Mr. Meeker made a masterly argument in behalf of Mrs. Bennett yesterday afternoon. He assailed every essential point that the state had sought to prove, not in critical detail, but in comprehensive, sweeping arraignment that was more effective than if he had confined himself to the intricate minutia of the case. He reviewed the evidence in its various grouping of circumstances and characterized the state’s theory of motive as too flimsy and puerile for serous consideration. He reiterated and emphasized the statement that no criminating fact or circumstance had been brought home to this defendant. And this, he argued, was all important in making up a verdict that should be consistent with the rules of law and the evidence. His argument was such as to impress a jury and an audience and many favorable comments were heard after the adjournment of court. One of the strongest features of the argument was Mr. Meeker’s insistence that legal tests of circumstantial evidence – time-tested safeguards against its dangers – should be applied to the testimony against Mrs. Bennett.

Mr. Caswell began the closing argument for the defense this morning and has occupied the entire day. He carefully dissected the case in its every feature or aspect. No detail was omitted, no item overlooked. Each circumstance was carefully considered and every position of the state vigorously assailed. He contended that the presumption of guilt would apply to others with greater force than to Mrs. Bennett. His review of the case was painstaking, thorough and systematic. He believes his client guiltless of this monstrous crime. There is no doubt of that. And he fully believes there is no tangible testimony pointing to her as the murderer of Anna Wiese. He characterized the crime as one of the foulest and most inexcusable in the state’s history – a crime that must have had a powerful motive for its commission, and he expressed himself unwilling that its real author should be lightly punished.

Mr. Boardman will close the case for the state and will probably consume the greater part of tomorrow.

The court room was densely crowded with spectators this afternoon and the strictest attention was paid to Mr. Caswell’s argument.

There is no question that Anna Wiese used her long arms to ward off the blows of her assailant. Was she liable to grasp her own hair and pull it out or break it off? Not at all. The supposition is absurd. Then she must have grasped those hairs from her assailant. Her hands would not be holding her own hair but in reaching her adversary. Dr. Smith, their own witness, has testified that the hairs on the shoulder were all broken off. Two certain hair pins were found at the place of murder. Mrs. Rusie testified that they are unlike any used by Anna or herself. The use of these hair pins is to assert in proving that a woman was there besides the girl. The clubs introduced here by defense are not similar in color or other respects to the one found at the place of murder. Mrs. Bennett’s actions since that time should be carefully considered by you – her alleged illness, her sleepness, etc. She could not sleep because her mind was disturbed and her own physician could not give her relief. Look at her conduct on the day of the search, her frenzied actions, and how she went up on the hill to see them execute Isenhart. Consider both her conduct and her statements relative to the crime. You should consider, also, the liability of the hair produced here by defense to have got mixed or misplaced. The defense must have the preponderance of testimony to establish an alibi. If you believe defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, that is all that is necessary. You should not hesitate on account of sex or of any other humane consideration. It seems to me from the evidence adduced that the guilt is conclusive. I feel that upon you is cast great responsibility. It is for you to say that we have found at last one of the murderers of Anna Wiese.

Mr. Carney finished speaking at 3:15 p.m.

J. F. Meeker opened the argument in behalf of the defendant. He explained first to the jury what was necessary in predicating a verdict upon circumstantial evidence. The danger of making a mistake in considering circumstances was pointed out. All these circumstances must be reconciled and used only by the rules of law. Not one of them has been brought home to this woman. Nothing has been shown by the state indicating that there was the least malice or enmity or ill feeling between Anna and the defendant. There is not a scintilla of testimony that there was the least ill feeling between them. It is not incumbent upon us to show that some one else had hatred in his heart for this girl. You may sift the testimony and you will find there is not a reason known to mankind why she should kill Anna Wiese. There is always a motive for murder. Not a witness for the state has said that one of the stains on Bennett premises was blood. If you can convict Mrs. Bennett for wiping the stain off her door knob you can convict half the housewives in Marshalltown. Every one of the officers say they saw nothing suspicious in defendant’s conduct. You must bring this button home to Mrs. Bennett before it is a circumstance of a feather’s weight. The trail through the slough is the most flimsy circumstance in connection with this case; if it existed at all, evidence shows that it tended away from and not toward Bennett’s. If defendant was shamming sickness, as the state claims, when was the time for it? Why, her sickness should have begun on Sunday night, immediately after the commission of this awful crime, and she would have been sick. But she was about her ordinary work, as usual, the next day, and out where all the neighbors could see her. She went to Rusie’s and sat two hours in the room with the mangled corpse, attended her funeral, and a number of witnesses testified that she acted as natural as anyone there.

