Dr. Elizabeth Grantham's Testimony
Direct-examination -- Cross-examination
Dr. Elizabeth Grantham was sworn in as a witness following the testimony of Dr. O. E. Templin to testify on behalf of the State with Mr. Pruiett handling the Direct-examination.
Direct-examination by Mr. Pruiett...
Mr. Pruiett began the preliminary questioning of where Dr. Grantham lived, if she was acquainted with Mabel Oakes, etc...
What we do know about Dr. Elizabeth Grantham is -- she lived in Alva, Oklahoma. She was acquainted with Mabel Oakes in her life time. Elizabeth Grantham was also the Oakes family physician and also Mr. Vigg's family physician. Dr. Grantham had been practicing medicine for ten years. Grantham was one of three Doctors called in to do post-mortem autopsy. She was a native of Illinois, but lived some years in Nebraska. Graduate of John A. Creighton Medical College, Omaha, Nebraska. Came to Alva in June, 1903 and opened an office on the south side of the square.
Mr. Pruiett asked the doctor, "Did you have occasion to examine the body of Mabel Oakes on the 9th day of November 1910?"
Dr. Grantham replied, "Yes sir. I was called on that day and saw Mabel Oakes."
Mr. Pruiett asked, "Where was the body the first time you observed it?"
Dr. Grantham testified, " In the southeast corner of the old opera house in a little room."
Pruiett asked, "Now here we have a plat of the old opera house. Mr. Miller's office. I wish you would look at that for a moment and then point out about the room where the body of Mabel Oakes was found?"
Dr. Grantham stated, " Well to all appearances it would be in that little room there, that little southeast room."
Pruiett continued, "Before we get to that, how long have you been practicing medicine? Of what school are you a graduate?"
Dr. Grantham replied, "Ten years. The John A. Creighton Medical college, Omaha, Nebraska."
Pruiett then asked Dr. Grantham to describe the attitude of the body of Mabel Oakes, that is how it was situated there in the old opera house?
Dr. Grantham testified, "The body was lying on a piece of carpeting. The head was to the south and the feet to the north. There was a little bolster under the head. I don't know what that was. It was something under her head. The body was lying straight, with the hands resting upon the body. The face was bloated, swollen looking and black. The lips were swollen. The tongue protruding between the teeth. The tip of the tongue was protruding between the teeth. The eyes staring and the pupils dilated. Around the neck was a scarf that was wrapped around the neck three times and it was folded under the sides of the head. In the folds of this scarf was a black bow of ribbon with a hair pin sticking in it, and the scarf was tightly bound about the neck."
Pruiett then asked, "How it was with reference to indentations on the face, or the expression of the face?"
Dr. Grantham replied, "The scarf was buried in the flesh of the neck at that time. There was a white ribbon under that that she had around her neck."
Pruiett then asked in reference to the eyes, "Now with reference to the eyes protruding, how were they?"
Dr. Grantham testified, "I didn't understand the question."
Pruiett continued to say, "I understood you to say that the pupils were dilated?"
Dr. Grantham replied, "Yes sir."
Pruiett asked, "Were the eyes protruding or anything?"
Dr. Grantham replied, "The eyes were prominent."
Pruiett asked, "Would you call them abnormal or normal?"
Mr. Swindall objected to question as leading.
The Court sustained.
Pruiett then asked Grantham, "What was the condition of the white part of the eyes?"
Grantham replied, "They were red."
Pruiett continued, "What was the condition of the face as to color?"
Grantham replied, "The face was very dark."
Pruiett then asked, "Well, what do you call very dark? You go ahead and describe condition of the face."
Grantham testified, " It was dark purple, almost black, and over the left eye lid there was a bruise. The left upper eye lid."
Pruiett continued, " What was the condition of the chest doctor?"
Grantham stated, "It was dark."
Pruiett then asked what she called that darkness, what was the name for it?
Grantham replied, " Ecchymoses. Ecchymotic."
Pruiett then asked the doctor's definition of ecchymotic?
Grantham replied, " Well, it would be a discoloration of the skin, or blue spotted condition of the skin."
