Stephanie Lazarus Preliminary Hearing, Day 3

December 9th, 2009

The parties identify themselves for the record. Shelly Torrealba and Shannon Presby, DDA’s. Mark Overland and Julio Vergara for the defense.

The hearing starts out with Judge Perry bringing up a case decision, Vanwinkle vs. County of Ventura, a decision which was filed on December 7th of 2007. The opinion is at CAL.APP.4TH, 492.

This is in regards to statements the defendant may have made in regards to the Public Safety Officer’s Procedural Bill of Rights Act. Judge Perry quotes from the case ruling. “That we hold these protections do not apply to officers subject to criminal investigations conducted by their employers.”

Judge Perry does not want to discuss this issue now. He wants to proceed with testimony and take up this issue at another time.

17. MINELA SRBOVA
Ms. Srbova is a criminalist at the LAPD crime lab, toxicology unit. She was hired in 2003 as a laboratory tech and in February 2005 she became a criminalist. Srbova outlines her training and qualifications. She obtained her masters in environmental chemistry and engineering from the University of Chemical Technology in Prague, Czech Republic.

Srbova is shown a document, Defense Exhibit A. She identifies it as a document (an evidence log) that originates from the coroner’s office. She identifies her initials and and serial number on the log as receiving evidence labeled “bite mark swab.”

Srbova states she also goes by the nickname of “Millie.”

Srbova testifies that she did go to the coroner’s office and pick up this item. Srbova is now shown People’s Exhibit #29. She identifies her handwriting on this exhibit in the lower left hand corner. It has the D.R. (?) number (86-09-0480), item number, her initials S.I.D. and the date she wrote the numbers on the envelope.

Srbova is asked about the “D.R.” number and where she obtained it. It was obtained from a detective or the coroner’s office. The number “30” on the envelope is the item number at LAPD property that it would be booked into evidence as.

When she received the envelope, she transported it to the LAPD crime lab where she placed it in the refrigerator. The refrigerator is also a freezer.

This was not the only case she picked up that day. She also picked up evidence from 18 coroner cases for a total of 106 pieces of evidence.

Srbova states that each case’s evidence items are kept separate. She states she never opened the envelope that she picked up involving this case.

Srbova outlines her procedures once she gets the items back to her department and placed the evidence inside the freezer/refrigerator. She went through all the cases and all the pieces of evidence that she picked up and wrote all the D.R. numbers and item numbers, initials. She marked on the envelope or on the packages whatever she received. She then places them in LAPD envelopes and writes a report for all the cases and then booked them into property.

People’s number 86 and 87, photos that depict the front and back of the LAPD envelope. Srbova identifies her name and serial number on the envelope “frozen tag.”

Srbova is asked about a date on the envelope and what it refers to. She states that is the original booking date.

(Reading the transcript, I’m somewhat confused about the dates they are referring to.)

A date of February 25th, 1986 is not the date that she booked it. It was booked into LAPD evidence on January 25th, 2005. The January date is the date Srbova booked it into evidence.

Srbova identifies on People’s number 87, the backside of the LAPD envelope. She states she sealed that envelope. She identifies her signature, her serial number, the date and the S.I.D.

The delay from the date Srbova picked up the evidence from the Coroner’s office (December 30th, 2004) and the date from the time it was booked into evidence at LAPD (January 25th, 2005) is explained by Srbova.

Srbova states, “There’s actually no delay because it takes time until I went through all the evidence packages and all through everything I book - - I picked up. So therefore, it seems like delay, but it’s a normal process.

Judge Perry doesn’t understand the answer and questions Srbova on the details of her procedure.

Judge Perry elicits from Srbova that it takes time for her to go through 106 pieces of evidence. Although she receives the evidence on December 30th and files it in the freezer, it takes time to log all those pieces into LAPD evidence.

Under questioning, Srbova states that if she only picked up one piece of evidence from the coroner, then it would get processed in one day. But she picked up 106 pieces. That takes time. Although she picked up the piece of evidence on December 30th, 2004, she doesn’t work weekends and sometimes she’s off and sometimes she assigned to do something else. She states that the envelope goes in the freezer on December 30th, in the original coroner’s envelope but it’s not transferred to an LAPD envelope and LAPD documentation until January 20th, 2005. She states that she did not “repackage” the envelope. She on the 20th, she took the item out of the LAPD freezer, put the envelope from the coroner inside an LAPD envelope, documented it and put it back in the freezer.

Judge Perry also elicits from the witness that during that time the evidence is waiting to be booked, there is no notation anywhere, that this evidence is in the freezer waiting to be booked.

Srbova states there was no particular order in which those cases were worked on. She states she would not work on more than one case at a time. She had to verify with the property unit in order to get the number “30” for this piece of evidence. That was the next in order number available at that time.

Direct is finished and Overland begins the cross.

Srbova states that when she picked up the evidence (in this case) from the coroner, she took it to the LAPD the same day. Srbova states that it’s a matter of procedure (she always did it that way) that she would put items that needed to be refrigerated in the refrigerator or freezer. When the items are put in the freezer, there is no log that she signs at that immediate time. Here are her words.

“When I picked up any evidence from the coroner’s office, I put it into serology unit, which was the unit that had refrigerator and freezer, into the refrigerator or freezer in the property unit, that happens after I book it. And there is - - there is a log that I sign the D.R. number and everything that I booked it that day, but that belongs to property unit.”

There is no record or log that she put something in the freezer or refrigerator (until the paperwork is completed that the item is booked into evidence).

Judge Perry asks questions of the witness again to clarify the delay from December 30th to January 25th. Again the witness states there is no record that she put the item in the freezer on December 30th. “Nothing like that was in the procedure, so there is no record that would indicate that I put it in the freezer. Just have to believe me that I did.”

Judge Perry asks what record would she have to remind her that she had put something in the freezer.

(Srbova’s answer is confusing to me and to Judge Perry.)

“The record would be that I booked it as a frozen, that’s why it was i the freezer. Because if it needed to be frozen, I would not put it on the shelf or anywhere else. I would put it always in the freezer.

Judge Perry asks again, about any record being made at the time it was put in the freezer, and Srbova answers, “There’s no record about it, only the envelope that I booked it.”

Overland enters into evidence, Defense Exhibit C, a one page LAPD property report dated January 21st, 2005.

Srbova is asked about the report and states she prepared the report for D.R. number 86-09-10480, the case here. Srbova agrees that there is nothing in that report as to when she put the evidence in the freezer.

Srbova is questioned further as to what was involved in booking those 106 items of evidence. She has to review to ensure that all the pieces she received do belong to the proper case number. She has to ensure that everything is properly sealed by the coroner’s office. She also has to ensure that she is marking everything correctly on each envelope and package. She had to find out the D.R. numbers and sometimes that took a couple of days until she got a response from a detective or someone handling the case. So that took time.

Srbova is asked how many pieces of evidence she went through in that period of time from December 30th to January 25th. She states 106. She knows this because she created an EXCEL spread sheet that had all the items of evidence that she picked up. She created the spread sheet at that time she picked up the evidence.

Srbova states that the EXCEL spread sheet she created does not document how much time she spent on each individual item to properly book it into LAPD evidence and that she doesn’t know how much time she spent on each of those 106 items.

Srbova states, specifically to the bite mark swab, it would have taken her about 1/2 hour to verify that everything was correct.

Overland is finished with his cross and Judge Perry asks a few more questions of the witness.

Judge Perry makes a general statement that her job was basically that of courier. She would go over and pick up evidence and bring it back to the LAPD and make sure that what she got from the coroner was properly booked.

Srbova states that she was usually faxed a sheet of what she was to pick up, but she didn’t care that much what she was going to pick up. She verified when she got back to LAPD it was her job to verify everything that she signed for on the evidence log.

Srbova states that she did have a regular run or she could go over to the coroner’s office by special request. That special request could be from a detective or from someone in the coroner’s office.

The EXCEL spread sheet, that was something that she did on her own, so that she could keep track of what she picked up. Judge Perry asks her if she has a copy of the spreadsheet or if she can make a copy of one for the period they are talking about. Srbova states that she has it in the computer at work.

Ms. Torrealba gets up to redirect the witness.

Srbova states that at that time, there was only one freezer in the serology unit and that it was locked. Only criminalists in serology unit and during the daytime (had access to the freezer). There was a special place in the freezer, a box labeled “Coroner’s evidence” and that was her box. There was no one else picking up evidence from the coroner’s office.

Redirect is finished and there is no recross. Shannon Presby presents the next witness.

18. RICHARD SMITH
Mr. Smith is an LAPD officer and firearms examiner for the Scientific Investigation Division. He describes his background, training and experience with respect to firearms. He first trained with the FBI and AFT in 1993 to become a computer aided firearms examiner. He entered the firearms training program in 2004, completed it in 2006. He took all the required tests and has been working as a firearms examiner ever since.

When he first went to firearms, he was tasked with completing an exemplar set of cartridges for LAPD. That involved studying and finding out about anything to do with cartridges from .22’s all the way up through the 458 rifle rounds. He assembled a collection of over 1,000 cartridge cases from 1993 to 1994 that are currently being used by LAPD as exemplar cases for them.

Smith has previously been accepted as an expert witness in court in respect to firearms analysis in approximately 100 cases.

Smith first joined the LAPD in 1981. Smith states that the LAPD has rules, regulations that authorize specific types of ammunition for specific guns for specific periods of time for rank and file officers, officers on patrol.

Smith testifies that it is a violation of LAPD policy for an officer to use ammunition other than what LAPD has authorized.

Smith states that he does remember the authorization and use of .38 caliber Plus-P semi-jacketed lead soft point ammunition by the LAPD. Smith states the time range that ammunition was authorized for use was between 1982 and 1984. Smith states that during that time he was a patrol officer. Smith states there is an event in his career that helps him to remember this fact about the ammunition and that was he was working with a partner who was in a shooting with that type of ammunition. Smith states he believes the shooting took place approximately in 1983, but he doesn’t remember the exact date.

Smith is asked about the .38 caliber Plus-P semi-jacked lead soft point ammunition. Plus-P is a .38 cartridge, that is loaded to a higher pressure creating more pressure which creates a higher velocity of when the bullet leaves the firearm.

Smith states that Richard Maruoka is the supervising criminalist of the firearms analysis unit. In July of 2009, he had a discussion with Maruoka about this ammunition. He told Maruoka during that discussion what he told the court here, that at one time, the LAPD authorized the use of this ammunition. During that conversation, Smith informed Maruoka that he still had in his possession some of this specific ammunition.

People’s next in order, number 88 and 89, color photocopies of boxes of ammunition. Smith identifies the photos of the back side of a box of ammunition that he gave to supervisor MAruoka. Photo number 89 is another view of the same box of ammunition.

Using the laser pointer, Smith points out a “30” sticker on the box and explains. “The significance of the 30 sticker is the box is designed to hold 50 cartridges, and because we qualified with LAPD with 30 cartridges, LAPD returned to us 30 cartridges when we qualified at the sooting range. So in order to identify the box as one that was only holding 30 they would put a sticker on the box so that we were not lead to believe that it was a 50, box of 50 cartridges.”

Smith verifies that is the same type of sticker he recalls seeing on boxes of ammunition that he was given when he was an officer at LAPD. Smith verifies he gave this box to his supervisor, Maruoka. Before he handed it over, he looked inside the box and verified there were some of the mentioned rounds of ammunition, made by the company, “Federal.”

Direct ends and cross begins by Overland.

Smith states that he is able to narrow down the date to the early ‘80’s of when the ammunition was used because of the shooting incident involving his partner.

Overland gets the witness to admit that he doesn’t remember the name of the victim and he wasn’t able to track down any reports to solidify the date of the shooting.

Cross ends and there’s no redirect. Mr. Presby presents the next witness.

19. DANIEL RUBIN
Mr. Rubin is a criminalist with the LAPD for 19 years. He describes his training and background. Rubin is also an firearms examiner for 19 years. He’s testified approximately 146 times as an expert.
Rubin examined firearm evidence in this case (86-09-10480). He received two bullets with identification numbers 42-A and 42-B. Rubin describes the packaging the bullets arrived in. (Envelopes within envelopes.)

Rubin explains that he engraves on the base of each bullet his identifying mark to document that he’s analyzed a projectile. He puts his identifying mark, the item number and the nine digit case number.

Rubin examined the bullets and determined that they came from the same firearm. He based his conclusion on the tool-marks that were on the bullets from being fired. After his examination Rubin testifies that the bullets were consistent with being fired from a Smith & Wesson Model 45. Rubin details all the steps he took (photographs and measurements) including the comparison to a reference source (the rifling characteristics file from FBI) to come to this conclusion. The items were then repackaged and returned to the property center.

On July 22, 2009, he reacquired the items from the property room to reexamine the bullets and compare them with other ammunition to determine the possible manufacturer. On July 39th, 2009 he obtained some live ammunition from Richard Maruoka (.38 caliber semi-jacketed lead ammo) for comparison to the two bullets.

Rubin took a photograph of his microscopic comparison of the items (People’s number 92). Presby then asks him to explain “jacket crimp” as it relates to a bullet. Rubin states that he had not come across before, the unique characteristic of the jacket crimp on the fired bullets. It wasn’t very common. The jacket crimp on the fired bullets appeared to be the same type and shape as the live rounds provided by Maruoka. Using the laser pointer, Rubin points out for the court the similarities in the microphotographs he took in comparing these items. Rubin describes the jacket crimp as “a hoof print of cattle.”

Rubin states that in all his 19 years of microscopic examination of “thousands” of bullets, he has no recollection of ever seeing that type of jacket crimp before.

Direct ends and cross begins.

Overland has Rubin clarify his expert opinion about the bullets. Rubin states “they could be” Federal brand bullets, since they are “consistent with” that particular brand. Rubin states he did look at other brands and the bullets were not consistent with other brands he compared them to.

Rubin excluded a particular Remington jacketed hallow point brand bullets. Overland has Rubin’s report that he wrote marked Defense Exhibit D. Under cross, Rubin clarifies that the bullets “could have been fired” from a Smith & Wesson model 49.

Rubin states there are other models of weapon that the bullets could have been fired from. Ruben rattles off a long list (over 30 different weapons from Smith & Wesson, Ruger, Sportarms or Taurus).

Rubin goes onto explain that there could be other weapons beyond this list. This list is limited to weapons in the General Rifling Characteristics File supplied to crime lab by the FBI. There could be other makes and models that have the same general rifling but that data has not yet been submitted to the FBI (and reached the GRCF list).

Overland wants to ask the witness about cartridges that were recovered from Lazarus’ home that he tested and compared to the fired bullets. None of those cartridges were consistent with the bullets that killed Rasmussen.

At this point, the people agree to stipulate to the cartridges Overland is referring to were obtained during a search warrant of the defendant’s home and one cartridge obtained through a search warrant of Lazarus’ (work) locker.

Through his own questioning, Perry elicits a point that Overland is trying to make, and that is that none of the bullets loaded in the unfired rounds recovered from the search warrants are consistent by design with the bullets recovered from the victim’s body.

Rubin states that the .38 special caliber revolver found in Lazarus’ locker was test fired. Rubin could neither confirm nor eliminate the bullets recovered from Rasmussen's body as being fired from the .38 special. The bullets could have been, but Rubin cannot determine if they were or were not fired from that weapon. He doesn’t know.

Cross is finished and there is no redirect. Mr. Presby introduces the next witness.

20. GEORGE LUCZY
Luczy is an independent forensic firearms and explosives consultant since 1991. Before that, he was employed by the LAPD. At that time he was assigned to the Scientific Investigation Firearms and Explosives Unit. He was a forensic firearms examiner and bomb technician. Luczy describes his background and training in regards to firearms examination.

Luczy was in the army before joining the LAPD in 1971. From a patrol officer he was trained as a divisional armorer. He was responsible for the maintenance of all model ITHICA .37 shot guns owned by the LAPD. During that position, he researched a safety defect in the model 15 Smith & Wesson revolver that eventually resulted in the recall of every city owned LAPD firearm. Over 7400 guns were recalled, rendered safe and reissued.

Luczy came in as a temporary member in the firearms and explosives unit to assist during the 1984 Olympics. His loan to the department started in 1983 under a 15 month loan. In 1986 he was reassigned back to the firearms and explosives unit. From 1986 to 1991 Luczy performed approximately 3400 firearms examinations for LAPD as well as being a bomb squad member.

Since retiring, he does the same thing he did for the LAPD except his practice is 99% defense work. In his own practice he has conducted hundreds of cases.

In his career he has examined clothing that has been in close proximity to a firearm discharge. The examination of clothing can reveal the type of firearm that caused marks on clothing. There are certain types of marks (left on clothing) that are indicators of the type of firearm that may have been used in a crime.

Luczy examined clothing related to this case. During his tenure with the LAPD he kept his own journal of the cases where he conducted firearm analysis. Pages from Luczy’s journal relevant to this case are entered into evidence, People’s number 94. Luczy also wrote a report (Peoples number 95) relevant to his examination of a specific caliber bullet, a rust colored robe and a pink tank-top style shirt. In the report, Luczy also made a diagram of the front and back of the rust colored robe, People’s number 96 and 97.

Luczy also examined a quilted, multi-colored bathrobe and wrote a report, People’s number 98 and the diagram of that bathrobe, People’s number 99. Luczy re-examined the rust colored robe and the multi-colored item on December 1st, 2009 and wrote a new report detailing that examination. That report, People’s number 100 is entered into evidence. The examination took place at a crime lab on the campus of Cal State University.

When the items were presented to Luczy they were wrapped in heavy brown paper, over wrapped with string and inside a sealed cardboard box. The items were in two separate boxes. Luczy testifies they were in an “...excellent state of preservation.” During Luczy’s recent examination, he attempted to “match” the lineup of the holes in regards to the rust colored robe. At this point, Overland makes an objection to chain of custody and Judge Perry overruled that objection.

Luczy testifies that the correspondence between the holes in the items he examined on December 1st and his report and diagrams prepared back in 1986 were exact. The rust colored robe was photographed during his reexamination. That photograph, People’s number 101. During Luczy’s initial examination in 1986, he numbered the holes in the front portion of the robe (depicted in diagram, People’s number 96). Overland made another objection to chain of custody. The holes are numbered A1, A2, A3, A4.

Luczy testifies that he noticed a material deposited around holes number A3 and A4. Luczy described it. “There’s a very, very heavy deposition of unburned granules of gunpowder that surround those holes in that area of the robe.” (The front of the robe.) That finding was consistent with what he noted back in 1986. Luczy states what he was attempting to do was document what he saw on the robe in his 1986 diagram. He placed many little black dots around holes A3 and A4 to represent numerous burns or unburned grains of powder.

