The case to be tried is one of murder—murder which we shall contend
was premeditated, pre-arranged and carried out in a methodical and
determined manner.
The Prisoner is John Jasper, Lay Precentor at Cloisterham Cathedral.
The Prosecution will set itself to prove that on the night of the
24th December he murdered in that city his nephew Edwin Drood, an
Engineer.
The said Edwin Drood was 21 years of age, and for some years was
betrothed to Miss Rosa Bud in fulfilment of a dying wish of their
respective parents (now deceased).
To this young lady the Prisoner acted as music master, and admittedly
was enamoured of her, although he kept this fact secret from Edwin
Drood.
On the evening in question—the 24th December—Edwin Drood and Neville
Landless—a pupil of the Revd. Septimus Crisparkle—dined together with
the Prisoner in his rooms in the Gate House adjoining the Cathedral.
The night was a terribly stormy one. After leaving the Prisoner, some
time about midnight, the two young men took a walk to the river to
see the effect of the storm on the water, and returned to the house
of the Revd. Septimus Crisparkle in Minor Canon Corner. Here Edwin
Drood left his companion, intending to return to his Uncle’s lodgings.
Nothing has been heard or seen of him since.
Gentlemen, it is our painful duty to produce evidence to prove that
Edwin Drood was murdered by his Uncle, the Prisoner. We contend
that Jasper divested him of his watch and chain and his scarf pin,
articles the Prisoner had, on another occasion, explained to the
local jeweller he knew Drood to possess. The words he used were that
he had “an inventory of them in his mind.”
We contend that Jasper then cast the body of his victim into a vault
in the Cathedral precincts, the key of which, or a duplicate, he had
previously become possessed of. There had also been placed in the
vicinity a quantity of quicklime, and we submit that Jasper, having
made some inquiries into its properties, used this for the purpose
of removing all traces of the body in the shortest period of time.
We submit that he got rid of the watch and chain and scarf pin in
the river, either in the hope of disposing of material which the
quicklime would not destroy, or to give the impression, should they
be found, that the young man was drowned.
We shall in evidence show that the Prisoner had _motive_ for his
crime, that he made elaborate preparations for its enactment, and
that he succeeded in his terrible deed.
The evidence may be circumstantial only. But circumstantial evidence,
I submit, may be extremely strong—as strong indeed as any direct
evidence.
We shall show you that all the acts of John Jasper for some
time previous to the committal of his atrocious crime were
self-incriminatory. Not merely that, but they exhibit his mind
working out the very means by which that crime was to be committed.
_After_ his terrible deed was accomplished, his actions, to those who
observed him closely, also indicated clearly his guilt.
The Prisoner, having made up his mind that, for his own selfish ends
Edwin Drood must be killed, first chose the spot best suited to his
purpose, and laid methodical plans to secure access to that spot. He
paid visits to it in the company of one, Durdles, the Cloisterham
stonemason, whom he drugged with doctored wine whilst there, in
order that he might acquire secretly the key to a certain vault.
He knew where quicklime could be procured without loss of time. He
interviewed other persons, and timed the hour and everything else so
thoroughly that nothing essential for his purpose was overlooked.
Now, gentlemen, it is necessary to refer briefly to some further
facts bearing upon the history of this crime.
Neville Landless, upon whom Jasper cast suspicion of being the
murderer, and his sister Helena, were both students in Cloisterham:
the brother, a pupil of the Revd. Septimus Crisparkle, and the
sister a pupil at Miss Twinkleton’s Academy in the city. They came
from Ceylon, where they had been severely ill-treated, and had made
several attempts to escape. On each occasion of the flight Helena
“dressed as a boy and showed the daring of a man.” Neville, a highly
strung and emotional youth, took immediate objection to Drood because
of his “air of proprietorship” over Rosa; whilst Helena instinctively
disliked Jasper because she saw that he loved Rosa and that Rosa
feared him. It is worth noting as a significant fact that at the
earliest stage Rosa appealed to Helena for aid and every assistance
was promised to her.
