And Then She Killed Him

by Robert Scott

  Tammy Eret had just asked Jeri, “Did Miriam talk to you about whether or not she was nervous about the interview with law enforcement?” (The prosecutor was alluding to the June 10 interview.)

  Jeri replied, “She didn’t say that she was nervous. She said that she had been down that road before.”

  McGuirk objected immediately, and there was a conference at the judge’s bench. McGuirk told Judge Robison that specific area had already been ruled as inadmissible for the jury to hear.

  Eret countered, “The Delta incident, when she was questioned by law enforcement—that has not been excluded, and that is what she (Jeri Yarbrough) will talk about. I mean, what other things would she be talking about?”

  McGuirk said, “Well, from discovery, it seems like she made that comment in reference to other things.” (The other things probably related to the death of Miriam’s first husband, Jack Giles, and that was off-limits.)

  It was finally determined that Jeri could talk about the Delta car fire incident and not the death of Jack Giles.

  On cross-examination, Steve Colvin had Jeri Yarbrough agree that she’d probably had fifteen separate conversations with Miriam Helmick before she left Colorado on July 15. And of those conversations, it was hard for Jeri to pin down when certain things had been spoken by Miriam to her over the phone.

  Colvin said, “You don’t have a word-for-word memory of what happened in each conversation, correct?” Jeri said that was so.

  And Colvin wanted to get to an important point. The point was that Jeri Yarbrough might have acted differently than Miriam did when she first discovered Alan on the kitchen floor. Colvin said, “You had a pretty crazy conversation on Thursday night, two days after the murder. Crazy enough that when you get the phone conversation, you’re thinking to yourself, that’s not how I would behave if my husband was killed, right?”

  Jeri answered, “That’s correct.”

  “That had to be concerning to you, didn’t it?”

  “Very concerning.”

  “In fact, you’re thinking to yourself, this lady’s husband got killed, and she’s not even upset about it, right?”

  “I was shocked that she had called me and was being so frank, and stuff.”

  “Ms. Yarbrough, in testimony you just described it as suspicious. Was it suspicious?”

  “It’s suspicious, yeah. You’re taken aback by it. It didn’t put her in a good light.”

  “So you have suspicious conversations with someone regarding a first-degree murder and you immediately call law enforcement to report your suspicions, didn’t you?”

  “No, I did not.”

  “You did not call law enforcement. In fact, you never talked to law enforcement until they called you, correct?”

  “That’s correct.”

  And then Colvin got to the part where Miriam had supposedly laughed after relating that a tank filled with gas would not explode. Colvin asked, “Was it kind of a sinister, evil-person, movie laugh?”

  “ No.”

  “What kind of laugh?”

  “Just kind of like, ‘I didn’t know a car wouldn’t blow up’ laugh. Not a sinister, movie laugh.”

  “Okay, so you took that statement as a confession that she tried to murder her husband by blowing up his car?”

  “ No.”

  “You didn’t take it as that, because clearly that’s not how she intended it, right?”

  “Right.”

  “But you didn’t make clear to law enforcement—‘By the way, I didn’t think she was trying to confess to a murder’?”

  “They didn’t ask me that question. I don’t know what they assumed. That’s up to the police what their thought processes are, not mine.”

  “And Miriam Helmick clearly expressed to you that they (law enforcement) were looking at her to the exclusion of anybody else. Isn’t that true?”

  “She thought she was the prime suspect, yes.”

  “She thought she was their only suspect, didn’t she?”

  “She said prime suspect. That’s what she told me.”

  CHAPTER 36

  HORNY AS HELL

  Charles Reams was an attorney who specialized in probate and civil litigation. He explained that simply put, probate “is when the court determines that a document is a person’s last will and testament after they die. It can include estates and assets.”

  Reams said that sometimes people who died had not drawn up a will. In that case, Reams would often be called in as a neutral party by people who were arguing over who should get what after a person died. Reams acted as a neutral party in dividing the estate.

