|
Philip Owen
Preliminary Hearing November 13-14, 2003
Direct Examination by David Harris HARRIS: Detective, can you go ahead and tell us your full name and spell your last name for the record? OWEN: Philip Owen, O-W-E-N, one L. HARRIS: And what is your occupation? OWEN: Police detective at the City of Modesto. HARRIS: How long have you been employed by the City of Modesto? OWEN: About 16 years. HARRIS: As your assignment as an employee of the City of Modesto as a detective, were you assigned to assist in the Laci Peterson's missing person investigation? OWEN: Yes. HARRIS: At some point in time during your assignment, did you receive the assignment to contact Laci Peterson's doctor and obtain statements from people at that office? OWEN: Yes. HARRIS: And did you contact people at that office? OWEN: Yes. HARRIS: Directing your attention to that particular -- those particular interviews, did you talk to a person by the name of Cheryl Smith? OWEN: Yes. HARRIS: Where is Cheryl Smith employed? OWEN: She's employed at Dr. Yip's office. HARRIS: And is Dr. Yip an obstetrician? OWEN: Yes. He's an OB/GYN. HARRIS: And that particular office, from your investigation, did you discover that that's Laci Peterson's doctor? OWEN: Yes, I did. HARRIS: When you talked to Miss Smith, did she tell you what her assignment was or what she did for Dr. Yip? OWEN: Yes. She was a nurse practitioner and she assisted the doctor in the visits from the clients. HARRIS: Did she sometime take phone calls or answer phone calls of patients? OWEN: Yes. HARRIS: Did you talk to her if she had received any phone calls from Laci Peterson? OWEN: Yes, I did. HARRIS: And did she indicate to you if she had received a phone call in the relation -- relating to medical treatment? OWEN: Yes, she had. HARRIS: What did Miss Smith tell you Laci Peterson had talked about? OWEN: That she had called in and stated that while she was taking walks, she was having shortness of breath. HARRIS: And did Cheryl Smith indicate when this phone call took place? OWEN: Yes, she did. HARRIS: And when was that? OWEN: I have to refer to my notes for the exact date. HARRIS: Did you write a report based on your interview of Cheryl Smith? OWEN: Yes, I did. HARRIS: Would looking at that report help you? OWEN: Yes, it would. HARRIS: If you'd please look at your report. OWEN: She stated that Laci called in on two dates, November 6th and November 8th. HARRIS: And that's in 2002? OWEN: Correct. HARRIS: Was Miss Peterson given some advice on how to handle this shortness of breath? OWEN: Yes, she was. GERAGOS: Objection. Hearsay. JUDGE: Overruled. HARRIS: What was the advice that she was given? OWEN: She was told to walk later and to eat some food. HARRIS: Now, did she -- did Laci Peterson call the doctor's office twice with the same complaint? OWEN: Yes, she did. HARRIS: And that was both on the 6th and the 8th of November? OWEN: Correct. HARRIS: Did you also talk to Dr. Yip and the other doctor in the office, Dr. Tow? OWEN: Yes, I did. HARRIS: And did you ask them about Laci Peterson and her pregnancy? OWEN: I did. HARRIS: When you -- starting with Dr. Yip, did you talk to Dr. Yip about when Laci first came in to be examined as part of her prenatal care? OWEN: Yes. HARRIS: Did Dr. Yip indicate if they went through the process of determining a due date for the baby? OWEN: Yes. HARRIS: What did Dr. Yip indicate to you? OWEN: That they -- based on her cycle, they were able to come up with a calendar date on when she was due. And then they had a follow-up with a sonogram, and based on the sonogram, they were able to come up with a due date. The two due dates were within a week apart. HARRIS: Okay. So going back through this, when Dr. Yip meets with Laci, they ask her when her last menstrual cycle was? OWEN: Correct. HARRIS: And from that, they were able to do some type of gestational due date? OWEN: Correct. HARRIS: Did Dr. Yip indicate to you when the due date was? OWEN: He said around February the 10th, I believe. Yes. HARRIS: So the due date is estimated February 10th? OWEN: Correct. HARRIS: And a few weeks later, do they do some type of procedure, an ultrasound, I believe you said? OWEN: Yes, sonogram. HARRIS: Sonogram? And after that, did they indicate if they were -- kept the same due date? OWEN: Yes. They said that the sonogram indicated the size of the baby to be close enough, within a week of the calendar, so they kept the due date as February the 10th. HARRIS: And do you recall when it was that that ultrasound was performed? OWEN: I believe it was the 24th. 9-24-02. HARRIS: Did you also talk to Dr. Yip's partner, Dr. Tow? OWEN: Yes, I did. HARRIS: And did Dr. Tow examine Laci on December 23rd of 2002? OWEN: Yes. HARRIS: When you talked to Dr. Tow, did you ask about the examination of Laci Peterson on December 23rd? OWEN: Yes, I did. HARRIS: And did Dr. Tow indicate to you if she examined Laci and the baby at that time? OWEN: Yes. HARRIS: What did Dr. Tow tell you? OWEN: Dr. Tow said that the heartbeat of the baby was strong, was approximately 150, and that it was a viable baby, and that if the baby was to be born on that day, that, with some assistance, they wouldn't stop the delivery and the baby would be born viable. HARRIS: As part of your interviews with the members of the doctor's office or employees of the doctor's office, did you also talk to a Karina Romas? OWEN: Yes, I did. HARRIS: And what was her assignment or occupation there? OWEN: She answered the phones. HARRIS: Did you ask her if she received any phone calls on December 24th of 2002? OWEN: Yes. HARRIS: Did you ask her if she received any phone calls on that date about Laci Peterson? OWEN: I did. HARRIS: What did she tell you? OWEN: She said she had not received any phone calls on that date, the 24th. HARRIS: Did the -- did she indicate if the doctor's office was open or what their hours were on the 24th? OWEN: Yes. They worked a half a day that day because of the holidays. HARRIS: After the doctor's office closed, what did they do in terms of receiving messages? OWEN: They put the phone on an answering machine. HARRIS: Did you talk to another employee by the name of Stacey Josephson? OWEN: I did. HARRIS: And was she assigned to check those messages after the holidays? OWEN: She was. HARRIS: And when you talked to Miss Josephson, did she tell you if she checked the recorder to see if there were any messages involving Laci Peterson or from Scott Peterson? OWEN: Yes, she told me she checked and that there were no phone messages from Scott Peterson or anyone regarding Laci. HARRIS: Did you learn from your interviews with the doctors and staff that a Pap smear had been taken from Laci Peterson? OWEN: I did. HARRIS: And were you assigned to try and track down that sample potentially for evidence purposes at a later date? OWEN: Yes, I was. HARRIS: Were you able to track down that sample? OWEN: Yes. HARRIS: And did you obtain it from some particular business? OWEN: Yes. HARRIS: What business was that? OWEN: Unilabs. HARRIS: And after you obtained this sample from Unilabs, did you submit that to the Department of Justice? OWEN: Yes, I did. HARRIS: Prior to doing that, did you do anything with it? OWEN: I recovered the sample from Unilabs, I took it to our property room, it was booked, and with a note to go to DOJ as soon as possible. HARRIS: And when you say "it was booked," do you take it in the same condition that you received it, or did you do some type of bagging or evidence handling procedure with it? OWEN: Yes, I placed it in a evidence envelope and sealed it, signed it and dated it. HARRIS: And did you assign that particular item a particular number? OWEN: Yes, I did. HARRIS: What was that number or reference? OWEN: I would have assigned it a number one, that report. GERAGOS: I'm sorry. Which report? OWEN: It's the report I did under -- GERAGOS: Does it have a Bates stamp on it in the lower right? OWEN: Not mine. Sorry. GERAGOS: No? May I approach? Thank you. HARRIS: Moving forward -- moving forward in time and directing your -- OWEN: I'm sorry. Let me correct that. It would have been labeled as P -- P6. JUDGE: P as in Peter? OWEN: P, as in Paul, 6. HARRIS: Moving forward in time, after that particular item was booked and submitted to the Department of Justice, were you contacted on April 14th of 2003? OWEN: Yes. HARRIS: And after being contacted, did you go to some location over in the Bay Area? OWEN: Yes, I did. HARRIS: Could you tell the Court where it was that you went? OWEN: I went to Point Isabela. HARRIS: I'd like to have marked -- JUDGE: 126? CLERK: There's several. Starting with 126. 