THE LIME SLADE MURDER TRIAL
THE LIME SLADE MURDER TRIAL
Judge Wright’s Full Summing‑Up Reconstructed
THE SCENE AT THE BUNGALOW
His Lordship began with the physical facts. No traces of blood were found between the back door of the bungalow and the pool eight feet away. From this, he said, it followed that Mrs. Jackson must have been moved after collapsing near the pool of blood. The medical evidence suggested she could not have been wearing her hat, and that the blood on the lower part of her coat indicated she should not have had the coat on when the blows were struck. Her injured fingers showed she had her gloves on.
The dead woman’s hat, the Judge reminded the jury, was found not outside, but in the scullery. The prosecution contended that the first blow must have been struck there, knocking the hat off, and that further blows followed until she collapsed where the pool of blood lay. After some time, she must have been dragged or moved toward the door, where she remained long enough to leave stains upon it.
The defence had argued that the cuts on the coat were caused by blackberrying or barbed wire, but the medical witnesses were clear: the wounds were inflicted by a blunt instrument.
MRS. DIMMICK’S EVIDENCE
Only two witnesses came upon the scene before the police arrived at five o’clock the next morning: Mrs. Dimmick and the doctor. His Lordship reviewed her testimony carefully. She had said she went into her own bungalow, removed her coat and hat, and then heard a scream — and that Mrs. Jackson had not had time to go into her own bungalow. “I cannot see how that can possibly be,” the Judge remarked.
He dismissed talk of “mystery” surrounding Mrs. Jackson’s life. Her movements since 1910, when she met Le Grys, were clearly shown. Their association continued until 1916, with only a two‑year gap. “She was an interesting woman,” he said, “but she was not cultured.”
“If Jackson had done it,” he added, “it was essential for him to cover up what had happened, and to divert suspicion from himself.”
DISCUSSION WITH COUNSEL
A brief exchange occurred between the Judge and Mr. Jenkin Jones regarding a point in Mrs. Dimmick’s evidence. “My note,” said Mr. Jenkin Jones, “is: ‘I saw Mrs. Jackson on the corner of the bungalow, close to the back door.’” “Yes,” replied the Judge, “that is exactly mine.”
He added that the important point was the subsequent attempts to drag her round the projecting corner to get her to the back door.
TWO QUESTIONS
Turning to Jackson’s own conduct, the Judge spoke plainly. “When he was in the witness‑box,” he said, “he was obviously a very quick‑witted man and very ready with devices. I asked him two questions: Firstly, why were not the neighbours asked in to help? Secondly, why were not the police told?”
“He gave various answers,” his Lordship continued, “but these two questions remain unanswered, and you will have to consider whether there is any answer possible except that the prisoner was trying to open up a line of deceit.”
Mrs. Dimmick had naturally suggested that Jackson should get help. She called Mrs. Gammon, but Jackson went out and told her he would send for the doctor if Mrs. Jackson got worse. His explanation for not seeking further aid was that he did not know whether Mrs. Gammon or Mrs. Dimmick were there, nor that his wife was seriously injured — a claim the Judge found difficult to believe, especially as a light had been brought from the bedroom.
As for the police, Jackson said he thought Doctor Taylor would do, and that he waited to look after the child, Betty, intending to inform the police when he went to work at seven o’clock.
A QUICK‑WITTED MAN
The Judge reminded the jury that they must consider whether any intelligent, reasonable explanation existed for the prisoner’s conduct — conduct which must be consistent with that of an innocent man who found his wife attacked and gravely injured. “That,” he said, “is a matter of some considerable importance.”
Mrs. Dimmick had said she saw her husband and Mrs. Gammon outside the fence, but they did not go in. “This,” the Judge observed, “was a very mysterious circumstance.”
QUESTION OF WEAPON
Touching on the tyre lever, his Lordship said the medical witnesses did not claim the injury was inflicted with that instrument alone — only that it was consistent with a blunt instrument. Jackson had told the police he had one tyre lever, but when shown the one found in the dumpy, he gave an explanation suggesting he had another in mind.
THE JURY’S DUTY
“You have to be satisfied,” the Judge said, “that the evidence is such as to justify you in bringing in, if it is the true view, a verdict of guilty. But if you are satisfied that there is no other reasonable inference open to you, then it is your duty to bring in that verdict.”
He warned them not to give way to sentiment. Their duty was to decide according to the evidence, and the consequences belonged “to another realm.”
THE LAST ACT OF DRAMA
At 11.42, the jury retired. The Judge had spoken for an hour and forty minutes. The hubbub of speculation in the court gave way to profound silence when a knock at the door just before 12.15 signalled their return.
Jackson stood unflinching, erect, his life in the balance.
“Members of the jury,” asked the Clerk of Arraigns, “have you decided upon your verdict?” “Yes, my lord,” replied the foreman. “Then look upon the prisoner. How say you — guilty or not guilty?” The reply rang out clearly: “Not guilty.”
WOMEN’S HYSTERIA
The verdict was received with hysterical applause. Women shouted “Good old Tom!” and some appeared on the verge of collapse. Order was restored only with difficulty.
Jackson was discharged. A crowd surged forward to shake his hand. “Come out this way, Tom!” cried his father. “No,” Jackson replied, “I want to fetch my coat, father.”
His defenders, Mr. Jenkin Jones and Mr. Rowe Harding, were cheered in Wind Street.
The Judge announced that the jury, owing to the length of the trial, would be exempt from further service for seven years.
Comments
Post a Comment