Perfect Victim (43 page)

Throughout the trial, Rolland Papendick’s courtroom manner had been straightforward, sometimes agitated, rarely dramatic, but during his closing argument, he was friendly, confident, now subtle, now bold. He raised fresh legal questions, demonstrating his skills as an advocate.

In an affable tone, he said: “Lawyers like to give examples. The prosecutor gave an example of chocolate cake; I like to give an example of lasagna. It contains certain ingredients, but if you take ten chefs, the recipe turns out a number of different ways. It’s the same with testimony. All the witnesses add their own spices.”

These spices the attorney equated with “questionable exaggerations,” and then went on to cite several.

Colleen had testified that she was kept in a box every day from March of 1981 to May of 1984, for example. She also said that during that time, she read the Bible. How could she read the Bible in the box? There was no light, it was dark: she couldn’t.

This was a point where things were being exaggerated.

The jury had also been told that Colleen had been hung and whipped more than ninety times — whipped even to unconsciousness — yet there was no physical proof, no scars on her back.

Colleen’s testimony, Papendick contended, was misleading.

In jury selection, he reminded them, they’d said they wouldn’t hold Cameron Hooker’s sexual preference for bondage against him. Bondage was not a crime, yet several pieces of bondage equipment had been entered as evidence against his client. Even the prosecution’s own expert, Dr. Hatcher, had explained that for couples involved in dominant and submissive roles, bondage creates a degree of tension and excitement, and a number of magazines cater to those with bondage as a sexual preference.

“If that’s not enough evidence that bondage is alive and well,” Papendick declared, flourishing several photographs, “we have Janice Hooker!”

The essence of the case, Papendick said, was what three people did behind closed doors. Their relationship was private.

The box was a complete secret. The bondage was a complete secret. It was probably the “best kept secret in Red Bluff,” he said.

“The prosecutor has attempted to present a horror story that would cause you to act without thinking,” Papendick continued.

“The defense asks you to think before you act.” He asked the jurors to put aside their prejudices and apply their common sense.

It was simply common sense, he contended, that some people would put up with seemingly horrible conditions to keep a relationship, and “Janice Hooker is exhibit number one!”

Colleen knew the relationship with Cameron involved bondage, yet she stayed, Papendick posited, because she found things she wanted. What? No drugs, a family relationship, a spiritual reawakening, and children she loved.

“I think it’s clear that Colleen Stan was in love with Cameron Hooker,” he said. As proof, he quoted from his trump card, the Christmas letter: “… I don’t know the right words to describe how much I love you, but I seem to be falling deeper and deeper in love with you with each passing day. I find love hard for me to express with words. But you bring the passion out in me and it’s a way of expressing my love for you. …”

Papendick again advised the, jury that they would have to decide whether it was reasonable for Cameron to believe that Colleen loved him.

Dr. Hatcher had given sixteen sophisticated techniques which were employed against Korean POWS. It had been established that Cameron could scarcely read. How could he have read and understood sufficiently to plan out sixteen techniques employed by the North Koreans?

The police and the district attorney had spent hours combing through Hooker’s magazines, trying to find those having any connection with slavery and bondage. Dr. Hatcher reviewed them, they were sent to Colleen Stan, “and then,” Papendick said, with a lilt of incredulity, “she testified that she found sections in those magazines that were exactly what Cameron had done to her!”

The prosecutor had described a horrendous story of torture, isolation, and sexual abuse, yet none of the witnesses had testified to Colleen having bruises, a speech problem, or anything unusual about her appearance.

Bonnie had testified that her sister was dirty and unkempt, yet by everyone’s agreement, Colleen could bathe during this period. More inconsistency! More exaggeration!

Papendick compared these exaggerations to “a snowball coming down a hill,” getting bigger and bigger all the time.

It all came down to credibility, he said. In determining a witness’s credibility, the jurors had to consider demeanor, attitude, consistent and inconsistent statements, and memory. He challenged: “How many times did Colleen tell you, ‘I can’t recall’?”

And the phone calls. She knew Jan had gone to stay with her parents, yet she called on August 13, at 12:11 A.M., and talked for seventy-six minutes. Again, with that tone of disbelief, Papendick said: “She wants you to believe she talked to Janice!”

