Saturday, June 22, 2013

KELLY SOO PARK TRIAL SYNOPSIS, Part II: Prosecution Witnesses 22-25; All Defense Witnesses

This section has the last of the witnesses that testified in the Park trial. Sprocket.
NOTE: 13 new documents, prosecution and defense motions have been added to the Kelly Soo Park Quick Links Page, under the 'DOCUMENTS' heading. Sprocket

Continued from Prosecution Witnesses 19-21...


From 206-2010 she was a real estate agent. She knew the defendant through business dealings. She was also working with Munir Uwaydah. She worked with Uwaydah since 2004. Worked with Park on behalf of Uwaydah since 2006.

Question about her work with Uwaydah.

She spoke with Park on the phone and received documents from her. She also received emails from Park. Witness was working as Uwaydah’s real estate agent. Park was working as his mortgage broker.


2009-2010  Manager, Ventura County Business Bank. He was introduced to Park from a business man, Martian Chung (sp?) Chung introduced him to a number of people, including Park and Uwaydah. Approximately May 2009 through 2010, he met with the defendant 25 times or more. Park was with Uwaydah on some of those occasions. Met with them together about ten times. He was aware the defendant had been arrested. Did no speak to her again after her arrest.



Identifies People’s 101.  This is an evidence envelope, relating to the fingerprint card.  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. This latent print and diagram was collected and prepared by Leslie Funo.)

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 identifies. Initials placed there after comparison. It’s personal preference where forensic specialists place their initials on the cards.

There were 10 unidentified prints at the scene.  Compared those prints to Juliana Redding. Received Juliana’s prints from the coroner’s office.  The quality of the prints were poor quality. Received Juliana’s right thumb print from DMV. She was able to compare those unidentified 10 prints, to the DMV card. Four of those were Juliana’s right thumb print.

Quality of Juliana’s prints were poor.  Was not able to determine if the six remaining prints belonged to Juliana.  Unable to do that due to the quality of her skin when her prints were rolled.

Coroner’s print card is entered into evidence. Witness explains the poor quality. The rolled inked impressions were lacking in a lot of detail. That’s due to the deterioration of the skin, and due to the fact that they were taken after death.

Juliana’s DMV right thumb print printout is entered into evidence. Used this print to compare with the latent prints.  It was a good quality print.

While at the scene, she located a set of keys belonging to Juliana Redding. Photo of keys at scene presented to witness. In the photo, 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 she found what she thought was a blood drop, she notified Detective Thompson and others.
When she was at the crime scene, Detective Thompson was not there.


She did not find the fingerprint.  She does not have any personal knowledge as to where the print was found.  She does not know whose keys those were, that were found at the scene.


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

The witness was asked to pull out as much information as possible from Juliana’s Blackberry cell phone. So the phone logs and Internet history could be reviewed.  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. Introduces ABC Blackberry report and explains information on it.
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; same thing. Other calls after the #17 call on the report, which was the 911 call. The time on the call is 9:52 PM. He verified that was the correct time. The 911, shows up on the phone itself. When a call is dialed, but not sent it will not show in the phone records. It will only be in the phone’s history.


All the report 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. It’s unknown if speed dial was set up for this number.  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).


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 reference and secondary samples she collected.  Reference sample is a direct sample from inside the mouth. Secondary sample is from an object an individual touched or drank from, such as a water bottle. Some people didn’t want to give a sample, so obtained secondary sample.  Obtained a lot of secondary samples from wine glasses, cigarettes, straws, towels. She even swabbed a cell phone. Obtained 42 samples. She personally obtained about 17-18 of those samples.

There was only one woman who could not be excluded. All the other 41 were excluded. A sample was obtained of the defendant's sister, who was excluded.

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 Uwaydah had given officers, had a "contact Kelly" with a phone number on the back of the card. Started looking into Kelly Park, linked to the phone number on the ID Card. Also found Park through public records search.

Her investigation continued the original investigation of evidence collection at the scene. Testing of the samples she collected were approved by Santa Monica City Hall. Obtained a cigarette butt from the defendant. Sent to lab on December 2nd, 2009.  Got a report from the lab that the defendant could not be excluded as contributing the DNA found at the scene.

Search warrant for DMV records for Park's thumb print. Wrote a 100 page document to get a wire tap.  Wrote the search warrant to get Park's fingerprints. Ultimately obtained her fingerprints after (Detective) Bambrick met with her.  This was two years after the crime.

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

Document listing the officers for Uwaydah of Frontline Medical for 2008 and 2009. Obtained search warrant of 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 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 requested were from January 1st, 2008, until end of December, 2010.

Two page bank statement for Sherwood Financial. 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 from Frontline Medical on June 11th. Amount $10,000.00.

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.

Bank statement for Kelly Park's personal account, June 11th to July 11th 2008. Money from Frontline Medical to this account, wire transfers. For the personal account, she looked at Jan 1 2008, through end of Dec. 2010.  From June 17th, 2008 and Oct 15th 2009, the total amount of transfers, including the checks: $437,827.26.

