Ever wondered what drives an individual to commit the unthinkable act of murder? Is it desperation, greed, or something else entirely? In our latest gripping episode, we invite you on a journey through the heart-stopping court case of Roger Caldwell. We dissect the prosecution's argument blaming Roger's extravagant lifestyle and mounting debts as the trigger for such a heinous act, bringing to light compelling physical evidence and captivating witness testimonies. Despite the defense attorney's relentless pursuit to discredit these testimonies, the evidence seems to mount against Roger.
As the plot thickens, we bring in the big guns - experts from the Boulder District Attorney's Office, the Colorado Bureau of Investigation, the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension, and an FBI serology expert - to examine the handwriting and fingerprint evidence linking Roger to the murder. But, to turn the tide, defense attorney Thompson challenges these findings, calling them inconclusive. We give you a front-row seat to the jury selection process, the dismissal of a juror, and the strategic use of opening and closing arguments in this riveting trial.
In a dramatic conclusion, we witness Thompson's emotional closing argument, urging for the presumption of innocence for Roger. He critiques the Duluth police investigation, proposes a theory about the real killers, and disputes the blood evidence. After days of deliberation, the jury delivers a verdict, leading to a tense courthouse scene. And this is just the beginning. Please tune in for our next episode as we continue this electrifying journey when Marjorie Caldwell goes on trial. Join us as we uncover the inner workings of the criminal justice system in this spine-chilling case.
Ever wondered what drives an individual to commit the unthinkable act of murder? Is it desperation, greed, or something else entirely? In our latest gripping episode, we invite you on a journey through the heart-stopping court case of Roger Caldwell. We dissect the prosecution's argument blaming Roger's extravagant lifestyle and mounting debts as the trigger for such a heinous act, bringing to light compelling physical evidence and captivating witness testimonies. Despite the defense attorney's relentless pursuit to discredit these testimonies, the evidence seems to mount against Roger.
As the plot thickens, we bring in the big guns - experts from the Boulder District Attorney's Office, the Colorado Bureau of Investigation, the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension, and an FBI serology expert - to examine the handwriting and fingerprint evidence linking Roger to the murder. But, to turn the tide, defense attorney Thompson challenges these findings, calling them inconclusive. We give you a front-row seat to the jury selection process, the dismissal of a juror, and the strategic use of opening and closing arguments in this riveting trial.
In a dramatic conclusion, we witness Thompson's emotional closing argument, urging for the presumption of innocence for Roger. He critiques the Duluth police investigation, proposes a theory about the real killers, and disputes the blood evidence. After days of deliberation, the jury delivers a verdict, leading to a tense courthouse scene. And this is just the beginning. Please tune in for our next episode as we continue this electrifying journey when Marjorie Caldwell goes on trial. Join us as we uncover the inner workings of the criminal justice system in this spine-chilling case.
Welcome to the murder book. I'm your host, kiera, and this is part seven of the murder of Elizabeth Condon and her nurse, mrs Velma Petila. Let's begin so now. This is the trial that began for Roger Caldwell on May 9th 1978. The trial attracted a number of daily spectators. The case also have drawn a number of groupies, middle-aged housewives who rooted openly for prosecutor DeSanto Throughout the trial. Elizabeth's younger daughter, jennifer, sat in the back road with her husband Chuck, but Marjorie made herself absent. While privately professing her husband's innocence to friends and family, she never set foot in the courtroom during the trial. Marjorie also passed on opportunities to visit Roger in jail. She remained in the Twin Cities with her son Stephen awaiting her turn.
Speaker 1:Before testimony began, the attorney spent the first hour of each morning in chambers battling over defense motions and shortly before 10 am on May 9th the prosecution made its opening statement. Prosecutor DeSanto rose quickly and turned toward the jury box to begin a two-hour overview of the massive amount of evidence and testimony to be presented. He would call hundreds of witnesses from Minnesota, colorado, california, new York and into more than 500 items into evidence. The motive for murder was the oldest. Was that the oldest who? One known to mankind. Desanto told the jury greed, plain and simple. Roger Caldwell murdered his semi-invalid mother-in-law, elizabeth Condon, in her bed. And he asked why? Because he and his wife were in desperate financial trouble that could only be resolved through his wife's inheritance. Roger Caldwell also was responsible for the tragic premature death of nurse Velma Petila being senseless for being in the wrong place. Desanto described Roger Caldwell as a jury as an unemployed fortune seeker who lived an extravagant, spent-thrift, dream world-type lifestyle. Prosecutor DeSanto detailed the Caldwell's outrageous spending sprees and the tens of thousands of dollars that couples their old creditors. He told jurors that the Caldwell's indebtedness, kept by a series of bad checks, led to Roger Caldwell's trip to Duluth in May 1977, to ask Condon trustees for $750,000, or at least $500,000, to stay out of jail. The trustees sent Roger back to Colorado empty-handed.
