How could a jury believe that Jack Marion would have murdered his best friend? Jack had spent practically his whole life looking after John Cameron, despite the fact he was about three years older than John. They were born neighbors on farms in southern Iowa, and their families moved to the same area in northeast Kansas at the same time, just prior to the Civil War. They grew up together, played together and shared their families hardships and heartaches together. They were like brothers.
They received little schooling and Jack, though quite intelligent, was illiterate. He could write his name but that was about all. Could this jury wrongfully convict Jack on circumstantial evidence and sentence him to hang, because he was poor and illiterate, just to satisfy a town's lust for blood and vengeance?