Snake River Slaughter. William W. Johnstone
you, Bailiff. Are the defendants represented by council?”
The defense attorney stood. “I am Robert Dempster, Your Honor, duly certified before the bar and appointed by the court to defend the misters Baker.”
“Is prosecution present?”
The prosecutor stood. “I am Edmund Gleason, Your Honor, duly certified before the bar and appointed by the court to prosecute.”
“Let the record show that the people are represented by a duly certified prosecutor and the defendants are represented by a duly certified counsel,” Judge Norton said.
“Your Honor, if it please the court,” Dempster said, standing quickly.
“Yes, Mr. Dempster, what is it?”
“Your Honor, I object to the fact that we are trying both defendants at the same time, and I request separate trials.”
“Mr. Dempster, both men are being accused of the same crime, which was committed at the same time. It seems only practical to try them both at the same time. Request denied.”
Dempster sat down without further protest.
“Mr. Prosecutor, are you ready to proceed?”
“I am ready, Your Honor.”
“Very good. Then, please make your case,” Judge Norton said.
“Thank you, Your Honor,” Gleason said as he stood to make his opening remarks.
Gleason pointed out that the letters BAK, written in the murder victim’s own blood, were damning enough testimony alone to convict. But he also promised to call witnesses, which he did after the opening remarks. He called Mr. Jules Pratt.
“Mr. Pratt, were you present at the McDonald Ranch on the day of the murder?” Gleason asked.
“Yes,” Jules replied. “My wife and I were both there.”
“Why were you there?”
“We went to see the McDonalds to solicit a donation for the church organ.”
“Did they donate?”
“Yes, they did. Very generously.”
“By bank draft, or by cash?”
“By cash.”
“Where did they get the cash?”
“From a cash box they kept in the house.”
“Was there any money remaining in the cash box after the donation?”
“Yes, a considerable amount.”
“How much would you guess?”
“Two, maybe three hundred dollars.”
“Was anyone else present at the time?”
“Yes.”
“Who?”
Jules pointed. “Those two men were present. They were doing some work for Scott.”
“Let the record show that the witness pointed to Harry and Arnold Baker. Was it your observation, Mr. Pratt, that the two defendants saw the cash box and the amount of money remaining?”
“Yes, sir, I know they did.”
“How do you know?”
“Because that one,” he pointed.
“The witness has pointed to Arnold Baker,” Gleason said.
“That one said to Scott, ‘That’s a lot of money to keep in the house.’”
“Thank you, Mr. Pratt, no further questions.”
Gleason also called Pastor Martin who, with four of his parishioners, testified as to how they had discovered the bodies when they visited the ranch later the same day. Then, less than one-half hour after court was called to order, prosecution rested its case.
The defense had a witness as well, a man named Jerome Kelly, who claimed that he had come by the McDonald ranch just before noon, and that when he left, the Bakers left with him.
“And, when you left, what was the condition of the McDonald family?” the defense attorney asked.
“They was all still alive. Fac’ is, Miz McDonald was bakin’ a pie,” Kelly said.
“Thank you,” Dempster said. “Your witness, Counselor.”
“Mrs. McDonald was baking a pie, you say?” Gleason asked in his cross-examination.
“Yeah. An apple pie.”
“Had Mrs. McDonald actually started baking it?”
“Yeah, ’cause we could all smell it.”
“What time was that, Mr. Kelly?”
“Oh, I’d say it was about eleven o’clock. Maybe even a little closer on toward noon.”
“Thank you. I have no further questions of this witness.” The prosecutor turned toward the bench. “Your Honor, prosecution would like to recall Pastor Martin to the stand.”
Pastor Martin, the resident pastor of the First Methodist Church of Green River City, Wyoming, who had, earlier, testified for the prosecution, retook the stand. He was a tall, thin man, dressed in black, with a black string tie.
“The court reminds the witness that he is still under oath,” the judge said. Then to Gleason he said, “You may begin the redirect.”
“Pastor Martin, you discovered the bodies, did you not?” Gleason asked.
“I did.”
“What time did you arrive?
“It was just after noon. We didn’t want to arrive right at noon, because Mrs. McDonald, kind-hearted soul she was, would have thought she had to feed us.”
“You testified earlier that you and four other parishioners had gone to thank the McDonalds for their generous donation to the organ fund?”
“Yes.”
“And that all five of you saw the bodies?”
Pastor Martin pinched the bridge of his nose and was quiet for a moment before he responded. “May their souls rest with God,” he said. “Yes, all five of us saw the bodies.”
“You have already testified as to the condition of the bodies when you found them, so I won’t have you go through all that again. But I am going to ask you a simple question. You just heard the witness testify that Mrs. McDonald was baking a pie when they left, just before noon. Did you see any evidence of that pie?”
Pastor Martin shook his head. “There was no pie,” he said. “In fact, the oven had not been used that day. It was cold, and there were no coals.”
“Thank you. No further questions.”
“Witness may step down,” the judge said.
In his closing argument to the jury, the defense attorney suggested that the letters BAK were not, in themselves, conclusive.
“They could have referred to Mrs. McDonald’s intention to bake an apple pie. After all, the letters b-a-k, are the first three letters of the word bake. Perhaps it was a warning that the oven needed to be checked, lest there be a fire,” he said. “Don’t forget, we have a witness who testified that the Bakers left the McDonald Ranch with him on the very day the McDonalds were killed. And, according to Mr. Kelly, the McDonalds were still alive at that time they left. The burden of proof is on the prosecution. That means that, according to the law, in order to find Harry and Arnold Baker guilty you are going to have to be convinced, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that they did it. Prosecution has offered no evidence or testimony that would take this case beyond the shadow of a doubt.”
During