It appears to me to be established, beyond any reasonable doubt, that he was killed (while he was asleep, or immediately on his waking) by being smothered with a pillow from his bed -- that the persons guilty of murdering him are the three Indians -- and that the object contemplated (and achieved)by the crime, was to obtain possession of the diamond, called the Moonstone.
The facts from which this conclusion is drawn, are derived partly from an examination of the room at the tavern; and partly from the evidence obtained at the Coroner's Inquest.
On forcing the door of the room, the deceased gentleman was discovered, dead, with the pillow of the bed over his face.The medical man who examined him, being informed of this circumstance, considered the post-mortem appearances as being perfectly compatible with murder by smothering -- that is to say, with murder committed by some person, or persons, pressing the pillow over the nose and mouth of the deceased, until death resulted from congestion of the lungs.
Next, as to the motive for the crime.
A small box, with a sealed paper torn off from it (the paper containing an inscription) was found open, and empty, on a table in the room.Mr.
Luker has himself personally identified the box, the seal, and the inscription.
He has declared that the box did actually contain the diamond, called the Moonstone; and he has admitted having given the box (thus sealed up) to Mr.Godfrey Ablewhite (then concealed under a disguise), on the afternoon of the twenty-sixth of June last.The fair inference from all this is, that the stealing of the Moonstone was the motive of the crime.
Next, as to the manner in which the crime was committed.
On examination of the room (which is only seven feet high), a trap-door in the ceiling, leading out on to the roof of the house, was discovered open.The short ladder, used for obtaining access to the trap-door (and kept under the bed), was found placed at the opening, so as to enable any person, or persons, in the room, to leave it again easily.In the trap-door itself was found a square aperture cut in the wood, apparently with some exceedingly sharp instrument, just behind the bolt which fastened the door on the inner side.In this way, any person from the outside could have drawn back the bolt, and opened the door, and have dropped (or have been noiselessly lowered by an accomplice) into the room -- its height, as already observed, being only seven feet.That some person, or persons, must have got admission in this way, appears evident from the fact of the aperture being there.As to the manner in which he (or they) obtained access to the roof of the tavern, it is to be remarked that the third house, lower down in the street, was empty, and under repair -- that a long ladder was left by the workmen, leading from the pavement to the top of the house -- and that, on returning to their work, on the morning of the 27th, the men found the plank which they had tied to the ladder, to prevent anyone from using it in their absence, removed, and lying on the ground.As to the possibility of ascending by this ladder, passing over the roofs of the houses, passing back, and descending again, unobserved -- it is discovered, on the evidence of the night policeman, that he only passes through Shore Lane twice in an hour, when out on his beat.The testimony of the inhabitants also declares, that Shore Lane, after midnight, is one of the quietest and loneliest streets in London.Here again, therefore, it seems fair to infer that -- with ordinary caution, and presence of mind -- any man, or men, might have ascended by the ladder, and might have descended again, unobserved.Once on the roof of the tavern, it has been proved, by experiment, that a man might cut through the trap-door, while lying down on it, and that in such a position, the parapet in front of the house would conceal him from the view of anyone passing in the street.
Lastly, as to the person, or persons, by whom the crime was committed.
It is known (1) that the Indians had an interest in possessing themselves of the Diamond.(2) It is at least probable that the man looking like an Indian, whom Octavius Guy saw at the window of the cab, speaking to the man dressed like a mechanic, was one of the three Hindoo conspirators.
(3) It is certain that this same man dressed like a mechanic, was seen keeping Mr.Godfrey Ablewhite in view, all through the evening of the 26th, and was found in the bedroom (before Mr.Ablewhite was shown into it) under circumstances which lead to the suspicion that he was examining the room.
(4) A morsel of torn gold thread was picked up in the bedroom, which persons expert in such matters, declare to be of Indian manufacture and to be a species of gold thread not known in England.(5) On the morning of the 27th, three men, answering to the description of the three Indians, were observed in Lower Thames Street, were traced to the Tower Wharf, and were seen to leave London by the steamer bound for Rotterdam.
There is here, moral, if not legal, evidence, that the murder was committed by the Indians.
Whether the man personating a mechanic was, or was not, an accomplice in the crime, it is impossible to say.That he could have committed the murder alone, seems beyond the limits of probability.Acting by himself, he could hardly have smothered Mr.Ablewhite -- who was the taller and stronger man of the two -- without a struggle taking place, or a cry being heard.A servant girl, sleeping in the next room, heard nothing.The landlord, sleeping in the room below, heard nothing.The whole evidence points to the inference that more than one man was concerned in this crime -- and the circumstances, I repeat, morally justify the conclusion that the Indians committed it.