diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'old/69704-0.txt')
| -rw-r--r-- | old/69704-0.txt | 2324 |
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. |