9- OWEN CROSS/OSWALT

1296
1 at the autopsy; is that correct?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. Okay. Did you hear during that autopsy that there
4 was some evidence that the child may have been born alive?
5 A. No.
6 Q. Did you realize or did somebody point out to you
7 that there was no umbilical cord attached to the baby?
8 A. That's not correct.
9 Q. You review -- and showing you this report does not
10 refresh your recollection?
11 A. It's not my report.
12 Q. Okay. Now, the baby was found by somebody from
13 East Bay Regional Park; is that correct?
14 A. That's not my understanding.
15 Q. Oh, was it Richmond police?
16 A. That was my understanding.
17 Q. Okay. You weren't there, I take it?
18 A. Correct.
19 Q. So you don't know who first came on to the scene
20 and who was called in; is that correct?
21 A. That's correct.
22 Q. Okay. Now, you did several other -- actually, did
23 you review or talk to either Dr. Galloway -- do you remember
24 who Dr. Galloway is?
25 A. No.
26 Q. Forensic anthropologist who examined the baby as
27 well?
28 A. No.

1297
1 Q. Okay.
2 A. Let me correct that. There were people I met, but
3 I'm not sure that I can put the name and the face together.
4 Q. Who was present in the autopsy with you?
5 MR. HARRIS: Objection. Vague as to which autopsy.
6 MR. GERAGOS: The autopsy of the baby.
7 THE WITNESS: I have a list in my report of everybody
8 that was there.
9 MR. GERAGOS: Q. Do you want to refresh your
10 recollection as to that?
11 A. Okay.
12 Q. Okay. Can you name the people who were present
13 with you at the autopsy?
14 A. Dr. Brian Peterson;
15 Coroner's Assistant Sandy, I'll spell her last name,
16 J-A-G-O-D-A;
17 Sergeant David Dubowy, D-U-B-O-W-Y, of East Bay
18 Regional Parks;
19 Detective Ian Frazer, F-R-A-Z-E-R, of East Bay Regional
20 Parks;
21 Deputy Corner Leo Martin, M-A-R-T-I-N;
22 Sergeant Daryl England, E-N-G-L-A-N-D, Contra Costa;
23 Lieutenant Kevin Ryan, Contra Costa;
24 Detective Jeff, spell his last name, M-O-U-L-E,
25 Contra Costa;
26 Sergeant Steve Warne, W-A-R-N-E, Contra Costa;
27 Captain Catherine Dean, D-E-A-N, Contra Costa County
28 Corner's Division; and

1298
1 John Nelson, Contra Costa -- excuse me, Contra Costa
2 Crime Labs.
3 And then we have Lieutenant Joe Aja, Sergeant Allen
4 Carter, Detective/Investigator Kevin Bertalotto, and
5 Detective Phil Owen, me.
6 Q. Okay. Now, the -- that was a coroner's case for
7 Contra Costa County; isn't that correct?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. Okay. And specifically you had gone up there as a
10 representative of Modesto Police Department; isn't that
11 correct?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. The baby was described to you as a -- during that
14 autopsy as a full-term infant; isn't that correct?
15 A. There was speculation as to the term full term.
16 Q. That's the term that was used in the autopsy
17 report, isn't it, "full-term male infant"?
18 MR. HARRIS: Objection. Calls for speculation. It's
19 not his report.
20 THE COURT: Sustained.
21 MR. GERAGOS: Q. When you say there was speculation,
22 the speculation was that the baby was from 38 to 39 weeks
23 old; isn't that correct?
24 A. What I recall was that there was -- at the autopsy
25 at the time there was -- they were going back and forth on
26 dates. They weren't specific. I think they needed more
27 time to reflect and to talk to the constituents, so I didn't
28 hear any exact dates or ages.

1299
1 Q. You didn't hear 38 to 39 weeks?
2 A. I don't specifically remember exactly 38 weeks.
3 Q. You didn't hear "full term"?
4 A. Not that I recall.
5 Q. Did you review a police report in connection with
6 this or talk to the people who recovered the baby?
7 A. If you have something there that can refresh my
8 recollection, I'd like to see it.
9 Q. Okay. Well, I'm asking you as you sit here, do you
10 remember talking to anybody who found the baby and referred
11 to it as a full-term infant?
12 A. Sitting here without something to refresh my
13 recollection, no.
14 Q. Okay. Do you remember having a discussion in the
15 autopsy about -- with the doctor about the fact that the
16 baby appeared to be a full-term infant?
17 A. Like I said, if you can show me something that
18 helps my recollection, I'd like to see it.
19 Q. Okay. Have you reviewed the autopsy report?
20 A. Somewhat, yes.
21 Q. Do you have that with you?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. Okay.
24 A. My autopsy report, yes.
25 Q. Okay. Do you want to -- do you want to open it or
26 refer to it?
27 A. Do you have a specific place that you would refer
28 me to?

1300
1 Q. It's only, I believe, for the infant. Do you have
2 the report itself?
3 A. No, I do not.
4 Q. Okay. The -- do you have a memory of anybody at
5 any time suggesting that the baby was between 32 and 33
6 weeks old? Nobody ever suggested that, did they?
7 A. Not that I recall.
8 Q. Right. Everybody was talking about whether or not
9 this baby was born alive; isn't that what was the
10 discussion?
11 A. No.
12 Q. Wasn't the discussion in there as to whether --
13 didn't Dr. Peterson specifically -- that was the name of the
14 autopsy sur -- autopsy pathologist, wasn't it?
15 A. Yes, it was.
16 Q. Okay. Didn't Dr. Peterson say -- wouldn't that --
17 let me go back.
18 When that autopsy took place, Laci had not been
19 recovered; isn't that correct?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. Okay. You were called in because they supposed or
22 they believed that this might be Conner, they didn't know
23 for sure, there hadn't been any testing; isn't that correct?
24 A. No.
25 Q. Now, the -- you knew that that was Conner?
26 A. I was called in because Laci Peterson was found and
27 they suspected it was Laci. The -- Conner had been
28 recovered a day or two prior to that.

1301
1 Q. Were you present during the autopsy of Conner?
2 A. No, I was not.
3 Q. Okay. Now, when -- you were present during the
4 autopsy of Laci?
5 A. Yes, I --
6 MR. HARRIS: Your Honor, at this point in time, based
7 on the fact the witness has indicated he wasn't present at
8 that autopsy, I'd move to strike his prior testimony about
9 what happened at that autopsy.
10 THE COURT: I think that you're on different
11 wavelengths. That part, he wasn't present at the autopsy --
12 I assume you're testifying regarding Laci Peterson's
13 autopsy; isn't that correct?
14 THE WITNESS: Correct.
15 MR. GERAGOS: Did you go --
16 THE COURT: So that will be stricken as far as being at
17 Conner Peterson's autopsy.
18 MR. GERAGOS: Q. You were not present during Conner
19 Peterson's autopsy at all?
20 A. Correct.
21 Q. Okay. Now --
22 A. Other than when you and I were present at your
23 autopsy with Conner.
24 Q. Okay. The day that Conner Peterson was -- that
25 there was an autopsy on him, that was prior to Laci's; isn't
26 that correct?
27 A. Yes.
28 Q. Okay. So you were called in for the second

1302
1 autopsy; is that right?
2 A. I was called in on the first autopsy for Laci.
3 Q. The second autopsy involving Laci and Conner.
4 There were two autopsies; is that correct?
5 A. Okay. So I think I understand you correctly, I --
6 the first autopsy being Conner, the second being Laci?
7 Q. That's correct.
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. Okay. Now, the -- you did some other investigation
10 in connection with this case; is that correct?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Okay. And you prepared a number of reports; is
13 that right?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. Okay. I'm going to refer you to a interview that
16 you did of a Karma Souza. Do you remember that? I've got
17 it as a Bates number stamped 1795. Do you have that
18 organized by Bates number or by date?
19 A. By names. Do you have it in front of you?
20 Q. I do. Want me to just show it to you?
21 A. Yes. Please.
22 MR. HARRIS: Your Honor, I'm going to object as
23 relevance and outside the scope of direct.
24 THE COURT: I'll sustain that. You can make an offer
25 of proof, I presume?
26 MR. GERAGOS: Yes, I would like to make an offer of
27 proof. He's interviewed other people in connection with
28 this investigation that I believe negates an element of the

1303
1 crime. So I'm asking that I be allowed to call him for
2 those specific interviews with other people who saw things
3 on the morning of the 24th.
4 THE COURT: Mr. -- who's doing this?
5 MR. DISTASO: Mr. Harris.
6 MR. HARRIS: I have this, Your Honor.
7 Again, as was indicated before, if the defense wishes
8 to call witnesses, they have that opportunity to do so.
9 MR. GERAGOS: Right. And in the interest of judicial
10 expediency, I generally do it at the time that the officer's
11 on the stand, especially when we're talking 115 testimony.
12 THE COURT: Let's assume he's being called by the
13 defense now. Any objection, Mr. Harris?
14 MR. HARRIS: If there -- if they're doing it as him
15 calling him as their witness for Prop 115 purposes, that's
16 fine.
17 THE COURT: Go ahead.
18 MR. GERAGOS: Q. Look at both.
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Does that refresh your recollection --
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. You can leave this open here.
23 Does that refresh your recollection as to your
24 interview with -- actually, it was with John and Karma
25 Souza; is that correct?
26 A. Yes.
27 Q. Okay. Now, you interviewed -- or called the Souza
28 residence on the 27th of December; is that correct?

1304
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. Okay. You tape recorded a conversation; isn't that
3 correct?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. Okay. And then you prepared a report about the
6 conversation; is that correct?
7 A. Correct.
8 Q. Okay. Now, you called the Souzas because they had
9 promptly called either the tip line or the Modesto PD and
10 said they had information about suspicious circumstances in
11 the park; isn't that correct?
12 A. That's correct.
13 Q. Okay. And Mrs. Souza told you that she'd
14 encountered three suspicious persons while she was running
15 along --
16 MR. HARRIS: Your Honor, I object.
17 MR. GERAGOS: -- Dry Creek area park --
18 MR. HARRIS: Your Honor, I object.
19 THE COURT: Wait a minute.
20 MR. HARRIS: Is Counsel doing this as a direct under
21 Prop 115, or is he going to continue to cross-examine him?
22 MR. GERAGOS: Well, I --
23 THE COURT: I thought I've indicated that I was going
24 to allow him to call him as his own witness, and I asked you
25 if you had any objection.
26 MR. HARRIS: Well, as I responded, if he was calling
27 him as his witness for Prop 115 purposes, which would --
28 I'll withdraw the objection and let him continue it as

1305
1 cross.
2 THE COURT: Go ahead.
3 MR. GERAGOS: Q. Officer, Miss Souza told you that she
4 had encountered what she considered to be three suspicious
5 persons while she was running along Dry Creek area park on
6 the 24th; isn't that correct?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. And what time of the morning did she say that she
9 saw these three people?
10 A. Without referring to the report, I wouldn't be able
11 to give you an exact time.
12 Q. Did she tell you that it was about 7:20 in the
13 morning?
14 A. That sounds right.
15 Q. Okay. And that the -- they were running along with
16 her, her husband and three other people; is that correct?
17 A. That's correct.
18 Q. She saw one of the people there, and she was able
19 to give a description as somebody in their early 20's of
20 medium height and weight with a nylon, puffy down jacket,
21 light in color, possibly white; is that correct?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. And that he was wearing blue jeans, unknown shoes,
24 and believed that it was related to a suspicious person
25 being in that park and being related to Laci Peterson's
26 disappearance; isn't that correct?
27 A. She was reporting it more as a suspicious persons,
28 not necessarily related.

1306
1 Q. Now, the interview of John Souza, he also said that
2 during a -- while running down there, he saw the person
3 located at McClure and Dry Creek Park trail; isn't that
4 correct?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. He also gave you a detailed description of the
7 person that he saw there; isn't that correct?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. Okay. And that the person had mumbled when he
10 tried to address him; isn't that the way you referred to it?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Okay. He says that at the location he also saw two
13 other males who popped out of the bushes while he was
14 running; isn't that correct?
15 A. Yes, it is.
16 Q. Okay. And that he thought it was extremely
17 suspicious based upon the time of the day, and that he runs
18 a lot on that trail and had never seen those subjects
19 before; isn't that correct?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. Okay. Now, you also interviewed another witness by
22 the name of Campos, and I think you've got her report right
23 there; isn't that correct?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. Okay. Now, she works at where?
26 A. Stanislaus County Hospital.
27 Q. Okay. That would be the hospital that's located, I
28 guess, if you will, that abuts the park; isn't that correct?

1307
1 A. Yes, it is.
2 Q. Okay. And she stated -- and you interviewed her
3 on --
4 MR. HARRIS: Your Honor, again, I'm assuming he's doing
5 this for Prop 115 purposes?
6 MR. GERAGOS: I'll let you know if I change.
7 THE COURT: Okay. Go ahead.
8 MR. GERAGOS: Q. You interviewed her also on the 27th;
9 isn't that correct?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Okay. Now, when you interviewed her, she had also
12 called in the tip line or the missing person line at the
13 Modesto PD; isn't that correct?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. Okay. And she said that she had been working there
16 at the hospital for the past nine years; is that right?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. Okay. And that on the morning, Tuesday, the 24th,
19 that she was taking a smoke break outside of the hospital;
20 is that correct?
21 A. That's correct.
22 Q. Okay. And she was at a location -- by the way, did
23 you talk to her in person or over the phone?
24 A. In person.
25 Q. Okay. Did she show you the specific location where
26 she was, where she was taking the smoke break?
27 A. No, she identified it verbally to me, but she did
28 not show it to me.

