“Which way did you walk home?” asked Thorndyke.
“I came through the town, and along the main road.”
“And that is all you know about this affair?”
“Absolutely all,” replied Draper. “I have now admitted you to secrets of my past life that I had hoped never to have to reveal to any human creature, and I still have some faint hope that it may not be necessary for you to divulge what I have told you.”
“Your secrets shall not be revealed unless it is absolutely indispensable that they should be,” said Thorndyke; “but you are placing your life in my hands, and you must leave me perfectly free to act as I think best.”
With this he gathered his notes together, and we took our departure.
“A very singular history, this, Jervis,” he said, when, having wished the sergeant “Good-night,” we stepped out on to the dark road. “What do you think of it?”
“I hardly know what to think,” I answered, “but, on the whole, it seems rather against Draper than otherwise. He admits that he is an old criminal, and it appears that he was being persecuted and blackmailed by the man Hearn. It is true that he represents Jezzard as being the leading spirit and prime mover in the persecution, but we have only his word for that. Hearn was in lodgings near him, and was undoubtedly taking the most active part in the business, and it is quite possible, and indeed probable, that Hearn was the actual deus ex machina.”
Thorndyke nodded. “Yes,” he said, “that is certainly the line the prosecution will take if we allow the story to become known. Ha! What is this? We are going to have some rain.”
“Yes, and wind too. We are in for an autumn gale, I think.”
“And that,” said Thorndyke, “may turn out to be an important factor in our case.”
“How can the weather affect your case?” I asked in some surprise. But, as the rain suddenly descended in a pelting shower, my companion broke into a run, leaving my question unanswered.
On the following morning, which was fair and sunny after the stormy night, Dr. Burrows called for my friend. He was on his way to the extemporized mortuary to make the post-mortem examination of the murdered man’s body. Thorndyke, having notified the coroner that he was watching the case on behalf of the accused, had been authorized to be present at the autopsy; but the authorization did not include me, and, as Dr. Burrows did not issue any invitation, I was not able to be present. I met them, however, as they were returning, and it seemed to me that Dr. Burrows appeared a little huffy.
“Your friend,” said he, in a rather injured tone, “is really the most outrageous stickler for forms and ceremonies that I have ever met.”
Thorndyke looked at him with an amused twinkle, and chuckled indulgently.
“Here was a body,” Dr. Burrows continued irritably, “found under circumstances clearly indicative of murder, and bearing a knife-wound that nearly divided the arch of the aorta; in spite of which, I assure you that Dr. Thorndyke insisted on weighing the body, and examining every organ—lungs, liver, stomach, and brain—yes, actually the brain!—as if there had been no clue whatever to the cause of death. And then, as a climax, he insisted on sending the contents of the stomach in a jar, sealed with our respective seals, in charge of a special messenger, to Professor Copland, for analysis and report. I thought he was going to demand an examination for the tubercle bacillus, but he didn’t; which,” concluded Dr. Burrows, suddenly becoming sourly facetious, “was an oversight, for, after all, the fellow may have died of consumption.”
Thorndyke chuckled again, and I murmured that the precautions appeared to have been somewhat excessive.
“Not at all,” was the smiling response. “You are losing sight of our function. We are the expert and impartial umpires, and it is our business to ascertain, with scientific accuracy, the cause of death. The prima facie appearances in this case suggest that the deceased was murdered by Draper, and that is the hypothesis advanced. But that is no concern of ours. It is not our function to confirm an hypothesis suggested by outside circumstances, but rather, on the contrary, to make certain that no other explanation is possible. And that is my invariable practice. No matter how glaringly obvious the appearances may be, I refuse to take anything for granted.”
Dr. Burrows received this statement with a grunt of dissent, but the arrival of his dogcart put a stop to further discussion.
Thorndyke was not subpoenaed for the inquest. Dr. Burrows and the sergeant having been present immediately after the finding of the body, his evidence was not considered necessary, and, moreover, he was known to be watching the case in the interests of the accused. Like myself, therefore, he was present as a spectator, but as a highly interested one, for he took very complete shorthand notes of the whole of the evidence and the coroner’s comments.
I shall not describe the proceedings in detail. The jury, having been taken to view the body, trooped into the room on tiptoe, looking pale and awe-stricken, and took their seats; and thereafter, from time to time, directed glances of furtive curiosity at Draper as he stood, pallid and haggard, confronting the court, with a burly rural constable on either side.
The medical evidence was taken first. Dr. Burrows, having been sworn, began, with sarcastic emphasis, to describe the condition of the lungs and liver, until he was interrupted by the coroner.
“Is all this necessary?” the latter inquired. “I mean, is it material to the subject of the inquiry?”
“I should say not,” replied Dr. Burrows. “It appears to me to be quite irrelevant, but Dr. Thorndyke, who is watching the case for the defence, thought it necessary.”
“I think,” said the coroner, “you had better give us only the facts that are material. The jury want you to tell them what you consider to have been the cause of death. They don’t want a lecture on pathology.”
