James had been murdered. That much was certain. He'd been found floating in the river,

but it was clear that he hadn't merely drowned. There was the lack of water in the

corpse's lungs, for one, plus the bruises around his

face and neck, and finally most damning of all, the deep cut, grinning across the dead man's

throat, which all led to one very important question. If James Stansfield had been murdered,

then who exactly had killed him? To answer that question, authorities gathered Stansfield had been murdered, then who exactly had killed him?

To answer that question, authorities gathered Stansfield's next of kin,

and then the family was instructed to move the body into its coffin.

As Stansfield's son Philip attempted to lift him at the shoulders,

something a little messy occurred.

To quote a pamphlet from the time,

the blood sprung out upon Philip Stansfield's hand,

at which wiping it upon his coat and struck with terror and remorse,

he cried out,

Lord have mercy upon me.

Philip, you see, had reason to be frightened,

because he was immediately arrested and executed for the crime of his father's murder.

Let me explain.

In 1688, they certainly lacked the forensic technology we have today, but authorities

did have another way to identify a killer.

It was called a beer right, and up until the 19th century, courts all over Europe

relied on the practice to dole out justice. It went a little something like this. First, you

...