The Murder of Anna Wiese
Green Mountain, Iowa

EVENING TIMES REPUBLICAN

MONDAY, APRIL 02, 1894

TUESDAY, APRIL 03, 1894

HEADLINES

APRIL 02, 1894

A SCRAP AT THE START

The Celebrated Bennett Murder Case Commenced This Afternoon

Defendant Files a Motion to Have the Sheriff and Deputies Excluded

Claiming They Are Prejudiced and Making Other Serious Allegations

Appearance of the Prisoner - Dense Crowd on Deck - Selecting a Jury

THE CASE CALLED

Mrs. Emily Bennett Arraigned this Afternoon for the Murder of Anna Wiese - Affidavits Filed to Exclude Officers, Etc.

Judge Hindman convened court at 2 o'clock this afternoon to commence the trial of the Bennett murder case. Long before the opening hour there was a large crowd of people in waiting and when the doors opened the court room was almost instantly filled to almost suffocation and hundreds failed to gain admittance.

The prisoner was promptly on hand, and there was almost audible surprise expressed as the people looked upon her. The fact is the alleged pictures of Mrs. Bennett that have previously appeared in some of the newspapers are gross if not malicious misrepresentations. She is not an aged appearing woman, nor unprepossessing. Neither does she wear a sour, morose nor defiant look. She is remarkably calm and self-possessed, as she has ever been from the moment of her arrest, and her demeanor excites the admiration of many and the wonder of all.

Immediately upon the calling of the court the defense filed a motion, supported by the affidavit of Mrs. Bennett, asking that the sheriff and his deputies be not allowed to act as officers of the court during the trial. The affidavit states substantially that the sheriff and his deputies are prejudiced against the defendant and will act with partiality in the case; that the sheriff has wrongfully and untruthfully stated and asserted publicly that the defendant is guilty of the murder as charged; that he is apparently under the control of the attorneys for the plaintiff and that he will disobey the law and his duty as an officer; that he has wrongfully and unlawfully taken and carried away the "garments" of the defendant and turned them over to the plaintiff's attorneys and permitted such garments to be mutilated and destroyed, and the evidence of the defendant, all in the interest of the plaintiff, and in violation of the defendant's rights and his duty; that he is financially interested against the defendant, and that said sheriff would act with partiality in the selection of a jury.

The charge is extremely pointed and severe, and if this preliminary step is to be taken as an indication of the lines upon which the battle will be fought, much feel may be expected in the further progress of the case.

No one but lawyers and court attaches will be allowed inside the bar during the trial.

The selection of the jury is in progress as we go to press. The court announced that he would decide upon the motion filed by defense during the afternoon.

HEADLINES

April 3, 1894

GETTING A JURY

Nearly All the Challenges on Both Sides Exhausted in the Bennett Case

Probability That the Panel will Be Completed This Evening

Sheriff Pence Still In Charge - Text of the Affidavits Submitted

Court Room Again Crowded All Day - Features of the Case

PROGRESS OF THE BENNETT CASE

No Abatement of Interest, But Curiosity Somewhat Subsided - Those Affidavits, Etc.

When the hour for convening court arrived this morning the corridor and halls were filled with anxious spectators - anxious to profit from their experience of yesterday and by being early on hand get a seat. When the doors were thrown open the room was again packed full. The court at once entered upon the work of selecting a jury. Thirteen jurors of the regular panel were excused yesterday afternoon by the attorneys. Almost all of them were excused by reason of some cause that disqualified them to sit upon the jury. The examination of the jurors by the attorneys is being done very carefully, going into the minutest detail to discover if possible the bias, if any, or the prejudice existing in their minds. The question of circumstantial evidence receives special attention. The newspapers come in for their share of investigation, and while it is not so specially claimed, it is assumed that the papers have acted unfairly in their treatment of the case, and the inquiry is made whether the juror things he can throw aside all impressions he may have received by reading the articles published and render as fair a verdict as though he had not read the articles. This seems to be a hard question to answer by most of the jurors, on account of the assumption that the articles are prejudiced and false, while the average man recognizes it to be true that only facts and developments have been given in the papers, and no attempt been made to injure anyone or treat them unfairly. The defense seems to be particularly sensitive on the question, and particularly stigmatizes the printing of pictures of the leading actors in the case as unfair, prejudicial and libelous. The unusual and remarkable affidavit filed by the defense yesterday, alluded to in last evening's issue, is herewith printed in full, and also the counter affidavits of the sheriff.

