30071 – July 30th 2002 -Transcript of David Westerfield Trial Day 25 – morning 1

TRIAL DAY 25 – PART 1- morning 1


SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA, TUESDAY, JULY 30, 2002, 8:50 A.M. (morning 1)


WITNESSES:
Brian James Le Ribeus (police officer San Diego homicide, testified about orange shirts and vests collected from the sheriff’s dog units), Tanya Dulaney (recalled to testify about testing of the orange fibers from the shirts and vests collected fom the sheriff’s dog units), William B. Holmes (recalled to testify about motor homes, routes, Danielle’s body discovery, bugs)


–O0O–
(THE FOLLOWING OCCURRED OUT OF THE PRESENCE OF THE
JURY:
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. IN THE WESTERFIELD MATTER THE
RECORD WILL REFLECT THE APPEARANCE OF COUNSEL AND MR.
WESTERFIELD.
COUNSEL, IT’S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT YOU’VE NOW
CONCLUDED A REVIEW OF THE PROFFERED EXHIBITS FROM THE DEFENSE.
I HAVE REVIEWED THE NUMBERS AND THE INFORMATION CONTAINED
THEREIN. AND ARE THERE ANY OBJECTIONS TO ANY OF THOSE NOTED BY
THE PEOPLE?
MR. CLARKE: YES, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
MR. CLARKE: I BELIEVE THREE OF THEM MAY NOT EVEN BE
OFFERED BY THE DEFENSE.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. WHICH THREE WOULD THOSE BE?
MR. CLARKE: THEY ARE ALL TRANSCRIPTS. EXHIBITS 26, 27,
AND 38.
MR. FELDMAN: THEY WERE TRANSCRIPTS OFFERED TO REFRESH
RECOLLECTION, YOUR HONOR. THEY WERE MARKED BECAUSE I THOUGHT
THAT IT WAS APPROPRIATE TO DO SO UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE
CASE. BUT WE’RE NOT OFFERING THEM. AND, FRANKLY, I DON’T
THINK THEY’RE ADMISSIBLE.
THE COURT: YES. ALL RIGHT.
ALL RIGHT. THAT’S 27, 28, AND 38?
MR. CLARKE: 26, 27, I BELIEVE, AND 38.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. 26, 27, CORRECT, AND 38.
ALL RIGHT.
MR. CLARKE: IN ADDITION, EXHIBIT 157. THE COURT MAY
RECALL THAT’S THE BINDER THAT WAS PREPARED BY THE DEFENSE’
EXPERT MARCUS LAWSON.
THE COURT: YES.
MR. CLARKE: WE HAVE OBJECTIONS TO JUST A PORTION OF IT.
WOULD YOU LIKE ME TO ENUMERATE THE PORTIONS?
THE COURT: SURE.
MR. CLARKE: THERE ARE FOUR ITEMS ON THE LEFT-HAND SIDE OF
THAT BINDER JUST IN A SLEEVE THAT CONSIST OF MR. LAWSON’S C.V.
AND THEN THREE OTHER DOCUMENTS. ONE LABELED RESTORED DRIVES.
ANOTHER LABELED MASTER COMPUTER LIST. AND THEN A REPORT FROM
CHRIS ARMSTRONG FROM THE FORENSIC LABORATORY, THE COMPUTER
FORENSIC LABORATORY. I DON’T THINK MR. FELDMAN IS GOING TO
OFFER THOSE, BUT THEY’RE IN THE EXHIBIT RIGHT NOW.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
MR. FELDMAN.
MR. FELDMAN: WE DISCUSSED CERTAIN REDACTIONS. THAT WHICH
WAS ON THE LEFT SIDE MY UNDERSTANDING IS MR. LAWSON’S REPORT,
WE’RE NOT OFFERING THAT. HE’S TESTIFIED.
THERE ARE SOME TEXT STATEMENTS, YOUR HONOR, WHICH
APPEAR TO BE MY BEST OPINION IS ATTRIBUTABLE TO NEAL
WESTERFIELD. WE’RE NOT OFFERING THOSE.
THE COURT: WELL, — AND, OF COURSE, THE INVESTIGATOR’S
REPORT DOESN’T COME IN. SO WHY DON’T I JUST GIVE YOU BACK ALL
THAT WAS CONTAINED ON THE LEFT PORTION, JUST LEAVING THE
INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THE BINDER.
MR. FELDMAN: THANK YOU.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
THE RECORD SHOULD REFLECT — WITH THAT DO THE PEOPLE
HAVE ANY OBJECTION?
MR. CLARKE: ON THE RIGHT SIDE, WHAT’S LEFT IN THE
BINDER?. AND I THINK MR. FELDMAN AND WE AGREE THAT THERE ARE
TWO ITEMS THAT SHOULD COME OUT. THE FIRST IS MR. LAWSON’S
REPORT, WHICH IS SEVEN PAGES, I BELIEVE AT THE TOP.
MR. FELDMAN: YES.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
MR. CLARKE: AND THEN WHAT ARE LABELED BEHIND THAT PAGES 2
THROUGH 7. AND THESE ARE BASED ON NUMBERS THAT ARE HANDWRITTEN
I BELIEVE IN THE UPPER RIGHT-HAND CORNER. THAT’S A COMPOSITION
APPARENTLY WRITTEN BY NEAL WESTERFIELD.
THE COURT: I SEE.
MR. FELDMAN: YOU JUST GOT WHAT APPEAR TO BE ONE OF THE
PAGES, YOUR HONOR.
MR. CLARKE: SO THOSE TWO THINGS, THE SEVEN-PAGE REPORT OF
MR. LAWSON, —
THE COURT: IS THAT CORRECT, MR. FELDMAN?
MR. FELDMAN: YES.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
THEN OUT WILL COME THE REPORT OF MR. LAWSON. AND
THEN HANDWRITTEN IN THE UPPER-HAND CORNER PAGES 2 THROUGH 7
WILL COME OUT. AND I’LL RETURN BOTH OF THOSE ITEMS TO MR.
FELDMAN AT THIS TIME.
MR. FELDMAN: THANK YOU.
THE COURT: SO WITH THOSE DELETIONS, ANY OTHER OBJECTION
TO 157?
MR. CLARKE: NOT TO THAT EXHIBIT.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
OKAY. ANY OTHERS?
MR. CLARKE: YES. FOUR MORE. AND I THINK WE’VE AGREED ON
MOST OF THEM. 160 IS A MAP OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA USED BY THE
DEFENSE. AND THERE’S SOME TEXT AT THE BOTTOM OF IT.
MR. FELDMAN: IT WAS A DOWNLOAD, YOUR HONOR, FROM THE
“UNION-TRIBUNE.” I DON’T MIND THE MAP. I DON’T MIND THE
REDACTION ON THE BOTTOM. I CAN CUT IT BECAUSE ALL IT IS IS
BASICALLY RECAP OF WHAT THE NEWS CLAIMS IS THE SUMMARY OF THE
TESTIMONY. SO I HAVE NO OBJECTION TO THAT.
MR. DUSEK: YOUR HONOR, WE’RE OBJECTING TO THE ENTIRE MAP.
IT WAS USED TO REFRESH OR TO HAVE MR. LASPISA ALTER HIS ROUTES
WHEN HE WAS DRIVING TO THE DESERT. HE FIRST MADE A ROUTE GOING
THROUGH JULIAN. THEN THE DEFENSE SHOWED HIM THE MAP, AND HE
CORRECTED HIS ROUTE, TAKING IT UP NORTH. THIS IS A MAP THAT
APPARENTLY IS PREPARED SOMEWHERE ON THE INTERNET, MAYBE BY A
NEWS STATION. SO THERE’S NO AUTHENTICATION, NO REASON TO
BELIEVE THAT THE LINES THAT ARE DRAWN ON THAT MAP OR THE
NARRATIVE DOWN BELOW ARE AUTHENTICATED. IT SHOULD BE REMOVED.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
WELL, THE WITNESS DID, INDEED, TRACE FIRST ONE ROUTE
AND THEN ANOTHER. THE JURY HAS SEEN THAT. IT APPEARS TO BE AN
ACCURATE REPRESENTATION OF THE EAST COUNTY ROADS. SO 160 WILL
BE ADMITTED WITHOUT THE LEGEND AT THE BOTTOM OR THE CAPTION AT
THE BOTTOM. SO MAKE SURE THAT THAT’S EXCISED BEFORE IT GOES TO
THE JURY.
ALL RIGHT. SO MAKE A NOTE OF THAT, PEG. IT’S NOT TO
GO TO THE JURY WITHOUT THE EXCISING OF THE LOWER PORTION.
ALL RIGHT. MR. CLARKE.
MR. CLARKE: YES. 167 AND 168 THE COURT MAY RECALL WERE
SLIDES WITH FIBERS ON THEM THAT WERE MARKED BY THE DEFENSE AND
A PORTION OF WHICH USED IN TESTIMONY BY EITHER JENNIFER SHEN
AND/OR TANYA DULANEY.
THE COURT: CORRECT.
MR. CLARKE: THEY WEREN’T ALL DISCUSSED IN THE TESTIMONY.
BUT MORE IMPORTANTLY I HAVE A CONCERN ABOUT PRESERVATION.
SINCE THEY ARE SOME OF THE FIBERS, I THINK IT WOULD BE MUCH
WISER THAT THEY BE MAINTAINED BY THE POLICE DEPARTMENT.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
MR. FELDMAN: YOUR HONOR, OUR POSITION IS THE JURY NEEDS
TO SEE HOW SMALL THE FIBERS ARE. THIS IS THE ONLY WAY TO
COMMUNICATE IT IS FOR THEM TO ACTUALLY SEE IT. THE FIBERS WERE
AUTHENTICATED. THERE’S BEEN TESTIMONY THAT THIS IS ONLY A — I
BELIEVE THE TESTIMONY IS, YOUR HONOR, THAT THIS WAS A RANDOM —
I DON’T WANT TO USE THE WORD RANDOM. OKAY. — A RANDOM
SELECTION OF ONLY CERTAIN PORTIONS OF THE FIBERS. THERE’S
NOTHING TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE, MAYBE MR. CLARKE CAN
CORRECT IT, USES UP ALL THAT’S AVAILABLE. BUT THERE’S BEEN SO
MUCH FIBER TESTIMONY I THINK IT’S APPROPRIATE THAT THE JURY GET
TO SEE WHAT IT IS THESE PEOPLE ARE REALLY TALKING ABOUT.
THE COURT: ANYTHING FURTHER, MR. CLARKE?
MR. CLARKE: JUST THE PROBLEM THAT THERE’S ONLY BEEN A
FOUNDATION FOR A PORTION OF THEM. THERE ARE SOME FIBERS IN
THERE THERE’S BEEN NO TESTIMONY ABOUT.
MR. FELDMAN: THE ENTIRE PACKAGE, YOUR HONOR, WAS —
THE COURT: SHE TESTIFIED, IN THE CASE OF 167, IT WAS
DULANEY, AND IN THE CASE OF 168 IT WAS SHEN. THERE HAS BEEN A
FOUNDATION LAID FOR THEM.
WHAT I’M GOING TO DO IS THOSE WILL NOT BE PLACED IN
THE JURYROOM WITHOUT THEIR REQUEST. IF THEY REQUEST THEM, THEY
WILL BE SUPERVISED IN TERMS OF THEIR AVAILABILITY.
MR. CLARKE: I BELIEVE TECHNICALLY ALSO THEY ARE NOT IN
COURT. I BELIEVE THE DEFENSE HAS THEM. AND I THINK THEY ARE
TO BE RETURNED SHORTLY.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
MR. FELDMAN: THEY ARE EN ROUTE.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. SO THEY WILL BE ADMITTED OVER THE
OBJECTION OF THE PEOPLE. BUT THEY WILL NOT BE IN THE JURYROOM.
THEY WILL BE AVAILABLE SHOULD THE JURORS REQUEST TO SEE THEM.
MR. BOYCE: YOUR HONOR, I BELIEVE THAT HALF OF THEM ARE
STILL IN THE CUSTODY OF THE CRIME LAB. ‘CAUSE THEY SPLIT THEM.
MR. FELDMAN: WE SPLIT THEM. WE DID A SPLIT OF SOME OF
THE EXHIBITS BECAUSE WE FELT AS THOUGH IT WAS APPROPRIATE FOR
US TO.
THE COURT: GET THEM ALL BACK. BOTH SIDES WILL HAVE TO
GET THEM BACK.
MR. FELDMAN: WE JUST DIDN’T WANT ALL THE RESPONSIBILITY,
THAT’S ALL.
THE COURT: OKAY.
ANYTHING ELSE, MR. CLARKE?
MR. CLARKE: YES. JUST THE LAST ONE IS EXHIBIT 185. THAT
IS THE VIDEOTAPE THAT I BELIEVE IS THE BASIS FROM WHICH MR.
GRIPP TESTIFIED THAT EXHIBITS 179 THROUGH 182 WERE PREPARED.
THOSE ARE THE STILL SHOTS FROM VIDEOS. THOSE ARE WITH THE
ORANGE ITEMS FOR LACK OF A BETTER TERM.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
ANY PARTICULAR REASON FOR THE OBJECTION?
MR. CLARKE: NO FOUNDATION.
MR. BOYCE: WELL, IF THE BOARDS ARE COMING IN, THEN WE
REQUEST THAT THE TAPE COME IN, TOO, BECAUSE THAT’S THE TAPE
FROM WHICH THE BOARDS WERE TAKEN. THE TAPE MERELY SHOWS THE
SEGMENTS OF THE VIDEOS FROM WHICH SOME OF THE STILLS WERE
LIFTED.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
IT IS MY OPINION THAT THERE HAS, INDEED, BEEN A
FOUNDATION LAID AND THAT THE WITNESS HAS, INDEED, MADE
REFERENCE TO THE TAPE AS THE BASIS FOR THE VIDEO STILLS. SO
185 WILL COME IN.
