On this amount of evidence Bedloe invented his many contradictions.
Why he did not cleave to the facts imparted to him by his Jesuit
friends, we do not learn. 'A general idea of the way in which the
murder was committed' any man could form from the state of Godfrey's
body. There was no reason why Walsh and Le Fevre 'should be absent
from their rooms on a considerable part of the night of Saturday
12,' and so excite Bedloe's suspicions, for, on his versions, they
slew Godfrey at 2 P.M., 5 P.M., or any hour between. No proof is
given that they were in their lodgings, or in London, during the
fortnight which followed Oates's three successful Jesuit drives of
September 28-30. In all probability they had fled from London
before Godfrey's murder. No evidence can I find that Bedloe's
Jesuits were at their lodgings on October 12-16. They were not
sought for there, but at Somerset House.* Two sisters, named
Salvin, were called before the Lords' Committee, and deposed that
Bedloe and Le Fevre had twice been at their house when Walsh said
mass there.**

*Lords' Journals, xiii. pp. 343 346.
**Ibid. p. 353.

That is all! Bedloe had some acquaintance with the men he accused;
so had Prance with those he denounced. Prance's victims were
innocent, and against Bedloe's there is not, so far, evidence to
convict a cat on for stealing cream. He recognised Prance,
therefore he really knew the murderers--that is all the argument.

Mr. Pollock's theory reposes on the belief, rejected by L'Estrange,
that the Jesuits 'were the damnedest fools.' Suppose them guilty.