Penalty Phase: The Defense Witnesses

In the last post, we started day two of the penalty phase and saw the last of the prosecution witnesses. We left off with the moving testimony of June Kibuishi, the mother of murder victim Julie. When June’s testimony was finished, the jury was allowed to take a break.

When the jury was brought back into the courtroom, it was time for the very first defense witness of the entire trial.

Krystin Bergamasco

It didn’t take long to realize that the defense wanted to show the jury that maybe Daniel Wozniak wasn’t a cold, calculating mastermind who committed double murder on his own.

Since the guilt portion of the trial was long over, Scott wasn’t trying to convince anyone that his client was innocent.

But if the DA didn’t have the true story, and if Daniel didn’t do everything he was accused of doing, did he deserve the death penalty?  If Daniel Wozniak was influenced, cajoled, and, most importantly, assisted, then maybe he didn’t cook up this premeditated and confusing scheme to commit murder for money.

Two innocent people were dead, and Scott was not denying Daniel’s involvement in their murders. But now the defense was going to point a finger in another direction: directly at Daniel’s fiancée at the time, Rachel Buffett.

If the jury was going to believe that Rachel could be directly involved in the murders, then the defense had to paint her as both dangerous and manipulative. Enter, stage left: Rachel’s friend and fellow thespian, Krystin.

Around 2006, Krystin and Rachel were both students at Long Beach City College when they were cast in the play Antigone.  When asked if Rachel was well liked, Krystin said no, and that everyone actually avoided Rachel whenever possible.  She described Rachel as “very narcissistic, cold, calculating,” and willing to “do anything to get what she wants.”

Krystin Bergamasco told of an incident where Rachel set up a situation to embarrass another acquaintance just for fun.

Rachel was dating a guy named Kyle Ruebel (we’ll hear from him later).  Another actress in their theatre community was unaware of the relationship between Kyle and Rachel. Unfortunately, she confided in Rachel that she had a crush on Kyle.  According to Krystin’s story, Rachel convinced the other girl to admit her feelings to Kyle. The young woman was humiliated when Kyle admitted to already being in a relationship with Rachel.

Why would Rachel do this? Because she “loved the attention,” explained Krystin.

This might all seem a little “high school mean girl,” but Scott wanted the jury to see that Rachel had a history of spinning webs and being cruel just for sport. And when Krystin told of a conversation between the two of them while headed to Starbucks one day, it made sense why she felt the need to talk to the Costa Mesa Police about Rachel after she learned of the murders of Sam and Julie.

Rachel and Krystin had been talking about auditions for an upcoming production of the Greek tragedy Media.  While discussing two of the central themes of the play, revenge and murder, Rachel asked Krystin a rather odd question.

She wanted to know, “if you could murder someone, and you knew you could get away with it, would you?”  Krystin replied that she would definitely not murder someone.

You guys already know where this is going, right?

Rachel, however, said she would murder someone if she could get away with it, and Krystin believed that her friend was not kidding around.

This event stayed with with Krystin, and after she found out about the murders, she sat down and wrote four pages of notes (to “keep herself organized”) and headed to the police station to let them know they should be looking carefully at Rachel Buffett.

So, not only was Krystin Bergamasco the first defense witness, she was also the first witness to be cross-examined by Matt Murphy.  He didn’t spend much time questioning her.  He asked if she had any hard evidence to prove that Rachel was involved in the murders.  She said no.  That seemed sufficient for Matt to make his point that proving Rachel is mean isn’t quite the same as having DNA evidence or fingerprints.

Side note: So far, I have yet to speak with a theatre person who liked Rachel.  All the people I’ve met who worked with her describe her the same way Krystin did.  But hey, if anyone reading this knows her personally and actually likes her, I would be very interested in hearing about a different side of Rachel. 

Kyle Ruebel

The next defense witness was Rachel’s boyfriend in 2008 / 2009.

With the previous witness, Scott Sanders painted Rachel as a callous narcissist. Now, it was time to show her manipulative, law-breaking side.

Kyle talked about how he often witnessed Rachel stealing from stores at Disneyland (where she and Kyle worked) and how she would convince her younger cousin, Rebecca, to steal with her.  Rachel would defend her actions with the explanation, “they don’t care. It’s a million dollar business.”

Ummm, more like billions, but that doesn’t make it right, Rachel.

Scott Sanders asked Kyle how he felt about Rachel’s stealing.  He said it rubbed him the wrong way, but he’s a passive guy, so he didn’t say anything.

During his cross-examination, Matt Murphy wanted to know if Rachel had ever tried to convince Kyle to break the law.  He said not really, and he pointed out that “you make your own decisions,” and it doesn’t matter if your girlfriend tries to talk you into doing something.

Matt also asked Kyle if being immature, “makes you a criminal mastermind.”

Good one, Matt.  I’m not sure what makes Kyle an expert on this topic, but I’m guessing it was more of a rhetorical question.

Then back to Scott. Why did Rachel and Kyle break up? He said she was manipulative and she caused problems with his friends. She also bragged to him about having sex with another man because she was trying to “egg (him) on” to get into a fight over her (it didn’t work).

I think Matt Murphy got in the last word, though. He asked if these Rachel stories had anything to do with Daniel Wozniak. Kyle said nope, and that was it.

So, did Scott Sanders make his point with these two witnesses?  And what was his point?

Neither of these witnesses said anything that would cause the jury to doubt Daniel’s guilt, but this wasn’t the guilt phase. Maybe throwing a little shade Rachel’s way might cause them to wonder if she had some influence over Daniel’s actions?  That wouldn’t make him innocent, but perhaps they could see him as “life without the possibility of parole” guilty.

Side note – at no point in this trial did the prosecution put forth anyone from Daniel’s pre-Rachel past who had anything bad to say about pre-Rachel Daniel.  

We have two more defense witnesses, and closing arguments, coming up in future posts.

Penalty Phase Prosecution Witnesses: Day Two

Day two of the penalty phase in the trial of Daniel Wozniak started with a ruling about bringing up the criminal background of defense witness Daniel Munoz, who would vouch for Daniel’s character later that day. Judge Conley used what he called a “quick and dirty approach” to go through the rather long rap sheet of this witness, and told Matt Murphy to “make (him) an offer” about what priors he wanted to mention to the jury. Munoz met Daniel when they were both in jail.

While Matt Murphy discussed Munoz’s numerous “scary” tattoos, I couldn’t help feeling that this man might not impress the jury that much.  I think his crimes were all theft related… maybe some gang stuff… I’m not sure.  Either way, I’m not knocking Mr. Munoz as a person, but as a character witness. He probably wasn’t up there with church pastor, you know?

After this business was settled, the bailiffs brought Daniel Wozniak into the courtroom.  You always know when they are bringing him into the courtroom because you can hear the cell doors clanking open and slamming shut right before he enters. It’s like a sound cue.

In spite of being on trial for murder, Daniel has a natural bounce in his step even when chained and handcuffed.  That probably rubs some people the wrong way.

There was a short wait before the jury was brought back in. One of them was running late. In that person’s defense, it had been seriously pouring rain that morning and there was flooding and traffic jams everywhere.  Give us Californians an earthquake and we’re fine, but when water falls from the sky, it causes problems.

Once everyone was in their spots, it was time for the prosecution to continue with witness testimony.

Emi Kibuishi

The next person up was Emi Kibuishi, the youngest of the Kibuishi children.  She described her big sister, Julie, as a loving protector with a big personality.  She, and a cousin, looked up to Julie and the three of them were always together.  They loved to dance.

At one point, Murphy put up a picture of the girls from Halloween.  Emi was a bunny and Julie was Jasmine from Alladin.

Julie’s murder happened on the day of Emi’s senior prom. The next morning, Emi was scheduled to try out for the spirit squad at the University of California, Irvine.  The family decided to keep her sister’s death from her until after.

Emi thought it was strange When the entire family came to pick her up after the tryout. But when she saw that her mother was crying, she immediately realized that Julie wasn’t in the car, and she knew something terrible had happened.

