|
Pfeil Case Is Called
Hard To Secure Jury
Important Murder Case Called by Judge Kirwan at Two O'clock This
Afternoon - - Jurors Drawn - - Undergo Grueling Examination - - First Juror
Drawn Has Already Formed Opinion and is Discharged.
Judge Kirwan called the court to order at two o'clock this afternoon. The
thirty-six jurors drawn for this term of court were all present and occupied
the chairs on the right side of the court room.
A small crowd of spectators attended in spite of the interest that the Pfeil
murder case has aroused. That was probably due to the general opinion
prevailing that no evidence would be taken in the case until tomorrow.
Among the handful of spectators were the second wife of Julius Pfeil and the
daughter of the third wife with the murder of whom he is charged.
Both occupied benched in the front of the court room just behind the rail.
Emma Foeste was neatly attired in a black dress with a small black hat
offsetting her pretty face to advantage.
The second wife of the defendant was seated aside Emma Foeste and was also
attired in black with a black hat.
A few minutes were consumed in disposing of a case or two on the calendar
and the Pfeil case was called. A breathless silence reigned as Judge Kirwan
called the case to trial. Attorneys Voigt, Mead and Williams took the chairs
on the right side of the Attorneys' table and were followed by District
Attorney Collins and Attorney Simon Gillen, who will prosecute the case.
Julius Pfeil the defendant was then called and he entered the court room
with Under Sheriff John Holling. He was dressed in the same grey coat and
dark trousers that he wore during the preliminary examination. He took the
chair immediately in front of the Press table.
The jurors were then called to be examined as to qualifications to sit in
the case. The first name drawn by Clerk of Court Croghan was that of Adam
Buchman of Rhine Township, Pfeil's township, and the only Rhine man on the
panel. Then followed William Bickel of Sheboygan, Richard Brehm of Wilson,
Herman Frick of Sheboygan Falls, Henry Herbst of Wilson, G. Kleefisch of
Sheboygan, Henry Krumrey of Plymouth, William Loeffler of Sheboygan, J. W.
Miller of Scott, August Quehl of Herman, August Rammer of Wilson, Lawrence
Reilly of Mitchell, August Reineking of Herman, Ferdinand Reyer of Wilson,
Conrad [B]auer of Sheboygan, H. F. Shadbolt of Sheboygan, L. C. Tasche of
Sheboygan and Henry Tasche of Sheboygan.
The Judge then instructed the jury about not talking or reading about any of
the cases while serving as jurors. Judge Kirwan also asked the attorneys on
both sides to cooperate so as to make it possible to secure of jury from
this panel without having recourse to machinery for additional jurors which
was not entirely satisfactory.
The charge was then read to the jury and a few questions asked by Judge
Kirwan as to the relationship of the deceased third wife of the defendant.
Adam Bushman {Should be Buchman - D.B.} was then examined. He stated that he had formed an opinion
which he could not change no matter what the evidence might be. He was
released on the consent of both parties.
August Rammer was then examined by Judge Kirwan and the attorneys for both
sides. He was given grueling questioning as to his qualifications to sit in
the trial. The examination was still going on at the time of press.
(There is a photo of Julius Pfeil and Mrs. Julius Pfeil)
Body Of Mrs. Julius Pfeil Is Exhumed
Drs. Nutt and Brueckbauer Authorized to Remove Tongue and Whole of Esophagus
Which Will Be Brought Into Court - - Body Removed from Grave Wednesday - -
Comes As a Surprise to the Defense - - Case Creates Wide Interest - -
Detailed Story of the Trial - - Press Furnishes Cut of Mrs. Pfeil Today
which is Taken From the Only Photograph in Existence - -Experts Arrive to
Testify.
The body of the third wife of Julius Pfeil has been exhumed. The tongue and
the whole of the esophagus have been removed and will be given to Dr.
Loewenhart and Dr. Lehner of the University of Wisconsin for examination, to
determine whether the back of the tongue was burned as the defense claims
and to ascertain how much of the esophagus bore the burned appearance which
was found immediately above the stomach.
The body was exhumed yesterday afternoon between two and four o'clock on the
order of Coroner Feagan and District Attorney Collins, with the permission
of the relatives of the deceased.
The exhuming was done in the presence of Undertaker Graef of Plymouth, Rev.
Schmidt of the Lutheran church, Dr. Nutt, Dr. Brueckbauer, Carl Foeste the
son of the deceased and two grave diggers. The body was taken from the
casket and the parts desired for examination in connection with the famous
murder trial were removed. The body was then restored to its rest in the new
Plymouth cemetery.
The state claims that the back of the tongue was not burned while the
defense up to the present date has adopted the opposite contention.
The matter will be of utmost importance in determining the guilt of
innocence of the accused.
This afternoon Judge Kirwan examined Ella Foeste in reference to the funnel
which was reported [???] after the death of her mother and in answer to a
question from the court the witness testified that [??] purchased the funnel
sometime last winter. It is evident from the questions on the part of the
[??] defense and court relative to [??] funnel that this testimony will be
an important part in the murder.
Court was a trifle late in starting this morning, because of the delay in
the arrival of medical experts for the defense. At half past nine Judge
Kirwan entered the court room and [??] Deputy Dan Fischer to the jury. The
jury filed in and the defendant Julius Pfeil took his [??]. He nodded to his
attorneys and the newspaper representatives sitting at the table in his
rear.
Mrs. Ecklemann was the first witness of the day. She testified that she had
seen Mrs. Pfeil [??] around the barn of the Pfeil home on the afternoon of
April 2, between five and six o'clock. That was the last time she had seen
her [alive]. She noticed that both curtains in the sitting room were down at
[??] o'clock on the following morning. This seemed very unusual to [her]
because most invariably had seen one curtain up at that [time] of the day.
[Edward] Pfingsten stated that Pfeil [came] to his place at half past seven
[o'clock] on the morning of April 3, [and told] him that his wife was sick
[and that] he should drive to Franklin [after] Dr. Sieker. Then Pfeil went
to [Ei]mermann's.
[???] saw Pfeil go to the cheese factory at half past six o'clock and saw
him return at a [quarter] after seven.
Emma Foeste the step daughter of Pfeil then took the witness chair and
stated that she and her brother came home on the morning of April 3, at
about ten o'clock. When they entered the house she saw Pfeil and Mrs.
Eimermann carryout parts [???] shed. When Pfeil saw her he was surprised and
frightened and [said,] "Where do you come from." [She] said her brother had
brought [???] he told her that her mother was dead. She threw herself on the
chair in her grief while Pfeil and Mrs. Eimermann continued carrying things
from the spare bed room. Pfeil said they were preparing the room for the
undertaker. [???] was taken to the woodshed.
She went into the room and saw no bedding there, whereas the bed had
contained the usual bed clothes. Neither was there any clothing in the room.
They were also taking up the carpet which was later used for carpeting in
another room. Miss Foeste never saw any of the bedding afterwards. She staid
at the home of her brother the night of April 6, and returned to the Pfeil
house for her clothing and that of her mothers the following day. She
arrived there at eleven o'clock and saw Mrs. Jacob Eimermann and Mrs.
Kastner washing. Pfeil said he did not want to give her clothing until it
had been washed. She only got the shoes that day. Later on all the clothing
was secured.
"Five minutes after I came into the house," the witness continued, "Carl my
brother entered. Pfeil said, "I have sad news for you; your mother is dead."
Carl replied, "well that is no wonder." Pfeil became angry and retorted "if
you talk crazy, I will put you out of the house." He then took Carl in the
bed room and said that that was just the way he had found her. I went into
the bed room later on. Her slippers were under the dresser. She had never
put them there before, as she always stood them in the sitting room. Her
mouth was tied shut by a handkerchief. Her eyes were tightly closed and had
large blue circles beneath them. The hair loose and not nearly so tight as
it usually was a short time after she combed it. The looseness was apparent.
Her face had a peaceful expression. The spread covered her body up to her
chin. Several quilts, a blanket and a spread were covering her body. The bed
did not look as if it had been used the night before. It was not the least
disarranged. In the kitchen, the table was bare of dishes. Nothing was on it
except the pepper and salt.
Emma Foeste when asked concerning the manner of greeting between Mrs.
Eimerman and Julius Pfeil, said the former in addressing him called him
"Pa." She testified that several times during the time the coroner was there
holding the inquest that Mrs. Eimermann spoke to Pfeil and always said "Pa."
The witness testified that on the morning when she returned and was informed
her mother was dead, that the inspection of the pantry brought to light the
fact that a funnel was missing from one of the shelves, also the mop rags.
As to the mop the daughter of Mrs. Pfeil testified that there was something
on the floor of the kitchen that looked like coffee and she wanted to mop it
up. It was then that she discovered that the rags had been removed from the
mop. This afternoon she was cross examined at considerable length.
A majority of the audience hearing the Pfeil murder case in the Circuit
Court room yesterday afternoon were women. They began to arrive early and
long before the jury filed into the room the spacious chamber was filled
with a morbid crows.
At two o'clock sharp Judge Kirwan appeared and the trial which is arousing
so much interest throughout the county was continued. Emma Foeste, the
daughter of the deceased by a former marriage was recalled and examined as
to the location, construction and architecture of the house, with the number
of rooms, windows, etc., etc.
She then told of the family relationship between Mr. Pfeil and her mother.
She said that Mr. Pfeil had spoken to his wife in rough tones when he
addressed her and that she had frequently complained that in the evening he
would kick her and take the quilts from her for his own use.
Attorney Williams then took charge of the witness and gave her a grueling
cross examination, in which she stated that her mother has by her own right
a forty acre farm about eight miles from the home of Pfeil, which forty
acres were a part of a 152 acre farm left by the late Mr. Foeste on his
death. The rest of the farm belonged to the children.
Conrad Reineking of Herman Township was then called. He declared that he had
been at a party with Mr. and Mrs. Pfeil in July 1910 and that at the time
both Mr. and Mrs. Pfeil seemed to be on the best of terms. They called each
other Ma and Pa. That two or three month later he visited the Pfeils and
found condition exactly reversed. They hardly spoke to each other and it was
plain to see that they were not on good terms.
Chas. Laack of Rhine corroborated the testimony of Mr. Reineking as the
party referred to had been given at his house and he and his wife had
returned to visit the Pfeils on the same day that Mr. and Mrs. Reineking
were there. He said that Mr. and Mrs. Pfeil were not on friendly terms in
October.
Fred Meyer testified that he had visited the home of Julius Pfeil some time
in January or February and heard only a few words spoken between the two. As
long as he had been there which was for several hours the only words passing
between them were those of Mrs. Pfeil when she asked her husband if he did
not want a cup of coffee and he replied that he might take one.
Herman Foeste, the step son of Julius Pfeil was then called and said that
Mr. Pfeil very seldom spoke to his mother during the time that he visited
them. He then told of his arrival at the Pfeil home on the evening of his
mother's death.