Pruiett asked next, "What was the condition of the back part of the neck around the shoulder blades?"
Grantham stated, "That was dark and ecchymotic also."
Pruiett asked, "State whether there had been an evacuation of urine from the kidneys?"
Grantham stated, "There had been. The body was below the place where the wet would naturally be expected to be. It was farther up than you would naturally expect an evacuation of the urine to be."
Pruiett then asked for clarification, "The evacuation of the urine was higher up from the point where it would come from the body?"
Grantham stated, "Yes sir, and the clothing was up behind. It was drawed up, as though the body had been pulled down, and the clothing dragged up when it was pulled down."
Pruiett then asked, "How were the feet?"
Grantham replied, "The feet were straight."
Grantham asked as to the feet, "With reference to being close together, how were they?"
Grantham replied, "They were together."
Pruiett asked the doctor, "Are you conversant with any authority on strangulation?"
Grantham replied simply, "Yes sir."
Pruiett then continued, " Leaving the body at that point doctor, were you present when the autopsy was held?"
Grantham replied, "Yes sir."
Pruiett then asked the doctor what was the condition of the lungs?
Grantham replied, "They were dark."
Pruiett asked in reference to being congested or otherwise?
Grantham stated, "They were congested."
Pruiett asked the witness the following, "I wish you would please, when I ask you about any organ kindly give a full history of the condition."
Grantham replied, "The lungs were dark. We would normally expect them to be otherwise."
Pruiett asked if they had examined the heart?
Grantham replied, "Yes sir."
Pruiett asked what was the condition of the heart?
Grantham stated, "The heart was normal, perfectly normal."
Pruiett then asked, "What was the condition of the right heart, doctor?"
Grantham replied, " It was normal."
Pruiett asked what was in it?
Grantham responded, " Well, just at the time the heart was laid open I wasn't looking in that direction, but there was a quantity of fluid blood."
Pruiett continued, "What was the color of that fluid blood?"
Grantham replied, "It was a dark fluid blood."
Grantham asked, "Doctor, what was the condition of the body with reference to being pregnant?"
Grantham testified, "We found that she was probably four and a half or five months pregnant."
Pruiett asked, "You found a phoetus (fetus) of that age, did you?"
Grantham replied, "Of that development, yes sir."
Pruiett then asked, "No doctor, taking your experience as a physician, your knowledge of works on strangulation, our knowledge of the condition of that body, the location at the time you found it, the location of the scarf, the condition and location of the hands and every condition and all the surroundings that you found there at the time and from the time you found the body, and your knowledge of the human body, and what you discovered when you made the exploration there, can you say, are you able to say what produced death?"
Mr. Swindall jumps in with his objection to as incompetent, irrelevant and immaterial. CAlling for a conclusion of the witness and invading the province of the jury.
The Court overruled the objection.
To which ruling of the court the defendant then and there duly excepted at the time.
The Court asks the doctor, "Doctor, they ask you if you are able to say that?"
Grantham replied, "Yes sir, I am able to state."
Mr. Pruiett continues, "What in your judgment produced death?"
Mr. Swindall objected to as incompetent, irrelevant and immaterial. Calling for a conclusion of the witness, and invading the province of the jury."
The Court, "Overruled."
To which of course the ruling of the court the defendant then and there duly excepted at the time.
Dr. Grantham answered, "Death was due to strangulation."
Pruiett then asked, "Now from your experience as a physician and the conditions that you found there, the conditions of the body at the time, can you state, are you able to state, whether or not Mabel Oakes strangled herself to death?"
Mr. Swindall enters in his objection, "Objected to as incompetent, irrelevant and immaterial. Calling for a conclusion of the witness and expert testimony upon which the testimony of experts is not required."
The Court overruled his objection.
To which ruling of the court the defendant then and there duly excepted at the time.
Mr. Pruiett continued, " -- and also the condition in which you found her hands?"
Grantham replied, "I say she could not have strangled herself to death"
Mr. Pruiett ends his direct-examination of Dr. Grantham.
Cross-examination by Mr. Wilson...
