The defense team, fired up by the belief that the judge had almost tossed out the case, immediately went on the attack.

No one saw Michael George at the comic book store that night, a defense attorney argued.

Kosmala: There was simply no, zero, zip, nada physical evidence.

Michael George had been right all along, as the defense saw it. Someone was after his collector's comics.

Dennis Murphy: So your theory of this awful incident is that a person or two committed a botched robbery. And in the end of it --

Carl Marlinga: Yes.

Dennis Murphy: -- Barbara George ended up dead on the floor.

Carl Marlinga: Yes.

And the defense's first witness, Fred Hodgson, was presented as someone who had seen a person lurking outside the shop, just before the murder, someone who may have been in on it. At the time, Hodgson was with a friend named Joe Gray. Hodgson noticed something strange. He turned to his buddy saying, "Take a look there."

Hodgson: “Joe, did you see that guy? He's wearing a fake beard." It looked awfully weird.

A little guy who looked like a mountain man, some kind of costume almost. He created a sketch with a police artist 17 years later.

Hodgson: What looked like a younger person who obviously wouldn't have facial hair, but big bushy, fake beard and moustache.

He and the friend were so suspicious about the mysterious bearded man -- or maybe even it was a woman -- that they gave Barb in the store behind the counter a heads-up.

All three went out back of the comic book shop to look for the petite character, but no one was there.

The two young men were so curious they continued to search the rest of the mall but never did spot that person again.

Marlinga: To believe that that person was not involved is preposterous. That is one of the killers.

And then an acquaintance of the murdered woman testified that Barb George was rattled even before the bearded person had shown up. Barb had gotten a call about 45 minutes earlier from someone asking about very expensive comics. The caller had shaken her.

Barbee Hancock: She was uncomfortable. It made her uneasy... Tense, nervous and scared.

And the defense suggested there were others about the comic book shop that day worthy of a look, including the person driving the speeding car.

The never-identified man in a distinctive cap seen by one of the store's regulars.

Tom Ward: The person seemed to be wearing a Greek fishing-cap and was looking over their shoulder towards the door.

Carl Marlinga: It's obvious that Joe Gray and Fred Hodgson and then Tom and Lenora Ward saw the actual killer or killers.

Whoever did it, theorized the defense, had first shot out the eye of the swimsuit model on the wall calendar. It was evidence, argued the defense, of a robbery.

Marlinga: Proprietor puts up some kind of struggle. A shot is fired. A second shot is fired. At that point, all bets are off. You just grab what you can and you leave.

Dennis Murphy: Except the proprietor, Barbara, is cowering down, then you're just out of there. It didn't work. Do you kill for Batman #6?

Carl Marlinga: No you kill not to be arrested as an armed robber.

And as for the customer who testified that Michael George had told her nothing was taken. That conversation, said the defense, was never anything she disclosed at the time of the initial investigation.

Marlinga: That first came up April 16 of 2007, some 17 years later. Is that correct or isn't it?

Danieluk: I’m not really -- I mean, it's 17 years ago.

Carl Marlinga: Now, if we had the benefit of knowing exactly what he said in 1990, we could have come to a better conclusion of what he really meant by that. He could have been saying that nothing by the registers were taken. The money wasn't taken from the registers. The expensive comic books that you would have had to have smashed and grabbed by the registers, those weren't touched. But instead, we had a very angry woman -- upset with him because he hit on her.

But the defense had to account for a much more recent conversation: the one Michael George had with the two detectives at his store in the summer of 2007. During the recorded interview, they said, a surprised and flustered George had changed his theory of the crime from botched robbery to vendetta.

Carl Marlinga: I think that this was the easiest part of the case.

The defense lawyer says if you listen to the detective's question carefully you have to consider the context, just what is it that they've asked Michael George?

(Audio interview)

Det. Hrecho: In your mind, who do you speculate would've had something to do with her death?

Michael George: Somebody that hated me a lot more than her, I would think. Because I was supposed to be at the store. I think Barb was at the wrong place at the wrong time. I think somebody wanted to get back at me.

The key word, Marlinga told the jury, is "speculate."

Marlinga: The detective actually invites Michael to speculate, knowing that this is a 17-year-old case. He's asking, what new lines of thought can you give us?

Michael George hadn't changed his story about the robbery at all, argued Marlinga.

In that same interview, he says again that vintage comic books were missing, just as he'd told the lead detective in their tour of the store just hours after the murder.

(audio interview)

Michael George: They were golden age books. the whole case was gone, the whole box was gone.

Then there was all the business about the defendant's demeanor and behavior the night of the murder.

The prosecution had said isn't it curious that when Michael George is informed by the police that his wife has been injured, he seems to know details that he shouldn't. In the storage room. An injury to the head.

None of the cops had told him about that.

The defense angled for a different spin of that conversation during cross-examination.

Marlinga: There's no indication from you that there had been any kind of a shooting at the store, is there?

Donald Steckman: No, sir.

Marlinga: There's no indication from you that there's been a robbery at the store, is there?

Donald Steckman: No, sir.

Marlinga: Isn't it reasonable that with those circumstances that a person would think that there would have been some type of accident?

Donald Steckman: It's possible.

Marlinga: It makes perfect sense with this back room, with things piled high, for him to say, "Something must have hit her on the back of the head." His response is far more consistent with an innocent guy walking upon the scene than it is a murderer, who had two hours to think about what he's going to tell the police when he returns.

A continuing theme of the defense case was that no one really can say with certainty what anyone said or saw 18-years before because, in part, the police work back then was so inept.

