There were one or two persons present whom I was somewhat surprised to see. There was, for instance, our pock-marked acquaintance of Mansell Street, who greeted us with a stare of hostile surprise; and there was Superintendent Miller of Scotland Yard, in whose manner I seemed to detect some kind of private understanding with Thorndyke. But I had little time to look about me, for when we arrived, the proceedings had already commenced. Mrs. Goldstein, the first witness, was finishing her recital of the circumstances under which the crime was discovered, and, as she retired, weeping hysterically, she was followed by looks of commiseration from the sympathetic jurymen.
The next witness was a young woman named Kate Silver. As she stepped forward to be sworn she flung a glance of hatred and defiance at Miriam Goldstein, who, white-faced and wild of aspect, with her red hair streaming in dishevelled masses on to her shoulders, stood apart in custody of two policemen, staring about her as if in a dream.
“You were intimately acquainted with the deceased, I believe?” said the coroner.
“I was. We worked at the same place for a long time—the Empire Restaurant in Fenchurch Street—and we lived in the same house. She was my most intimate friend.”
“Had she, as far as you know, any friends or relations in England?”
“No. She came to England from Bremen about three years ago. It was then that I made her acquaintance. All her relations were in Germany, but she had many friends here, because she was a very lively, amiable girl.”
“Had she, as far as you know, any enemies—any persons, I mean, who bore any grudge against her and were likely to do her an injury?”
“Yes. Miriam Goldstein was her enemy. She hated her.”
“You say Miriam Goldstein hated the deceased. How do you know that?”
“She made no secret of it. They had had a violent quarrel about a young man named Moses Cohen. He was formerly Miriam’s sweetheart, and I think they were very fond of one another until Minna Adler came to lodge at the Goldsteins’ house about three months ago. Then Moses took a fancy to Minna, and she encouraged him, although she had a sweetheart of her own, a young man named Paul Petrofsky, who also lodged in the Goldsteins’ house. At last Moses broke off with Miriam, and engaged himself to Minna. Then Miriam was furious, and complained to Minna about what she called her perfidious conduct; but Minna only laughed, and told her she could have Petrofsky instead.”
“And what did Minna say to that?” asked the coroner.
“She was still more angry, because Moses Cohen is a smart, good-looking young man, while Petrofsky is not much to look at. Besides, Miriam did not like Petrofsky; he had been rude to her, and she had made her father send him away from the house. So they were not friends, and it was just after that that the trouble came.”
“The trouble?”
“I mean about Moses Cohen. Miriam is a very passionate girl, and she was furiously jealous of Minna, so when Petrofsky annoyed her by taunting her about Moses Cohen and Minna, she lost her temper, and said dreadful things about both of them.”
“As, for instance—?”
“She said that she would kill them both, and that she would like to cut Minna’s throat.”
“When was this?”
“It was the day before the murder.”
“Who heard her say these things besides you?”
“Another lodger named Edith Bryant and Petrofsky. We were all standing in the hall at the time.”
“But I thought you said Petrofsky had been turned away from the house.”
“So he had, a week before; but he had left a box in his room, and on this day he had come to fetch it. That was what started the trouble. Miriam had taken his room for her bedroom, and turned her old one into a workroom. She said he should not go to her room to fetch his box.”
“And did he?”
“I think so. Miriam and Edith and I went out, leaving him in the hall. When we came back the box was gone, and, as Mrs. Goldstein was in the kitchen and there was nobody else in the house, he must have taken it.”
“You spoke of Miriam’s workroom. What work did she do?”
“She cut stencils for a firm of decorators.”
Here the coroner took a peculiarly shaped knife from the table before him, and handed it to the witness.
“Have you ever seen that knife before?” he asked.
“Yes. It belongs to Miriam Goldstein. It is a stencil-knife that she used in her work.”
