either. I love my Earth wife and didn't really want to leave her. If it hadn't been my duty to return to Tarizon, I would have never left."
"Well, your wife is in a lot of trouble right now. She could well have been convicted of your murder."
"Yes, but I was assured that wouldn't happen."
"Well, I was trying to prevent it, but there were no guarantees. With your return, though, the charges will be dropped. The only problem is how to explain where you've been."
"Yes, what will I tell the authorities?" Mr. Wenzel asked.
I shrugged. "I don't know, but we'll think of something. I'm just so happy you made it off the ship. Let's get you home. I think your wife will be glad to see you."
"You don't think she'll be angry when she finds out the truth?"
"Yes, she'll be livid . . . but, I suspect, she'll get over it. The important thing is that you are all together and will never be separated again."
Lorrah, Tehra, and the others climbed into the Suburban with Martha Thomas. The Wenzels came with me. Tehra wanted to come with me too, but I reminded her that Kulchz was probably searching for her. Her apartment would not be safe and she certainly couldn't come home with me. She reluctantly acquiesced.
I told Martha I'd come by in the morning to check on everyone and discuss future plans. She agreed and drove off. On the way back to Dallas I called Charlotte Wenzel and told her I was on my way to see her. She wanted to know why, but I was afraid to tell her for fear someone might be intercepting the call. She said she'd leave the light on for me.
As we drove toward Dallas, I wondered how best to handle Gabriel Wenzel's return to the living. In order for Charlotte to be exonerated people would have to see that he was alive. Since he was sitting right next to me that shouldn't have been a problem, but I had a nagging fear that Kulchz and his men might show up at any time and snatch Gabriel and the kids away. He wouldn't be happy when he found out they'd escaped from the ship. I'd ditched my tracking device, so I wasn't worried about Kulchz tracking me, but he and his men could be lying in wait anywhere to ambush us. I needed to get Gabe in front of some witnesses soon, but how?
50
Closing Statements
Paula Waters
On Monday morning both parties had finished and the judge asked for closing statements. This was our opportunity to sum up the case for the jury and convince them to vote our way. By this time most of the jury members had made up their minds, so the closing argument was addressed to those few jurors still undecided. Unfortunately, we had no way of knowing which jurors were on the fence, so we couldn't focus our attention on any one juror. Each side was given thirty minutes to close. Francis elected to break his closing into segments—twenty minutes to start and ten minutes to get in the last word. This was the prosecution's right since they had the burden of proof.
Francis stood up and walked toward the jury box. "Ladies and gentlemen of the jury," he said. "I want to thank you again for acting as jurors. Jury service is a wonderful public service and you should be proud of what you are doing here today.
"I know some of you have been intrigued by the ingenious stories the defense has been telling these last few days. I've been quite entertained myself, but these stories are just that—stories, pure fiction. Ms. Waters is a great storyteller, but her motive is to confuse you with conjecture and possibilities. She hasn't come close to proving anything. She wants you to think there is reasonable doubt as to who murdered Chester Brown and his family, but there isn't. We know it was Walter Stanley.
"It is undisputed that Walter Stanley and Chester Brown were engaged in a bitter feud over a barking dog. Stanley's wife couldn't stand the constant barking so she called animal control, the police, and her attorney trying to get relief. She asked her husband to do something but his attempts to reason with the Browns failed. Eventually the feud led to a divorce which Walter Stanley blamed on the Browns.
"So, when Chester Brown advised Walter Stanley and the Collin Commons Homeowner's Association that he was installing a chain-link fence in disregard of the association rules and the clear dictates of the Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions of Collin Commons, Stanley was outraged, so outraged that he decided to end the feud once and for all by killing the Brown family.
"Although Ms. Waters would have you believe an elaborate triggering device was used to set the fire, it isn't true. Several of our witnesses have testified that the fire was started by a match and a can of gas. Ms. Waters would like to complicate things but don't listen to her. This a very simple case. Walter Stanley blamed Chester Brown for his divorce pure and simple. When Brown defied the homeowner's association over the chain-link fence it was obviously an intentional act calculated to incense Walter Stanley and the other members of the Collin Commons Homeowner's Association who had sided with Walter Stanley over the barking dog.
