a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x y z 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 #

letra de the unraveled mystery - james redding ware

we, meaning thereby society, are frequently in the habit of looking at a successful man, and while surveying him, think how fortunate he has found life, how chances have opened up to him, and how lucky he has been in drawing so many prizes

we do not, or we will not, see the blanks which he may have also drawn. we look at his success, thinking of our own want of victories, shut our eyes to his failures, and envy his good fortune instead of emulating his industry. for my part i believe that no position or success comes without that personal hard work which is the medium of g*nius. i never will believe in luck

when this habit of looking at success and shutting our eyes to failure is exercised in reference, not to a single individual, but to a body, the danger of coming to a wrong conclusion is very much increased

this argument is very potent in its application to the work of the detective. because there are many capital cases on record in which the detective has been the mainspring, people generally come to the conclusion that the detective force is made up of individuals of more than the average power of intellect and sagacity

just as the successful man in any profession says nothing about his failures, and allows his successes to speak for themselves, so the detective force experiences no desire to publish its failures, while in reference to successes detectives are always ready to supply the reporter with the very latest particulars

in fact, the public see the right side only of the police embroidery, and have no idea what a complication of mistakes and broken threads there are on the wrong

nay, indeed, the public in their admiration of the public successes of the detective force very generously forget their public failures, which in many instances are atrocious

to what cause this amiability can be attributed it is perhaps impossible to say, but there is a great probability that it arises from the fact that the public have generally looked upon the body as a great public safeguard—an association great at preventing crime

be this as it may, it is certain that the detective force is certainly as far from perfect as any ordinary legal organization in england

but the reader may ask why i commit myself to this statement, damaging as it is to my profession

my answer is this, that in my recent days such a parliamentary inquiry (of a very brief nature, it must be conceded) has been made into the uses and customs of the detective force, as must have led the public to believe that this power is really a formidable one, as it affects not only the criminal world but society in general

it had appeared as though the english detectives were in the habit of prying into private life, and as though no citizen were free from a system of spydom, which if it existed would be intolerable, but which has an existence only in imagination

it is a great pity that the minister who replied to the inquiry should have so faintly shown that the complaint was faint, if not altogether groundless
i do not suppose the public will believe me with any great amount of faith, and simply because i am an interested party; yet i venture to assert that the detective forces as a body are weak; that they fail in the majority of the cases brought under their supervision; and finally, that frequently their most successful cases have been brought to perfection, not by their own unaided endeavours so much as by the use of facts, frequently stated anonymously, and to which they make no reference in finally giving their evidence. this evidence starts from the statement, “from information i received.” those few words frequently enclose the secret which led to all the after operations which the detective deploys in description, and without which secret his evidence would never have been given at all

the public, especially that public who have experienced any pressure of the continental system of police, and who shudder at the remembrance of the institution, need have no fear that such a state of things munic-p-l can ever exist in england. it could not be attempted as the force is organized, and it could not meet with success were the constitution of the detective system invigorated, and in its reformed character pressed upon english society, for it would be detected at once as unconstitutional, and resented accordingly

with these remarks i will to the statement i have to make concerning my part, that of a female detective, in the attempt to elucidate a criminal mystery which has never been cleared up, which from the mode in which it was dealt with, ran little chance of being discovered, and which will now never be explained

the simple facts of the case, and necessary to be known, are these:—

one morning, a thames boatman found a carpet-bag resting on the abutment of an arch of one of the thames bridges. this treasure-trove being opened, was found to contain fragments of a human body—no head

the matter was put into the hands of the police, an inquiry was made, and nothing came of it

this result was very natural

there was little or no intellect exercised in relation to the case. facts were collected, but the deductions that might have been drawn from them were not made, simply because the right men were not set to work to—to sort them, if i may be allowed that expression

the elucidation, as offered by me at the time, and which was in no way acted upon, was due—i confess it at first starting—not to myself, but to a gentleman who put me in possession of the means of submitting my ultimate theory of the case to the proper authorities

i was seated one night, studying a simple case enough, but which called for some plotting, when a gentleman applied to see me, with whom i was quite willing to have an interview, though i did not even remotely recognise the name on the card which was sent in to me

as of course i am not permitted to publish his name, and as a false one would be useless, i will call him y—

he told me, in a few clear, curt words, very much like those of a detective high in office, and who has attained his position by his own will, that he knew i was a detective, and wanted to consult with me

