The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1895-10-26

the testimony Of DR. Cheney. showing that
he believed the roll call 10 be correct.
This is undoubtedly the pivotal point m
this case" Re continued IF this roll call
10 correct. tire prosecution fails In every
other respect SO far as the gu, ~ the de-
fendant i concerned. Now. are you salts
fed beyond a reasonable doubt that il i
correct? Can you, IN the face OF such posi-
tive testimony as has been given on that
subject. say that il Is incorrect7
NOW. gentlemen. much has been, said
about the notes taken az this lecture I
have here the notebook of the defendant
which IS properly marked as an exhibit
In this book In regular order appear the
notes which he says were taken al Dr.
Cheney's lecture, with the exception Of
two rules. which are marked here with a
circle. It appears from testimony that IS
unimpeached that these notes were turned
over TO me on the 18th OF Anril II also
appears that they are in the same condi-
ton now that they were at that time
This is important, taken IN connection
with the conversation with Or. Graham
who says that on April % Durraut told
him that he had no notes. / have paral-
leled in the short time [ have had 70 pre-
pare. the notes OF Dr.. Glazer and those Of
this defendant. and submit that a COM
parisoa VIII show that one IS not a copy of
the other" Mr.. Dickinson then read Dr.
Glazers notes and those Of the defendant,
and pointed out differences in language
and observations. IN regard 10 DR.. Gra-
ham I viii say he is mistaken II took him
until October TO recollect that the defend
ant asked him TO bring his notes Now I
submit that such thing seems impossible.
for a the time DR.. Graham claims Dur
rant asked him for his notes the defend
ants notes were in the possession of his
attorneys. They had been since the 18th OF
the month. three days before the time II is
7 So. Lga
saying that If he had them he could estab-
lish an alibi. This is the testimony, and
YOU are asked to believe he acted so fool
ishly as 10 make such a request TO Gra-
ham assert that Graham is mistaken.
I submit that the defendant never said any
such thing, for he could not possibly have
had reason for such remark. He knew that
his attorneys had his notes. Then what
use would he have of the notes Of DR.. Gra-
ham? | think that the case of DIR. Graham
is one Of overeducation. just the same as
that of our friend Mr.. Dunnigan. tie
studied upon and thought of the matter so
long that ne was at last prepared TO come
on the stand and speak TO us as he did. He
had associated with that newspaper man,
Mr. Dunn,can. and you know that he was
an intimate friend. Yet why did he not
speak Of this beforeP
80 submit, IL the court please. gentle
men of the jury. that the fact of he pres
enCe or the detcnGdNI al the IollCdlt LidS
been established beyond the peradventure
of a doubt | submit that here is almost a
physical fact beyond a doubt, and do not
believe that the testimony that has been
introduced in contradiction carries much
weight. / lay great stress upon this mat
ter, because IL is the pivotal point Of this
case If you are not absolutely sure, If
you are not positively sure Beyond
reasonable doubt. that he was not at the
lecture then YOU must aCquit him.
THE testimony of the defendant shows
that at AIS on that day he went to the
church. This WAS al the close or the lee
ture and has not been denied. Several re-
porters have said that in interviews held
on the llth OF April he said he went to the
church at or AIS. Now this does not
contradict the witness nor allow OF the
conclusion that he arrived at the church
az FIVE minutes TO 5. for he fully explained
his words on the stand, as you heard him.
His testimony was clear, given without
any hesltancy. and was the truth. An
other thought suggests itself. At the
time the statement was made the young
man had Just been brought in. He had
been in jaa only an hour. He was in
the booking room Of the city prison. Nv
erything was excitement. The city was
flooded with extras. and l am gratifed
that at that time he made no break Ar
rested and brought in under such c0ndl-
tions. almost assaulted by the news gath
erers 20 give his statement, the only haw
IL this statement. picked out diligently by
the prosecution. Is In the small matter or
the language: / went 10 the church ne
tween 4 and 4.30 o'clock This | consider
also strong link in the chain Of evidence
in his favor. He did not attempt TO con-
ceai ANYTHING. He spoke fra nkly, and the
only flaw in the whole story was nc state
nent that the defendant Went 10 the
church between AIS and 4;Sn lie meant
tha, he left the lecture at that time othef-
wise he would have said he arrived at the
church ar that time.
And another thought comes at TINS
time. There was no engagement what
ever. There IS nothing for which l can
even draw an inference that The defendant
intended 10 meet Blanche Lamont on that
dav. He would not he running UP and
down on the sidewalks under Mrs. Nogefs
onera glass II he had made an engage
r7ent with the innocent girl. When did
this idea seize him to go and meet TINS
ladve When did this change take place.
When. in the language Of my learned
friend when did he become the monster
His conduct before this triai, during MS
Imprisonment and during this hearing,
has been. most respectable. 7 defy the pros
ec,ltfon 70 bring forth one single straw in
the evidence that will show that any en-
gaeeroent with Blanche Lamont had been
made by this young man II seems 10 mo
that IL Is monstr0uS proposition 10 aa-
vance 10 argue. under the circumstances
and conditions that have been laid before
Won in this case. II he had had any de-
sfsps on this girl he would have made an
appointment in the morning TO meet her
in the afternoon.
Mr. dickinson discussed az length the
meeting OF King and Durrant, and argued
that il the prisoner had murdered Miss
Lamont ne would not have gone into the
presence of King when 10 could have as
wtu quietly left the church without seeing
ANYBODY In discussing the testimony of
Mrs Croeset and Mrs. Leak he said he
believed each told what she thought was
tho truth. hut as matter Of fact had
hecor,e confused by reading so much
about the case. II Mrs. Leak really saw
Durrant and Miss Lamont enter the
church he asked why she did not tell Mrs
Noble of TIE fact when she knew Mrs
~ohia vas broken-h hearted over the murder
~ her niece To have told Mrs Noble,
whom she knew we'll he said. would have
been only the act Of one true woman to-
ward another As a matter Of fact. he
sesa he believed that all the time Mrs.
Leak was not sure she had seen Durrant
and Miss Lamont enter the church togeth-
- and Only became positive after she
had read about the case IN the newso1-
f.sra for ~ rec months He said ne believed
Ms E~oeel and the three schoolgirls who
+estfsad chat they saw DurrHnt and Miss
v.ar,or- hoard a Powell street car IN front
of the normal school had erred in the same
manner. Nothing vas more common in
everyday life. he said. than 10 ma%e
mistake in Identification
Gen. Dickinson dpelt at the term ''rea-
eorar1o doubt n made extended re-
marks i'm Illustrating 20 The jury the 1I-
.at-A.s ,see e-,t+{ar of the 81 nTessi0n and The