Monica Sementilli Trial — State Closing Arguments (Part One)

[00:00:00] Speaker 1: Ladies and gentlemen, it feels like it's been a very long time since I stood up here and spoke to you last. I actually counted up the days yesterday. I think I've aged significantly. It's been about 40 days that we've now been in trial, and I know that you're all very anxious to get to deliberations. We're very anxious for you to get to deliberations. But I also wanted to take the opportunity to thank you over the course of the last few months. It's actually [00:01:01] Speaker 2: only a couple, but it's March, so it's like three months. So I'm going to count it that we started in January, and if you came when we started, it was around the time of the [00:01:12] Speaker 1: 8th anniversary of Fabio Samentili's murder. And we've come far since that date when we started an opening statement. And if you recall, I told you from the beginning that the evidence in this case is enormous. And in my opening statement, I laid out what I expected the people's case to look like. Throughout the last several weeks, we've then presented exactly what I told you we were going to present. And in addition to that, we presented much more. And I know that you might have surmised by now that I tend to be very thorough and detailed. And so I hope that you'll bear with me in my closing arguments, because I will likely be just as detailed and thorough. I've learned over the years that it's my job, my responsibility. We have the burden of proof that if I go over with you the evidence, not all of it, some of the witnesses, I'm not going to talk much about because I think you've heard a lot about the details of what happened on January 23rd of 2017. I think all of you could probably lay out the timeline as well as I can. But I'm going to highlight some of the pieces of evidence, some of the witnesses that were significant in this case. I'm also going to try and break down the law that Judge Cohen's going to give to you at some point, maybe tomorrow, and try to explain to you how the law and the evidence fit together, how the evidence proves the crimes charged as well as the two special circumstance allegations in this case. And also try, because we don't, this is not an interactive process, I do not know what questions may have arisen in your minds throughout the trial, but I try to anticipate those so that it makes the deliberation process go more smoothly so that perhaps that process in the deliberation room goes more efficiently. And feel free to stand up, to stretch when you need to. I have serious back issues, and as some of you may know, I wound up totaling another car on the way in to court at the beginning of this trial. So I totally understand. Also, it helps to move around, not necessarily that you're bored, but things can become tedious. Feel free to do so. As you've probably noticed, it doesn't throw me off at all. So, yeah. As I told you at the beginning of this case, during opening statement, that this would be a case about betrayal. It's a case about greed. It's a case about lust. And during the trial, I looked up the definition of betrayal. And the judge is going to instruct you that you can't do that. You can't look things up when you go back into your deliberation. So I did it for you. And I wanted to see what the dictionaries defined betrayal as. And this is some of the adjectives, the synonyms that I came up with. Deception, disloyalty, treachery, duplicity, devious, cheat, trickery, fraud, cunning, breach of trust, falsehearted, underhanded, unfaithful. Each of those words perfectly describe this defendant. This defendant, who was the mastermind behind her own adoring husband's gruesome murder. You heard in this case that he was slaughtered on his own back patio by the one person he should have been able to trust the most. And I told you at the beginning of this case that a marriage is an agreement, a contract, a decision, a choice that's made between two people who presumably love each other, hopefully grow together, raise a family together, are there for each other during difficult times, which absolutely are going to come no matter what you're going to do? And that you set up in your life, things don't always go as we plan. I know a lot of you are aware of that. And that although Fabio was the provider for his family and that he worked to give his family the best, even moving his family from Canada down here to the United States to California, do it because he did it because he wanted to provide for his family. And you heard about that through his executive assistant, Alicia, and various other individuals who knew him. And what you heard was that he wanted the best for everybody. And he was a unique person. It's not that often that you come across somebody who has such a large personality, who's larger than life, and who's able to inspire. But he also loved his wife. And what you learned is that his wife is an incredibly selfish person who portrays herself as the victim. She's a narcissist. She's a liar. She's a cheater. She's a manipulator. And she's arrogant. And she's the one who's brought all of us together in this courtroom where you sat and listened to the evidence. Nobody who gets on the stand, other than maybe the detectives, knows this case in terms of all of the details, the way you do. And in this case, what you heard was that the defendant deceived everybody. She deceived her family. She deceived her friends. She deceived Fabio's colleagues. And worst of all, she deceived her husband and her children, who relied on her, who trusted her, who believed that above all else, this wouldn't happen. That she'd be there for them. You heard from Luigi Samentili, Fabio's son, that while staying with his father and the defendant the year prior to Fabio's murder in 2016, the defendant bragged about manipulating people at a car dealership. She had purchased a new Fiat. And she told him when she got home that she cried and screamed and threw a tantrum at the dealership in order to get a better deal. And maybe it didn't mean that much when he said that, because it was prior to Fabio's murder. But little by little, there were small details, pieces of evidence that built the foundation for what came next. Who was Fabio? Who were the people close to him? And that was important because we wanted to make sure that we demonstrated to you that this is a person who had no enemies. That he worked hard to reach out to people and, as you heard, to bring them along with him. Because his success was built on so many different people and his interactions and his ability to communicate as a hairdresser, which is what led him to this very unique position. Perhaps the first person, as you heard, from some of these individuals that testified in the world, who were able to bridge that gap [00:11:44] Speaker 2: from the hairdresser's hall to an executive position at a multi-billion dollar company. [00:11:51] Speaker 1: That he knew the industry, he knew the people, and he had great instincts. He had great instincts. And I'm going to get back to some of the evidence that we heard, where perhaps Fabio's instincts told him one thing, but his heart told him something else. And so he trusted the defendant to be his partner, to never betray him. And she took advantage of that. She took advantage of the fact that she knew he was that type of person. And of course, you then saw that same type of behavior, that manipulation, at another car dealership, after the fact, which is so much more horrific and offensive when you use your husband's murder to get a deal. And in addition to that, I want you to also keep in mind the reckless disregard this defendant demonstrated for her own children's lives. And I want you to ask yourselves, what do you think, what do you think would have happened had Isabella arrived home just five minutes before and found Robert Baker in the house? Do you think Fabio would have allowed a witness who knew him? Who knew he had just murdered somebody to survive? Somebody who wasn't completely loyal to him, like we know Austin was, who would just blindly follow? You think he would have let her live to testify against him? Maybe. [00:13:58] Speaker ?: Maybe. [00:14:00] Speaker 1: Maybe not. But from almost the beginning of 2016, the defendant and Baker were involved, as you heard, in not just your run-of-the-mill affair. Well, when the defense told you at the beginning of this case, the only thing we have evidence of is an affair. That wasn't true. This was an obsessive, all-consuming love affair, where these individuals, these two depraved people, the defendant and Robert Baker, believed they had found their soulmates in each other. And you know what? I think they did. They wanted to be together. They planned a future together. And that included traveling, as you heard, and living together. The problem was that in order to get that future, to live that life that they so desperately wanted, they had to get rid of Fabio. And I don't care what the defense gets up and says. Divorce wasn't going to get them what they wanted. Her family never would have accepted her divorcing somebody like Fabio, who, over the years, they grew to love, like a son. Like the son they never had, who took care of them. Who stayed with them when he traveled. Who treated them like his parents, because you heard from Morella Semantilli that Fabio's father died when he was very young. And he loved them. And they came to love him. But there is no way on God's green earth that these people were going to accept someone like Robert Baker, a registered sex offender, an ex-porno actor, a habitual liar, a convicted felon, someone who had no money and no prospects to be their next son-in-law. That wasn't going to happen. And the defendant, as you saw throughout numerous witnesses, is someone who needed people to feel sorry for her. Because she's always portrayed herself as the victim. She needed people to want to help her. And what did you see in this case? Weeks and weeks of witnesses testifying who fell all over themselves to help her. To help her children. And she needed to get her hands on some money. Because we know she was unemployed. She did not have any job prospects other than perhaps, as somebody mentioned, maybe going to work for Baker, she did not take Ernie up on his job offer to work in one of the warehouses and run one of his businesses. And she certainly wasn't going to wait, as you heard from that divorce lawyer who broke one of the cardinal rules of confidentiality when you're a lawyer. You don't get up on the stand and talk about all your clients and all the divorces. [00:18:02] Speaker 3: It is overruled. [00:18:03] Speaker ?: It is overruled. [00:18:05] Speaker 1: He did that. He'll own that. She needed to get her money. Her hands on money fast. Not over the course, as he told you, of perhaps a decade which was completely speculative. And as Ms. Ebersbacher told you, was completely speculative. Hence why she couldn't include an exact number in her chart. I think you, I think you understood that. But she needed money so that she and Baker could fund their new life together. And certainly with him out of the way, instead of getting half of the house, she gets the whole