Guilty One (44 page)

‘Did I do OK?’ asked Sebastian, eyes blinking up at Daniel.

Daniel put his hands in his pockets. ‘You did fine.’

Upstairs, Daniel called Cunningham.

‘You’ll be relieved this is all over,’ Cunningham said. ‘I know you thought it would take ages to sell, but this is quicker than I ever thought it would be. Will you come up, or do you want me to handle it?’

‘You handle it,’ said Daniel quickly. He ran a hand through his hair and turned in the corridor. ‘Or … can you wait? I might come up at the weekend. I want to see the place one more time – I just … Can you just wait, actually?’

‘Of
course. I’m sorry this has happened at a … difficult time for you.’

‘What d’you mean?’

‘I saw you on TV. The Angel Killer. You’re on the case.’

Daniel took a breath. Everyone else had made up their mind about Sebastian. He wondered what the jury would decide.

30

Jones
looked triumphant as he glanced over his notes. Closing speeches were scheduled for the morning, with the judge’s summing up to follow that afternoon. The judge arrived and the gallery filled up. Daniel tried not to look up into the journalists’ faces.

Jones placed his papers on the podium and turned towards the jury, hands in his pockets, rocking back on his heels. Daniel thought he looked pleased with himself.

‘Cast your mind back to everything you have heard relating to the events of 8 August this year … You have heard the defendant admit that he was playing with little Ben Stokes on that day. A witness saw the defendant fighting with Ben in the open park and then later identified him fighting in the adventure playground where Ben was found dead.

‘The type of injury which Ben sustained means that we cannot pinpoint the time of the attack, only the time of death, around six in the evening. This means that Ben could have sustained his fatal wounds at any point that afternoon and evening, since he was last seen alive about 2 p.m. The defendant claims to have an alibi – his
mother – from 3 p.m. onwards, but you have heard the cocktail of drugs which the boy’s mother ingested that day and you are therefore correct to wonder if she is reliable.

‘You have heard from forensic scientists who explained to you how the victim’s blood was transferred on to his attacker’s clothing. I remind you that the defendant had defensive scratches on his arms and also fibres from the victim’s clothes on his jeans, suggesting that he had straddled the victim. From this position, it would have been possible for the defendant to use the force of gravity to help him cause the significant, brutal facial injuries which resulted in young Ben literally bleeding to death.

‘You heard the forensic expert attest to the fact that the bloodstains on the defendant’s clothes were a result of a “violent assault to the face or nose, with the victim then blowing blood on to the attacker”.

‘Make no mistake.’ Jones paused and stabbed the lectern with his forefinger. He leaned forward on to his finger for emphasis, staring unblinking at the jury. ‘This was not an easy murder to carry out. There was no accident here, no sleight of hand or loss of footing. This was violent bloody murder, carried out face to face.

‘You have heard the defendant himself tell of his fascination for murder and death. You have heard experts testify that the defendant has a mild disorder on the Asperger’s spectrum: a disorder which makes him prone to violence, which makes it difficult for him to form friendships, but a disorder which would not prevent him from
lying
about his actions. And lie he has done, when, testifying, he told you that he did not murder the defendant. We have heard from neighbours of the victim, whose children
were terrorised by the defendant before he took this one stage further, when he brutally murdered Benjamin Stokes. The defendant threatened neighbours’ children with broken glass, and indeed bullied and physically injured the victim before he finally murdered him on 8 August.

‘Boys may be boys, but this boy was a known danger in the neighbourhood. He is proven to be capable of this ghastly crime. Forensic evidence puts him at the scene of the crime. We know that the defendant and the victim fought, and the victim’s blood was transferred on to the defendant’s clothing.

‘Sebastian Croll is a proven bully with a sick interest in murder, and murder he did on 8 August this year.

‘I know that when you stop to consider the facts of the case, you will find the defendant, Sebastian Croll … guilty.’

Daniel could see the headlines already:
A BULLY WITH A SICK INTEREST IN MURDER
. He thought of Tyrel’s trial and how the verdict had seemed another violence.

