BRIDGEPORT, Conn., Nov. 8.--The Weinbecker murder trial was resumed this morning in the Superior Court. During the afternoon session the court-room was packed with spectators. Two-thirds of the audience were women. Great interest was manifested in the proceedings. During the morning session Mrs. Alexander sat among the spectators, and while Mr. Thompson was arguing the case she expressed considerable emotion. When he read the letter she sent to her mother she sobbed violently. Throughout the day she looked very much depressed, and hardly lifted her head. When she was called upon to stand up and receive her sentence, she held a handkerchief to her eyes while it was being pronounced. She gave way to tears, and upon the sentence being finished, she sank down into her seat completely overcome with grief. Bassett has not been in court to-day. Curtis Thompson stated that he should probably move for a new trial. Bassett's trial will take place Tuesday, Nov. 19, probably before Judges Martin and Beardsley. Bassett will be defended by D. B. Lockwood and M. D. Wilbur.
    Mr. Thompson's argument yesterday was substantially as follows: Mrs. Alexander, he said, since her arrest had been surrounded by enemies rather than friends, and therefore she had been placed under great disadvantages. She was charged with murder in the first degree. A person could not be convicted of murder without the testimony of two witnesses or its equivalent. Take out the prisoner's own statement and it could not be found that Weinbecker came to his death by criminal agency. "Dr. Hubbard testified," said Mr. Thompson "that the body which he examined was so decomposed that he found nothing to prove that Weinbecker came to his death by a criminal agency. The more important question is whether the prisoner at the bar committed the crime. The State does not claim that Mrs. Alexander administered the chloroform, but it is claimed that she assisted. The only evidence on which the State claims a conviction is the statement of Mrs. Alexander. The only evidence is that while Frank Bassett was committing the crime she handed him the bottle which stood some distance from where Weinbecker lay. Did she do it under coercion and fear of her life? We may say she did. Take for a moment the position under which Mrs. Alexander made this statement. On Sept. 28 she went with Bassett to New-London on a schooner. Bassett was arrested. Mrs. Alexander was left on board. When she returns to Bridgeport she goes to her home and finds that she has been stripped of every thing. Is it, then, any wonder that she was indignant at this fact? Mrs. Alexander goes to Wyncoop for advice, and in her statement to him that she had been robbed, she let slip the words that Bassett had done enough to be hanged. Do you blame her? Mrs. Alexander goes to Chief Marsh and asks him what can be done. He replies that he can do nothing for her. She then applies to Mr. Holt and makes a statement to him, and passes over the principal portion of the statement. Mrs. Alexander had gone to a public prosecuting officer and made her statement. She said she dare not give the details of the crime as she was in fear of her life from the hands of Bassett and his friends. Was there a motive in this? You have got to take that statement or you must reject it; no other reason or explanation can be given but her fear of her life. Mrs. Alexander, when asked by Mr. Holt if she had anything to do with this crime, said "No," except what she did through fear. The State says if you believe any of her statement you must believe the whole of it. Mrs. Alexander had been promised protection if she would give the details of the murder. If her statement be true she is guiltless of this crime. The handing of the bottle of chloroform on that night was an involuntary act, and, therefore, she is excused for this act.
