The New York herald., 1921-09-29
ARBUCKLE Is HELD
FOR MANSLAUGHTER
Continued from First Page.

Arthur Beardslee. who attended her,
saw only one on the arm. Undoubtedly.
IL there had been others on the body
he would have noticed them.
"Semnacher's testimony was entirely
valueless, and two days OF court time
was taken up fruitiessly hearing him.
-The only one whose evidence might
have connected the defendant with the
commission of q crime Was that or the
nervous chambermaid who heard from
the corridor the cry of woman. No.
no; oh, my Godp and mans reply.
oh. shut up
Although there were indications that
the District Attorney at trial would
try to show O more complete case. there
was the merest skeleton of evidence here
to connect tho defendant with the crime
of murder the most serious offence
known in criminal law.
THE question for me TO decide Ii
whether the facts adduced, which the
District Attorney admits are barely
enough to warrant holding. Is enough
to justify q murder charge. and do
not believe 80.
There is enough in the defendants
actions in the affair, however. to war
rant manslaughter charge. and win
hold him on this. feel that no rape. or
attempted rape. was committed by the
defendant"
While the formalities of ball were be-
ing arranged Arbuckle went back TO the
city prison, where he has been for the
last eighteen days.
Coming out OF his cell with an over
flowing armful Of clothing. his face took
on a more cheerful look. After he had
piled the clothes into n suitcase newspa-
per photographers started TO take pic
lures Of him. and smile began 70 creep
over mis- countenance. As balloon like
cloud OF flashlight smoke rose toward
the ceiling he gazed at 1t with almost a
grin.
"Roll a cigarette with one hand when
we take the next snap" suggested one
of the photographer
II can't" he replied 'it's the other
Arbuckle that does that"
AIbuckle had been incarcerated since
| September 10.
| Assertions that Judge Lazarus treated
the case of Arbuckle differently from
the usual case were made In long
statement issued tonight by District
Attorney Brady. The statement quoted
what purported to be the exact words
of Judge Lazarus with the assertion that
1t was indicative of his attitude.
"If Roscoe Arbuckle were unknown
and urimportant," Brady's statement
declared, "he would have been held for
murder. Judge Lazarus plainly stated
that more evidence would be required in
this case than in any other case for the
reason that the defendant was an I'M
portant celebrity"
Brady's statement quoted Judge Laza-
rus as having said In court to-day
"rhe District Attorney has attempted
10 give us the impression that the proof
required in this present case warranted
holding, that rt should not go any
further than would be required or nee
essary in any other case. But say
that this is really an important case we
need not disguise that fact or beguile
ourselves into the idea that we are
handling here just the ordinary trivial
case. il you. wish to put 1t that way.
which frequently comes UP In the police
court"
The District Attorney declared Judge
Lazarus's action in holding ArDuciSle Tor
manslaughter to be wholly mystifying.
Brady then cited the law as defining
deaths ensuing from felonious acts as
murder and those resulting from mis-
demeanors to be manslaughter. and
continued:
Judge Lazarus took the view that
the killing OF Virginia Rappe may have
resulted from wholly innocent and
trivial act, and said the defendant may
have slapped her and been guilty OF
+. ming more than a simple battery.
1t is true that the defendant did COM
MT IN act ~ battery upon virginia
Rape. but the testimony shows he did
great deal more and that these acts
were entirely felonous in their nature.
I'm holding the defendant to answer
upon the charge of manslaughter Judge
Lazarus admits that the evidence showed
that the defendant WAS criminally re-
sponsible for the death Of Virginia
Rannc.
'Tf the defendant was criminally re-
sponsible for her death he should have
h,en tried for murder and not for man
slaughter. 1t is entirely immaterial that
nc did not intend to kill her.
Insofar as the amount Of proof fs
concerned the law makes no distinction
between important cases and trivial
cases. Neither does the law in its treat
rient OF men make any distinction be-
tween important defendants and
trivial defendants"