rest) and found the record corroborated.1 Student Gray, in marking the roll, depended entirely on the answers as heard, not on eye-sight. In March the roll had not been written up, and so the roll for April 3 was at first by error marked in the blank space of March 31, and afterwards was copied into the correct place, the original marks being erased. The roll method was liable to error, he admitted, and in the succeeding June an improved system was adopted. He had no means of knowing whether one student was answering for another. Questions as to his experience on this point on past occasions were ruled out. On the defendant's cross-examination, however, it was brought out that on at least two occasions shortly afterwards (April 8 and 12) he had himself asked a fellowstudent to answer for him, and on one of these it was only when the defendant was called upon to recite that his absence was detected. Out of the 74 usually in the class, apparently all (except one deceased) testified that they did not answer for Durrant on April 3; but one of them, who was marked absent, testified that he was in fact present. But, besides the evidence (whatever it might amount to) of the rollcall record, the notebook of Durrant was of consequence. His 5 pages of notes fairly represented the lecture, and were as much like those of other students as they would naturally be. Two classes of evidence, however, were offered by the State to destroy the value of this circumstance. (a) It was claimed that there had been ample opportunity to copy them in afterwards. On April 10, Student Glaser went over with Durrant at the college their notes of this day, April 3, Glaser alone reading and Durrant copying from time to time. As to this, Durrant explained that a mutual "quiz," for purposes of improvement, etc., was not uncommon, and that he had copied only two rules in all. (b) Furthermore, his notebook remained at the house till April 17th (unthought of by the police), when it was sent to his attorney's office (Durrant having been arrested on the 14th); his attorneys told him the notes were not complete, and the book remained in their possession for an indefinite time thereafter. (c) It was claimed that Durrant had expressly admitted that he had few or no notes of that lecture, and had tried to borrow from others to complete them. Student Graham went on April 20th to the prison, and Durrant, asking Graham's companion to step aside,3 "asked me if I would lend him my notes to compare with his own. He told me he had no notes at all, and if he could get them from me he could establish his alibi. He told me I could take them to his house and put them in his book and thus have them brought to him. He also said I might learn them and then tell them to him." Graham did not accede to this request. Durrant admitted expressing to Graham a wish to have the notes, because "he didn't know whether he had full notes," and made this singular explanation: "I was following instructions of one of my lawyers to get notes of Dr. Cheney's lecture and complete my own notes and compare them." 4 1 This evidence, in another form, was objected to and excluded, but afterwards permitted, when the defense declined to accept the opportunity. 2 On April 10 he already knew for several days that Miss Lamont had disappeared on the 3d. 3 It was their joint request, Durrant said. * Some apparent inconsistencies here appeared in his story. He claimed that when he was arrested on the 14th, he had forgotten whether he had notes, and first learned from his attorneys on the 17th that he had. But (1) on the 10th he had already gone over the same notes with Student Glaser; (2) on the 20th he at least told Student Graham that he did not know whether he had full notes. It must be added that, according to two or three reporters, Durrant, when first arrested, 66 (2) Durrant at the Church. How did Durrant happen to be at the church at all, on the day of Miss Lamont's disappearance? His purpose, according to his own story, was to repair the easterly sunburner" hanging through the ceiling above the rostrum, It consisted of 24 gas jets, one being fitted with an electric vibrator, by means of which all were lit. The wire ran 75 feet to the gallery wall, where a gas valve turned on the gas and a pushbutton made the connection with a battery. Durrant's story, in brief, was as follows: He was interested in electricity (but knew nothing of gas), and had several times repaired the sun-burner attachment. He had several times been told of defects by Mr. Davis, the treasurer, by one of the trustees, and by the janitor, Sademan; one of these occasions was in the preceding January. About March 23 preceding, a trustee or Sademan (later he fixed it as Sademan) told him that the lights would not work at the first press of the button, and he said he would look after it. When he came to the church he went to the library, put his watch in his coat, and left coat and hat there on a box; went through the Sunday-school room up to the auditorium; proceeded to the gallery at the front end to turn on the gas; plugged the button, turned the gas half on, raised the ladder, mounted, went along the lower ceiling to the opening, took off the cover and reflectors, remedied with nippers the spring on the vibrator (an operation of 4 minutes or so), tested its working, and returned to the gallery and shut off the gas. While making the repairs he lay on his stomach, his head protruding downwards through the open ing over the gas, and the escaping gas nauseated him. This it was that caused the paleness described by the witness King. The rest of his story coincided substantially with that of King. A vigorous cross-examination of nearly two days was met by Durrant with almost entire success so far as this