After the defense rested yesterday afternoon the state occupied an hour or more in rebuttal and introduced “testimony to impeach one of defendant’s witnesses on the matter of being in the slough the morning after the murder when the pearl button was discovered, and defense offered no further evidence. It was apparent that Mrs. Bennett’s counsel felt confident in the strength of their case. Many material points had been reinforced by new and additional evidence, and they entertained no apprehensions regarding the result. From present indications the case will not go to the jury before some time Friday. Arguments began this morning, Mr. Carney opening for the state. He occupied most of the day. He spoke with the force and conviction that left no doubt of his sincerity or belief that his cause was just. His argument was exhaustive, connected and logical. It was a stronger and more thorough presentation of the case than in the former trial, and many favorable comments were heard during the noon recess upon his argument up to that hour. He had then only reached the supposed motive for the murder, and his efforts this afternoon, especially toward the conclusion, were still more forceful and eloquent.

Mr. Carney concluded his argument at a quarter past 3 this afternoon, and after five minutes recess Mr. Meeker opened for the defense.

The defense introduced some pages from authorities on medical jurisprudence, after court convened this afternoon, and then declared their case closed.

In rebuttal, Sheriff Pence, F. C. Foster and Wilson, testified regarding the boards submitted in evidence, that they did not appear to be the same as in the gate.

Charles Kauffman told of seeing a man in Bennett’s corn field, several days after the murder.

E. G. Cripps testified relative to being in the corn field east of Bennett’s on Tuesday after the murder; went south along the edge of the corn; saw no tracks.

James Coburn – Was along the edge of the corn on Wednesday; saw no tracks; another man passed through going east.

Frank Middleton – Examined dress skirt of Anna Wiese; saw nothing that indicated bloody finger marks on the skirt.

Mrs. Arthur Hill – The color and shades of color of Anna Wiese’s hair, again came up like Banquo’s ghost and a squabble ensued between the attorneys. The court thought there had been sufficient testimony on these points and as a result the witness stepped down without answering the question.

E. N. Hill – Did not notice any blood on back porch the morning following the murder.

Mrs. E. N. Hill – There was no blood on our porch the morning after the murder.

T. P. Lowe – Helped handle the girl after her murder. Saw no finger marks of blood on the skirt. Two bunches on this card (in evidence) seem to be Anna Wiese’s hair; the other seems lighter than hers.

Ella Roberts – Have combed Anna Wiese’s hair three times. Think the darker of these bunches isn’t Anna’s; never noticed so much difference in shade.

William Bremner – Distance from the culvert to place of murder is twenty-five rods and eleven feet.

G. R. Haas – Got a knife of Arthur Sherlock. He said he talked with his mother about the mail after coming from Green Mountain, the night of the murder. Searched in the yards of the Hills and Rusies on Thursday after murder, for clubs similar to this; found none.

A. E. Wilbur called – The question of admitting testimony regarding the hair found in the girl’s hand by defendant’s counsel at the disinterment of the body in January was now sprung, but the court ruled against its admission and the witness was not allowed to testify.

Dr. Cottle – Moisture of the hand, by perspiration, etc., conditions of the atmosphere, etc., would prevent blood drying so quickly on the hands as in other conditions; if the hand were closed it might make a stain in twenty or thirty minutes, - open in ten or twelve.

County Attorney, J. L. Carney opened the argument to the jury in behalf of the state in the Bennett case this morning.

