Chapter 18 - The insurance trial begins
Helena’s criminal trial began seven months after the garage.
Leo was still six.
The court separated some child evidence from financial evidence to reduce prejudice.
The prosecutor began with the Mercedes claim.
Nightstar customer Ethan Rowe testified.
He rented the white Mercedes for an anniversary weekend.
Signed Nightstar agreement.
Paid:
$3,600 plus deposit.
On Saturday night, he scraped the passenger side against a concrete pillar.
He photographed damage.
Texted Helena.
She replied:
Bring it back Sunday. We’ll handle without your carrier.
Then Helena submitted claim to her insurer two days later:
Damage discovered in restaurant garage.
Unknown responsible party.
Defense:
Helena believed there may have been additional damage from another location.
But claim photograph matched customer photograph closely.
Strong.
Then Bentley.
Leo’s scooter video.
Helena knew.
Claim described:
Damage after prospective-buyer demonstration.
Could she have believed another demonstration worsened it?
Possible.
Repair invoice concerned same area.
Prosecutor had texts:
Use demo claim. Kid issue stays household.
Sent to Cody.
Stronger.
Then Nightstar use.
Richard Coletti testified:
Never authorized rentals.
Defense pointed to contract allowing demonstration drives.
Nightstar customer was not a prospective buyer.
He admitted:
“I just wanted a Bentley for my anniversary.”
Then ownership charge.
Was Helena permanently depriving Richard?
No.
Car returned.
Unauthorized-use statute required specific elements.
Defense argued civil contract breach, not crime.
That count remained uncertain.
Then Leo.
The prosecutor did not put him in open court unless necessary.
His forensic interview, business records, staff testimony, and Helena’s own ledger proved much.
Defense challenged admissibility.
Court allowed limited child statements under applicable rules.
No one asked a six-year-old to explain insurance fraud.
Good.
Then the ledger.
Jurors saw:
$8,360.
Chores.
Penalties.
Food notes.
Helena’s lawyer said:
“An inappropriate parenting tool is not necessarily criminal endangerment.”
True statement.
May you like
The state still had to prove statutory harm/risk.
The trial remained narrower than outrage.
