Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, we have been brought here today because a tragedy has occurred. Two innocent, unsuspecting individuals barely past their twelfth year on this earth were victims of undeserved violence. Our heart goes out to the families of the victims. Though we cannot bring poor Simon and Piggy back, what we can do is prevent another tragedy from occurring. The prosecution is trying to pin the deaths of Piggy and Simon to my client, Jack Merridew. Jack has always been an upstanding member of the British community. He always attended school even became head of a choir. But his honest reputation is now being threatened by these unfair proceedings. What the prosecution has neglected to tell you is that there is no real evidence linking my client to the murders. They will probably present you with more ethical facts than hard legal evidence. That is because they have no case! The facts in this case could not be clearer! Sure, Jack did not like Simon and Piggy. Nobody except for a few people on that island liked them. Piggy was a chubby kid who always complained and never worked. Simon was a queer character who no one could really understand. Yes. There were ill feelings, but this is not enough for my client to be convicted of a crime as serious as murder. Today, my partner and I intend to present you with the real, hard, legal facts. We will prove that Simon was killed accidentally as a result of lawful self-defense. In relation to Piggy, well, we should not even be here today. My client had absolutely nothing to do with the murder of Piggy, as it was Roger who planned the crime and purposefully executed it. We challenge the prosecution to bring forth any real evidence to dispute this. On a lesser charge, Jack is also being held for the attempted murder of Ralph. In that case, what the prosecution calls "attempted murder," we call a "boys’ game." Surely, all of us here have played Cops and Robbers or Cowboys and Indians at one time or another in our childhood, and I do not think that Jack and the other boys ever intended to take this event to the level we are made to believe. Think about this as you listen to the prosecution’s testimony and remember that there is always another side to every story. We feel terrible about the deaths of two members of society. We must do the right thing right now and acquit Jack of these wrongful charges so we can pay proper respect to the memories of Piggy and Simon and carry on with our lives. Thank you.

Maurice is a very important witness, and we chose him as one of the defense’s key witnesses because he served all our purposes. We were looking for a neutral party, but yet one who had first-hand knowledge and information of events. Maurice fits this perfectly. He was a part of Jack’s tribe. He was present at Simon’s murder, Piggy’s murder, and the hunt for Ralph. But he is a neutral person. He did not really hold a special position within the tribe nor was he extremely violent, and he seemed like a truthful character. His questioning is related to the murders of Simon and Piggy. Regarding Simon’s case, Maurice was intended to be influential and important. He would be the primary witness testifying to the fact that Simon was killed in self-defense. Regarding Piggy’s murder however, Maurice was not intended to be the defense’s main witness. Roger was. Maurice was an "introductory" witness. He would provide some background information, and his testimony would lead to the ultimate questioning of Roger. The last question asks Maurice to identify who he feels committed the murder of Piggy – Jack or Roger. Because Maurice is not shown to be biased towards any of these friends of his, we felt he would give an honest answer.

1. Describe in your own words what happened on the night Simon was killed.

2. And what did you think this figure was?

3. Your tribe genuinely believed in the beast?

4. And considering the circumstances, when Simon stepped out of the forest, did you yourself believe that you had encountered the beast?

5. Taken from quotes from various people, I have come up with a description of your beast. It was relatively big and sat on the mountain preventing the maintenance of the fire there. It had distinguished eyes, teeth, and claws. Is this description more or less correct?

6. So, is it safe to say that this thing was a threat to the safety of you and the other boys?

7. It was raining that night and it was very dark. Correct?

8. This thing came out of the forest, and all the boys thought it was the beast. No one is going to stand there and wait for the beast to attack first. You and your tribe defended yourself, correct?

9. So this kill took place as a result of self-defense?

10. Thank you for answering my questions relating to Simon. My next set of questions relates to Piggy and the tragic day he was killed. Please describe for the court in your own words what took place on the day Piggy was killed.

11. Did Jack say anything to Roger about throwing the rock or killing Piggy? Did he make a gesture of some sort?

12. So Jack did not do anything to imply a desire for Roger to murder Piggy?

13. Thank you, my last question may be difficult for you to answer because it forces you to choose between two of your friends. But, my client is on trial for murder, and as an attorney, I am obliged to ask this. Considering your response to the previous questions, who, in your opinion, is ultimately responsible for the death of Piggy – Jack or Roger? Keep in mind, that your answer will affect the outcome of this trial. One of these people is going to end up being charged for the death of Piggy. If you answer truthfully, the innocent person might be cleared.

Thank you. No further questions.

Roger’s questioning was intended to fully clear Jack of the charge of murdering Piggy. Roger’s questioning was intended to be aggressive and aimed at making him confess to being the sole person responsible for Piggy’s death. By admitting this, Jack would technically not be responsible. The questioning immediately followed that of Maurice because Maurice would have already established a foundation for accusing Roger based on his answers.

1. Did you hear the testimony of your friend, Maurice earlier as to what happened on the day Piggy was killed?

2. Do you agree with these events?

3. Very well. It has been brought to the attention of this court that you, and not Jack, are fully responsible for Piggy’s murder. Is there any evidence you can present to link my client to Piggy’s murder? Did he tell you something? Did he make a gesture? Anything of the sort?

