Defense Closing Statement

"The Judge said at the start of the trial not to judge the trial by how many witnesses are called by either side, and I am going to ask that you not judge by the length of closing arguments."

**Yes, this was TW's opener in his closing statement. Brought to you by the same guy that opened the trial by saying that he could sit on his side of the courtroom silent. Not ask any questions of the witnesses called by the prosecution. Not call any witnesses of his own. Not call the defendant to testify on his own behalf. And if the Jury feels that the Prosecution has not proven all of the elements in the case that it is their civic duty to return a verdict of not guilty. Genius.

**TW went on to talk about the impact the murder had on the community, and the big deal it was for Law Enforcement in a small county. And that somehow this made them rush the investigation and falsely point it at McClish. But the trial is taking place 5 years after the murder occurred, can anyone explain to me how that is rushed? I guess if you take into account part of those 5 years were spent on the rape, sodomy and intent to harm charges that he was investigated for, tried for, and convicted by a group of his own peers on. But the defense couldn't bring that up, now could they?

**In talking about Brzozowski starting the probe of Michael McClish in this case on false information (the idea that McClish was the father of Asha's unborn child), TW says that the investigation was falsely focused on McClish from the start, and that evidence was shoe-horned to paint him as the murderer. BUT McClish AND Asha both thought that McClish was indeed the father, or at least that it was a strong possibility. McClish eluded to Melissa that he COULD be the father of the child, even months after Asha's body was found. Not only was TW's point here shaky, it was a fallacy. IT DOES NOT MATTER THAT MCCLISH WAS NOT THE FATHER OF THE CHILD, ONLY THAT HE THOUGHT HE WAS.

**Another joke of an argument that TW used to paint McClish as an innocent man is how unprepared he was for Brzozowski's questions focusing on why Asha might think he was the father, after McClish had just told Brzozowski that they did not have an intimate relationship. Really, so lying poorly to the Police is an indication of innocence? If anything it is an indication of perjury and obstruction of justice. TW is worried about McClish being painted as a guilty man because of his past convictions, but he readily provides some of his crimes, and the attempt to conceal those crimes, as his defense (driving on a suspended license: violation of California Vehicle Code 14601, carries mandatory jail time and is considered a misdemeanor when the license was suspended for a DUI conviction, as McClish's was. Lying to investigators is obstruction of justice, which also means jail time). So he is offering up crimes that the Defendant committed as possible reasons for innocence? But the Jury cant hear about his prior charges a Jury of his peers convicted him of? Even when said convictions are directly related to this case? Going back to the idea that him being unprepared to lie about his relationship with Asha is an indication of innocence: Him not being prepared could merely be (and is more likely to be) because he was arrogant enough to think that Asha had not told others of their affair. He thought it was a secret still, that nothing from the crime would point back to him. But when it did (as Brzozowski inquiring as to the reason why Asha thought her child belonged to him suggests) he began acting strangely, and covering up or distancing himself from any aspect surrounding the murder. If anything I would say his actions during Brzozowski's inquiry and his subsequent actions point at guilt and nothing else.

**TW went on to talk about Darkness vs. Sunset. Again, I was rolling my eyes, and most of the Jury seemed to as well, because those of us that live in the Valley know, it gets dark here much earlier than anywhere nearby. Official sunset times for Santa Cruz City would be off by hours if applied to the Valley, because IT IS A VALLEY that runs mostly North/South, and the eastern ridge blocks light... There was even testimony, that the DEFENSE CALLED, that explained that it gets dark, and really dark, much earlier up Love Creek than elsewhere in Santa Cruz County. A side note here, when TW was addressing the Jury here, he made a joke about Twilight, the 'popular' 'vampire' franchise. So while DAJR ends the trial with emotion, seriousness, and vivid pictures of a heinous crime, TW is laying out pop culture jokes. One Juror cracked a smile, the rest looked disgusted. And what was he thinking? Most of the Jury is older. IF THEY EVEN KNOW WHAT TWILIGHT IS, they will think the joke is in poor taste with even poorer timing, and if they don't know what Twilight is, they will just think he is a jackass. Attempting to mimic DAJR's bond with the Jury, this late in the game, through a poor attempt at humor furthers my opinion that the Defense has been grasping at straws since day 1. If anything you look like a sleezeball. And I am sorry to say this because I am sure TW is a fine and decent person (even if he is a Lawyer!), and he has tried his best to put up a defense (even if it was based on confusing the Jury and those that testified with fudging dates CONSTANTLY), but he had nothing to work with. He can't put McClish on the stand, his family wont allow it because they know how poorly it went during the rape trial. And deep down, they must know he is guilty, as offering himself up to DAJR's questions would prove his guilt in a matter of seconds. Really, "So have you ever been convicted of a crime, Mr McClish?" /trial over.

