SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA, Monday, March 11, 2002, 1:31 PM INDEX EXAMINATION Witness Page Blackbourne, Brian Cross Examination by Mr. Feldman 89 Re-Direct Examination by Mr. Dusek 112 Re-Cross Examination by Mr. Feldman 114 Re-Direct Examination by Mr. Dusek 117 Sperber, Norman Direct Examination by Mr. Dusek 119 Cross Examination by Mr. Boyce 125 Re-Direct Examination by Mr. Dusek 130 Hoeffs, Christina Direct Examination by Mr. Dusek 134 Cross Examination by Mr. Boyce 142 Re-Direct Examination by Mr. Dusek 161 Keene, Johnny Direct Examination by Mr. Dusek 163 Cross Examination by Mr. Boyce 173 Direct Examination by Mr. Dusek 179 Cross Examination by Mr. Boyce 212 EXHIBITS Exhibit Description Identification Evidence 2 Autopsy photo 117 -- 3 Photo display board 210 -- 89 1 SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA, Monday, March 11, 2002, 1:31 PM 2 3 P R O C E E D I N G S 4 5 THE COURT: Good afternoon. 6 MR. CLARKE: Good afternoon, Your Honor. 7 THE COURT: All right. Where is the doctor? 8 Okay. Remember, doctor, you're still under oath. 9 THE WITNESS: Yes, Your Honor. 10 THE COURT: Please proceed. 11 12 Brian Blackbourne, 13 Resumed the stand and testified further as follows: 14 15 CROSS-EXAMINATION (RESUMED) 16 BY MR. FELDMAN: 17 Q. Good afternoon, sir. 18 A. Good afternoon, Mr. Feldman. 19 Q. Sir, I think you told us just a while ago on 20 direct that your first contact with the person who you 21 autopsied was at the scene; is that correct? 22 A. That is correct. 23 Q. Can you please tell us how did you get the call, 24 who called you, what caused you to go to the scene? 25 A. Sergeant Bill Holmes called me and told me they 26 were ready. 27 Q. When you say they were ready, meaning that 28 law enforcement had concluded their work? 90 1 A. Yes. That the law enforcement was ready for the 2 medical examiner's office to respond. 3 Q. All right. And did you yourself go to the scene? 4 A. Yes. 5 Q. And why did you do that, as opposed to just 6 allowing the coroner to do it? 7 A. Well, we always go to the scene, the doctors 8 always go to the scene of a homicide where they're dead at 9 the scene. 10 Q. Why? 11 A. To do a preliminary examination, offer some early 12 information to the law enforcement, and also so we can look 13 over the surroundings of the scene in case some of those 14 surroundings may impact on our interpretation of the 15 injuries. 16 Q. In other words, it's become the policy of the 17 medical examiner's office, at least through you, to go to 18 the crime scenes so -- to insure that the examiners obtain 19 the maximum accurate information possible; is that right? 20 A. Yes. 21 Q. And that's actually the policy that you started, 22 isn't it? 23 A. Yes. 24 Q. And that helps both sides because it allows your 25 independent offices to form opinions, right? 26 A. That's correct. 27 Q. Now, sir, when you went to this particular scene, 28 could you tell us when did that happen, daytime, nighttime? 91 1 A. Nighttime, 10:45 P.M. 2 Q. And I think on direct, it appeared to me anyway, 3 you were looking at some kind of paper. Do you have the 4 papers you were referring to? 5 A. Yes, I do. 6 Q. Would you please tell me what it was you were 7 referring to? 8 A. Well, I have a scene report which I provided 9 copies to the district attorney this morning. 10 MR. FELDMAN: May I approach, please? 11 THE COURT: Sure. 12 MR. FELDMAN: I just want to see. 13 THE COURT: Why doesn't everybody look, make sure 14 we're all on the same page. 15 MR. FELDMAN: That would work. 16 Q. Sir, you're showing us one page. Was there more 17 pages? 18 A. This is all the scene report. Then we have the 19 draft autopsy report. We have a diagram of the body 20 indicating those areas which -- where the skin was intact 21 and those where the skin was not intact. 22 Q. Yes. And then there appears to be additional 23 work -- 24 A. This is a preliminary set of autopsy notes that I 25 write out before I dictate. 26 Q. Okay. And is there anything else that you 27 reviewed for purposes of refreshing your recollection in 28 anticipation of testifying? 92 1 A. Those are the things. 2 Q. Thank you, sir. 3 Now, at the scene I think you described the body 4 as in a stage of advanced decomposition. Is that a fair 5 statement? 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. Is there a difference between we'll say small, 8 medium and advanced, do you understand what I'm asking you, 9 composition -- decomposition? 10 A. Yes, there is. 11 Q. Can you tell us, first, just progress -- if you 12 can just give us a little bit of information as to how the 13 body decomposes over time. 14 A. Well, in the first 48 hours we expect to see a 15 little red -- I'm sorry -- green discoloration of the right 16 lower abdomen overlying the cecum, where the bacteria are. 17 The bacteria go through the soft tissues and discolor the 18 skin. That's one of the first signs. 19 Rigor mortis, which has been -- more or less 20 maximum between about 8 hours and 18 hours, begins to 21 recede. 22 Q. I want to stop you for a minute. I'm sorry. 23 Just to backtrack so we're all tracking. With regard to 24 the first 48 hours that you first mentioned with regard 25 where there's a green discoloration, that's a result, is it 26 not, of anaerobic bacteria, which essentially decompose the 27 body from inside out? 28 A. That's correct. 93 1 Q. Then you mentioned rigor mortis. Is that 2 correct? 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. Can you define what you mean by rigor mortis, 5 please? 6 A. Rigor mortis is a postmortem change whereby after 7 a person dies, the muscles, without any circulation, begin 8 to accumulate the metabolic products of the muscle, and it 9 causes the muscles to become rigid. That rigidity occurs 10 gradually. First noticed in about 2 to 4 hours, and more 11 or less maximum in 6 to 8 hours. That degree of 12 rigor mortis stays, essentially we call it full rigor, 13 until about 18 hours. This is at a normal 72 degree room 14 temperature. It's all totally temperature dependent. So 15 it's speeded up if you're inside a hot car, it's 16 120 degrees, or slowed down if you're outside in the winter 17 and it's 30 degrees. But we just take an average 18 room temperature, 72 degrees. 19 Q. So what you're assuming is homeostasis, correct? 20 A. Yes. 21 Q. In other words, a consistent ambient temperature? 22 A. Yes. 23 Q. And your answers with regard to the manner in 24 which the body decomposes assume a consistent 25 ambient temperature; is that right, sir? 26 A. Yes. 27 Q. Okay. So I think you just told us that 48 hours 28 or so you would expect rigor to stop or -- 94 1 A. Rigor would have receded by that time. 2 Q. All right. And when you say receded, what do you 3 mean to communicate? 4 A. That the extremities are limp. You can move them 5 at will. 6 Q. All right. And after the extremities become 7 limp, does the body ever return to rigor? 8 A. No. 9 Q. So once rigor passes, the body becomes limp, as 10 you put it; is that correct? 11 A. That's correct. As long as the natural sequence 12 has been allowed to go through to the 48-hour -- or 24, 13 48-hour time frame. 14 Now, if the body is interrupted when it's in full 15 rigor and the rigor is broken by moving the joints, then 16 the body is left alone, then rigor mortis may recur in 17 those extremities, because it hasn't really gone through 18 the full cycle. 19 Q. But you can't tell, at least with regard to the 20 autopsy performed in this case, whether or not that rigor 21 was interrupted; is that correct, you cannot tell? 22 A. I cannot. That's correct. 23 Q. After then rigor passes and the body softens, 24 what happens next? 25 A. Well then, the changes of the bacteria, they 26 begin to extend, as I mentioned, to the right lower 27 quadrant of the abdomen, but then the bacteria get in the 28 bloodstream. They go all through the bloodstream, the 95 1 blood being a good nutrient for the bacteria, and we get 2 tissue gas formation where the body begins to bloat and the 3 skin shows changes, we call marbling, sort of a venous 4 pattern on the skin. 5 Q. With regard to the tissue gas formation, that 6 creates an odor, does it not? 7 A. It does. 8 Q. And presence or absence of odor may be 9 symptomatic or circumstantial evidence of the time of 10 death; isn't that correct? 11 A. Yes. If the body is still in that sort of stage 12 of rigor where there is a lot of odor. 13 Q. Or at least it allows you an additional fact from 14 which you can draw an inference as to time of death; is 15 that correct? 16 A. It's another help, yes. 17 Q. And among the ways that you as a forensic 18 scientist have to evaluate time of death, in addition to 19 what literature exists, involve what? 20 A. Well, the rigor, rigor mortis, the lividity, the 21 decomposition. 22 Q. I haven't asked you to define lividity, sir. 23 Could you please do that? 24 A. Lividity is a phenomenon that after someone dies, 25 the blood, by just plain gravity, goes to the dependent 26 areas. So if someone is lying on their back, we see the 27 lividity in their back, on the back of the sides. 28 Sometimes on the face. 96 1 Q. And is there a time at which or in which, within 2 which lividity normally will, I don't know, kick in? 3 A. Well, lividity, again, is gradual. Begins 4 essentially as soon as the death occurs. We really don't 5 see it prominently for a couple of hours, and becomes 6 active again after 6 to 8 hours. 7 Q. Doesn't it fix at some point in time? 8 A. After about 8 hours it will be fixed in that 9 location, and if the body is then moved to another location 10 and another part of the body is face down, some blood will 11 go to the new position, but the older, fixed lividity will 12 stay in the original position. 