Sunday, August 2, 2009

Stacey Barker Preliminary Hearing

Guest Entry by katfish!

On katfish ponders, katfish has the first person account of a local woman who attended Barker's preliminary hearing.

On July 21 the Preliminary hearing was held At the Antelope Valley Courthouse with Judge Carlos A. Chung presiding.This report is from the continuation of that hearing held today, July 27. Deputy District Attorney(DDA) S. Kelly Cromer represented the people and the defendant is represented by Deputy Public Defender(PD), Roberto F. Dager.

Thanks Tori for devoting your time to attend this hearing and sharing your report with us, you have done a great job! (katfish)

The Prelim was short, started at 9:30, Stacey Barker again came in looking gaunt,messy also emotionless.

The first person on the stand was Detective Nava, as usual a great witness. She was so good, she made me get choked up, that has been easy to do listening to this case.

The PD started out questioning Nava about how long SB was interviewed, she estimated about 2 to 2 1/2 hours. He then said didn't she stick to the same story the whole time, that it was a accident and not her fault.
Nava said the story changed a few times but yes she maintained that it was a accident. I would never hurt my daughter on purpose.

PD: Is it true that you thought she was lying?

Nava: Yes we knew she was lying.

PD: Did you throw out different scenario's of what might have happened?

Nava: Yes, I asked her if she might have drowned, shaken the baby, if she might have hit her too hard or something like that.

PD: And what was her answer?

Nava: Her answer was NO.

PD: Did you keep asking her to tell you what happened, the truth, that you were not buying her story of the events?

Nava: Yes.

PD: What did she say, did she stick to her original story?

Nava: No, she kept changing it.

PD: Didn't you tell her YOU wanted her to say she smothered EMMA?

Nava: NO, she said she didn't know what I wanted her to say and I told her I wanted the truth on how the baby died, because we already knew the truth. One story was she had the baggie in her mouth and when SB turned and looked Emma's head was to the side and she was dead, so she threw the blanket over her face and continued to drive. I wanted to know the truth. Having kids of my own I would have pulled to the side of the road and called for help... did something, so I knew this was a lie.

I said the coroner would know if Emma died from a baggie, if it was stuffed in her throat far enough to cause death, that the baggie would have left scratches in her throat and the coroner would know if she died from the baggie. That is when she changed the story to Emma had the baggie in her mouth and she was playing the game of peek a boo throwing the blanket in her face over the seat and it got caught on the seat and she smothered. After more questioning on that, she told the truth of holding her hand over Emma's mouth and nose with the blanket on her face during the peek a boo game.

PD: Isn't it true you told her the only way you were going to let her go home is to say she suffocated Emma?

Nava: No, we were not going to arrest her at that time anyway.

PD: Is that because you did not have enough evidence to hold her?

Nava: Started to say no but the DDA objected and Nava did not finish the answer.

PD: Did you tell SB that they found blanket fibers in Emma's lungs?

Nava: NO

PD: Isn't that standard practice to force someone into a confession?

Nava: NO

Continue reading at katfish ponders