BATAVIA, NY -- On Wednesday, Paul Cambria, defense attorney for Scott Doll, and District Attorney Lawrence Friedman, presented their best arguments for guilt or innocence to a jury of 12 Genesee County residents.
Below are what they said about some of the key points and facts in the case.
Motivation
Cambria argued that the People were unable to make a solid case for Doll to have any motivation to kill Joseph Benaquist.
"No one family member ever came in to say there was a dispute between Joe and Scott," Cambria said. "Did anybody from Adesa come in and say ther ever saw Joe and Scott have a cross word? Did anybody from corrections come in and say there was ever a problem between these two? Did any friend or the girlfriend of Joe Benaquist come in and say there was a cross word between these two men? No. Because they were friends."
Friedman said Doll's financial difficulties led to him taking resale control of a Malibu that Benaquist once drove -- to the point, Friedman said, of forging Benaquist's signature on the title -- and Doll never transferred title to a Pontiac G6 to Benaquist.
"If it (the G6) is sold at auction, it's paid off and he gets to keep the (extra) cash for himself," Friedman said. "The title never went to Benaquist. The defendant had the ability to sell the G6 and keep the proceeds for himself."
Doll had debts as high as $28,000 and was working with a debt-resolution company. Cambria pointed out that if the company delivered on its promises to Doll, the debt would have been reduced to $15,000.
As for money owed on the G6, Cambria said, the only issue just prior to Feb. 16, 2009 -- the night Benaquist was killed -- was a $1,500 payment that was due, and that payment was made automatically that day from Doll's overdraft account at Adesa.
The payment wasn't an issue, Cambria said.
Friedman argued that Doll forged a signature on the title for the Chevy Malibu -- a forgery that if discovered could lead to his dismissal, just three months shy of retirement, from the Department of Corrections. Furthermore, Doll never applied a $10,000 payment from Benaquist to his credit account at the Adesa auction as he should have, thereby denying Benaquist the ability to take title of the Pontiac G6.
No Weapon
Law enforcement searched three times in the area of North Lake and Knapp roads for the weapon that might have been used to bludgeon Joseph Benaquist to death. The weapon was never found, Cambria argued.
It defies common sense, according to Cambria, that Doll would have disposed of the weapon, but not the blood-stained coveralls he was wearing, his bloody sneakers or the blood-soaked gloves he left on the hood of a car the night of the murder.
"There was no weapon found because the person who beat Joseph Benaquist took the weapon with him," Cambria said. "Common sense tells you that if you beat somebody up and beat them like this, would you stick around, would you be walking back to the scene if you had just beaten somebody to death, or would you be out of there and take the weapon with you?"
Cambria argued that it wasn't logical that Doll would dispose of a weapon, but not also ensure that his gloves, shoes and coveralls wouldn't also be hidden. He argued that it wouldn't make sense for Doll to dispose of the weapon, but then return to the murder scene with no gloves, which would mean he would leave behind fingerprints.
The lack of a weapon didn't trouble Friedman. There are any number of ways, and plenty of time, potentially, for Scott Doll to drive to any number of possible spots to get rid of the weapon. The defense wants jurors, Friedman argued, to jump to the assumption that Doll drove straight from finding his buddy dead to the location where his van was eventually found, but there is no evidence, Friedman argued, that Doll did that. He could have driven anywhere before heading to the corner of Main and North Lake roads to park the minivan.
No call to 9-1-1
When Scott Doll arrived at the murder scene, in his version of events, he rushed to his buddy's side.
Which brings up the question, according to Friedman: Why didn't he call 9-1-1?
Doll was a corrections officer. He had training in emergency situations.
His friend was obviously seriously wounded. Sure, he would rush to his side, Friedman argued, but a reasonable person would first call 9-1-1.
But there's no evidence that Doll ever made such a call.
Doll testified that after Benaquist died, he approached the Knapp Road house, found the door partially opened, and retreated in fear, going to the Main Road location in the Windstar.
Doll testified that he was trying to figure out what to do and that he figured he needed to do something.
Why not call 9-1-1?
Why not call when he first got to the scene, or why not as he drove away? Friedman noted that it wasn't until he was walking back to the scene on North Lake Road that the thought first came to Doll that his son might be involved.
So why not call 9-1-1 if Doll wasn't guilty and it hadn't yet occurred to him that his son might be involved?
This wasn't a point addressed directly in Cambria's closing remarks.
Evidence of a struggle
Cambria argued that the evidence shows a sign of a struggle, from the defensive wounds found on Benaquist's hands to the blood transfer stains on the Nissan Altima and the Pontiac G6.
If Benaquist fought for his life, why isn't there a scratch on Doll, Cambria argued. There were no wounds on Doll, his clothes were not torn and there wasn't much blood on his coveralls to suggest a struggle, Cambria sad.
"if you were involved in something like this, there would be something on you," Cambria said. "There would be a torn piece of clothing, a bruise, a cut, something, and of course, there's no evidence of that."
Friedman countered that there was no struggle because Benaquist was ambushed.
"There is absolutely no evidence that there was any kind of struggle," Friedman said. "There is no evidence Joe Benaquist fought with is attacker. This was a one-sided ambush, a vicious attack on a 66-year-old man by a man 20 years younger."
Cambria complained that nail clippings from Banaquist were not examined for DNA. Friedman said there was no DNA examine because there was no reason to believe the examine would yield any useful evidence.
Bloody Knees
Nobody disputes that the knees of Doll's coveralls were soaked in blood.
Cambria argues that there are only two ways Doll's knees could get so saturated with blood that it soaked through to his skin.
One is that Doll arrived after the attack and knelt down next to his dying friend, just in time to hear his dying words. The other is that Doll was on his knees while beating Benaquist.
The problem with the second explanation, according to Cambria, is that it would take Benaquist a long time to bleed out enough to create the pool of blood that would saturate the knees -- and what murderer would stick around that long on his knees.
And, if Doll did attack Benaquist and was on his knees to do it, there would be blood spatter on the back of the coveralls because of the required motion of the arm holding the blunt object used to beat Benaquist.
From Friedman's view point, there is nothing in evidence to support the assumption of the defense's expert witness that the attacker was on his knees while beating Benaquist. He also pointed out that Herb MacDonell testified that the absence of evidence doesn't mean there is evidence of absence. Meaning, just because you don't find something doesn't mean it should have been found.
Friedman's explanation for the bloody knees relies on an autopsy report that Benaquist was dragged across the driveway after the initial attack. There were scrapes on his back. Perhaps, Friedman argued, Doll dragged Benaquist from under the Altima over toward the G6.
Cambria took issue with the idea that Doll could be on his knees and drag a 220-pound man that far.
Expirated Blood vs. Impact Spatter
According to Friedman, the prosecution's bloodstain-spatter expert, Paul Kisch, said there was no expirated blood -- meaning blood breathed out through the mouth onto a surface -- on the coveralls worn by Scott Doll.
Kisch testified that all of the spatter came from an impact event.
The impact event, Friedman said, was a blunt object hitting Joseph Benaquist, causing spatter on both the coveralls and the Ford Windstar minivan Doll was driving.
Friedman drew a sharp comparison between Kisch and the defense bloodstain-pattern expert, Herbert MacDonell. Kisch studied all of the evidence and all of the reports. He wrote a written document detailing his findings. It was peered reviewed.
MacDonell, on the other hand, took no notes, wrote no report and didn't even physically examine the coveralls until the morning of his testimony.
But Cambria argued that was all the time MacDonell needed to look at the coveralls under his microscope and determine that the spatter on them was from clotted blood, meaning it could not have been blood produced at the time of the attack.
Cambria said MacDonell believed it was expirated blood and criticized the state's crime lab for not testing the spattered blood for saliva, which would better answer one way or another whether the spatter was expirated or from impact.
That test was unnecessary, Friedman argued, because the physical evidence, as Kisch testified, was clearly in favor of impact spatter. Kisch, unlike MacConell, actually read the medical examiner's report, which said there was no blood in the throat or mouth of Benaquist, and no significant amount of blood in the area of his mouth, meaning it was easy to rule out expirated blood.
Blood on the Windstar
According to Friedman, Kisch testified that the blood on the Ford Windstar Scott Doll was driving the evening of Feb. 16, 2009, was clearly impact spatter that came from an impact event in Benaquist's blood. That impact event, according to Friedman, was the blunt-force attack on Benaquist.
The impact spatter on the Windstar unequivocally places the Windstar at the scene of the attack, according to Friedman.
Cambria argued that his bloodstain-pattern expert said that it was impossible for spatter drops as small as those found on the Windstar to travel more than four or five feet. And photographic evidence showing Scott Doll's bloody footprint in the area where the Windstar would have been parked, was much further than four or five feet from the spot of the attack.
Also, Kisch testified that the spatter marks hit the back fender of the Windstar at a 90-degree angle. But Cambria showed a photograph of Benaquist's body behind the G6, with the Altima pulled slightly behind it. That would indicate that if the blood spatter from the attack could reach the Windstar at all, it wouldn't have done so at a 90-degree angle.
Cambria also argued that a spatter stain on the headlamp of the Windstar wasn't impact spatter, but clearly a transfer stain.
Friedman said that Herb MacDonell never offered any sort of explanation for how the blood got onto the Windstar.
Scott Doll's Statements
The statements Scott Doll made immediately after coming into contact with law enforcement the night of Feb. 16, 2009, were either the statements of a man trying to figure out what was going on and trying to buy time to figure it out, or they were the statements of a man trying to hide a crime and tacitly admitting his guilt.
If you believe the case put on by Paul Cambria, Doll said nothing that admits any degree of guilt.
On the other hand, Friedman argues that Doll's statements were A) cold and calculating, aimed to deceive law enforcement; B) demonstrate a changing version of the story, which is an indication of lying, and C) admissions of guilt.
When Doll was first stopped by law enforcement and asked about the blood on his coveralls, he said, "I butcher deer."
For Cambria, this shows Doll still wasn't aware he had fresh blood on his coveralls.
When a deputy asked Doll where he was going, he said a friend's house, and then gave directions that would lead away from Benaquist's house.
Friedman says this was an attempt to coldly deceive law enforcement.
Cambria says Doll was just trying to buy time.
Cambria complains that Doll repeatedly asked to speak with an attorney, and Friedman says that when a deputy asked, which attorney, Doll said his divorce attorney, but couldn't remember his name.
Doll, while shackled to the floor in the Sheriff's Office, tells a friend that "it's an open and shut case," and when asked if there was a body, he said, "I don't know that" (but clearly, even by his own testimony, he knew there was a body), and "I guess I'll get what I deserve."
To Friedman these are all statements of a guilty conscience.
Cambria says they are just statements of a man who wanted to talk to an attorney, was denied that request and was feeling the police already had him convicted.
