This text is part of:
Table of Contents:
 But I, for my part, do not believe that there exists a human being so reckless or so brave that, on coming upon men writhing in their death agony in the middle of the night, he would not turn round and run away rather than risk his life by inquiring after the malefactors responsible. Now since it is more likely that the passers-by behaved in a natural manner, you cannot logically continue to treat the footpads who murdered the pair for their clothing as innocent, any more than suspicion can still attach itself to me.1
1 Immediately intended as an answer to Antiph. 2.3.2, where it is maintained that if the murder was the work of footpads, the passers-by who appeared on the scene would have obtained information about their identity from the victims. The reply here given is; （a） if a group of footpads had in fact been engaged in the murder, the passers-by would have run away. （b） The passers-by would in that case have been unable to supply information about the identity of the criminals. （c） As no passer-by has come forward with such information, all the passers-by must have run away. （d） It follows from （a） that the murderers must have been a group of footpads. A portentous petitio principii, which of course entirely neglects the fact that passers-by had come forward with very different information.