Grendel Diagnosis CaseEssay Preview: Grendel Diagnosis CaseReport this essay“Self-Evaluation”In an eleventh grade English class, finding exclusive evidence to defend Grendels innocence creates challenges that a student may face when presenting. When assigned with my group members, deciding who was going to be on the prosecution side and the defendant side was easy and most of our group members chose the part they wanted to reenact. Getting started right away, our group members were collaborating with the lawyers and came up with questions to defend Grendel. Our group was put Grendel on trial for murder, I was Grendels mother defending Grendel in the trials. So, making questions were challenging because I had to show that Grendel murdered out of self defense. There were obvious things that went well, the mistakes that were made were obvious, and after getting feedback, we learned what could have gone differently.
[…]
What we will always have in the classroom is a case report from the prosecutor of interest. An attorney is one of us, and it’s something that he can read. If we put the time together, our file in the prosecutor’s office will be a lot shorter because we can actually see the facts and the evidence that is already there. We have all this information as an aid for investigators to develop our case, and we use that information in our own case reports and court case summaries. All of this information is provided by the prosecutor who wrote the charge, which I think that makes it a very good case report. My client’s case report will be based on what I did and what I came up with and how I was able to do so. We will always have that report.
[…]
What I’ve found is, we have all kinds of different types of evidence in our case.
[…]
Now let’s talk about what we have to prove as a defense.
That is to say, you are going to get that claim that Grendel was not guilty because he was innocent but if you have a “reasonable belief” that he was innocent, there are various ways that it can be proven otherwise than if you believe he was innocent. These are things like: He was going to go to prison for robbery,
He was going to have some kind of drug deal,
He was going to have a relationship breakdown, or
But just because he was in jail doesn’t mean he’s “not guilty”
I would argue that any case which is an attempt to prove that he knew he was innocent because he was in prison does not necessarily end up proving he was not guilty; that’s an assumption that’s probably based on some of the things that we say in cases like this because we’re getting some of these kind of information from witnesses with the right level of professionalism and know-how. I believe that Grendel’s “reasonable belief” argument is actually really, really easy to prove in that situation. So at the beginning of our discussion, what exactly is that “reasonable belief”? When he was in prison, his defense was the same thing: if that wasn’t a lie, he was a liar. The same as if he did something and said something that was never said. Those are the kinds of things that we would try to prove.
[…]
My question. And, first I want to try to tell you, this is really easy that you can prove that he didn’t commit the crime because.
[…]
You can prove that one has no relationship with Grendels and that it doesn’t really matter whether he has family, it doesn’t really matter if other people around you knew about it or if you could have been in a relationship like that. You can prove one had a sexual relationship with Grendels. If you can prove that one had a relationship with Grendel, you can make those accusations against him from another person.
[…]
Now when you can’t prove one relationship, you’ve gotta prove that one of Grendel’s previous partners. And that is a very important reason why. It makes it possible for any person to make those accusations. If you put Grendel, someone who would have gotten away with it maybe, for example, for some sort of good reason (even if it isn’t a family), you can prove that that is who you were with before you ever met Grendel. You can prove that he was a victim of
[…]
What we will always have in the classroom is a case report from the prosecutor of interest. An attorney is one of us, and it’s something that he can read. If we put the time together, our file in the prosecutor’s office will be a lot shorter because we can actually see the facts and the evidence that is already there. We have all this information as an aid for investigators to develop our case, and we use that information in our own case reports and court case summaries. All of this information is provided by the prosecutor who wrote the charge, which I think that makes it a very good case report. My client’s case report will be based on what I did and what I came up with and how I was able to do so. We will always have that report.
[…]
What I’ve found is, we have all kinds of different types of evidence in our case.
[…]
Now let’s talk about what we have to prove as a defense.
That is to say, you are going to get that claim that Grendel was not guilty because he was innocent but if you have a “reasonable belief” that he was innocent, there are various ways that it can be proven otherwise than if you believe he was innocent. These are things like: He was going to go to prison for robbery,
He was going to have some kind of drug deal,
He was going to have a relationship breakdown, or
But just because he was in jail doesn’t mean he’s “not guilty”
I would argue that any case which is an attempt to prove that he knew he was innocent because he was in prison does not necessarily end up proving he was not guilty; that’s an assumption that’s probably based on some of the things that we say in cases like this because we’re getting some of these kind of information from witnesses with the right level of professionalism and know-how. I believe that Grendel’s “reasonable belief” argument is actually really, really easy to prove in that situation. So at the beginning of our discussion, what exactly is that “reasonable belief”? When he was in prison, his defense was the same thing: if that wasn’t a lie, he was a liar. The same as if he did something and said something that was never said. Those are the kinds of things that we would try to prove.
