t is one of fowl play. Herncastle disavows all knowledge of how the Indian came by his moral wounds. This heightens the cousin's suspicion: "I looked at him narrowly. His frenzy of the previous day had all calmed down. I determined to give him another chance. "Is that all you have to tell me?" I asked. He answered, "That is all." I turned my back on him; and we have not spoken since" (57). The suspicion of the cousin is the same as ours, and the conclusion he draws about John Herncastle's guilt is ours as well. Collins means for us to find him guilty as evidenced by the shunning by the rest of his family after the Seringapatam incident. This evidence is damning enough for this family member to forgo speaking till the end of his life, but enough for the lives of three Indians and the embarrassment of the family. Collins means for us to solidly agree upon Herncastle's guilt so that the later hypocritical treatment of the Indians is more striking.
             Circumstantial evidence, despite it's convincing and damning implications, is not sufficient; it requires actual eyewitness testimony by a reliable British source. Although Herncastle's cousin has his suspicions he cannot accuse Herncastle with "good reason" (58): "If I made the matter [the murders] public, I have no evidence but moral evidence to bring forward. I have not only no proof that he killed the two men at the door; I cannot even declare that he killed the third man inside-for I cannot even declare that he killed the third man inside-for I cannot say that my own eyes saw the deed committed" (58). While "moral evidence" is not enough to convict a British gentleman it is quite good enough to convict the three Indians for the demise of Godfrey Ablewhite. Collins purposefully wants the reader to make comparisons between the two for he uses the exact same phrasing when describing the evi...