house. Instead of maybe half of his stock options, she gets all of the stock options. Instead of whatever alimony, temporary, or permanent support a judge might award her that required her to get her also to get a job. She needed more money than that. Keep in mind, and I know this goes without saying, but it was something that maybe got lost in the mix of all of the arguments about things that really didn't matter. There's no life insurance if someone doesn't die. Right? And how much does she get? If she divorces, there's no life insurance. But in this case, once he dies, she knows she is the main beneficiary on Fabio's policy. And you saw, and we'll talk about the percentages and all of that. But in each case, she got the largest piece of the pot, and the children split the difference. We also heard about her planning for the future through various witnesses that she and Baker told about their plans for the future, such as Sheila Salehian and her husband, Ricardo Cabrera. And you saw some of the photos of their evenings out and their trip to Las Vegas. Or Ron and Michelle Ray. And we'll talk about, again, in more detail, the plans that they discussed with them. And you heard an enormous amount of evidence about the fact that the defendant and Robert Baker acted in concert. They acted together as a team in order to bring about the object of the conspiracy to murder Fabio Sementili. That object of the conspiracy, the death, the end of Fabio Sementili's life. And you might believe that the defendant loved her children. And that may be true in her own narcissistic way, but she certainly loved Robert Baker more. And she couldn't wait to start her new life with him. And you heard about that as Detective Gable testified about how important the post-murder behavior is. And we'll talk about that this morning as well. But what you heard, even through one of the defendant's closest friends, a woman who claimed that she was also close to Fabio Sementili, Miss Obad, every time Fabio turned his back, the defendant was on her way out the door to meet up with Baker. And you heard in cross-examination the questioning about the fact that while Fabio was on a business trip, that the defendant was texting him, "Good night, baby." And then the next thing you know, she's telling Jessica, "I'm out the door. Doors open." And 45 minutes later, she's in a French maid costume dressing up at Baker's apartment. And after the brutal murder of her husband at their home. Remember, your home is your sanctuary. And I know some of you, we discussed during jury selection, have had that unfortunate occurrence where someone breaks into your home, or it's something that you take steps to prevent, to protect your family. What's yours? From somebody coming in and doing something like what happened in this case, you don't feel safe in your home anymore when somebody breaks in. I'm not saying when somebody breaks in and robs you or burglarizes your house. I'm talking about when somebody is murdered in their residence at the place that is supposed to be your safe haven. When you have someone that violates your safe haven, you can no longer feel safe there. And you heard about that in this case from Isabella Sementili. And so again, after the brutal murder of Fabio in their home, night after night, the defendants out partying, having sex with Baker, going to comedy clubs, bars, playing pool, into the early morning hours of the next day. And also keep in mind a point that you heard that Baker stayed at various locations immediately after the murder. You heard about LaShane Holmes' house or apartment. That was the guy that was on the ankle bracelet. That was also a registered sex offender that Baker had met years ago in prison. And he stayed for a time, as you heard, with Sheila and Ricardo Cabrera. And then eventually he goes over and he stays with Roger Brown out at 331 Salem Street in Glendale. And the defendant is going there to pick him up. She knows he's on the run. Well, why do you think she would believe he would be on the run? From what else? So again, if you use common sense, which you all have, and that's why you're all here. When you use common sense, these questions aren't that difficult. Of course she knew about his role in the murder. This would have been, in and of itself, a dead giveaway. And otherwise, if she didn't know who the killer was, you think she would be leaving her kids alone in the home? No, the reason she does that is because she knows they're not in any danger because the real killer is out with her. It's the only reasonable explanation to explain her behavior in the aftermath of Fabio's murder. Anna, the defendant's sister, testified that the defendant flew home on February 8th after the funeral, the services, the cremation, because the defendant wanted to grieve alone with her girls. And because February 8th would have been her 20th anniversary, her 20th wedding anniversary with Fabio. However, what you heard was that as soon as she got home, the defendant went out with Baker that night. That's how much she cared about the fact that she had spent almost 20 years living with Fabio Sementili. And Bella, a young girl who was obviously terrified about being left alone in the home, where she found her father dead, is texting, that she's afraid, that she's in distress. Even Sally Schoen. Do you remember Sally Schoen? She was the executive from Wella who told you that Fabio was her successor at the company, that she ran North America for a period of time, then left it to Fabio, and she went over to Switzerland to run global for Wella and then Cody. And what did she say? She's a grown woman. She told you that she was frightened to be in that house after the murder. And that was as an adult with multiple other adults around at the time. And Jessica, regardless of how much she wanted to convince you that she was fine with her mother always being out after her father's murder, was also just a young girl. And what kind of mother brainwashes her children to get up on the stand and testify to what an amazing mother... [00:28:13] Speaker 3: Objection and honor, that's argument. It's argument. It's overruled. I'm sorry, counsel. I've ruled. [00:28:22] Speaker 1: What kind of mother brainwashes her children to testify to what a great mother she is when we all know there's a mountain of evidence that proves otherwise? And make no mistake, Ms. Stagel and I, we're not here because she's a horrible mother. We're not here because she's a horrible person. We're not here because she's a cheater or a liar or any of the other words that you could use. We're here because she's a killer. And what kind of parent... What kind of parent completely destroys her entire family? I mean, literally throwing away happiness with both hands and a shovel. What kind of parent destroys the lives of her family, of her children? And you heard the defense try to sell you a false narrative. They called Isabella, they called Anna, and they did that to try and humanize the defendant. A person who's utterly devoid of integrity, human decency, honesty. And as I discussed, her sister, Anna tried to convince you that the defendant is a trustworthy, honest person. She even testified that the defendant is not secretive. And yet, as you saw, as you did with so many of the defense witnesses on cross-examination, everything they told you on direct was destroyed. Because her text messages to her sister while she was in Myrtle Beach contradict that proposition. She knew her sister wasn't in Myrtle Beach alone in May of 2017. And Anna admitted to you that her sister lied to her over and over and over again, just like Miss Ogad did. In fact, she was lying for over a year while she and Anna were having their late afternoon, early evening talks over the phone while drinking their glasses of wine. Day after day, this defendant was deceiving her sister. Some of these witnesses were brought in to serve a particular role. And that was to tell you how great the defendant's marriage was with Fabio. And how devastated she was by Fabio's mother. And remember when Anna testified, how she had to take the defendant home early from Fabio's funeral service because she could barely function, because she was so mentally drained. You knew something bad was coming then, right? And that story totally failed. Because she was then confronted with pictures, pictures we didn't show you, we described, but we didn't show you them, of her sister in their parents' home during the funeral services that took place throughout the first week of February of 2017. Pictures of the defendant that she took of herself, where she posed naked. Pictures of herself masturbating. I think that's the first time I've said that word in court in 30 years. A picture is worth a thousand words, but I don't think we need a thousand words of the picture in this case. I think you got the picture. And maybe, maybe Anna really doesn't even know her sister. Either that, or she's not particularly perceptive, or she was untruthful with you. You can choose. Or maybe, the defendant is just that good at deceiving and conning people, so that they see what it is she wants them to see. And you heard about that, over and over and over again. Because as you heard, and as I told you in opening statement, this defendant deceived so many people. And damn right they were angry. Because they felt betrayed. After everything they had done. And yet they were attacked for that. It's called human nature. So many good people gave her the benefit of the doubt. Would have given her the shirt off their backs. Because of their love for Fabio. And despite all of the defendant's lies and deception, Anna, just like the girls, is going to support her sister. And we understand that. I mentioned that that was what I expected was going to happen in opening statement. No matter how guilty she is, that's their family. It's totally understandable. It's also Anna's best friend, as you heard. And as you heard from Miss Obad, they were thick as thieves. However, the court is also going to instruct you on the law. And the law gives you many different factors that you can take into account in considering the credibility of each and every witness that gets on the stand. Whether we're talking about a law enforcement officer, whether we're talking about a family member, or whether we're talking about somebody who's a convicted felon like Robert Baker. Bias, interest, motive to lie. I'm going to say those things a lot over the course of today. Those are all things that you can take into consideration in determining the credibility of witnesses. And I have no doubt that you'll follow the law. Another thing that struck me during Anna's testimony was the lengths. The lengths to which she was willing to try and help her sister. And I understood all of it but this one part. [00:35:58] Speaker 2: And that was her attempt that was apropos of nothing to discourage a murdered victim in this case. By getting up on the stand and telling stories about how they were kicked out of bars and clubs. [00:36:16] Speaker 1: Remember that because of Fabio's jealousy? Remember that testimony? Tell me, please, how that helped you to make any decisions in this case as to whether or not the defendant is guilty of