Witness for the Prosecution
February 28, 1994
THE COURT: Were you sworn this morning?
RIDGE: Yes sir.
FOGLEMAN: Detective Ridge, could you state your name and occupation for the jury?
RIDGE: Bryn Ridge, Detective for the West Memphis Police Department.
FOGLEMAN: And Detective Ridge, I want to direct your attention to May the 6th, 1993, Thursday. Did you uh - did you participate in the investigation of the disappearance of Michael Moore, Stevie Branch, and Chris Byers?
RIDGE: Yes sir, I did.
FOGLEMAN: And what part did you play in that investigation?
RIDGE: Uh - in the search itself and the crime scene.
FOGLEMAN: Alright. And what time did you begin uh - searching for the kids yourself?
RIDGE: Uh - to the best of my memory, about 7:30 that morning.
FOGLEMAN: And um - what areas did you search?
RIDGE: Ok. Upon arriving at the station, I was informed of the disappearance of the children uh - reports were that they were in the Robin Hood area and I went to the Robin Hood area, searched that area on foot. Uh -
FOGLEMAN: When you say you searched it, what do you mean?
RIDGE: Ok. I went into that area. Uh - walking through that area.
FOGLEMAN: Ok.
RIDGE: And uh - upon arriving in that area, the first person I saw was a Steven Branch who was in the uh - along the ditch near Mayfair -
FOGLEMAN: You talking about Stevie's father?
RIDGE: Yes.
FOGLEMAN: Ok.
RIDGE: And then, he was in the area near Mayfair Apartments. There's a pipe there that crosses Ten Mile Bayou, I crossed that pipe. There was a bicycle laying on the north side of that pipe, uh - I walked into the woods, I saw a young man out in the woods hollering for the children. Uh - I looked in -
FOGLEMAN: When you say young man, do you know about how old?
RIDGE: I would say 15 to 16 years old.
FOGLEMAN: Alright.
RIDGE: I looked into the field on the north side of Ten Mile Bayou. There were two young men in that field hollering for the children and uh - looking through the field into the Ten Mile Bayou ditch. And uh - I had a discussion with the young man that was on the bicycle about leaving his bicycle there - somebody were to discover that bicycle, they may think it was a bicycle one of the boys missing owned and it would cause people to converge on an area when there was no reason to believe that the kids were there.
FOGLEMAN: Where did you come into contact with this young man?
RIDGE: Uh - I was on the northeast side of the area, known as Turtle Hill.
FOGLEMAN: Ok. Were you in the woods?
RIDGE: Yes, in the woods.
FOGLEMAN: Alright. If you could, step down and refer to the state's exhibit 13 and if you could show us the approximate area of where you had this conversation with the young man.
RIDGE: Ok. This is the pipe that crosses the bayou, this area right here is a heap of dirt that was uh - made when the ditches were dug out and this is known as Turtle Hill. When I crossed the hill on this trail, I was in this area, saw this young man out in this wooded area searching. Uh - he was calling for the kids. He came back to me, he told me he was looking for the kids, this is where I talked with him. He said that he left his bicycle over here by the pipe, it had a flat on it. And that uh - I had the conversation with him and told him that he needed to take the bicycle and keep it with him.
FOGLEMAN: While we're in this area and while you're in this area, describe for the jury the terrain from the end of uh - West McAuley down to the pipe and then from the pipe up.
RIDGE: Ok. All of this area, there's about a 20 foot - 30 foot wide area here, just nothing but weeds. Uh - they vary in height from waist and chest high to some of it would be over your head. Back to the east of that area, there are trees that would be 20 - 30 foot high, uh - circumference of maybe a foot and a half. They're just - they're spread out all through this area for about a quarter of a mile down to the next street. Uh - there are trails where um - kids ride bicycles, 3-wheelers, go carts. Uh - then there are these trails here, when you cross -
FOGLEMAN: Let me stop you.
RIDGE: - the bayou.
FOGLEMAN: Dead end of West McAuley to the pipe, is it - I mean, describe it - is it level? Do you go up hill, down hill to get to the pipe?
RIDGE: Oh, from the end of the pipe, you'll be level, you'll go up a small hill, and then you'll start going down on the hill to the pipe.
FOGLEMAN: Alright.
RIDGE: Uh - it's sort of uneven terrain.
FOGLEMAN: Alright. And approximately how much drop would you say from the pipe to the level ground?
RIDGE: Probably, an estimate - 5 to 6 foot.
FOGLEMAN: Ok. Alright. And on the other side, do you walk off the pipe and it's just flat or what?
RIDGE: No sir. You would start immediately going up the far bank. And it's - go up to top of Turtle Hill, which would be another 5 or 6 foot above that. And of course the trail - unless you get up to the level of the surrounding land, then this trail would pretty well flatten out and go into the back of Blue Beacon. Then you have the trail that went over the top of Turtle Hill and goes into this area, which is flattened out.
FOGLEMAN: Now, let me direct your attention to state's exhibit 101, and if you could uh - show the jury in this particular aerial photo - 101, uh - what areas did you search? Uh -
RIDGE: Ok. When I first got to Robin Hood Hills or Robin Hood Park that day, I parked here. Ok. I walked through these trails to the Ten Mile Bayou, and then I walked the trails down through here which these are just -
(tape flipped)
RIDGE: - got my 3- wheeler actually. Um - actually, the first thing I did - excuse me - is I come back across the pipe and I'd go back like I'm going back to my vehicle, but rather than turn and come down these trails, I go the same trail - runs off of this area, an area known to me as Devil's Den and it's just another creek that runs into the Ten Mile Bayou - then I started searching through all these vines and weeds and trees in this area and make my way back to my police unit. After getting to my police unit, I go to my residence, pick up my uh - 3-wheeler and then I began searching on my 3-wheeler.
FOGLEMAN: Where did you search on your 3-wheeler?
RIDGE: Ok. I parked here and got on my 3-wheeler going back to this area, coming out here with my 3-wheeler, then I go down the east side of this ditch into that field, go around the edge of that field and this is - there's a lot of water and what have you from the recent rains in this area - and go all the way down to 18th street, which is about uh - 300 yards, maybe, on to the east. Then I cross the expressway on Ingram Avenue, I go north uh - past the dog track, cross the railroad track and start making my way back to the west. Uh - I go to the area around Lakeshore Trailer Park, all the fields on the backside looking for bicycle tracks, small footprints, anything - any sign would have been there -
FOGLEMAN: Alright, let me stop you now.
RIDGE: Yes sir.
FOGLEMAN: Alright. Now, after you searched and searched and searched, did you receive some word that you needed to return to the woods there by Blue Beacon?
RIDGE: Yes sir, I did.
FOGLEMAN: Alright. And about what time was that, approximately?
RIDGE: A few minutes after 1:00. Uh - 1:15 to 1:20 is a guess, an estimate.
FOGLEMAN: And did you return to that area?
RIDGE: Yes sir, I did.
FOGLEMAN: Alright. You can retake the stand.
(mumbles)
FOGLEMAN: Let me show you uh - state's exhibits 14, 15, and 16 - ask if you can identify those.
RIDGE: Yes sir, I can.
FOGLEMAN: Those photographs fairly and accurately portray the scene as it appeared to you at that time?
RIDGE: Yes sir, they do.
FOGLEMAN: Your Honor, we would offer state's exhibits 14, 15, and 16.
PRICE: No objection.
FORD: No objection.
THE COURT: It may be received without objection.
FOGLEMAN: Your Honor, may the witness step down and describe to the jury?
THE COURT: Yes, he may.
(mumbles)
FOGLEMAN: I believe it's going to be 14, 15, and 16. If you would take the corner Detective and describe uh - beginning with - to the left, which would be 14, 15, and 16 - you describe -
RIDGE: Ok.
FOGLEMAN: - what's shown in the photographs.
RIDGE: This is an aerial photograph of an area known as the crime scene - Robin Hood Woods. It's from the north looking to the south. This is West McAuley, this is the area known as Mayfair Apartments, this is the water impound area that would be for Blue Beacon which would be lower in the picture, uh - this street is W.E. Catt, this is a trail that comes off the end of West McAuley - comes down to the pipe, it also has a branch that runs back into the area known as the other Robin Hood Woods, back in that area where all the trails are that 3-wheelers, 4-wheelers, and bicycles are on. Ok. The pipe crosses Ten Mile Bayou and you've got the trail that comes up the side of the bank - this is the trail that goes across the area, which is just a heap of dirt which is known as Turtle Hill. The trail will either split and go that way, which leads into the area of the crime scene, which lays right in this area - or the trail continues straight forward and goes into the back-end of Blue Beacon. Uh - this photograph is a photograph of -
FOGLEMAN: 15?
RIDGE: Yes sir, exhibit 15. Uh - this is 7th street. It's a picture from the west looking east - it's actually a little bit southeast. Uh - here again is West McAuley, the apartments known as Mayfair, W.E. Catt, the pipe crosses Ten Mile Bayou - here is the pipe that crosses Ten Mile Bayou, this area is the area of the crime scene, the Robin Hood Woods - all of this area here where the bicycle trails are and everything are known as Robin Hood Woods, as well as this area of Robin Hood Woods - Robin Hood Hills. Uh - this is 40 - 55 expressway. 55 travels on to the east and south here at the split - this is the split where 40 travels to Memphis, going a little bit north and east. Uh - this is 7th street, this is 76 truck stop, this is Luv's truck stop, again this is the Blue Beacon, and this water impoundment that you can see here. Uh - this is a picture from the south -
FOGLEMAN: Referring to exhibit 16?
RIDGE: Exhibit 16 - looking to the north, a little bit east of north. Here is 7th street, uh - here is West McAuley, the apartments known as Mayfair, Robin Hood Woods here and these trails, and again this is 55 - 40 expressway, the Blue Beacon, 76 truck stop, this wood line that you can see coming down through the middle of it - that is the Ten Mile Bayou.
FOGLEMAN: You can retake the stand, Officer.
RIDGE: Yes sir.
FOGLEMAN: Alright. Now when you get to the um - area of the woods by Blue Beacon, uh - what did you find there?
RIDGE: Ok. I found that Mike Allen was on the scene, a Sergeant with the police department. Lt. Diane Hester on the scene, who's a Detective with the police department. Inspector Gitchell, and I believe Stan Burch and uh - Detective Bill Durham were there.
FOGLEMAN: And after arriving, what did you do?
RIDGE: Ok. I was informed of some shoes that were found floating in the water and that Mike Allen had gotten into the water to see about the retrieval of those shoes - see if they were those of the uh - victims - and while he was doing so, he found the body of one of the victims.
(long pause)
(mumbling)
FORD: Are you offering these?
FOGLEMAN: I'm getting ready to.
FORD: Your Honor, he's going to offer some photographs, we would like to make a record out of the presence of the jury.
THE COURT: Let me see 'em.
FOGLEMAN: Your Honor, we're trying to keep 'em in order, if you don't mind.
THE COURT: Alright ladies and gentlemen, uh - with the admonition not to discuss the case, you may step into the jury room for a 5 to 10 minute recess. I'll call ya back in when we're through.
(mumbling)
PRICE: Approach the bench?
FORD: Your Honor, if we could start with the photographs, um - I've had some - there're gonna be some - you know, I just want to make sure that my objection in all hearings outside the presence of the jury are not to be filmed or recorded or subjected to any cameras in this stage of the game and I want to make sure that the press is aware of that. Because it's vaguely printed and it could be read -
THE COURT: Just a minute, let me finish this.
(pause)
(mumbling)
THE COURT: Mike, is this more than one person?
(mumbling)
THE COURT: Huh? You want Pat to sign the rest of these?
(unidentified) : I just need you to sign where my secretary says these things are appropriate...Yeah.
FOGLEMAN: Your Honor, what I was gonna bring up, there are some uh - perspective witnesses of the state who are under 18 and their parents have requested not only that they not be filmed, but they would prefer that their names not be in the paper and we would like the Court to request the news media not to print the names of those witnesses that are under 18.
THE COURT: Well, I can request it, but I don't know whether it'll do a bit of good.
FOGLEMAN: I understand that Your Honor and that's all that we're asking is that the press to be requested not to print the names -
THE COURT: Ok.
FOGLEMAN: - of witnesses under 18.
THE COURT: Ok. Did you have some understanding, Mr. Ford, with the cameras that no pictures were to be taken of no-one in Denno Hearings in the courtroom?
FORD: That's correct, sir.
THE COURT: Well, if that was the understanding, then I expect you to live up to the understanding.
FORD: Alright, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Alright. Let the rec -
(unidentified) : I can't hear you, Judge.
THE COURT: Well, maybe I had this off. Mr. Ford indicated that he had some understanding with the um - um - cameras, still and otherwise, that they would not be utilized during any hearing in the courtroom - was that your understanding?
(mumbling - talking over)
THE COURT: What?
FORD: Your Honor, it was my agreement that we would not - we would withdraw our objections to the electronic media - the cameras, the recording devices, any still cameras or moving picture cameras, we would waive th - we would withdraw our objections provided that there would be no recording of any testimony or conversations during the hearings outside the presence of the jury and that there be no photographs or film taken during those as well.
THE COURT: If that was the understanding, then that's what we'll have. Alright, let's proceed gentlemen.
FOGLEMAN: Your Honor, I didn't get the - did the members of the press get my request?
(unidentified) : No.
(unidentified) : No.
FOGLEMAN: Ok.
THE COURT: It was requested that the witnesses that are under the age of 18 years - I don't know who they'll be, I must - who are they, John?
FOGLEMAN: Your Honor, there's several. If they need case by case, I can give it to 'em. Witnesses under 18, their parents - if possible - would like for their names not to be used - I mean, it's a request.
(mumbling)
(unidentified) : Not a problem.
FOGLEMAN: Ok.
THE COURT: I'm not entering the order, it's just being requested. Do whatever you wanna do - what you're gonna do, I guess would be the -
(unidentified) : Your Honor, Mr. Ford's motion in regards to the recording of - what's going to happen if -
THE COURT: This is called a - well, I - a Denno Hearing, it's a hearing out of the presence of the jury, uh - to review these photographs of - I mean, you can report whatever you want of it, but he doesn't want it photographed.
(unidentified) : Oh, photographed - ok.
THE COURT: Or recorded. Now, I don't know if you had that same understanding with uh - Homebox Office or not. I guess it applies to them as well.
FORD: Yeah, we had that with all media, Your Honor. That is my condition.
THE COURT: Alright. Then that's my understanding then. Alright, let's proceed gentlemen. You handed me uh - 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 photographs. Exhibits 39, 36, 20, 17, 35, and 24.
FOGLEMAN: Your Honor, I might as well go ahead and - these are the ones that we had before about the condition of the bank, but they do have one of the victims in it.
THE COURT: What - give the exhibit number for the court reporter. It's 26?
FOGLEMAN: 26, 23, 22.
THE COURT: That'll be 9 photographs - alright. What is your objection?
FORD: Your Honor, we're objecting number 1 to uh - can we turn these microphones off, Your Honor? That's not gonna -
THE COURT: No. Go ahead.
FORD: It was our understanding that -
THE COURT: This microphone is my PA system. Those are suppose to be off, except for the court reporter's. Is that correct - they're off?
(mumbling)
THE COURT: No.
(mumbling)
THE COURT: Ok. I want the ones that go to the van off.
(mumbling)
THE COURT: Alright.
FORD: Your Honor, first, I would like for them to establish what relevance there is to those photographs - what the proposition is. And once they have determined that, Your Honor, I can - at that point, make an objection. But I feel until there's a um - a proper um - foundation that's been laid to the introduction of the photographs that the proposition once they're introduced is identified by this witness that I'm not able to make specific objections.
FOGLEMAN: Your Honor, I can take care of that. Your Honor, the - let me get this photograph - Your Honor, the first 3, which are 22, 23, and 26 are to show the condition of the bank. Uh - they show the - how it's slicked off -
FORD: That is ridiculous.
FOGLEMAN: - cleaned off, the bank -
FORD: That's ridiculous.
FOGLEMAN: - and to show the, uh - we don't have photographs to portray, that it don't have uh - that victim in the picture. Exhibit 39 is to show the recovery of uh - Michael Moore, it also has the stick with the clothes on it.
THE COURT: That right there?
FOGLEMAN: Yeah. 36 -
(mumbling)
FOGLEMAN: - is the photograph of the recovery of uh - I think that's - I believe that's Stevie Branch. Not only shows his recovery from the water but also the condition of the surface of the water - the debris in the water. Exhibit 20 uh - shows the recovery of Stevie Branch with uh - again, the condition of the water and also the condition of the bank, which would be the west bank where there's a flattened off spot where his body was recovered. Exhibit 17 is uh - Stevie Branch, it shows the ligatures and the manner in which it's tied. In addition to uh - the uh - bank and the wound to his face. Exhibit 35 shows the recovery of Chris Byers uh - it also shows the condition of the surface of the water, the debris and exhibit 24 shows the ligatures on Chris Byers and uh - his general condition and also uh - the least offensive uh - photograph of Chris Byers.
THE COURT: You had a whole stack of other photographs that I didn't allow in. Where are those?
FORD: Well Your Honor, we're in a separate trial here today. We're not - this is not, you know -
THE COURT: Mr. Ford, I understand that.
FORD: Alright.
FOGLEMAN: Your Honor, the court reporter has those photographs that we proffered and I don't know exactly how to do this but we hadn't had 'em - I would like to proffer the same photographs that we proffered in the other trial in this trial, with the understanding they wouldn't be admitted, but for purpose of showing the photographs that we proffered.
THE COURT: Alright. That'll be allowed. Alright.
FORD: Your Honor, state's exhibit number 22, 23, and 26 were offered for the proposition of establishing the condition of the bank.
FOGLEMAN: You might also add, they show the ligatures on Michael Moore.
FORD: Alright. First of all Your Honor, if they're trying to show the ligatures, they're trying to show the condition of the bank, then they're trying to show his injuries - one will do. Three, I don't see how they show - one shows more bank than the other one. This one doesn't hardly show any of the bank. That would be exhibit number 22, which has Officer Ridge, a green leaf and the body - no-one's looking at any bank in that photograph. State's exhibit number 23 and state's exhibit number 26, Your Honor, I submit that is that is offered for the proposition to establish the condition of the bank, that that is not a fair and accurate representation of what that bank should appear like in it's totality if they're trying to establish that this bank has been scrubbed off, slicked off because there's not enough bank there to even have the slightest bit of understanding. Secondly Your Honor, they're duplicative and there's no need to introduce both of those. I submit, Your Honor, that not one of those photographs is relevant to establish the proposition as to the condition of the bank.
DAVIDSON: We would join in that motion also, Your Honor, all these motions.
FORD: And lastly, Your Honor, I would ask how those are necessary in order to help the witness explain in his testimony.
DAVIDSON: One further thing I would like to add, Your Honor, is that uh - it's my understanding that there is a video of the bank that would depict this area without having the inflammatory uh - the bodies in there and uh - there are portions of that video that could certainly be shown to show the same thing.
FOGLEMAN: Your Honor, I don't believe the video at all shows the condition of this bank, where you can look at this picture of the bank and see the swirls in the mud, you can see the grass bent down covered with mud, and you can see the uh - uh - the slickness, general appearance of the bank.
THE COURT: Alright. Are you offering them in all to show the condition of the body, the wounds sustained in addition?
FOGLEMAN: Your Honor, we would offer to show the condition of the body as far as the ligatures and uh - the general condition of the body, but frankly the main purpose is the condition of the bank, but we would also offer for those other purposes as well.
THE COURT: Did you have any other pictures of bank without the bodies being placed on the bank?
FOGLEMAN: Not of that bank, I don't believe. Let me -
(pause)
FOGLEMAN: Your Honor, I have a couple of pictures, which number 37B which you can - which is extremely dark and you can see a bit of the slicked off area. This uh - photograph exhibit 27 is mainly of the area uh - north of where the slicked off area - the slicked off area being back this way in the top - top corner of the picture.
DAVIDSON: Your Honor, I believe here are 2 photos of the -
FOGLEMAN: That's not the same bank.
DAVIDSON: Which one?
FOGLEMAN: The top one. That's the east - that's the west bank.
DAVIDSON: What about this?
THE COURT: The bottom one is the one he just showed me.
FOGLEMAN: The bottom one is the one I just showed and it showed the slicked off part is just in this top corner. It shows hardly any of the slicked off part.
DAVIDSON: I have no objections to this one, Your Honor.
FORD: Your Honor, I have no objections to state's exhibit number 27 and quite frankly, Your Honor, that shows more of the bank than these other 3 photographs.
FOGLEMAN: But it doesn't show the close up of the bank, the grass bent down with mud on the grass, and the general - the uh - the swirls and patterns.
FORD: It doesn't? That right there?
FOGLEMAN: That is not -
FORD: And right there.
FOGLEMAN: - the part that's slicked off. See, that's what I'm talking about, you can't get a fair picture of what we're talking about looking at that picture because this grass is all standing up. That isn't the area we're talking about. The area we're talking about is this area right up here, this way.
THE COURT: Alright. I'm gonna overrule the objection. They can - you can put 23 in too if you want to.
FORD: The - you don't find those accumulative in nature?
THE COURT: No.
FORD: They each - can I please ask the Court for - what is represented in these - state's exhibit number 26 that is not represented in state's exhibit 22?
THE COURT: There's a great deal. This one shows a good bit more detail and more area.
FORD: If that being the case, Your Honor, what is the re - what is the Court's ruling as the relevant proposition established with state's exhibit number 22?
THE COURT: It seems apparent to me that it shows the deceased person that's tied with ligatures on both hands and foot with uh - with visible injuries to their face and that's certainly relevant if that's what they're proposing it for.
FORD: Well Your Honor, you indicated that he's offering state's exhibit number 22 to establish the condition of the bank.
THE COURT: Naaa -
FORD: If the Court's ruling is offered that it is also relevant to show the condition of the body and the ligature, then we would object to it on that basis.
THE COURT: Well, he indicated it was to show the ligatures, the way I understood it and -
FOGLEMAN: And the bank.
FORD: I think he said, Your Honor, "Frankly the reason we're offering these ones is to show the condition of the bank". Isn't that what you said?
FOGLEMAN: I said "The main reason was to show" -
THE COURT: Well, the pictures aren't that inflammatory. I've seen a lot worse than these and I'm gonna allow 'em, if they've got any relevance.
FORD: What is the - what additional factors are shown in state's exhibit 23 that are not reflected in state's exhibits 22 and 26?
FOGLEMAN: It shows that additional area of the bank that's not shown in this picture. As you can see, Judge, that is the bank - from the left leg toward the water, neither of these show that area.
FORD: Is it your contention that these - this slicked off area is where the crime occurred? Where - is that your contention?
FOGLEMAN: They can draw their own conclusion.
FORD: I'm asking if you - are you offering it for that proposition?
Davis: He's not required to respond to that.
THE COURT: He's required - he's putting on the condition of this area in the general crime scene.
FORD: Ok. But it has to be - so it's only offered to establish the condition of the crime scene?
THE COURT: They didn't say that.
FORD: Well, they have to offer it for some proposition, Your Honor, in order for it to have any relevance.
FOGLEMAN: Your Honor, I've already stated -
THE COURT: I've already ruled. I'm waiting for y'all to finish.
(courtroom laughter)
FORD: Your Honor, state's exhibit number 39, state's exhibit number 36, and state's exhibit number 20 - we would have no objection to those. We feel that they establish relevant propositions without it being an inflammatory nature.
THE COURT: Alright.
FORD: State's exhibit number 35, Your Honor, would be - a like uh - a response in respect to - in state's exhibit number -
THE COURT: What is your objection on 35?
FORD: I don't have one.
THE COURT: Ok.
FORD: With respect to state's exhibit number 24 and state's exhibit number 17, I would like to inquire as to the proposition in these photographs are offered and if they are truly necessary to explain the testimony of this witness.
FOGLEMAN: Your Honor, they're offered - number 24, to show the condition of Chris Byers as he was recovered from the water and 17 is offered uh - to show the condition of Stevie Branch and also the condition of this particular area of the bank - it's a different area. And uh - Your Honor, this was - this is the - by far the least offensive photograph -
THE COURT: Well, I went through quite a few and some of 'em I've found to be awful tough and that's the least one of 'em and it does depict and show the sustained by the victim and it's very admissible and relevant for that issue.
FORD: But is it necessary to explain this witness' testimony? Do you need this - can you explain your testimony, Officer Ridge, without the use of this photograph? Can you -
THE COURT: That's not the issue. The issue -
FORD: I think that's one of the issues, Your Honor.
THE COURT: - is whether or not the photograph aids and assists him in - there's a descriptive in what he saw and observed and if it accurately portrays the condition of the body at the time he retrieved it from the ditch - that's the question.
FORD: Does it aid - do - do you need this to properly testify? Does it aid and assist you or can you testify without - as to his condition when you retrieved him from the water, without this photograph?
FOGLEMAN: Now those are 2 separate questions that he just asked him.
THE COURT: Well gentlemen, I'm gonna allow those photographs. I remember an old add of - a photograph is better than uh - you know the rest of it.
(courtroom laughter)
FORD: Your Honor, I didn't know that was - a picture's worth a thousand words, was one of the exceptions to the rules for -
PRICE: Your Honor, we -
THE COURT: Well, rule 403 is met with this photograph. And the Court has reviewed numerous other ones - photographs - y'all were present - those were excluded, they're likewise that excluded now.
FORD: Your Honor, we did not have the opportunity to make a record -
THE COURT: I - I'm allowing you to make your record.
FORD: But they're not here.
THE COURT: Well, I think they are. And they -
FORD: Do you have those photographs?
(mumbling)
FOGLEMAN: Your Honor, well, they're being excluded anyway.
THE COURT: Yes.
FOGLEMAN: I wanted just to show these -
THE COURT: Well, I thought you offered those same ones that the Court excluded previously, and there was a large number of 'em and as an exhibit - to allow the uh - viewing court an opportunity to see what this court excluded - and they were substantial -
DAVIDSON: Your Honor, could the record reflect that we join on Mr. Ford's motion?
THE COURT: Sure, it has.
DAVIDSON: In this in camera hearing.
THE COURT: Sure. For what we've just said in the last 5 or 10 minutes, yes.
DAVIDSON: Thank you, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Same ruling.
Davis: Judge, one thing for the Court to mull over - apparently Doctor Peretti may be the first witness for tomorrow, he can not be here until 10:00 so in the next little bit we'll continue on - (mumbling)
FORD: Your Honor, in another - on another thing, if this witness is gonna testify - I suspect this witness will testify at some length - we would like our cross examination to be - to be temporaneous and have them divided by the evening hour. We request that Your Honor, we start in the morning and that would allow us to start at the appropriate time and have Dr. Peretti come in and we can have him crossed at the same time as direct -
THE COURT: We'll see what time it is when they are through.
FORD: Well Your Honor, if - that's the whole point, if he testifies for 30 minutes on the record and then if the Court is going to uh - we do not want our cross examination interrupted or postponed for them to have put on their direct without our cross and we want it all at once whether it be in the morning or whether it be now.
THE COURT: Well, I just said I'd see - I'd have to see what time it was and then I'll decide what we'll do.
FORD: Then comes the answer to our concern -
THE COURT: It answers it this way, we're gonna do what I wanna do on the time. Alright.
(mumbling)
THE COURT: Alright. Well, let's proceed. Call the jury back in.
(mumbling)
THE COURT: Let's proceed, call the jury back in.
(mumbling)
FOGLEMAN: Detective Ridge, I want to show you what's marked for identification purposes as state's exhibits 39, 36, 20, 35, 34 and 17. Ask if you can identify those photographs?
RIDGE: Yes sir, I can.
FOGLEMAN: And do those photographs fairly and accurately portray uh - the victims, Michael Moore, Stevie Branch and Chris Byers uh - during the process of recovery and immediately after recovery?
RIDGE: Yes sir.
FOGLEMAN: Your Honor, we would offer those exhibits.
THE COURT: Alright, they may be received.
FOGLEMAN: May Detective Ridge step down and exhibit to the jury?
THE COURT: Yes, he may.
FOGLEMAN: Detective Ridge, starting with exhibit 39, if you could exhibit to the jury and keep in mind the jury's ability to see um -
RIDGE: Ok. This is exhibit 39, which is an enlargement of a Polaroid photograph. This photograph is that of myself - Detective Ridge, and Detective Sergeant Mike Allen removing the body of Michael Moore from the ditch where he was located.
FOGLEMAN: Now also in this photograph, what is this item right here?
RIDGE: This item is a stick that - when Sergeant Allen told me he had located the body and pointed out the area where the body had been located, I was up on the west bank which is a high bank. Ok. I proceeded to the north, come down into the creek, and began walking down into the creek and searching that creek. In searching the creek, I would start in the waterline on one side, rake all the way through and get back on the other side - see if anything was there before I would walk through that area, which could possibly destroy any evidence. Ok. I had walked approximately 10 feet and gotten almost to that body when this stick was uh - dislodged and when it came floating up out of the water uh - this shirt was discovered, and the shirt was wrapped around the end of the stick -
FOGLEMAN: Ok.
RIDGE: - and all that was jabbed down into the mud in the bottom of the ditch.
FOGLEMAN: Alright. Now when you say it was dislodged when you were walking toward that area, what if anything could you see about that stick?
RIDGE: Just the end of the stick sticking up out of the water.
FOGLEMAN: Ok. And uh - when you say you were walking that way, were you doing this - or what were you doing?
RIDGE: I was searching the ditch as I was going.
FOGLEMAN: Alright. You talking about inch by inch?
RIDGE: Yes sir.
FOGLEMAN: Alright. And describe that process for the jury.
RIDGE: Ok. The ditch being approximately just over the knee deep in that area, uh - I would take - at the waterline - and rake my hand all the way around the mud there, keeping my hand at the edge of the mud all the way through from one side to the other. When that was completed, I would do the same thing and go back to the other side, uh - being careful to overlap my - the same area so that nothing was missed. And I would go through that as I went through. Like I said, approximately 10 foot before coming to the body.
FOGLEMAN: And after you discovered Michael Moore, what did you do?
RIDGE: Ok. The body was placed on the east bank, just above where he was located. And then, we began the process of removing those items that were floating in the water, uh - including the shirt, pants, shoes, and that type activity.
FOGLEMAN: Alright. And then what did you do?
RIDGE: Ok. The body - the search continued in the same manner all the way down through the creek. Uh - going through uh - there was a limb laying over in the creek that had actually uh - shoes were floating and had come up against the limb - in flowing water when something comes against a limb or debris or whatever, that's where it stops, and that's the way we found these shoes. Uh -
FOGLEMAN: And how was the water - what was the flow?
RIDGE: It was a very slow flow. Uh - above this area, has a trickle. Uh - if you can imagine, there would be something like 2 gallons a minute would come through this trickle of water. Then it would go into this area, which a 10 foot area - might be 150 gallons. So the 2 gallons a minute that would come into this area would make this a very slow current in this area - where it might have been uh - a foot every 10 seconds above that area, it was maybe a foot in every minute and a half or two minutes in this -
DAVIDSON: Your Honor, we would object -
FOGLEMAN: I would just estimate on it -
(talking over)
DAVIDSON: Detective giving the opinion on the water flow - the gallons per minute, unless he's qualified to give that opinion. Thank you, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Alright, I'll sustain the objection.
FOGLEMAN: Water was moving slow?
RIDGE: Very slow.
FOGLEMAN: Thank you. Alright. And as you moved uh - along doing this search, uh - how - well, just tell the jury what you found.
RIDGE: Ok. At - near the body - where Michael Moore was found, the water was devoid, or there was an absence of any debris floating in that particular area. There was very little, if any, in that area. As you got lower in the stream, there was more debris. Uh - including the shoes floating, the clothes floating, and what have you - the boy scout cap. The further you went, the more debris you ran into.
FOGLEMAN: Alright.
RIDGE: Going downstream.
FOGLEMAN: And then as you got further downstream, what else did you find?
RIDGE: Ok. Approximately 25 foot - later measured as 27 foot, uh - below the body of Michael Moore, I -
FOGLEMAN: That's downstream?
RIDGE: Yes sir. I found the body of Stevie Branch. Uh -
FOGLEMAN: Now I want to refer your attention to exhibit 36.
RIDGE: This is me uh - discovering the body of Stevie Branch. In the water you can see the obvious debris - how much more debris there is here than there was in the picture where Michael Moore was located. Um - I was raising him up out of the water at that point.
FOGLEMAN: Let me refer you to state's exhibit 20.