He arrived Monday evening and found Pfeil leisurely seated in a chair
smoking a pipe, as if nothing had happened. He told me about my mother's
death. He wanted to leave that night but was urged to stay by Pfeil because
Emma would be all alone in the house otherwise. He left the next noon
although Pfeil again asked him not to go. He gave him some money to buy
yeast, with the understanding that he return. Before he left, Pfeil told him
that his mother had died a natural death, that no one gave her anything and
that she had not taken anything. He came back the next day and told them he
had made arrangements for an autopsy. When Pfeil heard this he replied "You
are crazy." Before the death of his mother he asked Pfeil for a job on his
farm in the following summer but Pfeil refused on the grounds that he was
not in need of a man.
On cross examination Herman stated that Pfeil would leave home in the
evening during the time he was there but that most of the time he was at
home.
Mr. Kissinger told of a gathering in Rhine Center in September 1910 at which
both he and his wife and Mr. and Mrs. Pfeil were present. The relationship
did not seem to be good at the time. "We were in the dance hall," he said,
when Mrs. Pfeil asked about her husband. She said she had not seen him all
day. I knew he was in the saloon so I went to get him. I told him some one
was inquiring about him, but he replied that he could not dance that evening
because of a sore toe. Nevertheless he returned to the dance hall with me
but left soon after. The relations were not good.
At this point, the state dropped the matter of domestic relations between
Mr. and Mrs. Pfeil and attempted by a number of witnesses to fix the time of
Pfeil's departure from the cheese factory and his return to his home on the
morning of the death of Mrs. Pfeil.
Mrs. Theo. Hungsberg declared on the stand that on the morning of April 3,
she wanted her son who was to put in his first days work at the cheese
factory in Franklin to ride with Mr. Pfeil as she knew he would pass their
place. It was a quarter after seven in the morning when her son left. He had
to be at the factory at eight o'clock but did not want to ride because it
was too cold. She looked at the clock when he left and she knew it was 7:15.
Two or three minutes after Mr. Pfeil appeared driving his two horses. He was
on his way back from the factory. She had also seen him go to the factory
that morning. That was about half past six o'clock. She gave a party that
evening of April 2, but neither Mr. Pfeil nor Mrs. Eimermann attended. They
attended most of the times and invitations were not necessary as anyone that
came to a birthday celebration was always welcome.
Conrad Ecklemann testified that he had seen Pfeil leave for the cheese
factory on the morning of April 3. That was about a quarter after six. He
went right after. He also saw him return, being about 110 steps away from
him at the time. That was about an hour later as it always took him about
that time unless he did shopping in Franklin.
About ten minutes after his return he saw Pfeil walk up the road. It was a
pretty cold morning and Mr. Ecklemann's feet were very cold after the drive.
He warmed them at the kitchen stove and saw Pfeil from the kitchen window.
Jake Miller who is one of the strongest witnesses for the state then was
called. He had called on Pfeils in March and he saw the domestic relations
were not of the happiest. Mrs. Pfeil, he said, was the picture of utter
misery and wretchedness. "I attributed her appearance to mental torture. It
certainly was not physical as she seemed to be in the best of health. I
never could conceive of any greater dejection that was portrayed on that
face."
"On April 1, I was at Rhine Center and met Pfeil. He insisted upon telling
me about his family troubles. I was not in a receptive mood. If I had known
that the testimony was desired for a trial of this nature, I should have
taken it down in notes. I only remember definitely a few things of what he
told me. He said that his wife had asked him if either she or her daughter
Emma could go to the step son to help him in his work and he replied "both
of you go." This seemed very unusual and indicated to me that the relations
were very strained. I certainly would not want both my wife and daughter to
leave the house at the same time, without anyone else to take care of it.
"I attended the funeral of the late Mrs. Pfeil and on the way back rode in
the same carriage as Mr. Pfeil. To settle my own curiosity I decided to ask
Mr. Pfeil regarding a rumor that was afloat. I told him that a story had
been circulated that on the evening that Mrs. Pfeil and daughter Emma had
returned from the home of his step son after a weeks visit, Mr. Pfeil was
reported to have been at the home of Mrs. Eimerman until midnight. Mr. Pfeil
did not deny the rumor but stated that it could not have been as late as
that. Mrs. Eimermann is a widow living a short distance from Pfeil."
When cross examined by Attorney Voigt, as to his construction of the
sentence 'both of you go,' Mr. Miller said "If there was not anyone in my
house but my step daughter and my wife and no body to keep house I certainly
would not tell both to go unless something were wrong. If similarly situated
all would take the same construction of the sentence.
Mr. Miller states that on one occasion Pfeil seemed to think that the fates
were against him. "During the half hour I spoke with him he spoke only of
his wife. I told him that he spoke like an insane man, or like one on the
verge of becoming so."
Mr. Wehmeyer of Elkhart Lake stated that on March 17, he met Pfeil in
Elkhart and that he wanted to talk to him about his family troubles but he
did not want to listen. He could see that he did not agree with his wife.
Mr. Holzschuh said that in a saloon in Elkhart Lake on March 17, he had
overheard a conversation between Pfeil and John Feltmann, in which he heard
Pfeil say that his wife was gone and then use these words "I would rather
pay than go to Waupun." Mr. Feltmann told Mr. Holzschuh that he also heard
those words.
Fred Meyer was then re-called. He said he saw Pfeil talk to Mr. Miller in
Rhine Center on April 1. He did not look happy. He was talking about his
family affairs. He heard Pfeil say that either she ought to get out of the
house or get her out of the house, exactly which he did not remember. His
face was red and fiery. He may have been drinking.
William Winter said that he saw Pfeil on the morning of April 3, walk toward
Pfingsten's house. He also saw the nine year old LINDOW girl on the same
road and Pfeil did not walk any faster than she. That was about half past
seven. Pfeil asked Pfingsten to go for a doctor and then went to Eimermanns.
He returned with Mrs. Eimermann and all of us went to Pfeils house. "I asked
if I could go along in" said Winter "and he said yes" So Pfeil Mrs.
Eimermann and I entered. I saw a table but did not see any dishes on it. We
went into the sitting room and the curtains were down. The curtain in the
bedroom also was down. It was dark in the room and Mr. Pfeil pulled up the
shades. I put my hand on the head of Mrs. Pfeil. It was colder then my hand
and I had been outside for some time. It was pretty chilly that morning. I
said she was dead. I left Mrs. Eimermann there and went on my way.
"The body was covered to the chin and the hands were beneath. The body was
towards the outside of the bed on the back, with the head facing east. The
body was clothed when I saw it. I saw Henry MAUG drive past his place."
Henry Maug of Rhine township testified that he had driven past Pfeil's house
o the morning of April 3, and noticed that the bedroom curtain was down but
drawn a little to one side. He could not tell if anyone was behind it. On
being cross examined he said he remembered this because he learned of Mrs.
Pfeil's death soon after.
On an early spring morning, before the sun's rays had as yet acquired
strength to remove the snow from the frozen ground, the shadow of death
spread itself over a house in Rhine Township several miles from the village
of Elkhart Lake.
A woman of middle age, the mother of five children and the wife of a
prosperous farmer, lay stretched out in bed. Life had departed. But only the
most careful scrutiny would reveal this sad truth. To a casual observer she
seemed to be in a deep but pleasant sleep. Her head was peacefully reposing
on a pillow. That was the only portion of her body that could be seen, as
the spread was covering the rest up to her head. The spread was not wrinkled
and covered the woman in neat smoothness.
Still the woman was dead. At what hour she had breathed her last on that
morning of April 3, no tongue has ever told. When the husband returned from
the cheese factory, to which he had hauled his milk for years, he found his
wife in the position described he says.
He threw back the cover of the bed and there she lay dead. She was all
dressed and her skirt was as far down on one side as on the other, in the
rear as in the front. He had left her early that morning and she seemed at
that time to have been in the best of health and spirits. She even had
milked some cows that morning and did chores about the house. Now she was
dead. No one had seen her die as the children were gone on a visit. They
returned that morning and were told of the sad death of their mother and of
its suddeness. It was known however that at one time she had been troubled
with heart disease so that was assumed as the cause of her sudden death.
Still after some discussion it was decided by the family to call the coroner
and hold an inquest. Several witnesses were examined and the coroner arrived
at the conclusion that the death was caused by heart disease.
A son however did not seem satisfied with the finding of the coroner. He
feared that his mother had been murdered. Oh, horrible, thought. Why that
idea should have taken hold of that son is a mystery. He insisted that the
funeral service be delayed. He wanted to know why his mother died so
suddenly. He wanted to know what was in her stomach. So, four days after her
death, two physicians were called and an autopsy held. The stomach of the
dead woman was removed and sent to Madison so that the contents might be
analyzed by experts.
Almost two months passed away and the township of Rhine was just returning
to its quiet undisturbed peaceful life after the excitement of April, when
lo and behold the officers placed the husband under arrest charged with cold
blooded murder of his third wife. He had been married twice before and had
lost his first wife by death and his second by divorce. He was brought to
Sheboygan to face this charge before a Court Commissioner. On June 3, he
appeared before a Court Commissioner to answer the charge. The court room
was crowded and much testimony was taken. Then came the horrible information
that the stomach of the woman was found to have contained CARBOLIC ACID and
that it was that acid which caused her death. The Court Commissioner found
that the evidence in the case was not sufficient to bind the man over for a
trial by jury. So he was released and back to the self same farm which had
been the scene of the tragedy he went.
Four days elapsed and the husband was again taken into custody charged with
the same crime. He was again arraigned before of Court Commissioner in the
presence of the same morbid crowds and this time he was bound over. For
thirty seven days he was deprived of his liberty. All this time the
attorneys for the man attempted to get bail, but there was always a hitch in
the proceedings. Finally on August 5, he was released on bail and again
returned to his farm.
Tuesday the Judge of the Circuit Court called the case of the State of
Wisconsin vs. Julius Pfeil, charged with murder. The man appeared and the
famous murder trial is now on.
Such is Testimony of Dr. Nutt for the State - - Present State of Mouth and
Tongue Indicate that Little Carbolic Acid if any Reached these Members - -
Battle of Experts Soon to Start - - Cuts of Mrs. Minnie Pfeil, second wife
and Miss Emma Foeste, Daughter of dead Mrs. Pfeil
Dr. Nutt developed into an important witness for the state to-day, when he
declared that the decomposition of the mouth and tongue of Mrs. Pfeil.
indicated to him that little if any carbolic acid had touched those
portions. He declared that the carbolic acid acted as a preservative. The
esophagus was in a good state of condition, and [clearly] showed the burns
and at some points the parched condition. He made it quite clear that he was
of the opinion that the acid did not get into the mouth.
Dr. Nutt declared that in all his experience he had never had a case where a
suicide taking 100 grains of carbolic acid has been [??] to place herself in
a position similar to that occupied by the body of Mrs. Pfeil. There is
usually evidence of pain, and he said it was customary to find the body
drawn across the bed or on the floor, and the lower limbs drawn up. He said
in some cases there might be an absence of those symptoms but not when 100
grains was taken. The doctor is precise in his answers and is making an
exceptionally strong witness for the state.
