May 1998

June 1998

October 1998

March 1999

May 5, 1998 June 9, 1998 October 26, 1998 March 18, 1999
  June 10, 1998 October 27, 1998 March 19, 1999
    October 28, 1998  

OCTOBER 26, 1998 (Page 2)

Page 1


VS. NO. CR-93-450A


1 MR. MALLETT: Thank you for your testimony, Mr.
2 Price.
3 THE COURT: Anything else?
4 MR. DAVIS: As much as I'd like to, your Honor,
5 I'll pass the witness.
6 THE COURT: All right, you're free to go.
7 THE WITNESS: I'm available if you need me.
8 THE COURT: I'd go out of town but -- (LAUGHTER.)
9 All right, let's take a short recess -- ten
10 minute recess.
11 (RECESS. )
13 MR. MALLETT: We'll call Mr. Brent Turvey.
15 having been first duly sworn to speak the truth, the whole
16 truth, and nothing but the truth, then testified as follows:
19 Q. Good afternoon. And for the record, would you introduce
20yourself to Judge Burnett, please?
21A. My name is Brent Edward Turvey. T-U-R-V-E-Y.
22 Q. And Mr. Turvey, in what community do you reside?
23 A. I reside in the City of San Leandro, California.
24 Q. And to sort of orient us, where is San Leandro in
25 relationship to the geography of California?


1 A. San Leandro is in the East Bay. It's an area right next
2 to San Francisco.
3 Q. How are you employed?
4 A. I'm employed with a company named Knowledge Solutions as a
5 forensic scientist and a criminal profiler.
6 Q. And tell us a little bit about Knowledge Solutions. Just
7 very briefly tell us what sort of business that is, who owns
8 it, and operates it, and what it does.
9 A. Knowledge Solutions is a partnership of three individuals
10 including myself and -- and we essentially run on-line
11 educational initiatives in forensic science. We run -- we have
12 -- we contract with about six other instructors aside from
13 myself to run courses in the forensic sciences, and we do case
14 work as well.
15 Q. How old a man are you?
16 A. I'm twenty-eight years old.
17 Q. Single or married?
18 A. I'm married.
19 Q. And can you give us a brief summary of your educational
21A. I have an undergraduate degree in history, a second
22undergraduate degree in psychology, and a Masters of Science in
23forensic science.
24 Q. I have -- to -- to abbreviate proceedings and to assist
25 the Court, I have marked a CV dated 5-18-98, Petitioner's


1Exhibit Forty-three. I'd like you to tell me generally what
2that is.
3 A. This is my CV, yes.
4 Q. And did you fax a copy of that to Mr. Brent Davis at
5 sometime over the summer?
6 A. Yes, I did.
7 MR. MALLETT:  Move the admission of Defense
8 Forty-three for the record, your Honor.
9 MR. DAVIS: Can I just double check? I've --
10 I've got two from him so I was making sure this one
11 coincides with my --
12 THE COURT: All right.
13 MR. DAVIS: With what I would label as number
14 two.
15 THE COURT: I've excused Mr. Price from the
16 rule, so he's in the courtroom and if any of you have
17 any objection to that, you need to let me know.
18 MR. DAYIS: Your Honor, I'm afraid if we excused
19 him completely, we would all suffer from separation
20 anxiety.
21 MR. PRICE: Thank you.
23 Q. Mr. Turvey, I want to ask you ñ if youíll look at this --
24 is this your most recent CV or is it possible that the one Mr.
25 Davis -- that one of the ones Mr. Davis has is more recent?


1 A. I don't know which one he has, so --
2 MR. DAVIS: I only found one thing that's
3 different from theirs and what he sent to --
4 MR. MALLETT: Is it a material difference?
5 MR. DAVIS: It's something I'll ask him about.
6 MR. MALLETT: All right. Well, then subject to
7 any cross examination about some slight change, move
8 the admission of forty-three.
9 THE COURT: Any objection?
10 MR. DAVIS: No.
11 THE COURT: All right, it may be received.  Hand
12 it up here to me so I can look at it.
16 Q. Mr. Turvey, with that in evidence I'm not gonna review the
17 entire CV but there are a few points that I do want to have you
18 answer -- question and answer for the record.
19 You said you were a forensic scientist. What is a
20 forensic scientist.
21 A. A forensic scientist is someone who evaluates evidence for
22 the purpose of trial -- for courtroom purposes.
23 Q. And you said you were a criminal profiler. What is a
24 criminal profiler?
25 A. A criminal profiler in general is someone who infers the


1 personality characteristics of an offender based on the
2 physical evidence at the crime scene.
3 Q. It's not in your resume, but I think that many may be
4 curious about this since you're a witness sponsored by the
5 defense in these proceedings. Are you -- do you consider
6 yourself a supporter or an opponent of the death penalty?
7 A. I'm a supporter of the death penalty.
8 Q. And in your work as a forensic scientist and a criminal
9 profiler, what sort of -- who do you work for -- or who does
10 Knowledge Solutions work for?
11 A. Well, Knowledge Solutions tends to work for a broader
12 community than I work for as a -- in the capacity of case
13 workers of forensic scientists. So which would you like to
14 answer first?
15 Q. I'm worried about your particular work as a forensic
16 scientist. Who do you work for?
17 A. Okay. I work for typically law enforcement or attorney
18 clients who hire me to -- law enforcement hires me usually in
19 unsolved cases involving serial rape, serial homicide, to
20 evaluate their evidence and give them investigative direction
21 and insight.  And the defense or the prosecution may hire me
22 for much the same reason.
23 Q. Do you have any special training in homicide
24 investigation?
25 A. Yes, I do.


1 Q. What is that?
2 A. It's included in my training as a forensic scientist.
3 Q. Can you amplify that?
4 A. Yes. When I studied under Doctor Henry Lee.
5 Q. Who is Doctor Henry Lee?
6 A. Doctor Henry Lee is the -- is the leading criminalist in
7 the State of Connecticut.
8 Q. And have you had any special training in criminal profile?
9 A. Yes, I have.
10 Q. And under what circumstances?
11 A. That was part of that as well, but also I have trained --
12 I have attended numerous seminars and training events since
13 that time as well.
14. Q. Have you written for publication?
15 A. Yes, I have.
16 Q. What have you written?
17 A. I have written four articles for publication for the
18 upcoming Encyclopedia of Forensic Sciences, one on modus
19 operandi, one on auto-erotic death, one on criminal profiling,
20 and I believe the other one is on sig -- offender signature.
21 Iíve also written a test book for publication this next
22year on ñ
23 Q. Who will be -- who's the publisher?
24 A. Academic Press.
25 MR. DAVIS: May I inquire of something for


1 clarification?
2 Are these articles that have been published or
3 are they going to be -- I mean, can I go pick up a
4 publication and get them?
5 THE WITNESS: The articles for the Forensic
6 Science Encyclopedia will be out in January of 2000.
7 the textbook will be out in April of 1999.
8 MR. DAVIS: So for clarification, these things
9 you're testifying to are things that you -- that
10 aren't published, you've just written an article,
11 right?
12 THE WITNESS: Those things, yes, but thatís not
13 it .
15 Q. Have you written -- have you been published in the past?
16 A. Can you explain what you mean by "published?"
17 Q. Well, can we go to a magazine store or a book store, the
18 internet, a university, and find anything published by Brent
19 Turvey?
20 A. Yes.  I've written a number of articles for peer use that
21 I have published on our Knowledge Solutions Website and our
22 resource, and those are archived by the RCMP, and they're sent
23 out to law enforcement agencies on request.
24 Q. And you're here to testify to the materials that you've
25 examined in this case and the suggestions for investigation


