Closing Arguments, Day Two, Part II, Lonnie Franklin, Jr., "Grim Sleeper" Trial

 Lonnie Franklin, Jr.,  verdict 5/5/16

(Barbara Davidson/Los Angeles Times via AP, Pool)

NOTE: Day Two, Part I of Closing Arguments can be found HERE.
NOTE: Day One, Part II of Closing Arguments can be found HERE.
NOTE: Day One, Part I of Closing Arguments can be found HERE.

Tuesday May 3, 2016
1:35 PM Afternoon Session
I'm inside Dept. 109. There's lots of chatter as the courtroom fills. One of the defense attorneys from the Uwaydah et. al [Kelly Soo Park] case is in the courtroom. It's Anthony Brooklier, who's married to journalist Pat LaLama.

1:42 PM
The court goes on the record in the Franklin case. The jury is not brought in yet. Judge Kennedy informs counsel. "Apparently there was someone that was speaking to one of our jurors. And she's ... what's her name?" I believe someone offers to the court,  "Victoria Redstall." The court continues, "There was an issue with her using her cell phone and the bailiff had her leave the courtroom and she's very upset."

Judge Kennedy continues, "Apparently, she spoke to one of the jurors that she was kicked out of the courtroom. She's been in the vestibule, trying to get the attention of somebody that may be related to someone that she knew in the courtroom. ... She apparently hasn't been talking about the case, but she went up to one of the jurors which is improper. So I've barred her."

Defense attorney Dale Atherton addresses the court. "I [do?] need a media inquiry. It doesn't relate to anything in the case. She was with her mother. I think that's who she was trying to get the attention."

Atherton wants to know what was reported.

[I remember from the morning session, seeing the woman in the vestibule, constantly waving her arms in front of the small windows, as if she trying to get someone's attention.]

At some point, Judge Kennedy states that the jury communicated that her behavior in the vestibule was distracting to them.

The court responds, "She told one of the jurors that she had been excluded from the courtroom. That's what had been reported to me."

Atherton wants the court to inquire of the juror involved. It's juror #12. The juror is brought out and Judge Kennedy questions the juror. "Hello Juror #12. I wanted to inquire. I heard that someone had a conversation with you?" Juror #12 replies, "It wasn't a conversation. I saw a lady next to the trash can. I was throwing something away. I asked her, what are you doing outside? She said they threw her out of the court." The court asks, "Did she say anything about the case?" Juror #12 answers, "No your honor." Judge Kennedy inquires further. "Was there anything about this contact that would cause you to become impartial about the case?" "No your honor," he replies.

The court then asks to see counsel at sidebar. The court said something else about, that it wasn't a contact from either side. I guess meaning, that neither side of the case was involved in this contact.

Amster retakes to the podium. He has to wait for the ELMO to heat up. Amster smiles, laughs. He then asks the court it doesn't count towards his 20 minutes.  That's the amount of time he told the court he has left in his argument. Judge Kennedy replies, "I don't know."

Amster begins. To recap. We have stated why the DNA evidence in this case leads to reasonable doubt. Enietra Washington's testimony leads to reasonable doubt. Our reason why, the scientific analysis done by the government in this case is based on inferior technology and science.

Mistakes made during the search of Lonnie Franklin's home does not cause the evidence to be reliable. It's up to you, to put the weight on the search evidence.

The mystery man, the mystery DNA, the mystery gun ... that saw his uncle and coveted Lonnie's girls.

Amster references the analogy with the rancher and the barn. The bullet holes put them in their place. His diagram with the bulls-eyes with the names of each victim written over the bulls-eyes is back up on the ELMO.

As such, the lack of evidence in this case compels you to find Mr. Franklin not guilty. It's a circumstantial evidence case. You must consider all reasonable interpretations of this case. The mystery man with the mystery DNA with the mystery gun.

Your job, as stated so many times is to follow the law. It's not easy to be in America and to believe in the system. It is not. We recognize how many counts are here. We recognize the pressure. We hope that you will follow the law and base your decision upon it.

