SOBEL, J.
Miles F. McDonald, District Attorney (James McGough of counsel), for plaintiff. Leo Shapiro, Harold L. Fisher and John J. Minett for defendant. SOBEL, J. The defendant moves prior to trial for the dismissal of the indictment on the Grand Jury minutes. The defendant was indicted for murder, first degree, for a crime committed December 31, 1942. It appears that while serving a long term at the Maryland penitentiary he wrote, early this year, to his former parole officer here in this State representing that he could furnish information concerning the death of one Calvin C. Smith. An investigation followed which resulted in this indictment. I have examined the testimony before the Grand Jury. The parole officer testifies to a confession made to him by the defendant. fact' but only a naked confession supplemented by a showing by outside proof that some of the statements in the confessions were true. Such a corroboration of the partial truthfulness of the confessions might have its place in weighing the whole evidence to see if it made out a case beyond a reasonable doubt. But it does not satisfy the statutory command of section 395. In the Deacons case, where mention is made (at p. 382) of the separate proof showing the accuracy of the descriptions in the confessions of the interior of a certain house, that separate proof is not treated as additional proof of the corpus delicti; the additional and entirely different proof of the corpus delicti is described and passed upon elsewhere in the Deacons opinion (p. 378)." These are all the leading decisions interpreting the demand of section 395 of the Code of Criminal Procedure that there be "additional proof that the crime charged has been committed." In the case before me, I find no such "additional proof". True we have a dead body but the body itself shows no evidences of violence or of wounds homicidally inflicted. Nor is there apart from the confession, any independent proof of motive, presence at the scene, or acts or statements done or made in consciousness of guilt. There is such evidence in the confession but none outside of the confession. I must conclude on the present state of the Grand Jury record, that "the danger that a crime may be confessed when no such crime in any degree has been committed by any one" has not been sufficiently averted. The motion to dismiss the indictment is granted with leave to the District Attorney to resubmit this case to the December or January Grand Jury. The defendant is being held for return to the Maryland authorities. The District Attorney may make provision in his order for his return at this time or for his detention pending resubmission of the case.