Wednesday, May 22, 2013

Kelly Soo Park: Day 7, Defense Testimony Continues

 Kelly Soo Park, at opening statements.

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

6:45 AM PT
On Monday, Judge Kennedy ordered jurors back at 10:30 AM this morning.  Counsel was ordered back at 9:00 AM to go over and decide on jury instructions. Judge Kennedy has the final say on the specific language used in jury instructions.

I don't know if Judge Kennedy will use CALJIC (older instructions) or CALCRIM (newer instructions). This web page gives an extensive primer on the difference between the two.

If you were confused by the DNA evidence, leave a comment with your question or send me an email at: sprocket.trials AT, if you would like to write me privately.  Those of you who write me requesting confidentiality, I will honor that request. If I get enough questions, I will write an easy to understand primer on what the DNA analysts testimony of, "one in one-trillion" means, and why they can't say, "It's an exact match."

8:00 AM
I'm up on the 9th floor quite early.  Mr. Sprocket needed the car to drive down to Santa Fe Springs, the only place in So. California where he can get a specific type of steam valve.  I got dropped off in front of the courthouse, but I'll probably have to take the train home.

There is a camera man from NBC Dateline here to film everything outside of testimony today.  When I ask him if he is here for Dept. 109, he asks if I'm a juror.  I explain who I am.  He tells me about one experience he had where a defense attorney saw him say hello to a juror in the hallway. The judge was told and the media was yelled at by the judge.  I explain that Judge Kennedy will demand that cell phones be completely off.  Luz from Dateline arrives and greets the cameraman. Luz and the cameraman discuss set-up procedures for the equipment. 

8:13 AM
Another cameraman arrives with a rolling cart of equipment and greets Luz and the other cameraman. 

8:18 AM
Judge Kennedy's clerk lets the camera crew inside Dept. 109.  She tells me that I can come in early, too.  The camera crew will take up all the space in the gallery beside the jury box. I grab the seat against the back wall beside the last row bench. Right beside it is an outlet plug.  

8:31 AM
Defense attorney George Buehler arrives.  A few minutes later Mark Kassabian arrives.

8:33 AM
When I was clearing security on the ground floor, across the lobby I saw Detective Thompson entering through the employees security line.  She had her hair hanging down, and not pulled back into a braid or ponytail.  She has light brown hair with faint strawberry blonde highlights. I don't really know why, but I'm drawn to Detective Thompson. There's just something about her that I like.  Maybe it's because she looks like a detective, and not what you typically see on fictionalized crime dramas. You know what I mean: ridiculous high heels, too tight clothing, too young, too beautiful, too perky. Don't misunderstand, Detective Thompson is no slouch. She's fit, and has a pleasant face, with what look like freckles or red tones. 

8:43 AM
This seat in the gallery does not give me as good a view of the defendant or the overhead screen, as the other side of the courtroom where I was sitting for most of testimony.  However, with this seat I can see the jury a little better.  The prosecution's clerk arrives.

8:46 AM
My friend, author Matthew McGough has to be in the downtown area today and said he might drop by to listen in on some of the defense testimony this morning

8:52 AM
Judge Kennedy comes out, and is chatting with her staff about the announcement in the paper that the DA's office deciding to retry some of the City of Bell counsel members.  I can't tell if it's a long tunic or a dress that's she's wearing, but he top is absolutely beautiful. DDA Stacy Okun-Wiese arrives.  She's wearing a nice traditional black suit that has a nice flair at the hips, and a black and white silk looking blouse.

Park and Chronister arrive and greet a few supporters who arrived earlier, sitting to my left. Kelly sits down on the bench to my left to chat with her friends.

8:56 AM
Kelly is wearing the palest of lavender tailored shirts with a faint white pinstripe line.  We will probably be getting started in a few minutes.  The family of Juliana has not entered the courtroom yet.

8:58 AM
I take a peek out in the hallway. I see Detective Thompson speaking with members of Juliana's family. Her hair is now nicely tied up in a french braid.  She's wearing a brown suit with a black scoop neck top.

9:00 AM
Luz comes over to Park and shows her photos on her laptop of a beautiful young couple in a traditional Indian type wedding.  Luz tells me the woman in the photos is one of her colleagues that she says I did meet, but unfortunately I'm not remembering.

9:04 AMTom Chronister is now sitting to my left.  Did not receive anything from the defense as to special jury instructions request.  Prosecution submitted suggested instructions.

No objections by the people that the court submitted.  The defense has a concern regard jury instruction about defendant oral statements.

JK: Since there were statements from his client that were entered into evidence, I don’t think I have any choice.

Defense says something that I miss getting.

JK: This is such a generic instruction.
Judge Kennedy reads it outloud.
JK: So, I don’t have a choice.

Buehler argues again.

JK: I have a duty to give that instruction.  You inviting me introduce error, and I’m not going to do that in this case.

The prosecution had asked for additional instruction, #303 some based on what the defense  would enter into evidence. Not going to use. People withdrawal their request for this instruction.

Now, #306.... the prosecution claims there was some discovery that wasn’t turned over.
The defense tells the court it was an interview of a witness they are going to call today.  The second was one he was not aware of.

JK: Who is this witness?
Defense:  Mary O’Grady
JK: Why wasn’t this witness turned over by May 17th?
We didn’t know about this witness until shortly before trial.

Interviewed her on May 11.

JK: So, May 11th, to May 17th?

Kassabian talks about not getting the report from the defense investigator who interviewed this witness.

JK: Who is she?

She is an interior designer at the (? Interior Grove House?) were Ms. Redding lived in 2007.  Saying that she saw Ms. Redding at the apartments and thinks she saw Ms. Park there as well, but not at the same time.

Judge Kennedy has had some problem with this instruction. There are apparently appellate issues with this instruction. Despite your request, I’m going to decline to do so.

JK: Jury instruction 316 doesn’t apply at this time?
SOW: No.

JK: Jury instruction #361

Judge Kennedy asks the defense if they have made a decision if the defendant is going to testify.
Defense: She is not.

Judge Kennedy takes Park’s waiver. At this time she gives up her right to testify.

Prosecution argues, that she refused to give her fingerprints because she was suppressing evidence.

Buehler argues that the tape shows that she was wiling to give her fingerprints. She wanted to call her lawyer, to get advice.

JK: I think it’s kind of iffy, and I’m going to decline 361 at this time.

JK: We have discussed the instructions, and the ones that are in the packet now are the ones we are going to instruct. at this time.

Defense has no problem with the exhibits.  The court clerk says, there are exhibits that were not referenced on the record.  So 56 was only referred to.  54 was also under question, so they resolved the issue.  So 56 is the only one marked for identification but not into evidence?

SOW Correct.  ... 56 was the poster board of the fingerprint comparison.