murder, conspiracy to commit murder or the special circumstance allegations of lying in wait and murder for financial gain. That was a step too far. But now, when I started to think about all of this over the course of the last couple of weeks, knowing we were coming to an end, in hindsight I could put some relevance to it in my own head. That Fabio, as we heard from Luigi from the very beginning of the case, he knew his wife was a cheater. She had done that before. He knew that she was disloyal. So he likely had very good reason to be concerned about her fidelity. That was my takeaway from that. Maybe you have something else. But that's what Luigi experienced growing up. Because what we heard in this case was over the course of a year, this defendant was constantly lying, going behind her husband and family's back. And all of that supports his lack of trust in her. You were told the defendant and Fabio had a great marriage. That they were so happy together. That they were best friends. That the defendant loved her husband. And that even though she had been sleeping with Baker for a year, she had no reason, remember that in opening? No reason to want her marriage to end. Turns out all of that was completely false. Proven by the evidence. It certainly might have been true on Fabio's side. But it certainly was not on the defendants. No one who lies on a daily basis to their best friend, to their partner, to the person they have pledged to grow a family with and grow old together, has a great marriage. I don't care what anybody says, those things are mutually exclusive. And then there was all of the evidence. Because as you heard, and at the beginning you might have been wondering where we were going with this. You heard from Matt Nurse. And so now, like I said, I'm going to put pieces of evidence, little pieces of evidence, into context for you. You heard from Matt Nurse, as well as from Baker, that the defendant told them she was unhappy in her marriage. So what they told you was false. And Austin, Austin knew from Baker, what was his phrase? She wanted him gone. [00:39:51] Speaker 2: They also told you the defendant didn't go looking for Baker, he went looking for her. [00:39:57] Speaker 1: And again, we know from the testimony early on in this case from Matt Nurse, that the defendant went looking for sex outside of her marriage. She tried with Matt Nurse, her personal trainer that she hired. She downloaded pictures of him shirtless, remember that? She made him food, she flirted with him, she asked him out for drinks. He testified at the grand jury that the defendant had propositioned him for sex. But he turned her down. And then we also had the Facebook message from Baker to Ron Ray, remember that? From November of 2016, where he was telling Ron how he and the defendant and his girlfriend had been together for about a year and how the defendant came on to him. And remember his testimony? He said within two weeks of the defendant coming on to him, they were already sleeping together. Which is corroborated by the sheer volume of communications between them, starting at the beginning of 2016. So again, additional points that were made that were 100% false. And they told you that the DA, that we turned her affair into a motive for murder. Well, based on the evidence you all sat through for the last two months, it appears that the defendant created an enormous amount of evidence that shows that she did all of that on her own. And yet, you were told that the defendant was happy balancing her love affair with Robert Baker and her wonderful life at home and her marriage. Again, no one with any common sense is going to believe that. And they also showed you pictures. They showed you pictures of the defendant and Fabio together as if somehow those photos or those videos were proof of anything other than what I saw, which was a complete betrayal. Given one was dated, I believe, October of 2017. No, I think one was dated January of 2017, the same day she sent herself a picture of Matt two weeks before Fabio was slaughtered in the backyard. And another was dated October of 2016, less than three months before Fabio's death. And all the while the defendant is running around lying, cheating, and plotting. And they presented, as I said, two videos of them singing and dancing together from both October of 2016 and December of 2016, where you saw the defendant lured Fabio into this false sense of security that everything was just fine. But what their daughter saw and what Fabio wanted to see, none of that was actually real. When you start stripping back the layers, because we heard that the defendant told numerous people how she was unhappy in her marriage and that she was planning on getting out of it. And we saw numerous pictures of her having the time of her life with her lover both before and after the murder of her husband, where he was stabbed through the heart. And make no mistake, that was intentional as well. When you think about the crime of murder, there is a lot of ways that one could kill another. And we hear often, or see often in television shows or movies, where somebody shoots another individual. And that's a crime that's committed at some distance. It makes noise, which is why it would be an effective alternative in this case. But when you think about the idea of stabbing somebody to death, that's a crime that's very personal. It's very up close and personal. And there's a reason for that in this case, because it was so personal. And that was one of the things that looked wrong, that looked off at the crime scene. And you remember the testimony, and we'll talk about this, of Detective Verna, where when he got to the crime scene, there were a lot of things that didn't add up, and they weren't quite sure what they were looking at. Because, of course, as you saw, Fabio was stabbed to death. He's cut in the neck so that his carotid artery and carotid veins were severed. You heard that his artery in his leg, his femoral artery, which bleeds very quickly, bleeds out very quickly, was also severed. And he was left lying in a pool of his own blood. He was, as you heard from the coroner testimony, he was stabbed through the heart. But he had a Rolex watch on his wrist. Remember that? And that was a big clue. Because that, as you know, if you're talking about somebody who goes to a home to commit a crime like, let's say, a burglary, especially during the day when you would expect the owners would be out at work, you're going to commit that crime and you're going to try and do so without confronting the homeowners, because your goal is to get in, get valuables, and get out. But what we saw instead was a staged crime scene where drawers in the master bedroom were pulled out and things were in disarray, dumped on the floor, and that nothing of real value was taken. It was taken. Remember when the defendant was telling law enforcement after the murder that her costume, uh, inexpensive costume jewelry was taken, not her good jewelry. And he had some cash, which of course no one can ever trace, whether it's true or not. Uh, in American money and in European, uh, euros and things of that nature for when Fabio traveled were kept in envelopes. Uh, that was taken. Um, but the Rolex on his, on his, on his wrist wasn't taken. And then there was another point that also showed that the crime scene was staged. That was, as I said, because the burglarers, it really was a burglary, could have robbed the house, could have burglarized the home, taken property and left. They never had to see Fabio out on the back patio. They could have taken things from that bedroom and then fled out that sliding door that was left, uh, slightly, uh, ajar or unlocked to sort of stage that. The only reason you would go out onto the patio, and again, all common sense, is if you wanted to target this victim. And as I said, this was clearly a targeted hit. It was very personal. They went out onto that patio to kill him. He had no enemies. So again, who do you start looking at? The other thing that was so obvious, that was such a mistake, is, and again, once you saw Robert Baker and once you heard him for about, I don't know, five minutes, you could probably surmise that he's not, um, he's not a genius. And he made mistakes. And those mistakes, uh, wound up costing him the rest of his life, because he's going to spend the rest of his life, uh, hopefully in prison. But what doesn't fit with a burglary or, um, someone who's breaking in to steal valuables is the blood on the objects in the master bedroom. Because what that tells you is that the murder occurred first. The only way you wind up with blood on objects, and I'm sure most of you figured this out yourselves with your color-coded notes and pens and things like this, because I know how the 10 of y'all are, but there's blood that's being transferred from the murder into the bedroom. Because the staging of the crime scene is an afterthought. The real goal here was to kill Fabio. And so that's why you have blood on objects in the master bedroom. And, of course, one of the other mistakes was that, uh, the knife that Baker used in order to stab Fabio to death, um, there was, there was no hilt, there was no guard on the knife to prevent his hand from sliding down the blade when the blade got slick with blood. And so he cut himself, and then he dripped his own blood throughout the house, as you heard. Again, all of this, uh, is based on the evidence that you heard in this case. And so, when you think back about some of the evidence and you start putting these pieces together, and I think that a very different picture emerges than what perhaps it might have seemed at the beginning. And so, again, during the same time period where the defendant is supposedly having this wonderful marriage and this great home life, you heard about the hundreds of sexually graphic, intimate photos she took of herself, or she and Baker took of themselves having sex, or having sex with third parties, literally living a different life. And you were told that there was no reason in the world that the defendant would want Fabio harmed. Well, she also, uh, told you that the defendant was the one who was duped. As if, again, the defendant is the victim in this case. But in order to buy in to that fiction, you'd have to ignore a mountain of evidence to believe any of that. And they told you, in opening statement, that Fabio purchased one life insurance policy, and that was only for Luigi. That was also false. As you heard from the evidence, uh, in this case, the defendant knew... [00:52:00] Speaker 4: Ladies and gentlemen, if anything that any counsel says to you, uh, does not, uh, mesh with your interpretation of the evidence, it is your interpretation of the evidence at counsel, not the comments of counsel. With that, the objection's overruled. [00:52:14] Speaker 1: The defendant knew about Fabio's various life insurance policies. And she knew that she was the main beneficiary. And we're going to talk about that. You were also told that the defendant made clear to Baker she wasn't interested in leaving Fabio because she loved her life so much. Well, what you saw was on November, uh, I believe it was November 3rd of 2016, uh, the defendant wrote Mrs. Baker