Connecticut, T,W, Z, 1917-1993, Undated

Online content

FIN-DINGO®—Sensa-
tional, slow-sinking,
fish-like action. We.
Y% oz.— $1.25
WEE-NIPPEE® — Fa-
mous Nip-I-Diddee*
action. Semi-weed-
less. Wt. ¥% oz. $1.35
SPIN-I-DIDDEE®% oz.
size Nip-1-Diddee®.
Real fish-getter. $1.25

FREE BOOK. 116 pages of helpful
hints, new tackle, etc. Write for it now.
A SOUTH BEND BAIT CO.,889 High St. Seuth Bend 23, tnd.

SOUTH BEND

A Name Samous tn fuk

I WORK HOME OR TRAVEL 3
t DETECTIVE Particulars FREE 8

' write GEORGE D.G. WAGNER !
1125 West 86th St., New York I
i

' NGWE creda ccta ried fonss ben eresar. I
a Address ....- +e esse es see resets eee 8

Executive Accountants and C. P. A’s earn $4,000 to $10,000 year.

Thousands of firms need them. We train you thoroly at t heme fn in spere

HE rg experience unnecessary. Personal gn be ander wuperviaion
C.F. A's, Pacement counsel Tee Write for free

‘counipner, the Profesefon That oe
LASALLE Extension University, 417 Se. Dearborn St.
A Correspondence Institution Dept. can Chicago 5, lil.

SO BADLY

NEEDED ||
Our men now make gh
54022 t0 6022 a DAY! S=%

« is the wonde eed
ful invention EVERY HOUSEWIFE needs 3107

that does away EVERY OFFICE needs 5 te 100

with tangled, twisted, dan- EVERY FACTORY needs 10 te 200
verous wires. Slips on phone,
ster, vacuum, adding ma- | MONEY BACK
or power tool extension? int | gong $1.00 bill

ify. Then keeps ec monet coil |
lor two 9Sc sam-
that stretches out as it’s u-ed—-RE- °: | bes —ane ot h

el
model, Money back
ifyoureturn themin

Coilette is sucha
sational money
until vou see
in acti end for
sample < jay and
complete sales kit.

i. Millions to be
menidous new opportunity for
men. crew manayers, or spare
workers Rend sample offer at riz’ ht,
‘Then rush name for samples today,

MAXILUME CO.
125 W. Hubbard St., Dept. 1-36-H, Chicage 10, Milnels

us he struggled hard to keep his eyes on.

“Who P”

“I don’t know.” °

“You never saw him _ before?”

“No. ”

“It was a holdup, Mr. Wolfson?”

“The man walked into the store. .. .”

; “Ves.”

“.. . and I said what can I do for you. He
said a bottle of wine. Good wine. .. .”

“Ves.”

. . . I was reaching for a bottle when he
took out a gun and said ‘You know what
this is?’”

- “What did you say?”

“T told him—I told ‘him to ot out of my
store.”

“And then?”

“He pushed me to the back.”

“Then he shot you.”

“He shot me.”

“Can you describe him, Mr. Wolfson?”

“He was thin.”

“Tall?”

“Not tall. He had light hair.”

“Blond hair?”

“Maybe blond.”

“How old was he, Mr. Wolfson?”

“He might be 20 years old. Twenty one.”

“Was he fat?”

“No.”

The wounded man closed his eyes. The
doctor, standing near the bed, shook his head.
No more questions.

That night Wolfson died.

That was the story as Chief Beckwith re-
membered it. Up till now it had been an
unsolved case. Now ... He relaxed his grip
from Albert Taborsky’s arm. He led him back
into the living room where the two detectives
sat waiting.

“Taborsky. Tell these men what you just
told me.”

Albert put his hands in his pockets. You
could see, through the material, that his fists
were clenched. He told the men what he had
told the chief. That his brother, The Chin,
had pumped a bullet into Louis Welioon's head
nine months ago. .

The detectives were stunned. The Wolfson
case had always been thought of as one of
those rare perfect crimes. There had been no
witnesses; the bullets had been smashed be-
yond ballistics identification, and the store-
keeper had died.

They listened to Albert as he went on
talking.

The exact night of the murder was March
23. He remembered that because that was
The Chin’s birthday. The Chin had _ picked
him up in their jalopy at about 8, Albert said,
and asked him if he wanted to make some
quick cash. Albert said okay and climbed into
the car. They cruised around for a while, By
9 they were in ritzy West Hartford. ©

“This is where the dough is,” Albert quoted
The Chin. “

Kept Motor Running

Five minutes later they parked in front of
a lighted liquor store. “My brother told me
to wait while he went inside. It would take
a minute, he said. I waited, kept the motor
running, and a couple of minutes later The
Chin came panting out, his face covered with
sweat. I asked him what's wrong and he said
the crazy guy inside had jumped him and he
had to shoot him.”

They speeded away, Albert said, and his
, brother sat alongside him, rubbing his knees
* with his palms.

“We got to Four Corners, turned and headed
into Hartford. The Chin: said to head for
Bulkeley Bridge. I did. When we got there
I stopped the car. It was still raining and
there wasn’t much traffic. Anyways, it was
dark, The Chin reached in his pocket for
the revolver he always kept on him. It was
a black job with a fancy red grip. He pulled
the window down and flipped the gun over
the rail. We waited to hear it hit the water,
but just then a car came rushing by us blow-
ing his horn. All we heard was the horn.”

After Chief Beckwith listened to the story
he got dressed and accompanied Albert and
the two detectives to headquarters. Here the

- chief ordered The Chin to be brought down

from his cell.

At first The Chin was calm. He shook his
head as though he were being baited into ,a
trap. He looked at his brother sitting across
the room and winked.

“What did they do to get you to say a
crazy thing like that, Albert? Beat you up?”
Promise you a million bucks?”

It was when Albert: said “What’s the use
of kidding ourselves?” that The Chin became
furious, cried, then yelled, then laughed hys-
terically and finally fainted.

Trial for the a brothers was set for
June, 1951.

Albert was first. He pleaded guilty to acting
as an accomplice in the murder and got off
with a life sentence.

All eyes turned to The Chin now.

Albert Off Rocker?

“As God is my judge,” he cried out in court
the first day, “I did not kill Louis Wolfson.”

Others who took the stand said the same
thing. Some of them intimated that Albert
had gone temporarily off his rocker when he
said his brother was the murderer. Others
went so far as to suggest that Albert himself
had killed Wolfson and was trying to shift
the blame. After all, hadn’t Wolfson’s death-
bed description of the killer fit Albert like a

‘glove? Light hair; short; slim; young looking.

Mrs. Mabel Taborsky, the boys’ mother,
was on the stand longer than anyone else. She
faced the jury as she talked. She was cried-
out by this time and her gray eyes were clear.
She loved both her sons, she said, but she
loved the eldest, Joseph—The Chin—more.
She couldn’t help it. He had always been so
nice; so. helpful. Just the opposite from Al-
bert, she said; Albert the little roughneck,
Albert the troublemaker. She remembered how
everything had been all right between her
sons,

“They got along like ordinary brothers,”
she said—until one night in 1947 when Albert
threatened to hit their father during an
argument. The Chin stepped between them
and told his brother to keep hands off.

“Yes,” the mother said in court, “Albert was
always a little jealous of Joseph. Jealous of
the way he loved me and his father, maybe. I
could always sense he was a little jealous.”

The next witness was Mrs. Josephine Brig-
lia, a stubby woman with big breasts and
little eyes; the woman The Chin had blamed
his troubles on in a letter the police once found
in his pants. She swore that The Chin had been
at her place with her and her four kids the
night of the .murder.

lee

“It. was The Chin’s birthday,” she said, “and
I made him a cake. He came over, played
with the kids for a while and then stayed and
talked to me. He left later. The cops say
the murder took place at 9 o’clock. Chin left
much later than that. I’m telling the truth.”

More witnesses and more talk.

When it was nearly all over, the prosecutor
for the state got up and repeated what he had
said at the beginning: The Chin had been
accused by his own flesh and blood. True,
there were no witnesses and the gun had
never been found at the bottom of the Con-
necticut River. But the finger had been pointed
by his brother and his brother was sticking
to his story.

The jury of seven women and five men
took nine hours to make up their minds. They
decided that Joseph The Chin Taborsky was
guilty of murder in the first degree.

He was sentenced to die in the electric chair,
November 7, 1951.

The summer passed—quickly for The Chin—
and then September and October. On Novem-
ber 3, four days before’ the scheduled electro-
cution, The Chin sat on the edge of his cot
and thanked God. The warden at Wethers-
field State Prison had just told him that the
governor had granted a temporary postpone-
ment and that the execution would be ap-
pealed.

Meanwhile, word was getting around the
prison that Albert, The Chin’s brother, was
beginning to act a little strange. He’d been
losing his appetite and growing thinner and
throwing up what little food he did eat. He’d
stopped talking to people, too,'and confined
his conversations to himself.

“Chin!” a few of the prisoners heard him

shriek into the night more than once. “Chin!.

Don’t let them put you in the chair. Don’t let
them tie your feet to the chair.”

Again, the months passed and The Chin
remained alone in‘ his death-row cell waiting
for word of one kind or another while his
brother, Albert, held in the next building, sat

brooding, getting stranger by the day.

In January, 1952, Albert got sick and was
sent to the prison hospital. He was kept in
bed for more than a month. No one could
tell exactly what was wrong with him. He
was discharged in late February and returned
to his cell.

On March i, during the night watch, a
prison guard trudged past Albert’s cell. He
stopped methodically for a second. He was
about to continue walking to the next cell
when he heard something. He turned his
flashlight towards the bars. Behind the bars,
standing on his cot, was Albert Taborsky. He
was naked. He had ripped off his clothes and
begun tearing them into shreds.

The guard reached for his keys.

Howling Like Moondog

-Albert’s eyes, empty, stared down at the
lock. He brought his bony shoulders forward
as though he might jump. But instead, he
only stood there, howling like a moondog
now, as the guard approached him, forced a
jacket around his waist and led him away.

Today, Albert is in a padded cell at the
Norwich State Hospital for the Criminally In-
sane. People there ‘say he howls like a dog
from morning until night and sometimes all
through the night.

The Chin, the brother he acctised of murder,
is still at Wethersfield waiting to learn his
fate. He may die in the chair or he may not.
His lawyer may succeed in proving that Al-
bert was insane at the time he put the finger
on his brother or he may not.

The Chin doesn’t know. He simply sits now
and waits and wonders and prays and cries
sometimes, too, when he thinks about what
happened to the kid brother whom he swears
did him wrong.

Epiror’s Note: To prevent embarrassment

to an innocent person, the name Josephine’

Briglia, used in this story, is fictitious.

‘

“Oh by the way, how do you divide $132,726.61 by four?”

Do You Favor
a GOOD EAR?

IF YOU DO — YOUR

HEARING

May Be WORSE Than
You Think

If one ear must hear for two, take heed.
This may be Nature’s warning of deaf-
ness already so serious that corrective
measures are urgently needed. Why fish
losing so much of life’s pleasures and o
portunities? Let science help you with the
modern miracle of electronics. You'll
find it all explained in a helpful FREE
BOOK that is yours just for ag, fo
— Send for your copy TOD:

ons t Bollone

wEDiCiNE ys

Cumn x QUALITY HEARI! G AIDS

Individually Fitted—Personal Service
BELTONE HEARING AID CO.

Dept.1716, 1450 W. 19th St., Chicago 8, Hil.

FREE BOOK COUPON

! Beltone Hearing Aid Co. — #1716
! 1450 W. 19th St., Chicago 8, Illinois

t
|
Without cost or obligation send me your t
|

| valuable FREE BOOK of facts about deaf-
ness and bow to overcome it. .

| PNRM 54.4 S Unt Phn on 8% sisapted44 sends vcee

LEARN AT HOME

There are RICH OPPORTUNI-
TIES for MEN and WOMEN
with know-how in Plastics. In-
terstate's amazing new Plastics
tourse tells and shows how to
make hundreds of fast selling
items out of Plastics. Gives
complete training in fabrica-
tion, casting, lamination, mold-
ing, etc., in simple, easy, step-by-
step language and pictures. START A
PLASTICS BUSINESS OF YOUR
OWN. No other industry holds such

promise for the future. You can make big

money manufacturing novelties, toys,

: DS, signs, etc., in your own home in spare or
ul

Il time. Don't wait! Learn NOW how
Piickeene s Plastics Training qualifies you for
success in the plastics field.

Write for FREE information Todoy!

INTERSTATE TRAINING SERVICE
School of Plastics, Dept. C-13F
PORTLAND 13, OREGON

MAKE EXTRA MONEY

HARTFORD,

@ Joseph
; a August 3,
# , 3 the Conne

down the
door at th
would wal

i: _ The word
Pe would me
aq over, thes:

"% Sleeping a
=. more than

= electric ch

— too. All o
: > would con

- $3 meal i

and strap
would be |

Hee ply, and a
| short, fina
» . victed mu
& Yes or

* no smile.
» — would kno
si He clos
| a “Please,

; - am innoce
by EDWARD DeBLASIO ts. be ad.
make him
he’s done

w of the chair and waited for the courts aN
It happ

For 5 years Joe Taborsky sat in the shado
At 10 ¢

tally sick boy
ther who had labeled him killer was a men Be 10 «
to understand that the bro get
| ; quarters. |
the day b
during the
tectives h«
the police
them that

pote Bees

He pointed finger of guilt at brother, was later found insane.

HARTFORD, CONN., AUGUST 3, 1955

| @ Joseph Taborsky waited. It was Wednesday morning,
August 3, 1955, and he sat alone in his death row cell at
-1 the Connecticut State Prison in Wethersfield and looked
down the long, pale-gray corridor at the heavy, steel
door at the end of the. corridor through which his lawyer
would walk within the next hour and give him the word.
The word could be Yes, Joe knew; or it could be No. Yes
would mean he was practically free—that it was nearly
over, these past four years, these four years of sitting and
sleeping and eating and praying and trembling there, not
more than 30 yards away from that big, ugly, stiff-backed
electric chair. And No—No would mean that it was over,
too. All over. That within a few weeks, perhaps, the day .
would come when they would shave his head and stick a
$3 meal in front of him and then walk him to the chair
and strap him into it; that a few moments after that he
would be dead and they would bury him, quietly and sim-
ply, and a minister would stand over his grave and intone a
short, final prayer for the. soul of Joseph Taborsky, con-
victed murderer. :

Yes or No. Life or death. A smile from his lawyer—or
no smile. It would be that simple, and in a little while he
would know.

He closed his eyes.

“Please, God,” he whispered, “make them know that I
am innocent.” And then, as he did after all.his many pray-
ers, he added: “And take care of my brother, Albert, and
make him well . . . and forgive him, God, please, for what
he’s done to me!”

‘he courts It was Albert who had. sent Joe to the death house.
It happened back on January 24, 1951....
y sick boy At 10 o’clock that morning, Albert, the younger of the

two Taborsky boys, walked into the apartment where he
, lived with his mother. He’d just come from police head-
quarters. He, Joe and four other men had been picked up
the day before on suspicion of three robberies committed
during the past month and he’d spent the night telling de-
* _ tectives how it was true, how they were indeed the thieves
the police had been looking for. Because he’d convinced
them that all he himself had done on the jobs was to drive

continyed on next page

‘Joe: “I was bitter about Albert at
first, but all I feel now is sorry.”

in this action-packed DELL BOOK
THE LOST BUCKAROO - |i

By Bliss Lomax

Hidden somewhere beneath the

shifting sands of the Nevada des-

ert, the Lost Buckaroo mine has

become a near-legend. Then a man

claims to have found it—and dies

under outlaw guns.

Range detectives Rainbow Ripley

and Grumpy Gibbs go to work on

the case. They join forces with a

beautiful mysterious Chinese-Amer-

_ican girl, a trap is baited for the

killers, and a long desert trek is

begun.

Danger dogs their trail as they brave encircling wildfire and vi-
‘cious ambush. Rainbow, Grumpy, and Mei-lang find a powdersmoke
solution in the twisting desert canyons.

ac ao

Be sure to ask for these :
best-selling DELL BOOK thrillers, too!

PROCEED AT WILL By Burke Wilkinson

Bill Stacey, finds himself lured into the assignment
of ate an enemy battleship by his beautiful
co-worker Brenda Ashforth. He expects his job to
be hazardous, but never dreams that along the
way he'll face sabotage, treachery and murder
before he can call his mission accomplished. You
will find thrills piled on top of thrills in this high-
tension story of under-water warfare.

UNTIL YOU ARE DEAD By Henry Kane

Cooking up blackmail against a killer is like beg-
ging for death, but young musician Kermit Teshle
thought he could get away with it in spite of
Pete Chambers warnings. Later Kermit’s bullet-
riddled body was found, and his sister begged
Pete to solve the murder. It was a dangerous
case, but filled with enough exciting women and
cold cash to make it worthwhile for Pete Cham-
ers. Before you finish this sizzling thriller you'll
find Pete involved in more murder and in the
kind of suspense-packed sleuthing that'll keep
you on the edge of your chair from the time
you start reading until you finish.

The car started moving. It had gone four
blocks when Albert asked the driver to stop.
The other detective nodded. He made a pull-
up-to-the-curb motion with his head. He
sighed and asked what was wrong, the tem-
perature not to your liking? ~

Albert talked slowly. “What I got to tell
you I couldn’t say in front of my mother.
And I can’t say it at headquarters, either.”

“The Chin won’t hear you. Headquarters
has walls just like any other place.”

“y can’t.” .

“The cell block is on the first floor; right?
You'll be talking on the second. Like last
time.” °

Albert shivered. “I won’t go there.”-

Just Ask Albert

The detective at the wheel began to hum
wearily. The other detective tried to figure
the whole thing out. He listened to the heavy
breathing of Albert Taborsky, sitting next to
him, and then he thotght about Albert’s
brother, Joe—The Chin.

The Chin was in jail now. He’d been there
for a week. He’d been put there for pulling
three holdup jobs; one on January 8 at the
Brooks Grocery Store down on Woodland
Street, one on January 11 at the Lincoln
Dairy Ice Cream Bar, and one on January 12
at the Home Circle Store on Greenfield Street.
He’d pulled the jobs with four other men
and he’d been turned in by a stool pigeon.
The stoolie had seen The Chin in a Market
Street bar one night flashing a fistful of 10s
and he’d got jealous. He called the police,
giving them the name. The Chin was picked up
and questioned. His chin was a good target
for witnesses and they all identified him in
a matter of seconds. He denied everything,
however. Accomplices? What accomplices?
The letter? What letter?

The cops showed him the letter over and
over again that night. It was in his own
handwriting. It had. been found crumpled in
a pair of pants next to his bed. It read:

“Whatever becomes of me is the fault of
Josephine Briglia. I loved her and still do.
She won’t see me anymore and I’ve been, no
good since. I hope she is happy what she has
done to me. J. L. T.” :

“You wrote this?” the cops had asked.

“Sure I wrote it,” The Chin had answered.
“But it doesn’t mean a thing. I didn’t com-
mit no holdup and the letter don’t say I did.”

“You won't tell us who else was with you
on-those jobs.” \

“What jobs?” .

“Maybe ‘your brother will know.”

“Albert ?”

“Albert.”

“Ask him.”

The cops asked Albert that night, January
17, and Albert answered. “I might as well
tell you,” he began. By the time he finished
he had told how The Chin, his brother, and
four other men had held up the three places
and how he himself had acted as driver of
the getaway car and lookout man while the
jobs were in progress.

The cops were satisfied with the facts and
they rounded up the other men. Then the
men were locked into a room and made to
listen while a detective slowly read Albert's
statement aloud. They listened intently enough,
but when the detective was finished they be-
gan to laugh and holler “Baloney!” and make
razzing noises with their mouths.

eigen

~ ower one

era fance =

The Chin and his friends were locked up
and held in high bail. Albert was told he
could go for the time being. He had pro-
duced valuable state’s evidence and was

thanked for it with a low next-to-nothing ,

bond.
The rain was coming down harder now

‘and the detective at the wheel had stopped

humming. He looked past Albert Taborsky’s
glum profile and asked the other detective
how long they were going to stay there,
pulled up to the curb, nobody saying a word.
They both looked at Albert now. He stared
straight ahead. “Maybe I can tell you here,” he
said.

“We can’t take down any information in
a car,” one of:the detectives said.

“I’m not going to the police house. And I
won't talk back home.”

The detective on Albert’s right groaned. He
muttered something and hopped out of the
car. “Wait here a second.” He rushed through

the rain and into a drug store, a few yards °

down the street. The phone booth was in
the back, alongside a cardboard poster that

showed a beautiful young. lady standing ©

over a sink genteelly scrubbing her gums with
one of the world’s finest toothpastes. The de-
tective gave the model a quick once-over and
sidestepped into the phone booth. He dialed.

ae ORS

They called him Chin—and murderer.

“Is this Chief Paul Beckwith’s residence?
. . . The chief, please.” He waited. In a few
seconds he was telling his boss about Tabor-
sky and what had happened. The guy had
had something to say and now he was chang-
ing his mind. Didn’t want to talk at home
and didn’t want to talk down at head-

“ quarters.

The chief thought for a moment. “Any idea
what he wants to say?” :
“T can guess.” : :
“Another, holdup. One he didn’t, tell us
about.”

“Maybe one, chief; maybe two. I don’t know

for sure.”

The chief paused again. “I tell you what.
Bring him out to my place. If he doesn’t talk
here we might as well send him back home.”

“But you’re off today, chief.” =

“Bring him around.” .

Chief Beckwith was at the door to meet
the men a few minutes later. He made a few
jokes about his lounging outfit and then Jed
the men into the living room. -He and his

wife helped them off with their coats. Albert
was nervous. He whispered thanks to the
chief’s wife and then reached in his pocket.
for a cigaret.

“Light?” Chief Beckwith was reaching into
his own pocket.

“I got a match. Thanks.”

The men sat down. The chief cleared his
throat. He looked at Taborsky. The man was
pale. “You must be hungry.”

“T ate home.”

“You certainly could take a sandwich.”

“T’d rather have nothing. Thanks.”

Mrs. Beckwith re-entered the room smiling.
She carried ‘a tray covered with little sand-"
‘wich quarters. “The coffee’s boiling,” she an-
nounced cheerfully. She walked towards Al-
bert: and held the tray down. “But before the
coffee, maybe a little peanut butter-and-
crean.ch.:), 2”

Albert brought his hand to his throat.
“I’m sick,” he said. “Where’s the bathroom?”

Mrs. Beckwith stood back. The chief got
up arfd took Taborsky by the arm. They
were riearly in the bathroom when Albert
gasped violently and vomited. He shook his
head and held it with his hands. He wiped
his mouth and made a face. Then he looked
at the chief.

“Chief.” His face was white; his eyes red.
.“Chief, I came to tell you something im-
portant. It’s about me and my brother. The
Chin. We did another job last year I didn’t
tell you about. It was that murder in West
Hartford. The Chin killed that guy Wolfson.”

The chief’s strong fingers pressed into Al-
bert’s arms. “What did you say?”

“Yeah. That’s right.” Albert coughed. He
wiped his mouth again. “It’s been on my
mind. It had to come out sooner or later. We
were on a job and The Chin let him have it.”

As he stood there in the foyer, the chief
tried to think back. Wolfson. Wolfson. .. .

The Unsolved Murder ,

He remembered.

It was back in March, 1950. A Thursday
night. There had been a call at about 9:20
to hurry out to New Park Avenue. A number
in the 400 block.

The address was a liquor store. A man and
~his wife stood near the front door. They hailed
the policemen. “We walked in,” the husband
said. “There was no one behind the counter.
We thought we should ring for some service.
There was no bell so I called. The third time
I called I heard a groan. It came from _ the
back. . .” Two of the policemen rushed to-
wards the back of the store. “. . . He was lying
there. On the floor. Blood all over. His face
covered with blood.”

The man was still talking when the cops
got to the back room. Louis L. Wolfson, 41,
a dark-haired man with deep set brown eyes,
looked. up at them. There was a hole near
his left temple. “He shot me,” Wolfson whis-
pered. One of the cops snapped down on his
knees. He rested his hand in the blood and
put his ear to within an inch of Wolfson’s
mouth. “He shot me.” -

Wolfson closed his eyes. He was uncon-
scious. He was taken to Hartford Hospital a
few minutes later. He lay near the edge of
death for three days. On the fourth day he
regained consciousness. The doctor said his
chances of living were small. But, at least, he
could talk a little now.

“He shot me,” Wolfson said to a detective

Its TRAGIC

when Poa ms

OLDER MEN
Neglect =
Indications of Pw

ill Health ex

Men as they grow into middle age or
past take chances with their health that
often prove tragic. Watch yourself for
unusual aches or pains.

Such disturbances as frequent arisings
at night, pains in back, hips or legs,
nervousness, dizziness, Physical weak-
ness often may be traced to glandular

» inflamation.

Glandular inflamation is a constitional
disease for which it is futile for sufferers
to try to treat themselves at home. Medi-
cines that give temporary relief. will not
remove the cause of your trouble.

Most men, if treatment is taken before
malignancy has developed. can be suc-
cessfully NON-SURGICALLY treated for
Glandular Inflammation. If the condition
is aggravated by lack of treatment. surg-
ery may be the only chance.

NON-SURGICAL TREATMENTS

The NON-SURGICAL treatments at-
torded at the Excelsior Institute are the
result of 20 years research by scientific
Technologists and Competent Doctors

The War brought many new techniques
and drugs. These added to the research
already accomplished has produced a new
type of treatment that is proving of great
benefit to man as he advances in years.

The Excelsior Institute is devoted ex-
clusively to the treatment of diseases of
men of advancing years. Men from over
1,000 cities and towns have
been successfully treated. RECTAL
They found soothing and COLON
comforting relief and a new
zest in life. >

Are often as-

sociated with

Glandular In-

LOW COST EXAMINATION Capmalion.
On your arrival here our fe can treat
Doctors make a complete ex- so A Ee

amination. You then decide if time.
you will take the treatments
needed. They are so mild

they do not require hospitali-
zation A considerable saving
in expense.
TUUSTRATED
BOOK

Write Today for Our >
The Excelsior In-
stitute has pub-
lished a New
FREE Book that
deals only with
diseases peculiar
to men. Gives
factual knowledge
that could prove~
of utmost impor-
tance to you.
There is no obli-
gation. Address
[ laeigehenaeael elt elarlerheeehent acter teatetatesteetestet |
EXCELSIOR INSTITUTE
Dept. 5789
Excelsior Springs, Mo.
Gentlemen. Kindly send et once your New

FREE Book. | am_ years old

NAME____

ADORESS

TOWN

SVATE SS sc

|
!
|
|

See oe cae ee ee ee ee
ee SR ee ot ae ae oe ae ee a ae

on
.—)

pegs

sbi Fitters site Beh i em i i i alas
ahi rgb eat nt Ma a i RT raeag dca FST ag

et eee

a are et Bia RE

248 Conn.

removed. The other was identified by
Taborsky as the gun he used to shoot Jan-
owski. A raincoat with human bloodstains
on it was found in a swamp where Culombe
said he had thrown it. Most of the details
contained in the confessions were estab-
lished by independent evidence more than
sufficient to satisfy the two-witness rule.

Taborsky assigns error in the refusal of
the trial court to charge as he requested on
the application of the two-witness rule and
in the charge as given. The court charged
the jury in accordance with the law stated
in the cases heretofore cited. This claim
of error is without merit.

[16] Upon error alleged in the denial of
their motions to set aside the verdicts, the
defendants claim that the court applied an
erroneous rule pertaining to the standard
of sanity or mental capacity of the defend-
ants to commit the crimes with which they
were charged. They urged the rule stated
in Durham v. United States, 94 U.S.App.
D.C. 228, 214 F.2d 862, 874, 45 A.L:R.2d
1430; see State v. Pike, 49 N.H. 399. The
court correctly charged the jury according
to the rule stated in State v. Davies, 146
Conn. 137, 143, 148 A.2d 251, certiorari
denied 360 U:S. 921, 79 S.Ct. 1441, 3 L.Ed.
2d 1537, and State v. Donahue, 141 Conn.
656, 664, 109 A.2d 364, certiorari denied
349 US: 926, :75. S.Ct “775, 99. Ed: 1257;
In the Davies case, we reviewed and recon-
sidered our rule and rejected the Durham
rule. The cases at bar furnish no reason
for further consideration of our rule. The
defendants, at the expense of the state,
obtained experts of their own choice to
testify on their mental capacity. The state
also offered expert testimony on this sub-
ject. The jury could properly find that the
defendants had the mental capacity re-
quired by the rule stated in the charge to
make them criminally responsible for their
acts.

[{17,18] On the claim that the evidence
failed to establish the guilt of the defend-
ants beyond a reasonable doubt, no further

158 ATLANTIC REPORTER, 2d SERIES

extended discussion of the testimony and
the exhibits is required. The jury had be-
fore them the confessions and the testimony
concerning the circumstances under which
they were given, substantially as hereinbe-
fore detailed in our discussion of the issue
of their admissibility. There was ample
evidence, independent of the confessions,
not only to corroborate the facts stated in
them but to supply additional facts pointing
to the defendants’ guilt. Neither of the
defendants took the stand to deny his guilt
or to show that the proof offered by the
state as to the crimes was not true. This
was the right of each defendant and did not
relieve the state from establishing guilt be-
yond a reasonable doubt. State v. Mc-
Donough, 129 Conn. 483, 487, 29 A.2d 582.
A review of all the evidence establishes
that the jury could find the guilt of the ac-
cused beyond a reasonable doubt as that
term is defined in our cases. State v. Smith,
138 Conn. 196, 200, 82 A.2d 816, and cases
cited.

[19,20] Both the defendants assign er-
ror in the refusal of the court, upon their
motions, to excuse George W. Hannon of
East Hartford from sitting on the jury.
After the examination of Hannon by the
court and by counsel on the voir dire, he
was accepted by all asa juror. Before the
entire jury had been selected, and before
the defendants had exhausted the chal-
lenges allowed them (General Statutes, §
51-242), the defendants moved that Hannon
be excused by the court because he had, as
a member of the board of finance of East
Hartford, participated in the adoption of a
resolution offering a reward for the arrest
of the perpetrators of a holdup and killing
in that town. It developed later that the
defendants were implicated in this crime.
The examination of Hannon clearly indi-
cated a lack of any prejudice. The most
that can be claimed from the fact that he
had participated in the adoption of the reso-
lution offering the reward was, not that
he was prejudiced personally against the
defendants, but that he wanted the perpe-
trators of the crime apprehended and

e
E

MARKHAM vy. SALOVITZ Conn. 249
Cite as 158 A.2d 249

brought to justice. This is no more than
any decent citizen would want. There was
no abuse of discretion in the action which
the court took in denying the motions to ex-
cuse Hannon as a juror. State v. Potter,
18 Conn. 166, 175; DeCarlo v. Frame, 134
Conn. 530, 533, 58 A.2d 846, 3 A.L.R.2d
496. Taborsky complains because venire-
men were not excused by the court when
they admitted what his brief describes as
“a preconceived notion of guilt” of the de-
fendants. It is true that some of the ve-
niremen stated on their examination on the
voir dire that they had read accounts in
newspapers and had heard and seen radio
and television broadcasts which led them to
an opinion of the guilt of the accused.
They all stated under oath, however, that
they could and would disregard any opinion
they might hold and would decide the cases
only on the evidence presented in court and
under the court’s charge. The examinations
of these veniremen disclosed that their
opinions or suppositions did not, in fact,
incapacitate them from sitting as impartial
jurors, and the court’s ruling cannot be dis-
turbed. State v. Wilson, 38 Conn. 126, 138;
State v. Willis, 71 Conn. 293, 315, 41 A.
820; State v. Klein; 97 Conn, 321, 325, 116
A. 596.

[21] Culombe claims error in a charge
by the court to the effect that the jury, in
weighing the opinions of the expert wit-
nesses, were to take into consideration the
fact that those opinions might be based
wholly or in part upon statements made to
the experts by the defendants, who, being
on trial for their lives were not disinter-
ested witnesses and were not, when. they
made the statements, under oath. A similar
charge was made in State v. Saxon, 87
Conn. 5, 20, 86 A. 590. In that case, the
statements which furnished some basis for
the experts’ opinions were in evidence from
the lips of the accused. In the present in-
stance, some of the statements upon which
the experts testifying in behalf of Culombe
could-have relied were in evidence from the
testimony of the experts themselves as to
the history given to them by Culombe, and

158 A.2d—16%5

some from the lips of Culombe as a witness.
No exception was taken to the charge, nor
is there any reference made to it in the find-
ing. Practice Book, §§ 153, 398 and Form
No. 559(B). Nevertheless, we have con-
sidered it. The charge as given applied to
the expert testimony on behalf of the state
as well as on behalf. of Culombe and was
correct under the circumstances. See State
v. Kenyon, 134 Conn. 43, 49, 54 A.2d 585.

[22] Culombe also complains of the ad-
mission in evidence of a portion of a photo-
graph taken of Kurpiewski as he lay dead
on a stretcher. Culombe claims that the
exhibit was so gruesome as to arouse the
prejudice of the jury. The exhibit depicted
facts material to the state’s case, and the
trial court did not abuse its discretion in
admitting it, Thibodeau v. Connecticut Co.,
139 Conn. 9, 14, 89 A.2d 223, and cases
cited; State v. Smith, 27 N.J. 433, 448, 142
A.2d 890.

There is no error in either case.

In this opinion the other Judges con-
curred.

° KEY NUMBER SYSTEM

anms

147 Conn. 189
Louis MARKHAM
oy.
Elaine J. SALOVITZ.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.
Feb. 3, 1960.

Action by judgment creditor to recov-
er from surety on bond given to release gar-
nishment of debt due to judgment debtor
from third person. The City and Police
Court of Hartford, Mostyn and Barlow,
JJ., overruled demurrer to complaint and
granted judgment creditor’s motion for
summary judgment. The surety appealed.
The Supreme Court of Errors, Murphy,

2, _NO.193 + 34 PAGES _

MONDAY JULY 12, 1993

* * 50 CENTS.

By MICHAEL P. MAYKO
Staff writer

erry Demeusy took the walk into
Connecticut’s death chamber six
times.

Even three decades later, he
remembers the prayers of the condemned. He
remembers the precision of the guards
attaching leather straps. He remembers the
metal hood going on, the jolt of the body, the
puff of smoke.

“Tm not the bloodthirsty type,” said the
retired Hartford Courant reporter, recalling the
first execution he covered. “I had misgivings.
My heart was pounding. But then I became
fascinated with the things occurring.”

He recalls Oct. 20, 1959, as he watched a
terrified George Davies be put to death for the
sexual assault and murder of an 8-year-old
Bristol girl.

“He was praying loudly when he entered,”

Ritual of execution is finely orchestrated |

said Demeusy, now 75. “His eyes were closed.
His face was all scrunched. You could see him
praying through the mask right up until the
time the electricity hit him.”

It has been 33 years since the last
Connecticut execution. But two events this
spring rekindled debate on the matter.

The General Assembly approved a measure
that would have made it éasier to impose the
death penalty, but the bill was vetoed by Gov.
Lowell P. Weicker Jr. About the same time, a
convicted cop killer was sentenced to die in
Connecticut’s electric chair.

It may take years before all court appeals
are exhausted, but it appears certain that
someday one of the five men on death row wiil

take that final walk.

What will the scene be like?

Few Connecticut residents alive have any
idea.

Demeusy is one. Robert Sawyer, a former

Both say that witnessing executions were the
memorable experiences of their careers.

Both reporters covered a J uly 18, 1955
double execution. John Donahue had killed
State Police Trooper Ernest Morse during a
routine traffic stop on the Merritt Parkway in
Trumbuil. Robert Malm had sexually assaulted
and lulled Irene Fiederowicz, an | 1-year-old
Hartford girl.

“Donahue came in first,” said Sawyer, now
72. “He was a big, handsome kid. It seemed all
choreographed, like a stage play. The two
guards in front, on the side and in back.
Donahue facing us with this sullen look.”

Sawyer remembered Donahue even helped
the guards strap his right leg. He watched the
guards swathe the inmate’s head with saline
solution, to carry the electricity, before capping
it with a metal dish. Then the executioner spun
the rheostat — a steering wheel-type device —
that sent a whirring sound filling the room

“All ofa sudden Donahue lurches forward
straining at the straps,” recalled Sawyer. “And
you could hear them creaking.”

After 35 seconds, the body slumped .. .
until a second blast and then a third coursed
through it. As Donahue was pronounced dead,
his mask slipped off for a fleeting second. |

“You could see his eyes protruding. His face

- was very, very red,” Sawyer said.

Minutes later, Malm — the second
condemned man — entered the room.

He was a “very short, very scared man,”
Sawyer said. “He comes in, goes over and sits
right in the chair — like he couldn’t get in it
fast enough. He never looked at us, but we
looked at him and saw him shaking.”

The process with the straps, electrodes and
saline solution was repeated. The switch was
again pulled. The results were the same.

®#Connecticut’s

reporter for the Bridgeport Post, is another.

before pulling the knife-like switch.

Executions recalled vividly

Continued from A1

“It was so ritualistic,” said
Sawyer. “Afterwards, you start
thinking what the hell did you
watch — two guys come in full of
life and then go out dead as a door-
knob. One very sullen, one very re-
morseful. That’s exactly how I de-
scribed it.”

A week earlier, on July 11, 1955,
William Lorain, a 40-year-old
hitchhiker, had his turn in the elec-
tric chair for for the murder and
robbery of George Zgierski, who
stopped to give him a-nde.

This was the first time that De-
meusy, then 37, saw someone exe-
cuted. He watched the guards slow-
ly walk Lorain to the chair, as a
priest led the procession.

When Lorain sat down,
guards moved quickly.

“They pounced on him with
precision. The guards strapped him
in. The electrician attached the
electrodes and put the saline soaked
sponge under the helmet. Once his
rear end hit the seat 1t was over in
three minutes.” Demeusy said.

the

“One-two-three bang. It’s all over.”
For that reason, Demeusy still
believes electrocution is probably
the most humane method of execu-
tion. 7
“It’s so fast it’s painless,” he
said. “You know like picking up a
120 volt shock, it hits before you
can react. It’s the same with electro-
cution. It fries the brain. You see
the smoke puffing right out.
Demeusy saw the last execution
in Connecticut. On May 17, 1960,

“Mad Dog” Joe Taborsky was elec-
trocuted for murdering six people
in a robbery spree.

“TI didn’t want to go,” said De-
meusy, who had gotten to know
Taborsky, even helped him ghost-
write some stories. “Another re-
porter was assigned, but at the last
minute he got the flu.”

Still, Demeusy thought the exe-
cution would not go off.

“Taborsky was full of morbid
jokes,” he said. “Throughout his
trial, he would point his fingers like
a gun and fire shots at the deputies
guarding him.”

All this led Demeusy to believe
Taborsky would sit in the chair, be
strapped in and then ask for a
Board of Pardon review, which he
had not yet done. “If that happened
the warden was under orders to
stop it,” the reporter said.

That did not happen, however.

As Taborsky walked the final 15
steps to the chair, Demeusy said
another inmate, Benny Reid, of-
fered to say a prayer for Taborsky.

“They were friends. Joe knew
Benny was superstitious, so he told

See REPORTERS on A7

executions haven't always
fama Ht. oes oot

ssociated Press files

” r i last person executed
Joseph L. “Mad Dog” Taborsky, right, was the | .
by Connecticut, meeting his death in the electric chair on May 1960.

him he didn’t need any prayers .. .
that he’d come back and visit him
as a fly,” Demeusy said.

Later that night, Reid fell asleep
praying for Taborsky. When he

awoke, the first thing he saw was a
fly on the ceiling.

“Benny went into shock,” De-
meusy said. “He spent quite a bit of
time in the psychiatric ward.”

?
3
&
#

Mest ldita cos etmek eee tne eee

wat)

¢
&
>
P|
Ff
fF
i
§
hi

244 Conn.

case.” Crooker v. State of California, 357
U.S. 433,439, 78 S.Ct. 1287, 1292, 2 L.Ed.
2d 1448; see annotation at 2 L.Ed.2d 1644,
1646.

The claim that the defendants were de-
prived of counsel while they were held in
custody for questioning has a direct bear-
ing upon the admissibility of their confes-
sions, a matter which will be discussed
hereinafter. General Statutes, § 6-49 pro-
vides for an arrest without warrant when
the police have reasonable grounds to be-
lieve that a felony has been committed.
Law-enforcement problems vary widely in
the several states, and state enforcement is
accorded some latitude when an alleged
violation of the due process clause of the
federal constitution is under consideration.
Cicenia v. Lagay, 357 U.S. 504, 510, 78 S.Ct.
1297, 2 L.Ed.2d 1523. In the course of their
investigation of tlte series’ of robberies and
homicides in the locality of Hartford, the
police had reasonable grounds for believing
that these defendants were implicated in a
felony or felonies and for apprehending and
holding them in custody. Under the law,
an accused is entitled to counsel to aid him
in his defense, not to prevent voluntary ac-
tion on his part. State v. Bunk, 4 N.J. 461,
470, 73 A.2d-249, 19 A.L.R.2d 1316. The
question is whether, during the investiga-
tion and questioning of a person suspected,
there was an unreasonable delay in his ob-
taining counsel or whether he was forced
to plead without the benefit of professional
legal advice and whether, as a result,’ the
opportunity for a fair trial was denied him.
Once legal counsel is obtained, any illegality
in the prior proceedings can be raised and
accused’s rights fully protected. In the in-
stant cases, the counsel who were fur-
nished to these defendants pressed with
ability and vigor, not only to the court on
the preliminary hearing on the admissibil-
ity of the defendants’ confessions, but also
to the jury on the trial, alleged illegality in
the failure to provide counsel as well as in
the methods by which the confessions were
obtained. Upon the records, we conclude

158 ATLANTIC REPORTER, 2d SERIES

that the defendants were not unlawfully de-
nied counsel. ,

The defendants assign error in the ad-
mission of their confessions in evidence.
Taborsky claims that-as to him the confes-
sion of Culombe was hearsay. The court
so treated it and cautioned the jury time
and again that they were to consider Cu-
lombe’s statements only in connection with
the charge against him. This phase of the
admission of Culombe’s confession was dis-
cussed when we were considering Tabor-
sky’s motion for a separate trial and re-
quires no further elaboration. The defend-
ants claim that the confessions were not
voluntary but were secured by duress,
threats and psychological pressure. Be-
fore the confessions were admitted in evi-
dence, the court, in the absence of the jury,
conducted a preliminary hearing which con-
sumed five full court days. Police officers,
jail guards, and the jail physician con-
cerned with the defendants’ questioning
and custody were examined at length. The
defendants themselves took the stand, as did
Culombe’s wife. The following facts were
properly found by the court: State police
officers Frederick Moran and Eugene Grif-
fin, on Saturday, February 23, 1957, at 2:10
p. m., saw the defendants leaving the home
of Taborsky’s mother on Park Terrace in
Hartford to enter Culombe’s car. The offi-
cers asked Taborsky to accompany them to
state police headquarters to talk with
Lieutenant Samuel Rome. Taborsky got
into Culombe’s car and was driven to head-
quarters. He went in and Culombe drove
off. Detective Sergeant Donald Paige and
Officer Robert Reimer went to Culombe’s
home at 20 Coleman Drive in Hartford.
On their arrival, Culombe’s wife said that
he was in the toilet. While waiting, the
officers heard metallic sounds coming from
that direction. They took Culombe to po-
lice headquarters. There, both defendants
agreed to accompany the officers. For
purposes of identification, they were taken
to a store in Coventry and to a package
store in Rocky Ilill. After they had supper,

STATE v. TABORSKY

Conn, 245

Cite as 158 A.2d 239

they returned with the police to headquar-
ters. Lieutenant Rome questioned Tabor-
sky for some time and then locked him ina
cell.

Culombe told Sergeant Paige, one of the
officers who had accompanied him on the
trip, that he was a gun collector and that he
had seven or eight guns which he would
turn over to the police. Sergeant Paige
then took Culombe to the latter’s house.
Culombe went to the toilet and then to his
bedroom, where the officers found him with
two guns, one of .25 caliber and the other
of .38 caliber. They also found a clip of
25 caliber cartridges and, in a small safe,
six guns and three boxes of ammunition.
Back at police headquarters, Culombe was
questioned further by Lieutenant Rome and
Sergeant Paige and then placed in a cell for
the night. The questioning covered the
New Britain crimes and others under in-
vestigation. On Sunday, February 24, both
Taborsky and Culombe were questioned
again. On Monday, February 25, Culombe
told Lieutenant Rome that he wanted a law-
yer but refused to name a particular one.
Rome told him that he could have a lawyer
if he would say which one he wanted
called. On the same day, both defendants
were booked at New Britain police head-
quarters on charges of breach of the peace
and held for their appearance in the Police
Court the next day. On Tuesday, February
26, they were presented in that court and
their cases were continued under bond.
Afterwards, Taborsky was again questioned
by Lieutenant Rome and then taken to the
Hartford County jail under a mittimus
from the New Britain court. Taborsky re-
mained in jail until Thursday, February 28,
when he was brought to state police head-
quarters in Hartford. There a bench war-
rant for_appearance in the Superior Court
was served upon him.

On Wednesday, February 27, in the aft-
ernoon, Sergeant Paige and Dectective
Robert Murphy of the state police ques-
tioned Culombe at police headquarters con-
cerning the New Britain and other crimes.
Culombe stated that the police “were look-

ing for four guns, two of which would be

under water, and were looking for two men
and that he himself had not done any kill-
ing.” Culombe then agreed to show the
officers where the guns were. Lieutenant
Rome, Sergeant Paige, Detective Murphy
and Detective Vincent O’Brien went with
Culombe in a police car to Culombe’s house.
On the way Culombe related the facts sub-
stantially as contained in his confession,
outlined hereinbefore, except that he
claimed that Taborsky, and not he, had shot
Kurpiewski in the boiler room of the gaso-
line station. At Culombe’s house, the offi-
cers removed the medicine cabinet from the
wall in the toilet room and found, in a brief
case between the walls, a gun and two black-
jacks. They also found, in a safe, a metal
box with some parts of a gun. At Culom-
be’s direction, they recovered from a swamp
at Dexter and Reed Avenues in Hartford
a raincoat with human bloodstains on it
Culombe stated it belonged to him and was
worn by Taborsky on the night they went
to New Britain. While at his house, Cu-
lombe said to his wife that he had told a
true story to the police and that he might
get life but Taborsky would get the chair.
The officers, at Culombe’s suggestion, then
went with Culombe to the intersection of
Newfield and Dexter Avenues in Hartford.
Pointing to a pond, he said that two guns
could be found there and that the gun
parts in the metal box would fit one of the
guns. Culombe directed the officers to a
service station, where- he pointed out a
1949 black Oldsmobile which he said was
previously owned by him and was used the
night he and Taborsky went to New Bri-
tain. Later, at state police headquarters,
Culombe admitted that he had participated
in the New Britain crime. That evening
he signed a written confession which de-
scribed two holdups, including the one in
New Britain. Later, he signed another
statement which described only the New
Britain holdup. Culombe saw his wife at
the house and at Ieast twice at police head-
quarters after he was taken into custody
and before his confession. He said nothing
to her, however, about getting an attorney.

eke ee

oe,

DR Le ae As ae a ad Bi ea

246 Conn.

On Thursday morning, February 28,
Culombe was served with a bench warrant
charging him with murder. He was then
presented in the Superior Court. The court
informed him that the police wished to in-
vestigate further the charges against him
and that he had the right to remain silent if
he wished. Culombe said that he would
co-operate with the police and, as related
hereinbefore, that he wanted counsel. The
court informed him that he could have an
attorney of his own choice at state expense.
On the evening of March 2, while he was
in a cell at state police. headquarters, Cu-
lombe called the officer who was watching
him and offered to give the police some fur-
ther information concerning the New
Britain affair. He then admitted that it
was he who followed Kurpiewski into the
service station, forced him at gun point
into the boiler room and shot him. This ad-
mission was later: incorporated into an-
other written statement which Culombe
signed. Although Culombe claimed that
the police had used his wife and children
to force a confession from him, the trial
court found that Mrs. Culombe had come
voluntarily to police headquarters with her
children, whom she did not want to leave at
home alone, that she was attended by a
policewoman and was well treated, and that
at no time was she used, or were the chil-
dren used, to bring pressure on Culombe.

When Taborsky was presented in the Su-
perior Court on Thursday, February 28, the
presiding judge told him that he was fe-
leasing him in the custody of the state po-
lice for the purpose of: further investiga-
tion, that he need make no statement, and
that any statement which he did make could
be used against him. The following day,
Friday, March 1, Taborsky’s mother came
to state police headquarters at her own re-
quest. She told Taborsky that she wanted
him to tell the truth and that he should tell
his part of the story, because Culombe had
put the blame on him. Taborsky then, in
the presence of Licutenant Rome and Offi-
cer Reimer, told his mother that at the
Kurp gasoline station the other fellow

158 ATLANTIC REPORTER, 2d SERIES

killed the station attendant, that they both
robbed him and that he, Taborsky, killed
the customer and robbed him. Taborsky
was questioned after his mother left. The
questions and answers were taken in short-
hand. A transcription of the notes was
signed by Taborsky on March 3. When he
was in the Police Court in New Britain on
February 26 with his mother and sister, his
mother had asked him if she should get a
lawyer and he replied that he did not need
a lawyer. Prior to his presentation in the
Superior Court on February 28, Taborsky
did not request’counsel. The court ruled
that the confessions of both defendants
were voluntary and admitted the confes-
sions in evidence.

[10-14] A confession is not admissible
in evidence unless it is voluntary. State
v. Castelli, 92 Conn. 58, 67, 101 A. 476;
State v. Palko, 121 Conn. 669, 680, 186 A.
657; State v. Zukauskas, 132 Conn. 450,
459, 45 A.2d. 289; State v. Malm, 142
Conn. 113, 120, 111 A.2d 685; State v.
Rogers, 143 Conn. 167, 173, 120 A.2d 409,
certiorari denied “351. US.’ 952) -76., S.Ct.
850, 100 L.Ed. 1476; 2 Wharton, Criminai
Evidence (12th Ed.) § 348. The issue is
one of fact to be determined by the court in
the exercise of a legal discretion, and its de-
cision will not be disturbed unless that dis-
cretion has been abused. State v. Lorain,
141 Conn. 694, 699, 109 A.2d 504; State
v. DiBattista, 110 Conn. 549, 562, 148 A.
664. The issue of admissibility is ordinarily
resolved by the court after a preliminary
hearing in the absence of the jury, the pro-
cedure followed in the instant cases. State
v. Lorain, supra. The defendants claim
that they were being illegally detained
when the confessions were made. This can-
not be true of Taborsky, because, before
he confessed, he had been served with a
bench warrant, had been presented in the
Superior Court and warned of his rights,
and had then been committed to the custody
of the state police. Culombe, who con-
fessed before his presentation in the Su-
perior Court, was being held by the state
police under § 6-49 of the Gencral Statutes.

STATE v. TABORSKY
Cite as 158 A.2d 23

That aside, there is nothing to indicate that
either defendant at the time thought his de-
tention to be illegal. Thus no irregularity
in the detention, had there been any, could
have induced, or contributed to the induce-
ment of, the confession. State v. Zukaus-
kas, supra, and authorities cited; State v.
Buteau, 136 Conn. 113, 123, 68 A.2d 681,
certiorari denied 339 U.S. 903, 70 S.Ct.
516, 94 L.Ed. 1332; 20 Am.Jur. 431, § 498.
An examination of the record does not dis-
close that the confessions were induced by
anything which would make them involun-
tary and, therefore, inadmissible. The
trial court did not abuse its discretion and
properly admitted the confessions in evi-
dence.

[15] The defendants have assigned er-
ror in the denial of their motions to dismiss
the indictments. They claim that the evi-
dence was insufficient to satisfy the require-
ments of the so-called two-witness rule.
General Statutes, § 54-83 provides that
“[nJo person shall be convicted of any
crime punishable by death without the tes-
timony of at least two witnesses, or that
which is equivalent thereto.” We have in-
terpreted this statute to require “that the
proof of all the essential elements of the
capital crime charged (each of which must
be proved beyond a reasonable doubt) shall
not depend upon the testimony of one wit-
ness. If one or more witnesses testify to
facts relevant and sufficient to prove some
of the essential facts of the capital crime
charged, and another witness or witnesses
testify to facts relevant and sufficient to
prove the remaining essential facts, the jury
may find that the statute has been satis-
fied.’ State v. Schutte, 97 Conn. 462, 468,
117 A. 508, 510; State v. Cots, 126 Conn.
48, 57; 9 A.2d 138; State v. Malm, 142
Conn. 113, 118, 111 A.2d 685.

There was ample evidence, independent
of cither confession, that the capital crimes
charged had been committed, and also evi-
dence to corroborate the essential facts
stated in the confessions. A summary of
the evidence includes the following: The

Conn. 247

defendants were together at Culombe’s
house on the afternoon of Saturday, De-
cember 15, 1956, the day the crimes were
committed, and also in the evening of that
day shortly after the bodies of the victims
were found. That afternoon, the defend-
ants had been seen bringing a television
set into Culombe’s house from his Olds-
mobile. The set had been purchased by him
on a deferred payment plan that afternoon
in East Hartford. It was placed in the car
with the help of the seller. Culombe paid
for the set in full on the following Monday
morning, December 17. The Oldsmobile
was the car later identified by Culombe as
the one in which he and Taborsky drove
to, and returned from, New Britain on the
evening of December 15. The sign on
Kurp’s gasoline station was as described by
Taborsky in his confession. The body of

Janowski was found in the toilet room; ’

there were two bullet wounds in his head.
This corroborated Taborsky’s description of
the shooting. The body of Kurpiewski was
found in the boiler room with one bullet
wound in his head. The statements of both
Taborsky and Culombe included these de-
tails of the crime. Janowski’s car was
found at the pumps in front of the station,
facing south. Taborsky’s statement put
the car in that position. In this car was
Janowski’s little daughter. This fact cor-
roborated statements made by both Tabor-
sky and Culombe as to the presence of a
child in the car. Taborsky stated that Kur-
piewski was wearing a cap with a black
visor, There was:independent testimony
that Kurpiewski had been wearing such a
cap, and one was found with Kurpiewski's
body in the boiler room. Both defendants
said, when they were taken to the gasoline
station after their confessions, that the loca-
tion of the desk and the cash register had
been changed. Other evidence confirmed
it. Two guns were retrieved from the pond
where Culombe said he had disposed of the
guns used in the shootings, Taborsky having
directed him to do so. One of the guns was
identified by evidence independent of the
confessions as the one from which certain
parts found in Culombe’s house had been

eer at

Ct ae

7 VERY now and then, police, will
arrest a person they are positive is
guilty of murder—only to see him ac-
quitted by a jury when he clings tena-
ciously to a clever story.

But even the most iron-clad defense,
when false, can be shattered by an in-
genious prosecutor. Perhaps no man in
the nation was more resourceful in the
courtroom than Hugh M. Alcorn, Sr.,
for many years state’s attorney for
Hartford (Conn.) County, and _the
prosecutor who sent the notorious
Gerald Chapman to the gallows. ?

Alcorn, sg ped succeeded by his
brilliant son, Hugh M. Alcorn, Jr., may
reflect with pride on a famous murder
case that occurred during World War I.
When acquittal appeared certain, he
secured a conviction—with only a lead
pencil!

On trial was William Wise, accused
of killing Anna Bacon Tobin.

The murder was discovered in New
Britain, Conn., late the night of Sep-
tember 19, 1917,

Two patrolmen, Thomas Dolan and
Thomas Heslin, were walking up Pearl
Street in the heart of the industrial dis-
trict when they saw the body of a young
woman sprawled in the gutter.

Her throat was cut from ear to ear,
the jugular vein severed. Her lifeless
hands held tightly to a white rose.

Sensing still another tragedy, they :

followed a trail of blood from the girl’s
body to a nearby factory building. In
the doorway was slumped a
young soldier, bleeding pro-
fusely from deep. neck

“They got me and my
girl,” the soldier muttered.

The dead girl was identi-
fied as Mrs, Anna Bacon
Tobin.

At the hospital, the soldier.
said’ he was William Wise,
and told police.he had been

_ friendly with Mrs. Tobin for
many months, They had been
attacked, he asserted, by un-
known assailants. :

Investigators might have believed it
was a case of murder and attempted
murder, except for an open, blood-
stained razor found near the body of
the girl, :

A check revealed that it was one of
several presented to soldiers of the Fort
Slocum detachment, to which Wise, a
private, belonged.

e state wasted no time, Within a
month, the 23-year-old Wise was placed
on trial in Hartford County Superior
Court, with Alcorn prosecuting,

Public Defender John Forward and
Attorney Albert A. Greenberg appeared

H: M. Alcorn Sr,

for the accused. Wise pleaded not
guilty, and told the jury a very clever
story. :

He insisted he had loved Mrs. Tobin,
and that she had met death by her own
hand; that he had attempted to take his
own life as part of a suicide pact they
had made,

Wise explained he had at first told
police he and the girl had been attacked
by mysterious assailants because he was
upset and fearful of being charged with
causing her death,

Alcorn, however, contended that
Wise, embittered by jealousy, had de-
liberately planned the murder of Mrs.
Tobin, and then made a half-hearted
effort at‘taking his own life,

But Wise’s lawyers hoped to secure
an acquittal by stressing one point: That
he was left-handed and could not pos-
sibly have administered the wounds on
Mrs, Tébin’s throat.

Expert witnesses for the state at-
tempted to crack this defense, but
Wise played his part with amazing
finesse,

Throughout the trial, he clutched a
pencil with his left hand and ‘doodled.
Occasionally, he scribbled notes to his
lawyers—always with his left hand and
always in sight of the jury.

The trial was drawing to a close, and
newspapermen were betting that Wise
would walk out of the courtroom a free
man,

Then came the climax—one of those

resourceful moves on the part
of the keen Alcorn,

Wheeling suddenly, he

, turned to Wise.

“Show me the way you in-
flicted the wounds on your-
self,” he demanded — and
tossed a lead pencil over to
the accused,

Wise caught the pencil and
showed the jury how he had
tried to slit his own throat.
But he went through the ma-
neuver with his right hand!

~ Alcorn’s lead pencif tipped
the scales. :

The jury speedily returned with a
guilty verdict and sentenced Wise to
be re ay after midnight of December
14, 1917,

At 11:40 the night preceding the exe-
cution at the Connecticut State Prison
in Wethersfield, Wise wrote his at-
torneys a _ letter, declaring himself
“innocent of the murder of Anna Tobin,
before God.”

Then, at daybreak, he mounted the
gallows. But not before he had made
his final mistake.

Wise wrote that last note with his
right hand|—By Joseph DeBona

The trail angled acrowe a small, ill
tended pasture toward a thick woods. ‘The
sign was faint, now, and even Osborne
was having trouble ay they worked across
the little meadow to the edge of the
woods,

Then all sign disappeared. The woods
was carpeted with a soft, spongy blanket
of dead leaves—years of them. Nowhere
was the earth bare and tell-tale.

Osborne refused to give up. For three
hours he quartered the woods, back and
forth, then in circles, hunting a broken
twig, a bent weed, a scuffed pile of leaves
—~anything that would give an inkling of
the direction the prowler took.

t was no use. The trail was gone.
They'd come two miles from the farm in
two days—only to have their one tangible
hope melt away. Both men were silent
and thoughtful. Nearby, on the other side
of the woods, a car hummed by along a
road, then another and another. Osborne
finally looked up.

“Say,” he said, “that’s Route 431—the
road to Indianapolis—on the other side of
the woods. Do you suppose. . .”

“It's better than sitting here,” Shields
replied. .

They hurried through the woods, stum-
bling in the gathering darkness. As they
emerged along Route 431, they saw house
lights a few hundred yards away and
headed toward them. They wanted to cal!
for a car—and they wanted to question
the occupant of the house. He might have
seen, or heard something the morning
Hensen had been assaulted.

AS THE two detectives turned into the
yard of the house, two dogs began to
bark loudly. Then a door opened, framing
John Reick, who occupied the house. He
admitted the detectives. Osborne bor-
rowed the phone to call for a car and
Shields talked to the farmer.

“Say,” Reick recalled. “I did notice
something unusual Monday morning.
About 5 o’clock. my dogs set up a clamor
outside. I got up to see if someone was
prowling in the yard. No one was: Then
I saw a man walking north along the
road. He was about 300 yards away, then,
and the dogs already had quieted so |
figured he’d set them off,”

“Can you describe that man?” Shields
asked, excited.

“Not very well,” Reick said. “He was
far off when I saw him. He was a tall.
slender man, in ordinary clothes—work
clothes, I guess, I remember one thing,
though. He had a long, shambling gait
like. You know—slow and ambling and
easy-going,”

“Did you see his face?”

“No—he was walking away from me.”

’ Reick paused. Then he added, “Maybe he

was going down to catch the Indianapolis
bus. It halts at Stop 13 Road, you know,
a half-mile from here.”

ai cats!” Shields ejaculated.

“No-—nothing. I was just thinking of
something,” Shields was remembering
that Sheriff Maxwell and Detective Winn
had checked the bus station, but that none
of them—himself included—had thought
to quiz bus drivers to see if any passen-
gers had been picked up along the route.

While they: waited for a Police car,
Shields brought Osborne up to date.
When the car came, the two went
straight to the Suburban Bus Lines sta-
tion in Greenwood and obtained from the
ticket agent the name of the early-
morning driver of the Indianapolis run—
Leo Conklin.

Conklin’s house, on Greenwood’s east
side, was the next stop—and the detec-
tives found him at home.

Z| Vi feet re - |

bilham Wise,

Dettimber yf, LIZ

~~ © a cern

WISE EXECUTED
AT STATE PRISON
THIS MORNING

Convicted Slayer of Mrs. Anna
Tobin Maintains His Inno-
cence on the Scaffold.
| oa |

HARTFORD, Pee. 14. -William
J, Wise of New Britain, was ex-
ecuted— at the state prison at
Wethersfield early today for the
mifrder of Mrs.) Aung Tbhbin in
New Britain Septem®er 25. He
wus. hanged, ktoutly mgtntaining
his innocence of a charge of cut-

jting her throat.

WILSON, James, white, hanged Hartford, Connecticut, October 13, 1871. .

STATE OF CONNECTICUT

DEPARTMENT OF GORRECTION
340 CAPITOL AVE. . HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT 06115

ELLA T. GRASSO ’ JOHN R. MANSON
GOVERNOR COMMISSIONER

July 24, 1979

Mr. Watt Espy
Box 62 Law Library
University, Alabama 35486

Dear Mr. Espy:

The following information is in reply to your letter dated July 10, 1979
concerning the circumstances surrounding the execution of James Wilson,

David Kentleyv (alias James Wilson) was hanged at the Hartford County
Jail on Friday October Pa 187 bet 1:90: PMS His age was 47, he was
white and his origina! offenses was burglary and horse stealing. He
was under the jurisdiction of Hartford County at the time of his
sentencing for these offenses, |

He was born on July 19, 1824 near Belfast Ireland and came to the United
States when he was about [Ss years ofdc. For 33 years he followed the
profession of a burglar and had escaped from many prisons including New

York, New Jersey, Ohio and Minnesota.

On Sunday, August 15, !870 he killed Warden William Willard of the

state prison by stabbing him with a shoe~knife which he had fastened to
the end of his cane. In September 1870 he was tried before Judges
Carnenter of the supreme court and Minor of the superior court. He was
Found aquilty of first degree murder and sentenced to be hanged on October
13, 1871 between the hours of 10:00 AM and 2:00 PM. The Connecticut

Supreme Court refused to grant him a new trial.

At the time of the Slaying of Warden Willard he was serving a 16 vear

Sentence for burglary and horse stealing committed in Hartford, CT during
October 1868,

While at the state prison he attempted to escape two times, both were
unsuccessful | He was transferred to the Hartford County Jail from the
State prison 4 days prior to his execution, Monday October 9, 1871. He
attempted to commit suicide the night prior to his execution by plunging
a sharpened wire into his chest in the vicinity of his heart,

[It is hoped that the obove information wil] be of help to you in your
research project,

caer Donald M. Parker
chy? Research Analyst

| WILSON, James, white, hanged Hartford, Connecticut, 10-13-1871.

STAIE OF CONNECTICUT

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION
340 CAPITOL AVE. . HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT 06115

ELLA T. GRASSO JOHN R. MANSON
GOVERNOR é COMMISSIONER

July 24, 1979

Mr. Watt Espy
Box 62 Law Library
University, Alabama 35486

Dear Mr. Espy:

The following information is in reply to your letter dated July 10, 1979
concerning the circumstances surrounding the execution of James Wilson.

David Kentley (alias James Wilson) was hanged at the Hartford County
Jail on Friday October 13, 1871 at 1:30 PM. His age was 47, he was
white and his original offenses was burglary and horse stealing. He
was under the jurisdiction of Hartford County at the time of his
sentencing for these offenses.

He was born on July 19, 1824 near Belfast Ire!and and came to the United
States when he was about I4 years old. For 33 years he followed the
rofession of a burglar and had escaped from many prisons including New
‘ork, New Jersey, Ohio and Minnesota.

On Sunday, August 15, !870 he killed Warden William Willard of the

state prison by stabbing him with a shoe~knife which he had fastened to
the end of his cane. In September 1870 he was tried before Judges
Carpenter of the supreme court and Minor of the superior court. He was
Found quilty of first degree murder and sentenced to be hanged on October
13, 1871 between the hours of 10:00 AM and 2:00 PM. The Connecticut
Supreme Court refused to arant him a new trial.

At the time of the slaying of Warden Willard he was serving a 16 year

sentence for burglary and honse stealing committed in Hartford, CT during
October 1868,

While at the state prison he attempted to escape two times, both were
unsuccessful, He was transferred to the Hartford County Jail from the
state prison 4 days prior to his execution, Monday October 9, I871. He
attempted to commit suicide the night prior to his execution by plunging
a sharpened wire into his chest in the vicinity of his heart.

It is hoped that the obove information will be of help to you in your
research project.

a Wa M. Paria
2 Research Analyst

my brother.
a And, God,

him for

one to me.”’

hour they drove
ibert always start-
d to tell, then stop-
g, “In a few min-
tes.”
uild,” the detective
wants to say some-
ent but who freezes
to think that may-
for just a while it'll
tr.
ive stopped the car.
were busy men, he
lidn’t haye all day.
let’s get this over

place,” Albert said.
tation house. Not to
‘e in the car... .”
ind the wheel sighed.
ar, went into a drug-
Police Chief Paul
ne. “I knew it’s your’
_. . he began and
.em.
r to the house,” the
k to him here.”
had coffee ready for
y arrived, She served
oom. Then the chief
‘y.
on your mind?” he

put down his cup and
He got up from’ the
wught he was going to
t led him to the bath-
nall. Just as they got
w up.

id, his pale face, his
zer and bigger-looking
‘immed glasses. “Chief,
u about something im-
at me and my brother,
inother job last year I
hing about. It was that
Hartford, that package
brother, Joe . . . he
rs half an hour later,
Taborsky stood face to
aen, a tall, dark-haired
ght blue eyes and an

unusually long jaw (he was nicknamed
The Chin) stood there with tears in his
eyes as his brother, calm now, accused
him. ‘

“You did it, Joe,” Albert said, “so
why not tell them and get it over with?
You killed him. Why not tell them?”

It was no secret to anyone who knew

‘them that Joe and his kid brother, Al-

bert, had never got along well. Albert
had always been a nasty kid, quick to
cry, scréam, grab things away from oth-
er kids, especially from Joe. Joe had
always been, as his mother was to testi-
fy, “as nice a boy as they come.” Their

_ worst fight had taken place two years

- earlier when Albert, arguing with his

sickly father one’ night, threatened to
strike the old man. Joe rushed in from
another room, stepped between them
and held Albert back. Albert spit and
cursed and kicked and told Joe that
he’d be sorry some day. i

No, they hadn’t got along well. Yes,

~~ there’d been some bad moments. But

now, here in the police station, Albert
standing there, calmly accusing his
brother of murder—it was all so unbe-
lievable to Joe that all he could do was

E.. Cry.

“Albert,” he managed to say at one
point, “you . . . you don’t feel so well

5, right now. You don’t know what you're
. talking about right now, do you, Al-

bert? Do you?”

But Albert had simply smiled a little

and said, “Come on, Joe. Let’s tell

them all about the murder, huh?”

Joe was fairly confident during the

trial a few months later. The men and

women sitting in the jury box looked

; like good, understanding people and he

thought that after they heard the testi-
mony, after they heard what the victim

_. had said just before he died, after they
- saw Albert—the state’s only real. wit- -

_..Ness—up there on the stand, saw that

Bro ty

he was really a sick boy, that his brain

|) wasn’t functioning as well as it should,

The state began by presenting’ its

” case.

This was it:
At 9 o’clock on the night of March

23, 1950, Louis L. Wolfson, a gentle lit-

tle man of 41; was found dying on the

floor of a West Hartford liquor store
‘where he worked. He’d been shot in the

_ face. He'd been rushed to the hospital

- where he’d mumbled to police that a

+ man had walked into the store while he

was there, alone, pulled out a gun and

_said, “You know what this is?” Mr.
' Wolfson had begun to bring up his arm

and the.man had fired, emptied the cash
register and rushed out of the store.
Mr. Wolfson died four days later.

Now, the state went on, they would
prove that Joseph Taborsky was the

man who had killed Louis Wolfson.

Their proof was Joe’s brother.

At 7 o’clock on the night of March
23, Albert related, he and Joe decided
that they needed some quick. money.
They got into their car, Albert at the
wheel. They drove around for about two
hours, looking for a store to hold up.
At a few minutes before nine, they were
cruising along New Park Avenue in
fashionable West Hartford, when they
passed Cooper’s Package Store. The
place was empty except for a man sit-
ting behind the counter, reading a news-
paper.

Joe, Albert said, told him to stop the

+
Pw AHCY
aa? |.

aa ‘ wf
phivsler an! tit

car. He grabbed Albert’s raincoat, a
black one, from the back seat, put it on

_and took his gun, a Luger, from the

glove compartment. “Wait here,” he
said to Albert. “I’ll be right back with
some cash.”

A few minutes later, Joe came back.

‘He told Albert to get moving fast. “That

guy jumped me and I had to shoot him,”
he said.

They drove back through Hartford
to the Connecticut River. Albert headed
the car across the bridge. Halfway
across, he stopped and Joe got out and
tossed the gun into the river.

Then he got back into the car and
they raced off... .

_ This was Albert’s story and with this
story the state seemed sure that they
could send Joe Taborsky to the chair.

Nathaniel (Continued on page 60)

- Arriving at State prison with the good news for Joseph Taborsky, Public
Defender Nathan Bergman receives guard’s congratulations on the victory.

‘a ant 4 " $

She heard her oldest son sentenced to death and saw her youngest boy

the getaway car and because police have
a way of thanking valuable state’s wit-
nesses, his bail was set so low that he
was able to walk out of the station
house after his recital and go home.
When his mother, who met him at
the door, asked him where Joseph, his
brother, was, Albert simply shrugged

- and said, “I guess they want to talk to

him a little more. You know how stub-
born Joe gets sometimes, Ma.”

Albert then had some breakfast and
went to his room where for the next two
hours he lay on his bed and, very quiet-
ly, he alternated between laughing and
moaning. A woman friend of his later
told police that he did this often. “He’d
lie there and he’d start to giggle a little

and then he’d almost start to cry and.

you didn’t know what he’d do next,”
she’d said. This time he lay there doing
that so long that he was in a complete

sweat when his mother knocked on his |

door to find out whether he was asleep
or -not.

‘sent to a mental institution, but she clung to an indomitable faith.

Albert jumped up from his bed when.

he heard the knock. “Yeah, I’m awake,
Ma,” he called out, “I’m all right.” Heé
reached for an old shirt and wiped the
perspiration from his neck. Then he
reached for his glasses, put them on and
went to the phone.

He asked the operator to get him the
police. “I’ve got to tell them,” he mut-
tered as he waited to be connected. “I’ve
got to... .”

A minute later, he was talking to one
of the detectives he’d talked to.the night
before. He asked him to come around
to the house, quick. He had something
important to tell him. He’d meet him
downstairs in front of the house.

The detective showed up with another
officer. “Start driving,” Albert said, as
he got into the ‘car. “I don’t want to
talk here near the house.”

“Got something you forgot to tell us ©

last night?” the detective behind -the
wheel asked.
“Got something,” Albert said.

‘“Take care of my brother.
Make him well. And, God,
please forgive him for

what he has done to me.’’

For the next half hour they drove

* through Hartford, Albert always start-

ing to tell what he had to tell, then stop-
ping short and saying, “In a few min-
utes. In a few minutes,”

“He was like a child,” the detective
recalls, “a child who wants to say some-
thing serious to a parent but who freezes
constantly and seems to think that may-
be if he holds it off for just a while it’ll
come out a lot easier.”

Finally, the detective stopped the car.
‘He and his partner were busy men, he
told Albert. They didn’t haye all day.
Talk, he said, and let’s get this over
with. /

“Take me some place,” Albert said.
“Not back to the station house. Not to
my house. Not here in the car... .”

The detective behind the wheel sighed.
He got out of the car, went into a drug-
store and phoned Police Chief Paul

Beckwith at his home. “I knew it’s your’

day off, Chief, but .. .” he began and
explained his problem.

“Bring him over to the house,” the
chief said. “I’ll talk to him here.”

The chief’s wife had coffee ready for
them all when they arrived. She served
it and left the room. Then the chief
turned to Taborsky.

“Now what’s on your mind?” he
asked.

Albert suddenly put down his cup and
began to shake. He got up from the
chair, said he thought he was going to
be sick. The chief led him to the bath-
room down the hall. Just as they got
there, Albert threw up.

“Chief,” he said, his pale face, his
eyes getting bigger and bigger-looking
behind his thick-rimmed glasses. “Chief,
I came to tell you about something im-
portant. It’s about me and my brother,

- Joe. We pulled another job last year I

haven’t said anything about. It was that
murder in West Hartford, that package
store man. My brother, Joe . . . he
killed that man!”

In headquarters half an hour later,
Albert and Joe Taborsky stood face to
face. Joe, 26 then, a tall, dark-haired
fellow with bright blue eyes and an

a AR al

unusually
The Chin)
e seyes as his
© him.
“You di
' why not te
© You killed
It was nx
them that _
bert, had r
had always
cry, scream
er kids, es;
always been
fy, “as nice
. Worst fight
- earlier whe
~ sickly fathe
strike the 0)

“and held A!
“cursed and
he’d be sorr-

No, they
“there’d been
now, here in
standing thi
rother of n
lievable to J.

< up there
© he was really ;
|» wasn’t functio1
ethey’d realize |
him go free
The state

here he’d mu
an had walked

Justice Is a Long Wait

continued from page 33

Bergman, Joe’s MHarvard-educated lawyer
who’d been appointed by the court to act as
special public defender, had equal faith in his’
witnesses.

After reminding the jury that police had
never been able to find the supposed murder
gun at the bottom of the Connecticut River,
he called his first witness—a dark-eyed woman
with whom Joe had been friendly.

“That night, March 23, was Joe’s birthday,”
the woman told the court. “He was over at
my house. We had a little cake and coffee.
He came at about 7 o’clock and he left a
little after ten.”

