Prosecution's Case at Trial (Part One)

"[Ralph International Thomas] was arrested shortly after the murders. The prosecution's case consisted entirely of circumstantial evidence falling generally into four categories: Thomas's ownership of a high- powered rifle that could have inflicted the fatal wounds, which he was seen using the night of August 15 but claimed was stolen immediately thereafter; sightings of Thomas alone with the victims shortly before the killings; Thomas's conduct and statements after the killings, collectively suggesting consciousness of guilt; and certain additional physical evidence, including recovery of a corncob pipe at the murder scene that was argued to have been Thomas's." (In RE:  Ralph International Thomas, p. 2)

Rifle

I'm going to try to outline the argument that the prosecution made with regard to the ownership of the rifle by quoting from People v. Thomas verbatim:
 
1. "On August 14, 1985, Lenise Allen, defendant's girlfriend, traded a Remington .44 magnum Model 788 rifle, serial number 041747 to defendant, after he repaid a debt he had owed her.  She had acquired the rifle in April 1985 from Martin Barbena." (People v. Thomas, p. 2)

2. "Barbena testified that the rifle had no clip, but could be fired by handloading each round into the chamber.  The breech was recessed, so a user had to push each round fully into place, or there was a chance of jamming. If a bullet were half in and half out, Barbena testified, it would tend to simply hang; if it were out any more than that, it would fall out through the space for the charge clip." (People v. Thomas, p. 2)

3. "[O]nly a person familiar with that model rifle could have committed the murders" using Thomas's rifle. (People v. Thomas, p. 2)

4. Thomas was the only person in Rainbow Village that night familiar with the quirks associated with loading Thomas's rifle.

4. Therefore, only Thomas could have committed the murder using his rifle.

Additional Physical Evidence - The Corncob Pipe

Again, I will try to outline the prosecution's argument concerning a broken corncob pipe found near the site of the murders by quoting from People v. Thomas verbatim:

1. "A corncob pipe with a broken stem was recovered from the area." (People v. Thomas, p. 6)

2. On August 17, when questioned by Inspector Dan Wolke, Thomas told him, "When he met Mary and Greg about 1:30 a.m. on his way to Ledger's Liquors [...] they asked him for some marijuana and he shared some with them, smoking it in his corncob pipe. He said he also drank beer with them. Defendant claimed he must have lost his pipe at that time." (People v. Thomas, p. 5)

3. On August 20, when questioned by Inspector Wolke, Thomas told him "Mary and Greg left, and defendant went back to his car to drop off his pint of Wild Turkey. At that time, defendant decided to go to Ledger's Liquors to buy some beer. Walking out past the village, he saw Vivian Cercy's car pointed north along the roadside. He also saw Mary and Greg near the concrete docks. Greg called him over to ask him if he had any matches. Defendant gave them some wooden matches in a leather-like pouch with a beaded design of deer mating, which defendant called “Peruvian love beads.” They asked him if he had any marijuana. Defendant said he did and took out a wooden pipe in which they all smoked the marijuana. They also drank some beer. Defendant told Wolke he also had a corncob pipe with a broken stem and must have left it behind for Mary and Greg or else lost it where they were." (People v. Thomas, p. 5)

4. "A corncob pipe with a broken stem was found near the spot where police found blood and drag marks, not where defendant claimed to have smoked marijuana with the victims using such a pipe." (People v. Thomas, p. 8)

5. So, the pipe puts Thomas at the scene of the crime.

Witness Testimony

Again, staying tight to People v. Thomas, there seems to have been two arguments related to witness testimony that point to the guilt of Thomas.  Here seems to be the first one:

1. Vincent Johnson testified that Thomas, "looking 'grim,' was with Mary and Greg when they were last seen alive, near the landfill office outside the Rainbow Village compound, during the early hours of August 16, 1985." (People v. Thomas, p. 9)

2. Calvin Wylie testified that about 6:30 a.m. on August 16, he saw defendant in the general area of the homicides, bending over what appeared to be garbage bags." (People v. Thomas, p. 9)

3. So, witness testimony puts Thomas with the victims near the time they were last seen and near the scene of the crime, behaving suspiciously.

4. So  Thomas murdered Mary and Greg.

Now here's the second:

1. "Thomas Medlin testified that after Mary's body was found, defendant asked him to hold his gun cleaning kit for a while. Medlin took the kit and hid it in his car. Later, defendant asked Medlin to hide the Tupperware container that defendant used to hold his ammunition, but Medlin refused and gave him back both the gun cleaning kit and the container with the ammunition." (People v. Thomas, p. 9)

2. So, witness testimony demonstrates Thomas tried to hide evidence that might connect him to the murder.

3. Only a guilty person would try to hide evidence connecting him to the murder.

4. So,  Thomas murdered Mary and Greg.

Statements 

Two statements from Thomas seem to have been key to the prosecution.  I will look at each one separately.  These are:  "That's Mary" (People v. Thomas, p. 4) and (here I'm paraphrasing) "I can think of plenty of reasons why someone would want to murder them." (People v. Thomas, p. 6)

"That's Mary"

1."Detective Eihl testified that he was standing about 30 feet from the body, which was floating facedown. Some white of the upper clothing was visible, but neither the face nor the legs could be seen. Defendant was standing about 15 feet behind Eihl, or about 45 feet from the body.  As personnel from the coroner's office began to remove the body from the water, while the face was still not visible and before Eihl could tell whether the body was male or female, defendant said, 'That's Mary.'” (People v. Thomas, p. 4)

2. To be able to identify the body, someone would have had to have seen the face.

3. Merely seeing some clothing would not have been enough to identify the body.

4. Thus, Thomas could not have known it was Mary's body, unless he'd murdered her.

5. So Thomas murdered Greg and Mary.

"I can think of plenty of reasons why someone would want to murder them."

1. "Wolke told defendant that the police could not figure out the motive for the murders. Defendant said he could think of plenty of reasons why somebody would want to murder the victims.  Wolke said, “Why don't you tell me one?” Defendant paused, then said he could not think of any at the time. Wolke asked if he would be willing to take a polygraph test regarding his missing rifle. Defendant said he would have to think about it and get some legal advice." (People v. Thomas, p. 6)

2. This comment gives evidence of "consciousness of guilt".

3. Only the murderer would have a consciousness of guilt.

4. Therefore, Thomas murdered Mary and Greg.