© . Linda Mcgill Wagner - began © 1999 Contact Me
(Alva's First Homicide - 9 November 1910)
Dr. O. E. Templin's Testimony for State
Dr. Templin was called and sworn in as the State's seventh witness in the murder trial of N. L. Miller. Dr. Templin resided in Alva, Oklahoma and practiced medicine since 1904. Dr. Templin was a graduate of Vanderbilt University. One of three Doctors called in to do post mortem autopsy.
Direct Examination -- Cross-Examination
Direct examination by Mr. Pruiett...
Mr. Pruiett asked the witness the normal questions of where he resided, practiced medicine and where he graduated.
We know Dr. Templin resided in Alva, Oklahoma and practiced medicine since 1904 and graduated from Vanderbilt University. Dr. Templin was not acquainted with the deceased, Mabel Oakes in her life time.
Dr. Templin did have on occasion to examine the body of Mabel Oakes on the 9th day of November, 1910. The rest of the question went something like this.
Mr. Pruiett ask Templin, "Where was the body when you first saw it?"
Dr. Templin replied, "It was lying in a small back room of the old opera house, at the southeast corner of the square, at Alva, Oklahoma."
Mr. Pruiett then asked if there was anyone with him at the time he viewed the body?
Dr. Templin testified, "Yes sir, Dr. Bilby and Dr. Grantham and Hugh Martin. Judge Lawhon, Jim Channel and a number of others were there."
When asked to describe the body of Miss Oakes, Dr. Templin replied, "It was lying in that small triangular room at the southeast corner of this opera house. She was laying with her head somewhere near where that dot is, (indicating) with her feet extending down this way. She was laying upon an old piece of carpet. It was a kind of a rug, and her head turned slightly to the west, Hands something in this position. The limbs extended straight out. The clothing all smoothed out nice, and straightened out nice on top, and between her hands here was a wrapper off of a piece of Yucatan chewing gum. Her hands laid on her breast."
Mr. Pruiett asked Dr. Templin what was the condition of her face and person?
Dr. Templin testified, "Her face was what we call ecchymotic. The same as if when someone blacks your eye. That was specially over this eye, and some under the eye, and some abrasion of the skin under this eye. That is, the left eye. And the whole face, however, was discolored in that way. You could see the blood standing out in the skin. It is sometimes called livid and some times called ecchymoses. It is the same thing. The whole face was more or less that way and then down as far as the neck and a little bit on the chest."
Dr. Templin went on to describe the pupils of the eyes, "The pupils of the eye were slightly enlarged. The eye protruding and there was some of this redness or ecchymoses in the eye."
As to the mouth of Miss Oakes, Dr. Templin testified, "The mouth slightly open. The teeth slightly apart, and the tongue protruding between the teeth. It was not what you would call sticking out at the mouth, but still it was out about even with the lips. It was out of its accustomed position and was swollen; filling up the space between the teeth."
When Mr. Pruiett asked Templin what he found with reference to any evacuation of the kidneys, Dr. Templin replied, " We found that she had had an evacuation of urine, and also a moving of the bowels. She had evidences of having been moved since then, however ---"
Mr. Wilson for the defense jumped in with an objection.
Mr. Pruiett stated, "You cannot tell that, just describe what you found and what you saw, the jury will have to draw the conclusions. Now describe that scarf, where --- What did you find around her neck?"
Dr. Templin testified, "There was a silk scarf around her neck, the same as if you take a scarf in your hands this way and put the middle of the scarf here, bring it back and cross it behind, bring the ends around and cross it in front again and the ends drawn tightly and tucked under the back of the neck."
Mr. Pruiett asked, "Now how was that scarf around the neck?"
Dr. Templin testified, "It was drawn very tightly, very tightly and imbedded in the skin or the flesh of the neck so that when it was removed it left the print of the scarf there in in the neck. It was down below the hyoid bone, or the lump here."
Mr. Pruiett then asked Dr. Templin what was the name of the business -- when the corpse gets stiff -- when it sets in?
