The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1895-08-28
He SAW DURRANT WITH MINNIE WILLIAMS

has been discovered that the dealings of
the pawnbroker have been brought to the
attention of the police number OF times,
although on no occasion were any OF the
charges made substantiated in the courts
The records show that on Decembert9,
1891 Officer L. B. Gordon arrested him a.
a charge of misdemeanor embezzlement,
and on December %, in Department of
the Police Court, the charge was dismissed
On the same day Oppenheim's wife, Lena,
was arrested on charge of felony embez-
element. Later the case against her was
also dismissed. On August IL, 1892 OPP
penheim and his wife were arrested by
Officer G. Reynolds, charged with misde-
meanor enlightenment. The charge was
lice Court. AT another time Oppenheim
was arrested by Officer II. ]. Wright on
charge of petty larceny. He was tried in
Department and the case was dismissed.
Attorneys for Durrant undoubtedly con-
slider the gleanings from these records as or
some importance, for the very good reason
that they make and have made no bones
about stating that they intend to attack
these witnesses in this manner. 1t comes,
however, in no manner of surprise to either
the prosecution or the witnesses, who have
long ago been apprised of what is in store
for them, and it is only fair to suppose that
they will be fully prepared to Withstand
the attacks.
So far, what few of the witnesses for the
defense have shown their hands have met
with a reception similar to that which
Messrs. Quinlan and Oppenheim may ex-
pect. The latest to come in for it are Ed
Mcpherson and Marius Burnett. who
stated that they saw Durrant on Market
street at 9:t5 o'clock on the night Minnie
Williams was murdered. Now comes JUS
tice Groezinger forward, who is positive
that the night he met the young men was
Thursday, April IL not Friday, April ID.
He states several little circumstances in
support of his story, while the young men
still stick to theirs.
Concerning the book which Durrant was
said to have had in his possession when
these young men think they saw him, and
which his attorneys claim the prisoner had
in his hands when he entered DR.. Vogel's,
equally conflicting stories are told. Miss
Daisy Wolf, DR.. Vogel and the elder Vogel
have made the statement that Durrant had
no such book, and yet, as matter of fact,
the defense has long been in the possession
of the statement of witness who received
the book from the accused Immediately
after his arrival and before he washed his
hands. The witness is Miss Miriam Lord,
who lives at S26 Capp street. She is at
present out of town, but as early
as the last week in April she repeated her
story to CALL reporter and it was soon
afterward published in these columns.
The statement is as follows:
II was sitting in the room with the
others when Theodore arrived. He came
upstairs and entering the room came up to
me and dropped the record-book into my
lap. 1t was the ordinary record-book of
the society and quite large. At that time
he seemed heated and flushed, as if with
fast walking, but his hands did not appear
soiled and L certainly saw nothing that re-
sembled blood on them. Afterward he
went out into the doctors Office and rinsed
his hands,"