Ford: Is the state going to be allowed to elicit from the officers that Misskelley gave a statement and that from that statement the warrants were obtained -
(talking over)
Fogleman: I'm not asking if a warrant was obtained for a search -
The Court: I don't know if they're going to ask in that fashion, but frankly, I wouldn't find anything wrong with saying that based upon information obtained from Misskelley, we obtained a search warrant. What his objection is about - what he is saying improper would be the contents that are in the statement, that he implicated involvement of the two co-defendant, now that's clearly wrong and I'm sure trying - I'm gonna sure attempt to resolve that but I don't have a whole lot of problem. I -
Price: Your Honor, we would object to even that sentence based on -
Fogleman: I'm not gonna ask -
The Court: I'm gonna suggest that he not do that, but I'm saying I don't think it's error if he did.
Fogleman: I'm not even gonna - I'm not even gonna ask anything close to that.
The Court: Alright.
Fogleman: Your Honor, while we're all up here, uh - I am gonna ask him about sending the Byers knife to Genetic Design and uh - I would move in limine at this time that they not inquire as to hearsay information - I'm gonna have him testify that he recieved it from um - Bruce Sinofsky and Joe Berlinger, but beyond that at this point, we would object to the inquiry, you know - well, where did he tell you - they tell you they got it and things like that.
Price: Judge, the state had indicated that at some point later they would indicate whether or not they would stipulate to -
Fogleman: That's correct.
Price: - to where the knife came from. I mean, it came from Byers according to -
Fogleman: Sinofsky.
The Court: What I - you know, the hearsay comments, I think if you wanna do it, you're gonna have to call -
Price: Unless they stipulate.
The Court: - I mean, I don't think it needs to be referred to as the - it should be defendant's exhibit number 6.
Fogleman: That's the way it's going to be referred to.
Price: That's fine. As long as it's -
The Court: Alright.
(Return to open court)
The Court: Alright, you may proceed.
Fogleman: Thank you, Your Honor. Would you state your name and occupation for the jury?
Gitchell: My name is Gary Gitchell and I am an Inspector, of the criminal investigative division of the West Memphis Police Department.
Fogleman: Uh - Inspector Gitchell, Um - we've had Detective Allen and um - Trroper Mullins testify about search of a lake at Lakeshore uh - what was it that lead you to the decision to um - search this lake?
Gitchell: Uh - a suggestion that you made. If we had thought to do that or not. And based on your suggestion, we did that.
Fogleman: Ok. But it wasn't based on any crimestopper's tip or anything like that?
Gitchell: No sir.
Fogleman: Ok. Now, I want to show you what has been um - I guess it's been introduced as Defendant Echols Exhibit Six, and ask if you might look at that.
Price: I think we just identified that. I don't know if it's been introduced. It can be, certainly introduced at this point.
Fogleman: Okay. Well, for identification purposes, it's state's exhibit - uh - defendant's exhibit 6. Uh - look at that and see if you recognize it.
Gitchell: Uh - yes sir, I am familiar with this knife.
Fogleman: Alright, and how can you identify it?
Gitchell: Uh - on the knife, I have the uh - date in which I received the knife. I also have the E number, which is the evidence number which I gave the knife, and uh - then also my initials are on it.
Fogleman: Alright, and when did you recieve that knife?
Gitchell: On the - I believe it was on the 8th. I've got Jan - it's hard to make this out, I've got January the 8th, 1994.
Fogleman: Alright. And upon recieving that knife, what did you do with it?
Gitchell: Uh - I in turn sent this knife to Genetic Design.
Fogleman: Alright. And where are they located?
Gitchell: In North Carolina.
Fogleman: Alright. Is it a normal procedure to send items to the Crime Laboratory?
Gitchell: Yes sir.
Fogleman: And why did you deviate from the normal procedure in this case?
Gitchell: Well, I saw what I thought to be a um - some type of substance on the knife, and naturally, I did not know what it was. It has been our practice during this case uh - to send uh - items to Genetic Design, so I uh - instead of going to the Crime Lab, I just sent it directly to Genetic.
Fogleman: And how long was this uh - before the other trial was to begin?
