Читать книгу The Trial of Oscar Slater - William Roughead - Страница 4

Table of Contents

THE primary importance of the trial of Oscar Slater for the murder of Miss Marion Gilchrist, and that which well warrants its preservation in such permanent form as the present series affords, is the fact that a conviction was obtained by the Crown upon evidence as to identity based on personal impressions, the corroboration supplied by the circumstantial evidence, though containing elements of strong suspicion, adding nothing conclusive of the prisoner's guilt.

The direct evidence to identification was twofold: firstly, by three witnesses who admittedly saw the supposed murderer leaving the scene of the crime; and secondly, by twelve other witnesses who identified Slater as a man they had seen watching Miss Gilchrist's house for weeks before the murder. Had the identification by the former been clear and unhesitating, the case for the prosecution would have been proved beyond dispute; but as regards the evidence of at least two of them, such was not the fact. The evidence given by those who saw the watcher is also unconvincing in respect of manifest discrepancies as to his dress and personal appearance; while the impossibility of reconciling the conflicting testimony of the various witnesses increases the difficulties which beset the case. That these difficulties were appreciated by the fifteen jurymen is shown by the narrow majority of three votes upon which the verdict turned; and the weight attached to them by the Scottish Secretary and his advisers is apparent in the commutation of the sentence.

The case excited widespread interest at the time, and, by reason of the sensational reports of which it was the occasion, exercised the popular imagination for many months. These rumours, alike hurtful to the memory of the aged victim and prejudicial to the accused, were, happily, dissipated by the evidence adduced at the trial. But apart from these, the case itself contains elements sufficiently strange and suggestive to supply, in an unwonted degree, a legitimate and lasting interest.

A crime of exceptional atrocity, committed in a well-to-do quarter of a great city, not in the dead of night, but at an hour when the streets were yet busy and many people were out of doors; the age and circumstances of the hapless lady; the incredible ruthlessness of the attack; the rapidity with which her murderer effected his fatal purpose; the fact that a witness was literally on the threshold of the tragedy, and heard the deed done; the audacity of the criminal in making good his escape from the very presence of two persons who had frustrated the main object of his design: these are indeed matters of more than common note. The ability with which, in spite of serious obstacles, the Glasgow police ran their man to earth—or rather, to sea—within a week; the extradition proceedings in New York; the trial at Edinburgh, with the curious glimpses it gave of that dark under-world which lies beneath the surface of our modern civilisation; the obvious weakness of certain links in the formidable chain forged by the Crown; the surprising verdict; and, finally, the illogical and unsatisfactory reprieve, combine to merit for this case a conspicuous niche in the gallery of Scottish causes celèbres.

In the month of December, 1908, there lived at No. 15 Queen's Terrace, West Princes Street, Glasgow, an unmarried lady named Marion Gilchrist, eighty- two years of age, who had been tenant of the house for upwards of thirty years. Though of independent means and in comfortable circumstances, she kept but one servant; and at the date in question a girl, named Helen Lambie, aged twenty- one, had been in her service for the past three years. The old lady led a very retired life, seeing little of her relatives and less of her neighbours; receiving few visitors other than Mrs. Ferguson, a former servant, with whom she was on intimate terms.

The house, which is situated in a quiet residential locality in the West End of the city, consists of three public rooms, two bedrooms, bathroom, and kitchen, and forms the first flat of a tenement three storeys in height. The top flat, the only other house upon the same stair, had been unoccupied since the previous Whitsunday; the lower flat, which is entirely separate from those above, having a private entrance, No. 14 Queen's Terrace, opens directly from the street and is what is called in Scotland a maindoor house. Immediately to the left of No. 14 another door, No. 15, gives access to a short passage, locally termed a "close," extending from the street door to the foot of the common stair, which ascends in three short flights to the door of Miss Gilchrist's house and continues to that of the empty house above. The old lady and her servant were thus the only persons living in No. 15. The maindoor house occupies the whole ground floor with the exception of this close, and the dining-room is situated immediately beneath that of Miss Gilchrist. The maindoor and the close door, which are on the same level, are approached from the pavement by four steps and a landing, common to both. Queen's Terrace is the name of a section of West Princes Street, and forms the south side of the east end of that street.

Miss Gilchrist differed from the generality of old ladies of similar habits and condition in one remarkable particular. She had a passion for precious stones, and the collection of jewels which she purchased from time to time, chiefly from a well-known Glasgow firm with whom she had dealt for twenty years, cost her over £3000. As a rule these jewels were kept among her clothes in her wardrobe; but when, as was her custom, she went to the country for a month in summer, they were sent to the jewellers for safe custody until her return. In these circumstances it is not surprising to find that Miss Gilchrist was extremely nervous about burglars, and lived in constant dread of her house being broken into. She was most solicitous as to the fastening of her windows; and the house door, in addition to such securities as the usual lock and chain, had, as further defences, a heavy bolt and two separate patent locks, opened from within by two handles, and from without by two different keys. The street door at the closemouth had only an ordinary latch-key, and was opened from the house by lifting a handle within the hall.

The house below was occupied by a family of the name of Adams. They had merely a slight acquaintance with Miss Gilchrist, and, though they had been neighbours for many years, were not upon visiting terms. She had, however, an understanding with them that if at any time she was alone and required assistance, she should knock upon the floor of her room, and, on hearing this signal, some of them would go up.

At seven o'clock on the evening of Monday, 21st December, the servant Lambie, having finished her housework, went out, as appears to have been her nightly practice, to fetch an evening paper for her mistress, before proceeding to neighbouring shops upon such messages as were required. She left Miss Gilchrist sitting on an ordinary chair at the table in the dining-room, with her back to the fire, reading a magazine, with her spectacles on. She received from her mistress a penny for the paper and a half-sovereign for the messages; the latter she laid on the table, intending to take it when she came back. The dining-room was lit with an incandescent light, the gas in the kitchen was turned down, and that in the hall—a pendant, with a single jet—was half on. The bracket on the landing outside the house door was also lighted. All the windows were fastened except the kitchen window, which was open two or three inches at the top. The girl shut both the house and close doors, taking with her the two keys required to open the former and the latch-key of the latter. It was raining when she left the house. The newspaper shop was situated in St. George's Road at the east end of West Princes Street, and her errand usually occupied less than ten minutes. On this occasion she spoke for a minute or two to a constable of her acquaintance, in plain clothes, whom she met at the corner of St. George's Road, before buying the paper.

At seven o'clock Mr. Arthur Adams and his two sisters were in their dining-room, when they heard "a noise from above, and then a very heavy fall, and then three sharp knocks." Miss Laura Adams at once said to her brother that something must have happened to Miss Gilchrist, and that gentleman instantly left his house to see what was wrong. He found the close door ajar and, running upstairs, observed through the glass panels at the sides of the house door, which was shut, that the lobby was lighted. He rang the bell loudly three times. Listening at the door, he heard a noise which he thought was caused by the servant breaking sticks in the kitchen: "It seemed as if it was some one chopping sticks—not heavy blows." After waiting a minute or two, during which the sounds continued, and being unaware of the servant's absence, Mr. Adams returned to his own house. Miss Adams, meanwhile, had heard further noises from above, but not so distinct as the knocks. She was not satisfied with her brother's account of what was taking place and asked him to go up again. He immediately did so, but by this time the sounds had ceased. He again rang the bell loudly, and had his hand upon the handle when he heard footsteps in the close below, and was joined by Lambie, who was then returning with the newspaper.

The night, as has been said, was wet, and the girl noticed wet footmarks on the lower steps of the inside stair. Whether these were Mr. Adams' does not appear—he was not asked if he had seen them when he first went up. As he had merely to step from the one door to the other, it is unlikely that his feet were wet. Mr. Adams told her that there was a noise in the house, " and that the ceiling was like to crack." She suggested that it was caused by the pulleys in the kitchen (an appliance for drying clothes), which she thought might have fallen down. This explanation did not commend itself to Mr. Adams, who, now knowing that the old lady had been left alone in the house, said there must be something seriously wrong and he would wait to see. Lambie thereupon opened the door with her two keys.

According to the evidence of Mr. Adams, Lambie then entered the house, and made for the kitchen door, in the further left-hand corner of the hall, he himself remaining on the threshold. When she had got past the grandfather's clock upon the left— Lambie states that she was on the door mat beside him all the time—a man appeared from the door of the bedroom, in the right-hand corner at the back of the hall. Keeping along the wall on his left, he passed the hatstand, and quietly approached the front door. There was nothing in his appearance or manner to excite suspicion, and, as he came up " quite pleasantly," Mr. Adams' first impression was that he was a visitor, and was going to speak to him. Having reached the door, however, the man bolted past Mr. Adams and rushed down the stairs "like greased lightning," slamming the close door behind him.

Lambie then entered the kitchen, and next the spare bedroom, the gas in which she found had been lit in her absence, and on Mr. Adams calling to her, "Where is your mistress?" she finally went into the dining-room. Hearing her scream, he quickly joined her. The room at first sight presented its usual appearance, but, lying on her back upon the hearth rug in front of the fireplace, they saw the body of Miss Gilchrist, with a skin rug thrown across the head. A glance showed them what had happened, and they both ran downstairs, Lambie to inform the Adams ladies, who had come out on hearing the rush of feet on the stairs, and Mr. Adams to see if he could overtake the murderer. By the time he reached the street the man had vanished.

Near St. George's Road Mr. Adams met Constable Neil, with whom he returned to the house. They lifted the rug, and found that the old lady had been attacked with horrible ferocity, her head and face being brutally smashed. She was still breathing, and made a movement with her left hand. Mr. Adams then ran across the street for his own medical man, Dr. John Adams, No. 1 Queen's Crescent, and, meeting Constable Brien, informed him of what had occurred. The latter went up to the house, and then proceeded to call the ambulance. Dr. Adams came forthwith, reaching the house at twenty or twenty-five minutes past seven. Ascertaining from an examination of the body that life was extinct, he informed the constables that the ambulance was unnecessary, left the case in their charge, and at once reported the matter by telephone to the Western Police Office. In response to his message Superintendent Douglas, Detective Inspector Pyper, and Detective Officer M'Vicar promptly arrived upon the scene of the crime, and the body was examined by Dr. Wright, casualty surgeon for the Western District. He found that "nearly every bone in the skull was fractured; the brains were escaping; the head was practically smashed to pulp." The grate, fender, and fire-irons were splashed with blood, but the latter were in their usual places; the coal scuttle was also bloodstained, and the lid was broken. There was no blood except in the immediate vicinity of the head, and the furniture of the room appeared to be undisturbed. Near the head stood the chair upon which the old lady had been sitting; upon the hearth rug beside the body lay the half-sovereign; the open magazine and folded spectacles were upon the table, as she had left them when she rose to meet her sudden doom.

A search of the premises disclosed that a small wooden box, in which the deceased kept her papers in the bedroom, had been wrenched open and its contents scattered upon the floor. In a glass dish on the toilet table were a diamond and two other rings; a gold bracelet and a gold watch and chain lay on the same table; but there was missing from the dish a valuable diamond crescent brooch, which the girl Lambie had seen there the day before. A box of matches, different from those used in the house, and one spent match, with which the murderer had lit the bedroom gas, were the only clues he had left behind. The windows were in exactly the same state as when Lambie went out. No weapon of any kind was found in the house; and Constable Walker, who was put on to watch the premises during the night, searched the back court with his lantern, but discovered nothing. Next day, however, Inspector Rankin found in the court behind the house an auger, having some grey hair adhering to it, which was at first associated by the authorities with the case, but, as will appear later, had no connection with the crime.

The unusual circumstance that two persons had actually seen the supposed murderer leaving the house should have greatly assisted the police in investigating this mysterious affair, but, unfortunately, the description of him which Mr. Adams and Lambie were able to give was of the vaguest—

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. Cannot be further described.

These particulars were published in the next day's papers; an inventory was taken of the jewels found in the house; and a description of the missing brooch was circulated amongst pawnbrokers, jewellers, and dealers.

The news of the tragedy produced a profound sensation, not only in Glasgow but throughout the country; crowds daily visited West Princes Street to gaze at the ill-fated house; the mysterious and terrible character of the crime formed the sole topic of conversation; while Press and public vied with one another in supplying the authorities with "clues" for the elucidation of the mystery.

On Tuesday, 22nd December, on the instructions of Mr. Hart, Procurator- fiscal for Lanarkshire, Professor Glaister and Dr. Galt visited and inspected the locus. On the following day these gentlemen made a post-mortem examination of the body and the results of their investigations were embodied in reports, which will be found printed in the report of the trial.

On Wednesday, the 23rd, the police were informed of a fresh circumstance of the highest importance. That afternoon Mrs. Barrowman, 9 Seamore Street, met Detective M'Gimpsey, who lived in the same stair, and made a statement to him, as the result of which the evidence of her adopted daughter Mary was taken that night. This little girl of fifteen was in the employment of a bootmaker in Great Western Road. At seven o'clock on the night of the tragedy she was sent to deliver a parcel in Cleveland Street. While passing along West Princes Street, near Miss Gilchrist's house, she saw a man running down the steps from the close of No. 15 Queen's Terrace. He hesitated for a moment on reaching the pavement, looked east to St. George's Road, and then turned west and ran towards her. She watched him approaching, and he knocked up against her as he passed her. She was standing by a lamp-post at the time and saw him clearly. [The lights in West Princes Street are incandescent.] She followed him for a short distance, but as he turned down West Cumberland Street she stopped and resumed her way. Having gone her errand, she went to a Band of Hope meeting, where, she said, she heard of the murder, and going back to West Princes Street found a crowd assembled in front of the house from the door of which she had seen the man emerge. On her return home that night she told her story to her mother.

Following upon this discovery a more particular description appeared on Friday, the 25th, in the two o'clock editions of the Glasgow evening newspapers—

The man wanted is about twenty-eight or thirty 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 round tweed hats known as Donegal hats, and a fawn-coloured overcoat, which might have been a waterproof, also dark trousers, and brown boots.

The discrepancies between the two descriptions as to colour of coat and kind of headgear should be noted.

At ten minutes past six o'clock that same evening Allan M'Lean, cycle dealer, Glasgow, called at the Central Police Office and informed Superintendent Ord that a man named Oscar Slater, whom he knew at the Sloper Club, 24 India Street, had been trying to dispose in that club of a pawn- ticket for a diamond brooch resembling the missing one, and that he answered to the published description of the wanted man. Accompanied by Detective Powell, M'Lean went to St. George's Road and pointed out the common stair, No. 69, in which he believed Slater lived. Certain inquiries were made in the stair about half-past seven, as the result of which it was found that Slater, under the name of Anderson, was occupying a house on the third flat. Accordingly, at midnight, Detectives Powell, Lyon, and Millican visited the premises for the purpose of apprehending the suspect. The door, which had the name-plate of "Anderson" upon it, was opened by a German servant girl, who denied that any man lived there—"No one but Madame, who was away for a short holiday." They searched the house, which presented the appearance of having been recently vacated, and found, among some papers scattered on the floor of the bedroom, the cover of a registered postal packet, addressed to " Oscar Slater, Esq., c/o A. Anderson, Esq., 69 St. George's Road, Glasgow," bearing to have been sent by Messrs. Dent, watchmakers, London. From the neighbours in the stair they learned that "Anderson," accompanied by a woman, had left the house that night between eight and nine o'clock, their luggage having been previously removed by two porters.

