Grim Sleeper Trial. Closing Arguments. Day 2

Continuing with the Closing, Closing Arguments from Beth Silverman on May 3rd.

Although this was the day I was thrown out, I had stated earlier how many people were trying to get me back in the Courtroom, to no avail.  However I do have friends in 'high places', well higher than the 9th floor which we were on.  The Courtroom is on the 9th floor and the media are often on the 12th floor if they're not in the Courtroom.  A few of those reporters have suggested I go up there to watch the Trial, on media days over the past few months on a live streaming news feed but I had never done so as I had always preferred to be in the Courtroom.

However on this final day of Closing Arguments, I really needed to.  There was nothing that would have stopped me from hearing Beth Silverman blow away Amster for one last time and give her final performance of this phase of the Trial.

So I decided to join my media friends up on the 12th floor, and watch Ms Silverman blast away on about 4 live feed monitors.

The Judge turned to her at just after 2pm and said, "Ms Silverman".

She walked slowly and deliberately up to the Lectern.

D.A. Silverman: "Good afternoon Ladies and Gentlemen.  The only deception that has been perpetrated in this case, is by the Defense.  The entire Defense from the beginning of this case through Closing Arguments where we heard for the first time that there was some 'mystery man' with a 'mystery gun' with 'mystery DNA' is now, at the end of the case with no evidence to support it!  What the Defense wants you to do in this case is to engage in speculation and what you heard from the instructions, that were given to you by the Court, is that that's something you can't do.  You have to base your decision on the evidence.  That doesn't mean imaginary evidence.  That doesn't mean evidence that could be based on speculation.  The theory of the Defense is basically equivalent to the skies opening up, a spaceship descending and murdering all of these women.   We have the same evidence of that we do of some 'mystery nephew' who we've never heard of going to nobody that exists".

And she continued.

D.A: "Don't you think if there was evidence of a 'mystery nephew', his words himself,  don't you think we would have heard about this at some point before now?  Do you think that if someone says something over and over for 4 and a 1/2 hours that somehow that makes it true?  Or that if you raise your voice enough times that suddenly that's going to lend it some credibility?   

What the Defense has told you today is that some nephew picked up Enietra Washington and said he wanted to go to his Uncle's house, which we presume is Lonnie Franklin's house.  So is the Defense saying that the person who's a murderer wouldn't also lie?  The fact that the Defendant said to Enietra Washington 'I want to stop off at my Uncle's house to pick up some money'.  What's the logical reason that the Defendant would do that that day?  He was coming out of a store, he sees Enietra walk by and paying attention to his customized Pinto".  

When he sees that he'd caught her attention he tries to ask her if she wanted a ride tand she rejected his offer numerous times.  After about the 3rd time and him saying a rude comment like 'that's what wrong with you black women, noone can be nice to you'.  She started to feel sorry for him and then reluctantly got in his car with him, finally accepting his offer of a ride.

She continued.

D.A: "Why then would he say he had to stop at his home, which he referred to as 'his Uncle's home'?  Because he didn't have his gun!  He had to go back to his house to get the gun!  He didn't know he'd run into a lady that he was interested in and he's angry.  Why is he angry?  For the same reason he told us?  Because initially she refuses his ride.  She didn't want to get into the car with him but he makes her feel guilty.  The power of manipulation that's what we heard from the Defense throughout this case.  Then the Defense told us that the police were brought to the area and that 'they could have taken DNA samples from everybody'.  What year is this?  This was 1988!  There was no DNA! AGAIN.... THEY...ARE... JUST... MAKING... THINGS... UP!  But of course, what do you expect?  They don't have anything!  But what else are they going to do?  They have to make things up because the evidence in this case is so substantial.  

So now, we have a 'mystery man'!  Let's look at what we had throughout this Trial.  A 'red herring'. You know what a red herring is?  A red herring is a smoked fish and back in the days in Europe, specifically in London, England, they would drag a smoked fish across the trail to throw off hunting dogs to attempt to distort, distract and manipulate.   That's what the Defense did this morning and all day yesterday.  They're just trying to distract you.  Not only do they do that in arguments but they've done this throughout the case. 

Let's take a look: The DNA statistics, that's not real science.  Even though even his own scientists use it and he admitted it's used throughout the Country and the world but suddenly 'it doesn't work'.  But it doesn't work if it points to the Defendant's guilt yet it does work if it points to some 'unknown male'.  The firearms analysis in the case was based on faulty science even though it's used across the Country and across the world and has been for 100 years.  Remember the very beginning of this case?  Just to give you a pattern that went on with the Defense throughout the entirety of this case.  Remember the testimony of Dr Fajardo with question after question after question from the Defense saying, 'Well maybe the bodies in this case maybe they were misidentified?  Maybe they were switched at the Coroner's office'? How do you know the toe tie was labeled correctly?  What did we hear about that?  We heard from Dr Fajardo that identification of decedents is one of the main functions at the Coroner's office".