Dr. Templin asked, "Rigidity?"
Mr. Pruiett then asked, "Isn't there another name for it?"
Dr. Templin asked, "Rigor-mortis?"
Mr. Pruiett then asked Dr. Templin if rigor-mortis had set in yet?
Dr. Templin replied, "No sir."
Mr. Pruiett then asked, "Now when a scarf was wrapped around the neck in which would it show the plainest, after rigor-mortis had set in or before?"
Dr. Templin testified,"It would probably show the plainest after it had set in."
Mr. Pruiett asked, "And it had not set in at that time?"
Dr. Templin responded, "No sir."
Mr. Pruiett asked Dr. Templin if he were present at the autopsy?
Dr. Templin replied, "Yes sir."
Mr. Pruiett then asked Templin what was the condition of the heart?
Dr. Templin testified, "The heart was in perfectly normal condition in regard to size, valves, and altogether."
Mr. Pruiett then asked what they had found in the right heart? He also asked the doctor to explain to the jury what the right heart means?
Dr. Templin testified, "We found a quantity of dark fluid blood. The heart is divided into two different divisions, with a wall between them. In the right side is the right auricle and right ventricle and in the left side the same. The blood from all parts of the body comes into this top part of the heart, the right ventricle and passes through the valve into the right ventricle. This is the blood after it has been throughout the body and is impure and dark. Then this blood passes from the right ventricle into the lungs where it is purified by the oxygen of the air, and this makes it bright red again. Then this blood returns through the pulmonary vein into the left auricle and from there passes through a valve into the left ventricle, where it again passes through all parts of the body. Now these valves or membranous doors are made so they do not hinder the blood from passing one way out, but when it passed through and presses back it shuts these membranous doors, and that is the way this dark blood was kept in the right side."
Mr. Pruiett then asked the doctor, "Doctor, have you read any authorities or are you conversant with any authority on strangulation?"
Dr. Templin replied, "Yes sir, I have read some."
Mr. Pruiett then asked, "Taking your experience as a physician, your knowledge of strangulation, your knowledge of the condition of that body, the ecchymotic condition, and in fact the entire condition of the body, taking everything into consideration, are you able to state what produced death in this case?"
Mr. Swindall for the defense jumped in with his objection to that question "... as incompetent, irrelevant immaterial. And a subject that does not call for expert testimony, and invading the province of the jury, and for the further reason the data is not sufficiently wide to enable the physician to express an opinion."
The Court Overruled.
To which ruling of the court the defendant then and there dully excepted at the time.
Mr. Pruiett then asked the doctor if he was in a position to state what caused death?
Dr. Templin replied, "Yes sir."
Mr. Pruiett, "What produced death in that instance?"
Dr. Templin, "Strangulation."
Mr. Pruiett asked, "Taking your experience as a physician your knowledge of strangulation and the condition of that body there, and the condition of the hands, the attitude of the body and all, are you able to state whether or not Mabel Oakes could have strangled herself to death?"
Mr. Swindall again, "Objected to as incompetent, irrelevant and immaterial. Not a subject calling for expert testimony and invading the province of the jury."
The Court Overruled.
To which ruling of the court the defendant then and there duly excepted at the time?
Dr. Templin was given another chance to answer the question, "Yes sir."
Mr. Pruiett tries to ask again what the doctor's judgment about it was?
Mr. Swindall objects again, "Objected to as incompetent, irrelevant and immaterial. Calling for an opinion of the witness on a subject not governed by expert testimony, and invading the province of the jury."
The Court overruled.
To which ruling of the court the defendant then and there duly excepted at the time.
Mr. Pruiett then asked Dr. Templin to tell the jury.
Dr. Templin started to testified, "In the first place ---"
Mr. Pruiett jumped in and told him, "I don't want any long explanation, I want to know could she or could she not?"
Dr. Templin stated, "I misunderstood the question. No, she couldn't."
Mr. Pruiett then turns over the state witness for cross-examination by Mr. Swindall.
Cross-Examination by Mr. Swindall...
