A
-2-
33
rests entirely on your acceptance of one or both of these
defences, or of your accepting the very plausibly put
medical theory advanced to you by Mr. Macnamara,
Now, it is essential at the very outset that you seven
gentlemen should be satisfied in your minds that what was
done to the dead man, the wounds that were inflicted on him
caused his death, whether they were inflicted by the accused
or by anyone else. If they did not then we are all wasting
our time here. Let me deal with the medical evidence.
Mr. Macnamara has just said to you before he sat down
that you had had to be satisfied that the wounds were the
immediate cause of death and when he used those words, he
meant you to say, though he did not invite you in so many
words, "nonsense, the immediate cause of death was bleeding
and anyone but a fool could have stopped that bleeding
sufficiently till he could get medical attention, and the
wounds have nothing to do with it." That is very plausible
but it is based on a fallacy. What you have to find is not
what was the immediate cause of death, but the simpler
problem, are you satisfied that death was directly connected
with the wounds ? You see, if you accept Dr. Macnamara's
theory it opens up a most alarming prospect. What would be
the position, let us ask ourselves, if instead of choosing
to kill in the house with their wives and children in very close
proximity, with all the neighbours standing around anxious
to help in however unskilled a way, accused had invited his
brother out into the fields where there was nobody and chopped
him up and left him lying there ? There he would have no
earthly chance of any form of treatment whatsoever. But if
you take Mr. Macnamara to his logical conclusion he would
say in that case it was just too bad, because if someone
had been there who had the requisite knowledge and the
requisite appliances he could have prevented death.
Gentlemen, that is not the law, never has been the law
A
-2-
33
rests entirely on your acceptance of one or both of these
defences, or of your accepting the very plausibly put
medical theory advanced to you by Mr. Macnamara,
Now, it is essential at the very outset that you seven
gentlemen should be satisfied in your minds that what was
done to the dead man, the wounds that were inflicted on him
caused his death, whether they were inflicted by the accused
or by anyone else. If they did not then we are all wasting
our time here. Let me deal with the medical evidence.
Mr. Macnamara has just said to you before he sat down
that you had to be satisfied that the wounds were the
immediate cause of death and when he used those words, he
meant you to say, though he did not invite you in so many
words, "nonsense, the immediate cause of death was bleeding
and anyone but a fodl could have stopped that bleeding
sufficiently till he could get medical attention, and the
wounds have nothing to do with it." That is very plausible
but it is based on a fallacy. What you have to find is not
what was the immediate cause of death, but the simpler
problem, are you satisfied that death was directly connected
with the wounds ? You see, if you accept Dr. Macnamara's
theory it opens up a most alarming prospect. What would be
the position, let us ask ourselves, if instead of choosing
the house with their wives and children in very close
proximity, with all the neighbours standing around anxious
to help in however unskilled a way, accused had invited his
brother out into the fields where there was nobody and choppeć
him up and left him lying there ? There he would have no
earthly chance of any form of treatment whatsoever. But if
you take Mr. Macnamara to his logical conclusion he would
say in that case it was just too bad, because if someone
had been there who had the requisite knowledge and the
requisite appliances he could have prevented death.
Gentlemen, that is not the law, never has been the law
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.