Miss Dixon begins her summing-up with a reminder to the jury about the legal requirements of the trial. ‘In his opening remarks his Honourable Justice described to you that the burden of proof is the responsibility of the prosecution. That phrase “burden of proof” is wisely chosen, because burden it is. The prosecution must convince you, the members of the jury, that Jack Tennyson is guilty beyond all reasonable doubt. And I put it to you that my learned colleague has failed miserably to make such a case. He has presented you with a hotchpotch of so-called evidence, most of which cannot withstand serious examination. Please bear with me while I review the supposed evidence against my client and demonstrate to you the legion doubts it raises.’ She stops, turns away from the jury for a moment as if marshalling her thoughts, then goes on. ‘Let us begin with Mr Tennyson himself and his character as testified to by witnesses at this trial. Time and again we have heard him described as honourable, likeable, responsible and, most importantly of all, a loving husband and father. A man who cared for his small daughter and supported his wife in her chosen career. Even the witnesses for the prosecution, the deceased’s mother Ruth Sutton and the deceased’s closest friend Rebecca Thornton, were happy to see her marry Jack Tennyson. They have referred to him, and I quote, as “a lovely man” and “a good dad”.
‘Asked about his relationship with Lizzie Tennyson, we have heard that Jack Tennyson loved her, he adored her, he thought the world of her. The prosecution suggests that Mr Tennyson was violent towards his wife, but I would say to you that they have failed to offer robust proof of that contention. The only evidence they have given you is uncorroborated hearsay from one person. No one else, ever . . .’ she pauses for effect and raises a finger, ‘ever,’ she repeats, looking directly at the jury, ‘heard so much as a whisper about domestic violence from the deceased or any other source. Mrs Tennyson never spoke to her GP about this, she never sought help, she never mentioned it to another friend or family. She never sought medical treatment, she never had unexplained absences from work. The issue of domestic violence is a mirage. Did Mrs Tennyson tell Miss Thornton she’d been assaulted, or did Miss Thornton misunderstand? We will never know, but please remember that Miss Thornton saw no injuries, and when she feared that Mrs Tennyson might be at risk again, Mrs Tennyson clearly denied that she was. Why? Because it was not happening.’ She emphasizes each word. ‘Domestic violence was not, and never had been, an issue in this marriage. And I suggest that the thin and uncorroborated evidence of a single conversation back in 2005 is woefully inadequate.
‘So what of the events of that night? The prosecution would have you believe that a loving husband and father killed his wife in a sustained and brutal attack and then set about constructing a complicated false trail to divert suspicion. This implausible scenario is not backed up by significant evidence. Just consider this.’ Her voice is clear and full of serious intent, her back ramrod straight as she addresses the jury. ‘There were no fingerprints on the poker to connect Mr Tennyson with the weapon used. Much has been made of missing clothes, of missing shoes, but the absence of evidence is not evidence. The forensic expert himself admitted that there was no way of proving where the deposits in the ash tray from the stove originated. And proof is crucial.’ She smacks her fist on to her upturned palm.
‘Without proof, there has to be doubt. Reasonable doubt. We, the defence, do not have to account for the gaps in the prosecution case; that is their job. Ours is to assess and test the evidence.
‘What remains? The skin under the deceased’s nails? Jack Tennyson has explained how Mrs Tennyson stumbled earlier in the day, caught at his arm for balance and grazed his skin. A simple and honest explanation. The bloody fingerprints on the wall by the stairs and the bathroom door were made as Mr Tennyson raced upstairs to check the house for intruders and rescue his little girl. The blood in the shower may well have come from Mrs Tennyson herself, or even from her killer, who would have had almost two and a half hours in the house if they arrived shortly after Mr Tennyson left. Again, we the defence have no responsibility to answer those questions, but we can say that there are any number of explanations for finding blood in the shower, and the prosecution have failed resoundingly to prove a link between Mr Tennyson and that evidence. The footprint? Thousands of pairs of those shoes were sold last year in the Manchester area. It was the most popular style of the season. The prosecution have failed to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that the shoe that made that print belonged to or was worn by Mr Tennyson.’
I think of the receipt, how important it seemed. Wouldn’t common sense tell the jury that the footprint was from your trainers, that you’d burnt them?
‘From the moment that Mr Tennyson found his beloved wife, he has co-operated with the police and he has never wavered one iota from the account he gave at the outset. His statements have been consistent, time and again. Because he is telling the truth.’ She presses her lips together, the line of garish orange forming a rueful smile.
‘In the depth of his grief, and following the trauma of his wife’s murder, Mr Tennyson, finding himself under the insidious cloud of suspicion, has conducted himself with unimaginable dignity. He did not murder Lizzie Tennyson. He did not attack Lizzie Tennyson. He loved her, he needs to grieve for her.’ Her voice seems to fill the chamber, clear and precise. ‘If you have the slightest, slenderest doubt about the evidence against him, then you will see him acquitted without stain upon his character, free to provide a loving home for his child. When you are deliberating, ask yourselves this: where is the proof? Hard, incontrovertible proof. Where? Not in the cheap theatrics of Mr Cromer’s exercise with dummies. Not in the absence of blood, or the absence of clothes, or the absence of fingerprints or the absence of a pair of ill-fitting running shoes. Not in the absence of motive. I’d add another absence here –the absence of guilt.
