The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1895-10-30

admission 10 a murder trial IN this city.
Judge. jurors. court officers and attorneys
struggled for nearly an hour in a surging
throng of men and women who crowded
the corridors leading 10 the court room.
The sheriff and his depct.es were not able
70 control the mob, and a Tequis.tion was
made on the chief OF police for a squad of
twenty men. Ropes were stretched across
the corridor and an effort made 10 keep
the people hack. but the ropes were brush
cd aside as easily as pieces of twne might
have been. II was not until half an hour
after the regular time for the session of
court to begin that the last juror was in
his seat. Then one of the Jurors arose and
informed the court that he would never
enter the room again If he were compelled
10 fight his way through such a crowd.
The afternoon session Of the court was
several tines interrupted by the shouts Of
officers and the cries OF women. and al
last the court ordered the sheriff 20 arrest
every person who should refuse to go cut
Of the building. The crowd was finally
dispersed without the necessity of making
any arrests.
Attorney Dickinson resumed his argu-
ment for the defense this morning, and
concluded his address at noon. The only
significant feature Of his remarks was the
suggestion that Mss Lamont was prob
ably murdered by two men instead Of one.
When Attorney Deuprey appeared al The
afternoon session TO make the closing ar
gumeRt for the defense he was accom-
panied by his wife. a nurse and his ply
sician. He looked weak from the effects
Of his recent illness. and by permission Of
the court addressed the jury while seated
Deuprey's impaired physical condition was
apparent in his argument. which was a
disappointment to the large crowd who
fought their way into the court room to
hear him. 1t is generally considered that
the case would have been Just as strong il
he had submitted il at the close of D!ckin-
sons address. without further argument.
Attorney Deuprey said Durrant was an
innocent victim OF circumstances. and
begged the jury to right the great wrong
that had already been done to the prison
er. by acquitting him as speedily as posi-
ble. He attacked the testimony of the
prosecutions witnesses in the same man
ner that Mr.. Dickinson did. All OF the
witnesses who swore they saw Durrant and
Miss Lamont going toward Emanuel
church on the afternoon of April were
mistaken. No evidence had been intro
duced which he believed established the
fact that Durrant strangled Miss Lamont.
The same amount Of energy directed to-
ward casting suspicion uppn Rev. John
George Gibson. he believed would have
developed as strong a case against the
clergyman. At the same time Mr. DeupTey
no connection with the crime. While the
prosecution had proved nothing. as Dew
prey said. the defense had proved more
than he promised in his opening state
ment. He could not see how any Juror
could doubt for a moment that Durrant at
tended Or. Cheney's lecture on the after
noon of April 2. District Attorney Barnes
will begin the closing argument for the
prosecution tomorrow morning.
f'T consider II "a RI fC,iia rfv IN FORTUNE .
thing in this case that at the time OF the
finding OF the body a search Of the beifry
was not made" was Mr.. Dickinson's open
ing remark. "for feel that had the proper
authorities or officers taken these precau-
tions some clues or hints AT least would
have been discovered throwing some light
upon the perpetrator of this crime There
is some discussion as 10 whether there
were footprints found In the belfry or not.
but I submit that the preponderance of
evidence shows that there was The evil
dence shows that there was no search even
for the clothing of the girl until a number
OF persons had passed through al their
own sweet viii. officer Riehl. IN uncon-
tradicted testimony. SAYS that there were
footnrints. and Detective Gibson was con-
tradicted by a number or witnesses when
he said there were none. In my mind
there is strong evidence 20 prove that the
unfortunate girl was killed In the belfry.
The testimony shows that on the landing
where she was found there were marks as
though the body had been dragged ln the
dust. while in no case has there been any
evidence adduced that any such marks
were found on the STEPS. except the small
drop Of blood shown on the door landing
and brought here ny the officers.
II VIII now take up Mr. Cppenheim for a
few moments. 7 submit that IN this gen
tIeman the prosecution had very swif, nd
-a,c
with time. and was nuch better AZ this
trial than when he took the stand al the
preliminary examination. II you will re-
member. he changed his testimony and
stepped a few stepS forward That VAS
necessary in order 10 have Mr.. Phillips
see him as he passed down Dupont street.
Mr. Phillips wouldn't have seen him II he
had been In the chair. For Mr.. pHslups
thus 20 testify. Mr.. Oppenheim must
move forward Thus YOU see the siEnin
cance - the testimony. Now the positive
ness " "a which Mr Oppenheim testified
sf1- g. -tF y 20 severe criticism. Can man
remember 80 positively and so accurately
FOR such a long time hack TIE testified
that this was the only ring 81 the kind ever
presented 70 hin. and yet he saws g is a
very common ring, one made by machi0-
cry and similar - others circulated broad
east IN the Community. Yet he swesrs he
never SAW another ring Ike Il. Does that
seem prshshle7 is ~ probable or possible.
Judging by what rules ~ human nature
We n0ssAss that the defendant would trv
70 sell that riug7 Would not self-preser-
walton lead him 20 DO otherwise BESIDE,
ne was not in need. He Rad money IN
hank on the sth ef April he made 4 de-
pcest in the hank yet Cppenheim Saws the
rng vas offered on me sfn. possibly tbe
Eth At that time the defendant, as his
hank book shows. had 81 He had N the
san Francisco Savings Union on she same
9ate IS 70 his credit. having deposited or
March = the sum OF So. I submit thar y
= absolutely impossible that the dsfen f-
ant having n1oney in the bank. would
have offered tire riaR for sale
As 70 Mss Cunningham, I have little
10 say. am willing that she s1ouid oe
condemned oug of her own noun. win
the nswers fFu.t. papers and books that
sae sert hlgn. She says sac promised not
In publish anything that the Defendant
sals % her without bis permission S1e
asaa a motive 70 visiting tae al aHd has
t9.d as % having beard a story on the
art.ztse which she went 70 the J4il 20 IN
atlira about Of the 3efendant she was
Under salary or the Chronsctf. Her in-
formation gained was iae property of the
Fsapar. But she saws. 4 agreed not -
nyhllSh IT. Particularly with regard 20
an envelaue which sae spoke o. WY
AID she rst report il sf once. As She 9la
later? Wy III she lot give The police al