Ramage's Mutiny by Dudley Pope Page B

other prisoners?” he demanded.
    â€œWhy, yes, sir, of course.”
    â€œClear the court,” Edwards said briskly.

CHAPTER SIX
    T HE FOUR prisoners were marched out, the onlookers left the cabin and the provost marshal shut the door with a flourish as he ushered the last man out. Captain Edwards gave a sigh of relief. “Well, we’ve got our witness!”
    â€œWhat was all that business earlier on?” Marden asked. “Those three lieutenants going out when you ordered all but the first witness to leave the court?”
    Edwards grinned and confessed: “That was in case none of the prisoners turned King’s evidence. If they thought Aitken was the only witness against them, they’d know that if they kept their mouths shut they’d be safe. The fact that three officers left at that moment was a fortunate coincidence.”
    â€œIndeed it was,” Marden said. “I’m glad they could take a hint!”
    â€œAh well,” Edwards said, “we now have to consider what to do next. Are we agreed that Weaver should be allowed to turn King’s evidence?”
    The four captains agreed, and Edwards asked Gowers: “Are we following the correct procedure?”
    â€œI think so, sir,” the deputy judge advocate said. “We haven’t made him any promises.”
    â€œIndeed not!” Marden exclaimed. “As far as he knows he’ll be strung up from the foreyardarm as soon as he’s told his story.”
    Captain Teal coughed. “His story might be quite detailed if he gives enough evidence to convict those men.”
    Edwards shrugged his shoulders and, to Ramage’s relief, said flatly: “As president of this court I intend to give these men a fair trial. I’m not concerned with whitewashing anyone. Anyone at all,” he added heavily, and the four captains knew that he included the unfortunate Wallis and his Commander-in-Chief, Vice-Admiral Sir Hyde Parker. Did Admiral Davis and Edwards consider that Sir Hyde should have put a restraining hand on Wallis’s shoulder? Ramage was not sure.
    Edwards looked left and right at his fellow captains. “Very well, since we’re all agreed about this man Weaver, we’ll call him as our next witness. Gowers, is one witness sufficient to convict on a capital charge?”
    The purser opened a book in front of him, looked up the index and turned to a page. “Ah, here we are, sir—’As a prisoner … by the rules of common law may be found guilty on the uncorroborated evidence of a single witness, so, if the court or jury believe the testimony of an accomplice—’ that word is in italic type, sir ‘—though such testimony stand totally uncorroborated, a prisoner may be found guilty of a capital crime.’”
    â€œThat’s clear enough,” Edwards commented. “Now, you remember that passage I marked about King’s evidence: read it out to the court.”
    Gowers turned back a page. “It begins with a discussion of whether accomplices can be witnesses—they can, of course—and then says that if the court agrees to them being so admitted, it is ‘upon an implied confidence which the judges of courts of law have usually countenanced and adopted; that, if such accomplice make a full and complete discovery of that, and of all other crimes or offences … and afterwards give his evidence without prevarication or fraud, he shall not be prosecuted for that … Were not this to be the case, the greatest offenders would frequently escape unpunished, from want of sufficient evidence.’”
    â€œVery sound,” Marden commented.
    â€œI agree,” Ramage said cautiously, “but in fact aren’t we deciding before we hear any evidence that Weaver is guilty although we’ll let him off if he turns King’s evidence?”
    â€œHmm, that’s a point,” Edwards admitted.
    â€œExcuse me,