Opinion ID: 844200
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The murder and arson

Text: At the time of her death, Ruth Eddings stood four feet 11 inches tall, weighed 90 pounds, and was 81 years of age. She lived in Riverside County in a mobilehome next to defendant‘s parents, Mina and Bill Jones, with whom she had had a friendly relationship for almost 20 years. By defendant‘s own account, Eddings was ―a nice person‖ who had treated defendant well, including paying him to do small jobs around her house. At the time of the murder, defendant stood almost six feet tall, weighed approximately 200 pounds, and was 39 years of age. He had been living with his parents for a year and a half following his release on parole after serving more than four years in prison for two felony convictions for sexual assault on a minor. On the day of Eddings‘s death, defendant was home alone, as his parents recently had left on their first vacation since defendant moved in with them. Riverside County Sheriff‘s Deputy Philip Matheny testified that he was on duty as a patrol officer in the early morning hours of June 19 when, at approximately 4:40 a.m., he was instructed to assist fire department personnel responding to a structure fire with possible people inside. After the fire was extinguished, investigators inspected the structure — a single-wide mobilehome trailer with attached outbuildings — and determined that the fire, which involved only the rear portion of the residence, had been started using accelerant in the 3 living room and inside the front door. A Camel cigarettes book of matches was found in the driveway, and the label of a Blitz brand gasoline container was lying in defendant‘s parents‘ yard near the chain-link fence that ran between the two properties. Eddings‘s badly burned body was discovered inside the trailer. She was unclothed, lying facedown with her legs spread apart and her head pointing away from the front door. (b) Defendant’s statements to law enforcement officers Deputy Matheny testified that he made contact with defendant on the morning of the fire. Defendant told Deputy Matheny that he was staying with his parents, although they were in the State of Washington at the time, and that defendant had been sleeping when a young lady pounded on the window of his mobilehome, telling him there was a fire next door and requesting that he call the fire department. Later that afternoon, defendant was interviewed at his parents‘ mobilehome by Riverside County Sheriff‘s Detective Eric Spidle. Donald Jones, defendant‘s brother, and Deputy District Attorney Patricia Erickson2 were present during the interview, which lasted approximately two and one-half hours and took place while they sat at the kitchen table or walked around outside. Detective Spidle testified that when he asked defendant for matches, defendant handed him a matchbook with advertising for Camel cigarettes on the cover — the same advertising Detective Spidle had seen on the cover of the matches found earlier in Eddings‘s driveway. Another, similar book of matches later was found in defendant‘s bedroom closet. Also found on defendant‘s parents‘ property was a 2 Deputy District Attorney Erickson was also the prosecutor at defendant‘s trial. 4 Blitz brand gasoline container — the same brand as the gasoline container label found earlier in their yard near the fence bordering Eddings‘s property. Detective Spidle also observed a ―fresh‖ scratch on the side of defendant‘s face. At the conclusion of the interview, Detective Spidle asked whether defendant would be willing to accompany him to the police station. Defendant agreed, and Detective Spidle drove him to the Riverside police station, arriving at approximately 4:00 p.m. Defendant waited in the reception area for half an hour until the deputy district attorney arrived, after which defendant was taken into a room with detectives and the deputy district attorney, and was advised of his rights to counsel and to remain silent. Defendant signed a written waiver of those rights, and Detective Spidle began to interview him.3 Over the course of the session, the detectives offered defendant food, and gave him coffee, soda, and cigarettes. Defendant‘s demeanor varied from cooperative and inquisitive, to confused, nervous, and argumentative, and, in the detectives‘ opinion, he exhibited nonverbal signs of deception. Scratches on defendant‘s face, arms, hands, abdomen, hips, upper thigh, and legs were photographed, and the photographs were introduced as exhibits at trial. At Detective Spidle‘s prompting, defendant detailed his activities prior to the fire. He explained that he had arrived home from work at approximately 6:00 p.m., and then went to a neighbor‘s house for about half an hour. Afterward, he drove to the store and purchased a 12-pack of beer and some groceries. When he returned home, he ―cranked up the radio and just sat down and relaxed and drank a couple of beers.‖ At approximately 8:00 or 8:30 p.m., defendant went 3 Redacted tape recordings of the interrogation sessions were played for the jury during trial. The jury additionally was provided transcripts of the redacted recordings, which were entered into evidence as exhibits. 