A slight quarrel between Edwin Drood and Neville Landless took place
in Jasper’s rooms, and undoubtedly Jasper goaded them on by his
taunts. On this occasion Jasper gave them some mulled wine which
had taken him a long time to mix and compound. They drank to the
toast proposed by Jasper and their speech quickly became thick and
indistinct, indicating that there was a sinister design in the mixing
and compounding. Drood became boastful, and Neville Landless resented
his tone, and at the height of the dispute, flung the dregs of his
wine at Edwin Drood. Although posing as a Peacemaker Jasper actually
fomented the hostility of these two young men. He seemed to delight
in it and it enabled him subsequently to report to Crisparkle that
Neville was “_murderous_.” Indeed he went so far as to assert that he
“might have laid his dear boy at his feet, and that it was no fault
of his that he did not.”
The Revd. Mr. Crisparkle talked with Helena and Neville on the
latter’s rash conduct, and he expressed extreme regret and promised
to exercise more caution in future. On another occasion Crisparkle
visited Jasper, who read to him passages from his diary expressing
fears for Drood’s safety. A few days later Drood, at the suggestion
of Jasper, wrote and agreed to dine with him and Neville on Christmas
Eve at the Gate house, Cloisterham—in order that the two young men
should become friends. Their walk after dinner is evidence that this
object was fully achieved.
We submit that, the whole plans having thus been prepared, the murder
of Edwin Drood took place after the parting of the young men, and
that John Jasper and no other was the murderer. In support of this
we shall produce evidence to prove that Jasper acted in a highly
incriminatory manner.
The next morning whilst great commotion was raging in the vicinity of
the cathedral over the damage done by the storm, John Jasper broke
into the crowd crying: “Where is my nephew?” as if everybody knew he
was missing, whereas no one but the prisoner had any reason to think
he was not in the Prisoner’s rooms. He even volunteered the statement
that Drood had gone “down to the river last night, with _Mr.
Neville_, to look at the storm, and had not been back?” and demanded
that Mr. Neville should be called.
These utterances were made to the Revd. Canon, and showed clearly
that the murderer felt so confident that he had executed his deed
with perfect thoroughness that no fear of discovery need enter his
mind. But knowing his nephew was murdered he tried immediately to fix
the deed upon another.
I must direct your attention to one other matter. John Jasper,
whether guilty or not of murder, is indisputably a hypocrite, leading
a double life. Like most criminals he was also capable of foolish
mistakes. Had he not killed his “dear boy,” as he called him, he
would have made investigations of his whereabouts, he would have
refrained from courting inquiries, and would not have excited the
hostility of Rosa Bud.
But, gentlemen, most criminals of the John Jasper type, make at least
one error in the execution of their crime, which ultimately finds
them out. Jasper made his. Having as I have said, divested Edwin
Drood of his watch and chain and scarf pin, all the jewellery he was
aware Drood had upon his person, he felt safe. But he left, unknown
to him, on the person of the young man a valuable gold ring set with
rubies and diamonds, and this ring quicklime could not consume. The
ring was once the property of Rosa Bud’s mother and had been handed
to Edwin Drood by Mr. Grewgious, Rosa Bud’s guardian, with strict
instructions that he should give it to Rosa if he intended to marry
her, or return it to Mr. Grewgious should Edwin and Rosa decide, as
seemed likely, to break their betrothal.
This was a faithful promise and was witnessed by one, Bazzard, the
clerk to the said Mr. Grewgious.
It so happened that on December 24th the young couple did break off
their engagement. Therefore if Drood, by any chance, were now alive,
that ring would have been returned to Mr. Grewgious, in accordance
with his promise. But, gentlemen, it never has been returned, and
why? We say because Drood is no longer alive, but dead, and that
where the body was hidden after the murder, there that ring was
hidden also.
Jasper knew of all the articles that were on the person of Edwin
Drood, except that ring. He did not know of that because it had only
been handed to Drood on the previous day.
Nor did Jasper know of the breaking off of the betrothal, else would
there have been no object in his committing the murder. Evidence will
be given that Drood promised Rosa he would not spoil his Uncle’s
Christmas festivities by telling him of their decision to part as
lovers.
The first time Jasper learnt the fact was on the day following the
murder, when he heard it from Mr. Grewgious. He then instantly
“gasped, tore his hair, shrieked,” swooned and “fell a heap of
torn and miry clothes upon the floor.” From this we infer that the
information was unexpected and a shock to him.
Sometime afterwards the Revd. Canon Crisparkle found the watch and
chain and scarf pin, when walking near the weir, and he will be
called to give evidence on this and other facts.
