CHAPTER XV.

Scathing Denunciation By Jerome.

DISTRICT ATTORNEY MAKES ATTACK ON LIFE OF HARRY THAW--ATTRIBUTES WILD ORGIES TO THE DEFENDENT--THE ETHEL THOMAS TRAGEDY--ATTEMPT MADE TO PROVE EVELYN THAW A PERJURER--NEW LIGHT ON THE CASE--ABE HUMMEL ON THE STAND--JEROME TRIES TO PROVE EVELYN HAD SWORN THAT WHITE NEVER WRONGED HER--CHARGES PLOT BY THAW TO PUT ARCHITECT IN PENITENTIARY--FAMOUS ALIENISTS SWEAR THAW WAS SANE AT THE TIME OF THE TRAGEDY--EVELYN ON THE STAND AGAIN.

With the testimony of Thaw’s aged mother fresh in their minds the jurors heard District Attorney Jerome make a sensational attack on the past life of Harry Thaw. Jerome insinuated that Thaw had in his wild youthful days, indulged in wild orgies no less iniquitous than those of which Stanford White had been accused, although differing in character.

Attorney Frederick Longfellow, Thaw’s personal counsel, was a witness from whom Jerome fought to draw this information.

Longfellow was an unwilling witness and every answer had to be dragged from him, Delmas interposing objections to the procedure throughout the examination.

“Did you represent this prisoner in the suit of Ethel Thomas against Harry K. Thaw?” demanded Jerome.

“My firm did,” Longfellow was allowed to answer.

“It has been said that alleged acts of perversion by White added to the fury of Thaw’s mental unbalance,” Jerome stated. “I want to show that he knew all about such things--that they were set forth in the complaint in this suit by Ethel Thomas, the papers of which were served on him.

“I am not trying to show that Ethel’s statements were true. Anyway, this poor girl now is dead--”

A hot fight came here, and Jerome was forced to withdraw the words “poor girl,” while the jury was cautioned to ignore what Jerome had said.

“Mrs. Thaw herself,” Jerome fairly shouted, “says she was told the story of Ethel Thomas!”

Longfellow was not allowed to testify to anything about the charges contained in the Thomas girl’s suit against Thaw.

Jerome was burning with wrath. His expected victory had been turned to bitter defeat.

The next witness was Policeman Dennis Wright, who was called to testify as to conversations he had with Thaw the night of Thaw’s arrest. The witness said:

“When I was in Madison avenue I saw Thaw. I asked him what the trouble was. He said he wanted me to take him away from the crowd, to take him to the station-house.”

“Was there any more?”

“Yes. When we were in Fifth avenue some person unknown asked me if I knew the prisoner or what he had done. I said I did not. I asked the defendant if he knew what he had done and he said ‘Yes.’ I asked him if he knew who it was he had killed. He said he would say nothing until he reached the station-house. He asked me for a light, offered me a cigar, and then wanted to take a cab to the station, but I would not agree.”

“Were his actions rational or irrational?”

“Rational.”

Four other policemen testified Thaw appeared rational after the murder.

Jerome here made an attempt to prove Evelyn Thaw a liar. He was defeated, however, for his star witness, Rudolph Eckmyer, a photographer, was not allowed to tell the date he made the famous Madison Square Garden photographs of Evelyn.

“If you will let me fix the date of these pictures,” he said heatedly, “I will show that on the night following the day they were taken, when Mrs. Thaw’s experience at White’s studio took place, Stanford White was not in the Twenty-fourth street house at all.”

Jerome fairly shouted the last words and pounded the table before him. Mr. Delmas said he must stand upon his objection, and it was sustained.

“I now offer,” repeated Jerome, “to prove by this witness the exact date on which these pictures were taken, which was, Mrs. Thaw testified, the day before she was drugged by Stanford White. And I further offer to prove that on that occasion Stanford White was not where she said he was.”

James Clinch Smith, Stanford White’s brother-in-law, who was in Europe when the trial began, was allowed to testify for the defense. Smith’s story threw much new light on the tragedy. It showed that Thaw several times passed through the aisles on the Madison Square Roof-garden, apparently seeking some one, and always his eyes were turned on the spot where Stanford White sat.

