After having carefully observed and analyzed both sides of the argument on Captain Thomas Preston's trial, I have come to the conclusion that he is not guilty. .
The witnesses for the King completely contradict each other. They all say that they feel Captain Preston did give orders to fire at the colonists; however, they all describe the captain differently. Let's observe: Ebenezer Brinkley, Peter Cunningham and William Wyatt all gave testimonies stating that the Captain stood between his soldiers when giving other to fire. Another witness for the King, Jane Whitehouse, says that the captain stood on the left of his soldiers. On the mean while, Nathaniel Fosdick and Newton Prince, who were also witnesses for the King say that Preston stood behind his soldiers. Everyone's testimony is different, so we don't know who is telling the truth.
Not only do the King's witnesses contradict themselves on the captain's position, but they also contradict themselves on the Captain's way of dress. William Wyatt testified that the Captain was wearing a "cloth coloured surtout," while Theodore Bliss says he was wearing a red surtout, while on the other hand Diman Morton says he was positive the captain was NOT wearing red. Then, you've got Nathaniel Fosdick who says the captain didn't even have a surtout on, but in fact was dressed in his Regimentals and a wig. Who can you believe? .
On the other hand, in Preston's deposition, he stated that one soldier received a blow with a stick, and then fired, which is how everything started. In most people's depositions, of both the witnesses for the King and Preston's alike, their testimony corroborates with Preston's. If it doesn't, then they say that there was only one fire at first (which we can obviously assume was from the soldier hit with the stick) and then, that is when everyone started firing. .
In conclusion, there is no evidence in this trial. The evidence is supposed to be the witnesses" testimonies, however, when you have even one testimony that does not corroborate with the other, there is obviously reasonable doubt, therefore, you cannot convict someone if you are not 100% sure that they committed the crime.