I'm fortunate to sometimes be reminded of things by my children...

DDA Silverman interrupts, "Objection! Defense is testifying."

Amster continues. "My son brought something to my attention that I saw so long ago at the Los Angeles [Law] Library, that, this building is dedicated to our system, is dedicated to a series of laws. No matter what courthouse you sit in, that each jury is given the same laws of circumstantial evidence and reasonable doubt. As long as we remain a system of laws, we do not need to be sitting on judgement, making their own decisions. ... And that is all we are asking of you, is analyze the evidence by the instructions that are given to you. Your Honor, is the law.

There's more, but I'm having difficulty following where Amster's thoughts are going.

You are fortunate that our system allows you to only be identified, referred to as a number. So you can go back and make your decision without anyone knowing who you are, and that gives you the ability to make a decision without public pressure. We want you to decide on the evidence and the testimony heard inside this courtroom. There have been times in this country where individuals have been asked to make tough decisions on individuals, not well liked by society. One of the times it occurred was before the formation of this country, during the Boston Massacre, when redcoats fired on colonials in Massachusetts. Amster is now giving jurors an American history lesson.

A jury of American colonists sat on that jury and made a decision on the redcoats, to have a reason for the American Revolution. And that jury made a very tough decision. British soldiers were [found] not guilty for the act of murder, and they set the British soldiers free. They chose the jury not to be known. They knew to look at the facts and come to a decision that was right.

This building is dedicated to those who made our government, a system of laws and not a system of men. LA Law Library.

We must make our decision based on the law. And I know each of you will do. You've been a dedicated jury. We appreciate that, and I know you will listen to us and you will consider the points of view of the governments as they have the right to give their statement after we conclude. And so I thank you.

The defense is finished with their closing.

DDA Silverman steps back to the podium to give her second closing argument.

"Let's get back to the real issues. The only deception that's been perpetrated in this case is by the defense. ... The entire defense from the beginning of this case through closing arguments, when we heard for the first time, [this mystery man] is now at the end of the case with no evidence to support it. ... What they want you to do is speculate. And in the instructions from the court ... tells you, that's something that you cannot do. ... That doesn't mean imaginative evidence or based on speculation."

"The theory of the defense is basically the equivalent of the skies opening up, a space ship descending and murdering all these women," DDA Silverman tells the jury, her voice edged with anger and disbelief. "We don't know about a mystery nephew. We don't even know if this person exists. Don't you think you would have heard about it before now? ... Just because they talk about something for hours, that that's going to lend it some credibility?"

"So the defense told you some nephew picked up Enietra Washington and said he wanted to go to his uncle's house. So is the defense saying the person who is also a murderer wouldn't lie?" ... The fact that he said he wanted to stop at his uncle's house to pick up some money."

DDA Sliverman takes the jury back to when Enietra was picked up by Franklin. He sees that his car caught her attention.

"Why does he say he has to stop by his home that he calls his uncle's house? He has to go back to get his gun! ... Why is he angry? Because she initially refuses his ride. He makes her feel guilty. It was manipulation. That's what we hear throughout the case."

The defense told you, well, the police were brought to the area. That DNA could have been gotten from everybody. What year was this? It was 1988! ... They have to make things up because they don't have anything. Because the evidence is so substantial. What have we had throughout this trial? Red herrings.

What is a red herring? People would drag a smoked fish across the trail to throw off hunting dogs. That's what was done to you this morning and all afternoon and yesterday. It's not DNA. It's not science. Suddenly, it doesn't work if it points to the defense but it's okay if it points to someone else.

Firearm evidence is used throughout the entire world. Remember the question [to the coroner] about after each victim, the question that maybe the bodies were misidentified. The questions about, how do we know that the toe tags were correct? What did that result in at the end of the people's case? A parade of family members saying, 'That's my daughter. That was my sister. That was my mother.'  The defense was happy to mislead you. That was their initial attempt then it went on from there.

