UNTO THE RIGHT HONOURABLE LORD
PENTLAND, HIS MAJESTY’S SECRETARY
OF STATE FOR SCOTLAND
MEMORIAL
ON BEHALF OF
OSCAR SLATER
This Memorial is humbly presented on behalf of Oscar Slater presently
a Prisoner in the Prison of Glasgow, who was, in the High Court of
Justiciary at Edinburgh, on Thursday, the sixth day of May, Nineteen
hundred and nine, found guilty of the charge of murdering Miss Marion
Gilchrist in her house in West Princes Street, Glasgow, and sentenced
to death. The Prisoner is a Jew, and was born in Germany. He is 37
years of age.
The Jury returned a verdict of “Guilty” by a majority of nine to six,
and the legal advisers of the condemned man hold a very strong opinion
that the verdict of the majority of the Jury was not in accordance
with the evidence led, and that this evidence was quite insufficient
to identify the Prisoner with the murderer, and so to establish the
Prisoner’s guilt. This view, they believe, is shared by the general
public of all classes in Scotland, and by the Glasgow press (vide
leading article in The Glasgow Herald of 7th May, 1909, sent herewith).
Your Memorialist has endeavoured in this paper to deal with the matter
as briefly and with as little argument as possible; but in view of
the fact that the trial of the Prisoner occupied four days, it is
inevitable that the Memorial should extend to some length.
It is common ground that the late Miss Gilchrist, a lady of about 82
years of age, resided alone with her domestic servant, Nellie Lambie, a
girl of about 21 years of age.
According to the evidence of Lambie, the latter left Miss Gilchrist
alone in the house at seven o’clock on the evening of 21st December,
1908, and went to purchase an evening paper. Lambie deponed that she
securely shut the house door behind her, and also the door at the
close, or street entry; that she was only absent about ten minutes;
that on returning about ten minutes past seven o’clock she found the
close door open; that upon ascending the stair she found Mr. Adams, a
gentleman who resides in the flat below, standing at Miss Gilchrist’s
house door; that Adams informed her that he had gone up to Miss
Gilchrist’s door because he had heard knocking on the floor of Miss
Gilchrist’s house, and had rung the bell, but that he could obtain no
admittance; that the lobby was lighted by one gas jet turned half up,
but giving a good light; that Lambie thereupon opened the house door
with her keys; that upon the door being opened a man came through the
lobby or hall of Miss Gilchrist’s house, passed Lambie and Adams, went
downstairs, and disappeared; and that, upon Lambie and Adams entering
the house, they found Miss Gilchrist lying on the dining-room floor
dead, her head having been smashed.
Upon the Wednesday following the murder (23rd December, 1908), the
Glasgow Police were informed by a message girl named Mary Barrowman
(about 15 years of age), that she had seen a man wearing a Donegal
hat and a light coat running out of the close which leads from the
street to Miss Gilchrist’s house shortly after seven o’clock on the
night of the murder; that the man passed her, running at top speed;
that she noticed that he was dark, and clean-shaven, and that his
nose was twisted towards the right side. The servant Lambie had also
informed the Police that a gold crescent brooch, set in diamonds, had
disappeared from Miss Gilchrist’s house on the night of the murder,
and that this was all of Miss Gilchrist’s property that she missed.
These statements were published in the Glasgow newspapers on Friday,
25th December, 1908, and following upon this the witness Allan Maclean,
a member of a club to which Slater belonged, informed the Police
that Slater’s appearance somewhat corresponded with the description
advertised, and that he had been trying to sell a pawn ticket for a
diamond brooch. Following up this clue, the Police went to Slater’s
house at 69, St. George’s Road, Glasgow, on the night of Friday, 25th
December, and learned that he and Miss Andrée Antoine, with whom he had
been cohabiting, had left Glasgow that night with their belongings. The
Police thereafter ascertained that Slater had sailed on the “Lusitania”
for New York from Liverpool on Saturday, 26th December, and cabled to
the Authorities at New York to detain and search him on his arrival.
This was done, and the pawn ticket, which he had been trying to sell,
was found upon him, but turned out to be a pawn ticket for a brooch
which belonged to Miss Antoine, had never belonged to Miss Gilchrist,
and had been pawned a considerable time before the murder. Proceedings,
however, were instituted for Slater’s extradition. The witnesses
Lambie, Adams, and Barrowman gave evidence in America, purporting to
identify him as the man seen leaving Miss Gilchrist’s house, and Slater
was (he states of his own consent) extradited, and brought back to
Scotland for trial.