4. So he did not do anything?

5. So you committed the crime. Jack did not take part in this. All he wanted to do was to be left alone and have fun with his new tribe. All he wanted was for Ralph to leave him alone. H e said it himself on page 176. Somewhere during this whole argument between Ralph and Piggy and Jack, you decided to take matters into your own hands and commit a murder. Why is Jack being charged for this? Why is he sitting in that chair right now? That should be you.

No further questions.

The cross- examination of Simon supported our argument that Simon was killed in self-defense. The night was dark, stormy, and frightening. Simon was unrecognizable amidst the darkness. These are ideal conditions for self-defense. These facts were presented to Simon in hope of catching him off-guard and showing flaws in his logic to the jury.

1. Approximately how much time did you spend in the area near the pig head? In the book, it says that it was still daylight when you found the head and early evening when you left.

2. While talking to the pig you fainted and fell face first into the ground, breaking your nose. So, you basically rolled around in the dirt and bled severely for quite some time wouldn’t you agree?

3. I cannot even imagine what you must have looked like when you recovered. All that dirt and dried blood must have served as a pretty hideous mask. After that, you even went to the mountain and freed the parachutist, getting even dirtier. Yet, you had no regard for your appearance, and negligently headed out to Castle Rock, where the rest of the tribe was, at night. Now, I hear you’re a pretty practical and rational person. So lets consider this from the point of view of the boys near Castle Rock. A thunderstorm has just begun and Ralph, in his infinite kindness, has reminded them that they have no shelter. Fine. They decide to play a little game. I repeat, it is dark and raining. The boys are already afraid of the beast, and they pray that their sacrifice was sufficient. All of a sudden, this big, dirty, black, ugly thing quickly steps out of the forest and heads right for the boys. You’re telling me that you would stand still and let the creature run straight at you without defending yourself. The beast was very real to the boys, correct?

4. In their minds, you could very well have been the beast. All they did was defend themselves. I would have done the same thing, and I think you would have done the same thing too. Can you honestly tell me that the conditions for self-defense were not present in this situation?

No further questions.

Since the littluns are not really a major force in this novel, their cross-examination is not too serious. They were used to improve Jack’s reputation. The questions basically forced them to admit that, although Ralph was nice, he was not very reliable. He did not act but only called meetings and talked. Jack, on the other hand, accomplished tasks and got things done.

1. Who did you vote for to be chief on your first day on the island?

2. Ralph must have seemed strong and looked like a leader because almost everyone picked him. Is this why you picked him?

3. As time passed, who did you realize was stronger and a better leader, Ralph or Jack?

4. Why is this?

5. In fact, when Jack invited you to his barbecue, you did not hesitate to go. You must have been sick of all those berries and fish, correct?

6. At the barbecue, I understand Jack made an announcement that he was starting a new tribe, yes?

7. Who’s tribe did you join?

8. So basically, Ralph proved to be completely inefficient. He talked a lot, but did not get things done. Jack on the other hand hated talking, but he provided his tribe with good food, entertainment, shelter, and more excitement than Ralph ever could. Am I correct?

9. So who was the better leader of the two, in your opinion?

Thank you.

We figured that Samneric would be used by the prosecution to support their argument that Jack was a violent individual. They would also be used to testify against Jack in the attempted murder of Ralph. To show that Jack was violent, they would provide the court with their heartbreaking story of how Jack violently forced them to join their tribe against their will. We combated this by showing that when Ralph asked them to leave and rejoin him, they refused. We also presented evidence that could lead some people to believe that it was not Jack who was terribly violent and awe-inspiring, but Roger. Samneric also said that Jack planned to kill Ralph. We disputed this by showing that there is no real proof linking Jack to an attempted murder and that the whole incident could have been a game. This might not have been very convincing, but it would serve the purpose of getting Jack acquitted based on the fact that there is reasonable doubt present.

1. Let me get this straight. You’re here to testify against Jack, correct?

2. So, first, you join Jack’s tribe, eat the meat he catches, enjoy the benefits of protection, get treated like one of the family – since they trusted you to be lookouts – and then turn right around and accuse Jack?

3. Oh, Jack forced you to join his tribe. Well, Ralph came to Castle Rock that very same night and met with you. Am I right?

4. And during this brief meeting, he asked you to leave Jack and rejoin him – start a new tribe. And you refused. How does this work considering the fact that you did not want to be a part of Jack’s tribe because it seems to me that there is a flaw in your logic?

5. Fine. Fine. You were scared. I can understand that. But were you scared of Jack or Roger? In your conversation with Ralph that night, most of your statements involved Roger. When Ralph said, "wont you come with me," you replied, "You don’t know Roger." When asked by Ralph what the tribe was going to do with him when he was captured, you said, "Roger sharpened a stick at both ends." Roger, Roger, all Roger! Seems to me like Roger was the main character associated with all this violence, not Jack.