RIDGE: State's exhibit 20 is me actually removing the body from the water and preparing to move him to the bank - lay him on the bank above where he was located. Again, in the water you can see the debris. This is Detective Stan Burch who assisted - Stan and Detective Sergeant Mike Allen.
FOGLEMAN: State's exhibit 17.
RIDGE: This is uh - me laying the body of Stevie Branch on the bank above where he was located. Uh - this area of the bank here is an absence of leaves, as in the surrounding area you can see leaves, sticks, grass, and what have you. In that particular area, there was no - there was an area of - where absence of leaves.
FOGLEMAN: Which bank is this, we're talking about?
RIDGE: This is on the west bank.
FOGLEMAN: Alright. As oppose to where Michael Moore was, which was on the east bank - ok. Alright. And then after um - recovering Stevie and putting him on the bank, what did you do?
RIDGE: Well, after observing the injuries of Stevie as he was removed from the water and I laid him on the bank, he had some severe cuts to the facial area uh - on the left side, uh - he was tied with ligatures, right hand to right foot, left hand to left foot, uh - his penis had a reddish - dark reddish bruise like color to it.
FOGLEMAN: And then after you did that, what did you do?
RIDGE: I continued to search downstream from that area, as in the previous search.
FOGLEMAN: And what did you find?
RIDGE: The body of Christopher Byers.
FOGLEMAN: Show you state's exhibit 35 - exhibit that to describe.
RIDGE: This is uh - me recovering uh - the body of Chris Byers from the water - the creek. And in the creek, you can see all the debris in this area. And uh - I found him tied as the other two victims had been tied.
FOGLEMAN: State's exhibit 24.
RIDGE: This is the uh - body of Christopher Byers as I placed it up on the bank. The injuries to the genital area was - it looked as if his penis had been removed, there were stab marks all around the area, um - bruising to his body, and injuries to his head.
FOGLEMAN: You can retake the stand.
(pause)
FOGLEMAN: I want to show you now uh - state's exhibits 25, 18, 33, 34, 37A, 40 and 41 and ask if you can identify those photographs?
RIDGE: Yes sir, I can.
FOGLEMAN: And do those photographs fairly and accurately portray the scene as it appeared to you that day?
RIDGE: Yes sir.
(mumbling)
THE COURT: Any objection?
DAVIDSON: We haven't seen 'em yet, Your Honor - none, Your Honor, by -
(pause)
PRICE: No objection.
THE COURT: Alright, they may be received without objection.
FOGLEMAN: Your Honor, may the witness step down -
THE COURT: Yes, he may.
FOGLEMAN: - exhibit to the jury and describe.
RIDGE: This is exhibit 25, which is a photograph of the crime scene from the north looking to the south. Just at the bottom of this picture would be the area where Michael Moore was located. Traveling downstream would be - or at the top of the picture - the body of Stevie Branch was located, in an area just behind this tree. And the body of Christopher Byers was located just below stream -
FOGLEMAN: Let me interrupt you -
(talking over)
FOGLEMAN: Let me interrupt you a minute. I want to refer you to state's exhibit 11. The leaning tree on the bank, uh - is on - is that depicted in that photograph?
RIDGE: Yes sir. That's this picture here - of this tree.
FOGLEMAN: Ok. Go ahead.
RIDGE: Ok. In this picture also, you can see the debris, the body of - the first body, of Michael Moore was located here. The debris that's floating in the stream downstream was where his body was located. This is the limb that was in the water that -
PRICE: If you could refer to the -
THE COURT: Refer to the exhibit number, I don't think -
RIDGE: Exhibit number 18 uh - is a photograph of the shoes. There are 2 shoes - actually 3 shoes floating in the water. A white tennis shoe here, a white tennis shoe here, the uh - boy scout cap, and a uh - black tennis shoe.
FOGLEMAN: When you say boy scout - you mean cub scout?
RIDGE: A cub scout cap, yeah. A uh - this is a photograph of those items, where they were recovered. Uh - here's a - the stick with the shirt wrapped around it that was dislodged and floated to the top, as I was coming to the body of Michael Moore. Also, a pair of pants that was located in the mud just beside the body of Michael Moore. It was down at the bottom of the creek and I recovered them as I was recovering the body from - of Michael Moore, from the water. Uh - you can see the shoe that's in the previous picture that was floating here, the uh - cub scout cap was right here in this area right above that. This is a picture of me removing those shoes from the water. Uh - all this - these pictures are those items just below the body of Michael Moore. I'm removing the cub scout cap, uh - this is exhibit 37A, where this cub scout cap would be - recovered.
FOGLEMAN: 14 is 34.
RIDGE: Exhibit 40 is my recovering a second pair of pants. That was in the area where the body of Michael Moore was located. Uh - this is a photograph of me recovering one of the shoes that was in the water where Michael Moore was located.
(female voice): Which one was that?
FOGLEMAN: 41.
RIDGE: Exhibit 41.
FOGLEMAN: Alright. I, again, want to show you, Detective Ridge, state's exhibits 22, 23, 26, 37B, 27, and 28 and ask if you can identify those?
RIDGE: Yes sir.
FOGLEMAN: Can you identify 'em? Look through each one.
(female mumbling)
RIDGE: Yes sir.
FOGLEMAN: Do they fairly and accurately portray the scene as it appeared to you at that time?
RIDGE: Yes sir.
FOGLEMAN: Your Honor, we would offer state's exhibits 27, 28, and um - 37B, 26, 23, and 22.
THE COURT: Ok - Alright. They are received by the previous - any objection?
DAVIDSON: No sir, Your Honor.
FORD: Those are the before and after photographs that we previously entered an objection. 23 and 26, we've previously made a record.
(faint mumbling)
(pause)
THE COURT: Something y'all need to talk about or y'all -
(mumbling)
THE COURT: Any objection?
PRICE: No sir.
THE COURT: Other than those already stated?
FORD: No sir.
THE COURT: Alright. You may proceed - they may be received.
FOGLEMAN: Detective Ridge, with particular reference to the - well, first of all before I have you describe the - the pictures, uh - the area where Michael Moore was found, the bank on the uh - east side, describe for the jury what you observed there on the east bank.
RIDGE: There was an absence of leaves in that area. Uh - there were scuff marks, uh - slicked off areas, the grass was uh - had mud over the top of it, the stems were actually bent over in the mud. Uh - an the absence of leaves, the wet looking, the shiny looking, an uh - it looked different from the surrounding area which had a lot of leaves and a lot of vegetation sticking out.
FOGLEMAN: Now, I want you to start with state's exhibit 37B and this is a dark picture, but if you can, uh - show the jury uh - the area we're talking about.
RIDGE: Ok. This is the east bank. This is a very dark picture, but it's fairly obvious when you look at it. This is the slicked off area and the grass has been pushed down into the mud, there's scuff marks, uh -
FOGLEMAN: You referring to the shiny -
RIDGE: This area here.
FOGLEMAN: - the shiny -
FORD: Your Honor, I object to that characterization because I can't see any of those things in that photograph. I don't see anything but except the back of Detective Ridge.
THE COURT: Do you have an objection?
FORD: I detect - I object to the characterization that that photo stands for those things when it's not visible in that photograph.
THE COURT: Well, I'll let you bring it out on cross examination. You've - you've allowed the photograph in without objection. I'm gonna allow him to depict what he saw in it.
WADLEY: Your Honor, we would question that Detective not state it's fairly obvious to make that - to see something. That's something that can be drawn for each person, but for him to give an opinion that it's fairly obvious to see something is not proper.
THE COURT: Alright gentlemen, I thought he previously testified as to what he personally observed there. That he saw it himself. And at that point, he then pointed out the areas of the photograph that depicted what he believed to be present. Now, whether it is or not, that's a question of argument.
WADLEY: Is our objection overruled?
THE COURT: Yes.
FOGLEMAN: Now, state's exhibit 27.
RIDGE: Exhibit 27 is - in that picture that you just looked at, you see me bending over taking some plaster casts, which that plaster cast is an area just north of the bank that has been slicked off, uh - cleaned or absence of leaves. Uh - this is a picture - this is a picture of that area. Here's the creek in the front, uh - here and here is where those plaster casts were taken. At the top of this picture is the very edge of that area that was slicked off - in that picture, and the absence of leaves.
FOGLEMAN: And uh - state's - well, let's go ahead, uh - 26 - 22, 23, and 26.
RIDGE: Ok. Exhibit number 22 is me as I'm placing the body of Michael Moore on the bank uh - the picture - to note a couple of things uh - the ligatures and the way that Michael Moore was tied - right hand to right foot, left hand to left foot uh - some injuries to his head, the bleeding from the nostrils and from other wounds, uh - this also is - this other area that is - where the grass has got uh - mud over the top of it, it's been bent over and pushed down in the mud, and absence of leaves in this area.
FOGLEMAN: Now, is that the condition the bank was in when you first arrived?
RIDGE: Yes sir, it is.
(mumbling)
RIDGE: Exhibit number 23, uh - is just a different angle. The body of Michael Moore - this is the area that you can see the scuff marks, the absence of leaves, uh - just - the grass has been pushed down on, it's not as vegetated as the surrounding area is. Exhibit number 26, which is again, the body of Michael Moore here and the bank that's - there where the grass is broken over, pushed down, the slicks, the scuffed off areas - that's a closer picture of that.
FOGLEMAN: Now, uh - state's exhibit 28.
RIDGE: State's exhibit 28, this is the area -
FOGLEMAN: Which bank is this?
RIDGE: This is the west bank. Uh - Steve -
FOGLEMAN: And the other pictures are of the -
RIDGE: East bank.
FOGLEMAN: Ok. This is the area where Stevie Branch was located, uh - Christopher Byers was located. This is the bank to the west of where they were located - on the west side of that ditch. And there's an absence of leaves in this area. Even in the picture you can see that leaves and vegetation is everywhere else except in that area.
FOGLEMAN: Alright. And is the water level in there - is that the way it was or is something changed about the water level?
RIDGE: Actually this photograph was taken after the ditch had been pumped dry, uh - pumped all the water out.
FOGLEMAN: So about where was the water level that was - prior to -
RIDGE: The water level prior to us pumping was in this area.
FOGLEMAN: I want you to take and - this will write on there - take this pen and try to mark on there.
RIDGE: Ok. On the west bank, the water level would have been up about here which is a good foot higher than the water level at this point. And on the east bank, which is a steeper bank, that water would have been at this level.
FOGLEMAN: Now, I want to show you state's exhibits 19, 32, 38, 42, and ask if you can identify those?
RIDGE: Yes sir, I can.
FOGLEMAN: And do those photographs fairly and accurately portray the scene as it appeared to you that day?
RIDGE: Yes sir.
(mumbling)
THE COURT: Looks like they've got some more, y'all wanna quit right now and start with him in the morning at 9:30?
Davis: It's up to you, Your Honor.
FOGLEMAN: Your Honor, we don't have that much more -
THE COURT: 5 - 10 minutes, what?
FOGLEMAN: Think like that.
Davis: (mumbling)
THE COURT: You gonna put the clothes on - that'll take ya awhile, you gonna do it?
FOGLEMAN: I ain't gonna put the clothes on til -
THE COURT: Well, let's quit now and you can finish in the morning, then they can have all their cross examination in the morning.
FORD: Thank you Judge, I appreciate that.
THE COURT: Alright ladies and gentlemen, we're going to have our evening recess at this time and you're again reminded of the admonition of the Court not to read news accounts, watch news accounts, listen to 'em or let anybody attempt to talk to you about it - including folks at home. I mean, neighbors and all that, when they find out that you're on the jury - like I told you earlier, they'll wanna talk to ya about the case uh - you'll have to advise them that you can not. And with that reminder, you're free to go until in the morning at 9:30. You can go out the back stairs if you want. The court will be in recess until 9:30 in the morning.
March 1, 1994
(mumbling)
THE COURT: Alright gentlemen, I understand you had a preliminary matter you wanted to bring up?
FOGLEMAN: Yes, Your Honor. The defense - I believe it was Mr. Ford, had a number of items blown up and I anticipate - now, I may be wrong in anticipation, but I anticipate that he may be trying to use some documents from the police department to cross examine Detective Ridge on and uh - I noticed, the one that I did catch a glimpse of had West Memphis Police Department stationary and we would ask with the Court's permission to examine those prior to cross examination to make sure that he is - would be examining Detective Ridge about some of Detective Ridge's product and not something that somebody else - or something that would be inadmissible or irrelevant.
FORD: Your Honor, we don't anticipate using any of those - what is mentioned, with respect to uh - Detective Ridge to my knowledge.
THE COURT: Well, I don't want you to cross examine anybody from a written document that's not their own product.
FORD: There won't be none, I won't do that.
THE COURT: It would be hearsay and I would sustain an objection to it so don't attempt to do it. So -
FORD: That's - that'd be - that's quite fine.
THE COURT: Ok.
FORD: He doesn't know what it is and I -
THE COURT: Well, I sure don't and I'm telling ya - you can't cross examine someone by a document prepared by someone else. Unless they say they're a party to it or a part in partial of it or involved in it in some way. I think you know that.
FORD: Yes sir.
THE COURT: Alright, anything else?
FOGLEMAN: No sir.
PRICE: Yes sir, if we could approach for a minute?
THE COURT: Well, you can just say it from there, the jury's not in here.
PRICE: Alright. That's fine, Judge. Judge, a few moments ago before you came in the courtroom, uh - Phillip Wells, who's actually - I guess, is the Court's liaison, was giving statements to the press, anticipated on Mr. Misskelley's testimony or not. I'd like to know the substance of those conversations and I'd like to know the status of those negotiations.
THE COURT: Well, I'll tell ya what Mr. Wells told me in, uh - I guess Mr. Wells - when I asked him to perform that service that you're aware of earlier, that he's just kind of been stuck with it is what it amounts to. Uh - he informed me that he met with uh - Greg Crow, one of the attorneys for Mr. Misskelley - I don't recall if Dan Stidham was there, I don't believe he was according to what Phillip Wells told me. And that they discussed with him the possibility of his testimony and that nothing has been resolved at this time with regard to his potential testimony. I understand that they are talking. That's the best that I can tell ya.
FORD: Your Honor, in light of the fact that Mr. Wells stands in a peculiar position being the Court's liaison, which I believe is the term he is using to the press - Your Honor, we feel that for him to be making remarks to the press about what's going on with respect to witnesses is as if you yourself were making those remarks, Your Honor. And therefore, are impermissible remarks of the Court -
THE COURT: (talking over) I'll tell Mr. Wells to refrain from making any comment to the press in the future. I agree with you.
FORD: Your Honor, we would also ask that the remark that he made this morning - he basically stood at the rail and held a press conference, and we would ask that there be an order issued not to have those items printed because they are -
THE COURT: Well, I can't do that.
FORD: Ok. Your Honor, we just make the record - we feel that those remarks, if printed or aired, are comments by the Court on the evidence in this case.
THE COURT: Uh - (laughter)
PRICE: Well Judge -
THE COURT: I don't go that far, Mr. FORD, at all. In fact, I wasn't aware that Mr. Wells had made a press conference. Now, I'll certainly tell him that he's not to do that in the future. And whether or not he's the liaison with the Court, those are probably inappropriate choice of words. He was asked by the Court - as you well know - to perform a specific function, uh - and - and - uh - I can understand how he's become involved in it at this point because what he amounts to - is - is -
FORD: Is a liaison.
THE COURT: Well, he's not a liaison with the Court. He's a - I guess what the better word would be is a - a - a second counsel for uh - Mr. Misskelley, by direction of the Court.
FORD: Well Your Honor, if he is a counsel for Misskelley, then we contend that his remarks are prohibited by the ethical on restrictions of remarks to the press because he is making remarks about evidence in a case that could -
THE COURT: Well now, what has he made - what remarks has he made with regard to evidence in the case?
FORD: Just that he's -
THE COURT: He's speculated on whether or not the man will testify is what I understand. And I just announced what he told me and I assume it's the same thing he told them and that's quite a bit different from commenting on testimony. So, is there anything else? Alright, call the jury in. But I will tell him not to make anymore comments to the newspapers or to the uh - press.
(mumbling)
THE COURT: It's a lot brighter in here, isn't it?
(pause)
THE COURT: In fact, I'll get one of the bailiffs to tell him not to -
(pause)
FOGLEMAN: Your Honor, would the Court inquire if there are any witnesses in the courtroom that weren't in here yesterday and if there are - I don't know if there are -
THE COURT: Is there anyone in the courtroom that knows themselves to be a witness in this case or anyone that has been subpoenaed by the state or the defendants in the case as a witness?
(pause)
THE COURT: Ok Bryn, you can come up here and retake the stand. Anyone else? Alright, you - you may proceed.
(female mumbling)
THE COURT: Yeah, make sure that you speak into the PA system there because some of the jurors indicated that they were having a little bit of trouble hearing the witnesses. Cap that silver one there and see if you can move it towards you a little bit.
FOGLEMAN: Which, the black one?
THE COURT: Is that speaker there working? Try it.
(mumbling)
THE COURT: Alright.
FOGLEMAN: Detective Ridge, alright - for the record, you're the same Detective Ridge who testified yesterday at the conclusion of the court proceedings?
RIDGE: Yes sir, I am.
FOGLEMAN: Detective Ridge, if you would step down and direct your attention to state's exhibit 13. Would you take the corner and just using state's exhibit 13, if you would describe um - for the jury um - where the um - the items that you found were in relation to the diagram.
RIDGE: Ok. McAuley driving west - here is the trail at the end, which is a dead end street. It goes to the pipe across Ten Mile Bayou. Here's the trail that goes to the back of Blue Beacon. Uh - there's a trail that comes off of here that goes across Turtle Hill and across this little uh - gully type area, and this is the area that is uh - the crime scene and the bodies were found at the bottom of this ditch.
FOGLEMAN: Alright. Now, in reference to the pipe uh - that you've indicated - I want to direct your attention to this inset over here, uh - is that a uh - a cross section or detail of the pipe and the high-beams beside the pipe?
RIDGE: Yes sir, it is.
FOGLEMAN: And does that fairly portray the manner in which uh - the pipe and the high-beams appear?
RIDGE: Yes sir, it does.
FOGLEMAN: Now, if you could describe uh - what these reference points are on the diagram and where Michael Moore was found in relation to those reference points.
RIDGE: Ok. Here, this white area, is where this bank was - had the scuff marks, uh - absence of leaves, uh - the slicked over cleared area. That was above the body of Michael Moore. Michael Moore was found here in the bottom of this creek. Uh - the high bank level is the level of ground out here that's going through this area. That point of the crime scene high bank average was 215 feet above the degree sea level or average sea level. The shelf level was approximately 210 feet above average sea level, and that is 5 feet below the surrounding area. The flow line or - this ditch is actually a ditch within a ditch, in other words, there are - a long sloping bank and then at the bottom of that sloping bank is an area that holds water that the water flows in case there is a very heavy rain and then there will be another bank that goes up on the other side. This smaller area in the center, between these two lines in the center is that lower ditch. And the low bank level is 209 feet to 210 on the average above sea level. Uh - the flow line, the very bottom of that ditch is 207 and 1/2 feet above sea level. The difference being between 215 and 207 is like 7 and 1/2 feet straight down from the top bank all the way to the bottom of the ditch. Ok, uh -
FOGLEMAN: Alright. Now on here is - you've got a point here, a point here, and a point there - what are those points?
RIDGE: Ok. On this flat level um - the shelf that had the scuff marks, the slicked off area, there is a tree at the north side of that area and uh - that tree was used as a reference point for measuring where specific items of the bodies were located at the crime scene. Uh - directly across the creek on the upper bank there is another tree and that tree was also used as a reference point. Below the bottom - body of, um - the victim, Michael Moore, uh - close to the creek there is a group of three trees and those trees are reference point also for those measurements and just below those three trees is where the body of Stevie Branch and Christopher Byers were located.
FOGLEMAN: Detective Ridge, if you would take this pen and first uh - if you would, draw a stick figure uh - of where Michael Moore was discovered.
RIDGE: Michael Moore was discovered in this area right here. Head to the north, he was laying on his left side, the body coming down at an angle, his knees forming a square, then his arms tied to his knees, he was facing east or toward Memphis from this area. The body of Stevie Branch was - the head was downstream. He had the body, the shoulders, the arms toward the feet. He had the torso and then the other two legs and again those were tied in the same manner in which he was found. The body of Christopher Byers was in line after that and then the head downstream toward the south. The arms tied to the feet. Again, downstream in that manner.
FOGLEMAN: Alright now - and you may have testified to this, I may have just missed it - uh - you indicated that Michael Moore was on his left side. How was uh - Stevie Branch?
RIDGE: Face down, tied in the same manner.
FOGLEMAN: And Chris Byers?
RIDGE: Face down.
FOGLEMAN: Alright. Ok. You can retake the stand.
(pause)
FOGLEMAN: Now, I believe when you had - when you were testifying yesterday, you had identified - in some photographs, some clothing that was found. Is that right?
RIDGE: Yes sir. Some photographs of some clothing as it was being removed from the creek.
FOGLEMAN: I want to show you what I've marked for identification purposes as state's exhibit 47A and 47B and ask if you can identify those?
RIDGE: Yes sir, I can.
FOGLEMAN: Ok. And how can you identify those?
RIDGE: They were packaged by me and have my initials and the date.
FOGLEMAN: And what are they?
RIDGE: A black tennis shoe with purple interior and a black tennis shoe with purple interior.
FOGLEMAN: Alright. And where were those tennis shoes recovered?
RIDGE: In the ditch.
FOGLEMAN: Your Honor, we would offer exhibits 47A and 47B.
THE COURT: Any objection?
PRICE: No objection.
FORD: Your Honor, we would like to see what's inside the bag before they introduce it into evidence.
THE COURT: Alright.
(opening bag)
RIDGE: A black, boy's tennis shoe with purple interior. That is exhibit 47B. Exhibit 47A is also a black tennis shoe with purple interior.
(replacing exhibits into bags)
(mumbling)
THE COURT: You want to examine them?
FORD: I just need to see - I just want to see the -
(bag still crinkling)
FOGLEMAN: Your Honor, again, we offer state's exhibits 47A and 47B.
FORD: May we look at 'em?
THE COURT: Again?
FOGLEMAN: Your Honor, I would point out to the Court that they've had an opportunity to look at 'em previously. Uh - several times.
(bag crinkling)
(pause)
FORD: Your Honor, may I voir dire the witness on these items?
(pause)
FORD: Detective Ridge, did you bag these at the scene?
RIDGE: No sir, they had to be dried before they were sent to the crime lab.
FORD: They had to be what?
RIDGE: Dried.
FORD: Ok. Where were - how were they - where were they taken when you first got them? They were put -
RIDGE: They were placed in the sacks and they were taken to my office in those sacks in order - where they could be air dried.
FORD: Ok. So you put them directly in this sack?
RIDGE: Yes sir.
FORD: And then you took 'em and dried them?
RIDGE: Yes sir.
FORD: And then resacked them?
RIDGE: Yes sir.
FORD: No objection.
FOGLEMAN: Now, would you put 'em back in the sacks, please?
FORD: Are you introducing the sacks? Or are you introducing part of the chain -
FOGLEMAN: Yes.
FORD: Ok.
(mumbling)
(bag crinkling)
FOGLEMAN: We're offering again.
THE COURT: Any objection?
FORD: No, Your Honor.
PRICE: No objection.
THE COURT: Alright, they may be received without objection. You may exhibit to the jury if you care to.
FOGLEMAN: Now Detective Ridge, I want to show you what's marked for identification purposes as state's exhibits 51A and 51B, ask if you can identify those?
RIDGE: Yes sir, I can.
FOGLEMAN: And how can you identify those?
RIDGE: They're bagged by me, have my initials and date on 'em.
FOGLEMAN: And where were those items recovered?
RIDGE: In the water near the body.
FOGLEMAN: And in this particular case, did you put 'em in the bag yourself?
RIDGE: Yes sir, I did.
FOGLEMAN: Alright. And after you put 'em in the bag, what did you do with 'em?
RIDGE: I took 'em to my office where they were dried and prepared to send to the crime lab.
FOGLEMAN: Did you then replace them in the bag?
RIDGE: Yes sir, I did.
FOGLEMAN: Ok. And uh - did you - how were they taken to the crime lab by the way - these and the other items?
RIDGE: They were hand carried to the crime lab by Glen Masengale, the officer for the West Memphis Police Department.
FOGLEMAN: And would you now open the sack and -
(bag crinkling)
RIDGE: A black tennis shoe. Exhibit 51B is a black tennis shoe. Exhibit 51A is a black tennis shoe and 1 sock.
FOGLEMAN: Would you show that to the jury?
RIDGE: A black tennis shoe with 1 sock.
FOGLEMAN: Your Honor, we would offer exhibits 51A and 51B.
THE COURT: Any objections?
FORD: May I voir dire on these, Your Honor?
THE COURT: Alright.
FORD: Detective Ridge, you took the shoes and the sock - is that correct?
RIDGE: Yes.
FORD: And did you take them and place them directly from where you picked them up - well, first of all, where did you find those?
RIDGE: In the water.
FORD: In the water. Did you take them out of the water and place them directly in those respective sacks?
RIDGE: Yes sir, I did.
FORD: And they remained in those sacks until you took them back where?
RIDGE: To my office.
FORD: Took them out of the sacks?
RIDGE: Yes sir - no sir, didn't take 'em out of the sacks. What they had to be was left open in order that the items inside could dry.
FORD: Didn't take any of those out of the sacks?
RIDGE: They weren't taken out of the sacks until checking individually to make sure that those items were dry.
FORD: And then you closed 'em?
RIDGE: Yes sir.
FORD: They never -
(pause)
(mumbling)
FORD: Are these items in both of these sacks in the same condition now as when you retrieved them?
RIDGE: Except that they're dry, yes sir.
FORD: No objection, Your Honor.
PRICE: No objection.
THE COURT: Alright, it may be received without objection. You may exhibit to the jury.
FOGLEMAN: Your Honor, with the Court's permission - since this is gonna take awhile and so the jury will be able to observe all throughout the testimony, we would like to wait to exhibit these items.
THE COURT: That'll be fine.
FOGLEMAN: Except from the witness stand.
(pause)
FOGLEMAN: Detective Ridge, I want to hand you state's exhibit 48 -
RIDGE: Yes sir.
FOGLEMAN: Ask if you can identify that.
RIDGE: Yes, I can.
FOGLEMAN: How can you identify it?
RIDGE: By being labeled by me with my initials and date.
FOGLEMAN: And uh - where did you recover that item?
RIDGE: In the water.
FOGLEMAN: Alright. And what is it?
RIDGE: It's a pair of blue jeans and a blue wallet.
FOGLEMAN: Alright. Would you open the sack?
(bag crinkling)
(mumbling)
FOGLEMAN: Exhibit to the jury.
RIDGE: Blue jeans and the blue wallet.
FOGLEMAN: Ok. Would you place that back in the sack?
(bag crinkling)
FORD: May I voir dire on this particular bag he's opened, Your Honor?
THE COURT: I'm sorry?
FORD: May I voir dire on this particular bag he's offering?
FOGLEMAN: Your Honor, I hadn't offered it yet.
THE COURT: Let him offer the next bag and then you can do it, ok.
FOGLEMAN: Your Honor, what I would like to do to try to speed this up a little bit, is I'd like to have him identify each item and collectively offer them. If they want to voir dire on each of those items it would be fine, but I don't - I want to have him identify -
FORD: (talking over) It would go quicker, Judge -
FOGLEMAN: - I want to try to speed this up a little bit.
FORD: It would go quicker to have him go one by one rather than having him go back through all that stuff again. Take 'em back out and reshow up back again, it would be much quicker to do it this way.
FOGLEMAN: Your Honor, I want to do it however the Court think it would be most expeditious.
FORD: That's correct.
THE COURT: Alright. Let's open 'em up one at a time and then go through and review that way and then you can tender 'em. Alright. You want to look at this?
FOGLEMAN: While he's looking at that, Detective Ridge, is - how did you handle that particular item?
RIDGE: Removed from the water and placed in that sack, taken to my office, dried, and sent to the crime lab.
FOGLEMAN: Alright.
(bag crinkling)
(pause)
FORD: Detective, same thing again - you took them out of the water?
RIDGE: Yes sir.
FORD: Placed them in that bag?
RIDGE: Yes sir, I did.
FORD: Ok. And you opened them up back at your office?
RIDGE: In order that they dry, yes sir.
FORD: And dry without removing from the bag - is that correct?
RIDGE: (talking over) Yes.
FORD: The white tissue that's in the uh - in the bag -
RIDGE: Yes sir.
FORD: When - were they placed on the tissue first - where - how - what's the procedure that you had with the white tissue?
RIDGE: That is not my procedure. As the items were at the crime lab, they had placed them on those white papers in order to save any trace evidence that may be there. It was returned with that item.
FORD: You placed them wet in that sack?
RIDGE: Yes sir.
FORD: Took it to your office, opened it up and air dried, is that correct?
RIDGE: Yes sir.
FORD: The sacks - where did you get the sacks? Where did they come from?
RIDGE: From -
FOGLEMAN: It says on there 'Gene Stimpson', my God.
FORD: Judge, I can ask him where he got the sacks. I don't - it says 'Gene Stimpson' -
THE COURT: Alright, ask him.
FORD: Alright. Where did you get the sacks?
RIDGE: I asked an officer to go get those sacks and we started -
FORD: Were the sacks - what condition were the sacks in when you got them?
RIDGE: Clean. New sacks.
FORD: Ok. No objection, Your Honor.
PRICE: No objection.
THE COURT: Alright. It may be received, sack and all.
FOGLEMAN: Hand you what's marked for identification purposes as state's exhibits 46A and 46B and ask if you can identify those?
RIDGE: Yes sir, I can.
FOGLEMAN: Alright, and how can you identify those?
RIDGE: They're marked by me, my initials, and date.
FOGLEMAN: And uh - where did you recover those items?
RIDGE: In the water.
FOGLEMAN: Talking about at the crime scene?
RIDGE: Yes sir, at the crime scene.
FOGLEMAN: And uh - what are they?
RIDGE: They're white tennis shoes - one white tennis shoe and one white tennis shoe.
FOGLEMAN: Alright. And would you open the sacks.
(bag crinkling)
RIDGE: For exhibit 46B, is a white tennis shoe. Exhibit 46A is a white tennis shoe.
FOGLEMAN: And did you handle those tennis shoes in the same manner as the other items as far as after you removed them and how you dried them?
RIDGE: Yes sir, I did.
FOGLEMAN: And used the same sack?
RIDGE: Yes sir.
FOGLEMAN: We would offer -
(mumbling)
(bag crinkling)
FORD: Detective Ridge, as to these two that's been offered for identification, uh - you picked them directly out of the water?
RIDGE: Yes sir.
FORD: Were the shoes dripping water when you took them out of the water?
RIDGE: Yes sir, they were.
FORD: You placed them directly, dripping water, into those sacks - is that correct? Have you looked in those sacks? Uh - those are the same sacks that you put 'em directly into - is that correct?
RIDGE: Yes sir.
FORD: Ok. Are there any water - do they have any water stains inside of these two sacks?
RIDGE: I don't know if there is or not.
(bag crinkling)
RIDGE: Not that I can see, but the texture of the sacks are as though they have been wet.
FORD: You don't see any water stains though, do you?
RIDGE: I don't see any, no sir.
FORD: No objection, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Without objection, they may be received.
FORD: Thank you, Your Honor.
FOGLEMAN: Hand you sta - hand you what's been marked for identification purposes as state's exhibit 52, ask if you can identify those items.
RIDGE: Yes sir, I can.
FOGLEMAN: How can you identify those items?
RIDGE: Has my markings on it, my initials and the date.
FOGLEMAN: Alright. And where did you recover that item?
RIDGE: In the water there at the crime scene.
FOGLEMAN: Alright. On all - on these clothing items, were they just floating in the water or how were they?
RIDGE: Some of 'em were floating, uh - pants were stuck down in the mud at the bottom of the creek, uh - there was a shirt that was wrapped around a stick, it was jobbed into the mud with the stick still there.
FOGLEMAN: What is this particular item that was recovered?
RIDGE: Uh - a pair of blue jeans.
FOGLEMAN: Would you open the sack?
(bag crinkling)
RIDGE: A pair of blue jeans. And this package is marked as the items that came out of the pocket of the blue jeans.
FOGLEMAN: Alright. Did you actually take anything out of the pants?
RIDGE: No sir, I did not.
FOGLEMAN: Alright. Uh - did that come from the crimelab?
