NormalizeHEADmain

1 files changed, 0 insertions, 2324 deletions

diff --git a/old/69704-0.txt b/old/69704-0.txt
deleted file mode 100644
index 1c4a1f9..0000000
--- a/old/69704-0.txt
+++ /dev/null
@@ -1,2324 +0,0 @@
-The Project Gutenberg eBook of The case of Oscar Slater, by Arthur
-Conan Doyle
-
-This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and
-most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions
-whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms
-of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at
-www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States, you
-will have to check the laws of the country where you are located before
-using this eBook.
-
-Title: The case of Oscar Slater
-
-Author: Arthur Conan Doyle
-
-Release Date: January 4, 2023 [eBook #69704]
-
-Language: English
-
-Produced by: Emmanuel Ackerman, David E. Brown, and the Online
-             Distributed Proofreading Team at https://www.pgdp.net (This
-             file was produced from images generously made available by
-             The Internet Archive)
-
-*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE CASE OF OSCAR
-SLATER ***
-
-
-
-
-
-  THE CASE OF
-  OSCAR SLATER
-
-  A. CONAN DOYLE
-
-
-
-
-  THE CASE OF
-  OSCAR SLATER
-
-  BY
-  ARTHUR CONAN DOYLE
-
-  AUTHOR OF “THE LOST WORLD,” “SHERLOCK HOLMES,”
-  “THE WHITE COMPANY,” ETC.
-
-  [Illustration]
-
-  HODDER & STOUGHTON
-  NEW YORK
-  GEORGE H. DORAN COMPANY
-
-
-
-
-  Copyright, 1912
-  BY GEORGE H. DORAN COMPANY
-
-
-
-
-THE CASE OF OSCAR SLATER
-
-
-
-
-THE CASE OF OSCAR SLATER
-
-
-It is impossible to read and weigh the facts in connection with
-the conviction of Oscar Slater in May, 1909, at the High Court in
-Edinburgh, without feeling deeply dissatisfied with the proceedings,
-and morally certain that justice was not done. Under the circumstances
-of Scotch law I am not clear how far any remedy exists, but it will,
-in my opinion, be a serious scandal if the man be allowed upon such
-evidence to spend his life in a convict prison. The verdict which led
-to his condemnation to death, was given by a jury of fifteen, who
-voted: Nine for “Guilty,” five for “Non-proven,” and one for “Not
-Guilty.” Under English law, this division of opinion would naturally
-have given cause for a new trial. In Scotland the man was condemned to
-death, he was only reprieved two days before his execution, and he is
-now working out a life sentence in Peterhead convict establishment.
-How far the verdict was a just one, the reader may judge for himself
-when he has perused a connected story of the case.
-
-There lived in Glasgow in the year 1908, an old maiden lady named Miss
-Marion Gilchrist. She had lived for thirty years in the one flat, which
-was on the first floor in 15, Queen’s Terrace. The flat above hers was
-vacant, and the only immediate neighbours were a family named Adams,
-living on the ground floor below, their house having a separate door
-which was close alongside the flat entrance. The old lady had one
-servant, named Helen Lambie, who was a girl twenty-one years of age.
-This girl had been with Miss Gilchrist for three or four years. By all
-accounts Miss Gilchrist was a most estimable person, leading a quiet
-and uneventful life. She was comfortably off, and she had one singular
-characteristic for a lady of her age and surroundings, in that she
-had made a collection of jewelry of considerable value. These jewels,
-which took the form of brooches, rings, pendants, etc., were bought
-at different times, extending over a considerable number of years,
-from a reputable jeweller. I lay stress upon the fact, as some wild
-rumour was circulated at the time that the old lady might herself be a
-criminal receiver. Such an idea could not be entertained. She seldom
-wore her jewelry save in single pieces, and as her life was a retired
-one, it is difficult to see how anyone outside a very small circle
-could have known of her hoard. The value of this treasure was about
-three thousand pounds. It was a fearful joy which she snatched from
-its possession, for she more than once expressed apprehension that she
-might be attacked and robbed. Her fears had the practical result that
-she attached two patent locks to her front door, and that she arranged
-with the Adams family underneath that in case of alarm she would signal
-to them by knocking upon the floor.
-
-It was the household practice that Lambie, the maid, should go out
-and get an evening paper for her mistress about seven o’clock each
-day. After bringing the paper she then usually went out again upon
-the necessary shopping. This routine was followed upon the night
-of December 21st. She left her mistress seated by the fire in the
-dining-room reading a magazine. Lambie took the keys with her, shut
-the flat door, closed the hall door downstairs, and was gone about ten
-minutes upon her errand. It is the events of those ten minutes which
-form the tragedy and the mystery which were so soon to engage the
-attention of the public.
-
-According to the girl’s evidence, it was a minute or two before seven
-when she went out. At about seven, Mr. Arthur Adams and his two sisters
-were in their dining-room immediately below the room in which the old
-lady had been left. Suddenly they heard “a noise from above, then a
-very heavy fall, and then three sharp knocks.” They were alarmed at
-the sound, and the young man at once set off to see if all was right.
-He ran out of his hall door, through the hall door of the flats, which
-was open, and so up to the first floor, where he found Miss Gilchrist’s
-door shut. He rang three times without an answer. From within, however,
-he heard a sound which he compared to the breaking of sticks. He
-imagined therefore that the servant girl was within, and that she was
-engaged in her household duties. After waiting for a minute or two,
-he seems to have convinced himself that all was right. He therefore
-descended again and returned to his sisters, who persuaded him to go
-up once more to the flat. This he did and rang for the fourth time. As
-he was standing with his hand upon the bell, straining his ears and
-hearing nothing, someone approached up the stairs from below. It was
-the young servant-maid, Helen Lambie, returning from her errand. The
-two held council for a moment. Young Adams described the noise which
-had been heard. Lambie said that the pulleys of the clothes-lines in
-the kitchen must have given way. It was a singular explanation, since
-the kitchen was not above the dining-room of the Adams, and one would
-not expect any great noise from the fall of a cord which suspended
-sheets or towels. However, it was a moment of agitation, and the girl
-may have said the first explanation which came into her head. She then
-put her keys into the two safety locks and opened the door.
-
-At this point there is a curious little discrepancy of evidence. Lambie
-is prepared to swear that she remained upon the mat beside young Adams.
-Adams is equally positive that she walked several paces down the hall.
-This inside hall was lit by a gas, which turned half up, and shining
-through a coloured shade, gave a sufficient, but not a brilliant light.
-Says Adams: “I stood at the door on the threshold, half in and half
-out, and just when the girl had got past the clock to go into the
-kitchen, a well-dressed man appeared. I did not suspect him, and she
-said nothing; and he came up to me quite pleasantly. I did not suspect
-anything wrong for the minute. I thought the man was going to speak to
-me, till he got past me, and then I suspected something wrong, and by
-that time the girl ran into the kitchen and put the gas up and said it
-was all right, meaning her pulleys. I said: ‘Where is your mistress?’
-and she went into the dining-room. She said: ‘Oh! come here!’ I just
-went in and saw this horrible spectacle.”
-
-The spectacle in question was the poor old lady lying upon the floor
-close by the chair in which the servant had last seen her. Her feet
-were towards the door, her head towards the fireplace. She lay upon
-a hearth-rug, but a skin rug had been thrown across her head. Her
-injuries were frightful, nearly every bone of her face and skull
-being smashed. In spite of her dreadful wounds she lingered for a few
-minutes, but died without showing any sign of consciousness.
-
-The murderer when he had first appeared had emerged from one of the two
-bedrooms at the back of the hall, the larger, or spare bedroom, not
-the old lady’s room. On passing Adams upon the doormat, which he had
-done with the utmost coolness, he had at once rushed down the stair.
-It was a dark and drizzly evening, and it seems that he made his way
-along one or two quiet streets until he was lost in the more crowded
-thoroughfares. He had left no weapon nor possession of any sort in
-the old lady’s flat, save a box of matches with which he had lit the
-gas in the bedroom from which he had come. In this bedroom a number
-of articles of value, including a watch, lay upon the dressing-table,
-but none of them had been touched. A box containing papers had been
-forced open, and these papers were found scattered upon the floor. If
-he were really in search of the jewels, he was badly informed, for
-these were kept among the dresses in the old lady’s wardrobe. Later, a
-single crescent diamond brooch, an article worth perhaps forty or fifty
-pounds, was found to be missing. Nothing else was taken from the flat.
-It is remarkable that though the furniture round where the body lay was
-spattered with blood, and one would have imagined that the murderer’s
-hands must have been stained, no mark was seen upon the half-consumed
-match with which he had lit the gas, nor upon the match-box, the box
-containing papers, nor any other thing which he may have touched in the
-bedroom.
-
-We come now to the all-important question of the description of
-the man seen at such close quarters by Adams and Lambie. Adams was
-short-sighted and had not his spectacles with him. His evidence at the
-trial ran thus:
-
-“He was a man a little taller and a little broader than I am, not a
-well-built man but well featured and clean-shaven, and I cannot exactly
-swear to his moustache, but if he had any it was very little. He was
-rather a commercial traveller type, or perhaps a clerk, and I did not
-know but what he might be one of her friends. He had on dark trousers
-and a light overcoat. I could not say if it were fawn or grey. I do
-not recollect what sort of hat he had. He seemed gentlemanly and
-well-dressed. He had nothing in his hand so far as I could tell. I did
-not notice anything about his way of walking.”
-
-Helen Lambie, the other spectator, could give no information about
-the face (which rather bears out Adams’ view as to her position), and
-could only say that he wore a round cloth hat, a three-quarter length
-overcoat of a grey colour, and that he had some peculiarity in his
-walk. As the distance traversed by the murderer within sight of Lambie
-could be crossed in four steps, and as these steps were taken under
-circumstances of peculiar agitation, it is difficult to think that any
-importance could be attached to this last item in the description.
-
-It is impossible to avoid some comment upon the actions of Helen Lambie
-during the incidents just narrated, which can only be explained by
-supposing that from the time she saw Adams waiting outside her door,
-her whole reasoning faculty had deserted her. First, she explained
-the great noise heard below: “The ceiling was like to crack,” said
-Adams, by the fall of a clothes-line and its pulleys of attachment,
-which could not possibly, one would imagine, have produced any such
-effect. She then declares that she remained upon the mat, while Adams
-is convinced that she went right down the hall. On the appearance of
-the stranger she did not gasp out: “Who are you?” or any other sign
-of amazement, but allowed Adams to suppose by her silence that the
-man might be someone who had a right to be there. Finally, instead of
-rushing at once to see if her mistress was safe, she went into the
-kitchen, still apparently under the obsession of the pulleys. She
-informed Adams that they were all right, as if it mattered to any
-human being; thence she went into the spare bedroom, where she must
-have seen that robbery had been committed, since an open box lay in the
-middle of the floor. She gave no alarm however, and it was only when
-Adams called out: “Where is your mistress?” that she finally went into
-the room of the murder. It must be admitted that this seems strange
-conduct, and only explicable, if it can be said to be explicable, by
-great want of intelligence and grasp of the situation.
-
-On Tuesday, December 22nd, the morning after the murder, the Glasgow
-police circulated a description of the murderer, founded upon the joint
-impressions of Adams and of Lambie. It ran thus:
-
-“A man between 25 and 30 years of age, five foot eight or nine inches
-in height, slim build, dark hair, clean-shaven, dressed in light grey
-overcoat and dark cloth cap.”
-
-Four days later, however, upon Christmas Day, the police found
-themselves in a position to give a more detailed description:
-
-“The man wanted is about 28 or 30 years of age, tall and thin, with
-his face shaved clear of all hair, while a distinctive feature is that
-his nose is slightly turned to one side. The witness thinks the twist
-is to the right side. He wore one of the popular tweed hats known as
-Donegal hats, and a fawn-coloured overcoat which might have been a
-waterproof, also dark trousers and brown boots.”
-
-The material from which these further points were gathered, came from a
-young girl of fifteen, in humble life, named Mary Barrowman. According
-to this new evidence, the witness was passing the scene of the murder
-shortly after seven o’clock upon the fatal night. She saw a man run
-hurriedly down the steps, and he passed her under a lamp-post. The
-incandescent light shone clearly upon him. He ran on, knocking against
-the witness in his haste, and disappeared round a corner. On hearing
-later of the murder, she connected this incident with it. Her general
-recollections of the man were as given in the description, and the grey
-coat and cloth cap of the first two witnesses were given up in favour
-of the fawn coat and round Donegal hat of the young girl. Since she
-had seen no peculiarity in his walk, and they had seen none in his
-nose, there is really nothing the same in the two descriptions save the
-“clean-shaven,” the “slim build” and the approximate age.
