And the Sea Will Tell

by Vincent Bugliosi

  I offered one final point on this issue. “If there was a cake-truce incident, and if the prosecution believed that the murders took place on the Sea Wind at that time, can we not assume that a multitude of scientific tests would have been conducted on the Sea Wind in an effort to secure evidence of the murders, such as blood, or evidence of a struggle?

  “At this trial the prosecution called experts in pathology, serology, chemistry, biology, odontology, anthropology, microscopy, metallurgy, and toxicology. And the tests they conducted were highly sophisticated and sensitive. So we know that when the prosecution wanted to prove something through experts, they did so. Yet there was no testimony from any expert witnesses called by the prosecution concerning the Sea Wind at this trial.

  “Now, only two reasonable conclusions can be drawn from this fact. Not three or four. Just two. And here they are. Either no scientific examination of the Sea Wind was ever conducted by law enforcement in this case because they never believed any murders took place on the boat on August 28th or any other time, or the Sea Wind was examined with the very finest and most sensitive state-of-the-art equipment and instruments, and absolutely nothing was found. Either conclusion, of course, redounds to the detriment of the prosecution.”

  On the same issue of whether the murders had taken place on the Sea Wind, I asked why the prosecution had presented testimony about the swordfish incident and had cross-examined Jennifer at length on the issue. “So far, Mr. Enoki hasn’t said. Maybe we’ll hear about it in his closing argument. The only thing I can think of is that they were trying to imply that maybe the hole was not a swordfish hole, but a bullet hole.”

  I pointed out to the jury that we not only had Jennifer’s detailed testimony about the swordfish incident, but Robert Mehaffy testified that Buck and Jennifer told him about the incident when they reached Hawaii. Most important, Larry Seibert testified that he actually saw the bill of the swordfish stuck in the hole of the hull.

  “If the prosecution sincerely believed that there never was a swordfish attack causing a hole in the hull of the Sea Wind, why didn’t they call an expert on the behavior of fish to testify that swordfish are not known to do this type of thing? And why didn’t they call experts to testify they found no evidence of a repaired hole in the Sea Wind that gave any indication of having been caused by the bill of a swordfish? Or that they did find a repaired hole in the Sea Wind, but that it gave evidence—such as the microscopic presence of lead—that it was caused by a bullet? In my opinion, the swordfish issue, ladies and gentlemen, is as dead as the bill in that hole was.”

  It was time to tell the jury what I felt about the prosecution’s star husband-and-wife witness team, the Leonards. I would mince no words.

  “I can understand their being very, very upset over the death of their friends, the Grahams,” I told the jury. “Anyone who is a decent human being can feel only tremendous sorrow over what happened to the Grahams. But the Leonards, in their unbridled zeal, went too far.

  “I think that had to be obvious to you folks. Take the toilet-flushing incident. Both the Leonards were just dying to make you believe that Jennifer was frantically emptying out her purse and flushing down incriminating evidence against herself.

  “Yet both of them finally coughed up the fact that although they had spoken to many law enforcement personnel throughout the years, they had never told the toilet-flushing incident to anyone up until one year ago, when they encountered Assistant U.S. Attorney Walt Schroeder and FBI Agent Hal Marshall. There was something irresistible about Walt and Hal that caused the Leonards to break a ten-year period of silence.

  “When I asked Mr. Leonard why he never told the FBI agents about the incident when they interviewed him on October 29, 1974, he said he assumed they already knew. Yet he does tell them something they would have a much, much greater reason to know—that just an hour or so earlier, Jennifer was observed rowing to shore in the Ala Wai yacht harbor and was subsequently apprehended.

  “One footnote to this toilet-flushing incident. According to the Leonards, FBI agents were present outside the bathroom, hearing the whole thing. Yet only the Leonards testified at this trial to the suspicious nature of the incident.

  “With respect to Jennifer’s alleged statement to the Leonards that she would never leave Palmyra on the Iola, as with the toilet-flushing incident, though the Leonards had spoken to many law enforcement personnel throughout the years, they never told a soul. They kept it locked in their bosom for ten years. We go through wars and presidencies during ten years. A long, long time. But once again, the Leonards simply could not resist the charm of Walt and Hal, and they finally coughed this up.