Whether or not it be proved that Slater was in fact the murderer, it is certainly a remarkable circumstance that suspicion was first directed to him by what turned out to be a false clue; for, as we shall afterwards see, the pawned brooch had no more connection with the crime than the fallacious auger, which, it appeared, had been thrown over the wall from a disused factory adjoining the back court.

Next day, Saturday, the 26th, Detective Lieutenant Gordon called at the house 69 St. George's Road, saw the servant, and inquired for "Anderson." She said that Madame and "Anderson" had left the previous night for London. The officer found two German women in the flat, one of whom, named Freedman, said it had been arranged between Slater and her that she should occupy the house while Madame and "Anderson" were in Monte Carlo, and that she had lent him £25 before he went. Detective Gordon called daily thereafter to inquire if any letters had come for Anderson. On the night of the 26th the maid went to London; the two women left on 8th January. The day before they went they handed him a letter with the American postmark, 29th December, addressed "Oscar Slater, c/o Mr. Anderson, 69 St. George's Road, Glasgow." Written upon the envelope were the words, "If not delivered, return to D. R. Jacobs, 326 Third Avenue, New York, U.S." A copy of this letter is given in the Appendix.

Inquiries made at the railway stations elicited that Slater and his companion had left the Central Station on Christmas night by the 9.5 train for London—whether with London or Liverpool tickets was afterwards disputed; and the London police were instantly advised of the fact. On the 29th the Glasgow authorities received information from Liverpool that the persons wanted had arrived there on the 26th, and had sailed the same day for New York in the "Lusitania," under the names of "Mr. and Mrs. Otto Sando."

On the 31st Mr. Stevenson, Chief Constable of Glasgow, caused a notice to be issued offering £200 reward to any one giving such information as should lead to the apprehension and conviction of the person or persons who committed the crime. The same day Sheriff-Substitute Glegg, on the application of the Procurator-fiscal, granted a warrant for Slater's apprehension, intimation of which was cabled to the New York police.

When these facts became known public interest was redoubled, and news of what would happen when the ship reached port was eagerly awaited.

Early in the morning of Saturday, 2nd January, 1909, the great liner, after a stormy passage, arrived off Sandy Hook. Acting on instructions received from Scotland Yard, six detectives went out in a Revenue cutter, boarded her, and arrested Slater, who, having been taken before Commissioner Shields, of the United States District Court, was remanded to the Tombs Prison, without bail, until 19th January, when the papers in connection with his extradition were expected to be forwarded from Britain. When searching the prisoner the New York police found in his possession a pawn ticket for a diamond crescent brooch, upon which £60 had been lent, issued on 21st December (the date of the murder) by a Glasgow pawnbroker. This brooch, as afterwards appeared, had been originally pledged by Slater for £20, in name of " A. Anderson, 136 Renfrew Street," on 18th November; he raised other £10 on it on 9th December; and at mid-day on the 21st obtained a further advance of £30. The pawned brooch was therefore entirely distinct from that stolen from Miss Gilchrist's house by the murderer; but the coincidence of the dates and articles is a striking example of the adage that "truth is stranger than fiction."

The chief topics of discussion in Glasgow were now the identity of the suspected man, his possible connection -with the crime, the probability of his extradition, and the formalities connected therewith.

The Treaty stipulations between Great Britain and the United States relating to extradition are contained in the tenth article of the Treaty of 1842 and the Conventions of 1889 and 1890, the latter being chiefly important for the extension of the number of extraditable offences; the procedure thereunder involves considerable delay, formal application having to be made through the Foreign Office in London to the United States Government. Meanwhile, the Procurator-fiscal was making arrangements for the despatch of two officers from Glasgow to proceed to New York with the documents necessary to support the application for extradition. The depositions of the witnesses, whose testimony formed the basis of the application, were sworn to in presence of the officers appointed to appear in the American Court, viz., Mr. William Warnock, chief criminal officer of Glasgow Sheriff Court, and Detective Inspector Pyper, of the Western Division of the Glasgow Police Force, two of the most experienced criminal officers in the city. When the arrangements were completed, these officers, accompanied by the three principal witnesses—Lambie, Adams, and Barrowman—sailed from Liverpool on Wednesday, 13th January, in the White Star liner "Baltic," for New York.

On 19th January, before Mr John A. Shields, U.S. Commissioner for the Southern District of New York, the proceedings were opened "in the matter of the application for the extradition of Otto Sands, alias Oscar Slater, under the Treaty existing between the Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and the United States of America." Mr. Charles Fox appeared as counsel for the demanding Government, while the defendant was represented by Mr. Hugh Gordon Miller and Mr. William A. Goodhart. Mr. Fox moved for an adjournment for one week, as the witnesses from Glasgow had not yet arrived; and the Commissioner adjourned the examination till 26th January. On the 25th the witnesses reached New York.

The Court resumed on 26th January. While the witnesses Lambie, Barrowman, and Adams were waiting with Inspector Pyper outside the Court-room before the examination commenced, a dramatic incident occurred. Three men came along the corridor in which they were standing, passed them, and went into the Court; whereupon both of the girls simultaneously said to Mr. Pyper that one of the three was the man they had seen on the night of the murder, Lambie's expression being, "I could nearly swear that is the man!" As this was their real recognition of Slater, the subsequent identification in the Court-room being only that of the man they had already recognised, the incident is of some importance. Slater was being conducted into Court by Messrs. Chamberlain and Pinckney, Deputy United States Marshals, and it was contended by Mr. Miller for the defence that he was obviously in the charge of those officials. He was not, however, handcuffed or otherwise branded as a prisoner, while his companions do not appear to have been in uniform, though one of them wore a badge, which the witnesses said they did not notice, and the other was a very tall man. Both girls denied that they had been prepared to see Slater where they did.

Mr. Warnock was the first witness, and proved a plan of the district in which Miss Gilchrist's house was situated. It was proposed to ask him whether several persons, other than Slater, had not been arrested by the Glasgow police in connection with the crime, but this question was disallowed.

Helen Lambie was next examined. She gave her account of what happened on 21st December at 15 Queen's Terrace. Much difficulty was apparently caused by the absence of a plan of the premises, the structural arrangement of which counsel could not understand, while the meaning of the localism "close" was found to be incommunicable to the American mind. On the other hand, counsel's use of the word "apartment" in the French sense, as referring to the whole house, was equally puzzling to the witness, that term being invariably used in Scotland to describe a single room. When asked if she saw in Court the man she had seen in the hall on the night of the murder, Lambie replied, "One is very suspicious, if anything," and added, "The clothes he had on that night he hasn't got on to-day; but his face I could not tell."

The Commissioner—"What did you say about his face?"

Witness—"I couldn't tell his face; I never saw his face." She then described his dress so far as she recollected—a three-quarter length fawn- coloured coat, "something like a waterproof coat," and a cap which "looked like one of these Donegal caps"; she also gave a representation of the peculiarity in the man's walk, upon which alone she depended for recognising him. Finally she identified the defendant as the man she had seen in the hall of Miss Gilchrist's house. In cross-examination Lambie repeated that she did not see the man's face that night. " I saw the walk; it is not the face I went by, but the walk." She stated that the missing brooch had one row of diamonds, while that pledged by the defendant, which she had been shown in the pawnshop in Glasgow, had three rows. She denied that she had been in any way prompted to recognise the defendant in the corridor, or that she had ever been shown his photograph, in the newspapers or otherwise. [It will be observed that the colour of the coat and character of the hat differ from those given by Lambie in her original description to the police, and are here assimilated to those given by Barrowman.]

The next witness was Mary Barrowman, who recounted how she had seen a man run from the house on the night in question. The "close" difficulty was again in evidence. She described the man as having a slight twist in his nose, and as wearing a fawn-coloured waterproof, a Donegal hat, and brown boots. When asked if she saw the man present in Court, she first said that the defendant was something like him, and then that he was very like him. In cross-examination Barrowman admitted that, before identifying the defendant, she had been shown a photograph of him. She had mentioned the twist in the nose to her mother on the night of the crime, and to the police two days later.

Arthur Montague Adams was then examined, and described what he saw and did on the night of the murder, the "close" and "apartment" being still a cause of stumbling. He said the man in the hall was dressed in a light grey coat, which looked like a waterproof, and dark trousers; his hands were in his pockets, and his head was slightly bowed. Witness thought he wore a hat; he was sharp featured, clean shaven, and " rather a gentlemanly fellow." The defendant was "very much like him." In cross-examination Adams said he had noticed nothing extraordinary about the man's walk, nor did he remark the twist in the nose. He would not go further than that the defendant "resembled him very much." The hearing was then adjourned till 28th January.

When the Court met on that day Mr. Fox offered in evidence depositions of Helen Lambie, Mary Barrowman, Agnes Brown, Allan M'Lean, George Sabin, John Pyper, Arthur Montague Adams, Robert Beveridge, Louise Freedman, Elsie Hoppe, John Ord, and Gordon Henderson; also the depositions and certificates of John Glaister, M.D., and Hugh Galt, M.D.— all of which had been taken in Glasgow, as above narrated. These documents, being duly authenticated in terms of the Act of Congress of 3rd August, 1882, were admitted in evidence; and the hearing was further adjourned till the 29th to allow defendant's counsel to examine the same.

On the resumption of the hearing, Helen Lambie was recalled for further examination by Mr. Miller, and again asked to imitate the characteristic in the man's walk to which she had testified. As this peculiarity consisted in the motion of his legs, which it was obviously impossible for a female witness to illustrate, the girl was subjected to a good deal of useless browbeating. She repeated that she had been shown no photograph of the defendant; and being asked if she could give any reason why none was exhibited to her, as well as to Adams and Barrowman, replied, " Because I couldn't have known it if it had been shown to me." She now gave the man's height as an additional factor in her recognition. She had stated in her original deposition that the man was thin; had deponed, on the same occasion, "I couldn't say whether he had any beard, moustache, or whiskers, or was clean shaven"; and the deposition made no mention of the peculiar walk. With reference to her recognising the defendant in the corridor, she denied that she had been told he was coming, or that Mr. Pyper had described to her the man she was there to identify. She was long and severely questioned as to her relations with Patrick Nugent, a bookmaker of her acquaintance, who had visited her at 15 Queen's Terrace, the suggestion being that, as she admitted having told him her mistress was a rich lady and had a great many jewels, he was therefore concerned in the affair. Mr. Miller closed his examination with the following questions:—"Have your suspicions in this case ever turned towards that gambler [Nugent]? — A. Never. Q. Do you know any other man who would be as familiar with those premises, the wealth of the old lady, her jewellery, and the way to get into those premises as that man? — A. No, sir." The Commissioner then asked, "Was the man you met in that hallway, when you came in from buying the paper, this gambler he speaks of?" to which witness answered, "No, sir." In reply to Mr. Fox, Lambie stated that she had neither seen nor heard anything of Nugent since the beginning of September. [It should be explained that no suspicion whatever now attaches to Nugent in regard to the case.]

Mary Barrowman was recalled by Mr. Miller, and admitted describing in her deposition as tall and thin the man she had seen in West Princes Street. She would describe the defendant in similar terms. Frederick F. Chamberlain, Deputy United States Marshal, gave evidence as to bringing the defendant into Court along with another official, and passing Lambie and Barrowman in the corridor. He was wearing his official badge at the time.

David Jacobs, dealer in diamond jewellery, New York, was next examined. He had known the defendant for eight years, both in London and New York, as a dentist who dealt in jewellery, and he had many dealings with him in diamonds. He knew his handwriting. He had received from the defendant the following letter:—

Glasgow, 29/11/08.

Dear Jacobs,

I have been coming too late to see your wife in London, and I hope that your wife and family are in good health. I expecting to be ready end of January to come over to New York myself. Matters are here very bad. The New York bank affairs have done a lot to it. Now I have found out here in Scotland it would be easy for me to pawn some of your emeralds not only in Glasgow; there are a lot of small towns around Glasgow, also in Ireland. If you like, send me a lot of mounted emeralds over without any diamonds around, special scarf pins, and some loose emeralds; also send me the price list. Don't let me wait too long, because I have only two months time here. The profits I will divide with you. I am bringing the tickets over to you. I have been fourteen days ago in London, and have spoken to Carry. He made some good business. One lot I knowing of from Russia over 7000 pounds. I was offered to buy two lots of loose coloured stones, and only you know I am not a correct judge, and Rogers has advised me not to buy. Bravington in Kings X have spoken to me about your affair, and have told me you would be all right with your affair, only your friends there are the people is all could do the harm. Rogers and I have also seen Blytell, and he sends the best regards to you. I am coming over with Rogers end of January to start some business. Send the kind regards to the two Wrones. In case you don't like to send the stuff, please send answer. Best regards to you and your friends.

OSCAR SLATER.

Care of Anderson,

69 St. George's Road,

Glasgow, Scotland.

[Jacobs' answer to this letter, which reached Glasgow after Slater had left for America, is printed in the Appendix.] Witness saw no peculiarity in defendant's walk. Cross-examined by Mr. Fox, witness said that he had only heard that defendant was a dentist. He never knew his address in London. Beyond dealing with him in jewellery, witness did not know how he made his living. Henry P. Wrone, jeweller, New York, stated that he had known defendant for two or three years, and had dealt in jewellery and diamonds with him. A year and a half before, he had repaired for the defendant a diamond crescent brooch with three rows of stones. Cross-examined by Mr. Fox, witness denied that he had re- set jewellery for the defendant; the latter had never brought him loose diamonds to sell, nor any jewellery the setting of which appeared to have been changed. He had bought no English jewellery from defendant.

Mr. Adams, recalled, said that he had never been asked by the Glasgow police to identify Nugent as the man he had seen in the hall. In reply to Mr. Fox, he stated that he had heard Lambie and Barrowman say, " That is the man," when defendant came along the corridor. He did not observe that the official who accompanied him was wearing a badge. The hearing was then adjourned till 6th February.

When the Court met on that date, Mr. Miller, for the defence, said the defendant's counsel felt that the British Government had not established under the Treaty the case of identity which was necessary; that the defendant was innocent, and his counsel believed him innocent: but rather than have any misapprehension about his connection with Glasgow, the defendant had determined to go back and face any charge that might be made against him. He only asked that the evidence of the witnesses, who testified to his character in New York, should be admitted in the Scottish Court. The Commissioner said that a transcript of the proceedings would be certified as correct for production in Scotland. [This was not, however, laid before the jury at the trial in Edinburgh, where it was only used by the prisoner's counsel for the purpose of cross-examining Lambie, Adams, and Barrowman.]

Mr. Miller then called Sigmund Biber, real estate broker, New York, who stated that he had known defendant for two and a half years, and had bought a diamond ring and a watch from him two years before. He was introduced to him by witness's brother in Germany, and considered him a responsible man in business affairs. He had only one transaction with him. Bruno Wolfram, dealer in live stock, New York, stated that he had known defendant for over two years. His general reputation was that of a reliable man. He had sold him three fox terriers, and knew him as manager of a social club in Sixth Avenue. He had received a postcard from defendant, dated from Glasgow on 25th December, 1908, saying he was returning to the States; witness had left the postcard at home. He had found him trustworthy in his business transactions. In cross- examination, the witness admitted that the sociability of the club consisted in its members playing cards for money. He knew that defendant dealt in jewellery. Mr. Miller then waived further examination, and Mr. Fox moved that the defendant be remanded in the custody of the United States Marshal, to await the action of the Secretary of State. The motion was granted by the Commissioner, and the defendant was remanded accordingly until the warrant for his extradition should be issued by the proper authorities at Washington.

