The shadow of the Wolf

by R. Austin Freeman

“You mean the ankylosed third finger? Yes; and I agree with you that this is undoubtedly the print of Varney’s hand.”

“Then,” said Rodney, “the case is complete. There is no need for any further investigation. On the evidence that is before us, to say nothing of the additional evidence that you can produce, there cannot be the shadow of a doubt that Purcell was murdered by Varney and his body sunk in the sea. You agree with me, I am sure, Thorndyke?”

“Certainly,” was the reply. “I consider the evidence so far conclusive that I have not the slightest doubt on the subject.”

“Very well,” said Rodney. “Then the next question is, what is to be done? Shall I lay a sworn information, or will you? Or had we better go to the police together and make a joint statement?”

“Whatever we do,” replied Thorndyke, “don’t let us be premature. The evidence, as you say, is perfectly convincing. It leaves us with no doubt as to what happened on that day last June. It would probably be, in an intellectual sense, quite convincing to a judge. It might even be to a jury. But would it be sufficient to secure a conviction? I think it extremely doubtful.”

“Do you really?” exclaimed Phillip. “I should have thought it impossible that any one who had heard the evidence could fail to come to the inevitable conclusion.”

“You are probably right,” said Thorndyke. “But a jury who are trying an accused person on a capital charge have got to arrive at something more than a belief that the accused is guilty. They have got to be convinced that there is, humanly speaking, no possible doubt as to the prisoner’s guilt. No jury would give an adverse verdict on a balance of probabilities, nor would any judge encourage them to do so.”

“But surely,” said Phillip, “this is something more than a mere balance of probabilities. The evidence all points in the same direction and there is nothing to suggest a contrary conclusion.”

Thorndyke smiled drily. “You might think differently after you have heard a capable counsel for the defence. But the position is this: we are dealing with a charge of murder. Now in order to prove that a particular person is guilty of murder it is necessary first to establish the corpus delicti, as the phrase goes; that is, to prove that a murder has been committed by some one. But the proof that a person has been murdered involves the antecedent proof that he is dead. If there is any doubt that the alleged deceased is dead, no murder charge can be sustained. But proof of death usually involves the production of the body or of some identifiable part of it, or, at least, the evidence of some person who has seen it and can swear to its identity. There are exceptional cases, of course, and this might be accepted as one. But you can take it that the inability of the prosecution to produce the body or any part of it, or any witness who can testify to having seen it, or any direct evidence that the person alleged to have been murdered is actually dead, would make it extremely difficult to secure the conviction of the accused.”

“Yes, I see that,” said Phillip. “But, after all, that is not our concern. If we give the authorities all the information that we possess, we shall have done our duty as citizens. As to the rest, we must leave the Court to convict or acquit according to its judgment.”