RIDGE: Yes, it did.
FOGLEMAN: And after you recovered those jeans, what did you do with 'em?
RIDGE: I placed them in this sack, took them to the office, handled as the other evidence.
FOGLEMAN: On the uh - pants, um - do you recall uh - how the pants were when they were recovered?
RIDGE: To the best of my memory, two of those pair of pants were inside out, buttoned, and zipped. One pair was right side out, I believe, buttoned and zipped.
FOGLEMAN: We would offer state's exhibit um - 52.
FORD: Are these two - one exhibit?
FOGLEMAN: Yeah.
(mumbling)
(bag crinkling)
THE COURT: Move over Robin, I can't see.
FORD: Detective Ridge, the pants that are in this sack, did you take 'em directly out of the water and place in that sack?
RIDGE: Yes sir.
FORD: And when you pulled 'em out of the water were they dripping water?
RIDGE: Yes sir, they were.
FORD: I believe you testified that they were turned inside out - is that correct?
RIDGE: Two of the pair of pants were inside out.
FORD: How about these?
RIDGE: I'm not certain which pairs.
FORD: Ok. Did you place them in there the way you took them out of the water?
RIDGE: Yes sir, I did.
FORD: Ok. No objection, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Was that the way they were delivered to the lab?
RIDGE: Yes sir.
FOGLEMAN: Your Honor, again, we would offer state's exhibit 52.
PRICE: No objection.
THE COURT: Alright, it may be received without objection.
FOGLEMAN: Show you state's exhibit 8, ask if you can identify that item?
RIDGE: Yes sir, I can.
FOGLEMAN: And how can you identify it?
RIDGE: By my markings on the sack, my initials, and the date.
FOGLEMAN: Ok. And where did you recover that item?
RIDGE: In the water.
FOGLEMAN: Alright. And in - what item is that?
RIDGE: This is a blue and yellow cub scout cap.
FOGLEMAN: Is that the same cub scout cap that can be seen in some of the photographs floating in the water?
RIDGE: Yes sir, it is.
FOGLEMAN: And after retrieving that from the water, what did you do with it?
RIDGE: Placed it in this sack, treated it as the other evidence was treated.
FOGLEMAN: Allowed it to air dry?
RIDGE: Yes sir.
FOGLEMAN: And sealed the sack back?
RIDGE: Yes sir.
FOGLEMAN: Ok. Your Honor, we would offer state's exhibit 8. Oh, I forgot, would you remove it from the sack?
(bag crinkling)
RIDGE: Cub scout cap.
(mumbling)
FORD: Detective Ridge, same procedure - you picked the cap out of the water, is that correct?
RIDGE: Yes sir.
FORD: Was the cap dripping when you pulled it out of the water?
RIDGE: Yes sir.
FORD: And you placed it directly into the sack?
RIDGE: Yes sir, I did.
FORD: Was someone holding these sacks for you or - how did that procedure take place?
RIDGE: Yes, Sargeant Allen was there with me - holding the sacks as they were being placed in.
FORD: He would hold the sacks, you would pull it out of the water dripping and place it into the sack - is that -
RIDGE: Yes sir.
FORD: - the way you did it on each one of these?
RIDGE: Uh - to the best of my memory, yes sir. If the sack wasn't sitting on the ground then it was him holding it up.
FORD: There were times that the sacks - any of this stuff that we've - sometimes the sack was laying on the ground?
RIDGE: Sometimes the bottom of it would be on the ground and he would be holding it open, yes sir.
FORD: Actually touching the ground?
RIDGE: Yes sir.
FORD: Ok. This particular one, do you recall?
RIDGE: No sir, I don't recall which item it would have been exactly.
FORD: Ok. No objection.
DAVIDSON: No objection, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Alright, it may be received without objection.
FOGLEMAN: Thank you, Your Honor. Let me show you what's marked for identification purposes as state's exhibit 50, ask if you can identify that.
RIDGE: Yes, I can.
FOGLEMAN: How can you identify it?
RIDGE: My markings on the sack, my initials, and the date.
FOGLEMAN: And where did you recover that item?
RIDGE: In the water.
FOGLEMAN: Would you open the bag?
(bag crinkling)
FOGLEMAN: And what is it, by the way?
RIDGE: A pair of child's underwear.
FOGLEMAN: Did you handle that item in the same manner that you handled all the other item?
RIDGE: Yes sir, I did.
FOGLEMAN: And after removing it from the water, did you place it in that bag?
RIDGE: Yes sir.
FOGLEMAN: Your Honor, we would offer state's exhibit 50.
(pause)
FORD: Detective, same procedure - you pulled this item out of the water?
RIDGE: Yes sir.
FORD: Were they dripping when you took it out of the water?
RIDGE: (sigh) I think so - this may have been the item that was hanging up on a limb right there at the edge of the water.
(mumbling)
FORD: Was it dripping or was it not dripping?
RIDGE: I'm not exactly certain, but it was wet.
FORD: And you placed it in the sack?
RIDGE: Yes sir.
FORD: Took it to your office?
RIDGE: Yes sir.
FORD: Let it air out?
RIDGE: Yes sir.
FORD: How long did uh - did you submit all these items at one time -
RIDGE: Yes sir, I did.
FORD: - to the crimelab?
RIDGE: These items, yes.
FORD: How long did they sit in your office before you sent those off?
RIDGE: Overnight.
FORD: Did you notice any water dripping out of the bottom of that sack when you placed it in there?
RIDGE: Dripping out of the sack?
FORD: Yes, out of the bottom.
RIDGE: No sir.
FORD: Did you notice any water dripping out of the bottom of any of these sacks when you would place an item in there?
RIDGE: (sigh) I don't remember. Seems as though there were wet places in the carpet where they were laying.
FORD: I'm talking at the - I'm talking out at the -
RIDGE: That would have come through the bottom of the sack -
FORD: (talking over) Did you see water coming out of it?
RIDGE: - that's what you're saying.
FORD: I'm asking, did you see that?
RIDGE: No sir.
FORD: You didn't - you never saw that?
RIDGE: I'm telling you that the carpet was wet where the sacks were sitting - some of the sacks, not all of 'em.
FORD: I'm talking out in Robin Hood woods.
RIDGE: Oh, no sir, I didn't - not at Robin Hood woods.
FORD: You didn't see any -
RIDGE: (talking over) I would have noticed it, no sir.
FORD: You didn't notice that?
RIDGE: No sir.
FORD: No objection, Your Honor.
DAVIDSON: No objection, Your Honor.
THE COURT: It may be received without objection.
FOGLEMAN: I'm gonna hand you what's been marked for identification purposes as state's exhibit number 43 and ask if you can identify that item?
RIDGE: Yes sir, I can.
FOGLEMAN: And how can you identify it?
RIDGE: Has my markings on the sack and my initials and date.
FOGLEMAN: And where did you recover that item?
RIDGE: In the water at the crime scene.
FOGLEMAN: And how was - after you recovered it, what did you do with it?
RIDGE: Placed it in this sack, took it to my office where it was dried, prepared it for sending to the crimelab.
FOGLEMAN: And would you open the sack?
(bag crinkling)
RIDGE: A blue shirt.
FOGLEMAN: Is that the cub scout shirt?
RIDGE: Yes sir.
FOGLEMAN: Could you hold it up? All I saw was a blue blob.
(pause)
FOGLEMAN: And is that the same cub scout shirt you pulled out of the water and placed in that sack?
RIDGE: Yes sir, it is.
FOGLEMAN: Your Honor, we would offer state's exhibit -
(bag crinkling)
(mumbling)
(pause)
FORD: Detective Ridge, this was taken out of the water, is that correct?
RIDGE: Yes sir.
FORD: And you pulled it out and you placed it directly uh - into that sack, is that correct?
RIDGE: Yes sir.
FORD: The white paper that it was enclosed in, that was not present when you placed it directly into the sack -
RIDGE: (talking over) No sir.
FORD: - when it was recovered, is that right?
RIDGE: No sir, it was not present.
FORD: And was this item dripping wet when you pulled it out?
RIDGE: Yes sir.
FORD: Pulled out of the water, placed directly into the sack?
RIDGE: Yes sir.
FORD: Notice any water dripping out of that sack when you placed it directly in there?
RIDGE: Not that I can remember.
FORD: Ok. No objection.
DAVIDSON: No objection, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Alright, it may be received without objection.
FOGLEMAN: Show you what's marked for identification purposes as state's exhibit number 44 and ask if you can identify that item?
RIDGE: Yes sir, I can.
FOGLEMAN: And how can you identify it?
RIDGE: Has my markings on the sack, being a white polka dot shirt, initials and date.
FOGLEMAN: And where did you recover that item?
RIDGE: In the water at the crime scene.
FOGLEMAN: And after recovering that item from the crime scene, what did you do with it?
RIDGE: Placed it in this sack, took it to the office where it was dried and sent to the crimelab.
FOGLEMAN: Would you open the sack?
(bag crinkling)
RIDGE: White shirt. Polka dot pattern is on the inside as it's turned.
FOGLEMAN: Was that item wet when you got it out of the water?
RIDGE: Yes sir, it was.
FOGLEMAN: And was it wet when you put it in the sack?
RIDGE: Yes sir.
FOGLEMAN: When you - what did you do with it after it was put in the sack?
RIDGE: Took it to the office where it was dried and prepared for sending to the crimelab.
FOGLEMAN: Where in the office are these items dried?
RIDGE: In the floor.
FOGLEMAN: I mean, what room?
RIDGE: Inspector Gitchell's office.
FOGLEMAN: Your Honor, we would offer state's exhibit 44.
FORD: Detective, is the sack opened - you open it up so some air could come down in?
RIDGE: Yes sir.
FORD: Same procedure on this as all the others?
RIDGE: Yes sir.
FORD: No objection.
PRICE: No objection.
THE COURT: Alright, it may be received without objection.
FOGLEMAN: Hand you what's been marked for identification purposes as state's exhibit 49, ask if you can identify it?
RIDGE: Yes sir, I can.
FOGLEMAN: And how can you identify it?
RIDGE: It has my markings on the sack saying it's a striped shirt, my initials, and the date.
FOGLEMAN: And where did you recover that item?
RIDGE: In the water at the crime scene.
FOGLEMAN: And after recovering that item, what did you do with it?
RIDGE: Placed it in this sack, transported it to the office where it was dried and prepared for sending to the crimelab.
FOGLEMAN: And did you handle it in the same manner as you handled all the other items?
RIDGE: Yes sir, I did.
FOGLEMAN: Would you open the sack?
(bag crinkling)
RIDGE: Striped t-shirt, stripes on the inside.
FOGLEMAN: It's inside out?
RIDGE: Yes sir, it's inside out at this time.
FOGLEMAN: Your Honor, we would offer state's exhibit uh - 40 uh -
THE COURT: 9
FOGLEMAN: 49.
FORD: No objection, Your Honor.
PRICE: No objection.
THE COURT: Alright, it may be received without objection.
THE COURT: (whispering) Did we start on time this morning?
FOGLEMAN: Show you state's exhibit 45 - for identification purposes, ask if you can identify this?
RIDGE: Yes sir, I can.
FOGLEMAN: And how can you identify it?
RIDGE: It has my markings on the sack saying it's a pair of blue pants, my initials, and date.
FOGLEMAN: Where did you recover that item?
RIDGE: In the water at the crime scene.
FOGLEMAN: Would you remove it from the sack?
(bag crinkling)
RIDGE: A pair of blue pants.
FOGLEMAN: Your Honor, we would offer state's exhibit 45.
FORD: No objection, Your Honor.
PRICE: No objection.
THE COURT: Alright, it may be received without objection.
FOGLEMAN: Detective Ridge, I believe you had indicated earlier uh - that um - something about a stick in the water - stuck in the water?
RIDGE: Yes sir.
FOGLEMAN: Tell me about that again.
RIDGE: There was a stick in the water that had a shirt around the end of it, and that shirt was jobbed down into the mud with the stick.
FOGLEMAN: I want to show you what I've got marked for identification purposes as state's exhibit 55 and ask if you can identify that?
RIDGE: Yes sir, I can.
FOGLEMAN: And how can you identify it?
RIDGE: The sack here has my markings, the date, and my initials.
FOGLEMAN: And did you recover - where did you recover that item?
RIDGE: From the water.
FOGLEMAN: And -
(bag crinkling)
FOGLEMAN: Is that uh - stick portrayed in any of the pictures?
RIDGE: Yes sir, it is.
FOGLEMAN: Alright, and so the jury can identify which one it is, is there some way that you can describe for 'em?
RIDGE: It's the stick that the shirt was wrapped around the end of and stuck in the mud.
FOGLEMAN: Your Honor, we would offer state's exhibit uh - 55.
THE COURT: Alright, it may be received.
PRICE: Judge -
DAVIDSON: We would like to see -
FORD: (talking over) We would like to see it first.
THE COURT: Alright.
(mumbling)
PRICE: Judge, at this time we'd object to this stick. This stick is E number E-139 which was not recovered by Detective Ridge at the crime scene - this was a stick that Mr. Ridge found at the crime scene 2 months after the murders on July 1, 1993 and we object to this stick as being of relevance for any purpose.
FOGLEMAN: Your Honor, I'd be glad for them to voir dire him as a witness on it.
THE COURT: Alright.
(mumbling)
PRICE: Detective Ridge, what is the E number on this stick?
RIDGE: 139.
PRICE: Ok. And that is the number - the E, that represents the - you call - the evidence - when you give a particular piece of evidence - y'all assign certain numbers to it?
RIDGE: That's the number I assigned to that stick, yes sir.
PRICE: Ok. Well, on - isn't it true that on July the 1st 1993, you went back to the crime scene and found E-139 - that stick?
RIDGE: Yes sir, that's correct.
PRICE: Ok. So that stick was not the stick that was at the crime scene?
RIDGE: Yes sir, it is the stick that was at the crime scene.
PRICE: Alright, so - I guess I'm confused. At the time, you did not take that stick into evidence - at the time that y'all recovered the bodies?
RIDGE: No sir. I didn't take this stick into evidence until the statement of Jessie Misskelley in which he said a stick -
PRICE: Your Honor! Move for a mistrial, Your Honor!
(pause)
PRICE: Objection, Your Honor.
THE COURT: What is your objection?
DAVIDSON: Your Honor -
PRICE: (talking over) Can we approach?
THE COURT: Yes.
DAVIDSON: May the jury go out, Your Honor?
THE COURT: Alright ladies and gentlemen, it's about time for a recess anyway. If you would step back into the jury room til we call ya back.
THE COURT: Alright, let the record reflect that this is a hearing out of the presence of the jury. Alright gentlemen.
PRICE: Judge, at this time, I move for a mistrial.
DAVIDSON: Judge, I don't know if this could be heard back there, these microphones was so loud, I -
FORD: Can we turn the PA off?
THE COURT: No, I'm not gonna turn the PA off.
PRICE: Well, if Officer Hicks could go back there to see if they could -
THE COURT: Go back there and have 'em go to the jury room or the last room.
FOGLEMAN: (talking over) See if they closed door to the jury room.
(pause)
DAVIDSON: Did he close the door?
FOGLEMAN: Yes.
THE COURT: Alright.
PRICE: Judge, at this time, I would make a motion for a mistrial.
THE COURT: What is the basis of a mistrial?
PRICE: The basis is the question that I asked the officer did not call for him blurting out the fact that Jessie Misskelley gave a confession. The whole purpose for our trial being severed from Mr. Misskelley's trial in the first place was the confession that Jessie Misskelley gave. That's the entire reason for the severence. That uh - that's certainly not anything -
THE COURT: I believe your question was - if I recall it correctly - was, you were questioning him about the E number on exhibit uh - tendered exhibit 55 and you uh -
DAVIDSON: Barbara should read the question and the response.
THE COURT: - you uh - said, "I'm confused on that, you mean you didn't take the stick on - on the day that you were first there" - I'm paraphrasing. And then you said, "Did you go back later?" and he said "Yes sir, I went back after Jessie Misskelley's statement". Now that's the best I recall.
PRICE: Judge, the fact that him - this officer could have said he went back without any reference to Jessie Misskelley's statement.
THE COURT: Well, I can't - I can't pole that his statement is not responsive to the question because you asked him did he go back and he said yes. He shouldn't have volunteered that, but I certainly don't see any basis for a mistrial.
PRICE: Your Honor, the whole purpose for our case being severed from Jessie Misskelley's trial is Jessie's confession.
THE COURT: (talking over) The statement is not gonna - the statement -
PRICE: This officer blurted out, Jessie Misskelley gave a confession. That's the whole purpose for the severence in the first place.
FOGLEMAN: (mumbling)
THE COURT: What he said was is that after Misskelley's statement, I went back.
FOGLEMAN: Can I respond, Your Honor?
THE COURT: Yes sir.
FOGLEMAN: Your Honor, uh - Mr. Price was somehow trying to suggest that this was not the stick found at the crime scene. In fact, that's what he said in his question, that it was not the same one found there at the crime scene and Detective Ridge said yes it was. And he says, "Well, you mean you didn't pick - get it until July the 1st?" and what Detective Ridge - what I heard him say before the objection was, "I didn't realize the significance of it until Jessie Misskelley's statement.
FORD: Judge, he did not say that.
DAVIDSON: I don't think he said that, Your Honor. We would like to ask the tape be played back and see what it says.
FOGLEMAN: Well, let's play it back.
DAVIDSON: Ok.
FOGLEMAN: Let's play it back.
DAVIDSON: That's what we say.
FORD: Your Honor, on behalf of Mr. Baldwin, we would join in the motion for a mistrial. Uh - we feel that uh - at this point in time, that prejudice has been injected into the record - number one, it was injected at the time of Mr. Price's questioning and not questioning on behalf of Mr. Baldwin's counsel, the - that in the event that Tthe Court would not join - would not agree in the motion for a mistrial based upon these interjections that this evidence into the trial of Jason Baldwin - we would ask for a severence, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Anything else gentlemen - that y'all want to say? The motion for mistrial for both counsels will be denied.
PRICE: (talking over) (mumbling)
THE COURT: The motion for severence will be denied.
PRICE: Judge, the question that I was going - referring to the officer is the report that he gave that states (reading) on July 1, 1993, I went to the crime scene to determine if any evidence could be found that had been overlooked during the initial searches of the area of the above noted homicide. I discovered that there were 2 sticks at the crime scene that had gone previously undetected. Those numbers are E-138 and E-139. That's that stick. That is the stick that was previously - and that's the question that I was bringing out to the officer. That does not invoke and allow this officer to blurt out the confession - the reference to the confession. That's my basis for the question, I did not open the door for him to state that and I object at this time.
THE COURT: Well, a mistrial is a harsh remedy and the Court's interpretation of what I heard, that there's absolutely no basis or justification for a mistrial at this time. I would be happy to give the jury a cautionary instruction to disregard the statement - disregard the officer's response to your question by saying uh - after the statement of Misskelley, or whatever. If y'all want - if y'all want a cautionary instruction, I'll be glad to give it.
PRICE: (mumbling)
DAVIDSON: Can we have just a minute here, Your Honor?
THE COURT: Alright.
FOGLEMAN: Your Honor, the state submits that - and maybe it might be good to play back the question and what the answer was.
THE COURT: I heard it. I know what he said and in my opinion, it's not - it's not error in the first place.
FOGLEMAN: And I didn't think that it was an improper response to the question. The way Mr. Price -
THE COURT: (talking over) I ruled that. That the response could be considered to be appropriate to the question. Anything else?
PRICE: Just one more moment, Your Honor.
FORD: Well, can we have some kind of ground mark at what point in time these officers can interject this statement into the jury's mind again and again and again?
THE COURT: Well, the officers aren't suppose to interject anything. I'm saying that the question was appropriate to the form of the question - the answer was appropriate to the form of the question.
FORD: Are you ruling that Mr. Price -
THE COURT: He basically asked him, "Well, why did you go back?" and he was proceeding to tell him why.
FORD: So, are you ruling that Mr. Price opened the door to that statement by Mr. Ridge?
PRICE: Judge, Officer Ridge -
FORD: Wait - wait a minute Val. I'm asking, are you ruling that question opened the door to that statement?
THE COURT: I'm ruling that that question invited the answer - yes.
FORD: Ok. Then, Your Honor, in light of the fact that that was a question by Mr. Price, and we have a separate trial going on, and that statement in the trial -
THE COURT: Denied.
FORD: May I make my record?
THE COURT: Denied. I've already denied your motion for a severence and I'm gonna deny it again.
FORD: Can I make my record?
THE COURT: You've already made your record. I've already ruled. Anything else?
DAVIDSON: Your Honor, we need a second to decide on a uh - a cautionary instruction.
THE COURT: Well, the only thing I'm gonna say to the jury is to disregard the last answer given by the officer.
DAVIDSON: That's fine - and nothing saying about the statement?
THE COURT: I'm not gonna say what it was. I mean, that just further emphasize it.
DAVIDSON: Ok.
THE COURT: If it was even error. I - I suggest gentlemen, that there isn't a soul up on that jury or in this courtroom that doesn't know Mr. Misskelley gave a statement. Now, the content of the statement certainly would be prejudicial. On the content of the statement, this court will not allow, and that was the reason for the severence in the first place. But merely stating that Misskelley gave a statement and I went back to do some further checking, it might uh -
PRICE: Judge, that's not even what the first sentence in his report says.
THE COURT: Well, I don't know what his report says, I hadn't read it. I mean, if you wanna cross examine him about the report -
PRICE: That's what I was looking to do, Judge.
THE COURT: Well, you need to be a little more specific then.
PRICE: Alright.
THE COURT: Alright. Court will be in recess -
PRICE: We would request the cautionary instruction.
THE COURT: Alright, I'll give that cautionary instruction that they're to disregard the last answer given by Officer Ridge. Court will be in recess for 10 minutes.
(tape flipped)
(mumbling)
FOGLEMAN: Can he say we developed information that -
THE COURT: Yes.
DAVIDSON: No -
PRICE: Judge -
DAVIDSON: That's not what his letter says.
PRICE: Judge, read the yellow part of the -
THE COURT: Wait just a minute.
DAVIDSON: That's what he says right there.
PRICE: Those are the three questions I was asking.
FOGLEMAN: Going back to see if he'd forgotten anything.
(mumbling)
FOGLEMAN: See if I had overlooked anything.
THE COURT: Well, it says (reading) while at the scene -
FOGLEMAN: - the -
(mumbling)
FOGLEMAN: He did. Ok.
THE COURT: Wait just a minute.
FORD: Judge, this is what I don't understand -
THE COURT: We need to have the microphone shut off right now.
(mumbling)
THE COURT: This investigative report that you're referring to says (reading) while at the scene, and thinking about the case so far and the statements that has been made of Jessie Misskelley, I discovered that 2 sticks -
PRICE: Back up. Read just the yellow highlights, Judge.
FOGLEMAN: Well, you can't take just a part -
PRICE: Sure you can because - let me see it.
FOGLEMAN: (mumbling)
PRICE: It says if -
THE COURT: If you ask him - well sure, you could make it an exhibit if you want to.
PRICE: Can I see it for just a minute? (reading) I went to the crime scene to determine if any evidence could be found there and had been overlooked in the initials searches of the area in the above noted homicide - period. (still reading) I discovered there were 2 sticks on the scene that had gone previously undetected - period. (continued reading) The 2 sticks were then -
FOGLEMAN: He explains in the statement why.
THE COURT: You better be careful with it is all I got to say. If you ask him about it, I'm gonna let him explain why he went back.
PRICE: Are you saying if I ask this officer those specific questions, that allows him to get into the -
THE COURT: If you ask him did he make that - if that's a part of his report, if you ask that then his whole report becomes admissible.
PRICE: Judge, I'm asking him the specific - those 2 questions and not the rest of the report.
THE COURT: It's not - it's not a sworn statement.
PRICE: I know, but I -
THE COURT: Police reports are admissible.
PRICE: I know but I can ask that question without him getting into the confession.
FOGLEMAN: Your Honor, it's not fair for him to be able to ask part and for him not to be able to give the full explanation - it's in there.
DAVIDSON: You can ask the date that the evidence was obtained and that does not open it up.
THE COURT: The thing that you want to emphasize is that he went back there weeks or months later.
DAVIDSON: Exactly.
THE COURT: And that's -
PRICE: And I also want to emphasize that his - it states in here, 2 sticks on the scene had previously gone undetected - and that's one of the same sticks that's in the picture so it hadn't gone undetected. The fact that they didn't -
THE COURT: If you're gonna bring all that out -
PRICE: Well, I intend to do that.
THE COURT: Well, I'm gonna let you do that, but he can also state that he went back to that scene after he determined that there was evidence that had been left there that became relevant from the course of his investigation.
PRICE: Alright, but -
THE COURT: He can tell ya that.
PRICE: Alright, but that doesn't open up about the confession.
DAVIDSON: Just ask him about the time.
THE COURT: Well, I've told him not to mention that.
DAVIDSON: We don't want it opened, just ask him about the date that he did it.
THE COURT: Alright ladies and gentlemen, uh - you're instructed and told at this time that you're to disregard and not consider the last answer or the last response made by Detective Ridge to the question from Mr. Price. And you're to - if you can remember it, that you're to strike it from your mind and to not give it any consideration.
PRICE: Can we approach?
THE COURT: Yes sir.
(bench conference)
PRICE: Just now that the Court has given that cautionary instruction, we again feel that that is insufficient to sway the jury. We again renew our motion -
THE COURT: Well, I'm not going to take this to the level of a mistrial. I deny that motion.
PRICE: One other thing I wanted to say, um - the Court earlier had mentioned that uh - some reference to the reason that - of the severence was about um - not the confession, but the details of the confession. By all respect to the state, but the sticks were contained in the confession that goes to the details of the confession and that's another basis for our -
THE COURT: Well, I understand that but it didn't go to the level of a mistrial. Ok. The reason of a mistrial - I mean, the reason the severence was granted, because it was false implicating.
PRICE: Alright.
THE COURT: Not the fact that sticks were found, but the fact that he implicated his co-defendants.
PRICE: Alright.
(open court)
THE COURT: Alright, you had some more questions?
PRICE: Yes, Your Honor.
(mumbling)
PRICE: Detective Ridge, was July the 1st, 1993 the date that you got that stick and uh - placed it into evidence?
RIDGE: Yes sir.
PRICE: No furhter questions.
(mumbling)
DAVIDSON: Detective Ridge, you were conducting a search of the area, looking for items - is that correct?
RIDGE: Yes sir.
DAVIDSON: And uh - you were in the water, I believe you testified - looking for evidence, is that right?
RIDGE: Yes sir.
DAVIDSON: Who recovered this stick?
RIDGE: I did.
DAVIDSON: And how did you recover that?
RIDGE: Initially it was stuck in the mud with a shirt wrapped around the end of it.
DAVIDSON: Did you pull it out of the water?
RIDGE: It became dislodged as I was moving to the body of Michael Moore.
DAVIDSON: And you were at - in this area? And you were looking for anything that you could find, is that right?
RIDGE: Yes sir.
DAVIDSON: Any evidence that you could find?
RIDGE: Yes sir.
DAVIDSON: And you were being careful when you were looking for evidence?
RIDGE: Yes sir.
DAVIDSON: Making sure that you didn't miss anything, is that correct?
RIDGE: Attempting to, yes sir.
DAVIDSON: Ok. And when you took this stick out of the water, where did you place it?
RIDGE: On the bank.
DAVIDSON: Ok. And where did you place it on the bank?
RIDGE: On the east bank.
DAVIDSON: Ok. Did you mark that stick when you placed it on the bank?
RIDGE: No sir.
DAVIDSON: Did you make any markings whatsoever on this stick?
RIDGE: No sir.
DAVIDSON: You were looking for items with blood on it, I'm sure?
RIDGE: Yes sir.
DAVIDSON: You were looking for items that may have um - skin tissue, would that be fair to say?
RIDGE: Yes sir.
DAVIDSON: You were looking for things that may have fingerprints on them, would that be fair to say?
RIDGE: Yes sir.
DAVIDSON: And you left that at the scene, is that correct?
RIDGE: That's correct.
DAVIDSON: Did a lightbulb ever go off in your heading thinking when you pulled that out that there may be some evidential value in that stick - and you just left it out there? Anything ever go through your mind like that?
RIDGE: Not on that day it didn't, no sir.
DAVIDSON: Never dawned on you?
RIDGE: Not on that day.
DAVIDSON: No questions.
FOGLEMAN: Detective Ridge, without telling us what it is, was there some information that you developed later that made the lightbulb go off in your head?
RIDGE: Yes sir.
DAVIDSON: Object to the form of the question.
THE COURT: Overruled.
FOGLEMAN: Ok, and what was your answer?
RIDGE: Yes sir.
FOGLEMAN: Alright. I also want to show you state's exhibit 53 and ask if you can identify that?
RIDGE: Yes, I can.
FOGLEMAN: And how can you identify it?
RIDGE: Packaged by me, dated, and initialed.
FOGLEMAN: Alright. And when did you recover that stick?
RIDGE: On the 6th, May the 6th.
FOGLEMAN: Alright. Was that the day - same day that the victims were recovered?
RIDGE: Yes sir.
FOGLEMAN: Alright. And where did you recover that item?
RIDGE: It was floating in the water.
FOGLEMAN: Is it also shown in the photograph?
RIDGE: Yes sir.
FOGLEMAN: Your Honor, for - at this time, we would offer for identification purposes only, uh - state's exhibit uh - 53.
THE COURT: Alright, it may be received for identification purposes.
FOGLEMAN: And, Your Honor, for right now we would offer 55 for identification only.
THE COURT: Alright, it may be received for identification purposes.
FOGLEMAN: I want to show you state's exhibits, for identification purposes, 42, 38, 32, and 19 and ask if you can identify those photographs?
RIDGE: Yes sir, I can.
FOGLEMAN: Do those photographs fairly and accurately portray the scene as it appeared to you that day?
RIDGE: Yes sir.
FOGLEMAN: Your Honor, we would offer state's exhibits 42, 38, 32, and 19.
(mumbling)
THE COURT: I believe they were accepted into evidence yesterday, according to the court reporter.
FOGLEMAN: your Honor, after the things that transpired yesterday, I don't remember what happened.
(mumbling)
DAVIDSON: 42 wasn't, Your Honor, I don't believe.
FOGLEMAN: What do you show, Suzanne?
Court Reporter: I didn't show 'em entered, you mentioned them yesterday, but I didn't show them entered.
THE COURT: Let me see 'em.
(mumbling)
FOGLEMAN: One of 'em may have, Your Honor.
THE COURT: I thought 19 had already been introduced, but I might be wrong.
(mumbling)
THE COURT: Alright, any objection?
PRICE: No objection, Your Honor.
FORD: No objection.
THE COURT: Alright, they may be received without objection. Call those numbers off again, John. Make sure we got 'em checked off.
FOGLEMAN: 32, 19, 42, and 38. May Detective Ridge uh - step down and exhibit to the jury?
THE COURT: Yes.
RIDGE: This is a photograph of me in the ditch at the crime scene. This long stick -
FOGLEMAN: Refer to the exhibit number.
RIDGE: Is exhibit 32. This is the long stick exhibiting - exhibit number 53, which is my number E-17, I believe, and it was found floating in the water and removed by me. Uh - this is a photograph of me, this is exhibit 19, I'm in the water removing items, as you can see exhibit uh - 53 or E-17 is this stick as it floats in the creek just below my position. This is the crime scene - this is the area here where the body of Michael Moore was located, this is the stick E-139 that had the shirt wrapped around the end of it that was jobbed into the mud.
FOGLEMAN: Is that exhibit 55 for identification purposes?
RIDGE: Uh - if that's the exhibit number, I'm not certain. Uh - exhibit 38 is a photograph of me as I'm removing this shirt from the end of that stick of E-139.
(female mumbling)
FOGLEMAN: 42. Ok, you can retake the stand now.
(Ridge to stand)
FOGLEMAN: Detective Ridge, uh - there at the scene that day, what other efforts did you make to secure additional evidence?
RIDGE: Ok. This ditch was searched by me until I came to a point it was over my head in Ten Mile Bayou, in the same manner just as far as I could reach in the water uh - with my hands searching, uh - it was -
FOGLEMAN: So you're saying that on exhibit 13 -
RIDGE: Yes sir, on this exhibit, I actually came into the ditch in this area and started this search with the sweeping of my hand, searching for anything that was in the ditch. I got to about this area when it was too deep for me to reach and keep my head above the water and I just continued to search with my feet and just searching all the way til I got to near the Ten Mile Bayou, where it was over my head and I had to retreat. Uh - the search was continued in that we took sandbags and damned up the creek below where the bodies were found, below where the secondary creek that you could see that goes to the west and comes into the creek. It was damned off and - with sandbags. Above that area, where the bodies were found, was damned off with sandbags and all the water was pumped out of that area. Uh -
FOGLEMAN: When the water was pumped out, was there anything over the end of the hose?
