CHAPTER XXIV
Mr. Oakham did not discuss what had taken place in the prison as he andColwyn drove to the office of the chief constable after the interview.He sat silent in his corner of the taxi, his hands clasped before him,and gazing straight in front of him with the look of a man who seesnothing. From time to time his lips moved after the fashion of the old,when immersed in thought, and once he audibly murmured, "The poor lad;the poor lad." Colwyn forbore to speak to him. He realised that he hadhad a shock, and was best left to himself.
By the time the taxi reached the office of the chief constable Mr.Oakham showed symptoms of regaining his self-possession. He felt for hiseye-glasses, polished them, placed them on his nose and glanced at hiswatch. It was in something like his usual tones that he asked Colwyn, asthey alighted from the cab, whether he had an appointment with the chiefconstable.
"I wired to you both at the same time," replied the detective. "I askedhim to keep this afternoon free," he explained with a smile.
A police constable in the outer office took in their names. He speedilyreturned with the message that the chief constable would be glad to seethem, and would they step this way, please. Following in his wake, theywere conducted along a passage and into a large comfortably furnishedroom, where Mr. Cromering was writing at a small table placed near alarge fire. He looked up as the visitors entered, put down his pen, andcame forward to greet them.
"I am pleased to see you again, Mr. Colwyn, and you also, Mr. Oakham.Please draw your chairs near the fire gentlemen--there's a decided nipin the air. I got your telegram, Mr. Colwyn, and I am at your disposal,with plenty of time. Your telegram rather surprised me. What hashappened in the Glenthorpe case?"
"Fresh facts have come to light--facts that tend to prove the innocenceof Penreath, who was accused and convicted for the murder."
"Dear me! This is a very grave statement. What proofs have you?"
"Sufficient to warrant further steps in the case. It is a long story,but I think when you have heard it you will feel justified in takingprompt action."
Before Mr. Cromering could reply, the police constable who had shown inColwyn and Mr. Oakham entered the room and said that SuperintendentGalloway, from Durrington, was outside.
"Bring him in, Johnson," said Mr. Cromering. He turned to Colwyn andadded: "When I received your telegram I telephoned to Galloway and askedhim to be here this afternoon. As he worked up the case againstPenreath, I thought it better that he should be present and hear whatyou have to say. You have no objection, I suppose?"
"On the contrary, I shall be very glad for Galloway to hear what I haveto say."
The police constable returned, ushering in Superintendent Galloway, wholooked rather surprised when he saw his superior officer's visitors. Henodded briefly to Colwyn, and looked inquiringly at the chief constable.
"Mr. Colwyn has discovered some fresh facts in the Glenthorpe murder,Galloway," explained Mr. Cromering. "I sent for you in order that youmight hear what they are."
"What sort of facts?" asked Galloway, with a quick glance at thedetective.
"That is what Mr. Colwyn proposes to explain to us."
"I shall have to go back to the beginning of our investigations to doso--to the day when we motored from Durrington to Flegne," said thedetective. "We went there with the strong presumption in our minds thatPenreath was the criminal, because of suspicious facts previously knownabout him. He was short of money, he had concealed his right name whenregistering at the hotel, and his behaviour at the breakfast table themorning of his departure suggested an unbalanced temperament. It is alegal axiom that men's minds are influenced by facts previously known orbelieved, and we set out to investigate this case under the strongpresumption that Penreath, and none other, was the murderer.
"The evidence we found during our visit to the inn fitted in with thistheory, and inclined the police to shut out the possibility of anyalternative theory because of the number of concurrent points whichfitted in with the presumption that Penreath was the murderer. Therewas, first, the fact that the murderer had entered through the window.Penreath had been put to sleep in the room next the murdered man, in anunoccupied part of the inn, and could easily have got from one window tothe other without being seen or heard. Next was the fact that the murderhad been committed with a knife with a round end. Penreath had used sucha knife when dining with Mr. Glenthorpe, and that knife was afterwardsmissing. Next, we have him hurriedly departing from the inn soon afterdaybreak, refusing to wait till his boots were cleaned, and paying hisbill with a Treasury note.