JK: Any other issues?

GB: Now that the people are fully closed, the defense moves for a dismissal.
Judge Kennedy denies the motion.

JK: I notice that, (in the gallery) counsel is here for Ms Ayala.  Is there a reason?

GB. I have not had the chance to talk to him.

Judge Kennedy leaves the bench.  Kelly comes back to the gallery to sit with Chronister and her friends.

9:25 AM
Buehler asks Park and Chronister to step outside into the hallway for a private conference.

9:40 AM
A few minutes ago, Patricia and Greg Redding left the courtroom.  Now, the rest of Juliana's family left as well.  There are only a few people here.  Cathy from the court's PIO arrived a bit ago but I didn't get a chance to mention it.  Greg Fisher from CBS 48 Hours is here.  I'm having trouble keeping a good connection with the superior court's free WiFi on this side of the courtroom.

9:45 AM
We wait for the jury to arrive at 10:30 AM to continue with testimony.  It appears the defense has two, possibly three more witnesses in their entire case.  If this goes quickly, we could easily get to closing arguments this afternoon.  There is a hearing on Friday morning in the Michael Gargiulo case at the opposite end of the 9th floor hallway.  I still don't know if I will be able to make that hearing, or if I will be here, waiting on a jury to reach a verdict.

9:57 AM
The courtroom is so quiet now.  There are a few random people in the gallery, and one male clerk for the prosecution in the well.  The only noise is Judge Kennedy's clerk, working with some papers at her desk.  I am always amazed at how much a judge's clerk has to keep track of.  Each time there is a hearing on a specific case, there are notes they take (or they come from the court reporters notes, I don't know for sure) that are put in the official court file/record of the case.  They also have to keep track of the numbering of all the exhibit items each side enters into evidence.  They are in control of the official evidence book, and physical evidence items. They have to ensure that there is a description of the evidence item and that no item is given the same evidence number.

They also answer the courtroom phone and represent the court with any interaction the jurors might need, such as personal appointments or arriving late.  I'm sure there are many other responsibilities that a judge's clerk has, than just the few I've mentioned.

Jane Robison from the DA's media office enters Dept. 109 and speaks to the DA's staff that entered the well a few moments ago.

10:09 AM 
Park and Chronister reenter the courtroom.  Park retrieves her bag from under the defense table and they leave.

There is a discussion in the well about what evidence will be given to the jurors, and what will be kept back until they request it.  Actual physical items will need to be handled with gloves.  So they will keep those back until the jury asks for them. Then the bailiff will bring them in with gloves for the jurors to put on to examine the items.

10:13 AM 
A casually dressed woman enters and speaks to Kassabian and Buehler.  It appears she is one of his witnesses.  She is directed to wait in the hallway.  More people start to enter the gallery.  Mostly, it's Park's family and supporters.  the defense's investigator is here. Kassabian says he will sit outside with her.

10:16 AM 
A bit earlier, a reporter asked if I would speak on camera after the trial is over.  I declined.  I'm not interested in appearing on camera.  I will do radio, but not TV.  The 2009 experience of Phil Spector's trial bride secretly taking my photo, photo-shopping it and putting it up on her web site is an experience that will last me a life time.

10:18 AM
Juliana Redding's family reenters the courtroom and sits in the front seating row.

10:33 AM
The courtroom has really filled up. All three rows in the gallery are packed. Greg Fisher is sitting to my left and reading over my shoulder.  We wait for the jury to be called into the courtroom.

10:33 to 12:00 Noon (This section is a draft; it had not been edited for accuracy.)

10:36 AM
Judge Kennedy asks to speak to counsel. 

10:39 AM
Terri Keith from City News is here.
Court is called to order.  Have heard from Juror #12 is in the hospital. The clerk has spoken with the juror twice, and the clerk will select an alternate.

Moving along to a point of evidence.

Mr. Kassabian.  We proffered an expert whom we plan to call today. He will be rendering an opinion that Ms. Reddings cell phone was turned off, after 10:50 PM and turned on again in police custody.

Prosecuiton raised an objection, that those records needed to be authenticated, before they can be admitted. 

If you’re not going to introduce the records, then I don’t see that being a problem.

Ae we ready to bring the jurors in?

Yes mam.

10:42 AM
The jury enters.

Bailiff: Please be sure all cell phones are turned off.

Judge Kennedy explains that one of their jurors that #12 had a medical emergency.

We have a very thigh tech method.  It’s a dodger cap. Gallery and jurors laugh.  that the numbers are in.

It’s alternate #3, a woman.  She’s sworn in.

Now ging to continue with the presentation of evidence at this time.

Defense calls Gregory Fishback

Jeff Fischbach

I’m forensic technologist.  Work Second Wave, Inc.  General technology consulting firm. He’s the forensic technologist.  Gives his CV and experience in cell phone technology.  He worked with AT&T’s legal department in his career.  Approaching at least a thousand cases, and at least 500,000 individual records, having to do with cell phones.  He’s worked with military technology and the US government. He’s testified about three dozen times in cell phone communications.

He reviewed the AT&T records for Juliana’s cell phone.  Are you being paid an hourly service.  “I hope so.”  I don’t handle that, because they work for a company.  I think the company bills about $400.00 an hour for my time.”

Can you render an opinion that Ms. Reddings cell phone was turned off. He looks at the records to refresh his memory.

The cell phone was turned off at 10:50 PM. That’s the last time the cell phone communicated any activity with the tower.   The last record that we have of that cell phone communicating with a tower is a text message.

There is a good indication that the cell phone was turned back on, 2 days later.  The phone received a whole bunch of text message.

JK: It was off from 10:50 on the 15th, all the way to some time on the 17th?



You indicated that you were getting paid $400.00 an hour?
The company is getting paid that much.
I believe it’s the same rate. It works out different in court.  But when I’m working, I submit my specific hours.  So, his company would bill for three hours for today at $400.00 an hour.

Maybe, it represents two or three hours, looking at the reports. 

How many hours in total that you worked on this case, that your company is billing for.

I would estimate 20 hours, possibly more.
He was here yesterday in court, does his company get to bill for that as well?
He thinks so.

He’s not sure about the total billing.  It was Monday, not yesterday.

Do you typically testify for the defense, or testify for the prosecution as well.
Has worked some for prosecution, but generally, works for the defense.  All most all of the three dozen times he’s testified, those were mostly for the defense.

He’s never worked for AT&T or trained in Blackberry’s specifically.  He has been trained in the data comes from the blackberry.

He heard the BH. Detective testify on Monday.  Did you agree with the 911 call.

I’ve seen those records, that he’s relying on. It does seem that a 911 (dialing/attempt?) does showed up in the record.