The witnesses Lambie, Adams, and Barrowman having sailed for England in the "Baltic," reached home on 8th February, Mr. Warnock and Inspector Pyper remaining in New York to await the warrant for extradition. This arrived from the State Department in Washington on the 11th; and on the 14th these officers, with their prisoner, sailed direct for Glasgow in the Anchor liner "Columbia," taking with them his luggage, which had been delivered to them sealed with the United States Customs seal. The woman who accompanied Slater to America, and, since his arrest on the "Lusitania," had been detained in the immigrants' quarters on Ellis Island, took her passage in the "Campania" for Liverpool, whence she went to her friends in Paris. Though referred to in the New York proceedings as " Mrs. Slater," she was not married to the prisoner, his wife, from whom he had separated, being still alive. The former was a Frenchwoman, twenty-three years of age, named Andrée Junio Antoine, who had cohabited with him for several years.

Pending the result of the extradition application, the Glasgow police had been busy securing additional evidence in the case. Several persons were found who had seen a man watching Miss Gilchrist's house and haunting the vicinity of West Princes Street for weeks before the murder. The discovery of the auger, the supposed weapon, leaked out, and was duly chronicled in the Press, which daily added to the long list of "Sensational Developments," "Startling Discoveries," "Important New Clues," "Extraordinary Revelations," "Remarkable Evidence," "Interesting Interviews," and "Alleged Confessions," with which the popular mind was persistently inflamed.

Public excitement was intense, and the arrival of the "Columbia" was impatiently awaited. The liner reached the Tail of the Bank, off Greenock, at mid-day on 21st February. Large crowds had assembled on the chance of Slater landing at that port, but the tide being favourable the vessel proceeded up the Clyde towards Glasgow. Near Renfrew, however, she stopped; the officers, with their prisoner and his baggage, were landed, and left for Glasgow in two motor cars, thus evading the great concourse of people who were awaiting the ship's arrival at her berth at Stobcross Quay. After many difficulties and delays, Slater was at length safely in the hands of the authorities, or, in the more eloquent language of a contemporary journalist, "Hurried across the Atlantic in an ocean greyhound, slung ashore at a wayside wharf, and whisked along the last stage of the 4000 mile journey in a motor car: such was his transit."

On the party's arrival at the Central Police Station, the prisoner's baggage, consisting of seven pieces, was unsealed and opened in his presence by Mr. Warnock and Inspector Pyper. In a black leather trunk were found a waterproof coat and a claw-hammer, of which we shall hear further in the sequel. A soft felt hat and two cloth caps were also taken possession of by the police. In a leather case in one of his trunks was found a business card, bearing the printed name and designation, "Oscar Slater, Dealer in Diamonds and Precious Stones, 33 Soho Square, Oxford Street, W.," and an extract certificate of marriage of Oscar Leschziner Slater to Marie Curtis Pryor, dated 12th July, 1902.

On 21st and 22nd February the prisoner was shown to a number of witnesses in the Central Police Station for the purpose of identification by them. What occurred on these occasions we shall have to consider in dealing with the evidence at the trial.

The morning after his arrival the prisoner was brought up at the Central Police Court upon the following charge:—

Oscar Slater, alias Otto Sands, alias Anderson, you are charged with having, on 21st December, 1908, in Marion Gilchrist's house, 15 Queen's Terrace, West Princes Street, Glasgow, assaulted the said Marion Gilchrist, and beaten her and fractured her skull, and murdered her.

Mr. Ewing Speirs, of Messrs. Joseph Shaughnessy & Son, solicitors, Glasgow, appeared for Slater, who was remanded for forty-eight hours. On the 24th he was formally remitted to the Sheriff, before whom, later in the day, he emitted the following declaration:—

My name is Oscar Slater. I am a native of Germany, married, thirty-eight years of age, a dentist, and have no residence at present. I know nothing about the charge of having assaulted Marion Gilchrist and murdering her. I am innocent. All which I declare to be truth.

Thereafter he was removed to Duke Street Prison, to await his trial in the High Court of Justiciary, at Edinburgh.

Meanwhile, on 22nd February, Professors Glaister and Littlejohn had been requested by the authorities to examine and report upon the following articles:—(1) Waterproof coat; (2) hat; (3) hammer, all of which had been found, as above mentioned, in the prisoner's baggage; and (4) auger found in the back court of Miss Gilchrist's house. The results of their examination were embodied in a report which is printed in the report of the trial.

The preparation of the case for the prosecution entailed an immense amount of labour upon the Crown officials, and the indictment, to which were appended lists of sixty-nine productions and ninety-eight witnesses, was not served on the prisoner until 6th April. It was in these terms?

Oscar Slater, sometime residing at 69 St. George's Road, Glasgow, and presently a prisoner in the prison of Glasgow, you are indicted at the instance of the Right Honourable Alexander Ure, His Majesty's Advocate, and the charge against you is that you did, on 21st December, 1908, in Marion Gilchrist's house, 15 Queen's Terrace, West Princes Street, Glasgow, assault the said Marion Gilchrist, and did beat her with a hammer or other blunt instrument, and fracture her skull, and did murder her.

The trial was appointed to take place before the High Court at Edinburgh on Monday, 3rd May. The pleading diet was held at Glasgow on 20th April, in the Old Court, Jail Square, before Sheriff-Substitute Mackenzie. Mr. Hart, Procurator-fiscal for Lanarkshire, represented the Crown, and Mr. Ewing Speirs appeared for the prisoner. The indictment having been read, the Sheriff put the question, "Are you guilty or not guilty?" to which the prisoner replied, "I am not guilty." He was then formally remitted to the High Court, and was taken back to Duke Street Prison.

In the course of the following week Slater was removed from Glasgow to the Calton Jail, Edinburgh, and there, on 28th April, a consultation was held with Mr. A. L. M'Clure, K.C., Sheriff of Argyll, and Mr. John Mair, advocate, Edinburgh, the counsel retained for the defence. Although over four months had elapsed since the tragedy, public excitement continued unabated, and the result of the impending trial was awaited with intense interest.

The High Court of Justiciary in Edinburgh has been the scene of many a grim and tragic spectacle, the chief actors in which are memorable in the annals of Scottish crime. Among the famous occupants of its historic dock the names of Burke, Madeleine Smith, Pritchard, Chantrelle, Laurie, and Monson are still preserved, as the protagonists of their respective dramas. The man who, in his turn, sat in their seat upon the like awful occasion, was the central figure in a tragedy as strange as any of those by which they are remembered.

Lord Guthrie presided; the prosecution was conducted by the Lord Advocate (Mr. Alexander Ure, K.C.), assisted by Mr. T. B. Morison, K.C., and Mr. Lyon Mackenzie, Advocates-depute; the prisoner, as already mentioned, was defended by Mr. M'Clure and Mr. Mair.

The following record of the trial contains a full report of the evidence, that of every important witness being printed verbatim. The Lord Advocate's address to the jury—than which few more powerful have been heard within those walls— brilliantly presents the case for the prosecution in its strongest light; while that of Mr. M'Clure, though lacking the trenchancy of the Lord Advocate's speech, contains an elaborate criticism of the discrepancies in the Crown case. The weighty and impressive charge of the presiding judge admirably holds the balance of the momentous issue. In view of these advantages, the reader might well be left to a consideration of the evidence as it stands; but, regard being had to its extent and complexity, it may perhaps assist him in its perusal briefly to examine here certain of its more important features.

The evidence adduced for the prosecution was (a) direct and (6) indirect, or circumstantial. By direct evidence the Crown sought to establish from the testimony of eye-witnesses the identity of the prisoner at the bar and (1) a man who before the murder haunted the vicinity of the house, (2) a man seen leaving the house after the murder. By circumstantial evidence the Crown endeavoured to prove, from the behaviour of the prisoner himself, both before and after the crime, and from other relevant facts and circumstances, that his was certainly the hand that did the deed.

The accused, as already mentioned, was, on 21st and 22nd February, within the Central Police Station, identified by twelve witnesses as the man they had seen watching the house. Prior to their seeing the man in West Princes Street none of them (excepting Constable Brien) knew him by sight, and none of them had ever seen Slater. Some saw the man five or six times, others once only; some saw him at night, others by day. With regard to the manner of their identification it may be generally observed that all of them had previously seen in the newspapers photographs of Slater, as an obvious foreigner, and had read the alternative descriptions of the wanted man furnished to the police by (1) Adams and Lambie and (2) the girl Barrowman. As the prisoner, in order to identification, was placed among eleven other men, nine being policemen in plain clothes, and two being railway officials, all Scotsmen, none of whom in any way resembled him, it is not too much to say that the task of selecting the suspect was unattended by serious difficulty. All the witnesses picked him out with ease, but the effect of this unanimity was somewhat lessened when, in the witness-box, they had to give the grounds of their belief.

Mrs. M'Haffie lived in the first flat of 16 West Princes Street, on the opposite side from Miss Gilchrist's house, but nearer St. George's Road. She observed from her window, for some weeks before the murder, a man loitering on the other side of the street. She saw him there on five or six occasions, always in the afternoon, and for half an hour at a time. He was dark, had a moustache, and wore a light overcoat (not a waterproof), check trousers, spats, and a black bowler hat. She observed nothing peculiar about his nose. He did not carry himself well, but slouched along with his hands in his pockets. She last saw him eight or nine days before the murder. The prisoner was the man. He was the only man of foreign appearance who was in the room when she identified him at the Central Police Station.

Margaret Dickson M'Haffie, her daughter, gave similar evidence. On one or two occasions the man was wearing a black morning coat instead of a light overcoat, as well as light check trousers. She admitted that, in March, she had told the agent for the prisoner that she was not then quite sure of the accused being the man, and was only prepared to say there was some resemblance; but she had been thinking it over, and had come to the conclusion that he was the man.

Annie Rankin M'Haffie, another daughter, said that four weeks before the murder, between seven and eight at night, a man rang the bell of their front door, which bore the name " Mr. M'Haffie " on a brass plate, and asked her if any one named Anderson lived there. She said " No," and he turned and walked downstairs. The bell rang again within a minute, and she found her cousin Madge at the door, who said she had met a man on the stair. That was the only time she saw the man. The prisoner was like him. In reply to the judge, witness did not notice anything about the man's accent; he did not appear to be a foreigner. [It is to be noted that Slater speaks broken English, and that his accent is unmistakably foreign.]

Madge M'Haffie spoke to calling at her aunt's house on the occasion in question, and meeting a peculiar-looking man on the stair. He was dark, and had a moustache. His nose did not attract her attention. He wore black check trousers, a fawn overcoat, a black bowler hat, and fawn gaiters. A few days later she saw from her aunt's window the same man walking up and down. On leaving the house she passed him in St. George's Road. He walked with a shuffling gait. The prisoner was fairly like the man in general appearance.

Constable Brien knew the prisoner by sight, having seen him several times in St. George's Road for seven weeks before the murder. One night, a week before 21st December, he saw him, at half-past nine, standing against the railings in West Princes Street, a few yards from the corner of St. George's Road. Witness thought he was drunk, and took a good look at him, but saw he was sober. He had on a light coat and a hat. When witness identified the prisoner the other men present were constables in undress and detectives. [It may be mentioned, with general reference to the evidence of these witnesses, that the distance between Slater's house in St. George's Road and West Princes Street is less than a quarter of a mile.]

Constable Walker, who was on night duty in the beginning of December, at a quarter to six o'clock on 1st December saw a man standing on the edge of the pavement opposite 15 Queen's Terrace. He thought he recognised him as Mr. Paradise (a Crown witness), whom he knew, and waved to him across the street. He saw he was mistaken. Three nights later he met the same man, at the same hour, further down the street, walking towards Queen's Terrace. On 17th or 18th December he again saw the man, at a quarter to seven, standing at the east end of West Princes Street, near St. George's Road. On each occasion witness was on the opposite side of the street. When he identified the prisoner as the man, he knew the man he was to identify was a person of foreign appearance. The other men there were policemen and detectives.

Euphemia Cunningham, employed in St. George's Road, was going home for dinner about one o'clock on Monday, 14th December, through West Princes Street, when she saw a man standing at the corner of Queen's Crescent looking towards Miss Gilchrist's house. On 15th, 16th, and 17th December she saw the same man at the same time and place. On each occasion, when she passed again about two o'clock, the man had gone. He was of foreign appearance, very dark, with a sallow complexion, and heavy-featured. He was clean shaven. She saw no peculiarity about his nose. He wore a dark tweed coat and a green cap with a peak. She only saw the side of his face and the back of his head. She identified the prisoner in the police office as the man, where he was shown to her in a green cap, which did not belong to him. She had previously recognised him from a photograph of his full face, with a moustache. When she identified the prisoner the other men present were obviously policemen.

William Campbell accompanied the witness Cunningham on 15th, 16th, and 17th December, and corroborated her statement. He had a better opportunity of seeing the man than she had, because he passed next to him. There was a general resemblance between the prisoner and the man, but he could not positively identify him.

Alexander Gillies resided in a flat at 46 West Princes Street, directly opposite Miss Gilchrist's house. On the evening of the Wednesday, Thursday, or Friday before the murder, on returning home at a quarter to six o'clock, he found a man standing at the foot of the common stair at the back of the close, the door of which was open. The man turned his back and blocked the passage; witness asked him to let him pass, but the man went up to the second flight, and still stood on the stair. Witness had again to ask leave to pass, passed him, and entered his own house. The man's face was then towards him. He was sallow, dark-haired, and clean shaven; and wore a long fawn-coloured coat and a cap. The prisoner resembled him, but witness could not say he was the same man.

Robert Brown Bryson was walking from Queen's Crescent into West Princes Street at 7.40 p.m. on Sunday, 20th December, accompanied by his wife. He observed a man standing at the top of the steps leading to the close 58 West Princes Street, a little to the west of Miss Gilchrist's house, on the opposite side, staring up at her windows, which were lighted. When the man saw witness looking at him he came down the steps, met witness about four feet from the close, and passed him on the left, walking slowly westward. Witness turned round and watched him as he walked away. The walk did not attract his notice, further than that it was not smart. The man wore a black coat (or jacket) and vest, and a black bowler hat, but no overcoat. He had a black moustache with a slight droop, was sallow, and of foreign appearance. Witness identified the prisoner as the man, first from a photograph of Slater shown him by a detective, afterwards at the police station, and then in Court. He had drawn his wife's attention to the man at the time, but she did not recollect his making any remark on the subject. [She was not called as a witness at the trial.] Witness was unable to describe what the accused was wearing when he, along with the other witnesses, identified him at the police office.

Andrew Nairn, at a quarter-past nine o'clock the same night (Sunday, 20th December), was passing across West Princes Street from Queen's Crescent on his way home. His wife and children were following some distance behind. On the north side of West Princes Street, about one hundred and twenty yards from Miss Gilchrist's house, he waited for them to join him. While doing so he noticed a man thirteen yards away on the same side standing at the corner of the gardens in the middle of the pavement, with his back to the witness, looking towards 15 Queen's Terrace. Witness did not see his face. He had broad shoulders, a longish neck, and black hair. He wore a motor cap with the flaps up and a light overcoat reaching below the knees. Witness watched him for five minutes till his wife came up, and pointed him out to her, when they left him standing in the same place. [His wife was not called as a witness at the trial.] Nairn had already identified prisoner in the Central Police Station as the man; and being asked by the Lord Advocate if the accused was the man, witness said to the prisoner, " You might turn your back. Yes, I am certain that is the man I saw." Pressed by Mr. M'Clure as to how he could be so positive in his identification of a man he had seen but once, seeing only his back, at a distance of thirteen yards, at 9.15 on a December night, that man being upon his trial for murder, witness replied, " Oh, I will not swear in fact, but I am certain that he is the man I saw; but I will not swear," adding that, not having seen the man's face, he would not go the length of being positive. [The relative positions of this witness and the man are indicated by the numbers 8 and 7 upon the enlarged plan of West Princes Street.]