1308
1 Q. Okay. Have you actually gone to that area where
2 she -- where she verbally identified it to you?
3 A. I know where it's at, yes.
4 Q. Okay. The location where -- that you believe that
5 she's referring to gives you a direct sight line into the
6 park; isn't that correct?
7 A. Yes, it does.
8 Q. Okay. And you can see the trail of the park from
9 where that smoke break is and see people as they're either
10 jogging or walking their dogs; isn't that correct?
11 A. That's correct.
12 Q. Okay. And she says she was at that location on the
13 morning of the 24th; is that right?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. She saw three people walking together along the --
16 I guess for lack of a better word, would you call it a trail
17 there?
18 A. Like a jogging trail, yes.
19 Q. Like a jogging trail.
20 She said one of the people was a pregnant white female
21 with a dog on a leash; is that correct?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. She said the other two were white males; is that
24 correct?
25 A. Yes.
26 Q. And that their dog was barking loudly; isn't that
27 correct?
28 A. Yes.

1309
1 Q. She said she watched these people for approximately
2 five minutes while they walked the distance of approximately
3 a football field, or a hundred yards, is what she estimated,
4 right?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. And she said during that time, the female, who was
7 holding on to the Golden -- and she identified it as a
8 Golden Retriever; isn't that correct?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. Okay. She said the dog was constantly barking;
11 isn't that correct?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. And that she said that the white female had to pull
14 at the dog with the leash, right?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. She said the male subject, who was wearing what she
17 described as a beanie cap, said, "Shut the fuckin' dog up";
18 is that correct?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. And she watched them for approximately five
21 minutes; isn't that correct?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. She didn't think more of the con -- or any -- about
24 the conflict, so to speak, between the male or the female
25 until she heard about the missing person report, isn't that
26 correct, what she told you?
27 A. Yes.
28 MR. HARRIS: Objection. That misstates what's in the

1310
1 report.
2 MR. GERAGOS: I just asked him his recollection. If
3 they want the report to testify, we can swear the report.
4 I'm asking him --
5 THE COURT: Overruled.
6 MR. GERAGOS: Q. She saw --
7 THE COURT: Is there an answer?
8 MR. GERAGOS: Q. -- the flier of Laci Peterson on the
9 26th; isn't that correct?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Okay. And she said that she thought that that was
12 on Thursday; is that right?
13 A. Correct.
14 Q. And she said to herself, "I know that girl," and
15 she then realized that that was the same subject she saw
16 walking through the park; isn't that correct?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. She said she was sure, otherwise, she would not
19 have called the police; isn't that correct?
20 A. That's what she said.
21 Q. Okay. Now, you -- she even further described the
22 female as having hair that was short, down to about the
23 shoulders, dark in color; is that correct?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. She said the hair was straight and that the female
26 looked six to seven months pregnant; is that correct?
27 A. Yes.
28 Q. She said she was wearing a white top and what

1311
1 appeared to be sweat pants, but she didn't know what color;
2 is that correct?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. She described the dog as a Golden Retriever, medium
5 size; is that correct?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. And she also said the dog had an unknown color
8 leash; is that correct?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. She described the first male as being in his late
11 thirties, five-seven, medium build, wearing a dark beanie,
12 dirty dark shirt, dirty blue jeans, right?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. Said that he had been -- that the jeans were so
15 dirty, looked like he had been sitting in the dirt; is that
16 right?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. Okay. She said the second subject was also late
19 thirties, five-seven, medium build, brown hair, short, or
20 that the hair was short, wearing a blue Levi jacket with a
21 tear and blue jeans; is that correct?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. Okay. And when you asked her some other details,
24 she was able to give you kind of distances where she was in
25 relationship to these people and things of that nature; is
26 that correct?
27 A. Yes.
28 Q. Okay. Do you know what was done with this

1312
1 information after you did the interview on the 27th? Did
2 anybody, as far as you know, put out a description as to
3 those people, appeal to the public, "If anybody's seen
4 somebody fitting this description, please call in"?
5 A. I'm not sure what you're asking me.
6 Q. Well, you talked to the Souzas on the 27th, right?
7 A. Correct.
8 Q. Okay. The Souzas identified two people, at least
9 three people, two of which kind of popped out of the bushes
10 and looked like they were suspicious there, right?
11 A. Correct.
12 Q. Now, that was in the morning, sometime prior to the
13 time the Campos had saw this encounter; isn't that correct?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. Then on that same day you interviewed Campos, who
16 also saw two people, who -- described as being very dirty
17 and telling somebody who's got a Golden Retriever, who's six
18 to seven months pregnant, who's walking the dog in the park,
19 to, "Shut the fuckin' dog up," and the dog is barking. Did
20 that occur to you as to be maybe significant in this
21 investigation?
22 A. At face value, it would have been. But after
23 talking to her I didn't feel that way.
24 Q. Okay.
25 A. This information was disseminated correctly, but
26 she did -- when I was done talking with her, I felt that she
27 was giving me information that wasn't going in the right
28 direction. I felt more that she had been reading reports.

1313
1 Q. Okay. So you -- were there a lot of reports about
2 two guys in the park that matched up with the Souzas? I
3 mean, did the Souzas' information from that say morning --
4 what time did you interview the Souzas?
5 MR. HARRIS: Objection. Which question should the
6 detective answer?
7 MR. GERAGOS: I'll -- I'll break it down.
8 Q. What time did you interview the Souzas?
9 A. You have my report there? Can you tell me?
10 Q. Says 12:05; is that correct?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Okay. And that would have been approximately an
13 hour and a half after you interviewed the Campos -- Campos,
14 it looks like, at approximately 10:15?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. Okay. So within the span of 90 minutes, three
17 separate people tell you about encounters or watching
18 encounters with suspicious people in the park. Was there
19 any -- based upon what you know, anything published on the
20 morning of the 25th or the morning of the 26th that would
21 have described these suspicious people in the park?
22 A. From us or from the news or from --
23 Q. Right, from any source that you're aware of.
24 MR. HARRIS: Objection. Relevance. The question is
25 asking him to disseminate information prior to taking the
26 statements from the witnesses.
27 MR. GERAGOS: That's what I'm asking.
28 THE COURT: Rephrase.

1314
1 MR. GERAGOS: Q. Were you aware of any information or
2 news reports about suspicious people in the park that were
3 described as five foot seven, medium build, with Levi
4 jackets on, one wearing a beanie? Are you aware of any of
5 that information being disseminated to the public prior to
6 10:15 on the 27th?
7 A. Not that specific, no.
8 Q. Okay. And you did interview both of these people
9 on the same day, and there was some overlap, was there not,
10 as to the location where these people were?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Okay. Now, you also interviewed a Brian Ulrich; is
13 that right? And I'm referring to 1835. Do you have it by
14 name or by Bates number? I've got the report.
15 A. Thank you.
16 Q. I think this is more on the last page. Are you
17 done with this?
18 A. Just a second.
19 Q. Were you able to locate the report?
20 A. Not yet.
21 Q. I think I've got an extra copy here. Why don't I
22 let you hold on to that while I ask you some questions.
23 Now, approximately, looks like, January 7th you and --
24 let's see, you were contacted by Detective, is it, Buehler?
25 A. Yes.
26 Q. Okay. And Detective Buehler requested that you
27 assist an FBI agent by the name of Terry Scott in regards to
28 life insurance policies regarding Scott and Laci Peterson;

1315
1 is that correct?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. Okay. Now, the reason that you were to do this
4 investigation is that there was a rumor out there or some
5 kind of a tip that Scott had recently obtained a life
6 insurance policy on Laci; isn't that correct?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. Okay. And you wanted to determine whether or not
9 he had recently obtained a life insurance policy on Laci to
10 see if that was some kind of a financial motive for her
11 disappearance; is that correct?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. Okay. So you and Agent Scott, with a couple of
14 federal subpoenas in hand, went over to the Sylvan Avenue
15 address for Mr. Ulrich; is that right?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. Okay. And first time you were there, he was out of
18 the office, but then you found him on that same day, on the
19 7th; is that correct?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. Okay. And he told you that he was responsible for
22 brokering the life insurance policies for Scott and Laci;
23 isn't that correct?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. Okay. And he also told you that those policies
26 were opened in June of 2001, fully a year and a half before;
27 isn't that correct?
28 A. June 25th, 2001, yes.

1316
1 Q. Okay. And he told you that they were life
2 insurance policies on both of them, one on Scott for 250,
3 one on Laci for 250; isn't that correct?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. And that they were also used for a -- what he
6 called an investment vehicle; isn't that what he told you?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. Okay. And that they were connected to their IRA or
9 retirement accounts; isn't that correct?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Okay. At that point the -- that had pretty much
12 debunked -- I mean, you served the subpoena, and you got the
13 life insurance policies three days later; is that correct?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. Okay. And the -- you had then confirmed at that
16 point that there was absolutely no truth to the rumor that
17 there was a recently purchased life insurance policy; isn't
18 that correct?
19 A. That would be correct.
20 Q. Okay. Now, were you aware that there was a Modesto
21 Bee article that came out, I don't know, the 16th or 17th of
22 January that was still putting forth this misinformation?
23 MR. HARRIS: Objection. Relevance.
24 MR. GERAGOS: Well, it's relevant --
25 THE COURT: Sustained.
26 MR. GERAGOS: Could I make an offer on that?
27 THE COURT: You can try.
28 MR. GERAGOS: Okay. Yesterday Mr. McAllister asked

1317
1 Detective Brocchini as to whether or not he was aware of
2 that article, and, in fact, he said yes, that was the same
3 article that he had phoned up people and told them to read
4 online at 6:40 in the morning, I believe it was on the 16th
5 of January. And I wanted to tie that up as to whether this
6 officer knows. I'm not going to pursue whether or not he
7 talked to Brocchini yet. I just want to know if he's aware
8 of the article.
9 THE COURT: I don't think it -- it's stretching it.
10 Sustained.
11 MR. GERAGOS: Q. Okay. Now, the records of -- by the
12 way, did you ever meet with the Rochas, you personally, in
13 January of 2003, or with Ron Grantski?
14 A. I'm not sure.
15 Q. Do you have anything that would refresh your
16 recollection as to if you did?
17 A. No.
18 Q. Okay. The -- Brian Ulrich also tell you that, in
19 fact, Scott was not going to originally purchase 250,000 on
20 Laci, but that it was Laci who wanted it to be 250,000 on
21 her?
22 A. I don't specifically recall that. Do you have a
23 cite?
24 Q. Only my interview with Ulrich.
25 A. I don't --
26 Q. Did you ever ask Ulrich --
27 MR. HARRIS: Objection. Counsel's testifying at this
28 point in time. I'd ask that that be stricken.

1318
1 THE COURT: That answer -- that comment by Mr. Geragos
2 is stricken.
3 MR. GERAGOS: Q. Did you ever ask him, ask Mr. Ulrich
4 whose idea it was for Laci to have $250,000 in life
5 insurance proceeds?
6 A. No.
7 Q. Did you ever ask him whose idea it was to sell the
8 life insurance policy to them a year and a half prior?
9 A. Did I ask them specifically if --
10 Q. Yeah, whether he was the one who made the cold
11 call -- not a cold call, but he was the one who had just
12 gotten his insurance license and was trying to sell them the
13 insurance?
14 A. I'm not familiar with that, no.
15 Q. Okay. You never questioned him about that, did
16 you?
17 A. No.
18 Q. You also on the 20th of January met with a Sergeant
19 Cloward? Is it Cloward? Is that how you pronounce it?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. Okay. At the Modesto Police Department?
22 A. I met Sergeant Cloward at the Modesto Police
23 Department on many occasions.
24 Q. Okay. Did you meet him on January the 20th --
25 A. Yes.
26 Q. -- because there was a report that the
27 San Francisco PD was searching and that you were to meet
28 them at the Richmond Harbor Master Pier?

