FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   174   175   176   177   178   179   180   181   182   183   184   185   186   187   188   189   190   191   192   193   194   195   196   197   198  
199   200   201   202   203   204   205   206   207   208   209   210   211   212   213   214   215   216   217   218   219   220   221   222   223   >>   >|  
that I presided over. The object is not to show the horrible details of the deed, but my mode of dealing with the facts, for it is in the elimination of the false from the true that the work of a Judge must consist, otherwise his office is a useless form. I shall give this case, therefore, more in detail than I otherwise should. The case was that of Horsford, in the year 1898, at Huntingdon Assizes. I say now, long after the event, the murderer was not improperly described by the _Daily News_ as the greatest monster of our criminal annals, and yet even in that case some kind-hearted people said I had gone quite _to the limits of a Judge's rights_ in summing up the case. Let me say a word about circumstantial evidence. Some writers have spoken of it as a kind of "dangerous innovation in our criminal procedure." It is actually almost the only evidence that is obtainable in all great crimes, and it is the best and most reliable. You may draw wrong impressions from it, I grant, but so you may from the evidence of witnesses where it is _doubtful_; but you cannot fail to draw the right ones where the facts are not doubtful. If it is capable of a wrong inference, a Judge should be absolutely positive in his direction to the jury not to draw it. I have witnessed many great trials for murder, but do not remember one where there was an eye-witness to the deed. How is it possible, then, to bring home the charge to the culprit unless you rely on circumstantial evidence? Circumstantial evidence is the evidence of circumstances--facts that speak for themselves and that cannot be contradicted. Circumstances have no motive to deceive, while human testimony is too often the product of every kind of motive. The history of this case is extremely simple. The accused, Walter Horsford, aged thirty-six, was a farmer of Spaldwick. The person murdered, Annie Holmes, was a widow whose age was thirty-eight years. She had resided for several months at St. Neots, where she died on the night of January 7. She had been married, and lost her husband thirteen years ago. On his death he left two children, Annie and Percy. The latter was sixteen years of age and the girl fourteen. The prisoner was a cousin of the deceased woman. While she lived at Stonely the man had been in the habit of visiting her, and had become an intimate member of the family. In the month of October the prisoner was married to a young woman named Bessie ----. The wido
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   174   175   176   177   178   179   180   181   182   183   184   185   186   187   188   189   190   191   192   193   194   195   196   197   198  
199   200   201   202   203   204   205   206   207   208   209   210   211   212   213   214   215   216   217   218   219   220   221   222   223   >>   >|  



Top keywords:

evidence

 

doubtful

 

married

 

circumstantial

 

thirty

 

motive

 
criminal
 
Horsford
 

prisoner

 

intimate


member

 

family

 

deceive

 

testimony

 

history

 

extremely

 

simple

 

accused

 

product

 
Circumstances

charge

 

culprit

 

witness

 

Bessie

 

contradicted

 

Walter

 

October

 

circumstances

 
Circumstantial
 

January


sixteen

 

fourteen

 

husband

 

thirteen

 

cousin

 
Stonely
 

person

 

murdered

 

Spaldwick

 

farmer


visiting

 
children
 

Holmes

 

deceased

 

months

 

resided

 
witnesses
 

murderer

 

improperly

 
Huntingdon