NAME: US CHASE 260205N TAPE: EF05/0180 IN_TIME: 10:43:24:05 DURATION: 00:01:56:02 SOURCES: ABC DATELINE: Rome - 25 Feb 2005 RESTRICTIONS: No Access Internet SHOTLIST: 25 February 2005 1. Police dash board camera of chase and police shoot suspect 24 February 2005 2. Various of scene, injured victim (Mute) 3. Wide shot of police officers standing by victim (Mute) 4. Various shots of scene, including bullet holes 5. Wide shot of shattered windows 6. Bullet hole 25 February 2005 7. Pan, police officers inside cordoned off area 8. SOUNDBITE: (English),Don Martin,Tyler Police Department: "It is a fact that he did have on a bullet proof vest and a flat jacket, he apparently had some idea in mind that he was going to do this and find out maybe how long he''d pre-planned it." 9. Still shot of suspect, David Hernandez Arroyo Senior STORYLINE: US Police in Tyler, Texas has released a video of a chase involving a man who had shot two people outside a courthouse on Friday. He was eventually shot and killed by police officers during the chase. David Hernandez Arroyo Senior had opened fire outside the Smith County Courthouse Thursday, killing his ex-wife and a bystander, plus wounded his son and three lawmen in a dispute over child support. Thursday''s shooting rampage started outside the Smith County Courthouse in what authorities say was a child support dispute. The footage of the chase was shot by a camera in a law enforcement vehicle. Arroyo is seen driving along a highway, then he eventually pulls over. The footage shows the gunman getting out of his pickup and shooting at officers, who return the fire. Meanwhile, the damaged Smith County Courthouse was closed today as officers surveyed the crime scene.

Negro Soldier, The (Why We Fight series)

On October 26, 1998, Tyler, Texas State Troopers Barry Goines and Jasmine Andreason stop a car and get more than just traffic violators. The passenger is escaped convict Sidney Byrd. Byrd pulls a gun and puts it to Goines’ neck. Goines pulls away and he and Andreason blast away as Byrd flees the scene.A traffic stop takes a dangerous turn when the suspect puts a gun to trooper Barry Goines’ head as Trooper Jasmine Andreasen watches the other suspect. Trooper Goines suddenly grabs the gun and shoots several times at the suspects as they runs into the woods.

The following is a list of David Susskind Shows possibly housed in a number off-site facilities--if they can be located at all. These listed programs HAVE NOT BEEN INSPECTED thus we cannot guarantee the existence, quality, duration or timely delivery of any of the material listed here. We offer access to these tapes on the following basis ONLY: All tapes are on their original 2" video format. The only way to verify the contents is to screen them, thus we will need to pull them from the inventory, ship and transfer them before we are able to verify content and quality. A $500 fee PER TAPE is required when ordering screening material from this collection. This fee is NON-REFUNDABLE. This fee will cover the cost of 2" tape handling, 2" Fed-Ex shipping (2-way) and 2" transfer. PLEASE NOTE THAT MANY SHOWS ARE ON TWO SEPARATE TAPES, THUS IT COULD COST DOUBLE ($1000) TO SCREEN SOME COMPLETE SHOWS. PLEASE UNDERSTAND THAT EVEN IF YOU ORDER A SHOW BASED ON THE CATALOG NUMBER AND TITLE FROM THIS DATABASE WE CANNOT GUARANTEE THAT YOU WILL GET THE TAPE YOU ORDER. THIS IS BECAUSE THROUGH THE YEARS TAPES MAY HAVE BEEN PLACED IN THE INCORRECT CASES AND THE WRITTEN INFORMATION ON THE CASES IS ALL WE HAVE TO ID A TAPE BEFORE IT IS TRANSFERRED. WHILE WE WILL USE ALL EFFORTS TO EXPEDITE YOUR REQUEST, BUT WE CANNOT RUSH THE PROCESS, AND YOU ORDER THESE AT YOUR OWN RISK. IF WE DO NOT LOCATE THE TAPE THERE IS NO CHARGE, BUT IF WE DO AND IT IS REMOVED FROM THE FACILITY FOR TRANSFER, YOU WILL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THESE NON-REFUNDABLE FEES. THE DAVID SUSSKIND SHOW 1969 - 1984 12/29/69 SAMANTHA SUSSKIND AND JULIET FUNT: BABES IN TOYLAND SAMANTHA SUSSKIND, JULIET FUNT, MRS. DAVID SUSSKIND, MRS. ALLEN FUNT, STEPHEN MILLER 18449 10/04/70 WOMEN'S LIB - MEN WHO LOVE IT! WOMEN WHO HATE IT! PART I - THE WOMEN:JEANNIE SAKOL, MONA ROMAN, VALERIE PASCAL DELACORTE, LUCI ANNE GOLDBERG, SUZANNE JAMES, CAROL GREGER PART II - THE MEN: TIMOTHY COONEY, DR. SHEPARD ARONSON, MARC FASTEAU, CARTER BALES, GERALD GARDNER 19437 11/22/70 GROUP ENCOUNTERS MEAN TOUCHING, FEELING, SCREAMING, STRIPPING HANNAH WEINER, HARRY SLOAN, BOB KRIEGEL, DAVIS SCHIFFMAN, MARTIN SHEPARD M.D, STEVE GELMAN 19444 12/27/70 OVERWEIGHT? UNHAPPY? EXPERTS ON DIETING DR. ROBERT ATKINS, ALYCE FINELL, DR. MORTON GLEN, JEREMY STEVENS, NANCY GOULD, DR. IRWIN STILLMAN 19445 12/27/70 WHERE THE BEAUTIFUL PEOPLE SWING DEREK HALL - CAINE, ELAINE KAUFMAN, PIERRE GROLEAU, OLEG CASSINI, WARNER LEROY 19445 01/24/71 THE PRO AND CON OF THE JEWISH DEFENSE LEAGUE PRO: RABBI MEIR KAHANE, NBERTRAM ZWEIBON, DOV SPERLING, JOSHUA JOFFEE CON: RABBI MARC TANENBAUM, MORRIS ABRAM, RABBI ARTHUR SCHNEIER, ARNOLD FORSTER 19457 01/31/71 LANDLORDS AND TENANTS AT WAR LANDLORDS: ROBERT KOENIG, WILLIAM MOSES, ABRAHAM KATZ, ROBERT MALOOF TENANTS: RUDY TOLBERT, VERTELLE X REEDER, REVEREND WILFREDO VELEZ, BERNARD LEONARD 19456 02/07/71 BEAUTIFUL ACTRESSES TURNED AUTHORS - VIVA, DIANE CILENTO, JOANNA BARNES 19831, 19458 02/14/71 ARE YOU HUNG UP AND NEUROTIC? 6 PSYCHIATRISTS! DR. NATHANIEL ROSS, DR. ROBERT JAY LIFTON, DR. ABRAHAM WEINBERG, DR. CHARLES SOCARIDES, DR. ANDREW FERBER, DR. CYRIL FRANKS 19459 02/21/71 ROCK MUSIC THAT SOUNDS GOOD: SEALS AND CROFTS! JIMMY SEALS AND DASH CROFTS 19460 02/28/71 HOW TO CONQUER THE FEAR OF DEATH DR. MORTON M. KLIGERMAN, MRS. MARY BRITTEN, DR. MICHAEL BRESCIA, SISTER MAUREEN PATRICIA FLANNERY, DR. MELVIN J. KRANT, REVEREND CARL NIGHSWONGER 19447 03/14/71 THE EXPLOSION IN THE CATHOLIC CHURCH! KENNETH L. WOODWARD, WILLIAM VAN ETTEN CASEY, SJ, THOMAS DAVIS, FRANCINE GRAY, KENNETH BAKER, SJ, DR. EVER CURTIS 19462 03/21/71 ANGRY TAXPAYERS BATTLE MILITANT WELFARE MOTHERS! MARVIN DANSINGER, EMMA MCPHERSON, BOGDAN WASIUTYNSKI, GEORGEANN SALISBURY, JACKI MCKINNEY, EUGENE BARFOOT, DAVID HIMMELSTEIN, HELEN REICHENBECHER 19463 03/28/71 WHAT IT'S LIKE TO BE OUT OF WORK - 5 EXECUTIVES HIT BY THE RECESSION VERNON MACKIE, JANE MILLER, EDWARD BOTWIN, FRED THOME, SAL CAVALLARO 19464 04/11/71 6 WHO'VE QUIT THE RAT RACE ANDRE GROS DAILLON, HELENGROS DAILLON, REV. HAROLD SKIDMORE, MARY ORPIN, SIDNEY DICKLER, FRANK VAN DYK 19458 04/11/71 THE OUTRAGEOUS WITH OF GORE VIDAL 19458 04/18/71 WHAT HAPPENS AT THE MASTERS AND JOHNSON SEX CLINIC JOAN AND HAROLD K 19466 04/18/71 UNWED MOTHERS CLAIM HUSBANDS ARE OBSOLETE MARY JANE GEIGER, JANE HARRIMAN, ODE BITTON, BARBARA CROSBY 19466 04/25/71 THE HELL OF VIETNAM AS YOU'VE NEVER HEARD IT BEFORE! 6 VETERANS BRADFORD BRITT, ROBERT O. MULLER, STEPHEN MCDONOUGH, CHARLES KNIGHT, JERRY CONER, STEVEN UZZI 19468 05/02/71 THE MATING GAME - THE SWINGING SINGLES SCENE ALICE WAYNE, MARTY O'HARA, JOE MAURO, SANDY SCHNALL, IRVING GRUBER, ANETTA LABOURENE, SAUL RITCHFIELD, GLORIA BENTLEY, AL STILLMAN, BARBARA KASENETZ 19469 05/09/71 WHITE PARENTS WHO ADOPT BLACK CHILDREN JOHN AND STEPHANIE HARAKAL, GEORGE AND MARJORIE RUBIN, TONY AND PEGGY MANGOGNA 19471 05/09/71 THE MAN WHO RUNS AGAINST NIXON - REPRESENTATIVE PAUL N. MCCLOSKEY 19471 05/16/71 A TOUGH JUDGE SAYS: DON'T CODDLE CRIMINALS - THEY'RE PUNKS, VERMIN AND ANIMALS JUDGE SAMUEL S. LEIBOWITZ 19467 05/30/71 HOW TO DRIVE YOUR CHILDREN SANE - DR. HAIM GINOTT DR. HAIM GINOTT ALONE AND THEN IN A SEMINAR WITH 8 MOTHERS 19470 06/06/71 6 EX - CONVICTS TELL THE BRUTALITY AND HORROR OF OUR PRISONS MEL RIVERS, DANIEL KEANE, PRENTICE WILLIAMS, STANLEY TELEGA, GEORGE FREEMAN, CHUCK BERGANSKY 19474 06/13/71 WHEN BLACKS AND RADICALS GO BERSERK IN THE COURTROOM - CAN THE SYSTEM SURVIVE? WILLIAM M. KUNSTLER, GERALRD LEFCOURT, THEODORE KOSKOFF, MELVIN BELLI, TERENCE F. MACCARTHY 19475 09/26/71 NOT WITH MY CHILDREN YOU DON'T - BATTLE OVER BUSING SID GOULD, IRENE MCCABE, LOIS FAISON, DOLORES ROBINSON, CAROL SWEENEY, JERRY GIORGIO, ELLIOT SOLOMON, JEAN RICHARDSON 20602 10/03/71 PART 1: THE JESUS FREAKS ARE HERE ARTHUR BLESSITT, SCOTT ROSS, JACKIE BODNER, BARBARA TAI - SING, RICHIE ALVAREZ, DAVID SHANNON, IKE MCKINNON, PETER KAKOS, CHARLES RIZZO, STEVE ENGLAND 20603 10/03/71 PART II: WATCH YOUR STEP - DOGS ARE EVERYWHERE FRAN LEE, DR. MICHAEL MILTS, CLARK WHELTON, LISA HOFFMAN, ROBERT SELYA, LARRY VIDE 20603 10/17/71 YOU'RE BEING ROBBED, MUGGED AND STABBED BY GI JUNKIES FRANK NATALE, LESLIE SPRACE, AL JOHNSON, JERRY SULLIVAN, BILL BERNSTEIN, STEVE LICARI, GENE BELFERDER, PHILIP BURLEY, BERNARD BRISCOE 20601 10/24/71 PART I: WE'RE LUCK TO BE ALIVE - 7 VICTIMS OF CRIME BARBARA BALLENGER, GERTRUDE FOX, LLOYD BARNETT, CHARLES PELTO, TOM CORNELIA, LACY HEDRICK, DAVID COOPER 20606 PART II: WAS COLLEGE REALLY NECESSARY - THE UNEMPLOYED CLASS OF '71 LEWIS COX II, DAVID FREEDMAN, JOEL GREENBERG, CAROL PARKER, CHRISTINE POLLUTRO 20605 11/07/71 WHAT GOES ON BETWEEN A PSYCHIATRIS AND HIS PATIENTS: AN ACTUAL GROUP ENCOUNTER DR. MARTIN SHEPARD AND GROUP FROM ANTHOS 20607 11/14/71 WHAT HAVE YOU DONE FOR US LATELY? FURIOUS FEMINISTS GERMAINE GREER, DR. EDGAR BERMAN, ANATOLE BROYARD, BRENDS FEIGEN FASTEAU, JOHN SIMON, SUSAN BROWNMILLER 20609 11/21/71 PART II: IS DISCIPLINE A DIRTY WORD? - BRINGING UP CHILDREN DONALD BARR, PHILIP E. MCCURDY 20608 11/28/71 PART II: LEMON OWNERS SQUEEZE AUTO DEALERS SUSAN D-ALLURA, ROBERT E. DILLON, JOE ROGERS, EDWARD SOUKUP, LOWELL DODGE, ANDREW SULNER 20612 12/05/71 PART I: LOVE FOR SALE - 3 PROSTITUTES CHRIS, PAT, RACHAEL 20611 12/12/71 PART I: 2 VICTIMS OF RAPE DOROTHY, MARIE 20613 12/12/71 PART II: SHOW BIZ GOES RADICAL: JANE FONDA AND HER ANTI WAR TROUPE JANE FONDA, DONALD SUTHERLAND, HOLLY NEAR, MICHAEL ALAIMO, RITA MARTINSON, PAMELA DONEGAN, PAUL MOONEY, LEN CHANDLER JR., YALE ZIMMERMAN, FRANCINE PARKER 20613 01/02/72 HAS ANYONE HERE SEEN GOD? FATHER FRANCIS X. MURPHY, CSSR, AVERY CORMAN, FATHER RICHARD MCBRIEN, RABBI DANIEL WOLK, REVEREND JAMES MCGRAW, REVEREND RICHARD NEUHAUS 20617 01/09/72 THE BLACK - WHITE WAR IS RAGING IN OUR SCHOOLS: PARENTS, TEACHERS, STUDENTS AND MAYOR KENNETH GIBSON STEVE ADUBATO, EDWARD GOODALL, FRAN ALSTON, ROBERT GIACOBBE, MARGARET MEEHAN, STEVE MUSTACCHIO, PETE SHAW, KATHY PERRY, MAYOR KENNETH GIBSON 20615 01/30/71 UNWED MOTHERS WHO WANT THEIR BABIES BACK - THE ADOPTION BATTLE FLORENCE LADDEN FISHER, JUDY KROLL, BARBARA DONALDSON, ROBERT LANNA, MRS. VICKI ROMAN, MRS. JANE EDWARDS, ANN DOYLE 20619 02/06/72 PART I: THE GROUP SEX SCENE - 4 MARRIED COUPLES WHO SWING DICK AND JULIE, BILL AND PAT, RICHARD AND LIZ, JOAN AND MARK 20624 02/06/72 PART II: PSYCHIATRISTS WHO SAY SWINGING IS SICK DR. CHARLES SOCARIDES, DR. MELVIN HELLER 20624 02/27/72 CRIMINALS ARE GETTING AWAY WITH MURDER - HAS JUSTICE BECOME A JOKE? JUDGE JOEL TYLER, WILLIAM ARONWALD, SAM DAWSON, JOHN KING, ROBERT SULLIVAN, WALLY ROEBUCK 20629 03/05/72 PART II: MEN AND WOMEN WHO'VE HAD PLASTIC SURGERY LOUISE HAY, LENORE HERSHEY, AURORA MORALES, BEN HOFFMAN, WAY BANDY 20622 03/12/72 UP & UP IT GOES - THE BULL MARKET OF '72 SALOM LEWIS, ALAN ABELSON, LEON LEVY, JOHN NEFF, DR. PIERRE RINFRET 20627 03/19/72 WE WENT THROUGH HELL - 5 WHO SURVIVED OUR MENTAL HOSPITALS JUDY HOBERMAN, JAMES O'CALLAGHAN, TED CHABASINSKI, DAVID KANE, JUDY CHAMBERLIN, RICHARD WHIPPLE 20630 03/26/72 WHERE WERE YOU DURING THE VIETNAM WAR? I WAS IN CANADA - ANGRY DEBATE BETWEEN DESERTERS, DODGERS AND VIETNAM VETS JOHN COLHOUN, CHARLES COE, DAVID SELLS, MARTIN KELLEY, MICHAEL CHEDA, GLENN SIEGAL, JEFF EGNER 20633 04/02/72 LAUGHING ALL THE WAY TO THE POORHOUSE - 8 STRUGGLING COMEDIANS BERNIE TRAVIS, SHELLY ROBINS, DICK BROOKS, RUSTY BLITZ, BUCKY WILLIAMS, NEIL LEVINSON, "BABY" FRANK LEE WILDE, DAVIS KENT 20628 04/09/72 YOU COULD HAVE A HEART ATTACK - HOW TO AVOID IT - HOW TO SURVIVE IT DR. MICHAEL DEBAKEY, DR. ISADORE ROSENFELD, DR. EDWARD H. AHRENS JR., JACK CHRONIN, JOSEPH MCKERNAN, THOMAS J. PORTELA 20632 04/16/72 ANGRY CANADIANS SAY "YANKEES GO HOME" ELDON WOOLLIAMS, ROBIN MATHEWS, FLORA MACDONALD, EDWIN GOODMAN, ROBERT LEMIEUX 20634 04/23/73 PART I: STREET GANGS ARE RAISING HELL IN OUR CITIES BLUE EYES, GURU, CHARLIE SUAREZ, BLACK BENJIE BUXTON, EDDIE CUEVES, SNOOPY, CHINO MARTINEZ, BENJIE MELENDEZ, BLACK PEARL, BLACKIE, SLY 20635 04/23/72 PART II: MORE GORE VIDAL 20635 04/30/72 NICE WHITE PEOPLE SCREAM "BLACKS STAY OUT OF OUR NEIGHBORHOODS" CHICAGO: MARY CVACK, JOHN BARBER; CLEVELAND, GENEVIEVE BURES, FRANKLIN ANDERSON; FORSET HILLS, MARTIN WUNDERMAN, BLANCH BRODY 20636 06/18/72 PART I: TIRED OF GETTING MUGGED? LEARN JUDO AND KARATE AARON BANKS, NANCY MCCORMICK LEA, JAY BUTTERMAN, ROBERT NISONOFF, MRS. NANNETTE WILDSTEIN 20642 08/20/72 PART I: ALL YOU WANT TO KNOW ABOUT GAMBLING FROM 5 COMPULSIVE GAMBLERS 20640 08/20/72 PART II: DR. LEE SALK, PEDIATRIC PSYCHOLOGIST 20640 09/24/72 PART I: SONS AND DAUGHTERS - IN - LAW STRIKE BACK RACHELLE, MARSHA, LOUISE, JACK, MELL, JIM 20645 09/24/72 PART II: THE JOHN BIRCH SOCIETY - IS ALIVE AND WELL? SCOTT STANLEY, GARY ALLEN, CHARLES SMITH, ALAN STANG 20645 10/01/72 IS A WOMAN'S BODY HER OWN BUSINESS? - THE ABORTION BATTLE DR. ADA RYAN, ANDREW CARLAN, MRS. VIRGINIA MCLAIN, BILL BAIRD, DR. BARBARA ROBERTS, MRS. ELAINE AMENDOLA 20641 10/08/72 5 WHO TRIED SUICIDE MRS. CLAIRE JOHNSON, JIM GRIFFITH, KAREN BAKER, SANDRA WALKER, PETER FISHER, ANN HARPER 20644 10/15/72 ARABS AND ISRAELIS CONFRONT EACH OTHER OMAR CHAMMA, JOEL MOKYR, SANA HASSAN, MICHAEL HANDEL, NADIM HABRA, SHMUEL HARLAP, GEORGE KHYRALLAH, PNINA LAHAV 21996 10/22/72 PART I: CAN ACUPUNCTURE CURE YOU? ARTHUR SLAVIN, DR. ARTHUR TAUB, DR. SUNG LIAO, DR. FRANK Z. WARREN, MRS. RUTH BROIDO 21973 10/22/72 PART II: FAT CATS WHO CARE - MULTI MILLIONAIRES W. CLEMENT STONE AND STEWART MOTT W. CLEMENT STONE, STEWART MOTT 21973 10/29/72 PART I: DROP OUT WIVES WHO RAN AWAY JUDITH ROSSNER, JOYCE, NORMA, PAT 21998 10/29/72 PART II: CONFESSIONS OF AN EX - SWINDLER - ANTHONY DE ANGELIS 21998 11/26/72 YOU COLD HAVE HIGH BLOOD PRESSURE - WHAT TO DO ABOUT THIS HIDDEN KILLER DR. ISADORE ROSENFELD, DR. JOHN LARAGH, DR. FRANK FINNERTY, DR. MORTON MAXWELL, MIKE GORMAN 22006 12/03/72 PART I: THE NEW PROSTITUTES - MASSAGE PARLOR GIRLS MARIE, LINDA, JOE SANTINO 22002 12/02/72 PART II: COPS WHO CRACK DOWN ON PROSTITUTION SERGEANT SIDNEY PATRICK, DEPUTY INSPECTOR JAMES DICKS, LIEUTENANT DON MCWENNEY, PATROLMAN TIMOTHY SULLIVAN, DEPUTY INSPECTOR CHARLES PETERSON, SERGEANT NILS HANSON 22002 12/10/72 BLACKS AND WHITES WHO MARRIES - 3 INTERRACIAL COUPLES CEOLA & PETER LOAN, BILL AND PAT HAMLET, HARLON AND MARLENE DALTON 22005 12/10/72 FED UP CITIZENS SAY NOTHING WORKS AND NOBODY CARES BURTON R. SIMS, LOIS GRIPPO, CORNELIUS DONOVAN, AMON DIGGS, JANE D'AGOSTINE, ARLENE BLICKSILVER 22005 12/17/72 WE WERE SKYJACKED! - PASSENGERS, PILOTS AND STEWARDESSES TELL OF THEIR ORDEAL MADELINE WILLETT, PAUL J.C. FRIEDLANDER, SAM KINCH JR., CAPTAIN DALE BESSANT, DR. DAVID HUBBARD M.D., ALEX HALBERSTADT 22011 12/24/72 SHOULD ARIES MARRY VIRGO? - ARE LIBRAS LOSERS? - 6 ASTROLOGERS REVEAL YOUR HOROSCOPE KEITH CLAYTON, CLEO ABUIN, DORIS KAYE, MARIA ELISE CRUMMERE, ALAN OKEN, CHARLES JAYNE 22009 12/32/72 PART I: THE MAD, MAD WORLD OF FREAK ROCK SYLVESTER (THE HOT BAND), RONN GOEDERT (WHITE WITCH), WAYNE COUNTY (QUEEN ELIZABETH), BILLY JOE WHITE (TEENAGE LUST AND THE LUSTETTS) 22012 12/31/72 PART II: ALL ABOUT WINE SAM AARON, PETER SICHEL, TERRY ROBARDS, GERALD ASHER, ALEXIS BESPALOFF 22012 01/07/73 PART I: DIVORCED, LONELY AND LOOKING FOR A MAN - WOMEN IN THEIR 40'S BUNNY BERKE, NATALIE DEUTZ, LOUISE HAY, KATHERINE DOUGLAS, ELIZABETH RUANE 22010 01/07/73 PART II: A CONVERSATION WITH ANTHONY BURGESS 22010 01/14/73 HOW HIGH IS UP? - THE BIG BOOM ON WALL STREET MONTE GORDON (DREYFUS CORPORATION) MARSHALL COGAN (HAYDEN STONE) ROBERT H. STOVALL (REYNOLDS SECURITIES INC.) 22014 01/14/73 YOGA SALLY KIRKLAND, SACHINDRA MAJUMDAR 22014 01/28/73 CHINA TODAY: 5 AMERICANS WHO'VE BEEN THERE DAVID J. MAHONEY, MRS. SALLY RESTON, ROY ANDRES, DR. VITOR SIDEL, MICHEL OKSENBERG 22015 01/28/73 DR. MORTIMER FEINBERG 22015 02/04/73 I WAS A PROSTITUTE MUGGER AND JUNKIE: THE NIGHTMARE OF BARBARA QUINN 22016 02/04/73 GHETTO PRIESTS FATHER LOUIS GIGANTE (BRONX) FATHER WALTER WALDRON (BOSTON) FATHER DONALD MCLLVANE (PITTSBURGH) FATHER JOHN POWIS (BROOKLYN) 22016 02/11/73 HOMOSEXUAL MARRIAGE - MALE AND FEMALE COUPLES BARBARA GLICKMAN AND SANDY CHERNICK, NANCY JOHNSON AND DINAH ROBERTSON, MICHAEL MCCONNELL AND JACK BAKER, ERIC AND LOUISE 22018 02/18/73 HOW TO STAY YOUNG AND BEAUTIFUL FOREVER DR. MICHAEL M. GURDIN, DR. MICHAEL HOGAN, DR. NORMAN ORENTREICH, DR. DICRAN GOULIAN JR., DR. DANIEL L. WEINER 22022 02/18/73 PART II: THE MAKING OF A PSYCHIATRIST - DR. DAVID VISCOTT 22022 02/25/73 PART I: DIVORCED MEN OVER 40 HAVE ALL THE WOMEN THE WANT CORNELIUS DONOVAN, ED GRAHAM, ALFRED GUSSIN, ALDEN SHUMAN 22019 02/25/73 PART II: VOCTOR GOLD, FORMER PRESS SECRETARY TO VICE PRESIDENT SPIRO AGNEW 22019 03/04/73 PART II: ARE YOU A COMPULSIVE EATER? TRY OVEREATERS ANONYMOUS JOANNEE, PAT, BARBARA, STANLEY, JULIE, JACK 22020 03/11/73 WOULD YOU WANT YOUR DAUGHTER BRIDGET TO MARRY BERNIE? - THE BATTLE OVER BRIDGET LOVES BERNIE RABBI BALFOUR BRICKNER, STEPHAN LESHER, RABBI ROY A. ROSENBERF, RABBI JACOB HECHT, RABBI EDWIN FRIEDMAN, PROFESSOR LEONARD FEIN 22024 03/18/73 THE NEW LOOK IN DOCTORS - 6 INTERNS DR. AUGUST VALENTI, DR. ROBERT KLAW, DR. HENRY MURRAY, DR. HENRY BORKOWSKI, DR. CHARLES KENNY, DR. EVLIN KINNEY 22023 03/25/73 PART II: THE BRILLIANT WIT OF ANTHONY BURGESS 22025 04/08/73 FUNNY THING SHAPPENED IN THE GOLDEN AGE OF TELEVISION - 7 WRITERS WHO HAD A BALL PADDY CHAYEFSKY, ROBERT ALAN AURTHUR, LARRY GELBART, SUMNER LOCKE ELLIOTT, N. RICHARD NASH, JP MILLER, TAD MOSEL 22026 04/15/73 PART I: WHY NOT LIVE FOREVER - FREEZE YOURSELF! GILLIAM CUMMINGS, CURTIS HENDERSON, CLAIRE HALPERT, STANFIELD HILL 22030 04/15/73 PART II: HOW TO BEAT THE HIGH COST OF EATING HEDY ROSNER, VALERIE SIMONIAN, MARILYN JESSUM, BRIAN O'KANE, SUSAN HEISLER 22030 04/22/73 MARRIAGE ENCOUNTER - A CANDID CONVERSATION WITH 4 COUPLES TERRY & ED NOE, TERRY & KING DYKEMAN, VICKI & ALAN GOLDENBERG, BRUCE & DOLORES HERRICK 22031 04/29/73 PART I: CONFESSIONS OF 3 DRUG PUSHERS PREACHER, PANCHO, JOHNNY 22028 04/29/73 PART II: HERBERT "THE TERRIBLE" DENENBERG 22028 05/06/73 PART II: YOU COULD HAVE AN ULCER - 20,000,000 AMERICANS DO DR. HOWARD M. SPIRO, DR. LEO MADOW, DR. HENRY D. JANOWITZ, DR. JAMES L.A. ROTH 22029 05/13/73 PART I: 36"-24"-36" THE LOW DOWN ON THE MISS UNIVERSE CONTEST AMANDA JONES (MISS ILLINOIS), LINDA EAST (MISS MICHIGAN), VIVIAN ANITA CRAIG (MISS NORTH CAROLINA), SGT. STORM HENSLEY (MISS LOUISIANA), REBECCA LYNN BUNKERS (MISS SOUTH DAKOTA), BETTY JO GROVE (MISS MARYLAND), CINDY ARNETT (MISS WASHINGTON), JUDITH ANN GREGORY (MISS MASSACHUSETTS), SHERRY NIX (MISS ARIZONA) 22035 05/13/73 PART II: BELLY DANCING FOR PHYSICAL FITNESS SERENA, WILSON, JOANNE KLEIDON, DOROTHY KELLY 22035 05/20/73 MIND READERS, FAITH HEALERS & PSYCHICS WHO TELL THE FUTURE AND TALK TO THE DEAD DAVID HOY, EVELYN MONOHAN, BRYCE BOND, ETHEL DE LOACH, VINCENT RAGONE 22033 05/27/73 PART I: CONFESSIONS OF 5 WORKING STIFFS: WE HATE OUR JOBS PATRICK FENTON, RICKY EISENBERG, DEWEY BURTON, BILL SOLARSKI, MICKEY STELMARK 22034 05/27/73 PART II: WHAT'S THE STORY JERRY? JERRY ROSENBERG, DICK BALCH, RICK EBENSTEIN, ERNIE BOCH 22034 06/03/73 PART II: LADY DRUNKS - 5 WOMEN FIGHT THE BOTTLE DR. STANLEY E. GITLOW, DR. LECLAIR BISSELL 22032 06/10/73 PART I: WHY DO WOMEN LOOK SO TERRIBLE? - THE FASHION DISASTER MOLLIE PARNIS, BILL BLASS, ANNE KLEIN, GRACE MIRABELLA, JERRY SILVERMAN, CAROL HORN 22037 06/10/73 PART II: THE LATEST IN BUGGING EQUIPMENT CLYDE WALLACE (THE SPY SHOP) 22037 06/17/73 PART II: THE GRAY PANTHERS MARGARET KUHN, HOPE BAGGER, LYDIA BRAGGER, SHUBERT FRYE 22038 09/23/73 PART I: UNDERGROUND TV IS WILD, WACKY AND HILARIOUS SUSAN BLONDE, BERT PENCE, TAYLOR MEADE, CANDY DARLING, TINKERBELLE, ALEX BENNETT, NAOMI PAGE, ANTON PERICH 22036 09/30/73 WILL CHAPPAQUIOIK SINK TED'S WHITE HOUSE HOPES? - 6 KENNEDY WATCHERS TOM WICKER, FRANK MANKIEWICZ, MATHEW TROY, ALLARD LOWENSTEIN, FRED DUTTON, JACK NEWFIELD 23204 10/07/73 PART I: ALL ABOUT DOGS - EXPERTS SHOW AND TELL DR. FREDERICK TIERNEY, MATTHEW MARGOLIS, DR. JACOB ANTELYES 23205 10/14/73 PART II: NEVER ON THURSDAY - MAIDS STRIKE BACK CHERRY FOSTER, CAROLYN REED, ARNETTA CORINGTON, GERALDINE MILLER 23208 11/04/73 PART I: IS HE IRRITABLE, TIRED AND IMPOTENT? - MAYBE IT'S MALE MENOPAUSE DR. HAROLD LEAR, DR. DAVID REED, DR. DAVID MCWHIRTER, DR. HERBERT S. KUPPERMAN, DR. ISADORE ROSSMAN 23210 11/04/73 PART II: GORE VIDAL ON THE NIXON MESS 23210 11/11/73 MARILYN MONROE: THE LIFE AND DEATH OF A SEX GODDESS - 5 OF HER CLOSEST FRIENDS INCLUDING ELI WALLACH AND JOSHUA LOGAN ELI WALLACH, JOSHUA LOGAN, NORMAN ROSTEN, AMY AND MILTON GREENE 23207 11/25/73 PART I: WORLD'S GREATEST JEWEL THIEF ALBIE BAKER 23211 11/25/73 PART II: ARE BLACKS INFERIOR TO WHITE'S? - DR. WILLIAM SHOCKLEY & DR. ALVIN POUSAINT 23211 12/02/73 WHAT EVER HAPPENED TO SPIRO AGNEW? FRANK VAN DER LINDEN, ROY COHN, PETE HAMILL, JAMES NAUGHTON, JULES WITCOVER, WILLIAM RUSHER 23215 12/09/73 PART I: CONFESSIONS OF A CROOKED COP WILLIAM PHILLIPS 23216 12/09/73 PART II: ANGRY AIRLINE HOSTESSES KAREM EITELBERG, LIZ RICH, CYNTHIA GLACKEN, LYNN SMYDEN, SANDY OSIP 23216 12/16/73 PART I: THE BIG STEAL: SHOPLIFTING BILL LANDRES, JACK BOGASKY, SANDI SUTTON, GEORGE GORRA, ROY MCPOLAND, PETER TRIER 23217 12/16/73 PART II: CLIVE BARNES - DRAMA CRITIC, THE NEW YORK TIMES 23217 12/23/73 PART I: SINGLES SING THE BLUES BUNNY BERKE, IRVING GRUBER, GLORIA BENTLEY, SOL RICHFIELD, BARBARA LEWIS, SCOTT WARNER 23213 12/23/73 PART II: "THE SINGLES BUSINESS" NIC CHRISTOFF, KENNETH ENOCHS, HY STEIRMAN 23213 12/30/73 PART II: TOP STUDENTS FROM LEADING LAW SCHOOLS 23212 01/06/74 WOULD YOU SLEEP BETTER WITH A FORD IN THE WHITE HOUSE? CONGRESSMAN LAWRENCE J. HOGAN, CONGRESSMAN ELFORD A. CEDERBERG, CONGRESSMAN JOHN CONYERS JR., JOSEPH L. RAUH JR., KIERAN O'DOHERTY 23221 01/06/74 PART II: JESSICA MITFORD 23221 01/20/74 PART II: THE VITAMIN CRAZE GARY NULL, DR. EMANUAL CHERASKIN, DR. VICTOR HERBERT, MARCELLA KATZ 23220 01/27/74 THE BEAUTY BUSINESS - BILLION DOLLAR RIP OFF? DR. EARLE BRAUER, LINDA SCHOEN, SHIRLEY LORD, BRENDS JOHNSON, DR. JAMES LEYDEN 23214 02/03/74 PART I: WOULD YOU WANT YOUR DAUGHTER TO BE APRIEST? - ANGRY WOMEN VERSUS THE CATHOLIC CHURCH FATHER WILLIAM B. SMITH, DR. WILLIAM MARRA, THERESE ICKINGER, CLARA HENNING, WALDA HESS, DR. ROSEMART RUETHER 23219 02/17/74 PART II: THE HUMOR OF ART BUCHWALD 23226 02/24/74 HOW COULD IT HAPPEN TO US? - 5 HEART ATTACK VICTIMS STEPHAN LESHER, CHARLES LUFTIG, LOUIS NARDONE, HAROLD SCAKS, LEE MELE, DR. ISADORE ROSENFELD 23228 03/03/74 HOMOSEXUALS WHO HAVE COME OUT OF HIDING - GUESTS INCLUDE DOCTORS AND TEACHERS DR. EDWARD BROWN, ELAINE NOBLE, PROFESSOR JOSEPH NORTON, DAVID ROTHENBERG, CAROLYN INNES, DR. ADRIENNE SMITH 23227 03/10/74 PART I: KINGPINS OF THE NUMBERS WORLD JAMES LAWSON, BUBBA ROBINSON, SAM, FRANKIE, JOHNNY 23229 03/17/74 PART II: EMPLOYERS OF EX-CONS CHARLES DOUGLAS AIDES, DAVID LEIBOWITZ, LEONARD RATHE 23230 03/24/74 FAITH HEALERS DEMONSTRATE THEIR PSYCHIC POWERS ANNA MAE DENTON, ETHEL DE LOACH, CLEM TAMBURRINO, DR. OLGA WORRALL, REV. ALEX HOLMES 23233 03/31/74 PART I: HOW TO MAKE A LOT OF MONEY AND KEEP IT HARRY BROWNE 23231 03/31/74 PART II: THE LADY IS A COP SHARON KOEHLER, MARYLOU NICHOLS (MIAMI), NONA NELSON, SGT. MARY ELLEN ABRECHT (WASHINGTON DC), LT. JOYCE LELAND (WASHINGTON DC), ANNMARIE BUTLER, HELEN KNEDHANS (NY) 23231 04/07/74 PART I: SEXUAL FANTASIES OF THE AMERICAN MALE - GUESTS INCLUDE A CALL GIRL AND 2 THERAPISTS JULIE, DR. DAVID REED, DR. WILLIAM SIMON 23232 04/07/74 PART II: THE REMARKABLE GEORGE FRAZIER 23232 05/12/74 PART I: DIVORCED AND ABANDONED - POW'S WHO CAME HOME TO NOTHING CHARLES PLUMB, COL. ROBERT STIRM, DON AND ANDREA RANDER, CHARLOTTE CHRISTIAN, LIEUTENANT COMMANDER JAMES BELL 23237 05/26/74 PART II: THE MAD, MAD WORLD OF THE FIRESIGN THEATRE PHIL PROCTOR, PHIL AUSTIN, PETER BERGMAN, DAVID OSSMAN 23246 06/02/74 PART II: CONFESSIONS OF A HEROINE SMUGGLER RICHARD BERDIN, ROBERT GREENE 23242 06/09/74 THE PRESIDENT'S PRIEST - FATHER JOHN MCLAUGHLIN FATHER JOHN MCLAUGHLIN 23247 09/22/74 ARE WE HEADED FOR ANOTHER CRASH? DR. PIERRE RINFRET, ELIOT JANEWAY, JOHN BUNTING, DR. CAROLYN BELL, MARSHALL LOEB, ROBERT LEKACHMAN 25502 09/29/74 PART I: WOMEN ALONE - DIVORCES AND WIDOWS PAT LOUD, RENE CARPENTER, LYNN CAINE, MERLE SHAIN 25501 09/29/74 PART II: THE MAD ADVENTURES OF RABBI KORFF RABBI BARUCH KORFF 25501 10/06/74 CAN OUR CITIES BE SAVED? MAYORS KEVIN WHITE, JOSEPH ALIOTO, MOON LANDRIEU, RICHARD HATCHER, ABE BEAME 25503 10/13/74 A CONVERSATION WITH BILL MOYERS BILL MOYERS 25504 11/17/74 FACING DEATH: A YOUNG MAN WHO HAS SIX MONTHS TO LIVE LARRY & MARION BOHNE, ROBERT NEALE, SAMUEL KLAGSBURN 25513 12/22/74 PART I: THE IRREPRESSIBLE REX REED REX REED 25514 12/22/74 PART II: THE SECRET WORLD OF PLANTS RANDALL FONTES, RICHARD CHAMPION, RALPH SNODSMITH, PROFESSOR ARTHUR GALSTON, PETER TOMPKINS 25514 12/29/74 PART I: THE LAST OF THE MOVIE MOGULS: JOSEPG E. LEVINE JOSEPH E. LEVINE 25515 12/29 74 PART II: THE MEANEST CRITIC IN AMERICA: JOHN SIMON JOHN SIMON 25515 01/05/75 PART I: TO SLEEP, PER CHANCE TO DREAM - ALL ABOUT INSOMNIA DR. RICHARD BOOTZIN, JUNE FREBERGE, ABRAHAM WEINBERG, RICHARD KAGAN, DR. PETER HAURI 25516 01/05/75 PART II: GROWING OLD IN AMERICA MAE LAUFER, MOLLY POLLAK, JULIA AVERY, MARY KEALTY, SARA RICKARD, CHRISTINE TARATETA 25516 01/12/74 SIX JUDGES DEBATE CRIME AND PUNISHMENT ALPHONSO SEPE, BRUCE WRIGHT, NICHOLAS TSOUCALAS, ALFRED BURKA, CHARLES HALLECK, BURTON ROBERTS 25518 01/26/75 PART II: EXPERTS LOUIS LEVINE, JAMES FUCHS 25520 02/02/75 PART I: TEEN-AGE CRIMINALS TELL ALL 25517 02/02/75 PART II: EXPERTS DISCUSS TEENAGE CRIMINALS DR. ESTHER ROTHMAN, ASSEMBLYMAN ALFRED DELLIBOVI, DETECTIVE IRWIN SILVERMAN, CHARLES KING 25517 02/23/75 PART I: THE MYSTERY OF THE BERMUDA TRIANGLE JOHN WALLACE SPENCER, CLAES ROOTH, DON HENRY, DAMIAN HOUSMAN, CHARLES BERLITZ 25519 03/02/75 IS PSYCHIATRY DEAD - 6 PSYCHIATRISTS IN HEATED DEBATE DR. NATHAN S. KLINE, DR. SAUL TUTTMAN, DR. E.FULLER TORREY, DR. THEODORE LIDZ, DR. RICHARD M.RESTAK, DR. RAYMOND VEEDER 25526 03/23/75 PART II: JOSEPH BURTON - FORMER SPY FOR THE FBI 25531 03/30/75 PART I: GOD AND THE REVEREND COFFIN AT YALE WILLIAM SLOANE COFFIN JR. 25529 03/30/75 PART II: DAVID KLEIN - A CONSUMER WHO FIGHTS BACK PROFESSOR DAVID KLEIN 25529 04/27/75 HOW TO FIND A "GOOD" NURSING HOME - PART I: ELDERLY PEOPLE HAPPY IN THEIR HOMES ANNETTE RUEFF, LORETTA GERARD, DR. RICHARD BLACK, TILLIE LEVY, LENA ROUDA, ANNA WEISS 25533 10/05/75 DIVORCED MEN WHO WON CUSTODY OF THEIR CHILDREN JERRY RENKE, RICHARD DAVAMOS, BILL BELICKIS, THOMAS SCHENDORF, DR. PAUL HANSON, ALFRED PASCARELLA 25541 10/12/75 ARE EUROPEAN WOMEN DIFFERENT MRS. OSCAR DE LA RENTA, DIANE VON FURSTENBERG, ADELA HOLZER, MAXIME DE LA FALAISE MCKENDRY 25542 11/09/75 TRAMPS & THIEVES? GYPSIES STRIKE BACK PART 1: MICHAEL JOSEPH, BARBARA GILK, MANUEL GILK, DINAH GILK, GEORGE GILK, MARY YOFON, DAVID GILK, PAT YOFON 26710 11/09/75 TRAMPS & THIEVES? GYPSIES STRIKE BACK PART II: STEVE, JOHN COSTELLO, GEORGE, NICK 26710 11/23/75 PART II: ADDICTED DOCTORS - THE BEST KEPT SECRET IN MEDICINE 26705 01/04/76 PART I: THE BRILLIANT ANTHONY BURGESS 26714 01/04/76 PART II: OLDER WOMEN WITH YOUNGER MEN NICK & BEA UNGARD, RANDY MUDGETT, MYRTIS COLLINS 26714 01/11/76 "OH, YOUR ACHING BACK": HOW TO PREVENT AND CURE BACK PAIN ROBERT HIGGINS, YVONNE LAPPAS, DR. MERVIN RHOADES, DR. LYMAN SMITH, DR. LEON ROOT, DR. HANS KRAUS, DR. ALBERT KINKELSTYNE, DR. KEITH MACELROY 26715 02/15/76 PART I: LOAN SHARKS REVEAL THEIR DIRTY BUSINESS JACK, SAL 26717 03/14/76 PART I: WHY THE RICH GET A KICK FROM COCAINE JOHN CUSACK, DR. ROBERT DUPONT, RICHARD ASHLEY, RICHARD WOODLEY 26724 03/14/76 PART II: A CONVERSATION WITH JONATHAN KOZOL 26724 03/21/76 THE EST WAY TO HAPPINESS AND SUCCESS EST GRADUATES 26728 04/04/76 ADOPTEES WHO FOUND THEIR MOTHERS ELEANOR KAY, CRYSTAL HOLJES, ELLEN TURNER, FRAN BLANKENSTEIN, HOLLY CABOT, YODY WORCESTER, KATRINA MAXTONE-GRAHAM, CHARLES LEVENSHON, MRS. ZORAH BUCHTMAN, LINDA TRAUM 26730 04/11/76 INFIT DOCTORS, UNNECESSARY SURGERY - THE MEDICAL CRISIS DR. WILLIAM NOLEN, DR. MAX PARROTT, DR. WILLIAM STAHL, DR. MARVIN BELSKY, DR. MICHAEL HALBERSTAM 26727 04/18/76 RAPE, ROBBERY AND ASSAULT IN OUR SCHOOLS IRVING WITKIN, LINDA SADUR, WILLIAM BELL, GAIL RAE HORN, JOSEPH SHERMAN, BRUCE CARR 26733 04/18/76 PART II: POLISH-AMERICANS STANLEY KOKOSKA, TED MALISZEWSKI, EUGENE KUSIELEWICZ, MAGDA RATASKI 26733 04/25/76 WIFE BEATING - 6 BATTERED WOMEN PAM, DIANE, RUTH, CAREY, CINDY, SALLY, KATY 26731 05/02/76 PART II: ADLAI STEVENSON REMEMBERED - JOHN BARTLOW MARTIN 26734 05/16/76 PART I: "STRAIGHT LIB" STRIKES BACK RICHARD, PETER, RITA, JOAN, BOB 26734 05/16/76 PART II: CAMPUS QUEENS KAREN DAVIS, JANE WERTZ, ANDREA FOXE, NANCY WHITE 26735 06/06/76 NEW BREAKTHROUGHS IN THE WAR AGAINST CANCER DR. JAMES HOLLAND, DR.JORDAN GUTTERMAN, DR. NORMAN JAFFE, DR. DONALD MORTON, DR. VINCENT DEVITA JR. 26740 09/26/76 PART II: WHITHER THE WEATHER: THE ALARMING CHANGES IN OUR CLIMATE LOWELL PONTE, DR.STEPHEN SCHNEIDER, DR.REID BRYSON 27802 10/10/76 ARE WE WINNING THE WAR AGAINST HEART ATTACKS? DR.MICHAEL DEBAKEY, DR.ISADORE ROSENFELD 27804 10/17/76 FAMILIES IN TROUBLE: CONFRONTATIONS BETWEEN PARENTS AND CHILDREN JOE GOULD, EDWARD LEGG 27806 10/24/76 THE MAFIA-CIA CONNECTION WITH NORMAN MAILER, ROBERT SAM ANSON, NICHOLAS GAGE, HARRY ROSITZKE 27807 10/31/76 SUPER SLEUTHS: PRIVATE EYES REVEAL THEIR SECRETS FRED OTASH, JERRY MCAWARD, MIKE PASCAL, FRED RAYNE, DAVID FREENBERG, IRWIN BLYE 27809 11/14/76 PART I: HELL NO! WE DIDN'T VOTE FOR PRESIDENT HOWARD SINGER, MARY PRITZ, WILLARD ESPY, LARRY SHERMAN, ANN WEBSTER, MARVEL, WILLIAM SLATTERY 27808 11/14/76 PART II: CONVERSATION WITH A 100 YEAR OLD MAN MR. AND MRS RODNEY JONES 27808 12/05/76 PART I: PEPSI COLA AND SOYA BEANS - DOING BUSINESS WITH THE RUSSIANS DWAYNE ANDREAS, DONALD KENDALL 27812 12/05/76 PART II: AMERICANS WHO'VE LIVED IN RUSSIA LEONA & JERROLD SCHECTER, ALAN ZEITHAMER, WILLIAM DYESS 27812 12/12/76 PART I: THIS SHOW COULD SAVE YOUR LIFE - HOW TO RESCUE A HEART ATTACK VICTIM DR.JOSPEH ORNATO, FRED HEWITT, GERARD CASE, EDWARD FRIEDMAN 27805 12/12/76 PART II: ARE WE CHANGING OUR DRINKING HABITS? JAMES VILLAS, MARK KELLER, PATRICK CAMPBELL, MARVIN SHANKEN, CHARLES BURCK, KIRKE WALSH 27805 01/30/77 "IS IT TRUE WHAT THEY SAY ABOUT DIXIE?" TOM WICKER, SHELDON HACKNEY, A.J.COOPER, WILLIAM EMERSON, BRANDT AYERS, BETTY TALMADGE, BARRY BINGHAM 27820 02/06/77 THE TRUTH ABOUT SPORTS - FUNNY, GLAMOROUS AND SEEDY RED SMITH, DAN JENKINS, DICK SCHAPP, MORRIE SIEGEL, DAVE ANDERSON, PETE AXTHELM 27821 02/13/77 NEVER AGAIN - TEH BITTER LEGACY OF VIETNAM WILLIAM COLBY, DAVID HALBERSTAM, GLORIA EMERSON 27823 02/20/77 PART I: THE BARE FACTS ABOUT BALDNESS JERRY DELLA FEMINA, KENNETH BATTELLE, ROBERT TEMLIAK, ELLIOT NONAS, DENIS LAMARSH, DR.JAY BARNETT 27824 02/20/77 PART II: GET THE COCKROACHES OUT OF YOUR HOME ALICE GRAY, NORMAN COOPER, RICHARD ELDREDGE, NORMAN GOLDENBERG 27824 03/06/77 PART I: SINGLES IN THE SUBURBS LINDA NARD, JEFF BEAL, SARA HUDSON, KELLY EMMONS, ED ZEIDNER, JACQUE DEJOHN, GENE MIKOLS, KITTY GREENSETIN 27827 03/06/77 PART II: REGGAE MUSIC TIMOTHY WHITE, MICHAEL COOPER, STEPHEN COORE, PERRY HENZELL, BARBARA GLOUDEN, MAX ROMEO, BRETT ALEXANDER 27827 03/13/77 PART I: CONVERSATION WITH A PIMP TOM 27829 03/20/77 HOW TO GET RID OF YOUR HEADACHES A.PATIENTS - JOELLA CRAMBLIT, BEN SMITH, JAMES ANDERSON, SHERRY HUBER B.EXPERTS - DR.DAVID CODDON, DR.SEYMOUR DIAMOND, DR.CHARLES DEMIRJIAN, DR.WALTER CASKEY 27825 03/27/77 GORE VIDAL UNCENSORED 27832 04/03/77 TEENAGE MUGGERS CONFESS A.MUGGERS: JOHN,BILL,MIKE,PETER SAVAGE,MICHELLE,TOM,GENE B.BLACK KIDS WHO'VE MADE IT: CARLOS GRIFFITH, VERNICE MILLER, GEORGE O'NEAL LYONS, VIETTA JOHNSON, ROBERT HARPER 27830 05/01/77 PART I: HOW CHILDREN FEEL ABOUT THEMSELVES AND THE WORLD AROUND THEM KARA ZAITZ, JEREMIAH & JOSHUA COHEN, CLAUDE BROOKS, AISSIA RICHARDSON, MATTHEW NEWTON, ORIANA ZILL, POLLY ERICKSEN, PETER BURRIS, ADAM MICHAELS 27835 05/01/77 PART II: EXPERTS ON CHILD BEHAVIOR DR.LEE SALK, DR.NICHOLAS ZILL, PEGGY CHARREN 27835 05/08/77 PART I: WE'VE COME A LONG WAY: WOMEN MOVIE MAKERS NANCY DOWD, BARBARA KOPPLE, ELEANOR PERRY, JOAN MICKLIN, SILVER 27836 05/15/77 PART I: WHERE THE BEAUTIFUL PEOPLE EAT PEARL WONG, ARMANDO ORSINI, PAUL KOVI, SHELDON TANNEN, WALLY GANZI, WARNER LEROY 27838 05/15/77 PART II: ARE WE A NATION OF JUNK FOOD JUNKIES? JOHN HESS, MIMI SHERATON, MARVIN HEAPS, DAVID SISK, WEXLER, CALVIN TRILLIN 27838 05/22/77 YOU CAN SURVIVE A PLANE CRASH - HERE'S HOW A.SURVIVORS: ALAN BRESLAU, JANET MACAA, DICK SMITH, SARAH UZZELL B.EXPERTS: JAMES O.ROBINSON, HARRY ROBERTSON, CAPT.RAY GERBER, CAPT.J.D.SMITH, RICHARD WITKIN, CHARLES O. MILLER, NORMAN COUSINS 27837 05/29/77 THE BIG BOOM ON BROADWAY ALEXANDER COHEN, DAVID MAMET, ZELDA FICHANDLER, HAROLD PRONCE, ANTHONY PERKINS, CLIVE BARNES 27840 06/05/77 WE STILL LIKE NIXON: THREE DIEHARDS BRUCE HERSCHENSOHN, HENRY CASHEN, ARAM BAKSHIAN 27841 07/10/77 PART I: THE CATS MEOW - SEVEN FELINES AND THEIR OWNERS JOAN BREARLEY, DR.ALFRED GROSSMAN, BILL WIELER, JUDY FIREMAN, LINDA WORTHINGTON 27815 07/10/77 PART II: DR.HERBERT BENSON AND "THE RELAXATION RESPONSE" 27815 08/28/77 PART I: MISTRESSES ANONYMOUS BARBARA CONDOS, MELISSA SANDS 27842 08/28/77 PART II: HITLERMANIA: OUR FASCINATION WITH THE NAZIS DR.ROBERT JAU LIFTON, ROBERT G.L.WAITE, DR.LOUIS SNYDER, JOHN TOLAND, DR.WILLIAM SHERIDAN ALLEN, DR.HENRY TURNER, TIM MASON 27842 03/16/77 RELIGOUS CONVERTS 27831 09/18/77 PART I: SHAPE UP AMERICA - THE PHYSOCAL FITNESS EXPLOSION DR.HERMAN HELLERSTEIN, DR.NORBERT SANDER, KATHERINE SWITZER, DR.PAUL MILVY 27843 09/18/77 PART II: CONFESSIONS OF THREE WHITE COLLAR CRIMINALS JOE BRISBOIS, JACKIE BUTNER, BILL SCHONOWSKI 27843 09/25/77 WE'RE MAD AS HELL - SECRETARIES STRIKE BACK PAT FITZGERALD, JUDITH RINK, RENEE LORD, TESSA GEORGE, MARGIE ALBERT, JUDI FREEMAN 27839 09/25/77 FORMER SECRETARIES CHARLOTTE JONES, PAULA HUGHES 27839 10/02/77 WHO WAS LEE HARVEY OSWALD? JACK ANDERSON, ROBERT SAM ANSON, DAVID PHILLIPS, ROBERT GEMBERLING, JONES HARRIS, PETER DALE SCOTT 29201 10/16/77 PART II: TODAY'S WORLD OF ROCK DAVE MARSH, JOHN ROCKWELL, DEE ANTHONY, JOHNNY WINTER, GEORGE FRAYNE 29202 10/23/77 PART I: HYPNOSIS CURES: DOCTORS AND PATIENTS DEMONSTRATE DR.ERNEST ROCKEY, DR.BARBARA DEBETZ, DR.HERBERT SPIEGEL, DR.DAVID SPIEGEL, DR.JEFFREY TARTE D.D.S., CHARLES SNYDER, MARJORIE STRIDER, ELYCE ENGLAND, HERBERT KLIEGERMAN, SANDRA BEHRMAN 29204 11/13/77 PART II: BETTING ON SPORTS - TOUTS AND TIPSTERS RICHARD BOMZE, GREG PELLINI, JULIUS GAFFNEY SCHANZER, JIM FEIST 29206 11/20/77 PART I: ALL ABOUT SEX THERAPY DR.HELEN SINGER KAPLAN M.D., DR.JOSEPH LOPICCOLO PH.D., DR.MAJ-BRITT ROSENBAUM M.D., DR. BENJAMIN SADOCK M.D., DR.VIRGINIA SADOCK M.D., ROBERT KOLODNY M.D. 29205 11/20/77 PART II: CHILDREN OF THE HOLOCAUST JUDY CUKIER, , JACOB FRUCHTMAN, ABRAHAM KRIEGER, CHAIM ZLOTOGORSKY, DIANA WYSHOGROD ZLOTOGORSKY 29205 12/04/77 PART I: IS THERE TOO MUCH SEX AND VIOLENCE ON TELEVISION? ALFRED R. SCHNEIDER, DR.FOY VALENTINE, JIM KARAYN, VAN GORDON SAUTER, DR.EVERETT C.PARKER 29208 12/04/77 PART II: THE NEW BREED OF IMMIGRANT - RICH AND GLAMOROUS JACLINE MAZAED, JOHN RICHARDSON, COUNTESS MARINA DE BRANTES, BARNEY GOODMAN, MARIAN SCHIANO 29208 12/11/77 PART I: "WHITES NEED NOT APPLY" - THE FIGHT OVER REVERSE DOSCRIMINATION ARNOLD FORSTER, PAUL J.ASCIOLLA, CONG.JOHN CONYERS, JOSEPH L. RAUH 29209 12/18/77 "DOES THE BIRTH CONTROL PILL KILL?" DR. NATALEE GREENFIELD, JAMES LUGGEN, HEIDI EVANS, ILA COOPER, BARBARA SEAMAN, HOWARD SHAPIRO M.D., EDWIN ORITZ M.D., BEN-ZION TABER M.D., MELVIN TAYMOR M.D. 29213 12/25/77 OUR HOUSES ARE HAUNTED - SPIRITS, PHANTOMS AND TRUE GHOST STORIES JAY ANSON, ARNOLD COOPER, FRED MOORE, BETTY MOORE, DR. JOHN FRANK, SUSAN C. GIGLIO, EDWARD WARREN, LORRAINE WARREN, FATHER ALPHONSUS TRABOLD, DR. ALEX THOMAS 29217 01/08/78 PART II: HOW TO SAVE YOUR TEETH FRANK BOWYER D.D.S., JERRY LYNN D.D.S., DAVID SCOTT D.D.S., STANLEY BEHRMAN D.S.S. 29214 01/15/78 PART I: RUSSIAN SPIES ARE EVERYWHERE - THE TRUTH ABOUT THE KGB JOHN BARRON, JACK FISHMAN, LEW NAVROZOV, HARRY ROSITZKE 29215 01/15/78 PART II: WEST POINT GOES CO ED JOAN ZECH, DIANE HAASE, KATHY ANN WILDEY 29215 01/22/78 PART I: FEELING DEPRESSED? - HOW TO OVERCOME IT MYRNA WEISSMAN, PH.D., HELEN DEROISS, M.D., RONALD FIEVE, M.D., AARON BECK, M.D., PATIENTS: HILDA ROBBINS, RAYMOND GUMBRECHT, NANCY SMITH, MICHAEL BAVAR 29221 01/22/78 PART II: SECOND LADY AT THE WHITE HOUSE - PREDIDENTIAL ASSISTANT MIDGE COSTANZA MIDGE COSTANZA 29221 01/29/78 HOUSE HUSBANDS, LONG DISTANCE MARRIAGE, AND OTHER LOVING COUPLES BURT WOLF, LINDA HOWARD, TUCKER CLARK, JAMES AND LINDA FOX, LANA SKIRBALL, ANTHONY COLLIS 29219 01/29/78 PART II: DR. ROBERT LIBBY, DR. ROBERT RYDER, NENA O'NEILL 29219 02/05/78 THE FUNNIEST WOMEN AROUND - ANNE MEARA, JANE CURTIN, MARILYN SOKOL AND OTHERS COMEDIANS: ANNE MEARA, JANE CURTIN, ZORA RASMUSSEN, REBECCA REYNOLDS, NANCY PARKER, MARILYN SOKOL 29216 02/12/78 PART I: HOMOSEXUALS VS. COPS: A CONFRONTATION GAYS: DAVID ROTHENBERG, GREGORY NORRIS, ALAN BELL, JEREMY WEISS, NICK BOLLMAN COPS: JOHN TOBACCO, IGNATIUS SCLAFANI, FRANK ODESSA, STEVEN BERVINE, JOHN CODIGLIA 29222 02/12/78 PART II: THE HORROR OF MEXICAN PRISONS PRISONERS: DWIGHT WORKER, DAVID SEIGLINGER, DAVID ALSOP, CONGRESSMAN FORTNEY STARK, ROBERT HENNEMEYER 29222 02/19/78 PART I: YOUR SMOKE GETS IN MY EYES - THE BATTLE OVER SMOKING JACOB J. MEYER, CHARLES MORGAN JR. RHODA NICHTER, WILLIAM DWYER, PETER GEORGIADES, ETHEL GOLDBERG 29218 02/19/78 PART II: A CONVERSATION WITH LEO ROSTEN 29218 02/26/78 PART I: OUR WIVES BEAT US UP - CONFESSIONS OF THREE BATTERED HUSBANDS VICTIMS: MICHAEL FRENCH, JOHN, BOB EXPERTS: ROGER LANGLEY, PAULETTE OWENS, JAMES WALSH 29224 02/26/78 PART II: BOBBY HALPERN - A REAL LIFE ROCKY BOBBY HALPERN, CHARLIE CASERTA 29224 03/19/78 MORRIS UDALL - THE MAN WHO SHOULD BE PRESIDENT CONGRESSMAN MORRIS UDALL 29225 03/26/78 PART I: SHOW BIZ KIDS AND STAGE MOTHERS CHILDREN: SUZANNE FIERO, DAWN WALKER, DAVID REED, MONICA WOLFF, TINA FOX, WAYNE HARDING, GLYNIS BIG, JUSTIN FRIEMAN, MISSY HOPE PARENTS: ANINA REED, LOIS FREIMAN, BETTE FOX, CAROL FIERO, KAY BIG 29228 03/26/78 PART II: CHARLES TEMPLETON CHARLES TEMPLETON 29228 08/06/78 YOU CAN'T LOCK US UP - MENTAL PATIENTS ARE ROAMING THE STREETS 29229 08/20/78 YOUR COMPLETE MEDICAL EXAM - DR. ISADORE ROSENFELD 29239 08/27/78 PART I: WE WON'T PAY - TAXPAYERS IN REVOLT 29227 08/27/78 - PART II: TERRORISTS BEWARE: PROFESSIONAL PROTECTORS 29227 09/24/78 PART I: BABIES FOR SALE - THE BLACK MARKET IN CHILDREN DAVID LEAVITT, BEATTY LIPMAN, LINDA, CONGRESSMAN HENRY HYDE, NANCY BAKER, ROBERT BURNS, JUNE MATZ 29243 10/01/78 JOHN J. O'CONNOR 30703 10/01/78 PART II: TURNING OFF THE TUBE - LIFE WITHOUT TELEVISION A. CHILDREN: FRED IFRAH, DAWN KAYNO, DEREK LIPPNER, CHRISSY MAGLIOCCO, LEAH PIKE, DAVID STEINGLASS B. PARENTS AND TEACHERS: JOYCE SUSSKIND, NANCY PIKE, BARBARA GOLDFARB, PAT MAGLIOCCO, JUDITY ROHN, TANYA KAUFMAN 30703 10/08/78 PART I: FED UP WITH THE SEXUAL REVOLUTION - SIX ASEXUALS GAIL RACHLIN, BILL PRIEST, DANIELLA GIOSEFFI, RICHARD MILNER, MARIAN TESSA, GARY NULL 29240 10/08/78 PART II: HOW TO COPE WITH LONELINESS ERICA ABEEL, DR. JAMES LYNCH, BRUCE JAY FRIEDMAN, TERRI SCHULTZ, MARK KLINGMAN 29240 10/22/78 PART I: WE'RE MAD AS HELL - THE RADIO CALL IN RAGE JERRY WILLIAMS, ED SCHWATRZ, IRV HOMER, HERB JEPKO, BERNARD MELTZER 30702 10/22/78 PART II: THINK RICH - BE RICH JERRY GILLIS, H. STANLEY JUDD, IAN ANDERSON 30702 10/29/78 PART I: CAN CARTER CUT IT IN 1980 HENRY GRUNWALD, NICHOLAS VON HOFFMAN, JERALD TER HORST, WILLIAM RUSHER 30706 10/29/78 PART II: PSYCHICS WHO SOLVE CRIME DOROTHY ALLISON, BEVERLY JAEGERS, DAVID HOY, MIKE CASALE, SAL LUBERTAZZI 30706 11/05/78 PART II: "THE DOOMSDAY TAPES" BARDYL TIRANA, HERBERT SCOVILLE, LEONARD REIFEL, LEON GOURE 30709 11/12/78 THEY'RE STILL THE FUNNIEST MEN AROUND - VETERAN COMICS MAC ROBBINS, JIMMY JOYCE, LARRY BEST, MICKEY FREEMAN, JOEY FAYE, LOU MENCHELL 29241 11/19/78 PART I: DRESS FOR SUCCESS - LOOK LIKE A MILLION, MAKE A MILLION JOHN WEITZ, JOHN T.MOLLOY, EMILY CHO, WILLIAM THOURLBY, ROBERT L. GREEN 30710 11/19/78 PART II: SUPER SALESMEN JOE GIRARD, LOIS BECKER, TOM WOLF, BOB SHOOK 30710 11/26/78 PART I: STARTLING STORIES OF LIFE AFTER DEATH DR. MAURICE RAWLINGS, CHARLES MCKAIG, VIRGINIA FALCY, KENNETH RING, HELEN NELSON, DR. MICHAEL SABOM 30712 11/26/78 PART II: ANGRY CITIZENS VS. THE POST OFFICE JAMES FINCH, BOB GRANT, ROBERT MEYERS, JAMES LAPENTA, PAT BRENNAN 30712 12/03/78 PART I: SURGEON / SALESMAN BILL MACKAY 30714 12/03/78 PART II: LONELY, UNHAPPY & BROKE - DISPLACED HOMEMAKERS FLORENCE GRIFFIN, JACQUELINE BACHMAN, LESLIE WALD WALDHORN, SANDRA JACOBS, JANE LEE LITTLETON 30714 12/10/78 PART I: IF BETTY FORD COULD DO IT - ALL ABOUT FACE LIFTS RICHARD KIELING, LILLIAM FRASER, D. RALPH MILLARD, M.D., DIRIS LILLY, MICHAEL HOGAN, M.D. 30716 12/10/78 PART II: TO JOG OR NOT TO JOG DAVID BRODY, M.D., DAVID NOONAN, RICHARD A.SCHWARTZ, M.D., RICHARD RESTAK, M.D., PAUL FETSCHER 30716 12/17/78 WE WANT A BABY - NEW HOPE FOR INFERTILE COUPLES A. PATIENTS: SUSAN AND LEE WELLING, CAROL AND ERNST D'ANGELO, CATHY AND JOHN SCOTT B. EXPERTS: DR. WAYNE DECKER, DR. ALVIN GOLDFARB, DR. RICHARD SHERINS, BARBARA ECK MENNING, DR. LUIGI MASTROIANNI 30701 12/24/78 PART I: THE PAMPERED PET - FROM SHRINK TO MINK DR. PETER BORCHELT, DR. DANIEL TORTORA, DR. ALBERT LAMPASSO, MORDECAI SEGAL, LOIS LANDAUER, KAREN THOMPSON, GEORGE JEWEL 30715 12/24/78 PART II: MIND YOUR MANNERS - THE NEW ETIQUETTE LETITIA BALDRIGE, JUDITH MARTIN, MARJABELLE YOUNG STEWART 30715 01/24/79 PART I: THE DIET THAT CAN SAVE YOUR LIFE - PRO & CON A. PATIENTS: BILL UTALL, JULIE BREAKSTONE, FRED SILVER, DR. HARRY PARKER, JOE HUME B. EXPERTS: NATHAN PRITIKIN, DR. SAMI SASHIM, DR. ROBERT E. BAUER, DR. STEPHEN SCHEIDT 30704 01/14/79 PART II: A CONVERSATION WITH THE BRILLIANT PETER USTINOZ 30704 01/21/79 PART I: THE PRIEST WHO FIGHTS PIMPS FATHER BRUCE RITTER 30711 01/21/79 PART II: MAKING INFLATION WORK FOR YOU HARRY BROWNE, DAN DORFMAN 30711 01/28/79 PART II: ARE YOU REALLY IN LOVE? DR. DEBORA PHILLIPS, DR. CHARLIE SHEDD, DR. STANTON PEELE 30717 02/04/79 PART I: WE ARE BI-SEXUALS LARRY KANE, TONI TUCCI, DR. FRED KLEIN, "JULIA" "JOANNE" 30720 02/04/79 PART II: TREASURE HUNTERS MEL FISHER, EUGENE LYON, ART MCKEE 30720 02/11/79 INSIDE THE CULTS: THE TERRIFYING TRUTH FROM EX-MEMBERS PART I: EX-MEMBERS: SUSAN SMITH, CHRIS EDWARDS, MORRIS DEUTSCH, STEVE HASSAN, ANDREW STUBBS PART II - EXPERTS: FLO CONWAY, JIM SEIGELMAN, GALEN KELLY, DR. JON CLARK 30718 02/18/79 PART 1: MEN WHO ARE KEPT BY WOMEN: TRUE CONFESSIONS REAL, MICHEL, PAUL, LOU 30721 02/18/79 PART II: THE TRUTH ABOUT ASPIRIN DR. LOUIS ALEDORT, DR. THOMAS KANTOR, DR. DAVID CODON, PAUL E. SCHINDLER 30721 02/25/79 PART I: BEAUTIFUL WOMEN SHARE THEIR SECRETS (HOSTED BY JOYCE SUSSKIND) BEVERLY SASSOON, ADRIEN ARPEL, CRISTINA FERRARE 30722 02/25/79 PART II: WHEN YOUR PARENTS GROW OLD JOHN PERRY, RITA SIGLER, BARBARA FELDMAN, MARIE CARROL, JERRY ORNSTEIN 30722 03/11/79 PART I: WE CAN'T STOP DIETING - VICTIMS OF ANOREXIA STEVEN LEVENKRON, KAYIE, PATRICIA DE POL, ROBERTA, LISA WOLFF 30713 03/11/79 PART II: WHEN FEAR TAKES OVER - AGORAPHOBIA JEAN ESTERBROOK, JOEL GREEMBAUM, EILEEN WEBBER, MARIA WEBBER, DR. MANUEL ZANE 30713 03/18/79 PART II: IT'S NOT SO GREAT IN BRITAIN FRED HIFT, REX BERRY, ROBIN DUTHY, VALERIE WADE 30725 03/25/79 PART I: THINGS TO COME - LIFE IN THE YEAR 2000 ISAAC ASIMOV, FRANK KENDIG, DR. JERRY POURNELLE 30719 04/01/79 THE TELEVISION CRISIS MICHAEL DANN, PAUL KLEIN, GRANT TINKER, NORMAN LEAR, DAVID GERBER 30726 04/08/79 HOT GOSSIP ABOUT THE BEAUTIFUL PEOPLE RUDY MAXA, CLAUDIA COHEN, NEAL TRAVIS 30724 04/08/79 PITY THE HAPPY HOUSEWIFE JUDITH VIORST, MARY KUCZKIR, ANN TOLAND SERB, JOAN WESTER ANDERSON 30724 04/22/79 IS CARTER A CATASTROPHE? ELIOT JANEWAY, WILLIE L. BROWN, JR., ROBERT H. MALOTT, WILLLIAM W. WINPISINGER 30728 05/13/79 PART I: DEAR ANN LANDERS... ANN LANDERS 30727 05/13/79 PART II: THE CULTS ANSWER BACK GADDAHAR PANDIT DAS, RABINDRA SWAROOP DAS, DIANE KETTERING, ARTIE MAREN 30727 06/03/79 PART I: WATCH OUT! HOWARD JARVIS IS COMING HOWARD JARVIS, JOHN L. LOEB JR., JAMES FARMER, STEPHEN BERGER 30733 06/03/79 PART II: HOW TO SLASH YOUR FOOD BILLS IN HALF ARLENE STOLARSKI, PATTI UMLAND, MARY ANNE HAYES, SUSAN SAMTUR 30733 06/10/79 PART I: SHOULD YOU BUY A HOUSE NOW OR NEVER? DONALD I. HOVDE, BENNY KASS, WILLIAM WOLMAN, MICHAEL SUMICHRAST 30734 06/10/79 PART II: MALE SECRETARIES DONALD HARLEY, CHARLES W. BARKER, JOSEPH R. LICCARDO, ANTHONY ZATTI, KEITH M. WHITE 30734 06/17/79 PART I: HOW TO LIVE WITH CONSTANT PAIN PATIENTS: HERBERT A. DIAMOND, BARBARA B. WOLF, ROSALIE TERRAVECCHIA DOCTORS: DR. GERALD ARNOFF, DR. DONALD M. DOOLEY, DR. NELSON H. HENDLER, DR. HAROLD CARRON 30736 06/17/79 PART II: THE MAN WHO GIVES ADVICE TO ANN LANDERS DR. EUGENE KENNEDY 30736 07/01/79 PART I: OUT OF GAS - WHO'S TO BLAME? LESLIE J. GOLDMAN, JAMES F. FLUG, CHARLES KITTRELL, SENATOR HOWARD M. METZENBAUM 30738 07/01/79 PART II: THE FLYING WHITE HOUSE COLONEL RALPH ALBERTAZZIE 30738 10/07/79 DAVID SUSSKIND MEETS THE MARTIANS A. LYDIA STALNAKER, BRYCE BOND B. RUTH NORMAN, THOMAS MILLER 30729 10/14/79 PART I: ORGANIZED CRIME: THE BIGGEST BUSINESS IN AMERICA HANK M. MESSICK, RICHARD E. JAFFE, RALPH F. SALERNO, JACK KEY, THOMAS RENNER 32101 10/14/79 PART II: BATTLE OVER BLACK ENGLISH MICHAEL MEYERS, DR. GENEVA SMITERMAN, DR. ELAINE LEWNAU, ETTA LADSOM 32101 10/28/79 THE KENNEDY - CARTER SHOWDOWN ALLARD K. LOWENSTEIN, ARTHUR SCHLESINGER JR., STUART EIZENSTST, GERALD M. RAFSHOON 32109 11/11/79 PART II: IS STRESS KILLING YOU? JOHN J. PARRINO PH.D, KENNETH GREENSPAN, M.D. 32107 11/18/79 SUPER SALESWOMEN DOT COOK, ANDREA BERRITY, LINDA SCHMITT, SHIRLEY HUTTON 30731 11/25/79 PART I: RICH AND FEMALE - WOMEN WHO MAKE MILLIONS MURIEL SIEBERT, MARY ANN HALMI, EVA HORTON, DAISY TALLARICO, JOAN LEVINE 30737 11/25/79 PART II: GOTHIC WRITERS ROBERTA ANDERSON & MARY KUCZKIR (FERN MICHAELS), JANET DAILY, PATRICIA MATTHEWS 30737 12/02/79 PART I: BREAKING UP IS HARD TO TAKE - CHILDREN OF DIVORCE DON, CAREN, LIZ, GILLIAN,LISA 32102 12/02/79 PART II: THE WICKED TRUTH ABOUT STEP PARENTS WILLIAM NOBLE, SUZY KALTER, MARCIA WYRTZEN, JEANETTE LOFAS, BOB MARTIN 32102 12/09/79 PART I: LIARS BEWARE - THE LATEST IN LIE DETECTION CHRIS GUGAS 32108 12/09/79 PART II: THE RED BERETS - TEENAGE VIGILANTES CURTIS SLIWA, DINO REYES, KATO, JEFF MONROE, JERRY MONROE ET. AL 32108 12/16/79 PART I: HOW TO TEST YOUR DOG'S IG AND PERSONALITY MATTHEW MARGOLIS 32115 12/16/79 PART II: DAZZLING WOMEN FROM ABROAD LIVIA SLYVA WEINTRAUB, JACLINE MAZARD (JEAN MAHIE) REGINE, GEORGETTE KLINGER, PRINCESS SUMAIR 32115 12/23/79 HOW TO PROSPER DURING THE COMING BAD YEARS HOWARD RUFF 32114 12/23/79 PART II: CHINA TODAY - A CONVERSATION WITH HAN SUYIN HAN SUYIN 32114, 23121 01/06/80 ARE YOUR TEENAGERS DRIVING YOU CRAZY? HELP IS HERE! DR.THOMAS J. COTTLE, ELIZABETH ROBERTS, DR. DAVID ELKIND, EDITH B. PHELPS, ELIOT DALEY 32110 01/13/80 PART I: SHORT PEOPLE HAVE FEELINGS TOO! PAMELA BROWN, MIKE PARADINE, BILL GILE, NANCY HENKEL, IRWIN HASEN 32111 01/13/80 PART II: LAUGHTER IS THE BEST MEDICINE NORMAN COUSINS 32111 01/27/80 A MEDIUM WHO TALKS TO THE DEAD - DORIS STOKES DORIS STOKES 32103 02/10/80 WHAT'S NEW WITH JACKIE, SINATRA, STREISAND, BEATTY, MINNELLI AND REYNOLDS, TOO LIZ SMITH, CHICAGO TRIBUNE - NEW YORK DAILY NEWS: TAKI THEODORACOPULOS, ESQUIRE: DAVID SHEEHAN, DIANA MCLELLAN, "THE EAR", IN THE WASHINGTON STAR 32119 02/17/80 09/21/80 12/13/81 PART I: LIFE AT 5THE TOP - WIVES OF FAMOUS MEN JOYCE DAVIDSON SUSSKIND, NANCY MEHTA, MARILYN FUNT, NORRIS CHURCH 32113 02/24/80 09/14/80 PART II: GARBAGE OF THE STARS A.J. WEBERMAN, GARBOLOGIST 32118 03/02/80 07/27/80 PART I: WE'RE HIGH ON BEING TALL GEORGE ANDREWS - 6'6", JUDY VOGEL - 6', CECILIA GARDNER - 6'1", KERRY KEANE - 6'6", TERRY LEE - 5'11", ALICE WHITE - 6' 32121 03/02/80 PART II: SIZING UP THE NEWSCASTERS PHILIP MCHUGH 32121 03/23/80 08/03/80 PART I: THE DATING SERVICE FOR WINNER THE GODMOTHER: ABBY HIRSCH CLIENTS: BARBARA WRENN, DOUGLAS RIPPETO, MITCHEL MITCHEL, BABETTE GLADSTEIN 32126 03/23/80 08/03/80 PART II: THE GIRL WHO HAD EVERYTHING - DORIAN LEIGH DORIAN LEIGH 32126 04/06/80 PART II: THE NATIONAL LAMPOON P.J. O'ROURKE, GERALD SUSSMAN, TOD CARROLL, JOHN HUGHES 32122 04/20/80 PART I: APOCALYPSE SOON: A CONVERSATION WITH WILLIAM SIMON WILLIAM SIMON, FORMER TREASURY SECRETARY 32127 04/20/80 PART II: BEWARE OF PICKPOCKETS CARL LEWIS, DETECTIVE ROBERT MAGONE 32127 04/27/80 01/31/82 PART I: THE SHAME OF OUR HOSPITALS - FIVE ANGRY NURSES CAROL, REBECCA, ELEANOR, RUTH AND HELEN 32129 04/27/80 01/31/82 PART II: DR. WILLIAM NOLEN WILLIAM A. NOLEN, M.D. 32129 05/11/80 PART II: SOUTHERN JOURNALISTS TALK ABOUT JIMMY CARTER AND OTHER GOOL OLE BOYS LARRY KING AUTHOR: OF OUTLAWS, CON MEN, WHORES, POLITICIANS AND OTHER ARTIST'S. MARSHALL FRADY, AUTHOR: SOUTHERNERS. ROT BLLUNT JR., AUTHOR: CRACKERS 32132 05/25/80 PART II: THE LAST OF THE COWBOYS - 5 TRUCKERS RUSSELL "CAPTAIN ZIG ZAG" PATE, GEORGE "WILDMAN" RALES, ED "SKY PILOT" WINTERSTEEN, MIKE "DOUBLE R" CRAKER, JAMES "BUCKY" BUCKOWSKI 32134 06/01/80 PART I: BEAT INFLATION WITH DIAMONDS, ART, STAMPS AND COINS NICOLA BULGARI, RICHARD L. FEIGEN, RAYMOND WEIL AND HARVEY STACK 32128 06/01/80 PART II: HOLLYWOOD PRODUCER - JENNINGS LANG JENNINGS LANG 32128 06/08/80 PART I: INFLATION IS KILLING US! 5 ANGRY VICTIMS NITA DENNIS, JOE CURLEY, JOSPEH MULHOLLAND, ANNE AND GEORGE ANDREWS 32133 06/08/80 PART II: MIND OVER BODY - A DEMONSTRATION OF THE MARTIAL ARTS LINDA LUTES AND NELSON HOWE 32133 06/15/80 PART I: UPDATE ON MEDICAL BREAKTHROUGHS - DR. ISADORE ROSENFELD ISADORE ROSENFELD M.D. 32140 06/15/80 PART II: A CONVERSATION WITH CORINNA MARSH CORINNA MARSH 32140 06/22/80 WHY ARE THE BULLS RUNNING ON WALL STREET JOSEPH GRANVILLE, BURTON MALKIEL, DAVID DREMAN, RAYMOND DEVOE, JOHN NEFF 32142 06/29/80 PART II: THE TWO PAYCHECK MARRIAGE JUDY HUNT, CHARLES MITCHELL, MEG WHITCOMB, JEANNE CANTEEN, PRATT 32141 10/12/80 A DESPERATE TIME - WILLIAM SIMON ON THE STATE OF THE UNION FORMER TREASURE SECRETARY, WILLIAM E. SIMON 33605 10/19/80 A CONVERSATION WITH HAL GULLIVER HAROLD GULLIVER, EDITOR, ATLANTA CONSTITUTION 33606 11/02/80 - 07/05/81 PART I: BIG, BEAUTIFUL WOMEN - NO SIN TO BE A SIZE 18 MADALINE SPARKS, ILVIRA TORTORA, BARBARA BETZA, STELL REICHMAN, LILLIAM NILSON 33602 11/02/80 - 07/05/81 PART II: IS THIN STILL IN? SUZIE BERTIN, JILL DIRKS, JOHNA JOHNSON, BARBARA PEARLMAN 33602 11/09/80 - 10/04/81 PART I: MEET AND MARRY THROUGH THE PERSONAL ADS JUDI MCMAHON, BILL JAMES, STEPHEN T. HEYMANN, STEPHANIE KAPILIAN, BOB EVANS 32139 11/09/80 - 10/04/81 PART II: NO KIDS FOR US PLEASE SNNE SEIFERT, WALTER CALLAHAN, BARBARA COFFEY, DOROTHY WILSON, IVAN MENDELSON 32139 11/16/80 - 07/12/81 PART I: LIFE AFTER DARK - NIGHT PEOPLE TELL ALL RICHARD WEXLER, CINDY CAPALDO, BLEECKER BOB PLOTNIK, ABLE ABEL, SAVARIO COSTANZA 33601 11/23/80 - 09/20/81 PART I: WOMEN RATE MEN: LOVERS AND LOSERS NAN ROBERTSON, SUSANNA HOFFMAN, CAROL BOTWIN 32136 11/30/80 PART I: THE JEANING OF AMERICA: MODELS, MOGULS AND MAKERS JOSEPH NAKASH (JORDACHE), PAUL GUEZ (SASSOON), WARREN HIRSH (GLORIA VANDERBILT) 33603 11/30/80 PART II: NOT FOR WOMEN ONLY - MEN'S COSMETICS TONY CARVETTE (GEORGETTE KLINGER), TOM DAY (CLINIQUE), JAN STUART (JAN STUART), CHIP TOLBERT (MENS FASHION ASSOCIATION), PAUL WILMOT (HALSTON) 33603 12/07/80 - 08/02/81 PART II: A CONVERSATION WITH MICHAEL THOMAS MICHAEL THOMAS, AUTHOR GREEN MONDAY 33609 12/14/80 - 07/18/81 PART I: ARE LAWYERS RUINING OUR LIVES? PHILIP M. STERN, GEOFFREY C. HAZARD, FRANK R. ROSINY, ALAN B. MORISON, JUDGE WILLIAM B. LAWLESS 33607 12/14/80 PART II: NORMAN DACEY, ROSEMARY FURMAN 33607 12/21/80 - 08/30/81 PART I: FEELING GOOD ALL UNDER - THE ELEGANT NEW LINGERIE REBECCA ASPAN, BELL TICE, ORA FEDER, DAVID STIFFLER, SAMI 33613 12/21/80 - 08/30/81 PART II: BEST FRIENDS AND BEST SELLERS CONSUELO BAEHR, SUSAN ISAACS, HILMA WOLITZER 33613 12/28/80 THE REMARKABLE JONATHAN SCHWARTZ - A SPECAL PERFORMANCE JONATHAN SCHWATRZ 33612 01/11/81 - 09/13/81 PART I: THE INCREDIBLE WORLD OF MOTHER TERESA JOYCE DAVIDSON SUSSKIND 33608 01/11/81 - 09/13/81 PART II: HOW TO SUCCEED? GO TO BUSINESS SCHOOL SUSAN THOMAS, JED DALY, ROBERT FRIEDMAN, JAY ESSEY. ELIZABETH CLOSTERMAN 33608 01/18/81 - 04/15/84 PART I: WATCH YOUR LANGUAGE JOHN SIMON, RICHARD MITCHELL, EDWIN NEWMAN 33611 01/18/81 PART II: WHERE THE BODIES ARE BURIED - WASHINGTON LOWDOWN DONALD LAMBRO, CHARLES PETERS, MICHAEL J. MALBIN, FRANK SILBEY 33611 01/25/81 PART II: HOW TO IMPROVE YOUR EATING HABITS RICHARD S. RIVLIN M.D., RICHARD PASSWATER, DR. ROBERT PALMER, JOSEPH RECHTSCHAFFEN M.D. 33616 02/08/81 - 08/23/81 PART I: TAKE THOSE INCHES OFF! SHAPE UP WITH EXCERCISE MARJORIE CRAIG, LYDIA BACH, CHARLES GAINES, MARUSCHKA 33614 02/08/81 - 08/23 81 PART II: THE ESTABLISHMENT LEONARD AND MARK SILK, STEPHEN BIRMINGHAM 33614 02/15/81 CELEBRITY WATCHING WITH LIZ SMITH, TAKI, JAMES BRADY AND JODY JACOBS 33620 02/22/81 HOW TO SURVIVE AND PROSPER IN THE 80'S HOWARD RUFF, DOUGLAS CASEY, JEROME SMITH, THOMAS HOLT 33621 03/01/81 - 08/09/81 PART 1: PRETTY BABIES - THE NEW TEEN AGE MODELS BETTINA, LORI LOUGHLIN, CATHLEEN ESS, FELICE SCHACHTER, LENA REID 33619 03/01/81 - 08/09/81 PART II: ARE YOUR CHILDREN BECOMING ADULTS TOO SOON? DR. AARON HASS, PATRICIA O'BRIEN, ARTHUR KORNHABER M.D., ADELE HOFFMAN, M.D. 33619 03/08/81 BIGOTRY RIDES AGAIN WILLIAM SLOANE COFFIN, ARNOLD FORSTER, WILLIAM A. FUSHER, CONGRESSMAN JOHN CONYERS, DR. M. MORAN WESTON 33622 03/15/81 THE BATTLE FOR SURVIVAL - THE AMERICAN AUTO INDUSTRY WENDELL H. MILLER, STEPHEN L. SCHLOSSBERG, TOM HANNA, JERRY FLINT, DAVID HEALY 33623 03/22/82 - 07/26/81 PART I: POURING OUT YOUR TROUBLES - BARTENDERS TELL ALL PADDY QUINN, CHARLIE SCHOENEMAN, RAY FOLEY, JOHN "SHIRTS" HUGHES, KITTY FITZKE 33615 03/22/81 - 07/26/81 PART II: TWINS WHO MARRIED TWINS BARBI GOLDENBERG, D.D.S., BRUCE GOLDENBERG, D.D.S., CHERYL GOLDENBERG, D.D.S., BARRY GOLDENBERG, D.D.S., 33615 03/29/81 - 09/27/81 THE MORAL MAJORITY ON THE WAR PATH DR. TIM LA HAYE, DR. DAN C. FORE, SENATOR FRANK CHURCH. DR. DANIEL C. MAQUIRE 33624 04/05/81 - 08/16/81 PART I: WOMEN AND SUCCESS - MAKING IT TO THE TOP JUDY MELLO, ANNE P. HYDE, SUSAN HOROWITZ, PAULA D. HUGHES, JO FOXWORTH 33625 04/05/81 - 08/16/81 - 05/06 84 PART II: THE TRUTH ABOUT SENILITY ROBERT N. BUTLER, M.D., DENNETH L. DAVIS, M.D., DR. PETER DAVIES, DR. ROSE ROBROF 33625 04/12/81 PART I: BANKS ON THE BRINK MURIEL SIEBERT, LEE GUNDERSON, H. ERICH HEINEMANN, WILLIAM E. DONOGHUE, DR. SAUL B. KLAYMAN 33626 04/12/81 - 05/20/84 PART II: DOCTORS WIVES CARLA FINE, LINDA SHIPLEY, LINDA SEDA, LORI TAYLOR 33626 04/26/81 THE AMERICAN MILITARY MACHINE: ARE WE READY FOR BATTLE? CONGRESSMAN JIM COURTER, BARRY R. POSEN, BRIGADIER GENERAL ALBION KNIGHT JR., EDWARD LUTTWALK, GENERAL VOLNEY F. WARNER 33628 05/10/81 FROM HOLLYWOOD TO BROADWAY - PART II: MCCANN AND NUGENT NELLE NUGENT AND ELIZABETH MCCANN 33631 05/18/81 PART I: HOMELESS AND HELPLESS - PEOPLE WHO LIVE ON THE STREETS ANN MARIE ROUSSEAU, WILLIAM KUEHNE, ANTON GALENOS, SELMA (MARIE) PRICE, SYD ROLFS, VERONICA (VIRGINIA) WILLIAMS, GENE PALMER 33632 05/17/81 PART II: SPORTS AMERICAN STYLE: BIG, BRUISING BUSINESS DICK SHAAP, PETER BONVENTRE, MIKE LUPICA, DAN JENKINS 33632 05/24/81 PART I: SURVIVALISTS: PREPARING FOR DOOMSDAY KURT SAXON, JOSEPH RUSTICK M.D., ROBERT FIRTH, GENE AND PEARL TARMAN 33633 05/24/81 PART II: DELAYED MOTHERHOOD - HAVING CHILDREN AT AGE 35 JULIE HOUSTON, LYNN POVICH, JACQULINE PESUT, LUISA LA VIOLA, DR. PEGGY EWING 33633 06/07/81 PART II: A VANISHING BREED - THE PROFESSIONAL VOLUNTEER VIVIAN HARRIS, MARY LINDSAY, JEAN DELAFIELD, ISABELLE STEVENSON, GLORIA W. MILLIKEN 33635 06/14/81 PART II: THE TRUTH ABOUT THE TONY AWARDS ALEXANDER H. COHEN, HILDY PARKS 33636 06/21/81 PART I: REPORT FROM THREE DOCTORS - THE LATEST IN MEDICINE ISADORE ROSENFELD, M.D., DR. JOHN H. LARAGH, DR. JOSEPH WILDER 33630 06/21/81 PART II: HOW TO SUE WITHOUT A LAWYER JOHN STRIKER, ANDREW SHAPIRO 33630 06/28/81 PART I: SHOW BUSINESS COUPLES RENEE TAYLOR, JOSEPH BOLOGNA, MERGE REDMOND, JACK WESTON 33634 06/28/81 PART II: WHO REMEMBERS CARTER - JOSEPH CALIFANO DOES, THAT'S WHO 33634 10/11/81 - 08/08/82 STARTING OVER AFTER DIVORCE: MIDDLE AGED SINGLES RICHARD SCHICKEL, ANNE PARK, MARTHA HUGHES, STEVEN BRALOVE, RITA MCDOWELL 33637 10/18/81 - 08/01/82 PART I: THE REAL CHORUS LINE: BROADWAY DANCERS DONNA DRAKE, BOB HEATH, MARYBETH KURDOCK, DAVID EVANS, RON SCHWINN, JOAN BELL, DEAN BADOLATE, MARY ANN NILES 33638 10/18/81 - 08/01/82 PART II: FACES IN THE CROWD - MOVIE EXTRAS ROZ BRAVERMAN, ANDREW MURPHY, BARRY WISEMAN, SHANNON SORIN, VELA CERES 33638 10/25/81 PART I: MAKING MARRIAGE WORK: MARRIAGE COUNSELORS LAURA SINGER, DR. ROBERT RYDER, DR. MEL KRANTZLER, DR. FREDERICK HUMPHREY 35451 10/25/81 PART II: DIVORCE MEDIATORS DR. JOHN M. HAYNES, LAWRENCE GAUGHAN, SAMUEL MARGUILES, VIRGINIA STAFFORD 35451 11/01/81 WHAT PLASTIC SURGERY CAN DO FOR YOU DR. RALPH MILLARD, DR. CHRISTOPHER WEATHERLEY-WHITE, DR. BRUCE CONNELL, DR. MICHAEL HOGAN 35452 11/08/81 - 07/18/82 PART II: THE MYSTERY OF SLEEP DR. RICHARD BOOTZIN, DR. QUENTIN REGESTEIN, DR. ELLIOT WEITZMAN 35453 11/15/81 PART I: MOTHERS WITHOUT CUSTODY ELLEN KIMBALL, "JACKIE", BARBARA 35455 11/15/81 PART II: CAMPUS CONSERVATIVES KEENEY JONES, JOHN GOODWIN, BENNETT COOPER, TERRY QUIST 35455 11/22/81 PART I: A TALK WITH FATHER THEODORE HESBURGH 34556 11/29/81 - 07/04/82 PART I: THE SWINGERS PARADISE OF CLUB MED ROD FRANKEL, DOREEN WOODRUM, SUSAN FRAYTUS, RICKY DETRES, BOB LEIGHTON, CLAUDE KEBBE 35454 11/29/81 - 07/04/82 PART II: RETURN TO THE NEST STEPHANIE GANGI, TOM RIPP, FRANK SCHIRALLI, SCOTT MARTONE, ANGELA DIVERGILIO 35454 12/20/81 - 06/27/82 PART I: DON'T GO NEAR THE WATER! ELEGANT NEW SWIMWEAR LIZA BRUCE, ANNE COLE, STANLEY REGENBOGAN, FRANK FRIEND, MIRIAM RUZOW 35459 12/20/81 - 06/27/82 - 01/08/84 - 07/22/84 - 02/16/86 PART II: ALL ABOUT HANGOVERS DAVID OUTERBRIDGE, NELSON DEMILLE, PETER WALSH, HERBERT GOULD, M.D. 35459 01/03/82 PART I: AN INTERVIEW WITH GLADYCE BEGELMAN: CO-AUTHOR OF "NEW YORK ON $1000.00 A DAY" 35457 01/03/82 - 08/29/82 - 04/01/84 PART II: CAN YOU ERASE THOSE WRINKLES? THE TRUTH ABOUT SILICON AND COLLAGEN DR. LEWIS FEDER. DR. ROBERT AUERBACH, DR. JAMES LEYDEN 35457 01/20/82 - 07/25/82 PART I: TOUGHLOVE: PARENTS FIGHT BACK PHYLLIS AND DAVID YORK, LANE PEER, RICHARD SURVING, JEAN BAKER WUNDER 35459 01/10/82 - 07/25/82 PART II: ALL ABOUT CATS ANITRA FRAZIER, SIMON BOND, SAMANTHA SUSSKIND, JERRY BENISATTO, PATRICIA NELL WARREN, RICHARD GEBHARDT 35459 01/17/82 - 08/15/82 PART I: WEIGHT LOSS NORMA SKOPIN, STEVE SILVA, GERALDINE O'CONNOR, ANNE MCCARTHY, IRENE CURTIN 35459 01/17/82 - 08/15/82 - 03/25/84 - 09/16/84 - 02/09/86 - 07/06/86 PAT II: "LISA H." OPERATION LINTON WHITAKER, M.D., JAMES KATOWITZ, M.D., DEREK BRUCE, M.D., CH.B 35462 01/24/82 "NO MR. PRESIDENT, WE'RE NOT BETTER OFF" PART I: VICTIMS OF THE BUDGET CUTS MATILDE COLON, ZELDA WEINER, MARY GARBUTT, MURIEL ZGARDOWSKI, MARY GALE 35463 02/07/82 - 09/26/82 PART I: BACHELORS OF THE MONTH MICHAEL JEFFREY GRIFFITH, PETER KUHN, O. STEVEN FREDRICKSON, JIM ZERBE, JOEL DIAMOND 35465 02/07/82 - 09/26/82 PART II: CHIROPRACTORS VS. M.D.'S DR. STEPHEN BARRETT, LOUIS SPORTELLI, D.C., CHESTER WILK, D.C., REUBEN HOPPENSTEIN, M.D. 35465 02/21/82 WHO'S HOT, WHO'S NOT - WHO'S IN, WHO'S OUT - THE LATEST GOSSIP MADELLEINE SCHAAP, MAXINE MESSINGER, LIZ SMITH, JAMES BRADY, BOB COLACELLO 35467 02/28/82 PART I: ASTROLOGERS PREDICRT WHAT'S IN THE STARS FOR 1982 MARIA ELISA CRUMMERE, MARTIN SCHULMAN, DARRELL MARTINI, MAE WILSON-LUDLAM 35464 02/28/82 PART II: SABINA SHALOM 35464 03/07/82 THE WILD WORLD OF SPORTS DICK SCHAPP, DAN JENKINS, MIKE LUPICA, DAVE ANDERSON, MIKE DOWNEY 35469 03/07/82 TRAVELLING SALESMEN JIM O'CONNOR, JOEL KATZ, JIM PRENDERGAST, DICK ORNSTEIN 35469 03/14/82 - 07/11/82 CRIMINALS ARE GETTING AWAY WITH MURDER PHIL SEELIG, BILL CLARK, JUDGE EDWIN TORRES, SEYMOUR WISHMAN 35471 03/21/82 - 09/12/82 PART I: ARE WOMEN THEIR OWN WORST ENEMIES? MARY VANN HUNTER, MONIQUE VAN VOOREN, KATHRYN LIVINGSTON, DORIS LILLY 35471 03/21/82 - 09/12/82 PART II: NICE GIRLS DO DR. IRENE KASSORLA 35471 04/04/82 - 08/29/82 SUPERMOMS COLETTE ROSSANR, KATHRYN DARROW, MEG WHITCOMB, PENNY HAWKEY 35470 04/18/82 PUBLIC SERVICE OR PUBLIC RIP OFF? - UTILITIES EDWARD LARKIN, EDWARD HYNES, THOMAS FITZPATRICK, KAREN BURSTEIN, CAROL BARGER, ALFRED NARDELLI 35473 04/25/82 ON THE VERGE OF RUIN: AMERICA'S DESPERATE FARMERS NITA GIBSON, WAYNE CRYTS, JOHN STULP, PETER CURRA, VAREL BAILEY 35476 05/02/82 COUNTDOWN TO DOOMSDAY: THE NUCLEAR ARMS DEBATE ADMIRAL ELMO ZUMWALT, DR. DANIEL MACGUIRE, DR. SCOTT THOMPSON, JACK GEIGER, M.D., FRITZ ERMARTH, CONGRESSMAN THOMAS DOWNEY 35477 05/09/82 PART I: FAST AND FUNNY - COLLEGE DEBATERS DAVID BAILIN, HARRY WALTERS, LARRY EICHENFIELD, EDWARD O'TOOLE, DAVID KIDD, J.J. GERTLER, GRANT OLIPHANT, RICHARD SOMMER 35473 05/09/82 PART II: VIDEO GAME CRAZE EDWIN VELAQUEZ, CRAIG ROSS, JEFF LOMBARDI, OPHELLA VONBRANDON, JOHNNY ZADUBARA, NANDO RAMOS, MICHAEL BLANCHET 35473 05/23/82 - 10/03/82 "I'M ON WELFARE AND I HATE IT" - A WELFARE MOTHER SHARON HUNT 35478 05/30/82 PART I: NOT FOR MEN ONLY - BLUE COLLAR WOMEN TINA NANNARONE, LAURA SCHWARTZ, JANE KELLEY, SHARON HOLMES, JUDY HUGHES 35480 05/30/82 PART II: OUT OF CASH - TRY BARTER ANNIE PROULX, JERRY WEINER, GENE HOLYZMAN, CONNIE STAPLETON 35480 06/13/82 WHO CAN AFFORD COLLEGE ANYMORE? - PART I: ADMINISTRATORS JAMES POWELL, STEPHEN TRACHTENBERG, WILLIAM MAXWELL, HARVEY GROTRAIN 35482 06/13/82 WHO CAN AFFORD COLLEGE ANYMORE? - PART II: PARENTS JOSEPH ZULLO, JOHN KAUFMAN, FREDERIC KRAMER, GLORIA GATTI, ALEXANDRA GREELEY 35482 06/20/82 NO MORE LAND OF PLENTY NORMAN BERG, KREKEL KARCH, NEIL SAMPSON 35484 06/20/82 CAREER COUNSELORS JOHN CRYSTAL, STANLEY HYMAN, ROBERT SWAIN, IRENE ANSHER 35484 10/24/82 - 08/28/83 TOP TRIAL LAWYERS DEMONSTRATE THE ART OF JURY SELECTION PHILIP CORBOY, HAROLD PRICE FAHRINGER, AARON BRODER, BILL COLSON 35483 10/31/82 - 07/17/83 PART I: COCAINE: A 30 BILLION DOLLAR EPIDEMIC ROBERT MILLMAN, M.D., ANDY KOWL, TOM HENDERSON, "AMY" "A.J.", "LIZA" 35475 11/21/82 - 01/26/86 - 05/25/86 - 08/17/86 PART I: DOLLAR A DANCE - TAXI DANCERS ARIEL LUCAS, PAUL PRICKETT, PENNY PRUCHA, ELLEN STOKES, CAROL SUNDQUIST 37030 02/27/83 PART II: THE MYSTERY OF THE COMMON COLD STEVEN MOSTOW, M.D., R. GORDON DOUGLAS, M.D., SANFORD CHODOSH, M.D., HYLAN BICKERMAN, MN.D., JOHN ABELES, M.D. 37042 03/06/83 PART I: ANGRY CRIME VICTIMS DIANI MONTENEGRO, SHIRLEY BERNSTEIN, GUILIA PAGANO, ROBERT GRAYSON, DR. MICHAEL ROBINSON 37047 03/20/83 - 06/10/84 PART I: PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES JAMES IRVIN GLOVER, GRADY O'CUMMINGS III, LESTER BYERLEY, GERARD HIMMELMAN 37049 05/22/83 - 08/07/83 PART I: LONELINESS JANE ADAMS, JOAN GOULD, JOHN HOLLANDER, MURRAY KELLMAN, MAURA SWANSON 37058

