Friday, February 26, 2010

Was It Worth It?

The defendant in the triple murder trial was found guilty on all 10 counts of aggravated murder this morning, which carries the death penalty in Oregon. 

Here are the main points the prosecution used to convict Ricardo Serrano; every one of these is circumstantial evidence, which when combined, made a more than adequate case. There was little direct evidence in this case.

1.  a paper w/ the victim's (Melody) live-in's (Mike) license number and car description was found in the defendant's (Ricardo) car
2.  Ricardo called in sick to work at 6:01 a.m. the morning after the murders (which happened about 9:35 the previous evening)
3.  Ricardo parked his truck two blocks from home when he returned home after the murders [he didn't want neighbors to be able to pinpoint a time he returned home]
4.  the murder weapon was found at Ricardo's brother's house in Beaverton
5.  Ricardo lied to police saying his brother lived in Mexico [he didn't want them to find murder weapon at brother's house]
6.  a 380 spent shell casing was found at Ricardo's house [most of the shell casings were removed from murder scene by murderer]
7.  Ricardo's shoes matched a shoe print found at the murder scene
8.  Melody's computer was found in Ricardo's garage
9.  Ricardo was seen in his vehicle w/ this computer
10.  Ricardo's cell phone was repeatedly used in the area of the murders for 10-ish minutes directly preceding the crime. Soon after the murder his cell phone was used in the vicinity of his own house (it's an 11 minute drive from Melody's house to Ricardo's house). The next morning before Mike returned from his night shift at work, Ricardo's cell phone was again repeatedly used in the area of Melody's house; also, the phone was used near Ricardo's brother's house soon before and soon after the murders (murder weapon belonged to brother). Before the murders his cell phone was also used in the area where Mike was employed

I also find it interesting that Ricardo, after calling work to say he wasn't coming in that day, spent that whole day driving around Beaverton, Cedar Hills and nearby areas, then showed up at home at 4:20 p.m., the usual time he would have come home from work. His wife thought he had been at work all day [cell phone tracing showed where his phone was used all day]--why would he have acted this way?

Ricardo did not testify in his own defense. The defense never tried to create an alibi for Ricardo. The defense's main points were that there were no fingerprints or DNA from the defendant found in the victim's house, and no blood or fibers found in Ricardo's vehicle that could tie him to the crime.

Ricardo certainly got his revenge on Mike for having an affair with his wife, and I wonder how Ricardo would answer the question, 'was it worth it?'

1 comment:

  1. There are many reasons a defendant may not testify. Most often the reason is other crimes he has committed may be brought into evidence that stay out if he doesn't testify. I don't think I've ever seen a defendant make things go better in the trial by testifying...