River Falls journal. [volume] (River Falls, Pierce County, Wis.) 1872-2019, 1883-05-10
CircumstantiaI Evidence.


The effective administration of
criminal law compels the re-
ceptIon of circumstances as evil
dence against an accused person. 1t is
for the Jury to decide whether the cir
cumstances prove that the accused COM
mitted the crime. If they so demon
strate that alleged fact that it appears
morally certain, they bring in a verdict
OF guilty. If, however. the proof only
amounts to probability, then they may
give the accused the benefit ofthe doubt
and bring in verdict not guilty. The
following narrative, which reports a
Startling case Of murder tried in York
shire, England shows that even the
most hostile circumstances may fail to
prove an accused man guilty:
Two travellers slept together at a
small inn near Abbeford. In the morn
ing, one of them was found murdered in
his bed. The other was charged with
the crime. Stunned by the terrible ac-
cusation, he offered no explanation or
defence.
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 ii had been torn
of by the murdered mau III his struggle
for life. The prisoners silence, his pale
face and trembling lips, while these facts
.laf oil
enough to convince the jury he was
guilty.
But the climax was reached when the
prosecuting lawyer said, ''If any more
proof were wanting, gentlemen of the
jury. that which | know have no offer
ought to convict the prisoner of the foul
crime. This pillow was discovered by
the landlord Of the inn stained with the
bloody ii lures Of the criminal, and upon
the wall by the side OF the bed similar
blood-stains were found.
'sThe landlord cut out the wall paper
on which the bloody marks are imprinted
and now produce the paper and the
pillows as evidence. And | call Your at
tention 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 noneW
The excitement in the courtroom was
intense. Suddenly, as if waking out of
sleep, the accused asked this question Of
the prosecuting lawyer:
''To GU say those marks on the pillow
and the wall are the blood-stains left by
the impression of thumb and three fin
gers of man hand9"
II 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 ap. aren't to every
one; the thumb is towards the left"
But it is my left hand which has no
little finger; not my right" and the
man quietly raised his hand.
The gesture established the prisoners
innocence beyon d a doubt. The jury
refused to convict him in. spite of the
circumstantlal evidence, and he was set
at liberty.
Suspicion was directed against the
landlord, and he was subsequently
convicted Of the crime. Finding escape
impossible, he made full confession.
The hair found in the dead mans
hand was the landlords, and the button
had been torn off 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 attempt to throw the
guilt ON his guest, he had used his own
right hand instead of his left to make
the impressions.