by Robert Scott
Even before Sandy began to testify, Karen Kemper told the judge, “She remembers things in pictures more than words.” Kemper asked the judge to allow Sandy to close her eyes at times while testifying to remember things.
Judge Locke Williams asked for more of an explanation, so Sandy told him, “I have a photographic memory. I can remember things much better when I close my eyes.” There was no objection coming from the defense table, so Judge Williams allowed it.
Sandy said that in 1993 she was fourteen years old, five-one, and weighed about 105 pounds. Close to Easter, 1993, she was a runaway and living on the streets of Portland. Sandy testified, “One day after Easter, I gave my heart to the Lord at church. I left that church in Northeast Portland and in the afternoon I was sitting on a curb in a residential neighborhood. I went to a grocery store and bought some potato chips. I was in the deodorant aisle and I stole a deodorant. There was a man in the deodorant aisle in a long black coat and he saw me steal it. I saw that he noticed me doing it.
“I went out and sat on a bench, and at first I thought it was cool that he didn’t give me away. But then he came over, and I was afraid that he might be a security guard. I put the deodorant in my bag of chips and began walking down a side street. And the man who had worn the black coat pulled up in a white car. He didn’t have the black jacket on anymore. He asked me if I needed help, if I was okay. I thought how nice this was. He seemed like a safe person. Maybe he was a guy from church who wanted to help me.
“He had a square kind of face, bluish eyes, and his blond hair was kind of spiky. He looked like he was in his thirties. He had kind of a baby face and good teeth. He asked me where I was coming from, and I told him I was coming from church. He asked me what my name was, and I gave him a fake name. I didn’t want to be turned in as a runaway. I asked him what his name was, and he said that it was ‘Dave.’ I told him that was my father’s name.
“He asked me if I needed a ride. I thought about it. He seemed really nice and I felt at ease with him. But I told him no, and said that I needed to go home. I lied that my parents were waiting for me. He drove away and I was going to walk back where there were people and stores. But then I thought, he might not think I was going home if I did that. So I turned back and started walking in the direction I had been walking.
“I heard a noise behind me. Somebody running, and it was the guy himself. The one who said he was Dave. He said, ‘Wait! Wait!’ And I thought he was still trying to help me. He was wearing his long black coat again.
“He pulled out a gun and pointed it at me. There was another guy walking by, but Dave pulled out the gun, anyway. It was just getting dark around then. He put the gun on me and covered me with his coat, and told me where we were going to walk. He said something like, ‘Don’t say anything!’ My head only came up to about his chest. He was about six feet tall. We walked by a couple. The girl had curly hair. She was with her boyfriend. I was scared. I looked into her eyes and I wanted to tell her something was wrong. But I didn’t want to hurt her or see her get hurt.
“I just gave her a look like I was okay. We turned left and walked down a road. I saw his car. I also saw that there was nobody around anymore. I walked past the car, because there was no one around, and I was going to keep walking. But he showed me the gun again and shoved it against my stomach. He opened the door and forced me in.
“We drove somewhere. It wasn’t a very far drive. There was nobody around and he parked the car. We just sat there for a while. He had me move closer to him, and he told me he just wanted to hold me. ‘I’m not gonna hurt you,’ he said. ‘I’m just gonna hold you.’
“So I moved over and he felt me up. I was cringing and moving around. Then he asked me to take off my clothes. And I started to take my shoe off and [I] started crying. And I think I was asking for my mom. And then I thought, no, I’m not going to do this.
“He had some handcuffs and he pointed at them. He told me to put the handcuffs on myself. He didn’t want to put them on me. But I wouldn’t do it. I started screaming and crying. He got real upset and put his hand to his forehead, like an adult would with a crying child. He was frustrated with me.
“I was screaming uncontrollably and I started praying out loud. ‘Our Father who art in Heaven. Hallowed be thy name. Thy Kingdom come, thy will be done, on earth as it is in Heaven. Give us this day, our daily bread, and forgive [us] our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us. Lead us not into temptation, and deliver us from evil. For thine is the Kingdom, and the power, and the glory, Forever. Amen.’
