"This is Doug. That is where he died. This is the guy that killed him. Those are the facts of the case."

DDA Roger Rees has been in control of the Ferrer trial from Day 1. He presented a compelling case to the jury backed by evidence. He decimated Juan Ferrer's credibility as well as that of the defense witnesses.

This morning, he presented an emotionally powerful closing argument accentuated with a power point presentation and photos of the victim, Douglas Anderson.

Ferrer's family members and friends were in court today as were friends and co-workers of  Anderson. His family has attended parts of the trial but since they live out of town and hope to be here for sentencing, depending on the verdict, they were not present today. Their absence only highlighted the loss of Anderson as DDA Roger Rees drove that point home over and over during his remarks to the jury.

Notable was the lack of attendence from Ferrer's former co-defendants and his girlfriend Sophie Rocheleau and friend Nicholas Stoiber.

"I've been thinking about this case for a long time, about what I would say to you. I tried to think of something new. There is only one way to begin, it is the same way I started this case. This is Doug (a smiling photo of  Anderson flashed on the screen). That is where he died (photo of the sidewalk where Anderson's blood and evidence markers could be seen and where his body was found). This is the guy that killed him. (Pointed to Ferrer.) Those are the facts of the case."

"The defense said (referring to a statement in Mr. Marek Reavis' opening), 'If you believe Mr. Rees story, you will find Mr. Ferrer guilty.' This is not my story. There are facts and evidence. You get to believe what you heard. What parts of evidence and testimony are reasonable and what part of evidence and testimony is unreasonable. Don't take my word for anything. You are the sole judge of facts." He told the jury that they could ask for transcripts and read back of testimony.


"He (Ferrer) got to hear testimony and get up and testify several times to explain several inconsistencies of testimony." Then DDA Rees showed jurors jury instruction #226 blown up on easel sized paper. The crux of that instruction: If you decide that a witness deliberately lied, you should consider not believing anything he or she said.

"Don't give his testimony any credibility. I won't go back through all his lies. You can ask for a read back."

"If you think his version is reasonable or the five or six versions from which you can cobble a reasonable explaination, then you have an easy job to do. You can go back to the jury room. Take a minute or two to pick a foreman, take another minute or two to fill out a not guilty form."

"You know what I am going to say. I consider his testimony unreasonable."

Mr. Rees then went into the facts of the case. What he said flashed on the projector screen.

"Doug leaves the bar sometime after 1 a.m. He is walking up H street. Ms. Rocheleau said they are tired of people throwing things at them and people picking on them. At 1:24, the first 911 call. At 1:30 the first officer arrives on scene. At 1:30, on officer's audio recording "he just stooped breathing."

"Sarah Brody testified that twice that she heard, 'Fuck you and your fat girlfriend.' She didn't hear faggot. She didn't hear fat bitch She heard a distinctly different male voice say, "I'm behind you."

"What's the reasonable inference? What is reasonable is that Doug is walking up H street, ahead of them. Defendant said, "I'm still following you." He must have looked behind. Defendant said, "Fuck you man."

"Ms. Rocheleau testified that Doug and the defendant faced each other when defendant punched him. You know it's not a punch. It's a stabbing motion. Ms. Rocheleau didn't demonstrate a punch, she made a forward motion. Deputy Harris showed you the motion and the defendant saying, "I stuck him to get past him." He also referred to Detective Chris Ortega's testimony about the hospital interview where the same thrusting motion is mentioned. And later defendant is heard describing it on an audio recording played by the defense.

"No one demonstrated a falling on the knife motion except the defendant."

"As he is fleeing what did the defendant say? From all his testimony, from all the recordings, the defendant does not say, I may have nicked him' he does not say, 'that he fell on the knife.' Whate he says is "I should get rid of this.' Why would you get rid of the knife if it was an accident? You would keep it to defend yourself. He wanted to "toss it" because it is the murder weapon.

Mr. Rees' closing referred to statements and testimony that the jury had heard and bringing up his questions, Ferrer's responses was very effective because it reminded the jury of key points he made. If you have been reading my detailed coverage of this case, you too will recall those statements. For an hour and half, DDA Rees had the jury's attention and they were watching Ferrer.

Here he is hours and days away from a verdict that can change his life and he was whispering away to his attorney while DDA Rees spoke. Not a sign of a remorseful or compassionate person.