Gallows Eve - part 1

Gallows Eve (Part 1)

(Author’s note - This story is set in an alternate universe where attitudes are paradoxically hidebound. While reading the story one has to accept that while a same sex couple is perfectly acceptable, cohabitation outside marriage for any couple is considered quite unacceptable.)

Heero Yuy took his seat in the public gallery and looked over at the figure in the dock. The prisoner looked pale, but completely in command of himself. Even from this distance Heero could see that his violet eyes shone with confidence and his firm jaw was set rigid with defiance, in spite of the overwhelming strength of the evidence against him. He held himself upright, and directly held the gaze of anyone in the courtroom courageous enough to catch his eye.

‘Bravo Duo,’ He thought to himself, ‘Just keep that chin up, and I’ll have you out of this in no time’.

“Members of the jury,” The judge began, gazing benignly upon them from the elevation of the bench, “You have all listened most patiently to the evidence in this most distressing and sordid case.” As he uttered the last few words he shot a contemptuous sidelong glance in the direction of the dock. “The prisoner stands accused of the wilful and deliberate murder of Zechs Merquise, on the 23^rd April last, and it is my duty to sum up the evidence that has been submitted by both the prosecution and by the defence, prior to your being dismissed to consider your verdict.

We have heard how the deceased, a fiction writer, became infatuated with the accused when they met at a literary function two years ago. The accused, also a novelist, has told you himself, with great candour, how he became deeply attached to Zechs Merquise, a known adventurer, and how after an acquaintance of around nine months, consented to live with him on terms of intimacy, outside the bonds of marriage. Now, members of the jury, it is for you to decide whether this was the act of a respectable man in love, or a vulgar display of misbehaviour from a morally bankrupt profligate.” Once again the judge’s eyes swivelled toward the prisoner. “Mr Chang Wufei, counsel for the defence, has used all of his considerable skill and eloquence on behalf of his client, and has sought to acquaint you with the ‘bohemian’ lifestyle of the artistic and literary circle that the accused and the deceased moved within. You will not, I’m sure, allow this to excuse behaviour that can only be described as ‘amoral’.

You have heard how the couple appeared to live together in this fashion, on terms of the greatest mutual affection for around one year, until the night of 7^th April last, when there was a quarrel, after which the couple separated. One of the most curious features of this case is the reason given for the quarrel. Once again, the prisoner himself has given us a frank enough explanation, but we only have his unsupported word for this, given under cross examination by prosecuting counsel…

PC. Mr Maxwell, we have heard evidence from your neighbours that a violent quarrel was heard between you and Mr Merquise on the night of April 7^th. Do you deny this?

DM. No.

PC. Can you tell please tell the court what the quarrel was about?

DM. Yes. He suggested something to me that I found patronising and insulting.

PC. And what was that?

DM. He proposed to me.

PC. You find a proposal of marriage patronising and insulting?

DM. Under these circumstances I did, yes. You see, I never wanted to live with Zechs outside marriage. It went against every religious principle I had been brought up on. When he originally suggested that we move in together, I naturally assumed that we would marry first, but Zechs assured me that he was absolutely opposed to any form of formal, solemnised marriage, and he insisted that if I loved him I would live with him without marriage, and I would not force him to do something that he did not believe in. Eventually I acquiesced, if not entirely against my will, then against my better judgement. When he later proposed marriage to me I realised that I had been made a fool of. He just wanted to see whether I was as slavishly devoted to him as his vanity required, whether I would give up my principles and my reputation for him, and when he saw that I would, he condescended to agree to marry me. I felt utterly humiliated.

PC. Was that the only reason for the quarrel?

DM. Yes

PC. Come now Mr Maxwell, surely there must have been more to it than that? Perhaps you suspected that he had another lover, or he had been unkind to you in some other way?

DM. No, that was all.

PC. Just as you say. So what happened after the quarrel?

DM. He stormed out of the flat that evening and I spent the night alone. The next day I changed the locks, packed his bags and left them at the door for him. He must have gone to Relena’s, because he ended up living with her.

PC. Did you ever see Mr Merquise again?

DM. Yes I did, at the houses of friends.

PC. Did you speak to him?

DM. I was civil, nothing more.

PC. You still harboured animosity towards him?

DM. I was still very angry with him.

PC. Angry enough to kill him?

DM. No! Never angry enough for that.

“…That, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, is for you to decide, whether Zechs Merquise’s proposal of marriage could be construed as a motive for murder. Let us now turn to the murder itself. We have heard evidence that a young man, subsequently identified as the prisoner Duo Maxwell, purchased a gun using false identification papers. You will recall the prisoner’s evidence concerning this transaction during defence counsel, Mr Chang, Wufei’s examination in chief…

DC. Mr Maxwell, what is your profession.

DM. I am a writer, I write detective novels.

DC. On the 17^th April, did you in fact purchase a revolver using a false name, and giving falsified papers by way of identification, as stated by witnesses?

DM. Yes, I did.

DC. Can you tell the court why you did this?

DM. Because at the time I was working on a novel in which there was a character that did exactly the same thing. I had to convince myself that it was actually possible. I write fiction novels, but even fiction has to have some credibility.

DC. Mr Maxwell, when did you have the idea for this novel?

DM. Last December some time, I don’t remember exactly when. I discussed it with my literary agents, so they may have a record of the date.

DC. Last December? So you were discussing plans for a novel involving the surreptitious purchase of a weapon some three months before your quarrel with Zechs Merquise?

DM. Yes.