This concluded the evidence of Kate Silver, and when the name of the next witness, Paul Petrofsky, was called, our Mansell Street friend came forward to be sworn. His evidence was quite brief, and merely corroborative of that of Kate Silver, as was that of the next witness, Edith Bryant. When these had been disposed of, the coroner announced:
“Before taking the medical evidence, gentlemen, I propose to hear that of the police-officers, and first we will call Detective-sergeant Alfred Bates.”
The sergeant stepped forward briskly, and proceeded to give his evidence with official readiness and precision.
“I was called by Constable Simmonds at eleven-forty-nine, and reached the house at two minutes to twelve in company with Inspector Harris and Divisional Surgeon Davidson. When I arrived Dr. Hart, Dr. Thorndyke, and Dr. Jervis were already in the room. I found the deceased woman, Minna Adler, lying in bed with her throat cut. She was dead and cold. There were no signs of a struggle, and the bed did not appear to have been disturbed. There was a table by the bedside on which was a book and an empty candlestick. The candle had apparently burnt out, for there was only a piece of charred wick at the bottom of the socket. A box had been placed on the floor at the head of the bed and a hassock stood on it. Apparently the murderer had stood on the hassock and leaned over the head of the bed to commit the murder. This was rendered necessary by the position of the table, which could not have been moved without making some noise and perhaps disturbing the deceased. I infer from the presence of the box and hassock that the murderer is a short person.”
“Was there anything else that seemed to fix the identity of the murderer?”
“Yes. A tress of a woman’s red hair was grasped in the left hand of the deceased.”
As the detective uttered this statement, a simultaneous shriek of horror burst from the accused woman and her mother. Mrs. Goldstein sank half-fainting on to a bench, while Miriam, pale as death, stood as one petrified, fixing the detective with a stare of terror, as he drew from his pocket two small paper packets, which he opened and handed to the coroner.
“The hair in the packet marked A,” said he, “is that which was found in the hand of the deceased; that in the packet marked B is the hair of Miriam Goldstein.”
Here the accused woman’s solicitor rose. “Where did you obtain the hair in the packet marked B?” he demanded.
“I took it from a bag of combings that hung on the wall of Miriam Goldstein’s bedroom,” answered the detective.
“I object to this,” said the solicitor. “There is no evidence that the hair from that bag was the hair of Miriam Goldstein at all.”
Thorndyke chuckled softly. “The lawyer is as dense as the policeman,” he remarked to me in an undertone. “Neither of them seems to see the significance of that bag in the least.”
“Did you know about the bag, then?” I asked in surprise.
“No. I thought it was the hair-brush.”
I gazed at my colleague in amazement, and was about to ask for some elucidation of this cryptic reply, when he held up his finger and turned again to listen.
“Very well, Mr. Horwitz,” the coroner was saying, “I will make a note of your objection, but I shall allow the sergeant to continue his evidence.”
The solicitor sat down, and the detective resumed his statement.
“I have examined and compared the two samples of hair, and it is my opinion that they are from the head of the same person. The only other observation that I made in the room was that there was a small quantity of silver sand sprinkled on the pillow
around the deceased woman’s head.”
“Silver sand!” exclaimed the coroner. “Surely that is a very singular material to find on a woman’s pillow?”
“I think it is easily explained,” replied the sergeant. “The wash-hand basin was full of bloodstained water, showing that the murderer had washed his—or her—hands, and probably the knife, too, after the crime. On the washstand was a ball of sand-soap, and I imagine that the murderer used this to cleanse his—or her—hands, and, while drying them, must have stood over the head of the bed and let the sand sprinkle down on to the pillow.”
“A simple but highly ingenious explanation,” commented the coroner approvingly, and the jurymen exchanged admiring nods and nudges.
“I searched the rooms occupied by the accused woman, Miriam Goldstein, and found there a knife of the kind used by stencil cutters, but larger than usual. There were stains of blood on it which the accused explained by saying that she cut her finger some days ago. She admitted that the knife was hers.”
This concluded the sergeant’s evidence, and he was about to sit down when the solicitor rose.