Now, gentlemen, let me read to you an extract from the diary of
Jasper entered after this discovery. It reads thus—
“My dear boy is murdered. The discovery of the watch and shirt
pin convinces me that he was murdered on that night, and that his
jewellery was taken from him to prevent identification by its means.”
The word “murdered” was frequently in the mind of Jasper at this
time, and he made use of it in several phrases in his diary, which
clearly demonstrates that he was attempting to create the impression
that his nephew was murdered, and, by using the words, hoped to
divert attention from himself.
But he became so nervous of what he had written, that he declared
to the Revd. Canon that he meant to “burn this year’s diary at the
year’s end” and by so doing, as he evidently thought, destroy all
evidence of his guilty conscience.
There is one more phase to touch upon.
It is admitted that John Jasper was secretly addicted to opium
smoking and frequented a certain opium den in London kept by a person
known as the “Princess Puffer.” Whilst under the influence of opium
he babbled strangely, moaned, and uttered significant words in the
hearing of the opium woman. This woman followed him more than once
to Cloisterham and on one of these occasions, the fateful 24th
December, she accosted Edwin Drood, and for the price of three and
sixpence offered to tell him something. He paid her the money and
she asked him first his name, and when he told her Edwin, she wanted
to know, “Is the short of that name Eddy?...” Drood answered “It is
sometimes called so.” “You be thankful your name is not _Ned_,” she
next replied, “because it is a threatened name: a dangerous name.”
“Threatened men live long,” he assured her. Her reply was—
“Then Ned—so threatened is he, wherever he may be while I am
a-talking to you, deary—should live to all eternity!”
Now, gentlemen, it is a striking and amazing fact that Jasper, and he
only, called Edwin Drood “Ned”—the threatened name.
That very night Edwin Drood disappeared, and he has “never revisited
the light of the sun.”
A few months passed and no trace of the body of the ill-fated
young man having been found, Jasper, feeling he had cleared his
way effectively, called at the Nun’s House (Miss Twinkleton’s
Academy) one afternoon in the vacation, and taking Rosa unawares
made passionate love to her. On being repulsed he vowed vengeance
on Neville Landless—the man against whom he had already directed
suspicion. So horrified was Rosa, she flew for safety to her guardian
Mr. Grewgious at Staple Inn. A strict watch was kept upon Jasper by
a person calling himself Mr. Datchery, with the result that he was
eventually arrested.
Gentlemen, that is the case put to you as briefly as possible—it is
the case you have to try.
We feel confident that the evidence we shall place before you will
convince you that the prisoner has committed a foul crime, and that
we can safely leave the issue to you. Painful as your duty may be,
we look to you to give your verdict faithfully and fearlessly in the
interests of justice and your fellow-men.
* * * * *
THE FOREMAN: My Lord, one word. Did I understand the learned
gentleman to say that he was going to call evidence?
MR. MATZ: Certainly.
THE FOREMAN: Well, then, all I can say is, that if the
learned gentleman thinks the convictions of a British jury are going
to be influenced by evidence, he little knows his fellow countrymen!
JUDGE: At the same time, in spite of this somewhat
intemperate observation——[The remainder of his Lordship’s words were
inaudible.]
[EVIDENCE OF ANTHONY DURDLES.]
MR. MATZ: Call Anthony Durdles.
USHER: Anthony Durdles! [That gentleman immediately entered
the witness-box.]
CLERK OF ARRAIGNS: The evidence that you shall give before
the Court and Jury, shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing
but the truth.
MR. WALTERS: Your name is Durdles?
WITNESS: Durdles is my name.
MR. WALTERS: Do you always call yourself Durdles?
WITNESS: I do; ’cause my name _is_ Durdles.
MR. WALTERS: You are a stonemason, I believe?
WITNESS: Ay; Durdles is a stonemason.
MR. WALTERS: Would you mind telling us where you work?
WITNESS: Durdles works anywhere he can, up and down, round
about the Cathedral.
MR. WALTERS: Round about the Cathedral. Thank you. Very
good. Do you happen to know the prisoner, John Jasper?
WITNESS: Ay; I knows John Jarsper.
MR. WALTERS: And did you ever happen to meet him anywhere
near the Cathedral?
WITNESS: Yes; Durdles met Mister Jarsper near the Cathedral.
MR. WALTERS: Perhaps you met him more than once?
WITNESS: Twice.
MR. WALTERS: You met him twice. What did you go with him to
the Cathedral for?