as the other. Now, of course, just to say that
these innocent acts alone of themselves are not criminal, but what
may seem to be innocent may be guilty circumstances. That is the
point I want to make on that. Same with Martensen. Here is evidence
from Martensen, who moved the furniture. Why Martensen tells us, 'I
was hired to haul this furniture; that is my business.' He went and
hauled it, and said he was the man who hauled it there. Nothing out
of the way for him to haul that furniture. That circumstance of
itself is innocent, while under certain circumstances it might be
guilty."

The State's Attorney then took up the cause-of-death phase of the
case. He had not, he said, intended to say much about it, as the
Judge, according to law, would tell the jurors that they must
determine the cause. But the statement made by Attorney Forrest to
the effect that if the jurors returned a verdict of acquittal on
the present indictment, the State could try the prisoners again on
an indictment stating that the cause of death was unknown,
compelled him to refer to it. The statement made by Attorney
Forrest was, the speaker cried, absolutely untrue. No law would
permit the suspects to be tried again. Moreover, the indictment was
strictly in accord with the testimony given by the medical
witnesses who had on the stand sworn that death was caused by
violence from blows inflicted on the head.

The theory that because the Doctor might have, under certain
circumstances, died from a stroke of apoplexy, was no reason why he
had died of apoplexy.

"If he died of apoplexy," cried the State's Attorney, "why were his
shirt and pantaloons cut to get them off him? Why was he stripped,
his body put in one sewer and his clothes in another? The
physicians, some of them, admitted that such wounds as found on the
Doctor's head might not cause death. Well, a bullet in the bowels
of a man might not kill him, but if a man with a bullet wound there
was found dead, it would be judged by any man of sense that the man
died from the effects of the bullet wound."

The assault upon the testimony of the State by Attorney Forrest
came in for extended argument. "It showed how weak is the testimony
of the defense," he exclaimed, "it shows how weak it is when this
three-day lawyer