On Sept. 4, 2002, Dusek finally got to make the argument he had been waiting 8 months for. He was going to ask for DW to receive the Death Penalty.
What the jury heard was a kinder, gentler Dusek, seeing as that he had already secured a conviction and the jury was sure to give the DP to a child killer.
What was left exposed to those watching, without the cover of his usual sadistic meanness, was the pure unadulterated stupidity and social ineptness of this low class thug.
10509 - 10510
26 ...SUSAN L. AND HER
27 DAUGHTER, CHRISTINA GONZALES. WE HEARD FROM THEM I THINK
28 YESTERDAY. OBVIOUSLY STILL HAD FEELINGS FOR THE DEFENDANT. AND
1 HE HAD OPENED UP THEIR HOME -- HIS HOME TO CHRISTINA GONZALES
2 AND LET HER MOVE IN THERE FOR A FEW MONTHS. BUT AGAIN, HOW MUCH
3 IS THAT WORTH?
10 WE HEARD FROM CHRISTINA GONZALES, THAT SHE DID NOT
11 STAY IN THAT HOME AFTER HER MOTHER LEFT. SHE GOT OUT, TOO. SHE
12 LEFT. IF HE'S SUCH A BIG HEARTED GUY, WHY LEAVE? IN FACT, IF
13 HE'S SUCH A SAINT, WHY SHOULD SHE LEAVE? WHY SHOULD SHE TURN
14 HER BACK ON HIM, ON MULTIPLE OCCASIONS IT SOUNDED LIKE...
Dusek is so determined to counter ANY argument sparing DW's life that he is more than willing to make a complete ass out of himself. If a girls mother moved out of her boyfriend's home, what do you think people would say if the daughter stayed behind? What would the mother say?
According to Dusek, the daughter is turning her back on DW, for showing common sense, which is something completely alien to the social awkward DA.
