Three

Opening speech for the Defence:

“Gentlemen of the Jury, I might, if I like, submit to you that there is no case against the accused.

The onus¹ of proof is on the Prosecution², and so far, in my opinion—and, I have no doubt, yours—they have proved exactly nothing at all! The Prosecution avers³ that Elinor Carlisle, havingobtained possession of morphine (which everyone else in the house had had equal opportunity ofpurloining, and as to which there exists considerable doubt whether it was ever in the house at all),proceeds to poison Mary Gerrard. Here the Prosecution has relied solely⁴ on opportunity. It hassought to prove motive⁵, but I submit that that is just what it has not been able to do. For, membersof the jury, there is no motive! The Prosecution has spoken of a broken engagement. I ask you—abroken engagement! If a broken engagement is a cause for murder, why are we not havingmurders committed every day? And this engagement, mark you, was not an affair of desperatepassion, it was an engagement entered into mainly for family reasons. Miss Carlisle and Mr.

Welman had grown up together; they had always been fond of each other, and gradually theydrifted into a warmer attachment⁶; but I intend to prove to you it was at best a very lukewarmaffair.”

(Oh Roddy—Roddy. A lukewarm affair?)

“Moreover, this engagement was broken off, not by Mr. Welman—but by the prisoner. I submitto you that the engagement between Elinor Carlisle and Roderick Welman was entered into mainlyto please old Mrs. Welman. When she died, both parties realized that their feelings were not strongenough to justify⁷ them in entering upon matrimony. They remained, however, good friends.

Moreover, Elinor Carlisle, who had inherited her aunt’s fortune, in the kindliness⁸ of her nature,was planning to settle a considerable sum of money on Mary Gerrard. And this is the girl she isaccused of poisoning! The thing is farcical.

“The only thing that there is against Elinor Carlisle is the circumstances under which thepoisoning took place.

“The Prosecution has said in effect:

“No one but Elinor Carlisle could have killed Mary Gerrard. Therefore they have had to searchabout for a possible motive. But, as I have said to you, they have been unable to find any motivebecause there was none.

“Now, is it true that no one but Elinor Carlisle could have killed Mary Gerrard? No, it is not.

There is the possibility that Mary Gerrard committed suicide. There is the possibility that someonetampered with the sandwiches while Elinor Carlisle was out of the house at the Lodge⁹. There is athird possibility. It is a fundamental law of evidence that if it can be shown that there is analternative theory which is possible and consistent with the evidence, the accused must beacquitted. I propose to show you that there was another person who had not only an equalopportunity to poison Mary Gerrard, but who had a far better motive for doing so. I propose to callevidence to show you that there was another person who had access to the morphine, and who hada very good motive for killing¹⁰ Mary Gerrard, and I can show that that person had an equally goodopportunity of doing so. I submit to you that no jury in the world will convict this woman ofmurder when there is no evidence against her except that of opportunity, and when it can beshown that there is not only evidence of opportunity against another person, but an overwhelmingmotive. I shall also call witness to prove that there has been deliberate perjury¹¹ on the part of one ofthe witnesses for the Crown. But first I will call the prisoner, that she may tell you her own story,and that you may see for yourself how entirely¹² unfounded the charges against her are.”

 

点击收听单词发音