Louis Laun of Elkhart Lake, the undertaker who took charge of the body of
the deceased, was then called. During his testimony Attorney Gillen and
Attorney Mead frequently clashed. Mr. Laun testified that Dr. Sieker had
notified him of Mrs. Pfeil's death and said that he himself and not a
substitute should [??] out. When he arrived there Pfeil said "Da liegt Sie,"
and added that she had died just that way. The position of the body in the
bed seemed suspicious. "Pfeil told me it was heart failure. I asked him
about an inquest and he said the children did not want the body cut open. He
told me she was troubled with heart failure. On Monday afternoon at two
o'clock I began working on the body. I noticed a discoloration on the right
side from the middle of the trunk to the middle of the thigh. It was about
eight inches in breadth and somewhat uniform in color. It was streaked with
white, red and purple. The white marks were darker than the color of the
skin however. The upper part was darkest in color. Discolorations are very
common on bodies after death but a discoloration of the one just described
is most rare. Usually the discoloration is only around the abdominal region.
In this case it was on the thigh as well. Discolorations occur frequently if
the person had been confined to bed because of illness for a long time.
Rarely in sudden deaths except from heart failure. In the embalming process
I flashed the light from the sun by means of a mirror into the mouth and
throat of the body, but saw nothing wrong. Everything looked normal. I
suspected poisoning before I made the examination but did not think it wise
to make known my suspicions after a physician had found heart failure to
have been the cause. There was a small reddish black scar on the right lower
lip. I told Pfeil when he objected that the woman was his wife and he ought
to have and inquest no matter what the children said.
Dr. Nutt told of the exhuming of the body. He said that the organs near the exterior like the outer part of the tongue etc, were well along in decomposition but that the internal organs were very well preserved. The esophagus, the tongue and that part of the wind pipe entering the lungs was removed for examination. Then he described the action of the epiglotis or the lid on the wind pipe. He said that when in the act of swallowing the lid, attached near the rear of the tongue fall backward involuntarily across the wind pipe. Swallowing goes on when one is asleep. The saliva is swallowed. Unconsciousness produced by physical violence might effect the action of the epiglotis as to cause it not to close when swallowing, the person being unconscious. A finger held into the throat would cause the epiglotis to cover the opening into the lungs. If it did not cover it and anything were swallowed the matter would enter the lungs and choking and coughing would follow.
Shortly after six o'clock last night, Judge Kirwan asked the spectators to
leave the court room and then received from the hands of district attorney
Collins, two exhibits of a gruesome nature. The wrappers in which they were
enclosed were not removed, but the contents were revealed to the Judge. This
introduction of exhibits was made in the presence of the attorneys, the
jury, and the expert medical man. There were two exhibits, one wrapped up in
a newspaper and the other enclosed in a suitcase. The District Attorney
informed the Judge that the one package contained the stomach of the woman
who the state claims was murdered by Julius Pfeil and the suitcase contained
the tongue and the esophagus of the deceased which was removed Wednesday
afternoon after the body of the woman had been exhumed, as announced
exclusively in the Daily Press.
When court resumed its session at two o'clock yesterday afternoon the
benches were filled with spectators, women again making up the majority. A
few minutes after two, the aisles were filled and there was no longer
standing room in the rear, so intense is the interest taken in this case.
During the afternoon a great deal of evidence was introduced which was of a
sensational character and which had not been heard in the preliminary
examinations. Much of this evidence came as a surprise to the defense and
they fought bitterly to break down the testimony of several of the
witnesses. Many objections were made during the afternoon for the defense
and for the state. Attorneys Mead, Williams and Voigt, frequently objected
to the questioning of District Attorney Collins on the grounds that it was
leading. Several times they were sustained by the Judge.
The District Attorney and Attorney Gillen representing the prosecution
interposed objections quite as frequently when the defense was cross
examining the witnesses. They based most of their objections on the grounds
that the questions were immaterial or that they constituted improper cross
examination.
Several new phases of the case were developed yesterday. At the preliminary
examination the state launched the theory that a funnel was used in the
administration of the poison. But no evidence was introduced to show that a
funnel was in the Pfeil home or had been purchased by Pfeil. Now comes the
sensational testimony of the step daughter of the accused to the effect that
when she returned to the Pfeil home on the morning of her mother's death she
entered the pantry and observed that a funnel 2 inches in diameter and 3 in.
in length was not in its usual place. She said she did not see it in the
pantry at all.
The defense attempted to break down this testimony. Attorney Williams asked
Miss Foeste if she had observed everything in the pantry, and received a
negative answer. Then he wanted to know why she had observed that this
particular funnel was missing. Miss Foeste replied without hesitation, that
it was because the funnel had always been on a shelf in the pantry where it
was quite evident. The fact that the funnel was not in its place immediately
impressed itself upon her mind.
Judge Kirwan then asked Emma Foeste who had bought the funnel and she
replied that Mr. Pfeil had, some time last winter.
The second sensation of the day was the testimony of Dr. Sieker of Franklin
and Dr. Egloff of Elkhart Lake, to the effect that they had discovered at
the time they made their examination of the body at the inquest, several
portions of the skin which were bluish or reddish blue in color. A very
small mark of that kind was found on the right side of the neck, just at
that portion where a woman's skin would be exposed if she were clothed in a
waist. An area stretching from the middle of the back to about the middle of
the abdomen and as far down as half way between the hip and the knee cap was
also discolored. These discolorations might have been caused by one of
several causes among which the witnesses enumerated violence, gravitation of
fluids and post mortem changes. The defense strongly combated the violence
theory, and at first substituted for it gravitation of fluids. By
gravitation of fluids is meant the movement of a fluid 'because of its
weight' to the lowest part of the body, that part closest to the center of
the earth.
The state however successfully met this argument by attempting to show that
the body of this woman lay upon its back and that if the discoloration had
been caused by gravitation of the embalming fluid to the lowest portion of
the body the discoloration would have made its appearance in the skin of the
back and would not have been localized on the right side. The defense then
emphasized post mortem changes as the cause for a discoloration of that kind
and the witnesses admitted that port mortem changes of that kind might
occur. Much attention was paid by Attorney Voigt of the defense to the fact
that the witnesses had made a judgement of death by heart failure after they
had seen the discolorations described. He claimed that if there had been
anything suspicious about those discolorations the physicians could not have
rendered a judgement of death by heart failure. Dr. Egloff stated in
response to a question of that kind that both he and Dr. Sieker had regarded
the discolorations with suspicion and had stated their suspicions to Coroner
Feagan, but the fact that there was not anything else to indicate death by
violence had induced them to arrive at the conclusion of death by heart
failure.
The third sensation of the afternoon was, as stated above, the introduction
of the gruesome exhibits. They were given in charge of Clerk of Court
Croghan who deposited them in the court house vault.
In the afternoon session of the court the three daughters of the deceased
were in the court room and sat together on one bench. They were attired in
black in mourning for their mother. The second Mrs. Pfeil, who will be an
important witness in the trial if the state will be permitted to introduce
her testimony, sat aside of the three daughters. She also was dressed in
black.
Emma Foeste again took her place on the witness chair which she had vacated
at the noon recess. She answered all the questions clearly and without
hesitation in a sweet girlish voice. She stated that when she had gone into
the bedroom in which her mother lay dead on the morning of April 3, she
found her mothers slippers under the dresser, a most unusual place. Mrs.
Pfeil had always been in the habit of placing them in the sitting room near
the couch. Never before had she seen them in the bed room under the dresser.
She never had been able to secure the shoes which her mother usually wore
around the barn, although she had gone after Mrs. Pfeil's belongings several
times. Attorney Williams on cross examination developed the point that these
shoes had belonged to Mr. Pfeil and that consequently it was not to be
expected that he would give them up. The shoes had been in the house before
the third wife arrived. Miss Foeste then testified regarding the missing
funnel. She said she had not seen it in the pantry on April 3. It had always
been in plain sight when not in use as it was kept on one of the shelves.
On Friday, March 31st, her brother Carl came to her home and asked if she
could go with him to his home to do some work for him. She asked her mother
and her mother asked Mr. Pfeil, the conversation having been published in
yesterdays paper. It was understood that it was more suitable for her to
return on the following Monday than on Sunday and her mother understood it
that way. Her mother never went away at night although she did call on the
neighbors in the day time. The room in which she saw her mother dead was the
room in which her mother and Pfeil slept. The pillows upon which the head of
the dead woman lay did not look as if they had been used.
Edgar Chaplin, a student at the University of Wisconsin, testified that on
April 10, he had received a sealed jar containing the stomach of the
deceased from Dr. Nutt and that he had placed the same in his suit case and
delivered it to Prof. Lehner of the University of Wisconsin for examination.
The suit case had never passed out of his sight from the time of getting
possession of the jar to the time of delivery.
Peter Frick of Rhine stated that he had seen Pfeil deliver milk to the
cheese factory on the morning of April 3. It was about half past six o'clock
at that time.
Carl Foeste, the step son of Pfeil, was then called to the stand. He said
that on March 31 he had gone to Pfeil's house to get his sister to go home
with him. His mother asked Mr. Pfeil whether she could go and Pfeil replied
in a mean angry tone that both should go. He then slammed the kitchen door
and went away. "My mother wanted Emma to return as soon as possible because
she said Pfeil was meaner to her when Emma was gone. It was understood that
Emma was to return Sunday or Monday. My mother knew that she would probably
return Monday. She might have come back Sunday however. I could not bring
her back Sunday as I was playing in a band." Carl Foeste then told of his
return to Pfeil's home on the morning of his mother's death and corroborated
the testimony of his sister Emma published in the paper yesterday. He said,
"we went into the bed room and I saw my mother dead in bed. The clothes were
drawn back and I observed that she was fully dressed with the exception of
her shoes. Her skirts were down to her ankles, as far on one side as on the
other. Everything was perfectly straight. The dresses and skirts were
straight. The bed clothing and the spreads were straight without any
ruffles. Her hair was loose as if they had not been combed for some time.
Her eyes were circled with blue. Her mouth was tied up with a handkerchief.
Her arms were to her side and she lay straight on her back. Pfeil told me
that he had overslept that morning and that on that account he had only
drank a cup of coffee before departing for the cheese factory, intending to
eat his breakfast later. He said he had gone to the cheese factory about
forty five minutes and then returned and found Mrs. Pfeil dead. When he
returned he told me he saw the calf food which she had been stirring near
the kitchen door. He called to her but did not get any answer. Then he went
into the sitting room and saw the curtains down. Then he went into the bed
room and saw my mother in bed. He raised her up but she did not answer. Then
he went to Pfingstens and Eimermanns and returned with Mrs. Eimermann. Dr.