Bergman. reminded the jury that Mr. Wolf-
son had been shot at about nine.

The second wityess was Mrs. Taborsky, the
boys’ mother. She told of the incident of a
few years earlier, when Joe had broken up a
fight between Albert and their father. She told
how Albert had always been a troublesome
boy and jealous of Joe. She loved both her
boys, she said, and had tried all her life never
to side with one against the other. But this,
this was something different, she said, her eyes
filling with tears. The first time she’d talked
to Joe after Albert had accused him of the
murder, he’d embraced her and said: “Mama,
as there is a God in heaven, I am innocent of
this murder!” And, Mrs. Taborsky told the
court now, she knew her son and she believed
him and she wanted them to believe him and
—she looked down—not ‘to believe Albert.

The third witness Mr. Bergman called to
the stand was a detective who’d been in the.
hospital room when Mr. Wolfson described his
attacker. The detective said that Mr. Wolfson
had said that the man was small, light-haired
and baby-faced.

At this point, Mr. Bergman asked Joe to
stand up. He was tall—a little over six feet,
his hair was black and his long-chinned, in-
tense-eyed face was not a baby-face.

There were smiles all around the courtroom
and some persons thought they detected smiles
on the lips of some of the jurors, too.

But then the state had its turn again and
called Albert to the stand again and, as a re-
porter,wrote later: “It hurt watching a kid
brother sitting up there, looking straight at his
older brother as he recounted the murder. You
either had to think that he was one of the
most honest people who ever lived, or that
there was something wrong with him.”

"THE jury preferred to think he was honest.

At 11:15 on the morning of May 25, they:
began their deliberations. At 8:25 P.M., the
foreman announced that they had found Joe
guilty of murder in the first degree.

A month later, he was sentenced to die in
the electric chair on the night of November 7.
Joe nodded when he heard the sentence. “I
would rather die in the electric chair,” he said,

“than live out the rest of my life in prison”

knowing that I am innocent of this. crime.”

Albert, meanwhile, had been tried separately
on a charge of second-degree murder. He
willingly repeated his account of the murder
and was found guilty and sentenced to life
imprisonment.

It all seemed over. Joe was in death row,
Albert was in a cell at the other end of the
prison, Mrs. Taborsky was at home grieving
for both of her sons.

A few days after Joe was sentenced, Mr,
Bergman stopped by to see Mrs. Taborsky.
He told her that he wanted her to know that
he would always believe that Joe was inno-
cent of murdering Louis Wolfson and that he
would never give up trying to prove it.

“It won’t be easy,” he said, “but so long as
there’s such a thing as justice in the world,
we'll fight and do it.”

A few weeks later,.he was ready to begin
his fight. It all started when rumors began to
circulate from the prison that Albert was def-
initely a mentally sick boy.

This was really no surprise to Mr. Berg-
man, who’d suspected all along that there was
something wrong with the young man. At the
beginning of Joe’s trial, he’d asked the couyt
to omer a mental examination for Albert be-
fore he testified. The examination never came
off, however, and Albert was allowed to go
ahead and talk.

Now Mr. Bergman got busy. He drove out
to the prison and had a talk with one of the
guards. ‘

“I never did think he was okay up. here,”
the guard said, pointing to his head. “I was
stationed at th® county jail for, a while, just
before the trial, and I used to see that his
eyes were always glassy. and that he talked to
himself a lot. And since he’s been here, he’s
gotten worse. He yells out that he hears voices
talking and bells ringing. He gets crying spells
and during one of them he yelled out, ‘Nobody
believes I’m Jesus Christ!’ Another time he
called me over and told me somebody was
trying to sneak in through the window and
kill him. Another time he swore that we were
poisoning his food.”

Another guard corroborated this and told
Mr. Bergman that time after time he would
hear Albert shouting that he was the king of
England and “I can do anything I want!”

A third guard said that Albert always re-
ferred to him as “Mr. Wolfson”—the name of
the murder victim. ?

Mr. Bergman left the prison full of hope
that day. If only he could prove that Albert,
obviously insane now, had been insane during
the trial. If only it could be proved that the
testimony which had got Joe Taborsky sen-
tenced to the electric chair had come from the
lips of a man who hadn’t known what he was
talking about.

Mr. Bergman went back to his office and
studied a file he’d previously prepared on
Albert. He wanted to talk now to some
people who had known the younger Tabor-
sky during that year or two before the trial.
By the end of that day, he’d talked to three
such people. ;

One was a woman who had known Albert
back in 1949. She was the one who remem-
bered the laughing and crying fits that the
emotionally unstable Albert displayed.

Then there was a man for whom Albert once
had worked. “At first, I thought it was that
he was stupid. But, as it turned out, he wasn’t
stupid at all. There were in fact times when I
was surprised at his memory.” But over a
period of time Albert’s behavior convinced this
man that the youth was definitely disturbed
mentally. :

The third person Mr. Bergman spoke. to
was very~ close to the Taborsky~ family. “He’s-
crazy,” she. said, absolutely. “There’s no ques-
tion about that in my mind. Ever since he was
a kid he’s done and said crazy things .. .
Look, it’s hard on the mother as it is, a boy
of hers in the death house. And it’s going to be
hard ‘on. her now, if you try to prove the other

one’s insane. Like she always says, Joe’s al-
ways been the better boy but as a mother
she’s got to love both of them equal. But if
the fact is that Joe’s innocent and that to
prove that you’ve got to prove Albert, crazy,
then I hope you can do it.” :

The next day, the lawyer got the ball roll-
ing. Joe’s execution was set for a night less
than four months away and he knew that he
had to work fast.

One by one, the psychiatrists began to ex-
amine Albert. And one by one, they agreed
that he was—and had been for some time—
insane. “

Said one of the doctors: “He was probably
in a formative stage of psychosis at the time
of the trial, and while what he said could
have been true, I would be reluctant to accept
what anyone in that condition said as final,
absolute proof.”

AID another -doctor: “I observed Albert

Taborsky for quite a while. ‘He had hal-
lucinations and delugions and bizarte ideas. But
he gave an accurate account of certain things,
and there was no evidence that his memory was
grossly impaired. Memory is not involved in
the schizophrenic process, but the patient is
prone to misinterpret situations, facts and
ideas to suit his own needs.”

A third doctor said: “It is my opinion
that at the time Albert testified in court, he
was suffering from delusions and hallucinations
and was under great emotional stress—and it
would not have been possible for him to com-
prehend the nature of an oath or the charges
against him..He could have had a compulsive
force that would tell him what to say, and he
would not know whether it was true or not.”

And said a fourth doctor: “I believe that Al-
bert Taborsky. was insane the latter part of
1949 and up to the date of this examination

. . and thaf it is not surprising that he could

go through examination and cross-examination
during the trial without showing signs of this
insanity.” ;
’ It took attorney Bergman many months to
get this information together and after he did,
he sent a report to the governor who, shortly
before Joe’s scheduled execution, ordered it
held up long enough for Mr. Bergman to pre-
sent the psychiatrists’ findings to the Superior
Court.

It looked as if it would be a cinch now for
the judge to hear the new evidence and grant
Joe a new trial.

The hearing began. >. .

Albert, meanwhile, had been ‘transferred
from Wethersfield to the Norwich State Hospi-
tal where, according to one guard, “he talked
day and night to his shadow, who he imagined
was his brother, Joe, and said over and over
and over again, ‘Don’t be mad at me for what
happened. Don’t have it in for your poor lit-
tle brother, Albert.”

Back at the Taborsky apartment the boys’
mother began her long wait for her oldest boy
to be exonerated. The other boy was now in
an insane asylum and there was nothing that
she could do for him except to visit him and
feel her heart break as she watched him sit
there and stare at her. “He always looked like
he was crying in the back of his eyes,” she
said later about these visits with Albert; “He
would sit there looking at me and once in a
while he would talk and he would ask, ‘Who
is my brother? and where is he?’—and when
I“would tell him he’d ask, ‘What’s he doing
there?’ ... . Yes, Albert is my son. He’s as
close to me as the other one. Only I couldn't

get through tc
so there was

The wait f
for Mrs. Tab«
man was arg
Court hearing
an Episcopal 1
for a few day
priest who be
prepared a p
Mrs. Taborsk
over the cou
with her and
tinue to pray
thing would v

Then, sudd:
Mr. Bergman
for a new tria

The lawyer
sky. Then he
Joe. “But do
something . .

It took year
In that time,
as easily and
ways brought
said later, “an
improve my I
It was hard v
a faith in Go.
would happer
thought about
him at first, 2
the more I t!

remember hin
a lot of othe:
catch.

“But it’s aly
ter job. He’s
never shaky.
get nervous.
nervous and y
it plain he v
carries two :
clicks the har
that they mig

As the strin;
ed past the 20
were intensific
tained over h
a blighted sec
alleys. His bi
tioned and plz
penter had ev
for no trace «

“Study his
instructed Lie
if we're alert,

On the even
34-year-old D
aboard a bus
dale Avenue.
Shirley, and d
another child,
her perambul:
him off.

He transfer
near the lake
Detective Bur
bery Detail sq
At’ the Washi
subway, a |

ys, Joe’s al-
is a mother
qual. But if
and that to
\lbert, crazy,

che ball roll-
a night less
new that he

began to ex-
they agreed
some time—

vas probably

at the time
e said could
ant to accept
said as final,

erved Albert
He had hal-
rre ideas. But
ertain things,
memory was
involved in
he patient is
s, facts and

my opinion
in court, he
hallucinations
stress—and it
him to com-
vr the charges
a compulsive
o say, and he
true or not.”
slieve that Al-
latter part of
5 examination
that he could
s-examination
x signs of this

ny months to
1 after he did,
: who, shortly
mn, ordered it
rgman to pre-
o the Superior

cinch now for
‘nce and grant

on transferred
h State Hospi-
urd, “he talked
10 he imagined
over and over
it me for what
your poor lit-

nent the boys’
her oldest boy
yy Was now in
is nothing that
. visit him and
atched him sit
ays looked like
his eyes,” she
th Albert, “He
and once in a
ould ask, ‘Who
.e?’—and when
‘hat’s he doing
y son. He’s as
Only I couldn't

get through to him in his mental condition and
so there was nothing I could say. Nothing.”

The wait for word on Joe seemed endless
for Mrs. Taborsky. One day, while Mr. Berg-
man was arguing Joe’s case at the Superior
Court hearing, a friend drove the woman to
an Episcopal monastery on Long Island, N. Y.,
for a few days of rest. There, she talked to a
priest who became interested in the case. He
prepared a pamphlet on it and before long
Mrs. Taborsky was to receive mail from all
over the country, from people sympathizing
with her and her Joe and telling her to con-
tinue to pray and have patience, that every-
thing would work out all right.

Then, suddenly, the hearing was over and
Mr. Bergman was informed that his request
for a new trial for Joe had been turned down.

The lawyer broke the news to Mrs. Tabor-
sky. Then he went out to the prison and told
Joe. “But don’t worry,” he said. “We'll do
something . . . something.”

It took years before anything could be done.
In that time, Joe tried to make the time pass
as easily and quickly as possible. “Mama al-
ways brought me newspapers and books,” he
said later, “and I read a lot and I even got to
improve my English some by all that reading.
It was hard waiting but always I had a faith,
a faith in God and in justice, that something
would happen . . . When I wasn’t reading, I
thought about Albert a lot. I was bitter about
him at first, about what he’d done to me. But
the more I thought about him and how bad

off. he was there at Norwich, the bitterness
began to fade away and all I could feel was
sorry for him, sorry and full of pity for my
little kid brother.”

Attorney Bergman, meanwhile, stuck with
Joe’s case, gathering more psychiatrists’ re-
ports on Albert, talking about it with judges
with whom he came in contact, arguing against

the decision made by the one judge who had

turned down the appeal he’d made for Joe.

Then, early this year, the good news came
that the Supreme Court of Connecticut had
decided to give the case its very careful con-
sideration.

“This could do it,” Mr. Bergnmn told Joe,
still sitting it out in death row, one afternoon.
“This could be it... .”

In May, Mr. Bergman presented his case
before the five judges of the court. Then, three
long months later word got out that a decision
had been reached, that the decision would be
released sometime on the morning of Wednes-
day, August 3. "

Mr. Bergman notified Mrs. Taborsky im-
mediately. Then he went to tell Joe to stand

The lawyer got to the courthouse early on
the morning of the third. He waited around
for nearly an hour before he was called into
the chambers of Judge J. Phillips. Judge Phil-
lips rose when Mr: Bergman walked in and
shook his hand firmly. “It’s unanimous,” he
said. “The court has ruled that Joe Taborsky
is entitled to another trial.”

Mr. Bergman smiled and sat down on the
nearest seat. He continued smiling as Judge
Phillips handed him the decision. He read it
over hurriedly the first time. The first words
he saw were: “Error; judgment directed.” He
read on. “The evidence now available as to
Albert’s sanity could have a persuasive influ-
ence upon the jury. In the shadowy area
where proof which is insufficient to establish
guilt beyond a reasonable doubt merges into

: proof which is sufficient to establish guilt be-

yond a reasonable doubt, the “new evidence,
and especially that of Albert’s undoubted and
incurable insanity as revealed shortly after
his trial, might well be sufficient to turn the
cause in favor of the applicant.”

He phoned Mrs.. Taborsky, who wept un-
ashamedly when she heard that Joe was going
to be given another trial, a trial which would
probably set him free.

Then the lawyer drove out to the prison... .

Joe sat forward on his bunk when he saw
the big, steel door open. He watched Mr.
Bergman as he walked briskly down the long,
pale-gray corridor.

The lawyer was only half-way to the cell
when Joe saw the smile’on his face, the big
smile.

For a moment, Joe closed his eyes and
whispered: “Thank you, God.”

And then—as always—he added: “And take
care of my brother, Albert, and make him
well . . . and forgive him, God, please, for
what he’s done to me!”

The Desperate Hours

continued from page 4)

remember him. His appearance, manners and
a lot of other things have made him hard to
catch.

“But it’s always easy to recognize a Carpen-
ter job. He’s deadly calm about his crimes,
never shaky. He tells his victims: ‘Now don’t
get nervous. See how calm I am. Don’t be
nervous and you won’t get hurt.’ But he makes
it plain he won’t tolerate any nonsense. He
carries two snub-nosed .38s and frequently
clicks the hammers to remove any suspicion
that they might be toy guns.”

As the string of Carpenter’s robberies mount-
ed past the 200 mark, efforts to apprehend him
were intensified. A 24-hour watch was main-
tained over his mother’s 70-year-old home in
a blighted section where the streets resemble
alleys. His boyhood companions were ques-
tioned and placed under surveillance. But Car-
penter had evidently cut his ties with his past,
for no trace of him was found.

“Study his picture, keep your eyes peeled,”
instructed Lieutenant Pape. “Sooner or later,
if we’re alert, we'll catch sight of him.”

On the evening of Monday, August 15, 1955,
34-year-old Detective William Murphy swung
aboard a bus near his home on West Summer-
dale Avenue. He waved goodbye to his wife,
Shirley, and daughter, three, who had wheeled
another child, a nine-month-old baby girl, in
her perambulator down to the bus stop to see
him off.

He transferred to an elevated-subway train
near the lake front and rode on toward the
Detective Bureau, where he served on a Rob-
bery Detail squad on the 8 p.M.-to-4 a.m. shift.
At’ the Washington Street stop in the Loop
subway, a broad-shouldered, deeply-tanned

chap with a dapper hairline mustache boarded
the almost empty car.

Detective Murphy blinked behind his shell-
rimmed glasses and surreptitiously drew out a
picture of Carpenter. There was little doubt
of it, he decided. His fellow passenger in the
casual type sports clothing was the long-hunted
holdup man whose shadowy trail he had been
following for months.

As the train drew into the Roosevelt Road-
State Street Station, half a block from Po-
lice Headquarters, Murphy walked up to the
suspect. His hand on his holstered gun, the
detective showed him the picture, smudged
from much handling. :

“This is you, isn’t it?”

“Yes.” The reply was calm.

.“You’re under arrest. Come on.”

'HEY stepped out onto the underground
> Platform. The car doors slid shut behind
them and the train streaked off toward the
South Side.

“Okay, Carpenter, up those steps over there.”

His shoulders slumped, Carpenter shambled
in the direction, indicated. But suddenly he
leaped to one side and whirled around, snaking
a gun from under his shirt, which he wore
outside his trousers to conceal behind-the-belt
armament. It blasted lead and flame and the
policeman staggered and fell. But he raised
himself feebly and sent three ineffectual shots
after the hoodlum as he fied.

Twenty witnesses to the shooting scam-
pered up the stairway, running past the ticket
booth on a higher level in which a woman
sat alone. Someone yelled: “Look out! Guy
with a gun!” Dropping to the floor, the

woman pulled a. telephone off a shelf and
dialed Police 5-1313.

When investigators reached the scene after
a dash from headquarters, all the witnesses had
vanished. Detective Murphy was dead, his still-
warm revolver a few feet from his body. And
nearby, fluttering’'in a dank breeze from a
ventilator, was the rogues gallery photo of
Carpenter.

“He must have done it,” decided Sergeant
Smicklas, looking at the photo. “What other
reason would Murph have for taking out this
picture ?”

Proof that Carpenter was the killer was
forthcoming after Charles A. Koerper, 67, re-
ported that a gunman had entered his sedan
near the subway entrance and had forced him
to. drive to the Loop just a few seconds after’
the below-the-ground gun battle.

Said Koerper: “He told me: ‘I just shot a
cop. Look straight ahead. Make no bum moves
or J’ll drill you, too.’ He opened his revolver
and showed me five empty shells and said: “I'll
polish you off with the one that’s left if you
get smart.’”

Koerper had driven the gunman to Dearborn
and Madison, in the heart of the teeming
downtown district, where he had leaped from
the car and walked swiftly away.

Holding up a picture of Carpenter, Sergeant
Smicklas asked: “Is this the gent?”

“J don't know,” answered Koerper. “I did
what he said—looked straight ahead. I didn’t
see his face.”

But experts from the Bureau of <Identifica-
tion found Carpenter’s fingerprints on the side
window of Koerper’s car.

“T remember now,” said Koerper. “He

were track-
1 and were
and. Nelson
few months
the case on
waited too
of ordering
shocks the
e,” Sullivan
f 20 years
re witnesses
decades had
jurisdiction
ir memories
clouded...
ly a waiver
thout some

been found
n Smith, Jr.,
of the two
ithrippe ad-
To Tell
). Lan-

in the mur-
of moving
» porary jobs,
ye killed. He
Smith, and
car, Johnson
| Smith, and
stealing his

s bare hands
ippe said he
into a lake
Soth Johnson
1, but John-
1, Lanthrippe
‘al until

a ver-

». After
which con-
hrippe’s testi-
volfield con-
that the state

had not corroborated the testimony of
Lanthrippe, “an admitted accomplice,” and
directed a verdict of not guilty. At ont
point in the trial, Lanthrippe said ‘he
would “probably be shot the minute I step
out of this courtroom.” After the trial,
Lanthrippe’s attorney said Lanthrippe
would probably flee the country.

J. W. “Dub” Wheeler, (above), for-
mer football star. and superintendent of
the Boy’s Training School at Stringtown,

Okla., has announced his resignation
(Thanks, Dub, For the Chance, January
INSIDE, 1955). Wheeler, whose operation
of the training camp for delinquent boys
set an example for similar camps all over
the country, said that he was resigning for
personal reasons, but also because a “dis-
cipline problem” he had encountered ‘at

Stringtown had caused him a lot of worry. .

He said the 122 boys at Stringtown—
ages 11 to 17—know the law forbids
whippings, ‘“‘and that’s what they cram

down our throats ... If they just knew
that we could whip them, we wouldn’t have
to do it very often... but the way it is

now, when one of these boys is repri-
manded, he tells the supervisor, ‘Why don’t
you mind your own business.’ I came down
here with the idea there shouldn’t be: any
whippings,”’ Wheeler commented, “but I’ve.
sure changed my mind. People don’t know
what we are up against here.”

Joseph Taborsky, who ‘waited in the
shadow of the electric: chair for more than
four years because his crazed brother
testified: that he murdered a liquor store
owner during a holdup, has been freed in
an action by the Connecticut State Supreme
Court (Justice is a Long Wait, November
INSIDE, 1955). While questioned about a
series of holdups in 1951, Albert Taborsky
told the police that he and Joseph had
robbed a Hartford, Conn., liquor store,
and that Joseph had shot and killed the
owner, Louis Wolfson, when he resisted. At
Joseph’s trial, Albert was the principal
witness, and stuck to every detail of the

story through careful cross examination.
The result was a verdict of death in the
electric chair for Joseph. Albert was also

tried and sentenced to life imprisonment,
but only a few months later was found to
be completely insane—yet perfectly cap-
able of maintaining a consistent lie against
his brother. Albert has since been confined
to the Norwich State Mental Hospital. The
Supreme Court also decided that the'.de-
cription that Wolfson gave of his attacker
just before he died better fitted Albert
than it did Joseph. Joseph is shown above
with his mother following his release.

MEAT CUTTING orrers YOU
SUCCESS And SECURITY

In The Best Established Business In The World ¢ PEOPLE MUST EAT!

TRAIN QUICKLY in 8 short weeks for a job with
a bright and secure future in the vital meat busi-
ness. Trained meat men needed. Good pay, full-
time jobs, year-round income, no lay-offs—HAVE
A PROFITABLE MARKET OF YOUR OWN!
LEARN BY DOING

Get your training under actual meat market con-
ditions in our big modern cutting and processing
rooms and retail department. Expert instructors
show you how—then you do each job yourself,
Nearly « million dollars’ worth of meat is cut, proc-

essed, displayed and merchandised by National oe

students yearly!
PAY AFTER GRADUATION

Come to National for complete 8-weeks course

and pay your tuition in easy installments after

you graduate. Diploma awarded. Free employment
help. Thousands of successful graduates. OUR 33rd
YEAR! :
RESERVE STARTING DATE NOW!

A new class starts every Monday morning, 52 classes
a year! Reservation MUST BE MADE IN ADVANCE
and should be applied for as early as possible to
insure getting starting date of your preference. Buy-
ing, cutting, percentage, pricing, merchandising,
self-service, ete., A COMPLETE RETAIL MEAT
EDUCATION. Students attend N. S. M. C. from
every state ond many foreign countries. Only school
of its kind. No branches. 1000 graduates yearly!

FREE CATALOG—MAIL COUPON
Send today for free new illustrated cat-

.alog showing students in training. Read

what graduates are doing and earning.
See meat you cut and equipment you
work with. For real JOB SECURITY get
all the facts NOW! Mail coupon in
envelope or paste on postal, No obliga-
tion. No salesman will call. G. |.
APPROVED.

National School Of Meat Cutting, Inc., Dept. 54-M, Toledo 4, Ohio

g National School of Meot Cutting, Inc. i]
: Dept. 54-M, Toledo 4, Ohio :
§ Send me your Free School catalog on National #
a Training at Toledo in Meat Cutting, Meat Mer- #
ft chandising and Self Service Meats. No obligation. §
‘ No salesman will call. Approved for Veterans. 1
1 i]
y Name....... eae oe ee ee .t
i]

5c 9s 1 a LS ees BS 21 8
1 1
RONG ice gs hess State............%
r) t
4

28 Oe Oe AR OO ee ee oe ee om em oe oe om

eee ee

The only clothing new to Joe Rutstein's shop when Mailman
Jackson found the body was what the killer had left behind

clothes here and I took the pile away
and I saw he was dead. So I called the
police.”

Robert White told his story, too. Just
before 10:30, he said, a stranger had
entered the cleaning shop where White
and Benjamin Onofrio were employed.

“This fellow told Benny he was look-
ing for Mr. Rutstein but he couldn't
find him,”” White said. “Benny said he
had to be around because he never goes
very far from the shop. This man went
back across the street. Then a few
minutes later he returned and said Mr.
Rutstein still wasn’t in. So I went over
and looked and I saw two legs sticking
out from under a pile of clothes. I got
out of there in a hurry.”

Onofrio verified this statement and
added that he'd thought something was
wrong when the stranger told him Rut-
stein’s door was open.

“Mr. Rutstein kept the door closed
and locked whenever he went away,
even for a few minutes to get a cup of
coffee,” he said.

se HAT about this man who was
asking for Mr. Rutstein?” Mc-
Donald asked. ‘What did he look like?”

“About five feet eight or nine, slim,
with a thin face.”

“Did you notice anything else about
him?” the Captain inquired. “You had
a pretty good look at him; he was in
your store twice.”

Onofrio recalled that he needed a
shave and he wore a brown, checkered
topcoat and a felt hat. “The coat was
pretty thin for the kind of weather
we've been having.”

That was all White and Onofrio
could tell the officers.

“Okay,” the Captain said. “Jackson,
what about the clothes the body was
under? Where are they?”

Jackson pointed to two coats lying
on the floor next to a box of shoes that
had been overturned. One was a top-
coat. McDonald picked it up and held
it by the collar, scrutinizing it.

All around him were racks of clothing
—suits, topcoats, overcoats. This one
quite possibly had fallen from one of
the hangers. He tossed it aside, picked
up the other. ,

“Hey, look!” he cried. He felt the
hem of the coat, a dark-brown, un-
pressed overcoat. Then the sleeves.

“What about it?” Sergeant Thomas
J. Daley asked.

“It’s damp! Let’s look at the others
on these racks here.”

They rubbed and sniffed at the coats
and suits on the various racks. All were
dry and dusty.

“Somebody wore this overcoat out-
side just this morning,” McDonald said
with conviction. “Maybe it’s the
killer’s.”

Sergeant Daley discovered something
else. Among the shoes spilled on the
floor almost next to the body was a
pair of worn, cracked cowboy boots
streaked with a strange, white sub-
stance. .

“There's mud, fresh mud, on the soles
of those boots,” the Sergeant said.

It was, and the boots were damp, too.

An overcoat and a pair of cowboy
boots. Had they been the killer’s?

“Get those boots‘to a lab and have
that white stuff analyzed,” McDonald
said. ‘And the overcoat. Look for a
cleaner’s mark. You know.”

Then he and Sergeant Daley went
carefully and slowly through the
crowded little store. It was a typical
second-hand shop, racks of clothing
lining the wall, boxes littering the floor,
barely enough room to turn around.

A small stove occupied one corner,

not far from the body, and in front of
it was a pile of wood. Sergeant Daley
picked up one chunk of wood, varnished
and turned and apparently a newel post
from a stairway banister.

“Look,” he said.

One end of the club was stained a
dark red.

The death weapon? It, too, was set
aside for analysis in the laboratory after
a thorough examination for finger-
prints.

Otherwise, the store appeared to be

barren of clues. The pockets of Rut-
stein’s trousers were turned out, as if
the slayer had emptied them. Near his
body was a ten-dollar bill, dropped by
someone in a hurry.
* And on his forehead was.an “X”,
made by two welts. The slayer had
struck him twice—heavy, numbing
blows—and the marks of those blows in-
tersected to form the letter.

Rutstein had been struck down not
half an hour before the body was dis-
covered, -Doctor Walter Weissenborn,
Medical Examiner, estimated. His skull
had been crushed.

That was all the officials could find

in the store of any immediate interest.’

They stepped aside for the technicians
of the State Police: Captain Frank V.
Chameroy, identification expert; Lieu-
tenant John G. Lawrence of the Special
Services Division; Lieutenant Edward
P. Tierney of the photography section.
’ Outside, meanwhile, detectives under
Lieutenant Julian P. Darman were
prowling through the area. Front
Street in Hartford is on the edge of the
city’s Skid Row. Strange things hr r-
pen in its dark alleys and on its 6 m
corners. Joseph Rutstein had been
dead little more than a half hour. Per-
haps the killer still was somewhere near,
a gun in his hand, waiting to shoot.
Perhaps a witness could be found who
had seen someone enter that store and
run out in a hurry. : :
And meanwhile, Captain McDonald
and Sergeant Daley tried to reconcile
this slaying with the others that had
written a trail of fear across the state.
The saga of death had begun on De-

' cember 15, 1956. On that night, in New

Britain, only six miles away; Daniel
Jankowski and Edward Kurpenski were
found shot to death in Kurpenski’s fill-
ing station.

The very same evening Nickola Leone,
a tailor in New Britain, had been shot
in the head by a holdup man. Miracu-
lously, doctors expected him to recover.

ON DECEMBER 26, Samuel H. Cohen
was slain in his liquor store in East
Hartford, just across the bridge from
Front Street.

And on January 5 came the’ most
outrageous of the crimes. Two bandits
had entered the shoe store operated by
Frank Adinolfi in North Haven. They
held up Adinolfi and pistol-whipped him
without reason. Then they ordered two
customers, Mr. and Mrs. Bernard Spey-

‘er, to kneel on the floor. They walked

around behind the Speyers and calmly
shot each one in the back of the head,
killing them.

Adinolfi was recovering.

Five killings, one man wounded, one
beaten.

Leone and Adinolfi had provided de-.

scriptions and undoubtedly the same
two men were responsible. Were they
also responsible for the slaying of Jo-
seph Rutstein? Had they switched from
pistols to bludgeons?

The detectives had no conclusive evi-
dence yet either way. The same person
might be involved here and might not;
they needed more information.

The Wednesday killer couldn't be far away, Patrolman Max Alwalor
and other officers knew as they searched the «alleys of Skid Row

after a lengthy Struggle, Since then, that he kept his right hand inhi

Joseph Rutstein had been afraid. pocket.”
octor Rutstein Said that robberies He described the customer as abou
weren't infrequent in the Vicinity, 21 years old, not more than five fee:

anaes
Store not far from Rutstein’s shop, and “He had long sideburns, one longer than
WAS a cousin of the dead man, had been the other, He wore a dark-blue over.
held up On November 5, Two robbers coat with q couple of buttons loose, and
entered his Place, forced him to the a battered, dirty, gray Pork-pie hat, I
rear and made him remove his trousers, can't be sure but T believe he does odd

They escaped with $300, Ss Jobs down the Street a bit. 1 think his
Several other stores had been held first name is Tom,”
up, too. Detectives went looking for the kid

The officers didn’t uncover any Other with the uneven Sideburns; they were
immediate leads. Nobody had seen or extremely anxious to know if he had
heard anything unusual. Al] that the kept his right hand in his pocket be-
Police picked up in the first Couple of Cause of the cold or because it was

a
% Ours of their investigation were; A streaked with someone's ‘blood
4 description of the stranger who appar- In the meantime, the complaint files
nt ently had gone Into Rutstein’s Store at Headquarters disclosed that on June
! Wwice;.a story about a pre-war sedan 3, 1954, Joseph Rutstein had Pressed a
oH with thre x charge of assault against George Fil-
tt Chief of Police Michael] J. Godfrey, man. The records showed that Rutstein
ui when he was Notified of the crime, put had identified Filman that day as the
i; a hurry call for Patrolman Hen man who two months before had beaten
iy Onne, who had Spent years Patroling and robbed him.
{ Front Street, Dionne had managed to Filman had been Convicted of the
Fs

earn the respect and Cooperation of the charge and served a short jail term,
men who frequented Skid Row, Godfrey “Find him,” Chief Godfrey ordered,
b ,

Oe ee ee ao,

é sent him back there to talk to People in € autopsy report disclosed little
ft the area and See if they had Seen any- al-was new. Doctor eissenborn in.
i thing or—what was more important— dicated that Rutstein’s death had come

ad heard anything after the crime. within a half hour of the discovery of :

Patrolman Said. “He lectured People had two other bruises, not severe enough
for their faults. I told him a couple of to cause death, on the face and head.

lows won’t take it.”

Dionne went back immediately to his
old beat, looking Particularly for some : ; _
of the younger men whom he knew as Pate Sti.
hot-headed. 5

Another Policeman who had known

eran of the Pawnship Detail, also was

“For forty-five years Joe Rutstein did hi apes Sie
business On the block,” he told McDon- . Braet EN
d. " i re heh

clothing Store frequently, ae :
“Joe’s eyesight wasn’t the best, and ¢
business wasn't Prosperous: he should . : 4
have quit Some time ago,” the Sergeant Wi li : g
said. _ ; 7
|
{

were trying to dig up that information, known Joe Rutstein for many years, Then detectives, Still Plodding
The first story they heard came from: He'd been in business there since long through Store after store, found what Mies Ppaiae
two men ina nearby store, That morn- before the first World War, when that they felt might be a lead in a bar about
ing, an old Jalopy had been parked ina section of Front Street was a lot dif- a block north of the scene. In a wash-
i Os’ ferent ‘ room they discovered bloodstains ona
Rutstein's, “T used to Come down here with my Paper towel,
“It was there for a half hour,” one of Parents,” said one man. “Wwe didn’t However, nobody could remember any
‘he men said. “Or maybe longer. The have much money. Times were pretty Patron with Scratches or other wounds

© come along and put a ticket on it,” take me to Joe’s place and Pick up “A young punk Was in here around
is companion Said he had Spotted Something for me to wear. He was a half-past ten who kept his right hand
he car first at about 9:45 a. m., and it nice old man and he used to lecture in his Coat pocket all the time,” the bar-
‘as Still there at 10:15, “Tt was an old me about taking care of my clothes.” tender said. “Maybe it was cut. Y
eap, a pre-war Mercury, I think, king Rutstein couldn't have been very old thought it might be a stickup. You
f a beat-up ereen or blue. The right in-the depression era. know the Way these fellows make you
‘ont window had 4 Crack in jt.” “He said Only the other day that he think they've got a gun. But he didn’t
hree men had been in the car When was going to retire pretty soon,” another try any monkeyshines. He Just ordered
e first saw it, he said, “They weren’t storekeeper said. “He told me he was his drink and Paid for it and kept his
earing hats and they were young, in sixty-eight and he was going to take hand in his pocket all the time.”
‘eir middle twenties,” it easy for the rest of his life, He’d The man behind the bar didn’t re-
If the ‘beat-up old heap indeed had brought up his family, four Sons and a member the Customer 8oing to the
en given a ticket, the Officer who had daughter; they’re grown UP and able to washroom. :
‘itten the ticket would have a record look out for themselves.” “I couldn't Swear one way or the
the car's license number, Lieutenant One of those Sons, Doctor Harold Rut- other, but I think he did. All] know is
rman put a query through’ to the Stein of West Hartford, meanwhile

\ffic bureau, identified the Victim

Oarman’'s men asked, as they went Doctor Rutstein told Captain McDon- He traded the boots to a man
ng, for any information they could ald that nearly three years before, on did "tk R Whit head
| on Joseph Rutstein. It might prove Apri] 4, 1954, a robber had beaten his e didn't know, oy Wenea
uable. ,

father and knocked him to the floor Says to Sgt, Daley and others

- Capt. McDonald and
the killer's" cowboy’
_ boot. . Below, Florine's.
her body hidden:

ioe

BRIE os
KAS

Special Investigator for

‘Cia

mnecticut was gar.
-rulous, bossy old Joe Rutstein:
» A mailman re
police,

stein’s second-hand
Hartford, Connecticut, actually had di
covered the body. And this man hadn’
stumbled over -it’ until he was goaded:
into action by a stranger,’ =. an
A stranger. A man who'd been look-'
tein-and-yet-who-had faded }

away rapidly when he'd set in motion

the search that. revealed the Slaying:
Who was he? What connection could

«he have, if any, with this case, or with:

the previous five? ©. 9% 98425
Those were some of the questions
Detective Captain Joseph McDonald

wanted answers to that rainy morning
of January 9, 1957, as he talked. to

William Jackson, the mailman: rey?
“Well, Sir,” Jackson told him,

» in here about half-

Rutstein’s mail an
hen,” Maybe: an
here:came up to me on’ the street and.
op something was’. wrong at > Ru
in’s.” enean: aqinst tas ia - Nn
“~ “This man” was ‘Robert: White,’
presser in a cleaning shop across.
treet from Rutstein's<¢ 0
“He didn’t tell me what,"
‘went on, “ ,
I found him lying under. this. pile. of %

Sandler hadn't realived the boots
Ught be his from the frst newspaper
tories because the wrong size had been
iven, Finally, though, he had _ tele-
honed when his wife had urged him to,

But where was Whitehead? How
ould he explain the boots?

He'd said he was working in a stable,
»ymewhere within nominal telephoning
istance, That at least might be a lead,

Captain McDonald ordered Sergeants
‘ershaw, Daley and Roberto Novello
nd Detective Stephen Burgen to de-
ote all their efforts from then on to

canvass of stables, riding academies
nd private estates nearby.

“Bring every new employe in,” he
irected. “I want Sandler to see them
i a :

Back on Windsor Street, the relative
ith whom Benjamin Reid lived had re-
trned home. She told Policewoman
rown she hadn't seen the boy since late’
uesday night when he showed up
ithout shoes, his clothes bloody. He'd
tid that he had been in a fight with

me other youngsters.. When’ he'd.

‘emed panicky lest the gang catch up
ith him, she said, she gave him eight
ars and suggested he go to New
aven and stay with another relative.
Policewoman Brown relayed this in-
rmation to Captain McDonald, who
lephoned New Haven. Assistant Chief
aymond J. Eagan of that city sent De-
ctives Gordon Konner and Eugene
obin to look for Reid. Dec and Sheren
so went to New Haven from Hartford,
ie distance of only 36 miles. ,
Other Hartford detectives, in the
eantime, had been detailed to the can-
iss of livery stables, riding schools and
rms to help. Kershaw, Daley, Novello
id Burgen in the search for a youth
2wly hired to take care of horses.
They fanned out through the rich
mnnecticut Valley, into small towns,
tmlets and villages famed for their
oultry raising, dairying and shade-
‘own tobacco. They were looking for a
d of seventeen who could pass for 20
21, a wiry lad and short, according
Sandler.
Kershaw and his team had headed
rth, the others east, west and south.
After dark Thursday, January 17,
2rshaw and his group stopped at a’

Bernard Speyer: He was Victim
No. Five an instant after his wife

ling school in Simsbury, fourteen:
les from Hartford. It was the
venth place they had visited.
Sweeping a stall was a youth who ap-
rently answered the description sup-
ed by Sandler.

The officers approached him.

‘How long have you been working
re?” Kershaw asked.

“A few days," the slablehand replied,
“Why?"
Kershaw ignored the question. “Have
you ever been in Wyoming?"
The. youth hesitated, and Kershaw
asked, “Is your name Roy?” .
“Yes, Sir. What do you want?”
“You can tell us what you did with
the boots Mr. Sandler gave you,” Ker-
shaw declared.
“The boots?”
« “Yeah, the boots.”
“They were too big for me. I traded
them for some shoes.”
“I hope you can prove it,” said Ker-
shaw. ‘We'll give you a chance.”
-.. The officers took Whitehead back to
Hartford, where Sandler identified him
as the youth he had befriended.

PATIENTLY, Chief Godfrey and Cap-

tain McDonald questioned the young
stablehand. He had traded the boots
and two dollars for a pair of shoes that
fitted him, and swapped an overcoat
for a used Navy pea jacket, he said; on
Tuesday, January 8, the day before Rut-
stein was slain.

He’d made the trade in a second-
hand clothing store somewhere in
Hartford.

“Joseph Rutstein’s?” Captain Mc-
Donald asked.

“Whose?”

“Joseph Rutstein’s?”

Whitehead replied, “I dunno. Some
store; I dunno who runs it. I ain’t even
sure where it is.” -

“Where were you this Tuesday night
between half-past ten and midnight?”
asked Sergeant Kershaw.

Asleep at the riding school where
he’d been employed, Whitehead said.
Furthermore, he had half a dozen wit-
nesses to prove it.

He couldn't prove where he'd been at
the time Rutstein was slain; he claimed
he didn’t remember. But it méant little

to the police. For their job was to put,

a suspect on the scene of the crime, to
Prove who the killer was. And they
couldn’t.

In addition, if Whitehead’s alibi wit-
nesses upheld his story, he couldn't be
involved in the slaying of Florine
McCluney.

The whole thing was blowing up.
They had followed the trail of the cow-
boy boots to its end and it had brought
them nothing but disappointment.

That afternoon Detective Sheren
telephoned from New Haven.

“Captain,” he said to McDonald, “it
looks like we’ve got an eyewitness to
the McCluney killing.”

“Who?” McDonald asked.

“This kid Benjamin Reid. He says he
saw the fellow who did it.” ;

Reid, Sheren said, had stated that he
had been walking down Pleasant
Street shortly before 10:30 Tuesday
night when he'd seen another youth
striking a woman again and again in
the parking lot.

“He seen me, too,” Reid said. “He
took off after me and caught me and I
thought I’d had it.”

The youth had beaten him severely,
Reid said, splattering his clothes with
blood, and then had threatened to kill
him if he ever should reveal what he'd
Seen.

“That’s why I scrammed from Hart-
ford,” Reid declared. “I don't want that
baby after me.”

It was a convincing story. But some-
how, when he heard it, Chief Godfrey
wasn’t satisfied. He called his men in.

- “Look,” he said, “we had two killings
here in Hartford within a week.”

The men eyed him closely.

“For awhile we thought the same man |

had killed both persons.”

“Don’t we still?” asked Daley.

The Chief ignored the question.
“Now,” he said, “we have two men being
held. Both men have told stories that
are unusual at best. We tend to believe
them but, the point is, so far we haven't
been able to verify or disprove either of
those stories.” :

“I think I get what you're driving at,”
Captain McDonald said.

“I’m sure you do. It’s up to us now

\{yrr

ales si

\V\" We Or ee ee ,
AR itachi athe: Cy
YANG attains

Eight had been slain and Arthur Culombe had eight guns in his
house, Sgt. Paige learned. But police still had to find a ninth

to keep after those two men and their
stories until we’re sure they're either
lying or telling the truth, and then go
on from there.”

They did, starting with Whitehead.

First they asked technicians if it was
at all possible that the boots and the
overcoat found near Rutstein’s body

could have retained their dampness for‘

24 hours.
Technicians said it was not possible.
So they showed Whitehead, one by
one, the boots, the overcoat, the blood-
stained cap Rutstein had worn, the
length of wood with which he had been
struck.

AXP. they said, he broke and ad-
mitted the crime.

He had gone into the store on
Wednesday, January 9, not Tuesday,
they quoted him as saying, traded the
coat and boots and then became en-
raged when “he tried to give mea lec-
ture on how I should live. I was there
to do business, not to talk.”

He said, according to the police, that
Rutstein had struck at him with a
length of pipe before he swung at the
elderly man. When officers told him
that no length of pipe could be found
in the store he refused to elaborate.

Then the officers’ questioned Reid,
who had been brought back from New
Haven. He insisted that his first story
had been the truth,

They subjected him to a thorough
physical examination and, they said,
doctors found absolutely no bruises, no
cuts and no indication that he'd been
in a fight.

They found bloodstained clothes in
the room where he'd been staying and,
they said, when they told him that the
blood type could be compared with that
of Florine McCluney, he, too, broke
down and admitted that he alone had
killed her.

They quoted him as saying that he'd

tried to borrow money from her before,
that he saw her Tuesday night and
again wanted to borrow and when she
refused he'd struck her again and
again with a hammer.

The hammer, police claim he said,
he'd thrown into a cellar with his shoes, -
and officers stated that they found
these articles a few hours later.

The two killings, police realized, were
entirely unconnected.

And so were the five others. The
Mad Dog killers still were at large.

They served emphatic notice of this

within ten days, before any definite
action could be taken on the statements
of Reid: and Whitehead.
. Saturday night, January 26, John
Rosenthal, a druggist, was shot to
death in his pharmacy on Maple
Avenue in Hartford, apparently in a
robbery, just as the other five had been
shot to death in Connecticut.

For 40 years Rosenthal had. con-
ducted his pharmacy in the shop, in a
building shaped like a flatiron, with one
door at the point, one. opening onto
Maple Avenue and the third facing -on
Congress Street.

At two minutes past nine, Patrolman
Donald Chapin arrived in a radio car in
answer to a radio alarm. He was fol-
lowed almost immediately by a huge
detail of police headed by Chief God-
frey, Captain McDonald and State
Police Lieutenant Rome.

As Chapin rushed into the drugstore,
he heard a voice call, “Back here.”

Henry Rosenthal, 43, was on_ his
haunches, one knee supporting his
father’s head.

“He’s been shot,” said Henry.

A pair of glasses was on the floor and
a partly filled glass of water beside the
body. .

“I tried to give him a drink,” said
Henry. “It wasn’t any use.

“I was down in the cellar. I heard

two shots and ran upstairs. My father

the morning Joe Rutstein was kill

From the police laboratory came the
announcement that the piece of wood
bearing stains obviously had been the
death weapon. The stains had been
made by human blood, of the sume type
as Rutstein’s, and tiny bits of fiber had
been found clinging to the wood of the
same material as a cap that had been
near the body.

In addition the lab reported that the
leather boots had not been made ‘in the
United States, but probably in Mexico.
They were size ten and a half and they
had been discolored by salt, apparently
some time before the most recent slush
and mud had dirtied them.

The brown coat bore traces of grit
and sand, but no cleaner’s mark or label.

When the laboratory first received
the boots and coat they still were slightly
damp, and this condition could not have
existed if they had remained in the
store overnight.

“That means,” Godfrey told Captain
McDonald, “that the boots and coat
belonged to the killer. Or to a customer
who sold them to Rutstein just before
the killer was there. What time did
Rutstein open for business?”

“According to people on the block,”
McDonald said, “the was as regular as
a clock. He always opened up at quarter
past eight.”

“Then we've got to find out if anyone
was in the store between then and about
ten o’clock. Ask the papers to print
pictures of the boots and an appeal to
the owner to get in touch with us. Put
it on the radio. Have the boys go all
through that neighborhood in a hunt
for the person who owned those boots.”

Every driver was questioned, every passerby stopped on Front Street

ied. Detective Supple in foreground

So far Godfrey and McDonald were
inclined to believe that Rutstein’s death
was not the work of the killers who had
taken the five other lives. The evidence
of the overcoat and shoes. indicated
another slayer.

LAT Wednesday night, two detectives
who had been looking for the young
man named Tom located him in a room-
ing house on Front Street. Tom Lan-
ning, a pint-sized youth who needed a
haircut and a shave and who seemingly
hadn’t bathed in many days, still held
his right hand in a trousers pocket when
he answered a knock at the door.
“Come in, Flatfeet,” he invited, after

_ the officers showed their badges.

A partly filled bottle of cheap wine
was on an old bureau; another, almost
empty, was on a chair. Lanning re-
moved the second bottle and set it on
the floor.

“Sorry I can’t ask you both to sit
down,” he apologized. “This dump only
has one chair.”

“What's the matter with your right
hand?” one of the detectives inquired.

“Nothing. Why?”

“Do you always keep it in your
pocket?”

“Yes, it’s a habit, I guess.”

Lanning paused, then grinned sheep-
ishly. “I guess you don’t believe me.”
He withdrew the hand and extended it.
It had an ugly gash across the base of
the right palm.

“I cut it this morning slicing a piece
of salami,” he explained.

“Salami?” one of the officers inquired.
“You're sure that’s not baloney?”

. “It was salami. Just an end. I don’t
know why I had to slice it; I could have
eaten the whole chunk.’”

The detective offered Lanning a ball-
point pen and a pad.

“Here,” he said, “write your name.”

Lanning took the pen and paper and
wrote “Tom Lanning” with his left
hand.

“What else?” he asked.

“Hartford, Connecticut,” the detec-
tive directed.

The young man did so, though his
spelling of Connecticut left something
to be desired. His writing showed two
things: He was no student of geography
and he was definitely a southpaw.

Rutstein had been bludgeoned by a
right-handed man.

Lanning’s shoes were small; his feet
would have swum in size ten and a half
boots.

Lanning admitted that he had been

‘(Continued on Page 49)

tee en eer

Eight Slain—By the Same Crazed Killers? (Continued from Page 23)

in the Front Street bar at approxi-
mately 10:30 that morning. He stated
that he had waxed the linoleum in a
store where he did occasional chores,
leaving the shop just before 10:30. His
hand had started bleeding again.

“I dropped in for a drink and I went
into the men’s room to wash my hand.”

The officers wanted proof of his
statement that he had been waxing
linoleum about the time of the slaying.
They took him to a hospital for treat-
ment of his injured hand, then to Head-
quarters.

There, the possible lead based on the.

presence of a pre-war car near Rut-
stein’s shop had petered out; it hadn't
been tagged for overtime parking and
couldn’t be traced.

About three o’clock Thursday morn-
ing, Frank Jeffers walked into Head-
quarters.

“T read in the paper tonight that you
fellows were looking for the stranger
who was in Rutstein's store this morn-
ing,” he said. “Well, it was me. But I
don’t know nothing about him being
killed.”

He said he had entered the store
about a quarter past ten to buy an over-
coat and shouted, “Hello!” when he
didn’t see anybody.

“No one answered,” Jeffers contin-
ued. “So I went across the street to the
cleaning shop and asked if anybody had
seen Joe. They hadn't. I went back and
yelled again and then I told them at
the cleaner’s Joe wasn’t around. That’s
all I know about it.”

On neither visit to the store did he
see Rutstein’s legs protruding from un-
der the overcoats, Jeffers insisted. Nor
had he seen anyone leaving the store
or entering it. «

The roundup of drifters, known
criminals and others continued through
the night. By dawn a dozen men were
being held for further questioning.

At nine o’clock, the store where Tom
Lanning had said he’d done a waxing
job opened. The proprietor quickly cor-
roborated the young man’s account,
saying Lanning had shown up a few
minutes past nine and stayed until
almost 10:30.

“He had a nasty cut on his right
hand, but he said he needed the money
and I let him do the job. He wasn’t out
of the place a minute.”

When three customers who had been
in the store recalled seeing Lanning,
Captain McDonald ordered the young
man released.

He had no evidence to indicate that
Jeffers had not told the truth about his
presence at Rutstein's shop and he, too,
was allowed to go.

A third possible lead vanished soon
afterward when, following an exhaus-
tive search for George Filman, the man
who once had been arrested for assault-
ing Rutstein, Filman was found in jail
on a drunkenness charge. He had been
safely behind bars at the time of the
slaying.

And that, apparently, was the end of
the trail. The police had nowhere to
turn except to routine steps. In the next
few days more than 50 men went
through the process of being questioned
at Headquarters, supplying detailed ex-
planations for their movements of
Wednesday morning and facing persons
who had been victimized in other
holdups. But all that the detectives
succeeded in doing was getting rid of a
few of the most undesirable of the
drifters who frequented Hartford’s
Bowery.

Nobody had appeared yet to say he
had owned the pair of boots found near
the body. Chief Godfrey made a second
public appeal for cooperation, this time
asking anyone who might have seen a
man wearing such boots to come for-
ward.

“The boots were made in Mexico,”
he said. “They're well worn. The heels
are run down badly and one of them has
a makeshift insole in it.”

In a desperate attempt to trace those
boots; Godfrey sent men to the Salva-
tion Army and other welfare offices,
hoping someone might recall them, Of-
ficers took pictures of the boots along
and showed them around.

And then, exactly one week after
Joseph Rutstein was slain, the body of
the seventh victim was found.

At 10:30 Wednesday morning, Janu-
ary 16, Patrolman James Regan arrived
at the M and S Parking Lot on Pleasant
Street in response to a radio cali from
Headquarters. Mrs. Carrie Stephens

Lieutenant Foley radioed Headquar-
ters and ino a few minutes a small
army of detectives and uniformed men
arrived, headed by Chief Godfrey and
Captain McDonald.

Doctor Weissenborn, the Medical Ex-
aminer who had been summoned to
Joseph Rutstein's store a week earlier,
believed that the woman had been dead
ten to twelve hours, though he stated
he could be wrong by a couple of hours
because of the intense cold.

Death had been caused by blows with
a blunt instrument, which doubtless had

of the kidnap victim.

Up to the Minute

EVERY major kidnaping case brings with it another
serious and anguishing problem—the false letters, notes
and telephone calls that plague both police and relatives

When little Peter Weinberger was kidnaped on Long

Island last Summer, dozens of such calls were received by
the Weinberger family. Police were able to track down
three of those involved. All three have pleaded guilty,
Shirley Ginsberg to giving false information over the tele-
phone, Robert Giebler and Gordon Rowell to extortion
since they attemped to collect a ransom although they were
not involved in the kidnaping.

The two men face prison terms of two to seven years;
maximum sentence that could be given to Miss Ginsberg
is three years. The actual kidnaper, Angelo LaMarca, is
awaiting execution.

The story of the detective work done in bringing the
extortionists, as well as LaMarca, to justice appeared in
the November, 1956, issue of OFFICIAL DETECTIVE
STORIES Magazine under the title, “Who Kidnaped the
Weinberger Baby?” ?

Not-so-smart Lee Smart, seventeen, has entered the
Montana state penitentiary to spend the next 30 years.
Smart beat to death a novelty salesman, Charles D. Ward,
near Pendroy, Montana, when Ward bent over to change
an automobile tire on a lonely prairie road. “Hidden in
Plain Sight”, in the August, 1956, issue of OFFICIAL gave
the detective work behind this case.

Two Chicago killers, Clyde Castle and Lawrence Neu-
mann, have gone to prison together, Castle for 25 years,
Neumann for 125. Castle killed Mrs. Mary Abess, tavern
proprietress (“The Body No One Saw”, March, 1957,
OFFICIAL, and Neumann shotgunned three persons to
death in a tavern (‘Massacre at the Argyle Miracle”,
OFFICIAL for November, 1956).

Other recent prison sentences: Twenty years for J. R.
Morris, ten to 20 for J. D. Miller, killers of Old John Elliott
near Winchester, Tennessee (“Whose Bottle and Bullet for
Old John?” March, 1957) ; five years to life to Irwin Axel-
rod for stabbing Sally Carp in Lancaster, California (“ ‘If
Jodie’s Killer Comes Back’”, February, 1957); life for
William Marvin Graham, killer of elderly Libby Butts
near Whiteville, North Carolina (“What Happened to
Loveless’ Libby?”, April, 1957).

These stories were published at the time the detective
work was completed. To bring readers up to date on the
legal moves that followed, this department appears regu-
larly on these pages.—The Editor.

had discovered the body of a woman
friend in an automobile parked there.

“Over there.” She pointed to the car.

A moment later, Patrol Lieutenant
Francis Foley arrived. On the ground
near the automobile was a trail of blood.
The left rear window of the car was
broken. Crammed onto the floor in the
sedan’s rear was the frozen body of
Florine McCluney, 47, of Windsor
Street. :

It was a bitter cold day, snow just
beginning to.fall, and the interior of
the automobile was frigid. Yet the body
was clothed only in underwear, a dress,

. shoes, stockings and a cardigan sweater.

Blood was smeared on the back seat.
The forehead was covered with blood.
And that forehead had two deep de-
pressions in it.
Two marks which almost made an
“x” —just as a killer had left an “X” on
Joe Rutstein’s forehead.

roanet the woman’s skull, the Doctor
said.

Godfrey and McDonald surmised that
the woman had been accosted as she
approached the automobile, struck on
the head and then pushed into the car.

Sergeant Daley followed the trail of
blood some 20 feet. The ground was
scuffed. Apparently the woman had
been dragged part of that distance.

In the car were two paper-covered,
pocket-sized books and a comic book.

William Mooney, operator of the
parking lot, turned over a fur coat
which he said an automobile owner had
found in the lot. It bore the initials
“FM.” on the lining. In a pocket were
several slips of paper with numbers
and names.

The story of the discovery of the body,
according to Mrs. Stephens, was in-
tricate.

At midnight, a man named Charles

Simmons, walking past the parking lot,
had found a paper bag on the sidewalk,
He opened it and inside was a woman's
handbag; inside the handbag were
papers identifying the owner as Florine
McCluney, employe of the Veterans’
Administration Hospital in Newington,
a suburb of Hartford.

In the morning, Simmons had phoned

the hospital and gone to Florine’s home
address In an attempt to return the
handbag. But she wasn't at home and
hospital authorities said she had not re-
ported for her ten p. m. to eight a. m.
duty.
Also in the handbag was a letter with
Mrs. Stephens’ return address. Sim-
mons had taken the bag to her. Mrs.
Stephens was alarmed. She knew that
Florine always parked her car on this
lot. She had gone there, seen the car,
looked in it and found the body.

Chief Godfrey sent detectives to look
up Simmons and get a first-hand state-
ment from him. Then the Chief called
Headquarters and requested additional
police, among them members of several
special squads and some policewomen.

Policewoman Ella G. Brown, who

_knew the Windsor Street section from

many years of investigative work, began
a door-to-door canvass in an effort to
learn who had seen Florine last.
Meanwhile, the body was taken to
Hartford Hospital for an autopsy and
the car was towed to the basement ga-
rage at Police Headquarters, where
technical experts could work on it in

-much more comfort and more efficiently

than in the sub-zero lot which was being
swept by snow.

In performing the autopsy, Doctor
Weissenborn found a bag sewn to
Florine’s underclothing. With an as-
sistant, he opened the bag. It was
stuffed with money.

A patrolman on duty at the hospital
assisted the medical men in tallying the
bag’s contents. The paper money, in
various denominations, totaled more
than $2000.

Where had it come from? How could
a hospital assistant accumulate this
much in cash?

The autopsy disclosed a skull fracture
as the cause of death. Florine had been
struck six times on the top of the head,
twice on the side and twice on the fore-
head. Her assailant had used a blunt
instrument, which Doctor Weissenborn
said might have been.a hammer.

From the position of the wounds, her
killer had faced her at least part of the
time. And he was right-handed.

Doctor Weissenborn said she probably
had died within a few minutes of the
assault. He fixed the time of death as
between -nine Tuesday night and one
Wednesday morning.

Charles Simmons, who had found
Florine’s pocketbook, told. the same
story he had given Mrs. Stephens, and
Captain McDonald saw no reason to
doubt him. Apparently he had picked
up the paper bag into which the slayer
had placed the handbag and then had
dropped it in flight.

Patrolwoman Brown came up with an
early clue. In her questioning of neigh-
bors of Florine, she found a woman who
said, “If I were you I'd talk to Mrs.
Anglin. She works in the Vets’ hospital
with Florine.” .

Mrs. Anglin, who lived on Market
Street with her husband, Alfred, indeed
had something to tell the police.

She had seen the killer!

Florine, she said, usually drove her
to work. But she hadn't shown up Tues-
day night.

“My husband and I drove over to the
parking lot,” Mrs. Anglin went on. “We
thought she might have had trouble get-
ting the car started. Her car was there,
all right. A young man was init. He
got out and we asked where Florine was
and he said, ‘On Windsor Street.’ We
thought maybe she had hired him to fix
the car so my husband drove me to

work.”
49

As they left the parking lot, she said,
she saw the young man get back into
the automobile.

Unfortunately, it was dark and
neither she nor her husband had had a
good look at the man. All they. could
say was that he seemed young.

The time was about 10:30 Tuesday
night. If the Anglins had approached
closer to the car, they might have seen
Florine’s body. But they had no way of
knowing what had happened.

HEN Florine hadn’t reported for
work, Mrs. Anglin thought she had
stayed home rather than go by bus.

Who was this young man?

Up and down Front Street, Windsor
Street, Pleasant Street and indeed every
street in the vicinity went the police.
Who had been out between 10:30 and
midnight Tuesday night? Who had seen
a young man in the vicinity of the park-
ing lot?

And in the meantime Chief Godfrey,
Captain McDonald and other officers
went over their leads and their clues
trying to establish some definite link be-
tween the seven separate slayings—par-
ticularly between the latest two, the
killings of Joseph Rutstein and Florine
McCluney.

“Those marks on the foreheads tie
them in for me,” Captain McDonald
said. “It’s the same method of killing,
bludgeoning. And it’s the same motive,
robbery.”

“That means the killer is a small-time
hoodlum,” Chief Godfrey added.

“Why?”

“Because he couldn’t expect to find
much money in a second-hand store
like Rutstein’s or in a purse Florine Mc-
Cluney carried. - Yet he was willing to
kill to get it.”

This was strong indication that the
same slayer might be involved, the
officers knew. Few men would kill so
readily for only a little money.

“What about the two thousand
pinned to her underwear?” Sergeant
Daley asked.

.Captain McDonald shrugged. ‘Prob-
ably he didn’t know about it.”

“But we've got to keep it in mind,”
said the Chief. “Find out who, if any-
body, knew she kept that much cash.”

Word went out on this angle to the
officers canvassing the neighborhood,
particularly to Policewoman Brown and
Detectives Edward Sheren and Frank S.
Dec, who were helping her.

State Police, directed. personally by
Commissioner Kelly, had been keeping
close contact with the city officers. The
many similarities in the long string of

homicides had established a definite
pattern, with a robbery motive and the
most striking parallel the fact that in
almost every instance the victim’s head
was the killer’s target.

But the earlier slayings were com-
mitted with guns, and Kelly was in-
clined to believe that trigger-happy
desperadoes had been responsible,
whereas Joe Rutstein and Florine Mc-
Cluney had been slain by other persons
and those two cases probably were
unrelated. |

One of Kelly’s chief aides in the over-
all probe, Lieutenant Samuel S. Rome
of the Special Services Division, had
questioned more than 100 men, most of
them ex-convicts, in his relentless hunt
for those who had caused this reign of
terror.

The methods of the slayers—two were
involved in the North Haven robbery—
had earned them the unenviable appel-
lation of “mad dogs”. The Speyers, for
example, had been forced to kneel‘and
then were slain, Chinese torture style,
Lieutenant Rome thought that when
the killers eventually were captured
they would be found to be men with long
records of crimes against society.

He and Commissioner Kelly recalled
that some years before—in June, 1951
—Louis Wolfson, a liquor-store clerk,
had been shot through the head in a
West Hartford robbery. This new series
of crimes had many of the earmarks of
the Wolfson case. For one thing the
Wolfson store was in a section where a
getaway in an automobile was relatively
easy because of the lack of heavy traffic,
and most of the new cases were in more
or less isolated sections.

The Wolfson case had become a
cause celebre in Connecticut. Albert
Taborsky, a hoodlum, had confessed
that he had been in on the holdup but
merely had driven the escape automo-
bile. He named his own brother,
Joseph L, Taborsky, as the actual killer.
Albert was permitted to plead guilty to
second-degree murder and was sent-
enced to life imprisonment: Joseph re-
fused to admit any part in the slaying.
He stood trial, was convicted and was
sentenced to die in the electric chair in
the state prison in Wethersfield. How-
ever, Nathaniel Bergman, his attorney,
established a background of mental ill-
ness in Albert’s case and contended that
Albert was insane when, as the state’s
chief witness against his own brother,
he had testified. The case went to the
Connecticut Supreme Court of Errors,
which found that Albert was, indeed,
insane, and in 1955, four years after the
murder, the court ordered a new trial

for Joseph Taborsky. By then, Albert
Taborsky was in the Norwich State
Hospital. With the state’s chief witness
incompetent to testify, Joseph Taborsky
walked out of prison a free man.

Where was he now? It was a slim
lead but Lieutenant Rome decided to
find out.

Taborsky, however, had left Hartford.
and nobody would admit having heard
from him.

“He went to New York and lives some-
where in Brooklyn, I think,” said one
man who had known him. “I believe
he’s a helper on a truck.”

Rome interviewed several men who at
one time or another had known the
once doomed prisoner.

What he learned made him more de-
termined than ever to find the man.
Joseph Taborsky was_ thoroughly
familiar with Hartford, East Hartford,
New Britain, North Haven, New Haven
and the smaller communities in the
Connecticut Valley. He was a lantern-
jawed man whose face had earned him
the sobriquet of “The Chin”, broad-
shouldered, strong, quick-tempered and
generally averse to hard work unless it
was absolutely essential.

Frank Adinolfi, who survived the
beating he suffered at the hands of the
men who killed Bernard and Ruth
Speyer, had described the gunman as
tall, husky, about 30 or 35 and square-
jawed. It could fit.

However, at the time of Joe Rutstein’s
death and the slaying of Florine Mc-
Cluney, all Lieutenant Rome knew was
that Taborsky lived somewhere in
Brooklyn and was a helper on a truck.
He apparently had not been in Con-
necticut for some times

MEANWHILE, the Rutstein investiga-
tion had all but bogged down. So
far only one man had responded to
Chief Godfrey’s appeal to identify the
boots. Philip Sandler of Hartford tele-
phoned the day Miss McCluney’s body
was found and said they might have
been his. He had promised to stop in at
Headquarters the following morning.

In their canvass, Policewoman Brown,
Sheren and Dec finally picked up a few
rumors about the cash Florine had car-
ried. Several persons said they had
heard she did a little business in policy
numbers. And the slips of papers found
in her coat, with names and numbers on
them, tended to bear this out. But def-
inite proof, even a definite statement
from anyone that he had played the
numbers with her, was lacking.

The only possible lead these three
could dig up was a vague one. A neigh-

Another small store, more paltry
loot-=-the Mad Dog killers had
slain their fourth and fifth here

borhood youth had tried to borrow
money from Florine McCluney several
days before and had become angry with
her when she refused.

His name, neighbors said, was Ben-
jamin Reid, and he was only nineteen.

“He don’t work,” one neighbor stated.
“He don't do much of anything except
bum around and try to borrow money.”

Policewoman Brown went to Reid’s
home. He wasn’t there. She settled
down to wait for him while the detec-
tives visited several of his hangouts in
the vicinity.

Meanwhile, when morning came,
Philip Sandler appeared at Head-
quarters to see the mystery boots found
beside Joseph Rutstein’s body.

He took one look at them and said,
“They're mine, all right. My wife made
this insole for me.”

“Are you sure?” Sergeant Kershaw
asked.

“I’m positive.”

“How did they get in that second-
hand store?”

Ruth Speyer: She was on her knees
when the killer fired from behind

Sandler shrugged. “I don't know.
You see, I gave them to a kid a couple
weeks ago.”

“A kid?”

“Yeah, a screwball kid hitch-hiker I
picked up in Wyoming just after Christ-
mas. I'm a truck driver.”

A hitch-hiker. Would this, lead, too,
wind up in a dead end?

“He told me his name,” Sandler went
on. “It’s Whitehead, Roy Whitehead.
But I don’t know where he is now.
Somewhere near here.”

He had picked the youth up near Big
Piney, Wyoming, Sandler said. The boy
was only seventeen. He was wearing a
uniform with battle stars and medals,
from World War II, which obviously
could not have been rightfully his.

“I told him he better take the uni-
form off before he got in trouble,”
Sandler said. ‘He. was broke and out of
work so I brought him all the way to
Hartford.”

He had bought meals for the boy,
found him a room with a relative and
tried to get a job for him, Sandler
stated. But when several items had dis-
appeared from the relative’s home, the
boy had been asked to leave.

“He called me up once after that,”
Sandler said. “Last Sunday, the thir-
teenth. He said he was working in a
stable somewhere with thoroughbred
horses; he was nuts about horses.”

Sgt. Jordan arrests brothers. Younger (r.) named older 1950 slayer of Louis Wolfson

establishment at 3 o’clock in the morning. Investigation proved
that the leg belonged to Taborsky.

At headquarters, after several cogent and unpleasant. ques-
tions had been asked, Taborsky conceded that he had bur-
glarized two other places. He was charged with breaking and
entering on three counts and haled into court. He drew an
indeterminate sentence at the Cheshire Reformatory.

The Chin did not like reformatory life. Very few prisoners
do, but Taborsky decided to do something about it. One night
he slugged a guard with a chain he had stolen from the ma-
chine shop, climbed over a wall, stole a parked car and de-
parted. The alarm was sounded and a stakeout put on the
Taborsky home.

But The Chin was much too smart to return to Hartford
and he was skillful enough to keep out of the way of anyone
who might recognize him. He managed to avoid the police for
more than a year. Then, on September 29th, 1943, a Water-
bury detective observed a dark, young man loitering outside a
poolroom. The youth’s jaw was noticeably long and the offi-
cer recalled that he had seen it on a flier in his office. He
suggested that The Chin accompany him to headquarters.

On the following morning, Taborsky was identified, charged
with escaping from the reformatory, and sentenced to 3 to 5
years in state prison. This time Taborsky did not escape. He
served four years of his time and was then paroled. He came
to the conclusion that he was too well known to the Connecti-
cut police to operate profitably in that area. He boarded a bus
and set out for the West Coast.

He arrived in Seattle, Washington, in October, 1947. He im-
mediately settled down to work at the profession he knew
best, which was burglary. Although, as it developed, he didn’t
appear to know it very well. On January 7th, 1948, he was
taken into criminal court and charged with second-degree
burglary. He was sentenced to 15 years in prison.

This sentence obviously should have kept The Chin out of
serious trouble until 1963. But it didn’t. The parole board
listened to him with a kind and sympathetic ear when he
spoke of his poverty-stricken youth, of his desperate attempts
to rehabilitate himself, of the ill luck which had dogged him all
his life. He must have spoken with considerable eloquence
for he was released from prison in June, 1949, after serving a
year and a half. Now he returned to Hartford.

His family, his brother Albert, and his two closest cronies, -

vt Et ERIE

away.

Arthur A. Columbe and Chester Borden.
were delighted to see him. This time
Taborsky kept out of the law’s grip for
more than a year. If, during this period.
he had engaged in any illegal activities.
the police were not aware of it. How-
ever, on July 10th, 1950, The Chin drove
through the town of Farmington at a
rate rather excessive of 70 miles an hour.
A radio car gave chase.

Unfortunately, a revolver was found in
the glove compartment of his car. The
arresting officer forgot about the ticket
and took Taborsky to court, charging
him with carrying a weapon in a motor
vehicle without a permit. He was given
six months in the local jail.

Early in 1951 The Chin was a free man
once again. It seemed that no matter
how often Taborsky went to jail, he in-
variably got out again. Moreover his
actual terms were .quite short. Consider-
ing his record, it would not have re-
quired an expert sociologist to have
decided that The Chin was never going
to become a reformed character. He had
held few jobs, none of which he kept for
more than three months.

During the first two weeks of January,
“an epidemic of stickups occurred in
Hartford. Police Chief Michael J. God-
frey had ordered Detective Captain Paul
M. Beckworth to assign his best men
to track down the bandits. Detective
Sergeants Morris Feinberg and Matthew
Skahill were instructed to work around
the clock until an arrest had been made.

On January 11th a dairy ice cream bar
on Ward Place was invaded by a trio of
masked men and $130 was snatched from
; the cash register. Feinberg and Skahill
rushed to the scene. They found no clues, no trace of the ban-
dits. Disgruntled, they returned to headquarters and reported
to Captain Beckworth.

“I just received a telephone call,” said the captain. “An
anonymous caller, who obviously was mad at someone, told
me that if we picked up The Chin and Two Gun we might
learn something to our advantage.”

The detectives needed no further information. They were -

well aware of the fact that The Chin was Joseph Taborsky and
that Two Gun was a poolroom nickname given to Anthony
Circoria, a 35-year-old hoodlum with a record even more im-
pressive than that of Taborsky.

“Bring ’em in,” said Beckworth. “They shouldn’t be hard to
find.”

They weren’t. Circoria was picked up in a downtown bar
where he was genially buying drinks for the house. The Chin
was found in the apartmenfghe maintained on Park Terrace.
The pair was interrogated by the two arresting officers and
Captain Beckworth.

The Chin was almost ten years younger than Two Gun Tony
Circoria and he had served less time in prison. Nevertheless,
he was the tougher of the two. He gave his name and address,
admitted to his previous record, then became silent as a Trap-
pist monk: He didn’t even bother to profess ignorance of the
current. series of crimes. He didn’t bother to refuse to answer
questions. He sat calmly in an uncomfortable chair and said
nothing at all. After two hours of this behavior, he was taken
to a cell. .

Circoria was now questioned by himself. After some eva-
sive squirming he admitted that he had engaged in certain of
the robberies in question. He not only implicated Taborsky
but named two other accomplices. They were Taborsky’s old
pals, Arthur Columbe and Chester Borden.

When Circoria had been safely locked up, the weary Fein-
berg and Skahill went out on the streets again, searching for
the duo implicated. by Two Gun Tony. They dragged Borden
out of a moving picture theatre that afternoon. When they
brought him back to headquarters they discovered that Patrol-
man William Ashline had already arrested Columbe. Columbe
had been recognized on the street by a merchant who swore
he was one of the gang who had robbed him a week before. He
called Ashline, who was pacing his beat less than half a block

Chief (
then proc
dictment
four were
furnish, t
action.

At ll «
call came
that she \
ant Samu
stein’s off
to talk to

“Your s
me, he ca

“No,” s:
his brothe

Weinste
old but a
ways neec
times wo
brother, |!
lieutenant
a drunke
brought t
termined
pointed ac

“All rig

Weinstein
far more
lice infor
conditions
house imr
cap. As}!
who accc

Free aft«

MPION

thersfielt,
ing those
lked from
. the mas-
d beyond.
emocratic
ler which
pass upon
nposed of
vad found
nurder. It
ar contra-
tness who
ment of a
at Joseph

ng. So was
he case and
Taborsky to
ious ways.

elonged nei-
not a church
- law. Never-
se sight was
is kid broth-

vorsky was a
sre dark, his
so long and
as The Chin.
Oak Avenue

existence of
-t officer. ob-
of a tailor’s

Only man in 130 years ever to walk out of the Connecticut state penitentiary death house a free man

eo en

—_——
peje Se

JD |

double length feature

KILL-CRAZY

‘“‘Murderers should be executed,”’ he stated a year and a half ago.

Accused of seven murders, will he still advocate death penalty?

BY D.L.CHAMPION

E STATE PENITENTIARY at Wethersfield,
Connecticut, was built in 1827. During those

130 years only one man has ever walked from

its dank, melancholy déath house, through the mas-
sive outer gates, into the bright, free world beyond.
That man was Joseph L. Taborsky. All democratic
justice is based upon the jury system under which
the accused faces a dozen of his peers who pass upon
his innocence or guilt. But a jury is composed of
men, and men are not infallible. A jury had found
Joseph Taborsky guiltysof first-degree murder. It
had done so in what appeared to be a clear contra-
vention of the facts. It had believed a witness who
was insane. It had disregarded the statement of a

dying man which strongly indicated that Joseph

Taborsky was an innocent man.

On the face of.things, the jury was dead wrong. So was
State’s Attorney Albert S. Bill who prosecuted the case and
Judge Howard W. Alcorn who sentenced Joseph Taborsky to
death. But blind justice sometimes works in devious ways.

Joseph Taborsky was not a model youth. He belonged nei-
ther to the Boy Scouts nor to the YMCA. He was not a church
member and he did not have a high regard for the law. Never-
theless, his arthritic father and his mother whose sight was
failing loved him at least as much as they loved his kid broth-
er, Albert.

In 1942, when he was 18 years old, Joseph Taborsky was a
thin youth with thick, blaek hair. His eyes were dark, his
nose and ears prominent. He had a lantern jaw, so long and
protruding that he was known to his associates as The Chin.
At that time he lived with his family on Charter Oak Avenue
in Hartford, Connecticut.

The Hartford police first became aware of the existence of
Joe Taborsky on February 28th, 1942. An alert officer ob-
served a leg disappearing over the window sill of a tailor’s

was calling me. When I reached the
store To saw him here Vedrbned (de poner

HOTT ETOM Cater. Ani Wis Abang
ab the cush register.” .

He pointed to the register near the
CTE COMMA AL he north end of the
shop.

“T grabbed two bottles of rubbing al-
cohol and t threw them at the man,
One hit him and broke, and I’m sure the
alcohol spilled over his clothes.”