Mr. Swindall for the Defense begins his cross-examination by asking the doctor, "You say you are a graduate of Vanderbilt University? How many years did you attend there? You graduated in 1904?"
Dr. Templin replied, "Yes sir." as to the years he attended, Templin replied, "Four years." Templin stated as to his graduate year form Vanderbilt as 1904, "Yes sir."
Mr. Swindall then asked Dr. Templin Who he had studied strangulation under in Vanderbilt?
Dr. Templin stated, "There were a number of professors. One of them was Dr. Bryan and Dr. Eaves."
Mr. Swindall asked Templin if Dr. Eaves taught eye, ear, nose and throat?
Dr. Templin replied, "No sir, Surgery."
Mr. Swindall then asked him what Paul F. Eaves taught?
Dr. Templin replied, "He didn't teach."
Swindall then asked, "What did Doublas teach?"
Dr. Templin stated, "He didn't teach while I was there."
Swindall then want on into livid and ecchymoses questioning, "You say that livid, or livid and ecchymoses is the same thing?"
Dr. Templin, "Yes sir."
Swindall, "Who taught that in the school where you went, that they were the same?"
Dr. Templin stated, "They are very similar, a good deal the same."
Swindall asked Templin, "How do you spell ecchymoses?"
Templin answered, "I am not a good enough speller to be sure about it. I don't know whether I can spell it or not."
Swindall then asked, "Would you be sure that your definition of livid and ecchymoses is correct?"
Dr. Templin stated, "Some books use one and some use the other."
Swindall asked, "Don't livid mean to color when it is solid, a solid color, solid and dark, and don't ecchymoses mean a spotted dark color?"
Dr. Templin testified, "Livid is ecchymoses, but ecchymoses might not always be livid."
Swindall then asked, "The ecchymoses is a solid color and livid is spotted?"
Dr. Templin replied, "Not necessarily so."
Swindall asked, "Do you know the derivatives of the word?"
Dr. Templin replied, "Not right now I don't, no sir."
Swindall, "You don't know what the root word for livid is?"
Dr. Templin replied, "It means red."
Swindall, "And what does ecchymoses mean?"
Dr. Templin replied, "Spotted."
Swindall asked, "You cannot have a lividity without an ecchymoses or ecchymotic condition, but you can have an ecchymotic condition without lividity? It is just a different shade of meaning that is all? In other words livid means when it becomes solid color and ecchymotic or ecchymoses means speckled or spotted?"
Dr. Templin answered, "That is more or less true, yes sir."
Swindall asked, "You say you examined the right heart?"
Dr. Templin replied, "Yes sir."
Swindall asked, "What did you find in it?"
Templin testified, "Dark fluid blood."
Swindall asked, "Did you examine the left heart?"
Templin answered, "Yes sir."
Swindall, "What did you find in it?"
Templin replied, "It was empty."
Swindall asked, "How was the lungs, did you examine the lungs?"
Dr. Templin answered, "Yes, sir. They were slightly congested and some emphysema in them."
Swindall asked next, "How was the Larynx?"
Dr. Templin answered, "We didn't take it out, we didn't take the larynx out at all."
Swindall then asked about the eyes, "Now what was the condition of the eyes?"
Dr. Templin testified, "The eyes were protruding slightly and just about half closed, a third closed or half. The lids were not entirely closed. The white of the eyes was striped with the blood that was in them."
Swindall asked next, "Don't you know that in every case of strangulation that when the party is choked below the hyoid bone or the adam's apple, that it causes the tongue to protrude and the eyes to become flared open very much and the pupils to become dilated?"
Dr. Templin testified, "The nearer you are to the hyoid bone the farther the tongue will protrude."
Swindall asked, "That is below the hyoid bone?"
Dr. Templin replied, "Yes sir, if it is over the hyoid bone those symptoms will not be so marked."
Swindall asked, "And was this ligature below the hyoid bone?"
Dr. Templin replied, "Yes sir."
Swindall then asked, "How much below it?"
