DA:
On October 8th, here was the situation. She had known Mr Robinett-- I put in my
sentencing brief that it was 17 years. I went back yesterday and listened or looked to Mr
Robinett’s interview again. He actually says it was over 20 years. And that’s sort of
significant, too. Because that means they met either when they were around 19 or 20, and
they knew each other up until when they were 40. Most people change quite a bit over
that 20 year time frame.
She had known him and had an off-again, on-again romantic relationship with him. But
at the time of this incident, she had not been living with him for six months. She had
been living in an entirely different state. He had moved down to Oakland, where he met
Daniel Bruynell because they both worked as movers. But they had kept in contact, and
they decided, Hey, let’s get married.
And so the plan, actually on October 7th, was for Joshua Robinett to drive up to Portland.
She was going to come down from Washington, where they would rendezvous and then
they would go off to get married. The secondary part of that plan was that Mr Robinett
had told her, I’m going to bring this guy Dan up so we can sell him our gun, Clyde.
Because they had two guns together that they had nicknamed Bonnie and Clyde. Which
again, tells you a little about the mindset that she had.
So Daniel Bruynell comes up. She comes down on the 7th, with her 13-year-old daughter,
rents the hotel room at the LaQuinta, it’s by the airport. And it turns out- because they
are keeping in communication via text- that there are some problems with the ride-share
that Mr Robinett is taking up to Portland. The car gets a flat tire. It’s taking longer than
they had thought it would. So Miss Worden-Brosey decides rather than wait, she would
drive down instead to Woodburn to pick up Mr Robinett and Mr Bruynell. This is
about 9:00 at night; we don’t know the exact time, but she decides I’m going to leave
Madeline here at the hotel and go get Mr Robinett.
So she drives, it’s at least an hour and a half or so to get down there, picks them up, and
does not say, Hey- and understand she’s completely sober at this point, she has not had a
thing to drink, there’s never been any evidence of that- she doesn’t say to Mr Robinett,
Hey I brought my daughter, Madeline, she’s up in the motel, we really need to get back.
To the contrary. Mrs. Worden-Brosey- Miss Worden-Brosey- her mindset is whatever
feels good to me, whatever I want, that’s what I’m going after. And so she decides, let’s
party. Let’s go out and have an impromptu bachelor party. Let’s go out to a bunch of
bars and strip clubs while my daughter’s back at the motel room. And that’s exactly
what they do.
They wind up at this building in Multnomah County, it’s a combination, it’s got two
bars. One is called Falcos Pub and one is called the Mystic. The Mystic being a strip
club. Meanwhile, Miss Jenks has also goes to this building, and we know from
surveillance that she got there about midnight. That’s a picture of her entering the
Mystic. And then we know that at some point around 1:40AM, she met with Miss
Worden-Brosey and the other two in an outside smoking area.
I’m not showing you the actual surveillance video, I’m just showing you a still. Mr
Bruynell here looks like he’s wearing a white hooded sweatshirt; it’s actually black.
What you’re seeing is the glare of the light. Mr Robinett is seated next to him. And then
sort of off-camera, you can see the legs and boots of Miss Jenks and Miss WordenBrosey.
And we know at about 2:00 they leave that club. This is the three of them walking
together with Miss Jenks. And again, Miss Worden-Brosey is the driver. Now, she has
not had a tremendous amount to drink. Especially for someone who claims that she’s
been drinking since she was 12-years-old. We have no idea if that’s true or not. A large
percentage of the PSI report is Miss Worden-Brosey telling the PSI report writer certain
facts about her life. Much in the way she told the police certain facts about this event
that turned out to be completely fictitious. But in any event, at about 2:00 they walk
back to her car, a Cadillac, and they drive off.
Now the interview that she gave went on for over seven hours. And it’s important to
understand that the way it’s conducted, is that she and Mr Robinett were interviewedboth arrested at the same time. That time, police knew that three people had gone to
Blue Lake Park. They knew they had a deceased victim, but they didn’t know anyone’s
involvement. And when they arrested Miss Worden-Brosey and Mr Robinett, they
didn’t know where Mr Bruynell was. He wasn’t with them, nor was her 13-year-old
daughter. So time was of the essence. They didn’t know where the murder weapon was,
They were trying to get information. And they had two detectives interviewing her, and
simultaneously two detectives interviewing Mr Robinett. They took lots of breaks. If
they wanted coffee, or to smoke, or to go to the bathroom or even at one point to eat
Taco Bell, they would take a break.