Henry Rosenthal told a passerby to
get help, then returned to the store and
called police himself.

He described the man who had fied
from the shop as about six feet tall, per-
haps an inch less, weighing about 185
pounds, with a round face, ruddy com-
plexion and with dark hair cut in crew
Style.

“He was about thirty, possibly a little
bit older.”

The passerby Henry Rosenthal had
stopped was there, too. “I saw two men
drive off in an old car, a torpedo-nosed
Studebaker, I think,” he said. “It
pulled out from a parking space op-
posite the store on Congress Street.”

State Police immediately called for
road blocks in an alarm over the new
“hot loop” linking police departments
in central Connecticut.

THis “hot loop” or “hot line,” as some

communities call it, has been dével-
oped so that telephone calls can be
transmitted instantaneously to seven-
teen departments from Meriden and
Middletown north to Thompsonville,
near the Massachusetts line,

The hookup, installed since the Mad
Dog killers began their forays, permits
every department on the circuit to be
alerted at a second’s notice. Loud-
speakers linked to the line amplify the
calls. i

Based on the witness’ description of
the getaway car, which he thought was
a 1951 or a 1952, the alarm called for
men on patrol and all officers not on
specific assignment to watch for the
auto. .

“There may be a smell of alcohol on
One of the men,” the alert stated. “He’s
not drunk but -his clothes may be
saturated.”

In the drugstore Captain McDonald
found powder burns on the slain man’s
Jacket, an indication to him that the
gunman had stood two to three feet
from the druggist when he Pulled .the
trigger. Three spent bullets were be-
hind the soda fountain. Only two
casings could be found in the store.

Medical Examiner Weissenborn said
Rosenthal had been shot in the chest
twice.

“The bullets went right through him
and emerged from the back,” he stated.

One bullet, therefore, apparently had
gone wild, F

“How can you miss when you're so
close?”” McDonald asked.

The fact that the bullets had gone
through the body meant that they had
been fired from a weapon with an ex-
tremely high muzzle velocity. Mark-
ings on the casings indicated the gun
probably was of foreign make. Cap-
tain Chameroy, who had arrived, ex-
amined them closely.

“The gun probably is one of five
foreign types,” he said. “Nine milli-
meter, I'd say.”

The gun possibly had jammed when
the third shot was fired, Chameroy be-
lieved, for its casing was not found.

The dead man’s son declared that the
killer could not have taken more than
$50

“Dad would have given him the
money,” he said. “He didn’t have to
shoot.”

“How about narcotics?” McDonald
asked. “Is anything missing?”

The younger Rosenthal went to the
cabinet where such drugs were kept
and pointed to the key in the lock. “It
hasn't been opened.”

Police picked up a dozen men in
Studebaker cars that night, but all
were released after questioning. Ap-
parently the killers had managed to
find refuge. |

“That means they're holed up vied,

Here ley tiaettene' Med Morrell ates
chuved. "Ihe car's probably in a pri-
vate garage,”

A thorounh seareh in Wrkine lots
and commercial garages, as well as at
gasoline stations in and near the city,
falled to turn up the ear, Within sn

hour, 100 detectives and State ‘Troopers
were cruising through the streets in
and around Hartford, peering into pre
rages and watching in business and
residential sections for the getaway
automobile.

But in vain.
It was not an easy task tracking
down the men who had committed this

latest in the long: series of outrages.
Dozens of reports came: in from many
cities and towns that men resembling
the fugitive from Rosenthal’s drugstore
had been seen, and innumerable calls
reported to police that the Studebaker
had been spotted. But the night passed
without a positive trace.

Every male narcotics user in Con-
necticut was investigated, every man
released from a mental institution be-
fore the crime wave started, and spe-
cial two-man patrols were set up in the
eleven State Police barracks with offi-
cers working on evening and midnight
shifts. All of the slayings except the
Rutstein and Florine McCluney killings
had been committed between six and
nine in the evening.

State Police posted warnings and de-
tailed information cards in every store
in their jurisdiction, outlining points
clerks or proprietors should look for in
the event of a holdup—automobiles
used, physical characteristics and
clothing of robbers, color, complexion,
hair, teeth, unusual markings or de-
fects and the manner of speech.

Eleven policewomen were ordered
into the investigation, working with the
men, and 365 auxiliary policemen re-
ported night after night to Patrol with
.the regular troopers,

Troopers and Motor Vehicle Depart-
ment employes sifted registrations on
about 25,000 bullet-nosed 1951 and 1952

Studebakers and officers went out to -

interview every owner, a tremendous
assignment.

By the second week in February,
more than 400 ex-convicts had been
investigated thoroughly and virtually
all of them had been questioned at
length and released.

MEANWHILE, in New York, Chief of
Detectives James B. Leggett had
been keeping a close watch on the Con-
necticut inquiry, for several New York
cases bore a significant likeness to the
crimes in the neighboring state. He
knew that Lieutenant Rome had been
looking for Joseph Taborsky and
assigned men to help in that search.

On Washington's Birthday, February
22, one of the ex-convicts being ques-
tioned in Hartford, a man who knew
Taborsky, told Lieutenant Rome that
he had seen Joe in Hartford a couple
of times in recent weeks.

“He usually comes up for the week
end,” this informant stated. “He lives
on Hancock Street in Brooklyn and I
think he got married recently.”

Rome called Leggett.” With this new
information, New York officers went
looking for Taborsky. After several
hours they found the Place they were
looking for, a small apartment. Joe’s
bride of four months was there.

“‘He’s not in,” she said. “He went up
to Connecticut last night to spend the
holiday. He's in Hartford.”

She did not know just where he had
gone but thought it was somewhere on
Coleman Drive.

Lieutenant Rome recognized the ad-
dress as soon as he was told about it.
One of the men he had questioned pre-
viously - about Taborsky was Arthur
Culombe, an ex-convict who lived on

‘Coleman Drive, Hartford. He had

served time with Taborsky.

Culombe, married and the father of
two children, was a helper on a truck.
Rome decided to look a little further
into this combination.

Veeprnten coy Ctabeneedes ebro beer Dawved
Hheok boevesae Hilbbeliavirg of late, Detlee-
tives kept a plant on the house never-
theless. All day Friday Whe otieers

Walled, ancl notliiig happened. Cu-
lombe left his apartment and was
trailed. Te went marketing, he met

some pals, all of whom nlrendy had
been investigated, and he returned
home,

On Saturday, February 23, Culombe
left his place and again he was followed.
Twenty minutes later he met nao tall,
husky man whose most prominent char-
acteristic was a lantern jaw. At last,
the long hunted Joseph Taborsky had
been spotted in Hartford.

For an hour or more the two men
chatted, the detectives watching from a
distance. Then, they Separated, and
the officers picked them up for ques-
tioning,

Taborsky was taken to the Hartford
State Police barracks, where Lieutenant
Rome asked him a number of routine
questions; he got polite answers but no
information except that he was in Hart-
ford on a visit.

Detectives who picked up Culombe
went home with him. There they found
a gold mine—eight guns of various cali-
bers, seven of them revolvers, one an
automatic. They included a .22, .25, .32
and .38. They also found about 100
rounds of ammunition, three red ban-
dannas, two Navy-type foul-weather
hoods, a pair of handcuffs and a black-
jack.

Culombe and _his Property were
rushed to the barracks and there the
guns were sent at once to Captain
Chameroy.

Culombe and his pal, Taborsky, were
interrogated separately, neither’ being
told of the other's detention. And
neither was willing to admit anything.
Culombe admitted the guns and other
items had been in his Possession for
some time but swore that none of them
had been used illegally.

“I’m a collector,” he said. ,

Both men told detailed stories about
their movements on various dates since
November. They seemed to have re-
markable memories about the most in-
significant things, though Lieutenant
Rome told both of them that innocent
men seldom could remember things they
had done on specific occasions months
before.’

Rome ordered them booked on
charges of breach of the peace, charges
that would enable the Police to hold
them pending intensive investigation.

One by one, a parade of witnesses
was summoned to look at the men.
Henry Rosenthal was unable to state
that either was the man at whom he
had thrown the bottles of alcohol the
night of the slaying in his father’s shop.
Others shook their heads; they didn’t
know. The killers had managed to get
rid of most witnesses by the expedient
of slaying them. One by one, those who
had lived said they couldn’t identify
the men. Lieutenant Rome was almost
ready to admit temporary defeat when
one man looked at Culombe and de-
clared, “You’ll never get any closer to
the fellow you're looking for than the
one you already have.”

Tus man also had seen Taborsky, he

declared, in an old automobile, prob-
ably a 1939 Cadillac, outside the gaso-
line station in New Britain the night
of the double slaying in December,

Then the ninth slaying was discov-
ered. Dominic Scavone, an ex-convict,
was found in his flat. on Front Street
with one pair of shears in his chest,
another in his throat. He had been
dead since the night before. The ad-
dress was no more than a good two-base
hit in stickball from where Joe Rut-
stein had been killed.

Culombe certainly was in the clear
on that one; his every move had been
watched. Taborsky? He was something
else. :

The questioning went on. Neither
man would talk. Finally, on Tuesday,
February 26, they were arraigned in
New Britain Police Court on the tech-

Hele Deseo pee Wall wee ont at aun ooo
each and hearings adjourned until
March 5.

The news aprend Galt ‘Tahorsky and
his old crony were in trouble. Half a
dozen ex-convicts, learning that the
two were beliina Darn, Changed the ALO}
rles they had told earlier, ‘laborsky
had been an overnight guest of Cu-
lombe on two Saturday nights, nights
of Killings, they said,

The two men were confronted with
these reports but they continued to
sputter their innocence. Culombe,
however, appeared to be less vehement
than before and Commissioner Kelly
and Lieutenant Rome talked to him.

AN HOUR later, Kelly announced

that Culombe had admitted his part
in the long series of crimes—eight hold-
ups and six deaths.

Kelly said that Culombe admitted
being involved in the deaths of Daniel
Jankowski and Edward Kurpenski in
Kurpenski’s gas station in New Britain
December 15; Samuel Cohen in East
Hartford December 26; Mr. and Mrs,
Bernard Speyer in the shoe store in
North Haven, January 5 and finally
John Rosenthal in his Hartford drug-
store January 26.

Taborsky had fired all the fatal shots,
with Culombe only the getaway driver,
Kelly quoted Culombe as saying.

Taborsky swore that Culombe was ly-
ing; he knew nothing about the crimes,

The men were charged with murder
Wednesday night, February 27. Judge
Bordon asked Culombe if he would co-
operate with the police and the ex-
convict replied that he would do all he
could.

Culombe was taken on a tour of the
state where the holdups had been com-
mitted, and, police said, reenacted the
crimes in detail, admitting he had
helped in a couple of the cases but
again insisting Taborsky was the gun-
man.

He led police to a cache where they
found a nine millimeter Polish Radom
automatic; then to a muddy swamp,
where they recovered parts of a .32-
caliber pistol, used to kill Mr. and Mrs.
Speyer, the police said.

The Radom was the weapon with
which Rosenthal was slain, police
announced.

Culombe signed eight statements,
every one, according to officers, a de-
tailed admission of a holdup.

Finally on March 1, 1957, after a-

solid week of questioning in which he
was told -about the guns, Culombe’s
alleged confessions and the identifica-
tion by the New Britain witness, Joseph
Taborsky broke down.

He admitted his part in the long
series of crimes, Commissioner Kelly
said, and also that he had committed
the murder which originally sent him
to the death cell in Wethersfield, the
Slaying of Louis Wolfson in 1951.

When Taborsky had been freed in
1955 for the Wolfson slaying, he was not
Pardoned. The indictment against him
Still stood.

As this issue of OFFICIAL DETEC-
TIVE STORIES Magazine goes to press,
Officials have brought charges of
murder in the recent series of slayings
against both Culombe and Taborsky,
They are being held without bail pend-
ing action by the grand jury.

The previous day, February 28,
Superior Court Judge Abraham S. Bor-
don ordered a grand jury impaneled to
hear the charges of murder against
Reid for the slaying of Florine Mc-
Cluney and against LeRoye Whitehead
for the killing of Joseph Rutstein. They,
too, are being held pending action of the
grand jury at this writing.

Eight of the slayings thus, police say,
have been solved. Chief Godfrey has
announced that he believes the ninth,
the death of Dominic Scavone, also has
been solved and that an arrest will be
announced shortly.

In this story the names George Fil-
man, Tom Lanning and Frank Jeffers
are fictitious.

guilty now. What is the difference, he is now the same boy?”

Mrs. Taborsky saw her son privately on Friday afternoon.
She spent more than an hour with him. She was weeping
softly as a matron took her home. Shortly afterwards The
Chin asked to speak to Lieutenant Rome.

“All right,” he said, “Mom wants me to tell you the
truth. I'll go along with Columbe’s story. Except I wasn’t the
trigger man in every case, like he says.”

Rome called a stenographer. The Chin drawled out his
story in a dull monotone. There were some discrepancies
between his version of the crimes and that of Columbe, but in
the main the confessions coincided.

When Taborsky had finished, Rome said, “Is that all? Is
there anything you want to add?”

There was a long pause. Joseph drew a deep breath. He
said at last, “You know my brother, Albert?”

Rome nodded. “Sure, I know your brother. The boy that’s
insane.”

“He may be insane,” said The Chin, “but he’s not a liar.
I killed Louis Wolfson, back in 1951.”

Rome felt no surprise. They already knew that Joseph
Taborsky had murdered six men. The fact that he had
slain a seventh man was not at all incredible.

Taborsky kept talking. It was as if he wished now to be
completely shriven. He went on to say that on the very
night when he and Columbe had been picked up they had
planned another robbery. Their plan was to rob a Hartford
gambler in his home in the greater Hartford area. The
gambler had once been arrested for a robbery committed by
Columbe. He had established his innocence by pinning the
crime on the actual perpetrator, Columbe. He had apparently
tried to square himself for this by giving Columbe cash and
clothing when he had been released from prison. Now The
Chin and his pal had planned to enter the man’s home, rob
and kill him.

Arthur Columbe, informed that Taborsky had talked, de-
cided to talk some more himself. He now told the police that
The Chin had planned to grab an officer’s gun when the pair
had been booked at the New Britain police station. Taborsky
had said he was going to kill as many cops as possible while
shooting his way out. This plan was frustrated because the
officers handcuffed to The Chin had been relieved of their
weapons as a precautionary measure.

On March 3rd The Chin told his jailer that he had a
marvelous idea. He asked if he could speak privately to
Lieutenant Rome. Word was sent to the state policeman. Rome,
perhaps expecting further confessions, came as soon as pOS-
sible. When he entered The Chin’s cell, Taborsky asked that
the jailer move out of earshot.

“All right,” said Rome, waving the guard away, “what
is it?”

“I want you to do me a favor,” said The Chin. “I’ve got a
wonderful idea.”

“If it’s at all a possible favor,” said Rome, “T’ll gladly do it
for vou.”

“Now, what I’d like,” said Taborsky, ‘is for you to bring
a toy cap pistol to my cell tomorrow.”

‘What on earth for?”

The Chin laughed heartily for the first time since his
arrest. “Can you imagine the faces on these guards when
I whip out the gun in their faces?”

Lieutenant Rome didn’t think it at all funny. The “favor”
was refused.

On March 5th Columbe and Taborsky were brought into
court before Judge Abraham S. Bordon for the purpose of
having counsel appointed by the court. Thomas F. McDonald
was selected by the judge to defend Columbe. Earlier, Tabor-
sky had requested the services of Attorney Wallace R. Burke.
Now he changed his mind.

“I asked for Mr. Burke,” he said, “before I had confessed.
Now I don’t see any sense in my being represented by a law-
yer at all.”

The judge pointed out that, due to the seriousness of the
charge, he believed that Taborsky should be represented by
counsel, regardless of his wishes.

“If that’s the law,” said Joe Taborsky, “all right. If you
must appoint a lawyer, I prefer Mr. Burke. But I don’t see
why you have to appoint anyone.”

“I am not obliged to appoint anyone,” said the judge. “The
public defender can handle the case. I am only trying to
protect your interests.”

“I don’t care to have them protected,” said Taborsky.

Burke, who was in the courtroom, explained that he had
conferred with Taborsky earlier in the day. “He desires no

The Chin, arrested by Lt. Rome, is indignant, dramatic

defense at all,” said the lawyer. However, Burke was assigned
to the case.

State’s Attorney Bill, who originally had obtained a con-
viction against Taborsky in the Wolfson murder, requested
Judge Bordon to summon a grand jury on March 14th. The
judge agreed to present the case on that date.

Coroner Louis W. Schaefer announced that he will issue
inquest findings on four of the six slayings before a grand
jury convenes. He has jurisdiction only over the murders
committed in Hartford County, Two of the murders were in
neighboring New Haven Coun.

The bench warrant now in force charges Columbe and
Taborsky with the murder of the druggist, John Rosenthal.
Bill also had the option of prosecuting for the slaying of Cohn.
Kurpiewski and Janowski. He could also reinstate the Wolfson
case. Taborsky was neither acquitted nor pardoned in that
case.

The state penitentiary at Wethersfield was built in 1827.
During those 130 years only one man has ever walked from its
dank, melancholy death house, through the massive outer
gates, into the bright, free world beyond. That man was
Joseph L. Taborsky. You may bet a million solid American
dollars to one Russian ruble that he won't do it again. $4

Epritror’s NOTE:

The names, Annette Antonelli, Mrs. Antonelli, Chester Bor-
den and Gregory Peters, as used in the foregoing story, are
not the real names of the persons concerned. These persons
have been given fictitious names to protect their identities.

.|\T aD

double |length feature

ESCA

TOD

EN years
derer, bec:
London P

as the FBI mad:

edly sought the
15th, 1957, Gor:
the assistance
who had seen
published in o
On April lst
small tobacco
night he went
She had heard

classmate, 19-y:
to keep a lunch:
4 p.m. the supe
Rose’s apartme:

The young
bathroom. Sheé
the other stuff:
severely and a
neck. She had

The apartme:

killer and four

moneygin the a:

coins had also |
from the scene
no fingerprints
crime had been

No weapon wiht

With no lea
Two women 8
man who had
before noon.
had stopped i!
fore noon. Des
cleaning estab!
a bloodstained
paid off six da:
with furniture
April 3rd. The
it, was Aaron |}

Not until lat!
stains on his s
did the slayer
membered the
murder he wa
into her apat
brought along
one at the doo
detection. Ros
she had forgot
she saw Gord
call the police

To prevent |!
he hit her wit
attempted to «
pursued her, :
she would not
one of her hu:

A Clevelanc
der on May 20
onment. Soo:
May 29th of t
fined in the s

prob-
nst his

over
drab

the
cells

of his
d his
n his
bitant
them

stopped
Yothing
st item.
juarter

court
Bill for
against
» is no
yrother,

aborsky
2s were
2s later

expect
in a

on the

ith us.
care of
me.”

ot the
xchange
jartford
nbraced
er gets

eathless ©
ally, be-

I am
the first

t now
fault
in the

going
Sinai,
prayers
pened.
like

> death
rderers
ld have

ed to
erator.
») about
e's been
Albert
izy and

crazy.

public
pon his
fter that
a job
from
nt com-
ld crony
iad been
n Place,

free man
lesson.

Unfortunate customers Mr. and Mrs. Speyer were savagely beaten and shot to death when they entered shoe store on January 5th

Certainly the Hartford police had not heard his name for a
long time. His description had not appeared on any wanted
circular. As yet, the murder of Louis Wolfson had not been
solved.

At 6 P.M. on December 15th, 1956, Chester A. Staron’s bus
suddenly developed engine trouble. He brought it to a halt
on Stanley Street in New Britain, Connecticut, directly op-
posite a service station operated by Edward J. Kurpiewski.
Staron crossed the street to use the telephone in the gas
station.

He observed a car parked beside the gas pumps. In it was
an infant about a year old. Staron waved at the child as
he passed. The office was empty, but, through an open door
which led to a storeroom, Staron thought he saw someone
seated on an oil case. He called out but received no answer.
He went into the storeroom.

There was someone sitting on the oil case, all right. It was
Edward Kurpiewski and there was an ugly red hole in his
head. He was dead. Staron ran back to the office, picked up
the phone and called the New Britain police. A few minutes
later half a dozen officers, under the command of Detective
Sergeant Stephen Coffee, arrived.

A swift search revealed that Edward Kurpiewski was not
the only dead man on the premises. In the washroom an officer
found the body of a man, seated on the toilet with his head
slumped in the washbowl. He, too, had been shot in the skull.

Papers in his wallet identified him as Daniel J. Janowski
of Country Club Road, in New Britain. The parked car outside
belonged to him. The child in it was Cheryl Ann, Janowski’s
14-month-old daughter.

Sergeant Coffee examined the cash register which contained
some $40. He examined the wallets of the two dead men.
Neither, apparently, had been touched. The killings seemed

utterly pointless, despite a meticulous probe of the crime.

Another pointless attempt at murder had occurred a short
half-hour before Sergeant Coffee arrived at the service sta-
tion, although he did not become aware of this until he
returned to New Britain headquarters. There he learned of
the red-masked gunman who, at about 5:30 P.M., had entered
the tailor shop of Nickola Leone, the 67-year-old proprietor
of an establishment on Zion Street. Leone was left alone
in the shop. His wife was upstairs in their living quarters.
A man strode in. He wore a red mask and held a gun in his
right hand. He leveled the barrel at Leone’s head and said,
“Get in the back room.”

Leone hesitated a moment, more in surprise than because
he contemplated ciefiance. That instant’s hesitancy almost
cost him his life. The gunman fired a single shot. A bullet
ripped into Leone’s neck, just missing the spine. He fell to
the floor as the gunman fled without touching the cash
register.

Leone, bloody and almost unconscious, managed to reach
up to the counter and knock the telephone to the floor.
He dialed the number of the upstairs phone. When Mrs.
Leone answered, the tailor cried, “They’re killing me. I've
been shot.”

Mrs. Leone rushed down the stairs into the street, frantically
crying for help. At that moment Raymond W. Mahoney, a
special deputy sheriff, was driving down Zion Street on his
way home. He braked his car and followed Mrs. Leone into
the store. He snatched the bloody telephone from the floor and
called Sergeant James M. Jordan, the police dispatcher, who
immediately ordered an ambulance and police cruisers to
the scene.

Leone was rushed to the hospital. He did not die. However,
he suffered permanent injuries. The Hartford and New

Britain police were certain that the Leone shooting had been
done by the same hoodlum who had murdered Kurpiewski
and Janowski in New Britain. The two cities are less than
10 miles apart.

The Connecticut state police bureau of identification com-
pared the slugs which had killed the New Britain men with
that which had so badly wounded Leone. They appeared to
have been fired from the same weapon, but the experts could
not be positive.

The state police, under the supervision of Major George
H. Remer, came into the case. After several days’ investiga-
tion they found two witnesses who had seen what appeared
to be an old gray Cadillac in the New Britain and Hartford
areas at the times of the shootings. The witnesses had not
noted the licence number.

Officials had failed to unearth a single clue to the double
murder by December 21st, when the thugs struck again. On
this occasion it was established that there were at least two
of them. ‘

Mr. and Mrs. Arthur J. Vinton, an elderly West Coventry
couple, operated a small grocery store there. On the evening
of December 2lst, when they were about to close the shop,
two men strode in. One of them wore a red mask. The other
had a black handkerchief wrapped around the lower half
of his face. ;

Red Mask brandished his gun and said, “Turn around.” His
companion stood by silently, his gun aimed at the victims.

The old couple quietly obeyed. As they did so, they heard
the ring of the cash register as it was opened. Red Mask
spoke again, “Lie down on the floor.”

Mr. Vinton opened his mouth to protest. A gun butt crashed
down upon his skull. As he fell to his knees his wife- screamed.
Both thugs now attacked her, striking her repeatedly with
their guns. As the elderly pair lay on the floor, the bandits
stood over them, administering a brutal beating. Half an
hour later a neighbor found them, bloody and unconscious.
An ambulance rushed them to a hospital.

State police interviewed the Vintons as soon as the doctors
granted permission. Both were suffering extremely and
could offer only a vague description of the bandits. No clues
were found in the store. The police assumption was that the
thugs were the same as the killers of Kurpiewski and Janowski.
They considered the Vintons lucky to be alive.

The state police put no less than 365 men on the case. They
worked closely with the municipal officers of New Britain,
Hartford and Coventry. State rewards for the capture of the
criminals totaled $3000. Before the search was ended, private
offers brought this total to an amount of more than $10,000.

On December 26th two men entered
the liquor store of 65-year-old Samuel
Cohn, in East Hartford. His cash register
and his pockets were rifled. Cohn was
shot in the head. He died instantly.
Again the police failed to find a single
clue to the slayer. However, one witness
averred that just before the killing he
had noticed a gray Cadillac cruising
the neighborhood.

The most savage foray of the blood-
thirsty bandits occurred on January 5th,
1957, in North Haven. At 6:30 p.m. Frank
Adinolfi and his partner, Eugene Caso,
were talking in their shoe store on
Washington Avenue. A few minutes later,
Caso left the store to go home for his
dinner. At 6:50, two men came into the
store. Both wore red masks. Both carried
guns.

Adinolfi, like every other merchant in
the area, knew of the murdering bandits
who were on the loose. When asked to
hand over his cash, he did not demur.
He took $50 from the register and sur-
rendered his own wallet, which con-
tained $12. At that moment Bernard J.
Speyer and his wife, Ruth, entered the
store.

The Speyers lived in Meridan. They
were in their middle 40s and the parents
of a teenaged son. Two weeks before
they had bought their son a pair of
loafers in the Caso store. Now, they had
returned to make another purchase.

The guns of the bandits were im-

Last victim John Rosenthal, murdered in after a
holdup of his drugstore on January 29th

mediately turned uvon the Sveyers. At the thugs’ orders,
Speyer surrendered his wallet. Mrs. Speyer gave up her purse.
They were then ordered to kneel on the floor.

The robbers proceeded to beat the couple savagely on their
heads. Adinolfi protested and was slugged himself. He lay
half-unconscious on the floor when one of the bandits, stand-
ing a foot away from the kneeling Speyers, fired two shots.
The Speyers died instantly with bullets in their brains. The
bandits fled. .

Adinolfi, covered with blood, staggered from the store to
a neighboring house on Washington Avenue. “Call the police,”
he gasped. “And an ambulance. Two people have been shot
in my store.”

The ambulance took Adinolfi to the hospital where it was
reported that, though seriously injured, he would recover.
But there would be no recovery for the Speyers.

Adinolfi described the killers as between 25 and 30 years
old, with dark hair. One was about 6 feet tall, the other
rather shorter. One had carried an automatic pistol. His
companion had brandished a revolver. Again there were
no definite clues.

The police were, at first, baffled as to why the killers should
have slain the Speyers and permitted Adinolfi to live. Finally
they theorized that the thugs feared that the Speyers had
seen—and could possibly identify—the getaway car parked
outside. Adinolfi had not. For that reason he had not been
killed.

North Haven Police Chief Leno Ferniere, in Florida on
a vacation, rushed to Jacksonville airport and flew back to
Connecticut to take charge of the investigation.

In less than a month, five murders had been committed in
central Connecticut. Three other victims had been brutally
beaten and one badly wounded. Fear stalked the area. Mer-
chants closed their stores early and applied for gun permits.
Local and state police worked overtime. The press cried for
action.

Three weeks went by. It seemed inconceivable that so
many men working so many hours should fail to unearth
the slightest clue to the identity of the savage murderers.
During the same period, the perpetrators of two other killings
were picked up, as well as three suspects in unrelated stickups.
But the duo who were addicted to red masks and slaughter
remained at large.

They emerged from their unknown hiding place on January
27th. They struck once more and for the last time.

That evening Henry Rosenthal finished a late supper and
left his home to go to the drugstore owned by his father, 69-
year-old John M. Rosenthal. Henry was due to relieve his
father at 9 p.m. It was a few minutes be-
fore 9 o’clock when the younger Rosen-
thal entered the store on Maple Avenue
in Hartford. He did not at first see his
father. As he walked behind the counter
he noted something huddled on the floor.

He approached, bent down and was
horrified to see John Rosenthal, lying
quite, still, and covered with blood. With
a trembling hand Henry picked up the
receiver and called the police.

They arrived a few minutes later in
full force, led by Chief Michael Godfrey.
An examination revealed the register
rifled and Rosenthal’s wallet missing.
The druggist had been shot twice
through the heart, almost at point-blank
range.

This time there were four witnesses
who had been in or near the store at
the time of the killing. They described
a smart, gray sedan which had been
parked at the curb. They described a
man who had spent an inordinate time in
the phone booth shortly after 8:30 P.M.

For the first time since the wave of
slayings had begun, the police had a
suspect. They picked up Gregory Peters,
28 years old, who superficially fitted
what descriptions had been given of
one of the bandits. Peters, who had
a record, was booked on a technical
charge of breaking the peace and held
in $25,000 bond. But on January 3lst,
comprehensive investigation,
Peters was cleared. He was freed by

Judge Har)
It seeme:
to increas¢
municipal
could be
was assig)

Three n
of the inve
were kee}
questions

On Sat
the desk
detectives
said. “You

“Yes,” si

“He's
Arthur Cc
world cont
killers thar

“Call
man. Tail
lead you t
make an a

An hour
room, thes
went first
talked for
ing up the
thrust it
lowed alor
had come
he turned
also was ;
barracks 1

They we
sullen. Th
you guys
a death ce

ter me %

don't eve

The foll
vestigators
when any
sent anoth
Place.

The sea
fruitful. T
calibers,
danas, tw
of ammun

Before 1
from his
been in (¢
as far bac
the night
casions he

It was
had been
route to
Taborsky
from the \

A telep!
revealed
he sold a

That att
headquart
and held
Hartford

The Ch
oft-repeat
it was ou!
time.

Colum}
ary 27tt
right,” he
Chin. We
people.”

It took
jobs he h
Britain n
had murda
had _ beate
The moti\
closed dis

marked
been

ia on

ick to

ted in
utally

Mer-
-rmits.
ed for

iat so
nearth
jerers.
illings
ckups.
ighter

inuary

~ and
, 69-
ve his
tes be-
Rosen-
.venue
’e his
yunter
floor
Was
lying
With
» the

ter in
ifrey.
egister
issing.
twice
-blank

tnesses
tore at
scribed
been
bed a
time in
) P.M.
ive of
had a
Peters,
fitted
ven of

Judge Harry G. Kaminsky who was presiding in police court.

It seemed almost impossible for the Connecticut authorities
to increase their intensive efforts. But they did so. Every
municipal officer, every state and auxiliary policeman who
could be spared from absolutely necessary routine duties,
was assigned to the case.

Three more weeks went by. If, by then, the men in charge
of the investigation had made any progress on the case, they
were keeping silent. There was no answer to the reporters’
questions. No public statements were made..

On Saturday, February 28rd, a telephone call came to
the desk of Lieutenant Samuel Rome. It was from one of his
detectives assigned to Hartford. “The Chin is in town,” he
said. ““You remember him?”

“Yes,” said Rome. “Joe Taborsky.”

“He’s with a pal who has a longer record than he has.
Arthur Columbe. They’re drinking in a bar here. An under-
world contact told me that I’d never get any closer to the
killers than those two. I’m asking for instructions.”

“Call the Hartford Barracks,” said Rome. “Get another
man. Tail those two when they leave the tavern. They may
lead you to something. Use your own discretion as to when to
make an arrest.”

An hour later, when Taborsky and Columbe left the bar-
room, they were followed by two state police detectives. They
went first to an address on Colergan Drive, where they
talked for a while. Taborsky then todk his departure, walk-
ing up the street. Columbe took a key from his pocket and
thrust it in the lock of the front door. One of the officers fol-
lowed along after Taborsky. The other, deciding that the time
had come to make his move, put Columbe under arrest as
he turned the key in the lock. Then minutes later Taborsky
also was arrested. Both men were taken to the state police
barracks in Hartford for questioning.

They were interrogated separately. Columbe was silent and
sullen. The Chin was indignant and dramatic. “Why don’t
you guys leave me alone?” he demanded. “You sent me to
a death cell once for a murder I didn’t commit. Now you’re
after me again. What do I know about any killings up here?
I don’t even live in Connecticut any more. I live in Brooklyn.”

The following morning Lieutenant Rome sent out his in-
vestigators to try to learn if Taborsky had been in the state
when any of the six recent murders had been committed. He
sent another group to search Columbe’s quarters on Coleman
Place.

The search, led by Detective Sergeant Donald Page, was
fruitful. The officers found no less than 8 revolvers of varying
calibers, two black, navy foul-weather masks, three ban-
danas, two of which were folded like masks, a large quantity
of ammunition, a pair of handcuffs and a policeman’s club.

Before noon Lieutenant Rome received a sheaf of reports
from his investigators. These established that Taborsky had
been in Connecticut on the dates of all the related crimes
as far back as early December. He had visited Columbe on
the nights of several of the killings. On at least two oc-
easions he had slept in the Coleman Drive apartment.

It was also established that on the day that the Vintons
had been beaten, Columbe had stopped in West Coventry, en
route to visit relatives in Willimantic. That same day
Taborsky has called on a friend who lived a scant mile
from the Vintons’ store.

A telephone call to the motor vehicle bureau in New York
revealed that Taborsky had owned a gray Cadillac which
he sold a few weeks ago.

That afternoon Taborsky and Columbe were taken to police
headquarters in New Britain, booked on technical charges
and held in $25,000 bond. They were promptly returned to the
Hartford Barracks for further questioning.

The Chin was adamant. He had nothing to say beyond the
oft-repeated fact that he had been falsely imprisoned once and
it was outrageous for the police to try to frame him a second
time.

Columbe was evasive, until 3:30 in the afternoon of Febru-
ary 27th. Then, apparently, he became weary of lying. “All
right,” he said in a dispirited voice, “We did it. Me and The
Chin. We pulled all those holdups. We killed those six
people.”

It took almost five hours for Columbe to detail the various
jobs he had perpetrated with The Chin. He admitted the New
Britain murders, the wounding of Leone. He and Joe Taborsky
had murdered the Speyers and pistol-whipped Adinolfi. They
had beaten the Vintons and murdered Cohn and Rosenthal.
The motive was simple robbery. The total take, Columbe dis-
closed dispiritedly, had averaged exactly $83 for each murder.

Arrested as he left his home, Columbe is silent, sullen

On Thursday morning State’s Attorney Bill requested Judge
Abraham S. Bordon of the superior court to issue bench war-
rants for Columbe and Taborsky. The warrants, charging first-
degree murder, were immediately granted.

In the meantime a caravan of officers, including Lieutenant
Rome, Captain Frank Chameroy, Sergeant M. J. Jordan, all
of the state police, Captain Joseph McDonald, head of the
Hartford detective bureau. Police Chief Veto A. Bushnell
and Captain J. Ciccalone of the West Hartford police, set out
with Columbe to retrace in succession the scenes of the several
crimes.

During the day, acting on information provided by Columbe.
the officers found a .32 caliber Russian-made revolver in a
small pond near Dexter and Newfield Streets in Hartford.
It was the weapon which had slain Kurpiewski and Janowski.
Later a second gun was found in a farmer’s field. Captain
Chameroy, a ballistics expert, announced that this weapon, a
9 millimeter Polish Random, was the gun which had slain John
Rosenthal.

On Thursday evening, Rome and his aides again interviewed
Joseph Taborsky. Confronted with Columbe’s confession, he
still refused to talk. He remained stolid when urged to face
facts and confess the truth.

“But why?” asked Rome. “We can convict you, anyway.
You can make it easier on yourself. Columbe’s confession
doesn’t leave you any out.”

The Chin shook his large head. “No,” he said. “It’s for the
sake of my mother. I’ll break her heart if I say I’m a killer.
She never believed I killed Wolfson. She stood by me. I’m not
going to hurt her now.”

Rome ordered Taborsky back to his cell. He paid a personal
call on Mrs. Taborsky. He asked her to come to the jail and
talk with her son.

Mrs. Taborsky, now almost blind and extremely upset,
agreed. “I still can’t see him as a killer,” she said. “No matter
what. But I’ll talk to him. I'll plead with him to tell the
truth. It is only the truth that matters. I was sure he wasn't
guilty when he was in the death cell. I can’t believe that he is

438

417; Ellarson v. Ellarson, 198 App.Div.
103, 190 N.Y.S. 6, 10; Alleman v. Stepp,
52-lowa 626, 627, 3 N.W. 636; 58 Am.Jur.
378, § 699; note, 15 A.L.R. 932; see Tuttle
vy. Russell, 2 Day 201, 202. And there can
be little doubt that psychiatric testimony is
admissible to impeach credibility. United
States v. Hiss, supra, and authorities cited.
Further, since a condition of mental disease
is always a more or less continuous one, it
would be proper, in order to ascertain the
fact of its existence at a certain time, to
consider its existence at a subsequent time.
2 Wigmore, Evidence (3d Ed.) § 233(3).
Thus, upon a new trial the undoubted in-
sanity of Albert shortly after the original
trial wo
the question of credibility.

[9] None of the’ significant evidence
summarized above was presented, and some
of it was not available, at the trial on the in-
dictment, to challenge the competency of was ra
Albert to testify or to affect his credibility.
At that trial, before any evidence was of-
fered, the defendant moved that the court
order. that Albert be subjected toa mental to 8:25 p.m.
examination. The motion was properly de-
nied on the ground that there was then no
indication before the court that Albert was

insane and also that, at least until he was flue :
ourt had Where proof which is insufficient to estab-

actually offered as a witness, the c

_no power to compel
an examination. State v. Tab

‘Conn. 475, 485, 95 A.2d 59. The motion wa
not renewed by the defendant at the proper
time, that is, when Albert was called as a
Id. 139 Conn. 486, 95 A.2d 63, 64;
Holcomb v. Holcomb, 28 Conn. 177, 179.
failure later in ©
The

witness.

We will comment upon this
our discussion of due diligence.

uld be admissible and relevant upon

him to submit to such ‘
orsky, 139 merges into proof which is sufficient to es-

5 tablish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, the

Conn. 116 ATLANTIC REPORTER, 24 SERIES

bert’s sanity at the time he testified, or to
make a ruling upon conflicting medical
opinion. Its function was to evaluate the
effect which this testimony would have up-
on the court in ruling as to Albert’s com-
petency to testify and, assuming that his
testimony were allowed, the effect the new
evidence would have upon the jury in ren-
dering their verdict.

It must constantly be borne in mind that
to convict, the jury would have to believe
that Joseph was proven guilty beyond a rea-
sonable doubt. A reading of the transcript
of the original trial discloses that the de-
termination of this question must have been
a difficult one. Albert’s story of what hap-
pened on the night of March 23, 1950, was
inconsistent in many respects with. the tes-
timony of other witnesses. Joseph’s story
was substantiated by the testimony of his
sister and Mrs. Pedemonti. The descrip-
tion given by the victim of his assailant
dically different from the appearance
of Joseph. The jury, nevertheless, accept-
ed Albert’s testimony and rejected that of
Joseph. They deliberated from 11:15 a. m.

[10] The evidence now available as to
Albert’s sanity could have a persuasive in-
nce upon the jury. In the shadowy area

lish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt

new evidence, and especially that of Al-
bert’s undoubted and incurable insanity as
revealed shortly after the trial, might well
be “ ‘sufficient to turn the cause in favor
f the applicant.” Apter v. Jordan, 94
Conn. 139, 141, 108 A. 548, 549, quoting
from 1 Swift’s Digest 786. We conclude

point now is that the court in the mur- :
der trial of Joseph never had the ques- that the court was in error in holding that
there is not a reasonable probability that

tion of the competency of Albert properly ;
he upon a new trial the newly discovered evi-

presented to it. And in that trial, t

jury never had t

he facts now available con-
cerning the sanity of Albert to weigh and to

dence would bring about a different result.
We further conclude that an injustice was
done in that Joseph Taborsky was con-

assist them in determining the credence they
victed without having the benefit of the

should give to his vital testimony.

’ ‘The trial court in this petition for a new
trial was not called upon to determine Al-

newly discovered evidence in challenging
the competency of Albert to the court and
his credibility to the jury.

TABORSKY v. STAT
Cite as 116 A.2d 433 ole : Conn... 489

[11] It is true that a new trial will not
ordinarily be granted because of additional
impeaching or . discrediting testimony.
Smith v. State, 139 Conn. 249, 251, 93 A.2d
296; Dortch v. State, 142 Conn. 18, 27,
110 A.2d 471. This is not, however, a case
where,the new evidence consists merely of
a recantation by one of the state’s witness-
es as in the Smith case, supra, or where
statements by-a witness out of court vari-
ant with his testimony in court are present-
ed, as in Apter v. Jordan, 94 Conn. 139, 143,
108 A. 548, and Husted v. Mead, 58 Conn.
55, 61, 19 A. 233, or where the new evidence
impeaches the general reputation of a wit-
ness. See Apter v. Jordan, supra, 94 Conn.
142, 108 A. 549. In the present case, the im-
peaching testimony is much more funda-
mental. It goes to the very sanity of the
key witness, without whose evidence the
accused could not have been ‘convicted.
The prohibition is not applicable, where, as
here, the impeaching testimony is of such
importance that it appears reasonably cer-
tain that an injustice has been done and
that the result of a new trial would prob-
ably be different. Husted v. Mead, supra,
58 Conn. 64, 19 A. 234; Apter v. Jordan,
supra, 94 Conn. 143, 108 A. 550.

[12] There was a lack of due diligence
in the failure of the present plaintiff to chal-
lenge the competency of Albert to testify
at the proper time in the original trial. Had
this been done, Albert’s mental condition
could have been determined at a most op-
portune moment. There was also a lack of
due diligence in the failure to discover and
produce the evidence of Albert’s psychotic
conduct while he was in jail prior to trial
and theretofore. But the plaintiff and his
counsel could, of course, have had no
knowledge of the significant fact of Albert’s
undoubted insanity subsequent to the trial
and its important bearing upon his condi-
tion at and previous to the trial. A new
trial will not be denied the plaintiff because
of his failure to exercise due diligence in
the discovery of only fart of the newly
discovered evidence, when the remainder,

which he could not possibly have discov-
ered, is of such great moment.

[13] In an apparent effort to shift to
the state the responsibility for the failure to
produce evidence of Albert’s insanity at
the trial, counsel for the plaintiff in their
brief claim that the state failed in its
duty of disclosing vital evidence to the
court. Without going into details, we may
state emphatically that this charge is wholly
without justification. Throughout the trial
and previous thereto, the state’s attorney
discharged his duties in accordance with
the highest traditions of the office. In his
effort to be fair in every way with the ac-
cused, he even permitted evidence im-
portant to the defense to come in when,
by resort to a technical rule of evidence,
he might have had it excluded. State v.
Taborsky, 139 Conn. 475, 481, 95 A.2d 59.

[14,15] While there was an attempt to
attack Albert’s credibility, if not his sanity,
on cross-examination and by testimony
from his mother, his sisters and Joseph, the
newly discovered evidence is not of the
same character or to the same facts. It
was, therefore, not cumulative within the
rule. Waller v. Graves, 20 Conn. 305, 310.
At the original trial, there was no distin-
guished psychiatric testimony, no positive
evidence of hallucinations and delusions in
jail, and no evidence, of course, of Albert’s
insanity subsequent to the trial. In any
event, a new trial will be granted when it
appears reasonably certain that an injustice
has been done and that the result of a
new trial will be different, although the evi-
dence supporting the petition for a new trial
is cumulative. Gonirenki v. American
ig & Wire Co., 106 Conn. 1, 12, 137 A,

There is error, the judgment is set aside
and the case is remanded with direction to
render judgment granting the petition for
a new trial.

In this opinion the other judges con-
curred.

WO ta ate. Ee

FR PRIA Ae EA

gr wire

131 ATLANTIC REPORTER, 2d SERIES

STATE v. TABORSKY Conn. 337
336 Conn.

20 Conn.Sup. 240
J. Gerard FLYNN, Administrator (Estate of
John A. Maxwell), et al.
v.

The PHYSICIANS CASUALTY ASSOCIA-
TION OF AMERICA.

No. 100543.

Superior Court of Connecticut.
Fairfield County.
March 14, 1957.

Action on accidental death policy.
Plaintiff demurred to insurer’s plea in
abatement. The Superior Court, Shannon,
J., held that statute providing for substi-
tuted service against an unauthorized for-
eign or alien insurer transacting insurance
business in the state hy mail or otherwise
is not unconstitutional as running counter
to due process, or as an improper attempt
to regulate use of the United States mail.

Demurrer sustained,

r
Constitutional Law €=309(2)
Insurance C=4
Post Office €=2

Statute providing for substituted serv-

Maxwell insuring him against accidental
death, which it is alleged occurred on Feb-
ruary 22, 1956.

Section 2793d of the 1955 Cumulative
Supplement to the General Statutes pro-
vides that “(a) Any of the following acts
in this state, effected by mail or otherwise,
by an unauthorized foreign or alien in-
surer: (1) The issuance or delivery of
contracts of insurance to residents of this
state * * *: (2) the solicitation of ap-
plications for such contracts; (3) the col-
lection of premiums, membership fees, as-
sessments or other considerations for such
contracts; or (4) any other transaction of
the business of insurance, is equivalent to
and shall constitute an appointment by such
insurer of the insurance commissioner and
his successor or succesors in office, to be its
true and lawful attorney, upon whom may
be served all lawful process in any action,
suit or proceeding instituted by or on behalf
of an insured or beneficiary arising out of
any such contracts of insurance, and any
such act shall be signification of its agree-
ment that such service of process is of toe
same legal force and validity as pers
service of process in this state upon sucs
insurer.”

The complaint alleges that the defendan
has transacted the business of insurance 19

7
*

Cite as 131 A.2d 337

States mail. However, Judge Medina in
Schutt v. Commercial Travelers Mutual
Accident Ass’n, 2 Cir., 1956, 229 F.2d 158,
162, said, “We think a fair balancing of the
inconveniences discloses a situation which
is unduly burdensome and in a high degree
unjust to'the holders of defendant’s policies
and that consequently the legislation in
question does not run counter to the due
process clause of the Constitution. Nor do
we find any merit in defendant’s other
contention, that the legislation is unconsti-
tutional as an improper attempt to regulate
the use of the United States mail.” Certio-
rari was denied by the United States Su-
preme Court, 1956, 351 U.S. 940, 76 S.Ct.
836, 100 L-Ed. 1466. The court agrees,
Sce also Travelers Health Ass’n v. Com.
of Virginia ex rel. State Corporation Com-
mission, 1950, 339 U.S. 643, 70 S.Ct. 927,
°4 L.Ed. 1154; International Shoe Co. v,
Washington, 1945, 326 U.S, 310, 66 S.Ct.
134, 90 L.Ed. 95.

The demurrer is sustained,

were supported by evidence disclosing a
liability to prejudice in Hartford County

due to unusual. publicity given cases in
Newspapers, on radio and through televi-
sion, there was no evidence indicating prej-
udicial results from such publicity and
therefore motions would be denied.

Motions denied.

See also, 142 Conn. 619, 116 A.2d 433.

{. Criminal Law > 134(4)

In proceedings on defendants’ motions
for change of venue, even though motions
were supported by evidence disclosing a lia-
bility to prejudice in Hartford County due
to unusual publicity given cases in news-
papers, on radio and through television,
there was no evidence indicating prejudicial
results from such publicity and therefore

motions would be denied. Gen.St.1949, §
8794,

2. Criminal Law =119

Defendants in criminal’ case do not
have an inherent right to change of venue;
the constitutional and statutory guarantees,
with which an accused is clothed, do not

include right to change of venue. Gen.St.
1949, § 8794.

. . . . . of ™ Ce nn. 2
ice against an unauthorized foreign or alien this state in that it delivered contracts onn.Sup, 242

_insurer transacting insurance business in insurance to residents of this eicape F°
the state by mail or otherwise is not uncon- applications for such eect s, Png
- stitutional as running counter to duc proc- membership fees, eae S ‘ saee
, ; ess, or aS an improper attempt to regulate considerations for sucl contrac ; oe
7 United States mail. Gen.St. come into the state to investigate the a
png: 7 14 of the plaintiffs as well as other claims.
PMO ae defendant has pleaded in abatement, alleg-
ing that it has done none of these ay.
except by mail from out of the state oe
has not come into the state to igloo
any claims except by wholly ere
Boardman, Stoddard & McCarthy, uncontrolled investigating ee a S
Bridgeport, for defendant. plaintiffs have demurred to this P
abatement.

3. Criminal Law = 12!

STATE of Connecticut
Vv.

Joseph L. TABORSKY.

The power to grant a change of venue,
under statute, leaves it to sound discretion
of presiding judge. Gen.St.1949, § 8794,

STATE of Connecticut 4. Criminal Law =134(1)
v.
Arthur CULOMBE.

Nos. 21665, 21666.

The burden of proof to show that ac-
cused cannot receive a fair and impartial
trial in county where trial is scheduled and
to establish reasons and need for change
of venue is on accused. Gen.St.1949, § 8794.

—_—_—————

Goldstein, Flynn & Brannelly, Bridge-

eit Superi ‘our
dock. for plaintiffs. perior Court of Connecticut,

Hartford County,

5. Criminal Law €=126(1)
April 1, 1957,
Intemperate expressions of a mass of
people following inflammatory publicity are

Proceedings on defendants’ motions for insufficient to show such impossibility of a
‘<¢ of venue. The Superior Court, fair trial in a sizeable county as to require

sson, J., held that even though motions change of venue. ‘Gen.St.1949, § 8794.
131 A.2q—22

i is Tas

SHANNON, Judge. There have been holdings eee
cess and was an imprope?
This is an action for damages on an counter to due pro er

of the Uni
insurance policy issued to the late John A. effort to regulate the use

ne
a+’

SVN

ry
\

_—~e

Eject s Lit

338 Conn.

Albert S. Bill, Hartford, State’s Atty., for
the state.

Wallace R. Burke and John J. Daly, Sp.
Public Defenders, Hartford, for defendant
Taborsky. -

Thomas F. McDonough and Alexander
A. Goldfarb, Sp. Public Defenders, Hart-
ford, for defendant Culombe.

BORDON, Judge.

[1] The defendants’ motions for a
change of venue are supported by evidence
contemplated to show a liability to prejudice
in Hartford County due to unusual publici-
ty given the cases in the newspapers, on
the radio and through television. There
was, however, no evidence before the court
indicating prejudicial results from such
publicity. Many witnesses testified to
aroused public opinion, but no credible evi-
dence was presented that such opinion had
crystalized into unwavering © conclusions

-precluding a, fair trial. Nor was there any

evidence ofr expressed or vigorous: public
sentiment that such a trial could not be had
in Hartford County. Few of the witnesses
could be regarded as competent to inter-
pret public opinion accurately, and most of
them testified that mass discussions among

- citizens of the county indicated opinions

that a fair trial could be had within the
county.

Prior to the apprehension of the defend-
ants, there had been a number of atrocious
holdup killings which created fear and panic
among many businessmen, particularly gaso-
line station operators, package store owners,
and operators of small shops in outlying
places. The newspapers exploited their
journalistic license by dramatizing their
stories, by calling the defendants “mad
killers,” and by showing pictures of the de-
fendants and of places wherein alleged
killings occurred. Undoubtedly such pub-
licity had an impact on general public opin-
ion and probably created indelible marks on
many people who, prior to the apprehension
of the defendants, regarded themsclves as

131 ATLANTIC REPORTER, 2d SERIES

probable victims. But, despite the efficient
publicity, it is doubtful that there are many
people in the county who would be unwill-

ing to accord the defendants a fair trial,

So strongly is the American system of jus-
tice embedded in the minds of our citizens
that outraged feelings usually give way to
a desire for orderly procedure.

[2-4] The right of the defendants to a
change of venue is created by § 8794 of
the General Statutes, This statute provides
that a judge holding any term of the Supe-
rior Court may, upon motion, order any
criminal case pending in such court to be
transferred to the Superior Court in any
other county. The defendants do not have
an inherent right to a change of venue.
The constituticnal and statutory guarantees
with which an accused is clothed do not
include the right to a change of venue. The
statute authorizing it leaves it to the discre-
tion of the presiding judge without provid-
ing any reasons or causes which could con-
trol the exercise of such discretion and does
not attempt to state the grounds upon which
the court may make the order. The purpose
of the statute is, obviously, to confer power
on the presiding judge in the event he
deems it necessary to further safeguard the
rights of an accused. The burden of proof
is, therefore, on the defendants to estab-
lish the reasons and need for a change as
contained in their motions. State v. Cian-
flone, 98 Conn. 454, 461, 120 A. 347. The
statute clearly denotes that such a motion
is addressed to the sound discretion of the
court and is not one of the fundamental
rights accorded an accused charged with
crime. State v. Luria, 100 Conn. 207, 209,
123 A. 378.

Perhaps the leading case in this state on
the subject is that of State v. Chapman, 103
Conn. 453, 469, 130 A. 899. Chapman was
accused of killing a police officer in New
Britain. The newspapers gave the
wide publicity. The motion for change oF
vente was supported, as here, by consider
able evidence tending to show a liability t?
local prejudice in Hartford County due to

STATE v. TABORSKY Conn. 339
Cite as 1381 A.2d 337

the unusual publicity given to the case, par-
ticularly in the newspapers. Chapman was
a rather colorful criminal and the news-
papers exploited, spiced, dramatized and
colored their stories to attract the reading
public. The trial court ruled that, in spite
of the publicity given the case, a fair trial
could be given the accused in Hartford
County, and the Supreme Court sustained
this ruling in these words, 103 Conn. at page
70, 130 A. at page 905: “It is within the
reasonable discretion of the trial court to
grant a change of venue, when it clearly
appears that a fair and impartial trial can-
not be had in the county where the venue is
faid in the indictment. The burden of show-
ing this is upon the mover of the change of
venue. Crocker v. Justices of Superior
Court, [208 Mass. 162, 94 N.E. 369];

Downs v. State, 111 Md. 241, 73 A. 893,’

* *

*; Burns v. Pennsylvania R.'Co., 222

Pa. 406, 71 A. 1054; People v. Pfanschmidt, ’

%2 Il. [411] 413, 440, 104 N.E. 804,

*- * «x»

Another’ important case in which this
question was raised and pressed as a ground
for appeal was that of State v. Palko, 122
Conn. 529, 537, 191 A. 320, 324, 113 A.L.R.
‘28, In that case the acused was charged
with killing a Bridgeport police officer, and
he moved for a change of venue on the
ground that there had been such wide pub-
heity of a nature so derogatory to him that
a fair trial by an impartial jury could not
be had in Fairfield County. The Supreme
Court held that the “burden of showing
this is upon the mover of the change of
renue.” The power to grant a change of
Yenue is to be exercised with caution and
fests in the court’s sound discretion, which
* final unless it appears clearly that it has
exercised the discretion unreasonably, State

" Chin Lung, 106 Conn. 701, 717, 139 A.

This question was more recently raised in
the case of State v. Rogers, 143 Conn. 167,

e Wl, 120 A2d 409. The basis of the two

Potions for change of venue was the wide-
read publicity given the killing of Mrs.

Kennedy while she was alone in a package
store, and later, the publicity attending the
defendant’s statement to the police and to
the coroner. The trial court denied the
motion and this decision was sustained by
the Supreme Court on the ground that the
burden of showing that a fair and impar-
tial trial could not be had in the county of
origin is on the defendant, and that he must
show more than that the crime received
considerable publicity. He must demon-
strate that the publicity was necessarily
prejudicial to him and prevented his being
accorded a fair and impartial trial. State v.
Rocco, 109 Conn, 571, 572, 145 A. 47; State
v. Leopold, 110 Conn, 55, 58, 147 A. 118.

_There are some instances where a failure
to grant a change of venue has been held
to be error. In the case of Shepherd v.
State of Florida, 341 U.S. 50, 71 S.Ct. 549,
95 L.Ed. 740, the United States Supreme
Court ruled that the. Florida trial court
should have granted a change of venue and
that the state Supreme Court should have
overruled the trial court for failing to do so.
In this case the accused were Negroes
charged with rape of a white girl. The
newspapers had falsely published that the
accused had confessed, but no confessions
were offered at the trial. The newspapers
attributed the information to the sheriff,
who failed to repudiate the story. The
aroused public opinion caused by inflamma-
tory newspaper articles was mainly due to
race prejudice, and a claim by the state, 341
U.S. at pagé 53, 71 S.Ct. at page 551, that
“inflamed public sentiment was against the
crime with which the [defendants] were
charged rather than defendants’ race” was
more charitable than realistic. There is no
need to emphasize-that no such prejudice
could possibly exist in Hartford County.

In the case of United States v. Florio,
D.C., 13 F.R.D. 296, Judge Kaufman grant-
ed a change of venue because he found it
impossible to give the defendant a fair trial
in New York due to inflammatory publicity.
The federal rule. differs from our statute in
that the court is virtually ordered to trans-

- not there, had crying spells, thought people

436 Conn. 116 ATLANTIC REPORTER, 2d: SERIES
he looked off into the distance, heard voices his opinion that Albert had eee ee ad
talking and bells ringing on several occa- from January, 1951, to June, 5 ; oo a
i tried to go through a door that was hallucinations and. delusions and_ bizarre
aca . ideas. He gave an accurate account of cer-
were trying. to kill him and that his food tain things, and there was no raat ne
was poisoned, and masturbated in the open. his memory was grossly impaired, emory
Meikle concluded that there was something is not involved in the schizophrenic cage os
radically wrong. with Albert. mentally. but the patient is prone to misinterpre 2
Howard H. Conger, night guard at the jail, ations, facts and ideas to suit his own necds.

testified along the same lines. Dr. John A, ite isention “enty the highlights in the
Kardys, attending doctor at the jail, ob- lengthy testimony of the other teapots.

served and treated Albert from January 26 thiste whe. were called: “The first!:was Dr:

to"June’ 19) 1951." He wes at aaa Carl Vernlund. He examined Albert at
that Albert had a ‘schizophrenic bectenal Norwich State Hospital on January 6, 1952.
ty” 9 recommended to the jailer that > His opinion based on his examination and
be examined by a psychiatrist and be we’: $6e history of the patient, was that Albert
mitted to an institution.” was mentally ill at the time of the crime,

Dr. Foster E. Priddy, physician at the during his incarceration at jail, yelp
state prison, examined Albert on June 21, trial, and at the time he ee sentence Mi
1951, shortly after he arrived there. Albert prison and that he will never fee ieee oo
did not appear to Dr. Priddy to be psychotic answer to a hypothetical ques ie :
then, but about six weeks later the doctor Vernlund gave the further ecko be
reached a contrary conclusion and ordered the time Albert testified in ee : “
Albert to the prison hospital. - George La_ suffering from delusions and allucina es
Flamme, guard and supervisor of mental and was under great RAR EPID ~
patients at the prison, observed Albert from that it would not have been en ship RS
August 7 to September 19, 1951. Albert to comprehend eka fe) anon S ae
thought La Flamme was Wolfson and al- charges against him. , He sip Pos th tee
ways called him by that name. Albert had a compulsive force that = ec taba
crying spells, thought his food was poisoned to say and he would not mans ee
and wanted to kill himself. . La Flamme was true or not. Albert's: bs - na
considered Albert a mental case. Dr. psychosis of a type in which there
Thomas E. Carey, consulting psychiatrist hereditary tendency.
at the prison, observed Albert from August Dr. Louis H. Cohen examined Albert at
18 to September 4,.1951. i Albert was hay: Norwich State Hospital on January 6, 1952.
ing auditory, oliactory, and eeesgat male His opinion, based largely on observation
lucinations. “It _was Dr. Caréy’s' opinies ‘and Albert’s account of his experiences 1
that Albert was experiencing «an carly jail, in court and in prison, but in part 09
schizophrenia, that from samy June, facts stated in a hypothetical question, was
1951, he was probably ate ghee steee that Albert was insane the latter part of
of psychosis (insanity), and that while what 1949, during 1950, during 1951, and up to
he said could have been true, he, Dr. Carey, the date of the examination; , that neva
would be reluctant to accept what anyone 4.) condition was such that it would be very
in- that condition said as final, absolute easy for him to misinterpret reality and
proof. ; that he would have had no moral pa

Dr. Hubert A. Carbone, psychiatrist oes OF PN Te Cake wat
clinical director at Norwich State Hospital, 1. er : pa be
rved and treated Albert in October, while ho' was on ie witness s :
an and thereafter, When Albert ae nee 5 OT eaaat sian ae oo
ital, he was suffering from sc nizo- light at the “J
Sua arse type. In answer to a view, a camera or a wires? oe ~
hypothetical question, Dr. Carbone, stated Cohen stated that it was no Pp

fii 2 TABORSKY:v. STATE +24 ot! Conn. 437
’ Cite as 116 A.2d 433

Albert could go through examination and
cross-examination without showing signs of
insanity.

Dr. Harold A. Bancroft examined Albert
on December 15, 1949, for the Hartford
Police ‘Court in connection with another
matter.and reported that he showed no signs
of mental illness. At the request of the
state’s attorney, Dr. Bancroft examined Al-
bert at the jail on January 19 and 24 and
February 3 and 5, 1951, and at Norwich
State Hospital‘on November 19, 1951. He
also saw Albert informally four or five oth-
er times‘ at: the jail between February 5,
1951, and the trial. He also observed’ Al-
bert by chance’ for about an hour while Al-
bert was testifying at the trial. Dr. Ban-
croft reportéd to the state’s: attorney just
prior to trial 'that Albert was in a sufficient-
ly 'good’state of mental health to be tried
for his crime and to testify. Albert;:in Dr.
Bancroft’s opinion, was capable of under-
standing an oath and had the mental capaci-
ty to receive facts and incidents that he had
heard and to narrate them at a later date.
Dr.: Bancroft’s conclusion was that Albert
developed an acute psychotic reaction at
some time after beginning his prison term.
Dr. Bancroft also concluded that Albert’s
hearing voices and hearing noises on rec-
ords, at the jail, were hallucinations and
that for a time while Albert was there he
had a psychosis.* * °° i

At the request of the state’s attorney, Dr.
Otto G. Wiedman, in company with Dr.
Bancroft, examined Albert at the jail and
at the Norwich State Hospital. Dr. Wied-
man stated that on February 5, 1951, Albert
was mentally ill and that on that date he
certainly would have doubted. that. Albert
could understand an oath and narrate facts
and be qualified as a witness.. Dr. Wiedman
added that this might or might not be.so
when Albert testified in, May—if he was
in a period of remission, he could testify,
but not if he was in a period of psychosis.
A person who is experiencing hallucina-
tions and delusions cannot be relied on for
the truth of his statements to the same ex-
tent as a normal person.: At Norwich Al-
bert’s memory was adequate, Dr. Wiedman
said. He agreed with the hospital diagnosis

of schizophrenia, paranoid type. This di-
sease may not affect the memory in its early
stages. '

Albert told the same story of the crime as
he testified to in court to Drs. Bancroft and
Wiedman at the jail and again at Norwich.
He also told it to Dr. Priddy at the prison
and to Dr. Carbone at Norwich, although
later at Norwich he appeared to be attempt-
ing to exonerate his brother.

[4-8] To’review this summary: All the
psychiatrists agreed that Albert was suf-
fering from schizophrenia when he was
transferred to the Norwich State Hospital
on September 19, 1951. There was testimo-
ny that he had psychotic symptoms through-
out his stay in jail from January 26 to June
19, 1951. One psychiatrist, only, expressed
the definite opinion that Albert was compe-
tent to testify at the time of the trial of Jo-
seph in May, 1951. Two psychiatrists defin-
itely. stated that he was not competent to
testify, and another, a state’s witness, mani-
fested great doubt, The doctor at the jail,
the psychiatrist at. the prison and the psy-
chiatrist at the Norwich State Hospital all
expressed the opinion that Albert was suf-
fering from schizophrenia to some degrce
in the four-month period preceding the
trial.

The question of Albert’s competency to
testify was a preliminary question to be de-
cided by the court. Holcomb v. Holcomb,
28 Conn. 177, 179. The modern tendency
is to avoid treating insanity as a cause of
total incompetency, except in extreme cases,
and to admit the person as a witness, Icav-
ing the defect in question to have whatever
weight it deserves as discrediting the wit-
ness’ powers of observation, recollection or
communication. 3 Wigmore, Evidence (3d
Ed.) § 931. If the court, after a proper con-
sideration of the evidence as to Albert’s
sanity, were to admit his testimony, the evi-
dence of his mental condition before, at and
after the occurrence of March 23, 1950, and
at the time of trial would be available for
the jury to use in passing on his credibility.
United States v. Hiss, D.C., 88 F.Supp. 559;
Bouldin v. State, 87 Tex.Cr.R. 419, 423, 222
S.W. 555; Fairchild v. Bascomb, 35 Vt. 398,

ees

ne PES VE he
rs Richest ack SRA

70 ATLANTIC REPORTER.

safety of travelers in using the way is endan-
gered In a manner and to a degree similar to
the danger encountered in passing over a
bridge. It is immaterial to inquire whether
or not a causeway Or artificial embankment
might be constructed within the limits of the
highway, although not covering its whole ex-
tent, so that the duty of fencing would come
within the meaning of section 2019 of the
General Statutes of 1902, for the traveled
track running through the central portion of
the highway 48 described in the finding is
plainly not such a causeway or embankment.
The trial court has therefore based its con-
clusion that the highway in question was de-
fective (the burden of proving it suflicient
being, by reason of the default, upon the de-
fendant) upon the neglect of the defendant to
perform a specific duty, imposed by section
2019, which duty that section does not im-
pose upon the defendant in this case. This
error is vital, and vitiates the judgment, un-
less, Indeed, we, can S#y that it is apparent
upon the face of the record that the court
should have found that the defendant neg-
lected to perform the duty of repair imposed
upon it by section 2013. We certainly cannot
say ‘this, nor can we assume that the court
would have found one way or the other upon
a question of fact which the court apparently
did not consider, and could not have fairly
determined while controlled by its misconcep-
tion of the statute. As, for instance, the court
in the finding treats the fact that in some way
an aceident did happen as raising a presump-
tion that the situation of the highway was in
violation of the statute, it is manifest that the
mere possibility of an accident thus proved
might have a weight in determining a viola-
tion of section 2019, to which it clearly would
not be entitled in determining the violation of
section 2013, The duty imposed by the latter
upon towns the intoler-
able burden of making all highways within
their limits secure against the possibility of
accidents. Campbell v. City of New Ilaven,
78 Conn. 394-896, G2 Atl. 665; Coodspeed’s
Appeal, 75 Conn. 271, 274, 58 Atl. 728; Udkin
y. City of New Ifaven, 80 Conn. 291, 296, 68
Atl. 253. This error is substantially and, in
view of the pecullar circumstances of the
hearing, sufficiently suggested in the reasons
of appeal.
The court also erred in permitting the wit-
ness Sanford to state his opinion as to the
safety of the road, in answer to a hypothet-
ieal question, which assumed the facts recited
therein to be true. The witness did not qual-
ify as an expert road builder, or as having
any, special knowledge or skill in the con-
struction of roads, and had no personal knowl-
edge of the condition of the highway at the
time of the accident. Tis opinion was not
admissible, either under the rule permitting
expert testimony, or under our practice of
permitting nonexperts to state an opinion in
respect to conditions they have seen and have

section does not place

(Conn.

described in their testimony. Taylor vy. Town
of Monroe, 43 Conn. 86, 43; Sydleman v. Beck-
with, 43 Conn. 1, 42; Ryan v. Town of Bris-
tol, 63 Conn. 26, 38, 97 Atl. 309; Campbell v.
City of New Jlaven, 78 Conn. 394, 395, 62 Atl.
665. But the mistake belongs rather to that
class of harmless mistakes, liable to occur in
passing upon questions of relevancy,
less remote, and which eannot ordinarily fur-
nish ground for a new trinl. Leonard v. Gil-
lette, 79 Conn. 664, 669, 66 Atl. 502.

There is error, and the judgment of the
superior court is reversed, and the cause re-
manded, for further proceedings according to
law. The other Judges concurred.

more or

——————

STATE v. WASIIFLESKY.

(Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

June 16, 1908. On Motion, June 25, 1908.)

1. Crmm1NaL LAw—BvIpENCE—WEIGUT AND
SuFrriclENCY—QUESTION FOR JURY.

The weight to be given to evidence in a@

murder case, and whether it established facts
claimed by the prosecution, were questions for
the jury.

[kd. Note.—For eases in point, see Cent. Dig.

vol. 14, Criminal Law, § 1713.]

Tlomicipr — APPEAT. — REVIEW—VERDICT—

ApPprROVAL BY '[RIAL Court.

Great weight is to be given to the action of

the trial court in granting or refusing a mo-
tion to set aside a verdict especially in a capital
ease, where it must be presumed that he gave
the matter most serious consideration.

[id. Note.—For cases in point, see Cent. Dig.

vol. 26, Homicide, § 704.)
3. SaME—MURDER—SUFFICIENCY or EVIDENCE.

Kvidence held sufficient to sustain a convic-

tion of murder in the first degree.

[Iad. Note.—IFor cases in point, see Cent. Dig.

vol. 26, Uomicide, §§ 518-522.
4. CriminaL LAW — TRIAL — INSTRUCTIONS—

SUFFICIENCY.
The sufficiency of instructions is to be de-

termined from & consideration of the charge as a
whole, and hence, in a murder case, where the
court clearly stated that the state was bound to
prove that the person
cused was charged was
eaused by human agency, that the burden was
on the state to prove beyond a reasonable doubt
that the dead body found was the body of the per-
son alleged to have been murdered, and on fail-
ure to so prove accused should be acquitted, and
enlled attention to accused's claim that the body

with whose murder ac-
dead, that his death was

found was not proved to be that of the person

alleged to have been murdered, the charge was

not erroneous as assuming that the corpus delicti
had been established because the court, for the
most part in the portions stating the state’s and
aecused’s claims, used isolated sentences which
might be construed as an assumption that the
corpus delicti had been established.

5, SAME—SUFFICIENCY OF EXvIDENCE—STATU-

yoRY LPROVISIONS.

Under Gen. St. 1902, § 1508, providing that
no person shall be convicted of any crime pun-
ishable by death without the testimony of at
least two witnesses or that which is equivalent
thereto, testimony of two witnesses is not neces-
sary, but it is enough if the testimony is in the
minds of the jury, equivalent to that, nor need
there be two witnesses to every important fact,
but if two or more witnesses each testifying to

Conn.)

different parts of the i
if 0 same transaction
ae p= pe prciget age surrounding the i
end direc sed’ i it i
a al y to show accused’s guilt, it is suf-
6. SAME—APPEAL—RECOR
SAME é a D—QUESTIONS DRE-
SENTED FOR REVIEW—NEW fe Picceen
TO nam IN TRIAL Court.
t is only in very flagrant cases 6
; ag »s Of abuse
me state's at torney’s privilege of argument ast
the court will on appeal grant a new trial on
that ground where, the aggrieved party has fail-
o —_ for it in the court below, or to call
court's i jecti
ren attention to the objectionable re-
7. SAME.
A state’s attorney in a m i
\ ) urder cas -
ing his argument said: “The roma get tg
hia. rie to. you in behalf of the com-
realth tha * the prisoner at t
. guilty of murder in the first degree. thet is
- law of the land. You must uphold it.” He
ae just before stated that the evidence showed
aes accused had willfully killed decedent, and
- ter using the language complained of urged
me ury to bring in a verdict consistent with the
a a Held that, when considered as a
=, the argument was that accused was
aus of murder, in the first degree under the
: idence, that the grand jury had charged that
_ in the indictment, and that the jury
nist d by a verdict consistent with the evidence
i ain the charge, and such argument was not
rm for a new trial, on appeal, where no ob-
a was made in the lower court, and no mo-
bed or a new trial made, especially where the
se sagged carefully cautioned that in determin-
He . question of accused’s guilt they should
resale 1© testimony as they had heard it from
: ipa and the law from the court.
8, OMICIDE — — Ev
Pa pebiy MurpDrErR — EvIDENCE—CorRPUS
The corpus delicti i i
‘ i is established by pr
cat ge person has been killed and that Se
Late ol _ killed him, though the identity of
es i ee perpetrator nor the victim has yet
[hd. Note.—-For i i
a For cases in point i
vol. 26, Homicide, §§ 471-476.) “ee

, ¢ —— ee ae oF PROOF

As the law fixes no rule as to tl '
aaa the identity of the Saar a e
_ — and of the person killed, it lies within
~s “Sg tion of the court, and hence it was not
reine eee evidence tending to connect ac-
pirat lta A ag alleged crime before the identity
+ pil sete was shown, where, before offering
Salle at ie, the fact that he had been unlaw-

a ai by some one was proved.

“4, Note.—For cases in poi i

vol. 14, Criminal Law, ss. lA pee

10, Sar.

Pet A | murder case the court acted within its

ue com ~ admitting in evidence an identifica-

ta ig ie an account in a savings bank be-

ha oe for it had been laid upon

it gee ance of the state’s attorney that it
a : ret connected with decedent.

‘d. Note.—For cases in point, see © i
vol. 14, Criminal Law, §§ eee 16i) =
11, gy eipignsen Pnbdoesongong
ede > case, it was not error to ex-
Sentient that, on the night that decedent.
ph been he came alone to witness’ house
a de oa weapon, offered on the theory that
a eae might later, have met somebody and
ar es aes since the inference from the fact
pial aa ee es some other per-
iting tt, ain killed him or that if accused
sia Bence © was under circumstances justify-
porch est a mitigating the crime, Was so
b hnabagi o leave the admission of the evi-

within the discretion of the court.

STATE v. WASHELESKY. 63
iy

peg arom of State’s Attorney for Appointment
ime for Execution of Death Sentence.
6 LAW — SENTENCE—REPRIEVE—
an ING DaTE OF EXECUTION AFTER DATE
IGINALLY FIXED—STATUTORY PROVISIONS

executed at the time assigned therefor, if no
pyel be found the court shall appoint the time
ee and its clerk shall issue a writ of
sacare & ee. does not apply where a
ping kt & as een granted by the Governor, and

1e decision of aflirmance on appeal is announc-
ed before the expiration of the time for which
the reprieve was granted, as the time fixed by
~ agin became the time legally assigned
gh a oe warrant of execution
a thigte. L it by the clerk of the su-

Appeal from Superior Court, New Haven
County; Silas A. Robinson, Judge.

John Washelesky, alias John Wiszniski
vas convicted of murder in the first degree,
and he appeals. Affirmed. eee

Howard C. Webb and Levi N. Blydenburgh
for appellant. William H. Williams, State's
Atty., Arnon A. Alling, and Edward A. Har-
riman, for the State.

THAYER, J. The defendant was found
guilty of murder in the first degree, and mov-
ed that the verdict be set aside as against the
evidence. The motion was overruled. His
exceptions to this ruling are founded upon
two grounds: First, that the evidence failed
to establish the death of Peter Lucaszewicz
for the murder of whom he was indicted, and,
second, that the evidence failed to so cosine
the defendant with such death, if it had been
proved, as to exclude every reasonable hy-
pothesis of his innocence. The evidence by
which the state claimed to prove that the
body was that of Lucaszewicz was wholly
circumstantial, came from a large number of
witnesses, and we shall not undertake to re-
view it. It is sufficient to say that there was
positive evidence tending to prove a large
number of independent facts from which the
inference could be logically drawn that the
dead body, which when found was so decom-
posed as to be unrecognizable, was that of
Lueaszewiez. This evidence was practically
uncontradicted. We think that, from the
facts thus claimed to be proved, the jury
might reasonably be satisfied beyond reason-
able doubt that the body was his. The weight
to be given to the evidence, and whether it es-
tablished the facts claimed by the state, were
matters to be determined by the jury.

