It shows the motive which actuated those, against whom there is much evidence, but who, without the knowledge of this intention, were not seen to have had a motive.  This intention is proved, as I have said, by Palmer; and it is so congruous with all the rest of the case, it agrees so well with all facts and circumstances, that no man could well withhold his belief, though the facts were stated by a still less credible witness.  If one desirous of opening a lock turns over and tries a bunch of keys till he finds one that will open it, he naturally supposes he has found the key of that lock.  So, in explaining circumstances of evidence which are apparently irreconcilable or unaccountable, if a fact be suggested which at once accounts for all, and reconciles all, by whomsoever it may be stated, it is still difficult not to believe that such fact is the true fact belonging to the case.  In this respect, Palmer’s testimony is singularly confirmed.  If it were false, his ingenuity could not furnish us such clear exposition of strange appearing circumstances.  Some truth not before known can alone do that.

When we look back, then, to the state of things immediately on the discovery of the murder, we see that suspicion would naturally turn at once, not to the heirs at law, but to those principally benefited by the will.  They, and they alone, would be supposed or seem to have a direct object for wishing Mr. White’s life to be terminated.  And, strange as it may seem, we find counsel now insisting, that, if no apology, it is yet mitigation of the atrocity of the Knapps’ conduct in attempting to charge this foul murder on Mr. White, the nephew and principal devisee, that public suspicion was already so directed!  As if assassination of character were excusable in proportion as circumstances may render it easy.  Their endeavors, when they knew they were suspected themselves, to fix the charge on others, by foul means and by falsehood, are fair and strong proof of their own guilt.  But more of that hereafter.

The counsel say that they might safely admit that Richard Crowninshield, Jr. was the perpetrator of this murder.

But how could they safely admit that?  If that were admitted, every thing else would follow.  For why should Richard Crowninshield, Jr. kill Mr. White?  He was not his heir, nor his devisee; nor was he his enemy.  What could be his motive?  If Richard Crowninshield, Jr. killed Mr. White, he did it at some one’s procurement who himself had a motive.  And who, having any motive, is shown to have had any intercourse with Richard Crowninshield, Jr., but Joseph Knapp, and this principally through the agency of the prisoner at the bar?  It is the infirmity, the distressing difficulty of the prisoner’s case, that his counsel cannot and dare not admit what they yet cannot disprove, and what all must believe.  He who believes, on this evidence, that Richard Crowninshield, Jr. was the immediate murderer, cannot doubt that both the Knapps were conspirators in that murder.  The counsel, therefore, are wrong, I think, in saying they might safely admit this.  The admission of so important and so connected a fact would render it impossible to contend further against the proof of the entire conspiracy, as we state it.