Closing Arguments Day One, Part III, Lonnie Franklin, Jr., "Grim Sleeper" Trial

Lonnie Franklin, Jr., during closing arguments, 5/2/16

Photo Credit: Pool Camera, Mark Boster, LA Times

Continued from Day One, Part II, HERE.

T&T case coverage and media links HERE.

Monday May 2, 2016
Defense attorney Seymour Amster steps up to the podium and addresses the jury. 

Your honor, ladies, members of the jury, ladies and gentlemen.

Amster stops and asks the court, "Is it okay if I walk in the well?? Judge Kennedy replies, "Sure."

I want to start off in this manner, I want to thank each and every one of you for the commitment you have given to this case ... and it's not been easy.

I'd like to apologize on behalf of myself and the defense team, and behalf of myself, for any drama or improper things you witnessed.

It's been our job to get evidence we thought was necessary to get before you. Now it's your job to review evidence as you see fit. And each of the parties in this case have a role. Your Honor to the law and the government their side of the case. Many believe that it's the defense job, to get the client off. It's our job to ... [and their's?] prosecution bad guys. It's our job to question the evidence. We have chosen as a country to have two sides. As long as a community ... it's up to us, defense attorneys to do our job.

It's our job, to challenge the government, to make sure the government proves their case so that you [can] make a determination. It's your interpretation of the evidence. It's yours, nobody else. No one likes to be criticized, but it's our system of government.

Now you've heard the government as to how the evidence should be interpreted. But it doesn't really matter what their interpretation is. Because this is a circumstantial evidence case. [I'll] now explain what we mean by circumstantial evidence.

Amster starts to read from the jury instructions. Judge Kennedy interrupts and suggest, "Why don't you tell them what page it is, or the instruction number?"

I believe Amster is starting with instruction [2.0?] and read through. There's some problem and Amster appears nervous to me. He tells the jury [regarding the ELMO?] there are "... technical difficulties, that we need help with."  He's smiling, almost laughing. From what I've observed of Amster in the past two weeks, he laughs when he's nervous.

Amster states he really wants to talk about the second or third paradigm. He reads from this jury instruction, "... when you've got somebody who saw something and tells you what they saw. ... You have a direct person who saw the crime because you have a witness. ... Other than Enietra Washington, you have circumstantial evidence."

Amster now reads the instruction on circumstantial evidence.

[Note: I can tell by the numbering of the instructions that Judge Kennedy has chosen CALJIC instructions over the newer CALCRIM instructions. I believe the court chose CALJIC instructions in the James Fayed case, also a death penalty case. Here is a link to see the different wording between the two, as well as a comparison evaluation. Sprocket.]

"One of the examples .. you are in a courtroom and all of a sudden you see people come in with umbrellas and their umbrellas are wet. Wet umbrellas, that's pretty good indication that it's raining."

Amster gives the jury more on wet umbrellas. "One piece of evidence that leas to a conclusion about another piece of evidence. ... A finding of guilt of any crime may not be based on circumstantial evidence unless ... consistent with and cannot be explained by an other rational conclusion."

Amster goes over each paragraph of the instructions and then asks the jury, "Is this Lonnie Franklin's DNA must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt? Is this Lonnie Franklin's gun must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt."

Now more of the jury instructions are read. Amster then asks, "What about all this unknown DNA? Does that mean that they could have done it? ... You must find that all the unknown DNA is unreasonable for them to be the actual killer to find Lonnie Franklin guilty. That's our law."

Amster reads the last section of the instruction and then interprets for the jury, "As long as you find an interpretation of the evidence that find the defendant is not [culpable?] any reasonable interpretation that find the defendant not being culpable, ... must be followed by your for the law."

In my opinion, Amster appears to be stumbling on explaining this instruction to the jury. My fingers are are also stumbling trying to get Amster's statements correct.

"So let us look and see, what we would like to point out to you as the defense. Not that we say you must accept; not that we say you have to do. No. Not us. It's just us to point things out to you that you must consider during your deliberations. That's all we ask of you."

"This is a case where [the government?] wants to see patterns over a long period of time ... that this body was found in an alley or that body was found in an alley. .. There is one thing that the government and defense can quickly agree on. ... Every single one of the victims' life matters. That we would never say to you that their [lives don't matter]. ... It makes no difference why they were on those streets or not. It makes no difference as to why they were on those streets or not. Their life matters. ... the terrible conditions that cause them to be on the streets. ... We are not trying to diminish their lives in any way. ... Their lives mattered each and every one."

But the government want to see patterns here, over a long period of time. This body found in this alley or that body found in an alley .They're trying to find patterns. Let's make sure all of the patterns exist. This was not a pristine time. There were a lot of bodies. But we are looking at an isolated situation.

Amster pauses, then launches into a story.


"There's a story of a rancher who wanted all this neighbors to feel that he was a great marksman, so he went to his barn and took out his gun and he fired several bullets against the barn. So there were bullet holes on several places on his barn. Then he went, with his bullet holes on his barn, to draw bulls-eyes around the bullet holes. Maybe he was a good marksman, but the bullet holes were there first. And he went out an told his neighbors, 'Look at this!' Maybe he's a good marksman, maybe he isn't."

Up on the ELMO, is an image of 11 bulls-eyes, and written across the center of each bulls-eye, is the name of one of Franklin's victims.

"Maybe he was a good marksman, but the bullet holes were there first. And he went out and told his neighbors, 'Look at this!' Maybe he's a good marksman, maybe he isn't. ... And that's a problem with a pattern. ... You don't know, is it a pattern or is it an illusion? Is the people's case a true pattern or it it an illusion? Is there something that is a deception ... that isn't the science that it should be?"

"This is the inquiry and those are the questions that we would like you to do. Don't be like one of those rancher's neighbors and just because you see a bulls-eye ... ask the question. Are those truly bulls-eyes? ... Because just ask a simple question."

"Lonnie is a sanitation engineer. He works with a garbage truck, therefore, he knows were all the garbage dumpsters are. ... And he leaves the bodies in the alleys. You can't say you have a pattern, and leave out parts of the pattern. Well, if you're a sanitation [worker?] and leave it for the truck to come by and take it in the truck. ... Is it an illusion? Did he do it? It doesn't mean he did it. ... All it tells us is the crime occurred someplace else. It could have occurred someplace else. ... Well, how many body dumps did they [law enforcement] have during each of those times? ... And there were so many differences between the bodies. It could be culpability or lack of culpability."

"And a body dump really doesn't matter. ... The government has chosen to try this case.  That the defendant is the actual killer. So to find him culpable, that he is the actual killer. Not aided and abetted, that he was the actual killer. This is the theory that they chose, they chose, actual killer. ... So you must [abide?] by your decision, if you find that he's the actual killer."

This pattern of the defendant's DNA being on those victims over a period of time, it's an illusion. What other women did he have his DNA on? Amster mentions the video. [A] video of Franklin obsessed with sex. Unfortunately, there were a lot of women out there, giving him the opportunity to have sex. We're not the morality [judge?] here. Don't know what's going on between him and his wife. Not having any judgement there. We see this sex video. Did we see violence? Did she seem to be smiling. It's an illusion. There may be more women with his DNA on them, we'll never know.

