Relying on Eyewitness

Mr and Mrs Twichell lived in a house next to the street.
One night, Mr Twichell killed Mrs Twichell. Mr Twichell was convicted and executed. Justice done? Yes? No? Maybe? Here is more of the story.

Mr Twichell hit his wife on the head while they were in the bedroom. She died instantaneously. Mr Twichell then dragged her body to the front room. There he planned an alibi. He bent a poker and covered it with her blood. He then opened the front door and went back to bed. Made it look like some outsider had done the deed.

The next morning, the house-maid went to the front room, as she did every morning, and found the corpse. She ran out onto the road, screaming.

On her story, Mr Twichell was arrested and tried. The maid said that as soon as she found the body, she OPENED the front door and ran out. This meant that only a person staying inside the house could have murdered Mrs Twichell. Mr Twichell was duly convicted and sentenced to death.

 Now it so happens that, in many studies carried out in strictly controlled circumstances, witnesses never agree on what they actually saw. Not even 50% of the witnesses to an incident can even remember, or agree upon, the colour of the clothes the person, or persons, were wearing. Memory can play peculiar tricks and most witnesses, especially after prolonged periods, tend to testify to what they sincerely believe. They genuinely think that they are repeating the honest-to-goodness truth.

In this case, while awaiting his execution in jail, Mr Twichell confessed to his lawyer that he had left the door open and that the maid was not giving the correct story. Obviously, Mr Twichell himself could not have countered her testimony! The later consensus was that as the maid was so used to opening the door every morning, she imagined that she had done the same that day too. She was a creature of habit as we all are. If we take the left turn out of our home every morning, do we not do that instinctively even on that one day we have to turn right?

Now, you be the judge.
A murderer, admittedly a self-confessed one, is tried, convicted and executed. Is justice done? Especially when a man loses his life on false testimony?

To our mind, it was a wrong conviction of the right person. The correct option would have been for the lawyer to bring this point to the attention of the court which would then have recorded Mr Twichell’s testimony, such a confession being a valid one that can be used as evidence in a trial. He could then have been convicted on the basis of new testimony to avoid being set free on the plea of double jeopardy. We would have ordered a mis-trial. In matters of justice, the end cannot justify the means. It is for the judge to sift between truthful testimony, perjury and mistaken beliefs. It is a tough job; but it has to be done.

Now, this case brings to the fore the many subtleties in such instances. Was the maid really, and honestly, mistaken or was she put up by the prosecution to mouth this story? After all, this happened more than a hundred years ago when legal niceties were as rare as hen’s teeth.

Did the door slam itself shut with the wind at night? Did
Mr Twichell, in his anxiety to speed up the cover-up, actually forget to leave the door open and go back to bed believing he had? Did some passer-by, seeing the door ajar, shut it as an act of service?

For those interested in the frailties of the human mind and the tricks it can play, Psychology and the Day’s Work by Prof Edgar James Swift, amongst others, will be interesting.

Our story, however, does not end here. TWICHELL DID MANAGE TO CHEAT THE HANGMAN. His friend, a chemist, smuggled some very potent poison into the prison and Mr Twichell took it. And he, too, died instantaneously. Now, you be the judge. What would you have done to the chemist?

Bapoo Malcolm is a practising lawyer in Mumbai. Please email your comments to [email protected] or [email protected]