Closing Arguments
November 9, 20111
*Note (01/06/12-I haven't finished transcribing from audio, but it's SO MUCH that I'm posting what I have now. The rest should be up in a few days)
Prosecution - Kandy Gies
Council, good morning.
“He’s going to hurt me” those were the words Lori Blaylock said to Bend Police Officer Eric Stuplin. Lori said those words May 3, 2010 on her bed, curled up in the fetal position crying hysterical. Lori Blaylock called 911, Lori Blaylock feared Steven Blaylock the defendant here, was going to hurt her. October 26, 2010 Lori Blaylock is leaving work; she’s talking to a coworker as they’re walking out, Andy Knight. She tells Andy Knight, “I hope Steve’s not drunk when I get home.” Andy Knight was the last coworker, last friend to see Lori Blaylock alive.
The Defendant intentionally killed, murdered, Lori Blaylock. The state has the burden of proof in a criminal case to prove the defendant committed the crime of murder, the state must prove the defendant committed an act and he had a specific mental space. For the crime of murder, the defendant intentionally killed Lori Blaylock, the act was killing her. You’ve heard in opening statements, you’ve heard in testimony, You’ll see in the physical evidence that you’ll have the opportunity when to go back to deliberation to look at, the defendant admits he killed Lori Blaylock, the defendant admits the act. The evidence surrounding the defendant’s act what he did before, what he did after, demonstrates and proves the defendant’s intent. You’ve heard testimony, you got to learn who and what Lori Blaylock was. Lori Blaylock was a very dedicated and dependable worker. She was loved at St. Charles, people depended on her, people liked working with her, she was a compassionate person, took good care of her patients, spent her professional career caring for other people.
You’ve heard from Marissa she was a loving Aunt, all of her coworkers described Lori Blaylock as being very calm under pressure. If there was a high stress situation at work, Lori Blaylock was the coworker they wanted there with them. I think you’ll recall Rick Frost’s testimony, if he was a patient, Lori Blaylock was who he’d want taking care of him. She’s been described witness, after witness, after witness, friends, coworkers, her niece, she’s a non-violent person. She’s never been seen to hit, kick, punch, get in any type of physical altercation.
The Defendant killing Lori Blaylock was not an accident. An accident happens, somebody gets hurt, somebody’s unconscious, what is the first thing that you do? Whether it is your spouse, your family, your friend, or even a stranger, you call 911. Is there something we can do? You call for help. You call the police, you call the paramedics. This was not an accident. Look at the defendant’s behavior, to determine the defendant’s intent. This was not the defendant fighting for his life. You’ve seen the photographs, and you’ve heard testimony of all the witnesses who saw the defendant the week of October 26th and the next week, these photos were taken November 2nd, the only injury on the defendant is a scratch on his cheek. And I apologize these photos are fairly small, you get to look at these photos very carefully when you go back to deliberate. These photos, the testimony you heard, and the evidence in this case was NOT that the defendant was fighting for his life.
The defendant murdered Lori Blaylock, her killing was not in any way justified. Again, in determining what the defendant’s intent was, what was Steven Blaylock thinking, when he killed Lori Blaylock. Look at his actions. Look at what de did from that moment forward. He destroyed all evidence of the murder. He removed Lori Blaylock’s body from the home, conceals the body, he then disposes-dumps Lori Blaylock’s body miles and miles away on the other side of the mountain. He altered the crime scene. And he lied. Not only did the defendant lie to his friends, to his family, to Lori Blaylock’s friends, coworkers, family, to the community, to the police. “My wife walked away. My wife got angry, she was drunk, she’s missing, help me find her”, after having destroyed the crime scene. Had he contacted police that night, we’d know, right here right now, how drunk the defendant was, we’d know what condition he was in, we would know specifically how he killed Lori Blaylock. He destroyed all that. He took that away. Now he wants you to reward him for that behavior. He bought himself time. He murdered Lori Blaylock, he destroys the evidence, a week goes by, thankfully, Lori Blaylock’s coworkers and friends decided to contact police.