What does that tell us? What does that give us? It's an illusion that's a pattern. /What did Ray Davis tell us? Nothing. He said he saw Lonnie with lots of girls. [He never saw?] Lonnie trying to murder these girls so why would he be open and it and try to murder these girls?  Why didn't Davis call the police? He never saw any evidence. He never saw anything wrong. Why didn't they call the police? Because they never saw anything wrong.

Right or wrong, these were Lonnie's girls. Ray Davis said that Lonnie was giving clothes to girls. Doesn't that get us to DNA? Where is the vast majority of DNA found in this case? On the nipples ...

Amster argues that Lonnie gave these women clothes. [Lonnie's] DNA transferred on the bra back to the nipples onto the victims. And that's how DNA [got there]. Is it reasonable? [If it's reasonable] and the law says, you have to accept it.

The surveillance team. They were watching him. He did nothing wrong. What would they expect him to have done with two women on the street that they saw with him? They're not even sure that he talked to them. They came up with nothing.

Does it mean he did it? No. It means absolutely nothing. It's an illusion, of trying to paint something as bad. It's an absence of evidence. Just because it, doesn't mean ... It's subject to another interpretation.

"You are asked to make one of the critical decisions of your life based on inexact science. This is a case where science is trying to be one thing and it's trying to be used for another. None of us would use the science based in this case, to put a product out in the market place, whatsoever." [I believe Amster is talking about the toolmark examinations using a 2D microscope verses the 3D.] Nature is not exact. It's random. But trying to use the science that something is true in the randomness of nature, ... to raise the reasonable doubt, and we'll go into that with the DNA.

Amster mentions something about the DNA of related people that are in our house, that are related to [a large number of others?].

"Let us talk about the critical aspects of this case, murder. That's the vast majority of the counts the defendant is charged with. In order to convict, you must find that he's the slayer. You must find that he's the one that's killed."

Amster then moves onto another jury instruction [8.10] about malice. And this is a rereading of what the prosecution gave the jury on malice.

"The government gave the example of firing a gun into a crowd. That's implied and that only gets you to second degree. Let's talk about expressed. ... an intention to unlawfully kill a human being. ... How are we ever going to tell who the actor was or what was in his mind at the time he pulled the trigger in this case? You have to do it by circumstantial evidence. Enietra Washington was not a murder in this case, but you can use Enietra as an [?] in this case."

My fingers are starting to cramp up and it's not yet 4 pm.

"We can do the same act, time and time again and do it for different reasons." Amster gives an example, I think of preparing a meal.  "I prepare it differently. It's not exactly the same or I drive a car, or things like that. ... We don't know what emotions or what factors have occurred because we're talking about a mental state when we are talking about malice. And mental state is also subject to circumstantial evidence. One, because you believe the mental state is present or evidence to conclude that the mental state is not present. ... "

"The government has to show, ... is the reasonable interpretation of the mental state is the deliberation occurred before the act. ... That it was considered, and that's a question mark here, when you don't have an eye witness.  How do you prove that malice a forethought when you don't even have an eye witness? And you don't even know who was present or where it happened? You have to determine, no one else, that you have to determine that the defendant is culpable. Those are the questions you will ask in your determination."

Amster now asks the jurors to look at jury instruction [8.20] in their list of instructions. After reading that, he asks them to go back to the circumstantial evidence instruction on the fourth page of their jury instructions.

"We see in this instruction, several times that the defendant's guilt must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt."

Amster then reads over the reasonable doubt instruction. He tells the jurors, "[It's a] hard concept there, I know. People come in here and they say, 'Why's he there?' He's been arrested. This is not easy, but this is what our law says."

Amster talks about the presumption of innocence inside a court of law, and that this is our country's template, until the contrary is proved. "Only when the evidence has a reasonable culpability of [?], only then ... until that reasonable is..."

I'm lost trying to follow Amster's argument.  He continues.

"As long as there's a reasonable interpretation of the evidence point to the lack of doing the act ... that is our law. That is the template you've been presented with following."

I'm so tired, I'm starting to fall asleep.

"Those are the rules we operate under. We [the defense] are under no burden. The government must show this. ... The government must show there are no unreasonable interpretations toward innocence. ... All this unknown DNA, could not be the individual who is the actual killer, because they are saying to you, the defendant Lonnie Franklin is the actual killer. They're not saying he's involved in it, ... the body dump. ... They're not even saying that he might know who did it. They are saying he is the actual slayer to be found guilty. Therefore to follow the law that's what you must find in each and every count."

I'm surprised this is Amster's defense argument.


Amster now tells the jury about reasonable doubt.

"This has been a case where we've heard a lot about subjective and objective. ... That's a subjective opinion, reasonable doubt, but it's in your objective analysis of what that means. And you are not one you are twelve and through the objective opinions ... the citizens are comfortable with. ... I've sat in too many rooms with too many lawyers who argue what that means and the truth is, it's what you interpret it to mean. ... Reading that and understanding that, and coming together to discussing that and coming to a unanimous decision to find him guilty. ... And that's the beauty of our system to coming together as a team and making a decision."

"The main thing though is the last phrase, an abiding conviction of the truth of the charge. What that means is, that you will feel not just today, tomorrow and the days after, that this was the correct decision. ... Different attorneys can discuss that in different ways. I myself have related that when I made a decision for one of my loved ones. I made a decision that I can live with, if when something goes wrong. Because I made a decision looking at all the factors that I could get my hands on and analyze it so that I can live with myself if I'm wrong. ..."

3:55 PM
Judge Kennedy calls for the end of the court day. She tells jurors they will resume at 9:00 am. Like the end of every other court day, Judge Kennedy instructs the jurors about avoiding media stories on the news, television and the internet.

"... the only person's opinion that's going to matter is your opinion. We want you to decide the case exclusively on the evidence and not on what anyone might say on the news or the Internet. .. I'm so proud of you with your adherence to the rules of this case, but know you will continue to do so and not listen to any accounts of this case. ... See you tomorrow at 9:00 am."


And that's it for day one of closing arguments.


Continued in Day Two, Part I.....

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

Lonnie Franklin, Jr., during closing arguments, 5/2/16

Photo Credit: Pool Camera, Mark Boster, LA Times

Part I can be found HERE.

UPDATE 2:26 PM spelling, clarity
Monday May 2, 2016, Afternoon Session
1:44 PM
Inside Dept. 109. DDA Silverman comforts several family members in the gallery. The defendant is brought out and a minute after that, Judge Kennedy takes the bench. Judge Kennedy's bailiff calls out for all phones to be turned off, but his voice is weak, like he's getting a sore throat or going hoarse. We are ready for the jury, and they enter the courtroom from the jury room.

DDA Silverman welcomes the jury back.
"You know, and you've probably gathered this from when we began, I tend to be very thorough. I don't know what's going through your minds. I don't know what questions you have, but it's in the event that you go back into the jury room ..."

