Chapter 21 of 27 · 2'40"
The defence finally opens, and Sir Wilfrid does something unexpected: instead of character witnesses, he calls the prisoner himself. "Only one witness can shed new light on this tragic riddle," he tells the jury—then stakes everything on Leonard Vole's own story.
❝ Monologue · 24 lines Only One Witness Can Shed New Light
Sir Wilfrid addresses the court to open the defence. He admits the prosecution's circumstantial case is overwhelming, mentions the witnesses already heard, and warns that Christine Helm's testimony has been admitted. Then he says only one witness can explain the case—and calls Leonard Vole to the stand.
On the surface Sir Wilfrid is politely summarising the prosecution's case. Underneath, he is doing damage control. He concedes the evidence is strong—"a case with the most overwhelming circumstantial evidence"—because fighting it head-on would look desperate. By praising Inspector Hearne and pitying the housekeeper, he sounds fair rather than cornered. The real move is the ending: after dismissing character witnesses, he calls Leonard himself. It is a gamble. Only the defendant can give the jury a story, and only he can be cross-examined on it. By telling the jury that only one witness can "shed new light on this tragic riddle," Sir Wilfrid turns Leonard's testimony into the whole trial.
A1–C2 is the CEFR scale. Cards above the level you pick fade, and playback will not auto-pause on them.
“Whether it is theory or actual fact, however, you will decide for yourselves.”
He hands the verdict back to the jury, humble in tone yet firm about where the decision belongs.
Formal
“However, only one witness can shed new light on this tragic riddle.”
One line turns a pile of evidence into a riddle and makes a single witness the whole story.
Formal
“I objected to her testimony because a wife cannot give evidence harmful to her husband.”
He explains a legal defeat with one clean rule, sounding principled rather than beaten.
Formal
“Such is the prosecution's case. Now it is the tum of the defence.”
He closes the other side and opens his own in one turn of phrase.
Formal
My lord, members of the jury, the prosecution has very ably presented against the prisoner, Leonard Vole, a case with the most overwhelming circumstantial evidence. Among the witnesses you have heard Chief Inspector Hearne, who has given his testimony in a fair and impartial manner, as he always does. He has put before you a clever theory of how this crime was committed. Whether it is theory or actual fact, however, you will decide for yourselves. And then you have heard the evidence of Janet McKenzie, a worthy and devoted housekeeper who has suffered two most grievous losses. I will not comment further on her evidence, but will express only my deepest sympathy for her in both these... mishaps. And most damaging of all, the prosecution has produced a surprise witness, one Christine Helm, whom the prisoner brought from the rubble of her homeland to the safety of this country, giving her his love and the protection of his name. I objected to her testimony because a wife cannot give evidence harmful to her husband. But it has been proven that her marriage to Mr Vole was fraudulent and bigamous. Therefore, her evidence must be admitted and you must consider it. For what it is worth. Such is the prosecution's case. Now it is the tum of the defence. We could present, on behalf of the prisoner, witnesses to his character, his war record, the lack of criminal or evil association in his past. However, only one witness can shed new light on this tragic riddle. The prisoner himself. Members of the jury, I call Leonard Stephen Vole.
Up next · 22establish an alibiThe scene: Myers Cross-Examines Leonard VoleCharacter witnesses would only vouch for Leonard's war record and clean past. Sir Wilfrid says only the prisoner himself can shed new light on the case, so he stakes the defence on Leonard's own account.
The court found their marriage fraudulent and bigamous, so she was not legally his wife. That removed the rule against a wife giving evidence harmful to her husband, and her testimony was admitted.
After her evidence is admitted, Sir Wilfrid's flat aside suggests the jury should not put much weight on it. It signals his contempt for testimony he could not block.
It is Sir Wilfrid's only real option, but a risky one: Leonard can explain the case in his own words yet is fully open to cross-examination by Myers.
