From the perspective of Rachel’s lawyer, the former Disney princess’ sole intention was aiding the detectives attempting to solve the murders of Sam Herr and Juri Kibuishi.
“Miss Buffett was put into a circumstance where her brother and her fiancé were arrested two days before her wedding,” defense attorney Ajna Sharma-Wilson argued in front of Judge Makino. “Her life basically fell apart. And, in trying to figure out what happened, she did go to the police. She volunteered [giving] to the police any information that this young lady had.”
The lawyer referred to Rachel telling the detectives about her encounter with a nervous Tim Wozniak after Dan’s arrest: “She … let them know that Tim Wozniak may have been the one.” The implication was that Tim’s behavior led Rachel to suspect that Dan’s brother could have committed the crimes. “I don’t think that the police would have gotten as far in their investigation without the assistance of Miss Buffett.”
Nonetheless, Sharma-Wilson conceded that Rachel hadn’t conveyed the absolute truth: “I understand some of her information were lies because Dan told her them.… And that has come out today with the testimony of the [prosecution] witnesses. Other than that, I do believe that my client did her best to tell the truth to the police officers, and did her best to try to put her life together over those past two years.
“And I will submit to that.”
But Matt Murphy continued to insist that Rachel was part of the problem, not the solution.
“There’s been a murder that’s been committed,” he maintained. “We know there’s a plot. We know there’s a plot based on Wozniak’s confession that he planned this whole thing out.”
“That he did it?” Judge Makino attempted to clarify.
“Right. That he did it.”
“There’s a plot involving him?”
“Right.”
“… But you’re saying the plot involves her?”
“That’s right, because it has to involve her because when Wozniak tells police, ‘Yeah, there’s this third guy,’ that’s obviously a part of the plot. I don’t have to prove what little twisted thought [Rachel and Dan] … have together about how that’s going to … protect them. But I can submit to the court that, based on this, when Sam Herr’s body is eventually discovered, they want to blame it on this mystery guy.
“… Wozniak is the very first one to make the statement, ‘I lied about the third guy.’ Okay? And so, that’s part of the plot. Third guy—part of the plot … When she’s first interviewed … [she] tells the exact same lie … about this third guy being at the apartment. That’s a material falsehood.”
In addition, the senior deputy district attorney claimed that Rachel deliberately omitted the fact that Chris Williams had been at her home on the day that Sam disappeared. “She doesn’t mention Chris Williams at that point,” Murphy said. “That’s an affirmative falsehood because Chris Williams has been waiting” in the couple’s apartment and saw Dan return alone. “The witness knows there’s no third person.”
And, according to the prosecutor, Rachel also knew that Juri had been murdered before Steve Herr found the body in Sam’s apartment. On Saturday night, prior to Rachel’s performance in Nine, “Miss Buffett announces to this other actress that her friend is missing, she thinks she’s dead, and she thinks her other friend did it,” Murphy stressed to the judge. “If Julie isn’t found until later that evening, and we’ve got evidence that this woman, our defendant here, knows about her death before anyone has discovered her … the only place that she can get that information is from Wozniak.”
Because of her intimacy with Dan, as well as the odd timing of Rachel’s revelation to Cynthia Lee, Murphy contended, she knew about Juri’s sad fate, as well as who committed the crime.
But Sharma-Wilson had issues with some of the sources used by law enforcement. As sincere as Cynthia may have been when she spoke to authorities, the lawyer pointed out that the actress was interviewed on October 26, 2010—about five months after the double murder. And detectives admitted that neighbor Jake Swett, who found Steve Herr in Sam’s apartment, was intoxicated when he was first interviewed.
Even so, Murphy said, Rachel’s actions during that weekend proved her culpability. Besides lying about the man in the baseball cap, Murphy claimed, Rachel’s story about returning home from the play and going to sleep was “akin to an alibi.”
“What was the false statement?” the judge challenged.
“… They came home and they went to bed. Okay? As opposed to, ‘We came home, my fiancé left and came back, and we went to bed.’”
“How about, ‘We went to bed, he left while I was asleep, I didn’t know it, and he came back’?” Judge Makino suggested.
“Which would be great. And that’s a wonderful thing at trial. But she doesn’t say that. She says, ‘We came home and we went to sleep.’”
Speaking over Murphy, the judge continued to question the notion that Rachel was being economical with the truth: “Where’s the evidence that that’s false? I mean, how is it not possible that did, in fact, happen? And that he left and killed the other person and came back?”
“Well, for one thing … I believe we had testimony that they usually go to sleep about one. Julie Kibuishi is murdered right around midnight.” The prosecutor noted that Juri’s cell phone records indicated that that was when Juri’s text communication with her brother stopped. “So according to the defendant’s own statement, they usually go to sleep between one in the morning and three in the morning. So it’s before her bedtime for one thing, and she says nothing about her fiancé leaving.”
The adamant tone of Murphy’s voice sounded convincing. Still, Judge Makino warned that he wasn’t interested in having the case tried in front of him. “This is not a trial,” he said. “This is a preliminary hearing.” As with the Grand Jury, the purpose of the proceeding was determining whether there was enough evidence to try Rachel for being an accessory. “I would say you have enough for the preliminary hearing,” the judge told Murphy. “But I would also say that I have my doubts whether that’s going to get you a conviction at trial.”
Either way, Makino expressed his opinion that the testimony had convinced him “that there’s a reasonably strong suspicion that the crimes alleged [at the proceeding] were committed, and that this defendant was the person who committed those offenses.”
Rachel was incredulous about being in any way associated with the crimes attributed to Dan. “It’s such a preposterous notion,” she’d later say on the Dr. Phil TV show. “I had nothing to do with the murders, and I had no knowledge of the murders until after the police did.”
In the courtroom, Murphy appeared to be looking forward to proving her wrong: “I have no doubt it’s going to be interesting.”