COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF THE TICHBORNE EVIDENCE.

Evening Star, Issue 3463, 28 March 1874, Page 3

COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF THE TICHBORNE EVIDENCE.

j Dr. Kenealy, in his address for the defence in the Tichborne case, went into a comparative analysis of the evijdenco given by the various witnesses,' a perusal of which will be interesting. The report from itfhich we extract says :—Dr. Kenealy went on to notice the evidenpeias;tp: the hair of Roger. Out of 87 witnesses, he said nine said it was I‘dark,” 17 that it was “brown.” and 58 that it was “ dark bro.wn,” which, he said,. corresponded with the defen'daht’s; andibaiiy ‘ 9.f bis witnesses said it was the same or similar to that of the defendant, and denied 'that it had changed its oolor; as the prosecution suggested. Th n he noticed,the eyes.{he afctP’ the -twitch’ Eighty sis (witnesses, he said, spoke to the twitch ; 20 laid he had it when talking, 16 said that there was a twitch in the eyes, 15 that it was in the eye-brows when talking or excited, four that it waß ! ’ih: the bright eye, five thbt it was in the left, four said it was a habit of raising the brows, 15 said it . wap a winking (jf the eyes. Then' again he said’SO witnesses .spoke of Hoger’s eyebrows as “large, dark, and thick,-”] bK i‘' , br ;• heavy.” . So much as to the melancholy expression of tjhe eyes which many spoke to. Contrast, Said Dr. Kenealy, these full descriptions ol : Koger with the meagre accounts given by the witnesses lor thiti prosecution. He then went on to another unalterable feature—the ears. Six witnesses for,, thq defence, had.spoken to the ears, and foUrdf 'them said Rogd/had ; ‘‘large” ears; three said the lobes were large, dnd three said they to the ■ cheeks. One witness said the ears were .‘fthe largest he. had ovpc known.” Three wituessei swore that Roger’s lobes were not .attached to his cheeks, but pendant, as those [6f the defendant apeij . Only four witnesses .had been examined for the prosecution as to •the ears, of whom two said the lobes were .attached to the cheek} one said they were large, and another that they were small. As to thp neck, out;of. 15 witnesses, two said ,;that < oger’s was not long nor short, a ad four •said it was “ medium.” As to the shoulders ,of Roger; 53witnessesvspoke’ofbbeto; ntid. it s was admitted on both sides that ho had “sloping?’ shoulders. VVith pegayd to the chest, | .the evidence for the prosecution was singular, | for, opt of 27 witnesses, 23 said his chest InWaa narrow, ..arid four said wail tfpigeonphpsted/’ Forty-two witnesses spoke about it, out of whom 10 said, jt was broad, 19 said it was not pigeon-breasted, 16 said it was “flat,” three said it was neither broad nor- narrow. ; Dr./ Kenealy;. .wentt<oh to analyse the evidence as to the size and shape of Roger’s hands, as to which, he said, only one of the 38 witnesses for the prosecution who spoke of them said they were large, though roauy said they were “thin,” *‘long;V or “bony,” while more than 20 witnesses for the prosecution said that Roger’s hands were small, aud he contended that the defendant’s are so. As to Roger’s thumb, he said, three witnesses spoke to its peculiar appearance. Then as to the feet, out of thirtyone witnesses asked as to Roger’s feet, most of them said they were small, and he ; /hsisted that his client’s are so. Then as to Roger’s walk, seventy-six witnesses were asked for the defence about it, and of these twenty-three said it was “awkward,” eight that it was “peculiar,” others that it was ‘slouching,” others “ slovenly,” some that it was like Sir Henry’s walk, some that it was Sir James’s. Then as to the knees, two said that Roger was in-kneed wrh both knees, thirteen that he was in-kneed with one knee, twenty-four that h6 was in-kueed With the right, three that it was with the left; six said that he was weak in the right knee, oue that it was the left, ten said he was knock-kneed with one ; and some said it was the left and others said it was the right. Fifty \ arbineers spoke upon the subject ; some said the defect was in the right knee, some that it was a peculiar, way of walking, others that he was knock-kneed, others that the knee “ turned in,” &c. Un the whole, therefore, he contended that there was a great weight of evidence to shew J tllat Rogeir had some peculiarity in his I wjees or iu bis walk, which, he said,

.could be seen very plainly in the de- 1 fondant. A£:er alluding to the general family resemblance, he reviewed the evidence of hi a witnesses as to. the head, the face, and particular features of Roger, dwelling espe,c ally upon his “ melaucholy cast of countenance,” which he insisted is very observ--able in tho defendant, tie then came to the evidence as to the voice and accent of Roger. No leas t ,-i an seventy-six witnesses gave evidence as to the voice of Roger, and of these, he said, the maj irity described the voice of the defendant As to the height, he would say nothing m--re than he had already said. Me then came to the ev deuce as to the manners and habits of Roger, of which, he said fifty-four witnesses had spoken, and most of whom had testified as to correspondence of habit a id manners in the defendant. Fourteen, for instance, spoke as to Roger s frfbdm'ss for smoking, and ten for his addiction to snuff, -Some spoke to his reading bad French novels and other bad books, ■some spoke to his playing the French horn' one or two to bis playing at skittles. Two of them spoke to his fondness for the society of hia inferiors. Several spoke to bis Frenchified manners. One or two spoke to hia habit of playing with his hands or fidgeting with his fingers, c-ome spoke to his good humor, and all these habits and traits, he said could be observed in the defendant.