1319
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. Okay. And did you there go up there and meet
3 officers -- meet two officers, Mark Larry and Greg Lattice?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. Okay. And at that point, you were doing a search
6 or there was a search of the Bay floor; is that correct?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. Okay. And you went out there to take a paint
9 sample on the side of the Richmond Turning Basin Buoy Number
10 6; isn't that correct?
11 A. Yes, it is.
12 Q. Okay. You scraped the paint off the buoy with a
13 knife onto some white paper; isn't that correct?
14 A. Yes, it is.
15 Q. Okay. The reason that you did that was because you
16 couldn't figure out if Scott had taken Laci out and dumped
17 the body over the side of the boat, how the boat wouldn't
18 have capsized; isn't that correct?
19 A. No.
20 Q. Isn't the fact that specifically you were looking
21 to see if there was a paint transfer, because the only way
22 that this theory that Modesto PD was working on would have
23 worked is if the boat had been tied to a buoy of some kind;
24 isn't that correct?
25 MR. HARRIS: Objection. Argumentative.
26 THE COURT: Overruled.
27 THE WITNESS: The reason for the paint sample was
28 because of the paint transfer on the boat to see if it

1320
1 matched.
2 MR. GERAGOS: Q. Well, and that was because that you
3 had specifically, in your report, which is Bates numbered
4 stamped 1923 said, "During that conversation, we discussed
5 the possibility of the boat being tied to something in the
6 Bay to steady the boat for the possibility of a body dump";
7 isn't that correct?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. You wrote that, right?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Okay. "Based on that conversation, we discussed
12 the possibility that there could be some sort of paint
13 transfer on the trim of the boat"; isn't that correct?
14 A. Yes, it is.
15 Q. You didn't go and find the paint transfer first,
16 you had the theory first and then went in search of a paint
17 transfer; isn't that correct?
18 A. No, it's not.
19 Q. Do you have your report in front of you? 23, in
20 the middle.
21 A. Okay.
22 Q. Okay? Now, does that refresh your recollection as
23 to what came first, the theory or the paint transfer?
24 MR. HARRIS: Objection. Vague and argumentative.
25 THE COURT: Overruled.
26 THE WITNESS: Yes.
27 MR. GERAGOS: Q. Okay. That refreshes your
28 recollection?

1321
1 A. Yes, it does.
2 Q. Is it a fair statement that it was based on your
3 conversation with Sergeant Zahr or Detective Grogan that you
4 discussed the possibility that there could be some sort of
5 paint transfer on the trim of the boat to support your
6 theory that the boat was tied to something in the Bay to
7 steady the boat for the possibility of a body dump?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. Okay. And that was -- you had a theory first, and
10 then you went to find paint transfer, correct? Well, the
11 very next sentence -- let me see if I can make it simpler
12 for you.
13 You said, "Sergeant Zahr requested I look at the boat
14 again on the following day to determine if there was any
15 evidence to support the idea of the boat being tied off to
16 steady it."
17 Does that make it a little easier for you?
18 A. Yeah, but I believe that there was conversation
19 prior to that.
20 Q. But it's just not notated in any report?
21 A. Well, maybe the way you're spinning it to me is
22 causing me some conflict.
23 Q. Why, because you don't like the direction this is
24 heading in?
25 A. No, because I don't know if that's accurate. I'm
26 trying to give you --
27 Q. I'm just reading your report. Is your report not
28 accurate?

1322
1 A. Yeah, but I'm trying to give you the truth here.
2 Q. Yeah. But the truth is is you had a theory, and
3 then you went to look for paint transfer, and that's what
4 you put in your report; isn't that true?
5 A. I'm not comfortable with what you're saying with
6 that --
7 Q. I bet you're not comfortable with it.
8 MR. HARRIS: Argumentative.
9 MR. GERAGOS: The fact of the matter is --
10 THE COURT: Mr. Geragos, just ask questions, please.
11 MR. GERAGOS: Q. The fact of the matter is that you
12 went and you found a paint transfer, you went and scraped
13 the buoy, you had the buoy's paint transfers compared, and
14 it was a dry hole; isn't that a fair statement? None of the
15 paint transfers matched, right?
16 A. No, I'm feeling like you're walking me down the
17 garden path, and I'm not sure that's correct.
18 Q. Well, is it -- did you ever take a paint transfer
19 from the red dolly that was in the warehouse that was right
20 next to the boat to see if the paint transfer could have
21 come when Modesto PD was impounding the boat and pulling it
22 out of the store -- out of the storage area? Did you see if
23 that's where the red paint transfer came from?
24 A. I did not.
25 Q. Okay. You've got pictures that are in evidence
26 that show a red dolly right next to the boat that looks like
27 it's about the same height as where the paint transfer is.
28 Did you ever consider that maybe it was Modesto PD that

1323
1 caused the paint transfer?
2 A. Can you show me that?
3 Q. The pictures? They're right over there. Would you
4 like to take a look?
5 A. I'd like to see the dolly you're talking about.
6 Q. Had you ever done anything to investigate that?
7 A. I wasn't aware of the dolly.
8 Q. Okay. Is there anything red in the Modesto PD
9 parking lot where the boat is stored as you're entering into
10 the Modesto PD parking lot? Do you know where the -- let me
11 reask the question --
12 A. I'm trying to --
13 Q. Do you know where the boat is stored?
14 A. I know where the boat was stored whenever I
15 examined it, yes.
16 Q. Okay. Did you see how the boat got in there or do
17 you know how the boat got in to where it's stored?
18 A. No.
19 Q. Okay. Now, did you also go out on some searches in
20 the Bay?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. Okay. How many?
23 A. Over a dozen.
24 Q. You went out on the 10th, isn't that correct, of
25 January?
26 A. Yes.
27 Q. Okay. And there -- somebody had reported some
28 sonar contact on the 9th; is that correct?

1324
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. Okay. Turned out that that was an anchor; wasn't
3 that correct?
4 A. Two anchors.
5 Q. Okay. You went out there again after that date;
6 isn't that correct?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. Okay. And, once again, that was a false alarm,
9 correct?
10 A. I'm not sure I understand what you mean, false
11 alarm.
12 Q. Well, you didn't find a body most -- virtually
13 every time that there was a sonar hit, it turned out to be a
14 piece of debris of some kind; isn't that correct?
15 A. I kind of have to explain that one.
16 Q. Did you ever locate a body?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. When was that?
19 A. Whenever we were called by East Bay Regional Park.
20 Q. And that was in April, correct?
21 A. Correct.
22 Q. Okay. When you were doing sonar searches in the
23 Bay, did you ever find a body --
24 A. No.
25 Q. -- in the Bay?
26 No?
27 And how many sonar searches would you say were done in
28 the Bay?

1325
1 A. I couldn't give you an exact figure, but I would
2 imagine hundreds.
3 Q. In excess of 200; isn't that a fair statement?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. Okay. And all of those -- do you remember a time
6 period -- started in January -- or started in December, did
7 it not, late December?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. Okay. And it went all the way through late
10 January, early February?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Okay. I just had one other area, Judge, and this
13 is no longer 115 of an 866. This is returning to questions
14 that were asked of the officer yesterday.
15 You specifically were asked yesterday about some phone
16 calls in early November that you had made to Cheryl Smith at
17 the doctor's office. Do you remember that?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. Okay. And she said that she referred to the chart.
20 And I assume that was the document that I had showed you
21 earlier today, the chart of Laci's OB/GYN; is that correct?
22 A. That's correct.
23 Q. And that when she referred to the chart, she said
24 there were two phone calls from Laci, both times in early
25 November she complained of shortness of breath after a
26 20-minute walk; is that correct?
27 A. Yes.
28 Q. And that she was advised to eat first and take the

1326
1 walks later in the day; is that correct?
2 A. Correct.
3 Q. Okay. Did there -- was there anything to indicate
4 that she was told to stop walking in the -- by Cheryl Smith?
5 Did she tell you, "The doctor said stop walking"?
6 A. No.
7 Q. And she did not -- in fact, it was her memory that
8 Laci did walk every day, and that's why she called, because
9 she was having some discomfort after the walks; isn't that
10 correct?
11 A. No.
12 Q. She said that she complained of shortness of breath
13 after the walks; is that correct?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. Okay. And she was advised by the doctor's office
16 to eat first and continue to walk; isn't that correct?
17 A. Eat first and walk later in the day.
18 Q. Okay. Did she tell you what time of the day she
19 was walking?
20 A. No.
21 Q. Do you know if that was 7:00 or if it was 10:00 in
22 the morning?
23 A. I do not know.
24 Q. Okay. And when you went there, you also had a
25 theory or a tip or somebody had given you some indication
26 that maybe Scott wasn't excited about the baby; wasn't that
27 correct?
28 A. Yes.

1327
1 Q. Okay. And you went there, and you interviewed
2 everybody, and nobody told you that; isn't that correct?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. You also interviewed -- yesterday, I think you
5 called it Tow, but in the report it's T-O-W, dash, D-E-R.
6 Is that the same person?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. Okay. So when you were referring yesterday to Tow,
9 that's -- the spelling is T-O-W-D-E-R in your report; is
10 that correct?
11 A. I believe she goes by Dr. Tow, but I believe it's
12 hyphenated.
13 Q. Okay. And she specifically told you that if Scott
14 was any kind of a problem, she would have made a note in the
15 file, and there was no notes in the file; isn't that
16 correct?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. And she said that the next visit, that she
19 remembered the visit on the 23rd; is that correct?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. And she said that Laci's attitude was pleasant and
22 she smiled a lot; is that correct?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. There were no complaints from Laci on the 23rd of
25 December; isn't that correct?
26 A. I believe she said something about weight, but
27 other than that, no.
28 Q. Okay. And she did note that there was some

1328
1 swelling and weight gain as a result of the pregnancy, but
2 nothing unusual, correct?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. Apparently she was -- there was no notation that
5 the being short of breath that she had complained about in
6 November was still occurring on December 23rd, was there, in
7 the file?
8 A. No.
9 MR. GERAGOS: I have no further questions of this
10 witness. Thank you.
11 THE COURT: Mr. Harris?
12 MR. HARRIS: Yes.
13 THE COURT: Also, who's going to do the cross on the --
14 Mr. Geragos' direct? Are you going to do that?
15 MR. HARRIS: Yes.
16 THE COURT: Okay.
17
18 REDIRECT EXAMINATION
19 MR. HARRIS: Q. Detective, go back through the medical
20 records. You were asked about the due date, that there
21 were, in fact, two due dates that were estimated by the
22 doctors in this particular case?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. And you had testified yesterday about there being
25 some difference between the two and the doctors didn't
26 change them. I want to just flesh that out for a minute.
27 Did the doctor explain to you why that he did not
28 change the due date from February 10th?

1329
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. What did the doctor explain?
3 A. Explained that because they were within one week,
4 the margin of error made it such that they would keep the
5 due date.
6 Q. The doctor kind of gave you a range that there's a
7 plus or minus when you start looking at the ultrasounds?
8 A. Plus or minus --
9 MR. GERAGOS: Objection. Leading.
10 THE COURT: Sustained.
11 MR. HARRIS: Q. Did the doctor give you some statement
12 about a plus or minus with the ultrasound?
13 A. Yes. He explained that there is a two-week plus or
14 minus, and if the dates line up with any time in between
15 those, they stick to the date that they originally came up
16 with.
17 Q. And did the doctor indicate to you which they
18 believed was the most accurate?
19 A. Yes. The February 10th.
20 Q. Now, you were asked about the notations in the
21 file, the medical records there. Did you talk to most of
22 the doctors and nurses that had dealt with Laci Peterson?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. Did any of them indicate to you or indicate that
25 there were -- Scott Peterson stood out in any way at all?
26 A. No, they didn't.
27 Q. You were asked about the autopsy report and you --
28 Mr. Geragos had you read into the record the names of

1330
1 individuals that were at the autopsy.
2 Just so we're clear about that, are those individuals
3 that were at Laci's autopsy or were they individuals that
4 were at Conner's autopsy?
5 A. The ones that I read into the record were at Laci's
6 autopsy.
7 Q. And, again, so that there's no confusion in the
8 record, did you attend two autopsies of Laci Peterson?
9 A. Yes, I did.
10 Q. So the first one was the one where you were
11 contacted by Richmond and asked to attend that around the
12 14th of April?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. And the second one you were asked to attend, that
15 was an autopsy that was performed by persons that were
16 employed by the defense?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. So when we're talking about anything that you might
19 have heard at the autopsy that you're talking about, are you
20 referring to just the first autopsy or the one that was
21 performed by the defense?
22 A. I was referring to the first autopsy that I was at.
23 Q. All right. Now, let me go back and talk to you
24 about these witness statements.
25 You talked to Karma Souza and John Souza, and we'll
26 start with those two, just kind of go in the same order.
27 Now, Miss Souza reported to you that there was a person
28 in the park -- or, excuse me, John Souza reported to you

1331
1 that there was a person in the park that mumbled, and he
2 felt that was suspicious. Is that the information you got?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. He didn't see any weapons, there was nothing
5 threatening, the person didn't do anything other than
6 mumble?
7 A. That's correct.
8 Q. And he indicated that there was two other people,
9 and he felt that they were suspicious because they asked him
10 for a cigarette?
11 A. That's correct.
12 Q. So the entire sum of the information that you
13 received from both Karma Souza and John Souza is that they
14 were --
15 MR. GERAGOS: Objection. Leading.
16 THE COURT: It's going to be.
17 MR. HARRIS: Your Honor, I believe that I have this
18 witness on cross as part of the Prop 115 of Mr. Geragos.
19 THE COURT: It's still People's witness, so it will
20 require direct questions.
21 MR. HARRIS: All right.
22 Q. Were they able to give you anything, any specifics
23 in terms of something that made them think they were
24 suspicious?
25 A. No. They gave me the idea that they were simply
26 trying to help out by reporting anything suspicious they saw
27 from the point that this investigation started.
28 Q. And did Mr. Souza specifically say that he had

1332
1 never seen these people, so that's why he's reporting them?
2 A. That, coupled with they just seemed suspicious.
3 Q. Now, the descriptions that you had from Karma Souza
4 and John Souza, you were asked if there was some overlap to
5 what was reported to you by Miss Campos. Do you recall
6 that?
7 A. Uh-huh.
8 Q. And the overlap was that they were pretty much
9 white males?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Because Miss Campos described a person as in a
12 jeans jacket, and the Souzas described one of the
13 individuals in a puffy jacket?
14 A. That would be correct.
15 Q. So that's not a correlation, is it?
16 MR. GERAGOS: Objection. Calls for speculation.
17 THE COURT: Sustained.
18 MR. HARRIS: Q. Detective, is that a correlation, in
19 your mind?
20 A. No.
21 MR. GERAGOS: Objection. Calls for speculation.
22 Motion to strike.
23 THE COURT: Sustained. Stricken.
24 MR. HARRIS: Q. Now, talking about Diana Campos, Diana
25 Campos was an employee at the hospital?
26 A. Yes.
27 Q. And she told you the specific time that she was on
28 break?

