Decorah public opinion., April 26, 1922, Image 1

About Decorah public opinion. (Decorah, Winneshiek County [Iowa]) 1895-1928

Image provided by: State Historical Society of Iowa

                
TWELVE PAGES
voL xxvm.
KNESKERN IS FOUND “GUILTY”
' V '
JUDGE TAYLOk S
INSTRUCTIONS TO JURY
INSTRUCTIONS
Gentlemen of the Jury:
Paragraph .1. The indictment
charges substantially that the defend
ant, B. F. Kneeskern, in Winneshiek
County, lowa, on or about the elev
enth day of December, 1921, in and
upon the body of one Irene Van
Brocklin wilfully, feloniously, delib
erately, premeditatedly, and with
malice aforethought, did commit an
assault with a deadly weapon, towit:
a shot gun, then and there charged (
and loaded with gun powder, wadding
and leaden shot, the particular des
cription of said shot gun being to ,
this grand jury unknown, and said ,
shot gun being then and there held '
in the hands of the said B. F. Knees- ]
keni, and then and there the said B. ,
F. Kjieeskern did with a specific in- ,
tent to kill and murder the said Irene ,
Van Brocklin w'ilfully, feloniously, 5
deliberately, premedi'tatedly, and with ,
malice aforethought shoot off and
discharge the contents of said ,
deadly weapon at, against and into the
body of the said Irene Van Brocklin, j
thereby wrongfully, wilfully, felon- ,
dously, deliberately, premeditatedly, j
ami with malice aforethought, and ,
with the specific intent to kill and ,
murder the said Irene Van Brocklin,
inflicting upon the body of the said
Irene Vanßrocklin a mortal wound, j
of which mortal wound the said
Irene Vanßrocklin then and there did j
die, and all of the aforesaid acts by
the said B. F. Kneeskern being con
trary to and in violation of law.
Par. 2. This is a charge of murder ,
in the first degree, which charge
also includes two other charges,
namely, a charge of murder in the i
second degree and the charge of
manslaughter.
Par. 3. The defendant pleads that
be is not guilty of any one of these ;
offenses. It is not necessary for the
defendant to prove that he is not guilty
but he is presumed to be innocent
until his guilt is established beyond
a reasonable doubt, and the burden
of proof rests upon the state to
establish the guilt of the defendant
bevond a reasonable doubt.
Par. 4. Whoever kills any human
being with malice aforethought, ei
ther express or implied, is guilty of
murder. , ■
Par. 5. All murder which is per
petrated by any wilful, deliberate and
premeditated killing is murder in the
•first degree.
Par. 6. All murder that is not
of the first degree is murder of the
second degree. ...
Par. 7. Whoever unlawfully kills
any human being without malice
aforethought is guilty of manslaugh
ter*
Par. 8. In order to convict the
defendant, it is necessary for the
state to establish:
l*t. That Irene Van Brocklin came
to her death by the unlawful acts
of another person, and 4
2nd. That the defendant, B. K
Kneeskern, is the guilty person.
And unless you are satisfied from
the evidence before you beyond a
reasonable doubt that each of these
facts are so established, you will
acquit the defendant and return a
verdict of not guilty.
Par. 9. If you find from the evi
dence before you beyond a reasonable
doubt that Irene Van Brocklin came
to her death by the unjawful act of
another person, you will then (but!
•not otherwise) proceed to determine
whether the defendant, B. F. knees
kem, is the guilty person. _
Par. 10. Guided by these instruc
tions you will determine from the;
evidence whether the said Van
Brocklin came to her death by the j
unlawful act of another; and if you ,
find that she did so meet her death, |
vou will then determine whether the
defendant is guilty or not guilty, ami.
