**This all transpired quickly, I tried to take short hand notes as best I could, much of this is paraphrased, anything important enough to have been a direct quote I will try and denote with ", this will be the same for all witness testimony appearing here.**
PROSECUTION:
What is your name, and can you spell your last for us please?
Amelia B-O-R-E-K.
Have you had a different last name?
Witaseck
Where did you go to College?
Poland, I met Asha there.
You knew Asha?
Yes
What did you study?
We both studied music, had the same major, and were in the same class.
What was Asha like?
Bubbly, friendly, helpful, happy.
Was she a friend?
Yes.
Did you move to the US?
Yes, in 1999.
Why?
I was curious, wanted to travel, see the United States.
What jobs have you held since you have been in the US?
Dental Assistant, now Registered Nurse in Pennsylvania.
When did Asha come to the US?
2000.
Where you aware Asha got married?
Yes I was aware.
Did you ever see Asha in the US?
Yes once, close to when she arrived here, in New York. She was working as a waitress and a nanny.
An Au Pair? **A live-in-nanny
Yes
Did you speak on the phone a lot in 2006?
Yes, February of that year we talked a lot.
Could you not talk much before that?
Yes, it was a problem, I was in a very controlling relationship.
What was your phone number back then?
[she says her number, New Jersey cell phone if I remember right]
What language would you speak to Asha during those calls?
Polish **Explained as Polish immigrants living in the US it was nice to speak to an old friend in your native tongue**
Did you talk on the phone between February and her death?
Yes, weekly.
What would you talk about without telling me exactly what your conversations were about?
Love, heartache, etc etc.
Did you ever talk about paternity testing for Asha?
Yes, I said she should go through with the DNA paternity testing.
Why?
She was going to need help financially with the child.
How many times did you tell her that she should get a DNA test?
Every conversation, it was the only reasonable way to help her.
Do you remember your last conversation with her?
Yes, it was September 9th, 2006.
What time?
10:00 or 11:00 my time, so with the 3 hour difference between 7:00 and 8:00 here.
Did you talk about what she was doing with the baby?
Yes, she was waiting for McClish infront of Ben Lomond Market, waiting for the manager she believed to be the father of the baby.
Did Asha ever discuss McClish?
All the time.
Did she tell you that he was married, and had 3 kids?
Yes, she told me he was married with 3 kids.
Why was she waiting for him?
She was confronting him to say she was keeping the baby, and that she wanted a paternity test. If he was the father, she was going to go through the court system to get child support from him.
She was going to do all this right then?
Yes, it is why she was there waiting.
What about the conversation, did she tell you what she was going to say?
Yes, we even practiced the conversation as she was waiting for him. I played McClish's role so she could practice.
What did she practice?
Saying that she was keeping the baby, that she wanted a DNA test, and that if McClish was the father she would be going through court for child support.
Did you add anything to her conversation?
No, she just practiced with me as McClish.
How long was the phone conversation?
8 to 9 minutes.
Have you looked at the phone records?
Yes
When was she suppose to call you back?
On Monday, she never did.
Do you recall what the last words she said to you were?
"He is here, I have to go."
**At this point Mrs Borek was crying badly**
Who was the detective that called you, and when?
Hernandez, he had been calling me for a week, I thought it was a salesman, I finally picked up but hung up after hearing a few words from him, again thinking it was a salesman. He left a message at that point, telling me he was a detective and that Asha was missing.
Is it true that at this point Asha was just missing?
Yes, but it had been a week, I was told it was probably going to escalate into a homicide case.
Did detectives visit you? Did they go through your records?
Yes, and yes.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
DEFENSE:
Asha was a friend?
Yes
A good friend?
Yes
Were you happy to help the Police?
Yes
Did you want to see the person responsible brought to justice?
Yes
You had numerous conversations with Asha during her pregnancy?
Yes
Did you visit her here, or did she visit you there, in New Jersey?
No
Are you older than Asha?
Yes
Were you like an older sister?
No just friends
Did Asha mention Michael her manager just once?
No all the time
Once a week you talked on the phone?
Yes, mostly on the weekends.
You expected to hear from here 2 days after your last conversation?
Yes, I called once and left a message trying to reach her.
Sometime after that you got a call?
Yes, I thought the detective was a salesman.
He never left a message?
Only after I answered and eventually hung up did he call back and leave a messsage.
During the course of the message did the detective suggest that they "expected homicide?"
Yes, I called the Sheriff, spoke to detective Hernandez.
How long was it before the detective came to talk to you in person?
A year
Did they show you anything?
No
2007 was the first interview?
Yes
Did you show them your phone records?
Yes
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
SIDEBAR CALLED BY JUDGE
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
PROSECUTION:
When you spoke to Detective Hernandez, did you tell him everything?Yes
Monday, October 31, 2011
The Defense - Opening Statement
In 2006 McClish and Asha worked together in the friendly, supportive environment that is Ben Lomond Market, a family owned business. **Should have been stricken from the record because it was clearly a hostile work environment where McClish, a manager, would later be convicted of some sexual assault charges levied by ANOTHER employee.
McClish was married, with 3 children.
His only crime up to this point was a drunk driving charge. **Only crime he had been convicted of at this point, not the only crime he committed and was later convicted of (READ: Rape, sodomy, etc).
Asha was pregnant in September.
September 10th Asha did not show up to work, McClish was 'concerned'
Days passed, still without contact, McClish grew more worried.
Police became involved.
Rumors passed that the husband, Richard, was not the father of Asha's baby.
Supposition and guess work turned to fact during the Police Investigation **Thats funny because evidence steers an investigation, not heresay, rumor or guess work. The same evidence that lead to a conviction of McClish as a rapist.
The investigation steered poeple to color McClish as responsible.
