The Three-Body Problem (15 page)
Read The Three-Body Problem Online
Authors: Catherine Shaw
The second witness called was Mrs Beddoes. I felt sorry for the poor lady, as I saw her take the stand, and my heart was wrung with fear that her statements, probably filled with resigned conviction of Arthur’s guilt, would have great weight with the jury on account of her mourning, and her gentle, sorrowful face.
Mr Bexheath:
Mrs Beddoes, I am very sorry to call you here. I deeply sympathise with your mourning, and I shall try to trouble you as little as possible.
Mrs Beddoes:
(
with a wavering voice
) Thank you, sir.
Mr Bexheath:
I would just like to ask you a few questions about the relations between Mr Akers, your husband, Mr Crawford and the prisoner.
Mrs Beddoes:
Yes?
Mr Bexheath:
Was your husband the friend of each of the other three men?
Mrs Beddoes:
Yes, sir, he was a good friend to all three of them.
Mr Bexheath:
Can you describe the nature of his friendship with Mr Akers?
Mrs Beddoes:
My husband was not as close to Mr Akers as he was to the other two. They talked mathematics sometimes, however, and my husband admired Mr Akers. He often said that Mr Akers had a wonderful talent for calculating things by wise methods, which no one else would have been able to calculate ever.
Mr Bexheath:
Can you tell me where they discussed mathematics? The testimony of Mrs Wiggins appears to indicate that they did not discuss it in Mr Akers’ rooms.
Mrs Beddoes:
Nor did they discuss it in our house. I do not know, sir. It must have been in their offices at the university, or in the library, or in other rooms, or at dinner.
Mr Bexheath:
Did they actually collaborate? Work on mathematics together? Or did they just talk about it?
Mrs Beddoes:
I don’t know, sir. But I believe they never went so far as regularly working together.
Mr Bexheath:
Now, can you describe your husband’s relations with Mr Crawford?
Mrs Beddoes:
They were close friends. Mr Crawford had a strong personality, and my husband was sometimes put off by his ways, but their friendship was a deep one. They had a difference back in April, but Mr Crawford forgot it and my husband kept no rancour, so they became friends again.
Mr Bexheath:
Was your husband in the habit of visiting Mr Crawford’s rooms?
Mrs Beddoes:
I really don’t know, but I do not remember his ever mentioning it.
Mr Bexheath:
Did they dine together?
Mrs Beddoes:
Yes, occasionally they did.
Mr Bexheath:
Can you remember if they were to dine together on the night of your husband’s death?
Mrs Beddoes:
No. I’ve been asked that many times already. I am very sorry, but my husband did not tell me whom he was dining with that night, or anything at all about Mr Crawford. He only – he only left me a message to say he would not be dining at home.
Mr Bexheath:
I see. Now, let us proceed to the relations between your husband and the prisoner.
Mrs Beddoes:
My husband was very fond of Mr Weatherburn. He spoke very highly of him and said he would go far. They met regularly to talk. Mr Weatherburn was very friendly with me also. I thought he was a nice young man. I had no idea …
The witness burst into tears.
Mr Bexheath:
Now, now, Mrs Beddoes. Please calm yourself. I will not ask you any more questions.
Mr Haversham:
I have no questions for this witness.
The witness was led away sobbing into her handkerchief, to the accompanying sympathetic murmur of the public gallery.
Mr Haversham:
I would like to point out to the members of the jury that the evidence of this witness as to the existence of a quarrel between Mr Beddoes and Mr Crawford is of fundamental importance. It ties in with the mysterious, red-wine drinking visitor to Mr Crawford’s rooms; this could have been
Mr Beddoes, and it might have been the occasion of the quarrel. Or else the quarrel took place on another occasion, but in any case, it undoubtedly took place. Please do not omit to note this important fact.
Oh, Dora – poor Mrs Beddoes. I wonder if she really does think Arthur is guilty. She said … but no. If I were she, I would hardly care what happened in the world around me, after the bitter loss. I shall go and visit her. I continue to listen carefully to everything that the witnesses say, for
somewhere within it the truth must be hidden.
I read my notes over and over. But I cannot see anything. Can you? We
must
find something!
Your very own
Vanessa
My dearest Dora,
As the witnesses arrived and took their places this morning, I asked Mr Morrison in a whisper what had transpired yesterday afternoon. He told me that every one of Mr Crawford’s neighbours had been interrogated, and no less than two of them had testified to being acquainted with Arthur, and having seen him enter Mr Crawford’s rooms on at least one occasion, though no dates were made explicit.
