Widnes Examiner. — 1901-08-02 (Widnes, Cheshire, England)

SPEECHES OF COUNSEL.  A few minor witnesses having completed the defence, the afternoon was spent in liatening to the speeches of Counsel. Mr Griffith led off with his second address on behalf of the accused. Be said Heaven knew what happened in Mere Heath-lane at the time of the tragedy. There could be no doubt Parrott was there between Si% and seven o'clock, and his account of his movements was at any rate consistent, even if it was not confirmed by all the evidence that had been adduced by the prosecution. There could be no doubt that the prisoner was in , the lane twenty minutes or half an hour before the 1 murder was committed, but there, counsel submitted, the process of identification was suddenly cut short. An attempt bad been made to identify the prisoner with the man who was seen leaning over the body. This I attempt had failed, but he ventured to say even if it had succeeded it would have been perfectly consistent with the prisoner's innocence. They must remember in connection with Miss Francis that she gave evidence of a certain kind which was seriously contradicted. Then, too they should bear in mind how the police had dealt with this girl. Did they, think it was necessary for the Chief Constable to go three times to visit a housemaid who was going to give evidence in this case ? If this girl was telling the truth there was no necessity for three visits from the Chief Constable and innumeraole visits from the sergeaut.who admitted that he only went to elicit evidence. They should remember that fifty yards away from the spot where this man was shot dead a woman was being violently ( assaulted for ten minutes, according to Miss Francis. Atter ten minutes of this sort of thing two shots were heard. Then, and not till then Miss Francis screamed That was one matter for the jury to ponder over. The prosecution made much of the tact that a purse was found in Parrott's box,and that a purse of the same kind had been used by Bould. If they believed the evidence of the prisoner's mother, who, true enough, was speaking for her own son, but who gave her evidence in a very fair manner, there was a complete answer to that. But even if they were not satisfied, he should contend that the prosecution had not proved that Bauld had such a purse in his pocket at any time immediately prior to his death. With regard to the coins they hitt' also a complete answer. There was really no motive to be ascribed to Parrott in the case. The theory of the prosecution was that Parrott committed the deed for plunder, afcer walking from Manchester, because he had no money. But the defence had proved that he had five shillings of his brother's money in his overcoat pocket, apart from what he might have had of his own. Was it not more likely that the murder was the work of some private enemy than of a man whose manner they knew was reserved, and who had only that very day declared that people who carried revolvers ought to be punished ? 'COOL AND BULL " -STORY  In his reply Mr Abel Thomas characterised as a cock and bull story the prisoner's explanation about the sale of the revolver to the sailor. The prisoner's explanations, he went on, teemed with improbabilities. There was a deep and mysterious suggestion, that there was some connection between the incident of Rowe and Francis and the murder? Where did it come from ? Did it come from the prisoner? Perhaps he could give some explanation. Or did it come from the ingenious brain of the solicitor instructing the defending counsel ? He ventured to think it did. Mr Thomas submitted that no other man than the prisoner could have been on the spot when the murder was committed. He supposed it was possible for anyone to have come across the field, but if there had been he would have been seen over the low fence.