STUDY GUIDE

&

MOCK TRIAL PROJECT DETAILS

CharactersAbby Brewster

Abby and her sister Martha have interchangeable personalities in the play. Neither exhibits distinct characteristics that are identifiable as separate from the other. Abby, like her sister Martha, is old-fashioned in an ironic sense. She appears to be a quite conservative elderly woman who values the conventions of the past. She attends church regularly and donates toys to the local Christian fund.

Her traditional values, however, do not extend to her treatment of the elderly men who come to their home looking for lodging. While her desire to help the men find peace is aligned with their Christian faith, her and her sister's methods reflect modern, violent sensibilities as they resort to murder to achieve their goal. Abby is the one who gives the poisoned wine to the first of their murder victims.

Jonathan Brewster

Jonathan is a vicious criminal with a penchant for torture. Not much background information is given on him other than the details provided by Mortimer that he was "the kind of boy who liked to cut worms in two—with his teeth." He has no consideration for his aunts as he plots to turn their home into a surgery for criminals who need to alter their appearance. When Mortimer threatens to interfere, he plans on causing a slow, painful death for his brother. His pettiness surfaces when he becomes jealous that his aunts have committed more murders than he has.

Martha Brewster

Martha is as ironically old fashioned as her sister. She exhibits kindness and compassion with the neighbors and follows social conventions of behavior. For example, when Mortimer breaks tradition and asks Elaine to meet him at the Brewster's instead of calling for her at her home, she criticizes him for his lack of chivalry. She also condemns the theater for its provocative subject matter and popular films that frighten their audiences.

Like Abby, Martha's charity is limited by the macabre nature of the murders they commit and by their own prejudices. Abby would rather ignore the devastation of the war in Europe because it is beyond their scope. When Jonathan arrives, Martha, with Abby's help, does everything in her power to get rid of him from the moment he walks in the door, insisting that he is too much trouble. The two also have no time for foreigners, refusing to let Jonathan bury one in their basement along with their "good Methodist" Mr. Hoskins.

Mortimer Brewster

Mortimer is teasing and flirtatious with his fiancée Elaine and exhibits genuine affection for her, his aunts, and for Teddy. As soon as he discovers the dead body in the window seat, his immediate goal is to protect his aunts. He bravely stands up to his brother Jonathan at the risk of his own safety.

His bravery, however, is tempered by his arrogance, which sometimes blinds him to what is happening around him. He insists that he is much more intelligent than the plays he must review and refuses to agree to Elaine's claim that they often have a humanizing effect on him. His pride gets him in trouble when he does not take the proper precautions with Jonathan, and as a result, he almost loses his life. He also proves himself to be quite excitable and does not handle the stressful situation in the Brewster household

2

very rationally. All ends well less through Mortimer's actions and more through coincidence and the fact that the police cannot fathom the sweet Brewster sisters could ever have twelve bodies buried in their basement.

Teddy Brewster

Teddy has lost all contact with reality, completely immersed in the delusion that he is Teddy Roosevelt. This static character is used primarily as a plot device. He covers up the aunts' murderous activities as he buries the dead bodies in the basement, which he insists contains the locks of the Panama Canal.

Officer Brophy

Like the Brewster sisters, Officers Brophy and Klein are interchangeable with no distinct personalities. They help the plot develop by providing background information on the Brewster family and rescuing Mortimer from Jonathan's clutches. Brophy also provides some foreshadowing as he notes in the beginning of the play that Teddy has been disrupting the neighbors' sleep with his midnight bugle calls.

Dr. Einstein

Dr. Einstein, Jonathan's evil sidekick, is little more that a stock figure. He adds to the comedy through his alcoholic tendencies, which cause him to remake Jonathan into the image of Boris Karloff. He also stirs up the action when he chides Jonathan about the fact that the aunts have murdered exactly as many men as he has. As a result, Jonathan decides to kill Mortimer so that he will tip the balance in his favor.

Elaine Harper

Elaine exhibits a modern sensibility for a woman during this period. She is self confident, quick witted, and "surprisingly smart for a minister's daughter." She engages in witty, flirty banter with Mortimer and shows a great deal of patience with him.

Reverend Dr. Harper

Like the Brewster sisters, the Reverend Harper maintains old-fashioned values, appreciating the "gentle virtues" that have gone out of style in the twentieth century. His disapproval of the theater makes him initially wary of the union between his daughter Elaine and Mortimer.

