At the Hands of a Stranger (29 page)

The defense began presenting its case on Valentine's Day, February 14, 2011, as Judge Hankinson had predicted. There was business to take care of before the jury was seated. The morning began with Ines Suber's customary motions and objections, which this time included a move for a judgment of acquittal, concentrated mainly on the charge of grand theft auto.

Hankinson denied it.

Suber next moved for a mistrial, using a laundry list of grounds that included several of her previous objections to admitting bone fragments and beads as evidence and objections to the testimony of several of the state's witnesses.

Again, Hankinson denied it.

During this time there was a lot of delaying—a total of forty-five minutes—while members of the defense and the prosecution walked around, looked at evidence, and talked. When court resumed, still without the presence of the jury, the prosecution and defense argued about the qualifications of the first witness Suber planned to call, Dr. Adina Schwartz, whom she described as being an expert in tool mark identification literature.

The prosecution objected to her testimony, saying she was neither a tool mark examiner nor a tool mark expert and did not have any information that pertained to the case. Defense attorney Paula Saunders told the judge that Schwartz was qualified as an expert based on her academic research, teaching, study in the field, and more. The prosecution objected to the defense's intent to disqualify the earlier testimony of FDLE expert Jeff Foggy, saying that Schwartz could not judge his work because she didn't understand “the science of tool mark identification.”

After reading about some of the previous cases Schwartz had testified in, Hankinson decided to allow her videotaped testimony and ordered the jury to be brought in.

On the video Schwartz identified herself as a City University of New York (CUNY) professor at John Jay College, with a specialty in evidence law, forensic computing, and as an expert in evidence and forensic science. John Jay College, Schwartz said, was the only liberal arts college in the United States devoted to criminal justice and offered degrees from bachelors through doctorates. Schwartz said she currently taught doctorate students on forensic identification.

On the message board, one blogger wrote: She teaches how to discredit.

Schwartz proceeded to give an hour-long testimony, which had been filmed in her office in New York on January 26. She claimed that Jeff Foggy's analysis of the slash mark on Cheryl Dunlap's tire having been made by Hilton's bayonet was “subjective.” She said the slash mark on the tire was made by stabbing, but said there was no way of proving Foggy's findings because of differences in the composition of tires and the unknown angle of attack when the mark was made.

The testimony, which at times was so technical that it was hard for courtroom observers and message board bloggers to follow, seemed to go on much longer than an hour. Then when time came for cross-examination, Schwartz admitted to the questioner for the prosecution that she hadn't examined either the actual bayonet or the tire in the case. She was asked if she had been paid by the defense for her testimony, and she said yes. When asked the amount of her payment, she said, “Nine thousand dollars.”

The video finally came to an end, and before Hankinson could tell the defense they could call their next witness, a shocking announcement was made:

“Your Honor, the defense rests.”

The people inside the courtroom were surprised into silence, but the announcement set the message board bloggers on fire:

Suber gave it one more shot, asking yet again for an acquittal. Hankinson, yet again, told her, “No.” Then he asked Hilton if he wanted to testify.

Hilton stood and told the judge that he did not. Hankinson asked Hilton if he had been advised of his right to testify on his own behalf, and he again said that he knew his rights but did not choose to testify.

Hankinson addressed the jury and asked them if they wanted to finish that afternoon, hearing the closing statements, or if they preferred to come back the following morning for closing. Since it was nearly time for a lunch break, he told them, “Either go home and get some clothes and come back and be sequestered overnight, or come back tomorrow morning at eight forty-five to hear closing arguments and go into deliberations.”

The jury left the courtroom to decide what they wanted to do, and a discussion began of jury instructions and definitions for the jury of all possible verdicts in the case. After a very short time the jury sent the bailiff in with their decision; they would go home and return the following day, ready to begin their deliberation after closing arguments and jury charges. There was nothing left for the court to do but wait until the next morning.