No attempt was made by the defence to prove an alibi with respect to any one of the occasions spoken to by the first nine witnesses above mentioned. But, in regard to the testimony of the two last, Bryson and Nairn, it was contended that the prisoner could not have been the man they had seen, as he was not out of his own house that night. Antoine, his mistress, and Schmalz, his maid-servant, swore that Slater, during the time he was in Glasgow, always remained indoors the whole day every Sunday; and that, in particular, he was never out of the house at all on Sunday, the 20th. They further stated that a friend of his, named Samuel Reid, dined with them at 69 St. George's Road that evening, coming about six o'clock and remaining until 10.30 or 10.45. Reid deponed that he dined with Slater at seven o'clock that night. He went at six and stayed till 10.30. He had one of his children with him. Slater never left the house during his visit. He had spent every Sunday evening with Slater while in Glasgow, and remembered the 20th, as it was the last time he saw him, witness going to Belfast next day. On the night in question Slater's moustache was growing, and was very noticeable, his hair being very black. No one could have mistaken him for a clean-shaven man.

At the trial the learned judge, with general reference to Antoine's evidence, alluded to the " tremendous motives " which she had for standing by the prisoner. In the case of Schmalz these would not operate, as her connection with the Slater menage had terminated on 26th December. The Lord Advocate elicited from Keid, in cross-examination, that he was a bookmaker; but this fact does not necessarily infer a proneness to commit perjury, and in other respects his evidence was unshaken.

The last witness to identify Slater as the watcher in the street was Mrs. Liddell, a married sister of the witness Adams. On Monday, 21st December, the night of the murder, this lady called at her brother's house in Queen's Terrace at five minutes to seven. She approached from the direction of St. George's Road. Before reaching the door she saw a man leaning with his arm on the railing under the eastmost window of her brother's dining-room. She stared at him "almost rudely." She only saw the left side of his face. She was much struck by the peculiarity of his nose. He had a very clear complexion, not sallow; was very dark, and was clean shaven. He wore a low-down collar, an ordinary cap of brownish tweed, and a heavy coat, also of brownish tweed, the collar of which had a hemmed edge. It was a thick coat, of different material from the waterproof produced. After she passed "he glided from the railings and disappeared." She did not mention having seen the man till the following Wednesday—two days after the murder. When she identified Slater at the police station she was surprised at his robust figure; the man at the railing had the appearance of a delicate man, "rather drawn together." Finally, witness said she believed the prisoner was the man.

We now come to the three crucial witnesses for the Crown— Lambie, Adams, and Barrowman—with whose evidence, as given at the extradition proceedings in New York, we have-already dealt. The substance of the evidence of Lambie and Adams forms the foregoing account of what occurred on the night of the murder in the hall of Miss Gilchrist's house. In reply to the Lord Advocate, Lambie repeated, with some variations, the story she had told in America. She looked at the clock before she went out—it was just seven. She saw no one in West Princes Street except her friend the constable. She was away from the house about ten minutes altogether. She still maintained that she had not entered the house when the man appeared in the hall and passed Adams on the threshold. Adams stood behind her while she unlocked the door. When she did so, and saw the man, she stepped back. "The man when he passed me was very close to me. I noticed that he held his head down. I turned round to look at him, and I got a good look at him. I heard him going down the stairs. He did not go down rapidly; he went deliberately. I went instantly into the house. The man, when I saw him first, was coming from the direction of Miss Gilchrist's bedroom. He had nothing in his hand. He was wearing a dark cap, a fawn overcoat, and dark trousers. His coat was open. No. 43 of the productions is the coat that he wore."

It is to be observed that, had Lambie been standing in the doorway, she would have seen the man as he descended the stairs; if, as Adams states, she was in the act of entering the kitchen at the time, she could only hear him doing so. Her version of the scene should be compared with that of Adams, the next witness mentioned.

In cross-examination, Lambie was asked by Mr. M'Clure what enabled her to identify the waterproof produced as the very coat the man was wearing, to which her only reply was, "That is the coat"—an instance of her mental capacity to which Lord Guthrie referred in his charge to the jury. As she stated in her examination-in-chief that she had seen the man's face, and identified it as the prisoner's, Mr. M'Clure made effective use of her reiterated statement in America that she never saw the face, but went by the walk alone. She now said what she then meant was that she did not see the full face, but only the side; she saw it when he was going down the stair. The man was clean shaven. She did not notice the man coming out of the bedroom door; he was past the door before she saw him. When he passed her and Adams, "they were both on the door mat." [Had this been so, Lambie must have seen the man face to face as he emerged from the bedroom door. If, as Adams swears, she was then about to enter the kitchen, her back was towards the bedroom door; which her own expression, "I turned round to look at him," confirms.]

Arthur Montague Adams deponed to the facts as already narrated. The man was a little taller than witness, a little broader in the shoulders, not a well- built man, but well featured and clean shaven. He had on dark trousers, and a light overcoat; whether fawn or grey witness could not say, and was not sure as to the kind of hat, but it was not a cap.

He seemed gentlemanly and well dressed. He had nothing in his hands. Witness saw nothing special about his nose, and did not notice anything about his way of walking. When Lambie unlocked the door there was no one in the hall. She made straight for the kitchen, had got as far as the hall clock, some eight or ten steps in, and was just going to enter the kitchen, when the man appeared from the bedroom. She was thoroughly taken aback; "she stood and stared, and did not open her mouth." Witness had no doubt at all that he had a better opportunity of seeing the man than Lambie, because he met him face to face. The lobby was well lit. The man "walked quite coolly, as if the house belonged to him," till he got up to witness, and then darted down the stair "like greased lightning, and banged the door at the foot of the close." Witness had pointed out Slater in the Commissioner's room in New York, but did not say that he was the man; he said he closely resembled the man. He went by the general appearance only. In cross-examination, Mr. Adams, quite fairly, admitted that, before indicating Slater on that occasion, he had seen him identified by Lambie and Barrowman. Even after all he had heard, witness did not give an absolutely confident opinion that the prisoner was the man; "it was too serious a charge for him to say from a passing glance." [In justice to Mr. Adams, it has to be borne in mind that he said he was somewhat short-sighted, and had not on his spectacles when he saw the man in the hall.]

Had the Crown relied solely upon the testimony of Lambie and Adams to identify the accused as the murderer, they could hardly have expected a verdict; but the prosecution was able to produce a witness of a different calibre, who saw the murderer flying from the house. This was Mary Barrowman, the message girl of fifteen, who had identified the prisoner in the corridor and in the Commissioner's room at New York, as already mentioned, and also at the police station in Glasgow. She repeated how, at the lamp-post, she saw the man run from the close and down the steps. He came towards her very fast, ran up against her, and on towards West Cumberland Street, down which he turned. She got a good look at him, both as he was coming up to her and when he knocked up against her. When he passed her, she turned to look after him. It was quite bright near the lamp-post. The man was tall and broad-shouldered, and " had a slight twist in his nose." He was clean shaven and dark haired. "He had a Donegal hat on, and was wearing it down on his face." He wore a fawn overcoat, a dark suit of clothes, and dark brown boots. She then told how she turned back, and followed the man as far as the next lamp-post, until she saw him run round the corner into West Cumberland Street, when she resumed her way. She had picked out the prisoner, both in America and at the police station, without any difficulty. On the latter occasion he was shown to her wearing the waterproof No. 43 of the productions, and the hat No. 44; both were very like the articles worn by the man on the night of the murder. She had asked prisoner to pull the hat down further, and then recognised it as she had seen it that night. In answer to the Lord Advocate's final question, "Look at the prisoner: is that the man?" she replied, "Yes, that is the man who knocked against me that night." In cross-examination, Barrowman said that the man came down from the close two steps at a time; when he passed her, he was running at the top of his speed. His hat was pulled down "just about as far as his eyes." His coat was not buttoned; he was holding it up as he ran, with his hands in the pockets. When she followed the man, she thought he was running for a car. [The nearest car lines are in Great Western Road and St. George's Road, the opposite direction to that in which the man was then running.] She did not see his face for more than a couple of seconds. Slater had a moustache when she recognised him in America and in Glasgow; and the three photographs by which, in New York, she had identified him as the man, also showed him with a moustache. She had recognised him in all the photographs, although Inspector Pyper, who was present at the time, said she failed to do so in any of them. The nose of the man was twisted to the right side. She and Lambie occupied the same cabin for twelve days on the voyage out, but they never mentioned the object of their journey, nor discussed the appearance of the man. Lambie had pointed Slater out in the Court-room before she (witness) identified him. When she recognised Slater in the corridor at New York she did not see that he was in charge of the two men, between whom he walked. In reply to the judge, no one had told her not to talk to Lambie about the case. In re-examination, she had now seen Slater several times, and had no doubt he was the man.

The main objections to which the strong evidence of this witness is open are her youth (she was not fifteen till January, 1909); the improbability of her being able to describe, with so great minuteness, the appearance of a man rushing past her at top speed, shortly after seven o'clock on a December night; the fact that the hat No. 44 was not a Donegal or tweed hat, but a soft, black felt hat; and the obvious difficulty in believing that two girls of fifteen and twenty-one, in such unusual circumstances as a voyage across the Atlantic for the purpose of identifying a murderer, never spoke of the matter at all. On the other hand, it has to be kept in view that Barrowman told her mother what she had seen on her return home that night, and then said she would know the man again if she saw him; that, on 23rd December, two nights later, she described the man to two detectives; and that she never varied her original description, but stuck to her story throughout.

The name of Agnes Brown, teacher, 48 Grant Street, Glasgow, stands No. 46 on the list of witnesses for the prosecution. This witness, though in attendance at the trial, was not called either by the Crown or the defence; but her testimony was embodied in a deposition which, among others, had, as already mentioned, been admitted in evidence by the Commissioner at the extradition proceedings in New York, and thus, though not before the jury at the trial, it forms part of the case against the prisoner. A copy of the deposition will be found in the Appendix. This lady stated to Mr. Speirs, the agent for the defence, that, on the evening of 21st December, she was going from her house in Grant Street to an evening class in Dunard Street. Leaving shortly after seven o'clock, she had reached the corner of West Cumberland Street and West Princes Street at 7.10, when two men came running westward along the pavement of that street from the direction of St. George's Road, one of whom collided with her, and nearly knocked her down. The men continued to run along West Princes Street as far as Carrington Street, when they left the pavement and ran on in the middle of the road. They then ran across the road, and turned down Rupert Street to the right. They were well-dressed men, and she wondered why they were running in that manner, When one of them collided with her she obtained a profile view of both their faces; she also had a back view of them as they passed her. The man next her, and who collided with her, was dressed in a winter overcoat of a medium grey, three-quarters length, reaching past his knees. He had a close-fitting, dark cloth cap, with a scoop in front. It was a plain cap, with plain sides and no double brim, and had no buttons. He had on dark trousers. She was not sure whether his boots were black or brown. His coat was buttoned close up, and he had his hands in his pockets. He was a dark man, neither tall nor short. He had neither beard nor whiskers. She could not be positive whether he had a moustache or not. She saw nothing peculiar about his nose. He would be about 5 feet 8 inches or 5 feet 9 inches in height. The other man was about the same height. He had dark hair. He had neither beard nor whiskers. She was inclined to think he was clean shaven. He had no hat on, and he was not carrying any hat in his hand, so far as she saw. He had on a navy blue Melton coat, with a dark velvet collar. His coat was open. He had on a dark pair of trousers and black boots. The man with the blue coat had on a spotless collar. It looked almost new. She did not see anything peculiar about his nose. This man had his right arm hanging by his side, and seemed to be holding something in his hand. He had his left hand at his side as he passed her; but, after passing her, he seemed to carry whatever he was carrying a little in front of him. She saw no man running away by himself, clad in a waterproof coat and a Donegal hat. She heard of the murder on her return home, at ten o'clock, and told her sisters about the men she had seen. The same week she made a statement to two detectives. She was interviewed later by Superintendent Douglas; Mr. Stevenson, the chief constable; and Mr. Hart, the Procurator-fiscal. She was also at the Western Police Office for the purpose of identifying several suspects, but recognised none as being either of the men she had seen running away. On 21st February she was shown Slater, among twelve to fifteen other men, in the Central Police Station. She could recognise none of them by their front face view. Having seen them in right profile and also in back view, she pointed out Slater as the further away from her of the two men who passed her on the night of the murder. What led her to point out Slater was his black hair, and the fact that his ears stuck out somewhat from his head and were rather low down on the side of his head, his rather short neck, and his square shoulders. He also had rather a square jaw, and appeared to her to be about the same height. The back view and the profile view made her come to the conclusion that he was very like the man she had seen. [This statement should be compared with the sworn deposition printed in the Appendix.]

It is, of course, to be kept in view that the importance of Miss Brown's statement might have been materially affected by cross-examination in the witness-box; taken as it stands it only deepens the mystery, and affords a further example of the difficulties attending evidence of identity based on personal impressions.

Two witnesses remain who recognised the accused in circumstances alleged by the Crown to connect him with the murderer. Annie Armour, booking clerk, was on the night in question attending to her duties in the ticket office at the Kelvinbridge station of the Glasgow District Subway, when, between half past seven and eight o'clock, a man rushed through the turnstile, flung down a penny, and, without waiting for his ticket, ran down the stair to the platform. He stumbled on the stair and caught hold of the railing. He looked so excited, and gave witness such a fright that she cried out. He was of medium height, dark, clean shaven, and wore a light overcoat— she did not know whether he had on a hat or a cap. She saw his face. She had no difficulty in pointing out Slater at the police station; the prisoner was the man. In cross- examination she stated that the man's coat was a shade darker than the waterproof produced, but was otherwise similar to it. She did not notice the man's nose, but was quite certain he had no moustache. She had seen Slater's photograph and read the description before identifying him. The time could not have been later than a quarter to eight.

William Sancroft, car conductor, stated that on Wednesday, 23rd December, at 6.5 p.m., a man boarded his car at the end of Union Street, near Argyle Street, and took his seat on the top. The man was in a hurry. When witness went upstairs to collect the fares near West George Street the man had a penny in his hand and received a ticket. Witness asked a boy who was reading an evening paper on the opposite seat if there was any clue to the murderer. The boy replied, "No, there is not any clue yet, and I don't think there is any likelihood of getting one." The man then jumped up and, pushing past them, ran downstairs. Witness followed him, and saw him running full speed across to Garscadden Street. He left the car before reaching the halfpenny station. The prisoner was the man. He had been unable to trace the boy, who at that time was a regular traveller on his car.

Having dealt in some detail, as befits its importance, with the evidence of all the witnesses who identified Slater either as the supposed murderer or as the watcher in the street, we have now briefly to examine the circumstantial evidence adduced by the Crown in its support.

The main facts, so far as these were ascertained, of Slater's life in Glasgow during the months of November and December, 1908, were not in dispute, and may, for the reader's convenience, here be shortly narrated in the order in which they occurred from the evidence of the witnesses who spoke to them at the trial. The inferences to be drawn therefrom formed the question at issue.

