The Out-Lawyer's Blog

→The Bridge to Being Blog: http://www.jaygaskill.com/blog2/  

The Critical Time Line: 

Recall that Nina is last seen alive (by anyone except her killer) at approximately 3:00 PM on September 3, Sunday of the Labor Day weekend.  We know it was some time after 2:02 PM because it was then that she called Hans, probably to say she was running late to deliver the kids.  In the mid afternoon Nina does leave both kids with Hans per their agreement.

Flash forward.  Hans - or his mother – takes the kids to school in Oakland on September 5, Tuesday. Nina’s friend picks up the kids in Oakland at 5:30 PM., by prior arrangement with Nina or because she hasn’t materialized.  Either way, Nina is now missing and the police get involved. 

What happened between 3 PM Sunday, September 3 and the time Hans’ mother returned from that weekend?  What did Hans’ mother observe from the point she arrived?

The jury will soon be trying to imagine a scenario in which Hans’s could murder Nina out of sight of any witness, then dispose of the body in the hours following 3 PM September 3. 

I think the DA may be able to argue that Hans accomplished two things that weekend: (1) He put Nina’s body in the passenger seat of “his” car (a Honda CRX registered to his mother, Mrs. Palmer) and drove to a secluded place, where he temporarily left it hidden.  (2) Then he moved Nina’s car to the place where it was eventually found. (3) He disposed of the body somewhere. (4) He washed his car in order to remove all Nina traces (the corpse might have begun to deteriorate by then). Days later, as police attention on him intensified, Hans removed and disposed of the CRX passenger seat.  Will this Sell?

How long would all that take?  How much “alone” time did Hans have?  It is very hard to conceal a human corpse for more than 12 hours without generating horrendous odors.

Keeping the timeline in mind as a backdrop, let’s review the last three days of testimony.

THREE DAYS

Monday, 12-3

Han’s mother, Beverly Palmer, testified that she returned to her home (having been at the “Burning Man” festival in Nevada) on Tuesday, September 5th.  Hans said nothing about Nina.  On Wednesday the 6th, after she had rested, Hans told her that Nina was missing. “He didn't seem to know anything about it,” she testified.

The Honda CRX (owned by Mom but usually driven by Hans) was missing.

Mrs. Palmer’s favorite car is a Honda hybrid. Hans borrowed her favorite car – sometime around Sept. 6-8  - leaving Mom “stranded, without any car.” Hans refused to reveal where her favorite car had been taken. Apparently Mom rented a car, assuming that Hans’ car (her CRX) wasn’t working. 

On September 10, Hans called Mom from San Leandro, requesting a ride. Ever resourceful, Mrs. Palmer used the occasion to search for her favorite car; and she found the hybrid parked on a side street.  Mom then hid her car from Hans!

The CRX was recovered by police (who were tailing Hans) on September 18.  The passenger seat was missing.  Mom can’t really remember whether she ever noticed the missing seat at any pertinent time because she rarely drove it.

The headline of the day was Mrs. Palmer’s testimony that Nina had left her kids with other caretakers for a month at a time – once with a nanny and once with her own parents.  The defense will argue that Nina was capable of abandoning her children for a full year. The jury, in my opinion, will not buy it.

Tuesday

Mrs. Palmer answered a phone call from Hans about three weeks after Nina “vanished”.  The conversation was wiretapped.  Hans told Mom that his wife was a liar, loose with money, that she was a danger to her children, that she had kicked him once.  After his tirade, Mrs. Palmer repeatedly asked whether she “deserved” what had happened to her and repeatedly Hans avoided agreeing with her.  On cross examination, DuBois got Mom to say that Hans was not – in her opinion – a violent person.

Forensic alert:  The defense has now fully opened the issue of whether the defendant has a propensity for violence.  A door has opened—I wonder if the DA has anything to drive through it.

But the defense did make headway with Mom on the blood issue.  According to her, the post in the front room where traces of blood identified to both Nina and Hans were recovered was bumped by most everyone at sometime.  Moreover, the smudge from which the blood traces were recovered looked the same before she left town for Nevada and after her return.  Nina’s blood traces recovered from a sleeping bag in the CRX could be explained, it was suggested during her cross examination by DuBois, because the couple had shared the bag, and Nina might have experienced a nosebleed.

Forensic Note: Expect additional blood evidence.

Wednesday

Today, the jury heard sympathetic testimony from Nina’s boyfriend, Anthony Zografos, a engineer with a doctorate from UCB who had spent the day with Nina and the kids in Alameda on September 2. He last saw her on Sept. 3, 2006, when he dropped at her home. The same day he got a text message from Nina.  The time was at 12:55 P.M. “Love you lots” her message said.  The jury saw home movies of the couple and Nina’s children. The DA asked  Anthony whether Nina just vanish and abandon her kids: “Absolutely not.”  The jury, in my opinion, does not think so either…

COMMENT

During these three days, a stage is being set for a performance.  In the end it will be Hans himself who pulls this case out or drags it down. 

As additional evidence comes in, keep the timeline in mind.  What happened between the afternoon of September 3 and the time that Mrs. Palmer, having returned the previous day, awoke to learn that her daughter in law was missing? As matters stand, the noose of suspicion had closed slightly but many defendants could still slip through…

JBG