Omaha daily bee., 1920-01-06
'C0LE RETRACTS
| HIS CONFESSION
IN MURDER CASE
Statement Clearing Grammer
False, He Tells Governor
Condemned Men
Disagree.


were made ty Prison Chaplain Max
we'll. Rev. Mr.. Thompkins, Lloyd
Whitney and Jack Sackett of Lin.
coin. Solen Fries, member of the
legislature from Dannebrog, asked
that the sentence OF the courts be
revoked.
Spurns Own Family.
Spurning her own family, Mrs.
Vincent Grammer, daughter of the
murdered woman, and wife of the
convicted man, attended the hear
ing in company with members OF
her husbands family.
Those who appeared as friends
of the murdered woman demanding
that sentence of electrocution be ex-
ecuted we're; Mr.. and Mrs. E. l.
and E. w. Voet, Sam Vogt and Mrs
Anna Vogt, children of the dead
woman; P. w. Wagner, Fred Lehn
Edward Trimann and Tom Brouch
of Elba, where the murder was com.
mitted; Sheriff w. A. Atwood of St
Paul, and Charles Dolby, county at.
torney of Howard county.
E. S. Highley, police officer and
one of the men who helped to Sc
cure confessions of the two men,
was also present.
w. H. Prince, assistant prosecutor
at the trial of the two men and J.
F. Webster, St. Paul editor, were
also at the hearing.
Charles Grammer, father of the
convicted man, and three brothers
Henry. Seth, George, accompanied
the wife of the prisoner to the
hearing.
Attorneys who were present to
represent the men were Sterling
Mutz of Lincoln, F. A. Reisner OF
Bedford, and John B. Priest of Lin
coin.
McKelvie's Statement.
Governor McKelvie in opening the
hearing stated that it was his desire
to learn whether these two men,
Cole and Grammer, had been sub
jected to a fair trial leading to their
conviction of murder and sentence
to electrocution, and to learn if all
evidence bearing in the case had
been introduced.
Attorney Mutz was heard as the
first man in defense of Grammer.
He reviewed the trials of the two
men and alluded to the confessions
as result of inhurnan treatment al
tho hands of the officers in charge.
He declared that 100 men were
called to serve on the jury in the
first trial of the case in district
court, and that but one of each Is
Of these men had been selected,
those who refused being permitted
to discuss the case with the men re-
tained as a jury and to cxpound
their views to the effect that the
men were guilty.
He accused the weekly newspaper
in the vicinity of the crime of so
molding the opinion of the public
that the jury was prejudiced at the
time of the trial. He declared that
q certain amount of propaganda was
yet being published by these papers
in urging electrocution.
Juror Not a Citizen.
One Henry Bernt, who served on
one of the juries, was not even
citizen of the United States, he de-
clared.
Attorney Resiner, in his defense
of the two prisoners, repeated most
of the charges made by Attorney
Mutz, adding that Sheriff Atwood
had been promised election to that
office in the event that the two men
should be convicted.
Both lawyers charged that a fair
trial had not been accorded the two
convicted men, claiming that audi
ences at the trial were allowed to
laugh and applaud, and in other
ways, affect the opinion of the jury.
Reward an Inducement.
They alleged that cruel and inhu-
man treatment were accorded the
prisoners in an effort to secure con-
fcssions from them, in order to OBJ
tain the $1,000 reward offered for
their capture.
w. A. Prince, one of the attorneys
who prosecuted the two men, in a
statement at the hearing said: 1T is
time that the people OF Nebraska
should be up in arms if law and or
der is to be enforced in this state"