An advertisement was published by the Authorities in Glasgow offering a
reward of £200 for information which would lead to the arrest of the
murderer.
The only evidence against Slater, which might be called direct
evidence, was the evidence of the persons who saw a man walk out of
the lobby or hall in Miss Gilchrist’s house on the night of the murder
(Lambie and Adams), or leaving the close leading therefrom, or running
along the street (Barrowman).
At the trials Lambie professed to identify Slater, as the man whom she
had seen leaving the house, by the side of his face. It was put to her,
however, and clearly proved, that when she gave evidence in New York
in the extradition proceedings she stated in Court there that she did
not see the man’s face, and professed to identify him by his walk. When
Slater’s own coat, the one found in his luggage, was shown to her at
the trial, she at once remarked, even before it was unrolled, that it
was not like the coat the man in the lobby wore--it was the coat. It
was obviously impossible that she knew it to be the same coat. Lord
Guthrie referred to this in his charge to the jury as a typical example
of the nature of her evidence. With regard to the positive nature
of her evidence generally, it is interesting to note that her first
answer in America, when asked if she saw the man, was, “One is very
suspicious, if anything.” She stated that, when she saw Slater in the
Central Police Office at Glasgow, she recognised him in his “own coat.”
It was proved that he was not then wearing his own coat, but one with
which he had been dressed for identification purposes.
The witness only saw the man who was leaving the house for a moment or
two. Adams and she contradicted each other as to where she was when the
man walked across the lobby. Adams deponed that she was by the lobby
clock and walking towards the kitchen. If so, she must practically have
had her back to the man. She says she was on the threshold of the door.
In any event, her view was momentary.
The witness Adams, who deponed that he had a better view of the man
in the house than Lambie, stated at the trial that he, standing at
the threshold, saw the man’s face as he approached, that their eyes
met, and that the man walked slowly towards him, face to face, but
Adams would not go further than to say that Slater resembled the man
very much. He is superior to Lambie and Barrowman in years, education
and intelligence. Your Memorialist begs to emphasise the fact that
this witness had a much better view of the man than any of the other
witnesses.
The witness Barrowman stated at the trial that the man ran out of
the close and rushed past her at top speed, brushing against her, and
that he had his hat pulled well down over his forehead. The witness is
a message girl, about 15 years of age. She also stated that the man
had on brown boots, a Donegal hat, and a fawn coat, and that he was
dark and clean-shaven, and that his nose had a twist to the right. She
professed to have noticed all these things as he rushed past her at top
speed. At the trial this witness stated in cross-examination (1) that
she was proceeding in the opposite direction from the man, to deliver
a parcel, but that she turned and went some distance after him; that
she thought he was probably going to catch a tram-car; but she could
not explain why she should go out of her way to turn and follow a man
running for a car in a busy city like Glasgow; and (2) that, although
the girl Lambie and she had occupied the same cabin on the voyage to
America, which lasted about twelve days, she had not once discussed the
appearance of the man, and that no one had warned her not to do so.
These two statements do not impress your Memorialist as bearing the
stamp of truth. This girl started the description of the twisted nose.
She is the only witness who refers to it. Her view of the man’s face
must necessarily have been momentary. Slater’s nose cannot properly be
described as “twisted to the right.” It has a noticeable prominence in
the centre.
All of these three witnesses had, as has been said, only a momentary
view of the man, and it was proved that before Barrowman professed to
identify Slater in New York she was shown his photograph, and that both
she and Lambie, before attempting to identify him in New York, saw him
being brought into Court by a Court official, wearing a badge. In her
New York evidence she first said, “He is something like the man I saw.”
At the trial she stated that he was the man. These facts very much
reduce, if they do not altogether vitiate, the value of the evidence of
these identifying witnesses.
Another witness, Mrs. Liddell, who is a married sister of the witness
Adams, stated that, at five minutes to seven on the evening of the
murder, she saw a dark, clean-shaven man leaning against a railing at
the street entry to Miss Gilchrist’s house, but that this man wore
a heavy brown tweed coat and a brown cap. It is to be observed that
Constable Neil, who passed the house at ten minutes to seven, saw no
one there; and Lambie, who left the house promptly at seven, or, as
she said in America, “perhaps a few minutes before seven,” saw no one
there. Further, Mrs. Liddell did not observe where the man went to;
according to her he merely glided away; and although she was in Miss
Gilchrist’s house that night and saw the body, and would naturally be
greatly concerned over the murder, she did not recollect having seen
this man until the Wednesday after the murder. Even taking her evidence
as absolutely true and reliable, it provides an excellent object-lesson
on the difficulty and responsibility of convicting on such evidence as
this, because the man she saw was obviously dressed differently from
the man seen by the other three witnesses. Her evidence does not, to
any appreciable extent, further the case against Slater, as she stated
that she thought this man was Slater, but admitted that she might be in
error.
