Monday, May 20, 2013

Kelly Soo Park Day 6, Prosecution Testimony Continues

Kelly Soo Park at a pretrial court hearing.

UPDATE 6/1:  This entry was edited to place the postings in chronological order for easier reading. Sprocket.

UPDATE 5/23 Obtained correct spelling of last name of defense witness #1.
UPDATE 5/21 4:40 PM Special thank you to T&T reader Lynda, for pointing out spelling and editing errors. Much appreciated. 
UPDATE 5/21 12 Noon Afternoon entries are fully edited for accuracy, clarity and spelling.
UPDATE 5/21 10:30 AM Afternoon entries were edited for accuracy, clarity and spelling.
UPDATE 5/21/13 The transcript of the audio of the serving of the search warrant for Park's fingerprints has been uploaded to T&T's SCRIBD account.  You can find it HERE.

6:00 AM PT
At the close of court last Friday, Judge Kathleen Kennedy ordered the jurors back at 9:30 AM.  DNA Analyst, Annette McCall, with the Orange County Coroner's Office is still on the stand under direct examination.  Friday, Judge Kennedy mentioned that even with the day off tomorrow, there is the possibility the people will finish presenting their case-in-chief today.  I will have an update when I reach the 9th Floor of the Criminal Justice Center.

This article in Mail.Online has some factual errors regarding the prosecutions opening statement and factual evidence, but it does have a few photos of Park in the courtroom.

9:00 AM PT
I'm on the 9th floor hallway.  I just received a copy of the audio transcript of Santa Monica detectives serving the search warrant for Kelly Soo Park's fingerprints.  As soon as I get home tonight, I'll upload the complete document. Member's of Juliana's family are here as well as a few people from Parks support team.  I rode up on the elevator with DDA Beth Silverman, who is prosecuting Lonnie Franklin, Jr., aka the "Grim Sleeper."  There must have been a pretrial hearing in Dept. 109 on the case since I saw Franklin's two defense attorneys exit Dept 109 soon after I sat down on a hallway bench.

From 9:22 AM to 11:00 AM
9:22 AM
Patricia and Greg Redding enter their courtroom with a young man, who is probably Juliana’s brother.

Det. Thompson is already here along with Park’s defense team and DDA Okun-Wiese.  There are not as many member’s of Park’s family here today.  The front row is filled with  friends and members of Juliana’s family.  Brian Van Holt who testified on the first day of trial is here sitting with Juliana’s family. The bailiff is at his desk having a quick bite to eat.

I don’t see the many girlfriends of Juliana’s today.

More people enter the gallery and take a seat in the back row.  

Park enters and makes a point to greet many of her supporters who showed up today by touching them on the shoulder.  She’s wearing a light aqua shirt, un-tucked into her black pants.   Park’s husband Tom Chronister, arrives moments after her.  Chroniser usually is carrying a backpack with him as he is today.

Okun-Wiese steps in for a quick hearing in another case so Park leaves the defense table and joins her husband in the second row on the end.

9:33 AM
The bailiff informs Judge Kennedy that they are missing one juror so she leaves the bench.

9:35 AM
Park is fanning herself with some papers in her hand.  The courtroom is often cold but this morning it’s a bit stuffy.

Jane Robison from the DA’s Media Department arrives and sits in the back row.

9:36 AM
The bailiff informs the clerk, Lori that “We’re ready.”  The late juror must have arrived.

9:37 AM
Bailiff calls the court into session.  Judge Kennedy takes the bench and announces that all parties are present.  Park, her defense counsel and the prosecution team stand for the jury.

9:38 AM
Our witness, Annette McCall enters the courtroom and waits to be called.  She’s called.

Is there a term called transfer, in respect to DNA?
What is that?
Explains transfer and how it can happen. You touch an item, or someone comes along and touches an item you’ve touched, and transfers your DNA.

DNA diminishes after time.  There isn’t a particular time frame. The hotter it gets, it will degrade faster. Washing can diminish DNA.  Can’t say specifically how much has to be left, to be transferred. 

Studies have been done on transfer DNA.  There different studies that have different conclusions as to transfer. Some have good conclusions, and some have not.

People’s 53. She identifies the item as coming from the crime lab with her initials and date of when she opened the package.   She puts on gloves before she removes the item from the envelope.  Two items inside.  White tank top.  Another is a sealed envelope sealed by Ms. Burke.

When she received the tank top, she took two swabs and ran it along the length of the tank top.  From the front and back of tank top, received mixtures from two individuals.  Major contributor Juliana Redding could not be excluded. The other DNA profile was from a female.

Conclusion of the neck swabs, there was a minor DNA female profile. The neck swabs and the unknown female profile on the tank top were consistent with each other.

Did the DNA typing on the cell phone. Refers to her notes. Did the ProfilerPlus amplification and testing.   For this item, she didn’t handle the swabs, she just put the extraction through the system.  Her conclusion was there was a mixture from at least two females. Juliana Redding could not be excluded.  The major female profile, was consistent with the unknown profile from the neck and tank top.  She used ProFiler Plus CoFiler were the test kits she used.

The tank top, she used ProFiler Plus and IdentiFiler test kits later on. IdentiFiler is what they currently use in the lab now.

She also tested the DNA collected from the stove knob.   Peopl’es 49. This is a swab from the right stove knob.   Identifies how she recognizes the item.  Puts on new gloves again, and opens the package.  Two sticks inside the package.

When she receives packages, they’re sealed.  If not sealed, she would take a notion. Of any item she tested, all the seals were intact on the packages.  She tested the swabs using ProFiler Plus and CoFiler.  There was a mixture of two DNA profiles.  Juliana could not be excluded as the major contributor, and the minor contributor matched the other tested items.

At the time she tested the items, she did not have a known profile from someone to identify the minority profile.  She had excluded all the females that had been tested through this point. 

