Unholy Sacrifice

by Robert Scott

  Closing arguments began on December 14, 2004. Jewett started by showing a collage of photographs on an overhead screen. Each photo showed a pair of people; Annette and Ivan, Jenny and Selina, Jim and his mom, Frances. Jewett asked, “Is this case about the service of God or is it about power and greed?” He answered his own question by saying, “It is about cruelty. It is In To Me See, not In To God See. It was all about promoting Taylor.

  “Greed is a selfish desire for power and money. Cruelty—it’s a willingness to hurt. A savageness and inhumanity. Ends justifying the means. The defendant is a psychopath, but that does not make him mentally ill.

  “The defendant cited Samuel 15: ‘And Saul said to Samuel, “I have sinned, for I have transgressed the commandment of the Lord.’”

  “It’s Samuel’s retribution. It’s ironic the defendant chose that passage.”

  Jewett pointed to the Bill of Rights on the wall of the courtroom and the Fourth Amendment; these dealt with due process and life, liberty and property. He said that Taylor had taken property, liberty and life from others illegally. “This is not revenge—this is retribution. Follow the law whether you agree with it or not. You don’t want to leave this courtroom with a sense of regret. Reach a just verdict. This has all been about justice.”

  Jewett read through a series of aggravating circumstances. For Factor A, he said, “It can be things like feeding a tattoo to a dog or slitting Annette Stineman’s throat while her husband’s head is being beaten on the floor.” For Factor D, mental disturbance, he said, “this case was not in the heat of passion. It was cold-blooded and premeditated.” And for Factor F, moral justification, Jewett said, “Doing it for God—wasn’t that his Star Trekkian philosophy?”

  Jewett showed a gym bag to the jury and said that he’d done them a favor by not showing one of the real bags that Taylor had used. Jewett said that he spared them the blood and stench of the real bags. The smell of death. He said, “This bag was to hide the bodies. Taylor appreciated the criminality. There was a reason Jenny and Jim were killed.”

  And then very passionately Jewett related, “Each photograph has two people in it. The ties that bind.” Jewett started up the electrical reciprocating saw and its noise filled the courtroom. Jewett thundered, “Taylor cut the ties that bind! You have to see that bathroom in your mind’s eye. The sights, sounds and smells. There was blood everywhere. He did it with extreme cruelty.

  “In your mind’s eye, look inside that house on Saddlewood, the living room lit only by a fire. All the lights are out and Selina’s effects are burning. Then he (Taylor) had to fish through the bags of body parts to slice off her tattoo. The tattoo, he cut it off because he understood the criminality of his actions. I hope you see the reality of this. What does feeding a tattoo to a dog have to do with love? With God? That’s as evil as it gets!”

  Jewett took the jurors back through the case, witness by witness, statement by statement. One of Taylor’s self-incriminating statements was to Debra McClanahan. She had asked him about one crazy scheme, “Aren’t you afraid you’ll be caught?”

  Taylor answered, “I’ve been talking to God. Who would believe I’m guilty? I won’t be held responsible.”

  Another damning statement was from Taylor to his aunt Marsha Helzer. He said, “Since I can’t be perfect, I have to get all of the evil out of me in this life.”

  Jewett declared, “Taylor said that there had to be darkness at the Apocalypse. There was darkness and Apocalypse at Saddlewood Court!”

  Jewett told the jury to look at all the items and evidence, even the small evidence that was found in Selina’s car. He said, “If I wasted your time, I’m sorry. But sometimes these things are the last vestiges of our lives. Hell was brought to earth that week! It’s been four years, but don’t think the memories have diminished by the passage of time for the family members. Justice is what this trial is about. You have to look at the degree of enormity. Justice is the imposition of the death penalty.”

  Jewett’s entire argument had gone from 9:00 A.M. to 4:10 P.M. on December 14.

  Suzanne Chapot began her closing arguments on December 15. By contrast, her remarks were sober and measured. She told the jurors, “Each of you, look into your hearts and your minds. Ultimately you must answer to your own conscience. You can never shift the responsibility to another. It must be your individual act.”

  As for mitigation, she said, “This is a human calculation, not a mathematical calculation. A single factor to vote for life is enough. There is nothing in our laws that say you must return a verdict of death. It doesn’t mean you’re forgiving Taylor. Life without parole is hardly a tolerant act.

