In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

Fou rteen •————————————• The Summing Up and Verdict On Saturday, November 20, both sides made their closing arguments . The little courtroom was filled once again as everyone listened to the prosecution’s summary while straining to catch a glimpse of Novak’s face. Reporters sat elbow to elbow at a long table, scribbling notes at top speed while courtroom artists sketched each of the principals. Even with the windows open, the rank air inside took its toll, causing one woman to lose consciousness. When water was sprinkled on her face and she still did not awaken, two bailiffs pushed through the crowd and carried her outside. Several others had to leave before they were overcome by the foul air, which now seemed to affect everyone, including the portly John Ney, who swayed a little as he stood and gave the defense’s summation, completing it with great effort.1 M. J. Tobin had spent months preparing for his closing remarks on this case and he conducted himself in a “masterly manner.”2 In an interesting sidelight, Ney requested that the court reporter take notes on Tobin’s remarks, something that was uncommon at the time. The defense attorney was clearly interested in having Tobin’s summary put into the court records, in case there was a need to appeal the verdict in the future. It also could have been an attempt to rattle the young prosecutor, who was wrapping up his first major case. If this was Ney’s goal, it appeared to have no impact whatsoever The Summing Up and Verdict 157 on Tobin, for the county attorney stood and delivered a strong summation , going over the circumstantial evidence and connecting all of the pieces one last time for the jury. He began by outlining Novak ’s actions, paying particular attention to his behavior prior to the fire—obtaining the insurance policies, allegedly sleeping in the store to guard against burglars, and studying a map of the United States, supposedly looking at potential escape routes. Tobin also reviewed the forensic evidence in the case, describing the fractured skull and the exposed brain tissue once again. He reminded the jury that Novak had signed the Union Pacific ticket “Frank Alfred” and asked the jury, “Why would he flee?” Further, Tobin debunked the defense team’s claim that Novak had carried Murray up to the cot on the second floor. If this were true, Tobin asked, then how could the little bed fall down to the basement with the body still on top? He noted that there was no proof that the boiler or gas plant had leaked any fumes, and so there was no reason to believe the defense’s theory that the gases from burning wood and coal could disorient a man. He called the testimony from the defense team’s expert witnesses regarding this issue “a monumental farce.”3 Tobin made a special point of singling out Red Perrin’s testimony, noting that the defense didn’t question one scintilla of the detective’s story but instead mounted an ad hominem attack in an attempt to discredit Perrin himself. The detective was telling the truth, Tobin said, and the truth in the case had come out throughout the course of the trial. Then the young prosecutor outlined the list of facts that he and Boies had presented to the jury. He went back to the timeline of that fateful February night, reviewing Novak’s actions that evening— how he changed clothes and took a shotgun, money, and some food before leaving the burning building. He questioned why Novak, supposedly an innocent man, fled the state instead of helping Ed Murray escape from the burning store. Why would Novak adopt different aliases as he transferred from one train to another, and then finally 158 t h e t r i a l to a steamer, and why would he travel from Walford to a place thousands of miles away, about as far removed from civilization as any other spot in the world? When he reached the conclusion of his arguments, Tobin weighed each word carefully: “I say to you, gentlemen of the jury, that . . . the acts on that night were planned; that the deeds of that night were premeditated. That the man who did it knew exactly what he was doing.” Tobin then cut to one of the key points in his argument—Novak’s motive for murder: “It was done for money. It was done for money and I...

Share