And Then She Killed Him

by Robert Scott

  Judge Robison sustained that objection as well.

  When Steve Colvin got his turn, he got Mike Pruett to admit that he’d contacted Portia Vigil after the funeral and told her that he might have some things that would be of interest to law enforcement. Mike also admitted that he wasn’t surprised when an investigator contacted him.

  Colvin got into the fact that Mike had personally investigated three burglaries dealing with his own property, and two of these had led to convictions. Colvin asked if Pruett considered himself a “bit of a criminal investigator.” He replied that he asked a lot of questions in those cases.

  Colvin then spoke of Mike being surprised when Miriam had pronounced at the dinner after the funeral about an ex-employee: “He’d better have a fucking good alibi!”

  Colvin queried, “What surprised you? The fact that she was indicating that this guy better have a good alibi, or that she was using profanity?”

  Sharon’s brother answered, “The profanity. It caught me off guard in the realm of the environment that we were in.”

  Colvin then said, “Fair to say, you’ve never been at a funeral of a murdered spouse, right?”

  “Never have,” he replied.

  An important part of the prosecution’s case was the fact that they contended that the so-called robbery scene at the Helmick home on June 10, 2008, had been staged. To lend weight to the prosecution’s argument, they called Special Agent Robert Morton to the stand.

  Before his testimony went very far, however, Steve Colvin wanted to voir dire Morton because Colvin did not buy the argument that Morton was an expert witness when it came to staged crime scenes. Judge Robison gave Colvin his wish.

  Colvin began by asking if Morton considered himself to be an expert in the staging of crime scenes.

  Morton replied, “I have an expertise in that. Yes, sir.” Colvin next wanted to know how Morton had supposedly gained the expertise he claimed to have. Morton continued, “It comes from experience in looking at thousands of cases.”

  Colvin continued, “So you look at a crime scene and you decide whether or not it’s staged, right?”

  Morton responded, “After examining all the evidence and discussing it with law enforcement officers, and reviewing all the material that goes along with that, yes.”

  Colvin wanted to know who validated his decision as to whether the crime scene was staged or not.

  Morton stated, “It’s validated through other people that I work with.”

  Colvin retorted, “Ultimately, in the end, the truth of the matter is nobody knows for sure whether it’s staged or not. They just know whether they agree with you or not. Fair?”

  Morton responded, “Other than it being a professional opinion, yes.”

  After the voir dire of Robert Morton, Richard Tuttle argued to Judge Robison on whether Agent Morton was an expert witness: “I think there’s sufficient foundation laid. An expert can be judged as an expert in terms of experience, education, and training. I think he’s laid the sufficient foundation, having seen over a hundred staged crime scenes.”

  Judge Robison ruled in favor of Tuttle, saying, “Mr. Morton is presenting expert testimony based on his experience, and the foundation that has been laid is appropriate and adequate for him rendering expert testimony.”

  Tuttle’s questioning of Morton continued, and Morton spoke of the information that had been given to him by MCSO investigators. Morton added, “In the FBI’s uniform crime reports, which are published every year, there’s a section where they examine murder, robbery, burglary, rape, et cetera. Under murder, there’s a section that talks about murder by circumstance. For example, during a robbery. In 2007, there were approximately 2.2 million burglaries in the United States. There were approximately 14,189 murders in the United States in 2008. In 2008, there were eighty-seven murders in conjunction with a burglary. That is about .005 percent. A very small number.”

  As a reference point, Tuttle asked how many people were struck by lightning and died in the United States in the same year. The number of people killed by lightning was much higher than those killed during a burglary.

  As far as the staging of the robbery/murder at the Helmick home, Tuttle asked what degree of sophistication had been present.

  Morton replied, “The staging was very unsophisticated for the reasons I talked about earlier. Obviously, it was done by someone who does not have a lot of criminal experience, particularly as a burglar. It was almost juvenile in its nature of staging.”

  During his cross-examination, things became very heated between Special Agent Robert Morton and defense counsel Steve Colvin. Colvin knew this testimony was important as to whether the jurors believed that Miriam Helmick had killed Alan and then staged a robbery scene, or whether a real burglar had surprised Alan and murdered him.

  Colvin asked if to be successful at staging a robbery/ murder, someone would have to be a good burglar or a police officer who knew about such things.

  Morton answered, “Not necessarily. Burglars usually don’t kill people, so a burglar wouldn’t know how to stage a murder.”

  Colvin said that was not his question, and he tried again. “To convince you that it wasn’t staged, they would have to be someone who’s really skilled in either burglaries or a police officer. Is that right?”

  Morton replied, “They would have to be extremely skilled, yes.”

  Colvin then asked if Morton had ever made mistakes in his assessments of whether a crime scene had been staged or not.

  Morton testified, “I try to minimize errors, like anybody else does. I try to look at the entire thing in totality, as well as the circumstances. Using that barometer, measure the fact that the crime scene is very consistent with being staged and not consistent with a burglary gone bad. Have I ever made an error in describing a crime scene as being staged, and afterward found out it was not? No, I have not.”