Mr. Wilson for the defense began by asking Dr. Grantham if she had any recollection of having a conversation with Jim S. White in regard to Mabel Oakes.
Even with a refreshment of her mind, a short time after the murder of 9 November 1910, Dr. Grantham did not remember telling Jack White in the city of Alva, that this scarf was not tight enough around Mabel Oakes neck to choke anybody.
Dr. Grantham did not remember a short time after 9 November 1910, about having a discussion with Elmer Drake that the scarf wasn't tight enough around Mabel Oakes neck to choke her or to choke anybody. Grantham says Elmer Drake asked her some questions in regard to it. But, she did not have any recollections of making any such statement as not being tight enough to choke anybody.
Dr. Grantham testified that there was a prominence of the eyes. The eyelids were partly open. They were about half open. Open enough to expose the pupils. Grantham testified, "the eyes were more than normally prominent. But not to the extent of bulging to any great degree."
Grantham also testified when asked about the tongue, "It was protruding between the teeth, The lips were protruding too." Grantham stated that she did make a close examination of the tongue. When asked if the tongue was swollen she stated, "I couldn't say as to that, just how much swelling there was. The tongue was swollen and the face was swollen."
Grantham testimony as to the discoloration & bruises that she discovered of the face. Grantham couldn't say how long the bruise had been there. And didn't say as to how long the bruises had been there.
When asked under cross-examination by Mr. Wilson about a slight contusion near one eye, Grantham replied, "I didn't understand the term (contusion)."
Grantham went on to say, "There was a bruise over the left eye." Grantham said that was more discolored than the adjacent places. Grantham would not be able to say when that bruise was made from her examination. She said there was not green enough look about the bruise to indicate it had been there long time.
Although, Mr. Wilson asked her, "After death that greenness would turn black would it not?"
Grantham replied, "Yes sir." Grantham also said, The blueness would have come on before death."
Mr. Wilson then asked, "But at the time you examined her, every bit of the green had left it, it would have changed to blue or black wouldn't it doctor?"
Grantham's response, "I didn't understand the question." Mr. Wilson then reread the question. Grantham replied, "I don't understand."
Mr. Wilson then asked, "After a person has received a bruise it turns from black to green after while doesn't it? But if death should occur while the bruise is of that greenish color then it would again change back to blue or black wouldn't it?"
Grantham's testimony, "Yes sir. I have no knowledge of anything of that kind. That it would again change, I have no knowledge of that. I don't think that it would. I think it would be green after death. In the state that we found that body especially."
Mr. Wilson then asked Grantham, "Well now was the body warm at the time you found it?"
Grantham's replied, "Yes sir, the hands were a little cold." Grantham agreed that the body as a whole was somewhat warm; that is, the warmth of the life was still in the body.
When asked how long after death it takes a body ordinarily to become cold, Grantham responded, "It depends altogether on the conditions of the body. That would usually be about four to six hours. Sometimes longer. There are times when the body is emaciated and a person is thin that they are cold even before death." Grantham also testified that persons of more flesh remain warm longer.
When asked about the indentation made by the scarf being very deep around Miss Oakes neck, Grantham replied, "Yes sir. It was quite deep."
Mr. Wilson then asked, "Isn't it a fact that a person can draw a scarf tight around the neck and so that they cannot -- just so it will not come unloose or come off, and should lie down, that is, get themselves in a recumbent position where the blood flows to the head, that it would become tighter on a account of the neck enlarging and the blood being stopped from flowing back, the veinous blood?"
Dr. Grantham testified, "I don't think so, to that extent. I think that would depend altogether on the position of the body, if the head was thrown back far enough it might even lengthen the neck."
Grantham had not thought much about it if the head is slightly elevated, then the neck might swell and so as to make an imprint of the scarf. It might make some impression.
Mr. Wilson's next question, "Now suppose a person should fall and faint on the floor and a scarf drawn moderately tight around the neck, wouldn't it be likely that the neck would swell so as to become, so as to make the scarf tight enough to leave its imprint on the neck?"
