The San Francisco call., 1897-01-12
body would mistake this old lady for a

body would mistake this old LADY for
safety-deposit vault.
1t goes on to argue at length that the
stories of Mrs. Vogel and Miss Ed wards as
to the manner in which Blanche Lamont
left the Normal School are very contradic-
tory. For instance, Mrs. Vogel says that
Darrant jun ped on the car after her, and
that the car left right away, while Miss
Edwards contradicted herself in her testi-
mony in regard to their leaving the car at
Market and Powell streets. In regard to
the considerable testimony as to the kin d
of hat Durrant wore, there was nothing
peculiarly distinctive in it. Mrs. Vogels
eyesight must have become suddenly re.
markablv good to have detected the
color of Durrant's budding mustache.
1t is also presented as incongruous and
showing an unreliability of memory that
one of these schoolgirls taken to the City
Hall to identify Durrant said he was
brought into the room with his hat OH,
and another said he came in with his hat
on. Stress is laid on the difference in the
testimony as to the time the pair arrived
at the church and the time il took them to
walk the block from the cars to the church
on the fatal afternoon. 1t is also argued
that if George King, the organist, was
friend of Durrant he would not ave told
anything of his own velition. A conflict
in the testimony of King and Sademan as
to the smell of gas in the church is also
dweIt upon. 1t is argued that if the
bromo-seltzer drank by Durrant after
coming down the stairs with hair dishev-
eled nauseated him is it any wonder
that when he went home he ate but little?
A point is made in the testimony of
Oppenheimer, the pawnbroker that the
kind of ring pawned at his place is made
by the dozen. The fact that there were
blocks at the head of the murdered girl is
brought prominently into con ntrast with
the testimony of member of the faculty
OF Cooper Medical College that blocks
were never so placed at that college, where
the defendant was student.
The brief states that the murderer,
whoever he was" left but three traces:
First, the track on the belfry stairs, which
the police neglected to measure or take
cognizance of; second the marks on the
girls neck, which the autopsy physician
neglected TO preserve, when Il measure of
the tinger-nail marks would have assisted
greatly in the Identification of the MUIR
derer; third, the handwriting onthe pack
age of rings addressed to Mrs. Noble,
which the District Attorney failed TO
prove as the defendant's.
A large portion of the brief is devoted
to argument and the presentation of de-
cisions as to the Legality of Crocker and
Nathan serving as jurors when they had
read so much about the murder in the
newspapers, etc, and to the excusing
from jury service of Juror Brown. 1t is
argued that there is nothing in the record
to show any motive on the part of the de-
fendant and that the lecture notes of the
defendant and the rollbook of Cooper
Medical College are silent witnesses of
where the defendant was on the afternoon
of April as compared with where he is
alleged to have been "by schoolgirls and
trio of women suffering from senility."
1t is also presented that large portion
of the jurors selected were not citizens,
were on-residents, were deaf and exempt
from jury duty; that the case of the
prosecution is based absolutely on the
fimsiest character of circumstantial evl-
dence; that the people of this City were
prejudiced against Durrant; that ne was
condemned by the newspapers, and that
no life should be sacrificed under these
circumstances.