‘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.