speaks L'Estrange), they would not have taken deliberate steps to
secure the instant discovery of the corpse. Whoever pitched
Godfrey's body into the bramble-covered ditch, meant it to be found,
for his cane, scabbard, and so on were deliberately left outside of
the ditch. Your wily Jesuit would have caused the body to
disappear, leaving the impression that Godfrey had merely absconded,
as he had the best reasons for doing. On the other hand, Oates's
gang would not, if they first strangled Godfrey, have run his own
sword through his body, as if he had committed suicide--unless,
indeed, they calculated that this would be a likely step for your
wily Jesuit to take, in the circumstances. Again, an educated
'Jesuit,' like Le Fevre, 'the Queen's confessor,' would know that
the sword trick was futile; even a plain man, let alone a surgeon,
could detect a wound inflicted on a corpse four or five days old.

Two other theories existed, first, that Godfrey hanged himself, and
that his brothers and heirs did the sword trick, to suggest that he
had not committed suicide by strangulation, but had been set on and
stabbed with his own sword. In that case, of course, the brothers
would have removed his rings and money, to prove that he had been
robbed. The other theory, plausible enough, held that Godfrey was
killed by Catholics, NOT because he took Oates's deposition (which
he was bound to do), but because he officiously examined a number of
persons to make discoveries. The Attorney-General at the trial of
Godfrey's alleged murderers (February 1679), declared that Sir
Edmund had taken such examinations: 'we have proof that he had
some. . . perhaps some more than are now extant'* This theory,
then, held that he was taken off to prevent his pursuing his zealous
course, and to seize the depositions which he had already taken.
When this was stated to Charles II., on November 7, 1678, by the