on Baker's bedroom mirror. [00:52:54] Speaker 2: The same day, as you recall, Baker messaged, uh, his friend, Mr. Spence, [00:53:01] Speaker 1: that he and the defendant would be living together within three months. Well, if you count out from three months, from November 3rd, that takes you to right after the murder, the beginning of February. So, uh, the time frame that he gave in November, obviously, they were already contemplating planning for this date. And they told you that Baker contacted the defendant two-thirds of the time, as if somehow that meant, uh, that he was some stalker, that the defendant couldn't get rid of. But that wasn't true, according to what you heard, not only from the, uh, phone records, the cell phone data, uh, the photographs that were contained in the defendant's iCloud, on the defendant's Dropbox, uh, and from the testimony of Cy Ray. In fact, almost one half, one half of all of her communications through her cell phone were with Baker. And you heard that she had more communications with Baker than she did with her husband and her children put together. She called Baker, as you heard from Cy Ray, 414 times during the same time period that Baker called her 163 times. He texted more, but she called more, and you heard about the extreme volume of communications between them. Another thing that you heard was that the defendant was the one who was sending these sexually graphic photos to Baker, and you heard that that took place while she was on vacation with Fabio. Uh, I think there was, uh, testimony about her being on vacation in, in Cabo San Lucas, while they were in Hawaii together, while she was with her family in Toronto on vacation from, uh, her home, pictures where she was lying on, uh, the living room couch, uh, naked, uh, and of course also while they were in Toronto for Fabio's funeral services. You heard zero evidence that she was forced to do anything. That these were things she engaged in of her own free will, choices that she made. And as we all know, sometimes too well, the choices that we make have consequences. And of course, she got sloppy and she got arrogant. She never thought she was going to get caught. She never thought that at some point in the future, the photographs that she posed for in Las Vegas, where she's grabbing Baker's crotch and partying with him right after the murder of her husband were ever going to be recovered, shown to a jury, her jail mail, calling herself Mrs. Baker. The photograph that I'm going to show you, that you remember, where she writes Mrs. Baker and lipstick on his mirror. Now, we didn't see any of that. We saw her out playing pool, uh, in some, uh, black dress, uh, or bathing suit cover-up. We saw her, uh, receiving gifts of clothing from Baker in a parking lot, uh, when a surveillance crew was following her, holding up the pieces of clothing, getting into the back seat so she could put on some of this clothes, uh, posing in Robert Baker's garage and various, uh, outfits, some of them we weren't able to show you but were described for you, posing with a cigar. And they told you that she was devastated by Fabio's death, and yet what you heard was dramatically different from all of that conduct that would not be characterized as devastated. They told you that the defendant was very happy going out all the time with her friends to karaoke. That was a complete made-up story. As I told you in opening statement, every time she used the excuse karaoke, that was code for, uh, an excuse, an innocent, innocuous, innocuous excuse she'd give her children when she was out with Baker, including on her 20th wedding anniversary, or, uh, when she was really posing naked, uh, in various locations. You also heard, uh, them try to get you to believe that Baker was a stalker, that he was lurking around the Semen-Tealy home, and yet what you heard was a piece of evidence that is so crucial. And that is that the defendant, knowing that her lover is a registered sex offender, six counts of having sex with a 14-year-old for a period of time, and then once she turned 15, having sex with her again, and then winding up making pornos with his stepdaughter, the victim of those crimes, um, what does the defendant do that shows her recklessness, that shows how little she cares about the welfare of her children. The day the new security system is installed, she asks the company for assistance through a text message. And then she says, "Never mind, I got it." She's able to remotely access her DVR system, her home surveillance cameras, remotely from her phone. We saw evidence that she had done so on several different occasions. The next thing she does on that date, June 28th of 2016, she sends the password information to Robert Baker so that he can log on and watch the home. That's not Baker being a stalker. That's the defendant giving him access to information again about the sanctuary of their home where she lives with two young daughters. Who does that? The only thing that you heard during this case that the defense pointed out to you was that there was an occasion where Jessica got a flat tire on a freeway or a road, and she and her sister, Isabella testified. They don't know whether their mother called Baker to help or not, because Jessica had Baker's cell phone number, as you recall, in her phone, because they thought he was a close family friend after the murder and that he helped them and was at the house all the time that he came to help her out with her tire. And of course, she came into court to give you the party line that the defendant, that Baker was weird and that they thought there was something strange strange, by how much she was around after the murder, although they never bothered to say that to law enforcement during the half dozen times, or maybe a couple less, that they ever were interviewed. And that Baker was so nice to her and to them. That's when they started having a problem with Baker, after their mother was arrested together with Robert Baker, and they learned for the first time that their mother had been lying to them for a year. The other story I believe that they brought up, again, which proved nothing, was that at some point, Isabella went to, I think it was a Denny's, a Denny's, and she was seated next to a table where Baker was already seated, which means Baker was there before her. So again, all of that was revisionist history. This is one of the videos that was shown to you, but this is how Fabio ended his life at this house, that he loved so much. Remember Sam Puleira talked about they loved this house, and one of the reasons loved it, it was Queen Victoria, which reminded them of their country that they were from, from Canada, and here you see in the photograph on the left, the Rolex on his left wrist. So again, when I tell you that what she did to Fabio was the ultimate betrayal, I am not overstating that. The fact that she was pretending to be this loving wife and mother every day, day in and day out, when she lived with this man for almost 20 years, while plotting his murder with her lover, that's the reason we're all here. Had she just divorced Fabio, none of us would be here. That would be none of our business. But the conspiracy to kill him? That makes her entire obsessive, lurid affair highly relevant evidence in this case. And that's why you were provided with that evidence. Because it does provide motive. It provides motive for what happened in this case to Fabio Cementilli. And that is one critical piece of evidence. No matter how you want to downplay it, or cover it up, or try to conceal it, the fact that she lured him into thinking that their marriage was solid, and then had him murdered in his favorite place, shows how evil this crime was. That was the truth that the evidence showed in this case. And so, as I mentioned, there are layers and layers of evidence that we've provided to you, that this defendant, as I said in my opening statement, was living a double life that she grew tired of. That she wanted more. She wanted to be able to live her life with the person, as you heard from her own mouth say, with the person she believed was her soulmate. I'm sorry. [01:05:34] Speaker 4: I'm just going to take a break. Sure. Let me interrupt counsel. We'll take a morning recess for 15 minutes. The admonition applies. See you back here in 15 minutes. [01:05:47] Speaker 1: Just before the break, I was talking about the double life that the defendant was living in 2016, and through January of 2017, before Fabio's murder. And we talked about the fact that she wanted to be able to live full time with her lover, her soulmate, travel together, and then we saw the evidence of the lengths that she went to in order to get that life. And then if there wasn't already enough evidence of all of this, then during the most painful, heart-wrenching days for anybody who loved and cared about Fabio, she was busy taking graphic sex photos of herself that she then sent to Baker. And I would state that certainly anybody with any degree of care for Fabio would not have been doing that during that particularly solemn time. [01:07:21] Speaker ?: She said that she would not have been doing this. [01:07:22] Speaker 1: She would not have been doing this. She would not have been doing this. She would not have been doing this. She would not have been doing this. She would not have been doing this. She would not have been doing this. She would not have been doing this. She would not have been doing this. She would not have been doing this. She would not have been doing this. She would not have been doing this. She would not have been doing this. She would not have been doing this. She would not have been doing this. She would not have been doing this. She would not have been doing this. She would not have been doing this. She would not have been doing this. She would not have been doing this. She would not have been doing this. She would not have been doing this. She would not have been doing this. She would not have been doing this. She would not have been doing this. She would not have been doing this. She would not have been doing this. She would not have been doing this. She would not have been doing this. She would not have been doing this. She would not have been doing this. She would not have been doing this. She would not have been doing this. She would not have been doing it. She would not have been doing it. She would not have been doing it. She would not have been doing it. She would not have been doing it. She would not have been doing it. She would not have been doing it. She would not have been doing it. She would not have been doing it. She would not have been doing it. She would not have been doing it. She would not have been doing it. She would not have been doing it. She would not have been doing it. She would not have been doing it. She would not have been doing it. She would not have been doing it. She would not have been doing it. She would not have been doing it. She would not have been doing it. She would not have been doing it. She would not have been doing it. She would not have been doing it. She would not have been doing it. [01:08:26] Speaker ?: She would not have been doing it. She would not have been doing it. [01:08:29] Speaker 