Page 89 of Dissection of a Murder
“So, he would have used the weapon and then returned it to its original place?”
“An odd sequence of events, but yes.”
“And—this isn’t in dispute, so I’m permitted to lead—can you confirm that no fingerprints have been recovered from this item?”
“That’s correct. They’d been wiped.”
“What happened after you located the defendant?”
“He was arrested on suspicion of attempted murder.”
“How did he react?”
“Calmly. You wouldn’t have thought he’d just been arrested for such a serious offense. He was compliant and polite. He made no comment to the caution and came willingly into custody.”
Julian takes the witness through the police procedure at the station; being checked in, having DNA samples and photos taken. The jury are directed to further exhibits in the jury bundle showing how Jack looked when he was arrested. You can see them thinking, Is this the face of a man who, only an hour earlier, killed another person?
“Were you able to secure his mobile telephone?”
“Unfortunately, no. In most cases, this offers us a window of insight, but we were unable to seize the defendant’s mobile phone, and to this date, it has never been found.”
It sounds bad and itisbad. DCI Brady emphasizes the last part, so the jury can clock just how dodgy the whole thing is.
“Now, there was a significant development in this case after the defendant had been brought into custody, wasn’t there?” Julian inquires, leaning against the back bench, arms folded. Occasionally, he strokes his chin while nodding his head. He’s hit his stride now. The confidence of the man is staggering. I don’t think I’ve ever leaned against that bench my entire legal career. It’s very male behavior.
“Yes. At 1:54 a.m., we received the news that the victim had died and, as a result, the attempted murder investigation became a murder investigation. The defendant was informed of this, and we interviewed him under caution. He requested a legal representative from Jessops.”
“Can you please recite the caution for the jury?”
“Certainly: ‘You do not have to say anything. But, it may harm your defense if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence.’ ”
“And did he cooperate in the interview?”
“No, he did not,” DCI Brady confirms, shaking his head. “He gave no-comment answers to everything asked of him.”
“What was the result of this?”
“We felt we had sufficient evidence to charge Jack Millman with the murder of Anton Smythe, so that’s what happened.”
“Thank you, DCI Brady. I have no further questions.”
Julian sits back down on the creaky bench, struggling to hide that Cheshire Cat grin I know he wants me to see.
Now it’s my turn.
45
Leila
R v Jack Millman
Day 1
11:51 a.m.
You’ve got tobe careful with police officers. The basis of cross-examination is that you’re disputing, or casting doubt, upon someone’s evidence. At the very least, you’re helping the jury explore beyond what was previously said. We are trained never to ask a question in cross-examination that we don’t already know the answer to, and when you have as limited instructions as I do from my client, that’s a very hard reach.
I rise. The jury stare at me, wondering,Is she up to it? Is she any good? Why did the defendant pick her? Is she as good as the prosecution one? Who do we like and trust more?