-
-It was on the evening of Christmas Day that the police came at last
-upon a definite clue. It was brought to their notice that a German Jew
-of the assumed name of Oscar Slater had been endeavouring to dispose of
-the pawn ticket of a crescent diamond brooch of about the same value
-as the missing one. Also, that in a general way, he bore a resemblance
-to the published description. Still more hopeful did this clue appear
-when, upon raiding the lodgings in which this man and his mistress
-lived, it was found that they had left Glasgow that very night by
-the nine o’clock train, with tickets (over this point there was some
-clash of evidence) either for Liverpool or London. Three days later,
-the Glasgow police learned that the couple had actually sailed upon
-December 26th upon the Lusitania for New York under the name of Mr. and
-Mrs. Otto Sando. It must be admitted that in all these proceedings
-the Glasgow police showed considerable deliberation. The original
-information had been given at the Central Police Office shortly after
-six o’clock, and a detective was actually making enquiries at Slater’s
-flat at seven-thirty, yet no watch was kept upon his movements, and he
-was allowed to leave between eight and nine, untraced and unquestioned.
-Even stranger was the Liverpool departure. He was known to have got
-away in the south-bound train upon the Friday evening. A great liner
-sails from Liverpool upon the Saturday. One would have imagined that
-early on the Saturday morning steps would have been taken to block his
-method of escape. However, as a fact, it was not done, and as it proved
-it is as well for the cause of justice, since it had the effect that
-two judicial processes were needed, an American and a Scottish, which
-enables an interesting comparison to be made between the evidence of
-the principal witnesses.
-
-Oscar Slater was at once arrested upon arriving at New York, and his
-seven trunks of baggage were impounded and sealed. On the face of it
-there was a good case against him, for he had undoubtedly pawned a
-diamond brooch, and he had subsequently fled under a false name for
-America. The Glasgow police had reason to think that they had got their
-man. Two officers, accompanied by the witnesses to identity--Adams,
-Lambie and Barrowman--set off at once to carry through the extradition
-proceedings and bring the suspect back to be tried for his offence.
-In the New York Court they first set eyes upon the prisoner, and each
-of them, in terms which will be afterwards described, expressed the
-opinion that he was at any rate exceedingly like the person they had
-seen in Glasgow. Their actual identification of him was vitiated by the
-fact that Adams and Barrowman had been shown his photographs before
-attending the Court, and also that he was led past them, an obvious
-prisoner, whilst they were waiting in the corridor. Still, however
-much one may discount the actual identification, it cannot be denied
-that each witness saw a close resemblance between the man before them
-and the man whom they had seen in Glasgow. So far at every stage the
-case against the accused was becoming more menacing. Any doubt as to
-extradition was speedily set at rest by the prisoner’s announcement
-that he was prepared, without compulsion, to return to Scotland and to
-stand his trial. One may well refuse to give him any excessive credit
-for this surrender, since he may have been persuaded that things were
-going against him, but still the fact remains (and it was never, so
-far as I can trace, mentioned at his subsequent trial), that he gave
-himself up of his own free will to justice. On February 21st Oscar
-Slater was back in Glasgow once more, and on May 3rd his trial took
-place at the High Court in Edinburgh.
-
-But already the very bottom of the case had dropped out. The starting
-link of what had seemed an imposing chain, had suddenly broken. It will
-be remembered that the original suspicion of Slater was founded upon
-the fact that he had pawned a crescent diamond brooch. The ticket was
-found upon him, and the brooch recovered. It was not the one which was
-missing from the room of the murdered woman, and it had belonged for
-years to Slater, who had repeatedly pawned it before. This was shown
-beyond all cavil or dispute. The case of the police might well seem
-desperate after this, since if Slater were indeed guilty, it would mean
-that by pure chance they had pursued the right man. The coincidence
-involved in such a supposition would seem to pass the limits of all
-probability.
-
-Apart from this crushing fact, several of the other points of
-the prosecution had already shown themselves to be worthless. It
-had seemed at first that Slater’s departure had been sudden and
-unpremeditated--the flight of a guilty man. It was quickly proved that
-this was not so. In the Bohemian clubs which he frequented--he was by
-profession a peddling jeweller and a man of disreputable, though not
-criminal habits--it had for weeks before the date of the crime been
-known that he purported to go to some business associates in America. A
-correspondence, which was produced, showed the arrangements which had
-been made, long before the crime, for his emigration, though it should
-be added that the actual determination of the date and taking of the
-ticket were subsequent to the tragedy.
-
-This hurrying-up of the departure certainly deserves close scrutiny.
-According to the evidence of his mistress and of the servant, Slater
-had received two letters upon the morning of December 21st. Neither of
-these were produced at the trial. One was said to be from a Mr. Rogers,
-a friend of Slater’s in London, telling him that Slater’s wife was
-bothering him for money. The second was said to be from one Devoto, a
-former partner of Slater’s asking him to join him in San Francisco.
-Even if the letters had been destroyed, one would imagine that these
-statements as to the letters could be disproved or corroborated by
-either the Crown or the defence. They are of considerable importance,
-as giving the alleged reasons why Slater hurried up a departure which
-had been previously announced as for January. I cannot find, however,
-that in the actual trial anything definite was ascertained upon the
-matter.
-
-Another point had already been scored against the prosecution in that
-the seven trunks which contained the whole effects of the prisoner,
-yielded nothing of real importance. There were a felt hat and two
-cloth ones, but none which correspond with the Donegal of the original
-description. A light-coloured waterproof coat was among the outfit.
-If the weapon with which the deed was done was carried off in the
-pocket of the assassin’s overcoat--and it is difficult to say how else
-he could have carried it, then the pocket must, one would suppose,
-be crusted with blood, since the crime was a most sanguinary one. No
-such marks were discovered, nor were the police fortunate as to the
-weapon. It is true that a hammer was found in the trunk, but it was
-clearly shown to have been purchased in one of those cheap half-crown
-sets of tools which are tied upon a card, was an extremely light and
-fragile instrument, and utterly incapable in the eyes of commonsense of
-inflicting those terrific injuries which had shattered the old lady’s
-skull. It is said by the prosecution to bear some marks of having been
-scraped or cleaned, but this was vigorously denied by the defence,
-and the police do not appear to have pushed the matter to the obvious
-test of removing the metal work, when they must, had this been indeed
-the weapon, have certainly found some soakage of blood into the wood
-under the edges of the iron cheeks or head. But a glance at a facsimile
-of this puny weapon would convince an impartial person that any task
-beyond fixing a tin-tack, or cracking a small bit of coal, would be
-above its strength. It may fairly be said that before the trial had
-begun, the three important points of the pawned jewel, the supposed
-flight, and the evidence from clothing and weapon, had each either
-broken down completely, or become exceedingly attenuated.
-
-Let us see now what there was upon the other side. The evidence for
-the prosecution really resolved itself into two sets of witnesses for
-identification. The first set were those who had actually seen the
-murderer, and included Adams, Helen Lambie, and the girl Barrowman.
-The second set consisted of twelve people who had, at various dates,
-seen a man frequenting the street in which Miss Gilchrist lived, and
-loitering in a suspicious manner before the house. All of these, some
-with confidence, but most of them with reserve, were prepared to
-identify the prisoner with this unknown man. What the police never
-could produce, however, was the essential thing, and that was the least
-connecting link between Slater and Miss Gilchrist, or any explanation
-how a foreigner in Glasgow could even know of the existence, to say
-nothing of the wealth, of a retired old lady, who had few acquaintances
-and seldom left her guarded flat.
-
-It is notorious that nothing is more tricky than evidence of
-identification. In the Beck case there were, if I remember right,
-some ten witnesses who had seen the real criminal under normal
-circumstances, and yet they were all prepared to swear to the wrong
-man. In the case of Oscar Slater, the first three witnesses saw their
-man under conditions of excitement, while the second group saw the
-loiterer in the street under various lights, and in a fashion which
-was always more or less casual. It is right, therefore, that in
-assigning its due weight to this evidence, one should examine it with
-some care. We shall first take the three people who actually saw the
-murderer.
-
-There seems to have been some discrepancy between them from the first,
-since, as has already been pointed out, the description published from
-the data of Adams and Lambie, was modified after Barrowman had given
-her information. Adams and Lambie said:
-
-“A man between twenty-five and thirty years of age, 5 feet 8 or 9
-inches in height, slim build, dark hair, clean-shaven, dressed in light
-grey overcoat and dark cloth cap.”
-
-After collaboration with Barrowman the description became:
-
-“Twenty-eight or thirty years of age, tall and thin, clean-shaven, his
-nose slightly turned to one side. Wore one of the popular round tweed
-hats known as Donegal hats, and a fawn-coloured overcoat which might
-have been a waterproof, also dark trousers and brown boots.”
-
-Apart from the additions in the second description there are, it will
-be observed, two actual discrepancies in the shape of the hat and the
-colour of the coat.
-
-As to how far either of these descriptions tallies with Slater, it may
-be stated here that the accused was thirty-seven years of age, that
-he was above the medium height, that his nose was not twisted, but
-was depressed at the end, as if it had at some time been broken, and
-finally that eight witnesses were called upon to prove that, on the
-date of the murder, the accused wore a short but noticeable moustache.
-
-I have before me a verbatim stenographic report of the proceedings
-in New York and also in Edinburgh, furnished by the kindness of
-Shaughnessy & Co., solicitors, of Glasgow, who are still contending
-for the interests of their unfortunate client. I will here compare the
-terms of the identification in the two Courts:
-
-Helen Lambie, New York, January 26th, 1909.
-
-Q. “Do you see the man here you saw there?”
-
-A. “One is very suspicious, if anything.”
-
-Q. “Describe him.”
-
-A. “The clothes he had on that night he hasn’t got on to-day--but his
-face I could not tell. I never saw his face.”
-
-(Having described a peculiarity of walk, she was asked):
-
-Q. “Is that man in the room?”
-
-A. “Yes, he is, sir.”
-
-Q. “Point him out.”
-
-A. “I would not like to say----”
-
-(After some pressure and argument she pointed to Slater, who had been
-led past her in the corridor between two officers, when both she and
-Barrowman had exclaimed: “That is the man,” or “I could nearly swear
-that is the man.”)
-
-Q. “Didn’t you say you did not see the man’s face?”
-
-A. “Neither I did. I saw the walk.”
-
-The reader must bear in mind that Lambie’s only chance of seeing the
-man’s walk was in the four steps or so down the passage. It was never
-at any time shown that there was any marked peculiarity about Slater’s
-walk.
-
-Now take Helen Lambie’s identification in Edinburgh, May 9th, 1909.
-
-Q. “How did you identify him in America?”
-
-A. “By his walk and height, his dark hair and the side of his face.”
-
-Q. “You were not quite sure of him at first in America?”
-
-A. “Yes, I was quite sure.”
-
-Q. “Why did you say you were only suspicious?”
-
-A. “It was a mistake.”
-
-Q. “What did you mean in America by saying that you never saw his face
-if, in point of fact, you did see it so as to help you to recognise it?
-What did you mean?”
-
-A. “Nothing.”
-
-On further cross-examination she declared that when she said that she
-had never seen the man’s face she meant that she had never seen the
-“broad of it” but had seen it sideways.
-
-Here it will be observed that Helen Lambie’s evidence had greatly
-stiffened during the three months between the New York and the
-Edinburgh proceedings. In so aggressively positive a frame of mind was
-she on the later occasion, that, on being shown Slater’s overcoat and
-asked if it resembled the murderer’s, she answered twice over: “That
-is the coat,” although it had not yet been unrolled, and though it was
-not light grey, which was the colour in her own original description.
-It should not be forgotten in dealing with the evidence of Lambie and
-Adams that they are utterly disagreed as to so easily fixed a thing as
-their own proceedings after the hall door was opened, Adams swearing
-that Lambie walked to nearly the end of the hall, and Lambie that she
-remained upon the doormat. Without deciding which was right, it is
-clear that the incident must shake one’s confidence in one or other of
-them as a witness.
-
-In the case of Adams the evidence was given with moderation, and was
-substantially the same in America and in Scotland.
-
-“I couldn’t say positively. This man (indicating Slater) is not at all
-unlike him.”
-
-Q. “Did you notice a crooked nose?”
