評論
打印
Leibowitz had stood on that crossing five years later to the day and observed it for himself.
五年以后的同一天，萊博維茨曾經站在那個十字路口，親自檢驗過這一點。
The two cinema reel-boys, Whittet and Etkins, received short shrift. Leibowitz forced Whittet to admit that he had been convicted of spying on a woman undressing in her home. He had only told the police of his conversation with Hoffman, in which he alleged that Hoffman had asked about a "lovely road to take a girl," after his own conviction and he had then been put on probation only, clearly, Leibowitz implied, as a reward for his assistance.
電影院的那兩個放映員，懷特和艾特金斯，也沒能逃過一劫。萊博維茨迫使懷特承認，他曾因偷窺一個女人在家里脫衣服而被定罪。在被定罪后，他才告訴警察自己與霍夫曼的談話，他在其中聲稱，霍夫曼曾詢問“有沒有適合帶女孩去的偏僻小路”。所以，萊博維茨很明顯地暗示，把協助當作一種獎勵，懷特才能被判以緩刑。
In a lively cross-examination, Etkins admitted he had told the police he had seen Hoffman's tortoiseshell spectacles hanging in the projection booth on the afternoon when he had been identified wearing them. He said that District Attorney Fach had struck him on the head with a ruler when he refused to change his testimony. He agreed he did not remember driving with Hoffman down the lonely lane, as he had said.
在現場的質詢中，艾特金斯承認他曾告訴警方，在已經確定了霍夫曼那天下午戴著一副玳瑁眼鏡后，他還曾看到霍夫曼的玳瑁眼鏡掛在放映室里。他說，當他拒絕改變他的證詞時，地區檢察官法赫就用一把尺子敲擊他的頭。他還說，正如他先前說的那樣，他不記得與霍夫曼一起駕車去過那條偏僻的小道。
On 18 May the State rested its case, now considerably less strong than it had appeared at Hoffman's earlier trials. But there was still a long way to go, as Leibowitz well knew. Hoffman needed to persuade the jury that his suspicious actions were the result, not of guilt, but of fear. His suspicious behaviour in faking alibis and getting rid of his gun, were, Hoffman explained, caused by a sort of hysterical reaction to his friends' raillery about his resemblance to the described murderer.
5月18日這個州自動停止了對該案件的討論。與先前對霍夫曼的審判相比，現在的強度要小得多。但萊博維茨很清楚，仍然有很長的路要走。霍夫曼需要說服陪審團，他的可疑行為是恐懼的結果，而不是內疚的結果。霍夫曼解釋說，他偽造不在場證明和丟棄槍的可疑行為，是對朋友們所開的玩笑的過激反應。朋友們說他與殺人犯極度相似。