RIDGE: Yes sir, there was a screen over the hose to see that nothing that would have uh - possibly been suspended in the water may have been pumped out by the pump.
FOGLEMAN: Anything of significance found after pumping out the ditch?
RIDGE: No sir.
FOGLEMAN: I want to show you what's marked for identification purposes as state's exhibits 29 and 30, ask if you can identify those photographs?
RIDGE: Yes sir, I can.
FOGLEMAN: Do those fairly and accurately portray the scene as it appeared to you that day?
RIDGE: Yes sir.
FOGLEMAN: Your Honor, we would offer exhibits 29 and 30.
(mumbling)
DAVIDSON: No objections, Your Honor.
FORD: No objections, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Alright, it may be received without objection.
FOGLEMAN: Rather than have you step down again Detective Ridge, in both 29 and 30, does it reflect the sandbags?
RIDGE: Yes sir.
FOGLEMAN: And where are you in relation to the sanbags in the picture?
RIDGE: I'm standing over the sandbags holding the hose and the screened top, see that nothing passes.
FOGLEMAN: Exhibit to the jury, Your Honor?
THE COURT: Yes, you may.
FOGLEMAN: Alright, were efforts also made to search the Ten Mile Bayou?
RIDGE: Yes sir.
FOGLEMAN: Alright, and what - how did you do that?
RIDGE: Ok. We asked Search and Rescue to come in and search, with grappling hooks, the Ten Mile Bayou to see if they could find anything and bicycles were located near the pipe, where they cross Ten Mile Bayou. Uh - additional search was conducted with magnets, uh - to determine if anything - metal objects could be found in the flow of water in Ten Mile Bayou and the mouth of the creek where the bodies were found.
FOGLEMAN: Other than the bicycles, was anything of significance found in the Ten Mile Bayou?
RIDGE: No sir.
FOGLEMAN: I don't have any further questions at this time, Your Honor.
PRICE: Detective Ridge, on May the 6th, 1993 did you and Detective Allen go to the Bojangles Restaurant?
RIDGE: Yes sir.
PRICE: Ok. And what - did you talk with a manager there, Marty King?
RIDGE: Yes sir.
PRICE: Ok. Did he tell you, an individual had - a black man with blood on him had been at the restaurant the evening before?
RIDGE: Yes sir.
PRICE: Ok. When you were at the Bojangles Restaurant, did Marty King give you a pair of sunglasses?
RIDGE: I don't remember a pair of sunglasses, no sir.
PRICE: Ok. Do you recall taking blood scrapings from the north wall inside the women's bathroom above the toilet?
RIDGE: I found an - a trace remains, possibly blood in the ladies' bathroom of the Bojangles, yes sir.
PRICE: Did you also take blood scrapings from inside of a door to the women's bathroom at Bojangles?
RIDGE: I'm not certain, it's possible.
PRICE: Alright. And did you also blood samples from the entrance hall to the bathroom from the sitting area at Bojangles?
RIDGE: I don't think so.
PRICE: Ok.
RIDGE: That area had been cleaned to the best of my knowledge.
PRICE: Alright. If I could approach, uh - when you went to the Bojangles Restaurant, was Detective Allen - did he write up a report about what you and he did at the Bojangles Restaurant?
RIDGE: He was talking with the manager as I was looking through the area, yes sir.
PRICE: Ok. Your Honor, if I could approach the witness and take a look at the yellow portion, that may reflect your recollection.
(pause)
PRICE: Ok. Alright Detective Ridge, what is the date that you sent the blood scrapings off to the crimelab to be analyzed?
RIDGE: They were never sent.
PRICE: They were never sent?
RIDGE: That's correct.
PRICE: Alright, where are the blood samples at this time?
RIDGE: I don't know sir, they were lost.
PRICE: They're lost?
RIDGE: Yes sir.
PRICE: You mean this is the evidence that y'all have in this case - the blood scrapings are lost?
RIDGE: If they were blood, yes sir, they're lost.
PRICE: Well, whatever they were - you took samples of something and was the purpose you took them was to send to the crimelab?
RIDGE: Yes sir.
PRICE: But they're just lost?
RIDGE: Yes sir. That's my mistake, I lost a piece of evidence.
PRICE: Ok. Do you recall if Marty King, the manager of Bojangles, gave you a pair of sunglasses?
RIDGE: I don't recall the sunglasses.
PRICE: Ok. During part of the investigation, did you talk to a witness name Kim Williams - somewhere on or about May 8th?
RIDGE: I'm trying to remember, I think so, yes sir.
PRICE: Ok. If -
FOGLEMAN: Excuse me Mr. Price. Your Honor, I'm not exactly sure where Mr. Price is going with this, I don't - but it sounds to me like he's about to ask Detective Ridge what somebody told him and we certainly don't mind Mr. Price bringing the witness up here to have him testify to whatever they said.
PRICE: Judge, I'm not going to ask the witness what another witness told him, I'm going to ask him what he wrote down concerning - not the statement themselves, but his conclusion about that statement after talking to that witness. And that's something that's contained in his report and I think that's certainly admissible.
THE COURT: Approach the bench.
(pause)
FOGLEMAN: What are you talking about?
PRICE: I'm talking about this part here that has mentioned occult activity, some men blackening their faces.
FOGLEMAN: If he wants to ask that Your Honor, we don't have any objection at all because I think that would open the door to allow us to ask about whatever evidence that he had that there was cult activity involved.
THE COURT: Let me see what you want to do with that, you are on shakey ground.
PRICE: (brief mumbles)
(whispering)
PRICE: What I want to ask this witness about is his report about occult activity where people blacken their faces.
FOGLEMAN: And we said if you want to ask that question, we don't have any objection because my opinion is it opens the door for us to ask Detective Ridge what evidence there was of occult activity.
FORD: Well, Your Honor -
THE COURT: Well, if you're not objecting to it, I'm gonna let him do it.
FORD: I do object to it. The motion of limine in this case would be there was no introduction of occult activity and occult information as to the Court held an in camera hearing to determine that there is a factual basis to establish - that is true.
PRICE: Which was filed by Mr. Baldwin and Mr. Echols did not join in on that motion, Judge.
FORD: We object, Your Honor.
PRICE: Dude, but basically the statement says the witness saw two black males and a white male leaving the wooded area and there are times - I think these are from 3 to 6. And then I want to ask the officer about his conclusion -
THE COURT: Wait a minute. Alright ladies and gentlemen, I'm gonna give you your noon recess at this time and ask that you report back at 12:30 and again you're reminded of the admonition of the Court not to discuss the case and you're free to go until 12:30.
(mumbling)
FORD: Your Honor, we would ask that the witness not that the witness be excluded from this conversation 'cause his testimony could be affected by what is said, exchanges by counsel, by the Court. That's not what the witness' role is, Your Honor.
(mumbling)
(metal detector screaming in background)
THE COURT: Alright. Let's wait until they get out.
FORD: Your Honor, can we ask that the witness leave?
THE COURT: Well, the witness is gonna be needed. We're gonna be asking him questions, I assume.
(mumbling)
(metal detector screaming in background)
THE COURT: Alright, court's in session. I'm just waiting for it to settle down in the courtroom so we can get started here. Alright, let the record reflect that this is a hearing out of the presence of the jury. Alright gentlemen, uh - what exactly is it you want to do, Mr. Price? If you're gonna question the officer from a police report that he made, then I'm gonna sustain the objection to it. Police reports are not exceptions to the hearsay rule. If you wanna call a witness that he identified and have that witness take the stand, question the witness about a statement they may have given an officer - fine. Otherwise, uh - it's hearsay.
PRICE: Judge, my point is, the officer talked to a witness that indicated that there was one white male and two black males seen coming out of the Robin Hood area between 5:30 and 6:00 pm on the day of the murders. The officer adds his own conclusion (reading) has been mentioned that during occult activity, some members blacken their faces. The statement he took from the witness was on May 8th, which would have been 3 days after the bodies were found and it's our contention that the police - from day one, were alleging that this is a cult relate killing but that there's no evidence of a cult related killing. And that's part of the - and that's part of our theory about attacking the police investigation. That's why the initials questions I asked Officer Allen yesterday about -
THE COURT: You gonna bring up any cult activity as a possible motive? Do you plan to develop that in this case?
FOGLEMAN: Your Honor, we haven't made that decision. It depends on how the case develops.
THE COURT: Ok. Well, in any event, Mr. Price if you want to produce that evidence, you can call Kim Williams.
PRICE: Alright, but Kim Williams didn't make the comment that (reading) during - it has been mentioned that occult activity, some members blacken their faces. Detective Ridge -
THE COURT: Is that what you want to ask him?
PRICE: Yes sir. That's exactly - because they take a statement -
THE COURT: You want to interject it, yourself?
PRICE: Yes sir. They take a statement -
THE COURT: Well, I'm not gonna allow that.
PRICE: Judge, they take a statement from a witness that sees two black men and a white make coming out of the Robin Hood's area and that rather than pursuing whether or not a black male was out there, they turn around and say this must be a cult killing because the conclusion say it here.
THE COURT: What you're basically asking the officer to do, rather than testify to what the woman told him - which would be hearsay on his part, is to testify to a conclusion he drew from hearsay testimony?
PRICE: That's exactly right.
THE COURT: Or an opinion that he drew off of hear -
PRICE: That's exactly right.
THE COURT: No, I'm not gonna allow him to state his opinion or conclusion that he drew from hearsay statement.
PRICE: Alright. Will the Court allow me to put him back on the stand after I call Ms. Williams?
THE COURT: Yeah, I guess so. You can ask him at that point perhaps, uh - well, I'm not even sure then whether his opinion or conclusion would be admissible.
PRICE: Judge, that's our whole point. It's our position that this is not a cult related killing, that there's absolutely no evidence at the crime scene of a cult related killing.
THE COURT: I haven't heard in opening statements or any remarks on the part of the prosecutors that even suggested that will be an attempt on their part to prove motive. In the previous case which you attended most of, I think they were - it was their theory that that was a possible motive for the killing and they may prove motive if they're able to do so and they may not prove motive, they don't have to, so if they are electing not to in this case - it's a different trial stradegy.
PRICE: Well, I noticed that one of the witness subpoena by the state is a cult expert from Ohio and I suppose -
THE COURT: Does that mean that they're gonna call him?
PRICE: Well, that means that we are certainly preparing if they call him, Judge.
THE COURT: Well -
PRICE: Is the state saying that they are not going to claim that this is a cult related killing?
THE COURT: I don't know, they're not required to say that. I don't know, but I'm not gonna let you ask this police officer to repeat hearsay one and two and -
PRICE: I'm not asking for the hearsay.
THE COURT: I'm not gonna let him give his opinion or conclusion on the basis of that hearsay. I mean, we can spend days here if you went through every person they interviewed and ask 'em what Joe Bleaux told you on the 5th day of June, 1993 - I mean, that's hearsay.
DAVIDSON: He's not asking that, Your Honor.
PRICE: I'm asking -
THE COURT: He's asking - he's asking the officer basically did you take a statement from so and so, and based upon that statement - which is clearly hearsay and you know it -
PRICE: Yes sir, that's correct.
THE COURT: To formulate an opinion or draw a conclusion, and I'm not going to allow that.
PRICE: Our position, Judge, within two or three days after the murders, the police - the West Memphis Police Department was alleging that this was a cult related killing, that's the only reason they went after my client, Damien Echols. To try to link him in a cult related killing.
THE COURT: Again, whether or not it was -
PRICE: And that's why we're entitled to bring it up to this witness.
THE COURT: Whether or not it was cult related doesn't really have a whole lot to do with anything here, unless that was a possible motive. Do you want to prove motive?
PRICE: I want to disprove motive, Judge. I want to disprove motive.
THE COURT: Well, motive - they don't have to prove motive.
FOGLEMAN: Well Your Honor, if they want to stipulate Mr. Echols -
FORD: Wait, wait. If you're gonna say "they", we need to let the record reflect who "they" is.
FOGLEMAN: If Mr. Price and Mr. Davidson want to stipulate that Damien Echols was involved in satanism and devil worship, uh - then we don't have any objection with him going into that.
PRICE: We're not stipulating that, Judge. We're not stipulating that, that's the whole purpose for the case. But because the sate - because the police was pushing this as a cult related killing -
THE COURT: Alright. I'll do this, I'm gonna - same ruling I've made, if the state attempts to prove cult related activity - and the only way I would even allow them to do that is if they suggested that was a possible motive for the homicides. If they do that, then that's gonna open the door for you to attack the officers upon, uh - that basis.
FORD: Your Honor, I would like to state on behalf of Mr. Baldwin that the order is, not only that they attempt to offer it but you - they have to determine in camera that there is a reasonable basis for that conclusion to even be brought out.
THE COURT: That's why we're having this hearing right now partially. On the other hand, if it were introduced going to Mr. Echols only and that the only effort or attempt was to establish evidence on the part of Mr. Echols' activity in that regard then there will be very strong cautionary instruction given to the jury that that evidence should be taken to Echols only and not to Mr. Baldwin.
PRICE: Alright.
THE COURT: And at this time, I'm not gonna allow it - period.
PRICE: Alright.
THE COURT: It's hearsay, it's conclusionary, supposition, and opinion on the part of the officer based upon the unsubstantiated hearsay statement for which the people observed by which the - declarant haven't even been identified. I'm not even sure it's relevant. Although it could be.
PRICE: If the state alleges a cult related killing, it's certainly relevant.
THE COURT: Well -
PRICE: Ofcourse they haven't made that -
THE COURT: They haven't done that. Until they open that up, then I'm gonna say that you don't have any right to cross examine witnesses on cult activity. Now, if they open it up in effort to prove some motive, then it's "Katie bar the door", you can go right ahead.
PRICE: Alright.
THE COURT: Ok?
DAVIDSON: At that time, Your Honor - just to make it clear, we would have to recall these witnesses.
THE COURT: That's fine.
DAVIDSON: Just wanted to make that be known.
THE COURT: That's fine, but now I want each of ya to understand - if you want to make any record on it now, if you're going to attempt to call the hundreds of people, uh - if you're going to attempt to cross examine police officers on the basis of interviews taken in this case that lead to blind leaves, false alleys, uh - whatever term you choose to use, uh - that's going to be a hearsay, um - issue because a police report is hearsay. Now if you want to call all those people, I might allow it but even then the question of relevancy is gonna crop up so let's get that out of the way right now so we don't have to waste anymore time on those issues.
FORD: Well Your Honor, until the trial develops -
THE COURT: I mean -
FORD: Until the state's offered it's case, the method and manner in which the witness will be cross examined - it's impossible to make a record as to how we may cross examine Mr. Gitchell, how we may cross examine Mr. Durham - until they testify.
THE COURT: I'm not telling ya that, Mr. Ford.
FORD: You're saying if we are gonna question these witnesses about something they may have learned or may have - what their investigation revealed - he's testifying now what his investigation revealed -
THE COURT: He can testify to what's in his personal knowledge. He can not testify what someone told him. Officers go out and conduct interviews and take statements from people, those statements and interviews are hearsay. And that's what I'm telling you. Ok. And it doesn't take, uh -
FORD: It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that out.
THE COURT: Alright. That's what I'm telling ya.
DAVIDSON: But at the same time, we can ask him why he didn't follow that lead, can we not?
(mumbling)
THE COURT: Well, if you get the lead in by credible evidence, perhaps you can ask why he didn't follow it but I suggest that if in order to develop the lead is hearsay, then no you can't ask him that. So if you're gonna try and introduce hearsay, you better get me some real strong law - and I think rule 803 subparagraph A is rather clear and all the andoctated cases on, it's extremely clear that it's blatant hearsay.
PRICE: If the state is not gonna allege it's a cult related killing, that's fine Judge.
THE COURT: Well, I don't know whether they are or not, until they do then you are not gonna open that area yourself.
PRICE: But if they do, Judge -
THE COURT: If they do, then I think -
PRICE: There will be alot more coming in.
FORD: Your Honor, we -
THE COURT: Well let me put it like this, if they attempt to prove motive and that attempt uh - develops cult or satanic business and you want to ask the officer "Did you come to the conclusion or form an opinion that it was satanic", then perhaps I'll allow it at that time. But even then, the statement given by the witness is still hearsay, so you're not gonna get that witness' statement in by the officer conducting the interview.
PRICE: But once I put that statement - once I put that witness on, then I could call Officer Ridge back on the stand about each conclusion he had?
THE COURT: Well, I'm not sure his conclusions or opinions are admissible at all and they're certainly not relevant, unless the state has attempted to prove motive. If they have, then maybe I would find that they were relevant.
PRICE: Is the Court aware of, we have a thousand pages of discovery from the state alleging a cult related killing?
THE COURT: I've read most of it.
PRICE: Ok.
THE COURT: Doesn't mean they have to prove motive. If they don't open it up then -
FORD: Is the Court stating that it has read the prosecution's discovery file?
THE COURT: No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying I've read many of the documents that you've put before me and some of those depositions were read by the Court previously.
FORD: Ok.
THE COURT: I haven't seen the state's file or your file for that matter.
FORD: Well now, you just indicated that you had read it and I just wondered where you had read it -
THE COURT: No, that's not what I said, I said I had read much of it or many of 'em. And I assume that your discoveries are all a matter of this court record anyway, which I have read.
PRICE: It's a matter of 15 black volumes over here, but -
THE COURT: I haven't read all that junk and don't intend to.
PRICE: Yes sir.
THE COURT: I just want to be sure you understand what I'm saying, what's hearsay, 'cause the police statements are hearsay and I'm not gonna allow ya to call an officer up here and did you take a statement from Joe Bleaux or did he or she say such and such.
PRICE: But it's his conclusion, is what I was attempting to -
THE COURT: Well, I mean that - conclusions and opinions are not admissible under our modern rules and under our modern uh - procedures of evidence, uh - some opinions and some conclusions by laypersons are appropriate and are admissible if they're the type opinions and conclusions that are normally drawn by laypeople.
PRICE: But Judge, the whole focus of the investigation of the police was focusing, alleging that my client was a satanist and all the people that they asked - many of it was centered on whether or not my client believes in satan -
THE COURT: Well, they very well may believed during the course of investigation that that was the reason for the killings.
(pause)
THE COURT: And motive is something they can, if they choose to prove and can--they can, if they don't choose to prove it--they don't have to. So until there is an effort to prove motive in that area, then I'm not gonna allow you to open up something that's not relevant. Particularly through opinion testimony, you might be able to do it some other way. But you're not going to do it through opinion of an Officer based upon a hearsay statement. That's what I'm saying at this point, and I'm not barring you from developing that as a - your theory of the case, you certainly can do it if you can do it through other credible evidence.
FORD: Your Honor, we're excused til 12:30?
THE COURT: Yes.
FORD: Thank you sir.
THE COURT: Court will be in recess until 12:30.
(audio stops, then begins abruptly)
(Open Court)
PRICE: --state's exhibit number 48, when was state's exhibit number 45, and when was state's exhibit number 52? Do you know which pair of pants belonged to which victim?
RIDGE: The only one that I would know would be that the boy scout uniform was that of Michael Moore.
PRICE: Alright. So that--the--as far as the shirt, the boy scout shirt which is state's exhibit number 43--
RIDGE: Yes sir.
PRICE: This shirt right here would have been Michael Moore's shirt?
RIDGE: That's my understanding, yes sir.
PRICE: Alright. Um--in examining the shirt, I know there were some--right--let's see. Near the collar, there was a cutting that was taken. Was this something that was sent off to another lab for testing?
RIDGE: The crime lab took care of those cuttings and I suspect that maybe they sent something off, but I don't know that.
PRICE: Ok. Excluding this particular cutting that is here on the shirt, on the rest of the shirt itself, did you detect any noticeable blood on either the outside or the inside of this boy scout shirt?
RIDGE: No sir, I did not.
PRICE: Ok. Did you detect any type of um--tearing done to the boy scout shirt?
RIDGE: No sir.
PRICE: Ok. Were any type of other evidence--were any buttons pulled off, any type of things indicating any kind of struggle with the boy scout shirt?
RIDGE: Not to my knowledge.
PRICE: Ok, and did you also notice any type of um--other than the one cutting that you said that the crime lab did, and that's where they actually--if they think there's some evidence on a--in a certain area, sometimes they actually cut it with either a knife or scissors or something and remove a chunk of cloth, is that right?
RIDGE: That's my understanding, whether it be for evidence that may be on that piece or if it's a sample of a fiber that they maybe save for future reference.
PRICE: Ok, but other than that, there's no other uh--cut, um--evidence of this boy scout shirt being cut or sliced or anything of that nature?
RIDGE: Not that I know of, no sir.
PRICE: Ok. Alright, the next item will be item number 49, which would have been the striped shirt. Um. Ok. On this shirt, there were--I noticed back here is what appears to be a cut out area, and if you look inside there's a number--I think it says--it says 57. Would this have been something the crimelab would have cut out?
RIDGE: To my knowledge, yes sir.
PRICE: Ok. And besides that particular cutting, which I will refer to as a crime lab cutting, did you notice any other evidence that this shirt either being torn or ripped or in a struggle?
RIDGE: no sir, not that I know.
PRICE: Did you notice any blood on this particular shirt?
RIDGE: Not that I observed, no sir.
PRICE: (mumbling) Do you recall if--was this--this is the striped shirt, if when you found this striped shirt, was this striped shirt inside out?
RIDGE: I'm not certain.
PRICE: Ok. Was--do--to your knowledge, was any of the shirts inside out?
RIDGE: I'm not certain.
PRICE: Ok. And this t-shirt is just--is a pull over--the pull over your head kind of t-shirt.
RIDGE: Yes sir.
PRICE: Ok Detective Ridge, the same type of question. The last shirt would have been--state's exhibit number 44. This is also another t-shirt. Um. There appears to be a hole in this area, which has some numbering by it and I assume that is also something the crime lab would have done?
RIDGE: Yes sir.
PRICE: Ok. Did this particular t-shirt--was there any evidence of any kind of knife wounds through this particular t-shirt?
RIDGE: Not that I'm aware of, no.
PRICE: Were there any evidence of any--of it being torn or ripped on this t-shirt?
RIDGE: Not that I'm aware of.
PRICE: And also, any evidence of any blood on this t-shirt?
RIDGE: No sir, not that I'm aware of.
PRICE: Officer Ridge, my next batch of questions are dealing with the pants. Let me pull out state's exhibit number 48, which are blue jean type pants. Uh--do you recall--I think you testified on direct examination that two of the pair of pants were inside out and buttoned up?
RIDGE: Yes sir.
PRICE: Ok. Do you recall which of the three--which of the two pair of pants that was?
RIDGE: No sir, I don't recall that.
PRICE: Ok. Do you recall whether which of the boys the pants belonged to that were--the ones that was inside out?
RIDGE: No sir.
PRICE: Ok. Now on this particular pair of blue jean pants, there appears to be an area cut out on the--looks like the knee, the right knee, with some--
FOGLEMAN: (mumbling)
PRICE: Do what?
FOGLEMAN: (mumbling)
PRICE: Oh, ok. Excuse me. Alright. There does appear to be a hole where the knee is, up by the thigh there are some crime lab markings. And this would have been another one of the cuttings?
RIDGE: I'm not sure, but I guess that could be true.
PRICE: Ok. And also in the back portion, there also appears to be a hole or a cut, another number mark. Other than those two cuttings, uh--do you recall--now I want to also--on the right pocket, there appears to be--if I could approach, Judge. Looks like some initials and additional numbering.
RIDGE: Yes sir.
PRICE: On the right pocket. Other than those three areas that we--I just talked about, did you see any evidence of any kind of cutting on these blue jeans?
RIDGE: I do not know, sir.
PRICE: Ok. How about any evidence of any kind of tear besides the hole in the right knee?
RIDGE: Not that I'm aware of, no sir.
PRICE: Ok. And do you recall seeing any type of blood on these pants?
RIDGE: No sir.
PRICE: Ok. And would the same answers be true as far as the inside of the pants as the outside of the pants?
FOGLEMAN: Your Honor, I think the Officer testi--I object, Your Honor. It's uh--I believe that he's asking questions that are not within the Officer's knowledge. I think the Officer testified that he removed the clothes from the water, put 'em in the sack, and I don't remember any testimony about him--ya know, microscopically or any other way inspecting the pants or these things.
PRICE: Officer Ridge, did you look at the pants when you pulled them out of the water?
RIDGE: Yes sir, I looked at 'em.
PRICE: Were you looking for any evidence when you looked at the pants?
RIDGE: Anything obvious, yes sir. But my main purpose was to preserve any fibers, trace, anything that may be on that clothing and put it in that sack.
PRICE: Ok. Once they were placed in the sack, and you testified earlier about the procedure of drying out and then going to the crime lab. Would somebody from the crime lab have taken a closer look at the pants in better detail than you did?
RIDGE: Yes sir.
PRICE: Ok. The next pair of pants would be, also a pair of blue pants, state's exhibit number 45. There appears there on the front part--there appears to be a cut out portion with some numbers by it. Alright. These pants appear to be inside out, do you recall off hand if these are one of the two pairs that was inside out when you recovered them at the crime scene?
RIDGE: Off hand, no sir, I don't remember.
PRICE: Ok. If you would refresh your recollection by looking at any report that you prepared at the crime scene, would you be able to tell?
RIDGE: Uh--no sir. Only that I remember two of the pants were inside out and one pair was right side out.
PRICE: Alright. Did you notice any type of tears on these pants as you pulled them out of the water?
RIDGE: I didn't notice any, no sir.
PRICE: Ok. Did you notice any blood on these pants when you pulled them out of the water?
RIDGE: No sir.
PRICE: Ok. (mumbling) My last question would deal with state's exhibit number 52, these are blue jean pants. Um--there's a couple of--looks like a marking with some additional markings on the back portion, which I assume would be something the crime lab may have done. And there's some areas on the front, but other than that--excuse me, also the left knee, there appears to be a torn out area. Any type of um--of either tears above the waist or tears by the bottom part of the cuffs of the pants, that you recall?
RIDGE: Not that I'm aware, no sir.
PRICE: How about any evidence of any type of blood on the pants that you can recall?
RIDGE: Nothing visible, no sir.
PRICE: Ok. And to your knowledge, were the buttons on each of those three pairs of pants--was the buttons themselves actually working?
RIDGE: I'm not certain. Uh--
PRICE: What--
RIDGE: They were placed in the sack exactly as I removed them from the water and that's the best that I can recall.
PRICE: Ok.
RIDGE: I didn't work any of the buttons, I didn't work any of the zippers.
PRICE: Alright. Do you recall off hand if any other Officers at the crime scene would have worked the zippers or worked the buttons?
RIDGE: Not that I'm aware of, no sir.
PRICE: One moment, Your Honor.
(pause)
PRICE: Officer Ridge, my next question, I want to ask you some questions about possible footprint evidence at the scene. Uh--the first photograph, I'll go ahead and mark this as, um--just a moment Judge.
THE COURT: Alright.
PRICE: The defendant's E-1.
(mumbling)
PRICE: Yeah, um.
(mumbling)
PRICE: Here's this one. Judge, if I could mark this one, it's the next one. Alright, I've got a group of these photographs, Judge.
THE COURT: What are the notations on the back of one? I see one from here.
PRICE: This particular notation right here Judge, is that indicates Echols' exhibit number 2--footprint left by Detective Ridge at the scene.
FOGLEMAN: Your Honor, I certainly have no objection to it. I don't know why we're putting in Detective Ridge's footprint.
PRICE: Judge, the reason is, I want to rule out this footprint as oppose to the additional unknown prints that were found at the crime scene.
FOGLEMAN: That's fine, Your Honor. We don't have any objections to that.
PRICE: Detective Ridge, this uh--E-2 or Echols 2, that was a particular footprint that you had left at the crime scene?
RIDGE: Yes, it is my footprint.
PRICE: Alright. Um--excluding that print, while you were at the crime scene, did y'all also take a cast of a possible, either a footprint or a shoe print?
RIDGE: Yes sir.
PRICE: Ok. And I believe um--
(mumbling)
PRICE: Detective Ridge, state's exhibit number 37B--you wanna take a look at that photograph there.
RIDGE: Yes sir.
PRICE: That appears to be you--are you making some type of plaster paris cast of a potential print that was found at this crime scene?
RIDGE: Yes sir.
PRICE: Ok. Was that a barefoot print or was that a shoe type print?
RIDGE: It appeared to be a shoe type print.
PRICE: Ok. And also, if I could approach. Take a look at that, um--is the picture you're looking at now, is that the same picture as the other one? Is that the same--strike that question. Does both of the pictures show the same cast?
RIDGE: No sir.
PRICE: Alright. Was there more than one cast taken at the crime scene?
RIDGE: At the crime scene?
PRICE: At the crime scene.
RIDGE: Yes sir.
PRICE: Alright. So the one that has already been introduced into evidence, that was a footprint--
RIDGE: Yes.
PRICE: --of a foot mark--a shoe print.
RIDGE: Yes sir.
PRICE: Ok. The one you have in your hand, what type of print was that?
RIDGE: It's some kind of latent ridged print.
PRICE: Alright. Was that a barefoot print?
RIDGE: It's unknown.
PRICE: Ok. Well, could it also have been a fingerprint?
RIDGE: It could have been, yes sir.
PRICE: Ok. But they're two different types of boxes, and we're talking about two different possible prints?
RIDGE: Yes sir.
PRICE: Ok. Judge, at this time I would like to mark the polaroid pictures next to the defense exhibit, I think. Echols 3.
(pause)
PRICE: Right here, uh--
THE COURT: Any objection?
FOGLEMAN: No.
THE COURT: Alright, they may be received.
PRICE: Alright. And this is a photograph of a plaster cast that was performed on a latent print removed from the crime scene on May the 6th, 1993. Were y'all ever able to match up this particular print with anyone's print who is connected with this case?
RIDGE: No sir.
PRICE: And during this case, y'all obtained fingerprints of Damien Echols?
RIDGE: Yes sir.
PRICE: And y'all also obtained barefeet print impressions of Damien Echols?
RIDGE: Yes sir.
PRICE: And y'all also, during a search of his house, got some boots that belonged to Damien Echols?
RIDGE: Yes sir.
PRICE: If I could pose this to the jury, Your Honor?
THE COURT: Alright.
PRICE: Um--Officer Ridge, besides the two items we have just talked about, were there other potential footprints found at the scene?
RIDGE: There were two plaster casts made of footprints at the scene.
PRICE: Ok. Now those would have been two different plaster casts?
RIDGE: Yes sir.
PRICE: Alright, um--there's a group of photographs here, would it help you to look at these photographs to tell if these photographs are of the different types of footprints that you found at the scene?
RIDGE: I'd just have to look at the photographs.
PRICE: Alright. Judge, I think it might be easier, since I don't want to duplicate the photographs, but if I could approach the witness and let him look at these and --
RIDGE: Do you want to keep 'em in order?
PRICE: Naa, go ahead.
RIDGE: Ok.
PRICE: I think once he has a chance to look at 'em, I can mark 'em and proceed with questioning.
THE COURT: Alright.
(pause)
RIDGE: Ok sir, I can give you some explanations for these pictures if that's what you'd like.
PRICE: Ok. Are there -- is there one better picture of each possible print that y'all found at the scene?
RIDGE: Uh -- the footprints? There's a series of footprints here at the scene of photographs that was taken.
PRICE: Ok. I notice you've got a couple pictures in your hand, are they all of the same print?
RIDGE: There are two prints in these pictures.
PRICE: Two different prints?
RIDGE: Yes sir.
PRICE: Ok. Besides the ones you're looking at, would the other pictures that I have up there, are they just duplicates of the same ones you have --
RIDGE: No sir.
PRICE: Do they show any different prints?
RIDGE: They do show some different prints, also these are prints that were found in a different area.
PRICE: Ok, the woods --
RIDGE: Not at the crime scene.
PRICE: Alright. The different area that you're talking -- but not in Robin Hood area where the boys were found?
RIDGE: Not in the specific location, the creek and not in the area where the bodies were found. Uh -- there are some pictures here that you have divided which are pictures of a metal detector search.
PRICE: Ok. That was also done -- y'all did that within two or three days of finding the bodies?
