To read Day Five Of Trial Part 1.pdf click this link.

To read Day Five Of Trial Part 2.pdf click this link.

To read Day Five Of Trial Part 3.pdf click this link.

To read Day Five Of Trial Part 4.pdf click this link.

To read Day Five Of Trial Part 5.pdf click this link.

To read Day Five Of Trial Part 6.pdf click this link.

When you are finished with Day Five click the back button to return to this page.

Transcript Analysis

Day 5, Aug. 21, 2006

Glen West

1. Page 10-22 What relevance is Wests' church attendance to this trial?  Violation of ARC rule 610.  Mistrial. No Hobson's choice.

2. Page 15-4 Is possible Wests' prints are a sticker or note.  His daughters as well.

3. Sherry Sanders

4. Page 23-6 Employed at Legacy Metris, a credit card business.

5. Page 23-19 In 1999 she worked for Bank One First USA in the credit card department.

6. Page 32-11 The name that comes up when scanned is Bradley K. FOR. What does FOR. mean?  FOR.  Has no relevance to his business as a dentist.

7. Page 33-5, 11 The marketing street address is 500 West Chandler Boulevard not the Draper address.

8. Page 35-16 Marketing business identified as Able Family Dentistry on exhibit 11 and 12.

9. Page 36-15 Different vendors are used to send out credit card applications.  Unable to determine which vendor was used to send out the credit card application to the defendant.

10. Page 37-18 Rejection letter should only have gone out 2500 West Chandler Boulevard , but it didn't.  If that had happened defendant might be filing a complaint with the police instead of Roberts.  The fact the rejection letter did not arrive where it was supposed to suggests human intervention as the reason it did not.

11. Page 37-25 Sanders is surprised Judge Roberts got the rejection letter.  Indicating possible human intervention because the system would not have sent Roberts the rejection letter on its own.

12. Page 40-8 When research of the sequence number was performed they didn't get the Social Security number of the defendant.  Again evidence points to human intervention within the credit card company.  Whose Social Security number did they get?

13. Page 40-10 They didn't get the name Bradley Kennedy either. Suggests errors in their database.

Bruce Tucker

1. Page 42-15 The credit card application tied to Bradley K. FOR.  At 500 West Chandler Boulevard and Able Family Dentistry.  Do not other people work and Able Family Dentistry other than the defendant?

Alan Kreitl

1. Page 59-18 Exhibit 17 is a typed document.

2. Page 60-23 Exhibit 21 is the typewriter obtained from Able Family Dentistry.

3. Page 61-8 Exhibit 17 was typewritten with Courier font.

4. Page 61-13 Alan didn't compare the tied in exhibit 17 with the typewriter exhibit 21.  But he is certain it's not a match.  How is he certain?

5. Page 62-24 Alan did not examine exhibit 47.

6. Page 63-22 Alan states all exhibits except exhibit 47 or written by the same person, handwriting didn't seem naturally executed.

7. Page 64-1 It could be the result of someone trying to disguise in their own handwriting.  Speculation.

8. Page 64-7 Alan was unable to identify the writer.

9. Page 64-10 Alan could not conclusively rule out other writers.

10. Page 64-25 Alan did not impaired defendants writing to the various exhibits to the extent he normally would.  Why?

11. Page 65-3 Alan believed that because the questioned writing was not naturally executed his comparison would not yield anything of probative of value.

12. Page 67-2 Alan cannot tell the jury that exhibits 39, 42-45, 47-49, and 52 match the defendant.

13. Page 67-16 Alan can't say the credit card application, exhibit 12, was written by the defendant.

14. Page 69-10 All the typing in the exhibits is Courier font.  Most likely the same typewriter was used in all.

15. Page 70-20 Alan can't identify the writer by his techniques and training.

16. Page 72-15 Alan reports exhibit 1 was first typed by typewriter and then the labels were created via a toner process.  So the labels ahead to created using a copy machine or were scanned and printed using a computer and a laser printer.

