The Cask of Amontillado presents Montresor's story which was eavesdropped by somebody who appears to have been on the outer side the bedroom at the time when Montresor narrated his story to the priest. Montresor would then be reported to the police who consequentially would go to the tombs to bring down the wall which he had made and find the skeleton where Montresor would be forced to go for a murder trial. Although the dead carcass belonged to Fortunato, the story is performed in a time when DNA diagnosis wouldn’t be done to identify the body.
The attorney’s Closing statement would state that; despite the fact that there was no eyewitness to the act, the eavesdropper had enough information of what Montresor had confessed and thus could lead the police to the scene. Fortunato had disappeared after the festivals and Montresor had information of his missing body. The found skeleton had a corresponding height to Fortunato. Also the jingling cap found was the exact one that Fortunato was dressed in the same night of his disappearance. The left wine bottle would be argued that Montresor was the rightful killer of Fortunato.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
The defense would argue on the basis that the confession of Montresor was a sign of his insane mind. In addition, they would add that Montresor suffered from old age delusions and was not responsible for this crime. No one would mistake the right Fortunato in a manner to incite revenge as Montresor
The Jury on its side would evaluate the given evidence such as true age of the wall, the cap and the years it seemed to have survived as well as analyzing Montresor’s guilt. Was there any witness who saw Fortunato and Montresor leave the festival together?
The Jury’s final verdict would probably be deciding the time set up of the story which would be police or magistrate’s case. From the evaluation of the evidence and time before forensic science, the jury would rule against Montresor.
