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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Transcript Analysis

Day 9, August 28, 2006

Rhonda Kennedy

1. Page 3-10 Everett reminds the state the next witness must not talk about adult pornography or adult magazines.

2. Page 8-10 Confirms showing pictures to family.

3. Page 10-1 They were Polaroids.

4. Page 20-25 The next few years after the meeting were happiest for Joanne and defendant.

5. Page 22-13 Joanne left the kids with the defendant to enter methadone rehab, no questions asked.

Betty Bruckner

1. Page 42-11 No Rhonda Kennedy or anyone else who was supposedly there.

2. Page 43-9 The photographs had bolsters in them. Bolsters from what or where?

3. Page 46-9 "That's who it seemed to be."  But things are not always as they seemed to be.  Show a picture of a kid showing enough skin, the right color hair and body type and make it look like a photo out of an album and trick them into saying it's Luke.  Then reveal the face.

4. Page 47-7 In photos she saw the head was not covered.  This statement does not matched Joanne's testimony or anybody else's.

Note: I remember somebody saying the faces were covered by can find it.

1. Page 48-21 What she has identified as a 4-year-old in the pictures, is clearly not a 4-year-old, but older.

2. Page 49-7 She was told by Joanne it was Luke in the pictures.

3. Page 55-6 Joanne didn't show her any labels or stickers.

4. Page 55-24 Joanne told her defendant was using photos to frame a judge.

5. Page 55-25 What or whom is she looking at.  Is she being coached in the courtroom?

6. Page 56-24 Joanne told her defendant was framing more than one judge.  If this is true then who are the others?

Jerry Hansen

1. Page 63-5 Confirms the photos.

2. Page 63-11 Can't tell the identity of the subjects in the photos even though he couldn't see their faces, because they were turned away from the camera.  This is the first statement that their faces were turned away from the camera.  It would appear everybody is seeing a different set of pictures.  He's good.  Most cops can't do that with their own kids.

3. Page 63-20 He estimates the age of subjects at five to six years.

4. Page 64-16 He can tell the identity of someone without any clothes on he's never seen before and only seen 10 to 15 times.  He's real good.

5. Page 64-24 What happened to blankets over faces?

6. Page 65-11 Where are the bolsters?

7. Page 66-14 The younger boy was in photos.

8. Page 67-16 Is unable to say they were Polaroids.

9. Page 68-12 The photos he saw were not in color.

10. Page 68-18 Prior testimony was the photos were not Polaroids.

11. Page 69-7 Betty at interview says photos she saw were black and white.  Perjury.  Day 9,71-7, Day 10, Page 35-6.

Note: Photos weren't color.  Somebody testified they recognize the color of looks hair but I can't find the statement.  If photos were black and white that's impossible.

12. Page 70-6 Betty and Nikko never been shown the stickers by Joanne.

13. Page 71-7 Nikko now says contrary to his interview and his first testimony photos were color.  Perjury.  Day 9, Page 69-7, Day 10, Page 35-6.

14. Page 77-8 How does he know its a boy?  He states no genitalia exposed.  Photo could be a girl was short hair for all he knows.

15. Page 78-14 He didn't see any bruises.

16. Page 79-6 Joanne was advised to call the police and get out of situation.  She remained another four years.

Katherine Coffman

1. Page 84-25 She saw bruises on right thigh and lower abdomen.

2. Page 86-6 No way to determine scale in photos.

3. Page 86-17 Subject in photo 13-14 years of age not four years of age.  Perjury.  Page 88-11.

4. Page 88-11 She just did comment about the age of the child.  Perjury.  Page 86-17.

5. Page 91-9 Ferragut publishes a picture to the jury.  Should never have been allowed.  Ineffective assistance of counsel.

6. Page 91-19 She saw bruises in photos before, but not now.  They are the same pictures.  What changed?

Sgt. Bailey

1. Page 102-3 Sleeping bag was given to Bailey by Brandy.  Perjury.  Day 7,81-16, 104-5.

2. Page 113-21 The names of Sterling Threets' sons is not readily available public information suggesting someone close to both Roberts and Threet as a culprit.

3. Page 115-9 He spoke to Tucker about his file.  Perjury.  Day 9, Page 118-23.

4. Page 116-15 He's working from photographs of Polaroids.  Violation of A.R.E. 15.1 (J) (1).

5. Page 117-5 The photos of the Polaroids were shown to Brandy and Joanne.

6. Page 118-2 Bailey is unable to tell how many sets of photos of the Polaroids were made, which could surface as evidenced in a future trial against some other poor chap.

7. Page 118-17 Bailey never compared photos to the actual evidence to verify that were the same.  Perjury.  Day 10, Page 124-10.

8. Page 118-23 He never talked to Tucker.  Perjury.  Day 9, Page 115-9.

9. Page 120-11 He originally thought Austin was the subject in the photos because the ages worked better and the younger children.

10. Page 120-20 Austin did not disclose.  Police did not give up trying to make the case that any way they could.

11. Page 123-13 At the time Joanne was shown photos she said they were of Luke.

12. Page 124-1 Joanne told Bailey she only found 2 pictures.

13. Page 124-14 She told Bailey about any red and blue comforter.

14. Page 126-15 Bailey had no search warrant on Feb. 14, 2003.

15. Page 126-18 Alan Simpson was not present on Feb. 14, 2003.  Perjury.  Day 8, Page 45-18, 66-14, 128-23.

16. Page 128-25 Bailey entered the house and stood in the kitchen.

17. Page 129-11 Camera still in evidence has not been admitted at trial.

18. Page 130-10 The envelope (U.S. PageS.) that the supposedly photos were found and is still in evidence, not admitted at trial.  Why?  Who was it addressed to?  Who sent it?

19. Page 131-7 Why wouldn't he say that?  Why give it up if it wasn't evidence?

20. Page 1 32-8 None of the photos in evidence show a child with his butt in the air.

21. Page 135-21 There were other significant skin discolorations on the subject in photos that could be used for a positive ID.  Why weren't they?

22. Page 136-15 In a subsequent interview Luke reveals his mother wrote on him.

23. Page 139-22 It can also be any shadow instead of the bruises from the description.  All indoor shots from a Polaroid camera done with a bright flash that tends to cast dark shadows.

24. Page 142-10 Bailey reports he knew the child reported being marked on.

25. Page 143-10 Joanne didn't volunteer sticker information on her own.

26. Page 145-5 Bailey says none of the blankets in photos are red.

27. Page 145-7 Bailey says blankets are dark blue in photos not black.

28. Page 148-4 Judge list has why is names as well.  This is more than an office document.

29. Page 148-18 Roberts address is not on the list.  If defendant was using this info to her as judges how did defendant get Roberts address when it's not on the list?

30. Page 152-8 Bailey felt at the time of consent search he didn't have enough evidence to apply for all warrant.  That's why he was relying on the consent search.

31. Page 158-22 Bailey is aware of Mesa police report where defendant is assaulted by Sterling Threet.

32. Page 166-6 Who the hell is Hugo?  What's his relationship to Joanne?

33. Page 172-15 Joanne never mentioned Betty and Nikko until August 2005.  Long after she has had more than enough time to coach them on what to say.

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