-
-A. “No.”
-
-Q. “Anything remarkable about his walk?”
-
-A. “No.”
-
-Q. “You don’t swear this is the man you saw?”
-
-A. “No, sir. He resembles the man, that is all that I can say.”
-
-In reply to the same general questions in Edinburgh, he said:
-
-“I would not like to swear he is the man. I am a little near-sighted.
-He resembles the man closely.”
-
-Barrowman, the girl of fifteen, had met the man presumed to be the
-murderer in the street, and taken one passing glance at him under a
-gas lamp on a wet December’s night--difficult circumstances for an
-identification. She used these words in New York:
-
-“That man here is something like him,” which she afterwards amended
-to “very like him.” She admitted that a picture of the man she was
-expected to identify had been shown to her before she came into the
-Court. Her one point by which she claimed to recognise the man was the
-crooked nose. This crooked nose was not much more apparent to others
-than the peculiarity of walk which so greatly impressed Helen Lambie
-that, after seeing half a dozen steps of it, she could identify it with
-confidence. In Edinburgh Barrowman, like Lambie, was very much more
-certain than in New York. The further they got from the event, the
-easier apparently did recognition become. “Yes, that is the man who
-knocked against me that night,” she said. It is remarkable that both
-these females, Lambie and Barrowman, swore that though they were thrown
-together in this journey out to New York, and actually shared the
-same cabin, they never once talked of the object of their mission or
-compared notes as to the man they were about to identify. For girls of
-the respective ages of fifteen and twenty-one this certainly furnishes
-a unique example of self-restraint.
-
-These, then, are the three identifications by the only people who saw
-the murderer. Had the diamond brooch clue been authentic, and these
-identifications come upon the top of it, they would undoubtedly have
-been strongly corroborative. But when the brooch has been shown to
-be a complete mistake, I really do not understand how anyone could
-accept such half-hearted recognitions as being enough to establish the
-identity and guilt of the prisoner.
-
-There remains the so-called identification by twelve witnesses who had
-seen a man loitering in the street during the weeks before the crime
-had been committed. I have said a “so-called” identification, for the
-proceedings were farcical as a real test of recognition. The witnesses
-had seen portraits of the accused. They were well aware that he was
-a foreigner, and then they were asked to pick out his swarthy Jewish
-physiognomy from among nine Glasgow policemen to two railway officials.
-Naturally they did it without hesitation, since this man was more like
-the dark individual whom they had seen and described than the others
-could be.
-
-Read their own descriptions, however, of the man they had seen, with
-the details of his clothing, and they will be found in many respects
-to differ from each other on one hand, and in many from Slater on the
-other. Here is a synopsis of their impressions:
-
-Mrs. M’Haffie.--“Dark. Moustached, light overcoat, not waterproof,
-check trousers, spats. Black bowler hat. Nose normal.”
-
-Miss M. M’Haffie.--“Seen at same time and same description. Was only
-prepared at first to say there was some resemblance, but ‘had been
-thinking it over, and concluded that he was the man.’”
-
-Miss A. M. M’Haffie.--“Same as before. Had heard the man speak and
-noticed nothing in his accent. (Prisoner has a strong German accent.)”
-
-Madge M’Haffie (belongs to the same family).--“Dark, moustached, nose
-normal. Check trousers, fawn overcoat and spats. Black bowler hat. ‘The
-prisoner was fairly like the man.’”
-
-In connection with the identification of these four witnesses it is
-to be observed that neither check trousers, nor spats were found in
-the prisoner’s luggage. As the murderer was described as being dressed
-in dark trousers, there was no possible reason why these clothes, if
-Slater owned them, should have been destroyed.
-
-Constable Brien.--“Claimed to know the prisoner by sight. Says he was
-the man he saw loitering. Light coat and a hat. It was a week before
-the crime, and he was loitering eighty yards from the scene of it. He
-picked him out among five constables as the man he had seen.”
-
-Constable Walker.--“Had seen the loiterer across the street, never
-nearer, and after dark in December. Thought at first he was someone
-else whom he knew. Had heard that the man he had to identify was of
-foreign appearance. Picked him out from a number of detectives. The man
-seen had a moustache.”
-
-Euphemia Cunningham.--“Very dark, sallow, heavy featured. Clean-shaven.
-Nose normal. Dark tweed coat. Green cap with peak.”
-
-W. Campbell.--“Had been with the previous witness. Corroborated. ‘There
-was a general resemblance between the prisoner and the man, but he
-could not positively identify him.’”
-
-Alex Gillies.--“Sallow, dark haired and clean-shaven. Fawn coat. Cap.
-‘The prisoner resembled him, but witness could not say he was the same
-man.’”
-
-R. B. Bryson.--“Black coat and vest. Black bowler hat. No overcoat.
-Black moustache with droop. Sallow, foreign. (This witness had seen the
-man the night before the murder. He appeared to be looking up at Miss
-Gilchrist’s windows.)”
-
-A. Nairn.--“Broad shoulders, long neck. Dark hair. Motor cap. Light
-overcoat to knees. Never saw the man’s face. ‘Oh! I will not swear in
-fact, but I am certain he is the man I saw--but I will not swear.’”
-
-Mrs. Liddell.--“Peculiar nose. Clear complexion, not sallow. Dark,
-clean-shaven, brown tweed cap. Brown tweed coat with hemmed edge.
-Delicate man ‘rather drawn together.’ She believed that prisoner was
-the man. Saw him in the street immediately before the murder.”
-
-These are the twelve witnesses as to the identity of the mysterious
-stranger. In the first place there is no evidence whatever that this
-lounger in the street had really anything to do with the murder. It is
-just as probable that he had some vulgar amour, and was waiting for
-his girl to run out to him. What could a man who was planning murder
-hope to gain by standing nights beforehand eighty and a hundred yards
-away from the place in the darkness? But supposing that we waive this
-point and examine the plain question as to whether Slater was the same
-man as the loiterer, we find ourselves faced by a mass of difficulties
-and contradictions. Two of the most precise witnesses were Nairn and
-Bryson who saw the stranger upon the Sunday night preceding the murder.
-Upon that night Slater had an unshaken alibi, vouched for not only by
-the girl, Antoine, with whom he lived, and their servant, Schmalz,
-but by an acquaintance, Samuel Reid, who had been with him from six
-to ten-thirty. This positive evidence, which was quite unshaken in
-cross-examination, must completely destroy the surmises of the stranger
-and Slater. Then come the four witnesses of the M’Haffie family who are
-all strong upon check trousers and spats, articles of dress which were
-never traced to the prisoner. Finally, apart from the discrepancies
-about the moustache, there is a mixture of bowler hats, green caps,
-brown caps, and motor caps which leave a most confused and indefinite
-impression in the mind. Evidence of this kind might be of some value if
-supplementary to some strong ascertained fact, but to attempt to build
-upon such an identification alone is to construct the whole case upon
-shifting sand.
-
-The reader has already a grasp of the facts, but some fresh details
-came out at the trial which may be enumerated here. They have to be
-lightly touched upon within the limits of such an argument as this,
-but those who desire a fuller summary will find it in an account
-of the trial published by Hodge of Edinburgh, and ably edited by
-William Roughead, W.S. On this book and on the verbatim precognitions
-and shorthand account of the American proceedings, I base my own
-examination of case. First, as to Slater’s movements upon the day of
-the crime. He began the day, according to the account of himself and
-the women, by the receipt of the two letters already referred to,
-which caused him to hasten his journey to America. The whole day seems
-to have been occupied by preparations for his impending departure. He
-gave his servant Schmalz notice as from next Saturday. Before five (as
-was shown by the postmark upon the envelope), he wrote to a post office
-in London, where he had some money on deposit. At 6.12 a telegram was
-sent in his name and presumably by him from the Central Station to
-Dent, London, for his watch, which was being repaired. According to the
-evidence of two witnesses he was seen in a billiard room at 6.20. The
-murder, it will be remembered, was done at seven. He remained about
-ten minutes in the billiard room, and left some time between 6.30 and
-6.40. Rathman, one of these witnesses, deposed that he had at the time
-a moustache about a quarter of an inch long, which was so noticeable
-that no one could take him for a clean-shaven man. Antoine, his
-mistress, and Schmalz, the servant, both deposed that Slater dined at
-home at 7 o’clock. The evidence of the girl is no doubt suspect, but
-there was no possible reason why the dismissed servant Schmalz should
-perjure herself for the sake of her ex-employer. The distance between
-Slater’s flat and that of Miss Gilchrist is about a quarter of a mile.
-From the billiard room to Slater’s flat is about a mile. He had to go
-for the hammer and bring it back, unless he had it jutting out of his
-pocket all day. But unless the evidence of the two women is entirely
-set aside, enough has been said to show that there was no time for the
-commission by him of such a crime and the hiding of the traces which it
-would leave behind it. At 9.45 that night, Slater was engaged in his
-usual occupation of trying to raise the wind at some small gambling
-club. The club-master saw no discomposure about his dress (which was
-the same as, according to the Crown, he had done this bloody crime in),
-and swore that he was then wearing a short moustache “like stubble,”
-thus corroborating Rathman. It will be remembered that Lambie and
-Barrowman both swore that the murderer was clean-shaven.
-
-On December 24th, three days after the murder, Slater was shown at
-Cook’s Office, bargaining for a berth in the “Lusitania” for his
-so-called wife and himself. He made no secret that he was going by that
-ship, but gave his real name and address and declared finally that he
-would take his berth in Liverpool, which he did. Among other confidants
-as to the ship was a barber, the last person one would think to whom
-secrets would be confided. Certainly, if this were a flight, it is
-hard to say what an open departure would be. In Liverpool he took his
-passage under the assumed name of Otto Sando. This he did, according to
-his own account, because he had reason to fear pursuit from his real
-wife, and wished to cover his traces. This may or may not be the truth,
-but it is undoubtedly the fact that Slater, who was a disreputable,
-rolling-stone of a man, had already assumed several aliases in the
-course of his career. It is to be noted that there was nothing at all
-secret about his departure from Glasgow, and that he carried off all
-his luggage with him in a perfectly open manner.
-
-The reader is now in possession of the main facts, save those which
-are either unessential, or redundant. It will be observed that save
-for the identifications, the value of which can be estimated, there
-is really no single point of connection between the crime and the
-alleged criminal. It may be argued that the existence of the hammer is
-such a point; but what household in the land is devoid of a hammer?
-It is to be remembered that if Slater committed the murder with this
-hammer, he must have taken it with him in order to commit the crime,
-since it could be no use to him in forcing an entrance. But what man
-in his senses, planning a deliberate murder, would take with him a
-weapon which was light, frail, and so long that it must project from
-any pocket? The nearest lump of stone upon the road would serve his
-purpose better than that. Again, it must in its blood-soaked condition
-have been in his pocket when he came away from the crime. The Crown
-never attempted to prove either blood-stains in a pocket, or the fact
-that any clothes had been burned. If Slater destroyed clothes, he would
-naturally have destroyed the hammer, too. Even one of the two medical
-witnesses of the prosecution was driven to say that he should not have
-expected such a weapon to cause such wounds.
-
-It may well be that in this summary of the evidence, I may seem to
-have stated the case entirely from the point of view of the defence.
-In reply, I would only ask the reader to take the trouble to read the
-extended evidence. (“Trial of Oscar Slater” Hodge & Co., Edinburgh.) If
-he will do so, he will realise that without a conscious mental effort
-towards special pleading, there is no other way in which the story can
-be told. The facts are on one side. The conjectures, the unsatisfactory
-identifications, the damaging flaws, and the very strong prejudices
-upon the other.
-
-Now for the trial itself. The case was opened for the Crown by the
-Lord-Advocate, in a speech which faithfully represented the excited
-feeling of the time. It was vigorous to the point of being passionate,
-and its effect upon the jury was reflected in their ultimate verdict.