Later she received additional items later. She tested for blood on an item on a latent print card. And evidence from a vehicle.  Between 2008 to 2012 for all the items was when she tested them.

She came up with a DNA profile from the blood drop on the latent print card in March (?) 2009.  People’s 101. Envelope, contains a latent print card and identifies it.

I observed a possible apparent blood, I pulled it back and tested it for blood. That was positive then swabbed the card for blood and tested it.  She has experience with latent prints and would be able to tell if the tape on the fingerprint had been pulled back prior to her doing so for testing.

She amplified and tested the blood.

The latent print card amplified using ProFiler and CoFiler.  This was a single source profile.  Did not get any indication there was a second profile in this sample.

Did it appear to you it could have been transfer?  It was round and circular stain. A transfer stain, would be more of a swipe verses a round drop.

That profile, did not match any of the comparison DNA’s that she had previously.

The profile that I obtained with the blood stain, was consistent with the profile of the other items she tested.
Profile appeared to be the same?

She received a reference sample in July 2010 of Kelly Park.  Ms. Burke obtained it originally.   She scheduled this sample for amplification and typing.  IdentiFiler kit was used.

Came up with a profile.  I went and compared it to the previous samples she had obtained.  Compared it to the blood stain.  Conclusion after comparison? I determined that Kelly Park could not be excluded from the source. 
Did you determine the probability?

Came up with a frequency estimate, based on her findings.  Based on population frequency estimates.

Blood on the latent print card, what was the frequency?  The frequency of choosing at random, on latent print card. is more than 1 in one-trillion.  The lowest average of all the things we’re looking at. Not even one trillion people on earth. 
To get to a trillion, would have to add 3 more billion people on earth?

Compared profile of Park to cell phone. Park could not be excluded. Frequency is more rare than one in one-trillion. 

Compared profile to the right stove knob. Results of that testing. Park could not be excluded as the minor contributor. Frequency is more rare than one in 20 thousand.

Compared to the tank top. Park could not be excluded as the minor contributor from the back and front of the tank top.  Frequency is more rare than one 200 (million) individuals.

Neck swab. Kelly Park could not be excluded as a minor contributor from the neck swab. Frequency more rare than 1 in 300 million.

Interior front door handle swab. Received this evidence and tested. 
Received this item at a later date?
Pulls out the evidence and identifies it. 

Compared swabs from door handle to Park.  Kelly Park could not be excluded. Frequency rarer than one in one-trillion.  Profile of minor contributor could not be determined. There was too little DNA to develop a profile.

Prepared a chart of all evidence she tested. Large chart. Summary of findings. She did not create this specific table that’s up on the screen.  She did check the graph to make sure it’s accurate. 

Explains the chart and the columns.  Item #; Description, DNA # it’s assigned when cut out item to take out the DNA evidence. Unique number assigned to an item.  The rest of the columns are the LOCI. Everyone have these LOCI on their DNA.    Explains the columns and what the numbers mean.

Explains that she makes her determination if there is a mixture, she looks at the data, not this chart.

She also tested other items, Somewhere between 40-50 items of evidence.  Tested approximately 40 individuals.  Blood drop or saliva from mouth is a direct sample.  Secondary samples are from items.

Other items she tested, she only found Juliana Redding. There were items she tested where a full profile could not be obtained. 

Are fingerprints unique to an individual? 
Yes. Twins would not have the same fingerprints.
Was that a typical latent print card?
It appeared not to be disturbed (when she received it for testing).

Cross by Kassabian.

Questions about DNA testing in more detail as to how it’s performed.

First put the item in a small tube with a reagent to break open the cells. Explains what a reagent. 
Asks what a nucleus is.
DNA is released from the nucleus and put in a smaller volume of liquid.  They concentrate it down to 10 micro liters. less than a drop.

That’s the process that you call DNA extraction, right?
Next step is Quantitation
They take about a micro liter of that drop.

That is put in with reagents, that look for a particular location on the DNA to determine how much of the DNA we have.

Amplification, is the molecular copying process.

They use commercial kits to target the location on the DNA?
On the specific loci, of the DNA molecule?
You used specific kits (names them)?

Does he amplification do anything else with these molecules?
It just copies them.
Does it have a dye it puts on the molecules?

Explains that process of putting the dye on the molecules.
Scientists call their machines, instruments.

Detailed questions as to what the instruments do, and the reports that are generated.

Electropheragram, (sp?) it’s a graph with a peak onto it. It comes with a couple numbers. One identifies the allele, and the strength of the allele, or the “height” of the peak.

You can end up with no result, a single person result, or a result with more than one person. 

If you see 3 or more peaks at one or more loci, they know they have a mixture.

Different people can have the same genetic markers at some spots, but unless they are identical twins, they won’t have the same markers at all the loci.

Park watches her counsel as he crosses the witness.

Uses the example of a phone number that many numbers could be made from the phone number.

If the peak is taller, it means it has more of that allele, than that of the smaller peak.

She can’t say for certain that someone is a contributor. She can say they are a possible contributor.

Now asks about transfer. Cells on the surface of the skin, do not contain a nucleus.

Might find the DNA of someone who touched an object, or might not find any of someone who touched an object.

With sneezing, drinking from a glass or sweating, they leave a huge amount of DNA behind.

If you use towel in bathroom, can leave DNA behind.
You could, we don’t know how much.
Someone could come along, and get that person’s cells on their hands.
That’s possible, yes.
Or they could use that towel, to wipe an object, and the DNA could get on that object.

There’s different types of transfer. Primary transfer, secondary transfer, and tertiary transfer.

It’s possible. It’s also depends on how much DNA is on my own hands as we..

Can you tell the method of deposit, of the cells.
I can not tell how that DNA got there.
I can’t tell if it came from primary or secondary. Possibly tercherary, but would not make a determination.

Can you tell how long cells from DNA have been on an object.
Cannot tell.
You would not be comfortable rendering an opinion?
I would not.