if guilty you will decide whether the
crime is murder or
and if you find him guilty of murder,
whether his crime is murder in the
first degree or murder in the second
e p ar ii. You will carefully con
sider all of the evidence, and if you
do not find beyond a reasonable doubt
ithat the said Irene Van Brocldm,
came to her death by the unlawful
act of another person, and fat *he
defendant is guilty, you w»ll return
a verdict of not guilty, but,
such full and careful consideration of
all the evidence, you find that the
said Irene Vanßrocklin came to her
death by the unlawful act of another
person, and you further find the de
ffndant Kuilty beyond a reasonable
doubt, you will then proceed to as
certain from the evidence the pi ecu e
character of his crime, bearing a
ways in mind that what f • ,
(these instructions In veganl to the
different crimes involved can ha\e
application unless you find
*?£*£% «he fatal shot was
firo*l ami the kilim* dope _
deliberately, with premeftataon, and
with malice aforethought the crime
is murder in the first degree, lou
iUccovai) Public ©pinion.
will carefully notice these elemen
of murder in the first degree. It is
not enough that the fatal shot was
fired wulfully, but the killing must
have been done wilfully and purpose
ly; that is, the fatal shot must have
been fired with the specific intent in
the mind of the defendant at the
time to destroy life. The killing
must also have been premeditated;
that is, the fatal shot must have
been fired in pursuance of a prior
intention to take life. But the law
does not require that such intention
should have existed for any parti
cular length of time; a short time
would be sufficient The killing must
also have been deliberate; that is,
the fatal shot and its consequences
must have been cooly considered and
weighed by the defendant be) » the
purpose to kill was fully fo: din
the mind, and, finally, the fat shot
must have been fired with dice
aforethought.
The depravity of mind and heart,
the want of respect for human life,
known in law as malice aforethought,
is not defined in the abstract with
any precision. It is best understood
by considering the unlawful act from
which the law presumes its existence
and presence in the mind.
If the fatal shot was fired with
the specific intent in the mind to
kill, the law presumes, in the ab
sence of evidence to the contrary,
that it was done with malice afore
thought.
Par. 13. It must not *be inferred
from whait has been said that there
can be no malice aforethought ex
cept where there is a specific intent
to take life. If the farid shot was
fired not with the specific intent to
take life, but only with the intent
to wound or inflict great bodily in
jury, the law will still presume, in
the absence of proof to the contrary,
that the killing was done with malice
aforethought, but in that case, the
crime would be murder in the second
degree.
Par. 14. If the fatal shot was fired
without malice aforethought the crime
is not murder but manslaughter. If for
example, the fatal shot was fired
from the sudden transport of passion
or heat of blood, upon reasonable
provocation, and without malice, then
the crime is manslaughter and not
murder.
Par. 15. In considering the ques
tion of the intent with which the
fatal shot was fired, you will bear in
mind that every' rational person is
presumed to intend the natural, usual
and probable consequences of his
voluntary and deliberate acts. If
one voluntarily uses a deadly wea
pon in a manner which he knows to
be calculated to destory the life of
another, and death results, it will be
presumed, in the absence of evidence
to the contrary, that such result was
intended.
Par. 16. A deadly weapon may be
defined as one likely to produce
death or great bodily injury, and, in
determining whether or not an as
sault was made by the defendant
upon Irene Van Brocklin with a
deadly weapon, you will consider all
the evidence bearing upon the sub
ject- and determine therefrom the i
nature, size and character of the fire
arm with which the shot was fired. 1
the manner of its use, the part of i
the body struck and whether the
use of the weapon might be danger
ous to life or not.
Par. 17. All of the testimony in
this case is what is known as cir
cumstantial evidence. Circumstantial
ev’dence is that which tends to estab
lish a fact or facts, from which it
may be reasonably and logically de
duced that the main or ultimate fact
.exists which is thus sought to be
! proved. In order however, to war
rant a conviction on circumstantial
evidence alone, the facts proved must
not only be consistent with the gu : lt
iof the accused, but they must also be
inconsistent with any rational theory
of his innocence.
Par. 18. You are also instructed
that to warrant a conviction on cir
cumstantial evidence alone, each fact
lin the chain of circumstances nec
essary to be established to prove the
guilt of the accused must be proven
by comeptent evidence beyond a rea
sonable doubt, and all the facts and
circumstances necessary' to prove
guilt must be connected with each
other and with the main fact sought
to be proved; and all the circum
stances taken together, must be of
a conclusive nature, leading to a
satisfactory conclusion and producing
a moral certainty that the crime
charged was committeed, ami that ac
cused committed it It is not suffici
ent that they coincide with and ren
der probable the guilt of the accused,
but they must exclude every’ other
reasonable hypothesis.