1 that you made based on that examination. Is that correct?
2 A. That's correct.
3 Q. All right. Tell me how you think you first got involved with this
4 case.
5 A. I first got involved in this case in around July of 1997,
6 I believe,  when I was contacted by a student of mine who was
7 taking one of my on-line courses.
8 Q. Well, then tell us briefly about what are your on-line
9 courses. Do they give you credit as a credit in college or
10 university? How does one qualify to take these courses? How
11 long are the courses? Do they cost money? What are the
12 consequences of finishing the course? Tell us about your on-
13 line courses.
14 A. Certainly. The on-line courses range from four weeks to
15 ten weeks lope. Students can register -- they're taken
16 entirely over the Internet. Students register on-line, and
17 they are able to review material on a weekly basis on-line
18 regarding the course. They are able to interact with other
19 students. And they are able to exchange E-Mail with me and
20 also get public -- sort of in a net forum -- in an on-line
21 forum, they are able to get response and feedback from myself and
22 any other instructor from which course theyíre taking. Of
23 course ---
24 Q. Can you remember the name of your student who first
25 contacted you with reference to this case?


1 A. Yes, I can. Her name was Cathy Bakken.
2 Q. And for purposes of explaining what you did or what you
3 acted on, can you tell us what she told you?
4 MR. DAVIS: Whatís the last name?
5 THE WITNESS: Bakken. B-A-K-K-E-N.
7 A. In order to understand what steps you took or what you
8 did, can you tell us what she said to you?
9 A. Yes. She contacted me because, as I said, we -- we use --
10 we use a textbook called Practical Homicide Investigations
11 by Vern Geberth for -- for the course.
12 Q. How do you spell that name?
13 A. Geberth. G-E-B-E-R-T-H.
14 Q. All right.
15 A. And that was -- that's the textbook that we use for that
16 particular course. And she had read it and she was contacting
17 me regarding this case, and she wanted to ask my opinion over
18 the phone as to whether or not I felt there was a satanic
19 element in this case. And she proceeded, to relay information
20 to me. At a certain point within like a half hour I had to
21 stop her because I realized that she was getting into an area
22 that I really needed to be speaking to a defense attorney
23 about. So I admonished her. I said, ìPlease, letís stop here.
24 I don't really have enough -- I can't really give you a
25 professional opinion. What you can do is you can put the


1 attorney in contact with me. Is there an attorney working or,
2 this case?î
3 Because I was not familiar with the case, and I wanted to
4 make sure that I was getting actual information as opposed to
5 to someone else's biased hearsay.
6 Q. Were you subsequently contacted by an attorney?
7 A. Yes, I was.
8 Q. Who was that?
9 A. That was Dan Stidham.
10 Q. And for purposes of understanding what you did next, can
11 you tell us what Mr. Stidham was interested in when he
12 contacted you?
13 A. Yes. He asked me if I would be interested in looking at
14 the case and giving it my opinion.
15 Q. Did you reach an agreement with him?
16 A. How do you mean?
17 Q. Well, he asked you if you'd look at the case and give your
18 opinion. Did you agree to do that?
19 A. Yes, I did.
20 Q. All right. What action did you take in consequence of
21 that agreement?
22 the next thing I did was I requested from him case
23 materials so that I could make a firsthand evaluation of
24 materials myself.
25 Q. Did he provide you materials of the class, character


1 or nature of the kind that you requested?
2 A. He certainly did.
3 Q. I don't know if you gave a precise summary, but as best
4 you can, tell us what Mr. Stidham provided you in response to
5 your first request?
6 A. He was very forthcoming. He provided me with -- he
7 provided me with crime scene and autopsy photos, crime scene
8 video --
9 Q. Please go slowly. The Court Reporter has to write this
10 down and I have to listen to what you're saying, as well as
11 Judge Burnett, who hears probably much better than I do.
12 A. He sent me what he -- he sent me what he claimed that he
13 had which was the crime scene and autopsy photos, a copy of the
14 crime scene video, a copy of investigators' reports, a copy of
15 some of the witness statements, a copy of the missing -- the
16 initial missing persons' reports, a copy of the -- one of the
17 victim's medical and neurological histories, the results of
18 some of the forensic analysis that were performed in the case
19 on some of the physical evidence.
20 He also -- let's see -- I believe -- I believe thatís all
21 that he sent me initially. It was quite a bit.
22 Q. As a -- after receiving that -- those materials, did a
23 time come when you asked for additional materials?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. As best you can, approximately when did you first have


1 contact with Mr. Stidham?
2 A. That would have to be, I believe -- again, I believe it
3 was in July -- at the end -- at the end of July, I believe --
4 end of July or early August, 1997.
5 Q. All right. And what did you do with the materials that he
6 sent you?
7 A. I sat down and I reviewed them. I examined all of the
8 photographs. I -- I -- I scanned in all the photographs that I
9 received digitally and made a -- and made an analysis of them
10 in an up-close fashion, and I read all the materials that I'd
11 been provided.
12 Q. Now, for those of us like myself who still do typing with
13 two fingers, what does it mean to say you scanned in digitally?
14 A. I took the -- I was actually given the first -- the
15 original copies, the original evidence of the photos, the
16 original crime scene and autopsy photos, and I put them in the
17 scanner and I had --
18 Q. Which is an electronic device?
19 A. Yes. An elec -- an electronic device.
20 Q. What does it do?
21 A. It digitizes photos and turns them into digital images
22 that you can view on a computer.
23 Q. All right. So you put the autopsy photos into the memory
24 of a computer?
25 A. That's correct.


1 Q. Can they also be reproduced on something that is portable
2 such as a hard disc?
3 A. That's Correct.
4 Q. All right. Did you have an opportunity to confer with any
5 other persons who claimed to be experts?
6 A. I have, yeah. In what capacity?
7 Q. After Mr. Stidham sent -- sent you this material, did you
8 consult -- and you read -- did you read the materials?
9 A. Yes, I did.
10 Q. Did you have an opportunity to consult with any other
11 experts?
12 A. Yes, I did.
13 Q. And did a time come when you wrote a report?
14 A. Yes, I did.
15 Q. Now, before we go into the report of your findings, I
16 would like to have you talk to Judge Burnett if you would,
17 please, about your approach to examining a case or a situation
18 that is brought to your attention.
19 This will require some narrative, but I'm going to
20 interrupt you from time to time with your permission.
21 A. Certainly.
22 Q. Generally, what is your approach to evaluating a case?
23 A. It -- it depends on the case. Obviously, each case is
24 completely different with its own peculiarities and its own --
25 its own evidence. And the evidence itself dictates how I


