"I don't see quite what you mean," said Jervis.
"I mean that, if there is no report of any missing man who had lost that particular finger, the probability is that the finger was removed after death. And then arises the interesting question of motive. Why should it have been removed? It could hardly have become detached accidentally. What do you suggest?"
"Well," said Jervis, "it might have been a peculiar finger; a finger, for instance, with some characteristic deformity such as an ankylosed joint, which would be easy to identify."
"Yes; but that explanation introduces the same difficulty. No person with a deformed or ankylosed finger has been reported as missing."
Jervis puckered up his brows, and looked at me.
"I'm hanged if I see any other explanation," he said. "Do you,
Berkeley?"
I shook my head.
"Don't forget which finger it is that is missing," said Thorndyke.
"The third finger of the left hand."
"Oh, I see!" said Jervis. "The ring-finger. You mean that it may have been removed for the sake of a ring that wouldn't come off."
"Yes. It would not be the first instance of the kind. Fingers have been severed from dead hands—and even from living ones—for the sake of rings that were too tight to be drawn off. And the fact that it is the left hand supports the suggestion; for a ring that was inconveniently tight would be worn by preference on the left hand, as that is usually slightly smaller than the right. What is the matter, Berkeley?"