ALL RIGHT. ANY OTHERS?
MR. CLARKE: NO.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THEN THE DEFENSE EXHIBITS THAT
HAVE BEEN PROFFERED, APART FROM 26, 27, AND 38, AND WITH THE
ADDENDUMS THAT THE COURT HAS MENTIONED AS TO THE OTHERS, WILL
COME IN AT THIS TIME.
[TRIAL EXHIBITS NUMBERS 13, 64, 66, 69, 81, 87, 88,
89, 90, 97, 103, 104, 118, 120, 121, 125, 132, 141, 142,
143, 149, 150, 157, 160, 167 TO 185, INCLUSIVE, 189, AND
190 FOR IDENTIFICATION RECEIVED IN EVIDENCE.]
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. ARE WE READY TO GO?
THE CLERK: JUDGE, PEOPLE HAVE EXHIBITS.
THE COURT: I KNOW. PEOPLE HAVEN’T RESTED. THEY ARE NOT
IN A POSITION TO EVEN OFFER THEM AT THIS POINT.
OKAY.
MR. FELDMAN: YOUR HONOR, JUST QUICKLY. WE ISSUED A
SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM FOR ADDITIONAL MATERIALS THAT IS DUE
THURSDAY. YOU HAD ASKED ME TO ADDRESS SCHEDULING ISSUES. I
CAN DO THIS IN OR OUT OF THE PRESENCE, REGARDLESS.
THE COURT: JUST START LETTING THEM COME IN, MIKE,
QUIETLY.
MR. FELDMAN: WE’RE BRINGING IN, DEPENDING ON WHAT HAPPENS
THIS MORNING WITH DR. GOFF, WE ARE PROBABLY BRINGING IN SOMEONE
TO TESTIFY FOR THURSDAY. THOSE ARRANGEMENTS ARE EN ROUTE. WE
MAY BRING ANOTHER EXPERT. WE’RE INVESTIGATING THAT. HE CAN BE
AVAILABLE THURSDAY.
THERE’S A WITNESS THAT WE’RE INTERVIEWING THAT WE MAY
PRESENT DEPENDING ON WHAT THE NATURE OF THE REBUTTAL TESTIMONY
IS. WE’RE READY TO GO ON THAT THURSDAY.
I CAN TELL THE COURT I BELIEVE MONDAY WOULD BE THE
ABSOLUTE LAST DAY THAT I COULD IMAGINE PRESENTING ANY EVIDENCE
UNLESS SOMETHING COMPLETELY EXTRAORDINARY AND UNEXPECTED, WHICH
HAPPENS IN THIS CASE, OCCURS. BUT — AND EVEN AT THIS POINT,
YOUR HONOR, I CAN’T REPRESENT THAT WE INTEND TO CALL ANYBODY
MONDAY BECAUSE WE GOT TO MEET WITH THEM AND INFORMATION IS
ALREADY — IS FEDERALLY — IS IN THE PROCESS OF BEING FEDERALLY
EXPRESSED, INCLUDING TRANSCRIPTS.
FINALLY, — SO I JUST — THAT’S JUST TO APPRIZE THE
COURT OF WHAT OUR SITUATION IS.
IN THE INTERNET AND ABOVE THE FOLD IN THE NEWSPAPER
THIS MORNING IN THE B SECTION IS A LINE THAT SAYS DEFENSE IS
REQUESTING SEQUESTRATION OF THE JURY. AND ALTHOUGH WHEN YOU
OPEN THE NEWSPAPER UP, IT SAYS THE JUDGE ISN’T GOING TO DO IT,
OUR CONCERN IS THAT THE JURY IS GOING TO SEE SOMETHING THAT
MAKES IT SEEM AS THOUGH IT’S THE DEFENSE THAT’S MOVING ON THIS.
YOUR HONOR HAS SAID THAT — I THINK YOU SAID THE PARTIES
RATHER THAN A PARTY HAVE DISCUSSED THE ISSUE. BUT MY REQUEST
IS THAT YOUR HONOR INDICATE THAT IT’S ON YOU, NOT US.
THE COURT: OKAY. I DON’T MIND THAT.
MR. FELDMAN: THANK YOU.
THE COURT: WELL, NOTICEABLY ABSENT, HOWEVER, WAS A
DISCUSSION REGARDING WEDNESDAY IF THE PEOPLE CLOSE TODAY.
MR. FELDMAN: WE DON’T HAVE ANYTHING. WE CAN’T GET IT
TOGETHER BECAUSE LATE YESTERDAY, YOUR HONOR, ABOUT 3:30 OR —
[DISCUSSION OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN MR. FELDMAN
AND MR. CLARKE.]
MR. FELDMAN: LATE IN THE AFTERNOON WE GOT A PHONE CALL
FROM THE PROSECUTION WHICH ALTERED WHAT THEY WERE PROPOSING
WHICH THEN DOMINOED US.
THE COURT: OKAY. ALL RIGHT. WE’LL JUST HAVE TO DEAL
WITH IT AS WE GO ALONG.
I AM ALSO HEARING THAT FRIDAY WE’RE GOING TO HAVE THE
FINAL DISCUSSION REGARDING JURY INSTRUCTIONS, THEN. IS THAT A
FAIR STATEMENT?
MR. FELDMAN: WHATEVER’S CONVENIENT. YES, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: AND YOU MAY OR MAY NOT HAVE A WITNESS ON
MONDAY. IF YOU DON’T HAVE A WITNESS, I’M GOING TO INSTRUCT,
AND THE PEOPLE WILL IMMEDIATELY BE PREPARED TO ARGUE, CORRECT?
MR. DUSEK: WE NEED TO KNOW BEFORE MONDAY MORNING.
MR. FELDMAN: WELL, I SHOULD KNOW, THE BEST I CAN TELL
YOU, JUDGE, IS WE’RE GOING TO KNOW SUNDAY. I MEAN MY —
FRANKLY, YOU TOLD US TO BE READY TO ARGUE. WHEN YOU DIRECT US
TO ARGUE, I’M PREPARED TO GO. THAT’S MY POSITION.
MR. DUSEK: I NEED TO KNOW WHETHER I’M PREPARING TO CROSS-
EXAMINE AN EXPERT WITNESS ON MONDAY OR WE’RE GOING TO BE
PUTTING ON CLOSING ARGUMENT ON MONDAY. THAT’S NOT FAIR. WE
HAVE TO KNOW BEFORE WE LEAVE —
MR. FELDMAN: FRIDAY.
MR. DUSEK: — THURSDAY WHAT WE’RE DOING ON MONDAY.
MR. FELDMAN: MAYBE WE CAN GET THE INFORMATION FRIDAY.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. LET’S AGREE NOT TO AGREE, BUT
LET’S AGREE TO ADDRESS THE ISSUE OF WHETHER OR NOT YOU’RE GOING
TO BE ARGUING ON MONDAY OR THERE’S GOING TO BE THE PRESENTATION
OF WITNESSES AT THE CONCLUSION OF THURSDAY.
ALL RIGHT. LET’S GET THE JURY. WELL, LET’S GET
EVERYBODY IN AND GET THE JURY PANEL.
(END OF PROCEEDINGS OUT OF THE PRESENCE OF THE JURY.)
THE COURT: GOOD MORNING, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN. WELL, I
GUESS THE FIRST SHAKEDOWN OF THE NEW SYSTEM DIDN’T GO TOO WELL,
BUT THAT SHOWS YOU WE’RE A CREATURE OF HABIT, DOESN’T IT.
LET ME BRING YOU UP TO DATE ON A FEW THINGS THAT HAVE
OCCURRED WHILE YOU’VE BEEN GONE. FIRST OF ALL, OF COURSE, WE
ALL KNOW THE PADRES HAVEN’T WON A GAME SINCE YOU WERE LAST
HERE, WHICH IS RATHER TRAGIC. BUT THERE ARE A NUMBER OF OTHER
THINGS THAT HAVE OCCURRED.
AND AS I EXPLAINED TO YOU LAST WEEK, THE CLOSER WE
GET TO THE END OF THIS CASE IT SEEMS LIKE THE HARDER IT IS TO
GET TO THE END BECAUSE OF SCHEDULING CONFLICTS INVOLVING THE
WITNESSES. WHERE WE’RE AT RIGHT NOW FOR THE REST OF THIS WEEK
IS AS FOLLOWS:
YOU’LL HAVE A FULL DAY TODAY. TOMORROW I HAVE BEEN
ADVISED THAT THERE WILL BE NO WITNESSES AVAILABLE. SO YOU WILL
NOT BE IN SESSION TOMORROW. THURSDAY WE WILL HAVE — NO, THAT
IS THURSDAY. WEDNESDAY. THURSDAY WE WILL HAVE A FULL DAY OF
TESTIMONY. SO WE’LL BE IN SESSION ON THURSDAY. FRIDAY WE WILL
BE DARK. WHETHER WE’LL BE DARK THE FRIDAY AFTER THAT OR NOT AS
SOME OF YOU HAVE RAISED SOME CONCERNS ABOUT SCHEDULING THAT YOU
HAVE HAD, SO FRIDAYS ARE STILL IN DOUBT. BUT YOU WILL NOT BE
HERE THIS FRIDAY. THE LAWYERS AND I WILL DO THE CLOSING STAGES
OF THE TRIAL AS IT RELATES TO THE LAW. AND THEN ON MONDAY
THERE’LL EITHER BE A WITNESS AND THE MATTER WILL BE CONCLUDED
OR NOT, DEPENDING ON HOW THINGS GO.
I’M LETTING YOU KNOW, THOUGH, THAT IT APPEARS TO ME
THAT NEXT WEEK YOU WILL HEAR THE ARGUMENTS AND WILL BE IN
DELIBERATION NEXT WEEK. EXACTLY WHEN, I’M NOT SURE.
SO TO RECAP., YOU’RE HERE ALL DAY TODAY, YOU’RE OFF
TOMORROW. YOU’RE HERE ALL DAY ON THURSDAY. WE WILL NOT BE IN
SESSION ON FRIDAY OF THIS WEEK. AND I WILL TRY AND KEEP YOU
POSTED ENOUGH IN ADVANCE.
ALSO, DESPITE MY UNDERSTANDING THAT ALL OF YOU ARE IN
COMPLETE COMPLIANCE, I HAVE MENTIONED ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE
WERE TALKING ABOUT WHEN THE ISSUE OF A NUMBER OF OUR JURORS
BEING FOLLOWED CAME UP WAS THE POTENTIAL FOR SEQUESTERING YOU.
THAT IS A DECISION THAT I HAVE NOT MADE AT THIS POINT IN TIME.
I KNOW A NUMBER OF YOU HAVE SHARED A CONCERN ABOUT NOT BEING
AVAILABLE TO YOUR FAMILIES FOR A VARIETY OF REASONS. I’M GOING
TO TAKE THAT INTO ACCOUNT. I JUST WANT TO LET YOU KNOW THAT
THE DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE AT THIS POINT IN TIME, AND IT
WILL BE A DECISION THAT I’LL BE CHARGED WITH THE RESPONSIBILITY
OF MAKING. AS OF RIGHT NOW MY PLAN IS TO HAVE YOU IN
DELIBERATION WITHOUT SEQUESTRATION. BUT I’M LETTING YOU KNOW
THAT THAT IS AN OPTION THAT I’M STILL HOLDING OUT AND MAY OR
MAY NOT IMPOSE. BUT, AGAIN, OBVIOUSLY, YOU WILL BE THE FIRST
TO KNOW.
IN ADDITION TO THAT, WE’VE HAD THIS CASE UP IN NORTH
COUNTY, NORTH OF US IN ORANGE COUNTY, THAT HAS GOTTEN A GREAT
DEAL OF PUBLICITY. IT HAS TAKEN ON A LIFE OF ITS OWN AS SO
MANY CASES DO IN OUR SOCIETY TODAY, INCLUDING NATIONAL
TELEVISION. AND IT IS PERMEATING THE MEDIA. MANY OF THE KINDS
OF THINGS THAT ARE INVOLVED IN THAT CASE MAY OR MAY NOT APPEAR
TO BE SIMILAR HERE, BUT THE FACT IS THAT THE CASE IS NOT
SIMILAR IN ANY WAY, SHAPE, OR FORM, NOR ARE THE ISSUES, THE
PERSONALITIES, OR ANYTHING ELSE. SO UNLESS YOU REALLY NEED TO
READ ABOUT THAT CASE UP THERE, I JUST SUGGEST YOU MOVE ON TO
OTHER THINGS.
THAT BRINGS US TO TWO WHAT I THOUGHT WERE VERY SAFE
TELEVISION STATIONS FOR YOU TO WATCH; NAMELY, “THE DISCOVERY
CHANNEL” AND “THE NATURE CHANNEL.” NOW, EITHER BY HOOK OR BY
CROOK OR BY CHANCE, I DON’T KNOW WHICH, ISSUES SURROUNDING THE
BODY FARM THAT YOU HAVE HEARD ABOUT HAVE SUDDENLY BECOME OF
SOME INTEREST. NOW, MAYBE THIS PROGRAMMING WAS SET YEARS IN
ADVANCE AND IT’S ONLY NOW COMING UP, BUT THE BOTTOM LINE IS A
PERSON OR PERSONS WHO HAVE TESTIFIED LIVE IN FRONT OF YOU ARE
COMMENTATORS ON THIS PARTICULAR PROGRAM. SO I HAVE TO PUT IT
ON YOUR X-OUT LIST. IF YOU HAPPEN TO SEE A SHOW ABOUT THE BODY
FARM, MOVE ON. YOU’VE ALREADY HEARD FIRSTHAND ALL ABOUT THE
BODY FARM. IN FACT, YOU PROBABLY KNOW MORE ABOUT THE BODY FARM
THAN YOU CARE TO EVER KNOW IN YOUR LIFE ABOUT THE BODY FARM.
BUT, AT ANY RATE, THE PEOPLE THAT ARE TESTIFYING, NOT
TESTIFYING, BUT COMMENTATING ON THAT PROGRAM ARE PEOPLE YOU’VE
SEEN HERE UNDER OATH. AND THIS IS THE TESTIMONY IN THIS
COURTROOM YOU’RE TO USE, NOT ANY COMMENTS THEY MAY MAKE.
SO THAT SHOULD BRING YOU UP TO SPEED. AND IF ANY OF
YOU ARE HAVING PROBLEMS WITH FRIDAY, PLEASE KEEP ME POSTED,
BECAUSE THAT’S BEEN SORT OF OUR ROUTINE ALL THE WAY THROUGH.
AND I DON’T WANT YOU TO GET BOXED IN EITHER WITH MEDICAL
APPOINTMENTS OR PERSONAL THINGS BECAUSE WE’RE KIND OF AT THE
LAST MINUTE DISRUPTING THINGS. SO JUST KEEP ME POSTED ON THAT.
ALL RIGHT. MR. DUSEK.
MR. CLARKE: ACTUALLY THAT WOULD BE ME, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. MR. CLARKE. ALL RIGHT.
MR. CLARKE: PEOPLE WOULD CALL DETECTIVE MAURA PARGA.
THE COURT: DETECTIVE, YOU’RE STILL UNDER OATH. IF YOU
WOULD KINDLY RESUME THE STAND.

