FOGLEMAN: I'd like to call Doctor Dale Griffis.
THE COURT: Is this going to require a denno?
FOGLEMAN: Yes sir.
THE COURT: Alright, ladies and gentlemen, I hate to start so early in the morning, but I'll ask you to retire to the jury room for a few moments. It is going to be necessary for the court to consider a matter of evidence. Again, you are reminded not to discuss the case. You all can eat donuts and drink coffee. Is there any back there? (pause) Do you have any idea? (background noise, indistinct voices) What is all that noise? (indistinct voices and noises, pause)
(Jury exits the courtroom)
THE COURT: You need to raise your right hand, please sir.
GRIFFIS: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: Do you swear to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth in the matter now pending before the court, so help you God?
GRIFFIS: Yes, I do.
THE COURT: Go on and be seated. (unintelligible) Do you want to wait just a second. We've had a fire every day we've been here, haven't we? Are you ready? You ready? Alright, you may proceed. Let the record reflect that this is a hearing outside of the presence of the jury.
FOGLEMAN: Would you state your name and occupation for the record?
GRIFFIS: Dale W. Griffis and I'm a consultant.
FOGLEMAN: Okay, what type of consultant?
GRIFFIS: I work in non-traditional groups and I consult to victims, law enforcement, other members of criminal justice, educators and mental health.
FOGLEMAN: What is your educational background?
GRIFFIS: I graduated from high school, graduated from Terra Technical College with an associate degree in police science, graduated Magna Cum Laude Heidelburg College with a B.A. in Psychology, Master's Degree in Criminal Justice, term paper was on Police Intelligence for Small Agencies, then I got a PhD from Columbia Pacific, I wrote my doctoral dissertation on Mind Control Cults and Their Effects on the Objectives of Law Enforcement.
FOGLEMAN: And um
GRIFFIS: And besides that I attended several other in-service schools while being a police officer.
FOGLEMAN: What law enforcement experience if any do you have?
GRIFFIS: Twenty six years. I rose to the rank of captain, deputy chief of the Tiffin police department, second in command. My father was a policeman, before that. It kind of spins off on you. Then, since I retired from the police department I continue to work on a daily basis with police agencies throughout the United States.
FOGLEMAN: You mentioned before non-traditional groups. How do you define non-traditional groups?
GRIFFIS: Non-traditional groups are those that are either cause-orientated or belief-orientated which are active in society and we look at them from malevolent? purposes.
FOGLEMAN: Could you give me an example of some of those types of groups?
GRIFFIS: We need to look at anything from a streetgang to the cult, C-U-L-T, to the occult groups.
FOGLEMAN: And what experience have you had with non-traditional groups either in law enforcement or otherwise?
GRIFFIS: My first case had started in 1967, I was working state intelligence board with, with our police department, we working college campus riots and things like that during the late sixties. Then I work, I started working cases with cults, this being cases on the west coast, I started on some studying on them. We had local groups active on campuses. And then in 1976, I worked on my first occult case which was a human sacrifice or a boy committed suicide.
FOGLEMAN: And at some point during your law enforcement career did you have some sort of lateral transfer to Los Angeles or. . .?
GRIFFIS: Yes, sir. I had been working part time with the prosecuting attorney's office and when this incident happened in 1976, I went to the prosecutor and said "I don't understand it, it's foreign to me, I would like some training." At which time I went and worked with LA police department and also the San Francisco police department and I worked the streets.
FOGLEMAN: And in working at Los Angeles and San Francisco did you have any experience there in related to non-traditional groups?
GRIFFIS: A lot, yes, I did. I had the opportunity to go into some traditional occult groups where they were where they carried out their services, I had a chance to go into their bookstores. I met members, talked with them. And, really worked the street, right, walking and talking with them into their coffeehouses.
FOGLEMAN: And had you also been studying your, read a lot of research material on the non-traditional groups?
FOGLEMAN: Including the occult?
GRIFFIS: Yes, sir. When I was, while I was, after I came back from that trip I decided I should get some more education and signed up for this second college group. And after a couple of knee surgeries, I started back to school. And part of the schooling I had, I not only talked to 500 members, former members as part of my independent study project but I had about 300 books I had to go through.
FOGLEMAN: And, at this time, about how many calls per week do you receive in regards to non-traditional groups?
GRIFFIS: Between 65 and 70.
FOGLEMAN: And of those 65 to 70 calls approximately what percent are related to Satanism?
GRIFFIS: About 80%.
FOGLEMAN: And what courts have you been qualified in as an expert in either the occult or non-traditional groups or group activities?
GRIFFIS: In the court in Atlanta, Georgia. I just did a testimony on a federal court case in Akron, Ohio. I've testified in Defiance County, Ohio. And I think there was one in Michigan. Yeah, one in Michigan.
FOGLEMAN: And do you also lecture on non-traditional groups?
GRIFFIS: Yes, sir. I've lectured in about 28 states and two foreign countries. And I've handled cases in two other additional foreign countries.
FOGLEMAN: Now, we would submit Dr. Griffis as an expert.
PRICE: Now Dr. Griffis, my name is Val Price and I've got some questions to ask you, initially starting about your credentials. You testified earlier you have a PhD from Columbia Pacific University?
GRIFFIS: Yes, sir.
PRICE: Isn't it true that institutin is non-accredited?
PRICE: It's false?
GRIFFIS: It is state certified.
PRICE: It is state certified but it is not accredited by any kind of national university standards, is that correct?
GRIFFIS: I, I, It's my understanding, my understanding they are in correspondence status.
PRICE: Okay. Isn't it true when, to get your PhD you, you are not required to take any classes on campus, correct?
GRIFFIS: I don't know about other students but I was on campus on a couple of, on several occasions.
PRICE: Alright. How many occasions were you on campus attending classes at California Pacific University?
GRIFFIS: I met with instructors on five occasions during my visits there. But I met with them at least telephonically at least three times a week.
PRICE: But as for as
GRIFFIS: Actual on campus, no.
PRICE: And, is it also true that California Pacific University gives credit for life experiences?
GRIFFIS: Yeah, sure.
PRICE: Okay. Did you receive part of your, your credit towards your PhD was that credit for life experiences?
GRIFFIS: (nine second pause) If it was, it was a small amount.
PRICE: Okay. Now of the approximately, the 337 faculty at California Pacific University approximately 23% of them have PhDs from that same institution.
GRIFFIS: I have no knowledge of that.
PRICE: As far as your dissertation, isn't it true that your dissertation was not reviewed or approved by any committee of scholars?
GRIFFIS: False. That is, that is I should say that is not true.
PRICE: That is not true.
GRIFFIS: Yeah, there were five people on my, on my board, one was a medical doctor, one was a individual who was a covert colonel in military police, I had a PhD who was a psychologist, I had a, another individual who was a, from Merion? in English, and I had another individual Dr. Cloud and I can not tell you what his background was.
PRICE: And a Frank Braceland was your mentor?
PRICE: But he, he was not one of the ones who reviewed your dissertation. . .
GRIFFIS: Yes, he did.
PRICE: Oh, he did okay. And he's an investigator with the Washington State Board of Pharmacy?
GRIFFIS: I, he had something to do with the state board of pharmacy, yes.
PRICE: Alright, now, the chapters in your dissertation, the chapter on Cults and the Law, that was not written by you, that was written by a lawyer?
GRIFFIS: That was, we both put that together, yes sir.
PRICE: And your dissertation was approximately 200 pages long?
PRICE: Okay now. Specifically, what classes, was it correspondence classes you took to get in order to get your PhD at California Pacific University?
GRIFFIS: I went there, but I did correspond, yes.
PRICE: Alright now, if they don't have classrooms.
GRIFFIS: That's right. I'm just saying, I did go, I was on campus but the majority was by corresponding, yes.
PRICE: The campus itself consists of one building, doesn't it?
GRIFFIS: No. I think there are three now.
PRICE: Three buildings.
GRIFFIS: Yes sir.
PRICE: It contains the, according to the latest Burke's?? reference ?? The office is a simple administration building, office of the dean, registrar, admissions, academic counselling, business office and bookstore. But as far as the lecture classrooms, are there any lecture classrooms?
GRIFFIS: I did not go into the area that there was. I understand in Petaluma they do have some.
PRICE: But, San Rafael, is where, is that where you went?
GRIFFIS: Yes, sir.
PRICE: That's where your degree is from?
GRIFFIS: Yes, sir.
PRICE: Okay. But as far as. . . I understand you did a dissertation, but were there, were there classes that you actually took to get the PhD?
GRIFFIS: Only ones through with the mentor, yes, that's correct.
PRICE: And how many classes did you. . .
GRIFFIS: No, I said I just attended with the mentor.
PRICE: That's what you meant by, that's when you said earlier
GRIFFIS: Doctor Braceland.
PRICE: Okay and you went to the campus and you met him four or five times.
GRIFFIS: He and three and a doctor, a medical doctor there, Dr. Cruise. And I don't know what the female's name was, I believe it was Heather McKenzie. That's been awhile ago.
PRICE: Alright, and now, you also got your Master's degree from California Pacific University?
GRIFFIS: That was in a different area.
PRICE: A different area. But also you did not attend, show up on campus to attend classes for your Masters, either, is that correct?
GRIFFIS: No. That was a combined program which many universities do.
PRICE: Combined meaning what?
GRIFFIS: They have a PhD, Masters program combined.
PRICE: Oh, okay. But as far as actually. . . I guess I'm confused because, because we have Arkansas State University here and most PhD programs that operate where you actually show up on campus and take classes from professors and you probably know this as well. But in this program you're saying you did show up, you showed up three or four times but as far as taking any classes once a week.
GRIFFIS: My, my. . . I was in classroom about every day when I was on the street. The, you know, we worked, I was fortunate, I was going into an area where I was working daily. I took my, I worked in the evening on what I was to study and not, I am in a rural area where these type of programs were not given.
PRICE: Alright, so you are saying by working on the streets, by working in law enforcement you received credit for your PhD based on the work you were doing, is it?
GRIFFIS: No, I'm not saying that.
PRICE: Apparently, I'm confused.
GRIFFIS: Okay. I was working on the street in my chosen area and studying in the evening.
PRICE: Okay. Alright, alright, at the same time as getting your degree you were working as a police officer?
GRIFFIS: Yes. Yes, I was.
PRICE: Alright, so while you were working on the street as a police officer at the same time as you were doing your police duties you were also working on, on credit for your PhD?
GRIFFIS: No, not as a policeman, no sir. Alright, I mean. You're confusing me there, I'm sorry.
PRICE: I'm sorry.
GRIFFIS: Are you asking me was I studying on the job? And the answer was no.
PRICE: Alright but, you were working as a police officer.
GRIFFIS: Yes sir.
PRICE: But you were, you were also working toward your degree?
GRIFFIS: Well, the things I saw on the streets, you know, I could relate to them, relate to my studies and I would incorporate them, yes.
PRICE: Alright, so a typical aft. . ., like most police officers work a certain shift. The standard is three shifts.
PRICE: Okay. While you were working as a police officer in the standard of three shifts. The things you would encountered while being a police officer. . .
GRIFFIS: I am incorporated in my studies for ??lawyers??
PRICE: One moment, your honor. (pause) How long did it take you to complete the, the PhD?
GRIFFIS: The total program was close to three years.
PRICE: Okay, that would carry on through the masters and the combined program. (overlapping with:)
GRIFFIS: Yes, sir.
PRICE: One moment, your Honor. (pause) Alright, I believe you mentioned earlier that you have attended or given, or talked at certain seminars?
GRIFFIS: Yes, I did.
PRICE: Have these seminars been primarily for law enforcement officers?
GRIFFIS: No, sir.
PRICE: Have they also been for the general public?
GRIFFIS: No, sir. They were primarily either for law enforcement, educators or mental health people.
PRICE: Okay. But your, would you agree with me that your primary obligation is to police officers?
PRICE: Alright, and I would like to ask you if this quote could be attributed to you. "You've got to remember there are a lot of sheriffs and a lot of police chiefs under a hell of a lot of pressure when I get there. I'm there to help my brother police officers. I report to them, not the public." Is that, is that quote attribute to you?
GRIFFIS: I don't know what you're quoting from.
PRICE: Okay. Have you read the article by Don Beard, "Sympathy for the Devil," that was in Capitol Magazine, Denver, Colorado, July 15, 1984, in which you’re attributed to, made that quote?
FOGLEMAN (?): Your Honor, I think the proper way, whether he made the quote, not whether he read an article in which it’s attributed to it.
PRICE: Well he said he couldn’t remember the quote, Judge, and I just wanted to quote the source.
THE COURT: He said he didn’t know what you were quoting from.
PRICE: Alright, you mean as far as the book I have right here? Alright, this is the book, “Pursuit of Satan” by Robert D. Hicks, which discusses both your background and your philosophy, and your methods and techniques. That quote comes on p. 86.
THE COURT: Did you make that statement at any time?
GRIFFIS: I, uh, I know Don Beard and I may have made that, yes.
PRICE: Alright, nothing further at this time, your Honor.
FORD: Help me out just a little bit, Mr. Griffis. Or is it Dr. Griffis?
GRIFFIS: Whatever you wish.
FORD: What year did you graduate from high school?
FORD: And where was that?
GRIFFIS: In Tiffin, Ohio.
FORD: In Tiffin, Ohio. Alright, and where did you go to technical school?
GRIFFIS: Terra Technical School in, ah, Fremont, Ohio.
FORD: And what was your course of study there?
GRIFFIS: Police science.
FORD: Police science. And how long was that endeavor of study?
GRIFFIS: That’s a two-year course.
FORD: And when did you graduate?
GRIFFIS: (sigh) 1974.
FORD: 1974. What did you do…
FORD: …what did you do…
GRIFFIS: …counselor, at the same time I was going to that school, I was going to Heiderberg College.
FORD: Okay, hang on just a second. Now what did you do between 1955 and 1974? Between high school and graduating from technical school with a degree in police science, and that’s a two-year associate degree?
FORD: Kinda like from a community college?
GRIFFIS: Well, I, I started at, at Western Reserve University, and then I went into the Army.
FORD: Is that sorta like a community college?
GRIFFIS: Which one is that, sir?
FORD: Where you got the police science degree?
GRIFFIS: Terra Techni…yes it is
FORD: That was, were you a full time student for that two year period of time?
GRIFFIS: Did I attend classes on, uh, yeah.
FORD: You know, I mean some students go half, they take half a load and work part time, they, or something, they…
GRIFFIS: I was taking half a load from Terra Tech and half a load at, from Heidelberg at the same time.
FORD: Okay. So you were, you were getting your, your two year degree in techni…in police science from community college at the same time you were enrolled in a program for a 4 year degree from an accredited college or university?
GRIFFIS: Both of them are accredited colleges.
FORD: Okay, but the technical college does not offer a four-year degree program?
GRIFFIS: No sir.
FORD: It does not offer a B.A. or a B.S.?