RIDGE: That's correct, yes sir.
PRICE: Ok. Go ahead and get those pictures, let me take those away.
RIDGE: Ok sir.
PRICE: This batch here?
RIDGE: Yes sir.
PRICE: (mumbling)
RIDGE: You have a photograph here of --
PRICE: (mumbling)
RIDGE: Do you want an explanation?
PRICE: No.
RIDGE: Ok sir. During the metal detector search, this item was found also.
(pause)
RIDGE: This is a picture of my footprint. These photographs were taken by another detective at a different area, other than that is the area known as Devil's Den.
PRICE: Alright, is the area of Devil's Den on state's -- the map, state's exhibit number 13?
RIDGE: No sir, I can explain to you where it would be.
PRICE: Um -- is it in --
RIDGE: On the aeriel photograph.
PRICE: On the aeriel photograph?
RIDGE: Yes sir.
PRICE: How far away is the Devil's Den area from this area?
RIDGE: 400 yards.
(mumbling)
PRICE: On state's exhibit 101, would this aeriel photograph be one --
RIDGE: Yes sir, it will have it.
(mumbling)
PRICE: It might just be easier to go over -- if I could hold that here.
RIDGE: This is the area of where the bodies were located here, go back across the creek and ya come down to this area here, which is Devil's Den.
PRICE: Oh. Ok. So go ahead and take and removed the Devil's Den footprints.
RIDGE: I am fairly certain that these pictures are -- ok, that's -- this is Devil's Den and this is Devil's Den.
PRICE: Ok.
RIDGE: There's some pictures here that I can't identify. They're sort of panning shots. I don't know exactly what they are.
PRICE: Alright.
RIDGE: This is one of the trailer parks. And this is marked as the east side of the crime scene, there's a steep bank and all it is, is where somebody -- you can see where something had slid down the bank.
PRICE: Ok. Now this, the one that you just said where someone slid down the bank, this was the -- a steep area of the bank -- this is the one we introduced a minute ago, uh -- Echols 1. This was a footprint, that somebody slid down the east side of the bank. Um -- were you ever able to match up any type of print of this particular slide?
RIDGE: Sir, there's not enough definition there to even know that's a footprint. I don't know what -- it's something, slid down the bank there.
PRICE: Alright. (mumbling) Alright, the remaining photographs that you have in front of you, do they show two or three different footprints?
RIDGE: Two, yes sir.
PRICE: Two different footprints?
RIDGE: Yes sir.
PRICE: Let me go ahead and um -- let me mark them at this time, Judge.
(mumbling)
RIDGE: I didn't keep 'em in order.
PRICE: Ok. Um -- can you group those, the ones that are about one print and the other group of the other print?
RIDGE: It's right there, yes.
PRICE: Ok.
(mumbling)
PRICE: Judge, I think I'd like to mark two different groups. One as E-4; a, b, c, d, and e.
(pause)
(mumbling)
PRICE: And this one as Echols 5; a, b, c, and d.
(pause)
(mumbling)
PRICE: Alright Officer, just so we get all this straight. There was state's exhibit -- or defense exhibit Echols 4 --
(tape flipped)
PRICE: -- taken --
RIDGE: Yes sir.
PRICE: And --
RIDGE: Some of these are duplicates of each other, you're aware of that?
PRICE: The which -- do what now?
RIDGE: These are duplicates of each other.
PRICE: Ok. Um -- I guess --
RIDGE: We had several copies made and when you went through the files, you picked out a different batch as they are pictures of the same item.
PRICE: To make it easier, go ahead and pull out the duplicates and I won't introduce that.
RIDGE: Ok. Those two are duplicates of each of those.
PRICE: Ok.
RIDGE: Ok.
(mumbling)
PRICE: Ok. I want to introduce 5a and 5b.
RIDGE: These are a little bit different angle, they were just more shots taken, so I think that we can say these are all individual pictures.
PRICE: Ok.
(mumbling)
PRICE: Alright. So to clarify, 5b - a, and b is one print. 4; a, b, c, d, and e is all of one print.
RIDGE: Yes sir.
PRICE: And the prints that y'all made the cast out of were also -- one cast was made out of this shoe print and one was made out of this shoe print.
RIDGE: That's correct, yes sir.
PRICE: Besides those, there was the sliding down from the -- that y'all couldn't get anything out of, apparently something sliding down the steep bank.
RIDGE: That's correct.
PRICE: Ok. Now let's go back to 4a. Do you recall, in those group of photographs, where those photographs were found in relation to where the bodies were found?
RIDGE: Uh -- just north of the body of Michael Moore, and on the east bank.
PRICE: Alright. East bank, would that have been the flattened area?
RIDGE: The flattened area, if you'll go just a little bit further to north turns into a steeper slope. It's that area, where the steeper slope is.
PRICE: Alright. And then moving to the other batch of photographs, what -- as far as the location, on those two photographs, where were they -- where was that print?
RIDGE: Ok. If you invision, these prints are side by side, about the space like this.
PRICE: Ok. Did they appear to you to be made by the same shoe?
RIDGE: The same shoe?
PRICE: The same shoe.
RIDGE: No sir.
PRICE: Ok. Now y'all took a cast -- or did they appear to you to be of a tennis shoe print?
RIDGE: Uh -- yes sir, it appeared they could have been.
PRICE: Ok. Now that's both the -- the pictures in a, excuse me -- the pictures in 4, and also the pictures in 5?
RIDGE: Yes sir.
PRICE: Could you tell by looking at those pictures, if it appeared to be the same type style of sole of the tennis shoe?
RIDGE: Yes sir. It appeared to be to me.
PRICE: Ok. Could you tell if both of them were -- if one was a right and one was a left?
RIDGE: It appeared that one was a left and one was a right.
PRICE: Ok. Now during the investigation, y'all seized evidence from Damien Echols' house.
RIDGE: Yes sir.
PRICE: And you were not able to find any match of any footprints at Damien Echols' house with those prints?
RIDGE: No sir.
PRICE: Ok. Judge, if I could, I would like to introduce these photographs into evidence.
THE COURT: Any objections?
FOGLEMAN: No sir.
PRICE: Pose them to the jury?
FOGLEMAN: Your Honor, as long as it's understood, the testimony has been that although there are a number of photographs, we're talking about two shoe prints and not eight or nine.
PRICE: That's fine, Judge. If I -- do you have a paper clip? That might make it easier.
THE COURT: Let me see what I have.
PRICE: I have no objection to clipping them, Judge.
THE COURT: Alright, they may be received. Did you say you needed a short recess?
PRICE: Judge, I'm close to finishing.
THE COURT: Alright.
(mumbling)
PRICE: Alright Detective Ridge, during the investigation, were you ever able to obtain a match with anyone's footwear between the photographs in exhibit number 5 and exhibit number 4?
RIDGE: No sir.
PRICE: And also during the -- when y'all were out at the crime scene, did you ever find any shoe imprints matching the shoes that the victims were wearing?
RIDGE: No sir.
PRICE: Ok. We have state's exhibit number 46a and b, which is a pair of white tennis shoes.
RIDGE: Yes sir.
PRICE: And there was no match that you could find of these tennis shoes out there where the bodies were located?
RIDGE: Not where they were located.
PRICE: And there was no match by either a cast imprint or by a photograph?
RIDGE: No sir, no match.
PRICE: Ok. The next questions, the black tennis shoes with purple interior, 47a and b, was there any ever match by -- did you see any, either cast or photographs matching the black tennis shoes out there at the crime scene?
RIDGE: No sir.
PRICE: And with the black tennis shoes, 51a and 51b, did you ever find shoe imprints at the crime scene, either by a cast or by photographs of the black tennis shoe prints?
RIDGE: No sir.
PRICE: One moment, Your Honor.
(mumbling)
(pause)
PRICE: Detective Ridge, when after you did the cast of the shoe prints, did you ever size those to see what the size of shoe left that imprint?
RIDGE: Those plaster casts were sent to the crime lab and they made any determinations they could from it.
PRICE: Ok. Did you ever get a report back from the crime lab as to what the shoe size is that those imprints were?
RIDGE: No sir.
PRICE: Ok. And when the bodies were taken out of the water, were they placed directly on the ground initially?
RIDGE: Yes sir.
PRICE: Ok. Nothing further, Your Honor.
WADLEY: Detective, were you the officer in charge of checking the school records of Jason?
RIDGE: No sir. I think I inquired at one time, but I wasn't in charge of that responsibility.
WADLEY: Would you agree with me that on Wednesday, May the 5th, that Jason was in school that day?
FOGLEMAN: Your Honor, I don't believe that's a proper question, but we will stipulate that the school records show that. Those records were obtained through prosecuting attorneys, Detective Ridge didn't have anything to do with that. But we will stipulate that he was in school.
WADLEY: Did you uh - were you one of the officers or detectives who was assigned to uh - checking the bus logs from school records? Was that a part of your investigation?
RIDGE: From the school records?
WADLEY: Yes sir. Or from the school?
RIDGE: I physically went to the - Lakeshore to watch the buses to see what time they dropped the children off.
WADLEY: Were you one of the officers who gathered any of those bus records?
RIDGE: Gathered records?
WADLEY: Yes.
RIDGE: I just logged down the time. I was the one that did it.
WADLEY: Ok. Would you agree uh - that he rode the bus home - Jason, on Wednesday, May the 5th?
RIDGE: I don't have any -
WADLEY: You don't have any -
RIDGE: I don't know that, no sir.
WADLEY: Ok. Do you have anything to - anything that would disagree with that?
RIDGE: Oh, no sir.
WADLEY: Ok. Now, uh - the records - would you agree with me that the records on Thursday, May the 6th, show that Jason was at school - at Marion High School?
RIDGE: Sir, I don't have any knowledge of it.
WADLEY: If I told you that's what they were doing, would you have any reason -
FOGLEMAN: Judge, that's not a proper question. If he wants to bring somebody's custodian school records up here to establish this, that's fine. But - or it's his -
THE COURT: He said he didn't know.
WADLEY: Would you stipulate on that? That he was at Marion at school on Thursday. (mumbling)
FOGLEMAN: I don't know when he caught the bus.
WADLEY: You gonna stipulate on this?
FOGLEMAN: I'll have to check.
WADLEY: As a part of your investigation, would you agree that Jason was at home at 10pm on Wednesday night?
THE COURT: What time?
WADLEY: 10pm on Wednesday night, May the 5th. Would you agree with that?
RIDGE: I would have to check a report of a witness to know the time. I'm not exactly certain what time he said Jason arrived home that night.
WADLEY: Well right now, you wouldn't disagree with that, would you?
RIDGE: I couldn't disagree with it 'cause I don't have that information in front of me.
WADLEY: Let's talk about your search of the area, when you were out in the area that you described to the jury, on May the 6th - that was Thursday, is that correct?
RIDGE: Yes sir.
WADLEY: Ok. Now, did you do an arm to arm search? Were you lined up with officers, going over the area?
RIDGE: Yes sir, are you wanting to know the date of that or are you talking about on the 6th?
WADLEY: On the 6th.
RIDGE: No sir, it didn't take place on the 6th.
WADLEY: Ok. Well, tell me what you did on the 6th as far as gathering evidence.
RIDGE: Well, up until it got dark, we were gathering evidence there at the crime scene. The last evidence that was gathered, that I'm aware of, is those plaster casts and you can tell from the picture that it was dark or getting very dark when we left.
WADLEY: Ok. Now, the boys were found on May the 6th, is that correct?
RIDGE: Yes sir.
WADLEY: And on that day, what - tell me what you did as far as searching the area.
RIDGE: The area of primary concern was the crime scene itself, that area surrounding where the bodies were found.
WADLEY: Tell me what you did.
RIDGE: I searched the ditch, I searched both banks, the -
WADLEY: How did you search?
RIDGE: How?
WADLEY: How did you do that?
RIDGE: Ok. You visually search. You look for everything, anything that may be of evidence. Uh - the ditch was drained out and the water was drained from that portion -
WADLEY: When you were searching the area, were you just walking in a straight line or - tell me how you were doing that.
RIDGE: Well, it's a confined area. It's not a large area that was searched at that particular time. That area, it was just everything visually found.
WADLEY: Did you have other officers who were standing beside you - would ya'll go off searching together or how did you do that? Looking down when you walked or how did you do that?
RIDGE: No sir, that didn't occur that day.
WADLEY: Ok. Did it occur the next day?
RIDGE: It occurred afterwards, uh - either the next day or the day after that it did occur.
WADLEY: Ok. Well, tell me how that occurred.
RIDGE: Ok. Went out there with all of the detective units and all of the narcotic units. We spread out, hand to hand arm length and we covered the entire area of Robin Hood woods. Uh - that area east of that area all the way to the expressway, north of that area to the expressway, and both sides of that ditch in that area.
WADLEY: So, you would have officers lined up -
RIDGE: Yes sir.
WADLEY: Side by side, correct?
RIDGE: Yes sir.
WADLEY: And y'all were walking, you know, and searching the whole area?
RIDGE: Yes sir.
WADLEY: And it's your testimony that y'all searched that entire area out there, is that right - in that manner?
RIDGE: Yes sir.
WADLEY: Ok. And I would assume, and you would agree with me, that you - y'all were paying attention to detail - y'all were looking for anything that you could find, would that be fair to say?
RIDGE: That was the instructions and that's what I was doing, yes sir.
WADLEY: Because that would be important, wouldn't it, Detective? To try to find anything you could find out there.
RIDGE: Yes sir, that's correct.
WADLEY: On the 6th of May, how long did your uh - search last that day? How many hours?
RIDGE: From the time the body was recovered at 1:30 until we left, which was probably 7:45 or 8:00 that night.
WADLEY: So about 6 hours?
RIDGE: Yes sir.
WADLEY: That particular day.
RIDGE: Yes sir.
WADLEY: And you, on that particular day, you were just looking at a very small area. Is that correct?
RIDGE: That's correct.
WADLEY: Ok. And on the 7th, how long did you search that day, in the manner which you already told us you searched?
RIDGE: Probably took about 3 hours.
WADLEY: And on the 7th - excuse me, the 8th, how many hours that day did you look?
RIDGE: I'm not exactly sure which day it was. Uh - we went for several days there without sleep at night, we were - it was constant as the investigation was continuing. I'm not exactly sure which day that took place. Whether this grid search took place on the 7th or on the 8th.
WADLEY: But it occurred within a couple of days after you found the bodies? Is that correct?
RIDGE: Yes sir, that's correct.
WADLEY: Let me ask you a different way. How many hours do you think you looked out there - looked in the manner you told the jury, how many hours do you think you spent out there looking?
RIDGE: Uh - myself personally, probably 20 to 25 hours.
WADLEY: And then there were other officers out there looking the same - with you, the same time - for the same amount of time, is that correct?
RIDGE: That's correct.
WADLEY: Ok. Now if you would, describe for me what your procedure is or was, when you were out there those few days - the day you found the bodies and those couple of days after - what was your procedure if you found something? Procedure in taking these items, describe how you would do that.
RIDGE: Ok. Those items I seized, I took possession of 'em. If it was a small item, I placed it in some type of container.
WADLEY: Was there anyone other than yourself that was taking possession of items?
RIDGE: Uh. Yes sir, there were some other officers out there taking possession of items.
WADLEY: On those days we're talking about?
RIDGE: Yes sir.
WADLEY: 6th, 7th, 8th.
RIDGE: Yes sir.
WADLEY: Who were those officers?
RIDGE: Uh - Officer Charlie Dabbs, Officer Lt. Diane Hester, Officer Shane Griffith, Officer Tony Anderson, Officer Mike Allen -
WADLEY: These officers that you are listing their names, these are officers who actually found something?
RIDGE: They're officers who were all out there, um -
WADLEY: My question was, were you the only officer who actually was in charge of taking possession of what was found?
RIDGE: I took possession of it when some of those officers gave me that evidence. But they may have taken items at the scene -
WADLEY: That you were unaware of?
RIDGE: - and then they gave it to me.
WADLEY: Ok. They - you're the one that was responsible for being in charge of gathering these items, is that correct?
RIDGE: That's correct.
WADLEY: Ok. So if someone found something, they were to bring it to you - is that correct?
RIDGE: That's correct, yes sir. On almost all occassions.
WADLEY: Ok. Now, the clothes that you have - we've already gone through these items in these bags - those were recovered on what day?
RIDGE: On the 6th.
WADLEY: Ok. Now, you got down in the water - is that correct?
RIDGE: Yes sir.
WADLEY: And were you the only one in the water when you were making this search?
RIDGE: No sir. Uh - the photographs will reflect that Sgt. Allen was in the water with me.
WADLEY: Were y'all together in the water - you described how you would bend down and reach - was he in the water with you?
RIDGE: Uh - he was in the water, near the body as I was making my way to the body.
WADLEY: And you were trying to make sure that you found everything in there, correct?
RIDGE: That's exactly correct.
WADLEY: As a matter of fact, I believe you testified that water was pumped out of there at a later time - all the water was pumped out, you sandbagged it and pumped everything out - is that correct?
RIDGE: That's correct.
WADLEY: And I don't recall if you said this on direct exam or a question by Mr. Price, but you were looking for anything obvious - anything that was obvious, that's what you were looking for, that type evidence. Is that correct?
RIDGE: That's correct.
WADLEY: What type shoes were you wearing, Detective, that day?
RIDGE: Earlier in the day I had a pair of dress shoes on, at the crime scene I was wearing a pair of rubber boots.
WADLEY: Ok. That's what you were wearing when you were in the water?
RIDGE: Yes sir, correct.
WADLEY: And would it be accurate to say that you - do you have long pants on?
RIDGE: Yes sir.
WADLEY: Ok. Were your pants stuffed down in the rubber boots or were they on the outside?
RIDGE: I'm not sure how they ended up, I believe they did end up with the pants outside the rubber boots.
WADLEY: Your pants were muddy, correct?
RIDGE: Yes sir.
WADLEY: Your shoes were muddy, correct?
RIDGE: Yes sir.
WADLEY: You took the clothes out - you described how you put the clothes, dripping wet, in the sacks - is that correct?
RIDGE: Yes sir.
WADLEY: Now we've gone through and we've looked at all these sacks today - did you have a chance to look at all of these, Detective, as we were going through them?
RIDGE: Yes sir, I did.
WADLEY: And on any of the sacks that you looked at, did you see any water marks on any of these sacks?
RIDGE: I don't visibly see any, no sir.
WADLEY: See any dried mud on any of the sacks?
RIDGE: No sir.
WADLEY: Or any dried inside?
RIDGE: On the inside?
WADLEY: How do you explain that, Detective?
RIDGE: I can't explain it.
WADLEY: Now, you were walking in the water and - let me appraoch, Your Honor.
(paper crinkling)
WADLEY: This is the stick that you found, is that correct?
RIDGE: It's one of 'em, yes sir.
WADLEY: And when you walked up to it, how was it in the water?
RIDGE: It was stuck down in the water, in the bottom of the creek.
WADLEY: Was it free standing?
RIDGE: Yes sir.
WADLEY: It was a free standing stick?
RIDGE: Yes sir.
WADLEY: Could you see it? How deep was the water?
RIDGE: The water in that particular area was just above my knees, probably 28 to 30 inches.
WADLEY: Can you show for me how far it was sticking out of the water?
RIDGE: Probably 10 to 12 inches.
WADLEY: (assume indicating)
RIDGE: Yes sir.
WADLEY: It was sticking out, and it was holding clothes down?
RIDGE: It was holding a shirt that was wrapped around the end of the stick, yes sir.
WADLEY: And describe for me how it was wrapped around the end.
RIDGE: Well, it's in the photograph. Can you see the shirt is around the end of the stick.
WADLEY: Is it twisted around?
RIDGE: All I can say is the shirt was wrapped around the end of the stick.
WADLEY: Did you actually have to remove it?
RIDGE: Yes sir, I did.
WADLEY: Was it stuck to it?
RIDGE: I wouldn't say stuck to it, I mean, you just grab it and pull it off.
WADLEY: It caused some force to take it off though?
RIDGE: Very little force, yes sir.
WADLEY: Ok. It just didn't fall off, did it?
RIDGE: No sir.
WADLEY: Ok. And this stick you saw was sticking out of the water, had a piece of clothing on it, what did you do with the stick when you saw it and you pulled it out - what did you do with that stick?
RIDGE: Well first, I didn't pull it out of the mud. It became dislodged as I was making my way, I don't know if a wave was enough to knock it over or what, but it became dislodged and floated up.
WADLEY: How far was you from this thing when it became dislodged and floated up?
RIDGE: 3 or 4 foot.
WADLEY: So when you were walking, could you see it ahead of you?
RIDGE: Yes sir.
WADLEY: Were you making progress towards that stick?
RIDGE: Yes sir.
WADLEY: Ok. And you saw it -
RIDGE: Yes sir.
WADLEY: - and right before you got to it, it just came up?
RIDGE: Yes sir.
WADLEY: Ok. So it comes up and you take it, then what do you do?
RIDGE: Ok, I don't immediately remove it. Go ahead and remove the body.
WADLEY: Ok. Ok. You removed the body?
RIDGE: Yes sir.
WADLEY: And the stick's floating in the water?
RIDGE: Yes sir.
WADLEY: Tell me what happened when you first take the stick. When you -
RIDGE: Taking pictures of the stick with the shirt wrapped around the end of it.
WADLEY: Was the picture taken in the water or on the bank?
RIDGE: You can see the picture, it's in the water.
WADLEY: And then what did you do with the stick?
RIDGE: Ok. I took the shirt off of it and laid the stick on the bank.
WADLEY: Did you - did you look at the stick?
RIDGE: Yes sir, I did.
WADLEY: Did you examine the stick?
RIDGE: I looked at it, yes sir.
WADLEY: Did you study the stick?
RIDGE: I looked at the stick, yes sir.
WADLEY: And the reason you did that was because it's important - that was important, wasn't it, Detective?
RIDGE: Yes sir, to see if anything was on the stick that may have been of importance.
WADLEY: And did you find anything on it?
RIDGE: No sir.
WADLEY: Did you find any blood?
RIDGE: Not that I saw.
WADLEY: Did you find any skin?
RIDGE: Not that I saw.
WADLEY: Find any fingerprints?
RIDGE: No sir.
WADLEY: Ok. Ofcourse you're not equipped out there to run those kind of tests, are you Detective?
RIDGE: No sir.
WADLEY: And then what did you do with the stick?
RIDGE: Laid it on the bank.
WADLEY: Where did you lay it on the bank?
RIDGE: On the east bank.
WADLEY: Now, when you were out there and you laid it on the bank, did you make any markings on the stick?
RIDGE: No sir.
WADLEY: Put your initials on it?
RIDGE: No sir.
WADLEY: I found the stick when it floated up with clothes on it, didn't make any markings like that - did you?
RIDGE: I didn't make any markings, no sir.
WADLEY: You recovered this stick, is that correct?
RIDGE: Yes sir.
WADLEY: On that stick, did you inspect it?
RIDGE: Yes sir, I did.
WADLEY: Did you look at it?
RIDGE: Yes sir, I did.
WADLEY: Did you look at that stick as long as you looked at that stick?
RIDGE: I looked at both sticks, yes sir.
WADLEY: That stick was just floating in the water too, wasn't it?
RIDGE: That's correct.
WADLEY: That stick didn't have any clothes attached to it, did it?
RIDGE: No sir.
WADLEY: Let me ask you - you've testified at length about this - I'm gonna use your words, "this slicked off area" - let's talk about this "slicked off area" for a minute. Help me - when you say "slicked off", what do you mean by that?
RIDGE: An absence of leaves as the surrounding area had, scuff marks, the grass was bent over, mud on the top of it.
WADLEY: Ok. Let's go down one by one.
RIDGE: Ok sir.
WADLEY: When you say "slicked off", that means to you an absence of leaves?
RIDGE: Yes sir.
WADLEY: Correct - ok. What type leaves are we talking about?
RIDGE: Residual leaves from the trees from the previous fall or whatever vegetation would have been in that area.
WADLEY: Ok. Dead leaves?
RIDGE: Yes sir.
WADLEY: What else does it mean to ya?
RIDGE: Well, it's in the spring. Green leaves normally fall and you'll see green leaves on the ground. That's a common finding. They were not the same green leaves rather than dead leaves.
WADLEY: No green leaves falling?
RIDGE: Yes sir.
WADLEY: Leaves that are alive falling?
RIDGE: Yes sir, that's correct. That does occur.
WADLEY: Ok. What else?
RIDGE: Scuff marks.
WADLEY: Scuff marks - you mean "slicked off", is that what you're saying?
RIDGE: That's a term that could be used, yes sir.
WADLEY: Describe the scuff marks.
RIDGE: Looks as though somebody may have taken their hand and rubbed the bank.
WADLEY: Detective, were you out in this area on May the 1st?
RIDGE: May the 1st?
WADLEY: Yes sir.
RIDGE: I don't think it was May the 1st that I was there.
WADLEY: Were you out there on May the 2nd?
RIDGE: No sir.
WADLEY: Were you out there on May the 3rd?
RIDGE: No sir.
WADLEY: Were you out there on May the 4th?
RIDGE: No sir.
WADLEY: Were you out there on May the 5th?
RIDGE: No sir.
WADLEY: You don't know what the condition of that area was on those days, do you?
RIDGE: On those days, no sir.
WADLEY: And when you say it looks like someone - when you're out there making your observation on the 6th, is that correct?
RIDGE: Yes sir.
WADLEY: And you're giving this definition of "slicked off", correct?
RIDGE: Yes sir.
WADLEY: You're just speculating on that, aren't you?
RIDGE: I'm describing the area as I saw it, yes sir.
WADLEY: You're just speculating about that, aren't you Detective?
RIDGE: I'm describing the area as I saw it.
WADLEY: When you say it looked like someone had taken their hand and pulled it down, you're speculating on that - aren't you?
RIDGE: You asked me what it looked like and I told you, sir.
WADLEY: You weren't out there before that, were you?
RIDGE: Yes sir, I was out there about a month previous to that.
WADLEY: Were you out there on the 1st?
RIDGE: No sir.
WADLEY: 2nd?
RIDGE: No sir.
WADLEY: What I'm asking you Detective, is are you telling this jury that someone scraped it off based on your observations out here on the 6th? Is that what you're telling this jury?
RIDGE: That's the way it appeared to me, yes sir.
WADLEY: Is that what you're telling this jury?
RIDGE: Yes sir.
WADLEY: Now you're aware that - I would assume, that one of the boys bled to death out there - is that correct?
RIDGE: That's my understanding from a report from the crime lab.
WADLEY: One of them bled to death.
RIDGE: That's my understanding.
WADLEY: Ok. Now, if one of the boys - strike that, your Honor. If the area was slicked off as you say it was - that you saw it, the blood was slicked off, you didn't find any blood of any kind there - did you?
RIDGE: No sir, I did not find any blood.
WADLEY: Not a drop of blood, correct?
RIDGE: That's correct.
WADLEY: Where this was "slicked off".
RIDGE: Yes sir.
WADLEY: And you checked that very carefully didn't you, Detective?
RIDGE: Yes sir.
WADLEY: You were looking for anything you could find on that ground, correct?
RIDGE: Yes sir.
WADLEY: And you didn't see not one thing, did you?
RIDGE: One thing?
WADLEY: You didn't see any blood -
RIDGE: no sir, I didn't find any blood.
WADLEY: Not a drop?
RIDGE: No sir.
WADLEY: Now let's assume if there had been - there would be partial debris on that area that you described to me, would you expect that some blood might have missed some of the twigs or some of the leaves, and soaked down into the ground?
RIDGE: Yes sir.
WADLEY: You would expect that, wouldn't you?
RIDGE: Yes sir.
WADLEY: But again, you didn't find a drop of blood?
RIDGE: I did not find anything.
WADLEY: I believe you also testified that there were a number of twigs and leaves and debris that was further down in the water, is that correct?
RIDGE: Yes sir.
WADLEY: Ok. Did you take possession of any of those twigs or leaves or debris for testing?
RIDGE: No sir.
WADLEY: You gather any of those up at all?
RIDGE: No sir.
WADLEY: You just left 'em out there, right?
RIDGE: Yes sir.
WADLEY: Just like you left this stick, correct?
RIDGE: That's correct.
WADLEY: Were there any items that you - were there any other items that you found out there which uh - you did not send off for testing?
RIDGE: These items that were recovered by the metal detector search.
WADLEY: I'm asking you Detective, were there any other items out there -
RIDGE: That's what I said, the items that were recovered by the metal detector search.
WADLEY: And what were they?
RIDGE: Uh - rusted nails, uh - aluminum cans, small pieces of metal wire that were under the mud.
WADLEY: Did you find any disposable razors out there?
RIDGE: No sir.
WADLEY: You didn't find any of those?
RIDGE: No sir, I didn't.
WADLEY: And noone with the West Memphis Police Department or noone investigating this, did anybody find any of that out there?
RIDGE: Now you're talking about out at the crime scene itself?
WADLEY: I'm talking about out at the area in Robin Hood woods where y'all searched, lined up, arm to arm and searching - did y'all find anything like that?
RIDGE: Not in that area, no sir.
WADLEY: Did you find a razor?
RIDGE: I think a razor was included in a package of clothing that was found away from that area.
WADLEY: Where was it found?
RIDGE: Across the pipe on the south side of the Ten Mile Bayou.
WADLEY: Was that sent off for testing?
RIDGE: Yes sir, it was.
WADLEY: It was?
RIDGE: Yes sir.
WADLEY: Where was it sent to?
RIDGE: Arkansas State Crime Lab.
WADLEY: You sure about that?
RIDGE: Best of my knowledge, yes sir. I can check the records.
WADLEY: But you're telling us right now, that's what happened?
RIDGE: Yes sir.
THE COURT: You gonna be much longer? Time for a recess.
WADLEY: That'll be fine, Judge. That'll be fine.
THE COURT: Alright ladies and gentlemen, you may stand in recess with the usual admonition not to discuss the case, for ten minutes.
(return to open court)
THE COURT: (mumbling about feedback)
WADLEY: Detective, let me move to one other area I'd like to talk with you about. As a part of one of your duties, uh - in investigating this matter, did you knock on doors in the neighborhood in the vicinity of Robin Hood - go house to house, checking houses, checking vacant houses in that area? Is that something that you did?
RIDGE: I, on one night, assisted in a neighborhood survey of that area - yes sir.
WADLEY: What night was that?
RIDGE: I would have to check my records.
WADLEY: Could you do that?
RIDGE: Can I stand down, Your Honor?
THE COURT: Yes, yes.
(whispering)
RIDGE: Yes sir, do you wanna know the date?
WADLEY: Yes, please.
RIDGE: 5 -13 of '93.
WADLEY: Ok. And uh - prior to that date - prior to the 13th -
RIDGE: Yes sir.
WADLEY: Let's say as of, uh - May the 6th, did you have knowledge that there was vacant houses in that area - in that subdivision area, you had knowledge to that - didn't you?
RIDGE: Yes sir.
WADLEY: Ok. And the crime scene - or the place where the bodies were found, that's in close proximity - is it not, to truck stops?
RIDGE: Yes sir.
WADLEY: How far away is that?
RIDGE: To the fence in the back of the 76 truck stop, an estimate would be 100 yards. 150 yards.
WADLEY: And there was a truck wash, correct?
RIDGE: Yes sir.
WADLEY: How far is that away? From where they were found?
RIDGE: To the truck stop itself or to the truck stop property?
WADLEY: To the truck stop property.
RIDGE: Probably 50 yards.
WADLEY: And then to the truck stop itself?
RIDGE: Another 50 - 75 yards.
FOGLEMAN: Your Honor, I got a little confused there. The same truck stop or the truck wash? I'm not sure which one they're talking about.
WADLEY: That's what I had asked. Well, answer this way Detective.
RIDGE: Yes sir.
WADLEY: Let's talk about the truck stop.
RIDGE: Yes sir.
WADLEY: To the actual truck stop itself, how far is it from where the bodies were found?
RIDGE: 250 to 300 yards.
WADLEY: And then there is a truck wash, is that correct?
RIDGE: Yes sir, there is.
WADLEY: How far away is that from where the boys were found?
RIDGE: Truck wash, 100 yards.
WADLEY: Were you, uh - was one of your duties to make inquiry into fuel logs of truckers?
RIDGE: That's not one of my duties -
(talking over)
WADLEY: That's not one of your duties?
RIDGE: I know that was performed by -
(still talking over)
WADLEY: It must have been done at that time, wasn't it?
RIDGE: That's correct.
WADLEY: That's all I have of this witness at this time, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Anything else?