People’s exhibit number 102, a photo of the robe taken during the reexamination in 2009 documenting the tiny speckling, grains of unburnt gunpowder. They are still there after 23 years.

The presence of unburned grains of powder on the robe is significant as to distance determination, which is defined as the distance between the muzzle of the firearm in question and the surface upon which the residue was deposited; in this case, the robe.

Luczy states, based on his experience, there is a difference with respect to the about of unburned particles you would expect to find on a garment between a short barrel weapon and a longer barreled weapon. His opinion is the unburnt particles were left by a short barreled weapon. The length of the barrel in a firearm determines how much of the powder is combusted. Luczy testifies, “These grains that you see here are unburned and that is caused by the - - - by the fact that the firearm that produced this is a short barreled weapon.”

Luczy reexamined the hole designated as A2. A2 had a cruciform appearance, meaning there was tearing at the margins of the hole that is similar to a cross or star shape. This is an index of a contact gunshot would where the muzzle of the firearm is in direct contact with that piece of material. Luczy determined that hole number A1 next to hole A2 was produced when the portion of the robe number A1 was underneath number 2. In other words, the lapel of the garment was folded over and that hole 1 and 2 were created by one fire, one shot fired. Hole number 2 is indicative of a classic ‘contact gunshot wound.’

Luczy reviewed Dr. Selser, the coroner’s report, specifically what she documented in her report as gunshot wound number 1. The report indicates there was gunshot residue inside that wound indicating it was a hard contact gunshot.
Luczy determined that this was the same robe he examined back in 1986. He added his initials via a label to the robe in 1986. People’s exhibit number 103 is a photograph of the label attached to the robe.

Luczy now details his reexamination of the multi-colored robe in 2009. (It is much the same as his reexamination of the rust colored robe. He came to the same conclusions about the multi-colored robe in his re-exam as he did in 1986.) Luczy came to the conclusion that there were three shots fired through this robe. He based that on the grouping (of the shots) that he observed as well s the appearance of the holes that were created. More photos are introduced and analysis to back up Luczy’s conclusions. Luczy states the gunshot residue left by the muzzle blast leads him to conclude that the multi-colored robe was draped or wrapped around the firearm when it was discharged.

Luczy states that a linear gunshot residue deposit on the garment in one area is called a barrel cylinder gap discharge mark. A barrel cylinder gap is something that is unique to a certain type of firearm mainly a revolver-type handgun.

(I remember learning about this during the Spector trials.)

The barrel cylinder gap is a gap that is between 4 and 6 thousands of an inch in width, and this is a gap that the bullet has to jump. When that happens, there is blow back or blow out to the sides. It’s called barrel cylinder gap discharge. This phenomenon is present on the garment which indicates that the mark could only have been produced by a revolver.

Because of the location of the bullet holes in the multicolored robe, and the location of the barrel cylinder gap discharge on the garment exactly two inches away. That measurement allows Luczy to identify the length of the barrel of the gun involved in this crime.

With this information, Luczy attempted to align the barrel cylinder gap with an exemplar of a Smith & Wesson model 49 handgun. Photographs were taken of that alignment, People’s exhibit number 106.
In conclusion, Luczy states that the bullet holes and the barrel cylinder gap discharge was caused by a two-inch barreled gun, and that gun was a revolver.

Direct examination ends and cross begins.

Luczy verifies there are a huge number of revolvers manufactured with a two-inch barrel. Easily 2,000 different weapons.

Judge Perry asks questions of the witness and there is a confusion if Overland wants to know how many different models, or just Smith & Wesson's or overall guns. Judge Perry wants to know how many models of two-inch revolvers are out there. More than 10? Yes. More than 100? Luczy doesn’t know but states he could easily find out. Luczy agrees it’s a large number.

Luczy states that he was only asked to compare one model of weapon to the holes and residue on the weapon.

Cross is finished and there is no redirect. The noon recess is taken early.

Mr. Presby notifies the court that the defense and prosecution is trying to work out some stipulations as to some lose ends that are remaining, and they hope to get those completed tomorrow. Judge Perry responds he is “..jumping up and down with glee” regarding the news that both parties will probably finish the preliminary hearing tomorrow. Mr. Presby presents the next witness.

21. ELAINE SENA-BROWN
In March of 1986 Ms. Sena-Brown was employed by the Santa Monica Police Dept. She was not a police officer; she was a Community Service Officer and her duties were to handle non-emergency calls. She was not sworn; she is a civilian. As part of her duties, she routinely took reports. On March 9th, 1986, she took a report from someone who identified themselves as Stephanie I. Lazarus. People’s next in order is exhibit number 108, a four page document entitled City of Santa Monica Police Report. It’s a crime report.

Sena-Brown details the document. It was obtained on March 9th, 1986, on a Sunday in district 3. The reporting person was Stephanie I. Lazarus, who identified herself as a police officer. Lazarus was reporting a theft from an automobile of her firearm and some miscellaneous items. Lazarus gave Sena-Brown a description of the firearm. The report states the firearm was a Smith & Wesson model 49, two-inch blue steel five shot .38 caliber revolver. Lazarus also provided a serial number for the weapon which was noted on the report.

Sena-Brown wrote the entries on the report based on what Lazarus reported to her. The report indicates she looked at the vehicle but the witness doesn’t have any independent memory of doing that. The report states the driver’s side lock was “punched” meaning the lock had been tried (pried?) or attempted to be removed off of it’s normal seating. Sena-Brown states she is testifying based primarily on looking at the report and knowing what her custom and practice was back then. She does not have an independent recollection of the vehicle or any damage to the vehicle or of the person who reported it.

Direct ends and cross begins.

Overland has the witness detail the address location and the streets in between where the crime supposedly occurred. Back in 1986, Santa Monica did not take these types of reports over the phone. She would have received a call and arranged to meet the reporting individual at the station. In this case, she did not meet the individual at the location of the auto burglary.

During Ms. Sena-Brown’s interview with detective Jaramillo and Mr. Presby, she stated that whenever there was a burglary from an auto, she would request the victim to come to the station if they wanted prints. This was her normal practice. It’s noted on the report that an I.D. tech was requested, but she would not have any contact or report back from that technician.

A blue gym bag was also reported stolen as well as clothes, six music cassettes and currency and coin. Sena-Brown states she can recall one other incident where another police officer reported having their weapon stolen, two incidents if she counts Ms. Lazarus.

Overland reminds her of her taped conversation where she stated she could remember four reported incidents of officers having their guns taken. Sena-Brown concedes she probably did.

Cross is finished and there is a short redirect.

Sena-Brown states she does not have a specific memory of Lazarus specifically asking to take prints of the vehicle. She has no independent recollection if this was actually done. Based on her report she assumes that it was done but she doesn’t know if it was done or not.

Sena-Brown indicates that the location of the vehicle at the time of the burglary was five blocks from the pier and is a location that is commonly used for parking for people who want to visit the pier.

Redirect ends and recross begins.

Sena-Brown is asked more detail questions about the burglary location and it’s proximity to the 3rd Street Promenade where there are shops. Sena-Brown states in 1986 it was a lot different. The Promenade was not as well attended as it is today. Sena-Brown agrees that the location was also close to Santa Monica Place, once a large area with various stores, like a mall. It’s no longer in existence today but it was in 1986.

Sena-Brown states that if the individual decided they did not want to wait for a technician to print the car, they didn’t have to because that may take time to get the technician there. Sena-Brown states that if that was the case, she would have noted it on the report.

Recross ends and redirect begins.

Presby presents a map of the area where the burglary supposedly occurred. Sena-Brown states the area is actually four and a half blocks from the pier. She does not know if the person who initiated the report, remained to have prints taken of the car. After completing her report, if the individual changed her mind about prints being taken, Sena-Brown would have no way of knowing tat.

Further recross.

Sena-Brown states that back then, she would have just knocked on the door (to that department) and say she needed a technician to look at the car. She would do that at the time she made the report. She would either make a phone call or walk over to the department. She would not necessarily do that in the presence of the reporting individual. If she had cancelled the I.D. tech, she probably would have a notation in the report.

Examination ends and Presby calls and presents his next witness.

22. JIM NUTTALL
Mr. Nuttall is a homicide detective for the LAPD. He conducted a re-review of this case in February, 2009. In that review, he discovered the original theory of the case that was pursued in 1986, of a botched robbery conflicted with other information found in the file.

There are objections by Overland regarding the questioning and whether the answer would be “double hearsay.” Judge Perry rules that at this time it’s not relevant “why” the detective did something. He instructs Mr. Presby to just ask his witness what he did.

From a review of the original “murder book” Nuttall identified five females that were part of Ms. Rasmussen’s life at the time of the murder. They were given numbers 1 through 5.

On February 10th, Nuttall interviewed John Ruetten by phone that was not tape recorded. He conducted a second in person interview on May 20th, 2009. In the interviews Nuttall asked Ruetten about any possible females from his life in 1986 who might have had some animosity toward his wife. Nuttall made it clear to Ruetten they were reopening the investigation and that he wanted him to be forthcoming. Judge Perry interrupts and explains to the witness he’s offering too much information. He instructs the witness to listen carefully to the question. He repeats the question to the witness. John Ruetten gave him the name of Stephanie Lazarus. Ruetten told Nuttall he met Lazarus at UCLA, and that they had an ongoing relationship through the time of the incident in 1986. Ruetten told Nuttall that Lazarus was an LAPD officer at the time of his wife’s death.

Nuttall also investigated a woman by the name of Debra Hoey. Nuttall determined where Ms. Hoey lived in 2009 and arranged to obtain a surreptitious DNA sample from her that was submitted for comparison. Subsequently, he spoke to Ms. Hoey and she volunteered a DNA sample that was submitted for comparison.

In the interview, Nuttall discussed Ruetten’s relationship with Sherri Rae Rasmussen. Ruetten stated he purchased a BMW vehicle for Rasmussen about the time of their engagement. Ruetten was living somewhere in the San Fernando Valley at the time of his engagement. After the engagement, he moved into Rasmussen’s condo. Ruetten stated that after he moved in, the couple changed their security practices. They had an alarm installed that Ruetten paid for.

Overland wants clarified as to which interview the detective did where all this information was obtained. The information came from the face to face meeting with Ruetten.

Ruetten told Nuttall that he met Lazarus in his second year at UCLA. They were living on the same floor of the Dykstra Hall Dormitory. Initially, their relationship was “very good friends” and it continued after they graduated from UCLA. Ruetten described his relationship with Lazarus as a “gray area between a friendship and one-on-one dating relationship.” Ruetten stated they were never fully intimate while on campus together. After graduation, they became “fully intimate.”

After Ruetten became engaged to Ms. Rasmussen, he described to Nuttall a contact he had with Lazarus. Lazarus called Ruetten asking to see him. They met at Lazarus’ residence in Northridge. At that meeting Lazarus made what she wanted clear. She wanted to be “more than friends” she had strong feelings for Ruetten and wanted a romantic relationship. During the conversation Lazarus told Ruetten she was in love with him.

Ruetten described his activities on the day his wife was murdered. The woke early. Ruetten ran a morning errand and went to work. He left work to go to a nearby bank and then went back to work. He left work at approximately 5:00 pm. He made a stop on the way home and arrived home about 6:00 pm.

Arriving home, Ruetten noticed that the garage door was open, no cars inside and there was glass on the pavement. Sherri’s BMW was gone. Ruetten told Nuttall that Sherri did not have a bite mark on her body the day prior to her murder.

Nuttall also interviewed Rasmussen’s sister, Theresa Lane, in June, 2009 regarding any injuries Sherri may have had in the days prior to the murder. Ms. Lane had seen her sister the day prior to the murder and did not see any bite marks on Sherri’s body that day.

Ruetten informed Nuttall that Lazarus had never been in either of the two cars he and Rasmussen owned at the time of Sherri’s death.

(There is a question and answer here at this point in the transcript, right after the above question was answered that does not make any sense. Here is what it says.

“Q. Did you ask Mr. Ruetten whether or not the decedent had ever been inside the residence 7100 Balboa, to his knowledge, prior to the date of the murder?

A. Yes.

Q. What did she tell you in that regard?

A. She had never been inside the home.”

(It’s my guess there are two errors here. It’s my opinion the transcript should read “whether or not the defendant had ever been inside the residence.” The second error, I believe is in the next question, and should read “What did he tell you.”)
Ruetten told Nuttall that to his knowledge, Lazarus did not have keys to Sherri’s condo nor was there any personal property of Lazarus’ that he brought with him from Lazarus’ residence.

Ruetten stated that to his knowledge, there was no time where he, Lazarus and his deceased wife, were ever all together at the same time. Ruetten was very clear to Nuttall. He stated that during the initial investigation in 1986 “...he made it known to our investigators that Stephanie Lazarus was his ex-girlfriend and perhaps she should be spoken to.” Ruetten also clearly remembered following up with LAPD investigators in the 1980’s about Lazarus being a possible suspect.

(This is interesting. Presby wants to ask some specific questions of the detective, but Judge Perry feels the line of questioning for the preliminary hearing is not relevant. Judge Perry rules, “352,” but I will include it because it’s noteworthy to explain Ruetten’s behavior with Lazarus after the murder.)

“Presby: I think what detective Nuttall will say is that John Ruetten told him that he was told that Ms. Lazarus had been eliminated as a suspect. It’s relevant because it explains - - there are some post murder contacts between Mr. Ruetten and the defendant explains why he would have such contacts. You don’t care about that.

Judge Perry: 352.”

Ruetten told Nuttall that he did have contact with the defendant after the murder. Ruetten also stated that he told the defendant “face to face” that he had provided her name to police. That conversation took place in Hawaii. In that conversation, Ruetten told the defendant (that he told police) about his knowledge of Lazarus’ confrontation with his wife at Adventist Hospital in the fall of 1985.

Nuttall testifies that when Ruetten informed Lazarus about the police knowing about this confrontation, she appeared “...unfazed. There was no reaction or response.”

Judge Perry asks how Ruetten and Lazarus were in Hawaii together. Ruetten informed him it was by chance. They went to Hawaii independently.

Direct ends and Overland crosses Nuttall.

Overland questions Nuttall on the specific words he used in questioning Ruetten. Nuttall states for the record that he didn’t use the word ‘animosity,’ he actually said, “...anybody who may be involved in the investigation...”

Nuttall states that Ruetten never told him that he informed Lazarus about the gift of the BMW. Nuttall clarifies that it was an “engagement” gift and not an anniversary gift. Nuttall clarifies that the term “never fully intimate” means sexual intercourse. Overland states that they will continue with Nuttall’s term.

Nuttall states that Ruetten told him that any contact he had with the defendant after February 24th, Ruetten initiated. Overland gets Nuttall to concede that the word he used to describe the Adventist Hospital incident was “met with” and not “confronted.” Nuttall agrees there was a “meeting.”

Nuttall concedes that Ruetten stated he had “no direct knowledge” of the meeting. Nuttall states that Ruetten said, “...it was his fault, that he had confused the relationship between himself and Ms. Lazarus.” Ruetten had confused the relationship by being friends and at the same time being intimate.

Overland asks Nuttall about that incident where Ruetten went to Lazarus’ apartment. Nuttall states Ruetten told him that Lazarus was not angry or mad. That Lazarus thought this might be the last chance. Ruetten told Nuttall that Ruetten and Lazarus were intimate that night, and this was after Ruetten and Rasmussen were engaged.

During Nuttall’s interview with Ruetten, he told him that he hoped that June would be a deadline for resolving the case. Nuttall was not getting any pressure to resolve the case by June by anyone higher up in the department. With the resources Nuttall had, he had a good time frame of when he would have his answer.

Cross ends and Presby picks up redirect.

When Nuttall predicted a resolution to the case by June, he was expecting an answer on the DNA. At the time Nuttall had no idea if the DNA was going to identify the defendant. He thought it would either eliminate or identify her.

Overland has one more question on recross. When Ruetten told Nuttall he installed an alarm system, it was because there were burglaries in the area.

Ms. Torrealba presents the next witness who is not on the list.

23. MARIA TOMES
Ms. Tomes is a detective with the LAPD Robbery/Homicide Division, Robbery Special Section. She holds the rank of senior supervising detective. She has been with the department for 22 years. Tomes states she does know an individual by the name of Nand Hart-Nibring, a criminalist employed by the LAPD.

Tomes states that on June 5th, 2009, she was with Hart-Nibring and detective Dennis English were at the old LAPD location on Los Angeles street. English is a detective with Robbery/Homicide division. The defendant was also present. Tomes states she observed Hart-Nibring collect two buccal swabs from the defendant, also called oral swabs. Tomes described the steps Hart-Nibring took to collect a DNA sample.

Tomes states once the swabs were collected she described the steps he took to package up the swabs. During the collection, Hart-Nibring had on a facial mask, protective clothing and gloves. Once the collection was properly packaged Tomes states that Hart-Nibring booked the items into evidence under the proper DR number. The item number placed on the swabs was 51. Hart-Nibring prepared a report regarding the collection which Tomes reviewed.

Direct is finished and there is no cross of this witness. Ms. Torrealba presents the next witness.

24. ANDREA DILLION
Ms. Dillion is a forensic print specialist assigned to the Scientific Investigation Division of the LAPD. She has been in the assignment of fingerprints a total of 15 years. Dillion describes her training and experience and has already been qualified to testify as an expert witness.

Dillion worked on DR number 86-09-10480. She was assigned to work on comparison. The victim in the case was Sheri Rasmussen. She compared palm prints regarding the defendant. Dillion refers to her notes to state she compared prints on a package on June 8th, 2009, August 21st, 2009 and yesterday. She prepared a report of her findings, dated August 21st, 2009.

Dillion compared Lazarus’ prints to 18 lifts in Package “A” and 15 lifts in Package “B.” Package “C” was a photo of a latent print which she didn’t compare because it had already been identified. There were five latent prints in Package “D” four of them identified and one unidentified.

The contents of Package A, two pages is marked next in order, exhibit 111-A and 111-B. These are prints that were collected from the crime scene. And on the document, there’s columns that say, identifiable, identified and not identifiable.

Identifiable means, the print has been evaluated by the examiner initially before work is started and later on it’s (possibly) identified. She did not prepare this document. It’s a document that’s prepared in the field, by a field individual who collected the print.

She was asked to take the unidentified prints and see if she could compare them to the defendants. Overland concedes that there are exemplars of the defendant’s prints to compare to.