Gitchell: We were just talking about a matter of uh - days because we were
waiting for an analysis report on the knife.
Fogleman: Alright. And approximately uh - how long did it take to get results in the normal course of things from Genetic Design - when we rushed 'em?
Gitchell: Well it usually - it took several weeks to get information back but uh - we wanted - we needed this information uh - before the uh - first trial that we had, the Misskelley trial. And uh - it was on the 26th that I finally uh - was able to talk with Mr. Byers about the knife.
Fogleman: Alright. And who did you recieve this knife from?
Gitchell: I received it from uh - you mean how did I actually recieve it?
Fogleman: No, who did you recieve the knife from?
Gitchell: I recieved it from uh - Joe, and uh - the people with HBO -
Fogleman: Ok.
Gitchell: - Productions.
Fogleman: Ok. Bruce and -
Gitchell: Bruce and Joe.
Fogleman: - uh - whoever he is. Alright. I don't have any further questions Your Honor. Your Honor, we do need to approach for a minute.
(pause)
Fogleman: One thing that I failed to mention earlier was we would also at this time object to going into any hearsay statements of Mr. Byers.
The Court: Well, I'm going to sustain that, any hearsay.
Price: But that wouldn't prevent me from asking Inspector Gitchell if he asked Mr. Byers certain questions, which would not be hearsay.
Fogleman: Well, yes Your Honor -
The Court: Well sure it'd be hearsay.
Price: If I ask Inspector Gitchell if he asked Mr. Byers, the answer would be hearsay but his question would not be hearsay.
Fogleman: It's still an out-of-court declaration. The question itself is an out of court declaration.
Price: Judge, I can ask the Inspector if he asked this question.
Fogleman: For what pur --what's the relevance?
Price: The relevance is the fact that he asked Mr. Byers questions about the knife.
The Court: Like what?
Price: Do what?
The Court: Give me an example of what you're talking about.
Price: Did he ask Mr. Byers, what kind of knives do
you have?
Fogleman: What is the relevance of that, Judge?
Price: The relevance is he was asking him about this particular knife, and they just got the report back. It was DNA blood matching Mr. Byers, and he was asking him. I can ask him the questions, if you've ever taken the knife hunting, or did you use it just recently prior to giving it to him.
Fogleman: Your Honor, I can understand him after--if Mr. Byers testifies, after Mr. Byers testifies if he says something different that's what in the statement
The Court: I think you need to call Mr. Byers personally.
Price: Judge, I can ask Inspector Gitchell did he ask him a question.
Fogleman: There's no relevance to what questions he asked anybody.
Davidson: I think it's relevant because it shows he was questioning him as a suspect, and he -
Fogleman: But that's not relevant. You could go through a hundred people that they questioned.
Price: I'm not gonna go through a hundred people, I'm gonna go through--this is it. All I'm asking is his questions, not his answers.
Fogleman: Your Honor, what they're trying to do is to somehow lend credence to their theories because the police investigated somebody. They're trying to lend credence to their theory that Mr. Byers had something to do with it simply because he asked questions.
The Court:. I'm going to rule it's hearsay. This is an out-of-court statement.
Price: The out-of-court statement is Mark Byers response by-Inspector Gitchell's.
The Court: No, no, no
Price: I'd like to make a proffer at this time.
The Court: Okay.
Price: Out of the presence of the jury.
The Court: All right, ladies and gentleman, I need you to step back into the jury room for a few minutes. Again, you're not to discuss the case until it's submitted to you.
Price: Judge, before I begin the proffer, as further argument, it is our position that Mr. Fogleman when he asked Inspector Gitchell if on January 26th he talked to Mr. Byers -
Fogleman: I've not asked that question.
The Court: He asked him who he received the knife from.
Price: Judge, it's my understanding--if you'd ask the court reporter to read back, I think he asked him did he talk to Mark Byers an January the 26th - I'd ask the court reporter to read it back.
The Court: Read it back because that's not what I recall.