Sieker came about a half hour later and told Pfeil he ought to have an
inquest. Pfeil said that if the children wanted it they could have it; that
he did not want anything on his shoulders. I asked Dr. Sieker as to the
cause of death. He replied heart failure so I thought it would be
unnecessary to have one. I wanted one anyway but I did not want to say so,
because Emma was to be alone with Pfeil that night and I was afraid that is
Pfeil knew that we were to hold an inquest he might get rid of Emma and then
commit suicide. Financial questions too might have caused my decision. Pfeil
urged Sieker to write out a death certificate. Nothing was said to us about
it. When we entered the bed room he tried to be nice again. He said that
there was nothing strange about sudden deaths. 'How did your father die and
how did my first wife' he said. 'Why, she was sitting on a chair in the
sitting room and went into the bed room and was dead.' Mr. Pfeil wanted the
doctor to get an undertaker right away after the death certificate had been
issued. He insisted on Mr. Laun of Elkhart Lake. He wanted to have the
funeral Thursday and made those arrangements. He said later, that it seemed
a little long but that the arrangements could not now be changed. When Laun
came he told Mr. Pfeil that he ought to hold an inquest.
I went away that day but returned the following day. I had telephoned to the
coroner. He had arrived before me. In the testimony to the coroner Pfeil
said that he and his wife had always been in the best relations. He told the
coroner that his wife had been doctoring all winter for heart disease and
that Dr. Sieker had attributed her death to heart disease.
Mrs. Eimermann who was present at the inquest also said that Mrs. Pfeil had
been suffering from heart disease. At the inquest she called him "Pa." The
two seemed happy during the proceedings. She had her eye on him. She
manifested some hesitation in taking the oath as a witness at the inquest
saying that she never had been in a similar position before. Pfeil replied
that that was nothing 'Immer go ahead."
Attorney Mead had charge of the cross examination of the witness. He brought
out the points that Mrs. Foeste had had seven children by her former husband
who left her 152 acres of land at the time of his death. Carl stated that he
had a brother in the county insane asylum and that his mother might have
worried a little about him but not very much as he was in good care.
Although he had been opposed to the marriage of his mother to Pfeil at the
start because of the latter's bad reputation, he never discussed the subject
after the marriage had been consummated. He had visited his mother only five
or six times during her marriage to Pfeil and consequently could not say
much about their family relations except from hear say.
Dr. Sieker who had made an examination of the body of Mrs. Pfeil at the
inquest then took the stand. He said that Pfingsten first came to his house
at eight o'clock on April 3, and told him the message of Pfeil that his wife
was sick. He arrived at Pfeils at nine. He inspected the body. He opened the
mouth and saw nothing wrong in the interior. There was good light there and
he could see the interior plainly. He observed the small scar on the lip,
which might have been caused by the burning of an acid, by pressure, by a
cold sore previous to death or because of a post mortem change. The hands
although they were covered by the quilts were rather cool and the head was
cooler. The position of the body lying straight on its back aroused his
suspicions. The eyes were slightly open. Stiffening had not yet set in. The
muscles were all relaxed. The room was comfortably warm as he did not wear a
coat. The woman might have been dead an hour or two or four times as long.
It was hard to tell because the body had been kept warm by the heavy
covering. Pfeil said he had found her in that position. He said she had been
doctoring for heart trouble. "I," said Dr. Sieker, "felt a little suspicious
and said it was best to have an inquest. Pfeil asked me if I saw anything
suspicious and I said no. Then he said there was no necessity for it. I also
asked him if there was any poison in the house which she might have taken
and he replied not to his knowledge. He showed me a half bottle of medicine
which she had been taken (sic) for heart disease. He asked me for a death
certificate and also that I should get an undertaker - Mr. Laun. I did not
have a death certificate with me. I left but before I got to Franklin, I
turned back and again urged Pfeil to have an inquest. He said the children
were there now and that if they wanted one they could have one. His
conscience was clear, he said, and he did not want any. When I came into the
bed room I looked around but saw no bottle or smelled any acid. Everything
seemed to be normal. I told the children the probable cause of death and
also what Pfeil had told me. They then objected to an inquest. I left the
death certificate on the table and departed. Later I was called to make a
joint examination with Dr. Egloff, of the exterior body of the deceased.
This was at the inquest after the body was embalmed. We examined the mouth
and throat but could not find any burn or scar. Dr. Sieker then told of the
discolorations of the body enumerated above. He said he had not observed the
discoloration of the neck at the first examination.
Dr. Egloff of Elkhart Lake then took the stand. He corroborated the evidence
of Dr. Sieker regarding the examination of the body at the inquest. He said,
"we thought it was strange at that time to see those discolorations but we
had nothing to substantiate a theory of violence, so we believed it was
heart failure. We stated our discoveries regarding the discolorations to the
Coroner but he did not give them much weight."
Experts on Stand Testify on General Subject of Carbolic Acid Poisoning - -
Prof. Lenher Shows Acid Taken From the Stomach of Mrs. Pfeil to the
Court - - Room Filled With Odor - - Prof. Loewenhart States it is Very
Improbable That A Person Found in Position in Which Mrs. Pfeil Was Found
Could Have Taken the Acid Herself Without Leaving Any Indication of it
Behind - - Defense Will Call Widow Eimermann, the Woman in the case, to Take
the Stand.
A strong biting nauseating odor of carbolic acid filled the court room in
which Julius Pfeil is being tried for the murder of this third wife,
yesterday afternoon when Professor Lenher of the University of Wisconsin
offered several bottles of carbolic acid as evidence, this carbolic acid
having been extracted from the stomach of the deceased woman.
There were three bottles in the little package which was opened in the
presence of the court and the jury. One fairly large sized bottle contained
some yellowish substance which Dr. Lenher said was a derivative of carbolic
acid. It had been converted into this solid form because chemists agreed
that that was the only proper form in which it could be weighed. This bottle
contained seventy-two and one half grains of this derivative all of which
had been taken from the stomach of the deceased. A smaller bottle was then
shown to the jury. This contained a brownish colored liquid. Dr. Lehner
stated that the liquid was pure carbolic acid removed from the stomach of
the late Mrs. Pfeil which had not been transformed into the solid
derivative. A third bottle containing a liquid similar in color to that of
the other bottle, said Prof. Lenher contained carbolic acid which had been
made from the yellowish substance found in the first bottle.
Although the stoppers were not removed from the bottles, still the odor of
the acid escaped and the court room was filled with it in a minute. All the
windows were thrown open to get rid of the smell but it remained there most
of the afternoon.
The jar which contained the stomach of the deceased was also produced in
evidence.
The state will conclude its case with the examination of Prof. Loewenhart of
the University of Wisconsin, an expert in toxicology. The defense will then
produce its witnesses. It is understood that Julius Pfeil the defendant will
be placed on the stand, in his own behalf. Dr. Bock and Dr. Gutsch of this
city will also be called to testify regarding the examination of the
esophagus, tongue and wind pipe which were removed from the body of the
third wife last Wednesday after it had been exhumed. Dr. Becker of
Milwaukee, the expert of the defense will be asked to testify upon the
general subject of carbolic acid.
It was learned today from a most excellent source that the defense has
subpoenaed Mrs. Eimermann and that she will be called upon to take the
witness stand. It is this woman who the state claims Pfeil called on
frequently during his marriage to the third Mrs. Pfeil. She is a widow and
lives a quarter of a mile from the Pfeil home. The state is attempting to
prove that the relations between the defendant and Mrs. Eimermann were of a
very intimate nature and is assigning that, as a motive in the crime.
At two o'clock yesterday afternoon the jury of twelve men who are to decide
the fate of Julius Pfeil again took their places in the court room. Each
wore in his button hole a red aster. Two days before, each had worn a white
aster. United States Judge William H. Seaman entered the court room and took
a chair on the platform towards the left of the chamber. He nodded to
Circuit Judge Kirwan and to the attorneys in the case. He remained for quite
a time and seemed to listen to the evidence with great interest. The court
room was again filled and all standing room in the rear occupied. Most of
the benches were filled as early as one o'clock, an hour before the session
began.
Dr. Egloff again went over his testimony of Thursday regarding the
observation of discoloration on the body of the deceased third wife on the
morning of the inquest. Judge Kirwan wanted to know why so much emphasis was
laid on this point when the discoloration had not been observed two days
later when a careful examination was made at the autopsy. District Attorney
Collins replied that the embalming fluid had a bleaching tendency and the
discoloration may have disappeared at that time because of that. Attorney
Voigt objected to the questioning on the grounds of repetition, but was
overruled, Judge Kirwan holding that in an ordinary case he would sustain
such an objection but not so in a case of such a serious nature.
In the cross examination of Dr. Nutt conducted by Attorney Mead, Dr. Nutt
stated that sometimes death from carbolic acid is a lingering death, but at
others it is a quick death from paralysis. The relaxation of the muscles is
a usual occurance in cases of log sickness, but somewhat rare in cases of
sudden death. If death resulted from paralysis it would have been caused
probably about forty-five minutes after the taking of the acid, as it
usually requires about thirty minutes for the physiological effects to
become evident and a little longer before enough acid has been absorbed to
have a paralytic effect on the nerve centers. In that time a person could
have vomited and could have pain. "If a person died of carbolic acid I would
expect the body to be in a different position than straight up and down. I
would expect to see the bed clothes disturbed if such a person died in bed.
A person would not have time to arrange the clothes, etc., if death came
from paralysis."
Dr. Victor Lenher, (This name is spelled two different ways throughout all
the newspaper articles - K. R.) Professor of Chemistry at the University of
Wisconsin was then called. The state began the examination by attempting to
show that Dr. Lenher qualified as an expert, but the defense interrupted and
admitted his qualifications. Dr. Lehner told of his receiving the jar
containing the stomach of the deceased and also a letter from Dr. Nutt
referring to the stomach which the latter asked to have examined. Some of
the liquid was outside of the stomach within the jar when the examination
was begun. The contents of the stomach and the liquid in then were examined
together. There was about as much liquid in the stomach as there was in the
jar. He had weighed out seventy two and a half grains and estimated the
weight of the remainder of the carbolic acid which he had found to be from
ten to thirty grains. That was all the carbolic acid that the stomach
contained - that is about ninety grains. He also tested for other poisons
but no other poisons were present. Dr. Lenher then produced the three
bottles containing the acid which had been extracted from the stomach of the
deceased.