FORD: Okay, so you were enrolled at a four-year institution at the same time you were enrolled at a two-year instit--at the community college?
FORD: What year did you get your B.A.?
GRIFFIS: (pause) It was the following year.
GRIFFIS: Yes. No! 1976.
FORD: 1976. What year did you enroll, what year did you enroll in the, uh, what was the name of the four year institution?
GRIFFIS: Uh, Heidelberg College.
GRIFFIS: Yes sir.
FORD: And what town is that located in?
GRIFFIS: It’s in Tiffin.
FORD: It’s in Tiffin. Okay, what year did you enroll there?
GRIFFIS: Yeah. I, I started under the, uh, law enforcement, uh, LEEA Program.
FORD: What year did you enroll in the, uh, technical college?
GRIFFIS: (blows out air) I can’t, I can’t remember specifically.
FORD: Okay. The entire time that you were involved as a student at Heidelberg College, were you also a full time police officer?
FORD: Okay. Okay. When did you enroll in Pacific University?
GRIFFIS: Columbia Pacific…University?
FORD: Yes. Never heard of it, that’s why…
GRIFFIS: That’s my (unintelligible) recollection, right around 1980.
FORD: Now, this is a—this is a—this is a mail order college, isn’t it? You…
FORD: You send in—you send in—don’t they run a television ad, where you can send in—have you seen it on TV, where you can send in a request for what you want your degree in, and then they’ll send you back information on how to get that degree? Is that the same college?
GRIFFIS: To the best of my knowledge, no.
FORD: Okay. When did you finish? You started in 1980. When did you obtain your master’s degree?
GRIFFIS: I finished it in, uh, (pause) ’82.
FORD: ’82. And when did you get your PhD?
GRIFFIS: Uh, in ’84.
FORD: In ’84. Okay. What—what was the title of your dissertation?
GRIFFIS: Mind Control, Cults, and Their Effects on the Objectives of Law Enforcement.
FORD: Mind Control, Cults, and Their Effects on Law Enforcement.
GRIFFIS: On the objectives of law enforcement.
FORD: On the obj—what are the objectives of law enforcement?
GRIFFIS: Maintain peace…
GRIFFIS: …keep law and tranquility, protect the citizens.
FORD: Okay. What classes did you take between 1980 and 1982 to obtain your master’s degree?
GRIFFIS: What cl—
FORD: What classes—
GRIFFIS: I testified…
FORD: I’m asking you what classes
THE COURT: Wh—avoid repetition
FORD: I didn’t hear him answer the name of any classes that he took.
THE COURT: (unintelligible)
FORD: What classes did you take?
GRIFFIS: I told you I was in correspondence and I was with one of the, uh, of two people who were monitoring my, uh, work.
FORD: What classes did you take?
GRIFFIS: I—I told y—I answered that before, none.
FORD: You did not take any classes. Is that…I just wanna understand from—
GRIFFIS: Cuz your question was during that period of time—
FORD: Between 1980, when you enrolled, and 1982, when you got your master’s degree, what classes did you take to give you…take you from having a B.A. to a master’s degree? What classes did you take?
GRIFFIS: I answered that. I didn’t take—
FORD: No classes. Okay, between 1982 and 1984 when you became a PhD, what classes did you take?
FORD: None. Okay. Between 1980 and 198—
THE COURT: Just, just, just a minute. By classes, are you talking about enrolled in a named description course on a day-to-day basis? Is that what you’re asking?
FORD: Kinda like Contracts 101, did he ever take that?
THE COURT: Okay. Did, did you follow a prescribed course of study, uh, through a mentor, or a, a, a…
THE COURT: All right.
FORD: Can you just—can we ask him to describe that, what that prescribed curriculum was?
GRIFFIS: Yes. We, we sat down, uh, uh, and I went over, uh, the various, uh, (pause) are you—
FORD: I’m listening. I’m won—wo—wo—was there, what was the prescribed curriculum?
GRIFFIS: The prescribed curriculum in my area, uh, was, uh, in, uh, in which level, sir?
FORD: To get—what was the curriculum to get your master’s degree?
GRIFFIS: Okay. I had, uh, first of all, a treatise, er, that I had to put together, which consisted I believe of about 95 pages which explain, uh, graphics, and diagramming, and methodologies for small police agencies in doing, ah, intelligence diagramming. To do that, it required, uh, quite a series of, uh, texts (note by Sally…that word might have been tests instead of texts), I had to go through with, uh, the actual working, uh, relations and meeting and discussing with analysts throughout the United States how the procedures were done. Also, uh, I had attended, uh, four courses on intelligence, uh, operations and graphics, and I went back to the people who, uh, uh, designed those courses, and, uh, worked through them, and then we started putting the, uh, papers together.
FORD: So in other words, the curriculum was designed just for you. No established curriculum, but it’s a curriculum to meet your individual objectives, your individual time constraints.
GRIFFIS: My ind—
FORD: (unintelligible) You’ve gotta take these classes, that classes, and once you take these classes, and, uh, and complete certain coursework, then we’ll give you a degree, or do you get to basically determine what it is you wanna do to get to that degree?
GRIFFIS: No, it’s not what I wanted. I discussed what I—my objectives were, and they told me what I had to do to obtain those objectives.
FORD: What did you have to do to get the master’s degree? Your Honor, I’m not trying to be repetitive cuz I clearly don’t understand how he gets his master’s degree.
GRIFFIS: I told you, I, I went, and I had a series of books I had to read, I had a series of interviews I had to comport (?) with, I had, uh, a series of people who I, ah, had correspondence, and also I went back on four courses I had taken as a police officer in intelligence work, and, uh, between this working plus working with the mentors who were assigned to me, then I started to put the work together.
FORD: Did your mentor have any education or background in, in police work?
FORD: Okay, did he have any education and background in the occult?
GRIFFIS: For master’s level?
FORD: Any background.
FORD: A—after you got your master’s degree, what courses did you take to get your PhD?
GRIFFIS: The same type of work I did for my Ph or my master’s.
FORD: Correspondence courses.
GRIFFIS: I worked through my—a series of mentors, I talked with, uh, approximately 500 people during my ISP and interviewed them.
FORD: But, does that mean you did not take any classes? To get from your master’s to your…did you take any classes?
THE COURT: The question probably should be did you follow a prescribed course of study?
FORD: Your Honor, they can ask him that question. I’m asking what classes?
THE COURT: Well, I’m gonna ask him that. Did you follow a prescribed course of study that was designated, uh, by your, er, instructors?
GRIFFIS: Yes I did.
FORD: And what classes were in that prescribed curriculum? What classes?
GRIFFIS: Uh, I think, uh, counselor, I’ve answered that.
FORD: Is the answer, “NO classes?”
GRIFFIS: Yes, I answered that before.
FORD: Okay, so all of your education, lemme ask you this, between 1980, when you enrolled, and 1984, when you graduated as, with a PhD, were you a full-time police officer?
FORD: Okay. And where were you employed as a full time police officer between 1980 and 1984?
GRIFFIS: Tiffin, Ohio Police Department.
GRIFFIS: Rank of captain.
FORD: How, how were you accepted into enrollment at Columbia Pacific University?
GRIFFIS: I had to fill out a, uh, several series of papers including all my education, background, experience.
FORD: Did you ever fill out a little flyer like this…
GRIFFIS: No, sir.
FORD: …that says, “Call toll-free for information”?
GRIFFIS: No, sir.
FORD: Have you ever seen wh—have you ever seen how they…call toll-free for information on how to become a doctor?
GRIFFIS: No, sir.
FORD: Did you attend a graduation ceremony?
GRIFFIS: Yes, sir, I did.
FORD: And wh—did you attend one in 1982?
GRIFFIS: No, sir.
FORD: In 1984?
GRIFFIS: Yeah, I most certainly did.
FORD: How many, other than the graduation ceremony that you attended in 1984, wh—how many other times were you in California, on campus?
GRIFFIS: I think I testified about that before. That was four or five times.
FORD: Four or five times. Okay. What is a nontraditional group? What is that?
GRIFFIS: It can be either a cause-orientated (sic) or belief-orientated (sic) group operating in society, at which time, uh, in my training they teach them that they, people are using or working around manevolent (sic) tendencies.
FORD: Wor—working around what?
GRIFFIS: Manevolent tendencies.
GRIFFIS: Breaking the law.
FORD: Okay. What is a, what’s an example of one of these groups? Is there an example of one of these groups that you’ve identified, and, and, know who, know who their members are?
GRIFFIS: Yeah, I’ve worked, keep in mind I’ve been working these since 1967—
FORD: Well then you oughta have lots of examples. Gimme a—
FORD: What’s an example…
GRIFFIS: Crips, Bloods are cause-orientated (sic), uh, I have run into a lot of, uh, occult-type cults throughout the United States where kids have, uh, done all types of activities, uh, criminal in nature, wh—from simple malicious destruction of property up to and including death.
FORD: Okay, now are those belief-oriented groups or cause-oriented groups?
GRIFFIS: The, these occult cults are belief-orientated (sic) groups.
FORD: In other words, their beliefs motivate them to do, break the law.
GRIFFIS: Help them. Yes sir, they do.
FORD: Okay, and a cause-oriented group is someone who might break the law…why, why might they break the law, a cause-oriented group?
GRIFFIS: They’re either out for, uh, drug, uh, movements. They’re out for, um, money. They’re out for various type of different causes.
FORD: Okay. They also…gangs?
GRIFFIS: I, you can, there’s another term that you can affiliate with them. Gangs. Street gangs.
FORD: Okay, what is the term you affiliate with gangs?
GRIFFIS: I use, uh, some people just call them gangs.
FORD: Gangs. What do you call them?
GRIFFIS: Gangs or non-traditional groups, dependent upon the individual setting.
FORD: All right. (clears throat) Have you ever studied a non-traditional group in the State of Arkansas?
GRIFFIS: (long pause) Yes, I had a, uh, I had a, uh, a call. One. One.
FORD: Did you ever, have you ever been to the State of Arkansas and conducted any field investigations?
GRIFFIS: Field investigations? No, sir.
FORD: Okay, prior to getting involved in this case, had you ever been to the State of Arkansas in this line of work?
GRIFFIS: Yes, sir, I have.
FORD: Okay, and when was that?
GRIFFIS: I can’t tell you, uh, exactly, uh, the date it was, but I was a guest of, uh, Pulaski County coroner, and I, uh, gave a lecture, uh, and I think there were a couple hundred people there.
FORD: But that, were you there to lecture in the State of Arkansas or were you there to make an investigation? Have you ever been to the State of Arkansas involved in an investigation?
GRIFFIS: Hav—I answered that. No.
FORD: Have you ever visited with Jason Baldwin?
GRIFFIS: I don’t know who he is.
FORD: You don’t know who he is.
FORD: Okay. Have you ever visited with Damien Echols?
FORD: What is a lateral transfer?
GRIFFIS: That’s when, that’s when you go from one place agency and work for another one.
FORD: Okay. And you went, in 1976, to, uh, L.A. for a lateral transfer?
FORD: Okay, and when did you go back?
GRIFFIS: I, I was there, uh, less than a mo—I was there two weeks.
FORD: So this, so this on the street inves—education, in the coffee shops, meeting with these people, that was for two weeks, that you…?
GRIFFIS: There, yes, but that, you know, it’s been all over the United States.
FORD: Okay. When you, you said that you were qualified as an expert in Atlanta, Georgia?
FORD: What field were you qualified as an expert in?
GRIFFIS: Uh, occult activities.
FORD: Occult activities. And what court was that in?
GRIFFIS: Cobb County, uh, a st—
FORD: A state court?
GRIFFIS: Yes, sir.
FORD: Akron, Ohio, what field were you qualified as an expert in?
FORD: And what kind of court was that?
FORD: And in Michigan?
GRIFFIS: Uh, that was a state court, and it was in the occult.
FORD: Are these the only three times you’ve been recognized as an expert in the field of the occult?
THE COURT: In court? Is that what you’re asking?
FORD: Yes, sir, in court.
GRIFFIS: In the, in the occult? Uh, yes.
FORD: Okay. Are you here today to give an opinion in the, in the occult?
GRIFFIS: Whatever the counselor, okay, yes.
FORD: Do you, do you, have you formed an opinion, now? Do you have an opinion at this point in time as to whether or not the homicides that we’re in this trial about are occult in nature?
GRIFFIS: I have, the counselor has not shown me all the information, so…
FORD: So right now you haven’t formed an opinion because you haven’t even, you don’t have an opinion right now.
GRIFFIS: I, not totally, no.
FORD: Okay, tell me, who have you talked to in this case? Who, where have you gained your information in this case?
GRIFFIS: Uh, from Det. Ridge.
FORD: From Ridge?
GRIFFIS: Uh, the prosecutor—
FORD: Which, which one?
GRIFFIS: The one, uh, Mr. Fogleman—
FORD: Mr. Fogleman, all right. Who else?
GRIFFIS: And, uh, approximately, uh, a year ago I was called, uh, by a, uh, gentleman by the name of Jerry Driver, I believe.
FORD: Jerry Driver.
FORD: He called you about a year ago.
GRIFFIS: Yes, sir.
FORD: Okay. How many times did you talk to Jerry Driver?
GRIFFIS: Probably about five or six.
FORD: 5 or 6 times. And when was the last time you talked to him?
GRIFFIS: Shortly after this case took place.
FORD: Shortly after May of ’93?
FORD: So, you had already been contacted by Jerry Driver even before these homicides occurred.
GRIFFIS: That’s right.
FORD: Okay. So, was the last time you talked to Jerry Driver in the month of May? 1993?
FORD: How many times have you spoken with Mr. Fogleman?
GRIFFIS: Probably ten, twelve.
FORD: 10 or 12 times. Have you ever told Mr. Fogleman that these homicides were the result of the actions of a non-traditional group that was either cause-oriented or belief-oriented?
GRIFFIS: I told him, uh, that there were some indicators, ah, present, and, ah, I did furnish them some questions.
FORD: Okay, but did you ever say, “Yes, these homicides are occult-oriented.”? Did you ever tell him that?
GRIFFIS: Not specifically.
FORD: Okay, when was the l—when was the first time you talked with Mr. Fogleman?
GRIFFIS: I, uh, I th—probably about a month ago, I think.
FORD: Okay. So that ten to twelve conver--ten to twelve conversations have all been--
THE COURT: I think you’ve gone into cross-examination at this point rather than…
FORD: Your Honor—
THE COURT: …rather than voir dire your witnesses, witness on his, uh, expertise in the field of the occult
FORD: I’m trying to attain—
THE COURT: We’re gonna have to do everything y’all are doing now over for the jury if I allow him to testify as an expert, so…
FORD: Well, right now I’m trying—
THE COURT: I (unintelligible) your cross-examination is, is not appropriate. Your, your questions as to his competency, his expertise in the field, uh, anything along that line, uh, will be allowed.
FORD: Your Honor, until this witness forms an opinion based upon the court’s order in limine, then we can’t go forward, and he can’t testify in open court on that opinion because of the order in limine, your Honor.
