UPDATE 5/23:spelling, clarity

Thursday, May 19, 2016
8:54 AM
Inside Dept. 109, Judge Kathleen Kennedy's courtroom. Defense attorney Dale Atherton is at the defense table.

Judge Kennedy is at her clerk's desk. There is a conversation with her bailiff and clerk about "court shows" and which ones are scripted and which ones are not. The chat is quickly over and Deputy Sargent Westphal arrives and hangs out with the bailiff and his two assistants today.

9:01 AM
Amster arrives and then Atherton leaves with Amster for a moment. Courtroom sketch artist Bill Robles arrives. Amster leaves and then he comes back.

9:07 AM
Prosecution team arrives. DDA's Beth Silverman, Marguerite Rizzo, Paul Pzrelomiec and two of the DA's victim advocates that are assigned to this case. The old bailiff from the Kelly Soo Park trial is here. He no longer has the hair he used to have.

9:11 AM
DDA Silverman steps into the gallery to speak to her firearms expert. She then comes over to speak to the victim's families. She's always very engaging with them. The second bench row is packed with family members.

9:16 AM
The defendant is brought out.

9:19 AM
Judge Kennedy takes the bench and asks counsel if they are ready for the jury. Amster asks for a moment. "One short thing, your honor."

It's about the witness that are coming in from Germany. Amster would like the opportunity to meet with them. He knows they are coming in on Sunday. DDA Silverman responds that it's up to the victims. The prosecutor tells the court she will have contact with them hopefully on Tuesday. Amster would prefer that the victims state to the defense directly instead of going through the DA's office.

Amster asks that the court order a German interpreter, that they need a German interpreter anyway. Amster suggest that they do this Wednesday, so that if there are any issues, they can deal with it.

The court asks if they can have the witness present on Wednesday, and they will have other issues to do on Wednesday. There's a 402 hearing on Wednesday. Amster is asking the court to issue an order that the "cut off" be for Wednesday morning for all notes and reports of the people's interview with the German witness to be turned over.

DDA Silverman states that any statement that the witness makes, that is relevant, she'll turn over. DDA Silverman plans to interview her on Tuesday.

Amster has another issue, and that's of showing of any photographs of Mr. Franklin, to the German witness. He asks that they only show her a six pack, and not a single photograph. DDA Silverman answers that she wasn't going to show her a single photograph. She might not show her any photographs.

Firearms examiner Dale Rubin retakes the stand. I note that the sketch artist Bil Robles is using a small, single magnifier, almost like an opera glass to look at the witness before he sketches.

9:25 AM
The jury is brought in. Judge Kennedy greets the jury. The court comments on the "Dodger Blue' that a few jurors are wearing as well as the one juror who is wearing "a little bit of Angel Red." The jury laughs, engaging with the judge.

Rubin is back under cross examination by Amster.

31. DALE RUBIN - testimony continues


You're familiar with studies of test fired bullets from sequentially manufactured firearms?
[Yes.]
You're aware that a test fired bullet gives you more information than an evidentiary bullet?
Test fired [bullets], the damage to them is minimal. Evidentiary bullets are not pristine. They may be damaged and you might have enough information.
Can an expended bullet not have enough information to be compared?
Yes.
Your lab has standard operating procedures?
Yes.
Does it define when a bullet is too damaged for comparison purposes?
I don't have the procedure manual memorized, but I do not recall that there is a specific definition in the written procedures.

There are questions about standard operating procedures and that the standards require that examiners must have a working knowledge of the standard operating procedures.

Mr. Rubin outlines the initial steps he takes in examining firearm evidence.

Prior to conducting the comparison microscopy, I look at the evidence under a stereo microscope. If I don't see any tool marks on the bullet or fragment, then I know it is completely unsuitable for this type of examination. If there is any tool mark on the bearing surface, then I proceed to the next step and proceed to the comparison microscopy.

Are there any objective standards?
If there is a tool mark present, then the comparison is conducted.
Is it suitable or not suitable?
If there is a tool mark then it is suitable. If there isn't a tool mark, then it isn't suitable.

Can they [examiners] disagree as far as to the damage to the bullet ... and should not be used for comparison purposes?
Rubin repeats his previous answer again.
And the amount or extend of the damage will limit the amount of tool marks present? ... If the bullet is damaged can you... Can there be a situation where, ... bullets from two different weapons can be matched to the same weapon?
I believe I've explained that already.

I'm surprised. Jurors are covering their mouths. Some are smiling. They might be laughing.

Rubin created a bullet worksheet. He also explains about the department's internal management numbering system. There are more questions about the bullets and now a question about a micro photograph he took of a single bullet.

Rubin's answers are technical, measured, and leave no room for wavering or misunderstanding.

What is the purpose of the measuring?
So I can collect data.

"Really?" Amster replies. "Your honor, can we approach?" Amster appears animated at the side bar. The jurors are intensely watching counsel at the side bar with the court. I believe I hear that Amster is asking that the court have the jury step inside the jury room. Amster appears upset.

The court addresses the gallery. "Yesterday, I admonished the audience to please not make any audible responses. I don't know if the people yesterday are the same people today, but I know this has been a long trial and a long time getting to this point. It's a long time for all of us. Everyone is under stress and strain, but it is not acceptable to make audible comments with regards to the questions that are being asked or the answers that are being given by the witness."

Judge Kennedy continues.

"The attorney did indicate he did hear something. Yesterday, another attorney said he heard something from your folks [unclear who Judge Kennedy is addressing here]. What we're having the jury do is letting them make their decision. ... By comments, faces made, or sighs, or anything from you folks in the audience. What you're risking by that is one having to exclude you and I know you want to be here and you want to show support. ... But I cannot have that kind of conduct. If that's going to happen I'll ask you to leave. You risk having a mistrial in this case. ... Someone will claim later of not having to be a fair trial because of the conduct of the gallery. ... Wouldn't that be horrible if we go through all this and the long time and to have the trial reversed by conduct in the gallery? ... There's not much more. We're [all] having to get through it ... Is that agreeable to all of you?"

Amster tells the court that he would like to voir dire individually the jurors. The court denies that request. Amster then makes a motion for a mistrial. He argues, "These individuals have disrupted the proceedings and I feel it's still going to happen and will continue to disrupt [the trial]."

The court responds, "I did not hear any comments. Ms. Silverman did not hear any comments. ... Maybe they only heard, 'Oh my God.' And that does not rise to that level.

DDA Silverman asks the court, "Could counsel address the court and not the gallery?" Amster responds that he's having his death penalty investigator take notes so he can file a writ.

9:49 AM
The jury is brought back in and Amster starts his questioning again.

Amster goes over with the witness where it's documented in his notes the measurements he's taken of the lands and grooves.  Amster states his question as fact, that the only information regarding the bullet 13B was the worksheet for land and grooves impressions. Rubin states that there is always a possibility of evidentiary bullets being altered during an examination.

That means, that any examiner that examines your work there after, could be looking at a piece of evidence with more tool marks?
Correct. ... When an artifact is introduced onto a piece of evidence ... that procedure is documented in the notes and a qualified examiner would be able to identify that.
So that could also alter the ability to see the impression on that bullet?
In the universe of extreme possibilities, then yes.
After you were done examining the evidence, you had someone examine it to verify ... and it's potentially that person examined it after ... ?
In the context of what we've been discussing, yes.
So people going back wouldn't be able to [duplicate? or see what you saw?]?
As you stated in such an extreme case, yeah.

So, operating the way you're doing, we have no guarantee that your work is reproducible?
I would disagree with that statement. Wholeheartedly. ... As I stated, it's only in extreme cases where an artifact would be introduced. ... A qualified examiner would take great care, not to modify the [useable? readable?] tool marks on this evidence. ... After the evidence fragment is finished being handled and manipulated, it is examined using the comparison microscopy. So, no need to further introduce [any more marks, or handling]. The comparison microscope, the microscopy is completely non-destructive.

There are questions about whether the analysts handle multiple cases at once.

Often times when a case is started, it gets to a certain stopping point and needs to stop for the technician, or other cases become a priority. The open case is sealed before another case is opened so there is no [contamination]. When I do the actual lab work there is only one case open at a time.

Is it your opinion that human error could not occur and use calipers [miss rest of question]?
Objection.Vague. [Miss ruling.]
An individual could alter a tool mark because they were working on one case and not another? ... You don't feel it's a good scientific practice or [safer?] to take photographs that everything you saw ... is reproducible for another analyst?
Objection. Assumes facts not in evidence. [Over ruled.]
I will say that I do not feel it is necessary.
You feel it is not necessary because the other analysts in your lab cannot alter evidence?
Objection. Argumentative. [Sustained.]
Are you even aware of an error being made in your laboratory?
Objection! The court states they need to hear the entire question first.
Are you even aware of being aware of [any] analyst making an error in your lab?
Objection. Irrelevant. [I believe this question is sustained.]
Amster asks to go to side bar before he asks his next question.

Amster tries to get in question after question about potential errors that could have been made in the lab and if the lab has ever made an error before.

Objection. Sustained.  Juror #2 shakes her head. Jurors smile and look at each other. This time, it's a long side bar. Jurors intently watch counsel at the side bar.

Amster is back to asking questions about the worksheet for bullet 13A, and measuring grove impressions. Amster states that the witness didn't take a micro photograph to reflect the entire area he measured. Rubin states, "That's correct."

I note that very few jurors are taking notes.

Do you remember if you looked at a portion of the bullet that was not part of the groove impression that you measured?
I looked at the entire bullet, including the ... I describe how I measured the width. [Rubin faces the jury when he answers.] And to be clear, I used a similar technique to measure the groove impression. I only measure one slit for the tool mark identification. I look at the entire bearing surface of the bullet.
So the entire bearing surface was not measured?
Correct.

Rubin states that he doesn't need the entire tool mark, to render an opinion. He then gives an analogy example and adds, "That's why it's an analogy and not a complete illustration of tool mark examiners."

Do you think different too mark examiners could ... ?
No. I feel that a qualified examiner will come to the same conclusion.
What of an examiner that uses the CMS method?
Objection. Sustained.
So you feel that, no matter what, generally ... ?
If they are indeed a qualified tool mark examiner, it is my opinion they will come to the same conclusion.

When you render the opinion that all tool mark examiners ... are [they?] only using the same methodology that you use, or that only... ?
I am not the one qualifying the examiners. That's up to the agencies and the courts [whether] they testify in or not.

Amster is asking questions about every item listed in the examiner's worksheet.

You used the term reproducibility yesterday. What does that mean?
Reproducibility. That a tool mark will repeat or reproduce from one exemplar to another.  ... That tool mark reproduces from one tool mark to the next.

More than one juror is covering their mouths with their shirt or jacket during this cross.

Amster keeps asking how the witness "remembers' the number of reproducible marks. Rubin states he is comparing them visually and seeing, in that moment in time, the marks were reproducible.

Did you inspect inside the barrel of item #721?
[Yes.]
Why do you inspect inside the barrel?

Rubin explains what class marks are and what are sub class marks. Rubin explains how different class marks are identified.

You said sub class marks could exist on several barrels that were manufactured by the same manufacturer. On item 624, you did not look at other marks and models of those firearms to see if those same reproducible marks?
[No.]
So each of the reproducible marks, you believe were unique marks?
That are unique to that barrel, yes.

The court calls the morning break.

10:55 AM
We are back on the record. The jury files in. Another exhibit is put up on the ELMO.

[The jury has heard firearms examination evidence ad nauseam. They heard it in the trial itself from defense and prosecution witnesses and now they are hearing basically the same information all over again.]

Amster now wants the witness to look at micro photographs and identify specific aspects of the photo, the number of lines, etc., that he was able to match to another bullet or firearm. Rubin replies that the problem is, a photograph does not document the comparison. It only documents the work that was performed.

[Dr. Hamby testified that the human brain and eye, in conjunction with a comparison microscope is still superior to a computer program trying to make a tool mark comparison between bullets and firearms. It's a low cost, tried and true method that has worked for as long as comparison microscopes have been in use. A two dimensional photograph, cannot be used to show comparison work because it does not give dimensional information to what was seen with the eye, using a comparison microscope.]

Amster now moves onto the Sharon Dismuke evidence. I don't see a single juror taking a note. I see several crossed arms, yawns and mouths being covered. Now Amster is asking about the detailed information in the examiner's notes.

Amster asks about NIBIN, an imaging system. There are several parts to it so there are several names and initials. Rubin verifies he has access to this system. Bullets are uploaded to this system, but Rubin cautions, not just any bullets. The system is limited to 38 special and 38 magnum bullets.

Are there any systems that you are aware of that would allow you to upload 25 caliber bullets?
I don't know the limits [of these imaging systems].
Were any of the firearms you examined, were they 38 caliber?
Yes.
Did you upload any of those firearms to see in those systems?
I don't recall. I'd have to go back to look at the lab.
Why do we have NIBIN in the first place and why do we use it?
NIBIN, in general, a fired ammunition component is photo micro graphed, taken of the tool mark and that image is digitized beyond the scope of my expertise, and this evidence and test fired exemplars [that is entered]. ... When an item is entered into the system, the system searches the data it has to see if there are similarities, to see if one case is related to another case. ... It's a screening tool that labs use to aid investigators.

Another question about .38 caliber evidence updated to the system. Objection, irrelevant. Sustained.

Another micro photograph is presented.

You used test fired bullets to compare to coroner evidence/
Yes.
This photograph, does it help you, does it refresh your memory in any way ... ?
Again, [Rubin turns to face the jury] as I've said to the other two photos, they show areas that were representative of the tool marks. By the way it's reproduced I cannot say significantly what is a comparison.
Do you see any dissimilarity?
Again, that photograph is ... The photographs themselves don't show everything, and that's all I can say.
And you don't have any other notes that document reproducible marks to show how you came to your conclusion?
Correct.

Another micro photograph the witness took during his examination. The witness is asked to tell us what the exhibit is.

That is a photo micrograph showing the left side bullet, 18B on the right is the test fired pistol [721?] showing the land engraving.
And you don't have any other notes that would reflect your observation as to what you saw in the pattern?
A specific portion of the tool mark, no.
Does your standard operating procedure say anything about what you are allowed to photo and digitize in your lab as far as expended ammunition?

Judge Kennedy steps in and asks her own question.

You don't use the photos for comparison, it's only used for note taking?
It came out strongly in our training not to use photographs for comparison.

I believe Amster asks the last question.
Did your training address using digitized photographs to make comparisons?
No, never.

The witness explains this [micro photographs] goes back to when they used film to document their work. Amster's cross is finished.

DDA Silverman redirects her witness.

With respect to the marks that you noted on 13A. You told us there was a marking, a WM. Does that stand for another firearm examiner, William Moore?
[Yes.]
And RKM, does that refer to Richard Maruka [sp?]?
He's retired, but he did work in our laboratory.
The markings that you noted that were consistent to firearms examiners who worked in your office?
Yes.

The redirect is finished. Smiling, Judge Kennedy addresses the witness. "Thank you Mr. Rubin. I think you can go." The jury laughs at that and Rubin thanks the jury.

The people call their next witness, Sherry Costa. She's sworn in. As soon as she takes the stand, Amster requests a side bar. I can hear snatches of the conversation at the side bar. Towards the end of the side bar, a note has come from the jury to the court right after the side bar. It appears that Mr. Amster is addressing his questions to the jury instead of to the witness. I also hear, "We the jury appear to be...."

Judge Kennedy retakes the bench. She apologizes to the witness and excuses her until 1:30 pm.

The following italicized text was already reported in this post on May 19. Sprocket.

The court states, "We have an issue we have to take up. ... I have a note in my hand. It's written by Alternate #3."

Judge Kennedy reads the note. [I do not have the entire text of the note verbatim. I will try to obtain it. Sprocket]

Good morning. Today we have noted [the defense attorney] is physically directing his questions to us the jury and not the witness. We have come to the consensus his actions have made us feel uncomfortable and threatened.

This does not affect what the jury is here to do and listen to all the evidence.

P.S. We can still be fair.

The court inquires with Alternate #3. The jury tells the court it was a combined effort. Alternate #3 was chosen because she has the best handwriting. Then Juror #8 speaks for the group.

Judge Kennedy asks, "You and the jurors feel threatened by the way the defense attorney [is communicating?]

Juror #8 answers the court:
It’s more or less the questions are directed [at us], it's the body language, [eye contact], its physically directed toward us and not specifically ... [to the witness]... He’s done this [with other witnesses throughout the trial].

The jurors are looking down rather than look up and its uncomfortable to [us] that rather then the questions [directed at us, he] should be looking at the witness.

Judge Kennedy asks another question. "And so you feel uncomfortable and some of the jurors feel uncomfortable ... and some of the jurors are nodding their own heads, yes."

Judge Kennedy continues. "Some attorneys have their own style and manner of communicating.
I do know that Mr. Amster has no hostility toward you. ... I’m concerned that you might not be able to render a fair verdict towards Mr. Franklin."

Juror #8 responds, "Not at all. We are here for a reason and we are all here for a reason. We are asking that he modifiy his behavior so that we do not feel uncomfortable doing our job."

The court inquires, "Do you feel that you would be unfair?

[I miss the answer but I believe the juror answers that they can be fair."

The court and counsel then go back to side bar. After the sidebar, the court excuses the jurors to an early lunch. After the jury has left, the court has counsel discuss in open court.

Defense attorney Amster starts off.
Our problem with Ms. Silverman ... at side bar, she point at the jury. She continually interrupts me in the middle of a question. We have tried to control ourselves but we are human and we have emotions and it's gotten to this point, unfortunately. ... What we have done has not [influenced?] this jury. If my conduct is unprofessional then [make a complaint to?] the state bar. ... It's about the defendant's rights. ... If there is something that I've done, that the jury is no longer impartial...

Amster suggests he write out a letter of apology for the court to read and we move on.

Judge Kennedy replies, "But as I said at side bar, I think that this is an advantage that this has been communicated to you because most times you wouldn't get this information. They are indicating to you that they feel uncomfortable by how you're asking questions and it's distracting them from paying attention to the evidence. ... They've also indicate that, that they want to listen to the evidence and the don't want to be distracted. ... So they could have just kept to themselves and continued to be more and more unhappy if the way that you're asking questions continued.  ... So write something during the lunch hour and see what it says. And if it’s appropriate, I’ll read it on your behalf and well move forward.

Amster counters that it is the defense position that this is something that they [the jurors] should have communicated to the court and not each other.  Amster then misspeaks and says, "Seeing that we brought this to the jury..." He's quickly corrected by the court and he apologizes.

He continues. "Seeing that the jury brought this to us. ... Being that we have a heightened sensitivity to this issue. I have to have a heightened sensitivity on this issue, ... this will give the prosecution an unfair advantage if they continue to interrupt us."

The court has a theory and a suggestion. "I will suggest, I'm, maybe ... before you were questioning from the lectern, and now you're not. If you're at the lectern, and you're looking straight on at the witness box, maybe that would ameliorate that to some degree."

Amster counters,  "The way this court is set up, I hear so many snide remarks, I'm tired of it."

Amster and the court go back and forth about the snide comments that he hears and that sometimes it's difficult to get to the lectern because the legs are stretched out. The court tells Amster that she's brought it up and made admonishments. Amster states that it's continually happening.

DDA Silverman offers to move her staff to behind the front rows. The court tells the people they don't have to do that. Judge Kennedy states it's just his [Amster's] field of vision.

And that's where it was left when the court breaks for lunch at about 11:55 am.

At 1:30 pm, Amster prepared a statement but the people objected to his statement being read to the jury.  DDA Silverman argued the statement would be tantamount to the defense attorney, testifying to the jurors. Judge Kennedy compromises and states she will read something to the jurors, which she did.


1:39 PM
On the record. The jury is present. Judge Kennedy speaks to the jury. "I have spoken with counsel. Mr. Amster wanted me to let you know he does apologize for creating any discomfort on any part of the jury, and he is going to question all the witnesses  by looking directly at them and not at you. ... I want to remind you that anything the lawyers do, defense or prosecutor, you're not to let what they do per se, affect your decision and your job. And like you wrote in your note, it's to base your decision on the evidence, or not with anything that I may do. ... And thank you for bringing it to our attention."

The next witness is Sherry Costa

32. SHERRY COSTA

Do you know someone named Barbara Ware?
She's my niece.
Who's the relationship [where does it fall?]?
She's my brother's daughter.
Now, did you grow up living close by?
Yes. ... I was living in Kansas and she would come to visit the grandparents. And we would see each other. They were in California and I was in Kansas. ... Later, I moved then to California in 1979.

The witness was an adult and Barbara was almost an adult as well.

Did you call her Barbara Beth Ware?
Her nickname was Beth.

Since Beth was the name Barbara was usually called, DDA Rizzo switches to that name.

When you relocated to California, where were you?
I was here in Los Angeles. .. I moved out with my brother and sister-in-law and I stayed with them for a short while. ... I got to know her for a short time.
Were you close?
We were close ... we were close. ... She eventually came and lived with me for a short while. ... We celebrated holidays, birthdays. We had a good time together.

Their age difference was about 20 years.

Would you do things together with Beth?
Yeah. A lot of times she had her daughter and I had my children. ... She babysat for me while I worked.

A cell phone goes off in the gallery. It's the witness's phone, in her purse she left with her friend in the gallery. The courtroom laughs.

You said that Beth lived with you for a while, is that right?
Yes.

This was after the witness moved out of her brother's home and into her own apartment.

She had children of her own then.
And Beth came to live with you at that time?
She was, um, maybe in her 20's.
And she brought her daughter? ... What's her daughter's name?
Naomi.
And she was very young when she lived with you?
Yeah. It was fun and we had the good times. My children were young and we celebrated a lot of birthdays together.

What was she like?
Well, she, ... she was a happy person. She loved to laugh. She was a good spirited person. And she trusted people.
Do you think that was a fault of hers in some way?
I couldn't say it was a fault, no.
Too trusting?
Yes. Too trusting. .. I never ever heard her put anyone down. I never heard that from her, no. ... She was always so good about people. She was a fun loving person. She was about life.

The witness is asked about some of the things that Beth liked to do.

She loved to roller skate. I loved to roller skate.
The old fashioned kind?
Yes. We used to go to the roller rink. ... Rolling wheels.
Was she a good roller skater?
Yes, but I was better.

The courtroom laughs.

What about your children and Beth's daughters. Did they all get together to celebrate holidays?
We celebrated as a family.
Who do you say was the person that was the closest person to Beth?
Maybe her sister.
When Beth was living with you, did she talk to you about what she wanted to do with her life, her hopes and dreams?
I talked to her about improving herself. She went to night school. She got her certificate.
So she wanted to do better?
She would take care of my children during the day and go to school at night.
Then when she went to school at night, you took care of her daughters?
Yes. ... It worked out.
So the whole family supported each other and made their life better?

How did you hear about Beth's death.
I think my brother gave me a phone call. ... It was hard to believe. I didn't understand why. ... We didn't know what happened to her.
At some point did you find out what happened to her?
Quite a few years later. I thought that they had found out what had happened to her, but in the long time, we never knew.
But eventually, you found out?
Yes.

My brother and his wife planned the funeral.
You went to the funeral?
Yes.
What do you remember about that day?
It was a sad day. Sad day.
Did it seem surreal to attend the funeral of your young niece, ... especially when you didn't know what had happened?

She goes to the cemetery now every memorial day to remember her and her brother, who passed away. Her birthday is in January.

What about the holidays? Does you family still get together to celebrate holidays?
The holidays, yes. ... As far as my other family, we put their names on balloons and release the balloons. ... So that they are not forgotten.
Do you do that once a year?
Usually on Memorial Day.

She shows the witness some photos.

When you went roller skating, did you wear outfits?
No, I didn't.

Photos of Barbara Bethune Ware is presented. She's beautiful.

That's Beth. Barbara.
Do you know when that photo was taken? ... It looks like she was in her early 20's?
She may have been, yes.

Another photo, exhibit 420 a and b. Both are of Beth. One is of Beth with rollers in her hair. The other, she was at her aunt's house.  This was when she was living with the witness, and getting ready, starting her day with her rollers in her hair.

More photos of Beth with family, her father Clifford Ware, back in Wichita, Kansas. This was when Beth was out visiting. Another group photo with Sherry's daughter Angela, Barbara in the middle and Barbara's daughter in front of her. Sherry's niece Treva and Treva's daughter in front of her. It was taken on a Mother's day. All the daughters played together and got along.

Another photo of the little ones. Her daughter Angela, Naomi, Tia and her nephew Shawn. Another photo of Beth with Naomi and Angela. In this photo, they were at Chuck E. Cheese. It was somebody's birthday party.

More photos. These are of Beth when she had taken a class at Crenshaw High School and she had gotten her certificate. The photo shows Beth's teachers at the ceremony. This was the certificate that she went to school at night to obtain.  A photo of Beth with her certificate.

Was she proud of her accomplishment?
Yes. And we were proud of her.

Another group photo of Beth with her classmates. The next photo is of the funeral program and Beth's obituary. The funeral was at Harrison Ross Mortuary, View Park Chapel. You can see in the obituary, all the many names of the people that Beth left behind. She's buried in Inglewood cemetery. A photo of her marker stone. It says Barbara Bethune Ware. January 8, 1964 - January 10, 1987. She was 23.

When you do go there, what do you do?
We go and we usually clean off the graves, and a lot of times we let off balloons. And we make sure the grave site is clean and we lay flowers.
Do you talk to her?
No. ...It's still hard.
Still hard?
Yes.
Do you think about her?
Yes I do.
How often?
Not as often as I used to. ... Something can come across my mind and I will think about her.

What do you miss about her?
Her laughter. She was silly.
And everyone around her [enjoyed her?] laughter?
Yes.
When was the last time you saw her?
New Years Eve, before she passed away.
And she was murdered a couple of days into January?
Yes.
What do you remember about that New Years Eve?
We were all together as family at my brother's house.
Do you remember anything special about that New Years Eve?
Not right off hand. ... It's been a while.

No cross examination.

The people call Treva Anderson.

33. TREVA ANDERSON

Do you know someone named Barbara Ware?
Yes. That's my sister.
You called her Beth?
Yes.
Would you like me to refer to her as Beth?
That's fine.
How old were you at the time of her death?
I'm not sure.
What's the age difference?
We were seven years apart. ... So I was about 30.
Did you grow up with Beth?
No. I was born and raised in Wichita Kansas. ... I believe she was born in Los Angeles.

We didn't refer to each other as half sisters.
Did you have other brothers and sisters?  And she had other brothers and sisters?
I only know Billy. ... I think he's younger. No, he's older.

So you were in Wichita Kansas growing up and Beth was out here. At some point did you make your way west?
Yes. I moved to San Diego in '78, and I got to know Beth a lot better. ... We saw each other a lot. We came down every other weekend, and lots of relatives were down here all the time. ... And Beth and us were really close.

Describe the relationship for us.
We didn't know each other growing up. We'd only met a couple of times. ... Once I moved to San Diego, I really got to know her. Every time we [met] I got to hang out at the furniture store. We would come up for the holidays ... and just for, to come up. ... And a lot of catching up too.  And our kids were kind of growing up together.
Once you and Beth got to hang out together, did you feel as though you knew her for a long time?
I felt like an older sister and she used to ask me for advice. So I'm used to playing that role and she fit right in.
What kinds of things would she ask you about?
Working, raising kids, just general every day stuff.
Did she have her daughter by the time you moved to California?
I'm not sure if Naomi was born [yet]. I remember her from an infant.

All of their kids got to know each other and play together.

What were some of the things you would do together when she came out on the weekends?
Hang out at our aunts house, barbecue, go to the movies and hang out.
[Did you go roller skating?]
I wasn't aware of the skating. ... There was a little competition between her and Aunt Sherry.
Did Beth talk to you about what she wanted for her future life?
Not really. We didn't have those kinds of talks. It was always about fun. [She was] funny, a joker.

Is there something you remember about her, the way she laughed?
She, every time I came up here, she always tried to hit me up for something. ... We had an ongoing [joke?] about that. Money, cigarettes, something. She really didn't need it but she just wanted to get it from me.

They didn't share clothes. Beth didn't like her style.

Who was the closest person to her?
Billy.
Her brother?
Yes.
How is it you learned about Barbara's death?
My father called me, and we had just been here for New Years. Beth and I had run out to the store to get ... she wanted some cigarettes and we were trying to make it back before midnight. And it was raining. We were running for the car and we were just giggling like little girls.

She stops for a moment and rubs her eyes.

And then my father called me and told me she was dead. ... And it was 10 days since I'd seen her. And it was so hard. We had just seen her. It was two days after her 23 birthday. It was the worst thing that could ever happen. ... It hurt my father really bad. ... He probably didn't recover from it.
That was his baby?
He wasn't the same after that. That was his baby.
How was the rest of the family?
We got over it, because we have a close knit family. Every birthday, every holiday, we still do everything together.

What about New Years Eve? Do you think about that wonderful New Years Eve that you had together?
That was one of the days that sticks out to me. ... We don't celebrate [that] anymore. ... My father isn't here.

Did you help plan the funeral?
No, but I went to the funeral.
What was that like?
It was terrible. It was the first time I'd ever seen my father cry.
That was a hard thing to see?
He was my protector.
Do you go to the cemetery?
Every year and on Memorial day.
I'm the one that does all the cleaning and digging in the dirt. We have a lot of people there that we go visit and put flowers there. ... Billy has never been to her grave and that's what he wants to do.

I'm going to show you some photos, okay?
Exhibit 468, a photo of Barbara.
That looks like a photo her father had down at the store. He had a photo of all three girls on his desk.

The next photo is of Bill, her grandfather and Beth. This was probably one of the times they were in Wichita.  Next is a photo of the memorial program. She doesn't remember when the photo on the program was taken. The obituary, and all the people named in the obituary that were left to mourn her, after she was killed.

You indicated that one of the last times was that New Years Eve, right before she was murdered.
If you knew it was going to be the last time you were going to see her, what would you say to her?
That I loved her. she knew I loved her and I probably did tell her that. ... I don't know. ... That kind of stuff that happens, I guess I would have told her to be safe.

No cross examination. DDA Silverman calls her next witness, Dr. Vivian Williams.

34. VIVIAN WILLIAMS

Tell us who you know by the name of Georgia Thomas?
She's my younger sister.
What was the age difference?
Two years.
Who was older?
Me.
Were there any other kids in your family?
There were a total of six of us.

How many other sisters other than Georgia?
Two sisters and two brothers.
Are you the oldest of the children? ... Georgia was the second oldest?
Yes.
Did you share a close relationship?
Yes.
Did you know where she was living at the time of her death?
I think it was on near Martin Luther King Blvd. ... I sure knew how to get there.
Was it also near Western?
Yes.
Where were you living?
In Gardena, on Manhattan Place.
Where Georgia was living at the time, ... is that all in the South Los Angeles area?
Yes. ... She was basically between there and my mom's house.
She would go back and forth?
Yes. Mom lived on West 57th.