 

The court session held on Tuesday, February 15, 2011, began with the prosecution piling up charts, screens, and evidence bags in preparation for their closing argument. Prosecutor Georgia Cappleman, wearing a bright red “power suit,” looked very relaxed and confident, ready to present the state's case against Gary Michael Hilton.

“Are there any last-minute issues on jury instruction?” Judge Hankinson asked. “If there are any new objections, they'll be heard at sidebar after closing.”

Hankinson addressed the audience in the courtroom.

“Once we're started on closings, I'm going to instruct the bailiff to lock the doors to the courtroom so there will be no coming and going to distract the jury.”

When the judge ordered the jury to be brought into the courtroom, he asked them, as he had each day, if they were all still unexposed to anything about the case that could disqualify them from jury service. He thanked them for their attention; then he began instructing them on the coming procedures. A printed handout had been prepared for each juror, and Hankinson asked them to follow along as he read the entire handout aloud. Among the instructions were the explanations that the jury's first job was to decide if Hilton had committed the crimes he was accused of, and then to decide the degree of each crime that they found him guilty of. The judge explained what would have to be proved in order to find him guilty of murder, kidnapping, grand theft, and grand theft auto.

Then, when the instructions had been given, the doors to courtroom 3A were locked, and the prosecution's closing arguments began.

 

Georgia Cappleman began by telling the jury, “The man sitting here in the courtroom is not the real Gary Michael Hilton. You have had a glimpse of the other Gary Michael Hilton. He was a fit survivalist, a bayonet fighter, a hunter, hunting not deer or birds. He was hunting Cheryl Dunlap.

“She would have been easy prey for a friendly man with a beautiful dog,” saying that it might never be known how Hilton had kidnapped Cheryl, maybe asking for a jump for his supposedly disabled van, or perhaps offering to let her pet Dandy.

Cappleman told the jury that Hilton had likely held Cheryl prisoner for at least thirty hours, until he made the first withdrawal on her ATM card and was sure she had given him the right PIN number. Hilton, she said, had told a fellow prisoner that he'd kept Cheryl captive for days.

“Cheryl Dunlap ended up in his clutches,” she said, “wondering what her fate would be.”

Cappleman described all the items of evidence that had pointed directly at Hilton as having murdered Cheryl. Maybe, she said, Cheryl was in [Hilton's] van while he was moving her car. He was seen rifling through the vehicle, getting her ATM card or whatever else. There was a trail that led from the car back into the woods. Cappleman said that the car could not have been left in the parking lot at Leon Sinks; it would have been checked very soon.

“What we're here about is first-degree murder, with Cheryl Dunlap killed in the commission of a kidnapping. Gary Michael Hilton had already formed his intention to kill before he took Cheryl Dunlap on December 1, 2007. Over thirty hours later he made the first ATM withdrawal.”

Cappleman reminded the jury of Hilton's statement, on his own deleted video, made on December 3, 2007, when he said he had to “hide something,” and another snippet of mumbling to himself or to his dog: “She was runnin' and prayin'.” Cappleman pointed out again that from the time Cheryl was taken, until the first time the ATM card was used, forty-eight hours had passed.

“Cheryl Dunlap spent forty-eight hours with Gary Hilton,” she said, “Forty-eight hours wondering what was going to happen to her next.”

Hilton got seven hundred dollars from the ATM: “A fraction of what the defense paid out for his ‘expert witness,'” Cappleman told the jury. She pointed out the piles of evidence that had been assembled earlier that morning, which included the hiking boots, a pair of blue pants, and a sleeping bag—all of which had Cheryl Dunlap's DNA on them.

“What are the chances the DNA [on these items] is not Cheryl's?” she asked. “One in eleven trillion. There are not a trillion people on the face of the earth.

“How else can we tie Gary Michael Hilton to the murder? He was seen by a witness on December fifth at Glenda's store, where he talked to that witness while wearing the same outfit seen on the ATM video.”

Hilton offered to let the witness pet his dog; then she saw him twice more that day as she drove through the forest, searching for Cheryl Dunlap. She passed him in his van on the dirt roads in the forest, and Cappleman speculated he was lurking around the area to see if someone would find Cheryl Dunlap's body, which he was believed to have hidden two days earlier.

