CHAPTER XVI
"NON PROVEN"
"There is no doubt," continued the man in the corner, "that what littlesympathy the young girl's terrible position had aroused in the publicmind had died out the moment that David Graham left the witness-box onthe second day of the trial. Whether Edith Crawford was guilty of murderor not, the callous way in which she had accepted a deformed lover, andthen thrown him over, had set every one's mind against her.
"It was Mr. Graham himself who had been the first to put the ProcuratorFiscal in possession of the fact that the accused had written to Davidfrom London, breaking off her engagement. This information had, nodoubt, directed the attention of the Fiscal to Miss Crawford, and thepolice soon brought forward the evidence which had led to her arrest.
"We had a final sensation on the third day, when Mr. Campbell, jeweller,of High Street, gave his evidence. He said that on October 25th a ladycame to his shop and offered to sell him a pair of diamond earrings.Trade had been very bad, and he had refused the bargain, although thelady seemed ready to part with the earrings for an extraordinarily lowsum, considering the beauty of the stones.
"In fact it was because of this evident desire on the lady's part tosell at _any_ cost that he had looked at her more keenly than heotherwise would have done. He was now ready to swear that the lady thatoffered him the diamond earrings was the prisoner in the dock.
"I can assure you that as we all listened to this apparently damnatoryevidence, you might have heard a pin drop amongst the audience in thatcrowded court. The girl alone, there in the dock, remained calm andunmoved. Remember that for two days we had heard evidence to prove thatold Dr. Crawford had died leaving his daughter penniless, that having nomother she had been brought up by a maiden aunt, who had trained her tobe a governess, which occupation she had followed for years, and thatcertainly she had never been known by any of her friends to be inpossession of solitaire diamond earrings.
"The prosecution had certainly secured an ace of trumps, but Sir JamesFenwick, who during the whole of that day had seemed to take littleinterest in the proceedings, here rose from his seat, and I knew at oncethat he had got a tit-bit in the way of a 'point' up his sleeve. Gaunt,and unusually tall, and with his beak-like nose, he always looksstrangely impressive when he seriously tackles a witness. He did it thistime with a vengeance, I can tell you. He was all over the pompouslittle jeweller in a moment.
"'Had Mr. Campbell made a special entry in his book, as to the visit ofthe lady in question?'
"'No.'
"'Had he any special means of ascertaining when that visit did actuallytake place?'
"'No--but--'
"'What record had he of the visit?'
"Mr. Campbell had none. In fact, after about twenty minutes ofcross-examination, he had to admit that he had given but little thoughtto the interview with the lady at the time, and certainly not inconnection with the murder of Lady Donaldson, until he had read in thepapers that a young lady had been arrested.
"Then he and his clerk talked the matter over, it appears, and togetherthey had certainly recollected that a lady had brought some beautifulearrings for sale on a day which _must have been_ the very morning afterthe murder. If Sir James Fenwick's object was to discredit this specialwitness, he certainly gained his point.
"All the pomposity went out of Mr. Campbell, he became flurried, thenexcited, then he lost his temper. After that he was allowed to leave thecourt, and Sir James Fenwick resumed his seat, and waited like avulture for its prey.
"It presented itself in the person of Mr. Campbell's clerk, who, beforethe Procurator Fiscal, had corroborated his employer's evidence in everyrespect. In Scotland no witness in any one case is present in courtduring the examination of another, and Mr. Macfarlane, the clerk, was,therefore, quite unprepared for the pitfalls which Sir James Fenwick hadprepared for him. He tumbled into them, head foremost, and the eminentadvocate turned him inside out like a glove.
"Mr. Macfarlane did not lose his temper; he was of too humble a frame ofmind to do that, but he got into a hopeless quagmire of mixedrecollections, and he too left the witness-box quite unprepared to swearas to the day of the interview with the lady with the diamond earrings.
"I dare say, mind you," continued the man in the corner with a chuckle,"that to most people present, Sir James Fenwick's cross-questioningseemed completely irrelevant. Both Mr. Campbell and his clerk were quiteready to swear that they had had an interview concerning some diamondearrings with a lady, of whose identity with the accused they wereperfectly convinced, and to the casual observer the question as to thetime or even the day when that interview took place could make butlittle difference in the ultimate issue.
"Now I took in, in a moment, the entire drift of Sir James Fenwick'sdefence of Edith Crawford. When Mr. Macfarlane left the witness-box, thesecond victim of the eminent advocate's caustic tongue, I could read asin a book the whole history of that crime, its investigation, and themistakes made by the police first and the Public Prosecutor afterwards.
"Sir James Fenwick knew them, too, of course, and he placed a fingerupon each one, demolishing--like a child who blows upon a house ofcards--the entire scaffolding erected by the prosecution.
"Mr. Campbell's and Mr. Macfarlane's identification of the accused withthe lady who, on some date--admitted to be uncertain--had tried to sella pair of diamond earrings, was the first point. Sir James had plenty ofwitnesses to prove that on the 25th, the day after the murder, theaccused was in London, whilst, the day before, Mr. Campbell's shop hadbeen closed long before the family circle had seen the last of LadyDonaldson. Clearly the jeweller and his clerk must have seen some otherlady, whom their vivid imagination had pictured as being identical withthe accused.
"Then came the great question of time. Mr. David Graham had beenevidently the last to see Lady Donaldson alive. He had spoken to her aslate as 8.30 p.m. Sir James Fenwick had called two porters at theCaledonian Railway Station who testified to Miss Crawford having takenher seat in a first-class carriage of the 9.10 train, some minutesbefore it started.
"'Was it conceivable, therefore,' argued Sir James, 'that in the spaceof half an hour the accused--a young girl--could have found her waysurreptitiously into the house, at a time when the entire household wasstill astir, that she should have strangled Lady Donaldson, forced openthe safe, and made away with the jewels? A man--an experienced burglarmight have done it, but I contend that the accused is physicallyincapable of accomplishing such a feat.
"'With regard to the broken engagement,' continued the eminent counselwith a smile, 'it may have seemed a little heartless, certainly, butheartlessness is no crime in the eyes of the law. The accused has statedin her declaration that at the time she wrote to Mr. David Graham,breaking off her engagement, she had heard nothing of the Edinburghtragedy.
"'The London papers had reported the crime very briefly. The accused wasbusy shopping; she knew nothing of Mr. David Graham's altered position.In no case was the breaking off of the engagement a proof that theaccused had obtained possession of the jewels by so foul a deed.'
"It is, of course, impossible for me," continued the man in the cornerapologetically, "to give you any idea of the eminent advocate'seloquence and masterful logic. It struck every one, I think, just as itdid me, that he chiefly directed his attention to the fact that therewas absolutely no _proof_ against the accused.
"Be that as it may, the result of that remarkable trial was a verdict of'Non Proven.' The jury was absent forty minutes, and it appears that inthe mind of every one of them there remained, in spite of Sir James'arguments, a firmly rooted conviction--call it instinct, if youlike--that Edith Crawford had done away with Lady Donaldson in order tobecome possessed of those jewels, and that in spite of the pompousjeweller's many contradictions, she had offered him some of thosediamonds for sale. But there was not enough proof to convict, and shewas given the benefit of the doubt.
"I have heard English people argue that in England she would have beenhanged. Persona
lly I doubt that. I think that an English jury, nothaving the judicial loophole of 'Non Proven,' would have been bound toacquit her. What do you think?"