Something’s not right here. Something’s not making sense, she wouldn’t miss a meeting, she wouldn’t miss a presentation, and absolutely, she wouldn’t NOT show up for work. You heard her coworkers, you heard her supervisors, she has never, not once, had an issue at work where she didn’t show up, where she was late, where she was tardy. Exactly the opposite, she was the stellar employee. She was the standard that everybody else wanted to live up to. Bend Police Dept immediately starts investigating immediate number one red flag- Steven Blaylock never reported his wife was missing. Never contacted the police. Coworkers and friends contacted the police. Police then contacted the defendant.
The defendant is asking that you reward him. Now that he’s removed and destroyed all the physical evidence that would show cause of death, now that he’s lied and told story, after story, after story, we’re going to talk about that. His stories change and evolve every time he tells a story to someone. Now that he’s got caught. Now that he knows the investigators are working hard on this case, they found blood in the trailer, they’ve identified it as human blood, the defendant knows he needs to come up with a new story.
He thinks that now that he’s eliminated all physical evidence, now that he’s taken that away from you, you don’t get to see it, the only story you can believe it whatever story he wants to tell you. Don’t listen. The defendant has written two separate letters in this case, you’ll get to look at those carefully, you’ve already gotten to read them once, and the more you read them, the more you read them, the more jumps out. The one letter he’s written, the logbook found at the house, long before the defendant has any reason to come in here and make up stories to get out of it. In fact if you take a look at that log note, we were calling it the ‘confession letter’, I think it’s actually a suicide note. When you read that carefully, the defendant did not intend to be here. He told you in that letter what he did, why he did it, and why he alone is responsible for what happened, for the murder of Lori Blaylock.
Jump ahead, once he’s in jail, once he’s been sitting in jail for over a month, you got to see the second letter. The Dear Jane letter. He writes it to a relative, and in that letter he states, “I don’t plan on being in here for long.” But I’ll get to that later. And then he writes about some other stuff, then he talks about how physically active he’s been, his first day in jail he claims he’s done 560 push-ups. Then he segues into his description of an attack on him, where he would have horrible injuries, not depicted in the photographs, not corroborated by the evidence we have, he claims he might have a broken rib, it still hurts, his ear still rings, yet he claims he just did 560 push-ups. Look carefully when you analyze what the defendant has just said, before he’s arrested vs. after he’s arrested. When we look at his letters and his writings, we start with the note, when police go to the house, execute the search warrant, and they find in a jacket pocket, a note. A list.
Now we heard a testimony yesterday, from a witness who came in and testified, Patricia Lassiter, and then she left, met with the defendants friends and family, came back the next morning with the miraculous story that “Oh, I told him to write this, to help find his wife.” Look at this piece of evidence carefully, you’ll have it with you in deliberation, Exhibit # 23; ‘Check Life Insurance.’ How is that going to help you find a missing person? I submit that testimony was not, truthful testimony.
