Then Mr. DuBois reminded the jury of why Hans was a platypus. (That seems like the most logical thing to start with, if you're asking me. Because if he doesn't explain it, there will be questions. ) DuBois smiled at the jury and said, "Did you know that the platypus is the only mammal that lays eggs? I was trying to think recently how a platypus could even evolve. It must have been a genetic mistake. That's why it reminded me of..." That's when Mr. DuBois's voice sort of trailed off and he glanced over at Hans. Ah, yes, the old "my client is a genetic mistake" angle. Then things start to get a little weird.
DuBois continued to explain to the jury why his client, the innocent, pseudo-egg laying mammal, would not have killed his wife with his children in the house. He explained that the children could have witnesses such a killing by being present, and if someone did not want to get caught, they wouldn't kill their spousal platypus with their platypi offspring (I swear, more than one platypus = platypi.) in the home. Or den. Or whatever they live in. He said, "Even for a platypus, that one's hard to believe." (I'd have to imagine that all platypi are, at this very moment, finding all of this "hard to believe". Either that or they have absolutely no clue whatsoever that there is a murder trial going on. One of the two.)
This was the basic line of reasoning that Mr. DuBois continued with throughout his closing arguments (which, by the way, he did not finish. Day Three of "The Platypus Is Innocent" will continue on Monday. They're taking Friday off. Shocker.) He explained repeatedly why "a platypus" acts the way it does. He was also a bit dismayed that twice during his arguments, the image of the platypus disappeared from the monitor for no apparent reason. Both times caused him to ask, "What happened to Hans?" Yes, he has started calling the platypus 'Hans'. I guess that's to continually remind the jury of his freakishly weird defense theme of 'egg laying, fur bearing mammals indigenous to Australia." (Yeah. It'd be hard to remember that all the time. Thanks for the refreshers there, Bill.)
And I'm not a lawyer, I don't play one on TV and I didn't even stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night, but there was a point when I'd have to say that Mr. DuBois got a little carried away with his platypus analogies. He got carried away to the point where he clearly didn't realize how wrong what he said must have sounded (and that's just to those in the court who knew what in the hell he was talking about. If you had just poked your head in the courtroom 30 seconds before this part, you'd have been really confused and probably horrified.).
It was when DuBois was stating that he thought that Hans was getting a raw deal by being charged with his missing wife's murder in the first place. That's when he said, "I just know this is one of the great screw-jobs of what happened to Hans Reiser. It's easy to screw a platypus." Yes, of course it is. Wait. What? (Did he just say it was "easy to screw a platypus?" WTF?!)
Even after THAT, he kept talking and he said, "I don't know how they stay away from predators. They must taste terrible." Now, maybe he didn't know he was speaking out loud and that other people could actually hear him. I don't know how else to explain THAT. It's the closing arguments in a murder trial and the defense attorney just told the jury that it's easy to screw a platypus and that they must taste terrible. Aside from not seeing the hidden legal precedence in those statements, they're just wrong on so, so many levels that I can't even go there. And I'd appreciate it if, in the future, if you didn't go there either, Mr. DuBois.
The prosecution will get to speak to the jury after the defense finishes it's platypus-ian closing statements. That should be interesting. Web-footed mammalian rebuttals. Stay tuned, won't ye?Sphere: Related Content