Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1929-02-26
DEFENSE MAY CALL
PALM|ST'S SISTER
Trial Board Idle Today as
Mrs. BIaIock Faces
Grand Jury.
Continued From First Page.)


Continued From First Page.)
witness stand, so it remains for the de.
Tense to bring out the story, If 1t is
brought out at all. -.
The cross and redirect examination OF
Mrs. Blalock was completed at an hour
and half session of the special trial
board last night and she was excused
from the witness stand.
1t had been gruelling day for the
palmist, subjected as she was to relent-
less examination by the defense counsel
for more than seven hours. She showed
visible signs of fatigue when the board
finally adjourned. Her voice was hoarse
and at times she spoke hardly above a
whisper.
Despite the ordeal Mrs. Blalock left
the witness stand with promise to
return, if necessary, to assist the prose
cution in pressing her charges against
Burlingame. This promise allayed earlier
fears that she would leave Washington
Immediately after her appearance before
the grand jury
Throughout the merciless examination
during the day the defense sought to
discredit much of the woman's direct
testimony, and caused many contradic-
tons in her earlier statements. and
again last night she was forced into
making three corrections in the sworn
affidavit she gave Representative Blanton
at his law office in Abilene, Tex.
Resorts to Defective Memory.
Time after time when she was
cornered by the forceful defense counsel
| Leahy, she resorted to her memory
| which shown indications of defective
| ness. Some times she fought back with
evasive answers and often she adopted
i II don't remember" phrase when her
wits were unable to match those OF
Leahy
Mrs. Blalock, however. persistently
stuck to the basic story she told on the
witness stand on the opening day of the
trial-that Burlingame had forced his
attentions on her, showered her with
gifts and she tolerated it all because she
feared him."
Leahy's examination also revealed
the probable line of defense that Bur-
lingame Will use in his day in court
that he was framed" by his enemies,
who used the palmist as their instru-
ment to "get him: that his relations
with her we're of a purely platonic and
business nature, and that in return
she gave him "tips," which enabled him
to arrest bootleggers and gamblers. Mrs.
Blalock, on the witness stand last night,
denied emphatically, however, that she
had ever given the accused officer any
information that was Of value to him
in rounding up law violators.
Defense's Intentions.
The defense likewise intends to deny
fIaat .rl} ri
lations with Mrs. Blalock, and that the
mass of sentimental letters she accused
him of writing were written by some
one else. The palmist has admitted
that the captain had not handed to her
personally any of the letters; that they
had either come through the mail or
had been dropped in the mail slot in
her apartment.
The diamond ring which Mrs. Bla-
lock alleged in her affidavit Capt Bur-
lingame had given her played an i'm
portant part in the proceedings last
night, as did two quarts of wine and
two quarts of whisky, which the palm
ist testified the police officer brought to
her house After 1t had been there for
some time, she testified, Burlingame re-
moved the whisky and told her he had
given 1t to late headquarters detec.
i've WHO tIlCI WAS OIL Ills UcdtIlOCu.
There was considerable discussion Of
identified it positively as the one Capt.
Burlingame had given her, but she was
forced to correct her affidavit on its &C.
count. In the document, the palmist
declared the ring was too large and the
, police officer had it made smaller,
while in her testimony she said the
ring was too small and he had it made
larger. She said the discrepancy was
due to an error in drawing the affidavit.
Another Change Made.
Another discrepancy, which caused
Mrs. Blalock to change the affidavit
concerned the money she alleged Bur-
hngame had given her for Christmas
present The amount In the affldavit
was given at $500, but in her testi-
mony she declared it was $4,000. She
| insisted under cross-examination that
the correct figure was $4,000.
Mrs. Blalock also pictured herself on
the stand as woman without many
| friends. In two years she testified she
had no visitors except those who came
| for professional services, with the ex-
ception OF her two sisters, and she adj
mitted their visits reluctantly. because
of her desire to keep her family out of
the case.
Did the captain say anything to you
about your having company" Prose-
cutor Fowler asked her. He just said
he better not catch anybody there" she
replied.
The third correction, which Mrs. Bla-
lock made in her affidavit concerned
the allegation that Burlingame had re-
ceived and kept 500 withdrawn from
her account December II, 1927, and
| $500 withdrawn December 10, 1927,
Leahy drew an admission from her that
the police officer kept the $700 which
was return of gift, but he did not
| keep the $500.
After she had corrected the AFFIDAVIT,
| Leahy asked:
Nov, you do not mean, either to
say at this time, do you, Mrs. Blalock,
that Capt. Burlingame has ever at
any time taken any money of yours,
| either in the case Of a check or in
cash, which you did not desire to give
him?"
NO." she answered.
Asked About Giving Tips.
Leahy then indicated one line of his
clients defense when he endeavored
to show that the palmist had been a
stool pigeon" for Burlingame
Did you at any time ever give him
anything what We call tips?" he in
quired. NO" she flashed back indig-
nantly.
did you ever at any time give him
i Will Rogers |
i Says: |