Cottonwood report. [volume] (Cottonwood, Idaho) 1893-1901, 1895-09-20

San Francisco, Sept. 11.-An even
ing paper prints sensational story
about the defense which will be offered
in the trial of Theodore Durrant for
the murder of Blanche Lamont. The
following statement is credited to a
person connected with the defense:
1.-THE alibi will be strong, but the
defense has witnesses to show that
Durrant not only did not commit the
murder, but will indicate who did
commit it, There will be more than
one implicated in the murder. Wit
nesses will testify that they saw the
girl enter the church ON the fatal after
noon with a certain man, and at that
time a second man was i'll the church.
There the defense will rest its inquiry.
1t will not attempt to prove that these
parties did commit the murder. The
statements as to this are so direct that
they will leave no ground for the prose-
cution to stand ON so far as Durrant is
concerned.
The story of Blanche Lannon'S last
journey will be told in Judge Murphy's
courtroom during the present week.
Many details which the prosecution
was unable to supply at the preliminary
examination will be forthcoming, and
the proceedings will furnish dramatic
interest strongly in contrast to the ma.
thematical monotony of the past week.
Eyes were on the young schoolgirl an6
| I. M
eyes will tell of the steps they saw
taken ON that tragic journey. Eyes
were on the unsuspecting girl and the
young man supposed to be Durrant
when they boarded the Car at Powell
street and when they entered the Bart.
lett-street church, from which one Of
them was never to emerge alive. The
owner of these eyes will tell theil
stories, fully believing that their or
gans of vision were not deceived At
torneys for the defense will stoutly
contend that they are mistaken; that
their eyes have played them false and
that it was not Durrant but some other
person they saw with Blanche Lamont.
In two cases at least there has been nc
concealment that Durrant's attorneys
would attack the clearness of vision OF
the witnesses, and on the ground that
the latter had plain physical defect
in their eyes. These two, by the way,
are the most important witnesses fol-
the prosecution-Mrs. Mary Vogel and
Mrs. Caroline Leak. The prosecution
has been aware of this intention fol-
some time and preparation has been
made to Illustrate it. In the case of
Mrs. Leak, that lady, it is under.
stood, has confided to the police that
on the day Durrant and the jury visited
the church she was easily able to iden.
tify the defendant in the crowd on the
sidewalk from her window. She had
not been previously notified of his com.
ing, but the moment the party took its
stand on the sidewalk opposite she is
said to have picked the prisoner out
Immediately. Mrs. Hackett was at
her side, and as soon as the old lady
saw the group she turned to her com.
panion and said: "Why, Mrs. Hack.
EFT, there's Theodore Durrant."
Mrs. Leak has been seen herself to
confirm this story, but she still prefers
to keep her story until she reaches the
stand. If the story is correct it will
undoubtedly go long way to establish
the competency of Mrs. Leaks vision.
With Mrs. Vogel the test will be
more severe. On Saturday her eyes
were examined by Opitcian Muller and
his assistant, Harry Clark. They put
her to all the tests known to the bust
ness, and at the end of the examination
pronounced her eyes to be in good con.
dltlon. They will testify, if called
upon the stand, that Mrs. Vogel could
easily have distinguished from her
window the features of a man standing
in front of the normal school. Q