Dr. Templin stated, "About where you had your finger there. Maybe a little more."
Swindall asked Templin, "If you corded your neck tight enough to choke there, below this hyoid bone, wouldn't that cause the tongue to protrude further?"
Dr. Templin testified, "Possibly not. There are cases where there was scarcely any protrusion at all. But there are none of these symptoms constant. You must take a coalition of all them in order to get the true status."
Swindall then asked, "Did you ever treat a case of strangulation?"
Dr. Templin replied, "No sir."
Swindall then asked Templin, "Did you ever see a case before this one? Where?"
Dr. Templin replied, "Yes sir. In school."
Swindall then asked, "Who did you strangle at the University?"
Mr. Pruiett jumped in with his objection.
Swindall went on to restate the question, "Who did you see that was strangled there, what case?"
Dr. Templin replied, "I don't recall the name of the party."
Swindall asked, "Did you see them strangled?"
Dr. Templin replied, "I saw them afterwards."
Swindall asked, "How did you know that they had been strangled?"
Dr. Templin replied, "They said they was."
Swindall then asked, "So you were going on hearsay altogether. I am not asking you if you ever saw a case that you heard was strangulation, I want to know if you have ever seen a case that you know was strangulation?"
Dr. Templin stated, "I said I had."
Swindall asked, "Well now, which one?"
Dr. Templin replied, "I have seen two cases now."
Swindall asked, "Well what two cases have you seen?"
Dr. Templin replied, "This case here and the case I told you of in school."
Swindall, "That was the one that they said was strangled and you don't know of your own personal knowledge that they were strangled at all?"
Dr. Templin replied, "No, but I have seen other people that did see that case and he knew and they said it was so."
Swindall then asked, "Were the eyes and the other organs of the body in the same condition in that case that they were in this case?"
Dr. Templin replied, "Very similar."
Swindall asked Templin about his reading on strangulation, "Now you done a large part of your reading in regard to strangulation since this case here at Alva occurred, haven't you?"
Dr. Templin answered simply, "No sir."
Swindall continued the questioning, "Haven't you been reading on the subject since this case occurred?"
Dr. Templin admitted, "I have refreshed my memory somewhat."
Swindall then asked, "yes, about how many different books have you read since this occurrence?"
Dr. Templin replied, "Possibly one or two."
Swindall questioned, "Haven't you read three?"
Dr. Templin replied, "No sir."
Swindall continued, "Didn't you read them last night, doctor?"
Dr. Templin replied, "No sir."
Swindall asked next, "Didn't you read last night any at all?"
Dr. Templin answered, "Yes sir. But not on this subject."
Swindall asked, "Haven't you read any since you have been in Woodward?"
Dr. Templin replied, "I did read about one paragraph since I have been in Woodward on strangulation."
Swindall then asked if Templin had talked to Dr. Bilby about it here in Woodward?"
Dr. Templin replied, "No sir."
Swindall then asked, "And you are sure that you haven't read over two books since this case occurred."
Dr. Templin stated, "No sir. Yes, yes, I am sure of that!"
Swindall then asked what two was that?
Dr. Templin replied, "It was Taylor, and Peterson & Haines, the first volume."
Swindall asked, "Had you ever read Peterson & Haines before that?"
Dr. Templin replied, "Yes sir."
Swindall then asked when Templin had read it?
Dr. Templin replied, "I read it in school."
Swindall then asked Templin, "You studied that in medical school, did you?"
Dr. Templin, "We didn't limit ourselves to any one book."
Swindall then asked Templin what else did he study there besides Peterson & Haines?
Dr. Templin replied, "Reese was another work."
Swindall asked what Templin if he studied anything else?
Dr. Templin testified, "Well, lets see. I studied Whithouse & Becker and Becker, and I have read it since then, I have that in my library."
Swindall asked, "Haven't you read that since this case came up?"
Dr. Templin asked, "This one?"
Swindall continued, "You say Taylor, Peterson & Haines, and then if you have read this other book that would be three you have read since this case came up, wouldn't it?"
