Alma record. (Alma, Mich.) 1878-1928, 1900-08-10
CHAPTER II.
THE WAGER.

HE w AGEK
what | mean to assert" said Ralph
Sturgis, with quiet conviction, SIS that
every crime is its own historian; that
all its minutcst details are written in
circumstantial evidence as completely
as an eyewitness could see them-aye,
more fully and more truly than they
could be described by the criminal him
self"
The reporter was a man of about 30,
whose regular features bore the I'M
mistakable stamp Of intelligence and
refinement. In repose, they wore an
habitual expression of interpretive
concentration, which might have led
n careless observer to class Ralph Stur-
gis in the category of aimless dream
ers. But a single flash of the piercing
gray eyes generally sufiiced to dispel
any such impression; and told of keen
perception and underlying power. The
mouth was firm and kind, he bearing
that of a gentleman and a man Of edu-
cation.
But" objected the host, You surely
do not mean 10 express belief in the
infallibility of circumstantial evil
dence?"
"Why not ?"
because you must know as we'll "a
anyone how misleading uncorroborated
circumstantial evidence is. do not for
get what remarkable results you have
often accomplished for the Daily Tenn
pest in detecting and following up
clews TO which the official detectives
were blind. But, frankly, were not
your conclusions usually the result of
lucky guesses, which wouiG have re-
NAMED comparatively useless as evil
dence had they not been subsequently
proved correct by direct testimony
Let me reply TO your question by an
other, Sprague," answered Sturgis.
when you draw a check, does the pay
ing teller at the bank require the tes-
timony of witnesses 10 your signature
before admitting its genuineness|
NO; of course not"
Precisely. He probably knows the
signature of Harvey NJ. Sprague, the
depositor, better than he does the
ldSt VI DJl az uts lIN III AAoNs -AAAN y ~
the evidence here is purely circum-
stantial. l know of at least one re-
cent instance in which the officials of
New York bank placed their i'm
plicit reliance upon circumstantial
evidence of this sort, in spite of the
direct testimony of the depositor,
who was willing TO acknowledge the
genuineness of check TO which his
name had been forged"
II suppose you refer to the Forsyth
case" said Sprague; "but you must
remember that Col. Forsyth was
actuated by the desire TO shield the
forger, who was his own scapegrace
SON"
THAT is just the point" replied
Sturgis; another witness will be
biased by his interests or prejudices,
blinded by jealousy, love or hatred,
or handicapped By overzealousness,
stupidity, lack of memory, or what
not. Circumstantial evidence is al
ways impartial, truthful, absolute.
When the geologist reads the history
of the earth as it is written in its
crust; when Kepler or a Newton
fermulates the immutable laws of the
universe, as they are recorded in the
motions of the heavenly bodies, they
draw their conclusions from evidence
which is entirely circumstantial."
Eyes: but you forget that science
has often been mistaken in its con-
clusions," interrupted Sprague, $50
that il has constantly been necessary
to alter theories TO fit newly acquired
or better understood facts"
Granted" reioined Sturgis, "but
that is because the interpreters of the
evidence are fallible; not because the
evidence itself is incomplete. The
same cause will always produce the
same effect; the same chain of events
will Invariably terminate in one and
the same catastrophe. The apparent
deviations from this law are due 10
unrecognized differences in the pro-
ducing causes TO additional or miss
ing links in the chain of evidence.
Therefore | hold that a criminal
however clever he may be, leaves be-
hind him complete trace of his every
act, from which his crime may be re-
constructed with absolute certainty
by a competent detective"
I'm short, Murder will out!'" said
man who had been a silent listener
10 the conversation up TO this point.
He spoke with a quiet smile, which