Helen Vardon's confession
means appear to have been employed? The answer is that there is such
evidence, and that the person who appears to have used those means is
Helen Otway. There is evidence suggesting that she was actually
present when the suicide took place; there is evidence of a hurried
flight and unwillingness to return for the purse that she had left
behind; there is the open door, the lighted gas, and the missing
jewels, which were in the chambers when she arrived, and which were
never seen after she left. And then there is the mysterious stick
which had vanished, and which reappeared so strangely after her
unexplained visit to the chambers.
“That, gentlemen, is in brief the whole of the evidence with the
exception of that relating to John Vardon’s death. That evidence is
important to this enquiry; for if it should be proved that John Vardon
was killed by Lewis Otway, and that Helen Otway was privy to the
homicide, that would furnish a further motive for procuring the
suicide of deceased--the motive of the removal of the sole accomplice
in a serious crime. But that evidence is not vitally important, and it
is for you to decide whether you will still await the arrival of Dr.
Thorndyke, or whether you will proceed to consider your verdict on the
evidence that you have heard.”
As the coroner concluded, Dr. Thorndyke rose and advanced to the
table, placing on an empty chair a small green-covered suit-case. The
coroner looked up at him sharply and with somewhat definitely
unfriendly recognition.
“How long have you been here, sir?” the former demanded.
“About seven minutes,” Dr. Thorndyke replied, glancing at his watch.
“You were just beginning your summary when I entered.”
“You should have announced your arrival immediately,” said the
coroner. “However, as you are here, you had better take the oath, and
give your evidence without further delay.”
The coroner’s brusque, and even rude manner, did not appear to disturb
Dr. Thorndyke in the smallest degree. With the same impassive
expression and quiet, composed demeanour, he took the oath and
disposed of the usual preliminaries.
“We understand,” said the coroner, “that you have made an examination
of the body of the late John Vardon.”
“Yes, I proceeded to Maidstone on instructions from the Home Office
and conducted an exhumation of the body of John Vardon, of which I
then made an examination. The object of the proceeding was to
ascertain whether the cause of death had been correctly stated at the
inquest.”
“And what was the result of your examination--I don’t think we want
minute details.”
“I found that the cause of death was, as stated at the inquest by the
medical witnesses, failure of an extremely dilated heart. There was a
small wound on the right side of the forehead adjoining the temple,
which I examined very thoroughly. It was a glancing wound caused by a
very oblique impact, and was such a wound as might have been produced
in the manner described--by striking the corner of the mantelpiece in
falling. There was no injury to the bone nor to the brain or its
membranes. It was quite a trivial wound, and was not either wholly or
partially the cause of death.”
“Could that wound have been caused by a blow with a loaded stick?”
“I should say not. It was an oblique tear in the scalp and was
apparently produced by some object more angular than the knob of a
stick.”
“Well,” said the coroner, “that seems to dispose of the question of
Mr. Vardon’s death. It is a thousand pities that it was not cleared up
more completely at the time. However, it is cleared up now; and that,
really, is all, I think, that we want you to tell us, unless you have
some other information. I understand that you had a sort of roving
commission to investigate the matter of this enquiry?”
“I received instructions to make certain investigations with a view to
my giving evidence at this inquest, and I have made such
investigations as seemed to me to be necessary.”
“Yes, you have, in fact, held a sort of one-man inquest on your own
account. Well, the question is, do you suppose that you are in a
position to tell us anything that we do not know already?”
“I am quite sure that I am. If you will allow me to present a summary
of the facts in my possession----”
“I shall allow nothing of the kind. You will be good enough to answer
questions like any other witness.”
Dr. Thorndyke bowed with the same immovable serenity, and the coroner
proceeded with his examination.
“Have you had much experience of cases of suicide?”
“I have.”
“Have you had personal experience of any cases in which the suicidal
act was procured, or brought about, by acts of persons other than the
suicide, performed by them with deliberate intent?”
“Yes, I have had experience of several such cases.”
“In those cases, what methods were used to procure the other person to
commit suicide?”
“The majority were cases in which two persons agreed mutually to
commit suicide together. In the less common cases in which the
procurer did not propose to commit suicide, the method employed was
usually some form of suggestion.”
“Can you give us an instance of the employment of suggestion?”
“A very typical case occurred in my practice some years ago. A young
man, who had a strong inherited predisposition to suicide, was caused
by certain persons, who stood to benefit very considerably by his
death, to make away with himself. The method adopted was this: The
victim was made to believe that a certain Chinese jewel in his
possession carried a curse; that all previous owners of it had hanged
themselves, and that the appointed time for the suicide was made known
by the apparition of a dead mandarin. When by frequent repetitions of
this story the suitable state of mind had been produced, one of these
persons dressed himself in a mandarin’s costume and presented himself
to the victim, with the result that, within an hour or two, the latter
hanged himself.”
