Helen Vardon's confession
bargain or agreement, involving collusion to suppress evidence.
“But this suggestion of collusion raises another question, which we
shall consider later, but which we may note in passing. What was
really the cause of Mr. Vardon’s death? Did he die from natural causes
as the coroner’s jury believed and affirmed? Or was his death due to
violence inflicted by Otway? It is by no means clear that Otway did
not kill him, either inadvertently or with malice. And supposing Otway
to have killed Mr. Vardon, was the fact known to Helen Otway? If it
was, Otway’s easy compliance is the more readily understood; for he
would be absolutely in his wife’s power. But we shall consider these
points at more length presently, and perhaps we may get further light
on them from the evidence of Dr. Thorndyke--if he should arrive before
the verdict is agreed on.
“The next phase of this drama opens about two months after the
marriage. On the 21st of June, the deceased received an anonymous
letter, the first of a series of seven, which were sent thereafter at
fairly regular intervals of about a fortnight. Now, let us consider
those letters from various points of view in relation to their
probable authorship. You have heard them read, and know their general
purport. They all contain veiled threats to make certain exposures.
Some are vague and some are more explicit, but there is a general
crescendo note, culminating in the last letter, which pretty openly
makes an accusation of murder and threatens criminal proceedings.
“First, what is the purpose of these letters? It is clearly not to
levy blackmail. They hold out menaces, but there is no suggestion of
an attempt to extort money. Those menaces are incomprehensible until
we supply an explanatory fact. The man to whom these letters were sent
suffered from a strong inherited predisposition to suicide. The very
obvious inference to which we are forced, in the absence of any other
explanation, is that the purpose of these letters was to convert that
latent tendency into action--to produce a state of mind in which the
deceased would be likely to take his own life.
“But that purpose implies knowledge on the part of the writer that
this inherited tendency existed, and consequently limits the possible
authorship to persons possessing such knowledge. The only persons
known by us to possess such knowledge are deceased’s own family. His
widow has sworn that she had no knowledge of this tendency, and if you
believe her statement to be true, you will tend to exclude her from
the possible authorship of these letters.
“Next we have to consider the characters of the letters themselves.
They all bear the East-London postmark, but there is not much in that.
Anonymous letter-writers commonly post their letters in districts
remote from their own residences. Still, we must take it into
consideration. The two persons known to us who occupy premises in East
London are Morris Goldstein and Helen Otway.
“Then as to the style of the letters. They are rather markedly
uneducated in manner. The composition is ungrammatical and the
phraseology vulgar. But that does not help us much; for, on the one
hand, none of the persons known to us is grossly uneducated, and on
the other it is usual for anonymous letter-writers to disguise their
personality. Obviously, it is easy enough for an educated person to
write an apparently illiterate letter.
“The next point is a much more important one. We have decided that the
purpose of these letters was to produce in the deceased a state of
mind which would render his suicide probable. Now, what was the motive
behind that purpose? Who could have wished deceased to commit suicide,
and why should that person have wished it?
“The possible motives in this case are, in effect, the usual motives
of murder, with full premeditation, viz:--Revenge, or hatred; direct
profit; and indirect profit by the elimination of an undesired person.
Let us consider each of these motives in relation to the known facts
of this case.
“First as to hatred or revenge. The only persons known to us are the
family of deceased and his wife. His family certainly had a grievance
against him, for the children were illegitimate, and the mother was
unmarried. But it was an old grievance, and the family appeared to be
on quite amicable terms. The children were quite well provided for,
and their mother continued to live with deceased. There was, indeed, a
new factor of possible discord. The deceased had married, and that
marriage was manifestly to the disadvantage of his family; a fact of
which it is necessary to take due account.
“When, however, we turn to the consideration of the wife, the facts
are much more striking. She had suffered grievous injuries from
deceased. He had ruined her life. He had virtually condemned her to
perpetual spinsterhood, since she would not live with him and she
could not marry anyone else. He had caused the death of her father;
and she has admitted that she had an unconquerable repugnance to him.
That is actually known to us; and there is a further possibility that
he was actually her father’s murderer, though we must leave that out
of consideration in the absence of positive evidence. But on the
evidence which is before us, you will see that the motive of personal
animosity is much more evident in the case of the wife than in that of
the family.
“We now come to the motive of direct profit, and the question that we
ask ourselves is, Who stood to benefit by the death of Lewis Otway?
And as soon as we ask that question, a very striking fact comes into
view. The first letter is dated by the postmark, the 21st of June. But
on the 10th of that month--only eleven days previously--deceased had
made a new will. By the provisions of that will Helen Otway stood to
gain from eight to twelve thousand pounds by the death of her husband.
