Closing statements in the trial of the Hamburglar
Your Honour, the Jury, here are the facts as have been established throughout this trial:
- On 21st December 2010, National Hamburger day last year, Mr Ronald McDonald was putting the finishing touches to roughly 1,000 hamburgers, made from prime minced beef and a selection of spices and herbs. These preparations were complete by noon. Mr. McDonald then tended to his allotment, the Hamburger Patch, for a couple of hours.
- Someone entered Mr. McDonald’s house at roughly 12:15 on that day. That same someone fed Sundae, Mr. McDonald’s dog, what we now know to be a piece of meat that was laced with tranquilliser. The Professor’s analysis of the meat fed to Sundae was unable to determine the specific tranquilliser, suggesting that a particularly devious individual was responsible.
- This person then proceeded to remove all of Mr. McDonald’s hamburgers into a white U-haul van, registration ETH-5697. This van was then caught on traffic cameras heading towards Brooklyn, where Mr. Hamburglar happens to reside. Subsequent investigations have revealed that the person who hired the van paid cash in an attempt to hide their identity.
- Mr. Hamburglar claims to have been in a bar, drinking with his good friend, Mr. Grimace, during this time. However, neither Mr. Grimace nor the barman who was supposed to have served them has any recollection of seeing Mr. Hamburglar that day.
- However, forensic examination of the U-Haul van, which was found by Officer Big Mac parked in a lay-by, discovered Mr. Hamburglar’s fingerprints on one of the van’s interior door handles. Furthermore, a gang of children, who call themselves ‘The Fry Kids’ claim to have seen someone fitting the description of Mr. Hamburglar running away from the van after stopping in the lay-by.
- Finally, Captain Crook has stated that Mr. Hamburglar tried to board his ship, sailing to Argentina (with whom we have no extradition treaty) just two days after Mr. McDonald’s hamburgers were stolen. Mr. Hamburglar was described by Captain Crook as looking “dishevelled” and having “bits of meat and crumbs around his mouth”.
You have also heard evidence from a Miss Birdie about her relationships with both Mr. McDonald and Mr. Hamburglar. Her allegations that Mr. McDonald used to beat her and that she was saved by Mr. Hamburglar have not been proven and are an obvious attempt by the Defence to discredit Mr. McDonald. It is up to you to decide whether or not Miss Birdie’s allegations have any bearing on the identity of the thief, but bear this in mind when you do: it provides Mr. Hamburglar with a motive. Specifically, revenge.
The Defence have also claimed that this case has only been brought because Mayor McCheese is up for re-election next month and that he is desperate for another term of office. You must put these allegations out of your mind, and judge this case solely on the evidence, as described previously, that has been put before you in this trial.
In summary, therefore, it is our case that Mr. Hamburglar did drug Mr. McDonald’s dog, steal Mr. McDonald’s 100% beef hamburgers and then try to flee the country only a couple of days later.
My client is vegan.