Having offered evidence to prove the death,
and also proof that it was caused by human
agency, the state offered evidence to prove
that the defendant was the agent who eaused
it. One witness was produced who attempted
to connect the defendant with Lucaszewicz
on the night of the latter's disappearance
and to show that, after having been assault-

*906T *T ATng (ueAey MeN) *uuoQ pesuey f2E feqTyM SuYor * ISSTAHSVM

‘more personal, intimidating things that

brought a blush to the suspect’s
cheeks. As the sun set, so did Wade’s
smile and cocksure manner. Finally
Regan waved Mrs. Nott’s signed
statement before Wade’s eyes.

‘‘What do you have to say about
this?’’ Regan shouted.

Wade raised both hands in a gesture
of surrender. ‘‘O.K.,’’ he admitted,
**I went to Mrs. Nott’s Sunday when
her daughter called me to say her
mother was in a terrible jam. When I
came in, Nott was lying dead on the
floor. Mrs. Nott told me she killed her
husband in self defense and pleaded
with me until I finally agreed to help
her. I put his body in an old trunk and
carried it off.”’

‘‘Where did you go?’’ Flannigan
asked.

*“Wouldn’t you like to know?” With
an insolent grin, Wade refused to
answer further questions. Regan
resorted to a trick.

‘It doesn’t really matter if you tell
us or not,’’ he told the composed
suspect. ‘‘We’ve got Kennedy and he’s
willing to talk. But it would go better
for you if you told us yourself.”’

““You win,’’ Wade admitted. ‘“We
took the trunk to Easton, to Sport Hill,
and tossed it into the quicksand
beyond the cemetery.”’

This was unwelcome news to Captain
Regan. He felt he had all the evidence
he needed, but without a body how

, could he prove a crime? He knew all

about that swamp. It was a killer
whose slimy waters had sucked many
an ugly secret into its black depths. If
the trunk was to be recovered at all,
speedy action was needed. Just where
was the trunk tossed in? Wade again
refused to talk. Regan pressed on,
browbeating Wade into een
once again.

A short time later, a polidé car drew

up before the stagnant pool which lay

in a hollow surround by low hills. It
was vast and, without Wade’s assist-
ance, locating the trunk and its

gruesome contents would be a hopeless —

task.. Wade was led from the car,
handcuffed to Assistant Superinten-
dent of Police Thomas H. Flood.
Behind them followed a trio of officers
who regarded the scum- -filled surface
with distaste.

‘“‘You sure this is the place?’’
someone asked Wade.

‘‘Positive,’’ Wade replied. He
indicated a broken spot between
several dead trees on the bank. ‘‘We

threw it in from over there.’’

Two of the officers, Detective-
Sergeants Walter Auger and Joseph
Coughlin, reluctantly undressed and,
secured by ropes, waded waist-high
into the swamp. The men slowly
pushed aside the blue-colored scum
and floundered over the uneven
bottom. Neither could locate the
missing trunk.

“It’s probably gone,” Wade offered
hopefully. ‘‘Gone like the bridge, the
cows, and the team of horses this

swamp has already swallowed up. Why |

don’t you give up?”’

Asst. Supt. Flood had no intention
of giving up so early. Without the
body, authorities would have a
difficult time proving murderous guilt.
The search continued until darkness
when, considerably disheartened, ex-
cept for Wade, the group drove back
to police headquarters. Detective-

‘Sergeant Seery was, waiting for them

with his 20-year-old prisoner, Bill
Kennedy, whom he had picked up an
hour before.

Flood took Kennedy into his office
and closed the door. Kennedy admitted
he knew Elwood Wade and seemed
anxious to assist the investigating
officer. He admitted going.to the Nott
home on Sunday night.

‘**Wade saw me during the day and

asked me to help him with a trunk.

belonging to Mrs. Nott. When.I met
him to help, he went to his own home
first and got another trunk which he
carried over to Mrs. Jeanne Flauss on
Stratford Avenue. Then we went to the
Notts’ where Wade showed me a large
trunk in the front entry, We carried it
downstairs and it was pretty heavy. We
put it in Wade’s truck and covered it
with an old coat.

Kennedy asked for a cigarette, and
then’ continued his story. ‘“Wade said
he was taking the trunk to the swamp
beyond Sport Hill. He told me Nott
was in the trunk and I was frightened
to death. I didn’t know I’d been
carrying a body around.”’

Kennedy told how the two men

finally reached the swamp and.pushed -

the trunk down a hastily-made runway.

The trunk wouldn’t sink so Wade.

pulled it to shore and loaded it with
stones. Leaving the lid partly open, he
pushed it from shore and it vanished
leaving a trail of bubbles in the scum.
Kennedy concluded his story saying
that he could easily find the spot.

An hour later, he stepped from
Flood’s car. The group were some

100 feet below the spot where Wade
had led the party during the late
afternoon. Marks in the damp ground
showed the previous presence of
another car. Kennedy led the officers

‘ down over the quaking ground to a

small, baylike indentation in the shore.

A powerful portable searchlight
borrowed from the Easton Fire
Department flooded the area with
brilliant light. Auger and Coughlin
again drew the unpleasant assignment
of stripping and wading into the scum.
They gingerly pressed on until the
water reached their shoulders. Then
Kennedy told them to stop.

‘*You’re just about where it sank,”’
he called. ‘

The detectives probed beneath the
surface., One of them struck an
unyielding surface. ‘‘I’ve got some-
thing,’’ Auger cried. He vanished
beneath the stagnant surface and
shortly reappeared, gagging. ‘“‘It’s a

trunk. It’s buried in quicksand and |

going down.”’

For the next two hours the men tried
to dislodge the object. Hooks bent and
the handles pulled away as the police
sought to release the trunk from the
grip of the quicksand. Finally, black,
sinister, and dripping, it broke above
the surface of the water.

Flood released the traps and opened
the trunk. He pulled out several
garments and then peered inide. He
was well-used to the sight of death,
but the’battered form of George Nott
came as a ghastly shock. There were
barely enough of the man’s features
left to recognize him, but Flood, who
had known the victim, did so. .

The death trunk was strapped onto
the rear luggage rack of one of the
police cars and the party porurney to
Bridgeport.

Medical Examiner Sadek B. Gar-
lick made his official examination the
next day. Attendants lifted out the
folded, battered body and laid it upon
a marble slab. Although the head was
badly disfigured, Nott was again
identified. The medical examiner
‘slowly counted 20 knife and four bullet
wounds.

’ In his statement, which was later
made public, Dr. Garlick stated the
victim had been attacked while lying
down, beaten over the head with a
blunt instrument, shot, and finally
stabbed to death while he fought for

his life.

(continued on next page)

Quicksand Leaves No Clues

(continued from page 39)

and floors had been scrubbed, at least
one spot was overlooked. The detectives
located a crimson discoloration three
feet from the stairs and directed the
beams of a powerful flashlight upon
it. This proved to be the bloody
impression of a woman’s right hand

with the thumb and fingers extended. °

There was also a bloody trail leading
to the attic bedroom.

Regan ordered Mrs. Nott and her
two children to report immediately to
headquarters. Flannigan again
questioned Mrs. Nott and noticed her
increasing nervousness as he told her
about the police search for the missing
trunk. |
“Maybe I’m wrong,’’ the woman
finally admitted. ‘‘Perhaps I sent the
trunk to my friend, Mrs. Jeanne Flauss
on Stratford Avenue.. in

Lieutenant Bray summoned Sergeant
Seery and asked him to check out Mrs.
Nott’s new story. The search continued
for both George Nott and Elwood
Wade. Mrs. Nott continued to deny
any incriminating knowledge concern-
ing her husband’s disappearance. Then
Sergeant Seery returned to head-
quarters and held a whispered confer-
ence with Captain Regan.

*“Sergeant Seery located a trunk
which was left with Mrs. Flauss
yesterday,”’ Captain Regan told Mrs.
Nott. ‘‘It was supposed to come from
you.”’ The woman looked relieved.
“*But it’s empty,’’ the captain added.

“I’m not surprised,’? Mrs. Nott
added quickly. ‘‘I bet my husband
stole the clothes from the trunk to keep
me from leaving. I wouldn’t put it past
Peete

“*Well,”’ Flannigan replied slowly,
“that’s not all. The trunk Mrs. Flauss

has is gray and wooded, with a curved -

top. You told me last night that the
trunk you shipped to Boston was metal
with a flat top.”?

“I could have been confused,”’ she
replied. Her confusion increased as the
hours passed. She contradicted herself
again and again, and finally became
defiant. :

“You ask if I have been intimate
with Elwood Wade,’’ she finally
blurted. ‘‘Well, I have. I love him and
he loves me. I have never been happy
with my husband. He beat and abused
me and never even gave me enough
money to run the house. Elwood, even
40

if he is younger, understands.’’

‘*“Was he at your house yesterday
morning?”’

After a long moment, Mrs. Nott
slowly nodded her head. ‘“Was anyone
else there?””

*‘One other person,’’ Mrs. Nott
admitted after a second brief pause.
“‘His name is Bill Kennedy and he lives
somewhere here in Bridgeport.”’

At a nod from Superintendent
Flannigan, Detective-Sergeant Seery
once again left the room.

“*Tell us what really happened,’’
Captain Regan asked quietly of the
woman.

The woman’s composure deserted
her; nervous hands shredded a
handkerchief. Then the words came
in a torrent. Her husband had ordered
her to his bedroom early that morning.
She refused and he beat her. Wade and
Kennedy came to the house, leaving
two milk bottles on the front steps as

‘a blind. They climbed to Nott’s attic

room. The woman heard a blow. It
was followed by a pistol shot and a
cry for help.

“I didn’t go up,”’ Mrs. Nott told
Regan. ‘‘I was still bleeding from
where my husband had struck me

~ earlier and as far as I was concerned,
it was the end of everything between
us. My husband called to me a second
time but I ignored him. Then he

hollered for Ruth, our daughter. She

said,:‘Pa, I can’t home.’-Then he
called me again. I told him‘that I
couldn’t-help him; that I wasn’t to
blame. ‘I know you wasn’t, Brownie,’
he said. ‘I said I’d get him but he got
me first.’’

“Then I went into the bedroom with
Ruth and George. Elwood told me to

Stay in there. ‘You and the kids don’t

need to know anything,’ he assured .

me. ‘I will arrange for everything.’ He
told me he would come back with a
truck to take.my husband out. If
anyone asked me questions, I was to
explain he took the trunk to Jeanne
Flauss’ or to the depot. ‘I will take
my trunk and leave it at Jeanne’s,’ he
said. ‘Then I’ll get another trunk and
you don’t need to know where he
goes.’’

‘“‘Then what happened?’’ the
superintendent wanted to know.

Mrs. Nott said she didn’t know. ‘‘I

saw Kennedy run downstairs and out.

the door. Elwood asked me to go into
the bedroom and stay there until he

fixed everything up. I saw him walk:

back and forth with pails of water. |
didn’t come out until Mr. Ferguson
came. Then I saw that everything had
been cleaned up.”’

“Where did he take your husband?”

“*I have ‘no ‘idea. I didn’t see my
husband again after I saw him lying
on the stairs with his head crushed.”

The phone rang as Mrs. Nott was
signing the stenographic statement.

- Flannigan stared at Mrs. Nott for a

longtime after he replaced the
receiver.

“I hope you have told us the truth,”
he told the woman. ‘‘Sergeant Derrick
has captured Wade and is bringing him
to headquarters.

Mrs. Nott’s children were in an
anteroom answering questions from

Lieutenant Bray. They more or less -

substantiated their mother’s story, but
the same tale unfolding from their
childish lips added a measure of
horror. They saw their father push
their mother’s head against the sharp
edge of a door and then stomp on her
feet when she refused to go to his
bedroom. When Wade and Kennedy
appeared and they saw their father’s
body crash down the stairs and land
at their mother’s feet, they said the
mother begged Wade to spare Nott’s
life. Wade refused.

“*When Pa’s body was put into the
trunk’ later,’’ Ruth recalled, ‘“Wade
told us to come out of the bedroom
and to’make the player piano go as
loud as we could. We did and played
three or four rolls.’’

“‘What time?”’ Bray asked.

“I don’t know.’’ George answered
with a puzzled look. ‘‘All the clocks
in the house stopped when father was
killed.’’ (A careful study of the old
records has failed to disclose a reason
for this unusual phenomenon.)

Sergeant Derrick led Wade into the
superintendent’s office shortly after
Mrs. Nott was taken away. Wade, slim,
boyish-looking, was a study in well-
mannered geniality as the questioning
started. No, he denied with a smile,
he had nothing to do with the murder
of George Nott.

With rosy-cheeked good nature, he
laughingly warded off browbeating
attempts by sweating interrogating
detectives. The long summer afternoon
dragged past as the detectives grew

(continued on next page)

Quicksand Leaves No Clues

(continued from page 41)

Later that same Tuesday morning,
Flannigan, Regan, and Flood returned
to the apartment where their investi-
gation had been so dri-natically
interrupted the day before by the
discovery of the bloody handmark. In
the kitchen, among the cartons heaped
with kitchen utensils, Regan found a
hatchet. At the same time, Flood
pulled a butcher knife from beneath
soap powder in another carton. The
wicked-looking knife still bore crimson

Stains.

Flood started to unpack the sugar
barrels which were filled with crockery.
Halfway down one barrel, he withdrew
a paper-wrapped package. Removing
the paper, he discovered a small,
nickel-plated revolver. It contained
four discharged shells. The fifth
chamber was empty.

This call revealed that Gordon
Smith, a well-known character around
town, had been offered $200 two
weeks before by Wade if he would help
beat up Nott. Smith stated he had
stayed in Nott’s apartment, armed with
a hatchet provided by Wade, waiting
for Nott to show up. The two waited
in vain until daybreak. A week later,
Wade again brought Smith to Nott’s
apartment and ordered him to strike
to kill.-Smith fled instead. If Smith’s
story was true, then Wade had
premeditated murder.

Regan sought to reconcile the three
stories told. by Wade, Kennedy, and
Mrs. Nott (who was now confined in
a hospital due to the injuries suffered
from her husband). After a few
moments in deep thought, Regan
ordered Kennedy be brought into his
office. The youth entered a moment
later. Regan soon learned that Ken-
nedy, like Smith, had previously been
approached by Wade to help subdue
Nott in an anticipated argument.

Kennedy admitted that he agreed to
help Wade. ‘‘He had an axe and I had
a hatchet. We waited inside his house
for almost a week, but Nott didn’t
show up.’’

‘*Was this the. hatchet?’’ Captain
Regan suddenly held the weapon up
before the worried looking youth.

“*It sure looks like it, but anyway, I
never used it. Last Sunday night, Wade
had me meet him again. He drove his
truck to Mill Hill Avenue, which is
near 265 Judson Avenue, and took the

handle from his automobile jack. We

‘each took a bottle of milk and entered

the rear of the Nott apartment. We
took off our shoes and Wade went into
the kitchen. When he came out, he was
carrying the jack handle and a
revolver. He gave me the hatchet again
and we crept up the stairs to Nott’s
attic room.

‘“Wade sneaked up and struck at
him. Nott yelled and jumped from the
bed. I heard a pistol shot and the two
grappled. I ran downstairs, threw the
hatchet on top of the ice chest, slipped
on my shoes, and rushed out of the
house. I heard several more shots and
didn’t stop running until I reached the
truck where I waited for Wade. When

-he didn’t come, I went home.”’

_Later that day, the captain brought
Wade back to the Nott apartment.
There Regan questioned the young
man further about the crime. Wade
responded almost boastfully. Then he
took Regan and the other detectives
to the attic bedroom where he reenacted
the crime.

“‘Where did you get the revolver?’’
Regan asked.

“*It was a gun that Nott bought to
do me in with,’’ Wade replied. Wade
was told that anything he said would
be used against him. He merely
shrugged his shoulders. ‘‘What
difference does it make?’’ he asked
rhetorically.

Then Wade continued his account.
He said that after he missed with the
gun and the jack handle, Nott ran
through the door shrieking for help.
“I followed and he grabbed me by the
throat when we reached the stairs. But
I managed to get the gun loose and let
him have it. That staggered him for a

‘moment. Then he was at me again.

We rolled down the stairs and landed
at Mrs. Nott’s feet. He called for help
and I belted him again with the jack

handle. That didn’t make him so frisky |

but he still hollered. So I got the knife
and stuck it into him again and again
until he lay still.’’

The jack handle used by Wade was
never found.

On September 2, 1920, Wade, Mrs.
Nott, and Kennedy were brought
before the coroner at the inquest held
in police headquarters. Wade cried to
the woman he loved when he saw her.

**You had nothing to do with it,”’

he shouted. ‘‘Absolutely nothing. I’m
taking the blame for it all.’’ Officers
dragged Wade back into his chair.

The three refused to testify. On
September 4, the day after Nott was
buried with Masonic honors, Wade,
Kennedy, and Mrs. Nott were arraigned
in a crowded courtroom before Judge
Frederick E. Bartlett on first-degree
murder charges. Wade’s young and
attractive wife was among the spec-
tators. She later admitted she had
known of her husand’s unfaithfullness
for over a year but had condoned it
because of their two children, Elbert
and Gertrude.

First-degree murder indictments
were returned on September 29 before
Judge George E. Hinman and Wade’s
trial began before the same judge on
December 31, 1920. Wade never once
glanced at his faithful wife during the
trial; all his admiring glances were cast
at the silent and alluring Mrs. Nott.
The defense tried to have Wade
declared insane but the jury, after six
hours of deliberation, found Wade
guilty of first-degree murder.

**You’ve got that noose right around
your Adam’s apple,’’ Sheriff Frederick
Bates observed to the defendant when
the verdict was announced.

“I know it,’’ came the wry response.
“I can taste that cider already in my
throat.’’

Bill Kennedy sid Mrs. Ethel Nott
went on trial some months later. The
State produced sensational letters
written by Mrs. Nott to Wade while in
his prison cell. When these letters were
introduced, Mrs. Nott changed her
plea to guilty of second-degree murder
and was sentenced to. life imprisonment
at Wethersfield. State’s Attorney
Cummings advocated clemency for
Kennedy. He was given a year in jail.

George and Ruth Nott, cared for by
the Masonic Order, remembered their
mother as time went on. When they
reached maturity, they petitioned the
Board of Pardons for her release.
Their pleas were ignored. until 1937
when Mrs. Nott was freed and dis-
appears from our story.

The Bridgeport church bells ring in
a different world today. Prohibition
is a memory and the Nott tragedy is
not even that. But whenever I hear a
player piano I think of the Bridgeport
drama played out by lust and brutality
over half a century ago.

These antique curiosities are the
only vestige of immortality left to
George Nott. ; *

*
Legian

914 Conn.

charged with error because defendant was
brought to trial while he was allegedly de-
ranged mentally by drugs given by physi-
cians to alleviate intense pain, so that he
was allegedly unable to consult intelligently
with his counsel as to the conduct. of the
trial.

2. Criminal Law €=649(1)

Where defendant made a motion at
noon on Friday in murder prosecution that
court be adjourned until the following
Tuesday, on ground that defendant was in
such pain that he was unable to continue
the trial, but physician, who had defendant
under his care, testified that in his opinion
defendant could continue to stand trial,
and at time the state’s case was nearly
finished, and trial court denied the motion,
and shortly thereafter the trial was, in
fact, recessed until Tuesday, and, when
court convened on Tuesday, defendant rest-
ed his case without calling witnesses, trial
court did not abuse its discretion in denying
the motion.

3. Criminal Law ¢>641 ©

‘Record in murder prosecution estab-
lished that defendant, who was represented

_ by public defender, was not denied effec-

tive representation by counsel as guaran-
teed by the state and federal Constitutions.

_o——

Frank Wojculewicz, pro se.

Albert S. Bill, State’s Atty., Hartford,
for appellee (state). .

Before INGLIS, C. J., BALDWIN,
O’SULLIVAN and DALY, JJ., and BOR-
DON, Superior Court Judge.

O’SULLIVAN, Associate Justice.

On March 18, 1952, the jury found the
defendant guilty of the crime of murder in
the first degree on each of two counts. He
appealed to this court assigning as error
(1) the denial of his motion to set the ver-
dict aside, (2) the denial of his motion,
made during the course of the trial, for a
continuance, (3) the denial of his motion

119 ATLANTIC REPORTER, 2d SERIES

to strike part of the testimony of an expert
on ballistics, and (4) certain instructions
included in the charge to the jury. In his
brief the defendant stated that assignment
(4) would not be pursued. -The appeal
was competently presented by the public
defender,’ who had also represented the
defendant throughout the trial. On De-
cember 15, 1953, this court found no error
and judgment to that effect was entered on
the same date. State y. Wojculewicz, 140
Conn.: 487, 101 A.2d 495.

On February 24, 1954, Wojculewicz, still
acting through the public defender, filed in
the Superior Court a petition for a new
trial. He alleged in the petition that, sub-
sequent to his appealing from the judgment
which adjudicated him guilty of murder in
the first degree, he had become insane and
had remained so until after the appeal was
argued by the public defender at the Oc-
tober term, 1953; that this mental condi-
tion had been ascertained around June 1,
1953, by the authorities at the prison where
he was then incarcerated; that the author-
ities. did not disclose these facts either to
the public defender or to this court while
the appeal was pending; and that, because
of his condition, he was thus deprived of a
constitutional right to advise and confer
with his counsel. The court dismissed the
petition and, on appeal, we sustained its ac-

_ tion. Wojculewicz v. State, 142 Conn. 676,

117 A.2d 439. We pointed out, 142 Conn.
at page 679, 117 A.2d at page 440, that
“the real basis of [Wojculewicz’] petition
is not that the claimed violation of his
constitutional rights had any effect upon
the trial to the jury or upon his being pre-
vented from taking or pursuing an appeal.
If any of his rights. were violated, they
bore upon the possible untimeliness of the
argument in this court and, at most, require
an opportunity to reargue after [he] re-
turns, if ever, to sanity.”

Wojculewicz filed in this court what he,
through the public defender, has labeled a
“Petition for Writ of Error Coram Nobis.”
His purpose was to vacate the judgment of
no error rendered on December 15, 1953,
in order to make legally possible a reargu-
ment on the merit of the appeal. Whether

STATE v. WOJCULEWICZ
Cite as 119 A.2d 913

such a petition is récognized in this state,
and, if so, whether the facts upon which
the petition in the case at bar rests would
justify the granting of it, we need not de-
cide. See Hurlbut v. Thomas, 55.Conn. 181,
182, 10 A, 556; Sanders v. State, 85 Ind.
318, 324; 1 Swift’s Digest 790; Frank,
Coram Nobis; Millar, Civil Procedure of
the Trial Court in Historical Perspective,
p. 390 et seq.; 31 Am.Jur. 323, § &02 et seq. ;
24 C.J.S., Criminal Law, § 1606 et seq., p.
143; 49 CJ.S., Judgments, § 311 et seq-,
p. 561. We are spared that determination
because, after a demurrer was addressed to
the petition, the parties submitted the stipu-

question, he should enjoy.

1. “State of Connecticut
Vv

i October 26, 1955
Frank Wojculewicz

ae 00 0

“STIPULATION

i nobis has been
“WieEREAS a petition in the nature of a writ of error coram 1

resented to the court, and
i SWitcenks the State’s Attorney recommen

. n the petit terests
3 on be granted in the in
in State v. Wojculewicz as requested in th p

of justice, and
“WHEREAS the St
this proceeding alone, fa
to justify the granting of the a datas ;
7 RE, IT IS ST ATE
is ake Ege orate that the judgment of the eee Court of I
in the case of State v. Wojculewicz, dated the ge ms
vacated, and that an order enter for a reargument 0

“State of Connecticut
“By /S/ Albert S. Bill

lation recited in the footnote?
thereof we have vacated” the former judg-
ment of this court in the case at bar, in or
der to permit the reargument which Woj-
culewicz has sought and which the state is
willing, under the unusual circumstances in

We add this further fact: 1
judgment had been vacated, the public de-
fender, at the defendant’s request, with-
drew from the case and, on December 8,
1955, the defendant appeared in this court
and, pro se, reargued the appeal.
not maintain that the evidence fails to sup-

Supreme Court of Errors
October Term, 1955

ds that a reargument of the appeal

se of
ate’s Attorney does not wish to contest, for the purpose

an / 3 : 1
that the facts alleged in the petition, if proven, are ample

ition be, and
emurrer to the petition be,
a te Srrors entered

day of December, 1953, be
ate v. Wojculewicz.

By virtue

After the

He did

Soe ne nr

“State’s Attorney
“/S/ Frank Wojeulewicz

“Frank Wojculewicz, Defendant

‘By /S/ James D. Cosgrove

“Public Defender”

2. “State. of Connecticut

rank Wojculewicz ; Fae
P: “ORDER UPON PETITION FOR WRIT OF Error Coram Nos

. 2 ¢ pe c
With eognizing or refusing to recognize the av ailability of the petition in
ithout recognizing fus 4 cog ; ‘

the nature of a writ of error coram nobis which ha a gga
court and without passing upon the merit of such petition, ‘

ini ition
his court, but acting solely upon the agreement pertaining . men . er
wan tey ~ the written stipulation into which the parties entered under @:

ber 26, 1955, it is : 5 F
papa ioe that the judgment of this court rendered on December

the case of State v. Frank Wojeulewicz be yaeated and it Is

i ¢ a session of this
“FURTIIER ORDERED-that a reargument be had in that case at a se

rs “By the Court,

“78/ Raymond G. Calnen,
aie “Clerk.”

State of Connecticut
Supreme Court of Errors
. : November 2, 1955

erly before

5, 1953, in

OMIT 8

POORER WET PEE EME EET DENY.

t a re its PA rem ite t om Ln aan
maNngsea, CT 3gtate raigon

Laks VW Edd Co La NY Lg

_ AT LAST MOMENT.

Had to be Supported While

the Noose Was Ad-
justed, |

John Zawodganczek, alias John
Saviak, was athed at the state prison’
in Wethersfield shortly § after 12
o’clock this morning for the murder of
Michael Wierdack in Glastonbury on
the night of October 15, 1908. Con-
trary to expectation the condemned
man collapsed as he stepped on the

trap. :

Saviak, accompanied hy Rev. Fr.
Oliver T. Magnell and Rev. Fr. 8.
Lozowski of St. Cyril Methodius

Church, Hartford, was taken from his
cell to the execution house at 12:04.
Thirty seconds Igter the trap. ‘was
‘sprung, and at 12:17 fe was pro-
nounced extinct: The body was then.

taken down and put !n a cofttin. The
neck was dislocated and in the opin-

jon of the doctors Saviak did not suf-

fer after the trap was sprung.

Throughout the day Saviak had ex- |

hibited great nerve and in the after-
noon when his wife, Mary, visited him
for the-last time laughed and.talked
‘with her as if tt was nothing more
than-an ordinary call, Hie was re-

signed to hia fate and repeatedly said }

that the law had dong all it could for
him. He was a médel prisoner and
thanked all of the prison officials for
their kindness to him.
The same courage which he had man-
‘{fested throughout his trial was car-
{‘@irdigh until) the hanging.
+ tered tha’ basic arly brad with
a ANDi tts all Whé stepped on t
> his will power relaxed and na
rine . He: wee-wupperted by this)
pr deputies, . ee ee
~oWilrden Albert Garvin ‘was assisted
by Deputy Warden George -E., Baina-
Gen, and Assistant Deputy James H.
Bulkeley. — ier een vo

Those present at the execution
‘were Willie O. Burr,.T. D. Welle cf
Hartford ana E. A. Fuller of Suffield,
prison directors:;, Robert. R. Keeney
‘of the South Manchester “News,”
James A. Martin. of the East Hartford
“Enterprise.” and the representatives
of the loval papers.

Baviak was examined by Dr FE. G.
Fox, the prison physician, and by pr.
B. F. Donahue, the realdent Physiciaa.

‘Saviak was-27 years old and welgh-

ea 131 pounds.

The murder for which Saviax!
hanged and for which Rubaka is serve!
ing a term of life imprisonment was!
the resuk of a dog fight in Glaston-
bury. On the night of October 15,
1908, Michael Wierdack was seated on
a log by the road -side talking with
friends, While.he was there a daugh-
ter of Peter Rubaka, accompanied Ly
Rubaka’s dog, passed. The animal
‘got into,a fight with another dog, be-
‘longing to one of Wierdack’s compan-
‘jons and Wierdack in endeavoring to
separate them was bitten. ~He then
went to Rubaka’s home and asked to
have the dog-killed. <A quarrel re-
lsulted. in which Rubaka appeared to
'be the aggressor, and he, Rubaka,
icalled upon John Saviak, who was
|stamping sauerkraut with his feet in
a barrel, to ald him saying “Come out
and we will kill the Polack.” Saviak
|grabbed up a butcher knife, used in
Phage | the cabbage, from the ta-
|

le and ‘in the fight which followed
| Wierdack recelved several knife
i wounds, which resulted in his death.
Rubaka, who is Saviak's uncle by mar-
riage, it was claimed used a club.

Both Saviak and Rubaka, who are
Hungarians, were arrested the same
night and.were indicted by the grand
jury for first degrea-murder. They were
tried at the December, 1908, term of
the criminal superior court and found
guilty .of first’ degree murder. Judge
Willlam 8, Case sentenced them to be
‘hanged on March 9. The supreme
court granted a new trial and on 8ep-
tember 28, last, the men were again
put on trial. The jury found Saviak
guilty as charged and Rubaka gullty
of murder in the second degree. The
bo pardons Féroséd to Intervere|
with the execution of the sentence.

This execution brings the total num.
ber of hangings at Wetherafleld, since
December 18, 1894, ‘to twemty-one.{
Deputy Warden Baisden has adjusted
the noose about the necks of all who
have thus far paid the extreme penalty,
and Warden Garvin has officiated at

“a

the execution of the last fourteen.

ee ee

912° Conn. 119 ATLANTIC REPORTER, 2d SERIES

143 Conn. 114° , :
Sidney E. CLARK et al.

v.
Walter A. SHAW et al.

Maurice J. Buckley, Stamford, for appel-
lee-defendant Hattie M. Shaw.

Before INGLIS, C. J. BALDWIN,
O’SULLIVAN, and DALY, JJ. and
Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut. BORDON, Superior Court Judge.

Jan. 10, 1956.

» Sara DALY, Justice.
Action for injuries to person and J

Property sustained allegedly because of This action was brought by three persons
negligence of one defendant in operation of joining as parties plaintiff. General Stat-
an automobile owned by the other, In Su- utes, § 7824. Each sought to recover for
perior Court, Fairfield County, Raymond injuries alleged to have been caused by the
J. Devlin, J., a jury returned verdicts for negligence of the defendant Walter A.
the plaintiffs and the court set these aside Shaw in operating-a motor vehicle owned
as to the defendant automobile owner. by his mother, the defendant Hattie M.
From such action the plaintiffs appealed. Shaw. The jury returned three verdicts,
The Supreme Court of Errors, Daly, J., one for each of the plaintiffs. A motion
held that the jury’s finding of issues against to set aside the verdict was granted. Since
“the defendant” and finding for plaintiffs the trial court and the plaintiffs have
to recover of “the defendant” were de- treated it as a motion to set the verdicts
fective and would not have sustained a aside as to the defendant Hattie M. Shaw,
judgment. we deal with it as such. The plaintiff ap-
Pealed and subsequently filed a Partial
No error, . withdrawal of appeal in accordance with
Appellants’ motion for reargument the provisions of § 388 of the Practice
denied. Book, withdrawing so much of the appeal
as made a finding necessary,
1, Judgment <>198
Trial ¢=329 The defendant Hattie M. Shaw re-
quested that an interrogatory be submitted
to the jury as follows: “1. Did Walter A.
Shaw have authority to drive Hattie
Shaw’s automobile without first asking her
permission to drive it?” The plaintiffs ob-
jected to the form of the interrogatory,
claiming that it was not broad enough in
its scope to cover the issues in the case
fully. It was submitted and the answer
given was No. The plaintiffs maintain that
the jury might well have concluded that the
family car doctrine was applicable and that

In action for injuries sustained al-
legedly because of negligence of one de-
fendant in operation of automobile owned
by the other, jury’s finding of issues against
“the defendant” and finding for plaintiffs
to recover of “the defendant” were de-
fective and should have been returned
rather than accepted, and such verdicts
could not sustain a judgment.

2. Appeal and Error 854(2)

memorandum, namely, that the “jury’s re-

sponse to the interrogatory was in ac-
John Keogh, Jr., Norwalk, with whom, on cordance with the evidence and negatived

the brief, was Alfred W. Burkhart, Nor- the possible application of the family car
walk, for appcllants-plaintiffs, doctrine” and that there “was no basis in

STATE v. WOJCULEWICZ Ct Conn. 913
Cite as 119 A.2d 913

143 Conn. 118
STATE of Connecticut

v.
Frank WOJCULEWICZ.

the evidence to support a finding of agen-
cy.”

[1,2] In the caption Pe oe
i i intiff an
po Pa gtd ae, "In the body of | Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.
one it was stated that the jury “finds the Jan. 10, 1056.
issues for the plaintiff as —— sad de-
finds for the plain-
va rae sates goer ie defendant” the Defendant was convicted so 3 =
sentind of damages awarded therein. That counts of indictment hatte mur ay
verdict also recited that the jury “further the first degree committed in t e per ee
finds the issues for the defendant.” In the tion of a robbery. The poe “a ,
body of each of the other two verdicts it Hartford County, Shea, J., aan aw
was stated that the jury “finds the issues ment, and the defendant 2 pe E ys
for the plaintiff and therefore finds for Supreme Court of Errors, saan ah
the plaintiff to recover of the defendant” 101 A.2d 495, found no ae - “>
the amount of damages awarded therein. the defendant filed a petition for ne ei
One of the issues submitted to the jury was jin the Superior Court. The rato ye
whether the defendant Hattie M. Shaw was dismissed the petition, and de ~ - pod
liable. In finding the issues for one of the pealed to the Supreme ee a r em
plaintiffs as against the “defendant” and and the Supreme Court of seh s
in finding for each plaintiff to recover of Conn. 676, 117 A2d 439, mae ees
the “defendant,” the jury did not, by the tion of the Superior Court. ; e ae
verdicts, determine which one of the two. the defendant filed a petition ieee j -
defendants was liable. The verdicts were ment of the Supreme Court o asm
plainly defective in that they failed to Conn. 487, 101 A.2d 495, vacate as nas
dispose ‘of this issue. Greco v. Keenan, 115 defendant could have a dis. joes ae
Conn. 704, 161 A. 100. As this question was merits, on ‘ground that he had “9 i 8
not answered by the jury, the court should before his first appeal was cue : :
not have accepted the verdicts; it should Supreme Court of Errors, om u pe J
have returned the jury for the decision of held that where no motion was ev shies
this issue. The verdicts as rendered would dressed to Superior Court to ee
not support a judgment and upon motion. because of alleged deranged menta at
should have been set aside for that reason. tion of defendant or for any a isin
Dorfman v. Martin & Crawford Motor reason} Superior Court could not be ae me
Co., 105 Conn. 774, 136 A. 565. We can with error because ing eat —
sustain a right decision although it may to trial while he was allege se ee,
have been placed on a wrong ground. mentally by drugs given ed 4 atts .
Doherty v. Connecticut Co., 133 Conn. 469, alleviate intense pain, so t at oa 4 =:
476, 52 A.2d 436. The court properly edly unable to consult intelligently —
granted the motion of the defendant Hattie counsel as to the conduct of the trial.
M. Shaw, and that being so, it is not neces-
sary ‘to consider. whether the court was
right in placing its ruling upon the grounds
stated in its memorandum. ~Greco v.
Keenan, supra; 115 Conn. 705, 161 A. 100;
Maltbie, Conn.App.Proc., § 18.

No error.

1. Criminal Law <>1044

Where no motion was ever addressed
to trial court to postpone trial of murder
prosecution because of alleged deranged

i ini ition of defendant or for any
ion the other Judges con- mental condi !
Z ty ne re comparable reason, trial court could not be
curred.

119 A.2d—58

There is no error.

FOP arE

eee ee ee

“T did not ask for a delay of the trial be-

916 Conn. 119 ATLANTIC REPORTER, 2d SERIES

port the verdict of guilty on each count. ground that the defendant was in such pain
His argument took a different course. It that ‘he was unable to continue with the
appears to embrace three claims: (1) He trial. The state opposed the motion, and
should not have been brought to trial be- the court heard the testimony of ‘Dr. Ray
cause the drugs given by physicians to al- F. Lowry, who had the defendant under
leviate the intense pain from which he was_ his care.. Dr. Lowry ‘testified that in his
suffering so deranged him mentally that he opinion the condition of the defendant was
_was unable to consult intelligently with his such that he could continue to stand trial.
counsel as to the conduct of the trial;\\(2). The trial denied the motion for continu-
the court should have granted his motion, ance, and the’ defendant took exception to
made during the course of the ‘trial,..to this tuling. The right of a defendant to a

continue the Proceedings because, on that continuance is within the sound discretion -

day, he was suffering such pain- that. his of the trial court. | State v. Lee, 69 Conn.
mind was confused and he was. thus unable 186, 193,37, A. 75.--In this connection it is
to advise with his counsel as to the proper of great significance that the State’s case
course of proceeding during the examina- was nearly finished and that shortly the
tion of state’s witnesses; and (3) he was - trial was, in fact, recessed until the follow-
denied the effective representation by coun- ing Tuesday. When court convened on
sel that is guaranteed by the state and fed- * Tuesday, the defendant rested his case
eral constitutions, _ without calling witnesses.. Here it does not
appear that there was an abuse of. discre-
[1] As to the first claim, the record tion.” State v. Wojculewicz, 140 Conn, 487,
shows that no. motion was ever addressed 490, 101 A.2a 495, 496.
to the court to Postpone trial because of ;
the defendant’s deranged mental condition

of for any comparable reason. Indeed, in the third was not based on any assignment
the written statement which the defendant of error, as required by the rule. Practice

read during the course of argument and Book, §§ 408, 409, But that aside, the claim
which has since been made available to all is totally. without merit; and deserves no
members of this court, he expressly says: more comment than that the record discloses
a commendable handling by the public de-
fender of the interests of his client through-
out the trial and, subsequent thereto, a
loyalty and efficiency that met the highest
standards of the legal profession. Indeed,
so far as we are aware, this is the first
time in the long history of this court that
its judgment was vacated after the term
had expired and an opportunity to reargue
was thereafter extendéd to a litigant.

[3]. As with the first claim noted above,

cause of this mental depression which kept
my mind from Proper normal functions.”
It is obvious that the court’ cannot be’
charged with an erroneous or even an un-
fair ruling upon a motion which was never
made. Moreover, there ig no evidence in
the record which would indicate that at
the time of the trial the defendant was in
fact mentally deranged either through ;
drugs administered to him or from any

other cause. Neither from matters raised on reargu-

ment nor, we add, from those presented on
the original argument can we discover any-
thing erroneous,

[2] The answer to the second claim is
found in the former opinion of this court
on the same matter: “In the course of the
trial on Friday, March 14, 1952, at noon,
after a recess, counsel for the defendant
made an oral motion that court be ad- In this opinion the other Judges con-
journed until the following Tuesday, on the curred. :

There is no error.

tial eh aheaamenaniedaseiecedintels

' BASOFF v. STATE

Md. 917

Cite as 119 A.2d 917

Barnett BASOFF
v.
STATE of Maryland.
No. 77.

Court of Appeals of Maryland.
Jan. 12, 1956.

Defendant was prosecuted under an in-
dictment charging that he unlawfully used
means for the purpose of causing an abor-
tion upon a named woman. Judgment of
conviction in the Criminal Court of Balti-
more, Joseph R. Byrnes, J., and the defend-
ant appeals. The Court of Appeals, Dela-
plaine, J., held that there were no re-
versible errors and that the evidence sus-

tained the conviction.

Judgment affirmed.

1. Criminal Law 386

Generally to render testimony of a
telephone conversation _admissible, some
preliminary testimony, either direct or cir-
cumstantial, must be presented to establish
the identity of the other person to the con-
versation.

2. Criminal Law 6386

Where identity or authority of person
with whom a witness conversed on tele-
phone is not in dispute, testimony as to the
conversation may. be admissible without the
person’s identification.

3. Criminal Law @=386

In abortion prosecution, where tele-
phone calls were a link in the chain of
facts tending to show that the defendant
was the man who performed the operation
and an inference was authorized that de-
fendant or someone on his behalf made the
calls and that they connected him with
the crime, testimony as to the telephone
calls was admissible over the objection that
they were from a person whose voice was
not identified.

4. Criminal Law €=1036(!)

Where defendant made no objection at
the trial to the admission of testimony, the
Court of Appeals could not consider the
objection. Court of Appeals Rules, rule 9.

5. Appeal and Error €>169
Criminal Law €>1028

The court rule that the Court of Ap-
peals shall not decide any point which does
not plainly appear by the record to have
been tried and decided by the court below
applies to both civil and criminal cases.
Court of Appeals Rules, rule 9.

6. Criminal Law ¢>1030(1)

When a party has the option either to
object or not to object, his failure to ex-
ercise the option while it is still within the
power of the trial court to correct the er-
ror, is a waiver of it, estopping the party
from obtaining a review of the point or
question on appeal. Court of Appeals

Rules, rule 9.

7. Criminal Law €>1028

The rule that the Court of Appeals
shall not decide any point not plainly ap-
pearing by the record to have been tried
and decided by the court below, was en-
acted to ensure fairness for all the parties
to cases and to promote orderly administra-
tion of the law. Court of Appeals Rules,

rule 9.

8. Criminal Law €=339

Where prosecuting witness has identi-
fied the accused prior to trial under circum-
stances precluding suspicion of unreliabil-
ity, prior identification is admissible.

9. Criminal Law ¢=339

In abortion prosecution, testimony of
policewoman that she showed victim the
photographs of 12 men and that she recog-
nized one of them as that of the man who
had produced the abortion was admissible
where there was no suspicion of unfairness

or unreliability.

PRINTF

The Killer Who
Beat the Electric
Chair

(Continued from page 61)

Hartford. The cash register drawer
gaped open, empty. The old man’s
wallet was missing. He had been shot
twice through the heart at point-
blank range.

Chief Godfrey personally led the
force of police and detectives who rushed
to the scene. They turned up four
witnesses who had been in or near
the store within a short time of the
slaying. They reported a late model
gray sedan seen parked at the curb in
front of the drugstore. They described
aman who had spent a long time in the
telephone booth in the store shortly
after 8:30. It was the best informa-
tion to come out of any of the wave of
stickup shootings and killings.

Within a matter of hours, detectives
arrested a hot suspect who filled the bill
in several particulars. But four days
later, after thorough investigation, he
was cleared and released. The police,
for all practical purposes, were back
where they started.

The long-awaited break finally came
on February 23, 1957. It began with
a call to State Police Lieutenant Samuel
Rome from one Of his detectives, all of
whom were under orders to report in
detail on the movements of all known
police characters.

“The Chin is in town,” the detec-
tive told Rome, “Remember him?”

“Yes,” the lieutenant said. “Joe Ta-
borsky.”

“He’s with a pal,” the detective said.
“Arthur Culombe. Culombe’s got an
even longer record than Taborsky.
They’re drinking in a bar near here.
A contact of mine told me I’d never
get any closer to the killers than those
two. I’m asking for instructions.”

Lieutenant Rome arranged for another
man from the Hartford Barracks, to join
the detective, with orders to tail the sus-
pects when they left the tavern. The
two detectives were told to use their
own discretion as to when to arrest
the pair. Thus, when Taborsky and
Culombe departed from the bar about
an hour later, two state police detec-
tives were shadowing them.

Their two suspects’ first stop was a
house on Coleman Drive, where they
sat in their car and talked for a while.
Culombe stayed behind when Taborsky
left. Taborsky walked up the street.
Culombe got out, walked up to the
front door of the house and fumbled
in his pocket for keys. One of the
detectives moved in and arrested him.

The other followed after Taborsky.
He arrested Joe only minutes later.
Both ex-cons were brought to the Hart-
ford Barracks for questioning, in sep-
arate interrogation rooms.

Culombe was sullen and silent. Tabor-
sky was loud in his claims of persecu-
tion. “Why don’t you guys leave me
alone?” he cried. “You sent me to the
Death House once for something I didn’t
do. Now you’re on my back again.
What do I know about any killings up
here? I live in Brooklyn. I don’t know
nothing about anything around here.”

The next morning, two detachments
of Lieutenant Rome’s best detectives
were assigned two different tasks. One
squad was to trace Taborsky’s move-
ments in recent weeks, to learn if he

“The rest of his meal was the usual last request stuff."

had been in Connecticut at the time of
any of the several stickup shootings and
murders.

The other squad was given a search
warrant for Culombe’s quarters on Cole-
man Drive, with orders to “take the
place apart.” Detective Sergeant Donald
Page led this group.

In Culombe’s home they found eight
pistols of varying size and calibers. They
found two black Navy foul-weather
masks and three bandannas, two of
which were folded like masks. They
found a large quantity of ammunition
for the pistols, a pair of handcuffs and
a policeman’s club.

By noon that day, the other squad had
positively established that Joe Taborsky
had indeed been in Connecticut on the
dates of all the related crimes as far
back as early December. They learned
he had visited Culombe on the nights
of several of the killings. On at least
two occasions, he had slept in Culombe’s
apartment.

They also established that on the day
of the grocery store holdup and beat-
ings in West Coventry, Culombe had
stopped there while en route to visit
relatives in Willimantic. That same
day, Taborsky had visited a friend who
lived less than a mile from the grocery
store. .

A check with the New York State
Motor Vehicle Bureau showed that Ta-
borsky had owned a gray Cadillac
which he had sold just a few weeks
earlier.

Taborsky and Culombe were taken
that afternoon to New Britain for
booking on technical holding charges.
They were ordered held in $25,000
bail, which they could not raise. Then
they were returned to the Hartford
Barracks for further questioning.

From Taborsky, interrogators got
nothing but indignant complaints about
being persecuted because of his unfor-
tunate past. Culombe continued to
fence with his questioners until the
afternoon of February 27th. Then
he seemed to tire of the contest.

“All right,” he said resignedly at
3:30 p.m., “we did it—me and The
Chin. We pulled all those holdups.
We killed those six people.”

This was the turning point. Now
Culombe talked freely. It took him
close to five hours to spell out the de-
tails of the bloody crime spree waged
by The Chin and himself. He told
how he and Taborsky had committed
the double-slaying in the New Britain
filling station; the murder of the East
Hartford liquor store owner, and the
druggist, Rosenthal. Without visible
emotion, he recounted the shoe store
holdup in North Haven in which they
cold-bloodedly murdered Mr. and Mrs.
Speyer and pistol-whipped the owner of
the store.

Asked to explain their motive for the
vicious crimes, Culombe shrugged and
answered in one word, “Robbery.” Dis-
gustedly, he added that they had av-
eraged a mere $83 per murder.

Taborsky and Culombe were charged
with first-degree murder. Accom-
panied by a motorcade of high police
brass from various departments, Culom-
be was taken to the scenes of the
crimes. At each he retraced the kill-
ers’ movements. Also, he supplied infor-
mation which enabled police to recover
a .32 caliber Russian-made revolver from
a pond near Dexter and Newfield Streets
in Hartford. He said this was the gun
used to kill Kurpiewski and Janowski in
the New Britain filling station job. Police
also found in a farmer’s field a Polish-
made pistol, a 9 mm Random, which

Frome pect enero EOP

rs ee

ballistics experts established as the mur-
der weapon which killed druggist John
Rosenthal.

“Confronted with Culombe’s detailed
admissions of their joint crimes, Joe
Taborsky stubbornly refused to admit
any part in them. Finally, however, he
broke down and said, “I'll go along
with Culombe’s story—except I wasn’t
the trigger man in every case.”

Now he told his version to a police
stenographer. He spoke emotionlessly,
almost as if the whole proceeding bored
him. There were some discrepancies
between his account and that told by
Arthur Culombe, but in the main they
coincided.

When he had finished, Lieutenant
Rome asked, “Is that all, Joe? Any-
thing else you want to add?”

For a long moment, Taborsky said
nothing. Then he said, “You know my
brother, Albert?”

“Sure,” Rome said.
the boy that’s insane.”

Joe Taborsky grinned. He said, “He
may be insane, but he’s not a liar. I
killed Louis Wolfson, back in 1950.”

The Chin’s confession to the Wolfson
murder at this late date, was a long-
delayed vindication of the Hartford
police. During the wave of public
sympathy for Taborsky when he was
freed from the Death House in 1955,
they had come in for considerable criti-
cism for what some considered their
attempts to make him a fall guy. Now,
by Taborsky’s own admission, the police
were proved to have been right.

Taborsky also let police in on another
secret at this time. He said that he
and Culombe had planned another rob-
bery-murder for the very night when
they were arrested. Their victim was
to be a Hartford gambler who had

“I know him—

once been arrested for a robbery pulled
by Culombe. He had established his
innocence in that case by pinning the
crime on Culombe. Culombe went to
prison for it, but when he was released,
the gambler tried to make amends by
giving Culombe some cash and cloth-
ing. The night he and Culombe were ar-
rested, Taborsky said, they had planned
to break into the gambler’s home, take
whatever cash he had and kill him.

At their trial, which began in June
of 1957, the State chose to try Tabor-
sky and Culombe for the New Britain
gas station murders of Edward Kur-
piewski and Daniel Janowski. Judge
James C. Shannon presided.

On June 28th, the jury returned a
verdict of guilty of first-degree mur-
der against both men, with no recom-
mendation for mercy. Judge Shannon
sentenced them to be executed during
the week of December 16th. A series of
appeals, however, delayed the carrying
out of this sentence and for Joe Tabor-
sky, it began to look like another record-
breaking stay in the Death House at
Wethersfield.

But he himself was the one who
finally ended it.- When the only re-
course left to the two murderers was
an appeal to the United States Supreme
Court, Joe refused to permit such an
appeal to be made in his behalf.

“I am for capital punishment,” he
said. “A guilty man might as well get
this life over with, praying for forgive-
ness from above.”

A new execution date was set, and
Taborsky’s date with the electric chair
was now fixed for May 17, 1960. He
made preparations for death by willing
his body to a medical school and his
eyes to an eye bank.

Arthur Culombe displayed no such

eagerness to pay so high a price for his
crimes. At his behest, his attorney filed
the appeal to the U. S. Supreme Court
and an automatic stay of execution was
granted.

It was still pending when Joe Tabor-
sky reached the most important day of
his life referred to earlier in this re-
port. That was the day that the law

‘ had appointed for his death, May 17,

1960. On that day, Joe at last walked
out of his Death House cell, following
in the footsteps of the many men he
had watched, years before, enter the
Death Chamber never to return. Then,
he had been nagged by the fear that this
would happen to him. Now, his ex-
pectation was realized.

In the presence of some two dozen
official witnesses, he was strapped into
the chair. He shook his head negative-
ly when the warden asked him if he
had a final statement. The hood was
lowered over his head, the switch was
thrown, released, thrown again, and
Joseph Taborsky was pronounced dead.

Thirteen months later the United
States Supreme Court set aside the con-
viction of Arthur Culombe. But that
did not mean he became a free man.
On June 29, 1961, in Hartford Superior
Court, he pleaded guilty to second-
degree murder and was sentenced to
life imprisonment. oo¢

Eprror’s Nore:

The names, Carlo Betri, Bob Ro-
ray, Marie Musler and Jackson Ber-
ryman, as used in the foregoing story,
are not the real names of the persons
concerned. These persons have been
given fictitious names to protect their
identities.

MEAT CUTTING orrerns YOU
SUCCESS And SECURITY

In The Best Established Business

2 BPP TRAIN QUICKLY in 8 short weeks for

=, a job with a bright and secure future
in the vital meat business. Trained meat
men needed. Good pay, full time jobs,
year-round income, no layoffs—HAVE A
PROFITABLE MARKET OF YOUROWN!

cutting in only ¢

getting actual practice training on power saw. Students
train on all the latest power. tools and equipment.

‘Sp ob le eee

Students a getting actual practice training in meat
eir 3rd day at school. Students (below)

LEARN BY DOING

In The World » PEOPLE MUST EAT!

Get your training under actual mect
market conditions in our big, modern,
cutting and processing rooms and retail
meat market. Expert instructors show you
how—then you do eoch job yourself,
Nearly a million dollars worth of meat
is cut, processed, displayed and mer-
chandised by National students yearly!

PAY AFTER GRADUATION

Come to National for complete 8-weeks
course and pay your tuition in easy in-
stallments after you graduate. Diploma
aworded. FREE nationwide employment
help. Thousands of successful graductes.
OUR 40th YEAR!

FREE CATALOG—MAIL COUPON
Send coupon for big, fully illustrated,
National School catalog showing stu-
dents in training. See for yourself what
rapid progress you can make. See meat
you cut and equipment you train with.
No obligation. No salesman will call.
FOR REAL JOB SECURITY, get all the
facts NOW! G.I. Approved.

National School of Meat Cutting
Dept. F-63 Toledo 4, Ohio

NATIONAL SCHOOL OF MEAT CUTTING, Dept. F-63, Toledo 4, Ohio

Send me your FREE ill school log showing
SUCCESS ond SECURITY in Meot Cutting, Meat Merchandising and Se

me how I can quickly train for
i Service Meats.

|
| No obligation. No solesman will call. Approved for veterans.
|
|
|
|

eux

ing said, “that any injustice has been
“done, or that the result of a new trial
would probably be different.”

Apprised of this decision, and also
of prevalent rumors that his death
sentence would be commuted to life,
Joe Taborsky flew into a rage. “Death,”
he cried, “is better than life imprison-
ment for a crime I did not commit!”

But Joe’s attorney was still fighting
for his client. He won another re-
prieve. He petitioned for a reversal of
the decision previously rendered by
the Court of Errors, undaunted by the
knowledge that this court had not re-
versed a murder conviction in more
than 80 years.

Yet there is always a first time—
and this was it. Acting on Attorney
Bergman’s new petition, they finally
agreed that Albert Taborsky was, in
all probability, insane at the time he
testified against his brother. They
ordered a new trial.

Russian-made revolver reportedly used in the New Britain slaying
interested Capt. Chameroy, State Police Identification Bureau

pee eee

The State acted swiftly in the face
of this decision and -that was when
Prosecutor Bill, admitting he had no
case against Joe Taborsky without the
testimony of Albert, moved to dismiss
the charges against Joe.

Joe left the Death House, left
Wethersfield, a free man with a brand
new chance to make a decent life
for himself. On the morning of Octo-
ber 6, 1955, he had been, so far as
the public was concerned, a_ killer
under a_ well-deserved sentence of
death. That night he was a free man
and a hero.

For a few weeks after his release,
Joe basked in the publicity which fol-
lowed his every move, but finally it
died down. Suddenly he could not be
found in Hartford, and it was assumed
he had left for the Long Island monas-
tery for his period of rest, prayer and
gratitude.

He returned in a couple of months

and announced he was leaving for
New York, where he had a job wait-
ing for him. He took lodgings in Han-
cock Street, Brooklyn, returning only
occasionally to Hartford.

He didn’t see much of his family
on these visits, but he did get together
with his old partner in crime, Arthur
Culombe, who had served out his sen-
tence for the dairy heist and now
was living on Coleman Place in Hart-
ford.

When December, 1956, rolled around,
Joe Taborsky had been a free man
for over a year. As far as the police
were concerned, he had kept his nose
clean. They had never brought him in
even as a suspect in any crime. Also,
they had never been able to tag any-
one else for the Wolfson murder.

On December 15, 1956, Connecticut
had a double murder. At six o’clock
that evening, a bus developed motor
trouble on Stanley Street in New

Sgt. Paige found an arsenal in the home of Arthur Culombe,

identified as Joe Taborsky’s partner in series of killings

Britain and the driver walked across
the street to use a telephone in a
filling station operated by Edward J.
Kurpiewski. He noticed a car parked
beside the gas pumps, its only occu-
pant a child in the front seat who
looked about a year old.

Inside the station the bus driver
found Edward Kurpiewski lying on
his back on the floor, a bloody hole
in his head. ‘

When the police arrived moments
later in response to the bus driver’s
call, Detective Sergeant Stephen Coffee
found another dead man in the wash-
room. This was Daniel J. Janowski,
who lived on Country Club Road, New
Britain. The little girl in the car be-
side the gas pumps -was Janowski’s
baby daughter.

On the face of it, the case looked
like a couple of homicides committed
in the course of a gas station stickup,
but if so, the killer or killers had
panicked and fled before accomplish-
ing their purpose. There was $40 in
the cash register. The wallets of the
dead men were in their pockets, ap-
parently untouched.

Only a short time earlier, it turned
out, another seemingly pointless mur-
der attempt had been made in a tailor
shop on Zion Street in Hartford. There
a gunman in a red mask had walked in
and ordered the proprietor into the
back room. When he didn’t move
fast enough to suit him, the bandit fired
a single shot which struck the tailor in
the neck, just missing the spine. He
was rushed to a hospital, where his
life was saved, although he suffered
permanent injuries.

Comparing notes later, Hartford and
New Britain police were convinced the
filling station murders and the tailor
shop shooting were committed by the
same men. The slugs removed from
the victims in both cases were com-
pared ballistically. They appeared to
have been fired from the same weapon
—but the tests were not positive.

State police working under the di-
rection of Major George H. Remer
located witnesses who reported seeing
what they described as an old gray
Cadillac near the shooting scenes in
both Hartford and New Britain.

On December 21st, the red-masked
bandit hit again, this time in Tolland
County, east of Hartford. An elderly
couple who operated a grocery store in
West Coventry reported that two gun-
men strode into their store at closing
time. One wore a red mask; the other
had a black handkerchief covering
the lower part of his face. They were
ordered to lie down on the floor as the
man in the black mask opened the reg-
ister, The old storekeeper opened his
mouth to protest and got slugged with
a gun butt. Both gunmen then pis-
tol-whipped the couple unmercifully
before fleeing.

They survived to give police what
little information they could about
their assailants. State police believed
the criminals were the same men who

had murdered two in the New Britain
gas station and shot the tailor in Hart-
ford. They assigned a total of 365
men to track down the gunmen before
they killed again.

Five days later, on December 26th,
Samuel Cohn, 65, was gunned to
death in his East Hartford liquor store.
Money was taken from his cash register
and from his pockets before the bandits
fled. A local resident told detectives
he had seen a gray Cadillac cruising
the neighborhood just before the slay-
ing.

There was more bloodthirsty sav-
agery to come. At 6:30 p.m. on January
5, 1957, two red-masked gunmen
strode into a shoe store on Wash-
ington Avenue in North Haven. The
proprietor scrupulously obeyed their
every command. He gave them about
$50 which was in the register. He
handed them his wallet, which con-
tained $12.

But at that moment, two customers
walked in, Bernard J. Speyer and his
wife Ruth. They lived in Meriden. At
the bandits’ orders. Speyer surrendered
his wallet and Mrs. Speyer handed
over her purse. Then the hoods or-
dered them to kneel on the floor.

Without provocation of any sort,
the bandits now proceeded to pistol-
whip the couple viciously about their
heads. When the proprietor pleaded
with them to stop, they turned on him
and slugged him repeatedly. Before

Lt. Rome (c.) brought Culombe (1.), Taborsky (r.) to headquarters for questioning

=a ey

the gunmen left, one stood about a
foot away from the kneeling Speyers
and fired two shots. The middle-aged
couple died instantly with bullets in
their brains.

Rushed to a hospital, the proprietor’s
condition was described as serious, but
doctors said he would recover. As
soon as he was able to talk, he told
police that the killers were between
25 and 30. Both had dark hair. One
was a six-footer, the other somewhat
shorter. One brandished an auto-
matic, the other a revolver. That
was all he could tell.

At that point, five murders had been
committed in less than a month in
central Connecticut. Three persons
had been brutally beaten. Another
was seriously wounded. State police
were working round the clock to nab
the gunmen. Local police departments
were on 24-hour emergency alert
status. But the gunmen remained at
large. All the police had was a
knowledge of their MOs and vague
descriptions. But how do you trap a
pair of gunmen who strike without
warning at widely separated places,
who hit and run and disappear into
the night?

And they were not through yet. A
few minutes before nine o’clock on
the night of January 27th, John M.
Rosenthal, 69, was found slain behind
a counter in his drugstore on Maple
Avenue in (Continued on page 68)

: as

Sapw
ey ek

aie 3 ket eS

SPOT

ory by eee Cae

60 Conn.

11. Homicide €=289

In prosecution for murder committed
during course of robbery, wherein defend-
ant contended that pistol had discharged
accidentally, charge in which court dis-
cussed possible effect of finding that re-
volver had -been discharged accidentally,
which stated that crime would be murder
becatise committed during course of rob-
bery, was correct statement of law. Gen.
St.1949, § 8350.

12. Homicide €=289

In prosecution for murder committed
during course of robbery, instructions de-
fining robbery and attempted robbery were
sufficient. Gen.St.1949, § 8350.

13. Criminal Law €=780(3), 785(12)

In prosecution for first-degree murder
committed in course of robbery, instructions
on corroboration of an accomplice, and ef-
fect of former convictions of crime on cred-
ibility of witness, were sufficient.

14. Criminal Law €=822(1)
Instructions in murder prosecution,
when considered as a whole, were sufficient.
jd oe
r

The appellant filed a motion for reargu-
ment which was denied.

Nathaniel Bergman, Special Public De-
fender, Hartford, with whom was John W.
Joy, Special Assistant Public Defender,
Hartford, for appellant (defendant).

‘Albert S. Bill, State’s Attorney, Hart-
ford, with whom were Douglass B. Wright,
Hartford and, on the brief, Joseph V. Fay,
Jr., Assistant State’s Attorneys, Hartford,
for the appellee (state).

Before BROWN, C. J., and JENNINGS,
INGLIS, BALDWIN, and O’SULLIVAN,

JJ.

INGLIS, Associate Justice.

-The defendant was convicted of murder
in the first degree in that, in the perpetra-
tion of a robbery, he killed Louis L. Wolf-
son. Upon this appeal, he claims error in
the denial of his motion to set aside the ver-
dict, in various rulings made upon the trial,
and in the charge.

95 ATLANTIC REPORTER, 2d SERIES

We consider first the refusal of the trial
court to set aside the verdict.: On March
23, 1950, Wolfson was employed in Coop-
er’s Package Store, located at the north-
east corner of New Park Avenue and Lay-
ton Street in West Hartford. New Park
Avenue runs in a generally east and west
direction and Layton Street runs north-
westerly from it. Shortly after 9 o’clock
in the evening of that day, Wolfson was
found lying in a pool of blood on the floor
of the store. The’ police were called and
he was taken to the Hartford Hospital.
It was there discovered that he had been
shot. A bullet had entered his face im-
mediately to the left of the base of the nose
and, following an upward course, had lodg-
ed in his brain. He died on March 26,
1950, as a result of the wound. The autop-
sy disclosed that the bullet was one fired
from a .22 caliber revolver. The foregoing
facts were not seriously disputed.

The principal witness for the state was
Albert Taborsky, the younger brother of the
defendant Joseph. Albert’s testimony may
be summarized as follows: He was the
owner of a 1936 Ford coupe. Some weeks
before March 23, 1950—he was indefinite
as to the exact time—he bought a .22 cali-
ber revolver at the request of Joseph and
gave it to him. Not more than a week be-
fore March 23, he bought two boxes of
cartridges for the revolver and handed
them to Joseph. In the early evening of
March 23, Joseph telephoned Albert at a
store on Charter Oak Avenue where he was
employed and slept and requested him to
come to the home of Jennie Pedemonti on
Belden Street. When Albert arrived
there about 7 o’clock, he found his brother
and saw a birthday cake on the table.
Joseph said something about taking a piece
of the cake to his mother.

At about a quarter after seven the two
brothers left Belden Street in Albert’s car.
They drove around Hartford discussing
what place they could rob. Finally, at
about 9 o’clock, with Albert driving, they
proceeded west on New Park Avenue and
turned north into Layton Street. As they
made the turn, Albert extinguished the
lights and brought the car to a stop about

STATE v. TABORSKY Com. 61
Cite as 95 A.2d 59 :

100 feet from the corner in the light of a
street lamp. Albert got out of the car, took
off the black trench coat he was wearing
and gave it to Joseph so that the latter could
partially hide his face in the turned up
collar. Joseph took from his belt the re-
yolver which Albert had bought, put it in
the pocket of the trench coat, told Albert
not to get scared and “take off,” and then
went toward the package store. Albert
then covered the rear license plate with
his sheepskin vest. Getting back in the
car he sat in the driver’s seat-and smoked
a cigarette. While seated there he saw a
boy whom he took to be a newsboy walking
in a northerly direction on the other side of
Layton Street. After a few moments
Joseph returned and got into the car and
they drove off at a rapid rate of speed.
After going several blocks Albert turned
on the car lights and they then proceeded
to a parking lot near their sister’s home
on Charter Oak Terrace where Joseph
lived. There Joseph told Albert that while
in the package store the man had “jumped”
him and the revolver had gone off acci-
dentally. The car was left in the parking
lot over night.

On the following. afternoon, Joseph not
having returned the car to Albert’s place
of business, as he had agreed, Albert lo-
cated him at Mrs. Pedemonti’s. Joseph
said he had not read anything about the
killing in the papers and told Albert that the
car was still at their sister’s. Albert pro-
cured the car and disposed of the black
trench coat, which had been left in it, as
old rags. About a week later Joseph told
Albert that he had thrown the gun into
the Connecticut River. Shortly thereafter
Albert drove the car to Chicago and there
sold it.

On January 17, 1951, while being ques-
tioned by the Hartford police concerning
other matters, Albert volunteered the in-
formation that he had been implicated in
the killing of Wolfson. His statement con-
cerning the incident was reduced to writ-
ing and later in the same day was read to
Joseph in Albert’s presence.

Albert was subjected to a lengthy and
detailed cross-examination at the trial. So
far as the record discloses he answered

questions frankly, without any display of
animosity and without any material self-
contradiction. He admitted that he had
been the cause of a good deal of trouble te
other members of the family but stated that
he held no grudge against Joseph. He de-
nied that he had ever made threats against
him. Nothing developed on the cross-
examination which would necessarily cause
a reasonable man to doubt Albert’s cred-
ibility.

In addition to ample evidence proving the
corpus delicti, there was corroboration of
Albert’s testimony by that of George For-
ler, a young man who at the time of the
killing was eighteen years of age. He tes-
tified that shortly after 9 o’clock on the
night of the killing, as he was walking
easterly on the north side of New Park
Avenue, he saw an automobile turn the
corner from New Park Avenue into Lay-
ton Street. As the car made the turn its
lights were extinguished. As he continued
on his way, his view of the car was cut
off for a time by a garage and gasoline
station located on the northwest corner
of the intersection, but after passing that
pbuilding and turning into Layton Street
he saw the car at a standstill on the op-
posite side of Layton Street. He pro-
ceeded northerly on the westerly side of
Layton Street and when he arrived op-
posite the car he saw a man seated in the
driver’s seat whom he later identified as
Albert Taborsky. He also saw the head
of another man “pop up” on the other
side of the automobile. This man’s head
was uncovered and his hair was a light
brown. Forler walked on. He later heard
a noise, looked around and saw a person
running from the direction of the package
store to the car. This person got into the
car and the automobile drove off at a rapid
speed with its lights still extinguished.

When, on January 17, 1951, Joseph was
faced with Albert’s statement in the pres-
ence of several police officers, he at first
said that he could not recall where he was
on the night of the Wolfson shooting but
later, after being reminded that the date
was March 23, 1950, he said that that was
his birthday and that he was at Mrs. Pede-
monti’s house until midnight. He further

ww Wer Lae

ta.

PP ELIS EI I EE OF. ALA SATIA

SEE

PARRA 2

ii ia

LETC LE

y SENS 4

a oe 5

eee

ay
te
be
nes
S
ey
a
a
Nl
pes
4
ran

5g sé?

would have no right to rule that it was
plainly wrong, or on any other ground to
substitute our judgment of the facts and
inferences for that of the trial court. Col-
lier v. Young, D.C.Mun.App., 94 A.2d 645;
Dohoney v. Imperial Ins. Co., D.C.Mun.
App., 87 A.2d 412.

[2] DuBose cites several cases for the
proposition that violation of certain traffic
regulations constituted negligence as a
matter of law on the part. of Neal.! But
what amounts to a violation. of traffic reg-
ulations depends on the surrounding cir-
cumstances and is usually a question of fact;
and whether such violation is a proximate
cause is almost always a question of fact.?
Such plainly was the situation here.

[3,4] <A police officer who arrived at
the scene a few minutes after the collision
was a withess for the plaintiff. On a black-
board diagram he pointed out the point of
impact and the positions of the two cars
as he observed them. He produced an ac-
cident investigation report prepared by him-
self and a fellow officer as a part of their
official duties, and this report was received
in evidence ver objection. Appellant asks
us to rule that the admission of the report

B.g., Ross v. Hartman, 78 U.S.App.D.C.
217, 189 F.2d 14, 158 A.L.R. 1370, cer-
tiorari denied 321 U.S. 790, 64 S.Ct. 70,
88. L.Ed. 1080.

2. Kuzminsky v. Wagner, D.C.Mun.App., 87
A.2d 411; see also Grant v. Williams,
D.C.Mun.App., 94 A.2d 475.

3. McWilliams v. Lewis, 75 U.S.App.D.C.
153, 125 F.2d 200; cf. Gencarella v.
Fyfe, 1 Cir., 171 F.2d 419.

4, United States ex rel. Knight v. Ballin-
ger, 85 App.D.C. 429, affirmed U. S. ex
rel. Knight v. Lane, 228 U.S. 6, 33 Ss.

95 ATLANTIC REPORTER, 2d SERIES

constituted reversible error because it re-
flected in part “the police officers’ conclu-
sions and opinions and other information
based on hearsay.” Though the judge re-
ferred to it as “a factual report * * *
of the positions of the cars and so on,”
it is by no means clear that the report was
received and considered in its entirety, or
that it served any evidentiary purpose ex-
cept to clarify the testimony of the witness
in a somewhat cumulative way. Actually it
is doubtful whether the report added any-
thing to the testimony of the officer; hence
there was no error in admitting it But
even if it could be said that the report con-
tained some inadmissible matter, we would
apply the rule that such would not of itself
constitute reversible error since the trial
was by the court without a jury.4 This
rule is precisely applicable in a case like this
where aside from the police report there
was other competent evidence sufficient to
support the finding, and where the trial
court quite plainly relied on such other evi-
dence in arriving at its decision.5

Being satisfied, as we are, that the trial
was free of reversible error, we must order
that the judgment be

Affirmed.

Ct. 407, 57 L.Ed. 709; English v. Gam-
ble, 8 Cir., 26 F.2d 28; Penwell v. Dis-
trict of Columbia, D.C.Mun.App., 31 A.
2d 891.

5. Bailey v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 9 Cir.,
115 F.2d 904, certiorari denied, 314 U.S.
616, 62 S.Ct. 82, 86 L.Ed. 495; Thomp-
son v. Baltimore & O. R. Co., 8 Cir.,
155 I'.2d 767, certiorari denied 329 U.S.
762, 67 S.Ct. 122, 91 L.Ed. 657; Thomp-
son v. Carley, 8 Cir, 140 F.2d 656;
Grandin Grain & Seed Co. v.. United
States, 8 Cir., 170 F.2d 425.

STATE v. TABORSKY Conn. 59
Cite as 95 A.2d 59

139 Conn, 475
STATE v. TABORSKY.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.
Feb. 10, 1953.

Defendant was convicted in the Superior
Court, Hartford County, Alcorn, J., of mur-
der in ‘the first degree, and he appealed.
The Supreme Court of Errors, Inglis, J., held
that evidence sustained conviction.

No error.

O'Sullivan, and Baldwin, JJ., dissented.

1. Criminal Law ©=742(2)

In prosecution for murder, wherein
chief witness for state was defendant’s
brother who had been an accomplice, cred-
ence to be given to brother’s testimony, and
whether, because of fact that brother was
an accomplice, corroboration of his testi-
mony was essential, was for determination
of jury.

2. Homicide €=253(1)

Evidence sustained conviction of de-
fendant for murder in the first degree. Gen.
St.1949, § 8799.

3. Homicide €=250

Statute providing that no person shall
be.convicted of crime punishable by death
without testimony of at least two witnesses,
or that which is equivalent thereto, is satis-
fied if the testimony of one or more wit-
nesses tends to prove that a murder has
been committed, and that of at least one
other witness implicates the defendant.
Gen.St.1949, § 8799.

4. Witnesses €=77, 79(1)

When a witness is called to the stand,
the state of his mind may be inquired into,
and if the court is satisfied that he is men-
tally incompetent to testify, it is court’s
duty to exclude him as a witness.

5. Witnesses O75

Denial by court in murder prosecution
of defendant’s motion that defendant's
brother, who was chief witness of state, be
subjected to mental and neurological exam-
ination, was not improper when motion was
made at time when witness had not yet been
called to testify.

6. Criminal Law <=64!
Evidence in murder prosecution dis-
closed no abuse of discretion in court’s re-

fusal to grant motion for appointment of
assistant public defender, even though ap-
pointment of assistant is frequently justi-
fied in a capital case. é

7. Criminal Law 385

Testimony given in court under oath
is not in same category as statements made
to police officers outside of court, and the
rule calling for exclusion of latter state-
ments obtained under circumstances which
render truth of them improbable is not ap-
plicable to the former, but if it appears that
testimony of witness may have been affected
by undue pressure exercised outside of
court, that is a consideration bearing upon
the weight of the testimony.

8. Criminal Law €=385

Testimony of brother of defendant
who was chief witness for state was not
subject to exclusion on charge that police
had used improper methods to elicit it, but
any undue pressure exercised outside of
court was matter going merely to the weight
of the testimony.

9. Witnesses €=376

In prosecution for murder, wherein
chief witness against defendant was his
brother, and defendant’s counsel received
affirmative reply from brother to query
whether he intended to leave the state after
the case was over, redirect examination by
state’s attorney which brought out that
brother was under indictment for murder
in first degree in same case, was not im-
proper, but was permisstble to rebut impres-
sion that brother had been granted immun-
ity from prosecution for his part in, the
crime.

10. Criminal Law €=777!/4

In prosecution for murder, wherein
jury had been instructed that court's failure
to refer to any facts was not to be consid-
ered an indication that those facts were
unimportant, and that it was jury’s recol-
lection of evidence which should control,
failure of court to give a more detailed
recital of evidence as to statements of vic-
tim describing physical appearance of as-
sailant, and tending to cast doubt on identi-
ty of assailant, was not error.

LT OF MANIA SARA
SC. weer or

ewes

—?

