She explained that the initial evidence obtained was sufficient to establish probable cause to arrest Fairbourn for the attack. Salazar defended her investigation when the defense asked if tunnel vision had made Fairbourn the only suspect being looked into by investigators. Initially, the second phone sat in an evidence bag.
Eventually, the connection was made between the victim and the phone. Prosecutors say that Fairbourn snatched the phone to cover his tracks as part of an alleged blitz attack on the occupants of the motel room. Fairbourn admitted to lying and was heard admitting to contacting the women via messenger to arrange a paid meeting.
He has denied committing the attack, saying he forgot he had no money and left. He was also captured on video walking by the adjacent building to Smyth Printing where the knife was found.
Acre and Story were offering their services as escorts on back. Prosecutors say that an ad they placed drew Fairbourn to the motel in search of easy prey, possibly for a thrill-killing. Crayton is the boyfriend of Linda Mara Natlia Arce.
Crayton rushed to the Quality Inn when Acre called him saying she had been stabbed. As part of this theory, Crayton and Arce threw the knife on the roof on Smyth Printing when Crayton picked up a badly wounded Arce on Sunset Blvd and dropped her off at the hotel office.
An alternative theory the defense has alluded to is that Crayton simply stabbed the two women before beating Fairbourn. The defense theory tries to go around the DNA and blood evidence by saying the lab are due to contamination from lax forensic safeguards among investigators.
In addition to contamination from hospital interactions between the victims and the defendant compounded by potential lab errors that allegedly could have taken place. Salazar testified that she worked with the County Attorney to prioritize the hundreds of pieces of evidence collected in the case for testing.
The defense has questioned if the RSPD has done their due diligence to test evidence that could point away from their suspect. The defense pointed out that the police have access to outside labs. The defense presented expert witness Dr.
Hampikian had a scheduling conflict, additionally, expert witnesses from the Wyoming State Crime Lab were available that day to hear his testimony and offer an immediate reply. Hampikian said that trace amounts of DNA from contamination are impossible to distinguish from legitimate evidence after the amplification portion of DNA testing is conducted.
The nature of the injuries inflicted on both of the victims was consistent with a larger, much stronger attacker and both victims were of petite build, Salazar said. Salazar said she did think either victim was likely physically capable of inflicting that level of damage on the other and the consistency of the wounds points to one attacker who enjoyed a reach, height and strength advantage over the victims.
After the state rested the defense moved for a Rule 29 Judgment of Acquittal. The motion was presented after the state had rested their primary case, allowing the defense to present motions in response. The jury was not present for the portion were council discussed the defense motion.
The defense motion states that the prosecution has not established premeditation necessary for a first-degree murder charge. The defense conceded under the facts presented so far a second-degree charge would be more fitting and should proceed. Erramouspe asked during the discussion of the defense motion.
The motion will be taken under consideration while the defense presents their case. The defendant is expected to take the stand.
Wednesday, Dec 15, Up. My. Advertisement - Story continues below Related Articles.
Up Today Subscriber. Wyoming Digital News Collab.