In 1903 Britain was outraged by a series of brutal attacks on horses, cattle and sheep in Great Wyrley, near Birmingham. So frequent and sadistic were these night-time attacks that they were reported regularly in the national press. Local people blamed a solicitor of “mixed race” by the name of George Edalji, claiming he organised the attacks as a part of ritualistic pagan worship ceremonies.
Edalji soon found himself at the centre of a “hate-mail” campaign. The police too began to receive anonymous letters pointing to him as the culprit and claiming that he was the leader of a pagan sect. Early one morning they mounted a raid on Edalji’s home and their suspicions were confirmed. In the house they found a damp coat and trousers each with a small blood stain on them. They also discovered horse-hairs on the coat and recovered a pair of muddy boots and four dirty razors with red staining.
The police arrested Edalji and he was quickly tried and found guilty at Stafford Assizes. He was sentenced to seven years imprisonment. Yet despite his imprisonment, the animal attacks continued. A year after his trial a petition for his release, with over 10,000 signatures (including many lawyers) was sent to the Home Office. But the authorities would not relent and Edalji remained in prison until two years later. Then without explanation he was suddenly released still carrying the stigma of the “guilty” verdict.
Hearing of the case, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle (creator of Sherlock Holmes) decided to investigate and to re-examine the evidence. He found that:-
- the blood-stains were too small in relation to the brutality of the attack,
- the police notes taken at the time indicated that the coat was damp, yet the blood-stains were dried into the fabric and of some age
- the marks on the razors that were taken to be blood were simply rust, reflecting their age and lack of use
- the horse-hairs on the coat were commonly used in stuffing furniture and could be expected to be found on most people’s clothing.
Conan Doyle had known from his meeting with Edalji that the man was innocent, just as Sherlock Holmes would have known. He used the same observational and deductive skills as his fictional creation and it was plain to him immediately that Edalji had,
“not only a high degree of myopia, but marked astigmatism.”
With such bad eyesight Conan Doyle argued, how could Edalji on a moonless night have walked across miles of broken ground, climbed innumerable walls and found his way through gaps in hedges and walls to reach his prey.
Conan Doyle presented his evidence in “The Daily Telegraph” in January 1907. He traced the anonymous letters to a man called Robert Sharp and found enough evidence to publicly accuse him and his two brothers of the crimes. One of the brothers immediately fled the country.
Under pressure of publicity, the Home Office agreed to review the case through a three-man inquiry. One of those men coincidentally, happened to be related to the Chief Constable who had undertaken the initial investigation.
Needless to say they upheld the original conclusion that Edalji was guilty and that the Sharp brothers were innocent. The Law Society though, exonerated Edalji and reinstated him as a solicitor and readers of “The Daily Telegraph” raised £300 for him to help with his legal costs – all on the basis of Conan Doyle’s investigation – which they trusted more than the judgement of the legal system.
Conan Doyle like his creation, Sherlock Holmes, believed in the primacy of hard evidence. He assessed that evidence dispassionately and objectively in the belief that everyone is innocent until proved guilty. The police and judicial system, on the other hand, had largely judged George Edalji long before he even came to trial, on the colour of his skin and local prejudice and rumour.
I think it’s fair to say that Sir Arthur Conan Doyle lived up to the example of his fictional creation, Sherlock Holmes, not only in terms of his methods, but also in his belief in justice.
I agree that Conan Doyle launched a noble campaign on George’s behalf. I am not so sure about his detective skills. He certainly poured a huge amount of energy into his investigations, and made some notable discoveries, but he was at times a bit sloppy in his handling of the evidence. See my book ‘Outrage: The Edalji Five and Shadow of Sherlock Holmes’, Vanguard Press, for a detailed account of his world-famous campaign in the role of Sherlock Holmes. Details at http://www.outrage-rogeroldfield.co.uk.
Thanks, Roger.
There were of course many complexities in this case, which I couldn’t hope to cover in a short blog post, but I hope you feel I did capture something of the investigative and campaigning spirit of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle.
I was also trying to reflect the fact that the public were open to challenging the police and legal system and expecting more from them in terms of standards and of justice.
Conan Doyle presented his evidence in “The Daily Telegraph” in January 2007.
2007???
Sincere apologies, MeToo52, and thankyou for pointing out the error.
Have corrected date.