There was no cross-examination. Another good decision for Scott.

June Kibuishi

Julie’s petite and soft-spoken mother, June Kibuishi, was the final prosecution witness.  When I was going over my notes from the trial, I noticed that I didn’t have that many for Julie’s mom.  I don’t think she was on the stand for that long, but I still felt like my notes might have been lacking.

There were a lot of times that I cried during this trial, and I suspect that was the reason my notes are choppy.

When June Kibuishi had been pregnant with Julie, she was told she was having another boy. But on Valentine’s Day in 1987, the Kibuishi family was thrilled to welcome their first girl.  On the stand, June described her daughter as a bubbly and athletic tomboy who balanced playing softball with her love of dancing.  Her voice cracked as she told the jury about little girl’s fondness for skirt spins and curtsies.

Julie was accepted into the Commercial Dance Conservatory at the prestigious Orange County School of the Arts (OCSA) in the eighth grade.  June Kibuishi proudly explained that this was when the school had first started accepting junior high students.

OCSA held a memorial for Julie at the ten-year reunion of her high school graduation. A plaque in her honor was put up at the school with the words: Juri “Julie” Kibuishi. Always in our hearts. Next to the message is an inlaid image of a dancing young woman.

Various photographs were displayed on the video screen during June Kibuishi’s testimony. We saw a picture of the plaque, one of the Kibuishi extended family in front of a Christmas tree, and another Julie and June together.  The two of them looked so happy in that image; June’s head resting on Julie’s shoulder.

At the end of her testimony, a sobbing June Kibuishi held up the tiara her daughter Julie was wearing when she was murdered.

And again, there was no cross-examination.  Phew.

The jury was sent out for a break, and an agitated Scott Sanders had a point to make with the judge.

The Tiara

There had been no disclosure to the defense that the clearly inflammatory tiara would be brought into court. It hadn’t been previously introduced as a piece of physical evidence.

Matt Murphy insisted that he had no idea what June Kibuishi had planned to say on the stand that morning, and that up until then, he thought the tiara had been cremated.

Scott countered that there was no way he could address the tiara with June—or question any of these grieving witnesses—without (I can’t remember exactly how he phrased it, but this is what I wrote in my court notes, so I’m not quoting here) looking like a dick.

Next time: the very first defense witness of the entire trial.

Penalty Phase – Prosecution Witnesses

After opening arguments in the penalty phase of Daniel’s trial, it was time for the prosecution witnesses.

Miles Foltz

The first witness was Sam Herr’s best friend, fellow combat veteran Miles Foltz.

Okay, if you are Matt Murphy, and it’s your goal to make the jury hate Daniel Wozniak, then Miles Foltz is a dream witness. Here was this tough looking solider guy who couldn’t stop his voice from cracking with emotion while he talked about his best friend Sam and how they were stationed together at Camp Keating in Afghanistan. Miles opened up about the daily dangers they faced during that time in “the fish bowl,” and how they joked about their bullet dodging skills.

“No matter where we’d go, we’d always get shot at, but they never got us,” Miles Foltz choked out.  It was during their time at Camp Keating that Sam accrued quite a bit of combat pay, which all went into the bank because there was, “no place to spend your money.”

Sam and Miles had even made a “we’ll be each other’s best man” plan for when either of them got married, but when Miles Foltz did get married, his friend Sam wasn’t there.  He had survived combat only to be was murdered after coming home. Sam’s dad Steve Herr stood in for his son as the best man at Miles wedding.

Remember the end of the last post, when I told you to bring tissues..

The defense didn’t have many questions for Miles during the cross, but Scott Sanders asked him if he’d met Rachel Buffet and if she had ever made any comments about having an issue with a loan shark. Yes and yes.  And during the re-cross, we learned this made him immediately suspicious of Rachel and Daniel.  That’s one of the reasons Miles contacted the police and Steve Herr when Sam went missing.

I had no idea that the term “loan shark” was still in use until this trial. The expression seems so Jimmy Cagney/Turner Classic Movies.

When the grief-stricken Miles Foltz left the stand, Sam’s parents embraced him.  The prosecution could have stopped right there and still easily convinced the jury to choose the death penalty. But they did not.

Steve Herr

The next witness for the prosecution: Steve Herr

Steve Herr (who pronounces his name like “hair”) is easily recognizable with his grey hair and blazer. During the hearings, he always wore jeans, but he switched to khakis during the actual trial.

I’ve spoken with Steve on a few occasions and overheard him talking on many others. He is a chatty guy who has remained personable throughout this nightmare. All the media people know him.  He greets with hugs and handshakes and smiles. This man who could be a “grandfather type” from central casting won’t have that opportunity now, because his only child was murdered.

Sam grew up in California, near Magic Mountain.  Without going into specifics, Steve Herr admitted that his son had gotten into some trouble when he was younger, but Sam had made a complete turnaround after joining the Army.  “The event,” as Steve referred to Sam’s killing, happened right before finishing his first year of college.

Steve Herr’s testimony was gut-wrenching.  He often apologized about “rambling on,” as anger and frustration poured out him while he jumped from point to point.

When he found Julie’s body in Sam’s apartment, he called 911 immediately and was positive that his son hadn’t done it.

  • When he found Julie’s body in Sam’s apartment, he called 911 immediately and was positive that his son hadn’t done it.
  • “I wanted to find the MF who did this!”
  • For reasons that were not explained, he’d had a deep fear that Sam would be dismembered, and then he found that to be the case.
  • On his son’s birthday, he was praying that they find Sam’s head so they could give him a proper burial.
  • “The worst thing you can ask of a man is to feel helpless,” he stated about not protecting his only son.
  • He talked about his wife Raquel and how sad she looks when she sees people with their children.
  • Steve Herr said of seeing Sam at his funeral that he “never want(s) to forget seeing (his) son all sewed up.” He never wants to forget the evil.
  • Even though Steve didn’t personally witness the dismemberment of Sam’s body, he can’t stop picturing Daniel “hacking and sawing” his son.

The human mind is fascinating.  I don’t doubt what happened, but I’m personally not able to picture the man I know as my friend doing those horrific actions. Truth is, I have tried, actually, but the mental image morphs into him being on-stage and waving his arms around during a musical number.  I probably just don’t want to be able to “see” it, you know? It’s easier to be his friend that way.

 When Steve Herr finished testifying, the defense chose to not ask any cross-examination questions.  That seemed like the smart choice.  Sometimes I feel like Steve might dislike Scott Sanders as much as he does Daniel Wozniak.

Raquel Herr

The next witness up was Sam’s mother, Raquel Herr.

This was the first time the jury would hear from Sam’s mom. Unlike Steve, she wasn’t an actual witness in the criminal case.

Raquel said that even though she had been told she could not have children, she was blessed with her only child when she was 35.  Sam was her “prince,” she told the jury, and while the police and her husband were searching for Sam, her fear and anxiety caused to her to be bedridden for six days.

At one point, the judge had to ask Raquel to slow down for the court reporter.  She apologized to the jury that her emotions and Spanish accent were making her difficult to understand.

Raquel Herr said she has God and her faith, and she doesn’t want to be angry. She wasn’t on the stand for long, but her impact was powerful.

Again, there was no cross-examination by the defense.

Miriam Nortman

After Raquel Herr, her twin sister, Miriam Nortman, took the stand.

Sam’s aunt, the self-proclaimed “firecracker” in the family, was overwrought as she explained how difficult it was to see her sister suffer. She spoke of the joy felt by their entire family when Sam was born. But now Miriam’s own children and grandchildren are a constant reminder of what her poor sister lost when Sam was killed.

Her anger and sadness boiled over as she explained that when she thinks about her nephew being dismembered, it makes her feel like her own arm, leg and head were being cut off.

Again, the defense made the smart choice of not cross-examining the witness.  Why upset these people more, right? There is the stereotype of the ruthless defense attorney who will do anything to free a client, but I just don’t think that is Scott Sanders.  He seems like a guy who just cares a lot about the law and following it to the letter.

