“We know what Ms Edgeware’s trying to do, of course,” said prosecuting lawyer Daniel Lay when we caught up to him after the court was dismissed this afternoon.
“This defence has been used before in The State vs. Cleeton. Cleeton answered all the prosecutor’s questions in no more than three words and/or a number and later entered a plea of insanity.”
If this case has the same outcome as The State vs. Cleeton, it will not go well for Ms. Edgeware. In the precedent-setting trial, Mr. Cleeton was shown a diagram of his kitchen before and after the murder had taken place and asked to describe what had changed. He incriminated himself when he slipped from using the passive voice in the present perfect tense and thereby revealed himself to be the agent of the bludgeoning.
“Cleeton hadn’t been asked to speculate about the motive for the killing or any situational factors but he ended his 150 words by saying that the victim had probably deserved it. It was an open and shut case.”
Rumours are circulating that Ms. Edgeware’s defence lawyer plans to argue that her confession is inadmissible because the defendant was not allowed ten minutes to transfer her testimony to an answer sheet but Judge Coombes, who is overseeing the case, refuses to be drawn into specific comment.
“If the defendant is found to be guilty then the options are A: in a women’s prison or B: in secure unit for the insane, but one way or another her sentence will be completed.”