November 2nd, the defendant was interviewed. The defendant was interviewed by Detective Pat Hartley. When Detective Pat Hartley interviewed the defendant, the defendant tells his story, ‘there is a bet over a baseball game, $2 bet, my wife was intoxicated, she walked away pissed, I haven’t seen her since’. In going through the interview, Detective Hartley asked the defendant – Write me a timeline, beginning with October 26th, the date that her coworkers last saw her at work, somebody other than the defendant saw her, from that date forward, write me a timeline to help us, the Bend PD investigators, find out where she might have gone. And this is what the defendant writes. Basically comes home, showers, hang out, go to work, come home, go to work, come home… You take this timeline that the defendant writes, at no time does he tell you, he was attacked. At no time does he tell you any type of altercation took place, and in fact from the testimony you’ve heard he’s been at the Reed Pub, he’s been out doing things, none of that’s on here. From here we know he went to work, he came home, he went to work, he came home, we also know he went to Silverton. This is important. And I’ll ask that when you look at the defendant’s writing carefully, you look for the kernel of truth that exists in each of his writings, in each of his statements that he made. I think it’s human nature, when people make up crazy bizarre lies, when they make up excuses, they ground it to something. Something that really occurred. Here he’s leaving out tons of stuff, but he talks about the fact he went to Silverton at 10:00 AM. That’s important to remember because we know he doesn’t arrive in Silverton on Saturday, October 30th around 3:30-4:30 in the afternoon. In fact we know it was after 3:30 because at 3:30 his son Nash sends him a text message, which you’ll have all the phone records, they’re in evidence, you can see that text message: “Where are you?” I believe it’s just after 3:30, on Saturday, he’s still not in Silverton.
When you look at that confession letter, the suicide note, remember again, this is before the defendant has been arrested, but at a time when the defendant realizes, O.K., I’ve been interviewed by Detective Hartley, he’s been interviewed by Oregon State Police, Detective Kaber, and he’s realizing the police know, they’re figuring things out, it’s only a matter of time. In the confession letter, the defendant describes what he did, he doesn’t make any excuses, he writes about what HE did. You’ll have this with you, Ex#25, I believe there’s also a copy, Defense Ex#103, that’s out of the bag. This actually went to the crime lab, you’ll see the crime lab report, it was analyzed, it was determined to be the defendant’s handwriting, it was also analyzed because the first page, I think you saw on the copy you got, the first page is not a whole page, there’s a piece missing, it’s actually ripped out on the first page. If you do open this, the pages are all loose because the crime lab has analyzed it. The whole point was to determine what was written on the bottom piece. The crime lab was unable to determine if anything had been written and ripped out, so all the pages in here are loose. But when you look at this, when you read through the defendant’s suicide note, confession letter, where he admits he killed Lori Blaylock, look carefully at the tone. No excuses made by the defendant, the defendant apologizes, “Please forgive me, what I’ve done cannot be forgiven”. And compare that with the excuse letter, the letter he wrote to Jane after he’d been arrested, after he’s been sitting in jail. The suicide note, confession letter, he’s stating, this is what I did. When you get to the excuse letter, Dear Jane letter, he’s making up a story, how do I get out of this.
The defendant’s motive to lie. You’ve heard a lot of testimony during this trial. Things weren’t going well with this relationship. I think you’ll recall testimony of arguments over alcohol, arguments over the defendant's drinking, arguments over money. There are physical exhibits here, State’s exhibit 67, 56, 75. These exhibits contain the documents that show the inheritance that Lori Blaylock had coming. Over $90,000 in inheritance. You look for the motive of the killing, look for the motive of the defendant’s statements that he writes. The statement that he writes in the suicide note, the confession letter, he doesn’t expect to be here. He doesn’t expect that those notes are going to be read, studied in court, that was a suicide note. He expected to be gone. His motive in writing the second letter, he’s sitting in jail, he’s been there for over a month, and he wants out. He wants to get away with murder. Again, he wants you to reward him for his actions that he took after murdering Lori Blaylock, the fact he hid the evidence, he destroyed the evidence.