Officer Klein

Klein, like his partner Brophy, appreciates the sisters' charity and believes them to be among the kindest inhabitants of the neighborhood. He also serves as a plot device, especially when he suggests that Jonathan looks like Boris Karloff, which sends the latter into a murderous rage.

Officer O'Hara

Officer O'Hara distinguishes himself from his fellow officers by the fact that he has written a play. He adds to the farcical action when he leaves Mortimer tied up all evening in order to ensure that the theater critic will listen to the entire summary of his play.

3

ThemesCharity

The theme of charity is satirized in the play. The Brewster sisters appear to be quite altruistic, providing help when needed for their neighbors as well as opening their door to strangers. They make soup for the sick, serve tea and cakes for the preacher and police officers, collect toys for needy children, and provide lodging for lonely old men. They must be the right kind of men though. The sisters have their own rules about how far their charity will extend.

They do not, for example, want to think about the devastation of the war in Europe, which to them has become inconvenient because it may cause them to use "that imitation flour again" as did the first world war. Also, the war involves foreigners, who are not acceptable to the sisters. They prefer "good" American Christians, more specifically Episcopalians. Methodists like Mr. Hoskins are welcomed into their homes, but only because the sisters are so "charitable." Their own nephew Jonathan is not welcomed because his behavior throughout his life has been undesirable.

Of course, the greatest problem with the sisters' charitable activities is the fact that they have murdered eleven of the lonely men who have come to their home looking for lodging. They determine that they know best what these men need, and that only through death and a good Christian service at their burial will they find the peace they deserve. The sisters, however, make the end as painless as possible as they poison the men with elderberry wine tainted with arsenic. They are pleased with the fact that one of the men actually praised the wine right before he expired.

Insanity

The audience, along with Mortimer, soon learns that the sisters are as insane as the obviously deranged Teddy, who thinks that he is Teddy Roosevelt and so continually blows a bugle and charges up the staircase as if it were San Juan Hill. Because the sisters do not display such obvious outward signs, no one in the neighborhood believes Jonathan's claims that there are twelve bodies buried in the basement. Mortimer also has difficulty believing that his aunts were responsible for the body in the window seat, blaming it instead on Teddy, until the aunts admit their responsibility.

They handle the fact that they have just committed murder quite nonchalantly, with a cool remonstration to Mortimer to "forget you ever saw the gentleman." They find their actions perfectly justifiable and so go about their daily schedule. When Mortimer suggests that they did not tell the Reverend Harper about Mr. Hoskins because they felt guilty, they insist that the only reason they hid him was because it "would not be very nice" for the Reverend to view a body at tea. Abby adds, "I do think Martha and I have the right to our own little secrets."

Insanity runs in the family, as evidenced by reports of Teddy's grandfather, a physician who made a fortune developing medicines that he tried out, sometimes with devastating results, on his patients. His brother Jonathan also has the family curse, having killed twelve men and threatening to kill Mortimer by torturing him. He insists that his last murder was justified since the victim accused him of looking like Boris Karloff after Dr. Einstein had botched his reconstructive surgery. This genetic defect causes Mortimer to insist that he cannot marry Elaine until, to his immense relief, the aunts tell him that he is adopted.

4

Theater

Kesselring also satirizes the conventions of the theater as well as those who critique it. The art of the theater reflects life only in the most absurd situations in this play. The farcical nature of the action ironically reinforces Mortimer's claims that the theater does not reflect reality, but it certainly does provide good entertainment. This point is well proven during the absurd situation Mortimer finds himself in as he describes the plot of a play he has recently seen. He tells Jonathan and Dr. Einstein, who are trying to come up with a way to subdue Mortimer so that they can torture and kill him, exactly how the murderer captures the hero. Insisting that the characterizations reveal no imagination or any reflection of reality, Mortimer is blind to the fact that he is in the exact same situation as the play's hero and has just given his brother the perfect method to carry out his murderous intentions.

Kesselring effectively satirizes the arrogance of theater critics in his portrayal of Mortimer who insists that he is always disappointed by the uninspired plays he is forced to review. He receives his comeuppance not only by providing Jonathan with a successful method to set him up for murder, but also as he is forced to listen all night to Officer O'Hara's tedious summary of the play that he has written.

5

Topics for Further StudySome scholars suggest that Kesselring wrote the play as a thriller and then was prompted to turn it into a farce. Would the play work as a thriller? Propose a general outline of the play as a thriller and rewrite in detail a key scene that would illustrate this genre.