126 to 133. (Whereupon, People's Exhibits 126 through 133 were marked for identification.) HARRIS: Now, detective, I'm going to put this chart up here, and we'll start kind of in reverse order. Looking at what's been marked as People's Number 133 for identification, do you recognize that? OWEN: Yes, I do. HARRIS: And can you tell the Court what that is? OWEN: That is a aerial photograph of the Berkeley/Richmond area. It shows in the lower right corner, shows the Berkeley Marina. Further up, it shows Golden Gate Fields. Further on the right, it shows Point Isabela. And then to the left is Brooks Island. And above that is Richmond. HARRIS: Starting with what you were first talking about, the Berkeley Marina, that's in the lower right corner where there's some -- some things that kind of stick out in the water. Is there a notation that indicates Berkeley Marina there? OWEN: Yes, on the map it said Berkeley Marina. HARRIS: And then there's a -- moving counterclockwise of the aerial photograph, is there a box that indicates where you went to on this particular date on the 14th? OWEN: Yes. It's identified as -- on the map as Laci Peterson recovery site. HARRIS: All right. OWEN: And there's a yellow dot. HARRIS: And does that particular spot represent the location that you went to on the 14th of April? OWEN: Yes, it is. HARRIS: Showing you the next photographs, starting with People's Number 128 and 129, can you describe for the record what 128 is? OWEN: 128 is an aerial photograph of Point Isabela, which includes the shoreline and Costco, which is right near there. HARRIS: All right. And is 129 a closer up, somewhat moving-in view of the aerial photograph from 128? OWEN: Yes, 129 is looking in a northern direction and is a closeup of Point Isabela. HARRIS: Now, looking at that particular photograph, People's Number 129, towards the center of the photograph there is some type of driving circle, a concrete circle that's there? OWEN: Yes. HARRIS: And to the left of that circle are there some trees? OWEN: Yes. HARRIS: If you were to follow out going to the left in that particular photograph from the trees towards the shoreline, is there a small kind of yellow dot on that particular photograph? OWEN: Yes. HARRIS: What is -- what is that yellow dot in the photograph representative of? OWEN: The yellow dot is actually a yellow tarp that was used to cover the body. HARRIS: And that's the body of Laci Peterson? OWEN: Correct. HARRIS: Now, showing you what has been marked as People's Number 126, is this again a closeup or a more closeup aerial view of the Berkeley Marina? OWEN: Yes, it is. HARRIS: And looking at this particular photograph, towards the -- somewhat of the top center portion of this, does that indicate where the boat ramps are at the Berkeley Marina? OWEN: Yes. HARRIS: Showing you People's next in order, Number 127, do you recognize this photograph? OWEN: Yes, I do. HARRIS: And is that a more closeup view of those same boat ramps from the Berkeley Marina? OWEN: Yes, it is. HARRIS: Now, detective, when you went to that area that's depicted on the photographs, the aerial photographs up there, did you observe the body of Laci Peterson? OWEN: Yes, I did. HARRIS: Observe the condition that it was in, how it was clothed? OWEN: Yes, I did. HARRIS: Were you assigned to go to the autopsy that occurred? OWEN: Yes, I was. HARRIS: Now, looking at the next two photographs that you have in front of you, is there a photograph that depicts the location and condition of Laci Peterson as she was found on the 14th? OWEN: Yes. HARRIS: Which item number is that? OWEN: 130 shows the condition she was at the high watermark on Point Isabela, and Number 131 shows a closeup of the abdomen area of Laci. HARRIS: Now, the 131 photograph, was that taken at the autopsy? OWEN: Yes, it was. HARRIS: And did you witness the autopsy? OWEN: Yes, I did. HARRIS: When the body was found -- when Laci's body was found, did you notice if there was any tape around the body or tape about the body? OWEN: Yes, I did. HARRIS: Can you describe for the Court that? OWEN: There was a piece of duct tape that was attached to the groin area of the pants. HARRIS: And about how long, if you could estimate, was that piece of tape? OWEN: 12 to 18 inches. HARRIS: And does that -- is that visible in Photograph Number 131? OWEN: Yes. HARRIS: At the autopsy, did you examine or look at the pants? OWEN: I did. HARRIS: And were you assigned to do some follow-up with regards to those particular pants? OWEN: Yes, I was. HARRIS: I want to go back through this. The pants that was found on Laci Peterson's body on the 14th of April, can you describe those to the Court? OWEN: The pants that I found on her were a tan-colored pants with a drawstring, a zipper and a button, that had a pin tuck on it. HARRIS: And is that some type of sewing or fabric term? OWEN: Pin tuck would be like a sewed stitching like almost a crease on the front of the pants that would run the length of the legs. HARRIS: Did you examine those pants to see if there was some type of maker's tag? OWEN: I did. HARRIS: And did you find one? OWEN: Yes. It was identified and labeled as Motherhood, with a number, which was a style number of the pant. HARRIS: Did you contact representatives of Motherhood Maternity to find out if they had those pants still? OWEN: Yes. I contacted Phillip Williams, who is the asset protection agent, and asked him if I could somehow obtain a pair of pants or a photograph of the pants based on the style number that I had. HARRIS: And were you supplied a photograph? OWEN: I was. HARRIS: Looking at the next in order, I believe that would be People's Number -- GERAGOS: 132. HARRIS: -- 132? OWEN: Yes. HARRIS: Is that the photograph that you were supplied of the pants that were found on Laci Peterson? OWEN: Yes. HARRIS: Did you also obtain an actual pair of pants from Motherhood Maternity? OWEN: Yes. HARRIS: Did you compare the actual pants, the photograph, with the maker's tag that you found in the pants on the body of Laci Peterson? OWEN: Yes, I did. HARRIS: And did they match? OWEN: They did. HARRIS: And the color of those pants, were they also tan? OWEN: Yes. HARRIS: Did you also talk to the authorized representative from Motherhood Maternity about whether Laci or Scott Peterson had an account? OWEN: I did. HARRIS: What did they tell you? OWEN: They stated that they had records showing Scott and Laci Peterson had an account with their business. HARRIS: And did they indicate if those particular pants that are depicted in that photograph, Number 132, had been purchased under that account? OWEN: Yes, they did. HARRIS: What did they indicate? OWEN: Stated that they had a sales receipt showing that those style of pants with that style number was purchased from the Modesto store under that account. HARRIS: Belonging to either Laci or Scott Peterson? OWEN: Correct. HARRIS: Now, the photographs before you and the aerial chart up there, do those accurately depict the areas that they represent? OWEN: They do. HARRIS: People have no further questions. Court recessed at 3:50 p.m.
