Oldalképek
PDF
ePub

Mullins. . . . The most conclusive evidence was the production of a plasterer's hammer, which was also found in Mullins' house. It was examined under the microscope, and proved to be stained with blood.

So far as Emm was concerned, he was able clearly to establish an alibi, while witnesses were produced who swore to having seen Mullins coming across Stepney Green at dawn on the day of the crime with bulging pockets stuffed full of something, and going home; he appeared much perturbed and trembled all over. Mullins was

151. THE UNCLE'S CASE. 104, p. 232.)

In the county of Warwick, there were two brethren; the one having issue a daughter, and being seized of lands in fee, devised the government of his daughter and his lands until she came to her age of sixteen years, to his brother, and died. The uncle brought up his niece very well both at her book and needle, etc., and she was about eight or nine years of age; her uncle for some offense correcting her, she was heard to say, "Oh! good uncle, kill me not!" After which time the child, after much inquiry, could not be heard of, whereupon the uncle, being suspected of the murder of her, the rather for that he was her next heir, was upon examination, anno 8 Jac. Regis, committed to the jail for suspicion of murder; and was admonished by the justices of assize to find out the child, and thereupon bailed him until the next assizes. Against which time, for that he could not find her, and fearing what would fall out against him, took another child as like unto her both in person and years as he

found guilty without hesitation, and the judge expressed himself perfectly satisfied with the verdict. The case was much discussed in legal circles and in the Press, and all opinions were unanimously hostile to Mullins. The convict steadfastly denied his guilt to the last, but left a paper exonerating Emm. It is difficult to reconcile this with his denunciation of that innocent man, except on the grounds of his own. guilty knowledge of the real murderer. In any case, it was he himself who first lifted the veil and stupidly brought justice down on himself.

(Sir E. COKE. Third Institute, c.

could find, and appareled her like unto the true child, and brought her to the next assizes; but upon view and examination she was found not to be the true child; and upon these presumptions he was indicted and found guilty, had judgment, and was hanged. But the truth of the case was, that the child, being beaten overnight, the next morning, when she should go to school, ran away into the next county; and being well educated was received and entertained of a stranger; and when she was sixteen years old, at which time she should come to her land, she came to demand it, and was directly proved to be the true child.

Which case we have reported for a double caveat; first, to judges, that they in case of life judge not too hastily upon bare presumption, and, secondly, to the innocent and true man, that he never seek to excuse himself by false or undue means, lest thereby he, offending God (the author of truth), overthrow himself as the uncle did.

152. GEORGE RAUSCHMAIER'S CASE. (ANSELM VON FEUERBACH. Remarkable German Criminal Trials. [In Augsburg, April 20, 1820, Maria Holzmann, a charwoman, aged 55, disappeared from her home.

1846. transl. Gordon, p. 291.) She lived on the upper floor, and sublet a room below to George Rauschmaier and Joseph Steiner.

Her body was afterwards found in the loft. Rauschmaier and Steiner were arrested. Rauschmaier afterwards confessed. Meanwhile Steiner denied his own guilt, but sought to turn suspicion on Rauschmaier.] On his first regular examination of the 2d of January, 1821, he asserted not only his own innocence, but also his ignorance of the cause of Holzmann's disappearance. He was examined on the 15th of January, merely with regard to his family and to his means of subsistence, when he began suddenly and of his own accord, a long, rambling narrative to the following effect:

That he returned home about ten or eleven at night on Good Friday, and went to wish his landlady good night, as was his usual custom; but not finding her in bed, he thought that she would not return that night, and thereupon got into her bed himself. During the night he heard a heavy fall overhead, and a noise as if something was being dragged backwards and forwards. On the Saturday he came home about ten at night: his comrade opened the door to him, and would not allow him to enter his landlady's room, but lighted him at once to his own. He had scarcely lain down when something dropped from the ceiling upon his nose, and when he turned in bed, upon his back. In the morning he found that this was blood. He called Rauschmaier's attention to this, who answered that he could not account for it, but that it was of no consequence. At first he thought nothing of it; but, on seeing Holzmann's remains in the churchyard, the thought struck him that she must have been murdered by Rauschmaier. He himself had never harmed her. . . .