-The Lord-Advocate spoke, as I understand, without notes, a procedure
-which may well add to eloquence while subtracting from accuracy. It
-is to this fact that one must attribute a most fatal mis-statement
-which could not fail, coming under such circumstances from so high an
-authority, to make a deep impression upon his hearers. For some reason,
-this mis-statement does not appear to have been corrected at the moment
-by either the Judge or the defending counsel. It was the one really
-damaging allegation--so damaging that had I myself been upon the jury
-and believed it to be true, I should have recorded my verdict against
-the prisoner, and yet this one fatal point had no substance at all in
-fact. In this incident alone, there seems to me to lie good ground for
-a revision of the sentence, or a reference of the facts to some Court
-or Committee of Appeal. Here is the extract from the Lord-Advocate’s
-speech to which I allude:
-
-“At this time he had given his name to Cook’s people in Glasgow as
-Oscar Slater. On December 25th, the day he was to go back to Cook’s
-Office--his name and his description and all the rest of it appear in
-the Glasgow papers, and he sees that the last thing in the world that
-he ought to do, if he studies his own safety, is to go back to Cook’s
-Office as Oscar Slater. He accordingly proceeds to pack up all his
-goods and effects upon the 25th. So far as we know, he never leaves
-the house from the time he sees the paper, until a little after six
-o’clock, when he goes down to the Central Station.”
-
-Here the allegation is clearly made and it is repeated later that Oscar
-Slater’s name was in the paper, and that, subsequently to that, he
-fled. Such a flight would clearly be an admission of guilt. The point
-is of enormous even vital importance. And yet on examination of the
-dates, it will be found that there is absolutely no foundation for it.
-It was not until the evening of the 25th that even the police heard of
-the existence of Slater, and it was nearly a week later that his name
-appeared in the papers, he being already far out upon the Atlantic.
-What did appear upon the 25th was the description of the murderer,
-already quoted: “with his face shaved clean of all hair,” &c., Slater
-at that time having a marked moustache. Why should he take such a
-description to himself, or why should he forbear to carry out a journey
-which he had already prepared for? The point goes for absolutely
-nothing when examined, and yet if the minds of the jury were at all
-befogged as to the dates, the definite assertion of the Lord-Advocate,
-twice repeated, that Slater’s name had been published before his
-flight, was bound to have a most grave and prejudiced effect.
-
-Some of the Lord-Advocate’s other statements are certainly surprising.
-Thus he says: “The prisoner is hopelessly unable to produce a single
-witness who says that he was anywhere else than at the scene of the
-murder that night.” Let us test this assertion. Here is the evidence of
-Schmalz, the servant, verbatim. I may repeat that this woman was under
-no known obligations to Slater and had just received notice from him.
-The evidence of the mistress that Slater dined in the flat at seven on
-the night of the murder I pass, but I do not understand why Schmalz’s
-positive corroboration should be treated by the Lord-Advocate as
-non-existent. The prisoner might well be “hopeless” if his witnesses
-were to be treated so. Could anything be more positive than this?
-
-Q. “Did he usually come home to dinner?”
-
-A. “Yes, always. Seven o’clock was the usual hour.”
-
-Q. “Was it sometimes nearly eight?”
-
-A. “It was my fault. Mr. Slater was in.”
-
-Q. “But owing to your fault was it about eight before it was served?”
-
-A. “No. Mr. Slater was in after seven, and was waiting for dinner.”
-
-This seems very definite. The murder was committed about seven. The
-murderer may have regained the street about ten minutes or quarter past
-seven. It was some distance to Slater’s flat. If he had done the murder
-he could hardly have reached it before half-past seven at the earliest.
-Yet Schmalz says he was in at seven, and so does Antoine. The evidence
-of the woman may be good or bad, but it is difficult to understand how
-anyone could state that the prisoner was “hopelessly unable to produce,
-etc.” What evidence could he give, save that of everyone who lived
-with him?
-
-For the rest, the Lord-Advocate had an easy task in showing that Slater
-was a worthless fellow, that he lived with and possibly on a woman
-of easy virtue, that he had several times changed his name, and that
-generally he was an unsatisfactory Bohemian. No actual criminal record
-was shown against him. Early in his speech, the Lord-Advocate remarked
-that he would show later how Slater may have come to know that Miss
-Gilchrist owned the jewels. No further reference appears to have been
-made to the matter, and his promise was therefore never fulfilled,
-though it is clearly of the utmost importance. Later, he stated that
-from the appearance of the wounds, they Must have been done by a small
-hammer. There is no “must” in the matter, for it is clear that many
-other weapons, a burglar’s jemmy, for example, would have produced the
-same effect. He then makes the good point that the prisoner dealt in
-precious stones, and could therefore dispose of the proceeds of such
-a robbery. The criminal, he added, was clearly someone who had no
-acquaintance with the inside of the house, and did not know where the
-jewels were kept. “That answers to the prisoner.” It also, of course,
-answers to practically every man in Scotland. The Lord-Advocate then
-gave a summary of the evidence as to the man seen by various witnesses
-in the street. “Gentlemen, if that was the prisoner, how do you
-account for his presence there?” Of course, the whole point lies in
-the italicised phrase. There was, it must be admitted, a consensus of
-opinion among the witnesses that the prisoner was the man. But what was
-it compared to the consensus of opinion which wrongfully condemned Beck
-to penal servitude? The counsel laid considerable stress upon the fact
-that Mrs. Liddell (one of the Adams family) had seen a man only a few
-minutes before the murder, loitering in the street, and identified him
-as Slater. The dress of the man seen in the street was very different
-from that given as the murderer’s. He had a heavy tweed mixture coat of
-a brownish hue, and a brown peaked cap. The original identification
-by Mrs. Liddell was conveyed in the words: “One, slightly,” when she
-was asked if any of a group at the police station resembled the man
-she had seen. Afterwards, like every other female witness, she became
-more positive. She declared that she had the clearest recollection of
-the man’s face, and yet refused to commit herself as to whether he was
-shaven or moustached.
-
-We have then the recognitions of Lambie, Adams and Barrowman, with
-their limitations and developments, which have been already discussed.
-Then comes the question of the so-called “flight” and the change of
-name upon the steamer. Had the prisoner been a man who had never
-before changed his name, this incident would be more striking. But
-the short glimpse we obtain of his previous life show several changes
-of name, and it has not been suggested that each of them was the
-consequence of a crime. He seems to have been in debt in Glasgow and
-he also appears to have had reasons for getting away from the pursuit
-of an ill-used wife. The Lord-Advocate said that the change of name
-“could not be explained consistently with innocence.” That may be
-true enough, but the change can surely be explained on some cause less
-grave than murder. Finally, after showing very truly that Slater was a
-great liar and that not a word he said need be believed unless there
-were corroboration, the Lord-Advocate wound up with the words: “My
-submission to you is that this guilt has been brought fairly home to
-him, that no shadow of doubt exists, that there is no reasonable doubt
-that he was the perpetrator of this foul murder.” The verdict showed
-that the jury, under the spell of the Lord-Advocate’s eloquence, shared
-this view, but, viewing it in colder blood, it is difficult to see upon
-what grounds he made so confident an assertion.
-
-Mr. M’Clure, who conducted the defence, spoke truly when, in opening
-his speech, he declared that “he had to fight a most unfair fight
-against public prejudice, roused with a fury I do not remember to
-have seen in any other case.” Still he fought this fight bravely and
-with scrupulous moderation. His appeals were all to reason and never
-to emotion. He showed how clearly the prisoner had expressed his
-intention of going to America, weeks before the murder, and how every
-preparation had been made. On the day after the murder he had told
-witnesses that he was going to America and had discussed the advantages
-of various lines, finally telling one of them the particular boat in
-which he did eventually travel, curious proceedings for a fugitive from
-justice. Mr. M’Clure described the movements of the prisoner on the
-night of the murder, after the crime had been committed, showing that
-he was wearing the very clothes in which the theory of the prosecution
-made him do the deed, as if such a deed could be done without leaving
-its traces. He showed incidentally (it is a small point, but a human
-one) that one of the last actions of Slater in Glasgow was to take
-great trouble to get an English five-pound note in order to send it as
-a Christmas present to his parents in Germany. A man who could do this
-was not all bad. Finally, Mr. M’Clure exposed very clearly the many
-discrepancies as to identification and warned the jury solemnly as to
-the dangers which have been so often proved to lurk in this class of
-evidence. Altogether, it was a broad, comprehensive reply, though where
-so many points were involved, it is natural that some few may have been
-overlooked. One does not, for example, find the counsel as insistent as
-one might expect upon such points as, the failure of the Crown to show
-how Slater could have known anything at all about the existence of Miss
-Gilchrist and her jewels, how he got into the flat, and what became of
-the brooch which, according to their theory, he had carried off. It is
-ungracious to suggest any additions to so earnest a defence, and no
-doubt one who is dependent upon printed accounts of the matter may miss
-points which were actually made, but not placed upon record.
-
-Only on one point must Mr. M’Clure’s judgment be questioned, and
-that is on the most difficult one, which a criminal counsel has ever
-to decide. He did not place his man in the box. This should very
-properly be taken as a sign of weakness. I have no means of saying what
-considerations led Mr. M’Clure to this determination. It certainly
-told against his client. In the masterly memorial for reprieve drawn
-up by Slater’s solicitor, the late Mr. Spiers, it is stated with the
-full inner knowledge which that solicitor had, that Slater was all
-along anxious to give evidence on his own behalf. “He was advised by
-his counsel not to do so, but not from any knowledge of guilt. He had
-undergone the strain of a four days’ trial. He speaks rather broken
-English, although quite intelligible--with a foreign accent, and he
-had been in custody since January.” It must be admitted that these
-reasons are very unconvincing. It is much more probable that the
-counsel decided that the purely negative evidence which his client
-could give upon the crime would be dearly paid for by the long recital
-of sordid amours and blackguard experiences which would be drawn
-from him on cross-examination and have the most damning effect upon
-the minds of a respectable Edinburgh jury. And yet, perhaps, counsel
-did not sufficiently consider the prejudice which is excited--and
-rightly excited--against the prisoner who shuns the box. Some of this
-prejudice might have been removed if it had been made more clear that
-Slater had volunteered to come over and stand his trial of his own free
-will, without waiting for the verdict of the extradition proceedings.
-
-There remains the summing-up of Lord Guthrie. His Lordship threw out
-the surmise that the assassin may well have gone to the flat without
-any intention of murder. This is certainly possible, but in the highest
-degree improbable. He commented with great severity upon Slater’s
-general character. In his summing-up of the case, he recapitulated the
-familiar facts in an impartial fashion, concluding with the words, “I
-suppose that you all think that the prisoner possibly is the murderer.
-You may very likely all think that he probably is the murderer. That,
-however, will not entitle you to convict him. The Crown have undertaken
-to prove that he is the murderer. That is the question you have to
-consider. If you think there is no reasonable doubt about it, you will
-convict him; if you think there is, you will acquit him.”
-
-In an hour and ten minutes the jury had made up their mind. By a
-majority they found the prisoner guilty. Out of fifteen, nine, as was
-afterwards shown, were for guilty, five for non-proven, and one for not
-guilty. By English law, a new trial would have been needed, ending,
-possibly, as in the Gardiner case, in the complete acquittal of the
-prisoner. By Scotch law the majority verdict held good.
-
-“I know nothing about the affair, absolutely nothing,” cried the
-prisoner in a frenzy of despair. “I never heard the name. I know
-nothing about the affair. I do not know how I could be connected with
-the affair. I know nothing about it. I came from America on my own
-account. I can say no more.”
-
-Sentence of death was then passed.
-
-The verdict was, it is said, a complete surprise to most of those in
-the Court, and certainly is surprising when examined after the event.
-I do not see how any reasonable man can carefully weigh the evidence
-and not admit that when the unfortunate prisoner cried, “I know
-nothing about it,” he was possibly, and even probably, speaking the
-literal truth. Consider the monstrous coincidence which is involved
-in his guilt, the coincidence that the police owing to their mistake
-over the brooch, by pure chance started out in pursuit of the right
-man. Which is A Priori the more probable: That such an unheard-of
-million-to-one coincidence should have occurred, Or, that the police,
-having committed themselves to the theory that he was the murderer,
-refused to admit that they were wrong when the bottom fell out of the
-original case, and persevered in the hope that vague identifications of
-a queer-looking foreigner would justify their original action? Outside
-these identifications, I must repeat once again there is nothing to
-couple Slater with the murder, or to show that he ever knew, or could
-have known that such a person as Miss Gilchrist existed.
-
-The admirable memorial for a reprieve drawn up by the solicitors for
-the defence, and reproduced at the end of this pamphlet, was signed by
-20,000 members of the public, and had the effect of changing the death
-sentence to one of penal servitude for life. The sentence was passed on
-May 6th. For twenty days the man was left in doubt, and the written
-reprieve only arrived on May 26th within twenty-four hours of the time
-for the execution. On July 8th Slater was conveyed to the Peterhead
-Convict prison. There he has now been for three years, and there he
-still remains.