How is it you learned about your sister's death?
Detective Greg McKnight called. ... He went to my mom's house.
And he called you from there?
Yes.
He called you on the phone?
Yes. ... He was at my mom's house [which also was?] my younger sister's house. ... My mom had since passed away, and my younger sister [Kathy?] was there and she was so distraught. ... So he called me.
How old was she?
She was older than 20. She was in her mid 20's.
So you spoke with [Detective] McKnight on the phone?
He told me that they had found Georgia. ... First he asked me if I knew her. ... And I wanted to know why and he said they had found her. I said, Why are you asking me that. I know her. ... He said they found her and that she had been found murdered.

What did you think to yourself?
I first thing that I thought is, I need to get to my sister. ... Let me get to her. ... I told her I'm on my way and I rushed out of the house to get to where my sister was. When I got there, she was on the floor. She was a mess. She couldn't tell me anything, really.

Was Detective McKnight still there?
No, but the neighbors were there and he left his business card.
Did you keep in touch with Detective McKnight [over the years].
That's my brother from another mother. ... I contact him on his birthday, every holiday, his son going to collage.
So ... Detective McKnight has become a member of your family. ... So he is someone over the years, that has been there as a shoulder to lean on as you've been waiting all these years for your sister's killer to be apprehended?
[Yes.] This was the first time [in court] I'd met him.

Did your sister have any children?
Yes.
She had one son who was murdered in September '93.
September of 1993?
Yes.

Did you and Georgia have a close relationship with your mother as well?
[Yes.]
And you mentioned she lived with her mother as an adult?
I was always fussin' with her, You have to be an adult and [can't] be in and out of mom's house.
Did your mom also die?
February 21, 1993 mom passed away. ... She won her battle with cancer.

Who went to the coroner's? Did your mother or did you do that?
Mom was already gone. Actually I identified Georgia's body.
What was that like?
It was hard, but it was my responsibility as the older sibling. ... We didn't have parents [with us]. Our father lived in Arkansas.
Who planned the funeral and all of that?
It was me.
How did you go about doing that? You had your own family and your siblings and you were the oldest child so you felt that you were responsible for acting like a mother?
Yes.
What was that like?
As my aunt and uncle told me, it was my responsibility to do what I could and handle it. ... So I had to take care of it.
Was that a difficult day?
It has been the hardest. I found my mother's was the hardest.
But your sister's was less difficult?
After mom, I still had my family, but when Georgia was murdered, I lost my family.

It's difficult to lose a family member under any condition, right?
Yes.
Does it make a difference losing someone when they pass away from age or illness, or say when you know they die a violent death?
My experience has been, the answer to that question would be yes.
What's the difference? ... When you think back with your mother, do you tend to focus on that span of time and that relationship you had all those years?
With my mother, I get to think about the fact that she's not suffering any longer. That's the [time?]. And right now, to be totally honest, I'm really glad shes not here. ... I wouldn't want her to go through this. I think this would put her in the grave. And I would not want to push her in a crypt, to push her in a crypt because of this. I'd rather cancer put her there, than this.

So you think this would have destroyed her?
I do.
Has it been difficult for you?
Yes.
Did you at some point, give up hope that your sister's murder would ever be solved? ... What was that like, knowing she died in a violent manner and not being able to have any sense of closure?
It was hard. It was very difficult because I always felt that, in my mind, I always felt that I was unable to protect her. I always felt that I had two other sisters and a daughter and there's this crazy person out there. I don't know where they are and if they might come back. I never stopped to think about well, girl they know who you are. I alwasy thought they would know who they are. I always worried about my other sisters and daughter.
That feeling, that not knowing who, you were scared?
Yes.
What has been the impact on you or changed the way you see things, or maybe treat your own child?
Smothering. I ... [she pauses] I [denied?' allowing her to travel with her friends. I found reasons that I would take yer. Her friends went on a trip around the world together. I wouldn't allow her to go so I quit my job and I took her. And I feel bad about that, but I chose to find a reason so I could protect her because I was so afraid that this crazy person was out ther and I couldn't be out there to protect her.

So you feel guilty that you were not able to save your sister?
I do.
So you are very cautious even with your daughter, even though she's an adult?
I talk to her about what happened. She knows.
And she's been a source of comfort to you, even though you lost your sister? ... Has she been able ot provide you with a sense of of comfort?
She has. She tries to talk to me. She says, well mamma, it's not your fault. You shouldn't feel guilty. I try to appease her.

Are there times of the year where you think about your sister more than others?
Yes.
What tie of the year is that?
Around birthday time because that was my birthday vacation that I spent preparing her funeral.
And her birthday time?
August 30.
Her birthday was August 30? Of what year?
1957.

The following notes were previously posted in a condensed form.

Years ago, did you ever take your sister to visit a friend [of hers] who lived on 81st Street?
Yes.
And where was that, do you remember on 81st?
Just off Western.
Do you remember what the house looked like?
I don't but I used to tease her that it looked like a "cookie house."
Like a gingerbread house?
Yes.
How many times do you think you took your sister and dropped her off at her friends, just off Western?
Maybe eight, ten times.
And when you dropped her off there, did you ever seen your sister's friend?
Yes.
Where did you see her friend?
At the gate. ... Her friend would open the gate to let her in, because we would never leave until I saw someone let her in. ... And they would wave to me. Her friend would wave to me.

Was it a female or a male?
It was a man. ... A black man.
Did your sister ever tell you your friend's name?
Yes.
What did she tell you?
Lonnie.

When you would drop your sister off there, did you drop her off near the time of her birthday?
It was at different times.
Did you drop her off there at different [times?]?
Yes.
Did she tell you about [the birthdays?]?
That they had dual parties. That they celebrated the birthday. Their birthdays were the same dates.
Your sister was born in 1957?
Yes.
I'd like to show you some photographs.

Exhibits 601 to 610 and 644, 645. Exhibit 610 is put up.

That's Georgia Mae.
Do you know what age she was?
I don't know. She was in her 30's.

Another photo she identifies as Georgia. Another photo that Vivian states looks like her sister was at a bar. Then another photo with Georgia and her son Ricky [sp?].

And you said he was murdered at what age?
I think 18.

Another photo with Georgia at Vivian's house. She identifies the people in the photo. Georgia and my daughter Anesha [sp?], when she was 2.  Another photo with Georgia and their mother, before their mother passed away. Another family photo with a cousin, Vivian's daughter and Georgia. More photos, this time with Georgia and young children at their mother's house. The photos keep coming of Georgia with various family members.  Another photo of Georgia, at a barbecue at their uncle's place. She points out all the people in the group. And another photo of Georgia and her son Ricky when he was a little boy. Another photo, of her funeral program, and then a tribute that Vivian wrote for her sister that was inside the program.

What kind of sister was Georgia?
She was fun. She was too trusting.
She thought everybody was her friend?
Everybody she knew was her friend.
Do you remember what kind of things were her favorite things to do ... ?
She wanted to dance, and she knew I couldn't dance. ... She loved to dance and she loved to cook.
Was she a good cook?
Yes
What would you say, during her adult life, what was the greatest joy that you would say that she had? ... Was that her son?
Ricky.
Did the two of them have a close relationship?
Yes.
I thought she was going to die when Ricky was murdered. She couldn't do anything. She couldn't help me do nothing.
Eventually she was able to pull herself together. ... How long before she was murdered before she got her life back together?
Her brain started coming around because she said her house was boring.
Eventually, did she get her life together and start doing things again?
Yes. ... She started going back around her friends and stuff and doing her own thing.

What is it that you would say you miss the most about Georgia?
Her laughter. Her phone calls, her prank calls. I really miss that.
Has being here during many days of the trial and listening to the evidence and seeing the evidence, has that provided you with some answers all these years?
Yes, it has helped a lot.

2:45 PM
Nothing further. Defense attorney Amster asks for a side bar. It's longer than usual.

Amster will cross the witness. This is the first family member to undergo cross examination.

You say that you used to take your sister over to a house.
Yes I did.
How many times did you do this?
I don't know the exact number. Maybe eight to ten times, maybe. ... It was normally on a Sunday evening. ... Usually it would be on a Sunday evening. They would go dancing.
Was this for a period of two or three months?
No. It was longer than that.
About six months?
I don't think so. I don't know exactly.

The last time ... You say that you would drop her off at the house and you would see a man come out?
Yes.
Did you see him make eye contact?
Yes, as a matter of fact. He would wave at me.

The witness makes a waving gesture with her right hand.

At some point, you were notified about her death?
Yes.
How much time had elapsed ... and she was notified about her death and the last time you dropped your sister off at this location?
I don't remember that.

The witness shakes her head as she answers the last question.

You were contacted by the police about the death of your sister, yes?
Yes.
Did you ever tell the police about [this friend]?
I didn't think it was necessary. No. Wait. I mentioned it in an interview. ... I mentioned it to ... I did mention. I mentioned it to Detective McKnight.

Do you [know] ... did he ever show you any pictured of the house [to you?]?
No.
Did you ever go with him on this street and [show him] this house that you used to drop your sister off at?
No.
When you said you mentioned it to Detective McKnight, was that after an arrest or was that before?
Way before.
When you would drop your sister off, would you only see one adult or more?
I saw a person and it was the same person every time.

Did she ever make any statement that there was violence [related to this person? location?]?
No.
Did she ever say anything to you about this person that led you to believe it was a bad relationship?
No.
Can you estimate in any way, the time period between when you last dropped your sister off at this house, and the date you learned about your sister's death?
Sir, again, I don't remember the dates.
Do you think it was months, years or weeks ...?
I don't recall. If you want to know abut the relationship, she told me it was her boyfriend.

The court interrupts and asks, "Mam, you have to wait for another question."

3:10 PM
Amster is finished with his cross examination. A juror has a medical appointment so they are ordered back at 9:00 am tomorrow. She wishes the jury a wonderful evening. "Even the lady wearing red, I wish you a wonderful evening." The jury laughs, and the court thanks them.

All the jurors have left. The court asks the people what witnesses they are calling for Friday morning.

DDA Silverman responds, Ms. Clark, John Hernandez [sp?] Jeff Deacon, unless the defense wants to stipulate to the prints. Amster states he cannot stipulate to the prints. He will stipulate to the priors package that was him. Amster states he will have Mr. Atherton work on that, and then he laughs and laughs.

DDA Silverman mentions about Amster stipulating to the priors package, and then states she will call Detective Dupree and that testimony will be brief. The Friday session will be short. The court asks if there's anyone else that they can fit into Friday. DDA Silverman mentions one witness but the rest are out of town witnesses. There's a bit of housekeeping in getting an exhibit marked, the witness that will be called again are mentioned and that's it.

Friday, May 20, 2016
8:45 AM
Defense attorneys Seymour Amster and Dale Atherton arrive. There are two attorneys here sitting at the defense table. Over at the deputy's desk, Judge Kennedy's bailiff is giving his two new assistants what their duties are for the day. He tells them when they are required to stand, what to watch out for and the zero tolerance regarding cell phones in the courtroom. I like Judge Kennedy's current bailiff. He's actually a funny guy and from what I have heard, a good jokster.

Judge Kennedy comes out from her chambers. Shes' wearing a beautiful red sleeveless dress. Judge Kennedy, known for her love of the Dodger and "Dodger Blue," is asked, "Why are you wearing red?" Smiling she replies, "I have to give credit where credit is due." There's laughter with her reply. I take it from her comment, the Dodgers did not win last nights game.

The other counsel in the well were waiting for someone to arrive. When he does, all three go into chambers with counsel.

8:54 AM
The defense team's investigator arrives. A woman in a red dress and a much younger woman, possibly her daughter sits in the gallery.  About ten minutes later, the courtroom starts to fill up. The people arrive with their support staff.

9:10 AM
Amster is ecstatic. He says out loud to the room, "The 9th circuit just came down and reversed in our favor." He says it out loud enough that everyone in the courtroom hears. He's quite happy, joyful. Smiling from ear to ear, he goes up to a few people and whispers in their ears. I know this can't be about the Franklin case, but what kind of message does that send to the victim's families that are sitting in the gallery? Amster leaves the courtroom to make a phone call. Dale Atherton, sitting at the defense table, continues to rock in his chair. When Amster returns, he continues to laugh and smile over his good news with his co-counsel at the defense table.

9:19 AM
Franklin is brought out. Amster brings up the witness from Germany again. He tells the court, "The people have implied that they have not had any communications themselves with the witness. Yet yesterday, they've represented the witness has refused an interview. And if they've had some type of communication..."

DDA Silverman interrupts. "That's inaccurate. ... We haven't take any statements that deal with the schedule of detail of her testimony."

Amster continues. He's very concerned about the fact that the prosecution is going to feel that way. It doesn't not mean that she [the witness] doesn't want to be fair and the material facts to her. He adds, "I don't think it's up to the prosecution what should be the type of communication that should be turned over or not." Amster is requesting an in-camera hearing and [the prosecution?] telling the court why [their communications with the witness?] should not be turned over. "At this point, I'm extremely concerned that any discussion the prosecution or law enforcement is going to be presented in a manner or implied, or expressed persuasion. I'm requesting an order by the court that the prosecution or law enforcement not have any discussions what so ever." The court rules, "I'm not going to order that at this time."  The court does order a German interpreter. The witness will be brought to court on Wednesday. At that time an inquiry will be made if she wished to be interviewed [by the defense].

DDA Silverman tells the court that she is aware of her discovery obligations. She then mentions the defense and their issue with discovery violations. Some years ago, the witness [had said she was terrified]. The prosecution's office had access to a German interpreter, who has been attempting to assist us in getting her here. We don't have any statements from interpreters.

Amster feels this is a discovery violation at this point. The court states she is not going to do this at this time. Amster is asking for an order that the people turn over any notes and communication from a third party.

DDA Silverman, or the court replies, that what an interpreter said third hand or second hand, is not what you can use to impeach a witness. If an interpreter is interpreting simultaneously that becomes her statement. The court wants to get the witness here first. Amster want's the people's interpreter here. DDA Silverman tells the court that their interpreter is not a certified court interpreter. It's just someone they know that speaks German.

The court asks, "None of these people who are helping you have not taken statements regarding the crime?" DDA Silverman replies, "Except for the one short interview done by Detective Dupree, no. ... Detective Dupree kept a log of all the contact that was made with the German victims. That was turned over to him [Amster] a long time ago. ... We didn't speak to them for three months. ... The interpreter doesn't know about the case and has never been to court."

The court orders that all recent contact be added to Detective Dupree's list and that turned over to the defense.

Amster has another issue, this time regarding Dr. Vivian Williams testimony. "I reviewed my discovery lat night. I did not see any reference to the name Lonnie in discovery." DDA Silverman counters, "That interview, the last line of her statement mentions that line of that statement that she said."

DDA Silverman then brings up an issue that I'm guessing was brought up at sidebar. "Yesterday, because of the complaint by the defense that victim impact statements should be called twice, there is absolutely no law that indicates that that is somehow prosecutorial misconduct for not calling the witness twice. ... that entire scenario is unsupported by any law. Just because counsel doesn't like the evidence in this case doesn't mean that he can require the court to fashion some procedure that's required by law." DDA Silverman gives a measured review to the court about counsel's behavior, that he is, or appears to still be upset by the jury's note. "If we could please get through this trial in somewhat of a professional manner."

Counsel then discuss the stipulation to the prior convictions. Amster states he agrees to the priors package unless there is something that they ask the court to redact. DDA Silverman wants to go over each item in detail and get that out of the way now. Amster doesn't appear to have reviewed the documents yet. They go over the priors packages and make stipulations.

9:42 AM
The jury is brought in. Judge Kennedy comments to the jury on her dress that she has to give credit where credit is due. The jury laughs. The people call their next witness.

35. LATANYA CLARK

The woman who steps up to the witness stand is a strikingly attractive woman I had noticed in the gallery many times.

Do you know someone named Rolenia Morris?
She's my sister.
Are you younger or older?
Older.
So you're her older sister?
Yes.

Amster interrupt testimony to request a side bar.

You said that Rolenia was 4 years younger than you?
Yes.
Are there any other siblings?
I'm the oldest. Yolanda lives in Atlanta, then Rolenia and then the younger sister, Regina.

When her sister got dislocated from her apartment she came [to live with her]. Rolenia's children at Donte, 22, and Donchae [sp?], 25.

When they all moved in with you, how old were the kids?
Donchae was 14 and Donte was 10 or 11.
When she moved in with your for a while, where were you living?
When the first time, I was 25 and she relocated from Pasadena to Los Angeles with my other sister.

All three sisters in Los Angeles lived together. Then they moved to a bigger place to have room for the kids. They always stayed together.

Rolenia, where was she living in September 2005? If you know, from your own knowledge.
She was living in Los Angeles.
South LA?
Yes. ... Near Manchester and Western.

On September 5, 2006, did you and your sisters go somewhere to, get together?
They came to my house.
Was that for a barbecue?
Yes.
Was that in the San Gabriel Valley?
At that time, yes.

She lists the other family members who were there at the barbecue.

Where was Rolenia living?
She was living with Regina.
What happened after the barbecue? Did everyone leave? ... Did Rogenia and Rolenia go back home?
I drove them home.

After the date of September 5, 2005, have you ever seen you sister again?
I have not.
Have you ever heard from your sister again?
No.

A few days after that, I asked my boss if I could leave because I believed my sister was missing.

She went to the 77th Street Station and filed a missing person's report. She also gave them a photo of her sister.

In terms of your sister Rolenia who went missing, have you has she had any contact with her two children, if you know?
Objection. Sustained.

Do you have a father who is still alive?
My step-father, Albert Morris. ... He lives in Lancaster.
Are you in contact with him?
Yes.
Are you also in contact with your other sisters/
Yes, I am.
What about Rolenia's children, are you in contact with them?
Yes.
Did you come to court one day, and bring Donte with you?
Yes I did.

Was your sister working at the time she went missing?
Yes, she was.
How was she working? In what capacity?
She loved helping elderly people so she did a lot of in-home type of service position type of jobs.
How old was she when she went missing?
31.
Were you contacted at some point towards the end of 2010, by a Detective from the LAPD, Robbery Homicide Division?
I wasn't contacted through them first.
You contacted RHD, is that right?
No. They contacted me.

Have you had meetings with Detectives McCoy and Dupree?
Not so much Dupree, but since ...  Mccoy.
In regards to your sister, you had more contact with Detective McCoy?
Yes.

When your sister went missing, did you determine if any of her property .... are you aware of any property that went missing?
Objection.  Sustained.
Did you ever go over to the house where your sister went missing with Rogenia?
[Yes.]
Were you familiar with your sister's habits? Would she take her purse with her?
Yes.
Did you find her purse anywhere where she was living?

Judge Kennedy asks her own question. "Did you look for the purse?
Yes.
Judge Kennedy asks again, "What was the result?"
I didn't find it.

Were you familiar with the contents of [the things your sister carried in her purse?]?
Yes. Driver's license, California ID and a security card. Perfume, napkins.
Did you find any of that type of property, her ID? Did you find any of that or observe any of that at your sister Rogenia's house?
No.

Did your sister live for a period of time in Las Vegas? ... Do you have any family in Las Vegas?
Yes. My mom's eldest sister.

There are questions about her mother that I don't quite follow regarding Las Vegas. There is a long explanation about losing their lease on a house they were living in so that's why the sisters had to split up. There are continual objections by Amster and a motion to strike her answers.

Prior to 2005, [specifically] had your sister ever disappeared before?
No.
Did she discuss with you, your sister, her plans for the future?
Objection. Sidebar.

A few of the jurors appear to be laughing but I'm not sure what it's about.

Did your sister indicate that she had pans to go back to school of some sort? What were her future plans, if you know?
She wanted to go back to school to become a nurse.

When you looked through your sister's property, what kinds of property was left behind?
Her clothes, a bible, shoes, books, pictures of her children, letters, that sort of thing.
So everything but her purse with her identification? ... How about things like her toiletries? Were there makeup, a toothbrush, things of that nature?
Right.

Did your sister have a passport?
Not to my knowledge.
At some point did you give up hope that your sister would come back?
No, I didn't. I was still hopeful. I was always hopeful.
At some point did you try to call her cell phone?
Yes, I did.
Did you do that over and over again?
[Yes.]
With what result?
No service.
Did you have... let me ask you this. What did you do with respect to your niece and nephew?
My sister [Regina?] had already spoken to my nephew's father.
Did someone take care of Donchae and Donte?
Yes.
How old were they, when your sister went missing?
Donte was 12 and Donchae was 16.

Did you assist in raising them over the last ten years?
Yes.
And did you do that along with your other sisters?
Yes.
What was the custom, if any, on their birthdays? Did family get together to celebrate birthdays?
Always.

Did you and your family get together to celebrate Donte and Donchae's birthday prior to Rolenia going missing?
Always.

When the next birthdays rolled around, did she make any contact with you?
No mam.
What about all of their birthdays?
No.
Did she ever show up at the house?
No.
What about their graduations over the years?
No.
Did you attend their graduations?
Yes I did.

In your mind, as knowing your sister as you did, if your sister was alive.
Objection! Sustained.

At some point did you have some type of memorial party or remembrance party for your sister?
April 2012.
What was the purpose of that?
I'd spoken to my sister Yolanda in Georgia
Objection! [Miss ruling.]
Did you have a memorial party that you lost hope that your sister was still alive?
Yes.
Who attended that memorial?
All of my family, myself, close friends and relatives. A pastor came and spoke on behalf of my sister.
In your view, do you view your sister now as deceased?
Yes I do.
How did that impact you, that your younger sister isn't ever coming home? ... At one point did you realize that your sister was dead?
Um, when I went to Parker Center and they had her ID and social security card.
Objection! Motion to strike! Sidebar.

I hear DDA Silverman at the sidebar. "Can he just make a legal objection and just move on? The side bar is over.

You were shown an ID card and photographs by LAPD?
[Yes.] When I got to Parker Center, they had us sequestered in a room. they asked me who I was.

Judge Kennedy asks, "Were, at some point, were you shown some ID related to your sister?
Yes.

People's exhibit 366D is presented.

Is this the ID card that was shown to you?

The card says, Rolenia Adele Morris.

Yes.
And who is the person?
My sister.
Did you ever see that card before that day?
No.
Do you recognize your sister's photos?
Yes I do.
Did you know what address [was on the card?]?
I didn't know the address but I knew.

I note the birth date on the card. 2/4/1954.

Is that the same ID card that we see in 366C?
Objection. Sustained.
Do you recognize your sister's photo here?
Yes I do.
Do you recognize this person?
Yes I do. ... My sister Rolenia.
Do you also recognize her in this photo of her?
Yes I do.
Do you recognize her clothing?
Yes. I do.
Was this a blouse or top you'd see her wear before?
Yes I have.

One of the pictures, Rolenia is posed like Janecia Peters, with one breast exposed. Next, the missing person's flyer is put up on the ELMO. Latanya testifies she gave that photo to detectives so that it could distributed  to missing persons websites throughout the country.

Who is this person?
My sister.

Another photo she is asked to identify. It's her sister. She does not know when the photo was taken. More photos of Rolenia with other family members and her children. A photo of Rolenia's daughter of Donchae at her prom. It's the witness's niece and her prom date.

When did this take place?
Several years ago?
Before or after she went missing?
After
You went with her, to buy her prom dress?
yes.

Another photo of Rolenia, taken in Riverside at Regina's children's father's house. More photos of Rolenia with family. The next photo is of Rolenia with her sister Regina's son.

Do you still have parties like this for the family?
Not really. ... They're older now, since my sister's been gone...
[So you haven't gotten together as a family?]
We do but we usually go out to dinner. Not big like we used to do.

Another photo of the children, having a big birthday party.

That was the same day. It was Donte's birthday as well so we celebrated along with ... celebrated both their birthdays .... with two cakes.

Another photo.

That's Rolenia's grandson. He's six now. His name is Tyce [sp?].

More photos of Rolenia with her children. Then photos of her children older, after Rolenia went missing. Another photo of Rolenia as a little girl.  Then a photo, of family at the memorial. They are all wearing shirts with her baby photo.

We had t-shirts made when we had the memorial.

More photos of Tyce, and the four girls when they were young. A photo of Rolenia's mother. Latanya tells the jury her mother is not alove. She passed January 26, 1995, before Rolenia went missing.  Another photo of her missing sister.

Were you responsible for getting all these photos together? What was that like, getting all these photos together, knowing the venue?
It was hard. ... I know these girls. Once my mom passed, I just took over the mom role.d I knew it had to be done.

Another photo of Rolenia and her children, and then a photo of Rolenia's grandson Tyce again. Then the photos, recovered from the defendant's home.

Do you recognize these original photos recovered from the Franklin home?
Yes.
Of the three sisters that you have, who was the one you were closest to when growing up?
I was close to them all. I didn't have a favorite. I was called sister mamma. I loved them all the same.

She dabs a tissue at her eyes.

We would have a few squabbles, but she knew that I loved her.
Typical sister squabbles?
Yes.
Were there any special things that you two did together as you look back?
Not me or her, all of us. ... It was always all of us. ... Because that's the way my mom raised us, just to be there for each other.

Given the close relationship, did that make it all the more difficult that she's been missing for so long?
Yes.
Given that you've had this memorial, ... what is it like to believe that, in your sister's [case you've] not had a place to bury her.
Very difficult. ... I'm always wondering where she is and what happened to her, and, what happened.

You've been sitting through a lot of this trial. Do you think it affects you differently because there isn't a body to bury and you haven't had the opportunity to have that funeral and a place to visit?
Horrible.
What was the impact?
I was very depressed for a long time.
Did you get help?
No. I just prayed.
Did that give you a sense of comfort?
Somewhat.
In terms of depression, is that something you seem to carry with you whereever you go?
Yes.

Can you describe what it's like, on her birthdays?
Just sad. Sad because we always celebrated and did things as a family unit. ... And to not have that, and to have that taken away from you is very traumatic because we'd never experienced anything like that in our family. ... We don't really celebrate like that anymore. Seems like everyone started doing their own things since this happened.

Unless you are the instigator, to put everything together, it sort of all falls apart?
Yes.
How is it for your niece and nephew?
Donte, he's devastated. He was a mamma's boy.
Who did they live with?
He lived with his biological father, in Rialto.
And my niece is with her grandmother in Rialto.
So they were separated?
Yes.

Do you have conversations with them about this case?
Donte yes. Donchae, no. ... Donte is more receptive of getting the information. I try to try to give him the information. ... With my niece, this is hard for her. She doesn't want to hear about the case or anything about him.
Do any of them ask you for information?
Donte, yes.
Donchae doesn't even speak about her mother?
No.
Were there special events you looked to celebrating with your sister and her family that you've been deprived of?
Of course.
In going through this process through the last several months, has this provided you with some closures and some answers?
Some answers, but I will never have closure.

No more direct. Amster gets up to cross the witness.

When was the last time you physically went to the place where she was living?
September 5, 2005.
And that was in Los Angeles?
Yes.
Since September 5, 2005 to the current date, have you maintained the same cell phone number?
No, I haven't.
Prior to September 5, 2005, did your sister ever call you on your cell phone?
Yes.
When did you change your cell phone number that she used to call you?
I think I changed it in 2010 because I wanted to keep it the same in case she contacted me so I waited a while.

Once you changed your number, did you do anything [leave a forwarding number?] if anyone knew about the old number they could contact you on your new one?

She had a forwarding system set up so that if someone called the old number, it will tell the caller what  her new number was.

And is that still active today/
No, I don't do that anymore.When did you stop that?
A while ago. 2013, something like that.

Nothing further. No redirect. We take the morning break.

10:41 AM
Latanya is comforted by DDA Silverman and Mary and Donnell Alexander in the gallery. I am awed at how patient and understanding DDA Silverman is with these victims' family members. She often tells them how strong they are.

11:04 AM
Judge Kennedy calls for the jury. The jury enters. The first order of business is the stipulation about the priors package. Once the stipulation is over, Judge Kennedy tells the jurors, "When the parties agree to stipulate you are to regard those facts as proven.

36. DARYN DUPREE

Since the jurors know who LAPD Detective Dupree is from the guilt phase of the trial, she does not reintroduce him.

With respect to crime scenes relative to Georgia Thomas, Inez Warren and Sharon Dismuke, are you familiar with those locations given your experience in the areas?
Yes.
Are you also familiar with the documentation with respect to those three homicides?
Yes.
And have you sat through the testimony in this case?
Yes.

Sharon Dismuke, found 1/15/1984. DR #84-13-029088
Inez Warren, found 8/15/1988. DR #88-12-28738
Georgia Thomas found 12/28/2000. DR #00-13-02969

The witness is shown the next people's exhibit. The exhibit documents how close the Barbara Ware and Georgia Thomas body dump sites were and the proximity of the crime scene locations.

What about the location that  we just heard about a few moments ago, with respect to Latanya Clark, with respect to where her sister Regenia [and Rolenia] was living. Do you see this location on this map? ... You can't see it because it's in the green circle area.
How far away [is it] from the defendant's location?
Nine city blocks.

Nothing further. No cross examination. The people have no additional witnesses at this time.

11:12 AM
Judge Kennedy addresses the jury. "Because w'ere going to have this block of several days off, and the other witness coming ... a long time ... as much as it pains me to do it, I'm going to give you a few more days off. We will be continuing on Thursday, May 26. ... Lady in red, have a good trip."

Judge Kennedy reminds the jury about their admonitions. "A ring tone on your phone, just pretend it's me [telling you], don't discuss the case, no posting and research on the Internet.  We'll be picking up again on Thursday at 9:00 AM

11:14 AM
All the jurors and alternates have left. Then Judge Kennedy adds, "Not going to see any of you hopefully until Wednesday morning. ... You [people] need to know about some of the defense witnesses or whether or not they are testifying."

They will have a 402 hearing on "Williams." The defense want to call Diana Kaiser. The people ask who she is. The defense states shes a mitigation expert. The people ask for a 402 hearing on her and the scope of her testimony in her so-called report. The people want to know if she is presenting anything the defendant [said?] in her testimony.

Judge Kennedy states, "I don't know what's in her report and who it's necessary."

The defense rolls of names he "might" call in his case. I don't get a single potential witness name correctly. However, Amster states that he's not finalized his witness list. "We've not made a decision until the people's case is over. ... The offer of proof is in the reports."

Judge Kennedy tells Amster, "Are you, will you have made up your mind by Wednesday. ... I don't what to do a 402 hearing on people that will not be called."  Amster asks about the people's remaining witnesses. The court answers that it's her understanding that the people's remaining witnesses are the woman from Germany, someone from JAG, someone from the military.

There's another individual from the military for the record and a couple victim impact witnesses left. The people feel they can finish their witnesses on Thursday.

The court asks Amster, "How long do you feel your case is going to take? ... Mr. Amster, you have the Sorenson witnesses?"  Amster is not sure they are going to call the Sorensen witnesses. The court responds, "On Wednesday, you need to tell us. ... I don't know if you have witnesses to counter."

The people are asked who the victim impact witnesses are. Diana Ware and Billy Ware and Romy Lampkin will be the final victim impact statements.