DDA Silverman tells the jury she will move onto the search warrant evidence, Janecia Peters search warrant evidence.

"They found the murder weapon that was utilized to kill Janecia Peters. They found it in the north west bedroom, inside a dresser drawer. It was inside a case. It had ammunition loaded into the gun. It was loaded with four rounds. In the same case with the magazine, 10 live rounds for a total of 14 live rounds of 25 [caliber] auto ammo. It was copper jacket. ... But it was either full metal jacket or total jacketed or copper jacketed ammo consistent with what was found around the house. ... The fiream was a Titan 25 auto. five inches long. It's often referred to as a 'pocket pistol' that you can put in your pocket and no one would be the wiser."

Photos of the murder weapon just described.

"Not only was this the type of ammo used to kill Janecia Peters, but it was also used to kill seven others and shoot Enietra  Washington. They found the receipt for the purchase of the murder weapon, purchased in 1982. Aerial number on the receipt matches up to the gun. ... They found the receipt in the southwest bedroom in a file cabinet. ... One of the addresses that was given [by the defendant] on the work records from the Dept. of Sanitation, is the same one that appears on the receipt. The location of this gun store, was on the same block as the old address of the defendant. Detective Dupree testified, the defendant [also] told detectives that on the video taped interview. ... They also found the defendants Bureau of Sanitation ID in the car he was driving during the surveillance. ... This is the photo of the Tital 25 auto."

The [firearm] evidence was analyzed by examiners that compared the test fired to each other. The same unique markings on the test fires were replicated and then compared to the coroner bullet which matched; rifled six right. Now we also heard from Ray Davis who was one of his friends for six years. He [] identified Janecia Peters that he saw with the defendant in 2006. She was in the back of a van, one of the vans that the defendant owned, and that he never saw her again after 2006.

"The reason that he recognized her, he remembered seeing her picture on the billboard that was offering a reward for information that would lead to the apprehension of the Grim Sleeper. ... Mr. Davis's testimony was corroborated in other respects. The lingerie and a picture of Janecia Peters of her alive was found [in the search warrants]. ... Remember the small refrigerator? The photo of her with one of her breasts exposed? They found this photo of Janecia Peters in this fridge. ... It appeared to be some kind of trophy chest. ... It was similar to the photo of Enietra Washington [that was] found behind the wall of the garage."

DDA Silverman goes over the different addresses of the defendant, and that "Western Surplus" [where weapon connected to 8 victims purchased] was just down the block [from defendant's home].

"In this case, there is a special circumstance, allegation of multiple murders. And the judge instructed you on the allegations. You must find the defendant committed at least one count of second degree murder and one or more crimes of murder of first degree. If you find all murders of first degree, then you must find this special allegation to be true. DDA Silverman explains how the special circumstance would apply in different situations.

DDA Silverman puts up photos of the victims again and talks about multiple murders. I see these photos and have to look away to keep my eyes from filling with tears.

Enietra Washington. She provided a blueprint for the murdered women who can't speak and can't tell you what happened. [Her testimony] will tell you how the defendant contacted her on the street, and lured her into this orange Pinto with white stripes. It stood out for her. It had custom wheels and custom tires. How she first refused a ride from him. [And then he taunted her. He said to her] That's what's wrong with you black women.  So she gets into this car with this unknown man. And he asked if he can go with her to this party [that she told him she was going to] and she said yes. [It was a public party. Anyone could go.]

He tells her he has to make a stop. He stops in front of the defendant's home on 81st Street. She remembers this because it had a side driveway. Then she looses sight of him. Then he gets back in the car and calls her Brenda. She corrects him. He continues to call her Brenda. He gets angry because he didn't feel that she was paying him the proper respect. He pulls out this gun. Then she doesn't see the gun and then the next thing she knows, everything goes quiet. The trajectory of that gunshot wound matches the others. Front to back, downward. And she's sitting in the front passenger seat.

She remembers the defendant pulling over. She believes she was sexually assaulted, and she remembers flashes from a polaroid camera. And at some point, he pushes her out of this moving vehicle, similar to the positioning of what we saw to victim Valerie McCorvey.

Enietra somehow makes it to her friend's house and passes out [on the front steps], where she is found by her friend and she says to her friend, "Don't let me die. Don't let me die." Enietra's friend saw her panties hanging off and that she was cold and she was sweating. [When the paramedics arrived, her blood pressure was so low, they put a pressure vest on her.] She was transferred to UCLA where she receives life saving medical treatment. 

She describes the clothing that he was wearing. He was wearing some type of uniform, a dark tan shirt. And it's the same type of tan shirt, when he comes in for an interview and he's arrested. Enietra provides many details, even though it's been 27 years, the details that she gave were right on the money. They were corroborated by evidence.

"She describes the Pinto. Ray Davis, says, Oh yeah, he had a car like that. She presents to the ER with a gunshot wound to her chest. The bullet happens to match up to the coroner's evidence from the other women."

She's shown a photo of the defendant from 1989. She said, that's how he looked at the time. She made an identifcation at the grand jury and also came into court and made another identification. She tells the court that the street she was taken to, where the defendant lives. That was consistent with what was on that street at the time. She remembers that when she gets in the vehicle, a mechanics tool box was on the floor. And what did we hear from Ray Davis? That he was a mechanic. And she also sees that school books are on the seats. He had two kidsat the time of Enietra's shootings. And sure enough, that Polaroid, that photograph that she claims the defendant took of her, in the right front seat of the defendant's car, is found in a wall. And a Polaroid camera is found in the defendant's home.

DDA Silverman goes over the charge of attempted murder and what the law details on attempted murder. He displayed a clear, unambiguous attempt to kill. Remember, at the time of Enietra Washington's [attempted] killing, he's already shot and killed seven other women in the same manner. 

The doctor who testified, he went through the medical records, and she was admitted on November 20, at 2 am. She was in the hospital until December 2. He testified she was in shock, that she had a gunshow wound to the chest that was life threatening. She would have bled to death in the next two hours. She had to be put in a compression jacket because her pressure was so low. Without medical intervention, it would have caused ... She had already lost 20 percent of all the blood in her body. She had to be stabilized before he could operate. The bullet just missed her heart and it was very close to the aorta. He operated on Enietra on November 23.

DDA Silverman now reviews the actions the defendant took that qualify this charge as attempted murder. Ray Davis provided some very important information. Some, provides independent corroboration as to what Washington testified to. [Ray] said that vehicle disappeared in 1989, right after Washington was shot in 1988. [Ray indicated?] when the defendant was done with a particular vehicle, he would take his vehicles to an auto dismantler. That's someone who crushes the vehicles, so no one can find it. Enietra Washington [told you] the defendant said, while she was in the car with him, he had done the work on the car himself. And that's exactly what we heard from Ray Davis. The mechanics tools in the car, they [Davis & Franklin], would regularly work on the car together.

Most significantly, we heard about the fact that law enforcement found the exact Polaroid having been taken of her and still seated in the front of the defendant's car. It was found by two detectives on July 9, during the search warrant; hiding behind a wall, boxes stacked in front of it. And 22 years later, detectives find the very photograph that Washington described. If you have evidence behind walls, that's evidence of consciousness of guilt.