At the break Daniel followed the Crolls out of the courtroom. Even the skin on Charlotte’s face was trembling. He accompanied the family to the public waiting room. Kenneth Croll manoeuvred his wife by her elbow into the room. He demanded coffee but Charlotte was shaking too much to get the coins into the slot. Daniel helped her and carried the cups over to where Kenneth was reclining in a chair, legs akimbo and hands clasped behind his head.

‘We can appeal?’ said Kenneth.

‘We talk about appeals if he’s found guilty,’ returned Daniel.

Croll’s eyes seemed to flash with anger. Daniel met his gaze.

*

Back
in court, Daniel thought that Irene looked nervous. He had never seen her nervous before. She was fidgety, twirling her watch on her wrist. He had not had a chance to speak to her, but she looked over at him. Daniel mouthed
good luck.
She smiled and looked away.

When called, Irene stood up and rested her open notebook on the lectern. There was silence as she glanced at her notes and reminded herself of her arguments. When they were defending Tyrel, Irene had rehearsed her closing speech to Daniel the night before. He remembered her pacing back and forth before him, in her stocking feet.

Now she turned to face the jury.

‘Sebastian … is a little boy,’ she began. She no longer looked nervous: shoulders back, chin raised. ‘Sebastian … is eleven years old. If he were eighteen months younger, he would not be before you today. Sebastian is a child on trial for murder. He is accused of killing another little boy, a child even younger than he is now.

‘That Ben was murdered is a tragedy and something that we should all feel devastated by … but we won’t get justice for little Ben by convicting the wrong person, and certainly not by convicting another innocent little boy.

‘The papers all love a good story, and I know you read about this case in the newspapers, before you even got to court, before you knew that you would sit on this jury. The papers have talked about societal decay, about the failure of the family … The papers have used words like evil, wicked and depraved.

‘But, ladies and gentlemen, I have to remind you that this … is not a story. This trial is not about societal decay and it is not your task to address it.
It is
your job to consider the facts, as they have been presented to you
in this courtroom,
and not in the press. It is your
job to consider the evidence and
only the evidence
before you decide if the defendant is guilty or not guilty.

‘You’ve seen some terrible images and heard some disturbing evidence during this trial. It’s natural when presented with shocking acts of violence to want to blame, to want to find … someone responsible. But this little boy is not responsible for the violence that you have had described to you in the course of this trial.

‘So what is the evidence?

‘There were no witnesses to this terrible crime. No one saw Ben being harmed. A witness did claim to see Sebastian and Ben fighting late on the afternoon of the murder but the witness’s account was unreliable. There is a murder weapon in evidence; but it cannot be tied to any one suspect. No fingerprint or DNA was found on the brick which was used to kill little Ben Stokes. He suffered a cerebral haematoma, which means that we know approximately what time he died – around six o’clock in the evening – but we don’t know when he was attacked and suffered the fatal blow. Sebastian was home in his house from three o’clock in the afternoon, well before Ben was reported missing.

‘Sebastian admits fighting with Ben earlier that day and he told us how Ben jumped from the climbing frame, causing his nose to bleed. Spots of Ben’s blood and fibres from his clothes were transferred on to Sebastian’s clothing, but no more than you might expect in the course of a few hours’ play outside where there was a childish disagreement and an accident. The prosecution’s own scientists told you that they would have expected much more blood to be on Sebastian’s clothes if he had in fact killed Ben in this very violent way. Those of you with children will know that the small amounts of fibres and blood
found on Sebastian’s clothing are entirely consistent with normal rough-and-tumble play.

‘Ben’s murder was brutal, but it also required considerable strength and I know that you will question the ludicrousness of the prosecution’s suggestion that the small boy before you today would have been able to wield such force. We know that the witness, Mr Rankine, is short-sighted. He didn’t see Sebastian with Ben that afternoon, but did he see someone else trying to hurt that little boy? He has told you that it was possible he saw a small adult attacking Ben.’