The case, as you well know, is one of circumstantial evidence, said Mr. Carney. You jurors must now somewhat remove yourselves from the close scrutiny of the evidence as given and take a broader view of the case, and arrive at a verdict that shall be the best exercise of your minds and judgment in weighing and giving credence only to such testimony as is true and relevant. You should not let your sympathy influence your judgment because the defendant is a woman. Be careful. Do not make yourselves other than men in passing upon these facts. What can be gathered from circumstantial evidence will be discussed on both sides. The state not expect to prove that Mrs. Bennett murdered Anna Wiese by direct or positive evidence. This atrocious crime calls upon us for the greatest diligence and most persistent energy in finding and punishing its author. The circumstances should be consistent with the guilt of the defendant. Circumstantial evidence plays a major part in the conviction of criminals, otherwise they would escape by droves. If the probability is shown that the defendant was connected with this circumstance it should be given weight. Two well connected consistent circumstances have often convicted the guilty party. The number or character of circumstances may vary so as to be inconsistent in a case. This girl appeared not to have an enemy in the world, unless one person had a secret grudge against her. If she had an enemy the defense would have exhausted every effort in bringing the fact to light. Efforts were made by defense to divert your attention from defendant and throw suspicion on others, more especially upon Henry Rusie. Defendant can not be presumed guilty. She must be proven guilty. The fact that the crowd in searching for clues to the murder took a direction leading toward the home of defendant was of itself a significant fact. I shall argue this case upon the presumption that what Henry Rusie and Perry Griggs have said about the occurrence is true and that you believe it. All the circumstances show that the murderer passed through the slough. The trail through the slough and the finding of the button were significant and important circumstances. Competent witnesses corroborate the testimony of Phil Rusie and Bowles in their statement relative to finding the button. The button evidence is of pungent and vivid force when connected with the waist from which a similar button is missing. One of the most significant things in regard to this waist is the defendant’s own story regarding the buttons. Her explanation relative to the waist was no explanation. She undertook to make us believe that the vacant place was left on the waist and that the old pants button was sewed on these after the murder. The guacum test has been proven reliable and its trustworthiness is well established. The tests made upon this waist exposed the blood. It is a strange thing that the old waist, which had lain around there since May, should be gathered up by Mrs. Shattuck and Ivy Bundy and washed. Visitors would not go around the house hunting up clothes to wash, if what Mr. Yeager says regarding the finding of this waist is true, this woman is guilty of that crime and wore this waist on the night of its commission.

Another thing inconsistent with the defendant’s innocence was her conduct on the night of the murder, when Arthur Hill came to their house and told him what had transpired down in the slough. Bennett’s sense of modesty must have been excessive to think of ordering his wife to go back and dress herself. Their conduct the remainder of that night was suspicious. Why did they not light up their house? He had good need to borrow a gun that night. He and his wife were afraid the avengers would call upon them, and they would have occasion to defend themselves and their property. Why should Mrs. Bennett wash the door knob and not the other stains on the day of the search? She knew they were looking for clues to the crime. The circumstances of the blood stains on the Bennett’s premises are of such weight and significance that they must impress you with their importance and clearness. Defendant’s testimony regarding the overalls seems entirely irreconcilable. How could they have remained damp if washed a week before and hung out to dry in the open air for two days. I insist that she did not testify correctly on this point, and that those overalls were not washed earlier than the day previous to the search. Easy for her to tell a truthful story of what occurred before and after the murder; easy to say they were asleep at the time of its commission. Why doesn’t Bennett frankly admit that, while out after the cows he saw the Knight boys and T. P. Lowe driving along the highway, and that he saw Anna Wiese meet them on the way to Arthur Hill’s? He withholds this fact for fear it will be prejudicial to the case of his wife. Knowing of the reports about Anna’s character and fearing she and Arthur would meet that night, the Bennetts went down there to intercept her on the highway and give her a piece of their mind or teach her such a lesson as she would not easily forget.

Noon adjournment.

Argument of Mr. Carney continued. The time occupied in traversing the distance from the place of murder to Bennett’s house, is not inconsistent with the guilt of defendant as regards the drying of blood in the hand. Grouping together the evidence of reliable witnesses relative to the time of the crime, the girl’s murderers would have ample time to get home before Arthur Sherlock returned. The doctors and other witnesses have shown that the time in which human blood will dry depends upon conditions of temperature, perspiration, etc. The cuts in the garments and on the girl’s shoulders, and the fact that the club was also used, indicate that two persons committed the crime, which I verily believe. Defendant has had no bodily disease at all, is not broken down, but I believe she is a strong, healthy woman. She at least had the strength to assist in this murder. The alleged difficulty with her right shoulder, in flying out of joint, would not militate against her ability to cut the throat of this girl. I now come to the strongest of all points brought out, that of the hair found in the hand of Anna Wiese. This hair was a woman’s. There is no doubt upon this point. We say it was Mrs. Bennett’s. They say it was Anna Wiese’s. The latest works of authority show that criminals have been executed on the identity of hair and fibers.

HELP US SOLVE THIS MURDER

THE NIGHT WATCHMAN HOMEPAGE