¹⁾

The case before me is unusual in many respects. For one, while the defendants can be identified - in the sense that names for both can be given, and these can be verified in the appropriate records - neither will lay claim to only one of those names, nor admit to any particular act (though, for example, either will readily ascribe an act to either Arthur or Earnest). For those crimes before me which were joint acts of both twins, this is simple - both the persons can be charged with at least conspiracy to perform the act (or, where joint enterprise applies, with the act itself). For those (relatively few) crimes where there appears to be only a single perpetrator, without the assistance of the other, I was regretfully required to instruct the jury to render a not guilty verdict, as it cannot be proved beyond reasonable doubt whether a particular one of the defendants performed the act.

On the 15 counts of fraud […]

On the count of grievous bodily harm against Charles Crawford, the jury returned a guilty verdict. The facts of this matter were as follows:

• Lord Crawford had discovered the twins' secret, and revealed it.
• Arthur (or the twin acting as Arthur at that time - as can be read into any mention of either twin), challenged Crawford to a duel.
• For reasons still unclear to this Court, Crawford elected to nominate Earnest as his second.
• On the day of the duel, Earnest appeared to attack both Crawford and Arthur, putting a bullet through the calf of Lord Crawford, and appearing to do the same to Arthur.
• However, Arthur's injury was fake - a theatrical device, triggered in tandem with their sibling's firing of a pistol empty save for powder.
• The twins had bribed the doctor on scene to add credence to the injury - however, Duke Starling was in attendance, offered his field medic expertise to help, and noted the deception.
• Duke Starling subsequently informed the police, leading to the arrest of both twins.

Clearly a common plan existed here, and neither denies an intent to wound Lord Crawford, so joint enterprise applies here.

A sentencing hearing is scheduled 1 week from the date of this order.

– Written by Mike C.