Read Who Killed Stella Pomeroy? for Free Online Page A

you.”
    â€œIt looks very like the hammer we used for breaking coal, but I can’t swear to it. It’s a very common type of hammer.”
    â€œTake it in your hand and look at the handle. It has a P scratched on it, and that is your initial.”
    â€œThen it must be mine.”
    â€œHad your wife any enemy who might wish to injure her?”
    â€œNot that I know of. I think she would have told me if she had.”
    â€œHow long were you absent from the house that morning?”
    â€œI left about half-past eight, did my shopping and was back about half-past nine.”
    â€œDid you notice whether the house looked normal when you came back?”
    â€œYes, quite normal. I did not go to my wife’s room because I was afraid that I might wake her. I went out and did some weeding.”
    â€œYou did not go to the bank that day?”
    â€œNo sir, I telephoned to the bank to say that I was not feeling well enough to come.”
    â€œAnd yet you were well enough to weed your garden.”
    â€œYes, and I should have been well enough to go to the bank, but I intended to thrash out the whole question of our separation with my wife that morning as soon as she was dressed.”
    The coroner held up the bloodstained coat found by Inspector Aitkin and asked, “Did this coat belong to you? Take it in your hand and look at the trademark under the collar.”
    The witness examined the coat and said with emphasis, “No, that is not mine.”
    â€œYou had one like it.”
    â€œYes, but my wife gave it away about a fortnight ago.”
    â€œTo whom?”
    â€œShe never told me.”
    â€œBut surely she would mention a thing like that to you.”
    â€œNo, not necessarily. She had a number of actor friends who used to write her begging letters, and then she would look through my wardrobe and send some worn-out garment and forget about it until I began to hunt for it.”
    â€œHave you the address of any of these people?”
    â€œNo, I never troubled to ask her who they were.”
    The coroner told him to stand down and began his address to the jury.
    â€œIn this case,” he said, “you have heard witnesses proving that the deceased met a violent death at the hands of some person who made a clumsy attempt to let it appear that the death had been an accident. It is not at all clear that the deceased received that blow on the head while she was in the bath. It will seem to you more likely that the murderer, whoever he was, put the body into the bath after he had killed her. You have heard the evidence of the husband; you have gathered that there were serious causes of disagreement between the couple—causes so serious that the husband had resolved upon a separation. The wife was a woman of violent temper, and you have only the husband’s word for it that the quarrel of the night before was not resumed in the morning, but let me now give you a word of warning.
    â€œWhatever verdict you give in accordance with your oaths will not affect the course of justice. You have to consider whether the evidence against the husband, or any other person, would be sufficient to convict him in a court of law. You may consider the evidence to be sufficient to convince you that no one but the husband had the opportunity for committing the crime and that no one else had a sufficient motive for committing it, but it does not follow from this that it would be wise on your part to fasten the crime upon any individual when you have the alternative of bringing in a verdict of murder against some person unknown. You have to remember that the person who committed this murder must have been deluged with the blood of his victim, and yet the police have found only one garment stained with blood, and the ownership of that garment is not yet established. If you were to return a verdict of murder against the husband he would at once forfeit his liberty and perhaps be prejudiced in