I’m betting the jury is bored out of their minds.  This type of testimony is fascinating to me, but for most people, it’s boring and complicated.

They have a threshold when they analyze their DNA. It’s 100 RU’s. It represents the strength of the DNA.  Sometimes they see peaks, that are between 50 and 100. They could be real alleles, but they cannot be confident in reporting.

They could be, bu they can’t be confident of the DNA.

Swabs from Redding’s neck. Ms. Park can’t be excluded as the minor, correct?
Asks about the test on the neck, and if she found alleles, on the neck, that tested over 100, that are not matched to Ms. Redding or Ms. Park.

I try to see if any jurors are taking notes, and I can’t see that from where I’m sitting.

Sees on D3 allele, a number 17.
Ms. Redding is not a 17 at D3.
Ms. Park, is she a 17 at D3?
She’s not a 17.

So, would it be fair to say, that, there is an allele 17, a type that was above threshold in your testing, at D3.  And there were some, below threshold peaks (on the neck swab sample)?
Looks at her report.

(The DNA analyst who testified in Lazarus explained that when you just have one or two alleles that show up on a test, and alleles that are below the threshold, and nothing else, that’s static. Static doesn’t make up a full person.)

Are there alleles, below threshold, that do not come from Ms. Redding or Ms. Park? 
17 D3
D13 two low Allele 12
D 7 allele 10, too low.  Above 50 RU’s.

Now later test. August, 2010.
Any alleles, still below 50 that could not come from Ms. Park or Ms. Redding?
17/18 below 100 but above 50.

DNA from at least one other that was in the sample.
If those allele,s are in fact, DNA.

Now asking about the right front stove knob DNA results.
People in the gallery yawn. 

Tom Chronister takes notes while the witness testifies.

ProfilerPlus, WBA and FGA has two alleles that are two low.

17 allele at WBA
20 allele at FGA
At D3, a 17, it was too low, it was a poor shape of a peak.
That 17 could not have come from Ms. Park or Ms. Redding.
17, 20, and 17 at D3, could not have come from Juliana Redding or Ms. Park.
If those are true alleles.

Did not know the source of the DNA on the stove know, just knew that it was DNA.

Concentration similar to Ms. Park on the stove knob, was (weak).

Are you aware that fireman touched the stove knob when he entered the crime scene.

There is no male DNA on the stove knob.

Lets look at the tank top.
When tested sample with ProFiler plus kit, did you detect any alleles that were above the 100 threshold that could not come from Ms. Park or Ms. Redding.  My notes say it’s at B11.

McCall: So we are talking about the exterior, front tank top, only. ProfilerPlus only?

Jurors are sitting back in their chairs.  Some rock.

Yes. There are three locations that are below threshold, but above 50.

Three alleles at three loci that did not come from Redding or Park.

More questions about results from another test that indicated random alleles that did not belong to Redding or Park.

10:59 AM 
Judge Kennedy takes the morning break.

From 11:15 AM to 12 Noon
11:15 AM
Back on the record. Ready for the jurors.

There are three redheads on the jury

#21 Annette McCall is still on the stand.

Cross continues by Kassabian.

Swab on the front tank top.
Tested first with ProFiler Plus kit.
Same front tank top, did you find any alleles that were below threshold, but above 50?  Exterior front tank top.

McCall asks, Just ProFiler?
In either.
I don’t see anything below threshold in IdentiFiler, that doesn’t account for Park or Redding. In the other testing, she has 16/17 at one loci, and that’s below threshold. In ProPlus at one loci, has a 12 allele, that isn’t either Park or Redding
Another allele, that is not Park or Redding, but above 50.

Swab of back of tank top. Find any above 100 units, that were above threshold, that did not come from Ms. Redding or Ms. Park?
One allele in ProfilerPlus that was not Park or Redding.
That was allele 12 at Loci D13?
In that same sample, (in any testing kit) did you detect any alleles that were below threshold, but above 50, that could not have come from Ms. Redding or Ms. Park?

I try to stretch my back out, but I’m unsuccessful.

D8 had a below threshold allele. 15, above 50
D21 had one as well. below threshold, but above 50.

Had three alleles that did not come from Ms. Park.
That’s correct, if the below threshold are true alleles.

Now asking about the cell phone.
Couldn’t exclude Ms. Redding or Ms. Park.
That’s correct.
Can you tell us whee on the cell phone it was collected?
I can not say that. (She didn’t swab the items.)
(Milligram and a half of DNA.)

We’re talking about, somewhere between 200 or 250 cells.

200-250 cells is enough to test, correct?
Did the crime lab run an reference sample of  Ms. Brooks?
Ms. Brooks did not match the samples from Ms. Redding’s neck, etc.,

Frequency estimates questions. 

She looks at all the alleles of all the known (contributors).

Loci (? name of locus), can’t do a statistic at that loci, for Ms. Redding?
Didn’t run Ms. Redding’s type at that loci?
That’s not necessarily true.

There’s a value for a major female, there, but Ms. Redding’s value was not entered there, no.

Cross ends.

Redirect begins.

This process is used every day.
During the testing process, when you’re identifying, if something goes wrong, are you alerted of that?
There are controls in the system, that alert them.

In your, statistics, you state, that, the frequency of choosing this defendant, with this profile,  but your words are, this profile is more rare than one in one-trillion.

So, when we’re talking about the cell phone, where there is a mixture, the possibility of choosing someone at random, is one in one-trillion people?
The frequency is more rare, than one in one0-trillion for more than one contributor.  She didn’t find, that profile, on just one item, correct?

That profile was present on several items.  Consistent with profile on cell phone, the front and back of tank top, the neck, the front stove knob, and interior of front door.

Didn’t find the profile at one location, you found it on six, correct?
Is that unusual, to find that much DNA in one location?
Objection! Vague!

