Rachel Buffett’s accessory (after the fact) to murder trial began on Friday, September 5, 2018, and is well underway.
The jury was chosen. District Attorney Matt Murphy made an opening statement. Rachel’s defense attorney, David Medina, also made an opening statement.
The trial is scheduled to last until next Friday, September 14, 2018.
I have taken copious notes, but Judge Hanson made a statement about the media coverage of this trial on day one, and I took that to mean, “Wait until the trial is over before you tell the world every little detail.” I will honor that request.
I will say this:
- Matt Murphy likes David Medina a LOT more than he did Scott Sanders. He makes little comments about how “professional” Mr. Medina is in the courtroom, and it’s so obvious that he’s sending out little digs to an absent Scott Sanders that I have to stifle a laugh when it happens. I miss the Scott and Matt courtroom quarrels, but Medina seems like he definitely has his sh*t together.
- Before the trial started, I couldn’t imagine Rachel Buffett being found not guilty, but now I can. It’s not a pleasant thought.
- We are not in Mike the Bailiff’s courtroom anymore! I don’t know the name of Judge Hanson’s main bailiff, but in my head I’ve nicknamed him Major Bailiff. If that man hasn’t been in the military I will eat my hat. (What a strange expression, right?) Remember how I told you there was none of that “all rise” formality during Daniel’s trial? Well Major Bailiff makes sure we rise, and turn off our phones, and have drinks with lids, and sit up straight and pay attention, and not wear sunglasses even if they are just sitting on the top of someone’s head. I don’t dislike Major Bailiff. He’s just a guy who takes his job very seriously. You have to respect that. And Mike the Bailiff, if you’re reading this, please don’t be offended — I enjoy the ritual of standing up before the judge enters. I’m used to seeing that on TV. But Mike was a lot a friendlier.
- We’ve seen some familiar witnesses. We’ve heard some familiar questioning and some unfamiliar questioning.
- We’ve watched interrogation footage of Rachel being interviewed by the Costa Mesa Police. I’ve seen some short clips of her interview, but this was a lot more footage and it was eye opening. (Truth be told, my eyes were already opened, but Rachel made quite a few statements giving me confirmation of stories Daniel Wozniak has often shared with me.)
- We are in a smaller courtroom and it’s a lot easier to hear Matt Murphy in this space. But some of the video footage is virtually impossible to make out. The jury gets a written transcript, so it doesn’t matter if Rachel and Daniel are mumbling like crazy, but I’d really appreciate some subtitles for those of us in the cheaper seats. (For a couple of actors, they certainly didn’t know how to enunciate or project.)
- One constant from both Daniel’s and Rachel’s trials has been Sam Herr’s and Julie Kibuishi’s loved ones, ever-present. Their heartbreak is palpable.
That’s about all I’ll go into right now. I promise to give you the complete story when the trial finishes, and until then, I’ll get updates out as much as possible.
Thanks for reading the blog.
Thanks for the update. I apologize in advance if the statement I’m about to make is eye-rollingly tedious, but I can’t help but wonder when you write that it’s disturbing to imagine Rachel being found not guilty—are you THAT sure she was involved? Unless there’s something I don’t know, or am forgetting, even Daniel has never implicated her (or has he?) I just wonder if your fondness for Daniel gives you a bias sometimes–since any involvement on her part would also ventilate (even to a tiny degree) his burden of responsibility and would therefore be welcome to anyone with a vested interest in Daniel. That said, I do appreciate your blog; it’s interesting, informative, well-articulated, and I generally feel you strive to be impartial. I’ll also say that in interviews, Rachel comes across as rather cold. It’s not impossible to imagine complicity, especially in regards to convos she had prior to the murder where she indicated an interest in murdering people! I guess I’m just playing devil’s advocate here.
Thanks for the update MM!
Rachel’s going down (literally and figuratively) on the two remaining counts. Murphy could never get her on the third count of “family problems.” Simply it was Mr. Manhattan Beach’s ploy to secure a conviction, and very well-played. Scott would agree, just like he did with Linda regarding Sam’s defense trial with Kessel. Love scooters! Her probation report for sentencing will prove very interesting, to say the least. Good luck with that report, David!
Do you know them all? Just asking because calling them ‘Mr Manhattan Beach’, ‘Scott’, and ‘Linda’ made me wonder if you’re personally familiar with them. Why do you call him Mr Manhattan Beach when he’s with Orange County DA? And how do you know what ‘Scott’ and ‘Linda’ think? I can’t find a way to ask those questions without sounding snarky, but I promise I’m genuinely asking.