Michael Benson's True Crime Bundle

by Michael Benson

  The judge announced a stipulation that the jewelry did belong to Denise Lee.

  The body, the pathologist testified, was measured and weighed, and the wounds to it were itemized.

  Arend showed Dr. Schultz photos of a bruised arm and wrist, and the witness positively ID’d them as those taken at the autopsy. The jury could see for itself—the bruises resembled handprints, caused by someone squeezing the woman hard, like a vise grip.

  There were bruises on the legs, up and down, crotch to ankle. You could almost see the handprints. The bruises were caused by four fingers and a thumb, here, here, and there. Then there was the yellow bruise on the back, perhaps caused after the victim was dead.

  There were injuries to the face and head, of course. These were particularly difficult to view on the screen, as Denise was recognizable in some images. But it had to be done. The jury had to see what the defendant had done.

  Dr. Schultz noted at the grave site that the body had fixed lividity on the left side and rigor mortis was complete, all of which was consistent with the murder taking place during the early evening of January 17, only hours after the defendant stole Denise Lee from her home. Arend asked if there was any evidence inconsistent with the murder taking place at that time, and the pathologist said there was not.

  Dr. Schultz described the gunshot wound, a little entrance wound above the left eye and a larger exit wound behind the opposite ear, through the head, from left to right.

  “From how far away was she shot?”

  “The gun was pressed directly against her head when the trigger was pulled,” the pathologist replied.

  “Could the gun have been an inch away?”

  “No. It was in contact with the skin.”

  Arend asked how Dr. Schultz could determine which direction the bullet had traveled. He replied that the internal beveling in the skull positively proved direction, but the fact that one wound was small, and the other large and outwardly explosive, was also a strong indication that this was the way it happened.

  Dr. Schultz testified that the bullet had traveled directly behind and parallel to the left eyebrow. The force of the shot exploded the left eyeball outward and fractured the bone at either side of that eye socket.

  Arend asked what happened when an eyeball exploded, and Dr. Schultz said a thick gooey fluid that looked like mucus emerged from inside the eyeball.

  Arend drew Dr. Schultz’s attention to the gooey mucus-like fluid that had been found on the defendant’s Camaro and asked if this could have come from the inside of the victim’s exploding eyeball. The pathologist said it could.

  “Were you able to determine the angle at which the bullet went through Denise’s head?”

  “Not the exact angle. I give estimates. It went left to right, front to back.” The exit wound was slightly below the entrance wound. The bullet had ranged slightly downward.

  Arend gave the witness a facsimile of the murder weapon and asked for him to get up and demonstrate how, in his opinion, the shot was fired.

  Dr. Schultz stood next to Arend, placed the muzzle of the nine-millimeter pistol against the attorney’s left temple, and said, “Bang.”

  “And it is your testimony that the gunshot was what killed her?”

  “Yes.”

  Dr. Schultz explained to the horrified jury that he had successfully swabbed the woman’s vagina and anus for semen, and that there was bruising in both places caused by insertion trauma that was inconsistent with consensual sex.

  Lon Arend concluded his questioning, and Jerry Meisner cross-examined.

  Yes, Dr. Schultz viewed the burial site and its surroundings. No, he saw no drag marks.

  “Did you see injuries consistent with being dragged along the ground?”

  “No. There were injuries on the back that theoretically could have been caused by dragging. Let me put it this way, I saw no postmortem injuries consistent with dragging.”

  Jerry Meisner then attacked the demonstration the witness had made of how he envisioned murder. Dr. Schultz admitted that there were various ways the killer could have stood in relation to his victim and still cause the bullet to enter and exit the victim’s head along the same path. He could have been standing behind her on the right, or in front of her on the left. Another variable Meisner forced the pathologist to discuss was the position of the victim’s head at the time of the shot, whether she was looking toward or away from the gun, and whether the duct tape found stuck to her head might have influenced this variable.

  Meisner asked if the witness was an expert in blood spatter.