Compare and contrast the Broadway hit Sweeney Todd, another play in the comic/thriller genre, with Arsenic and Old Lace.

Research the treatment of the mentally ill in America in the 1930s and 1940s. Were there "Happy Dales" then that provided comfortable living arrangements for those like Teddy and the Brewster sisters?

Investigate the accepted theories on biological determinism during the 1930s and 1940s. Discuss the debate over nature versus nurture during this period.

Historical ContextWorld War II

The world experienced a decade of aggression in the 1930s that would culminate in World War II. World War II resulted from the rise of totalitarian regimes in Germany, Italy, and Japan. These militaristic regimes gained control as a result of the Great Depression experienced by most of the world in the early 1930s and from the conditions created by the peace settlements following World War I. The dictatorships established in each country encouraged expansion into neighboring countries. In Germany, Hitler strengthened the army during the 1930s. In 1936, Benito Mussolini's Italian troops took Ethiopia. From 1936 to 1939, Spain was engaged in civil war involving Francisco Franco's fascist army, aided by Germany and Italy. In March 1938, Germany annexed Austria and in March 1939 occupied Czechoslovakia. Italy took Albania in April 1939.

One week after Nazi Germany and the U.S.S.R. signed the Treaty of Nonaggression, on September 1, 1939, Germany invaded Poland and World War II began. On September 3, 1939, Britain and France declared war on Germany after a U-boat sank the British ship Athenia off the coast of Ireland. Another British ship, Courageous, was sunk on September 19. All the members of the British Commonwealth, except Ireland, soon joined Britain and France in their declaration of war. On December 7, 1941, Japan attacked Pearl Harbor and the United States entered World War II.

Theater in the 1930s and 1940s

In the late nineteenth century playwrights such as Henrik Ibsen turned away from what they considered the artificiality of melodrama to a focus on the commonplace in the context of everyday contemporary life. Their work, along with much of the experimental fiction written during that period, adopts the tenets of Realism, a new literary movement that took a serious look at believable characters and their sometimes problematic interactions with society. Dramatists who embraced Realism use settings and props that reflect their characters' daily lives and realistic dialogue that replicates natural speech patterns.

Realism remained a dominant form in twentieth-century drama. In the 1930s and 1940s a group of playwrights, known as social realists, brought drama to American audiences that reflected the political and social realities of the period. Dramatists such as Lillian Hellman, Sidney Howard, Sidney Kingsley,

6

and Clifford Odets examined political institutions such as capitalism, totalitarianism, and socialism along with social issues such as lesbianism and poverty.

Comedies, specifically drawing room comedies and vaudeville shows, also became a popular dramatic form in early decades of twentieth century. During the 1930s and 1940s, comedic theater, dedicated to escapism during the depression and war years, became as popular as drama. This genre branched out into musicals, most notably with the first of the Rodgers and Hammerstein masterpieces, Oklahoma in 1943, which helped define the musical play as a significant American art form.

Compare and Contrast1941: On December 7, Japan attacks Pearl Harbor, and the United States enters World War II.

Today: The United States is engaged in a war in Iraq that is not supported by many countries around the world.

1941: On December 11, four days later the attack on Pearl Harbor, Germany, along with Italy, declares war on the United States.

Today: The world is threatened by Islamic fundamentalist groups that have declared a holy war against the West. These radical groups have committed terrorist acts in several countries including the United States. The most devastating act of terrorism occurs on September 11, 2001, when terrorists fly planes into the World Trade Center Towers in New York City and into the Pentagon, killing approximately 3,000 people.

1941: Arsenic and Old Lace begins its 1,444 performance run. Audiences herald the play's successful mixture of farce and melodrama.

Today: Films that spoof the thriller genre, like Scream, have gained significant box office success.

7

What Do I Read Next?Hugh Wheeler's Sweeney Todd (1979) is another Broadway hit that successfully combines farce with melodrama.

Jonathan Swift's satire "A Modest Proposal" (1729) suggests a "charitable" solution to the poverty and hunger in Ireland: babies should be bred and eaten.

Joseph Kramm's popular play The Shrike (1952) takes a serious look at the treatment of the mentally ill in America in the 1950s.

George S. Kaufman and Moss Hart's play You Can't Take It with You (1938) earned rave reviews for its entertaining and witty view of an eccentric family.

