tle,' they say,
and you will remember how a whole edifice of psychology was built on that
pestle--why he was bound to look at that pestle as a weapon, to snatch it
up, and so on, and so on. A very commonplace idea occurs to me at this
point: What if that pestle had not been in sight, had not been lying on
the shelf from which it was snatched by the prisoner, but had been put
away in a cupboard? It would not have caught the prisoner's eye, and he
would have run away without a weapon, with empty hands, and then he would
certainly not have killed any one. How then can I look upon the pestle as
a proof of premeditation?

"Yes, but he talked in the taverns of murdering his father, and two days
before, on the evening when he wrote his drunken letter, he was quiet and
only quarreled with a shopman in the tavern, because a Karamazov could not
help quarreling, forsooth! But my answer to that is, that, if he was
planning such a murder in accordance with his letter, he certainly would
not have quarreled even with a shopman, and probably would not have gone
into the tavern at all, because a person plotting such a crime seeks quiet
and retirement, seeks to efface himself, to avoid being seen and heard,
and that not from calculation, but from instinct. Gentlemen of the jury,
the psychological method is a two-edged weapon, and we, too, can use it.
As for all this shouting in taverns throughout the month, don't we often
hear children, or drunkards coming out of taverns shout, 'I'll kill you'?
but they don't murder any one. And that fatal letter--isn't that simply
drunken irritability, too? Isn't that simply the shout of the brawler
outside the tavern, 'I'll kill you! I'll kill the lot of you!' Why not,
why could it not be that? What reason have we to call that letter 'fatal'
rather than absurd? Because his father has been found murdered, because a
witness saw the prisoner running out of the garden with a weapon in his
hand, and was knocked down by him: therefore, we are told, everything was
done as he had planned in writing, and the letter was not 'absurd,' but
'fatal.'

"Now, thank God! we've come to the real point: 'since he was in the
garden, he must have murdered him.' In those few words: 'since he _was_,
then he _must_' lies the whole case for the prosecution. He was there, so
he must have. And what if there is no _must_ about it, even if he was
there? Oh, I admit that the chain of evidence--the coincidences--are really
suggestiv