“How can we put Gary Hilton at the other scenes?”

Cappleman named off the items of evidence: tobacco and cigarettes at two camps, in the van, and in the Dumpster; paper towels, dog food containers, duct tape. The L. L. Wallace campsite was close to the scene where Cheryl Dunlap was taken. There were also rubber bands, survey tape, and clear plastic, as well as other items, and they tested positive for blood.

At the Joe Thomas Road campsite, Cappleman reminded the jury, there were several witnesses who had seen Hilton, plus a number of artifacts found at that location. They included more cigarette butts with Hilton's DNA, allergy medications, batting or stuffing from a sleeping bag, and more.

Witnesses who had seen Hilton at that campsite included cross-country runner Shawn Matthews, who saw Hilton there on November 20; Brian Bauer who saw him on Friday, December 7; and Dan Prosser, who saw him two times during the week of December 10, at the site and walking Dandy nearby.

Hilton's campsite was not one that had been prepared for camping, but was an isolated spot in the woods, Cappleman said, and the burn pit found there contained the bones from a human head and hands, too charred for DNA analysis because no living cells remained. Also found in the burn pit were pieces of zippers, buttons, rivets from a pair of jeans, and hooks and other hardware from a brassiere. Also in the burn pit was a bead, matching the beads found at other sites, which Cappleman said had come from Dunlap's granddaughter, Haley.

Cappleman reminded the jury again of the items found in Hilton's van: tobacco, cigarettes and cigarette butts, rolling papers, paper towels, with the same design as those found at the Florida campsites, survey tape, more dog food, more sleeping bag batting, a baton, nicotine gum, sheeting, maps, and books that had been purchased in Tallahassee, with one titled
Head Hunters.
Several of the items had been covered with blood, and many bore Cheryl Dunlap's DNA, including a black nylon belt and items of clothing. A new pair of replacement boots were in the van, just like the ones that bore bloodstains from Cheryl Dunlap, and a backpack provided one of the most damning pieces of evidence: a bead that matched those found in Cheryl Dunlap's car and from the fire pit at the Joe Thomas Road campsite.

“All the pieces of the puzzle begin to converge to reveal a picture of the real Gary Michael Hilton,” Cappleman said. “Not the man sitting at the defense table, but a strong, articulate, intellectual, dangerous man. Ms. Suber may try to convince you the picture is not as it seems—just a pile of inferences, with Gary Hilton merely a victim of circumstances. But nothing she can say can mask the real Gary Michael Hilton. What does it take to saw off a human head? No words can describe it.

“My job is ending. Yours is just beginning. The evidence will lead you to a guilty verdict.”

With that, Georgia Cappleman's closing presentation to the jury was finished, and Judge Hankinson called for a break before proceeding with the defense's remarks.

The jury and the judge left the room, but there was a flurry of activity around the defense table. Hilton was consulting with his attorneys and seemed to be nervous and very serious as they whispered.

The bloggers watching the proceedings on the WCTV live streaming video began quickly speculating that the defense might be talking about the possibility of entering a plea. During the trial there had never been this amount of activity during a break, and some bloggers pointed out that Hilton appeared “shook up.” Suber left the courtroom, and the others on the defense team remained around Hilton, continuing to whisper to him.

 

Nothing was done, however, once the judge and jury returned and court was back in session. Ines Suber began her presentation for the defense. Her strong accent, always distracting, was even more pronounced than usual as she began speaking to the jury.

Suber began by addressing the jury: “Mr. Hilton wants to thank you for your attention during this case.” She continued, “What we have in this case is sole circumstantial evidence—no prints, no reliable DNA, untrustworthy statements—absolutely no direct evidence Mr. Hilton committed murder.”

The first set of circumstantial evidence, Suber said, was on the prosecution's “fancy posters full of trash,” trash collected at campsites, Dumpsters, “a lot of trash. So what does this trash prove to you? Marvin Stephens said there were no fingerprints found in this trash.”