We should be worried, but that we should go to yoursolicitor, until someone else approaches us with pointed inquiry, I do notthink-- due process, you know; to us they can do nothing without thatwe should get the chance to do so, yes? Especially if we incredulously arebehaving. To talk to the solicitor preclusively (is this a word? Is itokay if I am using it anyway?) to admit to him that there might be reasonwe should be suspected would be, if out of knowledge of our involvement he is kept; or if he is not, toadmit to him that involved in fact we were, though I am not thinking itlikely to have to make known to him the actual reason that we were involved. I think, it would be betterif for the moment we are assuming that there is no one living who willconnect us with what happened and should there prove to be someone thenever having been at the church on Saturday we should deny.

Which means that we shall have a counterstory toinvent, and amongst all of us obviously it must be consistent. So we must to scheme. It appears that we have several possible avenues ofexcuse for abrupt leavetaking, and several evidences to support us. Ipropose to elaborate. This to be the most plausible option I find:

The snipe-hunting accident story.

The most important and problematic part of this is that none of us as anywhere near the church during mass are to bereported. Anyone who could have seen us there is probably dead, and ifthey're not, psychic integrity might be called into question after such aseverely traumatic experience; should we be able to the individual/s in question to obtain access, some subtlerearrangement of their memories may be possible. Yet if our Saturdayishproximateness to the church is established, the story need not fail; wecould in the afternoon have left, after Stoatley had his tombstone rubbings taken and before mass is. So anyway. Whilst( several or all, must be decided; I think I should beexcluded as they might ask me questions about it and I am a wretched liar)the party in question were out hunting snipe there occurred a grievousmalfunction of the hunting rifle causing an explosion and a backfiring into Persicue's chest; immediate removalwas necessary to for to be getting adequate care. (This can be expandedCadwalliter's foot to include, though it seems that it need not benecessary. That can be independent.)

• Advantages: Intrinsically plausible. Rifle mishaps are common. Supported by evidence: you have been shot in the chest, and had to be there for thesnipe season claimed . This having-been-shot fact too otherwise would bedifficult to explain, as being shot in the chest by someone else while not actively engaged in warfare is inthese parts rather uncommon, therefore questionable.
• Objections: Surely it would have been quickerto go to the local physician for care? Why then did you not?
• Reply 1: He was at mass. (Problem: requiresverification. If he was or not, I am not knowing, but Stoatley may recall). Reply 2: You happened to have your regular physician along, who was able tostabilise you.
• Objection 2: Impossible without reasonablefacilities. still you would have had to go to the local practice.
• Reply: Not impossible and verifiably so; yourconstitution is certifiably extremely good, and I am well known to beextremely good at these sorts of things and Willoughby will vouch for my eternal preparedness for surgery. But thesecond is difficult to answer and uncareful response might bring a chargeof incompetence. This however would be entirely outwith the case and,though it would not make me happy, on my head be it. Objection 2a) Your physician is barely conscious. Reply: Yes,well, that happened later. (Not difficult to make something up to accountfor my current state as long as they don't ask for another physician'sevaluation, which Ican't imagine they should want, but if they do, my proliferate production of blood fromthe ears yet failure to exhibit deafness, deadness, or idiocy might provokeinterest, but could not conceivably have any bearing on the case, so wouldas irrelevant be dismissed. I hope).
• Objection 3: The wound was obviously not causedby a rifle bullet.
• Reply: Ordinarily this might-- emphasizemight-- be a sound objection, but recall that the bullet was not shotnormally but backfired, and the damage is anyway too extreme easily the mechanism to be identifying. Also by this time you will be too wellhealed for such judgments reliably to be made. And I can claim that it wasa rifle bullet, so there.
• Objection 4: Prove it. Where is the bullet?
• Reply: You imagine I still have it? Not to be absurd.
• Objection 5: If Persicue was stabilisedreasonably, why then leave without concern for belongings remaining at theinn?
• Reply: There was no time. (Problem: lame. Wecould have left someone to get them. Possible reconciliation: we couldeasily have had them sent, and might the extra hands have needed).

ousw.

This seems maintainable. How I hate premeditateddishonesty, especially on top of mass murder, but so the bones fall. Pununintended. Verzeihung. What think you?

We are all going to hang, nicht wahr?

Dr. A.G. Pitcairn-Strangechilde

Index: How do we explain the Church burning down? A debate.
Next item: AKP: The duel story

Pages by Sam Kington (sam@illuminated.co.uk )
Page last updated: 16th March