About this transcript: This is a full AI-generated transcript of Trouble in Paradise Trial — HI v. Gerhardt Konig — Full Closing Arguments from COURT TV, published August 13, 2026. The transcript contains 15,886 words with timestamps and was generated using Whisper AI.
"Thank you. A motive. A beating. A confession. Ladies and gentlemen, beyond a reasonable doubt, the state has proven that on March 24, 2025, Gerhard Koenig tried to kill his wife, Ariel. The state has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Gerhard Koenig committed the offense of attempted murder in..."
[00:00:00] Speaker 1: Thank you.
[00:00:23] Speaker 2: A motive. A beating. A confession. Ladies and gentlemen, beyond a reasonable doubt, the state has proven that on March 24, 2025, Gerhard Koenig tried to kill his wife, Ariel. The state has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Gerhard Koenig committed the offense of attempted murder in the second degree. There are two elements, as Judge read to you a couple minutes ago. Element number one, on or about March 24, 2025, that if in the city and county of Honolulu, the defendant intentionally engaged in conduct. Element number two, we'll get back to in a moment. But the conduct, starting with element one, what is the conduct, what did defendant do? First, he tried to push her. That's the first conduct the defendant did. The second, the syringe. He tried to inject her with an unknown substance. And third, the beating with the rock. That is the conduct that defendant engaged in intentionally. That is the conduct that we are here to talk about for the last several weeks and for today. The second element, that conduct, under the circumstances under which defendant believed them to be, was a substantial step in a course of conduct intended or known to be practically certain by the defendant to cause the death of Ariel Koenig. So element number one, simple, it's conduct. Element number two, defines what that conduct is, what it's meant to do. And the conduct in this case was meant to kill. The intent behind each one, plan A, the push. The intent was to kill. When plan A didn't work, the defendant moved on to plan B. Plan B, inject her with the syringe. Knock her out, push her off the cliff. The intent behind plan B was to kill. Plan C, when the first two plans didn't work, beat her with the rock. Knock her out, drag her over, or just simply kill her outright. The intent behind every single plan was to kill Ariel. Every plan, every backup plan, ends in Ariel's death. The substantial step starts with the plan. The plan's in yellow because it's not a substantial step yet, it's just a plan. Next, the hike. Again, it's in yellow because he hasn't taken that last step. That last step to show he's committed to carrying out that plan, that shows he's committed to killing Ariel. The first time you get that is with the push. When the defendant takes his hands, tells Ariel, "I'm sick of this shit," and tries to push her back off the cliff. That is the first substantial step the defendant took. That didn't work. Ariel went to the ground, Ariel protected herself. The defendant took the next substantial step. He took that syringe out, and he tried to inject her, but Ariel fought back. Ariel fought back, fighting for her life, knocks the syringe away, and then the defendant moves on to plan C, his third substantial step, where he takes that rock. Exhibit two, this rock right here, the same rock that you've all held, he takes this rock and he beats her with it again and again and again and again and again. Those three steps are the substantial steps the defendant took to carry out his plan to kill Ariel Koenig. So, before we get any further, what is not a defense? The result of the defendant's conduct. The severity of Ariel's injuries, you'll hear many times trying to minimize them. That is not a defense. The law treats somebody the same, whether they're successful or not. The law treats you the same, no matter how good you are at executing that plan. No matter how good you are at actually succeeding in killing somebody, the law treats you the same. As an example, somebody who tries to shoot somebody, who points a gun and tries to end a life, but misses, they've committed attempted murder the same way the defendant committed, in a similar way, in a similar idea as the way defendant did it in this case. You cannot look only at the results to determine intent, you have to look at everything together. And when you look at everything, it shows one clear answer beyond a reasonable doubt, and that's that the defendant intended to kill her. So, let's review how we got there. First, we have Ariel's testimony, and she testified in three different areas. First, Ariel told you what happened on the Palipuka Trail on March 24th, 2025. She told you what happened when she went up the trail. She told you how she was afraid, how she was nervous about the heights. She told you how the defendant reacted. She told you what happened when she met up with the defendant later. That he pushed her. That she went to the ground. That he took the syringe. That she fought back. And then, ultimately, he took that rock. This same rock. And hit her in the head, again and again. Then, Ariel told you what happened leading up to that day. She told you about their marital issues. She told you about her messages with Jeffrey Miller. She told you all of that. Embarrassing as it may be, she put it all out there. And then, Ariel told you about her treatment. Her medical treatment. Her recovery. She showed you the scars that she carries to this day. She showed you the scars on her head where she will never grow hair again. And everything that Ariel said is corroborated. These are the credibility factors. These are listed in your instructions that you should be considering for every witness who testified. And I'm not going to go through all of them right now. But there's a couple that are relevant for Ariel here. First, appearance, demeanor, intelligence, candor, or frankness. Ariel testified in a straightforward, coherent manner. She testified clearly. There were no histrionics. Barely any tears. It was straightforward. This happened. Then this happened. Then this happened. It was not over-germaticized. It was not over-exaggerated. It was straightforward and simple and coherent. She was open to cross-examination. When the answer was yes, she said yes, sir. When the answer was no, she said no, sir. And when she didn't know, she said she didn't know. But the last factor is the most important here. The extent to which Ariel's testimony is supported by other evidence. What this means, simply, is corroboration. What level of corroboration is there? There is a lot. Ariel is corroborated by the physical evidence, the scene and location, the rock, the blood evidence, the injuries, the medical supplies. Ariel is corroborated by the digital forensics. What was going on in the defendant's computer corroborates what Ariel said. Ariel is corroborated by the other witnesses, by their sworn testimony, by Emile Koenig. Ariel is corroborated by Amanda Morris. She's corroborated by Sarah Buxbaum. She's corroborated by HPD. And in the most important ways, she's even corroborated by what the defendant told Emile. You've seen the photos of the scene. Ariel's testimony is corroborated. There's the cliff. It's right there. There's the blood pool in the bush where the defendant was on top of her, where the defendant was hitting her. The physical evidence of the scene, the blood, the crushed plants, the location of this, so close to the cliff edge, all corroborates Ariel. The physical evidence, the rock, corroborates Ariel. You've held the rock. You've seen it. You know how much it weighs. You know how sharp it can be on the sides. You've seen the photos of Ariel's blood and Ariel's hair on that rock. The rock corroborates what Ariel said. The DNA evidence. The DNA evidence shows two things very clearly. One, every single sample that was positive for human blood had a likelihood ratio of over one trillion for Ariel colonic. Every single one. The blood on the rock. The blood on the samples from the trail. The blood all over a defendant's shirt and shorts. Every single one had a likely ratio of over one trillion for Ariel. Reason and common sense tells you all of that blood is Ariel Koenig's, not the defendant's. Second, Ariel Koenig's DNA was on both sides of the rock. And think back. Think back to how Ariel demonstrated what she did. She held up her hand. She held up her hand trying to block the defendant. She suffered defensive injuries from it on her fingers, on her thumb. And that's how her DNA is on that rock. Because she touched it. Her touch DNA is on the rock because she touched that rock to try and stop the defendant. The search warrant of defendant's work bag on Maui corroborates Ariel's statement. It shows clearly, conclusively, that defendant had actual possession. Not some sort of theoretical, "Oh, he's a doctor. He can get this stuff." No. He had actual possession of syringes. He had actual possession of vials. He had actual possession of drugs that can kill. This isn't some he could have gotten them. He had them. This corroborates Ariel's testimony. And more importantly, these drugs weren't stored in a controlled environment. They were stored in his home where he had access. He could take them. Didn't have to log them or anything. Just remove them from his home and do whatever he wanted with them. This corroborates Ariel as well. Lastly, Ariel is corroborated by her injuries. The physical evidence of Ariel's injuries corroborates exactly what she said. Think of the injuries to the top of her head. The stellate laceration. Dr. Grossstein told you, there was debris throughout the entire injury. There were rocks. The defendant swung this rock so hard that pieces of rock broke off into Ariel's scalp. There was dirt throughout the entire laceration. And the middle of Ariel's scalp, he described as macerated or crushed. It went all the way down to the bone. You've seen the photo of Ariel from the front. You've seen what's missing from her head. You've seen that there is a chunk of her scalp that is gone. It's right there in that photo. And you've seen that she didn't just have scalp injuries. She had injuries above her eye. She had injuries below her eye. She had injuries to her hand. Not even to just her thumb. Her thumb was only where there was a break. But she had injuries to three of her fingers. Her thumb, her index, and her middle finger. Ariel's testimony is corroborated by the physical evidence in this case. Ariel is also corroborated by the digital forensics. The digital evidence. The digital evidence tells you what defendant was thinking. What he was thinking from December 2024 to March 2025. It shows you, first of all, it confirms the motive. It confirms the strong motive defendant had to kill. Because he was looking up infidelity. He was looking up Ariel's financials. He was looking up his prior