-
-I cannot help in my own mind comparing the case of Oscar Slater with
-another, which I had occasion to examine--that of George Edalji. I must
-admit that they are not of the same class. George Edalji was a youth of
-exemplary character. Oscar Slater was a blackguard. George Edalji was
-physically incapable of the crime for which he suffered three years’
-imprisonment (years for which he has not received, after his innocence
-was established, one shilling of compensation from the nation). Oscar
-Slater might conceivably have committed the murder, but the balance
-of proof and probability seems entirely against it. Thus, one cannot
-feel the same burning sense of injustice over the matter. And yet I
-trust for the sake of our character not only for justice, but for
-intelligence, that the judgment may in some way be reconsidered and
-the man’s present punishment allowed to atone for those irregularities
-of life which helped to make his conviction possible.
-
-Before leaving the case it is interesting to see how far this curious
-crime may be reconstructed and whether any possible light can be
-thrown upon it. Using second-hand material one cannot hope to do
-more than indicate certain possibilities which may already have been
-considered and tested by the police. The trouble, however, with all
-police prosecutions is that, having once got what they imagine to be
-their man, they are not very open to any line of investigation which
-might lead to other conclusions. Everything which will not fit into the
-official theory is liable to be excluded. One might make a few isolated
-comments on the case which may at least give rise to some interesting
-trains of thought.
-
-One question which has to be asked was whether the assassin was after
-the jewels at all. It might be urged that the type of man described
-by the spectators was by no means that of the ordinary thief.
-When he reached the bedroom and lit the gas, he did not at once
-seize the watch and rings which were lying openly exposed upon the
-dressing-table. He did not pick up a half-sovereign which was lying on
-the dining-room table. His attention was given to a wooden box, the lid
-of which he wrenched open. (This, I think, was “the breaking of sticks”
-heard by Adams.) The papers in it were strewed on the ground. Were the
-papers his object, and the final abstraction of one diamond brooch a
-mere blind? Personally, I can only point out the possibility of such a
-solution. On the other hand, it might be urged, if the thief’s action
-seems inconsequential, that Adams had rung and that he already found
-himself in a desperate situation. It might be said also that save a
-will it would be difficult to imagine any paper which would account
-for such an enterprise, while the jewels, on the other hand, were an
-obvious mark for whoever knew of their existence.
-
-Presuming that the assassin was indeed after the jewels, it is very
-instructive to note his knowledge of their location, and also its
-limitations. Why did he go straight into the spare bedroom where the
-jewels were actually kept? The same question may be asked with equal
-force if we consider that he was after the papers. Why the spare
-bedroom? Any knowledge gathered from outside (by a watcher in the
-back-yard for example) would go to the length of ascertaining which
-was the old lady’s room. One would expect a robber who had gained his
-information thus, to go straight to that chamber. But this man did not
-do so. He went straight to the unlikely room in which both jewels and
-papers actually were. Is not this remarkably suggestive? Does it not
-pre-suppose a previous acquaintance with the inside of the flat and the
-ways of its owner?
-
-But now note the limitations of the knowledge. If it were the jewels
-he was after, he knew what room they were in, but not in what part of
-the room. A fuller knowledge would have told him they were kept in
-the wardrobe. And yet he searched a box. If he was after papers, his
-information was complete; but if he was indeed after the jewels, then
-we can say that he had the knowledge of one who is conversant, but not
-intimately conversant, with the household arrangements. To this we may
-add that he would seem to have shown ignorance of the habits of the
-inmates, or he would surely have chosen Lambie’s afternoon or evening
-out for his attempt, and not have done it at a time when the girl was
-bound to be back within a very few minutes. What men had ever visited
-the house? The number must have been very limited. What friends? what
-tradesmen? what plumbers? Who brought back the jewels after they had
-been stored with the jewellers when the old lady went every year to the
-country? One is averse to throw out vague suspicions which may give
-pain to innocent people, and yet it is clear that there are lines of
-inquiry here which should be followed up, however negative the results.
-
-How did the murderer get in if Lambie is correct in thinking that she
-shut the doors? I cannot get away from the conclusion that he had
-duplicate keys. In that case all becomes comprehensible, for the old
-lady--whose faculties were quite normal--would hear the lock go and
-would not be alarmed, thinking that Lambie had returned before her
-time. Thus, she would only know her danger when the murderer rushed
-into the room, and would hardly have time to rise, receive the first
-blow, and fall, as she was found, beside the chair, upon which she
-had been sitting. That is intelligible. But if he had not the keys,
-consider the difficulties. If the old lady had opened the flat door
-her body would have been found in the passage. Therefore, the police
-were driven to the hypothesis that the old lady heard the ring, opened
-the lower stair door from above (as can be done in all Scotch flats),
-opened the flat door, never looked over the lighted stair to see who
-was coming up, but returned to her chair and her magazine, leaving the
-door open, and a free entrance to the murderer. This is possible, but
-is it not in the highest degree improbable? Miss Gilchrist was nervous
-of robbery and would not neglect obvious precautions. The ring came
-immediately after the maid’s departure. She could hardly have thought
-that it was her returning, the less so as the girl had the keys and
-would not need to ring. If she went as far as the hall door to open
-it, she only had to take another step to see who was ascending the
-stair. Would she not have taken it if it were only to say: “What, have
-you forgotten your keys?” That a nervous old lady should throw open
-both doors, never look to see who her visitor was, and return to her
-dining-room is very hard to believe.
-
-And look at it from the murderer’s point of view. He had planned out
-his proceedings. It is notorious that it is the easiest thing in
-the world to open the lower door of a Scotch flat. The blade of any
-penknife will do that. If he was to depend upon ringing to get at his
-victim, it was evidently better for him to ring at the upper door, as
-otherwise the chance would seem very great that she would look down,
-see him coming up the stair, and shut herself in. On the other hand, if
-he were at the upper door and she answered it, he had only to push his
-way in. Therefore, the latter would be his course if he rang at all.
-And yet the police theory is that though he rang, he rang from below.
-It is not what he would do, and if he did do it, it would be most
-unlikely that he would get in. How could he suppose that the old lady
-would do so incredible a thing as leave her door open and return to her
-reading? If she waited, she might even up to the last instant have shut
-the door in his face. If one weighs all these reasons, one can hardly
-fail, I think, to come to the conclusion that the murderer had keys,
-and that the old lady never rose from her chair until the last instant,
-because, hearing the keys in the door, she took it for granted that the
-maid had come back. But if he had keys, how did he get the mould, and
-how did he get them made? There is a line of inquiry there. The only
-conceivable alternatives are, that the murderer was actually concealed
-in the flat when Lambie came out, and of that there is no evidence
-whatever, or that the visitor was someone whom the old lady knew, in
-which case he would naturally have been admitted.
-
-There are still one or two singular points which invite comment. One
-of these, which I have incidentally mentioned, is that neither the
-match, the match-box, nor the box opened in the bedroom showed any
-marks of blood. Yet the crime had been an extraordinarily bloody one.
-This is certainly very singular. An explanation given by Dr. Adams who
-was the first medical man to view the body is worthy of attention. He
-considered that the wounds might have been inflicted by prods downwards
-from the leg of a chair, in which case the seat of the chair would
-preserve the clothes and to some extent the hands of the murderer
-from blood-stains. The condition of one of the chairs seemed to him
-to favour this supposition. The explanation is ingenious, but I must
-confess that I cannot understand how such wounds could be inflicted by
-such an instrument. There were in particular a number of spindle-shaped
-cuts with a bridge of skin between them which are very suggestive.
-My first choice as to the weapon which inflicted these would be a
-burglar’s jemmy, which is bifurcated at one end, while the blow which
-pushed the poor woman’s eye into her brain would represent a thrust
-from the other end. Failing a jemmy, I should choose a hammer, but a
-very different one from the toy thing from a half-crown card of tools
-which was exhibited in Court. Surely commonsense would say that such
-an instrument could burst an eye-ball, but could not possibly drive it
-deep into the brain, since the short head could not penetrate nearly so
-far. The hammer, which I would reconstruct from the injuries would be
-what they call, I believe, a plasterer’s hammer, short in the handle,
-long and strong in the head, with a broad fork behind. But how such
-a weapon could be used without the user bearing marks of it, is more
-than I can say. It has never been explained why a rug was laid over the
-murdered woman. The murderer, as his conduct before Lambie and Adams
-showed, was a perfectly cool person. It is at least possible that he
-used the rug as a shield between him and his victim while he battered
-her with his weapon. His clothes, if not his hands, would in this way
-be preserved.
-
-I have said that it is of the first importance to trace who knew of the
-existence of the jewels, since this might greatly help the solution of
-the problem. In connection with this there is a passage in Lambie’s
-evidence in New York which is of some importance. I give it from the
-stenographer’s report, condensing in places:
-
-Q. “Do you know in Glasgow a man named ---- ----?”
-
-A. “Yes, sir.”
-
-Q. “What is his business?”
-
-A. “A book-maker.”
-
-Q. “When did you first meet him?”
-
-A. “At a dance.”
-
-Q. “What sort of dance?”
-
-A. “A New Year’s dance.” (That would be New Year of 1908.)
-
-Q. “When did you meet him after that?”
-
-A. “In the beginning of June.”
-
-Q. “Where?”
-
-A. “In Glasgow.”
-
-Q. “At a street corner?”
-
-A. “No, he came up to the house at Prince’s Street.”
-
-Q. “Miss Gilchrist’s house?”
-
-A. “Yes, sir.”
-
-Q. “That was the first time since the dance?”
-
-A. “Yes, sir.”
-
-Q. “Do you deny that you had a meeting with him by a letter received
-from him at a corner of a street in Glasgow?”
-
-A. “I got a letter.”
-
-Q. “To meet him at a street corner?”
-
-A. “Yes.”
-
-Q. “The first meeting after the dance?”
-
-A. “Yes.”
-
-Q. “And you met him there?”
-
-A. “Yes.”
-
-Q. “And you went out with him?”
-
-A. “No, I did not go out with him.”
-
-Q. “You went somewhere with him, didn’t you?”
-
-A. “Yes, I made an appointment for Sunday.”
-
-Q. “Did you know anything about the man?”
-
-A. “Yes, I did, sir.”
-
-Q. “What did you know about him?”
-
-A. “I didn’t know much.”
-
-Q. “How many times did he visit you at Miss Gilchrist’s house?”
-
-A. “Once.”
-
-Q. “Quite sure of that?”
-
-A. “Quite sure.”
-
-Q. “Didn’t he come and take tea with you there in her apartment?”
-
-A. “That was at the Coast.”
-
-Q. “Then he came to see you at Miss Gilchrist’s summer place?”
-
-A. “Yes.”
-
-Q. “How many times?”
-
-A. “Once.”
-
-Q. “Did he meet Miss Gilchrist then?”
-
-A. “Yes, sir.”
-
-Q. “You introduced him?”
-
-A. “Yes, sir.”
-
-Q. “Did she wear this diamond brooch?”
-
-A. “I don’t remember.”
-
-Q. “When did you next see him?”
-
-A. “The first week in September.”
-
-Q. “In Glasgow?”
-
-A. “Yes, sir.”
-
-Q. “By appointment?”
-
-A. “Yes.”
-
-Q. “When next?”
-
-A. “I have not met him since.”
-
-Q. “And you say he only called once at the country place?”
-
-A. “Once, sir.”
-
-Q. “In your Glasgow deposition you say: ‘He visited me at Girvan and
-was entertained at tea with me on Saturday night, and at dinner on
-Sunday with Miss Gilchrist and me.’”
-
-A. “Yes, sir.”
-
-Q. “Then you did see him more than once in the country.”
-
-A. “Once.”
-
-He read the extract again as above.
-
-Q. “Was that true?”
-
-A. “Yes.”
-
-Q. “Then you invited this man to tea at Miss Gilchrist’s summer house?”
-
-A. “Yes.”
-
-Q. “On Saturday night?”
-
-A. “Yes.”
-
-Q. “And on Sunday night?”
-
-A. “He wasn’t there.”
-
-Q. “On Sunday you invited him there to dinner with Miss Gilchrist and
-yourself, didn’t you?”
-
-A. “No, sir. I didn’t invite him.”
-
-Q. “Who invited him?”
-
-A. “Miss Gilchrist.”
-
-Q. “Had you introduced him?”
-
-A. “Yes, sir.”
-
-Q. “He was your friend, wasn’t he?”
-
-A. “Yes, sir.”