Dillion could not make a match comparison between Lazarus and any of the unidentified prints in Package A or Package B or Package D. She compared one print in Package B to the victim, #12, and it did not match the victim. Some of the prints were not able to be identified (classified as unidentifiable) because they did not have enough ridge pattern. Direct is finished and cross begins by Overland.

Dillion states that she did not prepare the form. There is a document log with a list of people who did previous comparisons on these exemplars prior to her employment at LAPD. She cannot speak to forms prepared back in 1986. Dillion explains she does a visual comparison of latent print to exemplar print. She does not use photographs. She does not take notes when she evaluates a print. Dillion states she takes mental notes comparing the land and groves between the two. If she comes to a conclusion and finds a comparison, then a report is generated. If there is no comparison then the print is marked as unidentifiable.

Before the next witness testifies, the defense makes an objection for the record in respect to comparison and analysis of the DNA on the grounds of the failure to establish a chain of custody. The objection is overruled. Presby recalls Detective Gregory Stearns and presents the witness.

16. GREGORY STEARNS (recalled)
In November, 2009, Stearns met with John Ruetten and showed him some photographs of rope, the same rope that was booked into evidence. (People’s exhibit number 43.) Stearns also showed Ruetten other rope photographs as well as photographs that were taken at the crime scene. Ruetten told Stearns that rope was not in his residence at the time of the murder. Ruetten focused in on the frayed ends of the rope and was certain it did not come from his home.

Direct is finished and cross begins by Overland.

Overland asks Stearns if he asked Ruetten how he knew (the rope did not come from his home) at the time of the murder. Stearns testifies that he never asked Ruetten that question.

In redirect Presby asks one more question but Judge Perry interrupts and asks his own questions. The rope was shown to Ruetten and Stearns asked him if he’d ever seen it before and Ruetten replied he’d never seen it before. That’s it for Stearns recall to the stand.

Ms. Torrealba calls Jennifer Butterworth.

25. JENNIFER BUTTERWORTH
Ms. Butterworth is a criminalist with the LAPD crime lab currently assigned to the serology DNA section. She’s been with the department for ten years. She describes her position states she’s been certified as an expert witness before approximately 25 to 30 times. She gives her background and training. Butterworth has been with the serology department about eight and a half years.

Butterworth performed DNA testing on items from Rasmussen’s case. She first performed DNA testing in December, 2004. She described the analysis performed at that time, which would have been presumptive tests for blood, nucleated epithelial cell searches using a microphone and then DNA analysis of particular items.

Butterworth explains the “four steps” it takes to go from an item like a swab to a DNA profile. The first step is DNA extraction. The second step is DNA quantification. The third step is P.C.R. amplification. The fourth step is running a sample using capillary electrophoresis on a genetic analyzing instrument.

(These steps are then described in more detail.)

Butterworth testifies that there were different types of kits available in 2004 verses 2009. The kits that the lab used back in 2004 (that are still available) consists of two different kits which combine target 13 genetic markers plus a gender marker. Currently the lab uses a new kit called identifier. It combines those 13 markers and adds another two for a total of 15.

The difference between the two is the 2004 kit came in two parts but the 2009 kit has everything in a single kit.

Butterworth prepared a single page report from her analysis in 2004, dated February 8th, 2005. It’s marked as People’s 17 for identification.

Butterworth, when assigned the case made a request first with LAPD property to request items to test for possible biological evidence. At first, there was difficulty locating the item with LAPD. When she had trouble locating it, she then contacted the coroner’s office and spoke to a technician. At some point she spoke to Dan Anderson. In January, 2005 she was able to obtain the evidence from the coroner’s office.

Butterworth identifies the photo of the envelope she received. She states that the photograph up on the screen, she took that photo. She points out her identifying information on the envelope. The next photo Butterworth states she took also. It’s item “30” from inside the envelope. The inner packaging and the two bite mark swabs. Butterworth identifies the envelope sealed by Dan Anderson and her identifying marks. Butterworth then identifies People’s #6, a photograph of the original evidence envelope and protruding red cap shown sticking out of it.

Butterworth is now shown a photograph, People’s #118, a photograph depicting an envelope and a tube. Butterworth took the photo #118. It’s the reverse of the envelope they just saw and the tube has been removed. Butterworth identifies the writing on the tube that is hers.

Another photo of the tube People’s #7; Butterworth testifies she took the photograph. It’s the same tube, rotated in the photo to see other writing on the tube.

When reading the other writing on the tube, Butterworth states she could make out the word “left” and maybe the first two digits of the coroner’s case number. Butterworth states she can make out the name of the decedent on the top of the envelope in People’s #6.

Butterworth now describes what she observed when she first opened the LAPD envelope and saw the old envelope for the first time. She noted that the package was torn. She described it as “ratty” and “torn” and recalls seeing the red part of the tube sticking out. By ratty, she meant not in mint condition.

When she first pulled out the tube from the envelope, she noticed that the label was a little worn and hard to read. Judge Perry asks the witness, “Otherwise the tube appeared to you to be intact?” The witness replies, “Yes.”

Butterworth then describes that she took a portion of one of the swabs, did an extraction, examined the cellular material using a microscope and then went on to DNA extraction.

Butterworth states there were two swabs inside the tube and they are physically attached to the cap and the cap screws into the tube. The swabs cannot move around inside the tube since because of being attached to the cap.

Butterworth found a DNA profile that was consistent with a mixture. There was a major female DNA profile on the swab that did not match the victim and there was a very minor partial extra alleles that were consistent with Rasmussen’s DNA profile. Butterworth knew Rasmussen’s DNA profile because she typed the coroner blood swatch.

Butterworth made comparisons (of this DNA profile) to other items collected at the scene that matched Rasmussen’s DNA profile. She prepared several reports detailing this analysis.

Butterworth then prepared a report on item 51, People’s 119. It’s the DNA report she prepared in June, 2009. This is the DNA sample that was obtained from Lazarus while she was in custody. Butterworth then compared Lazarus’ collected DNA to the “bite mark swab” and determined that they were a match. The combination of those 13 genetic markers “is expected to be found in 1 in 402 quadrillion unrelated individuals.” (That’s a 4 with 17 zeros.)

Butterworth also analyzed “brown speaker wire” and “white cord” (rope) collected at the crime scene. She tested the rope for blood and found it positive. DNA profiles found matched Sherri Rasmussen. In all the items she tested, the only item that had DNA other than the victim was item 30, the “bite mark swab.”

Direct ends and cross begins.

Butterworth indicates a specific date on her report, People’s number 117, September 19th, 2003 is the date the DNA analysis was originally requested by Robbery Homicide Cold Case Section.

This is the date that Robbery Homicide detectives submitted a request to a laboratory in general. She started working on the request in December, 2004. The request was sitting on another analysts’ desk and she volunteered to work on the request. On or about December 15th, 2004 she contacted the coroner’s office searching for the “bite mark swab” that was not in LAPD’s inventory.

It took a little over a month for her to receive the “bite mark swab” from the coroner’s office.

When she received the evidence envelope, Butterworth confirms that the original envelope was torn. Butterworth states that there is no seal on the cap of the tube. Overland asks her, “And all you have to do to open it up is just to unscrew the top or pull the top out; right?” Butterworth answers, “Correct.”

Cross is finished and redirect begins.

Butterworth states that when she opened the evidence, it looked like a “regular dry secretion swab.” It didn’t show any presence of mold or have any deterioration or color change on the swab.

When Butterworth looked at the cells on the swab under a microscope, she noted and evaluated quantity of “nucleated epithelial cells.” In the DNA profile obtained Butterworth states the profile was “robust.” She did not see any other DNA profile other than the major profile of the defendant and the minor profile of the victim.

Redirect ends and recross begins.

Butterworth states that the cells she found were skin cells. Those cells can be found on anything anyone touches.

Recross ends and redirect begins again.
Butterworth states that these nucleated epithelial cells can come from the mouth. There are large quantities lying in the mucous membranes of the body. Butterworth explains the difference between a mouth epithelial cell and a skin epithelial cell. In the skin cells, the nucleus is degraded and broken down. Those inside the mouth are much newer and they slough off more frequently. She describes them as the nucleus being more robust than what is a part of the top of the skin.

This is why when DNA is taken from someone, they take a swab from the inside of the mouth.

Redirect ends and there is no recross.

Presby informs the court there are no additional witnesses and they are going to work out some stipulations with counsel. Presby informs the court that although they do not concede the validity of the defense’s argument with respect to the suppression of the defendant’s statement, they are not going to seek to introduce that statement at the preliminary hearing.

This is it for December 9th, 2009. The hearing is continued on December 10th, 2009.

STEPHANIE LAZARUS QUICK LINKS

James Fayed Penalty Phase Closing Arguments

Update 8:16 pm: Minor spelling and grammar edit on afternoon session. Sprocket.

Early this morning my husband and I watched the first part of opening statements in the Casey Anthony murder trial. At first, we couldn't understand why Linda Drane Burdick was speaking so slow. Just listening to her monologue by itself, it felt like paint drying. It wasn't until much later that my trial watching buds in chat told me that Ms. Drane Burdick was using a power-point presentation along with her statement, we just were not able to see the visual aid on TV. It explained a lot. Drane Burdick went through Casey Anthony's daily activities in excruciating detail for those 31 days that her daughter Caylee was missing, yet her mother, Casey, never contacted authorities or told a soul. I didn't get to hear it all since we had to leave for the North Hollywood (N.H.) Red Line station.

When I got to the station, I had this absolutely lovely conversation with a woman on the train this morning,

It started right on the platform when both of us were waiting in front of the train for the doors to open and we could see another train coming down the track. She immediately spoke up and told me she thinks it’s going to be the second train leaving from the other track. “I’ve been taking the train for 15 years, long enough to know.” A man standing behind us didn’t believe that the subway was in operation this long. I chime in that yes, it has. Maybe not from the N.H. location, but I remember when they were building the extension and the construction workers who died....one man being decapitated while working on the last section of track laid in the valley.

Once the train car doors opened, she took the handicapped seat and I took my favorite seat, a front facing seat right beside the handicapped seat and we continued talking.

I mentioned that I haven’t been taking the train that long and I then I did something that I rarely do, and that’s talk about myself and my adventures blogging about high-profile criminal trials. Her face lit up and she said, “How interesting!” And then she immediately told me that she has been a paralegal for 35 years.

I then began to tell her about the Fayed case and she remembered reading about Pamela’s violent death in that Century City parking garage. This led to a conversation about how when a woman files for divorce, she puts herself at a higher risk of being killed than at any other time. My traveling companion then shared a bit about her own difficult divorce and how domestic violence cases need to be moved out of family court and into criminal court. I so agree with this. I know my friend in San Diego, Bonnie Russell is trying to do just that.

I didn’t even have time to open up my laptop to write on the train; our conversation just flowed. I’m not that good at determining someone’s heritage background, but by her dark skin I’m guessing she was of Latin descent. I couldn’t believe it when she told me she had a 40-year-old son, an attorney and also a consultant on high-profile corporate litigation, because she looked so young!

We talked a bit about the 9th floor judges where I’ve covered cases and how it just depends on the judge whether or not I can use my laptop in the courtroom. I had to ask because I was curious, how fast she typed. I about fell off my chair when she said she typed 125 words a minute. She said, “I don’t even know where the letters are anymore; I just go.” Laughing she added, “And I failed typing in school.” I told her that using my computer had the advantage for me because I didn’t have to write my notes twice, but I feel I did better writing hand notes. I told her that my typing was so slow, barely 50 words a minute, and that my readers have asked that I not put up my notes that are in draft form, because no one can read them. We both laughed about that.

Before she got off at the 7th Street Metro stop, she introduced herself as Susan. I told her my name really is Betsy Ross, like the famous name and how to find my blog. She promised to check it out.

9:25 am: When I get into 109, the courtroom is almost empty. The cameramen have setup their video camera and counsel are still hammering out how to modify CALJIC jury instructions to fit this case. By 9:45 am they are done.

9:57 am: Pamela Fayed’s relatives enter the court. Scott and his wife Renee and Dawn.

Since Judge Kennedy is off the bench, I’m trying to get up the courage to ask the court clerk (she’s not at her desk right now) if I can get an up close look at the figurines on the Judge’s bench.

A DATELINE producer enters and shakes hands with Scott and Dawn. Right after the producer leaves, Dawn’s phone goes off and she looks over at me and smiles in embarrassment.

10:03 am: I get up from my seat with my notepad and go over by the bailiff’s desk to ask if I could get an up close look at Judge Kennedy’s collection of figurines on the left side of her bench. Sean shakes his head, purses his lips together and says in a soft but firm voice, “No.” I have to look as best I can from the edge of the gallery next to the little door entrance to the well. From this position I count about fifteen, maybe seventeen different items, mostly animals in all different shapes and design styles.

I go back to my seat and think about maybe going to the restroom before court gets started in a little over 20 minutes.

10:08 am: Pamela’s half-sister, Greta enters 109. She’s whispering with her relatives but I can’t hear what she’s saying. I’m thinking a bathroom break is in order.

Returning from the restroom, I walk down to 109 with Pat Kelly and Arlene from the Public Information Office. Desire is here with her family and there are several more people in the courtroom. There are a slew of defense attorneys Deborah Barzil is here looking as lovely as ever. A few younger DDA staff are with here. There are people from the court and the Public Defender's office in the back row. The DATELINE producer is back along with Terri Keith of City News. Desiree steps out to speak with Mark Werksman. That's interesting.

More people come in to hear closing arguments. Some faces are familiar but I don't have a name to go with them. I ask Pat Kelly if she's seen Pat Dixon, but no. We are close to being ready. I'm going to switch to Apple Works in a moment. Desiree comes back in. She has her hair pulled back in a ponytail and clips to keep her bangs off her face. White scoop neck top and a gray cardigan.

*****Rough draft notes below.

Put on the record before bring the jury in.

JK: Mr. Meister you had metioned that you were going to call Nancy Kaiser Boyd (sp?), you made a tactical decision not to present that witness.

SM: Yes. as a matter of strategy decided not to call.

Greg Fisher comes in at the last moment.

The courtroom is almost full, but there are plenty of seats left behind the bailiff’s desk. The jury files in at 10:38 am.

JK: On the record. You have another packet of jury instructions. (snip) I'm going to read 95% of them then sumations then after that, will read them the final instruction. Then they will commence their final deliberations.

JK: The defendant in this case has been found guilty of first degree murder and special circumstances. (snip) Penalty is either death, or life without parole.

I don’t type any more of the jury instructions.

There are two young men in the gallery that earlier, Steve Meister greeted and told what floors they could get something to eat on. He told them the food was wonderful. I smiled when he said this and the two guys looked a little perplexed. I added, “Sarcasm,” to help them understand Meister’s comment.

I’m wondering who the male attorney is sitting next to Ms. Brazil. He’s interesting looking with short black hair. He’s got a tiny touch of gray hair beside his ears and just the very faint beginnings of a balding spot in back. All I can see of his suit is that it’s light gray. There is a much younger woman attorney to Brazil’s left with blondish-brown hair close to her head in a small conservative bun.

10:56 am: Still reading jury instructions.

10:58 am: I wonder who is going to give the prosecution closing. Jackson or Harmon. Judge Kennedy was firm that each side would only be able to give a single argument. I don’t know if they will both speak, or only one. I'll know in a few more minutes.

12:38 pm: Eric Harmon gave the prosecutions closing argument and I have to say it was a very moving, heart wrenching argument for the jurors to decide on the penalty of death. In summary, Harmon started off by comparing what really was of value, the kilo bar of gold the jurors got to hold in their hands, or the real gold sitting in the second row. Harmon said that gold bar was "...fools gold compared to the other gold we have in this case, and they're seated in the second row. (snip) I submit to you that they are the real gold."

Harmon told the jurors, "I want to read to you something." And with that Harmon went directly to reminding the jurors of the brutality of James Fayed's actions by reading witness Edwin Rivera's testimony to the jury. It was difficult to hear it again where Rivera testified about finding Pamela on the ground, not realizing what at first looked to him to be a pile of clothing until it dawned on him it was a person; the horror of the injuries he saw on Pamela's body and describing in painful detail, those long few minutes where her life slowly ebbed out of her in that parking garage. Up on the overhead screen at the end of that reading was a photo of the large, huge pool of blood on the dirty garage floor.

Again and again, Harmon used Fayed's own words to show the jury what Fayed thought about his wife and if given the chance to do things over, he would absolutely make the same decision again. That even when Fayed was in custody, he showed us what his true character was. That he had a total disregard for the law and the legal system because while in jail he planned more murders. That for Fayed, the legal system doesn't solve his problems, killing does.

Harmon reminded the jurors what their job was not. That it was not their job to debate the usefulness of the death penalty, and that difficult decisions, the hard important decisions are not comfortable.

Harmon described the pain this family was experiencing even to this day three years later by quoting various witness who testified in the penalty phase. That their lives have been forever shattered, changed by Fayed's actions.

Harmon argued that you can't give justice to the family and at the same time, have mercy on James Fayed.

"What kind of jury do you want to be, to give mercy to a man when he gave (no mercy to Pam)? You can do that. You can give mercy for him. But you can't give justice for them, (pointing over at the family) (at the same time). He's had a trial, a judge, jury of his peers, mitigation evidence, and he's going to ask you for mercy? When Pamela Fayed had none of those. Pamela Fayed didn't have a trial. He was her judge, jury and executioner."

Towards the end of his closing, Harmon compared what Fayed did in those instances where he had time to think... at the ranch he plotted Pamela's murder, in custody when he planned further murders, compared to what Pamela did; she thought about her girls and wrote them a letter in the event of her death. Harmon read the letter to the jurors.

In his closing words Harmon told the jury,

"Now's the time. Nows the time I'm going to sit down in a few minutes and Mr. Meister will have the chance to address you. I want you to think not from here (hand over his heart) but from here (pointing to his head) and think about what kind of man he is. What he's done to these people, and whether this is an ordinary crime or and extraordinary crime.. Whether he deserves the minimum punishment or the maximum. You're the only ones that can deliver this verdict in this case. You are the only ones."

As I walked out of Dept 109, Alan Jackson is speaking to the family who are all still sitting in the second bench row. "It's almost over," he tells them. "It's almost over."

Afterwards, out in the hallway, I told Mr. Jackson I thought it was a powerful closing; well done. Jackson asked me to tell Mr. Harmon that, directly, and I did.

1:13 pm: I've got to head back upstairs.

2:55 pm: The closings are all over and the jurors have the penalty phase of the case now.