November 14, 2003 Cross Examination by Mark Geragos GERAGOS: Officer Owen, you testified about going to the -- to Dr. Yip's office, the OB/GYN; is that correct? OWEN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. You obtained records from Dr. Yip's office; isn't that correct? OWEN: Yes. GERAGOS: Contained in those records were notations, and you also did interviews, that showed that Laci Peterson had been at the doctor's office on the 23rd of December; isn't that correct? OWEN: Correct. GERAGOS: Okay. On the 23rd of December, her -- the baby was -- or she was examined, and then the baby was estimated to be 32 weeks old; is that correct? OWEN: Correct. GERAGOS: Okay. The previous date that Laci had been to the doctor's was November 25th? OWEN: Correct. GERAGOS: And on November 25th, the baby was estimated to be approximately how old? OWEN: 28. JUDGE: Say again? 20? OWEN: Eight. GERAGOS: 28 weeks. They had done some sonograms as well; isn't that correct? OWEN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. Now, in the sonograms, the -- they had -- I think yesterday you testified when Mr. Distaso was asking you questions that they had two different due dates; isn't that correct? Isn't that what you testified to yesterday? OWEN: They had the calendar due date, and then they had the sonogram due date. GERAGOS: Right. And the two dates were February 10th and February 16th respectively; isn't that correct? OWEN: What I was explained to was that it was a week apart. GERAGOS: Okay. You see in the records here that I'm pointing to -- do you recognize these records? OWEN: Yes, I do. GERAGOS: Okay. You see where it has the EDC date? OWEN: Yes, I do. GERAGOS: And that was February 10th; isn't that correct? OWEN: That's correct. GERAGOS: Okay. You see where it's got the corrected EDC date? OWEN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. And that was what? OWEN: The 16th. GERAGOS: Okay. Now, the February 16th date would have been -- based upon your conversation with the doctors there, that would have been when that baby was full term; isn't that correct? OWEN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. And the conversation I think yesterday when Mr. Distaso was asking you questions, specifically you were trying to determine the viability of the baby at the 32-week period; isn't that correct? OWEN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. Now, it is true you went to the -- let's see. If it was 32 weeks, and the expected due date was -- or the corrected date was February 16, that baby was still at least 7 weeks away from being born; is that correct? OWEN: That sounds correct. GERAGOS: Okay. When you attended or you went up to that area that's on the board behind you -- do you see that location? OWEN: Yes, I do. GERAGOS: Okay. When you went up there, the baby was found, was that correct, on the -- in the location that's marked on the map? OWEN: It had been previously found, yes. GERAGOS: Okay. And then you attended the autopsy; isn't that correct? OWEN: Yes. GERAGOS: Now, when you attended the autopsy, you were one of several detectives who were there? OWEN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. Now, during that autopsy, it was indicated that the baby may have been born alive; isn't that correct? OWEN: No. GERAGOS: Let me show you page 17528 of the discovery. Is that your -- does that refresh your recollection as to what occurred during the autopsy? HARRIS: Is that the detective's report or some other report? GERAGOS: Some other report. I'm refreshing his -- or attempting to refresh his recollection. HARRIS: I would object that we don't have any idea what this report is or how that comment's generated. GERAGOS: My understanding, a lot of it's -- one can refresh their recollection with virtually anything. JUDGE: I'll allow him to refresh his recollection, but he can only testify regarding what he can recall as having conferences with the autopsy surgeon or what he heard at that time. GERAGOS: That's what I'm asking. GERAGOS: I'm asking, you were one of the detectives who was at the autopsy; is that correct? OWEN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. Did you hear during that autopsy that there was some evidence that the child may have been born alive? OWEN: No. GERAGOS: Did you realize or did somebody point out to you that there was no umbilical cord attached to the baby? OWEN: That's not correct. GERAGOS: You review -- and showing you this report does not refresh your recollection? OWEN: It's not my report. GERAGOS: Okay. Now, the baby was found by somebody from East Bay Regional Park; is that correct? OWEN: That's not my understanding. GERAGOS: Oh, was it Richmond police? OWEN: That was my understanding. GERAGOS: Okay. You weren't there, I take it? OWEN: Correct. GERAGOS: So you don't know who first came on to the scene and who was called in; is that correct? OWEN: That's correct. GERAGOS: Okay. Now, you did several other -- actually, did you review or talk to either Dr. Galloway -- do you remember who Dr. Galloway is? OWEN: No. GERAGOS: Forensic anthropologist who examined the baby as well? OWEN: No. GERAGOS: Okay. OWEN: Let me correct that. There were people I met, but I'm not sure that I can put the name and the face together. GERAGOS: Who was present in the autopsy with you? HARRIS: Objection. Vague as to which autopsy. GERAGOS: The autopsy of the baby. OWEN: I have a list in my report of everybody that was there. GERAGOS: Do you want to refresh your recollection as to that? OWEN: Okay. GERAGOS: Okay. Can you name the people who were present with you at the autopsy? OWEN: Dr. Brian Peterson; Coroner's Assistant Sandy, I'll spell her last name, J-A-G-O-D-A; Sergeant David Dubowy, D-U-B-O-W-Y, of East Bay Regional Parks; Detective Ian Frazer, F-R-A-Z-E-R, of East Bay Regional Parks; Deputy Corner Leo Martin, M-A-R-T-I-N; Sergeant Daryl England, E-N-G-L-A-N-D, Contra Costa; Lieutenant Kevin Ryan, Contra Costa; Detective Jeff, spell his last name, M-O-U-L-E, Contra Costa; Sergeant Steve Warne, W-A-R-N-E, Contra Costa; Captain Catherine Dean, D-E-A-N, Contra Costa County Corner's Division; and John Nelson, Contra Costa -- excuse me, Contra Costa Crime Labs. And then we have Lieutenant Joe Aja, Sergeant Allen Carter, Detective/Investigator Kevin Bertalotto, and Detective Phil Owen, me. GERAGOS: Okay. Now, the -- that was a coroner's case for Contra Costa County; isn't that correct? OWEN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. And specifically you had gone up there as a representative of Modesto Police Department; isn't that correct? OWEN: Yes. GERAGOS: The baby was described to you as a -- during that autopsy as a full-term infant; isn't that correct? OWEN: There was speculation as to the term full term. GERAGOS: That's the term that was used in the autopsy report, isn't it, "full-term male infant"? HARRIS: Objection. Calls for speculation. It's not his report. JUDGE: Sustained. GERAGOS: When you say there was speculation, the speculation was that the baby was from 38 to 39 weeks old; isn't that correct? OWEN: What I recall was that there was -- at the autopsy at the time there was -- they were going back and forth on dates. They weren't specific. I think they needed more time to reflect and to talk to the constituents, so I didn't hear any exact dates or ages. GERAGOS: You didn't hear 38 to 39 weeks? OWEN: I don't specifically remember exactly 38 weeks. GERAGOS: You didn't hear "full term"? OWEN: Not that I recall. GERAGOS: Did you review a police report in connection with this or talk to the people who recovered the baby? OWEN: If you have something there that can refresh my recollection, I'd like to see it. GERAGOS: Okay. Well, I'm asking you as you sit here, do you remember talking to anybody who found the baby and referred to it as a full-term infant? OWEN: Sitting here without something to refresh my recollection, no. GERAGOS: Okay. Do you remember having a discussion in the autopsy about -- with the doctor about the fact that the baby appeared to be a full-term infant? OWEN: Like I said, if you can show me something that helps my recollection, I'd like to see it. GERAGOS: Okay. Have you reviewed the autopsy report? OWEN: Somewhat, yes. GERAGOS: Do you have that with you? OWEN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. OWEN: My autopsy report, yes. GERAGOS: Okay. Do you want to -- do you want to open it or refer to it? OWEN: Do you have a specific place that you would refer me to? GERAGOS: It's only, I believe, for the infant. Do you have the report itself? OWEN: No, I do not. GERAGOS: Okay. The -- do you have a memory of anybody at any time suggesting that the baby was between 32 and 33 weeks old? Nobody ever suggested that, did they? OWEN: Not that I recall. GERAGOS: Right. Everybody was talking about whether or not this baby was born alive; isn't that what was the discussion? OWEN: No. GERAGOS: Wasn't the discussion in there as to whether -- didn't Dr. Peterson specifically -- that was the name of the autopsy sur -- autopsy pathologist, wasn't it? OWEN: Yes, it was. GERAGOS: Okay. Didn't Dr. Peterson say -- wouldn't that -- let me go back. When that autopsy took place, Laci had not been recovered; isn't that correct? OWEN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. You were called in because they supposed or they believed that this