The Killing of Percy Casserley
The Killing of Percy Casserley
The Killing of
Percy Casserley
A member of the jury: possible
arguments
Prosecution
Obviously, there is no way to tell definitely
if Ted Chaplin has committed a murder or just a manslaughter. Let’s consider
the whole case “fact by fact” and see if one can logically derive the degree of
Chaplin’s guilt.
First, let’s estimate the prosecutor’s (McClure) arguments. Almost undoubtful
fact is that Ted Chaplin was in the house of Casserley and saw his death, and
he is a very good object for prosecutor’s attack, especially in the light of
his own description of the story. There is a slight chance of mistake in this
statement but it is almost neglectible. We can suppose that Percy Casserley was
murdered, if he was murdered at all, not by Ted Chaplin but Georgina Casserley,
his own wife. Ted Chaplin claimed then that he was the witness of Casserley’s
death to pull any possible accusations away from Georgina Casserley. If so, he
succeeded and Georgina was not really blamed; eleven days of her imprisonment
(provided mainly by the social critics of the moral aspect of the love story of
her and Ted Chaplin) can not be compared with twelve years for Ted Chaplin.
A
good question is the one about the gloves. It seems to be a bit strange that
Ted Chaplin went to Casserley’s house with gloves on his hands. While the
weather allows a reasonable explanation, it cannot help with the fact that
Chaplin, according to his own words, first pulled them off after he started
talking to Casserley (as any man would do in a standard situation), but then
put them back after just a few words. By the time he did so Casserley did not
give him any answer to his request (just because he had no time to do so – it
all happened very quickly!), so Ted Chaplin obviously had no reason to leave so
soon. The reasonable questions is: what if Chaplin took gloves with the initial
intention conceal his fingerprints?
The
most lethal thing for Ted Chaplin is the presence of a certain amount of
bruises on the body of Percy Casserley in the absence of the like on his own
body. The only reasonable explanation is that Casserley was beaten prior to his
death, and the only person who could do that was Chaplin.
Also, the prosecution can use to its favor the fact that, according to the Ted
Chaplin’s version, the fighting between him and Casserley took a relatively
long period of time. Hardly any kind of fighting, defensive or offensive,
against an old and drunk person can take that long.
Due
to the weird and logically unclear situation with the failure of Casserley’s
.25 automatic gun a number of further questions to help the prosecution arise.
The gun was found to have a defective reloading mechanism. Weapons expert told
the court that after the first shot the pistol would invariably jam, making the
following fire impossible. The question is how could Casserley die after being
shot from the jammed gun? There should be no second shot at all! Or maybe the
gun failure took place after it was all over?
And,
finally, one of the very basic points upon which Chaplin’s story is based. Some
things taken from Casserley’s home were found at the Chaplin’s flat; the
explanation he gave was that he brought them there to help to create an
imitation of burglary. Those things were just a diamond ring and a
life-preserver (a cosh). Isn’t there something strange in the fact that such
few valuable items were taken, and a lot of other stuff (say, silverware) left
untouched? Was Chaplin so naïve to think that he took enough to his flat
to simulate a robbery?
Defense
What is really surprising is that the defense
never mentioned the conditions of Percy Casserley’s mind and body on the
evening he died. Autopsy procedure revealed a lot of information on the number
of bruises on his corps but told nothing about the alcohol concentration in his
blood.
At
the same time, as we all remember, Casserley was drunk. Note that his usual
dose of a bottle and a half of whisky (according to his wife) is more than
enough to expect inadequate behavior, including Casserley’s occasional shot at
himself. The old man could be drunk to a such degree that he was not able to
control his finger on the trigger and, of course, not able to understand the
dangerous situation.
One
of the prosecutor’s attempts to “catch” Ted Chaplin and find contraversial
points in his evidences was based on the fact that, according to Chaplin,
Casserley grabbed the gun with his left hand during the fighting and did so
several times; at the moment of the shot the gun was also in his left hand.
Since it was known that Casserley was a right-handed person, the prosecutor
insisted that Chaplin told lies.
Hardly there is a point to use such a logical derivation as a support. As
Casserley was drunk to a high degree, he probably was not able to control his
actions to the full extent, and it could made no difference for him if he used
his right or left hand to take a pistol. Actually, it is a difficult job to try
to explain a behavior of a drunk person; still, anyway, one should take into
consideration that such a behavior can not be commented or explained without a
special expertise. In this case, even the level of alcohol in Casserley’s blood
was not measured.
|