  Richard Tuttle showed Reams a handwritten document, allegedly penned by Alan Helmick, and asked Reams, “Are handwritten wills valid in Colorado?”

  Reams answered, “Yes, they are.”

  “Do you have to prove that the person who died, actually authored the document?”

  “Yes. That’s the problem with them.” Reams then spoke of lawyer-drafted wills, which didn’t have problems. And there were also “holographic wills” supposedly written up by the person who had died. For holographic wills, it had to be proven that the person who signed it was actually the person who had died.

  Tuttle asked if a handwritten will, dated November 2, 2004, concerned Alan and Miriam Helmick. Reams said that it did. Then Tuttle asked, “In Colorado, can a person cut a surviving spouse completely out of an estate?”

  Reams answered no. Then he said for one hundred years, Colorado had ruled that a surviving spouse could not be completely cut out of an estate, no matter what the person who had died had written. A spouse always got $26,000 right off the top, no matter what, and up to $24,000 just to help meet expenses for up to a year while the estate was being settled.

  On top of that, Miriam was going to receive $25,000 from a life insurance policy that Alan had taken out. There was also something called an intestate share. Reams said, “In this case, the surviving spouse would receive theoretically the first one hundred thousand.” So Miriam was not going to be destitute, as she had claimed. Nor was the “prenuptial agreement,” which she was always talking about, valid in cutting her off from the money mentioned by Reams.

  Tuttle asked, “Why is this prenuptial agreement not valid?” Reams replied, “First of all, the legislature has spelled out protections for the spouse. In any prenuptial marital agreement, there must be a fair and reasonable disclosure of the assets.” Reams added that Miriam could waive her right to receive money and property from Alan’s estate, but she had not done that.

  Tuttle then questioned, “If Alan Helmick and Miriam Giles bought things after their marriage in June 2006, it’s not affected by this prenuptial agreement?”

  Reams responded, “It doesn’t seem to address it. According to probate law, it’s assumed that they’re held in joint tenancy.”

  Tuttle also asked, “Bottom line, what would Miriam Helmick be entitled to in the wake of her husband’s death?”

  Reams answered, “She would receive, at minimum, one hundred thousand dollars. And there is another legal right she has. It’s a complicated formula, but she has a right, as the surviving spouse, from five to fifty percent of assets, depending upon the years they were married. You take into account the joint tenancies, life insurance, assets the spouse owned before the marriage, even assets given away two years prior to death.”

  Once again, it was not quite true that Alan was worth more to Miriam alive than dead. She was in line to receive a substantial amount of money, compared to the six hundred dollars that she had when she first arrived in Grand Junction in 2004.

  Steve Colvin, on the other hand, tried to prove that the estate had to pay creditors first, and that was going to be a substantial amount of money. Not only that, it could take up to a year to do that. So for the first year after Alan Helmick’s death, Miriam was going to receive very little money, if any at all.

  During the year, from June 2008 to June 2009, Miriam hadn’t even asked for an allowance
out of the estate. Colvin questioned if Miriam had ever applied for something called an “elective share,” to help her pay her expenses.

  Charles Reams replied, “Not to my knowledge.”

  In fact, Colvin contended that Miriam didn’t even know about money that was owed to her as a surviving spouse, because she was not a trained lawyer. Colvin said, “If you’re not a probate lawyer, it’s certainly possible you wouldn’t know anything about intestate shares and elective shares and all that stuff?”

  Reams answered, “That’s highly likely you would not know it.”

  Colvin also asked if anyone, including Miriam, had ever challenged the prenuptial agreement. Reams said that no one had.

  Colvin queried, “Is it fair to say that laypeople may well think that in a prenuptial agreement, whatever you had before the marriage is yours, period, end of story?”

  “Yes.”

  “And if she thought the prenuptial agreement was valid, there was no reason to make claims on the estate, correct?”

