 |  |
Expository
Magazine - Volume 2, Issue 4 - Published Thrice Yearly | |
|
Victimizing the Victim |
|
by
Helen Caddes |
| Publisher's note: I've been committed to helping promote awareness of this issue since first reading about Kirstin's imprisonment earlier this year. After doing some reading and talking to people involved with Kirstin and her case, I had to do something. As the parent of a 22-year old, my first thought was, "what if this were my daughter?" I would go to the ends of the earth to help her. When you look at the evidence, it doesn't add up, and when you hear from those who were at the trial, what they saw and heard is even more amazing. And frightening. Kirstin was, from the way it appears, an easy answer for police officers and prosecutors anxious to tie up loose ends and close the case. I have to ask: why are we not hearing more about this case on the news? I have a few theories of my own, but suggest you form your own opinion. If, after reading, you reach the same conclusions I and others interested in letting the truth come out so she can be freed from prison, please help spread the word by passing the URL of this article on in email.
When the Las Vegas police received a call in mid-July from a woman asking if they had found a murdered man with a severed penis, they felt they had a good lead. This call led homicide detectives to the house of Kirstin Lobato, where they questioned her about "when she had defended herself in Las Vegas." Detective Thowsen appeared sympathetic, mentioning on their initial meeting that he "knew she had been hurt before," a statement the defense claimed was in reference to a history of sexual abuse in childhood Thowsen had looked up prior to the visit. Kirstin broke down into sobs as Miranda rights were read to her. Detective Thowsen questioned Lobato about the attack with a tape recorder present. Here are some segments from the questioning: About what happened after she struggled with her attacker: Question
(officer): "After you got done struggling with him (the attacker), was he
on the ground or standing up?" Where this took place: Question
(second officer): "And when you said this struggled occurred, where did it
first happen at, in the proximity of the parking lot?" The two theories of the events that transpired are essential to understanding what happened during the trial. Both the prosecution and the defense gave different descriptions of what had occurred. Prosecutor William Kephart told jurors an elaborate story about a woman still addicted to methamphetamines (despite her claims that she was recovered), who had driven to the west side of Las Vegas the night of July 8th and met a potential drug connection - a homeless man named Duran Bailey who lived in a dumpster enclosure. When Bailey demanded sex instead of drugs, Kephart claimed, Lobato flew into a murderous rage and stabbed him in the genitals before she brutally murdered him. The prosecution's explanation for the murder was supported on the stand by an inmate named Korinda Martin, who told the court that Lobato had confessed to her in jail. Special Defender Philip Kohn painted a much different picture. He told jurors of an attempted rape that was perpetrated against Lobato over Memorial Day weekend on the east side of Las Vegas, stating that she had subsequently defended herself with a knife her father had given her for protection, and that the attacker was alive when she left the scene. Kohn mentioned landmarks on the east side of Las Vegas Kirstin had brought up in her initial statement - landmarks that were not present at the scene of the murder of Duran Bailey. He described a confusing police interview that misled Lobato into believing that her attacker had died after she had left the scene, which was actually pursuing a lead on a brutal mutilation murder that had entailed further wounding after death. Kohn made arguments stating that there was no physical evidence linking Lobato to the scene of the July murder, that she had no connection to Duran Bailey period, and that Korinda Martin was perjuring herself on the stand in order to get lesser jail time for her personal offenses. There were vastly different claims in regards to time, date, and location within the trial, which could not be easily resolved. Kirstin Lobato claimed to have been attacked on or around the weekend of May 28th, yet the murder she was being charged for had occurred the evening of July 8th. Physical markers, such as the fountain and shopping center mentioned in the above excerpt from Lobato's initial statement were not present at the scene of the mutilation murder, which was actually on the opposite side of town from where these markers were found. The prosecution told jurors that Lobato was "at the end of a three day meth binge" on the evening of July 8th, and that she had confused the places and dates. However, the defense brought out medical tests from a day prior that showed that Lobato had not been using methamphetamines at the time they were taken. The evidence in the trial was also an issue. George Schiro, a forensics expert from Louisiana, had his testimony limited by the judge, but made out of court statements to the Las Vegas Review-Journal he felt should have been admitted: "'There
is no evidence to tie Ms. Lobato to the crime scene,' Schiro said in an interview
in a hallway of the Clark County Courthouse. 'I feel the evidence is even exclusionary
on her behalf.'"¹
"Outside
of court on Thursday, Schiro said a bloody footprint found at the crime scene