TW said "the tarp particles [found on Asha's body and in McClish's truck] are distinguishable. And that DAJR saying that they are indistinguishable doesn't make it so." **Yes, I agree here. But the expert witness that testified they were indistinguishable DOES MAKE IT SO.**

"Mike is evil, and stupid" -This is a direct quote from TW. Don't believe me? Get court transcripts for 11/22/11.

**TW goes on to say that the Prosecution makes arguments about evidence that aren't proven. And then TW goes on to make arguments about evidence that aren't proven, and even worse arguments against evidence that IS PROVEN. Winner.

**In talking about Love Creek Road, TW says that people notice changes to it, it is not remote, and the body wouldn't have gone unnoticed. Thank God the defense isn't held to the same standards as the Prosecution! Why, even though this is blatantly untrue for anyone that knows Ben Lomond, does it matter? The answer is it doesn't. And if Love Creek isn't remote, that makes Santa Cruz a huge metropolitan city rivaling the likes of Tokyo.

**In regards to contamination of evidence, which TW spent a good deal of time on, he says that just because DAJR asked every person testifying that was involved with the investigation of the case about procedures, if they were followed to the letter, about chains of custody, locked doors, access to X piece of evidence, etc, doesn't mean there wasn't contamination. The only example he brings up as evidence of possible contamination is (I believe it was) Mata's shoe wear. He wore shoes at the scene Asha's body was found. He wore shoes at the Morgue. He wore shoes at the CSI garage. Clearly a bunch of evidence was transferred from his shoes to McClish's truck. Only when Mata was at the scene the body was found, the body was already fully enclosed in a body bag. So not evidence could have been cross contaminated from there. Mata has boots specifically at the morgue, used only at the morgue, and they are cleaned with bleach regularly. Clearly nothing hitched a ride on those shoes since they never left the morgue. And Mata was 'inside' McClish's truck, I believe TW's example was when he cut swatches from the passenger seat in the presence of Lara Walker, but his feet were never in the truck when he did that. Think about it, imagine yourself outside the passenger door of a truck. Now you want to cut section of the butt of the seat. Would you get inside of the truck, sitting/standing/kneeling in the legroom area, or would you be standing outside the truck, reaching in with your arms to cut the swatch? Standing outside is the obvious, more comfortable choice. It is also the more logical choice for an investigator collecting evidence while trying not to contaminate. So reason, common sense, goes to show he was outside the truck reaching in only with his arms. So how then does his footwear come to contaminate the truck. How do foxtails hitch a ride on his boots after miraculously falling off the victim, and then miraculously fall off his boots at the precise time they were [never] in the truck. and embed themselves in such a way that Lara Walker has to pry them lose from the carpeting that the drying blood has adhered them to? The answer, for anyone with common sense, is that they don't.

**Then TW went on to ask the Jury to think back at the demeanor of all of the people testifying when being asked questions by him vs. DAJR. He says they were in good spirits when answering DAJR's questions but not his own. I shed a tear for your hardships TW. This really came off like a child saying, "but they are mean to me!" Pathetic attempt to paint the testimony of seasoned expert witnesses as biased towards DAJR. And lets take a minute here, and even if we assume this is the case, what reason would they have to be short with TW? Could it be his asinine lines of questioning. His intentionally, and repeatedly fudging dates/times in an obvious attempt to confuse the witness, paint them as unreliable, and confuse the Jury? Maybe his constant assertions that there was contamination of the evidence due to their negligence, even though there is no proof of it, could be a reason why he might have perceived them having a poor demeanor with him. And there are expert witnesses that he could have called to get a different take, as some of the expert witnesses like Dr. Haskall testify 50/50 for the defense/prosecution, but there wasn't a different take to be had.

**TW then addressed the possibility of intentional evidence plants. I wont even lend this credence by going into it, other than to say it's absurd.

"It's not about where they found Asha's blood, it's where it wasn't found." -TW
**So it doesn't matter that a murder victim's blood was found in the car of someone that had motive? Someone that met with the victim the night they were killed? Someone that was about to be confronted by a situation that in the past they had made death threats over? Agree to disagree I guess TW, just realize it is probably 99.95% of the population that disagrees with you.