Speaker 1:Prosecutor DeSanto admitted that investigators could not prove Roger's motive of transportation. None of Roger's fingerprints had been found at the murder scene or on the weapons used to kill Velma Petila and Elizabeth Condon, though some were too faint or smudged to be identified. But Prosecutor DeSanto told jurors there was physical evidence placing Roger at Glensheen here. Fibers recovered from the mansion closely match Roger's and some blood stains were of his blood type. Next, the prosecutor offered jurors a motive for the murders. The evidence included the will, handwritten and signed by Marjorie, just three days before the killings, which gave her husband a $2.5 million share of inheritance from the family trusts. That was a carrot and not too hard to swallow, according to DeSanto.
Speaker 1:On May 17, a week into the trial, prosecutor DeSanto put St Louis County medical examiner Volker Goldsmith on the stand to describe the jurors the details of Elizabeth's death. Before he began his explicit testimony, jennifer Johnson left the courtroom because she didn't want to relieve her mother's suffering. Dr Goldsmith testified that the extensive hemorrhaging above Elizabeth's shoulders and raw skin on her nose were telltale signs of murder. Goldsmith's motion toward the pink satin pillow flecked with blood on the council table and he said, quote Ms Condon was killed as a result of suffocation with this pillow that we found over her face. The struggle with her killer had brought on congestive heart failure. End quote. Jurors were visibly shaken when Goldsmith testified that Elizabeth could have fought for her life for more than five minutes. But Goldsmith's testimony could not eliminate the defense's claim that the murders could have been committed as late as 5 am when the cook's dog finally stopped barking. By his estimate, the woman died between midnight and 6 am.
Speaker 1:Two of the prosecution's most crucial witnesses took the stand on June 1st. Desanto gambled that the airport gift shop employees would be historic witnesses. He hoped they would identify Roger as the man who carried a small Wicker suitcase and bought a suede garment bag the morning of the murders. The night before Prosecutor DeSanto had met with Sandra Schwartzbauer and Joan Kelly to discuss courtroom strategy. He wanted to try a technique Waller had picked up from FBI Special Agent Bob Harvey On the witness stand. If either woman could recognize Roger in the courtroom, she would signal DeSanto by folding her arms. If the woman failed to cross their arms, desanto would avoid asking them whether they saw the man from the gift shop in the courtroom. As each woman took her turn on the stand, desanto sat nervously and waited for the signal. First one and then the other woman folded her arms and pointed to Roger as the man each of them had seen June 27 at Minneapolis St Paul International Airport, only hours after the murders. Roger showed no emotion or reaction as each woman singled him out.
Speaker 1:The eyewitness testimony of the two women quashed Marjorie's attempts to give her husband an alibi when both women had given the signal and identified Roger. Prosecutor DeSanto was convinced his case was nearly won. But on cross-examination, defense Attorney Thompson rigorously attacked the women's credibility. Gesturing dramatically toward each woman, thompson angrily reminded jurors these witnesses had failed to positively pick out his client in two previous photo lineups. As artists he tried. Thompson could not shade the women's testimony. His client was the man they remembered seeing in the gift shop. That night the news media played up the witness identification and Roger had been cited in Minnesota with incriminated evidence. The day after the murders it was only direct evidence linking Roger to Minnesota at the time of the murder.
Speaker 1:Halfway through the trial on June 1, rick LaRoy was scheduled to testify about Roger's whereabouts. At the time of the murders Rick had refused to be interviewed. After his initial statements and interview with Duluth Police, prosecutor DeSanto considered him a hostile witness. Desanto asked LaRoy the last time he had seen Roger prior to Monday, june 27, when Rick claimed to have seen his stepfather between 7.30 and 8.00 pm at the Holland House Hotel and Rick said that he think he would be Wednesday the 22nd.
Speaker 1:When defense attorney Thompson crossed examining LaRoy he prodded the young man's memory and LaRoy testified that when he was out late he usually looked on his parents in their adjoining hotel room and so he was asked have you had an occasion to look into the bedroom at night when you come back? His answer was yes, he said okay, did you see it in there? Then he said yeah, they were usually sleeping then. And then they asked him did you look into the room on Thursday night? And he answered I usually look in every night when I come home to see if they were both there. Yes, I honestly don't remember Thursday night. So they asked him do you remember Sunday night? And Rick LaRoy told jurors he had looked into Roger and Marjorie's bedroom Sunday night after returning jurors. So they was asked was they both there? And he said well, it looked like to me there were two people sleeping in bed.
Speaker 1:And so DeSanto said this latest statement came as a complex surprise LaRoy and had never told police he had seen his stepfather Sunday, just before the murders, not a year later. He was trying to get Roger and Alibi, but the prosecution score points with the testimony of Belfast Hoskins, this clerk of at the Holland House Hotel. When prosecuted, desanto showed Hoskins the suede garment bag purchased by Jagolda and Green at the Twin Cities Airport. She identified as identical to Rogers, which the prosecution alleged had been bought the morning of the murders and Hoskins said there is no difference. Hoskins also recognized Rogers handwriting on the envelope, postmarked June 27, 1977, duluth, minnesota, that had contained the gold coin. She said she had noticed the envelope when filling the cow wells mail.
