Audubon County journal. (Exira, Iowa) 1884-1993, 1900-05-31
The Soul Of a Brute
By RODRIGUEs OTTOLENGUI.
Author of "A1, artist In Crime" "a Conflict of
Epidence,' "Ihe Crime of the
Century, Etc.

EDAS7lce, Ine CT1Tne OF Inc
Century," Etc.
fCnnyrieht. 1899. by Rodrigues ottolengui.l
Continued from last week.
found by the miller's son! Why is not
that possible? You will ask what car
ried him to the island. / do not know,
any more than you know what carried
the two men there in one boat. But if
l might guess should say that after
the quarrel he went to the island to
bury that poor dog, missing for ten
days-missing because he had taken it
to Deer island to spite my client and
left it there TO die, piece of brutality
quite on par with his having broken
the poor animals leg with stick"
was very proud Of that argument.
l thought that my lawyer had done re-
markably well with a poor case, and
was more pleased because | saw that
the jury We're moved. felt satisfied
/ that after the doubt thus created in
their minds they would never convict
me of capital offense.
The prosecuting attorney did not
/
strong one.
Il must congratulate the prisoner"
he began, upon the ingenuity Of my
legal friend, his defendant What the
other side lack in the way of evidence
they make up in sophistry. Mark that
l do not say logic, for, just as it has
been explained to you to be convincing
circumstantial evidence must fit all the
facts, so also is it with an argument.
Failing at a single point it ceases to be
logic and becomes sophistry, yet a dan
gerous argument and most convincing
till the flaw is discovered. AS the de-
Tense admit all our facts, which indeed
they are compelled to do since they are
facts, need not go over the ground in
full. have only to explain away this
sophistical argument of my ingenious
adversary and show you plainly that
his explanation is extremely fallacious,
purely theoretical And, much as l
should hesitate to deprive the prisoner
of single chance for his life. at the
same time am compelled to ask you
to follow me out of the realm of the
DRY and sentiment back into the more
stable ground of truth and justice.
cit is common practice for those who
have weak case to assume what their
opponents will say and then build up
an answer. This is assumption indeed.
and in this instance words are put into
my mouth which certainly would not
utter. You were told that would ask
you to believe that these two men quar-
! rolo Int IN,
the hotel and that then they went out
in the face Of rising storm. on a
pleasure trip in boat. No. gentlemen
l would not so impose upon your intel
ligence as to ask you to accept any
such preposterous proposition. What
do ask you to believe is easy to be-
lieve, however, for, as God is hearing
what say, consider it to be the SOL
emn truth. 1t has been testified, and
! the testimony has neither been refuted
nor denied by the defense, that the
prisoner prosecuted the lady who was
engaged to the deceased with atten-
lions which she spurned. 1t has been
shown that she accepted the deceased
and that the prisoner Immediately
heaped vituperation upon him in the
very presence Of the woman whom that
day he had pretended to love. True,
the pretense for the quarrel was the
Log, a lame dog and a very lame pre-
tense. Later we find that the prisoner
pursues the deceased to his very room
in the hotel in the nighttime. They
quarrel. and shortly afterward they
both go out. Now. why did they go
out? Evidently they went to settle
finally the difficulty which existed be-
tween them. Harassed and annoyed
by this man who had been his rival
and who did not hesitate to precipitate
a quarrel in the presence Of the woman
to whom he was engaged, the deceased
accepted proposition to go to Deer is
land and fight it out. Thither they
went There one man died. Now. why
did he die? Evidently before reaching
the land Mr.. Norton, who was sittin:
in the stern. since he had the longe
oars, and thus had his back to his ad
versary, was treacherously thrown
= overheard. The oars. slipping from hi
hands, tloated off and We're not easil.
y recovered. Therefore they We're lief,
simple, and l am assured you vii
agree with me-"
MY lawyer arose and asked the coul
to direct the jury to dismiss from thei
thoughts the theory of ntentiona
drowning suggested by the prosecution
as not a bit Of evidence had been &c
duced upon which it could be based
secondly, that, as the prosecution eN
planned the presence of the two men i
tn. boat by claiming that they ha
CONT out t, fight the jury should Civ
the prisoner the benefit Of the doub
and if the killing occurred during til
fight they should bring no greater vel
dict than manslaughter. Both of thes
requests We're denied by the judge BIT
they had their influence upon the jur,
| am sure. Their verdict you alread
know