Steve Meister in a very loud, passionate voice gave a very rousing, almost angry at times plea that this murderer, James Fayed is not the worst of the worst in the pyramid of murderer's in our society, and therefore does not rise to the level of deserving the punishment of death. That there were no other aggravating factors that the people presented, except the family's grief that would make this murderer rise to the top of all murderers. Mesiter argued that Fayed didn't kidnap, rape and murder children. He spoke four about the same amount of time that Harmon did. I am so tired right now, I apologize for not putting up more examples of his arguments right now.

I'm all alone in the gallery. The court reporters are discussing what they are going to do, but Lori tells them they can't go; that the jury may have a question or request a read back. One of the court reporter's is talking about how she remembered the phonetically sounding long "i."

3:04 pm: I'm debating on indulging in getting a candy bar from the vending machines.

3:05 pm: Two Buzzes. Sean goes into the jury room with a big binder. Sean comes out of the jury room.

One of the court reporters asks if they had a question, but it doesn't look like Sean came out with a note. He's back sitting in his bailiffs desk. Lori hasn't gone back to the Judge or made a phone call. Maybe this is was supposed to be their first buzz, starting deliberations?

3:09 pm: Lori asks Sean, "Do they have everything?" And Sean replies, "Uh hum." (Yes.)

The court reporters continue to discuss their work and give each other shortcuts on converting their reporting machine's output to their computer files/discs. I think that's what their talking about.

3:16 pm: It's interesting what the L.A. County Superior Court's free WiFi blocks access to. I can't get to Facebook or read any one's Twitter posts. It also doesn't let me view any video, regardless if it's on an accredited news web site or not. It also will block me from reading the comments on some of the web pages I like to visit, like the truth wizard, Eyes For Lies.

To pass the time, I'm trying to patiently wait on ritanita's recap of opening statements in the Anthony Case. There is a stark contrast in the amount of media attention this death penalty case has received verses that case. I've been told there are over 500 reporters camped out in a specially built "Anthony Village" stage across the street from the Orange County courthouse.

3:26 pm: BUZZ! BUZZ! Sean gets up to check on the jurors.

Sean comes out with a note and goes into Judge Kennedy's chambers.

3:29 pm: Sean came back out from Judge Kennedy's chambers.

3:30 pm: I believe Lori is on the phone.

I hear Lori say that the jury has a question and please call me back. I hear a voice back in the back rooms say they don't have (to have) a read (a read back of testimony with this question).

Now Lori says they have a question regarding .... the Judge wants everyone back as soon as he can.

It's a question regarding 6.35 (I think I have that number right.) I believe that's what Lori said on the phone in her last phone call.

3:38 pm: Werksman comes in to read the jurors question. I think I hear Mr. Werksman say,

"This is the Phillips problem. These are smart people. These jurors went straight to the heart of the problem."

3:50: Meister comes in and Werksman tells him the same thing I just heard him say to himself, out loud.

The Dateline reporter, Jessica is back and so are the cameramen.

3:51 pm: I hear Werksman say, "It's an interesting legal question."

One of the cameramen calls for the other guy to come over so he can whisper to him about something. I can't hear what he said.

3:53 pm: Jackson arrives, reads the paper. Jackson says something that I miss then reads the jury question. The foreman is still #3.

I believe Jackson says, "The instruction we're going to have to give them is the one I suggested this morning."

So the counsel are going over off the record what they are going to do.

JK: Lets' see. (snip) For purposes of instruction, 6.35 only, the witness may include anyone who's voice is heard on the tape? May include the statements?

They are trying to craft a defining instruction on jury instruction 6.35.

JK: We have to define witnesses.

They are trying to decide. This is why jury instructions are very important.

JK: It has (to be?) limited to the solicitation.

They are trying to define what a witness may be in regards to this instruction.

JK: Yeah. They want to know....

JK: If they determine that's his voice on the tape....

So I'm just getting pieces of what they are trying to hammer out in this additional jury instruction. It will all go on the record when they all agree on the language.

4:01 pm: The pretty Dateline producer and the two cameramen chat at the other end of the long benches. Counsel and the judge continue to work out the language of what they are going to instruct the jury.

4:06 pm: JK: I think my cold will go away when this trial ends. She asks that the jurors be brought out.

Sean gets the defendant.

JK: On record. (snip) We are in receipt of a question from the jury and it reads as follows.

Your honor. We request clarification on 6.635.

Guilt on convicting of, or a testimony of (I miss the rest of Judge Kennedy's reading).

Does Detective Abdul count (as a witness)?

Could Shawn Smith be considered a witness even though he was not sworn in (to testify?) in court?

Judge Kennedy states for the record that the court and counsel informally discussed about the best way to respond and what they said.

JK: For purposes of (instruction) 6.35 only the phrase direct testimony of a witness may include the defendant if you determine one of the people on the tape, (people's exhibit #) is the defendant. For this instruction only, Abdul Salaam and Shawn Smith are not witnesses under this instruction.

JK: People agree appropriate response?

AJ: We do your honor.

Judge Kennedy asks if the defense now agrees (after some other text was added). I believe they agree with no objection.

AJ: For the record, how is that answer to the jurors included in the record?

I will respond to them in written form and it's part of the court record.

Judge Kennedy addresses the dateline reporters and states that the jurors will be leaving soon, and nothing else will happen today.

So that's it for today. I'm packing up. It's my best guess that they will be back here around 9:00 am tomorrow.

I'm going to wait to see them leave. The cameramen start to pack up their equipment.

4:17 pm: The jurors emerge.

I forgot to mention that yesterday morning, I saw famous defense attorney Tom Mesereau going through security on the first floor. I wonder what case he was appearing on.

James Fayed Penalty Phase Day 2

I rushed out of the house so quickly this morning that I forgot my wedding rings and my note tablets to protect my lap from the heat of my laptop, and to take hand notes. If I have to take a handwritten note, I guess I'll write on the back of some checks.

9:03 am: I'm inside Dept 109 and Judge Kennedy is still hearing other cases. I came into the courtroom in the middle of an individual who skipped out on jury service.

JK: We waited for over an hour for you to show up!

The next case, the defense attorney has a juror badge on and Kennedy asks him about that. Apparently, he's on a civil case in the Stanley Mosk courthouse and hasn't been removed by either side. Interesting. Very short hearing.

Now Judge Kennedy is meeting with counsel for her next case up. The prosecution has one last thing regarding subpoenaed records from Dorsey High School. That's interesting. I'll have to find out what case that is.

9:13 am: Fayed's brown suit is brought back to the holding area. Werksman is here, so are Jackson and Harmon.

9:16 am: Meister is here. Jackson and Meister just had a short discussion about the closing arguments. Harmon asks the clerk what the next number is for exhibits. The DA's female clerk is here. I've been admiring her large red-leather shoulder bag she's carried every day she's been here.

9:18 am: A silver-haired attorney looking gentleman enters 109 and sits in the front row behind the bailiffs desk. Fayed comes out. The gentleman moves to the back row. They're ready. The bailiff asks who the gentleman is. All I get is his first name and he is an attorney.

9:19 am: On the record. Meister is looking over the official record and there is a piece of his OS that is missing. Jackson?

AJ: I want to revisit an issue that came up last week, regarding the letter attached to the will.

AJ: We were under the mistaken belief that Desiree, that she had never seen it before. She saw the letter last August (via the family attorney). I want if I can, to ask the court to take note of couple cases we've researched over the weekend to reconsider it's position to read the letter in front of the jurors.

AJ: Valencia case. Jackson reads portions of the ruling of this case into the record that supports his position.

9:22 am: Greg Fisher from CBS is here. I get Greg caught up on what Jackson is arguing.

Now Jackson points to a US district case. Jackson says he knows it's not binding, but it is instructive.

9:32 am: Judge Kennedy asks for the text of the letter to be put up on the screen. It's a photo of what looks like the inside of a blank card, handwritten on the inside of the card on the left and right sides. You can see the text of the letter in Friday's entry.

9:33 am: Meister is drawing a distinction between Fayed and the cases cited by letters.

SM: Those letters were sent to and received by family members when the victim was still alive. They were part of the family members experience while the victims were still alive. The part of the life they had lived with the victim, was in that (those letters).

SM: Pam's letter was written 2 years before she died. It was premonition, and it was not seen by the kids until long after the murder. Not part of her keepsakes not part of her interaction with her mother and (snip) and I think that's significant. While the people are scaling back their witnesses, they want to introduce this letter. (snip) So, I do think for those two instances the letter should not be admitted. 352 issue. And I think that the court's ruling should still stand.

Judge asks to see the cases and Jackson hands her the papers he was reading from. Werksman steps out of the courtroom. Meister and Fayed appear to be discussing something. Werksman comes right back in. Judge Kennedy looks through the cases cited by Jackson.

Judge Kennedy, talks about the Federal Rules of evidence not applying in the penalty phase, but they do in California.

JK: (The) primary concern the court had, was this letter was going to be sprung on the witness in front of the jury for the first time, and that the emotional response and gender would be really over the top and, I mean, and who wouldn't expect it to be.

JK: That was the overriding reason that the court determined it shouldn't come in in that fashion. But you say that the witness has been aware of this letter for over a year?

AJ: Since last August.

JK: But how does it speak to the criteria that speaks forth to the (?) within the rules of evidence that apply to this stage and proceedings?

AJ: Section A. The impact that the victim's (had?). They are defined as victims under the ?Marcy law. Everything that has an impact on how they view the death of the decedent. (snip) Or how they remember who the decedent was and how they (?) react to each other. ( snip) The fact that future events will be (lost?). This letter represents the last words to Desiree. Last words to Gigi. These are the thoughts, feelings and emotions that Pamela Fayed wanted to depart on Desiree, on Gigi.

AJ: Not because of the truth of what it says, but for the impact of what it has on the reader, Desiree.

Werksman asks to address the court.

MW: These were not Pam's last words. These (words) were Pam's philosophy on life. It doesn't perform (to?) the (?) of victim impact. It wasn't a part of their life. It was a letter mean to be read with the will that was meant to be read at some unknown time in the future (at an attorney's office?).

JK: I am going to allow the people to utilize the letter in their examination of Desiree Goudie. Since she has (seen it), she's familiar with it. She's been exposed to it in the past. It's not going to be as emotionally huge as I thought in the past. (more)

Miester asks that Deisree be sworn that she has seen it before. That's agreed to. Jackson asks for two new photos to be used of the funeral. Meister objects to the photos of the funeral.

SM: Graveside photos, taken by a friend should not be admitted into evidence. It's inflammatory and over the top. (snip) There are portions of the people's case that have read like a second funeral for Pam. I think the photos from the funeral are inappropriate. (snip) It's cumulative. We do know that the girls put their mother to rest.

JK: The photos are not incendiary. I'll allow them.

The mitigation attorney is here and her presence is written into the record.

Desiree Goudie is here. She's in a scoop-neck, A-line type black dress and wearing a long gray cardigan. Desiree is sworn in.

Desiree states she first saw the document in August, 2008. She identifies the handwriting as belonging to her mother.

DG: I was meeting with my attorney and I was trying to find a newer will and testament.

SM: First saw the letter only after your mom died?

DG: Yes.

That's it. Meister asks that he have some time after the people rest to meet with his witnesses that just flew in last night. He asks for a 1/2 hour. Judge Kennedy agrees.

Now ready for the jury at 9:56 am. I'm moving to a word type program for the rest of my notes today.

Morning Session Summary
12:23 pm: The first witness of the day was Renee Goudie, wife of Scott Goudie. At one point in her testimony she got very angry in her tone and addressed James Fayed directly. DDA Harmon was asking her about her feelings regarding the murder of her relative. Here is a short excerpt.

EH: Are you angry?

RG: VERY angry. (snip) It saddens me. (snip) It’s one thing what he did to Pammy, but what he did to MY FAMILY, shame on you for what (you did)!!

The defense quickly objected, the statements stricken and Judge Kennedy admonished her to limit her answers to the questions asked.

The final prosecution witness in the penalty phase was Desiree Goudie who testified about her life growing up with her mother before and after Fayed came into their lives. She cried during a good portion of her testimony, breaking down at times. She testified that when she learned of her mother's murder she went into shock and became "numb." She was scheduled to enter college in two weeks and her mother's death created a load of responsibilities thrown at her from all directions all at once. She had to plan her mother's funeral and temporarily become a parent to her younger sister and at the same time, her step-father wasn't answering his phone for three days. She didn't hear from him, not even to inquire about his child, her younger sister, Jeanett. She literally didn't know what to do but had to maintain a semblance of control for the sake of her younger sister.

12:37 pm: I worked as much as I could over the weekend trying to finish the edit on last Friday's testimony. I'm about 70% finished with that. Although it may take me some time, I will eventually get every day's testimony of this trial up on T&T. Thank you for your patience. Sprocket.

3:38 pm:I'm home. The defense presented three witnesses in the penalty phase:

1. James Sadler
2. James Heubert (sp?) Tyler
3 Melanie Jackman

The first witness was a man Fayed knew in high school. This witness testified to Fayed's character and personality when he knew him from about age 16 to 28-29 years old. This witness had no contact with Fayed since then.

Witness #2 was a man Fayed worked with on a military base (El Toro?) in Orange County, when Fayed was a high-wire civilian electrician. He met Fayed, liked him and they became friends at work and outside of work. Apparently, during that time (mid 90's) Fayed was instrumental in the recovery of some high-voltage wire worth several thousands of dollars that was stolen from the base. (There was a lot of theft on the base by civilians the witness testified.) This witness had not seen or communicated with Fayed since he moved up to Ventura Co, about 97, around the time Fayed met Pamela and began a relationship with her.

Witness #3 was a long-time friend Fayed first met in high school. They lost touch for a short time then reconnected when he appeared one day at her and her husband's business, a motorcycle shop they run out of a garage next to their home. They reconnected and have been friends ever since. She testified to his personality and character and talked about a vacation Fayed, her husband and she took to New Mexico. She had not seen Fayed since he had left for California (which she testified was in 95-96, but Tyler testified he met Fayed around 1992 on the military base). She and Fayed did keep in touch by phone, occasional E-mails, and Fayed sent her photos of his family. She testified she spoke on the phone with Pam on occasion but had never met her, or the kids personally.

There was one jaw dropping moment (well, at least for me) when she started to break down on the stand, became very emotional and cried. It was over a motorcycle. Apparently, her husband had lovingly built a special motorcycle for Jim, but since he got arrested, he was never able to receive it. Consequently, her husband took the bike apart. On cross Jackson asked, if Fayed paid for this motorcycle. (On direct, it was not clear if this was a gift to Fayed or a bike he had ordered to be made.) She testified that Fayed had put a down payment on it, but had not paid for it fully. She was totally upset about this because her husband had put so much love into building this bike for their friend. She went on and on about how they searched online, eBay to find original, 1963 parts for this custom built Harley Davidson bike, which was the year Jim was born. (I couldn't believe how upset she was over the fact that Jim never got to ride this bike.)

On direct examination she testified that she never knew Fayed to say a negative thing about Pamela. On cross examination, Jackson presented her with two E-mails that Fayed had written her, where Fayed spoke quite disparagingly about Pamela. The witness stated she did not remember those E-mails. On redirect, she stated that it wasn't until recently that she started to use the Internet and E-mail more often. Back then, she didn't look at/use her E-mail much.

And then the defense rested. There were no rebuttal witnesses from the people. Not a single family member testified on Fayed's behalf in the penalty phase.

There is an interesting development that Judge Kennedy brought up to counsel right before I left. The issue is with CAl-JIC instruction 635 that requires witness testimony for the people to argue the conspiracy charge. At 2:30 pm, Judge Kennedy gave both sides one hour to do research and come back at 3:30 pm for arguments. I decided not to stay to hear the arguments. was too tired, but that could be an interesting development.

Judge Kennedy ordered jurors back at 10:30 am tomorrow for jury instructions and closing arguments.

I will continue working late into the evening tonight to get my notes up on the blog as soon possible, so please keep checking back. If I get caught up to work on the detail of today's testimony, it will be posted as "Part II." Sprocket.

James Fayed Convicted of First Degree Murder

Today, the penalty phase of the trial begins in the murder-for-hire case of James Fayed, 48. Yesterday, a jury of eight men and four women convicted Fayed of first degree murder as well as conspiracy to commit murder in the stabbing death of his wife Pamela Fayed in a Century City parking garage on July 28th, 2008. The jury also found true the special circumstances of lying in wait and financial gain. James and Pamela Fayed were in the midst of a bitter divorce and their company, Goldfinger Coin & Bullion was under federal investigation. Prosecutors argued that James Fayed plotted the murder to avoid splitting the Internet bullion trading company's millions in assets with his wife as well as prevent her from potentially testifying as a witness against him in the investigation. DDA Alan Jackson and DDA Eric Harmon who successfully prosecuted the case are seeking the death penalty.

Closing Arguments: James Fayed Murder-For-Hire Trial

May 19th, 2011 12:50 am: Jackson's missing closing was added and the duplicate entries removed. Some editing finished. Sprocket

May 18th, 2011: I am working on editing this entire entry this evening. I will post when it's completed. Sprocket.

May 16th, 2011: I will be periodically updating throughout the day my unedited, draft notes of the closing arguments in this case. Please be aware that my typing skills are not the best. Sprocket.

CLOSING ARGUMENTS, May 16th, 2011

I’m inside Department 109, waiting for closing arguments to begin. The DATELINE camera crew is already set up. Judge Kennedy has some other case, because there are quite a few people here that appear to be here for other cases.

Scott, his wife, Dawn and Gretta are already. here. At 8:55 am Pamela Fayed’s daughter Desiree enters and hugs her uncle, Scott.

8:56 am DDA Alan Jackson enters and shakes Scott’s hand.

A friend of Desiree, the young man I saw on day one enters and sits beside her.

Jackson speaks to a few other counsel already in the well. One of the attorney’s is an interesting looking fellow with dark skin, graying hair a bit long in the back. He’s got a bit of a belly and from here it looks like he has cowboy boots on. He moves around the well a bit, but I don’t think it’s nervous movement; maybe just impatience. He goes over to speak to the bailiff, Shawn.

My friends Katie and Lisa arrive to hear Jackson present closing arguments. Katie brought her daughter. The short haired public defender I say days ago is here. The courtroom is almost full, but I don’t know if they are all here to listen to closings. Greg Fisher from CBS is here and Marjorie Hernandez from the Ventura Co. Star was here long before me. When I came in, I went to the other end of the courtroom to say hello. I would have sat next to her but the DATELINE camera crew took the other outlet plug and I forgot to bring a power strip. So, I’m down by the other outlet near the courtroom door.

