• Choose a category
• All
• Classic-Fiction

By Root 736 0

the case against Pyke. Emphasising certain elements of the Crown’s case over others, he drew attention to the testimony they would hear from Maggie Smallman, the barmaid who worked at the accused’s ‘sordid’ gin palace: she would tell the court that Pyke had threatened to kill Lizzie Morgan, his mistress, on numerous occasions. He drew attention to a neighbour’s claim that he had heard the deceased call out to Pyke on the night she was murdered, begging for her life. He also told the court that Pyke’s flight from the murder scene was undoubtedly a sign of his guilt. He acknowledged that the Crown’s case relied on circumstantial evidence but pointed out that solid circumstantial evidence was often superior to eyewitness testimony. Pyke listened to his speech with interest but said nothing.

When Pyke offered no cross-examination of the first four prosecution witnesses, the recorder felt compelled to intervene. He asked Pyke whether he thought it aided his defence to allow the testimony of witnesses, even ones with questionable reputations and social standing, to go uncontested. He seemed puzzled. Pyke said he would try to play a more active role in the proceedings. Marshall replied it wasn’t a question of what he wanted; rather, Pyke’s liberty and indeed his life were being threatened by his indifference. Again, Pyke promised he would try to do better. Marshall shook his head, as though he were dealing with a simpleton.

So when the next witness, James Hardwick, was introduced and outlined his own area of expertise - phrenology, or the relationship between the shape and size of a skull and the mind it contained - Pyke decided to involve himself in the proceedings.

He agreed to allow his own cranium to be measured and scribbled a few notes while Hardwick explained that Pyke’s ‘enlarged organ’ revealed a propensity for ‘recklessness, combativeness, destructiveness, self-esteem and secretiveness’.

When Hardwick had finished, Marshall asked whether Pyke cared to cross-examine the witness, and was about to move on when Pyke said, ‘I do have one question, Your Honour.’

‘Oh?’ Marshall looked up at him, a little surprised. ‘Go on, then.’

Pyke turned to the witness box and said he was very interested in Hardwick’s claim about the relationship between ‘anomalies’ in the skull and ‘enlarged cranial lobes’ and an individual’s propensity for recklessness and aggression.

‘Am I correct in concluding that, according to your theory, such cranial features suggest a less developed mind?’

Hardwick nodded. ‘Suggest is perhaps too modest a word.’

‘Such features demonstrate a less developed mind, then.’

‘Indeed,’ Hardwick said, looking at Pyke warily. ‘This was the thesis of Gall and Spurzheim and I see no reason to question it.’

‘And this propensity for violence, even murder, demonstrated in one’s skull shape and size, takes no account, you say, of social standing or class?’

‘That is correct.’

Pyke smiled. ‘Then since good science, as you well know, is based on the principles of scrutiny and observation, perhaps we might test this hypothesis, taking as our example the most esteemed of all men gathered here in this courtroom.’

Hardwick looked around him nervously. ‘And who might that be, sir?’

‘Why, of course, the King’s much venerated brother, Ernest Augustus, duke of Cumberland and earl of Armagh.’

Hardwick stammered that such a request was both impertinent and counter-productive. Beads of sweat appeared on his brow. Attention in the courtroom shifted from the dock to the bench. The duke himself, who had been watching proceedings through a pocket telescope, did not seem to welcome the interest. He whispered something angrily in Edmonton’s ear.

The recorder stepped in and scolded Pyke for his impudence. ‘Either proceed with an alternative line of questioning or permit the witness to stand down.’

‘But, Your Honour, this particular issue goes right to the heart of this man’s credibility, and since the prosecution has chosen, perhaps unwisely, to build its case using what I can only describe as pseudo-scientific evidence, then