  “But with this statement, they knew they couldn’t use the previous argument for their silence that the FBI already knew, since the FBI wasn’t on Palmyra. So this is what they came up with. They never told anyone because no one ever asked them. Remember that? Never told anyone because no one ever asked them. Sure, Mr. and Mrs. Leonard. And yesterday, outside of this courthouse, I saw an alligator doing the polka, and the day before I heard a cow speaking Spanish.

  “As I asked them on cross-examination: ‘How could the agents have asked you about what you say Jennifer told you, Mr. and Mrs. Leonard? How would they have known if you didn’t tell them?’”

  I asked the jury: “Just how ludicrous can the Leonards get? Here in court, where you are only supposed to answer questions, Mr. Leonard, in particular, volunteered all types of information which he perceived to be damaging to Miss Jenkins. But out of court, where you can say anything you want, the Leonards are as quiet as a church mouse.

  “The Leonards would want you to believe they’re the type of people who, if they had seen Nessie, the Loch Ness monster, in the Palmyra lagoon, wouldn’t tell a soul unless someone asked them.”

  I noted that Jennifer had admitted on the witness stand to telling all types of people all types of things. But she said she never told the Leonards she would never leave Palmyra on the Iola. I noted further that there was considerable evidence that long after the Leonards left Palmyra, Jennifer and Buck were planning to go to Fanning from Palmyra on the Iola.

  Lastly, I referred to FBI Agent Kilgore’s testimony that the Leonards never told him about this supposed statement.

  “Of all people who would have been absolutely certain to mention this alleged remark of Jennifer’s to the authorities, surely it would have been the Leonards.

  “WITH THESE preliminary matters out of the way, let’s get into the heart of the case,” I now said. I hoped I had softened the jurors up a bit with my opening comments, rendering them more receptive to the critically important arguments to follow.

  “What we’re dealing with here, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, is a real murder mystery, one that Agatha Christie could have conjured up only on her most inspired of days, the type of murder that rocking-chair sleuths like to ponder into the wee hours beside a crackling fire.

  “The only problem is that, unlike an Agatha Christie mystery, this nightmarish story, so tragically for Mac and Muff Graham, happens to be true.

  “In this final summation, I’m going to attempt to illuminate, by way of drawing commonsense inferences, the dark, ugly shadows of this mystery. By placing one piece of circumstantial evidence upon another—and Buck Walker was so adept at murder he left precious few pieces of incriminating evidence—I am confident that what will emerge for you are two rather stark mosaics, one of guilt for Buck Walker, and one of innocence for Jennifer Jenkins.”

  I started by discussing the motive for the murders. “Mr. Enoki, in an effort to fortify his case, tossed your way two motives, the stranded motive, and the severe-shortage-of-food motive, hoping you’ll find at least one of them palatable.”

  I knew it was absolutely crucial that I remove both of these motives from the jury’s consideration.

  Discussing the stranded motive first, which encompassed the issue of the Iola’s seaworthiness, I first focused in on prosecution witness Jack W
heeler.

  I pointed out that although Wheeler appeared to be a nice enough fellow and was obviously sincere, the jury shouldn’t give too much credibility to his statement that the trip to Fanning was almost “impossible.” I noted for the jury that Wheeler conceded that he himself never attempted to sail to Fanning. “Don Stevens did,” I reminded the jury, and he testified it was possible to sail from Palmyra to Fanning.

  “We learned at this trial that tacking against the wind is very common and easy. In fact, by tacking, a boat can proceed without a motor not only against the wind, but also against the current. And we know Jennifer was very familiar with tacking. Not only did she so testify, but her June 21st entry in her diary refers to ‘tacking.’

  “I might add that Mac Graham himself apparently felt that Buck and Jennifer could make it to Fanning. Jennifer’s August 26th diary entry reflects that Mac brought a chart of Fanning over to Buck and Jennifer.”

