Summary
The prosecutor Ippolit Kirillovitch delivers a methodical demolition of the theory that Smerdyakov committed the murder. He paints Smerdyakov as a weak-willed epileptic who was terrorized into helping Dmitri but lacked the courage or motive to kill. The prosecutor argues that if Smerdyakov were the real murderer, he never would have revealed the envelope's existence to Dmitri—doing so would only create a rival for the money and evidence against himself. He dissects every possible scenario: Smerdyakov acting alone, Smerdyakov as Dmitri's accomplice, or Smerdyakov as a passive enabler. Each theory, he claims, crumbles under logical scrutiny. The prosecutor points out that Smerdyakov's suicide note didn't confess to murder, and questions why Ivan waited until now to present the money supposedly returned by Smerdyakov. He suggests Ivan, suffering from hallucinations and brain fever, may have fabricated the entire confession scene. The speech builds toward the prosecutor's central argument: only Dmitri had the motive, means, and reckless temperament to commit this crime exactly as it happened. This chapter reveals how legal minds construct seemingly airtight cases by controlling which evidence gets emphasized and which alternative theories receive serious consideration. The prosecutor's confidence masks the reality that he's building his case around his preferred conclusion rather than following evidence to its natural end.
Coming Up in Chapter 88
The prosecutor prepares to deliver his final, crushing blow—connecting all the evidence to paint Dmitri as a man whose fate was sealed by his own passionate nature. His closing argument will attempt to seal the case once and for all.
Share it with friends
An excerpt from the original text.(~500 words)
A Treatise On Smerdyakov “To begin with, what was the source of this suspicion?” (Ippolit Kirillovitch began.) “The first person who cried out that Smerdyakov had committed the murder was the prisoner himself at the moment of his arrest, yet from that time to this he had not brought forward a single fact to confirm the charge, nor the faintest suggestion of a fact. The charge is confirmed by three persons only—the two brothers of the prisoner and Madame Svyetlov. The elder of these brothers expressed his suspicions only to‐day, when he was undoubtedly suffering from brain fever. But we know that for the last two months he has completely shared our conviction of his brother’s guilt and did not attempt to combat that idea. But of that later. The younger brother has admitted that he has not the slightest fact to support his notion of Smerdyakov’s guilt, and has only been led to that conclusion from the prisoner’s own words and the expression of his face. Yes, that astounding piece of evidence has been brought forward twice to‐ day by him. Madame Svyetlov was even more astounding. ‘What the prisoner tells you, you must believe; he is not a man to tell a lie.’ That is all the evidence against Smerdyakov produced by these three persons, who are all deeply concerned in the prisoner’s fate. And yet the theory of Smerdyakov’s guilt has been noised about, has been and is still maintained. Is it credible? Is it conceivable?” Here Ippolit Kirillovitch thought it necessary to describe the personality of Smerdyakov, “who had cut short his life in a fit of insanity.” He depicted him as a man of weak intellect, with a smattering of education, who had been thrown off his balance by philosophical ideas above his level and certain modern theories of duty, which he learnt in practice from the reckless life of his master, who was also perhaps his father—Fyodor Pavlovitch; and, theoretically, from various strange philosophical conversations with his master’s elder son, Ivan Fyodorovitch, who readily indulged in this diversion, probably feeling dull or wishing to amuse himself at the valet’s expense. “He spoke to me himself of his spiritual condition during the last few days at his father’s house,” Ippolit Kirillovitch explained; “but others too have borne witness to it—the prisoner himself, his brother, and the servant Grigory—that is, all who knew him well. “Moreover, Smerdyakov, whose health was shaken by his attacks of epilepsy, had not the courage of a chicken. ‘He fell at my feet and kissed them,’ the prisoner himself has told us, before he realized how damaging such a statement was to himself. ‘He is an epileptic chicken,’ he declared about him in his characteristic language. And the prisoner chose him for his confidant (we have his own word for it) and he frightened him into consenting at last to act as a spy for him. In that capacity he deceived his master, revealing to the prisoner the existence of the...
