In recent years, our mock trial cases have celebrated the 200th birthdays of Edgar Allan Poe and Alfred Lord Tennyson. This year, it is Charles Dickens’ turn. True his 200th birthday slipped by us on February 7, 2012 but the first quarter of 2014 marks the centennial of one of the most famous mock trials of all time. In January of 1914, with G.K. Chesterton acting as judge and George Bernard Shaw as the prosecutor, a mock trial convened to get to the bottom of Dickens’ unfinished novel The Mystery of Edwin Drood. (For the record, that murder prosecution of choirmaster John Jasper ended in a mistrial.)

We’re going to pick up the thread of that old investigation this year. Of course Dickens’ open narrative hasn’t stood still during the 143 years since he put it down. To serve our purposes, his facts have been placed into a literary mash-up blender to which we’ve added such modernisms as Internet brides, insider trading scandals, police drones and the upside down assembly of a peanut butter and jelly sandwich. For flavouring, some elements from other Dickens works have been tossed in and maybe even a little of the 2012 popular novel Gone Girl…

It can be a common occurrence these days for a notorious crime to be followed by the news that there exists no living, breathing suspect. It may be that the investigators find they have nowhere to turn or it may be that the life of the individual responsible has been taken by the police or by his own hand. This can leave unsatisfied the public appetites for justice and for more information. In such a case, the next thing you will often hear is the news that a peripheral player in the drama has been charged with the crime of rendering criminal assistance. While one who knowingly assists in the commission of a crime is deemed an accomplice in that crime, one who simply aids the criminal after-the-fact commits only the lesser offense of rendering criminal assistance, or “RCA.”

An RCA charge can accomplish two significant objectives. First, it may succeed in squeezing out some new information that will help to build a case against a major bad guy. Second, it conveys to the public that a horrendous deed has wide repercussions and a civilized society will seek all possible answers in order to loudly proclaim its life-affirming and justice-affirming values.

Early 2014 will find “Jan Jasper” now the “prisoner in the dock”, there to face charges of rendering criminal assistance to Edwin Drood who was suspected of foul play in the disappearance of Miss Rosa Bud. In handling this case, we will deal with important contemporary issues of domestic violence, immigration law, securities regulation and, of course, criminal procedure and circumstantial evidence.

In framing our issues, this case draws inspiration from many corners of Dickens’ works. Of particular interest is Our Mutual Friend — Dickens’ last completed novel, written just before Drood. It concerns a man falsely identifying himself as “Julius Handford” who is suspected of some vague complicity in the murder of one John Harmon before it becomes known that John Harmon is very much alive. When questioned, he responds to a policeman’s inquiry in this fashion:

“No class of man can understand better than you, that families may not choose to publish their disagreements and misfortunes, except on the last necessity. I do not dispute that you discharge your duty in asking me the question; you will not dispute my right to withhold the answer. Good night.”

This quote really strikes at the heart of the issues in “That Drood Dude.” When is it the “last necessity”, the point at which society’s needs compel the mere witness to cooperate with authorities? And, when does a potential witness cross a line by doing more than simply “withhold” an answer? These are among the legal-moral-societal questions raised in this case, questions of the type that Charles Dickens raised so well.

The author would like to thank Mike Lang for his thoughtful proofreading and, once again, hats off to Connie Butler for her cover art.

W.L.D.

August 2013