13 Q. So the presence of fixed lividity, too, is 14 another element that you can utilize in assisting you in 15 forming opinions as to time of death; is that correct, sir? 16 A. When it's fixed, you can, yes. 17 Q. So we have lividity, rigor mortis, we have the 18 extent to which the body's decomposed, meaning the tissue 19 gas formation that you referenced. What else do you look 20 for -- 21 A. Well, the body temperature. 22 Q. And with regard to the body temperature, there is 23 literature that suggests the best way to get to the body 24 temperature is to stick a thermometer in and measure it 25 from the liver; is that right? 26 A. We don't do that. We don't think that is an 27 appropriate thing to do. 28 Q. But I asked you the literature is out there 97 1 basically suggesting, correct, that one way within which 2 you can gain information about internal core temperature is 3 by sticking a thermometer in and evaluating the liver; is 4 that correct? 5 A. There is literature on that, yes. 6 Q. AND with regard to the issue of core temperature, 7 does that have a particular meaning to you? 8 A. Yes. 9 Q. Can you tell us what that means, please? 10 A. The core temperature would be the inner core of 11 the body, as opposed to the extremities or the fingers or 12 toes. 13 Q. And with regard to the process of death, when an 14 individual dies, the body cools from the outside in; is 15 that correct? 16 A. That's correct. 17 Q. And so you can utilize core temperature under 18 some circumstances, at least to assist you in determining, 19 again, or obtaining an additional circumstance with regard 20 to inferences on time of death; is that right? 21 A. You can do that, yes. 22 Q. What about vitreous humor? What's 23 vitreous humor? 24 A. Well, there was a lot of work done in the '50's 25 and '60's about determining the time of death from the 26 vitreous Potassium. Over the years that has been 27 discredited and the plus or minus range was greater than we 28 can do with just plain rigor mortis and lividity and body 98 1 temperature. 2 Q. When we talk -- when you and I talk about 3 vitreous humor, we're actually talking about the fluid 4 that's behind the eyeballs in human beings, correct? 5 A. In the eyeball, yes. 6 Q. And you're aware there exists a significant body 7 of literature starting I guess in the mid-'60's where 8 individuals have sought to ascertain time of death within 9 plus or minus 4 hours by utilization of vitreous humor 10 studies, correct? 11 A. Yes. But it was greater than four hours if you 12 went beyond the, you know, five or six-hour range. 13 Q. After the tissue gas formation and the marbling 14 that you were referencing just a little while ago, can you 15 tell us what's the next stage of decomposition? 16 A. Well, infestation by insects and beetles and all 17 those little bugs. 18 Q. And you told us, I think on direct examination, 19 that one of the individuals that was present with you in 20 the, I guess autopsy, was a person from the museum of 21 natural history; is that right? 22 A. That's correct. 23 Q. That would be David Faulkner; is that right? 24 A. That's correct. 25 Q. And David Faulkner is an entomologist, correct? 26 A. Yes. 27 Q. And your office uses the services of forensic 28 entomologists to assist you in ascertaining time of death; 99 1 isn't that correct? 2 A. We usually collect the specimens, and then he 3 does the analysis. 4 Q. In this case was he present to collect specimens? 5 A. Yes, he was. 6 Q. Is that unusual? 7 A. It is unusual in my experience. Usually the 8 law enforcement collects a bunch of beetles and maggots and 9 sends them to him, but in this case he came to the autopsy 10 and collected them himself. 11 Q. And also there's a body bag that I think you 12 testified to on direct examination which also might 13 collect, I don't know, would you call it debris from the 14 body as the body is transported from the location it's 15 found to the coroner's office? 16 A. Yes. The body was actually placed in a clean 17 white sheet and then inside the white body bag. 18 Q. All right. And so have you preserved the 19 white body bag? 20 A. I believe they're both preserved by the San Diego 21 police department. 22 Q. Have you looked inside? 23 A. I looked inside at the time, and Mr. Faulkner was 24 collecting the insects which were lying free in there, too. 25 Q. Do you recall, can you tell me from what part of 26 the body did Mr. Faulkner remove insects, if you recall? 27 A. Well, they were more or less all over, but more 28 in the mouth area than anywhere else. 100 1 Q. And based on your experience in doing autopsies, 2 and especially autopsies involving individuals who have 3 been left out for some period of time, is the mouth 4 generally a good cavity to preserve or obtain evidence 5 from? 6 A. It's a favorite for the maggots and small insects 7 because it's moist and hidden in there. They can go in 8 there and -- 9 Q. Now, I think you used the word mummification 10 earlier? 11 A. Yes. 12 Q. Can you please tell us at what stage of the 13 decomposition process would you expect mummification to 14 occur? 15 A. Well, mummification occurs only in sort of a dry, 16 warm atmosphere. Commonly in the desert in the summertime. 17 This body was mummified. All the skin that was still 18 present was mummified, a brown leathery appearance. 19 Q. And does that -- is that -- I'm sorry. Is that 20 the same as you said as mottling or is that something 21 different? 22 A. That's something different. 23 Q. Can you please explain to me the difference 24 between what you're describing as mummification and 25 mottling of the skin? 26 A. Well, mottling is an earlier phase of 27 decomposition, and it's when the skin is intact, you get 28 sort of like marble, the veins in the marble, we get a 101 1 pattern like that on the skin. It resembles the blood in 2 the -- the vessels in the skin, as an earlier sign under 3 different circumstances than the mummification. 4 Q. Now, with regard to your conclusion, you told us 5 on direct examination that in your opinion this was a 6 homicide; is that correct? 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. That just means an unexplained death; isn't that 9 right? 10 A. Means death at the hands of another. 11 Q. But we don't know how -- all you know is that you 12 found -- this body was presented to you; is that correct? 13 A. We know a lot of people looking for the body and 14 it finally was found in Descanso. 15 Q. But, for instance, you were looking for bullet 16 wounds, correct? 17 A. I was looking, yes. 18 Q. Didn't find any of those, did you? 19 A. I did not. 20 Q. Looking for knife wounds, correct? 21 A. Yes. 22 Q. Didn't find any, did you? 23 A. No. 24 Q. Looking for ligature marks, weren't you? 25 A. Yes. 26 Q. Didn't find any, did you? 27 A. No. 28 Q. Looking for sperm, as Mr. Dusek mentioned, 102 1 correct? 2 A. Right. 3 Q. Didn't find any, did you? 4 A. The police did that examination, but -- the 5 police did that examination. Not our office. 6 Q. So in other words, even the use of that word has 7 nothing whatsoever to do with anything you obtained or 8 observed in connection with your autopsy; is that right? 9 A. It's a more general observation, yes. 10 Q. You were looking for semen, that's part of some 11 of the toxicology you might do later; is that correct? 12 A. No. The toxicology is on the blood. The 13 police department does all the sexual assault work-up, 14 including the sperm. 15 Q. With regard to the toxicology in this case, has 16 the -- has there been a tox screen done, do you know? 17 A. They're in the process of doing it. It Will be 18 several weeks before it's completed. 19 Q. All right. So we don't know or at least your 20 office hasn't been able to obtain the results with regard 21 to the -- to any of the toxicology yet; is that correct? 22 A. That's correct. 23 Q. So then is it fair to say that at least what 24 you've done so far is look to the gross findings? 25 A. Yes. 26 Q. Specifically you were looking for evidence, were 27 you not, of -- we'll say strangulation? 28 A. I was. 103 1 Q. And with regard to the area of the neck, I think 2 you comment in your autopsy that you found no -- nothing to 3 suggest any injury to the neck, correct? 4 A. I found no injuries to the neck, that's correct. 5 Q. And when you find a strangulation, you generally 6 find injuries to the neck; isn't that correct? 7 A. Yes. There's usually injuries in the neck, on 8 the skin, in the muscles, in the cartilages. 9 Q. And you found no injuries in any of the areas 10 that you just articulated; isn't that correct? 11 A. That's correct. 12 Q. Therefore, it's fair to say that one conclusion 13 we can draw from your testimony is that this young girl did 14 not die by strangulation, correct? 15 A. Did not have the injuries normally associated 16 with strangulation, yes. 17 Q. So would you agree with me that one reasonable 18 interpretation of the evidence that you found is that she 19 did not die by strangulation? 20 MR. DUSEK: Objection. Calls for speculation. 21 THE COURT: Overruled. 22 THE WITNESS: As I stated, I did not find any of 23 the injuries we normally associate with strangulation. 24 BY MR. FELDMAN: 25 Q. Nor did you find any of the injuries that you 26 normally associate with sexual assault; isn't that correct? 27 A. We were really unable to do that part of the 28 examination. 104 1 Q. Well, one of the things that you're trained to 2 do, and certainly there were lots of law enforcement that 3 were interested, as was the community, was to look to 4 determine whether or not there was any evidence of 5 sexual abuse; isn't that right? 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. And I think you told us on direct examination 8 that you had swabbed an area or some areas for later 9 forensic evaluation by law enforcement; is that correct, 10 sir? 11 A. That's correct. 12 Q. With regard to the areas that you swabbed, could 13 you please tell me what were those areas? 14 A. The rectum and another tubular structure which 15 either was a vagina or the bladder. Probably the bladder. 