For Further ReadingBlum, Daniel C., A Pictorial History of the American Theatre, 1860--1980, Outlet, 1983.

As its title suggests, this book presents representative pictures of successful productions in American theater.

Bordman, Gerald, American Theatre: A Chronicle of Comedy and Drama, 1914--1930. Oxford University Press, 1995.

This volume traces the development of these two genres in American theater, providing an insightful background for an examination of the play's roots.

Coleman, Janet, The Compass: The Improvisational Theatre That Revolutionized American Comedy, University of Chicago Press, 1991.

Coleman's study focuses on how improvisational theatrical methods influenced comedy in America.

Wilmeth, Don B., and Tice L. Miller, eds., The Cambridge Guide to American Theatre, Cambridge University Press, 1996.

8

Mock Trial

To complete our discussion of Arsenic and Old Lace, we will be conducting 2 mock trials; one where we will be trying Abby and Martha Brewster for 12 counts of murder.

There will be three categories of roles: Attorneys, judges, and witnesses/defendants. Each role will have its own rubric that will outline the needed criteria for a full grade.

The tentative schedule is as follows (remember TENTATIVE. We may have to change timelines.)

Day 1: Review project details, assign roles, and review court trial process.

Day 2: Research and Prep

1. Judges: Review Courtroom procedures2. Attorneys: Divide workload, and begin to find evidence3. Wittnesses/Defendants: Fill out character trait sheet

Day 3: Research and Prep

1. Judges: Review Proper Objections and responses2. Attorneys: Meet as a team and collaborate to solidify case3. Witnesses/Defendants: Rehearse together to continue developing character.

Day 4: Research and Prep

1. Judges: Design courtroom layout.2. Attorneys, Witnesses/Defendants: Meet as a team with witnesses or clients.

Day 5: The trial of Abby Brewster and Martha Brewster (Prosecution)

Day 6: The Trial of Abby Brewster and Martha Brewster (Defense and Closing Arguments)

MOCK TRIAL PROCEDURES

9

Before participating in a mock trial, it is important to be familiar with the events that take place during the trial and the order in which they occur. There are two basic types of trials: Jury Trial and Bench Trial. A judge hears a bench trial. The case of Abby and Martha will be a Bench Trial

Observe the following rules in the courtroom AT ALL TIMES: • Rise when addressing the judge; • Direct all remarks to the judge or witness, NEVER to opposing counsel. • Ask permission from the judge before approaching the witness or bench.

1. OPENING OF THE COURT The bailiff (Mr. McGhee) calls the court to order. The bailiff announces to the parties, attorneys, and the audience: "All rise. The Court of OLGC is now in session, the Honorable Judge(s) _______________ presiding."

Everyone remains standing until the judge(s) enters AND is seated. The bailiff then says, "Please be seated."

The judge asks the clerk (Mr. McGhee) to call the day's calendar (also called the "docket"), at which time the clerk says, "Your Honor, today's case is _______________________."

The Judge may ask team members to introduce themselves.

2. OPENING STATEMENTS Prosecution begins with the opening statements.

Attorneys should introduce the case in the future tense. (i.e., "...the evidence WILL show...the witness WILL testify..."

The defense attorneys follow with their opening statements. The defense attorneys can give their opening statements after the prosecution or after the prosecutor presents their evidence. For purposes of this tournament, the defense attorneys WILL give their opening statements following the prosecutor.

The opening statements of each side of the trial should last about 3 minutes in order to fully explain your council’s plan for the trial.

 3. SWEARING IN THE WITNESS The clerk will stand and raise his/her right hand. The clerk says: "Please raise your right hand. Do you promise that the testimony you are

10

about to give will faithfully and truthfully conform to the facts and rules of the mock trail tournament?

Witness should answer, "I do."

Clerk responds by saying: "Please be seated. State your name for the court and spell your last name."

4. DIRECT EXAMINATION The prosecution attorney conducts the direct examination or questioning of all of its own witnesses. At this time, testimony and other evidence is presented.

The purpose of direct examination is to allow witnesses to develop the facts in support of the case.

5. CROSS-EXAMINATION After prosecution calls its final witness, the prosecution should inform the court that the prosecution has no further witness and “rests its case.”

The defense will begin its case by calling its first witness. The defense’s cross-examiner seeks to clarify or cast doubt upon the testimony of opposing witnesses. Inconsistency in stories, bias, and other damaging facts may be pointed out to the judge through leading questions.

