STROLLO.
It may, and probably will, appear to the reader that a clearer case of
guilt could hardly be established, but the action of juries is always
problematical, and this was a case composed entirely of circumstantial
evidence. The jury would be obliged to find that no reasonable
hypothesis consistent with the innocence of the accused could be
formulated upon the evidence. Thus, even in the face of the facts proven
against him, some "freak" juryman might still have said, "But, after
all, how do you _know_ that Strollo killed him? Some _other_ fellow
might have done it." Even the "faking" of a defence does not prove the
defendant guilty, but merely that he fears conviction, and is ready to
resort to feigned testimony to secure his freedom. Many innocent men
convict themselves in precisely this way.
Accordingly it was by no means with confidence that the People went to
trial, but throughout this remarkable case it seemed as if it must have
been preordained that Strollo should not escape punishment for his
treacherous crime. No defence was possible, not even the partially
prepared alibi was attempted, and the only thing that savored of a
defence was the introduction of a letter alleged to have been received
by the defendant while in the House of Detention, and which, if genuine,
would have apparently established that the crime had been perpetrated by
the "Black Hand.
Pages:
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353