An Innocent Man?
An Innocent Man? is an article published in the Daily Express on 24 march 1914.
An Innocent Man?
SIR A. CONAN DOYLE'S PLEA FOR OSCAR SLATER.
INQUIRY ORDERED.
Sir Arthur Conan Doyle outlined to an "Express" representative yesterday the principal points on which, in his opinion, attention should be concentrated by those appointed to conduct the reinvestigation of the case of Oscar Slater which has been ordered by the Secretary for Scotland, Mr. Kinnou Wood.
The creator of Sherlock Holmes has all along been convinced of the innocence of Slater, who was condemned to death at Edinburgh for the murder of Miss Marion Gilchrist in her flat at Glasgow on December 21, 1908, and who is now in Peterhead Prison, the capital sentence having been commited two days before the date fixed for his execution, to penal servitude for life.
Numerous discrepancies and inconsistencies in the evidence for the prosecution were pointed out by the famous author and criminologist in a pamphlet published shortly after the trial, but he modestly disclaimed the credit of being the first to draw public attention to the weakness of the case against Slater, the writer of the preface to a report of the proceedings in the High Court at Edinburgh having been in the field before him.
"The conviction of Slater was nothing short of a scandal, and I am delighted to learn that the case is being reinvestigated,"
said Sir Arthur Conan Doyle. "Never for one moment from the time I first read the case have I believed that Slater was guilty, and it is terrible to think that an innocent man should be lying in prison, so I shall always respect Mr. McKinnon Wood for having the strength of mind and sense of justice to bring up the case again.
'SEARCHING INQUIRY NEEDED.
"The public conscience will not be at its ease until the case has been thoroughly investigated by an impartial commission such as that which established the innocence of Edalji.
"To my mind the most important point for consideration is the manner in which Slater came to be suspected at all. The only article missing from the flat was a crescent diamond brooch, and shortly after the murder the police heard that Slater had endeavoured to dispose of the pawnticket of a brooch that appeared from the description given to be the one which, presumably, had been stolen by the murderer. Consequently, they came to the conclusion that he was the man, and at that time that was the only thing which caused them to suspect him.
"He was then on his way to America. He had weeks before announced his intention of going away — it was no sudden impulse or secret flight — and certain letters are stated to have been received by him which would explain why he rather hurried his departure.
"The police had him arrested on landing at New York, and they found on him a pawnticket for a diamond brooch. This enabled them to recover the brooch — but it was not the one missing from the flat after all!
"Therefore, assuming for the moment that Slater was guilty, you are faced with the extraordinary, incredible coincidence that the police got hold of the right man by a mistake.
"It is utterly inconceivable that they should secure the right man by an accident like that, but it is certainly only human nature that, having once arrested a man, they should seize on other points — after-thoughts and quite secondary matters — and build their case on those points, abandoning entirely the original cause for suspicion.
GRAVE MISSTATEMENT.
"Another point of great importance is that a misstatement was made by the Lord Advocate in his speech for the Crown, a misstatement which does not appear to have been corrected at the moment by either the judge or the defending counsel.
"He spoke without notes — a most dangerous thing to do — and in the course of his very eloquent speech made an allegation that Slater's name had appeared in the Glasgow papers, and that subsequent to that he fled from the country.
"The point is of vital importance, and an examination of the dates will show that there was absolutely no foundation for the statement. His name did not appear in the papers until nearly a week later, and by that time he was far out in the Atlantic."
It will be remembered that the murder was discovered by Helen Lambie (Miss Gilchrist's maid) and Arthur Adams, the occupier of the flat below, who had been attracted by unusual noises. The two entered the flat together, and as they did so a man emerged and made his escape. A girl named Barrowman also saw the man presumed to be the murderer running away from the flat.
In Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's opinion the evidence of identification given by those three witnesses only amounted to "half-hearted recognitions," and he is at a loss to understand how any one could accept it, as being enough to establish the guilt of the prisoner, especially in view of the fact that in the Beck case there were ten witnesses who had seen the real criminal under normal circumstances, and yet were all prepared to swear to the wrong man.
Other points to which Sir Arthur attaches importance are that nothing really incriminating was found in Slater's trunk, and there were no bloodstains on any of his belongings; the evidence called by the defence to show that Slater could not have been at the flat at the time of the murder; and the failure of the prosecution to produce the least connecting link between Slater and the murdered woman.
Five out of fifteen jurymen voted for "Not proven," and another for "Not guilty" a division of opinion which, under English law, would have resulted in a new trial.
