Completing the penultimate chapter of a nightmarish Culver City homicide two summers ago, a jury yesterday needed just 24 hours to convict National Guard veteran Scott Allen Ansman of first degree murder for chasing and fatally battering his pregnant girlfriend in the solitude of the National Guard Armory by Veterans Park.
He also was convicted of a second charge, murder with special circumstances.
According to testimony, Mr. Ansman spent weeks planning/soliciting the murder of 29-year-old JoAnn Crystal Harris. He was so open about his intentions that military buddies reported his actions to the Culver City Police Dept. two weeks to the day before the violent slaying.
Before their feelings crumbled into deadly ashes, their ill-starred relationship had begun innocently enough.
The couple met months earlier when Ms. Harris, single, without children and with an eye toward expanding the adventure dimension of her life, came to the Culver City Armory to explore joining the National Guard.
How the Night Ended
On the first occasion, Ms. Harris’s car was at a repair garage, and Mr. Ansman drove her to her destination, a party, where testimony conflicted as to whether the couple had consensual sex or he forced himself upon her.
Finally, after committing the deed late on Friday afternoon, Aug. 24, 2007, as the gala Fiesta La Ballona was about to open a few yards away, Sgt. Ansman —some said bizarrely — calmly telephoned the cops. Investigating officers arrived shortly, but they were prevented from immediately entering the gymnasium area while the killer finished mopping up blood on the floor.
Devoid of any sign of emotion in court appearances, he has been in custody ever since.
Ironically, Mr. Ansman’s wife, who disappeared from public view early last year, gave birth to their third child two months before her husband killed Ms. Harris.
Sentencing of the 36-year-old soldier, who has spent all of his adult life in the military, is scheduled for Tuesday, June 23, at the Airport Courthouse.
Judge Chester Horn, who presided over the surprisingly lengthy three-week trial, will announce Mr. Ansman’s penalty, which is expected to be life without the possibility of parole.
A year ago this month, prosecutor Joe Markus withdrew any intention to seek the death penalty. Ms. Harris’s mother, 69-yerar-old Martha Lou Harris, told the newspaper she was comfortable with that decision.
Explosions of Raw Feelings
Emotions were rampant yesterday when the jury brought in its verdict at 3 o’clock.
Members of two families, the victim’s and the assailant’s, grieving from opposite poles, heaved with passions that had been hidden away for the almost two years that this case has been playing out.
Showing emotion himself for the first time, Mr. Ansman, short and slight with a strong military bearing, broke down and wept heavily when the jury foreman read the findings on both counts.
A stunned Marilyn Ansman, the defendant’s mother, was sitting directly behind him, as has been her custom during the proceedings, and his meltdown triggered the same response from her.
“I still can’t believe it,” she told the newspaper later. “I am in shock. I did not expect him to be found guilty on both counts. Manslaughter, maybe.”
Mrs. Ansman has not spoken with her son since the verdict was given, but she expects to do so by the weekend.
Mrs. Harris, the murder victim’s mother, said that when the jury’s findings were delivered, competing feelings of sadness and happiness coursed through her.
Her words subsequently reflected the intersecting of those twin passions.
Without exactly declaring compassion for Mrs. Ansman, Mrs. Harris showed a compassionate side by saying that both women were mothers who love their children terribly hard, and “sometimes those children make mistakes.”
Describing her daughter’s killer as “heartless,” Mrs. Harris said that a projected life sentence behind bars “will give him time to realize the mistake he made.”
For the last 19 months of courtroom hearings, two immutable staples were the respective mothers. Deliberately or not, they chose aisle seats on the opposite ends of the brief gallery area.
They never were seen speaking to each other. Both, though, were unavoidably aware of their fellow mother’s opposite feelings.
But there was a distinction, which Mrs. Harris noted.
While neither one ever missed a hearing, not one, Mrs. Harris always was accompanied by family members.
By contrast, Mrs. Ansman sat alone.
Mrs. Harris said that if Mr. Ansman was “such a good person,” as he and others proclaimed, “why didn’t members of his family turn out to support him?”
The victim’s mother wondered why the defendant’s wife disappeared early in the proceedings.
“She could have found a way to be there if she really wanted to, couldn’t she?” asked Mrs. Harris.
A brother of the defendant often drove Mrs. Ansman to the courthouse, Mrs. Harris said, “and then went on with his life” instead of joining his mother in the courtroom.
