Arizona weekly citizen., 1895-10-05
CRIMBLED. The Arch of The Durrant
 Alibi TOtters. DEFENSE DISAPPOINTED In the Testimony of Witnesses as To Durrant's Where
 abouts.
DEFENSE DISAPPOINTED

SAN FRANCIsCo, Sept. 27-The key stone in the arch of the Durrant alibi crumbled and fell today. The witnesses upon whom the attorneys for the de- fense depended most to sustain thelr contention that Durrant was attending 1 a lecture at Cooper Medical college at the hour when Blanche Lamont was murdered, gave disappointing testimony. Instead of testifying that Durfant was present at the lecture as Attorney Deu- prey said Dr. Cheney would do, the doctor said he had no recollection of seeing the young medical student. Tol offset this reverse the defense gained only one point-the admission as an ex- hibit of the roll call book at the college in which Durrant was recorded as present at the lecture given on the afternoon of April Sd. The prosecution holds the roll call book in little esteem from the fact that it will place witnesses oa the stand to prove that Durrant fre- quently asked his classmates to answer to his name when he was absent and that they complied with bis request.
 Sergeant Reynolds, the police officer who conducted the search of Emanuel church after the discovery of the bodies of BIanch Lamont and MinHle Williams, was the first witness called to the stand. After describing the furni- ture and other articles found in the psrlors of the study he was asked about the chisel marks found on the door leading 10 the bslfry. The door and casing through which the murderer passed with tho body of lis victim were brought into court and formed one of the most interesting exhibits produced. The witness testified that the marks ccrresponded in size to 8 chisel found in the tool box in Rev. John G. Gibson's study. The witness was also asked to identify shoe supposed to have bee6 stslned with blood which was foT6d in
 the pastors study. As SergsSH Ray
 holds did Set kpow to wbSH the shoe belonged. Sergeant BSfke was called | but he was also in ignorance with re-
 gard to the ownership of the shoe.
 Dr. W. F. Cheney of Cooper Medical
 college, who was supposed to be the malnstsy of the defense, was the next
 witness. He sad the lectures or April
 Sd began at 3:30 o'clock and lasted until
 4:I5, at the close of which the roll was called. The witness did not know wheth- CT Durr8nt was present or not, as the
 roll was called by Dr. F. P. Gray. Dr Cheney was temporarily excused and Dr, Gray summoned. Dr. Gray dId not know whether Durraut was present oI not, but assumed that he was from the fact that he was not marked
 absent on the roll call. Questioned with regard to the roll call book, the witness
 admitted thGt the entry of April Sd was not an original record, as it had been tranferred from another page subse- quent to that date for the purpose of rectifylng an error. On this ground the district attorney moved that the book be not admitted as an exhibit, but the objection was overruled.
 ! Dr. Cheney was then recalled ana re- iterated his statement to the effect that he had no recollection of seeing Durrant at the lecture given O0 the afternoon of April Sd. Attorney Deuprey was plainly nettled at the conflict between shat the defense had promised Dr. Cheney would testify to and what he really did say, so another effort was made to obtain a sat Iisfactory answer. The witness was ask ed if in conversation with one of the
 attorneys for the defense he (the wit ness) had not said that he believed that
 Durrant was present at the lecture. The
 court asked Attorney Duprey If he was
 trying to impeach his own witness, and
 then sustained an objection interposed by the prosecution.
 On cross-examination District AttOr- ney Barnes tried to show that students
 at the college frequently had thelr class l mates answer to their names at roll cail
 when they were absent. The witness
 was asked if Tn his experience as an in
 structor at the college he had Dct be-
 come aware of the existence of such a practice. The defense objected to the tQuestion ou account of it's sweeping nature. The court sustained the ob- lection, but intimated that the question
 might be asked if made in proper form. Two or three more questions of similar import were asked, but objections were ' sustained in each case. Court then
 adjourned until tomorrow morning with
 the cross-examination of Dr. Cheney
 still incomplete.
 The report that the defense in the Durrsnt case would produce a witness who would testify that she saw the ac- cused medical student enter the Emmanuel Baptist church alone on the ! on the afternoon cf April Sd between 4:30 and 5 o'clock within which time Blanche Lamont is supposed to have been murdered, has been confirmed 3 but the few people to whom this witness 3 has confided the story guard her name sedulously. William A. Doud, a stock , bro ker, knows the woman who may ' thus testify, and is in possession oi the , nature of the evidence she will give. 3 MT. Doud said: "I know of thls wit , ness because the story was told to me. l Several others know of it. All are 3 pleged to secrecy. When the proper time comes and to the proper authorities ' the evidence will be given.
 The story as told in police headquart