Court Reporter: I don' t know if this is where you mean but the answer was, (reading) it took several weeks to get the knife--to get the information back, but we needed this information before the first trial we had had the Misskelley trial. It was on the 26th that I finally was able to talk with Mr. Byers about the knife. And the the question, who did you receive the knife from.
Price: And it was on January 26th that I was finally able to talk to Mr. Byers about the knife.
Fogleman: That was the answer, not the question.
Price: But by asking the question, and giving that response that opens the door for me to ask these questions.
The Court: It's still hearsay. I don't have any problem with you calling Mr. Byers to the stand, and asking him anything you want.
Price: Judge, I submit to you that Rule 801-
The Court: I'm looking at it, 8012 -
Price: Yes sir, admission by party of opponant.
The Court: Well, where is the admission by a party opponent to anything?
Price: Judge, the party opponent is the State, the statement is offered against um -
The Court: It doesn't fit, Mr. Price. It's hearsay.
Fogleman: And Your Honor, we would also submit for the record that whatever questions were asked is not relevant. They're simply trying to bolster their case by -
The Court: What they're attempting to do is to question, ask him the questions he asked that response would be hearsay um -
Price: I think the questions, yes sir.
The Court: Well, what is the relevancy of the question if you're not trying to imply something by the lack of response? Tacit admission, what is it you're -
Price: It's the fact that the Police Department was asking a suspect about the blood found on this particular knife.
Davidson: As late as January.
Price: As late as January 26th as late as the middle of Jessie Misskelley's trial.
The Court: Call Mr. Byers.
Price: I also intended to do that, your Honor, but I'd like to go ahead and make my proffer then at this time.
The Court: All right
Price: Thank you. Inspector Gitchell, on January 26th 1994, did you question John Mark Byers concerning that Kershaw knife?
Gitchell: Yes, I did.
Price: That's been marked for identification purposes as defence exhibit number E-6.
The Court: I don't have any problem with you asking anything in front of the jury.
Price: I know that Judge, I wanted to relay that - and prior to questioning Mr. Byers, you read him the statements of rights form?
Gitchell: Yes sir, I did.
Price: Alright. During the interview with Mr. Byers, did you ask him, (reading) I think cook, no - that knife had not been used - no excuse me, start back over Judge.
The Court: Alright.
Price: Alright Mr. Gitchell, did you ask Mr. Byers, (reading) do you know if any member of your family whatsoever has ever injured themselves or cut themselves on that knife? This is on page 3, probably midway.
Gitchell: Yes sir.
Price: Alright. Did you al - next ask him (reading) Oh, this kershaw knife here mentioned. Did you ask him that?
Gitchell: Yes sir.
Price: Alright. This'll be a series of questions. I'll state the question that you asked him um - did any of your sons ever play with the knife?
Gitchell: Yes sir, I asked him that.
Price: This is on page 4, probably midway down - Oh, oh, I follow you - he - Ryan did not cut himself with the kershaw.
Gitchell: I don't have the same thing you've got there evidently.
Price: Ok, this is on page 4 (mumbling)
Gitchell: Ok. You skipped quite a few there.
Price: Ok. I'll let you know if - then down - the - right at the bottom on page - alright Officer Ridge was also doing the interview with you?
Gitchell: Uh - he came in a short time later.
Price: Ok. And Officer Ridge asked Mr. Byers, did you use the knife?
Gitchell: Yes sir, it reflect that he asked that.
Price: Alright. And then on page five about five or six questions down. (reading) Did any of your kids, Ryan or Chris, know where that knife may have been. I mean could they have gotten it out?
Gitchell: Yes sir, I asked that.
Price: Alright. Skipping in to the - on the next page, top question on page six. (reading) Gitchell, all right, let me, let me to get you to look at this for identification purposes. Do you realize this knife I just handed you--was that the question you asked?
Gitchell: Yes sir.
Price: Alright. And then down towards the bottom question, and there were several other questions that you asked him in between there. (Reading) All right, this is a Kershaw knife. I'm reading off the blade, then also off the rubber tape as you described a Packmire grip. It has a description of Cannon City underneath the Kershaw. It spells Kershaw on the other side of the knife blade itself, there's a number 1066, and Japan underneath it. Uh - It's a knife approximately nine inches long, and it does have serrated edge, is that correct?