“The cause of death,” said Dr. Burrows, “was a penetrating wound of the chest, apparently inflicted with a large knife. The weapon entered between the second and third ribs on the left side close to the sternum or breast-bone. It wounded the left lung, and partially divided both the pulmonary artery and the aorta—the two principal arteries of the body.”
“Was this injury alone sufficient to cause death?” the coroner asked.
“Yes,” was the reply; “and death from injury to these great vessels would be practically instantaneous.”
“Could the injury have been self-inflicted?”
“So far as the position and nature of the wound are concerned,” replied the witness, “self-infliction would be quite possible. But since death would follow in a few seconds at the most, the weapon would be found either in the wound, or grasped in the hand, or, at least, quite close to the body. But in this case no weapon was found at all, and the wound must therefore certainly have been homicidal.”
“Did you see the body before it was moved?”
“Yes. It was lying on its back, with the arms extended and the legs nearly straight; and the sand in the neighbourhood of the body was trampled as if a furious struggle had taken place.”
“Did you notice anything remarkable about the footprints in the sand?”
“I did,” replied Dr. Burrows. “They were the footprints of two persons only. One of these was evidently the deceased, whose footmarks could be easily identified by the circular rubber heels. The other footprints were those of a person—apparently a man—who wore shoes, or boots, the soles of which were studded with nails; and these nails were arranged in a very peculiar and unusual manner, for those on the soles formed a lozenge or diamond shape, and those on the heel were set out in the form of a cross.”
“Have you ever seen shoes or boots with the nails arranged in this manner?”
“Yes. I have seen a pair of shoes which I am informed belong to the accused; the nails in them are arranged as I have described.”
“Would you say that the footprints of which you have spoken were made by those shoes?”
“No; I could not say that. I can only say that, to the
best of my belief, the pattern on the shoes is similar to that in the footprints.”
This was the sum of Dr. Burrows’ evidence, and to all of it Thorndyke listened with an immovable countenance, though with the closest attention. Equally attentive was the accused man, though not equally impassive; indeed, so great was his agitation that presently one of the constables asked permission to get him a chair.
The next witness was Arthur Jezzard. He testified that he had viewed the body, and identified it as that of Charles Hearn; that he had been acquainted with deceased for some years, but knew practically nothing of his affairs. At the time of his death deceased was lodging in the village.
“Why did he leave the yacht?” the coroner inquired. “Was there any kind of disagreement!”
“Not in the least,” replied Jezzard. “He grew tired of the confinement of the yacht, and came to live ashore for a change. But we were the best of friends, and he intended to come with us when we sailed.”
“When did you see him last?”
“On the night before the body was found—that is, last Monday. He had been dining on the yacht, and we put him ashore about midnight. He said as we were rowing him ashore that he intended to walk home along the sands us the tide was out. He went up the stone steps by the watch-house, and turned at the top to wish us good-night. That was the last time I saw him alive.”
“Do you know anything of the relations between the accused and the deceased?” the coroner asked.
“Very little,” replied Jezzard. “Mr. Draper was introduced to us by the deceased about a month ago. I believe they had been acquainted some years, and they appeared to be on excellent terms. There was no indication of any quarrel or disagreement between them.”
“What time did the accused leave the yacht on the night of the murder?”
“About ten o’clock. He said that he wanted to get home early, as his housekeeper was away and he did not like the house to be left with no one in it.”
This was the whole of Jezzard’s evidence, and was confirmed by that of Leach and Pitford. Then, when the fisherman had deposed to the discovery of the body, the sergeant was called, and stepped forward, grasping a carpet-bag, and looking as uncomfortable as if he had been the accused instead of a witness. He described the circumstances under which he saw the body, giving the exact time and place with official precision.
“You have heard Dr. Burrows’ description of the footprints?” the coroner inquired.
“Yes. There were two sets. One set were evidently made by deceased. They showed that he entered St. Bridget’s Bay from the direction of Port Marston. He had been walking along the shore just about high-water mark, sometimes above and sometimes below. Where he had walked below high-water mark the footprints had of course been washed away by the sea.”
“How far back did you trace the footprints of deceased?”
“About two-thirds of the way to Sundersley Gap. Then they disappeared below high-water mark. Later in the evening I walked from the Gap into Port Marston, but could not find any further traces of deceased. He must have walked between the tide-marks all the way from Port Marston to beyond Sundersley. When these footprints entered St. Bridget’s Bay they became mixed up with the footprints of another man, and the shore was trampled for a space of a dozen yards as if a furious struggle had taken place. The strange man’s tracks came down from the Shepherd’s Path, and went up it again; but, owing to the hardness of the ground from the dry weather, the tracks disappeared a short distance up the path, and I could not find them again.”
“What were these strange footprints like?” inquired the coroner.
“They were very peculiar,” replied the sergeant. “They were made by shoes armed with smallish hob-nails, which were arranged in a diamond-shaped pattern on the holes and in a cross on the heels. I measured the footprints carefully, and made a drawing of each foot at the time.” Here the sergeant produced a long notebook of funereal aspect, and, having opened it at a marked place, handed it to the coroner, who examined it attentively, and then passed it on to the jury. From the jury it was presently transferred to Thorndyke, and, looking over his shoulder, I saw a very workmanlike sketch of a pair of footprints with the principal dimensions inserted.