His conversations turned to his guilt, evidence against his guilt were suppressed. **Any evidence of this?
Police pushed witnesses.
There are two types of evidence: Trace evidence, and DNA evidence (which is "A byproduct of living").
**I do not have notes for his exact words, but he was pushing the Jury that cross contamination of evidence is easy, heavily present, common, etc. That DNA evidence should only be used as a guide, as it is fallible,
take it as a grain of salt.
**I should note that there were more people (investigators? Lawyers? etc) wearing suits that sat in for the Defense's Opening statement than I had seen at any previous portion of the trial. If I had to guess I would say most of them were lawyers.
**The Defense closed by reiterating that he may pass on questioning every witness, pass on presenting anything to the court, the Defendant could pass on testifying, and they would still have to vote Not Guilty if they felt that the Prosecution didn't present a case that left out all reasonable doubt.
**Also reiterated was that McClish can refuse to take the stand and testify on his behalf, and the Jury may not hold that as any indication of guilt. The 5th Amendment, which McClish would (Read: will) be exercising if (Read: when) he refuses to testify gives American Citizens the right to not "be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself," or to say it more simply: You have the right to not incriminate yourself. However, by pleading the 5th, are you not saying that you are refusing your right to testify on your behalf because you would incriminate yourself? So in essence are you not indicating you are guilty of a crime?
This section is much shorter not because I took less notes, but the Defense took much less time with their opening statement. And what he did say came off as sleezy, again only in my opinion: Who says, "I can sit here and do nothing, the defendant can sit here and do nothing, and if that guy doesnt prove it enough to you, the defendant gets to walk." WHO DOES THAT?! Even if that is how our system works, outwardly stating it as smugly as he seemed to, and providing almost nothing else in his defense seems lackluster. He could have said, "McClish is a family man, a standup citizen that I will show was targeted by the Police to be hung out to dry. The real killer is still out there, McClish is innocent." Nope, none of that, just "well I dont have to do a damn thing, and I can still win." Also the out-right-lie about Ben Lomond Market being a "friendly, supportive work atmosphere" we now know to be blatantly false, with McClish as the central reason for that statement being a lie. But the Jury can't be told this, even though I could prove it?
Jury members, do you believe a work environment where over the course of years several women accuse their manager of sexual assault can be labeled a "friendly and supportive work environment?"
Do you believe a work environment where a manager is later convicted of rape, sodomy and threats of violence all against of one of his employees could be labeled a "friendly and supportive work environment?"
Oh you dont? Yeah me either, so clearly BLM was not a "friendly and supportive work environment."
McClish was married, with 3 children.
His only crime up to this point was a drunk driving charge. **Only crime he had been convicted of at this point, not the only crime he committed and was later convicted of (READ: Rape, sodomy, etc).
Asha was pregnant in September.
September 10th Asha did not show up to work, McClish was 'concerned'
Days passed, still without contact, McClish grew more worried.
Police became involved.
Rumors passed that the husband, Richard, was not the father of Asha's baby.
Supposition and guess work turned to fact during the Police Investigation **Thats funny because evidence steers an investigation, not heresay, rumor or guess work. The same evidence that lead to a conviction of McClish as a rapist.
The investigation steered poeple to color McClish as responsible.
His conversations turned to his guilt, evidence against his guilt were suppressed. **Any evidence of this?
Police pushed witnesses.
There are two types of evidence: Trace evidence, and DNA evidence (which is "A byproduct of living").
**I do not have notes for his exact words, but he was pushing the Jury that cross contamination of evidence is easy, heavily present, common, etc. That DNA evidence should only be used as a guide, as it is fallible,
take it as a grain of salt.
**I should note that there were more people (investigators? Lawyers? etc) wearing suits that sat in for the Defense's Opening statement than I had seen at any previous portion of the trial. If I had to guess I would say most of them were lawyers.
**The Defense closed by reiterating that he may pass on questioning every witness, pass on presenting anything to the court, the Defendant could pass on testifying, and they would still have to vote Not Guilty if they felt that the Prosecution didn't present a case that left out all reasonable doubt.
**Also reiterated was that McClish can refuse to take the stand and testify on his behalf, and the Jury may not hold that as any indication of guilt. The 5th Amendment, which McClish would (Read: will) be exercising if (Read: when) he refuses to testify gives American Citizens the right to not "be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself," or to say it more simply: You have the right to not incriminate yourself. However, by pleading the 5th, are you not saying that you are refusing your right to testify on your behalf because you would incriminate yourself? So in essence are you not indicating you are guilty of a crime?
This section is much shorter not because I took less notes, but the Defense took much less time with their opening statement. And what he did say came off as sleezy, again only in my opinion: Who says, "I can sit here and do nothing, the defendant can sit here and do nothing, and if that guy doesnt prove it enough to you, the defendant gets to walk." WHO DOES THAT?! Even if that is how our system works, outwardly stating it as smugly as he seemed to, and providing almost nothing else in his defense seems lackluster. He could have said, "McClish is a family man, a standup citizen that I will show was targeted by the Police to be hung out to dry. The real killer is still out there, McClish is innocent." Nope, none of that, just "well I dont have to do a damn thing, and I can still win." Also the out-right-lie about Ben Lomond Market being a "friendly, supportive work atmosphere" we now know to be blatantly false, with McClish as the central reason for that statement being a lie. But the Jury can't be told this, even though I could prove it?
Jury members, do you believe a work environment where over the course of years several women accuse their manager of sexual assault can be labeled a "friendly and supportive work environment?"
Do you believe a work environment where a manager is later convicted of rape, sodomy and threats of violence all against of one of his employees could be labeled a "friendly and supportive work environment?"