When ws the last training with ATT?  None were official trainings, it’s just when a case comes up.... So there is an individal that is there, that’s made available to give us everything we need.  Last time would have been a case earlier this year.

This issue is pretty generic. Person he spoke to earlier this year, it wasn’t about this case.

Do you know if someone persnally turend off that phone?

(Verses the battery going dead.) I don’t know if that’s the case.

Was it in fact a text message?
I can check.
Is it under unbilled usage?
Yes. It’s just part of the package.
Under quantity use. What does that mean.
Do you know if this was a text going out or text coming in?
I believe it was text coming in.

More questions about the phone and the text messages received by the phone on the 17th and how that happens.  That these were text message sent earlier, but the phone didn’t receive them until the phone was turned on.

Well, lets assume that the 911 was dialed.
I don’t know that 911 was dialed. But I do know they showed up in the call log.

You’re talking about 10:50 being the last message being received on the phone. Is there something about messages being hung up on the switch? 

He explains how text messages are sent first to a tower, then to AT&T, then goes back through the system.

According to the unbilled usage, what was the last call, Ms. Redding received.
9:52 PM.

Blackberry does have alarms, messenger and alerts for that.
Email is just data. If using a specific blackberry server, different price for that.
It depends on what the circumstance is.

If you have email, it comes through data?
Depends on the package.

More detailed questions about how emails come through and if it’s data usage or not.

Do you know if these alerts came through were an Email alert?
Even if it’s email, and all those notifications coming in like that, they would come at once  when the phone is turned on.

Asks about an alarm in the phone.

Is there is any indication on her phone that she had alerts or emails coming in?

Did you notice any alerts or emails.
On this page, I didn’t see anything marked at emails.
If checking email, that would be data.

An alert of any kind, you could have yahoo send a yahoo alert over the same message. Same thing could be done with email, but the end result is the same thing as to what we’re looking at.


In youre view of Ms. Redding’s AT&T records for the night of March 15th, 2008, do you have an opinion as to whether her blackberry was turned on and off on the evening of 2008.

Didn’t see anything like that on the 15th, like what he saw on the 17th.

He has worked for law enforcement. 

More questions on redirect.

Witness is excused.

Mary OGrady

Dircting your attention to 2007, was there a time you were doing work

1316 Beverly Grove, in BH.

Do you remember approximately what time that was.
It was a good chunk of the year.
She worked for Uwaydah in interior design.
The home was under redesign.

What time of that year, worked in

I can’t give specific dates. I would say it was about six months.
While there, did see Juliana Redding. Can’t give a sepcific number, did see her a few times.

Did see Kelly Park at the same residence.
Can’t give

Was it the same time, does remember the same time they were both at to the home at the same time.

Was introduced to both of them in the kitchen.

I was introduced to her as a friend.


When you were intrducet to Juliana

The doctor.

Did you work for U. on other projects
And you said you seen the defendan a couple oftimes.

Do you know what time fram that was, the months.
Was it the beginning of the year, or the end of the yeaar.

I don’t know. I’m so sorry it was a long time ago.

When you were intro. did the doctor say this was juliana Redding.
No, he said this was Juliana.
Were there other women you saw at the house
I believe I met one other woman.
Doesn’t remember her name.

Was there a reason you remember Juliana
She was a lovely woman.

You said to inviestigation that you saw other woman as well.

I don’t think I did. She asked about Ms. Park or Juliana.

No where in this report does it say that you saw them both on the same day.

Um, she called me out of the blue. She asked me had I met them in the home.
Yes, I said I remember one incident where Juliana was in the kitchen and Ms Park was in the vicinity of the kitchen.

So, the statements in this report are incorrect.

I think you’re using some legal mumbo jumbo.

Ask to approach to show her the investigator’s report.
Witness reads the report.

Does it say anywhere in the report that you saw Ms. Park and Juliana in the same vicinity on one occasion.

Those specifc words, no.



JK: I was unclear,  You said, they were introduced as friends.

This was so long ago. The doctor introduced me to Juliana. Ms. Juliana was specifically introduced as a friend.

JK: Did he introduce Ms. Park as a friend?
I don’t remember.

No other questions.

No further witnesses. The defense rests.

No rebuttal evidence.

The defense investigator leaves. 

Judge Kennedy now reads jury instructions to the jurors.  They are given a copy of the instructions to read from as the Judge reads to them.

My friend Matthew McGough finally arrives.

11:30 AM 
The jury instructions continue.  Now going over the explanation of reasonable doubt.

11:32 AM  
Head Deputy of the DA’s Major Crimes Division, Gary Hearnsberger enters Dept. 109.  Hearnsberger was in court for many pretrial rulings before the case began. I did not know who it was until I asked Stacy Okun-Wiese on May 2nd.  H’es tall, silver-haired, and has a small beard. He’s quite distinguished looking; very handsome.

11:36 AM
Jury instructions continue.

The jurors appear to be intently reading along with Judge Kennedy’s oral presentation of the instructions.

11:41 AM
Does one of the jurors have their eyes closed I’m asked?  I can’t tell from where I’m sitting.

Now going over the instruction that explains murder, homicide.  Explains malice aforethought.
Jury must decide if murder is of the first or second degree. Explains premeditated murder, first degree and second degree murder.

Explains on what forms to fill out when they reach their verdict, or if they don't reach a verdict.

Going to defer reading the final instructions until after closing arguments.
Reminds them of the admonition.

Nothing to take up at this time. Ordered back at 1:20 PM

1:20 PM to 2:26 PM (This section is a draft; it has not been edited for accuracy.)

1:24 PM 
Lonce is to my right, Jack Leonard is to my left. Lonce says she sees that Park is crying.

Judge Kennedy is on the bench.
Buehler says something to the effect, of wanting to give his argument, tomorrow
JK: We’ll see what time it is Mr. Buehler.

It wasn’t until the lunch break that I saw Juliana’s family were wearing pink ribbons on their lapels.
Judge Kennedy advises jurors their likeness will not be on camera.

1:26 PM
Prosecutin closing argument

21 year old Juliana Redding was murdered on March 15th.  Her life was taken by the defendant sitting in this courtroom.

Explains the charge, and go through the evidence with you, that (defines?) that charge.

Definition of murder.  It’s defined by two elements.  That a human being was killed. That was Juliana Redding. That the killing was unlawful. That means, not in self defense.
And that the killing was with malice aforethought.

Explains expressed and implied malice.

I will argue, that the defendant had express malice.

When you put your hands around someone’s neck with enough force to break their hyloid bone, there can be no mistake, you intended to kill them.

Gives an explanation of implied malice. Giving an example of taking a gun out, and shooting through a window of the store.  The act was performed with the potential for the loss of human life.  That’s implied malice.