might be Conner, they didn't know for sure, there hadn't been any testing; isn't that correct? OWEN: No. GERAGOS: Now, the -- you knew that that was Conner? OWEN: I was called in because Laci Peterson was found and they suspected it was Laci. The -- Conner had been recovered a day or two prior to that. GERAGOS: Were you present during the autopsy of Conner? OWEN: No, I was not. GERAGOS: Okay. Now, when -- you were present during the autopsy of Laci? OWEN: Yes, I -- HARRIS: Your Honor, at this point in time, based on the fact the witness has indicated he wasn't present at that autopsy, I'd move to strike his prior testimony about what happened at that autopsy. JUDGE: I think that you're on different wavelengths. That part, he wasn't present at the autopsy -- I assume you're testifying regarding Laci Peterson's autopsy; isn't that correct? OWEN: Correct. GERAGOS: Did you go -- JUDGE: So that will be stricken as far as being at Conner Peterson's autopsy. GERAGOS: You were not present during Conner Peterson's autopsy at all? OWEN: Correct. GERAGOS: Okay. Now -- OWEN: Other than when you and I were present at your autopsy with Conner. GERAGOS: Okay. The day that Conner Peterson was -- that there was an autopsy on him, that was prior to Laci's; isn't that correct? OWEN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. So you were called in for the second autopsy; is that right? OWEN: I was called in on the first autopsy for Laci. GERAGOS: The second autopsy involving Laci and Conner. There were two autopsies; is that correct? OWEN: Okay. So I think I understand you correctly, I -- the first autopsy being Conner, the second being Laci? GERAGOS: That's correct. OWEN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. Now, the -- you did some other investigation in connection with this case; is that correct? OWEN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. And you prepared a number of reports; is that right? OWEN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. I'm going to refer you to a interview that you did of a Karma Souza. Do you remember that? I've got it as a Bates number stamped 1795. Do you have that organized by Bates number or by date? OWEN: By names. Do you have it in front of you? GERAGOS: I do. Want me to just show it to you? OWEN: Yes. Please. HARRIS: Your Honor, I'm going to object as relevance and outside the scope of direct. JUDGE: I'll sustain that. You can make an offer of proof, I presume? GERAGOS: Yes, I would like to make an offer of proof. He's interviewed other people in connection with this investigation that I believe negates an element of the crime. So I'm asking that I be allowed to call him for those specific interviews with other people who saw things on the morning of the 24th. JUDGE: Mr. -- who's doing this? DISTASO: Mr. Harris. HARRIS: I have this, Your Honor. Again, as was indicated before, if the defense wishes to call witnesses, they have that opportunity to do so. GERAGOS: Right. And in the interest of judicial expediency, I generally do it at the time that the officer's on the stand, especially when we're talking 115 testimony. JUDGE: Let's assume he's being called by the defense now. Any objection, Mr. Harris? HARRIS: If there -- if they're doing it as him calling him as their witness for Prop 115 purposes, that's fine. JUDGE: Go ahead. GERAGOS: Look at both. OWEN: Yes. GERAGOS: Does that refresh your recollection -- OWEN: Yes. GERAGOS: You can leave this open here. Does that refresh your recollection as to your interview with -- actually, it was with John and Karma Souza; is that correct? OWEN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. Now, you interviewed -- or called the Souza residence on the 27th of December; is that correct? OWEN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. You tape recorded a conversation; isn't that correct? OWEN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. And then you prepared a report about the conversation; is that correct? OWEN: Correct. GERAGOS: Okay. Now, you called the Souzas because they had promptly called either the tip line or the Modesto PD and said they had information about suspicious circumstances in the park; isn't that correct? OWEN: That's correct. GERAGOS: Okay. And Mrs. Souza told you that she'd encountered three suspicious persons while she was running along -- HARRIS: Your Honor, I object. GERAGOS: -- Dry Creek area park -- HARRIS: Your Honor, I object. JUDGE: Wait a minute. HARRIS: Is Counsel doing this as a direct under Prop 115, or is he going to continue to cross-examine him? GERAGOS: Well, I -- JUDGE: I thought I've indicated that I was going to allow him to call him as his own witness, and I asked you if you had any objection. HARRIS: Well, as I responded, if he was calling him as his witness for Prop 115 purposes, which would -- I'll withdraw the objection and let him continue it as cross. JUDGE: Go ahead. GERAGOS: Officer, Miss Souza told you that she had encountered what she considered to be three suspicious persons while she was running along Dry Creek area park on the 24th; isn't that correct? OWEN: Yes. GERAGOS: And what time of the morning did she say that she saw these three people? OWEN: Without referring to the report, I wouldn't be able to give you an exact time. GERAGOS: Did she tell you that it was about 7:20 in the morning? OWEN: That sounds right. GERAGOS: Okay. And that the -- they were running along with her, her husband and three other people; is that correct? OWEN: That's correct. GERAGOS: She saw one of the people there, and she was able to give a description as somebody in their early 20's of medium height and weight with a nylon, puffy down jacket, light in color, possibly white; is that correct? OWEN: Yes. GERAGOS: And that he was wearing blue jeans, unknown shoes, and believed that it was related to a suspicious person being in that park and being related to Laci Peterson's disappearance; isn't that correct? OWEN: She was reporting it more as a suspicious persons, not necessarily related. GERAGOS: Now, the interview of John Souza, he also said that during a -- while running down there, he saw the person located at McClure and Dry Creek Park trail; isn't that correct? OWEN: Yes. GERAGOS: He also gave you a detailed description of the person that he saw there; isn't that correct? OWEN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. And that the person had mumbled when he tried to address him; isn't that the way you referred to it? OWEN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. He says that at the location he also saw two other males who popped out of the bushes while he was running; isn't that correct? OWEN: Yes, it is. GERAGOS: Okay. And that he thought it was extremely suspicious based upon the time of the day, and that he runs a lot on that trail and had never seen those subjects before; isn't that correct? OWEN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. Now, you also interviewed another witness by the name of Campos, and I think you've got her report right there; isn't that correct? OWEN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. Now, she works at where? OWEN: Stanislaus County Hospital. GERAGOS: Okay. That would be the hospital that's located, I guess, if you will, that abuts the park; isn't that correct? OWEN: Yes, it is. GERAGOS: Okay. And she stated -- and you interviewed her on -- HARRIS: Your Honor, again, I'm assuming he's doing this for Prop 115 purposes? GERAGOS: I'll let you know if I change. JUDGE: Okay. Go ahead. GERAGOS: You interviewed her also on the 27th; isn't that correct? OWEN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. Now, when you interviewed her, she had also called in the tip line or the missing person line at the Modesto PD; isn't that correct? OWEN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. And she said that she had been working there at the hospital for the past nine years; is that right? OWEN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. And that on the morning, Tuesday, the 24th, that she was taking a smoke break outside of the hospital; is that correct? OWEN: That's correct. GERAGOS: Okay. And she was at a location -- by the way, did you talk to her in person or over the phone? OWEN: In person. GERAGOS: Okay. Did she show you the specific location where she was, where she was taking the smoke break? OWEN: No, she identified it verbally to me, but she did not show it to me. GERAGOS: Okay. Have you actually gone to that area where she -- where she verbally identified it to you? OWEN: I know where it's at, yes. GERAGOS: Okay. The location where -- that you believe that she's referring to gives you a direct sight line into the park; isn't that correct? OWEN: Yes, it does. GERAGOS: Okay. And you can see the trail of the park from where that smoke break is and see people as they're either jogging or walking their dogs; isn't that correct? OWEN: That's correct. GERAGOS: Okay. And she says she was at that location on the morning of the 24th; is that right? OWEN: Yes. GERAGOS: She saw three people walking together along the -- I guess for lack of a better word, would you call it a trail there? OWEN: Like a jogging trail, yes. GERAGOS: Like a jogging trail. She said one of the people was a pregnant white female with a dog on a leash; is that correct? OWEN: Yes. GERAGOS: She said the