The Sentinel=record., 1914-04-12

buslness and l called Louie aside and l said pointing to man across the street, do you see that fellow over there" He said Yes I said T am almost positive that is a private de- tective that District Attorney Whit man has assigned to watch Rosen- thal.' They took the hint and de- parted and went home.
 This testimony of Dresner bears the unmistakable stamp of being made to fit Roses testimony.
 Tt is somewhat remarkable that, notwithstanding the apprehension of Dresner, that something dire was going to happen, nothing did happen because of the words alleged to have been uttered by Rose.
 While the testimony of Rose at the trial concerning the incident at | the Garden restaurant was compe tent to show preparation and combi- nation on the part of the main de- fendants for the commission of a crime. it was merely step in the progression of proof and a contradic- ton of that, even if true, would of itself be wholly insufficient to war rant granting of a new trial.
 This witness went on to narrate what he says he observed on tine morning of the sixteenth when Ros- enthal was killed. He did not testify that he saw the killing or heard shots, notwithstanding he was in Forty-third street at the time of the killing and the passing of the auto. mobile. He claims to have identified Vallon, Webber and Schepps in the passing automobile. It is remark able that Shis witness should be found to be present at these two inn portant times; that is, on the 18th at the Garden restaurant and on the 16th on Forty-third street at the time of the killing. Intrinsically this tes- timony is unworthy of credence and if there was any element for that conviction it is furnished by the wit ness himself, in as much as knowning the widespread notoriety given to the murder of Rosenthal and a
 
 tance of his testimony he refrained from coming forward and making known to counsel for the defendants or to the district attorney what he had heard and observed The only reason he assigns for his failure is that he was in fear of his life; of whom he was afraid he does not state, and his failure, where human life was involved to come forward as a witness until the last hour when opportunity for examination or con- tradiction is not given, is circum' stance of invention so strong that no reliance can be placed upon his tes- timony.
 "Burwel testified that when in Forty-third street on the morning of RosenthaPs death he heard two shots and saw the man who fired the shots turn. He said he did not know the man, but described to some extent his personal appearance. The point of his testimony rests on his state ment that neither of the four de- fendants was the man who fired the |
 shots. Burwell never saw either of the four gunmen and the only knowl- edge he had of them he obtained from some photographs purporting to represent the defendants in a clipping from newspaper.
 Ut is unnecessary to dwell for a moment on the utter insecurity of such testimony as tending to any, thing like accurate Identification. The mere negative statement that the man who fired the shots was not one of four persons whose faces are | outlined in a newspaper without any evidence that such outlines are true and correct representations of the l defendants and in the face of posi- tive testimony that the defendants | fired the shots, is worthless. Identi- fication from portraits of itself is risky and dangerous and without