18 - Red Thumb Mark by R. Austin Freeman

Dive into the mystery of missing diamonds, an untouched safe, two blood-streaked thumb prints, and the enigmatic Mr X. As these elements converge, the brilliant Dr. Thorndyke steps onto the scene. Will he crack the case? The Red Thumb Mark marks the thrilling debut of Freeman’s popular Thorndyke series. (Summary by Diana Majlinger)

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
Chapter sixteen of The Red Thumb Mark. This is a
LibriVox recording. All LibriVox recordings are in the public domain.
For more information or to volunteer, please visit LibriVox dot org.
Recording by Marianne The Red Thumb Mark by R. Austin Freeman,
Chapter sixteen, Thorndyke plays his Cards. Part two. The third

(00:21):
fact resumed Thorndyke, is of much more importance, since it
not only proves the print to be a forgery, but
also furnishes a very distinct clue to the origin of
the forgery, and so to the identity of the forger.
Here the court became hushed, until the silence was so
profound that the ticking of the clock seemed a sensible interruption.

(00:42):
I glanced at Walter, who sat motionless and rigid at
the end of the bench, and perceived that a horrible
pallor had spread over his face, while his forehead was
covered with beads of perspiration. On looking at the print closely,
I noticed at one part a minute white mark or space.
It was of the shape of a capital S, and

(01:02):
had evidently been produced by a defect in the paper,
a loose fiber which had stuck to the thumb and
had been detached by it from the paper, leaving a
blank space where it had been. But on examining the
paper under a low power of the microscope, I found
the surface to be perfect and intact. No loose fiber
had been detached from it, for if it had the

(01:24):
broken end, or at least the groove in which it
had lain, would have been visible. The inference seemed to
be that the loose fiber had existed not in the
paper which was found in the safe, but in the
paper on which the original thumb mark had been made. Now,
as far as I know, there was only one undoubted
thumb print of Reuben Hornby's in existence, the one in

(01:47):
the thumbograph. At my request, the thumbograph was brought to
my chambers by Missus Hornby, and on examining the print
of Reuben Hornby's left thumb, I perceived on it a
minute a S shaped white space occupying a similar position
to that in the red thumb mark. And when I
looked at it through a powerful lens, I could see
clearly the little groove in the paper in which the

(02:09):
fiber had lain and from which it had been lifted
by the inked thumb. I subsequently made a systematic comparison
of the marks in the two thumb prints. I found
that the dimensions of the mark were proportionately the same
in each that is to say, the mark in the
thumbograph print had an extreme length of twenty six one
thousandth of an inch and an extreme breath of fourteen

(02:32):
point five one thousandth of an inch, while that in
the red thumb mark was one fortieth larger in each dimension,
having an extreme length of twenty six point sixty five
one thousandth of an inch and an extreme breadth of
fourteen point eighty six one thousandth of an inch. That
the shape was identical, as was shown by superimposing the

(02:53):
tracings of greatly enlarged photographs of each mark on similar
enlargements of the other, and that the mark intersected the
of the thumb print in the same manner and at
exactly the same parts in the two prints. Do you
say that, having regard to the facts which you have stated,
it is certain that the red thumb mark is a forgery.

(03:14):
I do, and I also say that it is certain
that the forgery was executed by means of the thumbograph.
Might not the resemblances be merely a coincidence. No, By
the law of probabilities, which mister Singleton explains so clearly
in his evidence, the adverse chances would run into untold millions.

(03:37):
Here are two thumb prints made in different places and
at different times, an interval of many weeks intervening. Each
of them bears an accidental mark, which is due not
to any peculiarity of the thumb, but to a peculiarity
of the paper. On the theory of coincidences, it is
necessary to suppose that each piece of paper had a
loose fiber of exactly identical shape and so, and that

(04:01):
this fiber came by accident in contact with the thumb
at the exact same spot. But such a supposition would
be more opposed to probabilities even than the supposition that
two exactly similar thumb prints should have been made by
different persons. And then there is the further fact that
the paper found in the safe had no loose fiber
to account for the mark. What is your explanation of