“oh, very well, if i am a detective, you can consult with me. you have only yourself to please.”
he then at once said that he had a theory of the bridge mystery, as he called it and as i will call it, and that he wanted this theory brought under the consideration of the people at scotland yard

so far i was cautious, asking him to speak

he did so, and i may say at once that at the end of a minute i threw off the reserve i had maintained and became frank and outspoken with my visitor

i will not here reproduce his words, because if i did so i should afterwards have to go through them in order to interpolate my own additions, corrections, or excisions

it is perhaps sufficient to say that his entire theory was based upon grounds relating to his profession as a medical man. therefore, whenever a statement is made in the following narrative which smacks of the surgery, the reader may fairly lay its origin to y—; while, on the other hand, the generality of the conclusions drawn from these facts are due to myself

i shall therefore put the conversations we had at various times in the shape of a perfected history of the whole of them, with the final additions and suggestions in their proper places, though they may have occurred at the very commencement of the argument

as our statement stood, as it was submitted to the authorities, so now it is laid before the public, official form and unnecessary details alone being excised

1. the mutilated fragments did not when placed together form anything like an entire body, and the head was wanting

the first fact which struck the medical man was this, that the dissection had been effected, if not with learning, at least with knowledge. the severances were not jagged, and apparently the joints of the body had not been guessed at. the knife had been used with some knowledge of anatomy

the inference to be drawn from these facts was this, that whoever the murderer or homicide might be, either he or an accessory, either at or after the fact, was inferentially an educated man, from the simple discovery that there was evidence he knew something of a profession (surgery) which presupposes education

now, it is an ordinary rule, in cases of murder where there are two or more criminals, that these are of a class

that is to say, you rarely find educated men (i am referring here more generally to england) combine with uneducated men in committing crime. it stands evident that criminals in combination presupposes companionship. this assertion accepted, or allowed to stand for the sake of argument, it then has to be considered that all companionship generally maintains the one condition of equality. this generality has gained for itself a proverb, a sure evidence of most widely-extended observation, which runs—“birds of a feather flock together.”

very well. now, where do we stand in reference to the bridge case, while accepting or allowing the above suppositions?
we arrive at this conclusion:—

that the state of the mutilated fragments leads to the belief that men of some education were the murderers

2. the state of the tissue of the flesh of the mutitilated fragments showed that the murder had been committed by the use of the knife

this conclusion was very easily arrived at

there is no need to inform the public that the blood circulates through the whole system of veins and arteries in about three minutes, or that nothing will prevent blood from coagulating almost immediately it has left the veins. to talk of streams of blood is to speak absurdly

if, therefore, an artery is cut, and the heart continues to beat for a couple of minutes after the wound is made, the blood will be almost pumped out of the body, and the flesh, after death, will in appearance bear that relation to ordinary flesh that veal does to ordinary beef—a similar process of bleeding having been gone through with the calf, that of exhausting the body of its blood

what was the conclusion to be drawn from the fact that the fragments showed by their condition that the murdered man had been destroyed by the use of the knife?

the true conclusion stood thus—that he was murdered by foreigners

for if we examine a hundred consecutive murders and homicides, committed in england by english people, we shall find that the percentage of deaths from the use of the knife is so small as barely to call for observation. strangling, beating, poisoning (in a minor degree)—these are the modes of murder adopted in england

the conclusion, then, may stand that the murder was committed by foreigners

i am aware that against both the conclusions at which i have arrived it might be urged that educated and uneducated men have been engaged in the same crime; and secondly, that murders by the knife are perpetrated in england

but in all cases of mystery, if they are to be solved at all, it is by accepting probabilities as certainties, so far as acting upon them is concerned