You testified, that under the right circumstances, DNA can last forever, and that if kept in a freezer, DNA can last until a later date?

Now, about DNA kept in a controlled environment?
JK: Do you know what that means, a controlled environment?

What about a tank top, that is being worn, is that a type of environment that would keep DNA for a long period of time.
It just depends on if it’s kept in a cool dry area, then it could be on there for a while.
What about a door, that is used by several individuals>
It depends on where the door is, and how many people would have access to it.
And you would say that a neck, is not an area of the body where DNA would keep or last for a long period of time.

Explains the threshold for determining DNA.
Threshold under 100, it’s possible it could be an allele, but it could also be something else as well.

Questions about threshold alleles, over 100, could those be the result of transfer.
That’s possible as well.

Question about firefighter possibly wearing gloves touching the stove handle if he would leave DNA behind.
If there is no DNA on the exterior of the glove, no.

Questions about the random allele that met the threshold on the neck, that did not belong to Redding or Park.

Okun-Wiese puts up a graph on the overhead that shows how the strength of the alleles show up.

Going over loci VWA, and the extra allele there is a 16/17. The 16 is below threshold, and the 17 is above threshold.

Sometimes, the peak is not sharp, they cannot be confident that it’s an allele. 

Explains the different between ProFiler Plus and IdentiFiler. Plus tests 9 loci; IdentiFiler test 15 loci.

Questions about the frequency calculations of a particular profile, and other threshold standards that are used to include an allele grouping.

Is it uncommon to have another person’s allele on you at a low threshold?
It’s not uncommon to find low level DNA.

She tested several reference samples and secondary reference samples.
When she compared those to the items of evidence of this case.  Was it uncommon to find an allele at a specific marker? 

Graph up on screen.

At bottom, it says, Rutledge and Brooks.  Ms. Rutletge 17. Ms. Brooks 16 At that location.

Goes back over the big chart, Report of Evidence Examination and DNA Typing and how the chart is read.

Redirect ends Recross begins.

Just to clarify something in redirect, that, if possible a reference sample matches an evidence sample in one allele at one loci, you can’t determine anything?
That’s correct. ... I would have to see more of that DNA throughout the profile.

Is loci D3 on that chart?
It is but it’s not labeled correctly.
You still have 102 in front of you? That exhibit fails to list D3 data on it?
That’s correct.

Nothing further from direct or cross. Witness excused.


2006-2010 Real estate agent.
Do you know the defendant?
Through business deals, yes.
Was there a person you were working with?
Dr. Munir Uwaydah.

Worked with Dr. since 2004
Worked with Park since 2006.

Worked with her on behalf of Dr. Uwaydah.

Direct ends. Cross.

Work with Dr. Uwaydah was... (I miss question).

Cross ends redirect begins.
Did you ever speak with Ms. Park on phone?
Receive documents from Ms Park?
Did you receive emails from the defendant?

I was working as his real estate agent.  She was working as his mortgage broker.

Witness is excused. Court breaks for the lunch recess at 12 Noon.

1:25 PM
Up on the 9th floor, waiting for court to open. Defense attorney George Buehler is pacing back and forth.  There are two groups standing around in the hallway. One consists of Park's family and supporters. The other is Juliana's friends and family.  People keep arriving. I see another pretty girl arrive and hug one of Juliana's supporters.

1:30 PM to 3:00 PM
1:32 PM
The jurors are called into the courtroom. The courtroom is almost full this afternoon.  The first two seating rows are packed with family and friends of the victim and defendant.  There are some people from the general public in the gallery.

23. Gerald Lukiewski

2009-2010  Manager, Ventura County Business Bank.
(T&T readers can learn more about this witness from THIS pre-trial prosecution motion. This motion to introduce 1101b witness as evidence of similar crimes by Park was denied by Judge Kennedy. Sprocket.)

I was introduced to her from a business man, Martian Chung (sp?)

He was directly introducing you to defendant Kelly Park, or someone else?
He introduced me to a number of people, including Kelly Park.
Was there a Mr. Uwaydah?
Yes there was.

Approximately May 2009 through 2010. Met with the defendant 25 times or more.
Was she with Uwaydah? (Not every time.)

Met with them together about 10 times.

Was aware the defendant had been arrested. Did no speak to her again after her arrest.

I don't believe there was any cross of this witness.

People recall Jennifer Zychowski

11. Jennifer Zychowski

She remains under oath.

Showing her People’s 101.  This is an evidence envelope, relating to the fingerprint card.  Puts on gloves. The fingerprint was recovered on March 17th, 2005. She did write on the back of it. She wrote on the back J1/LT 25291012

She describes a diagram on the back of the card. It's a circle on the back of that card, and within that circle another circle and an X.

That would be a sketch of the item that the print was lifted from. And where the lift was taken from, from that item.

Big circle, little circle within, and an “X” with a circle around it.

Introduces into evidence, a fingerprint card of Park, front and back.  Page 3 is an image of the right palm. Page 4 is the left palm.

Writing on the bottom of the 10 print card in red.  The witness sees her initials as well as others whom she identified. Initials placed there after comparison.

Okun-Wiese asks if there is a particular order where people place their initials.
It’s personal preference where they initial.

There were 10 unidentified prints at the scene.  Compared those prints to Juliana Redding.

We received her prints from the coroner’s office.  The quality of the prints were poor quality. We received right thumb print from DMV. 

Was able to compare those unidentified 10 prints, to the DMV. Four of those were Juliana’s right thumb print.

Quality of the prints was poor.  Was not able to determine that the remaining prints to Juliana.  Unable to do that due to the quality of her skin when her prints were rolled.

Would like to mark a 10 print card- from the coroner’s office.  People’s 106.  That was the coroner’s card.  Witness explains the poor quality.

In this case, the rolled inked impressions were lacking in a lot of detail. And that’s due to the deterioration of the skin, and due to the fact that they were taken after death.