But the detectives also used those breaks to talk with one another and compare notes, to
see what they were learning about the incident. What Miss Worden-Brosey did tell
them was that even after the strip bars-and it’s now two in the morning; still no thought
to getting back to her daughter- let’s keep partying, Let’s go around and try to find, what
she called party favors. She said the men wanted party favors, which was drugs.
So they went over to Blue Lake Park- Your Honor, I’m going to hand you some
photographs. I’d rather not put these up on the TV. But I do think it’s important to see
because it gives a true indication of where Miss Jenks’ body is found, and it’s absolutely
inconsistent with the notion that Miss Worden-Brosey puts forward to the PSI writer
that she really doesn’t know what’s happened. I’m going to hand those to your clerk.
Judge: Mr Day, have you seen these?
Mr Day: I imagine if they’re photographs—
DA:
I can, I can-- [crosstalk]
Mr Day: -- I’d like to take one more look before—
DA: I apologize-- [crosstalk]
Judge: I assume they are. I just want to make sure. All right, umm. Umm. All right, so
is—There is a large marker that says Blue Lake. Is that a sign to the entrance?
DA:
It is. Yes.
Judge: That’s not something that I would necessarily know from the picture, okay.
DA: Your honor, to give it some context, looking at this larger overview picture, I’ve
placed a red dot here, which is roughly where her body was found. And the marker
you’ve seen is roughly in this area.
Judge: Okay, um-hmm. Okay. I can see where that might be.
DA: Now the reason I’ve put these up on the board— and I’ve circled these houses,
which are much farther away from where the body was—is there’s a little bit of
inconsistency between Mr Robinett and Miss Worden-Brosey as to where exactly they
were when the killing occurred. Mr Robinett says that the two of them, because they
had been separated for so long, they wanted to have sex, so they went off into these
bushes, which is fairly close to where the body’s found, and they were engaged in sex.
What Miss Worden-=Brosey says is that she does remember having sex with him, but
they were actually in the car at the time of the shooting. So she’s actually putting them
even closer to where the shooting occurs.
Now although it took many, many hours before she backed off this notion that there
were five people involved— and I should comment on that. She started off by giving this
sort of description that there was this guy with her, I think they were together, I believe
he was Mexican, or maybe black. We left then. They were fighting. I don’t know
anything about a gun. I don’t really know what happened. So she pretty much said, Hey,
there’s this ambiguous person, here’s a poor description of him, and this must be your
guy. He’s the person who killed Tiffany Jenks. I point that out because that is an
absolute fabrication and a lie. She didn’t claim at the time, I have no idea what
happened, I don’t remember the evening, I was having a backout. She said, Here’s this
guy who did this. And it was only after they said to her, you know what, we have
surveillance video and we’re talking to Mr Robinett, and he doesn’t say there’s a fifth
guy. The surveillance video doesn’t show a fifth guy. And she didn’t come right out and
say, Yeah, you’re right, you caught me, I’m lying about that. She did backpedal
significantly, and became a lot more vague, and said things like Geez, I could’ve sworn
there was another person there at some point,
Now as this interview continues, she finally says, I heard something, in relationship to a
gun shot, but it wasn’t real loud, it didn’t make me jump or anything, so I wasn’t really
sure what it was I was hearing. Well there are two neighbors in houses that are further
away from the incident. Who are in closed houses, closed windows. Two of them
reported to the police—Not in the same house, two totally separate neighbors—we
heard a gunshot between 2:30 and 3:00 in the morning. So the idea that she really doesn’t
have any idea of what happened and didn’t hear this gun shot, and just thought
everything was fine when Miss Jenks didn’t get back into the car is patently ludicrous.
Now I won’t go over this in great detail, other than to say it’s the state’s view that the act
of taking Mr Bruynell, after the event,- to her hotel room is separated by a period of time
from her taking him to the bus stop. A period of time in which they went to sleep, and in
which I would say they had something like-- They get to the motel room at 3:38 in the
morning and we’re going to find out they get to the bus stop at about 12:30 the next day.
So many, many hours. It’s the states position that those two events are not part of a
continuous uninterrupted course of conduct. And therefore if Your Honor wanted to
sentence her to prison for those charges, they could be run consecutive to one another.
Judge: What is it you’re asking for as to maximum?
DA: I’m sorry. I’m asking for a total of three years prison, Your Honor. Eighteen
months on one count, to run consecutive to 18 months on the other count. So 36 months.