DC. My Lord, I will later be calling witnesses to corroborate Mr Maxwells evidence regarding this point…

“…This then, members of the jury, is Mr Maxwell’s explanation of his most extraordinary behaviour, and you must consider it for what it is worth. Now you have heard how Mr Merquise, having been most unceremoniously turned out of his home, went to live with his unmarried sister, Miss Relena Peacecraft. You have heard from Miss Peacecraft how her brother still maintained his affection for the prisoner and continued to fret about him and their break-up. She told you how Mr Merquise sent a communication to the prisoner, asking for a meeting with the purpose of affecting a reconciliation, and how the prisoner replied with a tersely-worded message, stating that Mr Merquise could call round at the flat at 9.00pm on the evening of the 23^rd April, but that it would not make any difference because he had no intention of changing his mind or of agreeing to any reconciliation with the deceased.

We come now to the date of the actual murder. You have heard from witnesses how once again, sounds of a violent quarrel were heard coming from the prisoner’s flat on the night of the murder, and he has himself admitted the interview between himself and the deceased did not go well. The prisoner has testified that the deceased arrived promptly at 9.00pm on the evening in question. They spoke for around a half an hour, after which time the conversation degenerated into a quarrel and he asked Mr Merquise to leave the flat, which he consented to do. Now members of the jury, I beg you to pay close attention to the following facts. Mr Maxwell states that he himself opened the front door for Mr Merquise, Mr Merquise left the flat, and Mr Maxwell closed the door behind him. He states that it was no more than 3-4 seconds later that he heard two gunshots. He immediately reopened the door, to find Mr Merquise lying in the hallway, a few feet from the door, with a gun lying a short distance from the body. You have heard from Mr Maxwell that he approached the body and knelt beside it, noticed the revolver and then ran back into the flat to call the police. You have also heard evidence from Mr Joe Knight, the tenant of the flat below Mr Maxwell’s, and I would like to recall Mr Knight’s evidence to you in detail…

PC. Mr Knight, you reside at the same address as Mr Maxwell, the accused?

JK. Yes sir, I live in the flat directly below theirs, I mean his sir, since the other gentleman went away, him that’s now dead.

PC. Quite so. Now, on the night of 23^rd April, did you hear sounds of a quarrel coming from Mr Maxwell’s flat?

JK. Yes sir.

PC. At what time would you say this was?

JK. It was probably around half past nine sir, thereabouts anyway. You see, I was watching a film on the telly that began at nine o’clock. I wasn’t watching it above a half an hour before I heard them sir.

PC. You say you heard them? What exactly did you hear?

JK. I heard them arguing sir. I couldn’t make out what they were saying, but I heard their voices, you know, angry like, definitely arguing, just like the first time.

PC. The first time?

JK. Yes sir, just before the blond gentleman left.

PC. I see. Tell us what happened after you heard the voices.

JK. Well as I say sir, I heard them arguing, not for very long, then I heard them stop suddenly.

PC. Tell me Mr Knight, can you hear voices from the flat above always, or only when they are raised?

JK. Only when they are raised sir. That’s why I was so surprised when I heard them the first time sir. I had never heard the two gentlemen arguing before. I’ve had couples living up there, arguing one minute, making up the next, then arguing all over again, but the two gentlemen were not like that at all sir. I remember thinking how well they got along, except for that one time, then the blond gentleman left sir.

PC. I interrupted you Mr Knight. Please continue telling us what happened after you heard the raised voices.

JK Well I heard them stop suddenly, then not above a few seconds later, I heard two big bangs. Well those bangs sounded like gun shots to me sir, so I ran up the stairs, just in case someone was hurt, well you never know these days do you?

PC. What did you see when you reached the landing above?

JK. I saw someone lying on the floor, and I saw Mr Maxwell running away sir.

PC. When you say running away, what exactly do you mean?

JK. Well he was running away from the body lying on the floor, back into his flat sir.

PC. Did you see him touch the body, or kneeling beside it at all?

JK. No sir, all I saw was his back.

PC. Are you sure it was him?

JK. Couldn’t have been anyone else with that hair sir.

PC. Thank-you Mr Knight…

“… So, members of the jury, you have heard all of the evidence in this case. This man is charged with having murdered his former lover by shooting him. Mr Merquise was indeed shot, and his injuries were consistent with his having left the flat, been called back and upon turning, receiving two gunshot wounds to the upper torso. It is for you to decide whether these wounds were inflicted by Mr Maxwell in a fit of rage against the deceased, by some other person or persons as yet unknown, or, as the defence have suggested but have produced no evidence to support the suggestion, by Mr Merquise’s own hand. The defence have protested that the accused had no motive for murdering Mr Merquise, but it is for you to decide whether Mr Maxwell’s resentment at having been humiliated by Mr Merquise could constitute sufficient grounds for murder. Indeed, many murders are committed with the flimsiest of motives, if indeed any motive can be considered sufficient for murder. It is my duty to remind you that if you decide that it could indeed so constitute, and that Mr Maxwell did indeed shoot his lover for so insubstantial a reason, then it is your duty to find him guilty. The prisoner had the means, in fact the murder was committed with the prisoner’s own gun, purchased under extremely dubious conditions, he had the motive, as we have already discussed, and he had the opportunity to commit the crime. If however, you find that there is any reason to doubt that Mr Maxwell shot Mr Merquise, with the express intention of killing him, then it is your duty to give him the benefit of that doubt, and return a verdict of not guilty. You may now retire to consider your verdict.”

(To be continued)