5 outside to wash his hands with gasoline in order to remove construction adhesive. He brought the gas can back to the house in case he needed it for his rototiller the following day. Detective Spidle suggested defendant might have ―drank too much‖ and ―accidentally‖ started the fire, a claim defendant repeatedly denied, saying, ―I would not hurt that woman.‖ He claimed he had ―no problem‖ with Eddings, that he ―liked that lady,‖ and that she had ―always been sweet‖ to him. Defendant at first denied ever going over to Eddings‘s house the previous night, but when questioned regarding the gasoline, he suddenly ―remembered‖ going over to ―check on‖ Eddings at approximately 9:00 p.m., after noticing she had not taken the newspaper he had left for her on their common fence. Defendant said he knocked on Eddings‘s door and asked, ―Are you alright?‖ and Eddings ―yelled out . . . that she was in the tub.‖ Defendant revised this story almost immediately, claiming instead that he walked over with a beer, jumped the fence, knocked on Eddings‘s door, said, ―Ruth, it‘s me,‖ but failed to get a response, then tried to open the door and found it locked, so he returned home. He insisted, however, that he did not enter Eddings‘s residence, that he drank only four beers the entire evening, and that he drank only two before going over to check on Eddings. When asked about the scratch on his face, defendant repeatedly claimed it occurred at work. As the questioning continued, another detective stated that he had talked to defendant‘s brother Donald. Donald told the detective that he had ―a real bad feeling‖ that with their parents gone and defendant being left home alone, something bad was going to happen, and that he purposefully had not asked defendant whether he ―had done this‖ — referring to the homicide and arson — because Donald was afraid defendant had. Defendant expressed disbelief concerning Donald‘s statement, and asked to speak to his brother. The interview 6 continued, however, at which time defendant again changed his story about what had transpired the night before. This time, defendant said he drank ―at least six beers‖ before going over to check on Eddings at approximately 9:00 p.m. after noticing she had not taken the newspaper from the fence. When there was no response to his knocking, he opened the door, entered the trailer, and found Eddings lying on the floor naked. He ―shook her head‖ and said her name, but Eddings did not respond. Noticing blood on her face and realizing she was dead, defendant ―just freaked out.‖ He went home and sat down on the couch: ―[E]verything was running through my head . . . until . . . I got the gas can and I went over there and started the fire . . . [b]ecause I was scared . . . [bec]ause I don‘t want to go back to prison . . . I just didn‘t know what else to do . . . my fingerprints were all over.‖ Defendant returned to Eddings‘s home three times, each time spraying lighter fluid or gasoline, before getting the fire to start. He repeatedly insisted, however, that he did not attack Eddings: ―I did not murder this person. . . . I did not kill her. . . . I didn‘t hurt her.‖ He told the detectives that he would ―rather shoot myself‖ than go back to prison and asked for a gun so that he could ―get this life over with.‖ When asked to account more specifically for the hours between 9:00 p.m. and 4:30 a.m., defendant stated that he ―remembered‖ additional details. He said that between 9:00 p.m. and midnight, he ―did nothing but just sit at home freaking‖ before deciding to change his clothes, get in his truck, and ―split.‖ As he was driving, however, defendant began to worry about his fingerprints being discovered in Eddings‘s trailer. He therefore returned to Eddings‘s trailer at approximately midnight and, after several attempts, finally set it on fire. Defendant then returned to his home and took a shower ―to try to clear his head.‖ Later that morning, he washed his clothes and shoes. When asked whether detectives were going to find evidence of bodily fluids on Eddings, such as 7 ejaculate, defendant said he might have dripped sweat on Eddings because sweat ―was pouring off‖ his face when he turned her head, touched her wrist to see if she had a pulse, and put his head on her back to listen for sounds of breathing. He further admitted the scratch on his face had not occurred at work, but probably was from bumping into furniture in the darkness of Eddings‘s trailer. When asked about a bruise on his right hand, defendant thought he must have struck it on his way out of Eddings‘s trailer. But he continued to deny that there had been any kind of struggle or fight with Eddings. Detective Spidle reviewed defendant‘s story a final time with him before terminating the interview at approximately 9:00 p.m. Defendant was placed under arrest and processed for booking into county jail, where he was received at approximately 1:40 a.m. The following evening, June 20, 1996, Detective Spidle brought defendant back to the Riverside police station and conducted a second taped interview session after defendant signed another written waiver of his rights. This interview lasted less than two hours. At the outset, Detective Spidle told defendant he believed something physical had happened between defendant and Eddings, and asked defendant to ―consider telling the complete truth,‖ so that defendant‘s mother would not have to worry about there being ―someone else out there.