The court reminds the parties that June 1st, is Juror #9's child's graduation. And they've been so accommodating. ... Is because we've taken so long, they've been so good about all the delays we've had. The court also talks about going over jury instructions and that a special instruction needs to be crafted. Atherton states he just wants to check if the principal [language?] is in the law to see if it's already in the instruction, otherwise, they'll rely on CALJIC.  Amster states that by Tuesday noon, if they're requesting a special instruction, they will supply them to the court and email the DA.

And that's it. Wednesday at 9:00 am for evidentiary hearings. We are in recess.

Wednesday May 25, 2016
8:55 AM
Mona Shafer Edwards, the sketch artist is here along with ABC reporter Miriam Hernandez. Well, they were in the hallway. City News Reporter Terri Keith was trying to decide whether to continue with the Jace murder trial in Judge Robert Perry's courtroom or drop in on these evidentiary hearings.

Atherton was in his chair, rocking when I arrived. Over at the bailiff's desk was the court’s regular bailiff and Deputy Sargent Westphal.

I step out quickly to get a bottle of water before court begins. Defense attorney Seymour Amster arrived right before I stepped outside. Mona and Miriam enter Dept. 109.

9:17 AM
The German witness is here. There is discussion as to whether or not the witness will be sketched. I think they agreed that the witness will decide whether the media will be able to use a sketch of her.

Franklin is brought out. He’s in an orange jumpsuit.

The German woman has her husband with her, a female victim's advocate from the DA's office I've seen before and a woman sitting in the bench row behind her who is comforting her by patting her back. I find out later that the woman in the row behind her is from the crime lab. Both the victim's advocate and the crime lab person speak German.

Judge Kennedy greets parties.


The thing everyone wants is to hear is if the German woman will agree to an interview with the defense or the defense investigator, but that's not what the court starts off with. There are 402 issues on both sides.

Amster argues that he has received no written motions.  There is no law that that requires him to give an offer of proof. He argues that he's not required to give discovery.

Regarding a witness named Williams, Judge Kennedy asks, "You said that he was going to testify as to the destruction of evidence. Is that not true anymore?" Amster states he will be testifying about the body dump. As far as destruction of property, it’s solely to Inez Warren and if he had that evidence, to him, [witness] that might strengthen or change his opinion about the body dump.

Amster states that it is his witness's opinion that the Warren case is not a body dump. Well, it is a body dump but different than other body dumps in this case, verses hiding the body which did not occur. We had a rapid leaving of the scene of individuals or individual that we did not see in other individual [cases]. We know the victim was alive where we know in other scenes where the victim was dead when left at the scene. They are contradictions and dissimilarities. And that’s what his testimony will center on.

Judge Kennedy slowly responds, "Okay..."

DDA Silverman counters, "All of that would not be an area for expert testimony. He can argue, but all of that would be prior hearsay testimony he wasn’t at any of these locations."

Judge Kennedy asks if Amster can qualify him as an expert.

Amster responds, "He’s had the same amount of experience as the people’s expert. They opened the door. We have under the law, to be able [present him?]." Amster continues to object to the 402 since he insists the people never filed a motion.

DDA Silverman counters that. "The defense is wrong. ... The people did file a motion, back in November. ... There was no destruction of the sexual assault case in Inez Warren. She was taken to the hospital. There was no sexual assault kit collected."

The court rules in favor of the 402.  "He’s not testifying as a police practices expert. Just testifying what makes this case difference than the other cases.  [Warren]. They [people] do have a right to have him questioned as to his expertise."

An older black gentleman gets up from the seats by the door and takes the witness stand. Amster starts off with very simple questions. In no time DDA Silverman is objecting and Judge Kennedy is having to direct some of the examination.

1. TIMOTHY T. WILLIAMS


Were you eve employed by the LAPD?
Yes I was.
Were you employed by as a detective?
Yes I was ... I was employed as a detective from 1979 trainee. I was promoted in 1981 and retired in 2003.

Did you investigate homicides?
I did.
Would you investigations include situations that would be a body dump?
I did.
Did you you believe your expertise ...
Objection!

Judge Kennedy tells the defense, "Deal with his qualifications first."

Did you gain knowledge and experience to determine ... knows about body dumps? ... How many homicides did you investigate?
44.
How many of those involved a body dump?
Objection. No foundation.

Judge Kennedy tells the people to wait with the objections because this is a 402 hearing. She'll rule. DDA Silverman lays out her battle lines. "The people's position is, is that they have to lay a proper foundation."

The witness explains he received on the job training from his partners to see what constitutes a "body dump" scene. He would check post mortem lividity to see if the body was moved or other types of evidence of the body not being there.

And as a homicide investigator, was it part of your duties to determine if this [Warren] was a body dump?

And that's it. Amster believes he's done all he needs to do. The court asks the people if they want to cross the witness. DDA Silverman replies. "No foundation."

I believe at this point the court starts questioning the witness.

In your opinion what is a body dump and what are you looking for?
Where, someone is killed at another location and then they place it in another location. That's my terms.
What is it you specifically look for?
Witnesses that may have seen or heard anything. ... Physical evidence that may exert itself on the body. Post mortem lividity. Body is moved and the lividity. ... May have witnesses who say they walked through that area.

Judge Kennedy replies with a question, "That's it?" It's hard to interpret the expressions on the court's face during questioning. At times, it looked like she was puzzled or, not believing what she was hearing. The witness adds a bit more.

There may be other evidence that suggest that a body is a dump. You may have a purse that's near the body. You may have something that shows that the activity that the homicide was not there at the scene or someone else.

The court asks the prosecution if they want to cross. The defense wants a completed ruling.  The people state they haven't heard anything from this individual. Amster states they are not asking particular opinion on this case. People proffered a detective that Inez Warren was a body dump. His opinion is exactly the same as Mr. Williams, someone who was trained to recognize a body dump or not.

Judge Kennedy continues with her questioning. "Your opinion of a body dump is that the person is killed elsewhere and then the body is left at some other location after death?" The witness replies, "That's my opinion and the long and short of it."

The look on Judge Kennedy's face is priceless. I believe she asks another question. "If the evidence is [the victim] is dying or has received significant injuries elsewhere, but is left someplace different from where the injuries were inflicted, that's not a body dump?" The witness states, "In my opinion, that is still a body dump if the person was alive or dead."

Amster argues that his witness is going to render an opinion verses what was given by the people. The defense position is, that the crime may have or might have occurred at the location, not on the ground where the individual was found but in the van right there ... But the way that the evidence, ... the rapid leaving of the scene is contrary to other scenes.

DDA Silverman is not happy. I don't think she is believing what she is hearing that the court may consider this witness an expert, in comparison to Detective John Skaggs.  She moves forward in cross examining the witness.

Can you give a list of all the 44 homicides you claim to have worked?
[He cannot remember.]
Can you list one?
[He can't remember.'
You can't list one homicide? ... What homicide division was that you were assigned to?
77th Street Homicide.
Who were your supervisors? ... Tell us who your superior was?
Joe [?] Lieutenant over detectives at that time.

The witness mentions two more names. He's asked who his partner was and he names him. He was assigned to 77th Street homicide as a detective for a little over a year. He states he worked 44 homicides when he was working child abuse as well.

DDA Silverman gets more specific in her questioning, whether he investigated any women who were shot to death and left at a particular location. Williams sates he can't name one, but he's sure he has, he just can't name them. The time frame is gone over as to when he actually worked homicide. And he states he was lead on about 20% of the homicides. He's asked who was the D3 [detective 3] in the unit. When asked what homicide schools he attended, he states he needs to check his CV.

The people ask that the CV be turned over. The court orders it. Amster insists that he's already turned it over, or he thinks he did, but then he says he's not sure but that he will.

DDA Silverman continues her relentless questioning of the witness for his training and qualifications. Question after question after question about they types of cases he worked and what units he served in.

City News reporter Terri Keith and Jane Robison from the DA's office arrive.

The witness states that at one point, his job was to review all homicides through the bureau and review them and some were body dumps. He would make recommendations to the commanding officer. He states, "I have had my experience dealing with [them?] throughout my career."

But DDA Silverman is not finished. She wants to know how much of his education was specifically directed at body dumps. How many of the 44 homicides was he a patrol officer. What is it that you're saying was different with respect to Inez Warren? What is it that you claim to be testifying about that is different?

I believe the distinction is the difference between Inez Warren and others.

And then Judge Kennedy rules. "I think he has sufficient expertise to render an opinion.

He has copies of his CV and he is ordered to give a copy to the people.

The people object to Amster's "mitigation expert." DDA Silverman argues that anything she says is hearsay. The people were given a document of five pages that doesn't have a source. The last page is numbered Page 2. Some pages are in a different font. The people believe that all this information is hearsay and not expert opinion.

Judge Kennedy looks through the information on the five pages and states, "I don't understand."

Amster argues that the information is being offered under Factor K. "Her experience and expertise is the same as Dupree when he testified about the conditions, about that area when he was growing up. Ms. Kaiser [sp?] was also in that area in that time period. Thease are the things that she observed and we feel that all these facts and circumstance that are state in that [document?] ... circumstances factor into the crimes and how that woud affect someone in that area at that time and something where ... for the jury to consider under Factor K."

Amster then adds that this is under the defendant's fifth, sixth, eighth and fourteenth amendment rights. DDA Silverman states this is exactly the type of information that is excluded under the law.

Judge Kennedy opines, "I read this document over. And [there's] no mention ... there is no evidence in the record that the defendant even grew up in Los Angeles. He was there during that time [during the murders] ... [and somehow this?] is the basis of some evidence about how this affected the defendant's life or was his life or certain factors about the crimes that he committed or ... that were brought up. I don't see that this is Factor K evidence."

The court adds that this is all very interesting but the court doesn't see in the evidence where it has to do with Mr. Franklin that the court has heard. Amster counters that it's not to be considered as to the defendant growing up, just the circumstance of living in South Los Angeles during the crimes. Amster adds that everyone was influenced by the circumstance, ... the weight that should be given to it. And it should be up to the jury. That's how we're stating it. That's why we're giving it rendering. Introducing it as Factor K.  Amster states it's also being rendered as Factor A. Just because a factor is listed, it's not necessarily aggravating it's mitigation, too. Amster insists that nothing in the law says something has to be used as mitigating or aggravating. The defense is saying this evidence is mitigating under Factor A and Factor K.

DDA Silverman tells the court that there is a lot of commentary in there that may be historical. She reads what I'm interpreting are snatches of text from the document. "... multiple [serial?] killers, homosexuality ... corruption of the police ... election of Bill Clinton ... rap records ... genocide in Rowanda and the million man march. ... And the only way to seek happiness is to seek God. ... Religion. ... Nothing specifically related to the defendant. ... If you read through it ... those are someone's opinions that have no basis in a court of law, and to point to one area that this person does [not?] know what they are talking about. ... The snooty box hotel. ... Numerous spelling errors and factual errors and none of this has shown to be relevant in this case."

Amster argues that not all the information should get in. However, he goes onto say that his mitigation expert, described the events as seen in that area where the crimes occurred and to give as much experience ... that Ms. Kaiser can give first hand knowledge of that area and how it would affect all the residents in that area. The drugs, the prostitution, murder, the amount of drugs. Amster says something to the effect that the court will give the appropriate ruling.

Judge Kennedy tentatively rules, "It seems to me, number one, you have, somehow, have to connect this to this defendant. That he experienced this thing and it affected him in some way. You haven't established that link. ... I don't know ahat Mr. Franklin grew up in South Los Angeles. The only thing I know about Mr. Franklin is, is the time he worked for the city and the addresses that were [on file] with the Sanitation Department or the LAPD. ... At some time he was in the military and so he was out of the country somewhere ... about activity in Germany. ... Prior to that, I don't know if he grew up in Los Angeles or grew up somewhere else. Minimally, you have to establish it's relevant to him and his experience. ... And all this stuff on who got elected president, I don't get it. I don't understand it."

The look on Judge Kennedy's face, when she says she doesn't get it or understand it, is priceless.

Amster counters, "The only thing I want to put on the record, ... we do not know how this influenced him growing up, but how it influenced him when he lived in that area."  DDA Silverman responds, That would require him to take the stand and we would welcome it." Judge Kennedy makes a final ruling, "On the basis of this document, I'm not going to let this person testify."

For weeks now, I thought this woman in a wheelchair who has been in the gallery was a defense investigator. Turns out she's supposedly a mitigation expert. I don't know if I'm correct or not, but it sounded like, the only expertise she had was, growing up in the area. I did not hear anything read or argued in court about this individual's credentials as a mitigation expert.


The people ask for an offer of proof for more names on the defense witness list and what they are going to testify to. Several names are said but I know I did not get them all down correctly. Then the court interrupts to ask a question.

"Mr. Atherton, what are you doing?," the court asks. Mr. Atherton responds something to the effect that he's trying to get an appearance rescheduled. I could not see, but my best educated guess was, Mr. Atherton was using his cell phone at the defense table. The court tells him, "Maybe you can go out in the hall and do that." [I'm astonished.]

Now there is discussion as to whether or not the defense is going to call DNA analysts from Sorenson, to testify that no DNA belonging to the defendant was found on Enietra Washington or her clothing.

DDA Rizzo tells the court, "... we had testimony from Sorenson. We got into the waste-band, front of the crotch, side crotch. I've no idea why we would need to bring in [the Sorenson witness] in for the same testimony."

Amster tells the court, "Our position is this. The jury rejected our position on Ms. Washington. We feel there is no DNA connecting the defendant to Ms. Washington. We feel that we have a law enforcement lab doing their own analysis on the panties ... finding this conclusion ... using up all the sample ... this happens but we were not allowed to [do our own analysis]. We feel that under lingering [doubt?] giving information from another lab ... as to Sorenson, so it's a lingering doubt position."

There's more argument back and forth regarding Enietra Washington. The defense continues to argue there was no evidence of sexual assault linked to the defendant with this victim. The people did not put on any DNA evidence linking Mr. Franklin. The court responds to the defense that if the people are willing to enter into a specific stipulation, that there was no DNA that connects the defendant to Enietra Washington, sexual assault kit, the underwear, her clothing, whatever, would that work.

DDA Rizzo states that, if counsel wants to draft a stipulation they will look at it and assuming [the facts are correct] the people will so stipulate.

Judge Kennedy asks the defense if they want to argue lingering doubt.

Another witness is named that the people state they don't have any report with regards to that witness, a Mr. Coon [Cook?].  The court states they have something on their bench some where. She starts looking for a document. She then adds that they had a discussion at sidebar last week. It has to do with a Mr. Coon [Cook?] could review the fingerprint evidence. Apparently, there needs to be an order for the crime lab. DDA Silverman states she's never received a report from this witness. The defense states there is no report.

DDA Silverman argues, "It's the same thing with respect to Mr. Lamagna. We're asking for an offer of proof." The defense states they gave a lot of fingerprint evidence on Monday. All of this testimony is going to involve all of the evidence that was turned over. The court asks, "Is he a person that doesn't believe in fingerprint evidence?" Amster responds, "No, no. It's not that he doesn't believe, it's to the exclusion of all others. The significance of pattern and everything else."

DDA Rizzo replies, "I believe that based on the forensic review of all the various disciplines, that in forensic comparison, ... they do not testify to the exclusion of all others. ... [The defense?] knows of the changes to [testifying?]. ... The people are .... the court is aware that the NAS is revisiting the guidelines as to the way testimony is presented in court and the FBI has reviewed the way testimony is present in court ... to the exclusion of all others."

Amster disagrees. "He [Deacon?] said it was unique. He's [defense expert] going to testify ..."  DDA Silverman states that the people haven't received anything from him, even a CV. DDA Rizzo states it was included on a CD [the defense provided.] DDA Rizzo states she looked at it briefly. She thought this whole issue had come up a few weeks ago.

Now there is another issue. Defense attorney Dale Atherton has given a document to the court for the judge to sign but he hasn't passed it by the people first. This is law 101. Judge Kennedy appears quite perturbed and tells counsel, "As far as evidence, I would never sign an order without the prosecution seeing it first. Ever."  The people will not agree to this. The defense has waited until the 11th hour.

Amster insists that everything they have, that the people have, the defense turned over and this was the order 'he' got. [That doesn't make sense or my notes could be wrong.] The people state that the defense will have to fashion a new order so the people can review it. DDA Silverman states, "Once again, defense delay."

Apparently, what this involves, is for the defense expert to go to the LAPD fingerprint department with the order in hand so that the defense expert can look at the prints, the latent prints that were found on the [gun] magazine. The expert needs to be able to scan in the photographs. One doesn't look at the prints on the magazine. One utilizes the photograph and it can be digitized and enhanced. So the expert needs access to any photos that are in the file. The problem is, there were things done in the courtroom. [That was when the defendant was printed again on Monday, before the afternoon session began.]

The people argue that it's not their job to go through and explain to them [defense] what [evidence] they have that was turned over. Besides, it's not in the people's possession anymore.

Amster argues that this was done at the last second, the print roll in court. The people's expert, didn't compare the print from the gun and magazine, to what was rolled in court. The court reminds Amster that the expert compared the prints found on the evidence [A] to the print card from AFIS [B]. Then the print card from AFIS [B] was compared to the printcard [C] rolled in court.

Amster argues, "I don't want to place semantics on this." The court replies, "Semantics are critical."

Amster argues that they want the original photographs. The people insist that all documents [turned over] are in the file with the original photograph. That's what they are representing . The people also state that there are no notes regarding Mr. Deacon rolling the defendant's fingerprints. He rolled them on that card and that's what he indicated. The court tells Amster, "You have that testimony. ... Mr. Coon [Cook?] was here." Amster agrees that his expert was here in court. So the court tells him to now redraft his order for the court. Amster wants this fingerprint exam to be on Friday. The court asks, "Why wait? Why not today? ... Even if you hand write it ... [the order] can we just get it done so I can sign it?"

DDA Silverman tells the court, "They are just using this as another reason to not start [the defense case] on Friday." The court tells counsel, "Just get it done." Amster tells the court that he can't get it done today. He doesn't have access to a printer today.

[I'm shaking my head in disbelief.]

DDA Rizzo asks, "Is Mr. Coon [Cook?], is he going to testify as Mr. Lamagna as to the state of fingerprint evidence and is he going to be allowed to testify to that without a hearing?" Amster states he is going to go into the state of the evidence.

DDA Silverman states that the people need a 402 hearing. The court tells Amster, "If he's going to go into the NAS, then we need a hearing for that." The people then insist that they want a report and what the basis [is] of what he's going to say. Amster tells the court, "There is no report. We had no report on Mr. Hamby."

Back and forth, back and forth the arguing and comments from both sides go. Judge Kennedy in a loud voice commands counsel, "STOP. ... STOP."

Again, there's another interruption with another snide comment.

I believe the court tentatively concludes, "If he wants to testify that in his opinion ... based on his experience that there could be another person, untested person, who has the same fingerprints ... that the science hasn't come to the definitive conclusion ... they said that [finding?] ... and I say that's fine. ... And then lets do that and get done with it."

Amster states that the basis of his experts opinion will be the NAS reports. The court counters, "The NAS report does not say thatt, that there's another person that has that fingerprint. ... Mr. Deacon did not say to the exclusion of all others and he did testify that they were unique fingerprints."

Back and forth it goes, questions about what Mr. Coon [Cook?] will testify to, what the NAS report said about fingerprints to the exclusion of all others and whether Mr. Coon [Cook?] analyzes fingerprints in the same way. Interruptions back and forth again on both sides. Back and forth.

Amster insists he doesn't want to be locked into what his experts opinion is, all those studies and everything else. There's something else about the NAS [studies?] that were done with different parameters. I can no longer follow the arguments on both sides.

Amster states that the defense is challenging the uniqueness [of the fingerprint] and that there's lingering doubt that this is the defendant's fingerprint. He tells the court, "I think that science can't eliminate someone else with the same fingerprints because they've not tested everybody in the world."

Back and forth it goes as to what Mr. Coon [Cook?] will testify to and if those are Mr. Franklin's prints or not. 

Amster states that the only issue he is having, is that he doesn't want to be locked into a box. He doesn't know if his witness uses the same technology that Mr. Deacon used, and that there are some variances.  DDA Rizzo adds that Mr. Amster did mention several minutes ago that Mr. Coon [Cook?] may be modifying or enlarging.  Judge Kennedy tells the defense, "We need to know what methodology he's using." Amster replies that he doesn't know if his expert is enlarging [the evidence digitally].

Judge Kennedy tells Amster, "The point of his testimony, that you want to get in front of the jury, I think you can get that easily. I think you can do it and you don't have to reinvent the whole analysis of fingerprint analysis because we're not going to do that."

With Judge Kennedy's ruling, DDA Silverman is shaking her head left to right. She asks the court, "Can't we find out in the meantime, as opposed to waiting a week?" The court answers, "We're not going to wait a week. ... I assume he's not here this morning? ... When is he going to be available to look at the evidence?"

Amster wants his expert to look at the evidence on Friday.  DDA Silverman wants to do this today. Amster doesn't know if his expert is available. The court tells Amster that he can make a phone call.

Now it's back and forth, questions about whether the people are going to put on DNA evidence in the penalty phase. The people state that the defense said they are putting the Sorenson expert on the stand. Judge Kennedy reminds the defense that the stipulation only deals with Enietra Washington's panties. Amster states that there will not be any more DNA evidence from them.

Exhausted, Judge Kennedy states, "I need a martini."

Now the court changes the topic. The court wants to talk about the witnesses from Germany. DDA Silverman tells the court that they've been patiently waiting here. The court asks if they have a German interpreter here.

The court clerk tells Judge Kennedy that she called for a German interpreter and also sent the interpreter department an email. Still no German interpreter. They take a 15 minute break while the court tries to locate a German interpreter and Amster to finish rewriting his order for his expert to visit the LAPD fingerprint lab.

About 20 minutes later we're back on the record. Judge Kennedy tells counsel that she printed out some jury instructions for the guilt phase that she though were applicable.

Amster states,  "I'm assuming that they're going to prove up the events in Germany because the witness is there.  And they have the report of the foreign commission."  Judge Kennedy states, "The events in Germany, the crimes have to be the same as ours and I don't know if you have all that. ... There's the issue of proving a foreign conviction in Germany.  ... only if we have the objection to identity."

Amster replies, "Yes. We don't know what the witness testimony will be." DDA Silverman responds, "It's going to follow the transcript of the witness counsel has." Amster responds, "The foreign conviction, yes, we have copies of it. There is a procedure that they have to document ..."  DDA Silverman interrupts and Judge Kennedy tells her not to interrupt. Amster states, "We're not conceding to the conviction on any of those grounds."

There's more back and forth.

DDA Silverman states there are other witnesses. 'We have a JAG officer who observed the trial, who will be able to connect up the defendant. There is also a military representative with respect to official records to the defendant's name and date of birth."

Amster responds, "Again, I don't want ... we're not trying to take advantage of any situation. ... ID is an issue as far as, particular acts. ... We're not conceding to anything. "

Judge Kennedy gives a tentative analysis. "What Ms. Silverman is saying, she feels she is going to be able to prove identity from the witnesses and you have [the] documents report. ... If that's the case she's not planning on introducing the physical documents of the German conviction."

Amster replies, "We're not conceding the German court documents or the military court marshal documents because the military never made a founding [about the conviction?]." DDA Silverman replies, He was discharged based on the conviction. ... Unless counsel is going to make an issue out of the identification then we have that as well."

I believe at some point, DDA Silverman tells the court that a copy of the discharge papers were found in the search of the residence.

Amster replies hes not sure if he's going to make an issue because he doesn't know what the testimony is going to be. DDA Silverman adds, "There was also an attempted forced oral copulation."

The parties move onto talking about jury instructions. In the mean time, they were unable to get a court certified German interpreter here for the morning session. They will have to wait until the afternoon. Judge Kennedy orders everyone back at 1:30 pm.

Afternoon session.
Several members of the mainstream press, Christine Pelisek, Terri Keith, and Stephen Ceasar are here.  The court goes on the record.

DDA Rizzo tells the court that they did the redaction's on the two priors and stipulated to in court and those are exhibit numbers 653 and 654.

The court's German interpreter is here. She is getting acquainted with the witness. The interpreter states her name for the record.

The witness requests to only be identified by a first name and an initial. Amster then asks his question, "So does Ms. [ ] wish to participate in an interview with the defense or the defense investigators?"  The German witness answers, "No."

There's nothing further on that issue. She, her husband and the various German interpreters leave the courtroom.

As far as interviewing Ms. [ ], nothing else can be done at this point. The defense just wants to make sure that any interviews that the people have... DDA Silverman states that she turned over extensive notes that she did with the witness and Mr. Pyle.  Tomorrow, they pick up with the jury.

DDA Silverman informs the court that the people expect to finish their case tomorrow. There will be short testimony from the victim. Short testimony from the JAG officer and representative of the US Army. There will be three victim impact witnesses. That is the extent of the people's witnesses tomorrow.

Amster tells the court that he anticipates the defense penalty phase case should be two days, or at the very most three. Amster asks the court that they start on Tuesday. The court replies, "I will dot that on the condition that your fingerprint expert gets his report on Friday. Amster states he will rearrange his schedule. The court states that on Friday, they won't be in session unless to conclude the people's case.

There are discussions about making arrangemenets with Mr. Coon [Cook?] to look at the evidence as early as possible on Friday. They are hoping to schedule that at 9:00 am at the fingerprint department.  DDA Rizzo states she provided explicit directions and instructions, and who Mr. Coon [Cook] is supposed to meet at the lab. The German interpreter is ordered back for tomorrow.

There's nothing else to take up at this time, and court is over for the day.

Thursday, May 26, 2016
The following morning, with the courtroom packed with family, the media and the people's next witnesses, Judge Kennedy asks counsel if they are ready for the jury. Amster then stands up and drops his latest bombshell.

Continued in Day 9......

Friday June 3, 2016
8:15 AM
Here's what's happened the last few days of trial.

On Thursday, May 26, 2016 the prosecution presented their final witnesses in their case-in-chief. A woman traveled from Germany to testify about events that happened to her in 1974, when she was 17 years old.  In the early evening of April 16, 1974, while waiting for a train ride home in Stuttgart, Germany, this German woman was kidnapped by three African American servicemen. With a knife held to her throat with threats that she would be killed, she was driven out of the city into the country. The servicemen pulled into a field and all three proceeded to gang rape her throughout the night.

Through two other witnesses, one a JAG officer and the other a US Army records supervisor, DDA Beth Silverman presented evidence that one of the individuals who participated in the attack was the defendant.

In the afternoon, Romy Lampkin testified about the loss of her best friend, her sister, Lachrica Jefferson and the impact her loss had on her and the family. They shared a bedroom growing up. Romy described a sister who was her "protector," more outgoing than she was and wanted to be a pediatrician when she grew up She was devastated when she learned of her sister's death. She described how her mother broke down when she had to tell her that Lachrica was dead.

After Ms. Lampkin, Billy Ware testified about the loss of his sister, Barbara Ware. Billy talked about how he and Barbara grew up together. They were very close and did everything together. They were like one person and protected each other. After Billy testified, his stepmother, Diana Ware took the stand to talk about how when she married Billy and Barbara's father, they became a blended family, like the Brady Bunch. She described the shock and devastation on the family when they learned about Barbara's murder.

After Diana testified, the people rested with the exception of admittance of exhibits. The jury was ordered back the following Tuesday.

Tuesday, May 31, 2016, the defense presented two witnesses, a retired LAPD homicide detective Tim Williams who testified that the Inez Warren murder may not have been a body dump, and a fingerprint expert Kurt Kuhn, who agreed with the people's expert, Mr. Duncan that the latent print found on the Titan gun magazine was from the defendant.

Wednesday, court was dark so a juror could attend their child's graduation ceremony.

Thursday,  June 2, 2016, DDA Silverman presented her closing argument. Almost the first hour of the morning was taken up with defense attorney Seymour Amster's objections to many slides in the people's Powerpoint presentation. Silverman systematically went through the evidence presented at trial arguing that the defense presented no mitigating evidence. Point by point, the prosecution went over the three aggravating factors, the ten murders, the additional crimes, the victim impact statements and the evidence of remorselessness of the defendant. DDA Sliverman spoke for over an hour in the morning session and about an hour and a half in the afternoon session.

Friday, June 3, 2016. Defense attorney Dale Atherton spoke to the jurors extensively about jury instructions and the mitigating factors they can rely on to choose life. He also goes over lingering doubt in the murders of the ten women, focusing on the unknown DNA found on many of the victims. He asked the jurors, "Don't you want to know..." who those individuals are?

He talked about the mystery gun and that they don't have it in evidence. He also talked about Eneitra Washington being the "key to the prosecution's case." He then delved into all the inconsistencies with her testimony, the sketch, the pock marks verses skin discolorations, no Franklin DNA on her underwear.

Atherton read a poem about a forked path in the woods and which path to take with no one to give guidance. And then he spoke passionately about mercy. Several times during his talks about mercy, his voice got emotional, and he sounded like he was near tears. Since Atherton was facing away from me, I could not tell if he did have tears in his eyes. He quoted from The Merchant of Venice on mercy. He quoted from President Lincoln's 2nd Inaugural address. He then read from a news article about a woman who forgave her son's killer and after he was released from prison, had him move next door to her.

Closing arguments ended around 10:13 AM and then Judge Kennedy read the jurors their final instructions. They entered the jury room at 10:19 AM

There was a lot of lingering inside the courtroom after Judge Kennedy told parties there would be
one hour notice for counsel to get here for the reading of the verdict.

Just now, at 10:47 AM the bailiff took the evidence book and the verdict forms back to the jury room. There are 10 verdict forms for the counts the jurors have to decide on the death penalty.

I'll be here inside the courtroom for verdict watch. I'll be starting a new post to cover that. Over the next week, I'll be getting my detailed notes up on the last witnesses and the closing arguments, so look for those in the days ahead.

A shout out to a special T&T reader in the Carolina's, that I just learned about this morning before court started.

Friday June 3, 2016 - Verdict Watch10:47 AM
The bailiff takes the evidence book and the verdict forms back to the jury room.

10:57 AM
It's very quiet in here. ABC's Miriam Hernandez is the only other person in the gallery besides myself and scriptwriter MW.

The clerk is busy on the phone. The ticking of the clock is the loudest noise in the courtroom now, even though all three of us in the gallery are working on our laptops.

11:11 AM
In the eerily silent courtroom, I'm working on the detailed testimony from the people's final witnesses, a week ago Thursday: The German woman, the JAG officer, the Army records supervisor and the three victim impact witnesses. Currently, I'm in the middle of the JAG officer's testimony.  So I'm flipping back and forth between this tab and my work on that entry.

11:21 AM
The clerk answers a phone call question about closing arguments.

11:35 AM
A deputy enters and asks the clerk a question. Then a woman enters. It's a older woman from the public who has attended the trial off and on for the last couple of weeks. It appears she thinks she left a pair of shoes in a bag inside the courtroom. She speaks to the clerk. The clerk asks her to wait for the bailiff to return.

11:40 AM
The clerk is hard at work at her desk. I can see files being organized and I hear sounds of heavy stapling, stamping of forms and occasional typing.

