By Syed Ali
The People v. Eduardo Letelier case resumed for closing arguments on the afternoon of April 24. The People began their closing argument, claiming a violation against a four-year-old child had been committed.
They recalled an incident in which Mr. Letelier had reportedly gone into the restroom of his home with the alleged victim. According to the four-year-old girl, they brushed their teeth and then “Teo,” the nickname given to Letelier, pulled down his pants and told her to put his “peepee” in her mouth. He reportedly justified this action by saying he was checking for cavities.
The People then pointed out the conditions of Penal Code section 288.7(b), oral copulation by an adult (18 years of age or older) with a 10-year-old or younger child. Penetration would not be required – any physical contact between a mouth and sexual organ would be sufficient.
Furthermore, the prosecution said that the testimony of a single witness could be considered factual, and a testimony shouldn’t be distrusted solely because the age of a witness.
The People summed up the evidence, including the alleged victim spontaneously telling her father about the incident after he had picked her up from day care. In addition, there was lots of testimony pointing to Mr. Letelier being referred to as “Teo,” as well as an MDIC (Multi-Disciplinary Interview Center) interview by a child specialist.
Additionally, the People believed there to be sufficient grounds for the charge of resisting or delay of a police officer. They said that there was evidence of Letelier not cooperating, of banging on the front fence for nine to 10 seconds, then another six to seven seconds before an officer responded to the yelling. He reportedly only punched Mr. Letelier once because he wasn’t cooperating.
The People asked the jury to recognize that the testimony of the daughter of the defendant was she didn’t recall any events from the day of July 13, 2016, unless it wasn’t damaging to her father. In reference to the testimony of another day care worker, the People suggested that her testimony was contradictory. Furthermore, neither one of these witnesses would have known whether or not Mr. Letelier had gone into that restroom with the alleged victim that day.
The People asked the jury to recall Dr. Carmichael’s research suggesting that children feel fear, shame and guilt as a result of occurrences like this. The young complaining witness had reportedly told her mother not to tell any of her friends what had happened, because they’d think she was gross and dirty, indicating she felt a sense of shame.
The People concluded by proclaiming that “no way a child is going to put together a statement like she did.”
The defense began by recalling all the testimonies of people who had deeply trusted Eduardo Letelier with their children over the years, some of whom drove from Las Vegas to testify, along with others from far distances.
Dr. Eugene Roeder’s subjective testing is designed to see if an individual has traits common to child molesters. No results of such traits were shown, and there was no evidence that the tests were inaccurate.
Furthermore, the defense posed the question, “Why now?”, after the defendant has cared for 100+ children over the years. The defense posited that the choice didn’t add up. Why would the defendant choose to molest a child whose mother was “obsessed” with topics about child abuse and care?
The defense asserted that the alleged victim’s mother had shown her daughter videos about child abuse when the child was 18 months old, and that the mother read her studies on child abuse to her daughter rather than bedtime stories. According to the defense, the mother read children’s books to the child which represented human organs, including a representation of a penis (similar to the one the child had drawn), and immediately put her daughter into a study after the allegation surfaced. (Editor’s note: The representations here by the defense appear to differ from the actual testimony of the mother, which referred instead to age-appropriate cartoons about personal safety and private parts, and an article about childhood poverty.)
The defense pointed out inconsistencies in core details of the alleged victim’s testimony. The child had claimed that a certain individual was present who wasn’t, as suggested by evidence. The child also claimed she only told her mom what had happened, which was found to be false, as she had initially told her father. She had mentioned playing on a trampoline, which hadn’t been at the daycare for a couple of months. Lastly, the alleged victim was unable to identify the defendant at court on the day of her testimony.
The defense alluded to the possibility that the alleged victim wanted her mother’s attention – the mother hadn’t picked her up that day. Additionally, the defense said that the father’s testimony was questionable, as he got many details wrong about the day. He also never even attempted to confront Letelier, which lack of action the defense questioned.
The defense didn’t deny that there was DNA of a man found at the scene, however, they stated there was no proof that suggested it was in fact Letelier’s.
In regard to the second count, of resisting, the defense suggested that the police officer had used excessive force. The defense pulled up images of Mr. Letelier having his arms up throughout the entire confrontation, complying fully with the officer’s demands. Additionally, the officer seemed to have punched the defendant on the right side of his face, while the defendant’s hands were clearly behind his back.
The jury will reconvene and begin deliberation on April 25 at 9am.