There’s a young man and woman, dressed like they might be with the DA’s office who are trying to find a better place to sit. They squeeze into the second row new where the cameraman has set up.

A curly-haired blond woman attorney in a rust sweater and flower-print skirt goes into the gallery to speak to a black woman with her hair braided in many tiny corn braids pulled into a ponytail. The attorney asks her if she’s ready for trial. I believe she says “Yes.”

A black defendant is brought in wearing a blue jumpsuit. I'm wondering if this is the case that all the attorneys are here for.

9:12 am: Mark Werksman enters. Bailiff calls court in order.

Judge Kennedy takes the bench.

JK: C. Byers.

Defense asking to put this order over to next week, 0-10.

JK: Mr. Byers, do you agree to waive time?

Prosecution agrees. So ordered. Defendant taken back into the holding cell area.

Judge Kennedy is off the bench. Some conferences are going on with gallery parties and attorney's in the antechamber of the courtroom.

The short-haired female public defender goes over to briefly speak to Mark Werksman. My guess at this point is she represents Jose Moya.

Jackson greets a pretty, tiny woman in the gallery and they chat for a moment. Now he's back in the well, speaking to the two young people who found a seat in the second row.

All these attorney's are waiting for something. Is it a defendant to be brought out? ???

An attorney in the well goes over to greet Mr. Worksman.

Lori Clerk: Lori? Shawn?

Bailiff: Court in session!

Judge Kennedy takes the bench.

A whole group of people are called to the well. The blond is a DDA on the case. One of the attorney's is standing in for another defense attorney.

Ms. Allen is the DDA. Someone is there representing herself. There is a defendant in custody. I just saw him brought in. Hold over case until July 12th, and Judge asks if everyone agrees.

JK: Counsel join?

Pat Kelly from the PIO enters at 9:23 am.

The case is held over and all these people leave the courtroom.

Judge Kennedy asks about another matter, "Curtis matter?"

Pat Dixon enters the courtroom for a moment then leaves. One of the defense attorneys from the other case shook hands with him before he left. Pat Kelly goes down to speak to the camera crew. Steve Meister finally arrives and enters the well and sits in his usual seat at the very end of the defense table.

Mr. Dixon comes back in and sits down directly to my right. He has an Amazon Kindle in a leather case that he starts up and starts to scroll through.

9:28 am. Still no sign of when they will be starting closing arguments. A very pretty woman that I've seen several times before comes in at greets Scott Goudie. She then sits beside me and I ask if she's with the DA's office. She says, "No, I'm with the State's Attorney's office."

I ask her why she is sitting in on the trial. She indicates that the State Attorney wanted her to sit in on the trial.


9:33 am: We’re still waiting. Jessica who I met last week from DATELINE is here. She is off to my left speaking with an attractive young man who is probably also from DATELINE. Pat Kelly is in the well speaking to the court clerk Lori for a moment.

Pat Kelly is giving the handsome DATELINE young man an outline as to how the day will go and how long jury instructions will take.

The gallery is very chatty.

Judge Kennedy takes the bench again.

On record on case with Fayed. Lori has told me about a couple of things are unclear from the record. People’s exhibits 153 & 154 redacted CD and transcript. Just want to make it clear that those items are moved into evidence.

Werksman objects, but Kennedy overrules.

Werksman tries to get Exhibit A modified into evidence as A1, modified.

People agree that it is what we discussed and agreed upon last week.

Are they any other matters that we need to put on the record?

JK: We were missing one juror last we checked.

Shawn: More than one.

JK: Lori, could you go out and check and see how we are doing?

Lori leaves to check on jurors.

Lori: Your honor, we are missing juror #1 and 9, so I’m going to call them again.

Two people slip in just now and sit in the back row.

A huge sound emits from over by the camera crew and the deputy Shawn gives a hard look over in that direction.

Lori on phone, Juror #1 is there in the hallway.

Shawn is speaking to another juror, and I hear him say, “So, you are about 15 minutes away? Okay. Get here as soon as you can.”

A group leaves.

A tall dark haired man who came in with Pat Dixon gets up and tells Mr. Dixon that our jurors are 15 minutes away. He then heads into the well to speak to Harmon and Jackson. Dixon comments that it would take that long to get back upstairs and back. I smile. “With these elevators, your right,” I say to him.

Dixon gets up and speaks to Jackson. He then comes back to his seat, picks up his Kindle and leaves. Pat Kelly is speaking to the young attractive DATELINE (male) reporter again.

Now we are left with just a few public, reporters and the family members in the court.

One of the cameramen comes over to speak to Jessica.

9:47 am. Still lots of chatter and movement in the well and the gallery. More attorneys come in and stop at the clerk Lori’s desk.

Another defendant is brought in. He’s wearing a blue jumpsuit. Judge Kennedy is wearing a dark blue blouse that looks like it sparkles when she walks from her chambers. It’s quite nice. This defendant’s matter is held over until Wednesday, the 18th.

Judge Kennedy addresses the room and says, “Apparently, we are still missing one juror,” and then she leaves the bench.

Another reporter from DATELINE who was in court the last few days comes in and sits next to Jessica. She then gets up to speak to the bailiff.

I’m hearing whispers that jury instructions may go first. Greg Fisher and the reporter who I don’t know her name are talking. A female attorney comes in and speaks to Lori. The other group of attorney’s that are here observing reenter the courtroom.

I chat with the attorney next to me about the case. He didn’t know much about it.

JK: Back on the record. Are we ready to bring the jurors back in?

Both counsel agree. Jurors file in. Fayed is brought in. Same brown suit, yellow/rust striped tie and yellow shirt.

At this point we are at the time where we are going to instruct you on the laws of this case.

Given a printed copy of the instructions and law requires that she read the instructions to you.

Judge Kennedy goes over how it will go and starts with the jury instructions.

I will not transcribe all the jury instructions, just what I might hear is noteworthy regarding the death penalty charge.

I will note that Judge Kennedy still appears to be dealing with a cold. She has coughed a few times while reading the instructions. Pat Dixon is back and sitting in the gallery in the seats off to the left just behind the bailiff's box.

Judge Kennedy coughs again at one point and says, "Let me start again."

The attorney next to me asks if Fayed testified in his own defense. I shake my head no.

Judge Kennedy is now reading the instruction for murder. Now she's on conspiracy to commit murder. I take my first peek over at the jurors. they are intently reading their copies of jury instructions.

Judge now reading the alleged "overt acts" of the actual murder and afterwards involving the rented red SUV Suzuki.

Fayed looks straight ahead or looks off to his left. He doesn't look over at the jury at all. His head is often tilted to his left. Now, he slowly swivels his chair left to right. Maybe it's a calming movement; maybe it's a nervous rocking of his chair back a tiny bit back and forth.

10:45 am: Jackson's longtime companion, Lisa quietly enters the courtroom and sits in the third row.

Judge Kennedy is now going over premeditation instructions.

Now going over how to use the verdict forms and fill them out in order.

Now going over the special circumstances of financial gain and lying in wait.


The podium is turned now to face the jurors. I’m hoping were are close to the end of instructions. It’s 4 minutes until 11 am.

Done for now, but more to come after closing.

Judge Kennedy asks for counsel at sidebar.

Yes, Judge Kennedy’s blouse. It is a very sparkly scoop necked deep royal blue blouse. It might be tiny silver sequins on her blouse.

The jury looks a bit restless. Some of them in the back row look at the gallery.

10:59 am: Sidebar over.

JK: One of the jury instructions refers to preponderance of the evidence, that is not in your packets. Going to define that for you, and then add it to your packets when you go for deliberations.

Jackson

Power point presentation. Dim lights please.
Good morning.

When thinking about this case over the weekend something dawned on me. And that is this in light there are moments that evidently define it.

There are other moments that determine who we are that who are make up (us?). These are moments that define us.

Example of promotion at work, company car, pension plan, more money, more exposure. But in order to get that, there is a cost. You might have to throw a coworker under the bus, or (another example).

That’s a defining moment.

Lets say, you go to restaurant. And there’s a wad of cash under the table. And the family that just used table looked like they were of modest means.

You can return the money, or stay quiet. These are defining moments. What do you do? What do you do?

Lets say you own a company. A multibillion (community property?) company, at least in the latter years. Lets say that man is going through a bitter divorce. And that wife is set to take one-half of the assets and that the government is looking at the company...

Defining moment. What does he do? How does he solve his problems?
James Fayed made his choice very clearly. James Fayed had a defining moment.

And what he decided to do, is hire an hit man, to stalk and prey on his own wife. And he ultimately paid this person to slit her throat, in a lonely parking garage somewhere in Century City, and in so choosing, he left a family sister-less, he left two beautiful daughters motherless and left a gaping hole in our community.

His was one of the greatest betrayals that could ever be committed, of love, matrimony, parenthood. His was a betrayal of the fabric of humanity.

James Fayed believed his life would be considerably more convenient if Pamela Fayed would be dead. So in that moment he looked inside himself and made a decision, and he revealed to you who he really is. A homicidal coward who pays others to do his dirty work. But make no mistake; Pamela Fayed’s blood is on his hands as if he had wielded that blade against her throat, himself.

When he waked into this court three weeks ago he was cloaked in the presumption of innocence. ut that cloak has ben shed and he stands before you, guilty of murdering Pamela Fayed. Guilty of conspiring to murder Pamela Fayed and the special circumstances of that murder are true.

I’m going to talk about the evidence (in this case). And the law. That doesn’t come from me, but that comes from the court.

Text is up on the overhead screen and Jackson discusses the law.

First of all, the charges.

1. murder
(Special circumstances)
a: lying in wait
b: financial gain

2. conspiracy to commit murder

As I told you when I first walked into courtroom, the charges were the two. The second charge is conspiracy to commit the very murder of Pamela Fayed.

What is homicide? (Homicide is different that murder. Murder is unlawful, but homicide can be lawful.)

Murder is defined on screen.

Like to go through from the ground up. how the law actually defines murder.

Every person who unlawfully kills a human being.

1. A human being was killed

2. The killing was unlawful
.....not justifiable
.....not excusable

3. The killing was done with malice aforethought.

Then that is murder, plain and simple.

Lets go over #2. Homicide, as it is defined is not illegal. It’s not illegal in any state in the union. How could it not be illegal? Jackson gives an example. Let’s say you are home in bed and someone breaks into your house at night and there’s someone all cloaked in black and there’s the glint of a blade and you grab you Louisville slugger and hit him in the head, killing him.

Does everybody agree that’s homicide? Perfectly legal, self-defense. Jackson then explains accidental death.

Malice aforethought. It’s where the rubber meets the road. It’s where we have to prove (premeditation).

Malice aforethought. (Express or implied.)
Jackson give example of expressed malice. Implied malice is not applicable here. Pamela Fayed. We don’t have to guess what the killers were trying to do with Pamela Fayed. (We know.) Malice aforethought. Jurors have asked hundreds of time what that is. It simply means you have thought about it before hand. It simply means you have the mental state to kill.

Killer must weigh and balance, the pros and cons. What the benefits are, what the detriments are. (The killer doesn’t) have to contemplate over days hours and weeks. Just show that there is some prior thought.

Every single murder.
1. willful, deliberate and premeditated.
2. murder by specific means: lying in wait
3. felony murder (during the course of another crime)

Now, was it first degree or second?

Every murder in California starts off at 2nd degree. If there is something more then we have to look at the above 3 things.

Felony murder is not applicable here. There are 2 reasons this becomes 1st degree.

This murder was willful, thought out. By definition it was well thought out. It was a paid for, contract hit. This is how we know the murder of Pamela Fayed is 1st degree.
There is another association of lying in wait.

This a little bit different. This is a theory of first degree murder. If you see lying in wait, then by default, it becomes first degree. So there are two ways you get to first degree. Premeditation and lying in wait.

Jackson goes over what willful, deliberate and premeditated mean.

willful = intentional
deliberate = thought about it
premeditated = thought about it before hand

Jackson now goes over the counts James Fayed is charged with.

(count 1 murder)

Half of you could come to different conclusion as to theory of how you get to murder, but you do not have to agree as to the theory for you get to that verdict. Murder which is immediately preceded by lying in wait is murder of the first degree.

Defined as waiting and watching for an opportune time to act, together with concealment by ambush or secret design to take the person by surprise.

This case is classic, laying in wait.

Pamela was getting her keys (when she was ambushed by her killer).

Only way to get to special circumstance FINANCIAL gain.
1. murder intentionally carried out for financial gain.

2. Two things I want to mention about financial gain (above).

3. The defendant believe the victims death would result in the desired financial gain

AND

Financial gain for ANY party (to the crime).

Of course he (Fayed) didn’t get any financial gain, he got caught! But if he THOUGHT he was going to get financial gain, then we’ve proven financial gain.

Jackson describes Pamela’s divorce attorney’s testimony where Pamela thought she was going to get half. He didn’t want to part with his money. (Fayed thought) why don’t I just kill her, Then I can get it all.

Jackson goes over #3. If anyone of the perpetrators, then they all get financial gain.

(The attorney sitting beside me leaves when Werksman makes an objection.)

JK: Do you want to be heard at sidebar?

MW: (Yes.)

Sidebar.

Another defense attorney in the gallery gets up to leave.

It looks like the cameramen tries to zoom in on the parties at the clerks desk. Sidebar over.

The hirer or the hiree, then that is enough to establish special circumstance for financial gain. As long as he believed, that’s all we need to establish. Then that special circumstance is true.

Now explaining the special circumstance lying in wait charge.

As long as you establish in your mind there was an intentional killing, then were any coconspirators “lying in wait,” well that’s the three in the parking garage.

He (Fayed) was sitting in a room not five feet from Pamela Fayed so certainly he was concealing his participation as well. We did not charge conspiracy to kill the others, (coconspirators) the conspiracy charge is to kill Pamela Fayed. The conspiracy is merely an agreement between two or more parties. They could have completely missed killing Pamela Fayed on July 28th, and the conspiracy would still be there.

An overt act is any step taken beyond planning. It is not necessary for him to have primarily done (completed/performed) the act.

Jackson now going over the overt acts that prove the conspiracy.

1. Paid Moya 25,000
2. Person drove SUV to Watt tower parking garage
3. Person repeatedly stabbed Pamela Fayed no fewer than 13 injures; not fewer than 13 cuts or slices to her body
4. Person fled in SUV
5. Person drove SUV to Happy Camp Ranch
6. Moya returned SUV to rental company (and) had car steam cleaned

Well, those things took place after the matter. Well, those (?) don’t matter, if we’ve proven one of them, then we’ve proven all of them; and the conspiracy has been proved.

Aiding and abetting. Jackson is now explaining that Judge Kennedy talked about that in jury instructions.

Anyone who facilitates or encourages the acts. That means they are as good for the crime as any body. They are as good for the crime as anybody.

What does that mean? Well if James Fayed wasn’t in that red SUV, how can he be (guilty of conspiracy)? Because he aided and abetted.

Explains via a sample of a sidelined quarterback in a football game. Even though he (quarterback) doesn’t take part of the actual win, but he was there on the sidelines, ready to participate. (And when the team wins, he also gets a winning trophy/ring even if he didn’t play one minute of the game.)

We know that Fayed was more that simply abetting, he was the mastermind. He doesn't have to have shown up in the parking garage, as long as he was helping to facilitate the commission of the crime, (he’s guilty).

We will talk about the phone records, and that will prove it beyond a shadow of a doubt.

Although he wasn’t in the parking garage....

Jackson goes over with the jury the background evidence

All of this you already know, but lets put it in order and see how the story unfolds.

The relationship started in June 1999. Ultimately, the relationship blossomed. Pam had a daughter, Desiree from a previous marriage. James and Pamela had a daughter, Gigi. As their family grew, so did the business. The family moved fro modest means, to something of more comfort as the business grew.

James and Pamela were partners in their business Goldfinger, but it eventually became something bigger. The couple bought the Baja home. They bought Happy Camp Ranch. Ultimately, the family realizes the comfort of this gold business. Bigger, cars, hence second home, bigger family. She was officer of the company and a partner in life. This was the eBullion headquarters. This was a gold trading business and internet gold business. It was Goldfinger Gold Coin and Bullion but there were several other business: the Internet, and digital currency. (Digital currency) was the mode of currency that Fayed moved in.

(Accounts were) usually backed by gold and silver or both. (These assets are) supposed to be stored in secure vaults that hold the customers money.

On the overhead screen, Jackson shows the vaults, and shows the bullion that was brought into the company to back the accounts.

2008 Revenue 160 Million

(The couple) did enjoy the profit of tens of millions of dollars in fees to run the company. Pamela, was entitled to those profits.

James Fayed, for him it wasn’t enough. He wanted more. And that growing greed, is what established the split. It’s what established the rage, for Pamela Fayed. James Fayed was so obsessed with his profit margin and gold, it took over his family life. It started to make him distance himself.

2007, 2008 the company was doing well. But now the bright spot lights are being put on the Internet business. Pamela Fayed had a good friend Carol Neve who had a (similar) company. Her company was the focus of federal (investigation) guidelines, and her company was shut down.

Carol Neve knew you had to have a license for each state, and they are very expensive; and James Fayed didn’t have any. Goldfinger didn’t have any of these money transfer licenses. In ? it drew the attention of the federal investigation (that were currently investigating other companies). (Federal agents) believed that they had a (ring?) of several multimillion Internet money schemes.

Jackson then goes over the federal investigation and the sealed indictment, the testimony of Mark Avis. There are leaks and then there are leaks.

He (Avis) has no control of how much information is disseminated, but he knew that they both had criminal attorneys to represent their interests. Of course they knew they were under investigation. Pamela became suspicious, that things were going to collapse. But every time she bought it up, she was told we don’t need those. We don’t need to worry about it.

But the fed’s thought otherwise. And Pamela Fayed thought otherwise.

(James Fayed didn’t want to buy the money transfer licenses) because this would be money out of his pocket. Because he didn’t want the government focusing on his Internet exchange business. So no licenses, that’s it. I said it; enough said, done. Done.

Pamela Fayed wasn’t happy. Pamela Fayed was going to do something on her own. Pamela Fayed decided on her own, without permission from James Fayed she decided we are going to go get a license. Pamela withdrew $400,000, possibly twice, to go get a money license. That absolutely infuriated James Fayed. How day you go behind my back. How dare you!

That was October 6th, 2007. Three days later, James Fayed initiated the high stakes divorce. That was the straw that broke the camels back. Now, that’s war.

Think about some of the things he presented to the (divorce) court. He wanted to limit Pamela’s access to the entire company. Now she can’t even come on the premises. He said (in the divorce statements) she’s incompetent, she mismanaged company funds; possibly embezzling company (funds/assets).