other two were white males; is that correct? OWEN: Yes. GERAGOS: And that their dog was barking loudly; isn't that correct? OWEN: Yes. GERAGOS: She said she watched these people for approximately five minutes while they walked the distance of approximately a football field, or a hundred yards, is what she estimated, right? OWEN: Yes. GERAGOS: And she said during that time, the female, who was holding on to the Golden -- and she identified it as a Golden Retriever; isn't that correct? OWEN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. She said the dog was constantly barking; isn't that correct? OWEN: Yes. GERAGOS: And that she said that the white female had to pull at the dog with the leash, right? OWEN: Yes. GERAGOS: She said the male subject, who was wearing what she described as a beanie cap, said, "Shut the fuckin' dog up"; is that correct? OWEN: Yes. GERAGOS: And she watched them for approximately five minutes; isn't that correct? OWEN: Yes. GERAGOS: She didn't think more of the con -- or any -- about the conflict, so to speak, between the male or the female until she heard about the missing person report, isn't that correct, what she told you? OWEN: Yes. HARRIS: Objection. That misstates what's in the report. GERAGOS: I just asked him his recollection. If they want the report to testify, we can swear the report. I'm asking him -- JUDGE: Overruled. GERAGOS: She saw -- JUDGE: Is there an answer? GERAGOS: -- the flier of Laci Peterson on the 26th; isn't that correct? OWEN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. And she said that she thought that that was on Thursday; is that right? OWEN: Correct. GERAGOS: And she said to herself, "I know that girl," and she then realized that that was the same subject she saw walking through the park; isn't that correct? OWEN: Yes. GERAGOS: She said she was sure, otherwise, she would not have called the police; isn't that correct? OWEN: That's what she said. GERAGOS: Okay. Now, you -- she even further described the female as having hair that was short, down to about the shoulders, dark in color; is that correct? OWEN: Yes. GERAGOS: She said the hair was straight and that the female looked six to seven months pregnant; is that correct? OWEN: Yes. GERAGOS: She said she was wearing a white top and what appeared to be sweat pants, but she didn't know what color; is that correct? OWEN: Yes. GERAGOS: She described the dog as a Golden Retriever, medium size; is that correct? OWEN: Yes. GERAGOS: And she also said the dog had an unknown color leash; is that correct? OWEN: Yes. GERAGOS: She described the first male as being in his late thirties, five-seven, medium build, wearing a dark beanie, dirty dark shirt, dirty blue jeans, right? OWEN: Yes. GERAGOS: Said that he had been -- that the jeans were so dirty, looked like he had been sitting in the dirt; is that right? OWEN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. She said the second subject was also late thirties, five-seven, medium build, brown hair, short, or that the hair was short, wearing a blue Levi jacket with a tear and blue jeans; is that correct? OWEN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. And when you asked her some other details, she was able to give you kind of distances where she was in relationship to these people and things of that nature; is that correct? OWEN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. Do you know what was done with this information after you did the interview on the 27th? Did anybody, as far as you know, put out a description as to those people, appeal to the public, "If anybody's seen somebody fitting this description, please call in"? OWEN: I'm not sure what you're asking me. GERAGOS: Well, you talked to the Souzas on the 27th, right? OWEN: Correct. GERAGOS: Okay. The Souzas identified two people, at least three people, two of which kind of popped out of the bushes and looked like they were suspicious there, right? OWEN: Correct. GERAGOS: Now, that was in the morning, sometime prior to the time the Campos had saw this encounter; isn't that correct? OWEN: Yes. GERAGOS: Then on that same day you interviewed Campos, who also saw two people, who -- described as being very dirty and telling somebody who's got a Golden Retriever, who's six to seven months pregnant, who's walking the dog in the park, to, "Shut the fuckin' dog up," and the dog is barking. Did that occur to you as to be maybe significant in this investigation? OWEN: At face value, it would have been. But after talking to her I didn't feel that way. GERAGOS: Okay. OWEN: This information was disseminated correctly, but she did -- when I was done talking with her, I felt that she was giving me information that wasn't going in the right direction. I felt more that she had been reading reports. GERAGOS: Okay. So you -- were there a lot of reports about two guys in the park that matched up with the Souzas? I mean, did the Souzas' information from that say morning -- what time did you interview the Souzas? HARRIS: Objection. Which question should the detective answer? GERAGOS: I'll -- I'll break it down. GERAGOS: What time did you interview the Souzas? OWEN: You have my report there? Can you tell me? GERAGOS: Says 12:05; is that correct? OWEN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. And that would have been approximately an hour and a half after you interviewed the Campos -- Campos, it looks like, at approximately 10:15? OWEN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. So within the span of 90 minutes, three separate people tell you about encounters or watching encounters with suspicious people in the park. Was there any -- based upon what you know, anything published on the morning of the 25th or the morning of the 26th that would have described these suspicious people in the park? OWEN: From us or from the news or from -- GERAGOS: Right, from any source that you're aware of. HARRIS: Objection. Relevance. The question is asking him to disseminate information prior to taking the statements from the witnesses. GERAGOS: That's what I'm asking. JUDGE: Rephrase. GERAGOS: Were you aware of any information or news reports about suspicious people in the park that were described as five foot seven, medium build, with Levi jackets on, one wearing a beanie? Are you aware of any of that information being disseminated to the public prior to 10:15 on the 27th? OWEN: Not that specific, no. GERAGOS: Okay. And you did interview both of these people on the same day, and there was some overlap, was there not, as to the location where these people were? OWEN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. Now, you also interviewed a Brian Ulrich; is that right? And I'm referring to 1835. Do you have it by name or by Bates number? I've got the report. OWEN: Thank you. GERAGOS: I think this is more on the last page. Are you done with this? OWEN: Just a second. GERAGOS: Were you able to locate the report? OWEN: Not yet. GERAGOS: I think I've got an extra copy here. Why don't I let you hold on to that while I ask you some questions. Now, approximately, looks like, January 7th you and -- let's see, you were contacted by Detective, is it, Buehler? OWEN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. And Detective Buehler requested that you assist an FBI agent by the name of Terry Scott in regards to life insurance policies regarding Scott and Laci Peterson; is that correct? OWEN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. Now, the reason that you were to do this investigation is that there was a rumor out there or some kind of a tip that Scott had recently obtained a life insurance policy on Laci; isn't that correct? OWEN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. And you wanted to determine whether or not he had recently obtained a life insurance policy on Laci to see if that was some kind of a financial motive for her disappearance; is that correct? OWEN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. So you and Agent Scott, with a couple of federal subpoenas in hand, went over to the Sylvan Avenue address for Mr. Ulrich; is that right? OWEN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. And first time you were there, he was out of the office, but then you found him on that same day, on the 7th; is that correct? OWEN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. And he told you that he was responsible for brokering the life insurance policies for Scott and Laci; isn't that correct? OWEN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. And he also told you that those policies were opened in June of 2001, fully a year and a half before; isn't that correct? OWEN: June 25th, 2001, yes. GERAGOS: Okay. And he told you that they were life insurance policies on both of them, one on Scott for 250, one on Laci for 250; isn't that correct? OWEN: Yes. GERAGOS: And that they were also used for a -- what he called an investment vehicle; isn't that what he told you? OWEN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. And that they were connected to their IRA or retirement accounts; isn't that correct? OWEN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. At that point the -- that had pretty much debunked -- I mean, you served the subpoena, and you got the life insurance policies three days later; is that correct? OWEN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. And