Prosecution Closing Argument Part 2

The Defendant had made her way to Pasadena along with her will to kill Mister Alexander in the evening of June 3rd of 2008. And she stopped at the Starbucks and after stopping at the Starbucks, or as part of this stop, she decided to fill up. And we know that she had the three gallons of gas, or the three gas cans at this point based on the receipts that are before you. And the reason that she had those gas cans filled is so that now she was prepared to make it all the way to Arizona without having to stop for gasoline. And she, on her direct testimony and also part of cross-examination, she indicated that well, the car for whatever reason had a bad engine, uh, for lack of a better term. It kept using gas so much, trying to manipulate you into thinking that she stopped at a number of places and used all the gas in the gas cans. But there are no records or any other corroborative evidence that indicates that she stopped anywhere here in the State of Arizona for gasoline.

So her plan, if you will, was working well at that point. She wanted to kill him, but there was way for anybody to say that she was even in the State of Arizona. Because the Defense would have been, well “I would have had to stop for gas.” And there was no indication anywhere and there is no indication anywhere that she stopped for gas in the State of Arizona.

Another thing that she did as she came into the State of Arizona is she turned off her telephone. And this telephone that she, the cell phone that she had was turned off so it could not be traced by law enforcement. So now not only do you have her in a vessel, an automobile that will not be traced to the State of Arizona, you also have her with a telephone that is turned off. She gave several reasons to different people as to why the telephone was turned off. One of them that she gave to Ryan Burns was that somehow it had lost its charge and that she had lost the charger and somehow she had been able to buy it at some store. That was her story and that then she was able to charge the telephone so that she then was able to call him near the Hoover, Hoover Dam.

Another story that she gave was that she stopped on the side of the road and she was cleaning up from killing Mister Alexander, she was able to go underneath the seat and find the charger. Either way, the net effect of that was that as she came into Arizona there was no electronic trail of her being here and there was no physical trail of her, uh, coming through. And this was done for the purpose. She knew she was coming to kill him. There is no other reason why you would turn off your telephone as you’re coming through here – especially this woman who clearly loved to use her telephone – but for this particular trip, for this time when she’s approaching Mesa, the telephone is off. And it doesn’t come off until sometime later near Hoover Dam, again, indicating she was never in the Mesa area. And without the electronic trail it would have been difficult for the police to find that out.

So now you have her in a position where she can come to Arizona, and no one’s going to know. She’s in a car that’s white, not red, so the police are not going to stop her, and she shows up with a gun and a knife.

And she shows up to see Mister Alexander. And if you remember that one of the things that she told the police officer, she always, whenever was not to her benefit, will say “Well no, I was lying then.” As if somehow that’s a fallback position. As if somehow that’s something to be rewarded. That “Oh, I lied. So because I have admitted that I lied, you should put that in the good column.” Forgetting that she lied to start with, and she lied to cover up the killing. And so she indicated that to this officer in a telephone call, and by this officer I mean Detective Esteban Flores, that she knew the code to his garage. Zero, One, Eight, Seven. And so she knew the code to the garage and she indicated that that’s how she came in. She didn’t knock on the front door, she didn’t go out through the back and peep through the sliding glass door just like she’s done before. She actually walked in.

There’s no indication that Mister Alexander came to the door. And this was sometime after four o’clock in the morning. And as she came in, one of the things that’s telling about what happened, is that she said “I came in, and I stood by the door. And I watched him. And I watched him for thirty – forty-five seconds.

Who does that? Who comes in and stands there. Someone with some sort of stalking behavior in their past? Someone who’s arriving there unannounced? Someone who is there to surprise Mister Alexander.

Mister Alexander happens to be awake. He’s got the dog, Napoleon with him. And the dog barks, and there’s this “Hello, how are you?” kind of thing. And at that point she says that either she does bring her stuff in or she doesn’t bring her stuff in. She may have brought her camera at that point. And we also know that she brought in her purse. And her purse is big enough for this “toy” .25, “toy-looking” .25 caliber handgun. It’s also big enough for a knife.

She comes in and according to her they go to sleep. There’s no sexual activity between them at that point. If Mister Alexander was this sexual fiend that she has attempted to portray, why didn’t he just force himself upon her there? And she said “Well, at that point I told him that I was tired and that I did not want to have sex.” So whenever that she said “No”, Mister Alexander abided by that. The only time that she ever indicated that no, no she didn’t want to have sex with him, he abided by that. And they went to sleep until the next day.

The next day, they do engage in some sexual contact. And there’s such a, uh, stigma that the Defendant has attempted to attach to this particular encounter. In fact she goes so far as to speak with Richard Samuels, Doctor Richard Samuels, and tell him about this. And tells him these photographs were actually taken when she was straddling Mister Alexander. Additionally she talks about how Mister Alexander has on his computer all these photographs of some women’s breasts. She just has to add all this to make Mister Alexander be something that he is not. Or have this encounter be something that it isn’t.

