The First R. Austin Freeman MEGAPACK ®. R. Austin Freeman
Читать онлайн книгу.
They were no longer simply listening to the despised utterances of a mere scientific expert. The cast lay before them with the two footprints side by side; the evidence appealed to their own senses and was proportionately convincing.
“This is very singular,” said the chairman; “but perhaps you can explain the discrepancy?”
“I think I can,” replied Thorndyke; “but I should prefer to place all the facts before you first.”
“Undoubtedly that would be better,” the chairman agreed. “Pray proceed.”
“There was another remarkable peculiarity about these footprints,” Thorndyke continued, “and that was their distance apart—the length of the stride, in fact. I measured the steps carefully from heel to heel, and found them only nineteen and a half inches. But a man of Hearn’s height would have an ordinary stride of about thirty-six inches—more if he was walking fast. Walking with a stride of nineteen and a half inches he would look as if his legs were tied together.
“I next proceeded to the Bay, and took two moulds from the footprints of the man with the nailed shoes, a right and a left. Here is a cast from the mould, and it shows very clearly that the man was walking backwards.”
“How does it show that?” asked the magistrate.
“There are several distinctive points. For instance, the absence of the usual ‘kick off’ at the toe, the slight drag behind the heel, showing the direction in which the foot was lifted, and the undisturbed impression of the sole.”
“You have spoken of moulds and casts. What is the difference between them?”
“A mould is a direct, and therefore reversed, impression. A cast is the impression of a mould, and therefore a facsimile of the object. If I pour liquid plaster on a coin, when it sets I have a mould, a sunk impression, of the coin. If I pour melted wax into the mould I obtain a cast, a facsimile of the coin. A footprint is a mould of the foot. A mould of the footprint is a cast of the foot, and a cast from the mould reproduces the footprint.”
“Thank you,” said the magistrate. “Then your moulds from these two footprints are really facsimiles of the murderer’s shoes, and can be compared with these shoes which have been put in evidence?”
“Yes, and when we compare them they demonstrate a very important fact.”
“What is that?”
“It is that the prisoner’s shoes were not the shoes that made those footprints.” A buzz of astonishment ran through the court, but Thorndyke continued stolidly: “The prisoner’s shoes were not in my possession, so I went on to Barker’s pond, on the clay margin of which I had seen footprints actually made by the prisoner. I took moulds of those footprints, and compared them with these from the sand. There are several important differences, which you will see if you compare them. To facilitate the comparison I have made transparent photographs of both sets of moulds to the same scale. Now, if we put the photograph of the mould of the prisoner’s right shoe over that of the murderer’s right shoe, and hold the two superposed photographs up to the light, we cannot make the two pictures coincide. They are exactly of the same length, but the shoes are of different shape. Moreover, if we put one of the nails in one photograph over the corresponding nail in the other photograph, we cannot make the rest of the nails coincide. But the most conclusive fact of all—from which there is no possible escape—is that the number of nails in the two shoes is not the same. In the sole of the prisoner’s right shoe there are forty nails; in that of the murderer there are forty-one. The murderer has one nail too many.”
There was a deathly silence in the court as the magistrates and Mr. Bashfield pored over the moulds and the prisoner’s shoes, and examined the photographs against the light. Then the chairman asked: “Are these all the facts, or have you something more to tell us?” He was evidently anxious to get the key to this riddle.
“There is more evidence, your Worship,” said Anstey. “The witness examined the body of deceased.” Then, turning to Thorndyke, he asked:
“You were present at the post-mortem examination?”
“I was.”
“Did you form any opinion as to the cause of death?”
“Yes. I came to the conclusion that death was occasioned by an overdose of morphia.”
A universal gasp of amazement greeted this statement. Then the presiding magistrate protested breathlessly:
“But there was a wound, which we have been told was capable of causing instantaneous death. Was that not the case?”
“There was undoubtedly such a wound,” replied Thorndyke. “But when that wound was inflicted the deceased had already been dead from a quarter to half an hour.”
“This is incredible!” exclaimed the magistrate. “But, no doubt, you can give us your reasons for this amazing conclusion?”
“My opinion,” said Thorndyke, “was based on several facts. In the first place, a wound inflicted on a living body gapes rather widely, owing to the retraction of the living skin. The skin of a dead body does not retract, and the wound, consequently, does not gape. This wound gaped very slightly, showing that death was recent, I should say, within half an hour. Then a wound on the living body becomes filled with blood, and blood is shed freely on the clothing. But the wound on the deceased contained only a little blood-clot. There was hardly any blood on the clothing, and I had already noticed that there was none on the sand where the body had lain.”
“And you consider this quite conclusive?” the magistrate asked doubtfully.
“I do,” answered Thorndyke. “But there was other evidence which was beyond all question. The weapon had partially divided both the aorta and the pulmonary artery—the main arteries of the body. Now, during life, these great vessels are full of blood at a high internal pressure, whereas after death they become almost empty. It follows that, if this wound had been inflicted during life, the cavity in which those vessels lie would have become filled with blood. As a matter of fact, it contained practically no blood, only the merest oozing from some small veins, so that it is certain that the wound was inflicted after death. The presence and nature of the poison I ascertained by analyzing certain secretions from the body, and the analysis enabled me to judge that the quantity of the poison was large; but the contents of the stomach were sent to Professor Copland for more exact examination.”
“Is the result of Professor Copland’s analysis known?” the magistrate asked Anstey.
“The professor is here, your Worship,” replied Anstey, “and is prepared to swear to having obtained over one grain of morphia from the contents of the stomach; and as this, which is in itself a poisonous dose, is only the unabsorbed residue of what was actually swallowed, the total quantity taken must have been very large indeed.”
“Thank you,” said the magistrate. “And now, Dr. Thorndyke, if you have given us all the facts, perhaps you will tell us what conclusions you have drawn from them.”
“The facts which I have stated,” said Thorndyke, “appear to me to indicate the following sequence of events. The deceased died about midnight on September 27, from the effects of a poisonous dose of morphia, how or by whom administered I offer no opinion. I think that his body was conveyed in a boat to Sundersley Gap. The boat probably contained three men, of whom one remained in charge of it, one walked up the Gap and along the cliff towards St. Bridget’s Bay, and the third, having put on the shoes of the deceased, carried the body along the shore to the Bay. This would account for the great depth and short stride of the tracks that have been spoken of as those of the deceased. Having reached the Bay, I believe that this man laid the corpse down on his tracks, and then trampled the sand in the neighbourhood. He next took off deceased’s shoes and put them on the corpse; then he put on a pair of boots or shoes which he had been carrying—perhaps hung round his neck—and which had been prepared with nails to imitate Draper’s shoes. In these shoes he again trampled over the area near the corpse. Then he walked backwards to the Shepherd’s Path, and from it again, still backwards,