FOGLEMAN: I was going to the qualifications first. I hadn’t gotten to the opinion part.
THE COURT: That’s all I’m saying, gentlemen, if you’ve got any further questions going to his qualifications as an expert in the field, I’m gonna allow them, but to cross-examine him, uh, at this point on whether he has an opinion or not, I’m not gonna allow it.
FORD: Have you ever, have you ever been involved in a confirmed occult killing?
FORD: Okay, when was that?
GRIFFIS: I’ve been involved in two of them.
FORD: Two of them?
GRIFFIS: Yes, sir. One was in Rhode Island, one was in Michigan, and, uh, counselor, for me to, uh, I’ll be very clear with you. I can’t remember exactly when the dates were.
FORD: You don’t, all right.
GRIFFIS: It would be within the last four years.
FORD: In the last four years, and of the entire time that you’ve been involved, those are the only two?
GRIFFIS: No, this would be the third one.
FORD: This would be the third confirmed occult killing?
FORD: So, at this point, are you saying it is a, an occult killing?
GRIFFIS: I haven’t made my opinions yet, I—
FORD: Oh, okay.
THE COURT: Ha--have you published in the area of, of occult activity other than your dissertation and your thesis?
GRIFFIS: Yes, sir. I’ve written four books used in, in, uh, by criminal justice and that, uh, uh, books that they use in their (unintelligible) work.
THE COURT: And apparently someone’s written a book, uh, that, uh, that questions your theories. Are you familiar with that book?
GRIFFIS: I haven’t read it. Uh, I know that I’m in about 50 books, and out of the fifty, two of them don’t like me.
THE COURT: If you’re sufficiently known in that field as an expert to have people question your methods, techniques, and, and to write books about you?
GRIFFIS: Yes, sir, I’ve also been in two movies.
THE COURT: All right.
FORD: Have you, did you conduct any scientific tests in this case?
GRIFFIS: In which case?
FORD: In this one.
GRIFFIS: Oh, this case? No.
FORD: Have you conduc—conducted any interviews in this case?
THE COURT: Again, you’re going to cross-examination.
FORD: I’m going to qualifications, your Honor. This court is, this court has previously entered an order that a (sic) individual who held a degree of PhD could not render his opinion because there was an absence of any scientific tests, and I’m asking—
THE COURT: If you’re talking about the (unintelligible) doctor, yeah, go ahead and ask him your question.
FORD: And I’m asking this doctor, what scientific tests have you conducted in this case to form an opinion?
GRIFFIS: Scientific tests?
FORD: Can you, can you tell me in this Rhode Island case, who confirmed that it was a cult killing? Who made that determination that it was a confirmed occult killing?
GRIFFIS: I did, along with the officers involved, yes.
FORD: Who made the confirmation in Michigan?
GRIFFIS: The, uh, police agencies and it was based on the confession of the perpetrator.
FORD: Can you remember the names of either of the defendants in these two cases?
GRIFFIS: I can tell you the police, police officers I worked with, yes.
FORD: Okay, in Rhode Island.
GRIFFIS: Uh, Sgt. Ed Pierce.
FORD: Sgt. Ed Pierce. And do you know what town that was in?
GRIFFIS: Sure. Warwick, Rhode Island.
GRIFFIS: Warwick, yes.
FORD: Okay, and in Michigan?
GRIFFIS: Ah, it was just outside of the Flint area, and, uh, I, I’ll be very honest, I’d have to go back and look at my files. This I worked with the, uh, def—the defense counsel, and, on that case.
FORD: Thank you.
PRICE: I got a few more questions on credentials, Judge.
THE COURT: All right.
PRICE: Dr. Griffis, you had mentioned that you had published, uh, four books on the occult subjects. Was one of them “The Four Faces of Satan”?
PRICE: Okay. And was one of them “Runes, Glyphs, and Alphabets”?
PRICE: Okay. And was one of them “The Investigation Manual for Non-Traditional Groups”?
PRICE: And that’s what’s also incorporated in your dissertation? Or parts of it at least?
GRIFFIS: I think I took from the dissertation those facts and put it in there.
PRICE: And put it in the investigation manual. All right. And then what was the fourth publication?
GRIFFIS: “A Primer For Law Enforcement on Non-Traditional Groups”.
PRICE: Okay. Uh, nothing further at this time, your Honor.
FORD: One more question. What was, what was the name of the defendant or the case name in Atlanta, Georgia where you were qualified as an expert witness?
GRIFFIS: I, ah, can tell you it was Cobb County Sheriff Department, and this case, and I, I don’t know.
FORD: You don’t know?
GRIFFIS: No, no, I don’t…
FORD: And what year?
GRIFFIS: I’d have to go back in my files, counselor, to be very honest with you to see what it was. I don’t keep track of…
FORD: What about Akron? Same answer for Akron, Ohio? Can you remember the name and when that was?
GRIFFIS: I said it (unintelligible) last week for attorney York, in, in, ah, Akron, Ohio.
FORD: What was, what was the case name?
GRIFFIS: Was a consortium of people vs. a school system up, up there. Which, they did not, it did not, all I did was look at some pictures and go through. I gave them some opinions and did some…
FORD: Civil case?
FORD: And Atlanta, Georgia, was it a civil or criminal case?
GRIFFIS: I think it was both.
GRIFFIS: Yeah, it was, it was kind of a, well, my aspect was in the civil side of it.
FORD: What about in Michigan?
GRIFFIS: That was a murder case.
FORD: You remember the name of that?
GRIFFIS: It didn’t bring, I’m sorry, I don’t mean to have faded recollection, but I just don’t remember it. I know the first kid’s name was Jeff and he was in Ionia prison.
FORD: Thank you.
THE COURT: Anything else? Are y’all waiting on me?
PRICE: Judge, I’d just like to make an argument at this point on behalf of my client, it’s our position that the, based on a mail-order PhD in which a, a person doesn’t have to take classes, doesn’t have to take any residence courses from a non-accredited school, does not qualify as an expert in Arkansas, and that we object to the Court qualifying Dr. Griffis as an expert.
THE COURT: I’m not sure in Arkansas or in any other state that you have to have any kind of degree to be an expert in a particular field
PRICE: All right, that’s true your Honor, but—
THE COURT: To demonstrate knowledge, education, experience and training in the field, you could have a third-grade education if you have other education, experience and training that qualifies you as an expert, so I’m not persuaded at all by your argument about a mail-order PhD. So is there anything else?
FORD: Your Honor, I think that he’s failed to demonstrate the reputable training, education and experience that qualifies as expert.
THE COURT: I, I disagree. I’m gonna allow him to testify in the area of occult. All right.
FORD: Assuming he has a—
THE COURT: If he doesn’t have an opinion, then it doesn’t mean anything anyway.
FORD: Your Honor, you reckon we can go into that?
THE COURT: Yeah, but I’d like a five minute recess just for us now. I’m gonna tell the jury another 10 or 15 minutes. (laughter)
(COURTROOM NOISE, THEN TAPE STOPS AND RESTARTS DURING A CONVERSATION BETWEEN GRIFFIS AND BURNETT, FOGLEMAN, AND DAVIS)
GRIFFIS: …horse’s ass, who was with the (Virginia State Authority?), and I’ve lectured in his hometown area for the police agencies, regional police agencies there, and I’ve also done work for the mental health hospital in his (catchman?) area.
BURNETT: What is it…does he just not believe that…?
GRIFFIS: There’s some, there’s some, there’s something they believe to (unintelligible) scientologist, okay, which I just don’t, I don’t want to put your ass on the firing line on that as well as mine, okay.
FOGLEMAN: I don’t know what it is, he wants you to explain to the jury (unintelligible) anything about those degrees. Rather than have him do it, I’m sure he’s going to ask you. I’m gonna go ahead and have him bring that (unintelligible)
GRIFFIS: I mean, on, to, for the jury. Sure, no problem, and the thing about that is, in 1976, they didn’t have training in this area in any place. Hi. Dale Griffis.
DAVIS: I’m Brent Davis, prosecutor.
GRIFFIS: Ah, now you know why I got out of the fuckin’ prosecutor’s office, ah…(laughter), no—
(TAPE CUTS OFF, CUTS BACK ON AGAIN)
BURNETT: All right, court will be in session. Let the record reflect that this is a continuation of the in camera hearing on occult activity, I guess that’s what…
FOGLEMAN: At my request, did you, uh, view the autopsy reports of the three victims, Michael Moore, Stevie Branch and Chris Byers in this case?
GRIFFIS: Yes I did.
FOGLEMAN: Did you also review the autopsy photo--some autopsy photographs that I sent to you?
GRIFFIS: Prior to that?
FOGLEMAN: No, after that.
GRIFFIS: Oh, yes.
FOGLEMAN: Did you also at my request review some crime scene photographs?
GRIFFIS: Yes, I did.
FOGLEMAN: Now, in addition to what you have reviewed, if you would assume that there was testimony that showed that, uh, blood was sucked from the penis of one of the victims, that this occurred on May the 5th of 1993, that there was a full moon, and that there was absence of evidence of blood at the scene, would you have an opinion as to whether or not there are, uh, (long pause) do you have an opinion as to whether or not there are, uh, occult overtones or evidence of occult involvement, uh, in these particular murders?
GRIFFIS: It would, uh, tell me to believe that it was some, uh, possibility of occultism being involved.
FOGLEMAN: All right. And what would that opinion be based on?
GRIFFIS: Well, the date being close to, ah, Beltane…
FOGLEMAN: What is that?
GRIFFIS: …a holiday, May 1st, also the day before that is Walpurgisnacht. Then you go into the fact that some, ah, groups, uh, occult/cult groups or, will use a full moon. Uh, in several occult books, they will talk about the life force of the blood, usually the younger the individual, the more pure it is, the more power or the force it has.
FOGLEMAN: Okay, was there anything about the manner in which, uh, the victims were tied?
GRIFFIS: I have observed over my tenure in a lot of, of death scenes, photos, these boys were placed in what I would refer to as a display mode. They were tied ankles to wrists, opening up the area.
FOGLEMAN: When you say display mode, what do you mean?
GRIFFIS: Well, they were tied ankles, opening up the genitalia, and there, this would be laying either face down or face up.
FOGLEMAN: Uh, was there anything about the type of injuries, uh, that would give an indication of an occult overtone to the murders?
GRIFFIS: In, um, in the cases where I’ve worked where there (unintelligible) I observed photos of there, people are overkilled. In other words, the ritual is going on or the event is going on, the body is repeatedly killed.
FOGLEMAN: All right, and when you say overkill, what do you mean?
GRIFFIS: Well, where a person, ah, will receive a lethal blow or a lethal cut, this one will have many of them.
FOGLEMAN: Okay, is, uh, is torture, um, something in your experience that’s done by occult cults, or…
GRIFFIS: Occult cults?
FOGLEMAN: Occult cults.
FOGLEMAN: Does the absence of blood, or evidence of blood at the scene have some significance in relation to your opinion?
GRIFFIS: A lot of times they will take blood and store it for other services and other use (long pause) as well as consume it.
FOGLEMAN: Consume it as in drink it?
GRIFFIS: Yes, sir.
FOGLEMAN: Alright, and is that related…
GRIFFIS: Or bathe in it.
FOGLEMAN: Okay, is that related to what you said before about the life force?
GRIFFIS: Yes, sir.
FOGLEMAN: I don’t have any further questions, if anyone else (unintelligible mumbling and pause). Your Honor, I did have, I missed something. What about the fact that, uh, on the picture of Chris Byers (unintelligible) the castration injury, that had some significance in this area?
GRIFFIS: I have seen photos and worked a case, knowledgeable about another case where this had been done also.
FOGLEMAN: And was that an occult related…?
GRIFFIS: Yes, sir, it was.
PRICE: Alright, Dr. Griffis, in the factors that you had testified to earlier, one of the factors you were asked if the date May the 5th meant something as far as, what, the satanic calendar, I think, something to that effect?
GRIFFIS: Ah, yes.
PRICE: Alright now, isn’t it true that based on materials that you and others have published, almost any date has a significance?
GRIFFIS: No, not what I have published, sir.
PRICE: Alright, well, did you help publish, are you familiar with the satanic cult awareness materials that list you as an acknowledgement or credit, this one is actually presented by Gaylen Hurst and Robert L. Morris, but lists you as one of, as the first person listed for providing information documentation?
GRIFFIS: I’ve never seen that.
PRICE: You’ve never seen this? All right, let me, approach the witness, Your Honor?
THE COURT: Sure.
GRIFFIS: I like this, they took one of my drawings (laughs). It’s one of the drawings out of my own work, which is copyrighted. Thank you. (laughter)
PRICE: I’ll get you an address.
GRIFFIS: Yeah, thanks. (laughs) Uh, first of all, this is Larry Jones, not Larry Holmes, of Boise, Idaho. Sandy Galant-Daly, that is not her name anymore. Curt Jackson I’ve talked to once, and these other two gentle—uh, people from DIS, I have no idea who they are, and…
PRICE: Let me, the one part I was…
GRIFFIS: …and this gentleman here, Gaylen Hurst, I did not give him permission to use my material.
PRICE: Okay, if I could borrow this just for a second.
GRIFFIS: Yes, sir.
PRICE: In here, there lists, there appears to be a calendar of certain dates. I don’t know if this is something you’re familiar with.
GRIFFIS: That is not my calendar.
PRICE: Okay, then you have a calendar?
GRIFFIS: There’s a calendar that I use. It’s in the, it’s on the back which has 13 dates on it.
PRICE: All right, and the dates are, and I believe one of the dates that you were, made reference to was May the 1st?
GRIFFIS: Yes, sir.
PRICE: All right. And, of course these murders took place either May the 5th or May the 6th, which would have been within—
GRIFFIS: It is based, a lot of times what they will do is based on where that calendar will fall within a week they may do it on the weekend or if it’s close to a full moon they’ll wait and do it then.
PRICE: All right, but any murder takes place on a particular day, right?
PRICE: All right, and so, and once there’s a particular date, that date is either close to, or far away, or exactly on a particular date on, on a calendar, for example, that you may have, correct?
GRIFFIS: I told you, counselor, I only have 13 days that I—
PRICE: You have 13 days.
PRICE: And May the 1st is one of your days?
GRIFFIS: Yes sir. And the day before that is Walpurgisnacht.
PRICE: Okay, Walpurs—
PRICE: Walpurgisnacht, and that’d be…
THE COURT: Spell that.
GRIFFIS: W-A-L-P-E-R-N-A-U-C-H-T (note by Sally…I looked online for Walpernaucht, Walpersnaught and Walpersnacht, which is how I thought it was spelled, to get a correct spelling, and Walpurgisnacht was what showed up with online. Griffis’s spelling is transcribed exactly as he spelled it in court and is wrong despite his expertise in occult/cult topics.)
PRICE: And that would be April 30th?
GRIFFIS: Yes, sir.