ELEC

§)q hem (pa0g4TeH) qnotyoeuuoy *oote foztuM ‘oT ydesor ‘xsuoVL |

committed there.
eading from the
‘rooms to the
a quantity of

George and the
ight,” Mrs. Nott

there was no
theless refrained
g the woman

of his fears weré
; Nott, after up-

over the lover,
ier. In the battle
rilled. Nott then
1 out, Ferguson

valk he shook off
3s which .had as-
‘as preparing to
al club to await
ng when a young
ne of the neigh-

a hunch, Fergu-

seen. Mr. Nott
he asked.
er head, then to
nation replied,
‘thing terrible’s

There was an
‘e this morning.
ier told me they

ol was later con-
we Circle indicates
ar was. parked.

2 lea 8 ee wes ln

As
2

_—

aya et

Feguson gasped. “Shots!” he re-
peated.

“Yes. About eight o’clock. Just
before that someone was playing
the pianola in the Nott house very
loud. You could hear it all over the
neighborhood. Right in the middle
of it, my mother and father say,
there were four or five shots.”

Nott’s partner was dumfounded.
Was this the answer to his previous
suspicions?

Now there were glaring discrep-
ancies, apparently, in Ethel Nott’s
story of the quarrel. She had said
nothing of any shots being fired
and plainly told the police that the
row occurred between’ four-thirty
and five.

‘If the actual struggle took place
shortly before eight o’clock, what,
Ferguson wondered, was Nott do-
ing between the hour of four, when
the partner left him, and the time
of the quarrel? And why was the
pianola playing so loud at that early
hour on Sunday morning?

The man hurried back to police

headquarters and saw Flanagan

again. The superintendent was
equally puzzled, summoning Regan
and Holbrook.

“Go back there and find out about
those shots,” he ordered.

Mrs. Nott, nonplussed and some-
what annoyed by their second call,
admitted . (Continued on page 48)

SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
PATRICK J. FLANAGAN:
"We're treading on thin ice,
busting in on ‘that. woman,”

‘

chem. I

. didn’t
it does
faster.
on the
started
i to go
mp out
ow the

i state-
»d mass
ormally
he four

ie state
and him
ry trick
ffort to

the case
of Ar-

ie Ohio .

» atten-
verdict
vas sen-
aair,
work in
*s of ex-
chair for

Mark H.
f Akron,
il at the
i let his
an inch
walk the

37, Mark —

ace with
vy prayers
isas state
t to meet.
ir a short

adjusted-
ink com-
wk terror
s jerked
‘lectricity

rders of
nbers of
d.

name to
“om em-

yuse, the
>a family
; Mr. and

een, an-

sts at the
she told
aly and
see what
ile I saw
Nott back
, was just

en?” Fer-.

je. .He’s
. Every-
ie’s sweet
na coming
Nott was

_ matter of that trunk.”

“And you saw him, leaving the
house at eight o’clock, right after the
shots were heard?”

“Yes, I didn’t know the other man
with him. He seemed like a younger
fellow.”

So, reasoned the alarmed Ferguson,
there had been shots! And a man
named Wade, apparently the lover
he and Nott had been shadowing for
a year, left the house soon afterward
with another man!

But, Ferguson remembered, hadn’t
he and George Nott, hidden in the
shrubbery, seen this lover leaving the
place at four A. m.? Then what was

he doing back there at eight? Could

it have been the same man?
Ferguson decided to press his in-
quiry further. | He called on the
Swansons, upstairs. .
The couple promptly told him that
they, too, had heard shots just before
eight o’clock. They had seen no one

’ Jeaving the house at that time.

“But something happened this af-
ternoon that you should know about,”
Mrs. Swanson told Ferguson. “About
three o’clock two expressmen arrived
and carried a very heavy trunk out of
that Nott house.”

A trunk? Ferguson could scarcely
believe his ears. What was in that
trunk?

The worried partner, afraid to con-
jecture further, rushed back to head-
quarters.

Flanagan was fast Josing patience.
“Okay, a trunk. What about it? i Om
be someone was moving out—maybe
Mrs. Nott. What’s your idea?”

Ferguson was desperate. “I think
George Nott was shot in that house
this morning and his body was carried
away in that trunk!”

He gave the police superintendent
the name of the man Catherine Hor-
lick had seen leaving the Nott place
with a companion about eight o’clock.

- “Wade, eh?” mused Flanagan. “That
must be Elwood B. Wade. If so, this
case may amount to something after

all.

“Wade is a playboy and a bad actor.
He’s been in trouble before in con-
nection with women.

“We'll go up and Jook into the

This time Flanagan himself, accom-
panies by Deputy Superintendent T.

. Flood. and Detective Regan and
Holbrook, went to the Nott home.

“There was a large trunk moved out
of this house at three o’clock this

- afternoon,” Flanagan told the wife.

“T want to know what was in it.”

The woman, who was attractive,
well-formed and nice-mannered, eyed
them coldly. :

“Since that’s the way you put it,”
she replied, without evidence of emo-
tion, “I’ll tell you. Then maybe you'll
go away and let me alone.”

She hesitated. “My clothing was
in that trunk. I am sending it to my

mother’s house in Chelsea, Massachu- .

setts, where I intend to visit for a few
days, Mr. Nott being away.

“Pm pretty sure youll find the
trunk at the railroad station, where
it was sent. Now are you satisfied?”

Flanagan didn’t -like the woman’s
tone. “Not entirely, Mrs. Nott,” he
answered. “Your neighbors tell of
hearing shots in this house this morn-
ing. Also, they complain the pianola
was playing very. loud, as if to cover
up something.

“Besides, two men were seen leav-
ing the place around eight o’clock.
J am sure one was Elwood B. Wade.
‘What do you say to all that?”

Mrs. Nott paled sligh
mention of Wade’s name,
ete composure.
those insinuations one
“First, there
The neighbors are
unless someone was
back fields. But I

but did not
lose her compl
“Pll answer
» she retorted.
were no shots,
plainly mistaken,
shooting in the
heard nothing.
hildren were pumping
player-piano.
music fever every once in
no one can stop them.”
Here she hesitated agai
might as well tell you.
Wade who was here,
Johnny Johnston, his
“You see, a
the quarrel at

a while and

It was Mr.
along with,

Nott and I had
five o’clock, I was afraid
back and do me some
harm. So about seven-thirty

I called up Mr. Wade. He came over

was

JOSEPH G.. COUGHL
ever 20 years ago,

hnston and stayed

with young Jo
He and I have been

around awhile.
good friends—but that’
get along with my husband very
d the other officers were
ted by the woman’s
She had explained
but the shots. How-
bout these might

Flanagan an
plainly disconcer
utter frankness.
away everything
ever, her theory a
hold water.

entirely likely that
een discharging a
in the back fields:

“We'd like to
around the house,

She nodded her h
right ahead, if you

» Flanagan finally

ead briskly.
think it’s neces-
the cellar or the attic. May

d at Ethel Nott for
en waved his men out-

” he told Flood.
look through this house
e’ll have a comeback.
the station and
see if that trunk is the

At the New Y
Hartford depot they
addressed to Chelsea,

d Holbrook found
at the suggestion

I show them the
a moment, t
side.

“She’s fox
wants us to
illegally, bear sh
re, as she says.”

found a trunk
Massachusetts.

said Regan.

FROM AUTHENTIC POLICE RECORDS

“Probably clothes, as the woman

ag 38 .
lanagan led his men back to head-
quarters.

“We're going to put an end to this

damned nonsense,” he told them. “In
the first place, we're treading on thin
ice, busting in there on that woman
several times today, just because a
lot of hysterical people claim they’ve
seen and heard mysterious goings-
on. Undoubtedly there was a rumpus
of some kind, but it looks as though
Nott just walked out. Now I want
him found, to clean this whole thing
u ”

p.
He gave orders that every patrol-

man in the city be notified to keep an
eye out for the absent husband and
report immediately if and when they
sighted him.

“Regan,” he snapped, “shoot some

the spot in the quicksand swamp where,
he successfully grappled for the missing corpse.

of your detectives out in cars. Have
them tour the dives. This Nott may
be on a justifiable bender. Find him.
I want some action before that wife of
his takes it on the lam to Massa-
chusetts.” ~

And there, at seven-thirty that late
summer evening, after an exhausting
day, Superintendent Flanagan scate
himself at his desk for a smoke and a
chat with Deputy Flood.

“That fellow, Ferguson, has run
us ragged since noon,” he said.. ‘Tl
admit the set-up looks suspicious—
what with an irate husband, an ardent °
lover and an errant wife, various
strange noises in the house and a
hastily shipped trunk—but we can’t
stick our noses into a mess like that
without justification.

“If we pinched that woman—or
even Wade—and they proved them-
selves innocent—that is, if Nott finally
turned up—the kickback would be
terrific: We all might find ourselves
out of jobs. I’m pretty sure George
Nott will be found tonight.”

‘An hour later the two heads of the
Bridgeport police were still talking
when the telephone rang.

It was the desk sergeant at head-
quarters with a call from Patrolman
James O’Connor on the Judson Ave-
nue beat.

“It’s something you ought to hear
personally,” the sergeant told Flana-
gan. {

The police superintendent put his
hand over the mouthpiece and said
to Flood, “Here it is—just what I’ve

at least bearing out some of Fergu-

couldn’t swallow that burglar yarn,

crime had been committed there.

son’s story, answered their ring. in view of what Ferguson says.” On the ‘stairs leading from the peate
“Yes, there was a fight here early “We'll probably find that Nott is second’ floor bedrooms to the ¥
this morning,” she told them. “My out getting good and drunk some- kitchen, he spied a quantity of befo:
husband came home and found a_ where,” Holbrook chimed in. blood. the |
burglar in the house. Superintendent Flanagan was in- “That’s where George and the loud.
“They grappled on the back clined to agree. He summoned Fer- burglar had the fight,” Mrs. Nott neig!
stairs and George called out to me guson, who was waiting for the told him. of it
to help him. I seized the burglar detectives’ report, and gave him the Ferguson knew there was. no there
and he.pushed me down the stairs. opinion of the officers. burglar, but nevertheless refrained Ns
That’s how I got hurt. The burglar “That woman is lying!’ vehe- from antagonizing the woman wa
broke away from George and es- mently stormed the partner of further. ee ee
caped.”’ George E. Nott. “I still don’t like However, some of his fears were Nc
Regan and Holbrook eyed each the set-up.” _ dissipated. Perhaps Nott, after up- anci¢
other. He stomped out of police head- braiding his wife over the lover, story
“Where is your husband now?” quarters, visited several bars usual- had fought with her. In the battle noth
Regan asked. ; ly frequented by Nott, then paid a some blood was spilled. Nott then and
The woman hesitated briefly be- second visit to their jointly-owned may have walked out, Ferguson row
fore replying. ‘He and I had some social club. realized. and
words. George tried to tell me the George E. Nott was at none of Out on the sidewalk he shook off If
burglar was someone I knew—and these places. some of the doubts which had as- shor
‘not a burglar. Naturally, his accu- Satisfied that the police had been sailed him and was preparing to Fer:
sations were without foundation. I taken in by Ethel Nott’s story, return to the social club to await Ing
resented them. A quarrel followed Daniel Ferguson went back to the George Nott’s coming when a young the
and George walked out, slamming Judson Avenue -house.. girl came out of one of the neigh- of t
the door behind him.” “T told you George isn’t here,” boring houses. plan
“What time was that?” -the woman snapped. Acting purely on a hunch, Fergu- how
“Around four-thirty or five “I don’t believe you,” Ferguson son called to her. l
o’clock.” came back. “I want to come in and “You haven’t seen. Mr. Nott hea:
Regan and Holbrook cast expert look around.” : * around, have you?” he asked. aga)
eyes over the front hall and sitting Calmly the woman stepped aside. The girl shook her head, then to egy
room, but saw nothing unusual. “Look all you please,” she told him. Ferguson’s consternation replied, and
They reported back to Superin- “Then get out and mind your own “I’m afraid something terrible’s vt
tendent Flanagan. business.” ‘happened to: him. There was an thos
“Just a family spat,” Regan said. Ferguson went through the first awful fight in there this morning. M
“Nott apparently walked out after and second floors, peering about My mother and father told me they wha
battling his wife’s lover. We for some evidence that a heinous héard shots.” ; rats adir

“In the shadow of the courthouse where the murder trial was later con-
ducted, the illicit lover often waited for his sweetheart. Circle indicates
the entrance to. the auto-tunnel: where the tryst-car was parked.

HOMER S. CUMMINGS, FORMER STATE'S
ATTORNEY, while questioning the sus-
pects uncovered a fale of sordid passion.

returned to Malvern and confronted
the suspect with their find. :

“You are making a bad mistake,”
the Akron attorney said, frowning at
the officers. “Murder is a very grave
charge. You had better be prepared
to support your charge. I have been
lodged in jail merely because I was
found walking alone in the country.
I know my rights gentlemen, I.. .”

“Did you go on that picnic with
Alvin Colley and his family?” asked
Sheriff Fisher. .

Mark Shank’s mouth parted in a
crooked smile. “I haven’t said I did,
have I? I was to join them on a picnic,
but I became lost in the woods. I
never did reach the picnic spot.”

At this point, a deputy entered the
room with the landlady of the room-
ing house where the Colley family
stayed in Hot Springs. Sheriff Fisher
told Shank to stand up, then said to
-the woman:

“Ts this the man who left your place
in the car with the Colley family?”

The woman surveyed Mark Shank’s
hawk-like face and turned to the
sheriff.

“Yes, that’s the same man. I’m sure
he is the one,” she said.

“She’s right,” Shank said. “I did
leave her place with Alvin and his
family. I don’t intend to deny that
but,” he added earnestly, “I didn’t
go along for a picnic. I was supposed
to join them later.”

Sheriff Fisher snorted. “If it wasn’t
a picnic—and murder—then what
was it?”

“You have no proof,” said the
smooth lawyer unmoved. “You will
need proof and a motive to back up
your charges against me.”

The officers took the suspect to the
fatal picnic spot and openly accused
him of the crime. The lawyer only
grinned crookedly at the men and re-
peated, “You still need proof and a
motive, gentlemen.”

Sheriff Fisher and the other officers
realized they were without clues to a
motive for the mass poisonings. But
they were sure that Mark Shank was
the sixth person present at that fatal
picnic. They knew he had mixed the
deadly strychnine in the grape juice
and poured the contents of his own

TALMIEAZZUING
VETBCunTs

them to the house.
no shots fired in this house this
morning,” she flatly told them.
“Someone is trying to make trouble
for me. You are welcome to look
around.” 5

They looked but found no sign of
bullet holes either downstairs or up.
There was the blood on the stairs wall,
however, and Mrs. Nott gave them her
previous explanation of this.
‘ Back in headquarters the pair told
Flanagan, “Mrs. Nott is very cooper-
ative. We still think there was a good
family brawl, but haven’t any evi-

“There were

dence there was anything else. You
don’t want us to bring Mrs. Nott in,
do you?”

Flanagan threw up his hands.

“Heavens, no!” he fairly shouted at
them. “We’ve got to have more than
hearsay and suspicions. But it might

AMAZING DETECTIVE CASES

cup upon the ground while he watched
his five victims drink the potion that
threw them into horrible convulsions
and caused the death of four. ‘But
what was the reason? Why did the
Akron lawyer wish to wipe out the
entire Colley family? ‘

i an effort to establish a possible
motive for this wholesale crime
Fisher telephoned Robert Critchfield,
district attorney of Wayne County,
Ohio. He outlined the crime to the

‘busy district attorney.

Several days later, Critchfield tele-
phoned ‘Sheriff Fisher.

‘I have been’ investi ene. the
case,” he told Fisher.. “Mark Shank
is a lawyer in Akron, Ohio. He was
mayor of Kenmore, a suburb of
Akron, when it was a separate town.
Alvin Colley was Shank’s assistant.
Had been working for him several
years. He worked on a small salary
and did most of Shank’s work for
him. Colley was a weak character
and was more of a flunky than an
assistant.

“Shank recently represented a man -

in a lawsuit involving several hun-
dred dollars. During an investigation
it was discovered that much of the
money could not be accounted for.
Colley disappeared soon after a war-
rant was issued here.”

Fisher —. up the phone and
thanked him. Here was the necessary
motive in the case. Alvin Colley had
fled into Arkansas to escape from the
lawsuit which would result in his ex-
posing the crooked practices of Mark
Shank’s office.

A week following the fatal picnic
party Sheriff Fisher again faced the
Ohio lawyer in his cell. He reviewed
the crime and described the motive
which the smart Shank had demanded
along with proof in the case.

The lawyer arose from his cot in
the cell and mopped his forehead ner-
vously. “That’s the way it was,” he
said soberly. “I killed them. I was
faced with disgrace and disbarment.
I knew Alvin was a weak person and

would talk. His talk would have -

ruined me. I sent him and the family
to Arkansas so they wouldn’t catch up

with him. I followed to kill them. I
decided to poison them all. I didn’t
know poison worked like it does
though. I thought it worked faster.
I thought it would kill them on the
spot. They all got sick and started
for a doctor. Of course I had to go
along. I saw my chance to jump out
of eg car and escape. You know the
rest.”

After signing his witnessed state-
ment, Mark Shank, the confessed mass
poisoner was immediately formally
charged with the murders of the four
members of the Colley family.

Shank, when he realized the state
was going to do its best to send him
to the electric chair, used every trick
of his lawyer’s trade in an effort to
win an acquittal.

T was two years later that the case
was closed in the courts of Ar-

kansas. The case against the Ohio
lawyer attracted nation-wide atten-
tion. The jury brought in a verdict
of guilty and Mark Shank was sen-
tenced to die in the electric chair.

And now Shank went to work in
earnest. He won several stays of ex-
ecution and he escaped the chair for
two more years. :

But justice finally came to Mark H.
Shank, the crooked lawyer of Akron,
Ohio. He cringed in his cell at the
epee mg death house and let his

my FE grow more than an inch
in length, while waiting to walk the
last few steps to the chair.

At last, in the summer of 1937, Mark
Shank was making his peace with
his Maker. He mumbled a few prayers
in his death cell at the Arkansas state
penitentiary, then stepped out to meet.
his doom in the electric chair a short
distance away.

The executioner quickly adjusted-
the arm and leg straps. Shank com-
menced his prayers anew, stark terror
in his eyes. The ‘switch was jerked
and Shank stiffened as the electricity
— through his body.

The cowardly poison murders of
Alvin Colley and three members of
his family had been avenged.

(A. J. Homer is a fictitious name to
save an innocent person from em-
barrassment.)

PASSION’S HENCHMAN —

(Continued from page 23)

be a good idea to have the man on
that beat keep an eye on the
house.”

Ferguson was told by Flanagan that
the place would be watched. The
man left, again hunted Nott vainly
at his usual haunts, then went and
sat in the social club, debating the
mysterious absence of his partner and
the baffling, contradictory events in
the Judson Avenue house.

Then he reached an inevitable con-
clusion. “If one of the neighbors heard
shots,” he said. to himself, “then some
of the others must have heard them
too. I'll go back and ask some ques-
tions.” ‘

It was early in the evening when
he reappeared on Judson Avenue.

Eyeing one of the houses not far
from the Nott house, Ferguson decided
to make some judicious inquiries.

‘was going on.

This was a two-family house, the
lower floor being occupied by a family
named Horlick, the upper by Mr. and
Mrs. Louis Swanson. .

Catherine MHorlick, nineteen, an-
swered his ring.

“Yes, there were some shots at the
Nott house this morning,” she told
him. “I heard them plainly and:
looked out of the window to see what
After a while I saw
two men sneaking out the. Nott back
door.” The hour, she added, was just
about eight o’clock.

“Did you recognize the men?” Fer-.
guson asked her. © nes

“One of them—Mr. Wade. He’s
the son of the milk dealer. Every-
body around here knows he’s sweet
on Mrs. Nott and has been coming
to the house when Mr. Nott was
away.” -

ei tlt

ERIE RG

_ fo gli

Son pares cerry oo

‘a

“And .
house at «
shots we

“Yes.
with him.
fellow.”

So, rea
there ha
named \
he and !
a year, )
with ar

But, :
he and ‘
shrubber’
place at
he doing
it have b

Fergus
quiry
Swanson

The cc
they, toc
eight o’c
leaving ‘

“But s
ternoon
Mrs. Sw
three o’c
and carr
that Noi

A trur
believe .
-trunk?

The w
jecture f
quarters.

Flanag
“Okay, a
be some:
Mrs. Not

Fergus
George |
this mor
away in

He’s bec
nection \
“We'll

. matter c

This ti
panied }
H. Floo.
Holbroo!

“There
of this
afternoo:
“T want

The w
well-for
them col

“Since
she repli
tion, “Tl
go away

She he
in that t
mother’s
setts, whe
days, Mr.

“Tm I
trunk at
it was se

Flanag:
tone. “}
answered
hearing s
ing. Als
was play
up some

“Besid
ing the
I am sw
What do

Proceedings STAIN { WOUNDED Es

{Senate Small Business uf Nev, BME policer a ocaByandar James Biely by Gerald Chapman.
furns ‘Thick File’: Over. are riminal ineteen

y ©. “ nd Defense
: Special to Tus New Youu Tinss, tori Wilso
_ WASHINGTON, Nov. 5—A| ©

“thick, file’ of new” leads to aj-| °°? i -{kille€l and a hold-up man wounded |"¢*
leged irregularities in “ Adviao sieges dcp

Patro
[critically in @ gun battle in a ga-|_ 44."
+ jrage durin, b
reported variously hanged for the erime. >.
in income tax collections... ae :
; “ The! leads. were: obtained. by aj.
Fetes Senate subcommittee investigating|.
p 3% |the effects on small: business. of
“232 |"gray: marketing,” or. irregular!

: |

AY PROVIDENT

Hal
B

TEACHER WORKSHOP \to*anz" 38
he ON

N
‘Meanwhite pelea

ine
i

the m

E TEBE
hue

a f

vl -

let you out here Ta rr SOLT PISTOLS MISSING hv with sunt Paes
J ptt Seta ticket|17g COLT PISTOLS MISSING 2” prot gas im id saliminat din, “love aU
nt OR ERP ‘s t *
Soran TAKES Post] Wego el Fate Met cata
d (Stee ¢

Installed as 4th President of| : ARTFORD, Conn., Nov. 9 Up|n or
Western Theological Seminary toe hundred and seventy-eight! in anys
giver sour, (ists, which cou
H, Nov, 9 — p, |deadly arsenal

ER EE eee Pag a di
rbour, former Mode- han Co SSOR MISSING

404 Wife Fears for Life of Bridgman,|)"perenaneg
Augurated last

ples which give toy, as. ‘ourth re Formerly of N. Y. U.
tal structure sub- : SEE BT Gegey!

Presb ?
K DETERMINED) Dr. Barbour. « native
; burgh, formerly Me with
evealed at Parley Tee sander Carroll, on. in-
gical Society church in 1949-50. ‘The charg Provided by Edward

Portland,
who was arrested Oct. 13

iby the firearms
Harrison Ray} "Major
In his inaugural address, Dr.'made
Barbo

Ur cited ag. threats to “our the
i order” the wars of the

| aPatrse

Tree Seedlings for Soil Conservation
Plot Your Progress with « Notebook

many other subjects of interest and help to
beri! Yom Stedoy eign

H
ft
!
a

7
P

York Times your Sunday reading habit,
See Section Two Tomorrow

i
E

eet € : . meres . eee meyer 8 ' A. x wv? . 1 a,
“| ‘The House subcommittee, headed) .Annualcall. = =. lotinka, a displaced peradn ‘who had
by Representative Cecil R. King) © CONGRESS®© [arrived tn this.
i, (rep (Democrat of California, has con-| In adjournment until Jan: 8. months ago. ~
si se: ducted investigations in New York,| House Ways and Means sub-. The gunm:
gen |Boston, San. Fran committee received files on al-
leged “irregularities in Internal |
‘Re _ Bureau office in |Conn., entered a garag’s adjacent|_
: : -- - neaEe <9 to the AwY. O. Packing company: :
-. |a bologna factory here, at 6 P. M.
ee ee sa _ |Wojculewicz, shielding his face
(8 (Nev. 6, 1981) ~-.\with a newspaper, made his way
_ General Eisewhower “‘hoids.
: news conference at'11:10 A. M..
atairports8 8 2 SE

TEACHER WORKSHOP
taxpaying: concerns he ON DEMOCRACY OPENS plant.

, |Was supposed to be investi
No names were

a girl clerk:to lie face down
ue floor.

. on charges of items:
ral tax funds. 170 scones
states. i
j . P oye of ;
Dears eachers College,| 'ae vant bate
of Ms] Democra rkshoP| tol and approached Woj
oe the Sena :

THE PROVIDEN TS
LOAN SOCIELS

a “ eee
the] tet Pee Ln

Dr. William 8.
executive officer, other leaders

" General Potter met. with

rmerly was on

alspa “ a srlations© statte of
ce. Technology. ratories,
group of shipowners, headed bylinc., Los Angeles re ae

roaieabimaneeboas

“tourist class: Even: if
Btates. sae ships trav-
_A at full ca: y on: every
aif the tatiog could not have
bees much higher, the report

- Americane “traffic on the
ute has: iene largely: limited
by capacity rather than by de-
mand, the line's spokesmen
Arnold Bernstein, pres-

-< of: American’ Banner,

no with: the ‘exception

ment” was written’ on: station-

of the liner Atlantic ‘no otherjery of the Hotel. Nacional,
United States flag vessel has|Havana, dated Dec. 22, 1958, .
yjentered the-service since the|and appeared to be written’ by|b

superliner® United States. made/@ woman. The paper was filedlit’

7 |its entay in July, 1952, ~ __. |by Justin Golenbock, a lawyer,

Meanwhile, Mr. Bernstein said,|who: was named executor in: a

fourteen foreign-flag passenger} will filed last Thursday. He said

| jor combination ships; have en-|the: document was being. sub-

: the service.: : - {mitted fo

“information pur-

ban paper. 1

. traffic figures, the line said _alpart:
. [substantial continued increase in| ‘“‘T y oT
1a travel was expected.|queath: one-third of my’ estate

member.

Deirdre and Rory: {children by
Flynn's second wife, Nora. Ed-
--{dington ‘Flynn Haymes):
- |. “If there is an issue betwéen

NEW ‘WILL’ BY FLYNN |FEDERATION TO GET’

’ Federation $1.40° a

r every Greek

1 on’ any of their ships

flying - “‘flags* of convenience.”

; ~ The owners submitted’ a. list

_|Flynn estates.. The other: twojof 260 Greek-owned vessels reg-

parties* being my daughters,|istered © under : other countries
that © would: be

Trew

“expected ‘to

agreements.

‘Washington
‘you read The Times

at of navigation,”
e-called on state oF
governments to act on
fronts to aid the Federal
ernment in developing the rivi
potential, preventing damaging
floods. and. providing
water supplies. =~ oe
State and local governmen
should see to it that dual highe
ways, airports and utility lines
and other: public improvements
are not built in areas earmarked
for future reservoirs, he said. oe,
They: should also bar build-.
ings from areas periodically.
flooded so that expensive flood
walls would not be needed: in
those areas, he said.
The’ general ‘called: for com :
bining local water supplies with.
those of the Corps of Engineers.
so that flood control and water
supplies: could be obtained at a:
reduced ‘costi.. 6 2. juer-

pply

So ain: ture, hh
said, Will be “one of the mos
critical in the humid East.” ©

GLA EXECUTER

Slayer of 2 Dies in. Electric’

- Wojculewicz was sentenced to
the: chair in* 1952 for slaying
Police Sgt; Walter Grabeck and
a bystander, William Otipka, in
a New Britain robbery in 1951;
Police: bullets cut him down
as he fled the robbery at 2

packing = house, One: damaged

his spine’ end left: him.
Ved se yc eg

ny-|four” statement , to papers* flied yesterday]
led/ Judge Samuel 8. Leibowi! : eres filed) ME
instructed bers to bri porestprarmneny pote lal honda

degree

third-degree

_ Before receiving the verdict,

; [Judge Letbowits asked about

Miss Wymore was named chief| >
beneficiary in the earlier will.

POSTAL GAINS HAILED.

Sa ay Aa

the aro to eave Wen
2 é ve. When
the Mancert walked out of]

Nad

the

nation’s ©

| ee |; Welcoming seme 3,500 dele-
. someones to the annual convention
8. Poputation at 178 Millionjof the National Association of

i IGTON, Oct.\> 26|Postmasters, Mr. Summerfield
imceenaea ey a ec population|said service mechanization and
re agi cody tie adenintsteation could: not fol

*°:

modernization undertaken by

Sy tas

adequate —

Aidierrniniiee neti: |

shctipnc sich stair

New Britain gas station holdup on December 15th brought death to the
owner, Edward J. Kurpiewski (top r.) and his customer Daniel Janowski

holdup on January 11th of an ice
cream and dairy bar on Ward Place
by a trio of masked gunmen who
looted the cash register of $130. When
Sergeants Feinberg and Skahill re-
turned to headquarters after an unpro-
ductive examination of the crime
seene, Captain Beckwith told them
he had just received a phone tip from
an anonymous caller who seemed to
be sore at someone.

“He told me,” the captain said, “that
if we picked up The Chin and Two
Gun we might learn something to
our advantage.”

The two detectives had a working
acquaintance with the men who bore
those nicknames, The Chin was Joe
Taborsky. Two Gun was Bob Roray.
They were quickly found, Roray at a
downtown bar, Taborsky in his apart-
ment on Park Terrace. Brought to
headquarters, they were grilled by
Captain Beckwith and Sergeants Fein-
berg and Skahill, but with little suc-

cess. Both suspects were hardened
veterans of many a police interrogation
session. They admitted nothing. They
denied nothing. They simply sat in
their chairs, regarding their question-
ers with silent insolence.

After about two hours of this, the
officers decided to split up the pair
and take them one at a time. They
began with Roray. Little by little,
they got him to talk and eventually
they had him tangled up in his own
evasions. Finally he admitted he had
taken part in certain of the stickups
they had questioned him about.

Taborsky was with him, he said, and
so were Arthur Culombe and Carol
Betri. Both men were picked up and
brought in. A merchant positively
identified Culombe as one of the gang
which had stuck him up a week earlier.

State’s Attorney Albert S. Bill went
to the grand jury and procured armed
robbery indictments against Taborsky,
Roray, Culombe and Betri. At their

Lubin Retake tet Cee er ee

arraignment, high bail was set and
they could not raise the required bond.
They were locked up to await trial.

That was how matters stood when
Lieutenant Samuel Weinstein received
a call from a member of Joe Tabor-
sky’s family on the morning of Janu-
ary 18th. Joe’s younger brother, Al-
bert, wanted to talk to Weinstein.

The lieutenant recalled Albert Ta-
borsky. He was 25, but looked young-
er—a slim guy with straggly blond
hair and a babyish face. Sometimes he
wore glasses. Unlike his brother Joe,
Albert had never tangled with the law,
save for one minor exception. He was
once involved in a drunken tavern
brawl and brought to headquarters.
Lieutenant Weinstein questioned him
and when he ascertained that Albert
had no previous record, he let him go
with a stern lecture.

Weinstein now drove to the Tabor-
sky home with Patrolman William
Ashline. They talked with Albert in

the living room. His mother and father
were at home but the father was con-
fined to bed with severe arthritis.

“My conscience has been bothering
me,” Albert told Lieutenant Wein-
stein. “You were nice to me once, and
I wanted to confess to you first.”

Albert then told the lieutenant that
he had taken part in the dairy store
stickup for which they were holding
his brother Joe and three others. “Five
of us held up that place,” he said. “I
stayed in the car while the others went
in and got the money. I’m as guilty as
they are.”

As the officers prepared to take
Albert to headquarters, he said he had
something else to tell them. It was
“about a murder—the Louis Wolfson
murder.”

“Go ahead, Albert—we'’re listening,”
Lieutenant Weinstein said softly.

Albert then described the holdup-
murder of Louis Wolfson, the Hartford
liquor store proprietor who was shot
a little before 9 p.m. on March 23, 1950,
almost nine months before.

Wolfson was 40 years old at the time.
He died in the hospital, but not before
he had given police a description of the
man who shot him. The killer had
never been caught.

Albert said: “Joseph killed him,
while I sat in the car outside.”

Lieutenant Weinstein brought Albert
to Chief Godfrey’s office, where
County Detective John F. Reardon,
West Hartford Captain Vincent B.
Hurlburt and Detective Sergeant John
F. Paulson had been summoned. Al-
bert needed no urging to repeat what
he had told Weinstein.

“TI wish to tell of a matter which has
been bothering me a long time,” he
began. He seemed to pick his words

hnell (0.) inv

d murder of Samuel Cohn (r.) in his liquor store

carefully. His eyes blinked rapidly
behind his glasses, but his gaze did not
waver, “It was sometime in March, It
was around eight o’clock at night. I
was at home when I got a phone call
from Joe. He was at the house of
his girl friend. He told me to take
the car and pick him up. I asked him
why, and he said, ‘I need some dough.
You could use a little yourself, couldn’t
you?’ ”

Albert said he knew right away
that Joe meant he was planning a
robbery, but he did need some money
himself, so he did what Joe asked. He
said 1t was a misty night with drizzling
rain. He wore his trench coat. He
drove to the meeting place and picked
up Joe. Joe got in the car, took a
.22 revolver from his pocket and ex-
amined it. Noticing a look of con-
cern on Albert’s face, Joe said sharply
to him, “Now don’t get scared and
take off on me.”

With Joe telling him where to
drive, they began cruising the city
streets, looking for a place to stick up.
On New Park Avenue, they spotted
Wolfson’s package store. Through the
window they could see Wolfson alone
in the store. He was wearing a green
Army jacket and a snap-brim hat. He
was bending over some cartons,

“This looks good,” Joe said. “Park
around the corner on Layton Street
and cover up the license plate with
your scarf. And don’t get scared.”

Albert said he parked on Layton
Street opposite a street light. He got
out and covered the license plate. At
Joe’s order, Albert then removed his
trench coat. Joe put it on, and stuck
the .22 in his pocket. He said, “Kill
the lights and keep the motor run-
ning.”

sig)
3

Then he headed for the liquor store.

Albert waited nervously, He lit a
cigarette just as a paper boy walked
by, then he worried for fear the kid
might remember his face. Joe came
running back a minute or so later,
jumped into the front seat, and said,
“Take off.”

Albert gunned the motor and they
sped away. “That guy jumped me,”
Joe panted. “I had to shoot him.”

The next day they read about Wolf-
son dying of his wounds. Albert be-
came panicky. “What are we going
to do?” he asked Joe.

Joe calmed him down. “We'll play
it smart,” he said, “and we’ll have
nothing to worry about. First, I'll
throw the gun in the river. You get
rid of that trench coat. Then drive
the car to Chicago and sell it. We
can’t take any chances.”

Albert got rid of the coat, drove to
Chicago and sold the car. The police
never had connected them with Wolf-
son’s murder.

Now that he had finished the tale,
Albert didn’t seem to feel any better.
He looked green. He had vomited
twice as he told it.

Chief Godfrey ordered Joe Tabor-
sky brought from his cell. Joe
seemed surprised to see Albert there.
Albert avoided his brother’s gaze. Joe
was ordered to sit down and listen
and Albert’s statement was read to
him.

When it was concluded, Joe said
only, “My brother must be crazy.
Either he’s crazy or you guys gave him
such a beating he was willing to sign
anything.”

“Look at him,” Lieutenant Wein-
stein said. “There’s not.a mark on
him. Ask him if he’s been mistreated.”

Albert said the cops hadn’t done
anything at all to him.

Asked if he could recall his move-
ments on the past March 23rd, Joe
said he could remember every minute
of it, because it was his birthday. “I
was at my girl’s house. Her name is
Marie Musler. She gave me a party
—presents, a birthday cake—the
works. I didn’t leave there until late.
Go ahead—ask her. She’ll tell you.”

Asked if he had seen Albert that
night, Joe refiected briefly, then said
yes, Albert had dropped in at the party
and tried to borrow some money from
him. “We never had much use for
each other,” Joe said, “so I didn’t give
it to him. I told him to beat it and
he left. It was quite a while later
when I left—around ten o’clock. I
took the bus home.”

If Joe Taborsky could prove that he
had remained at the birthday party
until ten o’clock, he would be in the
clear, so far as the Wolfson killing was
concerned. Wolfson was shot within
a few minutes of 9 p.m.

Early the next morning, detectives
called on Mrs. Marie Musler, 27, at-
tractive mother of two young children.
She was estranged from her husband.
She talked freely and what she had to

tell them provided at least partial sup-
port for Joe’s story. She had indeed
given Joe a birthday party. She re-
membered that Albert had come by
briefly and left after talking with Joe.
Her memory was less accurate, how-
ever, as to what time her boy friend
left her house.

It was such a long time ago, she said,
it was hard to be certain. “I think it
was sometime between eight and
eleven,” she said. “That’s as close as
I can remember.”

It was not, police reflected ruefully,
very close. But they had one more
card to play. They looked up Jack-
son Berryman, a grocery clerk who
had given detectives a statement the
day after the Wolfson holdup-shooting.
Berryman said he was walking along
Layton Street at nine o’clock on the
evening of March 23rd. He saw a
parked car with a man at the wheel.
It was parked across from a street
light. He wouldn’t have paid much
attention to it, Berryman said, if he
hadn’t seen a man _ suddenly race
around the corner and jump into the
car. It took off fast, with its lights out.

At Hartford headquarters, detectives
put the Taborsky brothers in a line-up
with six other men and brought Berry-
man in to have a look at them. With-
out hesitation, the grocery clerk picked
Joe and Albert out of the group and
said he was sure they were the men he
had seen on Layton Street the night
Wolfson was shot.

State’s Attorney Bill brought Joe to
trial for first-degree murder in June,
1951. Judge Howard W. Alcorn pre-
sided. The attorney for the defense
was Nathaniel Bergman, who had

been appointed as special public de- ~

fender. Bergman left no legal stone
unturned in his efforts to prove his
client innocent of the murder charge.
At the very beginning of the trial, he
demanded a sanity hearing for Albert
Taborsky, the chief witness against
Joe.

Judge Alcorn denied the motion,
pointing out that under state law,
a witness must actually have been
sworn in and begun his testimony be-
fore his sanity may be questioned.

The prosecutor, early in his presenta-
tion of the State’s case, read the ver-
batim transcript of the deathbed in-
terview between a police officer and
Louis Wolfson.

: Who shot you, Louis?

A: A young fellow, maybe 21.

Q: How was he dressed?

A: A trench coat.

Q: What color hair did he have?

A: Light blond. He needed a hair-
cut.

At this point Defense Attorney Berg-
man asked that the transcript be read
again. His purpose was clear. Joe Ta-
borsky’s hair was dark, not light blond.

Prosecutor Bill continued with the
reading of the transcript.

Q: What did this fellow look like?

A: He had a baby face, wide eyes.

wages

Druggist John M. Rosenthal, 69, shot
to death behind counter of his store

Once more the defense asked for a
re-reading, and again the reason for
the request was obvious. Joe’s eyes
were not wide; they were narrow. He
could hardly be called baby-faced. As
a matter of fact, Wolfson’s descrip-
tion of the man who shot him fitted
Albert Taborsky far more closely than
it did Joe.

Albert was sworn in and repeated
his story. Under cross-examination
he stuck by it doggedly. Defense
Attorney Bergman now could have
demanded a sanity hearing for the
witness, but he chose instead to dem-
onstrate to the jurors that Albert was
of unstable mind. He called witnesses
to show that Albert had had no less
than six different cellmates during
his stay in the county jail awaiting his
trial. All had demanded to be re-
moved from his company.

One testified that Albert behaved in-
decently. Another swore that Albert
twisted a scarf in his hands and threat-
end to strangle him. Under the de-
fense attorney’s questioning, jail at-
tendants said Albert had smashed
dishes on the floor, whistled, and
screamed so loudly that he had been
placed in solitary confinement.’ On
one occasion he drank a basin full of
water in which he had just washed his
socks.

Other witnesses testified that Al-
bert had always caused trouble at
home. He had beaten his crippled
father with a stick. He kicked his

pregnant sister in the stomach, causing
a miscarriage. He had boasted shame-
lessly of lurid conduct with women.
Once he stabbed his brother with a
bread knife, an incident which caused
Joe to order him out of the house.

“All right,” a witness quoted Albert
as screaming at the time, “I’ll go.
But I'll get even for this. Someday
I’ll pay you back, Joe!”

Joe Taborsky, taking the stand in
his own defense, concluded his testi-
mony with the solemn declaration, “As
God is my judge, I am innocent.”

When the case went to the jury, vet-
eran court observers were predicting
an acquittal for Joe, but the seven men
and five women members of the panel
crossed up the experts. After delib-
erating for slightly more than nine
hours, they returned their verdict that
Joseph Taborsky was guilty of first-
degree murder. The death sentence
was mandatory, and Judge Alcorn
sentenced Joe to die in the electric
chair at Wethersfield.

Albert Taborsky later pleaded guilty
to participation in the holdup in which
Wolfson was slain, but because of his
cooperation with the State, he was
given a life sentence.

Arthur Culombe and Bob Roray
pleaded guilty to the dairy store
holdup and got sentences of 2-to-4
years. Carlo Betri, insisting he was
innocent of that crime, beat the rap
and was set free.

Albert Taborsky was taken to the
Wethersfield prison where he quickly
established himself as a problem in-
mate. Cellmates complained that he
was noisy, loud, belligerent, obstreper-
ous, dirty and indecent. Disciplinary
measures had no effect on him. At one
point he demanded that his fellow in-
mates call him Abe, asserting he was
really Abraham Lincoln.

The situation reached a climax when
Albert’s screaming just before dawn
one morning brought guards to his cell
on the run. “Get me out of here,” he
shrilled. “Get me out—quick! Quick!
They’ll kill me!” He was alone in the
cell,

“Who'll kill you?” a guard asked.

Albert did not answer directly.
“They’re shooting chemical gases at
me,” he sobbed. “They’re trying to
kill me.”

Warden George Cummings and the
prison doctor were summoned and
the doctor ordered him removed to the
infirmary. Psychiatrists placed him
under observation and later stated
in their report that they found Albert
Taborsky definitely hallucinated and
in need of treatment for mental dis-
order. He was transferred to the
ward for the criminal insane at Nor-
wich State Hospital, in the southeastern
part of the state.

When word of ‘this development
reached Joe’s attorney, Nathaniel Berg-
man, he immediately petitioned the
governor to reprieve Joe Taborsky in
order to give him time to appeal his

Mr. and Mrs. Speyer, customers in a North Haven shoe shop, ruthlessly
gunned down in a $50 holdup. (Above) Body of Mrs. Speyer is carried out

Rennded J. Seopte

Mrs. Ruth Speyer

verdict and sentence, based on the fact
that the chief witness against his
client had been insane at the time he
testified. The reprieve was granted.

The wheels of justice turn slowly
and it was not until February, 1953,
that the appeal was adjudicated by
the State Court of Errors. Their 3-
to-2 decision ruled the original guilty
verdict and sentence were just. The
minority opinion held that Albert
should have been given a mental test
and that Joseph Taborsky had not re-
ceived a fair trial.

Bergman promptly applied for an-
other reprieve and got it. He then
petitioned for a new trial. This pe-
tition was denied in March, 1954.

“I cannot conclude,” the judge's ruJ-

THE ELECTRIC aps R

ide.

te * we ao
Le

BY WARREN LORING

double llength feature

TRUE DETECTIVE MAGRZINE,

December, 1963.

After spending four long years in the Death House,

Joe got the second chance that all doomed men dream of,

- but which comes to perhaps one in a million.

TATE PRISONS are notably grim. Death
Houses in state prisons are even more
so. But the Connecticut State Prison at

Wethersfield is even grimmer than most, as —

might be expected of a penal facility which first
opened for business more than a century and
a quarter ago, in 1827. The electric chair in its
Death House is a relatively recent addition. Yet
this bit of modernization has not lent a cheer-
ful touch to the forbidding gray pile which
houses the Nutmeg State’s most dangerous
felons.

Joseph L. Taborsky, by any standards, is the
most famous inmate ever to occupy a Death
Row cell in Wethersfield. He might preferably
be called the most infamous, or the most
notorious. In any event, he attracted more
widespread publicity than any other convicted
killer in Connecticut history.

Taborsky’s incredible story, studded with
dramatic crises and highlights, spans nearly
two decades. But the most important date of
his life, except for one in 1960, was Thursday,
October 6, 1955. On that day Joseph Taborsky
was given the second chance all doomed men
dream of, but which comes to perhaps one in
a million.

That Thursday was one of those raw, gray
autumn days that seem like an epitaph for sum-
mer and a chill harbinger of the bleak winter
to come. Joe Taborsky slumped idly on the
cot of his cel! in Death Row, the small barred
compartment where he had been incarcerated
for more than four years—establishing a
Connecticut record.

He had outlasted many other men who had

This is what he did with it...

been condemned to the electric chair after he
was sentenced to die for the murder of Louis
Wolfson, a liquor store proprietor. He had
watched them come into the neighboring cells
and wait, frightened, anxious, for the results of
their lawyers’ legal gambits to save them from
death. He had heard them, when they got the
news that all hope was gone, curse, or weep,
or pray, depending upon their temperament.
Sometimes they did all three. Sometimes they
screamed and yelled and ranted like madmen.

Taborsky had watched them walk to the
Death Chamber, never to return. And, despite
his own repeated stays of execution, he had
never been quite able to convince himself that
he would not, sooner or later, follow in their
footsteps.

Death House inmates are allowed certain
privileges denied to other prisoners. One is a
radio, kept in the passageway but easily heard
by all in the cells. Generally it was kept tuned
to a Hartford station which featured programs
of recorded music interrupted only by com-
mercials and hourly newscasts. The two o'clock
news began and Taborsky listened apatheti-
cally until the announcer, with a new note of

.--importance in his voice, suddenly said:

“A late bulletin—At 1:59 this afternoon,
less than a quarter of an hour ago, Judge John
R. Thim of the Superior Court granted a motion
filed by State’s Attorney Albert S. Bill for the
dropping of the first-degree murder indictment
against Joseph Taborsky. The state’s attorney
concedes there is no case against Taborsky
without the testimony of his brother Albert,
who has been declared insane.”

g€ faqtum §*T udesop *xySuOgyy,-

€

eTe

149

eT pee uo (paesaavn) qnoTyZooUUOD paynoo

Joseph Taborsky sprang from his cot
with an exultant whoop. But in a few
moments, a reaction set in. When
Warden Cummings arrived at the cell
about five minutes later, he found Joe
seated on the edge of his bunk, his
elbows on his knees, his face buried
in his hands. He was sobbing.

“You’ve heard the news, Joe?”

Taborsky nodded. He began wiping
the tears from his eyes.

“You’d better come along and wait
in my office,” the warden said gently.
“I expect your lawyer will be here
within an hour or so with an order for
your release. You'll be a free man be-
fore dark, Joe.”

It took less than 15 minutes to proc-
ess Taborsky’s release when his at-
torney arrived at four o’clock and
served the papers on Warden Cum-
mings. By that time, Taborsky was
ready to go. He picked up the small
sack in which his few personal pos-
sessions had been packed. He had ex-
changed his uniform denims for a
white shirt, blue tie, black shoes and
a prisoner’s dark-colored “coming-out”
suit which was not a very good fit on
Joe’s gangling frame. The warden
proffered his hand and Taborsky shook
it.

“You’ve been a good man with us,
Joe,” Cummings said. “It’s been rough
for you, God knows. Take care of
yourself and good luck. Say hello to
your mother for me.”

So Joe Taborsky had triumphed
over astronomical odds. He walked out
the front door of the old prison at
Wethersfield, the first man in the 128-

Albert Taborsky said, “Joseph killed
him while I waited in the car outside.”

TELE
5 aie See

year history of that institution to beat
the death sentence which had sent
him there.

The public furore which greeted his
release was phenomenal. It seemed
almost as if the press and the citizens
of Connecticut wanted to make amends
for the bitter sentiments they had
expressed about him earlier. In effect,
it was a public absolution for all the
misdeeds of his past life.

A God-given opportunity was now
Joseph Taborsky’s. He could take ad-
vantage of the wave of sympathy to
make a start on a brand new life. He
was offered good jobs. He accepted
none of them immediately, but every-
one seemed to understand his natural
desire to get his bearings and let things
simmer down before he made a de-
cision.

He went home to Hartford for a
reunion with his crippled father and
the mother who had stood by him so
loyally. He was courteous to report-
ers who besieged him, and there was
humility in his manner as he spoke to
them.

“I feel breathless right now,” he
said. “Of course, I knew I would be
free eventually because of the efforts
of my attorney and my family. I owe
a lot to them. I am innocent. I
don’t understand how I got convicted
of that murder, in the first place. I
was in a fog for days when I first went
to jail.”

An Associated Press reporter asked
him how he felt about his brother
Albert, whose testimony had been
responsible for his murder conviction.

Joe shook his head sadly and said,
“Right now I feel sorry for the con-
dition he’s in. I know it’s no fault
of his that he’s insane. I thought he
he must be crazy in the first place to
do what he did. I’ll probably go down
and see him soon.”

Quizzed about his plans for the
future, Taborsky said, “I’m going to
the Little Portion Episcopal Monastery
at Mount Sinai, Long Island, to rest
and thank the people for their prayers
and letters. I'd like to write a book
about what happened. I’m not sore
at anyone. I may take a job as a helper
on a truck, like I had once before.
I been offered some better jobs, but
that’s one I know I can do. I wouldn't
like to take one of those big jobs and
disappoint the people by flopping at
it?

The press seized avidly on one state-
ment Taborsky made: “Even though I
spent four years in the Death House,
I still believe in capital punishment.
Murderers should be executed. Had
I been guilty, I would have been will-
ing to take my medicine.”

Newspapers wrote editorials about
Taborsky. The public was impressed.
Only one dissenting voice was raised to
mar the symphony of sympathy for the
ex-convict. This was the voice of Mrs.
Louis Wolfson, widow of the West
Hartford liquor store proprietor for

whose robbery and murder Taborsky
had been convicted and sentenced to
die.

“What I can’t understand,” she said
bitterly, “is all this hubbub about
Joe Taborsky. Now they call him a
‘model boy.’ He’s been in trouble all
his life. What about the witness who
saw Albert and Joseph in my hus-
band’s store? I don’t believe Albert’s
crazy and I believe Joe is a killer.”

Mrs. Wolfson’s minority opinion was,
for all practical purposes, drowned in
the tide of public sentiment running
for Joe Taborsky at the time. But
she had uttered one incontrovertible
truth. Joe Taborsky had indeed been
in trouble all his life. Only scant
weeks before, in fact, it would have
been difficult to find anyone, outside his
immediate family, who would dispute
the charge that he was strictly a
“no-good.”

He grew up in Hartford but, al-
though neighborhood acquaintances
described him as a hell-raising kid,
his first reported brush with the law
did not come till he was 18. That
was in 1942. Joe was then a tall,
gangling kid with dark eyes, thick
black hair and prominent nose and
ears. Even more prominent was his
chin. He had a lantern jaw so dis-
tinctive that he had acquired the
nickname, “The Chin.”

On February 28, 1942, a Hartford
beat cop caught Joe in the act of
robbing a tailor shop, for which he
was subsequently given an indetermi-
nate sentence to the Cheshire Reform-
atory. He wasn’t there long, however,
before he went over the wall, stole
a car, and disappeared for more than
a year. He was picked up in Water-
bury in September, 1943, and this
time they handed him a real jolt—3-
to-5 in the state prison at Wethersfield.

He did four years of hard time be-
fore he was paroled. Then he de-
cided to go west, where nobody knew
him. Seattle was the unlucky city
which got him, When he arrived there
in October, 1947, the police didn’t
know it, but Seattle had acquired a
new burglar. They learned about it
when they arrested him in January,
1948. The charge: second-degree bur-
glary. The judge gave him 15 years in
the Washington State Penitentiary at
Walla Walla.

The best thing that could have
happened to Joe Taborsky—and for a
number of innocent people as well—
would have been to serve his full sen-
tence. That would have kept him
out of trouble until 1963. But Joe
had served only a year and a half of
that long sentence before he was able
to con the parole board. They were
impressed by his tale of an under-
privileged youth, the bad luck which
had always pursued him and his des-
perate, if unsuccessful, attempts to
rehabilitate himself as a useful mem-
ber of society. They gave him the
chance he pleaded for and paroled

him in June, 1949. He promptly re-
turned to Hartford.

There he became thick as thieves, in
the most literal sense, with a couple
of old buddies, Arthur A. Culombe and
Carlo Betri. As far as the record
shows, Joe Taborsky stayed honest
for over a year. According to one
Hartford detective, “That means we
didn’t catch him at anything.”

But in July, 1950, Joe was stopped
for speeding in Farmington, Connec-
ticut, and caught with a loaded re-
volver in the glove compartment of
his car. That cost him six months
in the Hartford County Jail. He was
released right after New Year's of
1951.

It may, or it may not have been co-
incidence that Hartford and its en-
virons were hit by a wave of stickups
during the next couple of weeks. They
came so thick and fast that Police
Chief Michael Godfrey took an active
personal interest in the matter; he
ordered Detective Captain Paul M.
Beckwith to assign a picked squad to
track down the heist artists who were
pulling the stickups. Detective Ser-
geants Morris Feinberg and Matthew
Skahill headed the squad and were
ordered to work day and night, if
need be, to nail the crooks.

The first break came right after the

In the Connecticut State Prison at Wethersfield Joe learned he would be released

The jury had found Joe (below) guilty of first-degree murder, but Defense Atty. Bergman (r.) claimed his client was innocent

been expecting. George Nott has
probably come home.” :

Then, turning to the phone, he said,
“Superintendent Flanagan speaking.
What is it, O’Connor?” .

Flood watched the color mount in
Flanagan’s neck. He saw the super-
intendent’s mouth open, the cigar
drop out. Then he heard his superior
gasp an explosive, “What!” and bang
the receiver back on the hook. |

Before he could ask a question,
Flanagan swung around to him.

“Flash a signal for Regan and Hol-
brook and let’s get going! They’ve
just taken another trunk out of that
house!”

The superintendent’s sedan raced
from downtown Bridgeport to the
suburban district where the Notts
lived. Flanagan and Flood found Re-
gan and Holbrook already there, ques-
tioning a group of persons on the
sidewalk. Officer O’Connor hovered
nearby.

“What's the
snapped.

Captain Regan brought Catherine
Horlick forward. “This girl reported
to Patrolman O’Connor that she saw
two men carrying a trunk from_the
Nott house—out the back way. They
took it across the fields to a truck
waiting on the back street.”

The girl nodded. “It was Mr.
Wade. I recognized his milk truck
standing under the street light.”

Flanagan rubbed his chin. “Out the
back way, eh! And after dark! Okay,
men, this time we go over that house
from top to bottom. There’s suspicion
of murder here and we don’t need any
warrant.”

Mrs. Ethel Nott opened the front
door on their incessant ringing, but
Flanagan brushed right in. Seizin
the woman by the arm, he escorte
her into the sitting room.

“Flood, you and O’Connor search
the cellar. Regan and Holbrook take
the attic. I want to talk to this wo-
man.”

But now, for the first time since
that morning, Ethel Nott didn’t want
to talk. Or actually couldn't. Dazed,
the color draining from her face, she
sank into a chair and began weeping
hysterically.

Flanagan stood with hands clasped

story?” Flanagan

behind his back, looking down at the’

woman. So there was something be-
hind her cold, brazen defense! Now
trapped, was her stolid defiance
crumbling?

The police superintendent believed
so. But what mystery did that aus-
tere, impressive mansion hold?

A sudden shout from Regan jerked
him out of his reverie.

“Up here, Chief! Quick!”

Flanagan took the woman by the
arm. Although she resisted and tried
to avoid going upstairs, he neverthe-
less escorted her to the second floor.

“There’s a room in the attic,”
Regan announced. “It looks like a
slaughterhouse.” :

Flanagan shuddered. “It’s murder?”

Regan nodded “No doubt of it.”

The police superintendent was
quite unprepared for the sight that
greeted his eyes.

As a door of the staircase leading
to the attic was opened, Flanagan
saw a trail of blood. Each successive
step was stained, climaxed by a large
splotch of hastily-washed gore on
the third floor landing.

Off this landing was a finished,
white-washed room. But it was white
no longer. Crimson dotted the walls
and ceiling. The floor was red-

AMAZING DETECTIVE CASES

streaked. The bedding literally was
soaked in human blood..

Flanagan, veteran of 30 years’ po-
lice work, recoiled at the gruesome
sight.

“Your husband was slain here?”
he demanded of the woman.

She wavered, seemed about to
faint.

“Yes,” she finally murmured. “El-
wood Wade did it. I tried to stop
him.”

Flanagan gave some orders. “Look
around for the weapons.”

Hiding places throughout the house
yielded a two-foot length of gal-
vanized pipe, a long, blood-stained
carving knife and a .32 calibre re-
volver.

Flanagan began to piece together
the steps in the admitted crime.

“Wade probably came back here,
found Nott in bed, battered him with

‘ : na
COUNTY CORONER

After hearing the testimony of a dozen
witnesses, he ordered three suspects held,

the pipe, shot him four or five times
and then cut his throat with this
knife. Good Lord, what a _ brutal
crime!”

Then, suddenly, he remembered
the second trunk and the milk truck.

“They’re taking Nott’s body some-
where to get rid of it!” he exclaimed.
“After them!” ,

The other officers looked at him,
their faces plainly revealing incom-
prehension.

“That’s right!” Flanagan broke in.
“We don’t know where they’re tak-
“zs him! Get that girl!”

atherine Horlick-was brought for-
ward. “The truck was headed out the
Easton Road,” she told them.

Flanagan mulled over this informa-
tion for just a brief second. Then
he ejaculated, “Good heavens! The
quicksands!”

murmur of incredulity swept
through the other officers. They knew
the reputed treachery of the Trum-
bull swamp, near Easton, eight miles
from Bridgeport. A body thrown in
that morass might never be re-
covered.

“There’s no time to waste!” -Flana-
gan reminded them. “They’ve got an
hour’s headstart with that trunk. Get
some more men from headquarters!
Get some dragging equipment!

“Regan, you and Holbrook pick up
Wade and that Johnston fellow. Take
this woman to a hospital and keep
her under guard. Her ankle’s badly
swollen.”

JOHN J. PHELAN: ’

Things began to happen quickly.
Flanagan and Flood raced toward
Easton as two squad cars loaded -with
officers and dragging apparatus
moved out from headquarters in re-
sponse to their orders. F

Regan and Holbrook, after placing
Mrs. Nott under guard-in the Bridge-
port General Hospital, arrested 1-
wood B. Wade and John Edward
Johnston, 20.

Meanwhile, under the _ glare of
hastily mounted portable —police
lights, Flanagan and Flood vainly
hunted the trunk.

“If they threw it in here, it.sank,”
the superintendent moaned. “There
goes the corpus delicti.”

Then the report reached Flanagan,
as his men struggled desperately to
locate the sunken body, that Wade
and Johnston had been picked up.

“Bring them out here!” Flanagan
ordered. “Maybe we’ve got the wrong
mee on where they put the trunk.”

ut they hadn’t. ade and John-
ston, the former debonair and col-
lected, the latter quaking like an
aspen, were brought to the edge of
the swamp.

“Sure, we threw it in there,” Wade
calmly told Flanagan. “Over there,
about ten feet from the shore.”

One of the officers, Patrolman Jo-
seph G. Coughlin, waded out into the
swamp with a rope around his waist.
And at last the trunk was sighted, en-
tirely submerged.

“An hour more and it would have
been lost entirely,” Flanagan said.
“Get some ropes under it.”

For three hours the police officers
struggled in the treacherous mire to
retrieve the sunken trunk.

“What have you got in there?”
Flanagan asked Wade. “Rocks?”

Elwood Wade grinned. “Sure. It’s
weighted down.”

They discovered this when they.

finally hauled it ashore. But in ad-
dition to the rocks was the mutilated
body of George E. Nott, battered and
slashed almost beyond recognition.

Medical Examiner Dr. Samuel Gar-
lick, summoned to the scene, re-
ported that Nott’s head had been
smashed by a heavy implement,
probably the iron pipe; that he had
been shot four times and that there
were 21 distinct knife wounds.

He removed the corpse to_ the
Mullins, Scott & Redgate undertaking
rooms at Bridgeport for an autopsy.
There Coroner John J. Phelan, of

Fairfield County, assumed charge of.

the case. He ordered Wade, Johnston
and Mrs. Nott held on charges of
breach of the peace, ‘and scheduled an
inquest for the following day.

Flanagan rushed Dr. H. LeBaron
Peters, state pathologist, and Lewis
H. Corbitt, police identification ex-
pert and photographer, to the Judson
Avenue house. There the stains were
officially identified as blood, the pipe
and knife inspected and the revolver
marked and catalogued for future
reference.

Bass at headquarters, Flanagan,
Flood and_ State’s Attorney
Homer S. Cummings, later Attorney
General of the United States, ques-
ae Wade and Johnston, the latter
rst.

A weak-willed youth, the lad, who
was a helper on one of the trucks
belonging to Wade’s father, promptly
serene, witnessing the killing of

ott.

“Wade called me up and said, T
want you to come over to George

Nott’s house wit

give him a_ goc
along, carrying <
tion, but I didn
crime.”

He made a lor
ing in full whe
heard in conne¢’
Police Stenogr
obtained his si,

Then Wade v
boastful, swagge.

‘ried, with two

readily confessec
with Ethel Hui
period of more ti

‘“T’'ll tell you ju
he said as the
notes. “Mrs. No
said, ‘You'd bett:

‘and I had a dr
something done

“When I got
on the floor an
over him. She
look better to
or me?’”

Prosecutor C:
“Look, Wade,
Both Mrs. Not
made statemen‘
killer. This lyi
you any place.”

Nott grinned.
over there as I
one to finish. |
lives. I laid hi
shot him on th«
him off in the b

“T told him, ‘
but I’m going
started strugg!
down the stai

‘me, ‘Make him

““Get me a k
keep still,’ I sh:
and got the k:
again and agai:
struck him
finally lay stil
stairs.

“It was then
to run away f
didn’t want tc
brought down ‘
him in it.”

But Ethel ]
story to tell. In
pital cot, where
nervous collap

‘badly sprained

“I heard an <
that Wade had

was afraid to
“T’ll check v
_ But he learn
cinct, that Fa!
receipt of the
ters to the poli
had been assi;
matter.

“We had hin
day,” the detec
on the boat, tc
wasn’t a minu
Falzone under
approached hir
the third letter
ported to me.
people on the

=. them looked to

quickly. a
toward

ded with

pparatus

-s in re-

c placing |
2 Bridge- 3
sted El- 4

Edward ,

glare of
e police
od vainly

it sank,”
1, “There

Flanagan,
erately to
hat Wade
ced up.

Flanagan

the wrong
trunk.”
ind John-
and col-
‘ like an
2 edge of

re,” Wade
ver there,
ore.”

oilman Jo-
it into the
his waist.
shted, en-

ould have pe.
gan said.

ce officers
is mire to

n there?”
yeks?”

‘Sure. It’s
vhen they
Sut in ad-

mutilated ;
ttered and

ognition.

muel Gar-

scene, re-

had been
mplement,

vat he had 4
that there

inds.

se to the
ndertaking

.n autopsy.

Phelan, of
charge of

2, Johnston .
charges of

heduled an

ay.

. LeBaron
and Lewis
cation ex-
the Judson
tains were
d, the pipe :
1e revolver

for future

Flanagan,
Attorney
. Attorney
_ates, ques-
, the latter

ne lad, who
the trucks
r, promptly
killing of

ind said, ‘T
to George

' Both
. made statements naming you as the

FROM AUTHENTIC POLICE RECORDS

Nott’s house with me. I’m going to
give him a good beating.’ I went
along, carrying a hatchet for protec-
tion, but I didn’t take part in the
crime.” .

He made a long ‘statement, detail-
ing in full what he had seen and
heard in connection with the murder.
Police Stenographer John A: Lyddy
obtained his signature.

Then Wade was brought in. A
boastful, swaggering man of 32, mar-
ried, with two young children, he
readily confessed to illicit relations
with Ethel Hutchins Nott over a
eriod of more than a year. .

“T’]] tell you just how it happened,”.
he said as the stenographer took
notes. “Mrs. Nott called me up and
said, ‘You’d better come over. George
and I had a dreadful fight. I want
something done to him.’

“When I got there Nott was lying
on the floor and Ethel was standing
over him. She said, ‘Which does it
look better to see, him lying there
or me?’”

_ Prosecutor Cummings interrupted.
“Look, Wade, we want the ‘truth.
Mrs. Nott and Johnston have

killer, This lying isn’t going to get
you any place.” :
Nott grinned. “Okay. Well, I went

over there as I said. He was a tough

‘ one to finish. I thought he had nine

lives. I laid him low with the pipe,
shot him on the stairway and finished
him off in the bedroom,

“I told him, ‘You said you’d get me,
but I’m going to get you first.’ We
_started struggling and he slipped
down the stairs. Mrs. Nott said to

‘-me, ‘Make him stop that—hollering.’

” ‘Get me a knife and I’ll make him
keep still,’ I shouted to her. She ran
and got the knife and I struck him
again and again. How many times I]
struck him. I don’t know, but he
finally lay still at the foot of the
stairs.

“It was then Mrs. Nott wanted me
to run away from the scene, but I
didn’t want to leave her alone. I
brought down the trunk and we put
him in it.”

But Ethel: Nott had a different
story to tell. Interviewed on her hos-
pital cot, where she lay stricken with
nervous collapse, in addition to a
‘badly sprained ankle, she said: .

“TJ heard an awful crack and knew
that Wade had struck my husband a

IWIN ZING
VWAEVISISVINVAS

was afraid to report it to the cops.”

“T’ll check up,” Senff said.

_But he learned from the 85th Pre-
cinct, that Falzone had reported the
receipt of the money-demanding let-
ters to the police, and that a detective
had been assigned to investigate the
matter.

“We had him take the boat on that
day,” the detective told Senff. “I was
on the boat, too, of course, and there
wasn’t a minute when I didn’t have
Falzone under my eye. But no one
approached him. I didn’t know about
the third letter. That was never, re-
ported to me. There were very few
people on the boat, and not one of

..them looked to me like a Blackhander.

blow with the pipe .he held in his
hand.: Then I heard one shot and
Johnston came running down the
stairs. He didn’t have anything to do
with the murder. Wade and my hus-
band came fighting down the stairs
from the second floor. We put my
husband’s body in the trunk, carried
it upstairs and washed away the
blood-stains on the stairs.”

The woman denied that she had
handed Wade a knife or knew his
intentions when he came to the house.

But Wade continued to insist she
did. “Why, that revolver was even
her husband’s,” he told Cummings. .

Of just one thing was the prosecu-
tor certain. An appalling crime had
been committed, apparently by Wade,
one which shocked the entire com-
munity. But was Ethel Hutchins Nott
or young Johnston equal partici-
pants?

Cummings told Flanagan, ‘It’s up
to the police to find out just how far
Mrs. Nott was involved in this af-
fair. I don’t think any jury will con-
vict her on Wade’s story alone.”

Meanwhile, at the following day’s
inquest, Coroner Phelan, after hear-
ing the testimony of a dozen wit-
nesses, ordered Wade, Johnston and
Mrs. Nott held on charges of murder.
Cummings’ office rapidly presented
the case to the grand jury and indict-
ments followed.

While the police dug into Mrs.
Nott’s possible connection with the
crime, the prosecutor proceeded with
plans to bring Elwood B. Wade to
trial alone. This occurred on Decem-

: ber 11, 1920, and the milk dealer’s

son was convicted in the first degree
twelve days later.

Sentenced to hang, he expiated for
his brutal crime at Wethersfield
Prison on May 20, 1921.

But while Wade languished in jail
awaiting his fate, detectives from
Flanagan’s office were not idle in the
case of Mrs. Nott. They learned that
Nott had owned the revolver with
which he had been shot.

They dug up one witness who said
he had héard Mrs. Nott call her hus-
band a “gambler, drunkard, degen-
erate and opium user” and express a
desire to get rid of him.

“Once she invited me _ up to the
house. She said to me, ‘I’ll give -you
$200 if you'll give my husband a
good beating.’ Wade was there. I
said okay.” ‘

“Do you mean to say you’d beat up
a man for $200?”

“Sure, why not? But Mrs. Nott
handed me a hatchet and said, ‘Here,
do a good job. That was the time I

backed out.”

Checking over Mrs. Nott’s cor-
respondence, they learned that she
had been carrying on an affair with
a Chelsea fireman, in addition to her
relations with Wade.

Furthermore, she had written the
Chelsea man that she intended to go
to Massachusetts to live with him
“after I get rid of my husband.”

The authorities now had abundant
evidence that the woman not only
was tiring of her husband but Elwood
Wade as well. She was, indeed, the
instigator of the entire murder plot.

Four days after Wade died on the
Wethersfield gallows, Cummings put
Mrs. Nott and Johnston on trial for
their lives.

Great crowds stormed the Bridge-
port courthouse for a glimpse of the
woman whose hands were stained
with the crimson of her spouse’s
blood.

But Ethel Nott herself could take
but little interest in the proceedings.
Weak, emaciated, unable to walk, she
was carried in and out of the court-
room, a pathetic figure. Several
times, when Ferguson and her neigh-
bors testified about her illicit rela-
tionship with Wade, the defendant
fainted.

Once, when the State’s witness told
yet the murder plot, she screamed
“ iar!”

The trial was halted time after
time so Mrs. Nott could be revived.
Finally, on May 29th, her own coun-
sel put an end to the woman’s ordeal
by offering in her behalf a plea of
guilty to a charge of murder in the
second degree.

Accepted by State’s Attorney Cum-
mings in order to spare the woman
further physical suffering, Judge W.
T. Maltbie immediately sentenced
her to life imprisonment in the
women’s prison in Wethersfield.

Johnston, whom ‘Cummings de-
scribed as a weak-minded youth who
was misled by Wade, received a term
of one year in the penitentiary.

(Catherine Horlick and _ Louis
Swanson are fictitious names to save
innocent persons from embarrass-
ment.)

BROOKLYN'S HOLY DAY HORROR

“(Continued from page 27)

Of course, it may be someone else
masquerading as one.”

“Sure. I haven’t overlooked that
angle.”

ate that afternoon of December

8, 1929, Falzone came home, to face
the tragedy which had overtaken his
family. He was overcome with grief,
weeping and ewaerne back and forth.
He was a small, undistinguished-
looking man of medium height, with
thick, black hair, dark eyes, a turned-
down mouth, sharp chin, and in
general a rather dour expression.

“Pm President of the Columbia
Marble Works,” he said, speaking with
a heavy accent. “We cut marble and
stone for buildings. We also make

tombstones, and we make repairs to
worn or broken marble on buildings
and grave vaults.”

“Are you doing well?”

“Well, I do pretty well. Last year I
made over $100,000.”

“How much over?”

‘Fifty over. We cleared $150,000.”

Senff whistled. ‘Not bad,” he said.
“How many do you split that with?”

“Only one, my partner, Joe Sci-
mone.” -

“Did you mention to him that you
had received these letters?”

“Yes. He’s the only one I told, ex-
cept about the second letter. I told
the police about that too.”

“Are you on good terms with your

Bull

Corex. Fut

wed 2 AE ds

VAL ot? Sf eo ss Ee rk <4 ACE
MMrys. Wott ¥ Phe aherhbed pA 2 ZO”

/, c a
Boer g Hee,
CS x

fey
AY LCA

W OJCULEWICZ,. Frank,

white,
(Hartford) 10-26-1959.

Frank Wojcule WiCZ ,

elec. Gonn,. SP {| In Connecticut. a governor has
} only give.a temporary reprieve
‘until a specific date in order to)
ipermit further court appeals.
. Wojculewicz, lying face down; '
on .a hospital cot,
during the hearing. °.
Somewhat incoherently, “he said
‘he wanted a chance to tell his
jstory further and he spoke of the!
{nature of truth. ~
Attorneys s for him pegged their

+ appeal on two grounds: He was:

October 26, /959.

In Chair at State Prison SESE on

But. State’s Atty. John D. La.

+ Makes No Outcry

persons was pronounced dead at,
10:37 p.m. in the state prison

awaited execution for seven years.

the wooden electric chair.
did he cry out as the chargé of
electricity jolted him.

~Two. physicians checked his
pulse and heartbeat after the elec-
tricity had coursed through. him
for about two minptes. Then the
four guards -stepped forward and.

took away his body. :
It was a body that had besit
wracked-before death by a spinal:
ailment, brought on after a police-|
man's-bullet cut-him.down_as he.
tried to flee a New Britain, rob-|
bery in 1951—the. robbery in which’
he killed two persons.
‘Wojculewicz made no request
for the traditional sumptuous last
meal.
fare of corned beef’and cabbage,
apples and coffee.- The chef sent
him some tossed salad are carro-
way seed rolls,
. Priest at Side = ©

As he rolled down'the last few
feet to the death house, he was
accompanied by the prison’s Cath-
olic chaplain, the Rev. Joseph W.
Reynolds, ;

The condemned’ man. had
spurned offers—of comfort dur-

~—

He had the tegular prigon! |

ing the day and said he didn’t

“want ‘the chaplain by his side.
But the priest, who had spent.
much of the day with him, en-'
‘tered the death chamber and|
/ stood near the electric chair.

It was a chair somevwt® mod-
| ied for this execution—the 17th
Vin ‘the ~electric™ chair—because
of Wojculewicz’ inability to bend
‘his legs. A special attachment
+ was placed in front-of-the chair.

WETHERSF IELD, Oct:
Wojculewicz, a paralyzed killer, was lifted from
wheelchair tonight and executed in the electric chair.

The 41-year-old- killer—-of ‘in

where, as an invalid, he had iter Grabeck and a bystander, | .
| William Otipka,

He made _.no outcry. as four the previous year.

guards lifted him and put him in!
Nor}:

, the noise stopped. /

-a_ half
i Mary W. Wojculewicz of New’ piven: him from the-time- of- the

| Belle said:
26 (AP) — Frank “Never once has his mental or
his | physical capacity at the time of,
the murders ever been question.
|The condition he’s in now came,
{about through his own actions. |
of New Britain, “The tragedy that occurred. that) |

~ Killed 2 In Robbery
Wojculewicz,

i was sentenced to the chair in; ‘day of the crime must'not be for- |

1952 for slaying Police Sgt. Wal- gotten. ie
. Wounded In Finlaup
That tragedy occurred on.
Nov. 5, 1951, when Wojculewicz,
It was the climax of a life of 'tried singlehandedly to hold up!
trouble with the law. He was a! ithe A.Y.Q. Packing company in
juvenile delinquent at 10, a quit-!| New Britain.
ter of school in the eighth grade, | Police bullets cut him down as’
a continual law violator. \|he‘fled, but he whipped off shots'
As the end drew near this, ‘that killed Grabeck and Otipka.
afternoon, he spent an hour tig In his appeals, Wojcwewicz
with his mother, Mrs. jcomplained about medical care

in a robbery |:

of. «Shooting to the end of hist trial.
Arguing his own case before |
! ‘the state Supreme Court of Er-|

Britain, a brother, Joseph.
New Britain, and his sister, Mrs. |
Sally Joseph of Kensington.

