I urge you to put away your prejudices and to listen
with open minds to what Mr Gopez and Mr Patel have to say. Our two protagonists will
soon be presenting their arguments, but before they do so they have agreed that I should
read out a summary of the background to the case, and of the evidence produced in the
trial of the only person prosecuted for the murder on the twenty-fourth of January 1941,
of Lord Josslyn Hay, the twenty-second Earl of Erroll.’
The Tiger turned towards the two men seated
beside him and, after receiving a nod from each, began outlining the facts of the case –
the crashed car, the discovery of the body, the police investigation. He described the
clues the police had found at the scene of the crime – the broken armstraps, the
lipstick-stained cigarette and the white marks on the back seat of the car – and how
when the investigating officer visited Sir Jock Delves Broughton at his house on the
afternoon of the murder, he noticed a pair of half-burned white gym shoes on a bonfire
in the garden.
‘And now, to the trial. The prosecution
alleged that Broughton, on hearing Lord Erroll dropping off Diana at the house in Karen
at about 2.20 a.m. on the night of the murder, put on a pair of gym shoes and climbed
out of his first-floor bedroom window armed with a pistol. He hid in the back seat of
Erroll’s car. When the car slowed down at the junction with Ngong Road, Broughton
shot Erroll, pulled him on to the floor, drove the car into a murram pit, ran home,
climbed back up the drainpipe and got back into his bedroom without being seen by anyone
in the house – though one person in the house gave evidence that she heard a dog barking
sometime in the night. As corroboration the prosecution hoped to show that the bullet
that killed Lord Erroll matched bullets previously fired from Broughton’s own
gun.’
The Tiger pursed his lips.
‘I have to say that their case was not
a strong one. In a fine example of the barrister’s art, the counsel for the
defence, Mr Morris, showed conclusively that Broughton’s gun could not have been
the one that fired the fatal bullet, thus demolishing the ballistic evidence on which
the prosecution largely relied. As a house of cards will fall after one card is removed,
their case collapsed. In a unanimous decision the jury acquitted Broughton of the murder
of Lord Erroll. I will now leave Mr Patel to explain to you why he thinks they were
wrong.’
Tiger Singh bowed towards Mr Patel, who now
stood.
‘Thank you, Tiger.’ He turned to
face the audience.
‘The Tiger has said that I will try
and convince you that the jury was wrong to find Sir Jock Delves Broughton not guilty of
the murder of Lord Erroll. On the contrary, Ithink they were right.
Why? In the light of the evidence – or lack of evidence – and in the light of
Broughton’s plea of not guilty, they had no choice. But we, ladies and gentlemen,
are privy to information that the jury did not have. We know what happened
after
the trial.’
If Mr Patel had been wearing a waistcoat,
thought Mr Malik, at this point he would undoubtedly have stuck his thumbs into its
pockets.
‘Since the trial and acquittal, there
have been many theories about who was the murderer. Means and motives abound. There
were, apparently, many people in Kenya who would have been quite happy to see Erroll
dead – as well as, if you believe one theory, the British government. But after the
trial no new witnesses came forward, no new and reliable evidence was found.’
Mr Patel reached for the glass of water in
front of him and took a small sip.
‘But many years later – in 1982 to be
precise – one of the people involved in the story made an astounding claim. Juanita
Carberry, at the time of the murder fifteen years old and stepdaughter of Erroll’s
friend and former lover June Carberry, told the English journalist James Fox that