Did the defendant conain an intentional act. Putting your hands around someone’s neck.  That’s obvious since Juliana is no longer with us.

When you put your hands around an individuals neck, you will cut off their airway and they are going to go unconcsious or die.

Two ways to get to second degree.  Implied malice, or expressed malice.

1st degree, it’s he peoples finding in this case, you must find the defendant harbored expressed malice, that she acted with willful deliberate determination.

Explains, willful you are doing an act on purpose.

Deliberate. YOu weighed the pros and cons of your actions, before you did the act.

Premeditation, means you thought about the act before hand.

There is no time requirement to find deliberate or premeditation.

Gives an example of driving.  Coming to an intersection.  And you’re faced with a yellow light. Should I go through that yellow light, and get to my destination quicker, risk a ticket.  Or, slow down, and get to my destination safe. That determination, is premeditation.

Dr. Pena could not give you an exact time, a couple minutes, or a couple second.

Her hyloid bone was completely fractured. He said you would have to be pressing on the neck with both hands.

At any time she had her hands around Juliana’s neck, she could have stopped. She could have called 911.  She had ample opportunity to think about her actions. 

That is willful deliberation on the behalf of the defendant.

Reminds them about an example she gave them at the start of voir dire, about her son and a cookie. An explanation about circumstantial evidence.

Think about
the color Grey
Big ears
Weighs one ton
long nose
Love peanuts
In a circus

That’s an elephant.  And I saw some jurors smiling before the image came on the screen.  That ladies and gentlemen, is circumstantial evidence.

Motive is not an element of the crime. There does not need to be a motive, to find the defendant guilty. What has to be present is proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

Another example of seeing someone pull out a gun and shoot someone.
That person may not know why. It doesn’t negate the fact as the person was shot.

That doesn’t negate the fact that a person was killed, without knowing anything about why.

Link between Dr. Uwaydah and Park.

Erin Kelly talked about them being business associates, or mortgage brokerage 2006 -2010.

This establishes a link between the defendant and Uwaydah.

Mr. L. testified that he met with both on several occasions about a bank business venture.

The Calif ID card

The calls between defendant and Uwaydah.

The financial payments from Frontline to Park, over 1M dollars in 18 months.

Juliana Redding met Uwaydah sometime in July 2007. Introduced her dad to Uwaydah in 2007.  Testimony about Redding possibly working as a pharacist for Uwaydah.

Those negotiations continued. Redding researched Uwaydah and found out that he was married, and children and had lied about his age.

Mentions the birthday trip and that her father told her what he found out. Juliana called Uwaydah a liar, and left Las Vegas and went back to live with another girlfriend.

DDA John Lewin annd DDA Beth Silverman enter the courtroom to hear the closing arguments.

Talks about the five days before Juliana Redding was killed, Greg Redding broke off negotiations with Uwaydah.

The defendant is 5:10 weighs 150 lbs.  Juliana 5.7 113 pounds.  She had 40 pounds and 3 inches.

Juliana went to Cafe Tengu and left at 8 PM.  Kelly Duncan went home to her house and Juliana went home to her house on Centinela.

The victim’s cell phone called 911, or that call either hung up, or it never went through the network.

We know from the information from Lynne Mitchell Parrish, that approximately 9:53 PM, she heard one loud screem from a female coming from Juliana’s apartment. Heard some comotion, and two additional screams.

The phone rang, it was her husband, and that time was 9:53.  Unfortunately, she did not cal the police.

March 15th. Juliana Redding was killed.  Autopsy conducted on March 18th.  Manner of death, homicide.  Manner of death, manual strangulation.

He talked about the extensive petechia, in both of Juliana’s eyes. He also talked about the black mark in the left eye, in Juliana’s face, and that was possibly from a hit. That black eye, had to have occurred from a hit.  Talked about the abrasions she suffered.  He said, she had to have been, on all fours. These were significant abrasions and bruises.  All occurred to her passing away on Friday evening.

The brusises on her back. Those had to have come from hits.  There were hemmorages on her head. Those were numerous. They were not cause by one hit. Each one of the hemmorages, he indicated each hemmorage that he saw was a hit from a fist, or a blunt force object.

We also showed you, her fingernails. She had gotten her nails done, three days before.  They were jagged. And there was a nail that was ripped off.  The abrasions around her neck, was indicative of someone struggling to pull on the neck, to break the hold. 

March 16th, 2008.
Juliana’s mom got concerned, when she didn’t hear from her.  A call went out, to check on her in her apartment.  We heard from Sgt. Hernandez.  Who tried to knock on the door, and he couldn’t get in. So he tried the back door.  The doors were locked.

He called the SMPD, and asked for specific officer, Officer Cap, who was trained in picking locks. They went in the back door. The got in the security door, but couldn’t get in the wood door. They lifted the window in the door to try to get in.

When he opened the window in the door, they smelled gas.

Both of the dead bolts to the two back doors, were left open.  Explains how that’s important. 

When the firefighter entered the back door, Gary Marshall, he turned the gas knob off on the stove.

If the saturation of the gas in the room is between 4 & 15 percent, it would not have needed the candle. It could have been anything.

Luckily, the apt had leaky windows, and the gas did not reach the saturation level.

Det. Lewis testified that both the dead bolts on the front door were locked.  Juliana’s keys were by the front door. The defendant locked that door, before she exited the back door.

Jennifer Zychowski said, that she saw several items that indicated evidence of a struggle. A broken necklace was on a tray on the coffee table. The other half of the necklace was under a twisted leg of the table. She also noticed oil under a tray. So an oil vase was turned over, and put back upright. There was no oil around the tray, it was underneath it only.

There was a red place on the floor by the TV. There were white pieces of broken porcelain on the floor. Also broken pieces in the kitchen sink and the trash. All those pieces, would not make a complete plate.

There was a lamp that was unplugged and out of place.  The cord of the lamp was under the leg.

The analysts located Juliana’s broken nail, behind the sofa.  That nail came off during a very brutal struggle.

The finally located Juliana in her beadroom.  She was on her bed, with her injuries, her broken fingernails, her bruises, and obviously, she was dead.

There was a clean up. It’s clear. The tray as it appeared in the photogaph is in the right position. Restates all the evidence she found in the livingroom. Juliana was not killed on her bed. That’s the place she was placed in, with her legs crossed.

Luminol was used to find blood in the hallway.
She was dragged and placed in that bedroom.

The pillow. The only pillow at the location that did not have a cover.  Officers testified they searched everywhere, and could not find that cover.  The defendant took it with her, to conceal evidence.

DNA testing.

We know that over the course of two years, the Orange Co. Crime Lab examined over 70 items of evidence 40 examples of direct and secondary items.

