Chapter 91
And There Was No Murder Either
And There Was No Murder Either “Allow me, gentlemen of the jury, to remind you that a man’s life is at stake and that you must be careful. We have heard the prosecutor himself admit that until to‐day he hesitated to accuse the prisoner of a full and conscious premeditation of the crime; he hesitated till he saw that fatal drunken letter which was produced in court to‐day. ‘All was done as written.’ But, I repeat again, he was running to her, to seek her, solely to find out where she was. That’s a fact that can’t be disputed. Had…
Public-domain chapter text, formatted for reading.
Master this chapter. Complete your experience
Purchase the complete book to access all chapters and support classic literature
Available in paperback, hardcover, and e-book formats
Now let's explore the literary elements.
Key Quotes & Analysis
"that a man’s life is at stake and that you must be careful."
Context: Opening the murder refutation after denying robbery
He sets the burden before attacking the since-he-was-there logic that follows.
In Today's Words:
Fetyukovitch opens by saying a man's life is at stake and the jury must be careful. He sets the standard before he attacks the evidence. When someone asks you to judge another person, name what would need to be certain before you accept a permanent consequence.
"What if that pestle had not been in sight, had not been lying on the shelf from which it was snatched by the prisoner, but had been put away in a cupboard?"
Context: Dismantling premeditation built on the visible pestle
A weapon in sight turns coincidence into a story of planning that may never have happened.
In Today's Words:
Fetyukovitch asks what if the pestle had been put away in a cupboard instead of left on the shelf. The crime may never have happened without that chance sight line. When a case turns on one object being visible, ask how much of the story depends on accident rather than intent.
"In those few words: ‘since he _was_, then he _must_’ lies the whole case for the prosecution."
Context: Naming the core inference from presence to guilt
He exposes the leap that collapses alternative explanations into necessity.
In Today's Words:
Fetyukovitch says the whole prosecution case rests on since he was there, he must have done it. Presence gets treated as proof without a separate link. When someone turns location or timing into certainty, ask what else could have happened in that same place at that hour.
"there is not a single one certain and irrefutable."
Context: Before warning against miscarriage of justice
Accumulated horror cannot substitute for one fact that stands alone under scrutiny.
In Today's Words:
Fetyukovitch says of the prosecution's mass of facts, not one is certain and irrefutable. Blood and shouts can bias a mind without proving a case in law. When evidence feels overwhelming, count how many pieces still stand if you test each one alone before you vote.
Thematic Threads
Justice
In This Chapter
Fetyukovitch argues for justice based on facts rather than assumptions, challenging the court to meet its burden of proof
Development
Evolved from earlier themes of divine justice to practical courtroom justice requiring evidence
In Your Life:
You face this when someone accuses you at work based on assumptions rather than clear evidence
Class
In This Chapter
The lawyer highlights Smerdyakov's resentment of his illegitimate status and social position as potential motive
Development
Continues the exploration of how class resentment drives behavior throughout the novel
In Your Life:
You see this when workplace tensions arise from perceived differences in status or opportunity
Truth
In This Chapter
The defense argues that accumulated suspicions don't equal truth, demanding concrete evidence
Development
Builds on earlier questions about what constitutes truth versus perception or assumption
In Your Life:
You encounter this when family members build cases against each other based on patterns rather than specific facts
Identity
In This Chapter
Fetyukovitch reframes Dmitri's identity from guilty murderer to victim of circumstantial evidence
Development
Continues the theme of how others' perceptions shape our understood identity
In Your Life:
You experience this when trying to overcome a reputation or first impression that doesn't reflect who you really are
Power
In This Chapter
The lawyer demonstrates the power of skilled rhetoric and logical argument to challenge authority
Development
Shows how intellectual power can challenge institutional power, building on earlier power dynamics
In Your Life:
You use this when you need to challenge a decision at work or in healthcare by questioning the reasoning behind it
You now have the context. Time to form your own thoughts.
Discussion Questions
This is not a test. Five prompts guide you through the chapter, from how it opens to how it closes, so you notice context and rhythm rather than facts to memorize. Sit with each question in your own words. When you see "One way to read it," treat it as a starting point, not the only answer.
- 1
How does Fetyukovitch challenge the idea that the drunken letter proves premeditated murder?
analysis • surfaceOne way to read it
Fetyukovitch reminds the jury a man's life is at stake. Ippolit himself once hesitated over premeditation until the drunken letter; Mitya ran to find Grushenka, not to execute a plan. Tavern threats and the letter are brawler's noise, not a program.
- 2
What does he mean when he says the whole prosecution case lies in since he was there, he must have?
analysis • mediumOne way to read it
The prosecution's logic is since he was in the garden, he must have killed. Fetyukovitch separates the facts instead of letting presence alone prove murder.
- 3
How does he argue that Mitya's behavior at Grigory's body and at Mokroe fits innocence better than guilt?
application • mediumOne way to read it
Mitya may have looked through the window and fled when she was absent; he may have struck Grigory yet rejoiced at not killing his father and leapt to help him. At Mokroe, if he were a parricide, love would have driven him to suicide, not celebration.
- 4
How does he reconstruct Smerdyakov as the killer, including the shout of Parricide and the envelope theory?
application • deepOne way to read it
He reverses Ippolit's Smerdyakov move: you accuse Mitya because you exclude Smerdyakov. He paints Smerdyakov as spiteful, envious, awake at the shout of Parricide, stealing while framing his master.
- 5
Why does he say not one fact is certain and irrefutable, and how does the court react before he changes tone?
reflection • deepOne way to read it
He warns not one fact is certain and irrefutable, yet accumulation may bias minds with blood and shouts. Applause interrupts; the President threatens to clear the court before Fetyukovitch resumes in a new, feeling voice.
Critical Thinking Exercise
Deconstruct the Case Against You
Think of a recent situation where someone criticized your work, parenting, or decisions. Write down their main arguments, then identify which parts are facts versus interpretations. For each interpretation, brainstorm at least one alternative explanation that fits the same facts. Practice shifting from 'defending yourself' to 'questioning their reasoning process.'
Consider:
- •Focus on the logic of their argument, not your emotional reaction to being accused
- •Look for words like 'obviously,' 'clearly,' or 'everyone knows' - these often signal assumptions
- •Remember that creating reasonable doubt doesn't require proving the alternative explanation
Journaling Prompt
Write about a time when you jumped to conclusions about someone's motives. What facts did you have, and what did you assume? How might questioning your own assumptions have changed the outcome?
Coming Up Next...
Chapter 92: A Corrupter Of Thought
Fetyukovitch's defense reaches its climactic moment as he prepares to deliver what he calls his most crucial argument—one that will challenge everything the jury believes about justice, guilt, and the very foundations of Russian society.
