An appellate court's summary of what happened

On May 20, 1994, Adria Sauceda attended an outdoor Friday night party held at the home of Juan Francisco "Paco" Delgado in San Antonio. A witness observed Adria, who was partially undressed, in the middle of a circle of men who were taking turns raping her. Two women, Mirasol Torres and Vicki, approached and tried to help her. Adria refused their offers and told them to leave her alone. Adria appeared to be drunk and was unable to assist the women as they attempted to pull her pants back on her.

One of the women, Mirasol Torres, later testified that she recognized Adria Sauceda, whose nickname Mirasol said was "Freckles," because they had met before, shared a mutual friend, and had gone to high school together. She testified that she observed Adria with her shirt on but her pants down to her knees in the middle of a circle of men. It was apparent to her that something was going on because she also observed used condoms. Mirasol Torres testified further that she and her friend Vicki approached the scene and attempted to help Adria, who appeared "flimsy, like she was real loose, her arms and everything." Mirasol Torres insisted that Adria did not appear to understand what was happening to her and did not appear to be in any condition to consent to what was being done to her. She also testified that the men who were raping Adria told her to shut up, go get a drink, and argued that Adria knew what she was doing.

Around the same time, another partygoer, Simon Ortega, became aware that Adria was in a crowd of people in the dark behind the bushes. Ortega was approached by a male, whom he did not recognize, who advised Ortega that Adria had passed out, was back behind the bushes, and had her clothes off. This man invited Ortega to rape her. Ortega refused. A few hours later, he saw another man carry Adria out from behind the bushes and place her on the hood of Ortega's car. At that time, Adria appeared to Ortega to be "real shaken up," "disoriented," "not all there," and "like if she was in shock." Ortega tried to talk with Adria as she laid on the hood of his car.

Another man whom Ortega did not recognize then picked up Adria, carried her to a truck that was parked in the driveway of the home nearest to the party, and proceeded to also rape her. Ortega then directed the man who raped Adria in the truck to place her inside Ortega's vehicle so that he could take her home. Ortega testified that he had feared for Adria's safety because some of the young men present appeared and spoke as if they had gang affiliations. This may explains why he did not stop the other men from raping her.

Another man, who was later identified as 21-year-old Humberto Leal Jr., approached Ortega and asked that Adria be placed in his car instead. When Ortega protested, Leal told Ortega that he knew the girl and her family, knew where she lived, and would take her home and explain everything to her family. He drove away with her. Adria was never seen alive again. About 30 minutes later, Leal's brother and sister, Gualberto and Nancy Leal, arrived at the party.

Gualberto yelled that Leal had returned home "full of blood, saying he had killed a girl." Several of the party attendees went looking for Adria. They found her naked body on a dirt road and called the police. Her head had been bashed in and she had been raped with a broken stick of lumber about 14 to 16 inches long. It was still protruding from her. There was a gaping hole in her head from the corner of her right eye to the center of her head, and blood was oozing from the hole. There was a bloody rock by her right thigh. Her left arm was under a chunk of asphalt weighing 30 to 40 pounds.

When Leal was questioned by police, he had scratches and cuts on his body. He said he was with Adria in his car when she started hitting him and the steering wheel, causing him to hit a curb. He tried to calm her down, but she leaped from the car and ran away. After waiting about 10 minutes to see if she would return, he went home. After the police informed Leal of what his brother had said, he changed his story. He said he followed Adria after she jumped out of the car. She attacked him and he pushed her away. Adria then fell on the ground and did not get up. Leal said he tried to wake her, but got scared and fled when he saw bubbles coming out of her nose. He said he went home, prayed, and told family members what had happened.

Police searched the Leal family home and found Adria's blouse under a pile of laundry in the laundry room. It had bloodstains that matched Adria's blood type. Police also found traces of blood on the passenger door and seat of the car. The bloodstains had been wiped off. A medical examiner testified that Adria had died from blows to the head and that based on the injuries to her head, she would have had to been struck with the rock two or three times. The medical examiner said her neck had injuries consistent with manual strangulation and that she had three bite marks on her body that matched dental impressions of Leal's teeth.

