পাতা:শেষ লীলা - প্রিয়নাথ মুখোপাধ্যায়.pdf/৪৯

এই পাতাটির মুদ্রণ সংশোধন করা হয়েছে, কিন্তু বৈধকরণ করা হয়নি।

শেষ লীলা


strong suspicion of being an accomplice, could be got by the bushel, for such women were as pliant in the hands of the Police, as they could possibly be. They knew exactly what the Police wanted, they did not care a straw for the prisoner, and they gave the evidence that was wanted from them. Such evidence had been given by the Police before, where a man, supposed to have then murdered, walked into Court during the trial. He would leave it to the jury to say what the case must be which was to be decided on the value of such evidence. He would submit, that it was utterly worthless, and before they gave their verdict, they should take it well and strongly into their consideration as to who gave the evidence. The witnesses cared absolutely nothing for the life of the prisoner, their only interest being to get rid of the Police. The drugging theory, learned counsel went on to say, was an after-thought, and the case and the evidence had been built upon that suggestion afterwards. Besides, he would ask the jury to remember that the prisoner had ample opportunity to go away, or hide the ornaments, but what she did was to give the ornaments up voluntarily to the Police, or at all events, without their being looked for in any way. In conclusion, Mr. Fagan would ask the jury to remember that the prisoner was a woman, and if it was right to feel pity for a prisoner, it was doubly right to feel pity for a woman. He would therefore ask them to give her every chance they could, and not to be astonished by the fact of the evidence for the prosecution being consistent, as it was bound to be so.