It appeared to me rather strange that upon any amount of
evidence, which of course was false, a man could have been
convicted of wilfully murdering others he never saw or heard
of before he was put in prison. I do not care to detain your
lordships, but I cannot help remarking that Mr. Shaw, who has
come now to gloat upon his victims, alter having sworn away
their lives--that man has sworn what is altogether false; and
there are contradictions in the depositions which have not
been brought before your lordships' notice. I suppose the
depositions being imperfect, there was no necessity for it.
As to Mr. Batty, he swore at his first examination before the
magistrates that a large stone fell on me, a stone which Mr.
Roberts said at the time would have killed an elephant. But
not the slightest mark was found on my head; and if I was to
go round the country, and him with me, as exhibiting the stone
having fallen on me, and him as the man who would swear to
it, I do not know which would be looked for with the most
earnestness. However, it has been accepted by the jury. Now he
says he only thinks so. There is another matter to consider.
I have been sworn to, I believe, by some of the witnesses who
have also sworn to others, though some of them can prove they
were in another city altogether--in Liverpool. Others have an
overwhelming _alibi_, and I should by right have been tried
with them; but I suppose your lordships cannot help that.
We have, for instance, Thomas, the policeman, who swore to
another prisoner. He identified him on a certain day, and
the prisoner was not arrested for two days afterwards. As for
Thomas, I do not presume that any jury could have believed
him. He had heard of the blood-money, and of course was
prepared to bid pretty high for it. My _alibi_ has not been