was nearly three sizes larger than the shoe size Lobato wears. He said none of
her fingerprints were at the scene and that authorities found in her possession
no physical evidence linking her to the crime. "He
said a piece of chewing gum found at the scene had Bailey and someone else's DNA
on it, but not Lobato's."²
A trial such as Kirstin Lobato's is an ethical quandary in feminism. One of the prosecution's theories about her motive for the murder was that she had a "deep hatred for men" stemming from her experiences of sexual abuse in childhood and had murdered the homeless man because of it.³ Mutilation murders done by women are extremely rare and one in the context of a rape situation is little more than unheard of.4 Prosecutor Kephart also referred to the attempted rape situation that resided in his theory of the case by saying, "(Bailey) wanted more than she was willing to give." If we were to presuppose Lobato's representation of events was true, would this be any way for a victim of an attempted rape who defended herself to be treated? Lack of physical evidence notwithstanding, police had another lead in regards to the murder of Duran Bailey they stopped following once they had Kirstin Lobato in custody. Another woman, who directly knew Bailey and his unusual place of residence, was brutally raped and attacked by him a week prior to his murder. This woman retained injuries almost identical in location to Bailey's-although to a lesser degree-from this attack. Several neighbors of hers had seen him enact violence on her before, and had come to the point of threatening his life. None of these men were called in for questioning. On August 28th, 2002, jurors convicted Kirstin Lobato of first-degree murder and sentenced her to life in prison without the possibility of parole until age 59. In an ironic twist, the prosecution added an additional charge to her sentence-sexual penetration of a dead body. One thing neither side dared to contest was that there was in fact an attempted rape, whether perpetuated by Bailey or by another man, as Lobato claimed. First-degree murder is a charge reserved for situations where there is premeditation. Sexual penetration of a dead body is a charge typically reserved for necrophiles. In this instance, both of these extreme charges were levied upon a woman who was the victim of an attempted rape. This is a case that lawyers, feminists, and social justice activists everywhere would be advised to take note of-especially as this judgment could lead to a chilling precedent if left unyielded. Kirstin Lobato's case is currently on appeal in Clark County, Nevada. Special Public Defenders Phil Kohn and Gloria Navarro (her attorneys on the previous trial where she received the life sentence) are the attorneys handling the appeal. She is unfortunately not financially capable of hiring a different attorney. Kirstin needs an attorney who will not daydream at key moments during trial; she needs for someone who can help her to step forward and make a difference. If you are an attorney or are affiliated with a law school and you want to help, please send email to: Justice4kirstin@cox.net. There
are several people who believe in her innocence and some have started a group
they call the Justice4Kirstin Campaign. They feel her trial was handled unjustly,
and that the lack of evidence against Lobato speaks for itself.5
Justice4Kirstin has held rallies in Las Vegas and is looking for
others who believe in Kirstin's innocence and want to help. To contact them, visit
their website at: or write: Justice4kirstin@cox.net. To help by purchasing items from a store where items help to raise awareness and the proceeds go towards Kirstin's legal defense fund: http://www.cafeshops.com/freekirstin.
Free
Kirstin Lobato: Innocent and Unjustly Convicted in Nevada
Notes ¹ Glenn Puit. "Expert's Testimony Limited, Forensics specialist: evidence excludes Lobato from the scene," Las Vegas Review-Journal, May 17, 2002. http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2002/May-17-Fri-2002/news/18771777.html. ³ Glenn Puit. "Closing Arguments: Jurors deliberate severed penis slaying, Prosecutor stresses suspect's statements; defense notes lack of evidence," Las Vegas Review-Journal, May 17, 2002. http://www.injusticebusters.com/index.htm/Lobato/Kirstin_Lobato_trial.htm. 4 Google search, October 12, 2003. "Woman mutilates" comes up with 27 results total, most in regards to self-harm. The search engine then asks "Did you mean: woman mutilated?" 5 Entire article derived from news articles from the Las Vegas Review-Journal, trial transcripts (State of Nevada v. Kirstin Blaise Lobato, Vols. 1-10), and from the initial interview conducted by Detective Thowsen in July of 2001. |
In
the summer months of 2002, a young woman named Kirstin Lobato was convicted of
murder in the first degree and sentenced to life in prison. During her trial,
and in her initial statement, Lobato stated that she had been the victim of an
attempted rape over Memorial Day weekend of the previous year. She said she had
defended herself against her attacker, who was alive when she left the scene.
The crime her trial centered on was the July mutilation murder of a homeless man
who had lived in a dumpster enclosure. Many confounding factors-alleged exclusion
of forensic evidence, the premise of the initial interview, and a number of missteps
within the legal process - would impair both sides of the law from making sense
out of two contrasting stories, and from providing the clarity a jury would need
to make an informed decision.
Copyright © 2003 Helen Caddes