And near the end, Warden |! irors—the first.condemned mur-!
Mark S. Richmond said, the'idered to do so—he said:
priest “had been able to get “This abuse and negligence de. |

through to him.’ ! pressed me mentally and when!
Commotion at Prison- “|. the court appointed the public |
About 15 minutes before the. idefender to defend me, I was inj
execution, some prisoners began jthe depths.of a mental depression |
to shout and beat on the doors ‘and did not inform the public de-|

of their cells. They subsided, then , fender of my defense or anything | +

before the:|concerning » the events and the |
Then ''lack of treatment at the hospital. ¥
He contended he did not receive |

Richmond discounted to news-':a fair trial. —
men the possibility that they! A week after Wojeulewicz was!
Were protesting the execution of|ishot, his wife gave birth to a'
Wojculewicz. If they had been, |daughter., Three years ago, she.
he said, they would have. con-j/filed suit for divor¢e and asked '
tinued the commotion. Leustody—of theirtwo children!

Wojculewicz had been unable to Crime-Filled Life |

began again just
10:30 p.m. execution time.

‘no power to commute a sentence, NS

rane ee BS 2
Vv

stand sin¢e he was shot, but in
recent years he had been able to

Numerous Appeals Failed
Time and again the courts heard!

property --- os se oo

Today the State Pardons board,
heard his appeal for-a commuta-
tion of sentence and turned it
down.’ His: execution was set for

10:30: p.m

sit in a chair for short periods of}
time. t

his case as he appealed. Time and' jrobbery,
again they held he was convicted} robbery, assault, suspicion of bur-'

Wojculewicz was born in New:

Britain, entered a juvenile. home |
at 10 for two-and a half years,’ 3

‘dropped out of school early, then: - ~~~
|wandered around the country. 7

He was convicted of. highway:

‘ glary, failure to register a still,’

CONT.

ON BACK —

car theft, ‘post office| .

Pas
eS

- Ey 2
ae NL

(
ie
sa
\ f
‘

~o
~y

Ings

| | Magnam's Lawyer Raps’
| $5,000 Bonds; Gunman

| Still on Critical List

Magnam’s attorney
“While I realize the main
not

, is very serious, I do
' that this bond should be

$5,000. Police have been

‘4 this man since 8 Monda

ruman, MacArthur,
‘aft Trail in Choice
ext President

* Heved

POMERANTZ said tha

--“If that: was my reasoning.
" would set a bond of §25,000

Judge Ginsburg in setting

i
_ bond said: :

m’s* attorney said,

- “While I realize the main crime
-- is very serious, I do not believe.
that this bond should be set at.
' $5,000. Police have been holding

this man since 8 Monday night.”

: e 8 ee. :
-:, POMERANTZ said that he be-
_Iteved police were setting the
‘high bond to hold the man. A,
wi Prosecutor, Manuel B. Clark. said. .
'T, ease ae Ma. ee ee cae tage was My reasoning. E
a ie sf... Would set a bond of $25,000."
are i lacArthur. Judge Ginsburg in setting the
7] il ter C ice _—sibond said:
< E a N be Choice “Although this is a_ technical
"or Next it... breach of peace charge, all the
pee es exe) ‘resident eect Peau canes ‘make it necessary
- ‘The Gallup Pott ha, .. . for me to treat this in a more
fucted ‘alehutccuie, _ re _ Serious light.”
) Magnam became ‘implicated in
the. fatal. shootings when a Ver-
; Mont _ registration bearing his
_ Name was found in the car used
2. by. Prank Wojculewicz. 33, of 310
_-. Worthington Ridge, Berlin, in the .
. armed holdup of the A. Y. O.; z:
‘Packing Com 7”

ington St.»

inner by a big ation fare
‘Dwight -D. Eisenhower. He! niece 39 of 191. d

head: in. of. : oe ’ : : : : : A
es in the “inddeeest|anene te foreman mA TONEY TIUMPI |, St, Manaser, Sha
: ef : im - Tuesday’. - electic

le Gov." Earl Warren. of Cali=lthe poline ee ee whe

Seon Tate rate : ! De als | amm any nee ate

1
ity bulks largely in the East!
_ the South. Gen. Douglas
ier tered has i hnotoaators
DWing in those two sec so
with women . voters © through:
} the country, General ae
er. proves more popular than: esses take :
ah the men voters, whereas the Night of the killing a in government, won New elected mayor by
bsite applies to Taft, who getsithat otinka was. ‘tox meet oo 7 Won Sew ing the |
tbstantially larger share of theihis wife “who was em-, %°°k Citys: second highest office elect. is: Jo
b's vote than the women’s. = - packing: company. last night in a startling upset of Cronin, who will be the fi
or the nation as a who Ne General Hospital mighty Tammany Hall. phon to hold this post :
Here i @ list of inen ung “S_moraltie. reported that the, By a smashing 163.402-vote Contrasting with 'a 6 t
Here is a list of m ho gunman was ‘still on the ertical margin. he was elected City Coun- trol of the i
be been mentioned as pos- list, but he was conscious. He has ,j) resident, beating the tiny gti of the new charter fo’
le President _Tefused to speak to police guard- ‘!! P a ine ee, the acting tion ne new c F TO
1952. Please him. He has been visited by Democratic incumbent, Joseph .T. ago, the. CCC now will
Ene and then. Oe On ete and his attornes: Sharkey, He did it _with only control margin of 5 to 4
4 vOM uld °- Thon “McDonough. >” SPlinter-party support — and on of a gain by. independen:
‘ted Pr ae fe the pa ak hs first try for public office. - atesa 08 ee ee
Sahswes | Who. declined to It was a stunning blow to the At the same time. only
‘Said it was true TUline Democratic organization. the three School Board
7 Was. paralyzed and the second vear in “a-row dates indorsed bv the .
down. When the [hat Tammany has floundered in Committee. Mrs. Marton
asked if it were a per- defeat _ oe gan, was-elected. with th
Teplied. “rt It also Was & great victory for seats
= 3). , the Liberal Party. Halley's chief of wh
Pathy for the Sponsor. The Liberals had

oy oe ‘a
ay

gunning candidates, one

attempted prison escape, assault
-with intent.to commit_rape and,
|possession of burglary tools. |
But back in 1943 he went,

| straight for. a while. He was mar-;
ried and, took a’ as. .a truck

driver. His aren pay checks;
javeraged : §$ $125 to $150. One he}
| But then he took’-the shih on
‘crime that~led him to the death

ROUSE. oR, fo a Bt:
ane On Bes

orden,
3s time
‘ip for
deriod.
ivities.

How-

drove

ticket
larging
motor
3; given

>e man
matter
he in-
ver his
msider-
ive re-
» have
r going
He had
cept for

anuary,
‘red in
J. God-
in Paul
‘st men
etective
Aatthew
around
n made.
2am bar
. trio of
ed from
Skahill
the ban-
-eported

n, “An
ne, told
e might

ey were -

rsky and
Anthony
iore im-

» hard to

own bar
The Chin
Terrace.
cers and

run Tony
ertheless,
{ address,
s a Trap-
ce of the
o answer
and said
vas taken

ome eva-
sertain of
Taborsky
esky’s old

ary Fein-
‘ching for
:d Borden
hen they
at Patrol-
Columbe
vyho swore
oefore. He
ilf a block

Chief Godfrey conferred with State’s Attorney Bill, who
then proceeded to draw up the papers necessary for an in-
dictment of the quartet on charges of armed robbery. The
four were arraigned, held in high bail which they could not
furnish, then sent back to their cells to await the grand jury’s
action.

At 11 o’clock on the morning of January 18th, a telephone

1 call came into police headquarters. A woman who announced

that she was Mrs. Mabel Taborsky asked to speak to Lieuten-
ant Samuel Weinstein. When the call was routed to Wein-
stein’s office, Mrs. Taborsky said, “Lieutenant, my son wants
to talk to you.”

“Your son,” said Weinstein, “is in jail. If he wants to see
me, he can send a message.” :

“No,” said Mrs. Taborsky. ‘My son, Joseph, is in jail. It’s
his brother, my younger son, Albert, who wants to see you.”

Weinstein remembered Albert Taborsky. He was 25 years
old but appeared rather younger. His light, blond hair al-
ways needed cutting. He had an oval, babyish face and some-
times wore glasses. Although he was Joseph Taborsky’s
brother, he had never been in any serious trouble that the
lieutenant recalled. There had been a single occasion during
a drunken tavern brawl when Albert Taborsky had been
brought to headquarters. | Weinstein had questioned him, de-
termined he had no record, and released the youth with some
pointed advice.

“All right, Mrs. Taborsky,” said einstein, “if Albert wishes
to talk to me I’ll be in my office. nd him over.”

“No,” said Mrs. Taborsky. “He wants to talk to you right
here. In my home. Please come over. It’s very important.”

The woman’s voice was worried. and urgent. It seemed to
Weinstein that, under the circumstances, she should have been
far more concerned about Joseph than Albert. However, po-
lice information comes from curious sources and under odd
conditions. Weinstein said that he would go to the Taborsky
house immediately. He hung up and reached for his coat and
cap. As he left the building he picked up Patrolman Ashline,
who accompanied him. He told Ashline about the call.

Twenty minutes later they sat in the parlor of the Taborsky
home. Mr. Taborsky was in bed, confined by an acute attack
of arthritis. Mrs. Taborsky and Albert were in the living
room. The mother was pale and upset.

“It is a terrible thing to know that J oseph was mixed up in
that ice cream bar holdup,” she said. ‘Now, I find out that
Albert was in it, too.”

Weinstein turned to the youngest Taborsky. “Ts this true?”

Albert looked at the lieutenant with wide, candid eyes. “It’s
true,” he said. “My conscience has been bothering me. You
were nice to me once and I wanted to confess to you first.”

“All right, Albert. Go ahead.”

“Rive of us held up that dairy place. I stayed in the car
while the others went in and got the money. I’m as guilty as
they are.”

Esther Taborsky wept softly. “Lieutenant,” she said, “Joseph
has been in jail before. I know he’ll go back again for this.
But Albert’s my youngest. He’s never been in trouble. Can’t
you give him another chance?” . :

‘Weinstein shook his head. “It’s not up to me,” he said. “But
I’m sure the court will take Albert’s record into consideration.
Of course, we'll have to take him along with us now.”

Ashline put a hand on the youth’s shoulder, but Albert made
no move. “Come on,” said Ashline. “Get your hat and coat.
We're going downtown.”

Albert Taborsky drew a deep breath. “Not yet,” he said.
“T’'m not finished.”

Mabel’ Taborsky looked at her son in some surprise. “But
you’ve confessed, Albert. You've told them about that awful
holdup.”

“Yes,” said Albert quietly, “but I haven’t told them about
the murder.”

There was a moment of utter silence in the room. The offi-
cers were as surprised as Mrs. Taborsky. She spoke first and
her voice broke. “No,” she cried. “No. Maybe you've been
mixed up in a holdup, but not murder. ‘No!”

Weinstein said quietly, “Just what is this about a murder,
Albert? Whose murder?”

“Wolfson. Louis Wolfson. Joseph killed him while I sat in
the car outside.”

Weinstein glanced at Ashline. Both of them were well ac-
quainted with the details of the Wolfson killing. Louis Wolf-
son, the proprietor of a liquor store on New Park Avenue in
West Hartford, had been robbed and murdered shortly after
9 o’clock in the evening of March 23rd, 1950, some 10 months
ago.

Wolfson, a dark man, 40 years old, had lived long enough
to die in the hospital. Before he died he had given a short
interview to the police in which he had described the man who
had murdered him. There had been an intensive investigation,
but no clue to the identity of the murderer had ever been
found. 4

From Lieutenant Weinstein’s point of view matters were
now in.a different light. This was a murder confession. He
wanted it to be thoroughly official. He instructed Ashline to
call Chief Godfrey. He told Albert that he could furnish all
details at headquarters. s

As Ashline used the Taborsky telephone and Mrs. Taborsky
sobbed pitifully, Albert got out of his chair, put on his hat
and overcoat. He left the house with the two officers. He did
not say goodbye to his weeping mother.

In Chief Godfrey’s office County Detective John F. Reardon,
West Hartford Captain Vincent B. Hurlbut and Detective
Sergeant John F. Paulson were awaiting the prisoner. When
Albert Taborsky, walking between his escorts, came into the
room, he said in a dull monotone, “TJ wish to tell of a matter
which has been bothering me for a long time.”

He was given a chair and a cigarette. A stenographer. was
summoned. Albert was not immediately questioned but was
permitted to tell his story in his own way.

“Jt was some time in March,” he began. “It was around
eight o’clock at night. I was at home when I got a telephone

call from Joe, who was at the house of his girl friend. He told
me to take the family car and pick him up.”

Albert had asked his brother why he should do that.

“Tt need some dough,” said Joe Taborsky. “You could use a
little yourself, couldn’t you?”

Albert had known then that Joe planned a‘robbery. How-
ever, he did need a little dough himself, so he decided to do
as his elder brother had suggested. :

It was a misty night and a depressing rain drizzled down as
Albert picked up his brother. Joe climbed into the car, took a

22 caliber revolver from his pocket and examined it. Albert’s
face must have mirrored his apprehension for Joe said, “Now,

Joe Taborsky out of his cell and bring him here right away.”

Ashline nodded and left the room. Albert sat, pale and im-
mobile, in his chair as The Chin entered the room. Joseph
stared at Albert, who failed to meet his eye, but he did not
speak. Chief Godfrey asked the stenographer to read Albert’s

statement aloud.

don’t get scared and take off on me,” as the car left the curb.

At The Chin’s instructions, Albert cruised the car through
the slippery streets. Through the steamy window of the pack-
age store on New Park Avenue, they saw Wolfson, clad in a
green army jacket and a snap brimmed hat, bending over some

cartons.
“This looks good,” said The Chin. “Park around the corner “This is for your benefit,” the chief said to The Chin. “Listen
on Layton Street then cover up the license plate with your carefully.”
scarf. And don’t get scared.” Joseph Taborsky listened carefully, his face impassive, his
Albert parked on Layton Street, opposite a street light. He little eyes glittering. When he had heard the entire confes-
sion, he shook his head and said, “My brother must be crazy.”

“Js that all you have to say?” asked the chief.

“Bither he’s crazy or you guys gave him such a beating that
he was willing to sign anything.”

Albert may not have been scared but he was certainly nerv- “Look at him. There’s not a mark on him,” said Weinstein.
ous. He lit a cigarette just as a paper boy ‘passed on the “Ask him if he’s been mistreated.”
street. Albert saw the boy’s face clearly. He began to worry “Let’s hear your version, Joe,” said Godfrey. “Do you recall

where you were last March 23rd?”

got out of the car and covered the license plate. Joe ordered
Albert to remove his trench coat. Joe donned it, put the .22
in a pocket. He said, “Kill the lights and keep the motor run-
ning.” Then he headed for the liquor store.

that the boy had also seen him.

A moment later, The Chin came running from the liquor “Sure, I do. I remember every minute of it.”

store. He sprang into the car and cried, “Take off.” “How come? Isn’t it strange that you should recall every
minute of an evening almost a year ago?”

Albert stepped on the accelerator. As the car raced along
Layton Street, The Chin said breathlessly, “That guy jumped
me. I had to shoot him.” I was at my girl’s house. She’s Annette Antonelli. She gave
Albert parked the car before the house where his sister mea party ‘with a birthday cake and everything. I didn’t leave
lived. He removed the scarf from the license plate and re- there until late. Why would I leave my own birthday party?
You ask Nettie.”

placed it about his neck.

On the following day the Taborsky brothers read in the “Did you see Albert that night?”
newspapers of Wolfson’s death. Albert came to his brother in Joseph scratched his chin and looked thoughtful. ‘Yeah.
a panic. “What are we going to do?” he demanded. I remember he dropped in at the party and asked me to

“We'll just play it smart,” said The Chin. “First, P11 throw let him have some money. We never had much use for each

the gun into the Connecticut River. You get rid of that trench other so I didn’t give it to him. I sent him on his way. I took
the bus home about 10 o’clock. Say, what time was this mug

“Not at all,” said Joseph Taborsky. “It was my birthday.

coat. Sell it to the rag man. Then drive the car to Chicago
and sell it. We got to play it safe.” killed?”

Albert did as he had been told. He sold the coat. The next There were a great many subsequent questions, a great
day he set out for Chicago, where he sold the murder car. The many answers and arguments. The upshot was that Albert
precautions, it developed, were unnecessary. Neither of the stuck to his story, but no more firmly than Joseph stuck to his.
Taborsky boys had been suspected of the Wolfson murder. Both were sent to cells. On the following morning the police

Albert looked quite sick when he concluded his statement began checking the stories.

scorted to the bath- First they visited Mrs. Antonelli, who was separated from
her husband. She was the mother of two children. As far as

and, as a matter of fact, he was. He was e
this same trip twice more
, her memory went she seemed to support The Chin’s alibi.

room where he retched. He made
She recalled the birthday party. She recalled seeing Albert.

during his questioning.
Chief Godfrey caught the eye of Patrolman Ashline. “Get

Officer guards gas station where first victims died December 15th, 1956. Capt. Chameroy examines killer’s Russian-made gun

But she

had lett

8 and 1
Now

clerk.

every

rthday.
> gave
t leave

party?

Yeah.
me to
> each
took

mug

great
Albert

to his.
> police

from

far ag

alibi.
Albert.

nade gun

Mr. and Mrs. Vinton, robbed, pistol-whipped, December 21st

But she couldn’t remember exactly what time Joseph Taborsky
had left the house. It was, she thought, some time beween
8 and 11. It was so long ago, she could not be certain.

Now the detectives interviewed Gregory Peters, a grocery
clerk, who had given a statement to the police on March 24th,
the day after Louis Wolfson had been shot. Peters had been
walking along Layton Street at 9 o’clock the previous evening.
He had seen a parked car with a man at the wheel. A moment
]ater a second man had raced around the corner and leaped
into the ear. It had moved off with its lights out.

Peters now repeated the story. He was taken to head-
quarters where the Taborsky brothers were lined up with
half a dozen others. Peters identified them unhesitatingly
zs the two men he had seen on Layton Street on the evening
of March 23rd.

Mrs. Taborsky appeared at the city jail to talk to her sons.
Albert resignedly insisted that his story was true. “Joe did
it, Ma,” he said. “And he’ll get the electric chair for it. I
guess they’ll execute me, too.”

The Chin said, “Ma, they don’t know what they’re talking
about. I was never in that package store. I never saw the man
who was killed. Something’s happened to Albert. He must
have gone crazy.”

Mrs. Taborsky, actuated by her emotions, decided to be-
lieve her elder son. She could not accept the idea that Joe
was a murderer. It was simpler to believe that Albert had
suddenly become insane.

In June, 1951, Joseph Taborsky was brought to trial, charged
with first-degree murder, before Judge Howard W. Alcorn.

Albert S. Bill handled the case for the state. Attorney Nathan-
iel Bergman was appointed as a special public defender, to
act as counsel for the accused.

When the trial opened Bergman demanded a sanity hearing
for Albert Taborsky. The court refused the request because
Connecticut law stipulates that a witness must actually be
on the stand before his sanity may be questioned. The trial
proceeded with the state’s attorney reading a deathbed inter-
view between Wolfson and a police officer.

Q: Who shot you, Louis?

A: A young fellow, maybe 21.

Q: How was he dressed?

A: A trench coat.

Q: What color hair did he have?

A: Light blond. He needed a haircut.

At this point Bergman asked that the testimony be read
once again. His purpose was obvious. Joseph Taborsky’s hair
was dark. He certainly was over 21. Bill continued to read.

Q: What did this fellow look like?

A: He had a baby face and wide eyes.

Again Bergman requested that the record be re-read. The
Chin’s eyes were narrow. Not even his mother would have
claimed he had a baby face. As a matter of fact, Wolfson’s
description of the man who had shot him fitted Albert
Taborsky much more closely than it did his brother.

When Albert took the stand he doggedly repeated all the
details of his original confession. Bergman did not now ask
for a sanity hearing. He took it upon himself to demonstrate
to the jurors that Albert was an unstable madman.

During his stay in the county jail, Albert had lived with
no less than six cellmates, all of whom had demanded to be
removed from his company. One claimed he behaved in-
decently. Another swore that Albert twisted a searf in his
hands and threatened to strangle his cellmate. He had
smashed dishes on the floor, whistled and screamed so loudly
that he had been placed in solitary confinement. Once he
drank a basin full of water in which he had previously
washed his socks.

The testimony of Albert’s own family seemed to corrobo-
rate that of the jail inmates. He had always caused trouble
at home. He had beaten his crippled father with a stick. He
had kicked his pregnant sister in the stomach, causing a mis-
carriage. He had boasted to his mother of various lurid
affairs with women. On one occasion he had stabbed his
brother with a bread knife. At that time, Joe had ordered
Albert from the house.

“All right,” Albert had yelled, “I'll go. But Ill get even
for this. Someday I’ll pay you back. Joe.”

On the stand, Mrs. Taborsky spoke gently of her younger
son. “We haven’t disowned Albert,’ she said. “We're just
pointing out that he’s not in his right mind.”

Bergman called the attention of the jury to the fact that
the state had produced no witnesses who had seen The
Chin in the Wolfson store. He claimed that the police had
beaten a confession out of Albert. Joseph Taborsky said
gravely, “As God is my judge, I am innocent.”

As the jury filed away after Judge Alcorn’s charge. it
seemed to the spectators that the State of Connecticut didn't
have a very strong case against Joseph Taborsky. The re-
porters were offering better than two to one on an acquittal.

The seven men and five women who comprised the jury
were in session for more than 9 hours. They returned to the
courtroom to report that they found Joseph Taborsky guilty
of the first-degree murder of Louis Wolfson. Under a
mandatory law, Judge Alcorn sentenced The Chin to die in
the electric chair at the Wethersfield penitentiary.

Two weeks later Albert Taborsky pleaded guilty to par-
ticipation in the Wolfson killing. Because of his testimony
against his brother his life was spared. He was given a life
sentence, also to be served at Wethersfield.

In the dairy holdup, Columbe and Circoria pleaded guilty.
They were given 2-to-4-year terms. Chester Borden, who
insisted upon his innocence, was not convicted.

The behavior of Albert Taborsky in the penitentiary was no
improvement upon his behavior in the Hartford County jail.
He was noisy, obstreperous, dirty and indecent. No amount
of discipline rehabilitated him. There came a time when he
informed his fellow convicts that he should be addressed as
Abe, because he really was Lincoln.

One morning, just before dawn, Albert’s screams brought
a guard on the run. “Get me out of here,” shouted Albert.
“Get me out quick. They’ll kill me.”

Since Albert was in his cell alone the guard remained un-
moved. “Who’ll kill you?” he asked.

“They're shooting chemical gases at me,” sobbed Albert.
“They're trying to kill me.”

The guard notified the prison doctor and Warden George
A. Cummings. Albert was removed to the infirmary. He was
examined by two psychiatrists. He was, they found, definitely
hallucinated, obviously a mental case. He was transferred
from Wethersfield to the ward for the criminal insane at the
Norwich State Hospital.

This news sent Attorney Bergman into action. He im-
mediately demanded that the governor reprieve Joseph
Taborsky, in order to give him time for an appeal based
upon the fact that the chief witness against his client had been
insane at the time he had testified.

Joseph Taborsky’s first reprieve was issued from the state-
house. Bergman collected affidavits from the doctors and other
witnesses. He presented them to superior court and petitioned
for a new trial.

In February, 1953, the matter finally came before the state
supreme court of errors. There the case was reviewed and
the original guilty verdict was upheld by a vote of 3 to 2.
The dissenting justices stated that, in their opinion, Albert
should have undergone a mental test, that Joseph Taborsky
had received an unfair trial.

Another date was not set for Joseph’s execution but At-
torney Bergman was not yet through. He applied for another
reprieve and the governor granted it.

In March, 1954, Judge Charles S. House of the superior
court denied Bergman’s plea for a new trial. “I can not con-
clude,” he said, “that any injustice has been done, or that the
result of a new trial would probably be different.”

Joseph was given this news by the warden, who told him
of rumors that the death sentence would be commuted to
imprisonment for life. This appeared to incense Joe Taborsky.
“Death,” he cried, “is better than life imprisonment for a
crime I did not commit.”

Nathaniel Bergman fought on doggedly. He obtained still
another reprieve. He again asked a reversal from the supreme
court of errors, although that body had not reversed a
murder conviction in more than 80 years. On this occasion

Chief Bushnell, Capt. Ciccalone at December 26th murder

the judges agreed that Albert Taborsky had, in all prob-
ability, been insane at the time he had testified against his
brother. A new trial was ordered.

October 6th, 1955, was a gray autumn day. Mist lay over
the countryside and a north wind whistled over the drab
walls of the Wethersfield Penitentiary. In Death Row, the
radiators hissed with steam, yet somehow the stone cells
seemed cold.

Joseph Taborsky, now 30 years old, sat on the edge of his
cot listening to his radio. He was rather fatter now, and his
eyes were dark and brooding. This narrow cell had been his
home for more than four years. He was the oldest inhabitant
of Death Row. He had seen men come. He had seen them
go to sudden, electrical death. Only he remained.

The music which flowed from the radio suddenly stopped
and the announcer began to read the 2 o’clock news. Nothing
interested Taborsky until the newscaster reached his last item.

“A late bulletin,” he announced. “At 1:59, less than a quarter
of an hour ago, Judge John R. Thim of the superior court
granted a motion filed by State’s Attorney Albert S. Bill for
the dropping of the first-degree murder indictment against
Joseph Taborsky. The state’s attorney concedes there is no
case against Taborsky without the testimony of his brother,
Albert, who is insane.”

The words ceased and the music resumed. Joseph Taborsky
didn’t hear it. His brain was suddenly numb. His eyes were
wet with tears. He was sobbing softly a few minutes later
when Warden Cummings came to his cell.

“You’ve heard the news, Joe?”

Taborsky nodded dumbly.

“You’d better come along and wait in my office. I expect
Bergman will be here with an order for your release in a
couple of hours. You’re a free man, Joe.”

Bergman arrived at 4:15 p.m. and served the papers on the
warden.

“Joe,” said the warden, “you’ve been a good man with us.
It’s been a hard thing for you, God knows. Take care of
yourself and good luck. Say hello to your mother for me.”

They shook hands. Joseph Taborsky walked out of the
prison, a free man and the only person ever to exchange
Wethersfield’s Death Row for liberty. At home in Hartford
he was greeted by his family. His crippled father embraced
him and said, “I love that boy. I just hope he never gets
in any more trouble.”

Later Joe Taborsky spoke to reporters. “I feel breathless
right now. Of course, I knew I would be free eventually, be-
cause of the efforts of my attorney and my family. I am
innocent. I don’t understand how I got convicted in the first
place. I was in a fog for days when I first went to jail.”

When asked about his brother, Albert, Joe said, “Right now
I feel sorry for the condition he’s in. I know it’s no fault
of his that he’s insane. I thought he must be crazy, in the
first place. I’ll probably go down and see him soon.”

Asked of his future plans, Joe Taborsky said, “I’m going
to the Little Portion Episcopal Monastery at Mount Sinai,
Long Island, to rest and thank the people for their prayers
and letters. I’d like to write a book about what happened.
I’m not sore. I may get a*job as a helper on a truck, like
I had once before.”

He went on to say that, despite his four years in the death
cell, he was an advocate of capital punishment. ‘Murderers
should be executed,” he said. “Had I been guilty, I would have
been willing to take my medicine.”

There was, however, a dissenting voice. It belonged to
Mrs. Wolfson, widow of the murdered liquor store operator.
“What I can’t understand,” she said, “is all this hubbub about
Joe Taborsky. Now they call him a ‘model boy.’ He’s been
in trouble all his life. What about the witness who saw Albert
and Joseph in the store? I don’t believe Albert’s crazy and
I believe that Joe is a killer.”

Mrs. Wolfson was half-right. Albert is undoubtedly crazy.
Joseph is positively a _ killer.

During the next few weeks the press and the public
forgot Joseph Taborsky. Presumably he embarked upon his
retreat in the Long Island monastery. Some time after that
he returned home to announce that he had found a job
in New York City. He packed his belongings, moved from
Connecticut to Hancock Street, in Brooklyn. He didn’t com-
municate much with his family, but he visited his old crony
and companion in crime, Arthur Columbe, who also had been
released from prison and now lived in Coleman Place,
Hartford.

By December, 1956, Joseph Taborsky had been a free man
for more than a year. Apparently he had learned his lesson.

Unfortunat

Certainly *
long time
circular. A
solved.

At 6 P.M
suddenly ¢
on Stanles
posite a s
Staron cr«
station.

He obse:
an infant
he passed
which led
seated on
He went i:

There \
Edward k
head. He
the phone
later halt
Sergeant

A swift
the only a
found the
slumped i:

Papers
of Countr)
belonged °
14-month-

Sergean:
some $40
Neither, a2

aut

devel wot

tas thes

"We started watching
the house. Sure enough,
after a few nights wesaw

\ be guy sneak in. .. ."

(Specially posed)

Ethel—that’s Mrs. N ott—told me
he’d gone away after a quarrel,
but she didn’t know where.”

Flanagan shrugged. “Well, may-
be there was a. quarrel and Nott
just walked out.”

| Ferguson sniffed, “There was a
good fight, all right. “Ethel, when

_I_saw her this “morning, - was all

banged ‘up. She’ had‘a couple of

: blue. marks ‘on. her face and her

ae As By aoe
“J. don’t know. think ot

TO a

‘justified if he g ve

me one night and said, ‘I oe my

wife is two-timing:.me, Or
our neighbors tells me that som

strange man_has - been’ eae

into the house ‘during my absence
I want you, to help: fa Keep ey

‘on her,’

stayed a couple of hours, then left

by the back is pa Porisan of

“He tae a couple 6: of kids. I guess
he ‘didn’t want | ‘start’ i

HUSBAND SLAYER:
Secret trysts and
flaming passion set
the stage for a tragic

“drama in which he

played a leading role.

ETHEL HUTCHINS
NOTT: “Mr. Wade
and I have been good
friends—but that's

all. I don't get along
with my husbend.”

HEL HUTCHINS

TT: “Mr. Wad ; ° ‘ ‘ A oe oe el 3 : Sea
i 1 have been cane ee ae su ing up with routine matters wh

inds—but that's yan ee ‘ Re ies Ferguson ‘was announced.
Mage 4: get along Nae ae vg Vig: j -_ After-hearing the man’s story;
lindas Sra Raat ye % the © superintendent | summoned
“i a, i i : ake Captain of- Detectives John - H.
Regan and Sergeant Frank Hol-
brook. .He. outlined the case.
“Run ‘up! to Nott’s house,” he:
told them; “and see if there’s any='.
thing | suspicious’ about the man’
‘disappearance. Chances are that.
Ferguson. : “really is overheated
- about this thing and that Nott is.
‘probably ‘walking around some=.
where trying to cool off. But see -
“what you. ‘can learn, anyway.” <*>"
The two. officers went to the
Nott home, at 65 Judson Avenue,
‘ apprehensively stared at the big
three-story house ‘and ‘debated on®

‘the sidewalk whether they would ..

‘ing the bell. ;
“lve: ca: feeling we're stickin,

. our noses into some private hus~
~band-and-wife ‘quarrel,” Regan’
told Holbrook. “However, orders, ;

* are orders. Let’s go.” eS

Mrs. : Ethel Hutchins Nott, se

“Just a family spat,”
the police said. "Nott
‘apparently walked
out ofter. battling hls
“wife's. lover. |... ;
aul (Specially posed) uit

“and apparently well Heeled: (Qitte a guy

or Nott to be jealous of.” é
There didn’t seem much to go on, merely a

a friend’s deep suspicions. Flanagan was ~

** reluctant to’ act, but nevertheless felt his

" “After all, the fate okt set as. Ferguson

@ described it, could lend itself to any ‘sort :
* of drama, even crime. © :
w The chief could. vith afford to dverlook

0 eee records eee the
lurid ‘pages of Connecticut criminal his- m : ;
tory, It was, within 72 /hours, literally to — | APRS ee Oe
) Nutmeg State to its eae foun: al “room ‘of the ore
"ts. home (marked by X) °
«police found grim

“been at his office catch a Ws e wyidence of fost play.

tenes)

THE POLICE
WERE HARDLY
“PREPARED FOR
THE GORY CLI-
MAX WHICH
ENDED THE
EVIL ALLIANCE
OF.THESE TWO
SINFUL LOVERS

‘DR. SAMUEL B. GARLICK, MEDI-

CAL EXAMINER: His report on the
condition of the victim's mutilated
body proved that a worried man's
fears were not without foundation.

GEORGE E. NOTT: When he broke
an appointment with his business
partner, the police saw little reason
for alarm; but their investigation
soon led them over a trail of deceit.

inate i

494 Conn.

department, are in a con jectural and specu-
lative condition. It certainly is not a situa-
tion where a company demonstrated what
it could accomplish in control or extin-
guishment upon arrival. The Boldig case,
supra, is uniformly cited in the relatively
few cases of this nature supporting a plain-
tiff’s position. The cases are reviewed in
Foss v. Pacific Telephone & Telegraph Co.,
26 Wash.2d 92, at page 107, 173 P.2d 144,
at page 152, wherein the court remarked
that the language of the Boldig case, supra,
was “in opposition to the rules adopted by
the overwhelming majority of courts.”

[2,3] There can be\no denial that in-
ferences may properly be drawn from cir-
cumstantial evidence. Bradbury v. City of
South Norwalk, 80 Conn. 298, 301, 68 A.
321. A, plaintiff, however, must remove
the causal relationship from the area of
speculation and establish facts which af-
ford a logical basis for the inferences
claimed. Morse v. Consolidated R. Co., 81
Conn. 395, 399, 71 A. 553.’ As we said in
LeBlanc v. Grillo, 129 Conn. 378, 382, 28

- A.2d 127, 129, “The test of the validity of

the ‘jury’s "determinations depends upon
whether the evidence, fairly and impar-
tially considered, would be likely to induce
in the minds of twelve men of ordinary
intelligence attentively considering it and
using common sense logic ‘a reasonable be-

- fief that it is more probable than other-

wise that the fact in issue is true.” Upon

the evidence in the present case, the jury
could not reasonably have found that there
was a causal relationship between the fault
of the defendant and the damage sustained
by the plaintiff. :

1. “Sec. 234. Reservation of decision on
motion for a directed verdict. Whenever °
a motion for a directed verdict made at
the close of all the evidence is denied or
for any reason is not granted, the court
is deemed to have submitted the action
to the jury subject to a later determina-
tion of the legal questions raised by the
motion. After the reception of a verdict
and within the time stated in See. 233
for filing a motion to set a verdict aside,
a party who has moved for a directed
verdict may move to have the verdict and
any judgment entered thereon set aside
and have judgment entered in accordance

101 ATLANTIC REPORTER, 2d SERIES

[4,5] Practice Book, § 234, set forth in
the footnote, allows a trial court under the
circumstances referred to in the rule either

to direct a judgment notwithstanding the

verdict or to order.a new trial. We are
faced with the question in the present case
whether the court erred in adopting the
former alternative. It must be borne in
mind that under the rule action upon the
motion for a judgment notwithstanding the
verdict is, in part, action upon the motion
for a directed verdict which has been post-
poned. Accordingly, the first test to be ap-
plied to a court’s action is the determina-
tion whether, upon the evidence in the
case, a direction of a verdict in favor of
the defendant would have been proper. In-
asmuch as the evidence in the present case
would not have permitted a. verdict in fa-
vor of the plaintiff, the court would have
been compelled to direct a verdict for the
defendant. Mott v. Hillman, 133 Conn.
552, 555, 52 A.2d 861.

[6,7] In cases in which it is deter-
mined that a directed verdict would have
been proper, there is still a second test to
be applied to the action of the court in di-
recting judgment under the rule rather
than ordering a new trial. That test is
whether the court abused its discretion in
so doing. . The rule vests in the court a le-
gal discretion in the matter. This discre-
tion should be exercised in favor of an or-
der for a new trial if circumstances for
which a party is not at fault have resulted
in his failure to present the evidence which
‘is lacking in his case and it appears that
the necessary evidence will in reasonable
probability be available on a retrial. Typi-

with his motion for a directed verdict; or
if a verdict was not returned such party
may move for judgment in aecordance
with his motion for a directed verdict
within the aforesaid time after the jury
has. been discharged. If a verdict was
returned the court may allow the judg-
ment to stand or may set tlic verdict
aside and either order a new trial or di-
rect the entry of judgment as if the re-
quested verdict had been directed. If no
verdict was returned the court may di-
rect the entry of judgment as if the re-
quested verdict had been directed or may
onler a new trial.”

STATE vy. WOJCULEWICZ Conn. 495
Cite as 101 A.2d 495

cal circumstances which would justify the
ordering of a new trial rather than the en-
try of judgment notwithstanding the ver-
dict would be the unforeseen failure of a
witness to appear or to testify as the party
might reasonably have expected him to, or
some: erroneous ruling on the trial which
excluded the essential evidence. In the
present case, we cannot say that the trial
court abused its discretion in ordering
judgment rather than a new trial.

There is no error.

In this opinion the other Judges con-
curred,

° KEY NUMBER SYSTEM

AOmMs

140 Conn. 487
STATE v. WOSCULEWICZ.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.
Dee. 15, 1953.

Defendant was convicted of murder in
the first degree committed in perpetration
of a robbery. The Superior Court, Hart-
ford County, Shea, J., rendered judgment,
and defendant appealed. The Supreme
Court of Errors, Wynne, J., held that the
evidence sustained the conviction.

No error.

1. Homicide €=253(6)

Conviction for murder in the first de-
gree committed in perpetration of robbery
was sustained by evidence.

2. Criminal Law G=586

Under circumstances of , prosecution
for murder in first degree committed in per-
petration of robbery, there was no abuse of

discretion in denying defendant’s motion
for continuance on ground he was in such
pain as to be unable to continue with the
trial.

4. Criminal Law €=486

Introduction in evidence of test bul-
let is not essential to make admissible ex-
pression of expert’s conclusions based upon
his experiment in which test bullet was
fired,

————

James D. Cosgrove, Hartford, public de-
fender, for appellant (defendant).

. Albert S. Bill, St. Atty., Hartford, with
whom, on the brief, was Douglass B
Wright, Asst. St. Atty., Hartford, for ap-
pellee (state).

Before BALDWIN, INGLIS, O’SUL-
LIVAN, QUINLAN and WYNNE, * JJ.

WYNNE, Associate Justice.

The grand jury who indicted the defend-
ant charged in one count that on November
5, 1951, at New Britain, the defendant, in
perpetrating a robbery, murdered William
J. Grabeck, and in a second count that at
the same time and place he murdered Wil-
liam Otipka. The jury returned a verdict
of guilty of murder in the first degree on
each count. The defendant has appealed to
this court. The assignments of error which
he has pressed are (1) the denial of his
motion to set aside the verdict, (2) the de-
nial of his motion for a continuance and
(3) the denial of his motion to strike out
some of the testimony of an expert in bal-
listics.

The following facts could reasonably
have been found by the jury: On Novem-
ber 5, 1951, the defendant entered the es-
tablishment of the A. Y. O. Packing Com-
pany on Washington Street in New Britain
at about 5:30 p. m. He pointed a short-
barreled revolver at Helen Dul, the book-
keeper in charge of the office, and at Alo-
ysius Dawil, another employee then pres-

* Judge Wynne of Superior Court sat for Brown, Cc. J.

*656T SOT 2090999 Uo (paozgzeH) dS *uueg *oeTe 677 faqtum ‘yuerg *ZOTMTNNPOM

iescestietdacs

LABAMA

NIVERSITY OF A

440 Conn.

The demurrer admitted the following
facts: On February 15, 1952, the grand jury
returned an indictment charging the plain-
tiff in two counts with the crime of first
degree murder. He pleaded not guilty and
was subsequently tried to the jury. He was
convicted on each count and sentenced to
death. On April 16, 1952, he appealed from
the judgment but became insane before the
appeal was heard by this court at its Octo-
ber, 1953,'term. His mental condition was
discovered through an examination made
about June 1, 1953, by a competent physi-
cian in the employ of the state. No dis-
closure of the insanity was given either to
the court or to counsel for the plaintiff
prior to the argument on appeal. On De-
cember 15, 1953, we found no error. State
v. Wojculewicz, 140 Conn. 487, 491, 101
A.2d 495.

[1-4] Proceedings in this state for pro-
curing a new trial, whether in a civil or a
criminal case, are controlled by statute.
Murray v. Krenz, 94 Conn. 503, 506, 109 A,
859; State v. Buxton, 79 Conn.. 477, 481,
65 A. 957; Etchells v. Wainwright, 76 Conn.
534, 538, 57 A. 121. The statute permits
the Superior Court, the Court of Common
Pleas or any municipal court to “grant a new
trial of any cause that may come before it,
for mispleading, the discovery of new evi-
dence or want of actual notice of the suit to
any defendant or of a reasonable opportu-
nity to appear and defend, when a just de-
fense in whole or part existed, or for other
reasonable cause, according to the usual
rules in such cases.” General Statutes, §
8013. |The statute has been construed on
many occasions. Dortch v. State, 142 Conn.
18, 21, 110 A.2d 471; Zullo v. Zullo, 138
Conn. 717, 89 A.2d 218; DeMichiel & Bros.
vy. Sequin, 114 Conn. 736, 159 A. 889; Gan-
non y. State, 75 Conn. 576, 577, 54 A. 199;
State v. Brockhaus, 72 Conn. 109, 111, 43 A.
850; Smith v. Hall, 71 Conn. 427, 431, 42 A.
86; Bissell v. Dickerson, 64 Conn. 61, 66,
29 A. 226; Brown v. Congdon, 50 Conn.
302, 307. It provides an additional safe-

1. The pertinent part of § 9 reads: “In
all. criminal prosecutions, the accused
‘shall have a right to be heard by himself

117 ATLANTIC REPORTER, 2d SERIES

guard for averting injustice in cases where
the usual remedy by appeal does not lie or
where, if there is an adequate remedy by
appeal, the: party has been prevented from
pursuing it by fraud, accident or mistake.
Krooner v. State, 137 Conn. 58, 60, 75 A.2d
51. The statute, however, is obviously de-
signed to remedy errors and to correct in-
justices which may be remedied or corrected
by a new trial on the merits. That is not
the situation here. Affording the plaintiff
a new trial on the merits will not rectify
the alleged injustice done him. His presest
quarrel is not with what happened of
failed to happen during the course of the
trial, nor. is it predicated upon an inability
to pursue an appeal taken from the judg-
ment rendered upon conviction. See Dud-
ley v. Hull, 105 Conn. 710, 719, 136 A. 578.
His grievance is limited to the contentior
that the appeal should have been stayté
while he was insane, since its prosecutio?
violated rights guaranteed him by the com
stitution of Connecticut, article first, § 9!
The violation, he maintains, arose from tht
act that his mental condition prevente?
him from consulting with counsel upc
matters affecting the appeal and from st
lecting someone other than the public dt
fender to carry on the appeal, had he ¢&
sired to do so. It is apparent, then, that the
real basis of his petition is not that the
claimed violation of his constitutional righ‘
had any effect upon the trial to the jury ©
‘upon his being prevented from taking &
pursuing an appeal. If any of his righ
were violated, they bore upon the possibit
untimeliness of the argument in this coat
and, at. most, require an opportunity to tte
argue after the plaintiff returns, if ever, &
sanity. . Since he is not entitled to a 0
trial on the merits, the court was correct #
sustaining the demurrer.

[5,6] We might, with propriety, ter
nate further discussion of the matter.

this is a capital case and we are unwils$ |
to preclude the plaintiff from enjoying # =

the fullest extent all rights guaranteed

NORTHEASTERN GAS TRANSMISSION CO. v. LAPHAM Conn. 441
Cite as 117 A.2d 441

constitutional provisions. As. indicated
above, the sole device by which his criticism
can be met is to allow a reargument of his
appeal from the conviction of guilt. Mere-
ly asking for it is of no avail. A motion to
reargue must be filed, except in July and
August, within ‘ten days from the date
when the decision is announced. Practice
Book, § 441. Furthermore, this court has
o power to grant a reargument after the
erm at which its judgment has been ren-
tered. Bushnell v. Crooke Mining &
Smelting Co., 150 U.S. 82, 83, 14 S.Ct. 22,
7 L.Ed, 1007; 3 Am.Jur. 346, § 796. As
beth the ten-day period and the term in

question have long since passed, reargument

‘s permissible only if the judgment of this
court can be voided. "Whether this is pos-
sible, and, if so, the procedure by which
that result can be attained, are matters
which the plaintiff can explore if he decides
to proceed further in seeking a reargument
ia this court.

There is no error.

In this opinion the other Judges con-
curred.

19 Conn.Sup. 468

NORTHEASTERN GAS TRANSMISSION
COMPANY

Vv.

Antoinette D. LAPHAM et al.

NORTHEASTERN GAS TRANSMISSION
COMPANY

Vv.
Helen G. ALTSCHUL.

NORTHEASTERN GAS TRANSMISSION
COMPANY

George H. JELLIFF, Jr., et al.
UT A.2d—28y%

NORTHEASTERN GAS TRANSMISSION
COMPANY

v.
Joseph WEBER, Jr.
No. 83657. ‘

Superior Court of Connecticut,
Fairfield County.
Sept. 13, 1955.

Actions brought to determine amount
of compensation to which landowners were
entitled for taking by eminent domain of
easements across their properties for in-
stallation of natural gas pipelines. The
Superior Court, Comley, J., held that evi-
dence sustained findings (1) that remain-
ders of tracts had depreciated in value
because of a well-founded public fear of
danger and (2) that there was a reasonable
anticipation of hampering municipal regu-
lations designed to safeguard against pos-
sible hazards of pipeline, which possibility
also depreciated value of remaining acre-
age.

Judgment accordingly.

1. Eminent Domain e141)

Depreciation in value of remainder
of tract resulting from condemnation of
easement for natural gas pipeline was
proper element of damages.
2. Eminent Domain €141(1)

In eminent domain cases, owner is
entitled to difference between market value
of whole tract as it lay before taking and
market value of what remained of it there-
after.

3. Eminent Domain > 141(1)

Where purpose for which portion of
tract is taken is one which public believes
to constitute a danger to persons or prop-
erties in immediate neighborhood, whether
resulting depreciation in market value is
legitimate element of compensation depends
upon whether public belief in existence of
danger. is well founded.

DoUrivwe A, Fe

496 Conn.

ent. The defendant threatened both with
the gun and ordered Dzwil to stand with
his face to the wall, which he did.. The
defendant then removed some money from
the desk at which Miss Dul sat. He or-
dered Dzwil to remove some money from

the safe. The latter complied and handed

to the defendant a strong box and some
bags of money. . The defendant then backed
out of the office and, after placing the box
and bags on the garage floor outside the
door, immediately returned, went to the
safe and removed other bags of money.

When the defendant had first entered
the office, he was seen by Chester Labieniec,
an employee of the company. Labieniec,
whose suspicion had been aroused, went to
the office door and looked in. Seeing the
defendant pointing the gun at Miss Dul and
Dzwil, he hurriedly called the police. Of-
ficets arrived just as the defendant was
backing out of the office the second time,
still covering the employees with the gun.
At this point Sergeant Grabeck of the New
Britain police department entered the front

door of the establishment. He stepped up

to the defendant, put his gun to the lat-
ter’s back and ordered him to drop his gun.
At this instant William Otipka entered the
establishment. This man was the husband
of an employee of the A. Y. O. Packing
Company and was accustomed to call at the

time of day in question to meet his wife.

He stepped to the side of Sergeant Grabeck
‘and the defendant, whereupon the defend-
ant wheeled towards Otipka and there were
a number of shots fired in rapid succession.
Otipka staggered from the scene, fell, mor-
tally wounded, to the garage floor, and died
within a few minutes. Sergeant Grabeck
walked to the street, collapsed on the side-
walk, and died shortly after at the hospital.
The defendant, also wounded, lay. on the
floor of the garage. He was seen by Of-
ficer Wojtusik reaching for the short-bar-
reled revolver which lay on the floor near
his right hand, and the officer shot twice at
him. Wojtusik entered the garage, hand-
cuffed the defendant and took him into cus-
tody. A ballistic examination of the three
guns involved indicated that the bullet

101 ATLANTIC REPORTER, 2d SERIES

which killed Sergeant Grabeck came from
the gun carried by the defendant, as. did
the bullet. which killed Otipka.

[1] Itis argued in behalf of the defend-
ant that the evidence does not establish that
he fired the shots which killed the deceased
persons. There was evidence that Otipka
had entered the room behind Sergeant Gra-
beck, circled around him, said something,
and made a lunge for the defendant before
any shots were fired. It is argued that it
was possible for Otipka to have wrested the
gun from the defendant and then fired it,
first hitting Sergeant Grabeck and then
himself, There was, however, sufficient
evidence from which the jury could rea-
sonably conclude that the defendant, when
Otipka stepped between him and Grabeck,
wheeled to his left toward Otipka, shot him,
and, while completing his motion to his
left, shot Sergeant Grabeck. The defend-
ant’s suggestion that Otipka might have
been the one who fired the shots is mere
surmise, and the theory is too tenuous to
raise a reasonable doubt as to the defend-
ant’s guilt. There was no error in deny-
ing the motion to set the verdict aside.

[2,3] In the course of the trial on Fri-

day, March 14, 1952, at noon, after a recess,
counsel for the defendant made an oral mo-
tion that court be adjourned until the fol-
lowing Tuesday, on the ground that the de-
fendant was in such pain that he was unable
to continue with the trial. The state op-
posed the motion, and the court heard the
testimony of Dr. Ray F. Lowry, who had
the defendant under his care. Dr. Lowry
testified that in his opinion the condition
of the defendant was such that he could
continue to stand trial. The court denied
the motion for continuance, and the de-
fendant took exception to this ruling. The
right of a defendant to a continuance is
within the sound discretion of the trial
court. State v. Lee, 69 Conn. 186, 193, 37
A. 75. In this connection it is of great
significance that the state’s case was nearly
finished and that shortly the trial was, in
fact, recessed until the following Tuesday.
When court convened on Tuesday, the de-

BORCHARD vy. CONNELLY . Conn. 497
Cite as 101 A.2d 497 i

fendant rested his case without calling wit-
nesses. Here it does not appear that there
was an abuse of discretion.

[4] The denial of the motion in behalf
of the defendant that the testimony of Lieu-
tenant Frank: Chameroy be stricken from
the record is assigned as error. This wit-
ness was offered as an expert in ballistics.
The defendant claims that the testimony of
Lieutenant Chameroy should have been
stricken because of the fact that the test
bullet used by him was not offered in evi-
dence. He was subjected to a lengthy
cross-examination during which he stated
that he had the bullet actually with him
in court. It was not offered by either par-
ty, nor was any other expert in ballistics
called. The introduction in evidence of the
test bullet is not essential to make admissible
the expression of an expert’s conclusions
based upon his experiment in which the test
bullet was fired. McKenna v. People, 124
Colo. 112, 116, 235 P.2d 351.

There is no error.

In this opinion the other Judges con-
curred.

140 Conn. 491
BORCHARD v. CONNELLY.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.
Dec. 15, 1953.

Probate proceeding. The Probate
Court for the District of Hamden, entered
decree determining that value of payments
due under annuity contract was subject
to succession tax, and plaintiff appealed.
The Superior Court in New Haven County,
Culinan, J., in trial of appeal to the Court,
entered judgment dismissing appeal and
affirming decree, and plaintiff appealed.
The Supreme Court of Errors, Baldwin,
J., held that, where transfer of interest
in annuity contract was made by husband

101 A.2d—32

to wife when he exercised option contained
in contract but was upon contingencies
that wife would survive husband and that
husband would not change beneficiary,
transfer was one which was intended to
take effect not only in enjoyment but also
in right at or after husband’s death, and,
therefore, transfer was subject to succes-
sion tax after husband’s death.

No error.

{. Taxation €=879(1)

Where transfer of interest in annuity
contract was made by husband to wife
when he exercised option contained in
contract but was upon contingencies that
wife would survive husband and that hus-
band would not change beneficiary, trans-
fer was one which was intended to take
effect not only in enjoyment but also in
right at or after husband’s death, and,
therefore, transfer was subject to succes-
sion tax after husband’s death. Gen.St.
1949, §§ 2020, 2021(d).

2. Taxation €=873(1)

Succession tax may be assessed only
upon property which, at time of its trans-
fer, was owned by decedent, even though,
after transfer he may have been granted
the life use of the property.

3. Taxatlon €=878(1)

Where insurance and annuity associa-
tion issued a nonparticipating, deferred
annuity policy to university employee, and
university, under special arrangement with
employee, paid premiums on such policy
in addition to employee’s salary, policy
was property of employee, and, therefore,
upon employee’s transfer of an interest
therein to his wife by exercise of an op-
tion in her favor, succession tax could not
be avoided on ground that husband had not
made a transfer of his property to wife.

Gen.St.1949, §§ 2020, 2021(d).

4. Taxatlon €=872

Where contract in which husband gave
his wife an interest was an annuity pol-
icy, not a life insurance policy, interest

cHaaen

aia Nauman

< «

) ‘
‘
4
;

“ee

- —+« =- =~ Set rar
a Ow me Yee eT

UNIVERSITY OF ALABAMA

438 RIL

his-affidavit, for whatever it was worth, set-
ting forth among other things the facts to
which petitioner was expected to testify.

Under rule 6, which respondent urged
was inapplicable, the case would proceed to
trial if the adverse party were willing to ad-
mit that the absent person, if present, would
swear to the facts set forth in the affidavit.
When the hearing was resumed on June 21
respondent’s counsel, characterizing the
affidavit of the attorney for petitioner as a
statement “full of assertions, allegations,
claims and demands,” refused to accept as
testimony the alleged facts stated in the afh-
davit and moved that petitioner go to trial
or that the case be dismissed for want of
prosecution. As petitioner’s counsel was
without evidence in support of the petition,
the trial justice granted respondent’s motion
to dismiss.

[1,2] On a motion for a continuance
the burden of proof is on the moving party.
It is well settled that ordinarily the grant-
ing or denial of such a motion is within the
discretion of the trial justice and that his
- action in the matter will not be reversed by
this court unless there is a clear abuse of
discretion. Williams v. Altruda, 74 R.I. 47,
58 A.2d 562, and cases cited. See also 86
A.L.R. 1249; Note. The cases of Bozoian
v. Berard, R.I., 107 A.2d 316, and Tilling-
hast v. Harrop, 59 R.I. 260, 195 A. 229, upon
- which petitioner relies, are inapplicable be-
cause of widely different factual situations.

117 ATLANTIC REPORTER, 2d SERIES

[3]: We have set forth the record in the
instant case at considerable length to make
it clear that petitioner was not arbitrarily
deprived of an opportunity to have her case

. tried.. When fairly considered, her unco-
operative conduct over a long périod of time
was reasonably open to the conclusion that
she intended either to abandon further
prosecution of the litigation, or that, ignor-
ing her own obligations in the matter and
in utter disregard of the rights of others in
interest, she meant to cast entirely upon her
attorney the burden of protecting her
against an unfavorable result. Upon con-
sideration of the entire record, it is our

- judgment that petitioner’s attorney fully

discharged his duty to her under embarrass-
ing circumstances solely of her creation,
and that, apparently recognizing his pre-
dicament, counsel for the respondent in-
dulgently refrained from moving earlier for
a final disposition of the case. Applying
the rule herein stated governing the grant-
ing or denial of a motion for continuance,
we find no reason to disturb the decision of
the trial justice.

The petitioner’s appeal is denied and dis:
missed, the decree appealed from is affirm
ed, and the cause is remanded to the work-
men’s compensation commission.

BAKER, J., did not participate in the de-
cision.

ops er

WOJCULEWICZ v. STATE

Cite as 117 A.2d 439

142 Conn. 676 ;
Frank WOJCULEWICZ
‘v.
STATE of Connecticut.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.
July 12,°1955.

Proceeding, for a new trial, on petition
by one who had been convicted of murder.
The Superior Court in Hartford County,
Conway, J., sustained demurrer to petition,
and upon plaintiff failing further to plead,
entered judgment dismissing petition.

_ Plaintiff appealed. The Supreme Court of

Errors, O’Sullivan, J., held that allegations
that plaintiff became insane after convic-
tion and. while his appeal was pending, and
he was prevented from consulting with
counsel and from selecting someone other
than public defender to carry on appeal,
had he desired so to do, and his insanity
had not been communicated to court would
not warrant granting him a new trial on
the merits and he would be entitled, at most,
to an opportunity to reargue the appeal aft-
er return to sanity.

No error.

i. Criminal Law €=905
New Trial €=!

Proceedings for new trial, whether in
vil or criminal cases, are controlled by
statute. Gen.St.1949, § 8013. °

2 Criminal Law 905

Statute providing for new trial pro-
vides additional safeguard for averting in-
fastice in cases where usually remedy by ap-
pal does not lie or where, if there is an ade-
esate remedy by appeal, party has been pre-
tented from pursuing it by fraud, expense
o mistake. Gen.St.1949, § 8013.

2 Criminal Law @=905
Statute providing for new trial is de-

Ygned to remedy errors and correct in-
estices which may be remedied or correct-
e4 by a new trial on the merits. Geri.St.
ee

$9, § 8013.

4. Criminal Law €=913(1)

That a defendant, convicted of murder,
became insane after conviction and while
his appeal was pending, and was prevented
from consulting with counsel and from
selecting someone other than public defend-
er to carry on appeal, if he desired so to do,
and that his insanity was communicated to
court would not warrant granting him a
new trial on the merits and he would be en-
titled, at most, to an opportunity to reargue
the appeal after return to sanity. Practice
Book, § 441; Gen.St.1949; § 8013, Const.
art. 1, § 9.

5. Criminal Law €-1133

Supreme Court of Errors has no pow-

er to grant a reargument after term at
which its judgment has been rendered.

6. Criminal Law C1133

Where term of court at which Supreme
Court of Errors rendered judgment and
ten-day period for moving for reargument
had passed, reargument would be permissible
only if judgment of Supreme Court of Er-
rors could be voided. Practice Book, § 441.

——_~—_—

James D. Cosgrove, Public Defender,
Hartford, for appellant (plaintiff).

Albert S. Bill, State’s Atty., Hartford,
with whom was Douglass B. Wright, As-
sistant State’s Atty., Hartford, for the ap-
pellee (State). ;

Before ‘BALDWIN, O’SULLIVAN,
WYNNE and DALY, JJ., and PHILLIPS,
Superior Court Judge.

‘O’SULLIVAN, Associate Justice.

The matter before us originated as a peti-
tion, presented by the plaintiff to the Supe-
rior Court, wherein he asked for a new trial
on an indictment charging first degree mur-
der. The defendant filed a demurrer which
the court sustained, and from the judgment
dismissing the petition the plaintiff las ap-
pealed, The sole error assigned is the action
of the court in sustaining the demurrer.

Drew iw We Om

if
.

probably be different.

_discovered evidence when remainder, which

TER, 2d SERIES
434 Conn. 116 ATLANTIC REPOR

Albert S. Bill, State’s Atty. with whom,
on the brief, was Douglass B. Wright, Asst.
State’s Atty., Hartford, for appellee (state).

11. Criminal Law €=938(1)

A new trial will not be granted because
iti i i iscrediting
of additional impeaching or discre
testimony, except where impeaching testi- Before BALDWIN, O’SULLIVAN and
mony of such importance that it appears WYNNE, JJ. PHILLIPS and DEVLIN,
reasonably certain that injustice has been Superior Court Judges.
done and that result of new trial would

PHILLIPS, Superior Court Judge.

On March 23, 1950, Louis L. Wolfson
was employed at Cooper’s Package Store
in West Hartford. About 9 p. m. on that
day he was found lying, in a pool of blood
on the floor of the store. He had been shot
in the face. He died March 26, 1950. Many
months later Joseph Taborsky was indicted
— : ‘ for the crime. On June 7, 1951, after a tri-
al to the jury, he was found guilty of mur-

: der in the first degree. On appeal this
Record in proceeding on convicted de- court upheld the judgment, two judges dis-
fendant’s motion for new trial on ground senting. State v. Taborsky, 139 Conn. a,
of newly discovered evidence of mental 95 A2d 59. Subsequently, Taborsky file
condition of prosecution witness at time OE ee ee Superior Court a petition fae $
trial did not support defendant’s charge that jew trial on the ground of newly discover-
prosecution had failed in its duty of dis- eq evidence. After a hearing on the merits,
closing vital evidence to court. the court dismissed the petition.. The pres-
ent appeal is taken by Taborsky from that
judgment.

12. Criminal Law €=939(1)

A new trial will not be denied because
of defendant’s failure to exercise due dili-
gence in discovery of only part of newly

could not have been discovered, is of great

13. Criminal Law €=959

14. Crintinal Law €=941(1)

Where alleged newly discovered evi- At the trial to the jury on the es,
dence of mental condition of prosecution the principal witness for the state was Al
witness at time of trial involved distin- bert Taborsky, a younger brother nf sine
guished psychiatric testimony, positive evi- cused, The brothers will be referred to
dence of hallucinations and delusions and hereinafter as Albert and Joseph. A 3
evidence of insanity subsequent to trial, it testified that at about 715 p.m, on Marc’
was not cumulative with evidence adduced, 23, 1950, he picked up Joseph in his automo:
at trial, from witness’ mother, sisters, and pile at the home of Jennie ree
the defendant. ‘ Belden Street in Hartford; that they dro
around Hartford discussing what place
they could rob; that about 9 o’clock, with
Albert driving, they stopped near Cooper $
Package Store; that Joseph put on a black
trench coat which Albert had been wearing,
took a 22 caliber revolver which Albert had
bought some time previously, went into the
package store, and after a few minutes a
rey turned and got into the car; and that they
then drove off rapidly to a parking lot om
Charter Oak Terrace, where Joseph told ee

Nathaniel Bergman, Sp. Public Defender, bert that while he way in the pie
Hartford, with whom was John W. er we ay ~ SASrRSEHE este sem
i ad gon .

SPS pina repaeh pesto as Sar other circumstances about the evel
a :

15. Criminal Law €=938(1)

A new trial on ground of newly dis-
covered evidence will be granted when it
appears reasonably certain that an injustice
has been done and result of new trial will
be different, even though evidence is cumu-

—~————

cee ee

-TABORSKY v. STATE Conn, 435
Cite as 116 A.2d 433

ing in question which it is not necessary to
detail. Albert’s testimony was corroborated
in some respects by another witness, George
Forler, who was walking on the opposite
side of the street from the parked car. He
identified Albert as the man seated in the
driver’s seat. ° He also saw the head of an-
other man, about six feet tall with light
brown hair, “pop up” on the other side of
the automobile. At no time did he identify
Joseph as that other man. Joseph’s defense
was that he was at the home of Jennie Pede-
monti from 7 p. m. to 10 p. m. on March 23,
1950, which was his birthday, and that Al-
bert had not been there at all. This alibi
was supported by Mrs. Pedemonti. On the
night of the crime and the following morn-
ing, while Wolfson was in a critical condi-
tion, he described his assailant as a young
fellow, a teen-ager, with blond or light hair,
five feet eight or ten inches tall, and baby-
faced. Joseph is over six feet tall and has
black hair, a long face and a long chin. He
was then twenty-six years old.

The only evidence linking Joseph with
the crime was the testimony of his brother
Albert. Unless the jury believed that testi-
mony, it would have. been legally impossible
for them to return a verdict of guilty. It
is with this background in mind that we
must approach this petition for a new trial,
since the petition brings into question Al-
bert’s sanity at the time of the trial on the
indictment.

[1-3] In the determination whether a
new trial will be granted on the ground of
newly discovered evidence, the primary test
is whether an injustice was done and
whether it is probable that on a new trial
a different result would be reached. Smith
vy. State, 141 Conn. 202, 208, 104 A.2d 761;
Dortch v. State, 142 Conn. 18, 21, 110 A.2d
471. The burden of proving the probability
of a different result is upon the plaintiff,
and in determining that issue the trial court
exercises a discretion which cannot be re-
viewed unless its discretionary power has
been abused. State v. Goldberger, 118
Conn. 444, 457, 173 A. 216. It must also
be made to appear that the new evidence
could not have been discovered and produc-

ed on the former trial by the exercise of
due diligence, and the new evidence must
not be cumulative. Hamlin v. State, 48
Conn. 92, 93. All of the above rules are
qualified in their application to a capital
case in the light of the principle laid down
in Andersen v. State, 43 Conn. 514, 517,
that “in a case where human life is at stake,
justice, as well as humanity, requires us to
pause and consider before we apply those
rules in all their rigor.”

When we speak of a new trial we must
keep in mind the unusual situation present-
ed by this case. From the evidence, it ap-
pears that Albert was insane at the time of
the hearing on this petition and may never
regain his sanity. In applying the test
whether it is probable that on a new trial a
different result. would be reached, we must
assume the possibility that Albert will be
sufficiently recovered to qualify as a wit-
ness or, if not, we must assume, without
deciding, that the transcript of his testimony
at the previous trial would be admissible
at the new trial. By so assuming, we can
adequately apply this fundamental test.

The chronology of events relevant to this
petition is as follows: The crime was com-
mitted March 23, 1950. Albert was incar-
cerated in the Hartford County jail on Jan-
uary 26, 1951. He testified as a state’s wit-
ness at the trial on the indictment of Joseph
on May 23 and 24, 1951. Albert pleaded
guilty to second degree murder and was
sentenced to state prison for life on June
19, 1951. He was admitted to the prison
hospital August 7, 1951, and was transferred
to Norwich State Hospital September 19,
1951, suffering from dementia praecox
(schizophrenia), paranoid type.

The evidence offered on the trial of this
petition may be briefly summarized as fol-
lows: Mrs. Effie Phelps, who was in contact
with Albert from October, 1949, to Febru-
ary, 1950, and John F. Narducci, who em-
ployed him to do chores from April, 1950,
to October, 1950, testified to actions which
led them to believe that he was mentally
subnormal. William T. Mcikle, a guard at
the jail, observed Albert from January 26
to June 19, 1951. Albert’s eyes were glassy,

So oggke te wy gi iaceai sg sg 2 bh

;

Fo 4Sy

Sas ta bebe ia

62 Conn.

said that relations between him and Albert
were good and that the latter must be crazy.

For.the defense, the mother and two siS-
ters of Albert and Joseph testified that Al-
bert had struck his father on several oc-
casions and his mother and his sister once
each, They also said that at one time Jo-
seph had ordered Albert out of the house
and that then Albert had threatened to pay
him back for that. The date of the making
of this threat was fixed variously as being
in 1946, when as a matter of fact Joseph
was in state’s prison, or in 1947, The de-
fendant also introduced statements made by
Wolfson on the night of March 23, 1950,
and the morning of March 24, 1950, while
he was in a critical condition and able to
talk only with difficulty. These statements
would not have been admissible. as dying
declarations but were put in evidence with
the consent of the state’s attorney. In the
course of them, Wolfson described his as-
sailant as a young man about five feet
eight or ten inches tall, blond and with a
baby face. The defendant is over six feet
tall and has a dark complexion and a prom-
jnent chin. In this connection, however,
it is to be borne in mind that when Wolf-
son gave the description his condition was
very poor, that he had seen the man who
shot him in light coming from fluorescent
lighting and from green neon signs and that
possibly. the man’s coat collar had been
turned up to cover his chin.

The defendant’s own testimony consisted
of a denial of all implication in the killing
and the claim that on the evening of March
23, 1950, he had been at Mrs. Pedemonti’s
house from 7 until 10:30 o’clock and had
then gone directly home to his sister’s
house. He stated that Mrs. Pedemonti had
had a birthday cake in honor of his birth-
day and that when he left he took a piece
to his sister. He further testified that Al-
bert had come to Mrs. Pedemonti’s house
to talk with him on March 4, 1950, while
a birthday party was in progress for one
of Mrs. Pedemonti’s children but that Al-
bert had not been there at all on March 23,
1950. Mrs. Pedemonti supported this alibi.
There were introduced in evidence, how-

ever, two written statements made by her
to the police. In one of these she had said

95 ATLANTIC REPORTER, 2d SERIES

that Joseph had been at her house on March
23 for his birthday cake but had left early
and that cither that night or the next night
Albert had come to get him. In the other
she said that cither on March 4 or March 23,
she did not know which, Joseph had tele-
phoned to Albert.

[1,2] It was within the province of the
jury to determine what credence they would
give to Albert’s testimony. It is true that
he was an accomplice. Whether, because
of that fact, corroboration of his testimony
was essential was for the jury to determine.
State v. Cots, 126 Conn. 48, 56, 9 A.2d 138.
In any event, his testimony was corrobor-
ated in many ways. In particular it was
supported by Forler in every essential de-
tail save one. In the light of Forler’s tes-
timony, there can be no reasonable doubt
that Albert himself was at the scene of
the crime. The only essential fact as to
which Forler’s testimony does not corro-
borate Albert’s is the identity of Albert’s
companion. The jury apparently believed
that Albert was speaking the truth when he
testified that it was Joseph. In support
of that belief there was one very significant
fact. It appeared that before either Joseph
or Mrs. Pedemonti testified, Albert had
known that Joseph was at Mrs. Pedemonti’s
on March 23 and had taken a piece of cake
away from there. This he had testified to.
It is hardly probable that he would have
known cither of these facts if he himself
had not gone to Mrs. Pedemonti’s house and
had not heard Joseph say that he was taking
the piece of cake. The fact that Albert
knew those details is strong evidence that
the two started out from Mrs. Pedemonti’s
together. And that they started out to-
gether is strong corroboration of Albert’s
claim that they were together at the scene of
the crime. Furthermore, the jury might
reasonably have believed that there was no
motive for Albert falsely to implicate his
brother in the crime. On the whole case we
cannot say that the jury were not warranted
in giving full credence to Albert’s testi-
mony.

[3] The statute provides: “No person
shall be convicted of any crime punishable
by death without the testimony of at least
two witnesses, or that which is equivalent

STATE v. TABORSKY Conn. 63
Cite as 95 A.2d 69

thereto.” General Statutes, § 8799, The crime charged, also tends directly to show
defendant contends that this requirement the guilt of the accused, that is, directly
was not satisfied by the evidence. The indicates that the accused committed the
meaning and effect of this statute has been crime. We are satisfied that the history
passed tipon in many cases. State v. Cots, of the statute, its proper construction, and
126 Conn. 48, 56, 9 A.2d 138; State v. Chin the practice under it, does not justify such
Lung, 106 Conn. 701, 705, 139 A. 91; State a refinement.” In short, we are committed
v. Chapman, 103 Conn. 453, 467, 130 A. to the position that, if the testimony of one
899; State v. Schutte, 97 Conn. 462, 465, or more witnesses tends to prove that a
117 A. 508; State v. Marx, 78 Conn. 18, 21, murder has been committed and if that of
60 A. 690. only one other witness implicates the de-
fendant, that is sufficient to satisfy the stat-
ih atste e pCHete ns ha there was only ute. In the present case the state’s proof
one witness whose testimony tended to fulfilled that requirement.
prove that the defendant was the one who
did the killing. There were other witnesses
whose testimony tended to prove that mur-
der had been committed. We said 97 Conn.
at page 468, 117 A. at page 510: “We are
satisfied that the construction of this stat-
ute as * * * stated by Swift is cor-
rect. Swift [Swift’s Evidence, P. 142]
states that—if there be two or more wit-
nesses each testifying to different parts of
the same transaction, or to different cir-
cumstances attending it and all concurring
to prove the crime alleged this will be suf-
ficient to warrant a conviction, though there

should not be two witnesses to any one
fact’ By ‘different parts of the same trans- The remaining assignments of error are

action or different circumstances attending based upon matters contained in the find-
it” the author refers to relevant facts tend- ing. Since the evidence has already been
ing to prove an essential element of the detailed, it is not necessary to set forth the
capital crime charged. All that the statute respective claims of proof. Such addi-
requires, therefore, is that the proof of all tional findings as are pertinent will be re-
the essential elements of the capital crime ferred to in connection with the various
charged (each of which must be proved be- points discussed.

yond a reasonable doubt) shall not depend [4, 5] Before the taking of evidence
upon the testimony of one witness. If on€ pegan and long before Albert Taborsky was
or more witnesses testify to facts relevant called to the stand, the defendant moved
and sufficient to prove some of the essential that the court order that Albert be subjected
facts of the capital crime charged, and an- ¢ a mental and neurological examination.
other witness or * * * witnesses testi No evidence was offered to cast any doubt
fy to facts relevant and sufficient to prove on the proposed witness’ sanity and, in fact,
the remaining essential facts, the jury May Hoth counsel stated that, because Albert also
find that the statute has been satisfied.” was indicted, he had already been examined
The opinion goes on to say 97 Conn. at py two psychiatrists. The court denied the
page 470, 117 A. at page 511: “If the de- motion both on the ground that there was
fendant’s contention is correct, the court then no indication before it that Albert was
should charge the jury that in passing upon jnsane and also on the ground that, at least
the requirements of the two: witness stat- yntil he was actually offered as a witness,
ute they can only consider testimony in- the court had no power to compel him to
troduced which, although relevant to prove submit to such an examination. The mat-
one or more of the essential elements of the ter was not pursued further by the de-

To summarize briefly, therefore, in the
case at bar the jury were entitled to give
full credence to Albert’s testimony, corro-
borated as it was in many particulars by the
direct testimony of Forler and by circum-
stantial evidence. The requirement of the
two-witness statute was satisfied. Accord-
ingly, the jury were reasonably warranted
in finding beyond a reasonable doubt that
the defendant had committed the murder
in the perpetration of an attempted rob-
bery. It follows that the denial of the
motion to set aside the verdict was prop-

er.

“Gates tity

wk OF aA

-~—-=

“

NO PEEL I I OF

PET OREMA UL

eee eee

Piet sckk ts hace

a
nea

SERS.

fos

‘

si re ta the oe bate

oe eeet*

th Sut ns

erin eect

64 Conn.

fendant. This ruling was correct. It is
true that when a witness is called to the
stand the state of his mind may be inquired
into and, if the court is satisfied that he is
mentally incompetent to testify, it 1s the
court’s duty to exclude him as a witness.
Holcomb v. Holcomb, 28 Conn. 177, 179.
If the defendant claimed that Albert was
not a competent witness, the time to have
presented that claim was when Albert was
called to the stand. The purpose of the
motion now under discussion was obviously
nothing more than to get the court’s. as-
sistance in obtaining possible evidence for
future use. If-Albert had been willing to
undergo a mental examination, the defense
could have had it without an order of court.
If he was not willing, the court had no
power to compel him to do so until he was
offered as a witness.

[6] On April 24, 1951, Attorney Berg-
man, at his own request, was appointed by
the court to represent the defendant. On
May 17, after nine jurors had been selected,
he moved for the appointment of additional
counsel to assist him. The court denied the
motion. While it is true that frequently the

_appointment,of an assistant public defender

is justified in a capital case, we cannot say
that the court’s refusal to grant the motion
under the circumstances in the case at bar
constituted an abuse of discretion.

