The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1895-10-30


the Sunday-school rooms of the Emmanuel
| Baptist Church, where George r. King was
! playing the piano, and there stated that he was
| overcome by the gas. What other fact have
they established in this case? They asserted to
you that they would show that the young man
| Durrant was seen on the corner OF Clay and
| Powell streets on the afternoon OF April 3.
Mrs Vogel capable of reeetu-
| ing strong impressions.
They promised to establish by three school,
mates of Blanche Lamont that one of them
entered the car at the same time as they
| entered and the other two saw her sitting with
q young man, who they say is Durrant, as the
car was going south down Powell street. Now,
| let US take that position where we left the
! nature of the proof that you are called upon to
believe. Mrs. Vogel-you have had an oppor-
tunity of observing her-an excitable German
woman who would be capable of receiving
At one time, in her rambling, rushing and
| gratuitous manner of saying things, she said
that she saw this young man walking up ana
| down for two hours. Then that it was seven
| minutes past when he was walking up and
down there. How did she know that it was
w. H. T. Durrant when she came from the
| witness stand and in a dramatic manner
| pointed out the defendant in this case? Do
| you remember how she stated that she did not
read the papers? And 40 You also remember
| her husbands statement2 She told you how
| this young man was dressed that afternoon
| She had come to the courtroom during the
obtaining of the jury and saw him attired as
| he is now attired.
| Mrs. Vogez and the green cheese
| from the moon.
| The fact in this case, undenied by any testi-
| mony shown, is that this young man wore
| sack suit, all of the same material. Mrs. Nogel
| never saw that man any more than that she OBJ
! tanned green cheese from the moon. From her
own reading of the newspapers and the talks
| with her husband she has come to the court
| room and has jumped the fence and found
! young man there with a cutaway coat and
| light hat, and from that she has got her de-
| Tol- IL lad
| saw Durrant in their lives When they were
taken to identity this man, however, they
knew the man they were going to seek. they
| knew also the object of the search. They had
seen published in the papers his portrait &C
| companied by sensational articles which have
been published from the 18th of April until
the present time and they were taken to see
the man whose portrait was published IN the
papers.
Al the Identification
| witnesses are mistaken
| Does it not as intelligent men, make you
! blush to believe that in an intelligent COM
munity when man is charged with the crime
| of murder he should be brought forth in
| the manner that has been testified to, virtually
saying to those parties, ''That is the man."
| Now, gentlemen of the jury, can you belleVe
| that these girls testimony is worthy OF beIlet
| to such 8 degree that you would pass upon
whether this man is guilty or not? do not
| say anything against these ladies. l simply
| say that they are mistaken. Mr.. Durrant tells
| you, and he is corroborated, that he was at the
| Cooper Medical College a. the noon recess, ana
that at 1 O'Clock he went out with Ross to
Broadway down Webster street Ross ana
| Carter both remember the circumstance, the
| meeting and what was said upon the OCCASION
| and Carter tells you that when he got back TO
the college, he said he might have stayed with
| them. Durrant went up to the library or study
and went to work on his thesis.
! eve verified Dr. Cheney's
| roll man by man."
! He spoke to Diggins about his catarrh, say
! ing that he, Diggins, could find a remedy at
| TnIricd rJ1opCf nrp Nphi nh
| gins remembers the circumstance, and that 1t
| was the first week in April. On the part OF the
defense, when we opened this case, we asserted
and 4 :15 of April 3, 1895, was at DR.. Cheney
| class; that DR.. Cheney knew his roll was cor
rect and would say SO, and that he believed
| fed to the fact that his roll was correct. He
| gave you his reasons for so doing Not only
| that l asked the question: "Did you verify
| your roll from the knowledge of what occurred
on that day, and from your roll, do you not now
| believe that he was present?" Objection The
evidence was cut out, but we came forward
with stronger proof. We verified the roll man
by man. We showed you distinctly that this
young man, Durrant, did not have his name
| answered to by any other person.
Durrant did not copy
has notes from CHASER.
Who was present on that day? Durrant tells
you he was there, that he answered to his
name, and he is entitled to belief upon the
subject.
to the parallel already exhibited between
the notes of DR.. Cheney's lecture as shown
by Durrant's notes and those of Student
Chaser. He laid particular emphasis upon
the different spelling of one of the cited
authorities, one of the students writing
it "Roch" and the other 'Roache." This,
in Mr.. Deuprey's opinion, constituted a
good reason for supposing that Durrant
had not copied his notes from Chaser. Con-
tlnuing, Mr.. Deuprey said:
Now, as to Mrs. Crosett. Dear old lady, with
her II years. She saw somebody whom she
thought looked like Durrant on the dummy of
the car, talking to young lady. Is testimony
of that character, no matter how respectable
the old lady be, sufficient to prove that that
young man was on the car?
Hrs. Leaks testimony
not to be credited.
Mrs. Leak tells us that she was at her win
dow fronting the church. She saw young
man and a young woman; she thought it was
either Blanche Lamont or Lucille Turner. If
Mrs. Leaks eyesight is so keen as to mistake
Lucille Turner for Blanche Lamont, do not
lions or suppositions of Mrs. Leak upon the
subject of appearance and size. Mrs. Leak
says that Durrant called at her house several
times, and that every time she had to ask him
his name. You will notice that for months
none of these witnesses disclosed anything in
regard to these occurrences; neither Mrs. Cros-
Leak does not state it as supposition, but at
last she does state it as a superstition, and as a
supposition only. And can you believe that
when this poor lady, Mrs. Noble was weeping
for her beloved niece and Mrs. Leak had in
formation of this kind, that knowing Mrs.
Noble, she should not have said, az have q
supposition in regard to this matter" Can
you account for it on any ground but that this
good woman was mistaken?
QuinIan's character 4ueighed
and found tUdntiRg.
You have absolutely to disbelieve Mrs Vogel
and the four young women, or you have to &c
cept Mrs. Crosett, Mrs. Leak, Quinlan and
Clarke. You cannot believe Quinlan. His
character was put in the balance, and in all
| the city he could not find soul to come for.
ward and say good word for him Is this eyi.
dence OF character that you can believe for a
moment in anywise to pass even upon the lib
erty of this defendant, let alone hts life? We