Remember the photos of crime scenes? The defense asked, lets look at the gang graffiti. It's to make you look away from the murders. Like Detective Dupree testified, gangs are not interested in that stuff of covering up murders. There's various drug dealers that were covering up. DDA Silverman asks, "What were they doing, passing around the same gun?" Then they [defense] said transients may have been responsible.

They talked to them [witnesses] about evidence that wasn't picked up. If it wasn't picked up it's not evidence. Then you can't come in here and say ... that's not evidence. Remember about the orange peel? When he asked the detective why he didn't pick that up?

And that's what this is about. It's to deflect your attention [away from] the real issues in this case.

DDA Silverman addresses the criminalists, the search of the home, the photo of a Polaroid.

"We knew that photographs were probably taken, the detective testified. [They] knew that firearm evidence [might be present]. [They] were looking for things that might support the case. ... Nobody knew who these people were. And it wasn't until later, when everything was shifted through. ... And look at the envelope where the defense said something must be underhanded."

DDA Silverman goes over this in detail, but since I didn't hear this testimony, it's a bit confusing to me.

All the evidence for Barbara Ware. He writes July so we know that this took place in July of 2010. And he mixes up for the year and he puts the year of Barbara Ware's murder, instead of the [date of?] the search warrant. ... [The description in the evidence log?] And it says Polaroid of female, black. We don't know who it is at that point. Why does the defendant still have this, 20 plus years later? Why is it behind the walls of his garage, hidden?

"And then today, now we have some grand conspiracy theory that happened in this case. The sheriff, the LAPD, the DA's office, and his own nephew. We don't even know if he has a nephew and neither do you. ... That's what you're not allowed to do, what he said."

"How many times die we hear Judge Kennedy say you're not allowed to look at things outside this courtroom because you're not supposed to bring extemporaneous information in? It's not valid. ... but today, there's a mystery man, a mystery gun and mystery DNA. ... How long did it take him to come up with that story and now he has a mystery nephew. ... And he's misstated the evidence."

DDA Silverman goes over Enietra's testimony and the specifics of what she said.

"This is the photo, people's three. This is a photo of the defendant in 1989. This is the photo that Enietra was shown at the grand jury. She said, This is the person. Does he look like a youngster? ... Shows them the photo ... So what does Enietra Washington say, when she's interviewed? ... Her first interview is at the hospital. She's bleeding. In shock. Her panties hanging off of her. ... When paramedics arrive, she has lost so much blood that they had to put a pressure jacket on her. ... She's given a pain med. ... And Sargent [Tanner?] speaks to her at 2:50 am. By the time she makes it to Linda's house, we are in the early morning hours of November 20. ... She is not in a condition where she is stable. ... What does she say? ... She tells him, I was attacked by one man. He drives a Pinto. And he took a photograph of me.  ... "

"Then she's interviewed a week after the surgery. ... The detective speaks to her. His points are, he wants to talk to her about the suspect and the suspects vehicle. ... She gives him a very detailed description of both. ... She mentions the photo. The car, and his uniform, beige jacket with a t-shirt underneath. ... And he has a small gold chain around his neck. ... A key ring with several keys and that he owned more than one vehicle. ... Short hair. Large hands. And that he was in his late 20's or early 30's. Was that inconsistent with the defendant?"

Now, when she is asked 20 years later, it was a young man.  She's remembering back to that time. He was a young man, compared to her age 20 years later.

She said he had nice teeth, refused a cigarette when it was offered. He drove an orange Pinto with white racing stripes. It was very well kept. A mechanics box. She said school books. She said the vehicle had tinted windows and the dash had the word Pinto and there was some sort of spiderweb crack.

"It's very, very detailed. She never says two [people]. She never says three. Always one."

Mr. Coleman who did the composite, he couldn't remember anything, but based on his notes. She said it was one assailant. While still in the hospital, [she said] he was in 20's to 30's, had a medium build, not stocky, not slim. Wearing [khaki?] work clothes, clean shaven and dark complexion. ... That she picked the darkest color skin and no accent. And he [Coleman?] included the word 'dog me' as a sex act. Dog me, as to why [Franklin was trying to make her feel guilty].