  Colvin wouldn’t give up on this point. He asked, “Had you made a mistake, you wouldn’t know it. Let’s say the jury acquits Ms. Helmick. That doesn’t prove that you’re wrong, because, according to you, they would be wrong, correct?”

  Morton answered, “The jury isn’t only determining whether the fact that I described the crime scene as staged. It’s just one aspect of it.”

  Now things got even more contentious. Colvin questioned, “Even if the jury disagrees with your expert opinion, you still are going to maintain that you are correct because you don’t make mistakes on this issue?”

  Morton shot back, “That’s an overly simplistic statement, sir!”

  Colvin wouldn’t give up, however. He said, “So you agree, then, that if the jury acquits Ms. Helmick, you will have your first time that you’ve ever been wrong on a staged crime scene?”

  Morton responded, “No, sir. That’s not what I said!”

  “Do you know if Mr. Helmick is one of the 14,189 murders? Because you don’t even know if Mr. Helmick got counted, right?”

  Morton answered, “The way the Uniform Crime Reports work is that the department is mandated by federal law to report murder cases. There’s a means that they use to compile data and send it in. Exactly which case out of those—well, I’m sure [the Helmick case] is in there. I can’t tell you which one without asking somebody from Mesa County who actually submits that data.”

  Colvin pushed on: “So the answer to my question is, you don’t know whether or not there’s really 14,190, because you don’t know if Mesa County counted this as a murder?”

  Morton replied emphatically, “I know that there’s been 14,189 murders reported in the UCR in 2008.”

  “And you don’t know if this one was reported, right?”

  “That’s correct.”

  “And you certainly don’t know if this was reported as a homicide in conjunction with a burglary, right?”

  “ No.”

  “So you don’t know if it fits in that eighty-seven or not?”

  “No, I don’t.”

  Moving on, Colvin got Mort
on to agree that people were killed by lightning every year in the United States. It was a small number compared to the entire population of the country, but it did happen. Then Colvin asked, “Do you still think some people get killed in a burglary gone bad?”

  Morton responded, “Yes, it does happen.”

  Colvin asked if Morton had been given any more discovery material on the Helmick case since October 30, 2008. Morton said that he hadn’t received any new material since then. At that point, Colvin asked, “So your assessment could change, were you given additional investigative resources, additional discovery?”

  Morton stated, “Depending on the nature of the information.”

  “And based as part of your professional opinion, you say this was a staged crime scene, but you can’t say who staged it?”

  Morton answered, “For purposes of this testimony, the only thing I’m allowed to say is that the crime scene was staged. And in the majority of staging cases, there’s a relationship between the offender and victim.”

  “Hypothetically, if someone knows that Mr. Helmick and Mrs. Helmick travel together frequently, and sees a vehicle leaving from the Helmick house, they certainly would have reason to think there was no one there. Would you agree?”

  “That could be possible.”

  “And if someone saw them leave and went into the house, even though there were still vehicles parked there—if they had reason to think Mr. and Mrs. Helmick were always together, they would go ahead and go in. Would you agree?”

  “Yes. If the offender is specifically targeting the Helmick house.”

  “If a burglar was in the house, was confronted by or saw Mr. Helmick, was startled and shot him, is it reasonable to say they might want to leave at that point?”

  “In the context you said it, yes. But that’s not what the crime scene reveals to me.”

  “Well, would you agree with that if somebody shoots somebody, their first thought may be ‘I better get out of here.’ Not that ‘I should rummage through the china cabinet’?”

  “If that was the sequence of events.”

  “Your professional opinion arrived at was based upon a review of the crime scene photographs and videos. It’s not based upon any interviews of witnesses. Do I understand that correctly?”

  Morton responded, “That’s correct.”

  Richard Tuttle had one more crack at FBI agent Morton on this important issue of a possible staged robbery/murder scene. Tuttle asked, “Did you see any evidence in your review of the crime scene photos, crime scene video, and all that information that would suggest to you, or support the idea, that Mr. Helmick, who was shot in the back of the head, was ever confronted by a burglar?”

  Robert Morton answered, “My opinion is that he was not confronted by a burglar. He had no defensive wounds. The position of where he was shot, and the circumstances in the location where he was shot, indicated to me that there was not a confrontation.”

  CHAPTER 38

  IN HER OWN DEFENSE

  The most dramatic part of the trial was, of course, the presence of Miriam Helmick on the stand. Her defense was taking a huge gamble that the jurors would find Miriam’s testimony compelling. It was her one chance to try and explain all of the “coincidences” that pointed to her having murdered her husband. If she could explain them in a rational manner, it would take her a long way toward ensuring a verdict of not guilty. But if she came off as arrogant or evasive, the effect could be devastating for her.

  Because this was so important, even before Miriam testified, the prosecution wrote up a memo for Judge Robison. Its title was “People’s Motion Regarding Defendant’s Anticipated Testimony.” The motion read in part: The People are particularly concerned with alleged statements attributed to Alan Helmick which are directly offered to negate the eleven counts of check forgery in this case. It is clear that the defense will argue that the defendant had the permission of Alan Helmick to write the checks at issue.