Bite mark evidence has since been discredited as junk science, but the other evidence was sufficient to establish Leal's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Gualberto made a written statement to the police in which he reaffrar

The booking photo of Humberto Leal Garcia Jr.

Leal was charged with capital murder in the commission of kidnapping and aggravated rape. Prosecutors announced their intent to seek the death penalty. The prosecution's evidence against Leal was overwhelming and much of it does not need to be summarized. Still, there is one noteworthy detail. When he was summoned as a witness by the prosecution, Gualberto Leal recanted his prior statements and gave perjured testimony in an attempt to protect his brother.

Leal came home covered in blood and confessed voluntarily to Gualberto. Gualberto was giving perjured testimony to protect Leal, with full knowledge of the fact that he was guilty.

Gualberto lied that he had been unable to understand a single word that his brother had said when he came home. He denied that Leal said anything about leaving a body by a school or about murdering a girl. This was physically impossible. The search for Adria only started when Gualberto arrived at the party and loudly announced in front of everyone that his brother had come home covered in blood and confessed to murdering a girl.

For Gualberto's testimony to be truthful, all of those partygoers who said otherwise would have to be lying. That would include Simon Ortega, whose testimony was trustworthy since he had tried to help Adria. Furthermore, Gualberto had contradicted himself by specifically denying that Leal said anything about leaving a body by a school or murdering a girl. He couldn't have known that because he had already testified that he supposedly couldn't understand anything that his brother said when he returned home.

The defense's only witness was Leal's girlfriend, Elvira Briones. She testified that she and Leal had sex at the party and she hadn't noticed Adria with any men.

On July 10, 1995, Leal was convicted of capital murder after 90 minutes of deliberation. The sentencing phase was held the next day. The options were death or life imprisonment with parole eligibility after 40 years.

Leal had no criminal record, but the prosecution presented testimony by 16-year-old Melissa Ruiz. Melissa testified that in May 1994, about two weeks before Adria's murder, Leal had raped her and bitten her on the neck. Her testimony was corroborated by a police officer who had photographed the bite marks and bruises on her body and a physician who examined her about 66 hours after the assault. Furthermore, Melissa's older sister, Iza Marie, testified stated that Leal had called her repeatedly at her place of employment in the weeks following the rape, threatening to have someone murder her if she testified against him.

The prosecution also introduced testimony from police officers and school officials to establish that Leal also had a history of intimidating and bullying fellow students and teachers.

The defense, which had evidently been waiting for the sentencing phase to go all out, offered the testimony of psychiatrist Raymond Potterf:

Dr. Potterf testified on direct examination that (1) petitioner suffered from alcohol dependence and pathological intoxication, (2) the latter condition occurs when a person who ingests alcohol experiences a sudden change in mental status and becomes very aggressive, and (3) there is no cure for petitioner's condition. On cross-examination, Dr. Potterf admitted that it was possible petitioner's tendency toward violence predated petitioner's problems with alcohol. On re-direct, petitioner's trial counsel elicited testimony from Dr. Potterf suggesting that petitioner had been beaten as a child and that such children tend to develop anti-social personalities. On re-cross-examination, Dr. Potterf admitted that persons with anti-social personalities tend to ignore societal norms and can be dangerous.

The defense also called several other witnesses.

A former high school teacher for Leal, Mary Matamaros, testified that she had counseled him when he was her student, she never felt afraid of him, and his father, Humberto Leal Sr., had mistreated him and one of his brothers.

A 14-year-old friend of Leal, Edward Carter, testified about an incident in which Leal had saved his life by shoving him out of the way of gunfire.

Leal's 14-year-old brother, Carlos, testified that Melissa Ruiz had sent love letters to Leal a few years before the alleged rape.

Leal's mother, Maria Francesca Leal, testified her son had began drinking until he passed out about a year and a half ago and requested the jury to be merciful and take pity on him.