[7, 8] At the close of the evidence, the
defendant moved to strike out “the con-

fession or statement made by Albert Tabor-

sky” on the ground that the police had
used improper methods to elicit it. No con-
fession or statement of Albert had been
introduced in evidence. Apparently, there-
fore, in making the motion, counsel was
confused and really meant Albert’s testi-
mony. Testimony given in court under
oath is not in the same category as state-
ments made to police officers outside of
court. The rule calling for the exclusion of
the latter if obtained under circumstances
which render the truth of them improbable
is not applicable to the former. If it ap-
pears that the testimony of a witness may
have been affected by undue pressure exer-
cised outside of court, that is a considera-
tion bearing upon the weight of the testi-

95 ATLANTIC REPORTER, 2d SERIES

mony. It does not render the testimony in-
admissible. The motion was properly
denied. ,

[9] Upon cross-examination, Albert
was asked by the defendant if he did not

intend to leave the state after the case was

over, and he replied in substance that he
would like to. Upon redirect, the state’s
attorney, after directing the witness’ at-
tention to that answer, asked, “Don’t you
know you are under indictment for murder
in the first degree in this same case?”
Thereupon the defendant moved for a mis-
trial. The motion was denied and later the
defendant’s objection to the question was
overruled. It is obvious that the defend-
ant’s purpose in bringing out the fact that
Albert hoped to leave the state after the
trial was to create the impression in the
minds of the jury that he had been granted
immunity from prosecution for his part in
the murder. By bringing out the answer
referred to, the defendant opened the way
for the state to rebut that impression. The
objection to the state’s attorney’s question
was properly overruled and the motion for
a mistrial was properly denied.

Another objection made by the defendant
and overruled by the court was based on
something said tn argument by the state’s
attorney. So far as the record discloses,
the argument of the state’s attorney was
based solely upon the evidence and was
proper. The court’s ruling was correct.

[10] The remaining assignments of
error are directed at the charge. The de-
fendant’s requests to charge were not filed
until after the state had concluded its open-
ing argument. They were late. Practice
Book, § 153. Nevertheless, the court con-
sidered them, and its statement that all of
them to which the defendant was entitled
were included in the charge was correct.
Only one of them: requires notice. This
was a request that the court rehearse to the
jury in detail the testimony of Forler and
the statements of Wolfson describing the
physical appearance of Wolfson’s assailant,
as tending to cast doubt on his identity with
the defendant. The discussion of the evi-
dence in the charge was a terse summary of
the conflicting claims of the parties. It

STATE vy. TABORSKY Conn. 65
Cite as 95 A.2d 59

called the jury’s attention to the claim of
the defendant that he had nothing to do
with the crime and in that connection re-
tminded them that the defendant “points to
the evidence concerning the deceased’s
identification of his assailant.” In view of
the fact that the court had already in-
structed the jury that its failure to refer to
any of the facts was not to be considered as
an indication that those facts were unim-
portant and that it was the jury’s recollec-
tion of all of the evidence which should
control, it was not error for the court to
refrain from a more detailed recital of the
evidence bearing upon identity. State v.
Journey, 115 Conn, 344, 350, 161 A. 515.

[11] One exception taken was to that
part of the charge in which the court dis-
cussed the possible effect of a finding that
the revolver had been discharged accident-
ally. The claim of the defendant is that
if the revolver had gone off accidentally the
crime would be nothing more than man-
slaughter. After making it plain that an
unlawful killing without malice would be
manslaughter, and after correctly defining
malice, the court said: “[A] man may go
out with the intent to commit robbery but
without the intent of injuring anybody.
In this frame of mind, he enters a place,
and in committing or attempting to commit
the robbery, he kills a person. That kill-
ing would be murder, even though there
was no ill-will, hatred or malevolence to-
ward the person killed, because the evil
intent to commit the robbery carries over
to make the crime murder in the first de-
gree.” This was a correct statement of the
law. If a killing occurs in the perpetra-
tion of an attempted robbery it is not only
murder but, by virtue of the statute, mur-
der in the first degree. General Statutes,
§ 8350. That is true even though the kill-
ing itself is accidental.

[12-14] There is no basis for the de-
fendant’s criticism that the charge did not
define attempted robbery. Both robbery and
attempted robbery were fully and accurate-
ly defined. Claims that the charge failed
to instruct the jury properly on the matter

95 A.2d—5 :

of corroboration of an accomplice and on
the effect of former convictions of crime on
the credibility of a witness and that it dis-
paraged the testimony claimed to show
animosity of Albert toward Joseph are all
without merit. The charge as delivered
was complete, correct in law and eminently
fair.

There is no error.

concur.

O’SULLIVAN, Associate Justice. (dis-
senting).

My disagreement with the majority aris-
es out of a difference of. opinion as to the
merit of certain assignments of error ad-
dressed to the charge.

This was a most unusual case. It was

one where the only evidence linking the
defendant to the murder came from his
brother Albert. For the jury to return a
verdict of guilty without that evidence was
a legal impossibility. Some of the defend-
ant’s requests to charge were directed to the
obvious irreconciliability of Albert’s testi-
mony with the description of the killer fre-
quently given by Wolfson during the sev-
eral days through which he lingered before
dying. Wolfson, who had had a splendid
opportunity to observe his assailant in the
light of his well-illuminated store, de-
scribed him as blond, short and baby-faced.
The defendant is dark, tall and lantern-
jawed.

Since the defendant could not have been
the murderer if Wolfson’s description was
accurate, and because the defendant, both
before and during the trial, had challenged
his brother’s sanity, at least three of the
defendant’s requests to charge were not
only pertinent to the issues but, far more
important, were actually vital to the de-
fense. See A-303 Rec. & Briefs, back of
p. 887 et seq., par. 145, 146, 147.

The failure of the court to comply with
these requests, -I am convinced, was harm-
ful error, requiring a new trial.

BALDWIN, J., concurs.

iced

“Ft

OPA Frit:
ah. oe

sna alt atl
Sc.

av cal

lt el

432 Conn 116 ATLANTIC REPORTER, 2d SERIES

City of Towa City, 213 Iowa 391; 395, 239 liable in damages to that citizen..!South v.
N.W. 29; 2° Shearman & Redfield, Neg- Maryland, supra. From the foregoing and
ligence (Rev.Ed.) § 327. Cooley states the other cases, it appears that the test is this:
law as follows: “The rule of official re- If the duty imposed upon the public official
sponsibility, then, appears to be this: That by the statute is of such a nature that the
if the duty which the official authority performance of it will affect an individ-
imposes upon an officer, is.a duty to the ual in a manner different ’in kind from the
public, a failure to perform it, or an inade- way.it: affects the public at large,,'the stat-
quate or erroneous performance, must be a ute is one: which imposes upon the official a
public, not an individual injury, and must duty ‘to the individual, and if the official
be redressed, if at all, in some form of isnegligent in the performance of that duty
public prosecution. On the other: hand, if he is liable ‘to the individual. ; Larson v.
the duty is a duty to the individual, then a Marsh, supra. -
neglect to perform it, or to perform it prop- f
erly, is:an individual wrong, and may suPp-
port: an individual action for damages.”
2 Cooley, Torts (4th Ed.) p. 385.

[6,7] ~The purpose of. § 2447, was to
protect from injury not any one person but
such members. of the general public as ride
’ in. automobiles. The act of the commis-

[5] In the application of this rule, the sioner of motor vehicles in either granting
problem is always to determine whether of refusing registration, under the statute,
the statute involved does create a duty owed may affect. peculiarly each individual who
to the individual. It is quite generally held applies for registration, but any individual
that a statute providing for the recording of who applied for the registration of a motor
deeds does create such a duty, so that a per- vehicle not: equipped with safety glass as-
son who sustains damage by. reason of the suredly would have no standing to claim

failure of the town clerk or registrar of liability on the part of the commissioner for
deeds propérly to record a: document may granting that application. Aside from the
recover from that official. Welles v. Hutch- applicant himself, no one individual is af-
inson, 2 Root 85, 86. It-also has been held fected by the registration of any motor
that an election official whose . ministerial vehicle in a;manner different from other
duty it was to: list a candidate’s name, upon members of the general public who may
the. ballot was liable. to the candidate for happen to ride in the automobile. ‘The duty
failure to perform the duty properly. -Lar- imposed by the statute upon the commis-
son v. Marsh, 144 Neb. 644, 649, 14 N.W.2d_ sioner. was, therefore, a public duty and not

189, 153 AdeR = 101; Likewise, a person one which he owed to any individual who

whose property has been specially assessed might be injured while ‘a passenger in. the

for road improvement, may recover from. car. It follows that in the present case
road commissioners who corruptly con- the defendant owed no duty to the plaintiff.
tracted for inferior materials. Gage Vv. Accordingly, , his . alleged negligence in

Springer, ,supra, 911, Ill. 207, 71 N.E. 860. granting, registration of the motor vehicle

On the other hand, officials charged with the in question in violation of the statute could

duty of providing a pure water supply are not be the basis of a cause of action against
ilure to do. so to an individ- him in. favor of the plaintiff. The sustain-

not liable for fai
ual who has become ‘11 from drinking con- ing of the demurrer was correct.

taminated water. People of State of Illi- Thee aioe ansee
nois, use of Trust Co. of Chicago v. Mary- es ‘3 ee
Jand Casualty Co., supra. Nor is a-sheriff In this opinion the other Judges con

who fails to protect a citizen from a mob curred.

TABORSEY v.
Cite as 116 At rets “te 483

142 C rg! ¢
onn. 619 “ 7
4. Witnesses €=> 9(1)

: Joseph L: TABORSKY ' ¢
. : Question of witness’ competency to
testify, despite alleged mental. condition

STATE of Connecticut. was a preliminary question for court.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut. 5. Witnesses €=327
July 29, 1955 | i
a y tee ; Where a trial court, after consideration
ales a as to witness’ sanity, admits
: estimony, evidence of me conde
“ ntal condit
e Peieeetine on petition for new trial. before, at and after occurrence and at dime
ae 2th Court, Hartford County, of trial is available for jury to use in passi €
: les S. House, J., sitting without jury, on credibility. oe
oe petition, and plaintiff appealed. The
ae Court of Errors, Phillips, Superior 6 Witnesses €>327
ae Judge, held that evidence which de- |
endant offered in support of motion for
new trial and which related to alleged in-
sanity of crucial witness at trial was such as
: bcing: reasonable probability that upon
ew tr i i i
ae fie sitar would bring about a Evidence of existence of a mental co
a eee pe to induce conclusion dition at a subsequent time is admissible ra
e had been done in convicting @S¢ertain f i i ,
tic ; g ? in fact of its existe in
without giving jury benefit of evidence of time. Ste
witness’ credibility. , ,

Psychiatric testimony i i
; ony is admissibl
impeach credibility. tae

7. Criminal Law €=354

Error; judgment directed, 8. Witnesses €=327

; Ata second trial in criminal case, evi-
aN of a witness’ insanity shortly after
rst trial is admissible and relevant upon

!. Criminal Law €=94
5(1)
question of credibility.

In determining whether new trial will
be granted on ground of newly discovered |
‘Negeri Age is whether an in- Oita. S78
ape are A prickee it is probable Where there was no indication before
esac ; ent result would trial court that proposed witness was insane
and he had not as yet actually been oieres
as a witness, trial court had no power to
compel him to submit to a mental exam-

2. Criminal Law €=938(1), 959, 1156(3)
ination,

a. Burden of proving probability of a
; erent result upon new trial with newly
ati evidence is upon petitioner, who
ust also i i i
rae aise eng aa pe is not cumu- Evidence which defendant, who had
e diligence was exercised, _ been convi ;

set rite i : 2 nvicted of murder, offered in su
; ng issue trial court exer- of motion f i te
Sead ipieeory gt © n for new trial and which related
ch cannot be reviewed to all i i cs

i Dalh aee ewe a eged insanity of crucial witn
cretion has been abused. trial was such as to produce bea
ya asonable
probability that upon new trial the newly
ne ae evidence would bring about a

different result i i
gr In a capital case, rules concerning . that injusti h Ae ecg? 2 hie cide
Sorte eas cosa a justice had been done in convicting
a newly dis- without giving jury benefit of evi r
vidence are qualified, wit ¢ ibili sagen oe tule
aide ates ness’ credibility.

10. Criminal Law €=945(2)

3. Criminal Law €=938(1)

Magia a GaN EEN,

Le LORS PSE N 0

SF eM ig Se

eat

tA SRR

Disp A ee

Ethel Nott, who arrived from Boston
some two years before. ‘‘Nott. helps
run the Carleton Social Club. He
works nights and sometimes doesn’t
get home until early in the morning.
Ever since they have lived there, Mrs.
Nott has been visited by a young man.
He comes soon after her husband
leaves for work and stays all hours.
About a week ago, George started to
learn what the neighbors had known
for months.

‘“*He came over here with his
business partner, Daniel O. Fergu-
son,’’ Bopko continued. ‘‘Then he
asked my daughters Pauline and
Margaret if they would keep an eye
on his house. They’ve been watching
it for the past week and have written
down every time when they saw Mrs.
Nott’s boyfriend arrive. Mr. Nott was
planning to wait a few more days and,
if the visits continued, to notify you
and have the place raided.”’

‘‘What is the name of this man?”
Flannigan asked.

‘*I don’t know him by name,’
Bopko replied, ‘‘but both Mr. Nott
and Mr. Ferguson know who he is.
They took the number of his car one
night when it was parked outside the
house and then called the police to find
out who owned it.’ cr

The superintendent asked about the
shooting earlier that morning.

Bopko replied that his 16-year-old
daughter, Pauline, had been awakened
by the shots at about 8 a.m. They came
from the Nott apartment. The daughter
heard Mrs. Nott scream, and then
more shots were fired. The Nott shades
were drawn and the daughter could see
nothing. +

‘“‘My daughter knew how touchy
things were between the Notts,’’
Bopko told the officers, ‘‘and she
could barely wait until I got home from
church. I didn’t take it too seriously
until I heard that player piano start
up. I figured that was odd, because
George would never let his family play
that thing while he was trying to sleep.
It struck me as being so odd that I
sent Pauline over to tell Mr. Ferguson
about it. Ferguson came over around
11 a.m. He said George Nott must still
be home because he had left George
at his home around 4 a.m. and was
supposed to pick him up at | p.m.”’

‘‘What did Ferguson do next?”’

‘‘He went over to see Mrs. Nott. She
told him that her husband had left
earlier that morning after a quarrel.
She seemed very evasive when Ferguson

tried to find out where George had
gone, and Ferguson became suspicious.
He forced his way into the house and
looked around, but he didn’t find

anything. The boyfriend came back

this afternoon and Pauline saw from
a bedroom window, he and Mrs. Nott
using pails of water to mop up the
walls and floors.

“I sent for Ferguson again and he
arrived around 8 p.m. This time he
found that Mrs. Nott was getting ready
to move. Ferguson came back here and
suggested if I saw anything more
suspicious that I should call the police

Fred Candee used knowledge
of the Great Eastern Swamp
to retrieve the body.

at once. We took turns watching the
house. About 10:30 tonight, two men
came in and carried off a trunk large
enough to hold a man. They drove
away with it.’’

The superintendent asked Bopko if
he would recognize either the trunk
or the two men if he saw them again.

‘‘] don’t think I would,’’ Bopko
admitted. ‘“‘They seemed afraid some-
one might see them and they parked
their truck under a tree and kept in
the shadows. They acted so queer, in
fact, that I called the police right
away.”’

‘*1’m glad you did,’’ Flannigan

replied. ‘‘Where can I reach Fergu-

son?’’

‘“‘He’s at the Carleton Social Club
every night, but he should be home
by now. He lives on Horace Street.”’
Bopko gave the house number.

Police headquarters bustled with
activity by daybreak. Captain John H.
Regan, assisted by Lieutenant James
Bray, took charge of the investigation.
Regan sent Detective Sergeant John J.
Seery to the Bridgeport railroad station
to trace the movements of the trunk.

A city-wide search started for
George Nott. Captain Regan led a
detail which checked the stories told
by Judson Avenue neighbors and then
began a search of the Nott apartment.
Ferguson told Lieutenant Bray that the
man seen nightly at the Nott apartment
was 23-year old Elwood Wade, the son
of a wealthy Bridgeport milk dealer.

Ferguson said that Nott found out
about his wife’s lover soon after the
first of August and made several

‘attempts to trap him. ‘‘One night,”’

Ferguson recounted, ‘‘he and I came
upon the scene just in time to catch
her signalling to Wade from the
bedroom window. Nott grabbed her
and started to beat her, but I stopped
him and took him outside. We walked
up Boston Avenue where we found
Wade’s car parked a short distance
from the house. Wade was asleep and
Nott grabbed him and asked his name.
Wade replied he was known as ‘Smith’

and Nott became so angry he actually .

turned white.

**You liar,’’ Nott told him. ‘‘You
think it’s pretty soft to come and sleep
with my wife every night I’m away but
if I ever catch you, I’ll break you into
pieces.’’

‘‘That was enough for Wade, who
started up his car and drove away.”’

‘Is Wade single?’

‘*Hell, no,’’ came the reply. ‘‘He lives
with his parents at present but he’s got
a pretty wife and two kids.’’

Bray returned to headquarters and
reported what he had just learned to
Superintendent Flannigan. One of the
detective-sergeants there, Frederick E.
Derrick, knew Wade and was ordered
to bring him in. Flannigan shook his
head as Derrick left. He knew that
Wade had been in trouble before. The
year before, he stole $200 from his
father and ran away. He was picked
up by police in Chicago as he stepped
off the train with a married woman.
He had been placed on probation

‘(continued on page 39)
17

ect ee wo

And then more excruciating legal
delays!

. The trial was put down for early in
January, 1987, but then held over to
Monay, Feb. 9. ‘Both sides requested
additional time for preparation,’’ a
spokesman for the District, Attorney’s

office explained. On Feb. 9, again at -

the request of both sides, there was a
further continuance for another six
weeks! :

Finally, on Tuesday, March 24,
1987, Sean and Cheryl were brought
before Judge Sherman in Suffolk
County Court Riverhead. Both of
them pleaded guilty to the reduced
charge of manslaughter in a plea
bargain agreement. Under it, Cheryl
faced a possible maximum of six years
in prison or perhaps the youthful
offender treatment which could mean
merely probation. Sean faced a
minimum of six years and a maximum
of 25 behind bars.

Questioned about the disparity,
ADA Jablonski explained: ‘‘Her
motivation was certainly different. She
wanted to have the abuse stopped. He
did it for the money.’’

Her grandmother and aunt both
attended the proceedings, dirécting
hard-stares at their young relatives,
who tried to avoid their eyes. |.

There was a tense and dramatic

moment when Cheryl tried to face up.

to the question: ‘“Why did: you ‘want
to kill your father?’’

At first, she seemed unable to
respond. Judge Sherman, .a fatherly
white-haired. figure on the bench,
asked solicitously, ‘‘Do you want some
water?’’ She shook her head, although
she seemed on the verge of collapse.

“*He was sexually abusing me,’’ she
finally answered. :

As she wept,. so did ia aunt and
grandmother, the latter: whispering to
a detective seated alongside her’,
‘*She’s still my granddaughter.”’

Cheryl’s lawyer explained that the

‘girl and Sean had agreed to the guilty

plea to forestall a trial and the risk of
lengthy prison sentences. Cuccio’s
agreement to testify if Cheryl went
to trial meant he would get off with
probation, the district attorney’s office

said.

For Sean, there was an emotional

moment in court as he wept and
embraced both his parents. Then he was

remanded without bail pending sentence

the following month.
If by chance greed for her in-
heritance motivated Cheryl, she is a

badly frustrated girl today. Because of
her complicity in her father’s murder,

" the Suffolk Surrogates Court has ruled

her ineligible to inherit.

Instead, her young sister and older
brother will divide the estate, now
estimated at far more than the original

figure — probably close to $1 million! |

JoAnn’s share is being kept in trust
forher until she becomes 18, according
to her guardian.

But to Mrs. Pierson, the overriding
matter is her son’s posthumous
reputation. ‘‘I want people out in the
world to know I had a good son,”’ she
says.

‘“‘He was a good father. He honored
his mother and father until the day he
died. He didn’t do the things Cheryl
said he did. I simply ask people to read

~ between the lines.’

bed

Her feelings toward her grand-
daughter, who made the shocking
charges, remain ambivalent. She isn’t
even sure in her own mind what
punishment Cheryl should receive
from the court.

“‘She’s an empty girl,’’ she explains.
She feels no remorse. I still have a
place in my heart for her, but it’s a
small place.

“I don’t hate her, but I won’t ever
forgive her. She took my son from
me.’

The lenient treatment that Cuccio
is expected to receive bothers her.

After all, the district attorney has

acknowledged that it was Cuccio who
made the payment of $400 to Pica and
that he even once asked Cheryl’s
brother whether he knew a hit-man. :

Piérson believes, and she feels that his:
punishment should: be more severe:

than thus far indicated. However, the

authorities point out that his co-

operation in the case was critically
important. }

nervous Sean Pica, who didn’t in the

least resemble a cold-blooded ‘‘hit-
man,’’ stood before Suffolk County

Judge Sherman, awaiting sentence.
But looks were deceiving, and

Prosecutor Jablonski told the court |

that this son of a nurse and former
city policeman had callously remarked
to a psychiatrist that Pierson’s ‘‘loss
was our gain.’’ Bluntly, he had added,
7 wanted him dead for my personal
gain.’

Pica’s lawyer pleaded to have his
client treated as a youthful offender,
which would insure a sentence of no
more than six years. Judge Sherman
rejected the plea, and sentenced the
teenager to a prison term of 8 to 24
years for manslaughter.

‘‘When you go to prison, I want you
to know the reason why,’’ Judge
Sherman told him. ‘‘You took $1,000
to murder someone you didn’t even
know, from ambush.”’

Mrs. Pierson, who was in court to
observe the proceedings, refused to

comment on the sentence, explaining, —

“It won’t bring my son back.”’
Three weeks later, on Tuesday, May
19, Cheryl Pierson was brought into
court, but sentencing was postponed,
pending opinions from psychiatrists

and other experts.

Under the plea bargaining agreement
worked out with the office of the
Suffolk County District Attorney, she
faced a possible. maximum of six years
in prison, but her lawyer hoped that
she would receive treatment as a

youthful offender. She was only 16.at

the time of the killing, and he hoped
to win probation for-her.. Prosecutor

Jablonski argued that she be hit with
‘the maximum sentence.

Presumably, what the psychiatrists
and other experts think of her will to
a large extent determine whether she
goes free — or to prison. At this
writing, she was awaiting her

, On Tuesday, April 28, 1987, a fate. ; *

Quicksand Leaves No Clues

(continued from page 17)

when he was returned to Bridgeport.
A guy who has problems, mused
Flannigan as his office door opened
and Detective-Sergeant Seery appear-
ed. Seery reported he had checked all
the outgoing baggage at the railroad
station and couldn’t find any record
of a trunk being shipped to Boston by
Mrs. Nott. ‘‘None of the regular

companies picked it up,’’ he concluded.
‘“‘Then try some of the smaller truck
companies,’” Flannigan instructed.
Seery left once again.
Further developments came from
the Nott apartment. One of the
detectives noted that although the walls

(continued on next page)

frogat

following the Great War.

But strange things were happening at 265 Judson Avenue.
As dawn nudged aside the darkness with promises of a fresh
day and new beginnings, a series of gunshots bespoke things
more ominous. A player piano raucously saluted the new
day. As neighbors peered from their windows, two men burst
from the house and ran down the street.

During the afternoon, other men
entered and then left the house,
hesitantly and puzzled. The neighbors
watched and waited, not sure what
they should do. Then, shortly before
11 p.m., two other men left, man-
handling a large trunk through the
front door and down the outside steps.
This was enough for one suspicious
neighbor. He picked up his telephone
and called the police.

In the detective division of Bridge-
port Police Headquarters, a lieutenant
turned to Detective-Sergeant Frank
Holbrook.

Victim’s body was folded into
this trunk, then sunk in the
quicksand grave.

Ethel Nott, seductress whose
illicit affair brought murder.

by CURT NORRIS

hurch bells tolled an air of serenity on the Sunday
morning of August 20, 1920. The frolic-makers and
flappers of the night before were gone and now the
streets of Bridgeport, Connecticut, hosted strolling groups
of church-goers. All seemed well in this second year of peace

“‘“Go up to 265 Judson Avenue,’’
he instructed. ‘‘A next door neighbor,
Michael Bopko, reports gunshots were

(continued on next page)
Superintendant Pat Flannigan

never relented in pursuing the
strange death trail.

The slimy swamp had
sucked many an ugly secret
into its bottomless depths.
Now it was to contain the
ugliest secret of them ail.

Bopko home where love trysts
were seen by deceived husband.

fired there this morning and that two
men just left the house carrying a
large, suspicious-looking trunk.”’

As Holbrook drew up before the
two-family house at the Judson Street
address he recognized the car parked
ahead as one belonging to Super-
intendent of Police Michael J. Flan-
nigan. As Holbrook stepped from his
car, a woman called from the upstairs
piazza.

‘‘Who are you looking for?’’ she
asked.

‘*I’m from police headquarters. I
understand there’s been a shooting
here.”’ |

‘Then you’re looking for me,”’ she
answered. As the detective-sergeant
climbed the stairs, the woman limped
forward to snap on the light. She was
young and attractive, and bore a
bloody wound on her forehead.

‘‘What happened?’’ Holbrook ask-
ed. ,
‘*My husband beat me,’’ the woman
responded. ‘‘I refused to go to bed
with him this morning and he got
angry and knocked me down.”’

_. ‘And who is your husband?”’
“George Nott. You may know him
because he runs the Carleton Social

Club on Fairfield Avenue.’’.
- Superintendent of Police Flannigan,

-who had also been summoned by

Bopke, appeared on the stairs and

quickly returned the sergeant’s salute.

The superintendent looked searchingly
at the woman and demanded to know
about a big trunk that was reported to
have been removed from the house at.
10:30 p.m. _

The woman ‘appeared ill at ease. ‘‘It
just contained some clothes that I’m
sending to my mother in Chelsea,
Massachusetts,’’ she replied. ‘‘I’m
Jeaving my husband.”’

‘Where is he?’’ the superintendent
asked. ‘‘I’d like to speak to him.”’

‘‘He left at'8 a.m. this morning

without telling me where he was

going.’
The group had been standing at the

head of the apartment-stairs. Flannigan.

said he would like to enter. The
woman nodded and stepped aside.

He found that the pictures were ,

stripped from the walls and that the
rugs were piled beside stacked stairs.
The bookcases were bare. Through the
kitchen door, the superintendent noted
barrels filled with packed dishes.

‘*‘What’s going on?’’ Flannigan
asked.

“‘l’m moving,”’ the woman said. ‘‘I

16 ©

can’t stand this house any longer and
I’m getting out as quickly as I possibly
can.”’

Flannigan ordered Holbrook to look
around. ‘‘Which is your husband’s
bedroom?’’ the detective-sergeant
asked. The woman pointed to a closed
door and explained that their children,
Ruth, 13 and George, 11, occupied two
of the other rooms.

Call it the instinct of veteran
officers. Both men sensed something
macabre in the dismantled apartment.
The sergeant snapped on lights but the
feeling persisted as he searched for
something suspicious, something
amiss. Flannigan led the woman into
the parlor. He pulled some chains

Elwood Wade in photo taken at -
the time he was sentenced to
hang for his crimes.

from a pile of household goods near a
large player piano'and asked more
about the trunk.

It was, according to Mrs. Nott,

large, metal-covered, and flat-topped.

How, the superintendent pressed, was
she able to find an expressman on
Sunday night when the express offices
were closed? Mrs. Nott said she sent
her daughter out on the streets.to find
one. The girl found a truck parked
nearby and brought back the driver.
This man carried the trunk to the
baggage room of the railroad station.

Sergeant Holbrook moved. heavily
about the room above as Flannigan
continued his questioning. ‘“To whom
was this trunk addressed?’’ he asked

Mrs. Nott.
“‘To Mrs. Mathilda Hutchins on

Cherry Street in Chelsea, Massachu-

setts,’’ the woman replied.

“‘Don’t you know the name of the
driver or the express company who
took the trunk?’’ Before Mrs. Nott
could reply, the excited voice of the
sergeant cut in.

“I’ve found something you should
see,” he yelled to Flannigan. Flannigan
left the room and met Holbrook by
the attic stairs.

‘‘Look at this,’’ the sergeant said.
The rays of a pocket flashlight showed
newly-splintered wood on several
treads of the stairs, revealing the path
of a bullet. Leading the superintendent
up into an attic room, Holbrook
pointed out another bullet imbedded
in the plaster above a bed. The walls.
beside the open door showed dark,
blood-like discolorations. The two
officials slowly retraced their steps.

‘‘Who did that shooting?’’ Flannigan
demanded of Mrs. Nott when he again
entered the parlor. ‘‘And who lived in
that attic room?’’ -

The woman paled and her breath
was short and rapid. ‘‘I can’t tell you,”
she pleaded. ‘‘He had a gun and said
he was going to shoot me. Why didn’t

19?

he kill me when he had the chance!
The woman started to slump to the
floor. The superintendent caught her

and Holbrook rushed to the kitchen,

returning with a glass of water. Mrs.
Nott opened her eyes and drank

greedily.

“I’ll be all right,”’ she assured the
officers. ‘‘I’m just nervously exhaust-
ed.’? But the officers realized the
woman was in no condition to be

questioned further, and they left. As

they started down the walk, Flannigan
noted lights in the home of the next
door neighbor, Michael Bopko. The
superintendent told Holbrook he was
going over there to use the telephone,
and to allow no one to leave the Nott

“house.

Michael Bopko, fully dressed,
opened his front door even as Flannigan
was still climbing the piazza stairs. The
superintendent asked Bopko if he
could use the phone and Bopko
nodded. Flannigan called headquarters
and ordered a police guard around the
Nott home. Then he turned to Bopko. —

~**Tell me all you can-about the
Notts,’’ he asked. ‘‘And start at the
very beginning.”’

Bopko said that the neighbors never
had learned much about George and

Easquele. Zuppa ‘ March 10, 14 g.

(URDERER OF
ANTONIO CORSE
TS EXECUTED

Pasquale Zuppa Hanged’ at
State Prison—Expresses |

Penitence for His Crime.

Fd : : é
_ HARTFORD, Mar, 10.——When, Pas’
quale Zuppa, 27, was ushered into the

death chamber at the - Wethersfield.
State prison early today and hanged
for beating to death his friend, An-
tenio Corsi, whom robbed of $1.25
in Guilfof@ last Labor day, a speed
record was established for Connectt-
cut executions and possibly a world's.
‘record, ‘of less than 11 minutes from:
start’ to finish. -
‘ As philosophically as anyone since
his confinement, the little Italian:
walked steadily into the brilliantly.
lighted chamber where three Hartford,
and two New Haven newspaper re-
porters stood heside the prison. ward-
‘em and the ‘official time keoper -at
12.05.02." | Some slight hitch seemed.

strap-—his elbows'and wrist being al-
syeady hound to his body whén he ap-.
peared—but the cap was. slipped over
his head and the. noose pulled taut
16 seconds after entering. et
o+." Executed dt 12:05 A.M.

; warden: released the hanging

go exctly hd Zuppa been. placed
-under thd rope that his hody was
yanked aloft and dropped downward
again, as though it travelled in a
groove..The upward jerk, which Is de-
signed to “break the neck, caused the:
heavily padded felt slipper to fly from
uppa’s left foot. and landed in the
ortheast corner'of the roop.

wel -at 12.95.17, a record time, and |

‘to delay the fastening of the, knee}

There was practically no muscular

contraction of the body and In the j,
|record time of. ten minutes and 45

seconds,,or at 12,16, the phyagictans
removed thelr stethoscopes. ana pro-
noungéd the man dead. A hundaome
casket, provided by Haftford friends
was brought in and Zyppa's body tak-
enin charge by a Hartford undertak-

e& for burial jn this city.

BP ok Expressed Penitence.
"Shortly before his death, Zuppa,

‘who has a cousin In New Haven and
aA nephew, Pasquale Zuppa tn bank

Island City, exprossed penitece Poke

what he termed his ‘Oniafortune™’ and ft

requested the Italian priest, who at-
tonded him to the moment he kinsed
the crucifix under the nodse, to write
parents and bis wife and child,

to his
Itnulian pro

all of whom live in the

vince of Bart,
he Aled a trae Catholle ana reeonet)

cA by the sacraments of his religion,

aouth of Naples, that:

t
‘
{

ZET 7 ‘

rs ee J, hans e
White, 40, hang

John,

|ZETT, TREMBLING, —
GOES 10 GALLOWS.

Doomed Man Was Almost in|
‘State of Collapse.

, John Zett, convicted of the murder
|} Of his wife and granddaughter, in the
|}8Uperior court of Rockville, Septem-
-}ber 17, was hanged earli this morning

at the state prison at Wethersfield, At
}two minutes after midnight Zett was
taken into the death chamber and ten
| minutes later he was pronounced dead
| by the physicians. in attendance, Dr.
JE. G, Fox of Wethersfield. and Dr. B.
NF, Donahue, the house physigdan at
i} the prison. The hanging was said to
1] be one of the most successful ever con-
,| ducted at the prison,
‘|. The prifioner was taken to the death
|}chamber by ‘Deputy Warden George
1|E. Baisden and an ‘assistant warden,
:/4nd he was accompanied by: Rev. Oli-
1; Ver T. Magnell, who administered the
sjlast rites of the Roman Catholic
;}Church to the convicted man. Zett
,j Was deathly pale and trembling vio-
rilently. Hig lips twitched and his
hands shook convulsively. -He was
|| dressed in a dark brown sult and wore
‘{@ Dlack tle. It took scarcely twenty
|} 8€conds to adjust

‘fdane and
g

gneck he was in such a condition that
, he the floor had
the assistants
His body shook as if
}With the ague and he seemed in ‘a
total state of-collapse. ‘The trap was

sprung at 12:03 o'clock and the body
was jerked high in the air,

For a few seconds it ‘twitched and
-jeauddered and Soetiae e atet eave

Tor spkbrodale “petri ‘gna “ahuttine

5 i <%

2 was broeght in and:

the
let

Johiidren of the dead man. .

we.

ed 6t. 3P (Tolland)le-cl-19

his crime and was a:
pentant

Hartford
Story

The crime for’
hanged was one of

been committed in the
was a Bohemian who

about four ‘miles from
the Bolton road: The
ed of the man and

rs. Zett

horrible cr
the barn,

me Zett cal

young man started to

me Put
joveralls he crept up behind h

| tried .to strike him
‘mer,

to look for h “mother

Birl and discoterea them in

room, the

‘him ahd he would
again in the mil}.
the farm

) Succeeded in, tyi
with a rope, being aasisted
"8 Who chanced to be
on then went into

of the Crime, '
Which Zett was
the most revolt-
ing In’ all its details that has ever
state,

had a

from

fits -of .temper.. h ;
pr@rented & sullen, almost ind

attitude.
‘titude when }
ipersfor

less and leas.

Father Magnell said that Zett rea-
Uzed fully the mature and enormity of

directors and the re-

Zett
farm

ear tof,
d almost immedi- |,
8 lived unt{] late
the same night: - After committing thig |:
Weeaent to
om thet
its ac- |};

Cov0sdl, Aartfol

Meerube LI, (GOL

Joseph faborsky. May 17, /960.

(Unidentified and uride ted Connecticut
newspaper sent by Hearn,

Taborsky Dies in ‘Chair;
Accepted Religion at End

' Cleric Watches Execution
The -Episcopal clergyman re-
j quested specifically by Taborsky
“1—Dean Robert S. Beecher of
'Christ Church cathedral — spent!
a more than four hours with Tabor-
im, ‘sky and watched the execution.

+ 1957 when

|
|
|

Slayer Spends Last Hours |
With Cleric, Goes: to —

Death Calmly
‘WETHERSFIELD, May

—-

(AP) Joseph Taborsky, the “ex- | Taborsky had been moved to}

The crime for which Taborsky
‘went to his death tonight was the:
ikilling of two persons in a New
‘Britain service station holdup 3 1-2
years apo,
| In those slayings, . like the
others, the victims were .torced
'to kneel and then were-shot in!
the back of the head.

Taborsky and Culombe terrified
the state in late 1956 and early
they embarked on a'!
-vicious Campaign of robbery and |
murder that brought them the tag

of ‘‘mad dog killers.”’
Pair Killed 6 Persons

Six persons, including a man!
and his wife who walked Into a’
;haween Haven highway shoe store

Taborsky and Culombe were hold-
;ing up, were killed by the pair. |
‘Taborsky also admitted a sev enth |
‘Islaying, a West Hartford package |
{store operator for whose death!
‘he was convicted in 1951.

That conviction brought Tabor-
sky another “‘first’’ on nis pris

{
|
|
«|
'

ecution bandit,’’ died tonight in:
the electric chair after saying he |
“accepted religion.”
Te 00k ‘three minutes” and: 15!
seconds to end the life of the 36-)
:year-old “*mad-dog killer’’ who}
ibeg an his career of crime bv‘
Stealing a bicycle. at the age of |
iI. =
Prabortiy: who decided. apainist |
‘making an appeal that would rf
|have delayed his execution, ap!
ipeared. calm and resigned when
‘Strapped into the electric chair.
\ Killer Accepts Religion —
Before he entered the green,
‘room. he told state prison Wai:
iden Mark S. Richmond that he:
|had accepted religion. He said he!
|Was grateful that the prison au-:
i thorities permitted the dean ci:
ithe -Christ. Church cathedral Jin!

oath toe ew aes, asaercea

ithe .."

; Arthur: Culombc.

on record,

‘holding cell’ at 5:30 p.m.
ttitude throughout the day }~He-was. convicted on the testi.

was “very composed, very quiet, {™Ony of his brother,. Albert. Jo-
very cooperate said- ainrden' -seph—was-sentenced-to-death-and]
Richmond. “ Albeft was given a life term. Al-

His last meal consisted of a bert was committed to th? state
king-sized banana split, a bottle {hospital at Norwich as hopelessly
of cherry soda, coffee and cream, | '?S4ne two months after the trial.
and a _package_ of cigarettes. Joseph was granted a new trial

At Taborsky’'s Tequest-his-bedy, by the state Supreme Court of
is being sent to the Yale Medi-, Errors. The’ state could not hold ;
cal school. He also willed his eyes ‘Ne new trial because -its sole!
to an eye bank in New York City. ‘convicting witness, Albert Tabor- |

Taborsky had admitted seven ‘sky, was _hopelessly insane. and |

_ His a

; Slayings, six of them which. earn- unable to give proper testimony. il

ed him and another accused mur}. Freed in °51 Slaying -

derer the title of ‘‘mad dog kill-/- After 52 months in death row,
ers.’ Accused with Taborsky is: . Taborsky walked out-a free man,
who had alsotvowing he never -again jrould- be.
d to die tonight. aim #ia-conflict with. the law. Thus he
became the first convicied slaver
‘in the state's history to walk to

‘been schedule

(Continued on. Sine Six)

“Hartford to stay with him until
the end.

Five’ attendants aes Ta-!
iborsky into the chair. He stared'!!
straight ahead and clenched his},
ifists. He closed his eyes as thei)
jelectrical coil was. attached - to;,
this head. i
, The switch was pulled at 10:32
..45 p.m. He was dead at exactly
10: 36 after 2,000 volts had passed:
throug h his body.

When he first was seated

bis
the chair, Taborsky raised a fia-!
ger and pointed to two newsmen |,
among those present as a sign otf
acknowledgement. Then his hands |,
were strapped, he closed his-eyes |,
and clenched his fists.

Taborsky was pronounced dead '

by Dr. Jefferson McAlpine, the | along with two other convicted |ombe.
The | Slayers,
aald- borsky in his final hours. There ;25-year career in. crime. It be-

‘was no communication between ;2an with the theft of a bicycle

prison’s._ senior physician.
death was verified by Dr-Re
R, Hazen, assistant medical CX!

aminer for Hartford. it

freedom from death row.

The 36-vear-old Taborsky was!
linked to the North Haven slav-
jings by the long memory of a1
State police lieutenant. Taborsky |
land Culombe slugged a part own-
er of the shoe store and left him
Be dead-on the floor: -_

’ The man recovered after a long
lombe appealed to the U. S. Su- {hospital stay and, under ques-
ipreme Court, though, and won ani tioning. by state police, he re-
"automatic stay of execution. hora red One of his assailants!

Declined ‘Last Appeal’ had extra large feet and was in-!

Taborsky declined any last-min- ‘terested: im targe shoes: —~2-—"-4
ute attempt for an appeal. War-: State Police Lt. Samuel Rome,

en Richmond described his as NOW a Captain, checked..his' file
‘having ‘‘most tranquil compos- -for--convicted—violent—eriminals4
ure—at peace with himself and with large feet and that put Ta-
the world.” borsky under suspicion, After he
Culombe also is in death row, |Wwas arrestéd he implicated Cul-

TABORSKY DIES.
CALMLY IN CHAIR!

Page One)

(Continued from

but he did not see Ta-! Taborsky’s execution - ended a

for which he was ‘sent. to a home
ifor boys. me

he two:

o-—___.*4

plotting to murder Floyd (Lucky) Holzap-
fel, condemned killer who named’ Peel ‘as’
mastermind in the slaying of Circuit Judge
and Mrs. C. E. Chillingworth who disap-
peared from their Manalapan, Fla., beach
home, 11 miles south of Miami Beach,. on
June 15, 1955. (Trial of Murder’s' Master-

self an ex-judge and already serving a life.
sentence for his part in the murder of the
Chillingworths, had been accused of plot-
ting to have Lucky Holzapfel slain in
prison. Holzapfel, who had been sentenced
to the chair, was’ the prosecution’s star wit-
ness against Peel. He admitted that he and
a moonshiner had committed the-murder at
the urging of Peel. The former judge, who
flashed a big smile in the courtroom when
he heard the verdict on the charge of plot-
ting Holzapfel’s death, was scheduled. to be
returned to Raiford State Prison,“ from

‘where he was expected to, file an’ appeal on.

his conviction in the Chillingworth’ deaths,

Donald Jan Moon, admitted rape-slayer, ,

has been adjudged a criminal sexual psycho-,

path and ordered committed to Michigan’s’ |

Ionia State Hospital for the Criminally In-.
sane. If the 19-year-old Moon ever is ruled
cured, it was noted; he would be a free
man, for the commitment cancels'the mur-
der charge pending against him, The thin,
pasty-faced Moon,’ a farmhand, had: con-.
fessed beating to death Geraldine Williams,
15, in an abandoned farmhouse near South.
Haven, Mich., (Step Into My Funeral Par-
lor, August FRONT PAGE, 1961). Moon ad-
mitted, after he had failed two lie detector
tests, that he had abducted the eight-grade :
pupil from a bus stop near her home and
drove to the farmhouse where-he raped and

killed her in the basement. Prosecutor Er-
vin. L. Andrews had petitioned ‘the Allegan ..
Circuit Court for Moon to. be examined as _

a potential criminal sexual psychopath-and
three court-appointed psychiatrists exam-

ined him. Their findings brought about.

the commitment order.

Leroy Patelski has been sentenced: to

serve a maximum term of 25’years in prison
at the Wisconsin State Prison at Waupun; ,
he was convicted of third degree*murder in

the slaying of elderly Miss Martha Heide. ~

According to the testimony, Patelski and

- Clifford Plautz,-. 18, had gone to Miss .

Heide’s rooming -house in Milwaukee’ with
the intention of robbing ‘her. . The ® two
Flipped A Coin For Murder (April FRONT
PAGE, - 1961), and Plautz lost,’ He then:
bound and gagged the 86-year-old woman,
according to Plautz’ testimony. She suffo-
cated as a result. Plautz, who pleaded guilty

to third degree murder was awaiting sen- |

tence,

Kenneth - Stavnem, admitted slayer of
Chicago, Ill., druggist Richard Dombrowski,

Joseph A. Peel Jr. has been’ acquitted of /

Hi ee es
has been sentenced to 55 years in prison by
Criminal Court’ Judge John C, Gutknecht.
In denying the 99-year term sought by the
Prosecution, “the: judge decided, “It isn’t
fair to send a man to prison without giving
him a glimmer of hope.” With the 55-year
sentence, Stavnem will be eligible for pa-
role in 18 years, Stavnem’s capture was con-
sidered a particularly fine piece of police

work in view of the fact that—though seen’

by several witnesses before, during, and
immediately ‘after’ the robbery slaying—
none, of them could agree on what the
killer’s mouth looked like. -The ‘result was
that police had to hunt a man from a com-
posite drawing. without. a mouth (The

Clouded Trail. Of Mr. No-Mouth, July:

FRONT, PAGE, 1961).: ‘

Arthur. Culombe, one of the two Kneel-
Down-And-Die Dogs sought by Connecti-
cut for a vicious series of murders (June

- /

< ARTHUR ‘CULOMBE
‘Patience ‘is, its own reward...»

FRONT -PAGE,. 1957), was recently saved

from the electric chair by a decision of the
U.. S. Supreme . Court) He’ subsequently’

pleaded guilty. to a second degree murder ~

charge, carrying ‘a life’ sentence. The first
degree murder conviction that. had kept
Culombe in Death Row for four years had
been for the slayings of Edward Kurpiew-
ski, and ‘Daniel’ J; Janowski ‘at 'a ‘New Bri-

Pie

tain, Conn., service station. However, the |

Supreme - Court’ ruled in*a 6-3 decision,
three confessions by Culombe were improp-
erly used as evidence during that trial.
Joseph Taborsky, Culombe’s partner in the
slayings, was electrocuted for. the New
Britain murder last year, after giving up
the. court battle for his life,

Richard Morrison, The Biggest Canary
In Chicago (May ¥RONT PAGE, 1960),
whose singing blew the lid off widespread
corruption among officers of the big city’s
police department, was made a free man
., » $0 that he could testify without preju-

~ dice in the long-delayed trial of the eight

policemen charged with conspiracy to com-
mit burglary and receive stolen property.

. Special -Assistant State’s Attorney Barna-

bas M. Sears opened the trial by asking
Judge James B. Parsons to dismiss the 22
indictments against Morrison, who had ad-

“mitted a ‘string of North Side burglaries in

his 77-page statement that embroiled the
eight former officers as cohorts in looting
stores, serving as lookouts and carting the
loot off in squad cars. Charles A. Bellows,
defense attorney for the patrolmen, object-
ed to the dismissal of the charges against
Morrison with the statement that “This is
putting a- premium on perjury.” The eight
former officers were arrested ‘ by flying
squads of fellow policemen in January,
1960, Arresting officers said they found
loot in the homes of seven of them. The
arrests, which followed Morrison’s confes-

“sion, led to shakeups in the 10,000-man

Chicago police force and the appointment

@ of criminologist Orlando Wilson as police

superintendent.

Caryl Chessman, dead but unforgotten,

“has had his memory perpetuated as the re-

sult of -the creation of the Cary’ Cuess-

~ MAN MermortaAL ScHoLarsHip Funp For
- CREATIVE CITIZENSHIP. Joe Nevens, exec-

utive director of the fund, initiated the
scholarships in California and Nevada high
schools and colleges. One of the primary

"sources of income for the fund to date is
the money received from the record album

The Legacy of Caryl Chessman, an integral
part ‘of which is a taped. interview with
Chessman by Nevens in which Chessman
related his thoughts on crime, The purpose
of the scholarships, according to Mr. Nev-
ens, is “to encourage in the recipient the
fullest possible development of his. poten-
tial to make a conscious individual contri-
bution to the brotherhood of man.” The
requirements of the applicant is that he
major in one of the following fields: jour-
nalism, law, humanities, political science,
international relations, or police: The ap-
plicant must submit an essay, either pro or
con, on any of the following topics: Caryl
Chessman; The Jury System; The Grand
Jury System; The Courts; Role of the Dis-
trict Attorney; Police Practices; Capital
Punishment; Civic Responsibility; Profes-

sional Re
bility; Ne
coverage «
™ U.S. Cons

| ucation. A

cen heer linet

informal o

cepting th:

to contrib
i. his state, c
} at least on:
| in the cou
+ scholarship
answer to
Irwin Mos]
ary, 1961,
sive story-
“That Fien

John Ma
ed by a gra
Jean Willia:
him to Kiss
PAGE, 1961)
boy claimed

' because she
to heaven”
hold his st

> pulled thet
remember h
. . .and she
ring had tol
died. There
other high <
had talked
death.

Edward A
to life in pri:

440,00
create

Step into

quickly in
men we h:
$14,768 ix
weeks. W
extra inve
course is °

. BE YOU!

Right nov
to investi;
makes it «

6 4

-“Taborsky (right) and Culombe

Joseph L. Taborsky and Arthur Culom-
be were found guilty of first-degree mur-
der in the six bullet-in-back-of-head slay-
ings that had all Connecticut in ferment
(The Capture of Connecticut’s Kneel-
down-and-die-dogs, June FRONT PAGE 1957).
Because of the amount of testimony in-
volved in the six ‘brutal killings, it turned
out to be the longest murder trial in Con-
necticut’s history. When the verdict was
finally brought into the Hartford court-

room, the judge immediately sentenced ~

both men to death in the electric chair.

Harry Washburn, under a 99-year sen-
‘tence for the car-bomb murder of his for-
mer mother-in-law, Mrs. Helen Harris
Weaver (The Murder That Shook Texas,
May FRONT. PAGE, 1955), continued to pro-
test his innocence and said that he would
enter an appeal. The 99-year sentence
capped the 41-year-old Houston contrac-
tor’s second trial. At. the first trial, he re-

ceived a. life’ sentence, but then the Court ~

of Criminal Appeals ordered a new trial
and once again Washburn was convicted.
The state contended that Washburn had ac-
tually intended to kill Mrs. Weaver’s second
husband, Harry, a consulting architect, be-
cause he had prevented Mrs.. Weaver from
giving money to Washburn. (Washburn

was divorced from Mrs. Weaver’s daughter.

by a previous marriage.) Washburn then
planted the bomb in the car, but Mrs.
Weaver instead of her husband entered ‘it,
stepped on the starter and was blown to
bits in a tremendous explosion. . ;

Harry Winefield, 32, ocean-hopping bur-
glary suspect, was indicted on three charges
in connection with a $37,000 gem theft at
New York’s: exclusive Savoy Plaza Hotel
(Bum Voyage, October FRONT PAGE, 1957).
His blonde: wife Carole Jenette, 26, had
better luck in Felony Court... . a charge
of criminally receiving stolen property was

dismissed by Magistrate Joseph A. Mar-
tinis when Carole claimed she had not
known that a mink fur-piecé given her by
Harry was stolen property. But she didn’t

Me OTE: eet

(left) received | extreme penalty—death. —

go scot free. She was continued held with-
out. bail to await trial in Special Sessions
Court on a charge of illegal possession of
narcotics. The Winefields fled to” England
on the Dutch liner Maasdam, but British

' officials, alerted by New York police, picked

them up on arrival at Southampton.

Nicholas .M. Kostic, 40, a steelworker

’ charged with slaying his wife and a prom-

inent Massilon, Ohio, physician (You'll
Never Lock Me Out Again, May FRONT
PAGE, 1956), pleaded guilty to two counts
of second-degree murder. Common Pleas
Judge George N. Graham immediately sen-
tenced him to two consecutive life terms in
Ohio Penitentiary. Kostic will be eligible to
apply for parole after 20 years—he is re-
quired to serve at least ten years for the
murder of his estranged wife, Mary, 34, and
ten years for that of Dr. H. P. Hart, 72,

both cut-down by Kostic at Mary’s home .

in Massilon in a fussilade of shots.

Edward Leon (Pete) Williams, under
sentence of death for the kidnaping of
Tulsa ministerial student, Tommy Cooke
(Going My Way, Brother Sin?, October
FRONT PAGE, 1956), will not learn the re-
sults of his appeal for quite some time. The
judge’ reviewing his case, John A. Brett,
stated that the appeal poses one of the
most puzzling problems he has seen to date.
Williams’ lawyers argued the following:
Their client had been tried for the murder
of Cooke (whom Williams shot after the
kidnaping) in the area where the killing
took place—Muskogee—and sentenced to
life imprisonment. ‘Then: he was returned to
Tulsa where he pleaded guilty to kidnap-

ing charges and was sentenced by Judge »

Lesli¢ Webb to death in the electric chair.
Now the crux of the defense’s appeal case
is whether Williams was sentenced to death
for the kidnaping or the murder. They argue
that it was the murder which earned Wil-
liams the death penalty; that.if he’d come
up on pure kidnaping charges (with Cooke
alive), he’d have received something less
than death. But because he killed Cooke,

NOVEL |/VEF
0 mam

The Cleanup Spot

he was sentenced to die. This, they claim,
constitutes double jeopardy—because Wil-
liams has already been tried and convicted
for the murder! ‘No wonder the judge said
that “the appeals court is faced with an
extremely difficult task and will not be able
to reach a quick decision.”

Elmer David Bruner was convicted of
first-degree murder in Huntington, W. Va.,
without. recommendation of mercy. Since
the death penalty is mandatory in such
cases under West Virginia law, Bruner will
die for his crime unless-his lawyers are suc-
cessful in a motion made to set aside the
conviction: Bruner, a 40-year-old handy-
man who had been in and out of correction-
al institutions since he was ten, confessed
in a signed statement that he was robbing
a home when the owner, Mrs. Ruby H.
Miller surprised him. She aimed a shotgun
at him, and he attacked her and beat her
so savagely that her head was “almost like

_ jelly’-—in the prosecution’s words—and she

died (The Perambulating Yard Man, Sep-
tember FRONT PAGE, 1957). Extra tension
was generated in the final minutes of the
trial by gudérds who continuously patroled
the court, surveying the audience. This was
due to telephoned threats made to the
prosecutor and his wife as well as to the
judge and his wife that they would be killed
if Bruner received the death sentence.’ But
the anonymous caller failed to have any
effect on the workings of the -ourt, and
Bruner now faces death by execution.

Richard Marx, 22, was found guilty of
the fatal shooting of Leonard M. Brown, 28,
during the attempted holdup of a five-and-

Tee

ing, Queens, New York City. Marx, who
had also been involved in the shooting of
former Marine, Charlie Krauss, during a
holdup in Krauss’ cab (My Heart Pumped
Venom, June FRONT PAGE, 1957), was tense
and quiet as the all-male jury filed in. He
did not change expression as the foreman
delivered the verdict, guilty of murder in
the first degree with a recommendation of

‘

. se

is ng as
ha‘kissed tho crucifix, Andrea Tanga-
a . 25 years old, of ‘New Ha "en,
patepped » onto ‘the trap..at- the State |
k this morning,
for the murder |
pot) Mrs,” Mamig Davis in New Laven
cjast. September, The same calm state’|,
tf! mind that characterized | him

Naar his trial and continement

i ai: prison ‘was his at the end, and to
me onlookers it appeared ag if it was
eally.a relief to him to die, .

hIt.was but a few minutes after 12
atthe small party of officials, phy-
clang and reporters, who were to
Witness the execution, left the olflce of
l@; prison and took up the silent
4arch to the death chamber. At
108° o'clock Tanganelli, accompa-
ledby the: Rev. Oliver T. Magnell,

MIPS

Fig teins

ot
ek

Heprison chaplain, and the Rev, Dr.
Pi hn J. McLaughlin, pastor of St. An-
M ny's” church, lett the death cell,

Broughgut the short walk Tanga-
Heli repeated the offices for the dead
ip unison with the two priests,

gov At (12:06 the party entered the
i @leath house, and Tanganelli took his
jigtand, Without a jfremor, on the trap,
“Beneath thu ‘noosat. ‘Deputy: Warden
a i". 0." Ayres ‘quickly pulled the black
S62P" Over “his, head! and Adjusted the
.weo0se abput ‘his :néck, ang at'12:06:30
tg tap “was sprung,-by Warden Ward
sy, Garner. The’ first examination was

Aplysidtan,-at.13: Sand at 12:17:26
mianganelli was Pronounced dead. At

13. straps, Were removed and at:
4:44: the bodyswag slowly loWered into
coffin.’ The examination by the
octors showeg.-t , dislocation of the
OK to have heem complete, al
pWhile’ the execution: was. the first
“Warden Garner and Deputy War-

Waful.in the history of the prison.
;temarkable calm: of. the prisoner
Py ly assisted .the men in the work,

sthe careful ‘preparations before-

a. ‘resulted sin no trouble of any

4 PCa er otitis ‘ ra) be ae \

sa warden Garner was assisted by
phuty’ Warden ‘Ayres, Assistant Dep-

wewsidames Hi. Bulkley and Guards
taper J, Clarke and Albert F. Skin-

f&ion: he! made his last confession, and
Batter stnat he knew nothing of

ae WHOdY Will“ be:claimed this morn.
Kae: SDY his two brotners, Francisco
NdqhOrlando Tanganelli of. North Ha-

Sey

mel
SNahot: the: womant
i | ithe women
ne

Spahceonine es sifice.the first, when

Gdythem, andron:Temol¢istreet

hey

1894; tat 32..$3ormer Députy War-

a! fhe
alt

TANGANELLI, Andrea, white, 26,
Hanged Conm. SP (New Haven)
3-29-1912,

Undated, unnamed Gonn,
newspaper sent by D,

Ae Hearn,

nyjand the® burial -will ‘be in this
Gua ceca ee SES ees ee ae ae See Sk

——

AS LLIOOST WAI. ,

LY xf

WADE, Elwood, white, Hanged Conm. (Fairfield)5-20-1921,

Unnamed, undated
Conn. newspaper
.article sent by

Dan Hearn.

SOAS a
fe ¥

Bes

WADE DISPLAYS IRON NERVE
AS HE SMILES GOOD-BY ON
SCAFFOLD IN WETHERSFIELD

WETHERSFIELD, Conn., May 20.
(Special.) . Elwood Wade
gume. Displaying the same bravado
which has marked his bearing since
his urrest for the murder of George
E. Noit. Judson avenue’.gambler, last
August, Wade went to tha gallows
with a smile on his face and a cheery
word of farewell shortly after mid-
night, standard time, today.
“CGood-by, everybody.” he said as
he entered the death chamber, his
arms strapped at the elbows and
wrists, and a bright pink rose in his

“Coat lapel. ‘

He drouvped his eyes for a fraction
of a second as he saw the bright new
hempen rope which was strung from
the roof of the white-walled death
chamber. Then the gmile returned.

“Good-bye everybody.” he said a
second time, with special emphasis
on the last word as the black death
cap was -pulled over his head ana
the noose placed uround his neck.

“Good-by. boy. God bless yout’
replied Rev. Alexunder Alison, pas-
tor of the First Presbyterian church,
Wade's former Sunday school teach-
er, who had been constantly with
the condemned youth in his last
hours,

Warden Pulls Lever.

The warden pulled the lever of the
hanging apparatus with the same
motion one would throw the clutch

of an automobile. lt seemed ages
from the time the warden touchea
‘the’ Jlever‘and jerked it. back and

‘forth until the 300 pound weight in

“Most

‘Jever

the corner fed] with tne sound of a
pile driver. dn reality it was an al-
instantaneous procedure.

lt was 12:02:56 by the deputy
wuarden'’s step waich when Wade
crosse&@ the threshold of the deatn
chamber. Jt was 12:08:22 when the
was sprung. In this short

‘apace of time Wade had walked with
| a firm step to the litthe square mark-
|

ed out on the concrete floor beneath

'the noose. deputies had strapped him

l
| his last
|

ut the knees and ankles he had said

wnd noose had been placed over his
i head.
“Tr Want to Be Game.”

“Tl want to be game to the end,”
Wade said to Rev. Mr. Alison and
I'rison ‘Chaplain William B. Cary a
few minutes before midnight.

“It was his last wish, and he went
through with it jike a man,” re-
inarked his former pastor after the
execution,

died |

farewell] ‘and the black cap!

Wade wore on his feet a pair of

'
i]
‘

gray bed-room slippers as he
stepped into the death chamber,
glaring white jn the rays of four
high-powered electric light bulbs
and two large kerosene oil lamps.
He wwore.a white collar, dark tie.
white shirt, and the same suit of

‘dark mixed material he wore at. his

trial. Jn his ‘buttonhole was a
single yose-bud, part of a bouquet
sent him yesterday by employes of
the local dairy company for which
he once worked. At his request Rev.
Mr. Alison and Rev. Mr. Cary also
Wore similar blooms in their’ evdt
lapels. f
Smile on His Face.

The same smile was upon Wade’s
face as he stepped from the death
cell into the death chamber that he
wore when sentence of death was
pronéunced upon him in the Supe-
rior court here. But it seemed to be
a2 more friendly smile than the one
seen in the local court room. It
seemed to the 24 persons assembled
in the death chamber that he
wanted thelr friendship. He was
paying with hls life for the murder
of George Nott. and the impression
conveyed was that he welcomed
death, feeling that the extreme pen-

alty might balance the scales of jus+:

tice. The emphasis he placed upon
the word “everybody” left no doubt
in .the minds of those present that
he wanted the goodAwishes of all
whom he had sinned*¢gainst in slay-
ing the Judson avenue gambler. °
Wade's mother and father were
with him until 6 o'clock. when he
said a last good-bye and was Te-
moved to the death cell. Rev. Mr.
Alison, ,.who had come to the pene-

tentiary at the request of the boy’s:

mother and young wife, accompa-
nied him to the death cell, as did
also the prison chaplain. Three
guards stood outside the barred
door. j

Wade made depositions yesterday

to state detectives ooncerning the
commission of the crime. ;
Recalls Happy Days.

By conversation with Wade in
which he reviewed all his early
life, his pleasure in a goat-team he
owned as a child, his love for
horses, the fun he used to’ have
automobile riding, the thrills of an

aerop:ane ride he once took, the last |

few hours were beguiled. :

When one of the warden’s assis- :

(Contnued on Page Two.)

i!
5
x
*
‘
i
@
?

‘>

aed f vo .
athe as rom P. ;
eth reba ed by the Ont. ) we tant
fitead d and ente door of | Gat insensibili |
Tee ae eath h red the. bv the = Pericles. dility to ie ‘ |
cin ie | BV. M c amb ight * at “a Mrs. ie the ‘aki cantina - |
aaa ee alieban wie, nts ee bah in the c: Cee ty to?
“Fninis What time { ee. nis vane with hin Os 15 oo. and J
‘s-ju ter took $s, ; wife, whe feelings Fibs He | “nite le of nas Sbntaee meh
7 st twelve out his ios | ny ‘throug n he took or his antored 1) filkoas a bl achen ane
eee O88: 4 ve o'cloc atch.“ ed gh his . ovcasi —— re Nt Ind-wh da
at d to th his fort wae H he said. “at - rep that *) mother “hers Mpa xX ee nv home hes the)
3 Bp. do e door of and st if A ethersf lis a4 hat rs. Nott j seston! wey a8 |
aes. or r of th epped } pesisit icld, wife vi oe tt in Bsr tte dia Start
SALOSS was e a! ed: hi But Vist. ‘clock » the —
es and opened cell. ‘his, rim: Wed the yo a _ and house =
Ay ian) conve abo ie 7
MAiithe d the w after ea hte accoilnp nesday ans n hour, versed ut 2
bi ea arde the | er. anied in spite ' for: 1:30
oe. yard., ne chamber from en: pee was po MUG. he her auile Man. i vefore 30°C’ about halt |
; ad. Wade's 2 rom the | 45 ake-u st somethi thagedie side: movk The Notts | 3 oCork Wad
i few rms w ‘ p tha nz mise Moe ay Was follo red ro Made wet
remarks were | Mfc as: | t led Wad atine iat followed } pom in the ent |
n, th to the B ; her. ass ne aid. ¢ tuo tre nd the i cd his f ON Johns Ne attic. |
8 e la rid h erts his b Ais ro hurpose i ston. W
fps ods shot st good- by Leber ; e mary » ee le wasn't oe uved was ne om whe pi yes in “atv MW ade |
s0 th into’ th and Ex TAngeg aan sant “ia that J ee ; give hi Nott Soing into i
«> ‘<b: of at th e air, a: re y Seely j Vrong j Yeo (! ancemc rim ; sea 9 lay in '
oy" y ‘a seant re feet cleared and. ; , hed ‘child w i \\ ude . 1 tow are urd sid nt of tein. ra ating, 1") bed |
Suspended fo BRB 5 Oly me aes wed by hone Bio NE haan i neha such Saieaatnagl ‘a fhe |
bright r1liimM ng new - the st in (rer AA Gy ‘ Jat anyve , ve | |
cha Minutes. 4 Ba cws “He shame - of ut ld look inte ene Twang |
“his b nd. clut : id ica ti He wus se ee CT SO uw oburegt ws into t] ying } |
, we reast ° ched ec Bates aor “ET, Pe. Syber us only oa n n th rand easi} he mir- | |
ul d ‘heaved onvul- [& es Te jus bert W: Mice \V ® dao easily s Mt |
; teen eath w and t vink or t never ¢ ade, the tah ‘ade ) rway of “sce any '
fe, minu ait b hen: Ee . Ica Is grew we clan D eked tne ro ‘i
: in th tes ther egan. JF Picscc s Ridi yop. ie ie ce rove inta th on. !
’ e ch re wWw or: ee an! é ecutor Cc ¢ ule ad ror, és ; d tow ec roo: '
# bf the amber as not ; Bi mnad umn ve and he ard th nN. His
avtician’ catwivea cia ie ick: tl i ‘made that nings ridicu bed, and No naw SbGk ft bureatl mir- |
Ky and in th tick- mrs he Wade di icwled ti in t Nott tt Iving mirs ;
12:16: spectators. hand Was dd did ele ai aan ns cot
e <: tors. ds of UG doing net k leds nirro : Vade' the
‘ firs 45 Dr. P. s eorgc nee Ww wh snow ; ad shouti r: -NOo : s refi ;
eon pr . B. : im Nan ea he i yt ae uting “Y tt ju ection
" a“the fi Eee Te . ead. yee Ave es rust, Sey dth ie scrieker ohnsto: t of here.” |
&: feted int nding nC. Fox c n: vhallo cn dull. 1 rhis ihe haten ser fled dow ". becomin
sis cho oaw " he body on- 7 beén ‘st w-minde Ww omMAayV top of a et he wi: OWN Sstai ming
‘unde icker | dy was even c upid b d. he aa Cian: tee.) Was car airs thr
Payeht rtaker H Yasket ¢c aoe e betwe ut ne mia |! on Wade’ ive hax : arrying ew
: e of on ee + wt ay . de ‘ Noa 5 o ’ ‘
bie vain into the nry KE. Bis fin Mis al ithe n right ae rew the i Fre ait s truck ou nd took fie the 7:
t g sheet w room, hop Mer Connec 1d wreng. ‘het there unti tinauih 1S seat
fn tay Aaa the Seah draped re black nthe | face 3 ecticut nee a “no went None 10 Pits ia atreet.
rt ; e : ‘ \ ’ Y lock. 3 ae
sack - fe pag pc abet lified rip the ae rps thie paral it. the eri I kK oand
at ous vii iceror thems the hited. ewe brutal ia Was | The atal Srugel :
SGOT onlight throug a in a We sadik eR TRE hl edi - young mi e,
oe ‘ ung, Ww ade’ “he of the a" the ' George the state of. —-—--- ig clinet neal a hn milk pedd ‘
a Z. Story Bese ne pad Buy. ae i was att Connecticut. ie fal sn the 4} Wade st eek and Not
cocci See of C ; es tet. idea " in hi attacked LOWS W read ck th P
mT, urder rame said 3 own t in 1 st weic t with th ve other |
he -as th of Ge ‘ finger We d the pr yed. w} iis ronger errific « pi pe. i
a) e.cul reorge io ‘he Vas rai osecul ile he and man’ and ct The:
nae at and j mination Ze NOLL. ad bludg ised in hi or, oN Nowt fig s fighting irtailed the |
oe e : llicit ] of a dra conf of th : seoned A lis defer a ot at cown t) hting power Me:
rome spas anes: MA Ace tabie age- “éldi through bins renga hy Ss aiaaa His: the aliwn stairs pains ol erately. pace
PALSY | ordi or th \ and bullets lis be awa | O":¢! ay of t the atti eG |
oo. Hom ng to e sume’: 4 ded ove lets fr ody x wee le seco he No uttic
ey er -S. State’ e'iand : er to W rom ur shot strugye ond fi tt ap: to!
ad ‘uted % Cum a At twenty Wade a revolver: 1; gezle dow oor artments
a , mi n Le kitch SY ay e by Mr Ver: his rev wn th NS Duri ts
re an” the + gs, wh miu Pit ounds xo Mrs. N bigs evolyer © stairs ing
ny n” ob case 10 «uUhe f nife from ~” . Nott land r W) irs, We the
8 ¥ fury m 1 4 ‘ ing a 1e ade fi i |
5 and obsebsion wit Women! “4s vty‘ of the utely testify! inane a eiEY. Ps n the Br asap tired |
4 in. inued to r h young: and th imed in attack, No ying te eer oe ott Reni hy the d floor | |
8 Shouse nibs up: ! mal Ain trunk sich his tA Ne s hodyv i nd sh ede tid head fir tba |
‘a low ‘ n in i " swam +. " Yried : or s tri ist Brae ih th iva” : $ oO t} . * do ab a] |
oy ane the > pin Ke away ink | j Then W ere j le f wi
he . The cray 4 There he saston.” toa dis tetany Wade g nai he ront d |
5 th made duri rayoarn. | hetwee nad beer ty dis: 'een ine Tet pesse < Pp. groan Or
6. fOr the oe wate berths hee 1at4. Wade 4 iy bob x 1) used on Node Taree te OL-a ola ge
8 enti-: Pa. whe ; No » brewing \ . t . cnife;’.." a-four- |
“wh It was a t part of wo nti ' her eae. n \rs. ean since ‘a bres fed, Wade Je twenty ty fe. This } ;
. ; a blag he: married men H m hueab ade i ards. { t rat « ft th mes Ve
a Or so pri ‘ran off to woman.! on an ty . and to i asain ee A ice acral ray
agp sips dey It ites his pha tat Ss Mera: Wa us ca ‘ of t's wi tea tt 20! ita vind : a ee the:
: roo s the w with: ther oo saw » ride, Wa ec 5 ree Vek hee utt's nt up-
ed hi mon G wome reatier much de it wn on he ow tronk |
s att olden n in | Relzhb r, and h of eac and ) stairs e pull WOM IGS tindeer He |
ed oO ention - Hill w Sib borho their re At h ot} a dl and ed the : tuke care ,
ig f his trial -f during ho. Nott ja Mets rossip relations mers a sitting pees Nene trunk wicca |
PTD: or Nott’ the. Was go: iid to } for se: were bEShe POSition s body i owns | |
nt ehoeki Ss mur-' i going 1 i aave $ ome time hy d -lewn Y. wit) oop peed
% trial king incident ego had} a i hype Wade i. AS a ove! ehh het the the poae
re he. WA en :.Wad of the,mur i crevolver veard Not Mm. and TC then star Vina pak he knees ene ; {
oa: her f Ruger Sais leaned Lap she Lo ihe Cine AR { Was cari mye “Dlashes ort WVOTR eines suit, Ww ott
ull irs, N » } dent a the office | Lgust arrying |, 004 sof blood ji n cleanin ade
“oblivi upon the ott and of pot tee of tt py Weg ttt comfor odin tt aning
Ife ous Loft C lips a a. mit to car fice, and 3 le guper ade tj ° ed £6 Prtalyte ne*hall s up |
fe and: the appar.) ¢d ow arrvea 6 d aske renter nts rethis we and i Woy. |
»mother« ie lemeatoied o* ee! the W revolver. Hts a per! [Non rhe ean rk. wnd oak ” bad |
gu few ing A ted fran) veal Was. ;: Was ask- “eapin believe hi the " er stuffed NY
Peeks We Shi ne oe he dha: im and Wad ay ‘ Mou e dq ote hav nody. Mrs “=
f ws Warne Ith N wo “ee role OE airs videnc ave beer s
ned by rhs he & Wife, een mo: |! Teor ih Ye Wad cof thet 1 busy
Superinten oe Nott's Mi hat. VAS ON ie Upre
dent ts Wo aie tleaning Ye Sirs! ~
n ‘ ee . “NURS ? ‘
itinuaus)
USE r,

‘away
: "Was:

Staep se
CO} ne M
Mrs. N
‘ott.

‘from the attic room down the twu

son avenue, went into the Nott «
had -an-engagement, with Nott. te
‘trunk ‘containing h’s* friend's hody!
uwas still in the first floor entry. He}

‘to look under a bed in one of Mrs. |

‘truck. On the way out to the,

plived the player piane. The his
dren were in the house all during
the fight. Mrs. Notts daughter is
said to bave called up Wade Sunday
morning after her mother had, it is}
alleged been beaten by her husband. |
telling him “papa and mamma had

trunele and to vome over to the;

WOURG EE
The police found. stains of blood

flights of stairs tu the first floor
landing, and on the wal] downstairs
was the bloody handprint of a man.
who had evidently thrust his hand
against’ the wall to prevent himself
from falling... ;

When Charles Ferguson. of Jud-;

house Sunday afternoon. because he

did not/ look. in. it. He also failed |

Nott’s rooms where Wade was hid. |
the, sy : yee ane |
’ After several attempts during :
Sunday afternoon, Wade finally suc- j

Le paket}

-eeeded in getting Johnston “at hist

home by telephone. He told him to;
meet. him at Park° and Benham,
avenucs, Johnston -met him there,

with Wade's trunk and they went fo,
-Nott’s home. There they got the ji.

murder trunk. and put it on rhe |
swamp near. Sport Hill. Wade told |
Johnston he had Nott's body in the!
trunk. When the swamp was reach- |
ed, the two men opened the trunk.!
put in three large stones, and threw.
it into quicksands. | Wade had heard :
that a cow was lost in the quick- :
sands at this point. and thre aput,.

‘was suggested to him as a likelv

hiding place for the trunk and body:
by that occurrence.

Wade's complete confession of the
killing followed a three hours. grill-
ing in Nott'’s attic room at 260 Jud-
son avenue, at which Coroner John
J. Phelan and Superintendent of .
Police . Flanagan. presided. After-
wards the gun and. buteher knife
were unearthed in a barrel, in which:
they had been — buried in’ Wade's:
yard.

Prior to Wade's confession, John-
ston had broken dd&wn and n@ide ‘a
clean breast of all he knew of the
erime and the disposition of the body
‘go the police.

NOICULRWICZ, Frank, white, 3 Conn eel 10=26- 1959.

u aga a Bene thre minute gun duel here
| Monday’ afternoon, a 54-year-old police ser t and a
| bystander were killed, and a 33-year-old ex-convi seriously e
}; wounded... —
| Police said: Sgt. ‘William J. Grabeck: of. 90 Bassett St. —
fell mortally wounded with five bullets in his body after aed
(he; attempted. to arrest Frank Wojculewiez, 33, of 310 -—
Worthington Ridge: Berlin, at the AYO Packing. Company,
| 332 Washington St. -< ea
Ht. During the fusilade—in which 15 shots. were ‘fired— s
[Rain ae at Ae nee mayen perted
sy e . ae

died instantly when a stray fay. ihe noise may have =
let_ struck his heart. . ot
Police and eyewitnesses told the: %
following, story: ‘peer an 3

Dul: 29, ieee Par a Sore hav eer Ge

5. Ca ) ¥

hing?

i but was: ri et as he went out’
ithe® door: ve a ‘Man. agar a:

ris

oi ef eae: beep ape i
motor ru near.