Oh you dont? Yeah me either, so clearly BLM was not a "friendly and supportive work environment."
Thursday, October 27, 2011
District Attorney Rosell's Opening Statement
This was written bullet point style, as quickly as I could keep up with DA Rosell. Any comment after ** is purely my own.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Asha was 28 years old.
She was a loving, caring and wonderful girl.
She was seven months pregnant with her first child, a daughter, at the time of her death.
Asha never got to become a mother, the coroner removed her child, not a nurse.
She was brutally and violently murdered by Michael McClish.
He killed her because he thought the child was his, and murdered Asha to keep the secret.
Asha grew up in Poland, went to college there, studied music.
There wasn't an instrument she couldn't play.
Mella (Spelling?) was a friend from college that moved to the US.
Asha moved here soon after, meeting Mella in NYC once.
Mella continued to talk to Asha weekly, Asha would confide in her.
Asha took care of children in NYC, working as an Au Pair (live in nanny).
She met Richard, who was from Santa Cruz County, and they moved here.
She started working at Ben Lomond Market in 2005.
She was always bubbly, friendly, and caring.
Defendant worked, and was indeed her manager, at Ben Lomond Market.
Michael McClish was married, and had three children.
He would cut wood on the side to make money, as well as yard work.
Ben Lomond Market employees saw Asha and McClish together outside of work, in a social setting.
McClish would hang out and drink at the Felton Cemetery.
Asha, when she found out she was pregnant, decided to keep the baby.
She experienced marital problems, ultimately leading to her separation from her husband.
September 9, 2006 Asha worked at Ben Lomond Market.
She got off work between 7:00-7:30 that night.
She never returned.
Barbera Laughter, Ben Lomond Market's HR person, filed a missing person's report September 12 after Asha failed to show for work two consecutive days.
This was out of the ordinary, she never missed work.
Deputy Chuck Brzozwski (spelling?) investigated the missing person, and was referred to Richard Veil.
Richard referred him to the Pregnancy Resource Center in Santa Cruz, specifically Tauna McGinnus.
They had 16 meetings together, relating to Immigration, Paternity testing, and birthing issues.
Aug 30th session between Asha and Tauna: DNA Paternity testing for 4 people - Asha, Baby, Richard, McClish.
September 7-9th, AV told Tauna about the need for a paternity test in order to prove father, and to seek financial support in the form of child support.
AV told TM that she thought McClish was the father.
September 12th Deputy seeks McClish for questioning.
Deputy asks McClish how well he knew Asha, his response was not very well except for work.
Deputy asked him if there was anything else he thought the Deputy should know, MM: "No."
Deputy to MM: Did you know she was seeing a pregnancy councilor? MM: "No."
Deputy: "Can you tell me why all the information points to you as the baby's father?"
MM Response: "I am an alcoholic, sometimes things get cloudy."
Deputy repeats question, MM repeats answer.
Deputy: Have you ever been intimate with Asha? MM: "Well things happen when you are intoxicated."
BLM HR woman says it is clear to her MM could be the father of the child.
Asha met with a Doula September 7th (kind of like a midwife, without the medical experience, there to help single women).
Asha told Doula, Coleen Crawford, that she needs financial support from the babies father, and that she suspected McClish to be the father.
Police looked at Asha's phone record's, last outgoing call was September 9th, 2006, after Asha got off work at 7:42PM to a New Jersey phone number.
The number belonged to her old college friend from Poland, Mella.
They discussed Asha's intentions from the Ben Lomond Market parking lot, she intended to talk to McClish, telling Mella it was the manager of Ben Lomond Market, about DNA Paternity testing, and going through the courts to get child support, if the child was his.
Asha practiced what she would say to McClish as Milla played the part of McClish.
Asha's last words on that phone call were, "Here he comes, I have to go."
Asha's body was found around 5:00pm September 14th.
In the dates between her disappearance and the finding of her body, only the killer knew she was dead (Sep 9-14).
Asha's death: Black epoxy paint was found on the back of her skull where she was maliciously beaten with a blunt instrument that had Black Epoxy Paint on it, which it transferred to her.
She had been choked, strangled by a piece of rope, which was still around her neck when she was found.
She was covered in bloody foxtails (many of them, her blood).
Description of how the baby died.
Description of body being dumped.
The baby turned out being Richard Veils.
Asha was found September 14th by a woman walking Love Creek Rd, she was a resident.
During the time between Asha's disappearance and her body being found, McClish acted suspicious.
McClish's wife threatened to leave him if he had an affair, and for the prior 6 months McClish had been in constant contact with her, Melissa, in regards to his whereabouts.
McClish came home September 9th at 7:00PM, told h8is wife he was going to Ben Lomond Market to buy water, and that he would be back in 5 minutes.
He didn't return for hours.
In the previous months he had been vigilant about letting Melissa know his whereabouts.
Melissa called him several times trying to track him down, no response.
McClish arrives home, says he was at a Glen Arbor property he had been doing sidejobs at.
He said he was able to work in the dark, something he hadn't done before, because of motion sensor lights.
There weren't motion sensor lights, nor had there ever been.
On September 19th, McClish went to the dump at 8:00AM.
McClish came home Saturday evening with what his wife described as erratic behavior, he was clingy/cuddly, sweet and nice, this was unusual.
McClish told his wife that if anyone asks, lie and say he was home all night the evening of September 9th, reason he gave was because of his suspended license, for a DUI.
Wife initially lied for him to Police Investigators.
She finally came clean and told Police she lied at his request, he wasn't there the evening of the 9th.
McClish told his wife that the baby wasn't his, BUT he drinks and things get cloudy... so...
0.6 miles from where Asha's body was found, McClish was there on the 6th or 7th talking to a man about possibly cutting wood on his property.
