Kelly Soo Park Q & A

 Kelly Soo Park, in custody 2010.

I am taking questions over the weekend on the case.  If there is something you'd like to know, I will try my best to answer.   If you are interested in dropping in on this case, I'd do it quick.  The trial is way ahead of schedule.

To ask a question, please post a comment or send me an email at: sprocket.trials AT gmail.com.

QUESTIONS:

blackguyj2009 asked:
Considering the amount of force needed to break the hyoid bone, did the prosecution ever entertain the possibility to Kelly Soo may have used her legs to do the strangulation in conjunction with her hands?

Answer:
DDA Okun-Wiese did not ask that specific question, and Dr. Pena did not say specifically what limbs could be/were used in manual strangulation.   Strangulation is not so much breaking the hyloid bone, because that doesn't always happen, just that it would take force to do that. Dr. Pena said it is about stopping the flow of blood from returning to the heart and compression of the airway. Dr. Pena also testified about the underlying structures that were also damaged in Juliana's neck. 

Anonymous @ 5:05 AM asked:
thank you for the hard work! it is very interesting trial. I check your blog everyday. how long is this trial gonna last?

Answer:
Judge Kennedy told jurors at the end of court on Friday that we are ahead of schedule.  The prosecution may rest its case on Monday and the defense be finished with presenting their case this coming Friday. If they keep up this quick pace, then closing arguments could be as early as the 27th.

Kathy asked:
I don't think this was Kelly Soo's first murder. Imagine what it take's to distinguish the life of a healthy, strong person.

Not only did she murder one person, she put the lives of every other person who lived in the building and in the vicinity at risk with turning on the gas and lighting the candle.

Is it your opinion that the reason the entire building didn't blow up was because it was an older building, maybe drafty and had too much fresh air circulation? 

Answer:
I can't say. The firefighter's testimony stated that the gas concentration in the enclosed space (the apartment) would need to be within a certain % range for an explosion to occur.  It did not necessarily need the candle for the explosion, but the candle was down low, on a coffee table.  Gas is lighter than air, so it congregates around the ceiling and attic spaces. The gas would needed to have reached the flame height, in the room. He indicated the windows were wood to wood. There is the potential for air to leak in those windows, and around doors and attic spaces, too.

It's unknown if it was the attic space, or those windows, or just not enough time for the concentration of gas to reach to the level of where the candle was.  We don't know the specific burner rating, or, how much gas was leaked through that single burner. 

Anonymous @ 9:33 AM asked:
I enjoyed your coverage and analysis of the Stephanie Lazarus case. Now on to Kelly P. My family knew her entire family very well when all of us were in our teens. From what I remember, her sister Kim was a very sweet girl and Kelly was the wild one. Her sister Kim and Kelly were always so close. Kelly's sister Kim used to make a living making and selling specialty candles. Did they take a look and see the origin of the candle? Btw I don't doubt it at all that she murdered Juliana. She is fully capable of it mentally and physically. Check out the candle story. If she brought candles or a candle from her home .... Premeditation?

Answer:
The prosecution is not finished presenting their case yet, so it remains to be seen if they will present testimony about the products made at "The Bubble Factory" (that is/was behind Golden State Pharmacy) and whether or not the candle was Juliana's, or brought to the location.

In prior motions, the prosecution alleges that Park was paid large sums of money before the murder. That would be argued premeditation. I don't know if the prosecution will present this evidence to the jury.

Carol asked:

Couple of things I was wondering:

KSP's former boyfriend isn't charged in this case, but IIRC, at first wasn't there some thought that she didn't act alone, and possibly he (or somebody) helped her?

Subjective, but in your expert opinion, is the prosecution 'reaching' the jury with the forensic evidence? As you say, testimony is zipping along quickly.

Thanks for the weekend Q and A!

Answer:

I would refer you to the charging documents, page 5.  Case was arrested, but never charged. Cell phone tower records for Ronnie Wayne Case indicate he was making calls to Park within a mile of Juliana's apartment during the time the prosecution believes the murder occurred. Two vehicles were also captured on surveillance video leaving the alley west of Juliana's apartment.

Prosecution's evidence presentation.  

I thought that the DNA evidence testimony so far, was presented in a clear, easy to understand manner.  I thought DDA Stacy Okun-Wiese did a good job, asking the questions in such a way that the answers were easy to comprehend.

But understand, I have a bias. I've been in the courtroom several times for DNA evidence presentation. In addition, I've watched trials on TV that also presented DNA evidence.  I believe I have a higher than average understanding of the scientific process.

 

Here is something that I noted.  In the Lazarus trial, DNA analyst experts testified that when we touch something we always leave DNA behind. The analyst also said, however, we may not have the technology to detect it.  In this case, the DNA analyst testified that an individual may not always leave DNA behind when they touch something. It depends on many factors. 

 

Michelle Poplawsky asked:
I don not believe Kelly Soo Park committed this crime. How can a trial even take place without the main suspect who is the doctor she worked with and fled the country. Why hasn't he been extradited to be present for the trial. 