3. there was further evidence than supposition to show that the remains were those of a foreigner

this evidence is divided into a couple of branches. the first depends upon the evidence of the pelves, or hip bones, which formed a portion of the fragments; the second upon the evidence of the skin of the fragments

first—

it may be remarked by any one of experience that there is this distinctive difference between foreigners and englishmen, and one which may be seen in the soho district any day—that while the hips of foreigners are wider than those of englishmen, foreign shoulders are not so broad as english; hence it results that while foreigners, by reason of the contrast, look generally wider at the hips than shoulders, englishmen, for the greater part, look wider at the shoulders than the hips

this distinction can best be observed in contrasting french and english, or german and english soldiery. here you find it so extremely evident as not to admit discussion

now, was there any evidence in the fragments to which this comparative international argument could apply?

yes

the medical gentleman who examined the fragments deposed that they belonged to a slightly-built man. then followed this remarkable statement, that the hip bones, or pelves, were extremely large

the second branch of this evidence, relating to the skin, may now be set out

the report went on to say that the skin was covered with long, strong, straight black hairs

now it is very remarkable that the skin should exhibit those appearances which are usually associated with strength, while the report distinctly sets out that the fragments belonged to a slightly-built man

it strikes the most ordinary thinker at once that his experience tells him that slight, weakly made men are generally distinguishable for weak and thin hair. most men at once recognise the force of the poetical description of samson’s strength lying in his hair

there is, then, surely something contradictory in the slight build, and the long, strong black hair, if we judge from our ordinary experience. but if we carry our experience beyond the ordinary, if we go into a french or italian eating-house in the soho district, it will be found that scarcely a man is to be found who is destitute of strong hair, for the most part black, upon the face. it need not be added that hair thickly growing on the face is presumptive proof that the entire skin possesses that faculty, the palms of the hands and soles of the feet excepted.-

-it should be here again pointed out that it is to the doctor that these physiological remarks are to be attributed

now follows another intricate piece of evidence. the hairs are stated to be long, black, and strong—that is to say, black, thick, and without any curl in them

any man who, by an hospital experience, has seen many english human beings, will agree with me that the body hair here in england is rarely black, rarely long, and generally with a tendency to curl

now, go to the french and italian cafés already referred to, and it will be found that the beards you shall see are black, very strong, and the hairs individually straight

the third conclusion stands thus:

that the bones and skin of the fragments point to their having formed a portion of a foreigner rather than an englishman

evidence of the fragments. the evidence of the fragments, therefore, goes problematically to prove that the murdered man was an educated foreigner, stabbed to death by one or more educated foreigners

now, what evidence can be offered which can support this theory?

much

in the first place, the complaints of the french government to england, and the results of those complaints, very evidently show that london is the resting-place of many determined foreigners. in fact, it is a matter beyond all question, that london has at all times been that sanctuary for refugees from which they could not be torn

hence london has always been the centre of foreign exiled disaffection

then if it can be shown that foreign exiled disaffection is given to assassination, it stands good that we have here in london foreigners who are ready to assassinate

experience shows that this tendency to assassinate on the part of foreign malcontents is a common understanding amongst them. there is no need to refer to the attempts upon the life of the emperor of the french, upon the life of the father of the late king of naples—there is no need to point out that in the former cases the would-be assassins have lived in london, and have generally set out from london. all required is, to talk of tyranny with the next twenty foreigners you may meet, good, bad, and indifferent. it will be found that the ordinary theory in reference to a tyrant is, not that he shall be overthrown by the will of the people, but by the act of assassination

this theory is the natural result, possibly, of that absence of power in the people which we english possess. we take credit to ourselves for abhorring assassination in reference to tyrants; but it should never be forgotten that here we have no need of assassination—the mere will of the people (when it is exerted) being quite enough to carry away all opposition

once admit assassination as a valuable aid in destroying tyranny, and you recognise by inference its general value as a medium of justice and relief

now apply the argument to the treachery of a member of a secret society, and you will comprehend the suggestion that the murdered man was a member of a secret political society, who was either false, or supposed to be false, to the secret society to which he belonged

the question now arises—are there foreign secret societies established in london?