Grantham replied, "I believe there would be very little circulation in the upper extremities. I don't believe there would be enough above the scarf to cause any great amount of swelling, the blood usually leaves the head in a faint."
Mr. Wilson asked, "When the blood left the head and got below or to the lower part of the body reaction would then set in and it would return, is that right?"
Dr. Grantham's reply, "If reaction set in, yes sir."
Mr. Wilson then came back with, "Then if reaction did set in it would cause the neck to swell so as to leave the impression there might it not, the impression of the cord? or scarf?"
Grantham testified that she was not prepared to answer the question.
Mr. Wilson replied, "I am trying to deal fairly with you doctor. Do you understand the question yet, or it it something else, what is the matter that you are not prepared to answer? Why is it? Read the question. (The question was read back)."
Grantham then testified, "It is possible that it might. I have never had a case of that kind."
When asked how far down did they examine the chest -- Grantham replied, "We examined the heart and the lungs, the liver -- That is not the chest, however. We examined the whole body. We made an examination of the whole body."
When asked what work that the Dr. had read on the subject of strangulation... Grantham replied, "I have read Whithouse & Becker and Taylor, Munser, Dellofield and Pruden on the subject of strangulation."
It came out in testimony that Dr. Taylors Medical Jurisprudence had not been revised for forty years. That Whitehouse& Becker is a late work and Munser is a late work.
On Strangulation...
Mr. Wilson asked Grantham, "You answered while ago that in your judgment it would not be possible for the deceased to have strangled herself. I will ask you if this statement is true, and born out by the medical authorities: 'Yet experience has shown that it is possible to so grasp the throat as to bring on asphyxiation and death with ease, and cases are not rare where there was no intention to produce death?' "
Grantham's response, "I believe the question was put differently from that when I was asked that question. You asked me if finding the conditions of the body as we did would it be possible for her to have strangled herself to death, and I answered 'no'."
Mr. Wilson's response, "I will ask you if it is true, and the authorities bear out the statement, the question of whether or not that experience has shown that it is possible to so grasp the throat as to bring on asphyxiation and death with ease, and cases are not rare where there was no intention to produce death? I say is that statement born out by the authorities on strangulation?"
Grantham testified, "I believe that all the authorities agree that you must take all the conditions surrounding the body into consideration. You cannot be governed by anyone condition. or symptom."
Mr. Wilson reiterated, "I am asking you if that statement is true?"
Grantham response, "You have the authority there. I am sure you can tell by it. Some of them say that and some do not. They very very much in their opinions on that question."
When asked by Wilson, "You are testifying from your knowledge derived from reading the authorities on the subject largely are you not?"
Grantham replied, "Yes sir, no, not altogether."
Wilson then asked, "You don't profess to have ever seen -- to have ever had any experience in examining persons who died by strangulation, except in this case do you?"
Grantham's response, "No sir, not that had been strangled to death. I have seen a case of asphyxiation, but a case of strangulation, except this one." Grantham also stated that it was the only time that she had ever been called upon of that kind.
When asked if Grantham examine the extremities of the deceased... Grantham responded, "Yes sir, We examined the whole body.
When asked if whether or not those extremities were livid... Grantham replied, "No sir. The hands were not. I noticed them particularly. The hands were white."
Wilson then asked, "Now then is a livid extremity one of the appearances that follows the death by strangulation?"
Grantham stated, "Now so much upper part of the body."
Wilson then asked, "I will ask you if this statement is not born out by the authorities: 'the appearance in a case of strangulation are usually very distinctly marked and are, among other things, livid extremities.' Is that statement born out by the authorities?"
Grantham testified, "I am sure I couldn't answer that question. The authorities say that the face and upper part of the body may be livid. The hands were in a position where they would hardly be blue anyway. They were in a position so that the blood would leave the hands. The feet were not very dark to my recollection, however, I have somewhat forgotten about that. We didn't examine the feet until she was taken to the undertakers office and the undertaker removed the hosiery."
Grantham also testified that the discoloration in the chest, on the chest, was a mottled discoloration. The face, it was generally discolored, solid. The face was somewhat spotted but it was dark all over, livid."
Examination of Right Heart...