The other witness is a girl named Annie Armour, a ticket clerk in the
Subway Station at Kelvinbridge, who says that between 7.30 and 8 that
evening a man, whom she identified as Slater, rushed past her office
without waiting for a ticket, and seemed excited. Lord Guthrie in his
charge to the jury did not refer to this witness, and your Memorialist
thinks advisedly. The mere question of time is sufficient to render
her evidence valueless. She is sure the incident did not happen before
7.30. According to the other witnesses, the murderer must have run
from the house by at least 7.15. It was proved that it would only take
a man five or six minutes to run from the scene of the tragedy to
this station, either by the most direct route or by the route which
Barrowman’s evidence suggests he took. Then it is impossible to suppose
that she could get anything like a good view, even of the side face, of
a man who rushed past her in the way she described.
All the witnesses who saw the man on the night of the murder (Monday)
say that he was clean-shaven. It was proved that on the next day or two
after the murder Slater had a short, black, stubbly moustache.
These were the only witnesses called by the Crown to identify Slater
with the murderer. Further circumstantial evidence, however, was led
by the Crown to show that, on occasions before the day of the murder,
Slater had been seen standing in or walking up and down West Princes
Street--Mrs. M’Haffie, her daughters and niece, Campbell, Cunningham,
Bryson, Nairn, and O’Brien and Walker (two policemen). It may be noted
that Slater’s house was situated about three minutes’ walk from West
Princes Street.
These witnesses did not all agree in their evidence. Some said that
Slater was the man they had seen; others, equally or perhaps better
able to judge, only said that he was very like him. The Memorialist
does not propose in this paper to deal at length with this part of the
evidence, except to point out that two witnesses (Nairn and Bryson) say
they saw Slater in West Princes Street on the Sunday evening previous
to the murder. Against this there is the evidence that Slater on this
day, as usual, spent all Sunday (day and evening) in his house. Three
witnesses from Paris, London, and Dublin spoke to this. Coming from
different places, they had no chance to concoct a story.
At Slater’s trial it was suggested that there were various
circumstances tending to create an atmosphere of suspicion around him;
but it is submitted that all these were capable of explanation, and in
no way pointing to Slater’s guilt as a murderer. Slater had written to
Cameron that he could prove where he was on the evening of the murder
“by five people.” When this letter was written, he thought that the
date of the murder was the Tuesday, the 22nd.
The evidence of his witnesses was to the effect that on the evening of
the murder he was in a billiard room until 6.30 p. m., after which he
went home for dinner.
It was shown that Slater dealt in diamonds. There was, however, no
evidence of any dishonest dealing of any kind. The brooch said to have
been missing from Miss Gilchrist’s house has not been traced. There
was no evidence of any kind led to show that Slater ever knew, or
even heard of, Miss Gilchrist or her house, and the Memorialist would
emphasise the fact that it was the missing brooch that put the Police
on the track of Slater.
With reference to Slater’s departure for America on 25th December,
1908, it was proved that he had formed the intention, some weeks before
the murder, of going to America. Cameron, Rathman, and Aumann proved
this. Slater had, in fact, tried to get the last named to take over his
flat. The letter from Jacobs, of 28th December, and the card bearing
the words “address till 30th December,” produced by the Crown, also
corroborate the evidence of this intention of leaving, which is further
corroborated by the evidence of Nichols, the barber, a Crown witness.
On the morning of 21st December, 1908, Slater received two letters--one
from London, stating that his wife was demanding his address, and the
other from San Francisco, asking him to come over. These were spoken to
by Schmalz, his servant girl, and Miss Antoine. Further corroboration
of his intention to leave is (1) on the morning of 21st December he
raised a further £30 from Mr. Liddell, pawnbroker, on his brooch, and
on the same day tried to sell the ticket; (2) he wrote to the Post
Office for payment of the money at his credit; (3) he wired to Dent,
London, to send on his watch, which was being repaired, immediately;
(4) on the Monday morning he gave notice to the servant girl that she
would not be required after the following Saturday (these events all
happened before the murder); (5) on the Tuesday morning he redeemed a
pair of binoculars from another pawnbroker whose assistant, Kempton,
proved this, and who stated that he was in no way excited; (6) on the
23rd and 24th December he made inquiries at Cook’s Shipping Offices
regarding berths, and betrayed no signs of any excitement; on the 23rd
he was, in the evening, in Johnston’s billiard room, which he used to
frequent; and on the 24th he spent the afternoon about Glasgow with
his friend Cameron, who gave evidence; (7) on Friday morning a Mrs.
