Character Analysis: Why Brother Is Guilty

478 Words2 Pages
10 year old boy is on trial for murder. The essential question here is; can pride be a destructive force? In this case, yes. It is only logical that Doodle’s brother is responsible for his death. There is plenty evidence as to why Brother is guilty.

The first piece of evidence suggests that Brother wanted to kill Doodle when he was a baby. “I made plans to kill him” (Hurst 345). The second part of this is Brother saying how he was going to do it. “...by smothering him with a pillow” (Hurst 345). By definition, at least how the word was used in this case, smothering means to kill (someone) by covering their nose and mouth so that they suffocate. That was how Brother was going to kill Doodle, but he didn’t. Now onto the second piece of evidence.
…show more content…
This was one of the doctor’s rules, which will be discussed later, that Brother disobeyed. “I made him row till he couldn’t pick up an oar” (Hurst 350). Pushing Doodle like this was his ultimate downfall. Brother wanted to push Doodle in the rainstorm. Plans to train, and push him came to a bitter end, so in a last ditch effort, Brother pushed him one last time. “He had been bleeding from the mouth and neck” (Hurst 354). That final attempt to push Doodle had ruptured his heart. This piece of evidence goes well with the next piece.

This piece of evidence is was touched on a bit earlier. The doctor had a set of rules that Doodle should have. Brother didn’t follow any of the rules. “... a long list of rules; all of which I didn’t follow” (Hurst 347). Brother not following these rules the doctor gave, ultimately killed Doodle. “The doctor said that the strain would kill him.” (Pg.345) That is a blatant red flag for guilty. This was another implied rule that doctor had. Massive amounts of strain can lead to heart failure/rupture. That is how Doodle died. Now to prove some evidence suggesting that Brother is
Open Document