He did not go to Yreka to seek her out. She drove here, to the State of Arizona, to Mesa, to see him. Yes, he did have a camera, and yes, it was used, and thank God he had the camera because that’s the reason why we’re standing here – because of the images captured on that camera.

And so they engage in this sexual contact. And again there’s this religious sort of overtone that somehow she’s holier than thou, that it was all at his request. It was all about him. It was nothing about her. And that he’s somehow violative of the concepts or the precepts of the Mormon Faith. Why is that important? It’s important because she wants to manipulate him. She wants you to believe that “Wow, he’s such a bad guy. He’s holding himself out to be a virgin, and somehow that’s really, really bad.” That when people date, or when people talk about their sexual lives they somehow don’t want everybody to know everything that’s going on.

If you remember that Deanna Reid indicated that yes, they had transgressed. They had engaged in sexual contact but went to see the Bishop, they got whatever penance or whatever punishment or whatever happened but they never engaged in that contact again.

Somehow the Defendant wants to make it seem that Mister Alexander kept constantly going. He was this individual who had lost his priesthood or had not. Had or had not. And somehow that this encounter was a microcosm of their whole relationship. Well if it is a microcosm of their whole relationship then we have the willing partner sitting right here. Someone who enjoyed it just as much as he did. One hand or two hands, she enjoyed it as much as he did.

And so, later on in the afternoon, toward, getting later, sometime after five – the Defendant says, and it depends on what you listen, or what version that you listen to that at that point Mister Alexander wanted to show off his body, according to her. And he wanted her to take photographs of him. You’ve heard the tape of her conversation with Detective Flores that was taken and how she loved the way he shaved because it was old fashioned. And then she starts talking about how, yes, she is able to get him to get into the shower and take photographs of that.

And it really is more of her idea than his. And the only reason that the State can say that it is really more of her idea than his is if you harken back, think back to what Darryl Brewer told you, one of the things that he was asked on direct ex – or cross-examination was, when he was on the witness stand “Weren’t there ever any photographs that were taken of you by the Defendant?” And he said “Yes, only on one occasion was there photographs taken of me. I didn’t want them taken – I was in the shower when she started to snap the photographs. [She] wanted me to do it. When as part of the same case you have her saying that no he did not want her do it. But then, she starts taking photographs and according to her, very sexy.

But at that point the ill-will was already there. She is armed with both a knife and a gun at that point. And she begins to take these photographs. And as she takes these photographs, even though she says they are of a Calvin Klein kind of quality – water coming down as if it was sort of a specific, a very quiet bucolic kind of scene. That’s not what’s going on.

She talked earlier about a knife, justifying how a knife would’ve been upstairs by saying that there was this 20 foot rope. And that somehow she was tied up with that 20 foot rope to that bed. And it depends on whose she’s talking to as to whether or not she was tied on her ankles as well as her wrists.

But you’ve taken a look at that sleigh bed. Where is she going to be tied up on that bed? Making it up, trying to justify her trying to have a knife there for some other purpose. But if you take a look at that bed, and you’ve seen it, you know that she’s making it up. Just making it up.

If she’s not making it up, then why has she told some of the experts that she was tied by her ankles, or on the foot of the bed? Why does she tell somebody else that it was both her ankles and wrists? Why does she need to keep changing positions? Because she has a lot to remember. And with the truth, you ain’t got nothing to remember. But she has a lot to remember, a lot for her to keep straight given that’s she’s making all of this up.

And so, given the facts as we know them, and the fact that there was no rope, because it would have required her to clean up in the bedroom because that’s where the rope was. And if she was all bloody because we do know that the floor was all bloody, it was also very wet. It was either wet with water which is white, or it was wet with blood which is red, Mister Alexander’s blood. It would have had required her to go into the rest of the bedroom and leave some trail of that. And there’s nothing there. So it means there was no rope there. And there was no knife there for her to get. It means that she had both the knife and, or at least the knife at the time of the attack. And what happens then is that she’s standing there.

And then, we have this photograph, Exhibit 160.This is the last photograph of Mister Alexander.

There, not only is he defenseless, he does not have a gun, he does not have a knife. He doesn’t have any weapon whatsoever. Not only does he not have that, he doesn’t have any clothing on. And as he sits there, he doesn’t have any dignity either. She’s taken that away from him.

And if anybody is defenseless in this case, it isn’t the Defendant. It’s Travis Alexander as he sits like that in that shower with his killer standing there dressed in pants, ah, presumably a top on, because there’s no indication that she didn’t have a top on, with this camera. And she starts snapping this.

Part of the story of hers that you would have to be in the [inaudible] of this photograph. There’s nothing accidental about this. Somebody held the photograph, or the camera, firmly. The Defendant held it firmly as she pressed the button and took this photograph – the last live photograph of Mister Alexander.

And while she had him in that position, where he is in the inferior position of her, he’s down, she’s standing up – she can approach him, and she can approach him as he’s sitting there. And he’s dead. No doubt about that.