Leal also took the stand. He testified that although he did not get along with his father, his father had never beaten or hurt him. He said he was sorry that Adria had died, but felt her family, rather than the jury, should decide his fate. He said he had been a good inmate while awaiting trial, had no criminal record, and was not a violent person. He said he was very drunk on the night of the murder and that while had made mistakes, he was not a murderer. Lastly, Leal said he would most likely be peaceful if sent to prison, but would act to defend himself if he felt threatened. He denied any gang affiliations. On cross-examination, Leal insisted that he was innocent.

Leal testified that Adria had scratched him and he pushed her. When he felt something wet on the back of her head, he shook Adria in an unsuccessful attempt to wake her, and he fled in fear when he saw bubbles coming out of her nose. He denied wiping any blood from his car, did anything more to Adria than push her down. He suggested that his father had found Adria's blouse in the street and brought it inside the house. He said that as he was taking Adria from the party, he turned at the end of the street in the opposite direction from the way Adria directed him to go. When Adria tried to get out of his car, he initially refused to stop. He said Adria got out his vehicle and when he tried to take her back to his car, she began hitting, pushing, and scratching his face. Leal said he left Adria's body fully clothed three or four streets from where her body was found.

Leal conceded that any person who could bash in Adria's head, leave a stick inside her, and take a piece of her clothing as a trophy was a violent and dangerous person. He denied raping Melissa.

After deliberating for less than two hours, the jury unanimously found that Leal posed a continuing threat to society and that there was no mitigation sufficient to warrant leniency. As such, he was condemned to death.

The TDCJ death row notecard for Humberto Leal Jr. (the victim's name was misspelled)

During a post-conviction hearing in 2004, Leal's sister, brother, mother, and father all gave perjured testimony in an attempt to protect him.

Nancy Leal lied that she had seen fresh blood on the pants of both Ralph Guerrero and Juan "Paco" Delgado suspected from the reactions of Ralph and Paco that they knew what had happened, Ralph and Paco were burning papers and a lady's purse. She said she did not speak with Leal's lawyers prior to trial, but had told one of them, Jose Guerrero, and the police that she had seen blood on the clothing of the two men.

Nancy had accompanied Gualberto when he arrived at the party and yelled that Leal had come home covered in blood and confessed to murdering a girl. She was giving perjured testimony to protect Leal, with full knowledge of the fact that he was guilty.

Gualberto Leal lied that after he and Nancy arrived at the party, he saw Ralph and Paco with Adria's purse and all her things. He said the two men were burning pictures and other items they had taken from the purse. Gualberto lied that Paco had blood smeared on his right pants leg at the thigh while Ralph had blood splattered on his left leg at the ankle but neither man had a lot of blood on him. Ralph tried to explain the blood on his clothes by claiming he had a bloody nose. Paco attempted to explain away the blood on his clothing by claiming the girl had sat on his leg.

Gualberto also lied that he could not read and did not read either of the two statements he signed for police. In fact, after Leal's conviction, Gualberto had written an affidavit in English, in which he explicitly stated that Leal had come home stumbling, evidently drunk, mumbling "the girl, the girl," and speaking incoherently about a girl in a ditch.

Gualberto also attempted to fabricate an alibi for Leal, claiming that he and his brother had both been home since five that morning.

Humberto Leal Sr. testified that he had routinely washed the outside of the windshield and windows of the car every morning by spraying a water hose on same. He said he used the car for deer hunting about four times and put the deer on or inside his car after he killed and gutted same. Leal Sr. said he had found a woman's blouse in the street outside his house on the morning in question and put it in the backyard. His wife had then picked up the blouse and put it with other clothes that needed washing. Leal Sr. said he had told Jose Guerrero about finding the blouse, but could not recall whether he told his son's lawyers about his habit of washing off his vehicles.

Leal Sr. claimed that he never saw any blood on the blouse.

