The Waterbury Democrat., 1939-04-06

From the outset of the session Murray hammered away at the, au- thenticity of the testimony given by Williamson on his first appearance before the grand jury.
 T made some incorrect statements, but the grand jury got the whole truth" said Williamson emphatical- ly, when questioned about his ad- missions of variances between pres- ent and previous statements.
 Denies Perjurying
 The man absolutely refused to ad- init he had committed perjury. T call it an incorrect statement" he argued, continuing that he had cor rected his mis-statements volun- tarily.
 He admitted. that he had been sworn to tell the truth, and that he had told incorrect statements"
 Special Prosecutor Alcorn objected successfully when Murray, his voice sharp and sarcastic, ringing clear through the courtroom, said, You want to take the curse of what you told the grand jury by calling it incorrect statements" "The grand jury has the whole truth" was the reply.
 Time after time, Murray accused Williamson of being evasive in his answers. "As a lawyer you know what a responsive answer is," he said. Williamson admitted that ,:e did.
 Reiterating his question about false grand jury statements, Mur- ray received the answer, They were false until corrected"
 "Yes or no. Did you make false statements" asked Murray.
 "YeS, but they were corrected" said Williamson. In a derisive voice, Murray asked that the last portion of the answer be stricken, and Judge Inglis complied with his re- quest.
 "Then your answer is yes," said Murray.
 "Yes," was the low-toned answer. In contrast to the sharp tones of Murray's questions, Williamson's answers were low and almost surly- toned. It was apparent that he was making a supreme effort to keep cool during the blasting and search ing cross-examination of the New York lawyer.
 Williamson was forced to admit that when he made his false state- ments to the jury, 1t was after he had raised his right hand and sworn | fn tall fhn trr,fH 1Shn f,f the defense counsel's ross-examina- ton on that trend is to repudiate the value of the witness testimony for the state.
 Was Confused "In my confusion may have had a wrong impression of what I was doing." said Williamson, attempt ing to explain his misstatements be- fore the grand jury.
 T knew was expected to tell the truth" he admitted.
 You deliberately violated your oath as a member of the bar," charged Murray.
 T probably did-in my confusion,' replied Williamson.
 Asked if his mental state at the time was such to make him lncom- petent, Williamson replied, ito de- gree" He denied having taken any narcotic or liquor, however.
 In derisive voice, Murray forced Williamson to admit that he had been a prosecutor in Darian town court and common pleas court for a combined period of twelve years.
 Then you above all men knew what perjury was," he cried.
 But never handled a perjury case" retorted the witness.
 But as lawyer you knew what perjury was," said Murray.
 T probably did. T had a fair idea" was the reply.
 Murray launched into a brief tirade. You don't want to quibble. to be evasive," he asked. The answer was mo-
 No Admission
 Blasting forth loudly, he asked: Don't you want to admit that you committed deliberate perjury before the grand jury?"
 "No," was the abrupt reply.
 Attorney Frank L. Wilder, coun- sel for Williamson, spoke for the second time in the IT weeks trial, in objecting to the form of one ques- tion asked of his client by Murray.
 Murray also objected that point to being objected to by an attorney for a witness. He has no standing in court" he repeated.
 T thought I was counsel for an accused" commented Wilder.
 Murray claimed that his client had taken the witness stand and left himself open for cross-examina- ton, and therefore Wilder had no basis for objection. He pointed out that Special Prosecutor Alcorn was making no objections, although the witness was called by the state.
 Judge Inglis overruled Attorney Murray, commenting that he would have to listen to all objections of defense counsel.
 Attorney Murray took exception, commenting, Nov defense counsel have to deal with two states at torney's."
 Wilder rejoined, T am not asham- ed of it."
 Distinction
 Disregarding further argument along that line, Murray returned to the witness, asking, You want to make distinction between false statements and perjury?" William son said that he did.
 He added that his false state ments had been voluntarily correct ed, mot at the suggestion of any, one"
 He admitted that before he told the grand jury his true story he had 8 conversation with County Detec- tive Edward J. Hickey. But he said he called Hickey and made the appointment to meet him. Hickey, he said, met him at New Haven.
 Attorney Murray raised the issue that Hickey is not the states at-