1 approach the case -- what's -- what's available, in every case
2 some things may be available, some things may not be available.
3 In general, I follow the same standard protocol. The very
4 first thing that I do is I do a forensic analysis and by that I
5 mean that I sit down and I look at all the physical evidence in
6 the case, all the results of all the forensic analysis by all
7 the forensic scientists involved, and I try to understand what
8 it is they said and what weight that can be given in terms of a
9 reconstruction -- in terms of reconstructing what took place.
10 And I also look for things that didn't get examined or didnít
11 get documented, or did not get collected. I look for evidence
12 that may have been missed, that may have been overlooked.
13 That's the very first step.
14 Q. Is there a second step?
15 A. Yes, there is. The second step involves reviewing the
16 history of the victims, and this gets back to your question of
17 whether or not I asked Dan Stidham for additional materials. I
18 only received the victim history of one individual -- that was
19 Christopher Byers. I did not receive victim history on the
20 other two victims and I re -- I requested that material. I
21 never -- I subsequently never received any -- any additional
22 material on those victims.
23Q. So what is -- what is the next step after reviewing
24 victim's history?
25 A. Well, actually there's -- if I -- if I may go back and


1 cover that.
2 Q. Fine.
3 A. Victim-- the purpose of reviewing victim history is to do
4 two things. Itís to establish who the victim was and what
5 brought them to that --- to that crime scene and subsequently
6 led to their death or the event that took place, and it allows
7 me to make a risk assessment. And by that I mean assess the
8 victimís vulnerability to crime, and also it helps to perform
9 an assessment of what -- an offender risk assessment -- how
10 many -- how much -- how much effort and how many blockades the
11 offender had to penetrate to acquire that victim. So those are
12 sort of the general purposes of establishing victim history.
13 And there is -- then we go on next to the third step, and
14 the third step --
15 Q. What is -- what is the third step?
16 A. Yeah, absolutely. The third step is establishing the
17 crime scene characteristics, and these include things like the
18 location type -- indoor, outdoor, vehicle -- and the crime
19 scene type which in -- which means whether that's a primary
20 scene, a secondary scene, a disposal site, an intermediary
21 scene, things of this nature. It also includes establishing
22 things -- and establishing things like the method -- the
23 offenderís method of approach to the victim, how they acquired
24 the victim, the methods of control evident in a crime, any --
25 any -- any -- any use of force in establishing how that played


1 into things. Thereís a long laundry list of crime scene
2 characteristics that we get into if we want to.
3 Q. Did you study police reports of police observations at
4 the crime scene.
5 A. Yes, I did.
6 Q. Did you study still photographs of observations of the
7crime scene?
8A. Yes, I did.
9Q. Did you study any moving pictures of observations at the
10crime scene?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. And did you study -- did you go to the crime scene?
13 A. Yes, I did.
14 Q. What is the importance of establishing what happened at
15 the crime scene?
16 A. Well, you canít very well -- in reference to what? To my
17 -- to my process -- to my protocols?
18 Q. Yes.
19 A. Okay. You can't -- establishing what happened at the
20 crime scene -- the whole purpose -- the whole purpose of the
21 first three phases of what I do is to establish the nature of
22 the interaction between the victim and the offender, their
23 behavior, and thatís the basis for any subsequent opinions that
24 I may have about the character of the offender. So the whole
25 purpose is to establish behavior.


1 Q. Did Mr, Stidham ask you to do a profile?
2 A. Yes, he did.
3 Q. Of what?
4 A. He asked me to do a profile of the likely -- of the likely
5 offender characteristics of the person responsible for those
6 crimes -- person or persons.
7Did he ask you to make any determination with reference to
8the guilt or innocence of Mr. Echols or Mr. Misskelley or Mr.
10A. He did not.
11Q. What specific issues did Mr. Tur -- did Mr. Stidham ask
12 you to address your profile?
13 Q. He asked me to address whether or not, one, I felt this
14 was a -- a primary scene or a disposal site only. He asked to
15 address whether or not I felt that there was a satanic element
16 in the crime, and he asked me to address whether or not I felt
17 this might be the result of a serial murderer.
18 Q. Did you feel comfortable based on your training and
19 experience forming opinions in response to those questions?
20 A. Yes, I did.
21 Q. Letís talk about three big questions, and then weíll come
22 back and talk about some details.
23 A. All right.
24 Q. On the issue Mr. Stidham raised about the so-called
25 satanic ritual element, did you form any -- any opinions?


1 A. Yes, I did.
2 Q. What were -- what were your opinions.
3 A. My opinion was that I found no evidence whatsoever of any
4 sort of satanic ritual or element in this case -- in the
5 crime scene.
6 Q. Did you form any opinions about the --  stop -- you talk
7 about the concepts or phrases, primary scene, and disposal
8 site. Tell me what -- again -- what you mean by those
9 expressions.
10 A. Absolutely. A primary scene is the -- is the crime scene
11 where the majority of the interaction between the victim and
12 the offender took place -- where the majority of the assault or
13 the attack upon the victim took place.
14 A disposal site is the location where the body is found.
15 Now, it is possible for these things to be one and the same,
16 and it's possible for them to not be one and the same.
17 Q. In this case, did you form an opinion with reference to
18 whether the primary scene and the disposal site were the same
19 place?
20 A. Yes, I did.
21 Q. What was that opinion?
22 A. My opinion was that they were not the same place.
23 Q. And what was the reason for that?
24 A. Well, there were -- there were several reasons actually.
25 If I can refer to my notes.


1 Primarily, the primary reason was -- can I give -- can I
2 -- can I elucidate a little bit here?
3 Q. Sure.
4 A. When I try to establish whether or not something is a
5 primary scene or -- by itself or a primary scene and a disposal
6 site, what I try to do is I look at the physical evidence, look
7 at the behavior that took place between the victim and the
8 offender, and try to determine what potential ñ what necessary
9 transfer evidence I would likely find in that environment as a
10 result of that behavior.
11 And, in this case, we had an emasculation of one of the
12 victims, and a result of that emasculation would be a lot of
13 blood, and there was no blood at the crime scene -- other than
14 that found in the water.
15 Q. Did you consider at this crime scene of which you saw
16 pictures, saw motion pictures and that you visited yourself,
17 the possibility of the offender removing the blood?
18 A. Removing the blood how?
19 Q. Well, I just wonder if you considered the possibility of
20 the offender to clean up after committing a terrible crime?
21 A. Yes, I did.
22 Q. And what comments do you have on that?
23 A. I believe it would have been very difficult to clean up
24 the amount of blood that would have been the result of that
25 particular attack because of the time of the -- if the boys


1 went missing at 6:30 -- starting at 6:30 we have limited
2 visibility in that area. And they would not have been able to
3 see it all to clean it up in my opinion.
4 Q. The third issue that you said Mr. Stidham was interested
5 in, I believe, is whether there was the possibility for some
6 serial murderer?
7 A. That's correct.
8 Q. What is a serial murderer?
9 A. In generally, it's --
10 Q. What do you mean by that? What do you mean by that
11 expression?
12 A. Right. Everybody has their own sort of definition for
13 what a serial murderer is, and we have the media and popular
14 fiction to blame for that.
15 A serial murderer is someone who kills essentially two or
16 more individuals on two separate dates with a cooling-off
17 period in between.
18 Q. And did you form an opinion whether based on the evidence
19 that you were shown there were indications that a serial
20murderer was responsible?
21A. Well, can I -- can I step back?
22Q. Please.
23 A. Okay. I -- I think in this case when Dan Stidham asked me
24 that question, he was interested in whether or not this was a
25 -- a stranger to the victims. Not just -- 'cause, you know, a