  This was a huge part of the prosecution’s contention that Miriam had killed Alan Helmick because he found out that she was forging his checks. And the prosecution was worried that Miriam was going to get up on the stand and testify that Alan knew she was making out the amounts on those checks and signing them—in essence, forging his signature because he told her it was okay to do so. If that was true, then what did Miriam gain by killing him? She obviously had been strapped for cash after he was dead. Even Alan had told the investigating officer after the car fire, he was worth more to Miriam alive than dead.

  In its motion, the prosecution related that if Miriam Helmick testified in that manner, the jurors should hear that these statements were not facts. Rather, they were the “worst kind of hearsay,” because Alan was deceased and could not refute what Miriam was saying on the stand.

  In the end, Judge Robison wrote on the motion: Denied in part and granted in part. In other words, she would take up these issues one by one, depending upon what Miriam Helmick actually did say during testimony.

  Jody McGuirk began by asking Miriam Helmick how and why she had moved to Grand Junction, and Miriam retold that story. Then McGuirk asked Miriam about her first impressions of Alan Helmick.

  Miriam said, “I really didn’t have much of an impression of him at first. He was different. Very businesslike. He wanted to make sure that I could teach him, and teach him well. He only wanted to take ten lessons at first. Alan had dance lessons twice a week. He was very analytical. You couldn’t just tell him to turn right or left. He wanted to know how many degrees.”

  McGuirk asked Miriam about her first dates with Alan and how her attitude changed over time about him. Miriam said that she began to realize that she and Alan had so much in common. And he was fun to be around, once he loosened up.

  Then Miriam spoke about living in a room underneath Alan’s main house in Delta, in the beginning. Asked how this situation changed, Miriam said, “I was standing on the back porch waiting on him to walk across the street. I had just come home from teaching a dance lesson. He walked up and told me that he thought I looked wonderful standing there, that I belonged with him. If he had only one day, one week, one month, with me, he felt blessed to have been with me at all.” After that, Miriam said that she moved in with Alan into the main part of the house.

  McGuirk wanted to know about one incident that had come in during Laegan McGee’s testimony. It concerned a time when Laegan, Alan, and Miriam were at Boomers restaurant. McGuirk said, “You heard Laegan McGee testify in court earlier about seeing you at Boomers with Alan and that you waved to her in an embarrassed way, and that you came up to her and you talked to her about Alan buying you a house and horses. Did you ever see Laegan McGee at Boomers?”

  Miriam said that she recalled seeing her at Boomers, but that she had never been embarrassed about being with Alan. Then Miriam added, “He made me feel like a queen. Wonderful.” And Miriam said that she never spoke to Laegan McGee about Keith Coppage having been a boyfriend of hers.

  As far as Alan “buying a house for her,” Miriam said that it was a mutual decision to get a new house in Whitewater. “He had actually started looking at a house before he met me. He was trying for a fresh start. He’d been in the house in Delta for many, many years, and there were a lot of reminders of his wife there. We thought it was best to get a place in Whitewater. Halfway between his office in Delta and the dance studio in Grand Junction.

  “It was twenty-seven miles away from Delta, so it was different than living there. In Delta, we could run over to the Elks Lodge and play pool and have a good time on the weekends. When we moved to Whitewater, he put in his own pool table, because we didn’t want to drive that far away. We did see less people out there, but Alan wasn’t bothered by that.”

  McGuirk asked about the day that she and Alan got married, and why Alan had thrown money at her after the ceremony. Miriam responded, “It was because he had written a poem, and in this poem—well, he brought out a wheelbarrow and buckets and horse manure, pitchforks and
all kinds of things. It was to show we would be doing all those things in the new house. It was to show that money would have to be spent and I’d have to be doing all those kinds of things after we were married.”

  The contention from the prosecution and law enforcement, of course, was that Miriam had cajoled Alan into buying Dance Junction for her, and it lost a lot of money. Miriam now testified that Alan’s reasons were very different. She said, “When I met him, he was paying a lot of money out of pocket each month to the IRS. And he said that he believed that if he was going to give money to the IRS, he’d rather put it into something he could enjoy than just giving it away. He enjoyed Dance Junction. I taught the teachers there, got them prepared, taught couples, group lessons, and I would figure the payroll. He did all the financial things. The hiring of managers, the setting up accounts, talking to creditors. He took care of the business end of it.”

  Miriam said that Dance Junction actually suffered financially when Alan quit going there as often as he used to do. Miriam testified, “My ladies loved dancing with him on Friday nights and at the groups. And you have more ladies than you have men in those, and they missed him. When he quit showing up, they didn’t show.” Miriam agreed that Dance Junction had never been a profitable business, and then she added that it never was supposed to be. According to Miriam, Alan was content with it being a loss; otherwise, he would have had to pay even more taxes to the IRS than he already was paying.

  McGuirk wanted to know why Keith Coppage was at Dance Junction. Miriam answered, “Alan hired him. He was a previous dance instructor of mine. Alan hired him because Keith had had his own dance studio at one time, and he knew how to run one.”

  As to Miriam’s relationship with Keith Coppage, McGuirk asked, “Did you ever date him?”