McClish washed his truck on Tuesday the 12th, Wednesday the 13th, and Thursday the 14th.
It was an old dirty work truck that his wife, neighbors and coworkers said he never washed, let alone 3 days in a row.
Investigation ended up speaking with Brandy Johnson, another Ben Lomond Market employee, one that was friends and eventually lovers with McClish, with whom he had yet another affair.
Brandy, McClish and Asha drank together (Felton Cemetery).
September 13th, McClish calls Brandy (the day before Asha's body was found) and tells her to lie when asked if they were ever together outside of work. **I believe this was in regards to Brandy seeing McClish with Asha outside of work, not if McClish and Brandy had been together outside of work.
September 13th, McClish calls another Ben Lomond Market employee, Angella, tells her to lie to the Police and say that he (McClish) was never with Asha outside of work, didn't want them to know that he had been with Asha in a remote location, as again Angella had been with McClish and Asha at the Felton Cemetery.
Forensics were collected (PROPERLY), bloody foxtails were examined and found to infact have Ashas DNA on them.
The foxtails were found on Asha, and IN McClish's CAR.
Asha's hair was also found in McClish's car.
Asha's body had decomposing poly ethaline in a green/blue, source was a decomposing tarp, which Police found a match with the one in McClish's truck. They were found to be indistinguishable from one another.
Rope around Asha's neck had blood on it.
All evidence will show McClish Brutally Murdered Asha.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Notes: Defense wants Asha's confrontation to be inadmissible hearsay. Even though phone records could show that her last words were, "here he [Michael McClish] comes, I got to go." and GPS Info off her cell (if she had a smart phone, doubt it, so cell phone tower info) can show she was infact in the BLM parking lot at the time of the call. As could the security cameras that view the BLM parking lot. I believe it to be an outright lie that the cameras were inoperable, not recording, or in any other state of non-use. I am a betting man, and I would bet it all on them being perfectly operable and recording on September 9th.
Defense is worried about prior conversations coming into play, including that he wanted her to abort the baby, flagged as double hearsay. Also that Asha believed the conception of her child took place at the Felton Cemetery, which the defense really doesn't want admissible.
Like I said at the start, I already believed McClish to be guilty, hearing the opening statement by DA Rosell seriously cemented that for me. He had means, motive, opportunity. He is a convicted rapist, sodomite, and has made threats of serious bodily harm to female coworkers several times over the years. He is capable of the crime, but more importantly, he is capable of thinking he is smart enough to get away with it by coercing witnesses and lying to the police. His own wife, who has since divorced him probably due to his rape conviction, is now testifying against him (probably to avoid perjury charges on her own part). With this much damning evidence how can your defense be, "Well you know, I am an alcoholic, and things happen and things get cloudy when you drink. And yeah I met with her the night she disappeared. We drove up Love Creek to talk, but I didn't kill her up there, it is just a coincidence that she died up there, and on that day. Must have been a transient that brutally beat and killed this pregnant lady, kicking her in her stomach like it was a crime of passion. Yeah, while she was still missing I called and coerced three women I had sexual relations with to lie to police for me, saying that I never hung out with Asha outside of work, not yet 'knowing' she was dead. And yeah I washed my truck 3 days in a row, because you know I am an alcoholic and things get cloudy. I forgot I washed my truck the day before, oh and also that I never wash my truck."
McClish is serving 14 years for rape, sodomy and assault with the intent to do serious harm. Estimated yearly cost to taxpayers per prisoner in California is $47,102. His total cost for 14 years will be much larger due to the need for all his transportation for this new trial, but roughly: $659,428 which is hilarious because he never would have made that much working 14 years at BLM while supporting a wife and 3 kids... If he is convicted of Asha's murder, and that of her unborn daughter, he will be in jail for life. Assuming he doesn't get a shiv, and lives to be 75 (average life expectancy for a male in the USA) he will cost taxpayers $1,554,366.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Asha was 28 years old.
She was a loving, caring and wonderful girl.
She was seven months pregnant with her first child, a daughter, at the time of her death.
Asha never got to become a mother, the coroner removed her child, not a nurse.
She was brutally and violently murdered by Michael McClish.
He killed her because he thought the child was his, and murdered Asha to keep the secret.
Asha grew up in Poland, went to college there, studied music.
There wasn't an instrument she couldn't play.
Mella (Spelling?) was a friend from college that moved to the US.
Asha moved here soon after, meeting Mella in NYC once.
Mella continued to talk to Asha weekly, Asha would confide in her.
Asha took care of children in NYC, working as an Au Pair (live in nanny).
She met Richard, who was from Santa Cruz County, and they moved here.
She started working at Ben Lomond Market in 2005.
She was always bubbly, friendly, and caring.
Defendant worked, and was indeed her manager, at Ben Lomond Market.
Michael McClish was married, and had three children.
He would cut wood on the side to make money, as well as yard work.
Ben Lomond Market employees saw Asha and McClish together outside of work, in a social setting.
McClish would hang out and drink at the Felton Cemetery.
Asha, when she found out she was pregnant, decided to keep the baby.
She experienced marital problems, ultimately leading to her separation from her husband.
September 9, 2006 Asha worked at Ben Lomond Market.
She got off work between 7:00-7:30 that night.
She never returned.
Barbera Laughter, Ben Lomond Market's HR person, filed a missing person's report September 12 after Asha failed to show for work two consecutive days.
This was out of the ordinary, she never missed work.
Deputy Chuck Brzozwski (spelling?) investigated the missing person, and was referred to Richard Veil.
Richard referred him to the Pregnancy Resource Center in Santa Cruz, specifically Tauna McGinnus.
They had 16 meetings together, relating to Immigration, Paternity testing, and birthing issues.