16 Q. And those swabs, did you look at them 17 microscopically? 18 A. No. I transferred those over to the criminalist 19 from the San Diego Police Department. 20 Q. And who was that? 21 A. Savage and Dulaney. 22 Q. In the ordinary course of business, would that be 23 something that you, sir, as a forensic pathologist just 24 would look at? 25 A. We normally make one set of slides for ourselves, 26 and then give one set of slides to the law enforcement. 27 Q. In this case you did not do that? 28 A. I did not do that. 105 1 Q. Why? 2 A. Because the tissue was so deteriorated we just 3 gave them all to the police. 4 Q. So all the tissue was -- 5 A. Yes. 6 Q. Because in your view there wasn't really anything 7 that could -- inferences couldn't be drawn from what was 8 there because it was too deteriorated? 9 A. Yes. 10 Q. You looked specifically in the area of the neck, 11 and I note that you said that there were no traumatic 12 injuries observed on the anterior or lateral neck; is that 13 correct? 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. I'm sorry. I get confused. Which is the 16 anterior and which is the lateral? 17 A. The anterior is the front. The lateral is the 18 sides. 19 Q. You also said the back of the neck also 20 demonstrates no observable injury; is that correct? 21 A. That's correct. 22 Q. So, again, it appears, at least in terms of your 23 evaluation of the neck, what you're seeking to either 24 include or rule out is evidence of strangulation or 25 something; is that correct? 26 A. Yes. 27 Q. In your professional experience, when 28 strangulation or -- I'll say strangulation has occurred, 106 1 would you expect there to be some damage to the 2 thyroid cartilage or the hyoid bone? 3 A. Yes, there would, under normal circumstances. 4 Q. And in this case you found no evidence of injury 5 to the hyoid cartilage or the thyroid bone? 6 A. That is correct. Although they're cartilaginous 7 in a young girl of this age. 8 Q. You also indicate that rigor mortis, by the time 9 at least you did your autopsy, had receded, and lividity 10 was indeterminate due to decomposition; is that correct? 11 A. That's correct. 12 Q. When you discussed the cardiovascular system, you 13 indicated that the intima, if I'm saying it correctly, 14 exhibits hemolytic staining, and that all the branch ostia 15 are patent. Would you please tell me what that means? 16 A. I believe you're reading about the aorta, are 17 you? 18 Q. Cardiovascular system, page 10 of what I have, 19 and I'd be happy to show it to you. 20 A. Bottom of that paragraph, right? 21 Q. Yes, sir. 22 A. Okay. That's the aorta, the large blood vessel 23 that takes the blood from the heart and distributes it to 24 the rest of the body. 25 Q. What I'm wondering is what's the intima? 26 A. The intama is the lining of that, and it's 27 stained. Hemolytic staining, that's when blood breaks 28 down, and the red hemoglobin stains the inside of the 107 1 aorta. That's a postmortem change noticed after two or 2 three days. 3 Q. So, in other words, what you're saying is it's a 4 stain that consistent with a body being left out for a 5 period of time? 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. And you said all the branch ostia are patent. 8 A. They're patent, wide open. They're not narrowed. 9 Q. I'm sorry. I don't know what the branch ostia 10 are. 11 A. Oh, all the branches going to the kidneys and the 12 stomach and the liver. 13 Q. Okay. Is this a change postmortem which is 14 consistent or inconsistent with homicide? 15 A. No. That's a normal finding. 16 Q. You indicated in your report that a portion of 17 the distal colon front/rectum was identified and swabbed. 18 A. Yes. 19 Q. What's distal? 20 A. Distal is the going further down. 21 Q. All right. 22 A. It's the lower part of the colon as it joins the 23 rectum. 24 Q. And I think you had told us that portions of the 25 lower abdomen had been opened up by animals? 26 A. Yes. 27 Q. Does the findings that you might make with regard 28 to the distal portion -- a portion of the distal colon and 108 1 rectum, are those findings affected in any manner by the 2 animal damage that may have been done? 3 A. No. The animals did not damage that area. 4 Q. Another observation you made was that there 5 appeared to be no petechial hemorrhaging, no petechiae; is 6 that right? 7 A. What paragraph is that, sir? 8 Q. I'm at page 13, line 3. Reads the mucosa 9 demonstrates moderate otolysis without petechiae. 10 A. Yes. That's in the larynx paragraph. So that's 11 a description of the lining of the larynx. 12 Q. Well, the petechial hemorrhages are something 13 that you would look for as a forensic pathologist; isn't 14 that correct? 15 A. Yes. 16 Q. And the reason that you look for petechial 17 hemorrhages is because the petechiae are actually blood 18 vessels that have popped during -- I guess the causation of 19 death; isn't that right? 20 A. Or prior to death. 21 Q. All right. So the existence of petechial 22 hemorrhages is circumstantial evidence of a homicide, 23 correct? 24 A. Not always. It could be a natural death. 25 Q. Sometimes the presence of petechial 26 hemorrhages -- 27 A. Sometimes, yes. In strangulation we commonly see 28 them. 109 1 Q. And does the absence then of petechial 2 hemorrhages, is that a circumstance that's consistent with 3 a natural death? 4 A. The absence of them is consistent with a lot of 5 deaths, yes. It's just a negative finding. 6 Q. A positive finding is consistent with something 7 I'll say adverse. A negative finding you're saying is 8 basically neutral? 9 A. No. I mean you can have strangulation with no 10 petechiae in the larynx. That's all I'm saying. 11 Q. How about in the eyes? 12 A. In the eyes we normally see petechiae in 13 strangulation. 14 Q. And how about in the upper areas of the face? 15 A. We can occasionally see the upper eyelids, the 16 forehead, the nose with petechiae in strangulation. 17 Q. And what about in circumstances where the body is 18 mummified? Have you ever seen petechial hemorrhaging or 19 searched for evidence of petechiae in circumstances where 20 the body is -- I guess, as you described it, mummified? 21 A. I cannot recall a case where it's mummified. 22 That's pretty far out decomposition. Early decomposition 23 when you're still able to examine the eyes, you still may 24 see petechiae. We could not examine the eyes because they 25 were essentially destroyed by decomposition. 26 Q. Okay. Now, I think you've told us on direct 27 examination that, in your view, the -- your findings were 28 consistent with the proposition that the body could have 110 1 been there for, I don't know, I think you said two and a 2 half, three and half weeks, somewhere like that; is that 3 correct? 4 A. It's consistent with that. 5 Q. Isn't it also the case that one reasonable 6 interpretation of your findings and the body condition is 7 that the body could have been killed after, we'll say 8 February the 5th? Can't rule that out, can you, sir? 9 A. No, we can't rule that out. 10 Q. So one reasonable interpretation of the evidence 11 is that Danielle was killed after February 5th, just based 12 on the your findings today; isn't that correct? 13 A. That also would be consistent. 14 Q. What about -- in terms of your findings, would 15 you say that the body -- it's also reasonable 16 to -- I'm sorry -- try that again. 17 Is another reasonable interpretation of your 18 findings that Danielle could have been killed after the 19 6th? 20 A. Also it could be consistent. 21 Q. How about the 7th? 22 A. Yes. 23 Q. 8th? 24 A. Yes. 25 Q. 9th? 26 A. Yes. 27 Q. February 10th? 28 A. Yes. 111 1 Q. At what point, the 11th -- I mean how far do I go 2 before you say no, I guess is what I'm really asking? 3 A. Well, the body is decomposed and mummified. It 4 certainly has been out there weeks. I don't think it's one 5 week. I think it's more than one week. 6 Q. Okay. 7 A. Two, two and a half, three, three and half. All 8 of those would be consistent. 9 Q. So that means, though, that if an individual was 10 in jail on February 4th, one reasonable interpretation of 11 the evidence is that that individual who was in jail on 12 February the 4th could not have been the assailant because 13 your findings are consistent with the notion that two weeks 14 prior to the 26th, which would have been the 12th, might 15 have been the date of death, correct? 16 MR. DUSEK: Objection. Argumentative, 17 speculation. 18 THE COURT: Sustained. 19 MR. FELDMAN: Just if I could have one moment? 20 THE COURT: You may. 21 MR. FELDMAN: I'm sorry. Just a couple more 22 questions. 23 Q. When the body passes through rigor, post 24 lividity, and decomposes or starts decomposition, does the 25 musculature or body structure in any way -- does it become 26 limp? What I'm asking is does the body become limp or does 27 it become rigid post lividity, post rigidity, post 28 rigor mortis? 112 1 A. Well, the rigor mortis is the only thing that 2 relates to the body's firmness, and once it's passed 3 through rigor mortis, the body actually becomes limp, the 4 muscles become limp, and the extremities can be moved 5 freely, at will. There's no resistance to movement. 6 Q. So, in other words, if a body was in the 7 condition that you just articulated and just thrown down, 8 we'll say, whatever gravity happens to be is how the body 9 might lay; is that correct? 10 A. Yes. 11 MR. FELDMAN: No further questions. Thank you 12 very much. 13 THE COURT: Counsel? 14 15 REDIRECT EXAMINATION 16 BY MR. DUSEK: 17 Q. Did you attempt to find indications of 18 sexual abuse? 19 A. We attempted to find, yes. 20 Q. Was the condition of the body helping you or 21 hurting you in that investigation? 22 A. Condition was hurting us in that regard. 23 Q. Why? 24 A. The tissues had deteriorated by decomposition. 