MAURA PARGA,
RECALLED AS A WITNESS BY THE PLAINTIFF, PREVIOUSLY HAVING BEEN
DULY SWORN, TESTIFIED AS FOLLOWS:

DIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MR. CLARKE:
Q.: DETECTIVE PARGA, GOOD MORNING.
A.: GOOD MORNING, SIR.
Q.: I WOULD LIKE TO SHOW YOU A COUPLE OF EXHIBITS IF I
COULD. FIRST IS LABELED EXHIBIT 181. HAVE YOU HAD A CHANCE TO
LOOK AT THIS BOARD EARLIER THIS MORNING?
A.: YES.
Q.: IN PARTICULAR ARE THERE ANY PHOTOGRAPHS ON EXHIBIT
181 THAT SHOW YOU?
A.: YES. THE POINTER?
Q.: YES. SORRY.
A.: I COULD GET UP.
THIS IS ME, AND THIS IS ME.
Q.: SO YOU’RE POINTING TO PHOTOGRAPHS 2A AND 2B ON
EXHIBIT 181.
A.: YES, SIR.
Q.: FIRST OF ALL, IT LOOKS LIKE YOU’RE WEARING A JACKET.
IS THAT RIGHT?
A.: IT’S A WHITE COTTON JACKET.
Q.: WHAT DATE WAS THIS WHEN YOU WERE DEPICTED — WELL,
LET ME REPHRASE THAT QUESTION.
DO THESE APPEAR TO BE AT LEAST PHOTOGRAPHS OR A
PORTION OF VIDEOTAPES FROM FEBRUARY 4TH OF THIS YEAR?
A.: YES. THAT WOULD BE THE MONDAY.
Q.: WERE YOU AT MR. WESTERFIELD’S RESIDENCE ON THAT DATE?
A.: YES. I BELIEVE THESE ARE PHOTOGRAPHS BY HIS
RESIDENCE.
Q.: AND IN THESE PARTICULAR PHOTOGRAPHS, 2A AND 2B, LOOKS
LIKE WE CAN SEE YOUR JACKET AND PANTS, BUT NOT A VERY GOOD SHOT
OF THE TOP YOU’RE WEARING UNDER YOUR JACKET. IS THAT CORRECT?
A.: THAT’S CORRECT.
Q.: I WOULD NOW LIKE TO SHOW YOU, IF I COULD, EXHIBIT
182, A SIMILAR-TYPE BOARD, AND ASK IF THIS ALSO SHOWS YOU IN
THE AREA OF MR. WESTERFIELD’S RESIDENCE ON FEBRUARY 4TH.
A.: YES.
Q.: IN PARTICULAR WHICH PHOTOGRAPHS?
A.: ALL THREE PHOTOGRAPHS.
Q.: 1A, 1B, AND 1C?
A.: YES.
Q.: DO ANY OF THESE PHOTOGRAPHS OR ALL OF THEM SHOW THE
TOP YOU WERE WEARING THAT DAY?
A.: IT’S DISTORTED.
Q.: WHEN YOU SAY DISTORTED, WHAT DO YOU MEAN?
A.: I DON’T KNOW WHO TOOK THE PHOTOGRAPHS, BUT MY SHIRT’S
ACTUALLY RED. IT’S NOT ORANGE.
Q.: OKAY. THAT WAS GOING TO BE MY NEXT QUESTION.
WHAT WAS THE COLOR OF THE SHIRT YOU WERE WEARING THAT
DAY?
A.: IT’S RED. IT’S A RED INSTRUCTOR’S SHIRT.
Q.: INSTRUCTOR’S SHIRT? WHAT’S THAT?
A.: I TEACH MOUNTED POLICE TACTICS, AND WE WEAR RED
INSTRUCTOR SHIRTS.
Q.: WHY DO YOU WEAR RED?
A.: IT’S SO THE STUDENTS CAN SEE YOU BECAUSE THE STUDENTS
ARE USUALLY ON A HORSE AND YOU ARE ON THE GROUND. YOU WANT TO
DO EVERYTHING YOU CAN TO LET — SO THE PEOPLE DON’T RUN YOU
OVER ON YOUR HORSES. SO WE HAVE RED INSTRUCTOR SHIRTS. AND
IT’S PRETTY STANDARD THROUGHOUT THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA.
Q.: AS FAR AS WHEN THESE PHOTOGRAPHS THAT ARE DEPICTED ON
EXHIBIT 182, AS WELL AS THE PREVIOUS ONE, 181, WHAT STAGE OF
THE DAY ON FEBRUARY 4TH DO THEY APPEAR TO HAVE BEEN TAKEN OR AT
LEAST WHAT DO THEY SHOW?
A.: FROM WHAT I RECALL, IT WOULD HAVE BEEN LATER ON IN
THE EVENING, EARLY EVENING, THAT DAY. LATE AFTERNOON.
Q.: OKAY.
WHEN IN RELATION TO ANY SEARCHES THAT TOOK PLACE?
A.: THAT’S AFTER DETECTIVE KEENE AND I HAD DONE A SEARCH
WITH MR. WESTERFIELD.
Q.: SO AFTER YOU AND DETECTIVE KEENE AND MR. WESTERFIELD
WERE INSIDE MR. WESTERFIELD’S RESIDENCE?
A.: YES.
Q.: AS FAR AS THE RED SHIRTS AND — FIRST OF ALL, LET ME
ASK IT A DIFFERENT WAY.
IN THE LAST SEVERAL DAYS WERE YOU ASKED TO ALLOW THE
PROVIDING OF SOME OF YOUR SHIRTS TO THE SAN DIEGO POLICE
DEPARTMENT LABORATORY?
A.: YES.
Q.: AND DID YOU PERMIT THAT?
A.: YES.
MR. CLARKE: YOUR HONOR, I HAVE AN EXHIBIT. ACTUALLY I
SHOULD SAY A BAG CONTAINING VARIOUS CLOTHING THAT I’M GOING TO
ASK PERMISSION TO SHOW THE WITNESS FIRST AND THEN MARK SOME OF
IT.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
BY MR. CLARKE:
Q.: DETECTIVE PARGA, IF I CAN SHOW YOU WHAT APPEARS TO BE
A SERIES OF CLOTHING ITEMS, EACH OF WHICH APPEARS TO BE ON A
HANGER, CAN YOU TELL US IF YOU RECOGNIZE THOSE ITEMS.
A.: THESE ARE SHIRTS OUT OF MY CLOSET FROM MY HOME.
Q.: WHAT TYPE OF SHIRTS ARE THEY?
A.: THEY’RE RED POLO-TYPE, GOLF-TYPE SHIRTS.
Q.: WITH BUTTON-DOWN COLLARS?
A.: YES.
Q.: ARE THESE THE TYPE OF INSTRUCTOR’S SHIRTS THAT YOU
DESCRIBED PREVIOUSLY?
A.: YES.
Q.: AS FAR AS THE SHIRT THAT’S DEPICTED ON EXHIBIT 182,
AND I THINK THE PREVIOUS EXHIBIT, 181, AS WELL, IS THAT
PARTICULAR SHIRT CONTAINED IN ANY OF THE SHIRTS THAT ARE IN
FRONT OF YOU ON THE WITNESS STAND TODAY?
A.: YES.
Q.: ALL RIGHT.
TELL US OR, IF YOU COULD, SHOW US WHICH, IF ANY, OF
THOSE SHIRTS ARE THE ONE OR IS THE SHIRT THAT YOU WORE ON
FEBRUARY 4TH AS SHOWN IN THE TWO EXHIBITS.
A.: THESE ARE THE ONLY FOUR I WAS WEARING THE PAST YEAR,
THESE FOUR. AND FROM WHAT I COULD TELL OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS, THE
ONE I’M WEARING HERE IS MORE BAGGY, AND SO IT WOULD ELIMINATE
TWO OF THESE SHIRTS WHICH FIT ME KIND OF TIGHT, THAT FIT ME
TIGHTER. BUT THE TWO THAT FIT ME LOOSE IS A CALIFORNIA MOUNTED
OFFICERS INSTRUCTOR’S SHIRT AND A BLACK SACRAMENTO SHERIFF’S
INSTRUCTOR SHIRT. SO I DON’T KNOW WHICH OF THESE TWO IT WOULD
BE. BUT THEY’RE THE ONES THAT FIT ME THE LOOSEST.
MR. CLARKE: ALL RIGHT.
YOUR HONOR, I’M GOING TO ASK TO HAVE MARKED AS — I’M
NOT SURE OF THE EXHIBIT NUMBER.
THE COURT: 191.
MR. CLARKE: THE TWO SHIRTS THAT THE WITNESS HAS JUST
DESCRIBED AS BEING, I BELIEVE, THE SHIRTS, THE SHIRT OF WHICH
SHE WAS WEARING ON FEBRUARY 4TH AS SHOWN IN THE EXHIBITS. I’M
SURE I COULD HAVE SAID THAT A LOT BETTER.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THAT WILL BE 191.
MR. CLARKE: I THINK WE HAVE A PAPER BAG WE CAN UTILIZE
FOR THAT PURPOSE.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
(BROWN PAPER BAG AND CONTENTS [TWO RED SHIRTS] MARKED
TRIAL EXHIBIT NUMBER 191 FOR IDENTIFICATION.)
BY MR. CLARKE:
Q.: IN FEBRUARY OF THIS YEAR, DETECTIVE PARGA, DID YOU
EVEN OWN AN ORANGE SHIRT?
A.: NO, SIR.
MR. CLARKE: THANK YOU.
I DON’T HAVE ANY MORE QUESTIONS.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
CROSS-EXAMINATION.

CROSS-EXAMINATION
BY MR. FELDMAN:
Q.: DO YOU KNOW WHAT A SCREEN CAPTURE IS?
A.: NO, SIR.
Q.: DO YOU KNOW THE DIFFICULTIES IN TRANSFERRING
VIDEOTAPE TO BOARDS LIKE THIS?
MR. CLARKE: OBJECTION. ASSUMES FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED.
BY MR. FELDMAN:
Q.: DO YOU KNOW WHETHER THERE’S ANY DIFFICULTY IN
TRANSFERRING THAT WHICH ONE SEES ON TELEVISION TO A BOARD SUCH
AS THE EXHIBIT MR. CLARKE HAS SHOWED YOU?
A.: I’M NOT WELL-VERSED.
Q.: I WOULD LIKE TO REDIRECT YOUR ATTENTION, MA’AM, TO
181. YOU CAN SEE THESE ARE PRETTY BLURRY, WOULDN’T YOU AGREE?
A.: YES.
Q.: MR. CLARKE ASKED YOU WHETHER YOU WERE IN A POSITION
TO TELL US ABOUT WHAT TIME OF DAY THESE PHOTOS WERE TAKEN. HE
MAY HAVE BEEN REFERRING TO 182, BUT I WOULD LIKE TO
SPECIFICALLY DIRECT YOUR ATTENTION, MA’AM, TO 181. CAN YOU
TELL ME APPROXIMATELY WHAT TIME OF DAY THESE PICTURES WERE
TAKEN?
A.: NO, I CAN’T.
Q.: WELL, WE SEE A DOG IN THE PICTURE, AND WE SEE I GUESS
— DO YOU RECOGNIZE THIS MAN I’M POINTING TO? THIS IS AN
INDIVIDUAL THAT’S IN 181, 2C. DO YOU RECOGNIZE THAT PERSON?
A.: I BELIEVE THAT’S MR. FRAZEE.
Q.: OKAY.
WAS THERE A TIME OF DAY THAT YOU RECALL SEEING — AND
DO YOU RECOGNIZE, I’M SORRY, THE GENTLEMAN NEXT TO MR. FRAZEE
WEARING A HAWAIIAN SHIRT?
A.: SERGEANT HOLMES.
Q.: DO YOU RECALL WHAT TIME OF DAY THAT SERGEANT HOLMES
WAS WITH MR. FRAZEE AND THE DOG?
A.: I NEVER SAW MR. HOLMES WITH MR. FRAZEE.
Q.: OKAY.
CAN YOU TELL US WHETHER OR NOT THE PHOTOGRAPHS THAT
ARE DEPICTED ON THE PHOTOBOARD THAT’S 181 WERE TAKEN BEFORE OR
AFTER THE DOGS WENT THROUGH MR. WESTERFIELD’S RESIDENCE?
A.: I BELIEVE THAT THE PHOTO 2A AND 2B WERE TAKEN AFTER
THE DOG HAD BEEN IN THE HOUSE, BUT I REALLY DON’T RECALL THE
EXACT TIME.
Q.: OKAY.
AND WAS THIS THE FIRST TIME THE DOGS WERE THROUGH OR
THE SECOND TIME THE DOGS WERE THROUGH ON THE BOARD?
A.: I’M NOT — I WASN’T THERE FOR A LOT OF IT.
Q.: OKAY.
WITH REGARD TO MR. FRAZEE, DO YOU RECALL WHETHER OR
NOT HE WAS WEARING AN ORANGE SHIRT?
A.: YES. IT’S A — ONE OF THE SEARCH AND RESCUE SHIRTS.
Q.: IN SHOWING YOU OTHER PICTURES, DIRECTING YOUR
ATTENTION TO 2A, IT LOOKS LIKE YOU’RE WEARING, IT’S KIND OF A
LIGHT BLUE SHIRT. IS THAT CLOSE?
A.: NO. IT’S A COTTON JACKET ACTUALLY.
Q.: WHAT COLOR IS IT?
A.: IT’S WHITE.
Q.: SO OUR COLOR’S A LITTLE OFF IN THE PHOTO, IS THAT
RIGHT?
A.: I WOULD SAY SO, YES.
Q.: BUT OTHERWISE THE PHOTOS ACCURATELY DEPICT THE
CIRCUMSTANCES THAT ARE REFLECTED IN EACH OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS.
THAT’S A FAIR STATEMENT, ISN’T IT?
A.: THAT WOULD BE A FAIR STATEMENT.
Q.: AND YOU’RE NOT WEARING GLOVES IN A OR B, ARE YOU?
A.: NO.
Q.: AND DO YOU KNOW WHETHER OR NOT FRAZEE WAS WEARING
GLOVES IN C OR A?
A.: IT DOESN’T LOOK LIKE IT TO ME.
Q.: HOW ABOUT SERGEANT HOLMES; DO YOU KNOW WHETHER HE WAS
WEARING GLOVES?
A.: I HAVE NO IDEA.
Q.: CAN YOU TELL ME WHETHER OR NOT IN D THE PEOPLE ARE
GOING INTO THE HOUSE OR COMING OUT OF THE HOUSE?
A.: AS I PREVIOUSLY STATED, I DON’T REMEMBER SEEING
SERGEANT HOLMES THERE.
Q.: OKAY.
IN A AND B CAN YOU TELL ME WAS THIS — DO YOU HAVE A
SPECIFIC RECOLLECTION AS TO WHETHER THIS WAS TAKEN — LET ME
ASK YOU THIS: HOW MANY TIMES WERE YOU IN THE HOUSE ON THE 4TH,
IF YOU RECALL?
A.: TWICE. NO. I’M SORRY. THREE TIMES.
Q.: THREE TIMES.
THE FIRST TIME, I’M SORRY, WAS?
A.: DETECTIVE KEENE AND I.
Q.: THE SECOND TIME?
A.: WITH DETECTIVE LABORE AND A SEARCH AND RESCUE PERSON.
Q.: AROUND WHAT TIME WAS THAT, MA’AM?
A.: THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN AFTER WE HAD COME BACK FROM THE
MOTOR HOME, SO TWOISH. I’M REALLY NOT SURE.
Q.: TWOISH. WELL, WE CAN SAY EARLY AFTERNOON?
A.: YES.
Q.: AND THEN THE THIRD TIME?
A.: WOULD BE WHEN WE WENT BACK TO TALK TO MR.
WESTERFIELD.
Q.: SO THAT WOULD BE ABOUT THREEISH? I’M ASKING. I’M
NOT TRYING —
A.: I DON’T REMEMBER EXACTLY.
Q.: OKAY.
SO YOU CAN’T TELL LOOKING AT THESE PHOTOS — LOOKING
AT THE PHOTOS DOESN’T REFRESH YOUR RECOLLECTION ANY?
A.: NO.
MR. FELDMAN: OKAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
THE COURT: ANYTHING FURTHER, MR. CLARKE?
MR. CLARKE: JUST BRIEFLY, YOUR HONOR.

REDIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MR. CLARKE:
Q.: DETECTIVE PARGA, IF I CAN REFER YOU BACK TO EXHIBIT
181, PHOTOGRAPHS 2C AND 2D, DO YOU KNOW IF THOSE PHOTOS DEPICT
EVENTS THAT EVEN OCCURRED ON FEBRUARY 4TH?
A.: I DON’T — I WASN’T PRESENT FOR THOSE PICTURES. I
DON’T REMEMBER SEEING SERGEANT HOLMES AT THE SCENE. SO I
OBVIOUSLY WASN’T PRESENT FOR THAT.
Q.: AND YOU WERE AT THE SCENE ON FEBRUARY 4TH, CORRECT?
A.: YES.
Q.: WERE YOU AT THE SCENE ON FEBRUARY 5TH?
A.: NO.
MR. CLARKE: THANK YOU.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS.
THE COURT: ANYTHING FURTHER?
MR. FELDMAN: NO, THANK YOU.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
DETECTIVE, THANK YOU FOR COMING IN. YOU CAN TAKE THE
TWO GARMENTS THAT ARE NOT PLACING IN EVIDENCE.
PLEASE REMEMBER YOU’RE STILL UNDER AN ADMONITION NOT
TO DISCUSS YOUR TESTIMONY OTHER THAN AS IT RELATES TO YOUR
OFFICIAL DUTIES. THANK YOU.
(THE WITNESS WAS EXCUSED.)
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. MR. CLARKE.
MR. CLARKE: YES. OFFICER LE RIBEUS. BRIAN LE RIBEUS.

BRIAN JAMES LE RIBEUS,
CALLED AS A WITNESS BY THE PLAINTIFF, HAVING BEEN DULY SWORN,
TESTIFIED AS FOLLOWS:
THE CLERK: WOULD YOU PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND SPELL IT
FOR THE RECORD.
THE WITNESS: MY NAME IS BRIAN JAMES LE RIBEUS. SPELLING
OF THE LAST NAME IS L-E CAPITAL R-I-B-E-U-S.

DIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MR. CLARKE:
Q.: GOOD MORNING.
A.: GOOD MORNING.
Q.: WHO ARE YOU EMPLOYED BY?
A.: SAN DIEGO POLICE DEPARTMENT.
Q.: FOR WHAT LENGTH OF TIME?
A.: NEARLY NINETEEN YEARS.
Q.: WHAT IS YOUR PARTICULAR ASSIGNMENT AT THIS TIME?
A.: CURRENTLY ASSIGNED TO THE HOMICIDE UNIT.
Q.: DETECTIVE LE RIBEUS, I WOULD LIKE TO DIRECT YOUR
ATTENTION TO JULY 24TH. I BELIEVE THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN ABOUT
LAST WEDNESDAY, IF I REMEMBER CORRECTLY.
A.: YES.
Q.: WERE YOU ASKED TO PERFORM ANY TASKS INVOLVED IN THE
INVESTIGATION OF THE DISAPPEARANCE OF DANIELLE VAN DAM?
A.: YES.
Q.: WHAT WAS THAT?
A.: I WAS ASKED TO OBTAIN ORANGE SHIRTS AND VESTS FROM
THE SHERIFF’S DOG UNITS.
Q.: WAS THAT AT THE REQUEST OF ANY PARTICULAR INDIVIDUAL?
A.: YES.
Q.: WHO?
A.: SERGEANT HOLMES.
Q.: DID YOU THEN TAKE SOME ACTIONS TO BASICALLY FULFILL
THE REQUEST BY SERGEANT HOLMES?
A.: YES.
Q.: WHAT DID YOU DO FIRST?
A.: I FIRST CONTACTED THE SHERIFF’S S. E. D. UNIT WHERE
THEY SUPPLIED ME WITH LIEUTENANT ROSEMARY REDDITT’S HOME PHONE
NUMBER, AND I CALLED HER.
Q.: SO YOU HAD CONTACT WITH LIEUTENANT REDDITT?
A.: YES.
Q.: WHAT HAPPENED?
A.: I EVENTUALLY DROVE OUT TO HER HOUSE AND PICKED UP HER
UNIFORM SHIRT.
Q.: ALL RIGHT.
BY UNIFORM SHIRT, WHAT DO YOU MEAN?
A.: HER ORANGE SEARCH AND RESCUE UNIFORM SHIRT THAT SHE
HAD WORN OR SIMILAR SHIRT THAT SHE HAD WORN ON FEBRUARY 4TH.
Q.: DID YOU OBTAIN ANYTHING ELSE FROM LIEUTENANT REDDITT?
A.: I OBTAINED WHAT SHE REFERRED TO AS A SHABRACK, WHICH
IS THE DOG’S VEST THAT THE DOG WAS WEARING.
Q.: SHABRACK, IS THAT S-H-A-B-R-A-C-K?
A.: I BELIEVE SO.
Q.: WERE THOSE THE ONLY TWO ITEMS YOU OBTAINED FROM
LIEUTENANT REDDITT?
A.: YES.
Q.: WHAT DID YOU DO WITH THEM?
A.: I PLACED THEM WITH LIEUTENANT REDDITT’S ASSISTANCE IN
TWO ENVELOPES, MANILLA ENVELOPES.
Q.: AND DID WHAT WITH BOTH THOSE ITEMS?
A.: PLACED THEM IN MY CAR AND TRANSPORTED THEM TO TANYA
DULANEY IN OUR CRIME LAB.
Q.: AT THE SAN DIEGO POLICE DEPARTMENT CRIME LABORATORY?
A.: YES.
Q.: I WOULD LIKE TO SHOW YOU A COUPLE OF EXHIBITS IF I
MIGHT. AND I’M NOT SURE IT’S SHOWN WELL HERE, SO LET ME GRAB
ANOTHER BOARD.
I CAN SHOW YOU A BOARD THAT’S BEEN LABELED EXHIBIT
182. AND I GUESS ALL THREE PHOTOGRAPHS. DO THOSE PHOTOGRAPHS
OR DO ANY OF THOSE PHOTOGRAPHS SHOW A SHIRT THAT APPEARS TO BE
SIMILAR TO THAT WHICH YOU OBTAINED FROM LIEUTENANT REDDITT?
A.: YES.
Q.: WHICH PHOTOGRAPHS?
A.: 1A, 1B, AND 1C. AND IT WOULD BE THE PICTURE OF THE
FEMALE TO THE LEFT OF THE PHOTOGRAPH WITH HER BACK TO US IN
EACH PHOTOGRAPH.
Q.: CAN YOU TELL WHETHER OR NOT THAT APPEARS TO BE
LIEUTENANT REDDITT BASED ON YOUR CONTACT WITH HER?
A.: YES, IT DOES.
Q.: IF I CAN ALSO DIRECT YOUR ATTENTION TO THE BOARD
CURRENTLY THAT’S BEING DISPLAYED, EXHIBIT 181, IN PARTICULAR
PHOTOGRAPH 2D AS IN DAVID. DO YOU SEE THAT PHOTOGRAPH?
A.: YES.
Q.: DOES THAT PHOTOGRAPH APPEAR TO HAVE A DOG IN IT?
A.: YES.
Q.: DOES THE DOG APPEAR TO BE WEARING ANYTHING?
A.: IT APPEARS TO BE WEARING A SHABRACK OR THE DOG VEST
SIMILAR TO THE ONE THAT LIEUTENANT REDDITT HAD SUPPLIED TO ME.
Q.: THAT YOU THEN PROVIDED TO THE POLICE DEPARTMENT CRIME
LABORATORY?
A.: YES.
Q.: DID YOU HAVE ANY FURTHER CONTACT WITH LIEUTENANT
REDDITT ON JULY 24TH?
A.: YES.
Q.: WHY WAS THAT?
A.: SERGEANT HOLMES HAD REQUESTED — WELL, ACTUALLY THERE
WAS A MALE PICTURED IN A SHORT-SLEEVED SHIRT, AND AFTER
SUPPLYING THAT DESCRIPTION TO LIEUTENANT REDDITT, SHE WAS
UNABLE TO PROVIDE A NAME OF THAT MALE. SO I WENT BACK OUT TO
HER HOME, DROVE HER TO THE COURTHOUSE. DURING THE LUNCH RECESS
SHE IDENTIFIED THAT MALE WEARING THE SHORT-SLEEVED SHIRT.
Q.: ALL RIGHT.
LUNCH RECESS. DID THAT OCCUR IN THIS COURTROOM THAT
WE’RE IN CURRENTLY?
A.: YES.
Q.: AND DID YOU SHOW LIEUTENANT REDDITT ONE OR MORE
PHOTOBOARDS?
A.: SHE CAME IN THE COURTROOM, AND I DID NOT ACTUALLY
OBSERVE THAT. I WAS IN THE AREA BEHIND THE —
Q.: THE BAR?
A.: — THE PARTITION. THANK YOU.
Q.: THE BAR RIGHT BEHIND ME?
A.: YES.
Q.: AS FAR AS AN INDIVIDUAL IN A SHORT-SLEEVED SHIRT, WAS
SHE SHOWN THAT PHOTOGRAPH FOR A PARTICULAR REASON?
A.: YES.
Q.: WHAT?
A.: TO MAKE AN IDENTIFICATION OF THAT MALE WEARING THE
SHORT-SLEEVED SHIRT.
Q.: IF I CAN TURN YOUR ATTENTION BACK TO EXHIBIT 181, IN
PARTICULAR PHOTOGRAPH 2C, THERE APPEARS TO BE A MALE WEARING A
SHORT-SLEEVE ORANGE SHIRT ON THE FAR RIGHT. IS THAT CORRECT?
A.: THAT’S CORRECT.
Q.: WAS THAT THE INDIVIDUAL WHOSE IDENTIFICATION WAS
SOUGHT BY USING LIEUTENANT REDDITT?
A.: YES.
Q.: WAS THE IDENTIFICATION OF THAT PERSON DETERMINED?
A.: YES.
Q.: WERE YOU ALSO ABLE TO IDENTIFY OR WERE YOU ASKED,
RATHER, TO HAVE CONTACT WITH NOT ONLY — WELL, LET ME REPHRASE
THAT.
DID YOU HAVE CONTACT WITH THE INDIVIDUAL WHO WAS
WEARING THE ORANGE SHIRT AS SHOWN IN 2C?
A.: YES.
Q.: DID YOU HAVE CONTACT WITH ANY OTHER INDIVIDUALS?
MR. FELDMAN: I’M SORRY. JUST THE LAST QUESTION, 2C WAS
SINGULAR, INDIVIDUAL, AND THERE’S APPARENTLY TWO INDIVIDUALS.
THE COURT: BE SPECIFIC, MR. CLARKE. SUSTAINED.
MR. CLARKE: CERTAINLY.
BY MR. CLARKE:
Q.: THE INDIVIDUAL WEARING THE SHORT-SLEEVED SHIRT IN 2C,
DID YOU HAVE CONTACT WITH THAT PERSON AFTER LIEUTENANT REDDITT
CAME TO COURT HERE?
A.: YES.
Q.: DID YOU HAVE CONTACT WITH ANY OTHER INDIVIDUALS SHOWN
IN THE PHOTOGRAPH ON EXHIBIT 181? LET’S USE PHOTOGRAPH 2C.
A.: IN 2C THAT WOULD BE JIM FRAZEE. HE’S FACING THE
CAMERA STANDING JUST TO THE RIGHT OF SERGEANT HOLMES.
Q.: SO THE SECOND INDIVIDUAL FROM THE LEFT IN PHOTOGRAPH
2C?
A.: YES. ORANGE SHIRT, LONG SLEEVES, IS JIM FRAZEE.
Q.: GOING BACK TO THE MAN WEARING THE SHORT-SLEEVE SHIRT
IN PHOTOGRAPH 2C, DID YOU DETERMINE WHO THAT INDIVIDUAL WAS?
A.: YES.
Q.: WHO?
A.: RUSTY HOHR, H-O-H-R.
Q.: DID YOU HAVE CONTACT WITH MR. HOHR?
A.: YES.
Q.: WHEN?
A.: ON JULY 24TH AT HIS RESIDENCE.
Q.: DID YOU OBTAIN ANY ITEMS FROM MR. HOHR?
A.: YES, I DID.
Q.: WHAT DID THAT INCLUDE?
A.: INCLUDED HIS SHORT-SLEEVED ORANGE SHIRT, A BACKPACK
THAT HAD RED AND BLACK MATERIAL, AN ORANGE ROPE, ORANGE
WEBBING, A BEIGE HAT THAT IS THE ONE THAT HE WAS WEARING IN THE
PHOTOGRAPH. AND I BELIEVE THAT’S IT.
Q.: JUST AS FAR AS — AND LET’S TALK A LITTLE BIT. THIS
SHIRT, THE SHIRT THAT YOU OBTAINED FROM MR. HOHR, DOES THAT
APPEAR TO BE OR AT LEAST CONSISTENT WITH THE SHIRT DEPICTED IN
PHOTOGRAPH 2C THAT HE’S WEARING?
A.: YES.
Q.: YOU ALSO MENTIONED, I’M SORRY, A BEIGE HAT. DOES
THAT APPEAR TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE HAT HE’S WEARING IN 2C?
A.: YES.
Q.: I THINK YOU ALSO MENTIONED SOME ORANGE WEBBING. TELL
US WHAT YOU MEAN BY THAT.
A.: ORANGE WEBBING IS WHAT I REFER TO AS WEBBING, IT’S A
LONG PIECE OF MATERIAL. INSTEAD OF ROPE, YOU PICTURE ROPE
BEING ROUND, THE WEBBING MATERIAL IS A FLAT PIECE OF MATERIAL,
VERY STRONG AND DURABLE, TO EITHER LASH ITEMS TOGETHER OR
PROBABLY USED IN SOME TYPE OF MOUNTAIN CLIMBING EQUIPMENT.
Q.: COULD IT ALSO BE REFERRED TO AS A STRAP?
A.: YES.
Q.: I THINK YOU ALSO MENTIONED SOME ORANGE ROPE. IS THAT
CORRECT?
A.: YES.
Q.: WHAT WAS THAT?
A.: THE ROPE APPEARED TO ME TO BE SIMILAR TO A MOUNTAIN
CLIMBING ROPE. I DIDN’T MEASURE HOW LONG IT WAS OR ANYTHING,
BUT IT WAS A PRETTY GOOD LENGTH OF ROPE THAT WAS FASHIONED
TOGETHER IN A LOOP AND THEN TIED TOGETHER WITH ITSELF.
Q.: I BELIEVE YOU ALSO SAID A BACKPACK. IS THAT RIGHT?
A.: YES.
Q.: WAS THE BACKPACK ORANGE IN COLOR IN ANY FASHION?
A.: IT WAS RED AND BLACK.
Q.: WHAT DID YOU DO WITH THESE ITEMS YOU OBTAINED FROM
MR. HOHR?
A.: I PLACED THEM IN TRASH BAGS AND TRANSPORTED THOSE TO
THE SAN DIEGO POLICE CRIME LAB. AND GAVE THOSE TO TANYA
DULANEY.
Q.: LASTLY, DID YOU HAVE ANY CONTACT AS A RESULT OF THE
REQUEST MADE OF YOU ON JULY 24TH BY SERGEANT HOLMES WITH MR.
FRAZEE?
A.: YES.
Q.: TELL US ABOUT THAT.
A.: I DROVE TO HIS RESIDENCE AND MET HIM AT HIS — OR
RANG HIS DOORBELL. HE ANSWERED THE DOOR WITH A LONG-SLEEVE
UNIFORM SHIRT AND HIS HAT WHICH HE PROVIDED TO ME. I PLACED AN
ORANGE
— HIS ORANGE HAT, I DON’T BELIEVE THAT WOULD BE THE SAME HAT
THAT’S PICTURED THERE BECAUSE, AGAIN, HE GAVE ME AN ORANGE HAT,
BUT IT’S A SIMILAR STYLE, AND ALSO A LONG-SLEEVED SHIRT.
Q.: IF I CAN DIRECT YOUR ATTENTION BACK TO THE BOARD 181,
IN PARTICULAR TO PHOTOGRAPHS 2A AND 2B, DO YOU SEE AN
INDIVIDUAL WEARING AN ORANGE HAT?
A.: YES.
Q.: DOES THAT APPEAR TO BE MR. FRAZEE?
A.: YES.
Q.: CAN YOU TELL?
A.: I WOULDN’T — I WOULD SAY NO.
Q.: ALL RIGHT.
AS FAR AS THE ORANGE HAT THAT WAS PROVIDED TO YOU BY
MR. FRAZEE, DID THAT HAT APPEAR TO BE CONSISTENT WITH WHAT
LOOKS TO BE AN ORANGE HAT IN PHOTOGRAPHS 2A AND 2B?
A.: YES.
Q.: AS FAR AS THE UNIFORM, I THINK YOU DESCRIBED A LONG-
SLEEVED ORANGE SHIRT THAT MR. FRAZEE PROVIDED YOU ALSO.
A.: YES.
Q.: DOES THAT APPEAR TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE WHAT LOOKS
LIKE LONG-SLEEVED ORANGE SHIRT WORN BY AN INDIVIDUAL IN
PHOTOGRAPHS 2A AND 2B?
A.: YES.
Q.: WHAT DID YOU DO WITH THOSE TWO ITEMS?
A.: I PLACED THOSE TWO ITEMS IN TWO SEPARATE BROWN PAPER
BAGS, TRANSPORTED THEM IN MY DETECTIVE’S CAR TO THE SAN DIEGO
POLICE CRIME LAB., AND GAVE THOSE TO TANYA DULANEY.
MR. CLARKE: THANK YOU.
I HAVE NO MORE QUESTIONS, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: CROSS-EXAMINATION.
MR. FELDMAN: NO QUESTIONS.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH, DETECTIVE, FOR COMING IN.
YOU’RE FREE TO LEAVE THESE PROCEEDINGS.
PLEASE, HOWEVER, REMEMBER YOU’RE NOT TO DISCUSS YOUR
TESTIMONY WITH ANYONE UNTIL THE MATTER IS CONCLUDED, OTHER THAN
AS IT RELATES TO YOUR PROFESSIONAL DUTIES.
THE WITNESS: YES, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU.
(THE WITNESS WAS EXCUSED.)
MR. CLARKE: PEOPLE WOULD ASK TO RECALL TANYA DULANEY,
YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.

TANYA DULANEY,
RECALLED AS A WITNESS BY THE PLAINTIFF, PREVIOUSLY HAVING BEEN
DULY SWORN, TESTIFIED AS FOLLOWS:
THE COURT: WELCOME BACK.
THE WITNESS: THANK YOU.
THE COURT: JUST A REMINDER, YOU’RE STILL UNDER OATH.
THE WITNESS: THANK YOU.

DIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MR. CLARKE:
Q.: MISS DULANEY, GOOD MORNING.
A.: GOOD MORNING.
Q.: WERE YOU ASKED TO PERFORM SOME ADDITIONAL
EXAMINATIONS IN THIS CASE ON JULY 24TH OF THIS YEAR?
A.: YES, I WAS.
Q.: GENERALLY WHAT DID THAT INVOLVE?
A.: I RECEIVED A NUMBER OF EVIDENCE ITEMS FROM DETECTIVE
LE RIBEUS. AND I PHOTOGRAPHED EACH OF THE ITEMS, AND I TOOK A
SMALL PORTION OF THE FABRIC, THE FIBERS COMPRISING THE FABRIC,
AND I ANALYZED THOSE SIMILAR TO THE WAY I HAVE DESCRIBED
BEFORE, USING A MICROSCOPE AND THEN USING THE INFRARED
SPECTROMETER.
Q.: THESE ITEMS THAT YOU WERE ASKED TO EXAMINE, WERE THEY
LARGE, ORANGE IN COLOR ITEMS?
A.: YES.
Q.: ALL RIGHT.
IN PARTICULAR DID IT INCLUDE AN ORANGE DOG VEST OR AS
WE’VE HEARD THE TERM SHABRACK?
A.: YES.
Q.: DID IT ALSO INCLUDE AN ORANGE, LONG-SLEEVE SHIRT?
A.: YES. THERE WAS TWO ORANGE, LONG-SLEEVE SHIRTS.
Q.: WAS THERE AN ORANGE, SHORT-SLEEVE SHIRT?
A.: YES.
Q.: AN ORANGE ROPE?
A.: YES.
Q.: WHAT ABOUT AN ORANGE WEBBING OR STRAP?
A.: YES.
Q.: WERE THE ITEMS YOU WERE PROVIDED, DID THEY ALSO
INCLUDE WHAT’S BEEN DESCRIBED AS A BLACK-AND-RED BACKPACK?
A.: YES.
Q.: I THINK YOU MENTIONED YOU RECEIVED TWO LONG-SLEEVE
ORANGE SHIRTS. IS THAT CORRECT?
A.: THAT’S CORRECT.
Q.: DID YOU ALSO RECEIVE AN ORANGE HAT?
A.: YES, I DID.
Q.: WERE YOU ALSO ASKED TO EXAMINE FOUR RED POLO OR GOLF-
TYPE SHIRTS?
A.: YES.
Q.: WHAT TYPE OF EXAMINATION DID YOU CONDUCT ON THESE
VARIOUS ITEMS?
A.: AGAIN I EXAMINED EACH ONE, DESCRIBED THEM AS FAR AS
COLOR AND STYLE. IF THERE WAS A LABEL ATTACHED TO THE GARMENT
OR ITEM, I DESCRIBED WHAT WAS THE CONTENTS LISTED, ALTHOUGH
SOME OF THEM DID NOT HAVE A LABEL LISTING CONTENTS. AND THEN I
TOOK A SMALL CUTTING OFF EACH ITEM AND ANALYZED THE FIBERS FROM
THE CUTTING JUST AS I DESCRIBED FOR YOU.
Q.: USING SOME OF THE METHODS THAT YOU HAVE DESCRIBED IN
YOUR PREVIOUS TESTIMONY?
A.: YES.
Q.: INCLUDING MICROSCOPIC EXAMINATION?
A.: YES.
Q.: AND THE INFRARED TEST YOU USED TO DETERMINE THE
COMPOSITION OF VARIOUS FIBERS?
A.: THAT’S CORRECT.
Q.: AS FAR AS THE ORANGE DOG VEST, WERE YOU ABLE TO
DETERMINE WHAT FIBER IT CONSISTED OF?
A.: YES.
Q.: WHAT?
A.: THAT’S MADE OF NYLON.
Q.: NOT ACRYLIC?
A.: NOT ACRYLIC. NYLON.
Q.: WHAT ABOUT — LET’S TALK ABOUT THE TWO ORANGE, LONG-
SLEEVE SHIRTS. WHAT TYPE OF FABRIC WAS USED IN THOSE ITEMS OF
CLOTHING?
A.: THAT WAS A BLEND, AND IT WAS POLYESTER AND COTTON.
Q.: WAS THAT TRUE OF BOTH LONG-SLEEVED ORANGE SHIRTS?
A.: YES.
Q.: WHAT ABOUT THE ORANGE, SHORT-SLEEVED SHIRT?
A.: THAT WAS ALSO A BLEND OF POLYESTER AND COTTON.
Q.: WERE YOU ABLE TO DETERMINE THE TYPE OF FABRIC USED IN
THE ORANGE ROPE?
A.: YES.
Q.: WHAT?
A.: THAT WAS POLYESTER.
Q.: WHAT ABOUT THE ORANGE STRAP OR WEBBING?
A.: THE ORANGE STRAP WAS MADE OF NYLON.
Q.: YOU ALSO I BELIEVE EXAMINED A BACKPACK LARGELY RED
AND BLACK IN COLOR, IS THAT RIGHT?
A.: THAT’S RIGHT.
Q.: WHAT DID IT CONSIST OF?
A.: I ONLY TESTED THE RED PORTION, AND IT WAS NYLON.
Q.: DID YOU ALSO LOOK AT THE ORANGE HAT?
A.: YES.
Q.: WHAT TYPE OF FABRIC WAS USED IN IT?
A.: POLYESTER.
Q.: AND LASTLY, THE FOUR RED SHIRTS. CAN YOU TELL US
WHAT THEY CONSISTED OF?
A.: ONE OF THE RED SHIRTS WAS MADE OF ONE HUNDRED PER
CENT COTTON, AND THE REMAINING WERE A BLEND OF POLYESTER AND
COTTON.
Q.: WERE ANY OF THESE ITEMS, THAT IS, WAS THE FABRIC IN
ANY OF THESE ITEMS, DID IT CONSIST OF ACRYLIC IN ANY MANNER?
A.: NO.
Q.: DID YOU ALSO RECEIVE AN ORANGE VEST TO LOOK AT?
A.: YES, I DID.
Q.: WAS THERE ANY MARKINGS ON THE ORANGE VEST?
A.: YES.
Q.: WHAT?
A.: THERE WAS SORT OF A YELLOW SIGNAGE ON THE I BELIEVE
IT WAS EITHER THE BACK SIDE AND IT SAID LAURA RECOVERY CENTER.
AND THEN THERE WAS A NUMBER. I THINK IT WAS THIRTY-EIGHT.
Q.: DID YOU EXAMINE THAT VEST TO SEE WHAT TYPE OF FABRIC
IT CONTAINED?
A.: I BELIEVE THAT WAS NYLON.
Q.: ALL RIGHT.
YOU HAVE SOME HESITATION. WOULD IT REFRESH YOUR
RECOLLECTION TO LOOK AT ANY DOCUMENTS THAT YOU HAVE BEFORE YOU
TODAY?
A.: YES. IT WOULD.
Q.: ALL RIGHT.
PLEASE DO SO. AND IF YOU WOULD PLEASE JUST TELL US
WHAT IT IS YOU’RE LOOKING AT.
A.: AND THIS IS A REPORT I PREPARED YESTERDAY.
I’M SORRY. THE VEST WAS MADE OF POLYESTER.
Q.: IT WAS POLYESTER?
A.: YES. I’M SORRY.
Q.: ANY ACRYLIC IN THAT ITEM?
A.: NO.
MR. CLARKE: THANK YOU.
I HAVE NO FURTHER QUESTIONS, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
CROSS-EXAMINATION.
/ / /
/ / /
/ / /
CROSS-EXAMINATION
BY MR. FELDMAN:
Q.: MA’AM, HOW MANY DOG VESTS DID YOU SEARCH?
A.: WHEN?
Q.: I’M SORRY. I SAID SEARCH, BUT I MEANT ANALYZE. JUST
ONE?
A.: RIGHT. ONE.
Q.: AND IS THAT DEPICTED IN YOUR NOTES?
A.: YES, IT IS.
Q.: SHOWING YOU OUR DISCOVERY PAGE 13,208.
A.: RIGHT.
Q.: AND I THINK IT’S YOUR PAGE 1 OF — IT SAYS 1 OF 43.
IS THAT A FAIR STATEMENT?
A.: YES.
Q.: THERE’S AN — IN COLOR. I DON’T KNOW HOW WOULD YOU
DESCRIBE WHAT YOU’RE LOOKING AT THAT’S IN COLOR ON YOUR NOTES?
A.: IT’S THE PHOTOGRAPH OF THE DOG VEST. IT’S SORT OF A
RED-ORANGE COLOR.
Q.: THE ONE THAT YOU TESTED?
A.: YES.
Q.: IS THAT THE SAME VEST AS IN B OR D, DO YOU KNOW?
A.: I DON’T KNOW.
MR. FELDMAN: NO FURTHER QUESTIONS.
THE COURT: ANYTHING FURTHER?
MR. CLARKE: NO, THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: THANK YOU ONCE AGAIN FOR COMING IN.
REMEMBER YOU’RE STILL UNDER AN ADMONITION NOT TO
DISCUSS YOUR TESTIMONY OTHER THAN AS IT RELATES TO YOUR
PROFESSIONAL DUTIES. THANK YOU.
(THE WITNESS WAS EXCUSED.)
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. MR. CLARKE.
MR. CLARKE: YES. SERGEANT HOLMES, PLEASE.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.

WILLIAM B. HOLMES,
RECALLED AS A WITNESS BY THE PLAINTIFF, PREVIOUSLY HAVING BEEN
DULY SWORN, TESTIFIED AS FOLLOWS:
THE COURT: JUST TO REMIND YOU, YOU’RE ALSO STILL UNDER
OATH, SERGEANT.
THE WITNESS: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.

DIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MR. CLARKE:
Q.: SERGEANT HOLMES, DO YOU OWN A MOTOR HOME?
A.: YES, SIR.
Q.: HOW LONG HAVE YOU OWNED A MOTOR HOME?
A.: TWO AND A HALF YEARS.
Q.: WHAT TYPE IS IT?
A.: THIRTY-FIVE-FOOT WINNEBAGO.
Q.: YOU’VE HEARD TESTIMONY IN COURT ABOUT A 1997
SOUTHWIND MOTOR HOME BELONGING TO MR. WESTERFIELD, CORRECT?
A.: YES, SIR.
Q.: CAN YOU TELL US HOW YOUR MOTOR HOME COMPARES, IS
DIFFERENT FROM THAT SOUTHWIND MOTOR HOME?
MR. FELDMAN: FOUNDATION. OBJECTION.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
YOU CAN ANSWER.
THE WITNESS: MINE IS TWO YEARS NEW — I’M SORRY — THREE
YEARS NEWER. IT HAS SLIDEOUTS THAT MR. WESTERFIELD’S DOES NOT.
AND MINE IS ON A FORD CHASSIS INSTEAD OF THE CHEVY.
BY MR. CLARKE:
Q.: IS THERE A TERM, AND I CAN’T RECALL IF WE’VE HAD THIS
TERM DESCRIBED IN COURT, CLASS, DIFFERENT CLASSES OF MOTOR
HOMES?
A.: YES, SIR. THEY ARE BOTH THE SAME CLASS. BOTH CLASS
A.
Q.: WHAT DOES THAT MEAN?
A.: JUST THAT THEY’RE NOT A VAN CONVERSION, YOU KNOW,
THAT TYPE OF MOTOR HOME THAT LOOKS — THE FRONT END OF IT LOOKS
LIKE A VAN AND THE BACK LOOKS LIKE A MOTOR HOME.
Q.: AS FAR AS YOUR OWNERSHIP OF YOUR MOTOR HOME FOR I
THINK YOU SAID AROUND TWO AND A HALF YEARS, HAVE YOU TAKEN IT
ON TRIPS?
A.: YES, SIR.
Q.: WITH WHAT FREQUENCY?
MR. FELDMAN: RELEVANCE.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
THE WITNESS: AS OFTEN AS I CAN GET AWAY. PROBABLY FOUR
OR FIVE TIMES A YEAR.
BY MR. CLARKE:
Q.: I ASSUME NOT MUCH IN THE LAST SEVERAL MONTHS.
A.: I DID GET AWAY ONE WEEKEND, YES, SIR.
Q.: ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH THE ROUTE FROM THE GREATER SAN
DIEGO AREA TO GLAMIS?
A.: YES, SIR.
Q.: WHY ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH THAT ROUTE?
A.: I’VE LIVED MOST OF MY LIFE IN SAN DIEGO, AND I
FREQUENTLY GO TO THE DESERT AND THE COLORADO RIVER AND LAKE
HAVASU AREA.
Q.: HAS THAT BEEN AT A TIME PERIOD PREDATING YOUR
OWNERSHIP OF A MOTOR HOME?
A.: OH, BACK TO HIGH SCHOOL, YES, SIR.
Q.: CAN YOU TELL US APPROXIMATELY HOW MANY TIMES YOU’VE
GONE OUT IN THE GENERAL AREA OF GLAMIS OR OTHER POINTS OUT IN
THE DESERT?
A.: THROUGH GLAMIS PROBABLY A HUNDRED TIMES.
Q.: HOW MANY TIMES HAVE YOU ACTUALLY VISITED GLAMIS IN
TERMS OF SPENDING TIME THERE AS OPPOSED TO DRIVING THROUGH THE
AREA OR WHATEVER?
A.: I’VE NEVER SPENT THE NIGHT THERE. I STOPPED AT THE
STORE, BUT ON THE WAY TO LAKE HAVASU AND THE RIVER I DRIVE
THROUGH GLAMIS EVERY TRIP.
Q.: YOU WERE IN COURT WHEN THERE WERE DESCRIPTIONS GIVEN
BOTH BY — THAT IS, IN THE INTERVIEW OF MR. WESTERFIELD ABOUT
THE ROUTE HE DESCRIBED TAKING TO GLAMIS ON FEBRUARY 2ND. DO
YOU RECALL THAT?
A.: YES, SIR.
Q.: WERE YOU ALSO IN COURT DURING THE TESTIMONY BY DAVID
LASPISA DESCRIBING A ROUTE IN OR AROUND THE AREA OF JULIAN AND
DOWN TO THE GLAMIS AREA?
A.: YES, SIR.
Q.: WERE YOU ALSO IN COURT DURING THE DESCRIPTION BY A
WITNESS NAMED EUGENE YALE ALSO DESCRIBING VARIOUS ROUTES TO AND
FROM THE GLAMIS AREA FROM SAN DIEGO?
A.: YES, SIR.
Q.: HAVE YOU ACTUALLY DRIVEN THE ROUTE DESCRIBED BY BOTH
MR. WESTERFIELD AND MR. LASPISA AND MR. YALE INVOLVING THE
JULIAN AREA DOWN INTO AND INTO THE DESERT AND ON TO GLAMIS?
A.: YES, SIR.
Q.: HOW MANY TIMES?
A.: OH, IN THE MOTOR HOME, JUST ONCE. BUT PRIOR TO THE
MOTOR HOME I HAD A TRUCK AND CAMPER. I HAVE DRIVEN IT SEVERAL
TIMES IN THAT VEHICLE.
Q.: WHAT’S THAT ROUTE LIKE?
A.: NARROW, WINDY, ONE LANE IN EACH DIRECTION. FEW TO NO
SERVICES ALONG THE WAY.
Q.: I THINK YOU SAID YOU’VE DRIVEN THAT ROUTE ONCE IN
YOUR MOTOR HOME. IS THAT CORRECT?
A.: YES, SIR.
Q.: WAS THERE ANY REASON IT WAS ONLY ONCE?
A.: I DIDN’T LIKE IT. I THOUGHT IT WAS ON THE HAZARDOUS
SIDE.
MR. FELDMAN: YOUR HONOR, MOTION TO STRIKE AS NOT
RELEVANT.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
MR. FELDMAN: AND FOUNDATION ON HIS OPINION.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
BY MR. CLARKE:
Q.: DO YOU RECALL MR. YALE DESCRIBING I BELIEVE CONTACT
THAT HE MADE BETWEEN HIS MOTOR HOME AND ROCKS WAS IT?
A.: YES, SIR.
Q.: BASED ON YOUR DRIVING OF THAT ROUTE IN YOUR MOTOR
HOME, IS THAT SOMETHING THAT CAN HAPPEN IN THAT TYPE OF ROUTE
EVEN BY A DRIVER LIKE YOURSELF?
A.: YES, SIR.
Q.: WHY IS THAT?
A.: THE ROAD’S NARROW AND WINDY, SHARP CURVES, HILLS.
Q.: WHEN YOU DROVE THAT ROUTE IN YOUR MOTOR HOME, WAS
THAT DURING THE DAYTIME OR AT NIGHT?
A.: DAYTIME.
Q.: ARE YOU ALSO FAMILIAR WITH THE ROUTE FROM THE GREATER
SAN DIEGO AREA TO THE DESERT AND GLAMIS AREA USING A FREEWAY?
A.: YES, SIR.
Q.: HOW ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH THAT?
A.: THAT’S THE WAY I ROUTINELY GO, INTERSTATE 8.
Q.: WHY IS THAT?
A.: IN MY OPINION IT’S A SHORT — IT’S A SAFE ROAD. FOR
MUCH OF IT IT’S MULTI-LANE. I THINK IT’S PATROLLED BETTER BY
HIGHWAY PATROL. THERE’S MORE SERVICES ALONG THE WAY. AND I
THINK IT’S A MUCH BETTER ENGINEERED ROAD. NOT ONLY THAT, IT’S
FASTER.
Q.: BASED ON YOUR — FIRST OF ALL, YOU’VE SERVED AS A
POLICE OFFICER WITH THE CITY OF SAN DIEGO FOR SOME PERIOD OF
TIME.
A.: TWENTY-EIGHT YEARS.
Q.: ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH THE SABRE SPRINGS/POWAY AREA AS
THAT’S BEEN DESCRIBED DURING THE COURSE OF THE TRIAL?
A.: YES, SIR.
Q.: ARE YOU ABLE, THAT IS, DO YOU HAVE SUFFICIENT
FAMILIARITY WITH THAT AREA TO FORM AN OPINION AS TO WHAT IS THE
QUICKEST WAY TO GET FROM SABRE SPRINGS TO GLAMIS?
A.: YES, SIR.
Q.: WHAT IS THAT OPINION?
A.: INTERSTATE 8.
Q.: HAVE YOU BEEN ABLE TO CALCULATE MILEAGES, AND BY
MILEAGES I’M REFERRING TO MILEAGES BETWEEN THE VARIOUS POINTS
THAT WERE DESCRIBED IN MR. WESTERFIELD’S INTERVIEW AS TO THE
ROUTE HE TOOK ON SATURDAY, FEBRUARY 2ND, AND SUNDAY, FEBRUARY
3RD, AS WELL AS MONDAY, FEBRUARY 4TH, TO AND FROM THE STRAND,
THE DESERT, AND OTHER LOCATIONS?
A.: YES, SIR.
Q.: DID YOU CALCULATE A TOTAL MILEAGE BEGINNING WITH —
WELL, LET ME REPHRASE THAT.
DID YOU CALCULATE A TOTAL MILEAGE BASED ON HIS
DESCRIPTION OF HOW FAR THE MOTOR HOME OF HIS WAS DRIVEN, AGAIN
STARTING THE MORNING OF SATURDAY, FEBRUARY 2ND, CONCLUDING THE
MORNING OF FEBRUARY 4TH?
A.: YES, SIR.
Q.: WHAT IS THAT TOTAL DISTANCE?
A.: 552.6 MILES.
Q.: WERE YOU PRESENT WHEN THE JURY HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO
VIEW THE MOTOR HOME?
A.: YES, SIR.
Q.: WHEN THAT OCCURRED, EITHER — WELL, LET ME REPHRASE
THAT.
WAS THERE A TIME EITHER BEFORE OR AFTER THE JURY’S
VIEWING OF THAT MOTOR HOME THAT YOU WERE ABLE TO MAKE SOME
MEASUREMENTS?
A.: YES, SIR.
Q.: WHICH WAS IT, DO YOU RECALL, BEFORE OR AFTER?
A.: AFTERWARDS.
Q.: WHAT DID YOU MEASURE?
A.: I MEASURED THE HEIGHT FROM THE FLOOR TO THE DOOR
HANDLE.
Q.: NOW, WHEN YOU SAY FROM THE FLOOR TO THE DOOR HANDLE,
CAN YOU TELL US EXACTLY WHAT YOU MEAN?
A.: YES. THE PASSENGER DOOR, THE REAR PASSENGER DOOR,
THE MAIN DOOR INTO THE MOTOR HOME.
Q.: WAS THIS THE DOOR THAT THE JURY USED TO GO IN AND OUT
OF THE MOTOR HOME DURING THE VIEWING?
A.: YES, SIR.
Q.: WHEN YOU SAY FROM THE FLOOR, WHAT DO YOU MEAN?
A.: THE GROUND.
Q.: OKAY.
SO YOU CALCULATED IT. WHAT DID YOU DO TO MEASURE
THAT DISTANCE?
A.: I USED A TAPE AND MEASURED.
Q.: FROM THE GROUND?
A.: YES, SIR.
Q.: TO EXACTLY WHAT POINT ON THE —
A.: THE CENTER OF THE DOOR HANDLE.
Q.: AND WHAT WAS THE CALCULATION? I’M SORRY. WHAT WAS
THE MEASUREMENT YOU OBTAINED?
A.: SIXTY-TWO INCHES.
Q.: WOULD THAT BE FIVE FEET, TWO INCHES?
A.: YES, SIR.
Q.: NOW I WOULD LIKE TO DIRECT YOUR ATTENTION, IF I
COULD, TO THE DATE OF FEBRUARY 27TH OF THIS YEAR AND ASK DID
YOU GO TO THE ACTUAL SCENE WHERE THE REMAINS OF DANIELLE VAN
DAM WERE RECOVERED.
A.: YES, SIR.
Q.: WHAT TIME OF THE DAY DID YOU ARRIVE THERE?
A.: JUST SHORTLY BEFORE DUSK.
Q.: WAS IT STILL LIGHT OUT?
A.: YES, SIR.
Q.: HOW SOON DID YOU ACTUALLY — WELL, DID YOU IN FACT GO
TO THE IMMEDIATE LOCATION OF THE BODY?
A.: YES, SIR.
Q.: WHEN DID THAT OCCUR?
A.: I RECEIVED A SHORT BRIEFING FROM LIEUTENANT COLLINS,
AND — ABOUT HOW THE BODY WAS FOUND AND WHAT PROCEDURES HAD
BEEN PUT IN PLACE TO ISOLATE AND SECURE THE BODY. AND WITH
LIEUTENANT COLLINS I WALKED TO THE REAR, THE NORTH SIDE OF THE
OAK TREE WHERE DANIELLE WAS LYING, TRYING TO CHART OUT A PATH
FOR MY DETECTIVES TO GET IN TO THE BODY WITHOUT DISTURBING
EVIDENCE BEFORE DARKNESS FELL.
Q.: DID YOU IN FACT AS A RESULT OF THAT BECOME AT A
LOCATION OR GO TO A LOCATION IMMEDIATELY NEXT TO THE BODY?
A.: YES, SIR.
Q.: WHAT WAS THE LIGHTING LIKE AT THAT POINT?
A.: IT WAS DUSK; IT WAS STILL DAYLIGHT.
Q.: HOW CLOSE DID YOU COME TO THE BODY?
A.: AT THAT POINT PROBABLY TEN TO FIFTEEN FEET.
Q.: DID YOU COME — WELL, DID YOU GET CLOSER TO THE BODY
AT SOME POINT THAT SAME DAY?
A.: YES, SIR.
Q.: WHEN DID THAT HAPPEN?
A.: AFTER RECEIVING A FULL BRIEFING, AFTER MY ENTIRE TEAM
ARRIVED AND WE WERE FULLY BRIEFED, AND IN THE PROCESSING OF THE
SCENE AND THE BODY.
Q.: WHEN DID THAT HAPPEN IN TERMS OF LIGHT AND DARKNESS
OUT?
A.: MOST OF IT WAS AFTER DARK. BY THE TIME WE WERE
BRIEFED FULLY, IT HAD BECOME PRETTY DARK. AND I THINK WE
SECURED FOR THAT DAY AROUND MIDNIGHT THAT NIGHT.
Q.: CAN YOU ESTIMATE FOR US APPROXIMATELY WHEN YOU WERE,
IN TERMS OF TIME, WHEN YOU WENT BACK TO AND WERE ABLE TO SEE
THE BODY FROM A CLOSE DISTANCE?
A.: OH, AN HOUR, WITHIN AN HOUR OF BEING BRIEFED. SO
ABOUT AN HOUR. ANYWHERE FROM HALF AN HOUR TO AN HOUR AFTER
NIGHTFALL.
Q.: ARE WE TALKING 6:00, 6:30?
A.: YES. 6:00, 6:30.
Q.: WAS THERE ANY LIGHTING PROVIDED IN THAT AREA AT THAT
POINT?
A.: YES. WE HAD A LOT OF LIGHT, ARTIFICIAL LIGHT, FROM
LARGE LIGHTS THE FIRE DEPARTMENT BROUGHT OUT, HIGHWAY PATROL
BROUGHT OUT, OTHER AGENCIES LIKE THAT. ON LIGHT TOWERS. A
FIRE TRUCK HAD A VERY STRONG LIGHT AT THE END OF THEIR LADDER
THAT THEY PUT RIGHT OVER THE SCENE, OVER THE TOP OF THE TREE,
SHINING DOWN THROUGH THE TREE.
Q.: DID YOU HAVE A FLASHLIGHT?
A.: ALSO FLASHLIGHTS.
Q.: WHEN YOU WENT BACK TO LOOK AT THE BODY, HOW CLOSE DID
YOU COME AROUND 6:30 I THINK YOU SAID IN THE EVENING?
A.: OH, WITHIN A COUPLE FEET AT THAT TIME.
Q.: DID YOU USE YOUR FLASHLIGHT AT THAT POINT?
A.: YES, SIR.
Q.: WHY? WHAT WERE YOU LOOKING FOR?
A.: EVIDENCE. ANYTHING THAT WAS OUT OF THE USUAL, OUT OF
THE ORDINARY.
Q.: DID YOU LOOK ON THE BODY ITSELF OF DANIELLE VAN DAM?
A.: YES, SIR.
Q.: WHAT WERE YOU LOOKING FOR IN THAT REGARD?
A.: AGAIN, EVIDENCE, ANY INDICATION OF HOW LONG SHE HAD
BEEN OUT THERE, BUGS, CLOTHING, ANYTHING LIKE THAT.
Q.: IN PARTICULAR DID YOU LOOK AT THE HEAD AREA?
A.: YES, SIR.
Q.: DID YOU ALSO LOOK AT THE TORSO OR TRUNK AREA?
A.: YES, SIR.
Q.: WHEN YOU LOOKED AT THE HEAD, DID YOU OBSERVE ANY
MAGGOTS IN OR ABOUT THE HEAD AREA?
A.: I SAW ONE.
Q.: WHERE?
A.: IN ONE OF THE EYE SOCKETS.
Q.: ANY OTHERS ON THE HEAD?
A.: NOT ON THE HEAD, NO, SIR.
Q.: THE EARS?
A.: NO, SIR.
Q.: NOSE?
A.: NO, SIR.
Q.: MOUTH?
A.: NO, SIR.
Q.: DID YOU LOOK AT THE OTHER AREAS OF THE BODY AS WELL?
A.: YES, SIR.
Q.: DID YOU OBSERVE ANY MAGGOTS AT THAT TIME?
A.: YES, SIR.
Q.: WHERE?

A.: WHERE THE CHEST HAD BEEN AND THE ABDOMINAL AREA HAD
BEEN.
Q.: DO YOU LIVE WITHIN ANY DISTANCE, THAT IS, CLOSENESS
OR LONG DISTANCE OF THE AREA WHERE THE BODY WAS RECOVERED? AND
I’M TALKING ABOUT THE YEAR 2002.
A.: YES, SIR, I DO.
Q.: HOW FAR AWAY?
A.: 2.4 MILES FROM THE DEHESA SITE.
Q.: IN WHAT DIRECTION?
A.: A WEST-NORTHWESTERLY DIRECTION.
Q.: IS THERE A GENERAL NAME OR AREA TO DESCRIBE WHERE YOU
LIVE?
A.: THE GRANITE HILLS AREA.
Q.: HOW LONG HAVE YOU LIVED THERE?
A.: SEVENTEEN YEARS.
Q.: DO YOU SEE FLIES IN THE AREA OF WHERE YOU LIVE?
A.: YES, SIR.
Q.: OVER THE YEARS?
A.: YES, SIR.
Q.: IS THERE ANYTHING DIFFERENT ABOUT THIS YEAR, THE
WINTER OF 2001/2002 IN TERMS OF FLIES THAT YOU OBSERVED IN THAT
AREA?
MR. FELDMAN: YOUR HONOR, FOUNDATION AND SPECULATION.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED.
BY MR. CLARKE:
Q.: HAVE YOU NOTICED FLIES OVER THE YEARS WHERE YOU LIVED
AT THAT —
MR. FELDMAN: SAME OBJECTION. PARDON ME. I’M SORRY.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
YOU CAN ANSWER THAT.
THE WITNESS: YES.
MR. FELDMAN: RELEVANCE, YOUR HONOR, WAS MY GROUNDS.
THE COURT: DO YOU WANT TO BE HEARD AT SIDEBAR?
MR. FELDMAN: NO, NO, NO. I JUST WANTED THE RECORD TO BE
CLEAR WHAT MY OBJECTION WAS. THANK YOU.
THE COURT: DULY NOTED.
BY MR. CLARKE:
Q.: WHAT HAVE YOU NOTICED OVER THE YEARS THAT YOU HAVE
LIVED THERE?
MR. FELDMAN: OBJECTION NOW RELEVANCE AS TO THAT.
THE COURT: I WILL HEAR YOU AT SIDEBAR IF YOU CARE TO.
MR. FELDMAN: THANK YOU.
THE COURT: BOB.
(SIDEBAR DISCUSSION, OUT OF THE HEARING OF THE JURY,
AS FOLLOWS:

(PROCEEDINGS NOT PART OF THE PUBLIC RECORD.)

(END OF SIDEBAR DISCUSSION.)
BY MR. CLARKE:
Q.: SERGEANT HOLMES, I’M GOING TO ASK YOU TO LOOK AT
EXHIBIT 181 BEHIND YOU. AND IN PARTICULAR PHOTOGRAPHS 2C AND
2D. DO YOU SEE THOSE PHOTOS?
A.: YES, SIR.
Q.: DO THOSE PHOTOS HAVE YOU IN THEM?
A.: YES, SIR.
Q.: DO YOU RECALL WHEN YOU WERE AT MR. WESTERFIELD’S
RESIDENCE AS SHOWN IN PHOTOGRAPHS 2C AND 2D?
A.: ABOUT NOONTIME ON THE 5TH, FEBRUARY 5TH.
Q.: SO YOU WEREN’T THERE ON FEBRUARY 4TH, 2002, MONDAY?
A.: THAT’S CORRECT.
Q.: THERE APPEAR TO BE LABELINGS UNDER PHOTOGRAPHS 2C AND
2D THAT SHOW WHAT I THINK ARE A T.V. STATION AND A DATE
FEBRUARY 5TH. DO YOU SEE THAT?
A.: YES, SIR.
Q.: DO THOSE ACCURATELY REFLECT THE DATES, THEN, OF WHEN
THE EVENTS ARE THAT ARE SHOWN IN THOSE TWO PHOTOGRAPHS?
A.: NO, SIR.
Q.: ALL RIGHT.
IN WHAT WAY?
A.: THE TIMES ARE WRONG.
Q.: OKAY.
SO THE TIME IS SHOWN AS 4:00 P.M. ON BOTH PHOTOS 2C
AND 2D.
A.: YES, SIR.
MR. BOYCE: MISSTATES THE EVIDENCE. I THINK THE EVIDENCE
WAS THAT’S WHEN THEY WERE BROADCAST, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: I BELIEVE THE EVIDENCE WAS THAT’S WHEN THEY
WERE BROADCAST, BUT YOU CAN CLARIFY THAT IF YOU WANT.
BY MR. CLARKE:
Q.: WHAT TIME WERE YOU THERE AS SHOWN IN PHOTOGRAPHS 2C
AND 2D?
A.: I THINK NOONTIME.
Q.: IS IT THE CASE, THEN, THE LABELING UNDERNEATH EACH OF
THOSE PHOTOGRAPHS DO NOT ACCURATELY REFLECT WHAT THE
PHOTOGRAPHS WERE SHOWING IN TERMS OF TIME?
A.: THAT’S CORRECT.
Q.: THE TIMES BEFORE PHOTOGRAPHS 2A AND 2B, DO YOU KNOW
WHAT TIME THOSE PHOTOGRAPHS WERE TAKEN?
A.: YES.
Q.: WHAT IS THAT?
A.: FEBRUARY 4TH.
Q.: IS IT CORRECT, THEN, THE LABELING UNDERNEATH 2A AND
2B ON FEBRUARY 5TH I THINK ON EACH PHOTOGRAPH DOES NOT
ACCURATELY SHOW —
MR. BOYCE: OBJECTION. LEADING AND ARGUMENTATIVE BECAUSE-

THE COURT: OVERRULED. NOT BECAUSE.
MR. CLARKE: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: CONCLUDE YOUR QUESTION.
BY MR. CLARKE:
Q.: SERGEANT HOLMES, WITH RESPECT TO 2A AND 2B, THE
LABELING UNDERNEATH THAT SHOWS FEBRUARY 5TH ON IT, ON EACH OF
THOSE PHOTOGRAPHS. THAT DOES NOT ACCURATELY SHOW THE DATE OF
THE EVENTS SHOWN IN THE PHOTOGRAPHS, IS THAT CORRECT?
A.: THAT’S CORRECT.
MR. CLARKE: THANK YOU.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS.
WHOOPS. I’M SORRY. COULD I HAVE JUST A MOMENT, YOUR
HONOR?
(DISCUSSION OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN MR. CLARKE
AND MR. DUSEK.)
BY MR. CLARKE:
Q.: JUST IF I CAN GO BACK TO THE SCENE ON FEBRUARY 27TH,
WHEN YOU WERE IN THE LOCATION OF DANIELLE VAN DAM’S BODY, DID
YOU NOTE ANY ANTS AT THE SCENE?
A.: YES, SIR.
Q.: DESCRIBE THAT, PLEASE.
A.: INITIALLY WHEN I WALKED UP TO THE SCENE FROM THE
NORTH, THERE WERE ANTS NEAR WHERE I WAS STANDING NORTH OF THE
BODY. NEAR AND ON SOME WOODEN PALLETS. AND THE REASON I
NOTICED THOSE, HAIR WAS POINTED OUT TO ME ON THOSE PALLETS.
AND THEN AS WE WERE PROCESSING THE SCENE, THERE WERE ANTS
AROUND HER BODY.
Q.: IN WHAT, THAT IS, HOW CLOSE WERE THE ANTS TO THE BODY
WHEN YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT WHERE YOU OBSERVED THEM NEAR THE
BODY?
A.: INCHES.
MR. CLARKE: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
CROSS-EXAMINATION.