1333
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. And what was the specific time that she told you
3 she was on break?
4 A. I would need to refer to my report.
5 Q. You wrote a report after your interview with her?
6 A. I did.
7 Q. If you'd look at your report, if that would help
8 you recall.
9 A. Do you have that report with you to hurry things
10 up?
11 Q. I do.
12 A. Okay. I'm sorry. Your question again?
13 Q. When was it she told you she was on this break?
14 A. December 24th, at approximately 1045 hours.
15 Q. So she says at 10:45, she's out on her break, and
16 she notices these people for the first time; is that
17 correct?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. Does she indicate in the statement that you took
20 from her that she watched them for -- for about five minutes
21 as they walked the length of a football field?
22 A. That's correct.
23 Q. So that would put it at about 10:50?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. She indicates that they continued walking, and she
26 watched them for about another five minutes, correct?
27 A. Yes.
28 Q. So that would put it at about 10:55?

1334
1 A. Correct.
2 Q. Did she give you a distance of how far away these
3 were -- these individuals were at the location that she saw
4 them the best?
5 A. Yes, she did.
6 Q. And what was that distance?
7 A. About 50 yards.
8 Q. So at the closest, it was 50 yards?
9 A. Correct.
10 Q. You were asked about -- there was a comment that
11 was put in there about a conflict or not a conflict. Did
12 you make a statement in there about what she said in terms
13 of conflict?
14 A. Yes, I did.
15 Q. Look at that specific quote that you have in there,
16 and if you can tell us exactly what was said so that it's
17 not interpreted.
18 A. They were walking the dog, and the gal was trying
19 to get the dog to be quiet, and the male -- she was pulling
20 on the leash, and the male said, "Shut the fucking dog up,"
21 quote, end quote. She watched them for approximately five
22 more minutes. Campos said she did not think that there was
23 any kind of a conflict going on between the three.
24 Q. So she told you when you interviewed her that she
25 did not think there was any conflict going on?
26 A. Correct.
27 Q. The location that she was describing, about how far
28 away from the Covena address is that?

1335
1 A. Without referring to a map, I would be guessing.
2 Q. Well, do you have an estimate of how far -- let me
3 back up for a second.
4 These individuals were walking towards her?
5 A. Correct.
6 Q. So they had covered at least a distance of a
7 hundred yards during the time that they were walking?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. Did she ever say which direction that they finally
10 went?
11 A. Yes, she did.
12 Q. What did she say?
13 A. Just a second, and I'll tell you.
14 Q. Detective, maybe to help you out, let me just ask
15 it a different way.
16 The direction that she described these individuals
17 walking, were they walking towards her the entire time?
18 A. No, they were -- she was walk -- they were walking
19 by and away.
20 Q. And when they were walking by and away, were they
21 walking towards the Covena address or away from the Covena
22 address?
23 A. Away from the Covena address.
24 Q. Now, with regards to this question about the theory
25 and the paint, were you assigned by the sergeant to go
26 examine the boat to see if there were any paint transfers?
27 A. Yes.
28 Q. So without regard to theory, let's just talk about

1337
1 November 14, 2003, at 11:00 a.m.
2 ---o0o---
3 THE COURT: Let the record show everyone's present.
4 You may cross-examine, Mr. Geragos.
5 MR. GERAGOS: Thank you.
6 Q. Mr. Harris asked you about the time that Ms. Campos
7 said. Didn't she, in fact, tell you that it was 9:45, not
8 10:45?
9 A. Are you referring to a specific location in my
10 report?
11 Q. No, I'm asking you -- I see on your report where
12 you say Tuesday, 12/24, at approximately 10:45. You didn't
13 type up this report, did you?
14 A. No, I didn't.
15 Q. Okay. You have -- there's a tape-recording of the
16 interview, isn't there?
17 A. Yes, there is.
18 Q. Okay. The tape-recording of the interview she says
19 9:45, not 10:45, doesn't she?
20 A. I'm not clear on that. Do you have that in front
21 of you?
22 Q. I do not. Have you listened to the tape-recording?
23 A. Not recently, no.
24 Q. Did you compare the tape-recording to the report
25 when you first got it?
26 A. No.
27 Q. Have you gone back and asked Ms. Campos what time
28 it was she was out on break?

1338
1 A. No.
2 Q. Okay. If she told you it was 9:45 and she saw
3 people walking at 9:45 for the five minutes, that would have
4 been the 9:50; is that correct?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. Okay. And if that Golden Retriever at that point
7 started to go home, it would probably get home about 10:18,
8 wouldn't it, from that location?
9 Let's start -- let me start with a different premise.
10 This park is the park that was searched the day of the
11 24th, is it not, or the evening of the 24th?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. Okay. This is where the focus of the search
14 efforts were; isn't that correct?
15 MR. HARRIS: Objection. Vague as the park or that
16 location?
17 MR. GERAGOS: The park.
18 THE COURT: Overruled. I assume he's talking about the
19 park that Ms. Campos is referring to.
20 MR. GERAGOS: Q. Yeah. You know what I'm talking
21 about, the park where Ms. Campos was looking into?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. Okay. That park was the focus of the initial
24 search efforts, isn't it?
25 A. Yes.
26 Q. Okay. On the evening of the 24th?
27 A. Yes.
28 Q. And that park is literally less than a half a mile

1339
1 away from the Covena residence, is it not?
2 A. No.
3 Q. Less than a quarter of a mile?
4 A. It's further.
5 Q. Have you paced it off?
6 A. Not specifically, no.
7 Q. Okay. And that is the park that all of Laci's
8 family members thought that she walked in; isn't that
9 correct?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Now, the dog would clearly make it back from
12 9:50 to 10:18 from that park to the house, would it not?
13 A. I don't know.
14 Q. You think it would take the dog longer than
15 28 minutes to get from the park to the house?
16 A. I'm not sure.
17 Q. Did you ever test that out?
18 A. No.
19 Q. Okay. Did you ever talk to any other witnesses who
20 had seen the dog running alone --
21 A. No.
22 Q. -- with -- on just the leash?
23 A. This specific dog?
24 Q. Yes, this specific dog or a Golden -- a dog
25 identified as a Golden Retriever.
26 A. Not this specific dog, no.
27 Q. Okay. When you say "not this specific dog," did
28 you talk to witnesses who told you they saw a Golden

1340
1 Retriever on a leash coming back from the park?
2 A. No.
3 Q. Okay. And the interview with Campos, who did you
4 tell -- after you did that interview and then the interview
5 with Souza, who did you tell that -- the contents of that
6 interview to?
7 A. I would have told it to my supervisor, Sergeant
8 Zahr, and also told it to the team.
9 Q. Who's on the team?
10 A. It would have been Detective Grogan, Detective
11 Brocchini, Detective Buehler, Detective Skultety, Detective
12 Hendee, Investigator Kevin Bertalotto, the DA's.
13 Q. You told the DA's back in December?
14 A. We would have -- I'm not -- I can't recall
15 specifically telling them that, but when you asked the team,
16 I was giving you the team.
17 Q. Okay. Do you have a specific memory of telling
18 Detectives Grogan and Brocchini about this information?
19 A. Yes.
20 MR. HARRIS: Objection. Vague as to what time.
21 MR. GERAGOS: Q. After it happened on the 27th, say,
22 within a day of the interview.
23 A. I probably would have told him.
24 Q. You don't have a memory, but you believe that based
25 upon what was happening, you probably would have?
26 A. Yes.
27 MR. GERAGOS: Thank you. I have no further questions.
28 MR. HARRIS: Just real briefly.

1341
1 REDIRECT EXAMINATION
2
3 MR. HARRIS: Q. Detective, so that we -- I think a lot
4 of people have a general knowledge about this park. And so
5 the record is clear, this park that we're talking about,
6 does it go by the name of Moose Park?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. Is it also referred to by other names?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. What other names does it go by?
11 A. Dry Creek Regional Park.
12 Q. And it has different names because it's a rather
13 large park, isn't it?
14 A. That's correct.
15 Q. The area that we were talking about that Ms. Campos
16 was describing, is that at one of the extreme ends of the
17 park?
18 A. Yes, it is.
19 Q. Which extreme end of the park is that?
20 A. West.
21 Q. And if you can give us an estimate, how big is this
22 park?
23 A. Excess of five miles long.
24 Q. And the Covena address, is it somewhere towards the
25 west, towards the middle, towards the east?
26 A. It would be more towards the central area.
27 MR. HARRIS: People have no other questions.
28

1342
1 FURTHER RECROSS-EXAMINATION
2
3 MR. GERAGOS: Q. The Covena address is less than a
4 half a mile from where she was; is that correct? Have you
5 paced it off? Do you know?
6 MR. HARRIS: Objection. Asked and answered.
7 THE COURT: Sustained.
8 MR. GERAGOS: Q. Do you have any idea what the
9 distance is?
10 A. I have an idea.
11 Q. Is it a guess?
12 A. Yes.
13 MR. GERAGOS: No further questions.
14 MR. HARRIS: No additional questions.
15 THE COURT: You may step down.
16 MR. HARRIS: I would ask that the photographs that he's
17 looked at be admitted into evidence. I would like to put a
18 notation as to two of the photographs that depict the
19 remains of Laci Peterson, the People are doing that with the
20 understanding that, pursuant to the Government Code, that
21 those two photographs are not public records and would not
22 become public records by becoming admitted into evidence.
23 MR. GERAGOS: I indicated to Mr. Harris that I do not
24 believe that that's going to withstand a challenge, and
25 I've -- I've litigated this issue before and lost, and that
26 my preference is, at least from our side of the table, that
27 they not be marked as evidence; that I will stipulate that
28 by reference only. But I certainly don't want those

1343
1 pictures out into the stream of commerce, if you will. The
2 pictures are disturbing and they should not be out.
3 THE COURT: Well, which ones are you moving into
4 evidence, Mr. Harris?
5 MR. HARRIS: It would be People's 129 -- let's see --
6 129 -- 126, 127, 128, 129, and the diagram, which is 133.
7 The two that we'd like to reserve that issue is 130 and 131.
8 MR. GERAGOS: And I would -- think it's -- that we're
9 better off objecting, at least from my standpoint objecting
10 to those two photos. I don't believe that --
11 THE COURT: We'll handle that separately. But how
12 about 132? You didn't mention that.
13 MR. HARRIS: I didn't see it in the stack.
14 THE COURT: It's a photo of some pants, I believe.
15 Photo of some pants.
16 MR. HARRIS: Yes. That was the Motherhood maternity
17 pants that.
18 MR. GERAGOS: I don't have an objection of that.
19 MR. HARRIS: Copy identified of the pants. So we would
20 be asking that one be admitted, too.
21 THE COURT: Okay. There being no objection then, 126,
22 127, 128, 129, 132 and 133 are in evidence. Is that
23 correct, Mr. Geragos?
24 MR. GERAGOS: Yes, Your Honor.
25 (Whereupon People's Exhibits 126 through
26 129, inclusive, and 132 and 133 were
27 received in evidence.)
28 THE COURT: Reserve on 130, 131.

