Witness for the Prosecution

“I must impress upon you again that you are in very grave danger, and that the utmost frankness is necessary.” 

Mayherne is, in Christie’s words, a “practical, not emotional” man (2). In this passage, for instance, he speaks plainly to Leonard about the gravity of the situation in which he finds himself, and stresses that he expects equal candor in return; if he has all the facts at his disposal, Mayherne says, he will succeed in getting Vole acquitted. As the conversation continues, Mayherne’s strategy—reframing the facts of the case in a way favorable to Vole—becomes clearer. This is in fact the tactic that ultimately secures Vole’s acquittal, but it’s Romaine, rather than Mayherne, who deploys it most skillfully. 

1.        “‘You think I’m guilty. [...] But, by God, I swear I’m not! It looks pretty black against me, I know that. I’m like a man caught in a net—the meshes of it all round me, entangling me whichever way I turn. But I didn’t do it, Mr. Mayherne, I didn’t do it!’

[…]

‘You are right Mr. Vole. [...] The case does look very black against you. Nevertheless, I accept your assurance.’” 

Up until this point, Mayherne has had his doubts about Leonard’s innocence, but Vole’s passionate and emphatic statement impresses the lawyer and convinces him of his client’s innocence. Vole’s description of himself as "caught in a net” is especially effective in depicting him as helpless and pathetic—traits that seem hard to square with the brutal murder he’s accused of committing. In other words, Christie is establishing Leonard’s little-boy-lost personality, and Mayherne and the reader are being led to feel empathy for him.

“‘There was no question of your having saved her life?’

‘Oh! dear me, no. All I did was perform a common act of courtesy. She was extremely grateful, thanked me warmly, and said something about my manners not being those of most of the younger generation—I can’t remember the exact words.’” 

When Vole describes meeting Miss French while picking up some parcels she’d dropped crossing the street, Mayherne asks whether he actually saved her life when the bus almost hit her. Leonard is adamant that he didn’t do anything more than anybody else would have done, further establishing himself as a secondary protagonist to Mayherne—and a likeable person. Not only does Leonard rush to the assistance of an elderly woman, but he is modest—two qualities likely to favorably impress the reader.

“We want a clear reason for all this. Why did you, a young man of thirty-three, good-looking, fond of sport, popular with your friends, devote so much time to an elderly woman with whom you could hardly have anything in common?” 

Continuing his interview with Leonard, Mayherne attempts to understand why Leonard would want to engage in a friendship with Miss French. He is aware that the friendship between a 33-year-old man and a woman in her 70s will appear suspicious to the jury, who will likely assume Vole was using Miss French for her money. As a result, Mayherne needs a “clear reason” for the jury to think otherwise— a charitable (or at least benign) explanation for Vole wanting to spend time with her. Here, Christie highlights how prejudice can affect human perception. 

“I’ve got a weak nature—I drift—I’m one of those people who can’t say ‘No.’ And believe me or not, as you like, after the third or fourth visit I paid her I found myself getting genuinely fond of the old thing […] If I told you that I genuinely enjoyed being mothered and pampered, I dare say you’d only laugh.” 

Leonard here appears to be opening up to Mayherne by admitting something which may be embarrassing: his passive nature and his desire to be coddled. This helps cement the lawyer’s belief in Vole’s innocence. Not only does Vole’s display of vulnerability imply honesty, but the details of what he reveals seem difficult to reconcile with cold-blooded murder; in effect, Leonard seems too weak to have committed the crime.

“‘Surely the strongest point in my favour is the lack of motive. Granted that I cultivated the acquaintanceship of a rich old lady in the hope of getting money out of her—that, I gather, is the substance of what you have been saying—surely her death frustrates all my hopes?’

[…]

‘Are you not aware, Mr. Vole, Miss French left a will under which you are the principal beneficiary?’

What? […] My God! What are you saying? She left her money to me?’

[…]

‘You pretend you know nothing of this will?’” 

Leonard insists that his lack of motive must surely be the strongest point to consider, as it would be impossible for him to get money from a dead woman. However, Mayherne advises that Miss French made Leonard the main beneficiary of her will, and that Janet Mackenzie swears that Vole did in fact know about this change. Mayherne therefore treats Vole’s protestations with a degree of skepticism, accusing him of “pretending to know nothing.” Mayherne may truly believe Vole is lying, or he may simply be trying to frighten him into explaining himself; it’s clear, however, that while Mayherne may be unsure on this matter, he still believes in Vole’s innocence regarding the murder. 

“Romaine is devoted to me. She’d do anything in the world for me.” 

