katydid23
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2011
- Messages
- 67,913
- Reaction score
- 239,277
Notes from closing arguments/Defense, for Robert Durst, murder of Susan Berman--9/9/21
Deguerrin: I have known the defendant for over 20 years and am proud to say so. I am proud to stand beside him, with my small law firm, at a time when almost nobody would do so...This ordeal has stretched out into a year and a half ...It is my honour to represent him in this ordeal. [Deguerrin appears to be near tears with voice cracking]
Making him a liar doesn't make him a killer---they have no direct evidence---
Objection:improper
then Judge gives instructions about circumstantial evidence...says it is direct evidence
defense- You must find him not guilty if you have doubts about the circumstantial assumptions being made by the prosecution...
Their goal is to prove that Bob killed Kathy and Susan called the Dean of her medical school. But if we can show you that is false, their case is over.
He sits here accused by the massive power of the state. We are at a disadvantage.
First, you shouldn't have been hearing about the Galveston case in this trial. It is here to prejudice you.
It is horrible what bob did to that body---but the jury was intelligent enough to separate that from the manner in which he died. He was just shown to be Not Guilty of that murder. Do not hold that against him---it was a single accidental gunshot---self defense.
In that case there was an abundance of evidence against Robert---[lists evidence found, gun, in his name found, etc]
objection:
Judge---lets stay on track..
D: prosecution is trying to get a do over of that trial. It is over and done with.
there is no place on the jury form for you to find him guilty of that---it is here just to prejudice you against him. Dont let your emotions rule your logic.
Nothing that he did to the body taints the way he died. It also happened 9 months after Susan Berman died.
Well, if he killed her to shut her up, then what was he worried about ?
what evidence is there that Robert killed Kathy? How did she die? Where did she die? When did she die? They didnt answer any of that for you.
That is reasonable doubt if they leave all of that unanswered.
keep in mind--the presumption of innocence. That can be removed ONLY if the prosecution meets its burden of proof, beyond a reasonable doubt.
If you are still asking yourself those important questions, then you must have some doubts. The prosecution failed in their efforts to prove their case.
We can show you in great detail, on Monday, that it was not Susan that made that call to the dean. And that makes the state's case fall apart completely.
So why are we here? I'd say because of Mr Jarecki and The Jinx.
Deguerrin: I have known the defendant for over 20 years and am proud to say so. I am proud to stand beside him, with my small law firm, at a time when almost nobody would do so...This ordeal has stretched out into a year and a half ...It is my honour to represent him in this ordeal. [Deguerrin appears to be near tears with voice cracking]
Making him a liar doesn't make him a killer---they have no direct evidence---
Objection:improper
then Judge gives instructions about circumstantial evidence...says it is direct evidence
defense- You must find him not guilty if you have doubts about the circumstantial assumptions being made by the prosecution...
Their goal is to prove that Bob killed Kathy and Susan called the Dean of her medical school. But if we can show you that is false, their case is over.
He sits here accused by the massive power of the state. We are at a disadvantage.
First, you shouldn't have been hearing about the Galveston case in this trial. It is here to prejudice you.
It is horrible what bob did to that body---but the jury was intelligent enough to separate that from the manner in which he died. He was just shown to be Not Guilty of that murder. Do not hold that against him---it was a single accidental gunshot---self defense.
In that case there was an abundance of evidence against Robert---[lists evidence found, gun, in his name found, etc]
objection:
Judge---lets stay on track..
D: prosecution is trying to get a do over of that trial. It is over and done with.
there is no place on the jury form for you to find him guilty of that---it is here just to prejudice you against him. Dont let your emotions rule your logic.
Nothing that he did to the body taints the way he died. It also happened 9 months after Susan Berman died.
Well, if he killed her to shut her up, then what was he worried about ?
what evidence is there that Robert killed Kathy? How did she die? Where did she die? When did she die? They didnt answer any of that for you.
That is reasonable doubt if they leave all of that unanswered.
keep in mind--the presumption of innocence. That can be removed ONLY if the prosecution meets its burden of proof, beyond a reasonable doubt.
If you are still asking yourself those important questions, then you must have some doubts. The prosecution failed in their efforts to prove their case.
We can show you in great detail, on Monday, that it was not Susan that made that call to the dean. And that makes the state's case fall apart completely.
So why are we here? I'd say because of Mr Jarecki and The Jinx.
) 