Speaker 1:During the trial's 10th week and one of the key color of other investigations, sergeant Randy Godanier of the Golden Police Department took the stand During questioning by DeSanto Godanier and his, he says, investigation show Roger was an evil or I should say an avid coin collector, a motive for stealing the gold coin. But this assertion was based only on Rogers divorce settlement. On cross examination, defense attorney Thompson tried to downplay Rogers interest in coin collecting. He told jurors that the coin collection was more insignificant. He held up a copy at the diverse settlement and read aloud for jurors benefit. Defense attorney Thompson had gone hard on Godanier. But DeSanto wasn't worried. He didn't think the jury would be swayed by finding out that Roger's daughter also had a coin collection. The important thing was that divorce papers had clearly stated that Roger had won.
Speaker 1:As the trial dragged on, the defendant continued to sit impassively next to Thompson. Even before the trial it had quickly become apparent to Thompson that Roger would not be much helped in his own defense. Even the jail guards found Roger listless and withdrawn. Aside from Thompson. He had few visitors. None of his immediate family in Pennsylvania visited him. Marjorie had visited him just twice and both times she had an attorney accompanying her. Roger had been prescribed tranquilizers, but he secretly stopped taking all but one of the five pills he received daily. He would stop piling pills, perhaps for a suicide attempt, if he was found guilty. Midway through the trial his cellmate, larry Rolof, caught on and alerted the jailer, who found 122 pills in a small brown bag Roger kept in the cell. Roger explained that he didn't always require five pills a day, but from then on this deputies watched to make sure he took every pill.
Speaker 1:The list of the state's presentations focused on technical evidence, blood, hair and fingerprints, keeping the evidence that linked Roger to the murders fresh and jurors minds. Investigators had found fingerprints in seven areas of the murder scene, but only three had useful detail. They lifted a small print from the base of the brass candlestick used to bludgeon Velma Petilla. That print, while too poor to identify, had sufficient detail to eliminate it as Roger's. The state maintained that the print had likely been left by one of the household servants while cleaning. So the left the prints from the nurses' bedroom, the only prints with sufficient distinguishing features for identification, which had still not been matched to anyone.
Speaker 1:The breakthrough came only days before the Santo rested his case In testimony. June 16, john Doehead of the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension publicly identified the mystery prints. Doehead said the print on the bottom of the nurses' bathroom door belonged to nurse Sylvia Mackey. He identified the left palm print on the sink in the bathroom as that of the chief investigator, sergeant Gary Waller. The state crime lab had expanded the print comparisons to include all the officers who had gone to the mansion in the days after the murders. Doehead had broken the news to the Santo and Waller earlier that morning. When Waller learned the print belonged to him, he avoided the courtroom the rest of the day, not only out of personal embarrassment but to deny Thompson, the attorney, to the chance to theoretically point him out in court to discredit the investigation. The impact of the print identification also concerned the Santo. Obviously, the evaluation fueled Thompson's claim of a careless police investigation. He was certain Thompson would argue that despite extensive comparison, police had found no prints of others at Glensheen, prosecutor DeSanto wanted jurors to remember that the absence of identifiable prints at the murder scene did not rule out Caldwell as a killer. Some prints were simply too smudged or incomplete to identify.
Speaker 1:Right in the middle of Roger's trial, thomas Welch received an unexpected visit from Marjorie at Marquette National Bank and she told him she had cancer. And so she asked would the trust pay for my cancer treatment? And Welch asked do you have cancer? And she said yes, the doctor told me I have cancer. So Welch told Marjorie that if she had cancer, of course the trust would cover the cost of her treatment. The truth is set up for those sorts of things. The trust is set up for those things, he said to Marjorie. So she said well, you probably have to be paying a substantial sum.
Speaker 1:So several weeks later Welch got a medical bill for close to $30,000, but the letterhead indicated the bill was from a plastic surgeon and Welch wondered what a plastic surgeon could do to treat cancer. So two days later Welch received a bill from a Minneapolis hospital for another $30,000. Welch decided to call the doctor and he said well, I got this bill and I have some questions. What treatment did she go through? And the doctor said I can tell you that, because he needed Marjorie's consent to release the confidential information. And Welch said that he couldn't pay the bill without knowing what it was for. So he asked was this elective cosmetic surgery? And there was a silence on the phone. And then the doctor said I would answer that if you will answer a question for me. So the two had a deal. So the doctor said yes, marjorie had undergone elective cosmetic surgery. He said my patient's name is Marjorie Leroy. Is she the same as Marjorie Caldwell? And Welch said yes, she is. So he said oh no. The doctor, you know, reacted as he realized that his patient's true identity. He said yeah, you didn't alter her looks, did you? And he said no. She came in and said I have one last chance to make the Olympic equestrian team. So Marjorie told the doctor she wanted to compete on the US equestrian team at the 1980 Summer Olympics in Moscow and he had given her what she asked for body tucks. So Welch informed the doctor, hospital and Marjorie that the bills would not be paid by the trust and according to Welch, marjorie went ballistic. As Marjorie tried to con her trust officer, she was also conning her husband and his family. Roger's sister-in-law, claire, wrote him a letter on June 15, extending her sympathy for Marjorie's cancer surgery.
