The Murder of Anna Wiese
Green Mountain, Iowa

EVENING TIMES REPUBLICAN

TUESDAY, APRIL 17, 1894

HEADLINES

APRIL 17, 1894

CIRCUMSTANTIAL CHAIN

Mr. Boardman Weaves An Elaborate Net Work of Presumptive Evidence

Logical Array of Circumstances Pointing Like So Many Fingers

And All Toward Mrs. Bennett, As He Construes Their Significance

Mr. Boardman, opening the argument to the jury in behalf of the state in the Bennett murder case, spoke for four hours yesterday afternoon, and had not concluded when court adjourned. The substance of his argument was as follows:

H. E. J. BOARDMAN

We have come where it is my duty to talk to you, and I intend to do so in plain words. It is an unwelcome duty to assist in determining who is the murderer of Anna Wiese. You will be asked to be kind to the defendant. But this is no place for kindness; there is no opportunity for kindness; you are to close your eyes to the person or sex and determine the case upon its merits and the testimony. If any mistake has been committed there is redress, for the defendant; the governor can be appealed to and has the further right of appeal to the supreme court, the state of Iowa cannot appeal, and if acquitted that is the end of this case - it has no right to appeal.

Anna Wiese was an industrious girl and led a blameless life. She appeared to be well thought of, and had but one enemy; she was entitled to be protected by all. On the fatal evening she started to a neighbor's and she should not be criticized for that; she was entitled to go after a week's work to visit a neighbor. When she started home that night, if you had been told she was going to be brutally murdered you would have thought it incredible, more especially when you take into consideration her blameless life. It was the right of the defense and it was their duty to show that some one else had committed this murder if they could. Two men were arrested for the crime, but they have been discharged. If there was any reasonable ground to have suspected anyone else murdered Anna Wiese, the defense would certainly have shown it. There is no evidence whatever that she committed suicide. Circumstances show that she did not do so. The circumstantial evidence is strong that she did not kill herself; circumstantial evidence is the best and most satisfying; witnesses may lie, but circumstances will not; men's acts every day are circumstances, and the most important acts of life are determined by circumstances. A chain of circumstance all pointing in one direction is stronger than one; if one circumstance is not sufficient upon which to determine so great a crime a number combined may be; most of the murderers are found only on circumstantial evidence; if circumstance would not convict, the commission of a crime in the dark must go unpunished. A person who commits a crime can not act natural - they will tell a falsehood.

Some one in that neighborhood committed that murder. It was not a vagrant; it was some one that knew where Anna Wiese was that night. You have had no evidence of any one outside, a non-resident, being there that night, but there is circumstantial evidence that will show you the person who committed this murder knew that Anna Wiese was at Hill's that night, and prepared to meet her; there is no doubt but the murderer lived in that neighborhood and knew of the whereabouts of Anna Wiese for two hours before the murder. We have brought all that have been accused of this murder before you, for you to see and look them in the face, and determine if they were the parties. The process of eliminating and clearing away all those who possibly could have committed the crime is of the highest consequence, yet the defense will tell you that anyone might have committed this murder - which is true - but there is no evidence to show that another person did do it. I don't apprehend you will have any trouble in determining that this murder was not committed by any one not acquainted with the movements of Anna Wiese. No one lay in wait to kill her that knew nothing about where Anna Wiese was liable to be; and it was done by a person that preferred to use the left hand rather than the right. They tell you these wounds were inflicted from behind. In this we agree; the stabs in the corset show the stabs were nearly all in the left shoulder, and those in front were high up; the wounds in the neck show the deep wound commenced on the right side, and continued to the left until it run out; the wounds could not have been inflicted from the front, with no opportunity to confine the head. If the head was held from behind the wound as shown could have been easily inflicted; and all the conditions and circumstances show the wound was inflicted from behind and by a left-handed person; and in this position, with the advantage of having hold of the hair, that person could have easily cut the throat in a moment.

The defendant is the only person that has appeared in this case that habitually uses the left hand, and on this question, seeing the importance it would assume, the defense has charged forth and attempts to show she did not use her left hand; and yet the evidence shows she naturally used it. I undertake to state it as a fact that the stains upon the wire fence were made by a person that preferred to use the left hand. Whoever passed through that fence must have done so with her head to the south and that would be an unnatural position for a person using the right hand. The mark on the door knob again shows the act of a left-handed person for the stain was on the left side of the knob.

This murder was committed by a woman, and not by a man. The particular hacking way in which it was done indicates a woman - men do not do that way. A man would have made a stab at a mortal part and at once cut the throat; there was evidence that the hair had been pulled; the face was scratched, and all these are circumstances indicating it was done by a woman, and by one not used to the combat. The murder was committed by an enemy; the circumstances will show it was some person who desired to inflict punishment, and was not actuated by passion or lust. A man did not kill her who was overcome by lust or passion, for he would not have stabbed and cut her as he did. The clothes were not disarranged and the assault was entirely about her head and neck, and all shows it was the act of an enemy; and when you have found an enemy of Anna Wiese you have found the murderer.