divorce. He was going into Ariel's hard drive to look up documents on her computer or from her computer about divorce. He even went to the point where he was buying a spy device to spy on Ariel. This shows what was going on defendant's mind. It wasn't some simple research. It wasn't taxes. It wasn't self-help. It was obsession. It was an obsession with Ariel. It was an obsession with infidelity. It was an obsession with going over those financials. And it was a plan for divorce. The second thing that the digital forensics shows, most importantly, it shows defendant's familiarity with that hike. It shows you what the defendant looked at before deciding the Pali Puka Trail is the hike that he should be taking Ariel on. It showed the defendant this picture right here. It showed that the defendant was only interested in difficult hikes. Easy hikes were not for him. The defendant wanted difficult hikes, steep trails, big drops, narrow trails. This is where the defendant wanted to take Ariel. This trail, about a foot wide, somewhere around there. One push. One push is all it would take on this trail. Nothing for her to grab onto. One push. And it's a tragic accident. That is what the defendant was researching. He knew that this trail was not popular from his research. He knew that 99% of the people wouldn't be going on this trail. And he knew that this is where he could execute his plan. And he didn't share this with Ariel. He didn't share this website with her. So she could make that informed decision before she went on that hike with him. She had no idea what kind of trail she was getting into that day. Lastly, Ariel is corroborated by the other witnesses. Ariel is corroborated by Amanda Morris. Amanda Morris, the first person on the scene. Amanda told you the sequence of events. Three things. First, she heard a woman's voice screaming, "Help! Help me!" And she gets up the trail. Because she thinks somebody's fallen off. She knows it's dangerous. She thinks somebody's fallen. And she sees the defendant over Ariel. Amanda sees the defendant over Ariel. She sees the defendant with this rock in his hand. And she sees the defendant hit her. And once she sees that, Ariel cries, "Help! He's trying to kill me!" And Amanda sees how the defendant responds. How the defendant responds is nothing. He just looks at her. Ariel is also corroborated by Sarah Buxbaum, the second woman on the scene, the second hiker who intervened. Sarah came in behind Amanda. She saw the defendant standing over Ariel. She saw the defendant standing with that rock. And most importantly, Sarah looked the defendant in the eye. Sarah made eye contact with the defendant and told you how that made her feel. It made her feel unsettled. It made her feel so afraid for herself and her safety when she was looking at the defendant in the eye. It made Sarah feel so unsafe that she and Amanda went back down the trail before they called 911. Because they realized this was a dangerous situation for them. They realized after looking in his eyes what could happen to them. And they took those steps after seeing what was in the defendant's eyes. After seeing that look, they took steps to protect themselves. Listen to Sarah's voice on that 911 call. It's Exhibit 3. You'll have it. Listen to her voice and you can hear. You can hear what she's thinking about. You can hear the worry in her voice. You can hear that she's afraid for her own safety after she's seen the defendant. It's all there. And you may hear argument today or have thought, maybe you thought to yourself, "Well, Amanda and Sarah only saw the end." The evidence shows that Amanda and Sarah didn't see the end of the incident. They caused the end of the incident. Because when they showed up, that is the only thing that stopped the defendant. Ariel screaming for help didn't stop the defendant. Ariel fighting back for her life didn't stop the defendant. The only thing that stopped the defendant, the only thing that was enough for him to stop, is two eyewitnesses coming up on the scene and seeing him beat her with that rock. The only thing that got him to stop was being caught red handed. The responding officers, Corporal Wu, Corporal Chun, they corroborate Ariel as well. They showed you the hike. You saw the hike on their body cam. You saw their struggles with trying to get up the hike. They showed you the scene once more, right there in the foreground of this photo. That's where this happened. That's where the beating with the rock happened. And right there, just a couple feet away, that's where the defendant tried to push her. They showed you Ariel's condition. Ariel's condition immediately after the defendant did this. They showed you that. They showed you the closest thing to what the defendant last saw Ariel as. And they even caught it on their body cam. They even caught Ariel's condition as she states her name.
[00:20:22] Speaker 3: Ariel coming. It's A-R-I-E-L-L-E. Your birthday is March 24th, late to January.
[00:20:35] Speaker 2: You heard Ariel testify for hours. But also, you heard in this video, her slurred voice, her heavy breathing, her condition after the defendant beat her with that rock. She was not okay.
[00:20:57] Speaker ?: The manhunt.
[00:20:58] Speaker 2: The manhunt corroborates Ariel as well. It took three different agencies. HPD, DLNR's DOCARE, HFD, several different units from them. SED, SSD, a canine unit, the major events unit to search for drones, search with drones. It took two drones, one helicopter, and after eight hours, or almost eight hours, they were still not able to find the defendant. And that tells you one incredibly important thing. The defendant did not want to be found. The arrest corroborates Ariel just as much. Officers Nicola, Cokie, and Borges approached Ariel in their vehicle. Officer Nicola testified he got within an arm's reach of Ariel, or I'm sorry, of the defendant, before he jumped out the car.
[00:21:55] Speaker 4: I misstates his testimony.
[00:21:56] Speaker 2: He got within an arm's length, or close to an arm's length, before he got out that car and tried to apprehend the defendant. He identified himself as police, and how did the defendant respond? The defendant tried to flee into the woods. It took a total of 835 pounds of HPD officers to subdue the defendant. That's how much he was resisting. He knew they were police. They identified themselves as police. And as Officer Nicola testified, the defendant, in his attempt to get away, fell on his face, and then Officer Nicola fell on top of him. That's why you see the grass on the defendant's head. That's why you see the dirt on the left side of the defendant's face. Because that's where he hit the ground. That's where he hit the ground while he was being arrested. And the defendant's own actions, finally, also corroborate what Ariel told you. Defendant's actions corroborate Ariel's testimony. First, he fled the scene. Second, he collected the evidence from the scene. He collected Ariel's phone. He collected Ariel's purse. And he collected those syringes. He took all those items from the scene, and he disposed of them. Ariel's mom still tried to ping her phone, and it was up at the Poly hours later. But they could never find it. And think back, where the police, where Doker couldn't search. They couldn't search the bottom of the cliff. They couldn't get down that way. They searched the whole mountainside, couldn't find it. But the bottom of that cliff, the bottom of that cliff that's several hundred feet tall, that's where they couldn't search.
[00:23:53] Speaker ?: Defendant confessed.
[00:23:54] Speaker 2: Defendant called Emil just minutes after the incident and told Emil, "I tried to kill Ariel, but she got away." And lastly, the defendant hid in the woods for almost eight hours. These actions that the defendant took corroborate what Ariel told you. They make sense. That being said, the defendant in this case has testified. And you need to judge his testimony the exact same way that you judge anybody's. At the beginning of this trial, you heard a theme, some alliteration with a theme, you know, unwilling or unfaithful, unwilling, untrue. Ladies and gentlemen, after listening to the defendant's testimony, you only need one word to summarize it. One word. Unbelievable. The defendant's story. She started an argument. The defendant's story is that somehow, Ariel, on her birthday, on an unfamiliar hike, next to a massive cliff, decided to start an argument. Does that make sense to you? No. Ariel decided somehow to start an argument about a -- she said she wanted to go back and continue to work with Jeff Miller. She wants to travel with Jeff Miller. Does that make sense that Ariel would bring this up on that cliffside? No. It contradicts common sense. It even contradicts the defendant's own testimony where he told you they don't talk about this outside of counseling. The defendant told you that. And that's what worked for them. And somehow, Ariel's bringing it up, ruining her birthday, on a hike. Ladies and gentlemen, it's unbelievable. The next part. The defendant's story. She pushed me. Defendant says he felt a hard push from behind that he was looking out over the cliff. He barely holds himself on, he turns around, and Ariel's already five to ten feet away. Ladies and gentlemen, unbelievable. If Ariel was trying to push him off that cliff, she wouldn't be that far away. She would have been right behind him, trying to push him again. Defendant's story. She pulled me down on top of her. Think about how that makes sense. Defendant's story is that then he approached Ariel. That he grabbed her arms. And Ariel somehow responded by pulling him down on top of her and not letting him go. Defendant's bigger than her. Defendant's stronger than her. Ask yourself. What person would hold a bigger, stronger person on top of them as an act of aggression? It doesn't make sense. It's unbelievable. Defendant's story. She hit me first. Somehow, while Ariel's sitting down, or while Ariel's underneath him, while he's in the position of power, while he's on top of her, the story is that Ariel held him down so he couldn't escape, grabbed his genitals, wrapped her legs around him, and then she picks up a rock and hits him in the face. And as the defendant told you, he said, "She hit me one time really good." And then she keeps swinging. The same rock the defendant used to beat Ariel.
[00:27:39] Speaker ?: Really?
[00:27:41] Speaker 2: The same rock the defendant has told you he only used two times. That he only hit her twice with. Ladies and gentlemen. It's unbelievable. The same rock. No. You can tell it's different injuries. This is the photo of the defendant immediately after his arrest. This is the photo of the defendant almost eight hours after the incident up on the trail. After the defendant tried to kill Ariel.
[00:28:10] Speaker ?: Yes.
[00:28:12] Speaker 2: There's a small dark spot on his cheek. Is it a bruise?
[00:28:17] Speaker ?: Is it dirt? I don't know. This is Ariel.
