Assistant Kansas attorney general Nola Wright (pictured) and defense attorney Pedro Irigonegaray squared off in front of the jury during closing arguments Monday in the Matthew Jaeger trial in Douglas County District Court. Jaeger, 24, is accused of severely beating and kidnapping his ex-girlfriend in October 2007.

Matthew Jaeger, 24, was either an enraged man who savagely mutilated his ex-girlfriend’s pelvic region the night of Oct. 9, 2007, and dragged her from her apartment.

Or, he was a caring ex-boyfriend who was simply trying to help her after she injured herself in a fall onto a bed railing.

These are the stories that jurors are deliberating as they decide the fate of Jaeger, a former Kansas University student who faces charges of aggravated kidnapping, aggravated battery, aggravated burglary and making a criminal threat in Douglas County District Court.

Testimony in the trial began Aug. 5 and ended with closing arguments on Monday afternoon. The jury deliberated for more than two hours before calling it a day. Deliberations are set to resume at 9 a.m. Tuesday, Aug. 11.

During closing arguments, Nola Wright, an assistant Kansas attorney general, asked, “If this was such a terrible misunderstanding, he thought she was in trouble and being hurt … and she tells him I fell and hit the bed railing, then why rush out of the apartment complex?”

But Jaeger’s attorney Pedro Irigonegaray said the defense studied deeper into forensic evidence in the case that pointed to the woman falling on the bed railing as the most likely cause of her injury, instead of Jaeger punching or kicking her as prosecutors claim. He said police and prosecutors implicated Jaeger too quickly without looking at all the facts.

“It has been up to us to bring the science into this case, so that we could argue against an argument,” Irigonegaray said.

Wright told jurors that Jaeger caught his ex-girlfriend with another man, Dylan Jones, that night, choked her and either punched or kicked her, causing a bleeding injury to her pelvic region.

The injury

Showing police photos to jurors, Wright said the wooden railing was leaning against the box spring and near her mattress. Earlier testimony in the trial revealed the bed was broken before the incident.

“Looking at that, how in the world did she supposedly straddle that bed rail, much less fall on it with enough force to cause the type of injury that you have seen in photos?” Wright said.

She also said the railing had no blood on it.

But Irigonegaray said the defense did more to study calculations and force that could have caused the injury, citing earlier testimony from Los Angeles-based medical investigator James Kent.

“What was the fingerprint from that injury? It matched the bed railing. It matched it perfectly. It’s irrefutable,” Irigonegaray said.

Jason Hart, an assistant Kansas attorney general, said Kent’s whole analysis was “predicated on assumptions” and that he did not test enough angles for how her body could have fallen on the railing.

“Those legs would really have to bend in a way that is not physically possible,” Hart said during his rebuttal closing statement.

Concern vs. anger

Paulette Sutton, a Memphis-based blood stain expert, testified Friday for the defense that the stains in the apartment supported Jaeger’s version of events. She said they did not show a struggle at any time in the apartment.

Wright said witnesses at the apartment complex who called 911 saw men forcing the woman into a car, which refuted Sutton’s analysis. Irigonegaray said it was dark and prosecutors never said how far away the eyewitnesses were.

The prosecutor said Jaeger was angry because his ex-girlfriend and his “go-to girl” was not answering his calls that night and that he wanted to “catch her” in the act with another man.

But Irigonegaray told jurors to look at text messages sent between the two that night, including one where Jaeger said: “PLEASE CALL.”

“Why is it he could not have gone over there by a concern? A concern validated by his text messages,” Irigonegaray said.

Near the end of his closing statement, Irigonegaray put up a drawing of a puzzle with pieces taken away and told jurors several crucial pieces were a blow to the state’s case against Jaeger — blood evidence, text messages that night, a timeline of events, a lack of forensic evidence, patterns of the injury and the woman’s history with men.

“The reason you can’t put it together is because those pieces don’t fit,” Irigonegaray said.

Wright played phone messages of Jaeger, who sounded angry that his ex-girlfriend was not taking his phone calls that night.

“It is a reasonable inference that he used (his fist or shoe) or both to deliver fierce and punishing direct blows to that area of her anatomy –that part of her body that he thought should be his and his alone,” Wright said.

But Irigonegaray said evidence supports Jaeger’s version of the events — that he was concerned and feared for her safety.

“They have not proven that he went in with the intent to hurt anyone. They have not,” he said.

Stay with LJWorld.com for all the latest on this case. If you’d like to be among the first to know about a verdict in the case, sign up for our breaking news alerts.