Molly B victim impact statements, compiled and translated from Mandarin Chinese

The suspect in the Estes Park "Molly B" restaurant obviously didn’t spend the three weeks ignoring police requests for an interview crafting a plausible defense for her behavior on the afternoon of 18 October 2019. 

Instead, she fabricated a lazy, self-contradictory, racist defense, blatantly attempting to shift blame to her victims, ignoring the fact that her victims have security camera footage and cell phone videos from the time of her entry into their establishment until she and her companion fled the scene.   Her dismissive references to the Lee brothers as “speaking in an unintelligible language” and use of diminutives like “the little one” to describe them display a sense of entitlement, as if her victims were essentially subhuman, and a xenophobic lack of empathy.  Sadly, the suspect’s own words, which she had three weeks to perfect, should be measured and crafted to advocate her side of the story and reflect her character in the best possible light.  Instead, they serve only to heighten concern of a suspect and a criminal investigation precariously approaching the brink of a hate crime.

The suspect claims she entered the “Molly B” establishment initially intending to eat there.  Security camera footage from four different cameras placed throughout the building indicate exactly the opposite,  recording an individual entering an establishment and immediately exploring the premises for something other than a table, wandering room to room despite the proprietors trailing her and clearly gesturing in the direction of the public restrooms across the street.  Indeed, this footage corroborates the victims’ initial testimony to local police and quotes attributed to them in the local newspapers, that the suspect entered the establishment for no other reason than to use their restroom, in violation of their property rights as business owners vis a vis non-paying non-customers. 

Clearly, the suspect entered the establishment with the intent and sole purpose of criminal trespass.   This is especially galling because the suspect ignored a well-marked public restroom, with signage in English (which the subject apparently uses as her native tongue) 10 feet from where the car she exited was parked, walking alongside this public restroom (indeed, alongside the women’s entry door to this public restroom) to enter a crosswalk and cover another 100 feet to trespass in a private business with a sign at the entry door unambiguously and tersely indicating restroom facilities were for customers only.  This wasn't a seven-page waiver.  This was a five-word chalkboard sign placed within the sightlines of anyone with a height between 1 foot and 8 feet at the entry door.

Security camera footage within the building records four minutes and 37 seconds of elapsed time from the moment the suspect is first seen in the building to the point the suspect exits, violently slamming the door.  According to the suspect, she entered the premises intending to eat there.  So why, after four minutes and 37 seconds, had her companion, 100 feet away, still not entered the building?  If we are to believe the suspect’s contention that she and her companion intended to eat, her companion would have known no different, and wouldn’t have known that the suspect was instead spending that time searching out and occupying a restroom after a sudden, unexpected call from nature.  Why, then, over that four minute, 37-second span, does the suspect’s  companion, referred to later as “Alex”, never enter the building? 

The restaurant security camera footage never records “Alex” anywhere on the premises.  Why is “Alex” still standing near the driver’s side of the vehicle across the street some five minutes after the suspect first entered the premises, as is clear from the cell phone video, if the couple truly intended, as the suspect claims, to eat? 

Not only do people who intend to eat in an establishment generally enter together, those who lag behind usually have a plausible excuse for why they lagged behind.  Did the Estes Park police department or the Larimer County District Attorney attempt to obtain any testimony from “Alex”, the owner and driver of the fleeing black BMW 325i with Colorado license plate MEQ-422, as to why, five minutes after the suspect entered an establishment ostensibly to eat in that establishment, he was still planted beside a car 100 feet away, or did law enforcement and the district attorney instead swallow this suspect’s nonsense whole, expecting the court and the victims of this outlandish fabrication to do the same? 

The suspect claims she was harangued by abusive, offensive language emanating from the mouths of the restaurant owners while on the premises.  It is fascinating to ponder the suspect, who initially claims she couldn’t comprehend anything the brothers said, somehow able to clearly make out, one paragraph later, the vilest possible English invectives hurled through an inch-thick wooden door, presumably while generating excretory noise of her own in a bathroom stall illegally occupied.  The suspect was a squatter in every sense of the word, yet her victims advanced in a matter of minutes from purveyors of unintelligible word garbage to the foulest-mouthed slang slingers in three counties.  Either that, or her miracle comprehension shift indicated Parousia suddenly arrived that afternoon of 18 October 2019, with the gift of tongues descending upon her.  

It is equally intriguing to ponder a suspect expecting  grown adults to believe business owners, especially immigrant business owners who journeyed to the United States to escape religious persecution, constantly spewing abusive, threatening, decidedly non-Christian language at random customers or pretend customers FOR NO REASON, yet still maintaining loyal clientele and continuing to run that business at that same location successfully for over a decade, without be arrested, sued, deported, or knifed in an alley.