  “Correct.”

  “Has any claim been made by Ms. Helmick against the estate, to your knowledge?”

  “To my knowledge, which is somewhat limited, I’m not aware of one.”

  “And is it your understanding that everything in the estate was in Mr. Helmick’s name and that there was not joint tenancy of any property?”

  Reams replied, “As far as title in joint tenancy, I’m not aware of any.”

  Colvin’s whole line of questioning tended to bolster the assumption that Alan Helmick was more valuable to Miriam alive than dead. In fact, the moment Alan died, it left Miriam virtually penniless.

  The things Charles Reams had been talking about were so complicated, even Judge Robison asked him a few questions.

  One question was “Can the time limit to claim any and all inheritance for any of the situations be put on hold due to a criminal case?” In other words, could Miriam have an extension on deadlines, as the criminal case went forward, and then make claims on the estate if she was acquitted of murdering Alan?

  Reams answered, “I’m not aware of an exception concerning the criminal case. There are situations, however, where the court can extend the time limit for the elective share.”

  As with most witnesses, Aline Lee testified in a manner that was consistent with her previous statements to police. On cross-examination by Steve Colvin, she often seemed uncomfortable and distressed. Aline agreed with Colvin that her memory of exact dates was not good when it came to remembering when certain conversations with Miriam had taken place.

  Colvin asked, “When you first talked to her, you told us that you asked her point-blank, ‘Did you murder him,’ right?”

  Aline answered, “Yes.”

  “And when you did that, you looked her right in the eyes, right?”

  “Yes.”

  “And it was after she answered that question, you went ahead and you loaned stuff to her, right? Money and jewelry.”

  “Yes, over the period of time.”

  “And you wouldn’t have done that if you thought she murdered him?”

  “ No.”

  Later in the testimony, Colvin wanted to know when Miriam had made the statement that she was “hornier than hell.”

  Aline said it was just before she went down to meet the man in Orlando.

  Colvin added, “Now that statement, you didn’t even want to say it here in court today, right?”

  “ No.”

  “Because it embarrasses you, I gather?”

  “Yeah, a little bit.”

  “And I gather you thought it was inappropriate to say it?”

  “Yeah. For a grieving widow.”

  “At some point after her husband is murdered, is it okay for her to be as horny as hell?”

  “Yeah, probably so, but I don’t know what time that is for anybody. You know, everybody grieves differently.”

  “You didn’t think it was acceptable for Miriam to feel that way?”

  “I just thought it was unusual.”

  Perhaps facetiously, Colvin asked, “So, normally, when you talk to grieving widows whose husbands have been murdered, when do they say they’re hornier than hell?”

  The witness responded, “I’ve talked to a lot of people that lost husbands and I’ve never heard anyone saying anything like that behavior.”

  Colvin got the witness to admit that Alan had been murdered in June of 2008, and Miriam did not make her comment about being horny as hell until later October or November of 2008. In fact, Colvin contended that Aline Lee had not even told Sergeant Henry Stoffel about this incident during his first interview with her. She had only mentioned it just before the present trial.

  And then he got to the point that Aline Lee had a problem not only with Miriam Helmick, but with her defense team as well. Colvin asked, “You were told that my investigator Barbara Bullock, with the public defender’s office, wanted to talk to you. And you never called us, but you did talk to law enforcement, right?”

  All Aline said to that was “um,” which was taken for a yes. Colvin added, “Between the time that Sergeant Stoffel came to your house and talked to you, and the time you called him about that statement, you had gone on the Internet and looked up about Ms. Helmick’s case, right?”

  Aline agreed that she had done that because she was curious. So Colvin asked if she had then called up law enforcement right after she had gone online. What ensued was an exchange over whether she had done so right away or much later.

  One of her answers was very disjointed. “I don’t know when they . . . of when I got on first to . . . you know, check into about if it was true that she . . . you know, so if it was true of some of the things . . .”