"I know that some of you may feel sorry for Walter Stanley. Perhaps Chester Brown went too far in defying Stanley and the Board of Directors. Perhaps he should have taken stronger measures to quiet his dog. Perhaps he shouldn't have built a chain-link fence. But did his errors in judgment justify murder? Did Walter Stanley have the right to lure the Brown's dog away, break into their house, douse it with kerosene, and set it on fire? . . . You know the answer to that. We have mediators, arbitrators, and courts of law in America to settle disputes. There is no justification for this cold blooded, calculated murder of five human beings. Three innocent children who knew nothing of this ridiculous feud were killed. Their lives were stolen by the callous, selfish acts of Walter Stanley, a pathetic man who couldn't face up to his own shortcomings and had to blame them on others.
"You all have a duty as jurors to render a just verdict. We have proven beyond any reasonable doubt that Walter Stanley set the Brown house on fire. We produced the butcher who testified Walter bought two steaks. We showed you the blood evidence proving that Stanley opened the gate and lured the dog away so he could enter the house. We produced a neighbor who saw Stanley in the alley just before the fire. We established a motive—the bitter feud between these families. "Whether Walter Stanley intended to kill Chester Brown and his family or just destroy their house doesn't matter. Breaking and entering and setting the fire is a felony and if someone dies during the commission of a felony, that is as much murder as if Stanley had stuck a knife into Chester Brown's heart.
"Thank you all again for your jury service. I am confident that you will now fulfill your oath to render a fair and just verdict by finding Walter Stanley guilty of murder."
Francis bowed slightly and then took his seat. The judge looked at me and said, "Ms. Waters."
I got up and smiled at the jurors. "Your honor, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I too am confident that you will render a fair and just verdict here today. I have watched you throughout the trial and have observed your keen attention to the testimony and evidence presented. For that reason I know that you must realize the prosecution has failed miserably in meeting its burden of proof.
"I'm sure you remember the judge's instructions in this regard. The defendant is presumed innocent and in order to convict him of murder the prosecution must prove beyond any reasonable doubt that he caused the death of Chester Brown and his family. If you think back the only thing the prosecution has proven is that Walter Stanley let the Brown's dog out. There is no evidence that Walter Stanley broke into the Brown house or set the fire. The prosecution would like you to draw that inference but you don't have to. If the prosecution can't meet their burden of proof then you should find the defendant
innocent.
"The prosecution complains we are trying to confuse you by advancing two very plausible explanations for the Brown murders. They claim Walter Stanley killed five human beings over a barking dog and a chain-link fence. We produced a suspect who'd made death threats against Chester Brown because he thought he'd stolen the woman he loved. Isn't that a more plausible explanation for the fire and subsequent death of the B
rown family? The jilted lover wanting revenge is the oldest motive for murder in the book, yet the prosecution calls it fiction.
"We produced compelling evidence that Ruth Willis hired Marty Ramirez to kill Chester Brown. We know that Ruth Willis was upset when Chester dumped her. We also know that Almatech Life Systems stood to gain millions of dollars by Chester Brown's death. These are all much more compelling motives for murder than a barking dog and a chain-link fence.
"As jurors you have the obligation to consider the testimony and physical evidence and give it the credence you think appropriate. That means you can use common sense in determining a verdict. Common sense tells us that the death of the Brown family wasn't the result of a barking dog and a chain-link fence. Sure, we haven't proven who killed Chester Brown and his family or why they were killed, but we don't have to. All we have to do is create reasonable doubt.
"If you're not sure who killed Chester Brown then you must find Walter Stanley innocent. If you think there is any chance that Tim Willis followed through on his death threat or Ruth Willis hired Marty Ramirez to remotely set the Brown house ablaze, then you must find Walter Stanley not guilty.
"Thank you for being such a serious and attentive jury. I have no doubt you will render the correct verdict in