[00:28:22] Speaker 2: The idea that this same rock caused these different injuries is unbelievable, ladies and gentlemen. The idea that Ariel could hit him really good and that's it.
[00:28:40] Speaker ?: It's unbelievable.
[00:28:42] Speaker 2: This is the defendant at the hospital that night and this is Ariel at the hospital on the same day. Again, minor bruise. Major laceration. The idea that these injuries were caused by the same rock. Completely unbelievable. You can only see that but looking at the next day. Look at the defendant one day later.
[00:29:11] Speaker ?: There's nothing. There's no more.
[00:29:15] Speaker 2: Ariel's got her head wrapped up. She's still got these injuries on her eye. The defendant's story is unbelievable. And lastly, the defendant told you that he wanted to turn himself in. That that's what he was doing when he left the trail. Sunset was coming soon. The sun was getting low. But instead of doing the logical thing and walking down the trail where he knew the police would be. The defendant decides he has to come out of the forest onto the road. The defendant doesn't go back to the trailhead. He doesn't put his SIM card back in his phone. He doesn't turn his phone on. Because he's not trying to turn under himself. He's not trying to turn himself in. He's trying to escape. And that's why he ran when the police apprehended him. That's why he resisted. The defendant's story, unbelievable. The defendant's story, unlike Ariel's, where Ariel is corroborated, the defendant's story is filled with contradictions. The defendant is contradicted by Amanda and Sarah. Somehow, Ariel finally let go of his private parts and then he just stands there and looks? He's not on the ground writhing in pain? Does that make sense? He says that she held on so hard that he couldn't escape. Does it make sense that afterwards he would just stand there and stare? No. The defendant is contradicted by the physical evidence. He's contradicted by the fact that there's no blood of his up there. There's no evidence of injuries that support what defendant says happened. He's even contradicted by his own hired doctor. The defendant told you he hit her twice. No more. But even his own doctor said two to three hits to the scout. Hits to the face. Hits to the fingers. So even the defendant's own witness shows that he hit her more than twice. He hit her, add them all up, four, five, six. Could be any of those times. He hit her again and again and again and again. And he only told you two times. Ladies and gentlemen, it's unbelievable. He told you he removed his SIM card with a paper clip. Well, state 72 through states 86, that's all the photos. That's all the contents of defendant's backpack. Where is that paper clip? He could have just as easily used that syringe. Opened his SIM card. Disposed of the syringe. Hiding evidence two ways at once. The substantial step again. He made the plan. He made the plan to go hiking that day. He didn't share with Ariel what hike they were going on. He didn't share the details of that hike with Ariel. He didn't share the dangers of that hike with Ariel. Because his plan was to push her off that cliff. So they start the hike. And Ariel deviates from the plan. Ariel doesn't go up to that section from the photo. The super narrow section with no trees. Ariel doesn't want to go up there. So the defendant improvises. The defendant takes a different cliff. The defendant sees his last chance when they take this selfie. His last chance before they get to that lower part of the trail. And he takes it. He takes that chance to try and push Ariel off. He takes that chance. He makes that substantial step. And plan A, the push doesn't work. Ariel falls to the ground. He can't push her off anymore. So he takes that next step. He pulls out the syringe.
[00:33:34] Speaker ?: Plan B.
[00:33:35] Speaker 2: And he tries to stab her with it. Plan C, when that doesn't work. He takes that rock. And he hits her well over two times.
[00:33:45] Speaker ?: He hits her again.
[00:33:46] Speaker 2: He hits her again. It doesn't matter that she's blocking. It doesn't matter that she's screaming. The only thing that gets him to stop is these two women who walk up.
[00:33:56] Speaker ?: That's it.
[00:34:00] Speaker 2: You have gotten instructions about self-defense.
[00:34:03] Speaker ?: It should be clear.
[00:34:05] Speaker 2: The defendant was using deadly force in this case. This rock is known to the defendant to cause death or serious bodily injury. You don't need to be a doctor, although he is. And he's actually treated patients who've had rocks fall on them. The defendant is well aware of the damage that he was doing. He's more than aware because it was his intent. It was his intent to cause that damage. It was his intent to cause death. So yes, it is clear the defendant was using deadly force. And because of that, self-defense doesn't apply. Self-defense does apply, but the defendant cannot claim it because he was the initial aggressor. He was the one who started the physical altercation. He was the one who used deadly force. And lastly, he had a duty to retreat. When using deadly force, before you use that deadly force, the law states you have a duty to retreat. And the defendant didn't do that.
[00:35:08] Speaker 4: Incomplete statement on the law.
[00:35:10] Speaker 1: Objection over. Ladies and gentlemen, the court instructed you on what the applicable law is. You need to follow the court's instructions as read out to you and as it's provided in the jury instructions that you have.
[00:35:24] Speaker 2: The defendant did not follow the law. The defendant attacked her. Self-defense is not applicable. The defendant has disproven it beyond reasonable doubt because the defendant was the initial aggressor. The defendant was the first one to use force. Based on these facts, self-defense is not applicable. Next, you're given instruction on extreme mental or emotional disturbance. This is a long instruction. We'll keep it simple. There's no evidence that the defendant was acting under extreme mental or emotional disturbance when he tried to kill Ariel. Don't be confused by his testimony. He did say he was under severe emotional distress, but he said that after he tried to kill Ariel. He said he was under severe emotional distress after he started to think about how this would affect his job. How this would affect his life. He was under severe emotional distress after he began to think about the consequences of his actions and how his actions would affect himself. That's what that is. The defendant was not under extreme mental or emotional disturbance when he tried to kill her. He only became that way when he began to think about the consequences. The second part of that instruction states that the defendant's self-control. The defendant's logical thinking is important here. It shows the defendant, when plan A didn't work, he moved to plan B. When plan B didn't work, he moved to plan C. And when he got caught, he fled the scene, he hid the evidence, and he hid himself. That shows the defendant was using logical thinking. The defendant was solving problems as they came. He was not acting under extreme mental or emotional disturbance. Okay. You got a list of other included offenses. You got a list of a bunch of assault charges that are included in the attempted murder in the second degree charge. When you think about those, just think one thing. He did more. This is what he did. Assault in the third degree. Causing bodily injury. That means physical pain. He did more. He did more than cause physical pain to Ariel. Assault in the second degree. He did more. Yes, the defendant caused a major laceration to Ariel's head. Or severe laceration. The defendant caused a bone fracture to Ariel's thumb. He did those things. But he did more. But he did more because he was trying to kill her. Attempted assault in the first degree.
[00:38:23] Speaker ?: Same thing.
[00:38:24] Speaker 2: Defendant took actions that he knew would cause a substantial risk of death. Yes. But he did more. Because the evidence all shows that the defendant wasn't intending to do an assault. The defendant was intending to kill. All right. Three things.
[00:38:46] Speaker ?: Motive. A beating. And a confession.
[00:38:49] Speaker 2: You've seen through this trial the defendant's motive.
[00:38:52] Speaker ?: He was upset.
[00:38:53] Speaker 2: He was angry. Wherever he turned, Ariel wasn't being punished. First, he talks to Ariel's best friend. Tries to air the dirty laundry. But the best friend stays on Ariel's side. Diana stays on Ariel's side. She's not punished. Then he emails Andrea Miller. Then he emails Andrea Miller, giving this other woman, Ariel's personal contact information, her cell number, her personal email. But Andrea Miller never responds. Ariel's not punished. And then he goes to counseling. They go to marriage counseling. And instead of focusing on the affair, what do they focus on? These intimacy issues. These issues that Ariel testified about. These issues that were defendant's fault. Everything the defendant tried to do made sure Ariel was never punished.
[00:39:54] Speaker ?: So he did it himself.
[00:40:00] Speaker 2: Every response defendant had to this emotional affair showed the defendant's need to control Ariel. He wanted to control where she lived. He wanted to separate this woman from her 18-month-old child. That was his response. His response to finding out was, "You should move out." He wanted to control her job. He wanted her to quit. He wanted her to be dependent on him. Because once Ariel quit her job, "Oh, it's much harder to divorce. She has no more income. She can't go find another remote worker nuclear engineer job." The defendant knew how much a divorce would cost. He was looking at his own documents, his own records from his prior divorce. He was looking at his own records that showed how much he paid in his prior divorce. Because that's what he was thinking about. He was doing that math. He was doing that math on what it would cost to divorce Ariel.
[00:40:59] Speaker ?: What he would give up.