Holding up the picture taken of Colleen and Cameron in 1981, Papendick charged that Colleen had denied talking about the picture, denied sending it, yet it was taken by her parents.

How else would Cameron have gotten it, unless she’d mailed it to him?

Regarding the snapshot in his hand, Papendick remarked: “Look at the smiles!”

He reminded the jury of the worst moments of Colleen’s testimony. She had written of love in her letters, writing that it was “a climate of the heart… But more than what this expression of love meant to Cameron,” Papendick said, “think about this in terms of Colleen’s credibility when she said: ‘I may have written it to Jan.’”

The defense attorney raised an interesting point: During the entire time Colleen was with Cameron and Jan, there wasn’t one slip up, not a single occasion when she accidentally called Cameron “Master” or Janice “Ma’am” in front of others. With raised eyebrows, he said: “I submit that’s rather amazing.”

Interestingly, Jan had corroborated the kidnap and initial isolation on Oak Street, yet she couldn’t corroborate any of the sex charges except for the eighth count, which she said didn’t appear to be forced. Rather, she reported that Colleen had asked: “Is it okay?”

Further, Jan had testified that she started seeing affection between Cameron and Colleen in 1982, hugging four or five times a week in 1983, and nearly every day — sometimes in front of the children — in 1984. Papendick added that it was “real interesting that at that time, Colleen was supposed to be in the box.”

“I can’t tell you what happened,” Papendick declared, “except that Janice wanted Colleen out — and she succeeded.”

Papendick mocked the prosecution’s contention that fear of the Company kept Colleen from leaving. Dr. Lunde, the defense psychiatrist, had explained that coercive persuasion requires captivity. “Keep in mind, we’re dealing with an adult,” Papendick said, “not a child or a retarded person. You saw her testify; she’s at least of normal intelligence.”

Her greatest fear, the prosecution claimed, was for her family, yet the single person she’d met who was with the Company, Cameron, she took to meet her family. She told the jury she’d been hoping and looking for a way out, but why hadn’t she written a note? She hadn’t used the phone, she hadn’t even whispered to them.

In 1984, after Colleen had left Red Bluff, she was threatening to return. And, the defense attorney reminded them, Jan had testified that she was afraid “it would start all over again.”

If Colleen wanted to stay, have Cameron’s baby, and force Jan out, why would she come into court and tell this tale?

Papendick posited at least three reasons: One: personal embarrassment and humiliation. She was, no question, a victim of kidnapping. Jan decided to go to the police, and at that point Colleen became a victim. Would she say, “Yes, he did kidnap me, chain me, et cetera, but I fell in love with him?” Or would she say, “I had no choice, I was a slave?” It would be less embarrassing to say the latter.

Two: love and jealousy. Colleen loved Cameron, but he didn’t kick Janice out, he didn’t go to bat for her; she was a woman spurned.

Three: financial gain. Colleen had already filed a lawsuit against Cameron Hooker. And although she’d denied on the stand that she wanted to sell the rights to her story, her truthfulness was open to question.

(Now coming to the end of his remarks, Papendick noted there were only ten sex charges over a seven-year period, and made an aside to the jury: “The press has been calling this the ‘sex slave’ case. Why were there long periods with no sex? It’s the sexless slave case.”)

Sex charges require force, menace, duress, or threats of great bodily injury, he pointed out. And in order to find the defendant guilty of kidnapping, the jury needed to find there had been continuous, forcible detention. “Even if you find that,” he cautioned, “you cannot conclude from this alone that she did not consent to the sexual acts.” It was incumbent upon the jury to determine not only whether she did or did not consent but also whether the defendant, in good faith, had believed she had consented.

There was no question, Papendick concluded, that Cameron Hooker believed Colleen loved him.

He beseeched the jury: “Look at the facts. Read these letters. And think about what the contents meant to Cameron Hooker.”

As Papendick returned to the defense table, Cameron looked up at him and smiled.

Mcguire, who had some stunning moments during the trial, seemed tired as she began her summation in a thin, cheerless voice.

