“All this I had told my learned brother, before taking him to the
hospital. There we found Cocoleu more obstinate than ever in his
silence, which even M. Galpin had not induced him to break. All our
efforts to obtain a word from him were fruitless, although it was very
evident to me that he understood very well. I proposed to resort to
quite legitimate means, which are employed to discover feigned defects
and diseases; but my learned brother refused and was encouraged in his
resistance by M. Galpin: I do not know upon what ground. Then I asked
that the Countess Claudieuse should be sent for, as she has a talent of
making him talk. M. Galpin would not permit it--and there we are.”
It happens almost daily, that two physicians employed as experts differ
in their opinions. The courts would have a great deal to do, if they
had to force them to agree. They appoint simply a third expert, whose
opinion is decisive. This was necessarily to be done in Cocoleu’s case.
“And as necessarily,” continued Dr. Seignebos, “the court, having
appointed a first ass, will associate with me a second ass. They will
agree with each other, and I shall be accused and convicted of ignorance
and presumption.”
He came, therefore, as he now said, to ask M. de Chandore to render him
a little service. He wanted the two families, Chandore and Boiscoran,
to employ all their influence to obtain that a commission of physicians
from outside--if possible, from Paris--should be appointed to examine
Cocoleu, and to report on his mental condition.
“I undertake,” he said, “to prove to really enlightened men, that
this poor creature is partly pretending to be imbecile, and that his
obstinate speechlessness is only adopted in order to avoid answers which
would compromise him.”
At first, however, neither M. de Chandore nor M. Folgat gave any answer.
They were considering the question.
“Mind,” said the doctor again, shocked at their silence, “mind, I pray,
that if my view is adopted, as I have every reason to hope, a new turn
will be given to the whole case.”
Why yes! The ground of the accusation might be taken from under the
prosecution; and that was what kept M. Folgat thinking.
“And that is exactly,” he commenced at last, “what makes me ask myself
whether the discovery of Cocoleu’s rascality would not be rather
injurious than beneficial to M. de Boiscoran.”