Gitchell: Yes sir, I asked that.
Price: Top question on seven. (reading) okay let me explain a problem we had.
Gitchell: Yes sir, I asked that.
Price: And you need to answer this for me. We have found blood on this knife.
Gitchell: Yes sir.
Price: And then skipping three or four questions towards two-thirds of the way down. (Reading) okay, all right. Let me, let me go a little bit further and say there is a problem with that. I mean I'm not saying that's not true. The problem is we have sent this knife off, and had it examined, and it has the blood type of Chris on it.
Gitchell: Yes sir, I asked that.
Price: You gave the response - that's our problem.
Gitchell: Right.
Price: He gave a response (reading) why would this knife have his blood, on it.
Gitchell: Yes sir.
Price: Top of page 8. (reading) That what scares me. Then there's an inaudible question. (reading) We've had it checked, and it's not animal's blood. It's what's called higher ape, in other words of the ape or human family or category.
Gitchell: Yes.
Price: And then, two or three questions later, Ridge asks him. (reading) when was the last time you saw the knife.
Gitchell: Yes sir.
Price: Ok. On page 9, uh - four or five lines from the top--I mean, excuse me four or five lines from the bottom. (reading) I need to account for this blood. Do you see what - he gives a response. (reading) I've got to, I've got to ask you point blank Mark, I've got to ask you point blank, were you around or participated in the deaths of these boys.
Witness nods heads.
Price: Okay, on top of page ten. (reading) Well, there are other test being run on this knife, and we should--we may have the results right now--well, we've been waiting on them the last several days The response. (reading) Do you know we had blood taken from Melissa. Do you know we had blood taken from Ryan. We already had yours so that's what we've been trying to see if it could've been--if you have similar blood, we don't know, we don't know if there's a similarity of blood, we don't know. All right, that's all the particular questions in this particular statement.
The Court: It'd be my ruling that to allow you to ask the officer if he directed those questions toward a witness or party would be improper, and it would be to allow you to suggest by the questions that there was a response which would've been hearsay. And the replies to those are clearly hearsay. I don't have any problem at all in you calling the person giving the declarant, the person giving the statement.
Price: And ask the question?
The Court: - to the Officer and ask the question and answer.
Fogleman: Your Honor, first, he's got to--in order to do that, he would have to give some kind of inconsistent statement first.
The Court: Well, that's correct. But there's nothing wrong with him taking the statement or asking the question as if it were his own of the witness.
Fogleman: That's true
The Court: He can certainly do that.
Fogleman: But it wouldn't be proper for him to say, well, Inspector Gitchell asked you this unless the witness gives an inconsistent statement ...
The Court: ... that's correct. I mean he can take Inspector Gitchell's statement, or his--and ask the question as if it were your own.
Price: All right. One moment, Judge.
The Court: But until you put him on the stand, it's hearsay. And to allow you to ask the question without the response in the presence of the jury, I don't know how you characterize it--it's not really a tacit or admission. It's inferring that there was some response that--in fact some of the questions even suggest answers but-
Price: That's correct.. That was the question asked him, and this is why when the question was asked by the State in the presence of the jury earlier, did you talk to Mr. Byers
Fogleman: That question was not asked.
Price: Well, there was a question -
Fogleman: But the response -
Price: - his response was, he talked to Mark Byers.
Fogleman: - he talked -
The Court: I don't have any problem with you asking the
officer if he had a conversation, and took a statement from
the witness, and if he advised him of his constitutional
rights. You certainly can ask that in the presence of the jury.
Fogleman: Your Honor, as part of the proffer, I'd like to ask a question.
The Court: All right
Fogleman: Inspector Gitchell, did you later find from Genetic Design that Chris Byers and uh - Mr. Byers had the same blood type?
Gitchell: Yes sir.
Ford: May I ask a question as part of the proffer?
At the time you asked him these questions, we you trying to determine whether or not Mark Byers was involved in this homicide?
Gitchell: Well, I had not had the results of the lab yet, and I thought it was necessary to question him about the relevance of this knife.