Dr. Templin stated, "Well yes, I guess I have read three since this case came up."
Swindall continued the questioning, "You have read every book that you have on the subject since this case came up, haven't you?"
Dr. Templin stated, "No sir."
Swindall then asked, "What else have you got in your library that you have not read since this case came up?"
Dr. Templin simply stated, "Reese."
Swindall asked Templin, "You didn't consider that a very good authority, did you?"
Dr. Templin replied, "It is pretty fair."
Swindall questioned, "But you didn't read it the last time, did you?"
Dr. Templin stated simply, "No sir."
Swindall asked, "But you didn't read the other three books?"
Dr. Templin replied, "Yes sir, and I got another book on that too."
Swindall then asked what that book was?
Dr. Templin stated, "Quaine."
Swindall asked, "Did you ever read it?"
Dr. Templin replied, "I haven't since this case came up."
Swindall then asked, "Well, did you ever read it?"
Dr. Templin replied simply, "Yes sir."
Swindall asked when and if on strangulation?
Dr. Templin testified, "I have read it occasionally. On any subject that happened to come up."
Swindall asked next, "Well, but this is the only case of strangulation that come up, did you ever read it on strangulation?"
Dr. Templin stated, "I don't always wait until a case comes up before I read on a subject."
Swindall re-asked his question, "I say, did you read it on strangulation?"
Dr. Templin answered, "No sir, I didn't understand you to ask that."
Swindall continued on, "You have read Peterson & Haines since you left school, or had you until this case came up, on strangulation?"
Dr. Templin replied, "No sir."
Mr. Swindall asked the doctor, "Have you read Taylor from the time you left school in 1904 on strangulation, until this case come up?"
Dr. Templin testified, "I couldn't say about that."
Swindall then moved the questioning onto the extremities of the deceased, "Now what about the person, the extremities, did you examine the extremities of this lady? What was the appearance of the extremities? Were they ecchymotic or livid in appearance?"
Dr. Templin replied simply, "Yes sir. Well there were no very marked symptoms. It if was any it was very slight (ecchymotic or livid appearance)."
Swindall asked, "That livid appearance on the extremities is a sign of strangulation isn't it?"
Dr. Templin replied, "No sir."
Swindall re-asked to make sure Templin understood, "Isn't that a sign of strangulation?"
Dr. Templin stated, "It might be and it might not be, it is not a constant symptom."
Swindall then asked the good doctor, "Did you see any blood oozing from any part of the body?"
Dr. Templin answered in a question, "Just pure blood you mean?"
Swindall replied, "Yes."
Dr. Templin stated, "No sir."
Swindall continued asking, "Well did you see any bloody substance?"
Dr. Templin replied, "Yes."
Swindall asked, "Where was that?"
Dr. Templin responded, "From the mouth and the nose."
Swindall asked, "How much blood did you notice?"
Dr. Templin answered, "Well it was a frothy bloody mucous. I don't know how much there was of it. There was enough blood in it to color it."
Swindall then asked, "Now you say that livid extremities are sometimes a sign of strangulation and sometimes they are not?"
Dr. Templin replied, "It may be present in a case of strangulation and it may not."
Swindall asked the witness, "Isn't that true as to any other condition that you have named?"
Dr. Templin replied, "It is not so nearly true as it is in the case of the extremities."
Swindall then asked, "Some of the authorities give livid extremities as on of the symptoms of strangulation, do they not?"
Dr. Templin testified, "They do not give them as one of the main symptoms."
Swindall then asked Templin if he was acquainted with Stewart?
Dr. Templin stated, "No sir."
Swindall then asked, "Have you ever read Stewart on legal medicine?"
Dr. Templin replied, "No sir."
Swindall went on to ask about the condition of the face, "Now, how was the condition of the face, other than discoloration and there being a discoloration around the left eye, and some other livid appearances on the face, what was the other appearance of the face, did it appear natural?"
Dr. Templin answered, "No sir, it would not be natural if it was in that condition."