This is not a case of whether or not there was an attack here or whether or not it wasn’t her. It’s her. And it’s him. And it’s the man that she has just had sex with and it’s this individual that she has planned to kill all the way from May 28th of 2008, days. Even though the premeditation statute only requires a certain period of time. It doesn’t require days, it doesn’t require planning, it requires thinking.

And so, she’s been thinking about it for a long time because she came very prepared. And before she even went in there one of the other preparations that she took was to take the license plate off the car.

Now she’s inside. Now she’s got him like that. Can anybody think of how anything else could be so much colder or without feeling for the person than to make…

Kirk Nurmi: Objection, Your Honor. [Inaudible]

Judge Sherry Stephens: Approach.
** SIDEBAR **

It is cold, it is thinking, it is premeditated, to go up to this individual, someone that she has planned to kill for days, someone with whom she has been intimate with, and then attack him.

She has indicated to you that it was a shot to the head. But the evidence, the forensic evidence speaks otherwise. And for you to believe her, and for you to believe that the shot was first – you will need to set aside everything that she’s told you, for example the gas cans – everything else that she has told you, including the fact that she had lied to the police, including the fact that she lied to the experts, including the fact that she lied here. And then you have to say ‘Even though she’s lied all of these times, even though she’s looked us in the face and lied to us – we’re now going to believe her with regard to just this one particular aspect.

That is not something that is available to you, I submit. And I submit that because of everything that she has said.

And so, she gets her knife. And she took that knife and stabbed him [Inaudible]. The reason that we know that she did that is because Mister Alexander has defensive wounds. And he has defensive wounds to his left and his right hand. As she is stabbing him, he is alive, and he is cognizant of it, and he begins to grab at the knife. But unfortunately for Mister Alexander one of the knife wounds is to the heart.

Doesn’t mean he’s going to die immediately, it means he’s just going to die. And part of the dying process includes, because of the cuts to the heart, blood coming from his mouth and blood coming out from the wounds. But he’s not going to die immediately. He’s going to take some time, minutes, to bleed out. But he is going to die. So in a sense she has already killed him. He’s dead.
Well, you know that he gets up at some point. You know that he doesn’t remain seated there. Because throughout the bathroom where there’s the mat, where there’s the scale, all around the bathroom, everywhere… there’s blood. And if there’s blood everywhere that means there is movement there.

And it isn’t the kind of movement that is the flopping of the fish kind of movement, it is movement, purposeful movement on the part of Mister Alexander to save his life. And as this time is going by, again, premeditation does not take days, premeditation does not take a plan, premeditation just takes time. And it could be a shorter amount of time.

The stab wound for example, after the first stab wounds could be that. And as he is in this position of dying, he then ambulates. And we know she didn’t carry him over to the, um sink. We know that he goes there by himself. And one of the things that you see there is this. [Exhibit] 98: That’s the sink. And that’s the sink with his blood on it after he has been stabbed.

The reason that you know that he has already been stabbed, at this point, is because of the patterns you have on this particular photograph. Right here on the left. And remember the injuries to the hand. He had more stab wounds to the left hand than he did to the right hand. And one of the patterns that was described here was this smudge, or this transfer so that if he, and remember he had more injuries to his hand. That’s not something she can tell you he doesn’t, but you’ve looked at the photographs. You don’t need to believe that, you can believe the photographs and he does have an injury, a slight injury to his right hand.
But if he’s standing here, this would be where his left hand is. And you can see that there’s this smudge, or the transfer, as he moves that way, as he’s falling, moving away, indicating movement.

He’s still alive. But he’s bleeding, that red stuff there, it’s blood. And you also have the drops here. And those are placed there by gravity.

If this individual has blood in his mouth, and if you remember that the Medical Examiner testified that if you do have an injury to the heart, that’s one of the things that happens. And as he, it required Mister Alexander to be standing there with his left arm like this [demonstrating], and as he’s doing that – you do know that this is what’s happening to him – she is stabbing him in the back. This is Exhibit 192. That’s a concentric area. Exhibit 193 also shows us that. And he’s also being stabbed, as you saw, in the back of the head as he stands at that sink. Because he is standing at that sink, and he is bleeding, and the amount of blood that’s at that sink is indicative of time. You just don’t go over for a second and get those [blood] patterns.

(29:40)

He stood there, which means that the Defendant was there with the knife, stabbing him.

The other pattern that you see there is this, on the mirror. If you remember the Blood Spatter Person indicated that “Well, yes, that could happen from, for example, a gunshot wound, but it could also happen if someone has blood in their mouth and they get hit in the back of the head.” And that’s called blood splatter, high velocity splatter. And what that means then, is that Mister Alexander was having some force applied to his head at the time that he was standing there.

That’s how you can know that, Exhibit 193, occurred when he was standing there during the strikes to the head. Because the splatter that is on the mirror indicates movement. Hitting him. And then he goes and flies into the mirror.

But he’s not dead. He’s still standing there.

This woman, came to visit him came prepared though. So he begins to go in a different direction. And we know that he begins to go down the hallway, and he’s still standing. The reason that we know that he’s still standing is if you take a look at Exhibit 133. That’s blood transfer. That’s either an item of blood [came by] or the blood was already there. Well the item of blood in this case was Mister Alexander’s. And as he’s going by you can see him still sort of standing.

