by Robert Scott
“Yes, sir.”
“So, at what point did she shift out of that victim role for you?”
“It was later on in the investigation that it changed.” Colvin noted that Deputy Brownlee had testified on direct that he hadn’t heard Miriam crying while he was clearing the house. Colvin asked, “How loud is it that spouses have to cry when you’re not with them?”
Brownlee responded, “I’m not stating that they have to cry a certain amount. When I was nearby at the laundry room, I couldn’t hear any crying.”
“How many homicides have you investigated?”
“This was my first, sir.”
“Of all the cases, when it’s clear the person was deceased, someone always says to you, ‘Did you get a pulse?’”
“Not always. But I did find it weird with the no sobbing and those kinds of things. So I put it into the report.”
“She didn’t ask a bunch of questions. She just did what she was told. That’s suspicious?”
“In my training and experience, it was.”
“Okay, so of those who are not catatonic, all of the rest of them ask questions?”
“I’d have to say probably ninety percent of them do.”
“But again, you agree that you’re not an expert in the field of grieving people?”
“Yes, sir.”
Tammy Eret took her turn again on redirect. She asked Deputy Brownlee if he was taught to evaluate scenes and take notes about things that were out of the ordinary. He said that was so.
Asked about Miriam crying, Brownlee said that she was sobbing when he first made contact with her. However, when he searched the other parts of the house, he couldn’t hear any more sobs. And that’s why he put that in his report.
In a somewhat unusual circumstance, after the attorneys were done, Judge Robison related to Deputy Brownlee questions that jurors had written down. One such question: Did a supervisor review your first report before you wrote your second report?
Brownlee responded, “I’m not positive if it was reviewed before or after the second report. Most of the time, it would have been after the first.”
Another juror question: Based on your observations, was the defendant in shock?
Brownlee answered, “I don’t believe so. That’s why I wrote the part about her not crying, and those sorts of things.”
A third question: Was she sent to the hospital?
Brownlee replied, “No, she was not.”
CHAPTER 32
TIME OF DEATH
Robert Kurtzman testified to what he had seen when he was at the Helmicks’ residence on June 10, 2008, and what he had observed during the autopsy of Alan Helmick. One important question Richard Tuttle wanted to get at was Dr. Kurtzman’s toxicology report. In it, Kurtzman had noted that there was no alcohol in Alan Helmick’s system. This was at variance with Miriam Helmick claiming that Alan had come home drunk from the Elks Lodge in Delta, on the afternoon of June 9, 2008.
Tuttle asked, “If Mr. Helmick had been drunk the night before, let’s say very intoxicated, would you expect to see some evidence of that in his urine as part of toxicology examination?”
Kurtzman replied, “There would be a good possibility. It would depend on the amount of alcohol in Mr. Helmick’s system. If Mr. Helmick had consumed alcohol the night before, he would have to have had a level of alcohol sufficiently high enough to register.”
Then Tuttle wanted to know about a very important question: Could a forensic pathologist nail down a very specific time when death had occurred? To this, Kurtzman said, “Unfortunately, no. On TV programs, they say when a person dies. But in reality, you can’t do that unless a person happens to be hooked up on a monitor and you’re evaluating the transition from life to death. We can only give general estimates.”
Tuttle wanted to know what Kurtzman looked at in determining a time of death range. Kurtzman responded, “One of the things I look for is what’s called lividity and rigidity. Lividity is the pooling of the blood that occurs after a person has passed away. When a person’s heart stops beating, the blood doesn’t circulate through the skin. When a person dies, the blood will gravitate toward the most dependent portions of the body—in the particular instance with Mr. Helmick toward the back.
“And the blood is liquid for a period of time. As that time gets longer, what happens is that there’s water lost from the body, and different types of proteins in the blood congeal. When I evaluated Mr. Helmick at the residence at three-fifteen P.M. on June 10, 2008, his lividity was not fixed, so that typically would be in less than twelve hours.
“The other thing we look for is rigidity. Rigidity is the stiffening of the muscles after death. The muscles don’t typically become fully stiffened throughout the body for about twelve hours. And when I evaluated Mr. Helmick at the scene, he did not have well-developed rigidity. The earliest time of his death would have been around three-fifteen A.M.”
Tuttle asked, “If the first responding deputy arrived on the scene at around twelve noon and noted some rigidity in the body, how would that affect your assessment?”
Kurtzman responded, “Typically, rigidity takes a while to develop. It’s usually a few hours before it becomes readily apparent.”
“Eight o’clock A.M.?”
“Certainly.”
“Eight-thirty A.M.?”
“Certainly.”
Then Tuttle asked if Alan Helmick could have been killed around 10:00 A.M. Kurtzman said that was unlikely. As far as gunshot residue testing went, Dr. Kurtzman hadn’t done the actual test. Law enforcement had done that, but he had collected samples of GSR from Alan Helmick.
When it came to Alan Helmick’s heart condition, Kurtzman said, “He had severe coronary artery disease. He also had an older heart attack that had occurred weeks, possibly months, prior to the time that the death occurred.” This may have been why Alan had been so sick and weak during the spring of 2008.