Grantham testified that she had examined the right heart. Grantham examined the whole heart but wasn't looking just at the time the heart was laid open. I examined the whole heart.
When asked whether or not there was any veinous blood in the right heart. Wilson said, "You don't know whether there was or not of your own knowledge to you?"
Grantham's responded, "I could hardly say that there was although, the heart was opened on the right side last, the fluid blood had escaped. I didn't see it escape. I saw the blood and I know that it did."
When asked what are the conditions of the genital organs in a case of strangulation? Do they give any symptoms?
Grantham responded, "They frequently are congested and there is involuntary action of the urine or of the bowels, that comes about the time of death or a little before. That is the evacuation of the bladder or the intestines. It usually comes about the last stages. Usually when the body is paralyzed -- death takes place -- evacuation takes place. It is involuntarily discharged. It take place after the will has lost control of the muscular movements."
Grantham testified, "I couldn't say as to if the evacuation took place before death. The body was dragged down, It was over the spot of urine. I don't know whether it took place before death or after. There is frequently a voluntary discharge of the urine, and as to that I couldn't say if the urine could not have with the body in the position that it was in when we found it. I couldn't say that this urine and the evacuation of the bowels took place then before or after death."
Then Wilson asked, "And so far as that symptom is concerned you are not able to say that the discharge of the bladder and the intestines and the bowels would throw any light upon whether or not the deceased came to her death by strangulation?"
Grantham's response, "Yes sir, that points very strongly to strangulation, because those conditions exist in cases of strangulation. Those conditions are associated with it."
Wilson asked, "But now lets take up on condition at a time. You have testified that those were involuntary discharges, and took place after the muscles were lost control of?"
Grantham responded, "Yes sir. I said that was probable."
Wilson then asks, "And that those evacuations took place before death didn't you?"
Grantham responds, "No sir, I didn't say that, but it probably did. Usually about the third stage of strangulation. That is usually when they have this involuntary action."
Wilson then stated, "Then if this took place, this discharge of the urine took place after death of the deceased then one of the symptoms by which you determine strangulation would be weakened or wholly wanting would it not?"
Grantham responded, "I don't know that she moved her own body there."
Wilson, "Do you know that somebody else did?"
Grantham, "No sir."
Wilson asks, "If she did move there, then one of the symptoms by which you determine death by strangulation would be almost wholly wanting or at least materially weakened would it not?"
Grantham's reply, "Yes sir."
Wilson asks, "Now doctor, is it not a fact and don't the books say that the eyes protrude very much, to the extent of bulging out, and that the lids do not close over the balls of the eyes in a case of death by strangulation, as a rule?"
Grantham response, "As a rule."
Wilson asks, "Then if the lids almost closed over the ball as you testified while ago then that symptom would be wanting or very much weakened as a test to determine whether the deceased came to her death by strangulation wouldn't it?"
Grantham's response, "Yes, the eyes were about half open in this case, however. They were open enough to expose the pupils."
Wilson, "But that don't answer the question. Answer the question doctor."
Grantham, "I think not, no sir."
Wilson, "You have testified that ordinarily the eyes bulge very much in a case of strangulation so that the lids do not close over the ball, that was your testimony I believe, wasn't it?"
Grantham stated, "I don't remember just how I stated that."
Wilson, asked, "Wasn't that your testimony in substance?"
Grantham response, "The eyes were not closed. I didn't say that the lids were closed over the balls."
Wilson asked, "But we are talking about, --- we are talking about your knowledge of the profession now, haven't you testified that in ordinary cases of strangulation that the eyes bulged very much and that the lids would not cover the balls of the eyes."
Grantham testified, "I said the eyes were prominent and the lids are usually open in cases of strangulation. But the eyes certainly were so prominent and the lids open enough to give the face the appearance of the eyes being prominent. The authorities differ upon that subject. Sometimes they are prominent and sometimes they are not, according to the authority."
Mr Pruiett for the State objected to questioning as being repetition.
The Court overruled the objection. She has answered that question I think, but he has a right to put a hypothetical question and I think that is what he is driving at. You may answer the questions if you can doctor, and if you can't answer tell him that you don't know.
