WHO that has read the graphic account of the great diversity of shapes
and characteristics of ears given by Mr. O. G. Rejlander in THE BRITISH
JOURNAL PHOTOGRAPHIC ALMANAC will not feel an interest in this topic?
Who, once more, that has read the evidence in the Tichborne trial, given
in our number for December 22, by Colonel Stuart Wortley, Mr. Savage,
and Mr. J. T. Taylor, will not feel some interest in thumbs? On both of
these topics the Attorney-General enlarged at much length in his speech
on Tuesday last.
Respecting the former subject—that of the ears—the Attorney-General
said:—I come now to another member of the body upon which we have had a
good deal of evidence. If the evidence you have got before you be true,
the claimant and Roger Tichborne cannot be the same. That is my argument
upon the question as to his ears. We have got unusually full and
distinct proof about the ears, and I’ll demonstrate to you that they
cannot be the same on the ears alone. Now, the ears are not so
unimportant as some people may be inclined to make out, although, I dare
say, my learned friend will by-and-by treat the ears with summary
contempt. First of all, M’Cann distinctly recognises him by his ears
amongst other things. Then we find that Mr. Baigent in his affidavit
said something upon the same subject:—“I then left with Mr. Holmes, and
accompanied him to the Swan Hotel. On entering the large room facing the
street I saw the plaintiff, whom I recognised instantly as the eldest
son of the late Sir James Doughty Tichborne, whom I formerly so well
knew. His eyes, the upper part of his head, and his ears were
unmistakable, and his voice had quite an effect upon me, and was alone
quite enough to convince me.” At this time, when Mr. Baigent made his
affidavit, he knew nothing about the Chili photographs. He probably knew
nothing about either of them; certainly not of the one in the case
produced here. These Chili daguerreotypes were in due time proved in the
case to be good and true likenesses of the real Roger Tichborne, and we
have Roger Tichborne’s own letter upon the subject describing how they
were taken. He sent one, as you may remember, to Lady Doughty, and one
to Sir James and Lady Tichborne. Finding that they were authentic and
good likenesses, and knowing this at the time when he came to be
examined (he himself having said in his affidavit that he recognised the
plaintiff by his ears), and finding that the daguerreotypes would not
suit the ears theory, Mr. Baigent, in his cross-examination, turns round
upon the daguerreotypes and tries to discredit and throw dirt upon them,
knowing full well, if they were to be depended upon, the ears of Roger
Tichborne and this man could not be the ears of the same persons. He is
acute enough to see that, and so when he is examined he turns round upon
the daguerreotypes. He says it was a badly-formed ear; but Sir William
Fergusson, on the other hand, said it was a large ear, but remarkably
handsome. He was shown the photograph at this point, and asked whether
the ear as it there appeared represented the ear of Roger Tichborne, and
he said he thought not. The cross-examination goes on to say:—“The
position in the photograph is not such as to give a good idea of the
ear. Is this daguerreotype a fair representation of Roger Tichborne as
you last saw him?—It is a very poor representation of him. I don’t speak
of it as a work of art, Mr. Baigent, but does it faithfully represent
the features, to the best of your recollection?—I do not consider it a
faithful or good portrait. Does it faithfully represent the
features?—No, it does not give you a faithful representation of the man
as he was. I cannot say, but it is something like him, but it is a very
poor thing. Is there any mistaking it?—Oh, it is over-solarised, burnt
out, and everything else. Is it a picture you could look at without
knowing it was intended for Sir Roger Tichborne?—You must look at it two
or three times before you can make it out. Does it represent the ear?—It
does not convey an idea of the ear of Roger Tichborne.” At this time Mr.
Baigent knew perfectly well what we were going to say about the ears. At
this stage of his cross-examination there was an adjournment, and when
he comes back into the box he is questioned further about the other
daguerreotype, and he then said neither of the pictures gave a
representation of Roger Tichborne’s ears. He throws dirt, you see, on
the daguerreotypes, but he asserts they show the same sort of ear that
the claimant now has. But my learned friend called Colonel Stuart
Wortley. We are told he is a great authority in matters of photographs.
It is no part of my duty to dispute that. I am not aware of it; but I
have no doubt he knows more about photographs than Mr. Baigent. But
Colonel Wortley very likely did not know of this point about the ears.
