ng, a man might go into your
house, shoot your wife before your eyes, and then if you can
identify him the moment you see him you are not to be believed. He
argues that before you can be believed you must put him in a line
of a hundred men, let them walk through a room one by one, and then
pick him out. That he argues in the face of undisputed evidence
that you saw him kill your wife, yet he would have you believe that
you could not rely upon any such evidence as that for
identification. The man who could be mistaken in Martin Burke's
face, surely must be blind. It is a case of undisputed
identification. The case Forrest refers to, is where it has been
contested; where three or four witnesses swear that is the man and
others swear that it is not the man; where witnesses swear that it
is the horse and others swear that it is not the horse; where some
witnesses swear that it is so and other witnesses swear that it is
not so, but who ever heard of any man, any lawyer, any man, indeed,
in his senses undertaking to talk with sincerity and urge upon
twelve honest men that where five witnesses come forward and swear
to the face of Martin Burke, that he is the man, and are not to be
believed. Who ever heard of a second-class lawyer, or even a police
court shyster, claiming that that identification was not perfect?
Five undisputed witnesses, old man Carlson, Mother Carlson, Charles
Carlson, Mrs. Charles Carlson, and Mortensen, five witnesses swear
that that is the man who rented the cottage, yet that same learned
lawyer is undertaking to mislead you into the belief that that
identification is not to be relied upon. It is absurd.

"Well, if he will argue that Martin Burke is not the man who was
there on the 4th of May, if he will argue under this evidence that
Martin Burke did not rent that cottage, if he will argue that he
did not move that furniture there, if he will argue that Martin
Burke was not seen on the premises there, and tell me that he is in
earnest, and you believe his argument, tell me when and where you
would convict a man of crime, if the lawyer takes the position he
did in this case. But he says the old man Carlson could not tell it
was the 4th of May. How do you know? When that old man got on the
stand, Forrest was yelling at the top of his