It wasn’t until  2009, that Det. Thompson came up with Dr. Uwaydah.  This defendant was identified through a DNA comparison.

Tank top.
Annette McCall talked about the examination, amplification and analysis process. And the defense tried to tell you about these extra alleles.  Even if, it truly was an extra allele, it doesn’t take away the fact that it is the defendant’s profile on each of these items.
The tank top, the neck, the cell phone, the stove knob.

The defense brought in Cher Brooks who told you, yeah, I slept there. I slept in her bed.

I also asked Ms. Mcall, if someone who is active, has a lot of friends, and they’re hugging people, it’s not uncommon to find a portion of their DNA on that person. It doesn’t take away the fact that each one of the defendant’s LOCI, on the items in Juliana’s apartment.

John Lewin left at some time.  Beth Silverman is still here.

More rare, than 1 in 200 billion individuals.  There are just under 7 billion people in the world.  That means, that 200 would be equvilant of 29 world populations, and you still might not find the DNA of the defendant.

Juliana’s neck. around her neck. 1 in 300 million.

Cell phone 1 in 1-trillion.

I don’t think it takes a rocket scientist, to know what happened.  Juliana was trying to call 911, and the defendant took the cell phone away from Juliana.

1 in 1 trillion would be the equivillent of 143 world population.  You would have to go through all of those populations, to find another person, who has the DNA of the defendant.

Front Stove Knob.

1 in 20,000 individuals. We know that stove knob was turned to the on position. We know that defendant was hopefull, in getting rid of that evidence.  She tried to clean up the location before she left.

You couldn’t see the blood with your natural eye. You know why? The defendant cleaned up.

The front interior door DNA.

1 in 1-trillion.  In order to find another individual with the possibility of that DNA, you would have to test the populstion of 143 worlds.

The latent print. 
Unfortunately, there was blood on it.

I thought it was a blood drop, so she sent it for testing.

It is a single source profile, that went to the defendant. This profile was the same as the profile in each of the other items tested at the scene.

It’s more rare, than 1 in 1 trillion.  Would have to go through the population of 143 worlds to find someone who matched the defendant in this case.

42 Women were eliminated.

Reviews all the DNA evidence.

We have the defendants DNA on the tank top, because she moved Juliana to the bedroom. This is a case where the evidence is overwhelming with DNA.

The DNA profile comparison chart.  All of those pink numbers are numbers that match, the defendant’s loci.

If the defendant’s DNA wasn’t enough, we have a fingerprint that was lifted from the crime scene on March 17th. There was no it that came back at that time.

On June 17th the defendant was arrested and her fingerprints were taken.

On June 18th, they got a hit. Over 200,000 prints in the unsolved system.

Then the SMPD, did their own manual comparison.  Talks about the testimony about the  fingerprint analysts who made the comparison from the latent print to Park’s fingerprint.

Then a supervisor reviwed their work confirming the comparison and match in this case.
She left this fingerprint with her blood, on a plate in Juliana’s apartment when she killed her on March 15th, 2008.

Now talks about Det. Bambrick confronting he defendant at the animal shelter to take her fingerprints. When she hears the victim’s name, she says, “Oh my God.” And all through the recording she says, I don’t believe you.

He even got the Ventura County Sheriff’s Department to come out, and she still refused to provide her fingerprints.  You can hear her on the tape. 

She knows she’s caught. And she doesn’t want to give them any evidence to convict her.

The evidence, is overwhelming. There was nobody there but the defendant and Juliana Redding. The defendant who was 5 10 and 150 pounds. Juliana was 5 7 and 110 pounds.  She struggled and struggled and struggled. She lost her thumb fingernail. She had multiple hemorages to her head. She suffered bruise and bruise after bruise.
She had injuries on her neck and her face. She had abrasions. And this defendant, is responsible, in this courtroom. This defendant, is the only link, to Uwaydah.

We have the defendant’s DNA at the crime scene. She is linked to Uwaydah, who is linked to Juliana and Greg Redding.

The defense tried to say, “Well, maybe it’s real estate money.” You have that check, that she wrote for $300,00 to her personal account.

Goes over the DNA on the cell phone. 1 in one-trillion.  The blood on the fingerprint. 1 on one-trillion. The DNA on the interior door handle 1 in 1-trillion.  On her neck. 1 in 200 million. Fingerprint at the scene.

Uncontested testimony from the criminalists.

DNA on the tank top, 1 in 200 billion. These points add up to nothing but the defendant is guilty of first degree murder.

2:33 PM
Everyone gets up to stretch their legs a bit before the defense gives their closing.  At the beginning of the lunch break, I got the opportunity to introduce my friend Matthew McGough to LA Times reporter Jack Leonard, who are both Arsenal fans, a soccer team in England. While Matt and I were deciding on a restaurant, by chance we happened to bump into Cold Case Homicide Detectives Rick Jackson and his partner Mitzi Roberts.  Jackson indicated he recognized my long hair from the back. 

2:36 PM
DDA Okun-Wiese used a Power Point presentation with her closing argument.  She did not read from written notes but spoke extemporaneously for almost an hour.

2:38 PM to 4:03 PM (This section has not been edited for spelling or accuracy.)

2:38 PM
Park leaves the gallery and joins her counsel at the defense table.  Buehler is looking over some notes on yellow paper.

The bailiff asks people to squeeze together a bit more because there are people that want to get inside the courtroom.

2:42 PM
Jurors called into the courtroom. Counsel and defendant stand for the jury.

Bailiff: Please be sure all cell phones are turned off.

Buehler greets the jury.  Want to remind you, that the things lawyers say to you now, are not evidence.  You should look back over your notes. I want to start with that, that there are a few things said by the prosecutor, were incorrect.

Don’t accept, jsut because one of the lawyers said it.

The prosecutor spent a lot of time about things that were in dispute.

I submit to you, that the severity of those injuries, and the strenth that would be needed to overpower, her, and the screams, taht were probably from Juliana Redding, for someone to overpower her, and that strength more quickly, and even though Ms. Park, may have had the inches and pounds, I suggest to you that’s enough.

There’s nothing that was presented that shows Ms. Park had the ability to do that.

The link to Dr. Uwaydah, is just a neutral fact. There’s nothing here, that Dr. Uwaydah had a motive.  I agree, that if you saw someone strangle you in front of you, I don’t disagree with that. But what you have here is circumstantial evidence. And you wern’t there.

What do you know about the defendant, and there’s nothing here to suggest that she did that.

No matter about the huge numbers in the DNA, If you pick up that we’re dispuitn. That’s not the issue. What can we realy conclude from that evidence.

Kelly nods slightly as her attorney speaks.

Comments about Park’s booking photograph. That was put up there, so you would form a negative impression of kelly Park. That’s not fair. That’s not fair.