Ford: Well, my question was - were you trying to determine whether or not Mark Byers was involved in this homicide?
Gitchell: I think that would probably be a correct statement, yes sir.
Ford: So, at that time, you still had a question as to whether or not there might be other parties involved in this homicide than the three people charged?
Gitchell: No sir.
Ford: If you didn't believe that he was involved, then why did you say yes you were trying to confirm it if he was involved?
Gitchell: If any one thing would come up, or anything that was questionable then I would go, or one of my investigators and talk with them. It does not mean someone he is a suspect. It's a lead, or information that we must follow up on it to do an investigation properly.
Ford: Do you normally give witnesses who are not suspects before you question them, do you advise each and every one of them of their constitutional rights, and obtain a written waiver of those rights prior to the questioning?
Gitchell: Some we do and some we have not.
Ford: So the fact that you asked him for a waiver of his rights was in no way an indication on your behalf that you thought he might be involved in these homicides?
Gitchell: Uh - that is something that's required by the law that we would have to do. Uh - this knife being turned over in the fashion that it was, I thought that would be the best way to handle it.
Ford: So, in the event he made a statement implicating himself, you would have a waiver to use that statement against him.
Gitchell: That's true.
Ford: So, you thought at the time that you asked him the questions - there was a possibility that your questioning could bring out statements on behalf that could implicate him in this crime?
Gitchell: Uh - I don't know how I can answer it any differently than I have already.
Ford: Alright. That's all. Thank you.
Price: Judge, as an additional part of the proffer um - and I may be paraphrasing this but Mr. Fogleman had asked you a question if you got additional DNA tests that found out - and I don't remember exactly what his question was but something to the effect that Chris Byers and John Mark Byers - I don't know if he said similar blood or consistant blood or -
Fogleman: The same, I should have said the same DQ Alpha type.
Price: Ok. The same DQ Alpha type. Alright. And your response was yes that John Mark Byers and Christopher Byers did have - after the DNA test, did have the same DQ Alpha type?
Gitchell: As best as I understand all of the uh - yes sir, they have the same blood type as far as I know.
Price: Alright. Ok, and that's based on the report that the gentleman from DNA sent you?
Gitchell: Yes.
Price: All right. Now, but it is also true that the DNA lab attempted to do an additional test D1S80 test, and on the D1S80 test John Mark Byers and Christopher Byers - that DNA when tested further is different.
Fogleman: We agree with that, Your Honor, We'll stipulate to that.
Gitchell: I don't know.
Price: Judge, this concludes my proffer.
Ford: Your Honor, may I inquire as to whether or not the questions I asked Inspector Gitchell were proffered before the jury in light of--I'm trying to determine what--about whether or not he was trying to determine if John Mark Byers was involved in th e homicide, and whether the reason he gave him the State's waiver of rights was in the event he made a statement implicating himself that he would be able to use that statement against him were those proffered before the jury?
The Court: They're irrelevant.
Ford: Well, Your Honor, I'm trying to determine the scope of his investigation - that's relevant.
Fogleman: Well Your Honor, we can pull out the hundreds of other people that this officer advised their rights, and go through each one of those, and say, did you talk to him, did you advise him of his rights, and --
Ford: But, Your Honor, they didn't open the door to those people. They opened the door to this one. And I think that's--since he's opened the door to his questioning, can I inquire of him as to why he gave him that waiver, and was--I'm asking are those questions proffered?
The Court: You want to ask, and I've already said that Mr. Price could ask if he took a statement from him, and did he advise him of his rights before he took this statement. And you want to follow that up with - by advising him of his rights, did that mean that you considered him to be a suspect in the crime, is that what you're saying?
Ford: No, I'm asking him was the reason that he--I want to ask him was he trying to determine at the time of taking this statement whether Mark Byers was involved in this homicide. And I also want to ask him, was the reason that he gave this rights waiver form was in the event a statement was made during the interview that implicated Mark Byers, he could use that statement against him because the waiver had been already signed. I want to ask him those questions because I think the jury's also entitled to know his frame of mind as the interview took place and the jury's also entitled to know the reason that a rights waiver form is obtained.