have they an existence abroad? unquestionably. even here in open england there are a dozen secret societies of a fellowship-like character—masons, and foresters, and odd fellows, &c. &c

and if foreigners have secret societies abroad, in spite of the police, why not here, where they have perfect liberty to form as many secret societies as they like?

where has the money come from which has rigged out various penniless men, and sent them on the continent to assassinate this or that potentate?

the inference is good that the money is found by secret societarians. where else could it come from? exiles personally are not rich; but if twenty economical professors save two pounds a-piece in six months, there is forty pounds to be applied to a purpose

is there any solid evidence beyond that of the fragments to suggest that the murdered man was a foreigner? there is

in the first place, the state of those fragments showed that death had been recent—say, within two days

now, was any man missing during those two days who was in any way suggestively identifiable with the dead man?

if so, no application was made to the police

now, if the dead man were an englishman, and all who knew him were not implicated in his death (a most unlikely supposition), it seems pretty evident that the discovery of the murder following so swiftly on the fact, some clue to the mystery must have been gained

granted the supposed englishman had no relations in london (for it must be accepted as certain that the murder was committed in town, it being hardly within the bounds of possibility to suppose that the remains were brought into london to hide)—granted he had no friends, he must have had either servants, landlady, or employers. if any of these had existed, how certain it is that the publicity of the crime would have been followed by some inquiries by some of these people

not one was made

not any evidence was offered to the police that could for a moment be looked upon as valuable, although it is not perhaps going too far to say that every soul in london who could comprehend the affair had heard of and talked it over within twenty-four hours of its discovery, thanks to the power and extension of the press.-

– i point out as an instance of the late case of poisoning a wife and children in a cab. the culprit was discovered within twenty-four hours of the publication of the crime, and by several people in no way connected with the family in which the catastrophe occured

but see how thoroughly this absence of all inquiry will fall in with the murdered man having been a foreign refugee resting in this country

firstly—these refugees lodge together, and make so free with each other’s lodgings, and visit so frequently and so generally, that an english landlady would have some difficulty in telling who was and who was not her lodger. it would be most unlikely that she would miss a foreigner who had been staying with her foreign lodger some weeks. hence it might readily happen that a man having no locality with which he could be identified, no suspicion would be aroused by his absence from any particular place

then see how this supposed poverty of lodging would accord with a refugee who, broken down by want, might betray his society in order to gain bread, by selling their secrets to his home-police

or, on the other hand, he might be an actual police spy, sent by his government to play the refugee and the poverty-stricken wretch, in order the better to penetrate the secrets of conspirators

then mark how all chance of recognition is avoided by the absence of the head. in disposing of the fragments, and slinging them over the bridge by means of a rope, it was intended silently to drop the ugly burden into the thames. the idea of the bag resting on the abutment of the bridge could never have entered into the precautionary measures perfected by the murderers, and yet the necessity of strict secresy was made wonderfully evident in the fact of the head being kept back

for what purpose? probably that the chief actors in the murder might be sure of its destruction—perchance that it might be forwarded to the president of a secret society, that the death of the traitor might be proved beyond all dispute

another very important line of consideration is the inquiry why such a means of disposing of the remains as that taken was adopted. it will be remarked that the objectionable process of cutting up the body had to be gone through, and that then the dangerous act of carrying or riding with a bag of human remains through the streets to the river had to be effected. and effected in the night time, when it must be notorious to all parties the police are particularly alert in inquiring into the nature of the parcels carried past them. it will frequently happen that the police stop and justifiably examine heavy packages which they find being carried in the streets during the night