"Then came the discovery of the footprints to the pit where the body hadbeen thrown, and those footprints were incontestably made by Penreath'sboots. The stolen notes suggested a strong motive in the case of a manbadly in need of money, and the payment of his bill with a Treasury noteof the first issue suggested--though not very strongly--that he hadgiven the servant one of the stolen notes. These were the main points inthe circumstantial evidence against Penreath. The stories of thelandlord of the inn, the deaf waiter, and the servant supported thattheory in varying degrees, and afforded an additional ground for thecredibility of the belief that Penreath was the murderer. The final andmost convincing proof--Penreath's silence under the accusation--does notcome into the narrative of events at this point, because he had not beenarrested.
"It was when we visited the murdered man's bedroom that the first doubtscame to my mind as to the conclusiveness of the circumstantial evidenceagainst Penreath. The theory was that Penreath, after murdering Mr.Glenthorpe, put the body on his shoulder, and carried it downstairs andup the rise to the pit. The murderer entered through the window--thebits of red mud adhering to the carpet prove that conclusivelyenough--but if Penreath was the murderer where had he got the umbrellawith which he shielded himself from the storm? The fact that themurderer carried an umbrella is proved by the discovery of a small patchof umbrella silk which had got caught on a nail by the window. Again,why should a man, getting from one window to another, bother about usingan umbrella for a journey of a few feet only? He would know that hecould not use it when carrying the body to the pit, for that task wouldrequire both his hands. And what had Penreath done with the umbrellaafterwards?
"The clue of the umbrella silk, and the pool of water near the windowwhere the murderer placed the umbrella after getting into the room,definitely fixed the time of the murder between eleven and 11.30 p.m.,because the violent rainstorm on that night ceased at the latter hour.If Penreath was the murderer, he waited until the storm ceased beforeremoving the body. There were no footprints outside the window where themurderer got in, because they were obliterated by the rain. On the otherhand, the footsteps to the pit where the body was thrown were clear anddistinct, proving conclusively that no rain fell after the murderer leftthe house with his burden. It seemed to me unlikely that a man aftercommitting a murder would coolly sit down beside his victim and wait forthe rain to cease before disposing of the body. His natural instinctwould be to hide the evidence of his crime as quickly as possible.
"These points, however, were of secondary importance, merely tending toshake slightly what lawyers term the probability of the case againstPenreath. But a point of more importance was my discovery that thecandle-grease dropped on the carpet was of two different kinds--wax andtallow--suggesting that two different persons were in the room on thenight of the murder. Mr. Glenthorpe did not use a candle, but a readinglamp. Neither did Mr. Glenthorpe use the gas globe in the middle of theroom. Yet that gas tap was turned on slightly when we examined the room,and the globe and the incandescent burner smashed. Who turned on thetap, and who smashed the globe? Penreath is not tall enough to havestruck it with his head. Superintendent Galloway's theory was that itmight have been done by the murderer when throwing the body of hisvictim over his shoulder.
"An ideal case of circumstantial evidence may be weakened, but notdestroyed, by the destruction of one or more of the collateral factswhich go to make it up. There are two kinds of circums
tantial evidence.In one kind presumption of guilt depends on a series of links forming achain. In the other, the circumstances are woven together like thestrands of a rope. That is the ideal case of circumstantial evidence,because the rope still holds when some of the strands are severed. Thecase against Penreath struck me as resembling a chain, which is nostronger than its weakest link. The strongest link in the chain ofcircumstances against Penreath was the footprints leading to the pit.They had undoubtedly been made by his boots, but circumstances can lieas well as witnesses, and in both cases the most plausible sometimesprove the greatest liars. Take away the clue of the footprints, and thecase against Penreath was snapped in the most vital link. The remainingcircumstances in the case against him, though suspicious enough, wereopen to an alternative explanation. The footprints were the damningfact--the link on which the remaining links of the chain were hung.
"But the elimination of the clue of the footprints did not make thecrime any easier of solution. From the moment I set foot in the room itstruck me as a deep and baffling mystery, looking at it from the pointof view of the police theory or from any other hypothesis. If Penreathhad indeed committed the murder, who was the second visitor to the room?And if Penreath had not committed the murder, who had?