Dr. Brueckbauer then was called and told of the results of the examination
of the tongue, esophagus and wind pipe that had been removed from the
exhumed body. He said, "the organs towards the exterior like the tongue and
part of the pharynx were in a much greater state of decomposition than the
interior organs like the esophagus and the wind pipe. They were pretty well
preserved. The esophagus especially was in a good state of preservation. The
esophagus was burned for its entire length. It was more burned near the
stomach than near the pharynx. Then there was a sharp line of demarcation on
the larynx. Below that point the tissue was burned. Above it there was not a
mark discernable to the human eye. All was smooth and even. The tongue nor
the mouth showed any indication of a burn. Neither did the back of the
tongue and it was in a good state of preservation - good enough so that an
accurate conclusion could be drawn from it. Carbolic acid if taken in the
quantity found in the stomach and of a similar concentration, may act in two
ways upon a human body; first, as an irritant, and second as a paralytic. As
a paralytic when first coming in contact with the mucous membrane causes a
shock; in that case death would ensue within five minutes. As an irritant
death may be caused from thirty minutes to three hours. A great part of that
time would be one of pain to the patient. At the end a period of coma would
occur during which the body would be insensible to pain and the mind could
not act. It is not at all likely that a body found in the position in which
Mrs. Pfeil's is said to have been found, could have come to its death from
carbolic acid as an irritant. If the paralytic effect had ensued the body
would probably be found near the place where the acid was taken. An empty
stomach would hasten death from poison in the stomach.
Mr. Stroud of Rhine said he had been to Rhine Center on the day of April 1,
and went into the saloon. There he saw Pfeil talking to Jake Miller and the
latter shook his head. Later he passed them and heard Pfeil say, "She has
got to go by Monday, it can go anyway it wants to; she's got to go." He saw
Fred Meyer back of Jake Miller on that occasion. What Pfeil meant by those
words he did not know. Pfeil looked as he always did. He did not appear
excited.
Mr. Hofschild declared that he saw Pfeil come to his cheese factory on the
morning of April 3, at about half past six o'clock. He also saw him leave at
about quarter of seven.
Dr. Pfeifer is a veterinary surgeon in Franklin. He stated: "On January 19
or 20, I went to the Pfeil home to test some cattle. Henry Zimmermann
assisted me. At the dinner table, if, I can recollect rightly, Pfeil asked
me if I had some carbolic acid with me. We went to the rig and if I remember
rightly, I did. It seems that I filled him a two ounce bottle which he gave
me and which he got from the house. It seems he said, "Es ist doch immer
schoen wen man so etwas im hause hat." This defendant talked to me about
carbolic acid in Kuestner's saloon in Franklin about three weeks after the
death of his wife. I came into the saloon. Pfeil was sitting there. He came
up to me and took me by the arm. Then he said, 'Joe, I always wanted to ask
you something. Come out here a minute.' We went out and he asked me either
'how much' or 'what kind of carbolic acid did you give me when you tested my
cattle in January.' I responded 'Did I give you some?' to which he replied,
"I thought you had but possibly you didn't.' On the same occasion he told me
that that louse of a district attorney was out in Rhine. I generally carry a
strong solution of carbolic acid with me."
Attorney Voigt tool charge of the cross examination. Mr. Pfeiffer said that
he was not certain of the events of January 19 and 20, but that it only
seemed that way to him. He said it was a common thing for farmers to ask him
for carbolic acid; that it was a very common medicine and that about half of
the farmers had some on their premises.
Henry Zimmermann who had accompanied Dr. Pfeiffer to the farm of Julius
Pfeil on the 19th of January said that it seemed to him that he saw Pfeil
and Dr. Pfeiffer talking at the rig that day and that he saw Pfeiffer give
Pfeil something; what, he did not know.
Florence Bahr, a school teacher in Rhine Township who lives in Sheboygan
Falls, but during the session of school boarded at the home of Mrs.
Eimermann testified that Pfeil would come to Eimermann's about two evenings
in the week while she was there. She went home on Fridays and consequently
was not there on Friday or Saturday evenings. "In the Eimermann's
household," she said, "there was Mr. Winter ninety years old, Mrs. Winter
about sixty five years old, the hired man who was usually gone in the
evening, Mrs. Eimermann a widow, and I. We all sat in the same room. Mr.
Pfeil talked to all of us. Sometimes he would leave early; at other times
late, after I had gone to bed.
At this point Attorney Fillen offered the summons, complaint, stipulation
and judgement in the case of Minnie Pfeil against Julius Pfeil for divorce
as evidence. Attorney Mead objected that the matter did not have any bearing
on the case. Judge Kirwan asked Attorney Gillen for a statement. He said:
"Your Honor, we submit these papers as proper and relavent (sic) for this
purpose - to show that the defendant in this action was parted from a
considerable portion of his property which was given to his wife as a result
of this divorce. It would establish not only a motive but also the reason
why he might have disposed of this third wife in the manner in which he
did." From this it is evident that the state will claim as a motive of the
alleged crime that the defendant wanted to get rid of his wife in order to
marry another woman but did not want to get rid of her by a divorce, which
might deprive him of a great part of his property.
Attorney Mead was immediately on his feet and moved that the words be
stricken out and that the jury be ordered not to consider them.
Judge Kirwan ruled that the papers would be accepted as evidence but that
the complaint was not to be read to the jury.
There was nothing prejudicial in the other papers. That the remarks of
Attorney Gillen were addressed to the Court and not to the jury and that
therefor he did not feel called upon to order them to be striken (sic) out.
Coroner Feagan stated that he had been called to the Pfeil home on April 4th
by Carl Foeste. He arrived at two in the afternoon. "Pfeil told me at the
inquest," said the Coroner, "that he had got up at about five o'clock that
morning; that a fire was built; that he and his wife milked cows; that she
went to the kitchen to get breakfast while he did chores; that she helped
him load the milk on the wagon; that he took a cup of coffee but did not eat
his breakfast; that he left for the factory at about six and returned about
a quarter after seven; that he saw a calf food pail standing in the kitchen
when he arrived home; that his breakfast was on the table; that he called to
his wife and not getting a response went into the sitting room and then into
the bedroom where he put his hand on her face and knew she was dead; that
she had doctored with Dr. Nutt and Dr. Brueckbauer for heart trouble and
stomach trouble; that he never had had any trouble with her and that the
relations between them were always of the best; that once about three months
after their marriage she seemed to be dissatisfied and talked of going back
to her folks; that he and his wife were always on good terms; that she could
not have taken anything or anybody given her anything as there was nothing
in the house." Mr. Feagan said he also examined Mrs. Eimermann and she told
him that Mrs. Pfeil had once told her that she was doctoring for heart
trouble with Dr. Nutt and Dr. Brickbauer. Pfeil then showed the Coroner a
bottle of medicine which was about one quarter filled. He said she had been
feeling well and was in good spirits.
The Coroner further testified that he had seen a scar which appeared about
an in. and a quarter in length on the lip. That Dr. Sieker had pointed out
to him at the inquest an area of discoloration on the right side near the
hip which was brownish red in color. The discoloration was sharply defined.
On April 6th at the autopsy Pfeil asked the Coroner what the trouble had
been all about."
The Coroner was excused and District Attorney Collins told the court that
the State had one more witness and would then rest its case.
This mornings sessions of the circuit court was devoted almost exclusively
to the examination of experts for the state. A large number of hypothetical
questions were asked and many clashes occurred between Attorney Gillen who
conducted the examination on the part of the state and Attorney Mead
representing the defense. Mr. Mead objected frequently on the grounds of
immateriality and the including of either insufficient data in the question
or else introducing circumstances which, he claimed, had not been shown in
the case.
Dr. Lenher was recalled by the defense. He testified that the stomach was
practically empty at the time he made his chemical examination although it
did contain small parts of food matter.
Ida Foeste step daughter of the accused then took the stand. This is the
first time she had appeared as a witness in the case. She was attired in
black and wore a black hat. She said her mother was fifty years old, five
feet four or five inches tall and weighed between one hundred and fifty and
one hundred and sixty pounds.
Attorney Gillen conducted the first examination on the part of the state.
Dr. Loewenhart said: "I am a professor of toxicology and pharmacology at the
university of Wisconsin which position I have held for the past three years.
I am a graduate of Johns Hopkins University in medicine and surgery. I have
not actually practiced but I have seen a large number of cases because the
Johns Hopkins hospital is in very intimate connection with the University.
By pharmacology we mean the action of drugs on living organisms. I taught
this subject to medical students at Johns Hopkins and Wisconsin. Toxicology
deals with the action of poisonous substances on human beings and animals
and has to do with the detection of these substances and is an integral part
of legal medicine.
Defense Will Now Have Its Inning and Case is Likely to Go to the Jury by
Friday of This Week - - Interest Increases as the Case Goes On - - Suicide
Not Probable with Conditions Such as Pointed Out - - Expert for Defense
Takes the Stand
The state has rested it case. It has attempted to prove:
That the third Mrs. Pfeil came to her death from carbolic acid poisoning and
has offered as evidence for the same the examination of the stomach of the
deceased by Dr. Victor Lenher revealing the presence of about ninety grains
of carbolic acid, and the testimony of physicians regarding the burned
condition of the esophagus.
That the late Mrs. Pfeil could not have committed suicide, as evidence for
which is the very strange position of the body as claimed to have been found
by the defendant, lying on its back, with arms extended to the side, with
the clothing neatly arranged and the bed clothes undisturbed; the absence of
a receptacle for the carbolic acid; and the expert testimony of Dr.
Loewenhart of the University of Wisconsin that it is highly improbably that
a person, found dead in the position in which Mrs. Pfeil was found without
the mouth or tongue showing the effects of carbolic acid burning while the
esophagus is clearly marked, could have taken the poison herself.
That someone else administered the poison, for the same reasons as above.
That that person was Julius Pfeil, based on the evidence that he had last
been with her, that the relations between him and his wife had not been good
and that his actions were extremely suspicious.
That the motive of the crime was love for another woman, Mrs. Eimermann, for
which the state has introduced evidence that he called on Mrs. Eimermann
during his marriage to his third wife, and that the relations existing
between the two were most intimate.
That he wanted to get rid of this wife in an inexpensive way for which the
state introduced the remarks said to have been made by Pfeil to several
persons on various occasions; and also the papers in the divorce proceedings
of Minnie Pfeil, the second wife against the defendant, the judgement in
which case bestowed a considerable part of Pfeil's property on the wife.
That the crime was committed with aforethought, to substantiate which,
various conversations which Pfeil is alleged to have had and in which his
wife was uppermost in his mind, have been offered.
That the opportunity for the crime was the absence of the children from the
household when the daughter Emma had gone to visit her brother, that being
her first separation from her mother since the relations between Pfeil and
his wife had become strained.
That the poison was administered by a funnel through a hose. The absence of
the funnel from the pantry on the day of Mrs. Pfeil's death, the absence of
a mark or burn on the interior of the mouth and the very pronounced burns on
the esophagus are offered as evidence, as well as the answer of Dr.
Loewenhart to a hypothetical question as to how such carbolic acid could be
introduced, bearing in mind the circumstances.
That the carbolic acid was administered in a different place than that in
which the body was found. The lack of odor, the position of the body, etc.,
have been introduced to sustain that contention.
That the evidence of the crime were destroyed, as is indicated by the
carrying out of the bed and the bed clothes from the spare room, the
disappearance of the mop and the shoes of the deceased and the washing of
her clothes in which she had died before giving them to the daughter.