  I pointed out that even Wheeler, a prosecution witness, did not feel that Buck and Jennifer were marooned on Palmyra, giving testimony that was diametrically opposed to the prosecution’s theory that they were.

  “Although Wheeler testified it would have been impossible or very difficult for Buck and Jennifer to make it to Fanning, you’ll recall he said they could easily have made it to Samoa, which is fifteen hundred miles away.”

  With respect to the underlying issue of the Iola’s seaworthiness, I argued, “As I perceive it, there are really two issues here. One, was the Iola seaworthy or unseaworthy, which to me is not the central issue. And two, whether it was seaworthy or not, did Buck and Jennifer think that it was seaworthy, which to me is the central issue.”

  On the first issue, I had to acknowledge that although there was some divergence of opinion, the majority of the witnesses felt the Iola was not seaworthy. I went on to point out, however, that witnesses like Leonard and Wolfe, who felt the Iola was unseaworthy, never were on the boat, whereas Don Stevens, who believed the Iola was seaworthy, was. “So I think this lends a little more weight to his testimony on this point. Furthermore, Stevens, being a naval architect, would be more knowledgeable about such matters than Mr. Leonard and Mr. Wolfe.

  “The important point is this: when Buck and Jennifer left Hawaii for Palmyra, although the Iola was certainly not a model boat, it obviously was seaworthy. How unseaworthy could the Iola be if it could make it a thousand miles on the high seas from Hawaii to Palmyra? Isn’t that proof positive that the boat was seaworthy? And there’s no evidence that either en route to Palmyra, or while on Palmyra, the Iola sustained any major damage that would have made it unseaworthy and prevented it from making the trip from Palmyra to Fanning, a short trip.

  “But whether or not the Iola was seaworthy is not the issue in this case. It’s almost irrelevant. The real issue is whether Buck and Jennifer thought it was seaworthy. It’s their state of mind that’s relevant. The Iola could be the most unseaworthy boat ever to sail the seven seas, it could be as unseaworthy as a cement block, but if Buck and Jennifer thought it was seaworthy, they would not feel desperate and stranded, would they? Would they?

  “Did Buck and Jennifer feel the Iola was unseaworthy? Obviously not.” I pointed out that in addition to Jennifer’s testimony, her diary entries dated August 15th, 23rd, 24th, 25th, 26th, 27th, 28th, 29th, and 30th, all written after Wheeler told Jennifer the Iola couldn’t make it to Fanning, left no room for doubt that she and Buck felt the Iola was seaworthy, that they were planning to sail to Fanning, and therefore did not feel stranded. I further noted that Wolfe, the prosecution’s own witness, recalled a conversation with Jennifer wherein she told him of her and Buck’s plan to sail to Fanning.

  “Granted, people like Jack Wheeler and Tom Wolfe said they wouldn’t have gone to Fanning on the Iola. But their states of mind are not at issue in this case, ladies and gentlemen. Many people would never drive across town in cars that other people wouldn’t think twice about traveling cross-country in. Jennifer’s state of mind is the issue here, and the evidence is overwhelming that she intended to go on the Iola to Fanning.

  “Perhaps the very best evidence that Jennifer and Buck never felt stranded is that if they had, they would have sought to hitch a ride on one of the boats leaving Palmyra. But no prosecution witness said that any effort was made by Buck and Jennifer to do so. How stranded could they have felt if they never bothered to ask anyone for a lift off the island?

  “Elliot Enoki cannot have it both ways. If they felt stranded enough to commit murder, why didn’t they feel stranded enough to ask these people who visited the island if they could leave Palmyra with them?”

  I pointed out that even in late August, when all the boats except the Sea Wind had left, there was still no problem. “Within a period of a little over two months, seven boats entered the lagoon at Palmyra. With that type of traffic, Buck and Jennifer would have had every reason to believe that other boats would be coming to and leaving Palmyra within the near future, and they could most likely hitch a ride. At the very latest, they knew their friend, Richard Taylor, would be arriving with his brother on Palmyra in October, only two months away. Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, the stranded motive is just not going to fly. It just doesn’t have any wings.”

