◆ SpookStack

"The Chessman ' Cause-Celebre Lives On SINTE LIFE, By Milton Mac! ind Wilkam Read ~« Wooaiield (G, P, Putnam's i spent jf pearfy 12 years in San Quen- ) Gin’s deatn row before his executio: for kidnaping for ry i purpose of robbing with “* codily harm on May 2, 1966. “His own citings, beginning with: the 9: “Celt tis spec~ Efe, his taroura n for pesthu- = rraged? provested his ad Mr. Wood! follow osy Magazine, } wn the ‘svestigat ‘The authors clai nd make e@ aCe unt consequentiy “ses impact. Not the Man? The seareh fer ayidence A i ' night be the man. Chessman were the vandit, the acts for which he was tried were not committed --that: is’ they were less se- rious than would Warrant the death penalty. And even if the evidence weren’t ques- tionable, tne conduct_of the yial was, This involves the } fonceuling evidence, for ob- "Mf justice through 12 however, are better answ judges’ refusal to give Man dally tra scraqrsy the jud.es’ insistence that Chessman remain at the counsel table while question- ing witnesses, and, more im- portantly, the use of a prose- cutor’s relative with a record of aicoholism to transcribe the trial testimony from the snorthand notes of the cour: reporter who died between triat and sentencing. In piacing responsibility for Chessman's executicn, the authors acknowledge that Chessman himself bears a Jarge part of the burden for + insisting on directing bis own Gefense—at first inepi ‘later arrogantly, 7 dlame te press, Rar and the public. A Giant Conspiracy? “In the iong run, how " they contend. “it is Probably the agencies of law ej C= meni—motivated by personal pride, emotional bias, haps, lack of integrity—w merit the largest shasc of the guilt; for de eracely atructing the fair cper: Year: The impressionable would gonclude from the autao. frequently intemperate ac- J count that police, prosecz: ‘Ss and the State and Federal judiciary were all engaged in & giant conspiracy against one possioiy innocen* 5 . But Chessman’s case went to tne Supreme Court at least half a dozen times on on> arzumeni or another. + vis poss:cie thas merits of the case got loss ing e eal technics ‘S. S possitie that the mazter of. the disputed tra: scrips could have been reso! ed More readily by a new trial than endiess arguments about (he correctness of the orizinal “transeripi. These Questions, d iby those irarned in the and a great deal more ob- ‘iective than the authors of