PRICE: All right. But as far as looking at your evidence in this particular case, you’re not stating that the murders were committed on May 5th because of these particular dates, are you?
GRIFFIS: No, just that they were close to it, yes, sir.
PRICE: Close to a particular date. All right. And you indicated that some groups use a moon, well, based on nature, there are some days that there’s moon, full moons, quarter moons, half moons, no moon.
GRIFFIS: Usually full moon.
PRICE: Usually full moon?
GRIFFIS: Yes, sir.
PRICE: All right, and what, you’re saying that some groups commit murders on full moons?
GRIFFIS: Hold services on full moons
PRICE: All right, are you saying that this murder was held at a occult service? In your opinion?
PRICE: So you’re saying that the murders that took place on May the 5th…
GRIFFIS: …were committed during the act or they were working on—
(Audio ends and picks up a few seconds later)
PRICE: …is committing a sexual murder on young children that may have nothing to do with an occult killing. Correct?
PRICE: And the fact that, I mean, do, do some occult killings occur with older victims?
GRIFFIS: (long pause) I have had people discuss that with me—
PRICE: And, who are the people?
GRIFFIS: Clients. But I have never come up with anybody.
PRICE: Alright, and you also testified that the manner in which the victims were tied, like you used the term “display mode,” that that indicated that it could be an occult killing. Is it also true that the manner in which the victims were tied could be a basis for a sex crime that has absolutely nothing to do with an occult crime?
GRIFFIS: I’ve never seen it done that way, sir.
PRICE: You’ve never seen it done that way?
GRIFFIS: No, sir.
PRICE: Okay, and how many of these, how many sex crimes have you investigated, in which you say you’ve never seen the victims tied in that manner?
GRIFFIS: (Long pause) About…t—two.
PRICE: Two. Okay.
FOGLEMAN: Now was that sex crimes in which the victims were tied this way or sex crimes he’s investigated? I didn’t catch that.
GRIFFIS: How many sex crimes have I investigated?
FOGLEMAN: I wasn’t sure which, I thought that was what the question was and I wasn’t…
PRICE: Uh, yeah, let me back up. First of all how many sex crimes have you investigated?
GRIFFIS: I have no idea. I’ve been a police officer for 26 years, and uh, in this consulting for eight and I would have no idea.
PRICE: Okay, and…
GRIFFIS: But a lot of them.
PRICE: And now, when you said that there were two, there are two sex crimes in which the victims—
GRIFFIS: …were tied
PRICE: --were tied…
GRIFFIS: But they were not tied in the manner for which, like this.
GRIFFIS: That was your question.
PRICE: All right, yes sir.
PRICE: As a follow-up, where is it, what research do you have that, that the manner in which these victims were tied means it was an occult crime?
FOGLEMAN: Your Honor, he didn’t say that. He said based on all of those factors, that’s (unintelligible)
PRICE: All right, but I’m asking this particular factor
THE COURT: I, I think your questions need to be directed toward the opinion that he’s given. Now, we’re gonna have to go back through all this cross-examination…
PRICE: That’s correct, your Honor.
THE COURT: …with the jury again
PRICE: I’m well aware of that. That’s why I’m doing it now.
THE COURT: All right.
PRICE: Because if the court rules that he’s not entitled to make an opinion based on some of these factors, that he won’t be testifying in front of the jury, so I’m entitled to ask him the questions.
THE COURT: All right, go ahead.
PRICE: All right, but what, you said it’s a factor the manner in which the victims were tied, where does this, where’s the research on this?
GRIFFIS: Well, you would, you would look in such books as “Ceremonial Magic” by Crowley, and, uh, then from working, uh, in, with that and looking at the way the people were displayed, ah, you know, there, to me, appeared to be no other reason for that type of position.
PRICE: What, did it appear to you that one reason that the victims may have been tied this way was to float on (under?) the water so they could drown?
GRIFFIS: No, sir.
PRICE: No. Okay did it appear to you that they could be tied this way for a, to commit some kind of sexual act that’s not related to the occult?
GRIFFIS: (long pause) Did it, not—no.
PRICE: Okay, and is it your testimony that you have seen other cases in which victims were tied in this manner and it was an occult crime?
GRIFFIS: I didn’t—I didn’t say…
PRICE: All right, so, all right then, let me ask you, have you seen any cases in which victims were tied in this manner, which turned out to be an occult crime?
PRICE: All right, you also mentioned that the type of injuries was another factor in which you considered, to this to be a, have occult overtones. Now is this, is this based on the injuries to one of the victims, the left side of the face?
PRICE: Okay, is, is there any significance, and if injuries to the left side of the face as opposed to the right side of the face?
GRIFFIS: The people who practice occultism, they will use a mid-line theory, drawing straight down through the body, uh, the right hand side, uh, is usually related to those things which is synonymous with Christianity, and the left hand path is that which is, uh, practitioners of the satanic occult systems.
PRICE: All right now, is it also true, if a, if a perpetrator is gonna cut a victim in the face, there’s two ways to do it, the left side or the right side, correct?
PRICE: And, then there’s, would you say that there’s a 50/50 chance that if they cut them on the left side that it’s occult related or if they cut them on the right side, it’s not occult related?
PRICE: Okay, um, you mentioned that people who practice the occult have this belief. Can you name me one case that you’ve investigated in which, a, a, it turned out to be occult killing in which the injuries occurred to the left side of the face as opposed to the right side of the face?
GRIFFIS: (long pause) No.
PRICE: Alright, in addition, you testified that overkill, um, the repeated injuries was another factor in which to consider if it was an occult related killing. Is it also true that in a non-occult related killing, there can be overkill?
PRICE: All right, can you name a case that you’ve investigated which turned out to be a satanic killing in which the victims were overkilled?
GRIFFIS: The one in, the one in Rhode Island would be
PRICE: Just a moment, this, this is Rhode Island…
PRICE: Now you’ve had a chance to think, what was the date on that?
GRIFFIS: I don’t know it then, I don’t remember it now.
PRICE: I notice on your resume you did not list any of the cases that you’ve testified in on your resume, is that correct?
GRIFFIS: I just…
PRICE: Is that correct?
PRICE: Okay, then it was a Rhode Island case, you don’t remember the date, and this was a, this was a murder case?
PRICE: Okay, and do you recall who the defense lawyer was?
GRIFFIS: No, I didn’t, I didn’t testify in that case.
PRICE: All right, you did not testify. Did you, did you do some consulting?
GRIFFIS: With the police.
PRICE: With the police. All right. All right, besides the, the one Rhode Island case, and this, I believe you testified earlier that you couldn’t remember the name of this one—
GRIFFIS: And the one in Michigan.
PRICE: And the one in Michigan, all right, the one in Michigan, was this also an overkill?
GRIFFIS: They chopped her up.
PRICE: Chopped her up. Okay, you said “they.” Who is it, who is the “they” in that case?
GRIFFIS: It was, uh, a young male and his wife.
PRICE: Okay, and what, what, um, belief system did, did they have in the Michigan case?
GRIFFIS: In both Rhode Island and Michigan, the person was killed inside the pentagram, and, uh, during that, during the time, they were carrying out some kind of ritual.
PRICE: All right, and was there an actual pentagram kind of drawn out at the crime scene?
PRICE: In both the Rhode Island case—
GRIFFIS: Well, the one crime, the one Michigan case, it was from talking with the, the defendant, it had been there but the police didn’t catch it. The one in, the one in Rhode Island, it was still on the ground.
PRICE: All right, now have you had a chance to look at the crime scene photographs in this particular case?
PRICE: All right, and would you agree with me that there’s no evidence based on the crime scene photographs of a pentagram ever being present at the crime scene?
GRIFFIS: I, I did not see one.
PRICE: Okay, and is there any other evidence of a pentagram at our, at the crime scene in this particular case?
GRIFFIS: Not that I’m aware of.
PRICE: Okay. All right, in addition you had testified that torture was another factor to consider in basing your opinion, uh, is it also true that you can have torture and it doesn’t necessarily have to be a occult related crime?
PRICE: True. All right, the issue, or the factor of absence of blood, it’s, it’s your belief or your testimony that absence of blood at a crime scene is another factor to consider in whether or not it’s a cult related killing?
PRICE: All right, now, uh, is also, could the absence of blood be explained by the, uh, victims being killed someplace else and just being brought to the, the location and, and dumped there?
PRICE: And you mentioned that it, that, that sometimes, in fact you said the word “they”, they take blood and store it and consume blood?
PRICE: Okay, is there any evidence in this case of anyone consuming any blood?
FOGLEMAN: That was part of the hypothetical.
PRICE: Okay, there was one, there’s been some testimony that one defendant, um, sucked a penis of blood. All right, now, would the, based on that hypothetical, would the one person sucking a penis, sucking blood out, and two other persons having multiple injuries, if blo—um, yeah, which is caused by the stabbings and additional blood, did, did the sucking of blood out of one person’s penis would not get rid of all the other blood at the crime scene, correct?
PRICE: Okay, and do you have any evidence of any, in this particular case, of any, anybody storing any blood?
GRIFFIS: That’s not been brought to my attention.
PRICE: Okay. All right, is the placement of the bodies in water a factor in deciding whether or not this is a satanic killing?
GRIFFIS: It would, not in itself, but would lend a more, more credence in total.
PRICE: All right, is it also possible that the bodies were placed in water in order to drown the victims?
GRIFFIS: Could be.
PRICE: Okay, and I’m sure you’ve read in the autopsies what two of the three victims were drowned.
PRICE: And is it also possible to place the bodies in water so that it would be harder for um, um, anybody to find the bodies until later on?
GRIFFIS: Yeah, I don’t know how deep the water was.
PRICE: Is the factor that the victims were the age of 8, is, is that a factor that you considered in making your opinion?
PRICE: Okay, does that, obviously, presuppose that the defendants knew the ages of the victims?
GRIFFIS: Am I assuming that they knew that…
GRIFFIS: Ah, that was not discussed with Mr. Fogleman.
PRICE: Okay, now is 8 a factor because that is a witches’ number? What’s the significance of 8?
GRIFFIS: Okay, in Crowley’s, in Crowley’s work, he discusses that, uh, sex before 8 or you lose the magical power.
PRICE: Sex before 8, or lose magical power. Okay, so that if the victims were all 8 years old, then that wouldn’t be sex before 8, correct?
GRIFFIS: I said s—8? I’m sorry. Not—nine. Eight or before.
PRICE: Eight or before. Excuse me. Now, but is there a particular cult that, um, supports that viewpoint? You said in Crowley’s work.
GRIFFIS: Occult group? Yes.
PRICE: And what occult group is that?
GRIFFIS: He has done a lot of writing which is synonymous with a group called OTO, or Ordo Temporus Originus. (Note by Sally: When I tried to find how to spell this online, I found that this group is called Ordo Templi Orientis)
PRICE: And what does that group, uh, live or practice or whatever?
GRIFFIS: All over the world.
PRICE: All over the world. Okay. So that’s the basis of the, are you basing 8 because there’s a, (unintelligible) being a witches’ number?
GRIFFIS: Part, you know, I, I, counselor, I don’t go from zero to 10 in one bound. I try and put it all together.
PRICE: All right, but I guess what I’m confused about is some of the factors that you’ve talked about, it appears that you’ve taken them from certain philosophies of Wiccan religion and other parts are satanic.
GRIFFIS: What are you talking about with Wicca?
PRICE: Okay, are you considering Wicca as any factor in this murder?
PRICE: You’re not?
THE COURT: What’s the difference in an occult and what I call a cult? I don’t know the difference. What is the difference? Is there?
GRIFFIS: Yes, there are, sir. Uh (strange noise) get it so she can’t…
THE COURT: You talk to her and I’ll listen.
GRIFFIS: Okay, thank you. Uh, a occult group is a group that’s involved in some sort of esoteric science, uh, and they’ve been around prior to Christianity. A cult group usually is a group that I deal with, ones who are breaking a law, are those who follow a particular belief style under a charismatic leader, and, uh, in and among their belief style (not sure he said “style”) they do break the law. A cult may have various types of belief systems.
THE COURT: Okay. Does the number 3, three victims, have any significance?
GRIFFIS: One of the most powerful numbers in, uh, in the practice of satanic belief is 666, and some believe the beast wrote a 6 as 3. I’ve seen it in some of the writings.
PRICE: Okay, as a follow up to that question, is the number 3, the fact that there were three victims in this case, is that a factor that you considered in making your (unintelligible)?
GRIFFIS: It’s a minute part.
PRICE: Minute part.
GRIFFIS: Yes, sir.
PRICE: Okay, would you agree also that the number 3 is significant in Christianity, for example, and other religions?
GRIFFIS: I can’t make that statement.
PRICE: Okay, are you familiar with the Christianity beliefs in the trinity, the three in one?
GRIFFIS: Oh, yes.
PRICE: So there’s nothing that says that 3 is related to occult as opposed to mainstream religion. Um, in reaching your opinion, what was the empirical data that you used to make that determination?
PRICE: The dates of the murders?
GRIFFIS: The dates of the murders.
GRIFFIS: Uh, location.
PRICE: Okay, and explain if you can explain, sir.
GRIFFIS: Well, it’s my understanding it was a rather private, uh, area, uh, a lot of trees around it added to secrecy. Uh, it’s my work in the past, uh, I’ve done a lot, these people who do this kind of activity don’t do it at the corner walk and wait, they do it where they’re off to theirself.
PRICE: All right.
GRIFFIS: The fact that the, amount of injuries, the overkill. I gave credence to the way, uh, the bodies were, uh, tied.
GRIFFIS: The occultists that I have talked to in the past will hold services near water so that they can wash with.
PRICE: Okay, and who are those occultists that you have talked to in the past that hold services by the water?
GRIFFIS: Ah, counselor, I’ve been talking to these people since 1967. To sit down and specifically say dates, names and places, I couldn’t tell you.
PRICE: All right, how ‘bout just one, please? Can you name just one?
GRIFFIS: Lady Samantha. No, excuse me. Lady Feather.
PRICE: Lady Feather?
PRICE: All right. And what murder did she commit?
GRIFFIS: She did not commit a murder.
PRICE: Okay, is there anyone who you’ve talked to that’s a member of any of these occults that have committed murders?
GRIFFIS: What’s this, sir?
PRICE: Is there anybody that you have talked to that’s committed a murder by a body of water?
GRIFFIS: No, they did it close to, not a body of water, but to a water source.
PRICE: One moment, your Honor. All right doctor, you testified ear—a few minutes ago about an occult murder that occurred near a body of water. Where was this?
GRIFFIS: I didn’t say near a body of water. I said where water—
PRICE: Water source?
GRIFFIS: --water source was present.
PRICE: Okay. First of all, what was the water source?
GRIFFIS: Uh, a, uh, well. Hand pump.
PRICE: All right, and where did this murder take place?
GRIFFIS: That was the one in Michigan.
PRICE: The Michigan one. All right. It’ll be just a moment, your Honor. All right, no other questions at this time, your Honor.
