Speaker 1: You are listening to History on Trial, a production of
Speaker 1: iHeart Podcasts. Listener Discretion Advised, Hello, History on Trial listener.
Speaker 1: This is the second part of a two part series.
Speaker 1: If you haven't listened to part one yet, you'll want
Speaker 1: to begin there. Thank you for listening. Last time on
Speaker 1: History on Trial, we met Roland Molineux, the highly polished
Speaker 1: middle son of General Edward Malaneu, a Civil War hero. Roland,
Speaker 1: a talented gymnast and professional chemist, didn't play well with others.
Speaker 1: In late eighteen ninety eight, two of his nemeses, his
Speaker 1: romantic rival Henry Barnett, who had once wooed Roland's wife Blanche,
Speaker 1: and his personal rival Harry Cornish, who had battled Roland
Speaker 1: for status at the Knickerbocker Athletic Club, and one received
Speaker 1: mysterious anonymous packages, each containing what looked like ordinary medicine.
Speaker 1: Henry Barnett took a bit of his and died two
Speaker 1: weeks later. Harry Cornish brought his home, where his relative
Speaker 1: Catherine Adams took some and died in minutes. Both Barnett
Speaker 1: and Adams were found to have been killed by cyanide
Speaker 1: of mercury. Detectives quickly locked in on Roland Molineux as
Speaker 1: a suspect, but were only able to build a circumstantial
Speaker 1: case against him. They eventually managed to wrangle a handwriting
Speaker 1: sample from Roland after handwriting experts agreed that Roland's handwriting
Speaker 1: matched the writing on the poison package sent to Harry Cornish.
Speaker 1: The DA's office charged Roland with Catherine Adams's murder at
Speaker 1: the trial, which began in November eighteen ninety nine. Prosecutor
Speaker 1: James Osborne also submitted evidence from the Henry Barnett case,
Speaker 1: although Roland was not charged with this crime, using it
Speaker 1: to weave a complicated tale of envy and revenge. Osborne's case,
Speaker 1: the longest murder prosecution in New York history to the point,
Speaker 1: finally concluded on February fifth, nineteen hundred. We're picking up
Speaker 1: the story the next day, Tuesday, February sixth, as Roland's
Speaker 1: lead defense counsel, Bartow Weeks stands to begin his eagerly
Speaker 1: anticipated defense case. Will Roland take the stand? What about
Speaker 1: his wife Blanche? Or does the defense have something else
Speaker 1: entirely up their sleeve. You're listening to history on trial.
Speaker 1: I'm your host, Mira Hayward. This week New York v.
Speaker 1: Roland Malineux. A hush fell over the courtroom as Bartow
Speaker 1: Weeks rose to speak. The thirty nine year old Weeks
Speaker 1: had a commanding physical presence. He was nearly as well
Speaker 1: known for his involvement with athletics as he was for
Speaker 1: his legal acumen. But today he looked pale and drawn.
Speaker 1: He was suffering from a mild case of laryngitis, true,
Speaker 1: and the month's long trial had no doubt worn on him.
Speaker 1: But there was something else too, an undercurrent of uneasiness,
Speaker 1: even fear. And for good reason, it would turn out,
Speaker 1: Bartow Weeks was about to shock all of New York
Speaker 1: by announcing a decision that he and his legal team
Speaker 1: had agonized over. May it please the court, Weeks began,
Speaker 1: after a careful consideration of the case, We believe that
Speaker 1: the prosecution has utterly failed to make a case against
Speaker 1: this defendant, and that he has not been proved guilty,
Speaker 1: and the jury should not find him so. Believing this
Speaker 1: as we do, we rest upon the case made by
Speaker 1: the prosecution. The lead prosecutor, Assistant District Attorney James Osborne,
Speaker 1: looked astounded. The crowd briefly shocked into silence, began to
Speaker 1: murmur only Roland Molineux, smiling enigmatically at the jury, seemed
Speaker 1: to the decision to not present a defense, which both
Speaker 1: Roland and his father had agreed to, was meant to
Speaker 1: deliver a symbolic message that the state had presented such
Speaker 1: a weak case that the defense had no need to
Speaker 1: rebut it with witnesses of their own. In his closing argument,
Speaker 1: Weeks detailed what he called quote the missing links in
Speaker 1: the evidence. Take the silver bottleholder, which had been sent
Speaker 1: to Harry Cornish along with the poisoned Bromo Seltzer. The
Speaker 1: police hadn't proved that Roland bought the silver bottleholder. They
Speaker 1: had only proved that a shop that Roland had once
Speaker 1: been seen near had once sold a silver bottleholder. Roland
Speaker 1: worked down the street from this shop. Was it really
Speaker 1: so damning that he had been seen near it? Weeks
Speaker 1: next turned to the handwriting analysis. The prosecution's experts claimed
Speaker 1: that Roland's handwriting matched the writing on the poison package.
Speaker 1: But could these experts really be so sure of their conclusions?
Speaker 1: Weeks brought up the Dreyfus affair, an infamous contemporary miscarriage
Speaker 1: of Justice in France. In that case, Weeks told jurors, quote,
Speaker 1: a man spent five years in jail because the handwriting
Speaker 1: experts were mistaken. Next, he questioned the identifications made by
Speaker 1: Joseph Coche and Nicholas Heckman, owners of the private letter
Speaker 1: boxes that Roland had allegedly rented in Henry Barnett and
Speaker 1: Harry Cornish's names. Weeks reminded jurors that both men had
Speaker 1: initially refused to identify Roland, and that Heckman had even
Speaker 1: tried to get payment for his statement. About the testimony
Speaker 1: presented by Blanche's former maids who discussed the love triangle
Speaker 1: between Blanche Roland and Henry Barnett, Weeks was contemptuous. This
Speaker 1: was just an underhanded attempt by the prosecution to insult
Speaker 1: the defendant's wife. James Osborne, ever confrontational, loudly asked Weeks
Speaker 1: why he had denied the maid's claims. Weeks wheeled on
Speaker 1: Osborne with what The New York Times called quote the
Speaker 1: ferocity of a tiger. Why did we not deny it,
Speaker 1: Weeks asked, incredulously, because we were not called upon to
Speaker 1: deny it. It was not necessary to deny it called
Speaker 1: upon to deny such infamous lies, How dare you to
Speaker 1: produce it when you could not connect it with this case?
Speaker 1: Osborne did not respond. Besides being a moment of high drama,
Speaker 1: this exchange reminded jurors that Roland was not on trial
Speaker 1: for Henry Barnett's murder, and the prosecution hadn't produced a
Speaker 1: compelling motive for Roland to murder Harry Cornish. Roland and
Speaker 1: Cornish had squabbled. Weeks acknowledged, but he asked, quote, would
Speaker 1: the defendant imperil his life, ruin his family, drag them
Speaker 1: to dishonor and disgrace for such a trifling motive? As
Speaker 1: that it mattered that the evidence was rock solid, Weeks
Speaker 1: told jurors because it was upon that evidence that they
Speaker 1: would be sentencing a man to death, the mandatory punishment
Speaker 1: for first degree murder in New York at the time.