[unreadable line]
investigation. His opposition to an inquest, his suggestion of heart failure
and his hostility to the District Attorney are assigned as evidence.
That his conscience bothered him from the very start for which the state has
offered as evidence the conversations had with the children and others that
no one had given her anything and she could not have taken anything and that
he asked Dr. Pfeifer about how much or what kind of carbolic acid he had
given him in January. This was after he learned that the District Attorney
was making an investigation, and before a living soul knew there was
carbolic acid in the stomach.
That he had secured both the funnel and the carbolic acid some time in
winter. The evidence of Dr. Pfeifer who stated that he thought he had
supplied him with the poison and that of Emma Foeste who said that Pfeil
bought the funnel are offered to substantiate this theory.
The case of the State was concluded at half past two o'clock Saturday
afternoon. The defense immediately placed Dr. William Becker of Milwaukee on
the stand. He took a directly opposite view of most important problems upon
which he was asked to testify from that of the State's experts. Where they
said they would expect to find pain, he said there would not be any. Where
they said it would be highly improbable for a person to have committed
suicide who had been found in the position in which Mrs. Pfeil was found
with no marks on the interior of the mouth and no receptacle for the acid
being discovered, he could state positively that suicide had been committed
and that the conditions stated were most common in death from carbolic acid.
When they stated that after a most careful examination of the tongue no
evidence of carbolic acid was found, Dr. Becker found evidence galore, etc.,
etc.
When he was cross examined he did not stand the attack of Attorney Gillen
and several times exactly reversed his testimony given in direct
examination. He did not seem to be comfortable under the cross examination
and his former smile disappeared entirely, and the questions were answered
several times in angry tones. Once or twice he persisted in long tedious
enumerations even after Attorney Gillen had told him that it was not
necessary. When he came from the stand he was perspiring and one of the
physicians there asked him whether he was having a hot time.
When court resumed session Saturday afternoon Dr. Loewenhart was recalled to
the stand. He stated that he had examined the tongue of the deceased and
found the front part to be of a bluish color like that of decayed meat.
"When I had concluded my second examination of the tongue," he said, "I
arrived at the conclusion that I could see no evidence of carbolic acid
poisoning on any part of the tongue, either the anterior of the posterior.
The posterior part of the tongue was in an advanced state of decomposition.
There would not be any reason for any essential difference in the option of
carbolic acid on the tongue and on the mucous membrane of the mouth. If
vomiting had occurred the
[unreadable line]
up into the mouth and it would have burned it. Convulsions are a common but
not invariable symptom of carbolic acid poisoning. 92 grains are equal to
about a teaspoonful and a half.
"If a person had voluntarily taken the acid, if it were possible, the
circumstances remaining the same as in the hypothetical question stated
above and if I found the person in the position described I should state
that it was taken by means of an instrument. I should expect also to see the
body very near to the instrument. I should expect an odor, The majority of
people can detect the odor of carbolic acid very readily even three hours
after death.
The odor is very discernable as was observed yesterday in this court room
when the room was filled with it in a minute. If a person had opened the
mouth of the patient having taken carbolic acid three hours before and the
acid had touched the mouth the odor would have been very plain. If a person
had been removed from the room of death to another room subsequent to death
the odor would not be strong. If the person had been removed to within a
room from the outside where death had occurred from carbolic acid poisoning
the odor would not be so easily detected."
"I examined the exhibits of Amelia Pfeil which contained the tongue, part of
the wind pipe and the greater part of the gullet. I made two examinations. I
found that the front part of the tongue from one to one and a half inches
back was of bluish color. It was in an advanced state of decomposition. The
rest of the mouth was of a grayish color, opaque, uniform appearance and
tough in consistency."
"The esophagus differed from the appearance of the mouth and tongue. Its
color was flesh pinkish. There was no putrification as in the mouth cavity.
The lining showed the action of a substance which when applied to a living
substance burns it. In this case it could be nothing but carbolic acid. The
lining was cracked up and down and the muscles exposed. The epiglotis or the
lid covering the wind pipe was in the same condition as the mouth. I noticed
no difference between the upper and lower surfaces. The trachea was of the
same general appearance as the mouth. The line of demarcation was definite,
between the well preserved portion and the decayed portion. Carbolic acid
tends to preserve the organs. If carbolic acid remains in contact with a
tissue for a very brief time it causes an easily seen change. The gullet
showed clearly the action of acid. I saw no evidence that carbolic acid had
come into the mouth. If acid had been in the mouth for any brief time the
signs of it would have been discernable. It would have been in a condition
similar to that of the esophagus. The burned condition occurs very quickly
after the introduction of the acid.
"If carbolic acid were in contact with the trachea the subject would have a
burning choking sensation. If a person looked into the mouth the person
could see to the higher portion of the tongue and the muci farther back
along the palate. In order that the liquid might not touch that palate it
must have been received while the person was lying down and on its back. It
would be absolutely impossible for a person to take a liquid from a bottle
or vial without the liquid touching the mouth or tongu. Artificial means
would be necessary."
The immediate results of drinking carbolic acid are: a disagreeable taste, a
burning sensation continued indefinitely into the stomach,
[unreadable line],
[unreadable line]
faster breathing. Vomiting usually ensues. It occurs in the vast majority of
cases.
"Carbolic acid is then taken into the blood vessels and affects the tissues.
Those most sensitive to it are the nerves. Stimulation ensues with an
increase in rate and depth of breathing, faster heart beat, convulsions
which are common, and paralysis. In that stage all sensations are lost and
the muscles cannot be used. Deep coma follows from which the patient cannot
be aroused. The pulse becomes slow and weak. The breathing shallow and death
comes from paralysis of respiration. The heart beats a little longer.
"The temperature is not affected at early stages, Rises during period of
convulsions and falls during periods of paralysis. Pain varies in different
cases. Where death is rapid there may be little pain. Vomiting might occur
very promptly because of local action. Convulsions might be delayed. In
rapid death they might not occur at all. Paralysis might come almost
immediately - a few steps from where the acid was taken. We may ascribe
severe pain to this. The face would not necessarily give evidence of pain as
the muscles relax after death. Position of limbs might show pain however. If
the pain is in the abdominal region the body would double up. The hands be
raised to the face. That is the commonest position. Frequently weeping
occurs."
Q. If you were to find a patient in bed lying on the back with the arms
extended and the lower limbs close together and straight down, the clothes
as far down on one side as on the other, in the rear as in the front, the
bedding undisturbed, the coverlets close over the body and drawn up to the
chin, the mouth open - it you were to find a patient in such a position, at
least an hour or an hour and a half after taking carbolic acid from the
effects of which the person had died, what would you say as to the
possibility of the person having died in that position?
A. "It may not be impossible but very improbable. If the intervals which I
described as occurring in carbolic acid poisoning were present I should not
expect to find the patient in such a position. The arms would probably be
elevated and the legs would be drawn up. The clothing would be of no
consideration to the person. It would be disarranged.
Attorney Voigt conducted the direct examination of Dr. Becker. He said he
was a graduate of the Medical School of Milwaukee, where he later became an
instructor and a professor. "I have studied in Europe for about a year, in
Munich, Jena and Berlin. Then I became professor at the College of
Physicians and Surgeons in Illinois and then I was selected as Professor of
bacteriology etc., at Marquette College. I have assisted the Coroner of
Milwaukee County in many cases. I have attended about 2,000 autopsies of
which about 125 were carbolic acid deaths.
"Convulsions are not frequent in carbolic acid poisoning in adults or where
death occurs rapidly. I examined sections of the tongue and found a line of
demarcation on the posterior part of the tongue differentiating the color.
The back third of the posterior part is more yellow. Yellowish patches on
right and left were visible. I removed one for microscopical examination.
These two patches indicated chemical burning during life. Knowing the other
circumstances I should say without hesitation that carbolic acid caused that
burn. I cannot [say] whether carbolic acid came in contact with the fore
part of the tongue during life. The burning of the esophagus increased with
absolute regularity from the top to the bottom. There was no positive
evidence of carbolic acid on the epiglotis. I can say from inference however
that there must have been. The back of the tongue showed signs of
preservation.
"Suicides are normally committed in the morning before eating breakfast.
Nine tenths of them are on empty stomachs. In many cases the evidence is
secreted most carefully. I have had cases where women took carbolic acid
outside and returned to the house where death occurred, the evidence having
been destroyed. It is nothing unusual for a suicide of this kind to be found
with bed clothes over her. She might have covered herself semi-consciously.
I by no means expect the limbs to be drawn up. Carbolic acid patients never
die from convulsions - but only from paralysis when the muscles relax again.
It is very easy to have a position like the one ascribed to Mrs. Pfeil in
death. It is not at all unusual in carbolic acid suicide. Between the
cessation of convulsions and the beginning of paralysis the mind would be
cloudy and would perform the usual work semi-consciously. I have never seen
any patient double up. In this case I think the person actually swallowed
the carbolic acid. If a funnel had been used it would have scared (sic) and
injured the tongue and the epiglotis. If a glass tumbler had been used the
contents would have spilled in the mouth. It is absolutely impossible to
force carbolic acid into a person without a mark being left. It is possible
in no way while she is conscious. So is it also impossible if the person is
unconscious, and not leave marks on the mouth or tongue.
"It is one of the most difficult things in the world to introduce carbolic
acid through a tube. The withdrawal of a tube would invariably spill some
liquid over the corner of the lips or neck. That is why we use a towel. The
marks on the body of the deceased could not have been marks of violence by
any means. They were port mortem marks. Carbolic acid scars on the tongue do
not show any striking difference in color on the first three or four days
from that of the mucous membrane. They are almost like the natural color of
the mucous membrane.
"It is impossible to chloroform a person who is conscious against his will.
It is almost impossible to chloroform a person who is asleep without him
first waking up and opposing the administration of the chloroform.
Dr. Nutt was called by the defense this morning as the first witness of the
day and stated that he had not seen any discoloration on the body of the
late Mrs. Pfeil when the autopsy was held, although a careful examination
had been made.
Although the jurors who are to decide the fate of Julius Pfeil charged with
the murder of his third wife, have been locked up for almost a week now,
when they filed into the court house this morning they still seemed to be in
the best of spirits. Each again wore a red aster in his button hole.
Judge Kirwan took his chair at ten o'clock and the sixth day of the famous
murder trial was on. The crowd this morning was not as large as on other
days and several benches were not occupied. This was due to the examination
of experts which is going on at the present time and which is tiresome and
monotonous to the general public.
Dr. Becker of Milwaukee, the expert for the defense was then called and the
cross examination by Attorney Gillen resumed. Dr. Becker made several
contradictions in his testimony and several times was forced to admit that
the facts were not exactly so as stated in the direct examination. In the
direct examination he said he had spent a year in Europe in study. In the
cross examination he said half a year. In the direct examination he said he
had attended a thousand autopsies in Munich; in the cross he admitted that
there were not so many and that the number was exaggerated. When he was
asked about what courses he took in several universities which he said he
attended in Europe, he entered into a long enumeration and refused to break
off even after the counsel of the defense had said it was sufficient.