He sat down and talked to Smith on a variety of subjects--Wall street speculation, the play, a trip to Europe, common acquaintances, and many other topics.

This story, Jerome sought to show, proved that Thaw was sane the night of the murder, and that he repeatedly sought for his victim on the roof-garden, instead of killing him because of a sudden impulse.

“Thaw sat down beside me,” said the relative of White, “and offered me a cigar. I said, ‘No, thank you.’ He said, ‘How’s that, don’t you smoke at all?’ I said I occasionally smoked cigarets. He then took out his cigaret case, offered me one, and I took it and thanked him. He struck a match and lit my cigaret, and his cigar. He asked me how I liked the play, and I said I did not care for it much. I thought it slow and not the sort of play for a roof-garden.

“He said, ‘It is different from those you usually see on the roof-garden. It is a relief to see it, and I think it will be a success.’ I said I doubted it.

“A few moments later he said, ‘What are you doing in Wall street now--any speculating?’ I answered that I did not speculate in Wall street. He said he thought there was a great chance in copper; he mentioned Amalgamated and one other.

“And he also said Steel was good; he could not see why steel stocks were kept down; the company was doing a bigger business than ever. He said if he had any money he would put it in steel and copper, particularly copper.”

“Then suddenly he said: ‘Where are you going this summer?’ I told him that I was going to Europe on Thursday. He wanted to know what ship I was going on, and when I told him he said he did not like the ship.

“He said he was going on the Amerika because he could get on that ship a large suite of rooms, where he could have his meals served in his apartments.

“Then he said: ‘Are you alone over here?’ I told him that I had left my wife in Paris.

“When Thaw left me he walked around several times, looking over the audience, toward the place where he subsequently shot White. Finally his friends arrived, and then I heard three pistol shots and saw a cloud of black smoke. I saw Thaw after the shooting, aiming his pistol toward the floor.

“I went to the entrance, keeping my eyes on Thaw all the while. Then I saw a man lying face downward on the floor. The man’s face was so blackened with powder I did not recognize my brother-in-law and left the place without knowing who the man was.”

Smith on cross-examination asserted Thaw was not intoxicated on the night of the murder.

Jerome next asked Abe Hummel this question:

“Did you on October 27, 1903, see Evelyn Nesbit Thaw in your office?”

“I did,” replied the lawyer.

“At that conversation did Mrs. Thaw inform you that Thaw wanted to injure White and put him in the penitentiary and that Thaw had compelled her time and time again to sign statements about White and that those documents charged White with having drugged Evelyn Nesbit when she was about fifteen years old and that she, Evelyn Nesbit, had told you that Thaw had beaten her for not signing the papers?”

Hummel was not allowed to answer then, on objections by Delmas, but the witness said he was acting for Stanford White at the time of the conference.

The district attorney made an impassioned argument to secure the admission of Hummel’s testimony. He said:

“Your Honor has ruled and rules, as I believe, with entire correctness, that as to the truth or falsity as to whether Stanford White did do these acts, we on this trial have nothing to do, the issue being, did the defendant’s mind become unhinged by these and other things that have been proven in evidence? Was an insanity induced by this revelation and the others that appear in evidence which so swept reason from its moorings that when he killed Stanford White that night he did not know the nature and the quality of the act and that it was wrong?

“Your Honor’s rulings have reduced the case to that, and have properly reduced it, in my estimation, to that point.

“Now on that question of whether or not his mind was unhinged by these revelations, whether or no these revelations ever were made to him is surely most important. It is not collateral. It goes to the very root of the case.

“They claim that as Thaw sat in the hotel in Paris that night and asked her to marry him and she said she would not because of White, and she then cryingly told how this man had drugged her when but a girl of fifteen--they contend that this picture unhinged his mind. Your Honor has ruled we have nothing to do with the truth or falsity of her story. We have nothing to do with whether Stanford White did or did not do these things. The issue here is did or did not this defendant’s mind become unhinged when he heard Evelyn Nesbit’s story.