Speaker 1: Weeks did not spare them the graphic details of what
Speaker 1: Roland would endure if executed, describing the effect of the
Speaker 1: electric chair on the human body. In the audience, Blanche
Speaker 1: Molineux wept loudly by the end of his closing argument,
Speaker 1: which spanned more than eight hours over two days. Weeks
Speaker 1: was visibly exhausted. His voice was hoarse and ragged, but
Speaker 1: this only made his plea more poignant, as he asked
Speaker 1: the jurors to quote Air on humanity's side. The wrong
Speaker 1: you do, he said, can never be restored. Gentlemen, in
Speaker 1: a case of doubt, when the scales are oscillating, let
Speaker 1: them turn in favor of the prisoner. It is a
Speaker 1: terrible thing to destroy the temple of an immortal soul.
Speaker 1: On Thursday, February eighth, James Osborne delivered the prosecution's closing arguments.
Speaker 1: Osborne was a born showman, and he brought all of
Speaker 1: his passion to this final performance. Before getting to the
Speaker 1: facts of the case, Osborne attacked the defense's strategy. Looking
Speaker 1: right at Bartow Weeks, Osborne shouted, quote, if you knew
Speaker 1: of a single witness who could have aided the theory
Speaker 1: of the defendant's innocence and did not call him, you
Speaker 1: have violated your oath as a counselor. Your action is
Speaker 1: a plea of guilty. Week subjected to this attack, but
Speaker 1: Judge John Goff allowed it. Osborne would return to this
Speaker 1: point over and over, calling the defense's choice unnatural. Quote
Speaker 1: it is one of the prime evil principles of human
Speaker 1: nature to say, when you are accused of a crime,
Speaker 1: I am not guilty. See here are my witnesses. But
Speaker 1: Osborne wasn't surprised to see Roland Molineux behaving abnormally. Throughout
Speaker 1: both the press coverage and the prosecution of the case,
Speaker 1: Roland's strangeness had been a theme. People had speculated on
Speaker 1: his behavior, his associates, and his sexuality. Poisoning was seen
Speaker 1: to be a woman's crime. What kind of man would
Speaker 1: use poison as opposed to say, his fists to kill?
Speaker 1: And then there were the numerous impotence cures that Roland
Speaker 1: had allegedly ordered to the private letterboxes. The prosecution was
Speaker 1: quick to play up these themes, insinuating that a lack
Speaker 1: of virility made Roland less of a man and thus
Speaker 1: more likely to kill with a womanly method. This murder,
Speaker 1: Osborne said, was quote an outre strange, abnormal crime. We
Speaker 1: must therefore look for a man who is outre strange abnormal.
Speaker 1: These attempts at criminal profiling were based on contemporary gender
Speaker 1: norms and stereotypes, and though they are obviously offensive, they
Speaker 1: were likely compelling to jurors. They also weren't the only
Speaker 1: character based arguments Osborne made. He brought up Roland's behavior
Speaker 1: during the trial, describing how, quote, when reference was made
Speaker 1: to the death of Missus Adams and the death agonies
Speaker 1: of Barnet, you have seen the defendant laughing, coolly laughing.
Speaker 1: It is this attitude, gentlemen, which shows that the defendant
Speaker 1: has an entire absence of soul. Osborne's closing was an
Speaker 1: entirely personal attacks though he reviewed all of the evidence,
Speaker 1: pointing out that even if it was circumstantial, every single
Speaker 1: piece of it pointed back to Roland Molineux. Like a
Speaker 1: bloated spider in his web, Osborne said, the poisoner spun
Speaker 1: out his filaments to the outer world. We must trace
Speaker 1: for the end of the filaments back to the center.
Speaker 1: Here's a line running out to Barnett. We trace it back,
Speaker 1: and at the other end is the mind of Molineux.
Speaker 1: A line running out to Cornish. Tracing it back to
Speaker 1: the web center, we find the mind of Molineux. A
Speaker 1: line stretching to the blue crested paper, a line stretching
Speaker 1: to Heckman's letter box, and at the center of the
Speaker 1: web to which all these lines extend, we find spinning
Speaker 1: its deadly plots the mind of Molineux. Osborne agreed with
Speaker 1: Weeks that the stakes were high, but not for Roland.
Speaker 1: The stakes were high for the community, who would not
Speaker 1: be safe should Roland be set free. Ending his nearly
Speaker 1: six hour summation, his voice raised to full volume, Osborne thundered,
Speaker 1: I say that the evidence from every direction points to
Speaker 1: that conclusion, and I leave this case in your hands,
Speaker 1: knowing that you will find your verdict in the sight
Speaker 1: of God, in the sight of man, without fear and
Speaker 1: without favor. The next day, Judge goth summarized the evidence
Speaker 1: and charged the jury at three twenty three p m.
Speaker 1: The jurors were dismissed to deliberate. Outside the courtroom, bookmakers
Speaker 1: were laying odds on the verdict. The odds favored acquittal.
Speaker 1: In his cell in the tombs, Roland Molineux was not
Speaker 1: so confident. He began chronicling his feelings in a journal
Speaker 1: while he waited. I am very tired, he wrote. For
Speaker 1: full three months. I have been under a physical strain
Speaker 1: and a mental tension. I have been falsely accused. I
Speaker 1: am innocent. An hour later, with no news from the jury.
Speaker 1: He reflected, I am chemist enough to love an experiment.
Speaker 1: The jury is the unknown substance, the testimony, the reagent.
Speaker 1: My case is in solution. What will precipitate? It would
Speaker 1: take more than seven hours for the jury to reach
Speaker 1: a verdict. At ten forty eight pm, the jurors filed
Speaker 1: back into the courtroom. Roland Molineu came in next. His
Speaker 1: face was dead white, a reporter recorded, and his dark
Speaker 1: eyes shone like live coals. The court clerk asked the
Speaker 1: jury foreman to announce their findings on the charge of
Speaker 1: murder for the death of Catherine J. Adams. The defendant,
Speaker 1: Roland Molineux was found guilty. There is no good place
Speaker 1: to contemplate your impending execution, but Sing Singh's death House
Speaker 1: was especially grim. Built in eighteen ninety to hold condemned prisoners,
Speaker 1: the death house contained both cells and the execution chamber itself.
Speaker 1: Each prisoner was kept in a windowless, stone walled cell.
Speaker 1: From behind these walls, they could not see one another,
Speaker 1: but they were constantly surveilled by others. The lights stayed
Speaker 1: on all night, allowing the wardens, who walked incessantly up
Speaker 1: and down the corridor to watch the inmates. The men
Speaker 1: were not allowed outside and they could only bathe once
Speaker 1: a week. The worst part of the death House was
Speaker 1: the sounds. Because the execution chamber neighbored the cells, inmates
Speaker 1: could hear every step of the grisly process, the slow
Speaker 1: walk to the chamber, the administration of last rites, the
Speaker 1: sickening thrum of the electric chair, and the appalling sounds
Speaker 1: of the autopsy conducted after Roland. Molneux, who entered the
Speaker 1: death House on February sixteenth, nineteen hundred, called execution days
Speaker 1: quote the greatest horror we are called upon to bear.
