identification of Jessup's purse by her mother, sister, and friend, who had each positively identified the item as belonging to Jessup, before inferring the defense witnesses who had also identified the item had lied to protect Schaefer, stating: "How many of them picked it up, looked at it? The first thing they [all] did was say, 'Yes, I recognize it. He brought it back from Morocco in 1970.'" He then referenced the testimony of Schaefer's own wife, who had stated to the court she had been given the item by her husband as a gift in November 1972, and had never seen the item prior. When referencing the fact ballistic testing had revealed none of the firearms recovered from Schaefer's utility shed had been a match for the .22 gunshot cartridge recovered at the crime scene, Stone referenced the testimony of Schaefer's brother-in-law, who had stated Schaefer also owned a .22 pistol he termed his "Saturday-night Special", which had not been found. Holding aloft and pointing toward one of Schaefer's handwritten manuscripts introduced into evidence titled "How to Get Away with Murder", Stone stated: "I submit to you ... you will never find that Saturday-night Special, because it is in a canal with [the victims'] skulls." In conclusion of his rebuttal argument, Stone referenced a comment his colleague had earlier made in the state's closing argument regarding Schaefer being the "prosecutor, judge and executioner" in the murders, adding "I submit to you one [more word]: God! Because he decided whether he was going to let them live or die. He became God!" Stone concluded his argument by stressing the evidence presented negated the defense contention of Schaefer's innocence before requesting a verdict of guilty. Conviction Following the closing arguments, the jury began their deliberations at 3:45 p.m. They deliberated for five hours and ten minutes before returning with two verdicts of first-degree murder, which Judge Trowbridge formally announced to the court at 11:05 p.m. Upon receipt of this verdict, Schaefer proclaimed his innocence, stating to reporters: "That's the roll of the dice. I had a good defense [but] I'm innocent." Closing arguments to determine the sentence Schaefer should receive began on October 3, and saw the defense argue he should be involuntarily institutionalized under the 1971 Baker Act, in contrast to the prosecution's argument of life imprisonment to be served in Florida State Prison. The following day, Schaefer was sentenced