Читать книгу The Great Harry Thaw Case; Or, A Woman's Sacrifice - Benjamin H. Atwell - Страница 9

Table of Contents

OPPOSING COUNSEL HESITATE TO SHOW THEIR HANDS IN DESPERATE GAME OF LIFE OR DEATH—ATTORNEY GARVAN’S BRIEF OPENING ARGUMENT FOR PROSECUTION FOLLOWED BY PRESENTATION OF STATE’S CASE IN LESS THAN TWO HOURS—VICTIM’S SON CALLED TO STAND—FATAL BULLETS GRUESOME EXHIBIT—STORY OF THE ROOF GARDEN TRAGEDY TOLD—DEFENSE OPENED WITH PLEA THAT THAW BELIEVED HE WAS ACTING UPON THE COMMAND OF PROVIDENCE WHEN HE SLEW WHITE—ALL IN READINESS FOR GREATEST SACRIFICE OF MODERN TIMES.

Thousands throughout New York, and in fact the entire world, breathed in anxious suspense when, with jury complete and all the machinery of legal battle in readiness the great trial opened. Following delays in securing the jury—the excusing of several jurors after their acceptance by both prosecution and defense—the opening came as a surprise.

The day will long be remembered because of the multiplicity of surprises it brought forth. Brevity of argument by counsel for state and defense was not the least of these. The opposing lawyers felt they were entering upon a stupendous game with life and death the stakes, and youth, beauty, love, hate, treachery and millions factors in the play.

Neither cared to show his hand and disclose the cards he held. It was Monday, February 4, 1907—a fateful day, coming after seven months and ten days’ imprisonment for Thaw in the Tombs.

The prosecution made a most remarkable record when it presented its opening statement in ten minutes and followed it with less than two hours of testimony, closing in time for the noon recess. The defense announced it would open its case with a statement by Attorney J. B. Gleason.

The purpose of the prosecution was readily apparent—throwing upon the defense the burden of disclosing its case, reserving the while the state’s hardest fire for rebuttal later when Thaw’s lawyers had exhausted themselves and their material.

Opening shots of the legal battle royal were fired by Assistant District Attorney Garvan, of counsel for the state.

He congratulated the jurors on their body having been completed and then outlined the purpose of the law, which was not seeking for vengeance, but to uphold the security of the state, he said. He urged the importance of the case and a strict observance of the law in order that a verdict, fair to all, might be reached.

It was the claim of the people, he said, that on the night of June 25, 1906, the defendant “shot and killed with premeditation and intent to kill” one Stanford White. He then briefly outlined the movements of

ASST. DISTRICT ATTORNEY GARVAN

Sketched in court.

White, beginning with the Saturday preceding the tragedy and ending with the actual scene of the shooting on the Madison Square Roof garden.

“The purpose of punishment of crime is an example to the community,” thundered the prosecutor.

“The defendant is charged with the murder of Stanford White with premeditation on June 25, 1906. Mr. White was an architect, a member of the firm of McKim, Meade & White. On the Sunday before his death he went to his home on Long Island with his family. He returned to the city on Monday with his son and his son’s friend named King. They went to the Cafe Martin for dinner.

“Mr. White had previously purchased tickets to a theater. After dinner Mr. White drove his son and his son’s friend to the theater and then went himself to the Madison Square Roof garden, where a new play, ‘Mam’zelle Champagne,’ was to be produced.

“Stanford White went to the Madison Square Roof garden and sat alone at one of the small tables there, watching the first production of this play called ‘Mam’zelle Champagne.’

“The defendant was there with his wife and two friends, Truxton Beale and Thomas McCaleb. The defendant walked constantly about the place.

“In the middle of the second act the defendant’s party started to leave the roof. The defendant let his party go ahead and he lagged behind. Passing the table where Stanford White was sitting, this defendant wheeled suddenly, faced Mr. White, and deliberately shot him through the brain, the bullet entering the eye.

“Mr. White was dead.

“The defendant did not know this. He feared he had not completed his work, and he fired again, the bullet penetrating White’s cheek. Still, to make sure, he fired a third time.