Compare that to Linda Lewis, who was not the victim of a crime. Enietra Washington was found by Linda. Linda tells us that her memory was much better in 1988 than in 2007, the next time she was interviewed was in 2011 at the grand jury. She mentioned she was interviewed in her home the first time. She said Enietra Washington told her it was one guy and he was over and down a few blocks.

When interviewed 19 years later, she has a different story. She says first two guys then three guys during the same interview. It was 19 years later. She doesn't remember.

DDA Silverman brings up the ID expert the defense called to the stand and what he said [about memory]. "We don't need an ID expert to tell us that."

Enietra never said two guys or three guys. That's something that Linda got wrong. Detective Daryl [Groce?] when, in 2007 [he interviewed Enietra], Enietra says one assailant. She never said at any time, that it was more than one guy. And the details that she gives to Detective [Groce], are strikingly similar. She always said one assailant.

DDA Silverman goes over the events of what happened to Enietra again, and how the defendant made her feel guilty for not accepting a ride from him.

"She eventually gave in when she saw that he was offended and acted sarcastic. .. [He said] Why are you always dogging me Brenda? That he was confusing her with someone else. That he was around her age."

What does that mean, that it's the nephew of the defendant? He [defendant] lied to her! What other lies did he tell to get other women into his car in a dark alley? When she says again in 2007, 20 years later, she says he was a youngster. And looking back, he was. And back then she was a youngster. That's because she was.

DDA Silverman then addresses the alleged 'college books' in the car and the fact that Enietra remembered there were math books in the car. Middle school. I don't know what he [Amster] is talking about since math is taught in middle school.

If the defense said over and over that you can't convict then my answer would be what more evidence could you have? When you have DNA evidence, ballistics evidence, the murder weapon. What other type of evidence could exist? Because he would be telling you that wasn't reliable either.

So as I said, all of this, because there's more. That we spent hours and hours a day, when we were being led away from what the evidence says, and here it is again.

Defense attorney Dale Atherton rocks back and forth in his chair.

The argument by the defense, is meant to make you speculate. Now, when the defense told you his job is to [prosecute?] bad government, that's false. He doesn't know what he's talking about. There's no "bad government."

"His job is to represent his client. It doesn't mean you are supposed to misrepresent to the jury. ... He even said to you yesterday, The government wants to see patterns. Detective Kilcoyne said they set up the task force because they saw connections. And looking at various cases, they had the same profile that happened over and over again. That wasn't something the government 'wanted' to find. That's something that exists. The fact that the bodies were all dumped. The victims were all the same type. The victims are all African Americans. All in South Central. ... We didn't create it."

DDA Silverman talks about Ray Davis and his testimony corroborating the evidence found in the search. She mentions the date on the photograph of Janecia Peters. The date on the photo is 2006. Yes, because by 2007, she's dead!

DDA Silverman now talks more about Enietra Washington.

"She's standing on the curb. and he drives along side her. He's offering her a ride. He's standing on the street." And yes, he's about an inch shorter than her, but he's standing in the street and she's on the curb, the sidewalk. ... "She never said she saw acne scars on his face. She said pock marks."

"So what do they do? They call Paul Williams. [He says] Oh yeah, he's got discolorations on his face. Doesn't that corroborate what Enietra Washington said? And despite that, they never mentioned it. They called that witness themselves. They called a witness to the stand and he corroborates her testimony. Ah, doesn't matter. Irrelevant. ... You can only say things are so false, that they stop listening to you. ... Why flush taxpayer money down the toilet. What's the purpose to have the National Research Counsel? To make recommendations."

Because we're using established science, somehow, science has passed us by. Except, the government is paying Dr. Hamby to fly around the world to teach other countries [these established methods].

