Truth and Proof
| Published date | 01 July 1946 |
| Date | 01 July 1946 |
| DOI | 10.1177/0032258X4601900305 |
| Author | William C. May |
| Subject Matter | Article |
TRUTH
AND
PROOF
necessary for protection, and with a murderous weapon upon an
opponent unarmed. Worse, he had dealt two final blows after his vic-
tim lay helpless on the ground.
The
medical evidence had been
substantiated, and at trial at the Leicester Assizes before Mr. Justice
Wrottesley (Mr. P. E. Sandilands,
KC.,
for the prosecution and
Mr.
Arthur Ward,
KC.,
for the defence) the difference between conviction
for murder or on the reduced offence of manslaughter hinged to a con-
siderable extent on these medical aspects of the reconstruction, and upon
Gribble's own explanation for his actions. His youth may also have
affected the feelings of the jury, for after a summing up which left them
with a clear presentation of the facts and the choice of one or other
verdict they found the accused guilty of manslaughter.
The
case provided an unusually good example of the importance
of an accurate and strictly fair medical reconstruction of the course of
events in fatal struggles of this kind. When, after much lying, Gribble
was persuaded to tell the
truth
he provided a great deal more detail for
comparison with the medical observations than is usual, and thus gave
the case especial interest.
I am indebted to Commander W. J. A. Willis, R.N., Chief Con-
stable of Bedfordshire, for access to the records of the case, and to the
Photographic Department, New Scotland Yard, for the two additional
plates enlarging the head and eyebrow hairs found adherent to the
bough with which the crime was committed.
Truth and Proof
By
SUPERINTENDENT
WILLIAM
C. MAY
Glamorgan
County
Constabulary
"
BE
like a policeman, Madam; do not believe one-half you are
told." Such was the advice I once heard given by a police inspec-
tor to a lady who was making complaint concerning the conduct of her
husband, the substance of which was more or less gossip communicated
to her by neighbours who could not give any direct proof of what was
alleged of the husband's association with other women.
From day to day in the life of the individual, statements are made
which are expected to be believed without the least proof of accuracy.
Whether it is believed or not depends on the degree of good faith in
which he who makes the statement is held among his neighbours.
If
pressed for proof he may, of course, say,
"Yes,
I saw
it,"
or"
I was
i87
To continue reading
Request your trial