Defense delivers closing arguments, says it is time to look elsewhere

“For you and for Cal, this is a very important moment,” said Calvin Harris’ attorney, Bruce Barket, as he began his closing arguments – arguments that spanned four hours on Tuesday.

“He is an innocent man, wrongfully accused,” Barket continued, as he skillfully addressed the jury.

This is the third time the fate of Calvin Harris, accused of second degree murder in connection with the disappearance of his wife Michele in September 2001, will be in the hands of the jury.

Barket’s closing arguments focused on a flawed investigation into the disappearance of Michele Harris sometime between Sept. 11 and Sept. 12, 2001, and noted that the allegations being made by the prosecution remain the same since 2001.

“Fourteen years, seven months, and 17 days… we all want to know what happened to her,” Barket said of the investigation conducted by law enforcement following Michele Harris’ disappearance.

Barket expounded on this, stating, “We all have to rely on law enforcement for the answers. Cal hired lawyer after lawyer, investigator after investigator. The police have only looked at one person.”

As he began to dig into his closing arguments, Barket became loud, stating “It’s time to look elsewhere. Hundreds focused on Hagdorn Hill and Cal Harris.”

Some of the tactics that Barket pointed out that investigators utilized when they converged on the Harris home was heat sensor technology, grid searches, sonar, search dogs, and even a GPS device that they placed on Calvin Harris’ truck to track him.

“They think he’s the devil,” said Barket to the jury, “so rules don’t apply,” adding, “they spied on Cal with night vision goggles when he was at his home.”

But there was no body, no witnesses, and no weapons, Barket stated to the jury. “We have accusations and no answers, prosecutors and no proof – because they’ve been investigating the wrong person.”

The Bloodstains

During his summations, Barket talked of the blood the prosecution found in the home, and of how the total amount of blood found – if it was blood – equated to ten drops.

Barket walked the jury through the blood spatter that the prosecution used as their main piece of evidence, and talked of each area and what the tests meant in each of them.

There were the areas where flourescein was used to test for blood, with all of the presumptive tests coming back negative, as testified to by an investigator involved in the case that was called by the prosecutor.

Barket also dug further into the DNA testing that the investigators had performed from bloodstains found in the home, a rug and the garage, noting that some of the DNA was dog, another was Michele Harris, and another was from an unknown male.

All together, Barket summarized, out of all the stains, only three in the kitchen and garage tested positive as being blood, and only two matched Michele Harris’ DNA.

He also told the jury, of the small, sparse stains, “Even if it was all Michele’s blood and DNA, even then, that’s not the scene of a murder.”

Barket also mentioned that there was no evidence of a cleanup either, to include tests from the sink traps, the van, the truck, the ATV’s, the garbage cans, laundry and shoes.

Substitute Evidence

He stated that the prosecution is basing their evidence on “He could have,” while the defense believes that some of the blood may have been from a cut Michele Harris had on her hand in March of 2001, months before she disappeared.

“Fourteen years, and no evidence,” said Barket.

He talked of how testimony changed over the years to include that of Barb Thayer, Cindy Turner, and Jerome Wilczynski.

In earlier testimony, and under oath, Barbara Thayer stated that she made the call to Michele from the Harris’ phone the morning Michele had disappeared, not Calvin Harris. But in previous testimony, Barbara Thayer, again under oath, stated that she didn’t make the call.

The other testimony the defense argued about in his closing was Thayer’s testimony that Calvin Harris was erasing Michele Harris’ memory from the children.

“It’s a lie, and you know it,” said Barket as he addressed the jury. “We don’t lie, we don’t cheat, we don’t steal – and that’s because Cal’s the devil,” said a visibly upset Barket.

As for Cindy Turner’s testimony, Barket argued claims that there was a bread loaf sized bloodstain. “There was no evidence of this,” said Barket.

The hairdresser, Jerome Wilczynski, testified during the trials that Calvin Harris told Michele Harris, “I will [expletive removed] kill you… I can make you disappear.”

Barket told the jury that this statement was not in the lead sheets from the initial interview with investigators, and he called Wilczynski’s testimony absurd.

The Marriage and Divorce

Barket then talked about the rocky marriage of Michele and Calvin Harris, and of how they both strayed.

According to the defense, Calvin Harris didn’t want the divorce because he learned of the effect it would have on the kids.

Both were involved in extra-marital affairs, as they had grown apart. Michele Harris was working at Lefty’s in Waverly, and was dating Brian Earley and others as well.

Michele Harris, according to the defense, had dropped her weight to under 100 pounds, and Calvin Harris was concerned there might be drug use.

The defense noted that in the spring of 2001 that things weren’t good, but that as September neared, the couple was getting along better and the divorce was moving forward to both of their satisfaction.

Consciousness of Innocence

Barket then offered the jury a concept about the “consciousness of innocence,” meaning that some of the things Calvin Harris did would speak for his innocence.

This included calling Michele Harris from home on the night of Sept. 11, 2001; giving police access to his home and his vehicles during the investigation; and statements he made to friends, stating that he’s “[expletive removed] if they don’t find semen. I’m [expletive removed] if they don’t find her.”

More than anyone else in the world, said Barket to the jury, he (Calvin Harris) wanted to find her.

Kevin Tubbs and Stacy Stewart

Before finishing his summations, which lasted approximately four hours, Barket talked about Kevin Tubbs, who saw Michele Harris at the end of the Harris residence with another man in the early morning hours on Sept. 12, 2001; and Stacy Stewart, the man that was identified by Tubbs in a photo. Later it was discovered that the truck Stewart was driving at that time also matched the description of the vehicle offered by Tubbs.

Barket stated that Calvin Harris and others already knew that Michele Harris would drop her van off at the end of the driveway and go out with someone else. “We knew she was with Stacy Stewart,” Barket told the jury.

Barket also talked of Michele Harris’ relationship with Brian Earley, and of how he left his family and moved up north to be near Michele, but she did not want the same.

As for Kevin Tubbs, the defense told the jury he is a credible witness.

“Tubbs is attacked because he was a messenger, and they didn’t like the messenger,” said Barket to the jury.

As for waiting to come forward, Barket stated, “Look what happened to him after he came forward,” referring to arrests made on Tubbs following his testimony at the end of the first trial in Tioga County – testimony that led to the conviction being overturned.

In the end, Barket talked of Calvin Harris and his family, and of how the defense team did the best they could for him.

Almost tearfully, Barket told the jury to do the right thing and exonerate an innocent man.

Following Barket’s closing arguments, Schoharie County Court Judge George R. Bartlett III dismissed the jury for the day, and adjourned things until 9:15 a.m. Wednesday, when the prosecution will deliver their closing arguments.

Outside of the courthouse, and following the adjournment, Barket addressed media, stating that they did the best they could, and they will see where things go from here.

The jury, upon the completion of the prosecution’s closing arguments on Wednesday, could take the case.