Free The Crime of Huey Dunstan by James Mcneish

what the Crown would make of that at a retrial!”
    If I had thought to shame Lawrence, I was mistaken.
    “There’s more, Ches. I talked to the psychiatrist again. I asked Toby Wilson to review his case notes. We went over them together, everything. There’s nothing. Toby spent six hours with the boy. You remember Toby was the first to be told about the elusive Mr Glen. Huey disclosed it in the second interview. He then placed an embargo on who Toby could tell. He didn’t want his legal adviser to be told. You know all that. So we went over everything again. Toby is adamant there’s no hint of anything sexual.”
    “How can he be sure?”
    “Sorry, Ches. I have to go. I didn’t say Toby was sure, I just said there’s nothing there.”
    “Did Toby advise you against appealing?”
    “It’s my decision. I didn’t ask him.”
    “Do you remember his exact words?”
    “He said—You’ve got Toby’s report. It’s very precise, very correct. Toby sticks by it. Said he liked the boy. Said he got quite close to the boy. There wasn’t any hint of sexual molestation.”
    “But that’s what the headmaster said. You’re quoting the headmaster.”
    “Exactly. Toby agrees with the headmaster.”
    “But did he say that to you? Did Toby Wilson actually say that? I don’t believe he would say anything of the sort, Lawrence.” But he had gone.
     
    I went into the study when I got home and switched on the computer. I wanted to check the headmaster’s testimony. But first I reviewed what the psychiatrist had said:
    I interviewed Mr Dunstan three times at the prison in the course of a fortnight [Toby Wilson reported to Lawrence]. I was impressed by the young man’s honesty. I attach my clinical notes about a possible defence of dissociative trance. Automatism is another possibility. But I stress that in the absence of our knowledge of the underlying cause, any diagnosis must remain tentative. A defence of flashback alone, as I have said in my preliminary reports, is open to question and, however valid, fails as an official diagnosis.On more than one occasion the young man became tearful when I suggested he was keeping something back, and seemed on the point of telling me what he was concealing. But nothing came of it. On each occasion he fell silent. He is upset at the trouble he has brought upon his family. The prison staff describe him as an easy-going person who walks away from violence…
    The headmaster’s name was Parfitt. He had given his evidence on the fourth day. He said he remembered Huey from primary school when he was seven or eight. “Huey was very protective of his sister Amy,” the principal said, “otherwise he was sullen and quiet. He would burst into tears for no obvious reason. At other times he became verbally violent.” 
      
    PRINCIPAL: We couldn’t understand his behaviour. He became so disruptive we referred him to the psychological service and with the parents’ permission we sent him to a health camp for six weeks.
    QUESTION: Did you know he had been badly burned when he was small?
    PRINCIPAL: Yes, he was teased because of the scarring.
    QUESTION: Taunted?
    PRINCIPAL: Yes. I tried to help him. There was a lot of scarring on his arms and the upper part of his body. I discussed it with some of the other teachers. I thinkevery child deserves every possible help one can give them.
    QUESTION: But you couldn’t understand his behaviour?
    PRINCIPAL: No one could.
    QUESTION: Did it occur to you, headmaster, to wonder if he was being abused out of school?
    PRINCIPAL: You mean…? Oh no, nothing like that! His family was very supportive. I believe that I got quite close to the boy, very close. Oh no. If it had been anything of that nature, he would have told me.
      
    “Pompous git,” I muttered. I shut down the computer and went into the next room. Lisbeth was ironing.
    “Unreconstructed pedantic pompous little git!”
    “I beg your pardon?”
    “Sorry, love. Something burning? I hope