This trial started November 24, 2003 and is ongoing.

May 18, 2004
by
Hilary & dll

Closing Arguments

I come in just in time to grab a seat in the back. Unfortunately I’m not seated next to Donna, who is also here. The place is packed. 48 Hours alone is taking an entire row, and everyone is elbow-to-elbow sardine style. The jury comes in at 9:17. Sebastian's parents are here, sitting with two other women in a row reserved for family. Judge Mertel starts off the morning by asking that the jury read along with him the instructions of the law, copies of which have been placed on their seats to prepare them for deliberations. Judge reads the instructions, which I’ll paraphrase as well as I can:

1) Jurors should review the facts, of evidence, and interpret it according to what the law is, not their belief of what the law should be.
2) Jurors shouldn’t consider the prosecution’s “filing of information” (that they brought the charges against them in the first place) as proof that the defendants are guilty.
3) No transcripts of the trial can go into deliberations with them, just the exhibits and their notes. The clerks will be at their beck and call to bring them evidence they’re interested in seeing. All evidence must be given a fair even shot
4) Jurors are the sole judgers of each witness' believability.
5) Any information not stated by evidence or by law is not permitted to be considered.
6) Judge can't comment on believability of any evidence, and he says if they feel he’s acted as if any evidence during the trial was either believable or not, to disregard it because it was not intentional.
7) Jurors are officers of the court, and must not allow either sympathy or prejudice to affect the verdict.
8) Each juror must come to their own conclusion. They may not change their opinion for the sole purpose of reaching a verdict.
9) Juror notepads will not be read by anyone, ever, and will be destroyed following the trial.
10) Jurors are asked to keep their minds open to other jurors’ notes and memory, and told to not necessarily trust their own notes over their memories.
11) Reminds jurors that defendants are presumed innocent. For a guilty verdict, jurors must be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendants are guilty. Reasonable doubt is a doubt that is reasonable to a reasonable person. The prosecution bears the burden of proof. If they have not proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the two are guilty, they must return an innocent verdict.
12) Evidence can be either direct or circumstantial. One is not more or less valuable than the other by law.
13) When evaluating the testimony of witnesses, jurors may consider education, training, experience level, and other factors that make them more or less believable.
14) Judge asks the jury to not infer that Atif is guilty because he didn't testify. The state cannot compel defendants to testify, or deny them the right to testify.
15) Murder in the 1st degree is when a person has premeditated intent to cause another’s death, then acts deliberately to cause the death of that person. Judge asks that jurors to not consider reaching a firm verdict on one count as influential to reaching a verdict on any of the other charges.

Judge goes over the charges, naming the conditions of murder in the 1st degree for each of the Rafay family members. He reads the charges separately for each defendant, to the effect of: “that Sebastian/Atif and/or an accomplice premeditated to kill (each victim in turn), and that they acted….to cause the death, and that the death was the result of this direct action, and that the death occurred in WA state.” If there is reasonable doubt on ANY of these counts, jury must return a not guilty verdict.

Some definitions:
-A person is an accomplice if they encourage or command the crime, or in any way (physical or with words) aid the act.
-Premeditated means they've deliberately, mentally formed the intent.
-Acts knowingly means if the person has reasonable information that the action is illegal and commits the action anyway. If the jury determines guilt, they then have to determine the murders are aggravated (in this case, is there proof that they believed they would receive valuables of some kind as a result of the murders. Reiterates that prosecution has burden of proof.)

Finally, the judge instructs the jury that their first duty in deliberations is to select a presiding juror to keep deliberations orderly, to ensure that everyone is participating and allowed an opportunity to speak, etc.

James Konat starts the prosecution’s closing arguments at 9:47. He paces around silently for a few moments.

He paints for the jury, a picture of an “Ivy-league intellectual and an arrogant, annoying” individual acting on a sense of entitlement. The boys made an investment of $400 from Sebastian's savings (to go visit the Rafays), and of 4-6 weeks of planning time, in order to reap the benefits of the Rafay estate.

James starts with the pre-murder history. (I’m going to do my best to just paraphrase what he said, so I don’t have to write “he said” a million times). After his freshman year at Cornell, Atif chose not to live with his parents, but instead opted to spend the summer time with Jimmy Miyoshi and Sebastian in Vancouver. They discussed murdering the Rafays on no fewer than four occasions. The murders would gain them their entitled fame. James notes that Atif did not embrace his family’s Muslim faith, though as he was aware of the prayer cycle, he was also aware of their daily habits (I take this to mean when they went to sleep and so on, relevant to planning the murders). He did not like his sister- he said so two days post-murder. James stresses a quote of Atif’s: "SHE WAS GROSS."

We now know that they are all Canadian citizens; this became a major component of the investigation. Sebastian bragged shamelessly about his intelligence. Part of this intelligence is their knowledge of what protection their Canadian citizenship would provide them. This "fleeing" was part of the plan, because they knew it would provide a safe-haven from the BPD questions that would follow. Recall if you will, that after eliminating his family, Atif left the "dirty work" of putting his family to rest to his relatives: he neither planned nor attended the funeral. Atif claimed not to remember Johnny Siayed's last name, despite his visiting his house three times, and calling him "Uncle."

