Place and Jessup, Shailer stated Schaefer had shown "no presumption of innocence" for the girls, but had acted as the "prosecutor, judge and executioner" in the commission of their murders. Schwartz attempted to discredit much of the state's evidence and witness testimony in his closing argument. He dismissed the accuracy of Lucille Place's identification of Schaefer and his vehicle before referencing speculation as to the actual date of the victims' deaths, which he suggested may have occurred after January 15, 1973 or on a date Schaefer is known to have been out of state. With regards to the personal artifacts of the decedents introduced into evidence, Schwartz inferred towards testimony from his client's family that the artifacts had actually belonged to Schaefer himself. In reference to grave in and around which the victims were discovered, Schwartz also alleged the grave must have been dug on a date after Schaefer's January 15 incarceration. To support this contention, Schwartz again referenced the "lack of erosion" at the burial site, despite over nineteen inches of rain having fallen in the vicinity between the date of the victims' disappearance and their discovery. Schwartz concluded his argument by contending the prosecution had not proven beyond a reasonable doubt Schaefer's guilt. Emphasizing his client's presumption of innocence, Schwartz stated in the closing stages of his argument: "Ladies and gentlemen, they have got the wrong man, and I hate to think of that, because somebody did this, but I don't believe it was Gerard John Schaefer Jr." Schwartz ended his closing argument by formally requesting the jury return a verdict of not guilty. Rebuttal Stone delivered his rebuttal argument on the afternoon of September 26. He began by dismissing one of Schwartz's tactics in his closing argument: the illustration of the circumstantial evidence as not being definitive proof of his client's guilt and of simply accusing him due to similar fact evidence regarding the Trotter and Wells incident. Stone then stated that the prosecution's case was constructed from both physical and circumstantial evidence—all collectively illustrating Schaefer's guilt. Referring to those who had testified, he began by defending the testimony of Lucille Place; emphasizing the crucial role in her accurate recording of Schaefer's license plate to ultimately linking him to the murders before inferring to the testimony of numerous individuals who had also testified, substantiating her identification of Schaefer and his vehicle. Stone also hearkened toward the positive