1 serial murderer can go after victims that they know. I think
2 he was interested in whether or not it was a serial murderer
3 who was like perhaps passing through, or working in a broad
4 area throughout the state. So I  would -- I would clarify that.
5 Q. Well, did you -- did you come with an opinion to answer
6 that question of Mr. Stidham's?
7 A. Yes, I did.
8 Q. And that was that opinion?
9 A. I believe it was not the work of the type of serial killer
10 that Mr. Stidham was inquiring about.
11 Q. For what reason?
12 A. For several reasons. First of all, the disposal site
13 itself was essentially -- constantly being searched that
14 evening. So it would not be wise for a serial murderer to
15 dispose of the victims in that area.
16 Second of all, the victims themselves were very high risk
17 for an offender to acquire because, one, children are on
18 schedules, and they are easilier (sic) missed very quickly, and
19 the search would begin for them immediately.
20 And too, -- let me see, what was the other reason -- let
21 me see -- too, there were three of them. It would be very
22 difficult for one -- even two-- offenders to acquire three
23 victims without attracting a lot of attention. So they would
24 have had to want them very badly.
25 Q. Is there some other type of serial murderer than the type


1 that Mr. Stidham seemed to be involved in -- or interested in?
2 A. There -- there are many different types of serial
3 murderers. I'm not sure I understand the question.
4 Q. What --- what stood out to you as the most significant
5 evidentiary facts or unusual and remarkable evidentiary facts
6 as you reviewed the body of evidence presented to you?
7 A. Believe it or not, the very first thing I said when I
8 received the Fed Ex from Dan Stidham's office is I opened up
9 the autopsy photos. And the very first box that I opened had a
10 picture on top that when I looked at it, I felt that this was
11 the result of a bite mark activity with the very first photo
12 looked at. And I thought, well, at least they have bite marks.
13 So I immediately called Dan and asked him, about it, and he told
14 me that they had never considered the possibility that there
15 was any bite mark evidence in this case.
16 Q. Were there any other significant evidentiary facts that
17 were important to you -- unusual or remarkable about this case?
18 A. I would have to say that the history of Christopher Byers
19 stood out to me. It was very significant -- very significant
21 Q. Tell us if you would three -- or if you have as many as
22 three -- items that you saw in his personal history that you
23 thought were significant.
24 A. Well, he was being treated for conduct disorder. Heís --
25 he's a young child. He's a child of -- of eight-year-old --


1 eight years old and he's got a neurologist. He's been
2 diagnosed with conduct disorder, with attention deficit
3 disorder. He's taking psychotropic medication, and he's got a
4 history of antisocial -- excuse me -- of antisocial behavior.
5 Those things just immediately stuck out to me.
6 Q. Did you find any significant evidence or lack of evidence
7 in the way of -- of -- predatory animals, insects, or non-human
8 activities at the scene?
9 A. I'm not a forensic odontologist so I know that my
10 area -- my area of expertise is not bite mark evidence I
11 thought -- I saw what I thought could be bite marks of some
12 kind and to make that call -- I wouldn't be able to make that
13 call. So the very first thing I suggested to Dan was that he
14 get a forensic odontologist who's qualified to make those
15 interpretations.
16 Q. Did you see any evidence of animals -- any other animal
17 activity or insect activity?
18 A. No, I did not. Other -- other than what I pointed out to
19 Dan.
20 Q. Would you have expected to see any under the facts and
21 and circumstances that were presented to you?
22 A. I would. I would expect to see more.
23 Q. What would you expect to see?
24 A. I would expect to see some since they were found outdoors
25 in a -- in a woodland area. I would expect to see some --


1 some animal predation. It wouldn't be surprising to see that.
2 Q. Now, do you think it's your business to conduct profiles
3 of the people who are victims of these offenses, or the
4 perpetrators, or the scenes themselves? What exactly is it
5 that you would profile?
6 A. I profile behavior. I don't -- I don't create profiles of
7 --- of specific individuals. When I -- when I construct a
8 profile, it's to give insight into the general type of -- to
9 the general characteristics of the type of person that would
10 commit a crime, not to suggest a specific person.
11 Q. When the police bring you -- or private individuals like
12 Mr. Stidham -- bring you into a case, do you customarily find
13 yourself brought in for purposes of preparing for courtroom
14 testimony, or what is the role for which you are most often
15 employed?
16 A. Most often it's investigative.
17 Q. And what contributions do you make to an investigation?
18 A. Typically, I will give investigative direction, let them
19 know what -- what physical evidence hasn't been fully
20 exploited, let them know what potentially has been ñ has been
21 missed, let them know investigatively what I feel ought to be
22 done. If itís an unsolved case, then we will sit down -- we
23 will have task force meetings about what ought to be done, what
24 steps ought to be taken to generate competent suspects and --
25 and those sorts of things. If it's --


1 Q. Does that also involve making suggestions about what other
2 specialists might be retained or contacted or utilized --
3 A. Absolutely.
4 Q. -- to assist in the investigation?
5 A. Absolutely.
6 Q. Are you a medical doctor?
7 A. No, I'm not.
8 Q. You're not a zoologist?
9 A. No, I'm not.
10 Q. Or an entomologist?
11 A. No, Iím not.
12. Q. Or an odontologist?
13 A. No, I'm not.
14 Q. Were you given any kind of report at all from any
15 pathologist as to -- as to the nature and cause of death?
16 A. I did review the coroner's reports from Kent Hale and the
17 autopsy reports that were written up by Frank Peretti.
18 Q. Was it made known to you whether the defense ever
19 contacted or contracted with a pathologist to look at all the
20 evidence from a defense standpoint?
21 A. To my knowledge, that was not done.
22 Q. Letís talk then about some specific areas. Did you see --
23 lets -- talk about the subject of potential belt
24 lacerations. Did you see any evidence of that?
25 A. I saw what could be belt lacerations, yes.