And then in this Rainbow, somewhat ironic – there is no good luck for him at the end of that Rainbow.

But you can see that it starts high and it arcs down to the area where there’s a larger amount of blood. He’s stumbling at that point. But he’s stumbling with somebody after him. He’s trying to get away. He’s trying to get away from her over there.

And she may cry now. But the jury instructions have told you that sympathy is not to be considered in this particular case.

No doubt that she did it. No doubt that he’s trying to get away from her. And you can tell that by the arc that he’s there. You can see that even clearer, here, with regard to Exhibit 132. That’s the same view showing the arc. Just for contrast to show you that was part of what was going on. If you take a look at the other side, the other wall, you can see that these are more at the bottom, indicative of a substance with blood either rubbing it there or the blood already being there and an item going through there – as opposed to this arc that we see here.

She chases him down. That’s what she did. He’s still alive. How many stab wounds has she already given him at that point? The ones to the back – do we really need to count the number of stab wounds [inaudible]. Is there a requisite number to get through the portal of death? No. Not really. There’s enough here to get him there. He’s already got the ones to the chest, which is going to kill him. He’s already got the ones to the back of the head, they’re not failed, and he’s got the ones to his back. But, they are accelerating his departure from earth, because the more he bleeds the quicker he dies. You don’t die immediately.

You would have dispersed all over [Tape skips]… thinking this person’s not going to live. “He may get away from me in the shower, he may get away from me all the way to the sink, and he may stumble away down that hallway, but you know? I caught him.” And now, rather than stabbing him anywhere else, right here.

So it’s a very well-orchestrated killing. And it takes time. By time, if somebody takes time, people think.

So she’s now stabbed him, he’s going to die. And now he’s tried to get away, went to the sink. From what’s almost something to consider, another thing to consider while he’s at the sink is that in front of the sink is a mirror. And as he’s standing there a mirror is reflective of what’s going on behind him. And he has eyes. His eyes are still open at that point – he can see. He can see the Defendant.

But she’s not done with him yet. And again the point here is that if this was a heat of passion, if this was a situation where somebody was just upset, it would be random all over the place but this was a strike to kill – right at the neck. And then, after she does that, one of the things that we know is that a shooting didn’t take place there. The shooting took place near the sink, where he had previously been standing.

And so, one of the things that they wanted you to believe was that this person is shot and hit through the head, he couldn’t have been shot there at the sink, according to them, he’s already bleeding and still continued on. But the knife wounds do have to be first. Of course that would violate the Laws of Nature because he’s bleeding so profusely there that the Doctor by necessity would have had to found lots of blood in the track of the bullet and he didn’t.

So if he was standing at the sink, and he was shot at the sink, after being stabbed, there would be lots of blood there. And the Doctor did not find any there. So he clearly was shot after that, when the situation was such that his heart wasn’t beating, a situation when the heart wasn’t pumping enough blood to get it there.

Bottom line he was dead at the time that he was shot, in order to forensically get the result of no blood in the track of the bullet.

So, he falls there. And then we have more directed behavior. We have this, Exhibit 162. That’s Mister Alexander, that’s blood, that’s his foot, and that’s her foot. And given the fact that we know that the bathroom is this way, that’s her standing there.

And what’s important about that is that we look at this Exhibit here is that it looks like there’s been a wildebeest migration near his head. Look at that. And what’s important about that, is that even though there is this stomping of the feet, it just means she was over him, hovering him. How many times must she, was she stamping around, stomping around to get that pattern. But what’s even more important about that is that there’s nothing in the bedroom. Which means this was directed behavior at him. She was cognizant of what was going on because if she would have been in this state that she wants you to think that she was in then it would have been all over the bedroom – if she would have been in this hysterical state that she describes for you. That she went out, into the bedroom, except it’s in pristine shape.

What she does then is she begins to drag him. And again, we look at that which is Exhibit 163, which is a bit later, you can see that she’s dragging him down the hallway. What that shows is a tempt or an attempt to clean up. And as she is going by the sink again, you know that she does something else. What she does is this – Exhibit 207 – shoots him in the head. And there’s no blood in that blood track which means the heart isn’t pumping. And when the heart isn’t pumping, he is dead. There’s no other medical phenomenon or any other medical indications that um, would, ah, give any other indication. And if that’s the case, then he’s already dead.

And then you have the casing from the .25 caliber handgun that she took during this staged burglary. And we have the casing, right there – falling on top of the blood, as she’s dragging him back. Because by necessity, the body has to be there.

And what, if you remember there’s a closet that’s up here, the sink is to the left, and this is, and the sink is to the left and this falls to the right. One of the things that we talked about is that the shot is right here. If she is dragging him in this fashion, that way, and she’s pulling along here that would mean it would be this portion of the head that was exposed. If you’re pulling someone down the hallway that’s the result that you get, the casing is expelled, and it lands on the blood that is already there.

