The Indianapolis times. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1922-1965, 1925-06-19

Shaking his fist in the faces of
and Eph Inman, chief
counsel for the defense, Prosecutor
William H. Remy dramatically said:
1.-The defense does not care IL
the defendants are released on
bond. All they want is to be bet
ter prepared when the trial comes.
This hearing was for the primary
purpose of uncovering the States
evidence and i'm that they have
been partly successful. But they
did not produce all the evidence,
I'm any sense"
The arguments may last six hours.
That amount of time was allotted
by Judge Fred e. Hines, who will
decide whether the men are to be
released.
Whether the court makes an i'm
mediate ruling or Will take the mat
ter under consideration was un-
certain.
@ AssaiI Statement
Defense attorneys bitterly assailed
the dying statement of Madge Ober-
holtzer and the indictment, arguing
that the charges are not sufficient
to justify the indictment and the de-
PENDANTS are entitled to bail.
Attorneys for the State vigorously
defended both documents and in
sisted that they fully warrant the
charge of first degree murder.
which, under the Indiana law, does
not permit defendants to be admit
ted to bail.
Floyd Christian opened for the
defense.
AS in hearings of the past two
days the case drew capacity crowd.
There were many vacant seats when
the hearing opened, but the room
filled rapidly and standing room
was soon at premium. However,
the crowd was a restless one. and
the technical legal arguments failed
to hold its interest.
AS a result there was constant flow
of spectators out of the room, their
places Immediately being taken by
new arrivals. For the first time the
Oberholtzers did not occupy seats at
the States table, but took seats just
outside the rail, Mr.. and Mrs. George
Oberholtzer the young woman's
parents, and her brother Marshall,
sitting together.
Fiery Speech
Prosecutor Remy made a frey
speech. He frequently called Inman,
wheel horse of the defense, to an
swer in his argument why ali the
State witnesses were not called.
Counsel for the defense, for their
own purposes, said this is a ques-
tion of law. 1t is question Of fact, a
question Of whether the State has
enough evidence to hold these de-
fendant in JAIL"
"The defense has not been In
good faith in this hearing" he
said. "They have produced some
of the States witnesses, not all.
They did not produce all the evil
dence the witnesses might know.
They did not dare to do so. If
they were in good faith. for in
stance why did not the defense
ask Mrs. Shultz who the man was
that brought Madge Oberholtzer
home dying?
Would Point Him Out
"They knew she would point 20
him, and say there he sits. II in
good faith, they would have brought
out the condition Of the girl when
they brought her home. and not left
it to the State to elicit, over their
objections.
"They would not have objected to
the dying declaration which is part
Of the evidence.
"This thing happened in Ham
mOnd hotel. It happened on a
train. Where Is that train crew,
Mr.. Inman? You must have
known the State will use those
men as witnesses. Their absence
is unexplained. Where Is the con-
duct0r? Where is the porter?
They were out I'm the corridor wait.
ing to testify, and the burden is ON
the defendant in this hearing to
produce all the States evidence.
They objected to producing the
statements Of dying girl. facing
knowing full well she was
about to face her Maker. and no