AFFIDAVIT OF DEFENDANT

State of Town, Marshall County, se:

I, Emily Bennett, being duly sworn on oath, say that J. W. Pence, sheriff of Marshall county, Iowa, and his deputies are prejudiced in the above entitled case against the defendant and is partial and will act with partiality in said case and against the defendant. That he, said sheriff, has wrongfully and untruthfully stated and asserted publicly that the defendant is guilty of the murder as therein charged; that he, said sheriff, is apparently under the control of the attorneys for the plaintiff and the injury of the defendant; that he has wrongfully taken and carried away the garments of the defendant and turned them over to the plaintiff's attorneys and others, and has caused and permitted such garments to be mutilated and destroyed, and the evidence of the defendant all in the interest of the plaintiff, and in violation of the defendant's rights and his duty. That he is financially interested against the defendant in this case. That, said sheriff, would act with partiality in the selection of a jury in said case.

Signed and sworn to by Mrs. Emily Bennett

DEFENDANT'S MOTION

By virtue of the above affidavit, and the facts appearing therein the defendant asks that the said sheriff and his deputies be ordered to not further act as officers in the above case.

In reply to the motion and affidavit filed by the defendant the state filed the counter affidavit of Sheriff J. B. Pence as follows:

COUNTER AFFIDAVIT OF SHERIFF PENCE

In the District Court of the State of Iowa, in and for Marshall county. March term, A. D. 1893. State of Iowa vs. Emily Bennett. State of Iowa, Marshall county, ss.

I, J. B. Pence, on oath say: I am the sheriff of Marshall county, and have just heard read the affidavit of Emily Bennett filed in said cause, which affidavit was filed on April 2, 1894. I further state on oath, that the statements and each and all of them made in said affidavit are totally false, with the exception that a waist of the defendant was taken, which was taken lawfully under a search warrant issued by a justice of the peace. I further state that as an officer I have only done and performed my duty in attempting to discover the murderer of Anna Wiese. I would further say that while I have, from my investigations in the case, opinions in regard to it, not necessary to state, I would further say that I am entirely disinterested and desire the defendant to have as fair trial as can be given her; that I have investigated facts, have looked up evidence, but only as I believed it my duty to do. I especially deny that I am financially interested against the defendant in any way in this case, and aver that it is my intention to obey the law and the court's orders as impartially as can be done by any person. As I understand it, there will be no necessity for calling of jurymen, that duty being done by the clerk from the venires heretofore issued.

J. B Pence - Subscribed in my presence and sworn to before me by J. B. Pence, this 2nd day of April A.D. 1894. I. S. MILLARD, Clerk of District Court, in and for Marshall County, Iowa

SOME FEATURES OF THE PROCEEDINGS

The occupants of the bar enclosure are an interesting study. First, there is Judge Hindman, dignified yet courteous, firm, yet not austere, impartial, composed, but withal deeply and unusually interested. He evidently regards this as one of the most important and exacting cases that has ever come under his jurisdiction and it is plainly to be seen that he will guard the proceedings with scrupulous care and scrutiny, allowing no point or detail to escape proper attention. The attorneys in the case are not sleeping in their seats. Each is on the alert, guarding the varied interests of the client and watching the progress of the trial with unflagging interest and fidelity. The jurors in the box, undergoing preliminary questioning by counsel and court, are all attention. Each man's face wears an expression of anxiety and when one is excused he is pretty sure to heave a sigh of relief. Somehow an unusual solemnity seems to pervade the entire court room and proceedings, and when the mournful monotony is occasionally broken by a sally of wit or sarcasm, the half suppressed merriment that follows sounds like a laugh in a cemetery vault. And it is usually as brief as it is sepulchral. In fact the whole machinery of the court is as grave and somber as the hall and attaches of an inquisition. The spectators are quick to perceive this and as a consequence their deportment is such as it would be if they were attending a funeral.

