Chapter 25 - FENELLA TAKES THE STAND
Fenella testified against her lawyer’s initial advice.
She wanted to explain discipline.
That word would destroy her.
She admitted locking the shed.
No accident.
Why?
“Clotilde was hysterical.”
No evidence.
Then:
“I wanted her to calm down.”
“For five days?”
Fenella’s mouth tightened.
“I wanted her to understand consequences.”
There.
Then the notebook.
Her handwriting.
“Yes.”
“Five-day correction?”
“Yes.”
“Water only?”
“Yes.”
The courtroom changed.
Then:
“Why no food?”
“She was not starving.”
The prosecutor waited.
“That was not my question.”
Fenella looked down.
“Food was part of the lesson.”
There.
Then:
“Lesson in what?”
“Gratitude.”
“For what?”
“For the family she married into.”
Then the three conditions.
House key.
Postpartum stay.
Apology.
Fenella said:
“I never intended to force her to sign a legal document.”
True.
The document was a statement.
Not contract.
Then:
“Did you intend to keep her locked until she agreed?”
Fenella paused.
“I expected her to agree.”
“That is not an answer.”
“Yes.”
There.
Then phone.
“Did you send messages pretending to be Clotilde?”
A long silence.
“Yes.”
Auberon closed his eyes.
“Why?”
“So he would not panic.”
“Why would he panic?”
“Because Clotilde would make everything sound worse.”
Then car.
“Yes.”
Maris cover story.
“Yes.”
Typed statement.
“Yes.”
Then the question that made Fenella cry.
“What did you intend to happen at 5:30 Friday?”
She wiped her face.
“I was going to let her out.”
“And if she refused your conditions?”
“I don’t know.”
The prosecutor opened her notebook.
“If she refuses story, tell A she is unstable.”
Fenella stared.
“Did you write that?”
“Yes.”
“So you did have a plan.”
“I was angry when I wrote it.”
“Before the confinement?”
“Yes.”
There.
Premeditation.
Then defense.
Fenella described her own childhood.
Hunger punishment.
Cellar.
Rigid father.
She said:
“I thought controlled deprivation would create reflection.”
The prosecutor objected to turning explanation into justification.
Judge instructed jury appropriately.
Then defense:
“Did you intend serious injury?”
“No.”
“Did you provide water?”
“Yes.”
“Blanket?”
“Yes.”
“Lantern?”
“Yes.”
“Did you believe five days without food would kill Clotilde?”
“No.”
Probably true.
Then:
“Why search pregnancy fasting risks?”
“To make sure it wouldn’t.”
That sentence may have been the worst of all.
Not because it proved murder.
Because it proved calculation.
She had researched how far she could go.
Then the prosecutor asked one final question.
May you like
“Who gave you authority to decide how much hunger was safe for another adult?”
Fenella had no answer.