TAPE_NUMBER: EN9923/a IN_TIME: 10:01:36 LENGTH: 03:15 SOURCES: APTN RESTRICTIONS: No resale Film/video clips *** performance rights must be cleared FEED: SCRIPT: xfa RUSSIANS GO GAGA OVER PUSHKIN Russians are continuing their love affair with poet and author, ALEXANDER PUSHKIN as they gear up for the 200th anniversary of his birth this sunday (June 6th). In Moscow, where Pushkin was born, every second billboard carries a picture of his face accompanied by his verse. - Theaters and concert halls are running productions of his works or re-worked interpretations of his life and the english-made film based on his novel "Eugene Onegin", starring RALPH FIENNES and LIV TYLER, has just enjoyed a gala premiere in Moscow. - Although he died at the young age of 37, Pushkin was a prolific author, starting with early folkloric epics like "Ruslan and Ludmilla", through to his literary masterpiece "Eugene Onegin" and onto later prose such as "The Captain's Daughter". But it was his life itself that helped to transform him in the people's imagination from popular poet to secular saint. - A dashing young nobleman with African lineage, Pushkin was both feared and revered by the authorities, one day embraced by the Czar, the next, pushed into internal exile. His death is the stuff of classic romantic tragedy; after fighting a duel in the snow over the honour of his beautiful wife, Pushkin died at his home in the imperial capital of St Peterburg, with crowds of mourners keeping vigil in the street outside. - Throughout Russian history, the Pushkin story has been remoulded to reflect the dominant idealogy of the moment. In 1899 it was explained that he was a monarchist and a believer. In 1937 when Stalin's great terror began, the opposite model was given and the communist authorities marked the 100th anniversary of his death with a gala ceremony and celebrations at his family estate in the Pskov region. - Nowadays, Pushkin and his verse appears on everything from cheap mugs to chocolates and vodka bottles. Hundreds of books by and about Pushkin have been prepared for the anniversary. - At Pushkinskiye Gory, the town in Pskov where Pushkin lived alone and in exile from 1824 to 1826 and lies buried, the authorities are bracing themselves for hundreds and thousands of visitors. - SHOTLIST: SHOWS : PULL BACK FROM PUSHKIN BILLBOARD; WS SQUARE; CU PUSHKIN STATUE; B-ROLL RALPH FIENNES; PUSHKIN BILLBOARDS; B-ROLL RALPH AND MARTHA FIENNES POSING IN FRONT OF PUSHKIN MONUMENT; SOT MARTHA FIENNES: FILM CLIP `ONEGIN'; VOXPOPS; SOT RALPH FIENNES; WS PUSHKIN STATUE; CU STATUE; CU PLAQUE; WS STREET?

On October 26, 1998 Tyler, Texas State Troopers Barry Goines and Jasmine Andreason stop a car and get more than just traffic violators. The passenger is escaped convict Sidney Byrd. Byrd pulls a gun and puts it to Goines’ neck. Goines pulls away and he and Andreason blast away as Byrd flees the scene.A traffic stop takes a dangerous turn when the suspect puts a gun to trooper Barry Goines’ head as Trooper Jasmine Andreasen watches the other suspect. Trooper Goines suddenly grabs the gun and shoots several times at the suspects as they runs into the woods.

TAPE: EF01/0855 IN_TIME: 14:15:45 DURATION: 10:20 SOURCES: APTN/ New Line Cinema RESTRICTIONS: No re-use/re-sale of film/video/tv clips without clearance DATELINE: London, UK. 10th SHOTLIST APTN 1. GV poster with flaming rings 2. WS fans with fairground in background 3. Tilt down from fan to magazine 4. Fans with poster of Elijah Wood 5. Tilt from fan to autograph board 6. Elijah Wood arrives 7. Viggo Mortensen arrives 8. Elijah Wood has pictures taken 9. Peter Jackson, Director arrives 10. Ian McKellen signs autographs 11. Liz Tyler arrives 12. Christopher Lee arrives 13. Orlando Bloom arrives (with his Granny) New Line Material 14. Clip - 'Lord Of the Rings' APTN 15. Sot Ian McKellen, Gandalf (English): "He looks like you want a wizard to look, and he behaves like a wizard should. He's only too frail, only too human. He's very wise but he can be rather foolish at times, so a wonderful part to play. The most exciting job I've ever had." 16. B-Roll Peter Jackson 17. Sot Peter Jackson, Director (English): "When you're shooting in New Zealand and you're in the middle of mountains and it's starting to snow and you're feezing cold - a premiere in London doesn't even seem like a possibility. So you finally get here and it just feels fantastic." New Line Material 18. Clip - 'Lord of the Rings' APTN 19. Sot Billy Boyd, Pippin (English) "Five o'clock every morning we'd be standing on a box while these great technicians painted cold sticky glue onto your feet and it'd take like an hour and a half. So that part wasn't that much fun but the great thing about the feet is once you put them on that was the turning point from being yourself into being a hobbit and it made you feel like a hobbit." 20. B-Roll Viggo Mortensen 21. Sot Billy Boyd (English): (On the tattoos) -"No, not on camera." Dominic Monaghan, Merry (English): "To a certain extent it's kind of a little bit of a secret. Tattoos are a very personal thing we all got done to commorate the end of the movie and you know it's kind of a little bit of a secret thing." New Line Material 22. Clip Trailer - 'Lord Of The Rings' APTN 23. Sot John Rhys-Davies, Gimli (English) on being a short dwarf: (Reporter: How did they make you look small?) You want me to get on my knees and show you? This is how I got to look small. So you're doing your swinging with your battle axe. So you swing your axe and go wee, right out of shot. (Reporter: There was some fighting on the knees, wasn't there?) Oh, great fun complete waste of time learning to fight on your knees, we ended up digging pits. But there are actually 17 ways in which you can reduce an actor in size, and I would urge your viewers to look at them very closely and see if you can see all the 17." 24. B-Roll Orlando Bloom 25. Sot Orlando Bloom, Legolas (English): "In a way I can't believe it, I'm..it sort of makes it all worth while and people are responding in the way that they are...and I was standing outside with my gran and she's nearly 90 and I thought she was going to have a heart attack because there was such a big roar from the crowd. It feels like such a special time and I'm glad people have responded in the way that they have because it was a labour of love, you know, and we tried hard to make it work. 26. Liv Tyler and Viggo Mortenson laugh together 27. Sot Liv Tyler, Arwen (English): "One day I wore the ears when I left the set because I wound up not doing the scene and I ripped one off and it really hurt and I left it on the dashboard of our car and when I came back it was melted because the sun's really strong in New Zealand." New Line Material 28. Clip Trailer - 'Lord Of The Rings' New Line Epk Material 29. Various shots of the after premiere party APTN Material 30. Sot Elijah Wood, Frodo (English): "Unbelievable. Absolutely incredible. I'd never seen it with an audience like that. I'd seen it two times previous, at the like small little screenings, so it was really special, really wonderful. (Reporter: And the end of such a long journey, what does that feel like?). It's time to party. It's time to celebrate, It's really incredible to finally have arrived at this moment. (Reporter) What happened to the ring from the production? ) Well one of them is back at home in Los Angeles. I have possession of one of the rings. (Reporter: does it have any special powers for you?) It has a special significance for me, certainly. 31. Liv Tyler talks with interviewer 32. Sot Liv Tyler (English): "I'm so proud of everyone. (Reporter: Do you have a favourite moment?) Wait till you see, it's just so overwhelming and beautiful. I'm just so proud of Peter Jackson 33. B-Roll Marie Helvin, former fashion model 34. Sot John Rhys Davies, Gimli (English): "(reporter: How do you think you did?) Well, I think it was elves six, dwarf one, but it was OK. It's a remarkable piece, quite overwhelming really 35. Sot Christopher Lee, Saruman (English): "It was a huge success. And enormous success. I think people couldn't believe what they were seeing. It wasn't just the action, it was the whole combinaton. And don't forget I hadn't seen the movie. John Rhys Jones and I, neither of us had seen the film. And I thought it was immensly impressive, I thought the whole combination: the accent, the photography, direction, the scenery is stunning, but then it's the most beautiful country in the world 36. Gemma Kid & Orlando Bloom 37. Sot Orlando Bloom (English): "I look very odd but I'm happy with what Pete's done with the movie, I think it's great. There's a new character in there and that's the landscape and that's amazing to see, New Zealand looking so beautiful. and you know, it's, erm, it's just so big, I'm slightly blown away." 38. Ian McKellen talks to reporters 39. Sot Ian McKellen (English) (Reporter: Did you cry?) "Certainly. Yes, I have to say, when Gandalph dissapeared it's so cleverly put together that moment, it's not just the acting, it's the music...that's a big moment in the story." 40. Peter Jackson talks to reporters 41 Sot Peter Jackson: "Really thrilled with the reaction, yeah. It was just so nice after six years to see the movie with a big audience. I'd never done that before, and to hear people appreciating it and laughing and crying in a couple of places, that's what it's all about. It makes it all worthwhile." New Line Material 42. Clip Trailer - 'Lord Of The Rings' LORD OF THE RINGS STARS LEAVE FANS SPELLBOUND Young heartthrob ELIJAH WOOD and Hollywood actress LIV TYLER were welcomed by a screaming crowd to the world premiere of the first 'Lord of the Rings' movie in London Monday night. THE FELLOWSHIP OF THE RINGS was launched at the Odeon Leicester Square, with a row of burning rings arranged above the entrance to mark the occasion. 2,000 fans gathered outside to welcome the stars of the BBP76 million movie (USD 106 million), waving posters and shouting the names of their favourites. Wood and Tyler, along with fellow stars Sir Ian McKellen, Sean Bean and Christopher Lee, waved to the crowd and signed autographs as they arrived. Orlando Bloom (Legolas) brought his slightly overwhelmed grandmother along for the experience: "I was standing outside with my gran and she's nearly 90 and I thought she was going to have a heart attack because there was such a big roar from the crowd. It feels like such a special time and I'm glad people have responded in the way that they have because it was a labour of love, you know, and we tried hard to make it work. Cate Blanchett (who plays the elf queen Galadriel) was the only member of the film's main cast who did not attend, having given birth to her first son Dashiell on Wednesday. The film premiere came amid intense hype over its box office potential and its clash with 'Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone', which is also adapted from a phenomenally popular book. Critics have given the new film glowing reports, predicting it will 'run rings' around the hugely successly Harry Potter movie. 'The Fellowship of the Ring', is the first instalment in the trilogy of books written by JRR Tolkien which have been adapted for the big screen. Filmmakers took the bold step of shooting all three movies at the same time over 15 months in New Zealand, to save the trouble and cost of rebuilding the lavish sets. Pre-production stretches back even further, with director Peter Jackson and his team scouting and filming locations, working out how to bring Middle Earth to life. The whole process, including three years work on the screenplays, took six years. Director Peter Jackson says the premiere marked the end of a wonderful journey: "When you're shooting in New Zealand and you're in the middle of mountains and it's starting to snow and you're freezing cold - a premiere in London doesn't even seem like a possibility. So you finally get here and it just feels fantastic." The movie is a visual piece with impressive costumes, enormous sets and state-of-the-art digital effects which have created huge armies from nothing. The gentle, diminutive hero Frodo encounters legions of fierce 'orcs', giant trolls and corrupt wizards in his quest against evil that is threatening his world's many different peoples. Actors spent hours each day creating the look for the film. Sir Ian McKellen plays Gandalf, and says he felt transformed: "He looks like you want a wizard to look, and he behaves like a wizard should. He's only too frail, only too human. He's very wise but he can be rather foolish at times, so a wonderful part to play. The most exciting job I've ever had." All the Hobbits in the film, including the hero Frodo, played by Elijah Wood, had to have special feet glued on to their own every morning to perfect the look. Billy Boyd plays one of Frodo's hobbit companions, Pippin: "Five o'clock every morning we'd be standing on a box while these great technicians painted cold sticky glue onto your feet and it'd take like an hour and a half. So that part wasn't that much fun but the great thing about the feet is once you put them on that was the turning point from being yourself into being a hobbit and it made you feel like a hobbit." Liv Tyler, who plays elf princess Arwen, also had trouble with prosthetics - she had to wear pointed ears, and she accidentally left one to melt on the dash board of her car. The film version sets the events on earth, 7,000 years ago. The tale follows a young hobbit, Frodo Baggins, who becomes the keeper of The One Ring, a powerful treasure crafted by the Dark Lord Sauron which corrupts all those who come into contact with it. To stop the ring falling back into Sauron's hands and ushering in a new dark age to their world, Middle Earth, Frodo must destroy it. The task is not an easy one. The ring can only be destroyed in Mount Doom, a vast volcano in the heart of Sauron's own land, Mordor. The barren desert is crawling with servants of the Dark Lord himself. Carrying the ring holds its own peril. Its powers include making anyone who puts it on invisible, but at a high cost - its influence takes hold, slowly driving the wearer insane with power-lust and jealousy. To aid him in his quest, the races of Middle Earth form The Fellowship Of The Ring, a band of eight allies who accompany the young, short hobbit, on his travels toward the dark land of Mordor. The fellowship members are Frodo and his three hobbit companions, the wise and powerful wizard Gandalf, an elf Legolas, a dwarf Gimli, and two renowned men, Aragorn and Boromir. Several of the actors who play the members of the fellowship, including Hobbits Pippin ( Billy Boyd) and Merry (Dominic Monaghan), felt such a bond after their long filming challenge that they decided to get a tattoo to commemorate their achievement. But none would unveil them in front of the cameras. Dominic Monaghan explains: "To a certain extent it's kind of a little bit of a secret. Tattoos are a very personal thing we all got done to commorate the end of the movie and you know it's kind of a little bit of a secret thing." Elijah Wood was happy to admit he's kept hold of one of the famous rings: "Well one of them is back at home in Los Angeles. I have possession of one of the rings." And when asked if the ring holds any special powers for him, he added "It has a special significance for me, certainly." Tolkien's trilogy was published between 1954 and 1956 and the books have sold more than 100 million copies across the globe. Several world wide polls voted it the 'book of the century', and it is considered the bench mark for the fantasy genre. The author allegedly sold the film rights to the books five years before his death in 1973, for just £10,000. There had been speculation that Tolkien's son Christopher had disapproved of the films, although he broke his silence last week to deny the rumours. But he did add: "My own position is that the Lord of the Rings is peculiarly unsuitable for transformation into visual dramatic form." And the film's director Peter Jackson said last night that there had been no communication with the estate of the author. Cast, critics and fans that have already seen the film are predicting it will be seen as a cinematic landmark in years to come. But for now the director is happy to have reached the premiere: "It was just so nice afer six years to see the movie with a big audience. I'd never done that before, and to hear people appreciating it and laughing and crying in a couple of places, that's what it's all about. It makes it all worthwhile." His star Elijah Wood agrees: "It's time to party. It's time to celebrate, It's really incredible to finally have arrived at this moment. " The film hits cinemas in Britain, America and several other territories on December 19th, 2001. The sequels, 'The Two Towers' and 'The Return of the King' are due out in 2002 and 2003 respectively. FILM CLIP DETAILS Lord Of The Rings New Line Cinema 1 310 834 5811

TAPE_NUMBER: EN9923/a IN_TIME: 10:39:15 LENGTH: 03:45 SOURCES: APTN RESTRICTIONS: Music/Performance rights must be cleared FEED: SCRIPT: xfa Moscow, 5-6 June 1999 PUSHKIN CELEBRATIONS REACH CRESCENDO Opera star PLACIDO DOMINGO joined the Bolshoi ballet and a host of officials in the spotlight over the weekend as Muscovites took part in celebrations marking the birth of Russian literary icon ALEXANDER PUSHKIN. The streets of Moscow were closed, as the Russian capital began a street party marking the 200th anniversary of his birth. Many Russians regard Pushkin as a Russian literary giant - equivalent to Shakespeare in the English-speaking world. Thousands of Muscovites took to the streets for the ongoing celebrations. The main event in Moscow was a parade of 19th century-style dancers down the city's main boulevard, Tverskaya Street, which leads to the Kremlin. The celebrations reached their climax on Sunday night with a concert in Red Square, featuring performances by the Bolshoi Ballet and special guest Placido Domingo, in Russia especially for the event. The Spanish tenor sung extracts from the Tchaikovsky opera based on Pushkin's famous poem "Eugene Onegin". The concert concluded with a spectacular fireworks display. In Moscow, where Pushkin was born, every second billboard carries a picture of his face accompanied by his verse. Theatres and concert halls are running productions of his works or re-worked interpretations of his life and the English-made film based on his novel "Eugene Onegin", starring RALPH FIENNES and LIV TYLER, has just enjoyed a gala premiere in Moscow. Although he died at the young age of 37, Pushkin was a prolific author, starting with early folkloric epics like "Ruslan and Ludmilla", through to his literary masterpiece "Eugene Onegin" and onto later prose such as "The Captain's Daughter". But it was his life itself that helped to transform him in the people's imagination from popular poet to secular saint. A dashing young nobleman of African lineage, Pushkin was both feared and revered by the authorities, one day embraced by the Czar, the next, pushed into internal exile. His death is the stuff of classic romantic tragedy; after fighting a duel in the snow over the honour of his beautiful wife, Pushkin died at his home in the imperial capital of St Petersburg, with crowds of mourners keeping vigil in the street outside. Throughout Russian history, the Pushkin story has been remoulded to reflect the dominant ideology of the moment. In 1899 it was explained that he was a monarchist and a believer. In 1937 when Stalin's great terror began, the opposite model was given and the communist authorities marked the 100th anniversary of his death with a gala ceremony and celebrations at his family estate in the Pskov region. Nowadays, Pushkin and his verse appears on everything from cheap mugs to chocolates and vodka bottles. Hundreds of books by and about Pushkin have been prepared for the anniversary. At Pushkinskiye Gory, the town in Pskov where Pushkin lived alone and in exile from 1824 to 1826 and lies buried, the authorities are bracing themselves for hundreds of thousands of visitors. SHOTLIST: SHOWS: WS SQUARE WITH ALEXANDER PUSHKIN STATUE ; CU STATUE ; CA MILITARY BAND PLAY ; GVS WALTZING COUPLES IN TRADTIONAL COSTUME DANCING IN STREET ; WS OPEN AIR STAGE ; GVS PERFORMANCE ; CA AUDIENCE ; GVS BACKSTAGE ; PLACIDO DOMINGO BACKSTAGE ; PERFORMERS IN COSTUME BACKSTAGE ; PLACIDO DOMINGO IN CONCERT ; SOT DOMINGO ; PERFORMANCE ; GVS CROWD RISE TO CLAP ; DOMINGO TAKES APPLAUSE ; WS CROWD ; PICTURE OF PUSHKIN?

1500 WH LAS VEGAS POLICE REMARKS STIX PATH1 FS23 73 THE PRESIDENT and THE FIRST LADY visit with civilian heroes and first responders. Las Vegas Location. COMMENTS OCTOBER 4, 2017 President Trump makes remarks at Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Headquarters DC Slug: 1500 WH LAS VEGAS NV POLICE REMARKS STIX PATH1 FS23 73 NYRS: WASH-3 AR: 16X9 15:54:46 TRUMP: Thank you very much, governor. We really appreciate that. And I will tell you, the people of Nevada and the extraordinary city have shown the world their incredible character, courage and resolve. Nevada really is a very, very special place. I'm honored to be here today at the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department in the company of heroes. TRUMP: Thank you to our police, our firefighters and to our first responders, and of course to Sheriff Lombardo. Incredible job you've done. Mayor Goodman. Hello, Mayor Goodman. (CROSSTALK) (LAUGHTER) 15:55:42 Senator Heller, thank you very much. Senator Cortez Masto. Majority leader. Where is Kevin, majority leader? Kevin McCarthy. Adam Laxalt, all of the great congressman that we have with us today from both parties. We just are very honored that you could be with us. And on behalf of the grateful nation, we thank each and everyone of you in law enforcement. In the depths of horror we will always find hope in the men and women who risk their lives for ours. The mass murder that took place on Sunday night fills America's heart with grief. America is truly a nation in mourning. 15:56:33 I visited the hospital earlier today where many victims are still recovering from their wounds. And we ask God to ease their suffering, and to speed their healing. We pray for the recovery of the injured, and those injured officers, who so bravely threw themselves into danger when duty called. And we grieve the loss of the law enforcement personnel who were killed in this vicious attack. Many families tonight will go to bed in a world that is suddenly empty. The people they so dearly love were torn away from them forever. Our souls are stricken with grief for every American who lost a husband or a wife, a mother or a father, a son or a daughter. We know that your sorrow feels endless. We stand together to help you carry your pain. You are not alone. We will never leave your side. 15:57:18 Here at the police department, we remember one of our own who died this week, Charles Hartfield. He was a very, very special person. Officer Hartfield was a proud veteran, a devoted husband, a loving father. His death is a tragic loss for this police force, for this city, and for our great nation. We struggle for the words to explain to our children how such evil can exist, how there can be such cruelty and such suffering. 15:58:12 But we cannot be defined by the evil that threatens us or the violence that incites such terror. We are defined by our love, our caring and courage. In the darkest moments, what shines most brightly is the goodness that thrives in the hearts of our people. That goodness is our lighthouse, and our solace is knowledge that the souls of those who passed are now at peace in Heaven. Here on Earth, we are blessed to be surrounded by heroes. As one eyewitness recounted this week, while everyone else was crouching, police officers were standing up as targets just trying to direct people and tell them where to go. 15:59:07 The officers were standing up in the line of fire to help those in danger and to find out where those horrible shots were coming from. Words cannot describe the bravery that the whole world witnessed on Sunday night. Americans defied death and hatred with love and with courage. When the word and the worst of humanity strikes, and strike it did, the best of humanity responds. Parents and spouses used their own bodies as shields to protect their loved ones. Americans dashed into a hail of bullets to rescue total strangers. Joining us today are many of the heroes who were here during that horrible moment, that horrible night, including Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Officers Tyler Pearson (ph) and Tana Gurley (ph) and civilian Aaron Stalker (ph). 16:00:20 Officer Peterson (ph) was on his second day on the job when the shooting began. I just visited him in the hospital. Within minutes, he joined a group of officers rushing between flying bullets to clear the fairground and save lives. Officer Gurley (ph) was off duty attending the concert. Although she was unarmed, as soon as the shooting began, she threw on a yellow police vest and began evacuating victims. And Aaron Stalker (ph), a veteran, rushed to the scene to search for his loved ones, but when he couldn't find them he began helping every person he could. As he recounts, "We used the plastic barriers as gurneys to carry the injured to transportation. I made splints out of whatever I could find and used anything to stop the horrible bleeding." Among the wounded was the mother of Aaron's girlfriend. She's still in the hospital, and we are all pulling for her. To every hero we helped, every hero saved so many lives. And believe me, a grateful nation thanks you. 16:01:47 The example of those whose final act was to sacrifice themselves for those they loved should inspire all of us to show more love every day for the people who grace our lives. In the months ahead, we will all have to wrestle with the horror of what has unfolded this week, but we will struggle through it together, we will endure the pain together, and we will overcome together as Americans. May God bless and watch over those who protect us. May god bring healing to the families of the wounded, the injured and the fallen. And may God bless our great country, America. Thank you very much. Thank you, governor. Thank you very much. 16:02:41 END

Remarks by the President at Georgia Victory 2006 Rally Georgia Southern University Statesboro, Georgia 11:07 A.M. EST THE PRESIDENT: Thank you all very much. Thank you for the warm welcome. It is great to be back in the state of Georgia. (Applause.) It is even better to be here with the next Congressman from this district, Max Burns. (Applause.) Max knows what it takes to be a United States Congressman, because he's done it before. And when you turn out on November 7th, he's going to do it again. (Applause.) He understands Georgia values, because he was born and raised in this district, and he still lives on a family farm outside Sylvania. (Applause.) I've been in Washington long enough to know that it makes sense to have people who live on a family farm in the halls of the United States Congress. (Applause.) I appreciate the fact that Max was a teacher. As a matter of fact, he taught right here at Georgia Southern. (Applause.) I hope he gave a few of the students As. (Laughter.) And for those of you who did get an A, you might as well vote for him. (Laughter.) I appreciate the fact that when he was a member of the United States Congress that he passed key legislation that helped farmers, that helped seniors file their taxes and helped our public schools recruit more math and science teachers. In other words, he has the record to run on. He's got something to say when he's out on the campaign stop, and he's also got a record to point to. There's no doubt in my mind that Max Burns is the right man to be the United States Congressman. (Applause.) You know who else agrees with that is Laura. (Applause.) She knows Max and Laura. She likes the Burnses. She likes a man of integrity, like Max Burns. She says, like I'm saying, work hard, turn out the vote, and send this good man back to the United States Congress. (Applause.) And by the way, when you're out there voting for Max, make sure you send a man who has done a fabulous job as your governor back to the State House, and that's Sonny Perdue. (Applause.) Sonny has got him a pair of boots he can be proud of. (Applause.) By the way, it makes me feel comfortable to be a in a state where your governor wears cowboy boots. (Applause.) And I know it makes you feel comfortable to live in a state where you got you a governor who's accomplished and can get the job done. (Applause.) I'm really pleased that Congressman Charlie Norwood has come over from his United States congressional district to help his friend, Max Burns, run. Welcome, Charlie Norwood. (Applause.) And I want to thank the mayor. Mr. Mayor -- Mr. Mayor Bill Hatcher, thank you for welcoming us; thank you for being here. (Applause.) I appreciate Perry McGuire, who is the candidate for attorney general, joining us. I know you'll support Perry if you want good law enforcement in your state. (Applause.) And I want to thank Eric Johnson, who is the Senate president pro tempore. Mr. Senator, thanks for coming; good to see you again. (Applause.) I appreciate Jesse Tyler, president of Georgia Southern University College Republicans, for helping organize this event. I do want to thank the president of Georgia Southern for letting us come, as well. (Applause.) We are eight days away from the election, and you can bet one thing: We're going to sprint to the finish line. (Applause.) And we need your help. I appreciate you coming out because I know you know what I know: This election is far from over, although there are some people in Washington who already think they know the outcome of the election. Some of them are already picking out their new offices at the Capitol. AUDIENCE MEMBERS: Boo. THE PRESIDENT: You might remember that around this time in 2004, some of them were picking out their new offices in the West Wing. (Laughter and Applause.) The movers never got the call. (Laughter.) And this November 7th, when our voters show up at the polls, we're going to elect people like Max Burns to the Congress and we will keep control of the House and the Senate. (Applause.) We will win this election because Republicans understand the values and priorities of the American people. We will win this election because our priorities and our values do not shift with the latest political opinion poll or focus group. (Applause.) We will win this election because we got a good record to run on. For decades our public school system failed too many American children, so we passed the No Child Left Behind Act and demanded that schools show results in return for federal dollars. Test scores are rising. The achievement gap is beginning to close, and we are bringing America closer to the day when every single child gets a good education. (Applause.) For decades America has been growing more dependent on foreign oil, and so we took the lead. We passed a good energy bill that supports conservation and expands domestic production, and expands new monies on technology. See, here's what we want -- Max Burns wants this, Sonny wants this, and so do I -- we want Georgia farmers growing the fuel that will energize our automobiles in the future. (Applause.) When you start running your car on Georgia corn we'll become less dependent on foreign sources of oil. (Applause.) For decades Medicare was an outdated program that wasn't serving our seniors as well as it could. So we passed landmark legislation that modernized the Medicare system. And today, more than 33 million seniors have more choices and access to affordable prescription drugs. And the days of our poor seniors having to choose between medicine and food are over. (Applause.) For decades, we haven't had complete control over our southern border, and illegal immigration has been on the rise. So I acted. I sent the National Guard troops to help our Border Patrol. We're adding thousands of new Border Patrol agents. We are modernizing our border. We will reform our immigration system, and we will uphold the immigration laws of the United States. (Applause.) For decades, activist judges have tried to redefine America by court order. Just this last week in New Jersey, another activist court issued a ruling that raises doubt about the institution of marriage. We believe that marriage is a union between a man and a woman and should be defended. (Applause.) And I believe I should continue to appoint judges who strictly interpret the law and not legislate from the bench. (Applause.) America is better off because John Roberts and Sam Alito are serving on the Supreme Court of the United States. (Applause.) We've got a good record to run on. And with Max Burns back in the United States Congress, we will build on that record. Now, there are big differences in Washington between Republicans and Democrats. Perhaps the biggest difference are on the two biggest issues that we face: which party is going to keep your taxes low and keep this economy growing, and which party will take the necessary steps to protect you from terrorist attack. (Applause.) Let me start with taxes. Max and I have a philosophy: We believe that you know how to spend your money far better than the federal government does. (Applause.) We believe that when you have more of your own money in your pocket to save, spend or invest, the economy benefits. (Applause.) Democrats believe they can spend your money better than you can. So over the past five years we have acted on our philosophy and passed the largest tax relief since Ronald Reagan was in the White House. (Applause.) In other words, we just didn't talk about philosophy -- there's too many philosophers in Washington -- we acted. We got the job done. We cut the taxes on everybody who pays income taxes. We doubled the child tax credit. We reduced the marriage penalty. We cut taxes on small businesses. We cut taxes on capital gains and dividends to promote investment and jobs. And to reward family businesses and farmers for a lifetime of hard work and savings, we put the death tax on the road to extinction. (Applause.) We had a ferocious debate over taxes in Washington. The Democrats in Washington predicted tax cuts wouldn't create jobs, wouldn't increase wages, and would cause the federal deficit to explode. Well, the facts are in. The truth is the tax cuts have led to a growing economy that's added 6.6 million new jobs since August of 2003. (Applause.) The truth is real wages rose 2.2 percent over the past 12 months, and we have cut the deficit in half three years ahead of schedule. (Applause.) Now the Democrats in Washington are making another prediction. They're telling you they're going to win on Election Day. Well, if their electoral predictions are as reliable as their economic predictions, November 7th is going to be a good day for the Republican Party. (Applause.) Now, during this campaign the Washington Democrats really don't want you to know their plans. As a matter of fact, the top Democrat leader in the House made an interesting declaration. She said, we love tax cuts. But given her record, she must be a secret admirer. (Laughter and applause.) She and her party voted against every single one of the tax cuts we passed. She voted against reducing the marriage penalty. She voted against cutting taxes on small businesses. She and her party voted against lowering taxes for families with children. Time and time again, when she and the Democrat Party had an opportunity to show their love for tax cuts, they voted no. If that's the Democrats' idea of love, I sure wouldn't want to see what hate looks like. (Laughter and applause.) See, here's the way it's working in Washington: If we do not make the tax cuts permanent, or if the tax cuts are not extended, you're going to get a tax increase. Recently, they asked a man who wants to be head of the House Ways and Means Committee, if the Democrats win, what he thinks about extending the tax cuts. He said he couldn't think of one of the tax cuts he would extend. This is what the Washington Democrats are saying about your taxes. He couldn't think of one of the tax cuts we passed that he would leave in place. And so if you're a small business person and pay taxes at the income -- at the individual income tax rate, it means the Democrats will raise your taxes. If you're a small business owner who wants to expand and invest in new equipment, the Democrats are going to raise your taxes. If you're a small business owner who wants to pass your life's work to your children and grandchildren, the Democrats want to raise your taxes. If you're a small business owner, my advice is, vote for Max Burns. (Applause.) Now, if you happen to have children, I want to just talk to you about what it means to not extend the tax cut. Just like the man who is going to be running the tax committee said he's going to do, not extend the tax. You see, if the child credit doesn't get extended, it means the tax credit gets cut in half, from $1,000 per child to $500 per child. So this evening, when you're sitting around the table eating dinner, and you've got children around your table, just count the number of children you have and multiply it by 500, and that's what the tax increase is going to be. So if you've got four children, four times 500 is 2,000. Your tax bill will go up if the Democrats take control of the House by $2,000; if you got three kids, it's $1,500. It's easy to calculate. I guess the $2,000 doesn't seem like a lot of money to the people in Washington, D.C., but I know it's a lot of money for your family. I know the child tax credit has meant a lot for people working for a living. And, therefore, if you want to keep that money in your pocket instead of sending it to Washington, D.C., you vote for Republicans on Election Day. (Applause.) This election is taking place in an historic time for our country. Our children and grandchildren are going to look back on this period -- one question will overwhelm all the rest: Did we do everything in our power to fight and win the war on terror? That's the question people will ask: Did this country do everything within our power to protect you? We face an enemy that is brutal. They kill innocent people to achieve ideological objectives. They're totalitarian in nature. They hate freedom. We love freedom, and that is why they view us as their enemy. You cannot negotiate with these people. You can't try to talk sense into these people. The best way to protect you is to bring them to justice before they hurt America again. (Applause.) I understand this is a different kind of war, and so do people in this congressional district need to know it's a different kind of war. I know we've got some vets here, and I want to thank you for serving. But in previous wars, particularly, say, World War II, it mattered how many airplanes you could shoot out of the sky, or how much territory an army took. This is a different kind of war. This is a war where people plot and plan in secret, and then launch lethal attacks, which means our professionals need to have all the tools necessary to protect you. You see, the challenge facing the United States is that we have to be right one time -- I mean a hundred percent of the time, and the enemy has to be right one time, in order to protect you. And so when I found out there was laws preventing the intelligence community from talking to the enforcement community, I asked Congress to pass the Patriot Act to tear down those walls so our folks had the tools necessary to protect you. (Applause.) I believe that if al Qaeda or an al Qaeda associate is making a phone call from outside the United States to inside the United States, we need to know why in order to be able to protect you. (Applause.) This is a different kind of war that requires us to get good intelligence in order to protect the American people. That's why I asked the CIA to develop a program that would question detainees that we picked up off the battlefield about what they know. Now let me give you an example. We captured a fellow named Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. The intelligence community believes he was the man who masterminded the September the 11th attacks. I thought it made sense -- if our most important job is to protect you, it made sense to find out what Khalid Sheikh Mohammed knew. (Applause.) In other words, we've been giving the professionals the tools necessary to defend America in this new kind of war. And recently -- recently, there were votes in the floor of the House of Representatives, in the floor of the United States Senate to provide these critical tools. In other words, Congress voted on these tools. And I want everybody in this district and in this state and around the country to understand those votes, because they were critical votes. And it shows the difference of attitude between the two parties, and the leaders in the two parties, about our responsibility to protect you. When it came time to renew the Patriot Act, more than 75 percent -- 75 percent of the House Democrats voted against it. When it came time to vote on whether or not the CIA continue its program to detain and question captured terrorists, almost 80 percent of the House Democrats voted against it. They just have a different point of view. They don't see it the way I see it, or the way you see it. Otherwise, why wouldn't they give the professionals the tools necessary to protect you? When it came time to vote on whether the National Security Agency should continue to monitor terrorist communications, almost 90 percent of the House Democrats voted against it. In all these vital measures for fighting the war on terror, the Democrats just follow a simple philosophy: Just say no. When it comes to listening to the terrorists, what's the Democrats' answer? It's, just say no. When it comes to detaining terrorists, what is the Democrats' answer? Just say no. When it comes to questioning terrorists, what's the Democrats' answer? AUDIENCE: Just say no! THE PRESIDENT: When it comes to trying the terrorists, what's the Democrats' answer? AUDIENCE: Just say no! THE PRESIDENT: So when the Democrats ask for your vote, what's your answer? AUDIENCE: Just say no! (Applause.) We're going to continue to make sure our professionals have the tools necessary to protect you, and you can count on Max Burns' vote. (Applause.) One of the lessons of September the 11th, 2001 is that when this country sees a threat we must take those threats seriously before they come home to hurt us. I saw a threat in Saddam Hussein. Members of both political parties in the United States Congress saw a threat in Saddam Hussein. The United Nations saw a threat in Saddam Hussein. Getting rid of Saddam Hussein was the right decision, and the world is better off. (Applause.) And now Iraq is the central front in this global war against these ideologues who murder innocent people to achieve their objectives. You know, I think it's very important for the Commander-in-Chief, as well as our citizens, to listen to the words of the enemy. You know, in Washington you hear people say, well, Iraq is just a distraction from the war on terror. I believe it is a central part of the war on terror. (Applause.) And so does Osama bin Laden. Osama bin Laden calls this fight the third world war. He says victory for the terrorists in Iraq will mean America's defeat and disgrace forever. They have made it clear they want to create as much carnage and death as possible to cause us to leave before the job is done. They have ambitions: They want to topple moderate governments; they want to control oil to blackmail the West. They want us to leave and dash the hopes and aspirations of millions of people who want to live in peace. And we have a different point of view. I want you to hear the words of a senior Democrat in the House of Representatives. She said, the President says fighting them there makes it less likely we will fight them here. The opposite is true, she said, because we are fighting them there, it may become more likely that we have to fight them there [sic]. Here's what this person and the leaders of the Democrat Party in Washington seem to not understand: Iraq is not the reason the terrorists are at war against us. I would remind the House Democrats, our troops were not in Iraq when the terrorists first attacked the World Trade Center in 1993. (Applause.) We were not in Iraq when they bombed the USS Cole or the embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. And we were not in Iraq when they killed nearly 3,000 people on September the 11th, 2001. (Applause.) You do not create terrorists by fighting the terrorists. The best way to protect you, the best way to protect the American people is to stay on the offense and defeat them overseas, so we do not have to face them here at home. (Applause.) Our goal in Iraq is victory. Victory in Iraq will come when that young democracy can sustain itself, and govern itself, and defend itself, and be a strong ally in the war against the terrorists. The fighting in Iraq is tough, and I understand it's tough, and you know it's tough, and so does the enemy. They have no conscience. They kill innocent men, women and children. They film the atrocities. They broadcast them for the world to see. They offer no hopeful vision. The only thing they know is death and destruction, but they hope these violent images will cause us to lose our nerve. They make a big mistake: They do not understand the true strength of the United States of America. We don't run in the face of thugs and assassins. We will defend ourselves. (Applause.) We will defeat them. We will defeat them because our commanders on the ground have all the flexibility necessary to make sure that we constantly stay ahead of the enemy. We'll defeat them because we've got a fantastic United States military. And I know I can count on Max Burns. (Applause.) And I know you can count on Max Burns and I can count on Max Burns by making sure our troops have all that is necessary to do their job to defend the United States. (Applause.) We will succeed in Iraq because the Iraqis want to live in a peaceful society. Nearly 12 million defied car bombers and assassins and terrorists and went to vote. They held up their purple ink-stained fingers, saying to the world, we want to be free. And they got a unity government that is working hard to repel the extremists who are preventing them. I believe strongly that with our help they will be able to defend themselves. And I believe strongly that they'll become a government of the people and by the people and for the people. As a matter of fact, I believe the only way we cannot succeed is if we leave before the job is done. (Applause.) And when you listen to this debate -- and it's raging across the country, this debate on Iraq -- if you listen carefully for a Democrat plan for success, they don't have one. Iraq is the central front for the war on terror. Yet they don't have a plan for victory. Last week, a senator, a Democrat senator explained her party's position this way. She said: We haven't coalesced around a single plan, but we're in general agreement on basic principles. She's right; the agreement -- they are in agreement on one thing -- they will leave before the job is done. That's what they're in agreement on. (Applause.) They've come up with a lot of creative ways to describe leaving Iraq before the job is done. Sometimes they say, immediate redeployment. Sometimes they say they wouldn't spend another dime on our troops. Sometimes they say the idea that we're going to win this war is an idea that unfortunately is just plain wrong. However they put it, the Democrat approach in Iraq comes down to this: The terrorists win and America loses. That's what's at stake in this election. The Democrat goal is to get out of Iraq. The Republican goal is to win in Iraq. (Applause.) I'm not saying these Democrats are unpatriotic. I'm just saying they're wrong. You cannot win a war unless you're willing to fight the war. (Applause.) Retreat from Iraq before the job is done would embolden the enemy and make us more vulnerable to attack. Retreat would allow the terrorists to gain a new safe haven from which to plot and plan, just like they had in Afghanistan. Retreat would enable the enemy to be more able to recruit. Retreat would say to people in the Middle East, you can't count on America. It would say to those folks desperate to live in freedom and peace, we no longer care or hear your cries. Defeat would dishonor the sacrifice of the men and women who wear the uniform of the United States of America. The consequences of retreat from Iraq will be felt for generations. I want the folks all throughout America to envision a Middle East where extremism are battling for power, moderate governments are toppled, oil is controlled to use for blackmail, and a country has a nuclear weapon. If that were to happen, people would look back at the year 2006 and ask, what happened to them? How come those folks couldn't see the threat? How come they couldn't see the danger for a generation of Americans who were growing up? I want you to know, I see the threat. I see the danger. That is why we will support our troops. We will fight, and we will win in Iraq. (Applause.) I want to share with you right quick a history lesson -- at least, I see it as history; after all, we're on a college campus. (Laughter.) It's the power of freedom. You know, recently, I went to -- with the former Prime Minister of Japan -- he was sitting Prime Minister of Japan then -- down to Elvis's place. Memphis, Tennessee -- I don't know if you've ever been there or not, but -- (applause) -- you have? Well, I like going there. It was interesting. And he really wanted to go there because he liked Elvis. (Laughter.) But I wanted to tell an interesting story. It's a story about a Navy fighter pilot who, at the age of 18, volunteered, and he said, I want to serve my country because the Japanese have just attacked us. You've got relatives who did the same thing. You've got a grandfather or a father, like I got, who said, I want to fight the Japanese. They were the sworn enemy. Thousands of people lost their lives. This country went to war against an enemy which attacked us. You know, what's interesting, on the way down from Washington to Memphis, Tennessee, right there on Air Force One, Prime Minister Koizumi -- the Prime Minister of the former enemy of the United States of America -- and I discussed the peace. We talked about the fact that this country had a thousand troops in Iraq to defend the young democracy. He knows what I know. We're in an ideological struggle between people who hate and people who have hope. We've been through ideological struggles before. Freedom wins every time if we -- if we don't lose our nerve. And that's the lesson I learned from my friend, Prime Minister Koizumi. It's amazing what has happened between when 18-year-old fighter pilot George H.W. Bush fought this -- fought the enemy, and his son is talking about keeping the peace with the same country. And the lesson is liberty has got the capacity to change enemies into allies. And my citizens, liberty has got the capacity to turn regions of hate to regions of hope. Liberty has got the capacity to yield the peace we want. Someday, an American President will be sitting down with duly elected leaders talking about the -- duly elected leaders from the Middle East talking about the peace, and a generation of Americans will be better off for it. (Applause.) And so these are the stakes in this election. It's an important election year. And I know Max Burns joins me in saying, thanks for coming out. Thanks for giving me a chance to share what's on my heart and where I want to lead this country. And I thank you for getting ready -- for doing what you're fixing to do, which is to go out of this hall and find fellow Republicans, and discerning Democrats, and reasonable independents, and remind them that if they want more money in their pocket, you vote Republican. And if you want -- and if you want this country to do everything we can to protect you from further attack and lay the foundations for peace, you vote Republican. (Applause.) I'm proud you've come today. May God bless you. And may God continue to bless the United States of America. (Applause.)

