Durango semi-weekly herald., 1906-02-05

sheriff's efforts to enforce the law
IT is plain from the evidence that the
| murder was premeditated: or defend
ant would not have made his boast
in the Democrat office that he would
spill seven kinds of - if Thompson
talked so and so to him. Mr. Weed
ems testimony was that Stansel shot
| Thompson in the back. and Weeden's
testimony was not impeached.
| And has any body denied that AL
| bert Delaney, the colored man. was
| there and saw Stansel shoot Thomp-
son In the back?
| Is Delaney corroborated in any
way? Do we have to rely on Weeden
md Delaney alone? No Charles AL
| len SAYS that Stansel shot Thompson
| in the back. Outside of these vita
nesses we have other proof The
our ranchmen. Messrs. Bovee, Me-
Dermott, Campbell and Gibson. They
were in the Pierce restaurant and
heard shooting. ran to the door and
| saw Thompson and Stansel shooting.
| They saw Thompson shoot once after
they had heard other shots. We have
| shown that Thompson mad only one
| gun Robert Hanna. the barber. pick
ed up the sheriffs gun after ThOmp-
son had fallen; Hanna gave the gun
10 Coroner Lackey. There can be no
loubt that 1t was the gun. This gun
will tell no untruth. no matter how
| . ny witnesses will tell you that
Thompson fred three or four shots.
I'll 1t gun with only one empty cart
l ,,n Taly tal uttI
tell to any jury that Thompson only
ired once. And those ranchmen tell
you that they came out after two OF
three shots had been fired and saw
Thompson shoot once.
| We have shown that Thompson
was shot twice through the neck. once 4
trough the nose and once in the alb
| lomen. all of which came from the
| side; and that there was a wound in
he back and a wound in the breast.
We do not know whether somebody
Use was shooting or not.
And when the sheriff sank down to
his death and his head was being
leld by A. F.. Hood, the sheriff said
The s. o. b. has murdered me"
Would that man whose bravery has
never been questioned, have made
that remark If he had been the an
iagonist?
Defense.
| The defense raked the district TT
torney. charging him with putting as
ew witnesses who knew anything
lbout the case on the stand as posi-
BILE and said that ont of all the men
in town who saw the shooting the
district attorney could find no one
only Candy" and Mr.. Weeden. He
claimed the gun introduced in evil
lence as Tnompsons gun was not
3 the gun used by Thompson. He cited
N support of this the four bullets
IN exhibit. claiming they had come
rom Thompson's gun. And he
claimed none of the bullets on eXh!-
bit would go in the gun on exhibit
as Thompson's gun. If that was
rhompson's gun il had been loaded
since.
I'VE have put on seventeen wilt
I nesses from all walks of life. from
the merchant, painter and real estate
J man down to the bartender, and they
all contradict the evidence of the =
prosecutions star witness. The pros
ecutlon has been made on public
prejudice. The correspondent of the
Denver Post dug up Mr. Weeden's
story and sent out garbled account,
Snich made it unsafe almost for de-
iendant TO enter the court room"
The district attorney was accused
Of having an autopsy held and then
tot having doctor called to the
stand. Said he was holding a card
up his sleeve for the district court"
Defense vehemently charged that
Allen. Candy and Weeden mad been
inspired by some fiendish motive or
ilIhy money to try to swear S;ansers
lie away; said that one or two wit
hesses testified to seeing Stansel put
his gun at Thompsons side in the
light and fire; had endeavored to keep
everything out of the case that was
hoi necessary and had tried to har-
ow no ones feelings more than ne'
cessary. Everyone knows that when
thompson was sober he was one Of
he best and incest men in the coun-
"; when drunk he was known to be
dangerous. Spoke of one of the
tricks in fighting for man 10 turn
his back and make a move as though
pulling handkerchief. pull a gun
md then turn again and fire. In this
'ase defense believed all that saved
Stansel was that he had moved a few
steps while Thompsons back was
turned.
II the shots which caused Thomp-
sons death were fired by any one
else than by Stansel then Stansel
should not be held responsible.
Rebuttal.
The district attorney in rebuttal
asked that the court be not led astray
by any vagarles or false hypotheses.
Defense claimed Candy" was not
worthy of belief. but defense had not
shown that Candy" was not present
and did not see the shooting. Was
glad TO know that Mr.. Reese, attorney