Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 14.pdf/215

 Rh

we would leave that evening, since I had partially packed my trunk and had expected to go. "Question. Had you ever seen me in a more nervous and prostrated condition than upon that day? . . . Was my appearance not such that it would be readily seen by any one, and was it not readily seen by you, that I had been probably much excited during my ab sence? "Answer. I thought you had been very much hurried and somewhat worried. "Question. As to the condition of my clothing on that day, you had occasion be fore we left that evening to see the condition in which the suit I wore was on that day, packing it in the trunk, had you not? "Answer. I don't know whether I put the suit in the trunk or not. You had spoken of your underwear being damp from perspira tion. "Question. And my underclothing in the same condition? "Answer. Yes, sir." This testimony showed that Holmes, when he came away from Pitezel's house on the day of the murder, was, as he called it, nerv ous and prostrated, and excited during his absence from his place of sojourn (a boarding house about two miles from the place of the murder) and as Miss Yoke said, hurried and worried, just as a person would likely be after committing a murder. The cross-exam ination of Miss Yoke also developed the fact that when Holmes left Miss Yoke in the morning of the day of the murder they had not fixed upon a time when they were to leave the city, yet as soon as Holmes got back to his residence he told Miss Yoke that they would leave that evening. This was evidence of flight immediately after the per petration of the murder and had its weight with the jury. On the assumption that Pitezel had not

committed suicide, the insurance company paid the insurance money, ten thousand dollars, on September 24. Part of the money was retained by a western State lawyer, but the greater portion of it was received by Holmes, who thereupon became interested in removing the widow and children of Pitezel as claimants of the money. Evidence had been given that Holmes had tried to kill Mrs. Pitezel by an explosion of dynamite in Bur lington, Vermont. The District Attorney then offered to prove that Holmes killed the minor son of Pitezel at Irvington near Indian apolis, and two of his minor daughters in Toronto, Canada, to show the motive for the murder. This offer was admissible under the decisions of the Supreme Court; Goerson v. The Commonwealth, 97 Pa. 388, and 106 Pa. 477; but it was rejected, as I did not deem it wise to complicate the trial with the details of four murders when there was sufficient evi dence of one, especially as the prisoner could have been tried in the other jurisdictions where he had committed the offences charged to him, if he escaped conviction here. How was the crime detected? How were the facts discovered? Holmes was a stealthy murderer. He killed his victims by means of poison, and when suspicion was diverted he would talk about the persons whom he killed. Holmes was arrested in Boston on a charge of conspiracy to cheat and defraud the in surance company. He was wanted at the same time in Texas for horse stealing, but he preferred to come to Philadelphia without a requisition. It was his talk after his arrest that led the officers of the insurance com pany to suspect that Pitezel had been mur dered. Pitezel went under the name of Perry, and an inquiry was started to determine whether Perry was Pitezel. The body was dug up on September 22, 1894, and identified as Pitezel. While in prison Holmes wrote a book called " Holmes' Own Story," which