| Return to Grover "Bear" Reed's Homepage |
| Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6 | Part 7 | Part 8 | Part 9 |
6. The Defence that was
You have read much about Richard Nichols; the Trial Counsel assigned to the case. At no time before the trial did he seek expert advice on the evidence being presented against his client, despite the fact that funds were available to his office for that purpose.
It would be nice to argue his naivete
that the burden of proof rested with the prosecution, and that he did not
have to present any defence since the prosecution could not prove the guilt.
Unfortunately Mr. Nichols chose to
tell the judge early on in the trial ‘They’ve got as compelling a circumstantial
evidence case as I’ve ever been exposed to in 14 years of doing this kind
of thing…’
You have seen the circumstantial evidence in the previous three sections. Do you think it’s that compelling?
Of the 14 State witnesses at the trial, five were not even cross examined by Richard Nichols, despite his assertion the evidence was circumstantial. Nichols relied on a closing statement, which is printed here in full. It offers a theory of defence not previously mentioned during the trial, nor even made aware of to his client!.
And what if there were testimony that he entered the house with the intention
of either asking for money and thinking there was no-one there and getting
money and what if he was horrified to have found Betty Oermann there having
been murdered and raped and in that state of confusion and drinking or
whatever
his --- whatever his situation was then, went ahead and took Betty Oermann’s
purse and left and when confronted by the police lied about his hat
and left a fingerprint and did those
things? Now, the question, and this may be
the most significant question that
you can ask yourselves, and that is can you
be sure, can you eliminate that as
a hypothesis based on the evidence that has
been presented to you. Can you know
beyond a reasonable doubt that it could
not have happened that way. Do you
know to a moral certainty that that
wasn’t the scenario as opposed to the
one which is just as speculative that has
been offered by the state? Being a
drifter and a father of illegitimate children
and being a vagrant and somebody who
is living off somebody else’s good will
doesn’t make you a rapist or murderer.
Being a thief doesn’t make you a rapist
and a murderer. I think that you’re
going to conclude that that hat got left at
that house between the time Reverend
Oermann left at 5.45 and the time that
he returned. Beyond that everything
else is speculation. Everything depends on your saying to yourself what
are the odds, and we are not shooting craps in
here.
Richard Nichols took this line without
investigating and considering a substantial credible alibi defence that
had already been developed by the Public Defenders Office (see 7. The defence
that should have been).
Now if I were on that jury I’d be tempted
convict on the strength of the defence closing argument alone! It’s quite
obvious that Trial Counsel had already decided Grover Reed’s guilt, and
just to
be sure, he uses the terms ‘drifter,
thief, vagrant, father of illegitimate children, living off somebody else’s
goodwill’ to describe his own client! And he offers a defence even more
far fetched than the
prosecution argument.
At no time did Trial Counsel Richard
Nichols attempt to establish the facts for himself, which most
people would consider essential for
planning a defence for a client on trial for his life.
...Read Part 7
| Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6 | Part 7 | Part 8 | Part 9 |
| Return to Grover "Bear" Reed's Homepage |