"That night, in my room, I sought to construct two alternative theoriesof the murder. In the first place, I examined the case thoroughly fromthe police point of view, with Penreath as the murderer. In view of whathas come to light since the trial, there is no need to take up time withgiving you my reasons for doubting whether Penreath had committed thecrime. I explained those reasons to Superintendent Galloway at the time,pointing out, as he will doubtless remember, that the police theorystruck me as illogical in some aspects, and far from convincing as awhole. There were too many elements of uncertainty in it, too muchguess-work, too much jumping at conclusions. Take one point alone, onwhich I laid stress at the time. The police theory originally startedfrom the point of Penreath's peculiar behaviour at the Durrington hotel,which, from their point of view, suggested homicidal mania. To my mind,there was no evidence to prove this, although that theory was actuallyput forth by the defence at Penreath's trial. I witnessed the scene atthe breakfast table, and, in my opinion, Sir Henry Durwood acted hastilyand wrongly in rushing forward and seizing Penreath. There was nothingin his behaviour that warranted it. He was a little excited, and nothingmore, and from what I have heard since he had reason to be excited.Neither at the breakfast table nor in his room subsequently did hisactions strike me as the actions of a man of insane, neurotic, orviolent temperament. He was simply suffering from nerves. It isimportant to remember, in recalling the events which led up to thiscase, that Penreath was invalided out of the Army suffering fromshell-shock, and that two nights before the scene at the hotel there wasan air raid at Durrington. Shell-shock victims are always prejudiciallyaffected by air raids.
"Even if the police theory had been correct on this point, it seemedinconceivable to me that a man affected with homicidal tendencies wouldhave displayed such cold-blooded caution and cunning in carrying out amurder for gain, as the murderer at the _Golden Anchor_ did. The Crowndropped this point at the trial. I merely mention it now in support ofmy contention that the case of circumstantial evidence against Penreathwas by no means a strong one, because it originally depended, in part,on inferred facts which the premises did not warrant.
"Next, the discoveries made in the room where the murder was committed,and certain other indications found outside, did not fit in with thepolice case against Penreath. Superintendent Galloway's reconstructionof the crime, after he had seen the body and examined the inn premises,did not account for the existence of all the facts. There werecircumstances and clues which were not consistent with the police theoryof the murder. The probability of the inference that Penreath was themurderer was not increased by the discoveries we made. I am aware thatabsolute proof is not essential to conviction in a case ofcircumstantial evidence, but, on the other hand, to ignore facts whichdo not accord with a theory is to go to the other extreme, for by sodoing you are in danger of excluding the possibility of any alternativetheory.
"On the other hand, when I sought to account for the crime by any otherhypothesis I found myself puzzled at every turn. The presence of twopersons in the room was the baffling factor. The murderer had enteredthrough the window in the storm, lighted the tallow candle which hebrought with him, walked straight to the bed and committed the murder.Then he had waited till the rain ceased before carrying the bodydownstairs to the pit. But what about the second person--the person whohad carried the wax candle and dropped spots of grease underneath thebroken gas globe? Had he come in at a different time, and why? Why hadhe sought to light the gas, when he carried a candle? Why had he--as Isubsequently ascertained--left the room and gone downstairs to turn onthe gas at the meter?
"Eliminating Penreath for the time being, I tried next to fit in theclues I had discovered with two alternative theories. Had the murderbeen committed from outside by a villager, or by somebody in the inn?There were possibilities about the former theory which I pointed out toSuperintendent Galloway, who subsequently investigated them, anddeclared that there was no ground for the theory that the murder hadbeen committed from outside. The theory that the murder had beencommitted by somebody inside the inn turned my attention to the inmatesof the inn. Excluding Penreath for the time being, there were fiveinmates inside the walls the night the murder was committed--theinnkeeper, his daughter, his mother, the waiter, and Ann, the servant.The girl could hardly have committed the murder, and could certainly nothave carried away the body. The old mad woman might have committed themurder if she could have got out of her room, but she could not havecarried the body to the pit--neither could the servant. By this processof elimination there remained the landlord and the deaf waiter.
"For a reason which it is not necessary to explain now, my thoughtsturned to the waiter when I first saw the body of the murdered man. Thepossibility that he was the murderer was strengthened by the slight clueof the line in the clay which I found underneath the murdered man'sbedroom window. That window is about five feet from the ground outside,and the waiter, who is short and stout, could not have climbed throughthe window without something to stand on. But the waiter could notpossibly have carried the body to the pit. His right arm is malformed,and only a very strong man, with two strong arms, could have performedthat feat.