So that’s when she delivers this shot to him. Somebody that’s already dead. So she’s killed him three times over. Is that enough premeditation?

Even though she’s through all of this planning already, this was a very directed attack.

And then she goes about the business of cleaning up. And one of the most interesting things about the clean-up that she did is that, yes, she knows about cameras. She knows what to do with cameras according to her. And one of the things she knows what to do with them is delete photographs. And she’s able to look at all of the photographs that are on this camera.

Let’s assume for example that they’ve already deleted the one’s involving the sex. This one right here [inaudible], Exhibit 162 for example, had to be deleted after he was dead. There is no time travel here, because that’s really what they want you to believe.

After this happened, she located the camera. And he’s not carrying the camera as he’s trying to survive. He couldn’t care less about that camera as he’s standing over the sink. So what does he do? He just tries to get away. So the camera getting there means that she is the person that was holding on to the camera and carried it to that location.

Then, after she shoots him, she goes back and places him in the shower. Some point either after shooting him at the um, at the sink or after placing him in the shower – at some point, she’s still thinking. Because remember how much she has planned before? “I got to get rid of this evidence. I gotta delete this.” What does she do? She deletes only certain images. It’s not like all of the images are deleted. This shows somebody who was thinking. “Oh, I don’t want to delete the one of his dog, uh, or this other one. I’ll delete just the only ones that hurt me.” And that is directed behavior by somebody who claims to have Dissociative Amnesia.

Dissociative Amnesia – you heard what the definition of that was. Or is it a fog? Even a San Franciscan fog, if such a thing existed, wouldn’t be so cloudy to account for this kind of behavior. There is no fog that someone can tell you about that hasn’t lifted – or allow for this. And so, she cleans that up. She has that, and she cleans that up.

The other thing that we know is that she takes the camera at some point from that area there. And again what’s important about that – yes it’s important where it was found, yes it’s important that it was found in a washer – but what’s actually more important, to show that she was thinking, is that there are no steps leading from the bedroom down to the area where the, um, camera was found that are bloody in nature, or red. Which means she was cleaning herself up. Because if you’re going to be walking around there, you by necessity are going to get it in your socks because that’s what she’s wearing. She would’ve had to get it on her socks.

( 46:37 )

And if she’s into this horrific, hysterical state, she would have ran down or thrown it down there. But what she did is she cleaned herself up first. The police did not, and you looked at all the stairs, did not find anything that showed that there was any activity other than up in the bedroom. Which means she cleaned up.

She took her socks off, and then maybe took her shoes off, or maybe put different socks on – but definitely the item that she was wearing was taken off before that camera was taken downstairs and put in the washing machine. And it was put in the washing machine, and put through a cycle.

Oh there’s this big indication or this indication that she could’ve taken it with her. So? What does that mean? It just means that it’s an alternative. But she has done so much already.

Other things that she has done, according to her, is there was this glass underneath the sink area. And that’s the glass that’s found on top of Mister Alexander after she cleaned him up. After she cleaned him up in the shower.

We don’t know if the glass was an afterthought or if it used to actually clean him but actually shows that she went to the sink, approached his body, and dropped it on top of him. But she cleaned him up. Wanted to wash away anything or any contact or anything that would show her being there.

( 48:00 )

Again, we’re told about what DNA is and how it’s left behind. But if somebody washes it away, it’s just not going to be there. And that’s another step that she took in staging this scene. She washed away all of her DNA from him. Could’ve turned on – we don’t know if she turned on the shower. We don’t know if she used the glass. But we do know that she cleaned up. And it isn’t because she loved Mister Alexander that she cleaned him up, or it isn’t that she wanted him to look good, even though he, with all due respect, he looked a little bit crunched up there. It wasn’t that. The net effect of what she did is to destroy any of her DNA. She washed it off. That’s what people do when they want things that, such as items off their hands – they wash up. And that’s what she did.

( 48:50)

And then we don’t know what was in the middle of the bathroom that was causing her concern. But we know that she focused in on the bathroom area as well as near the closet. Again, we don’t know exactly what was there. Perhaps that’s where she dropped the knife and she needed to clean the knife there – because we know that the knife was cleaned. We know that the knife was not left behind. So again, there is this directed behavior with regard to the knife.

Had the knife been dripping blood, and remember she had just stuck it into his neck – had that been happening, and had she been in this hysterical sort of mood that she wants you to believe, it’s fair to say then that knife would not have been bloody [inaudible]… bullet… and she would have dropped blood along the way.

( 49:43 )

No, she carried it out. She wants you to believe that she may have carried it down to the dishwasher. If she did carry it down to the dishwasher – which the State disputes – but we can use that for demonstrative purposes to show that knife, if it was carried downstairs either had to be cleaned up upstairs or wrapped in something like a towel, which shows again directed behavior, so that no blood got on any of the stairs. Didn’t get it anywhere else.