Speaker 1:In the 11th week of the trial, patricia Rutz, the handwriting expert with the Boulder District Attorney's Office, took the stand. Rutz told jurors her comparisons of Roger's handwriting samples with writing on the envelope, address and mail to him in Colorado that it showed that they were written by the same person. Specifically, roger had frequently written golden with a large lowercase G followed by an A, which was then corrected to an O. This was exactly how golden was written on the envelope. Rutz also pointed out that Roger S Caldwell on the envelope was written exactly like Roger had written his signature for many years before 1977. So Thompson approached the enlarged photographs and he pointed out variations between the handwriting samples and asked Rutz how they could have been made by one person. He said, quote. No one ever writes the same letter or word the same way twice. And she went ahead and clarified such differences were insignificant and it was her first opinion that Roger wrote his own name and address on the envelope.
Speaker 1:So Steven Siegler, the fingerprint expert with the Colorado Bureau of Investigation, followed rods on the stand and the cross of Selec's testimony was his examination of a partial print found on the flap of the envelope containing the gold coin. After processing the print with the chemical hydrolysis, selec had compared it with a known print of Rodgers. As jurors studied in large photos of the two prints, selec said that he believed Rodgers' right thumb made the print on the envelope. So he found in excess of 11 points of comparison and he testified more than the CBI required for identification. Thompson didn't usually attack fingerprints evidence but the prosecution start convincing him that the identification points didn't match. During a recess he reviewed the photographs and using a ruler he measured the two prints and the characteristics and years later defense attorney Thompson remember and he said no way did they match. On cross examination defense attorney Thompson challenged Selec about visible differences between the print enlargements and that evening Thompson went to work to find his own fingerprint experts. Selec and that of his disparity had to do with the distortion on the photographs which is just total BS and he made that up right on the spot, according to defense attorney Thompson.
Speaker 1:But the prosecutor's case against Rodgers turned on more physical evidence than a fingerprint. Prosecutor DeSanto next call Wallace Soren, a microanalyst from the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Imprehension, and he testified that three significant hairs had been recovered from Glandsheen. Investigators have found two in the Oriental carpeting on the landing beneath Velma Petila's body, and the third the sterile suite used to wrap and carry the nurses body from from the mansion At the time of the murders. Before DNA tests, fingerprints were individual evidence, while hair and blood were considered class evidence. Forensic science had not advanced enough to determine if a hair came from a specific person In. An expert could only compare physical characteristics under a microscope and say that hand errands compared favorably and according to. To Sarah's analysis, the three strands of hair were mirror images of Rodgers head hair samples. Soren also testified that the other hairs at the crime scene, including a single strand on the landing, a blonde hair on the staircase and a single strand found in Velma Petila's hand, were consistent with Petila's hair. He had only um microscopically examined that one hair um from her, her hand. You know the three uh teens, um, let me pause for a minute, we'll be right back. So Soren also testified that the other hairs at the crime scene, including a single strand on the landing, a blonde hair on the staircase and a single strand found in Velma Petila's hand, were consistent with Petila's hair. He had only microscopically examined that one hair from her hand. There were more, but Soren had felt the one he selected for the microscope was representative. This decision left an opening for the defense to make claims about the remaining hairs from her hand, so Soren's testimony had been damaging to that defense. Thompson withdrew the hair evidence and flew to Milwaukee to meet with Dr Kenneth Seisman, a forensic scientist who claimed several specialties, including hair matching. In Seisman's opinion, the hair found in Velma Petila's hand was neither hers nor Rodgers. He instructed Seisman to prepare a chart showing the hair evidence and how um the hairs failed to match up with Rodgers.
Speaker 1:Following Soren's testimony, the Santa Cole Alvin Hodge, a 45 year old FBI serology expert from Washington DC who bore a striking resemblance to actor Ernest Bornein and Hodge, testified about his examination of bloodstains on 13 items investigators recovered from Elizabeth's bedroom. Bloodstains found on the pink satin pillowcase used to smother the hairs and on the corner of the bedspread nearest her left arm were consistent with the defendant's blood and, according to Hodge, these stains match Rodgers blood type and were similar to his blood enzyme grouping. Both victims and Rodgers had type O blood, but Cowell had a different enzyme in his blood. He had enzyme group B, while the two women had enzyme group B A. Prosecutor DeSanto next asked Hodge what percent of the population had the same blood type and enzyme group as the defendant and he said well, it's a straight multiplication 42% times 36%, which gives you roughly 15% of the population. And this is what Hodge told the jurors.
