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


opportunity % search his eeli. that K such
was the truth & m.gat be founds This
young lady was on the witness stand once
Before. when sae refused 70 answer a
question as % from w1ora sae had received
certain Information. She gave rs a rea-
son thas she haS taken an oata not 20
dsFulge the source. She later came - as
aud told rs or the stand thar she pron3-
sSe1 the prisoner not - publish anything
ne said % her. Now. / submit that when
she told what she knew 10 the prosecuting
of'fcer she gave publication Of the facts
TO the worl3. leave her seated IN her
own treacSery and deceit. Sae is in form
and appearance A woman, and tnerefoTs
SAFE from my criticism But she IS in
reality the Seceiver. the snake CURED up
In the nest or her pretended friendship.
n her close interviews with the defend
ant; the snake mr3ng him On on 10 de-
siruction and . death. Her story Is IL
logical. inccrrect and inherently untrue.
and out 81 the words OF her own mouth
Ne will leave her 10 her humiliation and
degradation
Mr. Dickinson next argued that Dlrrant
was not physically capable ~ strangling
Blanche Lamont. who he sad. weighed
nearly as much as the prisoner. Grant
that he was frenzed and that he had all
the strength that he would under such
circumstances. where was shes Ry the
only protecting her life hut her virtue
which was desrer Could ne by any pro-
cess have gained control over her. so as
10 render her unconscious I say no.
say such a thing is impossible. Every
thing in the church that could he found
was brought here- There is no evidence
OF ropes or straps BY which ne could
have bound her The testimony OF the
physician that there were seven marks
upon her throat indicates that the strug
gle was a difficult one. Can one imagine
an instance where such n fierce struggle
coula possibly have heen had and vet no
tear Of clothing or scratch he upon the
figure OF him who committed the crime?
Was 70 possible for one man 10 have muF-
derei this girl alone9 No, no. There must
have been. and ! am positive that there
were. two men-men able in body. II
would have been a physical impassibility
for this man, this weak STRIPPING. ito car
~ her body up those narrow and d!reful
stairs Of the nelfry.
And now gentlemen, T have enfeav-
erei 20 confne myself 20 the testimony.
| have about completed my task. ana in
conclusion I desire 10 again esll YOUR at
tention TO the roll CALL which IS the pivot
al point Of the case. There is nothing
whatever TO throw any iiscredt upon f.
II Is corrocorative of what this defendant
has said He Is corroborated by every
student Of the class. He is corrohorated
by DR., Cheney, who testified that he be-
Eevef II 10 he correct, for he had ques-
toned every student Of the class. Re
careful not 20 be swerved by popular onin-
ion. Let the case be decided ny ne Law.
by the evidence and by the Instructions
that his honor will give you. and we viii
be satisfied i'm whatever way II may shape
itself. We have made our fight, and now
we leave the matter in your hands, con-
fldent that you will 40 what Is right. and
he fSsfa NJ Ia
home 10 his parents. and that his future
will be reopenei TO him bright and rosy
as Il was before these suspicious fell up
on him"
MIR. Deuprey's opening was In his usual
style. vigorously denunciatory. He spoke
of the life that was al stake, spoke OF the
f1imsy fabric that had been built up
around the prisoner. of which too MUCH
had been made. He claimed that there
had been gross exaggeration of the case
against Durrant. and he proceeded TO
show up tho weak points TO the Jury. Re
viewing Durrants actions on April 3. or
course counsel pinned his faith on the roll
call. He had heard with some surprise Of
the statement of Alr. PeiXotto and others
that this roll call had not been established.
II claim that il has" shouted Deuprey.
and that we have proved IL beyond the
shadow of doubt. In my opening state
ment | said 10 you that DIR. Cheney would
himself establish the accuracy OF that roll
call. say now that Or. Cheney did so. He
said on the witness stand that he had no
doubt whatever that the roll call was pre-
else. All the questions ] asked him were
answered satisfactorily. and DIR. Cheney
was corrohnrated not only by Mr.. Gray,
who called the roll at his bidding, but also
by every student In the class" DeupIey
proceeded al rapid pace. IN an endeavor
10 show that Mrs Vogel and the girls who
said they saw Durrant and Blanche La
mont on Powell street, and also Mrs.
Crosset and Mrs. Leak, the old ladies OF
the Mission. were all mistaken. They were
oyeranxious 10 assist in the identification
of the young man. and they ended in iden-
tifying a man who wore totally different
clothing from that worn by the prisoner
on April 3.
BY and by Mr.. Deuprey got TO Or. Glib
son. we make no charges against Dr.
Gibson here: we even believe him 10 be
an innocent man. But | said in my open
ing that there were silent witnesses
against others beside this young defend
ant and that If DR.. GibAn were here in
stead of Mr. Durrant there would be a
good deal of evidence against him You
heard DR. Gibson testify you observed hts
manner on the stand: If he were only in
the position OF MIR. Durrant, what would
become of him -
Martin Quinlan and his corroborant, Da-
vid Clarke, came IN for much abuse as did
w. J. Phillips. As for the latter and
Pawnbroker Oppenheim. how could they
be telling the truths Phillips said he no
tced his appearance and observed his
overcoat: so did Oppenheim. why. gen
tlemen. we have satisfactorily proven that
Mr.. Durrant did not wear an overcoat in
April last nor. for the matter Of thar. IN
1895 Al all. except on one occasion in Feb
ruary last
Deuprey was very weak and ut. He had
to cease speaking several times. and had
frequent recourse 10 Zee water and q large
fan. Once or twice Durraut leaned over
and spoke 20 him. he spoke next OF the
wonderful cases Of circumstantial evidence
that had occurred in California Here he
was interrupted by Judge Murphy. who
cur,ly reminded him and the Jury a. well
that this proceeding must not be taken as
a reading OF law. but merely an illustra-
tion Of a point Of argument. These Illus
trations were given 10 show that in a case
where members Of family were mistaken
in one another. why should not also per
sons who were entire strangers. as were
Mrs. Vogel. Martin Quinlan. Mrs Cros-
set and the young ladies who testified. be
mistaken as TO Burrant.
Then Deuprey fired Up with a speech IN
which he remi naed the jury Of his open
ing statement 10 the effect that the de-
fense would have a perfect right TO move
for an acquittal on the evidence produced
by the prosecution. 4 said 80 then. and
say so now" he shouted. They have
made out no case at all; they have not
even answered the question. When and
where did Blanche Lamont dieY let
alone the awful question. Who Killed
herr" Counsel said that IL appeared 20
him that the poor girl might have been
vutsrdareH in the urfxate room Of some