"I don't think Mr. Ferrer is the person who killed Anderson-Jordet. This man killed Anderson-Jordet." Ferrer's attorney blames victim for his own death

His client has never taken responsibility. His client has never shown remorse. The defense case was tanking during testimony. So what does Juan Ferrer's public defender do?

In his closing, he uses derogatory language to describe Anderson-Jordet as "angry, drunk Doug", "homophobic" and "ill-tempered."

Ferrer's attorney, Mr. Marek Reavis put two photos of Douglas Anderson-Jordet up. One the smiling photo and one, the shadowy figure in a black trenchcoat captured in the video.

Testimony did not support the defense's self-defense theory,it did not support the homophobia theory, it did not support the "he fell on the knife theory" so what is left? Blame the victim. The defense did try to smear the victim in the preliminary hearing, and now it's more of the same.

Blaming the victim for his own death, when his own client in several versions admitted to stabbing the victim, is certainly a novel approach and in line with the insensitivity displayed throughout Ferrer's defense.

"Everything you say can and will be used against you, Everything you don't say can and will be used against you and everything your friend says and likes will be used against you" is how Mr. Reavis opened his closing remarks to the jury.

"Mr. Rees said he wasn't certain what happened because he wasn't there but yesterday, in his opening, he selectively distorted and made up stuff. Based on yesterday, we are in a different trial.I don't know what you heard."

"This is obviously a tragedy for Mr. Ferrer and his family, for Mr. Anderson-Jordet's family. His sisters were here a week for the trial. This is certainly devastating for them. Someone they loved and cherished died a thousand miles away."

"I've never talked to them. Under the circumstances that would not be appropriate. They have been led to believe that their loved one died at the hands of Mr. Ferrer."

"I don't think Mr. Ferrer is the person who killed Mr. Anderson-Jordet." Then Mr. Reavis pointed to the photo of Anderson in the black trenchcoat and said, "This is the man who killed  Anderson-Jordet."

"He didn't say some stuff, he yelled a tirade."

Then yelling "fucking faggot" and "fat bitch" at the jury, Mr. Reavis asked the jury if they would be alarmed if someone was yelling at them in a manner he just demonstrated. Mr. Reavis said these words provoked fear. "Mr. Ferrer did the right thing, for some period of time. That guy starts screaming."

Mr. Reavis described the victim as "drunk Doug", "angry Doug" and called him homophobic.

Then referring to a statement Mr. Rees made in his opening, that Douglas Anderson did not get to say hello to the jury like Ferrer, Mr. Reavis said, "Mr. Ferrer did not meet smiling Doug, he met angry, drunk Doug."

Referring to Dustin Holtz's testimony, Mr. Reavis was fine with the positive part of the testimony that Holtz gave for Ferrer but called the rest of it "a caca story."

"We don't know much about Anderson-Jordet but we know he is hateful and ill-tempered." No such evidence was provided by anyone's testimony. Even his ex, Virginia Jimenez who said that when drunk, Anderson could say some mean things did not say he was homophobic or hurtful, more like lashing out when he was hurt.

"There is one thing that Mr. Rees said in his closing that was correct, this was an accident," said Mr. Reavis.

I left at this point during Mr. Reavis' closing. I could not stay for Mr. Reavis' entire closing or Mr. Rees' rebuttal due to a medical appointment I could not reschedule. Many times I fill my media colleagues on anything they missed and sometimes we all help each other out. Today, I am very grateful they returned that favor.

 Mr. Reavis stuck with the fear and tragic incident claim, and asked the jury to consider the character of Juan Ferrer and Douglas Anderson-Jordet. 

Mr. Rees basically reiterated what he said in his initial closing in his rebuttal. He called Ferrer a liar and that the jury shouldn't believe anything he said during testimony.

There were a couple of points in the rebuttal worth mentioning.

Mr. Rees said to the jury, y"ou heard Mr. Reavis say this is a case about character. It’s not about character, it’s about the fact that he put a knife in Doug’s chest. He could have hit him instead of stabbing him.”

"The claim that this is an LGBT hate crime “is a distraction.”  Ferrer has been dating his girlfriend for seven or eight years and he compared me (Mr. Rees) to the girlfriend he had when he was 19. The LGBT defense “was concocted to blame the victim.”