The Murder of Anna Wiese
Green Mountain, Iowa

EVENING TIMES REPUBLICAN

FRIDAY, MAY 18, 1894 & MAY 23, 1894

HEADLINES

MAY 18, 1894

Cost to the County of the Bennett Case

COSTS IN THE BENNETT CASE

Not Nearly So Large as Many Predicted

A good many have estimated that the costs to Marshall county of the Bennett-Wiese murder case would approximate $5,000. The facts, however, show that they are considerably under $3,000. Auditor Kilborn has compiled a table of the various items of expense in the case, from the time of the murder to the close of the recent trial. In one or two instances the exact figures are not known, but in such cases the estimates are over rather than under. The expense account of Dr. Haines also, $105, is as yet withheld, owing to a question arising as to the justness of the claim. But this will probably be paid. The expenses, therefore, of the case are as follows:

HEADLINES

MAY 23, 1894

THE BENNETT MURDER CASE

Several outside papers express surprise that the costs in the Bennett murder case amount only to $2,641. For such an important, complicated, hard fought case the amount is indeed small. The sheriff's fees are remarkably low and the attorneys' fees are very reasonable in view of the labor and ability secured. Yet when ungrudging approval is bestowed on the officers and attorneys who labored so hard in this case and kept expenses down as much as possible it remains true that the county does not want another $2,600 trial unless some new evidence can be produced.

Nothing could have justified the authorities in refusing an indictment or failing to bring Mrs. Bennett to a trial. Nothing but a full and exhaustive trial could have answered the demand for a thorough investigation. That was had and the result was simply the development of one of those extraordinary cases in circumstantial evidence about which equally intelligent and equally conscientious men will differ hopelessly. Circumstantial evidence seems to affect men according to temperament. The same proof convinces one man and leaves another groping in the dark. So it was the jury in the Bennett case disagreed. So in all probability another one would disagree on the same evidence. On the same proof there would be little chance of a verdict either way.

If there had been any error, oversight or lack of ability on the first trial of the case there would be good reason for bringing it up again. But if there was anything of the sort no one has pointed it out. The plain truth is the case was tried for all it was worth. We don't believe the state could do any better on a second trial if it should employ twice as many lawyers and expend twice as much feeing experts. We doubt with all the advantage of going over the ground a second time whether the state could improve in any particular on the first trial which was uncommonly thorough and complete. Hence this paper without knowing anything as to Mr. Carney's intentions or desires in the matter is free to say for itself it hopes there will be no new trial unless new evidence can be provided.