1 Q. Where?
2 A. On Christopher Byers' posterior left thigh.
3 Q. And what was the significance of that to you?
4 A. I was told that he was administered a -- a spanking by his
5 step-father shortly before his disappearance.
6 Q. And were the markings that you saw consistent with that?
7 A. They were.
8 Q. On what person did you see -- on what person or persons
9 did you see what might be evidence of a bite mark or bite marks
10 -- animal or human?
11 A. Stevie Branch.
12 Q. At what location did you look -- or locations?
13 A. The -- the left side of his face as well as his arms and
14 his thighs. I looked in those locations. I saw what I thought
15 may be potential bite mark evidence on the left side of his
16 face and that region up there above -- above his eye all
17 around. I didnít know what I was looking at. I knew that it
18 was potentially bite mark evidence.
19 Q. What suggestions did you make about the use of other
20 possible experts?
21 A. I made three primary suggestions. First, that they ought
22to have a forensic -- a qualified board certified forensic
23 pathologist take a look at the -- all the wounds in the case to
24 help them with their time of death estimate and to help them in
25 making firm interpretations as to the wound patterns that were


1 involved because there were so many in this case.
2 The second thing I did was I told them that they ought to
3have forensic odontologist look at the potential bite mark
5 And the third thing -- actually, there's four. So the
6 third thing I did was have them -- I said we ought to have a
7 forensic entomologist look at the potential entomologic
8 evidence in this case.
9 And the fourth thing I suggested was that they have an
10 expert in child sexual abuse take a look at the victim history
11 and the wound patterns in the case as well.
12 Q. As a forensic scientist, have you had occasion to work
13 with pathologists?
14 A. I have.
15 Q. Have you ever spoken to an odontologist?
16 A. I have.
17 Q. Are you familiar with literature in which entomologists or
18 zoologists are enlisted in the investigation of criminal
19 offenses?
20 A. I am.
21 Q. And of specialists in child sex abuse, are those two sorts
22 of specialists that forensic scientists turn to for help in
23 examining criminal cases?
24 A. I have, yes.
25 Q. Have you ever worked on a case in which a prosecution


1 based on circumstantial evidence was brought involving a murder
2 of three young boys under horrible and violent situations?
3 A. Not like this, no.
4 Q. Or in a case which is based on circumstantial evidence
5 three teenagers were held responsible for a multiple homicide?
6 A. Not like this, no.
7 Q. In such a situation, would you as a forensic scientist
8 make a recommendation then that a pathologist and a
9 odontologist, an entomologist, a child sex abuse expert be
10 retained to look at and examine the evidence from the defense
11 standpoint?
12 A. No blanketly, no. Not without first recommending that
13 they have someone who is trained -- not unlike myself as a
14 generalist -- someone who can look at the whole body of
15 evidence and -- and determine what potential -- what potential
16 evidence exists. However, I would always recommend that a
17 forensic pathologist look at the findings of death. But the
18 other -- the other three, no, not blanketly.
19 Q. And do you have any reason to believe that was done by
20 by defense counsel in this case?
21 A. No, I do not.
22 MR. MALLETT: Pass the witness. Thank you.
23 THE COURT: Do you want to rest overnight before
24 you start?
25 Go ahead, let's do fifteen minutes more.


1 MR. MALLETT: I forgot to put his report into
2 evidence, your Honor. May I reopen for that limited
3 purpose?
4 THE COURT: If you just want -- have you got any
5 objection to it?
6 MR. DAVIS: Yes, your Honor. The same reason I
7 objected to his report being -- an affidavit or
8 anything else -- being introduced, heís here to
9 testify. He can't testify and then also get a
10 written report in that contains findings. Heís
11 provided that written report, and that contains
12 certain of his opinions and findings, and I can cross
13 examine him from it --
14 THE COURT: All right, sustained.
15 MR. DAVIS: -- but that's not separate evidence.
16 THE COURT: I sustain the objection.
17 MR. MALLETT: I'll withdraw the offer.
20 Q. Mr. Turvey, if you would --  have you got your resume still
21 up there?
22 A. I have a copy. Thank you.
23 Q. Now, I believe that you had a previous -- I think -- when
24 did you compile this report that contains your findings?
25 A. It was completed on 10-19-97, the date of the report.


1 Q. So that would have been October nineteenth of ninety-
2 seven?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. Okay. And you indicated to us that when you were retained
5 by Dan Stidham that you were merely asked to look at these
6 three issues and not make any determination as to whether his
7 client, Mr. Echols, or anybody else was guilty or not, correct?
8 A. Thatís correct.
9 Q. Okay. Do you recall sending me a resume -- an initial
10 resume -- and then you sent a subsequent one after that?
11 A. I recall faxing you a resume after we had a phone
12 conversation.
13 Q. Let me show you what I have marked as Resume Number One
14 with a CV dated 8-4-97. (HANDING TO WITNESS.)
15 A. (EXAMINING.) Okay.
16 Q. Okay. And 8-4-97 would have been long before you wrote
17 this final report for Mr. Stidham or Mr. Mallett or anybody of
18 that nature, correct?
19 A. Eight four of ninety-seven would be, yes.
20 Q. In fact, that would have just been -- that resume would
21 have been prepared just days after you were even contacted
22 about this case, right?
23 A. Um--
24 Q. If you said it was in July of ninety-seven.
25 A. Right. Yes.


1 Q. Okay. Now, if I could direct your attention on this, you
2 indicate -- you listed some of the cases that you worked on?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. And I believe from 7-97 to the present, you indicated on
5 that resume dated August of ninety-seven, before you had formed
6 any opinions or been asked to give any opinions, you listed Dan
7 Stidham as one of your clients, right?
8 A. That's correct.
9 Q And what was the title that you gave to that case that you
10 were working or, for Dan Stidham in this resume?
11 A. How do you mean, ìthe title?î
12 Q. It's written right there on the resume. Would you look at
13 it? What did you refer to it as in your resume?
14 A. (EXAMINING.) Triple homicide of three eight-year-old
15 boys.
16 Q. Okay. Look again, see if there's something else there.
17 Does the word ìinnocenceî jump out at you? Highlighted in --
18 A. (EXAMINING.) Well, you've highlighted the other lawyer
19 but it's Project Innocence is one of the -- is one of the
20 people involved, yes.
21 Q. Okay. Who titled that Project Innocence?
22 A. That would be the organ -- the lawyer organization thatís
23 working for -- that's working with -- I believe, it's -- it is
24 not the organization that retained Mr. Mallett -- that
25 requested the services of Mr. Mallett?


1 Q. So you had been in contact with this lawyers' organization
2 in addition to Mr. Stidham?
3 A. Subsequent to my conversation with Mr. Stidham, they asked
4 me to talk to Project Innocence.
5 Q. Why would you name it and list it in a resume on 8-4-97,
6 as Project Innocence if -- if objectivity is an important
7 element to have in your evaluation?
8 A. I -- I didn't name it. That's the name of the lawyers'
9 organization.
10 Q. So Project Innocence doesn't have anything to do with this
11 particular case?
12 A. No, that's not what I said.
13. Q. Okay.
14 A. Project Innocence is the name -- it's the name of the
15 organization of lawyers. It's a client.
16 Q. Okay. And it says, ìProject Innocence, Damien Echols' new
17 lawyers.î
18 A. I didn't know who the appointed lawyer had been yet and
19 he's still there. So I -- I just gave the general name of the
20group of lawyers that were handling Damien's end of it. But I
21was retained by Dan Stidham, not Damien's
22 attorneys.
23 Q. Dan Stidham has contacted you but by 8-4-97,
24 you're already in touch with the Project Innocence attorneys.
25 Is that right?


