Evening journal., 1902-11-05
PREPARATIONS.
FOR NEW TRIAL
Of MRS. BOTKIN
Convicted Poisoner of Mrs.
Duuning Hopes for an
Acquittal
PROSECUTION OF CASE THE SAME

h0Rk00 iA0H W 0n0L AHE AHNNlH
District Attorney Says He Has No
New Evidence and Needs None.
Delaware Witnesses viii Attend Tie
Second Trial
San Francisco Nov. 5.-Mrs Cordela
BotlSin. alleged murderer OF Mrs John r.
Dunning and her sister Mrs. Deane. Is to
have a new trial Both sides hope that it
viii occur early next year. Meanwhile
Mrs. Botlsin lives in the Branch county
jail in the outskirts Of San Francisco.
just as she has lived for the last four
years. since jury rendered the verdict OF
guilty and Judge Carroll Cook sentenced
her to life Imprisonment. The prosecu-
tion was conducted IN the first trial by
John Hosmer. then district attorney
Lewis Byington has taken his place and
Will have charge Of the case next time.
] There isn't any new evidence" said
| Mr.. Byngton. "A review of the former
evidence is enough TO convict the woman.
/ Pennington, one OF the witnesses, Is dead,
but otherwise the case Of the prosecution
will be the same as before"
Mrs BotSin still employs her attorneys,
Messrs Knight g. Heggarty, who We're
with her in the first place.
I've have the same evidence as before
and plenty more" said Mr.. Heggarty.
I'VE are going 10 bring witnesses from
Delaware. For one there is a physician
who viii testify that the women did not
die OF arsenical poisoning. Have I hopes2
Why, it isn't a possible thing that any
fair minded Jury could convict that
woman"
Witnesses from Delaware.
Judge Cook will tr-r the case once more.
The whole long and complex story win be
reviewed. Witnesses will be brought from
Delaware by both sides. John =. Dun
ming husband Of the murdered woman
and first accuser Of Mrs BotSin will be
here once more. San Francisco viii again
be the stage OF a hot melodrama-
IF ! regain my liberty" said Mrs. Bot
kin. "the first thing i shall do Is to go TO
ymy old mother, who has never known OF
my sorrow. l wish there were some way
to go more quickly than by rail-"
II II the sentence of life imprisonment Is
, repeated Mrs. Botlzin win leave what she
calls her apartment in the county jail
She will go 70 the State Penitentiary in
San Quentin where lifo Will not be as
easy for her~as Il is now.
The prosecution viii tell its story Of
J how John p. Dunning. a New York man.
VINO was lNIIE III oiM IAAINlNA0 III ANNof
; lived with Mrs. Botkin, having left his
wife in New York Mrs Botkin's hus-
band sued her for divorce. She consid-
cred herself free and wanted Dunning to
} be free so that she could go to New York
; as his wife. This is the alleged motive
fot getting Mrs. Dunning out Of the way
outline Of Prosecution.
Then the prosecution win try 10 trace
Mrs Botlzin's movements through clerk
Of drug store who sold her arsenic 10
bleach a hat. The clerk has stated that
2 he told her other drugs were better for
/ the purpose but she insisted on having
arsenic; through a girl In candy store
; who sold q box Of chocolates answering
. the description OF the accused womani
, through clerk I'm a dry goods store who
sold a handkerchief like the one I'm the
Z candy box to some one whom she
5 believes to be Mrs. Botkin; through a
, nurse. Mrs Raouf. who remembers
4 strange questions that Mrs BotSin asked
I her about the time OF the murder, such
, as, How much arsenic does IL take 20 klll
1 a person p when a parcel is sent by
2 registered mail does the sender have 70
5 sign his name?' and docs one have 10
s tell a doctor or a lawyer the truth when
6 he is engaged professionally
Z This is the gist Of the San Francisco
Z testimony From the East viii come wit
= nesses to tell Of the receiving OF the box
Z Of candy by Mrs. Dunning, Of the hand
: kerchief enclosed in the box and the mes
4 sage. with best love" inscribed on a
0 card: OF the candies which appeared 10
4 differ from most of those in the box ap-
& lparently being home made creams; OF the
4 Illness that followed after several mem
bers Of the Pennington household had
lpartaken Of the candy. and of the death
OF Mrs. DeaEe two days after its arrival
. and of Mrs. Dunning three days after.
s Mr.. Pennington. father Of Mrs. Dun
< ming, believed the writing found In the
: box to be the same as the writing in sew
O eral anonymous letters previously receiv-
ed by Mrs Dunning. These letters told OF
the wrongdoing of her husband. The
prosecution asserted that Mrs. Botkin was
3 the writer in both cases.
s The defence calls this a weak point
A Mrs. Botxin would not have writer
z anonymous letters even limiting at he
e own relations with Dunning," 1t says
y "The writer OF lan anonymous letter al
: ways implicates a third person, not hin
o or herself
Defence Asks for Motive.
Again the defence asks why Dunning
. who placed the crime upon Mrs. BotlSin II
2 the first place, should implicate her an!
z more than other women who had as mucl
- reason for being jealous Of his wife o
X more. for it declares she parted with hin
on the most friendly terms and had M
desire to be more TO him than she alread.
was. She could not have wanted to MARI.
% him. for she was fighting her own hus
b bands suit for divorce. Therefore ther
% was no motive for the crime
80 The defence laughs at the evidence o
"a the candy girl She never positively iden
~ tilted Mrs. BotSin, nor did the other gin
I'm the same sho0 who had been near a
the time Of the sale. They merely sal
~ the buyer resembled Mrs. BotlSin. Tn
Is shop is one Of the busiest in town. Hoy
81 could a saleswoman remember any one &