Speaker 1:And the defense attorney Thompson pounced on Hodge's finding and, using the same figures the jury had heard during direct examination, the defense attorney forced Hodge to admit the bloodstain. Comparisons were inconclusive, given Hodge's estimate that 45% of the population had the same blood type as Rodger and the victims. The defense attorney Thompson said, quote say there are 200 million people in America. That would be consistent with 90 million people. And he answered that's correct. And then he said well, including Mr Cowell and whoever else, the other 90 million people in America that have typeO. And then he Thompson, look at the jury. And he said which would mean perhaps half of the jury sitting in this box has type O. Is that correct? And Harder said yes, if jury's accepted Harder's estimate that 30 million people had the same blood and enzyme grouping. As the defendant Thompson asked, would it be fair to say that, that the blood stains could have come from any of those millions of people and Harder considered and said yes.
Speaker 1:The state final witness testified for jurors via his type deposition. Tom Condon described for jurors the desperate financiers of Roger and Marjorie in the months leading up to the murders. Less than two weeks before the murders, roger had asked for $250,000 to hire an attorney from Evli Bailey's firm to defend him and his wife against creditors and Thrand lawsuits. The defendant had confided just days before the murders that he and Marjorie were using expired credit cards and bad checks to live. The timing of the defense's opening statement the one year anniversary of the murders was not lost on the prosecution or the victims. Families, jennifer and Chuck Johnson and DeSanto's parents uh sent among the courtroom spectators on June 27 when the defense began to present this case and Thompson only spent 30 minutes giving his opening statement and he mentioned that they're planning to call only six witnesses.
Speaker 1:Jurors would hear expert testimony that key physical evidence hairs recovered at Glanchine and the handwriting on the envelope did not belong to the defendant. The defense here expert, dr Kenneth Seixman, who testified that hair found clutched and verma patella's hands did not come from her or Roger but from a totally independent source. The jury would also hear again from the manager of the Radisson hotel in Duluth Thompson said to establish that envelopes like the one used to mail the gold coin were available only in guest rooms or at the front desk. The defense would allow, he said that, a wood show. I should say that Roger was himself a victim of an elaborate frame that included planted evidence in Minnesota and Colorado.
Speaker 1:So before the attorneys, after that, after the defense presented their sign, and before the attorneys square off to give their closing arguments, another drama unfolded behind closed doors in the chambers of judge Jack Littman. Littman met with juror Rosemary Robinson shortly after 9 15 on July 5 1978. Supervisor at Brainerd's North Country Outerwear, robinson had worked an hour or two almost every day since the start of the trial. Several days earlier an anonymous woman had mailed a letter to and telephoned the Crow Wing County Sheriff's Department claiming that Robinson had been telling everybody at work that Roger Coward is guilty ever since the trial started. The woman said her mother worked with Robinson.
Speaker 1:So Judge Littman was concerned about possible grounds for appeal and after all the time and money everyone had invested, he wasn't about to risk it. So he told Mrs Robinson and he said I'll ask you once again to search your memory, since we have been here and since you have been at work, whether you have ever given any indication to anyone at all, including any members of your family, as to whether or not you have some preconceived notion of the guilt or innocence of Mr Cowell? And she said your honor, I really don't remember saying that the man was guilty, because I don't come in with that feeling. And she then assured Judge Littman that when her co-workers talked about the case around her she says I'll walk away from it. Judge Littman then asked Mrs Robinson if she could continue as a juror and keep an open mind and she responded I was just still sit there with an open mind.
Speaker 1:So the judge next met with Thompson and and prosecuted the sound-tell and asked for their comments and both said they would defer to the court's judgment. Judge Liedman was quick with his decision and he said, quote because of the seriousness of the report submitted together with an accompanying letter and the fact that the person had called at the office in person, as opposed to the usual type of crank phone call letter, the court feels the interests of justice would best be served if Ms Robinson was excused as a juror, and quote and Robinson wasn't indeed replaced by the first alternate. So the sound-tell began his summation by telling jurors that he didn't want to bury them in facts but in a circumstantial evidence trial. He needed to make sure they remember the crucial evidence by law A guilty verdict demanded. Jurors find the evidence so compelling that guilt is the only logical conclusion. So the sound-tell motion toward the exhibit table and urged jurors to use the state's exhibits in the deliberations and consider where incriminated evidence had been recovered. In opening statements attorneys must only present the facts, but closing arguments give each side an opportunity to present the theories of the case.
