They return at evening A book of ghost stories

“The first witness for the defence was a famous hospital surgeon, who was shown to have had wide experience of shooting cases. He had taken part in the examination of the body, and declared that in his opinion the injuries might have been caused by a shotgun in the manner described by the prisoner, but that all possibility of giving a categorical answer was destroyed by the fact that decomposition had proceeded so far. “Briefly and non-technically the whole point lay in whether the injuries were the result of a glancing blow from a charge of shot or a glancing blow from a bullet--in either case fired at point-blank range. All this would remind you, had you read of it, Robert, of that matchless mystery, the Ardlamont Case. “This witness was examined and cross-examined for a full two hours, and searching questions were volleyed at him. Near the end he was beginning to give ground, but he just held out to the end, and regained some of his confidence in re-examination. “A curious piece of evidence was then brought forward by the defence. It was that of a local farmer, who stated that about two hours after the tragedy he found one of his sheep dead in the field, and he found on examining it several pellets in its head. It was lying exactly opposite the spot where the body had been found, and it was proved that the trees in between were heavily marked by pellet scars, showing that a charge had been fired from the ride, through the trees, to the sheep. Do you remember, Robert, seeing her pick up his gun? “Then came the question of the hypothetical revolver. The police were closely examined as to their efforts to find it. They confessed they had searched the whole terrain in the neighbourhood of the tragedy, but had discovered nothing, and there was no evidence to show that Patty ever had a revolver in her possession, either before or after the affair. “Then Sir Leonard took his courage into both hands, and Patty stepped into the box to give evidence on her own behalf, the first woman to avail herself of that dubious privilege since the passing of the Act. “She was marvellously composed, and under her counsel’s tactful handling gave a consistent and coherent account of her relations with Richard and the events of the fatal day. “Eventually he came to the letter. Of course the two dangerous sentences were, ‘Anyway I took practically all the risk,’ and ‘I think everything will be O.K.’ She explained that by ‘risk’ she meant the risk of Richard not marrying her after all her trouble. ‘Everything will be O.K.’ she said, referred to the possibility of the will being disputed. “Sir Leonard did not question her very closely, preferring to wait for his re-examination. “Then the Attorney-General rose, and that famous duel began. Patty gave him one of her indomitable looks as he asked her his first question. He went straight to the letter. “‘I take it there was an agreement between you and this man Mason by which you were to share any monies to be obtained from the dead man?’ “‘That is so.’ “‘How did you expect to obtain these monies?’ “‘Do you mean originally?’ “‘Yes.’ “‘Well, he gave me money at times, but chiefly by my marriage with him.’ “‘Did you consider yourself engaged to him?’ “‘Informally, yes.’ “‘Informally? Do you mean that you knew he didn’t want to marry you, but that you were determined to force him to do so?’ “‘Certainly not. I believed he fully intended to marry me.’ “‘You have heard the evidence of a friend of his implying very strongly the contrary.’ “‘Yes, but Richard was rather weak and inclined to agree with the person he was with.’ “‘If you were certain he intended to marry, wherein lay the risk to which you refer?’ “(A pause.) ‘There was always a risk of the marriage not taking place.’ “‘Although you were convinced he intended it?’ “‘Yes, but certain things might have prevented it; his death has done so, as a matter of fact.’ “‘Did you regard his death as probable?’ “‘No, certainly not.’ “‘Did your agreement with this man cover any sums obtained in any way?’ “‘Yes.’ “‘Sums obtained from the will?’ “‘Yes, all sums.’ “‘But you told us under examination that you did not know you were to benefit by his will?’ “(A pause.) ‘I didn’t know, but I suspected he might leave me a small amount.’ “‘But surely you had no reason to suspect that Mr. Eagles would die for forty or fifty years. Why should anything so problematical have formed part of your agreement with Mason?’ “‘The agreement covered all sums. I forget if we actually mentioned anything about a will.’ “‘Had you told Mason you suspected he had left you something?’ “‘I can’t remember, as I say. I don’t think so, but it’s possible.’ “‘You have told us that you did not encourage Mr. Eagles to leave you anything.’ “‘I did not.’ “‘Nor try to discover the amount?’ “‘No, it hardly interested me. I expected to marry him and have money settled on me.’ “‘Very well, we will leave that.’ “While the Attorney was looking through his papers Patty passed her handkerchief across her lips and forehead, and then set her teeth. “‘You concluded your letter by saying, “I believe everything will be O.K.” Are you sure that doesn’t refer to the verdict at the inquest?’ “(Sharply.) ‘Yes, perfectly sure.’ “‘Then to what did it refer?’ “‘I have already said that it referred to the money I should get under the will.’ “‘Yet you weren’t sure you were to get a penny?’ “‘I can’t be sure, I thought the lawyer had told me.’ “‘You know he has denied that.’ “‘Yes, but he may be wrong.’ “‘But if he is right, you didn’t know you had inherited a penny?’ “‘I have told you I strongly suspected he had left me something.’ “‘If he had, why was there any doubt about your getting it?’ “‘I thought it might be disputed.’ “‘On what grounds?’ “‘Undue influence, I suppose.’ “‘Now I want to be fair to you. Do you seriously suggest that the Jury should believe that “It will be O.K.” referred, and referred only, to a legacy the very existence of which was unknown to you?’ “‘It is the truth; as I say, I believe the lawyer _had_ told me about it.’ * * * * * “Those are the salient passages,” said Myers, “but there was much else. Patty’s character disappeared beneath the rain of questions, but her reputation for pluck was never more convincingly justified. “Her counsel in his re-examination set himself to counteract the very perilous impression left by these answers. * * * * * “‘Had you heard anything which made you realise there was a serious risk that your marriage would not take place?’ “‘I knew that people, enemies of mine, were warning Mr. Eagles about me.’ “‘And you were afraid he would act on their advice?’ “‘Yes, he had spoken to me about it.’ “‘About this legacy--had you good reasons for suspecting its existence?’ “‘Yes, Mr. Eagles frequently said he would see that I was provided for if anything happened to him.’ “‘When you referred to the risk, can you explain a little more clearly what was in your mind?’ “‘Well, I thought it might be disputed on the ground of undue influence--not that I have used any, but, as I have said, I have many enemies.’ * * * * * “To understand the beauty--to criminologists--of this duel concerning the letter, the whole of Patty’s examination and cross-examination should be closely studied. For five long hours Patty’s life was hanging by a thread. “Sir Leonard, in order to neutralise the deadly implications in her letter, had been compelled reluctantly to reveal that she had a very strong motive. If she knew of the legacy she had 30,000 good reasons for shooting Richard; if she was ignorant of it, that terrible word ‘risk’ could not be explained. “In my opinion they were the five finest hours the Old Bailey has given us. “When the Attorney-General got up to make his closing speech everyone felt it was touch and go. He was perfectly fair, but perfectly firm. The evidence he marshalled would have been deadly but for the conflict in the medical evidence and the absence of the revolver. He characterised Patty’s answers about the letter as incredible. “Then Sir Leonard got up and made the speech of his life. He began with one of his most impressive exordia. “‘Gentlemen of the Jury, the prisoner at the Bar is accused of murder. If she is found guilty of that foul crime she will meet in three weeks’ time a shameful, felon’s death. On my poor efforts depend her defence: on your verdict her liberty or death. Gentlemen, it is an awful responsibility that you and I must share.’ “He made no attempt to disguise the fact that his client was a hardened little scoundrel, but he impressed on the Jury how much more she had to gain, and gain in perfect safety, by marrying Richard than by taking the frightful risk entailed by murdering him. She would not have been the calculating little intriguer which she had shown herself, if she had failed to realise the inevitable suspicion which was bound to fall upon her when the terms of the will became known. People of her type did not commit murders, they steadily fleeced, and so great was the dead man’s infatuation she had every reason to believe she could force him to marry her, when she could fleece him to her heart’s content. “So did he dismiss the question of motive. “He emphasised the sharp and irreconcilable conflict in the medical evidence. Would the Jury ever know a moment’s peace if they sent her to the gallows when such doctors could disagree? “He made much of the absence of the revolver, and--this will interest you, Robert--he asked how could the shot have been fired? The dead man was shot from the front at point-blank range. He must have stood stock still and calmly allowed the prisoner to blow his brains out. Was it conceivable? “The letter of which the prosecution made so much was perfectly capable of bearing the construction the prisoner put upon it. In a peroration of majestic power he demanded that the prisoner be given the benefit of the doubt. ‘If she is guilty,’ he concluded, ‘she will not escape, for there is One Who knows all: Vengeance is His, He will repay!’ “The Judge’s summing up was quiet and eminently judicial. On the whole it inclined, and I think rightly, to the defence. The police had not made out their case. “At length the Jury filed out, and Patty was taken out of Court, her eyes blazing with excitement, and two red stains flaming in her cheeks. The Jury were out for three and a half hours. It was known afterwards that two of them long held out for a verdict of guilty, but in the end gave way, and in a quivering silence the foreman pronounced ‘Not guilty,’ which would undoubtedly have been ‘Not proven’ in Scotland. “And that, Robert, was the end of the ‘Balland Mystery’--till you took that afternoon stroll.” “What happened to Patty?” I asked. “She dodged the vast crowd awaiting her, and disappeared from the knowledge of men till two years later she was found dead from an overdose of cocaine in a Buenos Aires Hotel--she had been ‘White-slaving’ apparently. She made no attempt to get the £30,000, Richard’s next of kin winning the action for undue influence unopposed. Mason died in prison three years after the trial.” “Now tell me again just exactly what you saw.” I did so. When I had finished he said, “There was one little detail you mentioned that time which you didn’t mention before: you say she paused for a moment by a tree?” “Yes, she just hesitated for a moment or two and then disappeared.” “Look here,” said Myers, “this fascinates me. Could I come down with you and see the place?”