The Court: Because a Miranda versus a -
Ford: Well, Your Honor, they don't -
The Court: Adivse, I guess.
Ford: But you do not have to advise someone of their Miranda rights when they are not--this is not an in-custodial interrogation. You do not have to advise an officer--an officer does not have to advise a potential witness of their rights. An officer does not even have to advise you of your rights when they stop you on the side of the road for a traffic citation. They have to advise them of their rights when they may use those statements later against them.
Fogleman: Your Honor, under the--if you will recall the circumstances where this came up
The Court: I recall it.
Fogleman: Mr. Stidham was insistent on Mr. Byers being questioned because of the circumstances of the knife. And I mean. I think it's for us--to do what's necessary in the interest of justice to pursue everything in case there would be something exculpatory. On the possibility, the mere chance there might be something there, it's pursued. And then for them to turn around and cram it down our throats because we're trying to do what's right, I think it's improper - it's just as improper as putting an officer up there and saying, when you talked to Jason Baldwin, and advised him of his rights, you know, why did he refuse. Does that mean they're guilty?
The Court: I'm not going to allow you to do that.
Wadley: You know, there's a reason for that, Your Honor -
Ford: Because he's charged.
The Court: All right. look, don't even argue it. I think I'm going to allow you to ask, just like I said - did you take the statement from him, did you advise him of his rights, and why did you advise him of his rights. I think I'll allow that.
Ford: So the questions that I asked -
The Court: But I'm not going to allow you to go in and just continuously ask the officer about - did you consider him a suspect, did you--you know, you can ask him why he advised him of his rights.
Ford: We can't ask him if he considered him a suspect?
Fogleman: In fact. Your Honor, as I recall -
Ford: Can we not ask him -
Fogleman: - we were requested that he be advised of his rights.
Ford: Well your Honor, that is--- we're in a separate trial, I thought.
Fogleman: What we're talking about is the circumstances under which it's done. You're wanting to ask a question -
The Court: You're wanting it imply by asking him if he gave him his rights, did he in his mind believe him to be a suspect of the crime, is that what you're trying to do.
Ford: I'm not wanting to imply things, I'm wanting to ask him, did he think he was a suspect. I'm not implying anything I'm asking -
Price: The jury can make up their own mind.
The Court: I'm going to allow you to ask that -
Ford: You can allow me to ask that.
The Court: Yes, and if he says no, then you're bound by, that answer.
Ford: That's fine, no problem.
Davidson: He just said yes though, didn't he?
Ford: He did say yes in some--he said -
The Court: All right, let's do it.
Fogleman: Well, Your Honor, then I intend to ask him why this whole thing went on, and we'll get into Mr. Stidham.
The Court: Okay.
Davidson: That's hearsay, Your Honor.
Fogleman: Mr. Stidham -
Davidson: Remarks made by Mr. Stidham - that's an out of court statement and it's hearsay.
Fogleman: It's not offered as the truth of the matter, it's the fact that he said it.
Davidson: Well, we're not offering this for the truth of the matter but for the fact that he said it.
The Court: I've heard all I'm going to listen to, I've told you what you can do, and that's the end of it.
Price: We'll do it.
(JURY RETURNS TO THE COURTROOM)
(mumbling)
The Court: All right. Court will be in session, you may proceed.
Price: Alright. Inspector Gitchell, the knife that you referred to which has been marked for identification purposes as Defendant's Exhibit Number E - 6 is approximately eight and three fourths inches total in length?
Gitchell: Yes sir.
Price: And when you recieved that knife, that's the knife that you sent to Genetic Design Laboratory to do some testing?
Gitchell: Yes sir, that's correct.
Price: Alright. Did it appear to you that there was possible blood on that knife?
Gitchell: I did not know what the substance was.
Price: Alright. But did it appear to you to be possible blood?
Gitchell: It was some substance on it.
Price: Did you - in the request that you sent to Genetic Design, did you state 'there appears to be possible blood'?
Gitchell: I may have worded it that way, yes.
Price: Alright. Well, I would like to show you -
Gitchell: Yes sir.