As far as Alan possibly being poisoned by Miriam in the months preceding his death, Dr. Kurtzman stated, “I feel confident that Mr. Helmick was not poisoned. It was actually remarkable that Mr. Helmick was even alive with his heart condition at the time he sustained the gunshot wound. The vast majority of individuals who had the severe coronary artery disease and heart attack, [which] he had, typically would have perished long before.”
This was a new wrinkle. If Miriam Helmick had not shot Alan in the back of the head on June 10, 2008, as the prosecution contended—and she had been patient, instead—another heart attack might have ended Alan’s life.
Perhaps this was not the way Tuttle wished things were going in reference to the poisoning. He said, “Are you positive that if the poisoning had taken place, to whatever degree, several months earlier that it would have dissipated entirely, or would you still see evidence of it, even if it was months earlier?”
Kurtzman replied, “It would just depend on what type of poison. When you talk poison, there’s lots and lots of different compounds that can be used as poisons. If we were looking at heavy metal poisons, like arsenic, lead, mercury, or Valium, things of that sort, those are very, very toxic compounds and they will lead to physical findings or symptoms in some way. Therapeutic drugs or illicit drugs that can be administered to a person, those types of drugs have a half-life. In other words, a time period [in] which the body eliminates them if the person survives. In theory, they may be completely eliminated if the person doesn’t succumb to their effects. So it is possible that he was administered some drugs or something with the intent of taking his life. It’s possible. Would I detect anything or everything that could have been used? No, I wouldn’t.”
Now Tuttle had the answer he wanted to hear, and said, “No more questions.”
Steve Colvin had plenty of questions, however. And the main thing he wanted to blow out of the water was the theory about Alan Helmick being poisoned. Dr. Kurtzman agreed with Colvin that Alan had severe blockage of his arteries, and that in January and February 2008, he probably wou
ld have been feeling sick and weak.
Colvin asked if Dr. Kurtzman had seen any type of poison in Alan’s system that could have caused a heart attack. Kurtzman responded, “I didn’t see anything that would be causing a heart attack.”
“Other than Big Macs, cigarettes, and illness?”
“Right. There are plenty of drugs that can cause heart attacks. Methamphetamine, cocaine, others, stress the heart. But, again, I didn’t see anything in the toxicology that was unusual.”
Law enforcement had even asked Dr. Kurtzman to run tests looking specifically for signs of poisoning. About this, Colvin asked, “You informed law enforcement July first of last year that you thought additional tests were unnecessary because poisoning was improbable. Is that correct?”
“That’s correct.”
And as to time of death, Colvin said, “Assuming the rigidity or rigor was found at noon by someone, fair to say that nine thirty-seven A.M., for instance, would be perfectly consistent with rigidity found at noon?”
“Sure.”
This was important. Miriam could prove she was not at home at 9:37 A.M., June 10, 2008, because she had a sales receipt proving that fact.
Dr. Kurtzman said because of the amount of rigidity he saw at 3:15 P.M., he thought Alan Helmick had died in the early-morning hours. Kurtzman could not narrow it down any further than that.
Asked if Dr. Kurtzman could tell by the trajectory of the bullet where the gunman had been standing, Kurtzman said no. “If you take a look at the injury, I don’t know what position Mr. Helmick had his head at, [at] the time he sustained the gunshot wound. So if he had his head turned to the left, that would place the shooter farther to the right. If he had his head to the right, then it would place the shooter far to the left. If the head was tipped down, then it would line up with somebody being higher in the room. If it was tipped back, then it would be somebody lower in the room.”
On redirect, Richard Tuttle once again questioned Dr. Kurtzman. Tuttle asked, “In general terms, the bullet path as it entered Mr. Helmick’s body tells you very little about his relationship to the shooter. Is that correct?”
Kurtzman replied, “Correct. The only thing that I would say is that he’s got a gunshot wound entrance, and there’s no evidence of close-range fire on skin around the wound of entry.”
Once again, the jurors had some questions, which Judge Robison read out loud to Dr. Kurtzman. One of the jury queries: How much alcohol could Mr. Helmick have ingested the night before without any being detected in his urine?
Kurtzman answered, “There’s a number of variables. Mr. Helmick may have voided first thing in the morning when he got up. If he did so, then he would completely empty his bladder. In order for Mr. Helmick to have a detectable blood alcohol level at eight o’clock in the morning from eight o’clock the night before, he would have had to have an alcohol level equal to or greater than .24 at eight the night before. That would have been equivalent to twelve beers the night before. It’s a hard question to answer, not knowing the starting point and ending point. He would have had to have a lot of drinks the night before for it to show up.”
On this same topic, another juror questioned: Is there any way to know if Alan Helmick could have been drunk the night before?
Dr. Kurtzman replied, “Not from the information I have.”
A third juror’s question asked: Did it look like someone had cleaned the mouth and nose area? (This alluded to giving CPR.)
Kurtzman answered, “Not that I recall.”
The judge asked if the prosecution or defense had any more questions. Steve Colvin did, and asked, “Can you say definitively that a layperson, untrained in performing CPR, could not have attempted CPR in a poor fashion?”
