23
· 185 · 23 If they could impeach Miss Bond’s testimony no jury could convict the defendants . They failed at this, and now are fighting at every vulnerable point of the evidence submitted in rebuttal. —Decatur review, December 30, 1883 Friday afternoon, December 28, 1883. When emma was called as the first rebuttal witness, she was nowhere in sight. Her father stood, saying he would have to get his daughter, who was resting nearby. As if on cue, spectators began pouring into the courtroom, taking up every last inch in the gallery. As the room buzzed in anticipation, the room’s rear door opened. All heads turned—expecting to see the victim. instead, in came John montgomery’s wife, mattie. it was a timely appearance, to be sure. she was the perfect maternal portrait. even the staunchest Bond supporter could not help but feel empathy for the young mother as she walked slowly up the center aisle, cradling her two-month-old son. A space was cleared for her directly behind her husband. moments later, the door creaked open again. This time, the paternal-looking mr. Bond entered with emma on his arm. she wore a light cloak and a dark red hat, her bangs peeking out from under its brim. He guided her gently up the same aisle, past the same sympathetic gazes from the same curious onlookers. Past mattie, past montgomery, past Pettus, past Clementi. Drennan waited patiently while emma settled herself into the witness chair. The prosecutor directed her to the afternoon of Thursday, June 29, asking if she had noticed the wagon in the Pettus yard that afternoon. she had seen it on her way to the Pettus house and again when she left. How close did she come to “the wagon in which Clementi and Pettus claim to have been during the afternoon ”? Thornton bellowed an objection. As the two sides went back and forth at length, emma began to feel faint. The judge excused her, and she was taken into his chambers. When she reappeared, Phillips overruled the objection. The prosecutor repeated his question, and she responded that she had come “within 186 · nameless indignities a few yards” of the wagon.1 And she hadn’t seen mr. Pettus or mr. Clementi in the wagon, either time; she hadn’t seen anyone there at all. Drennan turned to a critical part of young Charlie’s testimony. under direct examination, the lad had first stated “that he did not leave the schoolhouse during that afternoon recess.” But under cross, he had vacillated—admitting to a short absence. Drennan wanted to ascertain what, if anything, emma knew about that. she responded that Charlie had told her that he went to get a drink from the Pettus well while she was rehearsing. it didn’t take much to figure out the logic behind that line of questioning, but the Tribune spelled it out: “This point is quite important as it is the theory of the prosecution that miss Bond’s assailants affected an entrance into the loft during the afternoon recess. if Charlie masters went to Pettus’s at the afternoon recess, this would leave the road [open] for the men to get into the loft and not be seen.”2 At this point, Thornton “submitted an affidavit saying he gave notice, before the evidence was taken, that he would introduce one particular witness.” Apparently that witness, who was to have testified on Friday morning, had suddenly taken ill. After forty-five minutes of haggling and getting nowhere, he motioned for a continuance until the next term of the court. The missing witness , mrs. Nellie Woodruff, had some very relevant information “affecting miss Bond’s identification of John montgomery,” argued Thornton. The state countered that Nellie’s testimony had “no bearing upon the question of identification . . . that it was solely for the purpose of impeachment and that a continuance could not be granted for such purpose.” The judge concurred with the state and denied the motion. However, Phillips did allow a written statement from Nellie to be entered into the record. And what was Nellie supposed to tell the jury, had she made it to Hillsboro? Well, if the Review was correct, it had to do with something emma had supposedly said to her—to the effect that “she did not see her assailants because she was drawn into the loft so quickly and that she only knew who they were by supposition.”3 Who was Nellie Woodruff...
OR
Buy This Book in Print