Speaker 1: Roland had done his best to avoid the death House.
Speaker 1: At his sentencing, he had delivered a powerful, moving statement
Speaker 1: to Judge Goff, proclaiming his own inn an sc since
Speaker 1: many wondered, given how well Roland did, why Barto Weeks
Speaker 1: had not put him on the stand during his trial. Now,
Speaker 1: his words, however compelling, meant nothing. New York mandated the
Speaker 1: death penalty for first degree murder. Judge Goff sentenced Roland
Speaker 1: to be put to death during the week of March
Speaker 1: twenty sixth, nineteen hundred. He was transported to sing Sing
Speaker 1: only hours later. Roland's projection of calm optimism, which he
Speaker 1: had maintained for months now, did not falter. On the
Speaker 1: journey to sing Sing, he joked with passengers on the
Speaker 1: train to Austening, many of whom had bought tickets just
Speaker 1: to see him, and admired the scenery of the Hudson Valley.
Speaker 1: But the oppressive atmosphere of the Death House quickly took
Speaker 1: a toll on Roland. When Blanche visited him less than
Speaker 1: a week after his arrival, she found Roland a shell
Speaker 1: of his former self. His eyes, she later wrote, they
Speaker 1: were dead and expressionless, set in a stone mask that
Speaker 1: was immovable. The soul of him was dead. It had
Speaker 1: gone out of him. During his trial, a journalist had
Speaker 1: called Roland a man in a mask, but that had
Speaker 1: been a mask he had chosen to wear. This mask
Speaker 1: did not seem voluntary. He seemed finally to have accepted
Speaker 1: the reality of his situation and had become, Blanche observed,
Speaker 1: obsessed with freeing himself. Back in New York City, Roland's
Speaker 1: lawyers were working hard on his behalf. In early March,
Speaker 1: bartow Weeks and George Gordon Battle filed a notice of
Speaker 1: appeal Roland's execution was put on hold as the appeal
Speaker 1: was prepared. Weeks in Battle decided to engage another lawyer
Speaker 1: to argue the case, landing on John G. Milbourne. Milburn
Speaker 1: was an accomplished attorney and a leading citizen of Buffalo,
Speaker 1: where the New York Court of Appeals was based. There
Speaker 1: were a number of delays in the process, but Roland's
Speaker 1: appeal was finally scheduled for June seventeenth, nineteen oh one.
Speaker 1: David Hill, a former governor of New York and ex
Speaker 1: US Senator, had been retained by the Manhattan District Attorney
Speaker 1: to represent the States case at the appeal. On Monday,
Speaker 1: June seventeenth, the seven judges of the New York Court
Speaker 1: of Appeals seated themselves to hear arguments in Roland's case.
Speaker 1: John Milburn, for the defense, spoke first. The main thrust
Speaker 1: of his argument quickly became clear. Milburn believed that it
Speaker 1: had been an error on Judge Goff's part to admit
Speaker 1: any evidence about the Henry Barnett case. When your honors
Speaker 1: read the court record, Milburn said, it will require an
Speaker 1: effort of your mind to convince yourselves that you are
Speaker 1: reading a record of an attempt to poison Harry Cornish,
Speaker 1: and not a record of the alleged murder of Henry C. Barnett.
Speaker 1: Seven tenths of the evidence in this record relates to
Speaker 1: the death of Barnett. The Barnet case was irrelevant. Milburn argued,
Speaker 1: if Barnett were murdered and if Missus Adams were murdered,
Speaker 1: they were two separate and distinct crimes. He said, and
Speaker 1: thus quote the admission of evidence of one crime on
Speaker 1: an indictment charging the other was improper and incompetent, and
Speaker 1: its admission was clearly an error. Towards the end of
Speaker 1: his argument, which spanned five hours over the course of
Speaker 1: two days, Milburn made a grave charge. The admission of
Speaker 1: the Barnet evidence, he claimed, had not been a simple
Speaker 1: mistake on Judge Goff's part. It had been part of
Speaker 1: a larger pattern of bias against the defendant. The judge
Speaker 1: in this case, Milburn stated, took the side of the
Speaker 1: prosecution from the very beginning to the very ending. Milburn
Speaker 1: acknowledged that accusing a judge of impartiality was a serious matter,
Speaker 1: but he believed that the record backed his accusation up.
Speaker 1: He claimed that quote every piece of testimony which seemed
Speaker 1: to be damaging to the defendant was freely and welcomingly admitted,
Speaker 1: while everything which seemed to be in the prisoner's favor
Speaker 1: was hampered and repressed, battered, and cross examined by the court.
Speaker 1: He pointed out the insults Judge Gough had aimed at
Speaker 1: defense attorney Bartow Weeks, including when Gough admonished Weeks for
Speaker 1: his quote fatal and ungovernable habit of talking, an insult
Speaker 1: I probably would never recover from. Milburn brought up a
Speaker 1: variety of other points. He criticized the admission of testimony
Speaker 1: relating to Blanche, Judge Goth's charge to the jury, which
Speaker 1: he claimed was also biased, the lack of proven motive,
Speaker 1: and the reliability of handwriting analysis. But to observers, according
Speaker 1: to the Buffalo Inquirer, it was clear that Quote Milburn
Speaker 1: rests his case upon the alleged error of Judge Goth
Speaker 1: in admitting the evidence relating to Barnett's death. Once Milburne
Speaker 1: finished on the afternoon June eighteenth, David Hill presented the
Speaker 1: state's argument. Hill argued that the Barnet evidence was admissible.
Speaker 1: The Barnet case was introduced, he said, in order to
Speaker 1: quote make the chain of evidence complete and prove the
Speaker 1: theory of the prosecution in the Adams case. Hill rebutted
Speaker 1: Milbourne's argument that the two cases had nothing in common, saying, quote,
Speaker 1: there is the same hiring of private letter boxes in
Speaker 1: the names of the intended victims, the same writing for
Speaker 1: samples of medicine in the names of the victims, the
Speaker 1: same plan of assassination, the same drug cyanide of mercury used.
Speaker 1: Though Hill acknowledged that quote in the prosecution of one crime,
Speaker 1: you cannot prove another, he said that this case was
Speaker 1: an exception to the rule. It was an abnormal crime
Speaker 1: by an abnormal man, Hill argued, echoing Osborne's closing, and
Speaker 1: as a consequence, it produced an abnormal condition on the trial.
Speaker 1: Hill also cited another poisoning case in which the court
Speaker 1: had ruled that it defend its history of attempted poisonings
Speaker 1: could be discussed in his trial for poisoning his wife.
Speaker 1: After briefly addressing Milbourne's other claims, Hill said that the
Speaker 1: handwriting analysis had been properly conducted, that the judge's charge
Speaker 1: was fair, and that the prosecution had provided a compelling motive.