1344
1 MR. HARRIS: All right. Thank you.
2 Your Honor, prior to the next witness, we have a
3 stipulation that I'd like to read into the record that the
4 parties have reached.
5 THE COURT: Go ahead.
6 MR. HARRIS: For the purposes of the preliminary
7 hearing and any motions based on the transcript, the parties
8 enter the following stipulation:
9 The parties stipulate that the body found on 4/13/03 by
10 Michael Looby has been identified as Conner Peterson, the
11 biological son of Laci Peterson and the defendant.
12 That the body found on April 14th of '03 by Elena
13 Gonzalez has been identified as Laci Peterson.
14 That evidence item 425-1 to 425-5, also known as K1,
15 which are head hairs taken from the defendant, and 425-6 to
16 425-7, also known as K2, which were pubic hairs taken from
17 the defendant, were collected and used properly for chain of
18 custody purposes.
19 Then evidence item 18A, also known as K3, which is the
20 bloodstained card of blood taken from the defendant, and
21 SR2, also known as K4, the cheek swab collected from Sharon
22 Rocha, that were used by Dr. Fisher in her mitochondrial DNA
23 testing were collected and used properly for chain of
24 custody purposes.
25 And that evidence item 26A and subparts, also known as
26 Q2, which were hairs from the blue/black hairbrush used by
27 the Department of Justice and the FBI, were collected and
28 used properly for chain of custody purposes and came from

1345
1 Laci Peterson -- excuse me -- and came from Laci Peterson's
2 hairbrush.
3 MR. GERAGOS: So stipulated for purposes of preliminary
4 hearing only with just the caveat that we have agreed that
5 no way -- in no way should this stipulation affect the chain
6 of custody issue of the hair on the pliers that had been
7 previously made.
8 THE COURT: So I assume that includes all the evidence
9 that was analyzed except for the hair on the pliers. Is
10 that correct?
11 MR. HARRIS: That's correct.
12 THE COURT: You join in that stipulation, Mr. Geragos?
13 MR. GERAGOS: Yes, Your Honor.
14 THE COURT: Next witness, Mr. Harris.
15 MR. HARRIS: People call Rod Oswalt.
16
17 RODNEY OSWALT,
18 called as a witness for and on behalf of the People, having
19 been duly and regularly sworn, testified as follows:
20 THE WITNESS: I do.
21 THE CLERK: Please have a seat. Put the microphone
22 around your neck.
23
24 DIRECT EXAMINATION
25
26 MR. HARRIS: Q. Sir, can you tell us what your full
27 name is and spell your last name for the record?
28 A. Full name is Rodney D. Oswalt. Spelling of the

1346
1 last name is O-S-W-A-L-T.
2 Q. What is your occupation?
3 A. Criminalist.
4 Q. Who are you employed by?
5 A. Department of Justice crime lab located in Ripon,
6 California.
7 Q. Could you give the Court briefly your background,
8 education, training and experience in the area of hair
9 comparison?
10 A. Formal education I have a bachelor's of science and
11 a master's of science.
12 In terms of hair comparisons, most of that training was
13 received post-graduate at the California Criminalistics
14 Institute, which is a training branch of the Department of
15 Justice, California Department of Justice.
16 Q. How long have you been employed with the Department
17 of Justice?
18 A. Total employment, going on ten years now.
19 Q. And during the time of your employment with the
20 Department of Justice, have you received training
21 specifically in the area of hair comparisons?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. And what type of training have you received?
24 A. There was a one-week class given by Jim Bailey, who
25 works in LA County I believe for the Sheriff's Office, or
26 maybe for the PD, who gave the class. He's been doing hair
27 comparisons for years. He gave the class. It was a 40-hour
28 class. Then following that, where you learn and you have a

1347
1 lot of hands-on instruction, hair comparisons. You go
2 through another three to 400 hours, give or take, of
3 instruction that is -- a lot of that is self --
4 self-directed back at the lab, and some of that I received
5 from the lab manager, John Yoshida that I work for.
6 Following that, you go through a competency phase where
7 you're given some unknowns and you're asked to do a variety
8 of evaluations and comparisons, and then the results are
9 given to you later. If you do a good job, then you're given
10 the okay to start doing actual case work; if not, you go
11 through remediation training, which I successfully passed
12 without having to go through remediation training.
13 Q. So after you passed this proficiency testing with
14 the Department of Justice, have you been in a sense a
15 certified hair comparison analyst for them?
16 A. Yes, for approximately five years. I'm the only
17 one who does it at the Ripon lab. I handle most all the
18 hair cases that come through that lab.
19 Q. In the time you've been with the Ripon lab doing
20 this, can you give the Court an estimate of the hair
21 comparisons you've made?
22 A. Cases or hair comparisons?
23 Q. I'm assuming that there's a difference.
24 A. Well, within each case, you may do multiple hair
25 comparisons. In terms of cases, I haven't -- I have -- at
26 one time I would keep track of how many I've done, 50, 60,
27 you know, cases, give or take, 10 or 20. Hair comparisons,
28 you could maybe multiply that by maybe three, four, five

1348
1 times. It just varies between each case as to how many
2 actual hair comparisons I've done, but in terms of cases, 50
3 plus or minus.
4 Q. With that background in mind, in this particular
5 case that we're referring to, did you receive some -- an
6 evidence item from the Modesto Police Department for you to
7 make some type of comparison or analysis of?
8 A. Yes, I did.
9 THE COURT: Before you go into that, defense wish to
10 voir dire on his qualifications?
11 MR. GERAGOS: I do in just -- if I could have just one
12 moment.
13
14 VOIR DIRE EXAMINATION
15
16 MR. GERAGOS: Q. Mr. Oswalt, are you the only person,
17 did you say, who does the hair comparison?
18 A. The only one who's actually doing hair comparison
19 case work at the Ripon lab.
20 Q. Okay. And in this case, your -- how many hair
21 comparisons -- you do it microscopically; is that correct?
22 A. Most of the time, yes. Not all the time.
23 Q. Okay. Do you perform any other kinds of hair
24 comparisons?
25 A. Well, you'll always do a visual examination, a
26 visual evaluation. But usually there's a component in that
27 which involves microscopic evaluation, too.
28 Q. Okay. And how many times would you say you've done

1349
1 that prior to the occasion that you're here to testify about
2 today?
3 A. Well, let's see, this case, I did in February, this
4 hair comparison. Prior to that, I probably did 40, 45.
5 Q. Okay. How many times have you testified in court
6 regarding expertise on hair comparisons?
7 A. Only about four times.
8 Q. And have you qualified as an expert on those four
9 occasions?
10 A. Yes, I have.
11 Q. And in this county?
12 A. Yes, I have.
13 MR. GERAGOS: All right. No further questions.
14 THE WITNESS: Well, not all four were in this county.
15 We cover a five-county area.
16 MR. GERAGOS: Okay. I have no further questions.
17 THE COURT: I'll allow him to testify as an expert in
18 the field of hair comparisons.
19
20 DIRECT EXAMINATION (RESUMED)
21
22 MR. HARRIS: Q. Mr. Oswalt, I want to specifically
23 direct your attention to an item of evidence that you
24 received from the Modesto Police Department that bore some
25 type of notation of 144A. Did you examine that particular
26 hair?
27 A. There were actually two hair fragments. Yes, I
28 did.

1350
1 MR. GERAGOS: There would be --
2 THE COURT: Wait a minute.
3 MR. GERAGOS: Subject -- I don't think I need to say
4 it. But all of this testimony is subject to our objection
5 on the chain of custody of the hair, obviously, and the
6 Court will determine that at a later time is my
7 understanding.
8 THE COURT: That's the only item at issue as far as
9 chain of custody is the hair --
10 MR. GERAGOS: Right.
11 THE COURT: -- on the pliers. Go ahead.
12 MR. HARRIS: Q. I'm sorry. Going back to what your
13 answer was?
14 A. I think the question you asked was did I evaluate
15 the hair from 144A. When I received the sample 144A and
16 opened it, there were two hair fragments that were in the
17 container, and I looked at both of those, yes.
18 Q. Now, you used a different term there, "hair" versus
19 "hair fragments." What does that mean from the scientific
20 point of view?
21 A. I use that term, "hair" versus "hair fragment," to
22 denote a hair having a root or hair not having a root. If
23 it has a root, I call it a hair. If it does not have a root
24 attached to it, I call it a hair fragment. That's my own
25 note-taking to help me keep clear as to what I'm actually
26 looking at.
27 MR. HARRIS: Okay. If I could have marked as People's
28 next in order three photographs and a blowup of a chart.

1351
1 THE COURT: Is that 134?
2 THE CLERK: Yes.
3 (People's Exhibits 134 through 137,
4 inclusive, were marked for
5 identification.)
6 THE CLERK: 134, 135, 136, and 137.
7 MR. HARRIS: Q. Mr. Oswalt, I'm going to start by
8 showing you these photographs that are marked 136, 137, and
9 138. If you will look at those for a second while I'm
10 taking down these other charts.
11 THE CLERK: It's 138.
12 THE WITNESS: I have 134, 135, and 136.
13 MR. HARRIS: Q. Obviously my math skills are lacking
14 today. 134, 135, and 136?
15 A. Yeah.
16 Q. Do you recognize those?
17 A. Yes, I do.
18 Q. And can you describe for the Court what those are?
19 THE WITNESS: Your Honor, have you seen these
20 photographs?
21 THE COURT: They're not in evidence yet, so I'm not
22 looking.
23 THE WITNESS: Oh, okay. 134 is a photograph that I
24 took when I first opened the evidence envelope that
25 contained the item 144A. This is the packaging that
26 originally I saw. This was the little cardboard box that
27 the hair fragments were in. That's 144A.
28 MR. HARRIS: Q. That particular photograph, did you

1352
1 take that photograph?
2 A. Yes, I did. It's a digital photograph.
3 Q. Does it have some type of notations on it that
4 allow you to recognize those particular items?
5 A. Yes. On the outside manila envelope, that is the
6 main packaging, it has our case number, it has my initials,
7 it has the date, and it also has the item number.
8 Q. All right. And the next photograph, which is
9 People's Number --
10 A. 135.
11 Q. You can just --
12 A. It's simply a little closer view of the same
13 picture, but focusing more in on the hairs in the little
14 cardboard box. The hair fragments. Excuse me.
15 Q. All right. And the next photograph?
16 A. Item 136, what I usually do when I look at hairs to
17 be able to evaluate them under one of the microscopes that
18 we use, which is a top downlooking microscope called a
19 stereomicroscope, is I will usually take the hairs out from
20 the containers; and instead of mounting them on a microscope
21 slide, which a lot of examiners will do, but which tends to
22 not be able to allow you to manipulate the hairs easily,
23 I'll take the hair fragments and put them inside a -- or
24 underneath a plastic sheet protector. Static electricity
25 helps to keep them there and you can look at them pretty
26 easily.
27 So what this photograph is is actually a picture of the
28 sheet protector showing the two hair fragments in the center

1353
1 of the photo.
2 Q. Now, as you go through the process of looking at
3 these two hair fragments that came out of that package, 144,
4 was that in a sealed condition when you received it?
5 A. Yes, and -- yes.
6 Q. So you open up the sealed package, take it out. Do
7 you document what you do as you go besides just taking the
8 photographs?
9 A. Right. The first -- that's correct, I do. The
10 first thing I'll do when we get the packaging or the
11 evidence from our own evidence storage area within the lab,
12 is on the first page of notes I'll put again my case, the
13 case number, my initials and the date. I'll put down at the
14 top what I'm doing, which is usually hair evaluation and the
15 method that we use. And then the first thing that I will
16 actually do is show that I've removed the evidence from
17 storage. Then I usually show what the analysis request is,
18 what is being asked of me to do. The third thing that I'll
19 do is then go through and actually document at least in part
20 what's the labeling and the type of packaging that is in
21 front of me.
22 Q. And as you conducted this examination, did you
23 notice anything about, on, or attached to these two
24 particular hair fragments?
25 A. When I started looking at them and in this photo
26 here, which is the one that -- with the sheet protector that
27 has the hair fragments within the sheet protector, there
28 were two pieces of material attached to the two hair

1354
1 fragments. There was one piece of -- looked like a
2 vegetable or a vegetative material attached to one of the
3 hair fragments; and then the other, the shorter hair
4 fragment, it looked like there was a translucent material at
5 least initially how I may have actually written in my notes,
6 translucent material attached to one of the hair fragments.
7 Q. As you go through the process of examination, do
8 you get down to the microscopic level with the microscope
9 you were mentioning?
10 A. After you -- after I document the evidence, take it
11 out and put it into a position that I can actually
12 manipulate the hairs, in this case, I'll put them in the
13 sheet protectors. The next thing that I'll do is I'll look
14 at them under a stereomicroscope, which is a low-power
15 microscope. It usually magnifies the items I'm looking at
16 somewhere between 10 and 63 times, at the top-downlooking
17 microscope with the light source actually above the sample.
18 Many people may refer to this as a microscope you look at
19 insects or something like that with. You're not
20 transmitting light up through the sample. You're just
21 looking at it from above.
22 With that type of microscope and with some just general
23 visual observations that we'll do an evaluation of the
24 hairs, what I can see from the hairs on the outside of the
25 hairs, a macroscopic or submicroscopic. In other words, I
26 look at the color, look at the length, the curl, shaft
27 diameter, cross-sectional area, what shape that is. Things
28 you can look at in just a simple magnified state at the

1355
1 outside of the hair. That's the first type of microscope.
2 The next type of microscope, which I may or may not
3 use, but which I did in this case, is a compound comparison
4 microscope. It is actually two microscopes put together
5 with a bridge so you actually have a split image you look at
6 through the ocular pieces -- excuse me -- through the ocular
7 pieces. So I have a split image. It's a higher-power
8 magnification. It goes from 100 to 630 power. You shine
9 light through the bottom and through the sample in this
10 case. When you use a microscope of that type, I do mount
11 the hairs in an immersion oil, which allows me to see
12 through the outer layer of the hair into the center of the
13 hair to look at the microscopic or internal characteristics
14 of the hair. I'll also use that microscope to do a
15 comparison to a known to an unknown, a questioned to a
16 known, or an unknown to a reference.
17 Q. Now in this particular case, it's been stipulated
18 that item 26A, which was a blue/black hairbrush, Laci
19 Peterson's hairbrush, did you receive that hairbrush for a
20 known or reference sample for comparison?
21 A. Semantics are important here. I never in my report
22 or in the notes said that those hairs were from Laci
23 Peterson. What I did say in doing the comparison is that
24 the hairs, the unknown hairs fell within the range of
25 variation is the term that I use, or were within the range
26 of variation for the sample hairs that came from the
27 blue/black -- blue/brack -- blue or brack -- blue or black
28 hairbrush. So --

1356
1 Q. Let me just stop you there. I think maybe my
2 statement threw you off.
3 We have a stipulation at this particular point in time
4 that that particular hairbrush is Laci Peterson's hairbrush.
5 A. Okay.
6 Q. So in terms of just for our discussion and asking
7 questions about that, did you compare the questioned hair or
8 the 144A hair that you've been describing to hairs from that
9 blue/black hairbrush?
10 A. I did. Both hair fragments --
11 Q. Okay.
12 A. -- from 144A.
13 Q. Okay. And after you made the comparisons of the
14 two hair fragments from 144A to the Laci Peterson hairbrush,
15 26A, did you document this and ultimately write some type of
16 report?
17 A. I did.
18 Q. And looking over to your right at the chart up
19 there that's marked as People's 137, does that chart
20 represent a blowup of one page of your notes from that
21 report?
22 A. It's one of the forms that I use. It's the
23 stereomicroscope form that I would use for the low-power
24 magnification evaluation that I mentioned earlier. There's
25 also another form that I use for the higher-power
26 magnification.
27 Q. Does that blowup, does that accurately represent
28 that one page from your report?