FOGLEMAN: I've lost track Your Honor, is it my turn?
THE COURT: I've lost track. Y'all said y'all were gonna be through with this witness in 30 minutes, yesterday.
(courtroom laughter)
DAVIDSON: I just have one question, I can ask from here. They said that, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Go ahead.
DAVIDSON: Unless I missed some things.
THE COURT: No, you didn't miss anything worth wild.
DAVIDSON: Detective, as of the 6th day of May 1993, Thursday -
RIDGE: Yes sir.
DAVIDSON: There was not a fence between the truck wash and the area where the boys were found, is that correct?
RIDGE: On that date, there did not exist a fence - yes sir.
DAVIDSON: Thank you, Detective.
THE COURT: Alright, it's your turn.
FOGLEMAN: Thank you, Your Honor Judge.
(paper crinkling)
FOGLEMAN: Detective Ridge, we're not gonna go through everyone of these sacks again, but would you take that sack, take the shirt out, and would you look in the bottom of that sack and tell me what you see?
RIDGE: Dried mud.
(mumbling)
FOGLEMAN: You can put it back in. First let me go ahead and show Mr. Wadley. You can look at state's exhibit 48 -
(crinkling)
FOGLEMAN: What do you see in the bottom of that sack?
RIDGE: Again, dried mud.
FOGLEMAN: Pardon?
RIDGE: Dried mud.
(crinkling)
(mumbling)
(heavy crinkling)
(more mumbling)
FOGLEMAN: One of the defense attorneys and I don't remember which one, asked you if anyone's prints - if any prints - can't remember if this alleged fingerprint, toe print, footprint, whatever it was - if that matched with anyone connected with the case, uh - somebody asked you that. Did that print match with anybody, that you know of, in the whole world?
RIDGE: Not that I know of, no sir.
FOGLEMAN: Alright. Now in these - in regard to these - what we talked about as footprints, were those shoe prints or barefoot prints?
RIDGE: They appeared to be shoe prints.
FOGLEMAN: Alright. In that whole area that y'all searched, not only your visual search on the 5th but in your - on the 6th, but in your grid search later, uh - did you find any other shoe prints besides those 2 shoe prints?
RIDGE: No sir.
FOGLEMAN: Alright. Now when you first went there to those woods on May the 6th, about what time was that again?
RIDGE: Approximately 1:30 in the afternoon.
FOGLEMAN: I'm talking about the first time that day.
RIDGE: Oh, at 7:45 in the morning.
FOGLEMAN: Alright, and somebody was there in the woods?
RIDGE: Yes sir, 4 people in that immediate area.
FOGLEMAN: Alright, 4 people. Where were the 4 people?
RIDGE: Ok. At the dead end of McAuley, before you cross the pipe, I met Steve Branch. The father of Stevie Branch.
FOGLEMAN: (talking over) Talking about Mr. Branch, Stevie Branch's father?
RIDGE: Yes sir.
FOGLEMAN: Alright. And then, who else?
RIDGE: When I crossed the creek, I found the bicycle and the young men that's out in the woods, hollering, searching.
FOGLEMAN: Alright.
RIDGE: Then when I looked to the east into that field that's on the east side of this little ditch, uh - there are 2 young men hollering, searching.
FOGLEMAN: Now if you would, on state's exhibit 13, take my pen and if you could - mark first the location where you first saw uh - this young man that you saw in the wooded area.
RIDGE: Ok. Can I lay it down for just a second? I was in this area, he was -
FOGLEMAN: Put your initials uh - by the -
RIDGE: This 'X' is for me, I'll put 'ABR' there - that's my initials. And the young man that I saw was straight out toward the expressway from me in the woods, out here.
FOGLEMAN: Put a 'YM' for young man. Alright. And where were the other 2 people?
RIDGE: Uh - in this area, down in this direction.
FOGLEMAN: Alright. Close to the treeline?
RIDGE: Close to the ditch, yes sir.
FOGLEMAN: But in the field?
RIDGE: Yes sir.
FOGLEMAN: Alright. Would you put, towards the edge there, a couple of 'Xs' there?
RIDGE: A couple of circles?
FOGLEMAN: That'd be fine.
RIDGE: I'll put circles and 2 unknown.
FOGLEMAN: Ok.
RIDGE: 'UK' on that.
FOGLEMAN: Alright.
(pause)
FOGLEMAN: When Michael Moore, Stevie Branch, and Chris Byers were removed from the water, uh - when they were first pulled from the water, did you observe any blood?
RIDGE: Immediately upon coming out of the water, there was no blood.
FOGLEMAN: Alright. And after they had been out of the water a short period of time, what did you observe?
RIDGE: Water would start coming out from the wounds of the victims.
FOGLEMAN: You say what would come out?
RIDGE: Blood would come out.
FOGLEMAN: Ok.
RIDGE: From the wounds of the victims.
FOGLEMAN: Alright. And was that on each one of the three?
RIDGE: Yes sir.
FOGLEMAN: Alright. Ok. Now if you know, what affect does water have on the ability to locate blood, fingerprints, and that kind of item?
DAVIDSON: Your Honor, I'm gonna object - unless he lays some foundation, that this witness is incapable to give an opinion on that question.
THE COURT: Well, from your experience and training, do you know what affect water has on blood?
RIDGE: Yes sir, I do.
THE COURT: Anything else?
(pause)
THE COURT: Alright, you may proceed.
FOGLEMAN: Ok. If you would, answer the question.
RIDGE: Blood would be washed away by water.
FOGLEMAN: Now, Mr. Wadley asked you about checking fuel logs?
RIDGE: Yes sir.
FOGLEMAN: Uh - what, um - were you checking any and all possibilities?
RIDGE: That's correct, yes sir.
FOGLEMAN: I don't have any further questions, Your Honor.
PRICE: No further questions at this time, Your Honor.
WADLEY: Detective, is what you mean - when blood is in water, it can be diluted. That's what you mean by that, is that what you're saying?
RIDGE: That's correct, yes sir.
WADLEY: In water and blood, blood can be diluted.
RIDGE: That's correct.
WADLEY: That's what you meant by that response to his question, correct?
RIDGE: That's correct.
WADLEY: You were shown 2 sacks of a number here.
RIDGE: Yes sir.
WADLEY: Do you see any water spots on any of these sacks, Detective?
RIDGE: No sir.
(WITNESS EXCUSED)
March 2, 1994
FOGLEMAN: You're the same Detective Ridge who previously testified?
RIDGE: Yes sir.
FOGLEMAN: Detective Ridge, I want to direct your attention to June the 3rd of 1993. Uh - on that date, did you have a conversation with Jessie Misskelley, Jr. ?
RIDGE: Yes sir, I did.
FOGLEMAN: As a result of that, or subsequent to that, uh - did you obtain a search warrant for the residences of Damien Echols and Jason Baldwin?
RIDGE: Yes sir, I did.
FOGLEMAN: Now, uh - in executing those search warrants, um - what were the mechanics of that, who was involved and what were the mechanics?
RIDGE: Ok. The crime lab was called and assistance was requested in collecting evidence at the scene of those searches. Uh - the officers were divided into teams. We secured those residences. Myself, uh - Lt. Sudbury, and personnel from the Arkansas State Crime Lab searched those residences.
FOGLEMAN: Alright. When you say that you were divided into teams, what do you mean?
RIDGE: Ok. At the first scene, it was myself, Lt. Sudbury, uh - the 2 crime lab personnel, and a uniform officer that secured the residence of Damien Echols. And once that residence was secured, then myself, Lt. Sudbury, and the 2 crime lab personnel searched their residence.
FOGLEMAN: Now at the same time that uh - y'all were going to the residence of Damien Echols, uh - was anything being done in relation to the other residences?
RIDGE: Yes sir, another team was securing another residence and there were 2 other residences that were also secured and searched at the same time.
FOGLEMAN: Alright. And who's residences were those?
RIDGE: Uh - the residence of Jason Baldwin, the residence of Domini Teer, and the residence of Jessie Misskelley, Jr.
FOGLEMAN: Alright. Now, when uh - you said that you and who went to the residence of Damien Echols?
RIDGE: Myself, Lt. Sudbury, Lisa Sakevicius of the Arkansas State Crime Lab, and Kermit Channel of the Arkansas State Crime Lab.
FOGLEMAN: Now, and where was that residence located?
RIDGE: At 2706 South Grove.
FOGLEMAN: Where?
RIDGE: In West Memphis, Arkansas.
FOGLEMAN: And where was the residence of Jason Baldwin?
RIDGE: 245 South Lake Drive West - I believe that's the correct pronunciation of the drive, but it's in Lakeshore trailer park.
FOGLEMAN: Is that out in the county?
RIDGE: Yes sir, it is.
FOGLEMAN: Alright. Now, when you went to the residence of Damien Echols to execute the search warrant, um - who was present?
RIDGE: Uh - Damien Echols, Jason Bladwin, Michelle Echols, and Domini Teer.
FOGLEMAN: Alright. And who is Michelle Echols?
RIDGE: The sister of Damien Echols.
FOGLEMAN: About, approximately how old was she?
RIDGE: Uh - 15, to the best of my knowledge.
FOGLEMAN: And uh - who was living in the residence at that time?
RIDGE: My understanding is Damien Echols, Michelle Echols, Joe Echols -
FOGLEMAN: (talking over) Who is Joe Echols?
RIDGE: Joe Hutchinson, excuse me.
FOGLEMAN: Who is Joe Hutchinson?
RIDGE: He is the father of Damien Echols.
FOGLEMAN: Alright. And go ahead.
RIDGE: Uh - Pamela Hutchinson -
FOGLEMAN: And who's she?
RIDGE: The mother of Damien Echols.
FOGLEMAN: Alright. And?
RIDGE: I think her name was Francis Gossa.
FOGLEMAN: And what relation is she?
RIDGE: The mother of - grandmother of Damien Echols.
FOGLEMAN: Alright. And who from the crime lab was there to assist?
RIDGE: Lisa Sakevicius and Kermit Channel.
FOGLEMAN: May Detective Ridge step down?
THE COURT: Yes.
FOGLEMAN: Detective Ridge, I want to go back to this grid pattern search that you and the other officers did um - did you do an area besides the wooded area?
RIDGE: Yes sir.
FOGLEMAN: Alright, and where was that area located?
RIDGE: Ok. This area between the field and the ditch, including part of that field and then this area between this ditch and the field, and including part of that field.
FOGLEMAN: Alright. And what kind of field was that?
RIDGE: A wheat field.
FOGLEMAN: Alright. And uh - what was the condition of the ground, uh - at that time when y'all did that grid search?
RIDGE: Uh - it was smooth, there was grass, uh - wheat growing in the area.
FOGLEMAN: And uh - what if anything did you find in the part of that field that y'all searched?
RIDGE: Uh - we didn't find anything, uh - it was normal, smooth.
FOGLEMAN: Any automobile tracks, truck tracks, anything like that?
RIDGE: No sir.
FOGLEMAN: You can retake the stand. I don't have any further questions, Your Honor, at this time.
DAVIDSON: Detective, I didn't see where that was and that map doesn't help me a whole lot. I like this one a little better, 'cause I - show me where this field is that you were talking about.
RIDGE: May I stand down?
DAVIDSON: Yeah please, I'm sorry. Where is that wheat field?
RIDGE: This area here, the field. The crime scene here. We spread out, then came this way, over around the edge to the expressway.
DAVIDSON: Ok.
RIDGE: Came back and then came through this area, then covering part of the woods and the field.
DAVIDSON: Ok. Did you search the - basically what, this entire area here was searched by grid - the whole field or -
RIDGE: The edges.
DAVIDSON: The edges?
RIDGE: Yes sir. This edge - down this area, then walked back together down through here. We were spread out - it wasn't what you would call a grid pattern coming back. The when we got to here, we came across in a grid like pattern, this way.
DAVIDSON: And the other places that were grid searched were - was this wooded area here?
RIDGE: No sir.
DAVIDSON: Did - you did not grid search this area here?
RIDGE: No sir.
DAVIDSON: Did you grid search this area here?
RIDGE: Yes sir.
DAVIDSON: Ok. So the wooded section here and this area here were where the grid search occurred?
RIDGE: Correct, yes sir.
DAVIDSON: Thank you.
FOGLEMAN: How many of there were you walking uh - from the wooded area down the edge of Ten Mile Bayou, then swinging around and coming back, and then going along side in the field?
RIDGE: I think there were 12 of us.
FOGLEMAN: 12 of you?
RIDGE: Yes.
FOGLEMAN: And how far apart were you?
RIDGE: At arm's length.
FOGLEMAN: Arm length apart?
RIDGE: Yes sir. 6 foot.
FOGLEMAN: Ok.
RIDGE: Estimate.
FOGLEMAN: Nothing further, Your Honor, at this time.
(pause)
FOGLEMAN: Oh Your Honor, I did have a question. Uh - when you uh - did the search of Damien Echols' residence, uh - was a - was a black overcoat found?
RIDGE: No sir.
THE COURT: You following anything?
FORD: Just a second.
PRICE: No questions, Judge.
FORD: Wait - wait, just a second......We have no questions, Your Honor.
THE COURT: You can step back down, I'm sure they're gonna call you back in here.
RIDGE: Yes sir.
THE COURT: Alright it's about 4:30, that's close enough for me to quit. Unless you just wanna call one more witness.
FOGLEMAN: Your Honor, that's fine.
THE COURT: You got anybody that can't come back or something like that?
FOGLEMAN: Your Honor, the only one that might, is the person from Genetic Design, uh--
THE COURT: Is he here?
FOGLEMAN: He's here, but we -- he can come back tomorrow. He would probably be more than 30 minutes time.
THE COURT: Yes he was the last time, so. (Laughter) Half a day.
FORD: Your Honor?
THE COURT: Huh?
FORD: Can we approach the bench?
THE COURT: Yeah.
(Bench Conference)
FORD: I would ask that you don't make remarks about what happened last time on the record.
THE COURT: I just said "the last time."
FORD: Well, I--
THE COURT: That's fine. Alright.
FORD: Do you understand how that can maybe be taken the wrong way?
THE COURT: Well, no, not really, I don't. But I won't do it again.
FORD: Ok.
(Return to Open Court)
THE COURT: Alright ladies and gentlemen, with the usual admonition not to discuss the case among yourselves or with anyone, you may stand in recess until 9:30 in the morning. We are gonna quit early tomorrow. We may go to 4:30 again, but I'm thinking at least 4 o'clock, maybe a little earlier. And there will be no court Friday, so you can plan a long weekend. Court will be in recess.
March 7, 1994
Denno Hearing
(out of the presence of jury)
THE COURT: Call your next witness.
FOGLEMAN: Bryn Ridge, if he ever got out there.
(pause)
FOGLEMAN: You're Bryn Ridge of the West Memphis police department?
RIDGE: Yes sir.
FOGLEMAN: Uh - Detective Ridge, I want to direct your attention to May the 10th, 1993. Um - on that date did you have some contact and some conversation with the defendant, Damien Echols?
RIDGE: Yes sir, I did.
FOGLEMAN: And uh - approximately what time did you have contact with him?
RIDGE: (sigh)
FOGLEMAN: Do you have the subject description form wth you?
RIDGE: No sir, I don't.
(pause)
RIDGE: Approximately 11:54am.
FOGLEMAN: And is that the first thing you do is fill out the subject descriptiong form?
RIDGE: Yes sir.
FOGLEMAN: Alright, and who else was present when you talked to him?
RIDGE: Lt. Sudbury.
FOGLEMAN: During the time that you talked to him, uh, was there any force, promises, threats, or coersion used to get him to talk to you?
RIDGE: No sir.
FOGLEMAN: And in the, uh - were you and Detective Sudbury, uh - kind of an interview team?
RIDGE: Yes sir.
FOGLEMAN: Alright. And what is your information as to how uh - Damien got to be at the police department?
RIDGE: My understanding is that his mother brought him up there.
FOGLEMAN: During the course of your interview with the defendant, uh - any force, promises, threats or coersion ever used?
RIDGE: No sir.
FOGLEMAN: I don't have any further questions.
THE COURT: Anything else?
PRICE: Uh - yes sir, I've got - (clears throat). Detective Ridge, did - did you and Lt. Sudbury talk with Mr. Echols up until the time he was turned over to Officer Durham?
RIDGE: Yes sir.
PRICE: Now the - was there a - a standard form of, I believe, a 32 questions - a questionare that had been filled out or that ya'll had compiled earlier that you were asking many subjects, many suspects in this case?
RIDGE: Yes sir.
PRICE: And was one of the things that you and Lt. Sudbury questioned Mr. Echols about, you went over these 32 questions and wrote down his responses?
RIDGE: Yes sir.
PRICE: Ok. Um - in addition, did you - were there some - some notes that you were writing, I think in probably long hand and maybe on legal length paper?
RIDGE: Yes sir.
PRICE: Ok. If I could approach the witness, your Honor?
THE COURT: Yes.
PRICE: These the same ones that - they are 4 pages long?
RIDGE: That's correct, yes sir.
PRICE: Alright, and then after you - these were the notes I guess you were taking as you questioned him?
RIDGE: Yes sir.
PRICE: Alright. And that the conclusion of this or at some point later in the future, did you go back and write your answers on an Investigative Report form? I believe this was a form with lines and uh - essentially this form here, the report form, this was not a second interview, it was - you basically took the information from here - from your long hand and kind of -
RIDGE: These notes were to refresh my memory in order to write this report as a rough draft of the interview. Then there was another draft of that interview.
PRICE: Alright, and was that a typed version?
RIDGE: That is correct, yes sir.
PRICE: Alright, if I could approach the witness just to - is this the typed version?
RIDGE: Yes sir, it is.
PRICE: Alright. And Officer Ridge, the - as far as the hand written investigation report, was this 3 pages long?
RIDGE: Yes sir, 3 pages.
PRICE: Alright. Um. If I could approach the witness, your Honor, just look -
THE COURT: Are there any admissions or statements in hence that, uh - you saying -
FOGLEMAN: We haven't considered yet, your Honor.
THE COURT: Alright, go ahead.
(pause)
THE COURT: Alright, let me make sure I understand, your interview with Damien Echls occurred prior to him going to Officer Durham?
RIDGE: That's correct, yes sir.
THE COURT: And you had concluded all of your questioning prior to that time?
RIDGE: Yes sir.
THE COURT: Alright.
PRICE: Officer Ridge, was the interview that you did with Mr. Echols, did ya'll tape record any of that interview?
RIDGE: No sir.
PRICE: Ok. Did ya'll have - did you have Mr. Echols, uh - review your notes and sign at the bottom of 'em?
RIDGE: No sir.
PRICE: - At the conclusion of the interview.
RIDGE: No sir.
PRICE: Alright Judge, I have no other questions of this witness at this time. Um - there's one thing I need to talk to the prosecutors about, just briefly.
THE COURT: Ok, are there any other witnesses?
FOGLEMAN: Your Honor -
THE COURT: - In this hearing.
FOGLEMAN: - There's - as far as the state has given to Detective Ridge and Sudbury - Officer Sudbury, has not made it here yet and we'd not even planned on putting Detective Ridge on with that statement this morning, but later we would like to supplement -
THE COURT: Alright.
FOGLEMAN: - A denno hearing with his testimony at a later time.
PRICE: That would be fine, Judge.
(mumbling)
THE COURT: Anything else?
PRICE: No sir. The page uh - (mumble) - we were missing the middle page of his notes, Judge, and that's what I was asking them.
(mumbling)
PRICE: We have no further question, if I could see the written -
FOGLEMAN: Your Honor, the -
PRICE: - If you could make a copy of the middle -
FOGLEMAN: - Mr. Echols was talked to by, I believe it may have been Detective Gitchell and another person, after um - Detective Durham had talked to him, but we're not planning on offering anything he said after Detective Durham talked to him.
THE COURT: Alright. Anything else? Alright, you may stand down for right now. Did you have anything you want - any other witnesses?
FOGLEMAN: No.
THE COURT: Other than Sudbury.
FOGLEMAN: Other than Sudbury.
THE COURT: Do you have anyone you want to call?
PRICE: Just one more second, your Honor.
(mumbling)
(tape flipped)
March 7, 1994
BRYN RIDGE
Direct examination By FOGLEMAN:
Q: You are detective Bryn Ridge who's previously testified, for the record?
A: Yes sir.
Q: Detective Ridge, I want to direct your attention to May the 10th, 1993. On that day did you have a conversation with the defendant Damien Echols?
A: Yes sir.
Q: And approximately what time did you start talking to him?
A: A little bit before 11:54 A.M.
Q: Alright. I want to show you what I've marked for identification purposes as State's Exhibit 98 and ask if you can identify that.
A: Yes sir, I can.
Q: Alright, what is that?
A: That's a copy of a subject description form filled out on that date.
Q: Alright, and where do you get the information to complete that form?
A: From the person being spoken with.
Q: And is that the form you used in this case in regard to Damien Echols?
A: Yes sir.
FOGLEMAN: Your Honor, we would offer State's Exhibit 98.
(Pause)
DAVIDSON: Your Honor, we object to the introduction of any police report.
THE COURT: If you're trying to introduce the report --
FOGLEMAN: Subject description form.
THE COURT: Let me see what it is.
(Pause)
DAVIDSON: It's a police report. We say it's not admissible. Same ruling it's been all day -- all week.
FOGLEMAN: I'll just ask him what the contents are.
THE COURT: You can ask him about the contents, but the document itself is not admissible.
FOGLEMAN: Detective Ridge, did you ask him his name?
A: Yes sir, I did.
Q: Alright, and what did he tell you?
A: He told me his name was Damien Wayne Echols. And also known as Michael Wayne Hutchison.
Q: Did he tell you any alias or nicknames?
A: Yes sir. Alias -- he said his nickname was "Icky."
Q: And what was his date of birth?
A: 12/11 of 74.
Q: And where did he live?
A: 2706 South Grove and Broadway Trailer Park, West Memphis.
Q: And, what was his height and weight?
A: 5 foot 8 inches in height. And weight 175 pounds.
Q: And what tattoos did he have?
A: Okay, he had a tattoo of "Domini" on his right arm. A cross between his thumb and first finger. An Egyptian ankh, he called it. And a pentagram on his chest. And two earrings in his left ear, one earring in his right ear.
Q: Alright. This Egyptian ankh, what does that look like?
A: It's a circle, looks like a stick figure with a cross below that.
Q: And what was on his chest?
A: A pentagram.
Q: And, do you recall which hand the cross was on? And that was between the index finger and the thumb?
A: Yes sir.
Q: And do you remember which hand that was?
A: No sir, I don't remember.
Q: And did he indicate any peculiarities?
A: He was ambidextrous.
Q: And did he indicate where his step-father Jack Echols lived?
A: Yes sir, he said he lived in Lakeshore Trailer Park.
Q: Now, during the course of talking to Mr. Echols, did you ask him who did he think did it? And why? And why would someone do this? Or something to that effect. If you could look through your notes.
A: Yes sir, that's one of several questions that were asked.
(Pause)
A: You want me to refer to my notes?
Q: Yes sir, if you need to.
A: In one area he says, he had an opinion for who could have done the murders as being someone sick and that it was some type of thrill-kill. He also stated that the penis was a symbol of power in his religion, known as Wicca. He also stated that the number three has a sacred number in the belief.
Q: He said what now?
A: The number three has a sacred number -- it was a sacred number in the belief.
Q: To --
A: To the Wiccan belief.
Q: Alright. Which notes are you referring to?
A: The typed report.
Q: Okay.
(Pause)
FORD: (Inaudible)
THE COURT: I know what you’re gonna ask him, I’ve already -- I've sustained your motion --
(Bench conference)
FORD: Your Honor, there is also an order in limine instructing him not to make reference to any cult activity unless they --
THE COURT: He hasn't done that --
FORD: That’s what I think they're doing, your Honor, in veiled ways, making references to pentagrams, Egyptian, to Wiccan religion --
UNKNOWN: That's opens the door.
FORD: They opened the door and they're not allowed to do that based on the order of this court.
FOGLEMAN: Your Honor, we ask the defendant's own statements --
FORD: That doesn't make any difference, your Honor. You've made --
THE COURT: Yeah it does, I'm not gonna --
FORD: I'll ask for the jury go out, so I can make a record.
THE COURT: Not right now, we'll do it in a minute. But you're not gonna ask him about the reference he made to --
FOGLEMAN: No no no, he's not going into --
FORD: I understand that your Honor, but you've also made a ruling they make no reference to cult activity --
THE COURT: That's right.
FORD: -- and they’re doing that.
THE COURT: -- I'm not considering that cult activity --
FORD: Wiccan religion --
THE COURT: I didn't say they couldn't do that. If they were do that then we need a --
FORD: That's why we need to do it right now, they've just did it.
THE COURT: I don't think so.
FORD: They've just did it.
FOGLEMAN: Your Honor, I --
FORD: They just did it.
FOGLEMAN: -- maybe I misunderstood the Court's ruling -- I thought -- I mean that's what his entire statement is almost.
THE COURT: I'm gonna allow his statement.
FORD: Your Honor, we'd ask for a --
THE COURT: You wanna have a --
FORD: -- make a record -- I sure do.
THE COURT: Alright.
(Return to open court)
THE COURT: Alright ladies and gentlemen. Step in the back again for a few minutes. Again you're not to discuss the case.
(The jury exits the courtroom)
FORD: Your Honor, at this time the defendant Baldwin requests that the State be prohibited to continue their line of questioning that's currently proceeding. This Court has entered an order in limine based upon a hearing -- I believe the 16th of February in Osceola, Arkansas -- that the State is prohibited through its attorneys, through its witnesses, to making any reference to cult activity or cult involvement as any type of involvement or motive in this homicide until such time that they can establish in in camera proceeding that such evidence has any causation -- that there is -- I can't lay my hands on the order but if the Court -- it's in the file --
THE COURT: Yeah I'm familiar with what you're talking about. Basically what the Court's --
FORD: Your Honor --
THE COURT: Go ahead.
FORD: It's our position that what they are doing right this moment with making references to pentagrams, and -- I'm not sure of the name of that Egyptian type tattoo --
FOGLEMAN: Ankh.
FORD: -- About his Wiccan religion, and the powers of three, and the symbolism of the power of the penis, that all those things -- that's what they’re doing. And if they're gonna proceed with that they should either be pro stopped until they have met the burden that this Court ordered them to meet.
THE COURT: Alright, the way I remember my ruling -- in fact we talked about it here at the beginning of the trial -- was that if the State chose to use that to prove motive or possibly to attempt to prove motive that they’d be allowed to do so but until they made that election to attempt to prove it as a motive or possible motive for the crime that we would have a Denno hearing, so I assume that’s what we're doing now.
FORD: Your Honor, what the Court's order states -- the Court's order states that "The Court hereby grants the Defendant's motion in limine with respect to the issue of cult involvement until said time as the Court is convinced in an in camera proceeding that there is competent evidence to establish that the Defendant was involved in an occult or occultic type activities and/or that this crime is indicative of a ritualistic occult killing. That until said evidence has been presented to the Court, the State of Arkansas, its counsel, and witnesses shall make no reference to the Defendant's involvement in an occult and/or occultic type activities or the fact that this is an occult killing. That in the event the State of Arkansas desires to elicit said testimony at trial, an in camera proceeding shall be held in order to determine that a proper foundation can be laid by the State of Arkansas." That’s what they're attempting to do right now.
THE COURT: Alright, let's hear what --
FOGLEMAN: Your Honor, what the order says --
FORD: I just read it.
FOGLEMAN: I know, but maybe you don't understand it.
(Fogleman and Ford talking over each other - unintelligible)
FOGLEMAN: The order says --
THE COURT: Okay, one at the time.
FOGLEMAN: The order says, that we won't get into that until "there is competent evidence to establish that the Defendant was involved in an occult or occultic type activities," and slash or, or, "that the crime was indicative of a ritualistic occult killing." The way Mr. Ford drafted the order we either show he's involved in it or it's a ritualistic occult killing, and if it's out of the defendant's own mouth about things related to the occult then --
WADLEY: For starters, your Honor, it's supposed to be done in camera before there's any reference to it and it wasn't done. They go straight to it, your Honor.
FOGLEMAN: But -- it's not -- in this order it says that we will have that hearing unless there's competent evidence. We're not talking about something -- we've avoided totally another witness referring to the occult. We have totally avoided that. Mr. Price asked some questions related to it, but we have totally avoided it until we got to the defendant's own words.
FORD: But your Honor, the point is --
FOGLEMAN: And they establish by competent evidence that he's involved in occultic type activities.
FORD: Your Honor, what evidence has there been to link this young man to it? And that's the purpose of my order. This is a separate trial and this Court has said, You can't do that to this defendant until there is some evidence to link him, and that hasn't been done and that's why we feel our order in limine has been violated and that this Court should prohibit further questioning from this witness or any other witness regardless of who made the statements.
THE COURT: Can either one of you define "occult" for me?
FORD: Well we can get Webster's dictionary, your Honor.
THE COURT: I don't know what an occult is. It sounds like something bad, but I'm not sure what it is.
(Laughter)
PRICE: Judge, I -- the State has an expert that they've subpoenaed.
THE COURT: Huh?
PRICE: The State has an expert that they've subpoenaed to come testify that this is an occult related killing. I suppose he can explain it to us.
FOGLEMAN: Your Honor, the fact is, as Mr. Ford's doing all this, the Court's already given the jury an instruction that this evidence -- or evidence is to be taken separately as to each defendant. We're talking about the words out of the defendant's own mouth, Damien Echols.
FORD: Your Honor, if the Court is going to allow them to violate the reference, to violate the motion in limine –- it says you can't make a reference -- that wasn't -- you signed it, it's this Court’s order.
THE COURT: Alright, I don't feel that any references been made to the, quote, the occult. They've asked him about tattoos, markings on his body, that's just physically there.
FORD: Pentagram? Pentagram? It's not a related --
THE COURT: If he's got a pentagram on his chest it's there.
FORD: I understand that, your Honor, but that is a --
THE COURT: It could have been a sign that said "Mother" with a heart on it, it's still there.
FORD: But the Court did not order in limine the State of Arkansas make no reference to the tattoos --
THE COURT: I'm – I'm finding that they haven't violated the rule by asking the witness to describe what physical features were on the defendant Echols' body. Nor have they violated the rule to ask the witness to describe what the defendant Echols said to them.
PRICE: About his belief in the Wiccan religion? That get's into occultism, your Honor.
FORD: That's the entire reason we had the order --
THE COURT: I understand that there's some subtle difference between the wiccans and the occults, but now what it is I couldn't tell you. But from what I read in the newspaper that one disavows the other whatever that means.
FOGLEMAN: Your Honor, the question wasn't related -- the question was, Did he tell you about why someone do it, and did you ask him a question like that and who did you think (?) and what was his response.
FORD: But your Honor, the taint is to Jason. And to Jason there's no link.
THE COURT: Well I'll give a cautionary instruction on that as far as -- are you gonna take this any further, I mean are you gonna go into the --
FORD: If they --
THE COURT: Wait just a minute, we're having an in camera hearing now for those purposes.
FOGLEMAN: Your Honor, there is some more that's related to that type of thing, if for right now you want me to restrict it to him telling about how he thinks they died and -- uhm --
THE COURT: Are you going --
PRICE: Judge, is the State now stating that the motive is occult killing?
THE COURT: That's what I'm trying to ask. Do you plan at any time, now or in the future, in this trial to introduce evidence of occult activity as a possibly motive for the killings?
FOGLEMAN: Your Honor, I believe -- we haven't made a final, firm decision but at this point I would say yes.
DAVIDSON: Your Honor, we would request some knowledge of whether they are or they aren't, or if nothing else judicial economy. You have prevented us from bringing this testimony in. We wanted this testimony in from the beginning to be able to question detective Ridge and everybody else about that. We've been unable to question anybody about this so far, and what it's going to entail is bringing every one of these witnesses back.
THE COURT: I guess that's what we'll have to do if they propose to use it as a form of motive. Do you anticipate any proof in the case to directly or indirectly link the defendant Jason Baldwin to occult activities?
FOGLEMAN: Your Honor, that's something that will have to be talked with -- about the expert. It's my understanding that part of the involvement of somebody deals with obsession with heavy metal music, change in forms of dress, wearing all black and that kind of thing. And, your Honor, I believe the proof would show that he had, I wanna say fifteen black t-shirts with the heavy metal thing, had some kind of an animal, either claws or teeth -- I think they said they were claws -- in his possession.