Speaker 1: Hill finished by saying, quote, no substantial error was made
Speaker 1: upon this trial. No real, genuine evidence was excluded. Nothing
Speaker 1: that was immaterial or irrelevant, incompetent, or improper of any
Speaker 1: consequence was admitted. After a series of questions from the judges,
Speaker 1: the appeal concluded on the afternoon of June nineteenth. Four
Speaker 1: months later, on October fifteenth, the Court of Appeals published
Speaker 1: its ruling on the Malinu case. Though the opinion, which
Speaker 1: was not unanimous, addressed several points, including the admissibility of
Speaker 1: handwriting analysis, the majority of the opinion focused on whether
Speaker 1: the Barnett evidence was inadmissible. Judge William E. Werner began
Speaker 1: by reviewing why discussion of or bad acts, whether charged, uncharged,
Speaker 1: or resulting in a conviction, is generally not allowed at trial.
Speaker 1: This rule, Werner wrote, is the product of that same
Speaker 1: humane and enlightened public spirit, which, speaking through our common law,
Speaker 1: has decreed that every person charged with the commission of
Speaker 1: a crime shall be protected by the presumption of innocence
Speaker 1: until he has been proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
Speaker 1: Werner cited a ruling by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in
Speaker 1: Schaffner v. Commonwealth. Logically, the commission of an independent offense
Speaker 1: is not proof in itself of the commission of another crime.
Speaker 1: Yet it cannot be said to be without influence on
Speaker 1: the mind. For certainly, if one be shown to be
Speaker 1: guilty of another crime equally heinous, it will prompt a
Speaker 1: more ready belief that he might have committed the one
Speaker 1: with which he is charged. It therefore predisposes the mind
Speaker 1: of the juror to believe the prisoner guilty. Because of
Speaker 1: the enormous weight this kind of evidence could carry, Werner
Speaker 1: explained there were only rare instances in which it was admissible.
Speaker 1: Werner described these instances as falling into five categories. If
Speaker 1: evidence of prior bad acts established motive or intent, or
Speaker 1: the absence of mistake or accident, or a common scheme
Speaker 1: or plan, or the identity of the person charged with
Speaker 1: the commission of the crime on trial, then this evidence
Speaker 1: might be admissible, as long as it was more probative
Speaker 1: than prejudicial. Werner then examined the Malnu case to see
Speaker 1: if any of these exceptions applied. Motive was irrelevant, Werner
Speaker 1: said because the alleged motives for each killing were distinct
Speaker 1: and unrelated intent. Whether or not the person intended to
Speaker 1: commit a criminal act was also irrelevant. Whoever had killed
Speaker 1: Catherine Adams had clearly intended to kill someone by sending
Speaker 1: them poison disguised as medicine. No additional evidence was needed
Speaker 1: to prove this. The same reasoning applied to the exception
Speaker 1: for mistakes or accidents. This crime was clearly not an accident.
Speaker 1: The two crimes could also not be said to be
Speaker 1: part of a quote single design, as no evidence showed
Speaker 1: that they were quote united for the accomplishment of a
Speaker 1: common purpose. As to the final exception, identity, Werner said
Speaker 1: that the Barnet evidence would only be allowed for this
Speaker 1: purpose if quote it had been shown conclusively that the
Speaker 1: defendant had killed Barnet and that no other person could
Speaker 1: have killed Missus Adams, but no such evidence was given.
Speaker 1: The evidence tended to show that the defendant had the knowledge, skill,
Speaker 1: and material to produce the poison which was sent to Cornish,
Speaker 1: but he was not shown to be the only person
Speaker 1: possessed of this knowledge, skill and material. Therefore, the naked
Speaker 1: similarity of these crimes proves nothing. David Hill had claimed
Speaker 1: that Roland's case was an exception to the general rule,
Speaker 1: an abnormal propit sus justified by an abnormal crime. The
Speaker 1: appeals court did not agree. According to their ruling, the
Speaker 1: Barnet evidence was inadmissible. Thus they reversed Roland's conviction and
Speaker 1: ordered a new trial. Early the next morning, Roland received
Speaker 1: news of the decision in his cell in the death House.
Speaker 1: He seemed stunned, then laughed and said it seems too
Speaker 1: good to be true. The following day, October seventeenth, Roland
Speaker 1: was transferred out of Sing Sing and back to the
Speaker 1: Tombs in Manhattan, where he would occupy the same cell
Speaker 1: he had during his first trial. The city jail was
Speaker 1: no luxury hotel, but anything was better than the death House.
Speaker 1: Roland would just have to hope that his second trial
Speaker 1: wouldn't send him right back in the Malinus Fort Green Brownstone.
Speaker 1: Blanche Molnu couldn't help but feel that her sentence had
Speaker 1: just been extended. Blanche would later write in her memoirs
Speaker 1: that even from the earliest days of the investigation, she
Speaker 1: had begun to draw away from Roland. By the middle
Speaker 1: of his first trial, she was completely repulsed by him.
Speaker 1: She felt misled. She had agreed to marry Roland because
Speaker 1: he'd offered a comfortable life full of the arts and travel. Instead,
Speaker 1: she'd gotten relentless public scrutiny. She had attended Roland's first trial,
Speaker 1: putting on the act of devoted wife, only out of
Speaker 1: affection for General Molineux, who she described as a quote
Speaker 1: fine and splendid and brave man. By early nineteen oh two, however,
Speaker 1: Blanche's patience had worn thin. She'd been cloistered in the
Speaker 1: Fort Greenhouse with limited contact with the outside world for
Speaker 1: three years. Her cabin fever was intense. She missed seeing
Speaker 1: friends and going to concerts and singing in her choir.
Speaker 1: In August, she moved out of the Malinus House into
Speaker 1: a residential suite in a Manhattan hotel. General Molineu was
Speaker 1: covering her expenses and giving her an allowance on the
Speaker 1: condition that she attended Roland's upcoming trial, But when the
Speaker 1: trial began on Monday, October thirteenth, nineteen oh two, Blanche
Speaker 1: was nowhere to be found. He would not attend a
Speaker 1: single day. General Molineu, on the other hand, was a
Speaker 1: constant presence, as was Harry Cornish. A number of other
Speaker 1: familiar faces filled the courtroom eighty A. James Osborne was
Speaker 1: once again leading the prosecution. Bar two Weeks was back too,
Speaker 1: but he would not be lead defense council. Weeks's decision
Speaker 1: not to present a defense had been a controversial gamble,
Speaker 1: and ultimately it hadn't paid off. After the verdict, one
Speaker 1: jer had asked a reporter quote, if Molineux had friends,
Speaker 1: or if his lawyers had witnesses who could have testified
Speaker 1: on his behalf, why weren't they called? This time around?
Speaker 1: The defense would fight back, led by Attorney Frank S. Black,
Speaker 1: a former United States representative and ex governor of New York.
