he
prisoner might be innocent though the presumption would be, if Hill's
evidence were truthful in every detail, that the prisoner was guilty.
Fanning's evidence might be true as far as it went, but it would not in
itself prove that the prisoner was innocent. Hill had admitted that he
had drawn the plan of Riversbrook to assist Birchill to commit burglary.
It was for the jury to determine for themselves whether he had been
terrorised into drawing the plan for Birchill or whether he was the
instigator of the burglary.

The defence had contended that Hill had drawn the plan at his leisure
at a time when he had access to a special quality of paper supplied to
his master. If that were so, Hill's version of how he came to draw the
plan was deliberately false and had been concocted for the purpose of
exculpating himself. But they would not be justified in dismissing
Hill's evidence entirely from their minds because they were satisfied
he had perjured himself with regard to the plan. They would be
justified, however, in viewing the rest of his evidence with some
degree of distrust. Counsel for the defence had made an ingenious use
of the facts that the body of the victim was fully dressed when
discovered and that none of the electric lights in the house were
burning. These facts lent support to the idea that the murder was
committed in daylight, but they by no means established the theory as
unassailable. They did not establish the innocence of the prisoner,
although to some extent they told in his favour. Counsel for the
prosecution had put before them several theories to account for these
two facts consistent with his contention that the murder had been
committed by the prisoner. The jury must give full consideration to
these theories as well as to the theory of the defence. They were not
called upon to say which theory was true except in so far as their
opinions might be implied in the verdict they gave.

The defence, continued His Honour, was that Hill had committed the murder
and had then decided to direct suspicion to the prisoner. If the jury
acquitted the prisoner, their verdict would not necessarily mean that
they endorsed the theory of the defence. It might mean that, but it might
mean only that they were not satisfied that the prisoner had committed
the murder. If the jury were convinced beyond all reasonable doubt that
the prisoner had committed the murder, they must bring in a verdict of
"guilty," and if they we