WADLEY: Judge, that -- first of all, they don't even know what that is. But secondly judge, that's a part -- that's something that the Court has ruled -- in my understanding -- is that that was something, it was not something that was a part of the search warrant and the Court was gonna suppress that.
FOGLEMAN: The black t-shirts?
WADLEY: No -- this thing, you don't know what it is. You’re talking about that --
FOGLEMAN: Oh the teeth or claws or whatever it is.
WADLEY: Judge, if it's the State's position that owning black t-shirts with rock bands on them it meets the Court's burden to go above this motion in limine -- is that what you're telling us -- that fact alone is enough?
FOGLEMAN: You also have, your Honor, the testimony that Michael Carson gave related to the sucking of the blood from the penis, and I think the evidence would show that drinking of blood is something that these people believe gives them power.
FORD: Your Honor, I think it's time that – if they're gonna proceed, that we have this in camera hearing --
THE COURT: We're having it right now.
FORD: Well they need to call their witnesses if we're gonna make those --
FOGLEMAN: He's not here today, your Honor.
FORD: Then we can't have the in camera proceeding, your Honor, if we can't question the expert.
FOGLEMAN: Your Honor, our point on detective Ridge was that these are statements that the defendant Damien Echols made himself.
THE COURT: I'm gonna allow his statements.
FOGLEMAN: The Court has already given a cautionary instruction that it's to its affect -- or to consider it as to one or the other.
THE COURT: I'm gonna allow his statements, but if you plan on calling an expert in the occult, whatever it is, then we'll have to conduct an in camera hearing.
Mr .Davidson: So your Honor, if you're ruling they can bring in anything except their expert --
THE COURT: No that's not what I ruled. I ruled that statements made by your client to this witness are admissible.
DAVIDSON: What about -- so I know -- what about other witnesses, will we be able to question them on this or will we still be prevented like we have been, from questioning them regarding --
THE COURT: Based upon their statement that they intend to prove as a possible motivation for the crime occult activities, then I think you can ask witnesses any question you want in that area. But I'm also ruling before I allow any expert witness to testify I wanna hear what he's got to say and we're gonna have another Denno hearing or in camera hearing. You know, motive is something you may be able to prove, you may not be able to prove, you may just come partway on.
PRICE: But we'd like to challenge that motive if they're trying to introduce --
THE COURT: Sure. And I'm gonna allow you to challenge it.
FORD: Based on the fact that this Court has entered an order prohibiting this type of evidence from being received in the trial against Jason Baldwin, and it's now being received by virtue of the fact that there's a statement made by a co-defendant, we renew our motion for a --
THE COURT: No.
FORD: -- severance.
THE COURT: Alright that will be denied. Any motion -- any statement made by Echols that refers directly or indirectly in any way to co-defendant Jason Baldwin will be stricken. I think there was one reference, and I've ordered you not to go into that and that ruling will still stand. I'll give a cautionary instruction that this testimony -- I hate to dignify it by calling it occult testimony -- but testimony relative to Wicca religion can only be considered to Mr. Echols.
FORD: That'll be fine, your Honor.
THE COURT: Alright. What is Wicca? Does anybody --
(Mumbling)
THE COURT: Anything else? I'll call them back in and see how much further we can get. And if I didn't rule, I'm ruling that there was no violation of the in limine motion by -- at least to this point.
UNKNOWN: Thank you, your Honor.
(The jury enters the courtroom)
THE COURT: Alright, ladies and gentlemen, let the Court again remind you that you should consider all of the evidence in this case as in comes in to each defendant separately and individually as if that individual were on trial alone. Do you again recall that? With regard to the testimony just elicited from this witness, the purported statements of the defendant Echols are not to be considered against Baldwin in that regard. Alright, you may proceed. Anything further on that gentleman?
FORD: That's fine.
PRICE: Not at this time judge.
THE COURT: Alright.
Continued direct examination
By FOGLEMAN:
Q: Did he tell you anything of how he believed that the children died?
A: He stated that they probably died of mutilation. Some guy had cut up -- cut the bodies up. Heard that they were in the water. They may have drowned. He said at least one was cut up more than the others. Purpose of the killing may have been to scare someone. He believed that it was only one person for fear of squealing by another involved.
Q: Did he tell you anything about -- Your Honor, can we approach the bench a minute?
(Bench conference)
FOGLEMAN: I don't wanna have to go through all this again. Your Honor, the next question, did he tell him anything about water meaning to him, he says it's got some kind of demonic force or something like that.
DAVIDSON: Pardon me?
FOGLEMAN: Water -- it's in the notes.
(Mumbling)
THE COURT: Well -- I mean, I tried to make the order broad enough that if they chose to go into it to prove motive that they be allowed to so I'm gonna allow you --
(Multiple voices – unintelligible)
THE COURT: Well.
FORD: That is not what it says, your Honor. This says "no reference."
FOGLEMAN: This isn't any reference to your client.
(Mumbling – unintelligible)
THE COURT: Well I'm gonna allow it.
(Return to open court)
FOGLEMAN: What, if anything, did he tell you about the fact that water being present?
A: He said water was a demon type symbolism.
Q: And, did he tell you anything about demonic forces?
A: Yes sir, he said that all people have a demonic force in them and that the person would have no control over that demonic force.
Q: Did he -- what he did he tell you -- what, if anything, did he tell you about how he thought that the person felt who would be doing this?
A: He said the person would probably feel good.
Q: Alright. Did he say anything about the fact that the children were young?
A: Yes sir, he said that the younger the children the more innocent they would be, and in turn the more innocent that person would be the more power that would be derived by that killing.
Q: What did he say about doing evil, about how that returns?
A: Doing evil would be returned three times. In other words, that evil done would be returned and revenged three times back to the doer.
Q: Did he tell you which book of the Bible was his favorite book??
A: Yes sir, he said the Book of Revelations.
Q: Did he say anything about whether or not he had any familiarity with the area?
A: With the area Robin Hood Hills?
Q: Yes.
(Pause)
A: I'm not certain.
Q: Alright. Let me ask you this, on your notes -- (someone coughs - unintelligible)
PRICE: (Unintelligible?)
(Mumbling)
The witness: Okay.
FOGLEMAN: What is that in reference to that statement before you say what he told you?
A: When asking him how someone would have gotten the kids to that area he replied that the person probably knew the kids were out there, or knew the kids and asked them to come out there.
Q: What else did he say about the children?
A: He said that they were not big, they were not smart, and that they would be easy to control.
Q: What, if anything, did he say about the children screaming?
A: Okay he was not -- he said that the person who did the murders would not be worried about the screaming due to their being in the woods and the near expressway where all the cover of sound would be there.
Q: And what else did he tell you about the screaming?
A: They probably wanted to hear it, the person doing the murder.
(Audio stops for 20 seconds)
Q: And did you -- What, if anything, did he say about how the person who did it felt?
A: He said that the person who did the murder probably thinks it's funny, didn't care if he would get caught, and probably wouldn't get caught.
Q: Did he tell you about some -- some things that you might expect to find in the area?
A: Yes sir, he said that we would be looking for stones in the area, candles, a knife, or crystals.
Q: And did he say whether he thought it was somebody -- about where the person might be from?
A: Yes sir, he did. He said that he thinks that it would probably be someone local, and that that person would not run or flee from the area.
Q: And did he tell you who he thinks his favorite authors were?
A: Yes sir, he did. Anton LaVey, a Satanist book, and likes Stephen King novels because they're scary.
FOGLEMAN: I don't have any further questions, your Honor.
(Pause)
Cross examination
By PRICE:
Q: Detective Ridge, on May the 10th when you were talking to Damien Echols, was he a suspect in these murders?
A: Yes sir, he was a suspect.
Q: The questions that you stated some responses to, was there a series of thirty-two questions that y'all had prepared?
A: Yes sir.
Q: Alright, if you wanna refer to those.
(Pause)
A: I don't have those with me right now.
Q: Alright. I got one copy here. Just a second, your Honor. (Pause) One moment, judge.
(Mumbling)
FOGLEMAN: rPrice, you want to approach?
PRICE: That’s fine.
(Bench conference)
FOGLEMAN: Your Honor, the only thing that I wanna say was there is some kind of a sheet related to the FBI kind of thing about what answers mean, and if he attempts to get into that we would object, because that would be hearsay and this officer doesn't know what any answers mean.
PRICE: I'd like to see the sheet of the FBI profile judge. It was not provided in the discovery.
FOGLEMAN: Your Honor, we shouldn't get into --
UNKNOWN: Sure, I'll be glad to.
FORD: Your Honor, based on the statements and the testimony just elicited from this witness in view of the Court's order, that the Court has chosen to disregard, at this time we would move for a mistrial.
THE COURT: Denied.
FORD: We also have to renew our motion for a severance.
THE COURT: Denied.
FOGLEMAN: Your Honor, if they -- I'll give them a copy of that -- if they do intend to get into that we would object --
PRICE: (unintelligible?)
FOGLEMAN: Okay.
(Return to open court)
(Mumbling)
(Audio stops for a few seconds)
Q: Detective Ridge, the sheet that we were talking about earlier was a sheet of approximately thirty-two questions that y'all had come up with.
A: Yes sir.
Q: Alright. Was this a set of questions that was asked to a number of suspects or witnesses in this particular case?
A: Yes sir.
Q: Alright. Do you recall approximately the date that y'all first prepared this particular questionnaire?
A: I didn't prepare the questionnaire. My recollection is that lieutenant Sudbury prepared it.
Q: Alright, do you recall approximately what date it was that this questionnaire was initially written out?
A: Prior to the 10th. I'm not exactly sure when.
Q: Alright. Do you know if there were other individuals that you asked the same thirty-two questions to before you questioned Mr. Echols?
A: Okay sir, you're referring to me using this sheet. Most of the time I did not use this sheet. Lieutenant Sudbury would use this sheet as the interview continued. He would look at those questions and if a response applied to a question that's where he would check it off.
Q: Alright, I notice there's a typed up version that has numbers, one, that appeared, well -- it's not -- let me show you. Take a look at that (inaudible?)
A: Yes sir.
Q: Alright. That appears to be -- that appears to have all thirty-two questions listed, it looks like there's a lot of them with some of them kind of skip around. So, is it your testimony that during the questioning of Mr. Echols, if y'all would cover a certain question and he'd give an answer related to that question, y'all would write something down about it?
A: Lieutenant Sudbury would.
Q: But it's not something that y'all went directly down all thirty-two questions in chronological order?
A: No sir, I did not.
Q: Alright. I notice one of the questions here -- number nine, says "How do you think they died?" Was that a question that you asked almost everybody that y'all had interviewed?
A: Yes sir.
Q: Okay. Alright, now, I noticed -- during the approximate two-hour interrogation of Mr. Echols, did you ever tape record your conversation?
A: No sir.
Q: And did you ever videotape your conversation?
A: No sir.
Q: Did you ever go back and after you had your written notes, has Mr. Echols to look at them and read them over and sign at the bottom agreeing that this is what he said?
A: No sir, I did not.
Q: I believe you have -- there was a -- the longhand sheet that looks like legal aid paper, about four pages, this was -- were these the notes you were writing as you went along?
A: Yes sir.
Q: Alright. And then later you went back, and I believe you had written out on a investigative report form, the one with the lines on it, approximately three pages, sort of condensing his responses.
A: An outline form, yes sir.
Q: An outline form, okay. And then you went back later and actually had it typed up, a typed up version?
A: I typed it, yes sir.
Q: Okay. But basically, all three of these relate to essentially the same two hour period of time that you interrogated Mr. Echols?
A: Yes sir.
Q: Alright. At the time that you were questioning Mr. Echols on May the 10th, did you think that this was a cult related killing?
A: I thought it was a possibility, yes sir.
Q: Did you also think that this was a sex killing?
A: Yes sir.
Q: Okay. I notice -- another question listed on here, number 10, "Do you believe in God dash the devil." That was a question that you asked Mr. Echols?
A: Yes sir.
Q: Alright. Was that also a question that you asked all the individuals that you interviewed using this particular questionnaire?
A: Yes sir.
Q: Now there were other -- there were some people that you talked to, if you're asking for a particular thing, you didn't go down the full set of questions? Right?
A: I never used the questions per se.
Q: Okay. Alright. I notice another question on here, number 27, "Do you believe in white or black magic." Was that a topic that you covered with -- was that a subject that you covered with Mr. Echols?
A: Yes sir.
Q: Alright, you had mentioned a few minutes ago that, in your opinion that Mr. Echols, when you were questioning him on May the 10th, was a possible suspect?
A: Yes sir.
Q: Alright. Do you have your type written report, the first paragraph?
A: Yes sir.
Q: Approximately 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, about 8 lines down in the middle of the page where -- middle of the paragraph where it says, "At this point."
A: Yes sir.
Q: Okay. Please complete that sentence.
A: "At this point Damien was not considered to be a suspect and only general knowledge questions were being asked."
Q: Alright. So, is that your testimony that when you were talking to Damien Echols on May the 10th, he was not a suspect?
A: No sir, I told you he was a suspect.
Q: Okay, but the report indicates that Damien was not considered to be a suspect. Is this in error?
A: May I explain?
Q: Yes sir.
A: Okay. In talking with him, the knowledge he had, the responses he gave to the questions, my belief was he turned that tide to be a suspect.
Q: Alright. So after you questioned Damien Echols on May the 10th, then he became a suspect?
A: Yes sir.
Q: And, at that time when you completed the interview and he was questioned by some other officers, eventually later on, I believe, late that afternoon, early evening, after the entire interrogation completed, Mr. Echols was allowed to go home?
A: That's correct.
Q: After that, did you all begin to do the surveillance on Damien Echols?
A: Surveillance?
Q: Surveillance.
A: I didn't do any surveillance on Damien Echols.
Q: Okay, did the West Memphis Police Department do surveillance on Damien Echols any time after May the 5th, excuse me, May the 10th, 1992?
A: There was one day in which I think there was some surveillance done in order to see if Damien Echols showed up at a place.
Q: Okay. Was that at the skating rink?
A: Yes sir.
Q: Okay. To your knowledge, at the skating rink, would that have been on May the 28th?
A: I'm not certain of the date but that's pretty close I guess.
Q: Okay. You're saying the West Memphis Police Department did surveillance at the skating rink on May the 28th to see if Mr. Echols showed up on that occasion?
A: I did, yes sir.
Q: Okay. And to you knowledge, on that particular occasion, did he show up?
A: Not to my knowledge, no sir.
Q: Alright. Did you also ask a question of Mr. Echols -- I notice one of the form here, "Do you believe in white or black magic?"
A: Yes sir.
Q: I believe that's question number 27.
A: Yes sir.
Q: And that's also a question you asked Mr. Echols?
A: Yes sir.
Q: Okay. You also asked him number 28, "Do you have or own a Bible?"
A: Yes sir.
Q: And that was also a question that you asked him?
A: Yes sir, I think so.
Q: During the entire two-hour interrogation that you had with Mr. Echols, he denied involvement in these murders, is that correct?
A: Yes sir.
(Pause)
Q: And the -- when you asked other individuals, I mean was there -- approximately two hundred other people that y'all questioned using the same thirty-two page questionnaire form?
A: There were many more, yes sir.
Q: Okay. Was there an article published in a West Memphis newspaper about what -- speculating on what the manner and the details of the deaths were?
A: Not to my knowledge, I'm not sure.
Q: Okay. Were there rumors running rampant in West Memphis during this time in May about what happened out at the crime scene?
A: There were all kind of rumors, yes sir.
Q: And did some of these rumors include some of the same things that Mr. Echols told you about during the interrogation? Specifically as to the question number 9 about, "How do you think they died"?
A: Well there were all kinds of rumors of how people thought they died, yes sir.
Q: Okay. I notice on the notes on page number 2, this is on the long hand written about during the middle, "probably died of mutilation." Mr. Echols was not the only person that told you that the children, the kids, probably died of mutilation, was he?
A: No sir.
Q: Okay. And he indicated that he heard that they were in the water? That was also on here?
A: Yes sir.
Q: He stated that there would probably be stones in the area?
A: He said that would be something to look for.
Q: Okay. Now, when you looked at the crime scene during the two or three times you were out there, you never found any stones at the crime scene, did you?
A: No sir.
Q: Okay. He also said there might be candles at the crime scene. Did you ever see any candles at the crime scene?
A: No sir.
Q: He also said there would be knives at the crime scene. Did you see any knives at the crime scene?
A: No sir.
Q: He also said there would be crystals at the crime scene. Did you see any crystals at the crime scene?
A: No sir.
(Pause)
Q: When you're conducting interviews, do you -- is it -- do you get a much more accurate listing of what questions you asked and what questions they -- or what answers a suspect gives if it's tape recorded?
A: A better record?
Q: Yes sir.
A: Yes sir.
Q: And on May the 10th the West Memphis Police Department did have a tape recorder?
A: Yes sir.
Q: Okay. And during this -- during the investigation there were lots of times when the West Memphis Police Department would tape record interviews of various individuals, correct?
A: Yes sir.
Q: Alright. Did the West Memphis Police Department have a photograph of Damien Echols?
A: Yes sir.
Q: Okay. Was this one that they obtained within a day or two of the murders?
A: To my understanding, yes sir.
Q: Okay. Was this based on -- I believe officer Steve Jones and lieutenant Sudbury went out to Damien Echols' house and took a photograph of him?
A: That's my understanding, yes sir.
Q: The purpose of this photograph was for y'all to be able to have his photograph included amongst a group of photographs so that when you’re showing a photographic lineup to possible witnesses, his photograph would be one of the ones included?
A: That's one of several reasons, yes sir.
Q: And during this investigation, did you conduct several photographic lineups with certain witnesses?
A: I wouldn't say several but there were some done.
Q: Some done, alright. And is it your procedure when doing a photographic lineup to write down who all the photographs are that are shown to a particular witness?
A: No sir.
Q: That's not your procedure?
A: That's not my procedure, no sir.
Q: Okay. I mean -- do you have a much better idea of knowing what photographs you show a witness if you write down what photographs you show them?
A: That -- yes sir, it could be.
Q: Is it the policy of the West Memphis Police Department when doing a photographic lineup not to show -- or not to write down what photographs are shown to a witness?
A: Is a policy?
Q: Yes sir.
A: There's no policy of that nature.
Q: Alright. Is there a general procedure?
A: I've never done that -- write down a list of the names on photographs shown to a witness?
Q: Yes sir.
A: No sir, I haven't done that unless an identification is made.
Q: Alright. So if an identification -- if photographs are shown to a witness and they did not identify a photograph, you do not write down the ten or however many photographs that witness is shown?
A: No sir, I do not.
Q: Okay. Would you think that -- if you conduct a -- is one reason that you show a photographic lineup to a witness so they can identify a particular person?
A: Yes sir.
Q: Alright. Is it just as important if you show them a photographic lineup and they don't identify anybody to have that information written down?
A: It's arguably it could be of importance, yes sir.
Q: Okay. Do you recall how many times that you conducted photographic lineups with Damien Echols' picture included in a photo line-up to witnesses?
A: I know of on one occasion that I used his picture.
Q: Okay. On that occasion, did the witness identify Damien Echols?
A: No sir.
Q: Okay. Do you recall what the date was that you showed that possible witness Mr. Echols' photograph along with other photographs?
A: No sir. I believe it was August or September.
Q: And, at the time that you conducted this particular photographic lineup in August or September, did you show that witness -- I mean, did you write down the fact that that witness did not identify Damien Echols?
A: I wrote a statement to that effect, yes sir.
Q: One moment, your Honor. (Pause) Detective Ridge, on the occasion that you showed the individual a photograph of Damien Echols and some other individuals, did you have reason to believe that that individual was an eyewitness to these murders?
A: Not to the murders, no sir.
Q: Not to the murders?
A: No sir.
Q: Okay. Whenever we take the next recess would you – if I ask you to find your notes or any kind of report concerning that particular photographic lineup would you be able to do that?
A: Yes sir, I can.
Q: Alright.
THE COURT: He can do it right now if you're asking to.
PRICE: Well I'd like to see --
(Mumbling)
PRICE: Just a minute judge.
(Pause)
Q: Officer Ridge, I need to go back to an area that we were discussing sometime last week. Do you recall talking to an individual, Kim Williams, asking her if she saw a particular individual between 5:30 and 6:00 P.M. on May the 5th?
A: Yes sir.
Q: Okay. And do you recall that in your report of that conversation you included a statement, "It has been mentioned that during cult activity some members blacken their faces"?
A: Okay sir, you're referring to that to being my report. That is not my report, that's inspector Gitchell's report.
Q: This is inspector Gitchell's report?
A: Yes sir, my report would be the written portion behind that, I think.
Q: Alright. You had interviewed the witness Kim Williams?
A: Yes sir.
Q: Okay, I believe there -- the handwritten interview here, I believe it was conducted -- the report indicates May the 8th?
A: Yes sir.
Q: Alright. And so once that information was typed up, the additional comments, the statement I just read, that would have been something that inspector Gitchell would have added?
A: I suspect he's the one who put it in there, it wasn't me.
Q: It was not you?
A: No sir.
(Pause)
Q: Inspector Ridge, at the crime scene were there any drawings found on the ground or in the trees?
A: No drawings, no sir.
Q: Okay. Were there initials found on a tree near the crime scene?
A: Yes sir.
Q: Okay. And were those initials "ME"?
A: Yes sir.
Q: My client -- his birth name was Michael Hutchison. Is that correct?
A: I suspect. I'm not sure. That's what he told me, I guess.
Q: Okay. And then he later -- are you aware that he later changed his name to Damien Echols?
A: That's what I understand, yes sir.
Q: Okay, so the initials "ME" could not stand for my client's name because he's never gone by "ME" as his initials. Correct?
FOGLEMAN: Your Honor, is Mr. Price testifying or is he asking a question?
PRICE: I'm asking a question.
THE COURT: It's kind of hard to distinguish.
PRICE: Alright.
THE COURT: Okay. Do you know what the initials "ME" stood for?
A: No sir, I do not.
Q: Okay. Did y'all do any kind of test on the tree to indicate how long the initials "ME" had been on the tree?
A: No sir.
Q: Okay, when you examined the crime scene, could you not find any items that were laid out in any pattern?
A: Items laid out in a pattern?
Q: Yes sir.
A: No sir.
Q: Alright. Was it also unknown to you if any cult activity had been reported in the area where the bodies were found on previous occasions?
A: Actually, I did have reports of where people said occult activity had taken place out there.
Q: Do you recall writing a report stating, "It is unknown to me if any cult activity has been reported in the area on previous occasions"?
A: I don't recall the report but I'll look at it.
Q: Alright. Question number 2.
(Pause)
A: Okay.
Q: Is the statement that I stated, is that contained in the report? (Pause) Is the statement that I read contained in that report?
A: Yes sir.
Q: Were there any slabs or logs that were found in the area?
A: Yes sir, there were logs there.
Q: There were logs there?
A: Yes sir.
Q: Are you referring to the sticks that have been previously introduced into evidence?
A: It's a wooded area, there are logs in the area.
Q: Did you previously write in a report, "No slab or log was found to be in the area"?
A: In that report -- you need to take the question, the response in context to the question.
Q: Alright. Question number 6, "Were there any indicators of a slab or a log device present at the scene?" Answer by Ridge: "No slab or log was found to be in the area."
A: Okay sir. At the scene.
Q: The sticks that were introduced into evidence earlier, particularly this larger stick right here, were there other sticks like this out there at the crime scene?
A: Yes sir, there were.
Q: Okay. Do you recall approximately how many?
A: I know of one more that was there at the crime scene.
Q: And was this on -- I believe your testimony, July 1st, when you went back out to the crime scene?
A: Yes sir.
Q: Alright. Were there other sticks out there on July 1st or are you talking about May the 5th?
A: That stick and another stick was there on May the 5th, or the 6th, excuse me, and that stick and the other stick was there on July the 1st.
Q: Are there other sticks that were out at the crime scene similar to that stick?
A: Similar to this one? Not there at the crime scene, no sir.
Q: Okay. How about in the woods?
A: In the woods, yes sir.
Q: Alright.
THE COURT: Anybody ready for a break?
PRICE: Yes sir, whenever you are, judge.
THE COURT: Alright ladies and gentlemen, with the usual admonition not to discuss the case you may take a 10 to 15 minute recess.
(Audio stops, then begins)
Q: Detective Ridge, a lot of the questions that you were asking Mr. Echols on May the 10th, were you trying to find out what his beliefs are and that sort of thing?
A: (Unintelligible) -- information about what his beliefs were, yes sir.
Q: Okay. And he said that water was a demonic symbol -- (Unintelligible) -- Did he ever say that he thought these murders were somehow demonic murders?
A: When his response to -- why the penis would have been cut off, or he believed that it was cut off, was that that satanic in nature.
Q: Alright, did you tell him at that time that the penis was not cut off?
A: No sir, I did not.
Q: Okay. I know, the question number 19 -- his answer -- or the question was, "Have you ever wondered what it would be like to kill someone even if you didn’t go through with it?" And I believe the answer is on 19, "Only out of anger. To beat someone up. Whatever you do comes back to you three times, so does good."
A: I remember that portion. I don't have that typed response to that question.
Q: Okay. Alright, did you ask him two different questions about, if -- why would his fingerprints be out at the scene? Question number 29 states, "Why would your fingerprints be at the scene?"
A: Yes sir. I didn't ask him that question, lieutenant Sudbury may have.
Q: Okay. Did you or lieutenant Sudbury tell Mr. Echols that y'all didn’t find any fingerprints out at the crime scene?
A: No sir, we didn't.
Q: Okay. And Mr. Echols indicated to you that he had never been out in the Turtle Hill woods?
A: I'm not certain if he indicated he had been there or not.
Q: Alright, well, if I can approach the witness, your Honor. Question 20 (inaudible?) Sudbury's response to 20.
A: Yes sir, he typed that he had never been in the woods.
Q: Also, question number 12 on the questionnaire dealt with, "Where were you on Wednesday May the 5th, 1993, between 6 P.M. and 10 P.M.?"
A: Yes sir.
Q: Okay. Did you ask Mr. Echols where he was after 10 P.M.?
A: On the first page of the handwritten notes it begins with Tuesday. These are the questions that I asked him. I asked his recollection of where he was at Tuesday. Where he was on Wednesday. And he explains to me that shortly after he returned from the Sanders on a visit, he had gotten on the phone with Holly George and talked with her until 11:30 P.M. and was there the rest of the night.
Q: Okay. Specifically, as far as the question that is type written, "Where were you on Wednesday May the 5th between 6 P.M. and 10 P.M.?" Was that a time period that you asked most of the suspects that y'all interviewed during this investigation?
A: Again, I didn't use that questionnaire.
Q: Do you recall if you asked any of the suspects where they were between 1 A.M. and 5 or 6 A.M. on May the 6th?
A: I don't remember asking anybody that specific question, no sir.
Q: Okay, thank you. And when you asked him about what his favorite book of the Bible was, that's when he told you Revelations was?
A: Yes sir.
Q: Okay, and did you -- was that a question that you asked other suspects in this case?
A: I don't remember asking that of anybody else, no sir.
Q: Okay.
(Pause)
Q: Do you recall if -- lieutenant Sudbury had questioned Mr. Echols the day before on May the 9th and asked these same thirty-two questions?
A: I don't know if lieutenant Sudbury asked those questions.
Q: Do you recall if Mr. Echols was at the Police Department on May the 9th being interrogated by the West Memphis Police Department?
A: Not at the police department, I don't think that took place.
Q: Okay. Did it take place someplace else?
A: I understand that it took place somewhere else, yes sir.
Q: Okay.
(Pause)
Q: One moment, your Honor. (Pause) When Mr. Echols -- you asked him something to the effect of, what type of books did he enjoy reading?
A: Yes sir.
Q: Okay. And he told you, I think, it was Anton LaVey and Stephen King?
A: Yes sir.
Q: Okay. In your opinion, is there anything unusual about those being the type of books that Mr. Echols likes to read?
A: Anton LaVey is a book of Satanic rules and involvement. Stephen King seems to be horror movies, horror books, and if you're asking if I felt that was strange, yes sir, I did.
Q: Alright. As part of your investigation did you have a search warrant executed on the Crittenden County Library to find out what library books Damien Echols has been reading?
A: Yes sir.
Q: Okay. Was this also part of the -- your theory to see if this was some type of cult related killing?
A: It was an effort to find out what type of books that Damien had been reading.
Q: Matter of fact, was this something that was suggested by your -- the expert that y'all had consulted in this case?
A: Not to me, no sir.
Q: Okay. You did have an affidavit for a search warrant that was executed before Judge Pal Rainey. Is that correct?
A: For the books?
Q: For the books, yes.
A: Yes.
Q: And in that you signed an affidavit which in part states, "The murders appear to have been influenced by cult beliefs or religion."
A: Yes sir.
Q: Is that the statement that is contained in the -- one of the statements in the affidavit?
A: I -- if that's what you’re reading, yes sir.
Q: If I can approach the witness. Bottom paragraph, first line.
A: Yes sir.
Q: So it's –- is your opinion that the murders were – appear to have been influenced by cult beliefs or religion, but there was nothing -– was there anything found at the crime scene indicating that this has been a cult killing?
A: Yes sir, I would say so.
Q: Alright. And what was that?
A: Do you want me to answer that question?
Q: I want you to say what you found out at the crime scene that indicated that this was a cult related killing.
A: Okay sir.
FORD: Approach the bench?
THE COURT: Alright.
(Bench conference)
FORD: Your Honor, at this point that court order is not worth the piece of paper it's written on with the way things proceeding. And now he's going in to start making his personal beliefs. This is was beyond the pale, your Honor. And I am sitting over here helpless, and your court order, and you're not helping me. It's your order, judge.
THE COURT: I told you that if they chose to prove motive and attempted to do so I was gonna allow them to do it.
FORD: Your Honor, that's not what your order states. Your order says that if they continue to do it, they gotta have an in camera hearing to show that there's any validity to that belief.
THE COURT: We had an in camera hearing --
FORD: Where? Where was the --
(Multiple voices – unintelligible)
FORD: I asked for an in camera hearing to be conducted and you would not allow that to occur.
THE COURT: No that's not --
FORD: Yes sir.
THE COURT: -- correct at all. We had an in camera hearing.
FORD: No sir. The expert was not here. You asked him was he gonna go into it. He said he didn't know, he might --
THE COURT: I said we'd have to have an additional in camera hearing before the expert came.
FORD: Your Honor, at this point in time, this guy up here's fixing to put forward his personal opinion.
THE COURT: I don't have any idea what he's getting ready to say.
(Multiple voices – unintelligible)
FOGLEMAN -- the record --
FORD: Can I finish my record?
FOGLEMAN: You --
FORD: Can I finish?
FOGLEMAN: I want the record to be clear that the people asking the questions are the defendant Damien Echols, and not the State.
FORD: But your Honor, you're allowing them to proceed it. I'm the one who's got an order that's being violated right now by both counsel for Echols and counsel for the State.
FOGLEMAN: None of it relates to your client so far.
FORD: That's the whole idea. That's the whole idea --
(Multiple voices – unintelligible)
THE COURT: I've given a cautionary instruction that it doesn't relate to your client.
WADLEY: Judge, we are way beyond that -- (mumbling)
FOGLEMAN: Why didn't you object to the questions?
FORD: That's what we’re doing right now.
THE COURT: You're objecting to the question?
FORD: We're objecting to this question, the entire line of questioning. 'Cause there is no foundation laid and our court order is being violated. That John Fogleman approved --
THE COURT: It's not being violated --
FORD: Yes sir, it is. He approved this order, judge. John Fogleman approved that order, his signature is on it.
THE COURT: Alright here's what we will do this -- Alright ladies and gentlemen, you may step back in to the back.
(The jury exits the courtroom)
Alright, let the record reflect that this is a hearing out of the presence of the jury. Alright gentlemen, this is the second time we've moved the jury out of the courtroom and -- so whatever record you wanna make.
FORD: Your Honor, this court entered an order stating that the State of Arkansas, its counsels and witnesses would be prohibited from going into the occultic nature of any motive, or that this was an occult type killing until they can establish in camera that that -- there's a basis for that. Your Honor, the State and counsel for Echols have violated that order. You have allowed that violation despite our objections. There has been no testimony to establish that there is any rational basis for the opinions that this witness is trying to espouse about this being an occult killing, that it's motivated by the occult, that there were symbols found outside out there. He's not qualified. Their guy that they wanna bring him here to do these things, he's not here. He's not here.
THE COURT: We'll have another hearing before he testifies.