Speaker 1:Prosecutor De Santo returned to the analogy that got him in trouble. During opening statements the sound-tell called the will the carrot that persuaded Roger Coutwell to commit murder the last-minute concession to the defendant. That's why it was it's not typed but is handwritten and dated June 24th, while the power of attorney is not. He anticipated defense attorney Thompson would place greater emphasis on the concept of reasonable doubt. Jurors would likely be instructed by Thompson that a single reasonable doubt required them to find the defendant not guilty. Prosecutor De Santo wanted to erase any doubts, but first he gave them the prosecution's definition of reasonable doubt and he said that what that basically means, and a commonly used analogy is if you can look yourself in the mirror and say I know he's guilty based on the evidence, and I can live with that verdict you too, then you will have no reasonable doubt.
Speaker 1:The death of Elizabeth Condon and Velma Petila were brutal and premeditated, and this is what Santo also said in his statement. In his closing argument he said he held up the brass candlestick and he said remember, jurors, as he banged loudly against the podium. The murders were committed by a man of above strength. Several jurors flinched when, said De Santo, had their attention because he was banging the candlestick on the table. And then he continued. He says, quote the evidence shows rationally and conclusively that there must have been first a struggle between the murderer and Velma Petila.
Speaker 1:That Velma Petila used her shoe, the one with the heel that had come of it, the heel pad of it, and take a look at that when you get back to the jury room to defend herself. That the shoe was turned against her as she tried to protect herself from the beating. That that one of the nails on the bottom of the shoe caused a cut on the lip of the defendant, roger Coward, and the cut on the middle finger of his left hand. De Santo reminded jurors that after Velma Petila was beaten to death with the candlestick, it was Elizabeth Condon's turn to fight for her life. Elizabeth Condon had struggle. The bruise on her left arm indicates a struggle, the skin roughed from her nose indicates a struggle. And all of this goes to the additional elements of premeditation and intent to kill.
Speaker 1:The defendant had time to wash up in that bathroom to change clothes, take the Petila car and get to the airport by 635. And that ticket tells you when that car got there, even if you went 40 miles out of his way. For a man unfamiliar with the route to that airport. We gave you all the evidence, ladies and gentlemen. De Santo lingered on the most damaging evidence, pointing to Roger's guilt. His start witnesses, the two women at the airport gift shop, had identified the defendant in court and he said this case is primarily a circumstantial evidence case. Not exclusively a circumstantial evidence case, but because we have the direct evidence of the deaths. We have the direct evidence, ladies and gentlemen the positive identification by two women of the defendant at that airport on the morning of June 27, 1977, purchasing this bag. And De Santo continue holding up the sweatsuit bag and he rebutted Thompson's suggestion that Beaver Dumbart had mailed the self-addressed envelope containing the gold coin to Roger Cowell.
Speaker 1:Prosecutor De Santo continued to refute Thompson's allegations that Roger had been framed and ran down the list of defense witnesses. He dismissed the defense's hero expert as a hobby cop. He attacked Anna Hutton's testimony that someone had skillfully forged the writing on the envelope, his face getting progressively redder and De Santo Hefton became emotional during closing arguments. Sometimes when that happened he made mistakes, saying things he shouldn't, referring to the Cossack or Roger Slip that was visible on the day the Petitas testified. De Santo slipped and he said the prosecution doesn't come in here and write scripts and hand out rolls. They take the witnesses as they get them. They take the evidence as they get them, as it comes in. We do not manufacture evidence, which I submit is more than you can say for the defense. And of course the defense jumped and in protest and they approached the, the bench and everything.
Speaker 1:De Santo went on to sum up his assessment of the defense frame theory. He said quote to believe this case is based on a frame is how landish. That requires a lack of integrity of the police and every person involved, perhaps including myself. There isn't enough money in the world, much less the condom estate, to buy such a frame.
Speaker 1:In reviewing the evidence, de Santo admitted the state's case had holes. The absence of Carl was fingerprints and glen sheen. No proof of Carl was transportation, but he reminded the jury again. He said 85% of all crime scenes do not have fingerprints of the suspects or perpetrator. As for the state's inability to place Carl on a plane, despite 300 hours of investigation, de Santo said quote I'll submit to you exactly how it was done by Roger Carlwald if he took a commercial airline, and exactly the same thing that Carlwell uh, the Carl was did.