The Lord Chief Justice, in the course of the cross-examination, said:—“I
should call your attention to this: that it has been suggested that the
lobe of the ear might have extended below the junction, and that a
different effect is produced by some defect of the light. Do you find
indications of that?” Colonel Wortley, in reply to this question, said
he did not think there was any such indication. We have, gentlemen, got
thus far. The ear is a very important question. We have got Mr. Baigent
first of all making importance of it in his affidavit, and we have got
other witnesses who do the same. We have got it that Mr. Baigent at that
time did not know of the existence of these Chili photographs, and that
when he did know about them he said two things—first, that they were
very bad, and not to be depended upon as likenesses; and next, that they
showed the dependent ear of the claimant. Colonel Stuart Wortley is
called on the same side as an authority, and he says they are to be
depended upon, and do not show that upon which Mr. Baigent insists. That
is so far as we have got in the great ear question, and by your leave we
will here break off for our usual adjournment. [The adjournment here
took place accordingly.] Let me say, gentlemen, I quite feel—and I am
afraid I may have shown that I feel—the tedium of this part of the case;
but if I am right it is the most important part of the case of all. This
ought to be conclusive, because you may argue about mind and memory, but
if the body be not the same there is practically an end of the case.
Pray don’t suppose I suggest that you are not the kindest of listeners.
I do nothing of the kind. I am only apologising for appearing to take up
time in apparently small matters, but if they are really made out to
your satisfaction they are of enormous importance in the consideration
of the case. If I show that the ears of the plaintiff cannot be those of
the real Roger; if I afterwards prove, as I hope to be able to do by
other features, an utter physical irreconcilability between the two
persons, you will find that there is an end of the claimant’s case.
Well, as I have pointed out, Mr. Baigent, for reasons that I then
explained, attempted to throw discredit on the daguerreotypes, though
Colonel Wortley has distinctly accredited them. When that failed the
next thing the plaintiff’s advisers tried to do was to show that his
ears had, in point of fact, altered. According to their present shape it
must be admitted that they are not like the ears of Roger in 1854. The
daguerreotypes prove this much, so they had to fall back on the theory
of the ears having altered. The persons examined to sustain this point
were Dr. Sutherland, Mr. Canton, and Sir William Fergusson. I shall
refer to Mr. Canton’s evidence first. He is asked whether he noticed the
ears at all, and he answered that he did. Both had this peculiarity—that
they were unusually large and the lobes were pendent. The rest of the
ears was well formed, and then—“Does any portion of the ear change with
age?—The skin covering the cartilage becomes more firmly adherent, and
the lobe of the ear in those who get lean in old age becomes less.
Supposing a person gradually increased in size, what would be the
result?—The lobe of the ear would be increased also if the increased
size of the ear was due to fat. Would the ear become more pendent?—As it
would become changed with fat the ear would increase in all directions
except above. A Juror: Does the ear lay in fat in common with other
parts of the body?—As fat increases in other parts of the body, so it
would be in the lobes of the ear. In this case I saw fat cheeks, and
expected to see fat lobes.” Mr. Canton does not say whether the lobes
would change in character, or whether they would become adherent or
non-adherent; but he says that on that part of the lobe which is not
cartilaginous fat would grow, as I suppose it would. I did not
cross-examine this witness, because he did not say anything it was
necessary to challenge, and because I had got all I wanted from Sir
William Fergusson. He, therefore, left the matter very much where one’s
sense would leave it, and does not come to the point at all.
The Judge—He says his attention was only called to the claimant’s ear
the day before.
The Attorney-General (assenting)—But Sir William Fergusson, examined and
cross-examined, goes much further in the matter:—“Is there anything you
recollect as a peculiarity?—Very recently, about the lobes of the ear.
What was that peculiarity?—The lobe was much larger than is the case
with most people. The Lord Chief Justice: In what way larger?—Witness:
It was broader and softer to the touch than is common. The
Attorney-General: Do they depend much or adhere?—They depend so much
that they strike one at once. When you say depend, what do you
mean?—They hang down. Below the junction with the side of the face, do
you mean?—Yes, they hang down. Are they free?—Yes, they are free. They
are big lobes, handsome, and very conspicuous. They are, however, big,
and many people would object to them on that account. Was there anything
to show whether they were in a natural or unnatural condition?—Decidedly
in a natural condition. Do you think any pulling would have produced the
condition in which you saw the lobes of the plaintiff’s ears?—No; I
think not.” Then in cross-examination by the jury, the witness was asked
whether he thought a great increase in the bulk of the body generally
would have affected the size of the ears, and what was Sir Wm.