(04:24):
the presence of defibrinated blood in the safe? It was
probably used by the forger in making the thumb print,
for which purpose fresh blood would be less suitable by
reason of its clotting. He would probably have carried a
small quantity in a bottle. Together with the pocket slab
and roller invented by mister Galton. It would thus be
possible for him to put a drop on the slab,

(04:47):
roll it out into a thin film, and take a
clear impression with his stamp. It must be remembered that
these precautions were quite necessary, since he had to make
a recognizable print at the first attempt. A failure and
a second trial would have destroyed the accidental appearance and
might have aroused suspicion. You have made some enlarged photographs

(05:09):
of the thumb prints, have you not? Yes, I have
here two enlarged photographs, one of the thumbograph print and
one of the red thumb print. They both show the
white mark very clearly and will assist comparison of the
originals in which the mark is plainly visible through a lens.
He handed the two photographs up to the judge, together
with the thumbograph, the memorandum slip, and a powerful DOUBLET

(05:31):
lens with which to examine them. The judge inspected the
two original documents with the aid of the lens, and
compared them with the photographs, nodded approvingly as he made
out the points of agreement. Then he passed them on
to the jury and made an entry in his notes.
While this was going on, my attention was attracted by
Walter hornby an expression of terror and wild despair had

(05:54):
settled on his face, which was ghastly in its parlor
and bedewed with sweat. He looked furtively at Thorndy Again.
As I noted the murderous hate in his eyes, I
recalled our midnight adventure in John Street and the mysterious cigar.
Suddenly he rose to his feet, wiping his brow and
steadying himself against the bench with a shaking hand. Then

(06:17):
he walked quietly to the door and went out. Apparently
I was not the only onlooker who had been interested
in his doings, for as the door swung to after him,
Superintendent Miller rose from his seat and went out by
the other door. Are you cross examining this witness? The
judge inquired, glancing at Sir Hector Trumpler. No, my lord,

(06:40):
was the reply. Are you calling any more witnesses? Mister Anstey,
only one, my lord replied, Anstey, the prisoner whom I
shall put in the witness box as a matter of form,
in order that he may make a statement on oath.
Reuben was accordingly conducted from the dock to the witness box, and,
having been sworn, made a solemn declaration of his innocence.

(07:02):
A brief cross examination followed, in which nothing was elicited
but that Reuben had spent the evening at his club
and gone home to his rooms at half past eleven,
and had let himself in with his latch key. Sir
Hector at length sat down. The prisoner was led back
to the dock, and the court settled itself to listen
to the speeches of the council. My Lord and gentlemen

(07:25):
of the jury. Anstey commenced, in his clear, mellow tones,
I do not propose to occupy your time with a
long speech. The evidence that has been laid before you
is at once so intelligible, so lucid, and so conclusive,
that you will no doubt arrive at your verdict uninfluenced
by any display of rhetoric, either on my part or

(07:45):
on the part of the learned Council for the Prosecution. Nevertheless,
it is desirable to disentangle from the mass of evidence
those facts which are really vital and crucial. Now, the
one fact which stands out and dominates the whole case
is this. The prisoner's connection with this case rests solely
upon the police theory of the infallibility of finger prints.

(08:07):
Apart from the evidence of the thumb print, there is not,
and there never was, the faintest breath of suspicion against him.
You have heard him described as a man of unsullied honor,
as a man whose character is above reproach, a man
who is trusted implicitly by those who have had dealings
with him. And this character was not given by a

(08:27):
casual stranger, but by one who has known him from
his childhood. His record is an unbroken record of honorable conduct.
His life has been that of a clean, living, straightforward gentleman.
And now he stands before you, charged with a miserable,
paltry theft, charged with having robbed that generous friend, the

(08:47):
brother of his own father, the guardian of his childhood,
and the benefactor who has planned and striven for his
well being. Charged in short, gentleman, with a crime which
every circumstance connected with him, and every trait of his
known character, renders utterly inconceivable. Now upon what grounds has
this gentleman of irreproachable character been charged with this mean