3 La sn we the plant. A cheek of its registrae ~

w retoh aoa attempt. is hs Bo ng ip aewil sald he told the bard t he tion Siectosnd_ it velongs. to Rus-

foreman

* ent B ad ae rly

The gunman whion killed a policeman and a bystander
hans a New Britain holdup yesterday twice was given a

> e i recent years to make goes on a his promise to “go
_ - His record, dating back to 1934, a
cwas against him but Atty. Thomas:
~ & McDonough of Hartford! :°
; pl in his behalf on both oc-|.
2 ~ that. Frank: Wojculewicz.'
ow 33. had “paid his dedt to so-.
ciety” and se eee pansies
f pest offenses. a

g is

BNET Ee

THE FIRST. T™E was. Oct. s. i
1948, when Wojculewicz was pre-;
sented in Superior. Court follow-
ing his arrest the previous June:
16 in New Britain. —.

Judge. John H. ‘King gave ‘him!

“chance that time. sentencing
‘Wojculewicz to: one year in jail.
‘suspended after the service of twe
months, and placing him on pro-
frais for tw6. years on a charge}
of: processing esaph need tools. He.
‘pleaded guilty. A charge of at-
tempted: breaking

: and. entering.

as: dropped. |
‘The next time was last June 12,
‘when he came before Judge
‘Thomas — _E.- Troland on five:

mips

43 died Brandes: in New Haven Hos-| }
pDBaL attet Ls Jong illness... He,

me ‘subdue :Wojculewicz in the.
Old: Town Hall Inn after he had’ ‘ :
reece con one Niecell at Eact] Prank Wojculewics, Berlin gun- Law School in 1927_Mr..
Hartford Police Headquarters and man who killed a New Britain; aS & leader in’ the

reatened | Ox break. his. wife's: policeman last night, pictured (eter consaudation: 3: res ‘

arm. after he staged a brawl in East | ‘elected to the.first board o

eer Mc Ponous h discussed Hartford last March in which ‘resentatives under the new| cor

‘pleading that the various inci-, he was finally subdue by 2 jernmens, te 1868. on Stamford)
dents all grew. out of a domestic. policemen.—Times Photo. 'Good Government Associat! he

Situation in which ~there were’
Many. extenuating circumstances. “interstate car, theft. two. ~years. iformerty

Sept. 19, 1936. Lewisburs. Pa, Ins attorney in : :
a result. Judge Troland said: attempted ‘escape from af eral | He. was president of: the ‘Stam

Fwolild give up his original in- Ss P
tention of sentencing Wojculewicz Penitentiary, 18 months. — fore: Hibleoti vane irre! coueal as

.to 10 months in jail. Instead. he May 7. 1937, Pittsburgh, Pa., mmi American ew-
followed “Judge. dase g s example robbery (of a post office . Six’ i Commitee. J
and sentenced him to'one year months. ; ‘Wotsey. wits a Fotcector: or
in . jail. suspended - after two. Oct. 15.. 1937. Scranton’: Pa. | the. slaatory. Community. Chest
months. with two Years probation fajjure to register a still. suspend-‘and the Family and and Children’
on a breach of the peace charge. _ed sentence, two years’ probation.' Center and director of the.
‘Concurrent 30-day sentences! pen 24. 1938, Scranton, Pa... Springdale Bank and ‘Trust Com Flash f

ne a assault ‘charges. and on | assault, six months. oes Pay of Sheet tty

, -vagrancy. and loitering.’ 8. fine < ele ok
za < alsin. “ ee or 30 days in jail. eel xtuthiadh— beh bodes atl tte! M ord
us Dec. 6, 1938. East St. Louls. nm,
“zanewile.Onlo, Fees ee see
neavilie Ohio.” ew a PD tere te 2
led, larceny nolled. ‘tempted. ‘rape, bound over to S ringfield, 3 Art artinge ‘dwelling h
X perior. Court. oe eas Epa ‘retired supervisor: gf death to at

, Wednesday
burial in
‘Wilson. :

Police Headquarters -dispatched| His service record shows that (
trolling in # cruiser in the vicinity, War I, he was awarded the Silver ©
7 Yl Star for gallantry in action. He -

Sergeant Grabeck and Patrolman/his government also honored the
Theodore Wojtusik, who were pa-|seraeant for bravery. In World

jto the scene.
| .Grabek took the front entrance Was also wounded in the war.

we,

ee
*

of the plant and ordered Wojtusik. Born here Jan. 25, 1898. Sere .

‘to check the rear. xeant Grabeck joined the depart-
He entered the door just as Manas a supernémerary Sept. 6.
Woiculewicz told the two prostrate 1919, was appointed a regular in
emnloves. “Don’t move.” 1923, and promoted to sergeant
|. The sergeant stuck his revolver Mar. 27. 1937, Earlier this year
In the bandit’s back, and said, he headed the now defunct vice
“Drop it."* squad.
6. O. & ' (Other Details, Pages 4 and 28)
SECONDS EARLIER. Otipka ++

entered the office to pick up his
wife.

‘OTIPKA FRANK WOJCULEWICZ known “it Otpes knew a noe, Worst Snow
:. _. Weunded Was in progress.

{ ; ae C tnree minaies i somewhat cons 1 SD ¥ CQrs

a ture Apparently. Wojculewicz—feel-. Hr S { ‘
P ing oie me! in ee back—whirled § its t: ouls

« around. fired wildly once. a- shot; e city’s
af) which may have hit Oti and) "St Louls—(AP)-— The ¢

; ading Assaults then opened up on the Seecarel wince snowstorm in 39 years
| Otipka. who police said may paralyzed the St. Louis metro-
prevent further. the stand taken previously by the have run in front of the gunman.} politan area: of about 1,600,000
advances into chief Communist negotiator, Gen. staggered a few Steps and fell: persons today and no letup before
Br ; 'Nam IJ, that fighting will go on'to the floor. Pive bullets hit the} nightfall.was in sight. -

officer said the until an armistice has been agreed; sergeant.. three in the chest, an- One foot of snow blanketed the
© stop the fight-'upon. - jother in the wrist. and a fifth city at mid-morning. The record
thout a’ formal| Nuckols said the UN. was re-iglanced: off his badge. breaking storm piled snow up to
they could stall luctant to commit itself to an “ir- a depth of nearly two feet
wished ‘on such revocable position” on a cease- ’ :
ate of thousands fire line. 3 :
P Gen. Willia Darnn’c Wi
Pee, im Wif
roan vam Juan Peron’s Wife
| =»: ald’ not even

Potter eeats Undergoes Operation ts stet t2 te

bE. armistice. in- i

rrangements re-\__

} of war now in »;

Be ‘this morning, it was offictally an-|* |

D the Commun- "Opneed. announcement said she decided whose
pday’s armistice stood the operation well and dit. -

: | Wojtusik fired through
poe aeebudiated that her condition was good. \eeaeg as Wo)

| i ° jentéred the room.
Ss Question of Cain's | then
a Positive Answer
hers has an

Civic aspect.
ligious one.

ag
a75

RE F

zee §

iz
if.

&
ae ofl

ae THE HARTFORD ‘clas TUESDAY, woven:
Woman Clerk Youths Plead Guilty |~ Sensattonallyy
Tells of Fright |foAssault, Robbery Iropcomrs:

| | Ment to. Frode: Forus: and: Phen Open Air
- OPEN DAILY 10 A. M. “Ta $

=i 3
This is when he

one. ef THINKINGOF [| Learn. About “Wat.
“Inoor outside the main office door'| REDECGRATING? ; “Thoroseal”’ and “Ou

jwhere Wojculewicg was shot, and'
a bullet-hole marred the wall of
‘ithe main office, about eight feet

| } nging, §
«above the floor. ri “a e
| Miss Dul surveyed the bullet- | a fin
thole and said, “Just think. if I¢ = * ; .

, hadn't gotten down. it. probably: Free Estimates. ‘ eas

-;Would have hit me.” : “ae! Bae, af Se

1 vse thought ea eure He Rk Phone. 4-5077 Aaa aie Ann St., Hartford, C
going to shoot. I just lay there ta at... hae ‘

bends watched the gun, wonder- Peter Gabriele a if SEEOR Tel, 2-4517
ing when.’ ! = -

e nal tintnisincepinnat

hat he bought”
was constantly ~

ling far in ex-

| show that she ~

mtion of.

gor par-

. in the case
w that a con-
| between Dr.
'. . In this
will show that
‘rred with other
nisleading their
on should any

10st of the fact
‘e weeks after
jtanley Steamer
The prosecutor
MacGregor had
Sparling total-

1ouse call,” the
1 “MacGregor
ast three house
1 Sundays—for
family in order

iny wrongdoing
were all wrong.
m was circum-
id sentenced to
against’ Carrie
1 Boomhower’s
volving her was

st accounts of
be mystery
ed. Not

ay to the prison
> was innocent.
rt reviewed the
but the doctor
in an effort to
ly managed to
n of Governor
nor Ferris be-
1 some investi-
governor pulled

‘igatiefn,” the gov-
’ that Dr. Mac-

and that the
terrible mistake

med the doctor
vanded him the
regor, who had
sband’s_ behalf,
ation.

way of recom-
ke,” Dr. Mac-
vsician at the
nmate for four
st’ with distinc-

i > caused
¢ -e’s later
€ suvefhor did
of MacGregor’s
se the evidence

0 didn’t murder '

say who did.

aa ee
Brit G rn

eile 42h ania

The Mark at Cain

Continued from page 27

brought his arms up and it looked like he
was pointing across the room with all 10
fingers. “You lied,” he sobbed. “Yeah. You.

‘That’s right; you. My kid brother. My kid

brother I used to keep warm in bed with my
feet in the winter. My kid brother who’s
ashamed to look up and see into my eyes.
You. You lied. You lied.”

The Chin threw back his head and closed
his eyes. He had begun to laugh while he was
talking. Now he was laughing like a madman.
He couldn’t stop. His face got red and the

“belly under his shirt looked like it would. -

come tearing through the buttons, it jerked
back and forth so hard. 7
“Hey!” A cop called out to Joe. “Knock
off the comedy !”
“Hey!” This time the cop meant it. He’d
got a cup filled with water and held it near
the hysterical man’s head. He’d- been forced

to do this once or twice before on other _
people. “Knock it off or you get this in the -

kisser.” . eee
~ There was no stopping it.
The cop flung his arm.

‘

The Chin quit. His eyes snapped open. His

face was wet with water from the cup and
from his eyes. He looked dazedly at his
brother, Albert. He was just about to say
something when he fainted.

Five hours earlier Albert, a medium-sized,
light-haired guy, had been standing around
the living room of his Park Terrace apart-
ment. It was January 24, 1951, and the

- weather outside was miserable. A shower of

ice-cold rain hit the room’s two lace-curtained

windows. It sounded as though an army of:

kids was. standing on the sidewalk down-
stairs shooting barrage after barrage of bee-
bees against the pane.

Albert turned his head towards the kitchen
door. “Ma!”

“What ?” The door opened. A small sturdy
gray-haired lady stood wiping her hands on
a dishrag. ““What ?”

Her son talked for a few minutes.

The woman dropped the dishrag on a chair.
“What should I do that for?”

“Call them up.”

“Don’t they come around here enough about
Joe that we got to call them and invite them ?”

“Call, Ma.”

The woman shrugged and picked up ‘the
-phone. She dialed for the operator and asked
for the -police. “Police Department?” She
looked over at her son. He was staring at the
wet window again. “This is Mrs. Taborsky.
Mrs. -Mabel Taborsky on Park Terrace. My
‘son Albert asked me to call you. He wants a

detective to come over to the house right .

away. He’s got something to tell you, he
says.” z

Looks Scared

Two detectives showed up 10 minutes later.
Mrs. Taborsky showed them into the living
room. Albert jumped up from his chair. He

looked scared.. “You can go, Ma,” he said.
“T should go?”

- “Yeah.”

“This is my house, too, Albert.”

The detectives fidgeted.

“T don’t want you to hear, Ma.”

“Tt’s something bad about Joe you’re going

, to say?” : .
- Albert didn’t answer this time. He went

into the bedroom for his jacket, put on a
battered hat and’ asked the detectives to drive
him to headquarters. He couldn’t say what
he had to say with his, mother around.

“Is it about The Chin?” one of the de-
tectives asked after the three men had piled
into the front seat of the car.

“Yeah. It’s about Joe.”

“En garde, varlet!”

Immediate Co

And Relief for
with

RUPTURE-E

(A PIPER BRACE PROD
For MEN, WOMEN and

\\ ~ give yo

comfort. Adjustable back
adjustable leg strap. ° S:
front. Soft flat groin pad
or leather bands. Un
comfort, invisible u

clothing. Washable. A
after operation support.

@ THE MOST EFFECTIVE HER
Thousands of people who h
fashioned, expensive device
ture-Easer for new comfort.

@ RUPTURE-EASER 1S SANIT.
Can be washed without har
you never offend when you
Easer.

@ NO FITTING REQUI

Just meagure around the |
the abdomen and specify
side or double. —

Over 300,000 Grat

Read What Others

R. C. of Corvallis, Oregon, Air
me another Rupture-Easer so I w
change off with. It is enabling |
top speed at my press machine 8 |
M. S. of Anderson, Ind., thanks
“It is one of the finest things I?
and has made my life worth livin
me untold ease and comfort.”

$11 Wyandotte, Kansas City
(Mote: Be Sure to give Size and Side |

PROVEN ye

PIPER BRACE COMPANY,
_ B11 Wyandotte, Kansas Ci

Please send my RUPTURE-EASER

Right Side O $3.95 Measure arc
Left Side 0 $3.95 of my abd
* Double O $4.95 . Tene

We Prepay Postage Except
Enclosed is: Money Order 0 Che

0) Send COD Be sure to give s
IN oo. nnnnannne sw etenenne nnn nonce ene neennenens

Address

City and Stote dente xcs i

RUSH THIS COUPON

<€

(Continued from page 6)
to return, since his capture would only
worsen family conditions.

In a 3-2 decision, the Appellate Divi-
sion of the New York State Supreme
Court reversed the convictions of Gerald
Price, 18, for the March 4, 1969, mur-
der and attempted robbery of Harry
Scolnick, a 57-year-old Long Island,
N.Y., plastics manufacturer (Money Is
Only Good for Living, March FRONT
pacE, 1970). The presiding justice said
that the jury had been improperly shown
a statement implicating Price in ‘the
crime and, therefore, he should be given
a new trial. Purportedly, Price — and
Joseph Bullard, 20, entered Scolnick’s
plastics firm with the intention of steal-
ing a $1181 payroll. Unfortunately for
the victim, the company’s check-cashing
schedule had been changed and there
was no ready cash available. When Scol-
nick attempted to explain the situation,
Bullard shot him down. Bullard pleaded

guilty to a reduced charge of first de-—

gree manslaughter and was sentenced
to a maximum term of 20 years in prison.
Price was given a life sentence for the
Scolnick murder and 15 years on the
attempted robbery charge.
oO

Nine Pagan motorcycle gang mem-
bers have been convicted and sentenced
for the kidnap slaying of two rival gang
members in Northern Virginia on March
26, 1970 (When the Bikers Go Berserk,
August FRONT PAGE, 1970). A long sim-
mering feud resulted in the abduction,
torture and murder of Saint members
Lewis “Weasel” Hartless, 21, and Rich-
ard “Newt” Newland, 19. Pagan mem-
bers James “professor” Cole, 20, and
Bradley “Lucifer” Hinckley, 25, pleaded
guilty to charges of second degree mur-
der and abduction of Hartless and were
given jail sentences of up to 20 years
on each charge. The prosecution dropped
all charges against them in connection
with Newland’s death. Isaac “Bear” Far-
ber, 29, received a one-year jail term
and 21-year-old Eugene “Bobba” Lam-
bert two years for their role in the

‘double murder. Albert “Filthy Frank”

Schoepper and Harry “Buck” Williams
were convicted on conspiracy charges
and _ sentenced, respectively, to seven
years and five years in prison. All but 12
months of Williams’ sentence was
pended. Victor Leonard Cassara, 3
Richard Scarborough, 25, pleaded guilty
and were convicted on charges of bein
accessories to the blood-bath. The moft
severe sentence was meted out to
alleged triggerman in the shootings,
Alexander “Head” Akers, 94. He was
given a life sentence for one killing and
an additional 40 years for the- second
slaying. The sentences are to run con-
secutively. - Reportedly, the prosecutor
said that he didn’t want Akers paroled
until he was too old to kill again. A
8

dat YO9¢
Moy

tenth defendant in the case, Alfred
“Pappy” Duffy, Jr., is currently in a
Galveston, Tex., jail, where he is fight-
ing extradition.

: Oo
Ben Chaney, Jr., 18, has been extra-
dited to Florida to face charges of hav-

ing slain two

Florida coeds and an in-

surance salesman last May (Backtrack-

ing an 800-Mile Trail of Terror and
Blood, September FRONT PAGE, 1970).
Chaney, brother of slain Mississippi civil

rights worker,
was acquitted

James Chaney, recently
on a charge of murdering

John R. Bazemore, 48, owner of a road-

side fireworks

store in South Carolina.

Chaney’s 16-year-old traveling compan-
ion was found guilty of those same
charges and sentenced to life imprison-

ment. Chaney
—one of whom

and two other young men
was killed during a shoot-

out in Bazemore’s store—allegedly had

killed Marlene

Mehnke and Donna Fink,

Ben CHANEY, JR.
Returned to face second freedom fight

both 21, on May 14, 1970, to gain pos-
session of their: money and their’ car.
The bodies of both coeds were found
fully clothed near Florida Atlantic Uni-

week earlier, John J. Bowes,
Miami insurance salesm,

portedly
d

May 5, 1970, in a
e roadside dump. Pur-

wes was kidnaped by Chaney
& others while out in his car mak-
collection calls, shot and then thrown -
into the dump.

Penal authorities in Somers, Conn.,

announced the death of Arthur Culombe,

46, confessed

slayer of six persons'in a

series of holdups between 1956 and 1957
(Kneel-down-and-die Dogs, June FRONT

PAGE, 1957).

The cause of death was

listed as a probable brain tumor. Culom-
be and Joseph L. Taborsky were con-
victed of first degree murder and. sen-

tenced to die
known as the
eight: holdups
one-year perio

in June, 1957. The pair,
“Mad-Dog Killers,” staged
and six murders within. a
d. Each of the victims was

4°

slain in the same cold-blooded style SMC ;
They had been forced to kneel and ther§ \owest price
were shot in the back of the headg

Taborsky was the last person to be exe SI
cuted in the state of Connecticut. Inet
1960, at the age of 36, he died in tha®
electric chair. Culombe escaped the sam¢ re
fate when his conviction was reversed +
by a higher court on the grounds tha’
his confession was improperly admitted
as evidence. At his second trial, he wa'
sentenced to life imprisonment afte
pleading guilty to second degree murde
He would have been eligible for parold
in 1977.

Stuffed Anima! Rad
your cost $5.75
sell for $14.95

a your cost $2.50
“Sy; sell for $7.95

Accused mass murderer John Lindle
Frazier, 24, failed in a recent attemp
to commit suicide. The former Califor
nia auto mechanic cut his left arm abovi
the wrist with a razor blade. Frazie
has been charged with five counts 0
murder in the senseless shooting deat
of prominent eye-surgeon Dr. Victo
Ohta, 47; his attractive wife, Virginia
43; his two young sons—Derrick, 1
and Taggart, 1ll—and Dorothy Cadi
wallader, his private secretary (A Swim
ming Pool Full of Corpses, February
FRONT PAGE, 1971), in the Ohta’s lu
urious Santa Cruz County home las
October 19. The bodies were found ij
the family swimming pool by firemei 14 Solid State Radio

ding to a blaze at the mansi dines.
respon ing a e'a e€ S10N sell for $9.98
The accused allegedly had left a note a
the scene of the bloodbath in which hj
referred to the occult and the ecolog
movement. The hippie community in th
area and Frazier’s wife a’ded police if gurptar Fire Alarm. Aes
their search for the suspect,-4'razier wa you cost 8c
seized as he slept in a méuntain cbee
not far from the Ohta estate. He has
since his arrest, entered a plea of inno
cent by reason of insanity to: the mur |,
der charges. J a

Laminated Padlock
your cost 20c
sell for 59c

Automatic Day-Date

Calendar your cost 25¢

ea. sell for $1.00 ez
fr

minated Make-Up Mirror
your cost $4.35

sell for $12.95

o ,
ry J. Karafin, one-time Philadel
ia newspaperman, has been ‘convictetighted
of perjury charges by a Pennsylvaniflower Coach :
Common Pleas court. The chargéan sence —_—
stemmed from an earlier hearing on

reputed blackmail activities (Philadel Make “instant” Sale

‘phia Story: Color It Black, Februan with SMC Product:

FRONT PAGE, 1969). After extensive in The Specialty age
vestigation, authorities had proved tha Corporaminyse sales. |
Karafin used his position as a star Té grabbed up to the *
porter for The Philadelphia Inquirer t millions of dollars eo
get on the payroll of various corpora because they ea
tions, in return for. a promise not tj tical and emotions’ ©
write expose articles on their activities :

Karafin’s conviction and receipt of aq Ra tig corvings oy
four-to-nine-year prison sentence Wa ;
greatly aided by testimony given be,
Sylvan S. Scolnick, a man who had hing=
self been indicted on 18 charges 4
fraud for his involvement in corrupt bu
ness dealings (The Scum Who “Scam,
May insivE, 1967). Scolnick claim

Robert H. O'De!!
“Each time | make
wholesale sales witr
SMC merchandise
least double my cost

Marvin Malloy Russe
“| made $1.862.45
profit the first mon!
with SMC working
time. $385.00 of tr
was made in one G2)

that he had arranged. with Karafin n@
to report on any of his fraudulent deabclalty merchand:
in exchange for a profitable cut of thi Can
illegal business earnings.

LT) dol

cone
cm oz, rm
E Sooner ences | Mee
=e

ob MEMES RG:

Victoria Zielinski

THE FRIGHTENED SCHOOLGIRL.
~ IN LOVERS’ LANE

(TD June, 1957) -

An honor student at high school in
Ramsey, New Jersey, Victoria Zielinski,
15, went to. the home of a friend in
Mahwah on the evening of March 4th,
1957, to study with her. She left there

at 8:30 p.m., but never reached her~

home, a mile and a half away. At mid-
night Vickie’s father reported her miss-
ing and began searching for her,
Shortly after 9 a.m. he found his
daughter’s body in a sandpit. A gash
in her-head had fractured her skull,

her jaw and her nose were broken. Two

bloodstained rocks lay nearby. Police
developed -evidence which led to the

arrest of Edgar Smith, 23, who lived:

with his wife and baby three blocks
away from the Zielinski home. Smith
finally. admitted picking up Vickie’ on
her way home and driving her to the
lane leading to the sandpit. He said he
remembered her trying to get out of the
car, but could not remembér anything
after that. 3 ;
In Hackensack on March 8th a grand
jury returned a first-degree murder in-
dictment against Edgar Smith. His trial
began on May 13th in Bergen County
courthouse in Hackensack. On May 29th,

after deliberating one hour and 51 min-.

OM uae

and two women
ct of guilty, with no
for mercy, making the
On June

utes, a jury of ten

o die in the electric chair during
th eek of July 15th,

KILL-CRAZY

(TD June, 1957)

Joseph L, Taborsky, 33, is no stranger
to Death Row in the Connecticut State
Prison at Wethersfield, Connecticut. He
spent four years there, under sentence
of death for the murder of Louis Wolf-
son, a Hartford liquor store dealer, on
March 23rd, 1950. On October 6th, 1955,
he was set free when it was established
that his brother Albert, whose _testi-
‘mony had convicted Joseph, was in-
sane.

There soon followed assaults, holdups
and murders in Hartford and surround-
ing towns. Among the victims were
Edward Kurpiewski, proprietor of a
New Britain, Connecticut, gas station
and -his customer, Daniel J. Janowski,
slain during a holdup on December 15th,
1956.. Joseph Taborsky and his pal
Arthur Columbe, also 33, were identi-
fied as the killers. Arrested’ in a. Hart-
ford rooming house on February 23rd,
1957, they confessed to six murders. Ta-
borsky then stated, “Albert may be
crazy, but he told the truth. I killed
Louis Wolfson, too.”

At their trial, on June 28th, 1957, for
the murders of Kurpiewski and Janow-
ski, the jury found Taborsky and Co-
lumbe guilty of first-degree murder,
with no recommendation for mercy.
Judge James C, Shannon then sentenced
Taborsky and Columbe to be executed
during the week of December 16th, 1957,
It is doubtful that Taborsky will again
walk out of Death Row a free man.

ave owl

BOMB MURDER OF THE
TEXAS MILLIONAIRESS

: (TD May, 1955)

In Houston, Texas, on January 19th,
1955, Mrs. Helen Harris Weaver, 51, wife
of a prominent Texas banker, was slain
by a. bomb attached to the engine of
her car. On February 12th Houston
businessman Harry L. Washburn, 38,
was indicted, charged with the murder
of. his former mother-in-law. In the
first murder trial televised directly
from the courtroom a jury, on December

. ‘9th, 1955, found Washburn guilty and

gt |
aed Cre 0

)

Report of latest legal developments
on cases published by TD

sentenced him to life imprisonment. On
review by the Texas Court of Criminal
Appeals that sentence was reversed be-
cause of a court error. A new trial in
Dallas was ordered. ‘

After 30 months in jail Washburn went
on trial for the second time, and again
the jury, after four hours’ deliberation,
found him guilty of murder. This jury
fixed his punishment at 99 years in
prison.

Still asserting his innocence, Wash-
burn told a newsman, “If they thought
I was guilty, they should have given
me the electric chair.” He added, “But
I really thought they were going to turn
me loose.” }

If the appeals court upholds the ver-
dict, Washburn will be eligible to apply
for parole after 15 years.

(ED April, 1954)

In Denver, Colorado, on the night of
December Ist, 1953, Evelyn Leick, 26,
started out for an evening at the movies
with her husband, LeRoy, and her older
sister, Vera. The three got into the front
seat of LeRoy’s car. A few minutes
later a man hiding in the.back seat of

the car attacked them with an iron bar.
LeRoy and Vera escaped. Evelyn was

strangled to death.:
Questioning of LeRoy Leick’s fellow
employees at the salvage brokerage firm

‘where he worked “presently revealed a

Evelyn Leick

diabolical plot
refused to ass

Dukes, 20, cor

to participate
$2000 to make
ing. Dukes
strangled his
On Decem!
Leick were ir
ver district ©
murder appe<
on the slain
cent and inn
Dukes pleade
to life impr!
tentiary at C
At his tr)
Leick was fo
death. Afte
which decla
was granted
ruary 18th,
him guilty |
to die in th«
Leick, nc
years now i
ligion. Un

taken to a ¢
tized. He
appeal to
will result

Arres
March |
der of |
roll M:
1957, R
to five
tims be
and th)
two ot
tempti

Her
tin be:
only ¢
eratio)
» senter

by Ed DeBlasio.

It was brother against brother; Albert
accusing, Joseph denying. It was Albert
who was believed and his statements were

almost enough to send Joe to the chair

INSIDE DETECTIVE, JUNE, 1952.

Set

And he said, What hast thou done? the voice of thy
brother’s blood crieth unto me from the ground.

Genesis, Ch. 4

M@ THEY WERE BROTHERS. Joseph, 27, was called
The Chin because he had a long funny-looking
chin. Albert, two years younger, was called Albert
because he had a plain face with so little distinc-

Bak

seb Ene ce

tion that no one had ever looked at it long enough
to bother nicknaming it, or if they had could
think of nothing better than Albert.

They sat at separate ends of the smoky room,
The Chin staring at Albert and Albert staring
down at nothing at all. The Chin’s fist was
clenched and he was saying, “That damned liar.
That damned lying brother of mine.” And his
fist held hard as stone. :

One of the Hartford, Conn., detectives in the
headquarters room told The Chin to cut the noise.
“We've been here three hours and you’ve been
doing nothing but mumbling like an old lady.
If you haven’t anything worth saying then shut
up—that’s all—shut up.”

The Chin didn’t hear. It’s hard for a man to
hear when he’s crying. The Chin’s hands were
handcuffed together. He (Continued on page 57)

o
g
¢
©
2
>

itecC uo (pcotTazenr) *uuC

;
¢
a
X

i A AEE RP Oy. eongete i ea ar ae

21h Ati ety as ts elie lls gy Mt PRR

4
3

240 Conn.

lay in affording them’ counsel or that they
had been forced to plead without benefit of
professional legal advice and, that, as a
result, opportunity for fair trial had been
denied them. Gen.St.1958, § 54-78; U.S.
C.A.Const.: Amend, 14; Const. art. 1, § 9.

10. Criminal Law €=517(1)

A confession is not admissible in evi-
dence unless it is voluntary.

{f. Criminal Law. €=532(2), 1153(6)

Whether confession was voluntary is
issue-of fact to be determined by court
in exercise of legal discretion, and its
decision will not be disturbed unless that
‘discretion has been abused.

12. Criminal Law €=532(1), 671

Issue of admissibility of confession
should ordinarily be resolved by court after
preliminary hearing in absence of jury.

13. Criminal Law €=519(8)

Where neither defendant at time
thought his d&tention to be illegal, any
irregularity in detention could not be
deemed to have induced, or contributed to
inducement of, confession. Gen.St.1958, §
6-49.

14. Criminal Law ¢>522(!)

On record presented, in prosecution
for murders committed in perpetration of
robberies, it was not an abuse of discre-
tion to admit defendants’ confessions, not-
withstanding their claims that confessions
were products of duress, threats and
psychological pressure.

15. Criminal Law €=782(10)
Homicide €=235

In prosecution for murders committed
in perpetration of robberics, trial court
properly instructed with regard to, and
evidence was sufficient to justify convic-
tions under, the so-called two-witness rule.
Gen'St.1958, § 54-83. -

158 ATLANTIC REPORTER, 2d SERIES

16. Homicide €=237

In prosecution for murders committed
in perpetration of robberies, evidence
would sustain finding that defendants had
had the required mental capacity to com-
mit crimes with which they were charged.

17. Criminal Law €=317

It was right of defendant not to take
stand to deny his guilt or to show that
proof offered by state. was not true, and
exercise of that right did not relieve state
from establishing guilt beyond reasonable
doubt.

18. Homicide €>253(6)

Convictions for murders in the first
degree committed in the perpetration of
robberies were sustained by ~ evidence.

Gen.St.1958, § 53-9.

19. Jury €=83(3)

That prospective juror, as city official,
had participated in adoption of resolu-
tion offering reward for arrest of per-
petrators of crime in which it later de-
veloped defendants were implicated did
not require his disqualification, where ex-
amination clearly indicated a lack of any
prejudice; and in prosecution for murders
committed in perpetration of robberies,
it was not an abuse of discretion to deny
defendants’ motions to excuse such pro-
spective juror. Gen.St.1958, § 51-242.

20. Jury €>103(1 1)

Even though some of veniremen
stated on their examination on voir dire
that they had read newspaper accounts and
had heard and seen radio and television
broadcasts which led them to opinion that
defendants were guilty, court’s failure to
excuse veniremen could not be disturbed
where it appeared that veniremen had
stated that they could and would disre-
gard any opinion they might hold and it
appeared that their opinions and supposi-
tions had not in fact incapacitated them
from sitting as impartial jurors. Gen.St.
1958, § 51-242,

¢
|
F |

STATE v. TABORSKY Conn, 24]
Cite as 158 A.2d 239

21. Criminal Law €=785(7)

Where some of statements upon which
experts testifying in behalf of one defend-
ant could have relied were in evidence
from testimony of experts themselves as
to history given to them by such defend-
ant, and some from lips of such defendant
as a witness, it was not error for court
to charge that in weighing opinions of
experts jurors should take into considera-
tion fact that those opinions might be
based wholly or in part upon statements
made to experts by defendants who, being
on trial for their lives, were not disin-
terested witnesses and were not, when
they made statements, under oath. Prac-
tice Book, §§ 153, 398 and Form No. 559,
subd, B.

22. Criminal Law €=438

In prosecution for murders committed
in perpetration of robberies, trial court
did not abuse its discretion in admitting
in evidence a photograph depicting facts
material to state’s case, notwithstanding
defendant’s claim that it was so gruesome
as to arouse prejudice of jury.

—_—_>——

Wallace R. Burke, Hartford, Special
Public Defender, with whom were John J.
daly, Asst. to Special Public Defender, and
Maxwell Heiman, Hartford, for appellant
(defendant) in the first case.

Alexander A. Goldfarb, Hartford, Spe-
cial Public Defender, for appellant (de-
fendant) in the second case.

John D. LaBelle, Manchester, State’s
Atty., for appellee (state) in each case;
with him, on the brief in the second case,
were J. Read Murphy, Hartford, and
George D. Stoughton, W. Hartford, Asst.
State’s Attys.

Before BALDWIN, C. J., and KING,
MURPHY, MELLITZ and SHEA, JJ.

BALDWIN, Chief Justice.

The defendants, Joseph L. Taborsky and
Arthur Culombe, were convicted of murder
158 A.2d—16

in the first degree in a joint trial to a jury
in the Superior Court. They were indicted
under what is now § 53-9 of the General
Statutes for the killing of Edward J.
Kurpiewski and Daniel J. Janowski, com-
mitted during a holdup at a gasoline station
in New Britain on December 15, 1956. The
defendants, in their appeals, have assigned
error in the rulings of the court preliminary
to the trial, in the admission of their con-
fessions and other evidence during the trial,
in the charge, and in the denial of their
motions to set aside the verdicts of guilty.

On December 15, 1956, the bodies of
Edward J. Kurpiewski and Daniel J. Jan-
owski were found in Kurp’s gasoline sta-
tion on Stanley Street in New Britain.
An autopsy revealed that both had died
from bullet wounds in the head. In the
afternoon of February 23, 1957, the defend-
ants were taken into custody by the state
police. Culombe, on February 27, and Tab-
orsky, on March 1, confessed to robberies at
the gasoline station and to the two homi-
cides. Each confession corroborated the
other in the main. A general summary of
the facts contained in them follows: About
6 p. m. on Saturday, December 15, 1956, the
defendants drove in Culombe’s Oldsmobile
from Hartford to New Britain. They were
armed and they intended to hold up a gaso-
line station. They stopped at Kurp’s sta-
tion. The proprietor, Kurpiewski, serviced
their car. Taborsky left the car to go, as
he said, to the toilet im the station. After
Culombe had paid for the gasoline, he
ordered Kurpiewski, at gun point, into the
boiler room of the station, shot him, and
took his wallet. Meanwhile, Taborsky was
searching the main office of the station for
moncy. Culombe joined him and_ they
found and took money from the cash regis-
ter and the desk. During this search Jan-
owski, who had his eighteen-month-old
daughter with him, drove up and stopped by
the pumps. Taborsky and Culombe waited
in the station, but when Janowski did not
drive away they came out. Culombe pre-
tended to service Janowski’s car. Taborsky
pointed a gun at Janowski, took his wallet

=c- ttc

340 Conn.

fer where the court is satisfied that there
exists so great a prejudice against the de-
fendant that he cannot obtain a fair and
impartial trial in the district in which he is
first charged. The trial judge found that
such prejudice existed. United States v.
Parr, D.C., 17 F.R.D. 512; Cox v. State, 90
Tex.Cr.R. 106, 234 S.W. 72; State v. Craf-
ton, 89 Iowa 109, 56 N.W. 257; Gallaher v.
State, 40 Tex.Cr.R. 296, 50 S.W. 388.

In the case of Delaney v. United States, 1
Cir., 199 F.2d 107, 39 A.L.R.2d 1300, the
court ruled that failure to grant a postpone-
ment of the trial was error, because con-
gressional investigation of the affairs of
the defendant was in progress at that time
and the rights of the defendant prejudiced.
This ruling apparently fitted the circum-
stances of the case, but is not authority for
defendant’s claims because no motion for
change of venue was filed. kre

[5] It is fair to say that the preponder-
ance of judiciai opinion on the subject calls
for a finding by the trial court that public
prejudice would preclude a fair trial. In-
temperate expressions of a mass of people
following inflammatory publicity are insuffi-

131 ATLANTIC REPORTER, 2d SERIES

cient to show the impossibility of a fair trial
in a county the size of Hartford County.
56 Am.Jur. 70, § 70; Elias v. Territory, 9
Ariz. 1, 76 P. 605; State v. Schneider, 158
Wash. 504, 291 P. 1093, 72 A.L.R. 571.
Proof that derogatory articles were pub-
lished in some of the cities of the county
and publicized throughout the county by
radio and television is not proof that a fair
trial cannot be held within the county, or
that the county as a whole is so prejudiced
that a fair trial cannot be had. Pennsyl-
vania R. Co. v. City of Reading, 254 Pa. 110,
98 A. 791; State v. Gordon, 32 N.D. 31, 155
N.W. 59.

From the evidence presented, the court is
of the opinion that a jury can be selected in
Hartford County that would be fair and
impartial, and that the defendants will get a
fair trial. With the peremptory challenges
enjoyed by each defendant under our law
and with the additional safeguards assured
them by a fair and impartial presiding
judge, during the selection of a jury, the
defendants will be doubly guaranteed of a
fair trial.

The motions for a change of venue are
denied.

BRAUGHLER v. COMMONWEALTH Pa,

341

Cite as 131 A.2d $41

388 Pa. 573
Darhl K. BRAUGHLER and Ruby
Braughler, Appellants,
v.

COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania,
April 26, 1957.

Condemnation proceeding by state to
take 4.3 acres of 58 acre farm, which had
been purchased three months previously for
$6,000. From an order of the Common
Pleas Court, County of Indiana, as of
June Term, 1954, No. 266, Edwin M. Clark,
J., granting a_new trial upon property
owners’ refusal to remit that portion of
6,000 verdict over and above $4,500, the
property owners appealed. The Supreme
Court, No. 10, March Term, 1957, Chidsey,
J, held that the trial court did not abuse
its discretion in granting a new trial on

ground that verdict was against weight of
evidence.

Order affirmed.

Musmanno, J., dissented,

'. Eminent Domain 131

Measure of damages to an owner’s
Lab - :
rToperty in condemnation proceeding : is

* e5
“ference in its value before and after the
taking,

2. Eminent Domain €=205

: Owner of property involved in con-
: nen proceeding has burden of proof
7 rej
¥ fair weight or preponderance of evi-

don Pa
a to establish value of land before and
‘ster condemnation.

2 Eminent Domain €=224

Mg preceesing for condemnation of 4.3
i o land constituting part of 58 acre
acc which had been purchased three
na Lggepinseo for $6,000 and which
me ) been improved since purchase,

court did not abuse its discretion in

Pinting new trial upon refusal of property

owners, who still had buildings and major
Portion of farm, to remit all of $6,000 ver-
dict over and above $4,500.

4. Appeal and Error ¢>1002, 1015(3)

Where testimony is conflicting, verdict
of jury will be upheld but granting of new
trial will not be reversed where trial court
was justified in finding that evidence ad-

duced by verdict-winner was unworthy of
belief.

5. Appeal and Error €=977(3, 5)

Reviewing court will not reverse an
order granting or refusing a new trial un-
less palpable abuse of discretion appears.

—_o—_—

Lee C. McCandless, Butler, James L.
Jack, Jr., Indiana, for appellant.

G. S. Parnell, Sr., G. S. Parnell, me
Parnell & Parnell, Indiana, John R. Rez-
zolla, Joseph L. Donnelly, Thomas D. Mc-
Bride, Harrisburg, for appellee.

Before JONES, C. J., and BELL,
CHIDSEY, ARNOLD and JONES, JJ.

CHIDSEY, Justice.

This is an appeal from the grant of a
new trial in an eminent domain proceeding.

On January 23, 1951 the Governor of
the Commonwealth approved plans for the
relocation of State Highway Route 80
which traversed the appellants’ property in
Rayne Township, Indiana County, The re-
located highway extended through appel-
lants’ property for a distance of 1,375 feet.
Both the old and the new highway ran
along a steep hillside on the eastern por-
tion of the appellants’ property. The
right-of-way taken for the relocation was
100 feet in width but because of slopes
and fills additional land, varying from 75
to 106 feet in width had to be taken at
points on the sides. The total area taken
was 4.3 acres. Appellants’ property was
farmland, consisting of between 57 and 58

238 N.J.

fers no fiat to supply the deficiencies that
may seem to exist in the handiwork of the
Legislature. The doctrine that wages
earned in separate, concurrent, similar em-

ployments should be combined is by no ~

means generally accepted. In some states
it has been accepted, in others rejected.
In any event, it is fallacious to apply to the
interpretation of our statute the many
shades of judicial opinion that have been
expressed in the interpretation of statutes
that are essentially different from ours.
As was observed by the Appellate Division
in Knight vy. Cohen, 56 N.J.Super. 516, 524
153 A.2d 334 (1959), the determination of

158 ATLANTIC REPORTER, 2d SERIES

whether compensation: should: take into
account all of the earnings in separate em-
ployments is a matter of legislative policy.
In its present form our statute is not ex-
pressive of such a policy.

The award will be reduced to the statu-
tory minimum of $10 per week. This de-
termination necessarily entails a reduction
of the counsel fee allowed in the Work-
men’s Compensation Division. Counsel

may present their views thereon at some
convenient time.

A judgment, consented to as to form,
may be submitted.

STATE v. TABORSKY Conn. 239
Cite as 158 A.2d 239

STATE of Connecticut
v.
Joseph L. TABORSKY.

STATE of Connecticut
’ Vv.

Arthur CULOM BE.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

Feb. 16, 1960.

After denial of their motions for
change of venue, 20 Conn.Sup. 242, 131
A.2d 337, defendants were convicted in the
Superior Court, Hartford County, Shannon,
J., of murders in the first degree, committed
in the perpetration of robberies, and they
appealed. The Supreme Court of Errors,
Baldwin, C. J., held that the evidence sus-
tained the convictions.

No error.

1. Criminal Law €=622(1)

Whether separate trials should be al-
lowed rests in sound discretion of trial
court.

2. Criminal Law €=622(1)

Where most of material facts in each
confession were substantially same as in
other, each confession, if legally corrob-
orated, was sufficient to convict defendant
making it of murder in first degree, jurors
were cautioned that éach confession was
to be considered only in state’s case against
defendant who made it, and no material
fact incriminating either of defendants
which would not have been before jury if
he had been tried separately was adduced,
no injustice could be deemed to have re-
sulted from denial of one defendant’s mo-
tion for separate trial.

3. Criminal Law C= 134(1, 4)

In prosecution for murders committed
in perpetration of robberies, defendants’
moving for change of venue, had burden of
proving that fair and impartial trial could

not be had in county; and evidence present-
ed established that fair trial could be had
notwithstanding fears aroused by series of
holdup killings and publicity, referring to
perpetrators of such crimes as “mad kill-
ers > Gen.St.1958, -§ 54-78; U.S.C.A.
Const. Amend. 14; Const. art. 1, § 9.

4. Criminal Law €=641(4)

An accused who cannot provide coun-
sel for himself is entitled to competent rep-
resentation, but he is not entitled to a choice
of counsel. Gen.St.1958, gg 54-80, 54-81.

5. Criminal Law €—232

Accused’s appearance for booking at
police headquarters for breach of peace
was not a hearing, and for it he did not
require counsel. Gen.St.1958, §§ 54-80, 54-
81.

6. Criminal Law 232

Presentation of accused in police court
without counsel in. no way jeopardized his
rights, where case was continued and he
was not required to, and did not, enter plea
and he was not called upon to do or say

anything. Gen.St.1958, §§ 54-80, 54-81.

7. Constitutional Law e268

Law enforcement problems vary
widely in the several states, and state
enforcement 1s accorded some latitude
when an alleged violation of due process
clause of Federal Constitution is under
consideration. Gen.St.1958, § 54-78; U.S.

C.A.Const. Amend. 14; Const. art. 1, § 9.

8. Criminal Law €=641(1)

An accused is entitled to counsel to
aid him in his defense, but not to prevent
voluntary action on his part.

9. Criminal Law 232, 264

On record presented, in prosecution
for murders committed in perpetration of
robberies, it could not be-said that during

investigation and questioning of defend-
ants there had been an unreasonable de-

a¥

ST eek

:
rE
Pi
3
:

VMN e wait Mer

P-S DA BEG ON BME Se

I ih, Se peta t> Sg

242 Conn.

and ordered him into the station and then
into the toilet room, where Taborsky shot
him twice in the left side of the head above
the ear. Taborsky and Culombe then drove
to Culombe’s house in Hartford and divided
the money. . Taborsky returned later that
evening to his home in Brooklyn, New
York.

[1,2] Before the trial began, Tabor-
sky filed’ a motion for a separate trial
which the court denied. This action is as-
signed as error. Taborsky claimed that
the defense to be offered by Culombe
would be antagonistic to his defense and
that Culombe’s confession, if admitted in
evidence, would be prejudicial to him.
Whether separate trials should be allowed
rests in the sound discretion of the trial
court. State v. McCarthy, 133 Conn. 171,
174, 49 A.2d 594; State v. Luria, 100
Conn. 207, 209, 123 A. 378; State v. Klein,
97 Conn. 321, 323, 116 A. 596; State v.
Castelli, 92 Conn. 58, 62, 101 A. 476; State
v. Brauneis, 84 Conn. 222, 226,°79 A. 70.
In each confession, most of the material
facts were sybstantially the same as in
the other. See People v. Doran, 246 N.Y.
409, 425, 159 N.E. 379; People v. Fisher,
340 Ill. 216, 227, 172 N.E. 743; State v.
Rios, AY -NJe, 572, 585, 112 A. 2d 247 *
Kirkendoll v. State, 198 Tenn. 497, 522,
281 S.W.2d 243; Opper v. United States,
348 U.S. 84, 95, 75 S.Ct. 158, 99 L.Ed. 101.
Each confession, if legally corroborated,
was sufficient to convict the defendant
making it of murder in the first degree.
An examination of all the testimony in the
joint appendix to the briefs discloses no
material fact incriminating either of the
defendants which would not have been
before the jury if he had been tried sepa-
rately and only his own confession ad-
mitted. See State v. Castelli, supra, 92
Conn. 64, 101 A. 479. The court was
meticulous in cautioning the jury many
times during the trial, especially when the
counsel for either Taborsky or Culombe
made objection, that each confession was
to be considered by the jury only in the
state’s case against the defendant who had

158 ATLANTIC REPORTER, 2d SERIES

made it. See State v. McCarthy, supra,
133 Conn. 175, 49 A.2d 596; State v. Cas-
telli, supra, 92 Conn. 63, 101 A. 478. This
caution was repeated in the charge to the
jury. Upon the whole record, it does not
appear that any injustice was done to
Taborsky by the denial of his motion for
a separate trial.

[3] Both defendants moved for a
change of venue. General Statutes, § 54-
78. Prior to their apprehension by the
police, there had been a series of holdup
killings which had particularly aroused
the fears of the operators of gasoline
stations, package stores and small shops.
Newspapers and radio and television net-
works throughout the state published and
broadcast news of these crimes and re-
ferred to those perpetrating them as “mad
killers.” The court conducted a lengthy
hearing on this feature of the cases. Edi-
tors of newspapers, radio broadcasters and
many others testified, and a number of
newspaper files were received as exhibits.
While some of the witnesses stated that
the public were aroused against the defend-
ants after they had confessed, by far the
greater number testified to facts from
which a conclusion could reasonably be
drawn that a fair trial could be had in
Hartford County. The court. concluded
that the defendants had failed to sustain
the burden of proving, as the law requires
them to do, that a fair and impartial trial
could not be had in Hartford County.
State v. Chapman, 103 Conn. 453, 470, 130
A. 899; State v. Rocco, 109 Conn. 571, 572,
145 A. 47; State v. Rogers, 143 Conn. 167,
172, 120 A.2d 409, certiorari denied 351
U.S. 952, 76 S.Ct. 850, 100 L.Ed. 1476; 4
Wharton, Criminal Law and Procedure, p.
114. The court did not abuse its discretion
in denying the motions for a change of
venue,

[4-9] The defendants claim that they
were denied counsel in violation of the
fourteenth amendment to the federal con-
stitution and article first, § 9, of the con-
stitution of this state. They were taken

STATE v. TABORSKY Conn. 243
Cite as 158 A.2d 239

into custody by the state police on Satur-
day afternoon, February 23. On February
25, they were taken by the state police to
police headquarters in New Britain, where
they were booked for breach of the peace.
They were presented in the Police Court
in New Britain on February 26, when their
cases were continued until March 5 with-
out plea. On February 28, bench war-
rants having been served upon them
charging them with murder in the first
degree, they were presented in the Su-
perior Court in Hartford. The court or-
dered them placed in the custody of the
state police for further investigation. Be-
fore this was done, however, the defend-
ants were asked whether they had counsel.
It appearing that they did not and that
they were without funds to provide any,
the court offered to assign counsel to them.
Taborsky stated that he did not want the
public defender. “He asked for Attorney
Nathaniel Bergman or, if he was not avail-
able, Attorney Wallace R. Burke. Berg-
man not being able to undertake the case,
Burke was assigned as counsel. Culombe
also refused the services of the public de-
fender and asked that Attorney Thomas
McDonough be appointed to defend him.
The court appointed McDonough.! Provi-
sion is made by law. for the appointment
by the judges of a public defender to act
in behalf of accused persons who are un-
able to provide counsel for themselves.
General Statutes, § 54-80; State v. Reid,
146 Conn. 227, 234, 149 A.2d 698. Never-
theless, each of these defendants was pro-

vided with counsel of his own choice who

acted as a special public defender at the
expense of the state. § 54-81. Although
an accused who cannot provide counsel for
himself is entitled to competent representa-
tion, there is nothing in our law which
requires that he be given a choice of coun-
sel.

The finding made by the court concerning
the admissibility of Taborsky’s confession

!. After the trial and during the pendency
of the appeal, McDonough died. Alex-

shows that Taborsky did not ask for an
attorney until he was presented in the Su-
perior Court on February 28. The finding
made in the Culombe case concerning the
admissibility of his confession shows that
Culombe, almost from the time of his
first contact with the police concerning
the New Britain murders, had abundant
opportunity to call an attorney; for ex-
ample, the police offered to call any at-
torney whom Culombe would name, but he
named none; he was taken to his house
by the police and there talked with his
wife; she also saw him at state police
headquarters. Taborsky claims that he
should have been provided with counsel
in time for the counsel to represent him
at his presentation in the Superior Court
on February 28. Culombe appears to as-
sume that immediately upon his apprehen-
sion he should have been offered counsel
by the state. His appearance for booking
at the police headquarters in New Britain
was not a hearing, and for it he did not
require counsel. His presentation in the
Police Court in New Britain without coun-
sel, when his case was continued, in no
way jeopardized his rights. He was not
required to, nor did he, enter any plea, nor
was he called upon to do or say anything.
See State v. Reid, supra, 146 Conn. 235,
149 A.2d 701. The “refusal of a request
to engage counsel violates due. process not
only if the accused is deprived of counsel
at trial on the merits, Chandler v. Fretag
[348 U.S. 3, 9, 75 S.Ct. 1, 99 L.Ed. 4] but
also if he is deprived of counsel for any
part of the pretrial proceedings, provided
that he is so prejudiced thereby as to infect
his subsequent trial with an absence of
‘that fundamental fairness essential to the
very concept of justice.’ Lisenba v, People
of State of California, 1941, 314 U.S. 219,
236, 62':S.Ct. 280, 290,*86 L.Ed. -166,° Cf.
Moore v. State of Michigan, 1957, 355
U.S.. 155, 160, 78 S.Ct. 191, 194, 2 L.Ed.2d
167. The latter determination necessarily
depends upon all the circumstances of the

ander A. Goldfarb was appointed special
public defender in his place.

Imes
ute
4
>
*
.
t
ha
tC. ¥

adi

ct rE A RR RO AN

_—emremennean Len lA BIO IS NOE| ET N

ener cane

64 70 ATLANTIC

ed by the defendant, Lucaszewicz, when last
seen, was being pursued by the defendant,
who was armed with a fence picket. This
witness was not positive in her identification.
Other evidence connecting the defendant with
the crime tended to show previous quarrels
between the parties, threats, motive, declara-
tions subsequent to the disappearance of
Lueaszewicz showing guilty knowledge, flight,
and other guilty conduct by the defendant.
This evidence, also, was substantially uncon-
tradicted. It was evidence to be weighed by
the jury. If they were satisfied that the wit-
ness who testified to the assault upon Lueas-
zewiez was truthful, and that she was correct
in her belief that the person who committed
the assault was the defendant, and were also
satisfied ag to the existence of the motive for
the crime, and of the fact of the previous
threats and subsequent declarations, then
there was very strong evidence upon which
to find the guilt of the accused. It was the
province of the Jury to determine the value
of this evidence tending to connect him with
the crime, and to say whether it was equiva-
lent to the testimony of two witnesses and
therefore suflicient to establish his guilt of
murder in the first degree. ‘They were fully
instructed as to the law bearing upon these
matters, and have found him guilty of mur-
der in the first degree. The trial judge who
heard and saw the witnesses has refused to
set aside the verdict. As we have repeatedly
said, great weight is to be given to the action
of the trial court in any ease in granting or
refusing a motion to set aside a verdict.
This is especially true in a capital case,
where it must be presumed that he gave the
matter most serious consideration before
passing upon the motion. We have sarefully
read the testimony, and think that the jury
were warranted in finding the verdict which
they did.

The defendant complains that, in view of
his claim upon the trial, that the state had
failed to prove the death of Lucaszewicz, or
that it was the latter's body which had been
found, and the claim that his mere disap-
pearance was not of itself suflicient proof
of the corpus delictt, the charge of the court
upon this branch of the case was.not only
inadequate for the instruction of the jury,
but was injurious to the accused, in that it
assumed throughout that the corpus delieti
was established. But the court very clearly
stated to the jury that the state was bound
to prove that Lueaszewiez was dead, and
that his death was caused by human agency.
And after saying to the jury that the state
claimed to have established these facts, it
continued: “The burden is upon the state to
prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the
dead body found, as claimed in the testimony
for the state, was the body of Peter Lucasze-
wiez. This is one of the facts necessary to
be established to warrant the conviction of

REPORTER. (Conn.

in order to establish the death of Peter, to
establish the death of the man claimed to
have been killed; a failure on the part of
the state to establish such death beyond a
reasonable doubt should be followed of course
by an acquittal of the accused.” The court
then, after having stated and commented up-
on the other claims of the state, called the
jury’s attention to the claims of the defend-
ant, and among them to his elaim that it
had not been proven that the dead body was
that of Lucaszewicz. The jury could not
have understood from the charge given them
that the court assumed that the corpus delicti
had been established; on the contrary, they
could not have failed to understand that the
parties were at issue upon the facts essen-
tial to its establishment, and that they, the
jury, were to determine from the evidence
whether those facts had been proved. The iso-
lated sentences or parts of sentences to
which reference is made in the defendant’s
brief as showing the court’s assumption that
the death of Lucaszewicz had been estab-
lished, are found for the most part in those
portions of the charge wherein the court is
stating the state’s, or defendant's, claims,
and not the court’s own opinion as to what
had been established by the evidence. The
remarks criticised are to be considered in
connection with the context and with the
charge as a whole. State v. Rathbun, 74
Conn. 524, 531, 51 Atl. 540. So considered,
the charge presents no grounds for the crit-
icisms mentioned.

Complaint is made of the court’s charge as
to the amount of evidence required to justify
a verdict of murder in the first degree. The
court having told the jury in the language of
section 1508 of the General Statutes of 1902
that “no person shall be convicted of any
crime punishable by death without the testi-
mony of at least two witnesses or that which
is equivalent thereto,” instructed them that
murder in the first degree is so punishable
and that the statute applies to convictions
for that crime. Ile then said: “You will
observe that the requirements of this statute
are not confined to the testimony of two wit-
nesses. It goes further, and adds, ‘or that
which is equivalent thereto ;’ that is, equiva-
lent to the testimony of two witnesses. It is
enough if the testimony is, in the minds of
the jury, equivalent to that. Neither is it
required that there should be two witnesses
to every important fact. If there are two or
more witnesses, each testifying to different
parts of the same transaction, or to different
circumstances surrounding the case, tending
directly to show the guilt of the accused, it
may be regarded as a. sufficient compliance
with the statute, although there may not be
two witnesses to any one fact or circum-
stance.” This was a correct statement of the
law. State vy. Smith, 49 Conn. 3876, 385;
State v. Bailey, 79 Conn. 589, 596, 65 Atl. 951;

the accused. This is necessary to be proven

State y. Marx, 78 Conn. 18, 22, 23, GO Atl.

Conn.)

690; State v. Kelly, 77 Conn. 266, 274, 58
Atl 705. It was adapted to the case, and
there was nothing in the facts or claims of
the parties calling for any further or differ-
ent statement. The statute does not require,
as claimed by the defendant, that there shall
be “testimony of two witnesses to the homi-
eldal act.” State v. Smith, 49 Conn. 376.
The defendant complains of certain re-
marks made by the state’s attorney in clos-
ing his argument to the jury, and assigns as
one of the reasons of appeal and grounds for
a new trial that the court erred in permitting
these remarks to be made. The words com-
plained of are, “The grand jurors of the
county charge to you in behalf of this com-
monwealth that John Washelesky, the prison-
er at the bar, is guilty of murder in the first
degree, That is the law of the land. You
must uphold it.” It does not appear, nor is it
claimed, that the defendant or his counsel ob-
jected to the remarks when made or called
the court’s attention to them until after the
verdict and judgment in the case had been
rendered. Nor was the court below asked to
grant a new trial because of these remarks
of the state’s attorney. While this court may
in very flagrant cases of abuse of the state’s
attorney’s privilege grant a new trial al-
though the aggrieved party has failed to
move for it in the court below, or to call that
court's attention to the objectionable re-
marks, it is only in flagrant cases that it
wlll do so. Ordinarily, unless such action
has been taken in the trial court, such utter-
nnees afford no ground for an appeal or ap-
plication to this court for a new trial. State
v. Laudano, 74 Conn. 638, 645, 51 Atl. 860;
Hennessy v. Metropolitan Ins. Co., 74 Conn.
699, 710, 52 Atl. 490. We do not agree with
the defendant’s counsel that the state’s at-
torney's conduct here complained of presents
such a case. They say that he, by this ut-
ferance, in effect told the jury that the grand
Jury by its indictment had found the defend-
ant gkullty and that it was the jury’s duty to
uphold the finding of the grand ‘jury. “We
think that the language standing alone is not
susceptible of this construction. Ie said to
them. not that the grand jury had found the
defendant guilty, but that they charged him
In the fndietment with murder in the first
degree, But we must look to what precedes.
rears the remark to understand what
t was intended should be understood by it
and what probably was understood. "The
record shows that the attorney had just stat-
ed, as the conclusions to be drawn ‘from the
Phage that the defendant killed Lucasze-
7 eos {t was a willful and not an acct-
jac ling, that the defendant had been
ae raleign on to the deed by his hatred of
sa i pt that he killed him through ha-
= jae mntice, that he attempted to conceal
law amet but had been overtaken by the
- The language complained of was then

STATE v. WASHELESKY. 65

the jury to bring in a verdict consistent with
the evidence. From the entire passage the
jury must have understood the state’s attor-
ney’s statement to be that by the law of the
land such a willful, deliberate, and premedi-
tated killing with actual malice as he bad
just described, as disclosed by the evidence,
was murder in the first degree, that the
grand jury had charged that crime in the
indictment, and that the jury ought, by a
verdict consistent with the evidence, to sus-
tain the charge. The language used was not
well chosen in all its parts to express the
thought which it is apparent the state’s at-
torney had in mind to express. But in fram-
ing thoughts into phrases in the heat of. ex-
temporaneous argument, it is inevitable that
some lapses will occur and it not infrequently
happens that by the omission or addition of
a word, or by a misarrangement of sentences,
a different thought is expressed than was in-
tended. The hearer, intent in following the
argument, is seldom misled thereby. But
whatever view be taken of the language used,
no harm to the defendant can have resulted
from it, as the jury were carefully cautioned
by the court that in determining the question
of the defendant’s guilt they were to take :
the testimony as they had heard it from the
witnesses, and the law from the court, and
decide the case in accordance therewjth.
This exception, therefore, affords no ground
for a new trial. ;

The remaining questions raised on the ap-
peal relate to rulings upon questions of evi-
dence. A question propounded to Birdsey
A. Farnham, a witness for the state, calling
for a fact tending to connect the defendant
with the alleged crime, was objected to by
the defendant upon the ground that the iden-
tity of the dead body as that of Peter Lucas-
zewicz had not been established beyond a rea-
sonable doubt. The court overruled the ob-
jection and admitted the evidence. It is the
defendant’s claim that proof of the corpus
delicti could not be complete without proof of
the identity of the dead body, and that in
trials for murder the body of the crime must
be established before evidence to connect the
accused with it can be permitted. But the
body of the crime is established by proof of
the two facts, that one person has been kill-
ed, and that another person killed him, al-
though the identity of neither the perpetra-
tor nor the victim of the crime has been
shown. People y. Palmer, 109 N. Y. 110, 114
16 N, E. 529, 4 Am. St. Rep. 423. These tacts
are to be proven by subsequent evidence to
establish the guilt of the accused. The law
fixes no rule as to the order of this proof.
It is therefore within the discretion of the
court. In the present case it is not question-
ed that before offering the evidence which
was objected to, ample evidence had been in-
troduced to prove that the person whose dead
body had been discovered concealed in the

ure :
sed, and was followed by language urging
70 A.—5

sand was unlawfully killed by some one. The

Let

Sr At RH RACERS ATA RIT eR REE

eo mmarte pecten

66 70 ATLANTIC

state was therefore justified in proceeding to
connect the defendant with the crime, and
the court’s ruling permitting it was right.
The state offered in evidence an identifica-
tion card of an account in a savings bank
under the name “John Wasieclewski,” and
its admission was objected to in behalf of the
defendant until it should be connected with
the accused. Upon the state’s attorney’s un-
dertaking to so connect it, it was admitted
against the defendant’s objection. 1t was
competent for the court in its diseretion, upon
the assurance of the state’s attorney that it
would be properly connected, to thus admit
the testimony before the foundation for it
had been laid. ‘The finding of the court is
that in its opinion suflicient evidence was in
the ease to warrant the jury, if they believ-
ed it, in finding that the account belonged to
the defendant and that the name “John Was-
ieclewski” in the identification card referred
to was intended to represent the defendant.
As the sole foundation of the defendant's ob-
jection was thus removed he cannot complain

of the court’s exercise of its discretion as to
the order of the proof.

Annie Walszic, the former wife of Lucas-
zewiez, but now the wife of another. man and
mother of a child by him, was ealled as a
witness for the state and afterward for the
defendant. ‘Testimony tending to prove im-
proper relations between her and the defend-
ant during the life of her former husband
had been introduced by the state, and upon
her direct examination in behalf of the de-
fendant she had given evidence tending to
vindicate herself from such imputation. Up-
on cross-examination she was asked whether
in giving her testimony in this case she did
not deem it important to clear herself if
she could of the imputation of any improper
conduct with the defendant. The question
was objected to, no reason being assigned
therefor, and claimed as affecting her eredi-
bility. The objection was overruled, and the
witness answered, “It is just the same to
me. I am telling the truth.”

The same witness testified for the defend-
ant to troubles which occurred at and just
outside her home on the night of the alleged
crime, between Lueaszewies and one Grono-
walski, after the defendant had left the house.
She also testitied that she knew of no trouble
between TLucaszewicez and the defendant that
night. ‘The defendant claimed that this trou-
Ie about which the witness testitied was the
same which the state’s witness had described,
wherein the defendant was said to have as-
saulted Lareaszewicz. On cross-examination
the state’s attorney, against the objection of
the defendant, was permitted to ask the wit-
ness whether she told one Martin Bartuse-
wiez anything about the defendant soaking
Lucaszewies with a elub, The witness an-
swered that she did not tell him that. The
evidence was admissible in view of the wit-
ness’ direct testimony. Tut the answers to
this and the preceding question rendered those

REPORTER. (Conn.

questions harmless to the defendant, and it is
therefore unnecessary to inquire whether any
objection could have been successfully inter-
posed to either question, on the ground that
the witness had originally been called by the
state. It is claimed, however, in behalf of
the defendant that it is apparent from the
character of the questions that they were
asked with no expectation of eliciting an-
swers favorable to the state, but with the sole
purpose of prejudicing the witness and the
defendant’s case before the jury. And it is
claimed that he was prejudiced thereby and
the trial rendered unfair. Such conduct on
the part of the state’s attorney as is claimed
by the defendant would be most reprehensi-
ble. What its effect would be upon the trial
we need not consider, because we do not agree
with counsel that it is apparent from the
questions themselves that the purpose in ask-
ing them was what is claimed. As regards
the first question, it would be apparent to
the jury that the witness might deem it im-
portant to free herself from the claimed im-
putation. They would naturally consider that
fact in weighing her testimony, had the ques-
tion not been asked. Ilow the asking of it
and receiving the answer given, and which it
is claimed was of such a character as the at-
torney expected, eould raise any prejudice
against the witness or the defendant, not
existing before, is not explained. The second
question was clearly pertinent and admissi-
ble. The fact that the question was ask-
ed, therefore, suggests no improper purpose
in asking it. ‘To impute the purpose which
is claimed, we must assume that the attor-
ney knew or had good reason to believe that
the witness had not used the expression at-
tributed to her, and that he invented the ex-
pression and confronted her with a witness to
whom he knew she had never uttered it.
There is nothing in the question and nothing
before us to in any way suggest such an as-
sumption.
The defendant produced a witness by whom
he proposed to prove that at about 10 o'clock

on the night of his disappearance, Luecasze-
wiez came alone to her home and that at
that time he had a weapon. The state ob-
jected to the evidence and it was excluded.
The sole ground upon whieh it was claimed
was that if armed he might later have met
somebody and the result been his death. It is
true that meetings resulting in the death of
one of the parties more frequently occur
when one or both of them carry weapons.
In the absence of any evidence concerning
the meeting the natural inference from the
fact that Lucaszewicez was armed would be
that the other party and not he would be
the one to mvet death in the encounter. Any
inference from the fact that he was armed,
either that some other person than the de-
fendant killed him, or that if the defendant
killed him it was under cireumstances jus-
tifying, excusing, or mitigating the crime,
would be so remote as to leave the admission

LNIVERSITY OF ALABAIs

7 3 LAW |
J.) BURNETT v. MAYOR, ETU., OF TOWN OF BOONTON.

of the evidence within the sound discretion
of the court. There was no error in exclud-
Ing the evidence.

There are several remaining assignments of
errer upon rulings upon evidence, but they
present no questions requiring discussion.
The rulings are all sustainable upon familiar
and well-settled rules of evidence. We pass
them, therefore, with the remark that we find
nothing erroneous in them.

oe is no error. The other Judges con-
curred.

Order and Opinion on Motion of State’s At-
torney.

BALDWIN, Cc. J. The state’s attorney
has moved for the appointment of a time for
the execution of the judgment by which sen-
tence of death was pronounced against the
defendant by the superior court for New
Hinven county. This motion rests upon the
assumption that Gen. St. 1902, § 1522 (as
amended by the Public Acts of 1905, p. 295
ec. 70), applies to the present case. 'That pro-
vides that when, by reason of the pendency
of an appeal to this court from a judgment
of sentence to death, such judgment shall
not be executed at the time assigned there-
for, if no error be found, this court, after its
decision on such appeal, shall appoint the
time for the execution of said judgment, and
{ts clerk shall issue a writ of execution ac-
cordingly. The judgment of the superior
court against the defendant was that he
should be hanged on the ist day of April
1908. On March 16, 1908, he was granted a
reprieve by the Governor until the 1st day of
duly, 1908. That day is still in the future
rhe Judgment of the superior court could not
be executed at the time assigned therefor by
that court, by reason of the reprieve. Our
decision on the appeal was announced before
the expiration of the time for which the re-
}rieve was granted. The reprieve appointed
a new time for the execution of the sentence
Phereupon that became the time legally as-
sixned for its execution. :

Under our decision on the appeal, the judg-
ment of which the sentence of death formed
" part stands good. The warrant of execu-
= Is therefore to be issued upon it by the
« es of the superior court.

BURNETT v. MAYOR, ET
c . MA t. ETC., OF TOW Q
BOONTON. plod

x " x
(Supreme Court of New Jersey. Jan. 7, 1908.)

this eicic

evar Spet iret — Pio: be

MENTS--MACADAMIZING § <ETS—AI

bbs sail cuaral BY OnDINANCE ge seen
picninece Geen a town charter a street im-
the ordinar cD only be made by ordinance, and
that tae vordcths 9 that purpose provides merely
Wine thoreupce »e¢ graded, and the improvement
the benefit 3 er includes paving with macadam
acne e a. the macadam pavement cannot be

cainst the abutting property owner.

mROeOY

= SAME—EstToppeEL—SILENCE BY OWNER.
ms Where the paving with macadam is unau-
orized by the ordinance under which improve-
ment is made, the inaction or silence of the land-
owner whose lands are s.pposed to be benefited
thereby creates no estoppel against him to deny
the liability of his lands for an assessment for
pee benefits, and he is not to be considered in
aches by reason of such inaction or silence.

3. SAME — ASSESSMENT! 3EN R
VIEW — REASSESSMENT. say unoeaer aaet
: Jhere the landowner’s pr rty i
liable to assessment on peel A gp Pi
ing the street, because that work was not au-
thorized by the ordinance under which the im-
provement was made, there can be no reassess-
ment on account of the benefit of the macadam
age? the act approved March 23, 1881 (P. L:
» ee But where the property of the land-
piv ad is subject to assessment on account of
pa a in grading, curbing, and flagging the
= No oad the gutters and grading the
— »V ich was authorized by the ordinance
- board of assessors may be ordered to make a
raat Eagomise sch upon the property in proportion
o the benefits received, and not in excess thereof
(Syllabus by the Court.) ]

Certiorari by Smith W. Burnett against the
mayor and common council of the town of
Boonton, to review an assessment made
oe property of prosecutor on ac-

unt of a street improveme a ont
aay nt. Assessment

See 73 N. J. Law, 453, 63 Atl. 995

Argued June term, 1907 before PIT v
: u » ADOT; NEY,
HENDRICKSON, and TRENCHARD, JJ

Reed & Salmon, for pros :
¢ : prosecutor. S. Ck
Garrison, for defendant. pes,

TRENCHARD, J. This writ of certiorari
brings before this court for review an sat onia
ment made against the property of the pros-
ecutor by the board of assessors appointed
by the common council of the town of Boon-
ton, on account of the improvement of Main
street in that town. The improvement in
question was made under the authority con-
ferred by an ordipance passed by the com-
mon council. The authority to pass the or-
dinanee is found in sections 7 and 12 of the
charter of the town of Boonton, avnroved
March 26, 1872 (P. L. pp. 806, 810). The va-
lidity of the ordinance is not attacked. Pie

The sections of the ordinance relating to
the character and scope of the improvement
are as follows:

“See. 2. Be it further ordained by the
common council of the town of Boonton

that Main street, from the center of Liberty
street to the corporate line, be graded the
full width of the street, according to the
grade lines as shown by the oretile map
made by Lewis Van Duyne, surveyor aes
ing date August 25, 1898, and as laid dened
in an ordinance of the town of Boonton
known as ‘An ordinance to establish the
grade of Main street west of Liberty street

— October 5, 1898, approved October 5,

“See, 3. Be it further ordained, that said

street shall be so made as to form a wales

arch from curb to curb; the crown of the

FP Connetlient 79 F

JAMES WILSON
Hanged at Hartford, Connecticut, on October 13, 1871,
"A notorious convict, James Wilson, sentenced to death for the murder of Warden Willard
of the Connecticut State Prison, is now confined in that institution, The sentence will
not be executed until October, 1871, and in the interval the treatment he receives, as
related by his counsel, Hyde and Calhoun, is barbarous in the extreme, The Hartford
TIMES says:

"tHis counsel visited him this (Friday) morning, and found him in the new iron cage
with its double row of bars, Little light gets in - not enough to enable him to read,
His boots were removed from his feet, and in his stockings he had to tread upon the iron
floor, His feet are so mtilated that he cannot stand in his stocking feet without
holding on to the bars, He was allowed a wooden spoon, memely, His counsel say the
stench in the cage was very offensive, There is no fire in that part of the prison,
Into this iron cage, without a book to read, not even the Bible, and without light
enough to read, even if he had a book - into this tron cell, full of an unnameable
stench, this malefactor is put, the double doors are locked, as he understands, never
again to be opened until his final exit, one year hence, for the gallows; and in this
dim and lasting twilight, which is exchanged only at night for thicker darkness, this
wretched man is expected to live for an entire year. Such was the condition of the
condemned criminal this morning, The Deputy Warden, now acting as Warden, informed
Messrs. Hyde and Calhoun that he was not responsible for this, but that the Directors
ordered it,"

CONSTITUTIONALIST, Augusta, Gas, October 16, 1870,

Judgement of court ordered that he was to be taken from prison on Oct. 9, 1871, and
delivered to Sheriff of Hartford Oounty and kept in common jail for that county until
Octe 13, 1871, when he was to be hangedg 4XXEX 38 CONNECTICUT REPORTS 126

s see Ci eee ee ee a ee. oe TTT So aes ee ae Se ™ ee ee ee ee oe ee

WATSON, J,seph, 18, black, hanged Connecticut (Hartford) on November 17, 190).

"Hartford, Gonnecticut, August 5, 190)-Henry Osborne, a former police commissioner and
one of the leading business men of this city, was murdered by his former colored body
servant, Joseph Watson, today. The negro was found tonight hiding under a bed in the
basement of the Osborne home, Outside the house at the time the murderer was found a
thousand people were gathered, and as “Watson, heavily manacled, was escorted down the
steps to the patrol wagon the air resounded with cries of 'Kill him,' ‘Lynch him.' As
the wagon started the crowd, which was rapidly increasing in size, swarmed after it,
making a demonstration, the like of which has hardly been duplicated under like cir-
cumstances in New England, At the station the police had difficulty in preventing the
crowd from forcing its way into the guard room, Watson is 18 years old and is very
unprepossessing in appearance, but did not quell when face to face with the crowd, which
seemed so anxious to avenge the murder, He said he killed Mr, Osborne, 'TI had it in
for him, and I killed him ,' hesaid. 'TI am not afraid to die; and I am satisfied now
that I killed him.' Mr, Osborne was deliberately killed by “atson out of revenge for .
being discharged as valet on July 15. Watson says that he got into the house last night
after Mr, Osborne retired and went to bed in the basement, This morning “atson went up
stairs when he heard Mr, Ysborne stirring about, and met him at the bathroom door,
firing one shot, Mr. Osborne ran into his bed room and the negro followed and fired 2
more shots, both bullets taking effect,"' CONSTITUTION, Atlanta, Georgia, KugwxxaA
August 6, 1909 (3/1.)

Metadata

Containers:: Box 8 (2-Documentation of Executions), Folder 11
Resource Type:: Document
Description:: Joseph Taborsky executed on 1960-05-17 in Connecticut (CT)
Rights:: In Copyright - Educational Use Permitted
Date Uploaded:: June 28, 2019

Using these materials

Access:: The archives are open to the public and anyone is welcome to visit and view the collections.

Collection restrictions:: Access to this record group is unrestricted.
Collection terms of access:: The researcher assumes full responsibility for conforming with the laws of copyright. Whenever possible, the M.E. Grenander Department of Special Collections and Archives will provide information about copyright owners and other restrictions, but the legal determination ultimately rests with the researcher. Requests for permission to publish material from this collection should be discussed with the Head of Special Collections and Archives.