She was paying for various licenses, and that’s what he was furious about. That was the very basis of his divorce statements. What James Fayed was, was incurious. He bans Pamela from the company’s premises. He’s boiling over with rage, so he bans Desiree from the company, too.

Because she’s associated and affiliated with Pam so she’s banned from the company, too. He calls her a socialite, money grubbing whore. Fayed’s thinking, I’ve been letting her get away with this shit for years and enough is enough for James Fayed.

Low and behold, February 2008 there is an indictment and James Fayed is indicted. He was enraged before, but now he’s applepletic. And, on top of all that, he finds out Pam wants to ooperate wiht authorites. He know if she does, he would be implicated.

How do we know that he knew it?

Jackson goes over the tape recording made via his cellmate, Shawn Smith. The statements on the tape are up on the overhead screen.

"No she she was runng her mouth."

"She made things up."

"She was fabricating things in her own mind."

Jackson plays Fayed on the taped recording.

And what do you think he meant when he says she’s making stupid accusations?

“She goes on the record saying this stuff.”

Fired up, Jackson says, "Who do you go on the record with? The government! (not your firends, not desiree) The government!"

At this point. it’s simply on. It’s on. So he comes up with a plan. Comes up with a scheme.

(He said on the tape)

"The last thing she should have ever done, was allow me to go out to the ranch by myself, because I got to think."

And the only other person at the ranch, was Jose Moya. Coincidence? Not by a long shot.

So he devises a plan, and wahts to pay him 25,00 0 to do ut.

JF decides to kill his wife he hries JM to do it.

He doesn’t care who he hires to do it. He says on the tape, I’m insulated. I don’t know who you sub contract wiht, but lets come up with a plan.

HE subcontacts wiht marques and simmon.s

JF hired the one he trusted. He didn’t know the other two.

I also, i have the insulation. they thefed, can’t touch me for the murder. because they don’t know me. He thinks that’s enogh, to get him off the ook.

That’s gabirel maquest. Thats teven simmons, the an with the knife.

Thesea re the peole FJ masterminded ,he hired t kill hiswife.
this was his design. this was his plan, plai nand simple.
He had a dirve who was the cotracted.
He was the lookout subcontrato and then th hired killer.

and then again. all of this in the lap of oen person

the photos of pan ead o the ground.
silently sobbin.
Desiree is sobbin i nthe coutroom, her hed own.

The murder.

There was a meeting that was scheduled. why is that important. Because that was a moment in time that JF knew exactl where JF was going to be.

How else are you going to contract? You hae to knwo whre the victim is going to be.

Youv’e got the time, the address, and all you have to do in commute that to the contractors.

9:51 amd Moya in Ventura Ca. cell phone record.
How long to get to

who left him a mesage I wonder? who left moya a message. beause jst afte 11 am in the mornign, he’s in west La.

at 2:58 in the afternon, they got to LA HOURS before, Pamela Fayed.

No. the didn’t follow her, because they predated her there.
That predates. they were lying in wait.

2:5 pm fayed calls moya. he’s about 90 seconds from walking int the door for the meeitng.

Four minutes before that, he’s on the phone with Moya the killer. Myat at the time was 1.39 miels fro m pamela.

So he’s 1.5 mie awyas. whci is aobut that thistance. whcih the crow files, jsut down the street.

Photo to shws where Jose Moya was, or the cell tower that the call bounced off of.

3:01 moya calls fabed back.

What do you think they’re dicussing.

Remember Fayed is already there. We know because he waks in the door 30 second later.

What is he saying? Where are you. whats the best way in.

Heis made his way althe way to the parking garge

3:02 fayedwalks in video of him walking i the building.

after literally after just having gotten of the phone with J Moya. Thats him with the briefcase.

Faed oens’t look at video.

move diveo of him going to elevators.

14:25 wich is 3:25 23 minuteslater, PF arrice in the parking agarage.

video of her car arriving. and ironically , 23 minutes after that, Moya pulls into the parking garage.

video of Pam coming inot the building. That’s pam geting off the elevator.

video.

video of her walking luo some short steps.

Diesiree watche ehr mother on the vieo. her famil wath.
and you look at hte time stam its now 15:32 3:32.

more fideo id her coming into the building. at hte front desk.

Ken rubs deisreee shouldrs.

mshe makes her way to theelvators video.

and 15:48 23 minutes later, the RED Suv enters the building.

Ths is the Suv with the kilelrs in it.

How did they know where to go/think about it how did they know where to go.

JK watches the video.

morevideo of pam, video of suv, again.
that’s iple a recap to take a look at the time stapm and antoher reap of the time s tamp.

The red suv, with a used thentake a look ath this contrast.

Thin about whre tehy were. The tall buildings. The reakship to hwere Josy yol w


JF was sitting in a room, in this tower, just a few feet away.and the ohers i the parking agarage and waiting and waiting, he’s perfecting the timing of the hit.

He’s got the tool in hs hand the phone text mesagin 5:51 pm send text to fmoyd.

within smae minute retuns thetext messae

What do you thik it said
Now that you know that PF didn’t know what as coming what do you think that tet message said.

? shes coming
get ready
somethng like that.

It ould be great if e knew what that tet message siad.
because we got that blackberry.
Well never knwo, because JF deleted it.

He din’t delte everything

why did he do that? because it implicated him her her murder.

Just afew miutlter afe he send that ex.
themeting comes to a close and pamel fayed lwalkd downstiard.
shows video.
and this ladies and gentlemen, is the last anyone expcept stepeh fis and moya and maeuex will every see pfayealive.
image of her lieaving the build and wlaks to the evelator and some one kindly holds theelvato for her and she ahd to run to catch it.

se video.
she stped on the elevato the door close she got the thrid fllor, and ths is what she gets.

Desreee,d heand down ciying.

The attack.

the aftermath photos of the parmaed.s with the blood largs on he g

We know what happen she was attacked from behond.

and his si how she spent her last moments.

phot

fighting for her lighf jsut having staf acros sfrom the man who kileld her.

bloodingrailing, bloody wall, bloody photos of he on the gorund.
and the autopsy photos of the injuries.

Desired doens’t look at screen

Her sisters try to maintin their comosue.

then the killers, are shows trying to try to get out of the garage.

Ultimately, a fingerprint was left on that ,card fro a memban who gets out of the let seet, icks it up with his left ad reached own pickup the card it doesn’t work and thats how detctive abdul figues out who the acutal killer was.

photso f vheicle leavin the garage.

the kilel lutget to a proper exit,and they tuen right exitign garage.

photo of this is the aftemath.
people scremn for her.

remember te itness form acros the street who head

the panic and saw

And this during all this when this is being taken, pamels fayed is bleeding to death yard away, he turns his bac andgoes the ooposite direction,

knwing exactly what happens hes’ the only oersn not to gravitate towards the caos. Why. Because he doen’st need to go here. He alwya knows whats hapenig.

because he paid for hwats happeng.

and what happend afterward?

Fayd and my eachtext each other 25 ties in the minutes just befoe and just afte pams murder.

teenage girls dont’ text each other like these tow wer

what could be the reason, they could be texting each other so much.


timeline on the screen.

I have to tkae abreak.

it’s 12:05 pm

Jackson goes over the timel ine. what is so important that thest wo men are awake. at so early in the morning texting each other.

Now move to the 28th. an hour efore mruder. we know whre Moya was, he had already gotten to the (murder site).

This is just boe pamela was attacked, Fayed text s moya one more time and moya retuend the mesag.e

Waht hapepnd after?
at 8:22 fayed is going crazy. He’s texting moya once, twice, within a mintue.

returns tex at 8:43 (moya does.

More texts back and forth.

again at 9:08.. and tha mesage retuend at 9:09.

Again texting at 9:11 ruen text a 9 l12.

adn 9:4.1 all of which were all unretuend.

Moya is trying to get rid of the knife, all the stuff in the car, getting rid of the coconsipriators.

And late at night, texting back and forth 25times, and what could

The investigation. We know where the motive leads us. it leads yo ustraignt to James fye he was oging thoug a high stakes divoce there was a federal invest he was enraged that he was going throug divoce, that she was acting on her ow.

we knw why it was perpetreaded. IT was an execution. It was up close and persona
who had the motive, to commit the crime this wa.

we know the mechanism. We have th car and the pole in vole.d Even the car comes back to james fayed. And the manpoerd. who ist i that isconecte d to these folks (photos of perps)

How do we know because it matches the decription of what riviera saw.

Goes over the connection between Marquez and simmons.
and how becaue Moya is dating his neice!

How are they connecte? and who are they connected to? james fayed.

Who was so happy to be left alone, to concoct this plan.

It’s a 10 mil he had 6.3 millin in gold, sitting in his livingroom folks. that valut at htelocation at the plant.
he had just htat much in bullin.

found a 20 bill shy, of 25, grand not in a bank, not in a safe, but in a ziplock back.

we know tha JF wanted Mr My dead.
thn he hand enough t put toghet another 25,00 to put together another hit?

who ahs the means to commit this kind of crime?
james Fayed. and of cour th muder plto for Jose Moya.

He wanted to supres evidne tha moya took part in it by killing moya. What better way than to order ah it man on the inside,

If you deteme that he tried to cover up that he had apart in it by trying to kill moya, that along convies.

Good time to take a break.
Alan Jackson has 15 mor minutes to go.

JK the courtreporter hasn’t had abreak since 10 am.

so, like to take th break.

see you back at 1:30 pm.


1:34 pm Judge kennedy back on the bench.

Had lunch with Lisa, Katie and her daughter Lynn.

The people are here, defendant is here.
are ready for jury?

Yes your honor. Werksman nods.

CAlling jurors for 109.

Just made it in time.
A reporter I’ve not seen before enters 109 sits to my left and knods to Meister.

Meister comes over to shake his hand.

On the reocrd.

People rep

JK : Mr. Jackson

Wer wer aout to visit the defense that was preosente in this trial.
Want to talk to you about that defense and the evidnce submitted for just a few minutes

I can best describe this as a hail mary mass.

When you’re up agains the wall, you’ve got nothing to use youer donw 40 to nonthing and your on the five yard line with eleven seconds left.

The whole world goes long and you toss one as far as you can 70 80 yards, you toss it as far as you poss can and just pray.

and they begun to call that a hail marry pass.

Hail mary of another sort. But a hail mary none the less.

After 3 years of know inthe circumstants around Pf death.. low and behod a revelation.

Comes from his own sister, thrownd is other suster undr the bus.

as if it wern’t enough he’s got an ongoin plot to kill his wife,
plot to kill other oele to cover his tracks, what the heck , elst throw oen of my ther sibling under the bus, to save my own (ass?)

Assc ot Pt she was shocked, devastad, couldnt be leive her own eyars.

She’s “close” to Pam but before, shes close, bfore
shes’ awae of bitter divorce,

she bleive Pam ma ybe “danger” but she didn’t belive Mary.

So what do I do?

Zero. I do nothing.

I’m accornidn to her, she has just heard a woman soclice for 200,00 to have her husband murder PF. she knows theyr going throug a bitter divoc,e I’m clsoe to am its not like she estranged its’ not like she couldnt get ahoeld of her.
in fat she said she spke to pam more than own borhter.

Zero. not a workd not a note. not an email. nothing.

Yet she says, she thinks pam may be in dange.r

When crossed, she fele back to same excuse like she had coached herself int o thos excsue.

:Beause I didn’t belveied.
her

She said a it was just a momentary lapse I didn’t bleive.

Yest she also said she warned pam, she might be in danger...

You can’t hace your cake and eat it too.

And why didn’t she actuall warn pam, because she didn’t belive mary . It makes no sense, is because it didnt’ happen.

It simpy didn’t happen.

I’m not going to stand her and pass judgemetn o n Ptaboga,

Im not going to di that.

God forbi and y of us are in a positon to defense a family member.

To make an unteibler decision to sace a siblings life. I wouldnt want that respos you wouldn. I’m not asking you to jusge ..andone of us whould liekd to help a sibling.

Wht the judge is aksing you you to dok is you must seee through, to the truth.

If you don’t want to judge pat for what she said or did, getting up her to sassist her borhter in a captital murder.

but judge tha facts, for what they are.
you jb is to clear aw that smoke

and the turth is this doenst make snes. this didnt’ happen

If she knew pam was going for a bitter divocle

if sh k that the company was u p for grabs.

If she knew that mary had solicited to killl pam, she’s tell somebody.

Only reason she does it ,bless her heart, is to help her borhtoer.

She;s married to a Pol off. she doesn’t even have to get out of bed to tell Pol.

Notice the glairing absence, of Mr. T. on the witness stand.

and the thing that you would have expceted would have been Mr. T on theat witness stand,

The reason he didn’t take the stand, is because he’s acop and he never told about it So all left in hadns of patricial and the best she can say is I never told ayone becuase I idnt’ bleived.

she never warned pam never told the lids. she was close to desiree.

Whould you say something to precious desiree, or gigi, NO...not if it didnt’ happen.

Ofcourse, the elephat in the room is she never told JF either.

ANd then we move to July 28th, or say july 29th the day after PF was killed.

lets tink logically.

acc to her test. she had heard 60 days pror. her sister Mary say I wanst to hire, to kill PF. And the you wake up ....and whats the next thing you do, is pick the phone up again. and you;ve jsut becasme a witness to a contract killing. you call everybody and you scream it from the mountain tops. I know who did this mary did it.

Nothing.
Not a word. Not a whisper. Zero.

didn’t tell her husband nothing to authorites nothing to prosecution. Rememver our number is listed, and the lapd the vent co. Our nuber is listed. call 911 for gods sake. but nothing. and then the kicker is, aug 1st, is she finds out her brother is taken in custondy. and is charged withthe very murder, that she knows someone else solicided.

andthe same not a whispter. nothing 2008 2009 2001 in to feb2011 her brother in jail for three years, for a murder she claims, she knows someone put up, solicited, created.

And nothing. Unti 32 days before this trial started. before we came and met ou. 32 before fayed came at met you at the 11th hour. dropping back, and throwing long.

When asked on cross you knew you were coming here giving swon testimony, you came out her for couple days, reason pack toothbrush, now pullout your purse the note, the email or the diarly or the journal entry to cooprbate thei ideat that this ctuall took plcas.e

Im srry mmr harmon, I have nothing, nothing. Nothing.

except for her own statement. And this stmtn came forwawrd, after consider the timethat she was visited by Holy Jackson al wlaywwer whosl job it is to make sure JF doens’t end up on death row.

Uho on. Jf is on tape ecordin ghat incriminating. the confession tape that you heard. Patcircid didn’t know aything about htat until she soke wit Holly Jackson She didn’t know that he was facing capital punishment
she didn’t knw he was fac the death pentaly

So after HL 32 days before, afer she find out that her brother is in desprate shape shfe she find out that he could be facing the death penalty, she says, I got it. Someone solicited her murder, and it wasnt’ jim.

I’m not asking you to jidge patricis, I’m asking you to look thought the smoke, and see that it didnt happen.

It simply doesnt’ exhist.

The jusge is going to instr you with, 2 interp of the facts, one that is reasonable and one that is unreasonalbe based n your common sense, as a matter of law, must reject the unreasonable of the facts.

I don’t see that. It comes directly from JK. thats what the law tell you to do.

there is now wya, based on all the evidence tha it doesnt’ oint to juames fayed opposed to the ridiculoys statent that we heard jsut a few days ago. and you have to reject it. It’s simoly unreasodnable.

and the reason you have to recjet it you dont have to reloy on me, or mr harmon, you can rely on jfayd own words. when he was in custond with shawn smith.

He as arrest on federal indictiment that mark avid takekd about.

whiel in that custody when he was house with another cell made named shawn smilth .there was recordings.

Welltak about hose for just a second

How you found out how shawn smith is.

We wern’t hiding it. he was a condivd drug dealer. we didnt hide it. Of course is ...he was in custody. he was awaitg sentencing.

And thats wen Mr. F started talking abourt PF murder.

sW turned around and told authorites.

hey this guy is balthering about a murder he comited.
What did they do he agress to wear a wire.

Lisa here.

play along with hem see what he says.

Think about the back stoy that you hread or headd in front of you. In that tapes thers a ton othat is alluded to the fist converston. there is als alot that explosedin the convesation

Shawn said Iknow a man, hes a made man tony.

you hear who tony is sw say his with lukemia my hiters gonna die.
you dont’ have to b worred about killin tony because tony going to die of natural causes.make sure you take care of rosie his wife and it was all made up.

fayedl ike the idea, and lots Moya’s murder.

Likes this idea, and it fints in his plan perfectly.

aloos endname moys aloos end name moquea ad anlose end name summons.

because the lat ting he wanst todi is sit around looking over his soulder wondering fi Moya is goun to crack.

and yes Ssmith is a crook or a criminal it wouldmatter who is in the cell next to him.

It’s HIS words being used agsinst him, becus etis waht comes out ho HIS mouth, thats of interset toyou.

and when given the oppetne Ssm plays an academy awared performace here, and when he thinks Fayed getting skittish her, hey youl wnat to back out back off,

Fayed no dont tel me no thatis not it.

don’t tle me that Mf going to tell you dwrong that’s s lose end tatyo u need to be snippe.d fayed I don’t know I gotta thin on it.

smith hu
I tane t think on it.

Well you dont’ want th?

Fayed, No, no no that’s not it.

al you hav eto do is look at the transcript 15, 16 ,17 18 a lot of wressling deffening
the wire was sewin intot he fabric of smith outfit..

waht was happeing.

I’m jsut a little nervous here. turn around.
what do you think whas happening?

Patting smith donw. searching for a wire.
and he talks aboutit in the tape Jack demostate patting down.

Smith said I kne you were looking at me funny everythingokay not
Now I’m okay. Now I feel better.

Given the oppru to back out, notp,

I just want to make sure wer’e not being taped and then he checks the bed. and theres a puse hes searchign the bed for awire. and doesnffind one
and thein the converstion is on.

Smthg give his another change.

The yare taking about a map fayhad been writn out a map.

How is tony going to know where to go to di the it?

why would say that because smith is not kdiotn.smith knows if he gets somethng on paper.

Smith doensk say I phe yo ugusy are getting thsi. he hs no cliee it hits is working

If you wnat the hit done you got to show us where to dgo so discssing the may and Fay said, if antyhig goes south, my fingerpints my handwritns is on that map.

fayed says these the pfoof you ned.
smith says.

you want to thowe it awaybro?

No, I want this cleand up I wanst this cleap ut ohapend.to happen.
he is 1005 invested in thei clean up to happen Killng moya.