Polaroids, that picture speaks a thousand words. There's not much else you need to know about Enietra Washington. She's leaning against the right passenger door. She's unconscious. Her breast is exposed. And it's clearly after the time she was shot and exposed in the same way as Janecia Peters. Detectives found a Polaroid camera on top of [?] during the search warrant. They also found boxes of 25 auto bullets, the same caliber as what shot the other victims inside the western garage.

Consciousness of guilt is explained. When you have a defendant hiding evidence, that was behind a will in the garage, or photos of murder victims. $17,000.00 in cash, behind the walls. Was this money to help him escape? Is this escape money or money he was going to use to try to lure more victims? When talking about consciousness of guilt, you're talking about trying to conceal. It's not just sitting out. It's behind a wall. As Enietra said, her attacker parked along the curb -she marked it on one of the exhibits- in front of the defendant's home, that happens to have a side driveway.

If all of that wasn't enough, as I mentioned, Dr. [Robertson?] removes the 25 [caliber] fired bullet recovered during surgery and transported over to LAPD. Firearms examiner Rubin analyzes it, microscopic comparison and matches it to the same 25 [caliber] auto that was unrecovered,that was used to kill seven other victims.

DDA Silverman mentions the people who performed individual analysis and reached the same conclusion. The special circumstances, or other allegations charged in this case. That the defendant personally used a firearm. And there are two of them. Applies to all victims except Princess and Valerie. To find this allegation true the defendant must have fired it and struck or hit a human being with it. Once again, it's a special allegation and you will find it to be true on the murder forms. DDA Silverman explains that the forms are different for Janecia, because the specific section didn't exist when she was shot.

Up on the overhead screen, are firearm matches image, linked to a single firearm.

And it's likely he kept that weapon all that time. We know he kept it because it used it over and over again We know this gun belonged to him because Enietra Washington. The Pinto. The photograph. Pulling up to his home. All that evidence connects this defendant to these crimes.

We also know that he's connected based on the DNA.

DDA Silverman shifts gears and talks about Franklin's 2010 interview.

He's wearing a khaki type tan work shirt. It has some type of writing on it, almost like a gas station attendant used to wear on the pocket.  We note that, there was a light in this interview room. And before the interview, this defendant sits in this room for a period of time. The light in the room goes out because he's sleeping. He's so unconcerned. They tell him he's being charged with multiple murders. He shows no surprise. What he does is, he laughs. He display a completely caviler attitude throughout the entire interview. He said, "I'm tripping on it." Like, I don't care. Such pure arrogance.

Detectives showed him pictures of the victims. He's shown live photos, how they would have looked at the time. So there would be no question, s to who they are talking about. And what does he say? And each of these women were murdered. He says, he never saw any of them. Never had any contact. He has no idea who they are. He has no clue how his DNA got on these women. He said himself, only one person can have a particular DNA profile. It's like a signature, it's like a thumbprint.

And he must have known that one dya, in watching the same shows that we all were watching on television, that his own DNA would come back to haunt him. But back in the 80's no one knew about DNA. No one could even spell it. The detective even said, that it was so slim that he could be connected to each of these [pieces of] evidence.

He killed lots of women ladies and gentlemen. He admits that he has no explanation, when told his luck was running out. And then he does what no one would do. Instead, what does this guy do? He laughs! He makes jokes! He laughs and their pictures, of ten dead women, who were brutally murdered, lying on the table in front of him. And on the face of that, he laughs. He's laughing in their faces. In fact, what does he say about some of these victims? Bernita Sparks, he says she looks fat. And he laughs. Who does that? He shows a complete lack of empathy, which is exact what was displayed at each and every one of the crime scenes. When shown a photo of Henrietta Wright, what does he say? He says she's butt ugly and laughs. He shows over and over during the interview, such a callous disregard, the same as what he showed to their bodies when he dumped them in the alleys.

He's asked if he saw the billboards. He jokes about the media calling him the Grim Reaper, as if giving him a moniker is something you would laugh at. He's amused, when Detective Kilcoyne refers to him as a billboard celebrity. When asked if he owns any guns he tells about the rifle. He mentions the 38 revolver. A 9 millimeter and a 22 pistol. That's the pistol that's referred to as a 22 long rifle pistol, that was found by [Allison Manfried?], and states those are the only guns he has. Conveniently, he forgets to mention the Tital auto. When he's asked about it, he plays dumb.

He talked about the 22 pistol, and how it could fit in his pocket. That's why he like the Tital, because it's easily concealed. So he can take victims by surprise. He got some of these guns from Western Surplus. The same location where the Tital 25 auto was purchased. Detectives even confronted him on the surveillance. The fact that he was out creeping. That's the word they use, andrather than deny it, he remembers law enforcement shining this light on him. And he remembers two prostitutes, that he claims he was making phone calls to; his girlfriends. And we know that the area is knwon for prostitution, is near the defendant's home.

Detective Kilcoyne tried to appeal to the defendant's conscience. That there have been family members who have been suffering for decades. He shows no emotion. Even when collecting evidence from him, he's cold as ice. No emotion. What Detective Kilcoyne said is absolutely correct. That these women can't speak. That these crimes finally caught up with him. Seven weapons. Seven firearms recovered.

Ruger 22 long rifle 328
Ruger 22 revolver
Bryce Arms 22
Highpoint 380
Phoenix Raven 25
Tital Fe 25
Smith and Wesson 38

DDA Silverman talks about a jacket and wallet in the jacket, and the address in the wallet. There was a small firearm, a Raven by Phoenix Arms, loaded with six rounds of live ammunition. They also found a second gun, the Highpoint, found in the northwest bedroom.

DDA Silverman's PowerPoint lays out similarities between the crimes in this case. Nine victims were shot bya 25 auto. Six victims were either strangled or had rags stuffed in their mouths. Cocaine in all except Princess. All in various stages of undress except Barbara Ware. DNA over and over again on all but two victims.  The bodies were concealed, all except two. All of the crime scenes were in close proximity to where the defendant was living. The DNA evidence with respect to each of the victims. A summary chart, which gives you all the DNA matches to each of the victims and the 2016 statistics. Evidence, tying the defendant to these crimes.

Another PowerPoint image shows the crossover between the firearms evidence and the DNA matches. [Several victims had ballistics and DNA evidence.] This is evidence of guilt. A pattern, is also called a modus operandi. DNA. Firearms evidence. Ray Davis. Surviving victim, Enietra Washington. Search warrant evidence. Janecia Peters murder weapon. Surveillance of the defendant. Defendant's prior employment as a trash truck driver. All evidence in this case proves the defendant is guilty. There's no other reasonable interpretation of the evidence in this case.

The defense, no matter how long he stands up here, will be able to explain how the DNA evidence got on each of the victims breasts, in the same area. He had one of the weapons, that killed Janeica Peters. Most of these victims had been dead for over 20 years. It's time. It's time that justice is served in this case. Justice demands that you find hi guilty of first degree murder in this case. Guilty of the attempted murder and guilty of the special circumstances charged in this case.