If DNA evidence is not relevant, then why spend hundreds of dollars of taxpayers money on [testing] towels and rags and items from a dumpster on a fishing expedition? Do you all remember spending day after day of the DNA evidence from Sorenson? There was one sample that was mentioned where the result wasn't inconclusive. Let's send everything out, see what we find, and if we find something, then lets make that the real killer.

Then the nephew. Does he even have a name? He told you over and over again, "I don't know what that means," and then at the end of the trial, he tells you what that means.

"One thing I do agree with him on, he said the jury is the voice of reason. Use a little common sense."

In terms of this gun, the Titan 25 auto, that was used to murder Janecia Peters. The defendant is in possession of that gun. It's in his home.  But also, for what he said, I live with my wife. I have two grown children. And the box with the gun, his name is on the side of the box. It's in his bedroom in a case with a magazine.

When the defense says to you, you have to, have to look at all other reasonable interpretations of the evidence, what's reasonable is based on common sense. What's up there [that the defense presented] is reasonable? The imaginary nephew and the conspiracy theory? Is that reasonable?

So defense counsel argued to you that it's based primarily on DNA only allowable, if you can show DNA is attributable to a particular individual is unique. That's the whole point of statistics. He clearly doesn't understand DNA and he doesn't understand statistics. The reason to attach a statistic is to show you how rare. When he's talking to you about race, and we should all love each other regardless of race ... DNA is race blind. We don't have a location for race. That's why statistics are reported for the most population groups. So statistics are based on population data. And of course, it's based on unrelated people.

"The DNA [that was matched to the defendant] is so unique, it's astronomical. All of the labs use unrelated statistics. We're not looking for related people. ... You did not hear from one DNA person, expert analyst [that said], Well, this profile was similar to the defendant because it could be someone related to him bit it wasn't him. ... They said it was a match. That's what the statistics give you. It's used by every DNA lab."

It's good enough for him to say, look, there's all these other unknown men and women, sexual assault kits on their clothes. So it's good enough for his purposes but suddenly it's not good enough for him. You didn't come out of some dark hole. We all know about DNA. It's used to exonerate and to convict the guilty. STR''s. It's the same methodology that's used across the country and several areas across the world. And some were utilized to identify the remains from 911. But it can't be used to identify a serial killer.

[Defense] counsel made a lot of comments about the randomness of nature to cause two strands to be the same. If it was someone who was related to the defendant, we wouldn't have matches. They took references samples at the time of the arrest. Plus we know that law enforcement was able to obtain reference samples from him because they obtained reference samples from the pizza place. We developed it from the pizza, the napkins and the glasses. Things were done over and over again to be sure of the results.  And yet every single item utilized in this case from sexual assault kits to zip ties matched. Not similar to, matched the defendant.

The defense also talked to the number of donors on Enietra Washington's waist band. When DDA Rizzo questioned the analyst and his take on about how DNA evidence can be transferred, that are sold in a store. They come in from a manufacturer. They get hung up by the waist band in the department stores or these stores that sell lingerie, many people test the waist band area. And he indicated to you there's a bunch of people on the waist band. And he was wrong. It wasn't 9. It was 8. Is what he's saying, eight different men raped her? He doesn't understand the DNA and the science.

I also want to mention that several times throughout the argument, throughout the trial, comments were made, including today, in a humorous manner, about family reunions and family members who marry each other. I want you to keep in mind there are 10 dead women at the center of this case. We don't just give them lip service and pay our respects.

We are at the closing of the trial. These women were human beings. But in this case, the defense wants to have it both ways. For instance. We talked about DNA, firearms evidence. Now he claims that the firearm's evidence isn't reliable. In the defense, in his own arguments, like what came out of Mr. Lamagna's mouth. Now all the firearms evidence was connected. It was all a result of the nephew who had the gun. But if you don't like that answer, it was the cousin. What evidence do you have, that supports any of those arguments? And how many times during the course of this trial, did we hear Mr. Amster say, we want statistics. There should be some kind of statistical information applied to firearms evidence.

