CLOSING ARGUMENTS

1.7K 118 10

[CLOSING ARGUMENTS]

[PROSECUTION]

James: Ladies and gentlemen, Mr. Ludarac has done a fine job obscuring and twisting facts for you. We are not here to debate the existence of ghosts and goblins, although that may be what Mr. Ludarac wants you to do. We are here because four men are dead. Now, I don’t need to tell you that a member of the Ludarac family was involved in these murders because the defendant admitted to that fact under oath right here in front of you. He wants you to believe some pretty fantastic things, but there is one aspect of this case that Jonathan Ludarac wants you to ignore. He says his wife killed Dallas Gaines. Aside from how easily convenient it is that Dana Ludarac is incarcerated in a mental institution, Dallas Gaines was six-foot-three and over two hundred pounds. Dana Ludarac is five-foot-seven and just under one hundred and thirty pounds. The CSI report states clearly that there was a struggle when Dallas Gaines was attacked, but he was found dead still in his chair. Do you think that a woman Dana Ludarac’s size could hold a man Dallas Gaines’s size down in a chair? I don’t. In fact, there is only one member of the Ludarac family who could conceivably be able to do that, and he’s sitting right there. Now let’s say, for the sake of argument, that Dana Ludarac did commit that first murder. Why would she do that? Jonathan Ludarac has a documented history of manipulating people to do his bidding. His own daughter testified that Dana Ludarac did and said whatever Jonathan told her to, but that isn’t what happened here. What Jonathan Ludarac is doing is exactly what his own son said he does. He is lying above zero. He has mixed so much truth with lies that it is nearly impossible to know what is objectively true. He is a liar, and unfortunately, he is very good at it. Now, I have called his claims fantastic, but let’s assume that the more fantastic things he has said are, in fact, the truth. Let’s say that Lucy returned from the grave to avenge her own murder. I submit to you that it was not Dana, but Jonathan Ludarac who brought her back. That is his lie. Now if he is telling the truth about his daughter’s return, you must see that he is liable for her actions. If he is telling the truth, Lucy Ludarac’s spirit was a loaded gun that Jonathan fired at Jack Sitersin, Cullen Krast and Vincent Bates after killing Dallas Gaines himself. What’s worse is that Jonathan shows no remorse that his family has clearly been caught in the crossfire. We can’t prosecute a gun, but we can send the person who fired it to prison where he belongs. Thank you.

[DEFENSE]

Harker: You are all tasked with determining if Jonathan Ludarac is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The problem, I suppose, is that this case has been somewhat unreasonable. I do not envy your position. The prosecution says that Jonathan is lying. What if he’s not? You’ve received half-truths through this entire process. Ms. James even stated that the entire case has yet to be explained. We still don’t know what Detective Renfield saw behind the Ludarac’s house. We don’t know what killed Cullen Krast. We don’t know where Vincent Bates’s remains are. We don’t know what carved Kayla Ludarac’s skin. Now, you have to take Jonathan Ludarac’s life in your hands and make a decision. Can you really condemn him? Can you say with certainty, Jonathan Ludarac is guilty? I don’t believe you can. The prosecution’s only argument is that a woman Dana Ludarac’s size couldn’t hold down Dallas Gaines, and they wave that oddity in front of you as if a relatively small woman holding down a man Gaines’s size is the most bizarre aspect of this case. They are relying on one piece of logic in an otherwise entirely illogical case. The people have not met their burden of proof. You cannot punish him for their shortcoming. You don’t have that right. If you are not certain that he is guilty, you cannot hold him responsible for these crimes. Thank you.

The People v. Jonathan Ludarac (Abridged)Read this story for FREE!