part of his story was involved, a circumstance of considerable significance in view of the great mass of details involved. But the State attacked the story at several points in the following ways: (a) The treasurer Davis and each of the five trustees testified that they had not spoken about the gas to Durrant at any time in 1895. The janitor Sademan testified that he had had no conversation with Durrant about the sun-burner at or about the time stated, and that the gas apparatus was "in a perfect state of repair," except for a loose key in the front lobby below, which sometimes caused a slight leak.1 (b) Experts testified that the effect of inhaling gas would be a flush and redness of the face, not a paleness; but an expert for the defense denied this. (c) King testified that when he entered the library (which must have been about 5, or after Durrant had, by his own story, arrived) he saw no hat and coat there; and, as the door was locked when they went back there before leaving, it would follow (assuming that his not seeing them indicated that they were in fact not there) that Durrant, and he only, had put them there in the meantime, i.e., during King's absence to get the bromo-seltzer; since it was admitted that a new lock (to keep out book thieves) had been put on the door only a few days before, to which Durrant and himself alone had told them that he had reached the church between 4 and 4.30. This he explained as a misunderstanding of his expression “ gone to the church between 4 and 4.30," signifying the time of leaving the Medical School. But the newspaper reports of what witnesses had said or would say, proved so unreliable throughout the trial that this particular evidence did not play an important part. 1 Workmen had repaired the single wall-burners in the church on April 2, and this, as the source of a gas escape, was made much of by the defense; as also the fact that King, on entering, smelled gas in the lobby below. But this could not affect the question of the state of repair of the sun-burner; and so far as it was offered to show the cause of Durrant's nausea, it was of no consequence, for the only gas that could have overcome him was that which he inhaled from the sun-burner, while the leak in the lobby accounted for what King smelled. keys, and since the interval of his absence had afforded Durrant time to put the articles there. The effect of this would be merely to show that Durrant's story about putting them there on his first arrival was false.1 Durrant's Exclusive Opportunity. -As further negativing the hostile effect of the State's testimony putting Durrant at the church on that afternoon (whether with or without Miss Lamont), it was of course open to the defense to show the possibility or probability of some other person having equal opportunity to commit the crime or showing equally strong traces of guilt. In this respect much was promised, but little attempted, and practically nothing effected. The State had shown, as to modes of access, that the north door to the church had been nailed up in the previous year; that to the front door keys were possessed by King and the janitor Sademan only; and that to the south door keys were possessed by only King, Durrant, Sademan, Pastor Gibson, and the President of the Ladies' Aid Society, Mrs. Moore; furthermore, that the murderer must have been completely familiar with the church interior. Practically, then, the matter lay between the defendant, King, Sademan and Gibson. As to the former two, no attempt whatever was made to implicate them, and we must assume that it was not possible to do so. But a distinct effort, indirect rather than direct, was made to fix suspicion on Pastor Gibson. It probably originated in the fair, though not striking, resemblance between the writing on the inclosure of the deceased's rings sent to Mrs. Noble and some specimens of Pastor Gibson's handwriting. The pastor was called to the stand to identify this handwriting, but for no other purpose. Other bits of evidence noted below, of little or no real significance, were, however, made much of by the defense (though scarcely mentioned in counsel's argument).2 3. Durrant's Subsequent Conduct. -The defense paid special attention to destroying the effect of two incidents of the State's story, the visit to the pawnbroker Oppenheimer, and the waiting at the ferry on April 12. The attack on the Oppenheimer story was made in several ways: (1) Durrant and his mother testified that he never wore in the daytime at that season the overcoat which the pawnbroker said he had on. (2) The pawnbroker appeared to be somewhat nearsighted. (3) Others who were sent or had for their own purposes gone to offer him jewelry testified to errors made by him in describing them. (4) A Mr. Lenahan, of the same general appearance as Durrant, had offered him a similar ring about the same time; but this witness' testimony was very weak; moreover Oppenheimer instantly picked out the Lamont ring when the two were shown him together. (5) Durrant's presence at other places on the mornings of the period in question 1 It may be added that if Durrant had really come down by way of the west gallery, he would naturally have gone directly down the stairs at the west end to the library to get his hat and coat, instead of going unnecessarily to the stairs at the east end and then back through the Sunday-school rooms to the library. That he came down at the east stairs would, on the other hand, be perfectly consistent with his having just committed the murder, for as already mentioned, the natural way of retreat from the belfry was along the new ceiling to the east end and thence down to the baptistery and down the stairs to the Sunday-school rooms. It may also be noted that as the gas-fitters (for some unexplained reason) took out the sun-burners on April 4, there was no means of testing Durrant's story as to his doings over the ceiling. 