“If this jury believes that she told this awful story would it not be a fact that they would carry it in their minds and would it not weigh heavily?

“If on the other hand I can show that Mrs. Thaw did not tell Thaw in Paris that White drugged her it will be a matter for the jury to consider seriously in determining whether or not Thaw was insane when he killed Stanford White.

“If I can show that Evelyn Nesbit Thaw under the solemnity of an oath swore that White had never wronged her; if I can show that she repelled the advances of the man and that Thaw whipped and beat her because she would not affix her signature to an affidavit charging White wronged her; if I can show that she said to Hummel: ‘He beat me when we were in Paris; he lashed me with a whip because I would not sign papers;’ if I can show she swore ‘Stanford White never touched me’; if I can show that Thaw wanted her to sign papers in order to put White in the penitentiary--I can then show that the evidence in question is of vital importance.

“If I can show that she has made contradictory statements, the testimony of Doctors Evans and Wagner, which was based on her statement contained in the hypothetical question, can be stricken from the records.

“There is the crux of the case as it appears in the evidence, and the question becomes one of what the law says on this subject of introducing contrary statements of a witness.

“I was sincere when I said that I knew nothing in history or literature could compare with the heroic sacrifice made by Evelyn Nesbit when she refused to accept the proffered hand of Thaw in Paris--if the story told by Evelyn is true!”

The court made no decision on the question at issue, and examination of Hummel was resumed.

“At the interview in your office,” asked Mr. Jerome, “did Evelyn Nesbit, prior to your dictating anything, tell you that she had told Thaw that it was not true that Stanford White had drugged her?”

Mr. Delmas was on his feet to object, but before he could do so and immediately after the district attorney had ceased to speak, Hummel said, in a loud voice: “She certainly did.”

Mr. Delmas looked at the witness, and, with scorn in his voice, said: “And you call yourself a lawyer!” Then, after a bitter clash with the district attorney, in which temper was shown on both sides, Jerome being denounced, Delmas said, “Let the answer stand, I waive my right.”

Jerome turned to Hummel again and asked:

“Did Evelyn Nesbit, as she was then known, say to you that Thaw had prepared documents charging Stanford White with having drugged her when she was 15, and insisted upon her signing them, but that she told Thaw she would not, because the statement was not true?”

The court ruled this question could not be answered until Evelyn Nesbit Thaw had been recalled and testified as to whether or not Hummel was acting as her attorney or as White’s.

The next testimony was by Dr. Austin Flint, famous alienist for the prosecution. In response to a question which required an hour and a quarter to read, Dr. Flint said Thaw was sane when he killed White. The question was practically a review of the tragedy and trial.

The other $250-a-day alienists for the state--Drs. William B. Pritchard of the New York Polyclinic Institute, Albert Warren Ferris of the College of Physicians and Surgeons, A. R. Diefendorf of the State Hospital of Middletown, Conn., and a professor of mental diseases at Yale University, Dr. William E. Mabon, superintendent of the New York state hospital for the insane on Wards Island, and Dr. William Hirsch of the Cornell Medical College made the same reply to the same question. All swore Thaw was perfectly rational and knew what he was doing when he shot White.

Jerome had hurled his strongest attack against the defense in this desperate effort to prove Thaw sane at the time of the killing. While he was smiling in triumph Delmas said:

“Call Evelyn Nesbit Thaw.”

Pale and apparently almost a nervous wreck the beautiful child wife took the stand.

“Did you,” asked Delmas, “when you visited Abe Hummel in his office call upon him then and there, in a professional capacity with a view to having his legal advice as a counsellor-at-law?”

“I did,” was the answer.

Mrs. Thaw then left the stand.

Justice Fitzgerald then ruled that the defense could not now plead the professional privilege in bar of Hummel’s testimony for the privilege was involuntarily waived when young Mrs. Thaw herself took the stand and told of the occurrences in Hummel’s office.

This was a hard blow to the defense and the Napoleanic Delmas was enshrouded in temporary defeat.