6. CLOSING ARGUMENTS A closing argument is a review and analysis of the evidence presented.

Attorney for the prosecution reviews and analyzes the evidence as presented, indicates how the evidence has satisfied the elements of the charge or claim, points out the law applicable to the case, and argues for a judgment for the prosecution. Prosecution's attorney may reserve time left over for rebuttal.

The closing argument for the defense is essentially the same as for the prosecution. It should indicate how the evidence does not satisfy the elements of the charge or claim, stresses the facts favorable to the defendant and asks for a judgment for the defense.

Again, these statements should last about 3 minutes in order to fully review the case and urge the judge’s to make the “right” decision.

9. VERDICT

11

After the case is closed, the judge(s) will deliberate for a few minutes, come to a decision and present their verdict (Guilty or Not Guilty.)

The judges must explain why they came to this decision, citing the prosecution and defense’s arguments and tactics.

COMMON TRIAL OBJECTIONS1. "Objection, your Honor, the question is ambiguous."a. A question is ambiguous if:

i. It may be misunderstood by the witness. It is objectionable on the ground that it may take on more than one meaning.

2. "Objection, your Honor, the question is argumentative."a. A question is argumentative if:

i. It is asked for the purpose of persuading the jury or the judge, rather than to elicit information.ii. It calls for an argument in answer to an argument contained in the question.

iii. It calls for no new facts, but merely asks the witness to concede to inferences drawn by the examiner from proved or assumed facts.

3. "Objection, your Honor, the question has been asked and answered."a. A question may be objectionable on the ground that

i. The witness has already answered a substantially similar question asked by the same attorney on the same subject matter.

4. "Objections, your Honor, the question assumes facts not in evidence."a. A question assumes facts not in evidence if:

i. It presumes unproved facts to be true. Example: "When did you stop beating your wife?" This question assumes that the person has beaten his wife.

5. "Objection, your Honor, the question is compound."a. A question is objectionable on the ground that it is compound if:

i. It joins two or more questions ordinarily joined with the word "or" or the word "and."6. "Objection, your Honor, the question is too general." a. A question is too general, broad, or indefinite, if:

i. It permits the witness to respond with testimony which may be irrelevant or otherwise inadmissible. Each question should limit the witness to a specific answer on a specific subject.

7. "Objection, your Honor, the question is hearsay."a. A question is hearsay if:

i. It invites the witness to offer an out-of-court statement to prove the truth of some matter in court. There are many exceptions to the hearsay rule.

8. “Objection, your Honor, the question is irrelevant.”a. A question is irrelevant if:

i. It invites or causes the witness to give evidence not related to the facts of the case at hand.9. "Objection, your Honor, the question is leading."a. A question is leading if:

i. It is one that suggests to the witness the answer the examining party desires. However, this type of question is allowed on cross-examination of a witness.

10. "Objection, your Honor, the question mis-states the evidence."a. A question misstates the evidence if:

i. It misstates or misquotes the testimony of a witness or any other evidence produced at a hearing or at a trial.

11. "Objection, your Honor, the question calls for a narrative answer."

12

a. A question calls for a "narrative answer" if:i. It invites the witness to narrate a series of occurrences, which may produce irrelevant or

otherwise inadmissible testimony.12. "Objection, your Honor, the question calls for speculation."

a. A question is speculative if:i. It invites or causes the witness to speculate or answer on the basis of conjecture.

MOCK TRIAL RUBRICS

Judge:

The judge is responsible for keeping order in the court, preventing chaos, and following and enforcing the law.

Presentation: Is your court procedure a formal one? Is there order in the court? (Does it begin on time, do court members react to your call for order? Do you make rapid decisions-- i.e., "sustained" or "overruled"-- and keep the pace flowing among lawyers and witnesses? Do you ask witnesses to "please answer the question"? etc.) Do you speak clearly? Are you confident in your rulings? Do you understand the accusations of both the defense and prosecution? Did you dress the part? (Favoring a particular side will lose you points). (30 points)

[You should use preparation time to become familiar with legal terms including the objections and how they are used.]