  Finally Colvin butted in and asked, “The answer is you don’t know, right?”

  She finally replied, “I don’t really know.”

  Another comment that came up in testimony was what Aline Lee had told Investigator Stoffel on December 9, 2008: “Miriam had to get rid of her lawyer (probably Colleen Scissors) ’cause she couldn’t afford to pay her anymore.”

  Colvin continued, “She was real excited, kinda impressed, by this Kilpatrick guy, right?” (He meant Charles Kirkpatrick.)

  “Yes.”

  And Colvin got her to agree that Miriam was not only excited because “Kilpatrick” had money, but that he liked dancing and horses as well. She agreed and said, “I don’t think it was just the money.”

  Tammy Eret got a chance to redirect questions to Aline Lee, and Eret asked why she had such a hard time recalling specific dates during that period of time when Miriam was back in Florida.

  Aline said, “Well, I just lost my mother, who I had been taking care of for twelve years. It’s a very hard thing. So I wasn’t very good with dates.”

  Just before Eret ended her redirect, she said, “Initially, before Mr. Colvin started his cross-examination, you got teary-eyed. Did you consider Miriam Helmick a friend of yours?”

  Now the witness was more than just teary-eyed. She began crying on the stand.

  Steve Colvin looked upon this as a cheap trick, so he objected. When the lawyers approached the bench, Colvin told Judge Robison, “This is an appeal to the passions of the jury by pointing out her emotional state, thereby bolstering her credibility. I’m objecting on that ground.”

  Eret countered, “I’m just asking her if it’s difficult to provide information. She started crying. I can’t help that she started crying.”

  Judge Robison overruled the objection, and Eret asked once again, “Did you consider her to be a friend of yours?”

  The answer: “In the past, yes.”

  CHAPTER 37

  A “JUVENILE” STAGED CRIME SCENE

  On direct testimony, Mike Pruett, Alan Helmick’s former brother-in-law, mostly talked about his conversation with Miriam at the dinner after the funeral. Once again, Mike, the brother of Alan’s first wife, spoke of how jarring it was to hear Miriam pronounce about a Dance Junction ex-employee
: “He’d better hope he has a fucking alibi!”

  Tammy Eret asked if Miriam indicated that she had a suspicion about who the shooter was. Mike answered that she didn’t know for sure. And then he began to say, “Knowing Alan the way I did—”

  Before he finished his sentence, Steve Colvin quickly objected. In a sidebar out of the hearing of the jurors, Colvin told Judge Robison, “I anticipate the witness is going to testify that knowing Alan as well as he did, he knows that Alan would never have turned his back on a stranger in his house. Therefore, Alan had to have known the shooter. That’s complete speculation, and it’s improper. We’re asking the court to not allow the answer that’s about to come out.”

  Eret responded, “Well, it’s habit evidence. And if he can testify that he’s known Alan Helmick since 1967, and knows him well—knows him to always confront people and never shy away and turn his back on somebody, and is very cognizant of strangers, that’s a habit that is allowed in.”

  Colvin retorted, “They haven’t laid the foundation for habit. He (Pruett) hasn’t testified to his observations of Alan when he was in the presence of a stranger in his house. How can you get a habit without laying observations that he’s seen before?”

  In the end, Judge Robison sided with Colvin and said that the question could not be answered because it was speculation.

  Later, on direct, Mike Pruett spoke of what he knew about the car fire in Delta. Eret asked him, “Do you remember telling law enforcement that Miriam was giving you the impression that Alan was going to cover for her in that incident?”

  He began to say, “I remember getting the feeling that if you’re sitting in the car by yourself, and the person you’re with comes to the—”

  Before he could finish his statement, Colvin anticipated that he was going to say that Miriam went to the back of the car, and it must have been she who put the wick in the gas tank and lit it. Colvin objected, saying, “This isn’t testimony. It’s speculation and opinion.”