Fergusson’s answer? He said, No; and that it was a rare thing for fat to
be deposited on the ear—in fact, never; but we sometimes saw tumours in
that locality, which he, however, explained were very different things
from fat—so distinct, in fact, that it was impossible to mistake the one
for the other. Sir William Fergusson, therefore, differs from Mr. Canton
about the matter of fat on the ears. Mr. Canton says that fat is
deposited on the ear where it is not cartilaginous and does not adhere
to the cheek or side of the face; but Sir William Fergusson says, “No,
it is a rare thing for fat to be deposited on the ear; in fact, never, I
may say.” In effect, Sir W. Fergusson says there is no appearance of any
trick or pulling the ears having been practised, and therefore the fair
conclusion is that what he saw in 1871 he would have seen on the same
ear in 1854, and there I must leave it. Dr. Sutherland is then called
and examined about the ears:—“Was your attention called to his
ears?—Yes. When?—On the 9th of November. Would you agree with Sir W.
Fergusson that the plaintiff’s ears are large, well-formed and unusually
pendent?—Yes. Are they what you would call decidedly and distinctly
detached ears?—Decidedly. Are there some ears which are perfectly
lobeless?—No doubt. And others in which the lobe is detached?—Yes. Do
you agree with Sir W. Fergusson that if a man has a lobeless ear it
never becomes pendent?—I should think it would not. And anatomically you
would say that if a man has the one kind of ear it never becomes the
other?—Decidedly.” You thus perceive that Dr. Sutherland carries the
matter a step further, and he says that there are for general purposes
two classes of ears. His opinion is, he says, and also his experience,
that an ear once attached never becomes detached and dependent. So far
the scientific evidence. There are two medical gentlemen on our side—Mr.
Seymour Haden, and Mr. Bernard Holt—who, as you will remember, saw the
plaintiff when the rest of us saw him, and they will tell you that Dr.
Sutherland is perfectly right in saying that a dependent ear never does
come out of an attached one, and that Sir William Fergusson is right in
saying that substantially the ear remains the same all through life.
Take the Chili daguerreotypes and compare them with the photographs of
the claimant. In the Chili daguerreotypes of the real Roger Tichborne,
which Col. Wortley says are for this purpose to be depended upon, you
will find that the ears are distinctly adhering, but in all the
photographs of the claimant where the ear is shown the ear is distinctly
not adhering to the face. Take the uncontradicted evidence that the one
class of ear never becomes the other class of ear, and draw for
yourselves the conclusion. The ears of the real Roger were of the one
kind, the ears of the claimant are of the other, and as it is not
contradicted or disputed that the ears never change, it is plain that
they are not the ears of the same man. Therefore, the two sets of ears
belong to two different persons, and that is my case. Therefore,
gentlemen, if you have no objection, I should like you to pause for a
moment, and look at the photographs—first, the Chili photograph of Roger
Tichborne, and then one of the photographs taken of the claimant since
his return from Australia.
The Foreman—If you wish it, Mr. Attorney-General, of course we will do
so with the greatest pleasure; but the point is so thoroughly before
every one of us that we really do not think it is necessary. If you
remember, the point was raised by us in the first instance, and it is
most clearly before us now.
The Attorney-General—Very well, gentlemen. That is so, and I am very
glad you see the point upon which I insist. There will therefore be no
need for me to spend any more time about it, for we have plenty to do
yet. So much, then, for the ears. The next point we come to is the hands
in general. I have little to say about them, but then we come to a most
important part of the question, one which my learned friend with great
solemnity said more than once he thought was of the greatest
importance—that is the question of the thumb. And I ask your attention
to the way in which this has arisen, and the charge made in connection
with it. It is the thumb of the left hand. You saw the plaintiff in the
box. You saw him for a terribly long time—for many days. Did you ever
see his left hand ungloved? Now, I ask you that question. Had he not
always got a glove on his left hand? Did you ever see his left thumb?
That the habit of the man was to sit with a glove on the left hand I am
quite certain, and I believe he always did it. The case went on
something like seventy days before we heard a word about the thumb, and
the first we heard about it was in the re-examination of Mr. Baigent. It
is remarkable the terms in which he introduced it, and the terms in
which the charge is made, and the persons against whom it was made.