“I should like to ask this witness one or two questions,” said he, and the coroner having nodded assent, he proceeded: “Has the finger of the accused been examined since her arrest?”
“I believe not,” replied the sergeant. “Not to my knowledge, at any rate.”
The solicitor noted the reply, and then asked: “With reference to the silver sand, did you find any at the bottom of the wash-hand basin?”
The sergeant’s face reddened. “I did not examine the wash-hand basin,” he answered.
“Did anybody examine it?”
“I think not.”
“Thank you.” Mr. Horwitz sat down, and the triumphant squeak of his quill pen was heard above the muttered disapproval of the jury.
“We shall now take the evidence of the doctors, gentlemen,” said the coroner, “and we will begin with that of the divisional surgeon. You saw the deceased, I believe, Doctor,” he continued, when Dr. Davidson had been sworn, “soon after the discovery of the murder, and you have since then made an examination of the body?”
“Yes. I found the body of the deceased lying in her bed, which had apparently not been disturbed. She had been dead about ten hours, and rigidity was complete in the limbs but not in the trunk. The cause of death was a deep wound extending right across the throat and dividing all the structures down to the spine. It had been inflicted with a single sweep of a knife while deceased was lying down, and was evidently homicidal. It was not possible for the deceased to have inflicted the wound herself. It was made with a single-edged knife, drawn from left to right; the assailant stood on a hassock placed on a box at the head of the bed and leaned over to strike the blow. The murderer is probably quite a short person, very muscular, and right-handed. There was no sign of a struggle, and, judging by the nature of the injuries, I should say that death was almost instantaneous. In the left hand of the deceased was a small tress of a woman’s red hair. I have compared that hair with that of the accused, and am of opinion that it is her hair.”
“You were shown a knife belonging to the accused?”
“Yes; a stencil-knife. There were stains of dried blood on it which I have examined and find to be mammalian blood. It is probably human blood, but I cannot say with certainty that it is.”
“Could the wound have been inflicted with this knife?”
“Yes, though it is a small knife to produce so deep a wound. Still, it is quite possible.”
The coroner glanced at Mr. Horwitz. “Do you wish to ask this witness any questions?” he inquired.
“If you please, sir,” was the reply. The solicitor rose, and, having glanced through his notes, commenced: “You have described certain blood-stains on this knife. But we have heard that there was blood-stained water in the wash-hand basin, and it is suggested, most reasonably, that the murderer washed his hands and the knife. But if the knife was washed, how do you account for the bloodstains on it?”
“Apparently the knife was not washed, only the hands.”
“But is not that highly improbable?”
“No, I think not.”
“You say that there was no struggle, and that death was practically instantaneous, but yet the deceased had torn out a lock of the murderess’s hair. Are not those two statements inconsistent with one another?”
“No. The hair was probably grasped convulsively at the moment of death. At any rate, the hair was undoubtedly in the dead woman’s hand.”
“Is it possible to identify positively the hair of any individual?”
“No. Not with certainty. But this is very peculiar hair.”
The solicitor sat down, and, Dr. Hart having been called, and having briefly confirmed the evidence of his principal, the coroner announced: “The next witness, gentleman, is Dr. Thorndyke, who was present almost accidentally, but was actually the first on the scene of the murder. He has since made an examination of the body, and will, no doubt, be able to throw some further light on this horrible crime.”
Thorndyke stood up, and, having been sworn, laid on the table a small box with a leather handle. Then, in answer to the coroner’s questions, he described himself as the lecturer on Medical Jurisprudence at St. Margaret’s Hospital, and briefly explained his connection with the case. At this point the foreman of the jury interrupted to ask that his opinion might be taken on the hair and the knife, as these were matters of contention, and the objects in question were accordingly handed to him.
“Is the hair in the packet marked A in your opinion from the same person as that in the packet marked B?” the coroner asked.
“I have no doubt that they are from the same person,” was the reply.