Swindall went on to ask and clarify, "I mean with the exception of the discoloration, I mean the shape and size of the features?"
Dr. Templin asked, "You mean whether the features were distorted?"
Swindall replied, "Yes sir."
Dr. Templin then answered, "No sir." when asked if the features were not distorted.
Swindall then asked Templin, "Distorted features is one of the symptoms of strangulation, isn't it?"
Dr. Templin replied, "It didn't say that in my books."
Swindall asked, "You didn't read that?"
Dr. Templin replied, "No sir."
Swindall then asked, "Did you read anything about the larynx being flattened in your books?"
Dr. Templin answered, "It would be if the cord was over it. It wouldn't be if it wasn't."
Swindall asked, "Now what is the --- There are people who strangle themselves in suicide, are they not?"
Dr. Templin replied, "Yes sir."
Swindall asked, "How do you distinguish the difference in strangulation suicide and strangulation where the person is killed by some other person?"
Dr. Templin replied, "We have to go by the appearance of the corpse and the surroundings. If you have a rope around the neck and it was attached to a limb I would feel pretty sure about it."
Swindall then asked, "You mean that if you found a man hanging to a limb you would feel pretty sure that it was homicide?"
Dr. Templin replied, "Yes sir."
Swindall asked, "What would be the difference in a person hung to a limb that committed suicide and a person hung to a limb that had been put there by other parties?"
Dr. Templin testified, "If he was hung to the limb so his feet touched the ground, -- Well, I wouldn't yet feel sure that he had committed suicide."
Swindall then asked, "You don't think that the limb could spring down then so that his feet could touch the ground?"
Dr. Templin answered, "That would have to be taken into consideration. All the circumstances would have to be taken into consideration."
Swindall asked, "You would take into consideration how angry the mob was too wouldn't you, when they mobbed him?"
Mr. Pruiett jumped in, "Objected to as incompetent, irrelevant and immaterial."
The Court Sustained.
Swindall continued, "Now you don't know any difference when a man is hung, about suicide being one knot and homicide being two knots do you?"
Dr. Templin testified to that, "That is not where a person is hung. That is where they are lying down. If it was homicide it might be two or more knots, if it was suicide it would not be two knots."
Swindall asked, "You say in homicide it would be two knots."
Dr. Templin stated, "Yes, it might be and it might not."
Swindall asked, "It might be just one?"
Dr. Templin replied, "Yes sir."
Swindall asked if, "But if it was two knots it would not be suicide?"
Dr. Templin answered, "No sir, if there were two or more knots, I would be pretty sure it was not suicide. I would be sure it was not suicide."
Swindall asked, "And in this case there wasn't any knots at all was there?"
Dr. Templin replied, "No sir."
Swindall asked about the scarf, "The scarf was just drawn around the neck tight and then brought around and put back tight and stuck under the collar?"
Dr. Templin replied, "I don't know as it was under the collar."
Swindall asked Templin if he didn't say that the scarf was stuck down her neck on direct examination?
Dr. Templin replied, "No sir."
Swindall then asked, "Then it wasn't stuck under her coat or anything?"
Dr. Templin replied, "No sir."
Swindall asked, "It was just laid loose under there."
Dr. Templin, "Yes sir."
Swindall asked, "And you say that it made an impression in the skin so you could see the impression of the scarf?"
Dr. Templin replied, "After it was removed yes sir."
Swindall asked, "Well, now you can take off your sox at night and there will be garter marks or impressions so you can see the lines on your limbs, isn't that true?"
Dr. Templin responded, "No sir."
Swindall continued, "It doesn't show any impression of the clothes at all if the garter was a little too tight, do you say that. Do you say there would not be garter marks on the limbs?"
Dr. Templin replied, "I never have had that experience."
Swindall asked, "You have never had one make an impression on you?"
Dr. Templin replied, "No sir."
Swindall then asked, "You never saw that condition did you?"
Dr. Templin responded, "Oh yes, I have seen it."