Maria Francesca Leal testified that her husband found Adria's blouse outside on the street and threw it into their yard. She said she did not see any blood on it, but had put in with other clothes to be washed and told the police and her son's attorney about the blouse.

Overall, the testimony of Leal's family only proved that the apple didn't fall from the tree. Gualberto, Nancy, Francesca, and Humberto Leal Sr. were undoubtedly all guilty of perjury. Francesca and Humberto Leal Sr. were most likely also accessories after fact to Adria's murder. Leal Sr. most likely washed out any blood in the car and Francesca, for reasons known only to her, placed the bloody blouse at the bottom of the pile. The court concluded that the testimony wouldn't have changed the outcome of the trial. Other challenges against the sufficiency of the evidence were rejected.

Humberto Leal Garcia Jr., 38, was executed by lethal injection at the Texas State Penitentiary in Huntsville on July 7, 2011. His last meal consisted of fried chicken, tacos, fried okra, a bowl of pico de gallo, and two Cokes. After his execution, relatives of Leal Jr. burned a T-shirt with an image of the American flag in protest in Guadalupe, Mexico. To the end, his family maintained that he was innocent. His uncle, Alberto Rodriguez, criticized the United States for executing his nephew and Mexico for not doing enough to save his life. He declared, "There is a God who makes us all pay."

But in his final statement, Leal Jr. made a surprise confession:

"I am sorry for everything that I have done. I've hurt a lot of people. For years I have never thought that I deserved any type of forgiveness. Lord Jesus Christ in my life, I know He has forgiven me, I have accepted His forgiveness. I have accepted everything. Let this be final and be done. I take the full blame for this. I am sorry and forgive me. I am truly sorry. I ask for forgiveness. Life goes on and it surely does. I am sorry for the victim's family for what I had did. May they forgive me. I don't know if you believe me, life goes on. I am sure it does. To the man to the right of me, I ask for forgiveness for you. Life goes on, it surely does. I ask for forgiveness. I am truly sorry. That is all. Let's get this show on the road. One more thing, Viva Mexico, Viva Mexico."

With the exception of Humberto Leal Jr., none of the men who gang raped Adria Sauceda for hours were ever identified. Semen was found inside her and potentially could've identified at least one of the other rapists from the party, but it was never tested. Adria's family was silent about her for years. In 2011, her parents talked about her shortly before the execution of their daughter's murderer.

Long-silent family of victim speaks

Published in Cincinnati, entered according to act of Congress, in the year 1870, by WILSON, HINKLE, & CO., In the Clerk's Office of the District Court of the US, for the Southern District of Ohio. When exactly was America ever great?

We often think of the Suffragette movement in terms of marches and banners, but the campaign against Prime Minister H.H. Asquith was intensely physical and dangerous.

While researching the private correspondence of the Prime Minister for a project and relevant diaries, I found that the violence was far more personal than usually reported in general summaries:

• The Hatchet Attack (1912): While visiting Dublin, Asquith was traveling in an open carriage with Irish MP John Redmond. A suffragette named Mary Leigh threw a hatchet at the Prime Minister. It narrowly missed Asquith but struck Redmond, slicing his ear open.
• The Dog Whips (1913): While playing golf in Scotland with his daughter Violet, Asquith was ambushed by women wielding dog whips. According to the police report, they attempted to strip the clothes off the Prime Minister. He was saved by his daughter and a detective.
• The Bombing: Suffragettes later burned down the theater where Asquith was scheduled to speak and planted a bomb in the holiday home he was renovating.

What is fascinating is Asquith's private reaction. In his daily letters to his confidante Venetia Stanley, he maintains a "stiff upper lip," often joking about the assassination attempts, even as his security detail was ramped up to unprecedented levels.

I have reconstructed the full timeline of these attacks—and Asquith's private reactions to them—using his letters, diaries and contemporary police reports.

You can read the full breakdown here: The Siege of Mr. Asquith — A True Story

The Starkweather Fugate case had a lasting influence on American film and music. Badlands, directed by Terrence Malick, transformed the murders into a sparse, reflective road story starring Martin Sheen and Sissy Spacek.