On the 4th of February he requested another audience. . . . He now modified his former statement; it was not on Friday, but on Saturday, that he had slept in Holzmann's bed, and the blood had

dropped upon his nose on the Thursday night, not on Good Friday. He had said to Rauschmaier, early on Friday, “Surely, in God's name, you have not murdered our landlady?" whereupon Rauschmaier threatened to kill him if he said a word about the blood or their landlady. He then showed him a thick knotted club, saying, "I will strike you dead with this if you say a word of the matter!" He then proceeded, after some interruption, "It now strikes me that the blood must have been wiped up on Easter Sunday with my shirt, which I found in a corner soaked with blood. No doubt my comrade did this on purpose to throw the suspicion on me." He further added, that a week after Easter he was with Rauschmaier at a tavern, and when they were alone his comrade offered him a silver ring and a pair of earrings, to say nothing about the blood or their landlady; but he would take nothing from him.

it

Steiner's statement had every appearance of truth, and agreed in the main with what was already known and so long as Rauschmaier withheld his confession appeared of the utmost importance. But when the latter was asked, after making a full confession, whether any one was privy to the murder which he had committed, he answered, "No human being; I resolved upon and committed the murder alone, exactly as I have already confessed it, because I trusted no one; if, perchance, Joseph Steiner or Elizabeth Ditscher are suspected, I hereby attest their innocence; nor do I believe that Steiner saw anything, at any rate he never gave me to understand that he suspected me." In the following examination when he was told that Steiner asserted that he had discovered traces of the murder, and that he had taken Rauschmaier to task about it, the latter replied, "It is a thorough lie; he never said a word to me of the matter."

At Steiner's third examination the discrepancy between his statement and Rauschmaier's repentant confession was fully explained. The judge called Steiner's attention to some marked contradiction, whereupon he exclaimed, "I am an ass, and have said a great deal that is not true. I must beg pardon for having lied so much. I thought to myself that, perhaps, my comrade murdered the woman, and that I was suspected, although I am innocent; I therefore said whatever came into my head to strengthen the suspicion against Rauschmaier, and to convince you of my own innocence. All that I have said about the blood dropping upon my nose, and my shirt, about the noise of one falling and being dragged over head, and about my observations to Rauschmaier, his threatening words, promises, and so forth, are mere inventions. I neither saw nor heard anything; but I suspected that

Holzmann had been murdered by Rauschmaier. I then considered how it must all have been done, and told it accordingly. I wonder how it all came into my head; I should soon have believed the story myself. Forgive my stupidity. I am a mere ass. Only think how stupid! I now begin to see what trouble I have got myself into by my lies; but I hope I shall not suffer for them, as I did not harm the old woman. I thought I was doing the court a pleasure by saying what I fancied about Rauschmaier, for I still believe him to be guilty.".

On the 9th of May, 1822, Rauschmaier was found guilty of murder, and condemned to death by the sword, with previous exposure for half an hour in the pillory. Steiner was acquitted, and Elizabeth Ditscher was condemned to an eight days' imprisonment for receiving stolen goods.

153. ROBERT HAWKINS' CASE. (G. L. CRAIK. English Causes Célèbres. 1844. p. 146.)

[The accused, a clergyman, was charged in 1668 with robbery from one Larimore. The facts are more fully stated post, No. 335. The charge was said by the defendant to be due to a long-standing spite of Larimore, and to his plot to ruin the accused. But one of the circumstances against the accused was that he had refused to let his house be searched for the robbed goods.]

L. C. B. HALE.-Sir, but if you were innocent of this robbery, why did you refuse to open your doors, or to have your house searched?

Hawk.My Lord, I had several reasons that moved me so to do. 1. In general, most of those persons that were present were my inveterate enemies, and several of them had threatened to ruin me and my family; and therefore I had reason to suspect that they came to injure me, either in my profession or goods. For the first, Sir John Croke and

Larimore had often threatened to pull down my house, and for that end had hired several persons to make a forcible entry upon it; and, particularly they had lately hired Jaires, the son of Leonard Styres, of Thame, in the country of Oxon, by a ladder to climb up, and run down my chimney, and open my doors, when we were all abroad. And about the same time they also contracted with one Christopher Tyler, of Chilton, for the same purpose.

And 2. I feared the seizing of my goods by the said persons, because they had then a writ of Levari (or execution) to seize them, which Larimore's son had a few days before in part executed, and he was then present. And if these reasons are not sufficient, I have more to justify my act in refusing to have them search my house. . . .

L. C. B. Mr. Hawkins, can you prove what you have said? Hawk.

-Yes, my Lord. Which particular Larimore standing by all that time shall I prove?

L. C. B.-Prove that about the ladder, if you can. Hawk.-I pray, my Lord, call John Acreman. He, being called, did fully justify what was said concerning their intended forcible entry, and added further, that he did help to set up the ladder for that purpose, being called by Sir John Croke's own sons, they and

154. DONELLAN'S CASE.

Amer. ed. 1905. p. 114.)

