approachable sort of person, Simon might have asked these questions. ‘You’re right: not all the names on the list have a vested interest in Helen Yardley’s guilt. They’re all people we ought to talk to, though.’
‘Justice Geilow gave Rachel Hines two life sentences for murder,’ said Proust. ‘She’s nothing to do with Helen Yardley. Why’s she on the list?’
‘You said it yourself: the similarities between the Yardley andHines cases are startling. Obsessions can spread. Obviously it’s unlikely that Justice Geilow shot Helen Yardley, but . . .’
‘She’s an even less plausible murderer than Mr Justice Wilson, if such a thing is possible,’ said Proust impatiently.
‘I’ve also included the names of the twelve jurors who found Rachel Hines guilty,’ said Simon. ‘Unlike high court judges, jurors can be anyone. Isn’t it possible one of the eleven who sent Helen Yardley to prison spent the nine years she was there thinking of himself as a good guy who helped put away a child murderer, and then couldn’t take it when he heard she wasn’t guilty after all? Nine years, sir.’ Simon allowed himself the luxury of talking as he would to someone who was really listening. ‘Think how hard it’d be to change the story after that long, the one you’ve been going round telling everyone you know, about who you are and what you did. After nine years it’s a central part of your self-image. Maybe, that’s all I’m saying,’ he added for the sake of caution.
Proust sighed. ‘I know I’m going to regret asking, but why are Rachel Hines’ jurors on the list? You think one of them might have shot Helen Yardley? Wouldn’t they be more likely to shoot Rachel Hines, according to your logic?’
Simon said nothing.
‘I can read your mind, Waterhouse – always have been able to. Shall I tell you what you’re thinking? This obsessed killer, if he’s to be found on the Hines jury, might have shot Helen Yardley because she was instrumental in freeing Rachel Hines. Or he might have extended his retributive obsession to all three women and be planning to punish them all, as well as the appeal judges who overturned the murder convictions. Perhaps our killer’s a Hines juror who doesn’t want to start with Rachel Hines in case that looks too obvious. How am I doing?’
Simon felt his face heat up. ‘I think we should show the card with the sixteen numbers found on Helen Yardley’s body to all the people on the list and ask if it means anything to them,’ he said. ‘This case isn’t the simple either-or that we’re usually faced with: a stranger killer versus someone close to the victim. Most of the people on this list didn’t know Helen Yardley personally, but they’re not random strangers either. They were as significant in her life as she was in theirs.’
‘Laurie Nattrass.’ Proust jabbed the list with his finger. ‘He’s already been interviewed and swabbed. You’re not usually sloppy, Waterhouse. Fixated, deluded, yes, but not sloppy.’
‘I’d like to talk to Nattrass again myself. I’d like to ask him about the sixteen numbers, ask if anyone he’s come into contact with through JIPAC has threatened him or acted out of character, if anything’s made him feel uncomfortable recently.’
‘Like perishing what?’ Proust pushed his chair back from his desk. ‘A lumpy chaise longue? A boil on his backside?’
Simon stood his ground, didn’t even blink at the volume. ‘Those numbers mean something,’ he said. ‘I’m no psychological profiler, but I’m pretty sure one thing they mean is that this killer’s going to kill again.’
‘I warn you, Waterhouse . . .’
‘He’ll leave a similar card next time – either the same numbers or different ones. Either way, it’ll mean something. Helen Yardley and Laurie Nattrass represented a lot of the same things to a lot of people. It’s possible that whoever killed her might target him next. How about I interview Nattrass,
‘Justice Geilow gave Rachel Hines two life sentences for murder,’ said Proust. ‘She’s nothing to do with Helen Yardley. Why’s she on the list?’
‘You said it yourself: the similarities between the Yardley andHines cases are startling. Obsessions can spread. Obviously it’s unlikely that Justice Geilow shot Helen Yardley, but . . .’
‘She’s an even less plausible murderer than Mr Justice Wilson, if such a thing is possible,’ said Proust impatiently.
‘I’ve also included the names of the twelve jurors who found Rachel Hines guilty,’ said Simon. ‘Unlike high court judges, jurors can be anyone. Isn’t it possible one of the eleven who sent Helen Yardley to prison spent the nine years she was there thinking of himself as a good guy who helped put away a child murderer, and then couldn’t take it when he heard she wasn’t guilty after all? Nine years, sir.’ Simon allowed himself the luxury of talking as he would to someone who was really listening. ‘Think how hard it’d be to change the story after that long, the one you’ve been going round telling everyone you know, about who you are and what you did. After nine years it’s a central part of your self-image. Maybe, that’s all I’m saying,’ he added for the sake of caution.
Proust sighed. ‘I know I’m going to regret asking, but why are Rachel Hines’ jurors on the list? You think one of them might have shot Helen Yardley? Wouldn’t they be more likely to shoot Rachel Hines, according to your logic?’
Simon said nothing.
‘I can read your mind, Waterhouse – always have been able to. Shall I tell you what you’re thinking? This obsessed killer, if he’s to be found on the Hines jury, might have shot Helen Yardley because she was instrumental in freeing Rachel Hines. Or he might have extended his retributive obsession to all three women and be planning to punish them all, as well as the appeal judges who overturned the murder convictions. Perhaps our killer’s a Hines juror who doesn’t want to start with Rachel Hines in case that looks too obvious. How am I doing?’
Simon felt his face heat up. ‘I think we should show the card with the sixteen numbers found on Helen Yardley’s body to all the people on the list and ask if it means anything to them,’ he said. ‘This case isn’t the simple either-or that we’re usually faced with: a stranger killer versus someone close to the victim. Most of the people on this list didn’t know Helen Yardley personally, but they’re not random strangers either. They were as significant in her life as she was in theirs.’
‘Laurie Nattrass.’ Proust jabbed the list with his finger. ‘He’s already been interviewed and swabbed. You’re not usually sloppy, Waterhouse. Fixated, deluded, yes, but not sloppy.’
‘I’d like to talk to Nattrass again myself. I’d like to ask him about the sixteen numbers, ask if anyone he’s come into contact with through JIPAC has threatened him or acted out of character, if anything’s made him feel uncomfortable recently.’
‘Like perishing what?’ Proust pushed his chair back from his desk. ‘A lumpy chaise longue? A boil on his backside?’
Simon stood his ground, didn’t even blink at the volume. ‘Those numbers mean something,’ he said. ‘I’m no psychological profiler, but I’m pretty sure one thing they mean is that this killer’s going to kill again.’
‘I warn you, Waterhouse . . .’
‘He’ll leave a similar card next time – either the same numbers or different ones. Either way, it’ll mean something. Helen Yardley and Laurie Nattrass represented a lot of the same things to a lot of people. It’s possible that whoever killed her might target him next. How about I interview Nattrass,
Similar Books