‘Mr Tennyson loved his wife. He went to the gym on that fateful night, bought milk after Mrs Tennyson texted him to ask him to bring some home, and returned to find utter devastation. Those are the hard facts, corroborated facts. Our sympathy goes to the deceased’s parents and her daughter, to her friends and colleagues for this terrible, terrible crime. But it goes to Mr Tennyson too.’ She speaks quietly now, drawing everyone in. ‘He has lost his wife, his life partner, the mother of his child. Mr Tennyson did not commit this crime. Please study the evidence closely and it will tell you that he is an innocent man, wrongly accused, who is at your mercy. Thank you.’
The judge tells the jury that they have heard all the evidence and their task is to decide whether, taking it all into account, they judge you guilty or not guilty. ‘If you conclude that Mr Tennyson was innocent of the offence as charged, you must return a not guilty verdict. If you agree that there is a suspicion of guilt but the evidence leads you to agree that you have a reasonable doubt about the guilt, then you must acquit the defendant; that is, you must find him not guilty. If you come to the conclusion that Mr Tennyson is responsible for the crime as charged, based on the evidence you have heard, then you will return a verdict of guilty. And you must try and reach a unanimous verdict. It is beholden on me to define the law of the offence charged. The defendant is charged with murder; in British law, that is an offence under common law in which one person kills another with intent to unlawfully cause death or serious harm.’
As he summarizes the evidence, I look at the jury, the men and women who hold your fate in their hands. Has your performance won them over? They have never met Lizzie, but every day here they’ve been witness to your quiet and steadfast presence, perhaps swayed by your handsome features. Don’t we all at some base level expect the beautiful to be morally superior to the unattractive or downright ugly? Wouldn’t they all, like I did, welcome you into their family? Bright, charming, talented. Would we be here if your proposal had not been in public? If she’d had more space to consider that proposal? If she’d not been pregnant? If you’d had the lucky break you wanted? A thousand ifs and all their bastard children.
The judge rises and my stomach falls. The jury leave the room.
I am paralysed. Pinned in place until the verdict is through.
And I hope they find you guilty and set me free.
We are called back into the court the following day. The jury has deliberated for seven hours in all, interrupted by an evening break when they were sent to a hotel overnight.
I have not slept.
My stomach is so tense, I fear I will vomit. My mouth waters and I swallow repeatedly. Tony looks as terrified as me. Denise, red-eyed, has been crying.
Bea is holding my hand.
What if they find you not guilty? What then? You’ll walk out of here a free man. Will you want vengeance of your own? Want to hurt me, punish me for my avid desire to see you made culpable? It would be so easy. You could take Florence, forbid me to see her. Move away, start afresh. I could not bear that.
The judge begins to speak, asking the foreman if the jury has reached a verdict.
My heart climbs into my throat.
I stare at the woman who is answering the judge, blood rushing in my ears, and the high-pitched whine that never leaves me is accentuated in the brief pause before she gives the verdict.
I squeeze Bea’s fingers, watch the foreman’s lips. Read the single word.
Guilty.
And it is done.
Ruth
Part Three
CHAPTER ONE
Tuesday 20 July 2010
Except it’s not that simple, is it? I thought that with the resolution of Jack’s guilt, with the sentence – the judge said he’d serve a minimum of seventeen years – would come a sense of relief, if not exactly closure. Or a feeling of release from the strain of going through the trial in the wake of Lizzie’s death. Back then I had regarded his conviction as a goal, a destination on the horizon. Thinking that once I reached that point I would begin to find my feet again. Feel solid ground beneath me: not rock yet, perhaps, but sand or shingle, marsh.
But no. So little has changed. I am still adrift, still drowning in my hate. And guilt.
The hate will be obvious to anyone with half a brain, but the guilt is just as corrosive. A wild, frantic sense of having failed Lizzie, a chill that aches in my guts all the time. The only escape, when my dreams allow, is sleep. Where I forget for long enough and my muscles ease. Many nights I wake with a sense of panic, knowing I will die too, die soon, am dying. Know with a lurch that Florence is dead. Reaching out in bed to feel her warmth, the jump of her heart.
Round and round my mind goes, sifting through the details from the trial, wanting to embrace them, assimilate them, absorb them into every cell and sinew, but how can I do that and achieve peace when so much is still hidden from me? There are too many gaps, holes where his silence, his lies, stain the story.
I wonder if a transcript from the trial would help, but when I enquire, they tell me it would cost over two thousand pounds. Money I don’t have. After the cost of the funeral, the money spent on repairing their house (which has now been repossessed), the money I need for Florence, I am living on credit. Something else to worry about.
During daylight hours I have mood swings; anger, bright and fierce and hot, comes from nowhere over the pettiest setback, the most trivial incident.
