Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen of the jury. First, let me thank you for your patience over
these long months. I'm not going to take as much of your time as did the esteemed prosecutor because
the burden on me is considerably less. I don't have to prove anything. I simply have to bring your
attention to the fact that there is a reasonable doubt that my client, Goldilocks, broke into the house
of the Bear family, sat in their chairs, ate their porridge, damaged their possessions, and slept in their
beds, as alleged. It shouldn't take me very long to do that, for in this case there exists far, far more
than reasonable doubt; there simply can be no question that the prosecution has failed to prove its case.
The prosecution claims they have presented
"a pile of hard evidence." A pile of evidence? What do they really offer you? A few slender stands of
hairs and fibers. Some DNA. A fingerprint. An eyewitness identification. A purported confession. Traces of porridge
found on a pair of stockings. And that is it! That's all! Yet based on that, they expect you to convict my
client. I think they might better expect some witch to turn the judge into a bullfrog.
Let's examine the so-called evidence.
Remember who collected it? Remember who sat on that witness stand and told you a long story about
coming to the Bear house late at night? It was Detective Smokey, wasn't it? And right there... right there
is the key to the entire case. Because the prosecution's entire case depends on the credibility of Detective
Smokey. Let's look at him again. The fact is that Detective Smokey is... like the Bear family... a bear.
He is, in fact, a fur man. In the past, as you heard several witnesses testify, Detective Smokey has put his
nose to the ground and tracked down and arrested human beings for very minor infractions, while not
applying those same strict standards to memebers of his own Ursidae family. And, I remind you, you
heard Dectective Smokey himself testify that he found this physical evidence, that he collected it, and that
he carried it in for examination himself.
Oh, ladies and gentlemen of the jury!
I submit to you that never before in the long and glorious history of this kingdom has the simple phrase
"bear witness" been more appropriate. For this detective is a bear, and he is the prime witness against
my client. Can you trust him? I ask you... would you leave a fresh fish lying around when Detective Smokey
is on the premises?
But let me go further... let me examine
this so-called evidence piece by piece. According to Detective Smokey's testimony, eight long blond hairs
consistent with my client, so the prosecutions contends, were found on the pillows of Papa Bear, Mama Bear,
and Baby Bear. Hair?? Okay, we admit it... we confess...you got us! My client has hair! But so does
every single female on this jury! Ladies and gentlemen, I'm afraid I must take a moment here to tell you
something about which my client is not very proud. My client, the lovely Goldilocks, has not always been
so golden. Her real name is Brunetta. Goldilocks is only her ... her made-up name, her fairy-tale name.
Goldilocks' golden locks come from ... a bottle. As does the blond hair of tens of thousands of women. Yet
the prosecutor would like to to believe these hairs could ONLY have come from my client. Ohhh, pleeeaase...
they could have come from anyone with five dollars and the desire to purchase gold in a bottle. These hairs
have absolutely no value as evidence.
Now - the DNA. Deoxyribonucleic
acid, the so-called genetic fingerprint, the building block of life. According to the prosecution, this DNA
was, I quote, "the genetic bar code, sort of like the bar codes used on products in the supermarket." Oh dear!
Let me ask you this: How often have you been overcharged at the checkout counter because a clerk
scanned the same bottle of ketchup over the electronic reader twice? How many of your purchases did
they miss because the barcode was misread? Yes, the prosecution asks you to compare my client with a
bottle of ketchup. Oh puh-leeeaaase!
And let me put this to you:
Just where is this magic DNA? Have you seen it? Did they show it to you?
No - they did not! They showed you a chart and told you that it was representative of DNA. It was
made by DNA. Representative? Representative? If it's so important, let's see it!! What is the
prosecution trying to hide from you? Ask yourself that. Now... let's look at this chart. It's a lot of
dots on what looks like an X-ray. This is DNA? These are the dots that make you unique?
Please, ask the prosecutor to show you which dots determine your eye color. Ask him to show you
which dots determine whether you are tall or short. They won't be able to. Any why? Because this
is nothing more than a piece of paper. That's all.
So all right. So we've got these
dots on paper. I suspect most of you have played the child's game connect the dots. Believe me, if you
could collect all these dots so they spelled out Gold-i-locks, I would have a difficult time standing here in
front of you and trying to convince you my client isn't guilty. But that is not the case. Connect the dots
on this DNA chart, supposedly the DNA of my client, and what do they spell? Xyrexatdixa, that's what.
Next, let's examine the fingerprints
found on Papa Bear's porridge bowl, Mama Bear's porridge bowl, and Baby Bear's porridge bowl.
It is absolutely true that never in history have two people been found to have the same fingerprints - but
that doesn't mean that no two people have the same fingerprints. It simply means they haven't found them
yet. that's all. Think of it this way: Fingerprints are simply ridges and valleys formed by your skin to
cover your fingers. With all the people in the world, and all the people who have lived prior to this very
day, what are the chances that every single one of them would have the same few lines in different places?
Eventually, you are going to run out of different places. It's simply the law of averages. The fact that
until today, no two people have been found who have the same fingerprints means the odds are getting
higher and higher that two people "will" be found who have exactly the same fingerprints. And who
among us would dare say that this is not the case? Admittedly, the few wavy lines found in dry porridge
on the side of Papa Bear's bowl are similar in many respects to those of my client. But what does that
mean, exactly? It doesn't mean she was in the Bear home; it means she could have been in the
Bear home. But so were many other people: the Federal Express delivery person; the cable repair man;
the mailman. Has anyone thought to take a fingerprint sample from the housekeeper? No - they have not,
and the question I am forced to is is - why? What are they hiding from you? What is it they don't want
you to know? We know for certain that the housekeeper touched these bowls. Yet where is her print?
There is no way we can know because Detective Smokey leaped to judgment. This... this fur man
convicted my client long before there was evidence, then proceeded to build his case around that belief.
He was never interesteed in pursuing anyone else. What we have here is a rush to judgment.
Let us look at the so-called
eyewitness identification. Let us recall the sad, sad testimony of Baby Bear. It was night, the house was
dark. Papa Bear announced, "Someone has been sleeping in my bed!" Then Mama Bear announced,
"Someone has been sleeping in my bed too!" Imagine, if you will, Baby Bear's state of mind when he
opened the door to his room: scared and confused. And the, in the dim light he saw the rumpled blankets
on his bed and knew that someone had been sleeping in his bed too. Suddenly someone leaped from the
bed and ran right at him and then out of the house. Baby Bear, in a panic now... shouted: "And she's still here!"
Ladies and gentlemen of the jury,
put yourself in Baby Bear's paws. Alone... in the dark... terrified. Someone leaps at him and runs from
the room. What kind of look did he get at this person? How long could he have possibly seen this person?
Two seconds? Three seconds? And what kind of look was it? A fleeting glance in a dark room. Was that
really long enough to be able to look at my client in the broad daylight of this courtroom and say without pause or
hesitation, "That is the person?" I doubt it, I doubt it very much.
It is a long established fact that
to members of the bear community, all blonds look alike. I submit to you that Baby Bear indeed saw someone,
the same someone who left the blond hairs on his pillow. But did he see my client? Goldilocks? No, he did not.
It doesn't seem worth my time to discuss this coerced confession with you. You can just throw it out. My
client was held by police for almost a full hour without being offered anything to eat or drink. The police
are lucky we're not bringing civil rights violation charges against them. By that time, she was practically
starving. She would have done anything for just a few morsels of food. So when Detective Smokey told
her if she signed this confession, he would take her to McDonald's... I mean, we're in court, let's be honest -
if I said I was going to yell at your for a few hours or I was going to take you to McDonald's for thick,
juicy hamburgers, those delicious fries, and a crisp, cold soda... do you really think you would resist?
No, that confession belongs on
the junk heap of fantasy. In just a few moments you will be going into the jury room to consider the
evidence. I do not even mention the porridge supposedly found on my client's stockings because... who do
you think found those stockings? Why, once again, the incredible Detective Smokey. He was all over the
place that night, wasn't he? So, when you to into that jury room, I don't want you, my fellow human beings,
even to consider the fact that these three bears can sit there all day happily wagging their tails - which you,
like my client, do not have - or the fact that they walk on all fours, have hair all over their bodies, don't
even speak the same language you do, do not wear clothes, and have been known to devour human beings,
people like us. No! I beg you, do not think that this is a vote for compassionate humans against animalistic
bears. Don't! Think only of the poor, sloppy case built against my client, the total lack of evidence, and
you will have no choice but to find my client not guilty of this serious crime.
I thank you in advance for your verdict!
Richard Grimm, Esq.