1357
1 A. There may be a little bit cut off on the right
2 side, a couple of letters. But for all intents and
3 purposes, that's accurate.
4 Q. The photographs, are those accurate depictions of
5 the items that you've photographed, shown in the
6 photographs, the hair fragments?
7 A. The ones I've already mentioned, yes, they are.
8 Q. Can you tell the Court, when you made the
9 comparison of the 144A hair fragments to the Laci Peterson
10 hair in 26A, what you found?
11 A. I found that both of the hair fragments had
12 characteristics of color, color variation, length, curl,
13 cross-sectional areas, shape, shaft diameter, and internal
14 microscopic characteristics, which are another set of
15 characteristics that I won't necessarily bore you with the
16 terms of. All of those characteristics, those constellation
17 of characteristics fell within the range of variation of the
18 characteristics found on the hairs that came from the
19 blue/black hairbrush. I got it out.
20 Q. Now, when you say within that range of variation,
21 with a microscopic examination of a questioned hair to a
22 known hair, are you able to scientifically say this is an
23 examine match?
24 A. I would -- I have not said that yet, and I don't
25 know if many hair examiners would be able to say that,
26 unless there's some very, very unique characteristics and a
27 compounding amount of those characteristics that would allow
28 somebody to make that conclusion. I wouldn't, and I didn't

1358
1 in this case.
2 Q. Is it fair to say that hairs -- it has -- let me
3 try this again. If it has these range matching, range of
4 variations within that, you can say it's not excluded?
5 A. You may need to repeat that question.
6 Q. Okay. If you compare hairs, one hair to another
7 hair, can you exclude hairs more easily than you can include
8 them?
9 A. That's probably the strongest statement that
10 somebody could make doing a hair evaluation is to exclude
11 somebody.
12 Q. All right.
13 A. The next strongest would be to say that this hair
14 could have been donated by an individual. That would be my
15 next strongest statement I could make.
16 Q. Now, in this particular case, in your comparison,
17 did you exclude this questioned hair, the 144A hair, from
18 the 26A hairs?
19 A. Both hair fragments in 144A I said could have been
20 donate -- what I remember -- what I said was the two hair
21 fragments of 144A and at least a portion of the hairs from
22 the blue and black hairbrush could have been donated by the
23 same person.
24 Q. We want to take you through this, how you get to
25 the process of that ultimate conclusion that you reach.
26 Looking at your chart, can you explain to the Court
27 what it is you're looking at and talking about as you go
28 through and analyze these hairs, hair fragments?

1359
1 A. Well, the characteristics for doing a stereoscopic
2 or the low-powered magnification evaluation are along the
3 left side of the form. The items that I'm looking at are
4 across the top, and it's essentially a matrix that you're
5 forming here with my notations and observations.
6 So you start with the source where they came from, at
7 least what you believe to be the source. You start with the
8 general color of the hair, the hair fragment. Then you go
9 down and you just look at the curl, whether it's no curl,
10 it's a straight hair, may have moderate curl or very curly
11 or peppercorn hair where it's tightly curled.
12 The diameter, you know, how thick the hair is. Color,
13 the length, you take -- I usually almost say approximate.
14 The hair when you're trying to measure the length you may
15 get within an eighth or a sixteenth of an inch so I usually
16 say approximately.
17 Color variation. Most hairs, if people just look
18 around the room here will notice that everybody's hair is a
19 little bit different, from the top, to the sides, to the
20 back of their hair; and in my case, you've got to really
21 look close, but it's there. So you're going to see color
22 variation from the root of the hair out to the end of the
23 hair. And the root of the hair I usually refer to as the
24 proximal end, closest to, and that will come up in some of
25 the notations I make. The distal end is the tip.
26 So if you go from the root to the tip, whether you
27 artificially treat your hair or you may have gray hair as
28 you age, or just sun, sun exposure, you're going to get some

1360
1 variation in the hair color.
2 So from proximal, medial and distal, that's the P, M
3 and D. That's what it stands for. Proximal, that's the
4 closest to the root. Medial, middle of the shaft. Distal,
5 towards the end.
6 Buckling. Buckling is where the hair shaft is actually
7 bent and twisted at the same time. Usually you see that in
8 pubic hair samples. It's not real common to see that in
9 head hair or other hair that may come from other parts of
10 the body.
11 Indicated body area. The reason we say "indicated" is
12 because when you get a suspected or -- excuse me -- an
13 evidence hair, an unknown hair, what the hair examiner will
14 look at are all the characteristics of that sample to try to
15 determine where it may have come from, if it's not a
16 referenced sample.
17 Cross-sectional area. Is it round? Is it oval? Is it
18 flat? Is it ribbon-like? And then you look at the ends of
19 the hairs or the hair fragments. Does it have a root? What
20 kind of a root is it? Is it a living root that was maybe
21 forcibly removed from the scalp? Was it a root that was in
22 a resting or senescence phase where it was getting ready to
23 fall out? Or did it have a root at all? Was it broken,
24 cut? You look at the other end of the hair, the tip end.
25 Was it tapered? Was it cut, mashed?
26 In this case the two ends were mashed on the hair
27 fragments or splayed. I may use the term "splayed," where
28 you take something that's round and you kind of squeeze it.

1361
1 It will flatten out.
2 You look at other types of damage. You may have insect
3 damage, lice may be on there chewing away at the hair. You
4 may have bacterial degradation from hairs that came from a
5 body.
6 And then you look for trace, which are other items
7 which may be on the hair. I already noted, you asked the
8 question, did I find something in this case? Yes. On both
9 hair fragments I found two items, two pieces of material
10 that were attached or accreted. I may have used the term
11 "accreted" on that hair fragment. One was a piece of plant
12 material and the other is still -- we're still trying to
13 figure out what that may be.
14 In item 144A, the two hair fragments, I -- they are the
15 two columns on the left side there, I went through and
16 looked at them individually.
17 Q. Okay. Let me stop you there for a second.
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. When you do this examination, did you assign of
20 these two hair fragments just somewhat a number or some type
21 of way to differentiate the two of them?
22 A. You know, I usually do that in hair cases and I
23 didn't do that in this case, other than at the top I called
24 the first one fragment 1, and I called the other one
25 fragment 2 of 2.
26 Q. And when you -- again, you just assigned this for
27 some type of tracking purpose or to be able to distinguish
28 the two?

1362
1 A. Yes, because later on those hairs may be used for
2 other analysis, so it can become important to do that. Some
3 hair examiners may not do that. I usually try to, unless
4 the number of unknown sample -- unknown items, hairs become
5 so messy it just becomes kind of foolish to do that. It
6 just depends on the situation.
7 Q. In this case you just had the two hair fragments?
8 A. That's correct.
9 Q. Did you measure them as part of your analysis?
10 A. Yes. Length is one of the characteristics you
11 usually always try to do.
12 Q. Now, starting with fragment 1, what was the
13 measurement that you came up with for fragment 1?
14 A. Fragment 1 is in the far left column. It was
15 approximately four and three-eighths inches long.
16 Q. Did you measure fragment 2?
17 A. I did. Its length was approximately one and
18 five-eighths inches long.
19 Q. So grand total that's about six inches combined?
20 A. If you add the two up, yes, that would be
21 approximately six inches.
22 Q. Now, you indicated that you also look at the ends,
23 and I want to go through this. Going down your chart there
24 for fragment number 1, did you make notations about how the
25 proximal end of that particular fragment looked?
26 A. Yes. For fragment 1, the end that's closest to the
27 root, it looks -- it had the appearances of being
28 stairstepped at the end of the hair, which to me indicates

1363
1 that it was either broken or torn, possibly cut, but it
2 would have to be a very dull blade that was used to make
3 that kind of a cut. Usually you see those kind of ends when
4 it's been torn or broken.
5 Q. Now, you were saying that proximal is closest to
6 the root. You've already told us that neither of these
7 fragments had roots. How can you tell which end is where
8 the root is supposed to be?
9 A. Two ways and it's relatively simple. You can look
10 at the taper of the hair shaft and determine that way, but a
11 better way is to look at the cuticle scales, they're called,
12 which is the outer covering of a hair shaft. The cuticle
13 scales look like petals on a flower, and the tips of those
14 scales always point towards the tip or the distal end. So
15 if you know which way, you know, the tips are pointing of
16 those scales, overlapping scales of human hair, then you
17 know which way proximal and which way distal is.
18 You can sometimes see that under the stereomicroscope
19 and most of the time, if not all the time, you can see that
20 under the compound comparison scope, which is a
21 higher-powered microscope.
22 Q. So in this particular case, the proximal end, the
23 one that would be closest to the head or where the root
24 would be at is what you've just described as that stairstep?
25 A. That's correct.
26 Q. What's the other end of the hair, the distal end?
27 A. The distal end on hair fragment 1 of 144A, I said
28 it appears mashed, splayed and frayed.

1364
1 Q. What does that mean?
2 A. It's as if you took something that's round and just
3 squeezed it under pressure and kind of splayed or mashed out
4 that end. It kind of goes from being round to be being like
5 this where the fingers or the hair shaft itself actually --
6 the tissue actually just gets forced apart.
7 Q. And for the record, while you were describing that,
8 you were using your hand to kind of demonstrate going from a
9 closed hand with the fingers out to opening the fingers?
10 A. Well, that's my hair shaft where the fingers are
11 really tightly closed together. Or if you take my handy
12 dandy little pencil you can take -- let's say the pencil
13 would be, let's say, the shaft of the hair and you take this
14 end or somewhere in the middle, for example, and this would
15 be the area that would get splayed or mashed in this case,
16 and that part just gets pushed out almost more two
17 dimensionally than it is three dimensional. It gets kind of
18 mashed and flattened. In the process, the tissue spreads.
19 Q. Going to fragment number 2, what was the proximal
20 end of that particular hair fragment?
21 A. It also appeared mashed, splayed, frayed, similar
22 in the general type of damage as the distal end of fragment
23 1.
24 Q. And what was the distal end or what was the
25 condition of the distal end of fragment 2?
26 A. It appeared to be a clean cut, more of a -- at a
27 90-degree, give or take, slightly rounded at the edges, but
28 appeared to be cleanly cut.