Total amount in the business account transferred was $186,100.00

The total of both, all transfers, checks, June 11th 2008 to December 10th, 2009 (a period covering) 1.5 years was $1,043.927.26.

Listened to the wire tap on June 14th, 2010, and stopped listening on the 18th or 19th of June.
Park was 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, Park and Uwaydah exchanged 16 telephone calls.

Did not interview Edan Rutledge.  First time spoke to her was in this courtroom. Ms. Rutledge worked at Primitivo. Interviewed another friend of Juliana, a coworker.

Booking photo of the defendant entered into evidence.


Regarding the bank records, she did not do any investigation as to the reason for the transfers. Does not personally know what those transfers were for.

The real estate she saw was not in Uwaydah's name.  Did not see him as owner of any 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.

Did not see that any of the $400,000.00 wire transfer went to Ventura County Real Estate Venture. Did see that there was a check written out to Kelly Park, from that account, for $300.00.00. The check is entered into evidence.




Witness lived near Juliana at 1521 Centinela, in the next building over.  A one story bungalow apartment.  Juliana was at 1527 Centinela, closer to the street. Her unit was deeper into the complex, next to the alley, next door to Juliana. They were in different complexes.

On March 15th, she remembers that Juliana Redding passed away. She remembers it vaguely. On that Saturday, she vaguely remembers she had a conversation with Juliana. 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. She's shown a copy of the police report of her interview.

Tavara 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. Juliana never called her again.


An image of Juliana's apartment complex is up on the screen. Witness points 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. Tavara and Juliana 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.


Knew Juliana. She was a coworker and hostess at the restaurant. They became friends. She went to Juliana's apartment from time to time. Brooks was at Juliana's house the evening of March 14th. She spent the night in Juliana's bed. Both slept in the bed. Brooks was at the apartment Saturday, the morning of March 15th. Doesn't remember how long she was there.  Guesses she left a little before 11 AM.

That Brooks moved her furniture around in Juliana's bedroom. Brooks doesn't remember the design fully. I believe she points to where she moved the bed. She doesn't believe if she at breakfast at the apartment. Doesn't specifically remember anything about the kitchen. Doesn't remember if she had anything to drink at Juliana's apartment. Did not give Juliana a physical massage. Doesn't believe she touched Juliana in any way.


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.  Brooks does not recall what Juliana was wearing that night. Doesn't remember what size Juliana's bed was. It definitely wasn't a twin bed. She does not remember what she was wearing.

Juliana offered to her a lamp.  She was going to take it but she didn't.


Friend of Juliana's. Lived with her for a time in Marina del Rey about a year or two. Knew Juliana in Palos Verdes before their move to Marina del Rey.

From knowing Juliana, generally she did not allow strangers into her home.  She was careful about that. She kept her door locked.  Murphy states she did not know about Juliana living in the Beverly Hills home.


When Juliana lived in Marina del Rey she did not have a dog.  When she lived in Centinela, she had a dog.


Forensic technologist for a company called Second Wave, Inc. General technology consulting firm. 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.  He's being paid an hourly wage.  The billing is handled by his company. Believes the company bills about $400.00 an hour for his time.

In his expert opinion, 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. The phone was off from 10:50 PM on the 15th to sometime on the 17th.

Questions about how much his company bills for his time. The company bills $400.00 an hour for his time. Court time works out differently. For a half day, the company would bill for three hours at $400.00 an hour.  That might represent two or three hours.  He estimates he worked about 20 hours on the case so far.  He was present in court on Monday and his company would bill for that time as well.

He typically testifies for the defense but has testified some for the prosecution. Almost all of the three dozen times he's testified have been for the defense. He's never worked for AT&T or trained in Blackberry's specifically. He has been trained in the data that comes from the blackberry.

He heard the Beverly Hills detective testify on Monday. He did see the records the detective relied upon. It does seem that a 911 (dialing/attempt?) does show up in the record.

The last training he did with AT&T was not an official training.  It's just when a case comes up.  Last time was would have been earlier this year.  Witness states this issue is pretty generic. Person he spoke to earlier this year, it wasn't about this case.  He doesn't know if someone turned off the phone, verses the battery going dead.

Review of the reports for the phone's usage and text messages received by Juliana's phone on the 17th. The witness agrees that these were text messages sent earlier, but the phone didn't receive them until the phone was turned on.

The witness won't assume that 911 was dialed. Agrees that it showed up on the call log. Witness states 10:50 was the last time a message was received on the phone. Witness explains how text messages are sent first to a tower, then to AT&T, then go boack through the system. According to the unbilled usage, the last call Ms. Redding received was at 9:52 PM.

The Blackberry does have alarms, messenger and alerts for that. Email is just data. If using a specific blackberry server, different price for that.  Depending on the package the customer chose for billing the email may come through as data. Even if it’s email, and all those notifications coming in like that, they would come at once  when the phone is turned on. On the page the witness reviewed, there are not listings marked as email.