“Mr. White, or rather the body of Mr. White, tumbled to the floor.

“The defendant turned, and facing the audience, held his revolver aloft with the barrel upside down to indicate that he had completed what he intended to do. The big audience understood. There was no panic.”

Mr. Garvan concluded by giving the details of Thaw’s arrest and indictment by the prosecution. He spoke always in a conversational tone. Thaw sat throughout with head downcast and face flushed.

Calm and as cold and easy of manner as though rehearsing a scene in some drama instead of a great tragedy of life, District Attorney Jerome requested the exclusion of all other witnesses and placed his first witness on the stand.

As Evelyn Thaw passed her husband in leaving she took his hand and held it for a moment, and, as she turned away, tears trickled down her cheeks.

Harry Thaw was visibly nervous and drummed on the table with his fingers.

DISTRICT ATTORNEY JEROME

in opening address.

Lawrence White, the son of the dead architect, was the first witness. Thaw again fastened his eyes on the table before him and did not once look at the witness.

Young White said he was 19 years old and a student at Harvard university. His mother, he said, was then living at Cambridge, Mass.

White was on the stand only a few minutes. He told of accompanying his father to the Cafe Martin for dinner, and said that when he left him to go with his chum, a boy named King, to the New York roof garden, it was the last time he saw his father alive.

Myer Cohen, a song writer and manager of the house which published the music of “Mam’zelle Champagne,” was called after an elevator man had detailed Thaw’s conversation when arrested.

Mr. Cohen was on the Madison Square Roof garden the night of the tragedy. He saw Thaw there for the first time during the initial act of the musical comedy. Cohen described on a diagram the position of the table at which White sat.

When asked by Mr. Garvan to indicate Thaw’s manner of approaching the architect that evening, the witness left the stand, and, walking up and down before the jury box, he illustrated the slow pace which he declared characterized Thaw’s deliberation in approaching his victim.

“He walked up to Mr. White’s table like this,” said the witness, indicating. “He made a slight detour, and coming up to Mr. White from behind suddenly faced him and fired three times.”

Henry S. Plaese, superintendent of the publishing company that owned the rights of “Mam’zelle Champagne,” was the next witness. He saw the defendant the night of the killing in the rear of the roof garden, opposite the center aisle. Mr. Plaese was standing with Mr. Cohen, the previous witness. Thaw stood before them for six or seven minutes, looking to the right and left.

After the first act he next saw Thaw just previous to the shooting. White was seated, facing the stage, his head leaning on his right hand. There was no conversation when Thaw approached White, and the former immediately began firing.

Thaw then retreated toward the rear of the garden, with his right hand elevated, “the barrel of the pistol being pointed upward.”

The weapon with which White was killed was brought into the case during the testimony of Paul Brudi, the fireman who disarmed Thaw after the fatal shots were fired. Brudi, who appeared on the stand in uniform, identified the pistol when it was shown to him, and said that after taking it from the prisoner he turned it over to the police.

“I remember hearing only two shots,” said Brudi in relating the events of the evening of the tragedy, “when I rushed up and grabbed the prisoner, who had his arms uplifted.”

“Did you hear the defendant say anything after the shooting?” asked Assistant District Attorney Garvan.

“Yes,” the witness replied, “he said ‘He ruined my wife.’”

“Did he say anything else?”

“No.”

“Did you hear any one say anything to him?”

“His wife.”

“What did she say?”

“Look at the fix you are in.”

“Did he reply?”

“I did not hear him say anything else.”

Edward H. Convey, foreman of laborers at Madison Square garden, was called to further identify the pistol Brudi took from Thaw, and which Convey helped in turning over to the police. He was not cross-examined.

Policeman A. L. Debes, who arrested Thaw, was called. He identified the pistol, the bullets, and empty shells introduced as exhibit.

“Did you have any conversation with Thaw?” asked Mr. Garvan.

“I did,” he replied.