Freedman and her sister arrived from London to take over his flat, so
that he and Miss Antoine left on Friday night.
A rumour got abroad at the time to the effect that he booked to London
and left the train at Liverpool. This rumour was published in the
various newspapers, to Slater’s great prejudice, but nothing of the
kind was proved at the trial. The Police were evidently misled by the
fact that he went by a London train, but it was proved that there were
two carriages in that train for Liverpool, and also that Slater’s
luggage, consisting of nine boxes, was labelled to Liverpool. The
Porter who labelled the luggage was called, and stated that Slater told
him that he was going to Liverpool, and entered a Liverpool carriage.
The point was also raised against Slater that he used various aliases.
He had been staying apart from his wife for about four years, during
which time he cohabited with Miss Antoine. She stated that Slater’s
wife was a drunken woman, and caused him a deal of trouble. At one time
he adopted the name of “George,” and when he came to Glasgow on the
last occasion he took the name of “Anderson.” On the voyage to America
he took the name of Otto Sando, because his luggage was labelled O.
S. At times he called himself a dentist. There was no evidence that
he really was a dentist. Miss Antoine explained that he adopted the
title of dentist, as he required a designation of some sort, although
he was a gambler. A great deal was published in the newspapers about a
hammer that had been found in one of his boxes. This turned out to be
an ordinary small domestic nail hammer, purchased on a card containing
several other tools, the lot costing only 2s. 6d. He, of course, took
the hammer to America with him with all the rest of his belongings.
Nothing incriminating was found in any of his boxes.
No evidence whatever was led to show how the murderer gained access to
the house.
It will be conceded that identification evidence, especially in a
serious charge of this kind, must be examined very carefully, and
should have little weight attached to it, unless it is very clear.
To sum up, the only real evidence in the case is that of those who saw
a man running away on the night of the murder; and, as has been pointed
out, these witnesses had only a momentary glance at him. Adams does
not positively identify the prisoner as the man. He says he closely
resembles him.
Lambie’s New York evidence has already been referred to, and her
evidence at the trial cannot be reconciled with it.
Lambie and Barrowman both saw him in custody before trying to identify
him in New York, and the latter, before identifying him, was shown his
photograph.
All the other identifying witnesses called to give evidence as to his
having been seen in the vicinity on days previous to the murder were
taken down to the General Police Office when Slater returned from
America to identify him. They were shown into one room together, and
then separately taken into a room in the Police Office, where Slater
was amongst about a dozen men, none of whom were like him. (Cunningham
says she could see that the other men were policemen in plain clothes.)
All these witnesses knew that Slater had arrived from America, and
was in the room. They had all read his description in the newspapers,
or had seen his photograph. They all, therefore, looked for, and had
no difficulty in pointing out, a dark, foreign-looking man, with a
somewhat peculiarly shaped nose. It is submitted that this is not
identification evidence in the proper sense at all. Had these people
been able to pick out, as their man, from amongst several others, a man
whose description they only knew from what they had previously seen of
him, unassisted by description, and unassisted by a photograph, the
value of their evidence would have been entirely different.
Some Crown witnesses identified him as the man they had seen and talked
to (Shipping Clerk, Porter, &c.), but they, of course, were able to do
so. None of the identifying witnesses had ever spoken to him.
Identification evidence is a class of evidence which the law distrusts.
The most famous authority is the case of Adolf Beck. Beck was, in 1896,
sentenced to seven years’ penal servitude, on the evidence of ten
women, who swore positively that he was a man whom they had each met
on two occasions, and spent some time within their own houses, and who
had defrauded them, and on the evidence of two policemen, who swore
positively that Beck was the man who had been previously convicted of
similar crimes, taken along with certain circumstantial evidence--that
he was known to frequent a hotel on the notepaper of which one of the
women had received a letter. Again, in 1904, Beck was convicted of
similar crimes on similar evidence. It was subsequently demonstrated
that Beck committed none of the crimes, but that a man bearing a
general similarity to him was the criminal.