1: She would not have been doing it. She would not have been doing it. She would not have been doing it. [01:08:32] Speaker ?: She would not have been doing it. [01:08:33] Speaker 1: She would not have been doing it. She would not have been doing it. She would not have been doing it. She would not have been doing it. She would not have been doing it. She would not have been doing it. She would not have been doing it. She would not have been doing it. She would not have been doing it. She would not have been doing it. She would not have been doing it. [01:08:45] Speaker ?: She would not have been doing it. She would not have been doing it. [01:08:48] Speaker 1: She would not have been doing it. That the defendant never suspected Baker was involved. And that she still didn't believe it when the LAPD tell her, "We found Baker's DNA all over the crime scene." And what does she do? What does she do next? She comes up with an excuse to explain it away. And then you also heard not only the attack, as I said, on the witnesses who tried to help the defendant and then realized they had been betrayed, but also on the LAPD and on their investigation. And that somehow the LAPD were so biased against this woman, and that there was a rush to judgment because they were having an affair. And you heard that same tactic through four different sets of investigating officers. And each of them, Detective Verna, retired. Detective Gable, retired. Detective Roberts, retired. Detective Farrell, still on the job. They all told you the same thing. They were willing to investigate as long as it took to make sure that everyone involved in this murder conspiracy is brought to justice. And they may never be done. And you heard questions about that. And the judge is going to instruct you about if anybody has any issues or questions with respect to any other parties who perhaps have not yet been brought to justice how you are to treat that evidence in this case. And that that is not necessarily evidence of anything. But in this case, despite the argument that all of these homicide detectives from LAPD just went out and arrested the defendant because she was having an affair, what you also heard one after another testified to was the mountain of evidence that they produced throughout the course of their investigation. You heard Detective Roberts, I think she reiterated again yesterday on the stand. Over 220,000 pages of paper reports. Over 8 terabytes. I don't know how many of you are computer people. 8 terabytes of data. Some computers don't even hold 8 terabytes. But the defense wants you to believe that somehow law enforcement just decided to arrest and prosecute the defendant because of an affair. If that is the defense in this case, then I set through a very, very different trial. And in this case, you also heard the attacks on the opposite side. Well, why does it take you so long? Why don't you just run up to Alaska and arrest Christopher Austin? If you had information that he was in town, even though you don't have any evidence connecting him to the murder, you have evidence that he's connected to Baker and there's flight records showing he came into town and then he left. Why don't you go up and arrest him and then ask him some questions? Well, that's not how it works, as you heard. Detectives are going, good ones, are going to take their time. As you heard from Detective Verna. They're going to build their case. You heard about Deborah Obad yesterday saying, well, I called Parshall like 50 times and I said, go investigate this person and go look at that person and run this plate. And that's not how, that's not how it works. There has to be evidence. And they build their case. And they're not going to tell the defendant or Miss Obad or anybody else in the public. They didn't even tell, as you heard, we brought in Jim Duggan. [01:13:41] Speaker 2: He was the security officer, the chief security officer for Cody out of New York. [01:13:49] Speaker 1: And when Fabio was murdered, he was brought in to make sure that it didn't have anything to do with the corporation. And one of the things he did is he reached out to Detectives Verna and Parshall. And what did he tell you? He said, well, like any other good detective, they were very tight-lipped. They weren't going to tell me anything. They'll listen to you. They'll take your information. But they're not going to tell you what leads they're working. They're not going to tell you what angles they're looking at. They're not going to tell you what search warrants they're serving. They're not going to tell you who they're interviewing. That's not what a homicide detective or any good detective is going to do. They're going to bide their time. They're going to build their case. They're going to make sure that before they accuse somebody that they have the goods to back it up. And so you heard about that through four sets of investigating officers who all told you the same thing. Now, one of the other things that you heard in this case is that the defendant is somebody who uses other people. Who uses other people to do her bidding, to do her dirty work for her. That includes her daughters. You heard in this case that she had Jessica lie to her father by promising not to tell him when Jessica found Baker sleeping in her mother's bed when Fabio was away on a business trip. And you heard that on February 21st when Detective Parshall and Detective Verna interviewed the defendant at her home that they also separately interviewed Jessica. And Jessica was the first one who brought that up to law enforcement. And yet, when they talked to the defendant, the defendant, remember, tried to downplay her relationship with Robert Baker. Also, after the murder, remember, the defendant used Jessica to lie to family and friends who were calling to check in on Monica and the girls. To check on their welfare because they were worried about them after the murder. And so what does the defendant tell Jessica? Tell them I'm asleep. Tell them you're just hanging out. When in reality, we know the defendant's out at bars and comedy clubs and partying with Baker. Tell them. You heard from Melanie Garibay. Melanie Garibay, as you recall, worked for Wella. She was one of their show directors for these large corporate events that they would put on in places like Los Angeles or Vegas or other places around the country. And that the defendant lied to her and told her that Fabio knew that she was planning a trip to Las Vegas in March. And so Fabio had told her to get in contact with Mel. And Mel would get her a deal on a suite. Remember that? And clearly we know that the defendant and Robert Baker were planning these trips even before Fabio's death because you heard and saw Baker's Facebook message to Ron Ray, where he said he and the defendant, this is in, again, November of 2016, are coming to Las Vegas soon so he can introduce her to them and they can all hang out together. You also heard from Sal Maceri, who was the CEO at Wella and then Cody. You heard from Dave Diaz, also was Fabio's boss previously through Wella and Henry Meyer, the HR director for Wella for North America. And you heard how the defendant used their relationship with Fabio, with her husband, and played on their grief, their sorrow because they were close with Fabio to get them to do things for her. Including things that they put into place as Henry and Sal Maceri talked about. Things that the company had never done before that they believed were exceptional, like paying somebody's widow's six months salary. Extending health care for the entire family and benefits for the family for six months. Writing off a $9,000 company car loan on the truck that Fabio had. And you heard about all of the things that were done in the aftermath of Fabio's murder to try and ease some of the burden on the defendant. You also heard from Sheila Salayan. Remember, Sheila is married to Ricardo and they traveled together. They went on dates, double dated together. In 2016, she and her husband were friendly with the defendant and Baker through the racquetball lead. And we heard that the defendant used her as a cover. So that when Jessica found Baker sleeping in her mother's bed when Fabio was away, the defendant lied to Jessica and said, well, Sheila and Rob were both over the night before and they both had too much to drink and so they couldn't drive home. But we know from Sheila's testimony, she never spent the night at the house. In fact, she told you that the only time she had ever been to the house was, I believe it was the Wednesday or Thursday after the murder, where she saw Baker for the first time at LA Fitness and he told Sheila and Ricardo about Monica's husband being murdered and asked if they would go over to the house with him and Matt to pay a condolence call. And that was the only time Sheila had ever been there. In fact, the defendant tells law enforcement the same, that Sheila's never only been to the house once and that was after the murder. But she uses her as a cover. She also uses Sheila as a cover when she tells her daughters or when she tells Anna that she's going out to, as they say, karaoke is the big cover story after the murder on night when they're invited over to Fabio's best friend's house, Ernie Valerano and Anna's in town and she won't let her sister come with but she's going to go do karaoke with Sheila. Sheila told you she never went out, never did karaoke with the defendant. The only time she ever got together with the defendant is when they got together as couples and always with her husband, Ricardo. And then you also heard how she used Ernie Valerano and Sam Pulera, Fabio's friends and colleagues in order to get sympathy and support. And played on their emotions as you heard about. They also provided other little pieces of evidence that we're going to talk about. So as I said, the defendant wasn't going to do the dirty work herself, right? She's not going to kill Fabio. But she knew that Baker would because Baker is a stone cold killer. And he's willing to do it and she knows that he's going to find somebody to assist him who's loyal to him in order to kill Fabio. They needed somebody who was gullible. They needed somebody who wasn't particularly bright, would go along with the program, would not ask a lot of questions. Somebody who'd do whatever Baker asked him to do. We can call him, if you will, the patsy in this case. And Christopher Austin was the perfect choice because once he was convinced to directly participate in the killing, Baker and the defendant believed he'd never talk. That he'd never squeal. He'd never say anything about what happened because he would have skin in the game. It would take him down as well. What they didn't count on. What they didn't account for, which was between the time of the murder in January of 2017 and subsequent to that time that he would meet somebody. That he'd fall in love, that he'd get married, that he'd have a baby, and that he would have a family who became more important to him than Baker. And so at that point, he was somebody who was willing to give law enforcement the details of what he knew to come clean because he knew, he knew they had the goods on him. And on top of that, Christopher