Most Popular
Recent Blog Posts
SLIDESHOWSNational Features >
print | email | write comment
Mean Girls: The SequelStories tweaked as Haidl case goes to juryR. SCOTT MOXLEYPublished on March 17, 2005Courtesy pool photographer You might expect the Mean Girls to feel outrage that the accused put a 16-year-old girl into a drunken, drug-induced stupor, tossed her naked body on a garage pool table and then repeatedly shoved a pool cue, Snapple bottle, apple juice can and a lit cigarette into her vagina and rectum. But it's Doe the girls don't like. They say she was an outcast who tried too hard to be in their close-knit social group. These girls smile at the defendants, especially Greg Haidl. Forget that during the alleged rape Haidl said, "Put it down for the militia, bitch," and felt the unconscious girl's stomach to gauge how far they'd plunged a pool cue into her vagina. He's the 19-year-old bad boy, the heir to a multi-million-dollar fortune thanks to his daddy's savvy in the used car business. With ex-Assistant Sheriff Tom Davis—a soldier in Haidl's private-eye army and a chewing-gum enthusiast—watching protectively, the Mean Girls huddled in the hallway outside Judge Francisco BriseƱo's 11th floor courtroom. They'd met with Haidl emissaries on several occasions but were still nervous. They played with their hair. They checked their nails and adjusted their tight-fitting outfits. They rehearsed testimony. Don't laugh: It's a chore keeping stories consistent. There are laws against perjury. And by the time each Mean Girl reached the witness stand and swore an oath to truthfulness, their pro-defense memories were remarkably identical. They had only sugary things to say about defendants Haidl, Keith Spann and Kyle Nachreiner. Time and again, they recounted the same unflattering observations about Doe or recalled word for word the same alarming three-year-old sentences she allegedly uttered. Incredibly, some of their identical stories from the first trial evolved into new identical stories in this retrial. And imagine the breathtaking coincidence that these new identical stories dovetail precisely with a shift in the Haidl defense strategy. The first case ended in deadlock last June. Back then, the defense wanted jurors to believe Matsumoto and Stroh observed Doe heavily intoxicated and promiscuous at a party on the night before the alleged July 5/6, 2002, gang rape. "She was drunk," Matsumoto said without hesitation in response to a question by Haidl lawyer Peter Scalisi. She was even more descriptive during cross examination by then-Haidl prosecutor Dan Hess. Hess: You said [Doe] was drunk? Matsumoto figured prominently in the defense maneuver. Recall that in last year's trial she described Doe as sloppy drunk—could barely walk or stand up—on July 4/5. Without explanation, her story changed. Scalisi: How was Jane Doe acting? Was she acting intoxicated? But in the current trial, Stroh flip-flopped. Her new version mirrors Matsumoto's latest, defense-friendly version. Scalisi: Was [Doe] behaving okay? Scalisi: Now that Crystal is out of the car [dropped off at her house], and you and Melissa and Jane Doe are in the car, is there any discussion about what had occurred [at the party]?
write your comment
|