Wessington Springs herald. (Wessington Springs, Aurora County, Dakota [S.D.]) 1883-1891, 1883-06-09
Circumstantial Evidence.

The effective administration of crim1.
nal law compels the reception of cir
cumstances IS evidence against an ac-
| cused person. 1t is for the jury to de-
| eide whether the circumstances prove
| that the accused committed the crime.
If they so demonstrate that alleged fact
that it appears morally certain, they
bring in a verdict of guilty. If, how
ever, the proof only amounts to a prob
ability, then they may give the accused
| the benefit Of the doubt, and bring in a
verdict of not guilty. The following
narrative, which reports a startling case
of murder tried in Yorkshire, England,
shows that ever the most hostile cir
cumstances may fail to prove an ac-
cused man guilty:
Two travellers slept together at q
small inn near Abbeford. In the morn
ing, one of them .was found murdered
in his bed. The other wa charged with
the crime. Stunned by the terrible ac-
cusation, he offered no explanation or
defense.
At the trial no motive for the crime
could be shown, but the circumstantial
evidence seemed to demonstrate that he
had committed it. A handful of hair,
which resembled the prisoners hair,
was discovered in the dead mans hand.
A button, similar to. those worn by the
condemned man, was found on the bed,
and it was proved that it had been torn
off by the murdered man in his struggle
o rifle. The prisoners silence, his pale
face and trembling lips, while these
facts were being brought to light, were
almost enough to convince the Jury that
he was guilty.
prosecuting lawyer said: eff any more
proof We're wanting. gentlemen of the
jury, that which | now have to offer
ought to convict the prisoner of the foul
crime. This pillow was discovered by
the landlord of the inn stained with the
bloody fingers of the criminal, and upon
the wall by the side of the bed similar
blood-stains were found. The landlord
cut out the wall paper on which the
bloody marks are imprinted, and I now
produce the paper and the pillow as
evidence. AndIcal your attention to the
fact that the marks are distinctly those
Of the thumb and first three fingers.
The absence of the little finger is easily
explained: The prisoner has none!"
The excitement in the courtroom was
intense. Suddenly, as if waking out of
q sleep, the accused asked this question
of the prosecuting lawyer:
"You say those marks on the pillow
and the wall are the blood-stains left by
the impression of a thumb and three
fingers of a mans hand?"
81 do. There can be no doubt of it."
"And those stains are the impression
left by the right hand, are they not?"
Certainly. That is apparent to
everyone; the thumb is toward the left"
"But it is my left hand which has no
little finger, not M right" and the man
quietly raised his hand.
The gesture established the prisoners
innocence beyond a doubt. The Jury
refused to convict him, in spite of sthe
circumstantial evidence, and he was set
at liberty.
Suspicion was directed against the
landlord, and he vas subsequently con-
victed Of the crime. Finding escape
impossible, he made a full confession.
The hair found in the dead mans
hand was the landlords, and the button
mad been torn off from his own coat.
But they both respectively resembled
the hair and buttons of the accused
traveller. The landlord had noticed at
the supper table that his guest had but
three fingers on one hand, but he had
made the fatal mistake of not noting
which hand was defective. In his at
tempt to throw the guilt on his guest,
he had used his OWL right hand, instead
OF his left, to make the Impressions
YOUTHS Companion.