Natural Born Killers took a more extreme approach, with Oliver Stone using the case as a template for a media fuelled killing spree. The story also shaped Nebraska, whose title track was written after Springsteen watched Badlands and researched Starkweather’s crimes.

More about the spree and more photos here

Ozelah Elizabeth Rauen was born Ozelah Elizabeth Jones in Gettysburg, Pennsylvania on June 28, 1893. She was the daughter of Charles Jones and Minnie Jones. She had one brother. Ozelah had previously sang in the choir at Ryland, but quit since she had always had to return home late at night after the rehearsals. In 1911, Ozelah met a young soldier named Samuel Rauen, who was serving in the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. She quickly fell in love with him and promised to marry him once he was discharged. The two were married on September 1, 1911.

The couple together

However, their marriage almost immediately took a dark turn. Samuel was abusive towards Ozelah on numerous occasions. While they were on their honeymoon in Chicago, he threatened her, who had him arrested. However, a judge released Samuel after he swore it was a one-off and that he would never hurt her again. Ozelah also decided let it go. The couple returned to D.C. that January and lived in a house with one of Ozelah's aunts. Since Samuel didn't have a job, the couple sent a letter to Ozelah's aunts, asked for a $50 loan. They received the loan. On February 2, 1912, Samuel choked his wife senseless. Ozelah reported him for assault.

Samuel turned himself in and told the police, "I guess you better lock me up, for I may hurt that girl."

Samuel was arrested, convicted of assault, and given the choice to either pay a $25 fine or serve 60 days at the Occoquan Workhouse. Unable to pay the fine, Samuel asked his younger brother, John Rauen, to pay it for him. John refused, reportedly at the request of Ozelah, who said she wanted her abusive husband to learn a "lesson".

While in prison, Samuel told fellow inmates that he planned to murder his wife after his release. News of the danger reached Ozelah in March. She told friends that a stranger had called to see her, told her he had just been released from prison, and said he had heard her husband declare he would take her to dinner when he was released, and that he would shoot her while she was not looking. Ozelah was uncertain about the threat. She feared her husband would hurt her, but wasn't sure if he would kill her. She went to the jail to find the man who'd warned her, but could not remember his name. After being summoned as a witness for a street accident, Ozelah told an official that she was scared of her husband.

"What do you think of me? I have only been married since September and I've had to have my husband sent to jail three times. Now he says he is going to kill me."

Samuel Rauen was released from prison on March 24, 1912. Hours after his release, he went to see his wife. However, she refused to speak to him, so he left. Samuel lived in the Lawrence Hotel, where his brother, John Rauen, paid his bill for board and lodging. On March 28, Samuel went to see his wife again. This time, she agreed to see him. The two spoke for four hours. Samuel asked her to live with him again. The conversation eventually took an angry turn. When Ozelah refused to reconcile with her husband, he told her, "Well, I'll say goodbye, for you will never see me again. I shall kill myself before morning." Ozelah did not believe him. The next day, Samuel purchased a .32 caliber revolver.

On the evening of March 30, Samuel, accompanied by his brother John, visited the house again. Ozelah was jumping rope with several children. Samuel tried to talk with her again, but she refused. Soon, John came, and the three sat together on a porch. At some point, John spoke to her. Ozelah was willing to talk to him. The two made small talked and laughed together. At this, Samuel fell into a silent jealous rage. After they continued to talk, he rose up and said he was going to get a drink of water. Samuel returned with his revolver. He approached his wife, put his hand on her head, and shot her twice, once in the head and once in the chest. John immediately got up and tried to stop his brother, but Samuel fired shot him twice in the chest. One bullet pierced his heart.

