Reading Time: 6 minutes, [1082 words]
The Atlanta Georgian,
Sunday, 17th August 1913,
PAGE 26, COLUMN 6.
By O. B. KEELER.
Putting it somewhat abruptly Would you hang a man on circumstantial evidence?
This is with some small reference to the Frank trial. Nearly everything has a Frank trial trend these days. And the trial itself is working around to where that problem is beginning to press on the twelve good men and true.
Also it is pestering the courtroom regulars.
It always does at a big murder trial. Probably more friendships have ceased over the question of hanging on circumstantial evidence than over the proposition that all men are born free and equal, or the world's series or the age of Ann.
You Either Would or Wouldn't.
Probably you have a pretty well fixed idea as to the ultimate value of circumstantial evidence.
Either you would hang a man on it or you wouldn't. If you wouldn't, you couldn't have got on the Frank jury. Not honestly.
Because there is no direct evidence in the case.
In the first place it would be pretty tough if everybody in the world snared the conviction that no man should be convicted on circumstantial evidence.
If that were the case the potential murderer could use a little intelligence and a bit of care in arranging the stage setting for his crime and get by with it comfortably enough. He would just provide that nobody should see him when he let his victim have it under the fifth rib, or swung the well known blunt instrument, or pulled the trigger of the equally celebrated smoking revolver.
Then the fact that the knife had been in his possession for years, or he had been seen extracting the clue from a lumber pile, or purchasing the revolver from a pawnbroker, would be valueless in default of some open-faced person who would take his stand upon the witness chair and assert dramatically:
"I seen him when he done it!"
Moreover, what are you going to do with that most monstrous of all murderers, the poisoner? It is the rarest thing in the world for a witness to be present when he offers his victim the fatal capsule and remarks:
"This is a little slug of strychnine." If he didn't say what it was, there wouldn't be any direct evidence that it wasn't quinine, you see.
So it does look as if some people in this world are well justified in their belief that there can be circumstantial evidence strong enough to hang a man.
Value of Direct Evidence.
It looks like a good thing, if only to bear the murder market.
Now, let's look over the value of direct evidence. And there's an odd thing about its actual face value, too.
Just at first sight it seems nothing could be clearer and more convincing. Here's a man, right on the spot. He sees all that occurs. All he has to do is to tell about it, in words of one syllable, if he likes-just a round, unvarnished tale.
The trouble is, there frequently is another man who also was right on the spot, and also saw all that occurred.
When it comes to telling about it, those two men, like as not, will each tell an honest and straightforward story.
But the stories may not agree.
Both May Be Honest, Too.
And both witnesses may be perfectly honest.
There was a professor of psychology or something, and he got all worked up over the amazing proposition that several intelligent persons could see a tragedy enacted and tell several and radically different stories of how it happened.
So he framed up a little game on his class of 40 students, or 60 students, or whatever number it was-all bright young college men, well above the average direct witness who just happened to be there when it happened.
The class was hearing him lecture one day, and, presumably, thinking of nothing else in the world, when one door of the room burst open and a pop-eyed man rushed in, followed closely by two others. The first man ran halfway across the room, wheeled and shouted:
"Stand back!"
His nearest pursuer leveled a paper cap pistol at him and replied:
"I'll settle you right now!"
The companion waved his arms and yelled:
"Down with the traitor!"
Then the first man ducked, ran for the door and disappeared, with the others after him.
Just Like a Regular Tragedy.
It was all unexpected, just like any regular tragedy. And it was all very sudden. It only took about ten seconds for the whole performance.
The class was surprised. That was rather natural. But the professor calmed the students and told them what it was all about. He wanted to see how accurate their powers of observation were under actual test. Had the young gentlemen seen and heard all that passed?
The young gentlemen had.
Then would the young gentlemen kindly write out each a full account of the proceeding, with the same care that would be used in testifying to the happening in a case that involved life and death?
The young gentlemen would.
And you can take it from the professor there was something to ponder in the "testimony."
A few samples will explain it.
How They Told of It.
One young gentleman testified that the foremost pursuer held a shotgun and cried, "Sic semper tyrannis!" Another was positive the weapon was a long dagger, and that the wielder said something about revenge for the invasion of his home, while his companion shouted, "Let me get at him!"
One eyewitness was sure the pursued man had dropped on his knees and lifted his hands in supplication; also that he had red whiskers; while another said he was clean shaven and held a revolver.
And that is a fair sample of the contradictory "evidence" given by eyewitnesses in the test case.
One thing stood out above all the rest:
Not one single student gave an absolutely correct account of the affair, which had been worked out and rehearsed carefully by the actors.
Believe Half You See.
And in a great many cases of direct evidence it is a pretty good plan to believe only half what you see.
And by arguing around in a circle it would seem that there is a good deal to be said in favor of circumstantial evidence, if only because it is sought intelligently and considered in cold blood, in place of the usual goggle-eyed mental condition of the witness suddenly confronted with a raw and ugly situation, entirely at variance with anything else he ever had encountered before.
And now could you qualify as juror in a circumstantial evidence case?