"There remained the innkeeper. He was the only person on the innpremises that night, except Penreath, who could have carried the corpsedownstairs and thrown it into the pit. Although thin, I should say he isa man of great physical strength. It is astonishing to think, in lookingback over all the circumstances of this extraordinary case, that somesuspicion was not diverted to him in the first instance. He was veryhard-pressed for money, and he knew for days beforehand that Mr.Glenthorpe was going to draw L300 from the bank--a circumstance thatPenreath could not possibly have known when he sought chance shelter atthe inn that night. He was the only person in the place tall enough tohave smashed the gas globe and incandescent burner in Mr. Glenthorpe'sroom by striking his head against it. He knew the run of the place andthe way to the pit intimately--far better than a stranger like Penreathcould. I was struck with that fact when we were examining thefootprints. The undeviating course from the inn to the mouth of the pitsuggested an intimate acquaintance with the way. The man who carried thebody to the pit in the darkness knew every inch of the ground.
"It is easy to be wise after the event, but my thoughts and suspicionswere centering more and more around the innkeeper when Penreath wasarrested. His attitude altered the whole aspect of the case. Hishesitating answers to me in the wood, his fatalistic acceptance of thecharge against him, seemed to me equivalent to a confession of guilt,so I abandoned my investigations and returned to Durrington.
"I was wrong. It was a mistake for which I find it difficult to forgivemyself. Penreath's hesitation, his silence--what were they in thebalance of probabilities i
n such a strange deep crime as this murder? Inview of the discoveries I had already made--discoveries which pointed toa most baffling mystery--I should not have allowed myself to be swervedfrom my course by Penreath's silence in the face of accusation,inexplicable though it appeared at the time. You know what happenedsubsequently. Penreath, persisting in his silence, was tried, convicted,and sentenced to death--because of that silence, which compelled thedefence to rely on a defence of insanity which they could not sustain.
"I went back to the inn a second time, not of my own volition, butbecause of a story told me by the innkeeper's daughter, Peggy, atDurrington four days ago. The night before the inquest Peggy paid avisit to the room in which the murdered man lay. I did not see her goin, but I saw her come out. She went downstairs and hurried across themarshes and threw something into the sea from the top of the breakwater.The following day, after Penreath's arrest, I questioned her. She gaveme an explanation which was hardly plausible, but Penreath's silence,coming after the accumulation of circumstances against him, had causedme to look at the case from a different angle, and I did notcross-examine her. The object of her visit to me after the trial was toadmit that she had not told me the truth previously. Her amended storywas obviously the true one. She and Penreath had met by chance on theseashore near Leyland Hoop two or three weeks before, and had metsecretly afterward. The subsequent actions of these two foolish youngpeople prove, convincingly enough, that they had fallen passionately inlove with each other. Peggy, however, had never told Penreath her nameor where she lived--because she knew her position was different fromhis, she says--and she could not understand how he came to be at the innthat night. Naturally, she was very much perturbed at his unexpectedappearance. She waited for an opportunity to speak to him after hearinghis voice, but was compelled to attend on her mad grandmother until itwas very late.
"Before going to bed she went down the passage to see if by any chancehe had not retired. There was a light in Mr. Glenthorpe's room, and,acting on a sudden girlish impulse, she ran along the passage to Mr.Glenthorpe's door, intending to confide her troubles in one who hadalways been very good and kind to her. The door was partly open, and asshe got no reply to her knock, she entered. Mr. Glenthorpe was lying onhis bed, murdered, and on the floor--at the side of the bed--she foundthe knife and this silver and enamel match-box. She hid the knife behinda picture on the wall. She did a very plucky thing the following nightby going into the dead man's room and removing the knife in order toprevent the police finding it, for by that time she was aware that theknife formed an important piece of evidence in the case against herlover. It was the knife she threw into the sea, but she kept thematch-box, which she recognised as Penreath's. When she came to me shedid not intend to tell me anything about the match-box if she could helpit. She was frank enough up to a point, but beyond that point she didnot want to go.
"After Penreath's conviction she began, womanlike, to wonder if she hadnot been too hasty in assuming his guilt, and as the time slipped by andbrought the day of his doom nearer she grew desperate, and as a lastresource she came to me. It was a good thing she did so. For her story,though apparently making the case against Penreath blacker still,incidentally brought to light a clue which threw a new light on the caseand decided me to return to Flegne. That clue is contained in thematch-box."