The Kibuishi Family

The next group of witnesses would be members of Julie’s family, with Taka Kibuishi, Julie’s older brother, called first.

This is not to belittle Sam’s murder, but just for me personally, the murder of Julie has always been the most heartbreaking in this crime. She just seemed like such a sweet and defenseless innocent.  There really wasn’t a huge age difference between Sam and Julie, but Sam had seen so much of the world and he had faced death before. It’s like he’d at least had the opportunity to live, but she was just getting started.  Also, she was a girl.  Yup, I have a double standard there.  Anyway, Daniel knows that I am particularly sickened by the murder of Julie. I don’t mince words with him.  He knows that I am his friend, but I won’t ever forget why he is where he is.

As you probably all know, Julie had been wearing a princess tiara when she was shot twice in the head.  It’s a small element to the story, but its symbolism is gut-wrenching.  She still lived at home with her parents, she had a Taylor Swift ringtone, and she was wearing a tiara when she was murdered.  Julie was wearing that tiara because her brother Taka had given it to her over dinner.  She had just been asked by Taka and his fiancée to be a bridesmaid in their wedding.

Have you notices that there are a lot of weddings in this story: Taka’s, Miles’ and Rachel and Daniel’s?

Taka continued by saying they’d gone out to a restaurant that evening to celebrate and “everything was great.”  Six months later, when the police returned Julie’s car to her family, they would find the leftover Thai food that had been sitting in it since that dinner.

Taka Kibuishi described the closeness of his family.  He talked about how the two older Kibuishi brothers always looked out for the two younger sisters.  There was help with studying and creating job resumes.  Taka had even grilled Julie about her relationship with Sam, who Julie had insisted was just like another big brother.

Julie Kibuishi was sweet, artistic, talkative and a great dancer.  The arts high school that she’d attended is very close to the Santa Ana courthouse, so the Kibuishi family is constantly reminded of happier times whenever they return to this neighborhood.

I have a personal connection to that arts school.  The kids there are amazing.  After a rigorous academic school day, they spend an extra three hours a day taking classes focused entirely on their artistic discipline.

Taka’s love for his little sister was undeniable as he broke down on the stand, beating himself up for not stopping her from going to Sam’s apartment that fateful night.  “I had so many chances to try to stop her,” he lamented. And Julie’s murder has caused so much stress and grief for this very private family.

His anger flared as he described Daniel Wozniak as a disgusting monster who had disrespected his beautiful sister just to use her as a decoy.

You know the expression, “there wasn’t a dry eye in the house?” Well, there wasn’t. 

The defense did not cross examine this witness either.

At that point, Judge Conley decided to break for the day.

As I watched the jury file out of the courtroom, noticeably moved by Taka’s words, the expression “another nail in the coffin” seemed fitting in describing Daniel’s fate.

Up Next: More Prosecution Witnesses…

In the next post, I’ll continue with the prosecution witnesses and you’ll get to hear the defense’s argument for giving Daniel life without the possibility of parole.

If you haven’t been following the story in the news, Daniel’s sentencing hearing has been re-scheduled for May.  Scott Sanders is filing a brief to have the death penalty removed in Daniel’s case.

Penalty Phase – Opening Arguments

The penalty phase of Daniel’s trial started on January 4, 2016. Court began at 10:30 that day, and I was bundled up while walking to the Orange County Courthouse. I’d even broken out gloves and a scarf for this Californian’s version of a winter morning (I think it was 60 degrees Fahrenheit, so, brrrrrr).

Or, it’s possible that heading up to the eighth floor to watch twelve people decide if my friend should be put to death made me feel cold from the inside out.

The guilt phase of Daniel’s trial was all about facts. But, in the penalty phase, emotions would dominate.

Before the jury could be brought into the courtroom, the judge made some rulings on whether or not to allow certain photographs relating to Sam Herr’s funeral into evidence:

• A photo of Sam’s parents being handed a folded American flag: Allowed.
• Soldiers carrying Sam’s casket: Not allowed.
• Sam’s former fiancée crying over his casket: Allowed.
• Umm, I think there was one of Sam with a puppy he adopted while serving in Afghanistan: Not allowed.

Don’t get me wrong, I certainly didn’t want the jury to give Daniel the death penalty, but was one “puppy picture” going to tip the scale? Of course, people do love puppies. I love puppies. Would it have taken the jury even less time to decide on death if they had seen the puppy picture?

Then there was discussion about the Google searches found on the computer from Daniel and Rachel’s apartment. The jury had already seen the searches during the guilt phase, but Scott Sanders didn’t want them to be reminded that inquiries about cruise ship amenities coincided with questions about hiding bodies. Judge Conley said the law was strict where the death penalty applied, and he ruled that the jury didn’t need to see certain information twice.

I am pretty sure that no one could forget those searches anyway.

Judge Conley gave the jury additional instructions when they were finally brought in at 10:50 AM: “Nothing the attorney says or asks is evidence. Only what the witness says is evidence.”

Okay! Everyone… ignore the lawyers!

Next, there was an explanation about the difference between mitigating and aggravating circumstances. Mitigating circumstances should lean the jury away from choosing the death penalty; aggravating circumstances are the “let’s fry him” details.

So far, there hadn’t been much in the way of mitigating circumstances, so I wondered if we could expect some from Scott during this phase of the trial.

The penalty phase is almost its own mini trial. It starts with opening arguments. Then there’s the questioning and cross-examining of witnesses, and it ends with closing arguments.

An interesting little side note: Normally the prosecution has an opportunity to give a rebuttal after the defense closes. However, because of a previous ruling in this case by Judge Conley, the defense would actually have the last word during the penalty phase. This caused a great deal of contention for Matt Murphy, who continuously tried to fight this motion up until the end of the trial.

Then, it was time to get started. Everyone was in their place. Matt Murphy was raring to go.

Another side note (sorry, but this one is directed to Matt, Scott and Tracy): As a theatre director I need to tell ALL the attorneys to SPEAK UP. My goodness, you folks need to learn how to project and enunciate. Seriously. This is not meant as an insult. It’s just constructive criticism. Maybe you’re trying to make a more intimate connection with the jury. If that’s the case, you can accomplish this without dropping your volume. I’d even be willing to rehearse with any of you if you’d like. As an example, remember on Monday when we were all waiting around in the courtroom for that other case to finish? Well, I had no trouble hearing those attorneys, and they had their backs to the audience. So, just sayin’.

And back to court.

Matt Murphy was up. He started by talking about Daniel’s life. He directed the jury to his first PowerPoint slide.

But, in a rare move for the defense in this case, Scott Sanders actually piped up with “Objection,” and said he needed to address the court in chambers.

MMTVL was intrigued.

Daniel was left alone at the defense table. Usually, he would just stare forward. Maybe he was making anagrams out of the letters on the seal of California.

When everyone was back, Matt Murphy went back to the PowerPoint and BAM, Scott was objecting again. Some spectators scoffed at his request to return to chambers.

Daniel even turned from the table to give me a quick confused glance.

They returned from chambers, and the judge explained what was causing the commotion. The first objection was to some information about Daniel’s life and background contained on one of the PowerPoint slides. During the first trip to chambers, the slide was ruled inadmissible.

BUT…

It turns out that slide was still up on the screen when the machine was turned back on. This meant that the jury could have easily seen the inadmissible information.

Hence Scott’s second objection.

Oops?

This could have turned into a huge ordeal, but Judge Conley wasn’t going to stop the trial quite yet.

In addressing the jury, he wanted to know if any of them had seen the information on the slide. Show of hands? Then each of those jury members were brought into chambers to be individually questioned by the judge and the attorneys. After all was said and done, it was agreed that everyone could just forget whatever they saw and we could get on with our trial.

Phew?

So, what was on that slide? Really, it was just information about how Daniel’s background had been pretty normal. Maybe Matt wanted to point out that Daniel had no excuse for his actions, having been raised in stable family environment.