 

( 50:13 )

So if she says, which is what she says that sort of alluded to, that maybe that’s what she did with the knife, because no knife was found up there, we do know that a knife was used in this attack, if she did that, she did something with the knife, cleaned it, stuck it in her purse, or according to her, even if she put it in the dishwasher, but she can’t be sure about that, the behaviour before the movement of the knife, shows that she was thinking the whole thing through.

( 50:47 )

Step back and say, what was she thinking of at the time. Well, she is thinking of staging the scene, cleaning it, that’s what she is doing. She cleaned the body of any DNA, she cleaned the area where it appears some of the attack occurred. The other implement the knife, that was cleaned because it was not dripping anywhere, the gun well it was taken.

The clothing that she had on her, specifically the footear that you see exhibit 162, that wasn’t found anywhere, no bloodly socks anywhere and even the towels that were upstairs, you remember there was one towel missing from the set, was taken down and placed inside of the washing machine and the cycle was run.

( 51:37 )

It appears the cycle was run with chlorux and what’s significant about that is that yes it’s significant that chlorux was used but what significant about it is that the hands were clean at the time the chlorux was grabbed becasue otherwise you would have seen the handle with blood on it, you would have seen blood all over the washer, you didn’t see that, she had already cleaned up upstairs.

She was cleaning up because she did not want to get caught and was actually, as plans go, pretty good except for the photographs. Well she’s now staged the scene, she has now cleaned up, there was days of premeditation but if you just take the scene itself, and we will discuss the jury instructions, which tell you that it just requires a space of time, and killing somebody three times over, has built into it a space of time. Irrespective of which event you think happened first or happened last it’s the State’s position that the stabbing happened first because of the forensic evidence and the blood spatter evidence that’s upstairs, either way she killed him three times over. She stabbed him in the heart, certainly the throat was immediately fatal, and the gunshot would also have been fatal.

(53:00)

So there is this premeditation aspect. And so she staged the scene at that point. Then she did some other things that were equally as interesting, and by interesting I mean demonstrative of how well she was thinking at the time. She claims she was in a sort of foggy state, she wasn’t in such a foggy state that she couldn’t put the licence plates back on the car that she was driving on the back.

She was in a hurry, she put it on upside down, but she did having having already taken it off before, she remembered to put it back on such that she drove all the way to Utah that way and was stopped in West Jordan, err, in Wst Jordan Utah, so yeah, she was thinking then, she wasn’t driving without a license plate, because the police officers would have stopped you quicker without a licence plate than one upside down. So thinking there.

The other thing is she packed up the clothing that she was wearing. It was bloody, the socks included, packed all of that up and took them with her, cameras, clothes, the gun, all of that she was cleaning it up staging it up for the police so that when the police went up there they wouldn’t even know what was going on. Got in the car, did all the cleaning, and was sure and careful not to get it anywhere other than the bathroom.

(54:20)

Walked out and on that hot summer June 4 got into the car left Napoleon behind and started to drive away after putting the license plate back on the car. And according to her, at some point, filling up with gas from the gas cans. If you are in such a fog how can you remember that you had gas cans. How can you possibly even remember if you have a gas can if you have never done it before ??? and according to her this is not something she did on a usual basis.

[ KN : objection … overruled, jury instructed to recall the evidence ]

 

( 55:04 )

And away she goes down the road and according to her she stops on the side of the road, starts calling Ryan and continues her lies, starts calling Ryan and saying the story about where she had been, she lied to him. She wanted to continue that sleeping with him because he could potentially say say “no, she was with me, she was somebody that was with me at the time”. So again she is continuing to stage the scene for the police. What else does she do – if she didn’t think she had killed him then why is it she is calling him leaving a voice-mail message as soon as she possibly can if she was really in this state of fogginess she could have you would have heard some mumbling or she wouldn’t have been able to work the ?plugs? on the phones according ot her she was able to go back to redo the message one two three four how many times did she say, many, many times, she said she tried to do that. That shows ?? fog. She wants you to beleive there was no clarity of thought, the wants to manipulate you, wants to continue the lie. If you really don’t know what happened, why send an email, why not call the police. Why continuing on your journey and make it seem normal. Why continue to make it seem normal as if nothing had happened.

(56:25)

The reason that you do that is because you have a friend, Ryan Burns was nothing more than her alibi. Maybe he was a little bit more because of the interest that she showed. But she calls him up, makes up this story about where the cellphone has been and continues on to Utah ???.

(56:40)

??? violins making a sound. ?? romantic.

And then later on as they kissed passionately after going out and she adjusts him, whatever that may mean, although according to her he’s full of crap, anybody that doesn’t agree with her oh they’re full of crap, those are her words from the witness stand. He’s wrong, He’s not telling the truth according to her.

But he does tell you, yes, they were involved, and they were involved in a sexual passion. ?You accept that. What a wonderful time ??.

And so then, the talk she has with her friend Lesley Udey. And she begins to talk about the future, about Mr Alexander that is going to be with her in the future, she wants to marry, to have kids.

Absolutely staging the scene again. Continuing staging the scene so that., …. again she is just staging the scene after what she has done.