Austin, whether you believe him or not, has a conscience. And he feels bad. Does that matter after the fact? I don't know. But while the defendant and Robert Baker got what they wanted, which was Fabio dead and plenty of money to start a new life, possibly in another state or country, they were very arrogant and they made mistakes. And they went, as you heard, to great lengths. And perhaps you were wondering during the days in and out of the testimony of various witnesses, including Detective Mitzi Roberts, about all these little small pieces of evidence as I was putting in various pieces of paper and talking about things that were now going to connect up. And you heard me do some of that through the testimony of Robert Baker. But they went to great lengths to cover their tracks. And they went to great lengths to destroy evidence, such as deleting encrypted applications, as you heard, from their cell phone and all of its accompanying data. Or their messages immediately after the murder, or the messages that went back and forth between the defendant and her husband on January 22nd, which if she had no part in what was supposed to happen on the 22nd, she would have had no reason to delete those messages. And then, of course, on top of that, you also heard the defendant make various admissions. And the judge is going to instruct you on the difference between what is a confession and what is an admission under the law. Confession being where somebody admits to all of the elements of a crime, an admission, a statement that perhaps infers guilt or admits to certain portions of a crime, or something of that nature, and you're going to receive those instructions probably, as I said, tomorrow. But what we also saw, and as I mentioned at the beginning today, was that Baker and the defendant were like a two-person wrecking crew. Or, as Baker said, and you heard this yourself when they were in the court lockup, he referred to them as Bonnie and Clyde. You might be a little young, but I'm sure the rest will fill you in. Bonnie and Clyde were famous for robbing people, killing people. There were a couple, and they were on the run, and so you hear Baker making comments about how he and the defendant are Bonnie and Clyde, because they were destroying everything and everyone in their path, and you heard them in the back once again scheming on how they're going to explain away the evidence against themselves, and how they have to stick together, because if one rolls on the other, meaning one talks or testifies against the other, they both go down. And you heard them talk about sticking to the program, sticking to protocol. Even yesterday, you heard that there were, from Detective Roberts, that there was approximately 60 hours of recorded conversations between the defendant and Robert Baker during the time that their case was winding its way very slowly through the criminal justice system. And that the case started out in Van Nuys, and that there were two dates, one of which was June 29th of 2017, and the next one, I believe, was August 7th of 2017. And after that, the case was transferred downtown, because they knew it was going to be this lengthy case. And so you heard them talking in the lockup back in June, subsequent to their arrest, where they discussed on June 29th that Baker saying stick to the program. And you heard yesterday, and maybe you weren't thrilled that you were going to be hearing even more recordings, but it was brief. But what I want to point out to you is that, again, you're talking about 60 hours altogether between the six dates where recordings were done in the lockup in conjunction with the sheriff's department. And out of 60 hours in order to give you what the defense thought was beneficial, you heard what you heard yesterday. And even in that portion, you heard them talking about concocting a defense. You heard Baker talking to the defendant about sticking to the program. As Detective Gable, who previously was in the military himself and testified about that, when you hear protocol, that is a plan. A plan that's been discussed, where you put it into practice, and it becomes the policy. It becomes the protocol. And that's the language, the type of language, and the scheming that you heard from these defendants. One of the other things I wanted to point out to you, when the defense says to you at some point in their arguments that, well, you don't have the content of their messages between Baker and the defendant where they are communicating about a murder. You don't have recordings of their pillow talk where they're communicating about setting up Fabio to be killed. Remember something. You can prove a case. You can prove facts by various sorts of evidence. And the judge is also going to instruct you on different types of evidence. There's direct evidence, which is perhaps what you heard in this case, let's say from Christopher Austin or from Robert Baker, people who were present and can tell you what happened, what was discussed. By witnesses, that's direct evidence. There's also circumstantial evidence. And most cases are proved by things like circumstantial evidence. It's evidence from which you can infer a fact or a circumstance. For instance, let's say in this case, the gal who was on the witness stand yesterday afternoon as a defense DNA expert. Let's say that she had tested the interior of those tennis shoes for what I asked her about, wearer's DNA. And let's say the evidence that was developed, the evidence profile that was developed from that swab of the interior of the shoe, the wearer's DNA, came back, let's say, to Jessica. That would be circumstantial evidence. Sometimes people believe, well, if you have blood evidence, it's DNA, that's direct evidence, right? No. It's circumstantial evidence. It gives you information from which you can draw another fact or a set of facts. And so you're going to be instructed on various types of evidence in this case. And you're going to hear that direct evidence and circumstantial evidence are equally valid means of proof under the law. And there are certain circumstances that you have to take into account when you're dealing with circumstantial evidence, which I'm also going to talk about today. However, what I am going to tell you, that I want to point out to you, we don't give killers a free pass because they're successful at destroying and getting rid of the evidence against them. You've got to look at what evidence you have. Again, the law contemplates various things. And one of the things that the law contemplates is that criminals would do just that. And you heard from various witnesses, like Cy Ray, I think, I know Detective Roberts talked about it. You heard about things like, you've probably learned about a lot of things, so now when you start watching those shows at home, you're going to be correcting them. But you've learned about burner phones, right? Some of you might have known what a burner phone was. Some of you might not. You learned about encrypted applications. Some of you might have known about that. Some of you might not. But again, the law covers the situation where you have criminals who destroy, conceal, and suppress the evidence against themselves. And you're told under the law, and I'll cover this too, that those are facts and circumstances that you can take into account. And it's called evidence of consciousness of guilt. When you have an individual who, let's say, is in the lockup, pending trial in a murder case, for acting together. And they are writing jail kites, letters to one another. And then you hear one of them, the defendant in this case, saying, now you've got to flush it. And remember that day when we were listening to the recordings, and it was so loud because not only could you hear all the other individuals in the cell area in the lockup, but then talking over the other individuals. And what did you hear? You heard the sound of the toilet flushing repeatedly. And they would talk about, now you've got to flush that. Oh, let me read this part. Okay, then flush it. When you have two individuals who are actively in concert trying to destroy the evidence that they are talking about and whispering about, all of that is conscious of guilt evidence. All of that is circumstantial evidence that you can take into account that obviously points to guilt. As does motive. You're going to hear that motive evidence is not required. That there are sometimes, there are cases, criminal cases, where it's very hard to decide why somebody committed a particular crime. And you, therefore, as I said, the law contemplates these types of circumstances. And so what the law says is that if you don't have evidence of motive, it might point to the fact that the person isn't guilty. However, if you, but it might not mean anything as well. So it kind of gives you both options. But it also tells you that if you have evidence of motive, that that is something that you should take into account because it also makes point to guilt when you have evidence of motive. And in this case, when they get up, because I don't necessarily get to get back up and respond, nor are we going to do that. [01:36:02] Speaker 2: I'm not going to get up and do this tip for time. Okay? So I'm going to spend my time there. [01:36:07] Speaker 1: And I'm going to tell you what I think is important. Okay? And then when they get up, hold them to it. Because Ms. Stadel and I, we're not afraid of the burden of proof. In fact, we told you that during jury selection, which I know seems like eons ago. Hold us to the burden of proof. We don't shy away from it. The burden of proof in this case the judge is going to instruct you on is reasonable doubt. That means, again, what have I mentioned several times already today? Common sense. You know, if you look around amongst yourselves, and you've been together now for quite a while, and I'm sure you've all managed to get to know each other a little bit. You are a very diverse group. We have people from different racial backgrounds. We have people that do different things. We have people that live in different areas. We have people of different age groups. And so you all come to this room with experiences. Some of them difficult, and you've survived them. Some of them you're still looking forward to. What's going to happen next? Some of you have children. Some of you can relate. Some of you can't relate. But you come into this room with your life experiences. Don't check them at the door. When you go back there, bring your life experience with you. Because, again, when you look at the evidence, you're going to look at it through your own lens, through your own life experience, through common sense. You all are sitting on this jury because of that. You have it. Take it with you when you look at the evidence. And that's what I'm going to talk about again and again today, about how the evidence in this case is based on common sense. Because what the law tells you is that when you're looking at circumstantial evidence, again, evidence that's subject to two different interpretations. One, let's say, that's reasonable. And the other, that is not. Not reasonable. Not based on common sense. Not based on evidence. But based on speculation or some possible or