The Express. — 1864-11-05 (London, England)

THE EXPRESS, SATURDAY EVENING, NOVEMBER 5, 1864.  only two or three others of the sane remarkable description, wu found in the carriage, left by Mr. Bamos's murderer. And since the German Soddy can neither explain these damning facts nor tell us, with all their research, where Mvid.za wee on the night of the murder, nor where the clothes are which he wore at the time, they misspend their time in setting up irrelevant assertions, and in suggesting possibilities which even if true would leave untouched the main circumstances on which the conviction turned.  The truth is that such attempts as these only bring into stronger relief the character of the circumstantial evidence on which the jury proceeded. It is seen that it is not a chain which breaks at its weakest point, but a solid pyramid of facts, rising to an apex of conviction, from which a single imperfect stone may be detached without in any way weakening the coherence and solidity of the rest. It is true that there still remains, as the German Society urges, a certain element of "mystery." But it is the mystery which belongs to all things human, and which is unveiled only to the one Allseeing Eye. Even in the clearest cases of direct evidence there still remains an element of uncertainty. The witness who has actually seen a murder done has ere now been found to be mistaken in identity. Often another witness, of undeniable veracity, has sworn to something wholly incompatible with the deed. The senses themselves deceive us sometimes, when we think we can rely most firmly on them. But in the management of our affairs, even when they involve the terrible issues of life and death, we cannot proceed upon the measurement of such nice possibilities. We can but use our judgment as it has been given us, leaving to the Maker of all to correct by His infinite wisdom the errors and failings which we make in the exercise of our finite powers. But in circumstantial evidence, such as we are now reviewing, there is a degree of assurance such as is not to be always found in the direct evidence on which we unhesitatingly act.'• We are content with but one witness in direct evidence, and even the Jewish and canon laws require no more than two. But in circumstantial evidence there is the independent concurrence of many witnesses to the proof of several independent facts, from the combination of which our reason draws the inference of guilt. So, in cases that have excited less public attention, juries every day convict for murder, and all wise men approve their verdict, on evidence of this circumstantial character. Proof of the presence of the accused in the neighbourhood, of articles belonging to him being found on the scene, of his possession of property of the victim, of his being unable to account for his movements, and of his givingtfalse statements on material facts, make up a body of evidence far more trustworthy than that of any one witness who might swear to having seen the deed. It is unfortunate, moat of all for .Muutai himself, that his countrymen do not acknowledge this truth. But the public will hold to it, for the safeguards of society are gone if.we refuse to administer justice where no rational doubt exists of the author of a crime, the snore horrible iu that its actual perpetration was unseen by mortal eye.