Another exhibit, People 107.  Right thumb print, printout from DMV of Juliana Redding.  Used this print to compare with the latent prints.  It was a good quality print.

While at the scene, did you locate any keys belonging to Juliana Redding?
I did.
Photo up on the scene.

Keys are located in bottom left corner, next to the door.
Did not locate a Louis Vitton key chain in her search of the residence.

When you found what you thought was a blood drop on the fingerprint card,  in addition to Detective Thompson, did you notify anyone else?

When you were there at the scene, was at any time Karen Thompson (there)?
No she was not.


People’s 104, you testified about a diagram on a fingerprint card.  Did you find that fingerprint?
I did not.
Did you have personal knowledge of where it was found?
No I do not.

Also testified regarding a photo of keys. Do you know who’s keys those are?
No I do not.

No more cross. Witness excused.

24. Mark Miner

Police Lt. for City of Beverly Hills. In 2008, assigned to Beverly Hills high tech crime unit.
Police Officer for 27 years. Tech crimes examination.  Outlines his training, to download information from cell phones.  Testified as an expert in digital forensics about four times.

Re, Juliana's Blackberry, the witness was asked to pull as much information out of the phone as possible. So they could review phone logs and Internet history.  Identifies cell phone he examined for Santa Monica PD. Santa Monica Detective John Henry asked him to examine it.

Was able to download and review information for a later date.  At the time, used a program called Blackberry backup manager, which represents the contents on the phone.  Also used a program called ABC Blackberry to view the data.

People’s 67, 12 page document. 

That would be a print out from an ABC Blackberry report.  This is a portion of the information that he downloaded.

The phone number is identified. The user enters that information.  Date & time is the particular local time on that blackberry. 

Goes over the other information on the report.  Flips to the last page.  There is a call placed to 911.  The call was user initiated. The report indicates the call lasted:

0 hours
0 minutes
0 seconds

911 was dialed, but never connected.  That would indicate, that there was no connection to the cell phone provider. 

Another document.  That’s the same thing. Same program used to create a print out of call history in the cell phone.

Highlighted area.

Numbers. See the 911 call.
Other calls after the #17 on the report, which was the 911 call.

That time on the call is 9:52 PM. He verified that was the correct time.

The 911, shows up on the phone itself.

A friend of Juliana’s in the front row becomes emotional.  A few other friends of the victim become emotional as well.

When a call is dialed, but not sent, and the call doesn’t go through, will that show up on cell tower records?
It will only be in the phone’s history.

Direct ends and George Buehler gets up to cross.

Put up another exhibit, with the 911 call.

Judge Kennedy admonishes someone in the gallery who’s phone or computer is making noise.  She states she can’t have that.  I look up, startled. I'm worried she thinks it's me, and my computer.

All it suggests, is that it was attempted, it didn’t connect. Sometimes, when we make a call, it doesn’t connect. 

In order for this to appear, 911 had to have been called, or it could have been a speed dial call. I don’t know if speed dial was set up for this number.

One of the things, is the speed dial could have been hit accidentally?

If the call connected to the closest tower, then it would have connected.  If a call doesn’t go through, it’s possible that the phone can’t reach a tower.

It should only be, less than a few seconds to connect (to a tower).

Nothing further, subject to recall.

DDA asks for a sidebar.

Okun-Wiese is opening a sealed package with defense and Judge Kennedy there.

Kelly Duncan, who testified for the prosecution, is back in court for the afternoon session, along with another girlfriend who was here last week. Kelly is wearing a pretty, turquoise print dress.  She leans her head on the shoulder of her friend.  There are several new young faces, most likely friends of Juliana siting with Duncan and the other friend who was here last week.

People in the gallery fidget.  The court reporter asks Mr. Buehler to speak up at the sidebar with the Judge.  Tom Chronister is watching the counsel intently.  DDA Okun-Wiese goes back to her desk to retrieve some papers.  Judge Kennedy has her arms crossed in front of her chest.  Buehler looks over the papers, and I can here some conversation, but not make it out.   Park looks down at the defense table.  Park quickly glances back at the gallery, then has her head down, as if she’s looking at something on the table in front of her.  Now she looks straight ahead.

People call detective Thompson. Her hair is pulled back in a french braid.

25. Karen Thompson

Police officer in Santa Monica, assigned to the detective bureau.  15 years as a police officer.  Assigned to detective bureau 9 years. She became the lead investigator in the case July 1, 2009. She was not the initial lead investigator. Back in Sept. 2008, the lead investigator was working on a large investigation, and she was part of the skeleton crew, back at the office for this case. She knew there was some DNA and she started looking at the case. When she started looking at the case, a suspect was not known, just knew there was a female suspect. Started collecting DNA from people that knew Juliana, to compare those profiles against the DNA collected at the scene.

Thompson explains the DNA samples she collected. She collected reference samples and secondary samples.

Reference sample is if I came to you and asked you to provide a sample.
Secondary sample, is if the water bottle you had sitting on the table, if you abandoned it, I would pick it up and test it.

Some people didn’t want to give a sample, so obtained secondary sample.  Obtained a lot of secondary samples from wine glass, cigarettes, straws, towels. She even swabbed a cell phone.

About how many?
Obtained 42 samples. She personally obtained about 17-18 of those samples.

Did any match the profile found at the scene?
There was only one woman who could not be excluded.
All the other 41 were excluded.

Did you get a sample of the defendant’s sister?
Was she excluded?
Yes she was.

Details how she became aware of the defendant.  Became aware of Uwaydah, and that the victim had a relationship with him.  So started looking at women associated with him.

Saw that Uwaydah was stopped while driving and the Calif ID card, had given officers, had a "contact Kelly" with a phone number on the back of the card.

So started looking into Kelly Park, linked to the phone number on the ID Card, and also found Park through public records search.

Other women, that she related to Uwaydah, she obtained reference samples from.  All but one, Natalie Vasquez. Spoke to her on the phone and eliminated her as having any contact with Juliana.