Aug 30th session between Asha and Tauna: DNA Paternity testing for 4 people - Asha, Baby, Richard, McClish.
September 7-9th, AV told Tauna about the need for a paternity test in order to prove father, and to seek financial support in the form of child support.
AV told TM that she thought McClish was the father.
September 12th Deputy seeks McClish for questioning.
Deputy asks McClish how well he knew Asha, his response was not very well except for work.
Deputy asked him if there was anything else he thought the Deputy should know, MM: "No."
Deputy to MM: Did you know she was seeing a pregnancy councilor? MM: "No."
Deputy: "Can you tell me why all the information points to you as the baby's father?"
MM Response: "I am an alcoholic, sometimes things get cloudy."
Deputy repeats question, MM repeats answer.
Deputy: Have you ever been intimate with Asha? MM: "Well things happen when you are intoxicated."
BLM HR woman says it is clear to her MM could be the father of the child.
Asha met with a Doula September 7th (kind of like a midwife, without the medical experience, there to help single women).
Asha told Doula, Coleen Crawford, that she needs financial support from the babies father, and that she suspected McClish to be the father.
Police looked at Asha's phone record's, last outgoing call was September 9th, 2006, after Asha got off work at 7:42PM to a New Jersey phone number.
The number belonged to her old college friend from Poland, Mella.
They discussed Asha's intentions from the Ben Lomond Market parking lot, she intended to talk to McClish, telling Mella it was the manager of Ben Lomond Market, about DNA Paternity testing, and going through the courts to get child support, if the child was his.
Asha practiced what she would say to McClish as Milla played the part of McClish.
Asha's last words on that phone call were, "Here he comes, I have to go."
Asha's body was found around 5:00pm September 14th.
In the dates between her disappearance and the finding of her body, only the killer knew she was dead (Sep 9-14).
Asha's death: Black epoxy paint was found on the back of her skull where she was maliciously beaten with a blunt instrument that had Black Epoxy Paint on it, which it transferred to her.
She had been choked, strangled by a piece of rope, which was still around her neck when she was found.
She was covered in bloody foxtails (many of them, her blood).
Description of how the baby died.
Description of body being dumped.
The baby turned out being Richard Veils.
Asha was found September 14th by a woman walking Love Creek Rd, she was a resident.
During the time between Asha's disappearance and her body being found, McClish acted suspicious.
McClish's wife threatened to leave him if he had an affair, and for the prior 6 months McClish had been in constant contact with her, Melissa, in regards to his whereabouts.
McClish came home September 9th at 7:00PM, told h8is wife he was going to Ben Lomond Market to buy water, and that he would be back in 5 minutes.
He didn't return for hours.
In the previous months he had been vigilant about letting Melissa know his whereabouts.
Melissa called him several times trying to track him down, no response.
McClish arrives home, says he was at a Glen Arbor property he had been doing sidejobs at.
He said he was able to work in the dark, something he hadn't done before, because of motion sensor lights.
There weren't motion sensor lights, nor had there ever been.
On September 19th, McClish went to the dump at 8:00AM.
McClish came home Saturday evening with what his wife described as erratic behavior, he was clingy/cuddly, sweet and nice, this was unusual.
McClish told his wife that if anyone asks, lie and say he was home all night the evening of September 9th, reason he gave was because of his suspended license, for a DUI.
Wife initially lied for him to Police Investigators.
She finally came clean and told Police she lied at his request, he wasn't there the evening of the 9th.
McClish told his wife that the baby wasn't his, BUT he drinks and things get cloudy... so...
0.6 miles from where Asha's body was found, McClish was there on the 6th or 7th talking to a man about possibly cutting wood on his property.
McClish washed his truck on Tuesday the 12th, Wednesday the 13th, and Thursday the 14th.
It was an old dirty work truck that his wife, neighbors and coworkers said he never washed, let alone 3 days in a row.
Investigation ended up speaking with Brandy Johnson, another Ben Lomond Market employee, one that was friends and eventually lovers with McClish, with whom he had yet another affair.
Brandy, McClish and Asha drank together (Felton Cemetery).
September 13th, McClish calls Brandy (the day before Asha's body was found) and tells her to lie when asked if they were ever together outside of work. **I believe this was in regards to Brandy seeing McClish with Asha outside of work, not if McClish and Brandy had been together outside of work.
September 13th, McClish calls another Ben Lomond Market employee, Angella, tells her to lie to the Police and say that he (McClish) was never with Asha outside of work, didn't want them to know that he had been with Asha in a remote location, as again Angella had been with McClish and Asha at the Felton Cemetery.
Forensics were collected (PROPERLY), bloody foxtails were examined and found to infact have Ashas DNA on them.
The foxtails were found on Asha, and IN McClish's CAR.
Asha's hair was also found in McClish's car.
Asha's body had decomposing poly ethaline in a green/blue, source was a decomposing tarp, which Police found a match with the one in McClish's truck. They were found to be indistinguishable from one another.
Rope around Asha's neck had blood on it.
All evidence will show McClish Brutally Murdered Asha.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Notes: Defense wants Asha's confrontation to be inadmissible hearsay. Even though phone records could show that her last words were, "here he [Michael McClish] comes, I got to go." and GPS Info off her cell (if she had a smart phone, doubt it, so cell phone tower info) can show she was infact in the BLM parking lot at the time of the call. As could the security cameras that view the BLM parking lot. I believe it to be an outright lie that the cameras were inoperable, not recording, or in any other state of non-use. I am a betting man, and I would bet it all on them being perfectly operable and recording on September 9th.
Defense is worried about prior conversations coming into play, including that he wanted her to abort the baby, flagged as double hearsay. Also that Asha believed the conception of her child took place at the Felton Cemetery, which the defense really doesn't want admissible.