Master this chapter. Complete your experience
Purchase the complete book to access all chapters and support classic literature
As an Amazon Associate, we earn a small commission from qualifying purchases at no additional cost to you.
Available in paperback, hardcover, and e-book formats
Intelligence Amplifier™ Analysis
The Road of Confident Wrongness - How Smart People Build Perfect Cases for Imperfect Conclusions
Using intelligence and eloquence to build convincing cases for conclusions we've already decided to reach, rather than following evidence wherever it leads.
Why This Matters
Connect literature to life
This chapter teaches how to spot when someone starts with their conclusion and works backward to justify it, rather than following evidence to its natural end.
Practice This Today
This week, notice when experts or authority figures dismiss alternatives too quickly—ask yourself what they might gain from their preferred explanation being true.
Now let's explore the literary elements.
Terms to Know
Circumstantial evidence
Evidence that suggests something happened without directly proving it - like finding someone near a crime scene with blood on their clothes. The prosecutor argues that all evidence against Smerdyakov is circumstantial while evidence against Dmitri is direct.
Modern Usage:
We see this in workplace investigations where someone gets blamed based on being in the wrong place at the wrong time rather than clear proof.
Character assassination
Attacking someone's reputation and personality to make them seem guilty or unreliable. The prosecutor systematically destroys Smerdyakov's credibility by painting him as weak, cowardly, and incapable of murder.
Modern Usage:
Politicians and lawyers still use this tactic - instead of addressing facts, they attack the person's character to make people distrust them.
Scapegoating
Blaming one person for problems they didn't cause, often to protect the real guilty party. The prosecutor argues that Dmitri is using Smerdyakov as a convenient scapegoat.
Modern Usage:
Happens constantly in workplaces where management blames lower-level employees for systemic failures they didn't create.
Legal rhetoric
The art of persuasive speaking in court, using logic, emotion, and authority to convince a jury. The prosecutor uses careful word choice and logical structure to build his case.
Modern Usage:
We see this in political debates, sales pitches, and any situation where someone needs to convince others using carefully crafted arguments.
Burden of proof
The responsibility to provide evidence for your claims. The prosecutor argues that those defending Smerdyakov have provided no real proof, just speculation and emotional appeals.
Modern Usage:
In any argument or accusation today, the person making the claim needs to back it up with evidence, not just feelings or hunches.
Alternative theory
A different explanation for the same events. The defense is trying to present Smerdyakov as an alternative suspect to create reasonable doubt about Dmitri's guilt.
Modern Usage:
Used in everything from conspiracy theories to workplace gossip - offering a different version of events to shift blame or create confusion.
Characters in This Chapter
Ippolit Kirillovitch
Prosecutor
Delivers a methodical attack on the Smerdyakov theory, using logic and legal reasoning to dismantle every alternative explanation. Shows how skilled lawyers can make weak cases seem airtight through presentation.
Modern Equivalent:
The sharp corporate lawyer who can make any argument sound convincing
Smerdyakov
Deceased alternative suspect
Though dead, his character is put on trial. The prosecutor paints him as too weak and cowardly to commit murder, arguing his epilepsy and servile nature make him an unlikely killer.
Modern Equivalent:
The quiet coworker everyone assumes is harmless because they keep their head down
Dmitri
Defendant
Though not speaking in this chapter, his fate hangs on whether the jury believes the prosecutor's demolition of alternative theories. His character is contrasted with Smerdyakov's supposed weakness.
Modern Equivalent:
The hot-headed guy everyone assumes is guilty because of his reputation
Ivan
Witness with questionable credibility
The prosecutor questions his mental state and suggests his testimony about Smerdyakov's confession may be delusional. His brain fever makes him an unreliable narrator.
Modern Equivalent:
The stressed-out family member whose dramatic testimony seems too convenient
Key Quotes & Analysis
"The first person who cried out that Smerdyakov had committed the murder was the prisoner himself at the moment of his arrest, yet from that time to this he had not brought forward a single fact to confirm the charge"
Context: Opening his argument against the Smerdyakov theory
The prosecutor immediately frames the alternative theory as desperate finger-pointing without evidence. He's establishing that accusations without proof are worthless in court.