Kurtzman said, “I wouldn’t be able to say definitively. But when somebody performs CPR, they’re pressing on the chest. In an individual the age of Mr. Helmick, it’s not uncommon that you’ll see rib fractures associated with CPR. And normally to do CPR, you have to turn the head. Mr. Helmick’s body was resting in the position I believe he fell. In my opinion, I would say no CPR was performed.”
“But you can’t say for certain that nobody tried to perform chest compressions. You can say for certain they didn’t do so with a lot of force, correct?”
“That’s correct.”
In the end, both the prosecution and defense had scored points from Dr. Kurtzman’s testimony. Kurtzman had just said that he didn’t believe Miriam had done any CPR on Alan, so she had lied about that to the 911 operator and police. On the other hand, Kurtzman didn’t believe Alan had been poisoned, and he gave a window for the time of death that encompassed when Miriam had not been at home.
CHAPTER 33
A LOOK OF HATRED
When Alan’s former housekeeper, Patricia “Trish” Erikson, testified, she told of the tension in the Helmick household on June 9, 2008, the day before Alan was murdered. Trish stated, “The atmosphere from the time they walked in the door—I could feel the tension mounting. You could cut through the tension with a knife.”
Tammy Eret asked, “You told a police officer, when you talked about Miriam—you indicated that she had a look that was kind of hard to describe. Is that correct?”
The witness replied, “Very hard to describe.”
Eret continued, “When you were interviewed recently, do you remember talking to Jim (Hebenstreit) and describing it as if she had a look of hate or anger?”
“Yes. I hate using that word, but that’s what it looked like.”
Steve Colvin wasn’t going to let that last remark go unchallenged. He started off his cross-examination by asking Trish Erikson if she had liked Alan Helmick. Trish said that she had. Colvin continued, “And because you believe he was a good man and he treated you well, this was a big event in your life when he was killed?”
The housekeeper stated, “Yes, it was.”
“And you paid attention to all the newspaper stories and all the media that came out about it because it affected you directly. Isn’t that true?”
The witness could see where this was leading. She answered, “But that isn’t why I feel the way I feel!”
Colvin retorted, “That’s not what I asked you, ma’am. I asked you if you paid attention to all the newspaper stories and all the media attention about this.”
Erikson agreed that she had.
So Colvin said that the first time Trish Erikson had spoken with an investigator, it was with Investigator Robin Martin, back in June 2008. And since then, Colvin asked if she had seen a lot more stories about the murder. She agreed to that as well.
Colvin now struck with the point he wanted to make. “You didn’t tell Investigator Martin that Ms. Helmick had a look of anger and hatred on her face, did you?”
Trish replied, “If I didn’t, I should have.”
“Well, Ms. Erikson, we’re talking about a look that you thought was horrible. Even if the police officer didn’t ask you about it, you would have volunteered about that look, right?”
“I don’t know,” she answered.
“When you talked to Investigator Martin, you indicated that you and Ms. Helmick had chatted about a vacuum cleaner and grooming the dogs. But those aren’t the things you told Investigator Hebenstreit just two weeks ago, right?”
“Right.”
“Two weeks ago, what you remembered was a look of hatred and coldness?”
“That’s right.”
“Don’t you think that your memory was probably better seven days after [the death of Alan Helmick] than after watching all the media?”
Trish Erikson replied, “No.”
Colvin looked at her for a while, and then just said, “Okay.”
Tammy Eret questioned Patricia Erikson, once again, on redirect. “When you were interviewed by Investigator Robin Martin on June 16, 2008, do you recall stating that you got the overall feeling that something was not right? Isn’t that what you told Robin Martin?”
“Yes.”
�
��What you saw going on that day was not right compared to all the other times you had been there?”
“Right.”
“You told law enforcement (in June 2008), you felt that they were having a spat?”
“Something was really wrong.”
“So when you said to Jim (Hebenstreit) that she had a look of hate and anger versus what you said that day, you still get the same overall feeling?”
“I do.”
The next trial day, the 911 tape was played for the jurors, and it showed that Miriam had remained fairly calm during the eighteen-minute tape. She had spelled out the name of Siminoe for the dispatcher, and had given him directions as to how to get to the residence.
The prosecution tried to show this calmness as proof that Miriam was not concerned, because she already knew that Alan was dead. In fact, it was their contention she knew because she had shot him to death.
The defense, on the other hand, told jurors that Miriam spelled out the name of Siminoe and gave directions, because the dispatcher was having such a hard time in locating the Helmick residence. Miriam was relatively calm, because she had to be.
When Barbara Watts was called to the stand, she basically reiterated her contention that Miriam had stolen money from her in Gulfport, Mississippi, and then stole students from her dance studio in Grand Junction, when Miriam opened her own studio. Watts also said that Miriam broke policy rules when she started dating Alan Helmick. And once again, Barbara Watts said that Miriam was “looking for a sugar daddy to take care of her.” She found that sugar daddy in Alan Helmick.
The witness went on to say, “It ended up being a joke around the dance school. She said she wanted to find a rich man, and it didn’t matter if he had one foot in the grave. She just wanted someone to take care of her like she was used to.”