There is al ot t otak about

he admist to having kill plan
and he buids aplan to kill moya.

Plays tape

What did htashoe ding you for.
too much
waht you give hm SS....

AJ what was in mr Fayeds drawer (the 25,000)

During tape, he calls PF every name in the book,

the wife, who had been slain days earlier. he calls his slain wife every name in the book.

beause if you din’dt doi t you might acutally be evastated,byt he death of your wife, you might not call her a dumb fucking cunt.

those words are hard for me to say, and I’m just repeating them those arent my words those are his word

call iher a terible mome, and a mone grabbing wholre. whis ing to fuck and teard down his milion dollarempire.

He puts it in living color inside the pages of that transcript.

AJ plays tape again.

Plas tape of jayed disparaging wife, if you jsut stay with me whi she gest into school

ssmith whow
ut she ended up being a funcs super money grubbing...

duri tape convo you’ llhere, that actualllamented that he hand’t met smith earlied that he actaly hired Moya. he as upsed about hiring the wong mperson t do the murer for him.

I din’t know you man, I whis ihan met you before. would life be all roses then and she admitd that he hadn been waitn and wiating for the proper oppetuniy.
FJ when he thougt noone was litenting, he said, Iwanted to do it myself.

he din’t say Im sorry she dead or suffered or injuerd Im sorry i took the mtoher of my children.he said I wish I d’ done it myself but I knew Id’ get caught. so like a cowsared he used his weapon of cohince and heuses checkbookt o hiresomeone els to do his dirtywork.

plays takep.

Plays tape of convo just argued about.

Words shown on screen from taped conversation.

Headmidd that oveht pars f mohts tha he had st u pfor clean sitatuon for the killers to murder pam

not mad that she was mrudered. mad that she was murdered in a wah thatwould come back to his doorstpe

but, here are points in this tpe that swan smith is literally laughingat him, not with Jf lauhing at Jf Sawn isplaying part of maide guy someboy tha hac contact with hitters contract hit men.
and so when ss starts laufhing at JF hey stooped, you had the guy do it in a parking garage wth camersa dummy what werey ou thing.

Oh no this one wasnt’ my dien I had four clena situation inclding one in maluble. They went rougt on me.

the dint’ go rogue on him there were 25 text message that say How would J Moya know here to wfind Pf...on jll 2th.... Jf trying to make him smarter than he actually is.

ss laughts about it dude are you kidding only anidito wuld id thais.
JF said on no Im not the iditon, wel the iditons decided to do it that day because they idiont set ti upthat day there’s oly one way they could know to get there because he set it up that way.

play tape again.

plays tape whre he says therw were 4 other situations. a july 4th paryt down in malimg . it was rula areas, I even ahd the imte dates evyerhthlocation all i ahd to was have then get i the car ad jack it.

ramble o about how they missed four different situations.

but they poicekd the daybefore my fucking court hearing.

SS laughs.

ad just so we knw that we know hes not making this stup up, look what happend on the fourth of juy in makib therw as a party she was at that partyhe’s telling ss exactyhow he had set up a time plce and pecheckt it. she was supposed to be carjacked but something happened, something didnt look good. and he set up another and another and aonther like that. and on the fifht time she was kiled incentry park east.

fayed claimed that pam fayed was runnig her mouth. runnig her mouth on the freocrd to the authorites about his tax and lice issue.

Well it wasnt’ about the taxes, it was about other stuff. The license.


plays tape where he says she was running mouth out of control.

She had thi wild ida oaut you know, thesestupid accusations against me just to make me look bad, ..JF

as convsaton goes on fayed begins to talk about how to tie up lose ends and how t take care of Moya, He drew a ap for Moya and there was a payment play.

Fayed confiemd taht moya udt be murder Ye,s he gs got t go fucig indot.
It gota to look like he just disappeared.

Plays more tape of recording where Fayed efers to previous convo not taped.

And of cours ad asded flavor as a polic officer walsk by and MDC, mr F stats making fun of the fact that she cant even hear him just feet away plotiting multple murders.

durng that taped conversation Fayed bleive he made the right decision to murder pam

Why does he want t odo i?

Because i cant’ leave lose ends I can’t leave any lose ends I have to type up any lose end.
He asked i he would have been better off payi npan instead of killer her fayd said, no she’wouldn’t listen to reason.

more tape played. Judge Kennedy watches video.

and rpbalby most imortant of all the parts of this coveraton that are vile, that are dispicable, that establis hhis guilt. when eiven the opputrn to show the mosremot comassion sorro ro grive or remcose jf shows none.

If you had to over would you do it.
Uh-huh.

SS:affrimtar hun.??

fayed uh-huh. Absolutely.

giveexplanations as t woy.

Murdere his wife.

JF showd ablslno remose not concern or compassion wen eh thought nobody was listening the fact of hte matter ishetook pried in what he di. when he how it was done he was embaraed.

she wuldnt’ listen to reason/ he said she ahd to go.

Evekn know what he knew, he would do it again.
Even on top of that he still wasn’t done. He still wasn’t finished.

Contracted for te killing of myya and simmns the question become waht happens to Mr. smith.

The body cout’ rising. so hw hapens to smith smith asks him that how do I know that i”m on the reiceivi end of you ire.

Oh you don’t have to worry about that. You’ve got my word of honor. What a joke. What a joke.

All of this should not bel ost on you, what was really hanein at 1875 century park east. PF stepped of that elevator and she stepped into a conspiread to kille that was masterminded by James Fayed.

We know what she wahaene she was attacked fro mbehind and stabbed over and over and she founth for her life fouht like hell for her life, runing to the rain spilin blod left and right. what do you think she was ding whe nshe grabbed that ril.

she would rather throw herself off a 3 story building that face that brutal attacke that a 6 foot 3 190 lob man with a blade.

but the cuts wre too much and the wounds were too deep, and she colapes. just inf ron of Mr river. edwin rivera had the misfortuen or in a nother way a fortuen to hear a friendlvocie, whe nshe died.

she stepd out of the

she heard the des cires the death cires a wond epeate for heldpHer face, her arm all covered for blodo
he thought she

he thogut i was a pile of reages dhe was so coverd with bolld

ad then she moved her head tuend only hethe withes of her blodo not coverd in bolld

She had itme .reiember waht the doctor said.

she had time. she had time.
her sternty ws svered.
she wasn de she was n’t unccons she was very mus alive and she was very much awaed. she ahd time.

whed do you thik she might have been thinking when she ahd time ti think time ti f fel time to realize what was happening.

she’d never again touch the hand of her daughter.

s start wt ell
never kiss the cheek of gigi,
never see those smilig faces she had time.

How long do you thing a minute is.

she had 3 or four.while all this is gong throug her mind.
how long do you think that minute laste.d

thin about that what she was going through. I’m gon ti aks you to think for just one minute.


and alna stopes.
Mr.
werks man.
your honor, may we approach.

objectons hour honor

That was ove quickly

Jackson

just one minute just one minute. Jckson watched starting now.

and he stands there, in front of the jurors.

hoto f pam up on the elmos, smiling. a head sow, wearing glasses. .

Deisrees ,cryig, Dawn and gretta, vsibly said.

Aj. And that’s just one.

Anediwn rivera said, at the end, pf laid on the ground syou aw wher her body was, he lookedo n helplessly moved he head back and forth, a febal attmetp to get air sir that simplye would come the cuts were to bad the woulnd were doo deep, she strechedher arms out she stretched her legs out she was pleeding for help and ewn river said she was beggin i nher eys for some on any one to hold her.
pf took her last breath lying on the flitly floor of an ic ldo of a parking garage, with a stragne person with no famil no loved ones to help her or comfot her.

that’s how pamels fayed diied.
witht evyer beat of her life b beating out of her life.

aj.....

with that in mind. iwant you to consider just asecond how james fiaye answered the question would you do it again.

Play tape.

Absolutely, and with that. JF. had his difining moment and showed you who he is.
AJ done.

take 10 mintue break.

then hear from defense.

Desire is comforted by her friend an fmaily

Fayed goes back into custody.
Jacko comes over th hug soctt and shake his hand.

Scot looks sad. The family is visibly upset.
Lisa enters thw well.

Scott hugs the wond I thin is his wife. Some of the famly leave the courtrom.

Dawn and scotthug and comfort each other.

2:4o Lisa takes off.

Jackson did not once read from a note. The entire closing was presented in classic Jackson style.

Reporter shaks werksman hand same one steve greted and Werksman said, Thanks for coming.

2:45 pm: Okay I'm going to post these raw, rough draft notes. Jackson has finished presenting his closing argument. Be forewarned, the typing is really terrible and sometimes, the message is not clear.




---break--
On record Calling jurors. now ready for defense closing argument.

Mr werksman.

Mya I please the cour counse.

good afternoon.
you head anoutsanding clsoing argument by a very seasoned experienc prosecutor.
who presented a large universy of fact to present a compelling narative.
but ladies and jentlem at the ehar of the presnetaiton i nth very fine closing arguemtn
is noting more tan a peal to your passion and your prejudice.

because if you go behidn and look at hte facts of this ase.

let me remind you of the jury isntrcuton that she read you.
you msut not be iflusi by sentiemtn conjecture public feleling and jeyt we had to sit for a mintue to ompletn ate for Pf life. no dout a terrible awful thing. but that’s not what thsi trial is about, oh were she did a awful deat,is where tis man tmy clietn ws repons bfor that death.
so I remeond you in my oepning stateme yo uwould se some very gme and grisled things you wuld hear some stuff thatwould maek you skin cred

you msut judge this evince impartiall and fainrly you can’t mgvei thi thought to those on this side of the bar who msut hear this thatyou can not put ourslef in the shoes of this famil yo msut keept your feet firmly plant in the sjury bos with a old hard eye to he imaritlald of both side. and noe swet into the passion and compeling of a clsing arguemt.
is i want to thank you for your patined and your attentive thoutou this tril

this is our fourht weke together. and evyr day weh you get on these elevto and the olbung poble you st her and tok notes we all noticed that and we all appreciat that. you know this is an iortna case for my client and so o behiav of mr miester and mr fayed for your onsciencousness for ateendign youe dutty as jurors.

spend am oement why you are here, to sit in judgemtn wit you fellow citicwed.

you ‘ehar udner subej your have to come but you also saw i te viir how easy it is to avoid jury duty.;

now I say this not to dencerat thos who could serve,.. sme becasue of fmaily situatuon. I don begrud hem that but therw ws a man wh sta her and todl us they was having aremode done on his itchen and that ws more importnat ot him than deteriming if ths man would go to death row.

Anthoehr man bee i nthe navy but an the end of hte dya you are all here becuase you want to be her and be part of hte geratest systen of justed deisgne dby all peole.
it a systme to protect and seguat theliberty of the indiviual.Its asysem desined to encuer that the gitlyt get convicted, rather its a system dieci to sensue that theinnocent, are acuqited
thats beuse a efense is presemend defendatn. thats why the ocsuethad t te burden of proof.

thatwhy he must prove beyon a reas odn

It’s diesciend to pevent , the worslt nightmre that a man woul be convicted for a cirne he dit’ commit.

you heard lke you james fayed has a fmaly has a bsiness he has a life hes got things he like to return to when theyse poceeding are done. is and you what you own him is not what i rewust , and I request an equittal,

is that you own your othat as surn and that you applied the othe squely and by the jaw. thats what you owne him and you ow him a fair trial and you owe him thats reached based on good fatih dleiveraths tat are baes on the facts of an the law not base on out rage or passion or jprejeduce.
and if you bid byo your otha and if you ie wthies evidenccafefully and you se gin the alw and that you will find Mr f not guld of the charnge.s

and you will do so, because the porcsuter and not broht forth evidnecbeyond areason doubt.

No your explai nreson doubt is defined as hat state of the case whch ath the entiere compoaren of all the einve leaves the midn of the jurs tthat condition they sya nd fell in the truth of the charg.

whatthat means is , if envidneci s presented it h courtroom has to be so comeplling hss sto be so stoug so strong thaty ou woul rley on it to make the most imortant decisno ni nyoru own live.s

Well, I head evined that he oltoed, and then I head evidnece that he din’t plot it. if ou are in the state of mind that you then you ahve reason able doubt

You msut fin Mr fayed guit if that’s your state of mind.

there are some subatan flaws int he prosecuton case.

ther is no evidnce of a conspice between james fayed an joey moya.

and I’ leava side the tape for amoment or the oscar awawerd fpefram by SS and oscalr award pef that was a temr y dedtedbdul.

fantsy land peformand by shan smth

What did the poce provle there eis no evide o f a oncpsirafy to klly.

ther is no conveston to the authoitls by ja no onfession to authois by joey by bjoey moy or steven symos no oneson by gabire mateiz

now whe know simon left his fingerpitns at hte scne

but where is the evidnec of a conspare betwen mre simmons and mr JF ther are hone mesage bletwe phone tet msssage. and the ATT and dixon and the detect he best they can inform you si that cell phon called cell texted cell phone and cellphne texte back.

you can look at thsoe pho erocrd thery in evidne rild with the reocled form may uen july from 2008 look at hten bcasue what you will see, is n a dial and nightly basis s ames faey and joys are textin on a relga basis. at 3 in mron 5 in mronti 3 i the afternnon

look weeks beofre the murder. the 24th. ther times jf an jmoy communicating at strange hours.

the live in a 200 ae cne out of nwhere, and joye was res for openig the gate.

that Jf notctenal ife stye work theogh night and sleep theough the dya.

Youl hea form Mr scnhce dwho ws the daytime rhacn manage.

Ther’ alwys somehtni that neede dot be odne wells na dorad, therw erw constuctn prjectu ndeay therw as a hosue on it.

why did jm live on the premises because he was on duty 24/7.

and jf expceted he to be on duty 24/7
and july 27th and 28th, they spoke dozens of times.

Now, l& g the possuggest to you, that the nubmer of calls and texts wre more than an 1 year old gilrs because there were an abundnace. ..we odnt know because w dont have them

they would have yo ubleive that Jafoay woulwas setitng up the murder of PF. it would bejust as plausable to PREVENT the murder of Mr. J fayed.
and when we go theought he tape , decibing to I don want yo d

di decibe da feve pit of his commun with jo moyd an attendped to clal off any pla in motion.
so when you look at any whos to say ath it was an attme pt pla nit or cll it off, or if this is the boss, to tele the ranc oand to tell the ranc hand to fix tings or whaever yo udo on the ranch we don’t know. and that’s ap rlem. we don’t know.

wek now that ther is no proof the y was enve i the parking garnag on the eve of july 28th.
now,I’m not syaing this to be lcieve, I sat theought this proceeding.s I know what it looks like itsould like joy was ther I’m not going to stand he and say he wasnt’ but I dont’ have the burden of proff. they do.

I didnt’ see a fingerpint of jo at the parking garage.

I didn’t se a confessi of anyoe tha cmae in the coutro.

this is what imtalkng aobut.

whre is the evidnece of Jm commited this murde.r

its suspicious. JM reported his cell phone stole.

they cnat’ bliethl aks to to assue he was the dirve.

who knows what role joey playd all we know is tha simons was there. and it looks liek it might we the persn river wekno simons ws but where is joey.

Jf in this tape betwe self and smit he din’t knwo what role if any that he played.

let me read to you two small ortions.

portion.s page 25...

you thi he di that tshit on pupe?
J did it on pupls so that hey can csh a check?

this is sip you dint her when th proceto played you ap eotto the tapel

I’ll go over som differ n that the proseuctoer didnt’ show you on that tape

That JUF say he din’t knwo why joey did it.

n then on page 63, they talking aobut what might have happe there.

SS did i think it might have en

do you thin joey dorve.

I thin so, but I don’t know


SS I don’t know,

Jf I thnk at the most two or posibl one.

Mr. prose a peented you theo that ther were three peole in the suv but JF aappear s to not evek now what hapene not evek nowing who did what.

thes no proof of a pay of 25,00 dollars.
the proc theoy is that that jf paid jom to ochestrate the murder of pf. and he shows you 24, in jfayd drawer, doesn’t equate to 25, 00 paid to JM where is the money in JM drawr,

how does that equate.

Coems to the oppostive that nobody waspaid.

would it benice if they coudl haveborout in a witness tha someone said that JM was speding like crazy shwo us a witnes who would show us where JM (is ni cash)

I didn’t hear that and neigher did you.

we have no proof the JM recieved a penny from JF>

can’t excuse this failre in evine and say I’m willing tovlerlookd because I’m so worked up over this horrible sltter, becasue this yound gma did because he was so..
thats not good enought.
there’s no proffo of any payment from Jo t simmons or marques.

we can’t sit her and assume or speculate that JM got 25,00 that we dont know and that he shared it with marquez or simmons

whre’s the evidnecthat they got a hige infusinon of cash. orthath e had a huge pocket of cash or went out and bought aket ski

I’m forn missous show me. Show me whre is the evidnce?

We’re all form mizzour in the jur box, show me.

What is the evince of JF demean on this dat.e

Yo usaw th vide of epole comign aand going.you head about the bing meting between the divorce lawyers, yo knwo that was a monday.
I didn’t see one withnss that Jf was ofly sweat and nevous that day. or that he sat in that meetin encase in sweat.

the pose called jean nelson. I dont have to ahsk her I dn’t have th burden of proof.

Mr nelson how did he look on the 29
Idint’ hearantgn lke that how about the other peole at hte meeting.did he look lie someone plannign amurde, or did he jsut sail throght a meeting?

