Sad Cypress (Hercule Poirot 22)

The judge interrupted:

“I think, Sir Edwin, that you have already been over that point with the former witness.”

“As your lordship pleases.”

“Now, regarding the attitude of the accused to Mary Gerrard, there was no quarrel between them at any time?”

“No quarrel, no.”

“Miss Carlisle was always quite pleasant to the girl?”

“Yes. ’Twas the way she looked at her.”

“Yes—yes—yes. But we can’t go by that sort of thing. You’re Irish, I think?”

“I am that.”

“And the Irish have rather a vivid imagination, haven’t they?”

Nurse O’Brien cried excitedly:

“Every word I’ve told you is the truth.”

III

Mr. Abbott, the grocer, in the box. Flustered—unsure of himself (slightly thrilled, though, at his importance). His evidence was short. The purchase of two pots of fish paste. The accused had said, “There’s a lot of food poisoning with fish paste.” She had seemed excited and queer.

No cross-examination.

Three

Opening speech for the Defence:

“Gentlemen of the Jury, I might, if I like, submit to you that there is no case against the accused. The onus of proof is on the Prosecution, and so far, in my opinion—and, I have no doubt, yours—they have proved exactly nothing at all! The Prosecution avers that Elinor Carlisle, having obtained possession of morphine (which everyone else in the house had had equal opportunity of purloining, and as to which there exists considerable doubt whether it was ever in the house at all), proceeds to poison Mary Gerrard. Here the Prosecution has relied solely on opportunity. It has sought to prove motive, but I submit that that is just what it has not been able to do. For, members of the jury, there is no motive! The Prosecution has spoken of a broken engagement. I ask you—a broken engagement! If a broken engagement is a cause for murder, why are we not having murders committed every day? And this engagement, mark you, was not an affair of desperate passion, it was an engagement entered into mainly for family reasons. Miss Carlisle and Mr. Welman had grown up together; they had

always been fond of each other, and gradually they drifted into a warmer attachment; but I intend to prove to you it was at best a very lukewarm affair.”

(Oh Roddy—Roddy. A lukewarm affair?)

“Moreover, this engagement was broken off, not by Mr. Welman—but by the prisoner. I submit to you that the engagement between Elinor Carlisle and Roderick Welman was entered into mainly to please old Mrs. Welman. When she died, both parties realized that their feelings were not strong enough to justify them in entering upon matrimony. They remained, however, good friends. Moreover, Elinor Carlisle, who had inherited her aunt’s fortune, in the kindliness of her nature, was planning to settle a considerable sum of money on Mary Gerrard. And this is the girl she is accused of poisoning! The thing is farcical.

“The only thing that there is against Elinor Carlisle is the circumstances under which the poisoning took place.

“The Prosecution has said in effect:

“No one but Elinor Carlisle could have killed Mary Gerrard. Therefore they have had to search about for a possible motive. But, as I have said to you, they have been unable to find any motive because there was none.

“Now, is it true that no one but Elinor Carlisle could have killed Mary Gerrard? No, it is not. There is the possibility that Mary Gerrard committed suicide. There is the possibility that someone tampered with the sandwiches while Elinor Carlisle was out of the house at the Lodge. There is a third possibility. It is a fundamental law of evidence that if it can be shown that there is an alternative theory which is possible and consistent with the evidence, the accused must be acquitted. I propose to show you that there was another person who had not only an equal opportunity to poison Mary Gerrard, but who had a far better motive for doing so. I propose to call evidence to show you that there was another person who had access to the morphine, and who had a very good motive for killing Mary Gerrard, and I can show that that person had an equally good opportunity of doing so. I submit to you that no jury in the world will convict this woman of murder when there is no evidence against her except that of opportunity, and when it can be shown that there is not only evidence of opportunity against another person, but an overwhelming motive. I shall also call witness to prove that there has been deliberate perjury on the part of one of the witnesses for the Crown. But first I will call the prisoner, that she may tell you her own story, and that you may see for yourself how entirely unfounded the charges against her are.”

II

She had taken the oath. She was answering Sir Edwin’s questions in a low voice. The judge leaned forward. He told her to speak louder….

Sir Edwin was talking gently and encouragingly—all the questions to which she had rehearsed the answers.

“You were fond of Roderick Welman?”

“Very fond. He was like a brother to me—or a cousin. I always thought of him as a cousin.”