But go to the DNA, and he says the statistics are unreliable because they deal with unrelated people.

This unknown nephew, this imaginary person, why is Enietra Washington's picture behind the wall of the defendant's garage? Why doesn't the imaginary nephew have it at his imaginary home? And then counsel went on to say, How do we know the Polaroid, how do we even know where it was found? That search warrant, there was so much going on there, how do we know they didn't screw up?

Because we have photographs. When they did the search warrant, they photographed everything in place.  There were three different witnesses that testified about this, and about the false wall that detectives testified about.

 And then the nephew came in and put it behind the wall of his uncle's house. Is that even reasonable?

The photo, that, how we know where it was found because the detectives, the law enforcement officers and criminals are professionals and they know how to do their jobs. So they photograph in place so that years later in 2016 someone can't come back and say, Where was that? Oh no. It was photographed.

Let's talk about DNA evidence that the defense attorney distorted this morning, and made some comment that since no sexual assault kit, that, had they had [it], we would have found DNA from someone else. That's speculation. Seeing as we found DNA on victim after victim it would have been more likely that we had evidence of the defendant on their bodies. What the defense did, that's not reasonable.

Barbara Ware. He mentioned that the defendant's [DNA] might have been on the nipple. This story being that, somehow, he put his mouth on some women's breast that she put on the bra that, then another woman donned her bra so the defendant's saliva was transferred from victim to victim. Again, that's not reasonable.

"I could stand up and stay here for the next couple days and show how what he said was not reasonable, but I think that you are already doing that yourself."

Remember sperm fractions? It was found in her mouth.

They talked about Bernice Sparks. Some unknown male and sexual assault evidence. The point is not that there were not unknown males in various items tested in this case. The point is, is that not one of them repeated between victims. That's not the relevant portion. The relevant portion is which of those DNA profiles repeat between victims? That would indicate to us that the same person had contact between victims. And the only one that repeats between victims is the defendant.

[Unfortunately, I have a coughing attack and have to leave the courtroom. I reenter as quickly as I can and take a seat in the back row.]

We talked about the necklace in the strangulation case and the coroner's testimony about a cloth over the necklace because the necklace was delicate. He strangles Janecia Peters and kills her. Folds her body up, which we know that. What the killer did was put her in the trash bag and the killers DNA is on the zip tie. [The defense argued] now, just because the body was in a trash bag ... Once again, is that reasonable?

"And then the defense says to you, Why would the defendant kill for his own pleasure? Why kill his own girls? Why? Because he enjoys it! That's what a serial killer does. Because he enjoys it."

I know that this might be a [difficult] concept for people to grasp, that someone so evil, that they take pleasure in murdering young women, human beings, and over and over and over again. Ten times. Why would you repeat something that many times unless you enjoy it?

If there's some mystery man out there, where's his DNA? Why didn't they pick that up on victim after victim? And why was it that we hear this theory, just today? Why doesn't this mystery man's DNA repeat itself?

[The defense talked about] when the prosecution didn't harvest evidence? I have no idea what that means. I don't even know what that harvest means. When you start talking about things that were not evidence in this case, somebody stop them and bring them back to reality.
                                                                                                                                         
When the defense counsel talked today about Janecia Peters because of this unrelated statistic issue, that's all you have is unrelated statistics, that's all you have. No. He had her picture. From 2006. And a month and a half later, she's dead. Not only does he have her picture, he has the murder weapon. When confronted [by detectives he says], Oh, I got that from my brother-in-law.

Then the defense put on this [.] Lamagna, and it doesn't matter what he said, so [you] don't have to pay attention because it doesn't matter. It doesn't mean anything. And then of course what we saw, was a significant comparison between Mr. Lamagna and Dr. Hamby.

The court interrupts DDA Silverman to ask, "Are you close to being finished?" She answers, "No." The court calls for the afternoon break. She tells the jurors to please be back by 3:25 pm.

3:30 PM
The court goes on the record. "Ms. Silverman," the court asks.