And I say the same thing about the prosecutor’s remarks, about Detective Bambrick. They said, she refused to provide fingerprints. That’s not true. She just wasn’t willing to give them to them. 

Why didn’t he say, “Here’s my badge.”  When she keeps saying, Who are you, He should have said, “Here’s my badge.”

Gives the argument that, anyone would have been skeptical of someone in plan clothes and an unmarked car. You can read that transcript, and you can tell, what’s going on there. She was making a deliberate effort to intimidate her, and make her look bad.

Why did they do that? Did they not trust their evidence? Why did they have to go through that kind of trickery if their evidence really was that strong.

The fact is on this case, their case rests entirely on DNA. And you will have to ask yourself, is that enough, to find beyond a reasonable doubt in this case.

Now, when the proscution brought out the DNA, there are two aspects to it that they didn’t bring out to their witness. They didn’t ask about the transfer of DNA.  Mr. Kassabian brought out more, about the transfer of DNA, that isn’t even clear to even the scientists.

Mentions shedders, and that they leave a lot of DNA. And DNA can be washed away by DNA. And you might not have any DNA left on your hands.

When I touch an object and leave DNA, someone else can come along, and touch that, and pick up my DNA.

If you sneese, and touch that DNA, and someone can come along and pick up that DNA. All it tells you, is that someone’s cells are in that spot. It doesn’t tell you how it got there, how it got there or when it got there.

DNA even exposed to hot, to light, can last for years.  Prosecution didn’t even want to talk about it or discuss it.  There can be, what I would call, possible alleles.  You remember those spikes, they represent the quantity of DNA.  Kassabian asked about the low threshold, the low spots.  The analyst acknowledged, you could be looking at alleles, but they’re not there in enough to identify.

With almost every item that was located in Ms. Reddings apartment, there were other DNa in that spot, but it just wasn’t in enough quantity. It might just change your (?) if you knew, who left those alleles.

We know that Brian Van Holts DNA was found on Ms. Reddings breasts.  What if his DNA was found on her neck?  It’s what must be looked at and thought about.

In the DNA on Ms Reddings neck, was an allele 17, that could have been Ms. Cher Brooks. It could have been somebody else.

In that sample, you had Juliana Reddings, DNA, you had Park’s and you had that #17. (Behuhler here, admits that his client’s DNA was on Juliana’s neck.)

Because we don’t know, how long that DNA was there, you have to consider, that Ms. Park’s DNA got there by some other means.  That someone who touched Park, then got into Redding’s apartment.  They could have brought it into the apartment, and got it on their hands, that way.

You haven’t been given any evidence by the proseuction, that Ms. Park was ever in that apartment, or how someone might have brought that DNA into the apartment.

Let me suggest one possibility to you, which is suggested by the evidence in this case.

You probably wondered why, we called Cher Brooks, and Wendy Teberera (sp?) simply to establish on the Saturday that Ms. Redding was killed, that she had been rearranging furniture, she was going to give someone some plate. All of which suggest, she was spring cleaning. Getting rid of some plate, getting rid of some furniture.

You also wondered why we had also called Mary O’Grady,  It’s because Ms. Redding was living in a house, in Beverly Grove, until the relationship with Uwaydah came to an end.

Ms. O’Grady can remember meeting Ms. Redding there. And she can remember meeting Ms. Park there. She establishes that there was one place, where Ms. Redding and Park were in the smae envioronment, maybe not at the same time, crossing paths.

It’s interesitng that on the day she was murdered, she happened to be doing some spring cleaning.  Should she have brought to her apartment, a towel, an orange plate, that had been touched by Park?  That she brought to her apartment, that Ms. Park had touched, that hand her print on it, hand a drop of blood on it.  A towel, that possibly Ms. Park sneesed, or left her DNA on.  And, lets say, she’s doing her spring cleaning,

And somehow, the person who murders her, touches those things. It’s quite

You might say, isn’t that fanciful? Isn’t that farfetched?  Isn’t it more fanciful, that tis business murder, who doesn’t have a relationship with Juliana, would show up and commt these (horendous) act? Isn’t that also unlikely?

Remember, the fingerprint on the plate, when they lifted it, was also a drop of blood. For some reason the sepcialist who lifted it at the scene, didn’t recognize it as blood. It was only months later, when Ms. Zychowski looked at it months later.

Think about it. Was that blood fresh, when they lifted it at the scene?  That plate, was sitting upright in the sink.  If Ms. Park left her blood  on that plate, at the scene, why was it a round drop?  If it was fresh that night, wouldn’t it have been red? Wouldn’t it have been the red that she would have recognized. That’s when you have to ask yourself, that blood got there, some other way. That’s why you have to say, that plate, that DNA got there from someplace else. From the Beverly Grove House.

Another thing to think about.  They dusted the whole place for fingerprints. They were looking all over for fingerprints. They found only one fingerprint in the whole place, that didn’t belong to Juliana Redding.

Why was anybody cleaning up? Why wouldn’t they want to get out? The didn’t completely clean up. You would want to wipe down, all the places you left your DNA and your fingerprints. And if that was done with a rag, that had Ms. Park’s DNA on it, it wouldn’t have the killers DNA on it, it would have Ms. Park’s DNA on it.

Asks why Park’s fingerprints isn’t on other items? The one explanation would be, is you have a killer, who is wiping to get rid of his DNA, but it has Ms. Park’s DNA on that rag. So think about those things, when you hear the prosecutor tell you there’s overwhelming evidence.  There’s danger, of prosecutors, shutting down an investigation one they have DNA.

We’re not arguing about the numbers.  When they haven’t given you anything, as to why she would even be there. That kind of brutal force. That quickly?  What have they shown you about Kelly Park? She’s a successful business woman. A mortgage broker.

Ah, but a mortgage broker connected to Mr. Uwaydah. 

What do you know about Uwaydah. We don’t even know enough to even think about committing this crime. 

Brings up how the negotiations broke down between Uwaydah and Redding.

Just note, that no one got killed. No one got killed at that point.  Then Mr. Reddings fears were alayed, and he started to rekindle his negotations with Uwaydah. Eventually it got to the point, where they both walked away.

Goes over what the concerns were, the licensing wasn’t in place for making the creams.

And we also heard, the question of the use of an airplane, and it wasn’t in the contract. But in all of that, all we really know, is that both parties decided, the were not going to go through with it. There was no testimony about any rancor, any harsh words. When his daughter was found dead, he didn’t go around and tell people that Mr. Uwaydah was threatening him.

It wasn’t a business deal, that would have been any loss to Dr. Uwaydah.  All we know is that Kelly Park, knew Dr. Uwaydah, had a business deals with Dr. Uwaydah. I look over at Park. She’s shaking her head slightly from side to side.