Mr. Marlinga: And did you ever do a canvass of the neighborhood to see who might have seen him between the hours roughly of five o'clock and seven o'clock?

Donald Steckman: No, sir.

Mr. Marlinga: Did you ever ask him to have his hands tested to see if he had recently fired a gun?

Donald Steckman: No, sir.

When police bumbling came up, Michael George made a point of putting on a little show for the jury, laughs, smirks, shakes of the head, as if to say “Aren't these guys Keystone Kops?”

Michael George’s story, of course, was that he was asleep on his mother's couch across town when the murder occurred.

And to put him in that house, the defense called a neighbor of his mother's. Someone the police had never interviewed back in 1990.

Dennis Murphy: What was the best card you were holding?

Carl Marlinga: The best card was the alibi witness.

That neighbor, Peggy Marintette, testified that in 1990 she got home from work every day between 5:45 and 6 p.m. and on that Friday in question she distinctly remembered seeing not Michael George but a vehicle parked outside his mother's house.

Joe Kosmala: Do you know whose van that was?

Peggy Marintette: I thought it was Michael’s at the time.

And why would anyone possible remember such a subliminal detail of daily life?

Carl Marlinga: I remember this day because that's the day that, you know, this God-awful thing happened. That I found out that my neighbor's daughter-in-law was murdered.

If it was his white van parked outside, and if he was indeed inside his mother's house at that time, just about 6 p.m., it's case closed.

Marlinga: Michael could not have been at the store committing this murder.

The defense put on George’s mother who told her story about Michael getting back to her house between 5 and 5:30 pm, taking the children to play in the nearby park, waving to her neighbor, Peggy, in her car and then coming home sometime after 6 o'clock -- and seeing her son.

Defense attorney Marlinga: Now, when you got back, did you observe Michael at all?

Janet George: Yeah. I went in.

Defense attorney Marlinga: Where was he?

Janet George: He was on the couch, sleeping.

His daughter, now grown but then 4-years old, said she even remembers how he slept that day.

Joseph Kosmala: And how is it that you know he was sleeping and not just laying there reading a book or something?

Tracey George: Because he was sleeping on his stomach, head into the pillow.

It had been mostly "he said, she said," vapors of memory until the defense had its opportunity to challenge the man in the wheelchair, Mike Renaud. If anyone's testimony could send Michael George away for the rest of his life, it would be his.

Renaud: That was the night that Mrs. George was shot.

The avid comic book collector testified he was certain he'd talked to George inside the shop between 5:15 and 5:45 p.m. that evening.

A co-worker had fixed that time in his head after locating his time card that had him punched in at 4:53 pm. Renaud said he called the comics store a little after that.

In cross-examination, the defense attorney went after Renaud’s memory, wondering why years ago it had taken him three phone calls to the police to clarify the time that he'd placed the call.

The defense pressed him: couldn't that call have been placed as early as 5 o'clock?

Dennis Murphy: For your purposes, explain the Renaud phone call. You need to have Michael George at the shop around 5:00?

Carl Marlinga: I need to have Michael George at the shop between 4:53 and 5:00.

And here's why. If Michael George is indeed on the phone talking to Mike Renaud at 5, the defense is saying it's because he hasn't left the store yet to go to his mother's.

The defense put on the stand Joe Gray, that friend who'd helped hunt in vain for the weird bearded character just before Barb was murdered. He testified that he'd been at the mall another time that day, around 4:15, and yes, he'd seen Michael George, with his daughters, take off for his mom's as late as 5 o'clock.

The defense jumped on that 5 o'clock possibility.

Marlinga: I think this is perfect. Now this is lining up. Renaud calls the store slightly before 5 p.m. Michael George answers it, is friendly, but seems in a hurry. And he is indeed trying to get his girls into the car to get them out of there to go over to his mom's house.

And this is how the defense tried to explain away Mike Renaud’s key testimony that he called the store around 5:30.

(closing argument)

Carl Marlinga: But there are some real difficulties in believing that that call came in at 5:15 to 5:30. Now what happened is that Mike Renaud, trying to be a bit of a hero, when he now testifies 17 years later, he knows that 5:00 is too early for the prosecution's timeline. So I do think that there is an attempt, not-- not overtly to lie, but to make things come out in the light most favorable to the side that he's rooting for.

But if the jurors wanted to look Michael George in the eye and hear the story from his own mouth, they would be disappointed. He would elect, as was his right, not to take the stand.

His lead lawyer made the call. The defendant was just too easy a crier when it came to remembering the event.

Marlinga: If you put this person on the stand, knowing that he breaks down in tears at almost any question, you could snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in an instant.

And, not a small point, he would have faced withering cross-examination about his admitted womanizing.

Marlinga: He didn't want to do that.

Marlinga said when he met the defendant for the first time, he made a confession -- he'd willingly copped to being a lousy husband.

Marlinga: He said, "Carl, I’ve done a lot of bad things in my life, but I did not do this.”

Besides, he didn't need to put his guy on the stand. Carl Marlinga was convinced the jury would see the case as he did, that the prosecution had nothing but smoke and mirrors.

MORE FROM CRIME STORIES

Crime stories Section Front

Mystery of the missing millionaire The devil's business Deadly intentions Murder on the mind Death and the millionaire drifter The stripper and the steelworker Man's obsession with college student turned deadly Mystery of the murdered millionaire Killings in 'the biggest little city' The secret life of a soccer mom Crime stories Section Front   Add Crime stories headlines to your news reader: