The Unlucky Look-Alike
A case of mistaken identity in a Seattle courtroom saw an innocent man nearly extradited for a Pennsylvania forgery because he looked exactly like his cousin.
The story, cleaned up
A cleaned-up reading of the newspaper page: spelling and layout repaired, one story lifted off a crowded page. It follows the original closely but it is not a transcription. The original page is below; read it if a detail matters.
In the district court yesterday morning, a writ of habeas corpus was issued upon the petition of William L. Tobias, a suspected forger who was arrested in Cowlitz County by direction of Chief Mitchell about two weeks ago, and who has since been confined in the county jail awaiting the arrival of Deputy Sheriff Root. The application was based upon the ground of mistaken identity.
Immediately upon the convening of court in the afternoon, the hearing was taken up. Joshua M. Wiestling appeared for the prosecution on behalf of the Pennsylvania authorities, and Ralph E. Esteb for the petitioner. The hearing brought out a remarkable series of coincidences. The man wanted for the forgery is named William T. Tobias, while the prisoner’s name is William L. Tobias. The man wanted is described in the letters and telegrams received from Pennsylvania as being 28 years of age, 5 feet 9 inches in height, with light brown hair, dark complexion, and as speaking English with a marked Pennsylvania Dutch accent. The prisoner answered fairly well to this description; but when a photograph of the criminal was compared with a photograph of the prisoner, it was evident that the wrong man was in custody.
The prisoner testified that he had a cousin named William T. Tobias and that it was this cousin who had committed the crime. To prove the fact that William T. and William L. Tobias were different persons, he produced a registered letter receipt showing that he, William L. Tobias, had sent a registered package to William T. Tobias through the mails from one town in Pennsylvania some three years ago, before the crime was committed. He testified that he had left Pennsylvania before the commission of the forgeries and had come to Kansas, later making his home at Stella, Cowlitz County.
Two cousins of the prisoner testified that they knew both William L. and William T. Tobias, that it was William T. who committed the forgery, and that William L. Tobias was the prisoner. Mr. Wiestling frankly stated to the court that he was not positive as to the identity of the prisoner and was unwilling to have him taken back unless it could be shown that he was wanted. Judge Hanford said that the preponderance of evidence was on the side of the prisoner. The writ was thereupon confirmed and the prisoner discharged.
“The hearing brought out what, if true, constitutes a remarkable series of coincidences.”
Long before digital facial recognition, this 1888 case highlights the fallibility of 'matching' suspects by photograph alone. It serves as a reminder that the stakes of civic justice have always required rigorous verification, a principle that remains central to modern debates on forensic evidence.
From readers
No comments yet. If you know something about this story — a correction, a family memory, a source — it belongs here.