Trial of John Jasper, lay precentor of Cloisterham Cathedral in the County of Kent, for the murder of Edwin Drood, engineerDickens Fellowship (London, England)
General
Trial of John Jasper, lay precentor of Cloisterham Cathedral in the County of Kent, for the murder of Edwin Drood, engineer
MR. CROTCH: May I placate my friend and say, have we a
murdered man? We say John Jasper did not murder Edwin Drood on the
Christmas Eve of 1860. We have every reason to believe that Edwin
Drood is still alive, and in that case, of course, it follows that
you cannot legally convict John Jasper for murder. Now, it will
naturally be asked how, if a murder was admittedly attempted, it can
have failed, and still more, that if it failed, how the supposed
murderer could have believed that it had succeeded. Those questions
will be probably solved: we hope they will be solved by the evidence
which we shall put before you. All I think it is at the moment
necessary to say is, that the key to the story will be found in the
opium habits to which the prisoner undoubtedly was addicted. My
Lord, there is a story told of an Irish priest, who, warning his
congregation against the evils of intemperance, said, “What makes
you shoot at your landlord?” And the reply came, “It’s the drink.”
“And begad, what makes you fail to shoot him?” The same reply—“It’s
the drink.” My Lord and Gentlemen of the Jury, we submit that, in a
word, is the story of John Jasper. Now John Jasper is—presumably my
friend will admit it—he has tried to prove it—I don’t think he has
demonstrated much by it—he has tried to get out of his witnesses
that this man was an opium smoker. From our point of view that is
excellent. We say that John Jasper had, on the night previous to this
murderous attack on Edwin Drood, indulged in a gross opium debauch,
and because he did, in the midst of the commission of his crime he
had one of those sudden seizures to which he was subjected, and that
under the influence of opium he failed to complete the crime, but
still believed that he had. Because he was under the influence of
opium, he completed it in imagination, and then afterwards imagined
that he had completed it in fact; and because his victim—and this is
the point that I want to draw your attention to especially—because
his victim also was under the influence of opium, having been drugged
by Jasper, he failed to give any connected or reasonable and rational
account of what had happened in these circumstances. That, I submit,
my Lord, and Gentlemen of the Jury, is the outline. The details will
be presently filled in by witnesses, who will testify. You will
perceive that if it is true—and we shall prove it to be true—then
John Jasper, whatever his intention, however great his moral
obliquity, cannot be legally convicted of murder.—Eliza Lascar, alias
the “Princess Puffer.”
[EVIDENCE OF THE “PRINCESS PUFFER.”]
USHER: Eliza Lascar, alias “Princess Puffer”! [The witness
entered the witness-box, and was duly sworn.]
MR. CROTCH: Are you sworn?
WITNESS: Yes, deary.
MR. CROTCH: Your name, I believe, is Eliza Lascar?
WITNESS: Yes, deary. Oh, my lungs is so weak!
MR. CROTCH: My dear lady!
WITNESS: Oh, my lungs!
MR. CROTCH: You are known as “Princess Puffer”?
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account