We know very little about them. We haven’t really came up with anything, that Dr. Uwaydah had any motive to do this. Or Ms. Park, would think about doing someting like this.

Don’t be fooled, by the DNA.  You watch CSI. It’s not as clear, as they would like you think. DNA doesn’t tell you a story. It doesn’t tell you how it got there. When there’s no reason to show, why she could have done this. 

Pause by Buehler.

Just remind you about a piece of testimony. Natasha’s testimony about helping Juliana Redding move from the Beverly Grove house, and the boxes.

Pause again. Goes over to the defense table, he’s looking for something. Photo up on the screen of Juliana’s hands.  Exhibit 37.

Just want you to look at the fingernails of Ms. REdding. Those fingernails are not all chipped or damaged from the fight.

There’s testimony from the coroner, that they cut those fingernails at the scene.  Now that’s not that big of a deal, but it’s an illustration, of what I mean, of not relying on (? what the attorney’s say, rely on).... your memory of the evidence.

Talks about the letters between Redding’s counsel and Uwaydah’s counsel and what they really mean.  Both sides decided, to call it quits.  No rancor, or anger.

My memory of the testimony of the luminol, it can luminesce for blood, but there are other things that can cause luminesce.


I’m surprised, I finished quicker than I thought I would.
I’d like to remind you, the rules, it is the prosecution’s burden. That’s the rule, that comes out of centuries, of rule in England. Comes through the fifth amendment of our constitution. The state has the burden of proof. The defendant has no obligation but to sit there. And they haven’t proven it yet. Ms. Park didn’t commit this murder.

Let Santa Monica go out and find their murderer.

JK: Ms. Wiese.

The burden of proof is a burden the prosecution welcomes in this case.

We have a residence where Juliana Redding was murdered in side. We have evidence of that murder on her neck.

We have Juliana calling 911 and that phone was hung up.

We have DNA on that phone. We have DNA on that door. We have DNA on the stove knob. And lastly, we have the tank top, that Juliana Redding was wearing when she struggled to take her last breath of air.

there’s not contention here, that this DNA belongs to the defendant. They want you to speculate, how that DNA got there. You don’t need to speculate, how that DNA got there. That’s because this defendant is the killer.

Just because there is one loci, that doesn’t negate this defendant did the murder.

You didn’t receive evidence of Juliana taking a plate from Dr. Uwaydah’s five months earlier. That plate was sitting in that sink for five months undisturbed? The DNA got on the plate five months earlier? And it somehow made it’s way to Ms. Redding’s apartment? That’s absurbd.

The fact that there is not evidence as to Ms Park committed this murder. I don’t need to present that. That’s not an element of the crime.

The defense would want you to believe that some other person wiped that towel on everything (lists the items), then how did her fingerprint get on that plate?

Not everything that you put dust on, is going to leave a latent print. Not everything you touch is going to leave a usable print.

The defense agreed that it’s the defendant’s DNA, but want you to speculate on how that DNA got there. But she met the defendant five months earlier, but there’s all this DNA at the scene.

Reads the instruction about circumstantial evidence. He wan’ts you to come to an unreasonable conclusion as to how the defendant’s DNA got on that evidence.  Char testified that the furniture moved was only in the bedroom.  And that occurred in the morning, not the evening.

The defense admits it’s Park’s DNA. That proves she killed Juliana. The defendant is the one who put her DNA on the victim’s neck. The defendant is the one, who put her DNA on the cell phone, when Juliana was calling 911. The defendant put her DNA on the stove knob. The defendant put her DNA on the door knob, when she exited the apartment.

Goes over the funds transferred into the defendant’s account.

Goes over the relationships between Uwaydah and Park, and states that Mr. Redding pulled out of the deal first. There’s nothing in the letter from Dr. Uwaydah’s attorney that said he was backing out of the deal.

Each item of evidence, completes the puzzle.  The DNA. The defendant refusing to give her fingerprints, when asked.  The connection of the defendant, to Dr. Uwaydah.  The court asked you about common sense. You don’t let go of your common sense, when you go back to the jury room.

IS it reasonable that the DNA could have been transferred five months earlier. ANd the defense wants to talk about Motive. It doesn’t change the facts of the case. It’s still evidence, and both types of evidence is acceptable in a case like this. Not having a motive, doesn’t equate that the crime occurred. It doesn’t negate the evidence or that a crime occurred.

The people ask you to come back with a verdict of guilty of first degree murder.

Judge Kennedy reads the rest of the jury instructions to the jurors.

Makes a comment about the exhibits. Any that have biological material on them. We’re not going to send them in the jury room, unless you specifically ask for them, and we’re going to give you gloves, we’re going to ask you not to touch these items with your bare hands.

Tells them that the audio recording will be made available to you. We will provide what ever you would like to have and observe. We’ll make sure that you are able to examine them.

At this point, my computer makes a loud noise at the Judge is speaking. I immediately close my laptop and exit the courtroom.

I wait outside until the jury is excused.  Then I reenter the courtroom.  I'm completely embarrassed at leaving my sound on my laptop.  I've never had that happen before

Jury leaves the courtroom. They go home. Judge Kennedy explains to counsel the procedures for read back. The defendant is ordered to be in the courtroom during jury deliberations.  Defense counsel, says they are 20 minutes away.

We do need then, to have all phone numbers as which they can be released.  We are concerned the defendant is a flight risk. She has access to Dr. Uwaydah’s jets. She went into the hospital and they were asking to remove her ankle bracelet.  She left the hosptial without having any tests.

The defendant’s husband’s car, has confidential plates. She has a car registered to police?  It’s registered confidential PIN, because her husband is former LE>

Buehler states she did have tests in the hospital.

The problem is, her ankle bracelet, by the time that someone can get to her, it’s an hour.

It concerns me, that she’s driving a car that has confidential plates. That bothers me a lot. If the court wants to direct that she not drive.

I’m concerned. Obviously I’m concerned. She has made every court appearance, for the last couple years, there hasn’t been any problems with her complaints, as to where she’s been allowed to be with the ankle bracelet.

Det. Thomp. There has been some problem with the equipment, at least two times.

She has access to money. She has access to getting to another country. She received over a milliion dollars. She is looking at 25 years to life. If she fled, and she’s found not guilty. That’s what I’m saying, she had nothing to lose by fleeing.

Buehler speaks, I can’t hear him.

Her friends and family put up assets, or Dr. Uwaydah.

Her friends and family at the Airport court.

I’m not going to remand her at this time. I suggest dilligence, on your part. Ms. Park, if you’re late, you will be remanded.  You are to be here when the jurors deliberate. Do you understand?  Make sure that they have left phone numbers with the court.

If a verdict, is reached at the end of the day, we would want to take that verdict.

