Swansea and Glamorgan Herald, and South Wales Free Press. — 1866-03-24 (Swansea, West Glamorgan, Wales)

THE LATE MURDER CASE.  Mr EDITOR, SIR,—As our lives and liberties in this country depend, at least, to a great extent, on public opinion, I feel it my 4uty thus publicly to state that I do not coincide with the verdict which was given at the late Assizes against the prisoner in the Mountain Ash murder case. Taylor, in his "Law of Evidence," vol. lot, chapter, Direct and Circumstantial Evidence. page 81, states—what is undoubtedly law—that, "admitting that the facts sworn to are satisfactorily proved, a further and highly difficult day remains for the jury to perform. They must decide, not whether the facts are consistent with the prisoner's guilt, but whether they are inconsistent with any other rational conclusion ; fir it is only on 016 last hypothesis that they can safely convict the accused." I have carefully read the reports of thii trial in yours and other local papers; and "admitting the facts sworn are satisfactorily proved," yet, with the exception of Evans's testim toy, they are not " inconsivent with any other Teti-mat conclusion:" or, in other words, inconsistent with ths ionoconce of the accused. In perjury, a much less crime than this. the accused cannot be convicted without the evidence of two witnesses. In this case there was no direct evidence to fix the crime on the prisoner; and the only incidental evidence that brought h-ime the guilt to him by necessary inference, was the testimony of Evans alone, arising from a conversation which he said he had with the prisoner, also alone, in the month of October or November list; and, as belling on this point. I again !vote " Taylor on Evidence," from the page before-mentioned. After making some preceding remarks on circumstantial evidence, he adds "The truth of the facts they attest rests frequently on minute and careful observation; and experience teaches the danger of relying implicitly on the evidence of even the most conscientious witnesses respecting dates, foot-prints, handwriting, admissions, loose conversations, and questions of identity.'' There was a murder last year in Plaistow NI Rrsh, near London, and when the holy was found the head was severed from the trunk, and lying at a considerable distance from each other. The prisoner might have made some remarks to Evans about this case, which was notorious at the time ; and Evans might have misunderstood him, or, after several months had elapsed, have a false impression on his mind that the prisoner used the word Mountain Ash instead of Plaistow Marsh, for the sound of both words is nearly the same. And Mr Baron Parke, in one of his judgments, observes " It frepently happens that the witness not only misunderstood what the party said, but, by unintentionally altering a few expressions really used, has given to the statement an effect completely at variance with what was intended."  Also, Evans stated on his cross-examination: "I mentioned this conversation to a man named Reynolds, a tailor, the very day the prisoner said it to me." And the fact that Reynolds was not called to corroborate Evans's testimony, throws a very great suspicion on the whole of it.  • I do admit that the evidence brought against the prisoner made out a case of very strong suspicion that he was guilty of the murder ; but I do contend that, according to law, as above stated, the evidence did not carry ihe case beyond the point of such strong suspicion, and that no man ought to be put to death on mere suspicion, however strong. The above statement is any honest and independent conviction; and if any of your influential readers, trona having heard tho evidence at the trial, or a careful perusal of its published reports, should arrive at the same conclusion, I do hope they will use all the means in their power to try to get this awful sentence of death commuted to at least one of penal servitude for life. Yours respectfully,