And why should the defense want to want to keep this from the jury? I know that Daniel wants to protect his family’s privacy as much as possible, but it seemed like such a fuss over something apparently fairly innocuous.

Rachel Buffett was next on Murphy’s agenda. He was pretty sure that Rachel would be a much-discussed topic during the defense’s arguments (she was), and if the jury was going to have any doubts about Daniel’s level of guilt, he wanted to nip them in the bud now.

Matt admitted that there are plenty of reasons to suspect Rachel of being involved with Daniel and the crime:

• Some people don’t like her (specifically certain police officers).
• She was living with Daniel, and they were always together. So she must have known what he was doing.
• If Daniel gained financially, then so would Rachel.
• She cried onstage (during a crying scene).
• She lied to the police about seeing a third man with Sam and Daniel on the day Sam was murdered.

But then Matt Murphy went on to defend Rachel’s claims of having no involvement whatsoever:

• None of Rachel’s DNA was found on the murder weapon.
• Her DNA was not found on the backpack
• Rachel didn’t borrow any money from Chris Williams.
• She told Chris that Dan was a pathological liar and not to trust him.
• Rachel called Detective Morales and turned over evidence to him.
• She’s had steady employment at Medieval Times and hasn’t been in any trouble since the murders happened.
• During his confession, Daniel himself insisted that Rachel wasn’t involved.

I think that Matt wanted to try to cover all the bases and be ready for whatever the defense was going to say. It appeared that he wasn’t taking any chances that the jury might blame Rachel and possibly not choose death for Daniel.

Will the Orange County D.A.’s office emphasize Rachel’s good qualities when they have her on trial?

Daniel's Google search (courtesy of ABC7)
Daniel’s Google search (courtesy of ABC7)

Next, the prosecution went on to remind the jury about a few of those Google searches, including the “making sure a body isn’t found,” and “head gunshot.” Matt wasn’t allowed to talk about the search for “Sirius” (This is probably because the brightest star in the night sky, also known colloquially as the “Dog Star” isn’t likely an important issue in this case).

Then Matt summerized the testimonies of witnesses Chris Williams and Wesley “ATM kid” Frielich. The prosecution did not want the jury to forget about how emotional each of them had been on the stand. They both talked about feelings of betrayal and fear as a direct result of Daniel’s actions.

All of this was Matt’s argument proving that Daniel Wozniak doesn’t deserve to live. The jury should see he is callous, self-serving, and that friendship means nothing to him. Murphy connected Daniel to his ironically similar character Guido Contini, in the musical Nine. The jury heard that while Daniel and Rachel were singing and dancing onstage, Julie’s and Sam’s families were in a panicked search for their loved ones.

Matt Murphy went through the timeline again. He reminded the jury of Sam’s murder in the theatre attic. After that, Daniel started taking out some of Sam’s money. And to make it look like Sam was on the run, there was the plot to lure Julie to Sam’s apartment in order to kill her and frame Sam.

Matt claimed Daniel knew that Julie and Sam were good people. He was aware they both had friends and family members who loved them, but he didn’t care. As he finished his opening arguement, Murphy wanted to convey to every one in the courtroom that today was for those friends and family.

It was time for the defense’s opening arguments. Once again, Tracy LeSage took the stage.

She started by telling the jury that the defense appreciated and respected the thoughtful consideration they used during the guilt phase. She also admitted that the defense was in no way trying to excuse or justify Daniel’s actions. However, she asked that they be fair to both sides, to please keep an open mind and look deep inside themselves, and to bring justice to the process.

That was it. She didn’t really cover any more ground than she had in her closing for the guilt phase.

As far as Daniel avoiding the death penalty, well…let’s just say I wasn’t hopeful (good thing, right?).

Next up: The Prosecution’s witnesses and victim impact statements. You might want to have a box of tissues nearby.

Closing Arguments

When closing arguments in Daniel’s trial started on December 16, 2015, I was feeling… I guess the best word is anticipatory.  The defense had rested the day before after barely questioning the prosecution’s witnesses and calling none of their own. So far Scott Sanders and his team hadn’t put forth much of a defense (at least not in front of the jury), but I figured we were all about to see some fancy-schmancy lawyering now that we were in the closing stretch of the guilt phase.

A Secondary Verdict?

Before the jury was brought back into the courtroom, there was some discussion about the possibility of a secondary verdict.  There was an option to find Daniel guilty of second-degree murder instead of first-degree.  Like anyone thought that was going to happen.

Then, Scott Sanders brought up something I never would have considered. Some of the camera footage taken during the first days of trial showed Daniel being escorted by deputies into the courtroom, and it was easy to see that he was handcuffed.

If you remember, the jury wasn’t supposed to ever see Daniel in cuffs.  Jury members are told to avoid media coverage of the trial, but stuff happens. It wouldn’t be impossible for one of them to accidentally catch a glimpse of that footage on the nightly news.

Judge Conley asked the camera operators to wait until Daniel was seated and no longer handcuffed before they filmed him from now on.

But, HEY JURY MEMBERS! Now that the trial is over, I would LOVE to talk to you.  I have a few thousand questions I’d like to ask you.  Let’s start with: Did you know that Daniel was incarcerated during the trial?

Matt Murphy’s Closing Argument

When the jury was brought in, the judge explained that the “party with the burden of proof” gets to speak first and last.  This meant that Matt Murphy would get a rebuttal after the defense finished its closing argument – like a Scott Sanders sandwich.

Matt started off by telling the jury that during this, the guilt phase of the trial, they are only responsible for deciding if Daniel Wozniak broke the law.  Did he commit murder and was it a calculated decision to kill? This was a time for a sterile examination of the facts. This was not the time to consider punishment. Was he guilty of first degree murder?

Murphy then went on to remind the jury of the “cornucopia of evidence” in this case (Thanksgiving of murder?).  He said that the amount of evidence was so overwhelming, he wished he “could borrow” some of it for his other cases.

(“Oh, Matt. You jokester.” Slaps own knee.)

I’ll tell you something, if someone hurt me or one of my loved ones, I would want Matt Murphy to prosecute them.  You know what I’m sayin?

That black backpack alone easily connected Daniel to Sam’s murder.  Daniel’s DNA and Sam’s blood were all over Sam’s personal items found in the bag.

Matt talked about how the evidence didn’t need to eliminate all possible doubt, though, because everything in life is open to some possible or imaginary doubt.

Murphy didn’t have to prove who made the implicating Google searches found on the computer in Daniel and Rachel’s apartment. The searches themselves were “very powerful evidence.”

Unanswered Questions

He admitted that there were still some unanswered questions. Like: how did Daniel get Sam’s PIN number? The prosecution didn’t know, but Murphy said it was okay for the jury to just “guess” a way that Daniel could have acquired it. He suggested that Daniel had glanced over Sam’s shoulder at some point when Sam was taking out money.

My guess… I think Sam willingly gave his PIN to someone he trusted.

Murphy told the jury that Daniel had started working on his murderous “plan” months before the killings took place. That was why Daniel reconnected with Wesley (ATM kid).  But during Wesley’s testimony, questions came up about when this all took place. Not all of the answers Wesley gave worked with the prosecution’s timeline. So during his closing, Murphy suggested that the teen was probably just confused.

Money The Real Motive?

Even though the prosecution is not obligated to provide a motive, Matt Murphy knew exactly what the motive was in this case: money.

Daniel was in debt. On the PowerPoint, Murphy showed two overdrawn bank accounts.  The thing is, the total was under a $1000.  Yup, that’s not a typo.  I didn’t forget a zero. And because Daniel was estranged from his family, he had no one to help him with the $1000. Also, he’d recently gotten a DUI (incurring more debt).

And the most crucial need for money: Daniel and Rachel’s impending wedding / honeymoon.

Side note – On Dateline, Rachel said her parents were traditional and they were planning to pay for the wedding. So that expense was actually covered.

Matt Murphy wondered, if Daniel needed money so desperately, why didn’t he just stick to “good old identity theft?”  That is a good question, MM!

Hey, I just realized that Matt Murphy and Murder Musings have the same initials.