Speaker 1: John S. Lambert, a justice on the New York Supreme Court,
Speaker 1: presided Lambert ran a tight ship, and it soon became
Speaker 1: clear that this trial would not be as prolonged as
Speaker 1: the first jury selection, for example, took only two days,
Speaker 1: not three weeks. Ady A. Osborne delivered an abbreviated opening statement,
Speaker 1: perhaps out of deference for Lambert's preferences, or maybe because
Speaker 1: he had less material to work with. Thanks to the
Speaker 1: appeals court ruling, Osborne could not discuss the Burnett case
Speaker 1: in the same detail as he had before. He kept
Speaker 1: things focused on the Adams case and on Roland Molineux,
Speaker 1: saying that the defendant met all the requirements to commit
Speaker 1: this murder, knowledge of poisons, knowledge of Hartigan's jewelry store
Speaker 1: in Newark, which had sold the silver bottle holder, access
Speaker 1: to a private letterbox, and above all quote a strong, continuing,
Speaker 1: deadly hatred of Cornish from there. The trial progressed rapidly.
Speaker 1: Instead of months of testimony, the prosecution presented their case
Speaker 1: in seven days. Most of the major themes were the same.
Speaker 1: Handwriting experts appeared to identify the handwriting on the letters
Speaker 1: and poison package as belonging to Roland. Harry Cornish and
Speaker 1: other Knickerbocker members testified about Roland and Cornish's feud, but
Speaker 1: the prosecution encountered several new obstacles in this trial. Several
Speaker 1: key witnesses were missing. Elsie Gray, the bookkeeper at Cutno's,
Speaker 1: had died in the first trial. She had discussed a
Speaker 1: letter her company received requesting a sample of Cutno's improved
Speaker 1: effervescent powder, the product that Henry Barnett had taken shortly
Speaker 1: before his death. The letter, Gray had said was written
Speaker 1: on distinctive Robin's egg blue stationary emblazoned with silver crescents.
Speaker 1: It had been signed H. Barnett, but had been dated
Speaker 1: and since several weeks after his death. Justice Lambert allowed
Speaker 1: Gray's testimony from the first trial to be read aloud
Speaker 1: in court, but Lambert would not allow Osborne to read
Speaker 1: the testimony of another missing witness, Mami Milando. In the
Speaker 1: first trial, New York police had tricked Milando into entering
Speaker 1: the state. This time, she went into hiding in New Jersey.
Speaker 1: Detective Joseph Farrell, the New York police officer who had
Speaker 1: testified in the first trial to having seen Roland near
Speaker 1: Hartigan's jewelry store on the day the silver bottleholder was sold,
Speaker 1: was similarly absent, having taken a curiously timed vacation right
Speaker 1: as the trial started. The prosecution thought that the defense
Speaker 1: might have encouraged Milando and Ferrell's absences. Ady A. Osborne
Speaker 1: enlisted his boss, District Attorney William Travers Jerome, to look
Speaker 1: into the matter. As a fun side note, Jerome's predecessor,
Speaker 1: Asa Bird Gardiner, who had supervised Roland's first prosecution, was
Speaker 1: removed from office by Governor Theodore Roosevelt in nineteen hundred
Speaker 1: for rampant corruption. Oops Jerome appealed to the Governor of
Speaker 1: New Jersey to pressure the Newark Police to help produce
Speaker 1: the missing witnesses. The governor agreed, but neither Milando nor
Speaker 1: Ferrell ever took the stand. These absences were less striking
Speaker 1: than the absence of Henry Barnett from the proceedings. No
Speaker 1: longer allowed to discuss the Barnett case, Osborne found his
Speaker 1: prosecution hollowed out. He could not bring in many key
Speaker 1: pieces of evidence, such as the diagnosis form signed with
Speaker 1: Barnett's name but filled out with Roland Molineu's measurements, which
Speaker 1: connected Roland to the private letterboxes. But Osborne didn't give up,
Speaker 1: bringing in every shred of evidence he could before resting
Speaker 1: the state's case on October twenty ninth. On October thirty first,
Speaker 1: the defense began its case. Frank Black's opening statement took
Speaker 1: less than five minutes. He called the evidence against Roland
Speaker 1: quote trivial and unimportant, and then, in the most highly
Speaker 1: anticipated moment of the trial, he called Roland Molineux to
Speaker 1: the stand. By this point, Roland had had nearly three
Speaker 1: years in jail to consider his testimony, and his preparation
Speaker 1: enhanced by his natural composure showed he was extremely polite
Speaker 1: and patient even during Osborne's cross examination, refusing to be rattled.
Speaker 1: He readily admitted to disliking Cornish, but dismissed his anger
Speaker 1: at the man as a passing phase. He acknowledged that
Speaker 1: he might once have written a letter on Robin's egg
Speaker 1: blue stationary, but denied owning multiple sheets. This testimony did
Speaker 1: give James Osborne a chance to shoehorn in part of
Speaker 1: the missing Mamie Milando's testimony, when he asked, quote, outside
Speaker 1: of her statements at the former trial, did you ever
Speaker 1: hear Mamie Milando's state that she saw six sheets of
Speaker 1: this paper in your desk? But Roland, on ruffled, simply
Speaker 1: said no. As a reporter for The New York Times observed, quote,
Speaker 1: all of mister Osborne's persistence and the cutting questions he
Speaker 1: asked failed to shatter the calmness and courtesy of the witness.
Speaker 1: But the reporter also noted that Roland's poise was almost
Speaker 1: uncanny writing quote. Many said he was acting, but they
Speaker 1: also said that it was remarkably good acting. After Roland's testimony,
Speaker 1: the defense presented a number of handwriting experts of their own.
Speaker 1: These handwriting experts didn't add much to the case. Their
Speaker 1: testimony was dry, and several of them struggled under cross examination,
Speaker 1: but the defense felt that they had at least placed
Speaker 1: the question of the reliability of handwriting analysis into the
Speaker 1: jury's mind. Much more exciting than the experts were the
Speaker 1: various new witnesses the defense managed to produce. Chief among
Speaker 1: this crop was Anna Stevenson, a Brooklyn resident in her
Speaker 1: mid fifties with a surprising story to tell on the stand.
Speaker 1: In a nervous voice, Stephenson claimed that on December twenty third,
Speaker 1: eighteen ninety eight, the day the poison package was mailed,
Speaker 1: she had observed a man sending a package addressed to
Speaker 1: Harry Cornish at the Knickerbocker Club, and she was certain
Speaker 1: that the man sending the package was not Roland Molineux. Stephenson, however,
Speaker 1: was not the most credible witness. On cross examination, James
Speaker 1: Osborne got Stevenson to admit that she could barely read
Speaker 1: without her glasses and that she hadn't been wearing her
Speaker 1: glasses on the days she claimed to have read the
Speaker 1: poison package's label. But other parts of Stephenson's testimony stuck
Speaker 1: Her claim that Roland wasn't the sender was backed up
Speaker 1: by another new witness, doctor Hermann Volti, a professor of
Speaker 1: chemistry at Columbia University, who claimed that Roland had been
Speaker 1: with him for the entire afternoon of the twenty third,
Speaker 1: and after Stephenson had said that she was certain Lew
Speaker 1: hadn't sent the package, Osborne made a mistake. He had
Speaker 1: Harry Cornish stand up and then asked Stevenson, quote, is
Speaker 1: that the man you saw with the poison package that day?
