[Illustration: THE BIRTHPLACE OF EVELYN NESBIT THAW AT TARENTUM, PA.]
OPPOSING COUNSEL HESITATE TO SHOW THEIR HANDS IN DESPERATE GAME OF LIFE OR DEATH--ATTORNEY GARVAN’S BRIEF OPENING ARGUMENT FOR PROSECUTION FOLLOWED BY PRESENTATION OF STATE’S CASE IN LESS THAN TWO HOURS--VICTIM’S SON CALLED TO STAND--FATAL BULLETS GRUESOME EXHIBIT--STORY OF THE ROOF GARDEN TRAGEDY TOLD--DEFENSE OPENED WITH PLEA THAT THAW BELIEVED HE WAS ACTING UPON THE COMMAND OF PROVIDENCE WHEN HE SLEW WHITE--ALL IN READINESS FOR GREATEST SACRIFICE OF MODERN TIMES.
Thousands throughout New York, and in fact the entire world, breathed in anxious suspense when, with jury complete and all the machinery of legal battle in readiness the great trial opened. Following delays in securing the jury--the excusing of several jurors after their acceptance by both prosecution and defense--the opening came as a surprise.
The day will long be remembered because of the multiplicity of surprises it brought forth. Brevity of argument by counsel for state and defense was not the least of these. The opposing lawyers felt they were entering upon a stupendous game with life and death the stakes, and youth, beauty, love, hate, treachery and millions factors in the play.
Neither cared to show his hand and disclose the cards he held. It was Monday, February 4, 1907--a fateful day, coming after seven months and ten days’ imprisonment for Thaw in the Tombs.
The prosecution made a most remarkable record when it presented its opening statement in ten minutes and followed it with less than two hours of testimony, closing in time for the noon recess. The defense announced it would open its case with a statement by Attorney J. B. Gleason.
The purpose of the prosecution was readily apparent--throwing upon the defense the burden of disclosing its case, reserving the while the state’s hardest fire for rebuttal later when Thaw’s lawyers had exhausted themselves and their material.
Opening shots of the legal battle royal were fired by Assistant District Attorney Garvan, of counsel for the state.
He congratulated the jurors on their body having been completed and then outlined the purpose of the law, which was not seeking for vengeance, but to uphold the security of the state, he said. He urged the importance of the case and a strict observance of the law in order that a verdict, fair to all, might be reached.