Oscar Slater (whose real surname appears to be Leschziner), a German Jew, thirty-eight years of age, who described himself indifferently on his visiting card as "dentist" or "dealer in diamonds and precious stones," arrived in Glasgow from London on or about 26th October, and put up at the Central Hotel. He had been in Glasgow on at least two previous occasions, viz., for some nine months in 1901, the year of the Glasgow Exhibition, and again, for what period is not stated, in 1905. On 3rd November he pledged for £5 with J. L. Bryce, pawnbroker, two gold rings, three pearl studs, and other articles in the name of "Oscar Slater, Central Station Hotel." On the 4th he was joined by Andrée Junio Antoine (who in London was known as Madame Junio) and her servant, Schmalz. The three then took lodgings for a week at 136 Renfrew Street. That day Slater called on Stuart & Stuart, house furnishers, St. George's Road, saw the manager, Isaac Paradise, and asked their terms for furnishing a house on the instalment system. He gave his name as "Mr. Anderson." Following upon the above interview, Slater, as A. Anderson, dentist, 36 Albemarle Street, Piccadilly," called on J. S. Marr, house agent, and proposed to take a flat at 69 St. George's Road. On the 6th Mr. Marr, being satisfied with the references given—Robert Rogers and Davenport & Co., both of London—let the flat to Slater from 28th November till 28th May, 1909, at a rent of £42 per annum. Slater again called on Stuart & Stuart, and selected furniture for his house to the value of £178 16s. 6d., paid £10 as a deposit, and agreed to pay the balance by monthly instalments of £4. On the 9th he ordered from W. Lyon, stationer, fresh visiting cards in name of "A. Anderson, 69 St. George's Road, Charing Cross, Glasgow, three up, right," and, on the 10th, bought from Hepburn & Marshall a set of household tools, consisting of a hammer, screwdriver, pliers, &c., on a card for 2s. 6d. The furniture having been delivered, Slater, "Madame," and Schmalz then removed to the flat in St. George's Road, the door of which bore the name of "Anderson." Antoine explained the false name as a device to evade his wife, who had previously interfered with them.

During Slater's stay there his daily habits, according to the evidence of Schmalz, were as follows:—he rose about 9.30, and generally went out in the forenoon, returning for lunch; went out in the afternoon, and always dined at home, the dinner hour being seven o'clock—though Schmalz had seen it as late as eight. He was never out of the house on Sundays. No dentistry business was carried on in the house, and, so far as she knew, her master had no occupation.

It appears from the evidence that Slater's chief friends, while in Glasgow, were the witnesses Cameron and Rattman, with whom he was in company nearly every day. They frequented Gall's public-house, Cowcaddens; the Crown Hall billiard rooms, 98 Sauchiehall Street; Johnston's billiard rooms, 126 Renfield Street; the Motor Club, 26 India Street; and the M.O.S.C. or Sloper Club, 24 India Street, of which Slater afterwards became a member. The two last named were gambling clubs.

On the 12th November Slater opened a Post Office Savings Bank account in name of "Adolf Anderson," and next day made, through the bank, a purchase of Consols in that name. He also redeemed the articles he had pledged with Bryce. On the 14th he pledged with A. J. Liddell, pawnbroker, a diamond scarfpin for £5 in name of "Anderson." On the same day he called at the shop of Jacob Jackson and offered to sell him a diamond ring, as he was hard up. Jackson refused to buy the ring, but offered him employment as a canvasser, which he declined. He did not give his name or address. On the 16th Slater called at the shop of R.S. Bamber, hairdresser, Charing Cross, and was shaved by the witness Nichols. He then had a moustache. Nichols observed a peculiarity about his nose—it was not a twisted nose, but a nose that had been broken. He made some purchases there in the name of "Anderson" that day; deposited his own shaving materials; and continued regularly to call to be shaved, several times a week, till 25th December. On the 17th he pledged with Liddell a gold purse, fountain pen, three pearl studs, and a ring for £6, and on the following day he obtained an advance of £20 upon a diamond crescent brooch, giving his address as "136 Renfrew Street." Between 21st November and 1st December Slater, in Bamber's shop, offered to sell to Nichols, who was shaving him, some blankets, curtains, and kitchen furniture, which he said were quite new.

About 23rd November (four weeks before the murder), according to the witness Rattman, Slater, in Gall's public-house, wanted to sell him a ring. The witness Aumann made an offer for it, which Slater would not accept. About 24th or 25th November Slater called at the Motor Club and asked for the witness Cameron, who came out and took him upstairs. About 30th November, the witness Barr met Slater in the Sloper Club in the company of Cameron, who asked him to propose Slater as a member. Barr demurred to doing so, as Slater's reputation was not good, but ultimately agreed to put his name up.

On 1st December Slater was elected a member of the Sloper Club, his address being given as " Renfrew Street." About the 4th Slater mentioned to Nichols, who was shaving him, that he had lost a diamond pin. Nichols advised him to communicate with the police, but he replied it was best to leave them alone as much as one could. About this date Slater spoke to Aumann of his intention to go to America. He said he would go so soon as he got rid of his house, and mentioned a letter which he had received from San Francisco. On 6th December Slater was seen in the Motor Club with Cameron by the witness Henderson. He then wore a black bowler hat and a Melton coat. On the 7th Slater pledged with Bryce a pair of binocular glasses for £2 10s. About this date Slater told Cameron of his intention to go abroad. Between this time and 21st December Slater was seen by the witness M'Lean every second or third night playing cards at the Sloper Club.

On the 9th Slater sent his watch to Dent, watchmaker, London, for repair, giving his name as "Anderson," and requesting its return to him at 69 St. George's Road not later than 30th December. The same day he obtained from Liddell a further advance of £10 upon the diamond brooch. About this date Aumann, by Slater's desire, inspected the flat and furniture at 69 St. George's Road, with a view to his taking them over. Aumann, however, declined to do so, and Slater said he would look out for some one else. On the 10th Slater, in name of "Anderson," paid £4 to Stuart & Stuart as an instalment to account of the price of the furniture supplied by them. About 11th December Slater showed Cameron a letter he had received from San Francisco, advising him to come out, as business was good. Slater said he intended to go, and gave Cameron his address there.

About ten days or a fortnight before Christmas (11th or 15th December), when Slater called at Bamber's to be shaved as usual, Nichols remarked that his moustache had been taken off, and that day he shaved Slater's upper lip for the first and only time. Slater told him he was a dentist, and was waiting for his partner to join him. He mentioned several places—Queensland and San Francisco. About the middle of December, Cameron noticed that Slater had shaved his moustache; he commented on the fact, and Slater explained that it was "getting a bit scraggy."

About 15th December (ten days before Christmas), Slater showed Rattman a letter, which he had received from San Francisco, and said he intended going there so soon as he could arrange for his house being taken over. On the 17th, Slater deposited £5 in the Post Office Savings Bank—the last deposit he made. On the 18th or 19th, Cameron says he saw Slater for the last time before the murder, and, on one or other of those nights, the witness Barr met Slater at the Sloper Club. He generally saw him there once or twice a week. Slater was always well dressed. He never saw him wearing a drab or fawn- coloured waterproof.

Between one and three o'clock, on the morning of Sunday or Monday, 20th or 21st December, the witness M'Lean, who subsequently gave information to the police, saw Slater at the Sloper Club playing "poker." He was then clean shaven, or had a very small growth on his upper lip. He wore a dark suit, a fawn overcoat, and a dark cap. On that occasion M'Lean left the club with a friend, and walked home some ten yards behind Slater and another member. He saw Slater enter the close in St. George's Road. Till then he had not known where Slater lived.

The divergent accounts of how Slater was occupied on Sunday, the 20th, we have already noticed.

Before considering the evidence relating to the eventful Monday, 21st December, the day of the murder, it may be convenient to mention here the statements of Cameron and Rattman as to Slater's ordinary habits and appearance. Cameron said that he saw Slater frequently. Slater had no occupation, and was seldom out until mid-day; he was a gambler, and frequented the Motor, Sloper, and other clubs. He and Slater, when in company, filled in the time by going to the skating rink in Victoria Road in the afternoons, to a music hall in the evenings, and from thence to the Sloper Club, where cards were played till well on in the morning. He never saw Slater dressed in check trousers or light-coloured spats at any time during November or December. As a rule, his clothes, with the exception of the waterproof, were dark. He had seen him wearing a hat like production No. 44, but never saw him with a cloth hat with a rim round it and without a split in the centre. He had seen him in the cap produced, No. 46, but Slater generally wore a black bowler hat.

Rattman said that he met Slater, while in Glasgow, almost daily, in Gall's public-house and Johnston's billiard rooms during the day, and at various clubs at night. He never saw Slater wearing light-check trousers or light-coloured gaiters. Once or twice he had seen him in brown boots. He never saw him with a Donegal hat, but had seen him wearing a cap with the sides up. His clothes were generally dark or brown. When he last saw him, on Thursday, 24th December, Slater was wearing a dark suit and a bowler hat.

On Monday, the 21st, according to the evidence of Antoine and Schmalz, Slater received, by the morning post, two letters: one from his friend Rogers in London (who was not called as a witness), saying Slater's wife was still bothering him (Rogers) for money, the other from his partner Devoto in San Francisco, asking Slater to join him. These letters were not produced. There had been a previous letter from Devoto on the subject. In consequence of these letters, Antoine said, Slater decided to go to San Francisco, which he had intended doing since the beginning of the month. At 12.30 p.m. Slater called at Liddell's pawnshop, and raised £30 more upon the diamond brooch, making £60 in all. He also redeemed the gold purse, fountain pen, pearl studs, and ring, which he had pawned on 17th November, paying £6 4s. After lunch, at two o'clock, Slater gave Schmalz notice, and said she could return to London on the following Saturday. Schmalz overheard Slater and Antoine say they were going to San Francisco. In the afternoon Slater offered the pawn ticket for the brooch to a friend of the witness M'Lean, named Anderson, in the Sloper Club. At 4.30 Slater came into Gall's public-house and offered the pawn ticket for £4 to Rattman, who had seen the brooch. Rattman refused, and suggested that Aumann, who was present, should buy it; but the latter said the pawnbroker had already advanced too much on it. Slater then left.

At 5 p.m., as appears from the postmark on the envelope, a letter, written by Slater, was posted to the Post Office Savings Bank, West Kensington, London, asking that his money be sent at once, if possible by wire, as he had an urgent call to America because his wife was ill. At 6.12 a telegram, in the handwriting of Slater, was despatched from the Central Station, addressed to Dent, London, in these terms—"If possible send watch at once."

According to the evidence of Rattman and Aumann they, along with a third man whom they did not know, were just finishing a game of three hundred up, in Johnston's billiard rooms, Renfield Street, when Slater came in about 6.20. Rattman asked him whether he had succeeded in selling the pawn ticket, and he replied that he had not. Slater said he was going home to dinner; and on Rattman observing that he was going later to the Palace Music Hall, Slater remarked, "Very likely I will come and see you." Slater then left, having remained for about ten minutes. The game was finished two or three minutes after Slater's departure—Rattman says at 6.35; Aumann, at 6.40. Johnston, the proprietor of the saloon, and Gibb, the marker, proved that the table, upon which these men usually played, was engaged that day from 5.8 to 6.40. Johnston had gone out for tea at the time, and Gibb did not recollect who were playing there that afternoon. Neither Rattman nor Aumann could remember how Slater was then dressed, but Rattman said he had a moustache about a quarter of an inch long which, being dark, was quite noticeable. Rattman would never have taken him for a clean-shaven man that day.

Antoine and Schmalz swore that Slater dined at home that evening as usual at seven o'clock. The murder, as we know, was committed between seven and ten minutes past seven; and the man believed by Mrs. Liddell to be Slater was standing at the railing in Queen's Terrace at five minutes to seven.

About 9.45 that night the door bell of the Motor Club, 24 India Street, rang, and on the witness Henderson (the clubmaster) opening the door, he found Slater, who stepped into the hall. He was not a member of the club, but Henderson knew him by sight, having twice seen him there with Cameron. Slater asked Henderson if he had any money in the club, and said, "Give me what you have and I will give you a cheque." Henderson replied that his committee did not allow him to lend money, and suggested that Slater should go "next door" (the Sloper Club), and ask Cameron for it. Remarking that Cameron was " no use," Slater then left; he did not go into the club next door, but turned to the right, to Elmbank Crescent. He was not in the hall for more than four or five minutes. He had a short moustache "like stubble," and was wearing a waterproof like that produced (No. 43), and a Donegal hat, of different colour and make from hat No. 44. Henderson saw no discomposure about his dress; but he seemed to be excited, and witness thought he had been losing money at cards somewhere, and wanted to continue play. It will be remembered that at 12.30 that day Slater had received £30 from Liddell on the brooch.

With reference to the incident spoken to by Henderson, there was produced at the trial a letter, written by Slater to his friend, Hugh Cameron in Glasgow, on 2nd January, from the Tombs Prison, New York, a copy of which will be found in the Appendix. He writes—

I don't deney I have been in his [Henderson's] place asking him for mony because I went brocke in the Sloper Club. He would not mind to get me hangt, and I will try to prove that from a gambling point, I am right to ask for some money. The dirty caracter was trying to make the police believe I done the murder, was excitet, asking for mony to hop off.— I must have a good lawyer, and after I can proof my innocents befor having a trial, because I will prove with five people where I have been when the murder was committed.

On Tuesday, 22nd December, the day after the murder, Slater called at four o'clock at Bryce's pawnshop, saw the witness Kempton, and redeemed a pair of prism binocular glasses, which he had pledged on the 7th. He mentioned that he was going to America, and asked witness about the Anchor Line. He was then dressed in a dark overcoat and a hard hat, and had a slight, stubbly moustache. On Tuesday or Wednesday, 22nd or 23rd December, Slater called at Bamber's shop and was shaved by Nichols, who stated that Slater' told him he was going to Queensland on the following Wednesday (the 30th). Slater said that his wife was not going with him, as the weather was too cold, but she was to follow in the summer. He showed no sign of excitement. On one or other of these dates Cameron met Slater, who gave him the pawn ticket for the brooch, and asked him to dispose of it among his friends for £10. Cameron tried to sell the ticket to two people, but was unsuccessful, and returned it to Slater.

On Wednesday, 23rd, Slater received from the Glasgow branch of the Post Office Savings Bank the amount standing at the credit of his account, £39 18s. 3d. At 12.1 noon he despatched from Charing Cross Post Office a telegram to Dent, London, in the following terms:—"Must have watch, leaving to- morrow night for the Continent." Between four and five in the afternoon, Slater called at Cooks' tourist office, Buchanan Street, saw the witness Bain, and inquired for a second class two-berth cabin for himself and his wife by the "Lusitania," from Liverpool, on Saturday, 26th. He gave his name and address as "Oscar Slater, c/o Anderson, 69 St. George's Road, Glasgow." He was asked to call back next day, when the agent should have heard from the Cunard Company, with whom he was to communicate. That evening, between ten and eleven o'clock, as Rattman and Aumann were playing billiards in Johnston's billiard rooms, Slater and Cameron came in and sat watching the game. Johnston, the proprietor, asked them if they wanted a game, but Slater said that they would not play that night. His upper lip, said Johnston, was then a little dark, he had not much to show, but he was not exactly clean shaven. Gibb, the marker, remembered seeing Slater on this occasion, but not Cameron. Slater's moustache was, he said, quite noticeable from the other end of the room, sixteen feet distant. He had about a fortnight's growth on his upper lip; no one could have taken him for a clean-shaven man. When the game was finished at 11.20, Slater, Cameron, and Rattman left together, Cameron saying good-night to the others at the corner of Cambridge Street and Sauchiehall Street, while Rattman went on with Slater, and parted with him at his house in St. George's Road.