Speaker 1: Never ask a question you don't know the answer to?
Speaker 1: To Osborne's chagrin, Stevenson replied, he looks very much like
Speaker 1: that man. The defense was delighted. Throughout their case they'd
Speaker 1: been advancing an alternate theory of the crime, one in
Speaker 1: which Harry Cornish, not Roland Molineux, was the real poisoner.
Speaker 1: While cross examining Cornish, Frank Black had discussed Cornish's own
Speaker 1: sordid romantic history and highlighted Cornish's connection to Newark and
Speaker 1: friendship with a chemist Black also called Louis Jacobson, a
Speaker 1: clerk at a drug store near Cornish's former apartment. Jacobson
Speaker 1: testified that Harry Cornish and Florence Rogers, Catherine Adams's daughter
Speaker 1: had once come into his store and ordered pre mixed
Speaker 1: Bromo seltzer drinks from his soda fountain. On several occasions,
Speaker 1: Jacobson said he had sold Florence Rogers bottles of Bromo seltzer.
Speaker 1: In his closing argument, which began on Monday, November tenth,
Speaker 1: Black devoted much of his time to attacking Cornish. First.
Speaker 1: Though Black ripped into the case against Roland of Roland's
Speaker 1: alleged motive for killing Cornish, Black dismissively said, quote, there
Speaker 1: are plainer motives than that in every church quarrel. He
Speaker 1: questioned why Roland, if he wanted to kill Cornish, would
Speaker 1: send poison to him at the Knickerbocker, where Roland had
Speaker 1: friends who could have been hurt. Men do not wreck
Speaker 1: a railroad train in order to murder an individual, Black scoughed. Moreover,
Speaker 1: Black continued, why would Roland send a package with a
Speaker 1: handwritten address to a club where many people knew his
Speaker 1: handwriting if he were trying to conceal his role in
Speaker 1: the crime. Whatever else Molineu may be, Black said, he
Speaker 1: is not a fool. Black pointed out the circumstantial nature
Speaker 1: of the prosecution's case, saying, the blue paper is all
Speaker 1: the tangible evidence the prosecution has in all this contemptible,
Speaker 1: massive testimony. He told jurors that the company who made
Speaker 1: the blue stationery had sold more than forty thousand sheets
Speaker 1: of it. It was a crime to murder Missus Adams,
Speaker 1: Black said, but it would be a bigger crime to
Speaker 1: take the life of a man upon such evidence as that. Next,
Speaker 1: Black moved on to Harry Cornish. Cornish's motive, which Black
Speaker 1: claimed was a desire to be with the Florence Rogers,
Speaker 1: which Catherine Adams stood in the way of, was much stronger.
Speaker 1: In his view. He emphasized Cornish's close friendship with a chemist,
Speaker 1: John Yocum, his uncertain alibi on the day the poison
Speaker 1: package was mailed, and the fact that he had not
Speaker 1: attended Adams's funeral. In conclusion, Black argued, as one reporter
Speaker 1: put it, quote, that every circumstance in the case pointed
Speaker 1: to Cornish, while not a single fact pointed to the
Speaker 1: guilt of Molineux. In truth, Black's case against Cornish was
Speaker 1: mostly smoke and mirrors, but it did put eighty eight
Speaker 1: Osborne on the defensive during his own closing argument, Cornish's
Speaker 1: so called motive, Osborne said, was an invention. No evidence
Speaker 1: had ever been found of a romantic relationship between Cornish
Speaker 1: and Florence Rogers. When Missus Adams died, he said, her
Speaker 1: daughter held her in her arms. I ask you, gentlemen,
Speaker 1: if it does not stagger belief to suppose that this
Speaker 1: woman was in a conspiracy to murder her mother. Osborne
Speaker 1: also very sweetly said the Cornish was simply too stupid
Speaker 1: to have committed this murder. Look at Cornish, he instructed
Speaker 1: the jurors, big, muscular, aggressive and with not much sense.
Speaker 1: You can't make a poisoner out of such a man.
Speaker 1: With Cornish defended and also probably insulted, Osborne moved on
Speaker 1: to Roland Molineux. He reviewed Roland's motive, reminding jurors that
Speaker 1: it didn't matter if a motive made sense to them,
Speaker 1: It only mattered if it made sense to the killer.
Speaker 1: He highlighted Roland's relentless campaign against Cornish, which had continued
Speaker 1: even after Roland had lost the war and had to
Speaker 1: leave the Knickerbocker. He reviewed the testimony of the handwriting
Speaker 1: experts who had connected Roland's handwriting to the poison package.
Speaker 1: At this point, the court adjourned for the day. When
Speaker 1: Osborne resumed the next morning, November eleventh, he spoke for
Speaker 1: a further ninety minutes for The New York Times quote
Speaker 1: those who heard the speech said that no element of
Speaker 1: the prosecution's case that could possibly count against the defendant
Speaker 1: was omitted. In the end, Osborne told the jurors that
Speaker 1: they had a duty to stand strong and vote with
Speaker 1: their consciences, no matter their quote. Natural indisposition to cause
Speaker 1: harm to a fellow being. With closing arguments finished just
Speaker 1: as Lamb began his review of the evidence and his
Speaker 1: instruction to the jury. Then at three fourteen pm, he
Speaker 1: sent the jury to deliberate. The jury was back at
Speaker 1: three point twenty seven. The short deliberation gave the defense
Speaker 1: cause for hope. As guards led Roland back into the courtroom,
Speaker 1: Barto Weeks told him, quote, the time shows its acquittal. Roland,
Speaker 1: ever confident, replied, quote, I've never doubted it. But as
Speaker 1: the minutes dragged on while they waited for Justice Lambert
Speaker 1: to return to the courtroom, the tension built. In Roland's
Speaker 1: first trial. The jurors who had convicted him had refused
Speaker 1: to look him in the eye. As he watched these
Speaker 1: jurors violin, he noticed them looking away too. Finally Justice
Speaker 1: Lambert arrived. He asked the jury Foreman Edward Young to
Speaker 1: stand and deliver the verdict on the charge of murder
Speaker 1: in the death of Catherine j Adams. The defendant, Roland Moleneu,
Speaker 1: was found not guilty. The courtroom erupted in cheers. The
Speaker 1: celebration went on for five minutes before Justice Lambert regained control.
Speaker 1: He asked District Attorney Jerome if they had any further
Speaker 1: cases against the defendant. When Jerome said no, Lambert ordered
Speaker 1: Roland released. Eighty eight James Osborne looked devastated by the verdict,
Speaker 1: so distraught that even the jurors went to comfort him,
Speaker 1: with Foreman Edward Young telling him, we had to go
Speaker 1: against you, but you went down with flying colors. Interviews
Speaker 1: with other jurors expanded on the point. They revealed to
Speaker 1: The New York Times that their vote had been unanimous
Speaker 1: on the first ballot even before they had discussed the case,
Speaker 1: largely because, in the words of juror John Redner, quote,
Speaker 1: the prosecution failed to connect the defendant with the cyanide
Speaker 1: of mercury or with the purchase of the silver holder.