DDA Silverman concludes her first closing argument. Judge Kennedy tells the courtroom they will take a 20 minute break at this time.  The jury files out. The court addresses the defense. "Mr. Amster, this is the time to share the slides with the prosecution, and if there are any problems we can take that up. And the exhibit copies, need to be provided to the court." Amster replies that he's not going to use a PowerPoint.

Afternoon break.

The people have an issue with one of Amster's slides. DDA Silverman tells the court, "There is a particular slide, your honor, and I don't know what evidence it's based on." Amster counters, That's our argument on Enietra Washington who testified. We don't believe it is the defendant who picked her up."

The slide is put up on the ELMO for the court to see. I try to type out what I'm reading.

Mystery man, mystery gun and mystery DNA. He saw his uncle picking up girls, everyday, He coveted them, unable to get them, either because of pock marks or attitude, and brought harm to them, his uncle Lonnie's girls."

A newphew goes to defendant Lonnie's house.

Judge Kennedy asks, "Are you saying that, it was a nephew who picked up Enietra Washington that happened to be Lonnie Franklin's house? That's argument. I'll allow it."

At 3:07 pm, defense attorney Seymour Amster steps up to the podium....

Continued in Day One, Part III........

Closing Arguments Day One Part I, Lonnie Franklin, Jr., "Grim Sleeper" Trial

Lonnie Franklin, Jr., during closing arguments, 5/2/16

Photo Credit: Pool Camera, Mark Boster, LA Times

Note From Sprocket
This entry has not been completely edited. SprocketTwo weeks ago, I felt recovered enough from my lung infection to return to the Franklin trial. I have two weeks worth of notes I'm working on. I'm about half way done and I hope to get them completed at some point. 

Last Week
It's been quite a journey for this case. Franklin was arrested almost six years ago on July 7, 2010. He was charged with ten murders that spanned over 21 years and one attempted murder. The victim's family members, those that are still with us, have been waiting a very long time for this day.

Last week, the defense presented their last witness and rested their case. The prosecution presented a single rebuttal case witness, Dr. James Hamby, a forensic firearm and toolmark examiner. The defense did not put on a surrebuttal case which meant all testimony before the jury was concluded.

May 2, 2016
When I first arrived on the 9th floor a little after 8:00 am, there wasn't the crowd that I was expecting.  Slowly, the hallway started filling up with reporters, victim family members, the general public, a few detectives including retired LAPD Cold Case Detective Dennis Kilcoyne, Jane Robison from the DA's office, deputy DA's and the management of the Major Crimes Division, Head Deputy Patricia Wilkinson and Assistant Head-Deputy, Craig Hum. I got to know Craig from my coverage of the Cameron Brown trials. He's a dedicated public servant.

The mainstream press waiting to get a seat that I know are: People Magazine's Christine Pelisek, the reporter who broke the case and named the unknown killer back in 2007, "Grim Sleeper, Terri Keith from City News Service, Stephen Ceasar from the LA Times, Miriam Hernandez from local ABC7, Dave Lopez from local CBS2 and about four other reporters who I did not know by name. The pool camera will be ABC7 today, and they are let into the courtroom early to set up their equipment.

Defense attorney Benjamin Gluck, who is one of many defense counsel on the Uwaydah et. al insurance fraud case, was in the hallway waiting for the courtroom next door to open. I got the change to say hello and ask about his case before Judge Michael Pastor.

9:02 AM
The bailiff's decide to seat the family members first. They put them in the second and third rows, exactly like opening statements. The media with press badges were allowed in next and seated in the front row. Then the general public was seated.

There's a bit of bustle in the courtroom as Deputy Sargent Westphal [sp?] is making sure everything goes smoothly in getting the gallery seated. The counsel and there support staff are in the well, organizing last minute logistics. Lead defense attorney Seymour Amster is by the clerk's desk, flipping through a huge binder that contains the official [paper] exhibits entered into evidence. This is the binder, along with any physical evidence that will go to jurors once they start deliberations.

Defense attorney Dale Atherton is rolling around a huge stack of 4" binders on a two-wheel cart. There must be at least 12-13 binders stacked over three feet tall on this small cart. Defense counsel Kristin Gozawa is wearing a sharp, medium gray suit.

DDA Beth Silverman and DDA Marguerite Rizzo both look quite sharp today. Marguerite is wearing a coal black suit, with a delicate pink tailored blouse. I've seen her wear this combination before. The collar is a series of curved scoops that are accented by a short string of pearls. The blouse looks vintage, or maybe she purchased it in Europe. Her outfit is finished with sheer hose that have a cream tone and matching leather strap heels.

Beth is wearing a grayish-silver, low-scoop blouse with her black suit. The skirt has two large pleats, just to the outside line of her legs. The jacket has a hint of lace around the inside of the lapel that's barely visible. I squint to try to see the necklace she's wearing. It looks like it might have dark gray pearls or crystals with silver and another precious stone. She's wearing black tights with block heel pumps. The heels have tiny horizontal sparkling silver lines.

9:16 AM
Franklin is brought out. Amster puts on Franklin's tie for him. A minute later, Judge Kennedy comes out. Her makeup is perfect and she's wearing a shiny black top or dress under her robe.

Judge Kennedy goes on the record in the case. There are a few last minute rulings on defense exhibits. Once those are ruled on, Judge Kennedy asks if there are any other items that need to be addressed.

DDA Silverman tells the court that they let the defense see their PowerPoint slides, but the defense has not been willing to let the prosecution see theirs. Amster argues that he will not show his slides. He will only show them after the prosecution has put on their case. Judge Kennedy rules that the defense will show the prosecution their slides after the people have concluded their argument.

DDA Silverman informs the court of her second point. "The defense went through the jury's copy of the exhibit books and did not put them back into order." Amster tells the court they were made aware of that. DDA Silverman continues. "Some of them are behind the wrong tabs and some of them are backwards." She tells the court she went through them last week and half of them are backwards.

Judge Kennedy responds, "They are not going to go to the jury today. The clerk will work on the and we will get them in order before they go to the jury. .. Are we ready for the jury?" She asks her bailiff, "Are they all here?" 

The jurors enter the courtroom from the jury room. The court informs the jurors that she is going to read to them 90% of the jury instructions now. After the closings, she will read the rest of them. She tells them that they will all get a copy of the instructions to read along. This is their copy of the instructions and they can write on them.

9:25 AM

Judge Kennedy starts reading the instructions. I take a few random notes, but for the most part, I rarely transcribe instructions.


9:59 AM
DDA Silverman steps up to the podium to present her opening argument. She greets the jury. She uses a PowerPoint presentation.

"Ten young women, all of them clearly murdered by the defendant Lonnie Franklin. And one woman Enitera Washington, who barely escaped that fate. ... I told you [in my] opening statement I would prove that and that's exactly what I did. I'm now going to tell you about the evidence, the law the judge presented to you right now and how they fit together."


