O’Casey was next. The witness reported that he was thinking of the number 1,000,005.
Then Mrs. Robert Semple. Hers was a sentence: the RAIN IN SPAIN FALLS MAINLY IN THE PLAIN.
Edward Colombiano: PICTURE OF AN OWL EATING A MOUSE.
Linda Silverman: LETTER A IN GOLD WITH RED HEART AROUND IT.
“Your Honor, at this time we would like to excuse the witness temporarily in order to call these five panel members to testify.”
“Very well. You may step down, Mr. Burns.”
One by one, the five jury panelists were called, sworn, and testified that the symbiont had in fact reported what they had been thinking. The previous witness returned to the stand.
“Now,” said Ross, “is it true that at some time prior to September the seventh, twenty ought six, you were present in the mind of Ivan Walter Bolt?”
YES.
“Objection. Your Honor, even if it is granted that the witness can read people’s minds, we have no assurance that what it says is true. I move that this testimony be stricken.”
Van Winkle motioned the two attorneys to approach the bench. “Mr. Ross?”
“Your Honor, we have no assurance that what any witness says is true. We have to rely on the judgment of reasonable persons.”
“Your Honor, if I may, in the case of human witnesses we also rely on the penalties of perjury. Here we have a witness who is allegedly invisible, has no bodily form, cannot be identified, and cannot be brought unwillingly into court, tried, sentenced, fined or imprisoned. Such a witness has no fear of perjury.”
Ross said, “There is no reason to suppose that the witness has any motive for committing perjury, Your Honor.”
“I’ll overrule the objection,” Van Winkle said. “You may proceed.”
Ross asked, “How long did you stay in Ivan Walter Bolt’s mind on that occasion?”
TWO DAYS.
“Is it true that that would be an unusual length of time for you to stay in the mind of one person?”
YES.
“Was there some quality or qualities about Ivan Bolt’s mind that made you want to stay in his mind for an unusual length of time?”
YES.
“Will you describe those qualities?”
GOOD COLORS. SMELLS. SUN AND SHADOW. NOTICED EVERY THING.
“What was Ivan Bolt’s attitude toward animals?”
LOVED THEM.
“How did he feel about people?”
LOVED SOME OF THEM.
“I now ask you, is it true that at some time prior to September the seventh, twenty ought six, you were present in the mind of Leroy Edward Jameson?”
YES.
“How long did you stay in his mind on that occasion?”
TWO MINUTES.
“What was there about Leroy Jameson’s mind that made you leave after only two minutes?”
UGLY.
“By ugly, do you mean that his mind was unpleasant?”
YES.
“Objection, Your Honor. Counsel is leading the witness.”
“Sustained. Strike the last answer.”
“Would you describe Leroy Jameson as a happy person?”
NO.
“What made him unhappy?”
HATED EVERYBODY. WANTED TO MAKE THEM SUFFER. HATED HIMSELF.
“Are you aware of any occasions when LeRoy Edward Jameson tried to make another person suffer?”
YES.
“Please tell us about one of those occasions.”
KILLED DOG.
“Whose dog was it?”
NEIGHBOR.
“How did he kill it?”
RAT POISON.
“Was he ever charged with this crime, if you know?”
NO.
“No further questions, Your Honor.”
“Mr. Llewellyn?”
“One moment, Your Honor.” Llewellyn conferred with his assistant. Presently he stood up. “Is it true,” he asked, “that the symbionts kill people who commit murders before they can come to trial?”
YES.
“Why do you kill those people?”-
SAVE YOU TROUBLE.
“Oh, I see. If we told you we didn’t want you to save us the trouble, would you stop doing it?”
NO.
“Why not?”
UNTRUE.
“I’m afraid I don’t understand the answer. What is untrue?”
THAT YOU DONT WANT TO SAVE TROUBLE.
“Do you mean me personally?”
NO. YOU ALL.
“Do you mean people in general approve of your killing murderers?”
YES. YES.
“And do you consider that a sufficient reason to interfere with and subvert our justice system?”
YES.
Llewellyn rocked back and forth for a moment, frowning at the floor. Then he asked, “Did you have an opportunity to kill Ivan Bolt for the murder of Leroy Jameson?”
YES.
“Why didn’t you do so?”
BETTER OFF DEAD.
“Who is better off dead?”
JAMESON.
23
In his summation, Ross said, “Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, the judge will instruct you that even if the prosecution shows beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the crime of which he is charged, you may find him not guilty if there are extenuating circumstances—that is, circumstances in the commission of the crime or in the defendant’s character or actions which make it desirable for society to condone his act.
“Think for a moment, what is the purpose of trials like this one? Our society doesn’t just want to take revenge against people who commit crimes. What we are really trying to do is to increase the sum of human happiness by punishing the guilty and letting the innocent go. Everything else is secondary. If we find that a person is likely to repeat his crime and thus decrease the sum of human happiness, we find him guilty. If we find he has done so much harm to another person that there is a net loss of human happiness, we find him guilty.
“Now in this case, we can plainly see that there are extenuating circumstances. You learned from the testimony of the symbiont, speaking through Mr. Burns, that the defendant is a person with an extraordinarily rich appreciation of nature. He loves his life; he is a contented, happy and productive man. He gives pleasure by his companionship to a wide circle of friends. He has written essays and poems that give pleasure to thousands. Every hour that this man lives, he adds to the sum of human happiness.
“In contrast, you learned from the same testimony that the man who was killed exhibited characteristics that were almost the complete opposite of the defendant’s. He was brutal and unpleasant to everyone he came in contact with. Because of his character flaws, he himself was not a happy man. He lived his life in a constant ferment of hate, resentment and destructiveness. His contribution to the sum of human happiness was zero—in fact, less than zero, because he caused unhappiness to others. If the defendant had been killed instead, there would have been an irreparable loss to society. If he is punished now for what he did, there will be a loss.
“We all know there are people like the defendant, who take great pleasure in life and share it with others, and people like Mr. Jameson, who darken their own lives and the lives of everyone else. Now we have had a chance to confirm this knowledge in a really scientific and objective way. We’re not just guessing now, we know that the defendant is a happy and useful man and that Mr. Jameson was a hateful, unhappy and unproductive person. When he died, the sum of human happiness went up. You have an opportunity to increase that happiness still more here today, by finding the defendant not guilty and giving him back his freedom. Thank you.”
In his closing statement, Llewellyn said, “The defense tells you that Ivan Walter Bolt should be acquitted, even though he deliberately shot Leroy Edward Jameson through the heart and killed him, because Leroy Jameson wasn’t a very nice person. Have you ever heard such a bizarre argument in your life? That’s blaming the victim with a vengeance. The only offense he committed was trespassing—a misdemeanor. If he had been charged and found guilty, he would have paid a fine of about one hundred dollars. Instead, his life was snuffed out forever with one bullet from the gun of Ivan Walter Bolt, this self-appointed instrument of justice. Why was Ivan Bolt angry enough to kill his victim? Because Leroy Jameson had set a trap that injured an animal.