Phineas Redux · Chapter
Lord Fawn's Evidence explained
Lord Fawn is examined in court regarding the murder of Mr.
What happens
Lord Fawn is examined in court regarding the murder of Mr. Bonteen. He testifies to seeing a man in a grey coat near the scene, but struggles to identify Phineas Finn as that man. Mr. Chaffanbrass cross-examines him aggressively, highlighting inconsistencies in his testimony and emphasizing that only the grey coat and the quarrel link the man to Finn. A clerk, Mr. Scruby, is brought in to demonstrate that the coat could fit a shorter man, undermining the prosecution's case.
Themes in this chapter
Justice and Injustice
The chapter explores the fragility of justice as Lord Fawn's uncertain testimony and the aggressive cross-examination highlight the difficulty of ascertaining truth.
Scandal and Public Opinion
The intense public interest in Lord Fawn's testimony and the courtroom drama underscore how scandal and reputation shape the trial's atmosphere.
Characters to notice
- Phineas Finn
The defendant, on trial for murder; his life-preserver and grey coat are key evidence.
- Lord Fawn
Key witness for the prosecution; gives hesitant and contradictory testimony about the man he saw.
- Mr. Chaffanbrass
Defense barrister; cross-examines Lord Fawn aggressively, exposing weaknesses in the identification.
- Sir Gregory Grogram
Prosecutor; objects to Mr. Chaffanbrass's tactics and the mention of the improper conference.
- Mr. Scruby
Mr. Wickerby's clerk; brought in to model the grey coat, revealing it fits a man of shorter stature.
- Mr. Wickerby
Attorney involved in the case; his chambers were the site of the controversial conference.
Key passages
“I’ll tamper with him by-and-by”
Mr. Chaffanbrass threatens to manipulate Lord Fawn during cross-examination.
Shows Chaffanbrass's strategic and ruthless approach to defending Phineas.
“Your only ground for suggesting identity is the grey coat?”
Chaffanbrass forces Lord Fawn to admit that the coat color is the sole basis for identifying the man as Phineas.
Highlights the weakness of the prosecution's case and the reliance on circumstantial evidence.