-
-Q. “She knew nothing about him?”
-
-A. “No.”
-
-Q. “She took him to the house on your recommendation?”
-
-A. “Yes.”
-
-Q. “Did she wear her diamonds at this dinner party?”
-
-A. “I don’t remember.”
-
-Q. “You told him that she was a rich woman?”
-
-A. “Yes.”
-
-Q. “Did you tell him that she had a great many jewels?”
-
-A. “Yes.”
-
-Q. “Have your suspicions ever turned towards this man?”
-
-A. “Never.”
-
-Q. “Do you know of any other man who would be as familiar with those
-premises, the wealth of the old lady, her jewelry, and the way to get
-into the premises as that man?”
-
-A. “No, sir.”
-
-Q. “Was the man you met in the hallway this man?”
-
-A. “No, sir.”
-
-This is a condensation of a very interesting and searching piece of
-the cross-examination which reveals several things. One is Lambie’s
-qualities as a witness. Another is the very curious picture of the
-old lady, the book-maker and the servant-maid all sitting at dinner
-together. The last and most important is the fact, that a knowledge of
-the jewels had got out. Against the man himself there is no possible
-allegation. The matter was looked into by the police, and their
-conclusions were absolute, and were shared by those responsible for
-the defence. But is it to be believed that during the months which
-elapsed between this man acquiring this curious knowledge, and the
-actual crime, never once chanced to repeat to any friend, who in turn
-repeated it to another, the strange story of the lonely old woman and
-her hoard? This he would do in full innocence. It was a most natural
-thing to do. But, for almost the first time in the case we seem to
-catch some glimpse of the relation between possible cause and effect,
-some connection between the dead woman on one side, and outsiders on
-the other who had the means of knowing something of her remarkable
-situation.
-
-There is just one other piece of Lambie’s cross-examination, this time
-from the Edinburgh trial, which I would desire to quote. It did not
-appear in America, just as the American extract already given did not
-appear in Edinburgh. For the first time they come out together:
-
-Q. “Did Miss Gilchrist use to have a dog?”
-
-A. “Yes, an Irish terrier.”
-
-Q. “What happened to it?”
-
-A. “It got poisoned.”
-
-Q. “When was it poisoned?”
-
-A. “I think on the 7th or 8th of September.”
-
-Q. “Was that thought to be done by someone?”
-
-A. “I did not think it, for I thought it might have eaten something,
-but Miss Gilchrist thought it was poisoned by someone.”
-
-Q. “To kill the watch-dog--was that the idea?”
-
-A. “She did not say.”
-
-The reader should be reminded that Slater did not arrive in Glasgow
-until the end of October of that year. His previous residences in the
-town were as far back as 1901 and 1905. If the dog were indeed poisoned
-in anticipation of the crime, he, at least, could have had nothing to
-do with it.
-
-There is one other piece of evidence which may, or may not have been
-of importance. It is that of Miss Brown, the schoolmistress. This lady
-was in court, but seems to have been called by neither side for the
-reason that her evidence was helpful to neither the prosecution nor the
-defence. She deposed that on the night of the murder, about ten minutes
-past seven, she saw two men running away from the scene. One of these
-men closely corresponded to the original description of the murderer
-before it was modified by Barrowman. This one was of medium build,
-dark hair and clean-shaven, with three-quarter length grey overcoat,
-dark tweed cap, and both hands in his pockets. Here we have the actual
-assassin described to the life, and had Miss Brown declared that this
-man was the prisoner, she would have been a formidable addition to the
-witnesses for prosecution. Miss Brown, however identified Oscar Slater
-(after the usual absurd fashion of such identifications) as the second
-man, whom she describes, as of “Dark glossy hair, navy blue overcoat
-with velvet collar, dark trousers, black boots, something in his hand
-which seemed clumsier than a walking stick.” One would imagine that
-this object in his hand would naturally be his hat, since she describes
-the man as bare-headed. All that can be said of this incident is that
-if the second man was Slater, then he certainly was not the actual
-murderer whose dress corresponds closely to the first, and in no
-particular to the second. To the Northern eye, all swarthy foreigners
-bear a resemblance, and that there was a swarthy man, whether foreign
-or not, concerned in this affair would seem to be beyond question.
-That there should have been two confederates, one of whom had planned
-the crime while the other carried it out, is a perfectly feasible
-supposition. Miss Brown’s story does not necessarily contradict that
-of Barrowman, as one would imagine that the second man would join the
-murderer at some little distance from the scene of the crime. However,
-as there was no cross-examination upon the story, it is difficult to
-know what weight to attach to it.
-
-Let me say in conclusion that I have had no desire in anything said in
-this argument, to hurt the feelings or usurp the functions of anyone,
-whether of the police or the criminal court, who had to do with the
-case. It is difficult to discuss matters from a detached point of view
-without giving offence. I am well aware that it is easier to theorise
-at a distance than to work a case out in practice whether as detective
-or as counsel. I leave the matter now with the hope that, even after
-many days, some sudden flash may be sent which will throw a light upon
-as brutal and callous a crime as has ever been recorded in those black
-annals in which the criminologist finds the materials for his study.
-Meanwhile it is on the conscience of the authorities, and in the last
-resort on that of the community that this verdict obtained under the
-circumstances which I have indicated, shall now be reconsidered.
-
-                                                     Arthur Conan Doyle.
-
-  Windlesham,
-    Crowborough.
-
-
-
-
-COPY OF MEMORIAL FOR REPRIEVE
-
-
-
-
-  UNTO THE RIGHT HONOURABLE LORD
-  PENTLAND, HIS MAJESTY’S SECRETARY
-  OF STATE FOR SCOTLAND
-  MEMORIAL
-  ON BEHALF OF
-  OSCAR SLATER
-
-
-This Memorial is humbly presented on behalf of Oscar Slater presently
-a Prisoner in the Prison of Glasgow, who was, in the High Court of
-Justiciary at Edinburgh, on Thursday, the sixth day of May, Nineteen
-hundred and nine, found guilty of the charge of murdering Miss Marion
-Gilchrist in her house in West Princes Street, Glasgow, and sentenced
-to death. The Prisoner is a Jew, and was born in Germany. He is 37
-years of age.
-
-The Jury returned a verdict of “Guilty” by a majority of nine to six,
-and the legal advisers of the condemned man hold a very strong opinion
-that the verdict of the majority of the Jury was not in accordance
-with the evidence led, and that this evidence was quite insufficient
-to identify the Prisoner with the murderer, and so to establish the
-Prisoner’s guilt. This view, they believe, is shared by the general
-public of all classes in Scotland, and by the Glasgow press (vide
-leading article in The Glasgow Herald of 7th May, 1909, sent herewith).
-
-Your Memorialist has endeavoured in this paper to deal with the matter
-as briefly and with as little argument as possible; but in view of
-the fact that the trial of the Prisoner occupied four days, it is
-inevitable that the Memorial should extend to some length.
-
-It is common ground that the late Miss Gilchrist, a lady of about 82
-years of age, resided alone with her domestic servant, Nellie Lambie, a
-girl of about 21 years of age.
-
-According to the evidence of Lambie, the latter left Miss Gilchrist
-alone in the house at seven o’clock on the evening of 21st December,
-1908, and went to purchase an evening paper. Lambie deponed that she
-securely shut the house door behind her, and also the door at the
-close, or street entry; that she was only absent about ten minutes;
-that on returning about ten minutes past seven o’clock she found the
-close door open; that upon ascending the stair she found Mr. Adams, a
-gentleman who resides in the flat below, standing at Miss Gilchrist’s
-house door; that Adams informed her that he had gone up to Miss
-Gilchrist’s door because he had heard knocking on the floor of Miss
-Gilchrist’s house, and had rung the bell, but that he could obtain no
-admittance; that the lobby was lighted by one gas jet turned half up,
-but giving a good light; that Lambie thereupon opened the house door
-with her keys; that upon the door being opened a man came through the
-lobby or hall of Miss Gilchrist’s house, passed Lambie and Adams, went
-downstairs, and disappeared; and that, upon Lambie and Adams entering
-the house, they found Miss Gilchrist lying on the dining-room floor
-dead, her head having been smashed.
-
-Upon the Wednesday following the murder (23rd December, 1908), the
-Glasgow Police were informed by a message girl named Mary Barrowman
-(about 15 years of age), that she had seen a man wearing a Donegal
-hat and a light coat running out of the close which leads from the
-street to Miss Gilchrist’s house shortly after seven o’clock on the
-night of the murder; that the man passed her, running at top speed;
-that she noticed that he was dark, and clean-shaven, and that his
-nose was twisted towards the right side. The servant Lambie had also
-informed the Police that a gold crescent brooch, set in diamonds, had
-disappeared from Miss Gilchrist’s house on the night of the murder,
-and that this was all of Miss Gilchrist’s property that she missed.
-These statements were published in the Glasgow newspapers on Friday,
-25th December, 1908, and following upon this the witness Allan Maclean,
-a member of a club to which Slater belonged, informed the Police
-that Slater’s appearance somewhat corresponded with the description
-advertised, and that he had been trying to sell a pawn ticket for a
-diamond brooch. Following up this clue, the Police went to Slater’s
-house at 69, St. George’s Road, Glasgow, on the night of Friday, 25th
-December, and learned that he and Miss Andrée Antoine, with whom he had
-been cohabiting, had left Glasgow that night with their belongings. The
-Police thereafter ascertained that Slater had sailed on the “Lusitania”
-for New York from Liverpool on Saturday, 26th December, and cabled to
-the Authorities at New York to detain and search him on his arrival.
-This was done, and the pawn ticket, which he had been trying to sell,
-was found upon him, but turned out to be a pawn ticket for a brooch
-which belonged to Miss Antoine, had never belonged to Miss Gilchrist,
-and had been pawned a considerable time before the murder. Proceedings,
-however, were instituted for Slater’s extradition. The witnesses
-Lambie, Adams, and Barrowman gave evidence in America, purporting to
-identify him as the man seen leaving Miss Gilchrist’s house, and Slater
-was (he states of his own consent) extradited, and brought back to
-Scotland for trial.
-
-An advertisement was published by the Authorities in Glasgow offering a
-reward of £200 for information which would lead to the arrest of the
-murderer.
-
-The only evidence against Slater, which might be called direct
-evidence, was the evidence of the persons who saw a man walk out of
-the lobby or hall in Miss Gilchrist’s house on the night of the murder
-(Lambie and Adams), or leaving the close leading therefrom, or running
-along the street (Barrowman).
-
-At the trials Lambie professed to identify Slater, as the man whom she
-had seen leaving the house, by the side of his face. It was put to her,
-however, and clearly proved, that when she gave evidence in New York
-in the extradition proceedings she stated in Court there that she did
-not see the man’s face, and professed to identify him by his walk. When
-Slater’s own coat, the one found in his luggage, was shown to her at
-the trial, she at once remarked, even before it was unrolled, that it
-was not like the coat the man in the lobby wore--it was the coat. It
-was obviously impossible that she knew it to be the same coat. Lord
-Guthrie referred to this in his charge to the jury as a typical example
-of the nature of her evidence. With regard to the positive nature
-of her evidence generally, it is interesting to note that her first
-answer in America, when asked if she saw the man, was, “One is very
-suspicious, if anything.” She stated that, when she saw Slater in the
-Central Police Office at Glasgow, she recognised him in his “own coat.”
-It was proved that he was not then wearing his own coat, but one with
-which he had been dressed for identification purposes.
-
-The witness only saw the man who was leaving the house for a moment or
-two. Adams and she contradicted each other as to where she was when the
-man walked across the lobby. Adams deponed that she was by the lobby
-clock and walking towards the kitchen. If so, she must practically have
-had her back to the man. She says she was on the threshold of the door.
-In any event, her view was momentary.
-
-The witness Adams, who deponed that he had a better view of the man
-in the house than Lambie, stated at the trial that he, standing at
-the threshold, saw the man’s face as he approached, that their eyes
-met, and that the man walked slowly towards him, face to face, but
-Adams would not go further than to say that Slater resembled the man
-very much. He is superior to Lambie and Barrowman in years, education
-and intelligence. Your Memorialist begs to emphasise the fact that
-this witness had a much better view of the man than any of the other
-witnesses.