[00:41:00] Speaker 2: And he just couldn't stop thinking about it. He couldn't stop thinking about this emotional affair that he's built up in his head. And because he couldn't stop thinking about it, he made a plan. He made his plan to kill Ariel. The beating. Plan C. The third substantial step. The one that's the most visible. The one where she got these injuries. The defendant took the rock. He picked it up. He swung at Ariel again and again and again and again and again. That many swings shows that the intent was not just to hurt. It was not just to defend. The intent was to end her life. That's what the number of swings tells you in this case. Ariel's only relief, the only thing that stopped him, was the defendant being caught in the act. It was the intervention of Amanda Morris and Sarah Buck's bomb. That's it. So we end with the confession. 10:42 AM, just a couple of minutes after this happened, the defendant calls Emil. It's a video call, not a phone call. So Emil could see what the defendant was saying. He could see the defendant's face. He could see the defendant's mouth moving. There's no gray area with this confession. As Emil testified, he has no doubt about what the defendant told him. There's no phantom gust of wind that came up. There's nothing like that. The defendant confessed to Emil. He told Emil that he tried to kill Ariel. He told Emil why. He told Emil that Ariel got away. He told Emil that Ariel was having an affair. That doesn't sound like a goodbye suicide message, does it? He told Emil that he was at the end of this rope. And think back to the last thing that the defendant told Ariel before he tried to kill her. He told Ariel, "I'm sick of this shit." That's corroborated that he's at the end of his rope. Same idea. What didn't he tell, what didn't the defendant tell Emil? Nothing about self-defense. Nothing about Ariel attacking him. Nothing about what he testified to to you. Is that reasonable? Does that make sense? No. 10:42 a.m., the defendant FaceTime video calls Emil. He confesses. And Emil's next step, after being put in that situation, after being put in a situation as a 19-year-old that he had no want to be part of, Emil does what he does. He goes and tells his grandparents. He goes and tells them what the defendant said. And Judy, Judith Mast, ends up texting the defendant. 11:33. She texts the defendant, "Is Ari okay?" She asks the defendant about her daughter. And the defendant says nothing. He doesn't respond. But what he does do shows his intent. What he does do, he calls Emil again and he asks him, "Did you tell anybody?" That shows the guilty conscience of the defendant. That shows that the defendant was not acting in self-defense. That shows the defendant was thinking about what his actions would do to himself. He was thinking about himself. He wasn't thinking about Ariel. He wasn't thinking about her condition. It was only himself. So, ladies and gentlemen, there's one verdict and only one verdict that does these things. There's one verdict that holds the defendant accountable for what he intended to do, for what he tried to do to Ariel. There's one verdict that's supported by the physical evidence, the digital evidence, the corroborated testimony of witnesses, and the defendant's own confession. There's only one verdict that's corroborated, that makes sense with all of that. There's only one verdict that the evidence and justice demands. And that verdict is that you find the defendant guilty as charged of attempted murder in the second degree. Thank you.
[00:45:46] Speaker ?: Thank you.
[00:45:46] Speaker 2: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.
[00:45:55] Speaker 4: I want to begin by thanking you all for your time and dedication to this case. Most people serve on juries a couple, two, three days. You guys have been here for close to a month now, and I want to just express heartfelt thanks for that. It was your time and doing that that made sure that Gerhard got a fair trial. That's what this was about, and we appreciate your time tremendously. You know, we're at the end of the trial here, but I want to actually circle back to the very beginning. The very beginning, jury selection, and remind you guys about that. Multiple days, started off with 200-something jurors, whittled it down, excuse after excuse. People couldn't be here, couldn't be fair, couldn't set aside what they heard. Weren't willing to give him a fair shake. And we whittled it down to less and less and less, and we ended up with the 16 of you here. And it wasn't by accident. It wasn't by accident. It's because we saw in you what we were looking for. Jurors that would wait until you heard everything. Jurors that weren't going to convict somebody based off of media reports. Jurors that weren't going to just look at one side of things. Jurors who had logic, reason, and common sense. And most importantly, jurors who had integrity to follow the law on reasonable doubt.
[00:47:23] Speaker 2: Objection, move to strike. None of this is evidence. Sustained. Please continue. So I'd like to move to strike the entire closing argument up to this point. Sustained the objection. Mr. Robs, I'll take. Please continue.
[00:47:35] Speaker 4: We went through that process. You guys promised us you would do certain things. And we knew that you would. Now, I'm going to walk you through the evidence and the law today, and it'll be clear that there's reasonable doubt all over this case. Before I do, you know, he wants to, you know, unfaithful, unwilling, untrue. We talked about that. He wants to say, unbelievable. I'll add another unword. I'll add another unword. Undeterred. They are undeterred by the evidence. It doesn't matter what it shows. Spin it in their favor. They came up with a theory and they went to search for facts to support it. They didn't look at the evidence and say, what's the theory that points that out? They came up with a theory and they tried to find any fact they could to fit it. Undeterred. Undeterred by the DNA. The DNA shows, and I'm going to go through it, she's holding the rock. This is a trillion level DNA on the unstained side. Undeterred. Oh, must be because when she was blocking. Undeterred. The computer, I have to call Enuma again to say that sometimes the computer accesses these files. Undeterred. Still shows that he's looking at this credit card statement from 2018 to show that he has a financial motive that is cheaper to kill her than divorce her. Undeterred. Undeterred. Undeterred by the fact the eyewitness picks the wrong person out of the photo lineup. And still, she stared at him, looked into his cold, dark eyes, saw him very clearly. Picks out the wrong person. Undeterred. Undeterred by the bruise on his face. Oh, maybe it's dirt. Maybe it's dirt. But evidence should lead to theories. You don't come up with a theory and then search for evidence to spin it to fit your theory. That's what happened in this case. You know, ladies and gentlemen, I'm going to go through just some of the law initially. And then we're going to come back, go through all the evidence, and then I'm going to come back on some other parts of the law. So, I want to start off first by reminding you, as you know, you took an oath, right? You said, you told us that you would give your word that you would follow the law. You'd follow the law. And we know that you will. I want to start, you can follow along in your instructions if you want. I'm just going to start on page two. Page two. And I talked to you at the beginning about these three principles of justice and fairness that keep our system safe for all of us. Anytime the government waves its accusatory finger at anyone, these principles kick in. And it's a safeguard. It's a safeguard. And this is summarized on page two. You must presume the defendant is innocent of the charges against him. This presumption remains with the defendant throughout the trial of the case, unless and until the prosecution proves the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The presumption of innocence is not a mere slogan. Not a mere slogan, but an essential part of the law that is binding upon you. It's binding on you. It places upon the prosecution the duty of proving every element, material element, of the offense charged against a defendant beyond a reasonable doubt. Now, I'm a visual learner. I had this chart earlier to help you guys understand how that works. We talked about how the presumption of innocence, you don't start in the middle. You don't start in the middle. It requires that you start here. You start here. It requires that. And then there's a gap. And it's a proof gap. This has to be filled with proof beyond a reasonable doubt before you even step this way. Before you even step this way, if there's no proof beyond a reasonable doubt, you don't move. You don't move. And let's look what a reasonable doubt is. You must not find a defendant guilty upon mere suspicion or about evidence which only shows that the defendant is probably guilty. Probably guilty is not good enough under the law that you took an oath to uphold. What the law requires, ladies and gentlemen, what is required by law before the defendant can be found guilty is not suspicions, not probabilities, but proof. And think about that word. It's a strong word. We don't pay enough attention to that word. Proof. That's a powerful word. Proof of the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. That's the law. Probably not enough. That's the law. Again, visual learner, I have a chart to help you with this. This chart summarizes page two in a more simple way. State's burden, it's their burden, right? We talked about they brought the charge. Make no mistake, this is not Errol Koenig versus Gerhard Koenig. This is the state of Hawaii versus Gerhard Koenig with their resources, the police force, their computer experts, their everybody. Their burden, state of Hawaii versus him. This is their burden. If they only provide, if obviously 100% anything is not guilty, not guilty. Probably not guilty, not guilty. Possibly not guilty, not guilty. Maybe