The logical acuteness and keenness of analysis that have contributed to give H. E. J. Boardman his commanding reputation as one of the ablest lawyers in Iowa were made manifest soon after he began his argument this morning. Space will permit only a reference to some of Mr. Boardman’s leading points. A full appreciation of the argument was reserved for those who heard it and it is quite safe to say all who had that pleasure will agree that Marshalltown’s distinguished lawyer never made an abler effort.

Shortly after the opening this morning, Mr. Boardman took up the maps and diagrams to show that the night of and immediately before the murder the Bennett’s were in a situation to observe and follow closely the movements of Anna Wiese. He then went on to pick to pieces Caswell’s claim that the murder had been committed by some unknown man who came from the east and went west. No evidence – hardly imagination even –supported such a claim, he said.

Mr. Boardman has occupied the entire day, excepting an hour’s interruption before noon caused by a juror becoming ill, and will probably not close by the time court adjourns. The case will therefore not go to the jury before tomorrow, perhaps sometime during the forenoon. A very large audience listened to the argument of Mr. Boardman throughout the day.

Mrs. Bennett could not have run the distance from the place of murder to her home in fifteen or even in twenty minutes. She could not possibly have made a stain of blood on the board of the gate as large as a man’s hand, another on the door casing, and still another on the door knob. And Sheriff Foster says it was the big imprint of a man’s hand on the door casing. Mrs. Bennett has always said “I will tell them what I know about the stains on the door if I hang;” and from this little incident of a plum or cherry stain on their door Mr. and Mrs. Bennett are liable to lose their farm. Dr. Taylor, of the United States department of agriculture, agrees with the authorities that there is no such thing as identification of hair. The difference in splits between hairs from the two heads is not sufficient to be of any significance at all. This is shown by the highest expert evidence. Even if you found that the hair in the hand and on the shoulder of Anna Wiese were not her own you would not be justified in concluding that it was the hair of Mrs. Bennett, in the light of the evidence and scientific authority on this subject. The best authorities say you can’t tell. Of course if the hair of one were white and another black the difference either belonged. But in this case, the hair of these two persons is so nearly alike in all respects that it is an utter impossibility to positively distinguish one from the other. We brought these hairs, which the state says were constricted, and we showed that there were no constrictions at all, but merely that the hairs were twisted and thus made smaller at certain points along the shaft. The microscopical examinations of the hair found on the shoulder plainly indicate that it was cut and not pulled out or broken. Now, we have only to create a reasonable doubt in order to win our case. But we have overwhelmed them with our evidence. I do not only want to acquit Mrs. Bennett of this foul crime, but I want to remove every vestige of stain or suspicion from her name. Suppose now that these people had committed this dreadful murder. Suppose they had come home from the scene of crime and made the bloody stains upon the door. They would have discovered when they came to wash their hands that they were imbrued in gore and they would at once have commenced looking around to discover and cover up their tracks. They would have endeavored to conceal the plain evidence of their guilt. You must give them credit of having a little grain of sense and caution. Mistakes are constantly occurring in the conviction of men and women on circumstantial evidence ten thousand times stronger than any in this case. If you believe this woman guilty you must go farther than that and find that the evidence proves it. I may believe that someone else in the community committed the crime, and yet I wouldnot dare convict him without evidence that would admit of no reasonable doubt of his guilt. Is it possible that you can imagine this woman guilty and consign her to life-long incarceration in the gloomy prison at Ft. Madison or Anamosa?

I tell you these are things that should not be guessed at. Can you be a party to placing her in a living tomb, consign her to a fate a thousand times worse than death without a ray of testimony against her? I believe that you could not rest or sleep after having done such a thing as that. The murderer of Anna Wiese was a man. He is at large today. I believe I can find him. It was a terrible thing to indict this woman for that crime. I do not claim that you should acquit this woman through sympathy, but consider the fact, that human judgment is terribly liable to err.