Remarks by the President at Georgia Victory 2006 Rally Georgia Southern University Statesboro, Georgia 11:07 A.M. EST THE PRESIDENT: Thank you all very much. Thank you for the warm welcome. It is great to be back in the state of Georgia. (Applause.) It is even better to be here with the next Congressman from this district, Max Burns. (Applause.) Max knows what it takes to be a United States Congressman, because he's done it before. And when you turn out on November 7th, he's going to do it again. (Applause.) He understands Georgia values, because he was born and raised in this district, and he still lives on a family farm outside Sylvania. (Applause.) I've been in Washington long enough to know that it makes sense to have people who live on a family farm in the halls of the United States Congress. (Applause.) I appreciate the fact that Max was a teacher. As a matter of fact, he taught right here at Georgia Southern. (Applause.) I hope he gave a few of the students As. (Laughter.) And for those of you who did get an A, you might as well vote for him. (Laughter.) I appreciate the fact that when he was a member of the United States Congress that he passed key legislation that helped farmers, that helped seniors file their taxes and helped our public schools recruit more math and science teachers. In other words, he has the record to run on. He's got something to say when he's out on the campaign stop, and he's also got a record to point to. There's no doubt in my mind that Max Burns is the right man to be the United States Congressman. (Applause.) You know who else agrees with that is Laura. (Applause.) She knows Max and Laura. She likes the Burnses. She likes a man of integrity, like Max Burns. She says, like I'm saying, work hard, turn out the vote, and send this good man back to the United States Congress. (Applause.) And by the way, when you're out there voting for Max, make sure you send a man who has done a fabulous job as your governor back to the State House, and that's Sonny Perdue. (Applause.) Sonny has got him a pair of boots he can be proud of. (Applause.) By the way, it makes me feel comfortable to be a in a state where your governor wears cowboy boots. (Applause.) And I know it makes you feel comfortable to live in a state where you got you a governor who's accomplished and can get the job done. (Applause.) I'm really pleased that Congressman Charlie Norwood has come over from his United States congressional district to help his friend, Max Burns, run. Welcome, Charlie Norwood. (Applause.) And I want to thank the mayor. Mr. Mayor -- Mr. Mayor Bill Hatcher, thank you for welcoming us; thank you for being here. (Applause.) I appreciate Perry McGuire, who is the candidate for attorney general, joining us. I know you'll support Perry if you want good law enforcement in your state. (Applause.) And I want to thank Eric Johnson, who is the Senate president pro tempore. Mr. Senator, thanks for coming; good to see you again. (Applause.) I appreciate Jesse Tyler, president of Georgia Southern University College Republicans, for helping organize this event. I do want to thank the president of Georgia Southern for letting us come, as well. (Applause.) We are eight days away from the election, and you can bet one thing: We're going to sprint to the finish line. (Applause.) And we need your help. I appreciate you coming out because I know you know what I know: This election is far from over, although there are some people in Washington who already think they know the outcome of the election. Some of them are already picking out their new offices at the Capitol. AUDIENCE MEMBERS: Boo. THE PRESIDENT: You might remember that around this time in 2004, some of them were picking out their new offices in the West Wing. (Laughter and Applause.) The movers never got the call. (Laughter.) And this November 7th, when our voters show up at the polls, we're going to elect people like Max Burns to the Congress and we will keep control of the House and the Senate. (Applause.) We will win this election because Republicans understand the values and priorities of the American people. We will win this election because our priorities and our values do not shift with the latest political opinion poll or focus group. (Applause.) We will win this election because we got a good record to run on. For decades our public school system failed too many American children, so we passed the No Child Left Behind Act and demanded that schools show results in return for federal dollars. Test scores are rising. The achievement gap is beginning to close, and we are bringing America closer to the day when every single child gets a good education. (Applause.) For decades America has been growing more dependent on foreign oil, and so we took the lead. We passed a good energy bill that supports conservation and expands domestic production, and expands new monies on technology. See, here's what we want -- Max Burns wants this, Sonny wants this, and so do I -- we want Georgia farmers growing the fuel that will energize our automobiles in the future. (Applause.) When you start running your car on Georgia corn we'll become less dependent on foreign sources of oil. (Applause.) For decades Medicare was an outdated program that wasn't serving our seniors as well as it could. So we passed landmark legislation that modernized the Medicare system. And today, more than 33 million seniors have more choices and access to affordable prescription drugs. And the days of our poor seniors having to choose between medicine and food are over. (Applause.) For decades, we haven't had complete control over our southern border, and illegal immigration has been on the rise. So I acted. I sent the National Guard troops to help our Border Patrol. We're adding thousands of new Border Patrol agents. We are modernizing our border. We will reform our immigration system, and we will uphold the immigration laws of the United States. (Applause.) For decades, activist judges have tried to redefine America by court order. Just this last week in New Jersey, another activist court issued a ruling that raises doubt about the institution of marriage. We believe that marriage is a union between a man and a woman and should be defended. (Applause.) And I believe I should continue to appoint judges who strictly interpret the law and not legislate from the bench. (Applause.) America is better off because John Roberts and Sam Alito are serving on the Supreme Court of the United States. (Applause.) We've got a good record to run on. And with Max Burns back in the United States Congress, we will build on that record. Now, there are big differences in Washington between Republicans and Democrats. Perhaps the biggest difference are on the two biggest issues that we face: which party is going to keep your taxes low and keep this economy growing, and which party will take the necessary steps to protect you from terrorist attack. (Applause.) Let me start with taxes. Max and I have a philosophy: We believe that you know how to spend your money far better than the federal government does. (Applause.) We believe that when you have more of your own money in your pocket to save, spend or invest, the economy benefits. (Applause.) Democrats believe they can spend your money better than you can. So over the past five years we have acted on our philosophy and passed the largest tax relief since Ronald Reagan was in the White House. (Applause.) In other words, we just didn't talk about philosophy -- there's too many philosophers in Washington -- we acted. We got the job done. We cut the taxes on everybody who pays income taxes. We doubled the child tax credit. We reduced the marriage penalty. We cut taxes on small businesses. We cut taxes on capital gains and dividends to promote investment and jobs. And to reward family businesses and farmers for a lifetime of hard work and savings, we put the death tax on the road to extinction. (Applause.) We had a ferocious debate over taxes in Washington. The Democrats in Washington predicted tax cuts wouldn't create jobs, wouldn't increase wages, and would cause the federal deficit to explode. Well, the facts are in. The truth is the tax cuts have led to a growing economy that's added 6.6 million new jobs since August of 2003. (Applause.) The truth is real wages rose 2.2 percent over the past 12 months, and we have cut the deficit in half three years ahead of schedule. (Applause.) Now the Democrats in Washington are making another prediction. They're telling you they're going to win on Election Day. Well, if their electoral predictions are as reliable as their economic predictions, November 7th is going to be a good day for the Republican Party. (Applause.) Now, during this campaign the Washington Democrats really don't want you to know their plans. As a matter of fact, the top Democrat leader in the House made an interesting declaration. She said, we love tax cuts. But given her record, she must be a secret admirer. (Laughter and applause.) She and her party voted against every single one of the tax cuts we passed. She voted against reducing the marriage penalty. She voted against cutting taxes on small businesses. She and her party voted against lowering taxes for families with children. Time and time again, when she and the Democrat Party had an opportunity to show their love for tax cuts, they voted no. If that's the Democrats' idea of love, I sure wouldn't want to see what hate looks like. (Laughter and applause.) See, here's the way it's working in Washington: If we do not make the tax cuts permanent, or if the tax cuts are not extended, you're going to get a tax increase. Recently, they asked a man who wants to be head of the House Ways and Means Committee, if the Democrats win, what he thinks about extending the tax cuts. He said he couldn't think of one of the tax cuts he would extend. This is what the Washington Democrats are saying about your taxes. He couldn't think of one of the tax cuts we passed that he would leave in place. And so if you're a small business person and pay taxes at the income -- at the individual income tax rate, it means the Democrats will raise your taxes. If you're a small business owner who wants to expand and invest in new equipment, the Democrats are going to raise your taxes. If you're a small business owner who wants to pass your life's work to your children and grandchildren, the Democrats want to raise your taxes. If you're a small business owner, my advice is, vote for Max Burns. (Applause.) Now, if you happen to have children, I want to just talk to you about what it means to not extend the tax cut. Just like the man who is going to be running the tax committee said he's going to do, not extend the tax. You see, if the child credit doesn't get extended, it means the tax credit gets cut in half, from $1,000 per child to $500 per child. So this evening, when you're sitting around the table eating dinner, and you've got children around your table, just count the number of children you have and multiply it by 500, and that's what the tax increase is going to be. So if you've got four children, four times 500 is 2,000. Your tax bill will go up if the Democrats take control of the House by $2,000; if you got three kids, it's $1,500. It's easy to calculate. I guess the $2,000 doesn't seem like a lot of money to the people in Washington, D.C., but I know it's a lot of money for your family. I know the child tax credit has meant a lot for people working for a living. And, therefore, if you want to keep that money in your pocket instead of sending it to Washington, D.C., you vote for Republicans on Election Day. (Applause.) This election is taking place in an historic time for our country. Our children and grandchildren are going to look back on this period -- one question will overwhelm all the rest: Did we do everything in our power to fight and win the war on terror? That's the question people will ask: Did this country do everything within our power to protect you? We face an enemy that is brutal. They kill innocent people to achieve ideological objectives. They're totalitarian in nature. They hate freedom. We love freedom, and that is why they view us as their enemy. You cannot negotiate with these people. You can't try to talk sense into these people. The best way to protect you is to bring them to justice before they hurt America again. (Applause.) I understand this is a different kind of war, and so do people in this congressional district need to know it's a different kind of war. I know we've got some vets here, and I want to thank you for serving. But in previous wars, particularly, say, World War II, it mattered how many airplanes you could shoot out of the sky, or how much territory an army took. This is a different kind of war. This is a war where people plot and plan in secret, and then launch lethal attacks, which means our professionals need to have all the tools necessary to protect you. You see, the challenge facing the United States is that we have to be right one time -- I mean a hundred percent of the time, and the enemy has to be right one time, in order to protect you. And so when I found out there was laws preventing the intelligence community from talking to the enforcement community, I asked Congress to pass the Patriot Act to tear down those walls so our folks had the tools necessary to protect you. (Applause.) I believe that if al Qaeda or an al Qaeda associate is making a phone call from outside the United States to inside the United States, we need to know why in order to be able to protect you. (Applause.) This is a different kind of war that requires us to get good intelligence in order to protect the American people. That's why I asked the CIA to develop a program that would question detainees that we picked up off the battlefield about what they know. Now let me give you an example. We captured a fellow named Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. The intelligence community believes he was the man who masterminded the September the 11th attacks. I thought it made sense -- if our most important job is to protect you, it made sense to find out what Khalid Sheikh Mohammed knew. (Applause.) In other words, we've been giving the professionals the tools necessary to defend America in this new kind of war. And recently -- recently, there were votes in the floor of the House of Representatives, in the floor of the United States Senate to provide these critical tools. In other words, Congress voted on these tools. And I want everybody in this district and in this state and around the country to understand those votes, because they were critical votes. And it shows the difference of attitude between the two parties, and the leaders in the two parties, about our responsibility to protect you. When it came time to renew the Patriot Act, more than 75 percent -- 75 percent of the House Democrats voted against it. When it came time to vote on whether or not the CIA continue its program to detain and question captured terrorists, almost 80 percent of the House Democrats voted against it. They just have a different point of view. They don't see it the way I see it, or the way you see it. Otherwise, why wouldn't they give the professionals the tools necessary to protect you? When it came time to vote on whether the National Security Agency should continue to monitor terrorist communications, almost 90 percent of the House Democrats voted against it. In all these vital measures for fighting the war on terror, the Democrats just follow a simple philosophy: Just say no. When it comes to listening to the terrorists, what's the Democrats' answer? It's, just say no. When it comes to detaining terrorists, what is the Democrats' answer? Just say no. When it comes to questioning terrorists, what's the Democrats' answer? AUDIENCE: Just say no! THE PRESIDENT: When it comes to trying the terrorists, what's the Democrats' answer? AUDIENCE: Just say no! THE PRESIDENT: So when the Democrats ask for your vote, what's your answer? AUDIENCE: Just say no! (Applause.) We're going to continue to make sure our professionals have the tools necessary to protect you, and you can count on Max Burns' vote. (Applause.) One of the lessons of September the 11th, 2001 is that when this country sees a threat we must take those threats seriously before they come home to hurt us. I saw a threat in Saddam Hussein. Members of both political parties in the United States Congress saw a threat in Saddam Hussein. The United Nations saw a threat in Saddam Hussein. Getting rid of Saddam Hussein was the right decision, and the world is better off. (Applause.) And now Iraq is the central front in this global war against these ideologues who murder innocent people to achieve their objectives. You know, I think it's very important for the Commander-in-Chief, as well as our citizens, to listen to the words of the enemy. You know, in Washington you hear people say, well, Iraq is just a distraction from the war on terror. I believe it is a central part of the war on terror. (Applause.) And so does Osama bin Laden. Osama bin Laden calls this fight the third world war. He says victory for the terrorists in Iraq will mean America's defeat and disgrace forever. They have made it clear they want to create as much carnage and death as possible to cause us to leave before the job is done. They have ambitions: They want to topple moderate governments; they want to control oil to blackmail the West. They want us to leave and dash the hopes and aspirations of millions of people who want to live in peace. And we have a different point of view. I want you to hear the words of a senior Democrat in the House of Representatives. She said, the President says fighting them there makes it less likely we will fight them here. The opposite is true, she said, because we are fighting them there, it may become more likely that we have to fight them there [sic]. Here's what this person and the leaders of the Democrat Party in Washington seem to not understand: Iraq is not the reason the terrorists are at war against us. I would remind the House Democrats, our troops were not in Iraq when the terrorists first attacked the World Trade Center in 1993. (Applause.) We were not in Iraq when they bombed the USS Cole or the embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. And we were not in Iraq when they killed nearly 3,000 people on September the 11th, 2001. (Applause.) You do not create terrorists by fighting the terrorists. The best way to protect you, the best way to protect the American people is to stay on the offense and defeat them overseas, so we do not have to face them here at home. (Applause.) Our goal in Iraq is victory. Victory in Iraq will come when that young democracy can sustain itself, and govern itself, and defend itself, and be a strong ally in the war against the terrorists. The fighting in Iraq is tough, and I understand it's tough, and you know it's tough, and so does the enemy. They have no conscience. They kill innocent men, women and children. They film the atrocities. They broadcast them for the world to see. They offer no hopeful vision. The only thing they know is death and destruction, but they hope these violent images will cause us to lose our nerve. They make a big mistake: They do not understand the true strength of the United States of America. We don't run in the face of thugs and assassins. We will defend ourselves. (Applause.) We will defeat them. We will defeat them because our commanders on the ground have all the flexibility necessary to make sure that we constantly stay ahead of the enemy. We'll defeat them because we've got a fantastic United States military. And I know I can count on Max Burns. (Applause.) And I know you can count on Max Burns and I can count on Max Burns by making sure our troops have all that is necessary to do their job to defend the United States. (Applause.) We will succeed in Iraq because the Iraqis want to live in a peaceful society. Nearly 12 million defied car bombers and assassins and terrorists and went to vote. They held up their purple ink-stained fingers, saying to the world, we want to be free. And they got a unity government that is working hard to repel the extremists who are preventing them. I believe strongly that with our help they will be able to defend themselves. And I believe strongly that they'll become a government of the people and by the people and for the people. As a matter of fact, I believe the only way we cannot succeed is if we leave before the job is done. (Applause.) And when you listen to this debate -- and it's raging across the country, this debate on Iraq -- if you listen carefully for a Democrat plan for success, they don't have one. Iraq is the central front for the war on terror. Yet they don't have a plan for victory. Last week, a senator, a Democrat senator explained her party's position this way. She said: We haven't coalesced around a single plan, but we're in general agreement on basic principles. She's right; the agreement -- they are in agreement on one thing -- they will leave before the job is done. That's what they're in agreement on. (Applause.) They've come up with a lot of creative ways to describe leaving Iraq before the job is done. Sometimes they say, immediate redeployment. Sometimes they say they wouldn't spend another dime on our troops. Sometimes they say the idea that we're going to win this war is an idea that unfortunately is just plain wrong. However they put it, the Democrat approach in Iraq comes down to this: The terrorists win and America loses. That's what's at stake in this election. The Democrat goal is to get out of Iraq. The Republican goal is to win in Iraq. (Applause.) I'm not saying these Democrats are unpatriotic. I'm just saying they're wrong. You cannot win a war unless you're willing to fight the war. (Applause.) Retreat from Iraq before the job is done would embolden the enemy and make us more vulnerable to attack. Retreat would allow the terrorists to gain a new safe haven from which to plot and plan, just like they had in Afghanistan. Retreat would enable the enemy to be more able to recruit. Retreat would say to people in the Middle East, you can't count on America. It would say to those folks desperate to live in freedom and peace, we no longer care or hear your cries. Defeat would dishonor the sacrifice of the men and women who wear the uniform of the United States of America. The consequences of retreat from Iraq will be felt for generations. I want the folks all throughout America to envision a Middle East where extremism are battling for power, moderate governments are toppled, oil is controlled to use for blackmail, and a country has a nuclear weapon. If that were to happen, people would look back at the year 2006 and ask, what happened to them? How come those folks couldn't see the threat? How come they couldn't see the danger for a generation of Americans who were growing up? I want you to know, I see the threat. I see the danger. That is why we will support our troops. We will fight, and we will win in Iraq. (Applause.) I want to share with you right quick a history lesson -- at least, I see it as history; after all, we're on a college campus. (Laughter.) It's the power of freedom. You know, recently, I went to -- with the former Prime Minister of Japan -- he was sitting Prime Minister of Japan then -- down to Elvis's place. Memphis, Tennessee -- I don't know if you've ever been there or not, but -- (applause) -- you have? Well, I like going there. It was interesting. And he really wanted to go there because he liked Elvis. (Laughter.) But I wanted to tell an interesting story. It's a story about a Navy fighter pilot who, at the age of 18, volunteered, and he said, I want to serve my country because the Japanese have just attacked us. You've got relatives who did the same thing. You've got a grandfather or a father, like I got, who said, I want to fight the Japanese. They were the sworn enemy. Thousands of people lost their lives. This country went to war against an enemy which attacked us. You know, what's interesting, on the way down from Washington to Memphis, Tennessee, right there on Air Force One, Prime Minister Koizumi -- the Prime Minister of the former enemy of the United States of America -- and I discussed the peace. We talked about the fact that this country had a thousand troops in Iraq to defend the young democracy. He knows what I know. We're in an ideological struggle between people who hate and people who have hope. We've been through ideological struggles before. Freedom wins every time if we -- if we don't lose our nerve. And that's the lesson I learned from my friend, Prime Minister Koizumi. It's amazing what has happened between when 18-year-old fighter pilot George H.W. Bush fought this -- fought the enemy, and his son is talking about keeping the peace with the same country. And the lesson is liberty has got the capacity to change enemies into allies. And my citizens, liberty has got the capacity to turn regions of hate to regions of hope. Liberty has got the capacity to yield the peace we want. Someday, an American President will be sitting down with duly elected leaders talking about the -- duly elected leaders from the Middle East talking about the peace, and a generation of Americans will be better off for it. (Applause.) And so these are the stakes in this election. It's an important election year. And I know Max Burns joins me in saying, thanks for coming out. Thanks for giving me a chance to share what's on my heart and where I want to lead this country. And I thank you for getting ready -- for doing what you're fixing to do, which is to go out of this hall and find fellow Republicans, and discerning Democrats, and reasonable independents, and remind them that if they want more money in their pocket, you vote Republican. And if you want -- and if you want this country to do everything we can to protect you from further attack and lay the foundations for peace, you vote Republican. (Applause.) I'm proud you've come today. May God bless you. And may God continue to bless the United States of America. (Applause.)

Remarks by the President at Georgia Victory 2006 Rally Georgia Southern University Statesboro, Georgia 11:07 A.M. EST THE PRESIDENT: Thank you all very much. Thank you for the warm welcome. It is great to be back in the state of Georgia. (Applause.) It is even better to be here with the next Congressman from this district, Max Burns. (Applause.) Max knows what it takes to be a United States Congressman, because he's done it before. And when you turn out on November 7th, he's going to do it again. (Applause.) He understands Georgia values, because he was born and raised in this district, and he still lives on a family farm outside Sylvania. (Applause.) I've been in Washington long enough to know that it makes sense to have people who live on a family farm in the halls of the United States Congress. (Applause.) I appreciate the fact that Max was a teacher. As a matter of fact, he taught right here at Georgia Southern. (Applause.) I hope he gave a few of the students As. (Laughter.) And for those of you who did get an A, you might as well vote for him. (Laughter.) I appreciate the fact that when he was a member of the United States Congress that he passed key legislation that helped farmers, that helped seniors file their taxes and helped our public schools recruit more math and science teachers. In other words, he has the record to run on. He's got something to say when he's out on the campaign stop, and he's also got a record to point to. There's no doubt in my mind that Max Burns is the right man to be the United States Congressman. (Applause.) You know who else agrees with that is Laura. (Applause.) She knows Max and Laura. She likes the Burnses. She likes a man of integrity, like Max Burns. She says, like I'm saying, work hard, turn out the vote, and send this good man back to the United States Congress. (Applause.) And by the way, when you're out there voting for Max, make sure you send a man who has done a fabulous job as your governor back to the State House, and that's Sonny Perdue. (Applause.) Sonny has got him a pair of boots he can be proud of. (Applause.) By the way, it makes me feel comfortable to be a in a state where your governor wears cowboy boots. (Applause.) And I know it makes you feel comfortable to live in a state where you got you a governor who's accomplished and can get the job done. (Applause.) I'm really pleased that Congressman Charlie Norwood has come over from his United States congressional district to help his friend, Max Burns, run. Welcome, Charlie Norwood. (Applause.) And I want to thank the mayor. Mr. Mayor -- Mr. Mayor Bill Hatcher, thank you for welcoming us; thank you for being here. (Applause.) I appreciate Perry McGuire, who is the candidate for attorney general, joining us. I know you'll support Perry if you want good law enforcement in your state. (Applause.) And I want to thank Eric Johnson, who is the Senate president pro tempore. Mr. Senator, thanks for coming; good to see you again. (Applause.) I appreciate Jesse Tyler, president of Georgia Southern University College Republicans, for helping organize this event. I do want to thank the president of Georgia Southern for letting us come, as well. (Applause.) We are eight days away from the election, and you can bet one thing: We're going to sprint to the finish line. (Applause.) And we need your help. I appreciate you coming out because I know you know what I know: This election is far from over, although there are some people in Washington who already think they know the outcome of the election. Some of them are already picking out their new offices at the Capitol. AUDIENCE MEMBERS: Boo. THE PRESIDENT: You might remember that around this time in 2004, some of them were picking out their new offices in the West Wing. (Laughter and Applause.) The movers never got the call. (Laughter.) And this November 7th, when our voters show up at the polls, we're going to elect people like Max Burns to the Congress and we will keep control of the House and the Senate. (Applause.) We will win this election because Republicans understand the values and priorities of the American people. We will win this election because our priorities and our values do not shift with the latest political opinion poll or focus group. (Applause.) We will win this election because we got a good record to run on. For decades our public school system failed too many American children, so we passed the No Child Left Behind Act and demanded that schools show results in return for federal dollars. Test scores are rising. The achievement gap is beginning to close, and we are bringing America closer to the day when every single child gets a good education. (Applause.) For decades America has been growing more dependent on foreign oil, and so we took the lead. We passed a good energy bill that supports conservation and expands domestic production, and expands new monies on technology. See, here's what we want -- Max Burns wants this, Sonny wants this, and so do I -- we want Georgia farmers growing the fuel that will energize our automobiles in the future. (Applause.) When you start running your car on Georgia corn we'll become less dependent on foreign sources of oil. (Applause.) For decades Medicare was an outdated program that wasn't serving our seniors as well as it could. So we passed landmark legislation that modernized the Medicare system. And today, more than 33 million seniors have more choices and access to affordable prescription drugs. And the days of our poor seniors having to choose between medicine and food are over. (Applause.) For decades, we haven't had complete control over our southern border, and illegal immigration has been on the rise. So I acted. I sent the National Guard troops to help our Border Patrol. We're adding thousands of new Border Patrol agents. We are modernizing our border. We will reform our immigration system, and we will uphold the immigration laws of the United States. (Applause.) For decades, activist judges have tried to redefine America by court order. Just this last week in New Jersey, another activist court issued a ruling that raises doubt about the institution of marriage. We believe that marriage is a union between a man and a woman and should be defended. (Applause.) And I believe I should continue to appoint judges who strictly interpret the law and not legislate from the bench. (Applause.) America is better off because John Roberts and Sam Alito are serving on the Supreme Court of the United States. (Applause.) We've got a good record to run on. And with Max Burns back in the United States Congress, we will build on that record. Now, there are big differences in Washington between Republicans and Democrats. Perhaps the biggest difference are on the two biggest issues that we face: which party is going to keep your taxes low and keep this economy growing, and which party will take the necessary steps to protect you from terrorist attack. (Applause.) Let me start with taxes. Max and I have a philosophy: We believe that you know how to spend your money far better than the federal government does. (Applause.) We believe that when you have more of your own money in your pocket to save, spend or invest, the economy benefits. (Applause.) Democrats believe they can spend your money better than you can. So over the past five years we have acted on our philosophy and passed the largest tax relief since Ronald Reagan was in the White House. (Applause.) In other words, we just didn't talk about philosophy -- there's too many philosophers in Washington -- we acted. We got the job done. We cut the taxes on everybody who pays income taxes. We doubled the child tax credit. We reduced the marriage penalty. We cut taxes on small businesses. We cut taxes on capital gains and dividends to promote investment and jobs. And to reward family businesses and farmers for a lifetime of hard work and savings, we put the death tax on the road to extinction. (Applause.) We had a ferocious debate over taxes in Washington. The Democrats in Washington predicted tax cuts wouldn't create jobs, wouldn't increase wages, and would cause the federal deficit to explode. Well, the facts are in. The truth is the tax cuts have led to a growing economy that's added 6.6 million new jobs since August of 2003. (Applause.) The truth is real wages rose 2.2 percent over the past 12 months, and we have cut the deficit in half three years ahead of schedule. (Applause.) Now the Democrats in Washington are making another prediction. They're telling you they're going to win on Election Day. Well, if their electoral predictions are as reliable as their economic predictions, November 7th is going to be a good day for the Republican Party. (Applause.) Now, during this campaign the Washington Democrats really don't want you to know their plans. As a matter of fact, the top Democrat leader in the House made an interesting declaration. She said, we love tax cuts. But given her record, she must be a secret admirer. (Laughter and applause.) She and her party voted against every single one of the tax cuts we passed. She voted against reducing the marriage penalty. She voted against cutting taxes on small businesses. She and her party voted against lowering taxes for families with children. Time and time again, when she and the Democrat Party had an opportunity to show their love for tax cuts, they voted no. If that's the Democrats' idea of love, I sure wouldn't want to see what hate looks like. (Laughter and applause.) See, here's the way it's working in Washington: If we do not make the tax cuts permanent, or if the tax cuts are not extended, you're going to get a tax increase. Recently, they asked a man who wants to be head of the House Ways and Means Committee, if the Democrats win, what he thinks about extending the tax cuts. He said he couldn't think of one of the tax cuts he would extend. This is what the Washington Democrats are saying about your taxes. He couldn't think of one of the tax cuts we passed that he would leave in place. And so if you're a small business person and pay taxes at the income -- at the individual income tax rate, it means the Democrats will raise your taxes. If you're a small business owner who wants to expand and invest in new equipment, the Democrats are going to raise your taxes. If you're a small business owner who wants to pass your life's work to your children and grandchildren, the Democrats want to raise your taxes. If you're a small business owner, my advice is, vote for Max Burns. (Applause.) Now, if you happen to have children, I want to just talk to you about what it means to not extend the tax cut. Just like the man who is going to be running the tax committee said he's going to do, not extend the tax. You see, if the child credit doesn't get extended, it means the tax credit gets cut in half, from $1,000 per child to $500 per child. So this evening, when you're sitting around the table eating dinner, and you've got children around your table, just count the number of children you have and multiply it by 500, and that's what the tax increase is going to be. So if you've got four children, four times 500 is 2,000. Your tax bill will go up if the Democrats take control of the House by $2,000; if you got three kids, it's $1,500. It's easy to calculate. I guess the $2,000 doesn't seem like a lot of money to the people in Washington, D.C., but I know it's a lot of money for your family. I know the child tax credit has meant a lot for people working for a living. And, therefore, if you want to keep that money in your pocket instead of sending it to Washington, D.C., you vote for Republicans on Election Day. (Applause.) This election is taking place in an historic time for our country. Our children and grandchildren are going to look back on this period -- one question will overwhelm all the rest: Did we do everything in our power to fight and win the war on terror? That's the question people will ask: Did this country do everything within our power to protect you? We face an enemy that is brutal. They kill innocent people to achieve ideological objectives. They're totalitarian in nature. They hate freedom. We love freedom, and that is why they view us as their enemy. You cannot negotiate with these people. You can't try to talk sense into these people. The best way to protect you is to bring them to justice before they hurt America again. (Applause.) I understand this is a different kind of war, and so do people in this congressional district need to know it's a different kind of war. I know we've got some vets here, and I want to thank you for serving. But in previous wars, particularly, say, World War II, it mattered how many airplanes you could shoot out of the sky, or how much territory an army took. This is a different kind of war. This is a war where people plot and plan in secret, and then launch lethal attacks, which means our professionals need to have all the tools necessary to protect you. You see, the challenge facing the United States is that we have to be right one time -- I mean a hundred percent of the time, and the enemy has to be right one time, in order to protect you. And so when I found out there was laws preventing the intelligence community from talking to the enforcement community, I asked Congress to pass the Patriot Act to tear down those walls so our folks had the tools necessary to protect you. (Applause.) I believe that if al Qaeda or an al Qaeda associate is making a phone call from outside the United States to inside the United States, we need to know why in order to be able to protect you. (Applause.) This is a different kind of war that requires us to get good intelligence in order to protect the American people. That's why I asked the CIA to develop a program that would question detainees that we picked up off the battlefield about what they know. Now let me give you an example. We captured a fellow named Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. The intelligence community believes he was the man who masterminded the September the 11th attacks. I thought it made sense -- if our most important job is to protect you, it made sense to find out what Khalid Sheikh Mohammed knew. (Applause.) In other words, we've been giving the professionals the tools necessary to defend America in this new kind of war. And recently -- recently, there were votes in the floor of the House of Representatives, in the floor of the United States Senate to provide these critical tools. In other words, Congress voted on these tools. And I want everybody in this district and in this state and around the country to understand those votes, because they were critical votes. And it shows the difference of attitude between the two parties, and the leaders in the two parties, about our responsibility to protect you. When it came time to renew the Patriot Act, more than 75 percent -- 75 percent of the House Democrats voted against it. When it came time to vote on whether or not the CIA continue its program to detain and question captured terrorists, almost 80 percent of the House Democrats voted against it. They just have a different point of view. They don't see it the way I see it, or the way you see it. Otherwise, why wouldn't they give the professionals the tools necessary to protect you? When it came time to vote on whether the National Security Agency should continue to monitor terrorist communications, almost 90 percent of the House Democrats voted against it. In all these vital measures for fighting the war on terror, the Democrats just follow a simple philosophy: Just say no. When it comes to listening to the terrorists, what's the Democrats' answer? It's, just say no. When it comes to detaining terrorists, what is the Democrats' answer? Just say no. When it comes to questioning terrorists, what's the Democrats' answer? AUDIENCE: Just say no! THE PRESIDENT: When it comes to trying the terrorists, what's the Democrats' answer? AUDIENCE: Just say no! THE PRESIDENT: So when the Democrats ask for your vote, what's your answer? AUDIENCE: Just say no! (Applause.) We're going to continue to make sure our professionals have the tools necessary to protect you, and you can count on Max Burns' vote. (Applause.) One of the lessons of September the 11th, 2001 is that when this country sees a threat we must take those threats seriously before they come home to hurt us. I saw a threat in Saddam Hussein. Members of both political parties in the United States Congress saw a threat in Saddam Hussein. The United Nations saw a threat in Saddam Hussein. Getting rid of Saddam Hussein was the right decision, and the world is better off. (Applause.) And now Iraq is the central front in this global war against these ideologues who murder innocent people to achieve their objectives. You know, I think it's very important for the Commander-in-Chief, as well as our citizens, to listen to the words of the enemy. You know, in Washington you hear people say, well, Iraq is just a distraction from the war on terror. I believe it is a central part of the war on terror. (Applause.) And so does Osama bin Laden. Osama bin Laden calls this fight the third world war. He says victory for the terrorists in Iraq will mean America's defeat and disgrace forever. They have made it clear they want to create as much carnage and death as possible to cause us to leave before the job is done. They have ambitions: They want to topple moderate governments; they want to control oil to blackmail the West. They want us to leave and dash the hopes and aspirations of millions of people who want to live in peace. And we have a different point of view. I want you to hear the words of a senior Democrat in the House of Representatives. She said, the President says fighting them there makes it less likely we will fight them here. The opposite is true, she said, because we are fighting them there, it may become more likely that we have to fight them there [sic]. Here's what this person and the leaders of the Democrat Party in Washington seem to not understand: Iraq is not the reason the terrorists are at war against us. I would remind the House Democrats, our troops were not in Iraq when the terrorists first attacked the World Trade Center in 1993. (Applause.) We were not in Iraq when they bombed the USS Cole or the embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. And we were not in Iraq when they killed nearly 3,000 people on September the 11th, 2001. (Applause.) You do not create terrorists by fighting the terrorists. The best way to protect you, the best way to protect the American people is to stay on the offense and defeat them overseas, so we do not have to face them here at home. (Applause.) Our goal in Iraq is victory. Victory in Iraq will come when that young democracy can sustain itself, and govern itself, and defend itself, and be a strong ally in the war against the terrorists. The fighting in Iraq is tough, and I understand it's tough, and you know it's tough, and so does the enemy. They have no conscience. They kill innocent men, women and children. They film the atrocities. They broadcast them for the world to see. They offer no hopeful vision. The only thing they know is death and destruction, but they hope these violent images will cause us to lose our nerve. They make a big mistake: They do not understand the true strength of the United States of America. We don't run in the face of thugs and assassins. We will defend ourselves. (Applause.) We will defeat them. We will defeat them because our commanders on the ground have all the flexibility necessary to make sure that we constantly stay ahead of the enemy. We'll defeat them because we've got a fantastic United States military. And I know I can count on Max Burns. (Applause.) And I know you can count on Max Burns and I can count on Max Burns by making sure our troops have all that is necessary to do their job to defend the United States. (Applause.) We will succeed in Iraq because the Iraqis want to live in a peaceful society. Nearly 12 million defied car bombers and assassins and terrorists and went to vote. They held up their purple ink-stained fingers, saying to the world, we want to be free. And they got a unity government that is working hard to repel the extremists who are preventing them. I believe strongly that with our help they will be able to defend themselves. And I believe strongly that they'll become a government of the people and by the people and for the people. As a matter of fact, I believe the only way we cannot succeed is if we leave before the job is done. (Applause.) And when you listen to this debate -- and it's raging across the country, this debate on Iraq -- if you listen carefully for a Democrat plan for success, they don't have one. Iraq is the central front for the war on terror. Yet they don't have a plan for victory. Last week, a senator, a Democrat senator explained her party's position this way. She said: We haven't coalesced around a single plan, but we're in general agreement on basic principles. She's right; the agreement -- they are in agreement on one thing -- they will leave before the job is done. That's what they're in agreement on. (Applause.) They've come up with a lot of creative ways to describe leaving Iraq before the job is done. Sometimes they say, immediate redeployment. Sometimes they say they wouldn't spend another dime on our troops. Sometimes they say the idea that we're going to win this war is an idea that unfortunately is just plain wrong. However they put it, the Democrat approach in Iraq comes down to this: The terrorists win and America loses. That's what's at stake in this election. The Democrat goal is to get out of Iraq. The Republican goal is to win in Iraq. (Applause.) I'm not saying these Democrats are unpatriotic. I'm just saying they're wrong. You cannot win a war unless you're willing to fight the war. (Applause.) Retreat from Iraq before the job is done would embolden the enemy and make us more vulnerable to attack. Retreat would allow the terrorists to gain a new safe haven from which to plot and plan, just like they had in Afghanistan. Retreat would enable the enemy to be more able to recruit. Retreat would say to people in the Middle East, you can't count on America. It would say to those folks desperate to live in freedom and peace, we no longer care or hear your cries. Defeat would dishonor the sacrifice of the men and women who wear the uniform of the United States of America. The consequences of retreat from Iraq will be felt for generations. I want the folks all throughout America to envision a Middle East where extremism are battling for power, moderate governments are toppled, oil is controlled to use for blackmail, and a country has a nuclear weapon. If that were to happen, people would look back at the year 2006 and ask, what happened to them? How come those folks couldn't see the threat? How come they couldn't see the danger for a generation of Americans who were growing up? I want you to know, I see the threat. I see the danger. That is why we will support our troops. We will fight, and we will win in Iraq. (Applause.) I want to share with you right quick a history lesson -- at least, I see it as history; after all, we're on a college campus. (Laughter.) It's the power of freedom. You know, recently, I went to -- with the former Prime Minister of Japan -- he was sitting Prime Minister of Japan then -- down to Elvis's place. Memphis, Tennessee -- I don't know if you've ever been there or not, but -- (applause) -- you have? Well, I like going there. It was interesting. And he really wanted to go there because he liked Elvis. (Laughter.) But I wanted to tell an interesting story. It's a story about a Navy fighter pilot who, at the age of 18, volunteered, and he said, I want to serve my country because the Japanese have just attacked us. You've got relatives who did the same thing. You've got a grandfather or a father, like I got, who said, I want to fight the Japanese. They were the sworn enemy. Thousands of people lost their lives. This country went to war against an enemy which attacked us. You know, what's interesting, on the way down from Washington to Memphis, Tennessee, right there on Air Force One, Prime Minister Koizumi -- the Prime Minister of the former enemy of the United States of America -- and I discussed the peace. We talked about the fact that this country had a thousand troops in Iraq to defend the young democracy. He knows what I know. We're in an ideological struggle between people who hate and people who have hope. We've been through ideological struggles before. Freedom wins every time if we -- if we don't lose our nerve. And that's the lesson I learned from my friend, Prime Minister Koizumi. It's amazing what has happened between when 18-year-old fighter pilot George H.W. Bush fought this -- fought the enemy, and his son is talking about keeping the peace with the same country. And the lesson is liberty has got the capacity to change enemies into allies. And my citizens, liberty has got the capacity to turn regions of hate to regions of hope. Liberty has got the capacity to yield the peace we want. Someday, an American President will be sitting down with duly elected leaders talking about the -- duly elected leaders from the Middle East talking about the peace, and a generation of Americans will be better off for it. (Applause.) And so these are the stakes in this election. It's an important election year. And I know Max Burns joins me in saying, thanks for coming out. Thanks for giving me a chance to share what's on my heart and where I want to lead this country. And I thank you for getting ready -- for doing what you're fixing to do, which is to go out of this hall and find fellow Republicans, and discerning Democrats, and reasonable independents, and remind them that if they want more money in their pocket, you vote Republican. And if you want -- and if you want this country to do everything we can to protect you from further attack and lay the foundations for peace, you vote Republican. (Applause.) I'm proud you've come today. May God bless you. And may God continue to bless the United States of America. (Applause.)

Remarks by the President at Georgia Victory 2006 Rally Georgia Southern University Statesboro, Georgia 11:07 A.M. EST THE PRESIDENT: Thank you all very much. Thank you for the warm welcome. It is great to be back in the state of Georgia. (Applause.) It is even better to be here with the next Congressman from this district, Max Burns. (Applause.) Max knows what it takes to be a United States Congressman, because he's done it before. And when you turn out on November 7th, he's going to do it again. (Applause.) He understands Georgia values, because he was born and raised in this district, and he still lives on a family farm outside Sylvania. (Applause.) I've been in Washington long enough to know that it makes sense to have people who live on a family farm in the halls of the United States Congress. (Applause.) I appreciate the fact that Max was a teacher. As a matter of fact, he taught right here at Georgia Southern. (Applause.) I hope he gave a few of the students As. (Laughter.) And for those of you who did get an A, you might as well vote for him. (Laughter.) I appreciate the fact that when he was a member of the United States Congress that he passed key legislation that helped farmers, that helped seniors file their taxes and helped our public schools recruit more math and science teachers. In other words, he has the record to run on. He's got something to say when he's out on the campaign stop, and he's also got a record to point to. There's no doubt in my mind that Max Burns is the right man to be the United States Congressman. (Applause.) You know who else agrees with that is Laura. (Applause.) She knows Max and Laura. She likes the Burnses. She likes a man of integrity, like Max Burns. She says, like I'm saying, work hard, turn out the vote, and send this good man back to the United States Congress. (Applause.) And by the way, when you're out there voting for Max, make sure you send a man who has done a fabulous job as your governor back to the State House, and that's Sonny Perdue. (Applause.) Sonny has got him a pair of boots he can be proud of. (Applause.) By the way, it makes me feel comfortable to be a in a state where your governor wears cowboy boots. (Applause.) And I know it makes you feel comfortable to live in a state where you got you a governor who's accomplished and can get the job done. (Applause.) I'm really pleased that Congressman Charlie Norwood has come over from his United States congressional district to help his friend, Max Burns, run. Welcome, Charlie Norwood. (Applause.) And I want to thank the mayor. Mr. Mayor -- Mr. Mayor Bill Hatcher, thank you for welcoming us; thank you for being here. (Applause.) I appreciate Perry McGuire, who is the candidate for attorney general, joining us. I know you'll support Perry if you want good law enforcement in your state. (Applause.) And I want to thank Eric Johnson, who is the Senate president pro tempore. Mr. Senator, thanks for coming; good to see you again. (Applause.) I appreciate Jesse Tyler, president of Georgia Southern University College Republicans, for helping organize this event. I do want to thank the president of Georgia Southern for letting us come, as well. (Applause.) We are eight days away from the election, and you can bet one thing: We're going to sprint to the finish line. (Applause.) And we need your help. I appreciate you coming out because I know you know what I know: This election is far from over, although there are some people in Washington who already think they know the outcome of the election. Some of them are already picking out their new offices at the Capitol. AUDIENCE MEMBERS: Boo. THE PRESIDENT: You might remember that around this time in 2004, some of them were picking out their new offices in the West Wing. (Laughter and Applause.) The movers never got the call. (Laughter.) And this November 7th, when our voters show up at the polls, we're going to elect people like Max Burns to the Congress and we will keep control of the House and the Senate. (Applause.) We will win this election because Republicans understand the values and priorities of the American people. We will win this election because our priorities and our values do not shift with the latest political opinion poll or focus group. (Applause.) We will win this election because we got a good record to run on. For decades our public school system failed too many American children, so we passed the No Child Left Behind Act and demanded that schools show results in return for federal dollars. Test scores are rising. The achievement gap is beginning to close, and we are bringing America closer to the day when every single child gets a good education. (Applause.) For decades America has been growing more dependent on foreign oil, and so we took the lead. We passed a good energy bill that supports conservation and expands domestic production, and expands new monies on technology. See, here's what we want -- Max Burns wants this, Sonny wants this, and so do I -- we want Georgia farmers growing the fuel that will energize our automobiles in the future. (Applause.) When you start running your car on Georgia corn we'll become less dependent on foreign sources of oil. (Applause.) For decades Medicare was an outdated program that wasn't serving our seniors as well as it could. So we passed landmark legislation that modernized the Medicare system. And today, more than 33 million seniors have more choices and access to affordable prescription drugs. And the days of our poor seniors having to choose between medicine and food are over. (Applause.) For decades, we haven't had complete control over our southern border, and illegal immigration has been on the rise. So I acted. I sent the National Guard troops to help our Border Patrol. We're adding thousands of new Border Patrol agents. We are modernizing our border. We will reform our immigration system, and we will uphold the immigration laws of the United States. (Applause.) For decades, activist judges have tried to redefine America by court order. Just this last week in New Jersey, another activist court issued a ruling that raises doubt about the institution of marriage. We believe that marriage is a union between a man and a woman and should be defended. (Applause.) And I believe I should continue to appoint judges who strictly interpret the law and not legislate from the bench. (Applause.) America is better off because John Roberts and Sam Alito are serving on the Supreme Court of the United States. (Applause.) We've got a good record to run on. And with Max Burns back in the United States Congress, we will build on that record. Now, there are big differences in Washington between Republicans and Democrats. Perhaps the biggest difference are on the two biggest issues that we face: which party is going to keep your taxes low and keep this economy growing, and which party will take the necessary steps to protect you from terrorist attack. (Applause.) Let me start with taxes. Max and I have a philosophy: We believe that you know how to spend your money far better than the federal government does. (Applause.) We believe that when you have more of your own money in your pocket to save, spend or invest, the economy benefits. (Applause.) Democrats believe they can spend your money better than you can. So over the past five years we have acted on our philosophy and passed the largest tax relief since Ronald Reagan was in the White House. (Applause.) In other words, we just didn't talk about philosophy -- there's too many philosophers in Washington -- we acted. We got the job done. We cut the taxes on everybody who pays income taxes. We doubled the child tax credit. We reduced the marriage penalty. We cut taxes on small businesses. We cut taxes on capital gains and dividends to promote investment and jobs. And to reward family businesses and farmers for a lifetime of hard work and savings, we put the death tax on the road to extinction. (Applause.) We had a ferocious debate over taxes in Washington. The Democrats in Washington predicted tax cuts wouldn't create jobs, wouldn't increase wages, and would cause the federal deficit to explode. Well, the facts are in. The truth is the tax cuts have led to a growing economy that's added 6.6 million new jobs since August of 2003. (Applause.) The truth is real wages rose 2.2 percent over the past 12 months, and we have cut the deficit in half three years ahead of schedule. (Applause.) Now the Democrats in Washington are making another prediction. They're telling you they're going to win on Election Day. Well, if their electoral predictions are as reliable as their economic predictions, November 7th is going to be a good day for the Republican Party. (Applause.) Now, during this campaign the Washington Democrats really don't want you to know their plans. As a matter of fact, the top Democrat leader in the House made an interesting declaration. She said, we love tax cuts. But given her record, she must be a secret admirer. (Laughter and applause.) She and her party voted against every single one of the tax cuts we passed. She voted against reducing the marriage penalty. She voted against cutting taxes on small businesses. She and her party voted against lowering taxes for families with children. Time and time again, when she and the Democrat Party had an opportunity to show their love for tax cuts, they voted no. If that's the Democrats' idea of love, I sure wouldn't want to see what hate looks like. (Laughter and applause.) See, here's the way it's working in Washington: If we do not make the tax cuts permanent, or if the tax cuts are not extended, you're going to get a tax increase. Recently, they asked a man who wants to be head of the House Ways and Means Committee, if the Democrats win, what he thinks about extending the tax cuts. He said he couldn't think of one of the tax cuts he would extend. This is what the Washington Democrats are saying about your taxes. He couldn't think of one of the tax cuts we passed that he would leave in place. And so if you're a small business person and pay taxes at the income -- at the individual income tax rate, it means the Democrats will raise your taxes. If you're a small business owner who wants to expand and invest in new equipment, the Democrats are going to raise your taxes. If you're a small business owner who wants to pass your life's work to your children and grandchildren, the Democrats want to raise your taxes. If you're a small business owner, my advice is, vote for Max Burns. (Applause.) Now, if you happen to have children, I want to just talk to you about what it means to not extend the tax cut. Just like the man who is going to be running the tax committee said he's going to do, not extend the tax. You see, if the child credit doesn't get extended, it means the tax credit gets cut in half, from $1,000 per child to $500 per child. So this evening, when you're sitting around the table eating dinner, and you've got children around your table, just count the number of children you have and multiply it by 500, and that's what the tax increase is going to be. So if you've got four children, four times 500 is 2,000. Your tax bill will go up if the Democrats take control of the House by $2,000; if you got three kids, it's $1,500. It's easy to calculate. I guess the $2,000 doesn't seem like a lot of money to the people in Washington, D.C., but I know it's a lot of money for your family. I know the child tax credit has meant a lot for people working for a living. And, therefore, if you want to keep that money in your pocket instead of sending it to Washington, D.C., you vote for Republicans on Election Day. (Applause.) This election is taking place in an historic time for our country. Our children and grandchildren are going to look back on this period -- one question will overwhelm all the rest: Did we do everything in our power to fight and win the war on terror? That's the question people will ask: Did this country do everything within our power to protect you? We face an enemy that is brutal. They kill innocent people to achieve ideological objectives. They're totalitarian in nature. They hate freedom. We love freedom, and that is why they view us as their enemy. You cannot negotiate with these people. You can't try to talk sense into these people. The best way to protect you is to bring them to justice before they hurt America again. (Applause.) I understand this is a different kind of war, and so do people in this congressional district need to know it's a different kind of war. I know we've got some vets here, and I want to thank you for serving. But in previous wars, particularly, say, World War II, it mattered how many airplanes you could shoot out of the sky, or how much territory an army took. This is a different kind of war. This is a war where people plot and plan in secret, and then launch lethal attacks, which means our professionals need to have all the tools necessary to protect you. You see, the challenge facing the United States is that we have to be right one time -- I mean a hundred percent of the time, and the enemy has to be right one time, in order to protect you. And so when I found out there was laws preventing the intelligence community from talking to the enforcement community, I asked Congress to pass the Patriot Act to tear down those walls so our folks had the tools necessary to protect you. (Applause.) I believe that if al Qaeda or an al Qaeda associate is making a phone call from outside the United States to inside the United States, we need to know why in order to be able to protect you. (Applause.) This is a different kind of war that requires us to get good intelligence in order to protect the American people. That's why I asked the CIA to develop a program that would question detainees that we picked up off the battlefield about what they know. Now let me give you an example. We captured a fellow named Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. The intelligence community believes he was the man who masterminded the September the 11th attacks. I thought it made sense -- if our most important job is to protect you, it made sense to find out what Khalid Sheikh Mohammed knew. (Applause.) In other words, we've been giving the professionals the tools necessary to defend America in this new kind of war. And recently -- recently, there were votes in the floor of the House of Representatives, in the floor of the United States Senate to provide these critical tools. In other words, Congress voted on these tools. And I want everybody in this district and in this state and around the country to understand those votes, because they were critical votes. And it shows the difference of attitude between the two parties, and the leaders in the two parties, about our responsibility to protect you. When it came time to renew the Patriot Act, more than 75 percent -- 75 percent of the House Democrats voted against it. When it came time to vote on whether or not the CIA continue its program to detain and question captured terrorists, almost 80 percent of the House Democrats voted against it. They just have a different point of view. They don't see it the way I see it, or the way you see it. Otherwise, why wouldn't they give the professionals the tools necessary to protect you? When it came time to vote on whether the National Security Agency should continue to monitor terrorist communications, almost 90 percent of the House Democrats voted against it. In all these vital measures for fighting the war on terror, the Democrats just follow a simple philosophy: Just say no. When it comes to listening to the terrorists, what's the Democrats' answer? It's, just say no. When it comes to detaining terrorists, what is the Democrats' answer? Just say no. When it comes to questioning terrorists, what's the Democrats' answer? AUDIENCE: Just say no! THE PRESIDENT: When it comes to trying the terrorists, what's the Democrats' answer? AUDIENCE: Just say no! THE PRESIDENT: So when the Democrats ask for your vote, what's your answer? AUDIENCE: Just say no! (Applause.) We're going to continue to make sure our professionals have the tools necessary to protect you, and you can count on Max Burns' vote. (Applause.) One of the lessons of September the 11th, 2001 is that when this country sees a threat we must take those threats seriously before they come home to hurt us. I saw a threat in Saddam Hussein. Members of both political parties in the United States Congress saw a threat in Saddam Hussein. The United Nations saw a threat in Saddam Hussein. Getting rid of Saddam Hussein was the right decision, and the world is better off. (Applause.) And now Iraq is the central front in this global war against these ideologues who murder innocent people to achieve their objectives. You know, I think it's very important for the Commander-in-Chief, as well as our citizens, to listen to the words of the enemy. You know, in Washington you hear people say, well, Iraq is just a distraction from the war on terror. I believe it is a central part of the war on terror. (Applause.) And so does Osama bin Laden. Osama bin Laden calls this fight the third world war. He says victory for the terrorists in Iraq will mean America's defeat and disgrace forever. They have made it clear they want to create as much carnage and death as possible to cause us to leave before the job is done. They have ambitions: They want to topple moderate governments; they want to control oil to blackmail the West. They want us to leave and dash the hopes and aspirations of millions of people who want to live in peace. And we have a different point of view. I want you to hear the words of a senior Democrat in the House of Representatives. She said, the President says fighting them there makes it less likely we will fight them here. The opposite is true, she said, because we are fighting them there, it may become more likely that we have to fight them there [sic]. Here's what this person and the leaders of the Democrat Party in Washington seem to not understand: Iraq is not the reason the terrorists are at war against us. I would remind the House Democrats, our troops were not in Iraq when the terrorists first attacked the World Trade Center in 1993. (Applause.) We were not in Iraq when they bombed the USS Cole or the embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. And we were not in Iraq when they killed nearly 3,000 people on September the 11th, 2001. (Applause.) You do not create terrorists by fighting the terrorists. The best way to protect you, the best way to protect the American people is to stay on the offense and defeat them overseas, so we do not have to face them here at home. (Applause.) Our goal in Iraq is victory. Victory in Iraq will come when that young democracy can sustain itself, and govern itself, and defend itself, and be a strong ally in the war against the terrorists. The fighting in Iraq is tough, and I understand it's tough, and you know it's tough, and so does the enemy. They have no conscience. They kill innocent men, women and children. They film the atrocities. They broadcast them for the world to see. They offer no hopeful vision. The only thing they know is death and destruction, but they hope these violent images will cause us to lose our nerve. They make a big mistake: They do not understand the true strength of the United States of America. We don't run in the face of thugs and assassins. We will defend ourselves. (Applause.) We will defeat them. We will defeat them because our commanders on the ground have all the flexibility necessary to make sure that we constantly stay ahead of the enemy. We'll defeat them because we've got a fantastic United States military. And I know I can count on Max Burns. (Applause.) And I know you can count on Max Burns and I can count on Max Burns by making sure our troops have all that is necessary to do their job to defend the United States. (Applause.) We will succeed in Iraq because the Iraqis want to live in a peaceful society. Nearly 12 million defied car bombers and assassins and terrorists and went to vote. They held up their purple ink-stained fingers, saying to the world, we want to be free. And they got a unity government that is working hard to repel the extremists who are preventing them. I believe strongly that with our help they will be able to defend themselves. And I believe strongly that they'll become a government of the people and by the people and for the people. As a matter of fact, I believe the only way we cannot succeed is if we leave before the job is done. (Applause.) And when you listen to this debate -- and it's raging across the country, this debate on Iraq -- if you listen carefully for a Democrat plan for success, they don't have one. Iraq is the central front for the war on terror. Yet they don't have a plan for victory. Last week, a senator, a Democrat senator explained her party's position this way. She said: We haven't coalesced around a single plan, but we're in general agreement on basic principles. She's right; the agreement -- they are in agreement on one thing -- they will leave before the job is done. That's what they're in agreement on. (Applause.) They've come up with a lot of creative ways to describe leaving Iraq before the job is done. Sometimes they say, immediate redeployment. Sometimes they say they wouldn't spend another dime on our troops. Sometimes they say the idea that we're going to win this war is an idea that unfortunately is just plain wrong. However they put it, the Democrat approach in Iraq comes down to this: The terrorists win and America loses. That's what's at stake in this election. The Democrat goal is to get out of Iraq. The Republican goal is to win in Iraq. (Applause.) I'm not saying these Democrats are unpatriotic. I'm just saying they're wrong. You cannot win a war unless you're willing to fight the war. (Applause.) Retreat from Iraq before the job is done would embolden the enemy and make us more vulnerable to attack. Retreat would allow the terrorists to gain a new safe haven from which to plot and plan, just like they had in Afghanistan. Retreat would enable the enemy to be more able to recruit. Retreat would say to people in the Middle East, you can't count on America. It would say to those folks desperate to live in freedom and peace, we no longer care or hear your cries. Defeat would dishonor the sacrifice of the men and women who wear the uniform of the United States of America. The consequences of retreat from Iraq will be felt for generations. I want the folks all throughout America to envision a Middle East where extremism are battling for power, moderate governments are toppled, oil is controlled to use for blackmail, and a country has a nuclear weapon. If that were to happen, people would look back at the year 2006 and ask, what happened to them? How come those folks couldn't see the threat? How come they couldn't see the danger for a generation of Americans who were growing up? I want you to know, I see the threat. I see the danger. That is why we will support our troops. We will fight, and we will win in Iraq. (Applause.) I want to share with you right quick a history lesson -- at least, I see it as history; after all, we're on a college campus. (Laughter.) It's the power of freedom. You know, recently, I went to -- with the former Prime Minister of Japan -- he was sitting Prime Minister of Japan then -- down to Elvis's place. Memphis, Tennessee -- I don't know if you've ever been there or not, but -- (applause) -- you have? Well, I like going there. It was interesting. And he really wanted to go there because he liked Elvis. (Laughter.) But I wanted to tell an interesting story. It's a story about a Navy fighter pilot who, at the age of 18, volunteered, and he said, I want to serve my country because the Japanese have just attacked us. You've got relatives who did the same thing. You've got a grandfather or a father, like I got, who said, I want to fight the Japanese. They were the sworn enemy. Thousands of people lost their lives. This country went to war against an enemy which attacked us. You know, what's interesting, on the way down from Washington to Memphis, Tennessee, right there on Air Force One, Prime Minister Koizumi -- the Prime Minister of the former enemy of the United States of America -- and I discussed the peace. We talked about the fact that this country had a thousand troops in Iraq to defend the young democracy. He knows what I know. We're in an ideological struggle between people who hate and people who have hope. We've been through ideological struggles before. Freedom wins every time if we -- if we don't lose our nerve. And that's the lesson I learned from my friend, Prime Minister Koizumi. It's amazing what has happened between when 18-year-old fighter pilot George H.W. Bush fought this -- fought the enemy, and his son is talking about keeping the peace with the same country. And the lesson is liberty has got the capacity to change enemies into allies. And my citizens, liberty has got the capacity to turn regions of hate to regions of hope. Liberty has got the capacity to yield the peace we want. Someday, an American President will be sitting down with duly elected leaders talking about the -- duly elected leaders from the Middle East talking about the peace, and a generation of Americans will be better off for it. (Applause.) And so these are the stakes in this election. It's an important election year. And I know Max Burns joins me in saying, thanks for coming out. Thanks for giving me a chance to share what's on my heart and where I want to lead this country. And I thank you for getting ready -- for doing what you're fixing to do, which is to go out of this hall and find fellow Republicans, and discerning Democrats, and reasonable independents, and remind them that if they want more money in their pocket, you vote Republican. And if you want -- and if you want this country to do everything we can to protect you from further attack and lay the foundations for peace, you vote Republican. (Applause.) I'm proud you've come today. May God bless you. And may God continue to bless the United States of America. (Applause.)

