I've been stuck on this question and i need ! in his closing argument during the "mississippi burning" trial, united states vs price et al., prosecutor john doar said to the jury, "members of the jury, this is an important case. it is important to the government. it's important to the defendants, but most important, it's important to the state of mississippi. what i say, what the other lawyers say here today, what the court says about the law will soon be forgotten, but what you twelve people do here today will long be remembered. does not everyone see and understand that it was a matter of absolute necessity that you twelve people of mississippi be asked to sit as jurors and judge this case? these defendants will stand before you on the record in this case and they will beg of you for indulgence. in effect they will beg of you for indulgence. in effect they will say as gloucester said of old as he stood over the body of his slain king, he begged of the queen "say i slew him not." the queen replied then say they were not slain, but they are dead (note: this is a reference to a scene in shakespeare's the life and death of richard the third). if you find that these men or that each of them is not guilty of this conspiracy it would be as true to say that there was no night time release from jail by cecil price, there were no white knights, there are no young men dead, there was no murder. if you find that these men are not guilty you will declare the law of neshoba county to be the law of the state of mississippi." evaluate doar's argument in terms of logos, pathos, and ethos. use evidence from the statement to support your answer. your response should be a minimum of five sentences.