Portfolio must include:

1. Pretrial Reflection: How do you feel? What is your personal opinion? What do already know about the case? What is your gut reaction [even though you will be just during the trial, you are still human and have thoughts]? (10)

2. Reflection during trial: How's it going? Is it what you expected? How are the witnesses and lawyers behaving? Are you doing your job well? (20)

3. Justification of Verdict: How is your verdict related to the arguments and tactics of the attorneys? Why did you choose it? How did you decide? 250 word essay, typed. (40 points)

Points out of 100: ___________

13

MOCK TRIAL RUBRICS

Lawyers (Prosecution and Defense)

The lawyers are responsible to either a) prosecute or b) defend the defendant. Each side will be a small "Dream Team" of lawyers who will divide the duties. The team will be divided into the four major responsibilities. The duties involve: an opening statement, a closing statement, and cross-examination/questioning of the witnesses. Your legal team is a team and must divvy these jobs fairly. This is a collaborative effort: you will hand in one finished portfolio of your work together. Therefore, you need to make sure that you are all working! In addition, you can not make up stuff. All evidence must come from the book, whether to defend or prosecute!

Your team should be divided into the four major responsibilities:

The duties involve: an opening statement, a closing statement, and cross-examination/questioning of the witnesses. Your legal team is a team and must divvy these jobs fairly. This is a collaborative effort: you will hand in one finished portfolio of your work together. Therefore, you need to make sure that you are all working!

Presentation. (20 points)o This includes behavior in the courtroom, preparedness, and how

you worked with your team of lawyers. Did you dress the part?

Portfolio (One per group including individual reflections) (80 points)

Typed Opening and closing statements (30 points)o Opening statement: What is your case? Why is that your case?

How will you prove that case?

14

o Closing statement: What was your case? How did you prove your case? Why should the jury be influenced by your argument? Are they grammatically correct? Are your words definite, concrete, and exact? Are you representing your client or public in the best way possible? Are statements based on evidence from the book? Are reasonable inferences made? Do you cite and document the book if it is used? Is your argument compelling? You should use legal terminology.

Questions for each of the witnesses, including cross examination. (30 points )

o Did you have at least two witnesses to cross-exam and two to question? Why did you take on these witnesses? Are your questions relevant? Do they rely on the book? Do these questions prove your witnesses’ reliability? Do the cross-examinations questions prove a witness’s unreliability? Are these questions relevant to the situation? Type questions. Use Evidence from the book!

Personal Reflection (each lawyer must do this). (20 points)o How did your case go? What do you feel about your witnesses?

What would you have changed? Consider these questions. 250 word reflection. Typed.

Points out of 100: __________

MOCK TRIAL RUBRICS

Witnesses/Characters

The witnesses are characters. You will be given a list of possible characters plus the lawyers may need specialty witnesses. Specialty witness roles will be given to you as extra credit in addition to your main role. You must remain in character throughout the trial and must rely on evidence from the book! You must know your character inside and out as when you are being questioned, you must use information from the novel. However, we will bring characters back from the dead to be able to have a trial. This can be done by video or other imaginative ways.

Presentation. (60 points)

Did you know your character well? Were you able to answer without hesitation or fumbling for facts? Did you bring props? What makes you stand out from other characters? Did you collaborate well with lawyers? How did you react to cross-examination? Were your oral communications skills favorable? Did you dress the part? Did you remain in character?

Written Portfolio: (40 points)

15

Character Sketch. (10 points)o Who are you? What is your character like? Is this character solely

based on the text? Did you add elements to the character? What are they? What is your character’s "voice"? Do you know your character well? What drives him/her? (250 words typed)

Reflections: 10 points each, 30 points) Pretrial Reflection: The play is over and it is before the trial: How

do you feel? During the trial Reflection: 200 words describing how you are

feeling during the trial. Does your view change? Why or why not? What are you worried about?

Post-trial reflection: The verdict is in. 200 words describing your feelings and throughts after the trial. 

Points out of 100: _____________

CAST LIST

Judges:

1. _________________________________

2. _________________________________

3. _________________________________

Prosecution

1. _________________________________

2. _________________________________

3. _________________________________

4. _________________________________

5. _________________________________

16

6. _________________________________

Defense Council

1. _________________________________

2. _________________________________

3. _________________________________

4. _________________________________

5. _________________________________

6. _________________________________

Defendants

1. Abby Brewster _________________________________

2. Martha Brewster _________________________________

Witnesses

1. Mortimer Brewster _________________________________

2. Elaine Harper/Brewster _________________________________

3. Jonathan Brewster _________________________________

4. Teddy Brewster _________________________________

4. Dr. Einstein _________________________________

5. Officer O’Hara _________________________________

17