"His soul was full of confusion and dread, but he managed, however, to put aside half his money and hide it somewhere- I cannot otherwise explain the disappearance of quite half of the three thousand he had just taken from his father's pillow.He had been in Mokroe more than once before, he had caroused there for two days together already, he knew the old big house with all its passages and outbuildings.I imagine that part of the money was hidden in that house, not long before the arrest, in some crevice, under some floor, in some corner, under the roof.With what object? I shall be asked.Why, the catastrophe may take place at once, of course; he hadn't yet considered how to meet it, he hadn't the time, his head was throbbing and his heart was with her, but money- money was indispensable in any case! With money a man is always a man.Perhaps such foresight at such a moment may strike you as unnatural? But he assures us himself that a month before, at a critical and exciting moment, he had halved his money and sewn it up in a little bag.And though that was not true, as we shall prove directly, it shows the idea was a familiar one to Karamazov, he had contemplated it.What's more, when he declared at the inquiry that he had put fifteen hundred roubles in a bag (which never existed) he may have invented that little bag on the inspiration of the moment, because he had two hours before divided his money and hidden half of it at Mokroe till morning, in case of emergency, simply not to have it on himself.Two extremes, gentlemen of the jury, remember that Karamazov can contemplate two extremes and both at once.
"We have looked in the house, but we haven't found the money.It may still be there or it may have disappeared next day and be in the prisoner's hands now.In any case he was at her side, on his knees before her, she was lying on the bed, he had his hands stretched out to her and he had so entirely forgotten everything that he did not even hear the men coming to arrest him.He hadn't time to prepare any line of defence in his mind.He was caught unawares and confronted with his judges, the arbiters of his destiny.
"Gentlemen of the jury, there are moments in the execution of our duties when it is terrible for us to face a man, terrible on his account, too! The moments of contemplating that animal fear, when the criminal sees that all is lost, but still struggles, still means to struggle, the moments when every instinct of self-preservation rises up in him at once and he looks at you with questioning and suffering eyes, studies you, your face, your thoughts, uncertain on which side you will strike, and his distracted mind frames thousands of plans in an instant, but he is still afraid to speak, afraid of giving himself away! This purgatory of the spirit, this animal thirst for self-preservation, these humiliating moments of the human soul, are awful, and sometimes arouse horror and compassion for the criminal even in the lawyer.And this was what we all witnessed then.
"At first he was thunderstruck and in his terror dropped some very compromising phrases.'Blood! I've deserved it!' But he quickly restrained himself.He had not prepared what he was to say, what answer he was to make, he had nothing but a bare denial ready.'I am not guilty of my father's death.' That was his fence for the moment and behind it he hoped to throw up a barricade of some sort.His first compromising exclamations he hastened to explain by declaring that he was responsible for the death of the servant Grigory only.'Of that bloodshed I am guilty, but who has killed my father, gentlemen, who has killed him? Who can have killed him, if not I?' Do you hear, he asked us that, us, who had come to ask him that question! Do you hear that uttered with such premature haste- 'if not I'- the animal cunning, the naivete the Karamazov impatience of it? 'I didn't kill him and you mustn't think I did! I wanted to kill him, gentlemen, Iwanted to kill him,' he hastens to admit (he was in a hurry, in a terrible hurry), 'but still I am not guilty, it is not I murdered him.' He concedes to us that he wanted to murder him, as though to say, you can see for yourselves how truthful I am, so you'll believe all the sooner that I didn't murder him.Oh, in such cases the criminal is often amazingly shallow and credulous.
"At that point one of the lawyers asked him, as it were incidentally, the most simple question, 'Wasn't it Smerdyakov killed him?' Then, as we expected, he was horribly angry at our having anticipated him and caught him unawares, before he had time to pave the way to choose and snatch the moment when it would be most natural to bring in Smerdyakov's name.He rushed at once to the other extreme, as he always does, and began to assure us that Smerdyakov could not have killed him, was not capable of it.But don't believe him, that was only his cunning; he didn't really give up the idea of Smerdyakov; on the contrary, he meant to bring him forward again; for, indeed, he had no one else to bring forward, but he would do that later, because for the moment that line was spoiled for him.He would bring him forward perhaps next day, or even a few days later, choosing an opportunity to cry out to us, 'You know Iwas more sceptical about Smerdyakov than you, you remember that yourselves, but now I am convinced.He killed him, he must have done!'
And for the present he falls back upon a gloomy and irritable denial.Impatience and anger prompted him, however, to the most inept and incredible explanation of how he looked into his father's window and how he respectfully withdrew.The worst of it was that he was unaware of the position of affairs, of the evidence given by Grigory.
