[Richard Palmes's testimony is mistaken. Andrew's testimony is] unaccountable flights of fancy. Would [Palmes] place himself before a party of soldiers and risque his life at the muzzels of their guns, when he thought them under a necessity of firing to defend their lives? . . .[I admit] there is some little confusion in the evidence, [but this is a problem for the defense as much as for the prosecution.]

The circumstances had a tendency to move all the passions. . . . [This] may account for the variation in the testimony of honest men. . . . The prisoner [Captain Preston] knows the use of language too well to say "murder 'em" [as Robert Goddard had testified]. . . . [Regarding Daniel Calef's testimony] The Captain said "Fire by no means" when the people spoke to him, but Calef heard only "Fire." . . . [If, as William Wyat testified, Captain Preston first ordered his men to fire and then reprimanded them, that] must show Preston to be diabolically malicious, [which contradicts all other evidence about him]. . . . [Defense witness Richard Palmes, on the other hand, was] an inhabitant of the town, therefore not prejudiced in favor of soldiers, [yet he testified that Preston had remained standing in front of loaded muskets. If Preston intended to order his men to fire,] self-preservation would have made the Captain alter his place. . . . "It is better twenty guilty persons should escape unpunished than one innocent person should die."