  “Mercy is the better part of justice. For all the days of his life, all his actions will be circumscribed by stone walls.”

  She quoted a poem by James Joyce that spoke of the horrors of prison life.

  “Right and wrong, good and evil, these are concepts you’ve heard all through this trial, but they are not the law. As his mental illness took hold, he began to lose his place in society. Mental illness comes to different people in different ways.”

  She spoke of three cousins of Taylor who were mentally ill. She asked, “Was that a choice for them? None of them was faking their mental illness. And Taylor was not faking his either. He could not fool all of the doctors, all of the time. Taylor had no choice in his mental illness.

  “‘That’s not the Taylor I know.’ You heard that from a lot of people. How do you judge this man? Taylor was sweet, loving and gentle. If one aspect can be singled out about Taylor, it was to help other people. Mormons don’t believe they can bring the Second Coming of Christ. These were delusional thoughts. Even in his darkest hours, he believed he was acting for the greater good.

  “In Brazil, he began to struggle with his demons. Later, he became obsessed with Impact. He began drinking and using drugs, not uncommon for someone with mental illness. In his twisted mind, Taylor believed he had a special mission. Everyone expected great things of him, but he lost his battle with mental illness and his world turned upside down.

  “Safely locked in prison, he will have to live with the horror of what he did, all the days of his life. The prosecutor said he was rational. What is rational about Children of Thunder? Extreme mental illness is mitigation. What does death for Taylor accomplish? It offers the illusion that taking a life preserves life. An exercise of mercy is one of the more noble human traits. You must look at Taylor’s life as a whole. This man is a complex mixture of love, compassion, mental illness and remorse.

  “What good will it accomplish by putting Taylor to death? What good will it do those five people? Taylor’s death will solve nothing.”

  Chapot showed the jurors a large photo of Taylor and his children. She said, “You will decide what kind of society we live in. I am pleading with you that we overcome hatred with compassion.”

  CHAPTER 16

  What shifting films of distance fold you, blind you, This windy eve of dreams, I cannot tell.

  I know they grope through some strange mist to find you, My hands that give you Greeting and Farewell.

  Nora May French, 1906

  Ave Atque Vale

  After the final arguments, it was a matter of waiting for the decision of the jury. They were escorted into the deliberation room by the bailiff Mike Harkelroad. The victims’ family members went to a downtown restaurant, as they had been doing since the previous May during Justin’s trial. Over lunch, they tried to fathom Taylor’s jury and how they might decide. Many agreed that they had a harder time reading the “poker faces” of this jury than those of Justin’s jury.

  On December 16, the jurors came back into the courtroom to ask some specific questions. One question was whether in the summer of 2000, Taylor was delusional with schizo-affective disorder. There were also questions about one of the psychologists’ reports about Taylor’s mental illness, or lack thereof, when he was on mission in Brazil. After the questions were addressed, the jurors filed back to
the deliberation room. Jewett discussed these matters with victims’ family members, and Chapot spoke with Taylor. Then the victims’ family members spent the rest of the day hanging around in the hallway outside of court, reading, chatting and contemplating.

  On December 17, 2000, family and friends of Ivan, Annette, Selina, Jenny and James were still camped out in the hallway on the second floor of the Bray Building in Martinez. Some played cards on the floor, while others talked or tried to catch a nap. Then, unexpectedly, at 9:40 A.M., Bailiff Harkelroad walked out into the hallway and announced, “There’s been a verdict.”

  An hour was given so that the defendant’s family, print reporters and television crews could arrive. Carma and Heather, who had not been at the Bray Building, rushed to the scene. Everywhere around the doorway of Courtroom 4, there was a sense of anticipation and finality. What had begun in July and August 2000 was finally coming to a close.

  The courtroom doors were opened at 10:30 A.M., and a crowd of family members, friends, court observers and the merely curious filed in, taking every seat in the gallery. Among these were Chris Darden, Ray and Mabel Carberry, Juley Salkeld and Roger Riddle, who had begun their observations seven months before. In the intervening months, Courtroom 4 had practically become their home away from home.