Thorndyke surveyed the drawing critically, jotted down a few brief notes, and returned the sergeant’s notebook to the coroner, who, as he took it, turned once more to the officer.
“Have you any clue, sergeant, to the person who made these footprints?” he asked.
By way of reply the sergeant opened his carpet-bag, and, extracting therefrom a pair of smart but stoutly made shoes, laid them on the table.
“Those shoes,” he said, “are the property of the accused; he was wearing them when I arrested him. They appear to correspond exactly to the footprints of the murderer. The measurements are the same, and the nails with which they are studded are arranged in a similar pattern:
“Extreme length, 11¾ inches.
“Width at A, 4½ inches.
“Length of heel, 3¼ inches
“Width of heel at cross, 3 inches.”
“Would you swear that the footprints were made with these shoes?” asked the coroner.
“No, sir, I would not,” was the decided answer. “I would only swear to the similarity of size and pattern.”
“Had you ever seen these shoes before you made the drawing?”
“No, sir,” replied the sergeant; and he then related the incident of the footprints in the soft earth by the pond which led him to make the arrest.
The coroner gazed reflectively at the shoes which he held in his hand, and from them to the drawing; then, passing them to the foreman of the jury, he remarked:
“Well, gentlemen, it is not for me to tell you whether these shoes answer to the description given by Dr. Burrows and the sergeant, or whether they resemble the drawing which, as you have heard, was made by the officer on the spot and before he had seen the shoes; that is a matter for you to decide. Meanwhile, there is another question that we must consider.” He turned to the sergeant and asked: “Have you made any inquiries as to the movements of the accused on the night of the murder?”
“I have,” replied the sergeant, “and I find that, on that night, the accused was alone in the house, his housekeeper having gone over to Eastwich. Two men saw him in the town about ten o’clock, apparently walking in the direction of Sundersley.”
This concluded the sergeant’s evidence, and when one or two more witnesses had been examined without eliciting any fresh facts, the coroner briefly recapitulated the evidence, and requested the jury to consider their verdict. Thereupon a solemn hush fell upon the court, broken only by the whispers of the jurymen, as they consulted together; and the spectators gazed in awed expectancy from the accused to the whispering jury. I glanced at Draper, sitting huddled in his chair, his clammy face as pale as that of the corpse in the mortuary hard by, his hands tremulous and restless; and, scoundrel as I believed him to be, I could not but pity the abject misery that was written large all over him, from his damp hair to his incessantly shifting feet.
The jury took but a short time to consider their verdict. At the end of five minutes the foreman announced that they were agreed, and, in answer to the coroner’s formal inquiry, stood up and replied:
“We find that the deceased met his death by being stabbed in the chest by the accused man, Alfred Draper.”
“That is a verdict of wilful murder,” said the coroner, and he entered it accordingly in his notes. The Court now rose. The spectators reluctantly trooped out, the jurymen stood up and stretched themselves, and the two constables, under the guidance of the sergeant, carried the wretched Draper in a fainting condition to a closed fly that was waiting outside.
“I was not greatly impressed by the activity of the defence,” I remarked maliciously as we walked home.
Thorndyke smiled. “You surely did not expect me to cast my pearls of forensic learning before a coroner’s jury,” said he.
&
nbsp; “I expected that you would have something to say on behalf of your client,” I replied. “As it was, his accusers had it all their own way.”
“And why not?” he asked. “Of what concern to us is the verdict of the coroner’s jury?”
“It would have seemed more decent to make some sort of defence,” I replied.
“My dear Jervis,” he rejoined, “you do not seem to appreciate the great virtue of what Lord Beaconsfield so felicitously called ‘a policy of masterly inactivity’; and yet that is one of the great lessons that a medical training impresses on the student.”
“That may be so,” said I. “But the result, up to the present, of your masterly policy is that a verdict of wilful murder stands against your client, and I don’t see what other verdict the jury could have found.”
“Neither do I,” said Thorndyke.
I had written to my principal, Dr. Cooper, describing the stirring events that were taking place in the village, and had received a reply from him instructing me to place the house at Thorndyke’s disposal, and to give him every facility for his work. In accordance with which edict my colleague took possession of a well-lighted, disused stable-loft, and announced his intention of moving his things into it. Now, as these “things” included the mysterious contents of the hamper that the housemaid had seen, I was possessed with a consuming desire to be present at the “flitting,” and I do not mind confessing that I purposely lurked about the stairs in the hopes of thus picking up a few crumbs of information.
But Thorndyke was one too many for me. A misbegotten infant in the village having been seized with inopportune convulsions, I was compelled, most reluctantly, to hasten to its relief; and I returned only in time to find Thorndyke in the act of locking the door of the loft.
The First R. Austin Freeman Megapack: 27 Mystery Tales of Dr. Thorndyke & Others Page 26