11:49 AM
I notice something I've never noticed before. On the wall behind the bench, just to the right of the US flag, in-between the clerk's desk area and the bench, is a round white button of some sort. It's about 3 or 4 inches round, set withing a square. It's down low, lower than the thermostat that's to the left of the flag.

11:54 AM
I ask the bailiff. He tells me it's a light switch controlling lights over the judge's bench.

11:56 AM
The bailiff opens the door to the custody area. He calls in, "Franklin, are you good?" I believe Franklin replies, "I'm good."

11:58 AM
BUZZ! BUZZ! The bailiff tells us, "That's either a question or break time," as he heads back to the jury room.

Break. The jurors leave for lunch.

Judge Kennedy comes out and smiling, watches as the jurors leave. One juror tells judge Kennedy, "I loved your necklace yesterday."

And we are on lunch break.

1:30PM
The bailiff unlocks the door and the jurors file in. There is some pleasant banter between the jurors and the bailiff.

2:13 PM
In the gallery, it's just me, Miriam Hernandez, MW, and a news camera operator I've seen around trials for a long time. The bailiff and the clerk have been having a conversation that's been keeping both of them in stitches for about 10 minutes now. I can also hear some conversation in the back support rooms among other court staff members.

There's not much to talk about, except when the jury might come back with a verdict. In the James Fayed case, the jurors deliberated five days before coming back with a death penalty verdict. Like I've said time and time again, I don't try to predict what a jury will do, because juries will surprise you.

 2:46 PM
Not a peep from the jury. All quiet in Dept. 109.

Judge Kennedy comes out to ask her clerk a question. Judge Kennedy is wearing a dark green olive dress with a brown cinched belt. From where I'm sitting, it's a white looking beaded necklace.

3:06 PM
Tracy from the DA's victim advocate program drops by with DDA Tannaz Mokayef drop in to see what's happening. We chat the Fayed case and the Kelly Soo Park case. DDA Mokayef prosecuted the three accomplices connected to Pamela Fayed's murder.

3:14 PM
The bailiff comes over to where Tracy and DDA Mokayef are sitting to join their conversation.

3:24 PM
Buzz! Buzz! It's either a question or a break. The bailiff goes to check.

The bailiff comes out. The jurors have a question but no paper. Someone is on hold on the phone but the bailiff says they don't have to come over.  The bailiff states they jury is going home.

5:05 PM
I'm home. It's clear from what I observed and overheard that the jurors asked if they could go home early. The clerk or the bailiff went back to Judge Kennedy's chambers to ask. Right after it was approved, the bailiff told the gallery and he went over to let the jury know.

While this was going on, the clerk was on the phone with possibly one of the attorneys. That's what I believe.

Jurors return Monday at 9:00 am to continue their deliberations.

UPDATED 4:03 PMspelling, grammar, clarity
UPDATED 3:45 PMspelling, grammar, clarity and afterword
Monday June 6, 2016
9:08 AM
I'm still out in the hallway of the 9th floor of the downtown Criminal Justice Center. All the jurors have not arrived yet, so deliberations have not started. Judge Kennedy's bailiff is chatting with the jurors who have arrived. There are about seven or eight jurors here.

9:10 AM
Marissa Gerber from the LA Times arrives on the 9th floor. A cameraman is here and a reporter I know by sight but I don't know her name. Three members of the Anderson family have arrived.

9:12 AM
Terri Keith from City News is here.

9:14 AM
Quite a bit of laughter coming from the jurors chatting with the bailiff. Judge Kennedy's bailiff is really a funny guy.  Local ABC 7's Miriam Hernandez is here.  Miriam looks lovely today, as always.

9:18 AM
The jurors and the bailiff head into Dept. 109.

9:19AM
The jurors gave a single buzz that they have started deliberating.

9:27 AM
NBC's Patrick Healy arrives and chats with the cameraman. Besides the fires, this case may be the only 'big' news in the area.

9:45 AM
Smiling, Judge Kennedy came out and said hello to the media.

9:48 AM 
BUZZ! BUZZ!  A question. The court clerk goes back to ask. The clerk comes out carrying a container and tells the media that it's "food related." The jurors wanted to share some of the food they brought with the alternates.  I believe it's tamales.

10:00 AM
Scriptwriter MW arrives.  A while ago, Terri left to check into her office.

10:13 AM
LA Times reporter Marissa Gerber enters Dept. 109 and plugs in her laptop. The bailiff enters right after and scolds a few of the reporters on their cell phones.

10:22 AM
Buzz! Buzz! The bailiff goes to check. Morning break.

10:34 AM
Well known sketch artist Mona Edwards arrives and starts a conversation with Miriam. Miriam's network hires Edwards to do courtroom sketches.

10:40 AM
The jurors file in and reenter the jury room.

10:41 AM
Buzz! They are deliberating again.

10:43 AM
Mona Edwards leaves the courtroom.

10:56 AM 
Reporter Terri Keith returns. She immediately opens up her files and starts working.

10:59 AM
Deputy Sargent Westphal returns and stops by the bailiff's desk. He was here earlier this morning when the jurors were waiting for everyone to arrive.  It was a short visit.

11:11 AM
Mary Alexander [mother of victim Alicia Alexander] and two of her son's are in the courtroom.

11:21 AM
BUZZ BUZZ BUZZ! We have a verdict. The bailiff went back to check on the jurors.

A few minutes later, Judge Kennedy comes out to view the gallery. The bailiff comes out from the jury room. The bailiff and the judge go back to discuss a time.

Verdict will be read at 12:30 PM

The jurors deliberated about 3.5 hours on Friday and about 1.75 hours today, for a total of just over five hours of deliberations today. 

11:30 AM
The bustling has already started with the media. There is a camerawoman setting up the camera.

11:46 AM
I'm in the cafeteria grabbing a quick lunch. Seven of the jurors are sitting at a table, having their last meal together. It's been a long journey.

At around 11:38 AM, the bailiff closed the courtroom to the media since the court staff were taking their lunch early, and would be working through their normal lunch hour.

12:15 PM
The 9th floor is busy with lots of press. I see interns that are working for the DA's office. Mary Hearn from the court's Public Information Office is here. The three alternates are on the 9th floor. New reporters are Dave Lopez, Reporter Claudia from KNX, and Christine Pelisek, the reporter who broke the case. I saw KFI's Eric Leonard in the first floor lobby when I first went downstairs to grab a bite to eat.

There are quite a few conversations going on at once, but the floor isn't very packed.

12:20 PM 
DDA Tannaz Mokayef arrives to hear the verdict. I see the two clerk interns who worked on the case arrive. Two of the DA's victim advocates are here. I also see another group of young looking DA interns.

Head Deputy Patricia Wilkinson arrives and it let into the courtroom along with several other DA's.
DDA Silverman is on the floor along with Detective Daryn Dupree. She is hugging family members and telling them, "We're done!"

Seymour Amster arrives. Family members are being let into the courtroom first.

12:28 PM
Inside  Dept. 109. DDA Silverman tells the family that they don't have to talk to the media if they don't want to. DDA Silverman makes it clear that if the defense team does speak to the media, she will not be there. There are family members here, but not nearly as many as were here for guilt verdict.

Amster is here but the rest of his defense team is not. The media and the bailiff are getting the logistics together as to when they can turn their camera and microphones on.

12:34 PM
The courtroom is packed. There are quite a few interns from the DA's office, as well as other DA staff and superior court personnel.

12;35 PM
Amster tells someone the gallery, probably one of the reporters, that Beth Silverman will probably speak, ... and after he says her name DDA Silverman interrupts and says, "Mr. Amster doesn't speak for me and never does."

Still getting the last bit of logistics ready.

Three deputies by the courtroom door. Three additional deputies in the well besides the bailiff.

No live transmission from the courtroom. Only a live transmission to the 12th floor, who sends out the live feed.  It doesn't make any sense.

12:42 PM
The bailiff goes to get the defendant.

More family members arrive at the last moment.
The defendant is brought out.

12:44 PM
The court takes the bench.

Caution members of the audience to maintain their dignity.  Court orders the jurors and alternates to be brought into the courtroom.

12:45 PM
The jury enters.

Judge Kennedy greets the jury. Juror #2 was the jury foreperson on this part as well. The verdicts are handed to the bailiff who hands them to the court.

Clerk will read the verdicts.

COUNT 1 DEATH

COUNT 2 DEATH

COUNT 3 DEATH

COUNT 4 DEATH

COUNT 5 DEATH

COUNT 6 DEATH

COUNT 7 DEATH

Family members weep behind me.  Mary Alexander shakes.

COUNT 8 DEATH

COUNT 9 DEATH

COUNT 10 DEATH

COUNT 11 DEATH

The defense has the jurors polled.

Judge Kennedy: All of the jurors have entered into the affirmative.

This has been a very long process we started picking you as jurors in December of last year.

You have been an absolutely exemplary jury ... toward all the respect you've shown to the staff and the attention you paid for in this case.  You now know more about DNA than 90 % of the population.  I know that listening to evidence like this is not easy. There we a lot of very gruesome details that you had to listen to over and over again and yet you maintained your composure and dignity... when I look at you, and our alternates, ... but you are just as important as the original 12. We had such a committed group that made personal sacrifices ... to stay on as long as you did.

I've been on the bench almost 28 years, ...28 in October. You are, without a doubt just the finest group of jurors we've had in terms of how you dealt with people and with each other ... and I'm really going to miss all of you. I'm going to, [I wish I could] bottle you and save you for all my other trials.

The court tells them they cannot be called for jury service for a year. The court speaks more to their jury service. You come from all kinds of backgrounds and ethnicity and some not born in the US. And we have 12 people, ... who have to tackle this monumental task, and you respected each other and kept your composure and had a great attitude towards this process, and you are the best of the US.

The court tells them about if they want to speak to the media it is their decision. She tells them that the court will protect their identity. However, once they speak, their identity is out.

You are relieved from all the admonitions I put on you on this case. You can read and talk about it with anyone. Absolutely free of those limitations. I will tell you that, you are also free to speak to the attorneys. You can come to future proceedings in this case if you wish to.  As I said, you've been such an extraordinary group, and want to thank you so much for your participation. We're going to miss you.

The court continues to thank and praise the jury.

The jury goes back to the jury room to get their personal belongings. DDA Silverman and DDA Rizzo stand as they leave.

Judge Kennedy tells the gallery that the jurors have asked to leave privately so the bailiff will escort them out.

Setting a sentencing date.  August 10th.  The court tells counsel they have to go through the record to verify the transcripts. If you seek a continuance beyond August 10, please let the court know as soon as possible.

Amster addresses the court. He has selected August 10, to accomplish all these tasks.  It will [be the defense who] most likely is to ask for continuance. Their drop date would be August 3, to ask for a continuance, then the court could let the prosecution know if they are going to grant it, so they know to notify the victim families.

Defendant is remanded. People start to pack up.

DDA Silverman hugs Detective Dupree as she exits. Now DDA Rizzo hugs Detective Dupree.  People file out of the courtroom.

3:45 PM
I'm home now. Here is my update on what happened after the courtroom was cleared.

Several victim's family members spoke to the press on the 12th Floor lobby.  Then the prosecutors answered questions from the press and introduced everyone from their team. I tape recorded those interviews and it will take me a while to get the highlights transcribed. I will be concentrating on getting my notes on the last day of the people's case completed, the defense case next and then closing arguments.  In-between that, I'll also try to bring you some still photos from the press conference. I have to have someone help me in blurring out faces of people who did not agree to be photographed.

After the prosecution finished speaking, I headed towards an elevator. I didn't see until the elevator doors were closing that Seymour Amster started to give the press a statement. I did not stay for it; my feet were about to give out and I needed a break. However, I did hear about it from other reporters.

Mr. Amster was said to have been screaming at the press. DDA Silverman was still on the 12 floor and called out to Amster during his statement. I don't have Beth's exact quote, but it was something to the effect of, You don't need to scream, the camera's right in front of your face.


I waited in the ground floor lobby for the prosecution team to emerge from the elevators. It was easy to see on everyone's faces that a great weight had been lifted off their shoulders. The sentencing still has to happen but basically, that's just a formality. It's over. The jury has spoken and the verdicts read into the record. Franklin will stay in LA County custody for the time being.

I learned that DDA's Paul Pzrelomiec and Jamie Castro will go back to their regular assignments in different divisions. It is unknown whether the law clerks, who, having passed the bar and are full fledged attorneys now, will stay with the DA's office. Detective Dave Holmes is happy to get his partner Detective Dupree back. They've got many more cases to work on together.

In the courthouse lobby, I watched as Detective Holmes and a staff assistant took photos of the team. The biggest decision on their minds after that, was where to go for lunch.

Thank you all, for reading T&T.

Thursday, May 26, 2016
 I'm late. I usually try to get on the 9th floor by 8:30 AM. I walk in Dept. 109 right around 9:00 am.  All the parties are here. DDA Beth Silverman, DDA Marguerite Rizzo, their support staff DDA's Paul Pzrelomiec and Jamie Castro and the two female law clerks.

The DA's staff is no longer sitting directly behind the prosecution table. Today they are in the gallery. Over on the defense side we have Seymour Amster, Dale Atherton and Kristen Gozawa. Amster's mitigation expert is in the gallery along with her son.

There's quite a bit of press in the gallery, with a couple faces I've not seen before. There's the usual crowd, City News Reporter Terri Keith, Stephen Ceasar with the LA Times, his friend MW, ABC's Miriam Hernandez, sketch artist Mona Edwards, and Margaret with KNX radio. There's a male reporter from [I believe] KPCC and another male reporter I don't know who isn't getting the message that his phone needs to be completely off.

I note that there are two sets of couples in the gallery with stick-on ID badges on their lapels. These people are most likely the people's witnesses and their relatives. The German witness is here along with her husband, the two interpreter's with the DA's office and the court's official interpreter.

DDA Beth Silverman goes over to speak to Stephen Ceasar who is leaving his paper for greener pastures. DDA Silverman keeps asking him, "Why?"

Jane Robison from the DA's media division is here. The defendant is brought out. Judge Kennedy takes the bench and asks counsel if they are ready for the jury.

Amster isn't ready. He wants a hearing concerning the witness from Germany. Amster states that there has been something bothering him about this witness and it came together for him at 2 am this morning.

He says, "Last night I saw something of what has been bothering me in this case. ... as such for this witness ... we do believe that we need a 402 hearing about identification. ... We are very concerned that the parameters of ID is not going to be made and if it cannot be made in legally permissible grounds, and ... it cannot be unremedied by striking her testimony. ... I'm requesting a 402 hearing asking how she is going to make her identification. ... [Second?] And then the military observer be put on the stand. ... We don't feel that this witness should testify about victim impact in any way. We'd like a ruling on that prior to her testifying. ... Third, biasness. Bias. This is something that's been bothering me ... that finally I realized what it was very early this morning."

"This is an individual who was born shortly after World War II. ... [She was] raised .... potentially .... by parents who witnessed the use of government sanctioned death penalties in World War II, and what happened in Germany, [the German government?] they repudiated from any other government no matter what crime ... for other governments using the death penalty."

Amster is mentioning something about what the DA's office went through, or didn't go through, to obtain this witness. I believe he's stating that he doesn't believe that the DA's office went through official channels to contact the German government.

"I had a conversation with the German Consulate in the US and he personally represented to me that Germany would never aid a foreign government to aid another government to seek the death penalty.  ... I asked him to repeat that three times because I thought that was very important."

"A German citizen who's parents were around the Holocaust, ... coming to this country in seeking the death penalty against a black individual. ... We need to know what this reason is, for her to come to this country to help seek the death penalty. ... Nothing about the rape of an individual. ... that she's repudiating, what her government feels is the death penalty and we think it should be properly [vetted?] outside the presence of the jury."

The court turns to the people for their counter, "Miss Silverman?" DDA Silverman responds, "Your honor, counsel had an opportunity yesterday. He's know about this witness for five and a half years. He has only brought this up now, when the victims family are here, the media is here. ... If he thinks there's some issue of bias he can explore it in front of the jury. ... As I've said before, the victim is not going to be able to ID the defendant. ... That's why we're bringing in the people in the military to link him up. ... And, the idea is moot. She absolutely is entitled as a victim, to testify to victim impact evidence. ... There is no law to support his position. ... When he spouts off these opinions, which means I think, which is irrelevant to the record ... The law is contrary [to his opinion?] ... His conversations with the German government are of no consequence."

"She was told there was a trial going on in [the US?]. That she was part of a pattern that was ongoing since 1974. ... Counsel is putting forth his own beliefs and that, as a Jew, it is offensive to me that anyone would involve the Holocaust as counsel would in this case. ... To bring up the Holocaust, which was the extermination [of millions of Jewish people?] ... to somehow, liken that to what a serial killer has done in this country to someone ... How is that an issue in this case like this? Where a woman was so brutally assaulted in 1974, that she can't go anywhere without someone holding her hand? ... Where she was gang raped and treated like trash and this defendant only received 3.5 years for gang raping a witness."

Amster continues to argue. "The US military did not seek to increase his punishment. His co-conspirators received 4.5 years."  DDA Silverman quickly responds, "That's false!" Either Amster or the court replies not to interrupt. Amster continues to argue. "In no way is the defense stating that 3.5 years is appropriate. ... The US Supreme Court ruled that the death penalty is not an appropriate remedy for a rape. ... I'm not going to address the personal attacks on me as a Jew. ... And right in front of me was my father's scrap book. Right in front of me was my father's scrap book..."

Amster continues to argue about his father and what happened in Germany. That every single person [after the war?] was forced to look down at the bodies.  And not only Jews, but Gypsies and so many other ethnicities.

It goes on and on. I stop typing for a bit.

Amster states, "This witness should have been part of that education and somehow, she has ... counsel to turn her back [on her education? country?] and not chosen her [country's? position?]..."

DDA Silverman turns around and tells her witness to leave the courtroom so she doesn't have to listen to counsel's argument an accusations.

Amster states for the record,  "[Silverman] got up and ordered the witnesses to get up and ordered [them out]." DDA Silverman explains to the court, "I set the witness out because she's a victim and he's offending her." [Although the witness was in the gallery, the court's German interpreter was sitting beside her and interpreting for her.]

I believe that Amster is now asking for sanctions. Judge Kennedy responds, "Mr. Amster, what you are saying is offensive. It's certainly offensive to the witness. You are saying what her point of view is when you have no idea what her point of view is."

The court asks DDA Silverman, "On identification, have you inquired of the witness whether she recognized [Mr. Franklin?]" DDA Silverman responds that the people have not shown her any photographs. She adds, "I don't plan on asking her about making an identification."

I believe Amster is asking the court that they hear from the witnesses that are going to establish the ID, as an offer of proof. DDA Silverman tells the court that the records have been turned over to counsel years ago. One witness was in the US Army at the time in the internal affairs division. It was his responsibility to visit all the service men who were in custody. That was part of his job requirements. He did that on a regular basis with all individuals.

The court asks, "How is that person going to identify the defendant?" DDA Silverman states, "Through his observations, like any other witness." The court replies, "That's not clear to me." DDA Silverman goes into detail about the witness.

"He met with him and other individuals in custody. His responsibility was to attend the trial and ensure that all regulations were complied with according to the agreements between the US and Germany. He heard the victim testify. He heard the defendant testify. He transported the defendant's mother to court every day and translated for her and was her interpreter every day. He assisted in interpreting the proceedings for her. ... A second witness, ... was in charge of military personnel records. These were turned over to counsel ... indicating that the defendant with the same date of birth, home address as on his enlistment document with his [defendant's] signature. ... And because he was discharged because of this case. ... Fingerprints, signatures, ... all sorts of personal information including a document that has already been put into evidence that matches up to the same document that was in his possession."

Amster argues, "That is double and triple hearsay."

Judge Kennedy challenges, "Let's start with the military observer. Just because he was there doesn't get over the hearsay position. ... He can't testify to the contents of testimony. He can testify to observations." DDA Silverman tells the court, "The defendant got up on the stand and testified. It was in the [documents? conviction?]. ... He testified in English and our witness is English speaking."  The court tells the people, "But you still have to show that the person is Mr. Franklin. ... Are there records that show that Lonnie David Franklin was a charged person in this case which this military observer attended?" DDA Silverman answers, "Yes. ... His entire military record and the trial observer's report ... and his [observer] observations. ... It's part of his military file." The court counters, "Just because it's part of his military file doesn't mean it can come in."

DDA Silverman continues to proffer what her witnesses will bring in. "There are his documents in his name, his file, and his date of birth and that [the conviction in Germany] was the basis of his discharge. ... There are certified official documents. ... These are official records ... in exception to the hearsay rule ... and there's also circumstantial evidence. ... there are the documents in his personnel file that were the same [as those found in the search?]." DDA Silverman gives the number of the form. "It's a discharge document. It's in evidence. ... People's 209, a copy of the discharge papers. It says the same thing for discharge. Same name. Same date of birth. Same ID number that's on his enlistment."

Judge Kennedy tells the defense, "I think they are going to be able to establish identification."

[At some point through this combative exchange, my computer freezes and I have to resort to hand notes. I'm not sure where the following hand notes fall in the sequence of the mornings arguments. This is my best guess from memory where they fell.]

DDA Silverman tells the court that the German witness is entitled to testify under Factor B, to testify as a victim. She tells the court that the defense was given notice under Factor B, in the notice of aggravation, that he was given notice that this witness was going to testify.

Amster reads from the notice of aggravation.

Judge Kennedy states that Factor A related to the circumstances of the crime in this case. She adds, "I'm not going to preclude victim impact." The court asks the people about their witness, who is still outside in the hallway.  DDA Silverman responds, "I need a moment to speak to my witness ... she's upset because [of defense counsel statements]."  Amster interjects, "Well, we want notes on that." And then Amster laughs.

I've had the opinion, my opinion only, that Amster's laughter at odd times is nervous laughter. For the first time that I'm aware of, Judge Kennedy comments on it. She addresses Amster, "The fact that you're sitting here giggling right now is offensive [to me]."

[End of my handwritten notes.]

9:44 AM
In my opinion, I would not blame the victim if she didn't want to get up on the stand right now.

Deputy Sargent Westphal is in the well of the court. The countenance on his face, it's a dichotomy of expressions at the same time.

There are several new victim family members in the gallery that I haven't seen before. All the Anderson family that I've seen over the last several weeks are here.

9:51 AM
Judge Kennedy retakes the bench. She asks counsel if they are ready for the jury. Judge Kennedy's bailiff is now in the well of the court by the jury box. He has a big smile on his face and greets the jurors as they pass. The prosecution team stands for the jurors. The defense counsel remain seated.

Judge Kennedy greets the jury. "I'd like to welcome back all our jurors and alternates. I apologize for keeping you waiting."

The people call the woman German witness.

A dark-haired woman and her husband take seats in the witness stand. The woman's husband is seated to the left, closest to the court. He puts his arm around her and holds onto her. Also in the witness box is the German interpreter.

[Although the witness has chosen to be identified by a first name and an initial to protect her identity, T&T has decided not to publish the first name or initial. The name she provided can be found in other media reports. Local ABC 7's report with sketches by Mona Edwards. LA Times Stephen Ceasar's report, People Magazine's Christine Pelisek's report, MyNews LA Hillary Jackson's report, and local KPCC's report.]

37. GERMAN WITNESS

Mam, where do you reside?
In Bavaria.
Have you ever been to the US before?
No.
Did you fly out here to testify in this case?
Yes.
Can you calculate and tell us how old you were in April 1974?
17.
And where were you living in that time?
Stuttgart.
And is that in Germany?
Yes.

I want to direct you attention back to April 16, 1974. Do you remember that night?
Yes.
And that night, were you on your way home when something happened?
Yes.
And where were you coming from?
From my [boy?] friends.
And where did that person live?
In [F..?].
Is that in Stuttgart?
Yes.
In order to get home that night, were you waiting for some type of transportation?
Yes.
Were you waiting at a certain location?
Yes. ... In front of the train station.
Was that in Stuttgart?
Yes.
Was there anyone there at the location with you or were you alone?
Alone.
Were there any other people out there near you while you were waiting?
I cannot recall.

As you were waiting did someone approach you?
A car.
And where did the car approach? ... How close to you did the car come? ... Motioning with her hands, about a foot, foot and a half to two feet.

Defense: So stipulate.
And did the car stop?

Amster asks to approach. DDA Silverman responds, "Unless there's an objection...." Amster asks the court to approach again. They are at sidebar. I overhear DDA Silverman say something, interrupting Amster. Judge Kennedy addresses DDA Silverman, "Stop. I'll give you a chance. Stop."  Even at sidebar, Judge Kennedy is having to tell the parties to stop interrupting each other. When the sidebar is over, Amster goes over to his mitigation specialist to say something.

You said there was a vehicle that drove up close to where you were standing, is that correct?
Yes.
What  do you remember is the next thing that happened?
They asked me something.
The people inside the vehicle?
Yes.
Did you talk with the individuals inside the vehicle?
I cannot recall.
Did you see how many individuals were inside?
Three.
Did you know these individuals?
No.
Had you ever met them before? ... Were they strangers to you?
Yes.
Were they female or a mix there of?
Male.
Were you able to tell what race or ethnicity?
Yes. African American.

How many of them tried to speak to you?
I cannot recall exactly.
Do you recall what they were trying to say to you?
Yes. I believe they were asking for an address for directions.
Did you approach the vehicle in order to respond?
I cannot recall.
What was the next thing you can recall happening?
Somebody grabbed me and pulled me into the vehicle.
When you were inside the vehicle, could you clearly see that there were three African American men inside the vehicle?
Yes. ... A man held a knife to my throat.
Can you show us where on your own body?

She puts her left hand up under her chin, against her neck. Her hand motion is described for the record.

Can you describe for us the length of that knife? Was it a small knife, a large knife? ... Motioning with her hands what looks to be about a foot.
Do you know what type of knife it was?
No. I cannot recall.
The kind of knife that you might see in a kitchen or a butchers block?
A knife ... but with ... yes.
Was anything said to you when this knife was up to your throat?
Kill you.
Did you take that as a threat to kill you?
Yes. I was in fear of my life.

Judge Kennedy: Were the words said in German or English?
In English.

Were you afraid?
Yes.
You didn't know the men and you were in a car with three men?
Yes.
With a knife to your neck?
Yes.
What was the next thing that happened?
They drove off and some time later they turned into a field.
You said they drove off. Did you know the direction the car was headed?
In the direction of Ludwigsburg Square.
Approximately how long did the car travel before they pulled off?
Half an hour, I think.
During that time, ... were the three man talking at all?
I cannot recall.
Did you hear them say anything in particular?
No.

You said at some point after about a half hour, they drove off into a field?
Yes.
Was that a field where there were any phones close by?
No.
And people?
No.
And street lights?
No.
Was that an isolated, or ... what one might say is a remote area?
Yes.
What was the next thing you can remember happening?
I was raped by all three.
They came to a stop at some point?
Yes.
Did anyone get out of the vehicle ... did they get out?
I cannot recall.
Did that take place inside the vehicle?
Yes.

Her husband holds her a little tighter. The witness rubs her face and then nods her head to something her husband said.

How long did that go on for that rape by three men?
The rest of the night.

There was a small murmur or gasp from the audience. Then I heard the words, "Oh my God," from someone in the rows in front of me. Amster asks to approach. The bailiff brings over a glass of water for the witness. A sidebar is called.

10:13 AM
Side bar is over. Judge Kennedy reminds the people in the audience to not audibly respond to the answer or the questions asked by the attorneys.

When you say that the rapes by these three men went on the entire night, did each of the three men have sexual intercourse with you?
Yes.
Was that against your will?
Yes.

There are stern faces on the jurors.

Not to belabor the point, but when you say sexual intercourse, ... that each of the three men placed their penis inside your vagina?
Yes.
Did you suffer any type of injury during the sexual assault?
Yes, on my abdomen.
What type of injury did you suffer?
As far as I can recall, there were cuts.
Do you know....?
I believe from the knife.
During the course of this night did you believe that you would be able to survive?
No.

Some jurors look down at their laps.

Did you play along after the sexual assault in order for the men to take you back to the city?
Yes. [She sighs.]
By the time you got back to your home that night, was it still dark outside?
Yes.
When you got home that night, what did you do?
I took a bath.
Why?
I felt dirty.

It appears the witness bites her lip.

Do you recall what time it was when you got home?
No I cannot recall.
What did you do the next morning?
I went to the police.
And you told the police what happened?
[Yes.]
Did you describe the individuals to the police, and subsequently did you identify with the police all three of your attackers?
Yes.
Subsequent to that, did you seek medical treatment?
No. I did not have any help.
Did you seek any type of psychological counseling?
No, because my mother did not make any attempts and I was too young to do it by myself.

In November and December 1974, were you requested to attend a trial?
Yes.
Did that take place in a German court?
Yes.
And were the three men who raped and kidnapped you present during that trial?
Yes.
Did you identify each of the men?
Yes.
And at that trial, did you also describe in detail what each man had done?
Yes.
Did you watch as each of your attackers testified at that trial?
Objection! Overruled.
No.
Do you recall there being a family member of any of the three men who raped you present during the trial?
Objection. Sustained.

Can you tell us, what impact, if any, that experience, the kidnapping, the gang rape, what experience that has had on your life?
I'm still afraid to this day when it gets dark. ... I do not go outside by myself when it's dark. If I'm at home alone, I turn on the lights in the entire house if my husband is not home. And we got a large dog. ... And my entire family, my daughter and grandchildren suffer from it because I passed [my] fear onto them.
Objection [to last sentence]. Sustained as to daughter and to other family.

How has this impacted how you deal with your own daughter and grandchildren?
Yes, they are taken by car everywhere. They are picked up ... and the big one is 19, and she's still being driven to school and picked up. And it's still the same with my own daughter.

Her granddaughter is 19.

And is that because of your fears of what happened to you?
Yes because I did tell my daughter about it and she got afraid.
And you said you got a big dog?
Yes. ... I do not feel secure without a dog when I'm home alone.
What type of dog did you get?
A Newfoundland.
So a big dog?
Yes.

Direct is finished. Amster states he does not want to cross on these issues. He asks to court to approach.

10:22 AM
We take a three minute sidebar. Cross examination proceeds.

Mam, at any time had you been contacted by a representative of the German government concerning these proceedings?
The general police in [BG?].
And what inquiry, if any?
Whether I would be willing to give my statement in this trial.
And when they contacted you, did they acknowledge that they were representative of a government agency in Germany?
I don't understand. ... They were part of the police authority in Germany.
Did any individual associated with any German government ever contact you in regards to these proceedings?
Yes. ... The police in [LUD?] wrote me a letter. ... That there was an inquiry from the US whether I would be willing to give my statement in these proceedings.

Amster tells the court, "I think the next question I can ask at sidebar first." There is a minute sidebar.