not guilty, not guilty. Maybe guilty, not guilty. If you're like maybe, maybe not. If you're left thinking, I don't really know what exactly happened. Maybe, maybe not. If you're here, not guilty. Possibly guilty, probably guilty, not guilty. That's how high the burden is. It's a safeguard against convicting innocent people. This is what you took an oath to uphold. I'm going to circle back to this. This is what you told us you would apply. Now, I'm going to go through more of the law later, but just very quickly, the law on attempted murder, the elements are on page 14. Page 14. Before we go through the evidence, page 14. Second paragraph. A person commits the offense of attempted murder in the second degree if he intentionally engages in conduct which, under the circumstances that he believes them to be, is a substantial step in the course of conduct intended or known to cause the death of another person. That's what they have to prove. That one of his intentions was to kill her. That that was his intentions all along. That's what they have to show. It goes down paragraph one, the elements, the defendant intentionally engaged in conduct. And two, the conduct under the circumstances as the defendant believed them to be was a substantial step in the course of conduct intended or known to be practically certain by the defendant to cause the death of Ariel Coney. That's what they have to prove more than maybe, more than possibly, more than probably. That his intention and his knowledge was practically certain he was going to kill her. That's their burden. That's what they have to prove. We'll come back to this. There is an instruction on self-defense. I'm going to talk about that at the end after we go through the evidence. They are the included offenses. I'll walk you through those as well. But let's now look at the evidence and it'll be clear. There is just massive amounts of reasonable doubt. So the first thing, the first thing, one second here. This issue about, was this planned? Okay. What is this planned? This big plan. He just went through this motive that Gerhard Coney, you got to know him, that he came up with this plan in late December that it was going to be cheaper to kill her than divorce her. What is this planned? Let's look at the evidence. Is there a reasonable doubt about that? Let's walk you through that. First of all, she brought up the idea of going on a trip to Oahu. That was her idea. Why would that be the plan? If you're planning on killing somebody, you're an anesthesiologist, you have access to, as they fault him for being a doctor, I'm going to get into that a little later, having these things at home that he uses to save people's lives. That your plan is, let me not stay on Maui where there's probably 800,000 less people and more secluded areas. Let me sneak syringes through TSA onto an airplane, come to the busiest island there is in Hawaii, a million people, go to a place, a trail, a parking lot I've never been to, that I'm not familiar with, and in broad daylight, four minutes from a very busy parking lot, I'm going to try and kill her. That's the plan. That makes absolutely no sense. Logic, reason, common sense. Why would you do that? The life insurance issue. Well, this is the busy parking lot. I apologize. This, you saw this in, you know, this is, this was the plan to come here. With all these cars, all these people, he says 99% don't hike or whatever. He didn't know that. He put in here, this is the plan, according to them, that he's going to come to this unknown place. With all these people, all these cars, and try to kill his wife instead of just doing it on Maui. That's the plan, according to them. The life insurance issue. Now, this shows two things. I mean, we're going to get into later about how he told her about it that morning, and she learned that morning, if something happened to him, she would get $1.5 million. But it's relevant in another way. If in December and January and February, you're planning to kill your wife, why are you going through the process of obtaining $1.5 million on your life for her? That's not the sign of somebody plotting to kill somebody. That's the sign of somebody trying to work on, okay, look, we've got to figure this out for our kids, and if something happens, there's, you know. He's not planning to kill her. Now, the birthday card. He writes this this morning. It's the only time she got emotional because she knows it was genuine. And I'm going to talk about that more later. He writes this. There isn't an obstacle in this world too hard for me to fight through for you. I would take on anything just to see your smile. You're one of the kindest, most giving, and selfish people I know, selfless people I know. Putting others before yourself. So much love. You're the heart of our family. Fun, fearless, and a terrific mom. The kids and I hit the jackpot with you. He meant that. You don't write a letter like this because if you're planning to kill somebody two hours later. There was no plan. There was no plan. The Fed reservation. He made a reservation to go to dinner that night. He's not planning on killing anybody. There was no plan. There was no plan. This is from that day. They're having a great trip. You know, they had gone through some rough times. But they were making some progress. In part because they weren't really talking about it. And that's why she felt comfortable. She didn't. I'm not saying she was trying to hook up with Miller again. She wanted to travel for work. And that's why she felt comfortable bringing in. Hey, we've been making progress. But you know, I got to travel for work. You know. And then she says, you know, my mom can come with me. That's what Garrett told you about. So this is them on the trip. Right before. Right the day before. This so-called big plan. There was no big plan. Now, why are they committed to saying that there was this pre-plan and financial motive? Well, because of course. It makes no sense anyone would have syringes on this hike. Unless this thing was pre-planned from earlier. So they have to stick to that. Even though it makes absolutely no sense. There was no plan. No plan. And I got to tell you. You know, I got to tell you.
[00:59:49] Speaker ?: Okay.
[00:59:52] Speaker 4: When they get into the fact that in like December or whenever it was. There was a text message where she's like, are you coming home soon? And he's like, this lady just got hurt on a hike. And a rock fell on her. So I'm trying to like save her life. The fact that they're trying to say that at that time the light bulb went on in his head. And he was like, I got it. I can kill her on a hike with a rock. I mean, that's ridiculous. I mean, that's ridiculous. That's ridiculous. And it moved to strike.
[01:00:20] Speaker 2: Granted. Last argument. Okay.
[01:00:23] Speaker 4: Well, that's what he was pointing out. Actually, again, the improper argument.
[01:00:28] Speaker ?: So stay.
[01:00:28] Speaker 4: The idea that he came up with this plan because he was trying to save a patient's life who was hurt with a rock on a hike is ludicrous. So, ladies and gentlemen, as much as they want to avoid it, as much as they try to talk about witnesses and collaborations, the reality is this. What happened on the mountain before the hikers got there, it is essentially she said, he said. The witnesses told you. They didn't see much. One witness only saw one hit. The other didn't see a hit at all. One of them picks out the wrong person in the photo line. Okay. Everything before that, they told you they can't say what happened. They don't know how it started. She said, he said. Now, by the way, these witnesses who apparently stood there and stared at him for half and 30 seconds, looking into his deep, cold eyes. They didn't see no syringes on the ground. You know the one she says she flicked out of his hand that landed right there? They're nurses. They didn't see that because it didn't happen. The point is, ladies and gentlemen, when it's your burden of proof, it's this high, and it is she said, he said. Your she said. Better not offend logic, reason, and common sense. Better not offend the, be contradicted by the physical evidence. Better not be highly motivated. Better not have examples of many times where she was deceptive to the police and to you. And all of those are present with our testimony. I'm going to walk you through that. Now, logic, reason, and common sense. The bottom line is, Ariel Koenig is not reliable. She's not reliable. We talk about credibility. The question is reliability. Okay? Logic, reason, and common sense. We don't ask you to leave that at the door. We want you to bring that two in here and look at what was said. Let's look at what she said, right? I mean, basically, she's saying she wouldn't take the selfie. And then he was like, I'm tired of this shit. Let me throw you off the cliff. And then he tries to stab her at a syringe. And she's loading it first. And then he bashes her up to 10 times. That's her story. Okay? First of all, the way she describes it makes it sound like he had multiple arms, like an octopus. She says that she's covering, he's on top of her, covering her mouth. And then he has a syringe. And then he's loading the, he has a vial. And he's loading it. But he's holding her down.
[01:03:07] Speaker 1: He states the evidence.
[01:03:09] Speaker 4: Can we approach the honor?
[01:03:10] Speaker 1: Sure, come on up.
[01:03:37] Speaker ?: The inference is, why would you have a vial? Unless you're trying to load it. He has a syringe in his hand. The inference is, why would you have a vial unless you're trying to load it? He has a syringe in his hand. The other hand, he's holding her mouth. He's down on top of her, doing all of this, while she's supposedly keeping it. The inference is, why would you have a vial unless you're trying to load it? The inference is, why would you have a vial unless you're trying to load it? The inference is, why would you have a vial unless you're trying to load it? The inference is, why would you have a vial unless you're trying to load it?