(Continued tomorrow)
Makes a Good Witness with Defense - - Denies Many of The Allegations of the
State - - Julius Pfeil on Stand - - Makes Good Impression in Direct
Examination - - Is Given Grueling Cross Examination - - Experts Testimony
All Taken - - Dr. Gutsch and Dr. Bock Testify
Although it had been rumored that the defense would place Mrs. Eimermann,
the woman in the case on the stand, still when her name was called as
witness in the famous Pfeil murder case it came as a surprise. The whole
court room was filled with an atmosphere of suspense when she took the
witness chair. Not a sound was heard and many a neck was turned to get a
glimpse of the woman who the state alleges was on very intimate terms with
the defendant and because of whom the alleged crime was committed.
She took the stand at about half past nine o'clock this morning. She was
neatly dressed in a black skirt and white waiste and wore a well fitting
black coat and becoming black hat. She seemed to make a very good impression
on the stand and stood the cross examination of District Attorney Collins
without faltering. Her answers were clear cut and to the point. Although she
was at variance on many subjects with several of the State's witnesses still
she did not contradict herself and proved to be a strong witness for the
defense.
The second sensation of the day was the appearance of the defendant himself
on the stand. Pfeil took the stand shortly before the morning recess.
Attorney Williams had charge of the direct examination. Pfeil appeared
entirely at ease when he took the stand. He was cleanly shaved and wore the
same grayish colored coat and dark trousers which he has worn throughout
this trial. He told an apparently straight forward story of the events of
the day of his wifes death and corroborated the testimony of Mrs. Eimermann
regarding the relations existing between them. He stated most emphatically
that he and his wife had always been on the best terms in spite of the
evidence to the contrary introduced by the state. It is certain that someone
is lying in this case as the State's witnesses are positive about certain
facts and the witnesses of the defense are just as certain about facts
directly opposite in nature. This holds true in the expert testimony as well
as the other testimony.
The morning session opened at the usual hour. The jurors for the first time
during the trial wore purple asters in their button holes. On the other days
they wore white and red. The first witness called was Paul Laack. He stated
that he had helped Undertaker Laun at Pfeil's home. He came there at eleven
o'clock and left to notify a minister. In the afternoon he helped Laun
remove a part of the waiste and then was ordered to leave the room by Laun
that his services were no longer necessary. The woman wore the usual
clothes.
Mrs. Jacob Eimmermann is a sister of Pfeil and is not a relative of Widow
Eimmermann. She said that she did not call on her brother very often. That
she was there the day after the funeral and helped wash the clothes. All the
clothes were washed. Emma came there to get her clothes and those of her
mother. Pfeil said she could not have her clothes until they were washed.
She had not noticed those clothes any more than any others. Emma could not
have them because they were in the wash. She had not noticed anything wrong
with them.
Widow Eimmermann then took the stand. She said: "We have been neighbors of
Julius Pfeil for seventeen years. Two years ago next February my husband
died. We have always been on friendly relations with the Pfeil's and my
husband and Mr. Pfeil worked together on each others farm. Mr. Pfeil took
milk for us all last spring. He would come over to the house about twice a
week sometimes in the daytime and sometimes in the evening. He came to visit
my father, ninety years old who is sick and feeble. On the morning of April
3, he came over to our place and told me that he thought his wife was going
to die and that I should come over. I went and looked into the bed room
door. I did not go in because the sight of dead people makes me nervous. I
said to Pfeil that he should eat his breakfast. He replied that he had eaten
enough for that day. The table was set for two persons with bread, butter
sausage, cups, plates, knives and forks. I cleared the table and cleaned up
and Dr. Sieker came in just as I was getting through with the milk cans.
Then we cleaned out the spare room for the undertaker. There were lots of
Mrs. Pfeil's clothes on the bed and I took them and the bedding upstairs.
The bed stead we carried into the shed. After the children came we took up
the carpet. There is no closet in the spare bedroom. When the children came
in the following conversation was carried on:
Pfeil - "Hello Emma, Where do you come from?"
Emma - 'Carl brought me.'
Pfeil - 'Bad news, your mother is dead.' Emma did not reply to that. Then
Carl came in.
Pfeil - 'Bad news, Your mother is dead.'
Carl - 'No wonder.'
Pfeil did not respond and they went into the bed room to look at the body."
Then they spoke about the funeral arrangements. Carl did not want to write
the letters of notification to the relatives and asserted that that was
Pfeil's duty. Pfeil said he would write to his side and Carl should write to
his. How they settled it I do not know. It seemed as if the cups that were
on the table had been used but not the plates and knives and forks. On
Tuesday at the inquest we did not call each other "Ma" and "Pa" and I do not
see how Coroner Feagan could say such a thing. He called me Mrs. Eimmermann
and I called him Mr. Pfeil. No one can call me "Ma" except my children. He
never addressed me in that way and never will.
On the cross examination conducted by the District Attorney Mrs. Eimmermann
stated: I have been over to Pfeil's only once since Christmas. I did not go
to many places because of my husband's death. I did say at one time that 'I
could spit that woman in the face, referring to Mrs. Pfeil, but I said that
not because of jealousy but because I thought she was not respectable.
Afterwards I got to know her and I thought she was good hearted. She called
over to our place only once since Christmas. She was not much in the habit
of making calls on any of her neighbors. Yes, my husband died in February
and it was immediately after that I first met Mrs. Pfeil and made that
statement about spitting in her face. There had been coffee in the cups that
morning. It was black coffee. Both cups were dirty. There were no dirty
plates in the sink that I saw. No body asked me to wash the dishes. Pfeil
said she had the calf food half done so I fixed it for him. The calf food
was standing in the kitchen. Hot water was on the stove."
As the defendant in this action took the stand a hush fell over the court
room. He spoke clearly and distinctly and his answers could be heard in
every part of the room. He said: "Our relations were all right. Only once
did she mention about going back home and that was about Christmas. I saw
that at the time that she was dishearted and asked her what the trouble was.
She said that she was not feeling well and remarked that it would be better
if she returned home and he remained on the farm.
"On the Friday preceeding my wife's death Carl came over. He stayed for
dinner. While I was outside my wife came and asked if either she or Emma
could go to Carl's to help in the work for a few days. I said, why sure both
of you go. I said that willingly and not in a mean way. Whey they both had
been there before for a week."
"On Sunday my wife and I were in the house together. I wanted to go to Mrs.
Hungsperg but she did not because she said she was waiting for her son
Herman. She got her clothes down however and we decided that we could go
after he came. These clothes were placed into the spare room. Herman did not
come however so we did not go. In the evening, she said she did not care to
go because she felt so dizzy. We occupied the same room and bed. We retired
at about nine o'clock. We got up Monday morning at about five. I took the
milk pails to the barn while she lighted the fire in the kitchen. I fed the
horses. Then we milked. I milked four cows and she three. Then I dumped out
the milk and she fed the calf. I took the milk into the summer kitchen. Then
I took the cart to the shed and she gave me a lift. She went into the house
to get breakfast and I hitched up the horses. I went into the house.
Breakfast was ready. I took a cup of coffee saying that I would eat the rest
of my breakfast later. I lighted my pipe, put on my fur coat and went to the
factory.
"I left for the factory at about six and got back about a quarter after
seven or half past seven. I passed Pfingsten's house and saw Mr. Pfingsten
there. When I came home I unhitched my horses. I heard the calf holler and
was wondering whether it had been fed. Took the cans to the house. Saw calf
food still there and thought that the calf had not been fed. Removed my coat
and went into the bed room and saw her lying on bed. 'Are you sick, Ma?,' I
said and got no answer. I raised her up, looked at her and placed her back
in her position. I was scared and did not know that she was dead. I did not
get aid at Ecklemann's because we were not on good terms. I went to
Pfingsten. I knew he was home and his horse hitched. Although he lived there
only for a short time we were always on good terms. I told Pfingsten that my
wife was sick and asked him to get Dr. Sieker. Then I went to Mrs.
Eimmermann and told her to come. I was all alone in the house and I wanted
some one there. Emma was gone. After Mrs. Eimmermann had been there for a
short time she wanted to go and I asked her to stay because I was all alone.
I told her she should stay until the Dr. arrived anyway.
"Dr. Sieker came about nine o'clock. I met him in the house. He removed the
clothes and examined her. I was not present. When he came from the room I
asked him how he had found her and he replied 'As far as I can find she
died from heart failure. Did she ever take any medicine?' I answered, 'Yes,'
and showed the medicine to Dr. Sieker. My wife had told me that she had been
taking medicine from Dr. Sieker for stomach trouble for about a year. He had
also been doctoring for heart trouble as she told me. I do not remember any
talk of an inquest at the first call of Dr. Sieker. When Charles and Emma
came I was taking out the bed for the undertaker. (Pfeil here told the same
story as Mrs. Eimmermann and also denied that he had replied to Carl's
remark that it was no wonder that his mother was dead by the words "If you
talk crazy I will put you out of the house.") When Dr. Sieker came the
second time, I met him outside. He said he thought it was better to have an
inquest. I responded that I was satisfied and that he should see the
children. We went into the house and I introduced him to the Foeste's. He
said that I was willing to have an inquest and asked how they felt on the
matter. Charlie asked what she had died from and Dr. Sieker said probably
heart failure. Then he said they did not want an inquest."
The defense in the case if the State of Wisconsin against Julius Pfeil
scored heavily yesterday afternoon when two of its experts Dr. Gutsch and
Dr. Bock of this city who made an examination of the tongue and wind pipe
which had recently been removed from the exhumed body of the late Mrs. Pfeil
whom the state alleges was murdered, took the witness stand and testified
that they had seen unmistakable burns of carbolic acid on the posterior part
of the tongue which indicated clearly that the carbolic acid had been in the
rear of the mouth. Dr. Bock even went farther than that and stated that the
burns were those made by the process of natural swallowing and not those
resulting from the forced swallowing of injected acid. Both physicians
declared that everything pointed towards suicide rather than murder which in
their mind was highly improbable taking all the facts into consideration. In
one point however Dr. Bock proved of considerable value to the State. That
is that if a solar plexus blow were struck a person unconsciousness would
result and no discoloration would ensue. There would be no evidence of the
blow and the person in the unconscious state would be able to swallow in the
same manner as if conscious.
At two o'clock yesterday afternoon when the Court resumed Dr. Becker was
still on the stand. He stated that the limbs may be thrown outward when
relaxation takes place. There may be a little bend at the knee. Outside of
those exceptions the body lies flat after relaxation. A person may move his
arms about unconsciously while in a coma.
On the redirect examination Dr. Becker said that a person could retain food
in his stomach for five or six hours. A cup of coffee with rolls would
remain in the stomach about four or five hours. Chloroform can be detected
in stomach after death by chemical analysis.
