Evening journal., 1899-10-04

guilty of a crime he never committed.
We recall the case Of a woman who
was stabbed to death, some years ago,
{ in one of the suburbs OF Paris. A GER
tain man, upon whom suspicion fell,
was arrested. 1t was demonstrated
that his boots exactly fitted the i'm
prints left on the ground by the mur-
derer: one Of his sleeve links was found
on the spot: and the dagger, proved to
be his property, was found on the scene
of the crime. Il was subsequently
proved, however, that another man
was the criminal wanted. Man No. 2
had clandestinely borrowed and re-
turned the boots OF man No. l. he had
also taken, but not returned, the
sleeve-link and dagger belonging to
man No. 1, and utilized them in the
manner named, so as to throw the re-
sponsibility of the crime upon the
shoulders OF man No. /. There was
too much evidence against man No.
for him to be guilty.
We keep within the bounds of good
and logical hypothetical reasoning
when we ask the questions-If Eli
Shaw be guilty, would he not have
seen to II that. when breaking the win
dow. the glass fell inside, not outside,
thus giving the impression that the
murderer came from the outside? If
Shaw be guilty, would he not have
moved the stove from directly
|, In front Of that window,
thus making It appear that
the murderer came from the outsider
And II Shaw be guilty, would he have
been such an arrant fool as to go up to
his own room. break the paper cover
ing a hole in the wall, and then quiet
, ly drop the revolver, with which the
, murders were committed, down the
flue OF the chimney, where It was GER
) tain to be discovered? II Eli Shaw
murdered his mother and grandmother,
| then he eliminated himself in the most
stupid manner imaginable. Homicldes
do not. however, when they desire to
escape suspicion, paste the fact in their
hats by leaving evidences OF their
, crimes all along the route Of the vari-
ous scenes OF action. One of the great
, est factors of the success attending the
r French detective force, the smartesi
/ and keenest detective plant in the
3 world is that its members invariably
= dlstrust appearances. invariably lool
I elsewhere than to the person or per
= sons to whom appearances directly
) point.
1 When ninety-nine men blatantly
3 shout, respecting any complex subject
1T is sol" 1t does not necessarily fol-
, low that the odd or hundredth mar
= Who quietly exclaims 1T is not sol" II
3 wrong. Not at all. Now, Eli Shaw
for aught we know to the contrary
= may be one OF the worst Of matri
{ cides. But then, seeing that severa
q inks in the concatenation or chain o
. itouuilAlNt tNAbthNt dtdAhoN hheW a.
}. missing, there is the possibility, per
o APPS the probability. of his being an al
v ogether innocent man, the victim, a
i was the man Lee, OF a finely put n
y OBJ" In other words, there may be to
i much evidence against Eli Shaw 70
h him to be guilty. Who among us ca
: onfidently declare otherwise? Assum
Il ing Shaw to be innocent of the Grim
d lof murder-and since the law has de
t, clared itself to that effect We ar
d bound, no matter what our individua
It opinions may be. to so regard him
then this periodical bounding Of tn
II man. simply because he is not flnar
l. cially or otherwise able to combat a
u such attacks, is alike reprehensibl'
sr cowardly and cuipable in the highei
r degree. ERNEST IsITT.
IS Philadelphia. Pa, October 3, 1899.