Responding to Papendick’s comments about Colleen’s credibility, she pointed out that Colleen had to remember facts that happened over a number of years and that she had no motive to lie. Rather, in bringing Hooker to trial, Colleen subjected herself to an emotionally wrenching process.

The defense attorney claimed that Colleen had been a member of the family, that Hooker had provided her with security, a drugfree environment, and spiritual reawakening. “If Colleen were a member of the family, why did the defendant go to such great lengths to disguise her identity?”

Further, outside of the defendant’s testimony, there hadn’t been the least indication that Colleen was a drug user or addict.

Mcguire confided to the jury that defense attorneys, when they have no defense, often throw in a red herring: “That’s all that’s being done here.”

The prosecutor then asked: Why didn’t the defense attorney ask Dr. Vovakes about Colleen’s physical condition? Why? Because Dr. Vovakes would have given answers the defense didn’t like.

Instead, Papendick had asked Dr. Lunde, a man who had never even seen Colleen, to speculate on her health.

And what about Colleen’s physical condition? Bonnie had the strong white teeth and thick hair Colleen no longer had. By the testimony of the defense counsel’s own expert, Colleen wouldn’t have skeletal damage because, thank God, she was out of the box every day, did knee bends, could stretch or curl up in the box, was out cutting posts, and digging the hole; she was not immobile.

Mcguire heaped scorn on Dr. Lunde’s testimony. He wouldn’t stoop to render an opinion on Hooker’s collection of publications, merely calling them “trashy.” He could claim little experience with cases involving sadomasochism, coercion, and slavery. And he’d testified that coercion couldn’t exist without captivity, yet he’d described that very circumstance in an article he’d written.

Dr. Lunde had said it was not reasonable for a person to believe in the Company, but, Mcguire said, it was up to the jurors, not Dr. Lunde, to decide whether Colleen’s fear was reasonable.

The prosecutor mentioned The Story of O, and the defense attorney quickly objected, but was overruled. She drew numerous comparisons between Hooker’s favorite film and his treatment of his slave-life imitating art.

Hooker had a continuous plan, Mcguire contended: A plan he began to formulate even in high school, a plan he’d shared with Elaine Coming, a plan to take sex slaves.

The defense attorney had contended that Hooker was “just a millworker” and that devising a plan and applying coercive techniques was beyond him. But it was evident, Mcguire said, that Hooker had learned those techniques through his collection of magazines and publications. “He didn’t even have to read them,” she declared, “all he had to do was look at the pictures!”

The defense attorney claimed there was no corroboration for much of Colleen’s story. “Look at this courtroom,” Mcguire demanded, gesturing toward the boxes and displays. “There are over one hundred and forty pieces of physical evidence to corroborate the testimonies of Colleen and Janice.”

“The only thing I’ve heard the defense counsel raise again and again is a seventy-six-minute phone call,” she scoffed. Dr. Hatcher had explained that the phone calls were a way for Colleen to confront her captor without fear of retaliation.

For a time, the prosecutor seemed to lose the thread of her summation. Countering the defense’s closing argument in a piecemeal fashion, her own deteriorated, and for several minutes she seemed to get caught up in random and sometimes trivial points.

Papendick listened, playing with a pen, while Hooker sat calmly at his side, rarely even glancing at the jury.

Switching to points of law, Mcguire pointed out that the statute of limitations prevented her from charging Hooker with sexual assault crimes occurring before 1979, and commented that it was interesting that Hooker admitted to crimes occurring before that time.

While there was a three-year statute of limitations on the charge of kidnapping, Mcguire explained, an exception existed if the kidnapping were continuous — in other words, as long as the person was detained by force or threats of force. Guilt on count one, she asserted, had already been proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

Launching into a long discussion of rape, she again reviewed the instructions for both the old and new laws. And she mentioned there needn’t be overt resistance, since rape was also committed if the victim submitted because of threats of great and immediate bodily harm.

“But what of resistance?” she asked rhetorically. After being “broken,” how could Colleen resist? How could she resist on a stretcher? How could she resist when tied to a frame? How could she resist when hung from the rafters of the shed?