Did original investigators send evidence to be tested by Orange County Crime lab, and she continued with that?

She took some samples to Crime Lab.  Items would be sent in batches, they would have to be calculated as to how many hours, then it would go all the way up to Sana Monica City Hall for approval.

Obtained a cigarette butt from the defendant. Sent to lab on December 2nd, 2009.  Got a report from lab?
Yes mam, I did.

That was the report that the defendant could not be excluded as contributing the DNA.

I needed to develop a strong case.  Started to do more investigation. Search warrant for DMV records for thumb print. Also applied for a wire tap.  Wrote a 100 page document to get a wire tap.  Wrote the search warrant to get her fingerprints.

Ultimately obtained her fingerprints after (Detective) Bambrick met with her.  Applied for a wire.

Yes, to attempt to gain information about the crime. That was two years after the crime.

Also acquired bank records, to see how much she was paid by Frontline Medical.  That was a nineteen-office medical association, operated by Dr. Uwaydah.

People’s 109.  Document.  Its a document from the year 2008. Next page of document. That’s the same document (2nd page) from 2009. Frontline Medical, and it lists the officers, for Dr. Uwaydah.

Requested the defendant's personal bank account, from Bank of America ending in 180. Also account ending 2149, Sherwood Financial Investments.  Revealed this business was associated with her (Park).  There were documents recovered from the defendant’s home in a search warrant about Sherwood Financial and she was to be contacted.

Bank Records.
Asked for a specific time record?
First of January 2008, until end of December, 2010.

First document, two pages, for Bank Account Sherwood Financial Investments.  Lists bank account.

The first page of the bank statement for Sherwood Financial.

Page 2, highlighted portion wire transfer, Oct. 9th for $420,000.00. This amount transferred into the defendant’s account from Frontline Medical.

Another Bank of America Bank Statement for Sherwood Financial. June 11th through July 11th, 2008. 

Highlighted a deposit into the account.  Also coming from Frontline Medical.
On June 11, Amount $10,000.00.

Page 3, an actual check. $7,000.00 check from Frontline Medical to the defendant.  Check was part of documents received by subpoena. Another check for$ 20,000.00.

There were additional wire transfers from Frontline Medical to defendant’s bank account.

18 page document. Account #, for Kelly Park.
Bank statement for Kelly Park.

June 11th to July 11th 2008.  Defendant’s personal account.  Money from Frontline Medical to this account, wire transfers.

For this account alone, the Kelly Park account, the personal account, she looked at Jan 1 2008, through end of Dec. 2010. 

The transactions occurred different than that.

June 17th, 2008 and Oct 15th 2009.

What was the total amount of transfers, including the checks:

Total amount in another account transferred?

The total of both (all transfers, checks)...

June 11th 2008 to December 10th, 2009 (a period covering) 1.5 years.


Listened to the wire tap on June 14th, 2010, and stopped listening on the 18th or 19th of June.

Arrested on June 17th, 2010.

Calls made after her arrest.

Called Dr. Uwaydah. Defendant called her fiance at the time Ronnie Case, and her (?mother).

Over the extent of 3.5 days, they (Park & Uwaydah) exchanged 16 telephone calls.

Did you interview Edan Rutledge (sp?)?
No, I don’t think I ever interviewed Edan Rutledge.  I think the first time I spoke to her was in this courtroom.

Do you know if Ms. Rutledge worked at Primitivo? (Yes.)

Interviewed another friend of Juliana, a coworker.

Booking photo of the defendant entered into evidence.

CROSS by Buehler.

Good afternoon detective.

The subpoena the bank records you described, and identified various transfers of funds.  On one hand, Sherwood Financial, and also her personal bank account.

Did you do any investigation as to the reason of the transfers?
No I did not.
So you don’t know what the purpose for any of these transfers were for?
No I do not.

(Did you know that Mr. Uwaydah was involved in various real estate ventures?)
The real estate I saw, was not in his name.  Again, I did not see him as owner of the properties. 

Doesn’t know what the money represented. Don’t know to what extent the money that she kept, or what was paid out by her.  Don’t know what extent, (the funds paid to Park) represent reimbursement for expenses, that Park may have incurred working on behalf of the doctor?
That is correct sir.

Did you look at the bank account to see if she sent the $400,00 she received, (went) to Ventura (county?) Real Estate Venture? 

Did not see it going out to any specific location, I did see that there was a check written out to Kelly Park, for $300,000.  Check dated 12/2/08  entered into evidence.

No further questions.

The people move to introduce their items into evidence at this time.  Judge Kennedy and counsel are at sidebar.

2:45 PM
Judge Kennedy is going to give the jurors a half hour break, since she has to go over several legal issues.

The jury leaves.  Judge Kennedy goes over the marking of evidence with the people and defense.  Offering the remaining exhibits into evidence. 

George Buehler doesn’t think there is any problem, but would like to go over them for a moment before he accepts the people's evidence.

Now, regarding defense evidence.  Records are in issue in this case.  An expert who would testify about the cell phone of Juliana Redding was turned off, for that account.  Expert will say it was turned off at 10:50 PM.  Then it was turned on again, later.

Buehler argues. The people are objecting, that the (documents) are hearsay. They were not subpoenaed in court. Don’t believe they meet the (rules). (?)  The records were turned over to us. Obtained via search warrant via AT&T.  Detective (?) and defense have assumed, that when they were turned over, that they were genuine records of AT&T.  Came as a surprise to us today, that they will object to the testimony, because they don’t have a witness subpoenaed from AT&T to testify to the records.

Judge Kennedy tells the defense that she can’t force the people to stipulate to something that they don’t want to stipulate to.  Buheler responds, that the prosecution doesn’t want to stipulate because they don't want to have to deal with the testimony that’s going in.