  Taylor Helzer was escorted to the defense table, wearing his usual blue shirt and sweater. The jurors soon followed and took their assigned seating in the jury box. Asked if they had reached a decision, the jury foreman announced that they had. A form was passed to Tom Moyer.

  In a steady voice, the court clerk began the reading of the verdict. On the count of first-degree murder in the death of Selina Bishop, the jury found that Glenn Taylor Helzer should be put to death. Friends and family of the victims hugged and cried as the first sentence was delivered, followed by four more sentences of death for the murders of Ivan, Annette, Jennifer and James.

  Taylor smiled at the jurors and thanked them then turned and mouthed the words to his mom, Carma, “It’s okay.”

  When he was escorted away, Taylor kept a bemused smile on his face. He didn’t appear to be upset or agitated.

  Outside the courtroom was a battery of television news cameras and still cameras of photojournalists. Suzanne Chapot only had a short statement for them. “The death of any person is sad. Society hasn’t reached a place where they don’t realize that killing people who kill people doesn’t serve a purpose.”

  Carma Helzer was equally brief. She said, “I just want to say I’m sorry for all the trauma that the victims and their families have had to go through.”

  Heather was somewhat more talkative. She said, “California should have a better way of treating mentally ill criminals, like my brothers. But in some ways, I think death is the kinder sentence.”

  Harold Jewett said to the reporters, “The jury’s decision shows how valuable life is, not a sense of callousness. This decision is a reflection of how truly precious life is. He (Taylor) obviously values his life. That’s why he put up a defense. The jury’s verdict speaks to his disability claim.”

  In a news conference after the verdict, jury foreman Bernie Rose, who was an attorney from San Ramon, spoke of how difficult the decision had been. He told reporters, “It is always difficult deciding to deliver death, regardless of what has been done. But we couldn’t find anything lesser. We tried to find any mitigating factors, but were unable to. I believe the death penalty is ultimately state-sanctioned revenge. The question in the end is how much does it heal wounds. But we took an oath. We couldn’t find anything lesser than death.”

  To the point of death versus life for Taylor, Olga Land told a roomful of reporters, “Taylor needs to face Selina. He needs to face Jenny, and Mr. Gamble, and Mr. and Mrs. Stineman. He needs to face God. He was not the Second Coming of Jesus Christ. He was the Second Coming of Manson.”

  The victims’ family members sat at a long table answering questions of news reporters. They insisted that Concord PD detective Judy Elo and Marin County detective Erin Inskip sit with them. Through most of the conference, they all held hands.

  Jenny’s sister-in-law Donna Futch said, “We can start to recover from this. Every day in court was like ripping the wound open again.”

  Nancy Hall explained, “Taylor befriended my parents and then he did this to them. It’s very hard to believe that there’s a human being on this planet who could do something like this to such sweet old people.”

  Except for Justin’s one outburst in the courtroom during his penalty phase, he had been silent while sitting at a defense table. All of that changed on February 5, 2005, however. According to Chris Darden, who was sitting in the gallery, along with Nancy Hall, “Justin walked into the courtroom with a full, scraggly beard. He was essentially acting as his own attorney at this point, with Mr. Cook and Mr. Hoehn at his side. Starting at nine-twenty A.M., Justin started speaking to the court. The reason Justin was speaking was that he had received two law books in the jail and wanted to represent himself.

  “Justin claimed prosecutorial misconduct on Mr. Jewett’s part. He claimed that Jewett continued slamming the hammer down on his file repeatedly in front of the jury at least three times.

  “Mr. Jewett replied, ‘Actually, I believe that was Justin remembering himself doing that to Selina! I only hit my file once.’

  “Justin went so far as to want the transcript to be read back, to prove his point. And Justin wanted to know why, if it wasn’t in the transcript, the reason it was missing.

  “Justin said, ‘Who’s to say Mr. Jewett’s memory is to be believed more than my memory? Why take Mr. Jewett’s memory about the hammer being slammed down once, over my memory of it being slammed down at least three times, but no more than five times, if it is not in the transcript at all?

  “Then Justin added, ‘Mr. Jewett is an experienced, skillful prosecutor and should have known Mr. Cook or Mr. Hoehn would object to him slamming the hammer down on the files, and therefore should have given them the opportunity to raise objections. But he chose to be deceitful about letting anyone know he was going to do that in front of the jury, so as not to risk being ordered by the court not to slam the hammer down. Then, after doing so, Mr. Jewett was not even admonished by the court or given a slap on the wrist.’