“In that case,” observed the coroner, “the suggestion seems to have
been in two stages. Is that usual?”
“One could hardly call it usual, as the cases are so rare. But it is
the most obvious and effective method--to produce a suicidal state of
mind by preparatory suggestion, and then, as it were, to explode the
mine by a definite determining suggestion.”
“Are you acquainted with the evidence which has been given in this
inquiry?”
“I have read a verbatim report of the first proceedings, and I have
heard your summary of the whole case.”
“You have, then, read the evidence relating to the anonymous letters.
What opinion did you form as to the purpose of those letters?”
“I formed the opinion that their purpose was to impel deceased to
commit suicide.”
“Do you consider that, in the case of a person predisposed to suicide,
they would be likely to produce that effect?”
“I should say that they would have a tendency to induce a suicidal
state of mind.”
“And suppose such a person, having received a series of such letters,
and being greatly depressed by them, should be engaged--in his
bedroom, the last thing at night--in a conversation on suicide, his
own suicide, and that of relatives who had killed themselves, what
would you expect to be the effect of such conversation?”
“It would not be possible to predict the effect, but the tendency
would be to reinforce the influence of the letters.”
“And what would be the condition of such a person in regard to his
susceptibility to further suggestion?”
“His susceptibility to further suggestion would probably be
increased.”
“Looking at this case as a whole, by the light of your experience of
suicide, do you regard the death of deceased as the result of his own
spontaneous act or as due in part to the acts of some other person or
persons?”
“I regard his death as due entirely to the acts of some other person
or persons.”
At these terrible words my heart seemed to stand still. There was a
fearful certainty and confidence in Dr. Thorndyke’s tone that chilled
my very blood. He did not guess. He knew. In the short pause that
followed, I set my teeth and waited for my condemnation.
“You consider that the suggestion conveyed in the letters and in that
conversation and by other possible means operated so as to convert
deceased into an automaton? Is that what you mean?”
“No. I do not consider that the letters or the conversation had any
effect in causing his death.”
The coroner frowned, perplexedly. “I don’t think I quite understand,”
said he. “There seems to be--if you will pardon me--some
self-contradiction. You state that the letters and the conversation
would tend to produce a suicidal state of mind; but yet, though the
letters were actually received and the conversation occurred, neither
had any effect in causing the death which followed them. Do I state
the case correctly?”
“Yes; quite correctly.”
“Then I do not understand you in the least. You appear to be flatly
contradicting yourself. I think you will agree that we are not making
much progress.”
“We are not making any progress at all. The examination has not
elicited a single, relevant fact.”
“Indeed, sir!” exclaimed the coroner. “And, pray, whose fault is
that?”
“I suggest,” Dr. Thorndyke replied, suavely, “that it is due to the
method of examination.”
The coroner turned purple. “This is insufferable!” he exclaimed; “that
a witness should presume to instruct an experienced officer of justice
in the duties of his office! But I suppose we must be humble in the
presence of an expert. May I ask, sir, what you object to in my method
of examination?”
“The lack of result,” Dr. Thorndyke replied, “is due to the fact that
your examination has been conducted to support a particular theory;
and that theory happens to be the wrong theory.”
“Again, I don’t understand you,” the coroner said, angrily. “No theory
has been advanced by me. Will you be good enough to explain what
theory you are alluding to?”
“I allude to the theory, which you seem to have adopted, that the
deceased Lewis Otway committed suicide by hanging himself from a peg
on the bedroom wall. That theory is erroneous. It is practically
certain that Lewis Otway did not commit suicide; and it is quite
certain that he never hung from that peg on the bedroom wall.”
“But,” exclaimed the coroner, “we have the evidence of a witness who
saw deceased hanging from that peg; and not only saw him, but cut him
down and found him to be dead.”
“As a witness,” said Dr. Thorndyke, “I am not concerned with the
testimony of other witnesses, but only with the facts as ascertained
by me.”
“No doubt,” retorted the coroner. “But we are concerned with the
testimony of all the witnesses; and the statement of this witness that
she saw the body hanging from the peg, and that she cut it down from
the peg, is a clear statement on a question of fact. If that statement
is true, deceased hung from that peg. If he did not hang from that peg
the statement is false. You say that he never hung from that peg. On
what facts do you base that statement?”
“On the strength of the peg and the weight of the body of deceased.
The strength of the peg--that is, the maximum weight it was capable of
supporting--was under 175 pounds. But the body of deceased weighed 231
pounds--more than half a hundredweight in excess of the greatest
weight that the peg was capable of supporting.”
“What method did you employ to measure the strength of the peg?”
“I used simple weights, which I thought preferable to a dynamometer
for purposes of evidence. These weights I had conveyed to the
chambers, and I carried out the experiment in the presence of Mr.
Anstey, K.C., and my assistant, Francis Polton. I hung from the peg a
wooden tray, slung by a chain, the total weight of which was ten