The San Francisco call., 1897-05-15

history"
In conclusion Dickinson wro;e: You
will notice that Brother Gibson is very
anxious to get away, and commend your
attention to an article in THE CALL this
morning. Why, of course, L do not
know"
Commenting on this letter Deuprey
said:
II want to call your Honor's attention
to the fact that we demanded TO go to
trial on the Williams case, but the Dis
trict Attorney, having the right to select,
selected the Lamont case, and We were
Obliged to submit. We claim that if the
Williams case is tried the guilty party
will be found, and all the elements of this
prosecution will be discovered and re-
vealed."
Deuprey characterized the evidence in
the case as being absolutely insufficient,
as the prosecution depended largely on
the matter OF Identification. In detail he
analysed the testimony of the three
oolgirls-Mrs. Vogel, Mrs. Crossett
and Mrs. Leake-and denounced it as be-
ing manufactured, without dishonest In
tent, perhaps, but he declared that 1t was
largely evolved from a fertile Imagination
or a weak brain. Pawnbroker Open
helm testimony he claimed to have been
gwen in fear of the detectives. and then
from the testimony of c. P. Lenanan he
sought to convice the Governor that it
was Lenahan and not Durrant who had
offered to sell or pawn a ring in April,
1895.
On the subject of Identification he ar
gued that every person had at some time
or other been mistaken for another, and
appealed 10 the Governor TO consider his
own experience IN confirmation Of this
assertion. He dweit on the slight knowi-
edge these witnesses had of the person of
Durrant, TO show how easy it was for them
TO have been mistaken IN their identlfica-
tion OF him. He introduced affidavits
made by a. c. Lukrs and Henry Shaefer,
who claimed 20 have knowledge of the real
murderer of Blanche Lamont, and who
they claim is another than Durrant.
Deuprey explained that he placed no
weight Oh these statements, but simply
introduced them 10 show how readily
people become imbued with false ideas
and conceptions of things after they have
read or learned of them throu h the news
papers.
According to the testimony of the fell
low-students OF Durrant, he said, the con-
victed man was at college at the very time
these witnesses claimed TO have seen him
in company with Blanche Lamont on the
way to the church.
He declared further that the conviction
was unjust and not according to law, in
that the prosecution failed to show any
motive for the crime and failed to prove
when and where the crime was committed.
After calling the Governors attention to
the newspaper fac-similas of the writing
on the newspaper which was wrapped
around the parcel of Blanche Lamont's
belongings that were sent to her aunt and
comparing that writing with some OF
Pastor GiDson's, Deuprey significantly
remarked:
There are other people who might be
charged with this crime. was very Sc
verely criticized at the time for making
this plain during the trial, but have not
changed my ideas about it"
Files of ;he newspar rers containing the
accounts OF the proceedings in the Dur
rant case were submitted, and some OF the
head lines in them were read TO demon
strate that the newspapers were largely
responsible for creating a hostile senti-
ment toward Durrart. Deuprey also claim
ed the Jurors were not in custody while
the trial was in progress, and that they
were free to 60 10 their homes and places
of business and so come in contact with
people and hear preiudiced comments in
reference TO the accused.
Letters were read from John w. Dins-
more, minister OF San Jose; George w.
Cham berlain, lawyer OF San Francisco,
and from George w. Campbell, president
of the California Christian Endeavor
Union of California, all of which appealed
for clemencv for Durrant. A petition of
the same tenor, signed by about 506 resi-
dents of San Francisco, among them Pro-
fessor Cheney of the Cooper Medical Col
lege, was also submitted.
at this point Deuprey presented the
affidavit of John Rosen berg, now in
prison a. San Quentin on a conviction of
horse-stealing. Rosen berg swears to being
the murderer OF Blanche Lamont and re-
cites in detail how he was lured to COM
NIT the crime. Among other things he
alleges that he arrived in San Francisco
on the ship Hospidar in March, 1895.
When Deuprey finished the reading of
tkis- document Governor Budd quietly
turned over file of San Francisco paper
ana showed by the shipping columns that
the Hospidar arrived here November or
6. Deuprey smiled and admitted that he
placed no weight on the affidavit. He
added that he introduced IL simply to
show the necessity OF giving time for fully
investigating the various stories that i'm
plicated others in the crime, as an investi-
CATION might result in proving the inno-
cence of his client. He said a further
reason for his placing no faith in this
story of Rosenberg was that it did not
agree with his theory. In conclusion
Deuprey said:
ain my view. having been brought into
close contact with this man, believe that
he is entitled to pardon, but ask that
at least your Excellency grant reprieve,
if you believe you cannot go that far.
believe we are certainly justified in asking
a respite, SO that a fair investigation may
be made. We are entitled in view of all
the shadows of doubt that exist in this
case to this much"
II will look carefully into the matter"
replied the Governor, "and during the
latter part of next week / will INFORM you
of my decision"
A. A Tubb then asked leave to submit
a statement later on, was given permis-
sion to do so, and the fate of Durrant was
left in the Governors hands.
DECLINED TO RETRACT
Murderous Assault by State Senator