JK: I can’t force someone to stipulate to what they don’t want to do, then you’re going to have to subpoena someone and have them here on Wednesday.

Now, next thing.

Two witnesses, one would be Sarah Murphy, who lived with Ms. Redding in Marina del Rey, at the time that John Gilmore tried to get into the apartment, via the balcony and left. That happened in 2007.

Then, 2 weeks before the murder, at the Centinela Apt., he shows up in a rage, breaks the outside gate, and only leaves after someone called 911.

The relevance is, the 911 call, in that it coincides pretty closely with the neighbor (who heard Juliana screaming). This evidence provides an alternative explanation as to what may be going on.

Text messages between John Gilmore and Juliana Redding, that a fight was going on. That Juliana Redding, that she would be in a frame of mind at that time, that he was going to be coming over.

That, the noises she heard, that could have been Ms. Reddings fear, that John Gilmore could be coming over.

Judge Kennedy responds, "That’s a lot of speculation that’s going on, just to assume that she called 911 because of an incident that occurred 2 weeks earlier."

Judge Kennedy continues. There’s no evidence, that John Gilmore, was anywhere around her apartment when the event occurred. You’re trying to bring in 3rd Party evidence (like before). You’ve still failed to make a connection, between John Gilmore and the event. Judge Kennedy will not allow a witness to testify for the defense, about John Gilmore's activities unless they can show a connection between John Gilmore, and the night that Juliana died.

The defense has three witness that will be brief.  Jury will be back at 3:15 PM. 

3:15 PM to 3:45 PM
3:15 PM
The gallery fills up.  We wait for the jurors.

A beautiful young black woman, her hair perfectly braided into two french braids that come around each side of her head and down her back enters and sits with the young friends of Juliana.  She’s wearing a beautiful white crepe, crinkled fabric, sleeveless top.  Every single one of Juliana’s friends that I’ve seen in court are beautiful women in their own right.

3:20 PM
The gallery gets a little restless.  Judge Kennedy takes the bench.  Jurors file in.  Prosecution witness #3, actor Brian Van Holt, enters behind them.

3:23 PM 
On the record.

The people rest, subject to admission of their exhibits.

Defense calls WendyTavera.

1. Wendy Tavara (Correct last name spelling obtained 5/23. Sprocket)

Witness lived at 1521 Centinela. She lived near Juliana Redding. Witness lived in the next building over.  Lived in a one story bungalow apartment,   Juliana was closer to the street. Her unit was deeper into the complex, next to the alley, next door to Juliana.

She was 1521 Centinela; Juliana was 1527 Centinela. Different complexes.

On March 15th, she remembers that Juliana Redding passed away. She remembers it vaguely. On that Saturday, she had a conversation with Juliana. Vaguely. She asked Juliana to come over. Juliana had something to do later.  Juliana then asked if she wanted some bowls or mugs (plates?). 

Doesn’t remember how the request started.

Doesn’t remember being interviewed by police. Buehler asks to show her the report of her interview.

As I look down towards the other end of the courtroom, Kelly's husband, Tom Chronister, is leaning forward, his right elbow resting on his upper leg, his right hand on his face.

Witness asked Juliana to come over, because it was her mom’s birthday. Juliana asked her if she wanted some dishes. She did not get the plates.  She was planning to get those plates.

Did she call you again?
No.  It sounds like the witness is about ready to cry.

Direct ends and Cross. 
An image of Juliana's apartment complex is up on the screen. This is the image from Google Maps that was introduced earlier.  Has her show on the screen where she lived and where Juliana lived.
The dishes that Juliana were going to give her were purple.

Juliana would walk her dog, and Juliana would end up at her house. Juliana and her would walk their dogs together.  Juliana’s dog was typically kept inside the house.  Juliana's dog would occasionally get out of the house, then out of the fenced property and get to her house.

Testimony is finished.

The pretty black woman I mentioned earlier takes the stand.

2. Cher Brooks

Did you know Juliana Redding?
I do. She was a coworker.
She was a hostess at the restaurant?
Yes. ... We became friends from there.
Did you go to her house and apartment from time to time?
Yes, I did.
The day before she passed away. Do you remember that day?
I do.
Were you at her house the night of March 14th?

She spent the night in Juliana’s bed.  Both slept together in Juliana's bed. She was there, Saturday, the morning of March 15th.  Doesn’t remember how long she was there.  Up to a little before, 11 AM, she guesses.

That morning, was there moving of furniture?
I moved her furniture around in her bedroom.

JK: This was the bedroom furniture (you moved)?
CB: I did.

Do you remember more specifically, what arrangements you did for her?
I don’t remember the design fully, what way. Moving the bed, over there.
Did you eat breakfast at the apartment?
I don’t think so.
Do you remember anything about the condition of the kitchen?
The kitchen, I don’t know.
Did you have anything to drink?
(I don’t remember?)
Did you give her any physical massage or anything like that?
Did you (touch her in any way?)
I don’t think so.

She was out with Juliana and some friends, one of them being Brian Van Holt. Juliana took her back to Juliana’s apartment. They slept in the same bed on that night.

Do you recall what she was wearing that night?
I have no idea.
The bed in Juliana’s room, what size was that?
I don’t know. It definitely wasn’t a twin.
Do you remember what you were wearing?
I do not.

In terms of the furniture, she was giving away furniture?
She offered me a lamp. Which I was going to take but I did not.

Witness is excused.

3. Sarah Murphy

I’ve seen Murphy sitting in the courtroom with Juliana's family during much of the trial.

Were you a friend of Juliana Redding?
Did you live with her for a time in Marina del Rey?

How long?
A year or two. Yes.
Did you know her prior?
We moved from Palos Verdes, to Marina del Rey.

What was Ms. Redding like, in letting strangers in her apartment?