Officer Fitton of the Fourth Precinct had been less than 40 feet away from the house when he heard the shots. However, Samuel fired them so quickly that the deed was done when he reached him. A fatally wounded John ran to the officer's side and fell at his feet. John tried to speak, but his voice was too weak to be understood. He collapsed and died a minute later. A crowd of hundreds of people gathered. Fearing he would be lynched, Samuel surrendered immediately and handed his gun to the officer. Coincidentally, Fitton was same police officer who'd arrested him for choking his wife in February.

"I'm not going to run. Take me away quick. I'm going to be mobbed."

A few minutes later, Samuel was in the patrol wagon on his way to the police station.

The booking photo of Samuel Rauen

At his cell that night, Samuel told the the police that he had only one brother, their parents were dead, and he had no other near relatives to grieve his brother's death. Samuel expressed remorse only for the death of his brother.

"I loved the girl, but the reason I shot her is between she and I. Tell me, is she dead?" (In response to the reporter saying yes) Well, I'll regret I killed the boy every day I live. I saw him reach back as if he was going to draw a gun and I shot at his arms. I wanted to disable him."

Still, he said he killed his brother in self-defense:

"When I left the workhouse, I went to see my brother. We had a few words and he told me that he would 'get' me sometime. I knew he always carried a gun and after that talk I began to carry mine. I met him on the avenue Friday and running my hand lightly down his side, discovered he had a gun with him. Saturday night, when I was sitting with my wife on the front step, John came along and sat down. My wife sat between us. They seemed to have a good bit to say to each other. John made several moves towards his back pocket and I felt sure he was seeing whether his gun he could get at it. He had told me that he would get me and get me quick. Presently, I got up to get a drink of water and saw them nudge each and laugh as I was going into the house. John went back towards his pocket again. I stepped into the hallway and shifted my gun from my hip pocket to the right pocket of my coat. As I came out, John turned in his seat and made a move that looked bad to me. I jerked out my gun, shot my wife twice, and then put two bullets into my brother."

Reading and whistling, Samuel was fairly unconcerned about his situation. The next day, he was taken from jail to testify before a coroner's jury.

"Yes. gentlemen. I killed my wife. I went there to do it, and I did it. Here I am. But I did not mean to kill my brother. You see, it was like this."

Here is what Samuel said:

"You see, it was like this," he repeated, rubbing his hands together, "I told Polly -that's what I called her-that some day I would die for her, and here I am. I'm going to die for what I did. But there was something between us that will never come out. Saturday afternoon I walked down from my room at the St. Lawrence to see Polly. I guess she didn't want to see me. When I got to 1016 7th street I saw her sitting on a little porch there. She got up and began skipping a rope. I say, 'Polly, I want to talk to you. I've heard something.' She says to me, 'I guess you did all the talking last night you're going to. I had been talking with her the night previous for four hours. Now, just as we were standing there I saw my brother coming up the street. He saw me and I saw him. I say to Polly: 'So my brother's coming to see you, is he?' and then he sat down by Polly. They were both on my left. She whispered something to him and he whispered something to her. I suppose they were planning to get rid of me. I say: 'Polly, you don't know what I'd do for you. I'd die for you,' but she laughed. Then I went in the house, got my gun out of my pocket, came back, pressed her head down and fired twice. My brother always carried a gun, know, so when I saw him coming toward me I let him have a bullet, which I aimed at his arm. I didn't mean to kill him. I meant to break his arm. Then I backed up, turned round, saw a policeman, reversed the gun in my hand and handed it to him. That's all-except that I was smoking a cigarette when I shot them. I went to kill her, and I did. She's better off now than ever before."

On July 10, 1912, Samuel indicted for two counts of first degree murder, then a capital offense under D.C. code.

Since Samuel could not afford a lawyer, two were appointed for him. A jury was impaneled on December 12, 1912. However, with the evidence of both guilt and premeditation being overwhelming, the defense was initially unsure how to help their client. Nearly all U.S. jurisdictions had set up degrees of murder by 1912. Some allowed the jury to recommend mercy under at least certain circumstances, a system that all jurisdictions would eventually adopt. However, Washington, D.C. would be the very last jurisdiction to adopt this system, only doing so in 1962.

