Of course, some reporters do excellent detective work, and there are one or two veterans attached to the criminal courts in New York City who, in addition to their literary capacities, are natural-born sleuths, and combine with a knowledge of criminal law, almost as extensive as that of a regular prosecutor, a resourcefulness and nerve that often win the case for whichever side they espouse.

I have frequently found that these men knew more about the cases which I was prosecuting than I did myself, and a tip from them has more than once turned defeat into victory.

But newspaper men, for one reason or another, are loath to testify, and usually make but poor witnesses.

They feel that their motives will be questioned, and are naturally unwilling to put themselves in an equivocal position.
The writer well remembers that in the Mabel Parker case, where the defendant, a young and pretty woman, had boasted of her forgeries before a roomful of reporters, it was impossible, when her trial was called, to find more than one of them who would testify--and he had practically to be dragged to the witness chair.

In point of fact, if reporters made a practice of being witnesses it would probably hurt their business.