large_Red Green Gift Time Facebook Ad (2).webp

medium_Red Green Gift Time Facebook Ad (2).webp

small_Red Green Gift Time Facebook Ad (2).webp

thumbnail_Red Green Gift Time Facebook Ad (2).webp

Red Green Gift Time Facebook Ad (2).webp

Novelo Rectangle

"Only she remembered what happened on her wedding anniversary, members of the jury, because only she survived it. Quite the coincidence - lone survivors tend to have the most compelling alibis. Nevertheless, that doesn’t make this case straightforward. On the contrary, it’s been rather long, complex, and quite tedious, like an Agatha Christie novel. Or my marriage. I’ve aged a decade. Some of you look embalmed already. It has been six weeks I tell you! Six weeks of suspicions, seafood, and sob stories. I am exhausted. You must be too.&nbsp; You have heard all the evidence, listened to the testimony of witnesses, and endured closing statements from both sides. You have deliberated for six days, eleven hours, and fifteen minutes. Frankly, I’m impressed any of you are still awake. I appreciate your stamina. I wish my wife would appreciate mine. Few people can sit through forensic shellfish analysis without losing the will to live. Even fewer people can even say forensic shellfish analysis. But sit through the ordeal you did, ladies and gentlemen, just as the victims did, albeit briefly, before their throats closed and they clawed at their necks like extras in a BBC Shakespeare adaptation. By the way, I must also apologise for the sushi delivery the court staff arranged last night. It was insensitive, thoughtless, and - in the case of the blowfish sashimi - possibly indictable. I do hope the Marks and Spencer sandwiches fared better. Now, to summarise the charges. The defendant stands accused of mass murder, an act that allegedly took place on 21.07.1991, during her tenth wedding anniversary celebration at Rubles restaurant in Covent Garden. The prosecution claims the defendant intentionally poisoned her guests — her husband, her mother-in-law, her father-in-law — using highly toxic imported shellfish within the Coquilles Saint Jacques starter dishes. We all know that family dinners are rarely pleasant affairs, but not many end with claw marks to the throat and rigor mortis before dessert. Apparently, murder is best served with a white wine velouté. The prosecution insists she paid head chef Mr Davidoff Stratford a considerable sum to assist her. They produced autopsy reports and photographs showing swollen tongues, bulging eyes, ravaged throats and bowel necrosis - these were not menu dishes, ladies and gentlemen, they were the horrific outcome of PSP, or Paralytic Shellfish Poisoning. Witnesses testified; telephone records were produced; illegal imports were traced. And of course, there were the photographs of the defendant apparently giggling - yes, members of the jury, giggling. Hardly a crime in itself. If laughing at the death of your in-laws was a criminal offence, the prison system would collapse by Sunday teatime. The defense, for their part, argued that there was insufficient evidence to prove her guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. They pointed to inconsistencies in testimony, to the lack of a clear motive, and to the possibility that she was framed for bringing ‘shame upon the family.’ A rather extreme plan to get rid of your daughter-in-law by having her framed for your own planned murder, don’t you think? Still, what do I know? Very little, evidently. The defense also asked you to consider whether this shy, caring mother of two little boys could truly be capable of such an elaborate plot. I’ll let you be the judge of that. Oh wait, that’s my job. Either way, the end result was three people face-down in their bivalve molluscs, twitching like a trio of epileptic eel. Now as you deliberated, I instructed you to remember that the prosecution must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. If you have reasonable doubt, you must return a verdict of not guilty. If you have no reasonable doubt, you must return a verdict of guilty, because that’s beyond reasonable doubt. I think. Does that make sense? No? Don’t worry. I barely understand it myself and I’m wearing the wig. I also asked you not to be swayed by emotion, sympathy, or by the global media circus who have latched onto this case like tramps on chips. Your verdict must be based solely on the facts and the law, not on tabloid tittle-tattle or fishwife gossip - though admittedly, given the seafood theme, fishwives do feel oddly relevant.&nbsp; Will the defendant please rise. Foreperson of the jury, have you reached a verdict on which you are all agreed?" “We have, Your Honour.” “On count one, do you, the jury, find the defendant - Diana, Princess of Wales - guilty or not guilty of murdering her husband?” “Not Guilty.” “On count two, do you, the jury, find the defendant guilty or not guilty of murdering her father-in-law?” “Not Guilty.” “On count three, do you, the jury, find the defendant guilty or not guilty of murdering her mother-in-law, also known as High Treason?” “Not Guilty.” “Diana, Princess of Wales, you have been found not guilty of murdering your husband and your father-in-law. You have also been found not guilty of High Treason, which, in case you were wondering, would have carried a death sentence. This is all very remarkable, considering in any other century you’d have either been burned at the stake, bound and drowned in the Thames, or at the very least banished to Scotland. Quite the lucky escape. You are free to leave the court. A word of advice though - if you celebrate this evening with champagne, I’d advise steering clear of the oysters. God save the Quee- Oh. Court is adjourned!”

Try Premium

Try Premium

Coquilles of the Damned!

AndrewW

Andrew W.

Share

Coquilles of the Damned!

Synopsis

Chapters

Word Count

Read Time

Publish Date

Story Updates

This story has no updates.

Reviews

This story has not been rated yet. Login to review this story.

Advertisement

Challenge

About Author

Andrew

Advertisement

Other stories by AndrewW

Sunbeam Kid

Browse