Is this the clue that clears Mary, Queen of Scots of murder?
After four centuries, inquiry exonerates monarch
THE verdict may be a little late to help the accused, whose head was chopped off more than 400 years ago.
But Mary, Queen of Scots has been ‘cleared’ of any involvement in the notorious murder of her husband, Lord Darnley.
The mystery over the killing of the 21-year- old king consort and his valet is one of Scotland’s longest running whodunnits – and suspicions that Mary herself was behind it contributed to her downfall.
This week, however, a new inquiry exonerated Mary and suggested the guilt may lie with Darnley’s own kinsmen.
Admittedly, at this remove, it is difficult for the inquiry to be too scientific. There are, of course, no living witnesses and nothing in the way of forensic evidence.
But there is a contemporary sketch of the murder scene – and it does throw up some clues.
The inquiry, arranged by the Royal Society of Edinburgh, brought together some of Scotland’s most eminent pathologists, explosives experts and scientists.
They met on Thursday in Jedburgh Town Hall, Roxburghshire, to examine exactly what happened on the night of February 9/10, 1567, at Edinburgh’s Kirk o’ Field, after
‘A different perspective’
the Old Provost’s lodgings there had been rocked by t wo explosions.
The drawing of the scene, showing the bodies, the buildings and the effects of the blast, formed the core of the inquiry.
Forensic scientist Sue Black, Professor of Anatomy and Forensic Anthropology at Dundee University, told the hearing it was likely Darnley and his valet were strangled or suffocated.
She said: ‘When you look at the picture in the way it was intended, it just looks as if Darnley is lying there, his nightgown around his waist. But when you turn it round, you get a different perspective of where the head lies in relation to the shoulders. It does look as if the body has been dragged.’
This explanation would account for Darnley’s state of undress – his nightshirt riding up to expose much of his body.
‘It might be that he was murdered somewhere else and then pulled out there so his body could be found,’ added Professor Black.
Karly Kehoe, a senior history lecturer at Glasgow Caledonian University, accepted the view that Darnley had been killed by his kinsmen. It is believed they were angry at his apparent betrayal of them after they had helped him kill David Rizzio – Mary’s private secretary – the previous year.
Rizzio was rumoured to be the father of Mary’s unborn child – the future James VI and I – and as a result was stabbed 56 times by Darnley and his friends
Dr Kehoe said the most plausible account of Darnley’s murder had been put forward by Caroline Bingham, his biographer.
She wrote: ‘On the night of his death, he was awoken by people outside his lodging and feared for his life. Not pausing to dress, he and his servant attempted to flee, using sheets to descend from a window.
‘When they arrived in the garden, they were surrounded and were either strangled or suffocated and then removed to the orchard, where the bodies were found.’
It is believed the blasts came after the murder, a possible attempt to hide the real cause of death.
Some suspected Mary had been plotting to remove Darnley, a theory given credence by the fact that a leading suspect for his murder was James Hepburn, Earl of Bothwell, whom she subsequently married.
Although this week’s i nquiry appeared to exonerate Mary, it was inconclusive on the cause of Darnley’s death – and the precise identity of the perpetrators remains unknown.
As John Dunn, the procurator fiscal, said: ‘The jury remains out.’