I claim there was not an original intention to murder; but if a person one moment before the murder is committed determines to kill it is murder in the first degree. If hate is in the heart it will impet to murder. I believe Mrs. Bennett had warned Anna Wiese off the premises; she knew of the improper talk between the girl and her boy, and believed there was an arrangement to meet on the road that night, and she determined to go down there and punish her, and to disguise herself by putting on a pair of overalls, and if she assumes the form of her son so much the better. She decoys the girl into the weeds; she pulls her hair and stabs her, and finally cuts her throat. For two years defendant had been using harsh language against Anna Wiese; she had told more than one person of her feeling in this respect; there is evidence of a certain flirting between the son and Anna, and defendant had told her she should keep away. Arthur Sherlock was at the school house and nudged her, which was as much to say, "when we can meet we will meet." They had grown up together; the mother knew of all this, and having her heart set upon the marriage of her son with Etta Simmons, she had a motive. Is the great friendliness they claim to have existed between the parties and the kissing of the mother at the murder consistent with the evidence that she was for two years vilifying the girl? On the Sunday before the murder Anna Wiese no doubt went to the house in the hopes to see Arthur Sherlock; Bennett seemed to be on watch. We may never know how the mother told her that night never to come again upon the place; Mrs. Bennett has told a half dozen different versions of the interview that night; Bennett and Arthur Sherlock both say the interview that night was a long one, and yet, when Sheriff Foster was there soon after the murder defendant told him she called to Anna and she refuses to answer; she made this statement at a time when she knew she was being suspected, and was trying to make the impression that she was frequently with Anna Wiese; Mrs. Hooper, their own witness, related the incident as different from the way it was related to Sheriff Foster. When you find contradicting statements you find guilt. Who is it that is changing gates? Who is it that changes the casing in the door? Who is it that finds hair in the hand of Anna Wiese after all the examination of those hands? Is that consistent with the theory of innocence? There is incentive for the defense to go to the greatest length to fabricate circumstances. No other woman in that country found it necessary to show her relations with Anna Wiese and to so state them as to throw off suspicion. I believe that Arthur Sherlock and Anna Wiese were upon the most intimate terms; all the circumstances are conclusive of these facts; defendant felt that Anna Wiese was defying her and following up Arthur Sherlock; Mr. Bennett wouldn't say when I pressed him how near he went to Arthur Hill's house when he went after the cows that night; he wouldn't locate where he found them; one witness, did, however, say he saw Mr. Bennett in the field after the cows, and did see Anna Wiese on the road. But take away all knowledge of where Anna Wiese was - with Arthur Sherlock away and with the suspicion that something was wrong - wasn't it a matter they would be likely to investigate and see whether an intrigue was being carried on? And, having gone down there, isn't it of the most reasonable consequence that she would immediately say, "Did not I not tell you in that interview last Sunday not to follow up Arthur Sherlock?" and then fly at her and scratch her face? She went there to punish her, and under the circumstances I ask you, wouldn't Anna be frozen with terror, and would she be in any condition to defend herself, confronted by such an apparition and such a tigress? The only thing she would naturally do would be to scream, and then followed the cutting of the throat.

There has been falsehood after falsehood; she said her hair was exactly like Anna Wiese's, and yet it is shown by witness after witness that there is a great difference; and is it an indication of innocence for defendant to say that she stood up by the side of Anna Wiese and compared her hair, and found them exactly alike? Another indication is that the murderer went up the slough towards the Bennett's house and a trail of blood was found upon the fence, on the gate, up on the door, and lastly upon the waist found in the possession of the defendant. It is clearly shown that the only way of escape was to pass up through this slough. The theory of cherry stains comes from the family and two friends of the family, and how will this compare with the evidence of the sheriffs who went there and said it had the indication of blood? It was committed by a person of nerve, and then defendant said to a witness, when talking about the horror of viewing the wounds of Anna Wiese, that she had the nerve to look at it. The worst criminals go to the scaffold asserting their innocence, and you must not take too much consideration of the fact of her being able to view the corpse and not show indications of fear; it is not an indication of innocence.

All the testimony shows that the defendant was physically capable of doing this deed; all her habits of life were conducive to the hardening of her muscle and she could swing a can of milk weighing forty-five pounds clear of a barrel. Who is here to say that Mrs. Bennett is not a capable woman? Why, Mr. Bennett and Arthur Sherlock, and not her family physician. He says she was physically well developed; there was nothing wrong about that left arm until after the murder, and it is shown that she preferred the use of that arm by throwing apples and lifting platforms. It never will be shown to you that Mrs. Bennett had to cut that throat standing up. We have a right to assume that, frozen with terror and powerless, Anna sank upon her knees and became an easy victim.