    Mr. Thompson then reviewed the interview at the County Jail between Mrs. Alexander and Bassett. He said: "Take Mrs. Alexander's statements to Mr. Holt, Mr. Arnold, and Mr. Marsh, and you will see that whatever she did on that night of the crime, she did through fear of her life. If that be so, and there be no other evidence against her, it is your duty to find this fact in her favor, and if you find that fact in her favor can you say under oath that she is guilty? I know that there are suspicious circumstances in this case, but you cannot hang on suspicion. If there is a doubt, then she certainly is entitled to the benefit of it. Look at the position of this woman, locked up in that room with these two men. Do you wonder that she was frightened and crazy, and did not know what to do? The frank and candid statement of Mrs. Alexander vindicates her. She does not seek to hide herself. There is no evidence here that she counseled, commanded, or assisted in this crime. Did she aid or abet in this crime? We say not. She went into that room, smelled that odor, and saw Frank Bassett and asked him what he was doing. Bassett commanded her to hand him that chloroform bottle. She found Bassett with his hands over the man's face. How could Mrs. Alexander be aiding in this crime? It is not within your power or mine to say that the chloroform had not been administered to Weinbecker before she came into that room. Dr. Hubbard has said that chloroform may cause death in an instant, and it may not in an hour's time. We do not know what had been done before she came into that room, but we do know, and she tells you in her statement, that something had been done here. Was there any evidence produced that Weinbecker moved or made any signs of life after that woman came into the room? You are to be satisfied that that man came to his death by the assistance of her hands. She was ignorant of the crime until it had progressed some way. The State has not proved that the chloroform bottle which was handed to Bassett assisted in that man's death. On the question of concealment, whatever she did after the crime was committed has nothing to do with the assisting or abetting. Whatever assistance she rendered Bassett after the man's death was done through fear of Bassett. Mrs. Alexander said that Bassett put his hands in the dead man's pockets, and he said, 'Well, I have not got much out of that job.' May it not be that the man was stupefied for plunder. In regard to the interview at the County Jail, you may search the annals of crime in this country and the world over, and see if you ever heard of an assistant and participant in crime asking for such an interview."
    Judge Beardsley charged the jury substantially as follows: "This is a remarkable case, and the only evidence is the prisoner's own statement. It was she who first disclosed the crime, and it was she who took the officers to the place where the clothes and bottle were found. It was she who took them to Dr. Sanford, at New-Haven, and, finally to where the body was found. There is some other evidence brought out in the case, but the main evidence is in her own statement. The statement which she related on the witness-stand was, as I understand it, that while Bassett was in the act of administering the chloroform, he commanded her to hand him the bottle, and that she did hand it to him. The State claims that this is enough. If she consciously furnished the material that took the man's life, that is sufficient to convict her. It is claimed on the part of the defense that the man was not dead when the bottle was handed to Bassett. If this be so, she is not guilty of the crime of murder. It is claimed further on the part of the defense that whatever she did in this matter was done under peculiar circumstances; that she was in apprehension that if she did not do as she was bid she would be in danger of her life. It is proper that you take into consideration all the circumstances surrounding her sex as to her fear of Bassett--she being alone with him and that she stood in fear of him. The State claims that there must be no means of escape, and that the person must make every effort to get away, or she must be found guilty of the crime. The State says that it has furnished evidence outside of surrounding circumstances equal to two witnesses that she actually committed the deed. It says that the whole history of her trying to dispose of the bodies goes to show that she premeditated the murder. It is claimed, on the part of the defense, that she had no motive that prompted her in killing this man; that the story she told was true, and after she had told her story she was free, and made no effort to escape."
    The jury retired at 3:10 P. M., and remained out 50 minutes. The foreman announced to the court that their decision was that the prisoner was guilty of murder in the second degree. It was stated that at the first ballot the jury stood six for murder in the first degree and six for murder in the second degree.
    Mrs. Alexander was then called upon to stand up and receive her sentence. Judge Martin then pronounced the sentence substantially as follows: "Mrs. Lorena E. Alexander, you are indicted by the Grand Jury of Fairfield County and found guilty of the murder of Frank Weinbecker. At the bar of this court you plead not guilty. You have been furnished with able counsel for your defense and tried before an intelligent jury, which, after careful deliberation, has brought in a verdict of murder in the second degree. By this verdict you have been permitted to live on, but you are condemned to confinement within the prison walls. While there it is hoped that you will make attonement for your past sins and prepare yourself to meet your God. Nothing now remains for the court to do but to pass sentence upon the accused and that is that Lorena E. Alexander be taken to the Connecticut State Prison and be confined there for the remainder of her natural life."

Source:

Unknown, "A Murdereress Convicted," The New York Times, New York, N.Y., Saturday, 9 November, 1878, p. 1.