131
a Chinese,
was deeply concerned to do justice to the defendant a foreigner, a stranger in Britain and instructed the jury to disregard the matter since it had not been conclusively proved that the slips of paper were relevant to the murder charge. But the sinister import of the Chinese characters must have impressed itself upon the jurymen and it would be too much to expect that they did not speculate among themselves as to the evidential value of the translated sentences. If, in fact, the words did refer to Mrs. Miao's contemplated destruction (which seems likely), then her husband must have had murder in his heart before he left America, not long after his marriage to Siu Wai-sheung, a rich woman. Again, if this is so, it was a premeditated murder, not one born of impulse or passion, like most domestic murders in Europe and China, yesterday or today.
Miao, Travers Humphreys tells us, was ably defended by Mr. J. C. Jackson K.C., but he had little to go on.35 The circumstantial evidence was overwhelming in its assemblage; the case for the defence speculative and insubstantial. Miao, through his counsel, argued that he and his wife had been followed by a gang of Oriental jewel thieves; and evidence was obtained from a few persons that two Oriental gentlemen, Chinese or Japanese, had been seen in the Derwentwater area at the time of the crime. These shadowy figures were neither identified nor located. The jury was left with the following puzzle: if members of an international gang, specialising in the theft of jewellery, had robbed and killed Mrs. Miao, why did one, or both, then attempt to sexually assault the victim of their greed? That was certainly not professional criminal practice. And, furthermore, forensic scientists had already demonstrated, convincingly, that the assault upon poor Mrs. Miao had been faked. There were, for example, no bruises upon her body. Who, then, would benefit from the murder, if we dismiss the shadowy robbers? Surely only the bereft husband.
The defence was not able to weaken the structure of circumstantial evidence deployed by the prosecution. The jury was out for an hour and a half and brought in a verdict of guilty. Mr. Justice Humphreys then sentenced Miao to death, on which he cried out 'I am not guilty!' and embarked on a voluble defence of his actions until stopped by the Judge.
His appeal was heard at the Court of Criminal Appeal,