The Court: Do you swear to tell the truth and nothing but the truth in the matter now pending before the court so help you God?
Murray: I do.
Fogleman: Would you state your name and occupation for the jury.
Murray: John L. Murray, criminal investigative Crittendon county sheriff's department.
Fogleman: And, Investigator Murray, uh - I want to direct your attention to what is May the 19th 1992. On that date, did you have an occassion to uh - have some conversation with the defendant, Damien Echols?
Murray: Yes, I did.
Fogleman: Alright. And as a result of those conversations did you go to uh - his home in Lakeshore trailer park where he lived at that time?
Murray: Yes I did.
Fogleman: Alright. And did you uh - ask for permission of his mother to uh - search his room?
Murray: Yes I did.
Fogleman: Alright. And as a result of that search, did you - did you take certain items from his room?
Murray: Yes I did.
Fogleman: I would like to show you what I have marked for identification purposes as state's exhibit 115 and 116 and ask if you can identify those.
Murray: Yes I can.
Fogleman: And do those photographs fairly and accurately portray the item as it appeared to you at that time?
Murray: Yes, they do.
Fogleman: Your Honor, we would offer state's exhibit 115 and 116.
Ford: Your Honor, we would request the same precautionary instruction that you previously gave, with respect to this testimony.
Davidson: Your Honor, are these all, so I understand your ruling, in the in-camera hearing, did you rule that all this was admissible?
The Court: Yes.
Davidson: Ok. We would just uh, keep our same objections your Honor.
The Court: Alright....They may be recieved according to the previous ruling of the court and again ladies and gentlemen, these two items of evidence should be considered by you in your deliberation as going only to uh - the defendant Damien Echols and they're being offered only for the purpose of proving intent, motive, scheme for design and for that limited purpose.
Fogleman: I also want to show you what I have marked for identification purposes as state's exhibit 110 and ask if you can identify that offer.
Murray: Yes I can.
Fogleman: And is that the same item that is depicted in state's exhibit 115?
Murray: Yes it is.
Fogleman: Your Honor, we would offer state's exhibit 110.
The Court: Alright, again it may be recieved subject to the previous ruling of the court and again ladies and gentlemen, you are instructed that you may consider that as evidence only as to the defendant Damien Echols and it's limited in admissibility toward the proof of motive, intent, scheme, or design.
Fogleman: Detective Murray, in relation to state's exhibit 110, I notice that there are - in the photograph, there's some items on the photograph that aren't on 110 at this time uh - were those items that are shown in the photograph - were they on item uh - exhibit 110 at the time that you um - took them?
Murray: Yes, they was.
Fogleman: Ok. Your Honor, may I exhibit these to the jury?
The Court: Yes, you may.
Fogleman: And what is uh - state's exhibit 116?
Murray: 116, it was a - some type of animal skull when I recieved it from the Damien Echols residence and later learned that it was a skull of a dog.
Fogleman: I also want to show you state's exhibit 112 and state's exhibit 111, ask if you can identify those items.
Murray: Yes, I can.
Fogleman: And did you also recover those items from the home of Damien Echols?
Murray: Yes, I did.
Fogleman: Alright. Where were those items uh-
Murray: (interrupting) They were in his bedroom.
Fogleman: Uh - were they - where were they in his bedroom?
Murray: 112 was on the wall, 111 was laying on a table.
Fogleman: Ok, was there anything else laying on that table?
Murray: There was a number of other items, I don't remember everything that was on it, there was quite a few items in the room.
Fogleman: Your Honor, we would offer state's exhibit 111 and 112.
The Court: Again, they may be recieved subject to the previous ruling of the court and again ladies and gentlemen, you are instructed that you may consider this as evidence only as to the defendant Damien Echols and for the limited purpose of proving motive, intent, scheme, or design.
Fogleman: I also want to show you what I have marked for identification purposes as state's exhibit 113 and 114, ask if you can identify those.
Murray: Yes, I can.
Fogleman: Do those photographs fairly and accurately portray the items as they appeared to you at that time?
Murray: Yes, they do.
Fogleman: Your Honor, we would offer state's exhibit 113 and 114.
The Court: Ok, the same ruling, they may be recieved subject to the previous ruling of the court and ladies and gentlemen, you're instructed that these two items of evidence may be considered only as to the defendant Damien Echols and that they are being recieved for the limited purpose of proving intent, motive, scheme, or design.
Fogleman: And what are these photographs of?
Murray: They were poster type photographs of items that were in Damien Echols' room.
Fogleman: Alright.
(pause)
Fogleman: Your Honor, if I could have just one minute.
(pause)
Fogleman: I don't have any further questions at this time, your Honor.
(mumbling)
Davidson: Officer, what was the date that you went to Mr. Echols' home?
Murray: The date I believe was 2 - possibly 2 days past the date of arrest. Alright, he was arrested on 5-19-92.
Davidson: So it was-
Murray: (interrupting) I think it was possibly the 22nd.
Davidson: So, those items you are saying you recieved 2 days after the arrest?
Murray: After an arrest.
Davidson: After an arrest?
Murray: Right.
Davidson: And how long prior to May 5th of 1993 was that?
Murray: Prior to May 5th?
Davidson: Of 1993.
Murray: May 19th, he was - I arrested Damien Echols on a charge.
Davidson: Ok, so-
Murray: (interrupting) And May 21st I recovered these items from his residence. I picked these items up at his residence.
Davidson: So, you picked these items up-
The Court: (interrupting) (talking over attorney) ....it was approximately 1 year prior.
Davidson: One year prior, is that correct?
Murray: Prior to?
Davidson: Prior to May of 1993.
Murray: Right.
Davidson: Ok, now, are you aware that the uh - exhibit number 111 uh - the picture that you introduced uhh - are you aware that that came from a skating magazine?
Murray: No sir, I'm not.
Davidson: Ok. Did you do any research on that?
Murray: No sir, I didn't.
Davidson: So, this was nearly a year before this happened that you got these items?
Murray: That's correct.
The Court: Anything else?
(pause)
The Court: You may stand down, call your next witness.
Fogleman: Call Bryn Ridge.
(mumbling)
The Court: Again ladies and gentlemen - I might have - in the cautionary instruction I gave you a moment ago, I might have said that you could consider the evidence as to the guilt or innocence of Damien Echols the first time I said it, strike that reference. It's to be considered for motive only. The limited purpose of going to as motive only and not guilt or innocence. Do you each understand that?
