A neighbor named Ruth Garner testified that she had seen me leaving Arthur’s house around the time of the shooting.
According to Ruth, I appeared agitated and was holding something in my hand.
I insisted she was mistaken.
I hadn’t left until police arrived.
But the prosecution described her testimony as independent confirmation of my guilt.
My fingerprints on the weapon became proof that I had fired it.
Arthur’s blood on my clothing became proof that I had attacked him.
The invoices I had brought to his house were portrayed as evidence of a financial disagreement.
Nobody seemed willing to accept the simplest explanation.
I had found a wounded man and tried to save his life.
During the trial, I watched strangers describe me as greedy, calculating, and dangerous.
The prosecutor, Kenneth Hale, told the jury that I had killed Arthur to prevent him from exposing financial misconduct.
He repeatedly suggested that I had stolen money through my position as Arthur’s assistant.
