Closing argument by Defendant’s attorney The attorney explained that my client was "identified" as the thief, but in fact, this supposed eyewitness is a woman who has held grudges against my client for a long time, and she has made many inconsistent statements about the case. I hear, "we found the footprints of your client". For real ?! But my client is working here, she's a housekeeper, it's normal to have her fingerprints. Third. Pictures of the car thief taken at the time of the facts and far from the scene of the burglary. For security photos, they are fuzzy, identification is impossible. I could add that my client does not know anything about art. Then, if she was lunch break, and the window was broken, so he is someone who comes from outside. Finally, the testimony of the receiver is misleading in order to reduce his sentence.