ests upon the assertion that the thumb-print found in the safe was made
by the thumb of the prisoner. If that thumb-print was not made by the
prisoner, there is not only no case against him but no suspicion of any
kind.

"Now, was that thumb-print made by the prisoner's thumb? You have had
conclusive evidence that it was not. That thumb-print differed in the
size, or scale, of the pattern from a genuine thumb-print of the
prisoner's. The difference was small, but it was fatal to the police
theory; the two prints were not identical.

"But, if not the prisoner's thumb-print, what was it? The resemblance of
the pattern was too exact for it to be the thumb-print of another
person, for it reproduced not only the pattern of the ridges on the
prisoner's thumb, but also the scar of an old wound. The answer that I
propose to this question is, that it was an intentional imitation of the
prisoner's thumb-print, made with the purpose of fixing suspicion on the
prisoner, and so ensuring the safety of the actual criminal. Are there
any facts which support this theory? Yes, there are several facts which
support it very strongly.

"First, there are the facts that I have just mentioned. The red
thumb-print disagreed with the genuine print in its scale or dimensions.
It was not the prisoner's thumb-print; but neither was it that of any
other person. The only alternative is that it was a forgery.

"In the second place, that print was evidently made with the aid of
certain appliances and materials, and one of those materials, namely
defibrinated blood, was found in the safe.

"In the third place, there is the coincidence that the print was one
which it was possible to forge. The prisoner has ten digits--eight
fingers and two thumbs. But there were in existence actual prints of the
two thumbs, whereas no prints of the fingers were in existence; hence it
would have been impossible to forge a print of any of the fingers. So it
happens that the red thumb-print resembled one of the two prints of
which forgery was possible.

"In the fourth place, the red thumb-print reproduces an accidental
peculiarity of the 'Thumbograph' print. Now, if the red thumb-print is a
forgery, it must have been made from the 'Thumbograph' print, since
there exists no other print from which it could have been made. Hence we
have the striking fact that the red thumb-print is an exact
replica--including accidental peculiarities--of the only print from
which a forg