Murder! Page #3

---

of the defense

represents the facts

it is your duty to

discharge the accused.

I shall like

to remind you

that truth is often

stranger than fiction.

If, on the other hand,

you are convinced

that the evidence

is indeed fiction,

then I must tell you

in the words

of the counsel

of the prosecution

that neither

youth nor beauty

nor provocation

can be held to mitigate

the crime of murder.

Go and consider the

facts for yourselves.

Well, uh, ladies

and gentlemen,

we can't talk standing.

Would you ladies like

to sit together?

Anyway...

Why, I say,

may we smoke?

Yes. I don't

see why not.

That is, if the ladies

haven't any objection.

No. Not at all.

Now, I think the best thing to do...

if you agree,

is to allow me to go over

the broad facts of the case.

Because after all,

I think it's pretty clear

and I really don't think

it'll be necessary

for us to examine

all the evidence again

in detail.

Now, in the first place,

the prosecution.

They say that the girl

and the dead woman

were on bad terms.

They make it up.

Edna Druce comes to supper,

they both have

a drop too much

and begin quarreling

about some man.

For instance, you heard

how the landlady said

that she heard

raised voices.

And the girl

admits as much

but won't give

the name of the man.

Now that

in itself is fishy.

The girl gets hold

of the poker,

loses her temper,

and there's the end

of Edna Druce.

The prosecution argues

that it has proofs.

Practically

caught red-handed.

Girl's dress

all over blood,

the poker at her feet,

brandy flask empty,

and the girl half-silly.

And in addition to that,

no other person was known

to have entered the house.

I think that's pretty clear.

I think you ought to

mention that the girl

comes of a good family.

Yes, but it's

those so-called

well-bred people

who are able

to remain so brazen

in the face of

a thing like this.

Well,

look at the way

she behaved

in the box.

Half a minute, ladies.

Let's get on.

Now, take the defense.

They don't deny she did it

but argue

that their case is

that the thing

happened when...

She was in a fit

or something.

Surely it

is clear to you

that in the evidence

for the defense

the doctor put

forWard a theory

that it was due

to the independent

activity of the

suppressed experience.

In other words,

disassociation,

which in this

particular form

is called a fugue.

So that a person

displaying the

strangest behavior

for a considerable

period of time

would be quite

unaware of this

when he or she

regained normality.

Well, I think the best thing

for us all to do

is to write down

our opinions

and then we can see

how we stand.

Rate this script:0.0 / 0 votes