1 A. Actually, no, I wasn't in touch with them. I was just
2 told they were working on the case.
3 Q. Who told you?
4 A. Dan.
5 Q. Okay. So you get from Dan -- in addition to the
6 information he gives you -- you get the title of  Project
7 Innocence?
8 A. The group of lawyers, yes. There's a group of lawyers
9 that are handling the case for -- they're the new lawyers. And
10 I was told to contact them to get additional information.
11 Q. Okay. Did you list that -- did you mention the title,
12 Project Innocence, in the second resume that you're-- that Mr.
13 Mallett introduced here at trial?
14 A. Probably not.
15 Q. Why would you take that off? That fact didn't change, did
16 it?
17 A. No, but it wasn't -- it wasn't as relevant. This was
18 actually notes for myself so that I could go find out who the
19 attorneys were because there are three clients involved.
20 Q. Okay. So this resume that you provided me initially was
21 the resume provided as notes for yourself so you could keep up
22 with what attorneys were involved?
23 A. No, thatís -- that's not what I meant.
24 Q. Isn't that what you said?
25 A. What I meant was that initially I was contacted by Dan


1 Stidham and initially I was told that there other lawyers
2 involved the project. Now, early on in the very first weeks
3 of my involvement, I had not signed any paper, I had not signed
4 any confidentiality agreement, I had not made any firm
5 agreement with who exactly I would be working for. And
6 ultimately, it came down to me being Dan Stidham's expert --
7 no the expert of any of the other three attorneys.
8 Q. So you thought the names -- I mean -- you hear a lot of
9 names for lawyers either, you know, Joe Smith --
10 A. Right.
11 Q. -- or Dewey, Cheatam and Howell, or whatever, but Project
12 Innocence is kind of an unusual name for a law firm, right?
13. A. They're not a law firm.
14 Q. Okay.
15 A. I believe they're a non-profit organization.
16 Q. Who all's involved in that? Do you know?
17 A. I believe -- today or at the time?
18 Q. At the time you wrote it down on your resume.
19 A. At the time I wrote it down on my resume, I didn't know
20 who was involved in Project Innocence.
21 Q. Did Mr. Stidham refer to it as Project Innocence?
22 A. Yes, he did.
23 Q. Okay. So itís kind of like a code word?
24 A. No.
25 Q. Like Desert Storm -- Project Innocence?


1 A. No.
2 Q. So if you refer to Project Innocence, you're referring to
3 attorneys that are handling the case?
4 A. Project Innocence is the name of the non-profit
5 organization -- a group of attorneys that were handling the
6 case, yes. It's not a code word.
7 Q. Now, this Cathy Bakken that first turned you on to this
8 case, right? She's the first person that contacted you?
9 A. She was, yes.
10 Q. Okay. And she's a student with Knowledge Solutions?
11 A. She was for a particular course at that time, yes.
12 Q. Okay. So she was taking one course at Knowledge
13 Solutions?
14 A. She was, yes.
15 Q. Okay. And Knowledge Solutions is a business that you and
16 your wife, I assume, are principal owners in?
17 A. Actually, there are three partners -- myself, Owen Casey,
18 and my wife who is -- basically is the manager so that I can
19 do case work.
20 Q. Okay.
21 A. She runs all of the administrative duties.
22 Q. So Knowledge Solutions is a -- is a business that you,
23 your wife and this Mr. Casey run, right?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. Okay. And if I understood your testimony, you can log in


1 and if you hook up add take one of your courses, that anywhere
2 -- they run four to ten weeks -- is that what you said?
3 A. It depends on the course, yes.
4 Q. Okay. And I could sign up and in four to ten weeks I
5 could take one of your courses on any number of topics that
6 might deal with forensic science?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. Okay. And you write a lot of the course material, right?
9 A. For my courses, yes. We have six other instructors
10 however.
11 Q. Okay. And if I did that, would I pay you money to take
12 that course?
13 A. Yes, you would.
14 Q. Okay. So if I'm gonna get in it and I'm -- I will pay you
15 money, right?
16 A. Absolutely.
17 Q. Would I get college credit for it?
18 A. You could if you applied for college credit for it, yes.
19 Q. Are you affiliated with any university or educational
21A. Not presently, no.
22 Q. Okay. And in fact, you put out in your materials that if
23 you call us and ask, we might be able to get you CLE or
24 continuing legal education credit for it --
25 A. Oh, yes.


1 Q. -- but as it stands now, none of your courses actually
2 would provide anybody any college credits, correct?
3 A. Thatís a mischaracterization. That's not correct.
4 Q. Well, how many students do you have that are taking the
5 course that are currently -- currently receiving college
6 credits toward -- toward a degree from your institution?
7 A. None toward a degree from my institution. We do not give
8 degrees.
9 Q. You can't give a degree, right?
10 A. No, that's not --
11 Q. All you can do is take their money and provide a four to
12 ten week course.
13 A. Again, I think that's a mischaracterization.
14 Q. Okay. And your education in -- you graduated from high
15 school in 1988, right?
16 A. Yes, I did.
17 Q. Okay. And then by 1993 you had obtained a degree of BS in
18 history, right?
19 A. I believe that's what it says, yes.
20 Q. Okay. Now that -- from the education that you obtained in
21 terms of -- as far as getting a history degree, that doesnít
22 apply in terms -- is there anything beneficial about that as
23 a criminal profiler or forensic scientist?
24 A. I would argue yes.
25 Q. Okay. What's the -- tell me about it -- how a history


1 degree makes you qualified to be a criminal profiler and a
2 forensic scientist.
3 A. That was not the question. Could you repeat the question
4 again?
5 Q. How does a history degree qualify you to be a criminal
6 profiler or a forensic scientist?
7 A. Well, it does not.
8 Q. Okay. So that educational degree -- whether it's nice,
9 whether it's good that you obtained that -- in terms of
10 benefiting you as a criminal profiler or forensic scientist,
11 that isn't necessarily something that helps you in that field,
12 correct?
13 A. Yes, it does. You just changed the question again.
14 Q. Okay. How -- I didn't mean to change, question.
15 A. It benefits you because it provides you -- one, a history
16 degree is actually one of the better foundational degrees to
17 have because it teaches you like really strong research skills
18 and critical thinking skills and argumentation skills, so
19 arguably you could say that it benefits -- it could benefit a
20 forensic scientist in that fashion.
21 Q. Okay. So as late as December ninety-three, your
22 background five  -- four years before you take up this case,
23 your background in history was a degree in history and a high
24 school diploma?
25 A. My background in history?