Stella has turned out to be an idiot. Oozing false sympathy and bitching behind my back in a passive-aggressive way. It would be easier to deal with her if she would be frank, but everything is elliptical and delivered with that blinding smile and indulgent tone.
‘Shit-stirrer,’ Tony says when I describe it. He takes Florence out, he and Denise; they make a point of stopping for a cup of tea when they bring her back.
Today, in the library, I’m working on lost and damaged: sending out letters to the borrowers whose books are long overdue; assessing items that have been returned ripped or defaced, marked with tea stains or cigarette burns, one with a rasher of bacon used as a bookmark.
Stella hovers over my shoulder. Never a good sign.
‘Some people have no respect,’ she tuts, nodding at the damaged pile. ‘Like animals, some of them. It’s a miracle they can read.’
‘Most of it’s accidental,’ I say. ‘Though there’s a few with malice aforethought, like this one.’ I pick up a copy of Slaughterhouse-Five. ‘Someone has crossed out every swear word in blue biro.’
‘It’s the ones who scribble in swear words that I’m more concerned about,’ she says.
‘It’s vandalism either way,’ I point out.
‘There’s no call for such gratuitous language,’ she says.
It’s a perennial issue for a small minority of readers, who use our knowledge to help them screen out books they’ll be offended by. The majority of borrowers are broad-minded, though, and have no problem at all with earthy prose if it suits the book. The same is true of librarians, who love books with a passion; someone narrow-minded is a rarity in the service. And I’m stuck with her as my supervisor. I think of the Billy Connolly quote: There is no such thing as bad language. It’s just our morals that are fucked.
‘It’s not gratuitous. It’s a great book, the language fits. Have you read it?’
Stella shakes her head. Does she read? We’ve not talked books since we met.
‘I was going to ask you to unpack and check off the new stock. I hadn’t realized this would take you quite so long, though I understand that with everything that’s happened . . .’
I push myself up and away from the desk, a sharp pain in my knee as I do. Anger flaring. ‘You do it, for fuck’s sake, if you think you can do it any quicker. I’ll discharge the new stock.’
Her mouth falls open, a perfect circle. I know I should apologize, but I am out of control. I go and hide in the room at the back with the boxes of books that have arrived.
After a couple of days off sick I go back, my tail between my legs. I can’t spin it out any longer with Florence to think of now, and although Tony and Denise chip in, I have to earn a living. ‘I’m sorry I lost my temper,’ I say to Stella. ‘I know it’s not acceptable. I’m so sorry.’
‘Yes,’ she says. She’s still in a huff, though, her mouth pursed with censure. She punishes me over the next few weeks, on my back all the time, but feigning concern. ‘Ruth, have you . . . Ruth, if you’re feeling up to it . . . Ruth, could you . . . Ruth . . . Ruth.’ Always showing her teeth. Her eyes cold. I dread going into work now because of Stella.
* * *
I take Florence to the GP and get a referral for someone who might be able to help her. It means travelling down to London and halfway across the city. A marathon trek, so we stay with Rebecca on an airbed.
The therapist is a middle-aged man, bearded, plump. One of those people whose eyes dance with kindness, so that just seeing him lifts the heart a little. He speaks quite directly to Florence.
The first session, and she is playing with some Duplo dolls on the floor.
‘Show me what happened to Mummy,’ he says.
Florence stops dead for a minute, and I expect her to withdraw as she so often does, but then she places one doll face down on the floor.
How can she know Lizzie was on the floor like that? Jack said he had shielded her from the scene? Held her so she wouldn’t see. Did she come down while he was busy setting up his alibi and see Lizzie? Run back up and hide? Did she peep as he carried her out? Or is the way she’s placed the doll no more than Florence’s interpretation of dead? The doll has to be lying down if it’s dead, and she only has two choices of how to put it on the floor.
I don’t suppose there are many sentences exchanged over the next hour, but each one elicits a nugget of information.
‘What happened to Mummy?’ the therapist says.
‘She fell down dead,’ Florence chants, her chin bobbing up and down on each syllable.
‘Why did she do that?’
‘Daddy did it.’ She knows because I told her after the trial that the court had decided it was Daddy who hurt Mummy and made her de
ad and he had to stay in prison for a long time.
‘On his own?’ she said. Was she feeling sorry for him?
‘There are other people there – other people who have done naughty things and people looking after them.’
She gave one of her inscrutable little sighs and said no more.
The therapist talks to me too, and asks me how I feel about Lizzie’s death.
‘Furious,’ I say. ‘I play it over and over. I had hoped with the conviction that it would change.’ As I talk, my cheeks flame hot and my belly burns. ‘I hate him, I hate him so much. It’s not enough, him behind bars.’
‘What would be enough?’ he says.
I shake my head. There is no reply possible. ‘Nothing. Even if I could kill the bastard, it wouldn’t bring her back.’
‘When I ask you about Lizzie,’ he says, ‘you talk about Jack.’
Letters To My Daughter's Killer Page 17