the -- you had then confirmed at that point that there was absolutely no truth to the rumor that there was a recently purchased life insurance policy; isn't that correct? OWEN: That would be correct. GERAGOS: Okay. Now, were you aware that there was a Modesto Bee article that came out, I don't know, the 16th or 17th of January that was still putting forth this misinformation? HARRIS: Objection. Relevance. GERAGOS: Well, it's relevant -- JUDGE: Sustained. GERAGOS: Could I make an offer on that? JUDGE: You can try. GERAGOS: Okay. Yesterday Mr. McAllister asked Detective Brocchini as to whether or not he was aware of that article, and, in fact, he said yes, that was the same article that he had phoned up people and told them to read online at 6:40 in the morning, I believe it was on the 16th of January. And I wanted to tie that up as to whether this officer knows. I'm not going to pursue whether or not he talked to Brocchini yet. I just want to know if he's aware of the article. JUDGE: I don't think it -- it's stretching it. Sustained. GERAGOS: Okay. Now, the records of -- by the way, did you ever meet with the Rochas, you personally, in January of 2003, or with Ron Grantski? OWEN: I'm not sure. GERAGOS: Do you have anything that would refresh your recollection as to if you did? OWEN: No. GERAGOS: Okay. The -- Brian Ulrich also tell you that, in fact, Scott was not going to originally purchase 250,000 on Laci, but that it was Laci who wanted it to be 250,000 on her? OWEN: I don't specifically recall that. Do you have a cite? GERAGOS: Only my interview with Ulrich. OWEN: I don't -- GERAGOS: Did you ever ask Ulrich -- HARRIS: Objection. Counsel's testifying at this point in time. I'd ask that that be stricken. JUDGE: That answer -- that comment by Mr. Geragos is stricken. GERAGOS: Did you ever ask him, ask Mr. Ulrich whose idea it was for Laci to have $250,000 in life insurance proceeds? OWEN: No. GERAGOS: Did you ever ask him whose idea it was to sell the life insurance policy to them a year and a half prior? OWEN: Did I ask them specifically if -- GERAGOS: Yeah, whether he was the one who made the cold call -- not a cold call, but he was the one who had just gotten his insurance license and was trying to sell them the insurance? OWEN: I'm not familiar with that, no. GERAGOS: Okay. You never questioned him about that, did you? OWEN: No. GERAGOS: You also on the 20th of January met with a Sergeant Cloward? Is it Cloward? Is that how you pronounce it? OWEN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. At the Modesto Police Department? OWEN: I met Sergeant Cloward at the Modesto Police Department on many occasions. GERAGOS: Okay. Did you meet him on January the 20th -- OWEN: Yes. GERAGOS: -- because there was a report that the San Francisco PD was searching and that you were to meet them at the Richmond Harbor Master Pier? OWEN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. And did you there go up there and meet officers -- meet two officers, Mark Larry and Greg Lattice? OWEN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. And at that point, you were doing a search or there was a search of the Bay floor; is that correct? OWEN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. And you went out there to take a paint sample on the side of the Richmond Turning Basin Buoy Number 6; isn't that correct? OWEN: Yes, it is. GERAGOS: Okay. You scraped the paint off the buoy with a knife onto some white paper; isn't that correct? OWEN: Yes, it is. GERAGOS: Okay. The reason that you did that was because you couldn't figure out if Scott had taken Laci out and dumped the body over the side of the boat, how the boat wouldn't have capsized; isn't that correct? OWEN: No. GERAGOS: Isn't the fact that specifically you were looking to see if there was a paint transfer, because the only way that this theory that Modesto PD was working on would have worked is if the boat had been tied to a buoy of some kind; isn't that correct? HARRIS: Objection. Argumentative. JUDGE: Overruled. OWEN: The reason for the paint sample was because of the paint transfer on the boat to see if it matched. GERAGOS: Well, and that was because that you had specifically, in your report, which is Bates numbered stamped 1923 said, "During that conversation, we discussed the possibility of the boat being tied to something in the Bay to steady the boat for the possibility of a body dump"; isn't that correct? OWEN: Yes. GERAGOS: You wrote that, right? OWEN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. "Based on that conversation, we discussed the possibility that there could be some sort of paint transfer on the trim of the boat"; isn't that correct? OWEN: Yes, it is. GERAGOS: You didn't go and find the paint transfer first, you had the theory first and then went in search of a paint transfer; isn't that correct? OWEN: No, it's not. GERAGOS: Do you have your report in front of you? 23, in the middle. OWEN: Okay. GERAGOS: Okay? Now, does that refresh your recollection as to what came first, the theory or the paint transfer? HARRIS: Objection. Vague and argumentative. JUDGE: Overruled. OWEN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. That refreshes your recollection? OWEN: Yes, it does. GERAGOS: Is it a fair statement that it was based on your conversation with Sergeant Zahr or Detective Grogan that you discussed the possibility that there could be some sort of paint transfer on the trim of the boat to support your theory that the boat was tied to something in the Bay to steady the boat for the possibility of a body dump? OWEN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. And that was -- you had a theory first, and then you went to find paint transfer, correct? Well, the very next sentence -- let me see if I can make it simpler for you. You said, "Sergeant Zahr requested I look at the boat again on the following day to determine if there was any evidence to support the idea of the boat being tied off to steady it." Does that make it a little easier for you? OWEN: Yeah, but I believe that there was conversation prior to that. GERAGOS: But it's just not notated in any report? OWEN: Well, maybe the way you're spinning it to me is causing me some conflict. GERAGOS: Why, because you don't like the direction this is heading in? OWEN: No, because I don't know if that's accurate. I'm trying to give you -- GERAGOS: I'm just reading your report. Is your report not accurate? OWEN: Yeah, but I'm trying to give you the truth here. GERAGOS: Yeah. But the truth is is you had a theory, and then you went to look for paint transfer, and that's what you put in your report; isn't that true? OWEN: I'm not comfortable with what you're saying with that -- GERAGOS: I bet you're not comfortable with it. HARRIS: Argumentative. GERAGOS: The fact of the matter is -- JUDGE: Mr. Geragos, just ask questions, please. GERAGOS: The fact of the matter is that you went and you found a paint transfer, you went and scraped the buoy, you had the buoy's paint transfers compared, and it was a dry hole; isn't that a fair statement? None of the paint transfers matched, right? OWEN: No, I'm feeling like you're walking me down the garden path, and I'm not sure that's correct. GERAGOS: Well, is it -- did you ever take a paint transfer from the red dolly that was in the warehouse that was right next to the boat to see if the paint transfer could have come when Modesto PD was impounding the boat and pulling it out of the store -- out of the storage area? Did you see if that's where the red paint transfer came from? OWEN: I did not. GERAGOS: Okay. You've got pictures that are in evidence that show a red dolly right next to the boat that looks like it's about the same height as where the paint transfer is. Did you ever consider that maybe it was Modesto PD that caused the paint transfer? OWEN: Can you show me that? GERAGOS: The pictures? They're right over there. Would you like to take a look? OWEN: I'd like to see the dolly you're talking about. GERAGOS: Had you ever done anything to investigate that? OWEN: I wasn't aware of the dolly. GERAGOS: Okay. Is there anything red in the Modesto PD parking lot where the boat is stored as you're entering into the Modesto PD parking lot? Do you know where the -- let me reask the question -- OWEN: I'm trying to -- GERAGOS: Do you know where the boat is stored? OWEN: I know where the boat was stored whenever I examined it, yes. GERAGOS: Okay. Did you see how the boat got in there or do you know how the boat got in to where it's stored? OWEN: No. GERAGOS: Okay. Now, did you also go out on some searches in the Bay? OWEN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. How many? OWEN: Over a dozen. GERAGOS: You went out on the 10th, isn't that correct, of January? OWEN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. And there -- somebody had reported some sonar contact on the 9th; is that correct? OWEN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. Turned out that that was an anchor; wasn't that correct? OWEN: Two anchors. GERAGOS: Okay. You went out there again after that date; isn't that correct? OWEN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. And, once again, that was a false alarm, correct? OWEN: I'm not sure I understand what you mean, false alarm. GERAGOS: Well, you didn't find a body most -- virtually