Mitzi Elliot’s diamond necklace

Mitzi Elliot’s diamond necklace is described in the available account through a separate theft prosecution involving Patrick Henson: the jewelry was taken from the mother of a woman he was dating, not identified there as part of the Elliot murders. The necklace’s reported value made it central to the charges against Henson, while its uncertain appraisal and the owner’s family’s political influence gave it a second role—as evidence that could also be used to test the pressures shaping the case.

Identity and Reported Value

The necklace belonged to the mother of Henson’s girlfriend. The sheriff’s report described it as containing eight diamonds, representing the owner’s three children and five grandchildren. At a birthday party, Henson saw the necklace given to her as a gift. The gift’s family meaning was thus part of what made the theft more than the taking of a valuable object: it was jewelry displayed in the home of people who had welcomed him as a guest.

The report listed the necklace’s value as $25,000. That figure carried immediate legal consequences. Because of the stated value, Henson faced grand theft and dealing in stolen property, as well as illegal drug possession. The reported valuation was not merely descriptive; it helped determine the severity of the charges. Yet the narrative later makes clear that the figure had not, as far as Henson’s defense knew, been independently challenged.

The Theft and Sale

Henson had met the owner’s youngest daughter on the beach and had been teaching her to surf. They dated and spent time together before he was invited to a birthday party at her family’s house. On a later visit, he and the daughter were alone, using the pool. Henson said that he claimed to be going to the bathroom, but instead searched for pills because he was in pain. Finding none downstairs, he went upstairs, looked through the owner’s jewelry box, and took the necklace.

The theft followed a serious injury and a period of escalating opioid dependence. Henson, a twenty-four-year-old professional surfer from Malibu by way of Florida, had injured his shoulder in a competition on Maui when a wave drove him onto the lava bottom at Pehei. After surgery, he was prescribed oxycodone. Eighteen months later, he was addicted, pursuing pills to manage pain; he had lost sponsors and could no longer compete. He later pawned the necklace for $400 and went to Mexico to buy two hundred oxycodone tablets over the counter. The disparity between the report’s $25,000 valuation and the $400 he received makes the transaction a measure of the urgency of his addiction, not of the necklace’s market value.

The physical and recorded evidence tied Henson to the sale. The necklace was recovered from the pawnshop, and security-camera film showed him pawning it. Those records made his connection to the theft straightforward even as the circumstances of the offense and the basis for the reported value remained relevant to his defense.

Appraisal as a Defense Strategy

After Jerry Vincent’s death, Mickey Haller reviewed Henson’s file and decided to pursue a step Vincent had not taken: an independent appraisal of the necklace. Haller explained that the listed $25,000 value placed the theft in a felony category, but that no one appeared to have challenged the valuation. He raised the possibility that an appraisal might show the diamonds were not genuine, which could affect the charge level.

Haller’s proposal was not limited to testing the stones. Henson had said that the owner’s husband, Roger Vogler, was proud of the diamonds and had identified them as such when he gave the necklace to his wife. Haller reasoned that an appraisal finding the diamonds phony could create an unwelcome public question for Vogler, particularly if his wife did not know. The proposed examination therefore put two matters in play: the factual basis for the necklace’s reported value and the consequences of bringing that value under scrutiny.

The planned motion requested permission to examine and appraise the necklace as evidence. Haller intended to submit it to the court by email rather than appear in court simply to file it. He also saw the word appraisal itself as potentially consequential: even before any result, a request to examine the jewelry might prompt a response from those invested in keeping the matter quiet. The evidence establishes the proposed tactic, not whether an appraisal ultimately took place or changed Henson’s charges.

Political Context and Significance

Vogler was a doctor and a substantial supporter of county politicians. Henson knew that the family held fund-raisers at their home; Haller connected Vogler’s contributions to the election of at least four members of the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors. Because the board controlled the budget of the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office, which was prosecuting Henson, Haller described a chain of influence through which Vogler could send a message.

The necklace consequently occupied an uneasy position in the case. It was a recovered object, captured in surveillance footage and associated with an admitted theft; it was also the basis for a valuation that elevated the charges and an item whose examination might embarrass a politically connected family. Haller did not claim that an appraisal would establish the diamonds were fake. Instead, the possibility of testing the claim—and the possibility that the owner’s family might prefer not to have it tested—formed the leverage behind the motion. The necklace’s narrative importance lies in that double function: it documents Henson’s desperate act while exposing how a piece of evidence can become a point of pressure within the prosecution surrounding it.