In the letter did it state in any way your assistance was being requested for the government or anyone associated with the US to obtain the death penalty in America?
No.
What did the letter say?
[More or less it] just stated, it was asked if I was willing to give my witness statement in this case. Because this happened to me. Because it happened to me and there might be some connection. ... And because the letterhead said [LUD?] Police Department and there was a phone number.
And so you believe it was the police department in [LUD?]?
Yes.
And you were directed to the person who signed the letter? ... When you talked to someone at the police department concerning the letter, correct?
Yes.
What did they say to you?
Objection. Hearsay. Sustained.
As a result of talking to someone in the police department that helped you to determine if you should cooperate to come to America to participate in this proceeding or not?
No.
Were you directed to talk to anyone else after you had....
Objection. Sustained.

Did you ever talk to any other German official besides whom you mentioned after you called the German police department?
Yes. An interpreter contacted me by email ... by the US, ... trying to find out if I would be willing to get my statement.
I'm interested in German Government officials so my question is ...

I believe the witness interrupts because she remembers something.

Only... [I] forgot that ... I forgot. Someone from City Hall. ... He inquired whether he could give out our email address because he had a request from US authorities ... LAPD, to give our [email] address. I asked if this really came from US authorities. ... He confirmed that it came from the LAPD and he confirmed that it did. So I said he could give out our address. ... They were able to connect this old case with this.
Any other German officials, have you been contacted, other than [that]?
No.
Nothing further.  ... Oh wait. One second please.
When did you learn that this was a death penalty case and from whom?
Objection. Facts not in evidence. [Miss ruling.]
Were you aware that this was a death penalty case?
[Yes.]
Who did you learn that from?
From the media.
The media where?
Internet. ... Los Angeles Times ... and the media at home.
So, prior to testifying you've been following this case in the news?
Yes. I was interested in it but I had already decided to come.
So you had decided to come knowing that the Government of the State of California is seeking the death penalty in California?
Yes.
Oh. Nothing further. Oh, wait. Did anyone associated with the German government tell you this was a death penalty case?
No.
Did you [learn?] from anyone associated with the German government this is a death penalty case?
Objection. Sustained.
Nothing further.

The court asks if there is any redirect. There's no redirect. The witness is excused. The court says, "Thank you very much for coming. You are free to go."

Amster asks for a sidebar before the next witness.  Several reporters leave the courtroom, possibly to interview the witness. Most of the mainstream press leave [People, KNX, etc.].

10:37 AM
Side bar over. DDA Silverman presents the next witness.

38. FRANK J. PYLE, JR.

Did you fly out here from your home state in Florida/
Yes.
Are you now retired?
Retired military. ... I was active during [9?] years. Twenty-one years in the reserves but still in private practice as a lawyer.

He was with US Army Judge Advocate [General - JAG] branch. Judge Advocate Core.

What does that entail?
It depends on where you're assigned. It could be any number of duties. You could be defending ... you could handle claims against the government ... you could give assistance to servicemen and their families.

Were you a lawyer when you went into the military?
[Yes.]
Back to 1974. Where were you assigned?
In 1974, I was assigned to the 7th Core headquarters in Germany.
How long were you stationed in Germany, in Stuttgart?
I was stationed there for about 9 months before moving to Munich.

He was  JAG officer. A captain, oh-three [03].

What was the job [of] Judge Advocate General in the 7th Core as an International Affairs Officer I mean?
I dealt with the German government. Whether the US or Germany would take jurisdiction with cases involving servicemen [in incidents? charges?] outside the base. ... I also visited US servicemen who were imprisoned either awaiting trial or after trial. ... Each month, [I was] required to visit each such person within my jurisdiction which was southwestern Germany. ... In addition to that ...

Let me ask you something. You would deal with German authorities involving crimes involving service men?
NATO agreement with Germany had jurisdiction against servicemen who committed civilian crimes. ... My request would be to waive jurisdiction ... to wave and allow the Army to take jurisdiction. ... Because they [Germany] thought the Army was taking more lenient [punishments?] they took jurisdiction more.

His responsibility was to contact Dr. Beckstein [sp?] to determine who would take jurisdiction.

Were you well [acquainted] with Dr. Beckstein, [as] the head prosecutor in Germany?
Yes. I had routine contact with him.
Did you attend several trials?
Yes.
Was that also your duty?
As the International Affairs Officer in Stuttgart, but also to attend the trial. ... Under the Army regulations ... in effect at that time, I was required to attend, or another JAG officer was required to attend any such trial.

He covered the areas of southwest Germany, Switzerland and Austria.

Now in terms of your responsibilities, with respect to attending any trials, attended trials, did you also have responsibilities to what you were supposed to do subsequent to this trial?
Under general [guidelines?] I was responsible to attend the trial and also required to prepare a trial report. Although I attend trial and speak reasonable German at the time, but not any more. ... I would have an interpreter from my office who would be with me at those trials.

In terms of US military obligations, if they had a serviceman who was being tried in Germany, were there attorney's who were provided?
Objection. Sustained.
Were you in contact with English speaking individuals who represented all of the servicemen?
Objection Side bar.

10:38 AM
The court states that they are going to take their 15 minute break for the morning.

Amster is having an animated conversation with Judge Kennedy's bailiff over at the clerk's desk. Earlier, it was the bailiff who "shushed" the audience.

11:06 AM
Defendant is brought out. We're back on the record. The witness retakes the stand. We're ready for the jury. I note that Detective Dupree must have left the courtroom with the German witness and her support group of interpreters.

Continuing direct examination of Frank Pyle, by DDA Silverman

Mr. Pyle, we were discussing not only did you visit all the US servicemen that were in custody, you also attended all the trials and prepared formal reports for each ... those were the scope of your duties?
My job was to assure they had what was what we would call a fair trial, that it met the agreements with shared forces agreements and German law.
If Germany chose to prosecute, did that foreclose the military then from doing any type of military proceeding?
Correct. It would appear to be double jeopardy.
Did you visit [Mr. Franklin] between April and November multiple times in 1974?
It was my job. I don't specifically remember Mr. Franklin.
Objection. [Miss ruling]

So you visited every serviceman in custody, including a gentleman named Lonnie Franklin?
Objection your honor, Sidebar.

11:12 AM
Questioning continues.

Each man you visited in custody, did you document their [name] date of birth, [identification number]?
Yes. That would have been identified to me before I visited the serviceman.
Do you know what the date of birth is, whose trial you attended and visited in custody?
Objection, foundation. Sustained.
Do you have any recollections of [the date of birth]...
Objection. Sustained.
With respect to the individual ... did you visit [M?] prison between April 19 and June 21 of 1974?
I don't believe so.
What is [M?] prison?
Objection relevance.

Did you visit Sondheim Prison between April 19 and June 21 of 1974?
Every month.
That's a German, high security prison?
It was high security because of the Baader-Meinhof terrorist group in Germany.
Did you visit someone by the name of Lonnie David Franklin, Jr., at the prison?
Objection. Sustained.
As the International Affairs Officer, were you responsible, as the International Affairs Officer for writing a letter to the local German prosecution regarding the prosecution of a certain individual?
[Miss answer or if there was an objection.]

Did you write a letter requesting jurisdiction with respect to a certain trial requesting jurisdiction over a certain individual?
Yes.
Who was that individual?
Objection. 

Judge Kennedy calls parties to sidebar. It's a very nuanced part of the law. The prosecution has to be able to show identity by laying the proper foundation and, I believe, without leading the witness. The foundation must be laid from the ground up.

11:18 AM
Sidebar over.

Did you visit someone at Sondheim Prison between June 21 and November 11, 1974 related to the trial that you attended in November and December?
Objection, hearsay! Overruled. 
Who was that individual?

He identifies the defendant, Lonnie Franklin.

How did you know that person was Lonnie Franklin? ... Did you write a letter to Dr. Beckstein requesting jurisdiction for the crimes that Mr. Franklin was in prison for?

I believe there are more objections. Judge Kennedy asks her own question. "Did the US military assert jurisdiction over the case?" Mr. Pyle answers, "The German authority chose jurisdiction."  DDA Silverman continues with her questioning.

There were also two other men who were also included in your order request? ... Who were the other individuals that ... the ones you mentioned that you visited? ... How many individuals in connection with the defendant that you also visited?
Objection. Sustained.

Did you eventually attend the trial of the defendant along with others in Stutgartt Germany?
Yes.
And when did that trial take place?
It took place in November and December 1974. ... There were actually eight hearings.
Eight days of the hearing? 
Yes. It was not eight consecutive days. It was partial days.
How many individuals were on trial there?
Three.
And did that also include the defendant, Lonnie Franklin, Jr.?
Yes.
And what type of court was this
It was a German criminal court ... [a regional court].
You said that was some type of a regional court?
In Florida, it would be [like] the circuit court, that would be trying felonies as well as other large civil cases.
Did you attend the proceedings as required?
I was there each day, along with my interpreter.
Did you watch as multiple witnesses testified?
Yes.
Was one of them a woman by the name of [German witness first name and initial].
Objection, sidebar.

DDA Silverman asks, "What's the legal objection?" Judge Kennedy tells the parties she will see them at sidebar.

11:25 AM
Sidebar over.

You said you had your own interpreter?
Karen Ritchie. ... [She] worked in the International Affairs office where I was the chief .... and she spoke German.

I believe there may have been another objection and the court orders the people to turn the lectern over to the defense for voir dire questioning.

Seymour Amster questions the witness.

Were you fluent in German?
At the time I spoke German but I'm not fluent anymore.
What was the name of the interpreter?
Karen Ritchie.
Were you qualified to determine any of her competency to interpret German?
There were other interpreters at the trial who interpreted for the defendants.

Please just answer my question. You did not have.... Your honor, can we approach? ... The prosecutor is making hand motions that the jury can see. ... I ask that the prosecutor be sanctioned. Judge Kennedy appears to be fed up at this point and tells counsel, "Both of you, just stop it! Just sit there and don't do anything!"

Amster continues questioning.

What personal knowledge did you have that Ms. Ritchie was competent to translate German?
Personal knowledge. ... I was dealing with her on a personal basis.

Judge Kennedy asks, "Had she translated for you prior to that date?" 

At that point, probably three [or four months before] the trial.
But you did not have the ability yourself [to determine] the accuracy of her interpretation? ... You could not validate her accuracy?
I am not fluent in German.

Amster states, "No further voir dire questions." The court asks if the people have any other questions on this point.  DDA Silverman resumes her questioning.

You said there were other interpreters to assist. Approximately how many?
According to my report, three.

Judge Kennedy asks, "You refreshed your memory and now recall there were three?" [Miss answer.] DDA Silverman resumes questioning.

And based on the interpretation through various sources somebody by the name of [German woman's name]. I believe the court intervened and DDA Silverman moved onto another question.

As to this Ms. Ritchie, did she interpret for you in court or did she do other interpretations for you as part of her duties for the court? 
She did receive documents from German and translated them from German to English.

Judge Kennedy tells counsel, "Okay. Lets go to sidebar."  A reporter's phone goes off.

11:32 AM
Sidebar over.

Did you watch a woman by the name of [German woman's first name and initial] state her name and testify to the crime that occurred and the two other individuals who were on trial?
Objection. [Sustained?]
Did you watch a woman get on the stand and state her name to be [German woman's first name and initial] at the trial.
Objection. Compound again. Hearsay.

Judge Kennedy states, "She may not have use the word [German woman's first name and initial]. She may have used her entire name. We do that to protect the ID of victims of sexual assault ..."

Amster states they [the defense] are not going to publish her name. There is more back and forth between counsel. DDA Silverman continues.

Did a woman [named __], with a last name that started with [__], testify at this trial?
Yes.
And again, was that at the same time the defendant along with two other individuals were being tried in a German court?
Yes.
And did miss [German woman's first name and initial] articulate at that time the extent of the participation of each of the individuals?
Objection. Sustained.
Did the defendant himself testify at this trial?
Yes.
Did he state his name on the record at this trial?
Yes.
Did you also, through your conversations with the defendant, [with the visits at the jail/prisons?] document his date of birth, his home address and his identification number?
Objection. Sidebar.

11:36 AM
During your conversations with the defendant, did he provide you with his background information?
I don't know that he specifically did.
Were you aware of what the defendant's rank was in the military?
Objection! Sustained.

DDA Silverman asks to approach for sidebar.  It's over.

Were you in contact with any of the defendant's family during the trial?
Objection. Over ruled.
Yes.
Who was that?
Objection, hearsay. [Over ruled?]
That was the defendant, Lonnie Franklin's mother.
And what type of contact did you have?
She flew over during the summer. ... I used to pick her up and take her to the trial.

Judge Kennedy asks the defendant, You picked her up and [took her?] to court?" The witness answers, "I picked her up every time if not almost every time."

Did you provide translation for her during the trial?
Objection. Sustained.
In terms of the report that you created, based on your required duties, did that [report] become a part of the defendant's military file?
Objection. It's irrelevant. [Miss ruling.]

No further questions from the people. There is no cross examination of this witness and he is excused. The people call Lamar Whatley. The witness is sworn in and takes the stand.

39. LAMAR DERICO WHATLEY

How is it you're employed sir?
I'm [?] record supervisor and I'm resources command for [the] Fort Knox, Kentucky, records facility there.
How many people do you supervise?
Maybe 40, 30, something like that.
And what is it that you do as a supervisor of records custodian?
We maintain all the records for the Army.
US Army?
US Army, yes mam.

The witness has been employed his whole life with the Army either as a soldier or a civilian.  So about 32 years employed and working with army records.

At some point, were you also stationed in Germany?
I've been stationed in Germany two different times.
Were you stationed near Stuttgart ... Was that where the army headquarters [were?]?
Headquarters for my particular unit.

Headquarters that you're referring to, that's where all the records were maintained for servicemen serving in Germany?
Yes.
Eventually were those records .... Do you know based on what you do on a daily basis, where records are maintained abroad?
[Miss answer.]
Are you actually familiar .... that you've been doing this for 32 years, for [where] records are prior to when you came into the military [record keeping?]?
Yes mam.
Objection, leading. [Miss ruling.]
Tell us how you are aware records are [kept?] ... and are maintained dealing with individuals in the military?
I'm a resource commander. I'm responsible for all the records in the army. I have to know where they are prior and where they are now.

He's a supervisor as an army soldier records branch.

What are your duties?
Ensure that soldier's Army documents are put in here correctly by the people who do that.

He ensures that the right records are in the right place.

If there is a public records request for records, is that something that comes through [your office/department?]?
There's a different process for public records request.
FOIA request?
FOIA goes through FOIA officer first.
Eventually, everything comes through you?
[Correct.]
Where are military records maintained?
Depends on when the individual separated [from the army].

Those who separated prior to 2002, those records are in a national personnel records center in St. Louis, Missouri. Amster asks for a sidebar. The court says no sidebar. Amster tells the court he knows there was someone talking in the audience. The court addresses the audience, ordering them not to talk to each other and not to make noise. "Do I make myself clear?" The court adds. "I see heads nod."  DDA Silverman continues.

In terms of the records that are maintained in St Louis or Washington, D.C., or electronically, if you get a request for records, are you able to [answer requests?] for each of those records from those locations?
Yes. ... Not all [initial] records requests have to come through his department.
The records that are maintained by the US Army, are those the type of records that are created by the normal course of business, personnel documents ... [etc?]?
That is correct.
Are they created by the army personnel to document certain events?
That is correct.
Did you review the records by a certain person by the name of Lonnie Franklin, Jr.?

A sidebar is called. I'm not sure, but it's probable that the court excused the jury for the morning, based on what the court said in the next paragraph.

11:49 AM
The court addresses counsel. Normally I would tell lawyers to work this out but I don't want world war three. You're going to have to do it in a professional method. I want both of you to stop it. I'm sick and tired of it. ...

[I believe Amster is speaking now. I'm sorry my notes are not clear.] The people can establish the ID of the records and then there's the issue of hearsay as to what is admissible and what is reliable. And then they have their exhibit as to what they can allow in. What we are objecting to is any summary by this witness ... they ... then the court will make a ruling ... Judge Kennedy replies, "that's what they pay me the big bucks for."

Judge Kennedy is discussing the people's witness who attended the trial. Your gentleman who went to the trial and made a report, and that's something that you [defense] probably don't want in. The people state they laid their foundation. Judge Kennedy agrees that the foundation has been laid. The defense comments on the points that the people wanted to get out of that witness. I believe it's Amster who complains that it's one thing to make legal objections and it's another thing to make extemporaneous comments in front of the jury. Amster thinks that if the people want more than the name ....

DDA Silverman states, "Counsel [defense] has copies of all the documents I plan on putting on documents ... to put on that crime." Judge Kennedy rules, "I'm going to tell you right now if that report ... of that report ... the fact that it's in there [in the personnel file] is not hearsay."

Amster cites a case he is relying on regarding records. He argues that the witness [on the stand now] any information that the parties have heard so far is based on the records. He's not testifying on personal knowledge, he's testifying on the records. He argues that it's hearsay and that it doesn't have the proper hearsay section attached to it.

My notes are not clear on who it is that reads section 1280 of California's Evidence Code. I believe it's DDA Silverman, but could have been Judge Kennedy.  Amster is arguing the "trustworthiness" of the documents in Franklin's personnel file. It's not clear in my notes if Judge Kennedy made a ruling before lunch.
Continued in Day 9, Part II .....

Continued from Day 9, Part I......
T&T Case coverage and Media Links HERE. 

Thursday, May 26, 2016
1:34 PM
I'm inside Dept. 109. People are slowly arriving. The defense is all set up. The prosecution still needs to arrive. Reporter Terri Keith takes a seat beside me and immediately starts working on her thick file of documents. She's one of the hardest working reporters I know.

1:39 PM
The court goes on the record. Amster wants to address the documents again. He's referencing the law to the hearsay exception rule and arguing court cases. Conclusions of opinions are inadmissible under the evidence code. "We think the people are looking to get the proceedings of the German court into evidence by Mr. Pyle. ... And that's what we're objecting to, based on various levels of hearsay. ... The sixth amendment deals with hearsay. ... Those are our objections. This witness should not be able to testify as to what's in the records." He continues on how the people should or should have laid their foundation.

The court turns to the people with their response. DDA Silverman responds. "As I indicated we laid a foundation ... testimony to come in under a section of the evidence code 1280 where the defendant has written down his information on documents. Those are his admissions." Judge Kennedy states that she would have a problem with the report of the criminal proceedings. DDA Silverman tells the court she made that clear before lunch that she wasn't trying to put the report into evidence. She's only saying that the report was a part of the [defendant's] personnel file.

The court asks for Amster's response. "We still feel that anything covering that report as it's contents we're objecting to. ... As this moment we don't feel this witness should be asked [anything regarding this report]."

Judge Kennedy rules. "I believe the contents, summary, his conclusions, his thoughts, clearly are not relevant. The fact that there is a report [in] regards to the trial, that is contained in this packet of materials, I believe that fact is admissible. And if you want to back out the other parts of it ... that would be one way to do it, and just not admit it at all ... and just say that there was a report involving Lonnie D. Franklin in German court."

Amster continues to argue after Judge Kennedy has ruled. He does not feel that this witness should be able to explain anything more from this report. DDA Silverman counters that she's not wanting to get any of the records in. "I said that there were records ... because I don't believe that the contents are admissible."

Now there is back and forth about who will "mark" an exhibit. The defense wanted the people to mark it. DDA Silverman counters, "Mr. Amster, if he wants to put it on himself ... he's mentioned several times he wanted me to mark it so if he wants to do that, he can do it on cross." Amster continues to argue that the records are hearsay, and that there's no hearsay exception that allows for that under the code." Judge Kennedy makes her final ruling. "I understand your objection and I'm overruling your objection as far as the record is identified. ... Can we bring the jury in now please?"

1:47 PM
We have our witness on the stand and we are back on the record. DDA Silverman resumes questioning of Lamar Whatley, the records supervisor for the Army.

39. LAMAR D. DERICO WHATLEY


Before we broke for lunch, did you review the official certified personnel file for Lonnie David Franklin, Jr.?
Yes.
Are you familiar with all of those documents in a personnel file?
Yes, I am.
Do all [personnel files] include an enlistment contract?
Yes.
What type of information does the individual fill out on that document?
Name, birth date, his home of record.
His home of record for when he came into the army?
[Yes.]
Does that include a service number?
Right.

[The enlistment, or service number is the individual's social security number. That number is protected and not stated in testimony.]

Does the document also contain a signature by the person enlisted?
Yes it does.

DDA Silverman presents her next exhibit, the service contract #655. Amster asks for a sidebar.

1:51 PM
DDA Silverman continues. The exhibit #655 has two sides, a and b.

Showing you this document, do you have this same document in the personnel file?
Yes.
What kind of form is it?
[DD Form 4?]
Does that have the name of Lonnie David Franklin, Jr.?
Yes.

Amster interrupts, "Could the court please [have the prosecutor?] leave the editorial remark that she stated?" [I somehow missed an alleged editorial remark.] The court responds, "Neither of you should address each other. And if you need to go to sidebar, we will."

The social security number is his identification number in the military, is that correct?
That's correct.
Do you recognize what you see there [pointing to the document up on the ELMO]?
Yes. This is an enlistment contract.

Shows the name where the address is on [West 85th Street?] in Los Angeles. Points out the date of birth.

Would that be based on information that the enlistee gives to the contract, July 26, 1971?
That is the date he enlisted into the army.

The back of the document has the date the defendant actually went on active duty. The document also has the defendant's signature.

Is the individual fingerprinted at the time he enlists?
Yes....
People's 656, a fingerprint card.
Objection! Sidebar.

1:58 PM
Several of the jurors chat with each other during the sidebar.

Do the records indicate where he was assigned after he enlisted?
Objection, hearsay. Sustained.
What is a DD 214?
It's a certificate of discharge in the defendant's name.
Objection. Overruled.
Showing the top half of exhibit #657. Do you recognize this document from the personnel file?
Yes, it is.
Other than the ID number of the individual that I cover, does that document also contain the same name?
Yes it does.
The same date of birth?
Yes, it does.
And the same residence?
Yes, it does.
Does the document also say he was last assigned to overseas service in Germany?
Yes, I believe it does.
By the way, in the terms of what we [said?], what is a National Defense Service medal?
Objection. Sustained.

Judge Kennedy has a look directed at DDA Silverman that is not positive.

Do the documents in the file also describe .... include a trials observers report and document and notes of a trial?
Yes, it does.
And the end of the trial's observers report, does it have the name Frank Pyle?
Yes it does.
Nothing further.

Amster has no questions for this witness, then asks to approach at sidebar again.

2:05 PM
The people call Romy Lampkins. Unfortunately my notes are not clear, but I believe DDA Rizzo presents the witness.

40. ROMY LAMPKINS

Do you know someone by the name of Lachrica Jefferson?
She's my sister.
Who's older?
I am.
By how many years?
17 months.
Do you have any other brothers or sisters?
No.  ... She was my best friend.
Did you share a bedroom together?
Yes, we did. ... When we were little girls. ... She slept on the top. I slept on the bottom. ... I slept in her bed at night so I wouldn't get tinkled on.

They would do things together. Go to the park, the beach, roller skating. They both liked to skate.

Who was the better skater?
She was more outgoing than I was.
What were her favorite things to do?
She liked to dance. She loved to sing.
Since you shared a bedroom, would you talk all the time at night about things?
Yes.
What were some of the things [you would talk about]?
Some girl things. She said she never wanted kids. I was the one that had kids. ... She wanted to be a pediatric doctor.  ... She figured that would be enough kids for her.
What kind of person was she?
Outgoing person. Happy go lucky. She was well loved.
What about holidays growing up?
It was fun. We had family gatherings a lot of good things going on ... when they would get together.
Since there was the two of you, were there other family members around LA?
Yes.

They would celebrate with extended family. She remembers them getting Barbie houses together and her sister knew how to put her house together. They had their fights about sharing Barbie doll clothes.

Would you say you were the closest person to Lachrica then?
[Yes.]
How was it you learned about her death?
A detective left a card at my mom's house, and then I came over. I stayed on Western.
And a detective came and told you?
Yes.
What was your reaction?
I was devastated. In shock. I couldn't believe it. It was unbelievable.
Did you have to tell your mom?
I had to go over and tell my mom because [I? she?] wasn't able to drive.
How did your mom take it?
Very hard. Very hard.
Did she break down?
She did. She did break down.

How did it affect your mom afterwards?
She was over protective of me then. She was more protective of me. ... I was 23 at the time.
So your mom clamped down on you and she wanted to protect you?
Right.
To make sure it didn't happen [to you?]?
Right.

She helped her mother plan the funeral.

What was that like?
It was hard.
Did you ever think you would be planning the funeral of your sister?
No, not at all.
You went to the funeral?
Oh yes.
What was that day like?
It was the most hardest day of my life.
Do you still think about that day?
I do.
What do you think [about]?
Just trying to go on.

She went to the cemetery that day. She doesn't go to the grave site today. It's too difficult for her.

What day is her birthday?
November 23, 1965.
Do you do anything on that day?
Sometimes, her birthday would fall on Thanksgiving.

During the holidays, her sister is gone, her mother is gone. She celebrates with her children, but it gets a little depressing for me though.

I'm going to show you some photos.
Okay.

Exhibit 490. It's just a face photo of Lachrica Jefferson.

That's "Chrica"" my sister.
Was that a nickname?
Yes. We called her Chrica.

Another exhibit, #629

Do you recognize that photo?
That's my mother and my sister. Mom on the right and left Lachrica with her head on mom's shoulder.
Do you recall when this photo was taken?
I believe it was the day we had buried my grandma.

Another exhibit #658. She points out herself, a cousin, her auntie and Lachrica, next to the cousin. This photo was also taken at the grandmother's funeral. The next photo on the exhibit is of Romy again, her auntie and Lachrica and other cousins. Same event, grandma's funeral.

Exhibit #659. Romy is in the front and Lachrica in the back. This was their elementary school graduation.  Exhibit #660. Romy and her sister again, taken outside of a house. Exhibit #661.  A photo of Lachrica with her oldest son. He was three at the time. The next photo is of Lachrica at Christmas time.


[Tell us about this photo.]
She loved to pose. She was just modeling.

The next exhibit is the memorial program with a photo of Lachrica.

That was the day we laid her to rest. And that was the front page of the funeral program.

The next photo is a photo of Lachrica's headstone. It's a beautifully carved plaque. There is also a photo of the grounds around her grave site.

What is it that you miss most about your sister?
Her smile and her dancing.

No questions from the defense. Witness is excused. Romy testified in a low toned voice. She appeared very sad to me. The people call their next witness, Billy Ware. DDA Rizzo presents the witness.

41. BILLY WARE DION, JR.

Who is Barbara Ware?
My sister. My baby sister.
How many years older?
18 months.
Did your baby sister have a nickname?
Beth. ... It was a full middle name, Bethune, but we called her Beth.
How old were you at the time of her death?
24. ... I have a brother in Houston, Texas.  I have one in Oakland and a sister that resides here. ... Me and Beth, we grew up in the same household. We had the same mother. [My] other siblings had different fathers. ... We were born and raised here. ... When I was in sixth grade, she was in fifth. We were very, very close.

Were you like the same person almost?
Yeah.
What would you do together?
A host of things. ... Most of all, we'd watch cartoons together, eat cereal. We played together, fought together, went to school together. ... We went to the same school at the same time. ... She was always right there with me.

Were you her protector?
Yes. And she was mine as well.
Bach and forth, is that right?
Yes.
What was she like?
Very outgoing, very sweet. She trusted people a little bit more than what she should have. ... She gave away too much in trusting people. ... She would think everybody was okay.
She never questioned people and their motives?
Yes. ...
She would give them the benefit of the doubt; not suspicious of anyone, right?
Right.

She.... we would ride our bikes together. ... Right up to Hollywood and we would catch the bus to Burbank Studios. That's when you could pay to ride the horses. We'd take the Western [Ave.] bus. And then we would take the bus or ride our bikes back home.

They did that when there wasn't such things as iPads or thinks like that.

What did she want to do when she grew up, did she tell you?
No, she didn't. I had a feeling that she wanted to do something that would help people, I really do. In my heart I believe that.
And what about holidays? Do you remember any special holidays?
I have a lot of fond holiday [memories] growing up, and Christmas is one of our favorite times of the year. ...  Christmas is one of our joyous holidays. Christmas was like our thing.
Now, when you celebrate Christmas with your kids?
I do. My kids are 13 and 10. ... I speak of my mother and sister constantly. I show them pictures. They are very much aware of what's going on today and they know.
So you try to bring Beth alive in pictures?
Yes I do.

How old were you when your mother passed?
I was 14. Beth was 13. ... Then our dad remarried Diana Ware. ... Beth never got to meet my kids.
Did Beth talk to you about her problems in life?
Yes. I was aware.
She had some struggles?
She did. ... When [our?] grandparents died, and Beth came for the funeral, and I could see that she was going through some troubles. And I asked her to stay with me in Wichita. ... And that was the last time I saw her.
[When was that?]
April 1987.

The spoke on the phone often. The got in trouble for running up the phone bill. They would keep in touch.

Would you say that you were the closest person to Beth?
Yes, I would, besides her daughter.
She has a daughter? What's her daughter's name.
Naomi [Shae?] Ware.
Did you get to meet her daughter?
Yes.
How old is Naomi now?
Somewhere between 27 and ... I don't even know my own kids age that good.

How did you get to meet Naomi?
Naomi was five before I moved to Wichita.

He still keeps in contact with Naomi, who has her own family now, too.

You were in Wichita when you learned about Beth's death. What was your reaction?

The witness pauses before he answers.

Just shock.

He takes a moment to speak. He takes his glasses off and he puts his hand over his face. He sobs. He then tells DDA Rizzo, "Go ahead."

Was it like a part of you, your best friend had died?
Yes.
How were you able to go on and deal with it?
Up until five years ago, I wasn't able to deal with it. I went through mental health counseling. I went to drugs and alcohol. And about five years ago, when I was told that Mr. Franklin was apprehended. I thought that was ... I took a tailspin with drugs and alcohol. That's the toll that it took on me.

Do you feel like you are moving forward?
I'm a lot better now than I was. ... I'm clean almost three years now. ... But no, prior [to that] ... that was my way of dealing with the pain. ... And that went on for years.
The pain is still there?
Yes. The pain is still there. And I know how to deal with it [now] without turning to that ... and the pain will always be there.
I'm going to show you some photos.

People's exhibits #469 to 470, 472, 476, 475. Photo of Barbara Ware. It's a photo of their mother on a sofa holding Beth on her lap.

That big guy there, that's me.
How old is Billy?
I'm saying two, three years old. But yeah, that's us.

Another photo. Billy identifies his father, Beth and her daughter Naomi. He doesn't know when the photo was taken. Another photo of Naomi very young.

That looks about the last time I'd seen her [Naomi]. That was about that size and age.

Another photo is presented, exhibit #474.

Do you recognize [that photo]?
Yes. I do.
Who is that young man?
That would be me.
Hold old are you?
Probably about 12 or 13 maybe. ... That's my grandfather and Beth.
What year is that?
Maybe 1975, 1976. 

The middle to late 70's. Two smiling kids, standing with their grandfather.