Right before the break, I was just about to talk to you about the firearm experts who testified last week, or so called experts. [Mr. Lamagna] No training ... No experience. According to Dr. Hamby, not qualified. He claims he knows how it should be done so he doesn't do it because he can't afford it.  And he makes his money doing this, criticizing actual examiners. ... And no one would hire him, because he doesn't want to go through the training.

He came out here to conduct an exam and Los Angeles County paid him $15,000, to do so. And he set us his microscope and doesn't calibrate and doesn't check the equipment. [The example of the photographs] The staging on the left and right, not the same. He sets things up to do some type of examination, then decides the conditions are so poor so that's why, he says I only did some scribble notes. When he's asked what is a "course exam" is he says, "That's a course I made up." Totally opposite of what a true expert should do.

DDA Silverman talks about the defense expert opinions and that it is only as good as the foundation on which it was based. "Garbage in, garbage out."

Unfortunately, when you mix extreme arrogance with lack of knowledge, that doesn't hold up very well under cross examination. Not only was all of that disheartening enough, he [Lamagna] was also dishonest. Every single question was a battle. I had asked the same question over and over. When I showed him his microscope, set up with a photo of his hand, when he actually couldn't admit that it was a photo of his hands and his microscope. And we saw that there were photos that 'really weren't photos' on his computer and whether someone could sit down and manipulate his computer. And that's what happens when someone gets defensive. He was inaccurate as to what something is used to manufacture a product, is not really the same as what we use in a court of law.

There's also an instruction that you'll get a chance to review, and that's an instruction is [regarding] a witness who is willfully false, who willfully chose to mislead you. Let's say it's a piece of moldy bread. You're not going to pick around, eat around the moldy bread. You can throw out the moldy bread. He was intending to mislead. He changed his answers from question to question. And you also heard that he issued a report that had numerous mistakes and errors and he said he didn't have time to check his own report.

And then of course, the dramatic difference [of] his testimony when it was followed by Dr. Hamby. He [Dr. Hamby] has the degree that Mr. Lamagna has never earned. He has it in forensic science. He wrote a whole thesis on it. Every time a name was mentioned he's worked with them. He's researched with them. He was their student. They were his student. He's a lab director. Across the country, he trains people. He's published research, scientific articles. That's what a true scientist does. That's what a true scientist does, to move the science forward. What he told you is, the same method, is the same that us used across the country and crime labs across the world.

Mr. Lamagna said that Mr. Hamby said that they should 'circle' what they saw. He never said that. He said that there are photographs. He said that the examiners in this case took the photographs. He chose not to present them. He showed one of the photos that Mr. Rubin took and the areas on that [photo that] show multiple patterns.

He said that Dr. Hamby said that he is completely supportive of this technique. It's duplicateable and it works. You don't just throw out good scientific methodology just because something is new, and that the human element, will always be a part of the science.  So what defense counsel said is completely false. I think that he [defense counsel] said that he's [Hamby] a nice man but science has passed him by. But he's one of the people that's contacted by many government agencies. But one of his experiments is being used across the country for training purposes. [Science has passed him by]. That would be a completely false statement.

[Defense counsel argued?] Intent. How can we know what someone's thinking. People can do an act for different reasons. And this was the analogy [used?] of making dinner.  Once again, that doesn't come close to what happened to these women. That completely demeans what they went through. the total brutality of these crimes. We're not comparing creating a meal to the killing of ten women. The intent is very clear. The intent to kill someone is in the chest. That you have stippling, sooting on the clothes, sooting on the wounds. It's not like he used a gun to scare someone to shoot them in the leg. He shot them in the chest over and over. He suggested you can't hold someone responsible when you have no witnesses. Well, because he did them in secret, where there were no witnesses, [that] were able to see, because the women who would be the witnesses [are dead?].

