Evening times-Republican. [volume] (Marshalltown, Iowa) 1890-1923, 1915-08-25
GOVERNOR CLARKE MAINTAINS
RAINSBARGERS ARE INNOCENT

hour continuously for the four and
ne-half hours at their disposal. 1t was
apparent that Franks team was inca
pabe of covering the distance in the
time. Is one therefore forced to say,
, hence the theory?
Wife's Evidence convicts.
! 1t is quite possible that the convic-
| tions may have been upon the testi-
i mony of Franks wife. She agreed with
all other witnesses as to the time they
i left and when they got back. The next
| morning after breakfast she said Nate,
| who was going away somewhere on
! horseback. went upstairs. got his over
coat, came. down with 1t buttoned up
around him, and there was a streak Of
blood on 1t a foot long and as wide as
her finger, running in front from the
lapel-red blood. She said, why, Nate,
what Is that?" and he said, water"
| She said she thought they had been
doing something they ought not" She
began to investigate and went into the
room where Franks coat was hanging
and found, she said. on it In front. "a
great big splatter Of red blood two or
two and half inches square and
smaller splatters around it, 1t was not
dry, but soft, she said. She touched
! it. It stained her finger red and she
wiped 1t off on her clothing. She said
Franks mittens were covered with
! blood She Immediately went to the
! barn to investigate, to look over the
buggy" She found Mates overalls
| there "in plain view" with blood on
them. She said she had not heard of
Johnson's death and had no suspicion
of 1T. Perhaps this story is credible.
1t hardly seems possible that any sane
human being would thus parade evil
dence of the crime of murder. The
young woman who was living in the
household said that Mrs. Rainsbarger
did not go to the barn at all, as she
claimed; that she was sitting by the
window where she could see and that
she went out to the field to help Frank
put some wire on fence and she was
| to care for the baby while Mrs Rains
barger was gone. Mrs. Rainsbarger
said she never had said anything about
what she had seen because she was
afraid. She admitted that she had said
under oath at the coroner's inquest that
she had not seen anything about their
clothing that would make her suspect
anything wrong. She swore that be-
tween that time and their arrest on the
10th of January she was with Mrs.
Johnson a great DEAL That she came to
her home on the afternoon of Jan. 10,
and that they stayed up and talked
nearly all night. On the night John
son was killed Mrs. Johnson left Gift
ford on an evening train with man
and went to Ackley where they stayed
all night together In a room of hotel
Both admit it. On the way back Mrs.
Johnson left the train at Steamboat
a nd 1ko1 70 lie
The man went on to Clifford and 1t was
he who sent her the telegram announce
ing Johnson's death. Johnson was on
the way to Clifford after her at the time
he was killed and she was on the way
to Ackley, or at Ackley with this COM
panion. Where she was on that fateful
night could be easily established.
Defendants Explain Journey.
1t was claimed by the defendants
that they went to Abbott that right
to see Mr.. Leverton to whom "they
were owing some money" Their tes-
timony on this point went o farther
than Just that. Mr.. Leverton swore
on direct examination by the state
that on the 18th day of November he
had a claim against Nate and Frank
and that prior to that time, about No
vember 1, arrangements had been
made for an extension Of time of pay
ment. Only this and nothing more
, On cross examination he stated that
he held chattel mortgage belonging
to his brother on their horses, that
he personally had mortgage on
Franks land and some notes against
Frank, with William Rainsbarger as
surety; that the chattel mortgage was
paid and the real estate mortgage as
signed to Henry Johns and a verbal
agreement made at the same time for
the extension for year of the notes
due upon which William Rainsbarger
was surety. He said the real estate
mortgage was in the hands of the
sheriff and that it and the chattel
mortgage We're paid about the same
time and that this was prior to the
18th Of November and about the first
of November. This was almost two
and half years after the murder and
he said he had nothing more than a
general recollection" about it, How
ever, no question at all seems to have
been raised on the trial about these
| mortgages, or the time of the payment
Of one and the assignment of the
other. No claim was made in the tes-
timony Of defendants that they were
going to see Leverton about any mort
gage Indebtedness. This seems to
have been well understood by the at
torneys on both sides. Nothing can
be palmer than this, because the rec
ords in the office Of the recorder
showed the assignments Of mortgages
by Leverton, one being executed and
| filed prior to the time of the murder
and the other being dated three days
before the murder and filed for record
November 25, 1884, seven days after
the murder and if the defendants had
claimed that this indebtedness was
the object Of the trip to Abbott the
night of the murder, the state would
instantly have brought in the record
fatty contradicting 1t. This claim that
the defendants were discredited when
they claimed they went to Abbott to
see about an Indebtedness to him
when the record shows that the mort
gage Indebtedness to Leverton had
been satisfied prior to the murder was
absolutely not in the case at the time
Of the trial and was not raised until
more than twenty years afterwards
and evidently came about thru con-
versations with defendants who spoke
from memory of matters after u lapse
Of more than twenty years. 1t first
appears in interviews in the prison
with the defendants by officials. But
there was an Indebtedness from de-
PENDANTS to Leverton on the 18th of
November, 1854, and 1t was upon the
notes held by him upon which Will
lam Rainsbarger was surety and which
were then past due. Leverton says