every time that there was a sonar hit, it turned out to be a piece of debris of some kind; isn't that correct? OWEN: I kind of have to explain that one. GERAGOS: Did you ever locate a body? OWEN: Yes. GERAGOS: When was that? OWEN: Whenever we were called by East Bay Regional Park. GERAGOS: And that was in April, correct? OWEN: Correct. GERAGOS: Okay. When you were doing sonar searches in the Bay, did you ever find a body -- OWEN: No. GERAGOS: -- in the Bay? No? And how many sonar searches would you say were done in the Bay? OWEN: I couldn't give you an exact figure, but I would imagine hundreds. GERAGOS: In excess of 200; isn't that a fair statement? OWEN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. And all of those -- do you remember a time period -- started in January -- or started in December, did it not, late December? OWEN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. And it went all the way through late January, early February? OWEN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. I just had one other area, Judge, and this is no longer 115 of an 866. This is returning to questions that were asked of the officer yesterday. You specifically were asked yesterday about some phone calls in early November that you had made to Cheryl Smith at the doctor's office. Do you remember that? OWEN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. And she said that she referred to the chart. And I assume that was the document that I had showed you earlier today, the chart of Laci's OB/GYN; is that correct? OWEN: That's correct. GERAGOS: And that when she referred to the chart, she said there were two phone calls from Laci, both times in early November she complained of shortness of breath after a 20-minute walk; is that correct? OWEN: Yes. GERAGOS: And that she was advised to eat first and take the walks later in the day; is that correct? OWEN: Correct. GERAGOS: Okay. Did there -- was there anything to indicate that she was told to stop walking in the -- by Cheryl Smith? Did she tell you, "The doctor said stop walking"? OWEN: No. GERAGOS: And she did not -- in fact, it was her memory that Laci did walk every day, and that's why she called, because she was having some discomfort after the walks; isn't that correct? OWEN: No. GERAGOS: She said that she complained of shortness of breath after the walks; is that correct? OWEN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. And she was advised by the doctor's office to eat first and continue to walk; isn't that correct? OWEN: Eat first and walk later in the day. GERAGOS: Okay. Did she tell you what time of the day she was walking? OWEN: No. GERAGOS: Do you know if that was 7:00 or if it was 10:00 in the morning? OWEN: I do not know. GERAGOS: Okay. And when you went there, you also had a theory or a tip or somebody had given you some indication that maybe Scott wasn't excited about the baby; wasn't that correct? OWEN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. And you went there, and you interviewed everybody, and nobody told you that; isn't that correct? OWEN: Yes. GERAGOS: You also interviewed -- yesterday, I think you called it Tow, but in the report it's T-O-W, dash, D-E-R. Is that the same person? OWEN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. So when you were referring yesterday to Tow, that's -- the spelling is T-O-W-D-E-R in your report; is that correct? OWEN: I believe she goes by Dr. Tow, but I believe it's hyphenated. GERAGOS: Okay. And she specifically told you that if Scott was any kind of a problem, she would have made a note in the file, and there was no notes in the file; isn't that correct? OWEN: Yes. GERAGOS: And she said that the next visit, that she remembered the visit on the 23rd; is that correct? OWEN: Yes. GERAGOS: And she said that Laci's attitude was pleasant and she smiled a lot; is that correct? OWEN: Yes. GERAGOS: There were no complaints from Laci on the 23rd of December; isn't that correct? OWEN: I believe she said something about weight, but other than that, no. GERAGOS: Okay. And she did note that there was some swelling and weight gain as a result of the pregnancy, but nothing unusual, correct? OWEN: Yes. GERAGOS: Apparently she was -- there was no notation that the being short of breath that she had complained about in November was still occurring on December 23rd, was there, in the file? OWEN: No. GERAGOS: I have no further questions of this witness. Thank you.
Redirect Examination by David Harris JUDGE: Mr. Harris? HARRIS: Yes. JUDGE: Also, who's going to do the cross on the -- Mr. Geragos' direct? Are you going to do that? JUDGE: Yes. JUDGE: Okay. HARRIS: Detective, go back through the medical records. You were asked about the due date, that there were, in fact, two due dates that were estimated by the doctors in this particular case? OWEN: Yes. HARRIS: And you had testified yesterday about there being some difference between the two and the doctors didn't change them. I want to just flesh that out for a minute. Did the doctor explain to you why that he did not change the due date from February 10th? OWEN: Yes. HARRIS: What did the doctor explain? OWEN: Explained that because they were within one week, the margin of error made it such that they would keep the due date. HARRIS: The doctor kind of gave you a range that there's a plus or minus when you start looking at the ultrasounds? OWEN: Plus or minus -- GERAGOS: Objection. Leading. JUDGE: Sustained. HARRIS: Did the doctor give you some statement about a plus or minus with the ultrasound? OWEN: Yes. He explained that there is a two-week plus or minus, and if the dates line up with any time in between those, they stick to the date that they originally came up with. HARRIS: And did the doctor indicate to you which they believed was the most accurate? OWEN: Yes. The February 10th. HARRIS: Now, you were asked about the notations in the file, the medical records there. Did you talk to most of the doctors and nurses that had dealt with Laci Peterson? OWEN: Yes. HARRIS: Did any of them indicate to you or indicate that there were -- Scott Peterson stood out in any way at all? OWEN: No, they didn't. HARRIS: You were asked about the autopsy report and you -- Mr. Geragos had you read into the record the names of individuals that were at the autopsy. Just so we're clear about that, are those individuals that were at Laci's autopsy or were they individuals that were at Conner's autopsy? OWEN: The ones that I read into the record were at Laci's autopsy. HARRIS: And, again, so that there's no confusion in the record, did you attend two autopsies of Laci Peterson? OWEN: Yes, I did. HARRIS: So the first one was the one where you were contacted by Richmond and asked to attend that around the 14th of April? OWEN: Yes. HARRIS: And the second one you were asked to attend, that was an autopsy that was performed by persons that were employed by the defense? OWEN: Yes. HARRIS: So when we're talking about anything that you might have heard at the autopsy that you're talking about, are you referring to just the first autopsy or the one that was performed by the defense? OWEN: I was referring to the first autopsy that I was at. HARRIS: All right. Now, let me go back and talk to you about these witness statements. You talked to Karma Souza and John Souza, and we'll start with those two, just kind of go in the same order. Now, Miss Souza reported to you that there was a person in the park -- or, excuse me, John Souza reported to you that there was a person in the park that mumbled, and he felt that was suspicious. Is that the information you got? OWEN: Yes. HARRIS: He didn't see any weapons, there was nothing threatening, the person didn't do anything other than mumble? OWEN: That's correct. HARRIS: And he indicated that there was two other people, and he felt that they were suspicious because they asked him for a cigarette? OWEN: That's correct. HARRIS: So the entire sum of the information that you received from both Karma Souza and John Souza is that they were -- GERAGOS: Objection. Leading. JUDGE: It's going to be. HARRIS: Your Honor, I believe that I have this witness on cross as part of the Prop 115 of Mr. Geragos. JUDGE: It's still People's witness, so it will require direct questions. HARRIS: All right. HARRIS: Were they able to give you anything, any specifics in terms of something that made them think they were suspicious? OWEN: No. They gave me the idea that they were simply trying to help out by reporting anything suspicious they saw from the point that this investigation started. HARRIS: And did Mr. Souza specifically say that he had never seen these people, so that's why he's reporting them? OWEN: That, coupled with they just seemed suspicious. HARRIS: Now, the descriptions that you had from Karma Souza and John Souza, you were asked if there was some overlap to what was reported to you by Miss Campos. Do you recall that? OWEN: Uh-huh. HARRIS: And the overlap was that they were pretty much white males? OWEN: Yes. HARRIS: Because Miss Campos described a person as in a jeans jacket, and the Souzas described one of the individuals in a puffy jacket? OWEN: That would be correct. HARRIS: So that's not a correlation, is it? GERAGOS: Objection. Calls for speculation. JUDGE: Sustained. HARRIS: Detective, is that a correlation, in your mind? OWEN: No. GERAGOS: Objection. Calls