Speaker 1:When they came on June 28th for the funeral, they bought tickets for North Central and flew on Western, then switched to North Central from Minneapolis to Duluth, as Western doesn't go to Duluth. If you were going to commit murder, will you buy a ticket directly to the point of destination? De Santo reminded jurors. He said for you to acquit Roger Carlwood of murder, of two counts of murder in the first degree, you are going to have to disbelieve, ignore or explain away all of the following the positive identification of the defendant by two people as the purchaser of a suede bag at the airport, the card on the carry bag being the defendant's printing the receipt for that carry bag purchased in the defendant's rather some hotel room, with a Huskins positive identification of that suede bag as the one carried by Ricky from the hotel when the car was went to Duluth on June 28th. The payment for the bag was three twenty dollar bills. The defendant's write, thumb print on the rather some envelope postmarked in Duluth on June 27, 19, 27, the defendant's handwriting on that very envelope. He said all the evidence of motive, including the June 24th 1997 will by Marjorie Carlwood to the defendant for payment upon Elizabeth death, of two and a half million dollars of the inheritance that you would have to ignore, explain away or disbelieve all the evidence of the defendant's desperate shortage of money in June 1997 and his request to Tom Condon, as late as June 18, 1977, of eighty thousand dollars just to stay out of jail the residents of the defendant's increase in knowledge of the Condon terror, or sorry, trust, trust and the son to the NARCH the jurors to consider the evidence that had brought Roger to trial. No quirk of fate, he said, twelve of you, by your verdict, must declare the truth. And the truth is only this. The defendant, roger coward, is guilty. So now defense attorneys.
Speaker 1:Thompson gave the jury his final summation after lunch, a dramatic four and a half hours of speech, alternating between quiet persuasion and emotional pleas. Thompson painted his client as an innocent victim of a frame. He attacked the Duluth police department for slap investigation and for zeroing in on Roger as the prime suspect. Almost immediately, roger coward was powerless. Thompson argued, pitted against the resources and money available to the prosecution. He began with an impassioned statement he repeated throughout his summation Roger coward deserved nothing less than the pursuit presumption of innocence.
Speaker 1:Thompson worked the jury masterfully. He stood at the lectern facing the jurors, making sure he had eye contact. Then he answered his own question. There's only one thing and that's the presumption of innocence. He openly scoffed at the prosecution, suggesting that the investigation had been Weissbren clearly did to Luth police consider Roger the prime suspect. Even more, even before investigators removed the bodies from Glen Sheen, thompson argued that someone directly or indirectly responsible for the murders contacted the police and told them quote there is your man. Quote the defense implied a family member call in the tip.
Speaker 1:At that point Thompson contended that put that the police began to focus the investigation ex exclusively on Roger and he said we all like to sit back and comfortably feel that that criminal investigations are conducted in the reasonable process of Sherlock Holmes. If they found only one bit of evidence inconsistent with guilt, the jury was obligated to find his kind not guilty in. Thompson argue that waxing philosophical. Thompson quoted from St Francis bacon in Abraham Lincoln cautioning jurors to carefully interpret circumstantial evidence. He said quote Lincoln said there's not much substance to an interference or an inference. Is terrifying to make soup out of the shadow of a dead pigeon that die of starvation.
Speaker 1:Thompson fixed his gaze on jurors as he told a story illustrating the problem of evaluating circumstantial evidence. The attorney Thompson's told the jury that motive alone does not provide sufficient proof for conviction. He said do not condemn a man because he has a motive to do a criminal act. Motive will not supply evidence. None of the physical evidence linked Roger directly to the murders.
Speaker 1:Thompson we view the individual items of physical evidence recovered from the mansion saying they eliminated. His client asked the murderer. He attacked police investigators for failure to analyze strands of hair found clutched and well, my petillas hands. Thompson said the police we view to follow through on his evidence and concentrated on hairs recovered from a rug and sheet used to wrap the nurses body. Thompson reminded jurors that Duluth police had ignored Larry Dexon, the Duluth resident who saw a blood-haired man outside Glen sheen around the time of the killings. He continued to attack the prosecution's case by criticizing investigators for failing to analyze all available fingerprints.
Speaker 1:Thompson challenged the blood evidence against his client, or lack of it, and then the court took a short break and after the break, defense attorney Thompson presented his theory. His theory was the following that all that the real killers, also familiar with Glen sheen and therefore able to gain entrance, could have been Marjorie's two oldest children, stephen and Peter, conspiring with their mother to kill Elizabeth. After all, thompson pointed out, stephen had visited his grandmother the weekend before the murders at Swig, the water form. It took more than one person to subdue and murder Velma Petilla. Thompson questioned in, he continued, and in. These persons went out to the household staff and then he said the murderer or murderers went through the front door because they were recognized and I suggest to you that was more than one, maybe more than two, but at least two. I think it's reasonable from the evidence that Mrs Petilla was struck by more than one weapon. She was struck bya candlestick holder, a shoe and possibly a flashlight, which would be considered consistent with more than the one person.
Speaker 1:After murdering Burma Petilla and Elizabeth Condon, the killers had a second mission to frame Roger Cybe Caldwell. The murderers then probably said back and smile. Thompson said, and Duluth police was so eager to solve the case and may they may have played into the hands of the real killers. He said find of the finding, the wicker case and jewelry in the car was Bloomington hotel room made no sense because after all they have no reason to bring the jewelry to Minnesota. Thompson told the jury Colorado authority seized the envelope containing the gold coin in a dress to Roger because someone had tipped them off band-band bam. That they have the thing analyzed and searched and they found the coin. He dismissed prosecution witness Patricia Rots is testimony that Roger had addressed the envelope. He argued that the use of the word mister prove else that someone else address the envelope.