Let’s talk about Lori Blaylock’s motive. She’s not here today. She can’t tell us what happened, because the defendant murdered her. She doesn’t get to have a say in this. She talked to her friends, during the year plus that she was married to the defendant, she shared things. She had no motive to lie. I think you’ll recall, I think it was Rebecca Brown who testified. She was a friend of Lori Blaylock’s, they’ve been friends for a long time. She has since moved out of state. But she described when Lori told her the defendant has assaulted her. Lori was embarrassed. Lori was very independent, she was proud, she didn’t want the world to know, she didn’t want to talk about the fact that her husband had physically harmed her. Rebecca Brown’s testimony was very clear, Lori wasn’t the same. When Lori talked to her friends Rebecca Brown, Jeff Maundry, Kelly Fletcher, Jeff Brown, when she talked to these people, and explained the difficulties in her marriage, she had no motive to lie. She didn’t know we’d be here today discussing events that occurred over time because her husband would murder her. She confided in her coworkers, her friends, she told coworkers about other incidents where the defendant either tried to strangle her, or strangled her. She told Jeff Brown her husband had tried to strangle her. I think you’ll recall the testimony that she’d actually been strangled to unconsciousness. She told that to Julia Bachofer, and Julia’s husband Tim, she actually went over to their house after that had happened. Julia testified she didn’t see any marks, but I think you’ll recall Rebecca Brown went and stayed with Lori Blaylock, it was about 2 days after Lori described she’d been strangled to unconsciousness, and Rebecca Brown saw hand prints on Lori’s throat. Lori had difficulty speaking. Rebecca Brown, Julia Bachofer, are talking about the same incident. Just different times.
When Lori left work October 26th, the last coworker to see her alive, she specifically said, “I hope Steve’s not drunk when I get home”. I think you’ll recall Andy Knight’s response to that, “You want to come over? You want to come to my house? Have dinner with my family”. You’ll recall Steve Johnson, goodbye party for him, July 2010. After the party’s over, people are heading home, Lori Blaylock asked Steve Johnson, “Hey would you follow us home, would you come over, He’s escalating”. As recently as a week prior to the defendants murder of Lori Blaylock, Lori is still speaking with friends, coworkers, trying to figure out, when she talked to Jeff Brown, explained that she had been strangled, and say’s “Hey, maybe we can meet for dinner, and you sort of bring up counseling, kinda talk about how it’s worked for you, maybe we can get something going. Maybe, maybe my husband will listen”. They go to Brother John’s, and that conversation doesn’t go well.
Lori Blaylock is not here to tell us how the defendant killed her. She’s not here to tell us the specific details because the defendant murdered her, the defendant then disposed of-dumped her body in the river, days later, and altered the crime scene. The defendant’s motive, the defendant’s lies demonstrate and prove the defendant’s intent.
There have been several phone clips we’ve played as well as audio presentations, audio recordings of the defendant’s interviews when he was investigated by law enforcement. There’s a few clips here and I want you to look carefully at what was said, and how the defendant said, his demeanor, how he’s thinking about things. (Playing audio clip) 09:36:05
I don’t know how well you can hear that, you’ll have the tapes in deliberations. The defendant clearly states, “I want the fucking money”, “I want to pay off my child support so I can get my license back”, “I wanna pay you off”. Listen here again, I apologize for the volume’s not very good. Your honor with the court’s permission, do you think I could bring the mic closer?
Listen carefully to the words that the defendant uses.
Def: “The bitch tried to kill me” (laughs)
Jane: “I know” “Exactly”
Def: “That’s the way I’m looking at it. I mean thats the way I gotta look at it”
Jane: “oh, well, it is”
Def: “at least show me some sensitivity”
Again when you look at what he says, “The bitch tried to kill me”, “I mean that’s the way I’m looking at it, that’s the way I gotta look at it”.
Def: I get very emotional when I think about her
Jane: Oh, well of course
Def: but I just still can’t forget that night when she puts the pillow over your head and tried to suffocate you to death.
Jane: yeah
Def: I mean that kinda takes a little bit out of ya. (laughs)
Jane: yeah
Listen to that carefully. The defendant can’t even state that in first person. He can’t tell you Lori did that to him, because she didn’t. In his statement, “I still can’t forget that night, when she puts the pillow over your head, and starts to suffocate you to death”. This is a story the defendant has made up. This is not something the defendant had happen to him. And again, earlier when I talked about the kernel of truth, in the defendant’s statements, when you look at his writings, look at the tales he tells, look at the stories he makes up, there’s a kernel of truth, woven in his stories.