Jfarrives an he had this peculri piidgeontied gait has bit of girht, shuffling his feeit in with abig bad, he doen’t have aar in the world then at 6 32 p you see him shuffling out as am an wihtout a care in the workd.

then you ntice the ocoe pt i na pice of evidnce whic decirbes the phone alls that wer made

pele 140. map of locating of people wre when phone calls were mad.e

detec abdul testified that fayed had adriver.

and you see that faey had that gait. and you see that he hmaking a el pone but it look lie heccalling armon, the driver, armon, to tkae him home ot the ranche,

Where th evidne of how mR heyd behavie on the eveing of the murde.r but we do knwo that he made aala nd then, if yo watch the tape, they show the cowd gravitatng towrd the crownd, andthey see fayedshuffling makng acell phon ecall and det spend making a phen call.

and fya apl being the only cal going over ther after he makes a call, he goes over the garage with everybody els.e
so there is no eivnece that he knew pam fayed is gong to be mrudered.

proc have tried to present you evicne of a mtotive they tied to convice you that Jf wnat to kill Pf for finnciald gian because he feared a divoce would be runious.

lyou know that they wre in abit of divoce. echanig acucssations. coudocumet related ot the proceedins. people #32, a list of all the pleedins.
and hes this was notetion, divocroece

they each accuse eaht others of things the fought liek eople do, in divorce, her acc against him his acc aginst her. it was an gulugle divoce, but the fac

doens’t give rise to murder.

there was a hearing to be schedueld, whret pam should get more money, an whthere sacntion shoudl be impose. you said

J and made an agreement that the werw oeki thought counsek playing by rules ofdivoce proceing and the hearin on the 29th had not been ditemrned . the udge could have rled anything. but there was no guante what the judge would grn.e
therw sn nof eie that he owuld fac fincncial runious there is no say what hte judge would have done.

pice of testimony by jame sfayd in infamus tape where mr fayed talked aoud divorce,
and he says, thewasnt thewasn any guarantee that iw gong to get wackedo ut with any sacntions and shit. we’b dbeen in cmoliance with all the ruling and vocorce things like that.

so JF acknowedlign he wsn’t all that oncerned with the 29th. whre is it stated tht herw eould b some kind of runiouls calamiaty on the 29th that he would arrange his wifes murder on the 28th itls not there.

siad they foung about money ,whic somethign peopl fight about.procsuggto yyou that he hand a motive becaus of the oncog cirminalinvestination.
you learned that the govt was invest becuse they thought sme money launders were using th omcpnay

not that faye was ing anyhing dwong but htat the company was bieng use.

so got indictment udner sea

enveytestified that everne should testified thaat eveyone onewould not could not and should not Mr fknow about it.

They said that they wre goin to use it vfor leveralge to get him to coperate.

but ths avis testified abou the ivnestngato nand what that met for jame san pamel fayed. Mr avis, you heard a federal proceoturimeached by the ver next witness who was pm F lawyer.

goes into avis testimony.. and he aid wiling said, i want to bring her in. and avis testi that pm wuld be
but it turns out thats not theturht.
then nest witnes testified, the ehdi make a call but he din’tsay i’gong ti birng her in, he explain that in a cirm investingatherwe are there levels there are targets those subkect thsoe who are inviestingating teistasu whoare not jyet determiend and theree are thosue wo are witness.

and my intentw as to try to find a way to make her a wintess, but I never said she wuld beone.

Avid had hi mthwon of th cse. I wnde why.maybesue willing wasn ot as agreeable as he thought he would be.

we know that 2 dyas later willinghamd your out. YOu served one of the..seachwarrants.

she never talked aobut cooperattherw as noeve copration she testifed therw as no aggeement in olace

so simly there is no eivdcne she was coopeating with the fed o that Jf knew that she was considne coperationg, and behin all this

there was no way hekne therw s an indictment, all he knw that the was an investigation.

go over waht proc presnetation ws slanted.
I wha d no mean a pesna attack on these to gnetlement.
you can se they arep ofesion thcanseethey care about hwat they do, if youcome awya with a minessin istht all always porpotedthemse wilfdiginty and rpsen the proce presnt the statne,they aredbocates in favor of a convicton thee is no discresin every man is an ail they reporesent th state. the masrhal the sresoucse of ht state to layout the case agianst my client.

in my os i asked yo uto be cauious, and that it ould soudn god. butI’m aksn you to peel back the hood, and look things are not always what they seem, skim milk doens’t always aoe what it sems.

Avid told yo uabiut his role in the federla investingatnand how that might ive role to a fedral investigation.

why dit’ she cooperatoe.?

Well beause she was murered.
Mark avis, he testified about something he had no idea what he was talking about.

He cant tracke oams murer to that investigation.

youcant be sawyedby thattype of evidec.

then there wre the pictures they showed you octues of pam and daughters and loving family life she had dog and christmas and fishing.

its’ all tured she did ado all those things.thats not what this case was bout.

therw eas evine put into this trial to inflame your passin in order ot anger you in order to bulil up a head o stee so you could put aside rations thought. sam true with bloody picues ofcrime scne.

No oendisputes she had beautifly duaghters and hnad been brutally slaughted. but you were show that with othe reson t inflam you.

She talked abut JM had acces to caged areas.

to listen toled she worke hthere she see joey sometins in the cage area.s

shetried ot leave you wit te imporesson that Jm hd full acess to saes and gold andcaged areas and that would help you conclude was so trusted and so aces togod and cash that he would have en like this so tight that he would have done JF biding. and had acces to all this welath.

but that was not a rue deiction on cross exam.she ahd to adn she had never seen joey go in thesafe. shed never seen the safe opened.
Only saw it once, during the accounting.

only time saw safes open.

lefe you with tie impresin that joey was carrying aoru buskes of sgold and slives joey had no acess to safes hd no acces of gold.

and i aksed her well you see htes buldging bags, how do you know they don’t contai mashmallwos or food,

I wans’t tring to be filppant, I was trying to make a point.
she was saying whatever the prosec aksed her to say.

But she didn’t knwo, upon direct exam you’be being and imresosin the witness would tell you fact with a ceitn, but whe you wueat them they had no idea.

det separ desc vieo at scene, pear hatsay eveyone ouside on olawed ging owrd garage and they care

and JF doesn’ care. but hen, forusecond later, fayed does go over there.

spear tired toleave you with a false impresion.

cas isnted you se it it paear to be a mind quite serene shuflfing out hes making outi submti to you hes trying to get his ride, we know he calls his driver armonand then he walks over to the garage.

but thats not how spear presented it.

talks about suv rented by james fayed but spear had it wrong. who really rented. It ws rented at corporate account. it was acually she who rented it.

this is it where spearwould have yo ubleive spear rented the suv. female emoolye did on a corprate account.

now attenton to the tape

one othe thing about text messge and cell phone.
I’m not knocking det abdoul the test that te text mesage were delted. he things there might hve been text mwssagesaved from daughters.
I didn’t see any evidnce about tex messge sved y daughter. he doen’t know who delted messaged or hwo they got dletled or f ithere were any test message.
we knw they were eet useage, and we don’t know hwo the phone becasue meot of all dat betwe joey and jim, t

It’s nt in evidnecthat jim feyd elted allt hose texts.

the tape is aperversn the ue ss to con and conje to lead in into a confession...

convictefelon drnk driver hit and run drive, he is the instrument of this thee hour tape you canlisten and
thsi ma is evli and no goo comes from evil.
#! is ss leads andcons and directs ames fayed and the other thing is, that JF did not want ot go through with conspiracey to kill Pam Fayed.

and he tels him, age four... (JF to Ss?)
det between ss and about performance.

good luck. always abdoul says youre oging to do your thingk if it was an in a diferent light.

I will be afte today you may be firig me.....
ss ad fae faye are sititng in acell youvle seen ictues of simt e has the fulnyyese heieyse are damag huo can hear the toliente flishing you can feel thlasutophobia.
thelanguag by hame sfayed, I’m not going to try to santize or the crude remarks.

if it were a crime to peak ill of the dead, Jf would erting be dead to you.
if he were th first man, to nt be sorry of the pasing of an ex wife,....????

and so, thinking that he’s in thli letitle cell with this drug addict, who won’t stoptalking, you can hear james faye afectig hte language thedued this and the dued that, the street veacular, one of the most interesing, mr fayed isn’ necessrily buying it.

he exhibts some cofusin about what s gog on.

ss aksing him hey you havent told anything

this is slos end time

werksmma is readin so fast.

JF> I don’t even know what’s going on anymore, siting not evekn knowing how to play it.

now tis scene of lets her a mafie sckeme.

letshire a mafia scheme.

Goes over the tape. and the audo that’s ambiguious in Werksmasn opinion.

my hands are cramping up I almost an’t write anymore.

You know hwat’s that’s called? That’s called a denial.

SS is coacing him on endlessly. Did you ever see a map? there wasn’t any map. JF was playing along. there never was a map.

SS says, watch, watch and learn,

MW Watch and learn while I set you up for a trip on death row.

More from the tape that appears to help his client and how SS percists.

It’s 3:45 pm.

Werksman says that SS is so close to getting Fayed to confess, because that will get him a get out of jail free card.

Four examples where J fayed withdrawals. and jury instruction... werksman goes over that jury instrtion an intetnion to withdrawal.

Goes over tape where Faleyd supposeldy tells SS that he told Joey to stop.

James fayed is acknowledging he tried to stop it and he wants his money back.

I told him to forget it. I called him a dip shit. Four different times.

Werksman is a bit confused with his exhibit papers. I read yo the four withdrawals.

you hae thes efour examples. where F is telling M don’t do it it’s over.

Well gentlemen, MM happened.

The pros called this a hail mary, thati t was a desparete ply by a desparate defense.

If thi were a foot ball, analogy, this is where the prosecution fumbled on the 1st yard line.

But there’s mary.

Mary had motive, mary hadopportuntiy, and mary had intent.

Mary’s son had the car. we learned that mary came out at end of 2007 beg of 2008 to assis Mr. F to run his affaris, that she became so involved, she got on the Phone list. It’s the magna carted, it has all the imoortant information.

Mary is now by ealy 2008 she’s working at busines sshe’s runnig the rnacy shes’ got her son out there, her son working for the compan with a entatn car.

We know that may and joye tested on july 28th. but on the talked or texted or communicated twice.

Mary and Joey called texted, we can’t be sure how long the conversation lated.

IT’s it suspicions the very last cal on the phone call in the parking garage, comes from mayr to Joey.

the very next thing that happmens on that phone is 10:30. Mary was the very last person to talke to JM at that garage.

You heard patty calm little bit nervous, a nurse, bit of fmly dysfunction. She loved pam. and she loved he borhter and she loved mary and she gets this funny phone all of may 200, she remmeber is was a sunday, it was a phillies game, that pam is runinig hte busines sthat pam is bad parent,

would jurt kill her for 200,000. I’m sorry you can’t make stuff like this up.

Mary goes to her sister husband tht was a cop and tried to hire a contact killing.

So, paty thought that was the end of it.

Patty didn’t tell kurt because patty didn’t want to believe it.
then 3 months later, pam gets murdered. and the only sorce of info, is Mary and mary gives her a story that doesn’t have anything do to with Mary.

then they ahd a falling out but hten, when this trial is coming to trial, and is contacted by rep of our defense, she can’t keep this in any longer. she writes a letter to jim and this is what she wrote. someone else wanted to kill your life, it wasn’t you.

patty’s testiony I submit you ous was credible, and I submit to you, that it’s credible.

Jim didn’tknow anything about it.

Jim did not know that may was planning to kill Pam, that SS smiht asks F you sister doesnt know anythng about htis does you, NO F no.

Fayed hasy Joey had hsi own reasons to kill.

Mary not knowing anything about mary, so you can see whre may went forward behind jim’s back.

we know she had motive and she had intent.

And now says he’s done. that Mr. harmon speaks again, because he has burden of proofo.

I want to thank you, to look at this evidecne from both sides. and you’ll find that the only evidnce in this case is to look

Mr. harmon.

closing.

I have one moment.

Harmon rulstling of papers.

Fayed from what I could see, never looked over at jury

Harmon.
begin les me than you sincely on behkf of mysekf and jackso and we know that is not easy.
and this is the jury werhe the elevators didn’t work ,the sewers and now wer are focued on tone thing that’s the evdnce.
it’s imort to thank you.through your srvice this is the way that justie is done.

there is noe person
this man jame fayed when had pobem in stenad of istting in a chiar liek this and blieve in a systme he chose t kill his wife.

insteand of sititng and hasing it out, he couse to kill his wife

and to avoid to sititng inthis chair,

he tried ot kill myy simons, garquest, this is aman who though evyerhtng wil throw is hown sister on the bous to avoid sitting in th this char.

but to focus on the evidnce to go through all of these things. It’s not passion itl not tyrin to imflame you

Didi t looke lie we tooks liek we took great job, o n whochose those photographs, Joame fayed id. dhe chose those photograph.s

who chose her final inute on that filty floor in centry citye he didn. ot us. and now we have to do our job.

our job is to present you with the evidnce and seek jusice.

To say that we are ahamer looking for an nail is to isreprent what we do.
this is evince 149. the audit tpel

how are we oging to explain some of it awya.

I had to write it down. it seemed like preposters lik,

but yes, he confessed, becaue he was clasutrophobic and he wante to seem tough...
but MM devleoped amtoive, umbeknownste to him but he was using the smae people, but he withdrawal from the plan, but it was really mayrs plan that wen t through, you get the ridiculous ness of this hail mary pass.

(where the next day he was oging to lose up to a millin dollars.

shedl ifke



Thats a red herring or Jame fayed.

You know htat a red herring is what people usle t o actually detract you from the plan.

That convicts would use to distrat teh traci dogs.

but that red herring, is mary mercedses.

But we have the motive.

long before MM showed up in california.

a mitive that Mm had no idea how JF felt about this murder.

JF had that problem on July 29th, that disappead eiththe ath of PF.

and he had the problem that the feds were investigating.

Was she cooperaint o was hse

the fat of the matter that fjame fayed kenw that she wa partipatin ad she was contemplating paricing in this investigation.

but like I said in the beginning of this case, this is the love that James Fayed loved. I’ts the gold.

Two witnesses came in and testified that he accused pam of having an affair.

then we have his version. of how theyr perfect life began and ended.

james fayed, on the tape, saying how he tried to get rid of her, when they were first dating and how she trapped him with the baby. Sedaid, I just don’t want to be a singe mom again. I know you might not want to be married, but I love you more than anything in the world. (may not love me)

Fayed disparages his wife on the tape. Look, she’s a dumf fuckin c...

The truth is that Mw doesn’t have the burden to present any motive i thsi case.

But what he chose to do is present a red herring.

Show us where the motive was , for Mary,

Whre is the evidence that Mary M had this level of animosity (that JF had).

Carold Neve’s testimny to get a money transfer license.
The fateful check that caused MR. F to go into a downward spirla.

He says in his own affidavit. She knew this was against my wishe.

due to thelightenig fast sped, if I didn’t have time to cover the massive withdrawal., wich would have caused massive colapse of company, a company that has millions of dollars in assets thatwould be colapse by a 400,00 transaction?

H knew in the beginning she wa going to run her mouth and made sure she wasn’t going to be albe to share any information with any authorities.

GregHerring started poling around, fayed didnt’ want them.

Fayed stonewalled them he was using the co as a personal piggybank.

12 million 718, 12 million buck assets.

also 125,00 a month and pam making 8,000

there was at one point, where this company was rated at a billion in value,

Did mm have any motive in comparion to this (motive)/

was that the same thing(indictment) hanging over MM head?

Was that (the 1 mil judgement) hanging over MM head?

the judgement, the thought that he might have to look that mil in the eye and say good buy to it was more than he could stand.

MM didn’t have that hanging over her head.

He feared taht what she was doing would bring greateer legal scrutinty to his business.


And that would cause these businesses to be shut down?

hoe do we know that he was under investigation.

He hired a criminal atty, he knew that he was under this investigation and that they had a joint defense agremeent one that joined them in some of these preceedings. so these 2 people knew exactly what was going on in May 150 days before her murder, the sealed indictment was.

The question is, did she belivethat she would have a hand in the hammer bieng dropped.

based in reality.He feard sothn thw was oing to happen.
was it cooperate, or coopearte going to happen.

He thoughtthere was the possiblity that PF was going to open her mouth to the feds.

why are we talkng if she had a signed agreemtn or not.
whe knw why not a signed agreement signed, he didn’t wait around for her to sing on the dotted line. He killed her.

It was the idea that she hadn the good son him the idea that she was going to run her moth. how else do we knwo

when does the subpone come otu

60 days before?

it way may 27th, the account received the subpoea.

what happened then?
On May 29th, joes moya talks to days after sub leaked.

taked to gabriel marquez
marquez calls simmons

then moya calls james fayed.

the nest series of calls immed folling days after sub leakes.
Joey
He blows up the phone of gabriel marquez, lots of calls after talking to Fayed

The detail of phone calls from Moya to Marquez and Moya to Fayed, right after 48 hours that the subponea had leaked.

Marquez reaches out to his homey steven simmons.

James f knew that the day would come, which is why he enjoined her fro talking to anyone, except to her atty.

Plays tape where James fayed made stuff up.

James fayed had two motives and low and bheond those two robems disappeared.

This confessin plays tape

in this opinion, takig with SS is that the prosecuiton only had circustatial bullshit

it changed whe he talked to SS about what he had done and what he was plannign to do.

And because SS had bulging eyes and the cell claustrophoci it caused James Fayed to confess to something he din’t do befoere.

SS is a bad guy just becaue he reached out to authorities.

There’s no evidence that SS ever murdered anybody.

Im not saying that SS said that you can hear JF saying all this you can hear it on the tape.

He has a criminal history, but who do you think is going to be there and tape mr F? the pope? at MDC?

No the people the peole wh are MDc are people who have done things wrong.

when things happen in hell. you’re not going to get an angel as a witness. is it machismo that somehow twisted the arm of JF? he confesses in detail,

he solve the crime by saying its Moya, moya drives te car and knows who the other people are.
How is it that Mr moya knows that, if he didn’t have the crime set up>

So the way

More argument, but I’m so tired.

4:35. Harmon is breaking down everthing werksman tried to build up.

This isn’t machismo, this is a purpose driven killer. This isn’t all show. The fact that JF got nervous, and flushed it down the tolitet, you heard it (on the tape) describing the areas. tape played

Somehow, is that shawn smiths idea to murder?

It’s clear Fayed is saying he wants the cleanup to happen.

This isf

n’tsomeone who is aving their arm twiste,d this is someone who has their mind made up. This is someoen who is purpose driven.

I always wanted someone like you. Could hall ben fithly fuckin stinkin rich.”

So is it JF or

Harmon informs Judge Kennedy he has 15 minutes left to go, but Judge Kennedy states, “It’s 20 minutes to five.” She states that her court reporter needs a break and that we will conclude this tomorrow morning. When the court reporters go too long, Judge Kennedy states they start to lose their accuracy.

She addresses the jurors.

J: 9:15am ladies and gentlemen. We have yet to have start on time. Let’s have that as our motto, to start on time. (snip) What is it with the planes ,trains, and automobiles.....

She gives the jurors the admonitnon and we are off the record.

Out in the hallway, I wait for Mr. Harmon to come out. I’ve not met him before and as he’s pushing the DA’s file cart down the hallway towards the elevators, I step up to him, introduce myself and compliment him on his closing. He was following two very talented and experienced litigators and I think he held his own with them. I wanted to let him know that. He didn’t read from a script and he didn’t falter throughout his presentation.

The case will go to the jury tomorrow.