The Mammoth Book of Celebrity Murders (29 page)

The motive for the murder was not clear – Ennis was holding a packet of cigarettes when he was shot, was still wearing an expensive Rolex watch and had some $20 bills in his pocket.

Stephanie described the man she saw as white, approximately 5 feet 10 inches, about 160 pounds and between 25 and 32 years old. Another witness was questioned by police but was unable to offer
any useful description of the attacker. A police sketch artist provided an interpretation of the killer’s features using the details provided by Crane. Once the sketch was confirmed as being
a close fit to the man Stephanie saw it was widely circulated.

The media jumped on the case and offered their support by publishing the artist’s sketch on the front page. The TV news channels also ran the image, with every communication channel coast
to coast joining in, a real boost to the manhunt which was now under way. Obviously everybody wanted to know as much about the case as possible and newspaper sales rocketed.

After Ennis’ body was discharged from the County Coroner’s Office a funeral was held at the Cosby home in Massachusetts, on Sunday 19 January 1997. He was later buried on the family
estate on Bardwell Ferry Road, in Shelburne. In March, Bill Cosby visited the scene of his son’s murder to place a white cross with a message reading, “Thank you, friend”.

By now several multi-national companies were offering large rewards for information on the case. This was to prove crucial in finding the assailant. The
National Enquirer
and
America’s Most Wanted
offered a $100,000 reward for information leading to an arrest. Every effort was being made to catch the man who had killed the son of America’s best-loved,
and at one time highest-paid, television star. The police authorities devoted a massive amount of manpower to the case, the rewards were geared to draw someone out of the woodwork and the
television coverage was unprecedented. It wasn’t long before they received an all-important call from a man claiming to have information on the Cosby killing; his name was Christopher So and
he was prepared to inform on an associate in return for the reward, claiming that one of his colleagues had been bragging about murdering a black man. The name which he was to put forward was
Mikail Markhasev, a 19-year-old Ukranian immigrant.

On 12 March, just a couple of months after the killing, the police were informed that a call had been received offering the name of a potential suspect, and shortly afterwards Markhasev was
arrested on suspicion of the brutal murder of Ennis Cosby. Markhasev lived at Magnolia Blvd in Los Angeles, he already had a police record and was associated with local gangs who were involved in
drugs. The police immediately suspected that Markhasev was seeking money for drugs when he allegedly killed Cosby.

The trial was set to commence on 22 June 1997, some six months after the murder. Bill Cosby stated that he would not be attending the court as he did not wish to interrupt or take the focus away
from the legal process, although many family members and friends did attend, keeping him informed on all aspects of the trial as it unfolded.

Allocating the jury members was to prove a difficult task – there had been so much information about the case in the press and on the news that to find people who could demonstrate that
they had not already been influenced by media reporting was difficult. Potential jurors were made to complete large questionnaires to reveal how much they knew about the case, with many carefully
versed questions to assess whether they had already started to develop a bias. They were asked, for example, how much television they watched and indeed if they had watched any Bill Cosby shows.
They were also asked to declare what if anything they already knew about the defendant, particularly if they were aware of his past and his involvement in gangs. After completing the
questionnaires, the jurors were then interviewed separately and informed that they should only use the information that they were presented with in court. It was later reported that some of the
prospective jurors were shown to have already formed the opinion that Markhasev was guilty, and the only way this could have happened was through the general media, who once again were keen to
present their story, irrespective of the impact it might have on the trial. Eventually a jury was chosen, an even match of men and women, four of them black, one mixed race and the others
white.

