Eight things I would like to know before the Desmond Turner murder trial ends

Today’s testimony was dominated by forensics experts, who described the evidence found at the crime scene and at the home of Michelle Clifton — where, according to Clifton, Turner slept the night following the murders. Clifton’s burgundy GMC truck, which Turner was seen driving the night of the murders, was likewise tested, along with other locations and vehicles related to the co-defendent, James Stewart.

From an admittedly layman’s perspective, the sampling and evidence collection methods seem to have been thorough. Unfortunately for the prosecution, they are also inconclusive. A thorough battery of tests performed on the truck turned up no blood samples. Tests of the bathwater at Michelle Clifton’s home, in which investigators found a pair of jeans and a dark blue XXL t-shirt (a rough match to what some witnesses say Turner was wearing the night of the murders) turned up no conclusive DNA matches with any of the victims. The bathwater also turned up no evidence of isopropyl alcohol contamination, a 2/3 empty bottle of which was found on the floor by the tub, and which the state has tried to prove was used to destroy blood that may have spattered the clothes.

The clothes did produce matches to Turner’s DNA, however, which proves that the clothes were probably Turner’s. It’s a nice link in the prosecutor’s case, because it raises questions as to why Turner would soak his clothes in a bathtub the night of the murders if he weren’t hiding something.  Speaking to news crews today, Marion County Prosecutor Carl Brizzi argued that it isnt’ the lack of DNA evidence on the clothes that’s important, but the intent behind soaking “prefectly good, dry clothes in a tub of water.” It’s a fair point, though, once again, we’ll have to wait and see if the judge is willing to make the circumstatial leap to convict, in the absence of conclusive DNA or blood evidence tying Turner to the actual crime scene.

Brizzi told me the prosecution expects to rest its case sometime tomorrow. In the meantime, and before the defense gets started, there are a lot of rumors swirling around. And there are a lot of unanswered questions. So, if you’ll allow a bit of speculative latitude (this is a blog, after all) here are eight things I would like to know before the case is finished, based on my research and conversations over the past year.

1. Will Reyna Banegas take the stand? She’s come up countless times throughout the trial because she was with one of the victims, 22-year-old Flora Albarran, the night of the murders. She was waiting in the car out front for Flora when Flora parked the car temporarily in the middle of Hamilton to run inside and pick up her five year-old, Luis. That’s when several witnesses say they saw Flora get pulled inside. She, along with her son, three brothers, mother and step-father were shot and killed shortly thereafter. (For reference, see the prosecution’s original Probable Cause Affadavit, here.)

Word is the prosecution can’t find her, which the state can’t confirm or deny on the record. But family sources tell me they know where she is, and that the state simply does not want Reyna to testify. In her early statements, she claims to have seen as few as three, and as many as five people leaving the house after the shots were fired, and was closer than anyone else was to the home at 560 North Hamilton Avenue when the murders occurred. It goes without saying, perhaps, that the three-to-five-man theory doesn’t line up with the state’s contention it was a two-man job.

Then again, even if there were three to five men, it certainly doesn’t exonerate Turner or his alleged accomplice, James Stewart (who faces a jury trial in December). Clearly it would complicate the prosecution’s story. But I know a lot of people who would like to see all involved parties punished.

2. Where is Charles Brown? Rumor has it Brown has skipped out on his subpoena and can’t be found. Like most of the witnesses, he is tied into the Welch / Griffith family, by way of a six year relationship he had with Kathern Dodson, the mother to his children. Kathern claimed on Friday that he was inside his home at the Dodson’s house, across the street from 560, cooking the whole time. But other accounts of his whereabouts have been more ambiguous, and his name has come up repeatedly in connection with this crime.

The defense seems like it would like to shift a certain amount of suspicion to him if it can. Brandon Griffith offered testimony that Charles Brown was on Aaron Swartz’s porch with Desmond Turner the night of the murders, when Turner is alleged to have asked Swartz for a roll of duct tape so he could bind and “rob the Mexicans.” Griffith also told police in early statements that he was “afraid of Charles Brown,” for reasons he doesn’t seem to want to go into now.