Mr. Caswell closed at 5:40 p.m. and court adjourned.

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 ran 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 occasion, seeing the importance it would assume, the defense has changed front and attempts to show she did not use her left hand, 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 natural position for a person using the left 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.

Referring to the so called weakness of circumstantial evidence, Mr. Boardman said where one man had been wrongly convicted by it he could show two cases where innocent people had been condemned on false direct testimony. In all direct testimony you have to face the danger that the witness may be lying or may be deceived, and in those respects circumstantial proof is stronger. When so many fingers point to the person as guilty the probability of truth is great. Caswell himself said, in talking soon after the murder, that it was committed by a woman.

(Judge Weaver here interrupted to say this kind of argument was improper, obviously because not based on testimony before the jury.)

Two of the ablest jurists that the voters of the judicial district have yet elected to the bench have now tried the celebrated Bennett Wiese murder case. Judge Hindman presided at the former trial and Judge Weaver at the present one. Both are widely known, and each has an enviable reputation both as an attorney and a presiding judge. A brief sketch of Judge Weaver’s career is deemed pertinent in connection with the closing hours of this noted case, and will doubtless be of interest to many readers.

S. M. Weaver is in his 50th year. He was born in Chautauqua county, N. Y., and has been twice married. The first time was in New York, and his wife died in 1872. He was married again on Sept. 17, 1874, to Miss Sarah Lucas, of this county. One child was the issue of the first marriage, a daughter, who is now married and residing in Illinois. He has four sons and one daughter by his second wife, all of whom are living and at home. Mr. Weaver was admitted to the bar in August, 1868, and settled at Iowa Falls, where he has since resided. He was a candidate for the republican nomination to the district bench in 1881, but was defeated by Judge Henderson after a close and stubborn contest in the convention. In 1883 Mr. Weaver was elected to the legislature from Hardin county, and served as chairman of the house judiciary committee. He was re-elected to the legislature in 1885 and in the session following framed and had charge of the bill abolishing the circuit court and re-organizing the district court. He was chosen by the house as chairman of the board of managers to conduct the impeachment proceedings against State Auditor Brown. In 1886 Mr. Weaver was elected to the bench of the Eleventh Judicial district, and re-elected in 1890. At the republican state convention of 1891 he was nominated to succeed Judge Beck on the supreme bench, but went down with the rest of the ticket, that by committing hari kari. Judge Kinne, the democratic candidate, was elected supreme judge. Mr. Weaver’s vote in that election was the highest cast for any candidate except that for Superintendent Sabin. He was renominated for the third term on the district bench at the judicial convent on the 1st of last August, without opposition.

Judge Weaver has presided at the following murder trials: The Row case, in Boone county, taken on a change of venue from Polk county, the defendant being the man who shot Constable Logan in Des Moines during a whisky search; the Peffer case, well remembered here in Marshall county – both of these cases were appealed to the supreme court and affirmed. Besides the present case, he has presided at a number of trials of more or less note.

Judge Weaver is popular with the bar and the people. His knowledge of law is broad and comprehensive. Although his decisions are quick in conducting a case they are none the less correct. His impartiality is conceded on all sides to be one of his strongest characteristics. There is an unostentatious dignity about him that commands admiration and respect. He is firm but not severe, courteous and as obliging as is consistent with his position. His sagacity and his grasp of essential factors in a great case like that now drawing to a close make him a safe and in every respect a competent judge, and the fact that he will not prevent the proceedings to drag, but exerts every effort to keep things moving and profitably occupy every moment of time is highly commendable. The attorneys in the Bennett case have profound respect for Judge Weaver, recognize his ability and fairness, and accept his rulings without a murmur. His persistent determination to “stick to the text” and “keep everlastingly at it” has doubtless shortened the present trial several days.

HELP US SOLVE THIS MURDER

THE NIGHT WATCHMAN HOMEPAGE