(09:11):
and sordid crime? Baldly stated, the grounds of the accusation
are these. A certain learned and eminent man of science
has made a statement which the police have not merely accepted,
but have in practice extended beyond its original meaning. That
statement is as follows, a complete or nearly complete accordance

(09:32):
between two prints of a single finger affords evidence requiring
no corroboration, that the persons from whom they were made
are the same. That statement, gentlemen, is in the highest
degree misleading, and ought not to have been made without
due warning and qualification. So far it is from being
true in practice that its exact contrary is the fact

(09:55):
the evidence of a finger print, in the absence of coroboration,
is absolutely worthless. Of all forms of forgery, the forgery
of a finger print is the easiest and most secure,
as you have seen in this court to day. Consider
the character of the high class forger, his skill, his ingenuity,

(10:15):
his resource. Think of the forged bank notes, of which
not only the engraving, the design, and the signature, but
even the very paper with its private water marks, 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 check in

(10:37):
which actual perforations are filled up, of which perforations are
cut out bodily and replaced by indistinguishable patches. Think of these,
and then of a finger print 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

(11:00):
ask yourselves if this is the kind of evidence on which,
without any support or corroboration, a gentleman of honor 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

(11:22):
for the prosecution rests upon the assertion that the thumb
print found in the safe was made by the thumb
of the prisoner. If that thumb print was not made
by the prisoner, there is not only no case against him,
but no suspicion of any kind. Now, was that thumb
print made by the prisoner's thumb You have had conclusive
evidence that it was not. That thumb print differed in

(11:44):
the size or scale of the pattern from a genuine
thumb print of the prisoners. The difference was small, but
it was fatal to the police theory. The two prints
were not identical. But if not the prisoner's thumb print,
what was it. The resemblance of the pattern was too
exact for it to be the thumb print of another person,
for it reproduced not only the pattern of the ridges

(12:06):
on the prisoner's thumb, but also the scar of an
old wound. The answer that I proposed to this question
is that it was an intentional imitation of the prisoner's
thumb print, 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

(12:27):
are several facts which support it very strongly. First, there
are the facts that I have just mentioned. The red
thumb print disagreed with a genuine thumb print in its
scale or dimensions. It was not the prisoner's thumb print,
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

(12:49):
of certain appliances and materials, and one of those materials,
namely the fibrinated 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

(13:11):
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 thumb
print resembled one of the two prints of which forgery
was possible. In the fourth place, the red thumb print
reproduces an accidental peculiarity of the thumbograph print. Now, if

(13:32):
the red thumb print 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 thumb print
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

(13:55):
for by the condition of the paper. The occurrence of
this mark on the red thumb print 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 thumb print is a photo
mechanical reproduction of the thumbograph print. But there is yet

(14:17):
another point. If the red thumb print is a forgery
reproduced from the thumbograph print, the forger must at some
time have had access to the thumbograph. Now you have
heard Missus Hornby's remarkable story of the mysterious disappearance of
the thumbograph, and it still more mysterious reappearance. That story
can have left no doubt in your minds that some

(14:40):
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 thumb print was a
genuine thumb print is based upon a gratuitous assumption and

(15:00):
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 Ennstey
resumed his seat, a low rumble of applause was heard
from the gallery. It subsided instantly on a gesture of

(15:23):
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, Doctor 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,

(15:47):
It will soon be over. Now, sir, Hector Trumpler was
already on his feet, and after bestowing on the jury
a stern hypnotic stare. He plunged into his reply with
a really admirable air of conviction and sincerity. My Lord
and gentlemen of the jury, the case which is now
before this court is one, as I have already remarked,

(16:09):
in which human nature is presented in a highly unfavorable light.
But I need not insist upon this aspect of the case,
which will already no doubt have impressed you sufficiently. It
is necessary merely for me, as my learned friend has
aptly expressed it, to disentangle the actual facts of the
case from the web of causes tree that has been

(16:32):
woven around them. Those facts are of extreme simplicity. A
safe has been opened and property of great value abstracted
from it. It has been opened by means of false keys.
Now there are two men who have, from time to
time had possession of the true keys, and thus had
the opportunity of making copies of them. When the safe