Leonard “enthusiastically” tells Mayherne that he has an alibi for the time of the murder (11): He was with his wife, who won’t hesitate to back up his story. However, there is nobody else to substantiate this, and Mayherne sees what Vole does not (or pretends not to)—namely, that a “devoted” wife giving an alibi for her husband will not have as much credibility with the jurors as an unbiased witness. The perception is that a wife will stand by her husband not only out of love, but also out of wifely duty. In retrospect, however, Vole’s confidence proves to be entirely justified, since it is in fact Romaine’s devotion to him that saves him, if not in the way Mayherne expects.

“Now, observing her more closely, he noticed the high cheekbones, the dense blue-black of the hair, and an occasional very slight movement of the hands that was distinctly foreign.” 

Following his interview with Leonard, Mayherne goes to see Romaine in order to confirm Leonard’s alibi for the night of the murder. Mayherne has preconceived ideas of Romaine and is taken aback by her appearance, manner, and the fact that she is “foreign” (13). This likely prejudices Mayherne against her, particularly given that most of Christie’s works are set in the period between World Wars I and II—an era of heightened xenophobia, particularly against historical enemies like the Germans and Austrians.

“Will you please tell me all about it? […] I must know everything. Do not think to spare me. I want to know the worst. […] Will my saying so acquit him? Will they believe me? […] That is what I want to know. […] Will it be enough? Is there anyone else who can support my evidence?” 

When she learns that Mayherne is her husband’s solicitor, Romaine “calm[ly] and composed[ly]” insists on knowing everything about Leonard’s case and the likelihood of his acquittal (14). In contrast to her later declaration that Leonard is not her husband and that she hates him, here Romaine seems to be a concerned spouse; although Romaine has already taken certain steps to put her plan in motion (e.g. letting herself be seen with a strange man on the night of the murder), it’s possible that she’s weighing the necessity of the scheme, and that her decision to follow through on it hinges on whether her testimony alone would be enough to acquit Leonard. 

“Did he tell you that I was devoted to him? […] Ah! yes, I can see he did. How stupid men are. Stupid—Stupid—Stupid— […] I hate him, I tell you! I hate him. I hate him, I hate him! I would like to see him hanged by the neck till he is dead.” 

These lines mark the beginning of Romaine’s complicated scheme to save the man she loves. By claiming to hate Leonard, Romaine lays the groundwork for the later (supposed) revelation that she is having an affair and plotting to frame him for murder. It’s not simply that her words here begin to provide her with a motive for ostensibly lying in court, but rather that what she says and how she says it are calculated to prejudice Mayherne against her and in Vole’s favor. Both the violence of her outburst and her apparent disloyalty to Leonard flout societal ideas about appropriate female behavior. This is something that is unlikely to go over well with Mayherne, who is fairly conventional in appearance and demeanor. 

“She fell silent at last, her hands clenching and unclenching themselves nervously.” 

The above passage takes place during Mayherne’s visit to Mrs. Mogson, who clenches and unclenches her hand after explaining that the scar on her face is a chemical burn caused by vitriol. At the time, this seems like an unconscious behavior associated with high emotion; its full importance only becomes clear later, when Mayherne realizes that Romaine is prone to a similar gesture, and that Mogson is actually Romaine Heilger in disguise. Despite being an accomplished actress, Romaine could not hide this telling habit.

“[T]here was the further interest of Romaine Heilger, the principal witness for the prosecution. There had been pictures of her in many papers, and several fictitious stories as to her origin and history.” 

Leonard Vole’s trial for the murder of Miss Emily French receives widespread public interest. This is partly because it was such a violent crime and because Vole is an attractive young man, but there is also much interest in Romaine as a foreigner. Tellingly, Romaine’s nationality gives rise to widespread misinformation; her relative exoticism lends itself to romance, suspicion, or (most likely) a combination of the two. The discussion of public opinion therefore serves as a reminder of the role that preconceived ideas play in shaping perception on both an individual and a group level.

“Why did I play a lone hand? […] I know something of the psychology of crowds. Let my evidence be wrung from me, as an admission, damning me in the eyes of the law, and a reaction in favour of the prisoner would immediately set in.” 

Romaine’s words here reveal her expert understanding of how to play to people’s instinctive biases. She Like Mayherne, she understands that the jury would likely find the evidence of a woman devoted to her husband unpersuasive. Romaine, however, takes her calculations one step farther, deciding that the best way to save Leonard is to stand as a witness for the prosecution and discredit herself, thereby swaying public opinion in favor of the man she seems set on seeing condemned. This is the second use of the word “psychology” in the story. The 1920s and 1930s in Great Britain saw the emergence of popular psychology, and Christie’s use of psychology in her stories reflects middle-class interests and concerns in interwar Britain.