Coming to the scientific testimony, the authors say that hair and other substances may be of importance to determine who the murderer is. Is there anything here to show differently? Has it been transversed in a single material point? It may not be positive, but in circumstantial evidence several circumstances are more satisfactory than one, and these taken in connection with others furnish the most satisfactory conclusions. There is no evidence contradicting the fact that the fibers found under the nails of Anna Wiese were identical with the fibers found in the hair of Mrs. Bennett, and were not found in the hair of Anna Wiese. The characteristics of the fibers are the same and the distinctive peculiarities are the same. Our expert evidence and the books say this is important; and they have only met it by Dr. Taylor saying fibers may be found everywhere. No attempt was made to produce similar ones by the defendant. In the hair, on the breast and in the hand there were no constrictions, nor in the hair of Mrs. Bennett, but there are constrictions in the head of Anna Wiese. Dr. Taylor said he did not examine as to constrictions, and on that point he was of but little value. He doubtless was told that the whole case was resting on the splitting of hairs, and he examined as to that point and stopped. We did not rest upon the fact of split hair, but on the question of the character of splits; we don't claim a mathematical certainty from the appearance of the fibers and hairs, but we do claim the similarity is another finger pointing to defendant, and is to be considered with the others in the case. Dr. Taylor gave the hair found in the hand only a few minutes consideration and could not give any satisfactory characteristics.

When the throat is cut the blood will flow, and the hand that cut that throat must have been thoroughly saturated; the person that inflicted the wounds must have been covered with blood; and though the blood may have dried in the hand, it may have come in contact with the clots on the cloths; or, who will say the boards on the gate were not damp and by that means left an imprint? Mr. Foster went up stairs and found two pairs of overalls and they were still damp; they were washed for some purpose, and when asked why they were washed, they said it was to take out paint, and yet every woman of Mrs. Bennett's age knows she cannot wash out paint.

Mr. Boardman had spoken four hours, and complaining of hoarseness, court adjourned at 5:30 until morning.

TUESDAY MORNING - CONTINUATION OF MR. BOARDMAN'S ARGUMENT

A jury of twelve good men are confessedly the best tribunal that the civilized world has ever discovered to try a question of fact. You should take a common sense view of the surroundings; counsel in the opening advised you to keep your eyes on certain men who would be brought before you; they have been here and you have had an opportunity to see them; and have you seen anything or heard anything that would lead you to believe they are chargeable with this crime? You have had the opportunity to see and consider as counsel have advised you to do.

It is extremely hard for one who has committed a murder to be natural, to appear natural. Reputation is what people say about a person, and the defense has thought it necessary to refute rumors that are current in the neighborhood where she lived. They thought it necessary to show all the circumstances of the death of the defendant's first husband, and many other hard rumors that were current in the neighborhood. On the night of the murder it is of the greatest consequence to know what the Bennett's were doing, and yet, when Mr. Bennett was asked if they were asleep when notified of the murder, when pressed to state, he refused to give any positive statement as to whether they had or had not; on this point there is a conflict of testimony. Counsel said in his opening he would prove they were abed and asleep. Then, too, it is shown that they acted in a very peculiar way when notified; more than one call was necessary to arouse them, and yet they can say they were asleep; and when he did come to the door he had on his overalls and stood behind the screen door and refused to come out, which the experience of all men shows would have been the natural course to pursue. It is for you to single out all these circumstances, examine them and compare them with all other circumstances; a number of small circumstances combined and applied to the main circumstance - the murder - will enable you to determine the verdict.

Mr. Boardman here went into the question of expert testimony, claiming that on all the important points upon which the state relies, they were not controverted by the defendant, or if touched upon corroborated the state's position. He also called the jury's attention to the fact that the experts on the part of the defendant declared the color of the hair of Anna Wiese and Mrs. Bennett was the same, when it is perfectly apparent from samples shown that there is a marked difference; also to the fact that they did not consider accidents or peculiarities in the hair, and when they came to them they threw them out. He went extensively into the testimony of both Mr. Ricker and Dr. Taylor, read a great deal of their testimony, and argued to the jury that their testimony showed they had only made a superficial examination for the purpose of determining that all the hair is split, and on all other points in this case as to similarity and peculiarities they threw out and did not consider their testimony as of any value outside of the one point of split hairs, and on that question they only examined to determine that hair in all heads is more or less split, did not examine as to peculiarities as to splits in particular heads, and that Dr. Taylor admitted he did not examine on that point at all, not having been requested to; and that as to the disputed hair on the breast and in the hand, he only spent five to ten minutes in all, and that he paid but little attention to them. He therefore argued that the doctor's comparisons could amount to nothing.

