A Draft Epilogue on the Cask of Amontillado
Write an epilogue to ” The Cask of Amontillado” in which a case against Montresor comes to trial. In your epilogue, provide the prosecuting attorney’s closing argument, reminding the jury of any evidence that proves Montresor’s guilt. Then provide the defense attorney’s closing argument and describe the jury’s final verdict.
|Subject||Law and governance||Pages||4||Style||APA|
It would be necessary for some evidence to exist, linking Montresa to the murder of Fortunato in order for police to arrest and take him through the due process of law. it would therefore be prudent that his confession comes to light either through someone who overheard it or any other means through which the confession can come to the attention of the law enforcing agencies. Importantly, the person overhearing the confession would need to inform Fortunato’s widow who then shall exercise the power to institution charges.
The attorney who would be discharging his roles as a prosecutor would therefore need to mention in his closing arguments that the confession is relevant because it proves a fact in issue by corroborating the establishment by police, the skeleton that they found walled up somewhere in the catacombs. Moreover, there would be tests to establish that the chain was of modern manufacture, in addition to the fact that the wall was equally of the same duration. The prosecutor would also need to bring to the attention of the court that Fortunato had gone missing fifty years ago without trace. Furthermore, the prosecution would also argue that the skeleton was of similar height to Fortunato in addition to wearing a similar cap with the same one with which Fortunato was last seen.
The defense attorneys on their part would want to challenge the evidence that the prosecution tabled before the court. They would argue that the technology that established the skeleton`s age was not accurate and thus left room for speculation. If anything, they would wish to bring into scrutiny the competence and qualification of the officer handling the technology as a way of discrediting or impeaching its reliability. However, such argument would not be strong enough considering that they lack any tangible reason to doubt the technology. The defense attorneys are also likely to question the issue of height, arguing that there would be so many people of the same height as that of the skeleton and thus it was not enough for the prosecution to conclude that it belonged to Fortunato. Lastly, the defense would also challenge the notion that the cap on the skeleton was the same one that Fortunato was wearing on the same day he went missing, since it would be difficult to remember its features fifty years later. Given the strength of the evidence by the prosecution, it is most likely that the jury would find Montresa guilty of the murder of Fortunato.
Poe, E. A. (1981). The cask of amontillado. Prabhat Prakashan.