OCT 28, 2022
A Weld County jury is determining whether to convict Steve Pankey for the kidnapping and murder of 12-year-old Jonelle Matthews in 1984 after both parties in the case delivered their closing argume…
www.greeleytribune.com
[...]
... Pankey chose not to testify in this year’s trial.
Weld Assistant District Attorney Robb Miller led into closing arguments with a familiar narrative of Greeley as a small town in 1984, where people felt safe to leave their homes and cars unlocked as children played outside until the street lights came on. After Dec. 20, 1984, the night Jonelle was reported missing, the city lost some of its innocence, he said.
Since Pankey kidnapped and murdered Jonelle that night, Miller said, Pankey was able to move freely from town to town as he taunted and manipulated law enforcement. Jonelle’s father, mother and sister, meanwhile, spent sleepless nights wondering what happened to the outspoken, vivacious middle school student.
[...]
In 1993, Pankey wrote a book depicting Christy and the Sunny View church as villains responsible for the murder of a young woman in Greeley. He went on to accuse police in Idaho of making a file on him and accused the state of trying to make him an informant.
Pankey in court filings said he was the only one who could help and that he was a master manipulator, Miller said.
Pankey then began sending letters to the Weld District Attorney’s Office, including a detailed alibi letter. Before her remains were found, Pankey said Jonelle was dead before crossing 10th Street. He also described a blanket, quilt or comforter as missing from the Matthews home and wrote, “Some experiences are hard to forget.”
Pankey went on to run for political offices while in Idaho, including a bid for sheriff. Miller said Pankey’s platform included getting rid of hold-back evidence — information law enforcement tries to keep private in the hopes the culprit will divulge information that should be known by a select few — and giving plea deals to informants.
Prosecutors used Pankey’s knowledge of shoeprints in the snow that had been raked over at the scene as a piece of evidence against him, as that detail was maintained as hold-back evidence.
[...]
After burying Jonelle, Pankey saw a mention of her disappearance on the front page of the Greeley Tribune, Miller posited, and the family dogs were sniffing around. Pankey got rid of the dogs and later burned evidence inside the car, Miller said, referencing testimony from Hicks about Pankey getting rid of the family dogs with no notice before a last-minute trip to visit Pankey’s family in California — a trip Pankey had previously said they weren’t going on.
Miller reminded the jury they’re instructed to use common sense and that prosecutors must show proof beyond a reasonable doubt Pankey committed the crimes, not beyond all doubt. The doubt can’t be imaginative or speculative, Miller said, saying the defense’s alternate suspect was just that.
Miller highlighted details about Pankey’s inserting himself into the case, inconsistencies in his statements and Hicks’ testimony — adding Hicks hadn’t thought about the case until the mid-1990s when she didn’t get a paycheck from her boss, who was also her landlord. The boss explained the money was used for their rent which hadn’t been paid.
[...]
Miller finished by referencing Pankey’s 2021 testimony about Pankey leaving a sheriff’s deputy writhing in pain for eight to 12 minutes while working in an ambulance and refusing to render aid to the deputy over a dislike for police in general at that time.
“What would he do to someone who directly excommunicated him and fires him from his job?” Miller asked. “This man kidnapped and murdered Jonelle Matthews because of his hatred for the Sunny View church. … Jonelle was at the wrong place, at the wrong time, and he kidnapped and murdered her.”
Defense attorney Jessica Brazil delivered the defense’s closing arguments, stating “this case, this prosecution” is how an innocent person gets convicted. She criticized a lack of physical evidence in the case and no evidence Pankey would go from holding a grudge, writing angry letters and suing people — his usual method of responding to people he didn’t like — to abducting and killing a child he didn’t know.
Brazil described Pankey as a believer of conspiracies, anti-government and anti-police. He’s socially awkward, introverted and not a people-person, and he doesn’t communicate well, she said.
“That’s who he is. That’s the perspective you need to be looking at,” Brazil said.
[...]
Brazil then criticized the investigation, noting police at the time found no fingerprints, made no effort to get molds of the shoeprints outside the home and took only about 40 photos of the scene. She also dismissed Pankey’s use of code while he was in jail and talking about his guns with his sister as an attempt to keep police from using his gun ownership against him while checking to make sure valuable possessions were accounted for.
Referencing an old gun police found when they searched Pankey’s home prosecutors implied could have been the murder weapon, Brazil said the notion that they suspected it was the murder weapon and didn’t make an effort or have probable cause to seize it and do testing didn’t add up.
[...]
Brazil returned to discussing Drake as a suspect, arguing he “absolutely could have done this crime.” She noted the lead investigator in the case in 1989, who did the most thorough review of Drake as a possible suspect, never ruled him out — directly conflicting with testimony Prill gave about others having ruled Drake out. In 2018, Brazil noted, Cash delivered a presentation on the case for the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, presenting Drake as an alternate suspect.
Drake was the first person to mention the hold-back evidence to police, Brazil said, including mentioning it to someone on the drive over to his mother’s house the next morning.
The difference between Pankey and Drake, Brazil said, is that Drake was dead by the time Jonelle’s remains were found.
[...]
Weld District Attorney Michael Rourke delivered the rebuttal before the case was sent to the jury, highlighting again that Pankey’s statements about the case have evolved over the years.
Rourke attacked the alternate suspect theory with a couple observations. Though a witness testified that Drake said he had babysat Jonelle, Drake told the lead investigator in 1989 that never happened — something the investigator confirmed. As for Drake’s knowledge of the shoeprints, Rourke said, Drake said they went to a sliding glass door. Rourke reviewed photos of the Matthews home — which did not have a sliding glass door.
Rourke reviewed more than a dozen witnesses whose stories aligned to point to Pankey as the suspect — and said even dismissing them, just Hicks’ testimony indicates Pankey is guilty.
[...]
Rourke closed by talking about a jailhouse informant’s testimony about Pankey silently admitting to killing Jonelle — testimony the defense dismissed as untrustworthy because the witness may have just wanted better treatment from prosecutors.
“Pat, I need forgiveness,” Rourke recalled the testimony about Pankey approaching the informant.
“For what?” the informant asked.
“For that little girl,” Pankey allegedly responded.
“Did you kill her?”
“That’s between me and God,” Pankey answered, before lowering his head and nodding, according to the testimony.
“While that is true — it is between him and his god — it’s also the question for you — did he kill her?” Rourke said to the jury. “He answered it for you.”
[...]