CROSS-EXAMINATION
BY MR. FELDMAN:
Q.: SIR, DID YOU PREPARE ANY REPORTS IN CONNECTION WITH
YOUR ACTIVITIES IN THIS CASE?
A.: YES, SIR.
Q.: SPECIFICALLY WITH REGARD TO YOUR ACTIVITIES AT THE
SCENE AND MORE SPECIFICALLY WITH REGARD TO YOUR EVALUATION OF
THE PRESENCE OR ABSENCE OF INSECTS, DID YOU PREPARE ANY
REPORTS?
A.: PERSONALLY, NO.
Q.: BEFORE COMING TO COURT TODAY, DID YOU REVIEW ANY
DOCUMENTS FOR THE PURPOSE OF REFRESHING YOUR RECOLLECTION AS TO
SPECIFICALLY AND PRECISELY WHAT INSECTS YOU MAY HAVE SEEN ON
FEBRUARY THE 27TH, SIR?
A.: DID I — I REVIEWED A LOT OF DOCUMENTS.
SPECIFICALLY, NO.
Q.: DID YOU SPECIFICALLY REVIEW DETECTIVE TOMSOVIC’S
REPORT WHICH NOTED THE PRESENCE OF A MAGGOT — MAGGOTS IN THE
AREA OF HER HEAD DID YOU REVIEW THAT?
MR. CLARKE: OBJECTION. MISSTATES THE EVIDENCE.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
YOU CAN ANSWER.
THE WITNESS: SPECIFICALLY FOR COMING HERE TODAY, NO.
BY MR. FELDMAN:
Q.: WITH REGARD TO DETECTIVE KEYSER’S REPORT, DID YOU
REVIEW DETECTIVE KEYSER’S REPORT WHICH NOTED MAGGOTS IN THE
AREA OF HER EYES AT THE SCENE?
MR. CLARKE: OBJECTION. ALSO CALLS FOR HEARSAY.
THE COURT: I THINK IT WAS SINGULAR. SUSTAINED.
BY MR. FELDMAN:
Q.: DID YOU REVIEW DETECTIVE KEYSER’S REPORT FOR THE
PURPOSE OF DETERMINING THE PRESENCE OR ABSENCE OF MAGGOTS OR
MAGGOT IN THE AREA OF HER EYES?
A.: I DIDN’T HAVE TO. I SAW THEM MYSELF.
Q.: DID YOU TALK TO DETECTIVE KEYSER CONCERNING HIS
OPINION THAT HE OBSERVED MAGGOTS IN THE PLURAL?
MR. CLARKE: OBJECTION. CALLS FOR HEARSAY, ALSO
IRRELEVANT.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED.
BY MR. FELDMAN:
Q.: FOR PURPOSES OF REFRESHING YOUR RECOLLECTION, SIR,
AND LIMITED ONLY FOR THE PURPOSE OF REFRESHING YOUR
RECOLLECTION AS TO WHAT SPECIFICALLY AND PRECISELY YOU RECALL
SEEING ON FEBRUARY 27TH WITH REGARD TO MAGGOTS, ANTS, ET
CETERA, DID YOU REVIEW DETECTIVE KEYSER’S REPORT?
MR. CLARKE: OBJECTION. NO FOUNDATION AS TO REFRESHING
RECOLLECTION.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED.
BY MR. FELDMAN:
Q.: DO YOU HAVE A SPECIFIC AND INDEPENDENT RECOLLECTION
OF THE PRESENCE OF BUGS AT OR AROUND DANIELLE VAN DAM’S BODY ON
THE 27TH OF FEBRUARY?
A.: YES, SIR.
Q.: AND THAT SPECIFIC RECOLLECTION, HAS IT BEEN REFRESHED
BASED UPON THE TESTIMONY YOU’VE BEEN ABLE TO HEAR OVER THE PAST
MONTH OR SO CONCERNING THE ENTOMOLOGY EVIDENCE THAT’S COME —
MR. CLARKE: OBJECTION. IRRELEVANT. NO FOUNDATION.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
YOU CAN ANSWER.
THE WITNESS: HAS MY MEMORY BEEN REFRESHED?
MR. FELDMAN: YES, SIR.
THE WITNESS: NO.
BY MR. FELDMAN:
Q.: DID YOU — YOU TOLD US YOU SAW A BUG IN DANIELLE’S
EYE. WHAT KIND OF BUG?
A.: A MAGGOT.
Q.: HAVE YOU RECEIVED TRAINING IN MAGGOTS?
A.: MINIMAL.
Q.: OKAY.
SO YOU HAVE NOT, FOR INSTANCE, ATTENDED ANY OF NEAL
HASKELL’S COURSES ON FORENSIC ENTOMOLOGY, IS THAT RIGHT?
MR. CLARKE: OBJECTION. IRRELEVANT.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
THE WITNESS: THAT’S CORRECT.
BY MR. FELDMAN:
Q.: YOU HAVEN’T ATTENDED ANY SPECIFIC CLASSES IN THE AREA
OF FORENSIC ENTOMOLOGY, IS THAT CORRECT?
A.: I HAVE ATTENDED SEMINARS, NOT CLASSES.
Q.: THE SEMINARS ADDRESS A WIDE VARIETY OF SUBJECTS, SOME
OF WHICH ADDRESSED ENTOMOLOGY, IS THAT RIGHT?
A.: THAT’S CORRECT.
Q.: AND IS IT FAIR TO SAY THAT THE MOST ENTOMOLOGY YOU
HAVE EVER SEEN IN A CASE IS IN THIS ONE?
MR. CLARKE: OBJECTION. RELEVANCE.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
THE WITNESS: NO, THAT’S NOT CORRECT.
BY MR. FELDMAN:
Q.: WITH REGARD TO THE ENTOMOLOGIC EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE,
SIR, WITH REGARD TO THE MAGGOTS THAT YOU OBSERVED, CAN YOU TELL
US WHAT INSTAR IT WAS? WAS IT FIRST INSTAR, SECOND INSTAR,
THIRD INSTAR?
A.: NO, SIR.
Q.: WITH REGARD TO WHAT YOU OBSERVED IN THE AREA, I THINK
YOU SAID THERE WAS INSECTS IN HER THORAX AREA, I’M JUST TRYING
TO RECALL, IF THAT IS NOT RIGHT, PLEASE, . . .
A.: CHEST AND ABDOMINAL AREA.
Q.: CHEST AND ABDOMINAL.
SO WITH REGARD TO THE MAGGOTS THAT YOU SAW, — DO YOU
KNOW WHAT A MAGGOT MASS IS?
A.: YES, SIR.
Q.: DID YOU RUN YOUR HAND OVER THE AREA?
A.: OVER —
Q.: OVER THE AREA OF THE MAGGOT MASS THAT HAD INVADED THE
CHEST AND THORAX AREA.
A.: I DIDN’T SEE THE MAGGOT MASS.
Q.: I THOUGHT YOU TOLD US YOU DID IN FACT OBSERVE MAGGOTS
IN THE AREA OF HER CHEST AND THORAX.
A.: YES, SIR. BUT I DIDN’T SEE A MASS.
Q.: OKAY.
HOW DO YOU DEFINE THE TERM MASS?
A.: MORE THAN WHAT I SAW. A WHOLE LOT OF THEM.
Q.: OKAY.
HOW MANY DID YOU SEE?
A.: LESS THAN A DOZEN.
Q.: AND WHERE DID YOU NOTE THAT?
A.: ON HER CHEST AND ABDOMEN AREA.
Q.: OKAY.
I’M ASKING YOU WHERE DID YOU RECORD THAT.
A.: I DIDN’T RECORD IT.
Q.: SO ARE YOU TELLING — IS TODAY THE FIRST TIME YOU’VE
EVER TESTIFIED CONCERNING YOUR RECOLLECTIONS OF THE NUMBER OF
BUGS THAT WERE PRESENT AT DANIELLE VAN DAM’S RECOVERY SITE?
A.: TODAY IS THE FIRST I’VE BEEN ASKED IN COURT. WE HAVE
DISCUSSED IT, THE INVESTIGATORS, THE D. A.’S OFFICE.
Q.: WHEN? STARTING WHEN, SIR?
A.: STARTING FROM THE DAY THAT SHE WAS FOUND.
Q.: SO YOU’VE BEEN IN — OH, THAT — WERE YOU RESPONSIBLE
FOR BRINGING IN DAVID FAULKNER?
A.: YES, SIR, I WAS.
Q.: IT WAS YOUR IDEA TO BRING FAULKNER IN, IS THAT RIGHT?
A.: YES, SIR, IT WAS.
Q.: AND THAT’S BECAUSE YOU RECOGNIZED EARLY ON IN THE
CASE THAT IT WOULD BE NECESSARY TO EVALUATE THE ENTOMOLOGIC
EVIDENCE TO ASSIST YOU IN DETERMINING TIME OF DEATH, ISN’T THAT
RIGHT?
A.: NOT TIME OF DEATH. HOW LONG SHE HAD BEEN THERE.
Q.: ALL RIGHT. WE’LL CALL IT THE POST-MORTEM INTERVAL.
ARE YOU MORE COMFORTABLE WITH THAT?
A.: I’M MORE COMFORTABLE WITH HOW LONG SHE’S BEEN THERE.
Q.: OKAY. HOW LONG SHE’S BEEN THERE.
SO YOU BROUGHT IN DAVID FAULKNER TO HELP YOU
DETERMINE HOW LONG DANIELLE VAN DAM HAD BEEN AT THE DEHESA
SITE, IS THAT RIGHT?
A.: YES.
MR. CLARKE: OBJECTION. I THINK WE’RE BEYOND THE SCOPE AT
THIS POINT.
THE COURT: AND IT’S BEEN ASKED AND ANSWERED REPEATEDLY.
SUSTAINED.
MOVE ON.
BY MR. FELDMAN:
Q.: AND AFTER — AND YOU DID THAT BECAUSE — WELL, STRIKE
THAT.
DID YOU ALSO INVITE FAULKNER TO ATTEND THE AUTOPSY,
SIR?
MR. CLARKE: SAME OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED.
BY MR. FELDMAN:
Q.: WHO WAS PRESENT WITH YOU WHEN YOU SAW FIRST THE BUGS
AROUND DANIELLE VAN DAM?
A.: DETECTIVE JIM TOMSOVIC. FORENSIC SPECIALIST KAREN
LEALCALA.
(DISCUSSION OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN MR. FELDMAN
AND MR. CLARKE.)
THE WITNESS: DR. BLACKBOURNE. I REMEMBER THEM
SPECIFICALLY. NOW, THESE ARE VARIOUS TIMES ALSO.
MR. FELDMAN: I’M SORRY. I’M JUST TRYING TO . . .
WAIT JUST A MOMENT. I’M SORRY.
(THE VAN DAM FAMILY LEFT THE COURTROOM AT THIS
POINT.)
(PAUSE.)
MR. FELDMAN: YOUR HONOR, I’M TRYING TO FIND —
THE COURT: I UNDERSTAND.
MR. FELDMAN: SORRY, JUDGE.
THE COURT: I UNDERSTAND.
(PAUSE.)
MR. FELDMAN: I GUESS THAT I’M NOT ABLE TO FIND THE
EXHIBIT THAT I’M AFTER. I’M SORRY.
BY MR. FELDMAN:
Q.: FIRST OF ALL, I’M GOING TO START WITH WHAT’S BEEN
PREVIOUSLY MARKED 3. SIR, DIRECTING YOUR ATTENTION TO 3. I
THINK YOU TOLD US THAT EARLY ON YOU, WHEN THE BODY WAS FIRST
LOCATED, YOU NEEDED TO DO SOMETHING TO CLEAR THE AREA TO MAKE
SURE THAT THERE WAS NO CONTAMINATION OF THE AREA BY YOUR
OFFICERS. IS THAT A FAIR STATEMENT?
A.: YES, SIR.
Q.: CAN YOU POINT OUT — WE HAVE POINTERS UP HERE. OF
COURSE, NOW . . .
SIR, JUST HOWEVER YOU’RE COMFORTABLE DOING IT, COULD
YOU PLEASE SHOW THE JURY WHERE YOUR OFFICERS HAD TO APPROACH
AND WHAT YOU DID TO CLEAR THE SCENE AREA.
A.: I INITIALLY, WHEN WE FIRST ARRIVED OR WHEN I FIRST
ARRIVED, I MET WITH LIEUTENANT COLLINS, AND I BELIEVE IT WAS
DETECTIVE RON THILL, WHO HAD ARRIVED BEFORE US AND HAD TAKEN
MEASURES TO SECURE THE SCENE, THE OUTSIDE PERIMETER. IT WAS
CLEAR THAT WE WERE GOING TO HAVE DIFFICULTY APPROACHING FROM
THE STREET. AND I WANTED EVERYBODY TO USE THE SAME PATH. SO I
ACTUALLY CAME EAST OF THE SCENE, THROUGH THE FIELD AREA HERE,
AND YOU CAN SEE ON THIS PHOTOGRAPH THIS YELLOW LINE. THIS IS
ACTUALLY CRIME SCENE TAPE WHICH I LAID OUT WITH THE INTENT OF
EVERYBODY INVOLVED IN THE INVESTIGATION USING THAT ROUTE TO GET
IN TO THE BODY, INTO THE AREA WHERE THE BODY WAS. AND THEN WE
WOULD APPROACH DOWN THIS PATH TO THE TREE. AND YOU CAN SEE THE
OTHER CRIME SCENE TAPE, THE YELLOW TAPE, THAT IS SURROUNDING
THE TREE HERE. AND THAT WAY WE WOULD NOT BE TRAMPLING THROUGH
DIFFERENT AREAS. WE WOULD ALL BE USING THE SAME ROUTE.
Q.: NOW, YOU USED THE WORD HERE SEVERAL TIMES. ALL OF
THE DIRECTIONS THAT YOU’VE JUST ILLUSTRATED FOR THE JURY
INVOLVE 3, PHOTOGRAPH B, IS THAT RIGHT, SIR?
A.: YES, SIR.
Q.: CAN YOU PLEASE TELL ME WHICH WAY IS NORTH AND WHICH
WAY IS SOUTH ON THE DIAGRAM.
A.: NORTH WOULD BE TO THE LEFT ON B AND TO THE BOTTOM ON
A NORTH.
Q.: SO FOR THE RECORD, IN BLUE INK I’M GOING TO WRITE AN
N WITH AN ARROW DOWNWARD FOR A TO INDICATE WHICH DIRECTION IS
NORTH. IS THAT A FAIR REPRESENTATION?
A.: YES, SIR.
Q.: AND THEN, I’M SORRY, ON B YOU TOLD ME NORTH IS IN
WHICH DIRECTION, PLEASE?
A.: TO THE LEFT OF THE PHOTO.
Q.: SO IF I PUT AN N AND AN ARROW TO THE RIGHT — TO THE
LEFT, I’M SORRY, —
A.: YES, SIR. THE ROAD YOU SEE THERE BASICALLY RUNS
EAST/WEST.
Q.: WHICH WAY DO THE SANTA ANAS BLOW?
A.: FROM THE EAST.
Q.: FROM EAST TO THE WEST?
A.: YES, SIR.
Q.: SO THEY BLOW I GUESS FROM THE TOP OF THIS PHOTO —
MR. CLARKE: OBJECTION. BEYOND THE SCOPE.
BY MR. FELDMAN:
Q.: — PAST TO THE BOTTOM OF THE PHOTO.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
YOU CAN JUST ANSWER THAT.
THAT’S PHOTO B YOU’RE REFERRING TO.
MR. FELDMAN: YES. I’M SORRY.
THE WITNESS: YES, SIR.
MR. FELDMAN: OKAY.
BY MR. FELDMAN:
Q.: AND IS IT THE CASE YOU KEPT YOUR OFFICERS TO THE —
I’M SORRY.
IS IT THE CASE THE ACCESS POINT TO THE BODY WAS FROM