‖ He also told defendant that he had talked to defendant‘s family and they did not believe his story, but rather thought ―[defendant] did this.‖ After requesting and being allowed to speak to his mother by telephone, defendant admitted that he ―hurt‖ Eddings. He said he went over to Eddings‘s residence and knocked on the door. Eddings was home and let him in: ―Then, she threw her arms up and we got into wrestling match . . . . It got out of hand and I killed her.‖ Defendant was ―surprised‖ with how much Eddings fought back, and he agreed with the detective that she ―put up a good fight.‖ He described how he 8 choked her, while both of them were in a standing position, until she was unconscious. Defendant further admitted to sexually assaulting Eddings: ―Yes, I did attack her. Yes, I killed her, and yes, I had sex with her. Yes.‖ When asked if he had ―wanted sex‖ when he went over to Eddings‘s trailer, defendant responded: ―Yeah, I did at the time.‖ He said Eddings was on her stomach and had ceased struggling when he put his penis ―down between her legs‖ and, although he ―couldn‘t tell if [his penis] was in or not,‖ it ―didn‘t take [him] very long to ejaculate.‖ Defendant claimed Eddings ―was alive before the fire,‖ but that ―she wasn‘t alive during the fire‖ because he remembered ―checking.‖ He thought the choking killed her, and he was convinced that he would be sentenced to death for his actions: ―I already know I‘m goin‘ to the death chamber . . . because I know the special circumstances in a murder.‖ (c) The autopsy Dr. Robert DiTraglia, a forensic pathologist and the Riverside County coroner who conducted Eddings‘s autopsy, testified concerning the cause of her death — strangulation and blunt force trauma — and the extent of her injuries. Based on the number and severity of the injuries she suffered, the organs involved, and the amount of hemorrhaging associated with the injuries, Dr. DiTraglia estimated that it took two to 20 minutes for Eddings to die after suffering all of her injuries. Although she additionally suffered thermal damage to over 90 percent of her body, Dr. DiTraglia concluded that Eddings likely died before the fire started, because there was no evidence of soot in her airways, and the level of carbon monoxide in her blood was within normal limits. The density of Eddings‘s skeletal structure was within the normal limits for a woman of her age and, in Dr. DiTraglia‘s opinion, any existing osteoporosis had not affected the bodily injuries she suffered. Although Eddings had atherosclerosis, a hardening of the 9 arteries which is common in the elderly, Dr. DiTraglia did not believe this played a role in Eddings‘s death, confirming ―[s]he did not die of a heart attack.‖ The extensive nature and severity of the thermal injury to Eddings‘s body caused by the fire — in some places, the skin and subcutaneous tissue were severely burned, in others places, there was no skin or subcutaneous tissue remaining at all — had a ―profound effect‖ on the ability to recover certain types of evidence during the autopsy. As Dr. DiTraglia explained, ―it‘s impossible to evaluate the presence of abrasions, bruises, lacerations when the tissue doesn‘t even exist.‖ Dr. DiTraglia was able to recover some evidence from Eddings‘s body cavities. A small square piece of cloth with charred edges was pulled from her vaginal cavity. The manner in which the cloth was present in the vagina suggested it had been forced inside with a penetrating object. A swab of Eddings‘s rectal cavity also tested positive for defendant‘s semen, a circumstance defendant did not contest. An internal examination of Eddings‘s chest cavity revealed 23 rib fractures located on all four sides of her ribcage, a series of injuries that Dr. DiTraglia described as ―quite extreme‖ and ―quite traumatic.‖ In Dr. DiTraglia‘s opinion, these rib fractures could not have occurred from one impact, and could not have been caused by falling from a standing position. Rather, the number and location of the breaks to the ribcage evidenced ―multiple impacts‖ from a force that was ―significant, severe, and applied in multiple locations at multiple times.‖ Severe hemorrhaging associated with the rib fractures further indicated that Eddings was alive at the time these injuries were inflicted. Eddings also suffered a ―dramatic‖ and ―very severe‖ spinal fracture that displaced the spine, severed her spinal cord completely, and left her paralyzed, with no voluntary muscle movement, from the waist downward. A ―tremendous amount‖ of force was required to produce this kind of blunt force trauma. As with 10 the rib fractures, extensive bleeding into the surrounding tissue associated with this injury indicated it was inflicted before her death. When asked whether the spinal fracture could have occurred from Eddings falling from a standing position, Dr. DiTraglia responded, ―absolutely not.