Although Marina Gonzalez relapses to crypto-Judaism, she is not guilty; instead the confession was due to her oppression and hunger. Her attorney argues her good Christian character, which her husband is able to support by discrediting the two witnesses as being hateful. The prosecution’s witnesses were inaccurate and faulty, even contradicting each other, which creates considerable doubt in their reasoning. With that said, the defense is able to respond to any claims of the prosecution. Additionally, the prosecution’s response to the statements made by her husband, the penultimate argument that convinced the Inquisitors to subject Marina to the torture that forced her confession, was based on fallacy. The chief prosecutor states that because Marina’s close friends and relatives were the only witnesses of her good character, that such opinions should be disregarded. This is false; those closest to Marina are also the people most qualified to attest to her Christianity, as they knew her the best, and because they themselves were not on trial Marina’s witnesses were obviously good Christians and met all the requirements of fair witnesses. The prosecution’s own witnesses, on the other hand, were only acquaintances of Marina’s, meaning that they did not know her as well as Marina’s witnesses and were themselves less qualified to evaluate her. The vote for her torture was thus unfairly informed.
Furthermore, she dealt with two pints of water-pouring torture, something that seems unbearable for someone who is guilty. One could assume that she would confess before suffering so immensely. This torture was unjust, as there was evidence on both sides and no-one had concrete proof. Her hunger strike is her form of rebellion against her accusations, showing the extent to which she will go to prove her innocence.
Borderless Butterfly 