the encountering of all these enormous risks, to say nothing of the fear of interruption during the final act of lowering the carpet-bag, all go to presuppose that the murderers were unable to dispose of the body in any less hazardous manner

what is the mode in which murderers usually seek to hide the more awful traces of their guilt in the shape of the murdered man? they generally adopt the simplest and safest mode—hiding under the ground

a body buried ten feet in the ground, even though in the close cellar of a house, would give no warning of the hidden secret. a body buried in quicklime, under similar circumstances, would give no warning, though only four or three feet below the surface

burial is the most evident and simplest mode of disposing of a dead body. how is it, then, that the murderers in question did not bury, and ran a series of frightful risks, which resulted in the discovery of the remains?

the answer is obvious—they had no means of burial. in other words, the murder being done in a house where there was no command of the ground floor it was impossible to bury the body, and so it had to be disposed of in some other way. the inference therefore, is, that the occupier of the place was a lodger—not a householder

now make inquiries in the soho district and you will find that refugees rarely become householders. always hoping, perhaps, to return to their countries, never possibly desirous of taking any step which shall appear to themselves like a settling in a foreign land, it will be found that they prefer lodgings, and that the householders in most of the streets frequented by this sort of people are either english people or foreigners who do not belong to the refugee class, such as swiss (chiefly) and the world of waiters, who with their savings have gone into foreign housekeeping

i am aware that there is one good objection to this part of my scheme, in the remark that the murder might have been committed in a house occupied by the murderer or his friends, but that there might be no yard attached, or a yard too much exposed, or that the ground-floor was too publicly in use to admit of time for the removal of the boards, the replacing of the flooring, and the burial of the body

however, i beg again to urge the doctrine of probabilities. accepting the theory that it was a murder by foreigners, and not denying the statement that foreign refugees, as a rule, rarely become householders, the probability is greater that the murderers had no ground in which to bury, rather than they had ground at their command, but that circumstances prevented them from using it

it is true that there is one awkward point in the fact that the bridge selected from which to throw their burden was not so near to the refugee district as the late suspension bridge. at first sight it would appear strange that a longer risk should be run by taking the remains to a bridge not the nearest to the scene of the murder. but it must be remembered that the suspension bridge had no recesses, while the actual bridge used has many—that the suspension bridge was altogether more open and better lit than the other. these suggestions must be taken for what they are worth. i am willing to admit that it still remains extraordinary that the attempt to dispose of the body should have been made at the more distant of the two bridges, and i acknowledge that the apparent advantages of the bridge used over the suspension do not appear to compensate the extra risk incurred

let those who object thoroughly to the whole of this theory, advanced to account for a mystery which has never been cleared up—let them make the most of a weak point

the probability seems to me that the murdered man was a spy amongst men who, holding to the theory of the justice of assassination, very necessarily recognised its value in relation to a spy in the pay of a tyrant. nay, to be at once exhaustive in reference to spies, few people will be inclined to deny that the spy, whatever the shape he has taken, has always been dealt with most implacably

the supposition once accepted that the murderers had no power of burial, the use of the thames as a hiding place follows almost as a natural consequence. to hide below the water when the earth is not to be opened for the purpose of concealment appears to be a very natural thought. in what other way could the body be so readily disposable?

the thames offered secresy, the risk of carriage was surmountable; this means therefore of concealment, though it involved danger to those concerned in the work, was far preferable to leaving the remains in the street—a mode which only a madman would adopt.-

– such a mode was exercised a few months since with several still-born children. inquiry was set on foot, and the perpetrator of this open mode of disposing of human remains turned out to be a doctor who had suffered so much from delirium tremens that he might be called a madman

had the bag not lodged on the abutment of the bridge not one hint of the crime, it is evident, would ever have been made public. or two or more may have been concerned in this crime, but they all kept their counsel well. whether this silence was the result of brotherhood or fear it is impossible to say—possibly the latter. the very success of this one murder would intimidate any societarian who contemplated betraying his companions

there has but to be added to the statement already put before the reader, two facts which, however, call for little or no comment