On Thursday, 24th December, Slater received at the Glasgow branch of the Post Office Savings Bank the proceeds of the 2£ per cent. Consols, which had been sold on his instructions, the amount paid to him being £49 7s. 2d. Rattman said that on this date he saw Slater for the last time before he left. Slater asked him to come and see him in his house next day (Christmas Day), but Rattman did not do so. Slater said nothing to him on this Thursday as to his intention of sailing on the following Saturday. About four o'clock the same afternoon Slater called at Cooks' office in Buchanan Street, and again saw the witness Bain, who had heard from the Cunard Company offering room E76, at £12 rate, by the " Lusitania," sailing on Saturday, 26th December. Bain showed Slater the room on the ship's plan, but the latter said he preferred an outside cabin, and could do better in Liverpool. Bain said if he booked the one offered then he could adjust matters in Liverpool, and Slater said he would call back next day. He did not do so, and that day (Friday, 25th) Bain wrote to the Cunard Company asking them to release the cabin, and to let him know if "Mr. and Mrs. Slater" booked with them on Saturday.

Cameron stated that shortly after four o'clock on Thursday, the 24th, at the corner of Gordon Street and Renfield Street he met Slater, who said he was looking for the Cunard Line shipping office, in Jamaica Street, to make inquiry as to the sailings to America. Cameron accompanied him there; Slater went into the Cunard office and got a pamphlet. When he came out he remarked to Cameron, who had been waiting for him outside, that perhaps the "Campania," sailing on Saturday week (2nd January, 1909), might suit him. He then asked Cameron to get a Bank of England £5 note for five Scotch £1 notes, as he wanted the note to send to his people in Germany, which he had done, he said, almost every Christmas. Cameron having failed to get it in the Cunard office, they tried the booking office at the Central Station, the Central Station Hotel, and Forsyth's shop, all without success. Finally, at the Grosvenor Restaurant, they got the note, which Slater enclosed in an addressed envelope, and registered at Hope Street Post Office. Having had tea at Cranston's tea-rooms in Sauchiehall Street, they parted shortly before six o'clock, Cameron arranging to call for Slater after dinner. This was the last time Cameron saw him. That day Slater had, as described by Cameron, "a very stubbly moustache," which was quite noticeable. Cameron called at Slater's house as arranged about eight o'clock, but was told by the servant Schmalz that he had gone out half an hour before with a gentleman. As a matter of fact, Slater was in at the time, but had instructed Schmalz to tell Cameron he was out.

On the morning of Friday, 25th December, as stated by Antoine and Schmalz, Slater received a postcard from Mrs. Freedman, who had come from London in pursuance of an arrangement whereby she should take over the flat and furniture, intimating her arrival at the Alexandra Hotel, Bath Street. Antoine sent Schmalz to bring her to the house, and Mrs. Freedman came at 12.30 p.m. She found Antoine crying; and Slater, who was busy packing his luggage, explained the reason was that he would not take her with him. He asked and obtained from Mrs. Freedman a loan of £25. [It will be remembered that Mrs. Freedman, who was not called as a witness, stated to Detective Lieutenant Gordon, on 26th December, that she understood their destination to be Monte Carlo.] Antoine said that Slater wanted her to go to her people in Paris, but, in the end, he agreed to let her accompany him.

Later in the day Slater called at Bamber's shop, and was shaved, for the last time, by Nichols, according to whom he then had a moustache " a quarter of an inch or five-sixteenths long." It had been growing for about ten days or a fortnight. Slater told Nichols he was leaving Glasgow that night, and was sailing next day by the "Lusitania." When Slater left the shop he removed the shaving materials which he had previously deposited there for his own use. During the last week of his visits Nichols observed no difference in his appearance, except that he was wearing a peculiar vest. He had seen Slater in various suits, and wearing a dark blue overcoat, but not a light fawn-coloured overcoat.

That afternoon (Christmas Day) the description of the supposed murderer, given by the girl Barrowman, appeared, by the authority of the police, in the two o'clock editions of the Glasgow evening newspapers— Times, News, and Citizen.

At 6 p.m. Slater again went out. Between six and seven o'clock John Cameron, city porter, said that a man, whom he identified as Slater, spoke to him at the Central Station, and told him to call at 69 St. George's Road for some luggage "at the back of eight o'clock." He gave the name of "Anderson." Along with another porter (Mackay) Cameron went to the house as directed, but, by mistake, called first at the top flat instead of the third. At the latter he saw the man who had engaged him, and two women. He removed ten articles of luggage on his barrow to the Central Station for the 9.5 train for London and Liverpool. Slater met him at the station and paid him. Cameron could not say whether he was then clean shaven or not.

Margaret and Isabella Fowlis, who lived in the flat above Slater, and knew him by sight as "Anderson," remembered the porter calling at their door for luggage. They told him that "Anderson" occupied the house below; and, looking over the stairs while the luggage was being removed, saw Slater handing it out. The time was about 8.30. Slater was then dressed in a blue overcoat, a hat, and patent boots. They said he had no moustache. They were sure his upper lip was clean shaven, because he looked up at them, and saw them watching him. He left the house on foot, followed by the two women. Ruby Russell, a servant in the same stair, also witnessed the removal of the luggage, and saw from her window the departure of Slater, Antoine, and Schmalz. They walked a few yards together, and Slater went away by himself. Antoine and Schmalz said that they all walked together to Charing Cross, where they entered a cab and drove to the Central Station.

On arriving there at 8.45 the cab door was opened by James Tracey, railway porter, who was waiting with the porter Cameron and the luggage. Slater and the two women got out. Slater told Tracey to have the luggage labelled for Liverpool by the 9.5 train; and, ""his having been done, Tracey, by order of the guard, put it into the rear brake van. He did not know what tickets Slater had. Only one of the two women travelled with him. Tracey said Slater that night had a moustache. It was quite noticeable. He had no difficulty in identifying Slater, but failed to recognise either Antoine or Schmalz. John Brown, booking clerk, Central Station, said there were few people travelling by that train, being Christmas night. Among the tickets which he issued by the 9.5 were two third class singles to London and two third class singles to Liverpool. He recollected selling the two London tickets to a man with a slight moustache, who was very like Slater, but he could not swear to it. The Liverpool tickets, so far as he remembered, were issued separately to two different persons. It was a regular practice to travel with a London ticket, and break the journey at Liverpool.

On 26th December, about 12.30 p.m., a man wearing a soft hat and a blue overcoat entered the offices of the Cunard Company in Liverpool, saw John Forsyth, manager of the second class department, and asked for accommodation for a gentleman and his wife by the "Lusitania," sailing that day. Strangely enough, Forsyth offered him room E76, the very cabin which Slater had refused in Glasgow. The man said, "No, I do not like that, it is inside; it was offered me by your agents in Glasgow." He appeared to regret having made the remark, and said no more. He seemed, to witness, somewhat nervous, and, while he was talking, looked at the door as if expecting some one. Forsyth asked him what he required, and he replied that he wanted an outside room. After some discussion, an outside cabin was agreed upon, and £28 in Scotch notes paid for the two tickets. Forsyth asked the man's name, and he said, "Otto Sando." He spelt it, "S-a-n-d-o," remarking, "It is not Sandow, the strong man." He then filled up the requisite application form, giving, inter alia, his destination and American address as " Chicago, 30 Staate Street." Slater was undoubtedly the man, and, said Forsyth, "he can recognise me, too."

While in Liverpool Slater wrote from the London & North-Western Station Hotel a letter in German to his friend Rattman, a translation of which will be found in the Appendix, giving as his reason for not saying good-bye, his "absolutely suddenly" leaving Glasgow, "Freedman's girl" having taken over his flat; and, further, stating, "My French girl leaves for Paris from here." Their arrangements concluded, and the duties of friendship thus discharged, "Mr. and Mrs. Otto Sando" sailed the same day in the "Lusitania" for New York.

Whether or not Slater's departure from Glasgow was, in the words of the Lord Advocate, "a flight from justice," or, as Mr. M'Clure put it, an act in which "nothing suggesting subterfuge occurs until the tickets were taken at Liverpool in the name of Otto Sando," was a question for the jury; and they determined it against the prisoner. The explanation given by Antoine of Slater's concealment of his destination was, in the first place, because of his wife, and, secondly, in case of the landlord of the house and the furniture company bothering, Mrs. Freedman about the flat. This does not, however, explain why he failed to disclose the date of his departure to his intimate friends Cameron and Rattman.

Having recorded the facts with regard to Slater's behaviour, as disclosed in the proof, we have now only to consider the purport of the medical evidence adduced. It will be remembered that the police, when searching Slater's luggage on his return from New York, found in one of his trunks a hammer, which he had bought on 10th November, as before mentioned. With this weapon the Crown undertook to prove that the murder had been committed. Professor Glaister deponed that he did not find in the dining-room of 15 Queen's Terrace any implement that looked as if it had been used for the purpose of murdering Miss Gilchrist. He was clear, from the spattering of blood in the neighbourhood, that the injuries had been produced practically at the point where the body was found, within an area bounded by a radius of three feet from the head; and, from his experience, his view was that the assailant knelt on the woman's chest, and, kneeling upon the chest, struck violently at the head with the implement that he employed. From the nature of the injuries inflicted witness inferred that the weapon was not uniformly the same at the striking part; the wounds were of different sizes and shapes, and the left eyeball, in a burst condition, was driven into the brain. That indicated that the weapon must have been of a pointed character, because a larger weapon, that would have been likely to have caused the larger wounds, could not have entered the orbit. The hammer, No. 47, could, in his opinion, in the hands of a strong man and forcibly wielded (plus the kneeling on the chest), have produced the injuries found on the body. That instrument accounted most easily for the different classes of wounds, particularly the eye mischief. In cross-examination the witness could not say positively that the hammer was used. His view of the course of the assault was that the woman was on her feet, facing her assailant, when she received a blow with something and was knocked down on the floor; the assailant instantly pounced on her and knelt on her, fracturing her ribs and breast bone during the act of the repeated blows; and that the instrument, whatever it was, produced those frightful injuries upon her head and face. To give a rough guess, judging from the wounds and the size of them, between twenty and forty blows must have been inflicted, with almost lightning rapidity. It must have been a furious, continuous assault before the assailant rose to do anything further. The man who applied the violence in the way he (witness) thought he did would have his clothing to a fairly large extent bespattered with blood. His hands could not escape, nor the implement he employed. It was one of the most brutally smashed heads witness had ever seen in his experience.

Dr. Hugh Galt, who, in conjunction with Professor Glaister, had made the post-mortem examination, concurred. The number of blows struck must have been very great, certainly not under fifty or sixty, probably a good many more. The smashing in this case was most extensive. The hammer, No. 47, could produce the injuries witness saw. In cross-examination witness admitted that, a priori, he would have expected a heavier weapon. It was impossible to say exactly what instrument had been employed; it was a weapon of some weight, and with sharp edges. In reply to the judge, the injury to the eye was the only wound that could not have been produced by a weapon of greater diameter than the hammer in question.

Professor Glaister also deponed to the result of his examination of the four articles submitted to him as before mentioned, viz., (1) waterproof, (2) hat, (3) hammer, and (4) auger. With regard to the waterproof, he found twenty small stains, externally and internally, some of which, after treatment and on microscopic examination, showed corpuscular bodies, resembling in general appearances mammalian red blood corpuscles; but, by reason of the small amount of material at disposal, confirmatory tests for blood could not be employed. The stains appeared to have been subjected to the influence of water. No stains were found upon the hat. The hammer, from the head to halfway down the shaft, had the appearance of having been scrubbed, the surface of the wood being roughened and bleached. Yellowish stains were found on both sides of the head and on the flanges, which, on examination, showed corpuscular bodies, resembling red blood corpuscles of the mammalian type. For the reason already adduced, witness was unable to state positively that these were red blood corpuscles. The auger, on examination, gave no indication of the presence of blood. In cross-examination witness said that in his first report to the police, dated 22nd December, it was stated, "On examination we found that adhering to the metal of the instrument [the auger] were several grey hairs, and, in addition, what seemed to be blood." Witness had examined twenty stains in all on the waterproof, and only in some of them did he find the corpuscular bodies referred to. He found no stains in the pockets of the waterproof. Witness could not positively prove that any article found in the possession of the accused contained blood. In reply to the judge, if it were not a case of murder, but some commercial question, judging from his very long experience of examination of such stains, witness would without hesitation say that, in his view, to the best of his knowledge and belief, these were red blood corpuscles.

Professor Harvey Littlejohn, who, in conjunction with Professor Glaister, had examined the articles, concurred.

For the defence, Dr. W. G. Aitchison Robertson deponed that, looking to the extent and multiplicity of the wounds, he considered the hammer produced a very unlikely weapon. He had examined the hammer for blood stains, but found no sign of blood about it, and he saw no appearance of the handle having been washed or scraped. The man who committed the murder as described would, in the opinion of witness, be more or less covered with blood. Witness had examined the waterproof coat and found no signs of blood whatever upon it. In cross- examination witness said that his evidence was given on the facts as disclosed in Professor Glaister's report. The wound whereby the left eyeball was driven in was 2 inches by ¾ inch, which was much larger than the head of the hammer. Witness thought a heavy poker or crowbar more likely to have produced the injuries, by beating and thrusting with it. He could not see how the spindle-shaped wounds could have been produced by the hammer. He made no tests for the purpose of ascertaining the presence of blood.

Dr. Alexander Veitch, who had also examined the hammer and coat, found absolutely no appearance of blood. He considered the hammer produced an unlikely instrument to inflict the injuries described; a blunt instrument, such as a piece of railing, a crowbar, or a larger hammer, would be more likely. The assailant could not escape getting a good deal of blood on his own person. Had the hammer produced been used by the assailant, it would necessarily have had a lot of blood about its head, and probably all over it. His hands would probably be bloody, and witness would have expected to see some sign of that on the lower part of the handle. There was no sign of scraping or scrubbing. In cross- examination, witness had never seen a case where there was such an amount of mauling. The weapon used would, in his opinion, be twice as large as the hammer produced. Had the latter been used, he would have expected a class of fracture which was not present, i.e., a depressed fracture, penetrating, and of comparatively small size. He made no analysis of the stains found on either of the articles.

With reference to the failure of Drs. Aitchison Robertson and Veitch to discover blood stains on the waterproof, it may be remarked that twenty-five suspected portions had been cut out of it by Professor Glaister prior to its being examined by them. It is also to be observed, as a point of interest, that neither at the instance of the prosecution nor of the defence was the metal head of the hammer removed from its soft white wood shaft. Had this been done the question at issue would probably, to that extent at least, have been settled.

The condition of the hammer and waterproof was of vital importance to the Crown case, for these were the only links between Slater and the murder. Apart from them, nothing incriminating was found in his possession. In the seven trunks belonging to him the police discovered neither Donegal hat, light- coloured cloth overcoat, check trousers, fawn spats, nor brown boots. No proof was offered that he had any knowledge of the existence of Miss Gilchrist or of her jewels; none of the deceased's property was traced to him, and nothing proved to be his was found in her house. With the exception of the disputable stains on the waterproof, no article of clothing belonging to him was bloodstained.