 

(I snipped the rest of the comment since there were no more questions, just belief statements. Sprocket.)

Answer:

I will try to explain a bit about the laws in the US regarding the prosecution of suspects charged with crimes.

 

First, Dr. Uwaydah has not been charged with a crime. The reason for that could be many things. My best guess would be, Dr. Uwaydah is still under investigation and that investigation is not completed yet. 

 

In the US, prosecutors can't bring someone to trial just because they suspect they are involved in a crime.  They must present sufficient evidence against that individual that meets the rules of evidence standards. The State of California has an Evidence Code. Evidence presented at trial must meet the standards within that code.

 

We have seen in this trial, that both the prosecution and defense have been barred from introducing evidence they wanted to present to the jury. Prior to the trial, Judge Kennedy made rulings that some evidence each side wanted to present did not meet required standards.

 

Second, to extradite someone from another country back to the US, there must first be an extradition treaty in place between the two countries. Sources have told me that the last place Dr. Uwaydah was traced to was Lebanon. He may be there; he may not. It's my understanding that the US does not have an extradition treaty with Lebanon.  

 

Third, even if there was an extradition treaty with Lebanon, since Dr. Uwaydah has not been charged with a crime, there would be no reason for another country to hand him over.

Fourth, there are no laws in the US, that specifically state, you must have charged all the potential suspects in a crime, before you can go to trial against one of the suspects.  If the police have sufficient evidence against a single suspect to a crime that may involve many parties, they can charge that suspect and bring that individual to trial and not the others.  A good example of that would be the James Fayed case. The mastermind of the crime was caught first and charged.  The individuals who carried out the murder were caught later.  The prosecution took their case to trial against the mastermind, first.

Another thing that must be considered is the rights of the defendant when there are multiple defendants.  Often times, a defense attorney for a defendant will file a motion requesting the court to "sever" their client's case from the others involved.  There must be sufficient reason for the court to grant that motion.  If, for example, the defendants roles in the alleged crime are completely different from each other, the judge may grant the severing of the cases.  There are probably many reasons judges can grant the request. I readily admit I don't know them all.

 

Michelle Poplawsky asked: 

i don't understand. Dr. Munir is obviously not a suspect. No one other than Kelly Park is a suspect. How can this be?  ... Honestly I am amazed only Ms. Park is a suspect. ... Miss Redding was a human being who did not deserve to die. The defense has not been allowed to enter much of what it needs to defend Ms. Parks. Could this be a slam dunk as the prosecution team makes it seem? I hope an innocent person who claims to have been set up does not go to jail. Ms. Reddings death was crimanal...I hope Ms. Park is not hastily convicted without a fair trail...that too would seem to be criminal.  (Edited out statements. Sprocket.)

Answer:

I never said Dr. Uwaydah is not a suspect in Juliana's death. I said that, most likely, the prosecution is still investigating him. I would refer you to the prosection's supplemental application motion for a court inquiry, page 3, lines 14-22. 

 

You said, "I hope an innocent person who claims to have been set up does not go to jail."  

 

Where in the press, has Park or her counsel said Park was set up? I've not read that. Could you direct me to an article? Has Park said that to you, personally?

 

The prosecution is in the middle of presenting their DNA evidence.  The witness who has tested most of the items presented is on the stand. Her testimony is not complete yet.  However, we have heard evidence that a latent fingerprint belonging to Park was found on an orange plate in the kitchen.  And, a drop of blood that was lifted with the latent print was also matched to Park.

 

The prosecution said in their opening statement that there were six items found in Juliana's apartment that contained DNA belonging to Park.  According to the prosecution, one area was the cell phone, another was Juliana's tank top, another was her neck.

 

The DNA analyst has already testified that the DNA found around Juliana's neck (where she was strangled) contained the profile of two individuals.  Juliana could not be excluded as the major contributor. The other contributor was a female. It's a good bet that the prosecution will put on testimony about the statistical probability of the DNA comparison of that second contributor to Park.

At this time, with all the prosecution evidence I've heard so far, I am having difficulty envisioning a probable scenario where Park's fingerprint and drop of blood was serendipitously obtained and planted at the crime scene to "set her up."  However, I do keep in mind that the defense has not presented their case yet. 

 

Anonymous @ 3:04 PM asked:

how can Ms Park afford a $3M bail if they have claimed that their family is average?. her party just delays the case, all evidences point to her.. let justice be served to the poor victim and her family..Asian Americans are given a chnace to lead a good life in the U.S land and yet this is what they do ..abuse their chances and roam free like millionaires!!shameful!

Answer:

Is there some article or other source that you can point me to, where Park or her representative has publicly said that her family is "average?"

 

Park paid a bail bondsman a small percentage of that amount to put up the $3.5 million. I do not know the source of the bail bond funds came from. Park's defense is being paid by Dr. Uwaydah. Park singed a conflict of interest waiver in that regard.