Speaker 1: Juror Charles O'Connor explained that though quote I do not
Speaker 1: think the evidence conclusively proved that Molineux was innocent. I
Speaker 1: did not feel that the evidence furnished was sufficient to
Speaker 1: warrant taking a man's life. But the jurors felt Osborne
Speaker 1: had done the best he could, with one even telling
Speaker 1: him they would vote for him if he ran for
Speaker 1: district attorney. Osborne never became district attorney, but he enjoyed
Speaker 1: a successful lock career. In nineteen thirteen, he was appointed
Speaker 1: Special Attorney General to investigate conditions at sing Sing. His
Speaker 1: work there prompted massive reforms. Roland Molineu and his father
Speaker 1: shared a carriage to Brooklyn, a large crowd following them
Speaker 1: through the streets and chanting malin knew, malin knew Yeah.
Speaker 1: Not the most catch each year. Arriving at the Fort Greenhouse,
Speaker 1: Roland ran up the front steps towards his mother, who
Speaker 1: flung her arms around him onlookers cheered loudly. Notably absent
Speaker 1: from this touching scene was Blanche. People were not entirely
Speaker 1: surprised cracks in the Malinu's perfect marriage had begun to show.
Speaker 1: On November eighth, Blanche had given a revealing interview to
Speaker 1: the New York World. When the reporter asked about her
Speaker 1: and Roland's future, Blanche cryptically replied, quote the future. No
Speaker 1: matter what the future may be, nothing can repay me
Speaker 1: for all that I, an innocent woman, have suffered. When
Speaker 1: the verdict was announced, Blanche stayed in her hotel suite.
Speaker 1: At the urging of one of Roland's lawyers, she reluctantly
Speaker 1: agreed to come to the Fort Greenhouse later that evening.
Speaker 1: As always, she put on a good show, dramatically rushing
Speaker 1: past General Molineux at the door as if she couldn't
Speaker 1: wait to see her husband. In reality, she would later write,
Speaker 1: she ran straight upstairs to her former bedroom and locked
Speaker 1: herself in without saying a word to any of the Molinews.
Speaker 1: Early the next time morning, Blanche wrote a note to
Speaker 1: General Molineux, explaining that she could not go on and
Speaker 1: wishing him the best. She did not mention Roland, Placing
Speaker 1: her wedding ring on top of the letter, Blanche snuck
Speaker 1: out of the house. Roland Molineu would never see the
Speaker 1: woman he had allegedly killed over again. One week later,
Speaker 1: news broke that she was seeking a divorce. The divorce
Speaker 1: was finalized in September nineteen oh three. Two months later,
Speaker 1: Blanche married her divorce lawyer, Wallace Scott. She tried to
Speaker 1: resume her singing career, but General Molineu, furious at her,
Speaker 1: used his connections to shut her down. After a tumultuous
Speaker 1: life in which she and Scott divorced and remarried several times,
Speaker 1: Blanche died in Minnesota on March twentieth, nineteen fifty four,
Speaker 1: at age eighty. Harry Cornish lived largely in anonymity after
Speaker 1: the Malinu trial. In nineteen oh eight, he married a
Speaker 1: woman named Mary Waite. In July of that year, news
Speaker 1: broke that a body found floating off Coney Island had
Speaker 1: been identified as Cornish, but this turned out to be false.
Speaker 1: He would live another twenty nine years, eventually moving to
Speaker 1: Los Angeles and working as a mechanical engineer. Harry Cornish
Speaker 1: died on January eleventh, nineteen forty seven, aged eighty four.
Speaker 1: Both Harry and Blanche outlived Roland Molineux. After his release
Speaker 1: from prison, Roland went to work as a chemist at
Speaker 1: his father's paint company and resumed his gymnastics practice, But
Speaker 1: while incarcerated he developed a new passion writing. In nineteen
Speaker 1: o three, he published The Room with the Little Door,
Speaker 1: a collection of writing he'd done while in the tombs
Speaker 1: and in Sing Sing's death House. Reviews were not great.
Speaker 1: The next year he published The Vice Admiral of the
Speaker 1: Blue historical romance. Once again, his work found few fans. Undaunted,
Speaker 1: Roland turned to the age, writing a play called The
Speaker 1: Man Inside, which was eventually put on by the prominent
Speaker 1: theater producer David Belasco. Belasco's involvement, however, was not thanks
Speaker 1: to any merit on the play's part, but rather because
Speaker 1: he felt bad for Roland's parents, who had begged him
Speaker 1: to produce the play. Pattie Molineux, Roland's mother, told Belasco, quote,
Speaker 1: if he is disappointed in this, on top of all
Speaker 1: the rest that he has suffered, we fear that he
Speaker 1: will die. If his play should be a success, it
Speaker 1: might open a new life to him. But by the
Speaker 1: time the play debuted two you guessed it poor reviews,
Speaker 1: it was too late for a new life for Roland.
Speaker 1: He was deep in the grips of the illness that
Speaker 1: would eventually kill him, syphilis. By nineteen twelve, Roland's behavior
Speaker 1: had become erratic and frightening. His once immaculate grooming habits
Speaker 1: had disappeared. He was disheveled and unkempt. Despite these problems,
Speaker 1: Roland married again, this time to a woman named Margaret Cornell,
Speaker 1: who was twenty years his junior. But shortly after their
Speaker 1: marriage in the fall of nineteen thirteen, Roland's condition deteriorated further.
Speaker 1: His parents sent him to a sanitarium on Long Island.
Speaker 1: In September nineteen fourteen, he escaped from the sanitarium and
Speaker 1: assaulted several men. He was charged with disorderly conduct. The
Speaker 1: next day, he was declared insane and committed to the
Speaker 1: State Hospital for the Insane. In January nineteen fifteen, his
Speaker 1: first child, a girl, was born, but Roland Molineu would
Speaker 1: never meet her. He died in the state hospital on
Speaker 1: November two, nineteen seventeen, aged fifty one. By this time
Speaker 1: both his parents were gone had he died on February fifth,
Speaker 1: nineteen fourteen, aged seventy one or seventy two. General Edward Molineux,
Speaker 1: who had spent most of the last twenty years of
Speaker 1: his life fighting on his son's behalf, a battle which
Speaker 1: seemed to have aged him more than any he'd fought
Speaker 1: in in the Civil War. Died on June tenth, nineteen fifteen,
Speaker 1: age eighty one. Today, the Malnu name is most famous
Speaker 1: for the legal rule that emerged as a result of
Speaker 1: Roland's appeal. I'll note here that the family pronounced their
Speaker 1: name Molineux, but the rule is known as the Malineaux rule.
Speaker 1: This rule concerns the admissibility of prior bad acts into evidence.