Here’s why I don’t believe the “murder for financial gain” motive:

First, Daniel had to know that it would take some time to clean out Sam’s bank account, especially if he was planning to do it by maxing out an ATM every day.  I would think that Daniel would want as much time as possible, so as to collect as much money as possible.  But Daniel didn’t have any time, because the police started looking for Sam right away.

Why did they start looking for Sam?  It wasn’t because his father was worried about him.  The police wanted to find Sam because Julie’s body was in his apartment. That brought them into this case immediately. And that didn’t help Daniel’s plan.

Also, Daniel had Sam’s checkbook and credit cards.  Why weren’t they used? Why didn’t he just forge a check to himself and get a much larger sum than the $400 ATM limit?

And seriously, that amount of debt was so paltry.  It’s certainly not insurmountable. Get a job. Come up with a creative sign and panhandle on the offramp. Hell, you could probably make $1000 selling plasma and semen.

But, in his confession, Daniel said he did it for the money. So that must be the motive, right?

Matt Murphy finished up his closing with a PowerPoint list and a restating of the evidence against Daniel.  Then it was all wrapped up in Daniel’s confession.  The one where he finally stopped lying and told the true story… right?

Hey blog-reading juror: how important was that confession to you guys? Would you still have found him guilty without it?

The Defense’s Closing Argument

The prosecution finished and I got myself ready to watch Scott Sanders jump into action. What was he going to say? Was there any possible defense? Would there be a Perry Mason moment?

Spoiler alert – there wasn’t.

That is when Daniel’s other lawyer, assistant defense attorney Tracy LeSage, stood up to address the jury. Well, I did not see that one coming. Why wasn’t the man Daniel calls “Fearless Leader” taking the lead here?

I started coming up with theories in my head. Maybe the defense team thought Tracy would be more likable than Scott. Perhaps Scott was saving his energy for the penalty phase. Did he have a sore throat and no one offered him a Ricola? I don’t know.

The soft-spoken LeSage put forth a very simple request to the jury: Try to see the whole picture.  She wanted them to really study the facts. Tracy said that nothing in life is black and white. She just wanted them to keep an open mind.  That was the gist of it, and she was done.

Matt Murphy made one last comment.  It was some kind of analogy about Daniel driving a car. Sorry, my notes are sketchy on this part. I was getting hungry.

Lunch break!

Final Instructions

Judge Conley gave the jury final instructions before they started their deliberations. One point he made was that they were to ignore that Daniel did not testify.  They shouldn’t guess or assume any reasons for this.

Unfortunately, I think most of us believe that if a person doesn’t testify, he’s guilty? I’m sure that Daniel and the defense team are well aware of that.

Then, the jury was ushered into the deliberation room by Deputy Mike (who is a really nice guy by the way). I think everyone knew that a guilty verdict wouldn’t be long in coming.

And I think that EVERYONE in the room agreed that Daniel was guilty of something.

I’ll be digging into the penalty phase of the trial next.  I’m also planning a post of my thoughts and reactions to that Dateline episode.

Guilty – Part Six

On December 15, 2015, Matt Murphy called Michael Anthony Cohen of the Costa Mesa Police Department  back to the stand  and continued to show the jury Daniel’s interview with the police.

The police continued to work on Daniel for a confession as they tried to locate Rachel. They made comments like, “your world has crashed down,” ”just try to right a wrong,” and “I’m not a dentist. I don’t pull teeth.”

Daniel was crying.  Face buried in his hands, he said, “I did not murder anyone.”

Then, Rachel showed up at the police station and was brought into the interrogation room with Daniel.  He was supposed to tell Rachel what his role had been in Julie’s murder. He was quiet and mumbly on the recording.  The jurors had the advantage of being able to follow along on a paper transcript.

Daniel admitted to Rachel that he’d been involved in an ATM scam with Sam. He told her about Sam coming to their apartment on Saturday morning. How Daniel had seen the body and helped Sam get away.

Before leaving the room, Rachel asked when she could talk to Daniel again.  She was told she could call from jail.

Daniel whispered, “I fucked up.”

“Yeah you did,” she whispered back as she left.

The questioning continued. Daniel stuck to his current story. The police asked Daniel to give closure to Julie’s family.  When they got nothing else, they booked him.

That’s where the video stopped for now.  The jury would next hear an audio recording of a telephone call between Rachel and Daniel.  It was a game changer.

Rachel knew the call was recorded. Daniel knew the call was recorded. So when Rachel told Daniel that his brother Tim had a murder weapon, they both knew the police had heard this.

Rachel said she was going to call the detective.  When he heard all this damning information, Daniel told her, “I’m going to tell them everything… I have to do something now.”

He asked her to come to the police station right away, and told her, “Now I’m dead.”

“Baby, you are already dead,” said Rachel Buffett to her fiancé right before he confessed to murdering two people.

The Confession

We went back to the video and the now-familiar interrogation room scene.

This is when Daniel admitted to being the murderer of not only Julie, but Sam as well.  Daniel told the police about shooting Sam at the Liberty Theatre, and how he eventually went back to dismember the body.

They learned that Julie’s murder was part of a devious plan to frame Sam.  Daniel told them it was all for the motive of “money and insanity.”

During this confession, Daniel went from weeping to hysterical laughter and back to weeping again.  He repeatedly reminded the police that it was “all (him) and no one else,” who committed these horrendous acts.

The video was finally turned off, and Scott Sanders now had the opportunity to cross examine Cohen.

He asked if there was a formal interview with Rachel Buffett at the time of Daniel’s confession.  Cohen didn’t know.

MMTVL just has a few questions to add:

Was there any DNA actually found on Julie’s body?  Are there any more recorded phone calls between Rachel and Daniel? Is there more video of Daniel’s interrogation the jury was not shown?

Next Witness: Detective Larry Fettis

Detective Larry Fettis was in charge of the search scene at the El Dorado Nature Center. He testified that he found the skeletal remains of a human hand. He had marked it as evidence.

No cross examination.

MMTVL (sound effect of shivering)

Next Witness: Detective Jose Morales

Morales was the second to last witness for the prosecution. He was asked to explain how he’d gone through Julie’s cell phone.  He told the jury about taking screen shots (the ones that were used in court).

Morales also identified locations on a map displayed on the overhead screen. He pointed out the Hunger Artists Theatre, Orange Coast College, the Camden Apartments, etc.

MMTVL Oh hey are you the officer who interrupted my rehearsal that one time?  We were on a break anyway. Hunger Artists isn’t there anymore, by the way. This has no relevence to the case, it’s just too bad the place closed.

Final Witness For The Prosecution: Dr. Anthony Juguioun

Dr. Anthony Juguioun is the CMPD Chief Forensic Pathologist. He did not actually perform the autopsies on Sam and Julie, but he had the notes from the doctor who was given that assignment.

Dr. Juguioun showed a diagram of a skull while he explained Julie’s bullet wounds.  Next, a diagram of a male body was shown on the screen as the doctor discussed Sam’s bullet wounds and how his body had been decapitated.  He said that Sam’s right hand was never found.

There was no cross examination of Dr. Juguioun.

After this final witness, the prosecution rested.

After calling no witnesses at all, the defense rested.

Up next: Closing arguments.

Guilty – Part Five

And continued…

Some time has passed since I began writing the play by play of the trial. We all know how it ends, but people reading this are probably keen to learn all the details. That’s how I am. That’s why I went to the trial in the first place.

The “character” Murderer Musings TV Lawyer (MMTVL) is more from the point of view of an analytical  jury member asking the questions one might want answered if given the task of deciding a death penalty case.

People are curious about the specifics. I’ve had friends ask me about my opinion on the defense put on by Scott Sanders. I’ll give you more of my thoughts on that when we get to the penalty phase of Daniel’s trial.

More Witnesses For The Prosecution: Anthony Celeste, Continued

In “Guilty Part Four,” we left off right after the lunch break on December 14, 2015, and Anthony Celeste was on the stand.