Speaker 1:On July 5th at 847 pm, final arguments were over. The jury of five men and seven women received the case. They will begin deliberations the next morning in a third floor room without air conditioning. Judge Littman gave jurors the option of deliberating in the courtroom if the jury room became to sit, stifling the defense and prosecution teams, with exception of Roger, retired to the holiday in the jurors now sequestered dine in a corner of the motels restaurant. Early in the morning jurors sent judge Littman a written request for a fan in the jury room. The note meant no resistance from the attorneys.
Speaker 1:Shortly before 9 30 pm July 6th, the bailiff deliver another note from jurors. This time the judge called the Santo McNabb, thompson and cow with the lawyers and a prosecution into chambers. The request was quote we would like the rules governing our decision on circumstantial evidence read to us again in the morning at 9 would be fine. So the judge read aloud instructions jurors would receive the next day. And this were the instructions. As a circumstantial evidence may be of the highest and most conclusive kind of proof, but in order to reach a conclusion beyond a reasonable doubt on circumstantial evidence, all circumstances proved must be consistent with that conclusion and inconsistent with any other rational conclusions.
Speaker 1:The press had put their money on Thompson, the defense attorney, to win and one reporter told the defense attorney that he couldn't understand what was taking the jury so long. At 425 July 8th the wait ended two and a half days after it began as jurors filed into court. Thompson and Roger tried to read their faces. The Santo noted that the jurors avoided both men's gaze and Judge Littman turned to the jury box and on the first count, for the murder of Elizabeth Condon, it read. The clerk read aloud and says we, the jury in panel, and sworn to try the guilt or innocence of the above name defendant, find Roger, side Cowell, guilty. The Santo turned back to Waller and McNabb and give them thumbs up. Roger Coward, lean forward, look at the jury box and firmly said in a low voice you're wrong it. This was the first time Coward had spoken during his trial. He then settled back down in his seat, silent, beside Thompson for the reading of the second count for the murder of Velma Petila, guilty. Judge Littman asked the clerk to pull jurors one by one, asking whether their guilt verdict was correct Guilty, guilty, guilty. Eleven jurors solemnly affirmed their decision until the twelfth juror took her turn. Margaret Sawyer, a retired resort owner who had replaced Rosemary Robinson, just before final arguments broke down, sobbing for several seconds and she couldn't answer, but finally, unable to meet Roger's eyes, tears streaming down her face, sawyer choked out the word guilty and pandemonium broke out as reporters swept down the aisles in a hurry to reach the hallway phone first.
Speaker 1:Under Minnesota law, first degree murder carries a mandatory life sentence. Roger would surface terms either consecutively or concurrently. At the defenses request Judge Littman delay sentencing until Monday, july 10. Judge Littman later said that Roger's failure to take the witness stand might have been a decisive factor in his conviction. The Santa talk briefly with reporters on the courthouse steps. He said step one is over. When asked if he could, if he would, prosecute Marjorie, he replied that step two.
Speaker 1:On the morning of the sentencing, dr Thompson, the defense attorney, once again took his client into the judge's closet and this time they quietly discussed a sentencing offered by the prosecution. Prosecutor DeSanto would ask the judge for concurrent rather than consecutive life sentences if Roger would come clean about his wife's involvement in the murders. That meant Roger would be eligible for parole in 17 and a half years instead of 35. The two men said they were not interested. Thompson told the court that he would appeal the verdict. Among the small group on hand for the sentencing were Jennifer and Chuck Johnson, who had flown in from their home in Racine, wisconsin, with their six children. Having missed the verdict, jennifer and Chuck wanted to see their brother law punished.
Speaker 1:Before pronouncing sentencing, judge Littman asked Roger, do you have anything to state at this time here, looking somber and subdued, quietly responded only then, I am not guilty of these charges. And that was the second time he had spoken. Judge Littman then pronounced the mandatory life sentence in order crow wing county sheriff deputies to escort Roger Cowell to the state penitentiary in still water, minnesota. He grimly characterized the double killing as the murder of two elderly, defenseless women. Before he announced his decision on how Roger would serve his life sentences, the judge repeated a description of the crime used throughout the trial as brutal, heinous, awful and awesome. Finally, judge Littman decried it is therefore the conviction of this court that, based upon the two findings of guilt, as well as the nature of this crime, that the court does hereby order these sentences which the court has imposed.
Speaker 1:To shoot run consecutively, sheriff's deputies ushered a handcuffed Roger Cowell out of the side door of the courthouse to the jail next door. His sentence required him to serve at least 35 years in prison. Four days end he would done prison, dungarees and a call. A six by nine foot cell his home. Thank you for listening to the murder book. Next week it would be Marjorie Cowell's turn to face trial. Have a great week.