Today's story ended up being my second attempt. Started one, got a line in and then got stuck. Came back later with a different prompt and this just fell out of my brain.
Disclaimer, I am in no way a lawyer of any kind, though I am led to believe the crime mentioned is indeed a real crime.
Exhibit A
Ladies and gentlemen of the jury I submit for your consideration, exhibit A.
The defendant claims that they were not present at the Untapped Barrel on the night of July twenty second, however exhibit A, being the CCTV camera footage from the aforementioned drinking establishment, clearly indicated otherwise.
Please cast your eyes on this date and timestamped still from the the footage, which is available in its entirety for you to peruse at your leisure, which clearly shows the defendant entering the Untapped Barrel at 8.26pm on the night in question. The second frame on display, shows the defendant leaving the Untapped Barrel at 11.47pm on that same night.
Exhibit B is footage taken from this inside of the public house and is of much higher quality than that captured by the exterior cameras. This frame clearly shows the defendant, with their rather distinctive red hair, standing at the bar. In fact, the footage is of high enough quality that I can see from this frame that the defendant ordered a pint of Stella Artois which, sadly, is not the crime for which they stand accused.
The following five stills, timestamped at approximately half hour intervals, show the defendant returning to the bar to order further pints of the questionable lager.
Now, I will admit that this footage is not evidence that the defendant committed the crime for which they are accused in and of itself. It does, however, cast doubt on the veracity of the defendant's testimony. They claim that they were nowhere near the establishment in question on the night the crime was committed and yet both exhibit A and exhibit B clearly show that they were? What other parts of their testimony might also be false?
Please also consider that their choice of drink might bring the defendant's moral character and judgement into question... sorry your honour, I will refrain from this line of argument. Comment withdrawn.
Choice of alcoholic beverage aside, the defendant has been show to be untrustworthy in their testimony of the events of that night, whether by virtue of fallible memories or by deliberate misdirection. Given the amount of alcohol they were observed to have consumed that night, no matter the quality, I will grant that it is entirely possible that it is the former rather than the latter that may be the reason for their contradictory testimony.
In summary, ladies and gentlemen of the jury submit evidence to you that the defendant was indeed present at the Untapped Barrel on the night in question, corroborating the testimony of the witnesses and in direct opposition to the defendant's own testimony. I therefore put it to you, that the defendant did indeed commit the crime for which they are accused and that they should be found guilty of wilfully and wantonly disturbing the victim and their family by pulling or ringing any door-bell or knocking at their door without a lawful excuse. I beseech you, ladies and gentleman of the jury, to finally bring justice to the most prolific public nuisance in recent memory: the Ginger Knocker.
The prosecution rests, your honour.
If you enjoyed this story feel free to purchase one of my books either here, or here. Or you can buy me a coffee here.