2 (1) Footprints, in the belfry, of a shoe larger than Durrant's; (2) Marks of a chisel and a hammer on the belfry door, a chisel and a hammer being found in a box in the pastor's study; (3) shoes, of which one bore a brown spot, found in the pastor's study. But the attendant explanations and contradictions were such that this evidence may be fairly described as worthless. was shown; but only partially. (6) Durrant was shown to have a little money in bank, and the ring was worth only $2.50. The ferry incident was SO explained that perhaps Durrant did not in fact contradict himself as to his reason for being at the ferry. He claimed that he was really looking for Blanche Lamont; and, so far as his share in her death was concerned, this was quite consistent with his interest as a friend in her whereabouts. But the prosecution made much of the absurdity of his story that he received the advice to go there from an unknown man, who stopped him on the street and then left him, and that Durrant made no attempt to inquire his name or his source of information or to follow him; and to this extent the incident was used to discredit his whole story. On Saturday, November 2, at 3.30 P.M., after 27 days actually occupied by the giving of testimony, and 5 or 6 more by the addresses of counsel, the jury retired. Within 30 minutes they returned with a verdict of "Guilty of murder in the first degree." A juror afterwards revealed that this result was reached without discussion and upon the first ballot. It is sufficient to note that the verdict appeared to be in harmony with the opinion of the community. 1 The prosecution's view of his real purpose, which could not be brought out on this trial, was that he was waiting for Miss Williams, a girl who also had disappeared at the same time and was supposed to have been murdered by Durrant. 387. THE LUETGERT CASE. Law Review. 1897. Vol. XXXII, On May 1, 1897, Adolph Louis Luetgert, a native of Germany, lived with his wife Louisa, also a German by birth, in a house on Hermitage avenue, near Diversey boulevard, in Chicago. The husband was 52 years of age, large and heavy; the wife was 42 years of age, small and frail, weighing about 105 pounds. They had been married some 19 years, and had two children, Louis, 12 years old, and Elmer, 5 years old. Arnold, a grown-up son of the husband by a former marriage, lived elsewhere in Chicago. The only other inmate of the Luetgert household was Mary Siemering, a second cousin of Mrs. Luetgert, who worked for them as maid. Adolph Luetgert had made his way from small beginnings; at one time a tanner, afterwards a saloon keeper, then a butcher, he now carried on the manufacture of sausages in a large factory adjoining his residence, and in one of the buildings he had also a grocery store and a meat market. He had been reputed rich, and in the surrounding district of humble homes he was looked upon as a magnate. In the course of the preceding year, however, he had lost some $25,000 through the schemes of an English swindler, and matters had rapidly gone from bad to worse, until in March, 1897, the sausage factory had been closed, only a few hands being retained for retail operations. The foreclosure of a chattel mortgage was impending, and on May 4, shortly after the events to be narrated, the sheriff took charge of the factory, and a sale under the chattel mortgage took place on May 11. On the evening of Saturday, May 1, about 10.15 or a trifle later, little Louis Luetgert came home from the circus, entered the kitchen by the rear steps, and began to recount his experiences to his mother, who was sitting under the gaslight, dressed in a loose brown wrapper and in slippers. "Was it worth the 10 cents?" she asked. "Oh, yes, it was worth a great deal more than 10 cents," he insisted enthusiastically. But his story was interrupted by his father, who just then entered from the bathroom, with a lantern in his hand, and said, "You had better go to bed now; you can talk about the circus in the morning." The boy went to his room, which was on the same floor. He saw the father pick up his lantern (which he had at first set down), and later he heard him go down the basement stairs on the way out to the factory; for the father did not sleep in the house, but in a room partitioned off from the factory office, with some favorite big dogs for his only companions. The servant, Mary Siemering, was already in her room in bed. A little later in the evening (as some persons were found to assert), husband and wife were seen walking on Hermitage avenue, and along the alley towards the factory; but this testimony was so open to question that it may be laid out of consideration; particularly as its correctness or incorrectness did not seriously affect the other elements of the controversy. This much, at least, is certain, that the wife was left in company with the husband about half past ten o'clock on Saturday evening, May 1. According to the prosecution, she has never 1 Gottliebe Schimicke, 14 years old, and Emma Schimicke, an elder sister, declared that they saw this on the night of May 1; but the possibility of an error in dates is so serious, and they were so confused on cross-examination and had so discredited themselves by contradictions at other times, that one finds it impossible (while not disputing their honesty) to lay any stress on the incident they related. But Nicholas Faber testified to the same effect, and there may well have been truth in the story. Charles Hengst, passing the place a little later, thought he heard a cry; but little weight can be given to such experiences. |