FORD: Mr. Griffis, Wicca is not a factor? That’s what you’re saying?
GRIFFIS: I stated that what I, that, yes.
FORD: That Wicca is not a factor. Now, you read the autopsy reports. Is that correct?
FORD: Okay, what in the autopsy reports make you, what in the autopsy reports indicates occult killing?
GRIFFIS: You mean from the medical examiner’s standpoint?
FORD: Yes. You read them, you reviewed them, you said you relied on them in forming your opinion. What about those reports are indicative of an occult killing?
FORD: Overkill. Which child was overkilled?
GRIFFIS: Uh, the, one you--, a couple, one youth was, ah, castrated and in and around his pubic area, uh, there were, uh, several puncture type wounds.
FORD: So that’s what the overkill is?
GRIFFIS: That’s part of it. I didn’t get finished, counselor.
FORD: Okay, go ahead then. Please, finish.
GRIFFIS: Ah, and then there was, ah, ah, the injuries to the face, where his face was, uh, mutil—cut several times. The other, another youth, uh, was, uh, cut, uh, on top head with some type of sharp object, and he had, uh, several wounds on his body, uh, which, uh, in talking with the, uh, medical examiner, uh, were, uh more than one was death, uh, a death blow. And the, uh, third, uh, child, uh, did not seem to have that much, you know, less damaged.
FORD: Are you telling us that part of your opinion is based upon one child having both been castrated and cut severely in the face?
FORD: Is that one child?
GRIFFIS: No, I said the second child also had several wounds to him.
FORD: What about the autop—so the autopsy photographs and the autopsy reports, the reason that they’re important to you is because they have evidence of overkill?
GRIFFIS: Yes, sir.
FORD: Okay. Do you know how many, you’re not a medical doctor, are you?
GRIFFIS: No, sir.
FORD: You didn’t get one of those degrees.
FORD: Okay. Um, did, do you know how many blows Chris Byers received that were mortal blows?
GRIFFIS: In talking to the doctor, medical examiner, I believe there were five or more.
FORD: So Chris Byers received five--
GRIFFIS: No, this is, this is the boy that had the, uh, uh, his face cut. Is that correct?
FORD: The boy who, do you know which one is which?
FOGLEMAN: They weren’t mentioned by name, your Honor.
FORD: Well, I’m askin’ him. That’s important, I think, what his, what the bas—how deep is his knowledge if he knows which victim had which injuries. I think that’s could be considered in the weight to be given to his opinion.
THE COURT: (Unintelligible) jury…
FORD: Well, I understand that, but—
THE COURT: The jury, yes.
FORD: How many, do you know how many mortal blows—
THE COURT: If he doesn’t know the names of the victims, describe them in some way so you can ask him what he reviewed.
FORD: All right.
THE COURT: Go ahead.
FORD: How many, do you know how many mortal blows Chris Byers received?
GRIFFIS: Is this the one that was castrated?
FORD: That’s the one that was castrated. How many mortal blows or wounds did he receive?
GRIFFIS: I believe there were five.
FORD: Five. Okay, and that’s based on what the medical examiner told you?
FORD: That’s not based on your knowledge. Okay. How many mortal blows did Stevie Branch receive?
GRIFFIS: Is this the one that was hit on the top of the head?
FORD: I think they were all hit on top of the head.
GRIFFIS: No, one was had severe trauma to the head with what appeared to be an ax or with a very sharp (unintelligible).
FORD: With an ax, okay. Do you know how many, that child, how many more blows did he receive?
GRIFFIS: I believe there were four.
FORD: Four. And the other, Michael Moore, how many mortal blows did he receive?
GRIFFIS: There were only two.
FORD: Only two. Okay, now…
GRIFFIS: Now wait, when you say blows, there was one that was, the one boy that was castrated had a considerable amount of, uh, blows if you’re wishing to call them blows.
FORD: But that’s not overkill, is it? It’s not overkill unless it were to kill him again and again and again. Is that right? Is that what you mean by overkill? That you cut his head off or cut his heart out. That would be overkill or is overkill just hittin’ ‘em a number of times?
GRIFFIS: Multiple injuries. Also the fact that the one boy had, uh, so many wounds I couldn’t count on him in and around the pelvic area.
FORD: Okay, what about the crime scene photos was important to you?
GRIFFIS: The, the original ones was the way they were, uh, tied.
FORD: Okay. Anything else about the crime scene photos that are important to you in reaching your opinion?
GRIFFIS: Water was present.
FORD: Water, method of tying—
GRIFFIS: And it, yes, and they also showed, uh, if I remember correctly, one of them was a kind of an overhead and showed that the area was secluded.
FORD: Secluded. Okay. (Indicating things on a picture…audio becomes more muffled) Mr. Griffis, that the testimony has been that this is an interstate highway, I-40 and I-55. This is a truck wash. This is a truck stop, a second truck stop, residential neighborhood.
FORD: The testimony is that it’s in this section right here? That’s secluded?
FORD: You’re saying these woods, that you could throw a stone from there to a home, is secluded?
FORD: Okay. (Audio goes back to normal) All right, so the crime scene photo shows water, method of tying, and secluded.
FORD: Okay. Now, when I talked to you earlier this morning, you indicated that you hadn’t formed an opinion. Isn’t that what you told me?
FORD: Okay. Do you have an opinion now? That this was an occult killing, is that your opinion now?
FORD: And it wasn’t that, that was not your opinion when you got here this morning at 9:30. Correct?
GRIFFIS: You’ve brought, you’ve given me more evidence than I had before.
FORD: Okay. What have you learned today that tipped the scales, that made it a n--made it go from “I don’t know” to “I do know”? What did you learn today?
GRIFFIS: Uh, refreshed on the time, you know, on the, uh, date.
FORD: So you learned, so today you learned—
GRIFFIS: I mean, no, I said I was refreshed with the date, and, uh, I went over, uh, I had not seen that picture that you had just showed there.
FORD: So that, that photograph right there helps you reach your opinion, right?
GRIFFIS: Aids, yes.
FORD: Okay, and, and you had not seen that photograph before?
GRIFFIS: No, sir, I had not.
FORD: So the fact that that photograph shows how secluded it was, that, that helps?
GRIFFIS: Helped, helped me.
THE COURT: Had you been given the hypotheticals that Mr. Fogleman gave just a moment ago prior to today?
GRIFFIS: Uh, part of them, yes, sir.
THE COURT: Not all of them?
GRIFFIS: No, sir.
THE COURT: All right.
FORD: What was added in to Mr. Fogleman, go on, what else have you learned today that makes the, tips the scales?
GRIFFIS: I’d, I’d have—
FORD: What new evidence have you obtained?
GRIFFIS: I’d have to go back, counselor, and, uh…
FOGLEMAN: Your Honor, I can’t even answer that, I don’t remember…
WADLEY: He’s not asking you, Mr. Fogleman, he’s asking--your Honor.
THE COURT: Okay, just, just a minute. All right.
FORD: What else have you learned besides refresh your memory on the date? Does that mean you forgot the date?
GRIFFIS: No, I just—
FORD: Or the date wasn’t that important the first time you heard it?
GRIFFIS: No, it was just, I, putting the area, the date, and, uh, did I have an opinion, ah, I had talked, uh, with, uh, Mr. Fogle—uh, I should say I talked with Mr. Fogleman last evening, uh…
FORD: I understand that but you told me just an hour or so ago you didn’t have an opinion, and now you do, and I wanna know what you learned that made you form your opinion besides remembering the date and seeing that photograph. What else did you learn to make you form this opinion?
GRIFFIS: I had an opinion before I came here, but I didn’t, I don’t know how you asked the question, if I misled you I’m sorry.
FORD: Okay, you’re telling me, I, did I, I asked you did you have an opinion as to whether this was an occult killing. You said, “No.” Did you say that--
THE COURT: He said “I haven’t expressed my opinion yet,” I think—
GRIFFIS: I think that’s what I said.
FOGLEMAN: Your Honor, actually the question I asked related to occult overtones to the killings, not whether or not it was an occult killing. I believe this is the first time that he’s been asked whether or not it was, it was his opinion that this was an occult killing.
WADLEY: Judge, I’d like to go back and replay what (unintelligible) was said.
THE COURT: Go ahead and ask him.
FORD: Did you have an opinion that this was an occult killing when you got here this morning?
FORD: And when I asked you that earlier, you told me no, didn’t you?
GRIFFIS: I was not, I didn’t mean to mislead you.
FORD: But you did, didn’t you?
GRIFFIS: No, I don’t think the question was asked that way.
FORD: In other words, I confused you with my question.
GRIFFIS: I thought I was answering it correctly.
FORD: We’ll go back over lunch and find the, where it is in the record where you got confused. Um, those the only two new things that happened today that…when did you form this opinion? That this was an occult killing. When?
GRIFFIS: I had, uh, indicat—we’d gone over the indicators of what I’d observed last evening, solidified what I’d thought. Yes, sir.
FORD: Last night was when you formed the opinion?
GRIFFIS: That’s when I made it totally solidified. Yes.
FORD: All right. What did you learn last night that solidified it?
GRIFFIS: Some of the, uh, drawings, writings, some of the pictures.
FORD: What drawings? What writings? What pictures?
GRIFFIS: There was a presen—picture presented to me last evening of an individual, uh, that was a head of a satanic goat, Mendes.
PRICE: Your Honor, at this time I’d like to object. If the juvenile department of Crittenden County has got anything from my client when he was with the juvenile authorities, if that’s confidential, and if that material has been turned over to the prosecuting attorney’s office, which has been turned on over to Dr. Griffis, we object to that. My client’s entitled to confidentiality. Any confidentiality of the juvenile department has been breached, and we object to that being used as a basis for this doctor’s opinion.
THE COURT: Okay.
FOGLEMAN: Your Honor, the items that were referred to were taken by a Crittenden County deputy sheriff who transferred them to a juvenile officer who transferred them to the prosecut—or to the West Memphis Police Department.
THE COURT: I don’t know what y’all are talkin’ about. (laughter)
FORD: Well, your Honor, we, until we get a ruling, we, we need a ruling on Mr. Price’s motion.
THE COURT: Well, he’s objecting to something that’s completely and totally foreign to the Court. I don’t even know what he’s talking about. I don’t know what the witness was getting’ ready to say something about a goat’s head. Now…
FORD: Until we get to the bottom of that, we need to stop, your Honor.
THE COURT: Well, I mean we’ve been going for two hours out of the presence of the jury. Let’s get to the bottom of it. I agree with that.
FOGLEMAN: Your Honor, those were a few of the items that was taken.
UNKNOWN: Which one’s this?
FORD: I dunno, I guess it’s Damien’s. But I don’t know.
GRIFFIS: …want me to explain what that is?
THE COURT: Not, wait just a minute (unintelligible) Mr. Fogleman, I’ve reviewed what’s marked State’s Exhibit 110. It’s, uh, it hasn’t been introduced at this point.
FOGLEMAN: Now, that’s a copy, that’s a picture of a book that was taken in execution of a search warrant, so that really doesn’t apply to this particular…
THE COURT: I know what that is, that came out of the—
FOGLEMAN: Other trial.
THE COURT: What is this, a cow’s head or a goat’s head?
FOGLEMAN: It’s a dog’s…
THE COURT: A dog’s head. Okay.
FORD: Who’s gonna, who’s gonna establish that, your Honor? That it’s—
THE COURT: I don’t know!
FOGLEMAN: Cause it’s gonna get established that it’s a head of some animal. I don’t care what kind of head it is.
FORD: Where’d it come from?
FOGLEMAN: Damien’s room.
THE COURT: Okay, 115 shows a, I guess this manual. It’s also marked Exhibit 110 with a, is that what you call a pentagram on the top of it?
UNKNOWN: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: All right. You see that?
UNKNOWN: Mm-hmm. (I think that’s Ford, but it’s hard to tell.)
THE COURT: I don’t know what this is. This is Exhibit 114. It shows a graveyard or something.
FOGLEMAN: No, that’s a—
THE COURT: Master Puppet.
FOGLEMAN: Some kind of a heavy metal poster.
FORD: Where was this, what was this, looks like—
THE COURT: I don’t know what 113 is. You’ll have to tell me what that is, too. Looks like, I don’t know what it is, afraid to comment.
FORD: Looks like a rock poster. Is that what that is?
THE COURT: Okay, Exhibit 112, where does this come from? It shows a—
THE COURT: All right, and Exhibit 111, what does that come from?
THE COURT: Those all procured in the course of the search?
FOGLEMAN: Those were all procured in a consensual search at Damien’s trailer in, I wanna say May of ’92.
DAVIDSON: Your Honor, we’d object, for not only relevance, but also that consensual search was when he was a juvenile and, that, uh, these were turned over to the juvenile officers, and they had them in his file, and as we ruled in, as you ruled, I should say, in Michael Carson’s case, juvenile files can’t be delved into, and that’s the reason that we were unable to delve into his past, and we say that the same thing ought to happen here.
PRICE: We also object—
THE COURT: I made no such ruling. I allowed you to cross-examine him with respect to any criminal activity.
UNKNOWN: This is not criminal activity.
PRICE: We also object to the relevancy, Judge. Anything my client had a year before the murders have absolutely nothing to do with these murders. If it took place a year before, that’s obviously irrelevant.
FOGLEMAN: It has to do with, your Honor, his, his belief system, his state of mind.
PRICE: Judge, we have the 1st Amendment in the United States, and a person is entitled to believe, to, they can practice their freedom of religion. Anything that he believed, particularly, he, a lot of these he may have had—
THE COURT: I don’t have any problem with him practicing whatever belief he wants to. That doesn’t mean that belief is not a part of, of relevant evidence in a proceeding against him, however.
PRICE: Judge, if it’s, if it’s something, if it’s a writing he had a year before the murders, it’s obviously not relevant to this proceeding.
THE COURT: Why not?
DAVIDSON: Your Honor, we would—
FORD: Your Honor, there is a specific rule of evidence that says one’s religious beliefs cannot be used to say that they did or did not believe something or
THE COURT: Well, would you like to point that out to me? What rule of evidence is it?
FORD: I read it last night, your Honor.
THE COURT: Well, I’d be happy to see it.
THE COURT: Were all of these, all of this stuff, was it obtained prior to the murder?
PRICE: Yes. A year.
FOGLEMAN: Well, your Honor, after the murders, he’s gonna get rid of everything.
THE COURT: What is your theory of admissibility on this?
FOGLEMAN: Your Honor, that it’s relevant once it’s established that it’s a cult-related killing. This is relevant to show his involvement and what he’s participating in and whether this is, this is, the proof will show this is not Wicca. Neither is this, Wicca.
PRICE: What is that, Mr. Fogleman?
FOGLEMAN: That is satanic.
PRICE: And how are you gonna, who’s gonna testify to that?
FOGLEMAN: Mr. Griffis.
DAVIDSON: Your Honor, the—what are you shaking your head at me for?
GRIFFIS: I’m just, gimme a drink, counselor.