What do you miss most about your sister Beth?
That she's not here with me. I often wonder what she would be like as of today. I often wonder what was on her mind when she was going through what she was going through. ... I wish she was here so I could talk to her. ... I miss that I don't have what I had with Beth, with my other brothers and sister. ... And I miss the fact that she's not here.

No cross examination. The people call Diana Ware, stepmother to Beth.

42. DIANA WARE

Do you know someone named Barbara Ware?
She's my stepdaughter.
How old was Barbara when you married her father?
She was 8.
And her brother Bill a little bit older?
Yes. He was about 10.
When you married Barbara's father [did you already have a family?]?
I had a son and a daughter.
So you had melded your families then at that time?
Yes, we did. We had a blended family.
Kind of like the Brady Bunch?
Yes.
Where was Barbara in the age order?
She was the youngest. ... She was a baby.
At that time, you all lived in Los Angeles?
Yes, we did.

Did you call her Beth, too?
Yes. We called her Beth.
[Tell us about Beth.]
She was a very outgoing and fun loving child. She had her challenges when she was older. She loved to roller skate. Her and her brother were very close. Later on she did have her challenges. And she did go to stay with her grandmother in Houston for a while.
And that was to help her get through some of these challenges?
Yes, it was.
And her brother Billy said they would like to go out and ride horses?
Yes. That was when they were younger.
What did you do as a family?
Universal Studios, Disneyland, ball games, recreation areas.
Would you say that you would do a lot of things together on weekends as a family?
I'd say so. Especially around the holidays, we'd get together with the other family members.
Would you be the host?
Most of the times we would be the host.
Did you have a big house so that you could host everybody?
Yes, Thanksgiving and Christmas.

Did Beth like those holidays?
Yes, she did.
How did you know that she loved them?
She was always very happy. And I remember one particular holiday, we were waiting for guests to come. ... There were all kinds of guests coming. There children and ... She was always very happy when we would have people over.

There were cousins in the same age range?
Yes. There were cousins.
She enjoyed seeing the cousins?
Yes. ... Her and Billy, they were very close. He would stick up for her and vice versa. She was rough. She could be a tomboy at times.
She wasn't afraid of anyone and wasn't going to let them pick on her brother?
That's for sure.
How long was she in Houston?
That was after ... She was just starting high school, so she was there [about three years?] ... so she came back.

Did she tell you what she wanted to do?
Yes she did. She liked to care for others. I figured she would be in the nursing career. That's what she tended to do.
If she'd gotten the chance, right?
Yes.

How did you learn about Beth's death?
A detective went to my husband's place of business. And then he [husband] came home and told me.
What was your husband's reaction?
He was devastated. ... When he came in I knew something was wrong by the look on his face. And then he told me. It was just ... hard to believe. That it just happened, all of a sudden you know?
Did you believe it?
No. I couldn't believe it. It was very hurtful.
Did you have to tell other family members?
Yes. We had to call my sister-in-laws, and her grandmother and cousins in Houston.
Did you have to let the family from Wichita know about it?
Yes, yes.

Diana, did you plan the funeral?
Yes. My husband and I planned the funeral.
What was that like planning the funeral of your stepdaughter?
No parent thinks that they would ever [have to] bury their child.
[She grabs a tissue and dabs at her eyes.]
My husband was very devastated so I had to take over a lot of it so. ... I did have the help of my sister-in-law. ... My other stepdaughter came from San Diego and she pitched in to help us.
Do you think her father ever got over it?
No, no.

Do you remember the day of the funeral?
I remember it very well. It was very sad. Especially at the cemetery, that we had relatives that had come from Houston. And they were all gathered around so it was a very sad occasion.
Do you go to visit Beth at the cemetery?
We go twice a year.
What about on her birthday, to remember her birthday?
Not anymore. We did at one time on her birthday. ... Other holidays, especially Christmas, we always remember her. We always say a special prayer at that time. Not only for her but for my husband and all the other ones we lost along the way. ... We have pictures and things that we go through ...

You have a granddaughter named Naomi. ... What happened [to Naomi]?
Naomi was adopted by one of Beth's cousins, right after Beth passed away. Her cousin wanted to adopt her and he [Beth's father] agreed. He wanted her out of Los Angeles.
And your husband was very protective of her?
She could come back in the summer and she would spend a few weeks with us.
So your granddaughter was cared for in a loving family?
Yes.
And you would see her about once a year?
Yes. When she was younger she would come back. .. She has children of her own now. ... We don't see her that much anymore. We talk occasionally on the phone.

2:52 PM 
Photos are shown to the witness. The first one is the same photo with Barbara and Billy as very young children.

Do you recall that photo?
That's Beth and her mother. Barbara and Billy. She identifies the same photos that Billy did.

Beth was about 12 when her mother passed and she came to come live with us. ... Naomi was five when her mother [Beth] died.
Do you know if she realized what happened?
They told her afterwards. She didn't remember.
She was too young.
Yes.

More photos. This time it's the witnesses identifies her sister-in-law Sherry [sp?] and her daughter Angela. In the middle, Beth and Naomi. On the right is Treva and her daughter Tia. Treva lives in Los Angeles. That's her other stepdaughter.  Another photo #471, of the young ones. Angela, Naomi, Tia and Shawn [sp?]. Shawn is Treva's son.

Next, Diana is shown the memorial program for Beth.

Do you recognize this?
That's Barbara's obituary.

She recognizes the photo but doesn't know when it was taken. She's then shown a photo of inside the program, listing some of the relatives and friends Barbara left behind.  More photos of Barbara when she was in junior high, possibly 8th grade. Her school photo. Another photo Diana describes.

That's Beth in a yellow dress standing by a car, when she was staying with her grandmother.
Late teenage years?
Yes.

Another photo, exhibit #476. It's Barbara in a uniform, in a crouching position.

That's Beth. She was working at The Hungry Owls Barbecue on Western Avenue. She was about 21 in that photo.

Exhibit #482, a photo of Barbara's headstone.

Yes, that's her grave site.
What do you think about when you're at her grave site?
Oh, ... I just think about the good times we had. And that's at Inglewood ... My husband is there as well and Barbara's mother is there also.
What do you miss the most?
Mostly her smile and the good times we had. The laughter. Just miss her. ... A [spot?] in our hearts that is always there. ... We think about her everyday. ... Prayers have got me there, but it's rough. ... Glad that things have gotten me to this point where things have gotten better.

Direct is finished and there is not cross. The people rest with the admission of the exhibits evidence.

3:01 PM
Over at sidebar. Amster did not want to start until next Tuesday with his case and I'm guessing they are arguing about that. Then it's over and Judge Kennedy addresses the jurors.

"To give you a timeline of where we are. The prosecution has rested in the penalty phase. The defense is going to present witnesses in the penalty phase. There wasn't a lot of cross examination so it's hard to predict how long it's going to take to put on the evidence. ... I have the defense counsel, that he could start the presentation of his evidence on Tuesday, anticipating that we would have [more of] this testimony tomorrow and he relied on that though."

"Most likely, the entirety of the defense case will be finished on Tuesday, or if not entirely finished. ON Wednesday is a graduation and I indicated that we would not be in session on Wednesday. And Monday is Memorial Day ... So I'm sorry for the little bit of disjointed days here. There's a light at the end of this tunnel, and we're almost finished and I do believe we will have final arguments and instructions on Thursday and maybe begin your deliberations maybe late on Thursday."

"What does that mean for tomorrow? We have some things to do on Friday. I'll ... we'll be working for the lawyers tomorrow. Going back to work on Wednesday the first. But I order you to have a wonderful holiday on Monday and I hope everyone has no bungee jumping ... It's possible [you will be] in deliberations by Friday, June 3rd."

One of the jurors has a doctor's appointment scheduled for June 3 and on June 6, and doesn't know how long they will take. The juror is going to see if it's possible to move her doctor's appointments. The court asks, "Why don't you verify that information and we'll talk about it next time I see you. ... I appreciate all of your dealing with our crazy schedules and you've been absolutely incredible jurors."

She gives them her standard admonition about not discussing the case or watching TV or reading about the case in the Internet, and no research. The court orders jurors back at 10:30 on Tuesday.

"Have a wonderful Memorial day."

The jurors and alternates leave. The court discusses logistics of going over the admissibility of exhibits on Friday afternoon. Modified jury instructions are also mention that those can also be reviewed. The length of closing arguments is discussed. DDA Silverman states she will speak for a couple of hours.

And that's it.

Continued on Day 10 with defense witness testimony....

NOTE: Day Two, Part I of Closing Arguments can be found HERE.
NOTE: Day One, Part II of Closing Arguments can be found HERE.
NOTE: Day One, Part I of Closing Arguments can be found HERE.

Tuesday May 3, 2016
1:35 PM Afternoon Session
I'm inside Dept. 109. There's lots of chatter as the courtroom fills. One of the defense attorneys from the Uwaydah et. al [Kelly Soo Park] case is in the courtroom. It's Anthony Brooklier, who's married to journalist Pat LaLama.

1:42 PM
The court goes on the record in the Franklin case. The jury is not brought in yet. Judge Kennedy informs counsel. "Apparently there was someone that was speaking to one of our jurors. And she's ... what's her name?" I believe someone offers to the court,  "Victoria Redstall." The court continues, "There was an issue with her using her cell phone and the bailiff had her leave the courtroom and she's very upset."

Judge Kennedy continues, "Apparently, she spoke to one of the jurors that she was kicked out of the courtroom. She's been in the vestibule, trying to get the attention of somebody that may be related to someone that she knew in the courtroom. ... She apparently hasn't been talking about the case, but she went up to one of the jurors which is improper. So I've barred her."

Defense attorney Dale Atherton addresses the court. "I [do?] need a media inquiry. It doesn't relate to anything in the case. She was with her mother. I think that's who she was trying to get the attention."

Atherton wants to know what was reported.

[I remember from the morning session, seeing the woman in the vestibule, constantly waving her arms in front of the small windows, as if she trying to get someone's attention.]

At some point, Judge Kennedy states that the jury communicated that her behavior in the vestibule was distracting to them.

The court responds, "She told one of the jurors that she had been excluded from the courtroom. That's what had been reported to me."

Atherton wants the court to inquire of the juror involved. It's juror #12. The juror is brought out and Judge Kennedy questions the juror. "Hello Juror #12. I wanted to inquire. I heard that someone had a conversation with you?" Juror #12 replies, "It wasn't a conversation. I saw a lady next to the trash can. I was throwing something away. I asked her, what are you doing outside? She said they threw her out of the court." The court asks, "Did she say anything about the case?" Juror #12 answers, "No your honor." Judge Kennedy inquires further. "Was there anything about this contact that would cause you to become impartial about the case?""No your honor," he replies.

The court then asks to see counsel at sidebar. The court said something else about, that it wasn't a contact from either side. I guess meaning, that neither side of the case was involved in this contact.

Amster retakes to the podium. He has to wait for the ELMO to heat up. Amster smiles, laughs. He then asks the court it doesn't count towards his 20 minutes.  That's the amount of time he told the court he has left in his argument. Judge Kennedy replies, "I don't know."

Amster begins. To recap. We have stated why the DNA evidence in this case leads to reasonable doubt. Enietra Washington's testimony leads to reasonable doubt. Our reason why, the scientific analysis done by the government in this case is based on inferior technology and science.

Mistakes made during the search of Lonnie Franklin's home does not cause the evidence to be reliable. It's up to you, to put the weight on the search evidence.

The mystery man, the mystery DNA, the mystery gun ... that saw his uncle and coveted Lonnie's girls.

Amster references the analogy with the rancher and the barn. The bullet holes put them in their place. His diagram with the bulls-eyes with the names of each victim written over the bulls-eyes is back up on the ELMO.

As such, the lack of evidence in this case compels you to find Mr. Franklin not guilty. It's a circumstantial evidence case. You must consider all reasonable interpretations of this case. The mystery man with the mystery DNA with the mystery gun.

Your job, as stated so many times is to follow the law. It's not easy to be in America and to believe in the system. It is not. We recognize how many counts are here. We recognize the pressure. We hope that you will follow the law and base your decision upon it.

I'm fortunate to sometimes be reminded of things by my children...

DDA Silverman interrupts, "Objection! Defense is testifying."

Amster continues. "My son brought something to my attention that I saw so long ago at the Los Angeles [Law] Library, that, this building is dedicated to our system, is dedicated to a series of laws. No matter what courthouse you sit in, that each jury is given the same laws of circumstantial evidence and reasonable doubt. As long as we remain a system of laws, we do not need to be sitting on judgement, making their own decisions. ... And that is all we are asking of you, is analyze the evidence by the instructions that are given to you. Your Honor, is the law.

There's more, but I'm having difficulty following where Amster's thoughts are going.

You are fortunate that our system allows you to only be identified, referred to as a number. So you can go back and make your decision without anyone knowing who you are, and that gives you the ability to make a decision without public pressure. We want you to decide on the evidence and the testimony heard inside this courtroom. There have been times in this country where individuals have been asked to make tough decisions on individuals, not well liked by society. One of the times it occurred was before the formation of this country, during the Boston Massacre, when redcoats fired on colonials in Massachusetts. Amster is now giving jurors an American history lesson.

A jury of American colonists sat on that jury and made a decision on the redcoats, to have a reason for the American Revolution. And that jury made a very tough decision. British soldiers were [found] not guilty for the act of murder, and they set the British soldiers free. They chose the jury not to be known. They knew to look at the facts and come to a decision that was right.

This building is dedicated to those who made our government, a system of laws and not a system of men. LA Law Library.

We must make our decision based on the law. And I know each of you will do. You've been a dedicated jury. We appreciate that, and I know you will listen to us and you will consider the points of view of the governments as they have the right to give their statement after we conclude. And so I thank you.

The defense is finished with their closing.

DDA Silverman steps back to the podium to give her second closing argument.

"Let's get back to the real issues. The only deception that's been perpetrated in this case is by the defense. ... The entire defense from the beginning of this case through closing arguments, when we heard for the first time, [this mystery man] is now at the end of the case with no evidence to support it. ... What they want you to do is speculate. And in the instructions from the court ... tells you, that's something that you cannot do. ... That doesn't mean imaginative evidence or based on speculation."

"The theory of the defense is basically the equivalent of the skies opening up, a space ship descending and murdering all these women," DDA Silverman tells the jury, her voice edged with anger and disbelief. "We don't know about a mystery nephew. We don't even know if this person exists. Don't you think you would have heard about it before now? ... Just because they talk about something for hours, that that's going to lend it some credibility?"

"So the defense told you some nephew picked up Enietra Washington and said he wanted to go to his uncle's house. So is the defense saying the person who is also a murderer wouldn't lie?" ... The fact that he said he wanted to stop at his uncle's house to pick up some money."

DDA Sliverman takes the jury back to when Enietra was picked up by Franklin. He sees that his car caught her attention.

"Why does he say he has to stop by his home that he calls his uncle's house? He has to go back to get his gun! ... Why is he angry? Because she initially refuses his ride. He makes her feel guilty. It was manipulation. That's what we hear throughout the case."

The defense told you, well, the police were brought to the area. That DNA could have been gotten from everybody. What year was this? It was 1988! ... They have to make things up because they don't have anything. Because the evidence is so substantial. What have we had throughout this trial? Red herrings.

What is a red herring? People would drag a smoked fish across the trail to throw off hunting dogs. That's what was done to you this morning and all afternoon and yesterday. It's not DNA. It's not science. Suddenly, it doesn't work if it points to the defense but it's okay if it points to someone else.

Firearm evidence is used throughout the entire world. Remember the question [to the coroner] about after each victim, the question that maybe the bodies were misidentified. The questions about, how do we know that the toe tags were correct? What did that result in at the end of the people's case? A parade of family members saying, 'That's my daughter. That was my sister. That was my mother.'  The defense was happy to mislead you. That was their initial attempt then it went on from there.

Remember the photos of crime scenes? The defense asked, lets look at the gang graffiti. It's to make you look away from the murders. Like Detective Dupree testified, gangs are not interested in that stuff of covering up murders. There's various drug dealers that were covering up. DDA Silverman asks, "What were they doing, passing around the same gun?" Then they [defense] said transients may have been responsible.

They talked to them [witnesses] about evidence that wasn't picked up. If it wasn't picked up it's not evidence. Then you can't come in here and say ... that's not evidence. Remember about the orange peel? When he asked the detective why he didn't pick that up?

And that's what this is about. It's to deflect your attention [away from] the real issues in this case.

DDA Silverman addresses the criminalists, the search of the home, the photo of a Polaroid.

"We knew that photographs were probably taken, the detective testified. [They] knew that firearm evidence [might be present]. [They] were looking for things that might support the case. ... Nobody knew who these people were. And it wasn't until later, when everything was shifted through. ... And look at the envelope where the defense said something must be underhanded."

DDA Silverman goes over this in detail, but since I didn't hear this testimony, it's a bit confusing to me.

All the evidence for Barbara Ware. He writes July so we know that this took place in July of 2010. And he mixes up for the year and he puts the year of Barbara Ware's murder, instead of the [date of?] the search warrant. ... [The description in the evidence log?] And it says Polaroid of female, black. We don't know who it is at that point. Why does the defendant still have this, 20 plus years later? Why is it behind the walls of his garage, hidden?

"And then today, now we have some grand conspiracy theory that happened in this case. The sheriff, the LAPD, the DA's office, and his own nephew. We don't even know if he has a nephew and neither do you. ... That's what you're not allowed to do, what he said."

"How many times die we hear Judge Kennedy say you're not allowed to look at things outside this courtroom because you're not supposed to bring extemporaneous information in? It's not valid. ... but today, there's a mystery man, a mystery gun and mystery DNA. ... How long did it take him to come up with that story and now he has a mystery nephew. ... And he's misstated the evidence."

DDA Silverman goes over Enietra's testimony and the specifics of what she said.

"This is the photo, people's three. This is a photo of the defendant in 1989. This is the photo that Enietra was shown at the grand jury. She said, This is the person. Does he look like a youngster? ... Shows them the photo ... So what does Enietra Washington say, when she's interviewed? ... Her first interview is at the hospital. She's bleeding. In shock. Her panties hanging off of her. ... When paramedics arrive, she has lost so much blood that they had to put a pressure jacket on her. ... She's given a pain med. ... And Sargent [Tanner?] speaks to her at 2:50 am. By the time she makes it to Linda's house, we are in the early morning hours of November 20. ... She is not in a condition where she is stable. ... What does she say? ... She tells him, I was attacked by one man. He drives a Pinto. And he took a photograph of me.  ... "

"Then she's interviewed a week after the surgery. ... The detective speaks to her. His points are, he wants to talk to her about the suspect and the suspects vehicle. ... She gives him a very detailed description of both. ... She mentions the photo. The car, and his uniform, beige jacket with a t-shirt underneath. ... And he has a small gold chain around his neck. ... A key ring with several keys and that he owned more than one vehicle. ... Short hair. Large hands. And that he was in his late 20's or early 30's. Was that inconsistent with the defendant?"

Now, when she is asked 20 years later, it was a young man.  She's remembering back to that time. He was a young man, compared to her age 20 years later.

She said he had nice teeth, refused a cigarette when it was offered. He drove an orange Pinto with white racing stripes. It was very well kept. A mechanics box. She said school books. She said the vehicle had tinted windows and the dash had the word Pinto and there was some sort of spiderweb crack.

"It's very, very detailed. She never says two [people]. She never says three. Always one."

Mr. Coleman who did the composite, he couldn't remember anything, but based on his notes. She said it was one assailant. While still in the hospital, [she said] he was in 20's to 30's, had a medium build, not stocky, not slim. Wearing [khaki?] work clothes, clean shaven and dark complexion. ... That she picked the darkest color skin and no accent. And he [Coleman?] included the word 'dog me' as a sex act. Dog me, as to why [Franklin was trying to make her feel guilty].

Compare that to Linda Lewis, who was not the victim of a crime. Enietra Washington was found by Linda. Linda tells us that her memory was much better in 1988 than in 2007, the next time she was interviewed was in 2011 at the grand jury. She mentioned she was interviewed in her home the first time. She said Enietra Washington told her it was one guy and he was over and down a few blocks.

When interviewed 19 years later, she has a different story. She says first two guys then three guys during the same interview. It was 19 years later. She doesn't remember.

DDA Silverman brings up the ID expert the defense called to the stand and what he said [about memory]. "We don't need an ID expert to tell us that."

Enietra never said two guys or three guys. That's something that Linda got wrong. Detective Daryl [Groce?] when, in 2007 [he interviewed Enietra], Enietra says one assailant. She never said at any time, that it was more than one guy. And the details that she gives to Detective [Groce], are strikingly similar. She always said one assailant.

DDA Silverman goes over the events of what happened to Enietra again, and how the defendant made her feel guilty for not accepting a ride from him.

"She eventually gave in when she saw that he was offended and acted sarcastic. .. [He said] Why are you always dogging me Brenda? That he was confusing her with someone else. That he was around her age."

What does that mean, that it's the nephew of the defendant? He [defendant] lied to her! What other lies did he tell to get other women into his car in a dark alley? When she says again in 2007, 20 years later, she says he was a youngster. And looking back, he was. And back then she was a youngster. That's because she was.

DDA Silverman then addresses the alleged 'college books' in the car and the fact that Enietra remembered there were math books in the car. Middle school. I don't know what he [Amster] is talking about since math is taught in middle school.

If the defense said over and over that you can't convict then my answer would be what more evidence could you have? When you have DNA evidence, ballistics evidence, the murder weapon. What other type of evidence could exist? Because he would be telling you that wasn't reliable either.

So as I said, all of this, because there's more. That we spent hours and hours a day, when we were being led away from what the evidence says, and here it is again.

Defense attorney Dale Atherton rocks back and forth in his chair.

The argument by the defense, is meant to make you speculate. Now, when the defense told you his job is to [prosecute?] bad government, that's false. He doesn't know what he's talking about. There's no "bad government."

"His job is to represent his client. It doesn't mean you are supposed to misrepresent to the jury. ... He even said to you yesterday, The government wants to see patterns. Detective Kilcoyne said they set up the task force because they saw connections. And looking at various cases, they had the same profile that happened over and over again. That wasn't something the government 'wanted' to find. That's something that exists. The fact that the bodies were all dumped. The victims were all the same type. The victims are all African Americans. All in South Central. ... We didn't create it."

DDA Silverman talks about Ray Davis and his testimony corroborating the evidence found in the search. She mentions the date on the photograph of Janecia Peters. The date on the photo is 2006. Yes, because by 2007, she's dead!

DDA Silverman now talks more about Enietra Washington.

"She's standing on the curb. and he drives along side her. He's offering her a ride. He's standing on the street." And yes, he's about an inch shorter than her, but he's standing in the street and she's on the curb, the sidewalk. ... "She never said she saw acne scars on his face. She said pock marks."

"So what do they do? They call Paul Williams. [He says] Oh yeah, he's got discolorations on his face. Doesn't that corroborate what Enietra Washington said? And despite that, they never mentioned it. They called that witness themselves. They called a witness to the stand and he corroborates her testimony. Ah, doesn't matter. Irrelevant. ... You can only say things are so false, that they stop listening to you. ... Why flush taxpayer money down the toilet. What's the purpose to have the National Research Counsel? To make recommendations."

Because we're using established science, somehow, science has passed us by. Except, the government is paying Dr. Hamby to fly around the world to teach other countries [these established methods].

If DNA evidence is not relevant, then why spend hundreds of dollars of taxpayers money on [testing] towels and rags and items from a dumpster on a fishing expedition? Do you all remember spending day after day of the DNA evidence from Sorenson? There was one sample that was mentioned where the result wasn't inconclusive. Let's send everything out, see what we find, and if we find something, then lets make that the real killer.

Then the nephew. Does he even have a name? He told you over and over again, "I don't know what that means," and then at the end of the trial, he tells you what that means.

"One thing I do agree with him on, he said the jury is the voice of reason. Use a little common sense."

In terms of this gun, the Titan 25 auto, that was used to murder Janecia Peters. The defendant is in possession of that gun. It's in his home.  But also, for what he said, I live with my wife. I have two grown children. And the box with the gun, his name is on the side of the box. It's in his bedroom in a case with a magazine.

When the defense says to you, you have to, have to look at all other reasonable interpretations of the evidence, what's reasonable is based on common sense. What's up there [that the defense presented] is reasonable? The imaginary nephew and the conspiracy theory? Is that reasonable?

So defense counsel argued to you that it's based primarily on DNA only allowable, if you can show DNA is attributable to a particular individual is unique. That's the whole point of statistics. He clearly doesn't understand DNA and he doesn't understand statistics. The reason to attach a statistic is to show you how rare. When he's talking to you about race, and we should all love each other regardless of race ... DNA is race blind. We don't have a location for race. That's why statistics are reported for the most population groups. So statistics are based on population data. And of course, it's based on unrelated people.

"The DNA [that was matched to the defendant] is so unique, it's astronomical. All of the labs use unrelated statistics. We're not looking for related people. ... You did not hear from one DNA person, expert analyst [that said], Well, this profile was similar to the defendant because it could be someone related to him bit it wasn't him. ... They said it was a match. That's what the statistics give you. It's used by every DNA lab."

It's good enough for him to say, look, there's all these other unknown men and women, sexual assault kits on their clothes. So it's good enough for his purposes but suddenly it's not good enough for him. You didn't come out of some dark hole. We all know about DNA. It's used to exonerate and to convict the guilty. STR''s. It's the same methodology that's used across the country and several areas across the world. And some were utilized to identify the remains from 911. But it can't be used to identify a serial killer.

[Defense] counsel made a lot of comments about the randomness of nature to cause two strands to be the same. If it was someone who was related to the defendant, we wouldn't have matches. They took references samples at the time of the arrest. Plus we know that law enforcement was able to obtain reference samples from him because they obtained reference samples from the pizza place. We developed it from the pizza, the napkins and the glasses. Things were done over and over again to be sure of the results.  And yet every single item utilized in this case from sexual assault kits to zip ties matched. Not similar to, matched the defendant.

The defense also talked to the number of donors on Enietra Washington's waist band. When DDA Rizzo questioned the analyst and his take on about how DNA evidence can be transferred, that are sold in a store. They come in from a manufacturer. They get hung up by the waist band in the department stores or these stores that sell lingerie, many people test the waist band area. And he indicated to you there's a bunch of people on the waist band. And he was wrong. It wasn't 9. It was 8. Is what he's saying, eight different men raped her? He doesn't understand the DNA and the science.

I also want to mention that several times throughout the argument, throughout the trial, comments were made, including today, in a humorous manner, about family reunions and family members who marry each other. I want you to keep in mind there are 10 dead women at the center of this case. We don't just give them lip service and pay our respects.

We are at the closing of the trial. These women were human beings. But in this case, the defense wants to have it both ways. For instance. We talked about DNA, firearms evidence. Now he claims that the firearm's evidence isn't reliable. In the defense, in his own arguments, like what came out of Mr. Lamagna's mouth. Now all the firearms evidence was connected. It was all a result of the nephew who had the gun. But if you don't like that answer, it was the cousin. What evidence do you have, that supports any of those arguments? And how many times during the course of this trial, did we hear Mr. Amster say, we want statistics. There should be some kind of statistical information applied to firearms evidence.

But go to the DNA, and he says the statistics are unreliable because they deal with unrelated people.

This unknown nephew, this imaginary person, why is Enietra Washington's picture behind the wall of the defendant's garage? Why doesn't the imaginary nephew have it at his imaginary home? And then counsel went on to say, How do we know the Polaroid, how do we even know where it was found? That search warrant, there was so much going on there, how do we know they didn't screw up?

Because we have photographs. When they did the search warrant, they photographed everything in place.  There were three different witnesses that testified about this, and about the false wall that detectives testified about.

 And then the nephew came in and put it behind the wall of his uncle's house. Is that even reasonable?

The photo, that, how we know where it was found because the detectives, the law enforcement officers and criminals are professionals and they know how to do their jobs. So they photograph in place so that years later in 2016 someone can't come back and say, Where was that? Oh no. It was photographed.

Let's talk about DNA evidence that the defense attorney distorted this morning, and made some comment that since no sexual assault kit, that, had they had [it], we would have found DNA from someone else. That's speculation. Seeing as we found DNA on victim after victim it would have been more likely that we had evidence of the defendant on their bodies. What the defense did, that's not reasonable.

Barbara Ware. He mentioned that the defendant's [DNA] might have been on the nipple. This story being that, somehow, he put his mouth on some women's breast that she put on the bra that, then another woman donned her bra so the defendant's saliva was transferred from victim to victim. Again, that's not reasonable.

"I could stand up and stay here for the next couple days and show how what he said was not reasonable, but I think that you are already doing that yourself."

Remember sperm fractions? It was found in her mouth.

They talked about Bernice Sparks. Some unknown male and sexual assault evidence. The point is not that there were not unknown males in various items tested in this case. The point is, is that not one of them repeated between victims. That's not the relevant portion. The relevant portion is which of those DNA profiles repeat between victims? That would indicate to us that the same person had contact between victims. And the only one that repeats between victims is the defendant.

[Unfortunately, I have a coughing attack and have to leave the courtroom. I reenter as quickly as I can and take a seat in the back row.]

We talked about the necklace in the strangulation case and the coroner's testimony about a cloth over the necklace because the necklace was delicate. He strangles Janecia Peters and kills her. Folds her body up, which we know that. What the killer did was put her in the trash bag and the killers DNA is on the zip tie. [The defense argued] now, just because the body was in a trash bag ... Once again, is that reasonable?

"And then the defense says to you, Why would the defendant kill for his own pleasure? Why kill his own girls? Why? Because he enjoys it! That's what a serial killer does. Because he enjoys it."

I know that this might be a [difficult] concept for people to grasp, that someone so evil, that they take pleasure in murdering young women, human beings, and over and over and over again. Ten times. Why would you repeat something that many times unless you enjoy it?

If there's some mystery man out there, where's his DNA? Why didn't they pick that up on victim after victim? And why was it that we hear this theory, just today? Why doesn't this mystery man's DNA repeat itself?

[The defense talked about] when the prosecution didn't harvest evidence? I have no idea what that means. I don't even know what that harvest means. When you start talking about things that were not evidence in this case, somebody stop them and bring them back to reality.
                                                                                                                                         
When the defense counsel talked today about Janecia Peters because of this unrelated statistic issue, that's all you have is unrelated statistics, that's all you have. No. He had her picture. From 2006. And a month and a half later, she's dead. Not only does he have her picture, he has the murder weapon. When confronted [by detectives he says], Oh, I got that from my brother-in-law.

Then the defense put on this [.] Lamagna, and it doesn't matter what he said, so [you] don't have to pay attention because it doesn't matter. It doesn't mean anything. And then of course what we saw, was a significant comparison between Mr. Lamagna and Dr. Hamby.

The court interrupts DDA Silverman to ask, "Are you close to being finished?" She answers, "No." The court calls for the afternoon break. She tells the jurors to please be back by 3:25 pm.

3:30 PM
The court goes on the record. "Ms. Silverman," the court asks.