The pillowcase. Remember the testimony about the pillowcase. Bend Police Officers are out searching, based on the defendant’s story, searching for Lori Blaylock. The defendant knows she’s dead. He knows he murdered her, he knows he dumped her in the North Santiam River. He’s telling the world “my wife was drunk, she got angry, she walked away”. Law enforcement, friends, family, people are out there searching for Lori Blaylock. What does the defendant do? There was a dog search, the dog used the pillowcase for a scent, to try to see if Lori walked away from the house. He calls up, he get’s a hold of Lt. Ben Gregory at the police department, and he says, “I wanna make a complaint, the police took my pillowcase”. Not complaining, the police haven’t found my wife, they’re not looking hard enough. He knows she’s dead. But he’s worried about his pillowcase. Why is he worried about the pillowcase.
His description in the tale he tells, in the excuse letter he sends to Jane Blaylock, he talks about a pillow. He talks about Lori putting a pillowcase over him. He can’t tell us that. He can’t state that night she put the pillow over my head. Because she didn’t. It didn’t happen to him. The kernel of truth, the defendant suffocated Lori.
The defendant’s intent. We draw the defendant’s intent from his behaviors. The state always has to prove a person’s intent. There’s a criminal act, and there’s a mental element. We don’t get to open up a person’s head and show you, OK here’s the intent. We have to prove the intent, by what the person did before, what the person did at the time, how the person behaved after. In any murder case we don’t have the victim here to tell you. We don’t have Lori Blaylock here, because the defendant murdered her. You can determine, beyond a reasonable doubt, what the defendant’s intent was by the defendant’s actions.
Again when you look at the suicide note, the confession letter, look very carefully, they contain the words of a murderer. “To all, what I’ve done, can’t be forgiven”. “What I’ve done”. Not what Lori Blaylock did. Not what somebody else did. “What I’ve done, can’t be forgiven. I should have been man enough to walk away”. The defendant admits he had a choice, and he didn’t walk away. He killed, murdered Lori Blaylock. “This is not something I planned, I just snapped”. He doesn’t say, I was scared to death. She attacked me, I had no choice. The defendant says, “I snapped.”
Intent doesn’t mean you sit down, you plan it out, you think about it. Intent means at the moment you act, so at this second, bam, I intend to engage in the act (inaudible). This is not something I planned, I just snapped. Not Lori came after me, not Lori tried to smother me, I snapped. Then he goes on, “I can’t spend the rest of my life in prison”. If you think about it, that’s a very selfish statement. He doesn’t care that he just took away a human life. Marissa’s Aunt. Coworker’s friend from St. Charles. A decent human being who carried on a very worthwhile life. He doesn’t write about that. He writes about “I can’t spend the rest of my life in prison”. He does tell his children “Don’t follow in my path”, and in fact when you look carefully, and again when I say look at this several times, I again just went through this, just last night there’s another piece. “Please stay away from the alcohol, you’ve seen what it has done to mine, and other’s lives. You see what alcohol has done to my life”. That’s the defendant saying that he himself, how alcohol has affected him.
He’s not blaming anyone else in his suicide note. He’s taking responsibility for the murder of Lori Blaylock. The most telling at that moment in time before he has the motive to come in here, some motive to lie, the motive to get out of jail, he says, “I can’t explain what I’ve done”. I can not explain what I’ve done. You’ll be able to look carefully at this, there are several pages so go through it, and again it will jump out, the defendant takes responsibility for murdering Lori Blaylock.
“I should have been man enough to walk away”, again, letting you know he had choices. He didn’t walk away. He murdered Lori Blaylock.