“Attend to me carefully,” says Mr. Serjeant Ballantine; “were the
photographs shown taken from the daguerreotype?” “Yes, they were.” “Has
the daguerreotype been in any way altered since it was taken?” and he
answers, “Yes, certainly; it has been tampered with.” Then he is asked,
“You say it has been tampered with; what has been done with it?” and his
reply was, “The thumb and the greater part of the hand has been smudged
out.” Now that is the first time in the case that anything was said
about the thumb. The Lord Chief Justice then asked by whom the
photograph was produced, when Mr. Serjeant Ballantine said, “You may
take it that it has throughout been in the possession of the
defendants.” The Lord Chief Justice remarked, “I always thought it was
produced by the Court of Chancery.” The witness, however, said, “No, it
was produced by Mr. Bowker.” The Lord Chief Justice then asked whether
it was meant to be suggested that it had been altered since the
adjournment, and my learned friend assents to that. Then Mr. Baigent, in
answer to a question, says—“My belief is that it was not in the same
state as it is now some few days after the first trial commenced last
May”—so that there is no doubt that my learned friend and Mr. Baigent
both meant to impute that this daguerreotype had been tampered with by
the defendants since the trial began in May. Mr. Baigent further says—“I
don’t pledge my oath to that. That is my impression. I did not notice
it. I certainly should have noticed it I believe.” Then I say, “As I
understood it, it may be taken as a fact that it comes from Mr. Bowker’s
possession, and it should also be taken as a fact that from Mr. Bowker
it was handed in, and has been in the possession of the Court ever
since.” Then Mr. Serjeant Ballantine says—“_De die in diem_ it has been
in the possession of Mr. Bowker ever since.” Do not let us have any
mistake about it. I don’t think my learned friend can say that I have
not dealt fairly by him in calling your attention to this matter.
Baigent makes a charge against the attorney in the cause of having
tampered with this daguerreotype since the 6th of May. If English words
mean anything, they mean that my learned friend says—“There have been
suggestions against every human being in the case produced on the part
of the plaintiff.” I do not know what he means by that. “I shall not
shrink from any imputation.” Nobody has suggested it of my learned
friend. Certainly not. “If there is any ground for a charge I will not
hesitate to make it,” and then I say, with perhaps a superfluous
interposition, “Of that I am quite certain.” Now, what is our answer? In
the first place, that Mr. Bowker had himself multiplied copies from the
unaltered daguerreotype—that he had himself given the unaltered
daguerreotype[1] to Mr. Savage, at Winchester, who had multiplied
photographs from it by scores and fifties, and that in every one of the
positives from his negatives the thumb or hand remained exactly as it
was in the daguerreotype from which it was originally struck off long
before the beginning of the trial. Our first answer then was this:—“You
accuse Mr. Bowker of having tampered with an original, the original
state of which he had secured beyond all possibility of doubt by himself
multiplying copies of it. No man in his senses could have been such a
fool as to mutilate a thing the different state of which he had already
put beyond all doubt and question.” Our second answer was:—“That, from
the time of the trial, or, at all events, from the time of the
adjournment to the time it was said to be tampered with, Mr. Bowker had
no control over it. There were two boxes, of which Mr. Bowker had the
key of the small one, containing the daguerreotype, but that small box
was enclosed in a larger one, of which Mr. Dobinson had another and a
different key, and neither of these gentlemen could get at the
daguerreotype without the consent of the other. The large box was never
opened from the time it was locked up to the time it was produced here
again, and therefore it is practically impossible that Mr. Bowker could
have had anything to do with mutilating or interfering with it.” Our
answer, then, was complete and overwhelming—we did not know what was the
cause of the disappearance of the thumb. That it was not in the same
state in which it was when photographs were taken from it appeared by
the production of the daguerreotypes and photographs; but when the
change took place and how it took place we had not the least idea. We
made inquiries and nobody could tell us. “We were not in full force at
that time, because, as my learned friend Mr. Jeune had gone, on the part
of the plaintiff, to Australia, so Mr. Purcell had also gone, on the
part of the defendant, to Australia. About the time that the sittings
broke up, Mr. Purcell returned from Australia, and among the
consultations and discussions which ensued this matter of the
daguerreotype turned up. “Oh!” says Mr. Purcell, “I am the person that
did that, and they might have known it well.” What happened was this. He
went out to execute the Chili Commission, and as one of the things by
which to test the Chili witnesses, he took out this very daguerreotype
of the real Roger for the purpose of asking them if it was like the man
