~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
PROSECUTION:
Describe your duties in regards to this search?
I participated in the coordinated search for items related to Asha Veil. I would be called to locations with possible evidence related to her case, I would check them out and decide if they were pertinent or not. All items were undisturbed by Officers prior to me arriving. They would be photographed and documented in place, before they were touched.
Tell me about the location of the credit cards?
I was taken to the location of some credit cards by Mr. Beam (Mr. Bean?).
How many people were searching?
About 8.
Could you describe the search please?
It started by Love Creek Road, and went towards Quail Hollow Road and Zayante Road.
What happened in regards to the backpack/purse?
I was called to just near Mile Market 1.13 on Quail Hollow Road, summoned by another Sheriff about some evidence that could possibly be linked to Asha.
What date did you find it?
September 20, 2006. Inside we later discovered Asha's Driver's License. Everything was inspected with fresh gloves, I would change them between items.
How many times were you called to inspect items thought to possibly be related to the case?
Around 20.
How was the backpack taken into custody/transported?
[describes approaching the backpack from the road, it's just off the road, over a barbed wire fence sitting in brush. Before approaching the backpack he takes pictures of the backpack in its location, as well as the surroundings. He took care to not be over the backpack itself while taking pictures so as to not transfer anything to it. It was then carefully removed, while wearing clean gloves, placed on/near a patrol car, and the contents were searched to determine if it was in any way related to Asha's case. They found her CADL, so they knew the backpack was indeed hers, and from the contents he said she must have used like a purse.]
Describe the chain of custody?
The Sheriff called me to the location to investigate a backpack.
After photographing the area and contents, the backpack was placed in a paper bag [I have notes saying it was taped closed, but I also seem to remember the Defense saying it wasn't taped, not entirely sure which is the case].
It was then given to another Sheriff to take to their Headquarters, as Sheriff testifying continued with the search.
It was placed in the testifying Sheriff's locker, and locked using his lock so he was the only one that had access to it.
He retrieved it from his locker, still in the bag, and took it offsite to the CSI Lab.
He took the contents out again, and photographed them all.
What were the contents of the backpack?
A tri-fold wallet.
Asha's CADL
Asha's residency card
Gum, pens, keys.
PEOPLES EXHIBIT 17
Picture of the backpack (as it was found?).PEOPLES EXHIBIT 18
Picture of the backpack. PEOPLES EXHIBIT 19
Picture of the contents of the backpack.PEOPLES EXHIBIT 20
Tauna McGinnus's business card.PEOPLES EXHIBIT 21
Picture of the backpack from another angle (believe this was the one that showed the brand label on the front).PEOPLES EXHIBIT 23
Picture of the keys.More points made by the Sheriff:
The backpack was about 6 feet from the road.
They found keys, including a postal box key, and a BMW key.
A list of baby shower items was found in the backpack.
DEFENSE:
I DO NOT HAVE THE QUESTIONS WRITTEN DOWN BECAUSE OF THE CONTENT OF THE QUESTIONS.
This is my opinion of what occurred during this cross-examination:
The Sheriff had explained earlier how CRIME SCENES and CRIME SCENE PICTURES are labeled. All TW tried to do during the cross-examination was confuse all of the numbers for crime scenes, people's exhibit numbers, and crime scene photo numbers. This seemed blatantly intentional (again, thus far his strategy has been "Reasonable Doubt By Confusion" and I will try and explain why this is the case here. He tried his best to confuse the officer by jumping between events and case/photo numbers. He did nothing numerically or chronologically, skipping around a lot, and coming back to or revisiting something he had just 'clarified' (hi sarcasm!) trying to create confusion as best he could, again in my opinion. It was apparent that this upset the DA, who during his lines of questioning has presented everything numerically and chronologically, taking his time to keep it simple and easy to understand. Meanwhile, Defense Attorney Tom Wallraff has been completely scattered when going through People's Exhibits and Crime Scenes, doing nothing in order to the point that it is blatant in my eyes he is only trying to instill confusion.