TVU 21 AHMAUD ARBERY MURDER TRIAL BRUNSWICK GA CAM 1POOL 11102021 130000 [09:06:00] >> ---Father to for the flavor issue. We did have brief testimony on that for Mr. Bryan for the record and I'm not suggesting it's going to change anything, but we we don't want to waive that issue or fail to make a record. What's I'm also going to address the panel when they come out this morning on Veterans Day. Just make sure nobody has any bad as they need to address family matters, pay respects or something first thing in the morning. So folks do that. But I do intend to move forward on Veterans Day and continue with the case as to the two open matters, the let me address the can reports first, the working through the testimony and what I understood the investigator to testify to yesterday was that he had pulled information from the Glynn County police database. And my notes and I don't have the actual name of it, but it was not the Glynn County police database. What was a bit confusing to me and what I think we were doing in cross-examination. Mr. Sheffield, you had had reports, correct? They are. They are fair reports. And were the cat reports limited to the satellite George neighborhood? They were limited to the satellite, Shaw's neighborhood and in particular particular addresses. OK, so what I what I heard and this is where the disconnect started in my mind, we were talking about the Glynn County database. I initially thought he had pulled information only because the state had requested it. But then it appears from his testimony associated with Greg McMichaels statements that he actually did do some follow up in that database in order to follow up. When I didn't hear that he had pulled any CAD data, which is a different database. So what you've got is different information than what I heard him testify that he had done done, that he had put, which to the court is important because the question for him then is simply, did he pull the cat ports? Does he know about the if he does or doesn't, then I think that answers the question. If he does know about them, then I think it's wide open to the cross. If it's limited to chores. The explanation from the court is I understand part of what the defense is trying to put up is that in support of Greg MacMichael statement, that there was some there were some things going on in the neighborhood. What those are, I don't know, and how important it is to the case. Ultimately, it's for the jury to determine. So just to be clear, and I think I said this last night, the court's position is not that those CAD reports can't come in. I just don't think this is the witness for it. He never indicated that he pulled the report. You would have any knowledge of it. And he wasn't asked about whether or not he would have knowledge of those reports. So the court indicated, I would think that through a little bit more we were getting a little sidetracked last night. So to clarify, that's where the court is on the California. Thanks for taking a look at what the courts say on the 404. Be opening the door. The court is not at this point that the state is open the door. I understand the arguments of counsel. I've heard them. I understand the testimony about whether or not he was looked at as a suspect is something that I don't think is an argument that's just being thrown out there for the sake of throwing out there. I see that as a serious issue. And I understand that. I understand I think the parties understand the court is very cognizant of whether that door gets opened at some point, in fact, has been told over and over again that that is a flag that may be raised. And if it comes up under appropriate circumstances, the court might rule differently. But at this point, based on the testimony that's been provided, the court is not going to get into it or allow the parties to get into the forum for the evidence. I believe those are the two open matters courthouse. Hopefully, if there are any additional open matters from yesterday, the statement that, you know, my notes did correspond to the conclusions that you reached, with one exception that I wanted to place on the record. It does not seem that there was any indication that either Mr. McCaskey or the officer Marsi was ever pooling the reports for the purpose of seeing if, quote, Ahmad R.E. was a suspect i in those cases. They were fooling the reports to follow up either on the information Greg MacMichael had provided about other crimes in the neighborhood and or the request that Mr. McCaskey had made of that officer to go back to the reports. They failed to address the issue of rising crime in the neighborhood, which the state rejects. So the insertion of the phrase whether Imod artery was assessed is what has tainted that evidence. And I wanted to place that on the record and is what we would argue. The reason why ---------- [09:12:46] In Seattle assures Royal Oaks Fancy Glass, or Highway 17, as the state has indicated, its all big one big, very close area. So to intimate that Ahmad was not a suspect in these reports, we all could tell that was kind of a useless question because the officer there's no way that he went and investigated a suspicious person report and we're not allowed to get into the content of those suspicious persons reports in case those identifying characteristics are consistent with a modern breed. We're we are following the court's ruling that we are not talking about Ahmad Arborists criminal history or suspicions of criminal [09:13:36][49.5] [09:13:35] acts outside of what was taking place at 20 Satullo Drive. So with that caveat, I wanted to state opposition from the defendant's position. The court has already ruled this, but I understand that we're ready for the panel to start having your next witness ready. Yes, sir, we do. OK. All right. Let's go to all rights reserved. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. All right. Welcome back. We are ready to proceed. Before we do, I do want to take care of just a little bit of housekeeping and make sure everybody's aware of what the court's plan is as far as the schedule. Normally, Veterans Day is a holiday and the court is closed. But given the way this case is moving forward, what I'm planning on doing is keeping the court open on Veterans Day and moving forward on that day with testimony. Now, I do know that some and obviously for good reasons, do pay respects or do other things on Veterans Day. So I'd like to know from you and you don't you don't need to tell me now, but send me a note if there's an issue that you have on Veterans Day, and I'll go ahead and see if I can get that addressed and make sure I understand exactly what that that need is. But at this point, for planning purposes, do plan to be in court on Veterans Day. So, again, if you need to get a note to me, you're welcome to do so. But with that, it's all the housekeeping I've got for this morning. We are ready to proceed with the evidence, as I understand. Again, I want to thank you for being here with us in Glynn County. And in the Superior Court state. Ready to proceed. Yes. On this said at this time, the state will call Detective Roderick Nogo sort of truth, whole truth and nothing but the truth that. All right, Detective, please state your name is spelled for the record. Broadridge No, Hili are ODP risc last name and no h i l l y all right, detective. No. How are you currently employed? I'm a sergeant patrol the Gwinnett County Police Department. And how long have you been with the Glynn County Police Department? For six [09:18:16][280.8] [09:18:16] years. And your entire time in law enforcement. Has it been with the Glynn County Police Department? No, I worked for Brunswick Police Department before and for about three and a half years. So you're coming up on twenty years? I am. All right. And are you currently a post certified law enforcement officer? I am. And you're a sergeant over patrol. So what do you do now? Supervise patrol shifts and at those the officers who drive around the cars? Yes. All right. Do you drive around in a car? I drive around. Oh, yes. All right. Do you respond to nine one one calls? I do. Are you assigned to any particular baker? No. You're over all of them. Yes. All right. So at any point time with your tenure in Glynn County, have you been assigned to CID or in any capacity investigating things like homicides, armed robberies and things like that? Yes, I was assigned as a criminal investigator in the Criminal Investigation Division. And when was that? The first time? From 2000 to end of 2014. Second from twenty eighteen to two months of this year, being of twenty twenty one. Gotcha. All right. So I'm going to direct your attention specifically to February. Twenty third, twenty twenty in the evening at the Glynn County Police Department headquarters where you present there that time. Yes. All right. So what we're going to talk about specifically is an interview with Greg McMichael. OK, yes. All right. Now, you're not the one who conducted the initial interview with Greg McMichael. Did you know? All right. You then became involved because you stopped by. Yes, I just stopped by. I was standing by while someone else was doing a statement for I was just waiting and did you know Greg McMichael prior to February? Twenty third of twenty twenty. I did tell the jury how you knew Greg Microclimates, February five that twenty twenty. I knew him as one of the investigators at the DA's office here. He would come to our station, deliver subpoenas here and there, and I would talk to him, you know, professionally. And how long had you known him professionally? Since at least 2005. So any personal relationship like out to dinner or anything like that? No, So when you stopped by, was he still in the interview room and was the recording still going? This was when Jesse was sorry. That was a bad question. So he was still in the interview room? Yes, he was. And you stopped by to talk to him? Yes. Did he? Great to speak with you. Freely. Voluntarily, yes. And what was kind of the nature tone of the conversation you had with them? We were just talking about what happened and he was telling me what happened. All right. So I'm going to hand you what has already earmarks and admitted into evidence as state's exhibit two to five a night prior to coming to court today. Have you had an opportunity to chance to find a transcript of the interview with Greg and Michael? All right. And I'm going to direct your attention at this time specifically to page fifty nine of that transcript. All right. All right. Now, I'm going to have you specifically give the jury the quotes from your conversation with him starting at line two. What did you ask Greg MacMichael? What's his name, the one who owns this house now? We say the one who owns this house. What house are you referring to? The house that was under construction, a few doors down from his home. And what was his answer to you? I have no idea. I never met him. Never met him. I what is the next question that you asked Greg MacMichael? Did this guy break into a house today? And what did Greg Michael say in response from line eight to line thirteen? Well, that's just it. I don't know. That's what I told. I told what's your name out there? I said, listen, you might want to go knock on doors down there because this guy had just done something that he was fleeing from. And I don't know, you know, [09:18:16][0.0] [09:23:29] you might have gone he might have gone in somebody else's house, OK, somebody's house. So when he says that's just it, I don't know. That's what I told. What's her name out there? Do you have any idea who what's her name out there is? I'm suing at times. Sergeant Oliver. OK, so he's talking about is telling the law enforcement officer out there that they needed to go figure out what he might have done. Yes. OK, I'm going to go ahead and direct your attention then to the very next page. Sixty of the transcript for your attention specifically to line seven. What did you ask him? Have you ever seen him before? And we say, have you ever seen him before? Who you referring to? A lot of the time we didn't know his identity. So, you know, his name was at this time. So have you ever seen him before? What did Gregory Michael say? No, no. I'd never laid eyes on the guy. You then say, OK, what does Mr. Michael then say? Nobody in that neighborhood, or at least nobody that has seen the video that this guy has, that this guy has has has a clue who he is. I know that that was difficult. OK, so nobody in that neighborhood or at least nobody that has seen the video that this guy has has a clue who he is. Yes. What did you ask next? Did he put it out on Facebook or something? The video now, who is he that you're talking about? Did he put it out on Facebook? The owner of the house on the construction site? What was Mr. Gregory Michael's response? I don't know. He may have, but so he says I don't know about this video being put out on Facebook. Correct. And then did you ask how many people in the neighborhood have seen this video? What was his response? I know that Diego has and and then you asked him who Diego was. Right. It's Diego, the guy that the other guy that came in. He says Phragmites says no, that is so. Then you ask him who Diego was, right? Yes. All right. So going on to the next page at the top, you ask him who Diego is on line three. What does drug use Michael say? So he can tell you who Diego is. Diego is the little short Hispanic guy that lives two doors down from the open house, the construction house that was able to give you Diego's last name. Not so [09:23:29][0.0] [09:26:36] So I'm going to go ahead and then direct your attention to specifically page sixty five. And at this point in time, are you asking Greg McMichael to speculate as to what was going through the mind of moderate? If you look at the line on page sixty with that recollection about what you're talking about here, which take a look at lines 22 through twenty four on page 64. Yes. 092640 PROSECUTOR>> So when asking Greg McMichael to speculate about what's going through the mind of Ahmaud Marbury, what does Greg McMichael say on lines three through six? >> â?oHe -- he was -- he was trapped like a rat. I think he was wanting to flee and he realized that something you know, he was not going to get away. PROSECUTOR>> Ok, and then I think you indicated and well -- well --- I'll ask you, what did you then say to him based on this: â?oHe was trapped like a rat. I think he was wanting to flee and he realized he was not going to get away?â?? [09:27:15] But you said, yeah, but he could have run around your son, right? What's he say? Sure. Right now, would you say? From what I can tell in the video, I mean, the whole road is there. So you had seen the video at this point time that you're talking to? Grab me myself. I had seen it on scene briefly. So at that point, time was great. If I could say to you is lines twelve through sixteen. [09:28:36][120.0] [09:28:41] Faster. [09:28:41][0.0] [09:28:42] Than Travis would ever be, he had opportunity to flee further. You know, we had chased him around the neighborhood a bit, but he wasn't winded at all. Continue and what's the next line? Just on sticks? I mean I mean, this guy was he was in good shape. Five now, after speaking with Greg, if Michael was Greg, Michael then free to leave and did he, in fact, leave? Yes, of course. The witness is, you know, actually moving this program is going to apply that. When is and I work. Thank you. On this year. And really, I'm Franco. Got to represent Greg MacMichael. This is my wife. Law partner. She represents him with police. Have a few questions for you today. And I want to go back to where you were with the state just now. And let's start excuse me. Let's start on. [09:30:16][94.4] [09:30:20] Page fifty nine. And. [09:30:23][3.4] [09:30:23] You were asked to read the section from lines two to thirteen. You tell me when you're with me [09:30:23][0.0] [217.8] [09:30:31] And this is the topic concerning no clue who he was. He referring to Ayman arbitrary that time on that day when this all happened right at the contact. You repeat that. I'm sorry, I was looking OK, this is a section where I just called it. No clue who he was. That was the point of it. Right. The section you were in. Right. All right. Well, we can reread it then. If it's summing it up isn't good enough, let's just make sure he's on the same page right here. Page fifteen, blind to go ahead and read to 313 to yourself. That's what he read to the jury. Spumante, particularly Lyons, a thirteen or Greg McMichaels telling you that's just it. I don't know. That's what I told. And you said it was Sergeant Oliver that he was talking to What's-Her-Name. He said I said, listen, you might want to go knock on doors because this guy has just done something that he was fleeing from. And I don't know, you know, he might have gone in somebody's house. And you're understanding and the content was when Mr. McMichaels telling you, I don't know, he didn't know the person's name action as to this officer's understanding of the context, it's not relevant. It's his context of what Mr. MacMichael was saying to him, that I'm trying to establish. Well, again, you're right. You're asking him about what Greg MacMichael was thinking and to explain his statements. Let's just rely upon his statements. If it's relevant in any other way, that's fine. But let's not characterize this witness. Characterize somebody else's statements, statements and records. All right. Mr. Michael couldn't tell you a Marbury's name could be correct because he said he didn't know his name, didn't he? Correct. All right. Well, let's go on with that page to get further context here. [09:32:51][140.0] [09:32:53] You go on to ask him. I'm in line fourteen. You were the first one to see him. That was a question from you. And Mr. MacMichael said, yeah, well, I guess I don't know if somebody else saw him running. I think anything about it. But when he came past my house, Mr. Monk is just now reading this section as opposed to asking this officer what it is. In addition, it has absolutely nothing to do with the real complete. This has nothing to do with what was above at all. I was talking about context for statements and said these are the words of Greg McMichael that come in a couple different ways. Let's get to the context question, because I just make sure let's get to the question part of it. This is the question. This is what. [09:33:45][52.6] [09:33:46] Greg McMichael was saying to you immediately after telling you he didn't know the name of the person he saw running in his neighborhood. Right. That's the context of what we're talking about. Correct. As far as line sixteen on the right. Yes. OK, and so what I'm doing with you investigating Haley, is I'm just reading the words on the transcript and you're affirming. Yes, that's what Greg McMichaels said to me. That's the form of all these questions. All right. You with me? Yes. OK, good deal. So going on, he says, but when he came past my house, he was he met the description of the guy that Travis had seen run in that that empty house, you know, two weeks ago or however long ago it was, you say. Yeah, and Mr. Right. Michael, so far I'm reading accurately, am I not? Yes. And then line twenty three, Greg. Michael, I mean, to a T plus he met the description of the video I had seen of this guy being in their short dreads and over the line one on page sixty you say. Yeah. And Mr. Greg MacMichael says white t shirt, short pants. I mean plus he was hauling ass and and you know, this he was running like people don't run normally. He wasn't out for a Sunday jog. He was getting the hell out of there. I read all that accurately. Yes. And context. You know, he's told [09:33:46][0.0] [192.6] [09:35:32] you he doesn't know this person's name. He's telling you, in effect, why he suspected him and then chased characterization, suspect. OK, you understood what he was talking about, right? I knew you were involved in the conversation and the words he was conveying back to you in response to your questions to him were understandable to you, were they not? You knew what he was talking about. Yes. OK, very good. So now let's go over to page sixty five. The other part of the transcript, the state distributed, they. [09:36:27][54.4] [09:36:27] Read the part on sixty five, page three, line three, rather, down to line sixteen. In. [09:36:41][13.9] [09:36:41] Line sixteen is where the conversation was in the middle of Greg McMichaels comments to you about Aubrey, where he said, I mean, this guy, he was in good shape. You with me. Yes. OK, and then he goes on to say in that same context, completing his thoughts to you. And there was no no hesitation on his part when he came to Travis. I mean, it was I think he was his intention was to grab that gun and probably shoot Travis. That's in my mind. That's what I saw. You know, and with that in mind, if he if he had gotten that shotgun and there was any separation between Travis and him, I was going to cap his ass. And you understood he was describing to you the fight right at the very end of the confrontation that you perhaps had seen on video by this point. Is that what you understood the context of this to be know his understanding of the context? These are just words recompile. His understanding is about that. Well, then that is the context in which he's saying these words. He's describing the final encounter between Imada, Aubrey and Travis and that he thought a lot was trying to get the shotgun away from Travis to shoot him with it. That's what he's telling you, right, counsel? Is that testifying? So let's look at this. This statement is coming through. The witness statements in context. She can ask the witness what he believes he was describing. But let's let the words Mr. MacMichael. All right. For context, investigator. No, really, you understand what he's describing right? Yes. And you understood what he was describing was his own thoughts that he was about to see his own son shot and killed by a Harbury with his own shotgun. Objection. Speculation as to what this means by Michael. This is exactly what the witness understood based on his interview with the Mr. Big Michael. Go ahead. You need me to repeat it. You're allowed. The answer is OK. In the context of this conversation. You understood Greg Michael to be telling you that what he thought when he was watching a Madama attack, his son Jackson mischaracterization counsel's testifying that is not at all afraid of. Michael said he didn't use the word attack at all. OK, I'll use his words. His intention was to grab that shotgun and probably shoot Travis. That's in my mind. Those were his words, right? Yes. And. [09:40:02][201.0] [09:40:03] You understood that what he was conveying to you was that he thought he was about to witness his son's death at the hands of a minor corrections escalation. The statement said the statement speaks for itself. He sustained. All right. Over to page sixty seven. Excuse me, get through this one. I'm sixty seven thousand four hundred sixty seven. That's not something he's testified to at all because there's [09:40:03][0.0] [269.2] [09:40:39] this here is the second page on topic. That's not the case. If I need to the defendant without the jury here, I'd like to do so. We go and see what it is. Let me see if I have a I have No. Three. Mm. I'll show you my computer. Does anyone just have a clean copy of it? This is the easiest way to do it. Nobody's got a clean copy of page six to seven. I do have something for you after it. Yes, we have one as you. That's true. Detective, did you get it to judge Protector's page problems? Every time I move, I pull a cord out at page sixty seven lines, a three seventy. [09:41:45][65.8] [09:41:47] Four peeked through eighteen sixty seven said page sixty seven line date through seventeen through seventeen. OK ultimately because you could write now before we read it. Investigator No. Here in your twenty years experience and in your training and education, you've heard of a phenomenon before called auditory exclusion where a person is so focused in a traumatic event, their vision. Fox is testifying. He has even given him an opportunity to say whether he knows what that word auditory to whoever was is to don't cross-examine. And leading questions are allowed in. Twenty four, six, six, eleven, B and C, we can look that up. These are proper questions. Well, you asked him whether news, what something was and you're about to define it for him. That's the objection to the question. Yeah. To give him the orientation of what I'm talking about. He might know by some other term. It has several different times. I've used one of those terms. Do you know auditory exclusion? If you heard that I have. I don't recall what it means. Well, when you see this refreshes your recollection that you've heard of it, it's the occasion when a person in traumatic situation at this point is testifying by telling him what this means. Yes, it's a legal question. It's a so. [09:44:35][167.4] [09:44:35] An auditory exclusion when you're in a traumatic situation and of your senses, your vision will retain its best abilities. But you're hearing and other senses auditory hearing in particular, might tune out sounds and you don't hear and you don't recall accurately, but you can also describe what you saw, but not what you heard. That's what you recall from your training happens sometimes to people in highly traumatic or unusual situations. Like the shooting. I don't recall if that's exactly what I learned. Is the phenomenon you're familiar with by whatever name, the term is. OK, so let's go to this paragraph here, 67 page partyline a you ask Michael, was he hit all three times or you know that he is Marda brain, right? Yes. [09:44:35][0.0] [233.2] [09:45:40] And then it means hit with three shots from Travis's shock. Right. Correct. And Greg MacMichael answers. There was only two shots. See that? Yes. And you say no. There were three right. Correct. And he says, were there three shots asked you that, right? Yes. And you say on the video, it sounds like there's three. You'd seen the video, right? Yes. It sounds like there's three great. Michael says I. I don't think so. I mean, it may have been three. I don't know. But I like I say, it was it was furball. It was a hairball. But he thought he heard two and three. And there's three on the video, right. From what I remember. Yes. 094603 DEFENSE COUNSEL>> And when you -- you've probably arrested many people through your twenty year career, right? >> I have. DEFENSE COUNSEL>> And when you do that, and you try to keep the person from fleeing from you, you will use verbal commands like â?ostop,â?? â?odon't run,â?? â?ostay where you are,â??that kind of thing? >>Yes. DEFENSE COUNSEL>> And if you have to raise your voice to give a stronger verbal command, you will do that? >> Yes. 094634 DEFENSE COUNSEL>> And if the person is still not compliant, you'll sometimes draw your weapon if you need to, wonâ?Tt you? >> Only in certain circumstances. DEFENSE COUNSEL>> Like when they're not listening to you and your verbal commands are not stopping. >> No. DEFENSE COUNSEL>> Yeah, no, what. >> No, I don't just pull my gun. DEFENSE COUNSEL>> OK, you'll do other steps before you pull your gun to get them to comply with you? 094704 >> Yes. DEFENSE COUNSEL>> Like --- raising your voice even higher. Louder. >> Maybe DEFENSE COUNSEL>> Alright. Well, you'll do whatever the circumstances require youâ?Tre not just gonna forget about it and go home, all right? >> Correct. DEFENSE COUNSEL>> Alright. And if the person is still not complying with your verbal commands, and you're waiting for someone to come back you up, like other police officers at some point, if you think the person is either going to attack you or flee, you will use your weapon. Will you not? 094744 >> Not always, no DEFENSE COUNSEL>> If the person is attacking you? >> Depends on how he's attacking or she. DEFENSE COUNSEL>> All right. If you have a gun on you and the person is attacking you, you would have a concern that the person might take your gun from you and use it to harm you or kill you? >> Once again, it depends on the circumstances and the person. DEFENSE COUNSEL>> If the circumstance includes being attacked by someone who seems to be trying to take your gun from you, putting his hands on it, you might use your gun, wouldn't you? >> At that point itâ?Td make me (?) threshold, yes. DEFENSE COUNSEL>> Thank you. [09:48:26] An ongoing ship this morning. The more I guess the strategy, I hope we can move forward and I don't believe so. I'd like to talk generally with you about the investigation and your role in this particular investigation. Who was it that you were charged with? And if not, we'll do it. Was it that you were charged with gathering just information from the great MacMichael Travis? My home. And that was the sole job that you had in this particular case. Yes. Just to perform the interviews. Yes. OK, and you were directed to do so by investigator Blowering. I'm not sure exactly. I was told seem to go back to the station. Didn't speak up just a little bit. You'd have dropped him off. That's what I was told. I'm not sure exactly by who I think it was. One of my supervisors asked to go to the station and do the interviews. Prior to the interviews, you had a debriefing with whoever was in charge so that they could give you some background information about what had happened that day based on their observations know. So did you go into these interviews not knowing what had happened out there and Sitel Shores? Correct. Literally. You didn't know outside world events or anything like that right outside seeing that video. OK, so seeing the video, the video that you saw was did it include Mr. Harbury running and then turning around and the car driver of the car dropping the phone for about a minute and then it being picked back up and then filming as Mr. Aubrey comes around the corner towards the shooting? Or did you just see the shooting? I think I just saw the shooting part because not even the entire video. Right. I didn't see. OK, so you're stepping into a situation. We really don't know much other than that there's been a shooting. Correct. And did you say you were on the scene that I had gone up to the senior zone. How long were you on the scene before you left to go do interviews? By two or three minutes. OK, so you're really kind of an open book when you get into these interviews, not having anything in your mind that you're trying to get out of these individuals, that you're trying to understand what happened. Correct. OK, so in your mind then, you are trying to understand the dynamics of what McMichael and Travis MacMichael were doing out there that day. Correct. And what Mr. Barberi was doing out there that day. Correct. What Greg McMichaels intent was based on what he told you. Right? Correct. And you conducted an interview with Travis Michael as well. So what Travis, my original intent was out there that I'm objective this time. We're not going into Travis Alexander at all. So what we're talking about is what this starts to build on it. Yeah, he's interviewing Travis. You might want to ask him about the statements made. OK, that you were trying to determine what Travis McMichaels intent was that correct and what Mr. Aubrey's intent was that day? Correct. OK, in doing so, you got some information about ongoing crime in the. I'm going to now we're going to contact it. We're I'll rephrase it. So thank you. But when you talk to Greg McMichael, you got information that there was some ongoing crime. The neighborhood have to do a lot of recall. Exactly. OK, just as you sit here, do you recall whether or not you talked with Greg McMichael about crime in the neighborhood? I yes. Yes. OK, did you endeavor after this interview to go and follow up about the crime in the neighborhood to pull any reports or anything like that? I don't think it was me that did it. I think I passed out on the information on to other investigators and they did OK. That's what we didn't do it. That's in stepping into a situation where you're going to be conducting an interview of a person just involved in a violent situation like this one, you have been trained how to interview individuals, correct? Correct. Yeah. You have some basic training that you go through about how to interview people. Have you had more advanced training on how to conduct interviews of suspects or people involved in traumatic situations? Have is it fair to say that it's important to have that training because interviewing someone can be a bit of a chaotic experience? Correct. The person that you're interviewing could be all over the map in terms of the timeline of the event? Correct. You may have to stop them because it can get very confusing and kind of redirect them back to moments that they can then break down and further explain to you. Correct. And is it fair to say that your training has helped you become the person in charge of that process? Correct. To help that person through their statement so that it can ultimately be understood by you? Correct. Because what you what you know is that whatever the garbled or asynchronous timeline that you could get needs to be understood eventually. By lawyers in the case. Correct. So you may have to follow back up on something to get more clarity so that it can be further fleshed. Yes. And not only do you know that the lawyers in the case are going to rely on it, but you know that it's going to be used here in court, possibly. Correct. And that the work that you're doing to flush out these subjects and to dig deeper into what's being said is possibly going to need to be understood by the court as well as a jury. Yes. All right. So you're you're going to do your best to try to follow up on things so that the interview that you conduct is as accurate and complete and truthful as it can be. Correct. OK, now, you did interview Travis. Yes. We spent a good bit of time with him, maybe an hour or longer. Yes. He was speaking quickly during that interview. The Times wasn't on it. Once again, we're not introducing the statements of Travis and myself. So going through all of this, I would have checked as some relevant. Here's this. Here's what he I couldn't the objective, because I think I need to work out exactly what's going on here. I'm going to ask that you go ahead and step into the jury room for just a moment or address matters before the court. All right. For the juror, I would say. Right, Sergeant, if I get you to just step down, if you just step out of the courtroom, we'll bring you back in for further testimony about get somebody to give me a little context here. Sure. At this point. Well, maybe the way to do it, let me explain what I understand and it's so Travis MacMichael statement, I'm guessing, is not being used because it's just there's too many issues to work through with Brewton that is just not being used, is that correct? Yes. Yesterday morning, we informed the defense that we had made a decision not to tender or present any statements of Travis McMichael. Once they informed us that because we wanted the entire thing in for completeness and we made the decision from them, weâ?Tre [09:58:46][786.1] [09:58:46] not tendering. In Travis McMichaels statement at all as currently right now. Hearsay. I talked to Mr. Rubin this morning. I said, listen, I don't even want to go into the fact that he went ahead and interview Travis McMichael because we're not handwritten, because now the jury is looking at us like we're hiding his statement. And my I it's my fear, of course, is that I go back up the states a little frustrated because the state has endeavored to communicate to the defense that we were not going to put this in. In fact, this morning I told Mr. Reuben, I'm not even going to ask this witness about Travis McMichaels statement at all. I'm going to just strictly have him on the stand to talk about Greg McMichael. I informed them of that and I was told, that's fine. We can recall him at a time if it becomes necessary, if Travis McMichael takes the stand. So at this point in time, having not gone into it, the state's fear is that it appears to the jury that, oh, there's the statement of Travis McMichael out there and I've been put in the position of having to object about the contents of it and tell them we're not tendering it, which, of course, makes it look like the state's hiding the statement from them. Well, that's not the intention. State's been put in an awkward position. The state would like a curative instruction, and that's what we're asking for. So as I understand it, the state has to put in certain statements of Travis McMichael. We responded and said we think this helps the rule of completeness. They chose not to put the statement in. And I'm not offering any of his statement. I'm not going to say anything that Travis McMichaels said, although there are probably some exceptions under excited utterance. I'm still not putting those. And that being said, the state's decision not to tell the jury that he was even interviewed, that's on them. I'm not I'm not hiding something. It would be as if in a car accident case, a police officer testifies about something through the plaintiff and the defense comes up and says, hey, officer, didn't you also talk to a witness? And didn't you also collect this information? Didn't you also investigate these other things? They chose not to bring it up. I'm not doing anything that's untoward. I'm simply informing the jury that no. One, he was interviewed. No to certain conduct and behavior was was was seen by this officer that he voluntarily, voluntarily cooperated in the interview. OK, we're not going to get into the problem with asking him about the way he was react is it opens the door to what questions were being asked at the time in the context of those reactions, which then possibly gets us into the state. That's my concern about that, the fact that he's interviewed. But that's fine or the fact that he cooperated is fine. But once we start describing his actions during the interview, I'm not sure how you separate that from what was going on in the interview at the time, he appeared stressed he was speaking quickly. Those are my questions in the hour long interview. What point during the interview, what was he being asked about? And knowing that when the jury left without the information about it. But Judge, that that doesn't make it impermissible? I would I would say for the court without a context. I understand the state was not coming in. We're not going to talk about it. It's an hour long statement. I don't know when the jury doesn't know what was going on. The moments that he could possibly be described. Because what you are implying is that during that entire one hour period, he was acting exactly the same way. I can clear that up. I mean, I feel like the court is telling me how to conduct if the subject matter is relevant. That's my that's my I don't believe it. [09:58:46][0.0][10:02:31] Is because without the statement coming in describing his conduct while giving that statement, without explaining what the statement is, the court finds impermissible. So the beginning of this and the end of that court is not going to allow you to go into. But as far as what he was doing, how this officer was perceiving his reaction excuse me, reactions, we're not going to get into that to cooperate. You're going to get a statement. That's fine. Will the court allow me to ask the witness the subjects that he inquired of? No, because then we're getting into the statement that he asked about, not what Travis said in response, because then we're getting into the statement, OK, I think those would be permissible areas. But I'll follow the ruling of the court and I will ask those questions. But I would like to say, in light of the state's comments, that it was the BREWTON problem that primarily drove their decision not to go into any of Travis thing. Michael's statement regarding the problem, of course, being that he would incriminate Greg McMichael. We don't have a proven problem in Travis McMichaels statement. There's many parts of it that have been highlighted in yellow that were worked out. But this looks to me like every bit as much as was in Greg with Michael statement that we just spent part of yesterday and part of today doing so. Our position is that for us, I was under the impression that it was probably not going to be introduced because it's so exculpatory and that the state was making a decision. Well, he'll have to get out there and tell his family himself, we're not going to do it through our witnesses. But if it's a brewton problem, then any issue we have made before regarding Travis MacMichael statement with respect to BREWTON, we withdraw. And so that's not an impediment for our client. But did that make you it for the state? And then we want to get back up and do it? Travis, you can't take this hearsay. It would come in if the state chose to tender it as the statement about party opponent. The state is choosing not to tender it as a statement of party upon it. So none of those issues apply. It's the state's decision not to tender in that hearsay. Under that, it's like the church reports on the corpse for for construction at this point. Yeah, we're going to bring the panel back. You know, quickly, Judge, I was also going to ask him whether or not Travis demonstrated positions with how he was holding the firearm. And that demonstration, again, I thought would be not a statement, but just in response to the question of how he demonstrated certain things for him, that he cooperated, he demonstrated, he spoke, those kinds of things. Let's be consistent again to [10:02:31][0.0][10:05:32] explain the context of that, you'd have to get the statement why he was doing that at a particular time and what the questions were that led him to that. So, again, that gets into the statement itself. So not. [10:05:41][9.1] [10:05:42] Do It based on the court saying, I can't. I mean, I can. Correct. Let's go get the wish and this. Did we lose that are. Welcome back, Sergeant. NBC or under Craig, I see you soon. I think you're going to stand up just a second, please. Go get panel. All right. For the jury. But you say keep. Thank you, ladies and gentlemen, Mr. Shepard, thank you. So. [10:09:53][251.9] [10:09:55] We're talking about you conducted an interview of Travis and Michael. Yes. Yes. And one of the things that you do when you conduct interviews is you want to make sure the person you interview understands that they don't have to speak to you, right? Correct. As we call this the Miranda admonition that they have the right to be silent. Right. And the right to a lawyer. Objection. At this point in time, we're going into the interview. I'm just going to in some flexibility here, wants to be sure Travis agreed to be interviewed. Yes. OK, he cooperated with that interview fully and freely. Yes. [10:09:55][0.0] [260.9] [10:10:37] But one of the things you were asked about just a moment ago is Greg's statement to you and Greg's expressions to you about Mr. Rahman arbitrary and whether he was trying to run or flee or how he could have run or taken other routes or whatnot. You recall that line of questioning by Mr. Hobe. Yes. OK, did you ever undertake it yourself after speaking with Greg and Michael to try to figure out any background on Mr. Ami and on the test? I did not. You do not not me. Not you, but you're aware that others may have. Yes. OK, lastly, when your you've been an officer for how many years did you say? Just under 20 years, 20 years doing patrol control. Yes. And you have investigated crimes of break ins? I have crimes of theft. I have crimes of burglary. I have. And one of the things that you've come to understand is that burglary doesn't just happen at night, right? Correct. It happens in the middle of the day sometimes. Yes. In particular on Sundays. I don't know if it's particularly on Sundays. If you look at page 72, isn't that what you discussed with Greg McMichael from starting the line ten? Yes, usually on Sunday. Yeah, that's what I said. Yes, I think for thank you. I know you are very, very sure that your investigator. No, Kelly, right after you said usually on Sunday. What? Greg Michael said. That's right. That's right. Then what do you say people are home on Sundays. People are home on Sundays. All right. And at the time of this interview, this was how many hours after the incident had taken place? A couple of hours, I think. I'm not exactly sure what was in two or three hours of the incident. So two or three hours of the incident. Yes, people are coming down the road. There's limited issues. There are no question I think somebody messed up down there. You are to use for the subject to recall. So that's your uncle. Yes. Thank you. Mr. Mason. So early, right. All right, ladies and gentlemen, let's go ahead and take a fifteen minute recess. We'll come back for the continuation of evidence in this case. Call Roger. We said, all right, if we can have the state's next witness ready to go in fifteen minutes. To ten thirty, I think everybody feel like that to me would be seven [10:10:37][0.0] [10:33:28] Sorry, we are back on defense present represented by counsel. There we go. We actually need her for this with my as I said, with that background represented by counsel. Is the state ready to proceed? Yes. Let's go ahead and get the panel. So Rasmusen heard. All right. Welcome back, ladies and gentlemen. We are ready to proceed with the evidence in this case from the state. Thank you, Judge. This time, the state will call Mr. Maxwell Benzal once the search for him was running. I swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth is a good sir. Please state your name and spell it for the record, Matthew all Benji and Sam THC w it'll will be in Z and Mr Albanese, what neighborhood do you live in? St. George. How long have you lived in fertilizer's since July. Eighty nine. Thirty two years. Thirty three years. Thirty two years. Thirty one years of art. And what's the specific address. The truth. About three or nine Jonge Group. What do you do for a living calibration technician and what are the normal hours that you work? When do you leave to go to work? And when do you leave to go to work and when do you come home? Leave around five thirty five forty to morning. Get around [10:33:28][0.0] [10:36:55] for thirty four. Forty five in the afternoon. Right. So prior to February of twenty twenty of moving from your work. I don't know. It appears that it might be. I'm not sure you maybe you just pushed that maybe just a little bit of work. OK, let's try that. Thank you Judge. So prior to February of twenty twenty, did you know Mr. William Raddy, Brian, that we'd met before you asked how many times have you met before? Was casual passing at a hardware store or maybe up in Zachary's. [10:37:36][41.1] [10:37:39] How would you describe your relationship with him? Just an acquaintance of had you ever been to his home instillations, you know, had he ever been to your house and still assures you? Did you even know where he lived? I had no idea. With regard to Greg. Michael, did you know Mr. Greg MacMichael prior to February of twenty? Yes. How did you know him? Neighbors. Had you ever been over to your house? I know you've been over to his house for, like, dinner or anything. You know, and Travis like Michael. Did you know him? Yes. And how did you know Travis? And so that same type of relationship neighbors talk in the driveway. I think most time we ever spoke with each other in the driveway, just friendly conversation about, you know, trucks and boats, fishing and stuff like that. And back in February of twenty twenty, you knew where the McMichaels lived. Yes. Now, with regard to Mr. Amort, Aubrey, did you know him? You know, had you ever seen him in the neighborhood before? No. Had you ever seen period before? No. Now, in relationship to your house, where is the open unsecured construction site at 220 satellite drive to the end of the street I live on. And how long has that location been under construction? Two and a half years, maybe. At that point, I'm not sure. So at that point, two and a half years, what was there before it became a construction site? Is it a vacant lot? So I'm going to show you marked as state's exhibit 284 a take a look at two, four and eighty five and see if you're able to recognize what's depicted in those photographs. Yep. Are they fair and accurate at this time? The state retender into evidence to a four and two eighty five. No questions, no objection. No objection there, Mr. Spencer. You'll be able to see it here on your screen. So I'm looking at two eighty four. What is the jury looking at here? Mr. Inglis's house just above the garbage cans there are here and that and to the right. So all of this English property is right. And so where are we kind of standing? Looking down the street. The end of my driveway, I think, approximately. All right. And what road is this road for Jones right now? Whose house is this? [10:37:39][0.0] [41.1] [10:41:15] Anyway? What do you know what Mr. Ray does know? I think he's retired, so they're looking at two eighty five. So it's just a further close up shot. Yes, great. It's just our corporate needs to take down everything we're saying. Thanks. Now, do you know where he was personally? We've met. Yeah, I introduced myself to my mailbox is the white mailbox here. So I walk down here every afternoon and check my mail. So that's your mailbox? Yeah. OK, so how many times do you think you've met or talked with Larry English prior to February. Twenty third. Twenty twenty a half dozen, ten times. Maybe a dozen. I'm not sure he ever come to your house. You ever go to his house. No, I talk to him. He's read the mailbox or you know, spoke to him in his backyard. He had an excavator putting some concrete on the riverbank. You know, I'm right. And had you ever seen various people at his open unsecured construction site? Maybe some contractors every now and then, any looky loos, people just stopping by to look at the property? No, you didn't see that? No, I did not see the car. And from about October of twenty nineteen through February of twenty twenty, what condition was the open unsecured construction site? Was it fully open that you could walk in. Yeah. That no garage doors from the front door was on. Were there any no trespassing signs up. I don't know. Now at some point in time. [10:43:41][146.2] [10:43:41] When you talked to Larry English, did he show you a video? Did he show you a video of someone who had come onto his property at night? Yes. And what was that person doing as looking around walk around on his dock? The dock video? Yes. Do you show you any other videos other than the dock video? No. Do you remember what day it was that he showed this video to, you know, maybe October or November time frame of nineteen and at any point in time do their English talk to you about items that had been stolen off of his boat like some fishing equipment and a cooler? Yes. And who did he suspected taken those things? He didn't really say. Just told me there'd been some contractors were objective hearsay from Mr. English. What he told this witness, Mr. Now, did you repeat what Mr. English had told you to anyone else? Not that I recall the all to direct your attention, Mr. Burns, specifically to February. Twenty third, twenty twenty approximately one p.m. in the afternoon. Tell the jury what you were doing that day. I was running a log splitter in my front yard, splitting wood. And how are you dressed? And on boots and gloves and over of what did you see? Um, I just stood up to move some wood and I noticed Mr. Breeze standing in the front yard of that house. [10:45:40][118.7] [10:45:41] Now, at that point time, did you know his name? No. OK, so he was a stranger to you? Yes, I you saw him standing in front of the house? Yes. How was he dressed? Uh, maybe a t shirt and shorts. Did he have any bags with him? No, not that I recall the backpack on him, no. What did you see the young man do was just standing there looking around. This is a good distance away. So what did you decide to do? What happened next? What came to mind was Mr. Englishes video, something that looked like that on his docket night. So Splinter off, grabbed my phone, walked down to the corner. And did you go in the house and get something else, too? Yeah, I had a pistol in my pocket. OK, so you got your phone, you got your gun and you walked down to the end of the drive. Or the end of the street. Right. All right. So on state's exhibit twenty five, where did you stand [10:45:41][0.0] [264.9] [10:46:47] stand by an oak tree next to the stop sign? Right here on the tree. Like right here? Yeah, well, behind it. But the truth is between myself and the house. So more like light here. Yeah. Got it. And what did you do then? I saw someone moving around inside the house, so I pushed the send button. Kind of. Please. All right. So when you hit the send button, what number did you dial? The seventy eight hundred number. What's the seventy eight hundred number is the county police department. So you did down that one. No, All right. Why didn't you dial 911? And it was I did not see an emergency. So you dialed the non-emergency Glynn County number and were you connected to an operator of have you had the opportunity to listen to that 911 call? I've heard of the time to you and you and I've met before. Right. And I played for you. Yes, you did. OK, and at that time, was it a fair and accurate depiction of what you said to 911 immediately? It's a recording, so. Yeah. All right. So, Your Honor, at this time, the state will tender into evidence and make sure I get the right number for state's exhibit 143 tonight. No objection. No objection. Your statement published. This is no for I quit. My job is going outside my house for a hundred years. And you have your father and I have to address that night. Peter Zoom's wanted to address some of the money right now. It's all over the place and he drove around this very differently. What did you do in this section? That's fine. I'll get it out there. I didn't even know what he was doing, what he did on the ground [10:49:37][169.8] [10:49:37] . And first. And you think on camera both before I go on living out your stuff, OK, that's fine. And she told me I was watching the white shirt, black like that. I my Villamor to tell or something. Bull's eye for an eye for my. I am sorry to come here to go but thank you. Were you able to see Mr. Aubrey inside the house when you were standing behind kind of the oak tree area? Could you tell what he was doing inside the house? No, Yeah. You can't read minds right now. All right. So you have no idea what he was doing inside the house. And do you have any idea why he ran from the house? No, don't. Now, after you hung up with someone, what happened next? Welcome back to my house. Do you recall at all walking down the street a little further in front of, I guess, Suvi Lawrence on one side and Diego Perez on the other side, down that street a little bit. Yeah, right. And do you remember making any sort of motion I saw in the video? You know, there goes and who are you doing that to? I was just thinking to myself running down the street, were you intending to communicate to anyone in particular at that time? No. And after you stood the street and made the motion, what did you do that at any point in time? Did you call Greg or Travis like Michael? You communicate them with communicate with them in any way, shape or form. After you went home. What happened next? Uh, few minutes I heard gunshots. How many gunshots did you hear? Three. What did you do once you heard those three gunshots? My bicycle out of the shop and rode down around four, you say down the corner where you go down to to drive left. So you came down Jones and then went down satellite. Right. Is that the same way that Mr. Aubrey had run? Yes. What you find I saw police car seems to be laying on the street. I saw his grave and crash there. What did you do? I stopped and went on. As you know, it's kind of shocking scene. You know, enjoyed your bicycle back home. Later that evening. Were you contacted by officers from the Glen County Police Department? Yeah, And did you speak with them at that time, I suppose? Yeah, I did. Do you recall that at all? Not really. At that point in time, just to put it politely, had you had an adult beverage or cocktail that went time, sir? Now, have you personally ever been the victim of property theft within? Sattell assures my daughter's car was broken into twenty years ago. Maybe it's been a long time, but nothing in 2019 or 2020? No, And do you subscribe to the Sattell Shaw's Facebook page? Yeah. Do you occasionally post there? Yeah, And do neighbors post about their concerns about crime in the neighborhood on that Facebook page? Yeah, they did. And is that normal for people to be concerned about property thefts and crime in a neighborhood? Objection is asking this witness to speculate what other people Mr.. Were you concerned about property thefts in satellite shores? Of course, my wife, Saro. Now,. [10:55:52][194.9] [10:55:52] Did you have any personal knowledge about any burglaries that had taken place in Sattell Shores? In my 19 or 20 Haubrich in Minnesota? So we'll talk about did you know about some Capricorns? Yeah. And how would you found out? How did you find out about the car break ins on the Facebook page? Had anybody actually personally spoken to you about their car break in like one on one and you interviewed them and you got information about it? No, And I feel I need to show you state's exhibit 127 127 Semester of NC. I'm going to show you state's exhibit 127. See if you're able to recognize this particular image. I do. All right. And is it fair and accurate? Was then you all right? At this time, the state would enter into evidence state's exhibit 127. [10:57:20][88.2] [10:57:21] OK, no objection, no objection to this with regard to state's exhibit 127. Go ahead, orient the jury. Where are you facing self to drug? And so when you were standing behind the oak tree, was it about here? Yes, right. And you said it's fair and accurate at the time, meaning back in spring of twenty twenty. Right. For the porta potties gone now. But it was there back then. Yeah. I remember my. Mr. Benzi, I'm going to pass you over to the defense. They may have some questions for you. Thank you very much. Mr. Monzur. One Mr Albanese. We've met before. Yes, we met about a month and a half ago, two months ago now. Spoke out near your house. Yes. OK, we talked about testimony you're giving here today is OK. You don't want to be here for the Beatles elsewhere, almost anywhere else. Probably this. [10:59:42][141.3] [10:59:42] Has been very difficult for you, correct? Yeah. It's cause you personally some problems as a result. As a result of your role in calling 911, what is you've had some concerns at work is you've had concerns about your neighborhood. Still a source. Yes. And even personal attacks on you, phone calls, things like that. Recently you recently, even though all you did was call nine one one, not nine one one, but the non-emergency number. Right. OK, and that's that's put you in a difficult spot in general. Yeah. I mean, it's put me in a spot. I wouldn't say it's really [11:00:30][47.8] [472.3] [11:00:30] difficult, but it is something I'm not used to. OK, well, let's talk about your your call to Glynn County Police Department for a second and orient the jury a little bit. When you were in your yard cutting the wood, you'd already gotten most of the tree down. You were you were continuing to split logs from a fallen tree in your yard. Right? Right. You're out in your front yard and you're you can see down from your house down towards Larry Englishes house right now. You had talked to Larry in English before, right? Yes. She said six to 12 times somewhere in that ballpark. Can you share mailboxes with him? Russ? I don't mean the same mailbox, same area. So there's a group of mailboxes at the end of the road. Right here behind the stop sign. Right. And multiple neighbors have to go to that spot to get their mail. Every day you get to walk down Jones to the corner of Jones and Satellite to get your mail. Yes. And of course, Mr. English has a mailbox there as well. But I don't think he has a mailbox yet. OK, he didn't have one yet, but that's where you would see him and talk to him occasionally. Yes, OK. And on. [11:02:01][90.8] [11:02:01] Those occasions, when you would see him, you would discuss housing construction coming. How's things going? Right. Right. You knew he had a heart problem. Yeah. So you knew his health was impaired. You know, he knew he was building the house as kind of a second home for him. Yes. You knew he lived some distance away. Right. And you knew he stored valuables on the property. I suppose you knew he had a boat on the property, right? You knew he had a camper on the property. Yeah. You he stayed in the camper when he would come to work on the house. Right. And the garage where he kept the boat. He had a regular car garage, but he also had an RV garage, the bigger garage to fit his boat or an RV or whatever you want [11:02:47][46.0] [136.8] [11:02:47] to put in it. Yes. OK, he had talked to you about this intruder on his in his house, right? Yes. And he even went so far as to show you the video of a black male behind his house on his dock. Right. And you understood that on the dock was about ionized? I don't know. I'm not I can't tell you what was on it. I don't know the arrangement of his golf, you know? OK, so you weren't aware there was a boat back there, right? I couldn't tell if the boat was on the dock or in the garage or where at the time did you know if Mr. Inglis had multiple boats? Yeah, I think he had two or three boats that he stored on the property from time to time, even though he was open and unsecured. This this house, it was still his property. So you understood, right? He wasn't inviting people to come onto the property when he's not there. Right. But I'm aware of this mail he showed you in the video. Did Mr. English tell you he was authorized to be on the dock? No. OK, as far as you understood, he was not authorized to be on the dock. That's right. And you understood that even though the house had no doors on it, it was still Mr. Inglis's property, right? Yes. And he could decide who was allowed to come and not come on the property. Yes. You were aware that and you even tell the Glynn County police this guy, meaning the man you're seeing on the property on February twenty third, has been to the house multiple times. And that's what it said on the call. But it might have been a heated moment. You know, I can't say who it was, that guy or just someone who looks like it's what I probably meant to say. OK, so you didn't know who that male was standing in the yard when you saw Lookdown Jones, you know, but to you, he looked like the guy you had seen in the video. Right. And you knew that this guy who you saw in the video had actually been to the house, not just that one time, but a bunch of times. Right. Again, you didn't know if it was the same guy, but it was enough to peak your interest to walk down. JONES Yes, OK. In fact, you tell the Glenn County non-emergency number he's been caught on the camera a bunch before at night. That's what you said in the call. We just search what I said, OK? It's kind of an ongoing thing out here and had been from that guy. I can't I can't say it was that guy, just somebody that description in. So you felt like this guy had been there before. You saw a video of it and he's here again. Or at least you suspected he's here again. I suppose. And that's what you told the police. Yeah, OK. He also told the police that the guy's building a house, the guy being Larry English, he's got heart issues. Right. Again, information you got from Mr. English. Right. And you knew of Mr. Englishes frustration at this guy or the guy you saw on the video not being caught. [11:06:14][206.6] [11:06:14] I don't really know, frustration. I can't speak to the man's state of mind. Explain to you how frustrated. [11:06:21][7.1] [11:06:22] He was. I don't recall. I mean, nobody's happy when somebody stopped running or stuffs, right. You know, he's not happy. This man is on his dog. I suppose not. Express that to you. I don't recall. You. [11:06:41][19.0] [11:06:41] Say that to the L.A. County police operator. We've had some break ins out here. Right? Right. One of the first things you said, this is Matt al-Fassi. We've had some break ins out here. Right. OK, now, what you're talking about is what is done. In case he asked you, you were aware from the Facebook page that there was crime, property crime in the neighborhood. Yes. And people were posting. [11:07:11][29.9] [11:07:11] About it on the Facebook page and next door page, if you're aware of that. Right. Do you subscribe to both of think? I logged in to that, but I can't get back into it. It's just kind of wonky. I know, but. [11:07:29][17.9] [11:07:30] But people had shared their own personal experience with property crimes and still a source. Right. And it seemed to be an ongoing problem in twenty nineteen now twenty twenty. It was around the same time that this man that you saw on the video was coming to Larry Englishes house. [11:07:50][20.6] [11:07:51] Right. And in fact, you were not only were you aware of it, but but many people in the neighborhood were aware of this intruder and that same direction. Mr. Me, what other people are aware of this speculation that this person, Mr. Offense's Park System, did you. [11:08:12][20.7] [11:08:12] Ever tell the GBI when you were interviewed that everyone in the neighborhood is aware of it, not a prior consistent statement or prior inconsistency? And once again, him saying to someone else does not get it out of speculation on his part question, simply whether he he was told the GBI, whether he told the GBI that that's OK. Could you remember being interviewed by the GBI? I do. Do you remember telling the GBI that you're aware of the guy back at the house and everyone in the neighborhood was aware of it? I can't say everybody, but it was, you know, people that were posting things and people neighbors talk to neighbors. So I suppose most neighbors were aware that there were break ins occurring and not just break, but break ins and Larry Englishes house, I don't know what who knew about that. But you. [11:09:13][60.5] [11:09:13] May not know who in particular were aware of it, but you told the GBI that everyone in the neighborhood was aware of. And I understand it's a figure of speech. Right. But you told the GBI that it's correct. OK, you were also aware that not only was this black male on the dock and that larynxes house on multiple occasions, but that things were missing from Mr. Englishes house. Right. In fact, you were aware that electronics were stolen and Akula was stolen. Objection. To what? Larry English. I know the form of the question is you're aware of this, that the only way to start, Nancy, would be aware of this is if it was hearsay coming from Mr. Bush. And I believe Mr. Rubin previously, it's my asking. This witness was very much told him. So anything he's aware of, Mr. English, would come from a state should be hearsay. And I'm. [11:10:09][56.4] [11:10:09] Not asking I'm not offering it for the truth of the matter, whether the items were actually stolen. But to go to this witness's knowledge and to explain why he did what he did on February 23, it's not being admitted for the truth of the statement itself. Just to explain the witness. But go ahead. OK, so Mr Albanese, you had knowledge, you were aware that items were stolen from Mr. Englishes House. Yes. Items were were in his boat, stored at the house. Right. And those items were electronics. Right. Any any cooler. And so you were aware of. Well, let me back up to your knowledge those items had never been recovered. I do not know. OK, were you present at Mr. Englishes house on February 11th? Twenty twenty. When police arrived at the house, take a walk down solid. The blue lights, you know, they flash all over the place. I went down and she was going on and this is at night, right? Is dark out. You know, the same. It was dark from the video you saw. I'm sorry. I'm going back to the previous video from the stranger's house. It was dark that time to. [11:11:42][92.5] [11:11:45] Can't if there was lighting, there was a lamp back there. What I don't I don't recall. But it was at night. It was at night. OK, so now February 11th, twenty twenty, you see blue lights in front of Mr. Englishes house at 220 Centella Drive, correct. Right. You were curious what you knew about Mr. Inglis's previous problems with theft at his house right. So you went down to see what was going on, right. Did you see Travis MacMichael down there? If you there or not? I think he was there. Did you see Greg McMichael there? I don't remember. OK, but you do remember Travis pretty. Do you remember talking to any officers there? I think that's I do remember talking to one officer after you went down there on the eleventh, did you have any more conversations with Larry English about his house? I don't recall. OK, did you ever talk to Suvi Lawrence about the thefts in the neighborhood? Possibly your friends with Miss Lawrence or least Neighborhood Inheritances blueprint? Diego Perez. Yeah, Ronnie Olson and Ronnie lives at the corner of Ronnie's garbage cans there. Right. So the property, the oak tree where you stood behind to make the call. This is right. And Ronnie Olsen's front yard. That's right. And if Mr. Englishes 220 Centella Drive, Ronnie Olson to nineteen sitting across from Mr. Mr. English. Yes, he is. Do you ever talk to Brooke Perez occasionally about theft in the neighborhood? I don't know what all we talked about. OK, the man you saw in the videos that Larry English showed you and the man you saw on February. Twenty third, twenty twenty, you had not seen either of those men before in the neighborhood? No. You never saw either man. If they're different, to your knowledge, jogging in the neighborhood and how long you've lived there. Thirty two years. Yeah. OK, I'm not aware of that. Man or man fitting that description jogging in the neighborhood. You know, the man that you saw when you first saw him on February twenty third was not jogging. No. In fact, he was just standing in the yard. That's right. Did you see him look around? It seemed like he was just looking around. OK, wasn't bent over out of breath, you know, wasn't time his shoes. No, not that I recall him. OK, you. [11:15:18][213.8] [11:15:19] Didn't know if that man was armed or not? No. OK, before you went down to make your phone call at the corner of Citilink, you grabbed two things. Cell phone and your nine millimeter. That's right. But the nine millimeter, your pocket, that's for [11:15:36][17.1] [762.1] [11:15:36] your protection because you just didn't know what was going on there. Nope. OK, you call 911 one. I mean, I'm sorry. You call the non-emergency number. And as you're calling, you're looking at the house. Correct. And you see a person in the house. I saw the person that I called saw a person through the window of the house right. The window. I'm trying not to get in anybody's way. The front the front of the house is is over here. Here's the garage is right for the windows over here. Right. You saw the man that you suspected as being an intruder walking through the house through those windows. Right. At some point you stepped out from behind the tree and that man came out and then took off. Yeah. You suspected he saw you and that's why he took off. I don't know. I know you don't know, but you suspected it. I don't know why he took off running. I don't know if he saw me or not. You told Diego Perez you suspected he saw you. OK, then, right. You know, OK. And you told the GBI that you suspected he saw you. This was possible in your mind. You felt some guilt over that. I did. Because you felt like you put into motion these events that turned tragic. I thought maybe if he hadn't seen me, he wouldn't have run away. I don't know. Right. And that, of course, it still weighs heavy on your heart. It's OK. After you were while you were making your call and you watched him run off into the neighborhood like you continued to walk down scintilla path. Mr. Wade's house was right there, right to at least in front of Diego Perez's house. So that's two houses down from Larry Englishes house. And that's where you made your motion, right? Right. At that point, your only two houses from the McMichaels house. Correct. Two or three spoons. OK, prior to a modern robbery, the man we now know to be running out of the house, did you ever see him through the window? Duck down? I don't know. I don't you don't recall. I don't recall. Excuse me one minute, Mr. Evans. Thank you. Is Armstrong Williams said sort of thing for all the other defendants. Yes. You're on. Good morning, Mr Albanese. I'm just going by her name cocounsel Verratti. Brian, first, I understand you might know my cocounsel, Kevin Goff helped my brother clean some trees up at his yard after one of the hurricanes several years ago. [11:19:39][243.3] [11:19:39] . OK, so then you have not spoken with Mr Goff then about your testimony today? No. OK, did you speak with Roddy Brian on February. Twenty third. Twenty twenty prior to the incident. No. OK, and at that point you hadn't spoken with him for several years at that point is that correct. I suppose that's correct. OK,. [11:20:00][20.5] [11:20:01] And on February twenty third, twenty twenty prior to the incident you also did not see him correct. OK, that's all I have for you. Thank you. Any redirect for the state. Yes. Judge. So when we're talking about what you're aware of with regard to Larry English, you are aware that he suspected his contractors of stealing items off the boat? I would say he suspected them, but maybe that is a possibility. And how'd you learn about that possibility? I mean, he we spoke about it. And you are aware that he had no idea if the items were stolen off the boat while the boat was at that construction site or somewhere else. I have no idea. And you don't know what's in the mind of the other neighbors within this Intellichoice neighborhood? Do you know? You have no idea. Who knows? What about Larry Englishes property? Do you know? And the video he showed you was the one on the dock. And I think you said between October and November. Yeah, I think defense counsel asked you if you were friends with Stephen Lawrence. Right. OK, I think it was unclear. Did you talk to Supai Lawrence at all about Larry Englishes house? I don't recall. We don't speak very often. And Diego Perez, you're you know him, right? Did you talk with him about Larry Englishes House? I may have, but I don't I couldn't tell what the conversation was or when it was or what it was about. But I mean, we talk about these things. You know, it's they share concerns about what's going on. But you don't have any specific recollections of these things. And what Ronnie Olson is one of your good friends, right? Yeah. And at one point in time, did you and Mr. Olson believe that the crime that was happening is still tell shortage was due to a homeless guy under a bridge? I don't know. I heard people talk about homeless people under the bridge. I never saw I don't know. But this was something else that people in the neighborhood talk to you about. Right? Right. OK, and that homeless guy under the bridge, he was a suspect in the 2019 and risottos, right? I don't know. Well, did you suspect him? No. I mean, I don't even know if there was a homeless guy under the bridge. So, no, this is all just rumor and innuendo going around, I suppose you just testified you don't know if Mr. Arborists saw you or not from inside the house where you're standing under the tree right? I don't know. Guy. And you told Diego Perez that you didn't know whether he saw you or not. Is that what you told Diego Press? I don't remember. I told Diego I and the direction Mr Abbott ran when he left the house, he went towards the McMichael House, right? Yes. OK, if you go gone the other way, where would you go? Out towards Highway Seventeen outfits, highway seventeen out of Sattell Shores for past witness. If there's any group of individuals. Mr Albanese. Hello. Quick question. [11:24:22][261.8] [11:24:23] Objection. It's two separate footage. Party right there. We're not questions and it's not you. It's OK. I'll ask Rebecca Franck's. He's the man that does what we had was on CROSSFIRE, Mr Ruban. No Cross and we'll we'll discuss it before I can see it. You're much on the same page with our offering, Mr Benzi. The direction you saw the man we now know is a man run was to your left, right. Yes. Away from the entrance to Satellite Shores Highway seventeen. Yes. You're on the phone calling the police to come to the neighborhood and check this out. The police would be coming from the direction of Highway Seventeen. Yes, Coming into the neighborhood, but going down the street again in the direction of Mr Ahmadinejad. Yes. Thank you, sir. If it was from familiar. Thank you, Mr Carr. We are with police witnesses. They were subject to recall. See. Subject to recall. Yes. Yes, I you are released for the day. You are subject to recall. Thank you. Thank you sir. Thanks for try to work through time. Yes. Yes. I believe our next witness will be Stephen Lowry and I think it's going to take awhile. I would say so maybe this would be a good time. But another matter on the record, so if you get in for an hour and then break for lunch, whichever, the court faces the house playing the breakfast. You're sticking around noon. They got you a timing standpoint to play to get into a full hour. So that being the case, break the witness in about 30 minutes. So thats fine. So six weeks as they call Stefen, Larry him, I swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. I think, sir, good morning. Please go ahead and introduce yourself to the jury, tell them your name and spell it for the court reporter. My name is Stephan Lowry, S-T. P.H. and LSW. Are you OK? And Mr Lowry, how are you currently employed? I do contract work at a local business for computer repairs. OK, part time. Part time. Are you also in school at the moment? Yes, my full time student. OK, and what are you studying? Network operations and security. So your computer does computer science? Yes, ma'am. How long have you held your current job? Oh, I started there in May. In May of this year. Twenty twenty one. Yes, ma'am. What were you doing before that? I worked at FedEx for a short while as a career and prior to that I was in law enforcement. OK, where were you employed when you were in law enforcement? Originally with BPD and Brunswick Police Department and then Glynn County PD. How long were you with Brunswick PD? I think roughly like four and a half or five years. [11:28:46][263.0] [11:28:46] . OK, do you recall when you started with them? Late 2012. 