they recollected, and who had been writing to them, and they all of them
said they did not recognise it. As part of his luggage he put it in a
box that was too big for it. In fact it was not properly secured. It was
fixed at the back of the frame by little bits of metal, which were
attached to and formed part of the frame, and were bent down—little
projecting saw-teeth, which were bent down over the daguerreotype, and
held it tightly in the frame. This daguerreotype was placed in a little
box, not properly secured, and the little box was in a portion of the
luggage; and on the journey from England to Valparaiso, or from
Valparaiso to Melipilla, the daguerreotype got out of its case. It got
knocked about, and one or two of these little teeth becoming unfastened
the daguerreotype was unfastened.[2] When Mr. Purcell arrived at
Melipilla he took it out and found it in this state. He then at once
went to a photographer and had it refastened down. It was used in the
Chili Commission in its present state, and could not have been injured
in the Commission. Mr. Purcell will tell you how it took place, and this
daguerreotype has never been used for the purposes of photography since
its return from Chili. The piece of paper at the back, Mr. Purcell will
tell you, was pasted on by himself, and here are the signatures of the
Chili Commissioners on the paper as written at Chili, and since then the
daguerreotype could not possibly have been interfered with. Therefore
there can be no mystery about it, and yet in the face of what I
mentioned to you before, that Mr. Bowker had himself photographed the
uninjured daguerreotype by scores, and in the face of the other facts of
the case, my learned friend, Mr. Sergeant Ballantine, allowed his case
to come to an end with that offensive imputation against the advisers of
the defendants, and never explained or withdrew it. Well, is the thumb
in the photograph like the plaintiff’s thumb? Nobody ever said it was
from the beginning to the end of the case but Mr. Baigent.[3] This point
is due entirely to the ingenuity of that gentleman. His attention
appears to have been drawn to the condition of the daguerreotype early
in May. No one’s attention was drawn to the thumb till late in November,
and the first word that is said about it is said by Mr. Baigent in
re-examination. Now, you know that in May, just about the time that the
attention, as I have said, of Mr. Baigent appears, by his
examination-in-chief, to have been drawn to the photograph, I was asking
for the inspection of the plaintiff’s person for any marks on him upon
which it was intended hereafter to place reliance. My learned friend
objected, for the reasons you know, to that proposal. In his own
interests he refused to allow that examination to take place, and he
must not now complain at the remarks which all the circumstances give
rise to in my mind. I don’t for a moment say—and when I say a thing I
trust you have learned I mean it—I don’t for a moment say that my
learned friend had any reason to think there was any peculiarity about
the thumb when he refused inspection. But somebody knew, and that
somebody instructed my learned friend to refuse the examination. I point
out to you, once more, that no human being ever said a word about the
thumb till Mr. Baigent mentioned it. Neither Baigent, nor Hopkins, nor
the plaintiff himself in his letter to his mother in which he mentioned
the brown mark ever suggested the existence of a peculiarity in the
thumb. My learned friend hears of it for the first time only a few days
before the end of his case, on the 12th of December. That is a
remarkable thing. My learned friend more than once or twice says it is
highly important. Sir William Fergusson, when he first examined the
plaintiff, did not notice any peculiarity in the thumb, but on the day
he appeared in the box he said he made an examination of the thumb of
the left hand. He noticed there was a peculiarity in the thumb. It was
peculiarly pointed at the extremity. The fleshy part projected beyond
the nail more than usual, and more than on the other hand. The nail
seemed to be perfectly developed, and it struck him that the plaintiff
had been in the habit of biting his nails, which he afterwards learned
was the case. Being shown the photograph, he said it was an exact
representation of the claimant. Then in cross-examination he says—“I
don’t think such a thumb could be made by manipulation. I don’t think
any pressure would produce it. The nail is smaller on this thumb than on
the other. The whole thumb is smaller at the point. The condition, I
don’t think, would be formed or made more marked by biting the nails. I
never had my attention called to it until yesterday morning.”
Footnote 1:
The Attorney-General is at fault here; for Mr. Savage, as reported in
our issue of the 22nd December, page 603, distinctly said that his
negative was made from a _print_ that had previously been made from
the daguerreotype, and not from the daguerreotype itself.—EDS.
Footnote 2:
Photographers will smile at the idea of the serrated edge of a brass
mount which has been clamped over the _back_ of a plate getting inside
of the picture, between the glass and the surface.—EDS.