Right before the break, I was just about to talk to you about the firearm experts who testified last week, or so called experts. [Mr. Lamagna] No training ... No experience. According to Dr. Hamby, not qualified. He claims he knows how it should be done so he doesn't do it because he can't afford it.  And he makes his money doing this, criticizing actual examiners. ... And no one would hire him, because he doesn't want to go through the training.

He came out here to conduct an exam and Los Angeles County paid him $15,000, to do so. And he set us his microscope and doesn't calibrate and doesn't check the equipment. [The example of the photographs] The staging on the left and right, not the same. He sets things up to do some type of examination, then decides the conditions are so poor so that's why, he says I only did some scribble notes. When he's asked what is a "course exam" is he says, "That's a course I made up." Totally opposite of what a true expert should do.

DDA Silverman talks about the defense expert opinions and that it is only as good as the foundation on which it was based. "Garbage in, garbage out."

Unfortunately, when you mix extreme arrogance with lack of knowledge, that doesn't hold up very well under cross examination. Not only was all of that disheartening enough, he [Lamagna] was also dishonest. Every single question was a battle. I had asked the same question over and over. When I showed him his microscope, set up with a photo of his hand, when he actually couldn't admit that it was a photo of his hands and his microscope. And we saw that there were photos that 'really weren't photos' on his computer and whether someone could sit down and manipulate his computer. And that's what happens when someone gets defensive. He was inaccurate as to what something is used to manufacture a product, is not really the same as what we use in a court of law.

There's also an instruction that you'll get a chance to review, and that's an instruction is [regarding] a witness who is willfully false, who willfully chose to mislead you. Let's say it's a piece of moldy bread. You're not going to pick around, eat around the moldy bread. You can throw out the moldy bread. He was intending to mislead. He changed his answers from question to question. And you also heard that he issued a report that had numerous mistakes and errors and he said he didn't have time to check his own report.

And then of course, the dramatic difference [of] his testimony when it was followed by Dr. Hamby. He [Dr. Hamby] has the degree that Mr. Lamagna has never earned. He has it in forensic science. He wrote a whole thesis on it. Every time a name was mentioned he's worked with them. He's researched with them. He was their student. They were his student. He's a lab director. Across the country, he trains people. He's published research, scientific articles. That's what a true scientist does. That's what a true scientist does, to move the science forward. What he told you is, the same method, is the same that us used across the country and crime labs across the world.

Mr. Lamagna said that Mr. Hamby said that they should 'circle' what they saw. He never said that. He said that there are photographs. He said that the examiners in this case took the photographs. He chose not to present them. He showed one of the photos that Mr. Rubin took and the areas on that [photo that] show multiple patterns.

He said that Dr. Hamby said that he is completely supportive of this technique. It's duplicateable and it works. You don't just throw out good scientific methodology just because something is new, and that the human element, will always be a part of the science.  So what defense counsel said is completely false. I think that he [defense counsel] said that he's [Hamby] a nice man but science has passed him by. But he's one of the people that's contacted by many government agencies. But one of his experiments is being used across the country for training purposes. [Science has passed him by]. That would be a completely false statement.

[Defense counsel argued?] Intent. How can we know what someone's thinking. People can do an act for different reasons. And this was the analogy [used?] of making dinner.  Once again, that doesn't come close to what happened to these women. That completely demeans what they went through. the total brutality of these crimes. We're not comparing creating a meal to the killing of ten women. The intent is very clear. The intent to kill someone is in the chest. That you have stippling, sooting on the clothes, sooting on the wounds. It's not like he used a gun to scare someone to shoot them in the leg. He shot them in the chest over and over. He suggested you can't hold someone responsible when you have no witnesses. Well, because he did them in secret, where there were no witnesses, [that] were able to see, because the women who would be the witnesses [are dead?].

Nowhere in any of the instructions does the law say that you have to have a witness to the crime. If we did, you would have a lot of criminals that would be free. We have to rely on forensic evidence. That was another ridiculous argument. The standard in this case is reasonable. Keep in mind the key word is reasonable. that's based on common sense. You take your experience and you take your intelligence with you. It's not based on what is merely possible.

DDA Silverman states this [defense case] is like a Martian came down [from the sky] and murdered all these women and and then went back up.

The only thing that is reasonable is that the defendant is responsible for all these crimes. That is, you don't take, little pieces of evidence and look at them in a vacuum. It's the totality of the evidence. The murder weapon, obviously connects you to eight different [crimes]. Anything related to human affairs is open to doubt. There is no reasonable doubt in this case. None. Other than the fact that the defendant is guilty of all these crimes.

When you have two interpretations of the evidence, you have to go to the one that points to innocence. Unfortunately for the defense, there are not two interpretations for innocence. You must accept the interpretation that is reasonable and reject the one that is unreasonable. "All the arguments he gave to you today, the law says you have to reject them."

This is a murder case with respect to many, many victims. And the only thing is the defendant is a serial killer who killed all these victims and is guilty of the attempted murder of Enietra Washington.

[The defense has argued that] what this case amounts to is just a bunch of coincidences. If you were to follow the defense argument, you would have to believe that the defendant is the object of some grand conspiracy and that he is just the most unluckiest human being on the planet and the entire universe is conspiring against him.

The jury instructions ... those are the rules. And everyone in this process has rules to follow and even the jury has rules to follow and that's so the system works properly. And what the defense was telling you is to break those rules.  I don't think that's what you're going to do. I think you're smarter than that. The evidence in this case is staggering.

Never once did he contest that these were first degree murders. So we ask that you convict him of ten first degree murders and the attempted murder of Enietra Washington. Ultimately, that each of us are responsible for the choices we make in our life, and it's now your responsibility to make him take responsibility, to tell this defendant he is responsible. It's time, ladies and gentlemen, to bring justice to these women. It's time.

DDA Silverman is finished. Judge Kennedy now read the closing jury instructions. At 3:54 pm, the court reads the last instruction to the jurors. The bailiff takes the oath to take charge of the jurors and to keep the alternates [separated?].

The court tells the jurors, "You may have food or drink in the jury room, and knowing this jury there will be plenty to eat back there. Of course there is no alcohol. ... If any are smokers you need to give it up because it's killing you [laughter]. But if you need to smoke you need to go out of the building."

The court mentions about being able to see the exhibits in the jury room and any tapes played during the course of the trial you will have back in the jury room. The court continues explaining the details about requesting the read back of testimony and that if they want the entire testimony of a witness they can accommodate that, it just may take some time. She instructs the jurors on the buzzer system that will allow them to communicate to the court when they need things. She instructs them on the stop time each day, 4:00 pm or 4:15 pm. She reminds them that when they take breaks that all the jurors need to be present and not to deliberate if some is on break or in the restroom.

She reminds the jurors not to talk about the case. She tells them to talk about how pitiful the Dodgers are or something like that. When the come back tomorrow, they are to wait in the hallway and the bailiff will bring them all in at once.

4:09 PM
The jurors have left. The court informs counsel that they need to review and initial the backs of all the verdict forms. If they note any problems the court will fix those. The prosecution will provide a device for the jurors to play back videos or audio CD's. The court tells counsel that she assumes that her clerk has cell phone numbers for all of them and that they are on short notice. Amster states that they can be on 1 hour call. The court tells the defense, "Make sure that it's no longer than that."

There are more minor issues that are discussed regarding if/when the jurors come back with a verdict how long will they have before the start of the penalty phase. The prosecution states they may need a couple of days, it will depend on when they come back.

The court asks how long the prosecution believes their penalty phase case will take. The prosecution states they have what they believe are five murders. There is also a victim traveling from Germany who was kidnapped and gang raped by the defendant when he was in the military. The people's penalty phase will take a month.

The court adjourns at this time and the defendant is remanded.

Continued on Verdict Watch, Day 1.

Full T&T case coverage HERE.
Prior hearing on this case HERE.

July 14, 2016
It's been awhile since I've had the chance to update everyone on the Gargiulo case. Not a lot has changed, except that Gargiulo now has counsel he likes and appears to get along with.

I attended the pretrial hearing on Thursday, July 14 in Dept. 108. The last pretrial hearing I attended was on January 27. I missed pretrial hearings on February 29 and April 11.

8:35 AM
In the hallway on the 9th floor I see Dale Rubin. I reintroduce myself to him. Right beside him is a sharply dressed attorney I've seen many times around the courthouse, but I don't know his name. I introduce myself. He is defense attorney Daniel Nardoni and Rubin's second chair on the Gargiulo case.

8:47 AM
Deputy DA Dan Akemon and his intern arrive on the 9th floor. DDA Akemon goes over to chat with Rubin and Nardoni. Defense investigator Chris Nicely is here. Chis is an exceptionally nice guy and I've enjoyed the conversations we've had over the last few years. 

8:50 AM
48 Hours producer Greg Fisher arrives around the same time as LA County Sheriff's detective Mark Lillienfeld. They chat for a bit before Greg comes over to say hello. Over the years, several of Detective Lillienfeld's colleagues have mentioned what a phenomenal detective he is.  

8:58 AM
There are about three dozen people in the hallway. It's a good mix of jurors, general public and counsel. 

9:05 AM
Down at the other end of the hallway headed this way I see Deputy DA Garrett Dameron, DDA Akemon's co-counsel. 

9:15 AM
Inside Dept. 108, I take a seat in the second bench row. Greg joins me. I give him a short update on the case. As we enter, there is a pretrial hearing in another case. Judge Ohta's regular court reporter and court clerk are at their desks. The other hearing is quickly over. 

9:16 AM
Judge Ohta tells his bailiff, "Let's have Mr. Gargiulo."  A few minutes later, the DA's Chief of Media Relations, Jane Robison arrives.

9:18 AM
While the bailiff is retrieving Gargiulo, Judge Ohta, Rubin and Nardoni have a friendly chat. Rubin jokingly tells the court that he and his new co-counsel can't stand each other.

When Gargiulo is brought out he looks the same as when I last saw him. Orange jumpsuit, bald head and clean shaven. As Gargiulo sits in his assigned chair, Rubin puts his left hand on his client's upper back. Gargiulo then leans right to speak to the bailiff and then his new co-counsel.

The court goes on the record. The defendant is before the court. The parties state their appearances. Daniel Nardoni then tells the court that they have "two Daniels," and asks Judge Ohta if he would like to call DDA Akemon "Dan" and himself "Daniel" or "Danny." Judge Ohta pauses a minute before he responds, "I'll probably call you by your last name."

It looks like this is the first time Mr. Nardoni has appeared on the record in Dept. 108 representing Gargiulo. I recently reviewed all the court clerk's minute notes on this case. It appears Mr. Nardoni was appointed on May 27, 2016 in Dept. 123.

As I've mentioned before, Dept. 123 is the 987.9 judge appointed for this case. This is where all defense requests for expenditures are reviewed and approved.


The case calendar is 3 of 90. Rubin tells the court that the defense team is set now. They are trying to come up to speed on the facts of the case. They request a return date of September 14. By that time they will have "digested" the materials.

The court asks Gargiulo if he waives his right to a speedy trial and that the next hearing will be on September 14. "Yes, your honor," Gargiulo responds.

The people put on the record that they turned over discovery pages numbered 30,904 to 31,491. The discovery has officially passed 31,000 pages. Mr. Nardoni verifies they got the discovery last week.


The defense tells the court that Mr. Gargiulo received from a medical person an order for bottled water. The Sheriff's have not been compliant with that order. The defense asks if the court can order that.

Judge Ohta tells the defense that they need to file a habeas [motion?] that [the Sheriff's?] are not compliant. Judge Ohta adds, "File it with me and I'll look [it] over."

Mr. Nardoni asks the court for an order to be able to take his laptop with him when he visits Gargiulo at the jail. Judge Ohta states he will sign that order.

And that's it. Next hearing is September 14, 2016.

When I step onto the elevator, I believe I recognize a detective. I ask him, "Are you Detective Thomas Small?" He tells me "Yes." He also adds that this is his last day. He's retiring as of today. Detective Small is a legendary LAPD Homicide Detective at the Hollywood Station. He was the lead detective on the murder investigation of victim Ashley Ellerin.

Next pretrial hearing September 14.....

Full T&T Case Coverage HERE.
Prior case post found HERE.

UPDATE: Daily News - City News Service, Terri Keith report.
UPDATE: ABC7's Miriam Hernandez is live tweeting the sentencing.

August 10, 2016
Lonnie Franklin, Jr., the "Grim Sleeper" a serial killer whose killing spree of young women spanned over 20 years in South Central Los Angeles, was convicted on 10 counts of first degree murder and one count of premeditated attempted murder on May 5, 2016.

During the penalty phase of the trial, Deputy DA's Beth Silverman and Marguerite Rizzo connected Franklin to five additional victims, the oldest dating back the 1970's when Franklin was in the US Army stationed in Germany.

On June 6, 2016, the jury returned death verdicts on all 11 counts. It's expected that Judge Kathleen Kennedy will honor the jury's verdict and sentenced Franklin to death today.

During the penalty phase, jurors heard the heart wrenching memories of 28 family members of the victims testifying about their loss and grief of losing their mother, their sister, their daughter or the grandmother they never got to meet.

Unfortunately, I will not be able to attend the sentencing today.  Our kitty Scout, who was diagnosed last year with Lymphoma, has not been doing well these past few days. I stayed up with him all last night. Hopefully our vet can help him feel better today.

ABC Associated Press- Brian Melley

LA Times - Marissa Gerber & James Queally
NBC4 - Wire Serivces
CBS2 - Local

Full case coverage HERE.
Prior post on the case HERE.

August 11, 2016
Background
After three trials and 11 years in LA County Sheriff's custody, on May 13, 2015, Cameron Brown was convicted of first degree murder in the death of his 4 year old daughter, Lauren Sarene Key. Lauren plunged to her death off of Inspiration Point, a 120 foot cliff in Rancho Palos Verdes, CA on November 8, 2000. Jurors also found true the special circumstances of lying in wait and murder for financial gain. Brown was sentenced to life without parole on September 18, 2015.

The Appeal Docket
The California Courts of Appeal website indicates that Brown's appeal was filed today. [Two screenshots were taken to show you the complete docket.]


Brown's opening brief was over 25,500 words. Once the California Attorney General's office files their response to Brown's opening brief, Brown's attorney files a reply brief. After all the briefs have been filed, then the waiting game begins for oral arguments to be scheduled. 

To give you an idea of how long it might take, oral arguments in the Stephanie Lazarus case were scheduled 18 months after the case was fully briefed.

Where is Brown Now?
Once in the custody of California's Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation, Brown spent about eight months at WASCO, an intake facility. That appears to be an unusually long time at an intake facility. Within the past month or so, Brown was transferred to the CDCR's Substance Abuse and Treatment Facility at Corcoran State Prison, where he is today.

I have my own little remembrance of Lauren that I see everyday. It was given to me by her family. It sits on my desk, right beside my ring cup and laptop. The medallion says, "Always Remembered, Lauren."


Complete Cameron Brown murder trial case coverage HERE.

November 3, 2016
Just when things seem to be on a solid footing, life throws you a California earthquake. We've had some difficult challenges the last 18 months. Those challenges have kept me from going to court and covering cases the last four months.

As I'm hitting "publish" on this post, Mr. Sprocket has been on the operating table undergoing open heart surgery for six hours. He still still has the next 12 hours of post-op to get through, and a long recovery. 

2014 Heart Attack History & The Lives of Kitties
Back on May 30, 2014, Mr. Sprocket had a big heart attack. We were very fortunate that he survived the event and bounced back rather quickly. You can read the posts about Mr. Sprocket's heart attack and eventual recovery HERE.

Within a couple weeks of coming home from the hospital, he was back to work. He had a ton of energy. He was doing well. To celebrate his new lease on life, we adopted a new black and white tuxedo kitten, Rudy Rocket from the Baldwin Park Shelter.

There was no way to know then, that Rudy Rocket would only be with us for such a short time, and what would happen later.

Rudy Rocket quickly won over our hearts and became Mr. Sprocket's favorite. He would follow Mr. Sprocket around the house and made sure to visit him each morning in the bathroom. He liked to get inside Mr. Sprocket's shorts.

Rudy Rocket would watch the washing machine and bird videos on my computer. He was very smart. He learned to fetch toy mice and bring them back. Sometimes he would leap high into the air and catch themice mid jump. He could play that game for well over an hour, taking breaks by lying down and panting off his built up energy.

However, our older kitties Scout and Jumpy were not too happy with this little energy dynamo.

The Older Kids
Jumpy was our kitty we adopted along with his litter mate Katie in June 2003. They did everything together. Katie was more outgoing and engaging. Jumpy, almost twice a big, followed her lead and was afraid of his own shadow. If you dropped a pen on the floor he would freak out and go hide. Katie suddenly died in 2007 at 4 years old. Jumpy never seemed to be the same after the loss of his sister. He became even more shy and reclusive. He eventually bonded some with Scout. They would sometimes sleep side by side, fighting over the best spot. Jumpy would let Scout groom him, but he never groomed Scout back.


Scout adopted us on a cold February in 2006. Scout found the sanctuary of our back patio. During that cold winter, he was looking for a warm place to curl up and sleep. He found it in a large box of commercial filters that Mr. Sprocket had stored under the covered patio. After he arrived, we left food out for him on the patio table. We provided a warm, insulated cat bed inside an elevated, padded box. Scout had found a forever home in our bed and breakfast. We were lucky he stayed. Affectionate nick names were "Noodle" because when you held him he would often become a limp noodle, not wanting to leave your arms and "Butterhead" because if he smelled butter on the table, he wanted some. We never new how old he was. He was already fixed and had the classic ear notch of a TNR [trap, neuter, release] kitty when he arrived.

When Rudy Rocket joined us, Jumpy didn't want to have anything to do with him at all and retreated to our bedroom. Scout barely tolerated Rudy Rocket's desire to play rough house. When it got too much he would find some out of the way place to nap quietly.

Here is a rare photo of all three kitties together on Christmas day, 2014.

2015
In February 2015, we got the devastating news that Rudy Rocket had FIP, a disease that is fatal in cats. We tried alternative therapies, even an expensive experimental medicine out of Tennessee but Rudy Rocket continued to decline. He crossed over the rainbow bridge April 25, 2015. It was a difficult time. I was in the middle of covering the third Cameron Brown murder trial.

A month later, Mr. Sprocket closed his business and started looking for a job with a company in his field. That journey took many months. A few weeks later, we got the news that Scout had intestinal lymphoma. He had cancer. We started Scout and Jumpy on a raw diet, added turmeric paste and a low dose steroid. Scout came around and appeared to get better. We hoped for the best.

2016, A Challenging Year
Mr. Sprocket landed a new job. Scout was doing well on his turmeric. It was a busy hot summer with Mr. Sprocket working lots of hours.

In July, Scout started to eat less and less. Blood tests didn't detect anything unusual. He started to decline more and several visits to the vet did not give us any answers.. In mid August, I noticed that his jaw appeared uneven, like there was something wrong. There was. Inside Scout's jaw under his tongue was a tumor. The lymphoma cancer was spreading. It was a very sad goodbye. Scout crossed over the rainbow bridge to join Rudy Rocket on August 25, 2016.

Right around the time that we were having our last week with Scout, Jumpy's appetite declined dramatically. He hardly ate at all. We took Jumpy to the holistic vet in Calabasas, Dr. Tyneway. She is amazing. Jumpy's blood work indicated he had kidney disease. He was put on subcutaneous fluids, a vitamin regimen and a low phosphorus diet. Jumpy would take a bite or two and wouldn't eat any more. After a few more vet visits, Dr. Tyneway was able to detect a faint irregularity in Jumpy's heart. And, his heart rate was too fast. That was new. The problem with having kidney and heart disease at the same time, is the treatment for one is not good for the other. Dr. Tyneway told us to stop the subcutaneous fluids, because that was creating extra stress on his heart.  Soon after that diagnosis, Jumpy stopped eating altogether. He crossed the rainbow bridge on September 16, 2016.

It's been a very difficult time for us, losing three fur babies and Mr. Sprocket's business in the span of 17 months. This is the first time in 22 years that I've been without a kitty to come home to. We buried Rudy Rocket, Scout and Jumpy in the back yard next to Katie and Sprocket Cat, each in their own special box, blanket and their favorite toys. We still miss them very much.

October 2016
Early Wednesday morning October 12, Mr. Sprocket went to do his regular workout routine at the gym. He goes about twice a week. He usually warms up by jogging the one-third mile there. He then starts on the stair climber, climbing as much as 50 flights of stairs. After the cardio, he works out with the weight equipment. This time, he worked out with the weights first. He didn't do as well with the weights as he usually did. He did his stretches then started on the stair climber. He set it for his first set of ten flights.  After climbing five flights of stairs, he could barely do any more. He paused the machine. He started to panic. He couldn't get the energy to work out. He was hyperventilating. He couldn't catch his breath. He thought he might be having a panic attack. He was dizzy and he slowly walked home. He rested for a while on the sofa then went to work for a few hours in the afternoon.

That night, trying to sleep, he could not catch his breath lying down. He then took his vitamin / heart protection concoction of D-Ribose, L-Carnitine, Hawthorn Berry, Taurine and Magnesium, all blended together in water. Some time after he took his drink, he was able to go to sleep. The next few days he took it easy but he slowly started to feel better.

Mr. Sprocket's conclusion as to what happened was, he had a bad reaction to a new CoQ10 supplement he took that morning before his workout. This new supplement had an ingredient called Polysorbate 80. [There are all kinds of concerns about this ingredient.]

The following week, Mr. Sprocket started to feel better and did a few couple mile runs. On Thursday October 20, and Friday, October 21, Mr. Sprocket had two very long work days in a row. He was a little tired, but he felt okay. Sunday night the inability to breathe lying down came back. Whenever he tried to lie flat, he could not catch his breath, he had to sit up. When I woke up Monday morning October 24, he was still on the sofa. He told me that he didn't sleep all night. The breathing problems came back. He didn't know if he was experiencing a panic attack or if it was a problem with his heart. He didn't know what to do. So I made the decision for him. I told him we were going to the hospital to find out. We needed to know.

Olive View Hospital - Monday
We waited for several hours in the emergency room lobby. They did a preliminary evaluation and drew blood. When we got into a room, an ER doctor stopped by almost immediately. He told us that they found a globular enzyme in his blood called Troponin. Troponin is a heart enzyme involved with muscle contraction. When it is found in the blood it indicates the heart muscle has been damaged in some way, usually from a heart attack. Additionally, he had fluid in his lungs and around his heart. This is why he couldn't catch his breath lying down. The stark realization was hitting both of us like a ton of bricks. It wasn't panic attacks. Mr. Sprocket probably had a mild heart attack while working out in the gym. They were admitting Mr. Sprocket to the hospital right away to monitor his heart and perform tests.

Although it's not been proven, Mr. Sprocket believes the polysorbate 80 in the CoQ10 was the culprit. I think it was the progression of the heart disease in combination with the heavy workout.

In the emergency room, they wanted to give Mr. Sprocket Plavix but he refused. He had such a bad reaction to Plavix back in 2014, he didn't want to take the drug again. They gave him Lasix, to get the fluid out of his lungs and from around his heart. He peed out more than a liter and he started to feel better. He got to his room about 9:30 pm and settled in.

Olive View Hospital - Tuesday
Mr. Sprocket was put on an IV drip of Heparin. Tuesday morning Mr. Sprocket had an echo cardiogram. It revealed that he had a clot in the bottom of his left ventricle. This was from stagnant blood not being moved through the heart. That's because the heart wasn't doing it's job. There was a risk of this clot traveling to other parts of his body. They put him on an ACE drug and a statin.

That afternoon, they took him into the cath lab, to see the condition of his arteries. We thought that he might get another stent or two. When he came out of the cath lab, the doctors were all standing around his gurney with me. They did not install any stents. That's when Mr. Sprocket said to me, "They're telling me I need open heart surgery." The doctors said that Mr. Sprocket needed at least a triple bypass. And that's when I started to cry.

The doctor's told him, "Look. You can go home, you can see how you do, but it's likely you would be back here in three to six months with another heart attack and in worse shape." Then they tell us, "We don't do that surgery here. You would need to be transferred to another hospital, either Harbor UCLA in Torrance or LAC USC in East LA. The doctor's would need to know his decision soon, if he wanted the surgery or not because they would need to find a bed for him.

Mr. Sprocket and I talked it over. This is scary stuff for us. His chest would be opened, his heart stopped. He would be placed on a bypass machine for several hours, then his heart started again. If he didn't get the surgery, I would be worrying that, at any moment he could have a heart attack all by himself on the top of a 10 story building, and no one would know he's up there, dying. After talking about our fears, he decided to get the surgery. I searched for one of the doctors to tell him to start looking for a bed so he could be transferred.

I left the hospital around 10 pm that night. Then I get a call from Mr. Sprocket at 3:30 am. They found a bed for him at Harbor UCLA and the transport would be picking him up at 6:30 am. I needed to get back there, to help him pack up and follow the ambulance down there.

Wednesday Morning - Traveling Man
When I got to the hospital around 5:00 am, I had forgotten to bring his special dental floss. Here he is going to another hospital to get open heart bypass surgery, and Mr. Sprocket is obsessed with getting his dental floss. The paramedic and driver are about to arrive and he wants me to stop at a CVS on the way down to pick up some dental floss for him. I tell him I'm not going to do that. I'm going to follow his ambulance the 49 miles to the new hospital. Now he starts getting a little crazy. He's telling me he wants his wallet. I'm a terrible wife. I won't give him his wallet.

He doesn't need his wallet, but he thinks that, on the long ride down there, maybe the paramedics will make a stop so they can pick up some dental floss for him. I tried to explain to him how off the wall that sounded, and did he really think these professionals would stop on their trip so he could get some dental floss. He wanted dental floss so bad he though he would ask. You can just imagine the looks the paramedics gave me when he asked them.



Right before the ambulance pulled into the special entrance for them, they pulled over and the driver got out. He walked to my car and gave me the floor and room number where Mr. Sprocket will land.

Harbor UCLA - Cardiac Unit, 4West
Every room on this floor is a mini "ward" with four beds to a room. There is a nursing assistant who is in the room at all times, ready to help you if you need anything. He had a wireless monitor on his vitals so the nurses can keep track of how he's doing at the main nurses station.

Later that day, we meet the Cardiology Team as well as members of the Surgical Team. Usually, the surgical team doesn't monitor the patient until they are ready for surgery. However, at this time the Cardiology Team was handling quite a few cases so the surgical team would be monitoring his case.

One of the first things we wondered was, how soon could Mr. Sprocket get his surgery. Unfortunately, this week was already full, so they were estimating early next week. We were quite disappointed. Part of the problem was, in the cath lab, they gave him 75 mg of Plavix. That's actually a very small dose of Plavix. It's a blood thinner, but it works differently than the Heparin. In the operating room, they cannot reverse the effects of Plavix like they can Heparin. They will have to wait until they are certain the Plavix is completely out of his system before they can operate.

The Long Wait
Mr. Sprocket settles in to hospital life and tries his best to convince his doctors to let him take all the supplements and things in the hospital, that he takes at home. Every day, he demands that I bring in more items from home so he can ask the nurses and the doctors if he can take it while he is here. Many of the items are passed onto the pharmacy department and the response back is, "No, not until you get back home." They do let him take CoQ10 and Vitamin C, because the pharmacy has those items in stock. The surgeon's readily agree to letting him take those. Mr. Sprocket found research studies that showed taking CoQ10 while on a statin helped to alleviate the many side effects of the statin. He notices a difference as soon as he starts taking the CoQ10. The statin side effects are hardly noticeable.

Saturday, October 29
Members of Mr. Sprocket's surgical team stopped by to give him some details on his surgery and the risks involved.  There is a 10 percent chance of a complication, anywhere from a minor complication to a major one, including death. Mr. Sprocket is a pretty good candidate. His kidney function is good. His liver function is good. He's never smoked and he doesn't drink alcohol. Except for the artery disease, he was in otherwise good health. He exercises and has a physically demanding job. His prospects are pretty good. And, he's still very ambulatory. He gets up and takes many laps around the ward several times a day, so he doesn't get bored, pulling his IV pole behind him.

I've been taking the long drive to the hospital every day, bringing Mr. Sprocket every little thing he thinks he can't live without. His bedside is looking like he's been living there several months instead of a few days.

The HCD Risk to Open Heart Surgery Patients
Saturday afternoon, a friend forwarded me an alarming October 16, 2016, Consumer Reports story about a frightening new risk for open heart/ lung surgery patients. It has to do with these "Heating Cooling Devices" [HCD's] that are used in conjunction with the heart/lung bypass machine. These machines regulate the patient's body temperature, as the blood moves through the heart/lung machine and the body. Patients have become infected. Since their immune systems are already compromised, they have difficulty fighting off the infection. Mortality is 50% of those infected.

Mr. Sprocket spent all day Sunday reading all he could find on the web about these HCD machines and the NTM bacteria that can grow in these machines and infect the patient. Mr. Sprocket reads everything he can find on these machines and the bacteria that was found to grow in them. Through DNA, the outbreak was traced back to one manufacturer in Germany, where it was determined [or suspected] the machines were infected at the factory, in production.

On Monday morning, Mr. Sprocket's surgical team [the surgical fellow, not the attending surgeon] stopped by and he talked to them about his concerns about these devices. He wanted to know what model of HCD the hospital used. He was concerned that it was the same model that was found to be infected.

The surgical fellow side-stepped his question and asked Mr. Sprocket, "Do you want the surgery or not?" Upset, Mr. Sprocket replied, "ARE YOU CRAZY? OF COURSE I WANT THE SURGERY!!!"

I believe Mr. Sprocket asked again if he knew the type of HCD machine was the Stockert T3. The surgical fellow said, "We don't use that one." He mentioned a name that Mr. Sprocket didn't recognize. And then he left, saying he would stop back in later, which he never did.

Not long after that, I woke up and Mr. Sprocket told me the story. I couldn't believe the doctor was so disrespectful, ignored my husband's concerns and tried to intimidate him into silence. Mr. Sprocket spoke to one of the supervising nurses about what the surgical fellow said and his concerns. She arranged for the Infection Control Dept. to speak to him. A whole team came up. The department head, the clerk and two RN's. They confirmed that the hospital uses the Stockert T3 HCD machine.

Mr. Sprocket was devastated. This model is the one that was reported to have been pre-infected in the manufacturing process in Germany. The prevention team told Mr. Sprocket that they were following the latest cleaning guidelines [bleach] from the manufacturer.

Mr. Sprocket had spent all day Sunday researching the design of these machines not just the Stockert T3. Mr. Sprocket has spent over 30 years in the HVAC field. Although he's never worked on one of these devices, he tells me that it's basically like having a portable ice machine in the operating room. It has a water supply, a heater, a fan and an exhaust that vents into the operating room.

In talking with the Infection Control Dept., he explained to them [his opinion] that because of the flaws [no hermetically sealed water supply] you can never disinfect all areas of the machine that can develop a bio-film. As Mr. Sprocket tried to explain it to me, Would you think your entire toilet was clean, if all you did was fill it with bleach, let it sit and then  flush it? There are areas that can still get bacteria, that are not touched by the bleach.