2012. OK, so for about four to five years, you said somewhere there? Yes, ma'am. And what did you do when you were with Brunswick PD? Mostly patrol. I was assigned narcotics for a while and a aggressive patrol division. OK, so mostly dealing with like drug cases. Narcotics. Yes, ma'am. OK, after you left Brunswick PD, where did you go? I went to Glynn County. I was already working out of that building because we shared an office. It was a joint drug unit, OK? And I remained working as a drug investigator for the county for another, I think, eight or nine months before I went back to patrol. OK, do you remember when you started in terms of the year with Glynn County PD? I don't for sure. OK, all right. So when you started with Glynn County PD, what was your position of narcotics investigator? OK, I want to turn your attention to February. Twenty third. Twenty twenty. OK, OK. Were you with Glynn County PD at that time? I was. OK, what was your position at that time. Criminal investigator. OK, and were you with a specific department. Yes, ma'am. Local and county PD. OK, department within that agency. Division of the Criminal Investigation Division. OK, all right. And can you just please tell the jurors what were your primary duties, investigating crimes that surpassed, I guess, what patrol officers can handle with their equipment and their training? And were you police certified that time? Yes. Does that essentially mean that you had arrest powers under Georgia law? Yes. OK, now, before February, twenty third of twenty twenty. Had you worked homicide cases,. [11:30:36][109.6] [11:30:37] An assisted listen. But never any of my own and therefore never any of your own. Yes, ma'am. OK, do you remember how many you had assisted with, like a ballpark number, maybe between one and five? I don't think we had many. OK, so between one and five homicide cases. Yes. Maybe that's very, very rough. And homicide, meaning someone's dead. I. [11:31:00][23.6] [11:31:00] Can think of one that I did work on just in the sense of someone being dead, but it was on a drug sale kind of thing, OK, and were usually on any of these homicide cases, the drug overdose case. I was. But that wasn't kind of what I was thinking about with homicide. I've never had a homicide involving like a prior to this any sort of, I guess, violent act touching shooting or anything like that. OK, so no shooting homicide, is that correct? Yes and no. Like stabbing homicide. Yes, ma'am. OK,. [11:31:32][31.4] [11:31:33] So did you become actually strike that how many citizen's arrest cases had you worked prior to February? Twenty third. Twenty, twenty nine now. OK, did you become involved in the investigation into the death of Ahmad Aaberg. I did. Can you tell us how you became involved in that? Yes, I was the on call investigator that day. I was called out to the scene in which there are we talking about February. Twenty third of twenty twenty. OK, so do you remember what time you were called out? I don't. I think it was somewhat early afternoon. OK, so early afternoon. Yes, ma'am. OK, and do you remember who called you out? I believe was Sergeant Oliver. Sergeant Oliver. OK, so when you're called out, what do you do? I got dressed in my uniform, got into my car and responded to the scene. When you say uniform, describe that for us. At the time it was for us and the idea was khaki pants and a green polo with a badge. And yeah, I'm sorry I spoke over you. Go ahead. Just a green polo with the county badge. OK. [11:32:42][68.2] [11:32:42] , Were you wearing any kind of body cam? No. OK, explain why not. The body cams were using a fix with magnets. I wasn't wearing a Laker that had my magnet inside of it, so I wasn't recording. [11:32:56][13.7] [11:32:56] OK, and what car where you driving? Would you drive to the scene? It would have been an unmarked county car. I don't remember to make and model, but it was probably a Ford Fusion. OK, and when you say unmarked, what does that mean? It's equipped with police equipment like lights, sirens, all that. But it's unmarked. It doesn't have Glynn County PD markings or any any police markings. [11:33:15][19.2] [11:33:16] OK, and was that car equipped with dash cam? No. OK, so no dash cam today. Correct. OK, so where was the scene located that you were called out to in Seattle? Over here in Glenn County. OK, and. [11:33:31][15.1] [11:33:32] When you arrived on scene, tell the jury what it looked like. What did you see? I arrived on scene. I saw the decedent laying in the roadway with caution tape or police, police, crime scene tape surrounding them. I I spoke to Officer Roberts, who briefed me on the information that she had gathered at that point. OK, so you spoke to Officer Roberts, that Officer Roberts hand anything over time? She did. What did she hand was a thumb drive that was containing video footage from a, I think, Diego Perez. OK, and did you come to find out that there was a certain cell phone that was in another officer's car? I did. OK, whose cell phone was that? That was Mr William Brian's cell phone, and it was in Sergeant Lescott car. OK, and what did you do after that? I spoke briefly with Mr Brian, who was on scene. I was told by another officer that he had already given consent for us to view a video that he had taken on his phone. I spoke to him and just reconfirmed that verbal consent and I viewed it on scene and then I spoke with him a little longer. I got him to agree to come back to Glynn County headquarters for an interview so we could speak to him a little bit more into Vandar, a download of the phone. He agreed. [11:34:55][83.3] [11:34:56] Where was Mr Brian on scene when you spoke with him? [11:34:59][2.8] [11:35:00] He was standing on the corner of I believe it was Holmes and Burford next to a bicycle in a tree. [11:35:06][6.5] [11:35:07] OK, all right. And just going back for a moment, did you recognize any other than the law enforcement officers who you obviously know because she worked with them? Did you recognize anyone else on scene that day? Yes, I recognized Greg with Michael. OK, and do you see him in court today? And if you need to stand up, you can do that. No, This September. Where are you pointing to? To the to my right of the woman in the yellow shirt. I haven't seen him in a while. He looks a little different. He looks a little different and I apologize. OK, and what color was he wearing for the record? Blue jacket and I think a blue tie. OK, Your Honor, let the record reflect that he has just identified Greg Michael, so how did you recognize Greg McMichael? [11:36:07][59.7] [11:36:08] I've seen him before coming to the police department to I always assumed he was delivering subpoenas, but I saw him coming in the back door and paper, sometimes not. I knew that he was an investigator for the DA's office. So. OK, and what was your relationship with him, if any? There wasn't one maybe. Hey, man, as far as I'll pass them if I happen to be coming in as he's going out or something. OK, all right. Did you all ever kind of go over to each other's houses or anything like that? No. OK, do you recognize William Bryan? Yes. Scene. OK, can you just point him out, describe where he was going to be. Mr there he's got. [11:36:43][35.0] [11:36:43] On a blue jacket and a gray area. I can't make out the tie color. OK, let the record reflect that has just identified William Bryan so Mr Lowry so you said you got the phone and you said you've seen the video. Yes, that's correct. Yes. And then you spoke with Mr Bryan to ask him if he would come to headquarters for an interview, is that correct? Yes. OK, when you spoke with him, did you pressure him in any way to talk to you? OK, did you object? We put that in context. When and where is this taking place? I can ask specifically, sharkskin. So the questions I'm asking now, are you still located on the scene? Yes. OK, they're at the intersection of homes and satellite. Yes. And satellite course. Right. OK, so at the point where you're [11:37:32][49.1] [1305.9] [11:37:32] talking to Mr Brian, you testified that he was near a bicycle. Yeah. OK, so at that point, did you pressure him in any way to come talk to you at headquarters? No pressure. I just asked if you would mind if he would mind coming to talk to you or something to that effect. What did he say? It wasn't a problem or. OK, you seem willing to go OK. Did you promise him anything of benefit or anything like that at that point? Was he under arrest? No. Was he detained? Was he in any kind of custody? OK, so what happened next? I went back to headquarters and I conducted an interview with Mr Bryan. OK, and how did Mr Brian get back to headquarters? He drove. He drove his own vehicle. He drove his own vehicle by chance. Do you recall what vehicle he was driving? It was a Chevy Silverado thing. It was quite dark gray. You said what now? Chevy Silverado? I think it was dark gray. OK, and when he got back to headquarters where he go for that interview, one of our interview rooms. OK, and are those rooms equipped with video? Yes. To record an audio as well? Yes. OK, now, in the beginning of your video, interview, did you go over any kind of forms with Mr Bryan? Yes, I think I went I went over a consent to search one, even though he had already given verbal concern. I think I just filled out a written form. Your Honor, may I approach this? Thank you. Now, Mr. [11:39:24][112.6] [11:39:25] Lowry, I'm showing you what's been marked for identification purposes as state's exhibit 298. Take a look at it and tell me if you recognize it. Yes, this is a this is the form that I filled out,. [11:39:38][13.4] [11:39:39] OK? And is it a true and accurate copy of that form? Yes. Appeared to be altered in any way? No, Your Honor. At this time we would tender states to ninety eight. No objection. Your objection. It's permission to publish. Yes. Go ahead. OK, so I. So Mr Larry, I'm going to ask you, can you see this on your form. Yes, ma'am. On your monitor. So if you can just make sure you're projecting your voice and speaking into the microphone, can you just go ahead and read this? What does it say here at the top? The Glynn County Police Department, General Investigations Unit. OK, and. [11:40:22][42.6] [11:40:22] I won't ask you to read all this fine print. That's the address and all that, right? Yes. OK, so start from here and just read that for us. Consent to search form cellular phone. I just got a blank where I filled in Mr Brown's name, William C Brian. Having been advised that law enforcement officers wish to make a search of my cellular telephone under my control over custody, I hereby permit investigator Lowry and any other officers designated by him or her to assist in the search. On my phone, the location of the phone is listed as one fifty seven Public Safety Boulevard make as an iPhone. It's a model eight and I didn't list the serial IMEI service and there was no pin underneath that. It says I understand the purpose of this consent to search is for the express purpose of searching, said cellular telephone for evidence relating to the crime of aggravated assault or homicide. I have not been promised a reward of any type. I have not been threatened in any manner. I freely and voluntarily give my consent to conduct, said search of the above described telephone to the above officer. With full understanding of my rights and actions. I understand that this consent is voluntary on my part and may be revoked at any time. Sign this twenty third day of February. Twenty twenty signed by Mr. Brian. OK, and did you pressure him or force him in any way to sign that you didn't promise him anything. OK, yeah, you may just they're a little finicky today so. Yes sir. Get too close to give you some feedback. So Mr. Lowry, you talked about the interview, the audio and video recording. OK, now, before coming to court today to testify, were you able to review that recording of Mr. Bryant's interview in its entirety? Yes, this is appear to be accurate, yes. OK, at this time, we timber states one ninety five. OK, get no objection. Thank you. Now, in conjunction with that audio recording and video recorded interview, did you also look at the transcript prepared of that interview? I did. OK, and did you look at it in its entirety? I did. Did it seem to match up the interview itself? It did. What's the wording? Identical. Oh, yes. OK, and my approach. [11:43:07][164.6] [11:43:07] So I'm showing you what's been marked for the purposes of identification. State's Exhibit one ninety five A is that the same transcript that you reviewed that we just talked about? [11:43:16][9.1] [11:43:18] Yes. It looks like it is. OK,. [11:43:20][1.4] [11:43:21] At this time. Judge, we would tender one ninety five. [11:43:23][2.5] [11:43:25] No objection. Right. Just for the record, for it's the record. How would you get. OK, Mr. Larysa, let's go ahead and go through some of these statements that Mr. Brian made ti OK, so you have the transcript there. And I'm also going to put excerpts up on this screen right here so you can find a transcript or you can follow up on the screen. OK, all right. So just starting with the basics. Did Mr. Brian tell you what he was doing on the day question on the twenty third of February? Twenty twenty around 1:00 pm or so. I can't read what's on the screen. There's nothing on there right now. But I was I was looking for the page and line reference. OK, not for this but I start putting it up. It should be ok. So did he tell me what he was doing around 1:00 p.m. on February. Twenty third point in time? Yes, I believe he was working on his porch or his garage or something like that. OK, and Wood, do you remember specifically what he said he was doing? OK, if looking at the transcript, probably go ahead and look at that [11:45:37][131.7] [477.8] [11:45:37] and oh, yes, he did say on front porch, OK, so he's working on his front porch. And did he say that something happened to kind of catch his attention? Yes, he's working on his front porch. Yes. What did he say happened? I looked up. Can I quote it OK? Yes. Let me direct you to the line. OK, so go to page four. Yes, my lines. Eleven through twelve and stop at that period there after road for good. Oh, Mr. Brown says front porch of the house. I looked up, see a black guy running down the road. OK, and did he also say something about a truck nearby? Yes. OK, you don't have to quote. You can just speak from your memory of the transcript at this point. Oh, yes. He saw a truck paralleling or following the other person he identified as the black guy running. Yes, ma'am. OK, all right. And after this, what did he do? He said y'all got him like a question, OK? And did he say that to the black guy or to the truck? To the truck. Did he ever ask the black guy if he was OK? Not that he told me that he ever asked the black guy if he needed help. No, OK, so after he hollered y'all y'all got him. What did he do? He went to go to his truck to assist and realized he didn't have his keys. So he went back into his house to retrieve the keys and got in his truck and kind of joined. OK,. [11:47:44][126.8] [11:47:44] And 307 Burford, Mr. Bryan's address. What neighborhood is that located in Cincinnati. So I'm going to put up here on a screen right here. So at the point where Mr. Brian gets in his truck, that he go out onto the road. [11:48:08][23.4] [11:48:10] No, he should hurry to get in. Or just my words. Your own words? No, he sat there for a second and kind of assessed. Oh, he waited for Mr. Aubrey to come back towards him. OK, and what road is directly in front of Mr. Bryan's house? BURFORD OK, so if you can just read here page five lines eighteen through twenty five. [11:48:33][23.0] [11:48:34] OK, so I just kind of sat there for a minute and didn't really object. I think we got a to take up that secretary. OK, well let's do this thing in general. Probably a good break for lunch. We're going to break until we're going to be addressing some matters. Problem one o'clock, this one on one o'clock for the continuation of the evidence. Again, during break to discuss the case among yourselves or with anybody else. Don't go looking for any information about the case. And again, if somebody is talking about it in your presence of hearing, please let the court know that. We'll see if we need to address that. Thank you. All right, Terry. All. [11:49:58][83.8] [11:49:58] Right, sir. I'm going to ask that you go ahead and step down. If I could have you back here just before one o'clock for continuation of evidence in the case, I remind you that you are under oath. So do not discuss your testimony with anyone during the break. Yes, sir. Thank you. Yes. Mr. Matter, the state is cutting these statements and I understand the desire to satisfy the McMichael defendants and their root concerns. But the state is cutting up the statement so they are fundamentally being changed. And then when I cross-examine and cross-examine, the answer's going to be, oh, well, we didn't have any choice. And. [11:50:52][53.5] [11:50:52] I'm saying that there isn't some truth to that. But we're cutting up the statements to the point where what's being presented is consciously or unconsciously misleading. We're also, instead of asking, as I thought we did the other day with the Mr. Minshew, we're not asking directing your attention to page so-and-so line so-and-so. Do you recall what happened next? We're editorializing. We're changing the meaning of what's being said. For example, Roddy Brian never said in the transcript that he hollered at any one more to the point. It's clear from the transcript itself that it was evident to Mr. Brian that nobody could hear him, that the characterization of what he's doing is hollering is unsupported by the record. It's unsupported by. [11:51:44][52.4] [11:51:44] The transcript. And then I have to try and get into that. We're talking about seeing the black guy going by. It's not clear that he's being followed by the truck. Now that I understand the state wants to present that through other evidence. We've got the night owl video and so forth. But this is for Mr. Brian. This is a critical witness. [11:52:01][16.4] [11:52:01] In the case. And this material is being cut up and presented in a way that's troubling. For example, Miss Oliviera and I'm not saying it's done intentionally. I understand the difficulty here. But for example, we've heard reports Chase used the police report, used the words follow. Now, all of a sudden, Mr. Brian is saying that he joined in Mr. Brian. [11:52:21][19.7] [11:52:21] Knepper used those words. [11:52:24][2.5] [11:52:25] And I would point out, Your Honor, that the weight of all this is happening is that the state is leading former Detective Lowery through the statement that he's leading him to pages and lines. And he simply directed to that point to present evidence to the court. That's one thing, but could be leading the witness into statements like Holler and joined in. That is not simply allowing the state to get the evidence in front of the jury. It is leading to twist the narrative in ways that I would respectfully submit. Whether the state pardoned or not are simply unfair and violate of my client's rights. And I it's not that we're not trying to work through it and maybe over lunch, some of these issues will go away and I'm not asking the court at this point to bring the jury back in and give a curative instruction. I'm not asking for any admonishments, but I would just urge the state and maybe the court could provide some guidance that if we're going to go beyond asking page and line references and what was actually said, then we're not going to be able lead him there. I can lead all day long. I can do that. But they can. [11:53:33][68.0] [11:53:36] Join in this because the statements that are being made. Did he indicated he joined in? Yes, he did. What did he say? I got in my car and pulled him to the road. That's a problem. He's not saying to join and he just says, I got in my car because of the questions. So we join in that motion. It is unfair characterization. I think the court should say from this point forward, you just need to say redlined one or two through line four or five and leave at that without characterizing it beyond what's actually regulated. Michael joins this motion as well. So, you know, the defense are going to editorializing either one, he say, is the question, not the prosecution. So let me just let me hear from say I do want to add we're doing it a little differently with this witness. And I think that may be where most of this objection seems to be coming from, but from the state. Your Honor, on page four of the transcript, in terms of Mr. Goff's complaint that I use the word Hollard, his client actually used the word invalid, his client said. So I started running towards my truck and I hollered at that point, I said, y'all got him. So that was a word from Mr. Bryan himself. And I understand that I didn't have excerpts for officer mensches testimony, but it's essentially the transcript that the witness is reading from. It just helps as a visual aid for the jurors as well. So I went ahead and got excerpts from the transcript. But nothing has changed in terms of me adding or deleting anything. Here's what I heard that this counsel is aware of. The struggle with doing the statements in this way is we're having witnesses testify to individual statements that aren't coming in because of these BREWTON issues and other discussions that the court was not privy to before we got into trial. So this is a different it's not the normal way. It's not that. And it's permissible to do it this way. It just creates a lot of issues like this. What I think I heard and I agree with is what happened just a moment ago is the witness effectively summarized what he thought the statement was and then was asked again what the statement was in the statement got presented on the screen. That's how I heard it. That the objection to that is similar to objections I was getting about getting into the minds of the individual who's making the statement. And from my perspective, sort of mixing up true statements by individuals and what they're what other people thought they may be saying. And that's been going round round, I think, with a number of different witnesses here that I'm trying to figure out how to bring this together in a nice bow, to be clear. But where I'm going with it is if we've got a witness up on the stand and he's putting up the defendant's statement, we need to ensure for the jury and for the clarity, the transcript, what the defendant's statement is, as opposed to somebody else's interpretation. Y'all can argue whatever you want about those statements at some point later in the trial. And that's starting to be what's going on here. You'll have that opportunity. I'll give you that full opportunity at some point. But that's not what we're doing here. And so what I'd like to do is instead of getting somebody to interpret the statement, if it exists in the transcript, present the statement that, yes, there is a rule of completeness issue. Let's go ahead. Put the complete statement out there if you believe that there is more to the statement than has been presented. [11:57:39][243.0] [11:57:39] Yes. And if I may just add one thing I know in the course of preparing for this trial and preparing for statements to come in, we've spoken with the defense attorneys regarding, you know, some statements will be specific quotes, while others will be generally what did he say or what did he do? And they seemed to agree with that. Am I not correct that we have a conversation? So here's here's what I've discovered about all these agreements that were made before trial. Was that the moment the evidence started coming, all these agreements, everyone says, oh, your honor, we're not holding everybody to the agreements we had before trial. I will point out none of these agreements were presented to the court in writing. There's nothing that I have to enforce them or not enforce them. I had encouraged counsel to go ahead and agree to whatever could be agreed to. Apparently, some of those agreements weren't as clear as counsel believed they were. There is very little the court can do about that. What I'm telling you, though, for clarity, given this way that we're presenting the evidence, I think it's only fair that the jury understand what the statements of the defendants actually were. If they're coming in this way, if there's some clarity that needs through completeness, the court's going to permit that, as I indicated in my previous rulings. But as far as editorializing on them, that y'all are welcome to do that, you will have the facts and evidence. And again, in closing, if they're reasonable deductions that can be reached from that evidence, go ahead and argue them. We don't need to be arguing at all. Now, I. [11:59:12][93.1] [11:59:13] Don't contest the state's need at some point to get into context. That's going to be an issue. And it may be as as the evidence develops, it becomes appropriate even during the examination of this witness. Part of the problem is I think it was an agreement by one or more of the MacMichael defendants with respect to rootin issues in Mr. Bryant statements. And I don't have a problem with BREWTON issues being addressed, but what's happening as you go through the red versus the blue versus the yellow is the the mclachlin defendants agreements with respect to the BREWTON issues that my client doesn't have standing for do impact the rule of completeness where we're passing the statements like I killed him and leave out in self-defense, if that's that's where we're coming from over the break, I'll certainly do what I can to try to minimize those issues going forward. But I do think that I understand where the state's coming from with agreements on BREWTON, with cocounsel, but they can't resolve those issues without creating rule of completeness problems for Mr. Bryan. And I shouldn't have to spend hours going back through line by line, word by word doing that. But we'll see. [12:00:28][74.6] [12:00:29] Well, Judge, just you know, it's an important player in whatever Mr. Larry is not going to send you to a microphone. I have about 12. [12:00:38][9.4] [12:00:39] Excerpts taken directly from the transcript that I intend to place right there. And they're right from the transcript. So will be quotations again, of course, instruct counsel. I would like for this to proceed. If we can do it that way, then it's pretty clear to the court how we. [12:00:55][15.6] [12:00:55] Can move along. If we start deviating, then we'll see the reasons for deviating and whether we'll allow that to come in. But it is [12:01:05][10.3] [915.7] [12:01:05] just about one o'clock sorry, 12 o'clock. We're going to go ahead recess until one o'clock for lunch. And if they can stay for recess from Travis McMichael and Greg and Michael for Mr. Bryant, we will see at one o'clock. Take your recess. [12:01:19][14.2] [13:07:16] Time. All right. Mr. President, represented by counsel, I believe we are ready to proceed really from state before we proceed and state, your honor, Travis McMichael from Brinkley. Michael. Your Honor. Mr. Brown, you're all right. Let's go ahead and get the witness back on the Stamoulis. Oh, they're watching. I miss when we did Matt out of envy, you guys. You read his phone number? Yes. Let's talk about it's not cool. I think. Yeah, I meant it in the context of triplets. Second, sir, Yeah, I noticed that I didn't want to actually to show and do this on record. But if we could maybe discuss if there is some personal information like that, that's part. [13:08:23][67.7] [13:08:24] Of a recording or let's figure out whether that's something that can be removed. I don't think it needs information like that needs to come up in questioning. Unless you can explain to me, I'm looking at everybody how it's material to the case. But under the circumstances of this case, I do ask that if personal identifier, well, personal identifying information, things as specific as a telephone number are out there, I ask that they not to be injected into the case unless they are material in some way. Yes. OK, thank you for reminding me, Mr. Come. Often I'll remind you of Copsey. All right, let's go get the panel. [13:11:00][155.7] [223.4] [13:11:00] Osram. All right. Good afternoon. Welcome back. Hopefully everybody enjoyed their lunch. We are ready to go ahead and proceed with the evidence in this case from the state. Thanks,. [13:12:05][65.4] [13:12:05] Your Honor. So, Mr. Larry, to follow up on something we talked about before, what was your role in this investigation? In this case? [13:12:14][9.3] [13:12:15] I was initially lead before I was given or taken by the GBI because I was on call about the evidence that you were leaving. Yes, ma'am. OK, so before we took a break, you testified that Mr. Brian hollered at the truck y'all got. Yes, I do. And then he proceeded to get into his truck. Yes, correct. Yes. So let's talk about what happened after that. If you can just look at his screen. Sure, I can. And Mr. Larry, you saw have you seen these excerpts of the transcript? Have we gone through them together in preparation for your testimony [13:12:15][0.0] [74.7] [13:12:55] Yes. OK, all right. So if you can just read there on page five, starting at line 18 and down the line twenty five. So. [13:13:05][10.5] [13:13:06] I just sat there for a minute and didn't really know what to do. And he was and then he was trucking. So I mean he closed in on me quick and as soon as he got up to me, I overshot the road. I was kind of angled, I overshot the road and forced him to go down into the ditch right there. I say, OK. And the Mr. Brian says, I don't know if he went through OK. [13:13:25][19.6] [13:13:26] So starting from line. [13:13:27][1.7] [13:13:28] Eighteen, who is talking there? Mr. Brian. OK, so he's saying I'm the kind of angled and then overshot the road and forced a man to go. [13:13:38][10.2] [13:13:39] Into a ditch, is that correct? Yes. OK, and which road are we on here? Which road is he talking about, Mr. Brian? I think this is still on Birchard Murphysboro. OK, is that right outside his driveway? Yes. OK, and so let's now talk about the second incident with Mr. Brian and Alan. If you can just read here, starting from line one, the water or over it or what. But he bounced around me, so I was hanging on pretty good. And I think I backed up into my driveway and came back this way. OK, so I'm going to stop you. There is this page, a continuation of the one that we just went over? Yes, I believe so. OK, so can you start then reading from twenty five and then go straight on to the second page. OK, OK. [13:14:39][60.4] [13:14:40] Mr. Brian, I don't know if he went through the water or hybrid or what, but he bounced around me so I was hanging on pretty good and I think I backed up into my driveway and came back this way. OK, and what did you say. I say OK. And then Mr. Brian says and I angled my truck at him again. I think he kind of turned around. I missed him or whatever. But that's when he I told the other officer this. We were still right about in this area right here. And I say, OK, so this second incident here, when Mr. Brian is talking about angling my truck at him again, which road are we on? Are they on with the second incident? [13:15:19][39.3] [13:15:19] I believe this is still on Berghofer, just maybe a little bit further down. OK,. [13:15:23][3.6] [13:15:23] So far for Greg, leading characterization, second incident that was with the witness said, which he responded. So when we talk about a second incident, Mr. Lowry, what are we talking about? What are we referencing? [13:15:49][26.5] [13:15:50] The the second time that Mr. Brian would have tried to use this vehicle to steer Mr. Aubrey off the road? OK, from your interview with Mr. Brian, was there a third time he tried to do that? Yes. OK, let's talk about that. OK, so looking at what I see, what page we're on here, page six lines eleven through twenty. Can you go ahead and read that, please? OK, Mr. Brian says not back to the road that it happened on yet. I think I backed up and kind of went at him a little bit. And I can see that he was coming towards the truck. I mean, I had my window down. He was coming. He was trying to get in a truck at that point. So I slammed it in a drive and jumped out away from him. I mean, and me and the other officer looked, my truck's dirty. You can see where his hands were on the side, almost at the door where he was, you know, trying to get it open. So, OK, so here when Mr. Brian says that back to the road that had happened on yet, which road did it happen on? I mean, the homes road. OK, so at this point, Mr. Ryan saying he's not back on that road yet. So which road was Mr. Brian on when this happened? Still Burford retrogressed. OK, is there another time in the interview that Mr. Brian doubles back to talk about here again with his belief that the victim tried to get into his truck? I object to the characterization doubles back. We find another way to ask that question. That's a little less loaded. I can I can drive. So Mr. Lowry, does during the course of your interview with Mr. Brian, does he mention for a second time that his belief that the victim tried to get into his truck? [13:18:01][131.1] [13:18:02] I don't believe he mentioned it a second. You're talking about during the sit down interview, he did say it there. Yes, OK, I just I don't remember if that was the first or a second time. OK, so go ahead and look in your transcript. Don't read anything. Just look to refresh your recollection at page eighteen lines one through thirty. Oh yes. OK, OK. So in this quote that we just read, Mr. Brian is talking about backing up and going at the victim and saying his belief that the victim was trying to get into his truck is really going at. Well, that's what he's saying here. I don't believe she's got the correct transcript on the screen. So let's turn to the transcript if you want to find the statement. Oh, so Mr. Ryan again mentioned something about the victim, his belief that the victim was going into his truck on page 18, right? Yes. OK, so let's look that one. If you can just read that starting from line one, I'm going to line thirteen, OK? I. [13:19:24][82.2] [13:19:25] Say, OK. All right. And you said that you had you had handprints on your truck from where the guy was trying to get into it. Mr. O'Brien says, I feel pretty sure that's what he was doing. I mean, I can't say for sure that he he wasn't on the door. I didn't give him a chance to get to the door. But after I angled him off the side of the road, you know, and I kind of went on past him because I didn't hit him, I wish I would have might have took him out and not get him shot. But, you know, I probably got past him a little bit and he come up on me and I could see him in my mirror and he was coming for the door and I seen his hands on right behind the door. OK, so in this one, Mr. Bryan's talking about wishing he had hit the victim. Right. OK, now, was. [13:20:09][43.4] [13:20:09] There a fourth incident where Mr. Brian is talking about making contact with the victim in the case? [13:20:16][7.1] [13:20:17] Yes, I believe the one you're referring to is the the intersection of homes and settler homes and. OK,. [13:20:23][6.1] [13:20:24] So let's look for that one. So going to page thirteen lines nine through twenty five. Go ahead and read that for us. Pusher Bronson. I think I backed into my drive and then continued on Burford towards and I say the entrance because you said you passed the road first. Mr. Brown says towards the entrance. Towards the entrance. But I, I, I, I confronted him Angella him again before we got to the road he was lying on. I say Mr. Brian says right at the house that's on the left hand side. If you're headed towards the entrance of the neighborhood and I say you're talking about before that, before the intersection of the road where it actually happened on Mr. Brian says, right. And I say, OK, OK, so which street were they on when this happened? This would have still been Barford at the intersection of homes. OK, so that corner there on Barford. Yes, ma'am. OK, is there another time in your interview where Mr. Brian talks about this incident that we just looked at? Again,. [13:21:43][79.1] [13:21:48] Can you refresh me? I can go ahead and turn to page fourteen, lines one through eighteen and just read it to yourself and let me know if your memory has been refreshed, OK? Yes. OK, so at some point you kind of talked about that some more during the interview, right? Yes. OK, let's look at that. So page fourteen, lines one through eight. Go ahead and read that, please. [13:22:26][37.9] [13:22:28] Mr. Brian. Says yes. I mean, before I angled at him again, I say, OK, Mr. Brian says. And he jumped out of the way. And I went on past and I say, and then you pass the intersection of the road that actually took place on. And Mr. Brian says, Right. I say, did you back up or just U-turn? Because you said you and then Mr. Brian said, I was fixing I put it in reverse and was going to back up. And I say Mr. Brian says that's when he made his move to go down the road. It happened on and I say, OK, so you backed up and then turned down that road. And Mr. Brian says, yep, OK, so what area are they in? Meaning Mr. Brian and the victim, what area are they in right here when this is going on,. [13:23:11][43.8] [13:23:12] On believing this is still the intersection of Burford and Homes or where it turns into satellite homes? OK, because Mr. Brian is saying that he jumped out of the way and I went past them. And then when you passed the intersection of the road, it actually took place on and then [13:23:32][20.5] [622.9] [13:23:32] he says, right. And what's the intersection where it took place? [13:23:35][3.2] [13:23:35] Berber homes or satellite homes? Satellite homes. [13:23:38][3.0] [13:23:39] OK, and then you ask them, did you back up or just U-turn? And Mr. Brian says, I was fixing I put it in reverse and and it was going to back up at him, is that correct? Yes. OK, and then Mr. Brian says and that's when he made his move to go down the road, it happened on. And what road did it happen on? Handwrote. So this right here is when the victim made his move to go down Holmes Road where he was ultimately killed. Yes. So was there another incident of attempted contact between Mr. Brian and the victim? The was there another mine is a different direction and I'll let you respond to that. We're telling the witness, telling the witness to answer. We're not just referring to the number of the incident with the use of transcripts. So let's see if we're narrowing it on a portion of transcript. OK, so here we've been extremely patient, but there was a pretrial order regarding the overuse of the word victim. They can come out incidentally or by accident, but it is better to use the name of the person we're talking about. Victim is a characterizati. [13:25:01][81.9] [13:25:01] On Just to be consistent here. The court's ruling is already in the record. I'll try to lessen my use of the word victim judge. So Mr. Lowry did something also happen from Mr. Bryan's statement on Holmes Road? Yes, let's talk about that. OK, so I want to point you to page fifteen, actually, before we get there. Page seven lines nine through six. And Aspey to read right here. What's on the screen? OK,. [13:25:49][48.0] [13:25:50] Mr. Brown says, all right. So I backed up and started going down that way. I think angled at him again, kind of forced him off the road or something right in here. And he turned around. He turned around right here. The black guy, did he turn around maybe down this far or so? But he turned around and started running back the other way. And I pulled into a drive or something and started to turn around. I say, OK, OK. And was there a continuation of things happening on Holmes Road? Yes. OK, let's talk about that. So now I'm looking at page fifteen lights. Thirteen through twenty. Sorry, Object to the characterization of continuing with these statements [13:26:34][44.3] [180.4] [13:26:34] are eight pages apart from page page seven to page 15. It's a continuation. I just couldn't rephrase that. OK, the last one, the last quote that we put up on the screen was that the last thing that happened on Holmes Road? Not this one, but the one of the four. Oh, I'm sorry. Could you put it back on our feet? If you want me to put it back up here for, just repeat it, OK? Yeah. So when we talked about this last quote, was that essentially the end of what happened on hold? Was that OK? Did something happen after that? Yes. Let's talk about that. So going to Page, I'm going to clarify, since the state has already acknowledged that through multiple times, but we re mixing dictator two different statements in the same statement. What are we doing here? I'm I believe that's something that we go across. You can go ahead and clarify that to clarify what it could be. Clarify microscopist So, Mr. Larry, can you please read page fifteen from line thirteen to twenty five. Yes,. [13:27:57][82.9] [13:27:58] I say so. You went straight and missed the intersection, Mr. O'Brien says. Right, I say. And you were going to back up, Mr. Brian says. And then I backed over on that other road and I say, went up this road. And Mr. Brian says, Yeah. And he at that point he's still running from me, OK? He's running from me and I'm coming at him. But in any case, he turned around and started coming back. At that point, I think I may have angled at him again or something, but I didn't put much emphasis on it. I just wanted to get turned around. OK,. [13:28:28][30.1] [13:28:28] And what road is Mr. Brian and Imod on when when we see this happening? This is on Jones Road. On Holmes Road. OK, and Mr. Brian says he's running from me and I'm coming at him. Is that right? [13:28:44][15.4] [13:28:44] Yes. OK, now, was there something else that happened on Holmes Road after what we just discussed? Yes. That the shooting in the murder itself took place right after. OK,. [13:29:06][21.9] [13:29:07] And is there another portion of Mr. Bryant's interview where he talks about something leading up to that? And I'll direct you to refresh your recollection to page seven lines nineteen through twenty five. But yes, from and from seven. Nineteen four. Twenty five to see it. Yes. OK, so that was a yes. Yes, Larry. OK, let's talk about that. Go ahead and read this to the jury. Mr. [13:30:03][55.4] [13:30:03] Brian says, at this point I didn't really know, but I got turned around good. And by that time is when I rented that corner enough to see the black guy was right there but really wasn't running anymore. Look, like at this point, like I say, he just had enough of the running and he was confronted. OK, so Mr. Brian is saying when he rounded the corner enough to see the black guy really wasn't running anymore, is that correct? Yes. And it looked like at that point he was confronted. Yes. Who was confronting Mr. Aubrey? At. [13:30:49][45.9] [13:30:49] Some point during your interview that you asked Mr. Brian whether he had ever seen Mr. Aaberg before? Yes, And what did he tell you? No. OK, did you ask him if you can just go ahead and read page eighteen on to nineteen, starting from Lyons. Twenty three. So is this where you ask him, have you seen him. [13:31:15][26.2] [13:31:16] Before. Yes. OK, just read what he says. He says, I have not seen him. I say OK. Do you know of him being involved in any past instances. Mr. Brian says that I know of. No I say OK. And he says, I mean I just hear stuff that's been happening around the neighborhood. [13:31:31][15.2] [13:31:33] So you're in the course of your interview. Did Mr. Brian tell you that there might be some some sort of evidence on his truck? Oh, yes. OK, what did he tell you about that? That. [13:31:45][12.0] [13:31:45] He believed there were some prints or fingerprints and dents on his truck? OK, and what did you do with that information after. [13:31:53][8.2] [13:31:54] The interview, I went outside and processed his truck, photographed and collected fingerprints and fibers. OK, and where was that truck located? It was in the front of the Oakland County Police Department. OK, did you also take you said you took photographs? Yes, ma'am. I said yes. All right, Larry, I'm showing you what's been more private information purposes and some numbers are missing, but we'll go to the state's two hundred to a one to two to six two oh, five to seven to a nine to 10 to 11. To fourteen to 13 and to fifteen. OK, go ahead and look at these and tell me if you recognize. Yes, OK. Like the pictures that I took that you took in, are they fair and accurate? Yes, ma'am. OK, do they appear to be altered in any way at this time? We would hinder state's two hundred to two, two to five to two or seven to a nine to 11 and to 13 to 15. So objection. No objection, Your Honor. No objection. Thank you. Permission to publish. Yes, thank you. OK, so looking at state's 200, Larry, can you tell us what we're looking at here. [13:33:56][122.8] [13:33:57] ? Yes, that's kind of a far away shot of a dent that was on the driver's side of Mr. Bryan's truck, on the the bed part of it over the tailgate forever. The the gas cap. OK, and. [13:34:09][12.2] [13:34:10] Judge, is it OK if he can step down just to point to where all this stuff is? [13:34:14][4.3] [13:34:15] It makes you very careful with that statement. Just OK. And just make sure maybe we can kind of use this microphone. You don't have to point on the screen just one point, maybe like this hand or your finger however you want to use. So where are we looking at? What's what part of the truck are we looking at here? This is the driver side of the truck on the back by the bed. OK, and what did you find on that side of the truck? Oh, there were several smudges. Look like fingerprints of a dent and some fibers. OK, so in states. Two hundred. What do we see here in this? You can see one of the dents that's going to be that right there. OK, and you also mentioned some fibers. That's correct. OK, do we see the fibers or what you believed to be fibers in state's 200? I don't think. [13:35:19][63.6] [13:35:19] You can really see him in this, but there's a closer shot it on there right above the stand on this black strip of plastic. OK, so they're in that area. We just can't see them in this picture. Yes, ma'am. OK, so I'm going to slide one more past you. So looking at state's 201, what do we see here in this picture? Oh, I see some of the the smudges and prints that I was talking about and see a little bit of one right here on the front of the back driver's side door. And another one right here, just above the handle on the driver's door. OK, so looking at two to what are we looking at in two or two? This is just a close up of the last picture that was shown with the same smudge right at the start of the back driver's side door and then the smaller smudge over the handle of the driver's door to six. This is the same shot again, just from a different angle. I was trying to work with the reflection and everything in the background, but a larger smudge on just the very start of the back driver's side door and a smaller smudge on the driver's door just above the handle. OK, and looking at states to 205, this, I believe, is two or two smudges that were just above the I guess you call it weatherstripping between the door and the window of the driver's door. OK, states to seven. And this is just a closer shot of the same bigger smudge that we saw on the start of the back side driver's door. Yeah. So this area right here, what area says that to be the driver's door, driver's door. And then what's in the rear side or your driver's door? What about states two or nine oh two nine is I. [13:37:34][135.3] [13:37:34] Believe it was a smudge in the middle of the door right here. Then which door? This would be the driver's side, rear door and state's 210. That to be aware of the door behind you sort of is moving. She's still this is another smudge, I believe this was also on the driver's side door. I just don't recall if this was from the front door. The back door. OK, so driver's side either. Front door backdoor. Yes, my. OK, all right. And state's 211 in this picture. You can't really see what I was trying to capture. But right about here, there was there some kind of weird impression that it looked like it came from a volleyball? I could see the looks like y shapes that would be like hexagonal on a volleyball or a soccer ball or something. OK, but it's not visible in states 211. No, you can't see it at all. It was very, very faint. OK, did you process that at all? No, I think I just photographed it. OK, and just tell the jury why not? I thought it was a ball close impact with a soccer ball or something because it looked like a ball shape states to fourteen. This is going to be closer of the the white fibers that I mentioned above. And above the gas cam on the driver's side of the vehicle. And can you just point to where those supposedly white fibers are? Could be right here on this plastic strip. OK, and 213, this is the same photo just closer to the white fibers on the plastic strip. OK, And state to fifteen. This is the same the white fibers on that same area of the same plastic strip. OK, and you can have a seat. Thank you so much. So did you know anything about the fibers as compared to that bent that you saw that it was directly above it? It looked like they could have happened at the same time? OK, are you able to say just by looking at all this when any kind of contact happened? No. OK, so you just saw whatever it was on the truck? Yes. OK, now you talked about processing the smudges, as you call them. Is that correct? Yes. Tell us how you go about doing that. Are used black fingerprint powder of a fingerprint brush? I use the black powder and they call it developing the latent prints or the details. OK, after they become more visible with the black powder so collected with certain brand tape and placed on a it's basically an index card and fingerprint cards, I think there's like a light layer of lamination or something on them. OK, so do you take a brush, put powder on the prints and brush it? Essentially, yes. OK, and they you lift it with the tape. Correct. OK, and what do you do after that? Those are submitted into a fingerprint box for those that have believe it's either the certification allows them to the fingerprint match ups and fingerprint searches. OK, now what about the fibers? What did you do with those those. [13:41:08][213.7] [13:41:09] I collected with tape? I fix those to a black index card and I submitted those the GBI. OK, all right. So after your interview with Mr. Brian, did you find out that the person who was killed was identified? Yes. OK, and how was he identified? Through fingerprints. OK, and what was the identification, Mr. Marberry? OK, now, after talking to Mr. Brian, did you submit his phone for anything? Oh, yes, I did. OK, what did you do with his phone? After you signed the consent waiver or consent form headed off to Sergeant Oliver for downloading? OK, and did Sergeant Oliver then and turn it over to another investigator. Yes. Who investigator? Marci. OK, now after that, do you recall ever going over to 220 Atila Drive? I'm sorry, I forgot the number watchhouse was 220. Do you recall a construction site, a house under construction, being a part of this investigation? [13:42:21][72.0] [13:42:21] Yes, it was. It was much later that evening that I went there, though. But. Yes, but you went there. Yes. OK, and who did you go with? I believe it was investigator Marci investigate Ramos' and Sergeant Oliver. OK, and did you see any, like, expensive tools there in in that construction site? I. [13:42:42][20.5] [13:42:42] Think I remember seeing saws or drills or something like that. OK, so you saw multiple tools there. I don't know about multiple. I don't remember how many I saw, but I do remember seeing tools are OK. And how did the structure appear to you on the inside? It was mostly just framing. There were I don't think walls were erected in all the building. It was missing missing doors and windows. OK, did it appear that it was rummaged through in any way? OK, how did it appear? Like a house under construction. OK, just on rummaged I guess and rummaged. Could you tell if anything had been moved or destroyed or anything like that. I couldn't. You couldn't tell now. And is that still on February 2013 that we're talking about? Yes. OK, so the next day, February 24th, after meetings in the morning, what did you do? I think I had training for the rest of the day. I think I had SWAT training. Other other investigators went out and did a canvass in the neighborhood while I was in training. But yeah. OK, so you were doing SWAT training? Yes, ma'am. OK, after that, did you do anything else on the case? I'd have to go back and review. I can't I can't remember in detail immediately. OK, so I want to direct your attention to March 4th. Twenty twenty and a person by the name of Danielle Allcott. Oh yes, ma'am. I know exactly what you're talking about. OK, so did you meet with Mr. ALCA? Yes, ma'am, I did. OK, I believe it. It arose because he I guess he was concerned about the number of vehicles stopping around his house at the site and he was concerned that the public was going to think that he was somehow involved. OK, so he had a young child at home, his wife and all that when I spoke to them. Heard your concerns, got kind of a an additional, I guess, a first time statement for Mr. Allcott. I was never sure somebody else had spoken to him that day. But I'm just a I think he said that he. [13:44:45][123.0] [13:44:45] So we're not going to get into what he said. I apologize. No, that's fine. But you met with them on March 4th. Yes. OK, so on March 5th, did you send the fibers off to GBI for testing? Yes. OK, and had the prints been sent already. Oh, man. That you left it. I don't know. I don't know if those were reviewed in-house or if they were done by the GBI. I think it's all in-house review, but I'm not I'm not sure you're not sure about that. OK, now, on March 5th, what was the status of of your case as the lead detective at that time? Was it a closed case? Was it an open case? What was the status? It was still open, but not getting much traction. OK, so it was sort of inactive. Yes, but objection is not what he's what he said to us. OK, when you say not getting much traction, what do you mean? I think, in fact, it was a fair summary. OK, now, before this case, had you ever looked at the citizen's arrest law that was on the books in Georgia? I'm sure I did actually read Your Honor. It goes to how he handled the case, given the fact that Citizen's arrest is a part of the case. I thought the state was making the same objection yesterday to another witness. I'm not asking him to get into the law and what it is, but had he ever looked and what's that relevant to this? We we'll show you the relevance of the action, what he knows about citizen's arrest warrants, the question of what to go along with that law. That's it. And that's all he's ever looked at the law. That's a state and it's so did the word citizen's arrest come up at any point during any of the interviews? Of the defendants in this case? No, actions need to be brought in. But it's interesting that the word citizen's arrest come been Roddy [13:46:59][133.2] [1213.6] [13:46:59] Bryans interview. No. So at some. [13:47:02][4.0] [13:47:03] Point, did you become aware? I think you mentioned that the GBI took over the investigation. Yes. OK, and did you turn your file over to them after that? I don't know. [13:47:13][9.7] [13:47:13] If it was me specifically. They handed it over, but it was relinquished. Everything that we had was provided to them. OK, now, going back to your interview with Mr. Brian, did he have a cell phone on him during this incident where he was chasing in his truck? He than he ever say that he called 911. Did Mr. Brian ever say that Imod had a weapon on him that day? No, ma'am. OK, then, Mr. Brian, ever say Imod made any verbal threats towards him or any other person that they know? OK, did he make any threatening gestures towards Mr. Brian or anybody else that, I don't know have checked out for leading questions going around? I think that's number five. Can we find a way to ask the questions that doesn't suggest the answer to the witness? It's not suggesting the answer. He can say yes or no. In this context. No, she can't. But they are leaving questions on, OK, Yeah, So, Mr. Larry, what, if anything, did Mr. Brian say about seeing a mob commit a crime before he jumped in his truck? He didn't he didn't say anything about that. No, What, if anything, did Mr. Brian say about arresting or telling Ahmad he was under arrest for criminal trespass? He didn't. What, if anything, did Mr. Brian say about telling a mod he was under arrest for loitering? He did. What, if anything, did Mr. Brian say about telling a mod he was under arrest for burglary? He didn't. What, if anything, that Mr. Brian say about telling a mod he was under arrest for attempted burglary? He didn't. What, if anything, did Mr. Brian say about telling a mod he was under arrest for carjacking? He didn't. OK, what, if anything, did Mr. Brian say about telling a man he was under arrest for aggravated assault? He didn't. OK, did Mr. Brian ever tell a man during that chase that he was under arrest for anything? Not that I was made aware of. So at the point where your file was turned over to GBI, did that injury involvement in the case? No, it didn't end your involvement in the case? No. OK, I still I had to keep taking calls as I came in regarding the case, but I would just forward that information to the GBI, to GBI. So that calls as the lead detective that you had for it, did you? Yes. OK, other than that, did you do anything else of. [13:50:27][194.2] [13:50:28] Those calls for other concerned citizens and calls from the defendants in the case for their security, stuff like that? OK, I'll just forward it to the GBI. OK, one moment, Aaron. One more question. What, if anything, did Mr. Brian say about seeing Ahmad throw anything from his person during the entirety of that chase? On that day? He didn't he didn't say anything about that. That's all I have for you. The defense might have some questions for you. [13:51:13][45.0] [252.8] [13:51:13] OK,. [13:51:13][0.0] [13:52:05] One more. Good afternoon, Stephanus. Or have we met before? Just when I work at the county, I think we see each other in the courthouse. Very good. Well, my first question for you is this. Wouldn't you agree, based on your training and experience, that context is a key to understanding the truth behind someone's words? Yes. And that's something that you personally think is very important in your context. Yes, I think it can be if. [13:52:59][54.5] [13:53:00] You understood Roddy Brian, to have meant that he deliberately attacked Mr. Aubrey with his. [13:53:07][7.0] [13:53:07] Truck. If you understood him to say that he made an aggravated assault with a motor vehicle upon Mr. Aubrey, could you have ignored that note? That wasn't the way I interpreted it at the time. The rest? Well, obviously, that would be a very serious, serious, violent felony. That wasn't your understanding? No, sir. OK, Roddy. [13:53:39][31.9] [13:53:39] Ryan never denied following Mr. Aubrey. Did he know Sir Roddy Ryan never denied angling his vehicle ahead of Mr. Aubrey? No, sir. Roddy Ryan never denied blocking the path of Mr. Aubrey. No, sir. Roddy Ryan never denied cutting in ahead of Mr. Aubrey or cutting him off. That's correct. He never denied trying to steer Mr. Aubrey. [13:54:04][25.0] [13:54:05] Off the road. Yes, sir. But beyond that, all you can really do is speculate as to exactly how many times or exactly where Mr. Ryan did various things. That fair to say. I don't know that I can say at Speccy. It was what he told me. OK, I'll rephrase. Is it fair to say that Mr. Ryan had trouble relating the events of that day in detail or in sequence? I think everybody probably had trouble. Was a lot going on. Fair enough. I had a few other questions. And if I bounce around and you're not, you don't understand a question, you don't hesitate to say so. OK, do you have any personal relationship with Roddy Brown? Have you ever seen him in the break room at the Gwinnett County Police Department? Roddy O'Brien? Yeah, no. Have you ever seen him in the break room in the DA's office? No. OK, you've certainly never taken classes with him. No. OK, is there any reason why you would give special treatment to Roddy Ryan? Look, OK. And your decisions in this case personally about how you went about your investigation, did they have anything whatsoever to do with whether Mr. Marbury was black or white? [13:55:33][87.5] [13:55:33] No, sir. I'm going to ask a few questions about Mr. Bryan's demeanor, if I may. Look, did Roddy Ryan appear to you to be at the time you spoke with him, mentally unstable? No. Did he appear to you to be under the influence of alcohol or drugs or other toxicants? Did he come across to you? Is loud or boisterous? No. Did he come across to you as gleeful or braggy? Or boastful about his conduct that day. [13:56:07][34.0] [13:56:08] In the did Mr. Ryan strike you as someone seeking attention or seeking the spotlight? No. Did Mr. Brian drop F bombs for other profanity during this interview? I don't think so, but I'm not certain it was. Mr. Ryan in any way disrespectful to you? No, sir. Is it fair to say that you personally in your department wanted Roddy Bryan's help to get to the truth about what happened to a man? Aubrey Yeah, I hope for compliance and cooperation from everybody. I deal with at this point in time. You are not, quote unquote, after Mr. Right? No, sir. At this point, he's just a witness in your case? Yes, sir. And you're trying to reassure him that he's not the target of your investigation of. I don't really know that I can agree with that. Fair enough. Is it fair to say that you were somewhat concerned? Yes. Mildly concerned about whether Mr. Brian would, quote unquote, freak out when you went through the consent form? Oh, yes, sir. OK, because you wanted his help. Yes. Now, efforts had already been made to extract data from Mr. Ryan's cell phone. Am I correct? I think that you're talking about on scene on the roadside. Well, certainly on the roadside that had just a verbal consent. But the actual Cellebrite download wasn't until after after the forum. And Mr. Right. Didn't know anything about cell, right, to your knowledge? Yes. Speculation about it. I'll rephrase. Did you explain Selmer, Tennessee. Right. I don't remember asking you to go to before you went to school, did you know it? Cellebrite was no. Okay. But the bottom line is, notwithstanding the fact that he's already giving you his cell phone, that your department, his cell phone on the scene, you know that you need more than that, not just to consent. You need a different kind of a vat of extraction of the material. Then, Mr. Minshew, can do on the side of the road. That's correct. OK, now, in that c [13:58:36][147.9] [387.9] [13:58:36] context, again, I need an exhibit from figure from Shroeder I approached. You wouldn't want to put it. And I've never done this before. I just lied and said, look, OK, all right. Sir, I'm showing you what's been marked. State's Exhibit 290. That's a consent form in this case, is it not? Yes. OK, and Mr. Ryan signed that for you, correct? Correct. OK, and when you had when you were advising him in the consent form, whether you were thinking about it at the time, you indicated that you were looking at aggravated assault and homicide. OK, in context, the aggravated. [13:59:39][63.8] [13:59:40] Assault that you're investigating is the tragic shooting of a Marberry. Was that a question? Yes. Yes. OK, that that was your understanding? Yes. And you would assume, based on what you said, that that would be Mr. Bryan's. [13:59:56][15.8] [13:59:56] I understand. Objection. Speculation. I'll rephrase the question. Did. [14:00:00][4.1] [14:00:00] You give Mr. Brian any reason to believe that you were investigating anything different. [14:00:03][2.7] [14:00:04] Than an aggravated assault in the shooting of a moderate? No, I don't I don't think so. OK, and on this same line in your police report, you summarize the salient facts about what Mr. Ryan was relating to you, did you not, in a written report? Yes. Yes, I summarized them OK. Is. [14:00:43][38.6] [14:00:43] It fairly, fairly safe to say you've been trained in writing police reports a little bit? Yeah. I guess you went to school and you certainly seem capable of using big words. Am I correct? Sometimes your summary of the testimony you related today amounted essentially to one sentence in that report. I'm going to direct your attention to the. [14:01:19][35.6] [14:01:20] Bottom third of the third paragraph, if you'll take a moment. Look at that. Do you see the sentence Mr. Brian described? Yes. Does that refresh your memory as to what you wrote in your report? [14:01:43][22.7] [14:01:46] Yes. Hi. Mr. Brian described manoeuvering instructions to your say. You can't just read the report. Did you write in your report, your summary of all this discussion about what Mr. Ryan is doing out there on the street that day as maneuvering his trial? Objection. The judge just read the report. It's hearsay because that's the police narrative, correct? That's his state's describing what he heard in the statement. He summarized all his testimony today from his report that I mean, OK, you got the statement and that's what I was discussing. The brain. I stand corrected. You were the lead agent in this case, am I correct? Yes. OK, and if at any point can I come back to that in a second? Now,. [14:03:03][76.8] [14:03:03] Is it fair to say that homicide cases are not like other cases, but I guess in some ways they're not? OK, Is. [14:03:13][10.3] [14:03:14] It fair to say you tried to explain the process to Mr. Brian as best you could, the process of what of your investigation, what you were doing of perhaps OK, now, you did not Mirandize Mr. Bryan at this time. Am I correct? I don't recall. I don't think so, but I'm not sure the consent that Mr. Bryan gave you was for the the consent form. Now, if Mr. Bryan, in your presence, had admitted to the commission of a major felony, would you not have felt obligated to Mirandize him at that time? Yes, because at that time, had he said something like that, have you or he understood it that way, he might not have been free to leave. Objection. Speculation. That's that's speculation as fact. It's restate the question now, Mr.. If Mr. if you had understood where Mr. Bryan appeared to you to believe that he had admitted to a major felony, at that point, you would have been obligated in your training to Mirandize him. Yes, because at that point, questions might have arisen as to whether he was free to leave. Yes. And you certainly wouldn't want to mess up your first murder investigation by failing to Mirandize a subject or a target of your investigation. Sir, at the time. [14:04:48][94.2] [14:04:48] That this case was transferred from Glynn County Police Department to the Georgia Bureau of Investigation, Mr. Bryan was still considered by your agency. Well, after the date of this interview, a witness in this case. Yes, OK, and that's memorialized in the report that your agency provided to the Georgia Bureau of Investigation. [14:05:09][21.1] [14:05:10] Yes, So. [14:05:18][8.5] [14:05:19] Is it fair to say that among the words that didn't come up in this interview, besides citizen arrest, was false imprisonment? I'm sorry, can you repeat that among the legal terms that did not come up in this interview, in addition to citizen arrest, the phrase false imprisonment never came up in this interview? No, because that wasn't your focus. No. And that wasn't what you heard [14:05:41][22.1] [416.4] [14:05:41] No, And you I believe you reassured Mr. Bryan that your agency is required to investigate any homicide regardless of justification. But maybe I don't remember for sure. OK, I've been. [14:06:11][30.3] [14:06:12] A long time that you'd conducted this investigation. OK, we have a future. Yes. Directing your attention to the bottom third page to OK. Yes, So basically, you assured Mr. Brian that you were required to investigate any homicide, no matter what evidence there was justification at your duty. Yes. And that's, in fact, what you were doing. Yes. In that context that you're talking to a witness in this case, you didn't ask Roddy, Brian, how far he got in school. No, you didn't ask Roddy Ryan if he had, for example, any learning disabilities? No. OK, you didn't technically, you didn't even ask him if they could read and write the English language, although that was presumed from the execution of the consent form. [14:07:50][98.7] [14:07:51] OK, now there's been some discussion in this case of maps. And I'm not going to show you all of the maps, but I'm going to ask you if you recognize this document, which I believe is already in it. I want once if I can, you know, bring let's stick together and figure out where it is so it can be clear that I be with the storage space. Our files are here and there, so I'll try not to be distracted. All right. But I would working with Brian. Fifty fifty. I don't think. I think that works. In your honor. Technically this exhibit in the record has a state exhibit number as well, but we're not going to use that for our purposes right. [14:10:01][130.0] [14:10:02] Now as long as it's clear where we are in the records that Brian, 15, identifies, let the record reflect that shown what's been marked as defendant Brian's fifty two opposing counsel. What number is it, Brian? 550 has a different of approach. Which are. Yes, sir. I'm showing you what's been marked as Ryan exhibit fifty. Have you seen that or a copy of that before? Yes, that is that the map that you used during the interview of Mr. Raddy, Brian? Yes. All right. Now, that map isn't as pretty as some in this case, but that's the map that in your interview in the transcript you referenced showing, Mr. Bryan. Yes. And you reviewed the actual video of this interview, have you not? Yes, hopefully recently. Yes. Is it not fair to say that at times Mr. Brian appears to be so focused on this map and these squiggles on there that his answers are not always responsive. [14:11:31][89.1] [14:11:31] To your actual questions? I don't remember enough detail to to say one way or another. Fair enough, Paul. This map is not color coordinated. It's all color coded. It's all one color. Am I correct? Aside from the blue, I. Yes, yeah. And would it be fair to describe the blue ink by the end of this interview? Is the chicken scratch. Yes. This time I would tender defendants. Brian. Fifty. No objection Your Honor. It's a bit, you know, bit. Now you at the end this interview, you went through the events with Mr. Brian at least twice. Am I correct? Maybe parts. Wow. OK, that was kind of all over. Were you. [14:12:36][64.7] [14:12:36] Ever able to get a complete statement from start to finish for Mr. Brian exactly what happened? I believe so. So that's why you went over more than once, always double check, make sure things that are OK. I'm not saying I've got a perfectly clear understanding. The first time he answered a question. [14:12:54][17.4] [14:12:55] OK, And you did go over some things more than once. Yes. All right. [14:12:59][3.7] [14:13:00] Is it fair to say that Mr. Brian struggled at times to find the right words? Objection. Speculation. Did he appear to struggle at times to find the words he wanted? Yes. OK, [14:13:12][12.0] [445.9] [14:13:12] yeah. And at one point you acknowledged that. Is that correct? I don't remember. Well, at this point, you're trying to get to the truth, right? Yes. And anything that interferes with your ability to do that, you're going to try to rectify. [14:13:34][21.4] [14:13:35] Yes, OK. All right. And reassuring. [14:13:37][2.4] [14:13:38] Mr. Brian as part of that, kind of like a kid at a ballgame. Good job that boy. No, never mind. I'll withdraw the question. [14:13:46][8.1] [14:13:46] He didn't have a chance to say there. I'm sorry. I trying to prevent from Mr. Clay. Sir, please explain. I didn't understand what you asked you. That's what I thought. So I'm just going to address in a different way, directing your attention to page nine lines thirteen. [14:14:11][25.5] [14:14:13] Through. I have no objection. Judge me, reapproach. This is something that Mr. Goff and I talked about before we did this. And if we may approach, that would be great. And maybe this would be a good time for a break. I'm interested. Loose job if I can just have you step out in the jury room for just a moment. Breuker we leave the witness on the stand or do I need to have the witness step down. [14:15:31][78.3] [14:15:32] There way? I feel comfortable with what is what is the issue here? I'm trying to elicit what I'm trying to elicit is page nine lines fourteen to nineteen. Question from investigator Lourey. I do understand where you're coming from because we've all not necessarily this exact situation. We've all been there where crazy stuff happens that quick and you're still trying to process what just happened. Mr. Bryan responds affirmatively. Yeah, I mean, that's exactly the kind of way it was. He's acknowledging that he's having problems processing these events that day. And that's in response to the detective's question. And it certainly goes to the rule of completeness. We've been bouncing all over this witness statement, and it's only fair that the jury know that he's having trouble processing what's going on. And because he can't process it, he's having trouble relate it to the officer. He's not trying to deceive the officer. He's struggling with his answers. And it goes to the way the jury is going to give the answers that they have picked and chosen [14:16:36][64.3] [199.9] [14:16:36] from this interview to present to the jury. [14:16:38][1.9] [14:16:40] Your Honor, then Detective Larry, his words aren't relevant to what Mr. Brian stood or didn't understand. If Mr. Goff wants to get into what Mr. Bryant himself said, that's a different story. But I don't see how Mr. Lowery's words are relevant here. And essentially, the part that Mr. Goff wants to get into is all what investigator Larry said. And it does not go to the rule of completeness, not completeness, goes to the conversation. Does it matter who started the conversation? What matters? Is it the conversation is complete. And for the conversation to be complete, that question and that answer, this jury needs to hear that you are going to permit it from the state. He will follow up on redirect. You're welcome to do so. Let's go get the panel, which is that I think is you. That's right. I said yes, that's right. And Snake through the witness actually has a transcript. So I'm sorry, Jeff, I have one more thing as it pertains to that. Can I mention that now, if anybody start with Dawn. So whatever it is, a quick OK, the door opens, we need to stop. So at the point where this statement comes in that we just discussed, that was Mr. Brian, that was Mr. Brian relaying the shooting portion of this incident. So Investigator Larry was asking him about the actual shooting portion, what he saw, you know, what happened first? What happened second, when was the gun pulled, et cetera. So it would be unfair to the state because then I can't get up there and ask him specifically what Mr. Brian was confused about, because, of course, I can't get into that because of Brewton. So it would be one thing if Mr. Brian was saying, well, I'm confused about what I did with my truck, but that is not the context of the statement that Mr. Goff is trying to get into, because that's not that. Understand, sir, and it's why it's 13 to 14 May 13 to 19, I think 14, 13. But it starts this. The full transcript indicates the state is reflected. There is a at least a page where there is a discussion almost more than page a discussion about the incident at the truck. And Investigator Lowry's question on page nine, starting at 1:00 to yeah, no, I get where you're coming from. It's stuff like this. It happens in a blink of an eye and and then we start getting into all of this appears to be directly related to the description of what occurred at the truck. There's no question that, as the state says, the immediately preceding part says that. But rule of completeness demands [14:22:00][320.4] [322.3] [14:22:00] more. And, you know, it's putting us in a evidence posture here where, again, we can't get to the meaning of what my client said, having read through it. Again, the context. [14:22:13][12.5] [14:22:13] Of the quote that you are asking the court to permit is clearly with regard to the truck and the incident at the truck. I know you want to read that more broadly, but it's directly it is the investigators comment to his description of what occurred at the truck that then results in this statement to court. We're not going to permit it. Understand the context now. Much better than I did before. And it's not coming in. And I'm not questioning the court's ruling. But I do want to make it clear we're objecting to the rule of completeness that we should be allowed to ask specifically the question and answer reflected at page nine lives thirteen to nineteen. The transcript interview, the detective already had with Roddy. Brian, thank you. Let's go get the panel. All right. All right. Ladies and gentlemen, welcome back again. I thank you for your patience. We've addressed the matters that we need to address before the court and we ready to proceed. Mr. Sir, I believe when you interviewed Mr. Brian, he discussed his becoming involved in this matter more than once. Yes. And the first time, if I recall your testimony correctly from earlier today, he used the word overshot the road. I think, of directing your attention to page twelve lines. Twenty three to twenty five, page thirteen lines one to seven. Okay. Okay. The second time that you reviewed this with him, he described what he did as creeping out of the driveway, is that correct? Yes. That he just crept out of the driveway. Good. Unquote. Yes. OK, were you able to ascertain what creeping out of the driveway means as opposed to overshooting it? Did you follow up on that? No, I just I took Cryptome slowly. OK, all right. And certainly that didn't have a whole lot to do with the shooting itself, did him creeping out of the driveway slowly? No, Now, there were several. [14:25:49][216.1] [14:25:50] Points in time where he didn't seem to follow your question, whether or not objection, the speculation. This is the rephrasing can do you recall asking him whether he backed out of the ditch? Yes. OK, and what was his answer? No, I think I backed back into my drive. Did that really answer your question? Uh, no. OK, was he looking at the map while he was doing this? I don't I don't remember. OK, directing your attention to page seven, is it fair to say that Mr. Brian is fond of the word kind of what kind of objection is speculation if you're referring to the transcript itself? Right. I am. I'm referring to the portion of the transcript I thought the state had already gone into. So directing your attention to page seven, line eleven, does Mr. Bryan use the word Kott phrase? Kind of, yes. OK, we were you able to ascertain what Mr. Bryan meant when he said kind of. No, I don't know that I saw clarification on that. OK, directing your attention to page fifty, page fifteen. I'm sorry, it's not page fifty eight, fifteen and trying to find a line that number for you sir. All right. Directing your attention to line three. [14:28:20][149.6] [14:28:22] Again, Mr. Bryan's using the word kind of angled. Yes. All right. And then. [14:28:29][7.1] [14:28:34] On. [14:28:34][0.0] [14:28:34] The following page, I'm to page sixteen and lines one and two and I believe you already testified before that. Mr. Bryan didn't put quote unquote much emphasis on it, that being angry. Yes, that's what he said to do. You have any idea what he meant by much emphasis, objection to speculate? I'll rephrase. What did you take it to me? Objection to relevance about what? Detective Larry took it to me. Mr. directing your attention to Page fourteen can have lead that statement over part of this on direct examination. Mr. Bryan. [14:29:44][69.8] [14:29:44] Told you that he was going to back up, that Mr. Harbury. Correct. Yes. But to do that, he'd be backing he'd be following Mr. Harbury in reverse. Mr. Tyler, I think we've got to draw the rates of water necessary because we've got some water like that in Salt Lake. Water for moving at that point, Mr.. Whether he used the words or not, he was saying he would be following him in reverse. That he would be. No, no, I don't think that's what he says. He says I was fixing I put it in reverse. I was going to back up Adam. [14:30:47][62.6] [14:30:48] All right. And then before he could do that, he tells you that Aubrey had run up the road. My correct he called, quote, Paul made his move to go down the road. It happened off. [14:31:02][14.6] [14:31:11] Yes. With attention back to the map, such as it is that you're working with during this interview in order to follow Mr. Augury of the Street, he's basically backing off away from him to do that. Or are you asking that? Yes, I. I don't I don't understand what you're saying. You're asking if he is reversing up the road, following him. Well, I believe you've testified that Mr. Brian is fixin'. I think that's the word Mr. Brown uses to back up at him. But by this time, Mr. Aubrey has already changed direction and is running up the other street. OK, yes. So at that point when Mr. Brian is backing, backing up, he's technically he's got to back away from Mr. Aubrey to follow. [14:32:05][54.2] [14:32:07] I wasn't I didn't see where he turned up. Fair enough. It's hard to tell from what you're describing, exactly what he's doing. That fair can be a and in fact, if I understand you're the future. All right, sir. I'll try and use this device here again. Can you see the map, sir? The kind of it's upside down. Does this help you to table if you see it now? Kind of. It's it's just you're it looked like. Oh, wow. So much better. Thank you. Thank you, Mr.. All right. That's the only. Oh, oh, look at that. Garage. Detective. Larry, do you see this kind of el the squiggle off to the side. Do get that reflects Mr. [14:33:44][97.4] [14:33:45] Ryan telling you that he's basically going down that road while Mr. Aubrey is going up the road behind. But that's what that means. I don't know what that squiggle means. This was almost two years ago now. Objection. Judge, if you could just let him finish his answer. I thought you said go ahead. Hey, I don't want to cut you off, sir. I thought I was done to get behind, do that thing again. Now, did you ever ask Mr. Ryan what I meant when he said ankle? But I don't think so. It wasn't germane to the investigation at that point. And I believe earlier today you described it as dear. Yes, I think OK. And at no point did Mr. Brian identify to you a mathematical angle. Did he know? So what we're talking about emphasizing angles or good angles or bad angles, we don't know whether that's a ninety degree. [14:34:58][73.5] [14:35:00] Forty five degree, 180 degree, and even know the one in between ten point five hundred. There's been no discussion any of that, my friend. Yes, OK. And for the purposes that the stated when the state was examined you earlier this morning, did they ever ask you the distance between Mr. Ordinary and Mr. Bryan when these angling events or steering events took place? Not OK. That would make a difference to you, wouldn't it, if you were if you were investigating an aggravated assault with a motor vehicle that made a difference? Yes. I mean, if I say, for example, you're in a patrol car and you want to talk to somebody, maybe they don't want to talk to you. And you and will your flawed car in front of them, if you do that six inches away from then that's a little bit different than if they're sixty feet down the road, isn't it? Objection. Irrelevant relevance. Hypothetical as it pertains to this case. Relevant, you. So let's stick to what he knows and what was testified to in the statements, if you can read that together. I think that. Yes, Your Honor, thank you. Did Mr. Brian ever relate to you tearing up any of his neighbors yards? I don't think so. OK, did he ever relate to you making skid marks or other marks on the roadway when he stopped Sean OK, so it would be fair to say then that any angling that was done had to be a relatively low speed objection to speculation. I'll rephrase that. Did you ever ask Mr. Brian and I think I know the answer I have to ask, did you ever ask Mr. Ryan at what speed he was traveling when any of these angley maneuvers took place? No, but you are out there to assure us that day where you know. Yes, OK, I think at one point you testified you went down to 20 to tell the president. And of course, you were not very far from Mr. Ryan's house at that time. Did. [14:37:29][148.9] [14:37:30] You notice any unusual marks in the road that you thought might be related to this case in front of 220 anywhere on the scene that day? Did you see it? I'm not talking about the body. That is six minutes. That's a different I'm talking about tire tracks, road marks, skid marks. Did you observe anything out there that day that been suggested? Aggressive driving? Not that I can recall. That. [14:38:06][36.4] [14:38:06] Mr. Bryan never used the word chaos in his interview with you. I don't think so. I have to go back and reread it. But from his description of the events, would you characterize that description as chaotic objection to relevance about how he would characterize the description of events that sustained. [14:38:28][22.1] [14:38:31] A move on? I heard you describing based on Mr. Bland statement, for he was at the scene, I should be clear, based on his statement, what Mr. Ryan is related to that system of. Did Mr. Bryan express to you uncertainty as to what he should do that day before the shooting, before the shooting? I vaguely think so. I'd have to go back and review, if you could, directing your attention. I have a lot of page folk directing your attention to page five to lines eighteen nineteen. Yes. Did Mr. Ryan express to you that he didn't know what to do? He did. [14:40:09][98.5] [1063.2] [14:40:09] When saw the Aubrey coming back. Yes. Did he did he express any eagerness to confront Mr. Gardner at that time? No. [14:40:09][0.0] ---[14:41:36] When he come to find out later. You remember that? I'll have to look. All right. Did he describe moments when he can't see anybody else out there other than Mr. Arber? I don't remember [14:41:56][20.3] [14:41:56] fair. Yeah. I believe you've already testified to Mr. Bryan or me, Mr. Bryan. Statement about Mr. Aubrey trying to get in his truck. And I believe directing your attention to page 18. Do you remember the state asking you, suggesting that Mr. Ryan wished that he had hit Mr. Armorer? Yes, that may. That's not it. That's not accurately reflecting the nature of that statement, is it? I don't know. Did you take Mr. Bryan to be wondering aloud whether he might have, in fact, saved Mr. Armories life? [14:43:28][91.6] [14:43:28] Objection. The speculation here, if you're asking him what he thinks the statement might mean. I'm asking that he took the statement sustained when Mr. Ryan said that did in. Was there anything about his demeanor or body language suggesting that he intended to? No, I don't remember which time he might have said that, but I didn't see I don't know what body language would look like indicative of him actually doing that. He didn't seem any more distressed. Somebody would be. And, you know, this kind of stressful situation, would you describe his demeanor as remorseful? I don't know that I was around him long enough to see remorse or just kind of shocked. Shocked, certainly not gleeful. No, a few easy ones. Mr. Bryan. Or you observed in examining this yourself, in examining Mr. Bryant's cell phone, did you observe whether it was Password-Protected? I don't recall. I just know from seeing the consent form earlier that I think it said in a password or no passcode. Directing your attention to the top part of page two of the transcript line can correct. You recall asking him whether it was password. Yes. And he told you no. Yes. And if there had been one, you would have asked him for. Yes. I believe. [14:45:46][137.4] [14:45:46] Mr. Bryan told you that there was lumber in the back of his truck during this incident. Yeah, I think so. Mr. Bryan told you that he got the keys from his house? Yes. Inside the house. I got to ask you about the now famous video that Mr. Bryan made to assure us that day. I'm directing your attention to Page sixteen lines nine. Twenty five to page seven, lines one through twelve. The state has no objection. I'm simply going to ask you to read that portion of the transcript beginning at line sixteenth line nine patients said page sixteen, line page sixteen, line nine. Excerpt five. Pretty. [14:46:52][65.9] [14:46:52] Good understanding of it now. So I think if I'm recalling correctly, when you're on the side of the road, you were telling me you might have had another video of the same guy on your phone from a previous incident. And Brian says, no. I say, OK, I misunderstood that. Then Brian says, no. I thought those two videos of on there, [14:46:52][0.0] [294.9] [14:47:11] of and I must not have been recording. And I say, well, the first you do, you said stop at nineteen eighty. I continue to page seventeen line to well the first you do you do have two videos of the same incident today. Brian says well one of the all copied it somehow or another or something. Maybe I say OK he says, I mean the exact same incident and I say yeah it's weird. [14:47:35][24.0] [14:47:37] I'm. [14:47:37][0.0] [14:47:38] Sorry. You're turning the page. Yes. What did you want me to stop? I don't. Seventeen start with. So you've got I think it's at the top of the page. He he asked stop. Oh line twelve. Got like the. [14:47:51][13.5] [14:47:52] Very last two videos, photos, anything. One is a longer video that contains the same. Mr. Brian says they tried to cross it and send it to the original officer Minshew. I said OK. And he said tried to profit and send it and he couldn't do it. So I thought there is two those. I thought I started filming him right before we got to the fork, before we go or before we got to the major intersection right there. I thought I had started filming there, but apparently I didn't. Apparently I didn't hit the button. I say so you don't. From what I recall watching the video, it looks like it starts as you're like. Coming up, this road catching back up to them, like going back towards that intersection. To Brian says, yes. I say, OK. So, yeah, like roughly the you know, there somewhere seems like you start recording because Brian says probably. Yeah, I say coming up that road and watching as you around the corner, you can see him running. Mr Ryan says thank you so you were asked a number of questions earlier about things in history. Brian didn't didn't say Mr. Brian did say that he'd heard stuff that's been happening in the neighborhood that B page nineteen. [14:49:09][77.4] [14:49:18] Yes, right. But at that time, you didn't follow up with him about that, did you know? Not not there, because I don't remember if it was before or after, but I already asked if he knew Mr. Aubury recognized him and ever seen him before. Fair enough. You didn't ask Mr. Brian whether his family had been victims of theft and property crimes and still a shortage. Did you. [14:49:42][24.0] [14:49:44] Know? Not specifically. You didn't ask whether Roddy Brian had installed a home surveillance system? No, I have no no reason at the time. I'm not questioning your judgment, your techniques. I'm just covering a few facts. Almost done. You never, ever afraid, Brian, about his night owl video, his night owl video in a do you know. [14:50:21][36.9] [14:50:21] How rowdy Brian's cell phone wound up in Sergeant Alaskas car? I don't recall. Do you know how many officers besides yourself were on the scene that day without functioning body cams? Or dashboard videos? I don't. OK, and it's not your job to keep track of that, is it? Mr. Now you're I'm going to use the word interview, but you feel free to explain. OK, but your interview with Mr Brian, my word for it on the scene is not recorded. Correct. OK, and I don't believe it's documented