So this is how it works, Crime scenes are given a number by the investigating officer. In the case of the backpack, I believe the scene was #11. There is a case Number given by the Department for the case in its entirety. Lets say Asha's case is 0117. Investigators logging anything use their initials when logging in evidence. Each Photo they take is given a letter, which resets at each scene. So for a picture taken at the scene where the backpack was found, an example could be: 0117-TMP-11-B. This would denote case number 0117, officer with initials TMP, scene #11, photo B. Now when the contents of the backpack are taken to the CSI Lab by TMP, and the contents are taken out to be photographed, a new scene number is generated and the lettering of photos resets. So lets say the photograph of the keys found in the backpack, taken at the CSI Lab might be 0117-TMP-13-B. Again, same case, same officer, new scene number (needed because while the contents being photographed are the same, in scene 11 they were undisturbed, but in scene 13 they were taken out, placed on a table, and photographed), the photo number COULD be the same as one that was taken at crime scene 11 but be of a different item, ie not every photograph of the keys is labeled B, and lettering at each scene doesnt always start at A, and can be given two letters if enough photos are taken.
So People's Exhibit 17 is a picture of the backpack as it was found [ex: 0117-TMP-11-B].
People's Exhibit 19 is the content of the backpack as it was opened at the CSI Lab [ex: 0117-TMP-13-BC].
What Tom Wallraff did during his cross examination was get as many crime scenes confused as possible (he had a 'hard time' differentiating from the crime scene where the backpack was found, and the CSI Lab where additional photos of it were taken). Then he would jump around several photo letters confusing those from scene to scene, and Sheriff TMP had to wade through his report infront of him, with long pauses between to sort through the hundreds of pictures, to find specific picture/scene numbers and dates. This made him look ill prepared, even though he wasn't. It made the Jury much more confused than they needed to be, as the process for labeling crime scene photos was easy to grasp when TMP and the DA went over it. The only thing that confused it was Tom Wallraff's line of questioning as it had no logical order.
Yes the photo numbers between People's Exhibits can be confusing, because for example PE 17, 18, 19, 21 are all of the backpack, but they were taken at various scenes for various reasons (ie pic of backpack in place as it was found, pic of backpack opened -but contents not out-at TMP's car, pic of backpack at the CSI Lab with contents out in front of it). There is a logical order to the People's Exhibit numbers, but not the crime scene photo numbers linked to them because they are not used in order, they are later put in logical order in the form of the People's Exhibits. What Tom Wallraff did was use the illogical ordering of the crime scene photos, as they appear to be as they are listed in the logical order in the People's Exhibits. He was reasonably successful at this. And next comes the part that made me sure this was a conscious tactic he was using.
Defense ends his questioning.
District Attorney Jeff Rosell gets to ask a few more questions. He gives TMP a piece of paper, with the court's permission, and asks him to write the Scene Number of the Ben Lomond search area where they found the backpack, Scene 03. He has him write the letter range the pictures at that scene fell under. He has him write the scene number given to the CSI Lab, Scene 04. He has him write the letter range for the pictures taken at that scene. Meanwhile, Tom Wallraff says OBJECTION more than he has in all previous portions of this trial combined. Why object to the Officer clarifying the scene and photo labels? Because he didn't want them clarified. His defense for that witness relied on him confusing the Jury and witness, when his objection was Over Ruled, Tom Wallraff was clearly disappointed.
In the end, the DAs frustration while watching Tom Wallraff confuse everyone subsided when he calmly and clearly had TMP make a new People's Exhibit (#24?), which will only aid the Jury in understanding the PE's/Photo's/Crime Scenes more than they would have had Tom Wallraff not played dumb stirring up confusion in the first place.
Again, I reiterate that everyone in the courtroom may not have caught onto this, and I admit it is possible I am reading into it too much. However, Tom Wallraff firing as many objections as he did was telling. The DA being as frustrated as he was during Tom Wallraff's cross examination was telling, as he has been calm and collected during the trial up to that point. Tom Wallraff being as obviously upset about TMPs clarification of the scenes/photos in the newly created PE only furthered my belief that he was intentionally manipulating in order to confuse.
No comments:
Post a Comment