"It is your job to determine if the defendant is guilty of the charges. The defendant's victims. How do we figure out what happened here? ... Ten of the victims can't tell you. they can't tell you themselves because they have no voices. The defendant took their voices when he brutally murdered them. So what can tell us what happened? The evidence tells us very clearly. You just have to listen. The evidence tells us since they can no longer speak for themselves."

"You've heard a tremendous amount of evidence and this is my opportunity to weave it all together for you like a figsaw puzzle.  you begin with that one piece. What is that piece? How do we begin? You heard from Detective Kilcoyne [that a] task force was formed and that took place, after the murder of Janecia Peters [1/1/2007]."

The task force [discovered?] that this crime matched to a series of crimes from the 1980's and those were the ones between 1985 and 1988. And they found another pattern. They were all connected to a specific firearm used in the 1980's. And tremendous strides in DNA analysis since the murder of [first victim] Debra Jackson, they had the  ability to solve crimes such as these.

They applied the science that existed in 1987 ... From 2007 to 2010, more evidence was found that pointed to the defendant. An LAPD surveillance team followed the defendant, and followed him in July 2010. On July 7, they followed him to a John's Pizza in Buena Park. The detectives were creative. The spoke to the owner and donned a busboy uniform and collected items from the defendant that were discarded. The items were transferred to the crime lab [to test for] DNA.

A criminalist got the full source DNA profile from the napkin and the pizza. It matched in every location ... to victim Barbara Ware [1/10/87]. One in 11 quintillion. That's a 1 with 11 zeros after it. The criminalist testified she was able to get a partial profile from the drinking glass and napkin number 2. They were all single source. Only one person's DNA. They were all consistent with the profile of the defendant's sperm fraction and [victim] Barbara Ware. They all came from the defendant. Evidence that tied the defendant to these crimes.

The defendant's DNA was identified with respect to seven victims. The same firearm was used to shoot eight victims and another 25 calliber firearm was used to kill a 9th victim in 2007 [Peters]. The ten murders shared the same similarities to each other. They were all young African American women. They were killed somewhere else and their bodies dumped in alleys in South LA; dumped like trash. Their bodies were concealed, covered, hidden.

The murders occurred within a few miles of the defendant's home. He blended in. He worked in the South LA community. He drove a garbage truck. He dumped his victims like trash. The victims had no identification. The cause of death was gushot wound and or strangulation. Their toxicology screens were positive for cocaine [except for Princess]. All are connected by forensic evidence to the defendant's DNA or firearms evidence.

There was no identification on or around the bodies. The ones who were shot were shot in the chest, except for the one shot in the back. The trajectory of the bullets, all were left to right and at a downward angle, with a 25 caliber firearm. No cartridge cases were found at the crime scenes. All but Princess tested positive for cocaine. All victims had consumed alcohol prior to their deaths.

The defendant told a friend that he would keep alcohol and drugs on hi [cocaine] for "his girls." A review of some of the evidence is consistent with what I talked about. There are photos on the overhead of the crime scenes. Alleyways, body dumps. The fact that the defendant concealed and hid the bodies. Under mattresses, behind bushes, in a dumpster inside a trash bag. [I'll now present?] the evidence demonstrating what I just talked about, the defendant left them undressed, and why.

DDA Silverman shifts to explaining the law regarding felony murder, and how it's defined in California. DDA Silverman gives a detailed presentation that I've seen given in similar cases.

First, DDA Silverman explains the law regarding second degree murder.
1. The defendant killed a human being.
2. The killing was unlawful
3. With malice aforethought.

Explains the definition of human being is used in the dictionary instead of the term "person." The defense objects to human being. Overruled.

"These were human beings, not just dead bodies. They were human beings that suffered like we all do. They had frailties like we all do. And they had hopes and dreams like we all do. And they were dumped like trash."


She explains the definition and elements of "malice aforethought" to the jury.


1. Killing results from an intentional act.
2. Natural consequences are dangerous to human life.
3. Deliberately performed with knowledge of danger to and with conscious disregard for human life.


DDA Silverman gives the example of someone who goes to a park. Someone who thinks it would be fun to shoot a gun in the air and the bullet goes down and killed someone. [ They had no intention of murdering someone.] "That is malice implied."


Strangulation and or shooting victims in this case definitely fits the case of implied malice. Expressed malice, means intent to kill. It's just that simple. It can be inferred from the defendant's actions, and a clear intent to kill. We have eleven victims who were vulnerable, defenseless and were easy prey. Their hearts pierced by bullets. DDA Silverman mentions what happened to several victims.


Some of the women, like Alexander and Sparks died as a reslut of a combination of these facts [gunshot wound and strangulation]. And these are classic, classic examples of expressed malice.


"He did it over and over and over and over again. When someone does something over and over again, it's apparent that he intended to get the same result. What does forethought mean, it means he intended to do it before. It means the mental state was before  instead of after the fact."


"Why are these crimes more than second degree murders? What makes them first degree? They were done willfully with intention, with premeditation. These were willful, deliberate and premeditated." DDA Silverman now breaks that down for the jury.

"Deliberate is a choice or a decision to kill. It's a weighing of pros and cons. We know the defendant targeted these victims. We know because the same type of women were targeted. He made a series of conscious choices on victim after victim over a period of 22 years. He decided to pull out his gun that was preloaded. He chose to point the gun at their chest and he chose to pull the trigger. ... Or he consciously chose to strangle his victims. He strangled them to death."

DDA Silverman brings up specific victims that were strangled. She points out the testimony from the coroner, who told the jury that to strangle takes two to six minutes. "I want you to go back to the jury room and time that, [two minutes]. Think how long that would take."

Amster is closely monitoring his computer screen of the court reporter's transcript. Atherton intently watches the jury and DDA Silverman.

"All of this was extremely deliberate behavior, seeing as how he did it over and over and over agian."

"Premeditated. What that means is, that he considered it beforehand. He hunted them down. The surveillance unit corroborated what Ray Davis told you. When a surveillance was set up by the LAPD, every night in the middle of the night, he seaks out so he could go hunt for women. They followed him to Western, and the area is an area well known for prostitution. We know that he went in search of the perfect victim because he did it over and over again."

"The law states that no specific set tie is required for premeditation, but the extend of reflection. Look to motive and manner of killing. If the women were not submissive enough, they were shot and killed. These crimes were about power and control. The women who grew up in South Central, they were tough. They are tough. They have to be to survive. Why else does the defendant bring a loaded gun, to look for women?"

Eight times between 1985 and 1988. Eight times in three years. As Detective Kilcoyne said to the defendant, he said science is the only thing that stopped the serial killer.

"What are the factors that we can look to? What are the factors that we can loo to, to prove wilful, deliberate, premeditation murder? You can look to motive, method, planning. What is the motive behind these crimes? The answer should be obvious. The defendant is a sexual predator. His sperm was found in Barbara Ware's mouth. The DNA [from his] saliva was left on the victims breasts. We also saw photos of women, with their breasts exposed, and several victims found naked with their bras and underwear removed."