“I can’t explain what I’ve done”. 180 degrees different than the next letter he writes. The defendant admits that he murdered Lori Blaylock, dumped her body in the North Santiam River. He doesn’t say what he did with Lori Blaylock’s body between the day he murdered her, and Saturday October 30th when he dumps her body in the North Santiam. The defendant admits that he lied. His friends, his family, he lied to the community, almost 100 people were out there searching, looking for Lori Blaylock on November 6th. The defendant’s out there, pretending to search. Then he lied to the police. The defendant’s admissions in that suicide note, and when he says he killed Lori Blaylock, dumped her in the North Santiam, those statements are corroborated by the fact November 12 he takes law enforcement out to the North Santiam, and he shows them, this, and you remember the video, very remote campsite area on the North Santiam, high bank above the river, ‘this is where I dumped Lori’s body’. And ‘this is where I hid her clothing. Officers spend time, it gets dark, they continue searching until they find a sweater and bra. The clothing, the sweater had blood on it, it was sent to the crime lab, the sweater has Lori Blaylock’s DNA. Lori Blaylock’s clothing, or pieces of her clothing were located exactly where the defendant told them they would locate it. This corroborates the defendant’s admission.
Kayakers then, about a month later, are there kayaking the North Santiam river, and their day is ruined, their kayaking fun is ruined when they see a body in the river. Very close in location, ¼ mile, river mile from the location the defendant admits, he dumped his wife’s body. The river’s too high, the eddy where they see the body flushes out, everything gets washed out and by the time divers get there, by the time law enforcement’s there, nobody is able to recover the body. I think you’ll recall the kayaker’s testimony from the witness stand, they were pretty distraught. Mr. Goeteddmoler, if I said that right, was very clear. He wishes he could have done more. He saw the body. He’s kicking himself for not trying to retrieve that body, but he didn’t want to deal with what could have happened had he tried to, and the body would have broke up. That corroborates the defendant’s admission that he killed his wife, dumped her in the North Santiam, (body’s found by these (witnesses?).
The defendant in that suicide note, and again I’m encouraging you to go back, read that suicide note, confession letter carefully. “What I’ve done can’t be forgiven”, “I should have been man enough to walk away”, “I just snapped”, “I can’t explain what I have done”, “I can’t spend the rest of my life in prison”. The defendant’s intent is clear. The defendant murdered Lori Blaylock, the defendant knows there is a consequence for murdering another human being, and he doesn’t want to live with that consequence. And he’s intending at that moment, to end his life. Those are the words of a murderer. At no place, at no time in that letter do you find anything where the defendant says I was trying to protect myself, I was scared, I was frightened, I was trying to save my own life. At no place in that letter do you hear the defendant say it was an accident. And look back at the evidence, again, if somebody is injured, somebody is knocked unconscious, even if you think you’ve harmed somebody accidentally to the point that they’ve died, you’re gonna pick up that phone, and you’re gonna call for paramedics, you’re gonna call 911. You’re not going to be out at the Reed Pub drinking beer. You’re not going to be pretending that life’s normal while going to work. You’re gonna try to get help, you’re gonna report that. If in fact, it was an accident. The defendant doesn’t come up with that theory, that excuse, again, until a month later when he’s sitting in jail. In that letter, after he’s been in jail for a month, and you’ll have that letter, Exhibit #36, in that letter, he starts off with, “I plan on not being in here for all that long”, but I’ll get to that later. And then he writes on, and describes what he doing in jail, how many push-ups he did that day, 560 push-ups, and then he spins the tale about being attacked, viciously attacked, by Lori, injuries that he has, still has, you’ll see on that letter, at the top 12-02-2010, he wrote that December 2nd, read it carefully. Blow by blow, strike by strike, kick by kick, and then look at the photos in State’s Exhibit #1, showing the scratch, on the defendant’s face. Again, when you read the letter, read it carefully, and look for that kernel of truth. The kernel of truth is woven into the defendant’s lies.
