Even to people who wanted to believe Rachel Buffett, her decision to appear on Dr. Phil seemed to be a major public relations calamity. As practiced as she was at delivering lines, she was not prepared for Steve’s wounded rage. Although her attorney had been close by, Ajna Sharma-Wilson was surrounded by members of law enforcement who’d been quick to point out any discrepancy in the actress’ remarks. From the moment the show started, the host let the audience know his sympathies—and they certainly weren’t with Rachel.
Already livid over their theater closing after the tragedy, the Hathcock family watched Rachel with the same attention they’d paid to performances on their stage, critiquing every head movement and deciphering every word.
While Nancy Hathcock had only met Rachel a few times, her reaction to Dan’s fiancée was scathing and personal. “In every interview that I’ve caught of hers, she always lets you know”—Nancy contorted her face and affected a snooty tone—“‘I’m an act-or.’ And I just kind of go, ‘Oh, give me a break.’ It makes me want to throw up.”
Having never seen the transcripts for Rachel’s pretrial hearing, Jeff Hathcock was curious about how Rachel would explain her knowledge of Dan’s actions. Within minutes of Rachel’s introduction on Dr. Phil, Jeff concluded that she was obscuring the truth. “They were living together,” he said. “She saw Dan leave with Sam and come back alone. Then, after they did their play that night, they went home and Dan disappears with a gun to kill Julie. She said she was sleeping, but I don’t believe it. She had to know where the hell he was going.”
According to the gossip Allyson had heard in the theater community, she found it difficult to believe that Rachel had blindly accepted Dan’s explanations for his actions. “From what I heard, he was the one who enjoyed being led around and liked it that way,” Allyson said. “Rachel wore the pants in that relationship.”
Although the Kibuishi family decided not to appear on the program—allowing Steve to represent the voices of the victims—they posted a message on the show’s Web site, focusing more on Juri’s affable temperament than issues of guilt and innocence.
“Julie is one of the sweetest, brightest and most cheerful individuals,” the Kibuishis said, choosing to discuss their daughter and sister in the present tense. “She snorts when she laughs too hard, and she’s the one you’ll hear singing from the top of her lungs at any concert. Julie is always there for her friends and family. She’s the type of person who would drive up to LAX from Irvine just to pick you up from the airport. She’s always had a passion for musical arts and dance. Our family appreciates the hard work the detectives and District Attorney’s office have done thus far, and we rely on their expertise to bring this case to closure.”
There was nobility in the way that the family portrayed itself, refusing to resort to name-calling or dignify either Dan’s or Rachel’s defenses. Yet Juri’s friends were most heartened by the recollections of the young woman they missed. While they shed tears—knowing that they’d never again hear Juri’s laughter or experience her kindness—other readers of the show’s Web site were venting their anger at Rachel Buffett.
Posted one viewer: “She is cold and fake. She had a blank look on her face and if anyone watched her carefully.… She’s obviously acting.”
A person identifying as a drama teacher and actor wrote that Rachel’s appearance was worthy of an Academy Award: “I think the father had an absolute right to be angry that she took [her story] … to air before the trial to drum up support. I hope she rots in jail.”
Commented another observer: “Frankly, she wasn’t telling the truth. Too bad she didn’t use this platform to tearfully confess that she was trying to save her [fiancé] … or at least was corroborating what he said. Instead, she chose to lie, furthering the degradation of the victims.”
Emotions about Rachel also ran high among readers of local news outlets, who posted comments below articles about the case. On more than one occasion, she was compared to Jodi Arias, an equally attractive femme fatale from Arizona. On June 9, 2008, Travis Alexander, a motivational speaker and salesman, was discovered in the shower of his Mesa home by a group of friends. Travis had written a book that chronicled his troubled childhood—his parents were drug addicts—as well as the gratitude he felt toward his grandmother for introducing him, along with his three siblings, to the Mormon faith. Immersing himself in the principles of the Church of Latter-Day Saints, he said, enabled him to heal the scars of his upbringing.
Travis was thirty when his friends came upon his corpse. There was a gunshot wound to his face, as well as twenty-nine stab wounds all over his body, including a slit throat and a cut that penetrated his heart. While scouring the residence, the friends found a digital camera that had been run through the washing machine. Among the deleted images that police were able to recover were a series of sexual photos depicting Jodi and Travis from five days earlier—along with a picture of a man who appeared to be the victim bleeding on the bathroom floor.
The couple had met at a business conference in 2006 and moved in together the next year. Officially, they were a committed couple for five months. But they continued to maintain a sexual relationship after their breakup.
Jodi’s initial story was that she had no connection to her lover’s death. When forensic experts discovered that her DNA was mixed with Travis’ blood, she revised her account to claim that two masked invaders—one male and one female—had entered the home, killing Travis and assaulting her. For reasons she couldn’t explain, she said, the attackers had allowed her to live. Fearing retribution, she continued, she decided not to report the crime to authorities.
By the time of the trial, Jodi was telling another story. Now she insisted that Travis was abusive and attempted to hurt her after she dropped the camera in the bathroom. She’d only killed Travis, she explained, because she was trying to defend herself.
She admitted that her stories about the incident were inconsistent. “Lying isn’t typically something I just do,” she said. She’d distorted the truth both to protect her former boyfriend’s reputation, she argued, and because she was “very ashamed” of her role in his death.
