The man in the mire

Holdback, Ep. 7: "R. v. Todd (1901)"

If you are not a fan of police procedurals or courtroom dramas please skip this and wait for Sunday’s Goya. If you’re not big on Goya wait for the following Sunday’s Hexagon. If you do not like Hexagon, go jump in the lake. If you cannot swim I will pull you out. Unless you are a fish. In which case I will leave you in the water. With your fish thoughts. Swimming in circles. Sucking freshwater. Absorbing magnetic pulses. Imprinting the microscopic crystals of magnetite in your tissues with the water’s chemical nature. Preparing for the moment when you hit the sea and taste the salt, switch over to geomagnetic cues and lock in the latitudes and longitudes, clear in your fishy knowledge that one day you will need to come back to those precise coordinates to spawn. Know this: when you do it will be months from now and months ahead of your return, because you will be way out in the middle of the ocean somewhere, halfway to Japan for all I care, still not reading Hexagon because you are too damn busy swimming about in your damn little fish circles.

Previously…

In Episode 1, John Gordon was found dead on a sidewalk with a bullet hole in his forehead. In Episode 2, Eli (“Stodge”) Stodgell, a Métis police constable, confronted Donald Todd, the main suspect. In Episode 3, Stodge hatched a plan to use his brothers, Harry and Bert, to get Todd to confess to Gordon’s murder. In Episode 4, the brothers, with the help of their sister, Mary, put the plan into action. In Episode 5, Todd is induced to confess. In Episode 6, his defence attorney makes his summation.

This is the last paragraph:

“They made him believe that unless he was a murderer, he could not join their gang of desperados. Under these conditions, Todd would sign anything. A rattlesnake is more of a gentleman than a man who worms his way into a man’s confidence and then cuts his throat.”

Mr. Bonnar contended that after committing the deed, Todd saw young Kennedy coming on horseback and hid in the field. From there he saw Carris the cook and Hayden the hack reach the body and at once concluded that it would be impossible to prove that he had been the first man on the spot, which induced him to return to the corpse, possibly with the object of theft, in this way getting blood and brains on his hands and trousers.

His subsequent actions proved that he had a guilty mind, as was shown by his going to Hallett’s door and saying, “My God, John, save me from this.”

The evidence clearly showed that Gordon and Todd were infatuated with the same woman and were rivals in her affections. There was, therefore, ample reason according to the morals of these people for a condition of enmity between them.

As to the means employed to gain Todd’s confidence, these had to be adapted to the social and moral conditions under which the suspected party lived. Methods used by Chief McRae were the most effective for the interests of justice, and the people who condemned Chief McRae for such methods would have condemned him for being slack in the interests of justice had he not succeeded in tracking down the murderer and bringing to justice a man who had sent John Gordon to eternity without a moment’s warning.

The prisoner has said that he was forced to sign a confession by threats of violence. If he was frightened, why did he not cry out, or at least go the next day and complain to his friends or the police of such an outrage?

The defence had pleaded that the confession was gained under the promise of a reward—a share in the plunder of a gang—and the next moment had said that Todd kept away from the gang because he was afraid of them. Was this reasonable?

“You would not go to church to get evidence against this man. You would not go into respectable circles to look for facts about him. No. You must go into the back lanes and gutters of this city to look for his tracks, for there you will find them.

The means used to trace his movements and find out the truth are stigmatized as vile. The methods and evidence were no viler than the man against whom they were directed. If respectable citizens are ruthlessly murdered by thugs, are those thugs to be protected by the mire in which they wallow, or shall we stir up that mire to uncover the criminal? If not, we better all be blacklegs and swindlers for self-protection.”

Mr. Bonner impressed the jury with their responsibility as British subjects sworn to do their duty to their country. He reminded them that though they might even bring in a verdict against the prisoner, yet there was a further safeguard in the appeal to the full court against any injustice being done him. Back of this again was the Ministry of Justice, who could commute his sentence if he thought it unjust.

His Lordship then addressed the jury. He told them that there was no direct evidence to prove that the person who shot the deceased was Donald Todd, but there were the circumstances of the case and the statements made by the prisoner and the witnesses. The evidence alone would not be sufficient to convict the prisoner. But this with the admissions of the accused might rightfully be considered as true evidence, more or less, strong according to the opinion of the jury. For the only direct evidence was the confession of the prisoner.

Ordinarily, a man could not safely admit such a crime for the sake of his safety and personal reputation, yet there were other circumstances under which a man might be induced to confess to such a crime. The weight of these circumstances was for the jury to decide.

As to the methods used by the detectives, His Lordship held that there was no reason to believe that a man who once lied should never be trusted on his oath. On the other hand, a persistent liar was not a desirable witness. The methods adopted by the police might not be approved of by the jury, yet the duty of the jury was to consider whether the evidence produced was sufficient to bring home the crime to the accused, irrespective of the idea that the methods used were not reputable. The police were a useful body of men to society and were, no doubt, honourable and faithful in the discharge of their duty in protecting society and discovering criminals. Yet the jury was not to lose sight of the fact that they were naturally zealous in getting evidence against a man upon whom evidence was cast and that their reputation was at stake in ferreting out crime. This, however, was not to influence the mind against the evidence of the police, which should be considered on its merits.

At 8:40 there was a call from the jury, and His Lordship having taken the bench, the 12 men entered. There was a death-like silence in the crowded courtroom. Todd leaned eagerly forward on the dock with his hand behind his ear. In reply to the usual question, the foreman said “We are unable to agree upon a verdict.” This came as an evident surprise upon the prisoner, who, apparently, was expecting an acquittal. He sunk back in his seat and his jaw dropped.

There were some, then, who wanted his death.

The question was, how many?