Baraboo weekly news. [volume] (Baraboo, Wis.) 1912-197?, 1925-02-05

Two SnOtSunS from DeIGaIH tLlS
porcll-one o'clock at night Sine
the guns were apart indicated the
men intended to place the pieces
under their coats and take them
away.
Should Have License
1t is a law that one not natural
lied shall have hunting license.
di MARITIME was hunting the day Of
the murder according to the testi-
mony. He killed rabbit and
more than a dozen people were at
the party. The attorney held there
should have been a pig. No men
ton was made of the rabbit on the
preliminary examination and the
lawyer held it was a fabrication.
He then scored Mr. and Mrs. Rad
datz for their contradictory testi-
mony.
Next there was a discussion of
the bullet, the testimony of Mrs.
Olsher and the statements Of 9TH
ers at he time of the murder.
LaFoiIette Speaks
District Attorney LaFollette, who
has been a silent partner with the
prosecution today made the second
arguments for the state. He said
in part:
The defense rests largely upon
the alibi that they were at the par
ty from 600 to 1900. If a witness
understanding English has ques-
tions put to him by an Interpreter
it gives him time to frame his an
swer, as did Frank WHALE. The de-
PENDANT has been here 10 years
and attended English schools. He
needed no interpreter until near the
close of the day when its testimony
began to be contradictory. He later
recovered his English. He testi-
ed at the police station that his
father had not been out Of town
lately. The father was at the
house when he left nor never did
so out of town. Later testimony
was that he left town at $3.50 pm.
for st. Paul. Vitale stated that he
remained for eight days-then
went to New York on business.
He heard of the arrest while in st.
Paul. Frank testified that his faith
er had plenty of money and had no
business. Joe, when sworn and
asked if he spoke English, replied
that he did not, that he wanted an
interpreter. Testimony as to
whether meat was served at the
party was conflicting.
Hill Opens Arguments
Carl N. Hill, attorney for the de-
PENDANTS opened his arguments stat
ing:
The defendants were born in
foreign country under conditions
alien to ours, living here with 9th
ers of their own race, with environ
ment, traditions and customs diff
feTent from ours.
Tpon being arrested were separ-
ated, and testified without collision
with only minor discrepancies. Had
there been none, testimony given
two weeks later, would evidently
have been a frameup.
The claim was made that witness
j. J. Vanderhoef is member OF
some organization interested in
conviction.
The defendants did not have auto
out of garage after 300 pm. is
claimed, according to evidence.
ITO be referred to later.)
The prosecution is declared to
have shown no adequate motive on
the part Of defendants for the com
mission Of this crime; that the Of
ffcers are determined to get some
Italian or other
The claim is made that a person
partially intoxicated, while not able
to take full cognizance of events
taking place about him, he can re-
member his own muscular reac-
tions, which would account for the
hazy memory of diMartino as to
persons and food at banquet, but
clear recollection as to his own ac-
tons.
It is claimed that police are bet
ter detectives of crime than Of in
nocence, and that they and others
"haye it in" for the Italians.
1t is charged that the guns were
in Dominic Goula's bakery and that
he, knowing that a murder had
been committed, hid the guns under
the porch, not wanting any guns
found on his place, and then skip
ped out so that he could not be
found; that testimony shows that
diMartino was so drunk that he
couldn't have aimed straight at
any one; that who killed Dreger
aimed straight and must have been
sober.
(Atfy Lewis objected to portion