gs mainly. Circumstantial
evidence, and expert testimony. And now, if I may hope for your close
attention, I will say a few words upon both of these classes of
evidence, in general.

"Circumstantial evidence, I need hardly tell you, is most delusive in
its character. Analyzed, what do we find it to be? It has been truly
argued that there is, and can be, no cause without an effect. In
considering circumstantial evidence, the mind of the investigator is
presented with the relation of a number of facts, or effects, and he
is asked to deduce that they are all attributable to a stated cause.
For example, a peddler is known to have started out upon a lonely
road, and to have in his pack certain wares, a given amount of money
in specified coins and bills, wearing a watch and chain, and he is
subsequently found murdered, by the wayside. Later, a tramp is
arrested upon whose person is found the exact missing money, and many
of the articles which were known to have been in the pack. He is
charged with the crime, and the evidence against him is
circumstantial. His possession of these articles is an effect, which
is said to be attributable to a cause, to wit, the killing of the
peddler. But strong as such evidence may appear, as I have said, it is
delusive. For just as the prosecution ask you to believe that a number
of effects are traceable to a single cause, the crime charged, so also
it is possible that all of the effects may have resulted from various
causes. Thus in the case cited, the tramp may have been a thief, and
may have stolen the articles from the peddler after some other person
had killed him. And if it could be shown that the watch and chain were
missing, and yet were not found upon the tramp, that would be as good
evidence in his favor, as the other facts are against him. So that in
circumstantial evidence the chain must be complete. If a single link
be missing, or have a flaw, the argument is inconclusive, and a doubt
is created, the benefit of which must invariably be given in favor of
the accused.

"If this be true where there is a single link that has a flaw, what
are we to say when we find that the entire chain is composed of links
which are faulty? You are asked to decide that from this fact, and
that fact, and the other fact, the accused is guilty of a crime!
Suppose that we show that from either the first, or the second, or the
third fact, we can trace back to other causes as producing the result?
Why, th