And Enitera Washington.  He tried to get her in the car and. He took photos of her breasts exposed. he was successful. He got on top of her. He ripped her blouse. She was fading into unconsciousness. He took photos of her breasts exposed.  And his friend said, he was always talking about women's [breasts?]. He had pet names for them. He kept clothes for them. Lingerie. Detectives found lingerie in the garage, packed in bags. From the evidence, the defendant got pleasure from killing these women. Also obvious from from viewing the crime scenes, that he desparetely wanted to degrad these victims bu dumping them as trash. That's why he did it over and over again. It gave him gratification.

The method.
The victims, most of them were shot. Most to the left, shot through the center of the chest. Some were strangled to death, which proves premeditation and delibration, which takes a partiular amount of time to maintain pressure. He made a series of deliberate choices. He could have stopped yet he continued over 22 years. They amounted to countless choices, countless decisions that the defendant made over 22 years. We also have evidence of planning activity.

He sought out his victims. He worked for the city as a trash truck driver in the 1980's. We know in April 1981, he was working as a garage attendant in Los Angeles. He was conveniently driving a trash truck, and Ray Davis knew that too. He admits to that in his interview with Detective Kilcoyne.He sitll had his city identification card that was found in that courtyard area. The defendant had access to landfills. There wre victims wh were in garbage bags. Peters in a garbage bag and two victims in dumpsters. Even under those few days of surveillance, detectives found him creeping out at night.

DDA Silverman goes over the summary of second and first degree murder.

"In this case, all the murders are first degree, every single one of them. If one is first then they all are." She tells the jury she will not summarize the key pieces of evidene in this case.

"We tried to show you the crime scenes fro different perspective. Now [I'm] trying to help you organize the evidence to help your deliberations go smoothly. ... If one murder is willful then they all are."

1. Debra Jackson. Found in an alley about 1.5 miles from the defendant's home.

Silverman details each victim as to how they were found and the steps taken from the time of her discovery. The coroner found it unique to find the trajectories all the same. It was unique to find that in his career, so many victims. A comparison microscope was used to analyze the bullets -which we heard all last week- is the standard used for over the last 100 years. And as Dr. Hamby testified last week, no two gun have been shown to leave the exact same marks on bullets.

2. Henrietta Wright. Bullet to her heart. Stippling around the gunshot wound, shot at very close range. The bullet trajectory was from left to right, front to back and at a downward angle. A gag in her mouth was placed before her death because there's no reason to put a gag in her mouth after death. Firearm comparison matched to the same unrecovered firearm, used to kill Jackson.

As the photos of the victims are put on the overhead screen, I try to stop the emotion welling up inside me.

10:42 AM
The morning break is called. DDA Silverman greets a couple in the gallery. I see that Beth's parents are in the gallery.

There are several other DDA's in the gallery that I recognize. Judge Kennedy's bailiff takes the opportunity to quickly down a banana and coffee [it could be water in a Styrofoam cup] at the clerk's counter.

11:01 AM
Morning break is over.

The Judge tells the parties that the court reporter pointed out that the court missed a word in one of the jury instructions and the court will reread the instruction at the end of closings. The breakdown of the jury is seven women, five men.

Now DDA Silverman is going over victim Barbara Ware.

"The detective actually passed her when he first went into the alley, since her body was hidden." Clearly a body dum. No cartridge cases and body was concealed. The coroner testified a single gunshot wound to the chest that perforated her heart. The same trajectory.  "I asked him if that trajectory was consistent with a particular set of facts, the hypothetical was, based on what was laid out for us by Enietra Washington. ... If you were seated in the front passenger seat of a vehicle, and the driver turned and shot you, would that be consistent with that trajectory, and he said yes." Sooting and stippling was found on her clothing. This defendant was shooting to kill. He wasn't playing games. Drugs were found in her system. Sexual assault kit collected and profiles were developed.

DNA taken from the right nipple swab and oral swab from Barbara Ware. 92,000,000,000 times more likely a match to the defendant.

"Like I said, it would be expected we would find other evidence of other profiles, but only the defendant's profile was found from victim to victim to victim. Nobody else. No matter what lab tested the evidence, the LAPD, to LA County Sheriff, to the FBI, Cellmark, Bodhi, or the defense own lab, Sorenson Forensics, they verified our evidence."

The right nipple, mixture of two profiles [hers and the defendant]. It's her nipple, so it's reasonable she's included. The DNA analyst did two different types of statistical sampling: Likely-hood Ratio and Combined Probability [Index, CPI]. The likely-hood ratio assumes it's just two, including the vicitm, then it's 92 billion times more likely that the other profile is the defendant rather than a random individual. CPI makes no assumptions. Despite the fact that it's a two person mixture. Making no assumptions, one in 2.5 million, that's the more conservative calculation. It includes evry possible combination of alleles at each loci, at each location. In this case, we're talking about Barbara Ware's right nipple. We know about the defendant's predilection for breasts. We know about his comments to his friend Ray Davis, because he gave names, to women's breasts. We know because of the sex tape we saw. Sperm was found in the victim's mouth. The oral swab was a combination of the victim and the defendant. DNA [match] was 1 in 11 quintillion, ten times the population of the planet. DDA Silverman goes over the various labs that tested these items and that Sorenson Forensics confirmed the resultsthe prosecution labs came to.

Now the bullet evidence in the Barbara Ware case. Coroner bullet evidence. A firearms examiner used these bullets to make [match?] the Lachrica Jefferson case. And [the bullet?] from Enitera Washington's chest and they were all a match. "Three different [firearms] examiners came to the same conclusion. DDA Silverman, mentions Dr. Hamby, one of the leading firearms experts in the world.

Victim Bernita Sparks.

Where she was found was approximately three miles from the defendant's residence. Detective Don Hyrcyk said she was found about four miles from another crime scene he also visited. She was found inside a dumpster. And you know he [defendant] worked as a trash truck driver at the time. There was jewelry on her [so we know it wasn't a robbery]. her pants were unzipped and unbuttoned. She was possibly redressed. One shoe on, one shoe off. Her breasts exposed. Trash was on top of her so that possibly she would be taken off to a land fill, so that no one would discover her body. No cartridge cases at the crime scene. And all were taken off to the coroner's office as Jane Doe's.  Gunshot wound to the center of the chest. Same trajectory. She was shot through the heart. Also evidence of manual strangulation. She had injuries to the strap muscles of the neck along with petechia hemorrhaging in the eyes. [The coroner] said it was a very strong case of strangulation.

She not only suffered gunshot wound, manual strangulation, but she was also beaten. There was blunt force trauma with this victim. Based on the color and way that they looked, all occurred while the victim was alove. Also contusions and abrasions to her torso. Also had drugs in her system. We also heard from Dr. Lynne Herold, who started as a coroner's criminalist. She developed the sexual assault kit training program that is used there today. She noted there was a tool mark to the right neck. Dr. Herold explained that with trace [evidence], you need something to compare it to. She noted that they generally don't analyze trace evidence when you have DNA because DNA is ore accurate.