  “No. Gunshot wounds, yes—blood spatter, no.” He did, however, know that blood spattered in a concentric fashion outward from the open hemorrhage—but of the distance the blood might go under various circumstances, he had no idea.

  Meisner returned to the uncomfortable subject of the victim’s exploded eyeball and induced the witness to say that, given the circumstances, it was possible that a mixture of blood and inner-eye fluid would spatter outward; yet, there was no blood mixed with the mucus-like material found on the defendant’s car.

  Given the data in this case, Dr. Schultz admitted that he could not determine if the killer was right-handed or left-handed, how tall he was, his identity, or the type of gun he used. He could exclude certain guns as the murder weapon, but he could not pick out a particular gun and say this was the one. The weapon could have been either a nine-millimeter or a thirty-eight caliber. He could exclude all other guns.

  “No bullet was recovered. Is that correct?”

  “Not by me.”

  “While you were at the scene, did you observe a firearm?”

  “No.”

  The defense attorney asked if any of the wounds the victim suffered, other than the gunshot wound, were life-threatening. Dr. Schultz said they were not—apparently setting up a defense that claimed that, while the defendant abducted and raped the victim, he did not kill her.

  Regarding the bruises on the victim’s body that were consistent with hand marks, Dr. Schultz admitted that he couldn’t state for certain that a hand caused them.

  Switching to the bruising found on the victim’s private parts, Meisner asked if it wasn’t true that some individuals were more susceptible to bruising than others. Dr. Schultz admitted that was true.

  Couldn’t the bruising have been caused by rough yet consensual sex? Dr. Schultz’s sour expression conveyed his opinion of the question, but he answered in the affirmative.

  “No more questions, Your Honor.”

  On redirect, the prosecution asked if a killer could hold a gun to a victim’s head, pull the trigger, and not get blood spatter on themselves in the process. The witness answered that a killer could get blood on himself, but not necessarily. Dr. Schultz couldn’t say for sure unless he knew more about the situation.

  That concluded the day’s testimony.

  Judge Economou asked everyone to get home safely, and ordered everyone back in their seats at nine the next morning.

  CHAPTER 19

  DAY FIVE

  The morning began with the state announcing that it had presented its case and was about to rest. Before officially resting, however, Lon Arend wanted to get a couple of things into the record to counter any future appeals, in case the defendant was convicted.

  First, if allowed, they would have introduced as evidence a statement made by Michael King to police officers immediately following his arrest, as well as statements made later to Harold Muxlow. King had said, among other things, that someone firing from a helicopter had killed Denise Lee. Those statements had been ruled inadmissible, as they constituted a violation of Miranda laws. Arend said it was the state’s belief that those were voluntary statements and not subject to Miranda.

  Jerry Meisner moved for a mistrial on a variety of grounds, but mostly that the prosecution had failed to prove its case, being that the defendant was found with no gun, no bullets, and no blood. Judge Economou denied the motion; at which point, Meisner sa
id that Michael King would not be testifying on his own behalf and that the defense, too, rested its case.

  The judge talked directly to the inanimate defendant, making sure that he understood that his representation was putting forth no case in his defense and that he would not be given an opportunity to testify.

  Speaking in his high, reedy voice, Michael King said he understood. The defendant answered the questions quickly, clearly, and correctly.

  And so the trial moved briskly to closing statements, with Lon Arend going first. The prosecutor reminded the jury of the male voice they had heard on the tape of the 911 call made by the victim, and emphasized the defendant’s vulgarity.

  “Do you remember what he said?” Arend asked the jury. “He said, ‘Why did you do that? What the fuck is going on? No fuckin’ problem, go fuck around, do that in front of my cousin Harold, now we go to the next street because of him.’” This was the last voice the victim heard, the way she spent the last day of her life.

  Arend had a pattern to his movements. When he was speaking his own words, he stood behind the lectern, his hands gripping tightly at the sides of the podium. When he was reading other people’s words, he stepped to one side so the jury could see he was holding the paper from which he read.