(16:55):
is opened by its rightful owner, the property is gone,
and there is found the thumb print of one of
these two men. That thumb print was not there when
the safe was closed. The man whose thumb print is
found is a left handed man. The print is the
print of a left thumb. It would seem gentlemen as

(17:15):
if the conclusion were so obvious that no sane person
could be found to contest it. And I submit that
the conclusion which any sane person would arrive at the
only possible conclusion, is that the person whose thumb print
was found in the safe is the person who stole
the property from the safe. But the thumb print was

(17:37):
admittedly that of the prisoner at the bar, and therefore
the prisoner at the bar is the person who stole
the diamonds from the safe. It is true that certain
fantastic attempts have been made to explain away these obvious facts.
Certain far fetched scientific theories have been propounded, and an

(17:57):
exhibition of laguerre demain has taken place, which I venture
to think would have been more appropriate to some place
of public entertainment than to a court of justice. That
exhibition has no doubt afforded you considerable amusement. It has
furnished a pleasing relaxation from the serious business of the court.
It has even been instructive as showing to what extent

(18:20):
it is possible for plain facts to be perverted by
misdirected ingenuity. But unless you are prepared to consider this
crime as an elaborate hoax, as a practical joke carried
out by a facetious criminal of extraordinary knowledge, skill, and
general attainments, you must, after all come to the only
conclusion that the facts justify that the safe was opened

(18:44):
and the property abstracted by the prisoner. Accordingly, gentlemen, I
ask you, having regard to your important position as the
guardians of the well being and security of your fellow citizens,
to give your verdict in accordance with the evidence, as
you have solemnly sworn to do. Which verdict I submit

(19:04):
can be no other than that the prisoner is guilty
of the crime with which he is charged. Sir Hector
sat down, and the jury, who had listened to his
speech with solid attention, gazed expectantly at the judge, as
though they should say, now, which of these two are
we to believe? The judge turned over his notes with
an air of quiet composure, writing down a word here

(19:26):
and there as he compared the various points in the evidence.
Then he turned to the jury with a manner at
once persuasive and confidential. It is not necessary gentlemen, he
commenced for me to occupy your time with an exhaustive
analysis of the evidence. That evidence you yourselves have heard,
and it has been given, for the most part with
admirable clearness. Moreover, the learned counsel for the defense has

(19:50):
collated and compared the evidence so lucidly, and I may
say so impartially that a detailed repetition on my part
would be supperflorous. I shall therefore confine myself to a
few comments which may help you in the consideration of
your verdict. I need hardly point out to you that
the reference made by the learned counsel for the prosecution
to far fetched scientific theories is somewhat misleading. The only

(20:14):
evidence of a theoretical character was that of the finger
print experts. The evidence of doctor Rowe and doctor Thorndyke
dealt exclusively with matters of fact. Such inferences as were
drawn by them were accompanied by statements the facts which
yielded such inferences. Now, an examination of the evidence which
you have heard, shows, as the learned Counsel for the

(20:35):
Defense has justly observed, that the entire case resolves itself
into a single question, which is this was the thumb
print that was found in mister Hornby's safe made by
the thumb of the prisoner, or was it not. If
that thumb print was made by the prisoner's thumb, then
the prisoner must at least have been present when the
safe was unlawfully opened. If that thumb print was not

(20:57):
made by the prisoner's thumb, there is nothing to connect
you with the crime. The question is one of fact
upon which it will be your duty to decide. And
I must remind you, gentlemen, that you are the sole
judges of the facts of this case, and that you
are to consider any remarks of mine as mere suggestions,
which you are to entertain or to disregard according to
your judgment. Now let us consider this question by the

(21:19):
light of the evidence. This thumb print was either made
by the prisoner or it was not. What evidence has
been brought forward to show that it was made by
the prisoner, Well, there is evidence of the rich pattern.
That pattern is identical to the pattern of the prisoner's
thumb print, and even has the impression of a scar
which crosses the pattern in a particular manner. On the