25 Q. All right. You talked about petechial 26 hemorrhaging. Where do you see that? 27 A. Most commonly in the eyes and the tissues around 28 the eyes, like the eyelids, sometimes on the forehead, 113 1 sometimes on the cheeks. 2 Q. And what does it look like? 3 A. Little tiny pinpoint hemorrhages. 4 Q. Were you able to see anything like that on the 5 body that you were examining? 6 A. No, we did not. 7 Q. Why not? 8 A. Because the eyes were totally destroyed and the 9 tissue of the face was actually mummified, sort of 10 leather-like. 11 Q. So any questions regarding petechial hemorrhaging 12 has nothing to do with the cause of death or time of death? 13 A. Well, they may have something to do with it, but 14 nothing I could identify at the time to speak to it at all. 15 Q. All right. And there was another type of death, 16 I don't think we got into, asphyxiation. What is that? 17 A. Asphyxiation is the loss of oxygen to the 18 tissues. 19 Q. How does that happen? 20 A. Well, it can happen a lot of different ways. 21 Commonly in strangulation when pressure is placed around 22 the neck. Smothering, when something is placed over the 23 nose and mouth or hands are pressed over the nose and 24 mouth. Compression of the neck, aside from strangulation, 25 just pressure on the neck. Pressure on the chest can cause 26 asphyxia. A lot of pressure where you can't breathe. 27 Q. If one were to place a hand over the nose and 28 mouth of a child this size, would you expect to see any 114 1 signs of that in the body condition that you saw? 2 A. When the body's immediately dead, we may see 3 fingernail marks, abrasions. But with this mummification, 4 there's not much chance of seeing subtle marks on the face. 5 Q. And if a pillow was pushed over a child's face, 6 would that cause asphyxiation? 7 A. It could, yes. 8 Q. Would you expect to see any signs of that if you 9 got the body right now? 10 A. Well, right now, I have seen on a couple of 11 occasions a nose being pressed to the side and the pillow 12 case showing lipstick and that sort of physical evidence, 13 but at this period of time with this decomposition, I would 14 not expect to see much on the face. 15 MR. DUSEK: Thank you, sir. Nothing further. 16 THE COURT: Counsel? 17 18 RECROSS-EXAMINATION 19 BY MR. FELDMAN: 20 Q. Sir, any X-rays done on the body? 21 A. Yes. X-rays were taken. I believe it was four. 22 Q. And one of the purposes of the X-rays is to 23 determine whether or not bones were broken; is that 24 correct? 25 A. For fractures and foreign material on the body, 26 yes, in the body. 27 Q. When counsel was talking about asphyxiation and 28 placing pillows or hands over the face, you many times have 115 1 seen circumstances where that's occurred; is that correct? 2 A. A few occasions, yes. 3 Q. And on those few occasions have you noticed 4 broken bones in the area of the nose, have you? 5 A. No. Not necessarily. 6 Q. The literature would suggest, would it not, that 7 there are occasions where I'll say asphyxiation occurs in 8 the manner that counsel described where there is fractures 9 of the bones which would assist pathologists or 10 medical examiners to form opinions as to the cause of 11 death; isn't that right? 12 A. That would be pressure in excess of what is 13 necessary just to suffocate someone. 14 Q. Well, you talked about, for instance, compression 15 of the -- or pressure on the chest. 16 A. Yes. 17 Q. Did you notice any broken ribs? 18 A. No. There were no broken ribs. 19 Q. So is that a finding that's consistent or 20 inconsistent with compression on the chest? 21 A. Well, in a 7-year-old one does not need to 22 fracture ribs. They are so flexible that they can be 23 compressed and pop back. But there were no fractures 24 identified. 25 Q. And for that matter, there's no way for you to 26 tell whether that occurred; isn't that correct? 27 A. There's no way for me to tell that, that's 28 correct. 116 1 Q. So, again, the questions raise speculations, but 2 you don't have scientific data to support any conclusion 3 about asphyxiation; isn't that correct? 4 A. Not as direct evidence I found at the autopsy, 5 no. 6 Q. In a mummified body, might you expect to find, if 7 a person had sharp fingernails, might you expect to find 8 evidence of fingernails if they were placed over the face 9 in a particular manner? 10 A. Again, it's a matter of how much pressure and how 11 long the fingernails are and how much fighting there was 12 against that force. Certainly they can leave fingernail 13 marks on the face, and they have to be deep and pretty 14 obvious to still be apparent with mummification. 15 Q. Did you see any evidence of that? 16 A. I did not. 17 Q. Let me ask you this question. Hypothetically, if 18 you were to assume that an individual was trying to 19 suffocate somebody, and the suffocatee, the person who was 20 being suffocated, was trying to resist, and resisted with 21 such force that there's fingernail marks on a person's arm, 22 would you expect, conversely, in a mummified body, that you 23 might see evidence of the force that was being used by the 24 suffocator? 25 A. Again, it would depend on the method of 26 suffocation. A pillow does not necessarily transmit any 27 direct injury to the body. Hands, fingernails obviously 28 could. Plastic bag does not. 117 1 Q. So basically presence or absence of we'll say 2 scrape marks on an individual doesn't necessarily mean that 3 that person ever suffocated anybody; isn't that correct? 4 A. Not by itself, no. 5 MR. FELDMAN: Nothing further. 6 THE COURT: Counsel? 7 MR. DUSEK: I've had marked as People's exhibit 2 8 a copy of a picture that counsel's had. 9 MR. FELDMAN: Yeah. 10 11 REDIRECT EXAMINATION 12 BY MR. DUSEK: 13 Q. I'll show you what's been marked as People's 14 exhibit 2, doctor. Do you recognize what we have here? 15 A. Yes. 16 Q. What is it? 17 A. This is the body I received -- I recovered -- I 18 saw out in Dehesa. 19 Q. Does that show the face of the body and the head 20 region? 21 A. Yes, it does. 22 Q. Does that show what you were working with when 23 you were asked to do this autopsy? 24 A. Yes. 25 Q. Does that really show the state of the face, the 26 eyes, the skin of that person? 27 A. Well, the photograph is a little dark, so it's 28 not really accurate, but it -- in general it does. 118 1 MR. DUSEK: Thank you, sir. Nothing further. 2 THE COURT: Anything further, counsel? 3 MR. FELDMAN: I'm just looking at my photos, 4 judge. Excuse me. 5 THE COURT: All right. 6 MR. FELDMAN: No further questions. 7 THE COURT: Thank you, sir. You're excused. 8 Please remember my admonition. 9 THE WITNESS: Yes, sir. 10 THE COURT: Okay. 11 MR. DUSEK: Dr. Sperber. 12 THE COURT: Okay. Somebody ask Dr. Sperber to 13 come in, please. 14 THE BAILIFF: He's coming right now, Your Honor. 15 THE COURT: All right. 16 Do we have witnesses scheduled for today other 17 than Dr. Sperber? 18 MR. DUSEK: Yes. 19 MR. FELDMAN: But there is an issue when we get 20 an opportunity to discuss with the court concerning 21 scheduling, whenever Your Honor has the time. 22 THE COURT: I understand. You don't like 9:00 to 23 4:30? 24 MR. FELDMAN: No. No. 25 THE COURT: I'm just -- 26 MR. FELDMAN: Actually 9:15, 9:30. 27 THE COURT: Good afternoon, doctor. 28 THE WITNESS: Good afternoon. 119 1 THE COURT: Please raise your right hand. 2 3 Norman Sperber, 4 Called as a witness by and on behalf of the People, 5 having been first duly sworn, testified as follows: 6 7 THE COURT: Please take the stand. 8 THE WITNESS: Thank you, Your Honor. 9 THE COURT: Are you ensconced? 10 THE WITNESS: Yes, sir. 11 THE COURT: Good. Tell us your name, please. 12 THE WITNESS: Norman Donald Sperber. 13 THE COURT: Spell your last name, please. 14 THE WITNESS: S-P-E-R-B-E-R. 15 THE COURT: Thank you. Go ahead. 16 17 DIRECT EXAMINATION 18 BY MR. DUSEK: 19 Q. How are you employed, doctor? 20 A. I have two professions. I am a general dentist 21 in the state of California, and specifically San Diego. 22 I'm also the chief forensic dentist for the county, which 23 means I am sought on occasion by the medical examiner's 24 office and the various police departments and the Sheriff's 25 departments as far as forensic matters are concerned. 26 Q. What does a forensic dentist do? 27 A. Basically identify people who are no longer 28 identifiable. We may not have fingerprints, we may not 120 1 have the face, but the teeth are very durable structures, 2 and many people have dental records, and by comparing the 3 records, specifically X-rays that we take of an individual, 4 comparing them to the known X-rays of the person who this 5 might be, we look for a comparison. 6 Q. Would you give us your educational background, 7 doctor? 8 A. Yes, sir. Bachelor of arts degree in zoology and 9 chemistry from Carlton college in Minnesota. A doctor of 10 dental surgery degree from New York university, college of 11 dentistry. 12 Q. How long have you been working in this field? 13 A. I received my degree in 1954. 14 Q. And working as a forensic dentist, how long have 15 you been doing that? 16 A. Since 1963. 17 Q. Where? 18 A. In this county, as well as other counties in 19 other states. 20 Q. Where else have you done this work? 21 A. Well, 26 other -- about 22 other states that I've 22 testified in and numerous counties in the state of 23 California. 24 Q. Are you able to estimate for us how many times 25 you've been asked to try to make an identification through 26 dental records? 27 A. Well, every time we try to, but I probably have 28 looked at perhaps 4 or 5,000 victims over my career. 121 1 Q. Are there any cases of note? 2 A. There are a few. 3 MR. FELDMAN: Objection. Relevance. 4 THE COURT: Overruled. 5 MR. FELDMAN: Cases of note? Vague. 6 THE COURT: Overruled. 7 THE WITNESS: The Ted Bundy case in Florida. The 8 Craig Peyer case, homicide case here in the county. 9 Henry Hubbard case, another law enforcement officer in this 10 county. The Jeffrey Daumer case in Milwaukee. 