Arizona republican., 1907-05-21

kerchief with defendants initial on it. which discoloration the defense as- sumed at the time that the prosecution intended to claim was caused by chlo- roform. The district attorney however in his argument made no claim of this kind, but merely that the handkerchief had been used and the discoloration came from another cause
 Another very important feature of the experts testimony was respecting the tendency of the drugs in question to preserve tissue and also the possible length of time after death. in which chemical analysis could show their presence It will be remembered that the expert for the prosecution, Dr. Wylie. claimed it was impossible to detect by chemical analysis the pres ence of these drugs in a body in the condition in which that of John Leicht was found. He admitted that the tendency of chloral hydrate was to preserve tissue but to have very much effect there would need to be a great deal of the drug in a very little tis- sue, the inference being that there was not enough in the bottle Leicht was drugged with to have any material effect fin preserving the body. The experts for the defense cOntended more strongly than did Dr. wylie for the preserving nature of the drug. But there was a still greater differ ence between the two groups of ex- perts respecting the length of time that might elapse after death before the presence of the drugs In a corpse would be beyond detection by chem ical analysis. The experts for the de- fense indicated that the time might be quite long and from their testimony the inference was drawn that if these drugs were in the body of Leicht at all the fact could surely have been deter mined by analysis at the time the body was found. They quoted various au- thorities for substantiating the elaps- ing of considerable time as indicated in one case or another. However on cross examination the district attor- ney. practically refuted their theory, except in the case of Preller the man murdered by Maxwell in St. Louis some years ago. In that instance chloroform was found in the body twelve days after the murder. but the body in the meantime had been kept in a trunk.
 THE ARGUMENT.
 The taking of testimony was fin ished before the noon recess and on the reconvening of court the argument began. F. J. Lyman. assistant district attorney first addressing the jury. MT. Lyman began by reciting the respon- sibility of the jury to the county and territory. Inasmuch as the crime of which the defendant was accused, is the greatest of all crimes and the at tending circumstances adduced from the testimony the most horrible and shocking. so should the punishment be the most terrible. He spoke of the of John Leicht innocent and cheerful. full of the flush of life. on the morning of March 17. when he and the defendant passed beyond the Arizona canal and Leicht according to the record had not been seen alive since then by anybody. He recount ed how the defendant had told some one on the preceding Thursday that he was going to take Johnny for a ride and that he wanted to be direct cd lO d uultl Ildtt W li'4t Nl4tS Npu4h not be interrupted. as he (Eytinge) was writing a book. On defendants return to town he brought with him certain property of the deceased, among which was the draft passed at the Bank Exchange and the watch.
 At this point Judge Baker objected. saving that the watch was not in evil dence and the district attorney pro- tested against the Interruption. Coun- sel continued. relating the various times when defendant told of the leav- ing of Leicht at Koibergs and saying that in that story alone he had brand ed himself as a murderer. He told of the incident in the Bank Exchange. saving that again he had demonstrated his guilt. A week later the body was found. Counsel pictured the scene. the evidences of poison. the proof that Eytinge had bought it. his flight from the city, etc. the day of the disappear ance.
 The defense again objected, that no evidence of flight had been submit
 Continued on Page z.