1365
1 Q. The examination that you performed on this
2 particular hair fragments from 144A, what date did that
3 occur?
4 A. It was in February of this year. The exact
5 dates -- the examination probably, if I remember correctly,
6 ran the course of several days. I'd have to look at the
7 notes. If you'd like me to do that, I could refer to my
8 notes.
9 Q. Just having you look to your right at the chart,
10 does that give you an approximate date?
11 A. Oh, yes. In the upper right-hand corner, it shows
12 February 21st of this year.
13 Q. Okay. And that would be when you did this
14 stereoscopic examination?
15 A. That's correct. That's when I began, it would be
16 the 21st of February.
17 Q. All right. The -- you were describing for us that
18 the distal end of fragment 1 and the proximal end of
19 fragment 2 seemed to have the same characteristics, and you
20 described for us earlier about applying force to this pencil
21 and causing a mash. If that particular hair had been in the
22 teeth of a pair of pliers, would it produce that type of
23 damage?
24 A. That's entirely possible. I've done just simple
25 experiments at the lab where I've taken a pair of pliers,
26 needle-nose, just regular pliers you'd use around the home
27 with different types of grooves in the jaws to see if I
28 could recreate that type of damage that I was looking at on

1366
1 hairs when I was going through training, and you could
2 reproduce that type of general mechanical -- I refer to it
3 as mechanical and physical damage. So that's entirely
4 possible for that to occur that way.
5 Q. If a hair is damaged by that mechanical process,
6 can it break or come apart?
7 A. Certainly.
8 Q. After you were done with all of your examination
9 here of these two hair fragments, did you do something with
10 the hairs?
11 A. Repackaged them. Once I was done with the
12 examination, both the stereo microscopic, visual, compound
13 comparison, I would put them -- I put them back into the
14 packaging that they came from, and put them back into lab
15 evidence storage.
16 Q. Do you seal them up or take any precautions like
17 that?
18 A. Yes. For the two hair fragments, I put them back
19 into the little white cardboard box that they originally
20 came in. I believe I taped the box itself, added my
21 initials and date to it as well as the case number. Put the
22 white box back into the manila envelope, tape sealed it,
23 added my initials and date to the tape seal; and then that
24 along with the other evidence, which would have been the
25 blue and black hairbrush and the other hairbrush I looked at
26 also, I did the similar process of repackaging and turned
27 the evidence back into lab storage.
28 Q. As you completed your report or in your report, did

1367
1 you make some type of notation about this hair and
2 mitochondrial DNA?
3 A. Yes. In the summary of the report I said
4 mitochondrial DNA could be performed to better characterize
5 this hair. And that actually had come as a result of
6 talking to some people on another hair case, actually, that
7 could have helped to better characterize or exclude who the
8 hairs may have come from, been donated by.
9 Q. Now, moving forward in time from February when this
10 examination was performed, were you contacted or were you in
11 contact with the FBI about submitting those particular hairs
12 to them for mitochondrial DNA test?
13 A. I never talked to anybody at the FBI myself. Our
14 lab supervisors, managers and some of the other criminalists
15 that I work with were; and I was asked to help assist in
16 getting the samples that they wanted ready for transport to
17 them.
18 Q. Were you asked to do something with those two hair
19 fragments, 144A?
20 A. Yes. They wanted them to be repackaged for proper
21 shipment to the FBI so they could perform mitochondrial DNA
22 analysis.
23 Q. Did you do that?
24 A. Yes, I did. In June of this year, about the middle
25 of June, I took the evidence out of storage, reopened the
26 lab -- reopened the packaging and took the two hair
27 fragments out of the cardboard box and put them into a --
28 what I called a glassine paper bindle, which is a folded

1368
1 piece of paper that looks like it has a very fine wax
2 coating to it. Folded it back up. That's normally how hair
3 samples are usually taken and preserved, not putting them
4 into plastic or anything, which could degrade the sample.
5 And then put that into a manila envelope, sealed that up,
6 and then put proper case numbers, initials and dates and had
7 that ready for submittal to the FBI.
8 Q. Let me back up for a second.
9 Back in June when you were doing this, and you go back
10 and retrieve what you had sealed, 144A fragments that were
11 in there, when you opened it up, was it still sealed?
12 A. Yes, it was.
13 MR. HARRIS: I'd like to have marked as next in order.
14 THE CLERK: 138.
15 (People's Exhibit 138 was marked for
16 identification.)
17 MR. HARRIS: Q. I'd like to show you what's been
18 marked as number 138. Ask if you'd look at that and tell us
19 if you recognize it.
20 A. It's a photo that I took. I recognize it.
21 Q. What is that photograph of?
22 A. It's a photograph of the glassine paper bindle
23 which is located in the left middle part of the photograph,
24 and to the right of it is the small manila envelope that the
25 glassine bindle was placed into after the photograph was
26 taken. The manila envelope was then sealed with tape and
27 initials put -- initials and date put on the tape seal. At
28 the base of it is just something that we use for scale when

1369
1 we usually take photographs of this type.
2 Q. Does it indicate some type of reason for this
3 photograph being taken?
4 A. On the scale there's some wording that I put on
5 there, says, "repackaging of item 144A, hair fragments."
6 Q. And when you finished with the photograph, you put
7 it in that envelope, you sealed it, and it ultimately went
8 off to the FBI?
9 A. It, I believe, went back into storage, our storage
10 for a short time, and then it was retrieved by another
11 criminalist in our laboratory, who used -- who took this
12 item along with some other items and sent those to the FBI.
13 Q. And the storage facility at the Department of
14 Justice, is that a secured storage facility?
15 A. Yes. Most all the areas in the building, at least
16 one or more doors will be card-locked and then most of us
17 that work in the lab don't even have access to the area on a
18 normal basis where the lab evidence is stored, and that's --
19 we have for evidence storage at our lab, we have a walk-in
20 refrigerator/freezer and then some other areas that don't
21 require freezing or cold storage of the evidence. This
22 evidence was in freezer storage.
23 Q. So the items, the two hair fragments depicted that
24 came from 144A, depicted in photographs 134, 135, and 136,
25 are those the same hair fragments that you packaged in that
26 bindle in the last photograph that was submitted to the FBI?
27 A. The hair fragments are, minus the material that I
28 took off of the hair fragments, and they were put into

1370
1 separate bindles.
2 Q. That's the plant material you were talking about?
3 A. Piece of plant material and then the other
4 translucent, smaller piece of material that came off the
5 shorter hair fragment, those two pieces, those two items
6 were actually removed and placed them into other smaller
7 bindles for later evaluation, if need be.
8 MR. HARRIS: People have no further questions.
9 MR. GERAGOS: May I inquire?
10 THE COURT: (Affirmative nod.)
11
12 CROSS-EXAMINATION
13
14 MR. GERAGOS: Q. Good morning.
15 A. Good morning.
16 Q. The examination that you did, did they send you the
17 two hair fragments that were marked as 144A separate and
18 apart from the item that was marked as 144?
19 A. I never saw 144.
20 Q. You know what 144 is, I take it?
21 A. Believe it to be a pair of pliers.
22 Q. Right.
23 A. Needle-nose pliers.
24 Q. And is it your understanding that that needle-nose
25 pliers is somehow connected or supposed to be connected to
26 the hair fragment?
27 A. The outside packaging of 144A said "hair from
28 pliers."

1371
1 Q. So that was a pretty good indication at that point?
2 Did you --
3 A. I would say so.
4 Q. Did you see a report that -- you know who Sarah
5 Yoshida is?
6 A. I work with Sarah.
7 Q. Okay. And Sarah did a report on 144. Are you
8 aware of that?
9 A. She may have done more than one report on 144, but
10 I am aware.
11 Q. Okay. Let me show you Bates number stamp 3742 and
12 3743.
13 I'm going to show you. Is this one of the reports
14 prepared by Sarah Yoshida about the pliers and I think
15 also -- pliers and wire cutters?
16 A. It has her signature.
17 Q. Okay.
18 A. I think I may have read this one time, so I don't
19 have great knowledge about what was done here.
20 Q. Okay. The -- was it your understanding when you
21 read this that the -- both the pliers and the wire cutters
22 were both examined by Sarah Yoshida?
23 A. I believe they were.
24 Q. Okay. And that it was her conclusion that the rust
25 was severe enough to affect manipulation of the tools so
26 that there was no recent use of either tools?
27 A. I don't recall what she actually concluded about
28 that or what she put in the report.

1372
1 Q. Let me see if this refreshes your recollection.
2 A. (Witness reading.)
3 Okay.
4 Q. Does that refresh your recollection?
5 A. Well, I read it. I didn't do the evaluation, but I
6 saw what she wrote.
7 Q. She wrote that there was no indication that the
8 wire cutters or pliers had been used recently; isn't that
9 correct?
10 A. That's what I just read.
11 Q. Okay. She also indicated that the rust on the
12 tools covered their cutting edges, and if they had been used
13 recently, the cutting edges would show a clearing in the
14 rust where the edges contacted the wire; isn't that correct?
15 A. That's correct.
16 Q. Okay. No clearings or destructions in the rust
17 were observed on either of the tools, and that's why she
18 concluded they had not been used recently because they were
19 severely rusted; isn't that correct?
20 A. That's correct.
21 Q. Okay. Now, when you received these two items -- I
22 think you've got a picture there of how the package was
23 labeled.
24 A. What I have here is one side of the manila envelope
25 that I took a picture of.
26 Q. Okay. And what is the label that's on there? How
27 does it read?
28 A. On the one side, which is the back side of the

1373
1 manila envelope where the clasp is at, it has some initials
2 and dates over some of the tape seal at the top, and then it
3 has what I placed on the manila envelope, which is our case
4 number, my initials, date and the item number.
5 Q. Okay. And then is there something that indicates
6 what's inside on either of those pictures?
7 A. On the other side of the manila envelope, which I
8 wrote in my notes, it said "hair from pliers."
9 Q. Okay. Right here. Is that -- looking at 138,
10 "hair from pliers"?
11 A. This is a different manila envelope. That's one
12 that I actually made up ready for submittal to the FBI.
13 Q. Okay. Did the two -- did you get any kind of a
14 report? Did anybody give you any reports prior to you doing
15 this examination?
16 A. We received with the evidence what's called a BFS1,
17 which is our chain of custody form, which has information
18 about the what, when, where, how, and who has handled the
19 evidence prior to our receiving it, and I -- and it also
20 itemizes what that evidence is, too.
21 Q. Okay. Do you have that with you?
22 A. No, I don't.
23 Q. Okay. Do you know if anywhere on that report it
24 was told to you or indicated to you that the fragments 1 and
25 2 were, in fact, at one time the same hair? Anybody tell
26 you that?
27 A. On a report, not to my knowledge, no.
28 Q. Anybody tell you prior to -- well, you did this

1374
1 examination sometime in January, and the date that's on
2 there is February 21st.
3 A. Uh-huh.
4 Q. Prior to February 21st, did anybody say, hey,
5 originally this was one hair and then we opened it up two
6 months later and it was two hairs? Anybody tell you that?
7 A. Not prior to my evaluation. That's correct.
8 Q. Okay.
9 A. Don't recall.
10 Q. When you did the evaluation -- and I've got a
11 smaller copy of your chart that's up there -- you compared
12 hair fragment 1, hair fragment 2; is that correct?
13 A. I compared -- I evaluated the characteristics of
14 the two hair fragments.
15 Q. Okay.
16 A. And I compared those two to the hairs that came
17 from two brushes.
18 Q. Okay. Well, you did compare one against two in
19 those columns because there's references between them,
20 aren't there, comparing them? The first --
21 A. That's just listing the characteristics of the
22 hair.
23 Q. Okay. Well, if we go through that, for instance,
24 under curl --
25 A. Uh-huh.
26 Q. -- for hair fragment 1, it says "mild to none"; is
27 that correct?
28 A. That's correct.

1375
1 Q. And for hair fragment 2, it says "mild"?
2 A. That's correct.
3 Q. Right?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. And then you've got hair fragment 1, where there's
6 in parenthesis a "P." What's that, the P?
7 A. The hair fragment 1. Where are you at now?
8 Q. Where it says "color variation" and a "P" in
9 parenthesis.
10 A. That's written on the form, part of the form
11 itself. That stands for proximal.
12 Q. Okay. The proximal portion, the part that's
13 closest to the head?
14 A. Closest to the root, closest to the head in this
15 case, yes.
16 Q. And you wrote for hair fragment 1 it was brown; is
17 that correct?
18 A. B-R-N stands for brown in my --
19 Q. Hair fragment 2, what did you put?
20 A. For hair fragment 2, for color variation, proximal?
21 Q. Yeah.
22 A. I said brown and then in parenthesis I said darker
23 than fragment 1.
24 Q. Okay. So it appeared to you that item 144A
25 fragment 2 was darker than the -- I guess the shorter piece
26 was darker than the longer piece; is that correct? Isn't
27 that what you wrote?
28 A. Yes.

