Gilbertsville Bank Robbery continued - 1905

The Gilbertsville Bank Robbery - continued

 

Jamestown Evening Journal, December 18, 1905

If there is any young man who has not yet realized the value of having a good name let him look into the case of John Mullen who one day last week was convicted of participation in the robbery of the Brewer bank at Gilbertsville, Otsego county.  A gang of men on the morning of May 2 crippled all telegraph and telephone lines leading out of the village, blew open the safe with dynamite or some other high explosive meanwhile holding the villagers at bay, and finally drove off with something over $3,000.  Mullen was arrested in New York and tried the other day in Cooperstown.  There was but one real witness against Mullen.  That was one of the villagers who, awakened by the explosion, went out to see what happened. He lived close by the bank and the robbers, taking no chances, seized this man, bound and gagged him and continued the work.  The man testified that while he was being bound Mullen came out of the door of the bank.  After the district attorney had presented the case against Mullen it looked as if the young man might be acquitted.  But in attempting to prove an alibi Mullen accidentally showed that he was not only not an industrious citizen, but that the company he kept was bad.  In fact, judged by what he admitted he was, and by the character of his friends he was perhaps capable of participation in such a crime, and that sealed his fate.  A good reputation would have at once dispelled any lingering doubts in the minds of the jury and would have set him free.  A good name is a big stick of defense when a man gets into trouble.  Because he was not so armed poor Mullen will probably serve many years in prison.

 

Amsterdam Evening Recorder, January 2, 1906

Judge Barnum has decided that John Mullen, who was recently convicted at Cooperstown of burglary and larceny in connection with the robbing of the Brower bank at Gilbertsville last May, should have a new trial on the ground that the jurors had taken into consideration certain evidence ordered stricken out during the trial.  Mullen was arrested in New York city a few weeks after the robbery of the Gilbertsville bank.

 

Mullen Acquitted

The Otsego Farmer, April 20, 1906

The second trial of John Mullen, the New Yorker charged with having been a member of a gang of five men who robbed the bank of E.C. Brewer in Gilbertsville on the first night of last May, was concluded at about four o'clock, Tuesday afternoon.  The jury, after deliberating less than an hour returned to the court room and announced a verdict of not guilty.  Mullen who has been in jail since the time he was arrested in New York City, last June, was set at liberty at once.  He stopped at the Fenimore until the evening train and then returned to New York.  He said that he had lost about ten pounds during his eleven months' residence at Herkimer.

 

Court opened Monday afternoon at two o'clock with Judge Barnum of Cherry Valley on the bench.  After some preliminary matters were disposed of the District Attorney moved the case of John Mullen, charged with burglary and grand larceny in the second degree.  The defense was ready but owing to a delay in the trolley road the deputy sheriff who was on the way with the prisoner from Herkimer, has not yet arrived and adjournment for half an hour was taken.

 

The case was opened as soon as the prisoner arrived.  For the defense appeared Hermann J. Witte of New York who defended Mullen in the first trial and upon whose application a new trial was granted.  Merritt A. Bridges of Morris, who as district attorney represented the People at the first trial, tried the case for District Attorney Welch. As there were few peremptory challenger the drawings of the jury occupied a comparatively short time....

 

The first witness called by the People was E.C. Brewer of Gilbertsville who swore to the facts of the burglary as far as he knew them.  His testimony simply established the fact that the robbery took place and differed in no particular from that offered at the first trial.

 

Following Mr. Brewer, Edwin Stockwell, the chief witness for the people, was called.  Mr. Stockwell resides at Gilbertsville only a short distance away from the bank.  He was awakened by the reports from the explosion of nitroglycerine with which the robbers blew open the safe and went out into the street to investigate.  Here he was met by members of the gang, bound and gagged and told to make no noise.  While the others were at work one of the desperadoes held a loaded revolver to his forehead to give force to their directions.

 

While all this was going on Mr. Stockwell was taking note of the appearance of one of the men to get his physical peculiarities and his dress well in mind.  His description at the first trial certainly tallied well with the peculiarities of the accused. He said that the man he described stood about eight feet from him.  the moon was not shining and there were no lights near.  He observed that the man wore a soft hat flattened in at the top.  His coat was dark, although he could not tell whether it was a short coat a long coat or an overcoat.  The man had a smoothly shaven face with traces of a black beard starting upon it.  His nose was nearly straight and the witness noted his prominent chin and jaw bones.

 

While they were standing there the witness noticed the man hitch his shoulder in a peculiar manner.  He noticed the same characteristic motion of the shoulder on the train coming from New York in Cooperstown and he had seen the same act on the part of the accused while he was upon the stand at the first trial.

 

In all the above the testimony of Mr. Stockwel practically agreed with that given by him at the first trial, but when it came to the matter of the certainty on the part of the witness that identification was correct, there was a noticeable change in his statements.  At the first trial when asked by Mr. Witte if he was absolutely sure that Mullen was the man he had seen at Gilbertsville he admitted, after some hesitation, that he could not be sure. At the trial this week Mr. Stockwell seemed much more certain of his ground....

 

On the cross examination Mr Stockwell said that he wore eye glasses for near sightedness and also admitted that he had had several conversations with Mr. Bridges in regard to the case, just before the trial. The witness said that on the night in question, while he was being bound and gagged and while the robber held a revolver aimed at him within eight inches of his forehead he stood there not in the least excited, perfectly cool and perfectly calm.  So calm was he that the was able to tell the caliber of the revolver.

 

Tow jurors at the former trial, Louis Welch of Edmeston and George Page of Flycreek were called and testified to having seen Mullen shrug his shoulder while upon the witness stand.  the former could not tell which shoulder the accused had shrugged but the latter was a little inclined to think it was the left.

 

With this the testimony of these the People rested.  The motion of Attorney Witte to instruct the jury to bring in a verdict of not guilty was denied by Judge Barnum.

 

The witnesses for the defense were Grace Bradley, Maurice Black, otherwise known as "Twinkler," Albert Wilson and the defendant himself.  Mrs. Mullen was ill and her presence could not be secured.   Since the last trial the "Twinkler" has turned up and was on hand to add his testimony to that of the others.  Although each in turn openly admitted a manner of living that revealed something of the shocking character of the lives of the submerged classes in New York, their stories hung well together and agreed in essence with that given on the former trial. The testimony of Bessie Mullen at the former trial was read by the stenographer and admitted as evidence.

 

The contention of the defense was to the effect on the night upon which the robbery occurred the defendant, Mullen, accompanied, Bessie Bradley to the Raymond Street jail in Brooklyn to visit the "Twinkler" who had been arrested on suspicion.  They all agreed that Mullen had remained in the house all that day and the following night.

 

It is likely that the verdict of not guilty was given on the ground of the insufficiency of the identification by Mr. Stockwell more than by reason of the strength of the alibi as the character of the witnesses for the defense was such as to give small ground for credence.