In this connection it may be mentioned that both Antoine and Schmalz swore that, so far as they knew, none of Slater's clothes were washed, burned, or otherwise destroyed during their last week in Glasgow. With regard to the hammer, they stated that it was solely used by Schmalz for breaking coals. It was kept in the drawer of the hatstand in the hall—not, one would think, the most convenient receptacle; it was never out of the house, and, to their knowledge, was neither washed nor scraped. The Lord Advocate, with tact and good taste, waived his right to cross-examine the girl Antoine, whose position as a witness in the case was plainly indicated by Lord Guthrie in his charge to the jury. Schmalz, however, was subjected to a trenchant cross-examination, from which ordeal she emerged comparatively unscathed, either because she told the truth and knew nothing to incriminate Slater, or because she was a match for her learned adversary.

A fact most damaging to the prisoner's character was elicited by the Lord Advocate from the witness Schmalz. She admitted that Antoine, obviously with Slater's concurrence, had led, both in London and Glasgow, an immoral life. From the witness Cameron the Lord Advocate had already learned that Slater supplemented his gains as a gambler by the proceeds of prostitution, and that, in Lord Guthrie's striking phrase, "He had maintained himself by the ruin of men and on the ruin of women, living for many years past in a way that many blackguards would scorn to live." Of this fact the Lord Advocate made deadly use in his address to the jury, going so far as to say that it removed the one serious difficulty which confronted them—the difficulty of conceiving that there was in existence a human being capable of doing such a dastardly deed. " That difficulty removed," proceeded the learned Advocate, "I say, without hesitation, that the man in the dock is capable of having committed this dastardly outrage, and the question for you to consider is, whether or not the evidence has brought it home to him." With reference to this point the exception taken thereto by Mr. Speirs, the agent for the defence, in his introductory note to the memorial prepared by him on the prisoner's behalf as after mentioned, may be quoted—

That evidence against his character was before the jury, and strongly commented upon by the counsel for the prosecution; and while the jury was afterwards told by the counsel for the prosecution and the presiding judge not to allow the evidence against Slater's character to influence them against him, there is a very strong general opinion to the effect that it must have influenced the jury. As the accused did not plead good character, his character should not, according to the law of Scotland, have been attacked.

It must, however, be observed that no objection was taken by counsel for the prisoner to any of the Lord Advocate's questions as to Slater's means of livelihood. His false assumption of the designation of dentist made it clearly competent for the Lord Advocate to ask the witnesses for the defence how the prisoner maintained himself. If the defence desired to exclude the evidence objected to in Mr. Speirs' memorial, they should not have examined either Cameron or Schmalz.

The case for the defence closed with the examination of the two medical men, and, contrary to expectation, the prisoner did not avail himself of his right to enter the witness-box. No reference to this fact was made either by judge or counsel; but there can be little doubt that it told heavily against him with the jury. His agent, in the memorial before referred to, with respect to this circumstance, states—

It is only fair to the 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 this, however, the prisoner, in view of his manner of life, might well have hesitated, for reasons best known to himself, to expose his whole past career to the scrutiny of the Lord Advocate.

The total number of witnesses examined at the trial was seventy-four, sixty being called by the Crown, and fourteen by the defence.

At eleven o'clock on the morning of the fourth day of the trial the Lord Advocate rose to address the jury for the prosecution. To those who were present his speech was, perhaps, the most impressive episode in this remarkable case. Out of doors the day was one of brilliant spring sunshine; and past the drawn blinds that screened the windows of the Courtroom there streamed three shafts of light, one of which fell upon the strong features of the Lord Advocate, as he stood in front of the dock, facing the jury. He used no ornaments of rhetoric, made no impassioned appeal; but sternly, almost relentlessly, marshalled, one by one, his facts and inferences, crushing the while his handkerchief in his clenched right hand, as though it were a symbol of the prisoner's fate. He spoke for an hour and fifty minutes; and the opinion was generally expressed that no more masterly address had been delivered in that place since the historic speech of the late Lord President Inglis, when, as Dean of Faculty, he successfully defended Madeleine Smith. The impression was heightened by the fact that the learned Advocate referred neither to notes nor documents; but, by a gift of memory, in the circumstances little short of marvellous, wove into a coherent pattern the complex web of the Crown case. That he was convinced of the justice of his cause was manifest; but in one or two points his argument would seem to go somewhat further than was warranted by the evidence. It is noteworthy that the address contained no reference to the witnesses Reid, Antoine, or Schmalz. In an early passage the promise, "We shall see in the sequel how it was that the prisoner came to know that she [Miss Gilchrist] was possessed of these jewels," appears rather to beg the question, for upon that point no evidence whatever was led, nor did the speaker again refer to it. With regard to the statement that " there is not a single human being in this case who, having once seen the prisoner, has failed to know him at once, so striking, so peculiarly distinctive is his face," it has to be observed that the instances given of those who admittedly saw Slater, were of persons who, though seeing him but once, all spoke to him and heard him speak. Further, the Lord Advocate was mistaken in stating, which he did more than once, as a reason for the prisoner hastening his departure, that Slater's name, as well as the description given by Barrowman, appeared in the newspapers of 25th December. As a matter of fact, the name of Slater was first published in the Glasgow Herald of 2nd January. On the conclusion of his address, the Lord Advocate left the Court, to which he did not return.

At half-past one Mr. M'Clure commenced his speech for the defence, occupying exactly the same time as his learned opponent. His address obviously suffered in comparison with that for the Crown, its chief concern being to refute seriatim the arguments of the Lord Advocate. It would therefore be unfair to contrast the speakers from the oratorical standpoint. Mr. M'Clure opened with a strong protest against the newspaper campaign, of which, he said, his client had been the victim, and referred to the prejudice created by the false reports set afloat concerning the case. In view of what afterwards happened, it is curious to note his warning to the jury, that, if they convicted the prisoner, " there was no possibility of a commutation of the capital penalty." While one may have difficulty in assenting to his proposition, that, as regards the behaviour of Slater before and after the murder, "in the main facts there is nothing suspicious," the skill with which he analysed the evidence of the identifying witnesses, and made the most of the many points telling in the prisoner's favour, is worthy of all praise. His examination of the evidence was at once careful and exhaustive; and the case for the defence was adequately presented. He called the jury's attention to the fact that Slater was first suspected upon grounds, one of which was false, and the other innocent, viz., because he had pawned a brooch which was supposed to have belonged to Miss Gilchrist, and because, when he was looked for, it was found that he had left Glasgow. Mr. M'Clure made effective use of the American evidence, as showing the obvious inconsistencies of Lambie's testimony, and satisfactorily disposed of the Crown theory that Slater fled as the result of the description published in the newspapers. The excellent point, too, was made that Slater, if he were, in fact, the watcher seen by the witnesses, had been so careful as to destroy the clothes spoken to by them, while preserving the very garment in which he did the deed. Upon the vexed question of the murderer's moustache, the following summary was given:—

The man wanted is alleged to have been clean shaven by Mrs. Liddell, Helen Lambie, Barrowman, Adams, and Armour. It is, on the contrary, proved that Slater had a moustache by Rattman, Aumann, Cameron, Reid, Nichols, the barber; Gibb, the billiard man; Kempton, and Tracey.

In conclusion, Mr. M'Clure made a legitimate and telling reference to the notorious case of Adolf Beck, as showing the dangers attending evidence of identity based on personal impressions.

Lord Guthrie began his charge to the jury at five minutes to four o'clock. His lordship suggested that the man who entered Miss Gilchrist's house did so with the intention only to rob her of her jewels, and was not contemplating murder. When she resisted, and attempted to raise an alarm by knocking on the floor, then arose the necessity to silence her— "Dead men (and dead women) tell no tales." His lordship then proceeded to explain to the jury the nature and relative value of the evidence, direct and circumstantial. He described the evidence with regard to the prisoner's character and financial circumstances as double-edged; and told the jury that, if they decided to convict him, they ought to be able to say they had disregarded it, and had convicted him irrespective of it. Referring to the mystery, of which the prisoner was the key, his lordship said that he never knew a case like the present, either in his own experience or from reading. As to the question of identification, his lordship held that it would be unsafe to convict on mere evidence of personal impression of his identity on the part of strangers, without reference to any marked personality or personal peculiarity. It was for them to consider whether some of that evidence was not given by persons who had an opportunity of familiarising themselves with the individual identified. One fact, his lordship said, was quite clear—the prisoner resembled the murderer. But it was to be kept in view that the witnesses to identification were all Scotch, while the prisoner was patently a foreigner; therefore the mere fact that a witness thought the prisoner the same as a man he had seen, because both had a foreign appearance, went for very little, if it went for anything at all. With these general observations, his lordship then proceeded to review the evidence on this part of the case, and having done so, observed—

The questions for you are—and they are purely jury questions—so far as identification is concerned, first, has the prisoner such a marked personality, and had the witnesses Lambie, Adams, and Barrowman such an opportunity to observe the man leaving Miss Gilchrist's house, and are they sufficiently credible witnesses, to enable you to hold it proved that the prisoner is the same man? Second, has the prisoner such a marked personality, and had the eleven or twelve witnesses above referred to such opportunities for seeing the man who haunted the street, as to enable you to hold it proved that the prisoner was the same man— I assume — but again it is for you to say — that there can be no reasonable doubt as to the identity of the man haunting the street and the murderer. Lastly, is there corroboration, in other parts of the evidence, of the personal impression given you by these witnesses, assuming that they are strangers, and assuming that there is no such marked personality or personal peculiarity as would add weight to the mere personal impression?

His lordship then examined the purely circumstantial evidence, and commented on the fact that nothing was found in the prisoner's possession on which the jury could rely as being connected necessarily with the murder. With regard to the telegram said to have been despatched by Slater from the Central Station at 6.12 on the night of the crime, there was no evidence that, although it was in his handwriting, he personally handed it to the telegraph clerk. [Curiously enough, there was no evidence even that it was in Slater's handwriting.] The jury would consider whether, even accepting the evidence of Aumann and Rattman, the prisoner had not plenty of time to walk from Johnston's billiard rooms to West Princes Street and to arrive at the scene of the murder by seven o'clock. With regard to the evidence of Antoine and Schmalz they would also judge whether, in a disreputable house such as Slater's, they were, without evidence, to credit the statement that hours were so punctual and so regular that the inmates always dined at seven o'clock. As to the alleged flight from Glasgow, his lordship did not think it could be suggested that Slater was not intending at some time or other to go to America. It was for the jury to say whether, in the circumstances they had heard detailed, there was a hastening of that intention, which was suggestive, if it did not prove, that he had a new and very serious motive for expediting his departure. His lordship noted that Antoine, who must have known, was not asked by counsel for the defence to say that the tickets were taken for Liverpool, and not for London. After some observations on what constituted reasonable doubt, his lordship concluded his impressive and impartial charge as follows:—

Gentlemen, I suppose 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, not that he is possibly or probably the murderer, but 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 do your duty and convict him; if you think there is, you will acquit him.

The jury retired to consider their verdict at 4.55 p.m. Contrary to the usual practice, the prisoner, it is understood by his own desire, did not leave the dock to await their decision in the cells below the Court-room. It was obvious from the demeanour of those in Court that a verdict adverse to the accused was not at first expected; but as the time wore on, and the jury did not return, this anticipation visibly decreased. The general restlessness communicated itself to the prisoner, until the ringing of the jury bell at 6.5, announcing that his fate had been decided, was succeeded by intense silence. The jury, having returned to the box, and Lord Guthrie having taken his seat, the foreman, in reply to the Clerk of Justiciary, announced their verdict as follows:—"The jury, by a majority, find the panel guilty of murder as libelled." Mr. Morison, K.C., in the absence of the Lord Advocate, then formally moved for sentence.

It is not too much to say that the verdict came with a shock of surprise to most of the auditors in the crowded Court-room. Upon none, however, did the blow fall with such fearful effect as on the man in the dock. He had been, it appears, throughout the trial, confident of acquittal, and had borne himself from day to day with inflexible composure. The recording of the verdict and sentence, which followed upon the jury's finding, occupied an actual seven minutes; but the tense stillness, broken only by the sound of the official pen, seemed interminable. It proved too much for the prisoner's iron nerve. He rose in the dock, and, labouring under strong emotion, made an incoherent effort to address the judge. Lord Guthrie informed Mr. M'Clure that he should advise the prisoner to reserve anything he had to say for the Crown authorities; but Slater commenced another hysterical appeal, which his lordship mercifully terminated by pronouncing the inevitable sentence, adjudging the prisoner to be hanged in Glasgow on 27th May. A scene more painful it is fortunately the lot of few to witness, and none who did so on this occasion is likely to forget it. The prisoner was then removed, and the Court rose.

It is satisfactory to note that, as the result of what occurred upon this trial, an Act of Adjournal was passed on 1st June, 1909, abolishing the unnecessary and cruel delay between the declaration of a verdict of guilty and the pronouncing of the capital sentence. A copy of the Act of Adjournal will be found in the Appendix.

The votes of the fifteen jurymen were, it is understood, given as follows:—Nine for "guilty," five for "not proven," and one for "not guilty." It is noteworthy that, had two of the majority voted differently, Slater would have been set free.

In England, of course, a conviction in such circumstances could not have been obtained, and a new trial would have resulted.

On the night of the last day of the trial, Thursday, 6th May, it was stated in the Press that the prisoner, on being taken to the cells below the dock, exclaimed to the detectives, "I am not the only guilty party"; but this alleged confession was afterwards emphatically denied by Mr. Speirs, the agent for the defence, in a letter to the newspapers.

The verdict was variously received by the Press. One newspaper stated that, at the conclusion of Lord Guthrie's charge, it appeared impossible for the prisoner to escape; while another, taking exactly the opposite view, declared that the judge's summing up made it impossible for the jury to convict! Perhaps the more general view was that a verdict of "not proven" would, in the circumstances, have been a safer finding. Arrangements were made forthwith for the presentation of a public petition for commutation of the death sentence, to be forwarded to the Secretary of State for Scotland, the grounds being (1) that the evidence led against the prisoner was insufficient to justify the jury finding him guilty of the charge, there being, in the petitioners' opinion, insufficient evidence to identify the prisoner with the murderer; and (2) that the question of the prisoner's immoral character was brought before the jury and, in the petitioners' view, must have influenced their judgment. This was duly prepared, and having been signed, it is stated, by over twenty thousand members of the public, was forwarded to the Scottish Secretary, Lord Pentland, together with a memorial in Slater's behalf prepared by Mr. Speirs, on Monday, 17th May, ten days before the date fixed for the execution. A copy of this memorial, which ably embodies in lucid and succinct form, the arguments on the evidence against the verdict, will be found in the Appendix. With the exception of the statement of Agnes Brown, to which we have before referred, no new facts are given; nor does the memorial contain any further information regarding Slater's movements on the night of the crime. If, as is alleged in the memorial, the prisoner " was all along anxious to give evidence on his own behalf," and only refrained from entering the witness-box on his counsel's advice, it is difficult to understand why, when he had an opportunity of telling his own story to the Scottish Secretary, his lips remained sealed.

Meanwhile the "campaign" in the Press, against which Mr. M'Clure had protested at the trial as prejudicial to his client, was conducted more vigorously than ever; but on this occasion in favour of the condemned man. To such lengths was this crusade of sentiment carried, that one respectable Glasgow journal actually despatched an emissary to an obscure mining village in Upper Silesia, for the purpose of interviewing the convict's parents; and for some days improved its readers with anecdotes of "Oscar's Youth," and harrowing accounts of "How the News of the Verdict Reached Them," and "The Mother's Judgment: 'If he has done that he deserves to die.'"