1 Q. By ninety-three you had a degree in history and a high
2 school diploma?
3 A. Yes, that's true.
4 Q. Okay. And then from December of ninety-three until August
5 ninety-four -- in a span of about, I guess, nine months -- you
6 acquired a BS in psychology, right?
7 A. That's correct.
8 Q. Are you licensed as a psychologist or to practice
9 psychology or counseling anywhere?
10 A. No, I'm not.
11 Q. Can you provide -- you can write any treat ñ did you ever
12 work clinically as a psychologist, counselor, therapist,
13 anything of that nature?
14 A. No, I have not.
15 Q. Okay. Do you have a doctorate in psychology?
16 A. No, I do not.
17 Q. Okay. Anything other than a BS degree in psychology as
18 far as your training in that field?
19 A. Training?
20 Q. Yes, sir.
21 A. I would have to say yes. But, I mean, I've attended
22training and seminars and that sort of thing in psychology
23beyond my degree; yes, but not extensively.
24 Q. Okay. So basically you have by nine -- by August of 1994
25 you have an undergraduate degree in psychology and an


1undergraduate degree in history and a high school diploma?
2A. Yes.
3 Q. And do you use either that history degree or the
4 psychology degree in terms of any practical work or application
5 --
6 A. Currently?
7 Q. -- in your job?
8 A. Currently?
9 Q. Then -- from after August of ninety-four when you
10 graduated, from that point, have you used either one of those
11 degrees or your high school degree in terms of going out and
12 seeking employment -- either law enforcement, anything?
13 A. No, I have not.
14 Q. Okay. So you're still in school?
15 A. That's correct.
16 Q. Okay. And then when did you start working toward your
17 Masters of Science in forensic science?
18 A. 1994.
19 Q. Okay. And that's at the University of New Haven?
20 A. Thatís correct .
21 Q. Okay. Where is that located?
22 A. Thatís located in West Haven, Connecticut.
23 Q. Okay. Is that a day school, or a night school, or a full-
24 time university?
25 A. That is a full-time university.


1 Q. Okay. And you started school there when?
2 A. 1994.
3 Q. Okay.
4 A. The -- essentially in -- in August.
5 Q. Okay. So as soon as you get your degree in psychology,
6 you then move on to -- and that degree was at Portland State
7 University in Portland, Oregon, and then you jump on into the
8 University of New Haven in West Haven, Connecticut?
9 A. Well, we put the kitty in the car and drove across the
10 country.
11 Q. Okay. And from the fall of ninety-four until July of
12 ninety-six, you worked on a Masters of Science in forensic
13 science; is that correct?
14 A. That's correct.
15 Q. Okay. So you get your degree in that in July of 1996; is
16 that right?
17 A. That's correct.
18 Q. Okay. Now, when I went to law school and I graduated from
19 law school we had to pass a bar exam before we could hang out
20 our shingle.
21 A. Right.
22 Q. Okay. When you get out of Masters of Science in forensic
23 science school and you get that degree, can you then call
24 yourself a forensic scientist?
25 A. Absolutely.


1 Q. Okay. And so formal education is all that's needed for
2 someone to attach the name forensic scientist, correct? If I
3 get my degree in forensic sciences, a master's, then I can call
4 myself a forensic scientist?
5 A. That's technically true, but that's not what I did.
6 Q. Did you start to call yourself a forensic scientist at
7 that point?
8 A. At the point that I graduated?
9 Q. Yes, sir.
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Okay.
12 A. But I had experience before I graduated.
13 Q. Did you acquire it on-the-job?
14 A. That I require -- that I acquired as part of an implied
15 internship over the period of four months.
16 Q. Okay. A four month internship?
17 A. That's correct.
18 Q. Okay. And does that four month internship give you the
19 same expertise as a forensic pathologist?
20 A. No, it does not.
21 Q. Okay. So you would have to defer to a forensic
22 pathologist in areas that involved their expertise?
23 A. Yes, I would. Well, can I qualify that? 'Cause I don't
24 mean to be coy.
25 I would defer to a forensic pathologist that I trusted and


1 that I knew did good work. They're not all -- they're not all
2 equal.
3 Q. Okay, So in terms of -- you feel like you could evaluate
4 and pick apart a forensic pathologist's opinion if you didn't
5 agree with their methodology and results?
6 A. Sometimes.
7 Q. Okay.
8 A. Some areas. Not -- not blanketly, no.
9 Q. Okay. So after your education and after your degree -- I
10 assume based on that answer, if you were viewing an autopsy
11 report, do you feel that you have the expertise and experience
12 to critique an autopsy report done by a forensic pathologist
13 you don't trust or believe him?
14 A. No, that's not what I said.
15 Q. Okay. And do you or do you not have the expertise to
16 critique, review and second guess the methodology and
17 operations of forensic pathologists based on your training,
18 experience, and expertise?
19 A. Again, blanketly, no. But on spec -- there are specific
20 issues that I feel qualified in that I would always-- that --
21 that in myself I would look at then I would refer to other
22 experts for. And I do have the training to -- I do have the
23 training to recognize when something is awry, when something
24 has been missed, when something has been overlooked.
25 Q. Well, you told us that you can become a forensic scientist


1 by getting a Master of Science in forensic science. How do you
2 become a criminal profiler?
3 A. Thatís a -- that's a valid question. There is no one way.
4 Q. Well, if I'm gonna go out here and I'm gonna advertise to
5 the public that I'm a criminal profiler, could I do that today?
6 A. Could you?
7 Q. Yes, sir.
8 A. I don't think you could.
9 Q. Okay. Why not?
10 A. I don't think you'd be taken seriously.
11 Q. Well, what agency is it that you have to go through in
12 order to acquire the credentials to be a criminal profiler?
13 A. I doesnít quite work that way. Criminal profiling is a
14 multi-disciplinary field. You have to have certain backgrounds
15 in areas like psychology, forensic science, homicide
16 investigation -- those sorts of things. So as you do -- now,
17 I don't -- as far as I know, you do not have those
18 qualifications, right?
19 Q. I mean, I've worked seventeen years as a prosecutor,
20viewed all these criminal cases, worked hours on end with
21fingerprint experts, serologists and all these people, can I --
22 could I not, with that background, experience and with the right
23 frame of mind, could I not put myself out as a criminal
24 profiler?
25 A. No, you could not.


1 Q. Okay. Why -- what qualifies you to put yourself out as a
2 criminal profiler?
3 A. I have studied specific methodology under a criminal
4 profiler, one. And, two, I have expertise in a general
5 background in the areas that -- that are -- the criminal
6 profiler relies upon such as psychology and forensic science
7 and homicide investigations or death investigations.
8 Q. Is there -- is there any oversight authority for people
9 who hold themselves out to be criminal profilers?
10 A. No, there is not, unfortunately.
11 Q. Okay. So although you tell us that you've got these
12 qualifications and background, anyone can say theyíre
13 criminal profiler. There is no licensing agency, thereís no
14 certification board, it's not like a board certified orthopedic
15 surgeon. If you say you're a criminal -- a criminal profiler,
16 then the question is, there is no -- there is no procedure for
17 you to qualify to be that, correct?
18 A. That's correct.
19 Q. Okay. And isn't it true -- don't you produce a bunch of
20 information on your -- your Website as far as -- oh, articles
21 about explaining what inductive versus deductive profiling is?
22 A. Yes, sir.
23 Q. Okay. And youíre very critical of people who use the
24 inductive method of criminal profiling, correct?
25 A. I am -- who use solely that method for the basis of their


1 conclusions, yes.
2 Q. Okay. And in fact, based on your articles, the FBI's use
3 of that in their criminal profiling -- you're very, very
4 critical of that, correct?
5 A. I am very critical of the profiles that they have publicly
6 put out, yes.
7 Q. Okay.
8 A. But it -- can I qualify that?
9 Q. Okay.
10 A. I don't -- don't mean -- I don't mean to be evasive, but
11 originally -- their original methodology was very sound, and
12 the original work put out by them I believe was very sound, and
13 very deductive. But over time theyíve become more reliant on
14 statistical inference, and the good people who work there went
15 on to be consultants and left people in the dust and didn't
16 actually pass along any knowledge or training to them. So they
17 began to rely more on statistical analysis rather than actual
18 expertise in forensic science or psychology. So that is what
19 I'm critical of.
20 Q. Would it be fair to say that almost anyone with the right
21 training, experience, and a lot of guidance can learn to do
22 criminal profiling?
23 A. It would be fair to say that, yes.
24 Q. Okay. That's reading from one of your articles.
25 A. I recognize that language, yes, sir.