Once the defendant’s arrested, he’s in jail, he’s been there about a month, he’s now trying to justify the crime he committed. Evidence in this trial will show the defendant had been saving money. If you look just that weekend before, these receipts, he bought a shotgun on the 23rd, bought a shotgun on the 24th, he actually had a background check early October to be able to purchase the shotguns. He’d been drinking a lot. I think you’ll recall the statements Lori made to coworkers and friends, arguments that had been going on about the defendant’s drinking, Lori not thinking counseling helpful because of the defendant’s drinking, the statement October 26th, 2010, Andy Knight, “I hope he’s not drunk when I get home”. The defendant wasn’t paying household expenses, he’d been kicked out. He made a statement to Detective Hartley back on November 2nd, he’d been kicked out of the house 4 or 5 times in the past. Lori Blaylock was finally done, she’s ready to draw the line, I want a divorce, this is over. The defendant’s angry, the defendant’s drunk, the defendant has nowhere to go, he has no way to take care of himself, he’s upset.
Lori Blaylock was working hard. She was working hard, she wanted the marriage to work, they’ve only been married a little over a year. She talking to people about counseling, and trying to figure out, what can we do. In fact historically, she kicked him out, she let him back in, she’d kick him out, she’d let him back in. She changed the locks, and still let him back in. Historically this was a pattern. Now she wanted the marriage to work, or she wanted the defendant gone. The defendant knew Lori wanted him out.
You will see his text messages, you have the full records of it, October 19th, the defendant sends a text message to Lori, on October 19th, “Do I get to come home tonight? Or do you still want me gone?”. The defendant knew he was going to be out for good.
The defendant wanted a way out, his way out is to murder Lori Blaylock. There’s no question this was a dysfunctional, caustic relationship. Get counseling, get professional help, or get a divorce, you don’t murder your spouse. The defendant lied to friends, lied to family, lied to law enforcement, to get away with murder. He bought himself time, disposed of, dumped the physical evidence, and now wants you to reward him. I think you’ll recall, there’s some other little pieces, but they are important pieces, I talk about looking for the kernel of truth.
There were 3 separate police interviews that you heard about. Detective Hartley, Detective Kaber with Oregon State Police, then Detective Mike Tabor with Bend Police Department. First in time is the interview with Detective Hartley, there’s a little piece in there that’s very telling, besides the inconsistencies throughout all three, which I’ll talk about in a minute. The very telling piece is when he’s explaining, the defendant’s explaining that Lori Blaylock took out the paperwork on the inheritance, and I believe he identified that as Thursday, October 28th. Lori Blaylock was dead, murdered by October 28th. When you look at the phone records, on October 27th, 11:46 at night, Lori Blaylock’s phone is called from the defendant’s phone, a 19 second call. The defendant calls Lori Blaylock’s phone, to find that cell phone. Lori has missed a meeting at work, she missed coffee with Patricia Lassiter, she’s missing things, people are calling. The defendant needs to monitor Lori’s phone. He can’t do that until he finds her phone. By 11:46 on October 27th, Lori Blaylock has been murdered. She missed the dinner meeting that night, where a rep was going to talk about some equipment, she missed coffee with Patricia Lassiter, out of character for her to miss things. She was last seen on October 26th leaving work that evening, that’s the last time anyone besides Steven Blaylock, sees Lori Blaylock.
You will see his text messages, you have the full records of it, October 19th, the defendant sends a text message to Lori, on October 19th, “Do I get to come home tonight? Or do you still want me gone?”. The defendant knew he was going to be out for good.
The defendant talks about the kernel of truth here. He talks about that paperwork being out on October 28th, and he tells Detective Hartley that it’s Lori Blaylock that brings that paperwork out. She didn’t bring it out after he murdered her. The defendant had that paperwork out. He’s trying to make an excuse because he knows during the interview with Detective Hartley, law enforcement is heading out there. They’re at his house, they’re going to search his house. He agrees to this, but he’s coming up with excuses, he needs to explain some things. He needs to explain why that inheritance paperwork is sitting out on the coffee table. That’s the kernel of truth. He was looking at it.