imaginary doubt. The law says, directs, that you must reject the interpretation of the evidence that's unreasonable. And go with the interpretation of the evidence that is reasonable. Again, the law takes into account that you might have circumstances where you could come up with all sorts of excuses for evidence, for behavior. But you are required to base your decision on reason, on common sense. Now, I want to talk about Christopher Austin a little bit. I did tell you that I am not going to spend a ton of time talking about Christopher Austin. Because you not only got to hear him on direct. You heard about how he was eventually, when the detectives were good and ready and had built their case, taken into custody and what went from there. And then, you heard him be recalled in the defense case and you sat and listened for a day and a half to his proper session with me, with Ms. Stagel, with the detectives. And we asked him various questions. He gave us answers. He clarified some answers. He corrected us. He came back the second day and did the same. One thing I want to say about Christopher Austin that happened from minute one. Remember, this is a guy, like I said, his life changed dramatically between the time when he comes down as Baker's patsy to commit this crime with Baker. Whether he was paid or not, he was going to do whatever Baker wanted, right? And the time that he's eventually apprehended and taken into custody, where he's now living in Vancouver, Washington. He now has a family. So he has other things that are now critical and important to him. But the first thing that happens after eight years almost, when he's taken into custody on his way to work, he's, I think, a juvenile probation or parole officer up in the state of Oregon at the time. And when he's taken into custody that day, he admits, immediately, he does the opposite of the shuck and jive dance that you saw from Baker. He admits to personally stabbing Fabio Cementilli. He admitted it. You can't change that. He admitted it. It was recorded. He said it over and over. And at that point, he sealed his own fate. And you heard about that seat belt ticket. Once he was ticketed in the rental car that Baker used, that was the nail in his coffin. But it wasn't that easy. Apparently, it didn't come up under numerous inquiries. Finally, it comes up in the database when the detectives are looking in a particular database. And once they have that ticket, now they believe with everything else they've managed to put together that they have enough to go up and arrest Christopher Austin for this murder. And you heard that they got warrants to do that. And so what happens is Christopher Austin is arrested on his way to work. He has no idea this is coming. But he admits to it. He knows. He tells you as soon as he got pulled over, he had a feeling this is what it was about. It was going to come back and bite him. And sure enough, he tells the detectives that day. And he tells Miss Stagel that day, I stabbed Fabio. And so when the defense argues to you, as they did from the beginning, that Christopher Austin is a liar, but Mr. Baker is telling the truth, keep in mind how the facts, the reality of this actually went down. Because in this case, like I said, you learned about a lot of different types of police investigative techniques. One of the things that you generally don't hear about on television is a Perkins operation and what that means. And you've heard that detectives use this very powerful tool to solve some difficult homicide cases. They're limited in the type of cases they're able to use it in. But again, even before Austin meets with a lawyer up in Vancouver, Washington, he admits to stabbing Fabio. And he admits that he was brought into this by Robert Baker. And he explained that he knew Baker's girlfriend was involved, even though, as he said, he didn't know her. They weren't friends, as he said. They didn't hang out together. He didn't know much about her. He only knew what he knew from Baker. But he lays out from the beginning that he was brought into this conspiracy to kill Fabio by Baker and Baker's girlfriend. And then you heard that during the Perkins operation in Vancouver, Washington, he tells his cellmate, he doesn't know the cellmate is an undercover police officer. That's the whole point of a Perkins operation, that the motive behind the murder, remember this, was insurance money. Baker has denied that to today. But yet, what did you hear? You heard that Baker not only admitted in this court his guilt to count one being the crime of murder of Fabio, count two being the conspiracy to kill Fabio. But he also admitted lying in wait, and he also admitted murder for financial gain. He admitted to a special circumstance, which means he is going to serve a sentence specific to that special circumstance allegation of life without parole. But he wants you to believe he only did this crime because he wanted to be with Monica. So why did he admit to a special circumstance allegation of murder for financial gain? Christopher Austin tells you from the beginning, cellmate asks him, "What was this all for? What was the point of this?" Insurance money. How does Christopher Austin know about that? The only evidence in this case is that he learned about it from Baker. How does Baker know that Fabio Semantilli has life insurance? From the defendant, of course. Again, this is just common sense. Now, also, keep in mind, as I said that Austin was the only one, the first and the only one, to mention the life insurance proceeds. So, this is way before, as you also heard, he ever speaks to a lawyer, because he's never been in trouble before. He doesn't know how the process works. And once he speaks to a lawyer, a lawyer then explains to him how offering up a proper session with the district attorney's office and the investigating officers would be in his best interest. Because he's now admitted to being a direct perpetrator, which I'm going to talk about. He doesn't do any blame shifting like you heard from Baker, who made up excuse after excuse after excuse and changed his story every single time he had the opportunity to do so over the course of, I think it was 13, because the last interview was during trial in March last month. Last month, Austin gives up this information before there's anything on the table. And he asks them, I want to go home to my wife and kids, Miss Heather, will you let me go home? And what do they all say? You're not going anywhere, buddy. The only place you're going, you're going to Los Angeles. You're being extradited to LA to face charges. Because what did I say earlier this morning? Four sets of detectives from LAPD told you that they're not going to be done until they arrest and prosecute everyone who was involved in this murder conspiracy. And you also heard Austin explain why he wasn't completely forthcoming immediately after his first arrest in his life. Either to a cellmate who he didn't know, who was a stranger to him, or to the LAPD, or to Miss Stagel. He has no idea what's coming. And, of course, that's understandable because we're not talking about Baker who's been in the system. Right? We're talking about Christopher Austin who's never been in trouble, who's been told over and over and over again through his father and through Baker over the years that Baker's going to take care of him. Baker's going to watch out for him. He believes that. So he hasn't spoken to a soul. Even his wife knows nothing about this until this all came out. He has never spoken to a soul about what he did to Fabio Samentili until he was arrested on his way to work almost eight years ago. But, again, what he doesn't do, he doesn't minimize his role. He doesn't do any blame shifting. He tells you, "This is my fault. I did this. They brought me in, but I did it all on my own. Nobody forced me. Nobody threatened me. Nobody coerced me. I came to LA to do this hit." And he had every opportunity to minimize. Because, remember, had he said what Baker wants you to believe, because it means that he's not as knowledgeable as what he told you. If he was only what Baker said, which would be a lookout, he might have been looking at an entirely different sentence. He might have been looking at an entirely different charge. But that's not what he does. And that's why his statements are so credible. Because he doesn't minimize. And on top of that, the other thing that you heard about and that you have as evidence, there's three different documents, sets of documents in this case. You guys probably know, just like any business that you might work for, there's a chain of command. Whether you're talking about if you work in a corporation, if you work for a company, there's always a chain of command. There are certain protocols in place. Unless you work for an unaccredited lab, then you can do whatever you want. But there are rules in place. There are rules in place for a reason. So that the rules are followed. So that things are administered fairly between individuals. So that the same standards are in place. So that you know that we're not cutting quarters. That we're not just trying to get someone to say something. Because that wouldn't be justice. That doesn't do anything for Fabio and his family. We want the truth. Not the truth until we throw you up on the stand and then you can say whatever you want and just pare it back. Oh yeah, we told you to tell the truth. We told you to tell the truth. We told you to tell the truth. You didn't 12, 13 times, but we're still going to put you on the stand. And maybe, just maybe, because you've been sitting here listening to the evidence day after day after day, so conscientiously, Maybe you also figured out, without me saying it, why we didn't call Deborah Obad to the stand. We'll talk about her. But he doesn't minimize. And there's three sets of documents that prevent him from doing anything other than telling the truth. The first is his proper agreement. He had to sign a proper agreement with his lawyer, Mr. Revolve, with me, on the record. We put him under oath. You heard that at the beginning of the proper session. That goes up a chain. There has to be approval. There's all these different things that you heard about. And the proper agreement says, hey, we used to refer to it years ago as your queen for the day. Which means, you give us all of the information, whatever you say here, we can't use against you. [01:54:31] Speaker 2: Unless you get up on the stand, at some point in the future alive, and you can use what you told us today to repeat you. In other words, like what you saw with Ms. Obad, where we can show the jury that you're a liar. [01:54:48] Speaker 1: But if we are able to corroborate, meaning support, prove what you're saying is true by independent evidence. Then, if we believe you've provided valuable, truthful information, then and only then, are we going to be like negotiating with your lawyer in a plea deal. But right now, we're giving you nothing. Like you're basically taking us at our word. You're going to pony up the information. We're going to, through law enforcement, see if we can validate what you've told us is true. And then and only then, we might engage in plea negotiations with you. And so you heard