Irene turned a page in her notebook. She took a deep breath and swallowed, nodding gently at the jury. Daniel watched them. They were rapt, watching Irene, believing her.

‘You have heard that Sebastian suffers from a very mild disorder known as PDD-NOS – a disorder on the Asperger’s spectrum – and this may make Sebastian seem more …
intense
than other eleven-year-olds you may know, but … however unusual you may find him, you must not let that distract you from the evidence of the case. Sebastian … was brave enough to tell you his story. He didn’t need to, but he wanted to speak so that you could hear the truth about what happened that day, in his own words. Sebastian may be intense, but he is not a murderer. He may be a bully at school, but he is not a murderer.

‘The facts: if Sebastian had killed Ben, he would have gone home that day
covered
in blood. He would not have arrived home at three o’clock and watched television with his mum. Sebastian is a small boy and could never have wielded the murder weapon with the force required to kill Ben. But more significantly, there is no evidence tying the brick to Sebastian, and
no one saw Sebastian hurt Ben. He was seen chasing and fighting Ben in the park, but this fight was so unconcerning to the man who witnessed it that he did not even feel the need to physically separate the boys, or to report the incident to the police. The prosecution’s witness went home and watched television because what he had seen was not an act of violence preceding murder but a very normal argument between two little boys, and the boys, when called on by an adult to stop, did exactly that.

‘More importantly, what role have the police played in ensuring justice was done in this case? Mr Rankine admitted that he may have seen an adult in a pale blue or white top attacking Ben. What did the police do about this? They checked the council’s CCTV tapes and found nothing, so what else did they do …?’

Irene raised both hands up to the jury, as if asking them to contribute.

‘Not a thing.’ She shrugged her shoulders and leaned on the lectern, as if resigned to such faineance.

‘By all accounts there could be an adult assailant – someone who had a white or pale blue top, who attacked and killed Benjamin after Sebastian left the playground. This important possibility, highlighted to us by the Crown’s witness, was not properly followed up, as it should have been. Are we sure that this boy committed this crime, or is there indeed the chance that someone else did?

‘And so you must ask yourselves, is it safe to convict this boy on this evidence? Once you set aside the newspapers, the terrible images you have seen, and the things you have heard; once you consider that there is absolutely no evidence that directly proves
Sebastian killed Ben: no forensic evidence consistent with an injury of this type, no fingerprints on the murder weapon, no witnesses to the actual attack – you have to come to the only rational conclusion that is left.

‘The prosecution has to prove beyond
all reasonable doubt
that the defendant is guilty. The burden of proof lies with the prosecution, not with the defence. You must now consider whether that has been achieved, or if you indeed doubt the circumstantial evidence that has been presented to you. This is no hardened criminal who stands before you, with a string of convictions in his past. This … is a little boy.

‘When you come back from your jury room, I want you to be very sure …
very sure
that you have made the right decision. I know that you will see the facts as they are and realise that Sebastian … is not guilty.

‘If you believe that Sebastian is innocent, you must acquit. If you believe that Sebastian is probably innocent you must acquit. Even if you think that Sebastian
might be
innocent, you must acquit.’

Irene gathered up her notes. ‘Thank you for listening.’

The judge’s summing up lasted all afternoon as expected and then the jury were excused to consider the verdict.

Daniel worked late at the office and then went to the Crown for last orders. He texted Irene when he was halfway through his pint: ‘Thinking about tomorrow. Not sure I am ready for it. Hope u r ok.’ There was no reply.

The next day was Friday, and Daniel worked through the morning before he got the call to say that the jury had reached a verdict.

In the
courtroom, everyone assembled again: lawyers, family, journalists and public. Sebastian sat beside Daniel, waiting for the decision that would define the rest of his life.

Daniel looked around when court was in session. Minutes passed dizzily, a flutter of processes. He glanced down at the small boy beside him, noticing again the valiant tilt of his chin, the young green eyes expectant, wary.