Not much of a defense....

Today's case at the Old Bailey doesn't just highlight the lack of defense counsel, which in Britain wasn't routinely provided or was even available until the Prisoners' Counsel Act passed in 1836, but also demonstrates how one seemingly simple, but somewhat mysterious reaction, can be a story seedling.

In 1754, Ann Palmer is accused of manslaughter in the death of her common-law husband, John Aubrey.

The watchman (who was the closest thing to a policeman at the time) testified that he heard a fight outside an alehouse. Aubrey hit Ann and she threatened to kill him if he did it again. He did and she stabbed him. He later bled to death.

Another man who knows the couple testifies that he saw the fight, too: "I saw him use her very ill; he struck her two or three times, and knocked her up against a window shutter by striking her on the side of the head, I be-believe, as hard as he could, as it seemed to me by her falling about. After that she said, If you strike me again I'll stab you. He made another blow at her, and immediately cried out, I am a dead man."

The woman who "keeps" the alehouse, Mary Manton, testifies and gives a clue as to the cause of the fight: "The deceased came and asked her to go home; she said she would not, and he then struck her on the side of her head. He asked her the same again, and she said she would not; he then struck her again. On this she said, G - d blast me, if you strike me again I'll slab you; then he immediately cried out, O Lord, O Lord, I am a dead man."

The surgeon who attended Aubrey then testifies about treating the dead man, who seemed to be recovering, then began to bleed again and died several days later.

And what is Ann's defense? "We had been at supper, and had no words till we came to this door, where he struck me and knocked me down. I know nothing at all of it, and had never a knife about me."

Now, I have to say, what the heck was she thinking? Three people testify that they saw Aubrey hit her more than once. She told him to stop or she'd kill him; he didn't and she did. I think a defense attorney might have been able to make a case for self-defense. So could Ann, except...she didn't.

Why not?

Because she wasn't his legal wife? Would that have a made a difference in the eyes of the jury?

Was she drunk at the time? If we believe Ms. Manton, she certainly could have been.

On the other hand, it sounds like her husband was really beating her. Was that his right? (I'd have to do more research to find out if I wanted to use this case as a story seedling.) Where did his right as a husband and hers as his wife end? Except she wasn't really his wife.

Verdict: Guilty. I couldn't find any record of her punishment.

If I were to use this as a story seedling, the first thing I'd want to address is why Ann didn't try to defend herself better. Why does she just claim ignorance, when it's pretty obvious there's considerable evidence as to what happened? Is she stupid? Frightened? Just resigned to her fate?

(Note: It could be that the three have it in for her, but I don't find that plausible. Also, what happened to the knife?)

Stupid wouldn't work for a heroine. Resigned doesn't really, either. Frightened would. Of what? Or whom? What would happen if she defended herself, both at the time and at the trial? What consequences does she fear? Why does she think letting herself be found guilty is the best thing to do?

In my mind, making a decision not to defend herself is what would make her a heroine. She acts by deciding not to act - but she'd also better have a valid, reasonable, understandable, sympathetic reason why.

Once I had my answer to that, I'd have a motive, and from there, I'd backtrack to create the reasons for the motive. In those reasons, I'd find an external conflict - something to do with the cause of the fight itself.

And that would probably be the route to finding the hero. He would have some relationship to the dead man - brother, perhaps. Or good friend.

If the murder happens at the start of the story, how do you get them together and keep them together? You might have to change the verdict to Not Guilty or some other verdict that would leave her free. Then together they set about finding the truth -- and at some point, if this is my story, the evidence has to give them a reason they could mistrust each other, or one to feel betrayed by the other. How they react to that evidence and that apparent betrayal reveals the true nature and depth of their relationship.

If the murder is a climatic event, it could be the ultimate test of their relationship - does he believe she's innocent or not? Does she give such a lame defense because she believes he thinks she's guilty, and if he thinks so, she has no hope anybody else will? But that's making herself a victim, isn't it? What if she decides she has to sacrifice not just her freedom, possibly her life, but even her love for the hero? What would compel her to do that? What would the hero think? How would he feel? What would he do?

So from this one woman's inadequate defense, it's possible to come up with the basics of a pretty intense romance.