Evening public ledger. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1914-1942, 1921-01-28
Plea to Acquit
Brines Up to Judge
r.,,,nued from Pase One

ronttnIen IFbui hubV WV
:. dclicti. or body Of the offcnse. itself
must be proven. :, -,
,,-y TO consider this case ms that Of
S,st degree murder. because there is no
~ridencc of its being willful, delib-
We Intentional killing. and. there
The offense Is not in the class known
srst degree murder. There Is no ele-
~ '.nt nrcsent of a first -dcgr kind, and
ns nOnr honor should instruct the jury that
~. .depree elements do not exist in this
case. , I. .,,
-hothcr there was a murder committed
Mho killing was not shown to be that Of
Inrder. and the burden In on the com
mIa"nwcalth Ia to prove that IL was They
p.no not disproven that II might have
Saon nm accident, or that Drewes com
p,,,oJ suicide: on the other hand. their
nn;dcnce is purely circumstantial, and
.hO law covering circumstantial evidence
!. ,bot Il must be consistent, and proof
tbst there was murder committed must
he forthcoming.
an n road with a bullet in his head
ro evidence Of any struggle sufficient
~ establish that that man was mur-
Iorpd. Inc commonwealth nus UOJ
waved that Drcwes was sain. Your
ouor knows that the commonwealth has
uot nroduced enough evidence to prove
Ia, the defendant should be adjudged
by this jury.
'"I maintain that the gun produced
hsre ms evidence has not been traced
~ This defendant. This gun was found
NJ a car that has been proved belonged
- the defendant, and II surely Is not
svidencc that a gun that was found four
ioys after the case was the gun that was
was used.
"That fact alone is quite inconsistent
nth the statement that this defendant
eommittcd the crime with that gun and
IN II in the car. ] insist that the
tact that this gun was In the car Is not
.uHicient evidence to warrant the jury
Ending that the gun belonged to the
defendant.
wouldn't Identify Gun
"Arnoldson was with Brines when he
nurchascd gun of that character.
Ee was asked, "Will you say
his is the gum His answer was.
Most certainly not And then the
nawnbroker took the stand. He could
not identify it at all. He sold. he
said. TO two young men, n Harrington
md Richardson revolver and later gave
in exchange for II Colt gun. He has
no personal recollection of the oc-
currenCe.
His testimony, therefore. is abso-
hutely worthless, for no man can testify
no what he learns from another source
when that source is not evidence.
he can base his testimony. We
start. therefore, with the fact that
there is no proof this gun belongs to
the defendant. And suppose the com =
monwealth had proved it belonged to
me defendant. There il no proof this
hun was used in killing this man.
THAT is consistent with the hypoth
esis that the gun did not belong to
him, but was found in the car. lie did
mot buy this gun. 1t has not been
proven BY the evidence. The only testi-
mony we have is from experts who were
guessing.
Both DR.. Wadsworth and Mr.. Fitz-
gerald said in answer to the plain Ques-
ton, Can you say that the bullet that
killed Drcwcs was shot from that gum
No
Hypothis OF Innocence
when two men versed in firearms
and guns are unable and unwilling to
say that bullet from that gun killed
Drewcs the hypothis of innocence is
there. Maybe it was from the gun, but
the jury is bound to say that the proof
does not exist.
Mrs. Reeves has testified that at
;45 o'clock that night she walked along
City Line to Mascher street. then down
b distance of 735 feet from where the
body was found and then city block to
her home with her child. She saw
coming down City Line On automobile,
behind her. She saw that automobile
slow up. She saw the lights dimmed.
There is nothing unusual about the
dimming of lights on an automobile
which is travelling along a road. She
saw an automobile 90 to the corner of
City Line md Mascher streets. She, then,
was seventy five yards away. down
NIasChcr street. She saw it stop there
shOt and heard an automobile pass her
house.
Says Proofs Are Lacking
There is no proof that the automo
BILE She saw had anything to do with
this crime. even if it is assumed for the
sake of argument that it was Brines
automobile. Furthermore, the car has
been described by various witnesses as
having been yellow, tan, chocolate
brown and maroon and dark maroon
Even ii the automobile was dark ma
room in color. it is no proof it is Brines
car. Even if It was Brincs' car, II
was no proof that Brines was there.
'DrCwes left his home at S:4s
O'clock. His body was found at q IA
the next morning. There is no evidence
to show where he was killed. And there
Is no real means of knowing. But II
The theory OF the commonwealth is car
ried out successfully. he must have met
Brines, have been killed at the spo,
where h" was found or elsewhere ant
have bccn carried to the extreme north
eastern part Of the city.
In ether words. he left his house a
s;OO or $40 o'clock and was killed a
~ O'clock.
"Now as to the car. There is evi
dehCc that there were six blood splaSheI
on the rear right hand door of the car
me question is to prove that that wa
preweS blood. The question is I,
prove that that is the car used in tn,
murder Of DreweS. 1t IL not proved a
sl, or 1t would show that there wa
npFe thRn one man in Philadelphia
VINO was concerned.
'"'S Evidence Negative
Inc eur WAS seen on Chancellor
sreGt behind the garage before q o'clocl
u" morning. There is no evidenc,
ae ear was not there long time be
NIe' The garage man said he did moi
we It there before o'clock. That il
negatiy" testimony.
1t was seen until about 12 80 o'clocl
me next afternoon. There was nothing
unusual about 1t. No mud, such n
you'd be- expected to appear upon it hat
travelled the road to Mascher street
he road being in the condition describeI