One of the things I thoroughly appreciated about the
prosecution’s rebuttal was them bringing something new into it as opposed to regurgitating
their closing statement. They did it in a very creative way. They said to the
defense, you do not like our experts and you do not like our evidence – fine.
We are going to come back and hit you back with your favorite expert – Michael Vickery.
And they did do that by pointing out Vickery’s statements of killings of the
Khmer Republic officials. That was a great strategic move that now makes the
defense look very bad with all their mudslinging at the professional records of
the prosecution’s expert witnesses while the prosecution is looking shiny and
good by recognizing Vickery.
While I disagree with much of the substance in the prosecution's rebuttal, there is no denying that the prosecution delivered their arguments in a solid, clear and coherent manner. Something the defense should take their cue from.