“Mr. Foreman and gentlemen of the jury—you may remain seated—the Commonwealth of Massachusetts called upon you to render a most important service. Although you knew that such service would be arduous, painful and tiresome, yet you, like the true soldier, responded to that call in the spirit of supreme American loyalty. There is no better word in the English language than ‘loyalty.’ For he who is loyal to God, to country, to his state and to his fellow men, represents the highest and noblest type of true American citizenship, than which there is none grander in the entire world. You gentlemen have been put to the real test, and you have proven to the world, and particularly to the people of Norfolk County, that you truly represent such citizenship. For this loyalty, gentlemen, and for this magnificent service that you have rendered to your State and to your fellow men, I desire, however, in behalf of both to extend to each of you their profoundest thanks, gratitude and appreciation.” It was of course conventional to butter up a jury at the end of a long trial, but Thayer enjoyed the convention. His mind slipped easily among the sententious moralizings, the hortatory appeals to truth, the assurances of equality before the law: “Let your eyes be blinded to every ray of sympathy or prejudice but let them ever be willing to receive the beautiful sunshine of truth, of reason and sound judgment, and let your ears be deaf to every sound of public opinion or public clamor, if there be any, either in favor of or against these defendants. Let them always be listening for the sweet voices of conscience and of sacred and solemn duty efficiently and fearlessly performed.” Warning the jury not to be influenced or prejudiced by the fact that the defendants were Italians, he went on to a brief history of murder in common law, the development of degrees of murder, the definition of malice aforethought. He pointed out that there was no vital distinction between circumstantial and other evidence, that the important thing was the degree of proof. He must have puzzled the jurors with his remark that “over-positiveness in identification might under some circumstances and conditions be evidence of weakness in the testimony rather than strength.”