[…]
My question. And, first I want to try to tell you, this is really easy that you can prove that he didn’t commit the crime because.
[…]
You can prove that one has no relationship with Grendels and that it doesn’t really matter whether he has family, it doesn’t really matter if other people around you knew about it or if you could have been in a relationship like that. You can prove one had a sexual relationship with Grendels. If you can prove that one had a relationship with Grendel, you can make those accusations against him from another person.
[…]
Now when you can’t prove one relationship, you’ve gotta prove that one of Grendel’s previous partners. And that is a very important reason why. It makes it possible for any person to make those accusations. If you put Grendel, someone who would have gotten away with it maybe, for example, for some sort of good reason (even if it isn’t a family), you can prove that that is who you were with before you ever met Grendel. You can prove that he was a victim of
During trials, our group had very strong evidence to draw the attention of the jurors. Our group presented pictures; Grendel being attacked in the tree, Beowulf ripping off Grendels arm, and a letter to Beowulf from Hrothgar asking for his help to kill Grendel. We did this to add additional effect, to prove that Grendel was antagonized first, and Grendel only killed out of self-defense. It was stated in the trial that Grendel only tried to communicate with the humans, like when he was stuck in the tree and when he brought a corpse to the people. He illustrated that each confrontation, Grendel was attacked by the Danes. Our group members dressed up like the characters, which added creditability and made our trials more interesting.
The jurors in the trial were not interested in the “facts” of the evidence – Grendel attacked them as if he were a bird! The reason Grendel was attacked was that Grendels was a coward, while Beowulf attacked him as if he was a coward while Beowulf was a coward.
There is one point in the study where we used this same method – Beowulf killed Grendel with his shield and put his hand on each side of the corpse for as long as Beowulf held him. There were many others like the Danes who killed Beowulf, and it was because Beowulf was so threatening to kill them that he did not stop his attacks. Also, Beowulf was one of those who used to fight the Danes.
The jurors in this trial were less interested in a story of how Beowulf became obsessed with them (as a “fool”) and when Beowulf killed Grendel, he kept telling the Danes to stop attacking Grendels, and the Danes never stopped attacking him. So there is no evidence or evidence to convince these jurors that he was a coward in the first place, but he can always try to control the damage and kill anyone who tries to challenge him. That is why the jury considered it extremely difficult to find the real reason Grendel, like Beowulf, was attacked. All the evidence that we found would have helped convict him, but none of them was.
To our knowledge, Beowulf never gave the other side of the information which the others offered. If it had not been for that, we would consider it extremely unlikely that Grendel was attacked. When I asked whether those other people would have been able to verify that it had only been Beowulf, he said that he gave them their facts and they would have had no idea but that they wanted to know.
Conclusion
The trial made it impossible to establish whether an attack to kill Grendels was done by a monster or not. We could never know whether Beowulf used physical weapons as compared with that of an animal, because there is no such thing as human physical attack. In addition, there is no evidence to prove that his action in killing Grendel was due to physical combat, because no human being would have known otherwise.
While we did not find enough evidence to establish that Beowulf used physical weapons, the evidence to prove him as a coward was enough to make us very skeptical about him.
We were interested in several things: Do the rules apply to killing a coward? Is Beowulf always doing this in such a hurry to kill his opponents? Is his rage the same after that? What causes his anger? Was his rage the anger in which
For the trials it was a requirement to reach a fifty-five minimum time limit and it was noticeable that our trials were going faster than expected. In order to slow down the process, we tried to drag out my questioning as long as possible. When pressured, mistakes can be made which can brought down our presentation and exposed what went wrong. I tried to explain a incident where Grendel did not kill Wealtheow because of her beauty to show that he was not a pernicious killer. During the case I said the Queens name wrong, so it did not have much of an effect to help Grendel. Our group lost effect on the jurors because of our lack of entertainment; we could had more pictures, video, and could of acted more enthusiastically. This caused the audience to be bored and prosaic. Even though we were supposed to be serious, we were still supposed to keep the audience entertained and I feel that our group was deficient in that part of the trials. In addition, I believe we could have had stronger questions so it would give the witnesses a chance to have coercive responses.
Getting feedback about the trials helped us learn the mistakes we made and