is it. It wasn't a very detailed, thorough interviews, just really viewing the video and then getting him to agree to come back and sit down, speak with me. Yes. Is there any way for you to say how many other brief other undocumented statements might be out there that day? No, I have no way of guessing. OK, so is it fair to say by the time you finish interviewing Mr. Brian that evening, I think it's evening. Yes. By the time you finish interviewing Mr Ryan that evening, he has been back and forth through the events of that day several times with multiple police officers. [14:51:48][86.5] [14:51:49] I don't know what other officers he went through it with, but I could say probably I know we spoke with him briefly on scene about it and then again at headquarters. So I would say at least at least twice with me. OK, and you may have been privy to some of that information, but probably not all of. Yes. OK, things that you didn't ask a lot of time spent on that earlier. You didn't ask Roddy Brian whether he was armed or unarmed at the time of the shooting in your interview, am I correct? Yes. Would that be because you've already covered that out on the scene? Yes. Or so I thought. I don't know that I asked him that on the scene. Well, from the circumstances, it seemed clear to you that he was unarmed. Yes. [14:52:35][46.1] [14:52:37] You didn't ask Roddy Brian about Matt Albanese? No. OK, I won't ask ask him about Matt Albanese. What about mental Binsey? [14:52:48][10.8] [14:52:49] Well, in terms of. [14:52:52][2.5] [14:52:52] Trying to understand why Mr. Aubrey was running in the way that he did, did you ask him whether he and Mr Albanese had any contact? No, no. Did you ask him if he could see Mr Albanese? No. OK, did you and of course, you didn't interview Mr Albanese. You don't know? No, sir. OK, you didn't ask Roddy Brian whether he called nine one one, did you? I don't I don't remember if I did OK. And partly that would be because under Georgia law, Mr Brian had no legal obligation to do so. Under Georgia law, which I rephrase, it was the subject. [14:53:41][49.4] [14:53:42] Of 9/11. Never came up with Mr Bryan. Did it? No, I don't think so. You did. You did proceed to be pertinent to your investigation at that time? No, Is it fair to say that when you examined Mr Brian's truck that you did not recover any prints or possible prints from either the front or the back of the truck on? Everything that I recovered was from the driver's side, aside from the unknown volleyball, soccer ball print on the back, you did not recover any cotton fibers from the front or back of the pickup truck. Just for clarification, you're saying like just the very, very front and the very back, excluding the sides, the grill and the front bumper, the back bumper and the tailgate collected nothing from the front or the back. OK, and did the state even show you a picture of the front of the truck today? I don't think I. I don't think I did or I don't think I saw it. I don't remember there being one in there. There's certainly no physical evidence to suggest it. The Mr Bryan's vehicle made any contact on the front of the back or on the corners with Mr Arber. I don't I don't understand what you're can you paraphrase what you said? It kind of like a there OK. There are no fingerprints on the on either of the front corners of the truck. None, the none that I was aware of. None that I processed. No cotton fibers on either corner of the front of the truck. None that I was aware of. No, I processed no fingerprints or cotton fibers on either of the back corners of the truck. No the prints that you recovered or suspected prints and the cotton fibers are all on the driver's side of the vehicle behind or at the the door on the driver's side. Yes, OK. And that would be consistent with the testimony or the statement that Mr Brian gave you. Yes, All right. And. [14:56:13][150.6] [14:56:16] Technically, see, if I understand the sequence of events, you all decide on the scene that you want to do it, do a crime scene, work on the truck. Right. I didn't make that call. I don't I don't know if somebody made the call. OK, but at the time that decision was made, whoever made it, you were down at the public safety center, correct? You also, sir, are you saying that they brought the car asking if they brought the crime scene truck to the scene and still assures? OK, yeah, I'm not helping you here. My apologies. You. [14:56:51][35.7] [14:56:52] Asked Mr Brian to bring his pickup truck from Seattle Offshores down to the Glynn County Police Department. Public Safety Center. Yes, just on the other side of the interstate. Yes. You asked Mr Brian to do that? Well, no, I just asked him to come for an interview. He happened to drive the truck and he told me about, you know, the dings and the smudges while I was there interviewing him. OK, and this is several hours after the shooting, this point, is it not? Yes. This is after Mr Brian has been sent home. To your knowledge that I process Two-stroke know that by the time he requested him to come downtown, he's already gone home with his truck. [14:57:31][39.1] [14:57:33] I don't think his truck was still on scene. I think from the scene he came from the scene to the PD for the interview and the truck to be processed. OK, so you don't know whether he went home with it first? I don't know. OK, is it fair to say that Glynn County has no shortage of carwashes? [14:57:48][15.6] [14:57:49] I don't know. Did you did you observe any effort on the part of Mr Raddy, Brian, to tamper with or destroy the evidence in this case? No. Mr Brian wanted you to have the evidence. Objection. Is. [14:58:04][14.5] [14:58:04] There anything more? Thank you. Is there anything more that Mr Brian could have done to help you with your investigation of Butler? Thank you, sir. Yes, sir. No further questions the that before. Of course, Mr Close could do that. [14:58:36][32.0] [14:58:37] In general. Let's take a fifteen minute recess and we'll come back for continuation of the evidence from jury and the Magistrate's Court attention before we bring them back in for questioning. I'm going to go ahead and have you step down. If you could. Please be back in fifteen minutes for continuation of Roger Underoath. Do not discuss your testimony with anyone during the break. Yes, sir. Thank you. I love you. And I can do that. I don't. To the matters this year, we had some testimony by this officer when the state asked the question on March 5th. Twenty, twenty, you were not getting much traction in the case and the case went inactive. No, that testimony there was an objection was objection to as well. But that I mean, the testimony in the court and that was it was an objection. I'm sure that was one. That was when the objection was in purpose. That's right. And so. [15:00:31][114.5] [15:00:32] I was at that time stepping into my brain. Yes. And he said, yeah. What she says it was in fact. Yes, So I'm asking for permission to cross this officer on the fact that that's not actually true. This officer did a lot more investigation and action in the case all the way up through July of twenty or twenty. And I would like to go into the things that he also did. Now that's going to cause some issues maybe with the state, because what he did are some of the things that the court has said we can't get into. For example, some of them are not things that the court said we can't get into. But the state has now given the jury the impression that this officer didn't do anything after three, five and that the case wasn't getting traction, was inactive until the case was handed over to the GBI. That's simply not true. It's also been a lot more, Your Honor, In fact, on three twelve, he received documents from the coroner's office that were gateway records for the AMA, Mr Aubury on three seventeen. He received a report about the blood in the case, the toxicology on 317 I'm sorry, on March 12th, he got some of the Gateway behavioral records about probably on April 1st, he got the autopsy report from the medical examiner. On May twenty nine, he got the full records of Gateway and on July 14th, he got the heart blood results back that said there was positive THC. And whether he did this before the GBI got involved or later, he was still working with the GBI, dealing with some of these issues. And so it would not be accurate or fair to leave the jury with the impression that this officer ended his investigation within 12 days of the shooting. That is simply not the case. And I intend with the court's permission, to bring the truth to light for the jury. Now, if the court says I can't do it in the way that I want to do it, then I just want to be clear about what I can and cannot do. But I believe the state has opened the door to us talking about what he's done here are the state's intention was once again to just smoothly transition this because nobody wanted to go into anything that took place about the real reason that everything stopped, because it's messy and irrelevant as to the guilt or innocence of these defendants in this case, simply asking him, did you receive additional records on March 12th, March 17th, April 1st, May 29th and July 14th, by the way, the July 29th and July 14th records came to him, even though they were requested by the GBI is a simple way to go. Oh, yeah. There were some other stuff I did. This [15:04:00][207.1] [980.4] [15:04:00] appears to be a very good strategy by the defense to try and circumvent your order and then put into play evidence that you have ruled inadmissible, such as the gateway records, the blood toxicology, and then the additional blood and the heart blood results. So the state would object fully to going into all of this because what they want is how do I put this nicely? What they say they want is to show that this officer did some more stuff. But what they want to do is go into stuff that you've already ruled inadmissible in order to show this officer did more stuff. It's very easy to ask one simple question. Did you receive additional documents on this date, the state, the state, the state and the state? Because all he did was receive stuff in he didn't actually do anything but receive documents. And it was never the state's intention by asking that question [15:04:00][0.0] [15:04:59] because it's our understanding that when we asked him, he basically said, yeah, it kind of went inactive. Those were his words to the state during the interview. Is that [15:05:07][8.5] [15:05:05] to the state during the interview. Is that correct? He said much traction. And I said, OK, that's what he said when we interviewed him yet. So this is something that we don't feel opens the door to any of this. And if this is solely what the defense claims it is, which is, oh, this officer did do some more stuff, then it's really easy to just ask him. You receive documents in the state, the state, the state, the state, the state didn't use part of the investigation. Doesn't matter what the documents are, because you've already ruled that that evidence is inadmissible. For other reasons and it really doesn't have anything to do with the credibility of this officer or the investigation, because obviously Richardville will come in and testify that on May eight, he may he received the case and began his investigation as part of the GBI, which this officer has already also testified to the GBI came in and took over the investigation. So we ask that you deny the motion if you're going to grant the motion to go ahead and ask these questions, then the question should simply be on these dates. Did you receive additional documents on floor? [15:06:16][70.9] [15:06:17] We now have to refer to presentations by the state to this jury. That case and the investigation by the Glen County Police Department has stalled and nothing happened. That was what they were told in opening by Mr McCaskey. And now the lead investigator on this case has been asked to testify that they weren't giving any traction and the case went acted. And it is still, your honor, it's March 5th that they established that happened. We still have the rest of the month of March. We still have the entire month of April and we still have a week into May before the GBI is the case. It is our responsibility to help the jury understand the total investigation done by this department, the fact that they were thorough in their investigation, the fact that they did all this work and their investigation is important to establish. I understand the court has ruled. And if the court says yes, you can ask them what they got for the documents or they got, unquote, records from various sources, or if you prevent us from saying what the sources are and we just are able to establish they continue to work on this case and follow up, I suggest that that's not love. I still think we need to correct this. And I would just ask the court to consider they've now done it twice. It was intentional and that is putting us in the position. We were not meant to be a fair trial. We're in recess for at least another ten minutes. I'll come back and I'll let you know where you are. Thank you [15:08:06][109.7] [180.6] [15:21:39] So I would back on his present, represented by counsel. He's back in place. All right. As to the opening the door, the court's not going to permit getting into the evidence that has been excluded. The defense does want to follow up on the investigation. You're wanting to ask if there were any additional documents or any additional well, any additional documents that came in. It didn't sound like he went and did additional work. So just so that I understand the scope. [15:23:03][84.4] [15:23:04] Well, I. I think what these documents reflect and what his reports reflect is that he was interacting with the medical examiner's office. Still, that he was interacting with the crime lab still, and that he was also working with the GBI to obtain information and pass information along to them. And he was interacting with subpoenas about, you know, these gateway records through the coroner's office. So he was interacting with individuals with particular agencies, and he was receiving documents and information before the GBI got involved. And then after the GBI got involved. So there's several pieces of information in there. Judge, you just you know what I want to get into and I guess you would just be telling me I can identify the agency, I can identify the place the documents came from. Why I can't I those and yes and no. I mean, the courts excluded certain evidence. And so, no, we can't for example, even if you're not going to get into the gateway documents, we're not going to talk about Gateway. We're not going to talk about the evidence that's been excluded in the case. So I can't say even medical records. No,. [15:24:33][89.1] [15:24:33] It's getting into the evidence in the car. Just want to be clear. Aubrey's medical records have been excluded. Right. So I can't give that the lab toxicology received reports back from toxicology from the Georgia crime lab. There's still interacting with the Georgia crime at this point. I've not heard of any other way that they're coming in and they've been excluded based on the court's order. And this is not open the door to them. So I can't say that he received documents from the Georgia crime lab. What what other documents are there? Those. Yeah, that's just the toxicology reports. I'm sorry. I'm just trying to make sure I'm understanding what we're talking about. The courts, you know, don't want to go back and figure out all of the specific rules again, how they how they would relate directly to these documents. So they could just be. And just to be clear, because I'm trying to make sure there's no ambiguity in the court's order. So the court's order exists. You're now asking me what you can put in. What I keep saying is the court's ordered and I want to be so specific that the record reflects what I'm not allowed to do. And I remember the court's order that said we could not get in the toxicology records. That would be the blood alcohol and the THC. And you said we can't go into that. Now, what I'm asking is, can I at least say that he received documents from the crime lab? Are there any other documents? Let's see. He got toxicology and second tox. No. So if we say the what the documents are. No. Yes. Short answer, y. [15:26:22][109.3] [15:26:22] Es Or no. Documents are irrelevant, so it wouldn't matter either way. So, of course, them are relevant so. [15:26:27][4.7] [15:26:28] And so. I can't even say that he interacted with the crime. [15:26:31][3.0] [15:26:31] Lab. I'm asking counsel that under the court's order that I'm not coteries understand the only thing he could be referring to is evidence that has been excluded. Adam? Well, we can get around it, but I hear what the court's saying. So I can't inform the jury that he interacted with the Georgia crime lab and he also interacted with the coroner's office. What was the I don't understand that we can get around that well, but I don't the court's ruling I don't understand. What I'm suggesting is the court doesn't want the jury to know that there are blood toxicology records about alcohol or THC. But I certainly could say crime lab records. I just want to show that this gentleman is doing work with state agencies about this case. I think you missed what I said. No, you're not going to get into that, because if the only crime lab records are excluded, excluded evidence, the. No, it's just not relevant. I got that. I got it. I just wanna make sure that our record is clear about that. And so that's a no receiving toxicology on three seventeen. That's a no receiving toxicology on 714 twenty. That's in the receiving gateway records. From the coroner or giving records to the coroner, just that he's even interacting with the coroner for that he's interacting with the coroner on three twelve and that he's interacting with the coroner on five twenty nine. Will the court allow me to ask him or or have him stay? Yes. I continue to interact with the coroner on three twelve and I continue to interact with the coroner on five twenty nine. The cour. [15:28:09][98.0] [15:28:09] Ts Rule. I would suggest a simple way for the four defense counsel to avoid violating the court's order is to simply say that there was some additional work done and he talked to some additional agencies, got some additional documents, OK, additional work, additional agencies and additional documents as on it. And I will be clear about it because I heard in their a statement that made me concerned when you said there's a way to get around that I am not going to engage on prior orders that have been very clear. And so in order to avoid that and based on where this is going, that's what I'm going to counsel to. All right. So it's a perfect of course, we are joining in this. But there is also one other piece of work that this investigator did, and that is that he is the individual who carried the Half-Blood from the autopsy to the crime lab for toxicology. That's just to complete the record of all the things that the court has ruled cannot come in. But were would have otherwise been responsive to the state's question. OK, and then judge, the one I missed is on on April 1st, he got he received the autopsy report from Dr Donohue. I don't think that violates the court's order to say that, Dr Tony. He was going to be testifying. Oh, yeah. Oh, yeah. So I can tell the jury he got the autopsy report that I won't get any toxicology, I won't get into the medical records and Gateway, just that he received the top. He received the autopsy report on April 1st. So I was like, that's not violative of the court's order. Perfect. All right, I'm ready. Thank you, Judge. West, thanks. All right. Welcome back. You get up. Juries coming in and you stay standing. You want your friend back. I remind you that you under oath. Yes, sir. All right. We got everybody instruct the witness, Your Honor, that I'm asking very general questions that are not and include the details that we don't get here. Well, why not ask leading questions? Because that would that anything you wouldn't ask a question that requires a response that violates the court's order, particularly after discussion with her, because although there may be an inadvertent disclosure under these circumstances, the court's not going to make an inadvertent disclosure. Yeah, I'm not making a port Said. Like I said, I know if we wanted to inform the witness how we were limiting his testimony, I'd be happy to do it to avoid the problem. Or let's thank goodness. No, it's all right. From jury [15:32:01][231.5] [620.0] [15:32:01] and say thank you. Hi. Welcome back, ladies and gentlemen. We are ready to proceed with the evidence. Mr Shepherd, take the afternoon. Clarrie. Afternoon, sir. I'm Jason Sheffield. I represent Travis Michael. We haven't spoken yet on this case. I know, OK, but I have listened very carefully to your testimony, cross-examination, all that and just want to bear down on a couple of things. OK, first of all, you are the lead investigator in this case. Is that fair? Yes. OK, and that's a special designation that you have been given, which means sort of all the information in this case is going to flow to you. Yes. While you wear that designation, is that right? Yes, sir. So in terms of doling out assignments or responsibilities, that is something that a lead investigator does? Yes. Once those things are completed, then you work to coordinate the receiving of all that information back to yourself. Yes, right within. You review it, right? Yes, sir. And then that could cause you to make additional decisions on what to do next and who to tell to do those things. Yes, sir. It's sort of an honor to be the lead investigator. Comes a lot of work, though, right? Yeah, yeah, yeah. A lot of work. Not a lot of work to that. OK, so in this particular case, how long after the shooting was it before you arrived on. [15:33:54][113.0] [15:33:54] The scene? I don't think very long. Maybe thirty minutes to two hours somewhere in there. OK, and when you got on scene you began to do what a lead investigator does. You go around and you start talking to the officers on the scene to try to get an understanding of what's going on. Yes, sir. OK, and at that point, you begin to formulate kind of a plan to say, ah, here's what we need to do now. We need to follow up on this desert. OK, and essentially, is it fair to say in your mind, at least within those first 30 minutes to an hour, you're trying to figure out who were these two gentlemen on the scene? Mr. Greg, Michael and Travis being Michael? Right. [15:34:34][39.8] [15:34:34] One of the most familiar with Mr. Gregory. Michael just from and previously worked, knew him previously. But you're trying to figure out what they're doing. Yes, sir. You're on that day. Yes, sir. And you're also trying to understand what happened to the deceased. Yes, sir. OK, you're trying to figure out what they're intent was that they missed him, that Michael's in specific. Yes, right. And you're trying to figure out what was going on with the decedent on that day, Mr. Harper? Just what he was in the neighborhood, right? Yes, sir. OK, and so in this case, you assigned the interviews, did you not? I did. So you took on interviewing, as we now know, Mr. Rodney Brian, and you assign interviews to be done to Greg and Michael as well as trying to make. Yes, right. OK, now you were talking about with the state that right around March 5th of twenty twenty that the case kind of went inactive, right? Yes, sir. OK, but that's not exactly 100 percent accurate because you still were involved in doing some work on the case. Yeah. You were involved in some, as I'll characterize it, additional work, right? Yes. OK, working with additional Georgia state agencies. Yes, sir. Right. And obtaining documents and didn't stop this work in March 5th. You continued in the month of March, in the month of March to do this kind of work, right? I think so. I don't remember the times, but yeah, but you also continue to do it in April, OK, right? Yes, sir, I guess. And well, do you need to go back over your notes? I do. I didn't wanna interrupt you one. Palantine me the all I've got is the the transcript. It's on the table there. OK, what about your reports and things like that. I was told I couldn't bring anything up so I didn't. I have nothing with me on this walk. Do you have your reports here upstairs on the third floor. OK, well, I'm happy to try to refresh your memory, OK, with the reports that I have of yours, unless the state wants to give you reports, OK, and guess what we're after here? What I'm trying to understand is that Madam may have actually asked the wrong person under show. My force something, but you don't necessarily need to read my notes. But you can just take a look at these reports, OK? Yeah, The the the last date I'm seeing on here, I don't see anything. It goes into April. I see March 12th. OK, yeah. Now ask me to come forward. I'm going to show you these things just to show you the dates. And I don't want you to read what outflowing thing is. I'm going to show you dates and I just want to make sure that because they're not meeting today, we're not looking at the jurors behind you. Right. That's what I'm trying to block it right here in front of to show you these dates. Yes. All right. Put that last one I we'll talk about what it is. I'm just showing you a date you don't have to agree with. I'm just going to show it to you. OK? OK. So just essentially for purposes of dates, your involvement in the case continued into May and then into July. Would you agree with that? Yes. On someone. OK, now in terms of what you did in the case, I want to be able to be very specific about, OK, OK, I like to write things down. All right. All right. So in terms of the work that we did it, no one includes going to the scene. Right? I'm going to have to say yes. Oh, I'm sorry. Yes, sir. All right. Interviews of witnesses. Yeah. Yes, photographs. Agree. Yes. All right. We're collecting clothing, right? Not under your leaders. Yes, sir. That's part of the investigation. Right. To do analysis on clothing, on gun show, shotgun shells. Yes, I believe it's work. They would have went, I think, to the GBI, but. Right. But it's under your leadership that you consider that this has to get done. Yes, sir. OK, any kind of blood collection, right? Yes. All right. Videos from the neighborhood. That's something that you were interested in. Yes. Objection to mischaracterization. Judge, Mr Lowry is saying that he didn't personally to any of and Mr. Sheffield is making it look like he didn't as the lead detective in the case we've established. I think that you're directing people to do and collect various forms of evidence. Yes, OK, are these the things that you're directing people to do and collect videos from the neighborhood? Not all the normal directions would have been for me. Some of them would have come from supervisors as well. Like the videos. I don't think I necessarily even had to ask for that. I think other investigators just kind of started chipping in and collecting everything that needed done. But as you're the lead investigator, I guess then you would be aware that these things are being done. Yes, And you would then have looked at these things to determine what next steps to take. Yes, OK, that would include obtaining records just generally speaking. Yes. That would include obtaining CAD and nine one one calls. Yes, Cell phone data. Yes. Any kind of social media if relevant. I don't remember any social media. Cross that off. We got the fibers. Yes. White fibers that you talked about. We've got fingerprints. Yes. Which you did. And we've got mappings kind of mapping out. This interaction took place on that day. Yes, sir. OK, you actually went to 220. So tell us to do some investigation there as well. Yes, sir. Right. You work with the ethics office. Been a medical examiner and the coroner. Right. Yes. OK, and neighborhood kings. And so the neighborhood canvass is where you go around and you ask questions of all the neighbors to figure out if they know. Yes, sir. So this is what you did for put in the detective, OK? Right. This is this is what you did. Have I missed anything in terms of the type of work that you did? Generally speaking? No, sir, I don't think so. OK, you were asked a lot of questions about Mr Bryan's description of his interaction with Mr Aubry. You call that? Yes. And and just to know a little bit of what he was describing about his interaction, there was this one thing that you noted where he yells out, you've got to remember that. Yes. OK, there's nothing that Mr Brian told you that led you to believe that Travis or Greg, even heard him say, yes, that's correct. Or that there was any kind of communication with him about this, right? Yes. So if I put it down here, no communication TNG you would agree with that? Yes. OK, the the time where he says the rock. Right. Says he changed direction and changed his angle. You recall that. I know he said that several times. Yes, sir. I'm an old science major, so I used the filter for change. And about the angle, again, no communication with Travis or Greg about this this thing. Correct. OK, I'm talking about we're still in this particular area. And for a second time this year for some movement with Mr. Aubury goes and steps off the road. Right. So if I say stear off road again, no communication with Travis about that. Correct. Now. And he says then again, Mr Harbury was trying to get into the truck and he pulled away from him. Do you remember that? Yes, of course. I did. And Posawatz, again, no communication with Travis regret about that. Correct. Communication me. No phone calls, no hand signals. No, no, sir. Essentially. Then it's your understanding that Mr Brian says that Mr Aubury begins to run up Holmes Road and he begins to then follow at that point. Do you recall that? Yes. So Lewis, call up homes and files again. No communication by Travis are good about that. No, sir, not that I'm aware of. Sorry. And then when he turns around, Mr Mr Bryant discusses his turn around trying to back up and he heads back in the other direction. So let's just call this [15:45:56][681.2] [834.0] [15:45:56] turnaround on houses. Again, no evidence that he was in communication with Travis or Greg, and those are you asked a question about the white fibers on the truck. Yes, OK. And they were on that sort of plastic strip area. Yes. Put back up Exhibit 242 for you to take a look at talking about these white fibers. Yes. Or up here, we have a little bit more of a close up around here, Mr. Sheffield. Yes. I can't see that. All right. I got my three legged and ask Mr. Robinson here, hold this for 30 years prior to this is what he's been reduced to hold the pole. I think what you said about these fibers, though, is that they were located kind of above a dent. Yes. OK, you were asked whether or not it appeared that those things could have happened at the same time in the dent in the fibers. Yes. You have zero evidence to suggest to you when that didn't happened. Right. I believe Mr O'Brien said it wasn't there prior to this incident. OK, yes, sir. But you don't know when the dent was made? No, sir. Or when the fibers were made? No, sir. So it's hard for you to conclude that the dent in the fibers happened in the same time. Yes, the. Yes, yeah. Now neither do some print collection. Yes. Talked about that actually. I mean this I don't want you to stand up to use the gold. Yeah, The prints that you collected, obviously you were told that there was some kind of interaction between Mr Aubrey and the truck. And so then you kind of focused in on whether or not you could determine whether there were usable latent prints on the truck. Right? Yes. Or latent prints. We've learned a little bit about it. Meaning left there on the surface, naturally they belong to. But they're there for collection purposes. Yes, right. And one of the things that you can do with prints is as you look at them, you can try to begin to get an idea of how the hand was oriented when it touched the object. But sometimes sometimes depending on if there's multiple parts of the hand weaving impressions on something, then you might be able to tell how the hand was oriented when it touched the object. Yes. And in this case, you've got not only a a palm print, but also the thumb print. The same judge, Mr Lowry, did not test the smudges in this case. So lack of personal knowledge that prints off for sure how to describe it. He said he lifted prints. I've heard Paul print, which just need to clarify. I think you're asking could you repeat it, sir? I'm sure I'll show you the I'll show you the. [15:49:58][243.0] [15:50:02] Looking here at State's Exhibit two one two two zero zero six. Let's start with this one. This is state's exhibit two zero one. All right. And you can lean into your monitor there. Can you begin to see that there is a smudge here? You see that? Yes. OK, and can you see also that there is a smudge here? Yes. OK, now you took it upon yourself to collect these smudges here and here, is that correct? Yes. OK, so the first smudge is what appears to be a palm print. Objection, Your Honor. He did not test me so much as to see what have you gotten the results back from the lab about what these are? I can't speak to the actor. I'm just asking if you got the results of the results, got the results back from the lab of what it is. Yeah, but I don't remember what they were. I think there was no match on either of them. Oh, did you say that you collected a palm print? I don't know. I might have testified that you collected a palm print from the truck, but I might have, sir. I've been up here a while. I don't remember what I said. I'm very sorry. But it was your understanding that these could be prints from Mr Arkley, which is why you collected. Yes. OK, and in looking at this now or when you were collecting them, did you have any kind of thought as to what that might be? Objection. Your Honor, to relevance about what he thought it might be. It was tested at some point to get the picture for a reason. He could explain kind of what was Mr Shukla? I thought it was some sort of poem just because it was bigger than OK, fingerprints would be. And then you took a collection of this because you thought it was a digit of some sort, some kind of a digit. Right. OK, are you at any point trying to do an analysis of how that got a suspected palm print and suspected? Did you got there? Are you trying to come to figure that out in any way? Yeah, just trying to look at it while it was there. And processing it. But the only way I could I guess invasion would be something like hand upside down. But I'm not a fingerprint expert. Yeah, that's just my own my own imagination at face value, looking at it while I was there. All right. It's possible or it's consistent, is it not, with your experience in collecting these types of [15:52:52][170.9] [413.8] [15:52:52] things? That this could be a palm print and that could be, let's say, a thumbprint? Objection. [15:52:59][6.1] [15:52:59] Asked and answered, Your Honor, what I'm talking about the orientation. I understand. So it could be. Yes, right. It could be that the if this is the door jamb here, this is the door jamb here, that the hand is like this. That's a consistent explanation. That's one explanation. I don't I don't know. I don't think so because the larger print on the side, it looks like it's much higher than that. I don't think it would be upright. But, you know, I'm speculating at this. That's not what we're trying to get into your mind as you're trying to figure this out. Yeah, OK. But at least it could be its own independent print of a digital. It could be including a thumb. Yes. OK, I'm this is a closer picture. This is two zero six. And again, do you see where we were talking about what we think might be a palm print? And then this right here, what could be a digital print. Yes. See in there now to OK, did you notice when you were examining the truck? I'm going to show you again to a one. OK, look real close and maybe I'll do this, maybe bring the photograph to you. You could look closely at two one right up here, this part of the door. A look at do you see what could be smudges up there as well? I do. Did you fingerprint or print the I don't remember the specific sections that I printed. If I saw it, I knew it was there. I collected it, OK, but I just I can't remember specifically if I took anything from that pillar. I think that might have been one of the photos. You think that might be one? Yeah, you'd be sure whether or not you collected that or not. I think on the fingerprint cards, it would have had sort of a legend like a map on the car where it would have been collected, the fingerprint cards. I didn't I didn't create them. I just filled them out. Yes. Or manufactured the paper. You press it and do all that stuff. All right. That was what we're talking about here. Are these smudges? Yes. OK, but you collected it and it should be documented somewhere. Yes. OK, and the information now, I believe that you had in terms of making this potentially relevant to your investigation is we were testifying, I think, earlier that Mr Brian was saying that Mr Aubury was coming for his door. Yes. Actually on page 18 lines 10 through 13. So every transcript I saw on the corner of the table right here. Yes, sir. To he's kind of describing this moment to you, right? Yes. He says, I probably got passed in a little bit and he comes up on me. Right. And I could see him in my mirror and he was coming for the door. So he says the. Can you give me the line number? You think it's ten? Thirteen. I probably got yes. A little bit. Yes, that's that's what he says. He's coming up on me. Yes, he was coming for the door and I seen his hands on right behind the door. Right. Yes. So this inform you that these prints that we just looked at could be highly relevant to his claim that Mr Harvey was trying to get into his truck? Yes, Did you check for prints on the other side of the truck? I think I did a walk over it, but those were that was the side that Mr O'Brien indicated to me that contact was made. So I kind of focused my efforts there. OK, I want to ask you again, do you recall whether or not you had ever decided that that one finger smudge that we think could be a finger smudge was actually the thumb print? Do you recall having that opinion or thinking that I don't you don't recall some Mrs refresh your memory with this document? Still does. And what I'd like for you to do. Thank you for stepping down. The problem is see if this refreshes your memory as the lead agent in the case. About whether or not you were working to determine if that was a right thumbprint. And I don't want you to read it. I don't want to look to see if that clarifies anything in your memory. Don't read it because see if it refreshes your memory to see whether or not you were considering that that could be a thumbprint right from. Yes. Specifically, does that refresh your memory? Yes. OK, so one of the things that you consider is that this print next to this we could think is a palm print could actually be the right of Mr Order based on that. May that refresh your memory that that is what you were considering. That wasn't that wasn't mine. That was just someone else's suggestion that completed that. I got lead investigators. One of the things that we're working. Yes, sir. That you could do. That could be a text in your honor. He just said that that was his report. That was someone else's. It was just used for my personal knowledge. You finish your question that as part of you being the lead investigator and some of that track to help make it all right. That you are relying on others to do work. Yes. Comes back to you this week and in the inquiry about whether or not this could be the right thumbprint, you said I don't recall. Yes, I showed you a document to see if it refresh your memory that that is a subject that you were thinking and considering as a refresh your memory. Yes. And did you consider that that was the right thumbprint of a moderate? Yes. I don't have any further questions. Yes, sir. I think you've already gone back. OK, let me just get my stuff on the meter reader. Just straight for Judge. So that report that was you, Mr Lowry, whose report was that? I was Investigator Louthan. Did you play any role in authoring that report at all? No, OK, so the findings in that report, were they your findings that all these findings were Christopher Lauter? That's all after you said you release for the day, which you were subject to recall? Yes, sir. Thank you. I did, Mr Swan ready to move forward, but I also don't want to put this back. That's fine. I don't want to cut a witness off too badly. So does the state have another available witness? Yes, I believe I have actually two and I think they're both short that, but I'm crossing my fingers and how can I be sure of that for the. OK, let's go ahead and say Sedgwick's we call this PA. Oh, I'm not sure where it went. It was under the bar where Rubinow was going to. [16:03:15][616.0] [16:03:15] Tell you to remember not to lock your knees if you're going to stay in there to long, we're going to pass out there. You apparently the witnesses are on the other side of the [16:04:11][56.4] [678.5] [16:04:11] courthouse. No go in. If we get somebody to go and check and move the process along, there we go. Oh, thank you for asking. Just what everybody's. So I told you the whole truth and nothing but the truth. I do see. Yes. OK, All right. Please state your name for the record and spell it, please. Kelly pa kelly p r r. Right. And please give us the name of your parents, Randall and and PA. All right. And are you familiar with the location of two, three, two satellite drive. Very familiar. I grew up there. OK, so I hate to ask you about what years were you there when you grew up? Oh, no, let's see. Sixty nine through 85. 86. Yeah, right. So about 85. 86. You left the family home to go to college. Right. All right. Did your parents leave at that time? No. Now they've been there. Well they were there for about fifty years. When did they eventually sell the house and move out. Jilli sent 2000, 19 or 20. Oh gosh. I guess I didn't think about that. Was it during the pandemic or before the pandemic could question. It was during. So it was twenty twenty. That's it. All right. So you still live in Brunswick County? I do. St. Simons. And I'm going to direct your attention specifically into the fall of 2008. Into the first two months of twenty twenty. How often would you go over to your parents house at two three to settle a drive? Usually about once a week, usually on Sundays. What time on Sundays would you usually go over afternoon to? We'd stay until seven or eight sometimes. Now, specifically, when you say we are you two, are you talking about me and my son, my six year old son? And were your parents at this time living alone? Just the two of them at two, three to still drive? Yes. All right. So I am going to director attention specifically to February 23 of twenty twenty, that particular Sunday for you at two, three, two satellite drive that day. I was not there that day. And had you been at the house previous to that, like in the week or two beforehand. Most likely, like I said, we usually would go there about once a week on Sundays. So most likely. All right. So prior to February 2013 or twenty, was there a bullet hole in your parent's front window? No, definitely. Right now on that particular day of February. Twenty third. Twenty twenty. Were you talking to your dad on the phone? I was. I was. And I guess the reason I know that we I was not out there well, for obvious reasons, but also my son's birthday was two days later. We made plans to see them Tuesday instead of Sunday. So, yes, I was talking to him on the phone and he was telling me about what he was seeing out the window and during the conversation, he said, oh, my God, there's a hole in the hole in the window. It's cracked. And so he kind of was shocked and then hung up and said, I'll call you back. I said, Yeah. Did you ever get over there to see the hole in the window? Eventually, eventually, I think maybe a week later or a few days later, I'm not sure. I can't remember exactly the time. So hard for you to testify. You and I have met. We've talked. Right. All right. And did you get a review, some photos of the house? Yes. All right. So I'm going to show you what's already been admitted into evidence. State's exhibit one oh five. What is the jury looking at here? Six zero five. That's my parents house or formerly my parents house. Right. So what we're looking at, what else is is that the evidence right there? Two, three, two. Still drive right. Plus the jury looking there. That's also the front of my parents house. And then was this the window at, I believe, that your father was talking to you about? Right. That's the one at the far end, the left side of the house as you're looking at it. Yeah, this one, I believe it was the one on the end there. Yeah, that one. The left. One right. That's the. Now, when we take a look at state's exhibit 114 and we see this right here, had that hole been there before now? No, Now when you're over on Sunday, where do you and your son and your parents generally congregate? We usually say in the back of the house, in the family room, there's glass. The doors back there looks over the river. So we spend most of the time back there and ever any time here in this front room, sometimes we would go in that room. I play music, I play guitar and sing, and my mom does, too. So sometimes we would go in that room and sing and play so Dad could watch the TV and we wouldn't bother him right. So I want to ask you now is at some point in time prior to February, twenty third of twenty twenty. Do you recall ever seeing a young man at the construction site that's on the way, your parent's house? Yes, I do recall that. I'm not exactly sure when it was if it was maybe December or January. I'm not really sure exactly when it was. But I do remember driving by and I believe it was a Sunday, as usual, afternoon. It was still light outside. And I looked over and I saw someone in the the doorframe. There wasn't a door there. And he was just standing in the doorframe and we just kind of looked at each other as I drove by, it was this young man, white, black, Asian or Hispanic. He was a black man. He was very tall. You going to keep going? Well, describe him. Sure. Go ahead and get a description. He from what I remember, he had like I guess they were like basketball shorts on and I believe high top sneakers and a T-shirt. And, yeah, he just he looked very tall. I remember thinking that because of the the doorframe where the location of it was him to what kind of hair he had hair. You I don't remember exactly. I think it was fairly short, maybe a little I guess medium length. It's fuzzy, you know, but yeah. So you're driving your car. It was still light out. Right. OK, any idea what time I mean, you're talking January and December. It was. It was so yeah. So it probably was getting darker at that time. So it must have been maybe four or five I guess. Yeah. But still light out. Still light out. Yeah. Not real bright but it was definitely light out. OK, now to kind of pin this down, do you remember who it was before Christmas or after Christmas. That's a good question. I wish I could remember, but I'm just not totally sure. I'm not sure. Yeah. I think most likely after Christmas I feel like it was late December, early January. I'm not totally sure. OK, and I'm going to show you one twenty six. Would that help you standing right. Those in that door on the right side there, I believe. Yeah. I'm going to go put it up there soon, OK. Yeah, that's good. All right, let's look at states one twenty six. So I'm just going to point was it the store. Right that door right there. And when you drove by, did you make eye contact with them? I did. OK, any waving or saying hi now? OK, I just I, I remember having a dialog in my head. Should I tell you about that. Like, just what I thought. I thought I was driving by and I thought, what is he doing there? And then I thought, no, Kelly, don't be racist. He's probably working on the house and then Adult will know he doesn't have a tool belt on. So I wonder what he's doing there, you know, just the whole thing. So we were just looking at each other and I wasn't really sure. And I just, you know, kept driving so that that was like a split second thought process in my head, like one or two seconds. So. Yeah, but no. Yeah, no rule. He didn't like, hide or anything. He was just looking at me so. [16:16:18][726.5] [16:16:18] OK, so tell me about that. So, so his reaction, he makes eye contact with you. Was he. Yeah. He just, just looks at me. Yeah. I just, I, you know, I felt like I guess I could have waved but you know. Did he try and duck inside. No. Now just because look. And he did run away. No. Just stood there. Just stood there. And you were interviewed. I just want to make sure on May 7th, 2020 does. That's about right. That sounds about right. All right. All right. One question on. I'm going to go ahead and pass over to the defense attorneys. They may have some questions for you. OK, thank you. Was I was or my name is Bob Rubin and I represent Travis MacMichael. As I understand it, your parents, do they still live in Seattle? Assures no. They sold their house in July twenty twenty and moved to Florida, to Jacksonville. OK, but you grew up there at least for a good number of years. And then I went off to college and eventually came back to Glen County and lived right on the act. Right, exactly. But you would go check on your parents, celebrate anniversaries, birthdays, holidays, and then just make sure that their general welfare was good, right? Exactly. Very close with your parents. How long did they live in satellite shores before they moved to Florida? I believe is about fifty years. So a long time. So they're getting up there in age by twenty twenty in the eighties. Right, exactly. And there came a point where they and you were concerned about crime in the neighborhood. [16:18:29][131.1] [16:18:30] They had told me a few things had happened here recently or before that previous to that time. Yeah. Previous to to February 24th. Right. Right, right. And and as their daughter, I assume that concerned you, Dan, did you ask them to install any surveillance cameras or alarm system or anything like that? [16:18:51][20.9] [16:18:52] They did actually have an alarm system. They didn't have cameras, but they did have an alarm alarm system that they had been in disrepair for a long time. And then I think maybe six months before this happened, they did start it up again. So, yeah, it made you feel better, that's for sure. Absolutely. So when you would go visit them over the preceding, let's say, from February 2013, twenty back six, 12 months, you go during the evening and then you would go in the daytime depending on why you would go. Most of the time it would be in the afternoon and then we would stay until the early evening actually. And you'd be there and sometimes you'd be inside celebrating with them or hanging out with them. Sometimes you'd be outside enjoying the weather. Right, for a walk with them. I assume you have children? I do. I have one son. So sharing your grand your son with the program right there. Grant with them. Yeah, exactly. Yeah. Yeah. During. [16:19:58][65.9] [16:19:58] The times that you were there in satellite stores at their house walking around the neighborhood, would it be fair to say that you never saw a moderate jogging in the neighborhood? I don't believe so, no, I don't think so. And when you were interviewed by I believe it was agents Hamilton and Carns back in May, if you had seen Mr. Aubury prior to February 2013, you would have told them. Well, I did see him. You know, I think it was him in the house, but I didn't. Yeah, right. I would have said. I would have said I saw him. John Right. Exactly. Yeah. So the one time that you did see him happen to be this one time in late December and January in the afternoon. Right. Right. And you saw a man standing in the door frame without the door at 220 satellite drive. Right. No toolbelt now. No reason you could discern from looking at him why he would be in an empty house. Right. That was under construction, right? I guess so. Yeah. OK, in fact, if you checked yourself, but it did cross your mind, why is this guy in that house right. Right on up. Was it. We think it was a Sunday, so that's why I was kind of questioning it, right. Yeah. And then you checked yourself and you know, one to make sure they weren't stereotyping or. Exactly. Exactly. Um, did you talk to your. [16:21:32][93.7] [16:21:32] Parents about that, that you saw this man in the house? I don't think I did. I think I just really drove away thinking no big deal. You know, I don't think so. But you were aware of their concerns not only about crime in the neighborhood, but specifically about break ins at [16:21:50][18.1] [1056.1] â?<â?<[16:21:50] Mr. Englishes house. [16:21:51][1.0] [16:21:52] I think about that. I'm trying to think if it was specific to that house, what I had heard, I think I just had heard that that was just General things being stolen. I'm trying to think of when I actually found out about the things that they have, that house being stolen. It's a good question. I think it was more just a general. There had been some things stolen in the neighborhood that made me concerned. I don't know that it was specific to that house. So at that time, you drove by in December, January, you were not you personally were not aware of items being stolen from Mr. Anderson? I don't think so. Yeah. All right. I know it's I'm trying to answer as truthfully as I can. I'm just trying to remember. I understand. Yeah. Did you at some point, I believe it was in June of to meet with Mr. Lee Wilson reformats that operacion. Yeah. Uh, I was on well OK. I was gonna say, what would that be? And reference to that in reference to this case, telephone conversation with Mr. Wilson to remember. I can't remember. I'm sorry. That's OK. I'm sorry. When you learned about this case in the shooting incident on February 23, did you reach out to the Glynn County police to tell them that you saw a man you were pretty certain was a robbery at that house? [16:23:41][108.4] [16:23:42] I don't think I reached out. I do think somebody did call me and ask me about that, though. Now that you're saying I think I remember talking to somebody about it, but I did. I don't think I reached out to anybody. I think they called me because I think they talked to my dad who said Dr. Kelly. Right. Who said, call me. Yeah, OK. OK, give me one second. OK, thank you, Mr. Powell. That's all I know is that OK, Your Honor, redirect. Please do not say that Mr. Ricci also subject to. Yes. Sorry, you're going to long and you can you're free to leave. You are subject to recall. OK, thank you. Thank you. From State and this time of state. Recall. Mr. Richardson. Richardson. Yes. I thought you said just put your hands on a try to tell the truth, whole truth and nothing but the truth. I did receive. OK, all right. Please state your name and spell it for the record. Kara Richardson, ccra RISC JRD so with. All. [16:26:54][191.6] [16:26:54] Right, And how are you currently employed? I'm the director of the Glen and Brunswick number one center of what does the Glen Brunswick 911 Center do. So we process all were responsible for the primary. Well, actually, the only piece at which the public safety answering point for going county. So all 911 calls go through us and we do all sorry, public safety despatching as well. OK, so what's the difference between public safety despatching and all the 911 calls that come in? So the calls are processed by well, there's a myriad of technology that makes the calls come to us, but essentially we have call takers and we have dispatchers. So we have call takers that process the calls that are inbound and dispatchers that will send the appropriate response. OK, so so that I'm clear for I'm the 911 operator. I'm taking the call for somebody is calling for an emergency. Right. Right. Am I also at that time, sir, typing in stuff into the report or my dictating it to somebody else or how's this work right. So we don't do an actual report. We do a record, a call, which is, you know, it's a it's a public record of an inbound call. And the police officers or fire department, the respective agencies will do a report based off of the audio, their observations and the notes. And these calls. So, yes, that's what happens. So someone while they're so say someone calls in. Is someone typing this in? Yes. OK, now the dispatcher person, are they the one who is now going, hey, EMS, you need to go here, fire. You need to go there sometimes. If you're busy. If we're busy, everybody can answer the radio or excuse me, the phone and or the radio. But we try to keep the respective particularly the police dispatchers off the phones. But if we have an accident on and five or something like that where we get inundated with calls, anybody can be answering that and directing responders at the same time. Gotcha. And you oversee this entire process. Yes. Are you also the custodian of record for these records? Generated from the 911 call center? Yes. And within the 911 call center, how many people generally work a shift like a daytime shift? We have to have a minimum of six on the floor, but we typically have between six and eight. And as part of the record keeping in the normal course of business for the Glen Brunswick 911 Center, do you keep both the written record as well as the audio file? We have five and the audio file is basically what the the 911 caller and the person receiving the call. Correct. We also have audio files of radio traffic that we keep on record as well. Right. So prior to coming to court today, have we met? We have. All right. And have we also kind of gone over the relevant 911 one calls that were given to the GBI in regard to the investigation at the homicide of Watari? Yes, ma'am. All right. And if you had the opportunity to review those calls as well as review the CAD reports? Yes, [16:30:24][210.4] [511.4] [16:30:24] ma'am. And any extractions? Yes, ma'am. OK, so let's go ahead and at this time, for expediency sake, the state is going to tender State's Exhibit 141 and 142. The 911 call from February. Twenty third twenty twenty made by Matt L. Benzi. Which one is it? Which one is sure. Forty 141 and 142. 141 being the audio call four nine one one four. Matteo Renzi on February 2013. Twenty twenty and 142 being the Associated Press reports. Got no objection. No objection, no objection. Next, the state will enter into evidence state's exhibit 144 being the nine one one call by Greg McMichael from February 2013 Twenty twenty and the Associated CAD Report 145 nine one one can report for rank and file. In addition, State's Exhibit 146, the sequential export extraction from that CAD report. No objection. Objection, no objection. The statement tendered to evidence as State's Exhibit 147, the nine one one call made by Greg Bikel from July 13th of 2010 team along with 148 the Associated Attacapa. No objection. No objection. No objection. The state will tender into evidence state's exhibit 149, 150 and 151 one the nine one one call by Larry English from October 25th. Twenty nineteen parts one and two, along with the Associated CAD report at 151 149 and one to the other to call one ten twenty one. The objection. No objection. The third stable will to enter into evidence state's exhibit one fifty three point fifty four one fifty five being the nine one one calls for Larry English from November 17th. Of twenty nineteen along with the Associated CAD Report States Exhibit 156. I got 156 calls noted. No objection. Objection. The state will enter into evidence that state's exhibit 157. The 911 call by Larry English from November 18th. Twenty nineteen along with the Associated CAD report 158 of actions. No objection, no objection. The state will enter into evidence state's exhibit 159 and the associate had reported 160 of the nine one one call by Larry English from December 1st, 2019. Objection. No objection, no objection. Write and the state will tender in a state's exhibit 161, the nine one one call by Travis McMichael from January 1st of twenty, twenty and 162 The Associated CAD Report. Objection. No objection. No objection admitted. In addition, the state will tendered to evidence that state's 163 the nine one one call by Travis McMichael from February 11th, 2020 and the Associated CAD report as State's Exhibit 164. Objection. Your objection. No objection. All right. So, Mr. Richardson, if I live in Brunswick and or Glen County and I call nine one one, how does it get to you in April from our you know, most of our calls are now wireless. It'll hit off of a tower and it's supposed to roll due to the appropriate P. S. So I believe on the county line, there is a chance sometimes that you might hit Camden, but for the most part, they're routed as they should be. All right. So if somebody is a tourist and they're out on St. Simons Island and they want to dial 911 one for something in Savannah, that's not going to work right? It doesn't work that way. They're going to get nine one one here in St. Simons and Oakland County. It's been all right now. Is there also a non emergency line that can be called in order to get to basically the police to report something? There is, right. And so if someone were to call that non-emergency line, would they go to the exact same dispatch location? It depends if they're calling the three six, four or five number, which is our primary non-emergency number for because we are a separate entity, it will go directly to us. Some of the departments will for their calls to us after hours. So it does get bored it to us. But, you know, for the most part, they are going to be answering their own calls during normal their non-emergency calls during normal work work hours. So somebody calls Brunswick PD just directly, but no one's there to pick up. It could get routed to you. Right? Right. Now, if somebody is, for instance, in Douglas, Georgia, OK, but they want to call that something is happening in Glynn County. Do they call they call nine one one in Douglas. They're going to get Douglas, right? Correct. So they need to call a non-emergency line to get to dispatch. Right. And just to clarify, the only time that could happen is if you are on a VoIP, because VoIP will basically bring to no one location that [16:36:28][363.3] [16:36:28] you're registered at. So that's that's the only exception. Of course, landlines are a direct mail go directly to the piece of their respective peace out. All right. So I'm on a landline and I'm in my house in St. Simons. That's just going to automatically tell you where I am and that's where you're going to sue the staff. Yes, ma'am. OK, all right. So first thing I want to go ahead and take a look at is going to be state's exhibit. Have you look at 142 and 143? All right. Take a look at one forty three and 142 and go ahead and tell us what the difference is between those two documents. OK, this is the computer. This is the one we intercept. They get to our we're basically telling the story when we enter anything into CAD, which is their computer aided dispatch. And it's it's a chronological story of events as we are are told are unfolding or happening. So this is a CAD report and this is going to be the script that is annotated along with you. We said this was the document that you're referring to, 142. I'm sorry. Thank you. Thank you, Judge. So 142 is the story. It is. And 143 is going to be. I can't remember the specific name of this, but this is what comes with we download our audio from from our I'm sorry, our reporter. OK, my apologies. That's all right. I'm going to go ahead and take state's 142 and 143 back from you. I don't know that that has a technical name, [16:39:00][152.8] [16:39:00] but what we've got so the jury can kind of see this is 142. I'm sorry, who's going to make sure 143. It's I don't have a list of this new tenderhearted. Oh, I apologize if I failed to tender 143, the state will tender State's Exhibit 143 as a sequential export of the CAD report 142 being the recording from one forty one. He has no objection to. So when we're looking here at at the CAD report, we end up first with what? Right here. What is this a call like that. That your name. Oh, the serial number. And then what's the nature. The nature is suspicious person activity package, all encompassing vehicle. And then when we're looking down here in this particular instance, what is the date we're looking at in state's exhibit one? Forty two to twenty of 2020. And then what is the time, thirteen point twenty four. Is that military time? It is. All right. And who is our caller, Matt? So when we look down below, this is just something someone else typed in as they were speaking with Mr. about say? Yes, ma'am. All right. So then when we look at one forty three, which is the export, does this give us the same date and time right here? It does. And then what's d you are the duration. I believe that's the duration. [16:40:50][109.2] [16:40:51] Of the call. All right. And then it says it came into Glynn County. Mean what does that mean. So that actually came for that didn't come from number one line that came into our main line at. So our non-emergency line, non-emergency line. So then direct your attention to state one forty five states, one forty five. Is that the exact same call number as the previous one as well. Put them up so that you can see my place. So that's exactly call it is. OK, so when two people end up calling in minutes apart, but it seems to be about the same incident, does it end up on the same category? Typically, yes. Oh, I love it at once. It's hard to determine if that in fact does is the same incident that's going on. So for instance, you can have a part two car wrecks that has to do with each other. Right. OK, but in this case, we have this combined CAG report. Yes. Been all right. So when we look at this and we go down here, we actually have right here. What are those words? Another caller. All right. So just so I know this type, this is related to this time of day. Yes, ma'am. OK, so then this type would be related to that time of day? Yes, ma'am. And then another caller that we relate to this time of day. Correct. OK, so I got a question for you here. This time and date says thirteen, fifteen, forty eight. Right. All right. Is being taken in by Parker. Is that Philip Parker? He's one of our own. If you're not gonna want people. Yes, ma'am. All right. But when we look at state's exhibit one forty six, I related to the specific phone call from Greg McMichael. What time do we actually have right there? Thirteen. Fourteen 09. Right. And what was the duration on that? Four minutes. Forty six seconds. OK, why is there a discrepancy showing this as a thirteen fourteen nine call versus this one where it says another caller at fourteen fifteen forty eight. Right. So I believe what happened and again they don't necessarily remember exactly what they did with the thousands of calls they process. But when that caller called in, he was naming that he was in the neighborhood. So we don't create a residence hall. We can't really create a record, a call without having a good idea at the location. And the location has got to go in and validated a lot of the nature of call before that call is created. And I think what happened and what he believes happened is when he was trying to get where that was at, he realized, OK, this is related to this call. And so instead of instead going with that particular particular cat event, he went ahead and put the information on the existing record a call. OK, so there was a time lag between the hey, this is coming in at 13, 14 or nine. And I think it's related to this. So there's a later time when he actually types it in. Yes, ma'am. Right. But they got associated correct. From at this time, the state is going to publish state's exhibit 140 for oh, nine one one was the address emergency. Oh, I'm not here. So what's yours is a white male running down the Delaware where we're at fertilizer's. I don't know. What's he. Well, it's not that bad, is it? Right. Sir. Hello, sir. Sir, we. Hello. Hello, Hello. Stopping. [16:46:25][334.0] [16:46:26] In the noises and voices we hear in the background of that, where's that from? That's from inside the center right. Does anyone ever come back on the line in this call? No, ma'am. Moving forward now to state's exhibit one forty eight, one forty seven. Let's take a look at one forty eight. So what is our call number up here on state's exhibit 148 eight eight seven two three zero? And what do we have? Seven. Thirteen to twenty nineteen. And what time? 1814. Ten. Right. And is this Mr. Parker taking us again? It is. And what address do we have making the 911 call, two three zero Sotelo drive. And who is the person? I think Michael, this time the state will publish one forty seven. Your brother and communications operator, 94 four. My sister. Hey, this is my and let's that the VA's office is there a supervisor available. I might be able to speak short just a moment. And now you can in the dispatch supervisor or police supervisor, please. Supervisor. It will be fine. OK, I wanted to make it OK and. All right. And what was your name? Greg Smith. Michael. OK, and a contact number for you now. What do you want, seven one seven to serve. Then call me back. OK, and then in your address, sir. Thirty oscillograph. We've got a lot of places in this area who are automobile Reykjanes and my son and I just discovered a guy we think he may be living a creek bridge on seventeen. We just want to make contact with real shady looking fella and, you know, possibility he may be a witness and breaking into all of his automobile. I just want to make somebody aware, somebody there were no anyone. You won't talk to a supervisor or any anything, but that would be fine. OK, just ah, I'll have somebody give you a call now when they give you a call is going to come in as walked unknown or unregistered. So be prepared to answer that. OK, at nine one two two one seven one seven two six. That's correct, yes. OK. All right. Thank you. Thank you so now referred to State's Exhibit 161 and 162, looking at one sixty two right now. What is our call number nine eight nine one eight zero and what is our day. It is one one or two thousand twenty. What time. Eleven oh five thirty nine. And what is the location of the call. Two three zero sitilides. And who's making the call? Travis MacMichael. At this time, the state will publish State's Exhibit 161. Lambros Communications operated the United States. Yes, I need a police officer. I got a little from self E, which I'm a police officer. I need to report a stolen pistol. OK, what's the address? It was stolen from two thirty until they dropped it to three. Also to address our you name McMichaels phone number misselling Michael Namwon to four two three one three four. What kind of dollars is the weapon in the formula twenty is stolen about an hour. Where were you when it got stolen from my father? Is you found this out here? Oh yeah. Right here at the house. End of the you had a number four by any chance of paperwork on it at all? I can get it for right now. I might have got it from around here. My there's nothing more. I might have thought I would probably go in the I could today or I'm pretty certain it was within the house. My my father for me. I came out an hour later and the whole school thought that this is in what kind of trouble is stolen out of a 2011 for nothing else. How you transfer from what the child with. I believe we should have asked to come out. All right. I'll be out here with the AFIRM. Thank you for that. And then direct your attention to state's exhibit one. Sixty three and one sixty four. What is our number one zero one two one six four. All right. And what time do we have? Nineteen twenty seven thirteen and February 11, two thousand twenty five. And what location to two zero Sotelo Drive. And who is making the phone call? Travis Michael. Right. And what is this address here? That's the lat long that is affiliated with the phone. So he called nine one one from a cell phone from his cell phone. This time the state will publish state's exhibit 163. No one was the address of your emergency. It's a telegraph to the Telegraph. What's going on? We've got a we've had a string of burglaries. I was live in the neighborhood and I just got a gun running into a house, built two houses down from me. When I turned around, he took off running into the house. OK, what did it look like? The black male red shirt, white sort of thing. You saw the House of the is being built. This house was vacant. Right now he's in the house. What's your name? Phone number, sir. Travis met Michael down to forty three point thirty seven four. All right. Where are you at now? I am sitting right across the street in watching the house, watching the house right now. I hear it's about what kind of truck are you in for [16:58:25][719.4] [1162.7] [16:58:18] I hear it's about what kind of truck are you in for responsibility? You OK? Yeah. Yeah, well, and I just thought of me when I turned around, when I turned around and saw him back up, he reached into his pocket. He ran into the house. So I don't know if he's armed or not, but he looked like he was acting like he was demand for that. OK, what's pocket? Any reason to believe? OK, and now so two thirty in the making it address. It's no, it's my address. Your address is a 246, maybe twenty six possibly. How many houses down is it from here. It's two towards the Howard you got. I guess you don't realize we're here. He's got the lights on right now. He's got a flashlight in the house and the OK, you just stay where you're at so the officers will know we'll do. Now stay on the line with you until they get there, just in case anything changes your. So you said he was a black male. Did he have hair on his head? Any other features you can tell me about? I couldn't tell you how he was really short hair. OK, when he. Tall, short. Yeah, he's tall. About six foot. There's the neighbors I guess that's the other neighbors showed up for the service alone, but there's no guy. So what happened when you first saw him? He looked behind a bus driver. He was coming through somebody's door. And I looked back and and he was just verbal by got behind a portal to it. And then I backed up and he looked at me when I headed back up to the road and Bruce's pockets kind of watching me, he ran off into the house and back out, went back into the house. And that's what I called Callejo. But we've been having a lot of burglaries and break ins around here lately. And I had a pistol. So on January 1st, actually. And, you know, he he's I've never seen this guy before in the neighborhood, Kitahara. And sure enough, there's water here pretty large. You know, like you say, I'm pulling up. They're not OK, you can go ahead and let me go. OK, but thank you. Bye bye. I will go ahead. Test with his family as the custodian of records for the Public Safety Dispatch. And this may seem like an obvious question to you. Is there any mechanism by which you collect or record phone calls that people make directly to officers? There is not. And are you aware of officers who give out their cell phone numbers to members of different bakers, residents in those different patrol areas? No, I'm not aware. OK, so there isn't anything. If an individual were not to call the regular Glynn County PD, no non-emergency or nine one one, those phone calls would not be collected in any place that you care for. Yes. Thank you. I appreciate it. For the additional folks. [17:04:15][357.0] [17:04:16] I got a redirect on that point. No, Judge. Thank you, ma'am. You may step down. Is she subject to recall? Yes. All right, ma'am, you're free to go today. You are subject to recall. Yes. Thank you, ma'am. All right, ladies and gentlemen, we're at a breaking point for the day. So we're going to go ahead and recess until nine o'clock tomorrow morning. During the break. Again, do not discuss this case as much as they probably start saying it with me. Sandra, do not discuss this case among yourselves or with anybody else. Don't go looking for any information about the case. If anybody approaches you about the case, please notify the court immediately upon your return to the court and we'll see whether that needs to be addressed. So, again, don't go looking for any information. Don't go picking up newspapers or news feeds or social media or whatever it is that may be out there with those instructions. And again, all of the instructions I've given you. Thank you again for your service today. It is appreciated. You're free to go. And we'll see you tomorrow morning at nine o'clock. All right. Anything from the state before we recess? No, just a scheduling update for the quarter. Like when we get rid of anything from the ah,. [17:06:38][141.9] [17:06:38] From Travis. No. Are grateful to you for me. I take it none of the jurors had an issue with Veterans Day on a then we have that schedule we can state. Yes, Your Honor. [17:06:51][12.6] [17:06:51] I believe that we will. I know it's going to be hard to believe we have a stipulation and it's in writing and signed by everyone, which we will publish first thing tomorrow morning and then segue into, I believe, Larry Englishes deposition. We have reviewed the timing of the deposition. It is in three separate videos, but it totals about three hours and 45 minutes. So I want the court to be aware of that. Mr. Camarena will be handling that. And what we're probably going to do is have him seated more here because he needs to be able to put up the evidence at the same time on the split screen for the jury. And we've coordinated that as well. So that's outside the court to be aware. That's why he's probably gonna move his chair up and sit here and that we'll see how that that day goes with our technology tomorrow. And I just wanted the court to be aware of that lengthy deposition presentation. [17:07:45][53.5] [17:07:45] Sue says they're going to break for lunch, but that's my understanding, Your Honor. That way, Mr. Cambria plays the video. I'm sorry. He plays the 911 calls. We have a transcript for the jurors. For each of those calls is for four or five or six Caulfield's. These are these are transcripts created by the district attorney's office that we've all read and reviewed and agreed upon. But I've just asked what was the best way to translate what we charge jurors on transcripts. And I'll tell you the charge to fix normally. And again, this is just generally so I'll run through some of that apply at this time. So I'm going to have to probably give them the charge before we get into it. But at some point during the deposition, you're going to hear a recorded statement. In this case, the only recordings they were talking about are the 911 calls. OK, this is proper evidence for you to consider. Please listen to it very carefully. I'm going to allow you to have a transcript of the recording. So we actually giving them a transcript of the recording. [17:08:58][73.1] [17:08:58] . We only made one copies. [17:09:01][2.5] [17:09:01] So I'm going to lie to have a transcript of the recording prepared by the state. I think the joint exhibit and maybe but let me just get through this just to help you identify speakers and as a guide to help you listen to the recording, if you believe at any point in the transcript says something different from what you hear on the recording. Remember, it is the recording that is the evidence, not the transcript. At any time there is a variation between the recording and the transcript. You must be guided solely by what you hear on the recording and not by what you see in the transcript. Please and please do not read ahead what's generally the charge. [17:09:37][36.5] [17:09:38] I give. I'll tailor that. If there's no objection to using that, I'll go ahead and give that to them. No objection from the state and the defendant, Phil Jackson. No objection. Your. All. [17:09:48][10.0] [17:09:48] Right. Well, it's 10:00 in the morning of OK. I don't think there's anything else. Do we have any idea of doing for the rest of the afternoon? And how would you like about if you want to hear it out? The court planning to start discussing the charge issues at any point this week where we are with the evidence. I have not made that plan yet. We're still preparing a draft charge and the court still working on everything that was given to the. But one of the reasons I'm asking is because I'm anticipating that by the end of the week, we're going to be doing the motions for directed verdict and I'm not going to talk about this. I don't need to talk about the schedule on the record at this point, depending on where we are towards the end of the week. I may ask the state where we are, but at this point, just be clear, still the presentation of evidence, I understood that it would take at least at least a week, possibly two, for the state to get its evidence up. I've got a draft charge that I'm working on and we'll continue to do so. So any insight I can get. But I hope that at this point I need to start putting on the record where we are with the evidence and what we're expecting. Communism. I'm not sure that that's necessary at this point. All right. Thank you, everybody. Based on all of that, then we are in recess. We will reconvene at nine o'clock tomorrow morning. Have a good evening [17:09:48][0.0] [687.1]