Anthony filmed each and every performance of the production of Nine, the play Daniel and Rachel were performing in on the days of the murders. Anthony was very familiar with the play.

Matt Murphy played the opening scene from each of the shows to see if there were any variations in the performances from night to night.  Murphy pointed out that Daniel did a great job onstage and there was no difference in performances even though he had just committed two cold-blooded murders.

But during cross-examination, Anthony Celeste said Daniel’s performance was “off” on the night of Friday, May 21st. Anthony described him as sweating profusely, looking flush, and missing cues. The audience that night probably didn’t notice, but Anthony saw the show every night, and normally Daniel was “spot on.”

Anthony also answered questions about Rachel Buffett’s performance that night.  He noted that, unlike her other performances, Rachel shed actual tears during her crying scene that night..  It wasn’t like her to be able to cry on cue.

MMTVL doesn’t really have any questions, but I want to say that Anthony Celeste did fine work filming the show.  It looked great. And the stuff about crying on cue was pretty funny, but in Rachel’s defense, it is not easy to do that.

Witness Michael Anthony Cohen

Michael Cohen was one of the Costa Mesa Police Department officers who interviewed Daniel and eventually took his confession. It was during Cohen’s testimony that Matt Murphy showed the jury segments of the video of Daniel’s interrogation.

The Interrogation Video

The time stamp on the video showed that this was an edited version of the questioning.  Who knows what was left out or why? But we saw Daniel change his story repeatedly before he gave his confession… and don’t think the detectives didn’t notice the discrepancies.

Some of you may have seen snippets of the video on the Dateline episode. Just so you know, I have made fun of him repeatedly for the Tommy Bahama shirt he wore. He was arrested at his bachelor party.  I feel like this wasn’t a classy event.

The police brought Daniel in because they connected him to Sam Herr’s ATM card  through Wesley.  They are searching for Sam at this point: They still think he murdered Julie and is on the run. They even thought they might find Sam at the bachelor party.

Early on, Daniel owned up to being involved with Sam in a plan to defraud Sam’s bank.  Sam gave Daniel his ATM card and PIN. Daniel would arrange for money to be taken out of Sam’s account.  Sam would claim that he didn’t take the money out, and the bank would replace the “stolen” money.  That was it.  Daniel didn’t know where to find Sam.  He didn’t know anything about Julie’s murder.

Story changes…

He admitted that he lied to the police (that happens a lot on the video). He knew more than he originally told them. Sam had come to Daniel and Rachel’s apartment early Saturday morning. Sam was “freaked out” and told Daniel that there was a body in his apartment. He’d shot Julie the night before during a drug and alcohol fueled fit of rage. He needed help getting away. He asked Daniel to take his laptop and get rid of it.  Daniel dropped Sam off in Long Beach on Saturday afternoon. He didn’t know anything about the murder weapon. He hadn’t even seen it.

The CMPD wanted to know why Daniel agreed to help a murderer escape.

Daniel claimed he was afraid for his and Rachel’s safety.  Sam had threatened to kill them both if Daniel didn’t help him. In return for helping Sam get away, Daniel would take all of Sam’s money out of his bank account. Some of the money would get to Sam.  Daniel would keep the rest. He insisted that Rachel didn’t know anything about any of it.

The CMPD wanted to know how Daniel was going to get the money to Sam.

Now Daniel acknowledged that Sam had purchased a burner phone.  Sam would eventually call Daniel with information on how to get him money.

The police ask Daniel for a DNA sample to “eliminate” him.  He obliged, but remembered that he had been in Sam’s apartment on Friday night.  He had used the bathroom.

At this point, Daniel agreed to tell the officers everything ;  anything he could do to get out of jail for his wedding that Friday.

The officers were not buying Daniel’s story.  He wasn’t going anywhere.

He was being charged as an accessory to murder.

Daniel was in a lot of trouble. The police suggested he cooperate. Tell them everything. Lead them to Sam. That would look better for him in court. He should “man up.”  The officers asked him what they should tell his fiancée.  “Tell her I’m sorry,” he quietly mumbled.

Things continued to get worse for Daniel.  The police tried a perfectly legal but dishonest tactic.

They told Daniel about finding his DNA at Julie’s crime scene.

His story changed again.

Sam had taken Daniel up to his apartment and Daniel had seen “the goddamned body.” He said he saw the bullet holes in Julie’s head.

Things really unraveled for Daniel after that. Officers said that seasoned detectives weren’t able to see the bullet holes because of Julie’s position and her hair. Daniel tried to talk his way out of this error by saying Sam had told him that there were two shots. This didn’t work.

Now they were sure that Daniel was part of this murder.  Maybe he even shot Julie.  They tried to convince Daniel to “let it go” and that he would “feel much better,” once he told them the truth.

Daniel wanted to talk to Rachel.

That is where Judge Conley ended for the day.

Next up – The last witnesses

Addressing Comments

A lot of new people have found this blog and Facebook page since the recent airing of the Dateline episode about the murders of Sam Herr and Julie Kibuishi. I can’t deny that I really appreciate having more readers. It lets me know there are others out there who are intrigued by this story and want to understand why these tragic events came about.

They want to know, just as I did, why Daniel Wozniak committed murder. And I believe that some of them did not buy the easy answer of “he’s a sociopath.” I’m not saying that sociopathic behavior isn’t a factor, but on its own, it’s too simplistic a reason. It’s nice to know that others are just as curious and inquisitive as I am.

However, along with the new readers came a lot more comments. And believe it or not, I appreciate that, too. Yes, even the negative comments. I welcome an exchange of ideas.

But comments that just bash me or enthuse that Daniel “should fry” probably won’t stay up long. Comments that do not add anything to the discussion get deleted by my editor on Facebook and are not approved on the blog. It’s my blog… my Facebook page… my decision. I’m sorry if people don’t like that.

I would like to reply to every comment, but I don’t always have the time. So I’m writing this in hopes that I can answer some questions and sort of re-state my reasons for writing this blog in the first place.

Why His Friend?

It kind of surprised me how many people were upset merely because I am friends with Daniel. Many commentors said that he doesn’t “deserve” to have a friend.

I actually get why people would feel that way, but I don’t agree with them. We’re all entitled to our opinions, as we are also entitled to our own experiences and how we deal with them. I like to think that most people are redeemable.

I also have seen a side to Daniel that the majority of people don’t see… and don’t want to see. That’s fair. I hadn’t planned on seeing it originally. I had plenty of preconceived ideas about him, but I kept an open mind.

Now, I am his friend. But I do understand how people are unable to look past his horrible actions and still see the human being. I have been able to separate the man from his actions, and I’m sharing what I learn as I go. I know I’m not the only person to find this idea interesting.

Hitler? Really?

Also, by the way, it’s a silly argument to compare Daniel to Hitler and then complain about someone writing a book about him. Seriously? Do you know how many books have been written about Hitler? I don’t have an exact number, but there are lots.

Some people say they are worried about me and my family. That is kind of you, but unnecessary. Yes, I am Daniel’s friend, but make no mistake; this doesn’t mean that I think, “he is innocent.” I have never said that. Actually, neither has Daniel.

I have also made it clear that nothing I write is an attempt to convince anyone that Daniel deserves to walk free. I’m not trying to convince readers of anything. I’m just sharing my opinions. Are you are curious about what I have to say? Then read what I write. If you aren’t, don’t. It’s not complicated.

Oh, and my kids are doing great by the way. They have good lives. They get lots of love and attention. They are smart and happy. I’m a great mom. I just happen to be one who is a writer and a creative artist. Those two things need not be mutually exclusive.

Why Daniel’s Friend Now?

Some of the commentors are also upset that I was not Daniel’s friend before the murders took place. All things considered, that’s a strange thing to get upset about, don’t you think? In my blog, I’ve said from the beginning that Daniel and I had not been friends before May 2010. We had only spoken briefly a couple of times at the Hunger Artists Theatre.

When I started writing to Daniel, it was out of pure curiosity and interest in true crime. It was the fact that I’d “met the guy” that made me decide to give it a go and send him a letter. I thought maybe I could write a true crime book.