[01:03:53] Speaker 4: The inference is, why would you have a vial unless you're trying to load it? The inference is, why would you have a vial unless you're trying to load it? He has a syringe in his hand. The other hand, he's holding her mouth. He's down on top of her, doing all of this, while she's supposedly kicking and fighting. He only has two arms. And in the middle of it, they're having a full conversation. Your mom's not going to be very happy if you do this. You know, the kids aren't going to be, you know, her story makes no sense. Now, logic, reason, and common sense, as we look at her story, and it is a story, okay? If we look at her story, why, if this was a big plan that someone's going to bring a syringe to incapacitate somebody and stab them to make it easier to throw them off the cliff, don't you think they would load the syringe ahead of time? Don't you think they would load the syringe ahead of time? Their story is that he, that's the plan, and in the middle of it, he's like, "Oh, wait, I've got to take out this vial and get it ready." That makes no sense. Especially given the fact that it's undisputed. He had just gone up the mountain by himself for 10 minutes. If he had it and wanted to use it, he could have loaded it. It makes no sense because it didn't happen. It didn't happen. The other thing, and I'm glad he brought up this thing about plan A, plan B, plan C, because it proves the point I was going to get to. Why in the world, if you bring a syringe to incapacitate someone, to make it easier to throw them off the cliff, why would the syringe be plan B? It would be plan A. You would use the syringe first, and then you would throw them off. Start the scuffle, and make that, you know, start the scuffle, and they'd be like, "Oh, wait, now I'm going to stab her with the syringe." That makes no sense. You know, it makes no sense that, you know, that's the plan. They could, he knows they could, if something like that happened, he's a doctor, and toxicology report would show propofol in her thing, in her blood, you know? It makes no sense that there would, he would start the scuffle before using a syringe, if that was his big plan. Because it didn't happen. This idea that she could just flick the syringe out of his hand, he's holding it tight according to her, just flicks it. None of that makes any sense. You know, this idea about, well, he hid evidence, the rock is found right there, we don't know exactly where, because HPD should have photographed it before they moved it, but why would he get rid of the syringes and leave the rock? None of that makes any sense. And then, of course, we get into him leaving her on the mountain. Leaving her on the mountain. If this is the big plan, to use this hike as an opportunity to throw her off and kill her, why would he walk away and leave her there alone, thinking he's going back to the car? And they're trying to say, well, you know, all kinds of things about that, but the reality is this. If you think, even though it's not true, if he went off on his own, because if she said, well, it's too high, I'm getting a little scared, and his plan was to kill her, he wouldn't leave her. He would say, okay, you know what, that's fine, but let's just at least go over here and take a selfie and then try to throw her off, right? He wouldn't have left her for that reason. If he was planning to try and throw her, he would have stayed with her. And then her rationale, it went, you know, to get around the idea that, undisputable, that she said, she clearly said, when he got back, she told the detective that he said, oh, you're still here. He was surprised that she was still there. She says, well, he knew I meant I was going to go exploring in that area. Where was there to explore? We heard from witness after witness. It was, you either go up or you go down. You don't go off and go exploring. That was her way to try and cover up. That it was clear he left her thinking she was going back to the car, which you wouldn't do if you had a plan to kill somebody by throwing them off the cliff. TSA, we've all been through it. Sharp metal syringe objects, sharp objects. Not going to work. Not going to work. Logic, reason, common sense that he has this intent to kill her. But then he lets her crawl away. He lets her get away. He lets her go down to the witnesses. Doesn't come after. Doesn't make any sense. Her demeanor. They say, oh, she was very matter of fact and just told it. Ask yourself. If someone's describing what should have been the most horrific thing they've ever been through. Bloody murder. Someone's trying to stab you with a syringe. A monster's trying to throw you off a cliff. When you're recounting that, you might get a little emotional. Not at all. And she's not just someone who doesn't get emotional. Because we saw her get emotional when we showed her the card. When she read the birthday card, she got emotional. I submit to you that was probably guilt. But whatever it was, she knew it was genuine. And she showed an ability to show emotion. That was real. The card was real. You cannot get emotional over a made up story that didn't happen when you started the fight. Reasonable doubt. Logic, reason, and common sense. Now, Ariel's story contradicts the physical evidence. It just does. And this is a huge problem for them. And they try to come up at the last minute with, well, maybe when blocking it, her DNA got on it. But let's talk about that. Because we're talking more than probably, right? You know, he wants to say maybe blocking her DNA got on it. Maybe. But let's use our logic, reason, and common sense and look at the physical evidence. What does Scott Henderson say? The DNA guy. Generally, yeah. You could expect higher likelihood ratios with the more DNA that's present in a sample. The more DNA present in the sample, you can expect a higher ratio, yes? Generally speaking, yes. The more someone's DNA is on the sample, the higher the number. Higher the number. Higher the number. He then goes on, we learn from him and Ameren, that, very important, the rock. The rock. Swabbing from the unstained area. There was a stained area that looked like blood and there was the unstained other side. They swabbed the blood. They tested, of course, it's Ariel's blood. I told you that in an opening statement, right? The blood side was Ariel. The unstained side, they don't test for blood. They test for human skin cell touch DNA from people holding objects they told you, okay? The unstained side had a profile for two people, Ariel and Gerhardt. Ariel's number was one trillion. His was 290. Let's go back to what Henderson said. The more DNA present on the sample, you can expect a higher ratio, yes, yes. One trillion to 290. The rock was in her hand. The rock was in her hand. The DNA shows that. That blows away her whole story. That she didn't have the rock. The rock was in her hand. Her DNA is all over that. This idea of maybe when she was blocking it hit her. That's not going to lead to that much of her DNA on it more than him.
[01:11:31] Speaker 2: Objection speculation.
[01:11:36] Speaker 4: If he's holding the rock the whole time and she's just blocking, there's going to be more of his DNA than hers. She was holding the rock and that blows away their entire theory. Scientifically, I asked Amarin, what about scientific evidence, Ms. Amarin? We talked about it.
[01:11:56] Speaker ?: It's unmotivated.
[01:11:58] Speaker 4: Scientific evidence is not trying to get full custody. His retirement. It doesn't lie. It is what it is. And they may say, well, maybe it was there because of this. Again, maybe, maybe not. A huge reasonable doubt. A huge reasonable doubt. She had the rock in her hand. One trillion to 290. Now, the other thing about the physical evidence is the injuries. They want to say, we heard about the steady laceration. I'm going to talk more about it later. There was one point and it spreads, right?
[01:12:42] Speaker ?: And you heard.
[01:12:43] Speaker 4: She at the end said she doesn't know how many times she was hit. The doctor grocery said two, maybe two, I cannot say how much more. Arden says, Dr. Arden says two to three. If she was hit seven, eight, nine times with all his might, it would be way worse. Physical evidence doesn't support her version of events. Also, if she's under attack, she's going to be scratching, doing biting as she says. He has no scratch marks, defensive wounds. There's no bite mark on him, even though she said she bit him. The physical evidence doesn't support her story. And that's a huge problem when it's this she said, he said, and this is your burden. That's a huge problem. Further problematic is the examples of deceptive behavior that we saw through her. Many examples of deceptive behavior that makes her unreliable. We heard about her deleting the text messages to hide it from her husband, to hide the extent of a relationship. That is inherently deceptive to do that. It showed that that's inherently deceptive. Now, the affair, the affair. Look, I'm not, I'm not the morality police, okay. I'm not here saying she's an awful person because she had an affair. That's for you to decide, okay. Objective improper.
[01:14:10] Speaker 1: Objective improper. Sustained. And moved astray. Granted, last argument of morality is stricken from the record.
[01:14:18] Speaker 4: The relevance of the affair is primarily that she lied about it to the detective. The context is showed in the relationship in January, February, and December. But the relevance is she lied about it to the detective. And that is incredibly important when it is she said, he said, and it's proof down a reasonable doubt. Let's look at, let's look at this. This is, this is, you know, he said, well, she describes it to the detective as just some flirty text messages. He says, well, there's nothing in the text messages about sex. Well, she deleted most of them. So we don't really know what's in there. But we do know what we saw. On the trip, the day before he's going to confront her. This is at 11:22 p.m., presumably Hawaii time. Or maybe it's California time, whatever. But it's late at night. She's sending this to Jeff Miller. Jeff Miller is sending her this. They have a nickname for Gerhard. Hail you, which is that radiology, nuclear, whatever. I have hail you. They have a code word to let each other know when he's around. She's listening to an audio book. How to help my spouse heal from my affair. That's what she's listening to. He says to her, you're engaged and continue an elaborate secret affair instead of coming to me asking to work on our relationship. And her response is, if anything, I learned how stupid it was this time and I know how to make sure it doesn't happen again. That's her response.
[01:15:59] Speaker ?: Okay?
[01:16:00] Speaker 4: Now, to the detective, no affair, just some flirty text messages. To you guys, no affair, just some flirty text messages. You saw 12/1, December 1st, all day long on a Sunday. Good morning, all day long, all day long, all day long, good night. And that's how she says it to the detective. She was misrepresenting deceptive and lying to the detective. Further examples of deceptive behavior is what she does with her primary care doctor and the records. After the fact, she tells her primary care doctor in an email to add, can you add traumatic brain injury? I want to make sure the documentation is consistent between my care at Queens, Back Care and Mountain. And that's the important part. Why is that important? Because, number one, she says she doesn't recall reviewing the Queens records. The Queens records doesn't mention traumatic brain injury. Arden told you that, the two doctors, don't you think if traumatic brain injury was in her Queens records, they would have asked Grossgene or Carlton Whitney that? It wasn't in there. So this shows she is not just asking the primary care doctor to do this. She is deceiving the primary care doctor into believing that the Queens records said traumatic brain injury. The PCP will be like, oh, okay, I'll add it. It's deceptive behavior. It's incredibly misleading. Now, she says she's surprised about the work bank. She's surprised about the work bank. Oh, I didn't know, you know. She knew he had it there. She knew there was syringes and vials in there. She calls her attorney. And then they turn it in and say, oh, surprise, look what I found. She knew it was there. She knew it was there. She lied about that. She lied about her affair. She lied to her primary care doctor. You know, there is a I really like quotes. So there's an author, famous author by the name of Samuel Clemens. Most of us know him better as Mark Twain. Mark Twain was giving a speech once to some young people about the dangers of being untruthful. And what he said was, you ought to be very careful about lying. Because once caught, you can never again be, in the eyes of the good and the pure, what you were before. You guys come in here, you give people the benefit of the doubt. They come in here, you say, I'll hear them out. And then they lie about different things. They deceive. But in the eyes of the good and pure, of all of you, you can't look at her the same again. It's dangerous.
[01:18:52] Speaker ?: It's dangerous.