At the restaurant that they go to, she cut her hands, and she again, makes up the story as to how she got the injury to her head, ???

And then afterwards her friend Ann Freeman calling her on the telephone and telling her “oh it’s fine ???”

(58:52)

She’s creating a wall of excuses, a wall of absolute, well it appears to be impenetrable ?? so that no-one can assail her, no one can say that she had anything to do with this, she’s acting the part, and she’s lying, she’s making it all up, she’s lied to everybody to stage the scene.

She staged the scene of the murder, then she came into court in this proceeding and staged her defense.

And she staged her defense by lies. And the lies that she told, which remember people, into various groups of people. First of all they start with you. Perhaps, it may be that in court, because of the admonition and standing in front of the clerk that somehow that would bring out the truth because after all this is a truth-finding sort of proceeding.

Well let’s talk about some of the examples we can talk about that we know that she lied to you about.

This issue about the gas cans. Absolutely, without a shadow of a doubt, she’s a liar and she’s a liar about number one that she returned it to Walmart and she’s a liar about the fact that she didn’t have it in Salt Lake City. It’s just a lie and the reason she’s lying is that that explains why there are no receipts here in Arizona, and that also goes to premeditation.

She planned to come and kill Mr. Alexander with that 0.25 caliber and that knife from May 28th onwards, that’s what the evidence shows.

One of the things you can say to yourself, well, you don’t have any direct evidence of that, that’s true, we have circumstantial evidence.

Circumstantial evidence is a fact that you can deduce from looking at the circumstances that as opposed to direct evidence which is visual or hearing, a sensory kind of evidence.

( 1:00:50 )

The best exxample that I can give you about the difference between direct and circumstantial evidence and how it applies in this particular case is that if you are on a beach, doesn’t matter what beach it is, what time of year it is, and you are there by yourself, and you are standing ther e and watching the waves come in and you stand there and somebody walks by and goes to your’e right and a minute or two later someone comes to you and says “has there anybody else been on this beach?”. And you can say sure, I just saw her walk by. That’s direct evidence.

Well contrast that with circumstantial evidence. You are at the same beach, you have not seen anybody go by, you have not seen any fingerprints, you haven’t seen anything, and you decide it’s a nice day and you are going to close your eyes. Wait there, your sunglasses on, you have your towel on, and you close your eyes for example a minute and before you closed your eyes you noticed there were no footprints here, no footprints in front of you and no footprints there and you close your eyes for 45 seconds and you look and there is a set of footprints you didn’t hear anything, you didn’t see anything. The same person comes up to you and says has there been anybody here at the beach. You didn’t see anybody and you didn’t hear anbybody but you can yes, and the reason you can say yes is because of the footprints that you saw after you woke up.

And the same thing here, there are many footprints to this premeditation aspect.

One of the footprints that we have is that in Yreak California, after the May 26th 2008 arguably tells you that you are the worst thing that ever happened to me. And you have her stealing the gun, or the gun is stolen, it is a 0.25 caliber actually fiund at the scene. After than you have her borrowing some gas cans, you have her lying about those gas cans, and then you have her lying about this license plate, and you have her turning off her phone so she can’t be found in Arizona, and then you have the photographs and then you have the rest of the evidence in this case.

She premeditated the murder in this case.

The other thing that we need to talk about in terms of what she told you that is not true is why she rented the car in Redding. She said the place at Priceline would give you the best deal but the receipts, the statement from Washington mutual that indicated that hey, she paid directly to Budget, but that wasn’t a Priceline thing, she looked at each and every one of you and that’s what she told you, well that’s because of course she’s innocent and you as a jury are not going to convict her, right.

The other thing that she talked to you about was this injury to her finger. She said that, she showed you the finger, she demonstrated it to you and she said that Mr. Alexander had been the person that actually had done that to her.

Well, if you remember her in cross-examination when she was being asked about what happened in the, err, in her killing of Mr. Alexander the question was well, you really didn’t get any injuries, I mean, aside from the injury to the head, do you remember, that’s all that you got there and then she said on no, I also got the injury to my finger, do you remember her saying that, in a moment of candour, in a moment when she wasn’t quite expecting it, she said yes, that’s when it happened, she turned around later and said, no,no,no, that’s not how I got it, I got it working for Casa Ramos, Margheritaville, I got it at his house, who knows, but she looked at you straight in the face, about an event that occurred at the time of the killing, and she looked you in the face, every single one of you, after taking the oath and lied to you.

Maybe, maybe this law of attraction, maybe something else, maybe that will explain it, or maybe her experts will explain these three areas that you know are made up, she just made them up to you. And why did she make them up, because, although she says no jury will convict her, she’s attempting to get you, or manipulating you to get that particular point.

