‘It has been laid down by the authority of Lord Hale, which your lordship will find quoted on page 276 of Archbold that no man should ever be convicted of murder or manslaughter on circumstantial evidence alone, unless the body has been found; and in a comparatively recent case—Regina v. Hopkins——’
‘Yes, I know that is the law, Mr. Tressamer,’ said the judge, interrupting him; ‘but how do you say the body has not been found? The prosecution have identified the hand.’
‘I submit that is not sufficient, my lord.’
‘The coroner’s inquest was held upon it,’ called out the counsel for the prosecution, who was decidedly taken by surprise at this unusual objection. Tressamer treated the interruption with contempt.
‘The coroner is hardly an authority to quote to this court. Your lordship sees my point is this. Of course the finding of the hand is some evidence of some crime. But it is nowise decisive. The deceased, or, rather, the person said to be deceased, might have cut off her own hand. We have no conclusive evidence that she is really dead.’
‘But what do you want? Do you mean that in every case the entire body should be found?’
‘Oh no, my lord. If some vital part were discovered, and sufficiently identified, I should say that was enough to go upon. But what Lord Hale means, I take it, is this: that where you are going upon circumstantial evidence—as in this case—where no one saw the crime committed at all, then you must have conclusive evidence from some other source, namely, the dead body.’
‘But that is not conclusive. That might be the result of suicide.’