Mr. Pruiett appealed to the record and wanted to have the stenographer read that question to the court.
Mr. Wilson then asked, "Now that we may understand each other I am going to ask you some questions as to your general knowledge of the conditions following death by strangulation, as you ascertain by your books. Now I will ask you if it is not true, basing your knowledge on your reading and as a physician, that in cases of death by strangulation ordinarily the eye balls are very much protruding or bulging and that the eye lids do not close over the balls of the eyes, that is, over a very great portion of the eye ball?"
Grantham's response, "The eye balls are usually prominent as I stated before."
Wilson asks, "Well you didn't answer all the question. As a rule, not in this case, but generally isn't it a fact that the eyelids cover a very small portion of the eye ball in a case where a person had met death by strangulation?"
Grantham response, "The authorities that I have read say that the eyelids are frequently wide open and staring, or they may be closed. They differ on that subject."
Wilson asks Grantham, "Now doctor if the choking is below the hyoid bone, don't the eyes close?"
Grantham testifies, "Not to my knowledge."
Wilson asks, "Well in this case the scarf was tied below the hyoid bone or what is called the Adams apple was it not?"
Grantham's response, "Yes sir, or right around the center of the neck and below the hyoid bone."
Wilson asks, "Well if that scarf produced death by strangulation then in this case the eyeballs would protrude in this case would they not?"
Grantham replied back, "I think probably that they would be prominent some what."
Wilson then asks, "And if the eyeballs are somewhat prominent it would necessarily follow that the eyelids couldn't close over the balls of the eye would it not?"
Grantham response, "Yes sir. They were not closed over the eye balls."
Wilson then asks about the left heart, "Did you examine the left heart?"
Grantham respond that she had examined the whole heart. The left heart was perfectly normal. I didn't find anything in the heart. I have been the physician in their family for several years. I have been called upon while they lived in the country before they moved to Alva. I have treated Mabel Oakes. She (Mabel Oakes) never gave me any history at the time of fainting spells. I never saw her have a fainting spell."
Mr. Wilson asks, "What did you mean by your answer that she had not given you any history of those spells at that time?"
Grantham responds, "I hardly know how to explain that. Because she never did give me a history of fainting spells, but since then I have heard that talk."
Mr. Vigg objected to, "please don't tell what you have heard."
Mr Wilson asks, "From your consultation with he family as their physician, you know as a part of the family history, acquired by your knowledge as the physician of the family that Mabel Oakes did have those fainting spells and had them for years before this occurrence don't you?"
Mr. Pruiett Objected to as improper cross-examination, incompetent, irrelevant and immaterial.
The Court Overruled. To which ruling of the court the State then and there duly excepted at the time.
Grantham then answers Wilson question, "I had no knowledge of anything of the kind."
Wilson then asks, "I didn't ask you for your positive knowledge, the question is whether or not you acquired that information as the physician of the Oakes family, that is the question I am asking."
Mr. Pruiett Objected to as highly improper, incompetent, irrelevant and immaterial. Not proper cross-examination. Not admissible upon any grounds.
The Court Sustained. To which ruling of the court the defendant then and there duly excepted at the time.
Wilson then goes on to ask, "I will get you to state whether or not you have treated Mabel Oakes for indigestion?"
Grantham responds, "Yes sir. I did treat her for indigestion."
When asked by Wilson if indigestion may or does, produce sympathetic heart trouble, Grantham replied, "Yes sir. Not organic trouble. It will frequently bring about a rapid palpitation but the functions of the heart are performed just the same."
Wilson then asks, "Isn't it true that the heart may be normal, that is that there would be no organic trouble that can be discovered by a physician in an autopsy, and yet the heart fail in its functions from lack of nervous supply or something of that kind?"
Grantham asks, "What do you mean by something of that kind?"
Wilson then withdraws the question.
Grantham then asks, "Do you mean sympathetic?"
Wilson, "Yes, you can call it that."
Grantham then responds, "Yes sir, that might be true."