[01:18:57] Speaker 4: If she's going to manipulate her PCP doctor, if she's going to be deceptive to the detective, do you think for a second she would hesitate to be that way with you? And then we get into biased interest motive. We talked about this. We talked about this. How she knew a divorce was coming. She wanted full custody. How they're using these allegations against him to get full custody. To make it where he can't ever see his kids again. To get half his retirement. To get all of the house. Things that she might not get. She knows that. That their statement is, we want full custody, but depending on the outcome of the case, that can be revisited later. She knows the ramifications. Now, let's compare that to Mr. Gerhard, Dr. Gerhard Koenig. You got to see him. Trust your gut. Trust what you know about people. Is he somebody that is a monster? That came up with this plan to stab his wife and throw her off a cliff? Is that the sense you got from him? Or was he a hurt human being struggling with infidelity, but trying his best? You know, they talked about his parents, how they moved from South Africa when he was young. He worked really hard to become a doctor. This, he talks about, oh, he was trying to control everything about her. All of this awful controlling guy. What does she say? In December, you generally describe your marriage as good, right? Yes, sir. This is what Ariel said. You don't describe your marriage as good if somebody is a controlling, coercive, you know, violent person. There's a lot embedded in this. You don't describe it as a good marriage if somebody's, unless they're a good dad. Look, domestic violence is horrible. There's some awful men out there that use their power, control, financial means to control women in improper ways. This is not, this is not him. That's not him. She wouldn't say it was a good marriage if he was like that. His version of events, you know, they fault him for wanting to see her phone and things like that. The audio book said that's what, that's what is, it takes. This is Ariel. I asked you earlier, you understood the audio books you're listening to by these professionals says to give up privacy, give up, give up access. Get them to trust again. She says, yes, they're faulting him for the professional advice, what is said. He's not trying to deprive her of her career. He's trying to stop her from seeing the guy that she had an affair with. He was fine with her getting another job. That's a very human thing. Why would you be okay with her going back to work with the guy that she had an affair with? Now, he went into detective mode when he found out about the affair. That's a very human reaction. You know, very human. He was on the computer looking up Reddit and infidelity and getting some advice. It's not easy when your partner cheats on you. He's struggling with it. They're making some progress in January and February because counseling, she turns it about, not about the affair, but about other issues. But they're making progress. They're kind of heading in a good direction. They go on this hike. And it makes sense that at that hike, she brings up this issue of, again, not that I want to be with Miller, but hey, I got to travel for work. Okay, I got to travel for work. And this is a detail that you just can't make up. He says, then when they're fighting about it, she said, well, my mom can come with me to chaperone. He leaves her because they got into a fight, not because she's afraid of heights. She goes on all kinds of bungee jumping hikes all the time. He comes back and he's like, oh, you're still there. He described to you what happened. He's not saying, oh, he grabbed me and pulled me down. The scuffle started on this mountain trail and they ended up on the ground where they tripped or fell, whatever. He ended up on her. And then he told you how she's grabbing, she's grabbing his testicles. And she admits to it. And then I also squeezed his testicles. That's her testimony. It was all happening so fast. You know, we spent a lot of time going through it all. That's not real life. You don't, in real life, you don't get hours to be like, okay, and then you did what? Well, why didn't you do this? Well, did you consider that? Did you, did you consider doing this with the rock instead? It was happening in seconds and he reacted and he had a reflex and that's human.
[01:24:14] Speaker ?: That's human. That's human.
[01:24:17] Speaker 4: That's human. And then he felt horrible about it. And he told you about that. He never wanted to hurt her. Never. He felt terrible about it. He was shocked that he could do even do that to her in that moment. He felt horrible. The physical evidence supports this story. The DNA, and I'm going to get into the medical evidence a little more in a second. You have this, which apparently might have been dirt. Undeterred. Might have been dirt. You have a cut. You have bruising. Right where he said he was hit. Reasonable doubt. Now, the FaceTime with Emil that they call a confession. There's no assurances of reliability. He explained to you what happened in that call. We need to consider it in the context in which it took place. We need to consider ourselves, is this a reliable, you know, thing that happened that we can rely on? Two highly emotional participants in the phone call. One is suicidal. One is thinking his life is over. He's very emotional, calling his son to say goodbye. The other, obviously, not blaming Emil at all. Incredibly emotional. His grandma says she was shaking, shaking, crying. Two very, very emotional people. Then you look at the environmental factors. He's on the side of a cliff. And they made it a point to get the detect, the HPD officer said it's very windy over there, notoriously windy. Very, very windy day, according to the police. He's on speaker phone on the side of a cliff, talking. And he told you what he did. He was explaining to her, look, she was having this affair. She got hurt. This is her blood. She, she crawled away or got away. She crawled away. And she said, I tried to kill her. He was telling her that's why he was going to end his life. He wasn't confessing. He was telling her, that's why I'm going to end his life. Now, we know this is his testimony. So as you see here today, there's parts of the exact wording and timing of what was said that you don't quite remember exactly verbatim, word for word, correct? He said yes. He cannot tell us exactly word for word what was said. And then we have an example of him making assumptions. He first tells the detective, oh, he, my dad said he tried to push her off the cliff. That's what he assumed. Not blaming him. That's what he assumed. But later on in the conversation, in the interview, the detective asked you about that. And he clarified, he said, the part about her pushing her off the cliff was what you assumed he meant, not what he actually said correct. He said, oh yes, correct. So we have an example already of him saying something that he assumed that was inaccurate. He wants to say, it was so clear at the end of his redirect. He said, without a doubt, I know what it was said. Do you recall how he had to try four times? The first three? Emile said, oh yeah, I was confused. I'm kind of confused. And he asked again, yeah, I'm kind of confused. I'm kind of confused. And finally, Emile understood what the prosecutor wanted him to say and agreed. I'm not faulting Emile at all. Okay. This was a misunderstanding. The second call shows that. Gerhard calls a second time and he wasn't saying, why did you rat me out? He was saying, wait, what? You told, you told Ariel's parents I tried to kill her? Like, I gotta go. I gotta go. And he was gonna go kill himself again. This idea that he wasn't giving Ariel to blow by blow what happened. He was trying to say goodbye to his son. Trying to say goodbye to his son. This is not a confession they're making out to be. I just point out to you, it's not his fault. He's lived with Ariel the last year. He wants to be on Maui. He likes it here. He knows the only way he can stay here is living with her. We talked about her and her actions with the detective and the primary care doctor. He understood what the prosecutor wanted him to say after a fourth try. This was not a confession. Gerhard's actions after the incident. They want to say it's consciousness of guilt. I say it's conscious. It's proof he's human. He went into a deep despair, deep despair. He couldn't believe that he could cause that kind of harm to the person that he loved. And that can coexist with defending himself in the moment in that reaction. He felt horrible about it. He went into where he was suicidal. What he was saying to Emil on the phone was, "I gotta go. I don't want the police to find me." It's because he wanted to keep open the option of killing himself, which was turning out to be harder than he thought. He didn't want to get caught at that time because he was still thinking about jumping and killing himself. He wasn't evading the police for the purpose of, "I don't want to get caught." He wanted to be able to kill himself and have that option. And we'll talk about when he turned himself in later. And that's why he did what he did with the SIM card. He didn't want the police to find him because he was thinking about killing himself. And this idea that in the middle of this suicidal place of being super emotional that you open your SIM card, you bend a paper clip, open it, and you're going to take the time to put it back where it was instead of just leave it over there. It shows he's human that he felt terrible about this. He told you how bad he felt. And that can co-exist with self-defense. Now, this idea that he was fleeing from the cops. First of all, the officer didn't say we pulled up right next to him. Very clearly they said, "We pulled up. There was a lane in between us and he was on the grassy area." This grassy area right here. They said he was here when they got out of the car and he started to flee. "Do you remember?" And I said, "Come on. How the heck was he not going to get in the bushes if that were the case?" And then, shockingly, the prosecutor asked him, "Well, you played D1 football, right, officer?" The fastest man in the world, Usain Bolt, Olympic sprinter from Jamaica, could not get to him from the car if he's trying to get into the bushes. Look, I get it. Officer safety. Look, I'm not faulting them. They came in hot. They're the strategic enforcement detail. Apparently, you've got to be 300 pounds to be in it. I get it. They think he has a syringe. Okay? They come in hot. They hit a couple of strikes. Don't hit him in the face and arrest them. I'm not faulting them for that. I don't know about this. Saying he was trying to flee. Okay, that's not cool. Okay? But I get it. Officer safety. He has an injury. Look at this. It's dry blood and it's bruising. It's the kind of purple bruising that takes place hours later. When you first get an injury, it doesn't bruise. This happened earlier. Dry blood, purple bruising. That takes time to get to that point. A theory in search of facts. I talked to you guys about this. To try and use a computer to manufacture financial motive without telling us last week that sometimes, I'm sorry, how much time is that? Thank you. Thank you. That sometimes the computer opens files and shows it was accessed? Don't you think that would have been fair to tell you guys that? Instead of leading you to believe that 100% Gerhard looked at all of these things? Look, make no mistake. He said 80% of it he looked at. He's not hiding that. He's just, when he's up here saying like, I don't remember at 3:00 a.m. looking at a 2018 Amex credit card statement that was in my old divorce file. And he, you know, I mean, but undeterred. Undeterred. It shows he had a financial motive. He was looking up how much his divorce costed him in the past. What? He makes a lot of money as a doctor. The search terms. Kill, push, shove, syringe. They're looking for a smoking gun. They have had it with his computer. Looking for a smoking gun. What did he find? No smoking gun. Just some search about hikes that you would search if you were truly just going on a hike. Again, maybe, maybe not. They were looking for a smoking gun. They don't find it. So what do they do? They manufacture a motive undeterred. Theory in search of facts. Oh, no smoking gun. But you know what? It shows. He's looking at financial documents. He has a financial motive. That's not, that's not, that's not fair. I submit to you that whatever they found on that computer, they would find some way to spin it. Whatever they found, they would find some way to spin it. That's not fair. The work bag. The work bag. The work bag. And this, I gotta say. He uses these tools and materials to save lives. And they want to fault him for having it? He's a doctor. He's a doctor. He talked to you about why he has it. On Maui. Not on Oahu. He uses these things to save lives. Not trying to somehow poison his wife. And she knew he would take it from work every day. Now, self defense. First thing you gotta decide is whether or not this was deadly force that he used. We know it wasn't. We're gonna get into that in a second. But it doesn't matter either way because it's the same rock that she hit him with. So even if it was, if you want, if, even if you say it was deadly force, it was the force that was used against him. So it doesn't matter. It's the same rock. The only thing it does say about it, and this is the part that was incomplete, about the duty to retreat. It says, "The use of deadly force is not justifiable if the defendant knows he can avoid the necessity of using such force with complete safety by retreating." You only have to retreat if you can do so safely. She's holding on to his testicles. Hitting him. And it just talks about being reasonable. He used the same force that she used against him. And they want to say, "Well, look at the difference. How could it be the same rock?" Obviously. Obviously, if, if one gets hit cleaner than the other, the same rock can do that. You know, like, I could, I could, I could throw something at a baseball at someone's head, and one, it hits them in the face, and one, it hits them in the arm. It's going to commit, it's going to cause, you know, obviously it can be a diff depending on how the direction, how hard the landing was. He stopped. He stopped. He didn't keep going. What amount of force was used? What amount of force was used? We know. Like I said earlier, we know what Ariel, Ariel says she doesn't know. I don't know the exact number. They are downplaying what she said because they know it doesn't make sense. They're saying, "Oh, up to 10 times." So what does that mean? 6, 7, 8, 9? Doesn't mean 2. But now they know that that doesn't make sense. She was hit 8, 9 times. Oh, maybe she meant less. She doesn't know. Grossgene says possibly 2, maybe more. I cannot tell you. Arden says 2 to 3. He says 2. Grossgene talks about, "Oh, there's rock in there or dirt." He's not a forensic pathologist. He didn't test the material to show, like, what it was. You know, her condition after, her condition after, you saw her walking. She's walking on the hill. Okay? But more importantly, this is her talking after. And I'm going to ask you to do something with me now. If you could help me out here. Either close your eyes or don't look at the screen and just listen to her voice.