  He reviewed the points the state had proven. Using a map, he navigated the panel through Denise Lee’s ordeal. As it began, she was home alone with two kids. She wore panties and boxers, a shirt with spaghetti straps, a bra and jewelry, including a wedding ring and another ring.

  “Sometime between one-thirty and two-thirty in the afternoon, he arrived at Denise Lee’s home in a Camaro. We know the defendant has a green Camaro, and we know he had a gun, because he had one when he left the gun range earlier. We know he was wearing a long-sleeved black T-shirt with a design on it. She placed both kids in the crib, and left without her phone or purse. The defense will say there was no sign of a struggle, and we remind you the defendant had a gun. She left with him to protect her children. From there, the defendant took Denise to his home on Sardinia Avenue... .”

  Arend described vividly how Michael King forced the diminutive woman into a “dungeon-like rape room,” and raped her—a fact they knew because of the medical examiner’s testimony.

  When the eyewitness Jenifer-Marie Eckert saw the defendant, she said he was wearing a black shirt—and a black shirt was found on the dungeon floor. Evidence showed that King changed his shirt a couple of times that day.

  Arend’s face showed his distaste when he gave the details of the sex crime. There were marks, wounds, on her vagina and anus simply inconsistent with consensual sex. The defendant played music loudly, so no one would hear the sounds of the brutal attack.

  He put her on the floor and bound her with duct tape. They knew this from the duct tape found in the room, from the victim’s hair and the marks on her wrist.

  Sperm wasn’t found only on Denise Lee, but it was found all over the rape room. There was a mix of the victim’s and defendant’s DNA on the carpet.

  Arend paused and shook his head. The jury read his mind. He was sorry he had to say these things aloud, sorry they had to hear these words, but it was necessary. They had to know everything—all of the cold-blooded sadism, calculation, and brutality—if they were going to deliver the correct verdict.

  From the house on Sardinia, the pair was next spotted at Harold Muxlow’s house for the borrowing of the gas can, flashlight, and shovel.

  Regarding Harold Muxlow, Arend said, “I won’t defend him. He could have been more of a man. But this is about Michael King.” Harold said King was wearing a white shirt at this time. That shirt was important. The tools were also critically significant to determining what happened. Clearly, the defendant already knew what he was going to do, already knew how the nightmare would end. He was gathering up his “burial tools.”

  They knew from the 911 tape that at the Muxlow house Denise attempted to escape, tried to get out of the car, but the defendant squelched her attempt, an act witnessed by Harold Muxlow.

  Brave Denise Lee made the 911 call and eventually Michael King realized what was going on. He took the phone away from her and removed the battery so she couldn’t do it again.

  The defendant’s fingerprint was on the battery. True, one couldn’t tell when a fingerprint was made, but “how often does a person touch their phone battery?” Arend urged the jury to let common sense be their guide on that one.

  They knew by the timing of the 911 calls that the defendant talked both to her captor and an emergency operator from 6:14 until 6:20 P.M. They could next place Denise Lee on Highway 41, where Shawn Johnson and Jane Kowalski saw her. She was still struggling, still trying to get out of the car, or—at the very least—draw attention to her terrifying predicament.

  True, Kowalski never saw Denise Lee’s face, but there was plenty of proof that it was Denise Lee in that car: hair, fingerprints. There was certainly no evidence that it was anyone else. There were ten minutes between the end of the victim’s 911 call and the start of Kowalski’s, which was placed at 6:30 P.M. Three minutes later, Kowalski lost the suspicious car she was reporting.

  After that, the defendant was not seen again until later in the evening, when he was stopped and arrested by Trooper Eddie Pope. What happened at the grave site? There were no eyewitnesses, obviously, but the evidence told a story. The defendant took her there, to that secluded spot, and there he shot her dead. According to the autopsy, the killer pressed the barrel of the gun right up against her head.

