dictionary

Jurors say defendant's testimony 'fabricated'

Jurors Vanessa Caroline, left, Don Newton, and Cindy -- who declined to give her last name -- speak about the verdict.

LOS ANGELES, California (CNN) -- The sworn testimony of Marjorie Knoller, the San Francisco woman convicted of second-degree murder because her dog mauled a neighbor to death, was so difficult to believe that the jury tossed it aside in deliberations, jurors said Thursday.

Inconsistencies in Knoller's testimony "made it impossible for us to know what actually happened," said jury foreman Don Newton, 64. "That was crucial to our decision of second-degree murder."

In addition, the jury convicted Knoller and her husband, Robert Noel, of involuntary manslaughter and being the owners of a mischievous animal that kills.

Knoller had been charged with second-degree murder because she was with the dogs when Diane Whipple, 33, was mauled to death in the hallway of their apartment building January 26, 2001.

"Her stories were so fabricated," Shawn Antonio, 27, said of Knoller. "We had so many different stories to deal with."

Jurors also described a "Good Morning America" interview, conducted two months after Whipple's death, in which they observed Knoller looking at the ceiling several times. They said it appeared she was trying to remember her story or come up with a new one.

"She showed no remorse," Antonio said. "It was two months after it happened, and there was no sympathy."

The jury of five women and seven men deliberated for two days before reaching the verdicts. In all, the trial -- which was tried in Los Angeles because of publicity the vicious attack garnered in San Francisco -- lasted nearly five weeks and included graphic testimony about the way Whipple was attacked. The woman died of blood loss and asphyxiation.

Jurors said the second-degree murder verdict was the most difficult to reach, because they had to decide whether there was implied malice, which would prove intent, in Knoller's actions.

"We decided that there was not simply one action which was the intent in implied malice," Newton said, "[but] that it was a series of actions, a series of failures to heed warnings, a series of careless taking of the dogs out and allowing them to lunge at people, that they had fallen into a pattern of actions which were inevitably leading to this result."

Jurors agreed with prosecutors that the couple had failed to heed more than 30 warnings about the dogs' behavior, including reports of incidents in which the animals lunged at people or bared their teeth. One neighbor testified the dog appeared in "attack mode."

"She was not really heeding any of the warnings that had been given," Newton said. "It could have happened at any time, and that was malice. This was a dangerous situation that was set up by her and her husband's actions, and it led to the death of Diane Whipple."

Asked for their opinions about Nedra Ruiz, Knoller's defense attorney, the jurors admitted her actions were "very dramatic" but expressed no doubts about her professionalism.

In opening statements last month, Ruiz crawled on the floor to describe the death and demonstrated how Knoller allegedly covered the victim with her own body to protect her from the dogs. At other times, Ruiz objected so often that Superior Court Judge James Warren asked her to sit down.

Knoller, left, gasps as she and attorney Ruiz hear the guilty verdict.

"She's a wonderful actress," said Vanessa Caroline, 19.

"She's a very strong attorney -- it's just another way to do it," said Cindy, who declined to give her last name.

But Jeanne Sluiman, 52, had another reason for Ruiz's colorful actions: her client.

"I believe that what she had to work with was hard," she said. "I think she had to constantly keep playing a different strategy. ... She is very dramatic, and maybe that's what she felt it needed."

The jurors also shed light on their request for a "read-back" of testimony Wednesday. The passage they wanted to hear again was from Noel's grand jury testimony last year and dealt with his comments on dog aggression and an incident involving a next-door neighbor.

Newton said the jury asked to hear the testimony again because Noel never testified at trial, and this was their only chance to hear his version of events.

"It was necessary for us to investigate whether or not he had set up a pattern of contradictory information that made it clear that he was not any different in this than Marjorie was -- that he was equally responsible," Newton said.

In addition to such testimony, jurors said, it was the willingness of so many neighbors to travel to Los Angeles to testify that helped convince them.

"We just wanted to read again about all these incidents he said didn't happen," said Sluiman, "when there were people that came here, flew to L.A. and said that it did happen."