[To THE EDITOR OF THE "SPECTATOR. "]
Sin,—I had intended addressing you a short letter upon this subject last week, but I am glad I waited for this week's issue of the Spectator with the extraordinary epistle from Mr. Robert K. Risk. With the latter gentleman I am inclined to agree that Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's pamphlet is an excellent piece of special pleading and no more, and I am further inclined to agree that the verdict in the case was, or might be, justified on the evidence. But inasmuch as the matter at issue is some- thing more than the liberty of a single individual, I must protest against the extraordinary evidence adduced by Mr. Risk in support of his attack upon Sir Arthur Conan Doyle.
• (1) He says Slater made a confession immediately after leaving the dock. Suppose this to be true—though we all know what the sensational newspaper can do—still, what does it matter ? Either Slater was properly convicted or he was not. His conviction was complete before be left the dock or made the alleged confession, and must stand or fall on its own merits, and if bad cannot be remedied by any post facto evidence.
(2) Mr. Risk says Slater in fact had the benefit of a Court of Criminal Appeal, because his appeal was considered by Lord Haldane and Lord Guthrie as well as by Lord Pentland. Does he suggest that these eminent lawyers sat armed with a power to quash the conviction P Taking Mr. Risk on his own point, they evidently were dissatisfied with the conviction, for they commuted the sentence ; they could do no more, and in theory should not have done as much as they did. The Crown only exercises a prerogative of mercy, and in reality says to the prisoner, " You are guilty, but you may go free." The Crown cannot reverse the verdict of a jury. In the Smethurst case a pardon was actually granted in a case much stronger than Slater's, but Smethurst was not "unconvicted" by the pardon, if I may use the term. His case is a matter of grave laughter to every writer of legal text-books.
(3) Slater's identification was remarkable and, I am inclined to think, complete. Sir Arthur Conan Doyle says not; Mr. Risk laughs him to scorn. I should like to hear Mr. Risk on the Beck case, although I agree be makes a sound point here.
(4) There is nothing to be made either way out of Slater's " voluntary " return from America, for he fought as long as his counsel thought they could save him, and his "offer" to return was only a tardy piece of tactics.
(5) Mr. Risk says Slater bolted and travelled to Liverpool on a London ticket. I am inclined to agree that he bolted; but a more wanton performance than the revival of this exploded theory that Slater travelled on a London ticket is hard to conceive. Did Mr. Risk bother to read the volume of the "Famous Scottish Trials" to which he refers? Does be remember the cross-examination of the police witnesses on this point, and the appalling collapse they made ? Even the cold print of the official report of the evidence cannot conceal the sorry figure they must have cut in the box. They had to admit that they knew there was a Liverpool portion on that London train; that Slater had had his luggage labelled for Liverpool; that they could not prove who had taken the two tickets for London on which they relied ; and that two tickets for Liverpool were issued for the same train ! Still they persisted in thinking that Slater had travelled to Liverpool on London tickets. To my mind such admissions would vitiate all the police testimony—not to the extent of destruction, but a taint would attach to any evidence proffered by men who plainly had made up their minds they must catch Slater at any cost.
(6) Mr. Risk's sixth point—that Slitter did not call his legal wife to prove she was persecuting him (his method of looking at it) is too laughable for words. I will pass the obvious answer and merely ask, " How was he to know where she was P "
(7) If Mr. Risk would refer your readers to any evidence to show that" Miss Gilchrist was known to a number of pro- fessional gamblers as a lady who kept valuable jewels in her house. Slater was an associate of these men," he will add some force to this point of his. Without sworn evidence to prove it I should prefer to neglect it, although it is probably correct in point of fact.
The real point that clinched Slater's guilt, in my mind, was the evidence that he made a violent and hurried effort to obtain any money he could lay his hands on the very night of the murder. He rushed into a club asking, " Have you any money ? Give me whatever you have, and I will give you a cheque for it." He failed, as he had apparently already failed next door, and he vanished. If he wanted this money to pay a gambling debt there must have been at least one other person with whom he was playing that night to whom he owed a large sum of money. No such witness was called on his behalf.
I will tell you how I read this in conjunction with the other matters. Slater murders Miss Gilchrist, makes a bolt for the underground railway, and reaches his own home from the oppo- site direction between seven and eight. He thinks he has been discovered, and must fly at once. He has no money available, so he starts out to try and raise the wind. He fails and returns home, expecting every moment to find the hue and cry hot upon his track. Next day he realizes be has not been identified so far, and he prepares to fly in the cool and adroit manner which he planned beforehand, knowing that this is the only way to avoid suspicion. It may be he had planned the murder as a final coup to take place before his departure from Glasgow. It must have been a premeditated crime, and this would naturally suggest that a plausible story should be afoot in advance as to his intended departure. The one false step was the attempt to anticipate the flight. It may be that the opportunity of the murder occurred sooner than he had plotted ; at any rate, he lost his nerve for a few minutes and hanged himself—or nearly did so. Two scandals are a blot upon the trial. The one is the manner
in which the newspapers tried the case in advance ; the other is the admission of evidence of Slater's bad character—a thing impossible under English law, whether administered in England or in Ireland. The case is one of much doubt, and deserves the splendid assistance of the "Sherlock Holmes" we all esteem so highly ; but I wish that Sir Arthur could have given his advocacy to many an unfortunate Irish prisoner banged twenty or thirty years ago on evidence much less substantial than that which convicted Oscar Slater.—I am,
Previous page
