In the continuation of the passage (In Verrem 2.3.63), Cicero directly addresses how Verres used the convenient excuse of "runaway slaves" to cover up the politically motivated murder of Quintus Lollius Junior.

Below is the Latin and English text regarding the murder cover-up, followed by the historical reality of the final verdict and how modern scholarship views the investigation.

Latin Text (The "Runaway Slaves" Cover-up)

"Hic adulescens... cum in Siciliam ad hanc patris iniuriam persequendam profectus esset, fugitiviinterea nescio qui illum in itinere occidisse dicuntur. Re quidem vera, iudices, nemo in tota Sicilia dubitavit quin illius caedis Verres et conscientia et scelere obligaretur."

— Cicero, In Verrem, Actio Secunda, Liber III, 63

English Translation

"This young man... having set out for Sicily to investigate this outrage committed against his father, was on his way when certain runaway slaves, nobody knows who, are said to have murdered him. But in truth, gentlemen of the jury, there was not a single person in all of Sicily who doubted that Verres was bound up in the guilt and crime of that assassination."

---

The Final Verdict: Was an Autopsy Reconsidered?

The ultimate legal resolution of the trial and the nature of the "investigation" highlight the mechanics of Roman justice:

• The Verdict (No Official Ruling on Murder): The court never issued a formal verdict specifically convicting Verres of the murder of Lollius Junior. In the Roman legal system, Verres was being tried in a specialized extortion court (quaestio de repetundis). Cicero introduced the murder not to gain a homicide conviction, but as devastating character evidence to demonstrate the lethal extent of Verres’ tyranny and intimidation. [1, 2, 3]
• The Trial's End: Overwhelmed by the mountain of evidence Cicero produced during the first few days of the trial, Verres' defense attorney, Quintus Hortensius, recognized the case was completely lost. On his advice, Verres abandoned his defense and went into voluntary exile in Massilia (modern Marseille) before a final vote could be cast. He was sentenced in absentia to pay a massive financial indemnity. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]
• "Autopsy Reconsidered": There was no forensic autopsy or physical exhumation reconsidered, either then or later. In ancient Rome, "autopsies" in the modern medical/legal sense did not exist. Instead, Roman courts relied on circumstantial evidence, local consensus (fama publicis), and witness testimonies.

Cicero explicitly tells the jury that looking for physical forensic proof is pointless because Verres controlled the province and easily blamed nameless "runaway slaves." The "reconsideration" Cicero demands is strictly a moral and political one—asking the jury to look past Verres’ official police report and acknowledge the obvious assassination. [1, 2]

If you want to look deeper into the legal strategies of this trial, we can examine how Roman extortion courts handled violent crimes or look at Verres' life in exile until his death. Which aspect interests you? [1]