Nowhere in any of the instructions does the law say that you have to have a witness to the crime. If we did, you would have a lot of criminals that would be free. We have to rely on forensic evidence. That was another ridiculous argument. The standard in this case is reasonable. Keep in mind the key word is reasonable. that's based on common sense. You take your experience and you take your intelligence with you. It's not based on what is merely possible.

DDA Silverman states this [defense case] is like a Martian came down [from the sky] and murdered all these women and and then went back up.

The only thing that is reasonable is that the defendant is responsible for all these crimes. That is, you don't take, little pieces of evidence and look at them in a vacuum. It's the totality of the evidence. The murder weapon, obviously connects you to eight different [crimes]. Anything related to human affairs is open to doubt. There is no reasonable doubt in this case. None. Other than the fact that the defendant is guilty of all these crimes.

When you have two interpretations of the evidence, you have to go to the one that points to innocence. Unfortunately for the defense, there are not two interpretations for innocence. You must accept the interpretation that is reasonable and reject the one that is unreasonable. "All the arguments he gave to you today, the law says you have to reject them."

This is a murder case with respect to many, many victims. And the only thing is the defendant is a serial killer who killed all these victims and is guilty of the attempted murder of Enietra Washington.

[The defense has argued that] what this case amounts to is just a bunch of coincidences. If you were to follow the defense argument, you would have to believe that the defendant is the object of some grand conspiracy and that he is just the most unluckiest human being on the planet and the entire universe is conspiring against him.

The jury instructions ... those are the rules. And everyone in this process has rules to follow and even the jury has rules to follow and that's so the system works properly. And what the defense was telling you is to break those rules.  I don't think that's what you're going to do. I think you're smarter than that. The evidence in this case is staggering.

Never once did he contest that these were first degree murders. So we ask that you convict him of ten first degree murders and the attempted murder of Enietra Washington. Ultimately, that each of us are responsible for the choices we make in our life, and it's now your responsibility to make him take responsibility, to tell this defendant he is responsible. It's time, ladies and gentlemen, to bring justice to these women. It's time.

DDA Silverman is finished. Judge Kennedy now read the closing jury instructions. At 3:54 pm, the court reads the last instruction to the jurors. The bailiff takes the oath to take charge of the jurors and to keep the alternates [separated?].

The court tells the jurors, "You may have food or drink in the jury room, and knowing this jury there will be plenty to eat back there. Of course there is no alcohol. ... If any are smokers you need to give it up because it's killing you [laughter]. But if you need to smoke you need to go out of the building."

The court mentions about being able to see the exhibits in the jury room and any tapes played during the course of the trial you will have back in the jury room. The court continues explaining the details about requesting the read back of testimony and that if they want the entire testimony of a witness they can accommodate that, it just may take some time. She instructs the jurors on the buzzer system that will allow them to communicate to the court when they need things. She instructs them on the stop time each day, 4:00 pm or 4:15 pm. She reminds them that when they take breaks that all the jurors need to be present and not to deliberate if some is on break or in the restroom.

She reminds the jurors not to talk about the case. She tells them to talk about how pitiful the Dodgers are or something like that. When the come back tomorrow, they are to wait in the hallway and the bailiff will bring them all in at once.

4:09 PM
The jurors have left. The court informs counsel that they need to review and initial the backs of all the verdict forms. If they note any problems the court will fix those. The prosecution will provide a device for the jurors to play back videos or audio CD's. The court tells counsel that she assumes that her clerk has cell phone numbers for all of them and that they are on short notice. Amster states that they can be on 1 hour call. The court tells the defense, "Make sure that it's no longer than that."

There are more minor issues that are discussed regarding if/when the jurors come back with a verdict how long will they have before the start of the penalty phase. The prosecution states they may need a couple of days, it will depend on when they come back.

The court asks how long the prosecution believes their penalty phase case will take. The prosecution states they have what they believe are five murders. There is also a victim traveling from Germany who was kidnapped and gang raped by the defendant when he was in the military. The people's penalty phase will take a month.

The court adjourns at this time and the defendant is remanded.

Continued on Verdict Watch, Day 1.