THE NORTH?
A.: INITIALLY.
Q.: AND THAT WAS BECAUSE?
A.: THAT WAS WHEN WE WERE ASSESSING HOW TO MOST
EFFICIENTLY PROCESS THE SCENE. AND WE COULDN’T GET TO THE
SCENE INITIALLY FROM THE ROADWAY. ONCE WE ESTABLISHED THIS
PATH, —
Q.: YES, SIR.
A.: — AND RECEIVED A FULL BRIEFING, REALIZED THAT IT
WOULD PROBABLY BE BETTER FOR US TO REMOVE SOME OF THE BRUSH
ALONGSIDE THE ROAD AND ENTER FROM THAT WAY. AND THAT’S WHAT WE
DID THE REST OF THE PROCESSING.
Q.: SO DOES THAT MEAN THAT B AND A DO NOT ACCURATELY
DEPICT OR DO THEY ACCURATELY DEPICT THE CONDITION OF THE SCENE
AS YOU FIRST SAW IT?
A.: THE ONLY DIFFERENCE WOULD BE THAT THE YELLOW TAPE
WHEN I FIRST SAW IT WASN’T THERE OBVIOUSLY BECAUSE I PUT IT
THERE. AND THESE PEOPLE IN PHOTO B THAT ARE JUST BELOW CENTER
WEREN’T THERE.
Q.: HAD THE BUSHES BEEN CLEARED? THAT’S REALLY WHAT I
WAS —
A.: YOU CAN’T TELL FROM THESE PHOTOS.
Q.: DO YOU HAVE A RECOLLECTION?
A.: I CAN TELL YOU AT THE TIME THESE PHOTOS WERE TAKEN
HAD BEEN CLEARED.
Q.: HAD BEEN CLEARED?
A.: HAD BEEN CLEARED, BUT YOU CAN’T SEE THAT FROM THESE
PHOTOS.
Q.: SO IT’S ACCURATE TO SAY, THOUGH, THAT B AND A THEN DO
NOT ACCURATELY DEPICT THE CONDITION OF THE SCENE AS YOU FIRST –
– AS IT WAS FIRST ENCOUNTERED BY LAW ENFORCEMENT BECAUSE OF THE
CHANGES THAT YOU’VE INDICATED?
A.: THE ONLY THINGS THAT THESE PHOTOS DEPICTED THAT HAVE
BEEN CHANGED ARE THE YELLOW TAPE AND THE PEOPLE IN THE BOTTOM
OF PHOTO B.
Q.: SIR, YOU MENTIONED A BRIEFING. WAS THAT WITH
LIEUTENANT COLLINS?
A.: YES, SIR. HE WAS THERE.
Q.: AND YOU WERE AT THE PRELIMINARY HEARING, WERE YOU
NOT?
A.: YES, SIR.
Q.: AND JUST WITH REGARD TO THE ISSUE OF THE PRESENCE OF
MAGGOTS, YOU HEARD DETECTIVE COLLINS TESTIFY THAT THERE WAS
MAGGOTS IN THE AREA, DIDN’T YOU?
MR. CLARKE: OBJECTION. HEARSAY, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED.
BY MR. FELDMAN:
Q.: AS PART OF THE BRIEFING YOU RECEIVED, DID DETECTIVE
COLLINS COMMUNICATE TO YOU HIS BELIEF THAT THERE WERE MAGGOTS
IN THE AREA OF THE HEAD?
MR. CLARKE: SAME OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: SAME RULING.
MR. FELDMAN: COUNSEL.
(PAUSE.)
BY MR. FELDMAN:
Q.: AS PART OF THE INFORMATION THAT YOU USED TO REFRESH
YOUR RECOLLECTION, SIR, I THINK YOU TOLD US YOU CONSIDER WHAT
DETECTIVE TOMSOVIC HAD NOTED. IS THAT RIGHT?
MR. CLARKE: OBJECTION. MISSTATES THE EVIDENCE.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED.
BY MR. FELDMAN:
Q.: IS IT THE CASE THAT YOU UTILIZED INFORMATION FROM
DETECTIVE TOMSOVIC FOR PURPOSES OF REFRESHING YOUR
RECOLLECTION?
MR. CLARKE: OBJECTION. ASKED AND ANSWERED.
THE COURT: IT’S BEEN ASKED AND ANSWERED, BUT YOU CAN
ANSWER IT ONE LAST TIME, DETECTIVE, OR SERGEANT, EXCUSE ME.
THE WITNESS: CAN YOU BE MORE SPECIFIC?
MR. FELDMAN: YES.
BY MR. FELDMAN:
Q.: I WOULD LIKE TO DIRECT YOUR ATTENTION TO SOME NOTES
AND MORE SPECIFICALLY A SCENE DIAGRAM OF THE BODY AND MORE
SPECIFICALLY THE STATEMENT MAGGOTS AND SMALL FLIES IN THE AREA
OF THE —
MR. CLARKE: OBJECTION. CALLS FOR HEARSAY.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED.
BY MR. FELDMAN:
Q.: FOR THE PURPOSE OF — I’M JUST ASKING — FOR THE
PURPOSE OF REFRESHING YOUR RECOLLECTION, DO YOU RECOGNIZE THESE
NOTES?
MR. CLARKE: OBJECTION. NO FOUNDATION.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED.
MR. FELDMAN: I’M SORRY. JUST ON RECOLLECTION.
THE COURT: HE SAID HE DIDN’T REFRESH HIS RECOLLECTION,
MR. FELDMAN. WE HAVE GONE OVER THIS.
MR. FELDMAN: THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT.
/ / /
BY MR. FELDMAN:
Q.: HAVE YOU REVIEWED DETECTIVE TOMSOVIC’S NOTES FOR THE
PURPOSE OF DETERMINING PRESENCE OR ABSENCE OF MAGGOTS IN THE
AREA OF DANIELLE VAN DAM?
MR. CLARKE: SAME OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR. THIS HAS BEEN
ASKED AND ANSWERED SEVERAL TIMES.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED.
BY MR. FELDMAN:
Q.: DID YOU NOTICE ANY BEETLES?
A.: YES, SIR.
Q.: WHAT KIND OF BEETLES?
A.: I DON’T KNOW THE SPECIFIC TYPE.
Q.: YOU SAID THAT YOU NOTICED ANTS. CAN YOU SEE THE
PALLET THAT YOU WERE STANDING ON WHEN YOU NOTICED THE ANTS?
A.: YOU CAN’T CLEARLY SEE IT IN A. YOU CAN SEE A PALLET
IN B, BUT I THINK THAT IT WAS A CLOSER PALLET.
Q.: I’M SORRY. IF YOU COULD JUST TELL US WHERE.
A.: THIS APPEARS TO BE A PALLET IN B.
Q.: I’M SORRY. WE’VE GOT ON THE CHART ON B 5 G.H. AND
WHAT APPEARS TO BE CIRCLED. IS THAT THE AREA TO WHICH YOU’RE
POINTING?
A.: YES, SIR.
Q.: OKAY.
AND YOU THINK THERE IS A PALLET THERE?
A.: THAT APPEARS TO BE A PALLET. BUT I RECALL THE PALLET
BEING IN CLOSER. IN THIS AREA. AND I DON’T KNOW IF YOU CAN
SEE. I CAN’T SEE IT.
Q.: YOU JUST SAID IN THIS AREA. AND JUST TO CLARIFY,
YOU’RE REFERRING TO AN AREA IN 3-A.
A.: A.
Q.: AND YOU’VE POINTED IT OUT. IT APPEARS TO BE ON THE
RIGHT SIDE OF THE PHOTO. AND IF YOU CAN JUST ARTICULATE IT AS
BEST YOU CAN.
A.: THE RIGHT SIDE OF THE PHOTO JUST ABOVE CENTER TO THE
LEFT OF THE YELLOW TAPE, CRIME SCENE TAPE, THAT RUNS ON THE
OUTER PERIMETER OF THE OAK TREE.
Q.: OKAY.
AND WHERE WAS THE BODY?
A.: IN THE SAME PHOTO, SAME AREA, BUT TO THE RIGHT OF
THAT YELLOW CRIME SCENE TAPE AND UNDERNEATH THE OAK TREE.
Q.: UNDERNEATH THE OAK TREE, IS THAT RIGHT?
A.: YES.
Q.: YOU TOLD US THAT AT SOME POINT LIGHTS WERE TURNED ON
AFTER SUNSET TO ENLIGHTEN THE BODY. IS THAT RIGHT?
A.: YES, SIR.
Q.: AND IT WAS AT THAT TIME THAT YOU MADE YOUR
OBSERVATIONS OF THE PRESENCE OF ANTS?
A.: I HAD SEEN THE ANTS EARLIER WHEN IT WAS STILL
DAYLIGHT. ONES NORTH OF THE SCENE. AND I DON’T — I DON’T
SPECIFICALLY RECALL SEEING — I DON’T KNOW IF I SAW THE ANTS
THAT NIGHT OR THE NEXT DAY AT HER BODY OR WHERE HER BODY WAS.
Q.: SO NOW YOU’RE NOT SURE WHETHER OR NOT YOU SAW THE
ANTS THE EVENING OF THE RECOVERY OR THE NEXT DAY, IS THAT
CORRECT?
MR. CLARKE: OBJECTION. ARGUMENTATIVE AS PHRASED.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
YOU CAN ANSWER.
THE WITNESS: NO. I SAW ANTS THAT EVENING IN THE AREA OF
THE PALLET. I JUST DON’T RECALL IF THE ANTS WHERE HER BODY WAS
WAS THAT NIGHT OR THE NEXT MORNING.
MR. FELDMAN: OKAY.
BY MR. FELDMAN:
Q.: SO YOU’RE NOT SURE WHETHER OR NOT THERE WERE ANTS IN
THE AREA OF THE BODY ON THE NIGHT OF THE RECOVERY. THAT’S A
FAIR STATEMENT, CORRECT?
A.: I WOULDN’T SAY THAT’S A FAIR STATEMENT.
Q.: JUST PUT IT AS ARTICULATELY OR AS FAIR AS YOU FEEL
YOU CAN PUT IT.
A.: WELL, I KNOW FOR SURE THAT DURING THE DAYLIGHT THERE
WERE ANTS FIFTEEN FEET, TEN TO FIFTEEN FEET NORTH OF HER BODY
NEAR THE PALLET. AND I’M JUST NOT SURE IF THE ANTS RIGHT NEXT
TO HER BODY OR WHERE HER BODY WAS WAS THAT NIGHT DURING THE
DARKNESS OR IF IT WAS THE NEXT MORNING DURING DAYLIGHT.
Q.: WHAT WAS THE TEMPERATURE APPROXIMATELY WHEN YOU MADE
THE OBSERVATION OF THE INSECTS NEAR HER BODY, IF YOU RECALL?
A.: OH, IT WAS — IT WAS PLEASANT DURING THE DAYLIGHT.
AS SOON AS THE SUN WENT DOWN, IT GOT REAL COLD.
Q.: OKAY.
AT DUSK DID YOU TELL US THAT YOUR FIRST OBSERVATION
OF THE BUGS WAS AT ABOUT DUSK?
A.: JUST BEFORE THAT. IT WAS DAYLIGHT STILL.
Q.: WHAT WAS THE TEMPERATURE IF YOU RECALL?
A.: OH, GOSH. I DON’T. BUT IT WAS NEITHER VERY HOT NOR
VERY COLD. IT WAS NICE.
Q.: DO YOU KNOW WHETHER OR NOT IT WAS ABOVE FIFTY DEGREES
FAHRENHEIT?
A.: YES. I’M SURE IT WAS.
Q.: OKAY.
IN THE EVENING YOU TOLD US IT GOT COOLED DOWN AND
THERE WERE LIGHTS PLACED ON THE BODY. IS THAT RIGHT?
A.: OVER THE BODY.
Q.: TO ILLUMINATE IT, IS THAT RIGHT?
A.: YES.
Q.: AND THAT’S BEFORE THE BODY WAS REMOVED, IS THAT
RIGHT?
A.: YES, SIR.
Q.: AND IT WAS AT THAT POINT THAT I THINK YOU TOLD US YOU
SAW AT LEAST ONE MAGGOT IN HER EYE OR WAS THAT EARLIER?
A.: NO. THAT WAS WHEN.
Q.: AND YOU’VE HEARD THE TESTIMONY OF THE EXPERTS WHO
SAID AT NIGHT THE BUGS GO HIDE, RIGHT?
A.: I HEARD THAT, YES, SIR.
Q.: SO DID YOU DO ANYTHING LIKE, FOR INSTANCE, BRING DR.
BLACKBOURNE OUT TO USE A TWEEZERS — I’M NOT TRYING TO BE
GROSS, I’M SORRY — TO LOOK INSIDE HER NOSTRILS?
MR. CLARKE: OBJECTION. BEYOND THE SCOPE.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED.
BY MR. FELDMAN:
Q.: DID YOU DO ANYTHING WITH REGARD TO THE LOCATION OF
BUGS ON THE NIGHT OF THE FIRST OBSERVATIONS TO MAKE PERSONAL
OBSERVATIONS OR TAKE PHOTOGRAPHS OF ANY OF THE BUGS PRESENT?
A.: YES, SIR.
Q.: AND DID YOU TAKE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE BUGS PRESENT THE
NIGHT OF THE OBSERVATIONS?
A.: ME PERSONALLY?
Q.: YES, SIR.
A.: NO, SIR.
Q.: HAVE YOU SEEN A PHOTOGRAPH THAT DEPICTS BUGS IN THE
AREA OF HER BODY ON THE 27TH IN THE EVENING?
A.: I’M — I’VE SEEN PHOTOGRAPHS THAT I’M NOT SURE IF
THEY ARE MAGGOTS OR NOT FROM THE PHOTOGRAPH. I KNOW I DIRECTED
KAREN LEALCALA TO COLLECT BUGS THAT NIGHT, AND I ASSISTED HER
IN COLLECTING THOSE BUGS.
Q.: WHAT KIND OF BUGS WERE THEY, MAGGOTS OR BEETLES?
A.: MAGGOTS. BOTH ACTUALLY.
Q.: SO YOU COLLECTED MAGGOTS AND BEETLES THAT NIGHT?
A.: I DIDN’T PERSONALLY. I WAS THERE WHEN IT WAS DONE.
Q.: OKAY.
BECAUSE YOU RECOGNIZED AT THAT POINT THAT THE
ENTOMOLOGY EVIDENCE MIGHT BE OF IMPORTANCE, EVEN AS EARLY AS
THE TIME THE BODY WAS RECOVERED.
MR. CLARKE: OBJECTION. ASKED AND ANSWERED.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED.
MR. FELDMAN: YOUR HONOR, RIGHT NOW, I’M SORRY, I CAN’T
FIND THE EXHIBIT.
THE COURT: PROBABLY TIME FOR THE MORNING RECESS, THEN.
ALL RIGHT. LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, WE WILL GO AHEAD
AND TAKE THE MORNING BREAK.
PLEASE REMEMBER THE ADMONITION OF THE COURT NOT TO
DISCUSS ANY OF THE EVIDENCE OR TESTIMONY AMONG YOURSELVES OR
WITH OTHERS NOR FORM OR EXPRESS ANY OPINIONS ON THE MATTER
UNTIL IT’S SUBMITTED TO YOU.
LET’S SHOOT FOR FORTY, 10:40. THAT’S TWENTY MINUTES
TO 11:00, PLEASE.
(RECESS, 10:27 O’CLOCK, A.M., TO 10:40 O’CLOCK, A.M.)
/ / /
/ / /
/ / /

8875

Related Posts :