“And then I prayed for him. I said, ‘Father, forgive him of his sins, because he knows not what he does.’
“He started to freak out. I looked at him, and he looked so scared. He looked out the window, and he had his hands on the wheel. His hands were like at the two and eleven positions. I looked at him again and at the gun on his lap. I was praying and God was speaking to me. God said, ‘Get out of the car.’ Not in a loud voice, but in a quiet one.
“And I asked God when to do it. And he said, ‘Now.’
“I looked at the gun, and then at the door, which was unlocked. I opened it, got out, and ran. I ran all the way up the street and then down the next street. There were cars going by, but not many. I saw only one lit place nearby, so I went there and stood under a light. And his car came up and drove back and forth right by me. Back and forth.
“I was scared. I went inside the café and the cashier asked me if I was all right. I said I was okay because I didn’t want to go home. I thought maybe he really was a policeman. He had a gun and handcuffs. They looked like police things. I was a child. Nobody would believe me.
“I finally hid in the bathroom for about fifteen minutes. When I came out of the bathroom, I saw him drive by one more time. I went outside to call a friend of mine from a pay phone. It was either a friend named Diana or Heather. And the parents answered the phone.”
Sandy’s story ended there, and tears were running down her face by the time she stopped her long monologue.
DDA Kemper asked what happened next.
Sandy said that the police eventually picked her up as a runaway, and she told them the story of what had happened with the man in the black coat.
The policeman told her, “See, that’s what happens when you run away from home.”
Kemper approached Sandy with a photo of Joel Courtney and the way he looked in 1993. Sandy said that the person in the photo looked like the man who had pulled a gun on her and forced her into his car.
As to why she was bringing all of this up now, Sandy said, “A friend of mine was dating and doing it by the Internet. I didn’t think that was safe, and I went online to tell her about that. It was in February 2009. I was looking under ‘serial killers,’ and that kind of thing. And the name Joel Courtney popped up. I saw that he had blue eyes and blond hair. It also said that he was in Oregon from 1991 to 1993. It spoke of the kind of girls he would take. Their age, height, and weight. And I thought I would check this out because it had happened to me.
“The first picture I looked at was him with a mullet! And I thought that maybe it could be the man who attacked me. But I wasn’t sure. So I called a contact number. It was either the Corvallis Police Department or Benton County Sheriff’s Office. I just wanted to know. Around that time I was having a garage sale. And my boyfriend came over and I told him about this for the first time. Then I looked on the computer again that day. And I said, ‘He didn’t wear his hair like that back then. And he didn’t wear glasses.’ Then I looked up one more thing. And it was about a trial of him in New Mexico. And it was a video of him moving and walking in court. And then I was one hundred percent sure. My body started shaking all over. It was horrible.”
Kemper asked Sandy, “You’re aware there have been television reports and newspaper articles about Joel Courtney with photos, correct?”
“Yes, but I didn’t see any newspaper articles about him until last week.”
DDA Kemper
wanted to know if the incident that happened to her still bothered her.
Sandy shut her eyes again and replied, “I get flashbacks a lot. When I see a car like his, it scares me. I can still remember the license plate he had. The first numbers were either three-four-one or two-three-one. There were letters near the end of the alphabet on the plate.”
When she opened her eyes, sitting across the courtroom was the man who was like a ghost from her past—Joel Patrick Courtney.
CHAPTER 24
“I’M READY TO TRY THIS CASE IN ANY COUNTY IN THE STATE!”
After all the witnesses had been heard, the prosecution knew that their summation to Judge Locke Williams was vitally important. Not only were they trying to consolidate the trials of Brooke Wilberger, Diane Mason, and Jade Bateman, but they also were attempting to get into an upcoming trial all the damning testimony of the witnesses who had just been on the stand. Just because they had said all those things now did not mean that the judge would ever allow jurors to hear the information.
