1. The story-teller did not envisage the consequences of his communicative behavior when he committed the murder. His behavior was not mindless, but rather motivated by a desire to remove a perceived obstacle to his happiness. He was aware of the consequences of his actions afterward and used his communicative skills to cover up the truth. 2. The story-teller changed his behavior by lying, manipulating evidence, and creating an elaborate alibi. For example, he claimed to have been away from home at the time of the murder and planted evidence to support this story. He also lied to his wife and friends about his whereabouts and intentions, creating a false impression of himself as a loving and loyal husband. 3. The story-teller managed to take in his wife, the police, the judge, and the jury by relying on his charm, intelligence, and persuasive skills. He convinced them that he was innocent and even helped the police to find the "murderer." He also created a sympathetic image of himself as a victim of circumstance, suggesting that the real killer was still at large and could strike again. 4. Mr. Menzies couldn't prove that he was innocent because he failed to communicate effectively with the police, the judge, and the jury. He appeared nervous, inconsistent, and evasive during his interrogation, which aroused suspicion and doubt. He also lacked a concrete alibi, which made him seem more guilty. His communicative failure was caused by his lack of confidence, preparation, and self-control. 5. The communicative behavior of the counsel for the defense and the counsel for the prosecution differed in terms of their purpose, style, and effectiveness. The counsel for the defense aimed to create an emotional connection between the story-teller and the jury, highlighting his good character, his supportive family, and his tragic fate. He used rhetorical devices such as repetition, contrast, and analogy to reinforce his arguments and to evoke sympathy for the defendant. The counsel for the prosecution, on the other hand, focused on presenting evidence that proved the story-teller's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. He used a more logical and structured approach, using facts, witnesses, and expert testimonies to build a solid case. The counsel for the defense was more persuasive because he appealed to the emotions and values of the jury, while the counsel for the prosecution relied more on the facts and logic of the case.