The suspect cannot have it both ways:  Either the restaurant owners spoke a language she couldn’t understand, or they cursed like oil-rig roughnecks paradoxically raised with NPR-perfect diction.   The Larimer County district attorney and judge should listen to the audio from the cell phone footage and ask themselves if they have any trouble understanding Wulin Lee’s voice requesting the suspect to stop, or hear any curse words being directed at the suspect.  This recording is taking place at the obvious height of the proprietor’s distress.  To Mr. Lee, and to anyone witnessing the security footage and subsequent cell phone footage, he has just witnessed the suspect causing wanton destruction of his private property, and is attempting to flee the scene.  Where on the audio portion of this cell phone video are the horrific threats and vile invectives posited by the suspect?  Occam’s razor should guide the bench to the obvious conclusion that if they didn’t occur at that moment, they didn’t occur at all.

Two false allegations in the suspect’s testimony deserve particular condemnation.  First, the suspect’s claim that one or both brothers’ used both the “B-bomb” and the “C-bomb”, among the vilest, most offensive words in the English language directed at women, has no basis in reality.  The false “C-bomb” accusation, in particular, was concocted entirely for dramatic effect, an inflammatory effort to distract the police and the court with gainsaying, a despicable attempt to bolster already weak testimony with groundless, gutter language counter-charges.

That either brother understands or could ever use this latter word is pure fantasy, concocted by the suspect and existing only in the suspect’s mind – if it wasn’t abundantly clear to the investigating officer after a few minutes of conversation the two brothers have no idea what this slang word (a word omitted from virtually every in print and out-of-print English language dictionary, and certainly not taught in English-language schools at home or abroad) means, or how or why it could be used to threaten or intimidate, attention wasn’t being paid.  One brother knows a handful of strong curse words and epithets in English, and knows their “proper” context, as he has had them directed at him, but the “C-word” is not part of that limited vocabulary.  The idea that either brother used this invective threateningly on 18 October 2019 is a bald-faced lie, concocted by an awful liar.  When individuals curse in a spontaneous, unpredictable situation or impromptu manner, they curse in their mother tongue.  They don’t curse in slang convenient to a suspect’s fable.

Second, if the suspect truly felt threatened or trapped while trespassing within the establishment in any way, she could have used her cell phone (behind the safety of the locked bathroom door, for example, which she occupied for most of her illicit residence) to call 9-1-1, or to alert her companion “Alex”.  Telephone records could be checked – did Larimer County emergency dispatch receive a call from the suspect on the afternoon of 18 October 2019?  It would seem the suspect would have been much easier to locate after 18 October 2019 if she had contacted 9-1-1, rather than the apparently fruitless search engaged in by law enforcement over the subsequent three weeks.  Did security camera footage record, or any eyewitnesses recorded on camera as being present during the event report, her companion “Alex” bursting into the restaurant to defend her honor from the (purportedly) vile-mouthed barbarians? 

Perhaps the suspect didn’t have a cell phone – Security camera footage indicates other people eating in the restaurant, and one male using the neighboring restroom, or at least descending the set of stairs that lead only to the customer restrooms.  If the suspect felt her life or her physical well-being was in imminent danger, why did she not call out loudly for help?  Perhaps she did call out loudly for help.  If she did call out loudly for help, why did no other patron (all other patrons recorded on the security footage appeared to share her ethnicity, and can be presumed to share her language) rush to her aid, or seek out and report their own concerns to the local police after the fact?  The answer to these questions is straightforward:  Because the suspect was never threatened, and was only scared, if she even was scared, because she was in the act of committing a crime, on her way to committing a second crime.  This is another portion of the suspect’s testimony fabricated to distract and evade the responsibilities attendant on criminal conduct.  One of the Lee brothers admits to knocking on the bathroom door, as would any proprietor of any business when a non-customer trespasses in their establishment and locks themselves in a room.  Beyond that, any behavior reported by the suspect comes from a phantom menace of her own devising.  Examine the security footage if you believe otherwise.

Obviously, feeling threatened by a situation can be a subjective emotion.  Some individuals feel threatened by otherwise harmless insects, or a room suddenly going dark, or the confining space of an MRI.  But science or common sense has yet to report a case of someone who feels threatened and compelled to urgently escape a situation standing around arguing with the individual(s) serving as the source of the perceived threat prior to flight. 

Again, as the suspect’s grand exit nears, security camera footage does not record the suspect behaving as the suspect claims she perceived or remembers the events of 18 October 2019.  The suspect is not seen dashing through the frame towards the restaurant exit at the denouement, contrails streaming from her feet Road Runner-like. 

Instead, the footage reveals a suspect animatedly confronting and arguing with the restaurant owners at the door, as seconds elapse.  The owners are not blocking the door, the owners are not standing or advancing towards the suspect in a threatening or challenging way.  The owners are standing behind the suspect, at a distance any professional would agree does not infringe on the suspect’s personal space.  The exit door is not slammed by the suspect to delay some imagined pursuit.  In that case the door would be closed and held, or opened hurriedly with no time or interest in closing it.  All efforts would be focused on pure panic and escape, door closing be damned. 