Par. 19. You are instructed that
circumstantantial evidence is to be
regarded by the jury in all cases.
When it is strong and satisfactory,
the jurv should so consider it, nei
(Contlnued on last page.*
DECORAH, WINNESHIEK COUNTY, IOWA, WEDNESDAY, APRIL 26,1922
Verdict Brought In
At 11:20 Last Night
Verdict Brings With it Sentence to Life
Imprisonment in Penitentiary
THE MAT DOTSETH CASE WILL BE CALLED UP FOR
The jury in the murder trial of B. F. Kneeskern returned a
verdict of guilty of murder in the first degree last night at
11:20. The jury got the case at 4:30 in the afternoon.
Judge Taylor wa& at the Court House to receive verdict.
Tha court house was nearly half full of spectators when
the jury tiled in. The defendant, his wife and sisters were also
there.
Deputy Clerk of Court Cas
per Selland polled the jury,
and all answered promptly as
their names were called, after
which Judge Taylor asked the
jurors if they had decided on
a verdict and receiving an af
tirmative reply, proceeded to
read the verdict.
When the word guilty.fell
from the judge’s lips, Mrs.
Chas. Yuii Horn, sister of the
defendant, became hysterical
and. aried out Frank you are
not guilty* ymi tire not.” 81 w
was confronted by the defend
ant* who put his arm around
her and consoled her. He, ap
parently, was not affected by
the verdict, at least showing no
outward signs, and appeared
as unconcerned as he did all
through the trial.
The reading of the verdict
was all the court proceedings
last night, and Kneeskern was
taken back to the jail by
Sheriff Hllingson.
The verdict of guilty
brought in by the jury carried
with it as punishment impri
sonment for life in the peni
tentiary.
The murder trial of the sta'e vs.
B. F. Kneeskenv accused of the mur
der of Mr. and Mrs. Chas. Van
Brocklin, entered into the fourteen
day today, Wednesday. The state
closed its case Friday afternoon and
'the defense opened immediately and
concluded on Monday evening. At
9:55 Tuesday Atty. Sayre opened
the arguments for the state, talking
until noon, and was followed by
Atty. Cutting for the defense who
talked until 4:30. Atty. Murphy then
started, concluding his argument at
about 10 o’clock Wednesday, when
County Attorney Nelson opened the
closing augument to the jury, speak
ing until 4:00 o’clock.
Judge Taylor then read his instruc-
♦ • • A " T< K
Top Row, Left to Right:—L. G. McConat?, Decorah; C. O. Casterton, Highland Twp.; P. Hammersvold,
Fremont Twp.; Carl Bolson, Glenwo:>d Twp.; Ole Christen, Madison Twp.; G. A. Grimso, Glenwood Twp.
Bottom Row, Left to Right:—Albert Kogan, Glenwood Twp.; Sidney Ruth, Pleasant Iwp.; John Met all,
Decorah; G. O. Kvak*, Madison Twp.; L. K. Bjorgo, Highland Twp.; L. A. Ludden I remont lwp.
TRIAL TODAY
tions to the jury and the twelve men
retired to decide the fate of the
defendant at 4:30.
Last Saturday, by agreement of
both skies, the jurors were allowed
to go to their homes over Sunday.
There is nothing compulsory, as we
understand it, about keeping a jury
closed up, when both sides agree
to give thorn their freedom.
\*w& <<&■■&%&■ : ■ <£sy^.
B. F. KNEESKERN
Below will be found a resume of
the evidence since our last issue.
Win. H. Fisher, 57 years old, an
employee of Kneeskern told a story
which’ appeared damaging to the
defendant. On Sunday Dec. 11, he
told about being in Knee-kern’s of
fice when he came in and told him
he was going down to the cabin and
left there in a car. Fisher said he
told Kneeskern he would like to
break the gun on the sidewalk. This
was about noon. He testified he
again saw Kneeskern between 5 and
6, and they talked about the murders.