11 BY MR. DUSEK: 12 Q. Been back to New York city? 13 A. And I spent a week helping to identify victims of 14 the world trade center one week after it occurred. I spent 15 a week there. 16 Q. Let me direct your attention to last month, 17 February of the year 2002. Were you asked to perform your 18 services in trying to identify a young gal who may be 19 Danielle Van Dam? 20 A. Yes, sir, I was. 21 Q. When were you first notified, sir? 22 A. I think the day that the -- this victim was 23 found, which was February 27th, I was in Marin county, and 24 I believe I was contacted -- or contacted Captain 25 Ron Newman of the San Diego police department, and -- who 26 advised me there would probably be a postmortem the next 27 day, the 28th of February. 28 Q. Where did you go to do your work? 122 1 A. Medical examiner's office here in the county. 2 Q. What was going on that day? 3 A. When I arrived, Dr. Blackbourne was in the midst 4 of the postmortem examination of this victim, and at that 5 point he allowed me to go ahead with my work, which is 6 taking X-rays of this victim's oral cavity. 7 Q. Basically he stopped his work to allow you to do 8 yours? 9 A. Yes, sir, that's correct. 10 Q. What did you do? 11 A. Took several X-rays of this victim, charted the 12 remains, meaning if there were any fillings, anything 13 present, missing teeth, things of this nature, and took 14 some photographs of the oral cavity, as well. 15 Q. Let me show you what's been previously marked as 16 People's exhibit 2, this autopsy photo of the body. Do you 17 recognize that? 18 A. Yes, sir, I do. 19 Q. How? 20 A. Well, there's a tremendous amount of 21 decomposition in this victim and there's also evidence of 22 animal activity, as far as some of the soft tissue is 23 concerned. 24 Q. Is that the body that you were working on? 25 A. Yes, sir. I believe it is, yes. 26 Q. Can you describe her -- the condition of her 27 mouth, her dental work? 28 A. The inside of the mouth was pretty well 123 1 decomposed. There was not much tonicity or tone to the 2 tissue, which is normal in decomposition. There was 3 I believe three teeth missing. One known as a baby canine, 4 and two permanent teeth, two permanent incisors. Two of 5 the front teeth were missing. 6 Q. The incisors are the front teeth? 7 A. Yes, sir. 8 Q. Canines are which? 9 A. The ones right behind, so-called eye teeth. 10 They're the ones just behind the four incisors on either 11 side. 12 Q. Did you ever locate those teeth, the missing 13 teeth? 14 A. One I did locate. We had a lateral X-ray, and 15 there was one that I did not notice the very first time the 16 examination occurred, but there was a lateral plate taken, 17 that's an X-ray, the side of the victim's head, and I could 18 see in the back there was a tooth there which appeared to 19 be a human tooth. I recovered that, placed it back in the 20 mouth, and then took X-rays of that and photographs of that 21 tooth in place. 22 Q. When you say it was in the back, what do you mean 23 by that? 24 A. Well, actually what we call the vestibule, the 25 little opening of the space between where the gum connects 26 to the cheek, and that's where I found that one tooth that 27 was missing. The other two, I have no idea what happened 28 to those. 124 1 Q. Were you provided X-rays of a Danielle Van Dam? 2 A. Yes, sir, I was. 3 Q. Were they identified as such? 4 A. Yes, they were. 5 Q. From what dentist? Do you recall? 6 A. I believe the doctor's name was Baker. 7 Q. Did you get a chance to compare what was shown on 8 the X-rays with what you observed and your X-rays 9 indicated? 10 A. Yes, sir, I did. 11 Q. What did you see? 12 A. Well, I saw teeth that were consistent with 13 the -- a person who was around 7-years-of-age, and that's 14 because at that point they're beginning to lose their front 15 teeth, these incisors that we were talking about, and 16 they're being replaced by permanent teeth. 17 There were a number of so-called deciduous or 18 baby molars, two in each of the four quadrants of the 19 mouth. They were all present. In fact, all the lower 20 teeth were present. 21 And I saw consistent features in the X-rays, the 22 so-called antemortem films, the ones I got from Dr. Baker, 23 with the films I had taken that day on February 28, '02 at 24 the medical examiner's office. 25 Q. Based upon your observations and comparison of 26 the young victim and the X-rays, did you form an opinion 27 regarding the identity of that person? 28 A. Yes, sir, I did, Mr. Dusek. 125 1 Q. What was the opinion? 2 A. That they were without question are the same 3 individual. They were films of the same individual. Even 4 though the X-rays that I received were taken in -- 5 I believe May 22nd of the previous year. And as I said, at 6 this point in time, people that age are beginning to lose 7 their baby teeth and they're getting their permanent teeth 8 in, everything was consistent with what I would expect with 9 a 7-year-old. And the -- certain teeth, such as the 6-year 10 molar, which were present in both antemortem, postmortem 11 records, were consistent with each other. 12 MR. DUSEK: Thank you, sir. Nothing further. 13 THE WITNESS: Yes, sir. 14 THE COURT: Counsel? 15 Let the record reflect Mr. Boyce is now going to 16 do the questioning. 17 18 CROSS-EXAMINATION 19 BY MR. BOYCE: 20 Q. Good afternoon. Did you review any reports 21 before examining the body? 22 A. No, sir. 23 Q. And the date that you examined the body was -- 24 A. February 28th, about 1:00 P.M. in the afternoon. 25 Q. And this was -- the autopsy was interrupted while 26 you examined the body; is that correct? 27 A. Yes, sir, that's correct. 28 Q. During your examination of the teeth, did you see 126 1 any signs of any fracturing? 2 A. No, sir. 3 Q. Did you see any signs of any trauma to the teeth? 4 A. No, sir. 5 Q. You said that there was a missing -- anterior 6 teeth? 7 A. Two of those, yes, sir. 8 Q. Two teeth? 9 A. A permanent tooth. Two permanent incisors were 10 missing. 11 Q. And how -- in your opinion, how did that occur? 12 A. With extensive decomposition as we have in this 13 particular victim, many things decompose, including what's 14 known as the periodontal membrane. 15 The periodontal membrane is about the thickness 16 of a sheet of paper, and it is what anchors the tooth to 17 the bone. When decomposition occurs, it affects the 18 periodontal membrane, and in many cases, or a certain 19 number of cases, the anterior teeth, namely the incisors, 20 and sometimes the canine teeth, will become loose and just 21 come out as a result of -- it can be shaking by animals at 22 the scene or just if there's enough decomposition, merely 23 bringing the body back to the medical examiner's office can 24 often dislodge these teeth. 25 Q. When you say there was decomposition, there is 26 severe decomposition, there's moderate decomposition -- 27 in other words, stages of decomposition; is that correct? 28 A. Yes, sir, that is correct. 127 1 Q. And are you familiar with the time in which those 2 stages occur after death? 3 A. Well, it depends a lot on the temperature in the 4 area, it depends a lot on the atmospheric pressures, 5 whether the person is in -- submerged in water, in a dry 6 area such as desert. So it can vary. 7 Q. And I believe you told us that you practice here 8 in San Diego; is that correct? 9 A. Yes, sir, I do. 10 Q. So you're familiar with the temperature and 11 climate in San Diego during this time of year; is that 12 correct? 13 A. Yes, sir, I am. 14 Q. Is there anything that you can tell us about the 15 time of death from your examination of the mouth of the 16 victim? 17 A. I don't think I could, sir. 18 Q. You can tell us that the death did not occur a 19 day before you examined the body, can't you? 20 A. Oh, yes. 21 Q. Can you give us a range during which the time of 22 death occurred? 23 MR. DUSEK: Objection. No foundation. 24 THE COURT: Sustained. 25 BY MR. BOYCE: 26 Q. Based upon your training and experience, can you 27 give us an opinion as to a range during which the time of 28 death occurred? 128 1 MR. DUSEK: No foundation, Your Honor. 2 THE COURT: Sustained. I didn't say you couldn't 3 lay a foundation. I just said it hasn't been laid. 4 BY MR. BOYCE: 5 Q. Do you have training in the area -- in 6 determining when the time of death occurred from an 7 examination of the mouth of the victim? 8 A. I don't think so. Not specifically. I've been 9 doing this for a long time, counsel. So I generally expect 10 certain conditions, especially in this area, as you say, 11 where I'm familiar with the temperature, but I don't think 12 I would be in any position or have the -- or have had 13 training to pinpoint the questions you're asking me. 14 Q. In your field is there literature upon which you 15 can -- studies that show when time of death occurs? 16 A. I don't think too much in the odontology 17 literature. There may be in the pathology literature. And 18 this type of determination generally can be arrived at 19 through the pathologist or sometimes forensic 20 anthropologists, but I just don't think there's any 21 training in that. I don't think most forensic dentists 22 would have a -- could pinpoint the time of death. 23 Q. You estimated the age was consistent with the 24 known X-rays that you were provided; is that correct? 25 A. Yes, sir. 26 Q. And the teeth to you appeared to be in a normal 27 condition for an individual that age; is that correct? 28 A. Yes, sir. 129 1 Q. Did you examine anything but the teeth and oral 2 cavity during your -- the autopsy? 3 A. No. My responsibility was the oral cavity. 4 Of course I did see the body in its entirety, but I didn't 5 quote, as you say, study it, unquote. 6 Q. Now, I believe you prepared one report in this 7 case; is that correct? 8 A. Yes, sir. 9 Q. And that was a report that was dated 10 February 28th, consisting of two pages and a photocopy of 11 some X-rays; is that correct? 12 A. Yes, sir. 13 Q. Did you provide any other reports? 