The actions of Mrs. Bennett are important, continued Mr. Boardman. She could not sleep; a hard working woman, she would naturally sleep, and not lie awake; but when Mrs. Sprecker was subpoenaed to the grand jury she declared she could not sleep for three nights. It was not then the fear of an action against Mrs. Bennett that should have kept her awake, but a goading conscience. Her family physician said she complained of sleeplessness, and he found nothing the matter with her physically. And from his testimony one can only draw the conclusion that she did not take the large quantities of medicine he left her, or her body was in such an abnormal condition the medicine would not affect her. She was so affected in her mind that she was unconscious of her actions, and the testimony is that she acted strangely on many occasions; that is not consistent with innocence, but is the manner of a person acting unnaturally; and has never been the same woman since the murder. On the day of her arrest defendant was found in bed in a most unnatural condition; she was claiming to be sick, and calling for a doctor, and yet when the doctor is called he finds nothing. I insist that the admission in the jail that if she had to "go over the road" others would have to go with her, and when she said if she had to go to the pen she could go to the pen, is not the natural and consistent statement of an innocent woman, more especially when there is no necessity for her to make such statements, and nothing to draw them out. It will be insisted to you that the person who committed this murder was a man, and the assault was made with criminal intent, but I call your attention to the fact that her person was completely protected and her clothing was completely arranged, and there is no evidence of such an assault.

I would like to present a great deal of the testimony and discuss more of the exhibits, but I am reminded that I am to be followed by able counsel, and desist, leaving those things to be discussed by Mr. Carney. I will say in conclusion, make the case your own, and of every fair girl's in the land, and I think that, after weighing carefully all the circumstances, you will find no reasonable doubt of the guilt of the defendant.

TUESDAY, APRIL 17, 1894 Continued with the Following Headlines:

THE ARGUMENT

Mr. Boardman Concludes His Address in the Bennett Case at Noon

Conceded to Be One of the Ablest Arguments He Ever Made

Mrs. Bennett Bears the Scathing Arraignment With Unmoved Demeanor

O. L. Binford Opens for the Defense With a Strong Argument

THE SUMMING UP

Mr. Boardman Concludes His Argument at Noon and Mr. Binford Follows, for Defense

Should each of the attorneys employed in the Bennett murder trial occupy as much time as Mr. Boardman has in his opening argument the case would not go to the jury before the last of this week. Mr. Boardman spoke four hours yesterday afternoon and three hours this forenoon, concluding at the noon adjournment. It is hardly expected, however, that any of the other counsel will occupy as much time as Mr. Boardman did. Mr. O. L. Binford commenced the opening argument for the defense when court reconvened at 1:30 this afternoon and will probably conclude before the evening adjournment. Mr. Caswell will follow in behalf of the defense. Should he not begin until morning it is altogether probable that he will occupy about all of tomorrow. Ernest Binford will not speak, it is understood, and Mr. Carney will close for the defense. As it looks now he may not get the floor until Thursday morning, and, assuming that it will require about one day for him to review the case in full, as he has mapped out the ground, and then for Judge Hindman to submit his instructions, there is little prospect that the jury will retire to deliberate upon the case before Thursday evening.

The court room was not so densely crowded as usual this forenoon. This doesn't necessarily indicate a lack of interest, but it may be accounted for in several ways. Country people are busy in their fields and many town people with their gardens and other occupations. Many of them who have been almost in constant attendance upon the trial are tired out. Excitement cannot always remain at a high pitch. And then, saying nothing in disparagement of Mr. Boardman's transcendent ability as a pleader, his speech is not of the sensational kind that entertains or thrills an audience, especially after he has spoken at great length and his voice becomes husky. He made a great speech. This is conceded on all sides. Few there were, doubtless, who anticipated such an arraignment, such an elaborate and comprehensive structure of presumptive guilt as he built up and around the accused. It was exhaustive, logical, complete in every phase and had apparent force of his own honest convictions in the premises.

But all the cumulative and constructive genius of this shrewd attorney, all his graphic grouping together of corroborative incidents, all his smooth machinery of manipulation, all his array of allegations and all his scathing arraignment were evidently as the prattle of a child upon the mind of the accused. She watched him incessantly, but gave no sign that his incisive utterances were rending her heart strings, and the verdict is that she is more of an enigma than ever.

Mr. Binford opened for the defense this afternoon in an earnest appeal to the jury to try this case without bias or prejudice and upon the evidence, carefully weighed. He challenged many of the statements made by counsel in opening for the state, called especial attention to the unreliable character of much of the testimony submitted by the prosecution, and grew impetuous and eloquent in defense of the brave but feeble woman charged with this awful crime. The court room was filled again this afternoon, with a crowd eager to hear what could be said in opposition to Mr. Boardman's exhaustive argument.