The Barre daily times. (Barre, Vt.) 1897-1959, 1916-07-27
OTIS WILLIAMS
CONVICTED IN
SECOND DEGREE


! | ~ NHfNlbHNh AH'h " NNfAA'
! ment alleged 10 have been made by vii
Hams at the county Jail May I would
bulk large in the states evidence, Aftei
lengthy preliminary hearing in tn,
course OF which the jury was excluded
from the court room, the alleged comics
sion was admitted as evidence, but not
without strenuous objections from the
defense. In effect, the accused laid the
! burden of the crime on Mrs. Felch, claim
ing that he accompanied her TO the sug-
arhouse on the night of the 22d, but add
ing that she fired the fatal shot. viii
liams repeatedly denied his own eulpa.
bility and told OF refusing offers made
by Mrs, Felch to kill her husband. A
sordid story of domestic infelicity with
Mrs. Feleh and the accused as the prin.
cipals was included in the confession.
The state rested on the eighth day of
the trial and after the noon recess the
defense introduced six witnesses, five Of
whom had been called for the state. One
OF them was Mrs Mary Williams, the
girl wife of the accused. Before o'clock
on the same afternoon the defense rest
ed, after setting up as one of the prin.
cipal reasons for Williams aequittal the
fact that the state failed to connect him
with the shooting at any point.
As the days wore on il became evident
that battle of legal wits was to figure
prominently in the trial. In the period
occupied by the prosecution in develop
ing its case from the testimony of some
II or 10 witnesses, counsel for the de.
Tense opposed every point contentiously
and with vigor JRumors that there
would be sensational revelations in a
confession by Williams were confirmed
in part when the Jail statement was
finally admitted. The defense argued
that the confession was obtained by
promises of immunity or threats and it
did develop that the state was aided in
securing the confession by detectives
placed in the county jail detectives who
had been actively engaged in uncovering
evidence in and around Waits River be-
fore the indictments were returned. |
Even as feeling ran high when Felch |
was murdered, Orange county people in
the towns contiguous to the locality /
where the crime was committed contin |
ued to watch the case with undisgused |
excitement. Many recalled the Sloan |
murder in 1856, when the uncommonly
revolving circumstances surrounding the
death of a child aroused an entire county
and was followed by the conviction of
woman. Examination OF the criminal
records at the county courthouse how
ever, does not disclose as brutal a muir
der as that of Feleh's. Indeed, the rec
ords are remarkably free from crimes OF
the more serious sort, but in every in
stance it is shown that the authorities
were duly vigilant in their investiga tions
and that in most instances the ends of
Justice were not defeated when suspicion
pointed its finger at the guilty ones.
Yesterday most of the time was tax
IN up with the closing arguments and
the judges charge. States Attorney
opened for the state and he
vas followed by Attorney Wilson for
he defense. Attorney Conant closing for
he respondent and Attorney General
Barber summing up for the state. The
were listened TO attentively
~ large audience, as in the case of the
and it was generally agreed
hat both sides had been ably handled '
I was well toward o'clock yesterday
fternoon when Attorney General Barber {
oncluded his coldly analytical presenta- I
ion of the states case, and Judge Stan c
on proceeded at once to turn the case y
yer to the jury.
The Judges Charge. I
At the outset Judge Stanton outlined t
riefy the accusation brought against b
the charge that on the night O
I April %, 1916, he murdered Joseph "
elch in Felch's sugarhouse in the town c,
Topsham, to which charge Williams h
ad pleaded not guilty. A
Judge Stanton then proceeded to as r,
srt the rules established by law TO de- ct
,rmine the guilt or innocence of the ac-
Used. First, he declared, the respond
ut must be presumed to be innocent of
lie charge or of any other charge which a
light be included in the Indictment v
his presumption is evidence in favor of G
lie respondent and is for his protection. sc
In the second place, said the judge, in W
der to find this respondent guilty of OF
lis charge or any other charge under 81
lie indictment, you must find him guilty
,yond reasonable doubt This applies
every essential element introduced in
e case So you are to find it beyond Pi
asonable doubt The judge then went
to define reasonable doubt. If you
i'll have doubt of his guilt you should
We the respondent the benefit of that Gu
,ubt and acquit him. This does not p
can doubt based on fancy or whim or o ~,
spicion, nor formed from mereiful con- 'i'
ieration. Remember that the presump- an
IN of the law is that the respondent is I'd
nocent
You are to be the sole judges of the se
adibilty of the witnesses. You have Gu
en- them on the stand have noted their az
pearance, have seen whether their APP ne ~,
arance seemed frank, fair and candid pit
whether showing bias or leaning. You su
ttor n,,oor,rn;t,. - testify thar oth. tn,
!. If any of them have remembered cie
,re accurately you are to take that
20 consideration. Carefully weigh it un
as to its proba bility and determine eAl
: matter as best you can from the ma
dence. 10
We have had some expert testimony in at
, case, and you should give careful car
light to such testimony because that we
{ of evidence + recognized.
The respondent has not been witness mrs
the case. He had a right to remain arr
mt. The state must prove him guilty. the
e fact that he has not testified must nay
be taken against him. sur
TO a large extent the evidence has ing
N circumstantial, that is, not direct. II
- - l..