So I want to talk next about what happened next, after they drove away. After she, who
is still the most sober, drove them away. They went and picked up some beer, not
particularly remorseful or upset about what had happened. And then this is from the
surveillance video of them getting back to the LaQuinta Inn. We know from the
timestamp it’s 3:40 in the morning. So we know the killing is somewhere between 2:30
and 3:00. We don’t know exactly. So in the spirit of what’s beneficial to Miss WordenBrosey, let’s say it happened at 3:00. This is nearly 40 minutes that they’re getting back
to the motel, which is by the airport. So from Blue Lake Park to the airport, at 3:30 in the
morning or so, I’d submit there isn’t likely to be much traffic. It probably takes 15
minutes maximum to make that drive.
So what are they doing during this time frame? Well, we know they’re getting beer.
What if the killing actually happened at 2:30? Now we’re talking about more than an
hour, an hour and eight minutes to get back to the motel. So one has to ask, what are
they doing during this time? Because her statement to police was that we just didn’t
really talk about it. We just picked up some beer and went back. I would submit that
the time just is not consistent with that. Very likely they were talking about this
incident.
Now this is a picture of them getting back to the lobby of the motel. You can see Mr
Robinett, he’s in the middle, carrying a six-pack of beer. Mr Bruynell behind him with
his hood up, and Miss Worden-Brosey leading the way. Now at various times she’s never
really given a clear reason as to why she didn’t do more after this event. And why she
took him back to her motel. But she seems to imply that maybe she was afraid. Well I
would submit Judge that once they get back at 3:38 in the morning and they get to her
hotel room, there was plenty of opportunity for her to come up and say I’m going to run
back up to the lobby, get a box of matches for us to have a smoke, or I’m going to get
some ice, or whatever. If she’s really afraid of this guy, she can go and make a phone call,
unbeknownst to him, to alert the police and let them know what’s happened. This is
someone who works with deceased bodies and who sees families’ grief. Her, more than
most people, would seem to know the right thing to do in a situation like this.
Now if it’s not fear, it certainly can’t be loyalty to him. She doesn’t even know Mr
Bruynell prior to that evening.
Judge: Are you satisfied that that’s accurate? I know that’s based on reports of certain
people.
DA: Good question, Judge, good question. I guess I should step back a little from that
argument. That’s our understanding from her and from Mr Robinett.
So we do know the next day she takes him to the bus station. It’s about eight hours
later, we’ve got this sticker, 12:21PM is when they paid for their parking, or maybe that’s
when it expires. Yeah, I apologize— It looks like it was purchased at 12:06 and it expires
at 12:21. She told police that when she got to the bus station they saw police there. Who
knows why they were there but she says, I saw police with dogs. So let’s assume for the
sake of argument that she’s afraid of Mr Bruynell. Well now she’s got him on a bus and
he has the murder weapon—and we’re going to talk about how she knows that in a
minute- and he drives off. She’s got police right there to say, Hey that guy killed a girl
last night. I’ve been afraid to say anything but now he’s on that bus. He killed her. She
doesn’t do that. It’s extremely telling what she does next. She drives with Mr Robinett
to Washington state, to the Columbia County courthouse, to get a marriage license.
That’s how much this event has affected her plans to do what feels good to her. To do
what she wants. Her next spot is, Let’s go get married. And one would assume that at
the Columbia County courthouse, I’ve never actually been there, but one would assume
that law enforcement is present that she could have talked to at that point, if she had
chose to do that.
Instead she took definite steps to hide herself and Mr Robinett from law enforcement.
We have surveillance footage—I didn’t copy and paste this footage, I know, Judge—of
them arriving with her daughter at a motel in Washington. Her daughter’s clearly
wearing a wig, it’s sort of a platinum blond wig. They change their appearance. Mr
Robinett shaved off his goatee, which was pretty prominent. She puts some highlights in
her hair. You can see she’s completely changed her appearance how she appears here
today. Short blond hair, business suits, that’s certainly not how she was appearing back
then.
And she bought new telephones both for herself and for Mr Robinett. Now the gun on
the right is the gun that was found when she was arrested. And this is how we know she
knows about the murder weapon. This gun was found among her belongings when
executing the search warrant. It’s not the gun that killed Miss Jenks. During the police
interview, for the first six hours—I’ve already talked about the fifth person part—she
repeatedly told police she had no idea about a gun, she has no knowledge whatsoever.
While Mr Robinett was telling police, Yeah she brought this gun down and we sold it to
Mr Bruynell. And so some of those examples for six hours—and they’ve already heard
from Mr Robinett—and unbeknownst to her, they’re now driving out to talk to her 13year-old daughter, Madeline, to see if Madeline has any knowledge about the guns.