‖ Elsewhere, on the cervical spine, Eddings‘s neck was fractured in four places, as characteristic of strangulation. Dr. DiTraglia explained that while it is not uncommon for just one neckbone to break in a typical strangulation scenario, Eddings‘s case was extreme, as all four neckbones were fractured. There was hemorrhaging associated with all of the fractures, indicating that Eddings was alive when these injuries were inflicted. The unusual number of fractures indicated that a ―compressive force‖ was applied to Eddings‘s neck ―for some period of time.‖ Dr. DiTraglia further explained that it takes approximately 60 seconds for death from strangulation to occur. Thermal damage to the neck area — the majority of skin and subcutaneous tissue was absent — destroyed any evidence of soft tissue injury caused by the strangulation. Similarly, microscopic examination of the brain for injuries consistent with strangulation, such as brain swelling, was precluded by thermal changes to the cerebral tissue resulting from the heat of the fire. As part of the autopsy, the vaginal canal and the rectum were removed and dissected. As with other areas of Eddings‘s body, severe thermal injury to the skin and subcutaneous tissue surrounding the genitalia prevented an evaluation for the presence of external trauma such as abrasions, bruises, or lacerations. Neither did Dr. DiTraglia observe any internal trauma to the vagina or anal cavity, although visible charring to portions of the internal tissue inhibited his examination. The general absence of trauma to the genital area did not, standing alone, signify to Dr. DiTraglia that Eddings had not been raped or sodomized. He cited studies 11 indicating that of women who survived being raped, only 10 to 30 percent show genital trauma, and that the vast majority display no such indications. Over defense objection, Dr. DiTraglia was permitted to testify as to his opinion that Eddings was raped and sodomized, and that she was alive at the time she was raped and sodomized. His opinion was based on the totality of the anatomical findings and evidence in this case, as well as Dr. DiTraglia‘s training and experience in cases of rape murder. This included, among other things, the array of Eddings‘s injuries consistent with being subdued by force prior to being sexually assaulted, the presence of a foreign object in Eddings‘s vagina apparently placed there by a penetrating object, the presence of defendant‘s sperm in her rectum, the prone position of Eddings‘s body when it was discovered, statements made by defendant, the rarity of necrophilia in Dr. DiTraglia‘s experience, and the circumstance that strangulation and blunt force trauma are ―by far‖ the leading cause of death in rape murder cases. Dr. DiTraglia explained that because rape is both ―a very intimate event‖ and an ―inherently violent act,‖ the cause of death typically is very intimate (choking versus gunshot wounds) and ―the trauma, when it is present, is often severe and brutal, like it was in this case.‖ (d) Evidence of other crimes Over defense objection, the prosecution introduced evidence relating to an incident in 1990 in which defendant sexually assaulted minor Toni P. This evidence was admitted at the guilt phase for the limited purpose of evaluating defendant‘s state of mind and any specific intent he might have harbored on the evening Eddings was killed. Toni P. testified that in March 1990, she was 16 years of age and had been living in Riverside County for almost a year in the residence of her uncle, John Seneff, and her aunt, Sandra Seneff, who was defendant‘s sister. The Seneffs‘ two 12 young children also were living in the house, as was Donald Jones, defendant‘s brother. On the morning of March 16, after Sandra and John had left for work and the children had left for school, defendant arrived at the residence and spoke to Donald briefly. Donald then left for a job interview, leaving Toni P. alone with defendant for the first time since they had been acquainted. As she was preparing to leave the house, defendant asked Toni P. where she was going, and she replied that she was going to school. Defendant said, ―No, you‘re not,‖ put his hands on her shoulders, and pushed her through the hallway into a back bedroom. Once in the room, defendant pushed Toni P. to the floor, forcibly removed her clothes, pulled his own pants down, and put his penis in her mouth until he ejaculated, all the while holding her down on the floor as she cried and said ―no‖ and ―stop.‖ Afterwards, he attempted to put his penis in her vagina, though Toni P. was not sure if penetration occurred. Defendant then stood up looking disoriented, pulled Toni P. to her feet, walked her into the bathroom, locked the door behind them, and handed her a wet washcloth for her face. After warning her not to say anything or she ―would regret it,‖ he left Toni P. crying in the bathroom. She immediately called a friend, who told her to report the incident to the police. Toni P. then changed her clothes and ran to the home of neighbors who were sheriff‘s deputies, and the neighbors called the police. Toni P. stated that she did not notice any indication that defendant was intoxicated during this incident.