Brian Freemantle - The Namedropper

‘No!’

‘And isn’t it also the truth that trying to suggest that my client, Harvey Jordan, gave your wife chlamydia is blatant nonsense, because at the time that you, she and Leanne Jefferies suffered the infection, Harvey Jordan – who is not a sufferer of the disease – had not even met your wife!’

‘It proves she is promiscuous.’

‘And isn’t it also blatant nonsense that Harvey Jordan caused the breakdown of your marriage, which by the time he met your wife had already irretrievably broken down?’

‘No!’

‘You were honest, when you admitted affairs with Sharon Borrows and Leanne Jefferies, weren’t you?’

Appleton didn’t reply, genuinely confused on this occasion.

‘The court requires an answer,’ insisted Beckwith.

‘Yes,’ Appleton finally said.

‘Why?’

‘I don’t understand what you’re asking me.’

‘Why did you tell the truth about those two affairs before you had been accused of them?’

‘Because… it’s the truth… I believed I had to.’

Beckwith glanced at the paper that had been handed to him and which he still held. ‘Isn’t it that having contracted chlamydia your wife told you at that confrontation on April fifth that she already had you under surveillance? That you knew you had been caught conducting your simultaneous affairs and decided to admit to them in the hope that those two admissions would be sufficient and you wouldn’t be accused of any others?’

‘No!’

‘So, before being challenged, you told the truth.’

‘Yes.’

‘The truth with which you are having so much difficulty now.’

‘Your honour!’ said Bartle, rising at the first available protest.

‘It is for the jury and myself to decide the truth or otherwise, Mr Beckwith,’ rebuked Pullinger.

‘Quite so, your honour. I withdraw the comment, with apologies,’ said Beckwith. ‘I believe I have taken my examination as far as I am able at this stage but I would refer to the submission that Mr Reid made yesterday. To my understanding there has still not been a response from the coroner who conducted the enquiry into Ms Borowski’s death. I would, therefore, officially request your agreement to me resuming my examination of Mr Appleton in the light of whatever that response may be.’

‘In principle I agree, subject to the arguments upon admissibility that might be made by either Mr Bartle or Mr Wolfson upon the contents of the coroner’s reply.’

‘I would also ask your honour’s agreement to my approaching the bench upon the subject that occupied this court before the swearing in of the jury.’

‘No!’ refused the judge. ‘I will, instead, see all four attorneys in my chambers.’

The court stenographer, together with her machine, was positioned directly alongside the judge, still in his robes, and again Pullinger kept them standing, extending the schoolboys-to-headmaster analogy by not speaking for several moments. When he eventually did he said, ‘My court – this court – is being reduced to a vaudeville parody against which I have already warned. I will neither tolerate nor allow this to continue unchallenged. What I will permit is this one final – and I mean final application from Mr Beckwith. I will also consider any belated applications from the rest of you here before me. Which – and make no mistake of my seriousness and determination – will be the end of the nonsense to which I suspect myself and my court to have been subjected. All four of you know my disquiet at what emerged during the closed hearing. Already in my mind is the possibility of me reporting each of the four of you to your respective bar authorities, which is why a verbatim record of this meeting – and this warning – is being made. Do any of the four of you have the slightest misunderstanding or doubt about what I am saying?’

Led by Beckwith, each lawyer recited, ‘No, your honour.’

‘Mr Beckwith?’ invited the cadaverous man.

‘I believe it is incumbent upon me to recall Dr Abrahams, to provide in open court his expert testimony in the defence of my client. It was therefore equally incumbent upon me to advise the court to give Mr Bartle and Mr Wolfson the opportunity to recall their expert witnesses who gave evidence before you in closed court, your honour.’

‘This is preposterous after what happened earlier, your honour,’ protested Bartle, at once and without being invited to speak.

‘What happened earlier was equally preposterous,’ responded Pullinger. ‘Are you objecting to the application?’

‘I am, most determinedly,’ said Bartle.

‘Mr Wolfson?’

‘No, your honour. I am not objecting, anxious as I am for my client’s case to be opened before you.’

‘Mr Reid?’

‘Not to the recall of Dr Abrahams, your honour. But I also seek to call on behalf of my client both Dr Walter Harding, the administrator of the Bellamy clinic, and her gynaecologist, neither of whom are on my original witnesses’ list.’

‘Which leaves you the odd man out, Mr Bartle?’ the judge pointed out.

‘After the misunderstanding during Mr Beckwith’s failed dismissal application, your honour made observations concerning Drs Chapman and Lewell which surely makes their recall impossible,’ argued Bartle.

‘Not to recall Drs Chapman and Lewell would surely provide you with grounds for appeal against whatever verdict and judgement is returned by the jury, would it not?’ disputed the judge. ‘And legally it is not open to you to offer – nor for me to accept – an assurance at this stage that you will not seek to appeal,’ said Pullinger.

‘This is manipulation of your court!’ accused Bartle, looking sideways to Beckwith.

‘About which I opened this meeting with what I hoped to be sufficient and serious warning,’ said Pullinger. ‘It is my opinion that without matching expert witnesses for both Alfred Appleton and Leanne Jefferies they would be appearing before me at a disadvantage, which I will neither countenance nor permit. I am suspending the court for the rest of the day, although I intend remaining on the premises. You, Mr Bartle, and you, Mr Wolfson, are to approach your respective medical specialists and invite them willingly to return tomorrow. If they refuse, because of the earlier episode, I will subpoena them, which I give you permission to warn them of when you speak to them.’

‘I am obliged, your honour,’ said Beckwith, formally.

‘No,’ refused Pullinger. ‘None of you are obliged. All of you continue under warning, the last any of you will receive. Do not try my patience or expect any further allowances of the law. None is any longer available to any of you.’

Harvey Jordan felt disconcerted, without having a positive focus for the feeling. He was not sure, even, if disconcerted properly described how he felt. It was a combination of things, he supposed, none greater than the other but each forming part of a whole, like a snowball getting bigger and bigger as it rolled down a winter hill. After wanting Alyce to be part of the after-hearing discussions he was disappointed that today, when she had finally attended, it hadn’t been at all as he’d imagined it would be, although there had been some benefits. Chief among them had been the admission from Beckwith that only the April fifth date had been written upon the note that Reid handed to him but that – theatre again – he’d used the paper itself as a prop to convince Appleton it held more incriminating questions.

Jordan was curious – as well as pleased – at Alyce’s apparent recovery, asking more questions and offering more opinions than he had himself. In contrast Beckwith and Reid had seemed to hold back, as well, volunteering very little – too little – of what had been discussed and ruled in the judge’s chambers. The more he thought about it the more Jordan came to the conclusion that their reticence had resulted from Alyce’s presence for the first time. There had been positives, though. The concensus had been that Beckwith had performed as well as Reid, the previous day. And that Appleton had emerged a bumbling and obvious liar. Another surprise – a question that they hadn’t resolved before the analysis conference ended – was Wolfson’s easy agreement to Dr Lewell being recalled, which prompted one of the few contributions Jordan did make, trying in the limited way available to him to pass on what he’d learned from his Internet burglaries by reminding his lawyer of Leanne Jefferies’ body language implying a rejection of her former lover.