Simultaneously they’re talking to her about it, and she’s saying I never saw it, I had no
idea Mr Bruynell had a gun. And the detectives they know this is not true. Not only
because of Mr Robinett tells them but when they meet with Madeline, and she talks
with them, she’s more honest than her mother. And she told them, Yeah my mom and
Mr Robinett had two guns, and they called them Bonnie and Clyde, which in and of itself
is an interesting thing to call your weapon. So they ask her, Hey can we talk about your
gun? They don’t want to tell her everything they know. And she says, I never saw it, ever.
Well did Mr Bruynell have a gun when he got to Oregon? I don’t know. What do you
know about Dan’s gun? Completely quiet, she just doesn’t say anything for several
minutes. And so they finally confront her with the fact, about six hours in, that they’ve
talked with her daughter and they know that they’ve got these guns Bonnie and Clyde.
And that’s when she finally says, Yeah we did sell him the gun and we’re going to use the
proceeds to fund our new married life together.
Skip that one. And so this picture on the left is Clyde, this is the murder weapon. It’s a
.357 revolver that was found in Oakland, California given to police by a female friend of
Mr Bruynell. And subsequent lab tests have shown that this is the gun that fired the
bullets that were recovered from Miss Jenks. And so we know that it’s not just that she
knew that maybe her boyfriend, Joshua Robinett, had this gun. She was totally familiar
with it. The picture on the top was taken by police to show the underside of Clyde. The
picture on the bottom was—I don’t know who took it but it was found on Miss
Worden-Brosey’s phone- and there she is sort of glorifying the notions of death, putting
the barrel in her mouth so that someone can take a picture of it. And this is another
picture here, with her posing in lingerie with this gun on her lap. So she glamorizes
these things, Judge, she thinks they’re sexy.
So with regard to the three-year sentence, I guess I’ve already explained that to you. And
one of the things I would say is that with hindering prosecution, I understand that it is a
presumptive probation sentence. But hindering prosecution can apply to any class C
felony. Whether it be as low level to assisting to hide the prosecution of someone
engaged in welfare stamp fraud to murder. In this case, it’s the more serious end of the
scale that she’s trying to conceal, and her actions. This person who knows not just sort
of morally or intellectually that family members grieve, but someone who deals with it
every day. Someone who deals with dead bodies every day. Someone who, frankly, is in a
position that most people are not. Many people go through their lives seeing relatively
few dead bodies. She’s seen quite a few just by the nature of her work. In fact, she sort of
cavalierly, in one of the text messages with Mr Robinett, she describes the facial
disfiguration of some gang member that she was working on. So the idea that perhaps
she’s just so shocked by what occurs in front of her that she blocks it out of her mind or
doesn’t want to think about it, is a lot harder to believe given her background.
Now I would say with regards to the PSI report, written by the PSI reporter, talks a lot
about the various people that support her—you know, counselors, treatment providers,
her pastor—that they haven’t her for very long. They’ve known her for six or seven
months. They haven’t listened to the seven hour long interview with the police. She’s
the type of person that’s very good at trying to garner sympathy and saying what she
thinks people wants to say [sic]. And when you listen to the interview, she’s extremely
tearful, while at the same time making up this fifth person. While at the same time, for
six hours, claiming she has no knowledge of this gun. I would submit that the mitigation
factor of Shows True Remorse is highly suspect and I would also say with regards to her
support system, we don’t really know what to make of that. We don’t know whether or
not she has a documented history of mental health. I certainly would not take her word
for that. It also seems to me—You know, she also says to the PSI writer that her mother
is untreated for these various mental health issues. I don’t know if her mother has those
issues or not, but it certainly seems that if she does, and she’s not treating for them, that
she’s probably not the best support system.
With regards to her husband, who I think is going to speak, after knowing Mr Robinett
for 20 years and after planning to marry him the same day that she sends Mr Bruynell off
to California, one would think she would a little less likely to just jump into another
marriage. And yet with her current husband, when she meets him at an AA meeting—
which he’s on probation for falling in love with a woman three days after meeting her,
becoming her boyfriend and then beating her- it just tells you, I think, more about how
her actions today are absolutely consistent with how she’s always lived her life, which is
to say, I’m gonna do what I want to do if it feels good to me, regardless of whether it
makes any sense.
And with that, Judge, there’s twenty minutes left and I believe the family members want
to tell you about Miss Jenks.
Judge: Sure. And of course, Brad Jenks and Zack Jenks talked at an earlier hearing. But if
they have more to say that’s fine, too.
DA:
One of them does, Brent, but not Zack. So the rest are different people.
Judge: Are you just going to bring them up to the table and have them talk from there?
Or do you want them on the witness stand?
DA: [away from microphone] How do you guys want to do this order wise?