Wilson then asks, "Then there may be sympathetic heart trouble while the heart would be normal might there not?"
Grantham responds, "There might be sympathetic trouble but we would find evidences of that, Mr. Wilson." Grantham went on to say that the heart would probably be normal. It cold be normal. The functional trouble would be indigestion in the stomach.
Wilson then went on to ask Grantham, "Now notice my question carefully and answer it. May not the heart be perfectly normal and yet it fail in its functions from some cause not existing in the heart?"
Grantham's response, "I think one could die from an injury, strangulation, or a gunshot wound and the heart be perfectly normal."
Wilson asks, "I am asking if the heart might not fail to perform its functions, even though it might be normal, for some other cause than trouble in the heart itself?"
Grantham answers, "Why the heart fails when there are other diseases, that is true. I never have known an instance of that kind, of heart disease and the heart be normal."
Wilson then asks, "Acute indigestion will produce the same results will it not?"
"Yes sir, sympathetic trouble." Grantham replies. Grantham went on to say that it would not produce death. "I don't believe that from death we ever have a case of death from sympathetic trouble."
Wilson asks this question of Grantham, "But suppose that the patient being a woman and had on a tight corset and her breathing was difficult, might that not cause death from functional heart trouble and yet the heart be normal, if not relived?"
Grantham responds, "If the pressure was great. I have never known of a case of it that way."
Wilson asks, "When a person faints away from sympathetic heart trouble and you are called on as a physician and you found the patient tightly laced you would cut the corset strings and relieve the patient?"
Grantham responds that, "I would certainly relieve that cause, if possible."
Wilson then asks, "And without relief that person might die with a perfectly normal heart might he not?"
Grantham answers, "I believe if the heart was normal that the patient would recover, especially if they were in a reclining position. If they were lying down. I think there are very few cases of death if any. Some people may go off in those sinking spells."
Wilson then asks Grantham, "That is they would recover if they were relieved. You don't know what they would do it they didn't get relief do you?"
Grantham's response, "I wouldn't say as to that."
Mr. Wilson then ask Grantham about Mabel Oakes teeth... "Isn't it a fact that Mabel Oakes teeth were large and protruding, doctor?"
Grantham's response, "Mabel did have rather large teeth. She had large, rather large front teeth."
Mr. Wilson ended his cross-examination on that note.
Mr. Pruiett asks Grantham, "You do know that this evacuation of the kidneys and the bowels didn't take place while the body was in the position that you found it, don't you, doctor?"
To that question Mr. Wilson Objected to as leading and suggestive.
Grantham respond, "Yes sir."
Mr. Pruiett stated, "Wait a minute, doctor, until he objects."
Mr. Wilson, I object to it as leading and suggestive, incompetent, irrelevant and immaterial."
The Court overruled. To which ruling of the court the defendant then and there duly excepted at the time.
Mr. Pruiett asked to have the question read and the question is read to the witness as follows, "You do know that this evacuation of the kidneys and the bowels didn't take place while the body was in the position that you found it don't you doctor?"
Grantham then answered, "The evacuation didn't take place when the body was in that position."
Mr. Wilson asks, "Your last answer to Mr. Pruiett, does that refer to the urine or pheses or both?"
Grantham's response, "Just to the urine. I didn't notice the other discharge myself."
Mr. Pruiett then asks the court, "If the court please, Dr. Grantham is County Attorney Vigg's family physician over there, and if we are through with her we would like to let her go home, as he is expecting a stork at his house any time."
Mr. Swindall states, "We have no objections. I think we had better send Vigg home too."
The court, "If you are through with her let her go." The jury was then given a recess of ten minutes -- admonished to have no conversation among themselves, etc...
Defendant's Witnesses Attorney's for the Defendant: L. T. Wilson and Charles Swindall., Woodward County, Sept., 1911 - Case #-714
The State's Witnesses Prosecutors for the State, Law Enforcement League & George Oakes... Sandor J. Vigg, County Attorney Woods County; Moman Pruiett (for the Law Enforcement League) and J. N. Tincher (for George Oakes).
© . Linda Mcgill Wagner - began © 1999 Contact Me