She continued by explaining in great detail how the Defense tried to mislead the Jury from the start.   Even near the end of the case when the family members of the victims went on the Stand and identified their loved ones by saying, 'Yes that was my mother' or 'that was my sister' or 'that was my daughter'.  So although the Defense was happy to mislead the Jury initially it went on and got worse from there.  We then heard about gang members.   Silverman then quoted how Amster wanted to sway the Jury.

D.A: "Let's divert attention away from this case yet again and let's look at the gang graffiti"!
Yes, Silverman reminded us that Amster even used 'gang graffiti' to try and lead the Jury up the garden path.  Meaning to lead them astray and off the scent like the 'red herring' she mentioned earlier.  Really?  Gang members are going to murder multiple people all in the same manner and then 'dump the bodies' right in the same area where they paint their graffiti?  Come on!

D.A: "We heard from Detective Dupree that gangs don't care about that kind of stuff.  Another attempt to mislead."

Then she spoke about the Defense going on about it probably being the murderer/s of these women.  That didn't work so then he even brought up the transients!  "Now he says that the transients are responsible"! 
She continued on with how he went on about an orange peel that was found underneath a body, trying to divert attention again to the orange peel.  Even the Detective testifying had to laugh at how that could even possibly be related.  All of this is to divert attention away from the evidence in this case.

Silverman continued in her powerful articulate way with even more damning truths about the craziness that the Defense came up with.

D.A: "Now, as of today, we have this grand conspiracy theory that happened in this case.  The Sheriffs, the LAPD the D.A's office, everybody conspired against this Defendant.  Even his own nephew!  That's what you're not allowed to do, what he did.  That's the opposite of following the law in this case which is basing your decision on what's presented in this Courtroom.  How many times did we hear Judge Kennedy talk about, you're not allowed to listen to anything outside of this Courtroom?  'Don't listen to the radio, or television.  Don't read the newspaper because you must only listen and go on the evidence you hear in Court'.  

Now today, they come in and say there's a 'mystery man', a 'mystery gun' and 'mystery DNA.'  How long did he take to come up with that story!  And now he has an imaginary nephew!   On top of all of this he manipulated and distorted the evidence"!

She went on to repeat all the areas in which Amster would even try to discredit the testimony of the only living eye witness.  She made his queries of her statement sound ludicrous even here.

D.A: "When the Defense said to you over and over that 'if you don't have enough evidence then you can't convict'.  My question would be: what more evidence could you possibly have when you have

DNA, firearms evidence, circumstantial evidence of all the evidence that was found in his home, an identification, the murder weapon.  What more is there?  What other type of evidence could exist in the Universe that would be sufficient?  Because certainly if you had that, he would be telling you that that wasn't believable, or credible or reliable evidence either"!

The previous day Amster told the Court that 'it's his job to prosecute bad Government,' Silverman was firm in stating that that is completely false. He has no idea what he's talking about.  Carrying on referring to Amster she clarified about more of his embellishments and the imaginary statements he comes up with.

D.A: "There's no 'bad Government here.  There's evidence and we present it!  A selected Jury makes a decision.  And he's not a Prosecutor!  He's a Defense Attorney and it's his job to represent his client.  That doesn't mean that his job is to mislead the Jury.  He repeatedly took evidence out of context throughout this entire Trial.  According to him now, all the evidence amounts to nothing.   The DNA evidence is irrelevant.  The firearms evidence isn't good enough.  The patterns that are obvious are meaningless.  In fact  he even said 'the Government wants to see patterns'.  The Government isn't a person!  The 'Government' doesn't want to see anything!  


The patterns are obvious to all of you and Detective Kilcoyne testified to this at the beginning.  Showing the patterns of the evidence that had the same DNA profiles over and over and over again between these cases.  This is not something 'the Government wanted to find'!  It is something that existed.  The bodies were killed and dumped in the same manner.  The victims were all of the same type, African American young women.  The murder weapon was the same 25 calibre firearm.  We didn't create this!  The Defendant created it!  We just presented it"! 

She smiled and said that he wants to tell you that all those patterns were 'meaningless'.  Even Lonnie's best friend's testimony was also meaningless, if it didn't suit him.

D.A: "And you didn't hear from one DNA expert, not one, between all the laboratories that ever said, 'you know this DNA profile was similar to the Defendant's but it wasn't him.  It must be someone who is related to him'.  That's not what you heard.  You heard it was a match!  And that's the point of the statistics that it is so rare.

Again you didn't come into this Courtroom from under some dark hole.  DNA is used to exonerate the innocent and it's used to convict the guilty".

You also heard from Counsel when he made a lot of comments about the 'randomness of nature' that can cause 2 strands to be the same.  That's not the way DNA evidence works.  If it was someone related to the Defendant it would have showed that and they wouldn't have been 'matches'.  They were all 'matched' to the Defendant"!

She again brilliantly picked apart the Defense's one star Witness, David Lamagna, saying that he had 'no training, no experience, he's not qualified in offering expert opinions and not an expert in firearm and tool mark comparisons.  Yet he explains how he knows how it should be done although that's not how he does it himself as he says he can't afford it"!

