The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1898-01-08

afternoon of April came the evidence OF
Mrs. Mary Vogel. who lives on POWER
street, near the corner of Clay. She gave
a clear story of her observation of Durrant
from 10 O'Clock on that afternoon. Sne
| watched the unknown young man very
closely, as from his peculiar actions she
| thought he was a thief who was gathering
notes for robbery at night. She even eA-
amined him through an opera glass; so tnat
there was no question of the fact of ms
| identity One of the melodramatic scenes
| of the trial was when Mrs. Vogel was or
dered to point out the man she saw on that
corner. She advanced swiftly to where Dur
| rant sat, with a red rose in his coat lapel
and, pointing her long, lean finger at nin'
she said:
There. that is the man with the red rose
! in his lapel
shiver went through the crowded court
room, but the prisoner returned her gaze
calmly he didn't move an eyelash.
The next important witness was Mrs
| Caroline s. Lenke, who gave in elaborate de-
tail the story of her observation OF Dur
rant about in the afternoon, when he
| came up Bartlett street chatting with
! young lady. whom she recognized. when the
! couple neared the church. as Blanche La
| mont. She told all about the circumstance
| of her great anxiety over the failure of her
daughter to come home, and she described
/ In great detail all the actions of Durrant
and his companion as they came up the
| street and fingered moment at the side
gate of the church. Then Durrant opened
| the church door, Blanche Lamont stepped
through. and Durrant closed it. This is the
| last glimpse any one had of the living girl
/ The defense made great efforts to break the
1
also tried to phase Martin Quinlan, po-
Hce-court' lawyer, who testified to seeing
Durrant and his companion get OF the cars,
Quinlan drinks a good deal, and the defenSe
had much sport over the number of COCK
! tails he was accustomed to take In the
morning, but they failed to show that liquor
/ incapacitated him, and the judge refused
! to permit them to go into his record and
| times. as no conviction ever followed.
/ The young organiSt, George r. King, was
an unwilling. witness against his friend Dur
rant. He told again the story which he re-
lated at the preliminary examination of the
sudden appearance of Durrant between the
! doors of the Sunday-school room, of MS
! CHASTITY pallor, his weakness, and the eX-
/ cuse he gave that he had been overcome
/ by escaping gas The suspicious feature OF
| Kings testimony was the lack of detail on
points which were vitality essential King
| did not observe any blood on Durrants
| clothing or any great confusion in his dress.
| The witness contradicted number of the
| statements made by him at the previous eX-
animation. In fact, he appeared to be try
| ing to shield his friend, and this appearance
was strengthened by his admission that he
| had had talks with the prisoner and with
counsel for the defense. His testimony was
| a disappointment, as 1t was expected tnat ne
| would throw light on some actions or words
| Of Durrant that would be significant.
AN UNLUCKY DAY.
| Friday, Sept u, was an unlucky day for
| Durrant for a pawnbroker named Open
helm strengthened the evidence against him.
He positively identified one of Blanche La
mont's rings, sent back In the parcel to
| Mrs. Noble, as a ring that was offered 10
him for sale by Durrant on some day be-
tween April and TO- Oppenheim selected
a ring with chip diamond in it as the one
which DurATnt offered to him. He noticed
the prisone% carefully as he did all custom
ers and he remembered the circumstances
of the offer and the ring, because the set
ting peculiar. He had never seen one
| like it. He refused to buy, as the diamond
was too small to be of value, and the ring
with it's old-fashioned setting, was unsala-
BILE. The defense made great efforts to break
the force of his testimony but they failed
On this day Janitor Sudeman, OF Ernman-
uel Church, forged another INK In the cnaln
about Durrant. He testified that on April II
he Durrant at the Oakland ferry, APP
parently waiting for some He spoke
to him and Durrant said he understood
Blanche Lamont was to cross the ferry 20
Oakland that afternoon, and he wished 10
see her. He volunteered the information
that he was helping in the search Tor
Blanche, as he didn't think the private de-
| tective employed by the family was ener-
getic This testimony was not shaken
Sudeman added to it the information that
the gas fixtures in the church were in per-
feet condition on the day Durrant said he
perfect familiarity with the gas and cleo
trio appliances. He said the only gas leak
at that time was a slight one in the lobby
chandelier and this bears out the testimony
of Organist King, who said he smelled gas
as he entered the church on the fatal art
w j. Phillips, a young man of San Ra-
fael corroborated Pawnbroker Oppenhelm
testimony. He happened to be in front OF
out. He noticed Durrant particularly pc
cause of his dapper appearance, ana ne salu
he thought Durrant was one or the large
class in this city who live off the earnings
of fallen women. Phillips described Dur
rants dress infinitely: He identified botn
Durrant and Oppenheim in court lie salu
his attention was first drawn TO the mat
ter of seeing Durrant come from the store
by the picture of Oppenhe,m in the papers at
the time of the preliminary examination
When he saw Durrant in the courtroom ne
was sure he was the same man. as ne no
ticed a peculiar motion of the lips In the
man who went out of the pawnshop, ana
that same motion was made by Durran1 IN
the courtroom he looked at him. Ihe
defense asked only few trifiing questions.
They didn't seem to care to tackle TINS VII
ness. few more unlmportant witnesses
completed the evidence for the proSecu-
ton, which rested it's case on Tuesday, sept.
a. Sixty days had been consumed and ffty
witnesses examined.
Sept %. The opening speech was made by
Eugene Deuprey. His address was sensa-
tional as he declared fatty there was fully
against Durrant. Deuprey said he would
show that the marks on the beitry door were
made by the chisel from the pastors study.
and that the handwriting on the wrapper of
the rings sent to Mrs. Noble was that or
the preacher He declared that though the
preacher had ready access to the church at
all times the police had done nothing from
the outset save to run down cleWs connect
promptly searched the quarters or GIBSON,
King and others as they should have done.
He promised to show that Durrant was at
Dr. Cheney's lecture at Cooper Medical Col
lege when Mrs. Vogel and the three school
girls testified that they saw him at the Nor
NAL School He promised that Durrant
would go on the stand and tell OF his move
ments on that Sd day of April from the mo-
ment he left his bed till he went home again
AT night He ended by a rhetorical outburSt,
pictIring the spirit of Blanche Lamont how
ering over the prisoner and crying:
LET him stand out. Set him free-he
harmed me noti
DEFENSE WAS WEAK.
The defense fulfilled that promise in only
one particular. and that was the testimony
of the accused. On all other points they
failed to do what Deuprey said they would.
They failed signally to show Pastor Gibsons
connection with the crime well as to
hunt down such witnesses as Mrs. Lenke
and Oppenl eim Their first important wit
ness was Durrant's mother, who gave an
account of her sons movements on April 8.
Her only important testimony was that he
was dressed on that day in dark clothes,
whereas Mrs. Lenke said he wore light
trousers
The attempt to establish Durrant's pres
ence at DR.. Cheney's lecture was a failure,
as Cheney himself couldn't recall his pres
ence, and the roll call shown to be
practically worthless. since one man could
answer for another and the marking was not
always accurate The entire class that at
tended DIR. Cheneys lecture that day was
called but not one could remember seeing
had answered present for him.