And the Sea Will Tell (73 page)

“Well, Mr. Enoki says, they were never heard from again. That would be a valid argument if Shoemaker, after he signed off with Mac at 7:50
P.M.
on the evening of August 28, 1974, had called back a half hour later and all he got was silence. But he didn’t call back until September 4th, seven days later. Seven
days
later. So, the fact that August 28th is the last time Shoemaker spoke to Mac is no evidence at all that the murders occurred at that time.

“Mr. Enoki then argues that Jennifer never made any entry in her diary on August 28th that she and Buck had brought a cake over to the Grahams, and he said this was very suspicious. But again, again, this presupposes that Buck and Jennifer
did
bring a cake over to the Grahams. And we do not know that they did. Jennifer cannot remember one way or the other.”

I recalled for the jury Jennifer’s acknowledging that bringing a cake to the Grahams was the type of thing she might have done in appreciation for Mac’s having loaned her the Fanning chart, and her explanation for not referring to the incident in her diary: lighting on the
Iola
was poor, and by the time she and Buck would have gotten back, it would have been pitch-dark on Palmyra. “Obviously,” I acknowledged, “she could have made the entry the next day. There’s no question about that. But she may have neglected to do so because she was so busy getting ready for the trip to Fanning.”

I mentioned that the one thing that sounded phony to Jennifer about the incident was Mac’s supposedly saying there was a truce, since she said there was no feud to settle. “So, Jennifer just doesn’t know,” I said.

“The point I want to italicize and underline in your mind is that
even if
the cake-truce incident took place, all it would show was that on the evening of August 28th, the Grahams and Buck and Jennifer were in each other’s presence. Since we already know there was considerable social interaction between the Grahams and Buck and Jennifer, how can this presence possibly constitute any evidence of murder?”

I offered one final point on this issue. “
If
there was a cake-truce incident,
and if
the prosecution believed that the murders took place on the
Sea Wind
at that time, can we not assume that a multitude of scientific tests would have been conducted on the
Sea Wind
in an effort to secure evidence of the murders, such as blood, or evidence of a struggle?

“At this trial the prosecution called experts in pathology, serology, chemistry, biology, odontology, anthropology, microscopy, metallurgy, and toxicology. And the tests they conducted were highly sophisticated and sensitive. So we know that when the prosecution wanted to prove something through experts, they did so. Yet there was no testimony from any expert witnesses called by the prosecution concerning the
Sea Wind
at this trial.

“Now, only two reasonable conclusions can be drawn from this fact. Not three or four. Just two. And here they are. Either no scientific examination of the
Sea Wind
was ever conducted by law enforcement in this case because they never believed any murders took place on the boat on August 28th or any other time, or the
Sea Wind
was examined with the very finest and most sensitive state-of-the-art equipment and instruments, and absolutely nothing was found. Either conclusion, of course, redounds to the detriment of the prosecution.”

On the same issue of whether the murders had taken place
on
the
Sea Wind
, I asked why the prosecution had presented testimony about the swordfish incident and had cross-examined Jennifer at length on the issue. “So far, Mr. Enoki hasn’t said. Maybe we’ll hear about it in his closing argument. The only thing I can think of is that they were trying to imply that maybe the hole was not a swordfish hole, but a bullet hole.”

I pointed out to the jury that we not only had Jennifer’s detailed testimony about the swordfish incident, but Robert Mehaffy testified that Buck and Jennifer told him about the incident when they reached Hawaii. Most important, Larry Seibert testified that he actually saw the bill of the swordfish stuck in the hole of the hull.

“If the prosecution sincerely believed that there never was a swordfish attack causing a hole in the hull of the
Sea Wind
, why didn’t they call an expert on the behavior of fish to testify that swordfish are not known to do this type of thing? And why didn’t they call experts to testify they found no evidence of a
repaired
hole in the
Sea Wind
that gave any indication of having been caused by the bill of a swordfish? Or that they
did
find a repaired hole in the
Sea Wind
, but that it gave evidence—such as the microscopic presence of lead—that it was caused by a bullet? In my opinion, the swordfish issue, ladies and gentlemen, is as dead as the bill in that hole was.”

It was time to tell the jury what I felt about the prosecution’s star husband-and-wife witness team, the Leonards. I would mince no words.

“I can understand their being very, very upset over the death of their friends, the Grahams,” I told the jury. “Anyone who is a decent human being can feel only tremendous sorrow over what happened to the Grahams. But the Leonards, in their unbridled zeal, went too far.

“I think that had to be obvious to you folks. Take the toilet-flushing incident. Both the Leonards were just dying to make you believe that Jennifer was frantically emptying out her purse and flushing down incriminating evidence against herself.

“Yet both of them finally coughed up the fact that although they had spoken to many law enforcement personnel throughout the years, they had never told the toilet-flushing incident to anyone up until one year ago, when they encountered Assistant U.S. Attorney Walt Schroeder and FBI Agent Hal Marshall. There was something irresistible about Walt and Hal that caused the Leonards to break a ten-year period of silence.

“When I asked Mr. Leonard why he never told the FBI agents about the incident when they interviewed him on October 29, 1974, he said he assumed they already knew. Yet he does tell them something they would have a much, much greater reason to know—that just an hour or so earlier, Jennifer was observed rowing to shore in the Ala Wai yacht harbor and was subsequently apprehended.

“One footnote to this toilet-flushing incident. According to the Leonards, FBI agents were present outside the bathroom, hearing the whole thing. Yet only the Leonards testified at this trial to the suspicious nature of the incident.

“With respect to Jennifer’s alleged statement to the Leonards that she would never leave Palmyra on the
Iola
, as with the toilet-flushing incident, though the Leonards had spoken to many law enforcement personnel throughout the years, they never told a soul. They kept it locked in their bosom for ten years. We go through wars and presidencies during ten years. A long, long time. But once again, the Leonards simply could not resist the charm of Walt and Hal, and they finally coughed this up.

