Evening public ledger. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1914-1942, 1915-08-19
THE CONVICTION OF INNOCENT MEN
Strange Cases in the Criminal May
Lie but They Often Msead-Remarkabe Instances of Mis-
taken Identity-The Freakishness of Evidence
By ROBERT HILDRETH

WTHATEVER may be the defects and
w perils Of crcumstantial evidence, they
are not the exclusive discovery Of the lay
man or the lay reformcr. Nor are the diff
fcutIes which they present wholly absent
from other forms of evidence. Direct testi-
mony Is subject to the risks which arise
from the observatIonal incapacity of the
witness the faultlness of his memory ana
the possibility Of deliberate fasehood These
and other considerations have led expert
enced American and English lawyers to de-
clare their preference for circumstantial
over direct evidence. Witnesses, they say.
can lie. either Intentionally or unintention-
ally, but circumstances cannot lie.
Even the testimony of eye witnesses of a
crime is not always to be taken at its face
value. As a measure of protection against
error Professor Muensterberg would add to
cross-examination certain psychological tests
which he describes in his interesting book,
"On the Witness Stand" Professor Muen-
sterberg tells the story of "a painful scene"
which occurred in Berlin in the University
Seminary of Professor Won List, the famous
crminologist.
Memory on Trial
"The professor had spoken about a book
One OF the older students suddenly shouts,
i want TO throw llSnI on Ine matter from
the standpoint of Christian morality. An
other student throws in, cannot stand
thatl The first starts up, exclaiming, You
have insulted me" The second clenches his
fist and cries. If you say another word
The first draws n revolver The second
rushes madly upon him. The professor steps
between them and. as he grasps the mans
arm, the revolver goes off. General uprOar.
"In that moment Professor Liszt secures
order and asks n part of the students to
write an exact account of all that has hap
pened The whole had been comedy, care
fully planned and rehearsed by the three
actors for the purpose of studying the eX-
actltude of observation and recollection,
Those who did not write the report at once
were. part of them, asked to write it the
next day or a week later, and others had to
depose their observations under Gross-exam-
inaton. The whole objective performance
was cut up into parts which referred partly
TO actions, partly TO words. AS mistakes
there were counted the omissions the wrong
additions and the alterations. The smallest
number of mistakes gave 26 per cent, of err
roneous statements; the largest was so per
cent The reports with reference to the
second half of the performance which was
more strongly emotional, gave an average of
Is per cent. more mistakes than those of
the first half"
An early instance of the manufacture Of
circumstantial evidence is on record in the
Bible, which records that Joseph's silver cup
was placed in Benjamin's sack. With all
due respect IL can be said safely that most
men have had, at one time or another in
their lives, some bitter or at least unpleasant
experience caused by the fact that, in the
common phrase, appearances were against
them" Literature abounds with cases of
compromising appearances and OF mistaken
identity. Lady Macbeth, 1t will be recalled,
"smeared the sleeping gTooms with blood"
Bulwer Lytton founded a novel on the story
of Eugene Aram.
The Aram and Molineux Cases
Eugene Aram was an English schoolmas-
ter. In marlborough, where Aram taught
for several years lived a shoemaker named
Daniel Clarke, One day shortly after making
a purchase OF valuable goods, Clarke disap-
peared Suspicion fell on Aram, not as the
mans murderer, but as his confederate in
fraud. He was arrested and tried, but ac-
quilted for lack OF evidence. Thirteen years
afterward a skeleton was dug up near
Knaresborough. and the citizens, remember
ing the disappearance OF Clarke. declared the
bones were those OF the shoemaker The
suspicion Of foul play had been reinforced
by strange remarks OF Aram's wife 10 the
effect that her husband and a man named
Houseman knew more OF clarke's disappear
anee than they chose TO tell Honsemah,
confronted with bone OF the skeleton. de-
clared emphatlcally that It was not Clarkes.
The denial only added 10 the belief that
Honsaman knew where ciarlze's body had
haan hidden Finally he safd that ne mad