-
-The witness Barrowman stated at the trial that the man ran out of
-the close and rushed past her at top speed, brushing against her, and
-that he had his hat pulled well down over his forehead. The witness is
-a message girl, about 15 years of age. She also stated that the man
-had on brown boots, a Donegal hat, and a fawn coat, and that he was
-dark and clean-shaven, and that his nose had a twist to the right. She
-professed to have noticed all these things as he rushed past her at top
-speed. At the trial this witness stated in cross-examination (1) that
-she was proceeding in the opposite direction from the man, to deliver
-a parcel, but that she turned and went some distance after him; that
-she thought he was probably going to catch a tram-car; but she could
-not explain why she should go out of her way to turn and follow a man
-running for a car in a busy city like Glasgow; and (2) that, although
-the girl Lambie and she had occupied the same cabin on the voyage to
-America, which lasted about twelve days, she had not once discussed the
-appearance of the man, and that no one had warned her not to do so.
-These two statements do not impress your Memorialist as bearing the
-stamp of truth. This girl started the description of the twisted nose.
-She is the only witness who refers to it. Her view of the man’s face
-must necessarily have been momentary. Slater’s nose cannot properly be
-described as “twisted to the right.” It has a noticeable prominence in
-the centre.
-
-All of these three witnesses had, as has been said, only a momentary
-view of the man, and it was proved that before Barrowman professed to
-identify Slater in New York she was shown his photograph, and that both
-she and Lambie, before attempting to identify him in New York, saw him
-being brought into Court by a Court official, wearing a badge. In her
-New York evidence she first said, “He is something like the man I saw.”
-At the trial she stated that he was the man. These facts very much
-reduce, if they do not altogether vitiate, the value of the evidence of
-these identifying witnesses.
-
-Another witness, Mrs. Liddell, who is a married sister of the witness
-Adams, stated that, at five minutes to seven on the evening of the
-murder, she saw a dark, clean-shaven man leaning against a railing at
-the street entry to Miss Gilchrist’s house, but that this man wore
-a heavy brown tweed coat and a brown cap. It is to be observed that
-Constable Neil, who passed the house at ten minutes to seven, saw no
-one there; and Lambie, who left the house promptly at seven, or, as
-she said in America, “perhaps a few minutes before seven,” saw no one
-there. Further, Mrs. Liddell did not observe where the man went to;
-according to her he merely glided away; and although she was in Miss
-Gilchrist’s house that night and saw the body, and would naturally be
-greatly concerned over the murder, she did not recollect having seen
-this man until the Wednesday after the murder. Even taking her evidence
-as absolutely true and reliable, it provides an excellent object-lesson
-on the difficulty and responsibility of convicting on such evidence as
-this, because the man she saw was obviously dressed differently from
-the man seen by the other three witnesses. Her evidence does not, to
-any appreciable extent, further the case against Slater, as she stated
-that she thought this man was Slater, but admitted that she might be in
-error.
-
-The other witness is a girl named Annie Armour, a ticket clerk in the
-Subway Station at Kelvinbridge, who says that between 7.30 and 8 that
-evening a man, whom she identified as Slater, rushed past her office
-without waiting for a ticket, and seemed excited. Lord Guthrie in his
-charge to the jury did not refer to this witness, and your Memorialist
-thinks advisedly. The mere question of time is sufficient to render
-her evidence valueless. She is sure the incident did not happen before
-7.30. According to the other witnesses, the murderer must have run
-from the house by at least 7.15. It was proved that it would only take
-a man five or six minutes to run from the scene of the tragedy to
-this station, either by the most direct route or by the route which
-Barrowman’s evidence suggests he took. Then it is impossible to suppose
-that she could get anything like a good view, even of the side face, of
-a man who rushed past her in the way she described.
-
-All the witnesses who saw the man on the night of the murder (Monday)
-say that he was clean-shaven. It was proved that on the next day or two
-after the murder Slater had a short, black, stubbly moustache.
-
-These were the only witnesses called by the Crown to identify Slater
-with the murderer. Further circumstantial evidence, however, was led
-by the Crown to show that, on occasions before the day of the murder,
-Slater had been seen standing in or walking up and down West Princes
-Street--Mrs. M’Haffie, her daughters and niece, Campbell, Cunningham,
-Bryson, Nairn, and O’Brien and Walker (two policemen). It may be noted
-that Slater’s house was situated about three minutes’ walk from West
-Princes Street.
-
-These witnesses did not all agree in their evidence. Some said that
-Slater was the man they had seen; others, equally or perhaps better
-able to judge, only said that he was very like him. The Memorialist
-does not propose in this paper to deal at length with this part of the
-evidence, except to point out that two witnesses (Nairn and Bryson) say
-they saw Slater in West Princes Street on the Sunday evening previous
-to the murder. Against this there is the evidence that Slater on this
-day, as usual, spent all Sunday (day and evening) in his house. Three
-witnesses from Paris, London, and Dublin spoke to this. Coming from
-different places, they had no chance to concoct a story.
-
-At Slater’s trial it was suggested that there were various
-circumstances tending to create an atmosphere of suspicion around him;
-but it is submitted that all these were capable of explanation, and in
-no way pointing to Slater’s guilt as a murderer. Slater had written to
-Cameron that he could prove where he was on the evening of the murder
-“by five people.” When this letter was written, he thought that the
-date of the murder was the Tuesday, the 22nd.
-
-The evidence of his witnesses was to the effect that on the evening of
-the murder he was in a billiard room until 6.30 p. m., after which he
-went home for dinner.
-
-It was shown that Slater dealt in diamonds. There was, however, no
-evidence of any dishonest dealing of any kind. The brooch said to have
-been missing from Miss Gilchrist’s house has not been traced. There
-was no evidence of any kind led to show that Slater ever knew, or
-even heard of, Miss Gilchrist or her house, and the Memorialist would
-emphasise the fact that it was the missing brooch that put the Police
-on the track of Slater.
-
-With reference to Slater’s departure for America on 25th December,
-1908, it was proved that he had formed the intention, some weeks before
-the murder, of going to America. Cameron, Rathman, and Aumann proved
-this. Slater had, in fact, tried to get the last named to take over his
-flat. The letter from Jacobs, of 28th December, and the card bearing
-the words “address till 30th December,” produced by the Crown, also
-corroborate the evidence of this intention of leaving, which is further
-corroborated by the evidence of Nichols, the barber, a Crown witness.
-
-On the morning of 21st December, 1908, Slater received two letters--one
-from London, stating that his wife was demanding his address, and the
-other from San Francisco, asking him to come over. These were spoken to
-by Schmalz, his servant girl, and Miss Antoine. Further corroboration
-of his intention to leave is (1) on the morning of 21st December he
-raised a further £30 from Mr. Liddell, pawnbroker, on his brooch, and
-on the same day tried to sell the ticket; (2) he wrote to the Post
-Office for payment of the money at his credit; (3) he wired to Dent,
-London, to send on his watch, which was being repaired, immediately;
-(4) on the Monday morning he gave notice to the servant girl that she
-would not be required after the following Saturday (these events all
-happened before the murder); (5) on the Tuesday morning he redeemed a
-pair of binoculars from another pawnbroker whose assistant, Kempton,
-proved this, and who stated that he was in no way excited; (6) on the
-23rd and 24th December he made inquiries at Cook’s Shipping Offices
-regarding berths, and betrayed no signs of any excitement; on the 23rd
-he was, in the evening, in Johnston’s billiard room, which he used to
-frequent; and on the 24th he spent the afternoon about Glasgow with
-his friend Cameron, who gave evidence; (7) on Friday morning a Mrs.
-Freedman and her sister arrived from London to take over his flat, so
-that he and Miss Antoine left on Friday night.
-
-A rumour got abroad at the time to the effect that he booked to London
-and left the train at Liverpool. This rumour was published in the
-various newspapers, to Slater’s great prejudice, but nothing of the
-kind was proved at the trial. The Police were evidently misled by the
-fact that he went by a London train, but it was proved that there were
-two carriages in that train for Liverpool, and also that Slater’s
-luggage, consisting of nine boxes, was labelled to Liverpool. The
-Porter who labelled the luggage was called, and stated that Slater told
-him that he was going to Liverpool, and entered a Liverpool carriage.
-
-The point was also raised against Slater that he used various aliases.
-He had been staying apart from his wife for about four years, during
-which time he cohabited with Miss Antoine. She stated that Slater’s
-wife was a drunken woman, and caused him a deal of trouble. At one time
-he adopted the name of “George,” and when he came to Glasgow on the
-last occasion he took the name of “Anderson.” On the voyage to America
-he took the name of Otto Sando, because his luggage was labelled O.
-S. At times he called himself a dentist. There was no evidence that
-he really was a dentist. Miss Antoine explained that he adopted the
-title of dentist, as he required a designation of some sort, although
-he was a gambler. A great deal was published in the newspapers about a
-hammer that had been found in one of his boxes. This turned out to be
-an ordinary small domestic nail hammer, purchased on a card containing
-several other tools, the lot costing only 2s. 6d. He, of course, took
-the hammer to America with him with all the rest of his belongings.
-
-Nothing incriminating was found in any of his boxes.
-
-No evidence whatever was led to show how the murderer gained access to
-the house.
-
-It will be conceded that identification evidence, especially in a
-serious charge of this kind, must be examined very carefully, and
-should have little weight attached to it, unless it is very clear.
-
-To sum up, the only real evidence in the case is that of those who saw
-a man running away on the night of the murder; and, as has been pointed
-out, these witnesses had only a momentary glance at him. Adams does
-not positively identify the prisoner as the man. He says he closely
-resembles him.
-
-Lambie’s New York evidence has already been referred to, and her
-evidence at the trial cannot be reconciled with it.
-
-Lambie and Barrowman both saw him in custody before trying to identify
-him in New York, and the latter, before identifying him, was shown his
-photograph.
-
-All the other identifying witnesses called to give evidence as to his
-having been seen in the vicinity on days previous to the murder were
-taken down to the General Police Office when Slater returned from
-America to identify him. They were shown into one room together, and
-then separately taken into a room in the Police Office, where Slater
-was amongst about a dozen men, none of whom were like him. (Cunningham
-says she could see that the other men were policemen in plain clothes.)
-All these witnesses knew that Slater had arrived from America, and
-was in the room. They had all read his description in the newspapers,
-or had seen his photograph. They all, therefore, looked for, and had
-no difficulty in pointing out, a dark, foreign-looking man, with a
-somewhat peculiarly shaped nose. It is submitted that this is not
-identification evidence in the proper sense at all. Had these people
-been able to pick out, as their man, from amongst several others, a man
-whose description they only knew from what they had previously seen of
-him, unassisted by description, and unassisted by a photograph, the
-value of their evidence would have been entirely different.
-
-Some Crown witnesses identified him as the man they had seen and talked
-to (Shipping Clerk, Porter, &c.), but they, of course, were able to do
-so. None of the identifying witnesses had ever spoken to him.
-
-Identification evidence is a class of evidence which the law distrusts.
-The most famous authority is the case of Adolf Beck. Beck was, in 1896,
-sentenced to seven years’ penal servitude, on the evidence of ten
-women, who swore positively that he was a man whom they had each met
-on two occasions, and spent some time within their own houses, and who
-had defrauded them, and on the evidence of two policemen, who swore
-positively that Beck was the man who had been previously convicted of
-similar crimes, taken along with certain circumstantial evidence--that
-he was known to frequent a hotel on the notepaper of which one of the
-women had received a letter. Again, in 1904, Beck was convicted of
-similar crimes on similar evidence. It was subsequently demonstrated
-that Beck committed none of the crimes, but that a man bearing a
-general similarity to him was the criminal.
-
-In the report issued by the Commission appointed to investigate the
-matter, consisting of Lord Collins, Sir Spencer Walpole, and Sir John
-Edge, the following passage occurs:--“Evidence of identity, upon
-personal impression, however bona fide, is of all classes of evidence
-the least to be relied upon, and, unless supported by other evidence,
-an unsafe basis for the verdict of a Jury.”
-
-Now, the evidence in the Beck case was infinitely more overwhelming and
-consistent than in this case; and the report in the Beck case, and the
-report on which it followed, make it clear that on the evidence in this
-case the Jury had no right to bring in a verdict of “Guilty.”
-
-A good deal was said by the learned Lord-Advocate to the Jury about
-Slater’s immoral character. It was not disputed that he was a gambler.
-It was also admitted that he had cohabited for about four years with
-Madame Antoine, who was of doubtful virtue, and who gave evidence.