In the report issued by the Commission appointed to investigate the
matter, consisting of Lord Collins, Sir Spencer Walpole, and Sir John
Edge, the following passage occurs:--“Evidence of identity, upon
personal impression, however bona fide, is of all classes of evidence
the least to be relied upon, and, unless supported by other evidence,
an unsafe basis for the verdict of a Jury.”
Now, the evidence in the Beck case was infinitely more overwhelming and
consistent than in this case; and the report in the Beck case, and the
report on which it followed, make it clear that on the evidence in this
case the Jury had no right to bring in a verdict of “Guilty.”
A good deal was said by the learned Lord-Advocate to the Jury about
Slater’s immoral character. It was not disputed that he was a gambler.
It was also admitted that he had cohabited for about four years with
Madame Antoine, who was of doubtful virtue, and who gave evidence.
Yet the learned Lord-Advocate addressed the Jury to the effect that
the prisoner “had followed a life which descended to the very depth
of human degradation, for, by the universal judgment of mankind, the
man who lived upon the proceeds of prostitution has sunk to the lowest
depth, and all moral sense in him had been destroyed.” This he cited
as proof of the disappearance of an obstacle which had previously
been in his way, viz:--Whether it was conceivable that such a man
as Slater could commit such an inhumanly brutal crime. The only
evidence on that point was that of Cameron, Slater’s friend, who, in
cross-examination, said he had heard that Slater lived on the earnings
of prostitution, but who did not say he knew. The Jury were distinctly
told by the Lord-Advocate, and by the prisoner’s Counsel, and by the
Judge, to banish from their minds anything they had heard regarding the
man’s character; but they had previously heard all about it, and the
Memorialist feels strongly that they were evidently unable to do so.
Public feeling is also very strong on the point that the question of
Slater’s character should never have been brought before the Jury.
The Memorialist thinks it is only fair to prisoner to point out that
he was all along anxious to give evidence on his own behalf. He was
advised by his Counsel not to do so, but not from any knowledge of
guilt. He had undergone the strain of a four days’ trial. He speaks
rather broken English--although quite intelligibly--with a foreign
accent, and he had been in custody since January.
Apart from what has been set forth above, your Memorialist begs to draw
attention to the fact that on the Crown list of witnesses is the name
of a witness, Miss Agnes Brown (No. 46). This lady is 30 years of age,
and a very intelligent school teacher. Your Memorialist is informed
that she told the Police and Procurator-Fiscal that on the night of
the murder, about ten minutes past seven o’clock, two men in company
rushed along West Princes Street from the direction of Miss Gilchrist’s
house, and passed close to her at the corner of West Princes Street and
West Cumberland Street; that one of them was dressed in a blue Melton
coat with a dark velvet collar, black boots, and without a hat; that
both men ran past the opening of West Cumberland Street, straight on
along West Princes Street, crossed West Princes Street, and ran down
Rupert Street, a street further west, and opening off the opposite
side of West Princes Street. Your Memorialist understands that, in the
identification proceedings before referred to, this witness pointed out
Slater as the man in the Melton coat, as she thought. This witness’s
evidence is thus in sharp contradiction on material points to that of
the message girl Barrowman (who had only a momentary glance at the
man), but upon whose evidence so much weight has evidently been laid,
and who says that Slater was dressed in a light coat, a Donegal hat,
and brown boots, was alone, and ran down West Cumberland Street.
Your Memorialist respectfully submits that this illustrates the danger
of convicting a man upon the kind of evidence given in this case. Miss
Brown was in attendance at the trial, but was not called as a witness.
Even on the evidence led, the votes of two more jurymen in his favour
would have liberated the prisoner. In England the probability is that a
conviction would never have been obtained.
Your Memorialist is authorised to state that Slater’s Counsel agree
that the evidence did not justify the conviction.
Your Memorialist, who has all along acted as Slater’s Solicitor since
he was brought back from America after the Extradition Proceedings,
and who has had very many interviews with Slater, begs respectfully to
state his absolute belief in Slater’s innocence.
May it therefore please the Right Honourable the Secretary of
State for Scotland to take this Memorial into his most favourable
consideration, and thereafter to advise his Most Gracious Majesty
to exercise his royal prerogative to the effect of commuting the
sentence passed upon the prisoner, or to do otherwise as in the
circumstances may seem just.
And your Memorialist will ever pray.
EWING SPIERS,
190 West George Street, Glasgow,
Oscar Slater’s Solicitor.
Dated this seventeenth day of May, One
thousand nine hundred and nine.