This morning, Mr Bexheath called Mr Withers as a witness. I had already observed him to be sharp and unkind, but in his testimony he showed himself to be a vile man. That weasel-faced betrayer – his heart must resemble
a shrivelled walnut! I would not exchange mine for his for the universe and my happiness besides.
Mr Bexheath:
Please give your name, age and profession.
Mr Withers:
Edward Withers, thirty-two years old, Lecturer in Pure Mathematics at Cambridge University.
Mr Bexheath:
You were acquainted with the three murder victims, Mr Akers, Mr Beddoes and Mr Crawford, as well as with the prisoner?
Mr Withers:
Well, hardly. I saw them occasionally, of course, but couldn’t say I knew them very closely. I would like to say that I really have no connection with this whole story.
Mr Bexheath:
Mr Withers, were you at all familiar with Mr Crawford’s drinking habits?
Mr Withers:
I was not familiar enough with him to describe his regular habits. But I must say I have seen him, on occasions at which he was extremely excited, down a great quantity of whisky, without apparently losing his faculties by doing so.
Mr Bexheath:
How often have you seen him doing so?
Mr Withers:
Not more than once or twice. I do not believe he did it frequently; only on particular occasions of excitement or rejoicing, when he seemed to lose count of the quantity consumed.
Mr Bexheath:
Thank you. Now, the second point I would like to raise is that of the relations between the prisoner and each of the three murder victims. Did you have occasion to observe them?
Mr Withers:
Yes, I observed them at various public occasions, and at some common meals.
Mr Bexheath:
How would you describe them?
Mr Withers:
Well, Weatherburn always acted very friendly with all three of them.
Mr Bexheath:
Would you say that he sought their friendship?
Mr Withers:
Yes, absolutely. He went out of his way to obtain their attention.
Mr Bexheath:
For what purpose?
Mr Withers:
I imagine he had purposes of his own in behaving thus.
Mr Bexheath:
Yes indeed, I imagine so too. Would you say that the prisoner went out of his way to cultivate their friendship and arrange to meet with them regularly?
Mr Withers:
Yes, he did.
Mr Bexheath:
Were you aware of the habit attributed very frequently to Mr Akers, and in a lesser measure to Mr Crawford, of directing quite insulting, sarcastic and offensive remarks to his colleagues in public?
Mr Withers:
Certainly.
Mr Bexheath:
Can you describe such an episode?
Mr Withers:
Well, I remember once Wentworth talking to a bunch of fellows, and Akers came along and stopped by to listen, and then he turned to Wentworth and said ‘Pretty presumptuous for a fellow who’s never proved a theorem worth a grain of salt in his life. I’d aim lower if I were you.’
Mr Bexheath:
Can you describe Mr Wentworth’s reaction?
Mr Withers:
He told Akers to go boil his head.
Mr Bexheath:
And was he subsequently again on friendly terms with Mr Akers?
Mr Withers:
Certainly not.
Mr Bexheath:
Would you say that was a normal reaction?
Mr Withers:
Absolutely. A man has to have some pride.
Mr Bexheath:
Was the prisoner ever the butt of such remarks in your hearing?
Mr Withers:
Oh, yes.
Mr Bexheath:
Can you describe his reaction?
Mr Withers:
He only smiled.
Mr Bexheath:
In other words, he endured the insults without taking offence. Would you describe his attitude of deliberately not taking offence as sycophantic?
Mr Withers:
It struck me as obsequious.
Mr Bexheath:
Quite so. Now, Mr Withers, I would like to turn to the mathematical aspects of the case. Do you know what mathematical topics the deceased gentlemen worked on?
Mr Withers:
Rumour had it they were interested in the n-body problem. I myself heard Crawford mention it elusively when somewhat tipsy.
Mr Bexheath:
Do you know if the prisoner worked on that topic?
Mr Withers:
I don’t know it, no. But I certainly heard him discussing the problem at table.
Mr Bexheath:
With just the ordinary interest that any mathematician might evince in a difficult open problem, or with personal interest?
Mr Withers:
He was fairly enthusiastic. I would say personal interest.
Mr Haversham:
My Lord, I strongly object to this question and its answer, to say nothing of the previous ones, and request that they be struck from the record. The witness’s opinion is of no value.