1376
1 Q. Okay. Then you've got the next color variation
2 site is an "M." What does that stand for?
3 A. Medial. Medial or middle.
4 Q. How about middle?
5 A. Sounds good to me.
6 Q. Okay. Now, you also put that the hair fragment 2
7 was darker on the medium part of that hair fragment, than
8 number 1; isn't that correct?
9 A. Yes, that's correct.
10 Q. And you also put that the medium part of number
11 one, the longer piece was from brown to light brown; isn't
12 that correct?
13 A. You bet.
14 Q. Okay. Then you've got the "D." And what does that
15 stand for?
16 A. Distal.
17 Q. And that's the most distant from the head; is that
18 correct?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Okay. And you've got that as -- as you've noted
21 hair fragment 1 that it's light brown; isn't that correct?
22 A. That's correct.
23 Q. Once again for hair fragment 2, you show it as
24 being brown and darker than fragment 1; isn't that correct?
25 A. That's correct.
26 Q. Now, if fragment -- let me -- you would describe to
27 Mr. Harris, if there's a way to look at the hair, that you
28 can take a look at what you call these cuticles that look

1377
1 like petals on the surface; is that correct?
2 A. Cuticle scales.
3 Q. Cuticle scales. By looking at the cuticle scales,
4 you can tell which part of the hair is closer to the head
5 and which part is farther away; is that correct?
6 A. Also by taper, too.
7 Q. Okay. "Taper" meaning if it's wider at the bottom
8 and then it tapers towards the end?
9 A. Especially for head hair, you'll see a gradual
10 taper.
11 Q. Okay. In this case, you were examining both hairs
12 and you were able to determine --
13 A. Hair fragments.
14 Q. Hair fragments, right, because a hair has roots.
15 Hair fragments, you were looking at them and you could
16 tell which part was closest to the head, which part was
17 farthest away; right?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. And as you're going from the part that's closest to
20 the head on fragment 1, the hair got lighter, from darker to
21 lighter; is that correct?
22 A. That's correct.
23 Q. And on fragment 2, it stayed the same color. It
24 was brown all the way through and it was darker than
25 fragment 1 at all three stages; isn't that correct?
26 A. That's correct.
27 Q. There was no gradual getting of lighter, if you
28 would, if you laid these two hair fragments next to each

1378
1 other; is that correct?
2 A. With respect to the two hair fragments, that's
3 correct.
4 Q. With respect to the two hair fragments.
5 Now, you also noted various other kinds of drawings, if
6 you will, on that chart.
7 THE COURT: You're going to be a while, aren't you?
8 MR. GERAGOS: I'm going to be a while.
9 THE COURT: Let's take our lunch break here.
10 MR. GERAGOS: Okay.
11 THE COURT: Be back at 1:30.
12 (Noon recess at 12:03 p.m.)
13 ---o0o---

1379
1 AFTERNOON SESSION
2 Friday, November 14, 2003 1:30 p.m.
3 THE COURT: Record show everyone is present except for
4 Mr. McAllister.
5 You may proceed, Mr. Geragos.
6 MR. GERAGOS: Thank you.
7 Q. When we left before break, I was asking you about
8 some of the entries in your chart there, and I believe that
9 you indicated that at the PMD, I'll just use it as proximal,
10 medial and distal points, for fragment 1 and fragment 2,
11 that you were able to distinguish a color difference at all
12 three points between those two fragments, is that correct?
13 A. Correct.
14 Q. And the color difference that you noted for
15 fragment 1 was from the prox -- what do you call it?
16 A. You just said it. Proximal.
17 Q. Proximal. From the proximal end to the distal end,
18 it was from brown to light brown, as I guess kind of a
19 spectrum, was moving lighter in color as you went farther
20 away from the proximal?
21 A. As you progressed, it got lighter.
22 Q. As you progressed, it got lighter. And that's on
23 fragment 1. Fragment 2 stayed -- at all points was
24 considerably darker than -- or at least noticeably darker,
25 and you made a note of that at all three points, than
26 fragment 1; is that correct?
27 A. Yeah, I didn't say considerably, but I did say it
28 was darker.

1380
1 Q. Okay. It was noticeable, noticeably darker?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. Okay. Now, the -- you have some other entries
4 here. Let's see. The ends, when it says P and D -- and I
5 assume that's proximal and distal again?
6 A. Yes. That's correct.
7 Q. Okay. Now, the proximal end of fragment 1, you
8 said, is a jagged cut or torn, comma, broken; is that
9 correct?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Now, there's a drawing there, what looks like a
12 drawing. Is that your representation of what the end of the
13 hair looked like?
14 A. Gross representation.
15 Q. Okay. Then there's -- on the distal end, you've
16 got that appears mashed, splayed and frayed, and then
17 there's some lines there. Is that, again, your drawing of
18 how it looked?
19 A. It's my poor attempt at that, yes.
20 Q. Okay. Now, the -- looks like on fragment 2 the
21 proximal end has mashed, splayed or frayed; is that correct?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. And the distal end is cleanly cut, is that what you
24 have?
25 A. That's what I put down.
26 Q. Okay. Now, if I were -- use the opposite side of
27 this.
28 You had the two hair fragments. The first hair

1381
1 fragment, you said, is about four and three-eighths inches;
2 is that correct?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. And is it fair to say that the -- towards the
5 proximal end it would tape -- I mean, obviously, this is a
6 gross exaggeration, but that it would get wider towards the
7 proximal end?
8 A. In -- yeah, in a lot of cases it will. Sometimes
9 as the age -- as the hair ages a little bit, the shaft will
10 neck down or get -- get a little bit narrower closer to --
11 Q. Okay. In this case, did you see -- did it do that,
12 or was it more like this?
13 A. I didn't write that in my notes, so I -- I don't
14 know if it did that or not.
15 Q. Okay. Then you've got the jagged cut or torn or
16 broken, and you did basically, if I could do it on the side,
17 something like that (indicates)? Is that a fair
18 approximation of what you did?
19 A. (Nods head.)
20 Q. Then this end here --
21 A. You're a pretty good artist.
22 Q. Don't bet on it.
23 Then the distal end, you had -- let me ask you. Which
24 was the actual end, this side or this side (indicates)?
25 A. That would be the end there (indicates).
26 Q. The end's there. So it came -- is it fair to say
27 it came together like this and then out like that to some
28 degree (indicates)?

1382
1 A. No, the diameter of the hair would have remained --
2 Q. About the same?
3 A. -- about the same until it was splayed, until you
4 actually -- side of the tissues start to move apart.
5 Q. Go like that (indicates)?
6 A. Yeah.
7 Q. More like that?
8 A. More necking down or the narrowing that you have
9 there, I don't recall seeing that.
10 Q. Okay. So more like this, if you will (indicates)?
11 A. The splay, the tissue, as it spreads, was longer.
12 The length of that splay or damage was longer than what's
13 shown there.
14 Q. Like this (indicates)?
15 THE COURT: Might be simpler just to have him draw it.
16 MR. GERAGOS: I'll have you draw it. I was taking him
17 at his word about his drawing ability.
18 THE WITNESS: Is this going to reach?
19 Well, it's not to scale. And those things in there
20 aren't to scale either. But the splay -- when you look at
21 later photographs that I took when I was doing the
22 repackaging, would probably be a better example of what it
23 looked like. But the splay would have been something like
24 that, and came down, and then you would have had the shaft
25 continue on.
26 So in this area here, which, in relative terms, would
27 have been maybe, oh, several -- I don't know how many
28 millimeters. But this length of the splay or the mashing

1383
1 was not real short, it was fairly long --
2 MR. GERAGOS: Q. Long --
3 A. -- in terms of the amount of damage at the end of
4 the hair.
5 Q. Okay. Then if you were to draw the one -- and this
6 is the -- this is the one that you said was four and
7 three-eighths?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. Then there was a one and five-eighths?
10 A. One and three-eighths.
11 Q. One and three-eighths?
12 MR. HARRIS: For the record, I don't know if this is
13 ultimately going to be marked, but what's up there at this
14 point in time, the drawing to the left would be Counsel's,
15 and the one to the right would be the witness'.
16 THE COURT: So noted. Like to have it marked CC?
17 MR. GERAGOS: CC or --
18 THE COURT: Right.
19 MR. GERAGOS: Q. Okay. Then the one in five-eighths
20 length, did you draw the way that --
21 A. You're right, one and five-eighths.
22 Q. One and five-eighths?
23 A. This one here, it looks like the damage was even a
24 little bit longer, perhaps, than this one here, but just --
25 if I use the hair shaft going -- or show the hair shaft
26 going this way, it would have had some damage along in here
27 where you see some crushing or mashing, and it goes a little
28 bit longer, some more crushing and mashing, and you see it

1384
1 kind of taper out and do something like that at the end of
2 the hair (indicates).
3 Q. You just want to put an RO there for you?
4 A. Sure.
5 Q. Thank you.
6 Now, the -- you did those examine -- you came to that,
7 I guess, conclusion or that observation by looking at the
8 hair through magnification?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. Or a ser -- and you did it through a series of
11 different magnifications; isn't that correct?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. Okay. Then, once again, on the -- and, I'm sorry,
14 I covered it up. It was on the opposite side. There's a
15 spot on your form that says trace. Do you remember that?
16 A. Towards the bottom?
17 Q. Yeah.
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. Now, on the -- there's three different boxes there
20 under trace, and in the last -- the third box down, you have
21 for fragment 2 that the color was darker than fragment 1; is
22 that correct?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. Okay. Now, approximately -- I know we drew up on
25 the CC the lengths of these two hairs, obviously grossly
26 exaggerated from their actual size, but did you make some
27 kind of a measurement as to how long the damage was?
28 A. No.

1385
1 Q. And did you ever compare the two ends of the hair
2 to one another? Did you take hair fragment 1, for instance,
3 and take the mashed or splayed end and compare that with
4 hair fragment 2 and the -- called it, I think, a torn end on
5 that? I take that back. You called the one end of fragment
6 1, jagged cut or torn, broken; is that correct?
7 A. Proximal end.
8 Q. Right, in the proximal end. And then you said that
9 the proximal end of hair fragment 2 appeared mashed, splayed
10 or frayed.
11 Did you ever put those two together, compare them?
12 A. So take the proximal end of hair fragment 1 --
13 Q. Right.
14 A. -- and take the proximal end of hair fragment 2?
15 Q. Or take the pro -- I'll give you -- or take the
16 proximal end of hair fragment 2 and compare it to the distal
17 end of hair fragment 1.
18 A. I only noted what I saw. In terms of comparing,
19 did I try to overlay them? Did -- I don't know what you're
20 asking.
21 Q. Well, let me just give you a quote from the
22 District Attorney's motion, okay, on the chain of custody.
23 And I'm pointing to page 15 on the motion to exclude of
24 their motion, line 15.
25 It says, "The damaged ends appeared," quote, "mashed,
26 splayed and frayed and appeared to match each other, meaning
27 that the hair broke apart in the package."
28 Did you ever come to that conclusion?

1386
1 A. That's not something that I wrote in my report.
2 And I don't have that in my notes either.
3 Q. The hair fragment 2 also has some different --
4 you've identified it as thinking that it was head hair; is
5 that correct?
6 A. It indicated as such.
7 Q. Okay. Same with hair fragment 1?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. Okay. Now, you classified on the top category hair
10 fragment 1 as brown, slash, light brown; is that correct?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. And you classified -- and I assume this is overall
13 what you're doing?
14 A. General color of the hair fragment.
15 Q. So the general color of hair fragment 1 was brown,
16 slash, light brown, the general color of fragment 2 was just
17 brown; is that correct?
18 A. That's correct.
19 Q. Okay. Now, you then did some further comparisons
20 with -- I guess the next one over is, what, 26A and B?
21 A. The third column is 26A. The column to the far
22 right is 26B.
23 Q. Okay. Now, when you package these up and send it
24 to the FBI, did you package up both hairs -- fragments?
25 Excuse me.
26 A. Of what sample?
27 Q. Of either fragment 1 or fragment 2. Did you
28 package them together?

1387
1 A. Yes, I put them together. Of item 144A, is that
2 what you're asking?
3 Q. Of item one -- yes, of 144A.
4 A. Yes, I did.
5 Q. So they were repackaged up together to send to the
6 FBI?
7 A. That's correct.
8 Q. Okay. Do you know as you sit here today whether
9 the FBI tested hair fragment 1 or hair fragment 2?
10 A. In reading the report, I can't recall it, which one
11 they may have tested. I think they tested the longest one,
12 and they called it Q1.1, I believe.
13 Q. Okay. But you're not sure as you sit here today?
14 A. I'd have to reread the report, and I only read it
15 once, I believe.
16 Q. Okay. Now, did you also put that hair fragment 2
17 was cleanly cut at the distal end?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. Okay. And that the -- it appeared to be -- you
20 said that there was a little piece of plant material, is
21 that correct, that was taken off of hair fragment 1?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. And is it fair to say that when you tried to --
24 that you contacted somebody by the name of Dr. Frederick, is
25 it, Hrusa?
26 A. Yes. I've worked with him before.
27 Q. Okay. And he identified that as a leaf blade tip
28 of an unidentified species of grass?

1388
1 A. He later went on to say it was one of the -- within
2 one of the families that's referred to as annual bluegrass.
3 Q. Is that something you'd find at a golf course?
4 A. You could find it at a golf course, most yards of
5 everybody that lives in the Valley. It's pretty endemic,
6 it's -- you can find it a lot of places in the fall, winter
7 and spring.
8 Q. Okay. When you say "the Valley," the Central
9 Valley is what you're referring to?
10 A. The Central Valley of California.
11 Q. Okay. So when you say "endemic," it's basically
12 everywhere?
13 A. You can find it a lot of places.
14 Q. Okay. Then -- and he wasn't able -- he's -- the
15 senior plant --
16 A. Systematist.
17 Q. -- systematist and curator for the California
18 Department of Food and Agriculture?
19 A. Yeah. He's the one and only.
20 Q. Okay.
21 A. And I mean that. He's just -- there's one person
22 there that does what he does.
23 Q. Okay. The comparison that you did, there was
24 another sheet -- do you have your work sheet in front of
25 you?
26 A. I can get that pretty quickly.
27 Q. Okay.
28 A. Which sheet are you referring to?


				*PH Transcript* *9- OWEN CROSS/OSWALT*



	TRANSCRIPTS 1-MARGARITA /AMY \| 2-AMY/SHARON/LEE/EVERS \| 3-EVERS/CROSS \| 4-FBICAM/BROCHINI DIRECT/ \| 5-BROCHINI/CROSS/FBI-CAM/CROSS \| 6- BROCHINI CROSS \| 7- BROCHINI CONT'D \| 8- KRIGBAUM / OWEN \| 9- OWEN CROSS/OSWALT \| 10- OSWALT CROSS \| 17TH- DR. PETERSON/EXAMINER \| 17TH- AFTERNOON= HENDEE \| 18TH- JACOBSON / WRAP