for speculation. Motion to strike. JUDGE: Sustained. Stricken. HARRIS: Now, talking about Diana Campos, Diana Campos was an employee at the hospital? OWEN: Yes. HARRIS: And she told you the specific time that she was on break? OWEN: Yes. HARRIS: And what was the specific time that she told you she was on break? OWEN: I would need to refer to my report. HARRIS: You wrote a report after your interview with her? OWEN: I did. HARRIS: If you'd look at your report, if that would help you recall. OWEN: Do you have that report with you to hurry things up? HARRIS: I do. OWEN: Okay. I'm sorry. Your question again? HARRIS: When was it she told you she was on this break? OWEN: December 24th, at approximately 1045 hours. HARRIS: So she says at 10:45, she's out on her break, and she notices these people for the first time; is that correct? OWEN: Yes. HARRIS: Does she indicate in the statement that you took from her that she watched them for -- for about five minutes as they walked the length of a football field? OWEN: That's correct. HARRIS: So that would put it at about 10:50? OWEN: Yes. HARRIS: She indicates that they continued walking, and she watched them for about another five minutes, correct? OWEN: Yes. HARRIS: So that would put it at about 10:55? OWEN: Correct. HARRIS: Did she give you a distance of how far away these were -- these individuals were at the location that she saw them the best? OWEN: Yes, she did. HARRIS: And what was that distance? OWEN: About 50 yards. HARRIS: So at the closest, it was 50 yards? OWEN: Correct. HARRIS: You were asked about -- there was a comment that was put in there about a conflict or not a conflict. Did you make a statement in there about what she said in terms of conflict? OWEN: Yes, I did. HARRIS: Look at that specific quote that you have in there, and if you can tell us exactly what was said so that it's not interpreted. OWEN: They were walking the dog, and the gal was trying to get the dog to be quiet, and the male -- she was pulling on the leash, and the male said, "Shut the fucking dog up," quote, end quote. She watched them for approximately five more minutes. Campos said she did not think that there was any kind of a conflict going on between the three. HARRIS: So she told you when you interviewed her that she did not think there was any conflict going on? OWEN: Correct. HARRIS: The location that she was describing, about how far away from the Covena address is that? OWEN: Without referring to a map, I would be guessing. HARRIS: Well, do you have an estimate of how far -- let me back up for a second. These individuals were walking towards her? OWEN: Correct. HARRIS: So they had covered at least a distance of a hundred yards during the time that they were walking? OWEN: Yes. HARRIS: Did she ever say which direction that they finally went? OWEN: Yes, she did. HARRIS: What did she say? OWEN: Just a second, and I'll tell you. HARRIS: Detective, maybe to help you out, let me just ask it a different way. The direction that she described these individuals walking, were they walking towards her the entire time? OWEN: No, they were -- she was walk -- they were walking by and away. HARRIS: And when they were walking by and away, were they walking towards the Covena address or away from the Covena address? OWEN: Away from the Covena address. HARRIS: Now, with regards to this question about the theory and the paint, were you assigned by the sergeant to go examine the boat to see if there were any paint transfers? OWEN: Yes. HARRIS: So without regard to theory, let's just talk about the actual things that you did, did you go and look at the boat? OWEN: I did. HARRIS: Did you find anything? OWEN: I did. HARRIS: What did you find? OWEN: I found red paint transfer on the trim of the boat. HARRIS: And when you say "the trim of the boat," where at? OWEN: It would have been on the starboard side, or on the right side of the boat. HARRIS: And was it in the lower part, the middle part, the upper part of the right side? OWEN: The upper trim. HARRIS: And would that be on the inside or the outside of the boat? OWEN: The outside. HARRIS: So outside, upper right side of the boat? OWEN: Correct. HARRIS: And did you collect paint samples? OWEN: I did. HARRIS: People have no other questions.
Recross Examination by Mark Geragos JUDGE: We'll take our recess here, unless you have just a couple. GERAGOS: I just have a couple. JUDGE: Okay. Let's do that. GERAGOS: Well, I'll take the recess. That's fine. JUDGE: Five until 11:00. Five until 11:00. (Recess: 10:40 a.m.) Reconvene at 11:00 a.m. JUDGE: Let the record show everyone's present. You may cross-examine, Mr. Geragos. GERAGOS: Thank you. GERAGOS: Mr. Harris asked you about the time that Ms. Campos said. Didn't she, in fact, tell you that it was 9:45, not 10:45? OWEN: Are you referring to a specific location in my report? GERAGOS: No, I'm asking you -- I see on your report where you say Tuesday, 12/24, at approximately 10:45. You didn't type up this report, did you? OWEN: No, I didn't. GERAGOS: Okay. You have -- there's a tape-recording of the interview, isn't there? OWEN: Yes, there is. GERAGOS: Okay. The tape-recording of the interview she says 9:45, not 10:45, doesn't she? OWEN: I'm not clear on that. Do you have that in front of you? GERAGOS: I do not. Have you listened to the tape-recording? OWEN: Not recently, no. GERAGOS: Did you compare the tape-recording to the report when you first got it? OWEN: No. GERAGOS: Have you gone back and asked Ms. Campos what time it was she was out on break? OWEN: No. GERAGOS: Okay. If she told you it was 9:45 and she saw people walking at 9:45 for the five minutes, that would have been the 9:50; is that correct? OWEN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. And if that Golden Retriever at that point started to go home, it would probably get home about 10:18, wouldn't it, from that location? Let's start -- let me start with a different premise. This park is the park that was searched the day of the 24th, is it not, or the evening of the 24th? OWEN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. This is where the focus of the search efforts were; isn't that correct? HARRIS: Objection. Vague as the park or that location? GERAGOS: The park. JUDGE: Overruled. I assume he's talking about the park that Ms. Campos is referring to. GERAGOS: GERAGOS: Yeah. You know what I'm talking about, the park where Ms. Campos was looking into? OWEN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. That park was the focus of the initial search efforts, isn't it? OWEN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. On the evening of the 24th? OWEN: Yes. GERAGOS: And that park is literally less than a half a mile away from the Covena residence, is it not? OWEN: No. GERAGOS: Less than a quarter of a mile? OWEN: It's further. GERAGOS: Have you paced it off? OWEN: Not specifically, no. GERAGOS: Okay. And that is the park that all of Laci's family members thought that she walked in; isn't that correct? OWEN: Yes. GERAGOS: Now, the dog would clearly make it back from 9:50 to 10:18 from that park to the house, would it not? OWEN: I don't know. GERAGOS: You think it would take the dog longer than 28 minutes to get from the park to the house? OWEN: I'm not sure. GERAGOS: Did you ever test that out? OWEN: No. GERAGOS: Okay. Did you ever talk to any other witnesses who had seen the dog running alone -- OWEN: No. GERAGOS: -- with -- on just the leash? OWEN: This specific dog? GERAGOS: Yes, this specific dog or a Golden -- a dog identified as a Golden Retriever. OWEN: Not this specific dog, no. GERAGOS: Okay. When you say "not this specific dog," did you talk to witnesses who told you they saw a Golden Retriever on a leash coming back from the park? OWEN: No. GERAGOS: Okay. And the interview with Campos, who did you tell -- after you did that interview and then the interview with Souza, who did you tell that -- the contents of that interview to? OWEN: I would have told it to my supervisor, Sergeant Zahr, and also told it to the team. GERAGOS: Who's on the team? OWEN: It would have been Detective Grogan, Detective Brocchini, Detective Buehler, Detective Skultety, Detective Hendee, Investigator Kevin Bertalotto, the DA's. GERAGOS: You told the DA's back in December? OWEN: We would have -- I'm not -- I can't recall specifically telling them that, but when you asked the team, I was giving you the team. GERAGOS: Okay. Do you have a specific memory of telling Detectives Grogan and Brocchini about this information? OWEN: Yes. HARRIS: Objection. Vague as to what time. GERAGOS: GERAGOS: After it happened on the 27th, say, within a day of the interview. OWEN: I probably would have told him. GERAGOS: You don't have a memory, but you believe that based upon what was happening, you probably would have? OWEN: Yes. GERAGOS: Thank you. I have no further questions.
2nd Redirect Examination by David Harris
HARRIS:
Just real briefly. 2nd Recross Examination by Mark Geragos
GERAGOS:
The Covena address is less than a half a mile from where she was; is
that correct? Have you paced it off? Do you know?
Witness recalled, Direct
Examination by Rick Distaso Cross Examination by Mark Geragos
GERAGOS:
She told you approximately. And did you bother to call her back and
ask her if she had checked her records that day to find out what
time she was out there for her break? |