  THE DESPERATION-for-food motive, I suggested, was equally “lame and flimsy. Maybe even more so.

  “Was there testimony from any witness at this trial that Buck and Jennifer looked like they were suffering from malnutrition? Or that they were losing weight? Or even that they looked weak, or unhealthy, or anything at all like that? I didn’t hear any such testimony.”

  I told the jury that while it was undeniably true that Jennifer and Buck’s provisions had dwindled to very little, this didn’t connect up to the issue of starvation because they could have lived off the land indefinitely. I reminded the jury of the various types of edible food on Palmyra, and the testimony of several witnesses, including that of a prosecution witness, Sharon Jordan: “No, you couldn’t starve on Palmyra.”

  I granted that Buck and Jennifer undoubtedly had tired of their limited diet and craved different kinds of foods. That’s why they attempted to trade for staples like flour and sugar so she could bake cakes, pies, and bread. “But to want and to prefer different kinds of food for the sake of taste and variety is a far cry from wanting these same foods to forestall starvation.

  “I will stipulate that people will kill for self-preservation, such as killing for food to avoid starvation. But do people kill to improve their diet? Have you ever heard of such a thing? I haven’t.

  “And again, since the Taylor brothers were coming to Palmyra with provisions in October, just two months away, and one could live indefinitely off the land on Palmyra, do you mean to tell me that Buck and Jennifer couldn’t live for two more months off the land? Two more months?

  “In summary, with respect to these motives Mr. Enoki has offered, I’ll concede that the Iola may not have been the most seaworthy boat ever to ride the waves, and I’ll further concede that Buck and Jennifer obviously were not doing well foodwise on Palmyra…. But they weren’t stranded, and they weren’t starving. Is this just Vince Bugliosi saying this? No, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, this is the evidence at this trial saying this.

  “So what was the motive? We know there’s a motive for every murder. What was the motive here?

  “It’s pretty obvious that Buck Walker, and Buck Walker alone, had the motive. And it was the most commonplace, garden-variety motive you can have: Buck Walker, a twice-convicted robber, wanted the Sea Wind, as he must have wanted the other things for which he was previously convicted of robbery. And because he was a hardened criminal, he was willing to murder to get it. The simple motive of wanting something that someone else had, and not having the moral restraint or fundamental humanity most of us possess that serves as a deterrent to committing the act of murder.

  “Are we all capable of murder? I don’t believe so. Not for a moment. While perhaps all of us are capable o
f killing in self-defense, and a meaningful percentage of humans are capable of an instantaneous killing in the heat of passion where there’s extreme provocation—which is called manslaughter—fortunately, the overwhelming majority of human beings don’t have it in their guts, in their system, to commit a cold-blooded, deliberate, premeditated murder. How do we know this? Because statistically the percentage of such murderers among us is infinitesimal.

  “Does the evidence in this case show that Jennifer is the type who could commit a brutal murder?” I asked.

  I explained that the crime of murder, by definition, and at its core, reflects on the part of the perpetrator a wanton and utter disregard for the life of a fellow human being. “If you’re a peaceful, compassionate human being, you don’t commit murder!” I shouted out. “You don’t do that. Nor do you help anyone else do it.

  “The testimony at this trial was not only persuasive, but completely uncontroverted by the prosecution, that Jennifer Jenkins is a very humane, gentle woman who is utterly repulsed by violence. Even by the instrumentalities of violence. You remember in Mountain View, Hawaii, she got Buck Walker to take those guns out of the house? This trial demonstrated that Jennifer Jenkins is one of the very least likely candidates for a murder suspect that one could possibly imagine.

  “What about Buck Walker?” I asked, in my effort to separate the two.

  I warned that although Jennifer’s ex-lover was not present, he must not be considered a “bloodless mannequin.”

  “The testimony of witnesses at this trial created a very vivid physical and psychological portrait of him. And the portrait that emerged is that Buck Walker, so unfortunately for the Grahams, was tailor-made for what happened on Palmyra. And he was tailor-made to commit these murders all by himself.”