In general there seems to be a world of difference between the two experts
of the state and Dr. Becker, of the defense as far as the method of
answering questions are concerned. The replies of Dr. Lenher and Dr.
Loewenhart were clear and precise without being encumbered with numerous
details, explanations and conditions.
During his stay in Munich out of all the large number of autopsies less than
one per cent were deaths from carbolic acid. Dr. Becker testified in the
cross examination that as a rule in all the carbolic acid cases he had seen
there the entire tongue was burned, the posterior middle and even the
anterior. One out of three subjects showed burns on the lips. If too much of
the liquid is present to be swallowed several swallows will be necessary. A
tablespoonful of liquid can easily be swallowed at once. Swallowing is not
usually a voluntary act. At some stage it is involuntary and can not be
controlled. If the victim were aware of the results and the burning effects
it would require considerable will power. A person intending to commit
suicide would be aware of the effects and results.
The taste nerves are distributed on the surface of the tongue. They are
effected by sweet, sour and saline tastes. The tastes of fruits etc., for
instance is confined to the back of the tongue and their taste is made
perceptible by co-operation with the smell. Carbolic acid has a peculiar
taste. The burning is not instantaneous. A numbness is first felt. The odor
is immediately detected however by the sense of taste with the sense of
smell. If a tablespoonful of liquid were placed in the back of the mouth the
liquid would necessarily come in contact with the posterior third of the
tongue or some portion of the mouth. If carbolic acid were taken from a
bottle the bottle usually would have to be removed from the mouth before a
second swallow were taken so as to prevent burning. In order to prevent the
burning of the middle third of the tongue or the upper part of the mouth the
acid would have to be measured off so as not to exceed the capacity of one
swallow. I have seen one case where a quarter of a bottle was taken with
only the middle third of the tongue being burned.
In the case of the young man described Saturday where the retainer was not
found near the body and there was no odor, I saw the body nine hours after
death. The body was warmer at that time that the surrounding temperature.
The posterior of the tongue was burned as far forward as the middle third.
Dr. Loewnhart was not present when I examined the yellowish projection of
the tongue which I removed. This portion was about one third of an inch in
width. I examined it with a microscope. I could not determine whether it was
affected by carbolic acid burning without the knowledge of other factors.
This part was burned because it was the most prominent portion of the
tongue.
Dr. Gutsch another of the State's experts was then called, he said: that
carbolic acid causes a burn on the mucous membrane that is of a whitish
color and very much resembles the natural color of the mucous after death
and for that reason may be easily overlooked in an examination. One could
differentiate between the burned area and the unburned area of the mouth
more easily with the increase of time after death. At the end of three days
the unscorched area becomes darker than those that were scorched. In suicide
cases the tip of the tongue is not usually burned while the posterior third
is burned. After opening the mouth the middle anterior and a very small part
of the posterior one third may be seen with the eye. "In my examination of
the tongue I discovered burns on the posterior third which I called carbolic
acid burns. There seemed also to be a burn on the epiglotis. To my mind the
posterior part of the tongue had come in contact with carbolic acid. There
were no burns outside of these yellowish projections which we examined.
There would be injury to the epiglotis and part of the tongue if a tube were
used. We saw no injuries. In an unconscious person a fluid if injected from
the mouth is apt to enter the trachea rather then the esophagus. This would
result in coughing and spitting. In that case the evidence would be shown in
the anterior part. In case of death by carbolic acid I would expect to find
the subject in a relaxed position with the limbs extended. It is difficult
to administer chloroform by a lay person. If too much is given it would
result in death. A patient usually wakes up before the chloroform has taken
effect and fights its administration. I consider it impossible to give
carbolic acid to a conscious person against the will. I consider it possible
that a person could take carbolic acid, destroy all the evidence, throw
herself down in a bed and cover herself up with the bed clothes and assume
the position said to have been assumed by Mrs. Pfeil and be found dead.
A change in life occurs in women between forty and fifty years of age. This
change is usually accompanied by a period of despondency, which in some
cases may become so intense as to result in insanity. The mind is affected.
The area of discoloration said to have been found on the deceased is a post
mortem change. If it had been the result of a bruise or of violence the
discoloration would have remained so as to be seen on the autopsy.
"In carbolic acid poisoning I would expect the odor would be detected," said
Dr. Gutsch on the cross examination by Attorney Gillen. "If taken in the
room where the body was found I would expect the odor to be there. The heart
respiratory centers are usually the last to be paralyzed. Consequently
respiration would continue and odor of carbolic acid would be given off and
ought to be perceptible."
Attorney Voigt took charge of the witness for re-direct examination. Dr.
Gutsch said: "Where a person is willing a tube is much more easily inserted
than where a person is unconscious. In case a tube were introduced against a
persons will by a layman the epiglotis and the rear part of the tongue would
be injured. Usually in carbolic acid suicides the acid is taken from a
bottle. If all is taken into the pouch in the tongue, it could be taken down
into the esophagus in one swallow and none would be ejected into the front
of the mouth. A person can swallow about a tablespoon full.
Dr. Bock of this city another of the defense's experts and one of their
strongest witnesses was then called. He said: "In two cases I have seen the
lips and the tip of the tongue burned. In eight or nine the burns were
further back. Convulsions may occur but as a rule do not. They are less
frequent in an adult person. A fatal dose of carbolic acid usually kills in
a very short time, about five or ten minutes. That would be ample time for a
person to walk about and destroy the evidence of her deed. A suicide from
carbolic acid is usually found in a relaxed position with the limbs
extended. I have attended cases where the quilts were drawn up. Also cases
where the retainer was concealed. In one case the retainer was hidden
between the bed clothes and the mattress. In that case it was a bottle
containing about four ounces. The smell of carbolic acid was very
perceptible in that room. A person might take carbolic acid and die in bed
in the position in which Mrs. Pfeil is said to have been found without any
evidence of burns on the front of the tongue or mouth and without any
evidence of the retainer.
"I examined the tongue and found two small areas on the posterior third
indicating carbolic acid burning. The rest of the tongue was so decomposed
that we could not tell whether carbolic acid had been in contact with it or
not. It is impossible to administer a fatal dose of carbolic acid against
the will of the person to whom it was given. It is possible for a layman to
inject a tube. I think it would be quite difficult however and the tube
might enter the trachea. It could be injected into an unconscious person but
here again the difficulty would be great. It would be just as apt to strike
the epiglotis and the trachea. It is very likely that the epiglotis would be
injured. It is possible to chloroform a sleeping person but very difficult.
There is an exciting stage during which the patient will object to the
chloroform.
"A solar plexus blow would probably cause unconsciousness without leaving
any marks. This could be easily administered by a layman.
Attorney Gillen then cross-examined the witness. In the cross examination
Dr. Bock said: "At first the carbolic acid burn is hard to be seen but in
three days ought to be visible. It is more pronounced. Two ounces would
probably require several swallows. In one case that I attended the retainer
was concealed, but there were burns on the mouth, the patient was spitting
out saliva, there was a strong odor and the body was sprawled out on bed. In
another the boy was on his side and there were burns on his lips. In a
third, the carbolic acid had been taken from a tumbler. There were no
perceptible burns at first. But the bottle was there as well as a bottle of
whiskey. The carbolic acid had been taken with whiskey and though the odor
was slight it was perceptible. A person who had been struck a solar blow
resulting in unconsciousness could swallow. The scars I found were carbolic
acid scars. Those scars are different from all others and they were carbolic
scars.
On redirect examination Dr. Bock said: "the acid causing those scars was
swallowed by the woman and not injected. I am certain of that because of the
peculiar scar on the rear of the tongue. There are two scars separated from
each other by about a third of an inch. That shows that a drop of
concentrated acid remained on the two sections for some time. The rest of
the tongue which is more decomposed in its posterior third is not burned
that way because the contact with the carbolic acid was not as long. This
peculiarity regarding the burns on the posterior third indicates to me that
she swallowed the acid and did not receive it because of forced injection.
It was a natural swallow and not a forced swallow that caused those two
patches. The natural act of swallowing produces such scars.
Julius Feltmann testified that he had seen Julius Pfeil at the cheese
factory on the morning of April 3 at about a quarter of seven or seven
o'clock. He talked with him about ten minutes and Pfeil did not seem to be
excited.
George Feltmann the brother of Julius corroborated the above testimony. In
the cross examination conducted by District Attorney Collins he said he was
not certain of the time because he had not looked at his watch and that he
had he had not paid any particular attention to Pfeil's appearance.
Mrs. Kaestner the sister of the defendant then took the stand. She said she
had gone to her brothers home on the day of the funeral and remained the
next day to clean up. She washed the clothes of Mrs. Pfeil and had not
noticed any spots on them although she had examined each piece. She always
examined each piece of clothing before it went into the wash. That was a
habit of hers she said. On the cross examination by Attorney Collins she
said she had overheard the conversation of Pfeil with the Foeste children in
which he said that he would not give Emma the clothes of her mother until
they had been washed. They were soiled in this house he said and they would
be washed there. Some of them already in the tub but most were still
unwashed and dry.
At twenty-eight minutes after two o'clock this afternoon the last witness in
the Pfeil murder case had been examined and a few minutes later the
arguments were begun. The State produced but one evidence in rebuttal. The
form for the jury will be either guilty in the first degree of murder or
innocent. After a lengthy discussion Judge Kirwan granted three hours of
argument to each side. Each of the five Attorneys in the case will address
the jury. The arguments will be continued tomorrow morning when the case
will go to the jury. The court room was crowded to its capacity when the
arguments were begun by District Attorney Collins at eight minutes of three
o'clock. All available standing room was occupied and many who could not
gain admittance were turned away.
Finally Come to an Agreement of Not Guilty But With Understanding That There
Would be No Hand Shaking on the Part of Jurors With Julius Pfeil
It has just been learned that the jury in the case of Julius Pfeil charged
with the murder of this wife, stood six for conviction and six for acquittal
on the first ballot. This was the lineup while several ballots were taken,
and the arguments in the jury room were exceedingly warm at times.
Finally an agreement was reached of not guilty. It is said that there was an
understanding that the jurors would not shake hands with Julius Pfeil
There was a vote taken in the jury room, independent of the verdict, in
which the private views of the jurors are said to have been expressed, but
which was to have no weight in their vote of guilty or not guilty submitted
to the court.
Julius Pfeil, who was tried on the charge of murdering his wife, and
acquitted, has sold his farm in the town of Rhine to Carl Giese. The deal
was made through Arthur Feldman.
It had been rumored for some time that Julius Pfeil intended leaving this
county, and the sale of his farm would indicate that he is going to leave
the town of Rhine.
A rumor in circulation in Franklin today that Julius Pfeil and Mrs.
Eimermann were married last evening.
Inquiry at the County Clerk's office indicated that no license had been
issued, and Judge Paul Krez has issued no special dispensation. If they were
married it was outside this state.
Copyright 1997 - 2005 by Debie Blindauer
All Rights reserved