The Dublin Railway Murder

by Thomas Morris

At the climax of his speech, Mr Curran summarised the case against Spollin in words that dripped with sarcasm. ‘You are asked to convict him because money belonging to Mr Little was found near the place where he had worked; because an ordinary padlock was found in red lead under the money. You are asked to find him guilty of this murder because the hammer found in the canal and which fits the wound exactly is not proved to have been his, and because the first razor is not shown to have been his, and another with his name scratched upon it has turned up at a subsequent search in a place where it might have been thrown by any member of his family. You are asked to come to the conclusion that he is the murderer because of a ridiculous story which the children tell of having seen him at the chimney, and about a sun bonnet of a lilac colour which Julia Lyons, who is said to have made it, is not called to identify, and because of some idle talk which took place on the premises. You are asked to convict him because the press in this country and in England have raised an outcry, and public opinion has demanded this man as a victim. ‘You are in an awfully responsible position. You are now sitting in judgment, the arbiters of the fate of this unhappy man, but before you come to a conclusion that he is guilty, you must weigh the evidence carefully, and ask yourselves, does the evidence sustain this charge? If it is at all consistent with his innocence you must acquit him. I now leave...