![]() ![]() Nixon was quoted as saying that there should be an immediate investigation of Judge Samuel H. Nixon, Republican, of California, a member of the House Committee on Un-American Activities, that it is un-American not to convict anybody Congressman Nixon doesn’t like. Smith’s story about the jury there was an intimation, in the form of a statement to the United Press by Congressman Richard M. On page 2 of the same day’s Tribune that carried Mr. ![]() In the morning papers of June 17th it rated only a couple of paragraphs tucked away near the bottom of the lead story, for it was overshadowed by the more dramatic appearance in court of Henry Julian Wadleigh, the fellow who, following Feehan on the witness stand, said he had stolen papers from the State Department but didn’t know whether or not Mr. It received modest headlines in early editions of the afternoon papers, but these disappeared in later editions. Feehan had to say made rather a small ripple on the river of newspaper copy about the case when he was examined on June 16th. Smith said it was, but it was nevertheless the closest any witness came to helping the jury answer the all-important question. Feehan’s testimony was no more revealing than Mr. Smith’s statement of the facts was correct. Feehan, the government’s typewriter man, and confirmed my impression that Mr. I have since read through a transcript of the testimony of Ramos C. After doing its best to evaluate the significance of all this, the jury had tried, it seemed, to decide the case on the basis of a point on which no expert testimony was introduced-the identity of the person who operated the typewriter. We took a long time tonight because we went over the documents again, word by word.”Ī box on the same page carried the information that during the trial the government had called 43 witnesses and the defense 30, the government had introduced 224 exhibits and the defense 33, and a total of 2,851 pages of testimony, running to 570,000 words, had been transcribed. Helen Sweatt, a real-estate broker and one of the jurors who voted for conviction, as saying, “We tried the typewriter out and went over the documents. Also on page 2 of the Tribune was a story headed “ HISS JURORS TELL OF LONG HOuRS OF WRANGLING.” This quoted Mrs. Smith’s lead story on the ending of the trial. This passage was in the second-page runover of Mr. When the eight saw that the four would not recede from their doubts, they gave up arguing any further, the two jurors said. But these four still clung to the conviction that there might still be some other explanation of the way the papers fell into Mr. Hiss had to admit that he or his wife might have typed the papers, they said. ![]() Hiss solidified in their determination not to acquit him. When this was demonstrated, these two jurors said, all the eight who were against Mr. They observed many instances of similarity between the standards and the spy papers indicating that they had actually been typed by the same person-such as the same slips of the finger occurring again and again, and the same habit of crossing out errors by overprinting a certain letter. During the last hour of their deliberation, according to two of the jurors who voted for conviction, the jurors studied the typewriter, the spy papers, and the standards. This question the jury settled for themselves. The defense had not called a documents expert of its own to dispute the government expert’s testimony, nor had either side considered the question whether the same person had typed both the spy papers and the “standards of comparison”-letters admittedly typed by Mrs. Hiss’s possession and was not being used at the time. A documents expert called as a witness by the government had testified that the spy papers had been typed on the Woodstock machine, and the defense had contested this evidence solely by testimony that the machine was not in Mr. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |