" Counsel..." said the judge pointing at the defence table. He stood up and winked at the prosecutor and the media made sure to take pictures of that exact moment. Noone would want to miss the man's signature taunt.
"Ladies and gentlemen of the jury...
I stand before you to remind you of a fundamental principle in our justice system: "innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt". This is not a game of assumptions, not a popularity contest. It is a burden the prosecution must bear—and they have failed miserably.
Now, let me cut through the fog and call this what it really is: a desperate rush to judgment—a witch hunt fueled by emotion, conjecture, and tunnel vision.
You heard the prosecution's story: a husband so heartless, so cold, he kills his wife. Yet, the same man called 911. The same man pressed on her wound. The same man did what any decent person would do in such a crisis.
You may wonder—why call the cops if you're guilty? Exactly.
You see, the prosecution wants you to ignore common sense, to forget the burden of proof, and convict because the story sounds right.
But here's the dirty little secret—they don't have a shred of direct evidence tying my client to this crime.
The knife had his prints? Of course it did. It's his kitchen knife. That's like saying the man who lives in a house is guilty because his fingerprints are on his own door handle. Moreover, he pulled out the knife and pressed the wound, professional ethics under pressure. He did what he does everyday, being composed under pressure. Evidence has shown that his actions helped for when the ambulance arrived, his wife was still breathing.
No surveillance caught him committing a crime. No witnesses saw an altercation. No forensic evidence places anyone else inside.
And yet they want you to believe he's guilty—because of a filing for divorce. Because people argue. Because people hurt.
Are we supposed to criminalize heartbreak now?
Let me tell you about tunnel vision. It's a trap, and the investigators fell right into it. They locked onto the most obvious suspect—the grieving husband—and ignored every other possibility. Did they look for evidence of forced entry? Did they investigate anyone else with access? Did they even try to find the real culprit?
No.
Why? Because they wanted a quick win to close this case and avoid admitting failure.
Now, you may think this is just a coincidence. I say it's conspiracy. The kind of cover-up where the investigators bury evidence and paint a simple picture, even if it's false.
If the prosecution cared about justice, they would have pursued every lead. They would have found out if someone cloned my client's phone, if someone hacked her access codes, if a disgruntled colleague or worse had the motive and opportunity.
But they didn't.
And here's where it gets interesting:
I'm sure you've noticed the media frenzy around this case. Look around—tabloids, social media posts, half-truths masquerading as facts. The prosecution has let the press run wild, painting my client as guilty before you've even had a chance to deliberate.
Ladies and gentlemen, don't let the court of public opinion rush you into a verdict. You are the last line of defense against injustice.
Now, the prosecution may try to say: "He had motive, means, opportunity."
Motive? Filing for divorce is not a death sentence. Plenty of people break up and don't murder each other. Even so, his wife's lawyers hadn't even delivered the divorce papers. He didn't even know his wife had filed for divorce. Had he known, I'm sure his actions after finding his wife dying, he would have ignored her and turned to just crying instead of trying to save her.
Means? So does everyone else who had access. No cameras at the residence, no cameras, bo sophisticated locks.
Opportunity? No one can place him committing the crime. Only that he was there after.
And what about the alibi? He was home, alone, when paramedics arrived. And he's the one who called for help. You've got to ask yourself: who benefits from convicting a man with no concrete evidence against him?
Here's the cold truth: if you convict him, you convict without proof. You convict on emotion, speculation, and fear.
The prosecution wants you to ignore the law. They want you to believe stories, not facts.
If you do that, you are not jurors. You are nothing more than twelve fools.
And twelve fools are exactly what the prosecution needs to win.
But I believe in your intelligence. I believe you will do your duty.
You will not be pawns in this sham. You will demand proof.
Proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
They have none.
So I ask you, with all the weight of justice behind me: find my client not guilty.
Because to do otherwise would be the greatest miscarriage of justice you will ever be part of.
Thank you."