America had by now entered the era of the televised trial, in principle the method by which the public could see justice being done. However, not all judges believed that the cameras helped
promote fairness, most believing it would enhance the circulation of the newspapers or the viewing figures of a particular channel, but not the prospect of a fair trial. There was a distinct
feeling that the presence of the media simply promoted the prospect of “trial by body language” – great for actors, but a challenge for an average citizen. Cameras were therefore
banned from the courtroom by order of Superior Court Judge David Perez, who feared that to have the daily court proceedings fed to the public via television would more than likely turn the case
into a television drama. The Judge also turned down chief prosecutor Anne Ingalls’s request for the jurors to remain anonymous, the prosecution’s request being denied on the grounds
that under Californian law the jury’s identifications must be known except in extenuating circumstances, conditions which Ingalls could not satisfy.

When the case of
California
v.
Markhasev
began it was Anne Ingalls who opened for the prosecution, giving her version of events for the night that Cosby was murdered. In a bid to
capture the jury’s attention and sympathy Ingalls set about constructing the events, making sure that she never lost sight of the shock value attached to the murder itself. She explained how
Cosby pulled in after suffering a punctured tyre, that he called his friend because it was so dark, going on to describe the chilling situation Crane found herself in when she was confronted by the
gunman. Ingalls spoke at length about the fear Crane felt as she pulled away from the scene, leaving her good friend at the mercy of the killer. Then as Ingalls was about to portray the final
moments of Cosby’s life she handed out a series of photographs, each graphically and horrifically showing the young man lying in a pool of his own blood. To add weight to the already gruesome
pictures, Ingalls described Cosby’s last moments – how Markharev demanded money from Cosby, but when he didn’t act fast enough, had shot him in cold blood at close quarters.

With the jury now sufficiently shocked at the sheer violence of the crime, Ingalls went on to provide the evidence that she hoped would prove Markhasev had committed the murder. The first person
called to the stand was Stephanie Crane, who supported Ingalls’s version of events – when asked if the culprit was in court, she pointed at Markhasev, who sat stony faced in the dock.
Ingalls then produced letters allegedly written by Markhasev while he was in prison awaiting trial, and to read passages, which were apparently intended for Markhasev’s friend, Michael Chang.
From the letters she read that the defendant had intended to go out and commit a robbery, but that it had gone horribly wrong. The letters had been checked by a handwriting expert, Karen Chiarodit,
who testified that those produced did match samples of writing provided by the defendant. What followed must have been a blow to the defence, for Ingalls then called the second of her first
prosecution witnesses, one Michael Chang, the man to whom Markhasev had written. Chang did not hold back; speaking directly to the jurors he described how Markhasev had told him, “I shot a
nigger. It’s all over the news.” Then to finish her annihilation of the defendant she offered the first piece of irrefutable DNA evidence. When the murder weapon was found it was
wrapped up in a knitted cap, examination of which proved that the cap had been worn by the defendant at some point. The DNA link to the cap would be a significant nail in Markhasev’s coffin.
DNA never lies and jurors are not normally swayed by the argument of coincidence.

Markhasev had entered a not guilty plea to the charges of murder and attempted armed robbery. Henry Hall, the man called upon to defend Markhasev, appeared to have his work cut out, however he
slowly began to piece together a different story, claiming that the court had got the wrong man and that it was an acquaintance of Markhasev, Eli Zakaria, another man allegedly present on the night
of the murder, who was in fact responsible for the shooting of Ennis Cosby. Hall was at pains to point out that the gun – found one month after the event in a field – did not have the
defendant’s fingerprints on it, yet no one had suggested that Markhasev had been wearing gloves. Hall then went on to dismantle Crane’s earlier identification of Markhasev, describing
how she had failed to identify the defendant in a police line-up. When it came to the letters that Markhasev had allegedly written, Hall simply denied his client had anything to do with them,
asking the jury if they honestly thought that his client would write such incriminating notes while under the noses of those who would gladly exploit such information.

Gabe Drapel, a loose associate of Markhasev, was then called to the stand. He testified that on the night of the murder he had visited Markhasev at his house and that he was wearing a knitted
cap, identical to the one recovered by the police. Forensics had shown that the gun which was found was indeed the murder weapon and the DNA examination of pieces of hair showed that the chances of
the hair not belonging to Markhasev would be as low as one in 15,000.