Like I said at the start, I already believed McClish to be guilty, hearing the opening statement by DA Rosell seriously cemented that for me. He had means, motive, opportunity. He is a convicted rapist, sodomite, and has made threats of serious bodily harm to female coworkers several times over the years. He is capable of the crime, but more importantly, he is capable of thinking he is smart enough to get away with it by coercing witnesses and lying to the police. His own wife, who has since divorced him probably due to his rape conviction, is now testifying against him (probably to avoid perjury charges on her own part). With this much damning evidence how can your defense be, "Well you know, I am an alcoholic, and things happen and things get cloudy when you drink. And yeah I met with her the night she disappeared. We drove up Love Creek to talk, but I didn't kill her up there, it is just a coincidence that she died up there, and on that day. Must have been a transient that brutally beat and killed this pregnant lady, kicking her in her stomach like it was a crime of passion. Yeah, while she was still missing I called and coerced three women I had sexual relations with to lie to police for me, saying that I never hung out with Asha outside of work, not yet 'knowing' she was dead. And yeah I washed my truck 3 days in a row, because you know I am an alcoholic and things get cloudy. I forgot I washed my truck the day before, oh and also that I never wash my truck."
McClish is serving 14 years for rape, sodomy and assault with the intent to do serious harm. Estimated yearly cost to taxpayers per prisoner in California is $47,102. His total cost for 14 years will be much larger due to the need for all his transportation for this new trial, but roughly: $659,428 which is hilarious because he never would have made that much working 14 years at BLM while supporting a wife and 3 kids... If he is convicted of Asha's murder, and that of her unborn daughter, he will be in jail for life. Assuming he doesn't get a shiv, and lives to be 75 (average life expectancy for a male in the USA) he will cost taxpayers $1,554,366.
Monday Through Wednesday (10/24-26)
I do not expect this trial to last the 8 weeks estimated by Judge and council. In the first three days, a few of which were still dedicated to Jury selection, the evidence brought to light by the prosecution, in my eyes, is damning. I should start by saying that I am biased in this case, but I will try to represent the information and testimony fairly and in the most neutral way possible.
Monday: Jury selection, the formation of a trial.
Both the District Attorney Mr. Jeff Rosell (hereafter referred to as 'DA') and the Defense Attorney Tom Wallraff ('TW') used the full allotment of 6 minutes during each wave of Jury questioning. Anyone involved with Domestic Abuse, or having suffered the loss of a close one at the hands of another was excused. And I can understand why, neither the DA nor the Defense wants a Juror to be clouded by their past experience in regards to assaults, murders (as one Juror's brother in law had just been murdered), or anything that would automatically go to paint a Defendant in a murder case as guilty. However, there were MANY jurors that had been affected, either directly or indirectly, by assaults. And a Jury is suppose to be representative of one's peers. If many of your peers have experienced assaults, or the fallout of assaults on their loved ones, should this experience not be represented in a Jury?
Witnessing the Jury selection was eye opening, there is so much you can learn by watching the entire room and not just focusing on the one Juror that is being questioned at the time. Also being able to watch the strategies of both the DA and TW, not just in the questions they ask, but how they ask them, is something that will be hard to put on paper. Even more difficult is going to be explaining the emotions, ticks, and tells that are expressed by either the Attorney's or the Defendant. As an example, during the Jury Selection process, McClish would stand respectably, facing the door while standing in front of his table with his hands behind his back looking professional anytime the possible Jurors would enter or exit the room. More than once prospective Jurors were asked about the feeling they got from McClish. One woman said she was creeped out, and obviously she was excused (A great strategy if you ever want to get out of Jury duty I suppose). However many of the Jurors said that he looked respectable, approachable, or he 'looked like a nice enough guy.' McClish would flash a smile or smirk, maintain eye contact with the Jury as an acknowledgment. However, when the DA would mention Joanna Asha Veil (JAV) and her unborn child, McClish would immediately break eye contact with the Jury, staring explicitly at his desk, head bowed. In several instances I watched him fidget with his ring finger on his left hand, which is now empty after his divorce, using his right hand. This did not occur when his attorney was speaking, only when the DA was asking questions. The longest he did this was maybe 5 minutes on and off, but never less than a minute or two. He was visibly flustered while it occurred, obvious that he was bothered by the questions being asked, or the ones he knew were about to be - It was very easy to see and anticipate questioning lines from both the DA and TW as new waves of Jurors filtered in and out of the Jury box.
DA Rosell had many different questions for the Jurors, however these are the few that stood out to me, either because they are obviously important, or because of the degree to which he would repeat them to Juror after Juror (denoted by a ~ with my comments following **)
~Do you have a strong opinion, for or against, the use of Scientific Evidence.~
**It was clear that both the DA and TW did not want Jurors that are CSI Superfreaks. They made it clear that scientific evidence, primarily DNA evidence, WAS NOT REQUIRED for a conviction, as one could be obtained purely on circumstantial evidence, if it were strong enough. Likewise they didn't want Jurors that were oblivious or flat out against scientific evidence.
~Delved into Jurors thoughts on the gathering of evidence, and likewise the legitimacy of it.
**Obviously TW is going to try and diminish the significance of any evidence by characterize it as untrustworthy because of its collection or chain of custody. Yes, we get it, Cops have planted evidence before, and they will again (FU NYPD). However here we are talking about a small town, a small Sheriff's office, and no perceivable reason as to why any member of Law Enforcement would have anything to gain by fudging evidence. No, there was no improperly gathered evidence, no bad links in the chain of custody, this is in my mind, just TW grasping at straws. He has to say SOMETHING against the evidence, so why not something so generic as, 'it was improperly gathered.'