In Today's Words:
The first thing he did when caught was blame someone else, but he's never provided any actual proof to back it up.
"What the prisoner tells you, you must believe; he is not a man to tell a lie"
Context: Mocking the emotional rather than factual basis of support for Dmitri
The prosecutor highlights how the defense relies on character testimony rather than evidence. He's showing the jury that feelings aren't facts in a murder case.
In Today's Words:
Trust him because he's a good guy - that's literally all the evidence they have.
"Is it credible? Is it conceivable?"
Context: Questioning whether the Smerdyakov theory makes logical sense
These rhetorical questions invite the jury to use common sense rather than emotion. The prosecutor is appealing to logic over sympathy.
In Today's Words:
Does this story actually make sense when you really think about it?
Thematic Threads
Authority
In This Chapter
The prosecutor uses his position and rhetorical skills to make his preferred conclusion sound inevitable and scientifically proven
Development
Evolved from earlier themes about how institutional power shapes truth—now showing how authority figures construct reality through selective reasoning
In Your Life:
You might see this when doctors, managers, or experts use their credentials to shut down questions rather than address them honestly.
Certainty
In This Chapter
The prosecutor's absolute confidence in his theory makes it seem more credible, even though his reasoning is circular and selective
Development
Building on earlier explorations of doubt versus faith—here showing how false certainty can be more dangerous than honest uncertainty
In Your Life:
You might notice this in yourself when you feel most sure you're right, especially in arguments with family or coworkers.
Narrative Control
In This Chapter
The prosecutor decides which evidence matters and which theories deserve consideration, controlling the story rather than discovering it
Development
Developed from themes about truth versus perception—now showing how those with platforms shape reality by choosing what gets discussed
In Your Life:
You might experience this when someone in authority decides what information you get to see or what options you get to consider.
Class
In This Chapter
The prosecutor's educated eloquence gives his arguments weight regardless of their merit—intelligence as social currency
Development
Continuing the class theme by showing how educational privilege translates into power to define reality for others
In Your Life:
You might feel this when dealing with professionals who use complex language to make you doubt your own common sense.
Justice
In This Chapter
The legal system's need for resolution creates pressure to make any reasonable theory sound certain and complete
Development
Introduced here as a new thread—showing how institutional needs can corrupt the search for truth
In Your Life:
You might see this in workplace investigations or family disputes where someone needs to be blamed, regardless of what actually happened.
You now have the context. Time to form your own thoughts.
Discussion Questions
- 1
What specific arguments does the prosecutor use to prove Smerdyakov couldn't have committed the murder?
analysis • surface - 2
Why does the prosecutor focus so heavily on dismantling the Smerdyakov theory rather than just presenting evidence against Dmitri?
analysis • medium - 3
Where have you seen someone use their intelligence and confidence to make a wrong conclusion sound absolutely convincing?
application • medium - 4
How can you tell the difference between someone following evidence to a conclusion versus someone gathering evidence to support a predetermined belief?
application • deep - 5
What does this chapter reveal about how smart people can be their own worst enemies when it comes to finding truth?
reflection • deep
Critical Thinking Exercise
Build the Counter-Case
Think of a strong opinion you hold about a situation in your life - a workplace conflict, family disagreement, or personal decision. Write down your three strongest arguments for your position. Now force yourself to build the best possible case for the opposite view, using the same confident tone the prosecutor uses here. What evidence would someone use against your position?
Consider:
- •Notice how hard it is to argue against yourself with the same energy you use to defend your position
- •Pay attention to which pieces of evidence you naturally want to dismiss or downplay
- •Consider whether your original arguments still feel as solid after building the counter-case
Journaling Prompt
Write about a time when you were absolutely certain you were right about something important, only to discover later you were wrong. What warning signs did you ignore? How did your confidence work against you?
Coming Up Next...
Chapter 88: The Prosecutor's Final Strike
What lies ahead teaches us skilled speakers use emotional appeals to override logic, and shows us people reveal themselves most when cornered and desperate. These patterns appear in literature and life alike.