Later on Monday, Mr. Sprocket spoke to the surgeon who would performing his operation. He listened patiently to all his concerns and was sympathetic. Mr. Sprocket really liked this surgeon. He didn't know what to do.

So Mr. Sprocket went through Sunday and then Monday not certain if he wanted to take the risk and go ahead with the surgery. I urged him to put his faith in God, that he was brought to this hospital and this surgeon for a reason. He told me he needed to sleep on it. That night, Mr. Sprocket located online, the new cleaning manual procedures for the T3 and read through it completely. That must have turned the tide and he decided to go ahead with the surgery. His surgery was first scheduled for Thursday morning, but we learned late Wednesday it was moved to the afternoon.


A Request for T&T Readers
First, if you believe in a higher power, please keep Mr. Sprocket in your prayers.

Second, we don't know what the future holds for us. The surgeons have told us that it may take Mr. Sprocket up to four months to heal his cracked chest and return full time to his physically demanding job. It isn't possible to do his job on "light duty." He needs to be able to haul heavy equipment up on a roof. That extended time away from earning a living will be exceptionally challenging for us.

If you have enjoyed reading T&T's in-depth trial coverage over the past nine years, and you are able, please consider making a donation. On the right side of the blog is a DONATE link, that connects to my sewing Paypal account. Mr. Sprocket and I would be forever grateful for your generosity.

CDC Health Advisory on HCD's
Heater Cooler As A Source of Infection
WaPo: What you Need to Know
Consumer Reports Article
University of Zurich Testing

UPDATE 11/8/16The LA Times reported the next pretrial hearing in the Durst case is scheduled for February 15, 2017. The LA County Sheriff's inmate locator website indicates Durst is currently being housed in the "Twin Towers" facility. Interestingly, the Sheriff's website does not indicate the next court date.



UPDATE 7:30pm: Corrected spelling of DDA John Lewin
UPDATE 10am: Corrected the spelling of Kathleen McCormack Durst
November 7, 2016
Robert Durst - A Brief Synopsis
Eccentric real estate millionaire Robert Durst, connected to the murder of Morris Black and the 1982 disappearance of his first wife, Kathleen, is due in court today on charges relating to the murder of his long time friend and supporter, Susan Berman.


Berman, a mobster's daughter, was found dead in her Benedict Canyon home on Christmas Eve 2000. She was shot in the back of the head and found at least a day after her murder.

Durst was arrested in March 2015 and charged with first degree murder in connection with Berman's death. Previously, Durst was arrested for the murder of a neighbor, Morris Black on October 9, 2001. in Galveston, Texas. Durst claimed he murdered Black in self defense. Durst was acquitted of the Black's murder. He eventually pled guilty to body dumping and evidence tampering. Kathleen McCormack Durst is still missing and presumed dead. In April 2016, Kathleen's family petitioned a NY court to have her declared legally dead.

Andrew Jarecki's HBO documentary, The Jinx: The Life and Deaths of Robert Durst, uncovered physical evidence that prosecutors believe links Durst to Berman's murder. At the end of the documentary, Robert Durst is caught on audio tape stating he "... killed them all."

Durst's arraignment, case #SA089983 will be at the Airport Courthouse, Department W81 at 1:30 pm. Deputy District Attorney John Lewin is prosecuting the case. Expect a big media turnout for Durst's first appearance in California. Since I am taking care of Mr. Sprocket, I will have to be there in spirit.

Mr. Sprocket Update
Mr. Sprocket has had an amazing recovery immediately after his open heart surgery. His full recovery may take three to four months before he can return to his demanding job. It will be six weeks before he is allowed to lift more than five pounds or drive. You can read the previous post on his surgery, here.

Thursday Post-op
I spoke to his surgeon around 6:45 pm. He was in surgery for six hours and had a double bypass. The surgeons had hoped they could do a triple, but the arteries in that area were so blocked they didn't have an unblocked area where the graft could be attached.

The surgery center at Harbor UCLA is relatively new. In April 2014, the hospital opened up 16 modern operating theatres and a 50 bed emergency unit. Harbor UCLA states it is "...one of the busiest operative Level I Trauma Centers in the Western US." When Mr. Sprocket went from his room in the main hospital to pre-op for surgery, we could tell the surgery center was pretty new.

After surgery, at 8:15 pm, I got to see him in the Cardiac Thorasic Unit, [CTU] a six-bed special unit that just handles post-op, open heart/lung surgery patients. Mr. Sprocket was intubated but he could hear my voice, understand me, nodded his head and squeezed my hand when he spoke.

Friday- Saturday
Mr. Sprocket's breathing tube was removed the next morning. That afternoon, less than 24 hours after surgery, he took his first walk. He walked the entire length of the hospital floor and then some before he returned to the CTU. He continued to improve and do well.

On Saturday, he took several walks. The nurses recommended to him that he slow down and pace himself. In the afternoon walk he did at least four laps around the entire length of the 3rd floor. That  afternoon he got his surgical drains removed. There were two drains. One was inserted through his abdomen into his chest. The other one went in about 15 to 18 inches and looped around his left lung. The long drain around his ribs was causing him pain when he breathed and he was relieved to get it out. His doctors thought he was doing so well,  they might send him home Monday or as early as Sunday afternoon.

Sunday
We finally left the hospital Sunday around 5 pm. Mr. Sprocket is very happy to be home, recuperating on the sofa.


T&T Robert Durst Case Links
Robert Durst Wikipedia
Robert Durst Google® Images
Susan Berman Wikipedia
Andrew Jarecki Wikipedia
03/15/15 ABC - Why Durst Killed Black In His Own Words 
03/16/15 VF - The Fugitive Heir
04/2015 KFI - Eccentric Millionaire Robert Durst Arrested in New Orleans
11/03/15 ABC - Former Prosecutor Looks into Disappearance of Kathleen
04/01/16 People - Family of Kathleen Durst Petition Court
07/14/16 NYT - Kathleen Durst's Family Back in Court
06/09/15 Variety - Jinx Directors Jarecki, Smerling, Open Up
11/04/16 ABC - Robert Durst Back in Court to Face Murder Charges
Robert Durst - LA Times
Robert Durst - NY Times
HBO - The Jinx
The Charley Project: Kathleen McCormack Durst Disappearance 

Harbor UCLA New Surgical Center
T&T: Mr. Sprocket: Undergoing Open Heart Surgery

Friday December 16, 2016
I'm back at the downtown criminal court building for the second time this week. The LA County Sheriff's website indicated that Gargiulo's next hearing was on December 13, and I was here for the hearing. The first noticeable difference that day was Judge Ohta's placard was no longer on the door to Dept. 108. The new Judge is Lisa B. Lench. When I enter Dept. 108, I ask the two bailiff's standing in the well about the Gargiulo hearing. They inform me that the Gargiulo case will be in Dept. 106. I leave and head into Dept. 106.

It's been a long time since I've been in Judge Larry Paul Fidler's courtroom for a case. That was for Phil Spector's second trial in 2009. A lot of memories came flooding back as I entered. Even though Judge Fidler's courtroom is an exact duplicate of Dept. 108, Judge Fidler's court seemed smaller than what I remembered. Judge Fidler's clerk Wendy was at her desk. She tells me that the Gargiulo hearing was moved to Friday. This ended up being a totally wasted trip.

The Court's Public Information Office indicated that Judge Ohta has been moved to a new assignment and that the Gargiulo case was moved to Dept. 106 within the past week. Judge Ohta is now in Dept. 123 and the 987.9 Judge for the Gargiulo case. I believe that Judge Ohta has also been moved into a supervisory type position. When I get clarification on that, I'll update.

8:30 AM
Today, I make it back to the 9th floor by 8:30 am. I don't see anyone on the floor so I head inside. I note there is a satchel type briefcase lying on the defense table but no defense counsel in sight. In the gallery, I seen defense investigator Chris Nicely sitting with a handsome, suited young man. They are sitting in the second row and I take a seat in the third row. We exchange smiles. It's been six months since I've seen Chris at court. Chris and I chat about finding budget parking as close to the courthouse as possible.

There is a pretty young reporter sitting in the back row that I do not recognize.

I didn't take note on Wednesday, but today I notice that there is a three foot by two foot video screen mounted on the wall high above the jury box, just like the one in Dept. 30, arraignment court. There is a medium size candy jar on the corner of the clerk's counter, tucked up next to the wall. It's half full. There is an ivy type plant on the corner of the court reporter's desk. A petite female sheriff enters with what appears to be a coffee or tea drink and asking about Dept. 106's bailiff. I overhear the sheriff being told that Judge Fidler doesn't allow coffee in the courtroom, only water. That's good to know. Some judges don't mind if you sip on a coffee or tea, but not Judge Fidler.

9:00 AM
DDA Akemon arrives. He shakes hands with Chris Nicely. Nicely introduces the young man to DDA Akemon. It's Nicely's son. Judge Fidler's court reporter comes out. I don't know her name, but I've seen her in the courthouse over the years. The bailiff comes over to the gallery to ask whom everyone is. Luckily, I remembered to put on my lanyard with my "press" badge.

Next, Dale Rubin comes out from the custody area. He smiles at his investigator then goes over to chat with Akemon. Rubin must have been here for a while getting Gargiulo up to speed. Akemon and Rubin chat off the record about return dates. I overhear March and April and what the defendant may do about waiving rights. The clerk, hearing their conversation better than me, tells counsel that they will be going back to a regular time waiver.  For a time, Judge Ohta allowed Gargiulo to enter into a "general" time waiver. From what I hear, it looks like Akemon and Rubin have agreed on a return date and the clerk, hearing the date agrees.

The clerk asks counsel if they are ready for the court. They are. Gargiulo is brought out. Gargiulo's scalp is still clean shaven. Today he has a full mustache. He's not carrying any bag or loose papers. 

A deputy district attorney I vaguely recognize enters the courtroom. I believe it's Head Deputy of JSID [Justice System Integrity Division], James  Garrison. DDA Garrison was called in the Stephanie Lazarus case to read the preliminary hearing testimony of LASD Criminalist Lloyd Mahaney.

Rubin leans in to chat with his client. Judge Fidler comes out and takes the bench. I'm a bit surprised at the new lines in Judge Fidler's face and the goatee he's sporting. Back in 2009 when Judge Fidler was clean shaven, he reminded me of actor Bruce Willis.

Counsel state their appearances. Judge Fidler states for the record that the case was transferred to him by Dept. 100, the Master Calendar Court.

Rubin then speaks first. He informs the court that this is an 8 year old case. There are a lot of pretrial motions filed by the prosecution. The second chair is Daniel Nardoni. Rubin gives the court a very brief outline as to where the case is today. Rubin states, "We are hopeful to continue the case to March 17.  ... Hopeful on that date to respond to a number of pending [prosecution] motions already filed. ... The penalty investigator is up to speed. The guilt [phase] investigator is taking a little longer. ... [We'll have] a better idea in March."

DDA Akemon informs the court that previously, the case was under a "general" time waver in Dept. 108. Judge Fidler asks about that.  Rubin states that on March 17, they would like to make the court calendar zero of 90. [0/90].

Judge Fidler then addresses the defendant, "Sir, how do you pronounce your name?" Gargiulo responds, "Gargiulo." Judge Fidler quickly goes into reading Gargiulo his right to a speedy trial and asks if he agrees to waive that until the next court hearing on March 17th. Gargiulo agrees. And that's it. Judge Fidler leaves the bench.

Before Gargiulo gets up to be taken back into custody, Rubin points his finger at his client, touching his arm with the tip of his finger. Rubin tells Gargiulo, "Be good." Gargiulo responds, "I hear you." And that's it, he's taken back into custody. That's the last hearing for 2016.

The several times I've seen Gargiulo and his new counsel together, it's a marked difference than the relationship [or lack of one] Gargiulo had with former counsel Charles Lindner. From what I've observed, Rubin treats Gargiulo in a respectful manner and is able to communicate with him one on one.

UPDATE 1/11/17 11:30 AM - Continued edits for spelling, clarity
UPDATE 1/7/17 12:15 PM - Continued edits for spelling, clarity
UPDATE 1/7/17 11:15 AM - Minor editing
UPDATE NOTE 2:15 PM - Editing of entry for spelling/clarity later tonight. Sprocket.

Friday January 6, 2017
8:25 AM

I'm here at the Airport Courthouse for a pretrial hearing in the Robert Durst case. Robert Durst is charged with the December 2000 murder of his long time friend, Susan Berman. Berman was found dead in her Benedict Canyon home from a single gunshot wound to the back of her head. Durst was charged in her murder in March 2015 after the final episode of the HBO documentary, The Jinx.

Although I sent notice that I planned on attending the hearing, there is no guarantee I will get a seat.

8:33 AM
Security station has changed at the courthouse.

I see local radio station KFI's Eric Leonard enter the cafeteria and get a coffee or tea before he heads out.

10:03 AM
Waiting in the media line.

Lead defense attorney Dick DeGuerin arrived earlier. Huge prosecution team arrived at the last minute. We are waiting on Judge Mark Windham to finish his morning calendar. There are 20 reporters in line. We've been ordered by the PIO to fill the first two rows with no empty seats.

Terri Keith is here Miriam Hernandez is here from local ABC. Marisa Gerber from the LA Times, Andrew Blanksiein and Robert Dean from Dateline. There are reporters from Reuters, Daily News, CNN, TMZ and others.

I believe the reporter from Fox News is from the local channel 11. Almost forgot, People Magazine's  Christine Pelisek, who broke the Grim Sleeper case is here. She's writing the book on that case.

The court's Public Information Officer is counting heads. The media cameras are already being set up inside. I think the LA Times has the pool still camera.

10:17AM
Inside Dept. 81 West. Judge Mark Windham is on the bench. We are crammed into tight folding down seats. There are about 22 reporters or more. We fill up every seat in the first and second rows.

The layout of the courtrooms at the Airport courthouse is not a typical layout. The Judge's bench is in the far left corner, the witness box is in the center and the jury box is on the right. Exactly like the courtroom in the Dawn DaLuise case that was held in this courthouse.

DeGuerin is at the defense table with co-counsel David Chesnoff. On the prosecution team is DDA John Lewin, DDA Habib Balian, and another prosecutor I recognize but I don't know his name.

Clerk asks, "Counsel ready?"  I hear "Yes."

The bailiff goes to retrieve Durst.

10:23 AM
The back row in the gallery is filled with young fresh faces, most likely interns with the DA's office. I did not see anyone here that looked like relatives of Durst or the victim.

10:34 AM  ROUGH NOTES NOT EDITED.
Case is called. Durst is wheeled in backwards in a wheelchair. Now turned around . He's in a suit.

Appearances please.
David Chesnoff
Durst is wheeled into the courtroom.

Lewin is naming his team. DDA Dave Yaroslavsky. I miss the name of the second deputy DA.

The court explains the hearing. We're today to discuss conditional examinations. People have asked that for two examinations on Feb 14 and two more [later].

The court want's to focus discussion today. The court reads into the record California statues regarding what the people are requesting.

[California law] allows either party to have conditional examination if witness is 65 years of age or if the witnesses life is in jeopardy. Law requires the name of the witness and address.  There may be other circumstances but those are the ones [here?]..

Penal code calls for three days notice of the hearing. Court must set time and place. Court reads the law governing conditional testimony.

The people have field a single application for just one witness and that is Dr. Albert Cooperman (sp?) and the application states that Dr. Cooperman is over the age of 65. People provided discovery for this sometime in November.

Defense is objecting to any conditional examinations. Court has read all moving papers.

DeGuerin gets up to address the court.
Your honor, the court has said that ... I think that the prosecution has misinterpreted  the statute. ... DeGuerin recognizes that the court only wants one counsel to speak, but he asks the court if his  co-counsel Chesnoff can address the court. Mr. Chesnoff is capable of speaking on his own.

Chesnoff addresses the court.
As experienced counsel, we are not in the habit of trying to create issues that don't exist. This is a unique situation and that's ..... Just going to add a few things. in essence, the State of California has had over a decade to prosecute this case. The initial statements of this case... the investigation was not done very well.

Chesnoff mentions the HBO documentary The Jinx. We've had all these years and all the discovery ... and we've only recently received discovery in this case and it's voluminous.

These are provisional witnesses for trial and we haven't even had a preliminary hearing yet.
Why should we have a trial [of these witnesses] when we haven't even had a preliminary hearing yet?

Mentions the big media interest of the case balanced against the rights of the defendant. They [the defense] don't understand the state's theory. They have a idea they are going to try three murder cases ... one which he's been acquitted of and one he's never been charged with.

Talks about witnesses being taken out of order... and bias. Suggest to the court that prelim be set and that we do preliminary hearing that we not have secret witnesses and secret hearings. We know that the witnesses are over 65 but we don't know what the alleged threat is.

Mentions the defense experience with Federal work and Federal judges and how things go on in Federal court. Only ask this proceeding [be conducted?] in a orderly way, so that we can examine these witnesses in an orderly way.  Now talking about future events and the potential make up of the jury.

Complains about inflammatory things being said in the pleadings. Complains about ex parte meetings with the judge. "If the purpose of the ex parte was to keep something secret, ...."
Mr. Durst is in custody .Mr Durst is in a wheelchair. All his conversations have been listened to, and that somehow he poses a thread, without knowing what it is that was ... a threat makes it imperative that you approach most cautiously.

John Lewin counters Chesnoff's oral argument.
Hope the court will indulge me me. I don't know what steps can we take. That the court ...

I can barely hear Lewin. I'm not close and he's speaking somewhat softly.

We are here to ... for one reason, to set the conditional examination. We're not here to bring up my interview with Mr. Durst. We/re not here to talk about other issues. We're here for one issue only.

Defense said let's set up preliminary hearing.  I have emailed them no less than 30 times. I've asked for dates for preliminary hearing when they will be ready and the response I've gotten is, I don't know.

Lewin continues.
A lot of logistics, a lot of information. If they can't be prepared in one month for one witness, how are they going to be prepared for a complete preliinary hearing?

Defense has talked about the rules of application. I'm not aware of any case that says when discovery is to be provided. ...

[Penal Code?] 1335 would require that these intentional examinations could not be done prior to preliminary hearing. That's completely wrong. It can.

The defense is taking the approach that [they] can't be ready for anybody. Lewin argues for conditional examination.

Durst is wearing a blue striped shirt.

Dr. Cooperman. is basically talking about one issue in this case. They are well aware of Dr. Cooperman. The case in Galveston in 2003 .... The defense were intimately aware of the points of Kathey Durst's death. Dr. Cooperman allegedly received a phone call from Kathy Durst. That phone call took place in 1982.

We believe that call was made by Susan Berman. "That man kills witnesses. ... That's what he does." That's what he did with Morris Black.  Back to Dr. Cooperman. That was his sole involvement in [this?] case.

Lewin talks about Durst's defense team.
We have five, well paid, nationally known lawyers in this case. There are others that are working on this case that are not coming to court.

Lewin goes over the amount of material that the defense would have to go over, to prepare for Dr. Cooperman. He mentions a few documents. A one hour interview which was taped and the transcript [turned over]. That's approximately the complete discovery. And we are told that they cannot be prepared. I'm going to describe this very charitably. The defense arguments ... have a distant relationship with the facts.

Lewin reads from a defense Email about questioning Dr. Cooperman. Lewin documents his communication with the defense about witness Dr. Cooperman. In December, he got a call from one of the defense lawyers, asking where the interview transcript of Dr. Cooperman was in discovery. The idea that we are hiding discovery ... "They've been given 150,000 pages of discovery. The idea that we are somehow not turning over discovery, doesn't even pass a cursory review of the facts."

Dr. Cooperman is 85 or 86 years old. The defense is in no hurry to protect damaging discovery in this case.

In their motion they mention that there are numerous "secret witnesses." There are two. The court knows of both. We made an ex parte motion to the court, where we detailed the reasons why in the process and the manner reviewing it. The court found good cause and approved of what we were doing. Lewin states, I cannot tell them who the secret witnesses are but I can at least tell them the dates. We have bent over backwards in every way possible.

Lewin tells the court about helping the defense getting into the jail to see their client on a weekend.

Lewin continues.
We originally filed our motion regarding our special master, I only put in the transcript, the limited part, that Mr. Durst unequivocally waived. The defense responded to that, accusing me of improper and deceptive tactics. They did that, knowing they had that tape and transcript for months.

Lewin goes over the timeline of events of defense motions filed and the claims that the defense has made against Durst's frailty and not a threat to anyone.

Numerous conversations with defense about the admissibility of the Morris Black case and the standard for admissibility. Lewin states that they have evidence contrary to the [fact?] that it was murder and not self defense.

Lewin explains more.
The defense is well aware of all these issues with respect to what we put in our motion because they know why he was arrested in the Galveston case. They knew before they filed their motion, they knew exactly why Robert Durst was a danger. They come back with, well, he's frail. I talk about Susan Berman, I talk about Morris Black.

And this was chilling. Lewin goes over the events where Durst was arrested for Black's murder. He [Durst] tells the security guard that he has to go to his car to get money. Durst makes another request to go to his car. Worried, [the security guard] she calls the local police. When the local police get there, Mr. Durst asks to be taken to his car, so he could get his ID from the glove compartment. This was very suspicious. They would not do it. That was a good thing. What was waiting in the glove compartment, was loaded 38.

Lewin argues, why, did Durst, who had money on him, continually ask to be taken to his vehicle where there was a loaded gun. Now discussions about another witness who testified, now deceased, where Durst showed up on her street dressed as a woman. ... Vernon Lajame, is a person he hold responsible for pushing the investigation into his missing wife.

When the defense said that Durst wasn't a danger, the defense did not address any of these issues in their motion. This is a man who has shown the ability and the desire to harm any witness in his way. We have two secret witnesses. The court has heart this information. The idea that the defendant's rights is being infringed, is absurd. It doesn't become relevant until one of those witnesses doesn't become available.

Lewin continues to argue to get the witnesses statements on the record before preliminary hearing.  Lewin adds that they got the defendant's last motion, and he had to laugh, and it's talking about his interview with the defendant and that it was improper. That interview does need to be litigated as to be a part of the attorney client privilege. We filed our motion yesterday as to why that intervew was legal and proper. Need hearing dates for when those issues will be litigated.

Lewin states that the defense has everything regarding all witnesses that will testify at the preliminary hearing. Lewin then tells the court that they Miriam Barnes ... This was a witness they found out about when they read the article in the NY Times. they are also possibly wanting to conditionally interview her as well.

Rafael Prado, they are also requesting to conditionally interview him also. He is not 65, but he is being treated for cancer. His testimony is relevant as to whether Kathy Durst ever made it back to her [condo] in 1982. Lewin states they will disclose on January 31, on secret witnesses. After these witnesses testify, then if defense wants to set case for prelim, then we could do witnesses at preliminary hearing.

And I said this to the court when I asked ex parte. I never said they should be ready in two months. What I do expect, if you aren't ready and you know that you're not going to be ready, then notify the court and the defense.

Lewin states that if defense is ready by a particular date, then they would not need to do the conditional examinations. We need to calendar the attorney client waiver motion.

Lewin wraps up his arguments.

Mr. Cheznoff, you can reply.

We have 150,000 pages in documents, we can't possibly be ready for trial, we have secret witnesses, and that Mr. Lewin says his interview with Mr. Durst is okay. He's disparaged the Galveston law enforcement and DA ... Mr. Lewin's constant request that we fit his schedule or as to how he things things should go along ... except that we need to do this and this on this date.

Complains that they will go into the disappearance of his first wife. It's whether or not that Ms. Berman was going to be a witness or not. We can't be ... when I said Alice in Woderland, when we go down one rabbit hole we [come out another place]. ... You're honor I ask you, let's proceed in an orderly pace. He told you that they most likely will be available for trial.

Continues to argue for Durst for due process. There must be order. We have to be able to have time to share ideas and to study. Now asks that Mr. Deguerin to address the Galveston accusations.

DeGurein, I will try to address this without any ad hominen comments. I was there. We have something close to your 1101b. And that is, if you can't prove something, you can't present it. Prosecution conceeded that Mr. Durst had anything to do with the disappearance of Kathy Durst, much less that she had been killed. The prosecution also conceded, .... [explains who the prosecution atorneys were] ... They also conceeded there was absolutely no evidence that Robert Durst had anything to do with the disappearance of Kathy Durst. We actually went into that. We explain why Mr. Durst ended up in Galveston in disguise.  ... The other part about Galveston that I was there for, ....  is Mr. Durst's arrest in Pennsylvania at the Wegman's store. .... And that testimony doesn't amount to much.  We went through a hotly contested trial and 12 jurors ...  [concluded] that Mr. Durst was not guilty.

DeGuerin argues the 1101b compared to Texas 404 law. DeGuerin talks about conditionally examination of witnesses, when the purpose is to use that testimony at trial. ... Apparently they have everything in regards to Dr. Cooperman ... it's the other conditional, secret witnesses. They have withheld ... we don't know how much ... a number of files on these conditional witnesses.

And not to [?] another ad hominen, and we've been told, there are eight to ten, not two secret, conditional witnesses. So that's why we are opposing.

DeGuerin.
I can see a smile on Balian's face as DeGuerin argues to the court. He now brings up the three hour interview of Mr. Durst. It happened when he was in the air, flying to meet with Mr. Durst. Mr. Durst called his lawyers from the jail, before that interview. The prosecuiton had copies of the telephone calls, to his lawyers, before they went to talk to him in the jail .We think that needs to be litigated. One party should not go talk to the other side when they know he's being represented. We think that needs to be litigated. ... That was also improper. ... But that doesn't need to be spread in the public before hand. It was filed and it was available. The video and audio were filed. The media had it immediately. ... What we learned and they disclosed it to it. The media office made copies of those videos and audio and supplied it to the media. And that's what happened. I don't think that needs to happen in the future. There's a lot of things that are very favorable to Mr. Durst, that's in the discovery. And we could do that. [But we refrain from doing that.] We don't think that what's out there in discovery should be spread out there. .... before we ever get to trial.

We've gone way beyond what we are here today which is conditional witnesses. We need to know the identity of those witnesses .... before we go to trial. .... And the discovery that goes with those witnesses. ... We don't want to be shadow boxed. We don't what to know without knowing the prosecutions position is.

To follow the prosecution's theory ... the danger here. ... The first presumption is Kathy Durst, and there's no evidence [Durst had anything to do with that]. Talks about what happened in Galveston when that was put to the court.

Next presumption is if Kathy Durst is dead and or he had anything to do with that, then he killed Susan Berman. Ther'es no evidence of that. Then next presumption of that is ... that he covered up. ... When Kathy Durst first disappeared, ... Susan, being a writer, took responsibility for answering press inquiries. .... Then the presumption that Susan Berman covered up something. Then the next presumption is that Susan Berman contacted authorities [regarding Kathy's disappearance] and covered up something. .... This is when the investigation heated up again. ... There's no one from [the NY investigation] ... no one contacted Susan Berman. That's a fact.

DeGuerin, continues with his list of presumptions of the prosecution's case. Now mention's Susan Berman's father and his supposed Mafia connections.

DeGuerin talks about the secret witnesses and the [objectie?] of fear.

Court.
Thank you so much for providing so much context. First let's talk about the application that's pending, conditonal examination of Dr. Cooperman. People have demonstrated that witness is over 65. Discovery was provided in November. Not unreasonalbe to sechedule examination for him.

As for the second, unidentified for him. I have no applicaiton regarding this witness. I think the suggesiton may be this witness may be in jeopardy. Although I don't have three days notive for that, it's in substantial compliance. It's a witness is a material informaiton about the case. And the people state that he is also over 65, and that Mr. Lewin states he is also over 65, won't get into whether his life in si jeopardy, he is over 65.

There is no case law on discovery, mentions case law People v. Herado, conditional exam done 2.5 years before trial. Reason for that was interragatory appeal. Court approved delay of discovery until seven days before that hearing.

People there argues the defense has not right to discovery.  Assumes there is a right ot discovery, and also assumes there should be limitations under 10.4.7. Here, I'm concerned with this idea of "secret" witnesses. Court mentions another case Alvarez, where witnesses remained secret throughout the trial. Mentions US vs. Edwards, witnesses could not remain unidentified throughout trial, but discovery was limited. ... I did receive a showing, exparte, of two additional witnesses. It's similar to what was described to people's the opposition. If you look at pages 3-7 and the declaration ... it all applies to other witnesses. That was the supplemental in camera.

The standard of 1054.7 is to possible danger to witnesses. Court mentions another statute regarding life in jeopardy, danger.

The problem is that the defense ability to contest [the evidence]. I don't easily allow a showing ex parte, I don't automatically accept it. There was a showing prima facia, .... the standard is possible danger, and it seems that it's only reasonable that there is a danger as described by Mr. Lewin in his moving papers.  ... there was evidence presented and there is evidence of a possibility of danger. And I need to balance the defendant's right ... with the safety of witnesses. And it's twofold. ...

The court continues to argue the weighing factor and cites the rulings he's relying on in his ruling.  Mentions one case as well as Alvarado.

Fourteen years ago today Lana Clarkson was murdered in the foyer of music producer Phil Spector's Alhambra, California home.

After two trials, Spector was convicted of second degree murder in her death on April 13, 2009. He was sentenced to 19 years to life about six weeks later. Spector's first trial in 2007 that ended in a mistrial, was the first case covered on Trials & Tribulations.

Today I'm remembering Lana Clarkson on the anniversary of her tragic murder. Beautiful, talented, funny, she was adored by her mother Donna, extended family and friends.

Lana is interned at the Hollywood Forever Cemetery in the columbarium. During the first trial, Vanity Fair writer Dominick Dunne encouraged me to visit Lana's niche. I wrote about my visit in September 2007.

Lana's Website
Wikipedia on Lana
 Lana at iMDB

February 8, 2016

T&T recently obtained motions filed by the people in the Robert Durst Case. You can read the documents through the embedded links below. They have been added to the Robert Durst Quick Links Page. When I am able to obtain copies of the defense motions, I will upload them.

The next pretrial hearing at the Airport Courthouse is scheduled for February 14, 2017, 10am.

Note added 2/10/17 - I highly recommend reading the People's Supplemental Declaration. It has the complete transcript of DDA John Lewin's interview with the defendant. Great read.

3/16/15 Robert Durst Criminal Complaint


12/5/16 People's Motion to Admit Special Master


12/16/16 People's Supplemental Declaration


12/19/16 People's Special Master Reply


12/29/16 People's Opposition to Defense Motion


1/5/17 People's Motion to Admit Defendant's Mirandized Statements


1/17/17 People's Motion Collateral Estoppel

UPDATE 2:20 PM - added more news links
February 13, 2017

Talking Points Memo is reporting:

One of Jerry Sandusky's adult sons faces multiple charges of sexual offenses involving children, more than five years after the former Penn State assistant coach was himself first arrested.
Court records filed Monday say 41-year-old Jeffrey S. Sandusky was charged with 14 counts, including criminal solicitation and corruption of minors.

Bail was set at $200,00. Read the entire article HERE.

ABC News Report
CNN Report
USA TODAY Report