Karen Kemper began by saying that sometime between 10:00 and 10:30 A.M. on May 24, 2004, was the last time that anyone—except Joel Courtney—saw Brooke Wilberger alive. Kemper pointed out that Courtney left that morning from Jesus Ordaz’s home, and they knew that because he had phoned the Lincoln County court three times, saying he was going there and he would be late. “We listened to those tapes. We know that he did not appear for court. He even called from Corvallis, saying that he was en route. But he never made it there.”
Kemper spoke of Diane Mason’s interaction with a man driving a green minivan near Thirtieth Street on the morning of May 24, 2004. And she gave a description that matched that of Joel Courtney and the green Dodge van he had been driving at the time. Jade Bateman and Bob Clifford also gave detailed descriptions about the green van and the man driving it. Clifford even remembered that the green van had Minnesota license plates—just like the Minnesota license plates that were on Joel Courtney’s green van.
Kemper said, “We know that all of this took place in a small perimeter of the Oregon State University campus, not far from the Oak Park Apartments. And it all took place just prior to ten A.M. on May 24, 2004. Lieutenant Zerzan and Lieutenant Keefer stood where Jade Batman had stood, and they could see the rooftops of the Oak Park Apartments. They weren’t using binoculars or anything else. They could plainly see the apartments.”
Kemper spoke of how similar Natalie Kirov’s incident was to what had occurred with Brooke, and had almost occurred with Diane and Jade. And Kemper brought up the situation with Sue McDonald: “Suddenly the defendant was on her, with the steering wheel at his back, forcing himself on her. He struck her in the temple with his fist and then dragged her out of the car.”
Kemper then brought up about Sandy Vargas and her ordeal. Kemper said, “Your Honor, the case law says similarity, timing, and repetition. Weighing that there is undue prejudice—and it must be remembered that evidence is always prejudicial to the defendant—we all know this is a no-body homicide case. Brooke Wilberger’s remains have never been recovered. The state does not have the usual information that would be brought to a jury in the form of forensic evidence. And that must be considered as part and parcel of the state’s need in this circumstance.”
Kemper told Judge Locke Williams that the state’s need was “narrowly focused.” Limiting instructions would ensure just that sort of thing. Kemper then cited State v. Hampton and State v. Brown and said that those cases were a template on how the judge should rule now.
Kemper even used an ELMO (an overhead projection device) and showed both of those cases side by side.
Kemper asked a rhetorical question: “Do those cases ask whether the evidence is logically relevant?” Yes, she replied to her own question, they did. Then she asked, “Is the evidence relevant for a noncharacter purpose? We are not suggesting, once a bad person, always a bad person. That is not the point of this evidence. Once again, it is the repetition and similarity of these acts.”
Highlighting sections, Kemper pointed out that Sue McDonald was eighteen years old, height five-three, weight 130 pounds. Sandy Vargas, fourteen years old, height five-one, weight 105 pounds. Diane Mason—twenty years old, height five-seven, weight 125 pounds. Jade Bateman—twenty-one years old, five-seven, 130 pounds. Natalie Kirov—twenty-two years old, five-four, 125 pounds. Brooke Wilberger—nineteen years old, five-four, 105 pounds. In every case, the women and girls were much younger than Joel Courtney, much shorter and weighed much less.
Kemper said, “Your Honor, each of these victims are relevant. There is no prejudice that substantially outweighs the relevance of these victims. This evidence goes to plan, opportunity, and intent. The state urges this court to deem all of this evidence to be admissible.”
Steven Gorham, of course, was just as adamant that everything that had been said by the witnesses be excluded as evidence, and that Diane Mason’s case and Jade Bateman’s case not be combined with that of Brooke Wilberger. Gorham said, “I’ll use a colloquial term—what the state is trying to do is throw mud at Mr. Courtney, and have as much of that mud stick as possible. Then they’ll use what mud is there to try and convict Mr. Courtney on the Wilberger case.”