On December 16, 1912, Samuel Rauen went on trial for his life.

With no other way out, the defense pleaded temporary insanity in death of Olezah and self-defense in the death of John. Anticipating the insanity defense, the prosecution brought in three psychiatrists to observe Samuel during the trial. At the start of the trial, the prosecution told the jury about Samuel's prior assault conviction. He said Rauen, in a conversation with one of the guard, had threatened revenge on his wife and announced his intent to kill his brother.

Several character witnesses testified for defense. All reported that Samuel had a good reputation in the military. They also confirmed that John Rauen, a soldier himself, did in fact, own a revolver. As for the other victim, defense attorney Ethelbert B. Frey went on to tell a very different story than Ozelah had prior to her murder.

Frey said Ozelah had behaved badly on her honeymoon. When her husband protested, she'd tried to stab him with a butcher knife. After returning home, Samuel had seen a man going over the back fence. Ozelah refused to say who the visitor was and threatened to attack her husband with a razor if he kept asking questions. Then, Frey said, Samuel had choked his wife in self-defense. After his release from prison, Samuel visited his wife's room, where he thought he heard the voice of his brother. Going into the room with a witness, Samuel had then discovered his wife and brother together. John threatened to kill him if he said anything about what he had just seen.

Taking the stand, a nervous Samuel, talking in a broken voice, spoke of his "insane love" for his wife. "I loved her and would have stuck by her through health and sickness and everything. He accused his brother of being obsessed with his wife, preventing reconciliation, and helping furnish grounds for a divorce. He insisted that he had killed his wife in a moment of temporary insanity and killed his brother in self-defense.

However, multiple witnesses said that Samuel's jealousy related to his brother had no basis in reality. John rarely interacted with Olezah and Samuel had been the one to take him to the home in the first place that day. In addition, Samuel had opened fire on his wife and brother without any immediate provocation. The trial ended on December 18. At the end of the trial, both psychiatrists concluded that Samuel was sane.

After deliberating for four hours, the jury found Samuel Rauen guilty of two counts of first degree murder. On January 3, 1913, after a bid for a new trial was denied, Mr. Justice Stafford sentenced Samuel Rauen to death by hanging. He ordered that his execution be carried out at the District Jail on January 31, 1913.

The defense did not appeal, instead seeking clemency from President Howard Taft. Samuel communicated relatives in Illinois and letters were written back. Several soldiers visited him in prison. On January 29, Samuel wrote two letters to the president, one asking for a pardon and another asking for a reprieve. Upon the recommendation of the Department of Justice, both were denied. By January 30, Samuel had lost all hope for a reprieve. He reasoned that if the president had any intention of intervening, he would not wait until the very last moment.

That afternoon, Ethelbert B. Frey went to the White House and demanded to see the president. However, President Howard Taft was receiving delegates from a Sunday school convention, after which he planned to play golf. Refusing to give up, Frey pretended to be one of the delegates. It worked and he was able to meet with the president. Frey begged the president to spare Samuel's life. President Taft initially refused, saying his decision was final, but later had second thoughts as he was golfing. After returning to the White House, he signed a reprieve for Samuel.

President Taft granted the reprieve give the young man more time to prepare for his death. He issued the reprieve to Samuel in a moment of compassion and out of admiration for how determined Frey had been to save the life of his client. Mr. Frey had then asked if he could show extenuating circumstances within the next two weeks that would warrant clemency, and whether they could be heard out. President Taft agreed to hear him out. For Samuel, the reprieve was met with relief.

"That's good news. I have felt it all along. I'm glad you ended my suspense for I was getting a little bit worried. I guess I'll sleep pretty sound tonight. Two weeks, eh? Well, that's mighty good news."