“But did anyone else stand to gain by Lewis Otway’s death? Observe
that we are still dealing with the same group of persons--the only
persons known to us in connection with the case. Well, the family of
deceased stood to gain by his death, though to a much smaller extent.
But the fact that must instantly impress us is the opposite effects of
the new will on the family, and the wife respectively. The execution
of the new will involved the revocation of a previous will, which had
left the bulk of the estate to the family. The position of affairs is
consequently this: up to the 10th of June, the family, jointly, stood
to benefit by Lewis Otway’s death to the extent of the bulk of his
estate and the wife did not stand to benefit at all; after the 10th of
June the wife stood to benefit by Otway’s death to the extent of the
bulk of his estate, and the family to a relatively small extent.
“But the first of the anonymous letters was sent almost immediately
after the 10th of June. That is to say, it was sent almost immediately
after the family had ceased to be and the wife had become the
principal beneficiary.
“From the motive of direct profit we turn to that of indirect profit,
by the elimination of a person whose existence was a hindrance, a
danger, or an inconvenience. Is there anyone known to us who could
have regarded deceased in that light? We cannot attribute any such
view to his family, for, as I have said, they appear to have been on
quite amicable terms, and deceased seems to have maintained an
interest in his children’s welfare to the last. But what are we to say
with regard to the wife? She was married, against her wishes, to a
man, unsuitable in age, uncomely in appearance; a man whom she
loathed--and had good reason to loathe; who, while she repudiated him
as a husband, yet held her chained to him for life; who stood
inexorably between her, and any marriage which she might wish to
contract; whose existence condemned her for life to the dubious
position of a married woman who is not living with her husband. Think,
gentlemen, of this woman--young, handsome, clever, accomplished,
capable; think of what life might have been to her, and what it was
with this millstone hung round her neck! And then ask yourselves
whether--apart from all pecuniary considerations--she did not stand to
gain incalculably by his death; whether his elimination from her life
would not have opened to her the gates of a world of happiness, and
freedom.
“And it is here that the importance of that further evidence, which we
unfortunately have not yet heard, appears. For if it should now
transpire that Otway did actually kill John Vardon and that Helen
Otway was privy to the homicide, then there would be yet another
powerful reason why she should desire to be rid of him. But this
evidence is not in our possession and we must, therefore, leave this
aspect of the case out of our consideration. Nor is it essential. The
facts within our knowledge are amply sufficient to enable us to answer
the question whether Helen Otway’s position would or would not have
been improved by the death of her husband.
“And now we come to something much more definite. Hitherto we have
been dealing with the question: ‘Who _might_ have written these
letters?’ We shall now consider the more specific question, ‘Who
_could_ have written them?’
“There seems to be only one possible answer. The writer of those
letters had knowledge that was possessed by only two persons--the
deceased and his wife. One letter refers to something that was held
back at the inquest. But who knew that anything had been held back at
the inquest? No one, according to the evidence, but these two persons.
Of course, it is possible that there may have been some watcher
secreted in that house at Maidstone who knew that Lewis Otway had
stood over the body of John Vardon with a loaded stick in his hand.
But the evidence before us is to the effect that there was no one in
the house but John Vardon, Lewis Otway, and Helen Otway. Consequently,
unless Lewis Otway wrote these letters to himself, there is nobody, so
far as we know, who could have written them but Helen Otway.
“The last letter refers explicitly to the loaded stick, and even
describes its condition minutely and, as it appears, correctly. The
writer had, therefore, presumably seen the stick and very probably had
possession of it. But where was that stick? Deceased certainly did not
know where it was; the housekeeper states that she had never seen it
since that fatal morning, and Helen Otway has denied all knowledge of
its whereabouts. No one knew what had become of it.
“But if its disappearance was a mystery, its reappearance is a greater
mystery still. The account given by Helen Otway is obviously
unsatisfactory. She went to the chambers, for no very apparent reason.
When there she did not examine the various cupboards, drawers, and
other receptacles; but she went direct to this particular cupboard,
unlocked it, stood on tiptoe and looked on the shelf. And behold!
there was the missing stick. She took it out, examined it, and put it
back. And she not only put it back, but she went out of her way to
inform a person who is to give evidence on this enquiry that the stick
was to be found in that cupboard.
“Now, how did that stick get into that cupboard, and when was it put
there? You have heard Mr. Isaacs swear that it was not there when he
made out the inventory, and you will probably agree that he could
hardly be mistaken. A stick is a fairly large and conspicuous object,
whereas he was searching for a small and inconspicuous one. Clearly
the stick was put into the cupboard after his search was made. But
when he had finished, the chambers were locked up, and the keys
remained in his possession until he delivered them up to Helen Otway.
Bearing these facts in mind, you have to consider whether you can