The Red Thumbmark

is in the highest degree misleading, and ought not to have been made without due warning and qualification. So far is it from being true, in practice, that its exact contrary is the fact; the evidence of a fingerprint, in the absence of corroboration, is absolutely worthless. Of all forms of forgery, the forgery of a fingerprint is the easiest and most secure, as you have seen in this court today. Consider the character of the high-class forger⁠—his skill, his ingenuity, his resource. Think of the forged banknotes, of which not only the engraving, the design and the signature, but even the very paper with its private watermarks, is imitated with a perfection that is at once the admiration and the despair of those who have to distinguish the true from the false; think of the forged cheque, in which actual perforations are filled up, of which portions are cut out bodily and replaced by indistinguishable patches; think of these, and then of a fingerprint, of which any photo-engraver’s apprentice can make you a forgery that the greatest experts cannot distinguish from the original, which any capable amateur can imitate beyond detection after a month’s practice; and then ask yourselves if this is the kind of evidence on which, without any support or corroboration, a gentleman of honour and position should be dragged before a criminal court and charged with having committed a crime of the basest and most sordid type.

“But I must not detain you with unnecessary appeals. I will remind you briefly of the salient facts. The case for the prosecution rests upon the assertion that the thumbprint found in the safe was made by the thumb of the prisoner. If that thumbprint was not made by the prisoner, there is not only no case against him but no suspicion of any kind.

“Now, was that thumbprint made by the prisoner’s thumb? You have had conclusive evidence that it was not. That thumbprint differed in the size, or scale, of the pattern from a genuine thumbprint of the prisoner’s. The difference was small, but it was fatal to the police theory; the two prints were not identical.

“But, if not the prisoner’s thumbprint, what was it? The resemblance of the pattern was too exact for it to be the thumbprint of another person, for it reproduced not only the pattern of the ridges on the prisoner’s thumb, but also the scar of an old wound. The answer that I propose to this question is, that it was an intentional imitation of the prisoner’s thumbprint, made with the purpose of fixing suspicion on the prisoner, and so ensuring the safety of the actual criminal. Are there any facts which support this theory? Yes, there are several facts which support it very strongly.

“First, there are the facts that I have just mentioned. The red thumbprint disagreed with the genuine print in its scale or dimensions. It was not the prisoner’s thumbprint; but neither was it that of any other person. The only alternative is that it was a forgery.

“In the second place, that print was evidently made with the aid of certain appliances and materials, and one of those materials, namely defibrinated blood, was found in the safe.

“In the third place, there is the coincidence that the print was one which it was possible to forge. The prisoner has ten digits⁠—eight fingers and two thumbs. But there were in existence actual prints of the two thumbs, whereas no prints of the fingers were in existence; hence it would have been impossible to forge a print of any of the fingers. So it happens that the red thumbprint resembled one of the two prints of which forgery was possible.

“In the fourth place, the red thumbprint reproduces an accidental peculiarity of the ‘Thumbograph’ print. Now, if the red thumbprint is a forgery, it must have been made from the ‘Thumbograph’ print, since there exists no other print from which it could have been made. Hence we have the striking fact that the red thumbprint is an exact replica⁠—including accidental peculiarities⁠—of the only print from which a forgery could have been made. The accidental S-shaped mark in the ‘Thumbograph’ print is accounted for by the condition of the paper; the occurrence of this mark in the red thumbprint is not accounted for by any peculiarity of the paper, and can be accounted for in no way, excepting by assuming the one to be a copy of the other. The conclusion is thus inevitable that the red thumbprint is a photomechanical reproduction of the ‘Thumbograph’ print.

“But there is yet another point. If the red thumbprint is a forgery reproduced from the ‘Thumbograph’ print, the forger must at some time have had access to the ‘Thumbograph.’ Now, you have heard Mrs. Hornby’s remarkable story of the mysterious disappearance of the ‘Thumbograph’ and its still more mysterious reappearance. That story can have left no doubt in your minds that some person had surreptitiously removed the ‘Thumbograph’ and, after an unknown interval, secretly replaced it. Thus the theory of forgery receives confirmation at every point, and is in agreement with every known fact; whereas the theory that the red thumbprint was a genuine thumbprint, is based upon a gratuitous assumption, and has not had a single fact advanced in its support.

“Accordingly, gentlemen, I assert that the prisoner’s innocence has been proved in the most complete and convincing manner, and I ask you for a verdict in accordance with that proof.”

As Anstey resumed his seat, a low rumble of applause was heard from the gallery. It subsided instantly on a gesture of disapproval from the judge, and a silence fell upon the court, in which the clock, with cynical indifference, continued to record in its brusque monotone the passage of the fleeting seconds.

“He is saved, Dr. Jervis! Oh! surely he is saved!” Juliet exclaimed in an agitated whisper. “They must see that he is innocent now.”

“Have patience a little longer,” I answered. “It will soon be over now.”

Sir Hector Trumpler