Duran Bailey, the man Kirstin was later convicted of murdering, died six days later in the early hours of the morning on July 8th, 2001, in Las Vegas. The medical examiner approximated that he died 8 to 10 hours before his body was found at 10:30 that evening. At most, he said, 24 hours earlier. Therefore, it can be assumed that it was the night of July 7th or the morning of July 8th when Duran Bailey died. This has not been contested by anyone.
Back up three days from that:
That night: July 7th turning into July 8th
The night before: July 6th turning into July 7th
The night before that: July 5th turning into July 6th
So, then, if she is taken at her word AND the prosecution is correct about claiming she killed Bailey, then she began that meth marathon sometime on the 5th. And the prosecution does take her at her word about being on drugs for the three days prior to being attacked. Kephart describes her in that final closing argument as: "somebody who's on a three-day binge who's starting to flutter." That was one of over 30 mentions of illegal drugs, meth, and/or Kirstin's lifestyle relating to meth, scattered throughout his argument from start to finish. So, it is obvious the prosecution has taken her at her word and thinks it is very relevant indeed.
But what does the evidence show?
During the trial two of the prosecution's witnesses confirmed that they had seen her in Panaca on the 5th and 6th of July. Her mother did as well (for the defense), and even took the 6th off from work, which was recorded by her place of employment. Her supervisor testified that she told him it was specifically to take care of Kirstin, who had not been feeling well.
So, unless we presume all these people were lying about when they saw Kirstin, and that her mother took July 6th off from work for some other reason and later got her supervisor to lie about that in court, it has pretty much been established that she was in Panaca - where she had no access to drugs - on the 5th and 6th at least. At least one prosecution witness and one defense witness also testified to seeing her on the 7th, and multiple people saw her in Panaca on the 8th.
But the prosecution's scenario means she has to be on drugs at least from the night of the 5th on through to the 8th. Even if you presume she had some kind of stash of drugs, no one who saw Kirstin in Panaca ever mentions the idea that she might be high on meth the entire time. But hey, how would you know for sure that she was not on meth anyways and no one could tell?
Let's go to State's Exhibit 133 and 133A.
To be clear, "State's exhibit" means it is the prosecution's evidence. 133 and 133A are medical records. Those medical records were a result of Kirstin not feeling well and thinking she might be poisoned. So she was specifically tested for drugs, and the records clearly indicate that meth is one of the things she was tested for.
According to these medical records, the first sample for this test was collected on July 5th, 2001. The second was collected on July 6th, 2001. Neither one showed any sign of methamphetamines in Kirstin's system.
The prosecution's own evidence shows she was not on drugs on the 5th or 6th. Kephart, even as he talks about her three-day meth binge, ignores the scientific, medical evidence in his possession that proves that she was not. But instead of taking that evidence into account (or, hell, even marginalizing it), he flogged that meth horse well beyond its death, and submitted the very opposite of his evidence to the jury.
I think Bill Kephart is a disgrace to his profession. He was clearly trying to destroy Kirstin Lobato no matter what.