REDIRECT EXAMINATION(I miss the answer to the question about his opinion as to whether the phone was turned off on the evening of March 15th. In the reports, he didn't see anything like on the 15th, was he saw on the 17th. He has worked for law enforcement.


In 2007, there was a time she was doing work at 1316 Beverly Grove, in Beverly Hills. She was working at this home for a 'good chunk of the year.'  She worked for Uwaydah in interior design. The home was under redesign. She cannot remember specific dates.  It was about six months.  While there, she did see Juliana Redding. O'Grady can't give a specific number of times, but did see her a few times.

O'Grady states she did see Kelly Park at the same residence.  Cannot give a specific date. She does remember there was one occasion they were both at the home at the same time.  She was introduced to both of them in the kitchen. She was introduced to 'her' as a friend.

She was introduced to Juliana via Uwaydah. She did not work for Uwaydah on other projects. States she saw the defendant a couple of times.  She cannot remember specifically what time of year it was.

When she was introduced to Juliana, Uwaydah introduced her as just "Juliana." She believes she met one other woman, but doesn't remember her name. The reason she remembered Juliana was because she was a lovely woman. Doesn't believe she told the investigator she saw other women at the house as well. Believes the investigator asked her about Park and Juliana.

Witness is confronted with the fact that the defense investigators report does not say that O'Grady saw both Park and Juliana on the same day.  The defense investigator called her out of the blue and asked if she had met Park or Juliana in the home.  O'Grady states she said (to the investigator?) she remembered one incident where Juliana was in the kitchen and Ms. Park was in the vicinity of the kitchen.  O'Grady states she thinks the prosecutor is using some legal mumbo jumbo when she was asked if the statements in the investigator's report are incorrect.

Witness reads the investigator's report. She is asked if the report reflects her statements that she saw Park and Juliana in the house on the same day. Agrees those specific words are not in the report

States when she was introduced to Juliana it was so long ago. Uwaydah introduced her to Juliana. She was specifically introduced as a friend. She does not remember if Ms. Park was introduced as a friend.


This ends Part II of my synopsis of witness testimony from both sides.  Part III will review the closing arguments. I will be utilizing a transcript of the closings and not my own notes to give a more complete synopsis in Part III. Sprocket.

To be continued in Part III...


Anonymous said...

Wouldn't it be an important question to ask the defense why Park's DNA would even be at the scene without having to guess? Park should be required to provide this information.

Sprocket said...

Anon @ 3:22 PM
When/how would the prosecution ask this? Do you mean in closing arguments?

Remember, Park/her defense is not required by law to do anything. The burden is on the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt.

NancyB said...

I really want to thank-you for all of your detailed articles on Park's trial post verdict.

At on point several weeks back you asked your readers if any of them wanted you to provide an in-depth article on DNA but I did not see any response to your inquiry/offer. I remember that you did a stellar article on DNA during the Stephanie Lazarus trial. I was hoping that you could give me the date of that excellent posted article of yours.

I also wanted to tell you how grateful I am that you purchased and made available for your readers the Jury Instructions for Park's jury! I had spent more than an hour searching online for this document during the time frame of when they began deliberating without any success in locating this document. Many thanks, Betsy!

NancyB said...

I want to thank-you for all of your detailed articles on Park's trial post verdict. I was thrilled to see that you purchased many important documents that you have made available for your readers. I was especially glad to finally be able to read the Jury Instructions. I had spent more than an hour searching on line for this document once the jury began their deliberations, without any success.

Many weeks back you posted an inquiry to your readers requesting to know if they were interested in you providing a detailed article on DNA. Unless I missed it, no one responded. I remember an excellent and in-depth article on DNA that I think that you did during the Stephanie Lazarus trial but I can't seem to locate it through the quick links for her case. Can you point me to the date of that article as I want a refresher. Thanks in advance.

Sprocket said...

Hi Nancy B,

Thank you! I'm not remembering that I did a specific post during the Lazarus on the DNA.

I can point you to the specific testimony in Lazarus, where DNA analysts testified:

#21: Jennifer Francis: Day 4 Part II and Day 5 Part II.

#24 Michael Mastrocovo, Day 5 Part II.

I hope this helps.

Understand that all court documents for criminal trials in LA County usually need to be purchased from the court. There are rare cases where the DA's office passes out copies of their motions or charging documents to the press.

Sometimes, Judges will allow the press to have specific documents during the trial (such as the recording of audio of detectives stopping Park at a Ventura Co. Animal Shelter and serving a search warrant.), but it all depends on the particular Judge.

Sprocket said...

I'm sorry Nancy. I almost forgot about another DNA prosecution witness in the Lazarus case.

#43 Thomas Fedor, the DNA analyst from the lab, SERI who tested several items in the case.

He testified late in the day on Day 10 and in the morning on day 11.