Price: As a matter of fact, it actually says that it appears to be possible blood, and another unknown substance on and in the portion of the knife where the knife is in a closed position.
Gitchell: Right.
Price: And did you also ask Genetic Design to determine if the substance on the knife, if it's blood could they tell if it's human or animal blood?
Gitchell: Yes sir.
Price: On January 26th 1994 did you question John Mark Byers?
Gitchell: Yes sir.
Price: Did you read John Mark Byers a standard rights form?
Gitchell: Yes sir.
Price: And then you went through all his right to remain silent anything you say can be used against you and their were some additional rights as well?
Gitchell: Yes sir.
Price: And he uh - at the bottom of that, he waived those rights, and agreed to give a statement to ya, and he signed the bottom on that form?
Gitchell: Right.
Price: Ok. And this was - according to this form, it indicates that you read his rights at 9:45 a.m. on January 26th 1994, in Clay County, Arkansas.
Gitchell: If that's what it says on there, yes sir.
Price: Alright.
Gitchell: I can't recall from memory.
Price: Alright. Are those your initials?
Gitchell: Yes sir.
Price: Alright. Now at the time that you read the rights to Mr. Byers, did you consider him to be a possible suspect in these homicides?
Gitchell: At the time I read him those rights?
Price: Yes sir.
Gitchell: Uh - that possibility was there.
Price: And the interview you conducted with Mr. Byers was in a tape recorded interview?
Gitchell: Yes sir.
Price: And has later been transcribed?
Gitchell: Yes sir.
Price: And it um - it began at approximately 9:45 a.m. - you can go ahead and refer to it.
Gitchell: Yes sir.
Price: And it concluded approximately 10:10 a.m.?
Gitchell: Yes sir, that's correct.
Price: One moment, Your Honor. Alright now Inspector Gitchell, is the reason that you read Mr. Byers his rights before taking this statement so that if you needed to you could use this statement against Mr. Byers in court at some future time?
Gitchell: That is a standard process, as you stated earlier. That's a standard form which we use when we talk to individuals. Uh. There have been hundreds
of people we have talked to in regards to this case, so this was a standard uh - investigative process that we used at that time.
Price: Alright. Inspector Gitchell, each time that the West Memphis police
Department talked to an individual about this case did you read them their rights prior to questioning?
Gitchell: No, not everytime, no sir.
Price: Not each and everytime?
Gitchell: No sir.
Price: Ok. On some occasions would you start talking to an individual, and then at some point during the conversation go ahead at that point and read them their rights, and continue taking conversations?
Gitchell: We've done that before, yes sir.
Price: Alright. Nothing further, Your Honor.
Davidson: I have one question. Inspector, have you been the head honcho of this entire investigation?
Gitchell: Yes sir.
Davidson: This has been - this has been the investigation - you have overseen, and you have been in charge of it from the time the bodies were found up until the present moment?
Gitchell: Yes sir.
Davidson: Thank you.
The Court: Anything else?
Fogleman: Inspector Gitchell, I believe that Mr. Price - when he asked you the question about where this took place - where did this take place?
Gitchell: The conversation?
Fogleman: Uh huh.
Gitchell: At the Clay County, during the trial of Jessie Misskelley.
Fogleman: Alright. It was there in the Courthouse, right?
Gitchell: Yes sir.
Fogleman: All right and um - did Mr. Misskelley's lawyer have anything to do with that?
Davidson: Objection, Your Honor. That calls for hearsay statements.
Fogleman: Well, Your Honor. They asked him about did they consider him a suspect
The Court: Well, overruled. I think the question so far is permissible.
Gitchell: It was at Mr. Stidham and Crow's insistence that we speak to Mr. Byers.
Davidson: That's hearsay, Your Honor.
Fogleman: Your Honor, it's not for the truth of the matter of what was stated but rather that it was stated.
The Court: I'm going to allow it, overruled.
Fogleman: And you were simply investigating every possibility, is that correct?
Gitchell: Yes sir, that's correct.
The Court: Anything else? Is that all you need him for?
Price: Just a minute, Judge. No other questions at this time, Your Honor. We may need to recall Inspector Gitchell later.