Gorham said that the Dina McBride and Jesus Ordaz so-called evidence wasn’t relevant at all. Gorham claimed that the prosecution was just restating things that had occurred around the time of May 24, 2004. He said there was no connection to Brooke Wilberger.
As to the prosecutions’ major purpose, Gorham related, “You’ve heard what they’ve said their purpose is. Their purpose is about plan, opportunity, and intent. Every safe robber may know the same technique, but it doesn’t mean that one person did similar safe robbing. In this case the prosecution is saying, ‘Once a rapist, always a rapist.’ And that is not legal.”
As far as Diane Mason and Jade Bateman went, Gorham said that Joel Courtney never attempted to kidnap them—all he had done was ask them for directions. Then Gorham pointed out dissimilarities in what the prosecution was bringing in now. With Sandy Vargas, the man in question had used a gun and handcuffs. That had not been the case with Joel Courtney with either Sue McDonald or Natalie Kirov. “And the fact that they are saying that Natalie and Brooke were both near stadiums—there was no campus or stadium with Sue McDonald and Sandy Vargas.”
John Haroldson had his say after Steven Gorham. Haroldson told the judge, “It has been the practice in this state to enhance the evidence that is known. Then the court can evaluate the witnesses that might be in a trial. This is a clear analysis about other acts and admissibility. If it’s prejudicial, that is not enough. It must substantially outweigh the probative value.”
Haroldson brought up as an example another case he had prosecuted in that same court. The defendant had been charged with murder, and five years previously the defendant had been convicted of a fourth-degree assault in Alaska. There was a disparity in the victims’ ages in those cases. One was a young teenager and the other was twenty-eight years old. Using the same structure as he was doing with those cases with Joel Courtney, Haroldson said that in the previous case the judge, an appeals court, and the state supreme court all said he was correct and upheld his conviction.
“It boils down to this,” Haroldson said. “This so-called mud is relevant. It’s incriminating evidence. And it is not in the defendant’s interest to have relevant, incriminating evidence offered against him. And that’s why a zealous defense attorney doesn’t want it to come in.
“We have never made the argument that this is a signature crime (a crime that is patterned exactly like other crimes). Our argument has been to the similarities that exist. The theory of the state is that Joel Courtney arrived in Corvallis on the morning of May 24, 2004, to abduct, sexually assault, and kill a young woman. The Oregon State University campus was a target-rich environment for him.”
Haroldson told the judge that all three contacts by Courtney were made within an hour, and all were in proximity to one an
other. “His intent was to perpetrate the same crime. The difference is how far along he got in his plan. Jade Bateman and Diane Mason saw the defendant in a green van—a green van that later proved to have Brooke Wilberger’s DNA in it.”
As an example Haroldson brought up a situation about a bank robber who robs a bank. Witnesses see the man in a café across the street from the bank a half hour before he robs it. They don’t actually see the man rob the bank, but the witnesses’ testimony about seeing him in the café is admissible by law.
Steven Gorham had one last shot to convince the judge not to allow all this evidence in. Gorham argued, “These cases have been cross-pollinated.” Then Gorham noted that one of the cases that Haroldson had cited concerned traffic citations. “To decide a death penalty issue on traffic citations in a joinder case—that’s where our due process argument comes in. Those things are different! Death penalty cases are different than other minor cases. Ms. Wilberger’s case should rise and fall on Ms. Wilberger’s case.”
Now it was Stephanie Tuttle’s turn. She was an expert in Oregon state law and she told the judge, “I disagree that we’re just trying to pile on. And as far as the traffic citation case goes—the law is what the law is. It doesn’t change case by case. The statute is the same whether it is for a traffic citation or an aggravated murder case.
“Even if there was some prejudice against the defendant in this case, that could be taken care of at a later time by jury instructions. Right now all we want to do is join these cases. And they have met the criteria to do so.”
Judge Locke Williams took all of this under advisement and said that he would rule on it later. His rulings would have a profound effect upon how Joel Courtney and his lawyers would proceed toward their defense at trial.