1. the toll-keeper at one end of the bridge recognised the carpet-bag as a heavy one he had lifted over his toll-bar during the night

2. he stated that he did this kindness for a woman whom he afterwards thought must have been a man in woman’s clothing

i see no value in this evidence

1. the identification of the bag was of no value

2. it does not appear that the man remarked upon any peculiarity of the carrier of the bag till after its discovery on the bridge abutment. and therefore his evidence is not reliable

all i have now to do is to put in form the result i drew from the above theoretic evidence

the result in question may be put thus:—

deduction.—that a foreign man, of age, but not aging, was murdered by stabbing by the members of a secret foreign society of educated men which he had betrayed. that this murder was committed by lodgers and most probably on some other floor than the bas-m-nt, and of a house situated in the soho district

a copy of this statement now made to the reader, but somewhat more abridged and technical was forwarded to the authorities—but so far as i have been able to learn it was never accepted as of any value

the inquiry, as all the world knows, failed

i do not wonder that it did

left in the hands of english police, who set about their work after their ordinary rule, it is evident that if the murder was committed by foreigners, in a foreign colony, there was little chance of discovery

i believe the chief argument held against me at the time i sent in my report ran as follows: that if my supposition to the effect that the murdered man was a foreign police spy were correct, the publicity given to the discovery of the remains would have led to a communication sooner or later from a foreign prefect of police stating that an officer was missing

i did not make a reply to the objection, but i could have announced that the french police, for instance, are not at all desirous of advertising their business, and that a french prefect of police would prefer to lose a man, and let the chance of retribution escape, rather than serve justice by admitting that a french political spy had been in london

the silence of continental police prefects at that time is by no means to be accepted as an evidence that they missed no official who had been sent to england

the case failed—miserably

it could not be otherwise

how would french police succeed, set to work in bethnalgreen to catch an english murderer?

they would fail—miserably also

there can be no question about it, to those who have any knowledge of the english police system, and who choose to be candid, that it requires more intellect infused into it. many of the men are extraordinarily acute and are able to seize facts as they rise to the surface. but they are unable to work out what is below the surface. they work well enough in the light. when once they are in the dark, they walk with their hands open, and stretched out before them

had foreign lodging-houses, where frequent numbers of foreigners assemble, been inquired about, had some few perfectly constitutional searches been made, they might have led to the discovery of a fresh blood-stained floor—it being evident that if a spy were fallen upon from behind and stabbed, his blood must have reached the ground and written its tale there

these blood-stains must still exist if the house in which the murder took place has not been burnt down, but i doubt if ever the police will make an examination of them at this or any other distance of time, owing to the distant date of the crime

experience shows that the chances of discovery of a crime are in exact inverse proportion to the time which has elapsed since the murder. roughly it may be stated that if no clew is obtained within a week from the discovery of a crime, the chances of hunting down the criminal daily become rapidly fewer and fainter

let it not be supposed that i am advocating any change in the detective system which would be unconstitutional. far from it. i am quite sure any unconstitutional remodelment of that force would not be suffered for any length of time to exist—as it was proved by that recent parliamentary protest against an intolerable excess of duty on the part of the police to which i have already referred

my argument is, that more intellect should be infused into the operation of the police system, that it is impossible routine can always be a match for all shapes of crime, and finally that means should be taken to avoid so much failure as could be openly recorded of the detective police authorities

take in point the case i have been mentioning

what evidence have the public ever read or learnt to show that any other than ordinary measures were taken to clear up any extraordinary crime?

it is clear that while only ordinary measures are in force to detect extraordinary crime, a premium of impunity is offered to the latter description of ill-doing, and one which it is just possible is often pocketed. be all that as it may, it is certain the bridge mystery has never been cleared up

- james redding ware

letras aleatórias

MAIS ACESSADOS