Arizona republican., 1907-05-21

kerchief, so the world would know of
 a certainty that he had killed John | Leicht. Speaking of the handkerchief [ he said his witness proved that chloro- i form would heach it and that the prosecution made no effort to show what had discsfored it The theory of [ the defense however was that it was | discolored by hemorrhage from the nose or lungs. in proof of which he said Joe Monihan had testified that he | thought at first it was blood.
 ! He next took up the time consumed i in the drive, four hours to go 9 miles, kill a man. return home again making various stops on both trips, and that without especially exerting or injuring | the horse When and where was the man killed, asked the speaker. You have a right to know. Answering the question he said that to do the work within the time, the murder must have been in the buggy. yet there were no signs of Leicht having, been drugged when they passed the orange grove. The speaker denied the hiding of the chlorOform can saying 1t mad been blown to its resting place by the wind. This after having enlarged upon the theory of possible suicide. Counsel next tried to impeach Hi Mcdonald as buggy track expert and also pointed out that the peculiar horse shoe tracks were not uncommon. He covered other bits of the testimony, fOrcibly contended again that a verdict of guilty could not be found only when the circumstances precluded the pos sibility of any other kind of a death.
 He finally charged the prosecution with having failed to furnish the cru cial facts by not having the body an- alyzed. Counsel said this was the fault of the county's expert, pr. Wy lie, contending that the brain encased dence of the drugs if they were there. in the skull surely preserved the evil He dwelt on the unimportance of ex- pert testimony in most cases and did everything possible to dissipate the ef- feet of Dr. Wylie's testimony. Before closing Judge Baker made reference to the plea of sympathy. He said he ask ed for no sympathy for defendant for he knew he did not have a friend in the community, but stood alone and helpless.
 District Attorney Bullard spoke for an hour. He began by saying he had been unable to determine from Judge Bakers argument whether Expert Wy lie or counsel for the defense was on trial and if so which one had made a fool of the other. He told the jury its only duty was to determine whether or not the defendant had killed John Leieht and he proposed to show the jury where the territory had proved that he had done so. He had tried to give the defendant a fair trial and all the opportunity in the world to break the damning chain of circumstantial evidence and now he was going to ask for a verdict of guilty Counsel for the defense had said the facts in evil dence were but gossamer threads but it was also true that one gossamer thread upon another might be used to spin a rope to hank man. If the jury believed that Eytinge killed Leicht. it was its duty 70 find a yer dict of guilty however that opinion might be arrived at.
 A great deal of sympathy had been expressed for the defendant by coun- sel he said: The poor boy whose life the prosecution sought to take" How about John Lssht?" said the district attorney. "whte life was taken by this defendart asnd which cannot be restored again even by God Almighty.
 The defense has said that Eytinge could have had no motive. but who can fathom a mind like that? A chloraI hydrate fiend will kill a man for fif- teen cents"
 Then supplying motive the speak CT argued that it had been shown that Eytinge was going to write book on crime. or said he was. and undoubted- ly he sought this incident as a theme for a chapter in his book
 Judge Baker objected to the state ment that the defendant was going to write a book but counsel said it was