006

is that if the corpus delicti, the massacre
itself, has been proven, then any voluntary
admissions made by the prisoner in regard
to his guilt is admissible against him,
and is recognized as strong evidence
of his guilt and fully sufficient to
warrant a conviction thereon, even
if his actual participation had not
otherwise been proven. If the Massacre
itself had not been proven, any admissions
that the prisoner might have
made, that there had been such a killing
and that he was a participant, would, of
course, be but weak testimony and
would not warrant a conviction upon
such admissions alone. But it is a very
different thing where the killing is
shown, as in this case, by other testimony.
The fact that the massacre occurred
is not disputed; and hence any admissions
the prisoner might have
made in regard to his participation
therein is recongized in law as
strong evidence against him.
It is hardly necessary for me to say
that you have nothing to do with
the guilt or innocence of any other
person than the prisoner at the bar.