DAVIDSON: Your Honor, we—
THE COURT: I dunno, I’ve been shaking my head a bunch too. I couldn’t tell you what about. All right, have you found that rule of evidence?
FORD: No, no. I will.
THE COURT: I’m reminded of a rule on habit in practice, too, that, that, uh, if you’re talking about Rule 610, Mr. Ford, if, if religious beliefs or opinions.
FORD: That’s the specific rule. That’s what we’re talking about. “Evidence of the beliefs or opinions of a witness on matters of religion is not admissible for the purpose of showing that by reason of their nature the credibility is impaired or enhanced.” And that’s what they’re trying to do.
FOGLEMAN: We’re not trying to impair or enhance anybody’s credibility. We’re showing motivation.
FORD: Certainly they are!
PRICE: The fact that my client has a picture a year before the murders is a motivation?
DAVIDSON: From a skateboard magazine?
FORD: Does this Rule 404 say this is, that, that right there is motive?
DAVIS: Well, your Honor, it’s certainly not, Rule 610 prohibits it for purposes of showing that, as to credibility is impaired or enhanced, and certainly what we’re doing is in no way designed to show whether his credibility is impaired or enhanced. What we’re showing is a belief system, and Mr. Price says that it’s a year before and it has no relevance. Your Honor, a belief system, somebody’s beliefs in things that they may act on, which is what the State is doing to try to show a motive, is something that the fact that they believed in a year is clearly, year before is clearly relevant. Uh, it’s not something that, that happened one day and goes away the next. Somebody’s beliefs that may be a motive for causing him to act on something that continue over a course of time.
PRICE: Judge, just because my client has writings in his room doesn’t necessarily mean these are all his beliefs. A, a statement out of one of this, “Incense is used in all witchcraft ceremonies,” there’s no evidence that any kind of incense was used at the murder scene. Obviously, it’s not relevant. The state is not alleging that it’s a witchcraft murder anyway. You can go—there’s reference to a 9 ft. circle. There’s absolutely no evidence. I asked the officer earlier last week if there was any kind of evidence of a 9 ft. circle. He said no. So none of this stuff is relevant, your Honor.
DAVIS: Your Honor, one thing we might point out in regard to the book, is that’s not a printed book. That’s handwritten.
FOGLEMAN: And, it’s handwritten, basically, some sort of ritual activity.
FORD: Your Honor, if I could (unintelligible) the opinion of Jason Baldwin, that, if they’re going to be able to use a juvenile file of Damien Echols to show that he had a belief and that he acted in conformity with that belief, then we should have been able to inquire as to the LSD dependence of Michael Carson, which is contained in his juvenile file to question his credibility because he had a drug dependence on hallucinogenics. (Crunching sounds of somebody eating something) If they’re gonna be allowed to use that, the evidence file, the juvenile file of this defendant, we should be able to use the juvenile file of that witness.
THE COURT: Can’t find what I’m looking for. You also might wanna look at Rule 505 if you’re claiming some kind of religious privilege, but, uh, what is habit practice of routine? Is that 500something?
FORD: I’m not sure.
THE COURT: Is that what you’re offering if, uh, it’s under?
FOGLEMAN: Your Honor, we’re offering, if the witness is allowed to testify that it’s occult related or occult overtones to it, then we’re offering this as evidence of his involvement in the occult.
FORD: Is this character evidence? Is that what you’re bringing it under?
FOGLEMAN: No. Motive. Goes to motive.
THE COURT: Well the rule, there’s rule 404B, “Evidence of a person’s character or trait of his character is not admissible for the purpose of proving he had acted with conformity therewith on a particular occasion except evidence of other crimes, wrongs or acts is not admissible to prove the character of a person in order to show that he acted in conformity therewith. It may, however, be admissible for other purposes such as proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity or absence of mistake or accident.” Here, all of this stuff we’re going through, it doesn’t go to whether or not either of the defendants committed the crime. It goes to that, uh, element of motivation, intent, scheme, uh, that sometimes the state can prove and sometimes they can’t prove. They’re not even required to prove motive, uh, however, and if, if they wanna attempt to do so they have a right to do so. The, I wanna deal first with the issue on how these items of evidence were originally obtained, and, and, and secondly whether or not there’s any prohibition of their use as a result of any violation of any juvenile code. I’m more concerned about those two issues than I am up on the, the, the use ultimately in trial of these exhibits. Uh, cuz I think under Rule 404, they’re entitled to use them with the cautionary instruction to the jury that they’re considered only, uh, should be considered only for the purposes of going to prove motivation of opportunity, intent, preparation, planning, knowledge, identity or absence of mistake or accident, and I’ll give that cautionary direction if I allow them. Now let’s deal with the first proposition. How were these items of evidence obtained?
FOGLEMAN: As a result of his conversations he went to the residence of Mr. Echols of Lakeshore Trailer Park, uh, asked for permission to search Damien’s room, searched his room, took these items, and, uh, turned them over to Jerry Driver of the juvenile office.
DAVIDSON: Your Honor, we’d also point out that he was a juvenile then, and a juvenile cannot consent to a search.
FOGLEMAN: He was a juvenile at that time, your Honor, but it was his mother who consented to the search, and I believe if my recollection is correct, there were charges, juvenile charges, arising out of what he was originally questioned about. But not related to the pictures.
DAVIDSON: And, your Honor, those were held in his juvenile file, and turned over to Jerry Driver from there, and Jerry Driver then turned these over to the prosecutor when he started on his trek.
FOGLEMAN: Your Honor, that was after the murders, and there was an order entered by the court, uh, authorizing the release of the juvenile file to the West Memphis Police Department.
PRICE: It was an ex parte order that we were representing Mr. Echols at the time and we did not have a chance to object to the order—
THE COURT: Who entered it?
FOGLEMAN: I don’t remember.
PRICE: I think one of the juvenile—
FOGLEMAN: Probably, same, same order y’all got.
PRICE: I’m not blaming juvenile, Judge.
DAVIDSON: The same order we got that was approved by Mr., Mr. Davis, right?
FORD: And you couldn’t, uh, and you wouldn’t let us use it.
THE COURT: Now, wait a minute. One at a time, one at a time.
FOGLEMAN: No, that related to medical privilege and you know that.
THE COURT: If you’re talking about the stuff in the other case, that clearly didn’t have anything to do with the issue before the court right now. That had to do with medical treatment. It had to do with privileged information, medical treatment that was required to be given by the physician.
PRICE: But that’s not true.
THE COURT: Well…take it up on appeal.
PRICE: We may do that, your Honor.
THE COURT: Well, if you do be sure to put that point in, because I’ve ruled on that and I’m not gonna rule again.
THE COURT: All right, y’all wanna say anything about how they acquired this?
PRICE: Well, you gave a copy of the juvenile code, your Honor, that contains the section about confidentiality.
THE COURT: Well, he’s telling me there’s an order from the juvenile judge giving possession of these items to, uh, law enforcement. In this case.
PRICE: At this time, we want to object to that order because we didn’t, we haven’t had a chance to object to it until this point.
FOGLEMAN: Well, your Honor, all I can say is that they were given a copy of it.
PRICE: That’s true.
THE COURT: In fact, I believe you used the same order to, to, uh, uh, receive the evidence.
PRICE: That’s correct, your Honor.
DAVIDSON: It wasn’t the same order.
THE COURT: Are there two different orders?
THE COURT: Well, who signed them?
THE COURT: You wanna call Judge Wilson or, uh, Judge Goodson in here? I know I didn’t sign ‘em. If I did I don’t remember anything about it.
DAVIDSON: No, you did not.
FOGLEMAN: I, I think it may have been Judge Goodson.
THE COURT: I think it was Judge Goodson, the one y’all showed me the other day, and he also indicated to me that he didn’t intend to turn over any medical files, or he just happened to get ‘em. What do you wanna do? Do you wanna spend the rest of the day hashing this out? It’s all right with me.
PRICE: Yes, sir. Sure.
THE COURT: Well, it’s five minutes to twelve. The court will be in recess until 1:00.
(Gavel pounds, random court noise, tape cuts off.)
(Tape cuts back on, random noise still present.)
THE COURT: Nobody’s even asked him about the missing parts.
FORD: I haven’t got there yet!
THE COURT: You haven’t asked him about whether the severed penis has anything to do with it or whether the phallic symbol means anything, whether or not the missing testicles mean anything. I’m gonna go back here and take a recess.
GRIFFIS: Is this—
THE COURT: Oh, you can stand down.
GRIFFIS: Thanks. Okay. This place doesn’t have any air.
(Tape cuts off and back on again.)
THE COURT: …proffered testimony of occult expert and other occult activities to prove motive, is more prejudicial than probative, or vice versa. All right, you may proceed. Where’s my witness? Did we forget to tell him to come back? (laughter) Uh, Mr., ah…Griffith? Was that his name? Griffis?
THE COURT: Well, I don’t really know that we need him. Weren’t y’all through questioning him anyway?
WADLEY: Mr. Griffis? No. We had broken up over this juvenile file, which he indicated was the basis of (unintelligible)
THE COURT: I think what he indicated that that was some additional information that he’d been (tape cuts out)
WADLEY: …foundation for the (unintelligible).
THE COURT: Well, I think he can. I think he can use evidence that’s either admissible or non-admissible for the basis for his opinion.
WADLEY: Well, I’ll agree that’s the rule. I just--
THE COURT: It doesn’t have to be necessarily be admissible for him to utilize it for his opinion. In fact, they can actually consider hearsay and matters that are not admissible in order to formulate an opinion.
WADLEY: But your Honor, he can’t consider that, Judge. If that is the situation, that he, like that other situation, if it was gathered in a way that it you should not have been able to gather it, then he shouldn’t be able to consider it.
FORD: Your Honor, there needs to be, there needs to be extreme caution used here about whether he starts to formulate any opinions based on the statement of Jessie Misskelley.
THE COURT: I don’t know if he has. Has he?
FOGLEMAN: What about Jessie Misskelley? I haven’t shown him anything on Misskelley, so he might wanna…
WADLEY: So, we don’t have him, we don’t have to worry about him saying, “Well I took into account the statements of Jessie Misskelley.”
FOGLEMAN: Nah, I wish I’d thought of it. Judge, he’s in the restroom. He’ll…
THE COURT: Okay. Well, gentlemen, just, I’ll point out to you Rule 703—come on up, please. “The facts or data in the particular case upon which an expert bases an opinion or inference may be those perceived by or made known to him at or before the hearing. If of a type reasonably relied upon by experts in the particular field in forming opinions or inferences upon the subject, the facts or data need not be admissible in evidence.” Like I said, there are two issues I wanted to take up. One is how those items that you just asked about, Mr. Ford, were acquired, and I can’t remember what the second one was now. It seemed important at the time. What was it?
FOGLEMAN: How they were acquired…
WADLEY: Relevancy. Whether or not it was—
THE COURT: Well, relevancy, relevancy of all of it is the issue.
WADLEY: I thought, I thought the court’s inquiry, your Honor, was firstly, what was acquired and secondly, how was it acquired? The manner in which it was ac—acquired. Those same issues that we dealt with earlier concerning…
FOGLEMAN: Your Honor, there’s no dispute, I don’t believe, as to how we acquired it.
WADLEY: I don’t know. I don’t know.
DAVIS: In the statements Mr. Fogleman made earlier before lunch (unintelligible) that they were turned over to the juvenile authorities, we agree with all that.
THE COURT: All right, I’ve reviewed, uh, an order in that regard…
PRICE: Yeah, but you don’t—
THE COURT: …what filed of the 19th day of July1993, signed by Judge David Goodson, where, um, um, all of these records were ordered turned over to the Crittenden County Deputy Prosecuting Attorney’s office and the West Memphis Police Department to assist in a criminal investigation.
UNKNOWN: Your Honor, that—
THE COURT: (clears throat)…subject to a Arkansas Code Annotated 9-27-309, which is the statute on confidentiality, and that provides that “all records may be closed and confidential within the discretion of the court.” Here clearly the court exercised its discretion and made those files available not only to the state and the law enforcement but to the defendants as well. Some mention was made as to, um, what was the young man’s name?
FORD: Michael Carson.
THE COURT: Carson? You all wanted to utilize medical evidence that had been turned over, uh, as well, and that evidence had, was compulsory evidence obtained by action of the court that bore the doctor-patient privilege, and I ruled that that evidence, even though it might have been turned over under court order to defense counsel by the juvenile court, that the physician-patient privileged communications still pertained, not withstanding the order. Now, that deals with part of it. Now, the next issue is whether or not those four or five items…where are they? They were up here. Whether or not they’re one, too remote to be considered as relevant in this case, number two, whether or not they’re even relevant to any issue in this case, number three, whether or not it’s an attempt on part of the State to prove, to prove character, testi—character, produce character evidence and suggest by that production, that the defendant acted in conformity with that, uh, evidence. And of course I point out Rule 404B, that an exception to that rule is where the evidence is offered to prove motive, intent, scheme or design. The only relevancy in this case for this type of testimony is to prove the possibility of a motive.
DAVIDSON: Your Honor, along those lines, we could certainly argue that the, ah, obtaining of this material was too remote from the alleged crimes to make it relevant in any manner.
THE COURT: All right, anybody else wanna have anything to say?
DAVIDSON: In that it was in, when, 1991?
THE COURT: ’92.
DAVIDSON: 1992? And also, your Honor, that, uh, we still maintain that this was part of a juvenile record and that, uh, uh—
THE COURT: Well, juvenile court dealt with it, not me.
DAVIDSON: Those are confidential items in that, uh, and that that order was obtained, uh, without us ever being, ever being there or apprised of it, uh, an ex parte order.
FORD (maybe Fogleman): It was an ex parte order, your Honor.
PRICE: Because furthermore, if you actually look at these items, there’s nothing in here that’s relevant to this murder. Nothing in here relevant to, to any type of motive, or any evidence at the crime scene or anything of that nature.
DAVIDSON. And because of that, the nature of that would be so highly inflammatory that its prejudicial effect would outweigh any probative value that it would have.
DAVIS: Your Honor, the State’s basis for believing that the probativeness outweighs the prejudicial effect is that in this case, because of the bizarre nature of the type murders that we’re talking about, we feel it’s very important and probably is going to be a prerequisite for the State to show some type of motive for these type killings. Otherwise, I think, people on the jury may very well, it may be beyond their comprehension how something or why something like this could take place, and I think it’s going to be very important for the State to establish a motive as to why it occurred. We’ve brought forth an expert that has an opinion that these motives, that these killings were cult-related. Other evidence that reflects that directly ties these defendants in this particular case, these items directly tie Mr. Echols to a, and I think the expert can indicate that these items show a, a practice and a set of cult-related beliefs and practices of Mr. Echols, then that becomes highly probative for the State to put on in order to establish that motive, which although not required to be proven by the State, in a case of this nature, it’s nearly incumbent on the State to present evidence in that nature. And here you have evidence that is relevant and probative as to that particular matter, and, uh, any evidence that is detrimental to the defendant, they can allege is prejudicial, but obviously, uh, the Court does not keep out evidence just because it’s prejudicial. It’s if that prejudice substantially outweighs the probative value. In this case, because of the need to establish motive, that probative value is important.
