I have an assignment in my cp english class. We are having a mock trial charging mr. rochester of fraud. He was married to an insane woman which he can not get a divorse from. He attempted to hide it and marry Jane any way attempting bigomy. He lied to her about his wife. He also lied to a woman named blanch ingram about his intention to marry her. In reality he only told her he wanted to marry her because he wanted to make jane jelous. So I'm defending him from 2 counts of fraud one on jane and one on blanch. Keep in mind this was during victorian times so women weren't favored over men in situations like this. How can I defend him because there is very little evidence for him?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by melloboi23

I have an assignment in my cp english class. we are having a mock trial charging mr. rochester of fraud. he was married to an insane woman which he can not get a divorse from. He attempted to hide it and marry Jane any way atempting bigomy. he lied to her about his wife. he also lied to a woman named blanch ingram about his intention to marry her. in reality he only told her he wanted to marry her because he wanted to make jane jelous. so i'm defending him from 2 counts of fraud one on jane and one on blanch. keep in mind this was durring victorian times so women wern't favored over men in situations like this. how can i defend him because there is very little evidence for him?

---

Have you read the novel? If you are defending Rochester you will need to quote passages. That's a lot of homework for someone else to do, complicated.

The evidence as well as intent - all in the novel.

Yes I've read it and I am going to quote the novel but I just need general points of his innocense. I don't need someone to do it for me.

What do you have so far?

(I was an English major so I'm pretty familiar with the novel.)

Well first it was fraud when Bertha Mason family didn't tell rochester about her mothers disorder because in that time mental disabilities were thought to be inherited. So the marriage should be void any way. But all the prosecution has to say is why didn't he tell jane about the previous marriage? Im way outmatched evidence wise.