“I asked the prisoner if he had shot Stanford White, and he said, ‘I did.’ I then asked him why he shot him and he said, ‘Because he ruined my wife—or life.’”

“You could not distinguish whether he said wife or life?” was asked.

“No. Thaw then asked where we were going and I replied, ‘To the station house,’ and he said ‘All right.’ After this I turned him over to another officer and went up stairs to get witnesses.”

Coroner’s Physician Timothy Lehane, who performed the autopsy on Stanford White’s body, described the wounds made by three pistol shots.

The first bullet, he said, entered the right eye, passing downward and entering the brain; the second entered on the right side of the upper lip, and the third wound was on the right arm, the bullet ranging downward and passing out six inches from the point of entrance, making what is commonly called a flesh wound.

The witness then identified the various bullets and Mr. Garvan asked that they be formally received as evidence. The exhibits were passed across to the table of counsel for the defense. Thaw’s eyes wandered about from right to left, but not even a fleeting glance was thrown in the direction where the deadly bullets were being left.

Dr. Lehane declared cerebral hemorrhage, caused by the bullet wounds, produced death.

Dr. Sylvester Pechner, who was with a party on the Madison Square Roof garden the night of the tragedy, next was introduced as a witness for the prosecution. Dr. Pechner examined White soon after he fell and pronounced him dead. The architect’s death must have been instantaneous, the witness declared.

Dr. Pechner said that when his attention was attracted by the firing of the pistol, he saw Thaw standing over White.

He then saw the defendant “break his gun” and pull out the empty shells, and hold it aloft. Just after this Fireman Brudi took the man in charge.

Policeman Debes was recalled and Mr. Garvan asked him: “Did you hear any remark credited to the defendant’s wife that night?”

“Yes.”

“Where was it?”

“On the ground floor of the Twenty-sixth street entrance.”

“What did she say?”

“‘Harry, why did you do it?’ and he replied, ‘It will be all right.’”

This ended the state’s case—all the evidence depended upon to send the young millionaire to the electric chair having been presented in that brief session. The defense opened a little more than an hour later after a brief recess for luncheon.

“Harry Thaw believed he was acting upon the command of Providence when he killed Stanford White,” thundered Attorney Gleason in opening the case of the defense.

Thaw’s insanity at the time of the killing, Mr. Gleason said, was due to heredity and stress of circumstances. It would also be shown, he said, that the defendant had suffered from temporary or emotional insanity for years.

“You must disabuse your minds, gentlemen of the jury,” he began, “of any idea or impression that the defense in this case will rely upon anything but the constitution and the laws of the imperial state of New York. Upon these laws alone we will rely.

“You must dismiss all idea that we are to import into this case any so-called higher or unwritten law. We will rely upon all the defenses that the law allows.

“One of the defenses allowed by law is that of insanity.”

Mr. Gleason declared further that it would be shown that Thaw acted in self-defense and without malice, believing threats had been made against him by Stanford White. Mr. Gleason said that Thaw did not know the nature or quality of his act at the time he committed it.

The defendant killed Stanford White, he said. He believed that it was an act of Providence and that he was guided in that act by Providence.

“The defendant killed White, and he did not know that act was wrong. He was suffering from a mental unsoundness proceeded from a disease so that he did not know what he was doing. We will show that there was a mental unsoundness in his family.

“There will be witnesses produced here on both sides, but you are the ones who will judge of the fact of whether the defendant was insane or not when he killed Stanford White.

“It lies with you and you alone to decide whether or not Thaw was sane when he killed Stanford White. You must apply to yourselves the test of your ability to decide truly and wisely.

“It is for you to reach out with that human spirit which says to any man, no matter how degraded, ‘look up and be of good cheer. I, too, am a man, and would have done the same thing had I been placed in your position.’

“When you have heard all the testimony in this case and come to judge this defendant, I am sure you will be of the opinion that the defendant’s act was due to insanity and not one of crime.”

Mr. Gleason’s address required less than an hour. At its conclusion the way was clear for the greatest defense of modern times and the sacrifice of Evelyn Thaw—a feature without a parallel in modern jurisprudence.