PRICE: Judge, one of the items in here is a cure for worms. Worms has absolutely nothing to do with this case whatsoever. That’s not one of the factors that could be a basis of a cult or a occult related killing. A cure for worms is just simply not relevant. Another thing—a cure for cramps. A cure for cramps is not relevant to any issue whatsoever in this case. A formula for a love spell is not related to any issue in this case. To improve the chances of success is not related to any issues in this case. And I, I, there are other examples in here as well. And just the fact that my client has some writings, I mentioned earlier that the rites are performed within a nine-foot circle. There’s no testimony, I even asked Officer Allen and Ridge if there’s any evidence of a nine-foot circle being at the crime scene. He said no. So obviously that can’t have any relevance. Incense is used at all witchcraft ceremonies. There’s no evidence whatsoever that the State has produced that there was any kind of incense at the crime scene. This is simply, it’s just not relevant, and it’s more the State’s, um, the State is doing this to, to, to, to, I don’t know what they’re doing this for, Judge. But it’s certainly damaging to my client. It’s not, it is not relevant to any--
THE COURT: It’s not relative, relevant, how is it damaging to your client? You can make all those arguments to the jury.
PRICE: Okay, if it’s not relevant, then, that’s, it’s not, it’s not—
DAVIDSON: Your Honor, I would also like to point out the time. This was over a year ago.
THE COURT: I’ve already, I’m the one that raised that issue for you, when I said, uh…
PRICE: Judge, if this had anything to do with killing people, sacrificing children, sexual crimes, anything of that nature, perhaps it might be relevant.
THE COURT: I don’t know, I haven’t heard what this gentleman has to say about what’s written in there, whether it has any relevancy or not to witchcraft or devil worship or occultism or whatever we’re characterizing it as.
PRICE: But even, even these pictures can’t be relevant for any…
THE COURT: I don’t know.
PRICE: …any issue in this case.
THE COURT: (In hushed tones) On the courtyard, or tell the rest of them to get rid of them. Take care of it. (Normal voice) It’s nothing.
DAVIS: Your Honor, Mr. Price seems to be arguing that if there is no statements in here of murder or whatever that that indicates that this item is not relevant. What we intend, that, what we believe the relevance is, that there will be testimony induced that these crimes had the trappings of an occult related homicide, and evidence that connects and shows a belief system of this defendant and, and shows writings of this defendant, which this expert can say are occult in nature, then become important as a factor in establishing that motive which we intend to prove and put evidence on by the (unintelligible).
THE COURT: Okay, the next issue then is whether or not Rule 610 applies, whether or not it falls into the area of religious beliefs or opinions. And the rule is, "evidence of the beliefs or opinion of the witness on matters of religion is not admissible for the purpose of showing that by reason of their nature his credibility is impaired or enhanced." Ofcourse, Mr. Echols is a defendant and not a witness, so I'm not sure that applies but I guess the theory would in some way. Anybody wanna talk to that?
DAVIS: Your Honor, the reason that we're putting this -- I think 610 is inapplicable because, number one, it refers to a witness, and it's a rule that is designed to limit an attack on credibility of a particular witness by religious beliefs and that sort of thing. In this particular case, those religious beliefs or -- I guess you could call those religious beliefs -- those ideas or set of beliefs are the basis for the State's evidence as to motive in this particular case. And credibility of a witness based on beliefs is not even an issue.
DAVIDSON: Well, we think it is, your Honor. We think that is the issue and that is the motive that they're trying to show. And furthermore, I believe that this does apply even though it does say witness -- rules of evidence do not normally talk about a witness, whether he's a plaintiff, a defendant, or a defendant in a criminal case. Very few of them do differentiate there. And we think that it certainly applies in this instance.
THE COURT: Anybody else got anything they wanna say? (Pause) Are you trying to offer this under the theory of Rule 406, habit routine and practice? That is, "Admissibility. Evidence of the habit of a person or of the routine practice of an organization, whether corroborated or not and regardless of the presence of eyewitnesses, is relevant to prove that the conduct of the person or organization on a particular occasion was in conformity with the habit or a routine practice." In "The method of proof. Habit or routine practice may be proved by testimony in the form of an opinion or by specific instances of conduct sufficient in number to warrant a finding that the habit existed or that the practice was routine."
FORD: Your Honor, this witness doesn't know these defendants, so how can he offer any evidence of habit or routine?
THE COURT: I'll just ask if that was one of their theories of admissibility.
DAVIS: Your Honor --
FORD: They haven't established that foundation.
DAVIS: I think we're talking apples and oranges because what Mr. Ford is talking about is the opinion of this witness. And what we're talking about is this evidence here. Frankly I don't think the Rule of 406 -- is that what you've just recited?
THE COURT: Uh-hum.
DAVIS: I don't think that's --
THE COURT: Applicable.
DAVIS: -- meets this factual situation. I think it's 403(b).
THE COURT: 404(b).
THE COURT: Alright, anybody else wanna say anything?
DAVIDSON: Well not now, if he concedes that 406 doesn't apply.
THE COURT: I didn't really think it applied myself. (Pause) Alright, I'm gonna try to deal with the four or five items of proffered evidence. One, the Court would be of the opinion that inasmuch as a juvenile court order was entered transferring the custody of the proffered evidence to the West Memphis Police Department or the prosecuting attorney's office for use in a criminal investigation, that Judge Goodson in entering that order in compliance with Arkansas statute 9-27-309 made a discretionary decision that those items were no longer necessary to be kept confidential, and therefore the juvenile code would not apply. I don't think there's any dispute that that's how the State came by possession of the items, so in that regard they'll be admissible in this case. I'm also going to rule that inasmuch as the State has the burden of proof in this case and inasmuch as a good portion of the case is circumstantial, that it is necessary and appropriate that the State prove motive if they can. And, by this proffered testimony the State is attempting to establish motivation to enhance its case -- I suppose that'll be the way to put it. And I'm going to rule that the probative value of the testimony with regard -- or the proffered testimony with regard to motivation outweighs any possible prejudicial effect. I further will instruct the jury that the testimony with regard to occult or satanism or any other term you wanna add to it that relates to the same thing, cultism, cult, occult, satism, that it may be considered only for the purposes of determining motivation, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence or mistake or accident, that is offered only to show -- for the limited purposes of establishing motive. Anybody else wanna say anything?
FORD: Your Honor, I hadn't -- I thought you were ruling on these particular items, but I hadn't finished my questioning --
THE COURT: Alright go ahead --
FORD: -- of this witness with respect --
THE COURT: Go ahead. I'm ready to make that ruling now but if you wanna go ahead and question him further, I'll allow you to do it.
FORD: I'd like the Court to take into consideration additional facts that may be brought out on cross-examination before it makes its ruling.
THE COURT: I'm willing to do that, so go ahead. The Court has a few questions that none of you all have asked him about either. At least I don't think I asked him that.
FORD: Maybe I'll get it covered some of those areas, maybe not.
THE COURT: Alright. Go ahead.
FORD: Is it your opinion, and do you want to tell this jury, that these crimes were motivated by occult beliefs?
FORD: The only -- and therefore -- the only reason these murders -- this is my question -- the only reason that these murders occurred was for an occult ritual?
GRIFFIS: What I am saying -- what I'm prepared to say is that the people -- the evidence that I was shown was indicative that the people were using the trapping of occultism.
FORD: But is it your opinion that the motive for the killings, the motive for the killings is occult beliefs? Is that the motive? Is it your opinion that the motive for these killings was an occult belief?
FORD: And what is the basis of that opinion?
GRIFFIS: The material that I was seen last evening. And the other things that I went over with you prior, counselor.
FORD: Do you have any evidence, any evidence to establish a link between Jason Baldwin and the occult? Do you have any evidence?
GRIFFIS: In the material that I was seen -- have seen -- was from the crime scene general, and also what the prosecutor explained to me coming from Mr. Echols' area.
FORD: Do you have any evidence that establishes a link between Jason Baldwin and the occult? That's my question.
GRIFFIS: The question is if -- I have not talked to any of the officers if Jason Baldwin was there that night.
FORD: Do you have --
FORD: -- any evidence that establishes a link between Jason Baldwin and the occult?
FOGLEMAN: Your Honor, I hadn't asked -- informed him of anything at this point related to Jason Baldwin --
THE COURT: Was he aware of the testimony of the, the --
FORD: I'm asking him, your Honor. I'd like to know what his opinion is based on and I want to know, does he have any evidence that links Jason Baldwin to the occult.
FOGLEMAN: Your Honor --
FORD: And I'd like an answer.
FOGLEMAN: Your Honor -- and I'll enter an objection, Mr. Ford.
FORD: Is that an improper question?
FOGLEMAN: Your Honor, my objection is that it's an unfair question to this witness to ask him related to things in relation to the defendant Jason Baldwin when -- at this point, this witness has not been provided any information hypothetical about the sucking of the blood of the penis, which generic -- it didn't say that the witness said that Jason Baldwin sucked the blood from the penis. Let's add that into the mix.
FORD: This is my cross-examination and I think it's a proper question. I wanna ask him.
THE COURT: Alright, and then he's gonna get up and ask him --
FORD: That's fine.
THE COURT: -- would that alter and change your opinion, so (unintelligble).
FORD: Do you have any evidence that links Jason Baldwin to the occult?
GRIFFIS: Not until his comment, no.
FORD: If this comment was false -- for purposes of my questioning, if that evidence is a lie, do you have any evidence that links Jason Baldwin to the occult?
GRIFFIS: Not at this point.
FORD: None. Okay. So the entire basis for your link from Jason Baldwin to the occult is based on the statements you just heard from this prosecutor?
FORD: That's the entire --
GRIFFIS: No, plus the fact that I understand he was present.
FORD: You understand he was -- who told you he was present? These men right here tell you he was. If they're mistaken --
FORD: -- do you have any evidence that links him?
GRIFFIS: No sir, I do not.
FORD: Do you know of any evidence that puts him at the crime scene?
GRIFFIS: Only what they have given me.
FORD: Only what they've given you, okay.
GRIFFIS: Yes sir.
FORD: Now, let me ask you this. If there was evidence -- testimony in this case, that the homicides occurred somewhere else, and not in this little patch of woods, that it occurred somewhere else, and they brought them in and dumped them. Would that change your opinion as to this being an occult killing?
GRIFFIS: That fact alone?
FORD: It would not. If there was evidence in this case that said that they were taken, tied up, gagged, held in another location, later killed, brought back and dumped, would that change your opinion?
GRIFFIS: It would lessen the degree of probability.
THE COURT: Do you have any evidence of that nature or anticipate any evidence of that nature?
FORD: I think I've already got it, your Honor.
THE COURT: Well, you left me somewhere.
FORD: I'm asking him a good-faith hypothetical question, your Honor, by the evidence I believe.
DAVIS: Your Honor, is it based on evidence in this case?
THE COURT: That's what I was asking.
DAVIS: At least to this point?
FORD: I asked him if there'd been evidence, if there was evidence in this case of those facts would that change his opinion. That's what I've – I've already got testimony from the medical examiner that it probably occurred somewhere else. I also have testimony that the medical examiner that there's evidence that these boys were gagged. I've got just as much testimony of that than they've got of anything else from the medical examiner. Those are reasonable inferences, your Honor, that I can argue from that testimony of the medical examiner, and you know it.
DAVIS: Your Honor, as to reasonable inferences that can be argued, but to make the statement in the form of a hypothetical that there is evidence in the case to that effect. I think is -- I think presents an unfair hypothetical that's not based on the evidence in this case.
FORD: I haven't had a chance, your Honor, to present my case yet.
THE COURT: Alright. If you think there's evidence of that nature.
THE COURT: Anything else?
FORD: What evidence do you have to establish that these boys were tortured? That means that they were conscious and aware of their pain at the time the injuries were inflicted. Do you have any evidence to establish that they were conscious?
GRIFFIS: I talked with the medical examiner -- and, the amount -- the injuries to the one boy's (someone coughes - inaudible) were not (?) one-inch stabs, were not death threathning.
FORD: But do you have any evidence to establish that he -- whether that was first, whether that was last, whether he was conscious, unconscious when that occurred?
GRIFFIS: No, I don't.
FORD: So you have no evidence to establish that the children -- your Honor.
FOGLEMAN: Hadn't said a word.
FORD: Your Honor, when I'm asking a witness a question I would -- I feel that the Court should not be rolling his eyes around. That's a comment on my questions, your Honor.
THE COURT: Okay. If I rolled my eyes -- go ahead.
FOGLEMAN: Your Honor --
FORD: Because he's indicated the basis of his opinion is torture. And you have to be conscious to be tortured.
FOGLEMAN: And, your Honor --
THE COURT: The medical examiner's report indicated that two of them drowned. I don't know whether they were conscious or not but they certainly weren't dead at the time they were inserted in the water.
FORD: He's not qualified to say these boys were tortured, because he's not a medical doctor, he doesn't know what injury happened first, what injury happened second, whether they were conscious or unconscious. And if he can't say that then he can't intimate they were tortured. Cause there's no medical evidence to establish these boys were tortured. Because they could have been -- the very first blow could have knocked them unconscious and the rest of it occur when they're unconscious.
THE COURT: Those are all things you can argue appropriately.
FORD: But he's not qualified to say they were tortured, he's not a doctor.
FOGLEMAN: Your Honor, can I respond to the argument?
THE COURT: Yes.
FOGLEMAN: Your Honor, just as Mr. Ford says that he's got a reasonable basis for arguing these other things, there's certainly a reasonable basis in the evidence for inferring and arguing that the wounds to the face and the wounds to the genital area occurred while they were conscious.
THE COURT: It can be argued both ways I suppose.
FORD: When there's no medical evidence to establish what happened first?
THE COURT: Well, it can be argued both ways.
FORD: Do you have any evidence to establish that these boys were conscious at any time when these injuries were inflicted? Do you?
THE COURT: Anything else?
FORD: Do you have any evidence to establish that the motive for these -- that Jason Baldwin had any motive to kill these boys based on occultism? Do you have any evidence to do that? To say this young man was involved in the occult and that's the motive for these killings?
GRIFFIS: You -- you're fading away from it, counselor, I'm sorry. I'm too much time (?) I'm sorry.
FORD: Do you have any evidence to establish that the motive of that young man was occult in nature and that's why he did these killings?
GRIFFIS: The only indicator which was added by Mr. Fogleman last evening.
FORD: Are all people involved in the occult killers?
GRIFFIS: No sir.
FORD: Are all crimes of this nature occultic in nature? Are all murders where these type of injuries happen, are they all occultic?
GRIFFIS: No sir.
FORD: What separates this one from those that aren't?
GRIFFIS: First of all the dates. I went over that --
FORD: The date.