Jump forward to the next day. November 3rd. The interview with Detective Hartley is on November 2nd. On November 3rd is the interview with OSP Detective Kaber. The interview with Detective Chris Kaber, the story kind of goes along with the same; my wife is missing, there was a $2 bet, and then when he talks about the ‘spat’, the term he used with Detective Kaber, he talks about this ‘spat’ that takes place on Wednesday night, he slips. That kernel of truth comes out. When the defendant talked to Detective Hartley, the defendant says she comes into the bedroom, jumps on the bed, and causes the scratch on his face, with her ring. When the defendant talks to OSP Detective Kaber, the defendant says He rolled her off of him, and pinned her down. Significantly different.
With the statement he gave Detective Hartley is significantly different than the statement he writes in his excuse letter, the letter to Jane. Nowhere does he say he pinned her down. He writes for pages about the attack on him, and he places himself flat on his back, most of the time under covers, and then describes coming out of the covers. At no point in that letter does he talk about pinning Lori down. Again, kernels of truth. Search for the kernel of truth woven throughout the defendant’s lies.
One thing that’s really important when you’re looking at what the defendant says, it is, I’m going to play a short clip here and it, and I apologize because I think this one’s going to be too loud. When he is initially telling his lies; my wife walked off, there was a bet, she got angry…. He is very convincing. I think you’ll recall Patricia Lassiter’s testimony, that the defendant was a convincing liar. She believed him, that Lori Blaylock had walked away. His family believed him, his friends believed him, Lori’s coworkers and friends, her family believed him. He was telling his story to anyone who would listen, he just couldn’t keep the story straight.
When you listen to this clip, listen carefully. There’s a few questions asked by Detective Hartley, and then the defendant tells his story, unprompted. He starts filling in details. He’s really good telling the piece that he’s prepared to tell.
Detective Hartley: So we’re trying to find your wife
Defendant: Trying to find my wife
DH: So, when’s the last time you saw her?
Def: Thursday night (inaudible, at our house?)
DH: So you last saw her Thursday night?
Def: Yep
DH: Where was that?
Def: At home
DH: Ok.
Def: And it’s not all that uncommon
DH: What’s not uncommon
Def: That she gets all pissed off and walks out
DH: OK
Def: It was over, you know, we made a bet on a baseball game, and I said you owe me $2 and she said (laughs)
DH: OK
Def: And, um, she’d been drinking real heavy, which is that kind of pattern when she’s not working. She went out to get in her truck, she couldn’t get her keys in the door
DH: Of the truck?
Def: Yeah
DH: Did you watch her then?
Def: I just kinda watched her, then I watched her walk off. There’s no talking to this woman when she’s in that mood. She usually just walks up to Stover park, a little off Meercat and Shepherd.
DH: Where’s Stover park at?
Def: Um well, kinda just below Pilot Butte Junior High. You take shepherd straight down from Pilot Butte, and Stover is just off Shepherd. It’s like half way down Shepherd I would say, and it’s just got a little baseball diamond (DH: OK, OK) for little kids and stuff. But that’s like her thing.
DH: So, she tries to put her keys in the truck and then what? And then walk?
Def: She’s just falling over basically, she just decided she couldn’t do it, and I’m just like, “what are you doing, just calm down” you know?
DH: Did you talk to her?
Def: Just briefly, there’s no talking, you know, I just said
DH: I mean did you go outside and talk to her?
Def: Just from the porch, I mean it’s just like, its not that far from the truck to the porch. And then we have several friends that live like really close, including like her niece and stuff. And it’s not uncommon for her to walk there and spend the night or something
DH: So Lori’s niece lives close to there?
Def: Yeah and Rocky actually just got a hold of um, Marissa
DH: OK
(end audio clip)
The defendant is very calm, very cool, very collected
**to be continued..
