Tanglewood Tales*
By HAZEL THURSTON wHEN a judge decides that there is no case to be put to a jury it is understandable that the public should wonder how it has happened that proceedings were ever allowed to reach that stage. In the murder trial of the eleven-year- old boy at Winchester last week, stopped by Mr. Justice Pilcher at the end of the second full day's hearing, the point is of even greater concern in view of the age of the accused. For two days this boy sat between police officers in the dock. He would not have been there if he had not been credited with full understanding of the charge made against him, and it made his situation no less poignant that he watched the proceedings with such an air of indifference that the implica- tions were terrifying to the adult observer who can recognise withdrawal as a very grave symp- tom of disturbance.
When fantasy begins to overlap truth in the explanations of a child, the wise parent does not seek to disentangle the two: not only because it may be a frustrating task, and the conclusion uncertain, but because of the risk that even if blame is correctly apportioned punishment may have no remedial effect. The Southampton Borough Police were in a similar situation to many parents in their inquiries into the murder of nihe-year-old Iris Dawkins on that part of Mayfield Park known as Tanglewood. Their task Was confused by the eager co-operation of child- ren, many of whom volunteered statements which bore varying degrees of relation to the known facts. The ablest tale-spinner was the boy sub- sequently charged. His fantasies involved him in a series of regrettable events which culminated in a full-scale trial on a charge of murder.
The evidence, such as it was, consisted in the main of the child's own statements. The phrase- ology of these was singularly unchildlike, and * This article is referred to in an editorial on page 120. the defence not unjustifiably suggested that they read like a precis of question and answer. This was denied by the police. The statements, irre- spective of their form, followed a psychological pattern which, in view of the circumstances in which they were taken, can be easily understood.
First, the boy gave a picturesque and ad- mittedly TV-influenced account of playing dangerously with the girl at the relevant time and place. He volunteered circumstantial detail of everything short of a degree of violence which could have caused serious injury. A second state- ment added detail, obviously untrue. In particular he inaccurately described his 'victim' as wearing the striped shirt which .appeared in her photo- graph widely circulated in the press. At this time be added, perhaps as childish safeguard, an in- spired red herring suggesting that an unknown and threatening youth was responsible for the murder. His third statement consisted of a com- plete retraction of the earlier `confessions,' It was proved in court that this statement could not have been inspired by his mother who, for reasons considered sufficient by the police, had not been allowed private communication with him before he was charged.
All this follows a familiar pattern : the simple fantasy, the consolidation (or undermining) of it by extraneous detail gleaned from outside sources, the belated effort to stop on the brink of danger, the weak stratagems aimed at self- defence. Taking another view, the police, backed by the Director of Public Prosecutions, con- sidered that there was a case against this imagin- ative boy of high IQ (130). He was charged, taken into custody and spent nearly four months in a remand home. Then came the climax of his ordeal: his public exposure to the whole ritual of legal process. He cannot but have been aware of his dangerous situation and its possible con- sequences. The gruesome exhibits would have seen to that, though much else might have been beyond him. He would not, for instance, have appreciated the fact that the police were under suspicion of having exceeded their powers, and that this seemed to be confirmed when the detective-inspector in charge of the inquiry ad- mitted to knowingly breaking Judges' Rules in order to amplify statements already made.
Finally, he could not have appreciated the medi- cal evidence which, contradictory though it was. set the murder within a time-range several hours later than when he could have been with the murdered girl.
On the strength of this evidence, together with the facts that exhaustive tests had revealed no bloodstains on the boy's clothing, that the murder weapon had never been found and that the pen- knife he said he used was equally free of blood though it had not recently been cleaned, and did not in any case correspond to the size and shape of the thirty-nine wounds inflicted, he 14. as expeditiously saved further terror, and the jury was directed to bring in a verdict of Not Guilty.
Despite the outcome it is impossible to guess what effect these painful events will have had on the boy. Though publication of his name has been avoided, his mother has been forced to move house more than once in order to escape the lash of tongues. This, and general notoriety, will subside, but no one, not even his mother, will be likely to discover how much he is personally and psychologically affected, nor what new fan- tasies will be conjured up to compensate for his nearly unbearable experiences.
There remains in the view of more than one observer of the proceedings a firm opinion that this case should never have been brought or, if in the interests of justice legal examination of the evidence in the presence of the boy was neces- sary, then public appearance of the suspected juvenile should have been avoided. In Sweden no child below the age of fifteen is treated to public and criminal prosecution. Right must be done, but what is the benefit of such formality as the public trial just witnessed? Even if the child had been found guaty, the effects of his subsequent treatment ;night well have been prejudiced. And there are other cogent reasons against such procedure—even if the least valid of them is the 'impossibility of sifting fantasy from fact in a child's admissions.
It is a matter for congratulation, perhaps, that the law took two days to prove that it was not an ass, though it is by no means certain that the prosecution is in the same happy position. Let us hope that this unfortunate case sparks off our penal reform enthusiasts, who are better equipped to get their views noticed than mem• bers of the general public.
Previous page