Instead, the security camera clearly shows the door intentionally slammed by the suspect, as hard as physically possible.  Any rational person viewing this footage would interpret this behavior as an act of anger, not fear, and an attempt to “send a message”, for example, a message of entitlement exercised by the majority demographic, a “You can’t tell me what to do” statement, or an act of immaturity upon being confronted with wrongdoing, a childish “I’ll show you” behavior executed by those needing to have the final word.

Child puhlease – Justice may be blind, but it is not buck-toothed, gullible, and lacking in imagination.  A negotiated plea of “no contest” and financial restitution for the damage caused is not only lazy, but non-punitive.  Given the suspect’s obvious financial stratum, reimbursing the cost of window repair, absent a written apology, is a flea bite to a pachyderm.  The bigger inconvenience for the suspect, if she even bothers responding to the summons to appear in person, will be the trip to and from Hickville, Larimer County. 

Indeed, the Lee brothers don’t need the money any more than the suspect will miss this money.  The amount of monetary restitution ultimately agreed to by the Larimer County district attorney, suspect, and judge should go directly to a non-profit Colorado charity providing legal assistance to immigrants, for example, or a Larimer County church feeding those without a family to celebrate with this holiday season.  At least that would accomplish something meaningful, and perhaps give the suspect a passing moment to ponder what really matters during our time here on Earth.  Also, perhaps leave the suspect a few bucks for a hand-fan, because ultimately, if she continues living her lifestyle, it’s going to be warm where she’s headed.

The victims also request the following non-remunerative restitution:  (1) If the suspect is so confident in the veracity of the testimony provided to law enforcement, she should have no hesitation giving this testimony under oath.  If she is hesitant to provide sworn testimony, or vouch for the accuracy of the testimony already provided, she should be reminded from the bench in the strongest possible terms of the penalty for perjury in the land she calls home.

(2) Obviously, a permanent restraining order of 100 feet from the Lee brothers’ business establishment and residences within the town of Estes Park and in Larimer County (physical addresses provided in separate attachment) is both essential and non-negotiable.  Providentially, the 100-foot zone of exclusion from their Molly B restaurant on 212 Moraine Avenue will place her very near a public restroom predicted to remain in operation for the duration of her corporeal existence, outfitted with a windowless door when successful bowel movements cause her to “Hulk out”.

If the suspect’s age, intelligence quotient, and approximate weight as provided by her documented behavior from the afternoon of 18 October 2019 onward, her state identification, her online resume, and AI photographic deconstruction of body habitus are accurate, she is about 20 years too old, 20 Binet points too slow, and 20 pounds too heavy to effectively play the “damsel in distress” card.  (3) The suspect should be strongly reprimanded from the bench for gamesmanship and storytelling that places other individuals’ reputations at risk, especially those victimized by her reckless behavior.  We are not children here.  The law is not her private plaything, and Larimer County is not a playground set aside for her tantrums and embroidered fantasies.

To that end, law enforcement or the Larimer County district attorney should do a thorough job of investigating the suspect’s prior criminal record, not just in Colorado, where the suspect has lived for a short time, but at the very least in the states of previous employment or education provided by the suspect on her internet resume.  (4) Texas, Tennessee, Florida, and New York, at the very least, are states where a complete criminal background check for prior offenses should be performed, or the subject’s “pure as driven snow” excuse cannot be legitimately exercised or verified.

Obviously, an individual’s intellectual capacity and avoirdupois weight may not directly translate to their advantage in a perceived situation of escalating tension created solely by their inability to follow simple, obvious requests dictated by common courtesy and the parameters of the law, but the judicial system should not kid itself, or ignore compelling and unambiguous physical evidence out of false nobility – the suspect, speaking only one language, is clearly less educated than either Lee brother separately, and nearly two weight classes above them combined. 

Because he suspect displays a woefully and willfully poor comprehension of basic written and verbal English requests and “sign language” after assessing a power dynamic potentially tilted in her favor, escalates into rage behavior precipitously when confronted with wrongdoing of her own creation, and slams a mean door, (5) a prescribed set of community college-level remedial English classes, along with professional therapist-administered anger management classes (in a group or individual setting), from the bench may go far to preventing, or at least decreasing, future acts of wanton property destruction, at the very least preventing the suspect from unloosing her unapologetic reign of terror on the state of Colorado during those times she is physically attending the sessions.

On a final note, one of the Lee brothers has a 4-year-old son who also witnessed portions of the events as they unfolded in the Molly B restaurant the afternoon of 18 October 2019.  He is of an impressionable age, and obviously too young to be called to testify, but it is worth noting that he, like the security cameras and the owners of the restaurant and the other people eating in the restaurant that day, clearly recognizes the truth as it unfolded.  Following the traumatic event and continuing to this day, without prompting, four year old Elijah Lee approaches nearly every female exiting Molly B in the act of opening and closing the door and says, clearly and without any accent, in words understandable to everyone, “Bad woman”. 

Our legal system provides for two sides to every story, and the suspect has her constitutional right to a defense, but the suspect should at the very least be made aware of the lasting impact her behavior that afternoon had on an innocent child.