I know that a number of people are planning books about this crime; are people also concerned as to their interaction with Daniel before they decided to write about him? That I thought it would be interesting to see if I could actually have a discussion with “the murderer himself” does not hinge on my prior relationship with him, as it would not for any other journalist or writer who would want to sit down and talk to him.

When this whole creative writing project began, my blog was called “murder musings” only. It didn’t mention Daniel’s name, it didn’t mention the victims’ names, and it didn’t mention my name. At that point, I figured that I could write a book about him whether he ever wrote back to me or not.

Now I think I have a different book/play to write. I haven’t completely figured it out yet, so the blog is my jumping off point.

Perspective

Becoming Daniel Wozniak’s “bestie” was not anything I’d envisioned, but now I am one of his closest friends. He often points out to me that, unlike many friends who are no longer in his life, I am capable of seeing the person beyond the deed.

Why am I able to do that?

Maybe it’s because I wasn’t his friend beforehand. I had no sense of personal betrayal.  I knew what I was walking into. Daniel has made other close friends in the past five years. Most of them are in jail, but don’t judge them for that.

I would also like to reassure those who are so worried about my quality of friendship, that I have been able continue and grow my friendships with those in my “real-life” world. People who know me see no reason to fear that I’m being used or manipulated. My closest friends are not behind bars. I’m a regular person with regular every-day relationships.

Anonymity and “Fame”

As far as me not using my own name on the blog… well, if someone really wants to figure out who I am, I’m sure they’ll be able to do it. It’s funny how some people say that I am trying to get my “15 minutes of fame out of the situation,” and others complain that I don’t use my name. My husband said if I start using my name on the blog now, it will seem like I am trying to get famous. So… rock and a hard place, you know?

Maybe Not For Everyone… and That’s Okay

For those commentors who personally knew Sam or Julie, you have my sincere condolences. I know both of them were greatly loved, and their losses have caused irreparable pain to many. Your anger toward Daniel Wozniak is warranted. This blog might be too difficult to accept for someone so close to the victims.

I am going to continue writing it, though. Many people will be writing about Daniel and this crime. Sadly, Julie, Sam and Rachel will all be forever linked to Daniel and the horrific crimes.

What About Rachel Buffett?

Speaking of Rachel Buffett: there have been plenty of comments left about her. People have very differing opinions after seeing her interview on Dateline.

I will be honest; I lean toward the side that does not entirely believe Rachel’s story of having no involvement in the murders. My opinion is formed on what I heard in court, from studying the case, and from various conversations I’ve had with people.

BUT, I don’t actually know Rachel Buffett, and I want to keep a completely open mind. Maybe my mind would be changed if I got to know her. She does have many supporters who believe she is completely innocent and even a victim herself in this case. Who knows what information will come out during her trial. Rachel could be completely exonerated. But like with Daniel’s case, it is something that needs to be tried in court.

Not Done By A Long Shot

Hopefully that clears up questions anyone had. Your comments really are appreciated. I hope you continue to read the blog. There is a long road ahead for Daniel, and I’m planning to write about it.

Guilty – Part Four

December 14, 2015 was day three of Daniel’s trial. I couldn’t go to court that morning, which was unfortunate, because I missed one the most important witnesses of the guilt phase: Tim Wozniak (one of Daniel’s older brothers).

Luckily, I had some friends in the audience who took detailed notes! (You know who you are – and thank you.)

Continuing The Examination of Sergeant Ed Everett

Let’s start with the beginning of the day, which saw the continuing cross-examination of witness Sergeant Ed Everett. At the end of “Guilty – Part Three,” we heard the Sergeant testify that he believed Rachel Buffett should be sitting next to Daniel Wozniak and on trial for murder.

I’m guessing that this was the defense’s favorite of the police witnesses.

There was a lot of back and forth between the prosecution and the defense. The main goal seemed to be establishing if Rachel was part of the entire murder scheme, or if she was just an accessory after the fact. Matt Murphy was determined to have the jury know that there isn’t any actual evidence proving her involvement. Scott Sanders wanted them to know Everett’s personal opinion on the case.

During questioning, the defense established that Everett is one of the highest trained individuals in the Costa Mesa Police Department. Based on his training, he believes that “all the signs are there,” but proof can’t be established because the only person he knows who “has that proof is Mr. Wozniak, who seems to not want to offer it…”

So, we all get the point. Everett thinks Rachel was involved in the murders. There is no proof to his opinions.

And really, did they think it would make any difference to the jury when determining Daniel’s guilt? Scott Sanders had to know better than that. So why even draw attention to Rachel in the first place? Were they trying to sow a tiny little seed of reasonable doubt? More likely they were hoping this information would help Daniel during the penalty phase. (Spoiler alert – It didn’t!)

Murderer Musings TV Lawyer (MMTVL) is curious if the police are still actively investigating Rachel Buffett’s role / knowledge of this crime.

Next Witness: Derek Baker

In 2010, Derek Baker was the property manager of the Camden Apartments. He testified that Daniel and Rachel were in the eviction process at some point before the murders.

During cross, the defense established that no eviction actually took place and that the original notice had been settled with the apartment management’s lawyers.

OK, I get that the prosecution was determined to show Daniel was in terrible financial debt, but there are LOTS of people in much worse debt than he was in. His bank accounts were all overdrawn, but not by insane amounts.  Also, he didn’t have any credit cards.

MMTVL wants to know what kind of deal was made with the management lawyers.

Next Witness: Jeff Kociencki

Jeff Kociencki (not sure about the spelling) was a close friend of Daniel’s in high school, and I’m guessing his testimony was a tad detrimental for the defense.

Jeff said that Daniel had asked him for an alibi.  Back in May 2010, Jeff got a call from Daniel, who told him that a murder had taken place at the Camden Apartments and Daniel was being questioned.  Daniel told his friend Jeff that he’d been alone at the time (“strolling around a duck pond”) and just needed Jeff to say they were actually together. Jeff did not agree to this.

MMTVL: Mr. Kociencki, did you happen to laugh when Mr. Wozniak said he was strolling around a duck pond? I apologize, Your Honor, but come on…a duck pond?

Next Witness: Tim Wozniak

Tim is the middle of the three Wozniak brothers, and ten years older than Daniel. Here is what I was told about Tim’s testimony:

  • He spoke quietly, his eyes were glazed over, and at times, his face was very red.
  • His answers were short. He gave minimal details. He often couldn’t “recall” the answers to questions.
  • Tim was asked if he was getting immunity for testifying against his brother. His answer was no.
  • During cross-examination, Tim said that his lawyer told him if he testified he wouldn’t go back to jail.
  • So, it’s 5/27/2010. Tim had been looking for Dan to get some money from him. Tim went to Dan’s apartment at some point, but didn’t find him. Later the two of them talked on the phone and make plans to meet at a 7-11 around 2 AM.
  • The defense made sure the jury knew that Tim was drinking and smoking pot that day.
  • At the 7-11, Dan gave Tim a crate and he put it in the back seat of his car. Dan also gave him “a small amount” of money in bills and change for gas.
  • At one point, they went to Noah Buffett’s apartment, took the saw and other tools (from the earlier photos) out of the crate, and left them at Noah’s.
  • I think that Tim was alone after that. He still had the crate. Inside the crate is the backpack, which contained the checks, id, phone, shell casings, bloody clothes, and the gun.
  • Tim took the gun out and gave it to some guy named Bob. Tim called him a “ballistics” guy. (No follow up on that!)
  • Tim admitted to throwing the backpack over the fence into the backyard of his parents’ neighbors’ house.
  • After Dan was arrested, Tim talked to Rachel, and found out that Dan was in trouble and needed a lawyer. Tim told Rachel “Dan left me a crate with stuff in it.”

That was all the information my friend gave me. It was pretty interesting stuff.  Thank you again, unnamed court observer.