Footnote 3:
According to the report of the case that appeared in our pages the
photographic witnesses examined in the case have also asserted
this.—EDS.
The Lord Chief Justice—I don’t understand that Sir W. Fergusson’s
evidence was so much directed to the flesh protruding beyond the nail as
to the peculiarity in the shape of the thumb. That was the peculiarity
which he meant could not be produced.
The Attorney-General—It comes to this: Sir William Fergusson does not
think that biting would do it, nor that it could be done artificially.
But the plaintiff had not been examined by our medical men then, and I
was not in a condition to cross-examine Sir W. Fergusson. Mr. Canton is
also examined, and states that his attention was called to the thumb for
the first time the day before. There was this peculiarity about it—that
the nail was attached to the part beneath to a less extent than it was
in the case of the nail on the other thumb. On being asked if such a
condition of the left thumb could have been produced by any known
process which a man could exercise on himself, Mr. Canton said that the
only thing he could conceive would be a person continually biting his
nails. It really comes to this, that if the man had let his nail alone,
the difference between the two nails would be greatly less. That is the
evidence of a witness for the plaintiff. He is of opinion that the nail
has been subjected to treatment for the purpose of producing a
difference, and that if it had not been there would have been much less
difference. Now, what does that show? That the nail has been
manipulated, prepared, gone through a process of concoction, and not a
word about it was mentioned to any human being, however closely
connected or intimate with the plaintiff, until the 13th December, when
the thumb had been put in a proper state for examination. When the
doctors examined the plaintiff in November, their attention was not
called to the thumb. I suppose it was not then in a state to be
examined; but in December they were suddenly called out of court, and in
some back room of this Sessions-house this thumb was shown to them. Then
this astounding charge was made of our having tampered with the
daguerreotype for the purpose of destroying evidence which we ourselves
had actually preserved. As far as I understand the evidence of the
medical men it will be this. They will express a clear and confident
opinion, from a scientific examination of the thumb, that it is a
non-natural thumb, by which I mean that it presents appearances which
show that it has not been allowed to take its natural course, but has
been manipulated and treated by the plaintiff or some one in his
interest—manufactured, concocted, and got up—for the purpose of this
examination, and now we can understand why the glove was always kept on
the left hand, and why not a single syllable was said about it until it
was ready for inspection. You can also understand why the secret was
only committed to Baigent. It was not even communicated to Miss Braine.
My learned friend, Mr. Serjeant Ballantine, said it was an important
matter, and indeed it is. Mr. Baigent himself did not venture to say a
word about the thumb until the pressure of cross-examination was
removed; he reserved it for his re-examination, when the mouth of my
learned friend, Mr. Hawkins, was closed. Yet they searched all over the
man—they drew attention to wretched little scratches on his ankles,
which you could hardly see, and to a little white mark on the middle of
his eyelid, which I confess I could not see—these they hunted out for
demonstration; but this patent thing, which he could not put his hand on
a piece of paper to steady it while he was writing, he could not wash
his hands or use a knife and fork at dinner without exhibiting—this most
staring and glaring peculiarity was never mentioned to any human being
until the 13th December. In any other but the Tichborne case what would
have been thought of this? Take a railway accident case. What would a
jury say if alleged injury were brought before them at the last hour
which neither the plaintiff nor his counsel had ever said a word about
before? I know what would have been said of myself and Mr. Hawkins if we
had been counsel for the plaintiff. But because this is the Tichborne
case it is allowed, and my learned friend, Mr. Serjeant Ballantine, with
an air of great solemnity, says—“This is a very important matter, and a
great deal more will be heard of it.” I understand my doctors will say
the nail does not adhere so closely to the under surface as the nail
does on the other hand—that it is perfectly easy to disconnect them—that
it may be done by perseverence, by introducing little pins and things of
that kind, and by gradually and steadily working them to disconnect the
under surface of the nail from the under surface of the flesh, and that
in this way you can arrest the “formative growth” of the nail, and they
will tell you that that has actually been done. You will look at the
photographs for yourselves, and I ask you to come to the conclusion that
there is no reasonable pretence for saying that Roger Tichborne had such
a thumb. There is no one to suggest that Roger Tichborne had a peculiar
thumb—no one till Mr. Baigent suggests it on his re-examination; and I
submit that the whole affair has been trumped up to produce an
impression when they found that the other marks failed them.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Meetings of Societies.
-------