You are to determine whether
this defendant did meet Weber and ar
range the killing OF Rosenthal.
You are to determine whether. as
matter OF fact. this defendant ever did
I nave tneSe numerous conversations with
Rose. TO which Rose has testified. You
are TO determine whether the Garden Res
/ taurant incident ever occurred. and
whether on the day following that Incl
dent Rose had conversation with this
defendant and was rebuked by this de-
PENDANT because the murder was deferred.
/ / make no intimation upon any OF these
questions OF fact. but ! leave them on
/ the summary OF the evidence fairly and
squarely. for you TO determine as a ques-
ton OF fact.
( Did this defendant direct the killing
Of RosenthaI? That is the most i'm
/ portant issue in this case for you gen.
tlemen to determine. II he did not, IL
you entertain a reasonable doubt as
/ to that, acquit this defendant. IL you
are satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt
| that he did, then this defendant at tho
bar is legally responsible for the muir
der Of Herman RosenthaI.
At this point Justice seabury dis.
cussed the acts OF Becker directly after
I the murder. referring to the alleged
/ telephone call of Rose TO Becker from
/ the Times Square pay station. He
dwell; upon the official telephone slips as
7 important in support Of this part of
Roses story. He said:
Now. gentlemen. what did the defend
ant do according to the evidence imme-
diately after the killing Of RoSenthal?
This is a question which you gentlemen
I have a right To ask yourselves and
which you should endeavoT TO determine
from the evidence that has been pre-
sentcd 10 YOU in the case. II appears
without dispute that Rosenthal was shot
little after lao In the morning OF
/ July l6. DR.. Taylor testified that he
examined the body at a. m. and that
he found no life in IL.
Hewley says that he telephone the de-
/ PENDANT at his number. Audubon 6694:
that he was unable 10 get that number;
and that he then called up the defend
ants private telephone number. 1853. and
| that he told him OF the murder OF Ro-
seminal and urged that the defendant
I come downtown. The telephone slips by
Carney. produced by Carney. show that
at about that time these two numbers
were connected. Rose says that about
. o'clock i'm the morning he called up
Audubon e69i, and that he had a tele-
phonlc conversation with this defend
ant
He SAYS that he asked the defendant
whether he had heard the news and
that the defendant said that he had
that a newspaper reporter had given
him the information. Rose said that
/ this defendant congratulated him upon
the murder of Rosenthal