Jeffrey Archer - A Twist in the Tale

‘What is your blood group, Mr. Menzies?’

‘I have no idea.’

Sir Humphrey without warning changed tack: ‘Have you heard of DNA, by any chance?’

‘No,’ came back the puzzled reply.

‘Deoxyribonucleic acid is a proven technique that shows genetic information can be unique to every individual. Blood or semen samples can be matched. Semen, Mr. Menzies, is as unique as any fingerprint. With such a sample we would know immediately if you raped Miss Moorland.’

‘I didn’t rape her,’ Menzies said indignantly.

‘Nevertheless sexual intercourse did take place, didn’t it?’ said Sir Humphrey quietly.

Menzies remained silent.

‘Shall I recall the Home Office pathologist and ask him to carry out a DNA test?’

Menzies still made no reply.

‘And check your blood group?’ Sir Humphrey paused. ‘I will ask you once again, Mr. Menzies. Did sexual intercourse between you and the murdered woman take place that Thursday afternoon?’

‘Yes, sir,’ said Menzies in a whisper.

‘Yes, sir,’ repeated Sir Humphrey so that the whole court could hear it.

‘But it wasn’t rape,’ Menzies shouted back at Sir Humphrey.

‘Wasn’t it?’ said Sir Humphrey.

‘And I swear I didn’t kill her.’

I must have been the only person in that courtroom who knew he was telling the truth. All Sir Humphrey said was, ‘No more questions, my Lord.’

Mr. Scott tried manfully to resurrect his client’s credibility during reexamination but the fact that Menzies had been caught lying about his relationship with Carla made everything he had said previously appear doubtful.

If only Menzies had told the truth about being Carla’s lover, his story might well have been accepted. I wondered why he had gone through such a charade — in order to protect his wife? Whatever the motive, it had only ended by making him appear guilty of a crime he hadn’t committed.

I went home that night and ate the largest meal I had faced for several days.

The following morning Mr. Scott called two more witnesses. The first turned out to be the vicar of St. Peter’s, Sutton, who was there as a character witness to prove what a pillar of the community Menzies was. After Sir Humphrey had finished his cross-examination the vicar ended up looking like a rather kind, unworldly old man, whose knowledge of Menzies was based on the latter’s occasional attendance at Sunday matins.

The second was Menzies’ superior at the company they both worked for in the City. He was a far more impressive witness but he was unable to confirm that Miss Moorland had ever been a client of the company.

Mr. Scott put up no more witnesses and informed Mr. Justice Buchanan that he had completed the case for the defense. The judge nodded and, turning to Sir Humphrey, told him he would not be required to begin his final address until the following morning.

That heralded the signal for the court to rise.

Another long evening and an even longer night had to be endured by Menzies and myself. As on every other day during the trial, I made sure I was in my place the next morning before the judge entered.

Sir Humphrey’s closing speech was masterful. Every tiny untruth was logged so that one began to accept that very little of Menzies’ testimony could be relied on.

‘We will never know for certain,’ said Sir Humphrey, ‘for what reason poor young Carla Moorland was murdered. Refusal to succumb to Menzies’ advances? A fit of temper which ended with a blow that caused her to fall and later die alone? But there are, however, some things, members of the jury, of which we can be quite certain.

‘We can be certain that Menzies was with the murdered woman that day before the hour of four sixteen because of the evidence of the damning parking ticket.

‘We can be certain that he left a little after six because we have a witness who saw him drive away, and he does not himself deny this evidence.

‘And we can be certain that he wrote a false entry in his diary to make you believe he had a business appointment with the murdered woman at five, rather than a personal assignation some time before.

‘And we can now be certain that he lied about having sexual intercourse with Miss Moorland a short time before she was killed, though we cannot be certain if intercourse took place before or after her jaw had been broken.’ Sir Humphrey’s eyes rested on the jury before he continued.

‘We can, finally, establish, beyond reasonable doubt, from the pathologist’s report, the time of death and that, therefore, Menzies was the last person who could possibly have seen Carla Moorland alive.

‘Therefore no one else could have killed Carla Moorland — for do not forget Inspector Simmons’ evidence — and if you accept that you can be in no doubt that only Menzies could have been responsible for her death. And how damning you must have found it that he tried to hide the existence of a first wife who had left him on the grounds of his cruelty, and the four mistresses who left him we know not why or how. Only one less than Bluebeard,’ Sir Humphrey added with feeling.

‘For the sake of every young girl who lives on her own in our capital, you must carry out your duty, however painful that duty might be. And find Menzies guilty of murder.’

When Sir Humphrey sat down I wanted to applaud.

The judge sent us away for another break. Voices all around me were now damning Menzies. I listened contentedly without offering an opinion. I knew that if the jury convicted Menzies the file would be closed and no eyes would ever be turned in my direction. I was seated in my place before the judge appeared at ten past two. He called on Mr. Scott.

Menzies’ counsel put up a spirited defense of his client, pointing out that almost all the evidence that Sir Humphrey had come up with had been circumstantial, and that it was even possible someone else could have visited Carla Moorland after his client had left that night. Mr. Scott’s bushy eyebrows seemed almost to have a life of their own as he energetically emphasized that it was the prosecution’s responsibility to prove their case beyond reasonable doubt and not his to disprove it, and that, in his opinion, his learned friend, Sir Humphrey, had failed to do so.

During his summing up Scott avoided any mention of diary entries, parking tickets, past mistresses, sexual intercourse or questions of his client’s role in the community. A latecomer listening only to the closing speeches might have been forgiven for thinking the two learned gentlemen were summarizing different cases.

Mr. Scott’s expression became grim as he turned to face the jury for his summation. ‘The twelve of you,’ he said, ‘hold the fate of my client in your hands. You must, therefore, be certain, I repeat, certain beyond reasonable doubt that Paul Menzies could have committed such an evil crime as murder.

‘This is not a trial about Mr. Menzies’ lifestyle, his position in the community or even his sexual habits. If adultery were a crime I feel confident Mr. Menzies would not be the only person in this courtroom to be in the dock today.’ He paused as his eyes swept up and down the jury.

‘For this reason I feel confident that you will find it in your hearts to release my client from the torment he has been put through during the last seven months. He has surely been shown to be an innocent man deserving of your compassion.’

Mr. Scott sank down on the bench having, I felt, given his client a glimmer of hope.

The judge told us that he would not begin his own summing up until Monday morning.

The weekend seemed interminable to me. By Monday I had convinced myself that enough members of the jury would feel there just had not been sufficient evidence to convict.