When the last witness had stepped down, Mr. Mathews addressed the Court. He pointed out that Ruby was Rupert’s sweetheart, that she herself admitted, under cross-examination; that she had made this confession to save her lover. "While doubtless she had been his accomplice in the crime, and as such received the money," he went on to say, "the letter to the bank was in the prisoner’s own handwriting, and bore his signature. This had been admitted by the defence, though they gave a clumsy and wholly unbelievable explanation, namely, that it referred to a bookmaker and a bet that he had apparently never made! "The evidence of their own witness, Despard, was perhaps the strongest proof of the unreliability of Miss Strode’s statements. He distinctly denies seeing the cheque she states she had in her hand. He says there was no mention made of winning a bet, and he declares that the blotting-pad—that should have been stained as it now appears in Court, was perfectly clean! So careful is this witness as to the accuracy of what he gives in evidence, that he actually declines to positively swear that the blotter had not been used, although sure in his own mind that it was quite clean. Contrast this straightforward evidence with the statements made by Miss Strode herself! Why, she cannot tell her story without contradicting her own evidence, and then when she is asked to say which statement is true, she breaks down and gives up her attempt to save her lover! Gentlemen of the jury, I should be the last to take advantage of a woman’s weakness—of the unfortunate position in which she has placed herself; I cannot but admire her heroism, her self-sacrifice in trying to save her lover by taking the crime on herself; but I should not be doing my duty—nay, I should be defeating justice itself, were I to permit this loving woman to condemn herself of a crime, of which she is only the innocent accomplice." He sat down, and Mr. Marshall rose. He was a young man with his reputation to make, and this was his first big case. He began quietly by reviewing bit by bit the evidence for the prosecution. He cleverly seized each point in which a witness had said anything indirectly injurious to the prisoner, and pointed out that it was equally true if applied to Ruby Strode. He asked the jury if there was one single piece of direct evidence against his client. And, after a dramatic pause, he answered: "No, gentlemen, there is not! Circumstantial evidence there is in abundance, but nothing—absolutely nothing—that can justify you in finding this man guilty."