Atif and Sebastian got up early the morning of the murders, which was highly atypical. After the murders, they slept all day and stayed up all night and CHOSE not to work or go to school because they fully expected to cash in on the estate money. Tax records show that Tariq Rafay made $59,000 in life. However, dead he was worth over $500,000 (James gets this figure from all combined estate assets, presumably). This would only be on the condition that Sultana and Basma were also dead.

Upon their return to Canada post-murder, the story the defendants told everyone who would listen that they were mistreated and detained against their will by BPD. Suddenly upon arriving to Burns’ home, Atif immediately began calling his relatives (In my view this point seems to work against James, so I don't get why he's mentioning it.)

Sebastian claims he randomly happens upon three grotesque murdered bodies, but didn't stick around to help more with the investigation. James starts drawing a parallel between this crime and the US citizen who was recently beheaded in Iraq. Jeff objects because of the irrelevant (and extremely inappropriate) nature of this strain of argument. Judge overrules, saying he will "allow latitude" in the closing arguments. James continues: the execution of the Rafays by the defendants is even worse than the beheading, because it was his family!

Recall testimony of Jimmy Miyoshi, who said Sultana was lured downstairs, perhaps by the sound of a cat. She had no idea her attackers were waiting, but if she DID, she had NO reason to fear her attackers. Then, KNOWING that Dr. Rafay would be asleep, they executed him. James puts on screen pictures of the bodies, saying “this is what they left behind.” They say they were just in the wrong place at the wrong time. (It’s probably from yawning or something, but Veronica Freitas suddenly looks like she's tearing up). Basma different: she knew what was coming, but she was "gagged and caged" by her disability. She couldn’t scream, she couldn’t call the police. All she could do is wait for her own murder. Ross Gardner testified that Basma likely took seven blows on bed, and three more when moving towards the door. Sebastian, being the guy who would know, said "she was up walking around.''

The defendants behavior at prior to the murders and during the investigation was curious, if not outright sick. James plays clips of the boys talking. We again see the Sebastian comment (from the July 18, 1995) video of "I think personally that I'm a lot happier than, than if it didn't happen."

Next clip: Haslett: did any of them fight? Sebastian: that's a story that hasn't really been told. Atif: I don't think you want to be talking about that. SB: the father was nothing....the curious episode was that the sister was up walking around...took a little more bat work/effort. (paraphrase) Atif: oh God. Later in the tape, Haslett asks “how does it feel to kill your parents?” Atif's response of it feeling “pretty rotten,” but it being tempered by the fact that he thinks of it as “a sacrifice, a great injustice” that occurred that forced he and Sebastian to do it. (These are the prosecution’s prized sound bites, but we’ve seen them before, so I’m not too concerned with being perfectly accurate).

Before the murders, JM drove Atif to Vancouver after having dinner at the Rafay's house, after dropping girlfriend off at the airport. Conversation in car was first time Atif brought up the idea of killing his family. JM also testified that later, Sebastian wanted to have a talk away from his house, so they went to a creek. JM said they discussed gassing the house and “blowing it up,” then settled on a bat because it was "quick and painless." They did discuss the possibility of DNA, which is why they stayed with the family (in order to explain away trace evidence). Sebastian "boasted" about having thought of this. JM says they discussed what they'd tell authorities after the murders.

When they arrived for their visit, they called Sultana for a ride, but she told them to take a cab. During their visit, they couldn't remember anything they did. James says this is because they were simply killing time. EVERY day before the murders, they stayed up until 3 or 4 am and slept until 2 or 3 pm. Mrs. Rackety (no idea if this is accurate; we missed her testimony) saw them eating a big bowl of cereal- their breakfast- when she came over at 4 pm. Tariq asked the boys to talk to her, an action which Sebastian said later was out of pride over his son, and possibly a bit over Sebastian as well. The neighbor says conversation was dictated by Sebastian, and was ALL about him.

When they went to Vancouver, Monday, 11 July, Sebastian said he needed a change of clothes (James infers this is because he could “get dirty”). Their fourth conversation with JM takes place on this trip. Their stories go in opposite directions here: JM understood at this point that they were going back to murder the Rafays, Sebastian says their visit to JM's work was not important or out of the ordinary. They talked with JM on the phone for 7 minutes prior to leaving for their evening out that night. Neither of them owned a watch, but they remembered all times of coming and going, and they recalled every vivid detail about their alibi. They gave long answers to short questions. Jeff Kaplan, who sold concessions at the movie theatre, said Sebastian was rude. Jose Martinez also said Sebastian was obnoxious and rude at the ticket booth. Jeff objects that James is misstating the evidence consistently; Judge reminds jury to disregard any arguments that aren't supported by evidence, but James is allowed to proceed.

No one responded to BPD's ad to come forward if they were at that 9:50 Lion King showing. No one can account for their whereabouts from 10 pm to 12:15 am. Karen Linquist was the older woman from Steve's Broiler. She said they were friendly. They made a point to call her over to their table to ask about nightclubs, which she thought was weird since she was old enough to be their mother. Kristine Mars, their waitress, said they arrived around 12:50- 1 am. They were friendly and left a big tip. Came back in Steve's at 1:40 (bar time) to use the bathroom.

Break at 10:53 (I’m out....Donna?)