-Yet the learned Lord-Advocate addressed the Jury to the effect that
-the prisoner “had followed a life which descended to the very depth
-of human degradation, for, by the universal judgment of mankind, the
-man who lived upon the proceeds of prostitution has sunk to the lowest
-depth, and all moral sense in him had been destroyed.” This he cited
-as proof of the disappearance of an obstacle which had previously
-been in his way, viz:--Whether it was conceivable that such a man
-as Slater could commit such an inhumanly brutal crime. The only
-evidence on that point was that of Cameron, Slater’s friend, who, in
-cross-examination, said he had heard that Slater lived on the earnings
-of prostitution, but who did not say he knew. The Jury were distinctly
-told by the Lord-Advocate, and by the prisoner’s Counsel, and by the
-Judge, to banish from their minds anything they had heard regarding the
-man’s character; but they had previously heard all about it, and the
-Memorialist feels strongly that they were evidently unable to do so.
-
-Public feeling is also very strong on the point that the question of
-Slater’s character should never have been brought before the Jury.
-
-The Memorialist thinks it is only fair to prisoner to point out that
-he was all along anxious to give evidence on his own behalf. He was
-advised by his Counsel not to do so, but not from any knowledge of
-guilt. He had undergone the strain of a four days’ trial. He speaks
-rather broken English--although quite intelligibly--with a foreign
-accent, and he had been in custody since January.
-
-Apart from what has been set forth above, your Memorialist begs to draw
-attention to the fact that on the Crown list of witnesses is the name
-of a witness, Miss Agnes Brown (No. 46). This lady is 30 years of age,
-and a very intelligent school teacher. Your Memorialist is informed
-that she told the Police and Procurator-Fiscal that on the night of
-the murder, about ten minutes past seven o’clock, two men in company
-rushed along West Princes Street from the direction of Miss Gilchrist’s
-house, and passed close to her at the corner of West Princes Street and
-West Cumberland Street; that one of them was dressed in a blue Melton
-coat with a dark velvet collar, black boots, and without a hat; that
-both men ran past the opening of West Cumberland Street, straight on
-along West Princes Street, crossed West Princes Street, and ran down
-Rupert Street, a street further west, and opening off the opposite
-side of West Princes Street. Your Memorialist understands that, in the
-identification proceedings before referred to, this witness pointed out
-Slater as the man in the Melton coat, as she thought. This witness’s
-evidence is thus in sharp contradiction on material points to that of
-the message girl Barrowman (who had only a momentary glance at the
-man), but upon whose evidence so much weight has evidently been laid,
-and who says that Slater was dressed in a light coat, a Donegal hat,
-and brown boots, was alone, and ran down West Cumberland Street.
-
-Your Memorialist respectfully submits that this illustrates the danger
-of convicting a man upon the kind of evidence given in this case. Miss
-Brown was in attendance at the trial, but was not called as a witness.
-Even on the evidence led, the votes of two more jurymen in his favour
-would have liberated the prisoner. In England the probability is that a
-conviction would never have been obtained.
-
-Your Memorialist is authorised to state that Slater’s Counsel agree
-that the evidence did not justify the conviction.
-
-Your Memorialist, who has all along acted as Slater’s Solicitor since
-he was brought back from America after the Extradition Proceedings,
-and who has had very many interviews with Slater, begs respectfully to
-state his absolute belief in Slater’s innocence.
-
-  May it therefore please the Right Honourable the Secretary of
-    State for Scotland to take this Memorial into his most favourable
-    consideration, and thereafter to advise his Most Gracious Majesty
-    to exercise his royal prerogative to the effect of commuting the
-    sentence passed upon the prisoner, or to do otherwise as in the
-    circumstances may seem just.
-
-    And your Memorialist will ever pray.
-
-          EWING SPIERS,
-  190 West George Street, Glasgow,
-      Oscar Slater’s Solicitor.
-
-  Dated this seventeenth day of May, One
-    thousand nine hundred and nine.
-
-
-
-
-TRANSCRIBER’S NOTES:
-
-
-  Obvious typographical errors have been corrected.
-
-  Inconsistencies in hyphenation have been standardized.
-
-  The cover image for this eBook was created by the transcriber using
-    the original cover and is entered into the public domain.
-
-*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE CASE OF OSCAR SLATER ***
-
-Updated editions will replace the previous one--the old editions will
-be renamed.
-
-Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S. copyright
-law means that no one owns a United States copyright in these works,
-so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it in the
-United States without permission and without paying copyright
-royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of Use part
-of this license, apply to copying and distributing Project
-Gutenberg-tm electronic works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm
-concept and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark,
-and may not be used if you charge for an eBook, except by following
-the terms of the trademark license, including paying royalties for use
-of the Project Gutenberg trademark. If you do not charge anything for
-copies of this eBook, complying with the trademark license is very
-easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose such as creation
-of derivative works, reports, performances and research. Project
-Gutenberg eBooks may be modified and printed and given away--you may
-do practically ANYTHING in the United States with eBooks not protected
-by U.S. copyright law. Redistribution is subject to the trademark
-license, especially commercial redistribution.
-
-START: FULL LICENSE
-
-THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE
-PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK
-
-To protect the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting the free
-distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work
-(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase "Project
-Gutenberg"), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full
-Project Gutenberg-tm License available with this file or online at
-www.gutenberg.org/license.
-
-Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project
-Gutenberg-tm electronic works
-
-1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg-tm
-electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to
-and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property
-(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all
-the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or
-destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in your
-possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a
-Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work and you do not agree to be bound
-by the terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the
-person or entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph
-1.E.8.
-
-1.B. "Project Gutenberg" is a registered trademark. It may only be
-used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who
-agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few
-things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works
-even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See
-paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project
-Gutenberg-tm electronic works if you follow the terms of this
-agreement and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg-tm
-electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below.
-
-1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation ("the
-Foundation" or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection
-of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works. Nearly all the individual
-works in the collection are in the public domain in the United
-States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright law in the
-United States and you are located in the United States, we do not
-claim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing, performing,
-displaying or creating derivative works based on the work as long as
-all references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hope
-that you will support the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting
-free access to electronic works by freely sharing Project Gutenberg-tm
-works in compliance with the terms of this agreement for keeping the
-Project Gutenberg-tm name associated with the work. You can easily
-comply with the terms of this agreement by keeping this work in the
-same format with its attached full Project Gutenberg-tm License when
-you share it without charge with others.
-
-1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern
-what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are
-in a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States,
-check the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this
-agreement before downloading, copying, displaying, performing,
-distributing or creating derivative works based on this work or any
-other Project Gutenberg-tm work. The Foundation makes no
-representations concerning the copyright status of any work in any
-country other than the United States.
-
-1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg:
-
-1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other
-immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg-tm License must appear
-prominently whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg-tm work (any work
-on which the phrase "Project Gutenberg" appears, or with which the
-phrase "Project Gutenberg" is associated) is accessed, displayed,
-performed, viewed, copied or distributed:
-
-  This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and
-  most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no
-  restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it
-  under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this
-  eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the
-  United States, you will have to check the laws of the country where
-  you are located before using this eBook.
-
-1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is
-derived from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not
-contain a notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the
-copyright holder), the work can be copied and distributed to anyone in
-the United States without paying any fees or charges. If you are
-redistributing or providing access to a work with the phrase "Project
-Gutenberg" associated with or appearing on the work, you must comply
-either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or
-obtain permission for the use of the work and the Project Gutenberg-tm
-trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.
-
-1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is posted
-with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution
-must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any
-additional terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms
-will be linked to the Project Gutenberg-tm License for all works
-posted with the permission of the copyright holder found at the
-beginning of this work.
-
-1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg-tm
-License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this
-work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg-tm.
-
-1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this
-electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without
-prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with
-active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project
-Gutenberg-tm License.
-
-1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary,
-compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including
-any word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access
-to or distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg-tm work in a format
-other than "Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other format used in the official
-version posted on the official Project Gutenberg-tm website
-(www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense
-to the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means
-of obtaining a copy upon request, of the work in its original "Plain
-Vanilla ASCII" or other form. Any alternate format must include the
-full Project Gutenberg-tm License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1.
-
-1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying,
-performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg-tm works
-unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.
-
-1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing
-access to or distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works
-provided that:
-
-* You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from
-  the use of Project Gutenberg-tm works calculated using the method
-  you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is owed
-  to the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark, but he has
-  agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the Project
-  Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments must be paid
-  within 60 days following each date on which you prepare (or are
-  legally required to prepare) your periodic tax returns. Royalty
-  payments should be clearly marked as such and sent to the Project
-  Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the address specified in
-  Section 4, "Information about donations to the Project Gutenberg
-  Literary Archive Foundation."
-
-* You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies
-  you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he
-  does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg-tm
-  License. You must require such a user to return or destroy all
-  copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and discontinue
-  all use of and all access to other copies of Project Gutenberg-tm
-  works.
-
-* You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of
-  any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the
-  electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days of
-  receipt of the work.
-
-* You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free
-  distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm works.
-
-1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project
-Gutenberg-tm electronic work or group of works on different terms than
-are set forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing
-from the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the manager of
-the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark. Contact the Foundation as set
-forth in Section 3 below.
-
-1.F.
-
-1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable
-effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread
-works not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating the Project
-Gutenberg-tm collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg-tm
-electronic works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may
-contain "Defects," such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate
-or corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other
-intellectual property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or
-other medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage or
-cannot be read by your equipment.
-
-1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the "Right
-of Replacement or Refund" described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project
-Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project
-Gutenberg-tm trademark, and any other party distributing a Project
-Gutenberg-tm electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all
-liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal
-fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT
-LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE
-PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE
-TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE
-LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR
-INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH
-DAMAGE.
-
-1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a
-defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can
-receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a
-written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you
-received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium
-with your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you
-with the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in
-lieu of a refund. If you received the work electronically, the person
-or entity providing it to you may choose to give you a second
-opportunity to receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If
-the second copy is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing
-without further opportunities to fix the problem.
-
-1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth
-in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you 'AS-IS', WITH NO
-OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT
-LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE.
-
-1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied
-warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of
-damages. If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement
-violates the law of the state applicable to this agreement, the
-agreement shall be interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or
-limitation permitted by the applicable state law. The invalidity or
-unenforceability of any provision of this agreement shall not void the
-remaining provisions.
-
-1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the
-trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone
-providing copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in
-accordance with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the
-production, promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm
-electronic works, harmless from all liability, costs and expenses,
-including legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly from any of
-the following which you do or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this
-or any Project Gutenberg-tm work, (b) alteration, modification, or
-additions or deletions to any Project Gutenberg-tm work, and (c) any
-Defect you cause.
-
-Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg-tm
-
-Project Gutenberg-tm is synonymous with the free distribution of
-electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of
-computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It
-exists because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations
-from people in all walks of life.
-
-Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the
-assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg-tm's
-goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg-tm collection will
-remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project
-Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure
-and permanent future for Project Gutenberg-tm and future
-generations. To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary
-Archive Foundation and how your efforts and donations can help, see
-Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation information page at
-www.gutenberg.org
-
-Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary
-Archive Foundation
-
-The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non-profit
-501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the
-state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal
-Revenue Service. The Foundation's EIN or federal tax identification
-number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg Literary
-Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent permitted by
-U.S. federal laws and your state's laws.
-
-The Foundation's business office is located at 809 North 1500 West,
-Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email contact links and up
-to date contact information can be found at the Foundation's website
-and official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact
-
-Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg
-Literary Archive Foundation
-
-Project Gutenberg-tm depends upon and cannot survive without
-widespread public support and donations to carry out its mission of
-increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be
-freely distributed in machine-readable form accessible by the widest
-array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations
-($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt
-status with the IRS.
-
-The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating
-charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United
-States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a
-considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up
-with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations
-where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To SEND
-DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any particular
-state visit www.gutenberg.org/donate
-
-While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we
-have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition
-against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who
-approach us with offers to donate.
-
-International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make
-any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from
-outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff.
-
-Please check the Project Gutenberg web pages for current donation
-methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other
-ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. To
-donate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate
-
-Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works
-
-Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project
-Gutenberg-tm concept of a library of electronic works that could be
-freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and
-distributed Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks with only a loose network of
-volunteer support.
-
-Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks are often created from several printed
-editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright in
-the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not
-necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper
-edition.
-
-Most people start at our website which has the main PG search
-facility: www.gutenberg.org
-
-This website includes information about Project Gutenberg-tm,
-including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary
-Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to
-subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks.