Counsel for the defence will now proceed to the jury.

Mr. Scott: May it please your Honor.

Gentlemen of the jury: This defendant is presumed to be innocent. Before you may find him guilty you must have evidence not only sufficient to over-come this presumption of innocence, but to convince you of the defendant's guilt beyond every reasonable doubt. The burden of presenting such evidence is upon the Commonwealth.

The Commonwealth must prove —

First: that Edwin Drood was murdered.

Second: that he was murdered by John Jasper.

Has this been accomplished by the Commonwealth's testimony?

What is the evidence of John Jasper's guilt? No mortal claims to have seen the defendant murder his nephew.

Its highest offer is a tissue of straggling, unconvincing circumstances which it claims point to his guilt.

It is claimed that his love for Rosa Bud is the motive ; it is claimed that the knowledge of and visit to the crypt and tower were preparations for the crime; it is claimed that the drunken mutterings of this defendant at Princess Puffer's den were admissions of guilt; but how flimsy is such evidence. And how quickly it disappears upon the slightest scrutiny!

The love of Jasper for Rosa Bud was concealed in his heart as sacredly and secretly as the love of Grewgious for the drowned mother of his ward. And this secret love of Jasper for Rosa Bud was accompanied by his open, expressed love and affection for his nephew, the betrothed of Rosa Bud. Nor was this love for Rosa Bud voiced until six months after the broken engagement and the disappearance of Edwin.

Can this affection for the girl who was soon to marry his nephew be called motive actuating the destruction of his own nephew? If the defendant's love for Rosa Bud, concealed and sacred as it was, is a motive for this crime, how do you dispose of the defendant's great love, affection and tenderness for the nephew of whose murder he is charged? How do you dispose of the testimony of honest Mrs. Tope, who tells you her sincere story of this affection?

What evidence of the defendant's guilt is given to you by the poor, drunken Durdles in his besotted story? He met Jasper at the home of Mayor Sapsea and there obtained the keys to the Sapsea tomb; he tells you that these keys were weighed by Jasper, but at the suggestion of Durdles, himself; that later in the evening Jasper proffered his kind offices to accompany the poor drunkard to his home and to carry his bundle, which Durdles was almost incapable of carrying. Is the accusation of the guilt of this defendant strengthened at all by this portion of Durdles' story? And, again, when Durdles tells you that on Monday night before Christmas Eve, as previously arranged, Jasper came to his hovel for the purpose of visiting the crypt and tower of the Cathedral, does he give you any evidence against this defendant?

The prosecuting attorney makes much of the fact that on this visit Jasper carries with him a wicker bottle of liquor for Durdles; but he forgets Durdles' story "that anyone was welcome to call at his home who brought liquor for two, or if he likes to make it twice two, he will be twice as welcome." And he makes much of the fact that Durdles and Jasper left the crypt, going to the top of the tower and while on the trip Durdles carries the rum, and Jasper — Durdles' ever present dinner bundle. But he forgets that there was no evidence that the bundle on that night contained the key to Sapsea's or any other tomb.

Does the testimony of Durdles, that he and Jasper concealed themselves by the wall when Crisparkel and Neville Landless passed, and that Jasper laughed at the poor, innocent Crisparkel and the savage young tiger from Ceylon whom he sought to tame, point to this defendant's guilt? He ignores the fact that Jasper ever sought retirement from companions, that he was a man who led a solitary, melancholy life. The prosecuting attorney points to Durdles' characterization of Jasper's angry expression towards Landless, as an indication of this defendant's guilt; but he forgets the cause of that enmity — that but a short time before this same young man had attempted to cut down the beloved nephew of Jasper. What would the Commonwealth ask you men to draw from Durdles' testimony? Surely there is no significance in Jasper's desire to go to the top of the tower, or in paying his guide, Durdles, with the price that appealed to him most, a bottle of liquor. Surely no guilt can be inferred from Durdles' drunken dream in the crypt, because he tells you, himself, that the Christmas Eve before in that same crypt his drunken dream was "a ghost of a shriek and the ghost of a howl of a dog."

The Commonwealth then resorts to its pitiful attempt to prove the defendant's guilt by the worthless testimony of an opium hag — a poor, drunken sot who tells you that for sixteen years she was a drunkard making her living by selling opium to "Chinamen, Lascars and Knifers." Who resorts to begging and has shown her willingness to add black-mail to her nefarious callings. They would attempt by her testimony to raise the mutterings of this benumbed defendant while under the influence of opium so willingly supplied by her hands, to admission of guilt. But with all this, what does this poor creature tell you? Nothing more than that the defendant smoking opium in her den referred to a journey that he had often taken in his fancy, and then she depicts his actions and tells of his incoherent mumblings while completely under the influence of the drug.

The Commonwealth would ask that you give to the story of this wicked, worthless hag, this drunkard, this opium smoker, this associate of Chinamen and cut-throats, the credence of verity. What violence to the common-sense of intelligent men, is this?

Nor can the testimony of Grewgious persuade your mind of the guilt of this defendant; rather does it establish more convincingly his innocence; more does it remove the Commonwealth's argument of motive. Grewgious pictures to you the scene of the defendant's collapse on the evening two days after Edwin's disappearance. The Commonwealth con- tends that the collapse of the defendant following the sudden information by Grewgious of the broken engagement of Edwin and Rosa Bud, points to his guilt. Does it not rather eloquently picture Jasper's great love for Edwin ; does not his collapse after his days of exhausting search better portray the blasted hope for his beloved nephew's happiness?

This is the Commonwealth's whole story against John Jasper. Is there any portion of it that points to the guilt of the defendant?

But we have another towards whom the finger of suspicion points — Neville Landless, whose own lips said "I love Rosa Bud and I hate and despise Edwin Drood."

If there was motive on Jasper's part of secret love for Rosa Bud what more was the motive for this wild young tiger from Ceylon who had lived a life unrestrained, inflamed with infatuation for Rosa Bud, impulsed by his hatred for Drood — a hatred bred of insult by Drood, and his championship of the lady herself. Who is this Neville Landless? By his own words, "Of such tigerish blood that he would have struck Drood down on the day of their first meeting had this defendant not restrained him." From his own tongue, "One who would have murdered his stepfather had not natural death prevented." But we find even more — not only his murderous disposition, but also we find him the last person in whose presence is seen Edwin Drood. Who but Landless testifies to the return of Drood from the trip to the river?

But more: the next day after the disappearance of Drood the citizens of Cloisterham pursued Land- less and he is not overpowered until he is stricken down and has struck down with his heavy iron wood stick at least one of his captors. Surely, here lies suspicion: motive, openly expressed; opportunity clearly shown. And more — we find that it is towards Neville Landless that the finger of suspicion is pointed and the good people of Cloisterham shun and condemn him. The good Dean of the Cathedral directs Crisparkel to dismiss him from his home.

How can you, jurymen, say by your verdict that the finger of guilt points towards John Jasper more than toward Neville Landless?

Upon the part of this defendant the testimony shows Jasper's love for Edwin Drood; of Neville Landless it shows his hate for Edwin Drood.

On the part of John Jasper the testimony shows his love for Rosa Bud sacredly concealed in his breast; not disclosed until six months after the breaking of the engagement and the disappearance of Edwin Drood. Of Neville Landless it shows his love for Rosa Bud, monstrous, openly declared to Crisparkel and to Helena, his sister, in the words, "Husband or no husband, that fellow is unworthy of her. I love Rosa Bud and I hate and despise him."

On the part of the defendant, John Jasper, there is shown no opportunity to have murdered Edwin Drood on Christmas Eve. Of Neville Landless the testimony shows that it was in his company Edwin Drood was last seen; that Landless was armed with a stick that might well have laid Edwin low.

Of Jasper, we find from the testimony that he was of a quiet, melancholy, retiring disposition, given to the habit of opium smoking. Of Neville Landless the testimony tells us he is of tigerish blood, of unrestrained temper, of violent, murderous, disposition.

Does the Commonwealth claim that the guilt of John Jasper has been proved by the finding of the watch and chain and pin? Surely there can be no such contention because we find from the evidence that twenty minutes after two o'clock on the 24th day of December this watch was wound by the local jeweler. When the watch was found on the 28th day of December in the timber of the weir by Crisparkel the watch had run down and had not been wound. Does this give to the Commonwealth the right to contend that Jasper placed this watch and pin where found?

Gentlemen of the Jury, is it not a significant fact that we find Neville Landless roaming along the banks of the river in the neighborhood of the weir after his parole by Mayor Sapsea and before the discovery of the jewelry by Crisparkel? Is there any more evidence against Jasper as to the placing of them, than against Landless? Was there anymore opportunity to Jasper than to Landless?

Has the Commonwealth even proved that there was a murder of Edwin Drood? Where is the proof? Where was he murdered and how? Does the Commonwealth charge he was decoyed to and thrown from the top of the tower? Does the displacement of the stone and the lead of the tower top and the removal of the hands of the tower clock explain Drood's fall from its height? If so, where is the evidence at the bottom of the tower? Where are the blood stains? Do they not forget the fearful storm of the night hours "that tore through the streets of Cloisterham. No such power of wind had blown for many a winter night; chimneys toppled to the street and large branches torn from the trees crashed to the earth." Do they forget this or deliberately ignore it?

Or does the Commonwealth claim that Jasper gar- rotted Drood with the scarf with which the singer protected his throat from the dampness of the Cathedral and that the body was concealed in the Sapsea tomb, buried in the quicklime from Durdles' yard. If this is the Commonwealth's contention, where is the proof of this unholy use of his protecting scarf? Where is the proof that the lime which was seen unprotected a week before, retained its destructive properties until this Christmas Eve? For the Commonwealth to establish the retention of this strength it would have to controvert the very laws of nature. If this is their contention why the absence of Durdles' testimony to prove the disappearance of the quicklime? Why the absence of the testimony to prove the disturbance of the tomb? If there is evidence of this fact, the Commonwealth must have it at its hands; the key to Sapsea's monument is in the possession of their witness, Durdles.

Does the Commonwealth contend that the body was disposed of in the river? The search of many days has failed to aid this contention.

The failure of the Commonwealth to prove Drood's murder seemed so apparent that even the committing Magistrate, Mayor Sapsea, said, in dismissing the inquiry of Drood's disappearance, "Nothing more being found and no discovery being made which proved the lost man to be dead, it was necessary to dismiss the person suspected."

We, therefore, respectfully submit to the jury that the Commonwealth has failed to prove the two essential elements in this case:

First — That Edwin Drood was murdered.

Second — That he was murdered by John Jasper, and the defendant should therefore be found "NOT GUILTY."

Read more on the Archive.org website