The Red Thumbmark · Chapter
II: The Suspect explained
Mr.
What happens
Mr. Lawley presents the case against Reuben Hornby to Thorndyke and Jervis, detailing how a thumbprint found in the safe was identified as Reuben's via a Thumbograph. Reuben vehemently protests his innocence, and Thorndyke agrees to defend him on that basis, examining Reuben's hands for scars and taking fresh thumbprints for analysis.
Themes in this chapter
Forensic Science and Evidence
The chapter centers on the thumbprint as key evidence, with Thorndyke examining it critically and taking his own prints for analysis.
Justice and Wrongful Accusation
Reuben Hornby is accused based on seemingly conclusive evidence, yet he maintains his innocence, raising questions about the reliability of forensic proof.
Observation and Deduction
Thorndyke's careful examination of Reuben's hands and his note-taking demonstrate his methodical approach to uncovering the truth.
Characters to notice
- Dr. John Evelyn Thorndyke
Listens to the case, takes notes, examines Reuben's hands for scars, and takes thumbprints for his own investigation.
- Dr. Christopher Jervis
Present during the consultation, examines Reuben's hands at Thorndyke's request, and observes the proceedings.
- Reuben Hornby
The accused, maintains his innocence and asks Thorndyke to defend him on that assumption.
- Mr. Lawley
The solicitor presenting the case, recommends a guilty plea but is overruled by Reuben's insistence on innocence.
- Polton
Brings the fingerprinting equipment from the laboratory at Thorndyke's summons.
Key passages
“My position is that I did not commit this robbery and that I know nothing whatever about it or about the thumbprint that was found in the safe.”
Reuben declares he is innocent and has no knowledge of the crime or the thumbprint.
Reuben's emphatic denial sets the stage for Thorndyke's defense.
“I am a man of facts, not an advocate, and if I found it impossible to entertain the hypothesis of your innocence, I should not be willing to expend time and energy in searching for evidence to prove it.”
Thorndyke explains that he only takes cases where he believes the client may be innocent.
Thorndyke's principled stance contrasts with Mr. Lawley's pragmatic approach.