Stacy Raymond

1. Page 78-10 Request for DNA analysis came in on Feb. 18, 2005.

2. Page 79-13 Exhibit 20 was tested for DNA.

3. Page 79-16 Exhibit 20 had several hairs and fibers in it.  What fibers?  Why was all of this together?

4. Page 79-21 Stacy is not trained in hair.

5. Page 80-6 The short dark hairs were done in line extraction, the longer lighter hairs in another one together.  There was a single hair in and an anagen phase still growing which was done separately, which became exhibit 100A.

6. Page 81-22 Item 100A was the growing hair.

7. Page 82-2 Stacy got X chromosomes off of item 100A, the growing hair, so the owner was female.

8. Page 82-16 Stacy got a mixture of DNA from item 100C which means they came from more than one person .

9. Page 83-10 Defendant is excluded by DNA .

10. Note: It is accepted forensic practice to group like hairs and test them together.  Whether there is a small amount of cellular material to work with in the hope of amplifying the amount of genetic material for testing.  The risk is that you will get a mixed sample.  That's what happened here.

11. Page 85-24 Angela Andrews reveals at this time to the typewriter has not been admitted into evidence.  Prosecutorial misconduct.

12. Page 88-4 Stacy Found no great hair in hair samples.  Defendant has grey hair.

13. Page 88-9 Stacy found to long light-colored hairs.  Blond or light brown.

14. Page 88-21 Most of samples were fibers or animal hairs.  Fibers can be traced to manufacturers.  Animals can be identified as to species.  This work was not done.

15. Page 90-17 Item 100B is a mixture.

16. Page 90-23 There were a minimum of two genetic profiles in item 100B.

17. Page 91-2 Defendant in spite of the mixture of DNA is excluded from item 100B.

18. Page 91-4 Item 100C is also a mixture.

19. Page 91-7 Two people were in the profile of item 100C.

20. Page 91-13 The defendant was excluded from item 100C.

21. Page 91-21 Defendant was the only person Staci was asked to compare results to.

22. Page 92-2 Stacy states there was enough evidence to include or exclude individuals in future testing.

23. Page 93-9 No other evidence than the hair was submitted for DNA testing.

24. Page 94-14 Coloration of hair had no impact on testing.

Scott Milne

1. Page 100-22 Scott tested for saliva on item 20A the Arizona Outdoor Journal envelope.

2. Page 100-25 Results for saliva inconclusive.

3. Page 101-21 Scott asked for the envelope to be DNA tested on June 20, 2006 when procedures had been improved.

4. Page 102-2 A partial profile is obtained that excluded to the defendant.

5. Page 105-20 Scott was not given anything else to test.

6. Page 106-23 The CODIS database has everyone who works within DPS.

Bruce Tucker

1. Page 112-23 Exhibit 6 contains 4 Polaroids.

2. Page 113-24 Tucker is not able to identify child in the photos.

3. Page 114-14 Exhibit 7 has 2 Polaroids.

4. Page 115-14 Exhibit 8 has 3 Polaroids.

5. Page 115-22 Tucker is unable to identify subjects in the photos.

6. Page 135-8 Exhibit 19 is a request for information about Judge Roberts.

7. Page 148-8 Everett makes the statement, "everybody awake" after the jury was just presented a hypnotizing parade of exhibits that mean nothing.

8. Page 149-11 From August 2000 there were no more calls to the police by Roberts and no more photos found.  Who went to jail in August 2000?

9. Page 151-1 Exhibit 19, the letters asking for information on Roberts were given to Tucker by Roberts in his chambers.  Roberts is creating the target and setting the bloodhounds in the form of Tucker on the defendant.  This took place after defendant filed a lawsuit against Roberts.  Is Roberts simply getting even against a person who sued him?

For questions or comments about this web site contact: jcoghill2@cox.net