MMTVL: Does anyone happen to have a transcript on them?? When Rachel talked to Tim, was this the first she learned anything about a gun? Did Tim tell her what was in the crate? Did he know he was hiding evidence when he threw that bag into the neighbor’s yard!? Could he not find a better location to hide evidence? What’s his alcohol of choice?  Is it whiskey? Did he happen to drink a lot of whiskey before throwing that bag into his neighbor’s yard? Yes, I know that isn’t relevant, but damn…the neighbor’s yard..?

Side note – Daniel doesn’t appear angry at all with his brother for testifying against him.

To Be Continued…

Guilty – Part Three

As you all know, on Monday, January 11, 2016, an Orange County jury came back, at breakneck speed, with a recommendation that my friend, Daniel Patrick Wozniak, receive the death penalty.

I was not surprised by their decision (well, the speed of it did actually surprise me), but I was saddened.

Recently, someone sent me a message on this blog’s Facebook page stating that Daniel may be my friend, but he is also a monster.

I get a lot of negative comments on my blog and Facebook page. Most of the time, I choose the “ignore and delete” method of response. But this comment was actually thought-provoking. It touched on one of the main points of why I write about Daniel in the first place.

I know many people think he is merely a monster, and I won’t deny that he did do some monstrous acts. The thing is, I don’t believe that Daniel Wozniak is a monster. I’m not the only one who feels that way, either. I guess I’m just the one with the biggest mouth.

I’ve been contacted by quite a few people who knew Daniel and his family long before the events of May of 2010. The words used to describe him include generous, funny, smart, goofy, caring, and a good guy. More than one person has told me that Daniel comes from a loving, religious, and tight family.

I’ve also heard from many of the people in Daniel’s life now. Admittedly, many of them are inmates. But all of us describe Daniel the same way: generous, funny, smart, goofy, caring, a good guy, and religious.

So for me, the big question is: what happened? How did he change so much? Is the “old Daniel” back now?

I’m hoping that Daniel himself can tell me the answers to those questions. Some of you might also be curious about the same things. Either way, I want to know for myself. I want to know as a mother. I want to know as a friend.

So, I’m going to continue this blog, and I’m probably going to write a book or a play or both. No one has to read anything I write and I won’t be breaking into your living rooms and forcing you to watch my one-woman show.

But for those of you who are interested, here is my continuing viewpoint of Daniel’s trial:

Guilty – Part Three

See! I told you it wouldn’t take long for my next post.

We were on day two (Thursday, December 10, 2015) and left off after describing the examination of prosecution witness Wesley Freilich (the ATM Kid).

The Law Enforcement Witnesses

After the lunch break, the prosecution put on a bunch of Costa Mesa police officers, and they had plenty of damaging evidence to present.

1) David Casarez: During his questioning, we established where Daniel and Rachel were living at the time of the murders (the Camden Martinique Apartments in Costa Mesa).

We also saw photographs of a red handled ax and a 24″ wood-handled saw (can you say, “chill down your spine?”).

No cross examination.

Murderer Musings TV Lawyer wanted to know where the pictures were taken.  The tools were leaning against a wall in some residence.  This might not necessarily be that important, but MMTVL likes to have all the facts.  

Side note: when I talked to Daniel on the phone that night, he didn’t know either.  Maybe Noah Buffett’s (Rachel’s brother, who went on Dr. Phil with her) apartment?

2) James Brown: More photographs were shown during his testimony, including a picture of a plastic grocery bag from Von’s, and a black backpack.  These items and their contents were found in the yard of Daniel’s parents’ next door neighbors. The police believe that it was Daniel’s brother, Tim Wozniak, who got rid of this evidence for Daniel (and clearly didn’t do a very good job of it). The items collected included:

  • Sam’s wallet with his ID and credit cards.
  • Sam’s passport.
  • A box of Sam’s checks.
  • Sam’s broken cell phone, with the battery removed.
  • A green T-shirt covered in blood.
  • A pair of jeans.
  • A pair of boxer shorts.
  • Two used shell casings for a 38mm handgun.

The Defense did not do a cross examination.

MMTVL – I got nothin’.

3) Kevin Condon: He did a search of Daniel and Rachel’s apartment and found no drug paraphernalia (Hmmm? This does not jive with what was written in one of Daniel’s earliest letters).

A photograph was shown of a laptop and power cords  in a backpack (different from the black one discussed earlier).  This part confused me a bit.  It sounded like the officer was saying this was Sam’s laptop and it was found in David Buffett’s (Rachel’s father) car.

No cross examination.

MMTVL – Huh?? Can we go back a bit? Did you just say that Sam’s laptop was found in Rachel’s dad’s car?

4) Dana Potts: He was in charge of looking for human remains in the El Dorado Nature Center in Long Beach.  A photograph was shown of Officer Potts next to a human skull lying on the ground. Later identified as belonging to Sam Herr, the skull had been ravaged by animals and insects.  Sam’s hand and forearm were never found.

No cross examination.

MMTVL has no questions.

5) Jean Putinare (I KNOW I’m spelling this wrong): She works in the OC crime lab. Okay, here is where the DNA evidence came in.  Not that anyone is surprised, but Sam’s DNA was found on some of the items contained in the black backpack, the one found in the backyard of the Wozniak’s neighbors.

She also tested a 38mm handgun for DNA.  A mixture of DNA from Tim and Daniel Wozniak was found on the gun and its case.  Tim Wozniak had turned the gun over to the Costa Mesa Police Department. It was registered to Daryl Wozniak, Daniel’s dad.

No cross examination.

MMTVL – Uhhh…since the gun belonged to Daryl Wozniak, is it possible this DNA has been on it for years? Perhaps Tim and Daniel had been taken for shooting lessons when they were teens…? (Editor Matt’s comment: “Depends on the sample from which they got the DNA. Skin breaks down quickly.” He’s got a point.)  Oh let’s be honest – we all see that Matt Murphy’s got a slam dunk going here. 

6) Tomas Matsudaira: Orange County Forensics guy who does the “matching spent bullet cartridges to guns” business.  All the cartridges found were from the 38mm handgun with the Wozniak DNA on it. Three were tested. The two from the backpack and one that was found in the theatre attic near Sam’s body.

No cross examination.

MMTVL puts head down on “TV defense table” and waves a small white flag.

7) Ed Everette: Another Costa Mesa Police Department detective.  This guy was busy!

  • Watched ATMs in Long Beach for activity on Sam’s bank card.
  • Interviewed Wesley Freilich and learned that Daniel had given him the ATM card.
  • Canvased the Camden Martinique Apartments trying to find a connection between any of its residents and the city of Long Beach (Daniel grew up in LB).
  • Somehow tracked down an address for a place in Long Beach that later turned out to be Noah Buffett’s apartment.
  • Went to the address, and thinking it was a business, he just walked right in the front door.  It was actually a converted loft. Daniel was there with Rachel, Noah and their mother. Daniel looked at Detective Everette and said, “How did you find me?”
  • Daniel asked to talk to the police outside.  Everette said Daniel appeared nervous and was trembling as he told the police that he’d last seen Sam Herr when Sam and an “unknown man” dropped him off in the afternoon after Sam had supposedly helped Daniel to move some furniture at the Liberty Theatre.
  • Everette also said that at one point, Rachel came outside, too, and he suspected she’d been listening at the door before that.  He wondered why she was so unconcerned that the police were questioning her fiancé.

Now we finally get some cross examination! Scott Sanders asked if there were any notes or recordings of the conversation he’d had with Daniel outside the loft. Everette said no. Scott didn’t really debate anything the detective had said, but when he asked Everette about his own feelings toward Rachel Buffett, the response was a doozy:

“She should be sitting here right next to Mr. Wozniak.”

MMTVL – That statement doesn’t do anything to make Daniel look LESS guilty, but it was as close as the defense had come to a win.

This was the last witness of the day.

The first witness on Monday would be Daniel’s brother, Tim Wozniak.

“Guilty Part Four” will be coming your way as soon as possible.  I’m sorry that I can’t tell you how many parts there will be in total.  It’s not like you don’t know how the story ends, right?