Loading presentation...

Present Remotely

Send the link below via email or IM


Present to your audience

Start remote presentation

  • Invited audience members will follow you as you navigate and present
  • People invited to a presentation do not need a Prezi account
  • This link expires 10 minutes after you close the presentation
  • A maximum of 30 users can follow your presentation
  • Learn more about this feature in our knowledge base article

Do you really want to delete this prezi?

Neither you, nor the coeditors you shared it with will be able to recover it again.


CSI: The Boston Massacre

No description

Jasmine Hanna-Funk

on 8 November 2013

Comments (0)

Please log in to add your comment.

Report abuse

Transcript of CSI: The Boston Massacre

The article was written in a colonial newspaper.
CSI: The Boston Massacre

Case Briefing
What Happened
Evidence #1
The London Gazette
Evidence #2
Evidence #3
Paul Revere's Engraving (with explanation from Boston Massacre Historical Society
Evidence #4
Anonymous Account of the Boston Massacre
In Conclusion....
We think that Captain Thomas Preston should be acquitted of his charges because:
Colonists blame soldiers for unemployment
Mad at soldiers
Colonists protested
Colonists blame the soldiers for being unsuccessful
Lead Up To The Event
Edward Garrick yelling at soldiers with other colonists
Other colonists throwing things at soldiers (oyster shells, snowballs, rocks, insults)
Colonists had clubs
Information Directly About The Event
Robert Hugh Montgomery is hit with a club
Crispus Attucks is first shot and dies instantaneously
This was written for a London newspaper, so it favors the British more than the colonists, saying "The colonials who died in this conflict are being celebrated heroes and martyrs, but they were neither. Those who died were no more than unlucky members of an angry crowd.
Evidence Highlights
"When Montgomery returned to his feet he took aim into the crowd and fired, his compatriots joined him, under no command of Preston."
"Sam Adams has been accused of actually instigating the whole event for just this purpose."
It doesn't show any significant prejudices against either side, though it is written for a Boston newspaper.
Evidence Highlights
The article was made by Paul Revere, who was very anti-british.
Evidence Highlights
The drawing depicts Crispus Attucks, the first to die in the massacre, as white instead of African American. Also, the depiction shows the British lined up, as if it were a planned attack on the colonists.
Yes, prejudice twowards the colonists
Evidence Highlights
Exhibit A:
In The London Gazette and the Account by Theodore Bliss, Deposition of Captain Thomas Preston, Account by Peter Cunningham, and Account by Richard Palmes, they all claim Captain Preston did not yell fire.
Exhibit B:
In the Account by Nathaniel Fosdick, he heard the word Fire but didn't know who yelled it. He thought that the person who stepped in between the 4th and 5th men gave the order to fire.
Exhibit C:
Based on Jim Harvey's speech structures
Evidence #5
Evidence #6
Evidence #8
Evidence #9
Evidence #10
Boston in 1770
The Account of the Boston Massacre, as reported in the Boston Gazette and County Journal
Account by Theodore Bliss
It seems like there is a little more favoring for the British, but it isn't very clear.
Consistency With Other Sources
Consistency With Other Sources
This account is similar to Evidence #4, the Anonymous Account of the Boston Massacre and has similar information to the others.
Consistency With Other Sources
This is inconsistent with the other sources. the soldiers were ordered not to fire, the first person to die was African American, and the colonists were attacking and insulting the soldiers.
Signs of Social Class or Occupation.
Consistency With Other Sources
No 3. picture Shows the people mentioned in evidence case no. 4 in paragraphs 6-9.

evidence case no. 2 shows the Boston Gazzette explaining the tragedy in evidence case no. 4
Paragraph 12-14
Consistency With Other Sources
Like some of the other evidences, he claims he did not hear the Captain yell fire.
Evidence Highlights
"I did not hear any Order given by the Capt. to fire. must have heard him if
I saw none of the People press upon the Soldiers before the first Gun fired.
I thought.... the Capt. did order the men to fire but do not certainly know.
No prejudices are significant.
Evidence Highlights
I heard no Orders given to load....
I then heard the word fire and the first Gun went off.
I saw nothing thrown nor any blows given at all.
....I am well satisfied there were no blows given as that the word fire was spoken.
Consistency With Other Sources
Claims that the Captain did not yell fire, like the others, but someone else did.
Consistency With Other Sources
like others, claims the captain did not yell fire
does not discriminate against soldiers, though it does slightly exaggerate the damage the colonists called
Evidence Higlights
says "soldiers and I" implying he was a soldier
says that he did not command them, must be a captain
The evidence is written from a colonist, and because of the unrest from the unemployment, this piece might not be as reliable as other interviews.
Evidence Highlights
admits that the colonists walked up and hit Montgomery, justifying his self-defense
Consistency With Other Sources
contradicting other colonists, admits to hitting Montgomery
denies verbal threats
implies that someone might have shot before Montgomery
The soldiers going to trial for murder
The court will not see the prejudice
Unsure of facts and openly admits
although admits to taking part, does not talk of the things that he was doing while the soldiers
Evidence Highlights
somebody (that may or may not be the Captain) yelled prime and load
soldiers shot unprovoked
Consistency With Other Sources
not a Loyalist
at event
colonist without a bias against soldiers
Evidence Highlights
There were no highlights to this piece.
Consistency With Other Sources
Somebody that wasn't the captain yelled fire.
A colonist that does not seem to have anything against the soldiers.
Account by Nathaniel Fosdick
Deposition of Captain Thomas Preston
Account by Ebenezer Hinkley
Account by Peter Cunningham
... the Captain commanded them to fire; and more snowballs coming he again he said,"...Fire, be the consequence what it will!"
...but what showed a degree of cruelty unknown to British troops... was an attempt to fire upon or push with their bayonets the persons who undertook to remove the slain and wounded!
Capt. Preston was in charge of the group of
29th regiment officers that abused innocent colonists.

He was seen to be glum or depressed after the whole incident.
The evidence is written by Captain Preston, who is the soldier representing the soldiers. This makes the piece extremely biased to the side of defense if this piece was used in court.
claimed the colonists asked them to shoot
claimed that the colonists struck the soldiers and the deaths were a matter of self defense
The source discriminates against the colonists.
It doesn't give a full account of the massacre, just vaguely describes it and complains about the propaganda.
No prejudice's were clearly
He didn't shoot anyone on purpose because he was defending himself.
The first to die, Crispus Attucks,was white instead of African American. The soldiers are lined up, as if the attack was planned.
This is inconsistent with other sources . THe first to die wasn't white, The colonists attacked first, and it was an accident.
Signs of Social Class / Occupation
The artist was a colonist, because it was in a colonial newspaper.
said nothing of the colonist's attacks
complies saying that the captain did not say fir
Full transcript