“But with
this
statement, they knew they couldn’t use the previous argument for their silence that the FBI already knew, since the FBI wasn’t on Palmyra. So this is what they came up with.
They never told anyone because no one ever asked them
. Remember that? Never told anyone because no one ever asked them.
Sure
, Mr. and Mrs. Leonard. And yesterday, outside of this courthouse, I saw an alligator doing the polka, and the day before I heard a cow speaking Spanish.

“As I asked them on cross-examination: ‘How
could
the agents have asked you about what you say Jennifer told you, Mr. and Mrs. Leonard? How would they have known if you didn’t tell them?’”

I asked the jury: “Just how ludicrous can the Leonards get? Here in court, where you
are
only supposed to answer questions, Mr. Leonard, in particular, volunteered all types of information which he perceived to be damaging to Miss Jenkins. But out of court, where you
can
say anything you want, the Leonards are as quiet as a church mouse.

“The Leonards would want you to believe they’re the type of people who, if they had seen Nessie, the Loch Ness monster, in the Palmyra lagoon, wouldn’t tell a soul unless someone asked them.”

I noted that Jennifer had admitted on the witness stand to telling all types of people all types of things. But she said she never told the Leonards she would never leave Palmyra on the
Iola
. I noted further that there was considerable evidence that long after the Leonards left Palmyra, Jennifer and Buck were planning to go to Fanning from Palmyra on the
Iola
.

Lastly, I referred to FBI Agent Kilgore’s testimony that the Leonards never told him about this supposed statement.

“Of all people who would have been absolutely certain to mention this alleged remark of Jennifer’s to the authorities, surely it would have been the Leonards.

“W
ITH THESE
preliminary matters out of the way, let’s get into the heart of the case,” I now said. I hoped I had softened the jurors up a bit with my opening comments, rendering them more receptive to the critically important arguments to follow.

“What we’re dealing with here, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, is a real murder
mystery
, one that Agatha Christie could have conjured up only on her most inspired of days, the type of murder that rocking-chair sleuths like to ponder into the wee hours beside a crackling fire.

“The only problem is that, unlike an Agatha Christie mystery, this nightmarish story, so tragically for Mac and Muff Graham, happens to be true.

“In this final summation, I’m going to attempt to illuminate, by way of drawing commonsense inferences, the dark, ugly shadows of this mystery. By placing one piece of circumstantial evidence upon another—and Buck Walker was so adept at murder he left precious few pieces of incriminating evidence—I am confident that what will emerge for you are two rather stark mosaics, one of guilt for Buck Walker, and one of innocence for Jennifer Jenkins.”

I started by discussing the motive for the murders. “Mr. Enoki, in an effort to fortify his case, tossed your way two motives, the stranded motive, and the severe-shortage-of-food motive, hoping you’ll find at least one of them palatable.”

I knew it was absolutely crucial that I remove
both
of these motives from the jury’s consideration.

Discussing the stranded motive first, which encompassed the issue of the
Iola
’s seaworthiness, I first focused in on prosecution witness Jack Wheeler.

I pointed out that although Wheeler appeared to be a nice enough fellow and was obviously sincere, the jury shouldn’t give too much credibility to his statement that the trip to Fanning was almost “impossible.” I noted for the jury that Wheeler conceded that he himself never attempted to sail to Fanning. “Don Stevens did,” I reminded the jury, and he testified it was possible to sail from Palmyra to Fanning.

“We learned at this trial that tacking against the wind is very common and easy. In fact, by tacking, a boat can proceed without a motor not only against the wind, but also against the current. And we know Jennifer was very familiar with tacking. Not only did she so testify, but her June 21st entry in her diary refers to ‘tacking.’

“I might add that Mac Graham himself apparently felt that Buck and Jennifer could make it to Fanning. Jennifer’s August 26th diary entry reflects that Mac brought a chart of Fanning over to Buck and Jennifer.”

I pointed out that even Wheeler, a prosecution witness, did not feel that Buck and Jennifer were marooned on Palmyra, giving testimony that was diametrically opposed to the prosecution’s theory that they were.

“Although Wheeler testified it would have been impossible or very difficult for Buck and Jennifer to make it to Fanning, you’ll recall he said they could easily have made it to Samoa, which is fifteen hundred miles away.”

With respect to the underlying issue of the
Iola
’s seaworthiness, I argued, “As I perceive it, there are really two issues here. One, was the
Iola
seaworthy or unseaworthy, which to me is not the central issue. And two, whether it was seaworthy or not, did Buck and Jennifer
think
that it was seaworthy, which to me
is
the central issue.”

On the first issue, I had to acknowledge that although there was some divergence of opinion, the majority of the witnesses felt the
Iola
was not seaworthy. I went on to point out, however, that witnesses like Leonard and Wolfe, who felt the
Iola
was unseaworthy, never were on the boat, whereas Don Stevens, who believed the
Iola
was seaworthy, was. “So I think this lends a little more weight to his testimony on this point. Furthermore, Stevens, being a naval architect, would be more knowledgeable about such matters than Mr. Leonard and Mr. Wolfe.

“The important point is this: when Buck and Jennifer left Hawaii for Palmyra, although the
Iola
was certainly not a model boat, it obviously was seaworthy. How unseaworthy could the
Iola
be if it could make it a thousand miles on the high seas from Hawaii to Palmyra? Isn’t that proof positive that the boat was seaworthy? And there’s no evidence that either en route to Palmyra, or while on Palmyra, the
Iola
sustained any
major
damage that would have made it unseaworthy and prevented it from making the trip from Palmyra to Fanning, a short trip.