Mr. Caswell began his argument in behalf of the defense this morning. He told at the outset of the good standing of the Bennett family in the community where they reside, of the good qualities of the defendant, etc., and some of the villainous stories regarding her career. The absence of motive was dwelt upon with emphasis and considerable length. Why should this defendant dress up in hideous attire, with overalls on, crawl through wire fences, and go down into the bottom of a slough and only a very short distance from Rusie’s to deliver a moral lecture to this girl? And, for what? Why, it is the most nonsensical idea ever advanced. It would be the act of a maniac, not a sane person. No one has testified that Arthur ever attempted to wait upon this girl, or that she ever sought his company. I say that the party who went out there to meet Anna Wiese that night went to commit crime but not murder. He meant wrong to the girl, but not violence. Failing to gain her consent to a vile proposition, or her promise not to expose him, he sought to seal her lips and save his own reputation. The circumstances point ten thousand times stronger in another direction, that is, toward Henry Rusie, than in the direction of this old woman. And yet I would not dare follow them, strong as they are, and convict without further testimony. I am charging no one. I am only repeating the story. If these circumstances do not create a suspicion against this man, how can the circumstances convict this woman? The girl’s throat was never cut while she was standing up. But even if it had this woman could not have done it. She was first knocked down with a club and stabbed with a knife. Her throat was cut afterward. Counsel, in his opening argument, admits that the girl fought, that she fought for her life with such a desperation that the defendant could not have killed her. Women do not carry knives around in their pockets when they go out to deliver a moral lecture. There was but one person there that night when the girl was murdered, because his business did not permit an audience.

There is no circumstance showing that more than one person was concerned in the murder, and the motive will not admit of two. I say again that I do not charge this crime upon Henry Rusie. But I say that if he is innocent, then a chain of circumstances may cluster around an innocent person that appear strongly indicative of guilt. And this rule applies equally to Henry Rusie and Mrs. Bennett. How easy then to make a mistake. Both may be innocent. This woman could not have committed this crime in the time they say it was done. The hair was not clutched tight in the girl’s hand as they attempted to prove, showing it was not pulled out of the assailant’s head.

They have got the murderer running, in order that the blood may not be dry on the hands and that they make a stain at Bennett’s; they have got to have the murderer lying down in order not to be seen by Rusie and Arthur Hill. You can not reconcile these two facts and say it was Mrs. Bennett. How impossible for the button to have fallen on top of the grass that was trodden down. If Mrs. Bennett had been either crawling or walking then her body or skirts would have brushed it off the grass. Why should she have kept to the northeast and on high ground, when there was lower ground in which to hide, and that in the direction of her home? Another thing. If this button came from a garment worn by the murderer of Anna Wiese, then it is proof positive that Mrs. Bennett did not do the deed, for there is no button missing from this waist. The old pants button has been there for months and year, as the rusted condition of the thread clearly indicates. You must use reason in considering these circumstances. They say imagine – I say reason and where reason stops you must stop. Do you suppose that she, if she had been a murderess, would have kept this bloody old waist in her house and then have taken the officers all over the house where they could readily see these evidences of crime. Defendant has always advised me to go to the very bottom of this crime, if that will develop the truth.

Noon adjournment.

Mr. Caswell continued: It is said that this girl was killed by an enemy. I think it was not by any known enemy. I think she knew that party and that she apprehended no danger from his presence at that time and place. Now, is it possible that this defendant, dressed in the hideous costume they describe, could have gotten within reach of her without exciting alarm? If the absence of a button from this waist would convict this woman, the presence of it should acquit her. If a similarity of the buttons is against her a dissimilarity should be construed in her favor. (Counsel here arraigned in scathing and bitter terms the officers who threw Mrs. Bennett into jail and in a cell with Maud Stover, and then brought the latter into court, dishonored and impeached, to testify against defendant). If this waist had been upon Mrs. Bennett the night of the murder it is the best evidence in the world that she did not commit this crime, for it would have been saturated with blood, and no one witness has sworn that there was a drop of blood on it. There is no such thing as shaking a witness from truth. These simple country people, Arthur Sherlock and Mr. Bennett and this defendant are not shrewder than these trained attorneys for the state. And yet they were unable to shake or weaken their testimony in the smallest particular. A comparison of the clubs here in evidence shows the utter unreliability of that circumstance as incriminating the defendant. This woman, with the defect in her shoulder, would not have called into requisition this weakest part of her make-up.

HELP US SOLVE THIS MURDER

THE NIGHT WATCHMAN HOMEPAGE