"My whole argument rests on psychological grounds, and in criminal cases psychology is by far the surest guide. Now there was not a single detail in connection with the Moorland Tragedy that in any way suggested the hand of a man like Antonio Vissio. Can you see an Italian peasant who, moreover, has lived all his life with a gun in his hand, solemnly laying that gun down before embarking on a quarrel with his rival? And yet the gun was found undischarged, lying in a gully. Vissio was much more likely to have shouldered it at sight of the man he hated, and shot him dead; more especially as the Englishman would have an enormous advantage in a hand-to-hand fight, even if the other man had suddenly whisked out a knife. Vissio was not the type of man who would think of the consequence of his crime. Maddened by jealousy, he would kill his man at sight, but in his own country and also in France, there would be no disgrace attached to such a deed--no disgrace and very little punishment. The man who last year shot the English dancing girl on the Riviera because he thought that she was carrying on with another man, only got five years' imprisonment; Vissio would not realise that he would be amenable to English law, which does not look at Homicide quite so leniently. "Having killed his rival, the Italian would, in all probability, have swanked as far as the nearest village, had a good drink to steady his nerves, and then have boasted loudly of what he had done, certain that he would be leniently dealt with by a judge, and sympathised with by a jury, because of the torments of jealousy which he had endured until he could do so no longer. You can't imagine such a man sawing off his victim's head and wrapping it up in a newspaper taken out of the dead man's pocket. "And this brings me to the final point in my argument, and one which ought to have struck the police from the first: the question of the car. How would Vissio know that he would find Moville's car conveniently stationed by the roadside? He would have to know that before he could dare walk across the moor carrying his gruesome parcel. Now Vissio couldn't possibly know all that, and what's more, though he might not have been altogether ignorant of driving, he certainly was not expert enough to drive a car all by himself for over a hundred miles, at top speed, and for several hours in the dark. To my mind, if this fact had been driven home to the jury by a motoring expert they never would have brought in a verdict against Vissio, and if you think the whole matter over you will be bound to admit that there is not a single flaw in my argument. From the point of view of possibility as well as of psychology, only one man could have committed that crime, and that was Gerald Moville. I suppose his unfortunate parents will know the truth one day. Soon, probably, when the young miscreant is short of money and writes home for funds.