14 A. No, sir. 15 Q. Did you have -- do you still have your notes 16 regarding your examination of the -- during the autopsy? 17 A. Not notes because the notes were -- anything I 18 had was placed on a replica of the sheet that you have and 19 then typed later on in a formal format by my secretary. 20 Q. Do you have an informal format? 21 A. I don't believe so, no. 22 Q. Was there anything you could tell about the cause 23 of death from your examination of the teeth? 24 A. No, sir. 25 MR. DUSEK: No foundation. 26 THE COURT: Well, you happen to be correct. If 27 you want me to strike the answer -- 28 MR. DUSEK: Please. 130 1 THE COURT: Pardon me? 2 MR. DUSEK: Please. 3 THE COURT: The answer's stricken. 4 BY MR. BOYCE: 5 Q. Based upon your training and experience, was 6 there anything you could tell about the cause of death from 7 the examination of the teeth of this individual? 8 MR. DUSEK: Objection. No foundation. 9 THE COURT: Sustained. 10 BY MR. BOYCE: 11 Q. In your report you reached the conclusion that 12 there were no signs of trauma; is that correct? 13 A. That is correct, yes, sir. 14 MR. BOYCE: I don't have anything further. 15 THE COURT: Thank you. 16 Counsel? 17 18 REDIRECT EXAMINATION 19 BY MR. DUSEK: 20 Q. Did you get a chance to examine the root system 21 on the teeth, either in the X-rays or during the exam? 22 A. The X-rays and the two teeth that were loose and 23 I placed back in. So I didn't examine them, but they 24 appeared to be normal and free of trauma. 25 Q. How much pressure on teeth would it take to have 26 them pop free, teeth the size and age that you saw? 27 A. With -- 28 MR. FELDMAN: Objection. Speculation, 131 1 foundation. 2 THE COURT: Well, overruled. 3 THE WITNESS: With decomposition, Mr. Dusek, or 4 without decomposition? 5 BY MR. DUSEK: 6 Q. Let's say they were removed before the 7 decomposition. The pressure while the body was still 8 alive. 9 A. I don't know if I could tell you. I've extracted 10 teeth -- I don't know -- I can't tell you the amount of 11 pressure that would be there. 12 One thing I did notice that the crown-root ratio, 13 in other words, the root being defined as that part of the 14 tooth above the gum, and root being defined as the part 15 below the gum that supports the tooth in the bone, the 16 crowns, at least of the front tooth that still remained, 17 was very long in relationship to the lower -- to the root. 18 Which means that that tooth would be -- was under -- any 19 kind of pressure would lever that -- lever out that tooth 20 very readily. In other words, if the root were twice as 21 wide or twice as long and wide, maybe that tooth wouldn't 22 have come out under decomposition conditions. But I can't 23 say that the amount of pressure or poundage that would 24 require that. 25 Q. And that's what I'm looking at now. Assuming the 26 tooth had been forced out with pressure while she was still 27 alive and then you saw the body as you did in that 28 condition when you did your exam, was her mouth in good 132 1 enough condition to determine whether or not the tooth had 2 been removed by pressure or just falling out from 3 decomposition? 4 A. I don't think I could answer that question, 5 Mr. Dusek. 6 Q. Why not? 7 A. Because, again, I don't think I've had any 8 background or I don't think there's any written records on 9 this or research, and I think it would be very hard for me 10 to tell, if I understand your question, whether the tooth 11 came out immediately after or sometime after death or prior 12 to death. I don't think I could answer that question. 13 MR. DUSEK: Thank you, sir. 14 THE COURT: Anything further, Mr. Boyce? 15 MR. BOYCE: No, Your Honor. 16 THE COURT: Thank you, doctor. You're excused. 17 Do we need to have him subject to recall? 18 MR. FELDMAN: No thank you. 19 THE COURT: All right. You're not subject to 20 recall. 21 THE WITNESS: Thank you, Your Honor. 22 THE COURT: The admonition about not viewing 23 media reports is rescinded as it relates to you. 24 Now we have other witnesses? 25 MR. DUSEK: Christina Hoeffs. 26 THE COURT: Okay. And you've advised her of my 27 general admonishments? You don't remember -- 28 MR. DUSEK: I gave her the gag order, and I will 133 1 tell her not to watch herself on TV. 2 THE COURT: All right. Or read about us. 3 Please come in. Raise your right hand. 4 5 Christina Hoeffs, 6 Called as a witness by and on behalf of the People, 7 having been first duly sworn, testified as follows: 8 9 THE COURT: Please take the stand. 10 Would you tell us your name, please. 11 THE WITNESS: My name is Christina Hoeffs. 12 THE COURT: How do you spell Christina and 13 Hoeffs? 14 THE WITNESS: Christina is C-H-R-I-S-T-I-N-A. 15 Hoeffs is spelled H-O-E-F-F-S. 16 THE COURT: I'm going to ask one of the bailiffs 17 to assist with the microphone because I have difficulty 18 hearing here, and I'm not that far away. Want to take a 19 look at the volume? Whatever you need to do, please. Just 20 take a minute. 21 THE WITNESS: Hello. Is that better? 22 THE COURT: I guess so. 23 THE BAILIFF: Speak up a little. 24 THE COURT: Speak up a little, okay? 25 THE WITNESS: Sure. 26 THE COURT: Thank you very much. 27 THE WITNESS: All right. 28 THE COURT: Go ahead, counsel. 134 1 DIRECT EXAMINATION 2 BY MR. DUSEK: 3 Q. Is it Mrs. Hoeffs? 4 A. Yes, sir. 5 Q. Mrs. Hoeffs, are you familiar with an individual 6 now known as David Westerfield? 7 A. Yes, sir. 8 Q. How do you know him or know of him? 9 A. My neighbor. He lives directly behind me. 10 Q. Do you see him in court today? 11 A. Yes, I do. 12 Q. Would you point him out, please, and describe 13 what he's wearing today? 14 A. Yes. A white button-up shirt, right in the 15 corner here. 16 THE COURT: She's identified Mr. Westerfield. 17 MR. DUSEK: Thank you. 18 Q. Where is your house in relation to his house? 19 A. I live directly behind him. 20 Q. And can you describe for us the elevation of your 21 house and his house? 22 A. My house sits above his house. 23 Q. Are you able to see any part of his house from 24 any part of your house? 25 A. Yes. I can see into the back of his house from 26 my upstairs. 27 Q. Do you know if you folks have similar or 28 identical floor plans? 135 1 A. I believe we have the same floor plan. 2 Q. When you're looking from the rear of your house 3 upstairs into his house, what room are you standing in? 4 A. My bedroom. 5 Q. And when you're looking to the rear portion of 6 his house, what part are you looking at? What part of his 7 house would you be looking into past the doors? 8 A. Well, I can see the entire rear of his house. 9 Q. And what rooms are at the rear of his house? 10 MR. BOYCE: Objection. Speculation, unless she's 11 familiar with the house. 12 THE WITNESS: Yeah. Because -- 13 THE COURT: Hold on. I have to get the objection 14 and then I have to rule, okay? 15 Your objection is speculation. Overruled. 16 So I assume, Mr. Boyce, you're going to handle 17 this witness, correct? 18 MR. BOYCE: Correct, Your Honor. 19 THE COURT: Okay. Go ahead. 20 BY MR. DUSEK: 21 Q. Are your two floor plans the same? 22 A. I believe so. 23 MR. BOYCE: I object. Lack of foundation. She 24 doesn't know. Move to strike. 25 THE COURT: Overruled. 26 BY MR. DUSEK: 27 Q. On occasion have you been able to look into his 28 house? 136 1 A. Yes. 2 Q. From yours? 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. How? 5 A. Simply by looking out my window. 6 Q. And what are you able to see through into his 7 house? Windows, doors, see through the walls? 8 A. I can see all the rear windows and his rear door. 9 Q. His bedroom area would be on which level? 10 MR. BOYCE: Objection. Lack of foundation. 11 THE COURT: Overruled. 12 THE WITNESS: If I look out my bedroom window, I 13 see into a bedroom window directly across, and I believe 14 that to be his bedroom -- 15 MR. FELDMAN: Objection. Lack of foundation. 16 Move to strike. 17 THE COURT: Counsel, I don't have any problem 18 with her telling us what she sees. 19 MR. BOYCE: But she believes it to be -- 20 THE COURT: Counsel, one at a time. I get to go, 21 okay? 22 But if she's going to say that this is his 23 bedroom or somebody else's bedroom, I need more foundation. 24 So I'm going to strike the answer about his bedroom. 25 Go ahead, counsel. 26 BY MR. DUSEK: 27 Q. We're not concerned about is it a bedroom. Is it 28 on the ground floor or the second floor? 137 1 A. The ground floor, that I have seen in, is a 2 living area, and the upstairs is some type of a bedroom and 3 a bathroom window. 4 Q. On the evening of February 1st, going over to 5 February 2nd of the year 2002, were you at home? 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. Were you in your bedroom area? 8 A. Yes. 9 Q. About what time did you go to bed that night? 10 A. About 10:00. 11 Q. What were you doing before you went to bed? 12 A. I was laying there watching TV. I went to bed 13 about 10:00 and turned the television on. 14 Q. Do you remember what you were watching? 15 A. The Super Bowl party preview concert thing. 16 Q. And as you were in your room, were you aware of 17 anything out of the ordinary from Mr. Westerfield's 18 residence? 19 A. I did notice that when I turned my television off 20 and was going to go to sleep, that his light was on, the 21 rear light, which would be his back light. 22 Q. This would be an outside light? 23 A. An outside back light. 24 Q. What was unusual about that? 25 A. Well, it was shining into my blind and it just 26 seemed like -- I don't know why it was on. I didn't -- it 27 was just unusual because he doesn't keep it on ever or a 28 lot or anything. 138 1 Q. Did you do anything to try to block out the light 2 at that point? 3 A. No. Not at that time. 4 Q. How about your blind or curtains, were 5 they -- what was their condition? 6 A. I keep them -- I have blinds, and I keep them 7 partially just cracked. 8 Q. Some of that light was coming into your room? 9 A. Yes. 10 Q. Did you get up later that evening? 