FORD: Well then until that happens, your Honor, we don't want anymore of this -- you're allowing things to come into the jury room --
THE COURT: I made a ruling a while ago when we had the other in camera hearing that they had not violated the motion in limine, that the direct statements attributable to Damien Echols were admissible, and it'll be my finding that those statements could give a jury some rational basis for assigning motive.
WADLEY: Your Honor --
THE COURT: And that's the only reason any of this stuff is even relevant in the first place.
WADLEY: Judge, this witness has -- there's been no foundation laid that he's qualified to give any opinion.
THE COURT: I don't know if he's given any opinion.
WADLEY: Judge, he's given several opinions, as to whether or not he thinks it's a cult killing.
FOGLEMAN: Your Honor, the State has not asked --
THE COURT: I think Mr. Price asked him if he had an opinion, and he gave that opinion and you didn't object to it.
FORD: Your Honor, --
THE COURT: Well, you didn't object -- Val's the one that asked him if he had an opinion, so --
FORD: That's because you've already --
THE COURT: -- no -- well, yes.
FORD: -- basically said, I don't care what my previous court order says, I'm gonna let him do --
THE COURT: That's not what I said. I said that they could describe his physical characteristics, which they did. That they could introduce the statements attributable to Mr. Echols, which they did. And I also said that at that point I felt like, and I asked, off the record, Mr. Fogleman if he intended to prove occult or, whatever, as a motive, a potential motive, or possible motive for this crime. And he said, Yes that he did.
WADLEY: Judge, he said --
FORD: That's not -- we're entitled to our in camera --
THE COURT: You were having your in camera hearing.
WADLEY: Your Honor --
FORD: He did not -- we didn't get to question a single witness who has any knowledge of the occult and this record clearly reflects that.
WADLEY: Mr. Fogleman said, your Honor, he didn't know what he was gonna do. He didn't say he was gonna do it, he said his decision at that time --
THE COURT: And I also told you, before they put a so-called expert on the occult that we'll have an additional in camera hearing.
FORD: Your Honor, We ask that his opinions be stricken, and that he not be allowed to give his opinions unless he's a so-called expert.
WADLEY: There's no foundation.
THE COURT: I'll sustain your objection to this witness giving an opinion as to whether or not it was an occult killing --
PRICE: Judge --
THE COURT: -- if that's what you're asking.
PRICE: On behalf of Mr. Echols we object to that. We have this officer signed an affidavit stating his belief, "The murders appear to have been influenced by cult beliefs or religion." It's our position that these are not cult related killings, but we are entitled to put on our defense --
THE COURT: Fine, --
PRICE: -- and attack the --
THE COURT: -- put it on. But I'm not gonna allow you to ask him if he has an opinion on it.
FORD: Your Honor, we object to him doing that because our court order says that -- you said you're not gonna allow it.
THE COURT: You're all not gonna whips on me back and forth on this issue and I'm not gonna grant a severance and you know the ruling, let's proceed. If you want another hearing before the so-called expert testifies I'll give you that.
FORD: Well then, your Honor, until that time we'd ask that -- they elicited all the statements, that are out -- that they --
THE COURT: I don't know any trial where I wouldn't let the prosecution put on the statements of an accused. They were limited in that they could not put on any statement by Mr. Echols that linked Mr. Baldwin to anything. They were precluded from doing that.
FORD: The record that was made in Osceola --
THE COURT: Yeah.
FORD: -- that led to this court order that we're arguing about discuss these very statements.
THE COURT: Well, the record's gonna show --
FORD: And then you say --
THE COURT: We had a hearing not more than an hour ago out of the presence on the ju-- of the jury, and I ruled that they could ask those questions.
WADLEY: Your Honor, now that we're beyond -- this officer testifying about what Mr. Echols' statements are. Now that we're beyond that, can they be refrained from going into this? It's beyond -- now the court order certainly is full force --
THE COURT: What is it you wanna go into, Val?
PRICE: I wanna find out -- today is the first day I'm aware of a conclusion that the murders appear to have been influenced by cult beliefs or religion. We've had five days of testimony, the State hadn't put any of that on. I would like to know --
THE COURT: They made no effort to do so until today and then the only effort I saw, if you can even call it an effort, was asking a witness to describe the physical characteristics of the defendant which included some tattoos or markings on his body --
PRICE: But the last question I asked --
THE COURT: -- to me that didn't go into the occult.
PRICE: The last question I asked the officer, What physical evidence at the crime scene dealt with this being an occult killing, and that's when the objection was made. And I think I'm entitled --
THE COURT: You wanna ask him, we're making an offer of proof, let me say what he's got to say.
UNKNOWN: What --
THE COURT: Ask him.
PRICE: Alright. Officer Ridge, what -- I believe the last question that I had asked was if there was any evidence out at the crime scene that indicated that this was a cult related killing. And I believe you haven't answered -- go ahead and give you answer.
THE COURT: You asked if you're sure you want him to answer that, or something like that before he did it.
PRICE: That's fine.
A: Several indications at the crime scene convinced me that it is a cult related killing. One of those being the fact that it was an overkill. The fact there was way more injuries than was necessary to actually kill the children. There was torture involved. The removal of the penis, a penis is a symbol of power according to Damien's own statement. Placement in water. Water is -- has satanic symbolism according to Damien's own statement. The eight year-olds --
(gap in audio)
A: -- are that items are to be returned three-fold, three as a satanic importance and symbolism. Crossroads area meaning neither in the middle of a community but nor in the extremes of nature. It's sort of a neither in the city or out of the city. Neither public nor completely private. Cult meetings -- most cult meetings or rituals are held in deserted isolated areas, wooded areas away from people. In blood rituals, many times parts of the victim are removed, possible eaten, or kept for use in other ways. The notation being that the penis was not found. The bodies were in the nude, the satanic term for that would be "skyclad." Stab wounds, patterns, may have been done for the purpose of bloodletting. Incisions to the sex organs or mutilations, cuts and bruises. Being a clean site, satanic or occult symbolism would mean that a clean site would have been noted. Injury patterns -- most sites would be on private property, this is private property, it's not public property, not normally travelled. The mutilation. Sex organs will be mutilated or removed. Their victims will be males, penis or testicles will be removed. The eyes will be gouged --
FORD: Is he -- is it -- are these his opinions or someone, someone that has given information to you?
A: These are some notes I've taken from some research I've done in the occult.
FORD: Is he gonna be established as an expert in the occult?
THE COURT: If you're objecting to his testimony I'm not gonna allow it.
FORD: I'm objecting to this testimony. Every word of it.
THE COURT: I'm not gonna allow it at this time. It may be at a point in the trial where I will allow it. I can rule, based on what I've heard already, that the probative value of the occult or so-called occult testimony outweighs any possible prejudice. That the State at this point is entitled to prove motivation if they can, and if it's their choice to attempt to prove motivation as a means of an occult or satanic or ritual, or whatever, even just the motivation was as a result of the belief and -- some unnatural -- then I'm gonna allow him to do that. But if you're objecting to this particular witness testifying to his opinions or conclusions, then I'm gonna sustain the objection.
FORD: I am your Honor, but are you saying that based on his opinions you're reaching that ruling? What evidence are --
THE COURT: No.
FORD -- you reaching that ruling on?
THE COURT: Based upon the information that was put into evidence. Based on what they found about Mr. Echols and his comments and responses to the questions asked of him. I think that's sufficient to open a reasonable person's mind.
FORD: Even to Jason Baldwin --
THE COURT: No, I've already ruled it doesn't apply to Jason Baldwin until it's connected in some way. So, I mean, I really don't understand why you're objecting, because I have ruled it doesn't apply to your client, and you can argue that to the jury.
FORD: Okay.
THE COURT: I mean, I've instructed them, I'll be prepared to instruct them again --
WADLEY: (We'd like for you?) to instruct the jury --
THE COURT: Well, I hate to keep doing that because I have to think very carefully so I don't comment on the evidence, and I don't want any comment on the evidence, so if you got some suggestion how you want me to phrase a cautionary instruction --
WADLEY: I'm not asking for a cautionary-- no your Honor, I didn't get a chance to finish. I'm asking -- this man has given an opinion, and the Court's stated that it's not gonna allow him to give an opinion.
THE COURT: That's right.
WADLEY: And the Court -- it bars the jury that he --
THE COURT: The jury ain't heard all that garbage -- all that stu--
FORD: (Unintelligible)
WADLEY: Judge, they heard his opinion.
THE COURT: Well. Now, he was asked directly, without objection, whether or not he had an opinion to whether or not these deaths were cult related. There was no objection made, he responded. There was no objection made until long after that response as a matter of fact.
WADLEY: Is that why the Court is denying that request?
THE COURT: Now wait a minute, what request?
WADLEY: Is that why the Court's denying our request that the jury be instructed to disregard his opinion? Because we didn't object?
THE COURT: Well yeah as far as I know that's the only opinion he expressed and it wasn't objected to at that time.
WADLEY: That's the Court's ruling?
THE COURT: Yeah. I'm sustaining your objection to this last line of conclusionary statements he made as a basis of research. Although it's possible he could be, based upon research and investigation, be allowed to give such opinion. Do you request -- my question is, do you want me to give the jury a cautionary instruction about occult activity as it relates to Baldwin?
FORD: Yes.
THE COURT: Pardon?
FORD: Yes we would.
THE COURT: How do you wanna draft that cautionary instruction?
FORD: They're to disregard any of the evidence which has been elicited from this witness as it pertains to Damien Echols and the questions asked by Mr. Val Price as they do not related to Jason Baldwin.
THE COURT: Well --
FOGLEMAN: Your Honor, I think that would be until it --
FORD: (Unintelligible?)
THE COURT: Well, I mean, that's certainly not (?) because there may be some time in the course of the trial where everything has been elicited could probably be considered toward him. I don't know. I'll remind them that they must consider the evidence against each defendant as separate and independent to that --
FORD: Will you instruct them that the evidence that was just elicited from this witness only pertains to Damien Echols? You did that earlier when the statements were from Michael Carson, that they were not to be considered as to Damien Echols, and now we would ask that they not be considered --
THE COURT: I did it on this witness' testimony right before he started testifying.
FORD: We're just asking that they be reminded that this testimony is not to be considered as evidence against Jason Baldwin.
FOGLEMAN: At this time.
FORD: We don't wanna say "at this time."
THE COURT: That'll imply that at some later time it could be, which --
FOGLEMAN: Well, it could be at some later point.
WADLEY: Judge, they have to -- if the order means anything, your Honor, they have to lay a foundation for this Court to cause some kind of - (Burnett coughs - unintelligible) - twenty-two. They haven't done that yet, and until that happens they should be instructed if they do that.
THE COURT: Alright.
WADLEY: That applies --
FOGLEMAN: We didn't ask the questions, your Honor.
THE COURT: Alright. Val, I'm not gonna let you ask the questions either, on his opinion.
FORD: Thank you, your Honor.
PRICE: Judge, I would object to that. I think my client's entitled to -- that violates his right to confrontation of witnesses. If this witness is alleging, and the West Memphis Police Department is alleging it's a cult related killing, it's our position it's not, we're entitled to know what the basis of the opinion is so we can try to knock (?).
THE COURT: You're not even entitled to elicit an opinion from the West Memphis Police Department as to what they think the cause of the murder was.
PRICE: Judge, if that --
(Multiple voices – unintelligible)
WADLEY; -- should tell the jury that they should consider that, judge.
PRICE: Judge, if they put in an affidavit of a search warrant it's a cult related killing, we're not entitled to know what the basis of that is?
FOGLEMAN: He could have filed a motion to suppress, your Honor.
FORD: You can't suppress the affidavit.
FOGLEMAN: (?) the warrant.
PRICE: We don't wanna suppress it, we just wanna find out what the basis of it is. We're not objecting to the fact that my client checked out a book on magik and a book on Cotton Mather on witchcraft. He was a Puritan minister that was opposed to witches in the 17th century.
THE COURT: How much longer do you have with this witness?
PRICE: Uhm, one moment, your Honor.
FORD: Your Honor, I -- and I (?) with respect to these questions, I think we raised an objection before that ever occurred, and that objection went to the entire -- everything that related to occult activity. I think that objection suffices. 'Cause I don't think when you're objecting to a line of questioning that's gonna begin, that objection covers everything, and based on that objection, your Honor, we would ask that they be instructed to disregard the opinion, because we objected -- we objected to the entire line of questioning.
THE COURT: Well, the witness' opinion is not -- he's not been qualified as an expert in an occult killing or matters of that nature.
PRICE: Judge --
FORD: Could the jury be told that, your Honor?
Mr. Davis: Judge, does anybody even remember what opinion it is that they're objecting to now?
THE COURT: The opinion was that he was asked a question, "do you have an opinion as to the cause of these deaths," and he said -- "or do you believe" -- "do you have an opinion as to whether or not it was cult related," I think it's the way it was phrased.
PRICE: I believe I qualified him by --
FORD: You did ask that question and now the question is -- and now the question on the board I believe is that, "what did you find out there" -- "did you find anything out there at the scene."
THE COURT: And he said "No" and then he said "Yes" and then he said "Do you really want me to tell you," and then he started looking for notes, and then you all objected and then we started this line.
Mr. Davis: Your Honor, as I understand it, that second line of questioning was clearly -- the Court's already said, you can't go into that, this was just a proffer. The first opinion, as I understand it, we've got a law enforcement officer who was asked his opinion and gave his opinion as to a possible cause or motive for the killing of the children, and he's a law enforcement officer with I don't know how many years of experience, training, investigative skills, and when he's asked that question and gives an opinion I don't see, number one, why it's objectionable and why the jury should be told to disregard it.
WADLEY: The Court's already said it's not proper. That's what you said, your Honor. You said that question--
THE COURT: No, I didn't say that.
WADLEY -- he's not qualified to give that opinion.
THE COURT: I said he's not qualified to give an opinion on the occult, but he was asked whether or not he had an opinion and whether it was -- everybody in this room's got an opinion.
WADLEY: Your Honor, his opinion -- judge, if he's not a -- if he's not qualified to give an opinion as to the occult, how can he give an opinion, your Honor, that this was a cult related killing?
THE COURT: Alright, if you had objected I'd have sustained.
WADLEY: Judge, I think that we have --
FORD: Your Honor, I think our --
WADLEY: -- objected properly.
FORD: -- objection. We've objected to the entire line of questioning.
THE COURT: Well, I'm not giving you a blanket objection, if you got an objection you better stand up and make it to preserve your right. I told you y'all in the beginning there wouldn't be any blanket objections because if I don't -- I mean -- as much stuff that y'all brought up I can't remember one issue from the next. So you better bring it up if you want me to rule on it.
FORD: Your Honor, that's what we thought we had a (?) for.
THE COURT: Well, I -- alright, let's bring the jury back in.
PRICE: Judge, one other question that I wanna ask as part of the proffer. I wanna ask the officer what was the date that he came to his conclusion that he's just stated. If this was an opinion that he had.
THE COURT: Alright, go ahead.
PRICE: Officer -- detective Ridge, when was it -- what was the date that you came to the conclusion that you just stated in that answer?
A: I can't give it a date, I had that opinion for some time and I put these notes together.
Q: Obviously, we've never seen a copy of the notes that you're referring to. Was this an opinion you had prior to the time that Mr. Echols was arrested, or was it an opinion you had during Jessie Misskelley's trial, or sometime in between?
A: It's an opinion I've had since close to the near -- the beginning of the murder trial on certain points. Research has continued and I felt that other points of the crime scene have applied.
THE COURT: Do you have any more witnesses after this one for the day?
UNKNOWN: No, your Honor.
THE COURT: Tell the jury to report back at 9:30 in the morning.
(Mumbling)
THE COURT: Alright gentlemen, let's --
PRICE: A couple of more questions to clarify this.
THE COURT: Alright, go ahead.
FORD: Your Honor, can we have our cautionary instruction before they go home? And (?) around all night long that this applies to Jason Baldwin when it doesn't.
THE COURT: I've already given that once. And with regard to this witness' testimony.
FORD: But, your Honor, you -- when Michael Carson testified you told the jury not to consider it against Damien Echols.
THE COURT: I told them that on -- with this witness.
FORD: You did not tell them not to -- your said, consider it separately. You never said you can't consider this as evidence against Jason Baldwin. you did not say that.
THE COURT: I don't think you're correct. I think I did.
FORD: You didn't mention his name when I was listening.
THE COURT: Well, we'll check that. If I didn't I'll do it tomorrow.
(Mumbling)
THE COURT: Got anything else?
PRICE: Yes sir. Just to clarify your last sentence that (Unintelligible?) -- wrote down the wrong thing. Detective Ridge, you indicated that you reached this opinion early on in the -- I mean, before the trial started or before --
Unidentified female: (inaudible)
PRICE: -- time of the murders or --
WADLEY: Wait a minute. The door's come -- how much for an in camera hearing, your Honor, when the door's open and closing and jury members going in and out.
THE COURT: Alright, the door's opened three times. It's closed now, let's proceed.
PRICE: I was confused about the last answer.
THE COURT: Hang on a minute, let them get their stuff out. (Pause) Alright, let the record reflect that the door's closed again.
PRICE: Alright, detective Ridge, when was it that you reached the opinion that this was a cult related murder?
A: Early on in the investigation elements were there that pointed to an occult killing.
Q: Alright, one moment, your Honor. Alright. Detective Ridge, you mentioned that you had been doing some research about this. Could you tell me what the individuals that you talked to in doing your research or certain books that you've read?
A: There's been some books and some handouts and some literature from other departments on --
Mr Price: Okay.
A: -- occult.
Q: Was one of the literature satanic cult awareness?
A: Yes sir.
Q: Okay, this was one -- can you recall what the other literature handouts that you looked at?
A: There's some different books that I've scanned through.
Q: Okay. Was one of them a book about occult crimes?
A: Yes sir.
Q: Alright. Kind of a black book?
A: Yes sir.
Q: I think I put this -- this book right here, "Occult Crimes" by William Edward Lee Dubois?
A: Yes sir.
Q: (?) can you read the warning on the inside label?
A: (Reading): "Because of its privileged subject matter this book is intended for the law enforcement community only. Its sole purpose is to help law enforcement officers detect and investigate and verify occult, and every effort should be made to protect it and the information contained in it. General knowledge of this information can negatively affect officers' safety and investigative effectiveness. This book is intended to serve both as a training manual and as a field handbook, and covers virtually every specialized aspect of occult crimes. It is not available to, and in no way intended for, the general public."
Q: And also as part of your research, did you read some materials written by doctor Dale Griffis? I think one of those was "The Four Faces of Satan."
A: No sir, I didn't read that.
Q: Okay, did you read any publications by doctor Dale Griffis?
A: Not that I can recall, no sir.
Q: Did you consult with doctor Dale Griffis, the expert that's listed on the State's witness list, in forming your opinion?
A: In forming my opinion?
Q: Yes sir.
A: I have conferred with him and he has reinforced my opinion.
Q: Okay. Has he -- has he come up with any kind of report in connection with his opinion -- is it his opinion that this is a cult related killing?
A: He hasn't related that to me, no sir.
FORD: Is there a report?
A: I don't know.
THE COURT: Do you have a report?
FOGLEMAN: No.
THE COURT: Anything else?
PRICE: No further questions at this time, your Honor.
THE COURT: I wanna get this over with once and for all. Do you intend to prove, or attempt to prove motive? And will that motive be -- one possible motive at least, an occult or satanic murder?
FOGLEMAN: Your Honor, all I can say at this point is that unless something changes, we do. At this point, with the stage of the testimony I would say yes, but I -- I mean, something might happen and we may not be able to have our expert here, but uhm --
THE COURT: When do you plan to have him here?
FOGLEMAN: He's supposed to be here tomorrow.
THE COURT: Can we not finish officer Ridge's testimony on matters that relate to evidence of an occult or whatever, until after you've attempted to put on expert testimony, and I assume that you're gonna relate facts of the case to the expert and then I assume further that he'll have an expert opinion. Is that what you're wanting to do?
WADLEY: Has he given an opinion?
FOGLEMAN: Your Honor, he is -- I would not tell him anything about any of the suspects at this point. And, just gave him information related to the crime. And, it's my understanding that with -- after his review of the autopsy reports, autopsy photographs, crime scene photographs, and along with the testimony of Michael Carson -- or relating to him hypothetically that testimony of blood being sucked out of penis, that it's my understanding that he would give an opinion that it is an occult related crime.
WADLEY: That is your expert's opinion?
FOGLEMAN: That's what I said my understanding is.
WADLEY: And is that in the form of a written report he's given to you?
FOGLEMAN: No, I just said there's no written report.
WADLEY: He's told you that?
THE COURT: Well, we'll have a Denno hearing when he gets here and then see, and if he gives such an opinion, gentlemen, then I'm gonna let officer Ridge testify to everything he's just said, except in the form of his own personal opinion.
FORD: Judge, to be able to do that when they cannot establish any involvement of Jason in that type of activity. The order says they've also got to do that.
THE COURT: Well --
FORD: He's got to show that he's involved --
THE COURT: As I recall the testimony of Mr. Carson that directly involved Mr. Baldwin in conduct of that nature that a jury could reasonable draw the conclusion.
FORD: You're stating that you believe -- that you're ruling that --
THE COURT: No, I'm not saying I believe anything. I'm saying that there is evidence that a jury could conclude these facts occurred. That's all I'm saying.
FORD: It's your ruling that it would be a reasonable deduction of the jury to take Michael Carson's testimony and --
THE COURT: And apply it to the other facts and draw that conclusion.
FORD: -- apply that to say that Jason Baldwin is involved in the occult. Is that the Court's ruling?
THE COURT: I'm saying that a reasonable jury could draw those conclusions. If that serves to be his opinion. I don't know whether it will be or not.
WADLEY: Your Honor, did I understand that this opinion Mr. Fogleman says his expert's reached, he hasn't reviewed any of the -- he hasn't reviewed the facts in the case? Is that what you stated?
FOGLEMAN: No I didn't say that.
WADLEY: What did you say? I may have missed that.
FOGLEMAN: I said that he has reviewed the autopsy reports, autopsy photographs, crime scene photographs, and we may have sent him one of the general reports relating to the crime scene. I don't remember for sure about that.
THE COURT: Well, I think what we're gonna have to do at this point is have an in camera hearing and seek from him what the basis of his opinion is and then see if there's any scientific basis for that opinion, and if he has such an opinion then proceed from there.
WADLEY: Your Honor, that was the whole reason that we had this motion in limine in order to have that established first and then --
THE COURT: That's what we're gonna do at this point.
WADLEY: Well it's already out now, your Honor. You've already (inaudible)
THE COURT: Well, no, what's out is that Mr. Echols has a pentagram tattoo, and what was the Egyptian symbol?
PRICE: Ankh.
THE COURT: With the - the circle with the stick man in it?
PRICE: Yes sir.
THE COURT: That he had those on his person, and I've already instructed the jury that the statements he made apply only to him in that regard. And if I didn't, I will. I'm almost certain I said whatever Mr. Echols said pertains to him and not to Mr. Baldwin, but maybe I didn't. If I didn't, I will. In other words, his statements, those were admissible under any circumstances. And you didn't address it in a motion to suppress his statements. You did on one hand, in the statement where he had said someone named Jason might have done it. Alright, Court will be in recess until 9:30 in the morning. Will that man be --
FOGLEMAN: I've got a question.
(Courtroom noise)
(Off the record discussion - not transcribed)
March 8, 1994
JONESBORO, ARKANSAS, MARCH 8, 1994, AT 9:30 A.M.
THE COURT: Court's in session. You may continue.
PRICE: Judge, if we could approach the bench?
(THE FOLLOWING CONFERENCE WAS HELD AT THE BENCH OUT OF THE HEARING OF THE JURY)
PRICE: Judge, there's additional questions I would want to ask Detective Ridge but based on the Court's ruling at the conclusion of yesterday's hearing that we would need to have an in-camera hearing before I discuss those matters further, I would like to reserve the rest of my cross examination --
THE COURT: -- Frankly, I think the issue is opened up enough now that you can go into it if they plan to call an expert -- are you going to do that?
FOGLEMAN: Once we are through with Detective Ridge.
THE COURT: You can call Ridge back is what my suggestion would be.
FOGLEMAN: We want you to consider taking judicial notice that there was a full moon on May the 5th according to an almanac.
DAVIDSON: We don't agree to that. (2401)
PRICE: We object to the relevance of that.
THE COURT: You can bring in a Farmer's Almanac and introduce it or something --
DAVIDSON: -- That's not a --
FOGLEMAN: -- That would be an appropriate thing for judicial notice.
THE COURT: We will take that up later.
(RETURN TO OPEN COURT)
PRICE: I reserve the rest of my cross examination until later.
REDIRECT EXAMINATION
FOGLEMAN
Q: Detective Ridge, yesterday I believe it was Mr. Price that asked you something about where Damien had said that he was -- or some there was some testimony about that. What did -- what -- where did Damien say that he was on May 5?
A: He said that he had been at Lakeshore Trailer Park, gotten with his girlfriend, Domini Teer, and gone to a location near Center Street where a yard had been mowed. Later between 3:00 and 5:00 P.M. he went to Randy and Susan Sanders' residence. Then he said he went home after his mom had picked him up from Alexander's Laundry on Missouri Street. From there when he went home, he got on the telephone with (2402) Holly George. He explained that he talked with Holly George from that time when he got home until 11:30 P.M.
Q: The part about being at Randy and Susan Sanders' house -- maybe I'm looking at the wrong notes -- what did he tell you -- and you can read the notes whichever ones are best -- or your own recollection if you can -- about what he said about the time period.
A: Okay, the time period that he said he was at Randy and Susan Sanders was sometime between 3:00 P.M. and 5:00 P.M.
Q: About this lineup you conducted in August or September, who did you show that lineup to?
A: Miss Amanda Stokes.
Q: Where did she allegedly saw some people?
A: At North Seventh Street at the north service road of the 40/55 expressway.
Q: Is that on the same side of the interstate as the Blue Beacon?
A: No. It is on the north side of the interstate.
Q: What time was it when she saw some people?
FORD: Your Honor, if he's testifying to what -- this is hearsay.
THE COURT: Sustained.
BY FOGLEMAN:
Q: Did you show her a photo spread?
A: Yes, I did. (2403)
Q: Was she able to say whether or not the people --
DAVIDSON: Objection, your Honor. It's still hearsay. "If she's able to say."
FOGLEMAN: Your Honor, I am not offering it to prove the truth of the matter of whether or not she could identify anybody, but whether or not she indicated that she could.
WADLEY: Your Honor, that is the very thing it calls for.
THE COURT: Sustained.
FOGLEMAN: Your Honor, I don't know how else to question him when they examine him about a lineup and suggest there's something improper about it. I don't know how else to redirect the witness. It is not fair to cross examine him and suggest that there's something improper about it without me being able to fully explore the circumstances.
THE COURT: Rephrase your question so it doesn't call for a hearsay response.
FOGLEMAN:
Q: Did she identify anybody?
A: No, sir, she did not.
RECROSS EXAMINATION
BY PRICE:
Q: Officer Ridge, on May 27, 1993, at approximately 5:17 (2404) P.M. did you conduct a photographic lineup with one Aaron Hutcheson?
A: Some photos were shown to Aaron Hutcheson.
Q: Do you have a report that lists -- were there ten photographs that were shown to him on that date?
A: I believe there were ten photographs.
Q: Do you have a report indicating the ten photographs that were shown to him on that date?
A: No, sir.
Q: If we took a brief recess, would you be able to find the report of the ten photographs that you showed Aaron Hutcheson on that?
A: No, sir, I cannot.
Q: Do you remember -- why didn't you write a report of the -- you showed a person who is a potential witness to these murders a photographic lineup, correct?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: Did you not write down the ten photographs that you showed him?
A: No, sir.
Q: What was the reason you didn't write down the photographs that you showed him?
A: During that period of time, we were very busy. Just shortly after that period of time, there were several interviews taking place. Those photographs were kept together in the (2405) office until the arrest was made. When the arrest was made, unknowing to me the photograph display was taken apart.
Q: Was there one photographic display that was shown to several different witnesses?
A: No, sir.
Q: Did you take -- was there are board -- did you take different photographs depending on what witness you were showing them to, did you put different pictures in and take different pictures out.
A: There were not that many photographs displayed to anybody. That is one of very few times that photos were displayed.
Q: On that date, did you show Aaron Hutcheson ten photographs?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: Can you name any of the ten photographs you showed him?
A: Murray Farris was one of them. I believe Chris Littrell.
Q: You're not certain if Damien Echols -- now, at this time Damien Echols was a suspect?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: Based on information you had, Aaron Hutcheson was allegedly an eyewitness.
A: Yes, sir.
Q: You're saying you don't remember if you showed Aaron Hutcheson a picture of Damien Echols? (2406)
A: You mentioned Aaron Hutcheson was an eyewitness. Not to the murders at that particular time.
Q: On May 27th Aaron Hutcheson was not an eyewitness to the murders?
A: We had no indication that that was so.
Q: But you did -- but your testimony -- I mean were you showing him pictures of people that he may have seen on previous occasions?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: It is your testimony that you did not show him Damien Echols' picture?
A: No, sir, that's not my testimony.
Q: You do not remember if you showed him Damien's photograph.
A: Yes, sir.
Q: Murray Farris, Chris Littrell. Do you recall any other photographs you showed him on that day?
A: I believe another person would be James Kenny Martin. And I'm not certain about a Michael or David Wynn, one of the twins. I'm not sure. But there are several others and I don't remember all the names. It was some photos I put together.
Q: And the photographs -- there was a board that you had. You had the photographs placed on the board?
A: That's correct.
Q: There were numbers one through ten on each photograph?
A: Yes, sir. (2407)
Q: During this photographic lineup, did you discover that another police officer had shown the same individual a photographic lineup the day before?
A: I was informed that another officer had shown some photographs, but I don't know the results of that photo lineup.
Q: Who was the other officer that showed Aaron Hutcheson a photographic lineup?
A: My understanding it was Chief Don Bray of the Marion Police Department.
Q: Do you have any knowledge if Don Bray wrote up a report concerning the photographic lineup that he showed Aaron Hutcheson?
A: I don't have any knowledge of that. No, sir.
(WITNESS EXCUSED)
March 8, 1994
FOGLEMAN: For the record, you're the same Bryn Ridge who's previously testified?
RIDGE: Yes sir.
FOGLEMAN: Detective Ridge, did you participate in the search of the home of Jason Baldwin on June the 3rd?
RIDGE: Yes sir, I did.
FOGLEMAN: I want to show you what I have marked for identification purposes as state's exhibit 118 and ask if you can identify that?
RIDGE: Yes sir, I can.
FOGLEMAN: And where did you recover that item?
RIDGE: From the residence of Jason Baldwin.
FOGLEMAN: What is it?
RIDGE: It's eleven T-shirts.
FOGLEMAN: Um - is that 118?
RIDGE: E- yes sir, exhibit 118.
FOGLEMAN: Your Honor, we would offer state's exhibit 118.
FORD: No objection.
FOGLEMAN: What color are these shirts by the way?
RIDGE: Black, with different designs and colors.
THE COURT: Alright, it may be received without objection.
FOGLEMAN: Now, I want to show you state's exhibit 119 and ask if you can identify that?
RIDGE: Yes sir, I can.
FOGLEMAN: Alright, and what is that item?
RIDGE: 4 black -
FOGLEMAN: (talking over) Where was it recovered?
RIDGE: It was recovered from Jason Baldwin's residence. Four black shirts, one green rain jacket.
FOGLEMAN: Your Honor, we would offer the uh - black T-shirts.
FORD: No objection.
THE COURT: Alright. They may be received without objection.
FOGLEMAN: That's state's exhibit 119.
RIDGE: 119.
FOGLEMAN: 119. And what color were these shirts again?
RIDGE: Black.
FOGLEMAN: No further questions, Your Honor.
PRICE: No questions.
FORD: How many white T-shirts did you take?
RIDGE: None.
FORD: How many were there?
RIDGE: I didn't see any.
FORD: You didn't see any white T-shirts?
RIDGE: No sir.
FORD: See any grey T-shirts?
RIDGE: Not that I can recall, no sir.
FORD: The only - are you saying the only T-shirts he had were black T-shirts?
RIDGE: That's the shirts that I found, yes sir.
FORD: And you didn't see a single white T-shirt?
RIDGE: Not that I can recall.
(pause)
THE COURT: Alright. You can stand - I'm not going to say you're free to go, I've said that four times to you already. You may return to the witness room. Call your next witness.
FOGLEMAN: Call uh - (mumbling) call Dale Griffis.