~What are your feelings about testifying in your own defense?
**As one possible Juror said, "The DA on cross-examination could twist your words, catch you offguard, to make you look guilty." As he was saying this, McClish was very noticeably nodding his head Yes in agreement. A few Jurors explained that by not getting on the stand to testify in his own defense, as they would, they automatically (even if only slightly) see the defendant as guilty. Because why wouldn't you want your side heard, right? Well they weeded most of the Jurors that felt one way or the other out.
***A note here is that the Judge explained at one point that witness testimony must be weighed when there are contradicting stories, and that the status of the witnesses can be used to weigh this, ie are they a convicted felon. Well McClish is, which the Jury has not been allowed to find out thus far, even though in my eyes it is beyond pertinent to the case at hand, the first question the DA would likely ask him is, "Have you ever been convicted of a crime?" "Oh why yes, I am currently serving 14 years in Federal Prison for raping, sodomizing and assaulting with intent to harm ANOTHER BLM employee." Yeah, the Jury members that may have agreed with the nice, approachable guy veneer would have the cloth pulled from their eyes.
~Are you comfortable judging facts?
~Beyond reasonable doubt is not beyond all doubt, can you distinguish the difference?
~Do you understand that the DA must prove certain elements of this case?
**DA gave the example of a fake trial for a motorcycle rider not wearing a helmet. He must prove that he was riding a motorcycle (element 1), on a public highway (element 2), and he wasn't wearing a helmet (element 3). All elements must be proven in order for there to be a guilty verdict.
~Addressed reasonable doubt with elements, would the jury have a problem seeing reasonable doubt in one element and not the others...
~Circumstantial evidence can be used to prove elements, scientific evidence is not needed, problem with that?
~The Jury must not take into consideration any punishment for the crime.
**McClish was noticeably physically uncomfortable when punishment was being discussed.
~DA not required to prove motive, does the Juror have an issue with that?
**Motive in this case is obvious, however I can understand that the DA wanted it known he doesn't have to provide motive, so if he does, perhaps that will be the last shred of evidence they need to come back with a guilty verdict.
*******During this round of Jury questioning, the DA was composed, clearly comfortable, and projecting his voice in such a manner that I had no issue hearing him all the way in the back of the courtroom. He was light and seemingly playful with the jurors, eliciting full on laughter from them and audience members more than 4 times. Again, McClish was fidgeting noticeably with his empty ring finger during the DAs time speaking with the possible Jurors, not once did he smirk or smile at anything said by the DA, even if the whole room had a chuckle. Contrary to that, he looked irked, like he was upset that the DA was able to play the room better than he wanted.
At this point the room has laughed or chuckled at the DA's comments 5 times, and TW only once. Tuesday would see 4 laughs directed at the DA's comments and again only once for TW. I understand that laughter may not have the largest impact on the outcome of a trial, however it goes to show who the Jurors are comfortable with, and who is comfortable doing something risky like making an attempt at humor in a murder trial. Laughter helps to pull someone off the pedestal that a title like Chief Deputy District Attorney puts them on, making them relatable and in turn more trustworthy, in my opinion. Which segways nicely into one of the DAs last questions for the prospective Jurors: Credibility vs Likability, can you distinguish between the two when it comes to witness testimony?
Another aspect that is pertinent, but which I should not write until after the trial is complete, is the DA's questioning strategy which I found equally cunning and brilliant. This is more a note to myself so I remember to include it at the end, as I do not wish for it to be public until the trial completes, however ask me in person and I can explain.
The final Jury:
Four Males, eight Females.
Four are in their twenties.
Three are in their thirties.
One is fourty-ish.
Two are in their Fifties.
Two appear to be in their sixties.
Jurors: If I grossly over/under-estimated your age, my apologies.
Of the reserve Jurors we have a 50 y/o, two 40's, and a 20 y/o.
About half the Jurors wear glasses, so another note, if you want to avoid Jury duty, dont go in wearing your glasses.
Monday: Jury selection, the formation of a trial.
Both the District Attorney Mr. Jeff Rosell (hereafter referred to as 'DA') and the Defense Attorney Tom Wallraff ('TW') used the full allotment of 6 minutes during each wave of Jury questioning. Anyone involved with Domestic Abuse, or having suffered the loss of a close one at the hands of another was excused. And I can understand why, neither the DA nor the Defense wants a Juror to be clouded by their past experience in regards to assaults, murders (as one Juror's brother in law had just been murdered), or anything that would automatically go to paint a Defendant in a murder case as guilty. However, there were MANY jurors that had been affected, either directly or indirectly, by assaults. And a Jury is suppose to be representative of one's peers. If many of your peers have experienced assaults, or the fallout of assaults on their loved ones, should this experience not be represented in a Jury?
Witnessing the Jury selection was eye opening, there is so much you can learn by watching the entire room and not just focusing on the one Juror that is being questioned at the time. Also being able to watch the strategies of both the DA and TW, not just in the questions they ask, but how they ask them, is something that will be hard to put on paper. Even more difficult is going to be explaining the emotions, ticks, and tells that are expressed by either the Attorney's or the Defendant. As an example, during the Jury Selection process, McClish would stand respectably, facing the door while standing in front of his table with his hands behind his back looking professional anytime the possible Jurors would enter or exit the room. More than once prospective Jurors were asked about the feeling they got from McClish. One woman said she was creeped out, and obviously she was excused (A great strategy if you ever want to get out of Jury duty I suppose). However many of the Jurors said that he looked respectable, approachable, or he 'looked like a nice enough guy.' McClish would flash a smile or smirk, maintain eye contact with the Jury as an acknowledgment. However, when the DA would mention Joanna Asha Veil (JAV) and her unborn child, McClish would immediately break eye contact with the Jury, staring explicitly at his desk, head bowed. In several instances I watched him fidget with his ring finger on his left hand, which is now empty after his divorce, using his right hand. This did not occur when his attorney was speaking, only when the DA was asking questions. The longest he did this was maybe 5 minutes on and off, but never less than a minute or two. He was visibly flustered while it occurred, obvious that he was bothered by the questions being asked, or the ones he knew were about to be - It was very easy to see and anticipate questioning lines from both the DA and TW as new waves of Jurors filtered in and out of the Jury box.