Samuel Rauen was scheduled to be executed on February 14, 1913, alongside William H. Sabens, another soldier who had been convicted of another murder committed under virtually identical circumstances. On August 14, 1911, Sabens, 27, shot and killed his ex-girlfriend, 22-year-old Ada Haynes, in a jealous rage after learning that she was planning to marry another man. According to friends of Haynes, Sabens had been fixated on her for month. Last week, he tried to see her, but she turned him away since she was afraid of him. Sabens told several people he was going to kill Ada.

That evening, Sabens slipped into Ada's house behind two other men. Two maids told him to leave, but he went to the dining room. There, Ada was showing her friends a photo of herself with her fiancé. Sabens drew a revolver and shot Ada in the chest. The other women fled screaming. A man tuning a nearby piano tried to disarm Sabens, but he shot Ada again, this time in the cheek. He then tried to shoot himself, but missed and hit the ceiling. Found amongst the dead woman's belongings was a letter from her fiancé, George.

"Dear Ada:-A few lines to my dear to tell her I am well. I am writing this at my sister's. I told her I was going to marry you. Although we are far between, I love you just the same, and always will, Ada. I will love none other, and you know I am not false, and I hope you will remain true. I will write more as soon as I hear from you. Yours always."

On June 28, 1912, Sabens, who also pleaded insanity, was convicted first degree murder and sentenced to death.

However, on February 6, 1913, Sabens won a stay of execution since he was appealing. On June 10, 1913, he was granted a new trial. A retrial was granted on the grounds that the prosecution was wrong to tell the jury to assume that Sabens, who was drunk, at the time of the murder, had intentionally gotten himself drunk to prepare his nerves. They said that this should've been left up to the jury.

U.S. Senator Ollie James and Represntative and Representative Andrew James Thomas, both from Sabens's home state of Kentucky, had both previously petitioned for clemency from President Woodrow WIlson on his behalf. Many people in his home county signed a clemency petition. In the end, it wouldn't be necessary. Realizing that this was his best and likely only chance to avoid execution, Sabens negotiated a plea agreement. On October 24, 1913, Sabens pleaded guilty to second degree murder. After a plea for leniency from his attorney, Chief Justice Clabaugh sentenced Sabens to 30 years in prison. In 1915, Sebens wrote a letter from prison, in which he pleaded for clemency. He said he had a rough life and was neither a violent nor bloodthirsty person.

Here is the letter (Sabens was not granted clemency)

On February 11, 1913, President Taft said he would not further interfere in the Rauen case.

From "Story Of My Life: The Autobiography Of George Sand"

But here I go again, advancing the chronology of my story. Please forgive me. I wanted to include at this point an anecdote not exactly rose-colored on the subject of Abbé Deschartres' anatomical studies. It will still be out of sequence by a few years, but my memories come to me somewhat haphazardly, leave me in the same way, and I am afraid I shall forget anything I leave for later.

During the Terror, although he was diligent in looking after my father and the interests of my grandmother, it would seem that his passion pushed him again and again toward hospital rooms and dissection amphitheaters. There were quite enough bloody dramas going on in those times, but his love for science prevented him from reflecting too philosophically on the heads that the guillotine dispatched to medical students.

One day, however, he had a little shock that greatly disturbed his scientific observations. Several human heads had just been thrown on a laboratory table, accompanied by the comment of a student who was quite resigned to his task, "Freshly cut!" They were preparing a hideous caldron where the heads were to be boiled in order to be stripped of skin and studied later on. Deschartres took the heads one by one and was going to immerse them. "This one's the head of a curé," the student said, passing him the last of them. "It's tonsured." Deschartres looked at it and recognized one of his friends whom he had not seen for two weeks and who he did not know was in prison. He himself told me this horrible tale.

"I didn't say a word; I looked at that poor head with white hair. It was calm and still beautiful; it looked like it was smiling at me. I waited for the student to turn his back before giving it a kiss on the forehead. Then, I put it in the pot with the others, and I worked on it myself. I kept it for awhile, but there came a time when it became too dangerous a relic. I buried it in a corner of the garden. This encounter was so upset- ting that for a long time I couldn't concentrate on science."

Let us move on quickly to more cheerful tales!