Susan Brockbank, a criminologist, was also called to the stand. She was questioned in a friendly manner by Ingalls, who simply wanted to reinforce in the jury’s mind that the DNA evidence
was nothing short of conclusive. She reiterated the slim chance which existed for the hair sample to belong to anyone other than the defendant.

The murder weapon itself was not a chance find, having been found after Christopher So had indicated to the police where Markhasev had said he had thrown the gun. The police discovered the .38
calibre revolver, wrapped in the knitted cap, just yards from where it was described to be. If Christopher So wasn’t the killer then the court was asked to believe that he knew of the
weapon’s whereabouts only because the actual murderer had told him. The revolver was produced in court and criminologist Diana Paul was called to the stand to compare the bullet that had
killed Cosby with the bullets found in the alleged murder weapon. She confirmed that the gun must have fired the shot that killed Cosby, saying, “The bullet was fired from that gun and no
other.”

Prosecutors called Michael Chang to the stand, but he refused to testify, taking the Fifth Amendment, the position one takes if there is risk of self-incrimination by giving evidence.

Christopher So was called to the witness stand but was very reluctant to appear, claiming that he was endangering himself by doing so. In his testimony he recalled overhearing a conversation
between the accused and Michael Chang, during which he recalled Markhasev saying, “I shot a nigger. It’s all over the news.” He also testified that Chang and the accused had spent
time looking for the gun, some five or six days after the shooting, but it had been thrown into some bushes and the pair were unable to find it. When they returned from the unsuccessful hunting
trip So recalled another statement: “Well, since we can’t find the gun, you know, I’m going to have to come back and look for it again later.” It was during this
conversation that So learned of the area in which the gun had been discarded, the area in which the police did eventually find the gun and the incriminating knitted cap.

So remained on the stand while the defence team tried to undermine his testimony. Hall directly claimed that So was purely motivated by the reward money, of which he had already been paid
$40,000 by the
National Enquirer
, with more to come if Markhasev was found guilty. Hall then asked So, “How much is the reward that the
National Enquirer
are offering?” To
which he replied, “A hundred thousand dollars.” Allowing the value to hang in the air a little, Hall then enquired, “Did the money motivate you in part or wholly to make the call
to the police?” So, looking uncomfortable, responded, “Yes.”

The defence then called Los Angeles police detective, Bert Luper, to the stand. He confirmed that when he interviewed So before the arrest of Markhasev, So concluded the interview with the
question, “Does my story sound good?” The defence concluded that this provided proof that So was motivated to provide his statement, purely to get his hands on the reward money, and
that it was thought he might be prepared to say anything which enhanced his chances in that respect.

The prosecution’s next witness was the man who the defence claimed was the real killer of Ennis Cosby, Eli Zakaria. His presence in court gave the jury a chance to compare his likeness
with the sketches of the alleged Cosby killer. It was an ingenious move on the part of the prosecution as the defence team were unprepared for the appearance of Zakaria, dressed in prison clothing
and having been brought directly from jail where he was serving a sentence for an earlier misdemeanour. Faced with the collapse of their main strand of defence, Hall requested a recess for a few
days, he needed to reassess his client’s position. Judge David Perez granted the request and the court recessed.

The prosecution tried again to get Michael Chang to give evidence, but when he eventually took the stand he simply repeated his last statement and again took the Fifth Amendment. The prosecutors
were disappointed at Chang’s refusal to co-operate, for it was Chang’s evidence that could give So’s testimony the backing it needed. In a strange way Chang’s refusal to
testify gave weight to the idea that Markhasev was a violent man, capable of revenge. When another potential witness also refused to testify on grounds of personel safety, the prosecution had
managed to make a point anyway, even if they did not get the eyewitness testimony they were after. These men were either very loyal friends or were worried that their testimonies might provoke the
accused to seek revenge on them.