Edward James was called for the prosecution, but, whether intentionally or not, made a bad witness and was cross-examined ruthlessly by the defence.
‘Did the prisoner at any time tell you that she wished to be rid of her husband?’
‘Not in so many words, no.’
‘What made you think she wanted to marry you?’
‘She said so.’
‘In so many words?’
‘Not exactly.’
‘Did she say, “I want to marry you” – were those words used?’
‘No. She said she loved me.’
‘But not that she wanted to marry you?’
‘That was implied.’
‘But you were engaged to her daughter, were you not?’
‘Not at the time of her husband’s death.’
‘Did she consent to your engagement to her daughter?’
‘I suppose so.’
‘Well, did she or didn’t she?’
‘She did not like it much.’
‘How do you know?’
‘She told me that her daughter would be unfaithful to me.’
‘Then didn’t that imply that she supposed the marriage would take place? You could not marry her and her daughter.’ And so on and so forth, until James’s replies came dangerously near self-contradiction.
‘The jury don’t like Edward James,’ said Laura. ‘I’ve got a feeling we are on the eve of an acquittal. Pity they didn’t charge her with Karen Schumann’s death. That dog-whistle evidence is foolproof.’
‘I doubt whether it would have convinced a jury. In the present case,’ said Dame Beatrice, ‘the jury will have to believe that Heinrich Schumann died of poison, but the defence have probably succeeded in convincing them that the poison was self-administered. They have established that Heinrich must have known that “butter of antimony” was kept in the cottage as medicine for the dogs, and the doctor’s evidence showed that Heinrich, although often very ill, was not always confined to bed.’
‘In other words, if he really intended to swallow the stuff, he not only knew where it was kept but was able to get hold of it and help himself to a fatal dose. On the other hand, the doctor agreed that it was filthy stuff to take, and is a corrosive poison,’ said Laura.
‘Heinrich may not have been aware of those facts.’
‘What happens if she is acquitted?’
‘There is little to be gained by anticipating the verdict of the jury.’
There was no acquittal. The jury were out for less than an hour and the verdict of Guilty was unanimous. The summing-up by the judge had been fair and impartial and leaned, if anything, towards the case for the defence, so that the verdict was received by the knowledgeable with a good deal of comment and surprise.
It was some weeks later that an explanation came to light. Dame Beatrice was at a dinner-party given by her son, the eminent Q.C. Sir Ferdinand Lestrange, and found herself at table seated next to the man who had led for the prosecution. The talk between them led Dame Beatrice to ask which of his many cases he had been most surprised to win. He replied, without hesitation,
‘Oh, Regina v. Schumann.’
‘I was in court for that. She did do it, you know,’ said Dame Beatrice.
‘Yes, but I didn’t believe we’d convinced the jury, and, actually, we couldn’t have done – not on the evidence. The summing-up was fair enough, but I felt it went against us. The most I hoped for was a disagreement sufficient to make another trial necessary, and I didn’t think we’d get any fresh material, at that.’
‘Did you know what the foreman’s profession was?’
‘Yes. The defence knew it, too, and made no objection. In fact, they may have thought it an advantage to them, rather than the reverse. He was a vet.’
‘Yes,’ said Dame Beatrice. ‘I was at Crufts last week. My secretary was exhibiting her son’s wolfhound and his Yorkshire terrier. I ran into this man and, of course, recognised him, and we talked about the trial. I asked him why the jury had convicted Mrs Schumann against the weight of the evidence. He said that he told them that the taking of antimony in any form was so unpleasant that no would-be suicide would have taken more than one dose of it, and that the medical evidence made it clear that small doses had been administered over a period of time. We ourselves had noted the same point, of course, but he appears to have insisted on elaborating it. What is more, he claimed that Mrs Schumann, because of her profession, would have known her husband was taking it, whether she had administered it or not, and therefore was certainly an accessory before the fact.
‘His final argument had nothing to do with the case at all. He said, “Anyway, she killed her daughter, so we ought to get her for that”.’
‘Whatever made him think so? I remember reading something about it in the paper, now that you mention it,’ said the barrister, ‘but there was never any suggestion …’
‘Mrs Schumann’s photograph was published at the time of her daughter’s death, and he recognised her when she stood in the dock. It appears that he had followed up the series of stranglings very closely, chiefly because of a sob-stuff article which had appeared in the press, giving a most moving account of the dog which had mounted guard over the daughter’s body. Something about the story made him suspicious, he told me.
‘“I traced the dog’s history,” he said. “You can always do that with these pedigree things. It was a very young dog and couldn’t have been more than half-trained. It was reported that the body must have been dead for some hours when the dog found it, so it didn’t find it on its own. It was taken there.”
‘“But not necessarily by Mrs Schumann,” I argued. I was interested to hear what he would say to that.
‘“Oh, I’m sure of it,” he said. “The dead girl couldn’t have whistled him up, and his new owner had only had him a few months, certainly not long enough to make him forget one call and learn another.”
‘“But that doesn’t prove that Mrs Schumann killed her daughter,” I said, anxious to pursue the argument.
‘“Doesn’t it?” he retorted. “Not if the daughter was in her way? Mrs Schumann wanted to marry that clot James, who was called for the prosecution and made such a mess of it!”
‘I said that that was beside the point. Mrs Schumann had been tried for the murder of her husband, not for that of her daughter.’
‘“Yes,” he said, “but I don’t like the name Schumann. They played him at my wedding, and I divorced my wife two years later. Anyway, that business of the dog-whistle damns her. The dog wouldn’t have left his owner like that, unless he had recognised the call. Mrs Schumann had bred him – I found that out, of course – and the rest follows.”
‘I reminded him that the dead husband and dead daughter had also been called Schumann.
‘“That’s right,” he said, “and if we hadn’t abolished the law about hanging, this beauty would have been near enough dead, too, by now.” I thought it better not to remind him that Otto was still alive.’
‘Very odd, the way juries go about the business,’ said the barrister. ‘Very interesting, too.’
‘There will be no appeal, I take it,’ said Dame Beatrice. ‘The defence can hardly claim that the jury was misdirected.’
This ebook is copyright material and must not be copied, reproduced, transferred, distributed, leased, licensed or publicly performed or used in any way except as specifically permitted in writing by the publishers, as allowed under the terms and conditions under which it was purchased or as strictly permitted by applicable copyright law. Any unauthorized distribution or use of this text may be a direct infringement of the author’s and publisher’s rights and those responsible may be liable in law accordingly.
Version 1.0
Epub ISBN 9781448190461
www.randomhouse.co.uk
Published by Vintage 2014
2 4 6 8 10 9 7 5 3 1
Copyright © The Executors of the Estate of Gladys Mitchell 1968
Gladys Mitchell ha
s asserted her right under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 to be identified as the author of this work
First published in Great Britain by
Michael Joseph Ltd in 1968
Vintage
Random House, 20 Vauxhall Bridge Road,
London SW1V 2SA
www.vintage-books.co.uk
Addresses for companies within The Random House Group Limited can be found at: www.randomhouse.co.uk/offices.htm
The Random House Group Limited Reg. No. 954009
A CIP catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library
ISBN 9780099584025
[Mrs Bradley 41] - Three Quick and Five Dead Page 23