6. I’m even going to take this a step further. The prosecution is alleging that Jack planned to murder Ralph. I disagree with this. I think Jack just wanted to play a more interesting game. Everyone had fun with their little pig dance, but I think they wanted more excitement. With Ralph, an excellent opportunity arose. Here was their chance to pretend to hunt a real person. This game even came complete with signals and spears. I think Jack intended all this to be a game. After all, the naval officer at the end thought that the boys were playing a game. There is no real proof that Ralph was to be killed. Jack did not even threaten Ralph. Ralph, himself, did not know that his life was in danger. The spear sharpened at both ends meant nothing to him. He did not understand its meaning, if it even had one. Can this be a possibility?

No further questions.

Before I discuss the actual proceedings of the case, I would like to state personal feelings. When I first received this case, I immediately realized that the prosecution had no case for the most part. I truly believed that Jack was innocent on account of the murders of Simon and Piggy. Simon’s death was entirely in self-defense considering the circumstances. The death took place on a dark and stormy night, and Simon was completely indistinguishable due to dirt and dried blood as he stepped out of the forest. In a way, I felt like he caused his own death. He was extremely negligent considering the fact that he spent all day face down in the mud, bleeding, when he talked to the pig head. Instead of identifying himself to the tribe, he ran straight at them. The murder was definitely committed in self-defense. In Piggy’s case, Jack had nothing to do with the murder at all. Every action was undertaken by Roger. Finally, the only thing that I was truly worried about was the charge for attempted murder of Ralph. I was worried because, first of all, there is not really any evidence to dispute this charge and, second, because I myself believed that Jack was guilty of this. Even I could read the text and clearly identify the motives and plans behind it. As an attorney, however, I had to set these emotions aside and dedicate myself to defending Jack. I defended against the attempted murder charge by posing off the hunt for Ralph as a game. I had given up on trying to convince the jury that Jack was entirely innocent, and instead resorted to proving that there was not enough evidence present to truly support the prosecution’s argument and introducing another possibility – the idea of the "game." These are my personal feelings and trial plan.

I felt that the case went well, more or less. In Simon’s case, my partner and I proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the murder was committed in self-defense. We presented the facts and my cross-examination of Simon hopefully swerved the jury to see the truth. It was also entertaining to see the prosecution trying to avoid the charge directly. They most likely realized that they did not have sufficient evidence to support the charge. So, while we approached the problem head on, the prosecution avoided it and instead resorted to proving that Jack had a violent nature. Now, I do not disagree with this at all. I just do not see how proving this had any relevancy to the case. I was also thoroughly satisfied with the testimony of Maurice. He answered the questions in the exact fashion that I had intended them to be answered and gave honest testimony without causing trouble or a dispute over useless facts.

Next, came the attempted murder of Ralph. I presented my case as well as I could, but I feel it was not enough to persuade the jury to pass an acquittal. I also testified too much. This is one thing I would have changed. The witnesses involved in the attempted murder of Ralph were Samneric. In this case, the prosecution became a bit more aggressive in their questioning and addressed the problem well. I think they presented a good argument, but they gave me a hard time with numerous objections. This is one of the reasons why I objected repeatedly later on during their questioning. If I could change something else, it would be my numerous invitations to objections. Objections generally are not good because they pass off a bad image, so this is another thing I would change.

Finally, Piggy’s case took place. I feel that we made our best case here. I know I did because I was very confident of my argument and truly felt that I could win. The defense on the other hand stumbled a few times as they were caught off-guard by my witness’ answers. They also tried to establish the fact that Jack is responsible for the actions of his tribe because he is the leader. Does this mean that he is responsible for Piggy’s death even though he had no part in this? Obviously this does not make sense and only strengthened my case. The witnesses involved here were Maurice and Roger. I feel that Maurice gave excellent testimony and set the stage for Roger’s questioning. I am proud of Roger as well because we were attacking him with accusations, and he still replied truthfully and, in the end, could not deny that he was ultimately responsible for the death of Piggy. I would not change anything in this case. It went perfectly.

Our other witnesses were the pig and Jack himself. What can I say about the pig? I did not want the pig in the case. It was completely useless, and if it did anything, it only strengthened the prosecution’s case. I do not have any thoughts about the pig. I was really disappointed with Jack. During our questioning, he fared well and strengthened our case. During the prosecution’s cross-examination, however, he completely broke down. He answered "Yes" to every question and complied with everything they said. He was on trial, and he did not offer any resistance whatsoever. I feel that if I did not call that last objection, he would have testified to the fact that he could see Simon running out of the forest and still killed him! Jack’s questioning was excellent on both sides, but his answers could have used some work. This is another thing I would change. I would have prepped him better.

Last but not least came the verdict, and I have to say that I was satisfied with it. I was afraid the jurors would find Jack guilty of all the charges because throughout the study of the novel, we were all made to hate Jack. He was violent and antagonistic whereas Ralph was the hero. I was glad to learn that they put these feelings aside and acquitted Jack of the murders of Simon and Piggy. The fact that they found him guilty of attempted murder does not really bother me because, realistically, I was not really hoping for an acquittal of this charge.

Overall, the trial went well. Our questioning was good and always addressed the problems. Our witnesses, especially Maurice and Roger, gave good testimony to support our argument. And, in my opinion the jury made the right decision.