  “To emphasize this point, Justin slapped himself on the wrist, and said angrily, ‘Mr. Jewett got off scot-free!’

  “As Justin glared down past Mr. Cook, at Mr. Jewett, Jewett refused to turn away from Justin’s sassy looks. He continued to glare back at Justin.

  “Then Justin said that Jewett had misled the jury about the AK-47 he was supposed to own. Justin said, ‘Mr. Jewett would just have the jury believe that I was walking around the city blasting an AK-47 at everyone! ’

  “Justin said that Jewett had implied that Justin was not just a follower of Taylor, but acted on his own. At that point, Justin started verbally going berserk and mouthing off as he leaned behind Mr. Cook’s back toward Mr. Jewett. And Justin mouthed off to the judge as well, stating his notions and repeating analogies three or four times. His analogy would come full circle, but right when you thought it was over, he would lead into another analogy. To me, it seemed like pent-up anger that Justin had been holding back for so long.

  “While he was rambling on, he said, ‘I’m not the same person I was four-and-a-half years ago. I’ve grown since I’ve been in jail. You have to grow in jail or you’ll die. It’s sink or swim in there—so, of course, I’m not a follower now!

  “‘No, I don’t think Taylor is a prophet anymore. I haven’t been around Taylor since I’ve been in jail, so I’ve been able to grow to be assertive and in people’s faces. If you’re not, you’ll die there. So when Mr. Jewett is comparing me to what I was like four-and-a-half years ago, it’s like comparing apples to oranges.

  “‘And why, oh why, folks? Well, let me tell you why! Mr. Jewett is a liar and a hypocrite. I don’t know which is worse! But I would think being a hypocrite is worse.’
>
  “At this point, the court reporter said, ‘Justin! Justin! Can you slow down some? I just want to be sure that I get everything you’re saying.’

  “Mr. Cook whispered to Justin in a very forceful manner, ‘Calm down!’

  “Justin looked over at Mr. Cook with his cocky half-smile, as if to show Cook that he no longer was under Mr. Cook’s counsel, nor taking his advice.

  “Then Justin asked Judge Mary Ann O’Malley to ‘recant’ herself. He probably meant to say recuse herself. He said, ‘Your Honor, before we get started on the motion of the court recanting herself, I would like another judge to decide that motion, since it’s just like Mr. Jewett deciding his own matter on prosecutorial misconduct.’

  “Judge O’Malley nodded her acknowledgment at Justin’s request and continued on with Justin’s motions.

  “Justin said that Judge O’Malley allowed the jury pool to grow too large during the screening process. And he disagreed with specific rulings throughout the trial. He implied that Judge O’Malley made her rulings based on emotions and personal feelings, rather than based on law. Justin said he would take any judge to rule on his objections except from Judge O’Malley’s husband, who was also a Contra Costa County judge.

  “Of this, he said, ‘I understand your husband is a judge. So I wouldn’t want your husband to be appointed to my case, since you’re married to him.’

  “Then Justin directed his arguments toward his counsel Mr. Cook. He said that Cook refused to subpoena a lot of people Justin requested. These included neighbors at Pacheco Manor with whom he had a very good relationship while growing up. He had also requested the Phister family, who had spoken at Taylor’s trial, and several Sorenson relatives. Justin’s reasoning for the Sorenson family, however, didn’t make a lot of sense. He said, ‘The information is out there in the Sorenson family. If Gail Kissam (a defense investigator) was not able to get the information from them, it was because the right questions were not asked. The Sorensons won’t talk to Carma, or have anything to do with her. Carma calls up the Sorensons and all she gets is, “You’re the Devil and your son is a murderer!” And then the phone clicks. The right approach was not taken. It’s because if the right approach was taken, and if the court would have ordered a writ or a mandate, or something to order these people to tell the truth, under oath, under penalty of perjury, here in front of people, then I think there would have been a different result. The Sorensons don’t believe in mental illness. They think if you murder someone, then the murderer should be executed. They don’t believe mental illness might have played a part in it.’