DA Rosell had many different questions for the Jurors, however these are the few that stood out to me, either because they are obviously important, or because of the degree to which he would repeat them to Juror after Juror (denoted by a ~ with my comments following **)
~Do you have a strong opinion, for or against, the use of Scientific Evidence.~
**It was clear that both the DA and TW did not want Jurors that are CSI Superfreaks. They made it clear that scientific evidence, primarily DNA evidence, WAS NOT REQUIRED for a conviction, as one could be obtained purely on circumstantial evidence, if it were strong enough. Likewise they didn't want Jurors that were oblivious or flat out against scientific evidence.
~Delved into Jurors thoughts on the gathering of evidence, and likewise the legitimacy of it.
**Obviously TW is going to try and diminish the significance of any evidence by characterize it as untrustworthy because of its collection or chain of custody. Yes, we get it, Cops have planted evidence before, and they will again (FU NYPD). However here we are talking about a small town, a small Sheriff's office, and no perceivable reason as to why any member of Law Enforcement would have anything to gain by fudging evidence. No, there was no improperly gathered evidence, no bad links in the chain of custody, this is in my mind, just TW grasping at straws. He has to say SOMETHING against the evidence, so why not something so generic as, 'it was improperly gathered.'
~What are your feelings about testifying in your own defense?
**As one possible Juror said, "The DA on cross-examination could twist your words, catch you offguard, to make you look guilty." As he was saying this, McClish was very noticeably nodding his head Yes in agreement. A few Jurors explained that by not getting on the stand to testify in his own defense, as they would, they automatically (even if only slightly) see the defendant as guilty. Because why wouldn't you want your side heard, right? Well they weeded most of the Jurors that felt one way or the other out.
***A note here is that the Judge explained at one point that witness testimony must be weighed when there are contradicting stories, and that the status of the witnesses can be used to weigh this, ie are they a convicted felon. Well McClish is, which the Jury has not been allowed to find out thus far, even though in my eyes it is beyond pertinent to the case at hand, the first question the DA would likely ask him is, "Have you ever been convicted of a crime?" "Oh why yes, I am currently serving 14 years in Federal Prison for raping, sodomizing and assaulting with intent to harm ANOTHER BLM employee." Yeah, the Jury members that may have agreed with the nice, approachable guy veneer would have the cloth pulled from their eyes.
~Are you comfortable judging facts?
~Beyond reasonable doubt is not beyond all doubt, can you distinguish the difference?
~Do you understand that the DA must prove certain elements of this case?
**DA gave the example of a fake trial for a motorcycle rider not wearing a helmet. He must prove that he was riding a motorcycle (element 1), on a public highway (element 2), and he wasn't wearing a helmet (element 3). All elements must be proven in order for there to be a guilty verdict.
~Addressed reasonable doubt with elements, would the jury have a problem seeing reasonable doubt in one element and not the others...
~Circumstantial evidence can be used to prove elements, scientific evidence is not needed, problem with that?
~The Jury must not take into consideration any punishment for the crime.
**McClish was noticeably physically uncomfortable when punishment was being discussed.
~DA not required to prove motive, does the Juror have an issue with that?
**Motive in this case is obvious, however I can understand that the DA wanted it known he doesn't have to provide motive, so if he does, perhaps that will be the last shred of evidence they need to come back with a guilty verdict.
*******During this round of Jury questioning, the DA was composed, clearly comfortable, and projecting his voice in such a manner that I had no issue hearing him all the way in the back of the courtroom. He was light and seemingly playful with the jurors, eliciting full on laughter from them and audience members more than 4 times. Again, McClish was fidgeting noticeably with his empty ring finger during the DAs time speaking with the possible Jurors, not once did he smirk or smile at anything said by the DA, even if the whole room had a chuckle. Contrary to that, he looked irked, like he was upset that the DA was able to play the room better than he wanted.
At this point the room has laughed or chuckled at the DA's comments 5 times, and TW only once. Tuesday would see 4 laughs directed at the DA's comments and again only once for TW. I understand that laughter may not have the largest impact on the outcome of a trial, however it goes to show who the Jurors are comfortable with, and who is comfortable doing something risky like making an attempt at humor in a murder trial. Laughter helps to pull someone off the pedestal that a title like Chief Deputy District Attorney puts them on, making them relatable and in turn more trustworthy, in my opinion. Which segways nicely into one of the DAs last questions for the prospective Jurors: Credibility vs Likability, can you distinguish between the two when it comes to witness testimony?
Another aspect that is pertinent, but which I should not write until after the trial is complete, is the DA's questioning strategy which I found equally cunning and brilliant. This is more a note to myself so I remember to include it at the end, as I do not wish for it to be public until the trial completes, however ask me in person and I can explain.
The final Jury:
Four Males, eight Females.
Four are in their twenties.
Three are in their thirties.
One is fourty-ish.
Two are in their Fifties.
Two appear to be in their sixties.
Jurors: If I grossly over/under-estimated your age, my apologies.
Of the reserve Jurors we have a 50 y/o, two 40's, and a 20 y/o.
About half the Jurors wear glasses, so another note, if you want to avoid Jury duty, dont go in wearing your glasses.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)