1 Q. Okay. So thereís nothing really magical about it.
2 Anybody can do it with the right training, experience and a lot of
3 guidance can learn how to do it?
4 A. I would say yes.
5 Q. Okay. And the training and experience you're talking
6 about are the things of on-the-job training, knowing -- looking
7 at criminal cases, looking at forensic evaluations, and looking
8 -- reading reports, reading literature on how to interpret
9 blood splatters, how to interpret -- maybe identify -- bite
10 marks -- things of that nature. All those things are important
11 things if you had that background, training and experience
12 it might qualify you, right?
13 A. Could we back up a second because you threw a bunch of
14 things in there that I don't think I'm agreeing with.
15 Q. Okay, what--
16 A. Could you ask that question again, please?
17 Q. Okay. Let -- let me back up and phrase it this way.
18 There's not necessarily a formal educational curriculum
19 that you need to follow to do this. A person with no formal
20education could become a criminal profiler under your criteria,
22 A. With no -- define formal education, please.
23 Q. I mean, you donít have to have a Masters Degree in
24 forensic science -- sciences before they could become a
25 criminal -- a valid, legitimate criminal profiler.


1 A. Some of the best ones aren't. Absolutely.
2 Q. Okay. And in fact, your description of what a criminal
3 profiler does is basically investigate, look at the crime
4 scene, have a familiarity enough with forensics to be able to
5 guide an attorney in different locations as to where they may
6 go for additional information, right?
7 A. No, it is not.
8 Q. Okay. How -- how does it differ from that scenario?
9 A. There's a lot more involvement. That's one -- thatís one
10 possible role that a profiler plays.
11 Q. Was that an important role that you thought you were
12 playing in this case?
13 A. In this case?
14 Q. Right.
15 A. In this case, that was the role, yes.
16 Q. And, in fact -- maybe I wrote it down wrong -- one of -- I
17 mean, wasn't one of your main goals was to receive this
18 evidence and then to guide the attorneys in different routes in
19 terms of experts they might consult, things of that nature?
20 A. My role was to evaluate the evidence, determine what
21 potential evidence was there that may not have been exploited,
22 and xxxx them to objective forensic scientist who were
23 qualified to make firm -- more firm, more competent
24 interpretations than I.
25 Q. So basically, you'd look at something and say, it could be


1 a bite mark but you don't have the qualifications to say it?
2 A. Thatís correct.
3 Q. Okay. When you look at something, you'd say, well, the
4 time of death could have been affected by these findings. You
5 might base an opinion based on these findings, but I'm not a
6 forensic pathologist, so I can't say.
7 A. Precisely. I would come along and question those things
8 that looked -- that looked awry or looked questionable, or if
9 they left out considerations and then point them in the correct
10 direction.
11 Q. Okay. And then you would give them a report and you would
12 say, this could have been-- the person that committed this
13 crime, based on my profile, could have been a married person,
14 but I'm not sure if they're married or not, so they probably
15 could be married or they might not be. Isn't that kind of what
16 you say in your report?
17 A. It's a mischaracterization, but it -- you're basically
18 accurate.
19 Q. Do you want me to quote from your report?
20 A. No.
21 Q. Isnít that basically what your report says?
22 A. No, could I look at it?
23 Q. Sure. You can read from it if you want. (HANDING TO


1 THE COURT: Have you got a whole lot more?
2 MR. DAVIS: Um-hum.
3 THE COURT: Well, let's quit for the night.
4 MR. DAVIS: Judge, could I quote this one thing
5 and then stop while I found it?
6 THE COURT: Go ahead.
8 Q. On marital status on page forty of your report --
9 A. Yeah, I've got it right here.
10 Q. The offender's behavior and attitude suggests someone who
11 is capable of only short-term or sporadic on-and-off
12 relationships with the females in his life. He has very likely
13 been married more than one. His attitude toward women is very
14 misogynistic--
15 A. Misogynistic.
16 Q. Misogynistic, okay -- another word you threw at me that I
17 don't know -- his previous relationships with women would have
18 involved a great deal of physical and/or emotional abuse. If
19 this offender was married at the time of the offense, and
20 indicators are not clear on this issue, then his marriage would
21 been in crisis at the time of this offense.
22 So basically what your opinion on marital status is, you
23 donít know if he was married -- the offender was married -- but
24 if he is -- and you don't know that -- if he is, then he was
25 probably in crisis.


1 A. Thatís correct.
2 Q. Okay. And his wife may very well have been part of the
3 crime?
4 A. That's correct.
5 Q. But we don't know if he's married.
6 A. That's correct. I was saying if he was married. I was
7 suggesting a possibility.
8 Q. Okay. Now, what training and experience allows you to
9 make these types of determinations?
10 A. I would not characterize them as determinations or
11 conclusions, would characterize them, again, as inferences.
12 Q. Okay. But I mean in terms of the benefit of a criminal
13 profiler to me if Iím a defense attorney --
14 A. Um-hum.
15 Q. -- if you can tell me that you don't know if the person is
16 married and you don't know that, but if he was, then this is
17 what he would be like, but I'm not sure if he was or not, then
18 what benefit is that to a criminal defense attorney as far as
19 your criminal profile regarding the marital status?
20 A. I don't -- I donít know. I was asked to prepare a
21 criminal profile.  I don't know what Dan would use that
22 information for. Could it -- it could be anything.
23 Q. Okay.
24 A. I'm can't -- I'm not a -- I'm not an attorney.
25 THE COURT: Were you told by Mr. Stidham that


1 trial and the appeal -- that the actual trial had
2 been over three years and seven months before you
3 entered the case?
4 THE WITNESS: I was. He just wanted my -- my
5 opinion.
6 THE COURT: Well, was the role you were doing
7 purely second guessing what had been done?
8 THE WITNESS: No. He wanted me to evaluate what
9 he had. He didn't -- from his perspective -- this is
10 me repeating what he told me, and so I'm taking that
11 at face value.
12 THE COURT: I'm having trouble evaluating it --
13 for what purpose?
14 THE WITNESS: He didn't feel as though he ever
15 had a -- a clear picture of what occurred at the
16 crime scene and what -- what the person had to be
17 capable of to do the crime, and he wanted that from
18 me.
19 MR. DAVIS: Judge, the next stuff I'm getting
20 into is gonna get -- is going to be lengthy. I just
21 hit on that before I forgot about it.
22 THE COURT. All right. Let's call it quits.
23 Weíll reconvene at 9:30 in the morning. Court will
24 be in recess.

Page 1

May 1998

June 1998

October 1998

March 1999

May 5, 1998 June 9, 1998 October 26, 1998 March 18, 1999
  June 10, 1998 October 27, 1998 March 19, 1999
    October 28, 1998