Haymarket Affair Digital Collection

Illinois vs. August Spies et al. trial transcript no. 1.
Testimony of James Bowler (second appearance), 1886 July 29.

Volume K, 585-587, 3 p.
Bowler, James.
Police Lieutenant, Chicago Police Department.

Direct examination by Mr. Grinnell. Testified on behalf of the Prosecution, People of the State of Illinois.

Brought into court blood-stained and shredded clothing of officers wounded in the Haymarket riot. Testified on various topics (page numbers provide a partial guide): medical care and wounds (vol.K 586).

Go to Next Witness | Return to Previous Witness | Return to Trial TOC | Return to the HADC Table of Contents
[Image, Volume K, Page 585]

James Bowler, recalled by the people, was examined by Mr. GrineLL and testified as follows;

Q You are lieutenant of the police station at Desplaines street?

A Yes sir.

Q Have charge of that station?

A Yes sir.

Q Have you any of the clothing here taken from the officers after they were brought in, from the Haymarket on the 4th of May?

A Yes sir.

Q The package you have there is the clothing taken from the officers?

A Part of it.

Q What you have here is a part of that taken from them?

A Yes sir.

Q That which you have here was taken?

A Yes, sir.

Q You may open that package.

Mr. Black: Is there any materiality in that?

Mr. GRINELL: It is to show the character of the missiles. We offer it in evidence.

Mr BLACK: We object to the offer of the clothing as immaterial

[Image, Volume K, Page 586]

and incompetent.

THE COURT: I can't say now whether it is material or not, whether in its present condition it is admissible or not.

Mr. GRINELL: I will ask Lieut. Bowler-- this is you say the clothing taken from the officers or some of the clothing taken from the officers brought in that night?

A Yes sir.

THE COURT: Do you mean taken off from their persons, clothing which they were wearing?

A Yes sir.

Mr GRINELL: Q Which whey had on when they were brought from the Haymarket?

A Yes sir.

THE COURT: Q Has anything been done to it-- is it now in the condition or not that it was when it was taken off?

A Just the same.

THE COURT: If there is anything in the appearance of the clothing which makes it competent as evidence here, before I pass on the objection I will see what it is.

Mr GRINELL: Let the officer explain. Take each article.

A Here is one of the shoes torn by a shell.

Q Point out the particular place. One on the heel, two of them on the heel.

Q Take some of the cltohing?

A There are pants.

THE COURT: Q I suppose you claim those are blood stains?

A Yes sir.

Mr. BLACK: We have not contended that the officers did not have clothing on.

[Image, Volume K, Page 587]

THE COURT: The shots could not be so accurately described so that any one would get an accurate idea as by showing the effect?

Mr BLACK: They have put a physician on the stand who has carefully detailed the character of the wounds, and how many there were and where they were located.

THE COURT: All that I pass upon is that any cltohing which was torn by the missiles that might taken from the officers, I think it is admissible to show. Whether in fact this was so torn or not is question I do not pass upon.

Exception by defendants.

Mr BLACK: Our objection is to the clothing until the fact is shown. It would be necessary to show who the clothing belonged to, and whether the party was wounded.

THE WITNESS: That pants is Lawrence Murphy's.

Mr GRINELL: That is all.

Return to Top of this Witness
Go to Next Witness | Return to Previous Witness | Return to Trial TOC | Return to the HADC Table of Contents