Perhaps in no case have circumstances of this kind told with such fatal effect as in the case of Donellan [stated more fully, post, No. 379], who was convicted of the murder of Sir Theodosius Boughton by poison. The prisoner, after having [supposedly] administered the fatal draft in the form of medicine, rinsed out the vial which had contained it, and when that fact was stated before the coroner, he was observed to check the witness by pulling her sleeve. In his charge to the jury, Mr. Justice BULLER laid great stress upon that circumstance. "Was there anything so likely," said the learned judge, "to lead to a discovery as the remains, however small they might have been, of medicine in the bottle? But that is destroyed by the prisoner. In the moment he is doing it, he is found fault with. What does he do next? He takes the second bottle, puts water into that, and rinses it also. He is checked by Lady Boughton, and asked what he meant by it why he meddled with the bottles. His answer is, he did it to taste it; but did he taste the first bottle? Lady Boughton swears he did not. The next thing he does, is to get all the things sent out of the room; for when the servant

comes up, he orders her to take away the bottles, the basin, and the dirty things. He puts the bottles. into her hand, and she was going to carry them away, but Lady Bough

to watch.

[blocks in formation]

(W. WILLS. Circumstantial Evidence.

SO

ton stopped her. Why were all these things to be removed? Why was it necessary for the prisoner, who was fully advertised of the consequence by Lady Boughton, to insist upon having everything removed? Why should he be solicitous to remove everything that might lead to a discovery?" After dealing with the prisoner's conduct in other matters, the learned judge continued: "Then as to the conduct of the prisoner before the coroner. Lady Boughton had mentioned the circumstance of the prisoner's rinsing out the bottle one of the coroner's jury swears that he saw him pull her by the sleeve. Why did he do that? If he was innocent, would it not be his wish and anxious desire, as he expresses in his letter, that all possible inquiry should be made? What passes afterwards? When they got home, the prisoner tells his wife that Lady Boughton had given this evidence unnecessarily; that she was obliged to say anything but in answer to questions that were put to her, and that the question about rinsing out the bottles was not asked her. Did the prisoner mean that she should suppress the truth? that she should endeavor to avoid a discovery as much as she could by barely saying Yes or No to the questions that were asked her, and not disclose the whole truth? If he was innocent, how could the truth affect him? but at that time

[merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small]

155. ROBERT WOOD'S CASE. Science and the Criminal. 1911.

... The most sensational trial that has taken place in this country for many years was that of Robert Wood, a young artist, in 1907, on the charge of murdering a woman. The story of the crime itself is a particularly sordid one, but the behavior of the prisoner in court, and the excited state of public feeling on the subject gave a profound psychological interest to the trial. A woman had been found brutally murdered in her lodgings in a small house in Camden Town, and no trace could be found of the murderer. In the fire grate, however, had been found some charred fragments of a letter, while in the chest of drawers a postcard that had escaped notice had been discovered. A reproduction of this postcard was posted up at the police stations and published in the papers, and was soon recognized by several people as being in the handwriting of Robert Wood.

In the meantime, Wood, finding that suspicion was likely to attach to him, persuaded a girl of his acquaintance, named Ruby Young, to promise to support his statement that he had been with her upon the evening when the murder took place. A day or two later Ruby Young became uneasy as to the effect her promise was likely to produce, and asked the advice of a journalist as to what would be the best thing to do, putting the case as a hypothetical one. The man, however, at once saw to what she alluded, and immediately telephoned to the police, and this led to the arrest of Robert Wood.

At the police court proceedings an expert opinion was given that

(C. AINSWORTH MITCHELL.

p. 121.)
the fragments of charred paper
found in the grate of the dead
woman were in the handwriting of
Wood, and evidence was also given
by the present writer that the pig-
ment in which the characters were
written was identical with that of a
marking-ink pencil found upon the
prisoner. For a long time Wood
denied that he had had anything to
do with these fragments. Subse-
quently, at the beginning of the
trial at the Old Bailey, he admitted
that he had written them, though to
the end he strenuously refused to
admit that the words had the mean-
ing which they appeared to suggest.
He denied that they referred to any
appointment made with the dead
woman for the day upon which she
was murdered. The proof of the
fact that these bits of charred paper
had really been written by Wood
brought him very close to the scene
of the crime, and his attempt to
create a false alibi and to get Ruby
Young to bear this out still further
strengthened the suspicion against
him. The most telling evidence, how-
ever, was the statement of a carman,
who had, he asserted, seen a man
leave the house of the murdered
woman at five o'clock in the morning.
He had not seen the face of the man,
but had noticed that he had a char-
acteristic swinging walk, and when.
taken to the police station had
identified the prisoner among
number of other men, who had been
made to walk round the yard, as
the man that he had seen coming
down the steps of the house. Other
evidence was given as to Wood's
having been seen in the company
of the deceased woman on several
occasions in the past, although he

a

« ElőzőTovább »