Mr Justice Penrose:
Members of the jury, be aware that the last response given by the witness expresses his personal opinion, and should not be treated as an established fact.
Mr Haversham:
Why, you might as well ask him if he believes the prisoner to be guilty!
Mr Justice Penrose:
Let us remain reasonable. That is not at all the same.
Mr Bexheath:
Well, Mr Withers, can you perhaps tell us exactly what, in Mr Weatherburn’s manner of talking about the n-body problem, might have led you to form your opinion? Then we shall be on a basis of fact.
Mr Withers:
Let me see. I remember one day back in the first part of April, just a while after Easter, at high table, a number of people were discussing the n-body problem, and Weatherburn was among them. I was just listening, myself. I know nothing about the n-body problem, and really have no idea what Akers and Crawford might have been doing with it. I certainly never asked them. I would again like to stress that I really have no connections with all of this. However, a day or two later, I came across Weatherburn in town, and he was very excited about some wonderful result he claimed he had just proved. He was extremely pleased with himself. I didn’t ask for details, but given the previous day’s discussion, I naturally must have assumed it had to do with the
n-body problem. This must be at the basis of the impression I mentioned before.
Mr Bexheath:
Thank you very much, Mr Withers. This is highly interesting. Can you possibly remember the precise day on which the prisoner talked about having made a mathematical discovery?
Mr Withers:
Let me think. I left Cambridge for some days after Easter. I came back on a Thursday. High table would have been on the Friday. So I met Weatherburn … yes, it was on a Sunday. So it must have been Sunday, April 8th.
Mr Bexheath:
This is very useful. Thank you very much for your helpful testimony, Mr Withers.
Mr Withers:
You are quite welcome.
Mr Haversham:
Mr Withers, you say that you were not particularly acquainted with Mr Akers, Mr Beddoes and Mr Crawford.
Mr Withers:
Yes, not particularly.
Mr Haversham:
Did you attend Mr Beddoes’ funeral?
Mr Withers:
Yes, naturally.
Mr Haversham:
Did you take it upon yourself to accompany Mrs Beddoes to her carriage afterwards?
Mr Withers:
I did.
Mr Haversham:
Have you ever been invited to their house?
Mr Withers:
Yes.
Mr Haversham:
How many times?
Mr Withers:
I really didn’t count them.
Mr Haversham:
So it was sufficiently often for you to lose count. Not in the nature of two or three times only, then.
Mr Withers:
Well, a little more than that.
Mr Haversham:
Your acquaintance with Mrs Beddoes and her husband does not appear to have been so very slight.
Mr Withers:
Well, I knew Beddoes a little better than the other two.
Mr Haversham:
And yet you would use the words ‘slight acquaintance’ to denote your relations with a man who had invited you to his house numerous times?
Mr Withers:
It was a little more than slight.
Mr Haversham:
Oh, thank you for the rectification. Now, Mr Withers, I would like to return to the subject so interestingly raised by my learned friend: that of the insulting attitude frequently adopted by Mr Akers, and also occasionally, although in a lesser measure, by Mr Crawford, in public.
Mr Withers:
Yes, what about it?
Mr Haversham:
Were you yourself ever the butt of such remarks?
Mr Withers:
I don’t remember.
Mr Haversham:
But there are witnesses who remember such an occasion perfectly well. The event occurred at the garden party following a lecture delivered by Professor Arthur Cayley on the subject of the teaching of mathematics. The witnesses claim that you made a remark about joining an anti-Euclid society, and that Mr Crawford said to you, ‘Before you criticise the teaching methods of better men than yourself, you’d do well to master the mathematics they aim to communicate!’
Mr Withers:
I have no recollection of the event.
Mr Haversham:
You have no recollection of your reaction?
Mr Withers:
None at all.
Mr Haversham:
One witness claims that you laughed weakly.
Mr Withers:
Well, it must have been a joke, not an insult, and the witness did not understand it.
Mr Haversham:
The witness claims that those around did not take it as a joke, and that Mr Wentworth rose to your defence, demanding of Mr Crawford
to explain exactly what he meant, upon which he continued to insult you, and you departed.
Mr Withers:
I don’t recall any of this. And at any rate, I did not butter up Mr Crawford.
Mr Haversham:
Quite so. Nor did you tell him to go boil his head, although you described it as the only natural reaction of a man with pride.
Mr Withers:
Humph.
Mr Haversham:
My cross-examination is finished, my Lord.
Mr Justice Penrose:
You may stand down.