[01:37:21] Speaker 3: Where does he work? He works for TAMG at Maui Memorial Medical Center. TAMG is called it.
[01:37:28] Speaker 1: At Maui Memorial?
[01:37:29] Speaker 3: Memorial, yeah. TAMG is a group of anesthesiologists.
[01:37:33] Speaker 1: Did you guys drive here today? Yeah.
[01:37:36] Speaker 3: Which is your car? It's a Nissan Rogue. Do you remember the license plate? If not, that's okay. It's not our car. We live on the island. What color is it? Do you get any signs? Oh, it's like black or gray. It's gray. Why don't you just wet my mouth? I don't know. Wet paper towers running right around the windows. I don't have any water on me, so... Sorry, I never... No, your name is trying to stop the meeting until they get married. I know. I already... I said 24. What was, uh... Did you ever wear today? She's wearing like a light gray shirt and...
[01:38:16] Speaker 4: Okay. Does she sound like she has a traumatic brain injury to you? She sounds okay. Look, I'm not saying it wasn't a bad cut. And look, I'm not... You know... Nobody wanted her to have that cut. I'm not saying it's... Not, you know... I'm just saying... The level of force he used, you can see. It was a... It was... He talks about chunks missing from his scalp. No doctor said that. It was... It was soft tissue. You heard from Dr. Arnett, a very credible man, that apparently for 14 grand he's going to sacrifice his integrity. Obviously, he's not going to do that. He told you that blood is not a good indication of the severity. The blood is not a good indication of severity. No skull fractures, no soft tissue. The tip of her thumb, he said, it was just the very tip and... Sure, after the first hit, he puts her thumb, it hits, hit. Just the tip is fractured. We heard about that. All three doctors agree. No substantial risk of death and no serious bodily under law. All three said that. We talked about the stellate laceration. The Glasgow Coma score was 15 out of 15. Triage, they waited a few hours outside because she wasn't in that serious of a condition. She had a bad laceration. They sold it up. She went home the next day. And again, I'm not... I don't mean to... He feels terrible that that happened, but he wasn't trying to kill her. That's about the amount of force that was used. Now, her eye. Let's look at this photo. The orbital is the most fragile area there is. And he said very fragile bones. If he hit her with that rock, it would have broke bones. There was a scuffle. They landed on the ground. You know, they're fighting. There's elbows. He's going for the rock. They're fighting for it. There's no doubt her eye got hurt in this thing. But he didn't smash her eye with the rock the way they want you to believe. And then you have his injuries. We talked about that. Now, it's the state's burden to prove to you this wasn't self-defense. More than probably. That it wasn't under the circumstances, you know, that he reacted as a human when she was doing these things to him and hit him. They have to prove to you it doesn't apply. It was a reflex. It was a reaction. It was a human reflex and reaction to defend himself in the moment. And that can coexist with him feeling terrible about it after. This happened extremely fast. And then he stopped. Now, there's the left. We talked about the elements of attempted murder. He had no intent to kill her. You see on the bottom. And self-defense applies. They have to disprove those two self-defense. Then there's something that takes you down to the others, right? The other offenses. If and only if you find a defendant not guilty of attempted murder, then are unable to reach a verdict, unanimous verdict, then you must consider these other included offenses. None of them apply. Self-defense is a defense to all of them. If you think that it was, they didn't disprove self-defense, it goes all the way down. But you work your way down through these things. I'm just going to go through it quickly because I don't have a lot of time. The next one is attempted assault in the first degree. That he took a substantial step in conduct intended to culminate in the commission of assault in the first degree. That he intentionally or knowingly was trying to cause serious bodily injury. Let's look at the definition of serious bodily injury. Serious bodily injury means bodily injury which creates a substantial risk of death or which causes serious permanent disfigurement or protracted loss or impairment of the function of any bodily member or organ. The doctors say she didn't have that. He wasn't trying to do that. This doesn't apply. Self-defense, no intent to cause serious bodily injury. You go on to assault to second degree. Again, serious, no intent to cause serious bodily injury. Self-defense applies to all of this. So you work your way through, self-defense applies to all of it. Her motive to try and get custody and conviction of any of these things helps her with that.
[01:42:59] Speaker 2: Assault in the third degree. For improper instruction on the law.
[01:43:04] Speaker 1: It should be substantial. Ladies and gentlemen, you have the instructions on the law.
[01:43:12] Speaker 4: Then you get to assault in the third degree. Bodily injury or negligent use of a dangerous instrument. Again, self-defense. He wasn't negligent. He was reacting. Reasonable doubt as to every one of these included offenses. So you just work your way down. And then there's something after that called a mutual affray. If this was a mutual affray. Reasonable doubt as to all of these. Now, I'm almost at the end here. I have a couple more minutes. I want to end by saying a few things. This is the law. I ask you to use this as a guide to your deliberations. It's not about trying to figure out exactly what happened. Your only goal is to answer the question. Is there a reasonable doubt? Did they prove beyond a reasonable doubt this was not self-defense? More than possibly. More than probably. Let that guide your deliberations. It's a way to simplify things. After you talk about any piece of evidence. Go back and remind each other. Yeah. But does that prove this beyond a reasonable doubt? Let that guide your deliberations. You know, I couldn't help but think last night. When they moved here to the United States. There's these constitutional rights that we all have. They didn't know it at the time, but it was for a moment just like this. When the jury of his peers would come together. And follow the law. And follow through on the oath that you took. I want to end with a quote. There was a politician back in the day who was giving a speech. And it was to other politicians. But I think it applies pretty well to jury service. It says, For of those to whom much is given, much is required. And when at some future date the High Court of History sits in judgment on each of us. Recording whether in our brief span of service we fulfilled our responsibilities to the state. Our success or failure will be judged by the answer to four questions. First, were we truly men and women of courage? Second, were we truly men and women of judgment? Third, were we truly men and women of integrity? And finally, were we truly men and women of dedication? I ask you to keep those four things in mind as you deliberate.
[01:46:23] Speaker ?: Courage.
[01:46:24] Speaker 4: Courage. To follow the law and do what's right, even if it may not be popular. Judgment. Judgment to see through some of these ideas that he had a financial motive that was cheaper to kill her. Common sense judgment? Common sense judgment? Dedication. Dedication. Dedication to these principles. To these principles and our Constitution. Dedication to it. Uncompromised dedication. Dedication to the presumption of innocence and reasonable doubt. Dedication to the presumption of innocence and reasonable doubt. Deliberate that way. Uphold your oath. Follow the law. Let this guide you. Enforce the reasonable doubt standard. Follow the law. Do these things. And integrity will be yours. Thank you for your time over the last month. On behalf of Dr. Coney and Manta Dirks, thank you all for your time.
[01:47:54] Speaker 1: Thank you. Thank you very much.
[01:47:56] Speaker ?: Appreciate it.
[01:47:57] Speaker 1: Appreciate it.