As time went on, and no word reached Glasgow from London, the authorities proceeded with the necessary arrangements for carrying out the sentence on 27th May. Not till seven o'clock on the evening of the 25th was the following telegram received from the Scottish Office:—

To the Lord Provost of Glasgow, City Chambers, Glasgow.—Case of Oscar Slater. Execution of sentence of death is respited until further signification of His Majesty's pleasure.

UNDER-SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND.

The news was at once communicated by the magistrates to the prisoner in the condemned cell. The next morning the Lord Provost received the following letter in confirmation:—

Scottish Office, Whitehall, May 25th, 1909.

My Lord Provost,—

I am to signify to you the King's command that the execution of the sentence of death passed on Oscar Slater, presently in His Majesty's prison at Duke Street, Glasgow, be respited with a view to its commutation to penal servitude for life.—I am, my Lord Provost, your obedient servant,

PENTLAND.

The Hon. the Lord Provost of Glasgow, City Chambers, Glasgow.

It is understood that Lord Pentland, in arriving at his decision, had the assistance of the Lord Chancellor and Mr. Muldane, Minister for War; and that Lord Guthrie, as the judge presiding at the trial, was also consulted. On 8th June the following questions with reference to the respite were asked in the House of Commons:—

Sir J. H. Dalziel (L., Kirkcaldy Burghs) asked the Lord Advocate whether he would state the grounds on which he advised that the extreme penalty of the law should not be carried out in the case of Oscar Slater, convicted of murder, and now detained in Glasgow prison, and on what grounds the said prisoner was now detained in custody.

The Lord Advocate (Mr. Ure)—The Lord Advocate does not advise the Crown in regard to the exercise of the prerogative of mercy, and it would be contrary to practice to state the grounds on which the prerogative of mercy is exercised in any particular case. Oscar Slater is detained in custody on the ground that he has been convicted of the crime of murder.

Sir J. H. Dalziel—Was the Secretary for Scotland in possession of the right hon. gentleman's views before any decision was taken with regard to the matter? and, further, if Slater is detained in custody for the crime of murder, why was he not called upon to suffer the extreme penalty for this brutal crime?

The Lord Advocate—The Secretary for Scotland was in possession of my views before the decision was taken; but I think the House will agree that it is entirely contrary to practice and to public policy to state the grounds on which the Secretary for Scotland exercised the- prerogative of mercy.

Sir J. H. Dalziel—Are we to understand from that, the view of the Government is that Oscar Slater was guilty of this brutal crime?

The Lord Advocate—I am afraid that is only asking in another form a question which I have declined to answer.

On 8th July, Slater, along with seven other convicts, was removed from Duke Street Prison, Glasgow, to the Convict Prison at Peterhead, there to undergo his commuted sentence of penal servitude for life.

The reward of £200, offered by the Crown authorities for information which would lead to a conviction, was ultimately apportioned as follows:—Mary Barrowman, £100; John Forsyth, £40; Allan M'Lean, £40; and Gordon Henderson, £20, all of whom were witnesses at the trial.

Of the many mysteries which the four days' inquiry failed to elucidate two remained not only unsolved, but, as regards one of them, even unnoticed—(1) How did Slater (or the murderer) acquire his knowledge of the existence of Miss Gilchrist's jewels? and (2) by what means did he obtain entrance to her house?

As regards the first point, the witness Mrs. Walker, a former servant, was asked if Miss Gilchrist's jewels formed a subject of conversation in the neighbourhood, but she stated that she had only heard it remarked among the tradespeople that her mistress was well dressed and wore some jewellery. Lambie swore that, so far as she knew, no one in the neighbourhood was aware of the existence of the jewels except a girl friend of hers, whom she had informed of the fact; and that she had also mentioned the matter to her admirer, Nugent, a year before the murder. These are the only references to the subject which the evidence contains. The members of the Adams family, who had resided in the hue house below for many years, were not asked, when examined, if any report of the old lady's jewels had reached them.

With regard to the second point, no reference to it was made by either of the counsel or by the presiding judge. No doubt exists of the fact that the murderer did somehow obtain access to the house; but the manner of his entrance was not alluded to. It is clear that he did not do so by the windows, for these, as we have seen, were, with the exception of the kitchen window, all fastened when Lambie went out, and were in tile same condition when she returned. The height of the flat from the ground, in the absence of a ladder, further precludes this theory. That the murderer was not concealed in the stair leading to the empty house above, but entered from the street after Lambie's departure, is also indicated by the wet footmarks noticed by her on the lower steps of the stair, to which attention has been drawn. If the evidence of Lambie be accepted, there is no question that both the house and close doors were securely closed when she left, and could only be opened either by keys from without or by Miss Gilchrist from within. The conjecture that the murderer used false keys is unlikely; the close door could, no doubt, be readily opened either by a knife or a common latch-key, but the house door, as we have seen, was guarded by two separate patent locks which required two different keys. The murderer, therefore, probably rang the street door bell. Mr. Adams stated that he generally, but not invariably, heard Miss Gilchrist's bell when rung; he did riot do so that night.

It is in evidence that Miss Gilchrist was apprehensive of attacks upon her property, and it seems, at first sight, unlikely that she would voluntarily admit a stranger, or would not, at least, have opened the door upon the chain, till she had ascertained his business. But, as she kept only one servant, she must frequently (as on the servant's night out) have had occasion to answer the door herself, being alone in the house. No question was put to Lambie as to her mistress's practice in this regard, nor was she asked if, when she went upon her nightly errand for the paper, she had not, on some former occasions, forgotten to take the keys.

Assuming that this had happened before, it is possible that the murderer (who had presumably studied the habits of the inmates), being on the watch in one of the adjacent closes, rang the street bell immediately after Lambie left the house. The close door is opened by raising a handle within the hall, just outside the dining-room door. The old lady, thinking that Lambie had forgotten the keys, may have removed her spectacles, laid them (as they were found) beside her magazine, and, rising from her chair, have gone to the hall and lifted the handle. She may then have opened the house door, and at once have returned to the dining-room, the door of which immediately adjoins, and is at right angles to, the front door in the hall. That she did so is more probable than that she waited at the door to see if it were Lambie, as, even if the difference of tread did not apprise her that it was not the maid, she could have seen a stranger coming up the stairs in time to close the door.

That no struggle occurred in the hall or in the dining-room, and that Miss Gilchrist was felled as she stood on the hearth rug, near her chair, would appear for three reasons—(1) There was no indication of such in the position of the furniture of either the hall or dining-room; (2) the first sound heard by the Adams family was the fall of a heavy body; and (3) the evidence of Professor Glaister proves that the deed was done on the spot where the body was found.

It is therefore likely, in view of the medical evidence, that the old lady had regained her chair, when she realised that the footsteps approaching were not those of Lambie. She turned, and took a step or two towards the door as the murderer entered the room. With one swift blow she was struck down, her head crashing against the lid of the coal scuttle (which, we know, was broken and bloody) on the right hand side of the fireplace; she rolled or was dragged on to the hearth rug; and, voluntarily or involuntarily, gave, probably with her heels, the three knocks upon the floor. Her assailant may then, furious at what he perceived to be a signal for help, have snatched up the skin rug, which lay in front of the sideboard, and using it partly to stifle her cries, partly as a screen for himself, have, kneeling upon her chest, completed his ghastly task.

The meaningless ferocity of the assault may have been due to the fury of fear; for it is to be remembered that, early in the attack, the three " rude rings " of Mr. Adams rang through the house. That these gave the murderer pause is shown by Mr. Adams' statement that he "had been standing at the door for half a minute or so" before he heard the gruesome sound which he described. On his second visit to the door, two or three minutes later, the sounds had ceased; the murderer was then in the bedroom.

Apart from such hypotheses, one fact, however, is clearly proved: the murderer's hands were clean. The deed done, he hurried to the bedroom. The match-box he had brought with him, the match he struck, the gas bracket he lighted, the box he broke open, the papers therein which he scattered on the floor, the glass dish on the toilet table from which he took the brooch, each handled by him in turn, were all free from blood. It is remarkable that, if the murderer knew nothing of the house, he made straight for the spare bedroom in which the jewels were kept, passing the door of Miss Gilchrist's bedroom on his way, and entering, as appears, none of the other rooms. He was certainly in the house for less than ten minutes, yet had time not only to deliver the blows—" not under fifty or sixty, probably a good many more "—which silenced his victim, but to ascertain in which of the six apartments the jewels were secreted, to light the gas, to open and examine the contents of the box, to secure the brooch, and to walk leisurely past Lambie and Adams, so soon as they unlocked the door.

The question of time brings us to the consideration of another point. The murder, according to the Lord Advocate's theory, was committed by a man who had thoroughly familiarised himself with the movements and habits of the inmates by "careful, prolonged, and steady watching with a skilled eye." That being so, why did he select for his purpose the shorter period of the maid's nightly errand to the newsagent's (which, she said, never exceeded ten minutes), rather than her necessarily longer absence for the messages later in the evening, or, better still, her weekly night out? It may be that he had already attempted to gain admission to the house on one or other of these occasions, but found that Miss Gilchrist would not then open the door. Even assuming that his original design was robbery, and did not embrace the possibility of incidental murder, he must have expected that to obtain the jewels would require a search, more or less protracted, during which their owner might raise the alarm, unless, indeed, he thought she would give them up at once. But, with deference to the suggestion of the learned judge upon this point, it may -well be that not only did the intruder contemplate the murder of Miss Gilchrist from the first, but chose his time with reference to the maid's short absence; so that, had she returned, as usual, alone, she might have shared the fate of her mistress, thus leaving him free to search the premises at his leisure.

In this connection mention may be made of the case of John Paul Foster, recorded by Feuerbach, the eminent jurist, in his admirable studies of German criminal trials,* which presents some striking points of resemblance to the present case.

*Narratives of Remarkable Criminal Trials Translated from the German of Anselm Ritter von Feuerbach by Lady Duff Gordon. London: John Murray, 1846.

This miscreant was, on 22nd July, 1821, convicted of the murder of Christopher Baumler, a corn chandler of Nürnberg, and his maid-servant, Anna Katherina Schutz, in the following circumstances:—Baumler, who was reputed a wealthy man, lived above his shop, the only other occupant of the house being the servant, a girl of twenty-three. His ordinary business included the right of selling brandy. On the night of 20th September, certain citizens who had been drinking in the shop left together at nine o'clock, leaving there one customer, a stranger to them, drinking by himself. The shop was usually closed at 11 p.m. At 9.45, the maid called at the baker's, "a hundred steps" distant, and purchased two rolls. This errand could not have occupied above five minutes. About the same hour, an opposite neighbour noticed, to his surprise, that Baumler's shop was closed. Next morning, as the shop remained shut after its usual hour, the neighbours effected an entrance by an upper window, when it was found that the whole house had been ransacked, and two bags of money, as well as some clothing, stolen. In the parlour, behind the shop, the corpse of Baumler was discovered lying on its back between the stove and the table, beside the stool upon which he had sat. smoking his pipe; while behind the shop door lay the dead body of the maid, with the two rolls beside her. The injuries inflicted upon the old man and the girl were identical, and, by a strange coincidence, closely resemble those disclosed on the post-mortem examination in the present case. Both heads had been shattered, in the opinion of the surgeons, "with a heavy instrument, having a flat surface, with sharp edges, probably the back of a hatchet." In each case the sternum and ribs were fractured, it was thought by stamping on the bodies. At the trial it was proved that Foster had been seen, for several days before the murder, walking about the street in a suspicious manner, watching the house; he was identified as the man who had outstayed the other customers, one of whom had spoken to him casually, and it is instructive to note that the witnesses, who identified him, described him as wearing a blue coat, when, in fact, its colour was brown. The brown great-coat which he wore on the night of the murder and had disposed of, was recovered, "much stained and in some places soaked with blood"; an axe, bearing unequivocal traces of the deed, was found concealed in his house; and, finally, some of his victim's property was traced to his possession. Having studied the habits of the household, Foster had entered the shop and ordered a glass of brandy. Immediately upon the maid's departure, he had, in the parlour, felled Baumler with the axe, which he carried hidden under his great-coat, closed the shop, lay in wait for the girl behind the street door, opened it for her, end attacked her as she returned from her errand. In spite of the strong circumstantial evidence adduced against him, Foster escaped capital punishment for the singular reasons that there were no eye-witnesses to the murder, and that no confession could be extorted from him! He was accordingly condemned to imprisonment in chains for life.

The statement of Agnes Brown before referred to raises the additional question, was the murder and robbery at 15 Queen's Terrace the work of a single hand? This question is also suggested by the evidence led at the trial. For instance, the man seen by Mrs. Liddell at five minutes to seven, standing at the railings outside the house, and minutely described by her, was obviously a man quite differently dressed from the man seen and described by Lambie, Adams, and Barrowman. It would be unprofitable to pursue the surmise that the murderer had an accomplice further than to remark that, if he had, and one of somewhat similar appearance to himself, it might go far to reconcile the otherwise conflicting testimony of the witnesses who describe the watcher and the man leaving the house. That the man seen by Lambie, Adams, and Barrowman bore no visible traces of blood is certain; and it is conceivable that the actual murderer had made his escape between Mr. Adams' visits to the door, while his more callous associate lingered to secure the jewels.

It appears from the evidence of all the medical witnesses that the murderer, using the short hammer as alleged by the Crown, would be more or less bloodstained. Upon this point the theory of Dr. John Adams, 1 Queen's Crescent, the first medical man to see the body, but who was not called as a witness at the trial, is of interest. Dr. Adams, it is understood, had, when returning home at about 11 p.m. from his professional duties, observed, on six or eight occasions shortly before the murder, a man hanging about the corner of Queen's Crescent, outside his own house. The man walked with a slouching, rolling gait, and had his hands in the pockets of a fawn-coloured overcoat. Dr. Adams mentioned the matter, some time before the murder, to the policeman on the beat, who said that he had not seen the man. It will be remembered that Dr. Adams was summoned by Mr. Arthur Adams immediately after the discovery of the murder, and visited the scene of the crime at 7.20 or 7.25. He found Miss Gilchrist lying on her back on the hearth rug, with the skin rug across her face. Close to the head, and facing it, stood an ordinary chair. Having examined the body and ascertained that life was extinct, Dr. Adams' attention was attracted by the condition of this chair. He observed that the left back leg, furthest from the head, was soaked with blood, and that the inner aspect of each front leg was spotted with blood. The back leg, in his opinion, had evidently been in contact with the wounds. With this instrument, in his view, the injuries to the head had been inflicted. In addition to the appearance of the chair, he inferred that it had been so used from the character of the injuries, the comparatively small quantity of blood near the head, and the restricted area of the blood stains. In the opinion of Dr. Adams the assault was committed by a few heavy, swinging blows from the back leg of this chair, the assailant, while wielding it, stamping upon the body, and thereby fracturing the ribs. The hands of the assailant would thus be clean, and the seat of the chair would be interposed between his person and the spurting blood at the moment of impact. With reference to the condition of the chair, it is to be kept in view that the locus was not inspected by Professor Glaister and Dr. Galt until the following day, when the appearance it presented may not then have been marked.

We may close our account of the salient features of this mysterious and perplexing case by quoting the dictum of Lord Collins from the Report of the Royal Commission appointed in 1904 to inquire into the affair of Adolf Beck, prevising that no parallel between the two cases is here suggested. His lordship observed—"Evidence as to identity based on personal impressions, however bona fide, is perhaps of all classes of evidence the least to be relied upon, and therefore, unless supported by other facts, an unsafe basis for the verdict of a jury."