One of the other things that we perhaps need to look at, or talk about, is, their experts, and with regard to their experts and with regards to the defense that’s presented one of the sort of things that you can allude to and maybe make reference to when you are looking at this particular defense is my reference to Elizabeth Barrett Browning and her sonnet, where she indicated that, and then again it’s just a reference to it, “How do I love thee, let me count the lies”, it’s a little bit of reference to it, and that’s not exactly what she said, but “How do I love thee, let me count the lies”, but we counted three so far in this court, looking at each of you she said. What else can we look at, well perhaps we can look at the motiviation, or perhaps we can look at people that have testified on her behalf and then we can understand what’s going on. We can talk for example about Alyce LaViolette, she’a the person who has a masters, came in and has been doing this for a long time. One of the things that Alyce Laviolette has, and she has an extensive C or resume, one of the things she hasn’t included in there is that she is also a liar. That is just the bottom line. She came in here, and she told you, in response to one of your questions about whether she had ever testified on behalf of a male in court. And she said one or two times, remember that. And when she was pressed by the prosecutor during cross-examination, well who are they, she said I didn’t testify I wrote a report, she wanted to make herself more than she really was. Snow White a battered woman, she indicated that she was one of the keynote speakers there at one of those conferences, and she wasn’t, her CV indicated that she was on the plenary panel which is one of the people that go there and she made a presentation to a smaller group.

And just as importantly with regards to lying and Alyce Laviolette, she indicated and tried to justify the defendants lies for you, so that you wouldn’t think they were so bad. She kept saying well she lied before but not afterwards, and we got into this conversation about lying and Alyce Laviolette said, well you know, such things as white lies, those are ok, you don’t understand, for her, and for the defendant, white lies, white lies, they’re ok, and if it’s to her benefit to say that something is a white lie she will say that it is a white lie. And in this case everything that’s negative towards the defendant and it is untruthful, well that’s just a white lie according to Alyce LaViolette, and to her, that’s ok.

Probably that’s ok to Alyce Laviolette because she herself wasn’t truthful to you. It’s one thing to be mistaken in a report it’s another thing to look at you as an expert, because they’re trying to provide guidance and say hmm, yes I have testified on behalf of men before and going back and saying no, that’s not true.

But maybe, that’s a guide to the defendant, something that she of course believes, maybe that’s something that buttresses the defendant’s case and Alyce Laviolette believes that that’s something that she should do. But what that indicates is that she’s nothing more than an advocate, when you begin lying on behalf of the person that you evaluated, when you begin to visit them, when you begin to give them books, when you are with them for fourty four hours, that line was crossed, anything that Alyce Laviolette said is contaminated, it is foul, it is not something that you should consider, because how much credibility can you give her if she came up here and advocating that position she lied to you, absolutely no worth at all.

Then you have Dr Richard Samuels. One of the things about Dr Samuels was that, and the issue involving lying is, one of the things he did is that he had trouble with regard to this scoring and rescoring, and there was some issues as to really what the motivation was for the rescoring. Janine DeMarte, Dr Janine DeMarte indicated that well there’s no reason to be rescoring something three times unless you perhaps wanted to change the scores. Or with regards to the MCSI, there’s no reason to submit it twice unless perhaps you want to change the scores.

But, one of the things we do know about Dr Samuels is that he gave the PDS test, and there is no doubt as to that test that the defendant lied. The defendant made it up.

There is no truth to the fact that on question 14, number 4, that whatever seminal event that they’re talking about, there was never any indication whatsoever that there was a guy and a girl that came in and killed Mr Alexander. But he based his test on that, and the defense and questions may be asked about whether or not it involved a tiger or it involved that attack of a bear, or it involved a gopha. It doesn’t matter. The bottom line is that it’s a lie.

Let’s say that somebody goes to the doctor and they go to the doctor and they are talking about some sort of pain that they have and that they start lying about the pain, isn’t the treatment going to be affected by it, how good is the work? going to be if the seminal event that your there for is a lie.

Oh yeah, you can say that she suffered trauma, ok, let’s assume you even go that far and say yeah, PDS does show that she suffered trauma, which trauma are we talking about, is it the bear, is it the tiger, is it the gopher, or in our case is it the trauma of lying about killing Mr. Alexander, is that what we’re talking about, or is it the killing of Mr. Alexander that we’re talking about or as the other expert Jill Copp found was it the trauma of this non-existent domestic violence. The problem is that when you start lying, experts get involved, and they start basing their test on a lie, how valid can the results be.

For example, Cheryl Carp found that yes, she believed there was post traumatic stress disorder, based on many, many events of domestic violence, yet there are only four that were presented to you and never linked to post tramatic stress disorder.

( 1:12:42 )

Then there was this test of PDS that was taken and according to Dr Samuels, he said, you know what, I probably should have re-administered it. In a moment of candour he said that. And yet he then reversed his position and changed it. But again, what do we have here, another lie by the defendant. Not only to Dr Samuels, but also to Dr Karp or Dr Janine DeMarte. Either one, you can’t have a lot of domestic violence or a little bit of domestic violence. So you have that issue that is floating out there with regard to the experts.

The other area that the defendant lied about was the police. Detective Flores..

Judge : Ladies and gentlemen, 15 minutes please be back at 3 a’clock.

Next : Prosecution Closing Argument Part 3 Back: Prosecution Closing Argument Part 1

Advertisements