Some believe Kathern Dodson was trying to protect him by telling the court that the two of them are no longer together. Again, the prosecution could neither confirm or deny right now that Brown has skipped town.

3. What was Aaron Swartz’s involvement? He and others testified that when Turner asked him for a roll of duct tape on Swartz’s porch, shortly before the murders, he merely pretended to look for some, then told Turner he didn’t have any. In yesterday’s testimony from Detective Thomas Lehn, we found out that Brandon Griffith told police that Aaron had, indeed, given Turner some duct tape. I confess that if he is implicated, it will have gone against my instincts about Swartz, who seemed genuinely distraught by the murders, and angry at Brandon Griffith for having allegedly provoked Turner into committing the robbery. But the defense clearly wants the judge to believe that Swartz’s emotion on the stand is due to guilt for his role, not because he merely feels sorry the murders happened.

Despite Griffith’s claims and the defense’s implications, it should be noted that the victims were not bound by duct tape, nor has any duct tape been recovered as far as I know.

4. I’m curious why Brandon Griffith is contradicting his original statements to the police. Back in 2006, he said he provided information to Turner about a stash of money he believed existed at the Albarran/Covarrubias home. Now he says he didn’t, and that police coerced him into saying that. Clearly the state hasn’t cut a deal with him, or he’d have no reason to recant those statements. I could understand that perhaps the state doesn’t want to offer any deals in case it decides to prosecute him for his possible involvement down the road. But it also seems to me that his previous statements fortify the state’s overall theory about what happened, as originally outlined in the PC affadavit.

It also seems that for him to be contradicting his previous statements now cuts to the heart of his credibility as the state’s key witness. The state can’t confirm that no offer was made. I wonder if we’ll find out the reasoning when this is all over?

5. The defense has alluded several times to a 9mm slug found on the crime scene, which would constitute the third firearm to have been discharged on the property at some point. According to testimony from forensic pathologists, no 9mm slugs were found in any of the deceased. Will the defense be able to demonstrate that a 9mm was fired on the night of the murders?

6. A quick bit of background: The defense has always alleged that the murders of those seven family members was the outgrowth of a family feud between the Griffith/Welch/Gwinn extended family and the Albarran/Covarrubias family. At the heart of the feud was a relationship between Mario Albarran, brother, son, step-son and uncle to the deceased, and Jennifer Scott, the mother of Jamie Gwinn’s children, which began while Gwinn was in prison.

In a recent pre-trial hearing, I learned that Jamie Gwinn made phone calls to his children roughly a half-hour before, and a half-hour after the murders were committed. By themselves, of course, the phone calls mean nothing. But could it also imply something more conspiratorial? The defense counsel, led by Lorinda Youngcourt and Brent Westerfeld, has done an excellent job of sowing that seed in its cross-examinations of the prosecution’s witnesses so far. Will Jamie Gwinn take the stand for questioning along these lines as well?

7. Did Turner, his co-defendant, James Stewart, or Brandong Griffith have any known gang affiliation? The color red has been noted several times throughout the trial: on the face of one of the men seen entering the murder house, and as a color associated with the kids who “claim H-Block,” slang for the 500 block of N. Hamilton Avenue, and thought to have some sort of gangland connotations.

8. Do the Griffith/Welch/Gwinns believe Mario Albarran was responsible for landing Jamie Gwinn in prison? Confiscated MySpace photos of Griffith holding several guns — including what looks like an automatic assault rifle — also bear the message “Stop Snitching.” In opening arguments, the defense claims that the Griffith/Welch/Gwinns were often heard to yell “Snitch” when ever Mario was on the block — something which Mario denied on the stand. Could this be a factor in the chain of events that led to the murders?

Lots to learn before the end of the week, when the trial is set to end. And there may be things we never learn. Stay tuned.