“Will you examine this knife and tell us if the wound on the deceased might have been inflicted with it?”
Thorndyke examined the blade attentively, and then handed the knife back to the coroner.
“The wound might have been inflicted with this knife,” said he, “but I am quite sure it was not.”
“Can you give us your reasons for that very definite opinion?”
“I think,” said Thorndyke, “that it will save time if I give you the facts in a connected order.” The coroner bowed assent, and he proceeded: “I will not waste your time by reiterating facts already stated. Sergeant Bates has fully described the state of the room, and I have nothing to add on that subject. Dr. Davidson’s description of the body covers all the facts: the woman had been dead about ten hours, the wound was unquestionably homicidal, and was inflicted in the manner that he has described. Death was apparently instantaneous, and I should say that the deceased never awakened from her sleep.”
“But,” objected the coroner, “the deceased held a lock of hair in her hand.”
“That hair,” replied Thorndyke, “was not the hair of the murderer. It was placed in the hand of the corpse for an obvious purpose; and the fact that the murderer had brought it with him shows that the crime was premeditated, and that it was committed by someone who had had access to the house and was acquainted with its inmates.”
As Thorndyke made this statement, coroner, jurymen, and spectators alike gazed at him in open-mouthed amazement. There was an interval of intense silence, broken by a wild, hysteric laugh from Mrs. Goldstein, and then the coroner asked:
“How did you know that the hair in the hand of the corpse was not that of the murderer?”
“The inference was very obvious. At the first glance the peculiar and conspicuous colour of the hair struck me as suspicious. But there were three facts, each of which was in itself sufficient to prove that the hair was probably not that of the murderer.
“In the first place there was the condition of the hand. When a person, at the moment of death, grasps any object firmly, there is set up a condition known as cadaveric spasm. The muscular contraction passes immediately into rigor mortis, or death-stiffening, and the object remains grasped by the dead hand until
the rigidity passes off. In this case the hand was perfectly rigid, but it did not grasp the hair at all. The little tress lay in the palm quite loosely and the hand was only partially closed. Obviously the hair had been placed in it after death. The other two facts had reference to the condition of the hair itself. Now, when a lock of hair is torn from the head, it is evident that all the roots will be found at the same end of the lock. But in the present instance this was not the case; the lock of hair which lay in the dead woman’s hand had roots at both ends, and so could not have been torn from the head of the murderer. But the third fact that I observed was still more conclusive. The hairs of which that little tress was composed had not been pulled out at all. They had fallen out spontaneously. They were, in fact, shed hairs—probably combings. Let me explain the difference. When a hair is shed naturally, it drops out of the little tube in the skin called the root sheath, having been pushed out by the young hair growing up underneath; the root end of such a shed hair shows nothing but a small bulbous enlargement—the root bulb. But when a hair is forcibly pulled out, its root drags out the root sheath with it, and this can be plainly seen as a glistening mass on the end of the hair. If Miriam Goldstein will pull out a hair and pass it to me, I will show you the great difference between hair which is pulled out and hair which is shed.”
The unfortunate Miriam needed no pressing. In a twinkling she had tweaked out a dozen hairs, which a constable handed across to Thorndyke, by whom they were at once fixed in a paper-clip. A second clip being produced from the box, half a dozen hairs taken from the tress which had been found in the dead woman’s hand were fixed in it. Then Thorndyke handed the two clips, together with a lens, to the coroner.
“Remarkable!” exclaimed the latter, “and most conclusive.” He passed the objects on to the foreman, and there was an interval of silence while the jury examined them with breathless interest and much facial contortion.
“The next question,” resumed Thorndyke, “was, Whence did the murderer obtain these hairs? I assumed that they had been taken from Miriam Goldstein’s hair-brush; but the sergeant’s evidence makes it pretty clear that they were obtained from the very bag of combings from which he took a sample for comparison.”
The First R. Austin Freeman Megapack: 27 Mystery Tales of Dr. Thorndyke & Others Page 46