Three months after Rachel’s appearance on Dr. Phil, Jodi Arias was convicted of first-degree murder. She’d be sentenced to life behind bars.
While the parallels between the two women came readily to Rachel’s critics, other observers believed her narrative about being controlled and misled by Dan Wozniak and wrongfully targeted by the criminal justice system.
“There were so many things that bothered me about this ‘inquisition,’” a viewer wrote on the Dr. Phil Web site. “I can’t begin to imagine what this young lady’s frame of mind was at the time—fiancé arrested, brother arrested, friends murdered, and she was being interrogated.… Her demeanor was controlled, yes. And if she had been tearful or hysterical, she would have been accused of overacting. She just couldn’t win!”
Another commentator concurred that the authorities were hanging their case against Rachel on a few words that she uttered when she was at her most vulnerable: “So … she has a cold look to her. It doesn’t make her guilty.”
Even those who found her manner detached and curious urged authorities to consider the range of circumstances affecting Rachel’s demeanor. “She’s a weird one,” opined a spectator in a lengthy post. “But weird doesn’t mean guilty.… Her being awkward could be explained away by the fact that she’s being accused of something she didn’t do.”
Remarkably, several viewers appeared less approving of Steve’s appearance than of the young woman being charged. Rachel didn’t cry, said one, because she was “in self-preservation mode.” Steve, the viewer continued, expressed a lot of fury but, like Rachel, shed no tears.
“Sam’s father … is just bitter,” read a post, “and wants everyone in jail, even if they are innocent of killing his son. Sorry for his loss, but he is being ridiculous and vindictive.”
Assented another viewer, “I do not feel she belongs in prison, and the father is taking his loss out on her. She was more respectful to the father than I would have been.”
A person who claimed to feel compassion for the Herrs sent a message directly to Steve: “If you ruin this girl’s life … you will never forgive yourself.”
In fact, numerous onlookers found Rachel relatable. “I have been in this girl’s shoes, and know firsthand the shock and heartbreak that comes from learning that someone you care for … isn’t who you thought they were,” one post stated. “I really understood and sympathized with her when she made reference to her brain turning off.… I’m sure her fiancé didn’t ask before he dragged her through the dirt.”
Another observer maintained that Rachel did not deserve to be punished for Dan’s sins: “I have no doubt at all that Dan is a terrible person.… But that’s not what the show was about.… The show was about the young lady … trying to get [her] … side of the story out.”
Meanwhile, Rachel’s relatives were working hard to alter the public assessment of the actress. A poster appeared online featuring a photo of Rachel wearing a gown and holding a bouquet, her face framed by curled blond locks and illuminated by a smile. “FREE RACHEL BUFFETT!” the notice proclaimed. “She is 100 % Innocent!” This was followed by a quote from Hebrews 11:1 (Easy-to-Read Version): “Faith is what makes real the things we hope for. It is proof of what we cannot see.”
On Facebook, there was a page supporting the actress’ efforts to vindicate herself. Despite her photogenic appearance, there was only one picture included: the same one that graced the poster. The section marked “About” began: “Rachel Buffett is being wrongfully accused, humiliated, slandered and abused by the Costa Mesa PD and the media.” This was followed by a longer appeal: “We Need Your Help! Post and comment on Rachel’s behalf, and let the media and PD know that her friends and family are outraged at the treatment and slander she is receiving [and] … that her name should be cleared and her reputation set straight! Rachel is a kind and tender-hearted girl. She is a hard worker and puts others before herself. She is intelligent, outgoing, ambitious and sensitive to others. She is a gentle and beautiful person inside and out, a great friend, daughter, sister, cousin, niece and granddaughter. Please post and comment on Rachel’s behalf.”
Over the course of the next three years, the page would receive just over 160 “Likes.” “Thank you again for everyone’s support and prayers!” read one post from 2014. “Rachel is still being wrongly accused and has been appearing at multiple court dates since her release from jail.… Please continue to pray for Rachel.… God knows the truth and we are constantly leaning on the Lord!”
“God knows I’m innocent,” Rachel would tell the NBC show Dateline. “I never tried to help Dan Wozniak. I told the truth to the best of my capabilities to try to help the police get to the bottom of things. My heart was always in the right place.”
Visitors to the page would come from as far away as South Africa and Sweden. Some admitted that they first learned about the case from watching Dr. Phil. Rachel’s accusers were derided in one post as “nutcases.” Readers were urged to flood Orange County District Attorney Tony Rackauckas’ office with phone calls and plead that the charges be dropped.
On May 31, 2013, Rachel was in court again, hoping that the effort would wield results. Her lawyer, Ajna Sharma-Wilson, claimed prosecutors were playing a “shell game of dates” to create the impression that Rachel lied to authorities. The attorney argued that one date had been dropped from the original criminal complaint, but another was later added by prosecutors.
Citing the contention that Rachel had reported hearing about Sam’s alleged family problems to police, Judge James Stotler stated that there was reasonable cause to suspect that the actress was trying to divert attention away from her fiancé. The request to dismiss the three felony charges was denied.
For the Herrs and Kibuishis, the decision was a minor victory. With so many obstacles ahead, both families were still a long way from receiving anything close to justice.