Do you know, from living with her, what was her attitude or practice of letting strangers into her house?
Generally she did not do that.
Would she be careful, letting strangers into her house?
(I believe she answered something to the effect of, she was pretty careful about that.)
Would she keep the door locked?
Was there a time where Ms. Redding was living in a house in Beverly Hills?

The witness doesn’t know about that.


When she lived in Marina del Rey did she have a dog?
When she lived on Centinela, did she have a dog?

Witness excused.  Sidebar with counsel.

3:44 PM
Judge Kennedy instructs the jury that they will not be here on Tuesday.  Judge Kennedy wishes Juror #6 that her husband's surgery goes well.

Judge Kennedy tells the jurors the status of the case. It's very possible that the rest of testimony will happen on Wednesday, and that we may get onto closing arguments Wednesday afternoon, or Thursday morning.  It’s very possible that the jury will get the case by Thursday afternoon or Friday morning.  The jury is ordered back at 10:30 AM.

Judge Kennedy wants counsel here on Wednesday at 9:00 AM to discuss jury instructions.

And that's it.

After the gallery thins out, I get the correct amount of the dollars that were transferred from Frontline Medical to Parks accounts. $1,043,927.26

As I was passing Park to exit the courtroom, I heard her ask the ABC reporter in the room where Lisa Tomaselli was.  The reporter told Park that Lisa was in Arizona for the Arias trial.  Park replied in a soft, demur voice, “Tell her I miss her.”   Park’s voice is very high pitched, childlike.

Monday, May 20th, 2013
5:40 PM 
In court today, the prosecution has rested it's case and the defense has presented three witnesses. Testimony will continue on Wednesday.  We could have closing arguments as early as Wednesday afternoon.

5:50 PM 
A special shout out to my friend who took the time to come to court and sit with me today, hang out and buy me lunch.  Thank you so much!


Anonymous said...

Can't wait for you to get home Sprocket. For some reason I have a feeling this transcript will be very telling. Thanks again!!!

Anonymous said...

Great coverage, thanks so much! Question, if they have cell phone records placing park near the scene, why hasn't it been introduced in testimony? Also, is r. Case going to be called to testify?

Anonymous said...

Hi Sprockett. I have been trying to be patient in regards totheaudio transcript. Any luck uploading it. Maybe I missed the link but I dont see it. Anyway maybe it is not as interesting as I thought it might be. What say you?

Anonymous said...

Maybe mypost isnt going thru. Any luck with audio transcipt yet? What is your take on it interesting?

Sprocket said...

Anon @ 7:32 PM
The prosecution has rested it's case. Ronnie Case will not be testifying for the prosecution. There is always the possibility the prosecution will put on a rebuttal case, after the defense case. It remains to be seen who the defense will call in their case-in-chief.

Case could possibly be called by the defense, but that's not likely, IN MY OPINION. Case was originally arrested with Park, but never charged.

If Case took the stand, that opens him up to cross examination by the prosecution on his whereabouts the night of the murder.

The prosecution could grill him endlessly. That testimony could eventually be used against him. It would be a way for the prosecution to implicate him. IN MY OPINION, Case taking the stand is not a "win" for Case.

Phone records.
The phone records might place Park or Case within a mile of a cell tower, but Park's DNA and fingerprint clearly place her at the scene. The phone records of Park or Case exchanging calls the night of the murder, IN MY OPINION, are not as relevant in light of the fingerprint and DNA evidence already presented.

The audio transcript.
I will try to upload the transcript today and place a link to it in Day 6 as well as Day 4, when the audio was introduced at trial.

Please understand that I do have responsibilities at home and to Mr. Sprocket's business that must come first before my trial reporting coverage.

Anonymous said...

Totally understand Sprocket and was trying to be patient. I have been watching you since i too became hooked on courtroom drama with the Phil Spector trial. You have and continue to do a wonderful job on your own and have come so far in your blogging. I have the utmost respect for you and the personal sacrifice you have made to cover these cases and help us junkies out here get our fix. I do also understand these are real lives and have respect for all the victims who you help to tell their side of the story and to never forget. Praises for all your efforts!! Sorry for being pushy but I am from Camarillo and can't get over the murderers we seem to have here in town that you have covered. Small nice area but dirty secrets lie behind closed doors more than I care to think about. Again Thank you and take care of yourself as well as the Mr. and I will look forward to your coverage when you are able to get to it.

Sprocket said...

The transcript of the audio recording of the search warrent for Park's fingerprints can be found at this link:

Transcript of Audio Recording


Anonymous said...

Wow Sprocket, I am shocked by the time frame the judge is eluding to on this case finishing up so quickly. I realize the defense does not have a whole lot to work with and they are clearly not finished yet but with only one more day of testimony for the defense I just can't reason why they wouldn't be trying something,anything else. Since you are there what is your take on defense position? I understand they had a lot of so called evidence they couldn't get in so do you think they are laying down and then planning on using those rulings in an appeal? I can't imagine they aren't at least trying to attack the integrity/collection of the DNA evidence somehow. You are seeing them first hand, does it look like they are trying that approach or any approach at all? Curious as to your take on the defense in general.

Sprocket said...

First off, I don't personally know what the defense strategy is for this case, so I don't think I can answer that question.

The defense did cross examine the criminalists who collected evidence, as well as DNA analysts who ran the tests to produce the DNA results.

I can not say at this point, if they are doing all they can for their client or not. The defense has not yet presented their entire case.

We don't know how involved Park is in directing her defense, or if she is just relying on counsel's advice. That's an unknown.

We don't know who the defense will call to the stand tomorrow, and we don't know what the defense will argue in closing arguments. Closings are a very important part of the trial.

It's an unknown what Park will do in the way of appeals. That's too far in the future at this point, imho. The case would require a guilty verdict of some kind for the defendant to file an appeal.

We don't know if Park will have the funds to even file an appeal, or what the appeal will be based on.

So sorry this response isn't more helpful. I think it's just too soon to tell how he defense is doing when they haven't finished presenting their case.