Swindall asked, "Yes, certainly, you have seen it. Now didn't this lady's corset around the waist leave as much impression there as the scarf did around her neck?"
Dr. Templin testified, "No sir."
Swindall then asked, "What was the difference? It made an impression, didn't it?"
Dr. Templin responded, "Well, it didn't make a mark there like that."
Swindall then asked, "You didn't see any marks on her at all when you removed the corset did you, is that what you mean to testify to?"
Dr. Templin replied, "I didn't see any."
Swindall asked, "The corset was very tight around the waist was it not?"
Dr. Templin replied, "Yes sir, pretty tight."
Swindall asked about the belt-band of the corset, "Isn't it a fact that the belt-band of the corset where it pressed on both the upper and lower intestines and the lower organs, wasn't that belt-band very tight?"
Dr. Templin responded, "Pretty tight."
Swindall asked, "Well, was it very tight?"
Dr. Templin replied, "I didn't say very tight. I said pretty tight."
Swindall asked, "Well, sir, wasn't it very tight?"
Dr. Templin responded, "Well, it wasn't. If you had asked the woman if it was very tight she would have said 'no'."
Swindall responded, "I am not asking her, Mabel is gone, I am asking you as a sworn witness on the witness stand?"
Dr. Templin responded, "I don't know what you would call very tight."
Swindall asked, "I mean tight enough to leave an impression on the body when the corset was removed."
Dr. Templin responded, "This didn't leave any impression. It didn't show any impression."
Swindall asked, "Didn't it show any impression at all on the body?"
Dr. Templin replied, "No sir. I don't remember that it did."
Swindall asked, "You wasn't looking for that were you?"
Dr. Templin replied, "Yes sir, we examined her carefully."
Swindall then asked, "You don't remember about any impression being left there when that corset was taken off?"
Dr. Templin replied, "If there was any, it was very slight."
Swindall asked, "And the only condition that you noticed was about the face?"
Dr. Templin replied, "Yes sir, the only impressions."
Swindall asked, "Is it not a fact that if you, or I, draw a scarf tight about the neck as it was in this case and pull it with the hands, cross it over and bring it back and cross the ends, and lay back down, it would naturally draw it tighter, and wouldn't it choke you? --"
Dr. Templin replied, "It wouldn't leave the place still in the flesh when it was removed, though."
Swindall continued this line of questioning, "Wouldn't, -- if you die in that condition, the flesh would naturally begin to swell quick wouldn't it? The flesh then would immediately begin to rise over it?"
Mr. Pruiett jumps in, "I insist that he ask all three questions."
Swindall responded, "I am asking if it wouldn't rise in the same manner. Wouldn't it rise in the same manner just as though you slip a tight band ring over your finger and let it go to cord the finger, wouldn't the flesh swell around the neck just like the flesh around the finger?"
Dr. Templin replied, "It depends upon how tight you pull it."
Swindall asked, "I mean tight enough to in any way stop the circulation."
Dr. Templin replied, "And how long in that condition?"
Swindall, "Say it would be that way two or three hours."
Dr. Templin replied, "It probably would, yes sir."
Swindall finishes is cross-examination and Mr. Pruiett takes over.
Mr. Pruiett asked Templin, "If you put that scarf around your neck doctor and then draw it around the neck as tight as that was there, and then very kindly and gently lay your hands over on your chest, about how long do you think that scarf would remain there?"
Dr. Templin replied, "Well, not very long."
Pruiett asked, "You would get up a whopping wouldn't you?"
Mr. Swindall jumps in with his objection, "Objected to as incompetent, irrelevant and immaterial. The witness certainly not shown himself competent to answer the question."
The Court, "Overruled."
To which ruling of the court the defendant then and there duly excepted at the time."
Dr. Templin responded to Pruiett's question, "Yes sir, I would get up pretty quick."
Mr. Pruiett ends is re-direct of Dr. Templin.
Mr. Swindall has no further questions for this witness.
Dr. Elizabeth Grantham testimony
© . Linda Mcgill Wagner - began © 1999 Contact Me