about that. The second document in this case. You heard about his plea transcript. We put it into evidence. In fact, I'm going to give you a perfect example. This is a problem, because just so you know, I tend to go off script in a closing, because I think of all these little pieces of evidence that I've had in my head for eight years. And it just makes it longer. But it just means I'll skip other things as we go forward, because I'm going to talk about it anyway. Think about Robert Baker, right? Robert Baker got on the stand and testified at the beginning that he didn't understand when he took his plea in this case. Remember that? Remember that? And so what did that mean? What did that mean? [01:56:30] Speaker 3: I reject your honor. That was not. It's overruled. [01:56:33] Speaker 1: Yeah, because basically what he was saying is, Judge Cohen, who you probably noticed, who's a stickler for rules and procedure, follows, again, a protocol. And he does the same thing every time when he takes a plea. And there's a plea transcript. Because Brooke, or a court reporter who sits in the courtroom, writes down everything, as you've seen, that gets said. And why did he do that? So there's a record. So when you hear somebody like Deborah Obad, who testified that she lied and perjured herself in front of the grand jury. Specifically testified that she lied to the grand jury. And you hear Baker get up and commit perjury where he says, I didn't understand what the charges were. Where no one told me, I didn't plead. I didn't plead to that special circumstance stuff. What happened? I brought out the transcript. I put it on the projector. I went through it with him. Remember when the judge, Judge Cohen asked your lawyer, is this what you want to do? And then he didn't just talk to your lawyer, Michael Simran. He talked to you. He asked you specifically. He turned to you. He had a conversation with you. Sir, is this what you want to do? Do you understand that you have various constitutional rights that you are going to waive by entering your plea here today? And then he goes over all of the constitutional rights that Baker has to waive. So again, when Baker gets up on the stand and he tells you in an open courtroom that he didn't understand what he was pleading to. And he did it again, if you remember, when we got to his prior sex case. And I had to do it all over again. And you'd think he'd be smarter and like, you know, understand like I had the plea agreement from the transcript from this case. And clearly I was going to have it from that case. But flat learning curve. It doesn't get better. So again, I'm asking him, do you remember when the judge turned to you and said, is this what you want to do, sir? These are the charges. How do you plead? Right? It's all laid out for him. He agreed to it in this courtroom on the record. That's a record. Right? So we have the plea transcript from Mr. Austin, also in front of Judge Cohen in this court, where we did the same thing. And the judge went through the same practice. These are your rights. How do you want to plead? This is the deal. Before they even admit to the plea agreement, and you can look at these because they're all in evidence. We marked them all. It's all transparent. Before he even takes the plea, the judge tells him, this is what the consequence of your plea is. Is that what you want to do? Your attorney has indicated that you want to plead to this. But is that what you personally want to do? Yes. It's what I want to do. Do you understand, Mr. Austin, that your plea agreement is based on your truthful and complete testimony at trial? Yes. Because if not, guess what? No plea agreement. And who makes that decision? The defense wants you to believe it's us. But I don't run the court. You've heard him yell at me. He runs the court. [02:00:50] Speaker 3: The judge makes that decision. [02:01:01] Speaker 1: He has to sit and listen. And he takes notes. And he reads what's being said off his screen as Brooke is typing it. And then at some point later, Mr. Austin comes back before the court for sentencing. Sentencing gets put over, as you heard, until he's testified. And he's on the hook for testifying and cooperating with as many cases as it takes until they're done with everyone in this case. So the judge makes that call. And then there's a third document. And that was an agreement for testimony with our office. Before we put you on the stand, you agree that you're going to tell the truth. It's a contract. If you don't hold up to your end, we're going to ask to be released from our bargain. And we can go to the trial. And we'll pick a jury and we'll see how it goes for you. Right? So there's different documents that are in evidence in this case that you can look at. So again, keep that in mind when they get up to argue. Now, I said I was going to talk about the law. I thought it was going to be sooner, but here we are. So in this case, you heard or you're going to hear the judge instruct you, as I've said, about the applicable law, which is the framework for which you have to look at the evidence. And make a determination on whether the evidence that Ms. Stagel and I have presented, whether we've proven our case, whether we've proven the elements of the crimes and the special circumstance allegations to the standard of law beyond a reasonable doubt. And what the law says that people who are involved in committing a crime are referred to as principles under the law. That's the term. Principles. So who are principles? Well, principles include those who directly and actively commit the crime. So if we're thinking about who actively, directly, personally committed the crime. And we talked about how a stabbing is a very up close personal crime. Who's wielding the knife? Well, in this case, we have Mr. Baker and we have Mr. Austin, right? They're the people who go to the crime scene, go to the house. They're the people who stab Fabio to death on the back porch. They're not leaving until that job's done. Those who aid and abet the condition of a crime are also principles. Now, when I say aid and abet, what does that mean? Aiding is, I mean, that's an easy term, plain meaning. But abetting, what does it mean to aid and abet a crime? This is where the defendant comes in. You have to have knowledge of the unlawful purpose of the perpetrator. So in other words, that she knows that Baker and his co-conspirator are going to commit murder. The murder of Fabio. The murder of Fabio. In addition to that, she has to have the intent or the purpose. What's her state of mind? The judge is going to give you instructions on state of mind and what that means for the various crimes and allegations. That she has the intent or purpose of committing, facilitating, encouraging, somehow aiding, assisting the crime. How does she do that? We're going to talk about this when we get to conspiracy. She does that by setting Fabio up. Luring him into this false sense of security. And as I'm going to talk about this afternoon, by setting in motion this very, very short window of time. This timeline. Remember that PowerPoint presentation by Mr. Ed Kozen that we played through Detective Roberts' testimony where we laid out the entire day. So you can see how all these things fit in and how short that timeline is. I think 418 joggers are just turning from Oakdale left onto Queen Dick. It's the second house up on the left. And they're pulling out of the porch at the bottom there at the intersection where the neighborhood surveillance cameras are about half an hour later. Very short. Got to get in. Got to lay and wait. Find out where he is. Got to kill him. Take him down. He's a big dude. Takes two. We'll talk about that. Got to then set the crime scene up. Stage it as I talked about already today. And then got to get out of there and back. Out of the area. Okay? So she has to have the intent or purpose to encourage or assist her intent, her mindset. And then she actually has to assist. And actually she has to do something. She has to aid them. Again, by setting this crime in motion. By telling Jessica, don't be late for babysitting. By looking at the IDMS light app. To make sure that Jessica's gone. That there's no one else there now in front. It's just Bobby O'Long. And then she aids. She promotes. She encourages. Or she instigates the commission of the crime. So this is law the judge is going to give you. Feel free to take notes as I go through the law. I'm going to break it down. I'm going to talk about it in small pieces. And try to make it simple for you. So again, when you go back into jury room and you select your foreperson, you will be able to have meaningful conversations right from the back. Okay? So again, the judge is going to give you this law. And it shows you how you can be a principal. Either as Baker and Austin did by actively committing the crime. But also those who assist those direct perpetrators in getting the crime into motion. Okay? Let's talk about murder. Count one. Murder is, as you can see, is fairly simple. It has three elements. A human being is killed. And a killing is unlawful. Okay? Human being, it's a done deal. Bobby him. Right? Killing is unlawful. No brainer. So, malice of forethought. Again, that mental state element. What does it mean to have malice of forethought? And what the judge is going to tell you is that malice can either be expressed or implied. You have implied malice in this case. If I usually would give an example of, let's say you're in a crowded park. Someone shoots a gun into the air. It comes down that bullet as everyone would expect it to and it kills somebody. Reckless disregard. Okay? This is obviously an implied malice case, but more than that, it's an express malice case. And so, I'm going to spend a little bit of time talking to you about express malice. Express malice only means, simply means, intent to kill. And you're going to hear from the instructions that Judge Cohen is going to give to you that an intentional killing is sufficient for proof of express malice. We know in this case, Fabio was intentionally murdered. He was not stabbed. He did not suffer seven sharp force injuries on his back patio accidentally. This was an intentional killing. That's murder. The other portion is a forethought. And that means that your intent to kill has to come before you kill him. That's, again, in this case, fairly straightforward, very commonsensical based on the facts and circumstances. They knew when they went up to that house that they were going to kill Fabio. They didn't kill him and then decide afterwards, oh, it would be good to kill him. They knew what they were going for. That was the plan. That was the conspiracy. And that's going to lead us into the second count. [02:10:02] Speaker 4: That's my time for you now and five minutes from now. When you find a good place, let me know. Perfect. [02:10:07] Speaker 2: I'm done. [02:10:08] Speaker 4: I had a feeling that would work. We'll take our lunch recess until 1:30. Again, as always, the admonition of fraud is going to discuss this case among yourselves, or if anyone else will form or express opinions on the cause, it's finally submitted to you. Have a good lunch. [02:10:30] Speaker ?: Have a good lunch. Thank you.