11 A. Yes, I did. 12 Q. About what time? 13 A. Between 2:00 and 2:30. 14 Q. Why? 15 A. My infant son was crying. 16 Q. So what did you do? 17 A. I went in and comforted him and got him back to 18 sleep, which took a few minutes, and came back to bed, got 19 into bed, and I had to get up again because the light was 20 still shining into my room. 21 Q. Did you do anything with regard to checking that 22 out? 23 A. Yeah. I got up and I looked out, just looked 24 out, and -- to see why the light would have been on, see if 25 he was in the back or anything or whatever. So I looked 26 out, and the light was still on, and I did notice at that 27 time the house was completely closed up. Every single 28 blind was completely shut tight. 139 1 Q. Is that unusual? 2 A. I thought -- at the time I thought well -- well, 3 I thought he must have left the light on and left town. 4 Q. I'm concerned about the -- being shut up tight. 5 A. Yeah. And it was shut tight. I did make a note 6 of that mentally because he doesn't usually shut his house 7 up real tight like that. Every single blind was drawn 8 completely shut. 9 Q. When you say every single blind, which parts of 10 the house are we looking at? 11 A. The downstairs windows, the upstairs window for 12 the bathroom, as well as the bedroom, and the door, his 13 back door has a blind on it, and that was shut tight, 14 as well. 15 Q. Have you ever seen that shut tight before? 16 A. No. 17 Q. That seem unusual? 18 A. It did to me at the time, yes. 19 Q. Why? 20 A. Again, because I've never seen the blinds shut 21 completely tight on every single window in his home. 22 Q. Do you know whether or not he has any 23 recreational vehicles? 24 A. Yes. 25 Q. How do you know? 26 A. I've seen them parked outside of his home. 27 Q. Have you seen him working or his custom and habit 28 with regard to using those vehicles? 140 1 A. I've seen him loading and unloading his motorhome 2 for different occasions. 3 Q. Where does he park or place the motorhome when he 4 starts to use it? 5 A. He parks it on Briar Leaf, on the corner of his 6 house. 7 Q. Does Mr. Westerfield live on a corner house? 8 A. Yes. 9 Q. Front of his house is on what street? 10 A. Mountain Pass. 11 Q. And the side street would be? 12 A. Is Briar Leaf. 13 Q. How -- to get to your house do you have to go by 14 Mr. Westerfield's house? 15 A. Yes. 16 Q. And describe for us what you observed as his 17 custom and habit for operating that motorhome, what he does 18 to get it ready. 19 A. I've just seen in the past he'll park it over on 20 the side for a couple of days prior to any kind of a trip 21 or -- and kind of load, unload, that type of thing, garage 22 open, gear out in the garage, that type of thing, and 23 getting it ready. He also has a buggy trailer, an enclosed 24 buggy trailer I've seen parked across the street from his 25 house. 26 Q. How long does it appear for him to get ready to 27 take a trip in a motorhome? 28 A. Again, I've seen it there anywhere from that day 141 1 to a couple of days prior. 2 Q. And at the end of a trip or using the vehicles, 3 have you seen what he does with it? 4 A. It's parked there again, typically, and I just 5 have seen the same kind of activity, kind of an unloading 6 kind of a thing, I assume. 7 Q. Regarding your observations, did you report this 8 to the police department? 9 A. I did. 10 Q. Was your house -- when did you become aware that 11 Danielle Van Dam was missing? 12 A. Approximately 11:00 A.M. on that Saturday 13 morning. The helicopter was overhead indicating there was 14 a child missing. 15 Q. Were you and your husband contacted regarding a 16 search? 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. Did they examine your house, is what I'm after. 19 A. Did they examine our house? 20 Q. Yes. 21 A. Yes. 22 Q. How? 23 A. They asked us questions. We had a canine come in 24 and search our home. 25 Q. When was it you advised the police of what you've 26 just told us here? 27 A. I don't remember at what point we had answered 28 several questions. 142 1 MR. DUSEK: Thank you, ma'am. 2 THE COURT: Counsel? 3 MR. BOYCE: Thank you, Your Honor. 4 5 CROSS-EXAMINATION 6 BY MR. BOYCE: 7 Q. This Friday that you noticed the lights to your 8 neighbor's patio on and the blinds closed, for all other 9 purposes was that a normal Friday night to you? 10 A. Yes. 11 Q. Just like any other night? 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. Do you work, ma'am? 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. And what do you do? 16 A. I'm a dispatcher. 17 Q. For who? 18 A. California highway patrol. 19 Q. The same place that your husband works? 20 A. Yes. 21 Q. And when do you work? 22 A. Well, he works for that department. We don't 23 work in the same capacity. 24 Q. When do you work? 25 A. I work -- 26 MR. DUSEK: Objection. Irrelevant. 27 MR. BOYCE: It goes to when she -- 28 THE COURT: Hold on. I'm going to allow this 143 1 limited inquiry as to when she works, and more 2 specifically, when did she work on that Friday. 3 MR. BOYCE: I understand, Your Honor. 4 THE COURT: I'm going to overrule the objection 5 with conditions. 6 BY MR. BOYCE: 7 Q. Did you work that Friday? 8 A. I did not. 9 Q. What days do you have -- during this period of 10 time, what days were you off? 11 A. Without referring to my schedule -- I work part 12 time. I believe I would have worked a Tuesday, Wednesday, 13 that week, perhaps Wednesday, Thursday. 14 Q. You don't recall what your schedule was that 15 week? 16 A. I don't recall what my schedule was. I know I 17 did not work a Friday nor a Saturday nor a Sunday. 18 Q. What about the following Monday? 19 A. I don't believe it was the following 20 Monday -- no. I know for a fact I wasn't working Monday. 21 Q. You also said that you noticed Mr. Westerfield's 22 motorhome parked by his house; is that correct? 23 A. That is not correct. 24 Q. You see his motorhome out there? Isn't that what 25 you told us? 26 A. Okay. I do. I did not see it that night. 27 Q. No. I'm not asking about that night, but you 28 have seen it there; is that correct? 144 1 A. Specifically, yes, I have. 2 Q. And you've seen it loading and unloading the 3 motorhome; is that correct? 4 A. Yes, sir. 5 Q. And you say that sometimes the motorhome is there 6 the day that he leaves and other times it may be there two 7 or more days before he leaves and after he returns; is that 8 correct? 9 A. That is correct. 10 Q. Okay. I want to talk about not the days -- not 11 the times that you've seen it when it's there that same 12 day. I want to talk about when you've seen that motorhome 13 there for a couple of days prior to Mr. Westerfield leaving 14 on a trip. 15 Before he leaves, you say he would load and 16 unload his motorhome; is that correct? 17 A. I have seen that, correct. 18 Q. And you've seen him coming in and going out of 19 the motorhome; is that right? 20 A. Yes. 21 Q. While he's loading it? 22 A. You know, I've never actually seen him step foot 23 in the motorhome or step foot out of the motorhome. I have 24 seen him in the driveway getting, again, ice chests and 25 different gear and that kind of thing. 26 Q. So you would see items that looked like they were 27 appropriate camping items or other items that would be in a 28 motorhome laying out in the driveway; is that correct? 145 1 A. Correct. 2 Q. And you wouldn't see anybody around; is that 3 correct, any person? 4 A. You mean the items alone just in the driveway? 5 Q. Yes. 6 A. No. I would see him outside. 7 Q. But there were -- on other occasions would you 8 see no one there, but you'd see the items in the driveway; 9 is that correct? 10 A. That is not correct. 11 Q. You'd see him around all the time? 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. Did you see him moving things into the motorhome? 14 A. Again, I never saw him step foot inside of his 15 motorhome nor come out of it. I've seen him standing next 16 to it, around it. I can't say I've ever saw him take a 17 step into the motorhome or out of it. 18 Q. You wouldn't be there watching him the entire 19 time that the motorhome was there say for this two day 20 period before he left on his trip, though, would you? 21 A. No. 22 Q. You would just occasionally see the motorhome, 23 various items, and perhaps Mr. Westerfield? 24 A. Yes. 25 Q. And would you see the motorhome door open or 26 closed during this period of time? 27 A. Both. 28 Q. Both open and closed? 146 1 A. Yes. 2 Q. But you wouldn't see Mr. Westerfield going in and 3 out; is that correct? 4 A. Again, I cannot say that I've ever seen him step 5 foot into the motorhome or step foot out of. I couldn't 6 positively say that I had seen that. I may have. I can't 7 positively say I have. 8 Q. And after the motorhome -- and then after you 9 would see the motorhome there, then it would go away 10 apparently with Mr. Westerfield for a period of time; is 11 that right? 12 A. I believe so. 13 Q. You don't know where Mr. Westerfield went, do 14 you? 15 A. No. 16 Q. You assume maybe he went camping or to the desert 17 or someplace? 18 A. I typically would assume the desert, because he 19 would have, again, a buggy -- an enclosed trailer, and that 20 was open, the doors were open most of the time, and you 21 could see in it, three-wheelers, ATV's, those types of 22 things. 23 Q. And then the motorhome would re-appear outside 24 the residence; is that right? 25 A. Yes. 26 Q. And you would -- would you see things being moved 27 in and out of the motorhome at that time? 28 A. On occasions, yes. 147 1 Q. You would see the motorhome being cleaned; is 2 that right? 3 A. I don't know about cleaned. Never washed or 4 hosed down or anything. I didn't ever observe that. 5 Q. Did you know that Mr. Westerfield's children also 6 lived with him at different points during this period of 7 time? 8 A. I assume Mr. Westerfield's son lived with him 9 because I saw his car parked there frequently and saw him 10 coming in and out of the residence. 