CORE 3943 AHMAUD ARBERY MURDER TRIAL BRUNSWICK GA SWITCHED FEED POOL 11102021 084500 [09:06:00] >> ---Father to for the flavor issue. We did have brief testimony on that for Mr. Bryan for the record and I'm not suggesting it's going to change anything, but we we don't want to waive that issue or fail to make a record. What's I'm also going to address the panel when they come out this morning on Veterans Day. Just make sure nobody has any bad as they need to address family matters, pay respects or something first thing in the morning. So folks do that. But I do intend to move forward on Veterans Day and continue with the case as to the two open matters, the let me address the can reports first, the working through the testimony and what I understood the investigator to testify to yesterday was that he had pulled information from the Glynn County police database. And my notes and I don't have the actual name of it, but it was not the Glynn County police database. What was a bit confusing to me and what I think we were doing in cross-examination. Mr. Sheffield, you had had reports, correct? They are. They are fair reports. And were the cat reports limited to the satellite George neighborhood? They were limited to the satellite, Shaw's neighborhood and in particular particular addresses. OK, so what I what I heard and this is where the disconnect started in my mind, we were talking about the Glynn County database. I initially thought he had pulled information only because the state had requested it. But then it appears from his testimony associated with Greg McMichaels statements that he actually did do some follow up in that database in order to follow up. When I didn't hear that he had pulled any CAD data, which is a different database. So what you've got is different information than what I heard him testify that he had done done, that he had put, which to the court is important because the question for him then is simply, did he pull the cat ports? Does he know about the if he does or doesn't, then I think that answers the question. If he does know about them, then I think it's wide open to the cross. If it's limited to chores. The explanation from the court is I understand part of what the defense is trying to put up is that in support of Greg MacMichael statement, that there was some there were some things going on in the neighborhood. What those are, I don't know, and how important it is to the case. Ultimately, it's for the jury to determine. So just to be clear, and I think I said this last night, the court's position is not that those CAD reports can't come in. I just don't think this is the witness for it. He never indicated that he pulled the report. You would have any knowledge of it. And he wasn't asked about whether or not he would have knowledge of those reports. So the court indicated, I would think that through a little bit more we were getting a little sidetracked last night. So to clarify, that's where the court is on the California. Thanks for taking a look at what the courts say on the 404. Be opening the door. The court is not at this point that the state is open the door. I understand the arguments of counsel. I've heard them. I understand the testimony about whether or not he was looked at as a suspect is something that I don't think is an argument that's just being thrown out there for the sake of throwing out there. I see that as a serious issue. And I understand that. I understand I think the parties understand the court is very cognizant of whether that door gets opened at some point, in fact, has been told over and over again that that is a flag that may be raised. And if it comes up under appropriate circumstances, the court might rule differently. But at this point, based on the testimony that's been provided, the court is not going to get into it or allow the parties to get into the forum for the evidence. I believe those are the two open matters courthouse. Hopefully, if there are any additional open matters from yesterday, the statement that, you know, my notes did correspond to the conclusions that you reached, with one exception that I wanted to place on the record. It does not seem that there was any indication that either Mr. McCaskey or the officer Marsi was ever pooling the reports for the purpose of seeing if, quote, Ahmad R.E. was a suspect i in those cases. They were fooling the reports to follow up either on the information Greg MacMichael had provided about other crimes in the neighborhood and or the request that Mr. McCaskey had made of that officer to go back to the reports. They failed to address the issue of rising crime in the neighborhood, which the state rejects. So the insertion of the phrase whether Imod artery was assessed is what has tainted that evidence. And I wanted to place that on the record and is what we would argue. The reason why ---------- [09:12:46] In Seattle assures Royal Oaks Fancy Glass, or Highway 17, as the state has indicated, its all big one big, very close area. So to intimate that Ahmad was not a suspect in these reports, we all could tell that was kind of a useless question because the officer there's no way that he went and investigated a suspicious person report and we're not allowed to get into the content of those suspicious persons reports in case those identifying characteristics are consistent with a modern breed. We're we are following the court's ruling that we are not talking about Ahmad Arborists criminal history or suspicions of criminal [09:13:36][49.5] [09:13:35] acts outside of what was taking place at 20 Satullo Drive. So with that caveat, I wanted to state opposition from the defendant's position. The court has already ruled this, but I understand that we're ready for the panel to start having your next witness ready. Yes, sir, we do. OK. All right. Let's go to all rights reserved. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. All right. Welcome back. We are ready to proceed. Before we do, I do want to take care of just a little bit of housekeeping and make sure everybody's aware of what the court's plan is as far as the schedule. Normally, Veterans Day is a holiday and the court is closed. But given the way this case is moving forward, what I'm planning on doing is keeping the court open on Veterans Day and moving forward on that day with testimony. Now, I do know that some and obviously for good reasons, do pay respects or do other things on Veterans Day. So I'd like to know from you and you don't you don't need to tell me now, but send me a note if there's an issue that you have on Veterans Day, and I'll go ahead and see if I can get that addressed and make sure I understand exactly what that that need is. But at this point, for planning purposes, do plan to be in court on Veterans Day. So, again, if you need to get a note to me, you're welcome to do so. But with that, it's all the housekeeping I've got for this morning. We are ready to proceed with the evidence, as I understand. Again, I want to thank you for being here with us in Glynn County. And in the Superior Court state. Ready to proceed. Yes. On this said at this time, the state will call Detective Roderick Nogo sort of truth, whole truth and nothing but the truth that. All right, Detective, please state your name is spelled for the record. Broadridge No, Hili are ODP risc last name and no h i l l y all right, detective. No. How are you currently employed? I'm a sergeant patrol the Gwinnett County Police Department. And how long have you been with the Glynn County Police Department? For six [09:18:16][280.8] [09:18:16] years. And your entire time in law enforcement. Has it been with the Glynn County Police Department? No, I worked for Brunswick Police Department before and for about three and a half years. So you're coming up on twenty years? I am. All right. And are you currently a post certified law enforcement officer? I am. And you're a sergeant over patrol. So what do you do now? Supervise patrol shifts and at those the officers who drive around the cars? Yes. All right. Do you drive around in a car? I drive around. Oh, yes. All right. Do you respond to nine one one calls? I do. Are you assigned to any particular baker? No. You're over all of them. Yes. All right. So at any point time with your tenure in Glynn County, have you been assigned to CID or in any capacity investigating things like homicides, armed robberies and things like that? Yes, I was assigned as a criminal investigator in the Criminal Investigation Division. And when was that? The first time? From 2000 to end of 2014. Second from twenty eighteen to two months of this year, being of twenty twenty one. Gotcha. All right. So I'm going to direct your attention specifically to February. Twenty third, twenty twenty in the evening at the Glynn County Police Department headquarters where you present there that time. Yes. All right. So what we're going to talk about specifically is an interview with Greg McMichael. OK, yes. All right. Now, you're not the one who conducted the initial interview with Greg McMichael. Did you know? All right. You then became involved because you stopped by. Yes, I just stopped by. I was standing by while someone else was doing a statement for I was just waiting and did you know Greg McMichael prior to February? Twenty third of twenty twenty. I did tell the jury how you knew Greg Microclimates, February five that twenty twenty. I knew him as one of the investigators at the DA's office here. He would come to our station, deliver subpoenas here and there, and I would talk to him, you know, professionally. And how long had you known him professionally? Since at least 2005. So any personal relationship like out to dinner or anything like that? No, So when you stopped by, was he still in the interview room and was the recording still going? This was when Jesse was sorry. That was a bad question. So he was still in the interview room? Yes, he was. And you stopped by to talk to him? Yes. Did he? Great to speak with you. Freely. Voluntarily, yes. And what was kind of the nature tone of the conversation you had with them? We were just talking about what happened and he was telling me what happened. All right. So I'm going to hand you what has already earmarks and admitted into evidence as state's exhibit two to five a night prior to coming to court today. Have you had an opportunity to chance to find a transcript of the interview with Greg and Michael? All right. And I'm going to direct your attention at this time specifically to page fifty nine of that transcript. All right. All right. Now, I'm going to have you specifically give the jury the quotes from your conversation with him starting at line two. What did you ask Greg MacMichael? What's his name, the one who owns this house now? We say the one who owns this house. What house are you referring to? The house that was under construction, a few doors down from his home. And what was his answer to you? I have no idea. I never met him. Never met him. I what is the next question that you asked Greg MacMichael? Did this guy break into a house today? And what did Greg Michael say in response from line eight to line thirteen? Well, that's just it. I don't know. That's what I told. I told what's your name out there? I said, listen, you might want to go knock on doors down there because this guy had just done something that he was fleeing from. And I don't know, you know, [09:18:16][0.0] [09:23:29] you might have gone he might have gone in somebody else's house, OK, somebody's house. So when he says that's just it, I don't know. That's what I told. What's her name out there? Do you have any idea who what's her name out there is? I'm suing at times. Sergeant Oliver. OK, so he's talking about is telling the law enforcement officer out there that they needed to go figure out what he might have done. Yes. OK, I'm going to go ahead and direct your attention then to the very next page. Sixty of the transcript for your attention specifically to line seven. What did you ask him? Have you ever seen him before? And we say, have you ever seen him before? Who you referring to? A lot of the time we didn't know his identity. So, you know, his name was at this time. So have you ever seen him before? What did Gregory Michael say? No, no. I'd never laid eyes on the guy. You then say, OK, what does Mr. Michael then say? Nobody in that neighborhood, or at least nobody that has seen the video that this guy has, that this guy has has has a clue who he is. I know that that was difficult. OK, so nobody in that neighborhood or at least nobody that has seen the video that this guy has has a clue who he is. Yes. What did you ask next? Did he put it out on Facebook or something? The video now, who is he that you're talking about? Did he put it out on Facebook? The owner of the house on the construction site? What was Mr. Gregory Michael's response? I don't know. He may have, but so he says I don't know about this video being put out on Facebook. Correct. And then did you ask how many people in the neighborhood have seen this video? What was his response? I know that Diego has and and then you asked him who Diego was. Right. It's Diego, the guy that the other guy that came in. He says Phragmites says no, that is so. Then you ask him who Diego was, right? Yes. All right. So going on to the next page at the top, you ask him who Diego is on line three. What does drug use Michael say? So he can tell you who Diego is. Diego is the little short Hispanic guy that lives two doors down from the open house, the construction house that was able to give you Diego's last name. Not so [09:23:29][0.0] [09:26:36] So I'm going to go ahead and then direct your attention to specifically page sixty five. And at this point in time, are you asking Greg McMichael to speculate as to what was going through the mind of moderate? If you look at the line on page sixty with that recollection about what you're talking about here, which take a look at lines 22 through twenty four on page 64. Yes. 092640 PROSECUTOR>> So when asking Greg McMichael to speculate about what's going through the mind of Ahmaud Marbury, what does Greg McMichael say on lines three through six? >> â?oHe -- he was -- he was trapped like a rat. I think he was wanting to flee and he realized that something you know, he was not going to get away. PROSECUTOR>> Ok, and then I think you indicated and well -- well --- I'll ask you, what did you then say to him based on this: â?oHe was trapped like a rat. I think he was wanting to flee and he realized he was not going to get away?â?? [09:27:15] But you said, yeah, but he could have run around your son, right? What's he say? Sure. Right now, would you say? From what I can tell in the video, I mean, the whole road is there. So you had seen the video at this point time that you're talking to? Grab me myself. I had seen it on scene briefly. So at that point, time was great. If I could say to you is lines twelve through sixteen. [09:28:36][120.0] [09:28:41] Faster. [09:28:41][0.0] [09:28:42] Than Travis would ever be, he had opportunity to flee further. You know, we had chased him around the neighborhood a bit, but he wasn't winded at all. Continue and what's the next line? Just on sticks? I mean I mean, this guy was he was in good shape. Five now, after speaking with Greg, if Michael was Greg, Michael then free to leave and did he, in fact, leave? Yes, of course. The witness is, you know, actually moving this program is going to apply that. When is and I work. Thank you. On this year. And really, I'm Franco. Got to represent Greg MacMichael. This is my wife. Law partner. She represents him with police. Have a few questions for you today. And I want to go back to where you were with the state just now. And let's start excuse me. Let's start on. [09:30:16][94.4] [09:30:20] Page fifty nine. And. [09:30:23][3.4] [09:30:23] You were asked to read the section from lines two to thirteen. You tell me when you're with me [09:30:23][0.0] [217.8] [09:30:31] And this is the topic concerning no clue who he was. He referring to Ayman arbitrary that time on that day when this all happened right at the contact. You repeat that. I'm sorry, I was looking OK, this is a section where I just called it. No clue who he was. That was the point of it. Right. The section you were in. Right. All right. Well, we can reread it then. If it's summing it up isn't good enough, let's just make sure he's on the same page right here. Page fifteen, blind to go ahead and read to 313 to yourself. That's what he read to the jury. Spumante, particularly Lyons, a thirteen or Greg McMichaels telling you that's just it. I don't know. That's what I told. And you said it was Sergeant Oliver that he was talking to What's-Her-Name. He said I said, listen, you might want to go knock on doors because this guy has just done something that he was fleeing from. And I don't know, you know, he might have gone in somebody's house. And you're understanding and the content was when Mr. McMichaels telling you, I don't know, he didn't know the person's name action as to this officer's understanding of the context, it's not relevant. It's his context of what Mr. MacMichael was saying to him, that I'm trying to establish. Well, again, you're right. You're asking him about what Greg MacMichael was thinking and to explain his statements. Let's just rely upon his statements. If it's relevant in any other way, that's fine. But let's not characterize this witness. Characterize somebody else's statements, statements and records. All right. Mr. Michael couldn't tell you a Marbury's name could be correct because he said he didn't know his name, didn't he? Correct. All right. Well, let's go on with that page to get further context here. [09:32:51][140.0] [09:32:53] You go on to ask him. I'm in line fourteen. You were the first one to see him. That was a question from you. And Mr. MacMichael said, yeah, well, I guess I don't know if somebody else saw him running. I think anything about it. But when he came past my house, Mr. Monk is just now reading this section as opposed to asking this officer what it is. In addition, it has absolutely nothing to do with the real complete. This has nothing to do with what was above at all. I was talking about context for statements and said these are the words of Greg McMichael that come in a couple different ways. Let's get to the context question, because I just make sure let's get to the question part of it. This is the question. This is what. [09:33:45][52.6] [09:33:46] Greg McMichael was saying to you immediately after telling you he didn't know the name of the person he saw running in his neighborhood. Right. That's the context of what we're talking about. Correct. As far as line sixteen on the right. Yes. OK, and so what I'm doing with you investigating Haley, is I'm just reading the words on the transcript and you're affirming. Yes, that's what Greg McMichaels said to me. That's the form of all these questions. All right. You with me? Yes. OK, good deal. So going on, he says, but when he came past my house, he was he met the description of the guy that Travis had seen run in that that empty house, you know, two weeks ago or however long ago it was, you say. Yeah, and Mr. Right. Michael, so far I'm reading accurately, am I not? Yes. And then line twenty three, Greg. Michael, I mean, to a T plus he met the description of the video I had seen of this guy being in their short dreads and over the line one on page sixty you say. Yeah. And Mr. Greg MacMichael says white t shirt, short pants. I mean plus he was hauling ass and and you know, this he was running like people don't run normally. He wasn't out for a Sunday jog. He was getting the hell out of there. I read all that accurately. Yes. And context. You know, he's told [09:33:46][0.0] [192.6] [09:35:32] you he doesn't know this person's name. He's telling you, in effect, why he suspected him and then chased characterization, suspect. OK, you understood what he was talking about, right? I knew you were involved in the conversation and the words he was conveying back to you in response to your questions to him were understandable to you, were they not? You knew what he was talking about. Yes. OK, very good. So now let's go over to page sixty five. The other part of the transcript, the state distributed, they. [09:36:27][54.4] [09:36:27] Read the part on sixty five, page three, line three, rather, down to line sixteen. In. [09:36:41][13.9] [09:36:41] Line sixteen is where the conversation was in the middle of Greg McMichaels comments to you about Aubrey, where he said, I mean, this guy, he was in good shape. You with me. Yes. OK, and then he goes on to say in that same context, completing his thoughts to you. And there was no no hesitation on his part when he came to Travis. I mean, it was I think he was his intention was to grab that gun and probably shoot Travis. That's in my mind. That's what I saw. You know, and with that in mind, if he if he had gotten that shotgun and there was any separation between Travis and him, I was going to cap his ass. And you understood he was describing to you the fight right at the very end of the confrontation that you perhaps had seen on video by this point. Is that what you understood the context of this to be know his understanding of the context? These are just words recompile. His understanding is about that. Well, then that is the context in which he's saying these words. He's describing the final encounter between Imada, Aubrey and Travis and that he thought a lot was trying to get the shotgun away from Travis to shoot him with it. That's what he's telling you, right, counsel? Is that testifying? So let's look at this. This statement is coming through. The witness statements in context. She can ask the witness what he believes he was describing. But let's let the words Mr. MacMichael. All right. For context, investigator. No, really, you understand what he's describing right? Yes. And you understood what he was describing was his own thoughts that he was about to see his own son shot and killed by a Harbury with his own shotgun. Objection. Speculation as to what this means by Michael. This is exactly what the witness understood based on his interview with the Mr. Big Michael. Go ahead. You need me to repeat it. You're allowed. The answer is OK. In the context of this conversation. You understood Greg Michael to be telling you that what he thought when he was watching a Madama attack, his son Jackson mischaracterization counsel's testifying that is not at all afraid of. Michael said he didn't use the word attack at all. OK, I'll use his words. His intention was to grab that shotgun and probably shoot Travis. That's in my mind. Those were his words, right? Yes. And. [09:40:02][201.0] [09:40:03] You understood that what he was conveying to you was that he thought he was about to witness his son's death at the hands of a minor corrections escalation. The statement said the statement speaks for itself. He sustained. All right. Over to page sixty seven. Excuse me, get through this one. I'm sixty seven thousand four hundred sixty seven. That's not something he's testified to at all because there's [09:40:03][0.0] [269.2] [09:40:39] this here is the second page on topic. That's not the case. If I need to the defendant without the jury here, I'd like to do so. We go and see what it is. Let me see if I have a I have No. Three. Mm. I'll show you my computer. Does anyone just have a clean copy of it? This is the easiest way to do it. Nobody's got a clean copy of page six to seven. I do have something for you after it. Yes, we have one as you. That's true. Detective, did you get it to judge Protector's page problems? Every time I move, I pull a cord out at page sixty seven lines, a three seventy. [09:41:45][65.8] [09:41:47] Four peeked through eighteen sixty seven said page sixty seven line date through seventeen through seventeen. OK ultimately because you could write now before we read it. Investigator No. Here in your twenty years experience and in your training and education, you've heard of a phenomenon before called auditory exclusion where a person is so focused in a traumatic event, their vision. Fox is testifying. He has even given him an opportunity to say whether he knows what that word auditory to whoever was is to don't cross-examine. And leading questions are allowed in. Twenty four, six, six, eleven, B and C, we can look that up. These are proper questions. Well, you asked him whether news, what something was and you're about to define it for him. That's the objection to the question. Yeah. To give him the orientation of what I'm talking about. He might know by some other term. It has several different times. I've used one of those terms. Do you know auditory exclusion? If you heard that I have. I don't recall what it means. Well, when you see this refreshes your recollection that you've heard of it, it's the occasion when a person in traumatic situation at this point is testifying by telling him what this means. Yes, it's a legal question. It's a so. [09:44:35][167.4] [09:44:35] An auditory exclusion when you're in a traumatic situation and of your senses, your vision will retain its best abilities. But you're hearing and other senses auditory hearing in particular, might tune out sounds and you don't hear and you don't recall accurately, but you can also describe what you saw, but not what you heard. That's what you recall from your training happens sometimes to people in highly traumatic or unusual situations. Like the shooting. I don't recall if that's exactly what I learned. Is the phenomenon you're familiar with by whatever name, the term is. OK, so let's go to this paragraph here, 67 page partyline a you ask Michael, was he hit all three times or you know that he is Marda brain, right? Yes. [09:44:35][0.0] [233.2] [09:45:40] And then it means hit with three shots from Travis's shock. Right. Correct. And Greg MacMichael answers. There was only two shots. See that? Yes. And you say no. There were three right. Correct. And he says, were there three shots asked you that, right? Yes. And you say on the video, it sounds like there's three. You'd seen the video, right? Yes. It sounds like there's three great. Michael says I. I don't think so. I mean, it may have been three. I don't know. But I like I say, it was it was furball. It was a hairball. But he thought he heard two and three. And there's three on the video, right. From what I remember. Yes. 094603 DEFENSE COUNSEL>> And when you -- you've probably arrested many people through your twenty year career, right? >> I have. DEFENSE COUNSEL>> And when you do that, and you try to keep the person from fleeing from you, you will use verbal commands like â?ostop,â?? â?odon't run,â?? â?ostay where you are,â??that kind of thing? >>Yes. DEFENSE COUNSEL>> And if you have to raise your voice to give a stronger verbal command, you will do that? >> Yes. 094634 DEFENSE COUNSEL>> And if the person is still not compliant, you'll sometimes draw your weapon if you need to, wonâ?Tt you? >> Only in certain circumstances. DEFENSE COUNSEL>> Like when they're not listening to you and your verbal commands are not stopping. >> No. DEFENSE COUNSEL>> Yeah, no, what. >> No, I don't just pull my gun. DEFENSE COUNSEL>> OK, you'll do other steps before you pull your gun to get them to comply with you? 094704 >> Yes. DEFENSE COUNSEL>> Like --- raising your voice even higher. Louder. >> Maybe DEFENSE COUNSEL>> Alright. Well, you'll do whatever the circumstances require youâ?Tre not just gonna forget about it and go home, all right? >> Correct. DEFENSE COUNSEL>> Alright. And if the person is still not complying with your verbal commands, and you're waiting for someone to come back you up, like other police officers at some point, if you think the person is either going to attack you or flee, you will use your weapon. Will you not? 094744 >> Not always, no DEFENSE COUNSEL>> If the person is attacking you? >> Depends on how he's attacking or she. DEFENSE COUNSEL>> All right. If you have a gun on you and the person is attacking you, you would have a concern that the person might take your gun from you and use it to harm you or kill you? >> Once again, it depends on the circumstances and the person. DEFENSE COUNSEL>> If the circumstance includes being attacked by someone who seems to be trying to take your gun from you, putting his hands on it, you might use your gun, wouldn't you? >> At that point itâ?Td make me (?) threshold, yes. DEFENSE COUNSEL>> Thank you. [09:48:26] An ongoing ship this morning. The more I guess the strategy, I hope we can move forward and I don't believe so. I'd like to talk generally with you about the investigation and your role in this particular investigation. Who was it that you were charged with? And if not, we'll do it. Was it that you were charged with gathering just information from the great MacMichael Travis? My home. And that was the sole job that you had in this particular case. Yes. Just to perform the interviews. Yes. OK, and you were directed to do so by investigator Blowering. I'm not sure exactly. I was told seem to go back to the station. Didn't speak up just a little bit. You'd have dropped him off. That's what I was told. I'm not sure exactly by who I think it was. One of my supervisors asked to go to the station and do the interviews. Prior to the interviews, you had a debriefing with whoever was in charge so that they could give you some background information about what had happened that day based on their observations know. So did you go into these interviews not knowing what had happened out there and Sitel Shores? Correct. Literally. You didn't know outside world events or anything like that right outside seeing that video. OK, so seeing the video, the video that you saw was did it include Mr. Harbury running and then turning around and the car driver of the car dropping the phone for about a minute and then it being picked back up and then filming as Mr. Aubrey comes around the corner towards the shooting? Or did you just see the shooting? I think I just saw the shooting part because not even the entire video. Right. I didn't see. OK, so you're stepping into a situation. We really don't know much other than that there's been a shooting. Correct. And did you say you were on the scene that I had gone up to the senior zone. How long were you on the scene before you left to go do interviews? By two or three minutes. OK, so you're really kind of an open book when you get into these interviews, not having anything in your mind that you're trying to get out of these individuals, that you're trying to understand what happened. Correct. OK, so in your mind then, you are trying to understand the dynamics of what McMichael and Travis MacMichael were doing out there that day. Correct. And what Mr. Barberi was doing out there that day. Correct. What Greg McMichaels intent was based on what he told you. Right? Correct. And you conducted an interview with Travis Michael as well. So what Travis, my original intent was out there that I'm objective this time. We're not going into Travis Alexander at all. So what we're talking about is what this starts to build on it. Yeah, he's interviewing Travis. You might want to ask him about the statements made. OK, that you were trying to determine what Travis McMichaels intent was that correct and what Mr. Aubrey's intent was that day? Correct. OK, in doing so, you got some information about ongoing crime in the. I'm going to now we're going to contact it. We're I'll rephrase it. So thank you. But when you talk to Greg McMichael, you got information that there was some ongoing crime. The neighborhood have to do a lot of recall. Exactly. OK, just as you sit here, do you recall whether or not you talked with Greg McMichael about crime in the neighborhood? I yes. Yes. OK, did you endeavor after this interview to go and follow up about the crime in the neighborhood to pull any reports or anything like that? I don't think it was me that did it. I think I passed out on the information on to other investigators and they did OK. That's what we didn't do it. That's in stepping into a situation where you're going to be conducting an interview of a person just involved in a violent situation like this one, you have been trained how to interview individuals, correct? Correct. Yeah. You have some basic training that you go through about how to interview people. Have you had more advanced training on how to conduct interviews of suspects or people involved in traumatic situations? Have is it fair to say that it's important to have that training because interviewing someone can be a bit of a chaotic experience? Correct. The person that you're interviewing could be all over the map in terms of the timeline of the event? Correct. You may have to stop them because it can get very confusing and kind of redirect them back to moments that they can then break down and further explain to you. Correct. And is it fair to say that your training has helped you become the person in charge of that process? Correct. To help that person through their statement so that it can ultimately be understood by you? Correct. Because what you what you know is that whatever the garbled or asynchronous timeline that you could get needs to be understood eventually. By lawyers in the case. Correct. So you may have to follow back up on something to get more clarity so that it can be further fleshed. Yes. And not only do you know that the lawyers in the case are going to rely on it, but you know that it's going to be used here in court, possibly. Correct. And that the work that you're doing to flush out these subjects and to dig deeper into what's being said is possibly going to need to be understood by the court as well as a jury. Yes. All right. So you're you're going to do your best to try to follow up on things so that the interview that you conduct is as accurate and complete and truthful as it can be. Correct. OK, now, you did interview Travis. Yes. We spent a good bit of time with him, maybe an hour or longer. Yes. He was speaking quickly during that interview. The Times wasn't on it. Once again, we're not introducing the statements of Travis and myself. So going through all of this, I would have checked as some relevant. Here's this. Here's what he I couldn't the objective, because I think I need to work out exactly what's going on here. I'm going to ask that you go ahead and step into the jury room for just a moment or address matters before the court. All right. For the juror, I would say. Right, Sergeant, if I get you to just step down, if you just step out of the courtroom, we'll bring you back in for further testimony about get somebody to give me a little context here. Sure. At this point. Well, maybe the way to do it, let me explain what I understand and it's so Travis MacMichael statement, I'm guessing, is not being used because it's just there's too many issues to work through with Brewton that is just not being used, is that correct? Yes. Yesterday morning, we informed the defense that we had made a decision not to tender or present any statements of Travis McMichael. Once they informed us that because we wanted the entire thing in for completeness and we made the decision from them, weâ?Tre [09:58:46][786.1] [09:58:46] not tendering. In Travis McMichaels statement at all as currently right now. Hearsay. I talked to Mr. Rubin this morning. I said, listen, I don't even want to go into the fact that he went ahead and interview Travis McMichael because we're not handwritten, because now the jury is looking at us like we're hiding his statement. And my I it's my fear, of course, is that I go back up the states a little frustrated because the state has endeavored to communicate to the defense that we were not going to put this in. In fact, this morning I told Mr. Reuben, I'm not even going to ask this witness about Travis McMichaels statement at all. I'm going to just strictly have him on the stand to talk about Greg McMichael. I informed them of that and I was told, that's fine. We can recall him at a time if it becomes necessary, if Travis McMichael takes the stand. So at this point in time, having not gone into it, the state's fear is that it appears to the jury that, oh, there's the statement of Travis McMichael out there and I've been put in the position of having to object about the contents of it and tell them we're not tendering it, which, of course, makes it look like the state's hiding the statement from them. Well, that's not the intention. State's been put in an awkward position. The state would like a curative instruction, and that's what we're asking for. So as I understand it, the state has to put in certain statements of Travis McMichael. We responded and said we think this helps the rule of completeness. They chose not to put the statement in. And I'm not offering any of his statement. I'm not going to say anything that Travis McMichaels said, although there are probably some exceptions under excited utterance. I'm still not putting those. And that being said, the state's decision not to tell the jury that he was even interviewed, that's on them. I'm not I'm not hiding something. It would be as if in a car accident case, a police officer testifies about something through the plaintiff and the defense comes up and says, hey, officer, didn't you also talk to a witness? And didn't you also collect this information? Didn't you also investigate these other things? They chose not to bring it up. I'm not doing anything that's untoward. I'm simply informing the jury that no. One, he was interviewed. No to certain conduct and behavior was was was seen by this officer that he voluntarily, voluntarily cooperated in the interview. OK, we're not going to get into the problem with asking him about the way he was react is it opens the door to what questions were being asked at the time in the context of those reactions, which then possibly gets us into the state. That's my concern about that, the fact that he's interviewed. But that's fine or the fact that he cooperated is fine. But once we start describing his actions during the interview, I'm not sure how you separate that from what was going on in the interview at the time, he appeared stressed he was speaking quickly. Those are my questions in the hour long interview. What point during the interview, what was he being asked about? And knowing that when the jury left without the information about it. But Judge, that that doesn't make it impermissible? I would I would say for the court without a context. I understand the state was not coming in. We're not going to talk about it. It's an hour long statement. I don't know when the jury doesn't know what was going on. The moments that he could possibly be described. Because what you are implying is that during that entire one hour period, he was acting exactly the same way. I can clear that up. I mean, I feel like the court is telling me how to conduct if the subject matter is relevant. That's my that's my I don't believe it. [09:58:46][0.0][10:02:31] Is because without the statement coming in describing his conduct while giving that statement, without explaining what the statement is, the court finds impermissible. So the beginning of this and the end of that court is not going to allow you to go into. But as far as what he was doing, how this officer was perceiving his reaction excuse me, reactions, we're not going to get into that to cooperate. You're going to get a statement. That's fine. Will the court allow me to ask the witness the subjects that he inquired of? No, because then we're getting into the statement that he asked about, not what Travis said in response, because then we're getting into the statement, OK, I think those would be permissible areas. But I'll follow the ruling of the court and I will ask those questions. But I would like to say, in light of the state's comments, that it was the BREWTON problem that primarily drove their decision not to go into any of Travis thing. Michael's statement regarding the problem, of course, being that he would incriminate Greg McMichael. We don't have a proven problem in Travis McMichaels statement. There's many parts of it that have been highlighted in yellow that were worked out. But this looks to me like every bit as much as was in Greg with Michael statement that we just spent part of yesterday and part of today doing so. Our position is that for us, I was under the impression that it was probably not going to be introduced because it's so exculpatory and that the state was making a decision. Well, he'll have to get out there and tell his family himself, we're not going to do it through our witnesses. But if it's a brewton problem, then any issue we have made before regarding Travis MacMichael statement with respect to BREWTON, we withdraw. And so that's not an impediment for our client. But did that make you it for the state? And then we want to get back up and do it? Travis, you can't take this hearsay. It would come in if the state chose to tender it as the statement about party opponent. The state is choosing not to tender it as a statement of party upon it. So none of those issues apply. It's the state's decision not to tender in that hearsay. Under that, it's like the church reports on the corpse for for construction at this point. Yeah, we're going to bring the panel back. You know, quickly, Judge, I was also going to ask him whether or not Travis demonstrated positions with how he was holding the firearm. And that demonstration, again, I thought would be not a statement, but just in response to the question of how he demonstrated certain things for him, that he cooperated, he demonstrated, he spoke, those kinds of things. Let's be consistent again to [10:02:31][0.0][10:05:32] explain the context of that, you'd have to get the statement why he was doing that at a particular time and what the questions were that led him to that. So, again, that gets into the statement itself. So not. [10:05:41][9.1] [10:05:42] Do It based on the court saying, I can't. I mean, I can. Correct. Let's go get the wish and this. Did we lose that are. Welcome back, Sergeant. NBC or under Craig, I see you soon. I think you're going to stand up just a second, please. Go get panel. All right. For the jury. But you say keep. Thank you, ladies and gentlemen, Mr. Shepard, thank you. So. [10:09:53][251.9] [10:09:55] We're talking about you conducted an interview of Travis and Michael. Yes. Yes. And one of the things that you do when you conduct interviews is you want to make sure the person you interview understands that they don't have to speak to you, right? Correct. As we call this the Miranda admonition that they have the right to be silent. Right. And the right to a lawyer. Objection. At this point in time, we're going into the interview. I'm just going to in some flexibility here, wants to be sure Travis agreed to be interviewed. Yes. OK, he cooperated with that interview fully and freely. Yes. [10:09:55][0.0] [260.9] [10:10:37] But one of the things you were asked about just a moment ago is Greg's statement to you and Greg's expressions to you about Mr. Rahman arbitrary and whether he was trying to run or flee or how he could have run or taken other routes or whatnot. You recall that line of questioning by Mr. Hobe. Yes. OK, did you ever undertake it yourself after speaking with Greg and Michael to try to figure out any background on Mr. Ami and on the test? I did not. You do not not me. Not you, but you're aware that others may have. Yes. OK, lastly, when your you've been an officer for how many years did you say? Just under 20 years, 20 years doing patrol control. Yes. And you have investigated crimes of break ins? I have crimes of theft. I have crimes of burglary. I have. And one of the things that you've come to understand is that burglary doesn't just happen at night, right? Correct. It happens in the middle of the day sometimes. Yes. In particular on Sundays. I don't know if it's particularly on Sundays. If you look at page 72, isn't that what you discussed with Greg McMichael from starting the line ten? Yes, usually on Sunday. Yeah, that's what I said. Yes, I think for thank you. I know you are very, very sure that your investigator. No, Kelly, right after you said usually on Sunday. What? Greg Michael said. That's right. That's right. Then what do you say people are home on Sundays. People are home on Sundays. All right. And at the time of this interview, this was how many hours after the incident had taken place? A couple of hours, I think. I'm not exactly sure what was in two or three hours of the incident. So two or three hours of the incident. Yes, people are coming down the road. There's limited issues. There are no question I think somebody messed up down there. You are to use for the subject to recall. So that's your uncle. Yes. Thank you. Mr. Mason. So early, right. All right, ladies and gentlemen, let's go ahead and take a fifteen minute recess. We'll come back for the continuation of evidence in this case. Call Roger. We said, all right, if we can have the state's next witness ready to go in fifteen minutes. To ten thirty, I think everybody feel like that to me would be seven [10:10:37][0.0] [10:33:28] Sorry, we are back on defense present represented by counsel. There we go. We actually need her for this with my as I said, with that background represented by counsel. Is the state ready to proceed? Yes. Let's go ahead and get the panel. So Rasmusen heard. All right. Welcome back, ladies and gentlemen. We are ready to proceed with the evidence in this case from the state. Thank you, Judge. This time, the state will call Mr. Maxwell Benzal once the search for him was running. I swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth is a good sir. Please state your name and spell it for the record, Matthew all Benji and Sam THC w it'll will be in Z and Mr Albanese, what neighborhood do you live in? St. George. How long have you lived in fertilizer's since July. Eighty nine. Thirty two years. Thirty three years. Thirty two years. Thirty one years of art. And what's the specific address. The truth. About three or nine Jonge Group. What do you do for a living calibration technician and what are the normal hours that you work? When do you leave to go to work? And when do you leave to go to work and when do you come home? Leave around five thirty five forty to morning. Get around [10:33:28][0.0] [10:36:55] for thirty four. Forty five in the afternoon. Right. So prior to February of twenty twenty of moving from your work. I don't know. It appears that it might be. I'm not sure you maybe you just pushed that maybe just a little bit of work. OK, let's try that. Thank you Judge. So prior to February of twenty twenty, did you know Mr. William Raddy, Brian, that we'd met before you asked how many times have you met before? Was casual passing at a hardware store or maybe up in Zachary's. [10:37:36][41.1] [10:37:39] How would you describe your relationship with him? Just an acquaintance of had you ever been to his home instillations, you know, had he ever been to your house and still assures you? Did you even know where he lived? I had no idea. With regard to Greg. Michael, did you know Mr. Greg MacMichael prior to February of twenty? Yes. How did you know him? Neighbors. Had you ever been over to your house? I know you've been over to his house for, like, dinner or anything. You know, and Travis like Michael. Did you know him? Yes. And how did you know Travis? And so that same type of relationship neighbors talk in the driveway. I think most time we ever spoke with each other in the driveway, just friendly conversation about, you know, trucks and boats, fishing and stuff like that. And back in February of twenty twenty, you knew where the McMichaels lived. Yes. Now, with regard to Mr. Amort, Aubrey, did you know him? You know, had you ever seen him in the neighborhood before? No. Had you ever seen period before? No. Now, in relationship to your house, where is the open unsecured construction site at 220 satellite drive to the end of the street I live on. And how long has that location been under construction? Two and a half years, maybe. At that point, I'm not sure. So at that point, two and a half years, what was there before it became a construction site? Is it a vacant lot? So I'm going to show you marked as state's exhibit 284 a take a look at two, four and eighty five and see if you're able to recognize what's depicted in those photographs. Yep. Are they fair and accurate at this time? The state retender into evidence to a four and two eighty five. No questions, no objection. No objection there, Mr. Spencer. You'll be able to see it here on your screen. So I'm looking at two eighty four. What is the jury looking at here? Mr. Inglis's house just above the garbage cans there are here and that and to the right. So all of this English property is right. And so where are we kind of standing? Looking down the street. The end of my driveway, I think, approximately. All right. And what road is this road for Jones right now? Whose house is this? [10:37:39][0.0] [41.1] [10:41:15] Anyway? What do you know what Mr. Ray does know? I think he's retired, so they're looking at two eighty five. So it's just a further close up shot. Yes, great. It's just our corporate needs to take down everything we're saying. Thanks. Now, do you know where he was personally? We've met. Yeah, I introduced myself to my mailbox is the white mailbox here. So I walk down here every afternoon and check my mail. So that's your mailbox? Yeah. OK, so how many times do you think you've met or talked with Larry English prior to February. Twenty third. Twenty twenty a half dozen, ten times. Maybe a dozen. I'm not sure he ever come to your house. You ever go to his house. No, I talk to him. He's read the mailbox or you know, spoke to him in his backyard. He had an excavator putting some concrete on the riverbank. You know, I'm right. And had you ever seen various people at his open unsecured construction site? Maybe some contractors every now and then, any looky loos, people just stopping by to look at the property? No, you didn't see that? No, I did not see the car. And from about October of twenty nineteen through February of twenty twenty, what condition was the open unsecured construction site? Was it fully open that you could walk in. Yeah. That no garage doors from the front door was on. Were there any no trespassing signs up. I don't know. Now at some point in time. [10:43:41][146.2] [10:43:41] When you talked to Larry English, did he show you a video? Did he show you a video of someone who had come onto his property at night? Yes. And what was that person doing as looking around walk around on his dock? The dock video? Yes. Do you show you any other videos other than the dock video? No. Do you remember what day it was that he showed this video to, you know, maybe October or November time frame of nineteen and at any point in time do their English talk to you about items that had been stolen off of his boat like some fishing equipment and a cooler? Yes. And who did he suspected taken those things? He didn't really say. Just told me there'd been some contractors were objective hearsay from Mr. English. What he told this witness, Mr. Now, did you repeat what Mr. English had told you to anyone else? Not that I recall the all to direct your attention, Mr. Burns, specifically to February. Twenty third, twenty twenty approximately one p.m. in the afternoon. Tell the jury what you were doing that day. I was running a log splitter in my front yard, splitting wood. And how are you dressed? And on boots and gloves and over of what did you see? Um, I just stood up to move some wood and I noticed Mr. Breeze standing in the front yard of that house. [10:45:40][118.7] [10:45:41] Now, at that point time, did you know his name? No. OK, so he was a stranger to you? Yes, I you saw him standing in front of the house? Yes. How was he dressed? Uh, maybe a t shirt and shorts. Did he have any bags with him? No, not that I recall the backpack on him, no. What did you see the young man do was just standing there looking around. This is a good distance away. So what did you decide to do? What happened next? What came to mind was Mr. Englishes video, something that looked like that on his docket night. So Splinter off, grabbed my phone, walked down to the corner. And did you go in the house and get something else, too? Yeah, I had a pistol in my pocket. OK, so you got your phone, you got your gun and you walked down to the end of the drive. Or the end of the street. Right. All right. So on state's exhibit twenty five, where did you stand [10:45:41][0.0] [264.9] [10:46:47] stand by an oak tree next to the stop sign? Right here on the tree. Like right here? Yeah, well, behind it. But the truth is between myself and the house. So more like light here. Yeah. Got it. And what did you do then? I saw someone moving around inside the house, so I pushed the send button. Kind of. Please. All right. So when you hit the send button, what number did you dial? The seventy eight hundred number. What's the seventy eight hundred number is the county police department. So you did down that one. No, All right. Why didn't you dial 911? And it was I did not see an emergency. So you dialed the non-emergency Glynn County number and were you connected to an operator of have you had the opportunity to listen to that 911 call? I've heard of the time to you and you and I've met before. Right. And I played for you. Yes, you did. OK, and at that time, was it a fair and accurate depiction of what you said to 911 immediately? It's a recording, so. Yeah. All right. So, Your Honor, at this time, the state will tender into evidence and make sure I get the right number for state's exhibit 143 tonight. No objection. No objection. Your statement published. This is no for I quit. My job is going outside my house for a hundred years. And you have your father and I have to address that night. Peter Zoom's wanted to address some of the money right now. It's all over the place and he drove around this very differently. What did you do in this section? That's fine. I'll get it out there. I didn't even know what he was doing, what he did on the ground [10:49:37][169.8] [10:49:37] . And first. And you think on camera both before I go on living out your stuff, OK, that's fine. And she told me I was watching the white shirt, black like that. I my Villamor to tell or something. Bull's eye for an eye for my. I am sorry to come here to go but thank you. Were you able to see Mr. Aubrey inside the house when you were standing behind kind of the oak tree area? Could you tell what he was doing inside the house? No, Yeah. You can't read minds right now. All right. So you have no idea what he was doing inside the house. And do you have any idea why he ran from the house? No, don't. Now, after you hung up with someone, what happened next? Welcome back to my house. Do you recall at all walking down the street a little further in front of, I guess, Suvi Lawrence on one side and Diego Perez on the other side, down that street a little bit. Yeah, right. And do you remember making any sort of motion I saw in the video? You know, there goes and who are you doing that to? I was just thinking to myself running down the street, were you intending to communicate to anyone in particular at that time? No. And after you stood the street and made the motion, what did you do that at any point in time? Did you call Greg or Travis like Michael? You communicate them with communicate with them in any way, shape or form. After you went home. What happened next? Uh, few minutes I heard gunshots. How many gunshots did you hear? Three. What did you do once you heard those three gunshots? My bicycle out of the shop and rode down around four, you say down the corner where you go down to to drive left. So you came down Jones and then went down satellite. Right. Is that the same way that Mr. Aubrey had run? Yes. What you find I saw police car seems to be laying on the street. I saw his grave and crash there. What did you do? I stopped and went on. As you know, it's kind of shocking scene. You know, enjoyed your bicycle back home. Later that evening. Were you contacted by officers from the Glen County Police Department? Yeah, And did you speak with them at that time, I suppose? Yeah, I did. Do you recall that at all? Not really. At that point in time, just to put it politely, had you had an adult beverage or cocktail that went time, sir? Now, have you personally ever been the victim of property theft within? Sattell assures my daughter's car was broken into twenty years ago. Maybe it's been a long time, but nothing in 2019 or 2020? No, And do you subscribe to the Sattell Shaw's Facebook page? Yeah. Do you occasionally post there? Yeah, And do neighbors post about their concerns about crime in the neighborhood on that Facebook page? Yeah, they did. And is that normal for people to be concerned about property thefts and crime in a neighborhood? Objection is asking this witness to speculate what other people Mr.. Were you concerned about property thefts in satellite shores? Of course, my wife, Saro. Now,. [10:55:52][194.9] [10:55:52] Did you have any personal knowledge about any burglaries that had taken place in Sattell Shores? In my 19 or 20 Haubrich in Minnesota? So we'll talk about did you know about some Capricorns? Yeah. And how would you found out? How did you find out about the car break ins on the Facebook page? Had anybody actually personally spoken to you about their car break in like one on one and you interviewed them and you got information about it? No, And I feel I need to show you state's exhibit 127 127 Semester of NC. I'm going to show you state's exhibit 127. See if you're able to recognize this particular image. I do. All right. And is it fair and accurate? Was then you all right? At this time, the state would enter into evidence state's exhibit 127. [10:57:20][88.2] [10:57:21] OK, no objection, no objection to this with regard to state's exhibit 127. Go ahead, orient the jury. Where are you facing self to drug? And so when you were standing behind the oak tree, was it about here? Yes, right. And you said it's fair and accurate at the time, meaning back in spring of twenty twenty. Right. For the porta potties gone now. But it was there back then. Yeah. I remember my. Mr. Benzi, I'm going to pass you over to the defense. They may have some questions for you. Thank you very much. Mr. Monzur. One Mr Albanese. We've met before. Yes, we met about a month and a half ago, two months ago now. Spoke out near your house. Yes. OK, we talked about testimony you're giving here today is OK. You don't want to be here for the Beatles elsewhere, almost anywhere else. Probably this. [10:59:42][141.3] [10:59:42] Has been very difficult for you, correct? Yeah. It's cause you personally some problems as a result. As a result of your role in calling 911, what is you've had some concerns at work is you've had concerns about your neighborhood. Still a source. Yes. And even personal attacks on you, phone calls, things like that. Recently you recently, even though all you did was call nine one one, not nine one one, but the non-emergency number. Right. OK, and that's that's put you in a difficult spot in general. Yeah. I mean, it's put me in a spot. I wouldn't say it's really [11:00:30][47.8] [472.3] [11:00:30] difficult, but it is something I'm not used to. OK, well, let's talk about your your call to Glynn County Police Department for a second and orient the jury a little bit. When you were in your yard cutting the wood, you'd already gotten most of the tree down. You were you were continuing to split logs from a fallen tree in your yard. Right? Right. You're out in your front yard and you're you can see down from your house down towards Larry Englishes house right now. You had talked to Larry in English before, right? Yes. She said six to 12 times somewhere in that ballpark. Can you share mailboxes with him? Russ? I don't mean the same mailbox, same area. So there's a group of mailboxes at the end of the road. Right here behind the stop sign. Right. And multiple neighbors have to go to that spot to get their mail. Every day you get to walk down Jones to the corner of Jones and Satellite to get your mail. Yes. And of course, Mr. English has a mailbox there as well. But I don't think he has a mailbox yet. OK, he didn't have one yet, but that's where you would see him and talk to him occasionally. Yes, OK. And on. [11:02:01][90.8] [11:02:01] Those occasions, when you would see him, you would discuss housing construction coming. How's things going? Right. Right. You knew he had a heart problem. Yeah. So you knew his health was impaired. You know, he knew he was building the house as kind of a second home for him. Yes. You knew he lived some distance away. Right. And you knew he stored valuables on the property. I suppose you knew he had a boat on the property, right? You knew he had a camper on the property. Yeah. You he stayed in the camper when he would come to work on the house. Right. And the garage where he kept the boat. He had a regular car garage, but he also had an RV garage, the bigger garage to fit his boat or an RV or whatever you want [11:02:47][46.0] [136.8] [11:02:47] to put in it. Yes. OK, he had talked to you about this intruder on his in his house, right? Yes. And he even went so far as to show you the video of a black male behind his house on his dock. Right. And you understood that on the dock was about ionized? I don't know. I'm not I can't tell you what was on it. I don't know the arrangement of his golf, you know? OK, so you weren't aware there was a boat back there, right? I couldn't tell if the boat was on the dock or in the garage or where at the time did you know if Mr. Inglis had multiple boats? Yeah, I think he had two or three boats that he stored on the property from time to time, even though he was open and unsecured. This this house, it was still his property. So you understood, right? He wasn't inviting people to come onto the property when he's not there. Right. But I'm aware of this mail he showed you in the video. Did Mr. English tell you he was authorized to be on the dock? No. OK, as far as you understood, he was not authorized to be on the dock. That's right. And you understood that even though the house had no doors on it, it was still Mr. Inglis's property, right? Yes. And he could decide who was allowed to come and not come on the property. Yes. You were aware that and you even tell the Glynn County police this guy, meaning the man you're seeing on the property on February twenty third, has been to the house multiple times. And that's what it said on the call. But it might have been a heated moment. You know, I can't say who it was, that guy or just someone who looks like it's what I probably meant to say. OK, so you didn't know who that male was standing in the yard when you saw Lookdown Jones, you know, but to you, he looked like the guy you had seen in the video. Right. And you knew that this guy who you saw in the video had actually been to the house, not just that one time, but a bunch of times. Right. Again, you didn't know if it was the same guy, but it was enough to peak your interest to walk down. JONES Yes, OK. In fact, you tell the Glenn County non-emergency number he's been caught on the camera a bunch before at night. That's what you said in the call. We just search what I said, OK? It's kind of an ongoing thing out here and had been from that guy. I can't I can't say it was that guy, just somebody that description in. So you felt like this guy had been there before. You saw a video of it and he's here again. Or at least you suspected he's here again. I suppose. And that's what you told the police. Yeah, OK. He also told the police that the guy's building a house, the guy being Larry English, he's got heart issues. Right. Again, information you got from Mr. English. Right. And you knew of Mr. Englishes frustration at this guy or the guy you saw on the video not being caught. [11:06:14][206.6] [11:06:14] I don't really know, frustration. I can't speak to the man's state of mind. Explain to you how frustrated. [11:06:21][7.1] [11:06:22] He was. I don't recall. I mean, nobody's happy when somebody stopped running or stuffs, right. You know, he's not happy. This man is on his dog. I suppose not. Express that to you. I don't recall. You. [11:06:41][19.0] [11:06:41] Say that to the L.A. County police operator. We've had some break ins out here. Right? Right. One of the first things you said, this is Matt al-Fassi. We've had some break ins out here. Right. OK, now, what you're talking about is what is done. In case he asked you, you were aware from the Facebook page that there was crime, property crime in the neighborhood. Yes. And people were posting. [11:07:11][29.9] [11:07:11] About it on the Facebook page and next door page, if you're aware of that. Right. Do you subscribe to both of think? I logged in to that, but I can't get back into it. It's just kind of wonky. I know, but. [11:07:29][17.9] [11:07:30] But people had shared their own personal experience with property crimes and still a source. Right. And it seemed to be an ongoing problem in twenty nineteen now twenty twenty. It was around the same time that this man that you saw on the video was coming to Larry Englishes house. [11:07:50][20.6] [11:07:51] Right. And in fact, you were not only were you aware of it, but but many people in the neighborhood were aware of this intruder and that same direction. Mr. Me, what other people are aware of this speculation that this person, Mr. Offense's Park System, did you. [11:08:12][20.7] [11:08:12] Ever tell the GBI when you were interviewed that everyone in the neighborhood is aware of it, not a prior consistent statement or prior inconsistency? And once again, him saying to someone else does not get it out of speculation on his part question, simply whether he he was told the GBI, whether he told the GBI that that's OK. Could you remember being interviewed by the GBI? I do. Do you remember telling the GBI that you're aware of the guy back at the house and everyone in the neighborhood was aware of it? I can't say everybody, but it was, you know, people that were posting things and people neighbors talk to neighbors. So I suppose most neighbors were aware that there were break ins occurring and not just break, but break ins and Larry Englishes house, I don't know what who knew about that. But you. [11:09:13][60.5] [11:09:13] May not know who in particular were aware of it, but you told the GBI that everyone in the neighborhood was aware of. And I understand it's a figure of speech. Right. But you told the GBI that it's correct. OK, you were also aware that not only was this black male on the dock and that larynxes house on multiple occasions, but that things were missing from Mr. Englishes house. Right. In fact, you were aware that electronics were stolen and Akula was stolen. Objection. To what? Larry English. I know the form of the question is you're aware of this, that the only way to start, Nancy, would be aware of this is if it was hearsay coming from Mr. Bush. And I believe Mr. Rubin previously, it's my asking. This witness was very much told him. So anything he's aware of, Mr. English, would come from a state should be hearsay. And I'm. [11:10:09][56.4] [11:10:09] Not asking I'm not offering it for the truth of the matter, whether the items were actually stolen. But to go to this witness's knowledge and to explain why he did what he did on February 23, it's not being admitted for the truth of the statement itself. Just to explain the witness. But go ahead. OK, so Mr Albanese, you had knowledge, you were aware that items were stolen from Mr. Englishes House. Yes. Items were were in his boat, stored at the house. Right. And those items were electronics. Right. Any any cooler. And so you were aware of. Well, let me back up to your knowledge those items had never been recovered. I do not know. OK, were you present at Mr. Englishes house on February 11th? Twenty twenty. When police arrived at the house, take a walk down solid. The blue lights, you know, they flash all over the place. I went down and she was going on and this is at night, right? Is dark out. You know, the same. It was dark from the video you saw. I'm sorry. I'm going back to the previous video from the stranger's house. It was dark that time to. [11:11:42][92.5] [11:11:45] Can't if there was lighting, there was a lamp back there. What I don't I don't recall. But it was at night. It was at night. OK, so now February 11th, twenty twenty, you see blue lights in front of Mr. Englishes house at 220 Centella Drive, correct. Right. You were curious what you knew about Mr. Inglis's previous problems with theft at his house right. So you went down to see what was going on, right. Did you see Travis MacMichael down there? If you there or not? I think he was there. Did you see Greg McMichael there? I don't remember. OK, but you do remember Travis pretty. Do you remember talking to any officers there? I think that's I do remember talking to one officer after you went down there on the eleventh, did you have any more conversations with Larry English about his house? I don't recall. OK, did you ever talk to Suvi Lawrence about the thefts in the neighborhood? Possibly your friends with Miss Lawrence or least Neighborhood Inheritances blueprint? Diego Perez. Yeah, Ronnie Olson and Ronnie lives at the corner of Ronnie's garbage cans there. Right. So the property, the oak tree where you stood behind to make the call. This is right. And Ronnie Olsen's front yard. That's right. And if Mr. Englishes 220 Centella Drive, Ronnie Olson to nineteen sitting across from Mr. Mr. English. Yes, he is. Do you ever talk to Brooke Perez occasionally about theft in the neighborhood? I don't know what all we talked about. OK, the man you saw in the videos that Larry English showed you and the man you saw on February. Twenty third, twenty twenty, you had not seen either of those men before in the neighborhood? No. You never saw either man. If they're different, to your knowledge, jogging in the neighborhood and how long you've lived there. Thirty two years. Yeah. OK, I'm not aware of that. Man or man fitting that description jogging in the neighborhood. You know, the man that you saw when you first saw him on February twenty third was not jogging. No. In fact, he was just standing in the yard. That's right. Did you see him look around? It seemed like he was just looking around. OK, wasn't bent over out of breath, you know, wasn't time his shoes. No, not that I recall him. OK, you. [11:15:18][213.8] [11:15:19] Didn't know if that man was armed or not? No. OK, before you went down to make your phone call at the corner of Citilink, you grabbed two things. Cell phone and your nine millimeter. That's right. But the nine millimeter, your pocket, that's for [11:15:36][17.1] [762.1] [11:15:36] your protection because you just didn't know what was going on there. Nope. OK, you call 911 one. I mean, I'm sorry. You call the non-emergency number. And as you're calling, you're looking at the house. Correct. And you see a person in the house. I saw the person that I called saw a person through the window of the house right. The window. I'm trying not to get in anybody's way. The front the front of the house is is over here. Here's the garage is right for the windows over here. Right. You saw the man that you suspected as being an intruder walking through the house through those windows. Right. At some point you stepped out from behind the tree and that man came out and then took off. Yeah. You suspected he saw you and that's why he took off. I don't know. I know you don't know, but you suspected it. I don't know why he took off running. I don't know if he saw me or not. You told Diego Perez you suspected he saw you. OK, then, right. You know, OK. And you told the GBI that you suspected he saw you. This was possible in your mind. You felt some guilt over that. I did. Because you felt like you put into motion these events that turned tragic. I thought maybe if he hadn't seen me, he wouldn't have run away. I don't know. Right. And that, of course, it still weighs heavy on your heart. It's OK. After you were while you were making your call and you watched him run off into the neighborhood like you continued to walk down scintilla path. Mr. Wade's house was right there, right to at least in front of Diego Perez's house. So that's two houses down from Larry Englishes house. And that's where you made your motion, right? Right. At that point, your only two houses from the McMichaels house. Correct. Two or three spoons. OK, prior to a modern robbery, the man we now know to be running out of the house, did you ever see him through the window? Duck down? I don't know. I don't you don't recall. I don't recall. Excuse me one minute, Mr. Evans. Thank you. Is Armstrong Williams said sort of thing for all the other defendants. Yes. You're on. Good morning, Mr Albanese. I'm just going by her name cocounsel Verratti. Brian, first, I understand you might know my cocounsel, Kevin Goff helped my brother clean some trees up at his yard after one of the hurricanes several years ago. [11:19:39][243.3] [11:19:39] . OK, so then you have not spoken with Mr Goff then about your testimony today? No. OK, did you speak with Roddy Brian on February. Twenty third. Twenty twenty prior to the incident. No. OK, and at that point you hadn't spoken with him for several years at that point is that correct. I suppose that's correct. OK,. [11:20:00][20.5] [11:20:01] And on February twenty third, twenty twenty prior to the incident you also did not see him correct. OK, that's all I have for you. Thank you. Any redirect for the state. Yes. Judge. So when we're talking about what you're aware of with regard to Larry English, you are aware that he suspected his contractors of stealing items off the boat? I would say he suspected them, but maybe that is a possibility. And how'd you learn about that possibility? I mean, he we spoke about it. And you are aware that he had no idea if the items were stolen off the boat while the boat was at that construction site or somewhere else. I have no idea. And you don't know what's in the mind of the other neighbors within this Intellichoice neighborhood? Do you know? You have no idea. Who knows? What about Larry Englishes property? Do you know? And the video he showed you was the one on the dock. And I think you said between October and November. Yeah, I think defense counsel asked you if you were friends with Stephen Lawrence. Right. OK, I think it was unclear. Did you talk to Supai Lawrence at all about Larry Englishes house? I don't recall. We don't speak very often. And Diego Perez, you're you know him, right? Did you talk with him about Larry Englishes House? I may have, but I don't I couldn't tell what the conversation was or when it was or what it was about. But I mean, we talk about these things. You know, it's they share concerns about what's going on. But you don't have any specific recollections of these things. And what Ronnie Olson is one of your good friends, right? Yeah. And at one point in time, did you and Mr. Olson believe that the crime that was happening is still tell shortage was due to a homeless guy under a bridge? I don't know. I heard people talk about homeless people under the bridge. I never saw I don't know. But this was something else that people in the neighborhood talk to you about. Right? Right. OK, and that homeless guy under the bridge, he was a suspect in the 2019 and risottos, right? I don't know. Well, did you suspect him? No. I mean, I don't even know if there was a homeless guy under the bridge. So, no, this is all just rumor and innuendo going around, I suppose you just testified you don't know if Mr. Arborists saw you or not from inside the house where you're standing under the tree right? I don't know. Guy. And you told Diego Perez that you didn't know whether he saw you or not. Is that what you told Diego Press? I don't remember. I told Diego I and the direction Mr Abbott ran when he left the house, he went towards the McMichael House, right? Yes. OK, if you go gone the other way, where would you go? Out towards Highway Seventeen outfits, highway seventeen out of Sattell Shores for past witness. If there's any group of individuals. Mr Albanese. Hello. Quick question. [11:24:22][261.8] [11:24:23] Objection. It's two separate footage. Party right there. We're not questions and it's not you. It's OK. I'll ask Rebecca Franck's. He's the man that does what we had was on CROSSFIRE, Mr Ruban. No Cross and we'll we'll discuss it before I can see it. You're much on the same page with our offering, Mr Benzi. The direction you saw the man we now know is a man run was to your left, right. Yes. Away from the entrance to Satellite Shores Highway seventeen. Yes. You're on the phone calling the police to come to the neighborhood and check this out. The police would be coming from the direction of Highway Seventeen. Yes, Coming into the neighborhood, but going down the street again in the direction of Mr Ahmadinejad. Yes. Thank you, sir. If it was from familiar. Thank you, Mr Carr. We are with police witnesses. They were subject to recall. See. Subject to recall. Yes. Yes, I you are released for the day. You are subject to recall. Thank you. Thank you sir. Thanks for try to work through time. Yes. Yes. I believe our next witness will be Stephen Lowry and I think it's going to take awhile. I would say so maybe this would be a good time. But another matter on the record, so if you get in for an hour and then break for lunch, whichever, the court faces the house playing the breakfast. You're sticking around noon. They got you a timing standpoint to play to get into a full hour. So that being the case, break the witness in about 30 minutes. So thats fine. So six weeks as they call Stefen, Larry him, I swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. I think, sir, good morning. Please go ahead and introduce yourself to the jury, tell them your name and spell it for the court reporter. My name is Stephan Lowry, S-T. P.H. and LSW. Are you OK? And Mr Lowry, how are you currently employed? I do contract work at a local business for computer repairs. OK, part time. Part time. Are you also in school at the moment? Yes, my full time student. OK, and what are you studying? Network operations and security. So your computer does computer science? Yes, ma'am. How long have you held your current job? Oh, I started there in May. In May of this year. Twenty twenty one. Yes, ma'am. What were you doing before that? I worked at FedEx for a short while as a career and prior to that I was in law enforcement. OK, where were you employed when you were in law enforcement? Originally with BPD and Brunswick Police Department and then Glynn County PD. How long were you with Brunswick PD? I think roughly like four and a half or five years. [11:28:46][263.0] [11:28:46] . OK, do you recall when you started with them? Late 2012. 