(21:40):
prisoner's thumb print. There is no need to enter into
the elaborate calculations as to the chances of agreement. The
practical fact which is not disputed is that if this
red thumb print is a genuine thumb print at all,
it was made by the prisoner's thumb. But it is
contended that it is not a genuine thumb print, that
it is a mechanical imitation, in fact, a forgery. The more

(22:03):
general question thus becomes narrowed down to the more particular
questions is this a genuine thumbprint or is it a forgery?
Let us consider the evidence. First, what evidence is there
that it is a genuine thumbprint? There is none. The
identity of the pattern is no evidence on this point,
because a forgery would also exhibit identity of pattern. The

(22:24):
genuineness of the thumb print was assumed by the prosecution
and no evidence has been offered. But now what evidence
is there that the red thumb print is a forgery. First,
there is the question of size. Two different sized prints
could hardly be made by the same thumb. Then there
is the evidence of the use of appliances. Safe robbers

(22:45):
do not ordinarily provide themselves with inking slabs and rollers
with which to make distinct impressions of their own fingers.
Then there is the accidental mark on the print, which
also exists on the only genuine print that could have
been used for the purpose of forgery, which which is
easily explained on the theory of a forgery, but which
is otherwise totally incomprehensible. Finally, there is the strange disappearance

(23:07):
of the thumbograph and its strange reappearance. All this is
striking and weighty evidence, to which must be added that
adduced by doctor Thorndyke as showing how perfectly it is
possible to imitate a finger print. These are the main
facts of the case, and it is for you to
consider them. If, on careful consideration, you decide that the

(23:28):
red thumb print was actually made by the prisoner's thumb,
then it will be your duty to pronounce the prisoner guilty.
But if, on weighing the evidence, you decide that the
thumb print is a forgery, then it will be your
duty to pronounce the prisoner not guilty. It is now
past the usual luncheon hour, and if you desire it,
you can retire to consider your verdict while the court

(23:48):
adjourns the jurymen whispered together for a few moments, and
then the foreman stood up. We have agreed on our verdict,
my lord, he said. The prisoner, who had just been
led to the back of the dock, was now brought
back to the bar. The gray wigged clerk of the
court stood up and addressed the jury. Are you all

(24:09):
agreed on your verdict, gentlemen? We are, replied the foreman.
What do you say, gentlemen? Is the prisoner guilty or
not guilty? Not guilty, replied the foreman, raising his voice
and glancing at Reuben. A storm of applause burst from
the gallery and was for the moment disregarded by the judge.

(24:30):
Missus Hornby laughed aloud, a strange, unnatural laugh, and then
crammed her handkerchief into her mouth, and so sat gazing
at Reuben with the tears coursing down her face, while
Juliet laid her head upon the desk and sobbed silently.
After a brief space, the judge raised an admonitory hand, and,
when the commotion had subsided, addressed the prisoner, who stood

(24:52):
at the bar, calm and self possessed, though his face
bore a slight flush Reuben hornby the jury, after duly
weighing the evidence in this case, have found you to
be not guilty of the crime with which you were charged.
With that verdict, I most heartily agree. In view of
the evidence which has been given, I consider that no

(25:12):
other verdict was possible, and I venture to say that
you leave this court with your innocence fully established and
without a stain upon your character. In the distress which
you have recently suffered, as well as in your rejoicing
at the verdict of the jury. You have the sympathy
of the court and of every one present, and that
sympathy will not be diminished by the consideration that with

(25:34):
a less capable defense, the result might have been very different.
I desire to express my admiration at the manner in
which that defense was conducted, and I desire especially to
observe that not you alone, but the public at large,
are deeply indebted to doctor Thorndyke, who, by his insight,
his knowledge, and his ingenuity, has probably averted a very

(25:56):
serious miscarriage of justice. The Court will now adjourn until
half past two. The Judge rose from his seat, and
every one present stood up and amidst the clamor of
many feet upon the gallery stairs, the door of the
dock was thrown open by a smiling police officer, and
Reuben came down the stairs into the body of the court.

(26:17):
End of Chapter sixteen.