11 Q. Did you see Mr. Westerfield's son going in and 12 out of the motorhome at all? 13 A. Again, same answer. I can not put him directly 14 walking into or coming out of that motorhome. I have seen 15 him out in the front with his father. 16 Q. And, again, you wouldn't be watching the 17 motorhome this entire two-day period while the motorhome 18 was parked outside his house or his home there, would you? 19 A. No. I would not observe it for 48 hours. 20 Q. Now, this Friday night when you noticed the patio 21 lights on and the blinds pulled, you noted that because it 22 was unusual; is that right? 23 A. Yes. 24 Q. It was something different, something suspicious 25 to you; is that right? It was unusual? 26 A. It was unusual. 27 Q. And your husband is a sergeant with the 28 highway patrol; is that correct? 148 1 A. Correct. 2 Q. He worked that Friday night, didn't he? 3 A. He did. 4 Q. And he returned home approximately about 11:00; 5 is that right? 6 A. I was asleep at that point. You'd probably have 7 to ask him exact times. 8 Q. You were asleep when he came home that night? 9 A. I believe I was probably already asleep. 10 Q. You first noticed these lights on and these 11 blinds closed approximately 10:00 that night? 12 A. A little -- 13 MR. DUSEK: Objection. Misstates the evidence. 14 THE COURT: Sustained. 15 BY MR. BOYCE: 16 Q. When did you first notice the blinds closed that 17 night? 18 A. When did I first notice that his house was all 19 shut down? 20 Q. Yes. 21 A. Again, when I got my infant son squared away, and 22 that was between 2:00 and 2:30. 23 Q. You didn't notice whether the patio lights were 24 on before then; is that correct? 25 A. No. I did notice the patio light was on when I 26 went to bed. 27 Q. And what time did you go to bed? 28 A. Again, I laid down approximately 10:00, turned on 149 1 the television, and turned the television off maybe between 2 10:30 and 11:00. 3 Q. And so at 10:00 -- 4 A. At that time I noted that it was bright in my 5 room. 6 Q. At 10:00 you noticed that the patio lights were 7 on? 8 A. I would say it's when I shut the TV off, maybe 9 10:30-ish. 10 Q. Did you notice the blinds were closed at that 11 time? 12 A. I did not. 13 THE COURT: Does that mean you didn't look or you 14 didn't notice? 15 THE WITNESS: I did not look at that time. I did 16 not get out of my bed and look out the window. 17 BY MR. BOYCE: 18 Q. Then when your -- the next day did you tell your 19 husband that the patio light had been bothering you and 20 your son? 21 A. I don't recall if we had that conversation. 22 Q. You told us that you told the police that 23 Mr. Westerfield's blinds were closed and the patio lights 24 were on and that was unusual; is that correct? 25 A. Yes. 26 Q. When did you first tell the police this 27 information? 28 A. Again, it would have been a couple of days after 150 1 the disappearance of Danielle. We had been questioned 2 several times by different police. And I believe that I 3 actually went down to the command post, it would have been 4 that following week, and told one of the detectives I 5 thought that was suspicious. 6 Q. When you say the following week, that would have 7 been after Mr. Westerfield was arrested; is that correct? 8 A. That's correct. 9 Q. And did you or your husband go to the 10 command post? 11 A. I did. 12 Q. To your knowledge, did your husband report this 13 information to the police at any time? 14 A. I believe he did. We had a detective call us on 15 the telephone, and I believe he did tell him that, because 16 we were both home when the conversation was occurring. 17 Q. Was this before or after you went -- this would 18 have been then after the -- you went down to the 19 command post; is that correct? 20 A. Yes. When I went to the command post, they told 21 me -- I told them I don't know if this is anything, but 22 this was an unusual circumstance. And they just took my 23 name and telephone number and left it at that. And then, 24 again, somebody called later and followed up on that. 25 Q. It was unusual enough for you to go down to the 26 command post; is that right? 27 A. Yeah. 28 Q. And you are a dispatcher for the California 151 1 highway patrol; is that correct? 2 A. Yes, sir. 3 Q. So you're familiar with people giving information 4 about crimes; is that correct? 5 A. Yes. 6 Q. And you're also aware that it's very important 7 that you get that information to the proper authorities as 8 soon as possible; is that right? 9 A. Yes. 10 Q. And you're aware that it's important to get that 11 information to the proper authorities because it may affect 12 the way an investigation is going or to focus an 13 investigation appropriately; is that right? 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. Is that fair to say? 16 A. Yes. That is why I walked down to the 17 command post and asked for the detective who was handling 18 the case, as opposed to calling in the tip line. 19 Q. You also say you were home on Friday, on the 20 Friday that Danielle, your neighbor, was first found to be 21 missing; is that correct? 22 MR. DUSEK: Objection. Misstates the evidence. 23 MR. BOYCE: I'm sorry. 24 THE COURT: Sustained. 25 BY MR. BOYCE: 26 Q. Were you home that Friday? 27 A. At what time? 28 Q. What time did you -- what time were you home on 152 1 Friday when Danielle was first noticed missing? 2 A. I was home all day with the -- I left about 4:00 3 in the afternoon, and returned to my house at 9:00 P.M. 4 Q. When did you first notice -- when were you first 5 aware that she was missing? 6 A. The following morning, which was a Saturday, 7 there was a police helicopter overhead approximately 11:00 8 A.M. indicating there was a child missing. 9 Q. So the following Saturday you were aware that 10 Danielle was missing, and this was the girl in your 11 neighborhood; is that right? 12 A. Yes, sir. 13 Q. And you said that there was a search being 14 conducted in your neighborhood that you were aware of for 15 this girl, right? 16 A. There was. 17 Q. And that a police officer came to your house that 18 Saturday conducting part of that search; is that correct? 19 A. That Saturday I believe two detectives or police 20 types knocked on our door after the whole neighborhood was 21 basically -- I know they had put it out as a crime scene. 22 They taped off her street. And that evening I remember we 23 had a community meeting set to go at about 6:00 to see what 24 the neighbors could do to assist in the search, and they 25 had knocked on the door about 5:00 something, I believe, 26 but my husband spoke to them. I never spoke to them. I 27 was feeding the children. 28 Q. You were present when the police were there, 153 1 though? 2 A. I was in the home. I did not speak with them. 3 He told me they came to the door. Again, I was in our 4 kitchen feeding our children. 5 Q. Did you see the police at the door? 6 A. They were not in uniform. They were wearing 7 jackets or some type of thing. And he told me after he 8 shut the door who they were. I think I kind of peeked 9 around the corner to see who it was, and after the door was 10 shut, he told me. 11 Q. When you looked around the corner to see who it 12 was, did you believe that they were people that were 13 connected with the search for the young girl? 14 A. I had no idea who they were. There were several 15 people in the neighborhood at that point that I wasn't 16 familiar with. 17 Q. That was the first time that anybody came to your 18 house regarding the disappearance of the young girl; is 19 that correct? 20 A. I believe so. 21 Q. They also searched your home with a dog; is that 22 correct? 23 A. Yes. 24 Q. Were you present when the dog -- when they 25 conducted the dog search? 26 A. No. 27 Q. When -- do you know when the dog search occurred? 28 A. I do. It was a Monday. 154 1 THE COURT: The following Monday? 2 THE WITNESS: The following Monday. They were 3 searching everybody's house. 4 BY MR. BOYCE: 5 Q. Was your husband home then? 6 A. Yes, sir. I was in the neighborhood. I was 7 actually down at the memorial site signing a book. 8 Q. Then was there another time when police officers 9 came to your search -- not search your house, but seeking 10 information regarding the little girl, between when you 11 learned of the disappearance of the girl and, say, the 12 following Monday? 13 A. Between Saturday and the Monday of the 14 canine search? 15 Q. Yes. 16 A. I believe those two instances were the only times 17 the police were at the home. 18 Q. Were you there at any time when the police came 19 to look for any information concerning the little girl? 20 A. In the weeks to follow or specifically from that 21 Saturday to Monday? 22 Q. That Saturday to Monday. 23 A. Again, the first time I was in the home I was 24 feeding my children in the kitchen. And the second time 25 when the canines were present, I was not inside my home. I 26 was outside. And I did see the canines going from house to 27 house. 28 Q. Were you home on -- you were home that Monday; is 155 1 that correct? 2 A. Yes, sir. 3 Q. You were home all day; is that correct? 4 A. You know, I can't remember if I had stepped out 5 to the grocery store or an errand, but I did not work that 6 day. I know I was home for the better part of that day if 7 I wasn't home all day. 8 Q. Were you there when the police contacted 9 Mr. Westerfield in his driveway? 10 MR. DUSEK: Objection. Vague as to which time. 11 THE COURT: Sustained. 12 BY MR. BOYCE: 13 Q. On February 4th, on that Monday. 14 A. Was I at home? 15 Q. Yes. 16 A. I don't know when they contacted Mr. Westerfield. 17 Q. On that Monday did you see the media and/or the 18 police around Mr. Westerfield's driveway? 19 A. I did not make a special note of that. 20 Specifically on that Monday, again when I went to the table 21 where the memorial -- or at that point it was just kind of 22 the book to sign, to put your thoughts down,