Thinking about Evidence1

LEONARD VOLE is charged with murdering a rich elderly lady, Miss French. He had befriended her, and visited her regularly at her home, including the night of her death. Miss French had recently changed her will, leaving Vole all her money. She died from a blow to the back of the head. There were various pieces of incriminating evidence: Vole was poor and looking for work; he had visited a travel agent to enquire about luxury cruises soon after Miss French had changed her will; the maid claimed that Vole was with Miss French shortly before she was killed; the murderer did not force entry into the house; Vole had blood stains on his cuffs that matched Miss French’s blood type. As befi ts a good crime story, there were also several pieces of exonerating evidence: the maid admitted that she disliked Vole; the maid was previously the sole benefactor in Miss French’s will; Vole’s blood type was the same as Miss French’s, and thus also matched the blood found on his cuffs; Vole claimed that he had cut his wrist slicing ham; Vole had a scar on his wrist to back this claim. There was one other critical piece of defence evidence: Vole’s wife, Romaine, was to testify that Vole had returned home at 9.30 p.m. This would place him far away from the crime scene at the time of Miss French’s death. However, during the trial Romaine was called as a witness for the prosecution. Dramatically, she changed her story and testifi ed that Vole had returned home at 10.10 p.m., with blood on his cuffs, and had proclaimed: ‘I’ve killed her.’ Just as the case looked hopeless for Vole, a mystery woman supplied the defence lawyer with a bundle of letters. Allegedly these were