Apparently, how Lamagna really makes his money is by traveling around and criticizing the real firearm and tool mark examiners with unsubstantiated claims.   He thinks he's smarter than everybody else and he thinks he's experienced more than anybody else.   His opinions are complete garbage she went on to say and when you hear what he says, 'it's garbage in and garbage out'.  She clarified this with the following.

"That's the only way he can make a living as nobody would hire him"!  Silverman wasn't bashful in saying how dishonest Lamagna is.  It was a battle when she had to ask him multiple times and ask the same question over and over and over again just to get him to answer directly.

D.A: "One of the most embarrassing moments for him was when I'm showing him photographs of his microscope set up in the Jury room, with his hands.  His microscope, by the way, which he purchased off the internet.  Then he Ummed and A'aaad as to whether that was actually a photograph of his hands and also if it was even his microscope.  We all know how that went down.  It went from bad to worse".

Still explaining to the Jury on how to base their opinions, she so cleverly likened David Lamagna to a piece of moldy bread.  A pasty white piece of moldy bread I'm sure!

D.A: "If there's a Witness who is clearly and willfully false and is only there to mislead you, then you must throw out the entire testimony as you would with a piece of moldy bread.  You're not going to pick around the mold and eat the rest of it, you throw out the whole thing"!

She explained how the 'intent to kill' was very clear.  All these women were shot at close range and the stippling and sooting proved this.  They were all shot in the heart.  There was a very deliberate 'intent to kill' and not an intent to just scare someone as if you were just waving a gun around then shoot someone in the leg.

Most times, there are no witnesses to crimes, especially the ones the Defendant committed.  He silenced the only witnesses there could have been by killing these women.  There is no law in the Jury instructions where there has to be a witness to a crime or there would be a lot of criminals walking amongst us.

She explained what 'reasonable doubt' is and how there is 'NO reasonable doubt in this case'!  She told the Jury to base their decisions on the evidence and common sense.

D.A: "The evidence in this case couldn't be any clearer.  What the Defense want you to do in this case is go on a fishing expedition.  They want you to believe that the evidence in this case is really only a bunch of coincidences.  Well what he gave you and what he wants to hang his hat on, are way too many coincidences to even be in the same sentence as the word reasonable"!

She said that the Defense wants you to believe that the Defendant is just the object of some grand conspiracy.  Therefore you would have to believe that the Defendant must be the most unluckiest man on the face of the planet because the entire Universe is conspiring against him!  That is just not reasonable!  Don't buy into the Defense's absurd excuses as the evidence in this case is staggering.

D.A: "It's your responsibility to hold the Defendant accountable for his choices.  For his deliberate and pre-meditated actions of his vicious killings of 10 women and the attempted murder of the 11th victim.  It's your responsibility, based on the evidence and based on the Law, to tell this Defendant that he is guilty of 1st Degree Murder with a special circumstance.  It's time, ladies and gentlemen to bring Justice to these women.  It's time".

And on that strong finish, Beth Silverman closed her notes and gracefully left the Lectern.

Throughout this Trial I have never once heard her say an 'umm' or an 'errr' when either reading from her notes or speaking directly.  Never once has she ever lost her paperwork or searched under the desk for something.  She's never dropped evidence on the floor least of all a gun, we all know which Counsel did that!  She certainly doesn't shuffle back and forth from the Lectern to her seat in fact she usually stays fixed in one area ~ the Lectern/Podium.  She's never had to 'withdraw the question' like the other side who seems to have to 'withdraw his question' on average about 18 - 30 times a day.  She doesn't laugh hysterically like a crazed hyena on methamphetamines.  She doesn't scream and shout at the Judge and threaten to walk off the case or threaten to have a stroke or 'fake a headache because she wants to 'coach the Witness'.   There's a lot more I could say here but the list would be endless.
What I'm getting at here is that to watch Beth Silverman in action is like watching a good powerful movie that has an excellent beginning, middle and end.  To watch Seymour Amster

in action is like watching a bad sitcom.  In fact both Judge Kennedy and Ms Silverman deserve a medal for having had to put up with Seymour Amster for all these years.

The Judge continued to read the rest of the Jury instructions.  I then went downstairs and said my Goodbyes to all of the lovely, kind and respectful Sheriff Deputies who I had got to know for the past 3 months, and some over the past few years.  It's sad when you see people every day that you may never see again.

It was the end of another incredible experience in my life where I worked so very hard at trying my best to document all the testimonies, the emotions, the physical attributes of certain people and really just try to put the reader in the Courtroom with me.  I've only been writing since 2007 and I enjoy it more and more every book I write.  This Blog is a mini version of what my book will be and, as most of you know, the rest of my book will document my 'exclusive interviews' with Lonnie Franklin himself.  Please stay tuned as my book will be coming out very soon.

******

At 1.36pm May 5th Lonnie Franklin was found guilty of 10 counts of murder in the 1st degree and one count of attempted murder.  Justice has finally been served and I hope this helps in giving some kind of closure to the most important people in this trial ~ the family members of the victims.