He asked Kneeskern what was going
on anil he answered that an accident
had happened and that Charles and
Irene Van Brocklin were dead. Ask
ed how they come to be dead, and he
answered thev had been shot and also
said, “Bill I ‘didn’t do it” The wit-
THE jury in the b. f. kneeskern case
ness then went on to tell the story
Kneeskern told him about what hap
pened at the cabin. Some time after
the murder the witness stated Knees
kern came to his home and wanted
to talk to him ami he told him
“Frank, that’s alright but if you
had listened to me in the first place
you wouldn’t have had this trouble.
He said Kneeskern claimed he had
misquoted him before the grand jury.
Friday afternoon was practically
all taken up with testimony from
Lawrence Acres, of Decorah, who
was called by the state as a gun and
ammunition expert. He proved a
good witness and knew what he was
testifying to. He was questioned
at length about the size and condi
tion of different shells, shot and
waddings placed on exhibit. He was
cross examined by Atty. Cutting for
the defense, and Mr. Acres claims
of being an expert on guns and am
munition held despite all efforts of
the defense to disprove his claims
along this line. He examined shot
and gun wads found where the cof
fee pot was picked up and also shot
and wads taken from the bodies of
Charles and Irene Vanßrocklin, and
Mr. Acres said they were the same
size. Various sizes of gun wads and
shots were exhibited to the witness
and he answered correctly the vari
ous sizes and guage of gun they
were for. He proved a good witness
and knew what he was talking about.
At the conclusion of Mr. Acres
testimony the state rested its case
at 4:30 o'clock.
Other witnesses who testified dur
ing the day were Rudolph Jahnke,
Dell Harvey and Henry Jahnke, and
their testimony was about the in
quest over the murdered couple on
the night of the murder and also told
about the action of the defendant
Kneeskern while there.
John Tiebe gave testimony about
a conversation had in August 1921
with Kneeskern regardin ; the latter
bring !Alight wl h Ii .f Vanßrock
lin.
John Longstreet, a Deco rah Photo
grapher was on the stand for the
state and testified to taking pictures
of the Van Brocklin cabin, and some
nine or ten pictures were exhibited
and shown to the jury.
Exhibits such as the shot gun,
shells and a coffee pot full of bullet
holes were placed on exhibit, and
Clerk of Court S. J. Moore, Miss
Ruby Ness, clerk of the grand jury
and Sheriff O. O. Ellingson gave
testimony regarding the various ex
hibits, and these were all passed
around among the jurors who care
fully examined them.
When the state rested their case
at 4:30 p. m. Friday, it took the
defense by surprise, and Atty. Mur
phy, counsel for the defense, made
the announcement that the defense
was not ready to proceed, and court
adjourned for the day.
The first witness called by the
defense was George Neunswander,
of Ca-talia, a hardware dealer, anil
he was questioned by Atty. Murphy.
Asked about the kind of shot Chas.
Van Brocklin had purchased at his
store about four weeks before the
murder, testified he bought 12-gauge
gun cartridges with smokeless pow
der and No. 6 chill shot. He was
on the stand about 10 minutes. His
answers to all questions were strenu
ously objected to by County Attorney
Nelson.
The next witness called was Chas.
Altfillisch, of Decorah, a civil engi
neer and architect, who had been hir
ed by the defense to make a map
and survey of the Van Brocklin
cabin and the ground in that vicinity.
A big map with drawings of the
cabin, roads leading to it, etc. was
placed .before the . jury, and Mr.
Altfillisch answered questions re
garding location and distances ae
propounded by Atty. Murphy.
A number of character witnesses were
introduced by the defense for the
purpose of discrediting Geo. Moore.
They were Ben Fox, Roy Tatro, Ole
Kloster, all fanners in the vicinity
of Casta! ia and Clermont J. A.