Mrs. Bennett, the accused, sits almost rigid for hours at a time. The harness and apparatus that bind a condemned criminal in the fatal chair of the electrocutioner holds him no more immovable that the posture she maintains. She sits entirely alone, occupying a can bottom chair nearly in front and a little to the left of the judge, facing the court. Behind her sits her twin sister, Mrs. George Shattuck. There is a striking resemblance between these two women, although Mrs. Shattuck appears several years younger than the defendant. Mrs. Bennett is clad in very ordinary apparel. She wears a short black saque fastened at the throat with a gold plated brooch, and on her head is a brown straw hat, with no adornment having a narrow, straight brim and a flat crown. She wore no veil today, a fact that enabled those who could catch a glimpse of her face to get a much better idea of her real appearance than was possible yesterday. She closely observes all that is going on around her, while not really appearing to do so. With a scarcely perceptible movement of her head she manages, by a peculiar rolling of the eyes, to see all that is transpiring on either side of the room. This stolid posture, this painful inactivity, must of necessity tell upon her if maintained. Physical endurance has its limits, even when the mental faculties are not under a terrible tension and continuous strain. Mrs. Bennett's husband occupies a seat at the left of Mrs. Shattuck, instead of next to his wife. He is a fine looking man, with a tawny, golden-brown beard, and is probably 40 or 45 years old, but doesn't look it by ten years. Mrs. Shattuck's husband also sits just within the south rail of the bar. The Shattucks live near Rhodes, as does also the father of Mrs. Bennett and Mrs. Shattuck. His name is H. S. Gardner, a farmer, two and a half miles northwest of Rhodes. Their mother has been dead many years. Mrs. Bennett was formerly married to a man named Sherlock, who died several years before her marriage to Bennett.

SHERIFF STILL HOLD THE FORT

The sheriff is still in charge of the court, and unless something new is brought to bear he will continue to discharge his duties. There will be no ruling by the court on the motion as it now stands. The motion seems to have been filed by the defense to protect the point in case it became necessary to obtain a jury for the sheriff to select from the bystanders. As there is no probability that the extra venire will be exhausted, such a contingency will not arise, and so the motion and affidavits will simply remain as part of the record. Had the motion prevailed and the sheriff been relieved, the defense would have scored a material benefit, as they would have hoped thereof to have obtained control of the waist referred to in the affidavit, and other important exhibits and evidence in the hands of the sheriff. It is hardly probable that the defense will drop the question here but may press the matter in some different form.

MAY GET A JURY THIS EVENING

There was quite satisfactory progress made in obtaining a jury today. The law gives each party, plaintiff and defendant, the right to ten peremptory challenges and at 2:30 this afternoon each side had exercised eight of their challenges and only having two more each to exercise the prospects are that a jury will be sworn in yet this evening and the taking of testimony begun in the morning. There was an increased attendance this afternoon.

The jury was completed at 3 p.m.

Notes: One juror from the west part of the county seemed to be unable to comprehend the county attorney while examining him as to what he knew about the case, and the court had but little better success, but did finally get him to understand enough to say he couldn't try the case fairly.

All members of the jury on the regular panel were excused by the court this morning until Monday morning, April 9, when they will all be required to appear for duty if wanted.

There were not nearly so many ladies in the court room and crowding the halls and corridors as were observed yesterday. Most of them probably got a fair look at the accused during the afternoon, which seemed to be the one desire of most of those in attendance.