10510 - 10511
19 WE COME TO THE LAST CATEGORY -- WELL, SECOND TO THE
20 LAST CATEGORY, AND THAT IS WHERE HE LEFT HIS FOOTPRINTS ON
21 SOCIETY, WHERE HE INVENTED DEVICES THAT IMPROVED THE LOT OF
22 MANKIND AND WOMANKIND, THAT HE WAS AN INVENTOR THAT IMPROVED
23 EVERYONE'S LIFE. WHAT HE GETS CREDIT FOR AND CERTAINLY HE DOES
24 GET CREDIT IS THAT HE HAD A JOB. HE WORKED. HE STAYED EMPLOYED
25 AND HE WAS APPARENTLY A GOOD EMPLOYEE, SOMEONE THAT OTHER PEOPLE
26 WOULD TAKE TO THEIR NEW COMPANY. HE GETS CREDIT FOR THAT. BUT
27 THAT IS REALLY WHAT EVERYONE'S SUPPOSED TO BE DOING, ISN'T IT,
28 BEFORE WE GO OVERBOARD?...
3 BEFORE WE PUT HIM IN THE CATEGORY OF JONAS SALK AND
4 ANY ONE OF SIMILAR TYPES, UNDERSTAND WHAT HIS RESPONSIBILITY
5 WAS. HE HAD A JOB. HE WAS GIVEN AN ASSIGNMENT. THE ASSIGNMENT
6 WAS TO WORK ON THIS PROJECT AND HE DID IT. AND APPARENTLY HE
7 DID HIS PART WELL. HE DID NOT SEEK OUT THE HUMANITARIAN
8 PROJECTS. THEY CAME HIS WAY. HE WAS NOT THE ONLY ONE WHO COULD
9 HAVE DONE THEM. OTHERS COULD HAVE. OTHERS DID.
10 PERHAPS IT'S SIMILAR TO SOMEBODY WHO WORKS IN AN
11 AUTOMOTIVE FACTORY. YOU WORK ON THE ASSEMBLY LINE ASSEMBLING
12 CARS. ONE LINE OVER THERE IS ASSEMBLING STATION WAGONS. THE
13 OTHER LINE IS ASSEMBLING AMBULANCES. THEY'RE BOTH DOING THE
14 SAME WORK, AREN'T THEY? ONE JUST HAPPENS TO BE MAKING CARS, THE
15 OTHER ONE'S MAKING AMBULANCES. DO THE PEOPLE DOING THE
16 AMBULANCE, DO THEY GET ANY MORE CREDIT? I DON'T THINK SO.
17 THEY'RE DOING THEIR JOB. AND HE GETS CREDIT FOR DOING HIS JOB
18 AND DOING IT WELL APPARENTLY. BUT A HUMANITARIAN? FAR SHORT,
19 FAR SHORT OF THAT.
Remember, Dusek is speaking to a jury of nitwits and must choose his analogies accordingly, I think. I know of no other way to explain how he could compare an inventor to some shlub who works on an assembly line. I don't care what he builds.
I wonder if Dusek actually allowed anyone besides a three-yr old to read this argument beforehand. You can really see Dusek's pre-DA employment history as a Class A pitching failure. He was forced to give up because there was no lower level he could sink to. So he became a DA where there is a judge, instead of an ump, who is always there for a friendly called third strike when Dusek throws yet another one in the dirt.
10513 - 10514
23 THERE IS NO DOUBT THAT WHEN I SIT DOWN YOU WILL BE
24 ASKED TO SHOW MERCY FOR HIM, SYMPATHY FOR HIM, COMPASSION FOR
25 HIM. WHAT MERCY, COMPASSION, SYMPATHY DID HE SHOW ANYBODY. AND
26 HE HAD A CHANCE. HE HAD A CHANCE AS THAT WEEKEND PROGRESSED.
27 HE SHOWED HER ABSOLUTELY NO COMPASSION, NO MERCY, NO PITY. NONE
28 TO HER FAMILY, NONE TO ANYONE. HE HAD A CHANCE WHEN HE STOOD IN
1 FRONT OF THE TV CAMERAS AND GAVE THE INTERVIEW TO SHOW
2 COMPASSION, TO SHOW REMORSE. HE SHOWED ARROGANCE, CROOKEDNESS,
3 LIES. HE HAD A CHANCE WHEN HE SPOKE WITH PAUL REDDEN. YOU
4 COULD HEAR THE TONE OF HIS VOICE: I AM SMARTER THAN YOU. I CAN
5 BEAT YOU. I CAN ANSWER YOUR QUESTIONS. YOU CAN'T TOUCH ME. HE
6 HAD A CHANCE TO SHOW COMPASSION AND MERCY AND SHOW SOME REMORSE
7 BUT HE SHOWED NONE. AND HE HAD TIME FROM FEBRUARY 2ND UNTIL HE
8 WAS ARRESTED, FEBRUARY 22ND. KNOCK ON THE VAN DAM'S DOOR. I'M
9 SORRY FOR WHAT YOU'RE GOING THROUGH. CAN I BRING YOU A COOKIE,
10 CAN I BRING YOU A LUNCH, I'M SORRY FOR YOUR PAIN. DIDN'T EVEN
11 HAVE TO SAY HE DID IT. HE DIDN'T....
Can I Bring You A Cookie? Can I Bring You A Cookie? Can I Bring You A Cookie? Can I Bring You A Cookie? Can I Bring You A Cookie? Can I Bring You A Cookie? Can I Bring You A Cookie? Can I Bring You A Cookie? Can I Bring You A Cookie? Can I Bring You A Cookie?
Saving his most moronic utterance for last, Dusek does not disappoint with the his "Can I bring you a cookie" comment. Can you imagine if DW had actually done as Dusek suggested? In full view of the media DW goes over and says "Hi, Van Dams, just thought I stop by and say howdy. Oh, by the way, here is a cookie".