  He dug her grave with the shovel he’d borrowed. How deep? Deep enough so that he struck water. He buried her clothes at a separate location, five hundred yards away from the body.

  They knew where the shooting occurred because there was a concentration—a pool—of the victim’s blood there. The defendant tried to sprinkle sand over that blood to hide it.

  The defense might argue that if all of this was true, then why wasn’t any blood found on the defendant’s clothes when he was arrested? Truth is, they don’t know if he got blood on his clothes or not. He changed his shirt again, and the white shirt he wore to the murder site, like his gun, had never been found. But that didn’t hurt the people’s case any. There was plenty of evidence. There was plentiful DNA evidence on the defendant’s car, blood spatter and other fluids released from Denise when she was shot. When the victim’s boxer shorts were found, they had Michael King’s sperm on them.

  Arend then refocused the jury’s attention on the arrest. No more white shirt. Now wearing a camouflage shirt. Pants wet and dirty. There was a line of dirt across the back of his pants as if he’d stood in a hole and leaned back.

  His shoes were muddy. He had a shovel.

  “My God, the horrible picture it painted,” Arend said. “He dug the hole, and was in it.”

  The prosecutor had alluded to it before, but now returned to the eye fluid on the Camaro. If the defense was going to insist on the defendant’s innocence, they were going to have to explain away that condemning fact. He pressed the gun against her head and pulled the trigger. Her blood came out two ways, through the exit wound and through her destroyed eye. There was no back blast of blood. That was why there was no blood on his pants. It had all spattered out of the victim in other directions.

  True, no gun. But they had proven he had the gun earlier in the day, and the matching shell casings showed that the victim was shot with the gun; so the fact that the defendant lost the gun after the murder, lost it so it could never be found, was no indication of innocence at all. There were a couple of other men that the defense wanted to point fingers at, but those men still had their guns. The only one with a missing gun was Michael King.

  The defense would try to put reasonable doubt in the minds of the jury, but how could they? All of the evidence supported the scenario that Michael King abducted, raped, and murdered Denise Lee. Nothing else made sense.

  “In light of the overwhelming evidence against the defendant, the question for the defe
nse is ‘Who to blame?’ Robert Salvador? ‘Let’s take a look at him.’”

  They would say Robert Salvador lacked an alibi, but that wasn’t true. Detective Christopher Morales was asked under oath about Salvador’s alibi, and he said it existed. Receipts and videotapes.

  The defense objected, saying that the prosecutor was basing this conclusion on facts that were not in evidence. The receipts and the videotapes didn’t even exist, as far as the defense was concerned. There was one receipt, from Checkers, and that was it.

  In response, Arend read from the trial transcript, quoting Detective Morales: “‘Through the course of our investigation, receipts and videotape provided him an alibi.’” Because of this, the investigation into Robert Salvador was discontinued.

  That—Morales’s testimony—was evidence, the prosecutor proclaimed. “Everything else is speculation.”

  The defense would call Robert Salvador a liar, and it was true that he’d been less than forthcoming at first with the police, and he did delete those calls from his phone.

  But this was a man who wasn’t sure how much trouble he was in and was divulging the full truth tentatively—which isn’t being a liar at all. That initial interview took place unexpectedly in the middle of the night, policemen pounding on his door and asking him if he knew Michael King without explaining exactly why they wanted to know. It only made sense that, at first, Robert played his cards a little close to the vest.

  He not only had to worry whether or not he was in trouble with the law, he also had to worry about his wife. Here was a man who knew his wife didn’t like the defendant and he didn’t want her to know that he was taking King’s phone calls. He didn’t want her to know he was going to the gun range, where she felt her husband spent too much time.

  The defense would use the “burn” quote to imply Robert Salvador was out to frame the defendant, but the evidence showed that this was not the context in which he used the word at all. When Salvador found out the horrible things Michael King had done to Denise Lee, he said the man “should burn.” Arend paused for a breath to let that sink in. He was pretty sure that by this time, more than one juror agreed with Robert Salvador’s assessment.