GRIFFIS: The dates. The full moon. I still stand by my belief on the way they were tied. And talking last night to the counselor about the sucking of blood from the penis.
FORD: He told you that last night?
GRIFFIS: Yes sir.
FORD: I thought you just told us the first time you heard it was right now in this courtroom.
GRIFFIS: No sir.
FORD: You knew about that last night?
GRIFFIS: Yes sir.
THE COURT: Was the particular defendant identified last night?
GRIFFIS: They said one.
THE COURT: You didn't know which one?
THE COURT: Alright. Was the fact that the penis was removed, is that significant at all in your opinion?
GRIFFIS: The fact of the damage to the sex organs?
THE COURT: Yes, the fact that the--
GRIFFIS: I'm sorry.
THE COURT: -- testicles were missing, was that any factor in your consideration of your opinion?
GRIFFIS: Yes sir, it was.
THE COURT: Alright. Anybody else have any other questions?
FORD: What is your understanding of the injuries to the sex organs of Mr. Byers? What is your understanding of what the injuries were?
GRIFFIS: Mr. Byers is -- counselor, I looked at the medical examiner numbers and they didn't have the gentleman's name on them.
FORD: Okay. The young man who was sexually mutilated, what is your understanding of what occurred to him?
GRIFFIS: His penis was removed, his scrotom, testicle area. He had considerable stabbing wound area in the groin near the pubic area. The total (?) of the penis was gone.
FOGLEMAN: Just for clarification purposes, do you know what -- you said the (?), what are you talking about there?
GRIFFIS: The head of the penis.
FOGLEMAN: What about the shaft?
GRIFFIS: Was also gone. I mean, the outside. The inside was there.
THE COURT: Anything else? Anybody wanna make any statements for the record?
FORD: Your Honor, for the record, we feel that this, number one, this witness is not qualified to testify as to overkill, because he's not qualified to say which blows were mortal and which blows were not mortal, 'cause he's not a doctor, a medical doctor.
THE COURT: Can he not rely upon the statement of the medical examiner in that regard?
FORD: If he hasn't testified that the medical examiner told him that there were five mortal blows. The medical examiner didn't testify to that in this case. Because if these boys had recei -- two of them were still alive, your Honor, when they were dumped in the waters.
THE COURT: Seems like I reflect on the medical examiner's testimony, that his testimony was that more than one of the injuries he observed on each of the defendants could have resulted in ultimate death. Now whether or not they died immediately from that blow or not, I don't think he -- anybody can voice an opinion. But again, I don't remember it exactly myself, but I think that was the substance of his testimony that they could have died from any one of a number of injuries.
FORD: I'm asking -- moving in limine that this witness be instructed not to make reference to the number of mortal blows because he's not qualified to do so. And although the opinion may be based on statements that are hearsay, those statements cannot be injected into the record in that fashion.
FOGLEMAN: Your Honor, they can if they ask it, and that's how it came out the first time.
FORD: I'm not gonna ask him. I wanna know for this in-camera proceeding, but I'm asking that --
THE COURT: You'd be entitled, and that's assuming I'll allow the testimony like I indicated I would, you'd be entitled to cross-examine him on the basis, and the factual basis for his opinion. And if you ask him what his belief or opinion -- that's not the right way. If you ask him about what he considered in the medical examiner's report as a basis for formulating his opinion as to the multiplicity of wounds, then he's gonna be permitted to testify what his view of that testimony was.
FORD: And I'll also ask in limine, your Honor, that he not be allowed to indicate these boys were tortured. I'd like for him to be instructed not to do either one of those two things. And I'd like the Court to rule on that request.
THE COURT: Well, again, I don't know that his opinion would necessarily require him to refer to the medical examiner's notes, but if he uses one of the facts and bases of his opinion, and I think he's been asked three or four times, think they were multiple injuries, he's gonna be permitted to do that. I mean, you can attack and challenge his testimony based upon the facts in the case. Goes to the weight of his evi -- weight of the evidence, not his credibility. As far as the second point I think the same thing is true. Anything else? Not his admissability, I said credibility. That goes to his credibility.
FORD: Your Honor, we submit that his opinion -- there is no basis in fact. And that his opinion as to the motive of these killings is not based in facts, is not based on any scientific principles, it's not based on anything that allows an expert witness to give his opinion under chapter 7 of the rules of evidence, that this is not an expert opinion. That he's not qualified as an expert, and that there is insufficient link to Jason Baldwin.
THE COURT: Well, --
FORD: And we -- Your Honor, that -- we submit that the language of the order in limine has failed to been met, to have established a link between Jason Baldwin and the occult. He knows of no evidence to establish this gentleman as a member of the occult and a practicing participant in the occult. He knows of no evidence. And in the absence of that, your Honor, his opinion is so prejudicial to this young man. And in the absence of any -- there's no link. And that's what the Court order requires --
THE COURT: Okay.
FORD: -- the State to establish. And we would argue, your Honor, they should not be allowed to introduce this evidence as to Jason Baldwin. If the Court will allow it to Mr. Echols that the Court instruct the jury that the evidence of this witness is to be considered only in determining guilt or innocence of Mr. Echols, and not Mr. Baldwin.
THE COURT: You wanna be heard on that?
PRICE: Well --
FOGLEMAN: Your Honor, the only thing I was gonna add is, first of all, the testimony of Michael Carson, as indicated earlier, establishes that link. And, we expect there'd be other (inferences?)
DAVIDSON: Your Honor --
THE COURT: You wanna add something?
PRICE: Judge, in addition -- as another basis for our objection is it's our position that there's been no empirical data that's been brought forward at this hearing of any basis to form Dr. Griffis' opinion about this. If -- I'd remind your Honor of the ruling that the defense made in the Misskelley trial about Dr. Ofshe testifying, and the Court ruled that there was not empirical data for the basis of some of Dr. Ofshe's opinions about whether or not Mr. Misskelley's confession was coerced or not.
THE COURT: Well there was quite a bit of difference in my ruling on Ofshe's testimony. You were trying to create a scientific and technical field under which his theories could fall.
PRICE: The State is trying --
THE COURT: Further, the testimony of Mr. Ofshe went to the ultimate issue of the jury -- for the jury's determination, and I recognize Rule 704 or 705 allows the jury -- an expert to testi -- testifies to the ultimate issue in some circumstances. Here, Ofshe --
MR. PRICE: There's no scientific basis.
THE COURT: Well, I'll point out two things to you. First of all, Ofshe testified to everything I said he couldn't testify to anyway. And two, I narrowed my ruling in that case to only a certain portion of his opinion. I allowed him to give testimony with regard to his expertise, his education, his knowledge in the field. But I limited him only on expressing an opinion that would be in a directive nature to the jury that, "This is my expert opinion and you must find such and such." That's totally different from the issue --
PRICE: But it's our position that there's no --
THE COURT: -- before the Court now.
PRICE: -- scientific basis for the --
THE COURT: Well, --
PRICE: -- for this witness to testify that this is an occult related killing.
THE COURT: Well.
FORD: We join in that argument, your Honor.
PRICE: We've asked him on numerous occasions, name some cases, name some -- and he can't even come up with the names of the cases. He mentions one or two or possibly three. Surely three cases cannot be a basis of a -- or you can have a scientific opinion or body of work which is the basis of his opinion.
THE COURT: Okay, it's my ruling that this witness will be able to testify as an expert, as a person with specialized knowledge in the field of occultism that would assist the jury to understand the evidence and to determine the factual issue involving the motivation. And that he is qualified as an expert based upon his knowledge, his experience and his training in the area of occultism or satansim. And I don't know of any particular scientific field other than perhaps what he's indicated that will allow such testimony. But I'm going to allow him in that regard to testify in that regard. I think I've ruled on everything now -- the rest of your cross didn't change my mind. Is there anything you want a specific ruling on that I haven't already ruled on?
DAVIDSON: We just want the record to reflect that we join in Mr Ford's --
THE COURT Well I think it did.
DAVIDSON: -- (inaudible)
THE COURT: Anything else? Alright, I'm ready to call the jury back in.
FOGLEMAN: Your Honor, because of the nature of his testimony, we're going to – we need to put on some other evidence before he testifies, so we'd ask that he step down and that Lisa Sakevicius retake the stand.
THE COURT: Alright. You need to go back to the room -- or back there. Pardon?
FORD: There's gonna be some issues regarding the admissibility of the evidence based the search warrant, that they're gonna introduce evidence of what may have been located in certain people's homes.
FOGLEMAN: We've already had a hearing on the search warrant.
FORD: No, because you told us you didn't know what evidence you were gonna offer.
FOGLEMAN: We had a long --
THE COURT: I did some suppression hearings on the (audio stops)
(audio starts again)
THE COURT: -- I don't know either.
FORD: Well, until we do we don't know whether they fall within the confines of the description of the warrant.
THE COURT: You can object.
FORD: We preserve that.
FOGLEMAN: 15, 15 black t-shirts.
FORD: That's all? 15 black t-shirts.
PRICE: At which home?
PRICE: Book --
?: That gotta be Damien's.
PRICE: Judge, can we see the book? Is this the Bible or what book is this?
FOGLEMAN: Same book you've seen --
PRICE: Can I see it now that --
THE COURT: That yellow book that was in the other trial, is --
THE COURT: -- that what it was?
FORD: Judge we'd object to the introduction of that book because that book is hearsay. It is right hearsay, that book is.
THE COURT: Are you talking about the words that are printed in it and what you might read from it? That's hearsay I agree with you. But the book itself would be admitted.
FORD: Well then, will the jury be instructed not to open it and read it?
?: They can't open it?
FORD: Not to open it and read it? If they receive it into evidence, they don't -- they may read it. That's evidence and that's hearsay
DAVIDSON: We'd like to present some books too, namely -- here's a good book, where is it? --
PRICE: Which one? "Pursuit of Satan."
DAVIDSON: "Pursuit of Satan."
THE COURT: Okay, whose home was that found in?
PRICE: My home, your Honor.
THE COURT: Okay. Well, I might let it go in in that case.
FOGLEMAN: Are we gonna proceed the trial?
THE COURT: Yes. Yes sir, if you'll lay it back there.
COURT REPORTER: (inaudible) talk one at a time (inaudible).
THE COURT: Yeah, you all need to be talking one at a time instad of all at once.
FOGLEMAN: Your Honor -- Your Honor, we got a copy from the World Almanac. Also, information from the May the 5th paper about the moon. And we submit the Court ought to take judicial notice of the fact that there was a full moon on May the 5th.
FORD: Your Honor, in the absence of that -- in the absence of any evidence regarding cloud cover we feel like that's meaningless.
THE COURT: Does cloud cover have anything to do with whether or not you can do this sort of stuff?
FORD: (inaudible) you don't see a full moon --
THE COURT: I don't know. Are you objecting to the Almanac and the paper that said there was a full moon on that particular day in time?
DAVIS: Judge, judge, what -- the Almanac is on Greenwich time.
DAVIDSON: Is on what?
DAVIS: You gotta use a calculation to figure out based on World Almanac, what is was for Memphis. The Commercial Appeal section on that particular date reflects, sunrise, sunset, and the moon phase --
THE COURT: You're asking me to take judicial notice of anything that was in the Commercial?
DAVIS: Judge, I believe they get that -- I believe they get that from sort of like AP feed. I don't think that's based on anything their reporters come up with.
DAVIDSON: Your Honor, I believe -- didn't I have this information from the --
DAVIS: I don't think the moon phases is in that, unless you can show it to me.
FOGLEMAN: We do want the sunset on there too.
THE COURT: There is a government agency that can provide that sort of testimony if it's necessary.
DAVIDSON: I think I've got it, your Honor. Didn't I show that to you --
FOGLEMAN: Didn't say anything about the moon that I could find. You wouldn't point to where it was.
DAVIS: If it does --
FOGLEMAN: -- (unintelligible) I don't know.
THE COURT: You all hurry up.
DAVIS: Judge, I think what we're asking is that the Court just take judicial notice of the time of sunset, and that it was -- of a moon phase on that particular date, rather than introduce something like this.
THE COURT: Gentlemen, that's something that's easy to prove if you wanna -- I mean, if you wanna --
FORD: Your Honor, I think they can introduce it as an exception to the hearsay rule, but not -- juducial notice is a different concept than admitting it as an exception to the hearsay rule.
FOGLEMAN: But --
THE COURT: Well, that is one of the exceptions. Judicial notice --
FORD: It's a periodical. Under the newspaper exception they can ask a witness to -- was this in the Commercial Appeal on such and such date. But that -- giving it judicial notice is --
THE COURT: Well, that is Rule 1000, I think. Let's see what it says.
FOGLEMAN: Will you all object to the introduction of this excerpt from World Almanac and the topic in the May 5th paper?
DAVIDSON: If I can find it, I think I got it from the National Weather Service.
THE COURT: That's where you get that stuff.
(Mumbling) - (audio stops)
(audio starts again)
THE COURT: -- Almanac, allow it to go in or I'll rule that it's not admissible on your objection and that they can get proof from the weather office in Little Rock and bring it in tomorrow.
DAVIS: Judge, they have --
THE COURT: They should come --
DAVIDSON: I got the --
DAVIDSON: climatological data --
FORD: I can't stipulate to it.
DAVIDSON -- and the sunrise and the sunset, Memphis, Tennessee, from the National Weather Service.
THE COURT: I think they also keep the moon stages too, because that's got something to do with agricultural process and you may have to get through the ASCS.
(?): You all object to this all come in?
DAVIDSON: No. In fact, we will offer this.
DAVIDSON: A joint exhibit, your Honor.
DAVIS: It doesn't have anything about the moon.
FOGLEMAN: Do we need to introduce both of them? Is there some reason to introduce both of these things?
?: Yeah, we want them both.
THE COURT: We're talking about whether the moon was shining full that night. Something that is a matter that can be established as a fact.
THE COURT: Alright, where do we stand? We gonna agree that the moon was up or not?
FORD: I don't know.
THE COURT: Well, just say no and then --
THE COURT: -- alright, objection sustained. Alright, call the jury back in. You all ready?
FOGLEMAN: Yes sir, we're ready.
?: 121 and 122.
(THE FOLLOWING CONFERENCE WAS HELD AT THE BENCH OUT OF THE HEARING OF THE JURY)
THE COURT: I'm going to attempt to caution the jury to consider the occult testimony only as going to motive like I indicated.
WADLEY: Let's don't do it now, Judge.
THE COURT: Well, I'm getting -- I was going to tell them -- well, when the man gets ready to testify, that's when I'll do it. I'll wait until then. All right.
(RETURN TO OPEN COURT)
FOGLEMAN: Your Honor, at this time we would offer State's Exhibit 121 and 122 and it can be considered as a joint exhibit with the defendants. It has got sunrise and sunset for various dates and various months and the local climatological data.
DAVIDSON: That's correct, your Honor.
THE COURT: All right. They may be received.
(STATE'S EXHIBITS 121 AND 122 ARE RECEIVED IN EVIDENCE)