Erickson, cashier of the Farmers
Savings Bank at Clermont, Frank
White, justice of the peace at Cler
mont and Sheriff C. C. Wright, of
West Union all testified as to the
characters of George Moore and El
mer Van Brocklin. They all stated
that George Moore’s character and
reputation for the truth was bad,
while most of them could not say
that they knew of Elmer’s character
being considered bad. All of these
witnesses were on the stand for but
five and ten minutes.
Mias Gail Swenson, daughter of
J. A. Swenson testified that she saw
Charley Y r an Brocklin deliver a horse
to her father on the day of the
murders in the morning and he was
in a great hurry to get back home.
Miss Lucile Cook, daughter of Will
Cook, was the next witness called.
She testified about Charley, Elmer
and Irene being up at their place
the morning of the murder. Charles
came and was talking with her fa
ther. They were at the bam, and
Elmer came down the road and talk
ed with her father and Charley. Ac
cording to the witness Irene came to
the door and asked where Charles
was, and she seemed to be in a
hurry and was excited.
Miss Cook testified that she told
Irene Charles was at the barn and
she ran down there. They left later,
Charles and Irene riding in a cart
and Elmer walking ahead. She test
ified also that during the fall Charles
husked corn at their farm and she
saw Elmer there. Elm»r hail ?
*hotg .11 at an- her time she saw t v _'»
wo Tio tiler- laiking at The
house.
i Mrs. Win. Cook also testified, and
the testimony was practically the
same as her daughter’s.
After Mrs. Cook and daughter
testified, Wm. Cook, a farmer, who
operates the B. F. Kneeskern farm
was called to the stand. He testified
that Charley, Elmer and Irene were
at his place on the morning of the
11th of December. Atty. Cutting
asked him what Irene said when she
first arrived at his farm.
The state raised an objection to
this question. More or less heated
argument arose between the state
ami defense on the question, but
Judge Taylor stated reasons that he
believed the objection should be over
ruled. Mr. Cook’s answer was that
Irene said “Charley come right home,
Elmer has been over there
“raising ned,” and about them ap
pearing against him to show that he
stole corn and sold it. He stated
Irene was crying and that she told
Elmer she would go to Decorah the
next day and have him arrested, if
she had to walk.
Cook became somewhat confused in
his cross examination, the state
bringing out the fact that the wit
ness had forgotten what he testified
to at the inquest over the bodies of
the murdered couple.
| Mrs. Marion Burns, Mr. Marion
Burns and Henry Burns, a brother of
Marion all testified that they saw
Charley two or three days before
the murder. He came up to the
barn where the two men were ami
tried to sell them a shot gun. He
hail been looking at his traps, and
after remaining for about an hour
he went back toward his traps.
Some of the answers of Mrs. Burns
drew forth laughs from the audience.
Mrs. Burns was testifying to the day
she saw Van Brocklin on their farm.
Said it must have been Thursday as
she done her baking Thursdays and
Saturdays and the fact of her daugh
ter not being home on Saturday it
must have been Thursday. She had
answered Atty. Nelson that the day
was either Thursday or Friday, still
she seemed to think it Thursday be
cause it was her baking day.
After Henry Burns testimony was
concluded the defense said they had
no more witnesses for the day, and
court adjourned about three o’clock
until Monday morning.
Court reconvened Monday morning,
and it was 9:30 before the first wit
ness, for the defense Chas. Altfillisch
was called. His testimony completed
a description of the map with the
cabin, etc. on and gave the distances
between the different points more
clear.
Oliver Shaggrud, a farmer, who
lived a mile or two from the Van
Brocklin cabin testified he had a
conversation with Chas. Van Brock
lin a short while before the murder
and that Charley said Kneeskenf was
the best man he had ever worked
for.
The next two witnesses were Lyle
Wayne and Gilbert Dahms, young
men who had helped Wm. Cook husk
corn last November. They both
testified they had seen Charley and
Elmer Van Brocklin talking at the
school house one day as they were
returning from ,the fields. They stat
ed that Elmer carried a gun at that
time.
Wayne further stated he saw
Continued on last page.
TWELVE PAGES
NO. 17
... „ jr
v 'Jj j r
r -
/ Vi