Speaker 1: As Judge William Warner noted in his opinion in Roland's case,
Speaker 1: the idea that evidence of other crimes should be inadmissible
Speaker 1: at trial was not a new one. There was extensive
Speaker 1: precedent in both English and American law. It existed before
Speaker 1: the Malinu opinion, and it existed after. But where Judge
Speaker 1: Werner's opinion set precedent was into fining the circumstances in
Speaker 1: which prior bad acts could be admissible. These exceptions are
Speaker 1: now known by the acronym mimic for motive intent, mistake
Speaker 1: identity common scheme in New York. The rule that prior
Speaker 1: bad acts are in indisciple except for mimic cases. Is
Speaker 1: known fittingly as the Molineaux rule. In practice, says former
Speaker 1: New York Supreme Court Justice Mark Dwyer, evidence of uncharged
Speaker 1: crimes is quote inadmissible to show that the defendant is
Speaker 1: of bad character or is disposed to commit crimes, but
Speaker 1: the evidence can be admitted if it helps prove an
Speaker 1: element of a charged offense, so long as the uncharged
Speaker 1: crimes are not unduly prejudicial. The Molina rule has made
Speaker 1: news recently in the case of film producer Harvey Weinstein.
Speaker 1: At Weinstein's twenty twenty trial in New York for sexual
Speaker 1: assault and rape, a judge allowed several Molinau witnesses witnesses
Speaker 1: who testified to prior bad acts. Weinstein was ultimately found
Speaker 1: guilty of two felony sex crimes, but four years later,
Speaker 1: in April twenty twenty four, the New York Court of
Speaker 1: Appeals overturned Weinstein's conviction. In a fouri three ruling. The
Speaker 1: majority opinion argued that the Molina witnesses testimony had been
Speaker 1: more prejudicial than probative. The opinion's author, Judge Jenny Rivera,
Speaker 1: calls the Malina rule quote a judicial bulwark against a
Speaker 1: guilty verdict based on supposition rather than proof. In a
Speaker 1: dissenting opinion, Judge Madeleine Singus argues that in sexual assault
Speaker 1: cases where prevailing societal attitudes about sexual assault may cause
Speaker 1: jurors to distrust victims, the additional testimony of Molina witnesses
Speaker 1: may sometimes be necessary to overcome this inherent bias. Judge Rivera,
Speaker 1: in response rites quote, just as rape myths may impact
Speaker 1: the trier of facts, deliberative process, propensity, evidence has a
Speaker 1: bias inducing effect on jurors and tends to undermine the
Speaker 1: truth seeking function of trials. These opinions both point to
Speaker 1: questions of fairness. When is it unfair to defendants to
Speaker 1: allow prior bad acts into evidence, when is it unfair
Speaker 1: to victims to exclude them. In Roland Malinew's case, it
Speaker 1: was clearly unfair to include the Barnett case while trying
Speaker 1: Roland for the murder of Catherine Adams. While it would
Speaker 1: be to my mind highly highly unlikely for Henry Barnett
Speaker 1: and Harry Cornish to have been sent poisoned by anyone
Speaker 1: other than their mutual rival, who just so happened to
Speaker 1: be a chemist with a dangerous temper. It's also clear
Speaker 1: to me that the prosecution didn't have enough evidence to
Speaker 1: prove their case against Roland, especially for a capital offense.
Speaker 1: The prosecutors relied on evidence of a prior bad act
Speaker 1: to fill in the gaps in their case. Where will
Speaker 1: land in the future on the question of the admissibility
Speaker 1: of prior bad acts is unknown, But as Judge Stingus
Speaker 1: points out quote, the Malino rule has never been static. Instead,
Speaker 1: its use has evolved over time to meet the challenges
Speaker 1: of complex criminal prosecution. In the meantime, I know one
Speaker 1: thing for sure. There are better ways to resolve disputes
Speaker 1: than poisoning your enemies. That's the story of New York v.
Speaker 1: Roland Molineu. Stay with me after the break for one
Speaker 1: more tale of a connection between a Malnu defense lawyer
Speaker 1: and a president. Not Richard Nixon this time, I promise.
Speaker 1: Nineteen oh one was a very busy year for John Milburn.
Speaker 1: Besides arguing on Roland Molineu's behalf in the Court of
Speaker 1: Appeals in June, Milbourne was also the president of the
Speaker 1: Pan American Exposition, the nineteen oh one World's Fair, held
Speaker 1: in Buffalo. It was an enormous undertaking several years in
Speaker 1: the making. The Exposition's infrastructure occupied three hundred and fifty
Speaker 1: acres and cost approximately seven million dollars close to a
Speaker 1: quarter of a billion dollars today, more than eight million
Speaker 1: visitors attended between May and November nineteen oh one. As
Speaker 1: President of the Exposition, John Milburn had the honor of
Speaker 1: hosting President William McKinley on his visit to the Fair
Speaker 1: on September three, a little more than a month before
Speaker 1: the appeals Court announced its decision in the Malnu case.
Speaker 1: McKinley arrived at Milburn's Buffalo mansion on the sixth. Milburn
Speaker 1: accompanied McKinley to a reception in the President's honor at
Speaker 1: the Fairs Temple of Music. At four h seven p m.
Speaker 1: John Milburn was standing beside the President when a young
Speaker 1: man named Leon Shahgosh pulled out a revolver and shot
Speaker 1: McKinley twice. After McKinley was treated in a hospital, the
Speaker 1: President returned to Milburn's house to recuperate. Unfortunately, as in
Speaker 1: the case of President James Garfield, infection introduced by a
Speaker 1: bullet lingering in the President's body began to spread on
Speaker 1: September fourteenth, nineteen oh one, in a bedroom in the
Speaker 1: house of one of Roland Malinu's lawyers, President William McKinley died.
Speaker 1: Thank you for listening to History on Trial. If you
Speaker 1: enjoyed this episode, please consider leaving a rating or review.
Speaker 1: It can help new listeners find the show. My main
Speaker 1: sources for this episode were Harold Scheckter's book The Devil's Gentlemen, Privilege,
Speaker 1: Poison and The Trial That Ushered in the twentieth century,
Speaker 1: as well as newspaper coverage of the trial and the
Speaker 1: appellate opinion in People v. Molineux. For a complete bibliography,
Speaker 1: as well as a transcript of the episode with citations,
Speaker 1: please visit our website History on Trial podcast dot com.
Speaker 1: History on Trial is written and hosted by me Mira Hayward.
Speaker 1: The show is edited and produced by Jesse Funk, with
Speaker 1: supervising producer Trevor Young and executive producers Dana Schwartz, Alexander Williams,
Speaker 1: Matt Frederick, and Mira Hayward. Learn more about the show
Speaker 1: at History on Trial podcast dot com and follow us
Speaker 1: on Instagram at History on Trial and on Twitter at
Speaker 1: Underscore History on Trial. Find more podcasts from iHeartRadio by
Speaker 1: visiting the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen
Speaker 1: to your favorite shows.