Defense confers and decides that they would want read backs to be read inside the courtroom.

Ask the counsel to initial the verdict forms. 

That’s it. The gallery leaves.

4:14 PM Correction
I'm out in the hallway. The jurors did not exit the courtroom when I reported that earlier. They were in the jury room that entire time. The jurors exited the courtroom about a minute ago. Earlier, Judge Kennedy told them to report back at 9:00 AM tomorrow.   Their court day will be from 9:00 AM unto 4:15 PM.

4:16 PM
I will have an update later this evening, when I get home and am able to edit my entry.

6:30 PM
I'm finally home. I have some chores to do but I will try to answer your questions later this evening I also hope to work on editing my draft entries so they are clearer and more accurate, as well as give you a small primer on DNA and what all the numbers mean. Thank you everyone for reading T&T.



Anonymous said...

Hello, thank you for your coverage. I am childhood friend of Juliana's who doesn't have a way to follow besides your blog. I'm really appreciative. I tried reading through the DNA portion but am still a little confused on the outcome if you could give a brief synopsis of what was determined. Basically there is no one else besides Park's DNA on Juliana and her personal effects but they can't say that it is her's for sure?

Sprocket said...

Hello Anon @ 7:52 AM.

The DNA evidence is overwhelming against Park. Scientists can not say there is an "exact match" because they have not tested every single person's DNA on the planet. That's why they can not say that.

But, they do have mathmatical calculations, based on a sampling of various populations, what is the % probability of a specific allele number (in a piece of evidence collected), at a particular gene locus (set of alleles) that they look at, in the commercially produced test kits.

I will write out a better explanation later tonight, but please keep your questions coming.

blackguyj2009 said...

I guess Park is not as smart as the thought she was. Hopefully justice will be served in this case. What type of sentencing would something like this lead to? It doesn't seem cold blooded, pre-meditated. I guess it would be a second degree murder charge? 25 to life for her?

Anonymous said...

do you know when this trial ends? takes forever. when would it be for verdict?

Anonymous said...

Hi again Sprocket,

Boy I envy you getting to watch as this unfolds. It's me the Camarillo lady again hanging on your every posting. Thanks for the upload of the transcript yesterday also. All your work is much appreciated. Again I will comment on the defense or lack there of. Can't wait to hear your notes of the closing defense argument as from what I have read I just don't see much of a defense being put up at all. They tried to present today that Julianna's phone was not shut off after she was killed? I just don't see the relevance considering everything else that has been presented. Is that what that witness was trying to get across or did I misunderstand that testimony completely. Again perhaps now you can sum up what in fact was the defense if there was one. I realize they have no obligation to defend at all but given the overwhelming evidence presented by the prosecution I would think they would at a minimum try and attack some of it. Your thoughts tonight after seeing it all completed. Hopefully defense closings will be finished today so you can comment. What a sad day for all except of course for the Dr. off in Lebanon. Not a care in the world other than he can't live here anymore and take advantage of our systems and conduct fraud as he sees fit to line his wallet. Considering all the money he gave Park just in 18 months looks like he had plenty to spread around. Wonder how he achieved such wealth?? I am sure not legally. What a guy and I wonder how loyal Ms. Park feels towards him now? Jail might make her waver don't you think?

Anonymous said...

Thank you Sprocket for all your hard work giving us a good commentary from within the court room....I have been following this case for some time and it does seem the prosecutions case is would have been more so if other evidence had been allowed in showing that KSP had a history of harassing and threatening people who didn't lie down and capitulate to Uwaydah's unscrupulous business methods ! Hopefully she will spill the beans when its time to negotiate her length of sentence.

Anonymous said...

Thank you for your coverage of Kelly's trial. Without your blog I'd be lost! I found you after googling Kelly and plan on following other trials through you after this one is over.

I'm a college friend of Kelly's who emailed you a while back. This is all just mind blowing to me. The DNA evidence seems pretty damning, and it doesn't seem like the defense has much of a case at all, but I just can't figure out how the woman I knew in '93 could be capable of something like this. I know she had an ex with a shady past. I wonder if Munir wasn't holding something over her to make her do this. But why the physical violence of it all? Why not a gun with a silencer? And I see no mention of Kelly's son. He should be in his mid-late 20's by now.

I read the transcript of the fingerprint warrant and her responses had my heart pounding because I can picture the Kelly I knew, reacting that way and being afraid. I wish there was some alibi or something concrete to show that she didn't do this. Having your DNA all over a dead girl that you didn't know is pretty black and white to me. Breaks my heart.

Anonymous said...

In response to the post asking about how Kelly can afford bail, it was in our local paper that a professor from California Lutheran University (where I met Kelley back in '92) gave her some money. Rumor is that he mortgaged his house to help her out. Back in college she drove a Jag, so there was money somewhere.

Anonymous said...

Thank you so much for covering this trial. We have known Kelly for a very long time (a couple of decades) and we were SHOCKED about this whole situation at first but after all of the DNA, fingerprints & blood evidence, I must admit that the case against her is absolutely overwhelming. I don't think there will ever be any closure for Juliana's family but they do need to find justice for Juliana. It's so sad to see that the lives of two sets of family are shattered forever by this senseless act. I also can see Kelly's reaction when confronted by the SMPD. That was also quite revealing.

Sprocket said...


If Park is convicted of first degree, she faces 25 years to life. If she is convicted of second degree, she faces 15 years to life.

Premeditation does not take lots of time to prove. Premediation occurs when you make a decision to keep your hands around your victim's throat.

Anon @ 3:16 PM
This trial actually went by pretty quickly. It's the shortest trial I've covered. The James Fayed case took 14 days of testimony and deliberation. The Stephanie Lazarus case took over a month to pick an panel and present to the jury through verdict. The Spector case took six months for the first trial and five months for the second trial.

Camarillo Lady:
Thank you so much for your kind words about my trial reporting efforts. About the phone. The defense phone expert testified that the phone was turned off at 10:50 PM, two minutes before the 911 attempt. My understanding is, the implication is, the 911 attempt never happened.

I will wait for the jury's verdict before I comment on the trial.

I don't know if Park will turn on her employer, when in fact he is paying for her defense.

Anon @ 6:53 PM
Thank you! I do try to cover a case like no one else does.

Anon @ 7:26 PM
Thank you! This case was so sad for everyone involved. Everyone. The Reddings who lost a daughter, sister, niece, granddaughter, friend. The hopes and dreams they had for Juliana.

Park's family and friends who are having a difficult time reconciling the person they love, with the ugly violence they saw her accused of.

I've seen it time and time again. Families go into denial, unable to reconcile these dramatically conflicting facts.

Sometimes, we don't really know everything about someone. We don't really know, what's going on in their lives.