He knew the daggers had been destroyed, and he knew who committed the murder.  How could he have innocently known these facts?  Why, if by Richard’s story, this shows him guilty of a knowledge of the murder, and of the conspiracy.  More than all, he knew when the deed was done, and that he went home afterwards.  This shows his participation in that deed.  “Went home afterwards”!  Home, from what scene? home, from what fact? home, from what transaction? home, from what place?  This confirms the supposition that the prisoner was in Brown Street for the purposes ascribed to him.  These questions were directly put, and directly answered.  He does not intimate that he received the information from another.  Now, if he knows the time, and went home afterwards, and does not excuse himself, is not this an admission that he had a hand in this murder?  Already proved to be a conspirator in the murder, he now confesses that he knew who did it, at what time it was done, that he was himself out of his own house at the time, and went home afterwards.  Is not this conclusive, if not explained?  Then comes the club.  He told where it was.  This is like possession of stolen goods.  He is charged with the guilty knowledge of this concealment.  He must show, not say, how he came by this knowledge.  If a man be found with stolen goods, he must prove how he came by them.  The place of deposit of the club was premeditated and selected, and he knew where it was.

Joseph Knapp was an accessory, and an accessory only; he knew only what was told him.  But the prisoner knew the particular spot in which the club might be found.  This shows his knowledge something more than that of an accessory.  This presumption must be rebutted by evidence, or it stands strong against him.  He has too much knowledge of this transaction to have come innocently by it.  It must stand against him until he explains it.

This testimony of Mr. Colman is represented as new matter, and therefore an attempt has been made to excite a prejudice against it.  It is not so.  How little is there in it, after all, that did not appear from other sources?  It is mainly confirmatory.  Compare what you learn from this confession with what you before knew.

As to its being proposed by Joseph, was not that known?

As to Richard’s being alone in the house, was not that known?

As to the daggers, was not that known?

As to the time of the murder, was not that known?

As to his being out that night, was not that known?

As to his returning afterwards, was not that known?

As to the club, was not that known?

So this information confirms what was known before, and fully confirms it.