DDA Silverman goes over the DNA evidence. 1 in 80,000,000,000,000,000. 1 in 80 quadtrillion. In the recalculation by the FBI database, all alleles accounted for, no unknown individuals.  Sorenson Forensics confirmed these results. 1 in 4.3 quintillion in the African American population. That's even rarer, than what was provided by the LAPD. Bullet evidence. Matched to the same unrecovered firearm [that has] 6 twists left.

Victim Mary Lowe.

Where she was found was about two miles from the defendant's home. The coroner and criminalist went out to the scene. The body was hidden by a large shrub. She was wearing no underwear, indicating most likely redressed. She was murdered at one location and dumped at another location. No fired automatic cartridge cases were found at this crime scene. She was shot at close range. A single gunshot wound. Injuries to her back were consistent with being dragged. Cocaine metabolite was found in her tox screen.

Sexual assault kit evidence was tested at the Dept. of Justice lab, that found that there were two profiles in this mixture. It matched the defendant 1 in 82 quadtrillion. 1 in 81 quadtrillion in the African American population.

Firearms evidence bullet matched others. When they went out to the scene, they first thought this was an overdose so no sexual assault kit at first. She was hidden under a mattress. A napkin was over her face with the word AIDS over it. There was jewelry, indicating not a robbery.

She was not wearing any underwear. No 25 caliber cartridge cases were found at the scene, also indicating she wasn't shot where she was found. Two gunshot wounds to her chest. She also suffered fro blunt force trauma. Recent abrasions and contusions. The tox screen found metabolite for alcohol and other [drugs? cocaine?].

Sexual assault kit. DDA Silverman talks about the nipple swab and that it's a common area for oral contact. 1 in 27,200,000,000,000,000,000 27.2 quintillion probability match. A population that size, before you woul expect to see that particular unique profile belonging to the defendant.  Sorenson's lab confirms the state's evidence. You also heard some testimony why you might get different statisitical evidence, and why you might not swab a particular evidence over again. And the zip tie. When it comes to Janecia Peters, you're getting less and less cells.

The firearms evidence analyzed matched the bullets from Lachrica Jefferson, Barbara Ware and Enietra Washington. All matched to all three others; different lab than LAPD.

Alicia Alexander.

Photos of the victim. All these victim photos are heartbreaking, just heartbreaking.

The victim was concealed under a blue foam mattress up against a garage wall. She ha a ligature knot around her neck. It was a body dump. There was no identification, no shoes, and in a state of decomposition. She was 18 at the time of the murder. Gunshot wound to her chest and strangluation around her neck. There was a muzzle print so the gun was in contact with her skin. Gunshot wound perforated her lungs, aorta and liver. It ha the same trajectory [as the others] in this case.

Evidence of strangluation, ligature knotted tightly around her neck. The ligature mark was around her entire neck. Positive for cocaine metabolites an alcohol. Based on the decomposition, only a modified assault kit, even though the body was in a state of decomp. Firearms evidence. They did a comparison. [The bullets were fired from the same, unknown 25 automatic firearm, six left, that was used to kill the other gunshot victims. All had the same unique microscopic patterns.

Princess Berthomieux, the youngest victim.

DDA Silverman lists the people who testified in her case. She was found in a rear alley, about 1.5 miles from the defendant's home. She was hidden in shrubbery. Obvious body dump. She was naked at the scene. Her body had been transported and dumped at this location. A ligature mark was noted to the back of her neck at the base of her hairline. Petechia. Cause of death was asphyxia. Hemorrhaging in the strap muscles of her neck. Classic case of strangulation according to the coroner.  Micro-trauma in the vagina was noted, [indicating] possible evidence of sexual assault. No drugs were found in the tox screen. In the sexual assault kit evidence, oral and rectal swabs were bloody. Tested at the Sheriff's crime lab, the nipple swab screen was positive for amylase.

1 in 81 quadtrillion, random match probability. Sorenson lab confirmed these results. Left nipple swab is a mix of only two DNA. All alleles were accounted for. Six different experts reviewed her work.

Valerie McCorvey.

She was found in [near?] a locked alley way. She was found 3 to 3.5 miles from the defendant's home. This was a body dump. Same, similar, no Id no shoes. Detective [Allen?] said it was as if she was dumped out of a moving vehicle. There was road rash on her body and the strange position of the sweater. The leotard was [pulled up?] exposing her breasts. Her pants pulled down exposing her buttocks, and a very obvious ligature mark on her neck. Strangulation. Very well defined ligature mark encircling her neck. Petechia hemorrhaging in her eyes and mouth. Bruising in the strap muscles of the neck. She also sustained multiple abrasion and contusions extemporaneously with her death and that would have been consistent with a struggle. Cocaine, cocaine metabolite and alcohol [was found in her her body.]

Sexual assault kit. No panties or bra. Possible bite marks on her breasts. DNA analysis by the Dept. of Justice. Mix of two [profiles]. The victim was the major profile, defendant minor profile. Most conservative statistic: 1 in 120,000,000,000,000, 1 in 120 trillion. All alleles accounted for in this vicitm. The analyst also testified there is a strong evidence that the defendant is the source of the DNA on the left nipple. Sorenson lab corroborated these results.

Last murder victim Janecia Peters.

DDA Silverman points out the distance between the crime scene of victim Bernita Sparks and Janecia Peters. They were in the same alley. It was approximately 400 feet or one block apart. 20 years, and one block apart. "Is that merely another coincidence?" She was found in an alley in South Los Angeles, about three miles for the defendant's residence. "She was inside a black plastic trash bag. This was obviously a body dump. She was in a trash bag inside a dumpster. There were zip ties [sealing the trash bag]. They transported the dumpster to the coroner's on a flatbed. They went through the dumpster at the coroners. The saw the bag was sealed with a plastic zip tie. They removed her body from the trash bag. She was in a fetal position and naked.

Sexual assault kit was collected. Again, blood in the oral cavity. The zip tie and plastic bag were collected and booked. Cause of death, gunshot wound to the back along with asphyxia. Her legs were paralyzed. The gunshot wound was back to front, left to right. Still consistent with her leaning over to get out of the passenger side of the vehicle. Because the bullet paralyzed her diaphragm, this particular victi spent several minutes gasping for breath, at least two or three minutes. An agonizing way to die. So the defendant strangled her.

After she was dead, the defendant folded her into a fetal position and sealed [the bag] it with a zip tie. The tox screen was positive for cocaine and marijuana metabolite.

The crime lab tested the zip tie. 1 in 80,680,000,000,000,000. The DNA was a mixture of two individuals, the victim and the defendant. The major contributor, the defendant. 1 in 80.68 quadtrillion. 11 million times the population of the earth. Sorenson lab corroborated the prosecution's results. DNA on the zip tie matched the defendant. Like we learned, this was touch DNA and every time you take a sample, your amount would go down.

DDA Silverman presents more DNA evidence in this particular case.

The noon lunch break is called.

Note from Sprocket
It's 1 am. I need to take a break and get to bed. I wrote until 2 am last night, trying to get my notes caught up covering the last two weeks of the trial. I typed all day in court and most of the evening when I got home. I will get the rest of today's notes transcribed as soon as possible.

Continued in Day One Part II.....