The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1895-10-23
THE AFTERNOON SESSION.
Professor Price Witness-Dr. Gra-
ham Says Durrant Asked Him for
HIS Notes of Aprii g.

His Notes Of April 8.
The afternoon session opened with call
for Professor Thomas Price to take the
stand. He entered, bearing a large fat
bundle, and this he opened on the stand.
They were exhibits which he had been
Analysing to ascertain if the gruesome
brown marks upon them were stains of
blood.
Professor Price, what is your business?"
asked Barnes.
al am chemist
Chow long have you been such2"
"About twenty-three years.
''Of what colleges are you graduateH
"Of the Royal College of Dublin"
al hand you this shoe and ask you IL YOU
have ever seen it before?' and Barnes handed
up the pastors shoe.
eyes, sir, have"
"Will you look at the sole of it, and ask if
you have ever examined the spots on it at the
request of the offcers?"
Dickinson-I object. It is irrelevant
Inc court-Dld understand that when you
offered this shoe in evidence, General Dickin.
son, you claimed these spots were blood?
Dlcklnson-l am not aware at present that
the claim was made that these were blood
spots.
The records were hunted through to find
just why the shoe had been offered. 1t
was found that Sergeant Reynolds had de-
scrlbed the spot on the shoe, but had not
stated specifically that it was blood. Ser
geant burke had also testified regarding it.
He said the officers. had examined the
shoes found for blood stains, and that they
concluded there were none. In another
part OF the record-in Deuprey's opening
statement-it was found that Deuprey had
called attention to the fact that he asked
tnat the words of Sergeant Burke-sWe
came to the conclusion they were not
blood stains"-be stricken out.
Barnes argued from this that the de.
1ense mas, by these questions. thrown a
oouot as to what the stains were. and he
thought he had right to prove they were
not blood.
Dickinson thought the testimony as
noted showed nothing toward determin-
Ing what the stains were, and the court
seemed inclined to side with the de-
tense.
Barnes then claimed that the shoe was
IN evidence, that the stain was also in evil
dence and that it had been marked out,
ana therefore he had right to show what
the stain was, no matter what caused it.
win this contention the court found
more FAVOR, aud after Analysing the situa-
tlon MS Honor overruled the objection
ana the question was allowed. Professor
Prlce then told of his analysis, after Dick
inson had objected once more and his OBJ
lection has been overruled. His examina-
tlon mad proved that the spots were not
mace by blood, but were made by some
Iatty or oily matter; or, as Barnes finally
put 1t, it was grease spot.
me eourt-In making these tests did you
make the test to see if it was blood?
Yes, SIR" and then the witness told
just how he mixed his chem icals and what
ne obtained from his tests; how blue
Color mad arisen in his mixing glasses, and
now, while the absence of it would not
nave proved that the stain was blood, still
It's presence positively indicated that it
was not blood.
when did you first receive these articles?"
continued Barnes
III. In the latter part of August, 1885,"
You made the test?"
NO, they have always been in my safe and
under my SEAL
opened?"
Yes"
A board was then shown hint was a
poaro from the belfry stairs. Over one OF
Tvs surfaces ran dark brown stains, and
pointing to these Barnes asked what the
wlIness mad found them to be.
dickinson objected. because the where
apouts OF the board for the past few
months had not been shown, and Barnes
then matted In the examination of Pro-
iessor Price. He called Captain Lees to
tne stand to identify the board.
captain Lees was shown two boards that
came out OF the package opened by Profess
sor Prlce. He identified one of them as
the tread and the other as the riser of one
OF the steps leading to the upper platform