2012. OK, so for about four to five years, you said somewhere there? Yes, ma'am. And what did you do when you were with Brunswick PD? Mostly patrol. I was assigned narcotics for a while and a aggressive patrol division. OK, so mostly dealing with like drug cases. Narcotics. Yes, ma'am. OK, after you left Brunswick PD, where did you go? I went to Glynn County. I was already working out of that building because we shared an office. It was a joint drug unit, OK? And I remained working as a drug investigator for the county for another, I think, eight or nine months before I went back to patrol. OK, do you remember when you started in terms of the year with Glynn County PD? I don't for sure. OK, all right. So when you started with Glynn County PD, what was your position of narcotics investigator? OK, I want to turn your attention to February. Twenty third. Twenty twenty. OK, OK. Were you with Glynn County PD at that time? I was. OK, what was your position at that time. Criminal investigator. OK, and were you with a specific department. Yes, ma'am. Local and county PD. OK, department within that agency. Division of the Criminal Investigation Division. OK, all right. And can you just please tell the jurors what were your primary duties, investigating crimes that surpassed, I guess, what patrol officers can handle with their equipment and their training? And were you police certified that time? Yes. Does that essentially mean that you had arrest powers under Georgia law? Yes. OK, now, before February, twenty third of twenty twenty. Had you worked homicide cases,. [11:30:36][109.6] [11:30:37] An assisted listen. But never any of my own and therefore never any of your own. Yes, ma'am. OK, do you remember how many you had assisted with, like a ballpark number, maybe between one and five? I don't think we had many. OK, so between one and five homicide cases. Yes. Maybe that's very, very rough. And homicide, meaning someone's dead. I. [11:31:00][23.6] [11:31:00] Can think of one that I did work on just in the sense of someone being dead, but it was on a drug sale kind of thing, OK, and were usually on any of these homicide cases, the drug overdose case. I was. But that wasn't kind of what I was thinking about with homicide. I've never had a homicide involving like a prior to this any sort of, I guess, violent act touching shooting or anything like that. OK, so no shooting homicide, is that correct? Yes and no. Like stabbing homicide. Yes, ma'am. OK,. [11:31:32][31.4] [11:31:33] So did you become actually strike that how many citizen's arrest cases had you worked prior to February? Twenty third. Twenty, twenty nine now. OK, did you become involved in the investigation into the death of Ahmad Aaberg. I did. Can you tell us how you became involved in that? Yes, I was the on call investigator that day. I was called out to the scene in which there are we talking about February. Twenty third of twenty twenty. OK, so do you remember what time you were called out? I don't. I think it was somewhat early afternoon. OK, so early afternoon. Yes, ma'am. OK, and do you remember who called you out? I believe was Sergeant Oliver. Sergeant Oliver. OK, so when you're called out, what do you do? I got dressed in my uniform, got into my car and responded to the scene. When you say uniform, describe that for us. At the time it was for us and the idea was khaki pants and a green polo with a badge. And yeah, I'm sorry I spoke over you. Go ahead. Just a green polo with the county badge. OK. [11:32:42][68.2] [11:32:42] , Were you wearing any kind of body cam? No. OK, explain why not. The body cams were using a fix with magnets. I wasn't wearing a Laker that had my magnet inside of it, so I wasn't recording. [11:32:56][13.7] [11:32:56] OK, and what car where you driving? Would you drive to the scene? It would have been an unmarked county car. I don't remember to make and model, but it was probably a Ford Fusion. OK, and when you say unmarked, what does that mean? It's equipped with police equipment like lights, sirens, all that. But it's unmarked. It doesn't have Glynn County PD markings or any any police markings. [11:33:15][19.2] [11:33:16] OK, and was that car equipped with dash cam? No. OK, so no dash cam today. Correct. OK, so where was the scene located that you were called out to in Seattle? Over here in Glenn County. OK, and. [11:33:31][15.1] [11:33:32] When you arrived on scene, tell the jury what it looked like. What did you see? I arrived on scene. I saw the decedent laying in the roadway with caution tape or police, police, crime scene tape surrounding them. I I spoke to Officer Roberts, who briefed me on the information that she had gathered at that point. OK, so you spoke to Officer Roberts, that Officer Roberts hand anything over time? She did. What did she hand was a thumb drive that was containing video footage from a, I think, Diego Perez. OK, and did you come to find out that there was a certain cell phone that was in another officer's car? I did. OK, whose cell phone was that? That was Mr William Brian's cell phone, and it was in Sergeant Lescott car. OK, and what did you do after that? I spoke briefly with Mr Brian, who was on scene. I was told by another officer that he had already given consent for us to view a video that he had taken on his phone. I spoke to him and just reconfirmed that verbal consent and I viewed it on scene and then I spoke with him a little longer. I got him to agree to come back to Glynn County headquarters for an interview so we could speak to him a little bit more into Vandar, a download of the phone. He agreed. [11:34:55][83.3] [11:34:56] Where was Mr Brian on scene when you spoke with him? [11:34:59][2.8] [11:35:00] He was standing on the corner of I believe it was Holmes and Burford next to a bicycle in a tree. [11:35:06][6.5] [11:35:07] OK, all right. And just going back for a moment, did you recognize any other than the law enforcement officers who you obviously know because she worked with them? Did you recognize anyone else on scene that day? Yes, I recognized Greg with Michael. OK, and do you see him in court today? And if you need to stand up, you can do that. No, This September. Where are you pointing to? To the to my right of the woman in the yellow shirt. I haven't seen him in a while. He looks a little different. He looks a little different and I apologize. OK, and what color was he wearing for the record? Blue jacket and I think a blue tie. OK, Your Honor, let the record reflect that he has just identified Greg Michael, so how did you recognize Greg McMichael? [11:36:07][59.7] [11:36:08] I've seen him before coming to the police department to I always assumed he was delivering subpoenas, but I saw him coming in the back door and paper, sometimes not. I knew that he was an investigator for the DA's office. So. OK, and what was your relationship with him, if any? There wasn't one maybe. Hey, man, as far as I'll pass them if I happen to be coming in as he's going out or something. OK, all right. Did you all ever kind of go over to each other's houses or anything like that? No. OK, do you recognize William Bryan? Yes. Scene. OK, can you just point him out, describe where he was going to be. Mr there he's got. [11:36:43][35.0] [11:36:43] On a blue jacket and a gray area. I can't make out the tie color. OK, let the record reflect that has just identified William Bryan so Mr Lowry so you said you got the phone and you said you've seen the video. Yes, that's correct. Yes. And then you spoke with Mr Bryan to ask him if he would come to headquarters for an interview, is that correct? Yes. OK, when you spoke with him, did you pressure him in any way to talk to you? OK, did you object? We put that in context. When and where is this taking place? I can ask specifically, sharkskin. So the questions I'm asking now, are you still located on the scene? Yes. OK, they're at the intersection of homes and satellite. Yes. And satellite course. Right. OK, so at the point where you're [11:37:32][49.1] [1305.9] [11:37:32] talking to Mr Brian, you testified that he was near a bicycle. Yeah. OK, so at that point, did you pressure him in any way to come talk to you at headquarters? No pressure. I just asked if you would mind if he would mind coming to talk to you or something to that effect. What did he say? It wasn't a problem or. OK, you seem willing to go OK. Did you promise him anything of benefit or anything like that at that point? Was he under arrest? No. Was he detained? Was he in any kind of custody? OK, so what happened next? I went back to headquarters and I conducted an interview with Mr Bryan. OK, and how did Mr Brian get back to headquarters? He drove. He drove his own vehicle. He drove his own vehicle by chance. Do you recall what vehicle he was driving? It was a Chevy Silverado thing. It was quite dark gray. You said what now? Chevy Silverado? I think it was dark gray. OK, and when he got back to headquarters where he go for that interview, one of our interview rooms. OK, and are those rooms equipped with video? Yes. To record an audio as well? Yes. OK, now, in the beginning of your video, interview, did you go over any kind of forms with Mr Bryan? Yes, I think I went I went over a consent to search one, even though he had already given verbal concern. I think I just filled out a written form. Your Honor, may I approach this? Thank you. Now, Mr. [11:39:24][112.6] [11:39:25] Lowry, I'm showing you what's been marked for identification purposes as state's exhibit 298. Take a look at it and tell me if you recognize it. Yes, this is a this is the form that I filled out,. [11:39:38][13.4] [11:39:39] OK? And is it a true and accurate copy of that form? Yes. Appeared to be altered in any way? No, Your Honor. At this time we would tender states to ninety eight. No objection. Your objection. It's permission to publish. Yes. Go ahead. OK, so I. So Mr Larry, I'm going to ask you, can you see this on your form. Yes, ma'am. On your monitor. So if you can just make sure you're projecting your voice and speaking into the microphone, can you just go ahead and read this? What does it say here at the top? The Glynn County Police Department, General Investigations Unit. OK, and. [11:40:22][42.6] [11:40:22] I won't ask you to read all this fine print. That's the address and all that, right? Yes. OK, so start from here and just read that for us. Consent to search form cellular phone. I just got a blank where I filled in Mr Brown's name, William C Brian. Having been advised that law enforcement officers wish to make a search of my cellular telephone under my control over custody, I hereby permit investigator Lowry and any other officers designated by him or her to assist in the search. On my phone, the location of the phone is listed as one fifty seven Public Safety Boulevard make as an iPhone. It's a model eight and I didn't list the serial IMEI service and there was no pin underneath that. It says I understand the purpose of this consent to search is for the express purpose of searching, said cellular telephone for evidence relating to the crime of aggravated assault or homicide. I have not been promised a reward of any type. I have not been threatened in any manner. I freely and voluntarily give my consent to conduct, said search of the above described telephone to the above officer. With full understanding of my rights and actions. I understand that this consent is voluntary on my part and may be revoked at any time. Sign this twenty third day of February. Twenty twenty signed by Mr. Brian. OK, and did you pressure him or force him in any way to sign that you didn't promise him anything. OK, yeah, you may just they're a little finicky today so. Yes sir. Get too close to give you some feedback. So Mr. Lowry, you talked about the interview, the audio and video recording. OK, now, before coming to court today to testify, were you able to review that recording of Mr. Bryant's interview in its entirety? Yes, this is appear to be accurate, yes. OK, at this time, we timber states one ninety five. OK, get no objection. Thank you. Now, in conjunction with that audio recording and video recorded interview, did you also look at the transcript prepared of that interview? I did. OK, and did you look at it in its entirety? I did. Did it seem to match up the interview itself? It did. What's the wording? Identical. Oh, yes. OK, and my approach. [11:43:07][164.6] [11:43:07] So I'm showing you what's been marked for the purposes of identification. State's Exhibit one ninety five A is that the same transcript that you reviewed that we just talked about? [11:43:16][9.1] [11:43:18] Yes. It looks like it is. OK,. [11:43:20][1.4] [11:43:21] At this time. Judge, we would tender one ninety five. [11:43:23][2.5] [11:43:25] No objection. Right. Just for the record, for it's the record. How would you get. OK, Mr. Larysa, let's go ahead and go through some of these statements that Mr. Brian made ti OK, so you have the transcript there. And I'm also going to put excerpts up on this screen right here so you can find a transcript or you can follow up on the screen. OK, all right. So just starting with the basics. Did Mr. Brian tell you what he was doing on the day question on the twenty third of February? Twenty twenty around 1:00 pm or so. I can't read what's on the screen. There's nothing on there right now. But I was I was looking for the page and line reference. OK, not for this but I start putting it up. It should be ok. So did he tell me what he was doing around 1:00 p.m. on February. Twenty third point in time? Yes, I believe he was working on his porch or his garage or something like that. OK, and Wood, do you remember specifically what he said he was doing? OK, if looking at the transcript, probably go ahead and look at that [11:45:37][131.7] [477.8] [11:45:37] and oh, yes, he did say on front porch, OK, so he's working on his front porch. And did he say that something happened to kind of catch his attention? Yes, he's working on his front porch. Yes. What did he say happened? I looked up. Can I quote it OK? Yes. Let me direct you to the line. OK, so go to page four. Yes, my lines. Eleven through twelve and stop at that period there after road for good. Oh, Mr. Brown says front porch of the house. I looked up, see a black guy running down the road. OK, and did he also say something about a truck nearby? Yes. OK, you don't have to quote. You can just speak from your memory of the transcript at this point. Oh, yes. He saw a truck paralleling or following the other person he identified as the black guy running. Yes, ma'am. OK, all right. And after this, what did he do? He said y'all got him like a question, OK? And did he say that to the black guy or to the truck? To the truck. Did he ever ask the black guy if he was OK? Not that he told me that he ever asked the black guy if he needed help. No, OK, so after he hollered y'all y'all got him. What did he do? He went to go to his truck to assist and realized he didn't have his keys. So he went back into his house to retrieve the keys and got in his truck and kind of joined. OK,. [11:47:44][126.8] [11:47:44] And 307 Burford, Mr. Bryan's address. What neighborhood is that located in Cincinnati. So I'm going to put up here on a screen right here. So at the point where Mr. Brian gets in his truck, that he go out onto the road. [11:48:08][23.4] [11:48:10] No, he should hurry to get in. Or just my words. Your own words? No, he sat there for a second and kind of assessed. Oh, he waited for Mr. Aubrey to come back towards him. OK, and what road is directly in front of Mr. Bryan's house? BURFORD OK, so if you can just read here page five lines eighteen through twenty five. [11:48:33][23.0] [11:48:34] OK, so I just kind of sat there for a minute and didn't really object. I think we got a to take up that secretary. OK, well let's do this thing in general. Probably a good break for lunch. We're going to break until we're going to be addressing some matters. Problem one o'clock, this one on one o'clock for the continuation of the evidence. Again, during break to discuss the case among yourselves or with anybody else. Don't go looking for any information about the case. And again, if somebody is talking about it in your presence of hearing, please let the court know that. We'll see if we need to address that. Thank you. All right, Terry. All. [11:49:58][83.8] [11:49:58] Right, sir. I'm going to ask that you go ahead and step down. If I could have you back here just before one o'clock for continuation of evidence in the case, I remind you that you are under oath. So do not discuss your testimony with anyone during the break. Yes, sir. Thank you. Yes. Mr. Matter, the state is cutting these statements and I understand the desire to satisfy the McMichael defendants and their root concerns. But the state is cutting up the statement so they are fundamentally being changed. And then when I cross-examine and cross-examine, the answer's going to be, oh, well, we didn't have any choice. And. [11:50:52][53.5] [11:50:52] I'm saying that there isn't some truth to that. But we're cutting up the statements to the point where what's being presented is consciously or unconsciously misleading. We're also, instead of asking, as I thought we did the other day with the Mr. Minshew, we're not asking directing your attention to page so-and-so line so-and-so. Do you recall what happened next? We're editorializing. We're changing the meaning of what's being said. For example, Roddy Brian never said in the transcript that he hollered at any one more to the point. It's clear from the transcript itself that it was evident to Mr. Brian that nobody could hear him, that the characterization of what he's doing is hollering is unsupported by the record. It's unsupported by. [11:51:44][52.4] [11:51:44] The transcript. And then I have to try and get into that. We're talking about seeing the black guy going by. It's not clear that he's being followed by the truck. Now that I understand the state wants to present that through other evidence. We've got the night owl video and so forth. But this is for Mr. Brian. This is a critical witness. [11:52:01][16.4] [11:52:01] In the case. And this material is being cut up and presented in a way that's troubling. For example, Miss Oliviera and I'm not saying it's done intentionally. I understand the difficulty here. But for example, we've heard reports Chase used the police report, used the words follow. Now, all of a sudden, Mr. Brian is saying that he joined in Mr. Brian. [11:52:21][19.7] [11:52:21] Knepper used those words. [11:52:24][2.5] [11:52:25] And I would point out, Your Honor, that the weight of all this is happening is that the state is leading former Detective Lowery through the statement that he's leading him to pages and lines. And he simply directed to that point to present evidence to the court. That's one thing, but could be leading the witness into statements like Holler and joined in. That is not simply allowing the state to get the evidence in front of the jury. It is leading to twist the narrative in ways that I would respectfully submit. Whether the state pardoned or not are simply unfair and violate of my client's rights. And I it's not that we're not trying to work through it and maybe over lunch, some of these issues will go away and I'm not asking the court at this point to bring the jury back in and give a curative instruction. I'm not asking for any admonishments, but I would just urge the state and maybe the court could provide some guidance that if we're going to go beyond asking page and line references and what was actually said, then we're not going to be able lead him there. I can lead all day long. I can do that. But they can. [11:53:33][68.0] [11:53:36] Join in this because the statements that are being made. Did he indicated he joined in? Yes, he did. What did he say? I got in my car and pulled him to the road. That's a problem. He's not saying to join and he just says, I got in my car because of the questions. So we join in that motion. It is unfair characterization. I think the court should say from this point forward, you just need to say redlined one or two through line four or five and leave at that without characterizing it beyond what's actually regulated. Michael joins this motion as well. So, you know, the defense are going to editorializing either one, he say, is the question, not the prosecution. So let me just let me hear from say I do want to add we're doing it a little differently with this witness. And I think that may be where most of this objection seems to be coming from, but from the state. Your Honor, on page four of the transcript, in terms of Mr. Goff's complaint that I use the word Hollard, his client actually used the word invalid, his client said. So I started running towards my truck and I hollered at that point, I said, y'all got him. So that was a word from Mr. Bryan himself. And I understand that I didn't have excerpts for officer mensches testimony, but it's essentially the transcript that the witness is reading from. It just helps as a visual aid for the jurors as well. So I went ahead and got excerpts from the transcript. But nothing has changed in terms of me adding or deleting anything. Here's what I heard that this counsel is aware of. The struggle with doing the statements in this way is we're having witnesses testify to individual statements that aren't coming in because of these BREWTON issues and other discussions that the court was not privy to before we got into trial. So this is a different it's not the normal way. It's not that. And it's permissible to do it this way. It just creates a lot of issues like this. What I think I heard and I agree with is what happened just a moment ago is the witness effectively summarized what he thought the statement was and then was asked again what the statement was in the statement got presented on the screen. That's how I heard it. That the objection to that is similar to objections I was getting about getting into the minds of the individual who's making the statement. And from my perspective, sort of mixing up true statements by individuals and what they're what other people thought they may be saying. And that's been going round round, I think, with a number of different witnesses here that I'm trying to figure out how to bring this together in a nice bow, to be clear. But where I'm going with it is if we've got a witness up on the stand and he's putting up the defendant's statement, we need to ensure for the jury and for the clarity, the transcript, what the defendant's statement is, as opposed to somebody else's interpretation. Y'all can argue whatever you want about those statements at some point later in the trial. And that's starting to be what's going on here. You'll have that opportunity. I'll give you that full opportunity at some point. But that's not what we're doing here. And so what I'd like to do is instead of getting somebody to interpret the statement, if it exists in the transcript, present the statement that, yes, there is a rule of completeness issue. Let's go ahead. Put the complete statement out there if you believe that there is more to the statement than has been presented. [11:57:39][243.0] [11:57:39] Yes. And if I may just add one thing I know in the course of preparing for this trial and preparing for statements to come in, we've spoken with the defense attorneys regarding, you know, some statements will be specific quotes, while others will be generally what did he say or what did he do? And they seemed to agree with that. Am I not correct that we have a conversation? So here's here's what I've discovered about all these agreements that were made before trial. Was that the moment the evidence started coming, all these agreements, everyone says, oh, your honor, we're not holding everybody to the agreements we had before trial. I will point out none of these agreements were presented to the court in writing. There's nothing that I have to enforce them or not enforce them. I had encouraged counsel to go ahead and agree to whatever could be agreed to. Apparently, some of those agreements weren't as clear as counsel believed they were. There is very little the court can do about that. What I'm telling you, though, for clarity, given this way that we're presenting the evidence, I think it's only fair that the jury understand what the statements of the defendants actually were. If they're coming in this way, if there's some clarity that needs through completeness, the court's going to permit that, as I indicated in my previous rulings. But as far as editorializing on them, that y'all are welcome to do that, you will have the facts and evidence. And again, in closing, if they're reasonable deductions that can be reached from that evidence, go ahead and argue them. We don't need to be arguing at all. Now, I. [11:59:12][93.1] [11:59:13] Don't contest the state's need at some point to get into context. That's going to be an issue. And it may be as as the evidence develops, it becomes appropriate even during the examination of this witness. Part of the problem is I think it was an agreement by one or more of the MacMichael defendants with respect to rootin issues in Mr. Bryant statements. And I don't have a problem with BREWTON issues being addressed, but what's happening as you go through the red versus the blue versus the yellow is the the mclachlin defendants agreements with respect to the BREWTON issues that my client doesn't have standing for do impact the rule of completeness where we're passing the statements like I killed him and leave out in self-defense, if that's that's where we're coming from over the break, I'll certainly do what I can to try to minimize those issues going forward. But I do think that I understand where the state's coming from with agreements on BREWTON, with cocounsel, but they can't resolve those issues without creating rule of completeness problems for Mr. Bryan. And I shouldn't have to spend hours going back through line by line, word by word doing that. But we'll see. [12:00:28][74.6] [12:00:29] Well, Judge, just you know, it's an important player in whatever Mr. Larry is not going to send you to a microphone. I have about 12. [12:00:38][9.4] [12:00:39] Excerpts taken directly from the transcript that I intend to place right there. And they're right from the transcript. So will be quotations again, of course, instruct counsel. I would like for this to proceed. If we can do it that way, then it's pretty clear to the court how we. [12:00:55][15.6] [12:00:55] Can move along. If we start deviating, then we'll see the reasons for deviating and whether we'll allow that to come in. But it is [12:01:05][10.3] [915.7] [12:01:05] just about one o'clock sorry, 12 o'clock. We're going to go ahead recess until one o'clock for lunch. And if they can stay for recess from Travis McMichael and Greg and Michael for Mr. Bryant, we will see at one o'clock. Take your recess. [12:01:19][14.2] [13:07:16] Time. All right. Mr. President, represented by counsel, I believe we are ready to proceed really from state before we proceed and state, your honor, Travis McMichael from Brinkley. Michael. Your Honor. Mr. Brown, you're all right. Let's go ahead and get the witness back on the Stamoulis. Oh, they're watching. I miss when we did Matt out of envy, you guys. You read his phone number? Yes. Let's talk about it's not cool. I think. Yeah, I meant it in the context of triplets. Second, sir, Yeah, I noticed that I didn't want to actually to show and do this on record. But if we could maybe discuss if there is some personal information like that, that's part. [13:08:23][67.7] [13:08:24] Of a recording or let's figure out whether that's something that can be removed. I don't think it needs information like that needs to come up in questioning. Unless you can explain to me, I'm looking at everybody how it's material to the case. But under the circumstances of this case, I do ask that if personal identifier, well, personal identifying information, things as specific as a telephone number are out there, I ask that they not to be injected into the case unless they are material in some way. Yes. OK, thank you for reminding me, Mr. Come. Often I'll remind you of Copsey. All right, let's go get the panel. [13:11:00][155.7] [223.4] [13:11:00] Osram. All right. Good afternoon. Welcome back. Hopefully everybody enjoyed their lunch. We are ready to go ahead and proceed with the evidence in this case from the state. Thanks,. [13:12:05][65.4] [13:12:05] Your Honor. So, Mr. Larry, to follow up on something we talked about before, what was your role in this investigation? In this case? [13:12:14][9.3] [13:12:15] I was initially lead before I was given or taken by the GBI because I was on call about the evidence that you were leaving. Yes, ma'am. OK, so before we took a break, you testified that Mr. Brian hollered at the truck y'all got. Yes, I do. And then he proceeded to get into his truck. Yes, correct. Yes. So let's talk about what happened after that. If you can just look at his screen. Sure, I can. And Mr. Larry, you saw have you seen these excerpts of the transcript? Have we gone through them together in preparation for your testimony [13:12:15][0.0] [74.7] [13:12:55] Yes. OK, all right. So if you can just read there on page five, starting at line 18 and down the line twenty five. So. [13:13:05][10.5] [13:13:06] I just sat there for a minute and didn't really know what to do. And he was and then he was trucking. So I mean he closed in on me quick and as soon as he got up to me, I overshot the road. I was kind of angled, I overshot the road and forced him to go down into the ditch right there. I say, OK. And the Mr. Brian says, I don't know if he went through OK. [13:13:25][19.6] [13:13:26] So starting from line. [13:13:27][1.7] [13:13:28] Eighteen, who is talking there? Mr. Brian. OK, so he's saying I'm the kind of angled and then overshot the road and forced a man to go. [13:13:38][10.2] [13:13:39] Into a ditch, is that correct? Yes. OK, and which road are we on here? Which road is he talking about, Mr. Brian? I think this is still on Birchard Murphysboro. OK, is that right outside his driveway? Yes. OK, and so let's now talk about the second incident with Mr. Brian and Alan. If you can just read here, starting from line one, the water or over it or what. But he bounced around me, so I was hanging on pretty good. And I think I backed up into my driveway and came back this way. OK, so I'm going to stop you. There is this page, a continuation of the one that we just went over? Yes, I believe so. OK, so can you start then reading from twenty five and then go straight on to the second page. OK, OK. [13:14:39][60.4] [13:14:40] Mr. Brian, I don't know if he went through the water or hybrid or what, but he bounced around me so I was hanging on pretty good and I think I backed up into my driveway and came back this way. OK, and what did you say. I say OK. And then Mr. Brian says and I angled my truck at him again. I think he kind of turned around. I missed him or whatever. But that's when he I told the other officer this. We were still right about in this area right here. And I say, OK, so this second incident here, when Mr. Brian is talking about angling my truck at him again, which road are we on? Are they on with the second incident? [13:15:19][39.3] [13:15:19] I believe this is still on Berghofer, just maybe a little bit further down. OK,. [13:15:23][3.6] [13:15:23] So far for Greg, leading characterization, second incident that was with the witness said, which he responded. So when we talk about a second incident, Mr. Lowry, what are we talking about? What are we referencing? [13:15:49][26.5] [13:15:50] The the second time that Mr. Brian would have tried to use this vehicle to steer Mr. Aubrey off the road? OK, from your interview with Mr. Brian, was there a third time he tried to do that? Yes. OK, let's talk about that. OK, so looking at what I see, what page we're on here, page six lines eleven through twenty. Can you go ahead and read that, please? OK, Mr. Brian says not back to the road that it happened on yet. I think I backed up and kind of went at him a little bit. And I can see that he was coming towards the truck. I mean, I had my window down. He was coming. He was trying to get in a truck at that point. So I slammed it in a drive and jumped out away from him. I mean, and me and the other officer looked, my truck's dirty. You can see where his hands were on the side, almost at the door where he was, you know, trying to get it open. So, OK, so here when Mr. Brian says that back to the road that had happened on yet, which road did it happen on? I mean, the homes road. OK, so at this point, Mr. Ryan saying he's not back on that road yet. So which road was Mr. Brian on when this happened? Still Burford retrogressed. OK, is there another time in the interview that Mr. Brian doubles back to talk about here again with his belief that the victim tried to get into his truck? I object to the characterization doubles back. We find another way to ask that question. That's a little less loaded. I can I can drive. So Mr. Lowry, does during the course of your interview with Mr. Brian, does he mention for a second time that his belief that the victim tried to get into his truck? [13:18:01][131.1] [13:18:02] I don't believe he mentioned it a second. You're talking about during the sit down interview, he did say it there. Yes, OK, I just I don't remember if that was the first or a second time. OK, so go ahead and look in your transcript. Don't read anything. Just look to refresh your recollection at page eighteen lines one through thirty. Oh yes. OK, OK. So in this quote that we just read, Mr. Brian is talking about backing up and going at the victim and saying his belief that the victim was trying to get into his truck is really going at. Well, that's what he's saying here. I don't believe she's got the correct transcript on the screen. So let's turn to the transcript if you want to find the statement. Oh, so Mr. Ryan again mentioned something about the victim, his belief that the victim was going into his truck on page 18, right? Yes. OK, so let's look that one. If you can just read that starting from line one, I'm going to line thirteen, OK? I. [13:19:24][82.2] [13:19:25] Say, OK. All right. And you said that you had you had handprints on your truck from where the guy was trying to get into it. Mr. O'Brien says, I feel pretty sure that's what he was doing. I mean, I can't say for sure that he he wasn't on the door. I didn't give him a chance to get to the door. But after I angled him off the side of the road, you know, and I kind of went on past him because I didn't hit him, I wish I would have might have took him out and not get him shot. But, you know, I probably got past him a little bit and he come up on me and I could see him in my mirror and he was coming for the door and I seen his hands on right behind the door. OK, so in this one, Mr. Bryan's talking about wishing he had hit the victim. Right. OK, now, was. [13:20:09][43.4] [13:20:09] There a fourth incident where Mr. Brian is talking about making contact with the victim in the case? [13:20:16][7.1] [13:20:17] Yes, I believe the one you're referring to is the the intersection of homes and settler homes and. OK,. [13:20:23][6.1] [13:20:24] So let's look for that one. So going to page thirteen lines nine through twenty five. Go ahead and read that for us. Pusher Bronson. I think I backed into my drive and then continued on Burford towards and I say the entrance because you said you passed the road first. Mr. Brown says towards the entrance. Towards the entrance. But I, I, I, I confronted him Angella him again before we got to the road he was lying on. I say Mr. Brian says right at the house that's on the left hand side. If you're headed towards the entrance of the neighborhood and I say you're talking about before that, before the intersection of the road where it actually happened on Mr. Brian says, right. And I say, OK, OK, so which street were they on when this happened? This would have still been Barford at the intersection of homes. OK, so that corner there on Barford. Yes, ma'am. OK, is there another time in your interview where Mr. Brian talks about this incident that we just looked at? Again,. [13:21:43][79.1] [13:21:48] Can you refresh me? I can go ahead and turn to page fourteen, lines one through eighteen and just read it to yourself and let me know if your memory has been refreshed, OK? Yes. OK, so at some point you kind of talked about that some more during the interview, right? Yes. OK, let's look at that. So page fourteen, lines one through eight. Go ahead and read that, please. [13:22:26][37.9] [13:22:28] Mr. Brian. Says yes. I mean, before I angled at him again, I say, OK, Mr. Brian says. And he jumped out of the way. And I went on past and I say, and then you pass the intersection of the road that actually took place on. And Mr. Brian says, Right. I say, did you back up or just U-turn? Because you said you and then Mr. Brian said, I was fixing I put it in reverse and was going to back up. And I say Mr. Brian says that's when he made his move to go down the road. It happened on and I say, OK, so you backed up and then turned down that road. And Mr. Brian says, yep, OK, so what area are they in? Meaning Mr. Brian and the victim, what area are they in right here when this is going on,. [13:23:11][43.8] [13:23:12] On believing this is still the intersection of Burford and Homes or where it turns into satellite homes? OK, because Mr. Brian is saying that he jumped out of the way and I went past them. And then when you passed the intersection of the road, it actually took place on and then [13:23:32][20.5] [622.9] [13:23:32] he says, right. And what's the intersection where it took place? [13:23:35][3.2] [13:23:35] Berber homes or satellite homes? Satellite homes. [13:23:38][3.0] [13:23:39] OK, and then you ask them, did you back up or just U-turn? And Mr. Brian says, I was fixing I put it in reverse and and it was going to back up at him, is that correct? Yes. OK, and then Mr. Brian says and that's when he made his move to go down the road, it happened on. And what road did it happen on? Handwrote. So this right here is when the victim made his move to go down Holmes Road where he was ultimately killed. Yes. So was there another incident of attempted contact between Mr. Brian and the victim? The was there another mine is a different direction and I'll let you respond to that. We're telling the witness, telling the witness to answer. We're not just referring to the number of the incident with the use of transcripts. So let's see if we're narrowing it on a portion of transcript. OK, so here we've been extremely patient, but there was a pretrial order regarding the overuse of the word victim. They can come out incidentally or by accident, but it is better to use the name of the person we're talking about. Victim is a characterizati. [13:25:01][81.9] [13:25:01] On Just to be consistent here. The court's ruling is already in the record. I'll try to lessen my use of the word victim judge. So Mr. Lowry did something also happen from Mr. Bryan's statement on Holmes Road? Yes, let's talk about that. OK, so I want to point you to page fifteen, actually, before we get there. Page seven lines nine through six. And Aspey to read right here. What's on the screen? OK,. [13:25:49][48.0] [13:25:50] Mr. Brown says, all right. So I backed up and started going down that way. I think angled at him again, kind of forced him off the road or something right in here. And he turned around. He turned around right here. The black guy, did he turn around maybe down this far or so? But he turned around and started running back the other way. And I pulled into a drive or something and started to turn around. I say, OK, OK. And was there a continuation of things happening on Holmes Road? Yes. OK, let's talk about that. So now I'm looking at page fifteen lights. Thirteen through twenty. Sorry, Object to the characterization of continuing with these statements [13:26:34][44.3] [180.4] [13:26:34] are eight pages apart from page page seven to page 15. It's a continuation. I just couldn't rephrase that. OK, the last one, the last quote that we put up on the screen was that the last thing that happened on Holmes Road? Not this one, but the one of the four. Oh, I'm sorry. Could you put it back on our feet? If you want me to put it back up here for, just repeat it, OK? Yeah. So when we talked about this last quote, was that essentially the end of what happened on hold? Was that OK? Did something happen after that? Yes. Let's talk about that. So going to Page, I'm going to clarify, since the state has already acknowledged that through multiple times, but we re mixing dictator two different statements in the same statement. What are we doing here? I'm I believe that's something that we go across. You can go ahead and clarify that to clarify what it could be. Clarify microscopist So, Mr. Larry, can you please read page fifteen from line thirteen to twenty five. Yes,. [13:27:57][82.9] [13:27:58] I say so. You went straight and missed the intersection, Mr. O'Brien says. Right, I say. And you were going to back up, Mr. Brian says. And then I backed over on that other road and I say, went up this road. And Mr. Brian says, Yeah. And he at that point he's still running from me, OK? He's running from me and I'm coming at him. But in any case, he turned around and started coming back. At that point, I think I may have angled at him again or something, but I didn't put much emphasis on it. I just wanted to get turned around. OK,. [13:28:28][30.1] [13:28:28] And what road is Mr. Brian and Imod on when when we see this happening? This is on Jones Road. On Holmes Road. OK, and Mr. Brian says he's running from me and I'm coming at him. Is that right? [13:28:44][15.4] [13:28:44] Yes. OK, now, was there something else that happened on Holmes Road after what we just discussed? Yes. That the shooting in the murder itself took place right after. OK,. [13:29:06][21.9] [13:29:07] And is there another portion of Mr. Bryant's interview where he talks about something leading up to that? And I'll direct you to refresh your recollection to page seven lines nineteen through twenty five. But yes, from and from seven. Nineteen four. Twenty five to see it. Yes. OK, so that was a yes. Yes, Larry. OK, let's talk about that. Go ahead and read this to the jury. Mr. [13:30:03][55.4] [13:30:03] Brian says, at this point I didn't really know, but I got turned around good. And by that time is when I rented that corner enough to see the black guy was right there but really wasn't running anymore. Look, like at this point, like I say, he just had enough of the running and he was confronted. OK, so Mr. Brian is saying when he rounded the corner enough to see the black guy really wasn't running anymore, is that correct? Yes. And it looked like at that point he was confronted. Yes. Who was confronting Mr. Aubrey? At. [13:30:49][45.9] [13:30:49] Some point during your interview that you asked Mr. Brian whether he had ever seen Mr. Aaberg before? Yes, And what did he tell you? No. OK, did you ask him if you can just go ahead and read page eighteen on to nineteen, starting from Lyons. Twenty three. So is this where you ask him, have you seen him. [13:31:15][26.2] [13:31:16] Before. Yes. OK, just read what he says. He says, I have not seen him. I say OK. Do you know of him being involved in any past instances. Mr. Brian says that I know of. No I say OK. And he says, I mean I just hear stuff that's been happening around the neighborhood. [13:31:31][15.2] [13:31:33] So you're in the course of your interview. Did Mr. Brian tell you that there might be some some sort of evidence on his truck? Oh, yes. OK, what did he tell you about that? That. [13:31:45][12.0] [13:31:45] He believed there were some prints or fingerprints and dents on his truck? OK, and what did you do with that information after. [13:31:53][8.2] [13:31:54] The interview, I went outside and processed his truck, photographed and collected fingerprints and fibers. OK, and where was that truck located? It was in the front of the Oakland County Police Department. OK, did you also take you said you took photographs? Yes, ma'am. I said yes. All right, Larry, I'm showing you what's been more private information purposes and some numbers are missing, but we'll go to the state's two hundred to a one to two to six two oh, five to seven to a nine to 10 to 11. To fourteen to 13 and to fifteen. OK, go ahead and look at these and tell me if you recognize. Yes, OK. Like the pictures that I took that you took in, are they fair and accurate? Yes, ma'am. OK, do they appear to be altered in any way at this time? We would hinder state's two hundred to two, two to five to two or seven to a nine to 11 and to 13 to 15. So objection. No objection, Your Honor. No objection. Thank you. Permission to publish. Yes, thank you. OK, so looking at state's 200, Larry, can you tell us what we're looking at here. [13:33:56][122.8] [13:33:57] ? Yes, that's kind of a far away shot of a dent that was on the driver's side of Mr. Bryan's truck, on the the bed part of it over the tailgate forever. The the gas cap. OK, and. [13:34:09][12.2] [13:34:10] Judge, is it OK if he can step down just to point to where all this stuff is? [13:34:14][4.3] [13:34:15] It makes you very careful with that statement. Just OK. And just make sure maybe we can kind of use this microphone. You don't have to point on the screen just one point, maybe like this hand or your finger however you want to use. So where are we looking at? What's what part of the truck are we looking at here? This is the driver side of the truck on the back by the bed. OK, and what did you find on that side of the truck? Oh, there were several smudges. Look like fingerprints of a dent and some fibers. OK, so in states. Two hundred. What do we see here in this? You can see one of the dents that's going to be that right there. OK, and you also mentioned some fibers. That's correct. OK, do we see the fibers or what you believed to be fibers in state's 200? I don't think. [13:35:19][63.6] [13:35:19] You can really see him in this, but there's a closer shot it on there right above the stand on this black strip of plastic. OK, so they're in that area. We just can't see them in this picture. Yes, ma'am. OK, so I'm going to slide one more past you. So looking at state's 201, what do we see here in this picture? Oh, I see some of the the smudges and prints that I was talking about and see a little bit of one right here on the front of the back driver's side door. And another one right here, just above the handle on the driver's door. OK, so looking at two to what are we looking at in two or two? This is just a close up of the last picture that was shown with the same smudge right at the start of the back driver's side door and then the smaller smudge over the handle of the driver's door to six. This is the same shot again, just from a different angle. I was trying to work with the reflection and everything in the background, but a larger smudge on just the very start of the back driver's side door and a smaller smudge on the driver's door just above the handle. OK, and looking at states to 205, this, I believe, is two or two smudges that were just above the I guess you call it weatherstripping between the door and the window of the driver's door. OK, states to seven. And this is just a closer shot of the same bigger smudge that we saw on the start of the back side driver's door. Yeah. So this area right here, what area says that to be the driver's door, driver's door. And then what's in the rear side or your driver's door? What about states two or nine oh two nine is I. [13:37:34][135.3] [13:37:34] Believe it was a smudge in the middle of the door right here. Then which door? This would be the driver's side, rear door and state's 210. That to be aware of the door behind you sort of is moving. She's still this is another smudge, I believe this was also on the driver's side door. I just don't recall if this was from the front door. The back door. OK, so driver's side either. Front door backdoor. Yes, my. OK, all right. And state's 211 in this picture. You can't really see what I was trying to capture. But right about here, there was there some kind of weird impression that it looked like it came from a volleyball? I could see the looks like y shapes that would be like hexagonal on a volleyball or a soccer ball or something. OK, but it's not visible in states 211. No, you can't see it at all. It was very, very faint. OK, did you process that at all? No, I think I just photographed it. OK, and just tell the jury why not? I thought it was a ball close impact with a soccer ball or something because it looked like a ball shape states to fourteen. This is going to be closer of the the white fibers that I mentioned above. And above the gas cam on the driver's side of the vehicle. And can you just point to where those supposedly white fibers are? Could be right here on this plastic strip. OK, and 213, this is the same photo just closer to the white fibers on the plastic strip. OK, And state to fifteen. This is the same the white fibers on that same area of the same plastic strip. OK, and you can have a seat. Thank you so much. So did you know anything about the fibers as compared to that bent that you saw that it was directly above it? It looked like they could have happened at the same time? OK, are you able to say just by looking at all this when any kind of contact happened? No. OK, so you just saw whatever it was on the truck? Yes. OK, now you talked about processing the smudges, as you call them. Is that correct? Yes. Tell us how you go about doing that. Are used black fingerprint powder of a fingerprint brush? I use the black powder and they call it developing the latent prints or the details. OK, after they become more visible with the black powder so collected with certain brand tape and placed on a it's basically an index card and fingerprint cards, I think there's like a light layer of lamination or something on them. OK, so do you take a brush, put powder on the prints and brush it? Essentially, yes. OK, and they you lift it with the tape. Correct. OK, and what do you do after that? Those are submitted into a fingerprint box for those that have believe it's either the certification allows them to the fingerprint match ups and fingerprint searches. OK, now what about the fibers? What did you do with those those. [13:41:08][213.7] [13:41:09] I collected with tape? I fix those to a black index card and I submitted those the GBI. OK, all right. So after your interview with Mr. Brian, did you find out that the person who was killed was identified? Yes. OK, and how was he identified? Through fingerprints. OK, and what was the identification, Mr. Marberry? OK, now, after talking to Mr. Brian, did you submit his phone for anything? Oh, yes, I did. OK, what did you do with his phone? After you signed the consent waiver or consent form headed off to Sergeant Oliver for downloading? OK, and did Sergeant Oliver then and turn it over to another investigator. Yes. Who investigator? Marci. OK, now after that, do you recall ever going over to 220 Atila Drive? I'm sorry, I forgot the number watchhouse was 220. Do you recall a construction site, a house under construction, being a part of this investigation? [13:42:21][72.0] [13:42:21] Yes, it was. It was much later that evening that I went there, though. But. Yes, but you went there. Yes. OK, and who did you go with? I believe it was investigator Marci investigate Ramos' and Sergeant Oliver. OK, and did you see any, like, expensive tools there in in that construction site? I. [13:42:42][20.5] [13:42:42] Think I remember seeing saws or drills or something like that. OK, so you saw multiple tools there. I don't know about multiple. I don't remember how many I saw, but I do remember seeing tools are OK. And how did the structure appear to you on the inside? It was mostly just framing. There were I don't think walls were erected in all the building. It was missing missing doors and windows. OK, did it appear that it was rummaged through in any way? OK, how did it appear? Like a house under construction. OK, just on rummaged I guess and rummaged. Could you tell if anything had been moved or destroyed or anything like that. I couldn't. You couldn't tell now. And is that still on February 2013 that we're talking about? Yes. OK, so the next day, February 24th, after meetings in the morning, what did you do? I think I had training for the rest of the day. I think I had SWAT training. Other other investigators went out and did a canvass in the neighborhood while I was in training. But yeah. OK, so you were doing SWAT training? Yes, ma'am. OK, after that, did you do anything else on the case? I'd have to go back and review. I can't I can't remember in detail immediately. OK, so I want to direct your attention to March 4th. Twenty twenty and a person by the name of Danielle Allcott. Oh yes, ma'am. I know exactly what you're talking about. OK, so did you meet with Mr. ALCA? Yes, ma'am, I did. OK, I believe it. It arose because he I guess he was concerned about the number of vehicles stopping around his house at the site and he was concerned that the public was going to think that he was somehow involved. OK, so he had a young child at home, his wife and all that when I spoke to them. Heard your concerns, got kind of a an additional, I guess, a first time statement for Mr. Allcott. I was never sure somebody else had spoken to him that day. But I'm just a I think he said that he. [13:44:45][123.0] [13:44:45] So we're not going to get into what he said. I apologize. No, that's fine. But you met with them on March 4th. Yes. OK, so on March 5th, did you send the fibers off to GBI for testing? Yes. OK, and had the prints been sent already. Oh, man. That you left it. I don't know. I don't know if those were reviewed in-house or if they were done by the GBI. I think it's all in-house review, but I'm not I'm not sure you're not sure about that. OK, now, on March 5th, what was the status of of your case as the lead detective at that time? Was it a closed case? Was it an open case? What was the status? It was still open, but not getting much traction. OK, so it was sort of inactive. Yes, but objection is not what he's what he said to us. OK, when you say not getting much traction, what do you mean? I think, in fact, it was a fair summary. OK, now, before this case, had you ever looked at the citizen's arrest law that was on the books in Georgia? I'm sure I did actually read Your Honor. It goes to how he handled the case, given the fact that Citizen's arrest is a part of the case. I thought the state was making the same objection yesterday to another witness. I'm not asking him to get into the law and what it is, but had he ever looked and what's that relevant to this? We we'll show you the relevance of the action, what he knows about citizen's arrest warrants, the question of what to go along with that law. That's it. And that's all he's ever looked at the law. That's a state and it's so did the word citizen's arrest come up at any point during any of the interviews? Of the defendants in this case? No, actions need to be brought in. But it's interesting that the word citizen's arrest come been Roddy [13:46:59][133.2] [1213.6] [13:46:59] Bryans interview. No. So at some. [13:47:02][4.0] [13:47:03] Point, did you become aware? I think you mentioned that the GBI took over the investigation. Yes. OK, and did you turn your file over to them after that? I don't know. [13:47:13][9.7] [13:47:13] If it was me specifically. They handed it over, but it was relinquished. Everything that we had was provided to them. OK, now, going back to your interview with Mr. Brian, did he have a cell phone on him during this incident where he was chasing in his truck? He than he ever say that he called 911. Did Mr. Brian ever say that Imod had a weapon on him that day? No, ma'am. OK, then, Mr. Brian, ever say Imod made any verbal threats towards him or any other person that they know? OK, did he make any threatening gestures towards Mr. Brian or anybody else that, I don't know have checked out for leading questions going around? I think that's number five. Can we find a way to ask the questions that doesn't suggest the answer to the witness? It's not suggesting the answer. He can say yes or no. In this context. No, she can't. But they are leaving questions on, OK, Yeah, So, Mr. Larry, what, if anything, did Mr. Brian say about seeing a mob commit a crime before he jumped in his truck? He didn't he didn't say anything about that. No, What, if anything, did Mr. Brian say about arresting or telling Ahmad he was under arrest for criminal trespass? He didn't. What, if anything, did Mr. Brian say about telling a mod he was under arrest for loitering? He did. What, if anything, did Mr. Brian say about telling a mod he was under arrest for burglary? He didn't. What, if anything, that Mr. Brian say about telling a mod he was under arrest for attempted burglary? He didn't. What, if anything, did Mr. Brian say about telling a mod he was under arrest for carjacking? He didn't. OK, what, if anything, did Mr. Brian say about telling a man he was under arrest for aggravated assault? He didn't. OK, did Mr. Brian ever tell a man during that chase that he was under arrest for anything? Not that I was made aware of. So at the point where your file was turned over to GBI, did that injury involvement in the case? No, it didn't end your involvement in the case? No. OK, I still I had to keep taking calls as I came in regarding the case, but I would just forward that information to the GBI, to GBI. So that calls as the lead detective that you had for it, did you? Yes. OK, other than that, did you do anything else of. [13:50:27][194.2] [13:50:28] Those calls for other concerned citizens and calls from the defendants in the case for their security, stuff like that? OK, I'll just forward it to the GBI. OK, one moment, Aaron. One more question. What, if anything, did Mr. Brian say about seeing Ahmad throw anything from his person during the entirety of that chase? On that day? He didn't he didn't say anything about that. That's all I have for you. The defense might have some questions for you. [13:51:13][45.0] [252.8] [13:51:13] OK,. [13:51:13][0.0] [13:52:05] One more. Good afternoon, Stephanus. Or have we met before? Just when I work at the county, I think we see each other in the courthouse. Very good. Well, my first question for you is this. Wouldn't you agree, based on your training and experience, that context is a key to understanding the truth behind someone's words? Yes. And that's something that you personally think is very important in your context. Yes, I think it can be if. [13:52:59][54.5] [13:53:00] You understood Roddy Brian, to have meant that he deliberately attacked Mr. Aubrey with his. [13:53:07][7.0] [13:53:07] Truck. If you understood him to say that he made an aggravated assault with a motor vehicle upon Mr. Aubrey, could you have ignored that note? That wasn't the way I interpreted it at the time. The rest? Well, obviously, that would be a very serious, serious, violent felony. That wasn't your understanding? No, sir. OK, Roddy. [13:53:39][31.9] [13:53:39] Ryan never denied following Mr. Aubrey. Did he know Sir Roddy Ryan never denied angling his vehicle ahead of Mr. Aubrey? No, sir. Roddy Ryan never denied blocking the path of Mr. Aubrey. No, sir. Roddy Ryan never denied cutting in ahead of Mr. Aubrey or cutting him off. That's correct. He never denied trying to steer Mr. Aubrey. [13:54:04][25.0] [13:54:05] Off the road. Yes, sir. But beyond that, all you can really do is speculate as to exactly how many times or exactly where Mr. Ryan did various things. That fair to say. I don't know that I can say at Speccy. It was what he told me. OK, I'll rephrase. Is it fair to say that Mr. Ryan had trouble relating the events of that day in detail or in sequence? I think everybody probably had trouble. Was a lot going on. Fair enough. I had a few other questions. And if I bounce around and you're not, you don't understand a question, you don't hesitate to say so. OK, do you have any personal relationship with Roddy Brown? Have you ever seen him in the break room at the Gwinnett County Police Department? Roddy O'Brien? Yeah, no. Have you ever seen him in the break room in the DA's office? No. OK, you've certainly never taken classes with him. No. OK, is there any reason why you would give special treatment to Roddy Ryan? Look, OK. And your decisions in this case personally about how you went about your investigation, did they have anything whatsoever to do with whether Mr. Marbury was black or white? [13:55:33][87.5] [13:55:33] No, sir. I'm going to ask a few questions about Mr. Bryan's demeanor, if I may. Look, did Roddy Ryan appear to you to be at the time you spoke with him, mentally unstable? No. Did he appear to you to be under the influence of alcohol or drugs or other toxicants? Did he come across to you? Is loud or boisterous? No. Did he come across to you as gleeful or braggy? Or boastful about his conduct that day. [13:56:07][34.0] [13:56:08] In the did Mr. Ryan strike you as someone seeking attention or seeking the spotlight? No. Did Mr. Brian drop F bombs for other profanity during this interview? I don't think so, but I'm not certain it was. Mr. Ryan in any way disrespectful to you? No, sir. Is it fair to say that you personally in your department wanted Roddy Bryan's help to get to the truth about what happened to a man? Aubrey Yeah, I hope for compliance and cooperation from everybody. I deal with at this point in time. You are not, quote unquote, after Mr. Right? No, sir. At this point, he's just a witness in your case? Yes, sir. And you're trying to reassure him that he's not the target of your investigation of. I don't really know that I can agree with that. Fair enough. Is it fair to say that you were somewhat concerned? Yes. Mildly concerned about whether Mr. Brian would, quote unquote, freak out when you went through the consent form? Oh, yes, sir. OK, because you wanted his help. Yes. Now, efforts had already been made to extract data from Mr. Ryan's cell phone. Am I correct? I think that you're talking about on scene on the roadside. Well, certainly on the roadside that had just a verbal consent. But the actual Cellebrite download wasn't until after after the forum. And Mr. Right. Didn't know anything about cell, right, to your knowledge? Yes. Speculation about it. I'll rephrase. Did you explain Selmer, Tennessee. Right. I don't remember asking you to go to before you went to school, did you know it? Cellebrite was no. Okay. But the bottom line is, notwithstanding the fact that he's already giving you his cell phone, that your department, his cell phone on the scene, you know that you need more than that, not just to consent. You need a different kind of a vat of extraction of the material. Then, Mr. Minshew, can do on the side of the road. That's correct. OK, now, in that c [13:58:36][147.9] [387.9] [13:58:36] context, again, I need an exhibit from figure from Shroeder I approached. You wouldn't want to put it. And I've never done this before. I just lied and said, look, OK, all right. Sir, I'm showing you what's been marked. State's Exhibit 290. That's a consent form in this case, is it not? Yes. OK, and Mr. Ryan signed that for you, correct? Correct. OK, and when you had when you were advising him in the consent form, whether you were thinking about it at the time, you indicated that you were looking at aggravated assault and homicide. OK, in context, the aggravated. [13:59:39][63.8] [13:59:40] Assault that you're investigating is the tragic shooting of a Marberry. Was that a question? Yes. Yes. OK, that that was your understanding? Yes. And you would assume, based on what you said, that that would be Mr. Bryan's. [13:59:56][15.8] [13:59:56] I understand. Objection. Speculation. I'll rephrase the question. Did. [14:00:00][4.1] [14:00:00] You give Mr. Brian any reason to believe that you were investigating anything different. [14:00:03][2.7] [14:00:04] Than an aggravated assault in the shooting of a moderate? No, I don't I don't think so. OK, and on this same line in your police report, you summarize the salient facts about what Mr. Ryan was relating to you, did you not, in a written report? Yes. Yes, I summarized them OK. Is. [14:00:43][38.6] [14:00:43] It fairly, fairly safe to say you've been trained in writing police reports a little bit? Yeah. I guess you went to school and you certainly seem capable of using big words. Am I correct? Sometimes your summary of the testimony you related today amounted essentially to one sentence in that report. I'm going to direct your attention to the. [14:01:19][35.6] [14:01:20] Bottom third of the third paragraph, if you'll take a moment. Look at that. Do you see the sentence Mr. Brian described? Yes. Does that refresh your memory as to what you wrote in your report? [14:01:43][22.7] [14:01:46] Yes. Hi. Mr. Brian described manoeuvering instructions to your say. You can't just read the report. Did you write in your report, your summary of all this discussion about what Mr. Ryan is doing out there on the street that day as maneuvering his trial? Objection. The judge just read the report. It's hearsay because that's the police narrative, correct? That's his state's describing what he heard in the statement. He summarized all his testimony today from his report that I mean, OK, you got the statement and that's what I was discussing. The brain. I stand corrected. You were the lead agent in this case, am I correct? Yes. OK, and if at any point can I come back to that in a second? Now,. [14:03:03][76.8] [14:03:03] Is it fair to say that homicide cases are not like other cases, but I guess in some ways they're not? OK, Is. [14:03:13][10.3] [14:03:14] It fair to say you tried to explain the process to Mr. Brian as best you could, the process of what of your investigation, what you were doing of perhaps OK, now, you did not Mirandize Mr. Bryan at this time. Am I correct? I don't recall. I don't think so, but I'm not sure the consent that Mr. Bryan gave you was for the the consent form. Now, if Mr. Bryan, in your presence, had admitted to the commission of a major felony, would you not have felt obligated to Mirandize him at that time? Yes, because at that time, had he said something like that, have you or he understood it that way, he might not have been free to leave. Objection. Speculation. That's that's speculation as fact. It's restate the question now, Mr.. If Mr. if you had understood where Mr. Bryan appeared to you to believe that he had admitted to a major felony, at that point, you would have been obligated in your training to Mirandize him. Yes, because at that point, questions might have arisen as to whether he was free to leave. Yes. And you certainly wouldn't want to mess up your first murder investigation by failing to Mirandize a subject or a target of your investigation. Sir, at the time. [14:04:48][94.2] [14:04:48] That this case was transferred from Glynn County Police Department to the Georgia Bureau of Investigation, Mr. Bryan was still considered by your agency. Well, after the date of this interview, a witness in this case. Yes, OK, and that's memorialized in the report that your agency provided to the Georgia Bureau of Investigation. [14:05:09][21.1] [14:05:10] Yes, So. [14:05:18][8.5] [14:05:19] Is it fair to say that among the words that didn't come up in this interview, besides citizen arrest, was false imprisonment? I'm sorry, can you repeat that among the legal terms that did not come up in this interview, in addition to citizen arrest, the phrase false imprisonment never came up in this interview? No, because that wasn't your focus. No. And that wasn't what you heard [14:05:41][22.1] [416.4] [14:05:41] No, And you I believe you reassured Mr. Bryan that your agency is required to investigate any homicide regardless of justification. But maybe I don't remember for sure. OK, I've been. [14:06:11][30.3] [14:06:12] A long time that you'd conducted this investigation. OK, we have a future. Yes. Directing your attention to the bottom third page to OK. Yes, So basically, you assured Mr. Brian that you were required to investigate any homicide, no matter what evidence there was justification at your duty. Yes. And that's, in fact, what you were doing. Yes. In that context that you're talking to a witness in this case, you didn't ask Roddy, Brian, how far he got in school. No, you didn't ask Roddy Ryan if he had, for example, any learning disabilities? No. OK, you didn't technically, you didn't even ask him if they could read and write the English language, although that was presumed from the execution of the consent form. [14:07:50][98.7] [14:07:51] OK, now there's been some discussion in this case of maps. And I'm not going to show you all of the maps, but I'm going to ask you if you recognize this document, which I believe is already in it. I want once if I can, you know, bring let's stick together and figure out where it is so it can be clear that I be with the storage space. Our files are here and there, so I'll try not to be distracted. All right. But I would working with Brian. Fifty fifty. I don't think. I think that works. In your honor. Technically this exhibit in the record has a state exhibit number as well, but we're not going to use that for our purposes right. [14:10:01][130.0] [14:10:02] Now as long as it's clear where we are in the records that Brian, 15, identifies, let the record reflect that shown what's been marked as defendant Brian's fifty two opposing counsel. What number is it, Brian? 550 has a different of approach. Which are. Yes, sir. I'm showing you what's been marked as Ryan exhibit fifty. Have you seen that or a copy of that before? Yes, that is that the map that you used during the interview of Mr. Raddy, Brian? Yes. All right. Now, that map isn't as pretty as some in this case, but that's the map that in your interview in the transcript you referenced showing, Mr. Bryan. Yes. And you reviewed the actual video of this interview, have you not? Yes, hopefully recently. Yes. Is it not fair to say that at times Mr. Brian appears to be so focused on this map and these squiggles on there that his answers are not always responsive. [14:11:31][89.1] [14:11:31] To your actual questions? I don't remember enough detail to to say one way or another. Fair enough, Paul. This map is not color coordinated. It's all color coded. It's all one color. Am I correct? Aside from the blue, I. Yes, yeah. And would it be fair to describe the blue ink by the end of this interview? Is the chicken scratch. Yes. This time I would tender defendants. Brian. Fifty. No objection Your Honor. It's a bit, you know, bit. Now you at the end this interview, you went through the events with Mr. Brian at least twice. Am I correct? Maybe parts. Wow. OK, that was kind of all over. Were you. [14:12:36][64.7] [14:12:36] Ever able to get a complete statement from start to finish for Mr. Brian exactly what happened? I believe so. So that's why you went over more than once, always double check, make sure things that are OK. I'm not saying I've got a perfectly clear understanding. The first time he answered a question. [14:12:54][17.4] [14:12:55] OK, And you did go over some things more than once. Yes. All right. [14:12:59][3.7] [14:13:00] Is it fair to say that Mr. Brian struggled at times to find the right words? Objection. Speculation. Did he appear to struggle at times to find the words he wanted? Yes. OK, [14:13:12][12.0] [445.9] [14:13:12] yeah. And at one point you acknowledged that. Is that correct? I don't remember. Well, at this point, you're trying to get to the truth, right? Yes. And anything that interferes with your ability to do that, you're going to try to rectify. [14:13:34][21.4] [14:13:35] Yes, OK. All right. And reassuring. [14:13:37][2.4] [14:13:38] Mr. Brian as part of that, kind of like a kid at a ballgame. Good job that boy. No, never mind. I'll withdraw the question. [14:13:46][8.1] [14:13:46] He didn't have a chance to say there. I'm sorry. I trying to prevent from Mr. Clay. Sir, please explain. I didn't understand what you asked you. That's what I thought. So I'm just going to address in a different way, directing your attention to page nine lines thirteen. [14:14:11][25.5] [14:14:13] Through. I have no objection. Judge me, reapproach. This is something that Mr. Goff and I talked about before we did this. And if we may approach, that would be great. And maybe this would be a good time for a break. I'm interested. Loose job if I can just have you step out in the jury room for just a moment. Breuker we leave the witness on the stand or do I need to have the witness step down. [14:15:31][78.3] [14:15:32] There way? I feel comfortable with what is what is the issue here? I'm trying to elicit what I'm trying to elicit is page nine lines fourteen to nineteen. Question from investigator Lourey. I do understand where you're coming from because we've all not necessarily this exact situation. We've all been there where crazy stuff happens that quick and you're still trying to process what just happened. Mr. Bryan responds affirmatively. Yeah, I mean, that's exactly the kind of way it was. He's acknowledging that he's having problems processing these events that day. And that's in response to the detective's question. And it certainly goes to the rule of completeness. We've been bouncing all over this witness statement, and it's only fair that the jury know that he's having trouble processing what's going on. And because he can't process it, he's having trouble relate it to the officer. He's not trying to deceive the officer. He's struggling with his answers. And it goes to the way the jury is going to give the answers that they have picked and chosen [14:16:36][64.3] [199.9] [14:16:36] from this interview to present to the jury. [14:16:38][1.9] [14:16:40] Your Honor, then Detective Larry, his words aren't relevant to what Mr. Brian stood or didn't understand. If Mr. Goff wants to get into what Mr. Bryant himself said, that's a different story. But I don't see how Mr. Lowery's words are relevant here. And essentially, the part that Mr. Goff wants to get into is all what investigator Larry said. And it does not go to the rule of completeness, not completeness, goes to the conversation. Does it matter who started the conversation? What matters? Is it the conversation is complete. And for the conversation to be complete, that question and that answer, this jury needs to hear that you are going to permit it from the state. He will follow up on redirect. You're welcome to do so. Let's go get the panel, which is that I think is you. That's right. I said yes, that's right. And Snake through the witness actually has a transcript. So I'm sorry, Jeff, I have one more thing as it pertains to that. Can I mention that now, if anybody start with Dawn. So whatever it is, a quick OK, the door opens, we need to stop. So at the point where this statement comes in that we just discussed, that was Mr. Brian, that was Mr. Brian relaying the shooting portion of this incident. So Investigator Larry was asking him about the actual shooting portion, what he saw, you know, what happened first? What happened second, when was the gun pulled, et cetera. So it would be unfair to the state because then I can't get up there and ask him specifically what Mr. Brian was confused about, because, of course, I can't get into that because of Brewton. So it would be one thing if Mr. Brian was saying, well, I'm confused about what I did with my truck, but that is not the context of the statement that Mr. Goff is trying to get into, because that's not that. Understand, sir, and it's why it's 13 to 14 May 13 to 19, I think 14, 13. But it starts this. The full transcript indicates the state is reflected. There is a at least a page where there is a discussion almost more than page a discussion about the incident at the truck. And Investigator Lowry's question on page nine, starting at 1:00 to yeah, no, I get where you're coming from. It's stuff like this. It happens in a blink of an eye and and then we start getting into all of this appears to be directly related to the description of what occurred at the truck. There's no question that, as the state says, the immediately preceding part says that. But rule of completeness demands [14:22:00][320.4] [322.3] [14:22:00] more. And, you know, it's putting us in a evidence posture here where, again, we can't get to the meaning of what my client said, having read through it. Again, the context. [14:22:13][12.5] [14:22:13] Of the quote that you are asking the court to permit is clearly with regard to the truck and the incident at the truck. I know you want to read that more broadly, but it's directly it is the investigators comment to his description of what occurred at the truck that then results in this statement to court. We're not going to permit it. Understand the context now. Much better than I did before. And it's not coming in. And I'm not questioning the court's ruling. But I do want to make it clear we're objecting to the rule of completeness that we should be allowed to ask specifically the question and answer reflected at page nine lives thirteen to nineteen. The transcript interview, the detective already had with Roddy. Brian, thank you. Let's go get the panel. All right. All right. Ladies and gentlemen, welcome back again. I thank you for your patience. We've addressed the matters that we need to address before the court and we ready to proceed. Mr. Sir, I believe when you interviewed Mr. Brian, he discussed his becoming involved in this matter more than once. Yes. And the first time, if I recall your testimony correctly from earlier today, he used the word overshot the road. I think, of directing your attention to page twelve lines. Twenty three to twenty five, page thirteen lines one to seven. Okay. Okay. The second time that you reviewed this with him, he described what he did as creeping out of the driveway, is that correct? Yes. That he just crept out of the driveway. Good. Unquote. Yes. OK, were you able to ascertain what creeping out of the driveway means as opposed to overshooting it? Did you follow up on that? No, I just I took Cryptome slowly. OK, all right. And certainly that didn't have a whole lot to do with the shooting itself, did him creeping out of the driveway slowly? No, Now, there were several. [14:25:49][216.1] [14:25:50] Points in time where he didn't seem to follow your question, whether or not objection, the speculation. This is the rephrasing can do you recall asking him whether he backed out of the ditch? Yes. OK, and what was his answer? No, I think I backed back into my drive. Did that really answer your question? Uh, no. OK, was he looking at the map while he was doing this? I don't I don't remember. OK, directing your attention to page seven, is it fair to say that Mr. Brian is fond of the word kind of what kind of objection is speculation if you're referring to the transcript itself? Right. I am. I'm referring to the portion of the transcript I thought the state had already gone into. So directing your attention to page seven, line eleven, does Mr. Bryan use the word Kott phrase? Kind of, yes. OK, we were you able to ascertain what Mr. Bryan meant when he said kind of. No, I don't know that I saw clarification on that. OK, directing your attention to page fifty, page fifteen. I'm sorry, it's not page fifty eight, fifteen and trying to find a line that number for you sir. All right. Directing your attention to line three. [14:28:20][149.6] [14:28:22] Again, Mr. Bryan's using the word kind of angled. Yes. All right. And then. [14:28:29][7.1] [14:28:34] On. [14:28:34][0.0] [14:28:34] The following page, I'm to page sixteen and lines one and two and I believe you already testified before that. Mr. Bryan didn't put quote unquote much emphasis on it, that being angry. Yes, that's what he said to do. You have any idea what he meant by much emphasis, objection to speculate? I'll rephrase. What did you take it to me? Objection to relevance about what? Detective Larry took it to me. Mr. directing your attention to Page fourteen can have lead that statement over part of this on direct examination. Mr. Bryan. [14:29:44][69.8] [14:29:44] Told you that he was going to back up, that Mr. Harbury. Correct. Yes. But to do that, he'd be backing he'd be following Mr. Harbury in reverse. Mr. Tyler, I think we've got to draw the rates of water necessary because we've got some water like that in Salt Lake. Water for moving at that point, Mr.. Whether he used the words or not, he was saying he would be following him in reverse. That he would be. No, no, I don't think that's what he says. He says I was fixing I put it in reverse. I was going to back up Adam. [14:30:47][62.6] [14:30:48] All right. And then before he could do that, he tells you that Aubrey had run up the road. My correct he called, quote, Paul made his move to go down the road. It happened off. [14:31:02][14.6] [14:31:11] Yes. With attention back to the map, such as it is that you're working with during this interview in order to follow Mr. Augury of the Street, he's basically backing off away from him to do that. Or are you asking that? Yes, I. I don't I don't understand what you're saying. You're asking if he is reversing up the road, following him. Well, I believe you've testified that Mr. Brian is fixin'. I think that's the word Mr. Brown uses to back up at him. But by this time, Mr. Aubrey has already changed direction and is running up the other street. OK, yes. So at that point when Mr. Brian is backing, backing up, he's technically he's got to back away from Mr. Aubrey to follow. [14:32:05][54.2] [14:32:07] I wasn't I didn't see where he turned up. Fair enough. It's hard to tell from what you're describing, exactly what he's doing. That fair can be a and in fact, if I understand you're the future. All right, sir. I'll try and use this device here again. Can you see the map, sir? The kind of it's upside down. Does this help you to table if you see it now? Kind of. It's it's just you're it looked like. Oh, wow. So much better. Thank you. Thank you, Mr.. All right. That's the only. Oh, oh, look at that. Garage. Detective. Larry, do you see this kind of el the squiggle off to the side. Do get that reflects Mr. [14:33:44][97.4] [14:33:45] Ryan telling you that he's basically going down that road while Mr. Aubrey is going up the road behind. But that's what that means. I don't know what that squiggle means. This was almost two years ago now. Objection. Judge, if you could just let him finish his answer. I thought you said go ahead. Hey, I don't want to cut you off, sir. I thought I was done to get behind, do that thing again. Now, did you ever ask Mr. Ryan what I meant when he said ankle? But I don't think so. It wasn't germane to the investigation at that point. And I believe earlier today you described it as dear. Yes, I think OK. And at no point did Mr. Brian identify to you a mathematical angle. Did he know? So what we're talking about emphasizing angles or good angles or bad angles, we don't know whether that's a ninety degree. [14:34:58][73.5] [14:35:00] Forty five degree, 180 degree, and even know the one in between ten point five hundred. There's been no discussion any of that, my friend. Yes, OK. And for the purposes that the stated when the state was examined you earlier this morning, did they ever ask you the distance between Mr. Ordinary and Mr. Bryan when these angling events or steering events took place? Not OK. That would make a difference to you, wouldn't it, if you were if you were investigating an aggravated assault with a motor vehicle that made a difference? Yes. I mean, if I say, for example, you're in a patrol car and you want to talk to somebody, maybe they don't want to talk to you. And you and will your flawed car in front of them, if you do that six inches away from then that's a little bit different than if they're sixty feet down the road, isn't it? Objection. Irrelevant relevance. Hypothetical as it pertains to this case. Relevant, you. So let's stick to what he knows and what was testified to in the statements, if you can read that together. I think that. Yes, Your Honor, thank you. Did Mr. Brian ever relate to you tearing up any of his neighbors yards? I don't think so. OK, did he ever relate to you making skid marks or other marks on the roadway when he stopped Sean OK, so it would be fair to say then that any angling that was done had to be a relatively low speed objection to speculation. I'll rephrase that. Did you ever ask Mr. Brian and I think I know the answer I have to ask, did you ever ask Mr. Ryan at what speed he was traveling when any of these angley maneuvers took place? No, but you are out there to assure us that day where you know. Yes, OK, I think at one point you testified you went down to 20 to tell the president. And of course, you were not very far from Mr. Ryan's house at that time. Did. [14:37:29][148.9] [14:37:30] You notice any unusual marks in the road that you thought might be related to this case in front of 220 anywhere on the scene that day? Did you see it? I'm not talking about the body. That is six minutes. That's a different I'm talking about tire tracks, road marks, skid marks. Did you observe anything out there that day that been suggested? Aggressive driving? Not that I can recall. That. [14:38:06][36.4] [14:38:06] Mr. Bryan never used the word chaos in his interview with you. I don't think so. I have to go back and reread it. But from his description of the events, would you characterize that description as chaotic objection to relevance about how he would characterize the description of events that sustained. [14:38:28][22.1] [14:38:31] A move on? I heard you describing based on Mr. Bland statement, for he was at the scene, I should be clear, based on his statement, what Mr. Ryan is related to that system of. Did Mr. Bryan express to you uncertainty as to what he should do that day before the shooting, before the shooting? I vaguely think so. I'd have to go back and review, if you could, directing your attention. I have a lot of page folk directing your attention to page five to lines eighteen nineteen. Yes. Did Mr. Ryan express to you that he didn't know what to do? He did. [14:40:09][98.5] [1063.2] [14:40:09] When saw the Aubrey coming back. Yes. Did he did he express any eagerness to confront Mr. Gardner at that time? No. [14:40:09][0.0] ---[14:41:36] When he come to find out later. You remember that? I'll have to look. All right. Did he describe moments when he can't see anybody else out there other than Mr. Arber? I don't remember [14:41:56][20.3] [14:41:56] fair. Yeah. I believe you've already testified to Mr. Bryan or me, Mr. Bryan. Statement about Mr. Aubrey trying to get in his truck. And I believe directing your attention to page 18. Do you remember the state asking you, suggesting that Mr. Ryan wished that he had hit Mr. Armorer? Yes, that may. That's not it. That's not accurately reflecting the nature of that statement, is it? I don't know. Did you take Mr. Bryan to be wondering aloud whether he might have, in fact, saved Mr. Armories life? [14:43:28][91.6] [14:43:28] Objection. The speculation here, if you're asking him what he thinks the statement might mean. I'm asking that he took the statement sustained when Mr. Ryan said that did in. Was there anything about his demeanor or body language suggesting that he intended to? No, I don't remember which time he might have said that, but I didn't see I don't know what body language would look like indicative of him actually doing that. He didn't seem any more distressed. Somebody would be. And, you know, this kind of stressful situation, would you describe his demeanor as remorseful? I don't know that I was around him long enough to see remorse or just kind of shocked. Shocked, certainly not gleeful. No, a few easy ones. Mr. Bryan. Or you observed in examining this yourself, in examining Mr. Bryant's cell phone, did you observe whether it was Password-Protected? I don't recall. I just know from seeing the consent form earlier that I think it said in a password or no passcode. Directing your attention to the top part of page two of the transcript line can correct. You recall asking him whether it was password. Yes. And he told you no. Yes. And if there had been one, you would have asked him for. Yes. I believe. [14:45:46][137.4] [14:45:46] Mr. Bryan told you that there was lumber in the back of his truck during this incident. Yeah, I think so. Mr. Bryan told you that he got the keys from his house? Yes. Inside the house. I got to ask you about the now famous video that Mr. Bryan made to assure us that day. I'm directing your attention to Page sixteen lines nine. Twenty five to page seven, lines one through twelve. The state has no objection. I'm simply going to ask you to read that portion of the transcript beginning at line sixteenth line nine patients said page sixteen, line page sixteen, line nine. Excerpt five. Pretty. [14:46:52][65.9] [14:46:52] Good understanding of it now. So I think if I'm recalling correctly, when you're on the side of the road, you were telling me you might have had another video of the same guy on your phone from a previous incident. And Brian says, no. I say, OK, I misunderstood that. Then Brian says, no. I thought those two videos of on there, [14:46:52][0.0] [294.9] [14:47:11] of and I must not have been recording. And I say, well, the first you do, you said stop at nineteen eighty. I continue to page seventeen line to well the first you do you do have two videos of the same incident today. Brian says well one of the all copied it somehow or another or something. Maybe I say OK he says, I mean the exact same incident and I say yeah it's weird. [14:47:35][24.0] [14:47:37] I'm. [14:47:37][0.0] [14:47:38] Sorry. You're turning the page. Yes. What did you want me to stop? I don't. Seventeen start with. So you've got I think it's at the top of the page. He he asked stop. Oh line twelve. Got like the. [14:47:51][13.5] [14:47:52] Very last two videos, photos, anything. One is a longer video that contains the same. Mr. Brian says they tried to cross it and send it to the original officer Minshew. I said OK. And he said tried to profit and send it and he couldn't do it. So I thought there is two those. I thought I started filming him right before we got to the fork, before we go or before we got to the major intersection right there. I thought I had started filming there, but apparently I didn't. Apparently I didn't hit the button. I say so you don't. From what I recall watching the video, it looks like it starts as you're like. Coming up, this road catching back up to them, like going back towards that intersection. To Brian says, yes. I say, OK. So, yeah, like roughly the you know, there somewhere seems like you start recording because Brian says probably. Yeah, I say coming up that road and watching as you around the corner, you can see him running. Mr Ryan says thank you so you were asked a number of questions earlier about things in history. Brian didn't didn't say Mr. Brian did say that he'd heard stuff that's been happening in the neighborhood that B page nineteen. [14:49:09][77.4] [14:49:18] Yes, right. But at that time, you didn't follow up with him about that, did you know? Not not there, because I don't remember if it was before or after, but I already asked if he knew Mr. Aubury recognized him and ever seen him before. Fair enough. You didn't ask Mr. Brian whether his family had been victims of theft and property crimes and still a shortage. Did you. [14:49:42][24.0] [14:49:44] Know? Not specifically. You didn't ask whether Roddy Brian had installed a home surveillance system? No, I have no no reason at the time. I'm not questioning your judgment, your techniques. I'm just covering a few facts. Almost done. You never, ever afraid, Brian, about his night owl video, his night owl video in a do you know. [14:50:21][36.9] [14:50:21] How rowdy Brian's cell phone wound up in Sergeant Alaskas car? I don't recall. Do you know how many officers besides yourself were on the scene that day without functioning body cams? Or dashboard videos? I don't. OK, and it's not your job to keep track of that, is it? Mr. Now you're I'm going to use the word interview, but you feel free to explain. OK, but your interview with Mr Brian, my word for it on the scene is not recorded. Correct. OK, and I don't believe it's documented is it. It wasn't a very detailed, thorough interviews, just really viewing the video and then getting him to agree to come back and sit down, speak with me. Yes. Is there any way for you to say how many other brief other undocumented statements might be out there that day? No, I have no way of guessing. OK, so is it fair to say by the time you finish interviewing Mr. Brian that evening, I think it's evening. Yes. By the time you finish interviewing Mr Ryan that evening, he has been back and forth through the events of that day several times with multiple police officers. [14:51:48][86.5] [14:51:49] I don't know what other officers he went through it with, but I could say probably I know we spoke with him briefly on scene about it and then again at headquarters. So I would say at least at least twice with me. OK, and you may have been privy to some of that information, but probably not all of. Yes. OK, things that you didn't ask a lot of time spent on that earlier. You didn't ask Roddy Brian whether he was armed or unarmed at the time of the shooting in your interview, am I correct? Yes. Would that be because you've already covered that out on the scene? Yes. Or so I thought. I don't know that I asked him that on the scene. Well, from the circumstances, it seemed clear to you that he was unarmed. Yes. [14:52:35][46.1] [14:52:37] You didn't ask Roddy Brian about Matt Albanese? No. OK, I won't ask ask him about Matt Albanese. What about mental Binsey? [14:52:48][10.8] [14:52:49] Well, in terms of. [14:52:52][2.5] [14:52:52] Trying to understand why Mr. Aubrey was running in the way that he did, did you ask him whether he and Mr Albanese had any contact? No, no. Did you ask him if he could see Mr Albanese? No. OK, did you and of course, you didn't interview Mr Albanese. You don't know? No, sir. OK, you didn't ask Roddy Brian whether he called nine one one, did you? I don't I don't remember if I did OK. And partly that would be because under Georgia law, Mr Brian had no legal obligation to do so. Under Georgia law, which I rephrase, it was the subject. [14:53:41][49.4] [14:53:42] Of 9/11. Never came up with Mr Bryan. Did it? No, I don't think so. You did. You did proceed to be pertinent to your investigation at that time? No, Is it fair to say that when you examined Mr Brian's truck that you did not recover any prints or possible prints from either the front or the back of the truck on? Everything that I recovered was from the driver's side, aside from the unknown volleyball, soccer ball print on the back, you did not recover any cotton fibers from the front or back of the pickup truck. Just for clarification, you're saying like just the very, very front and the very back, excluding the sides, the grill and the front bumper, the back bumper and the tailgate collected nothing from the front or the back. OK, and did the state even show you a picture of the front of the truck today? I don't think I. I don't think I did or I don't think I saw it. I don't remember there being one in there. There's certainly no physical evidence to suggest it. The Mr Bryan's vehicle made any contact on the front of the back or on the corners with Mr Arber. I don't I don't understand what you're can you paraphrase what you said? It kind of like a there OK. There are no fingerprints on the on either of the front corners of the truck. None, the none that I was aware of. None that I processed. No cotton fibers on either corner of the front of the truck. None that I was aware of. No, I processed no fingerprints or cotton fibers on either of the back corners of the truck. No the prints that you recovered or suspected prints and the cotton fibers are all on the driver's side of the vehicle behind or at the the door on the driver's side. Yes, OK. And that would be consistent with the testimony or the statement that Mr Brian gave you. Yes, All right. And. [14:56:13][150.6] [14:56:16] Technically, see, if I understand the sequence of events, you all decide on the scene that you want to do it, do a crime scene, work on the truck. Right. I didn't make that call. I don't I don't know if somebody made the call. OK, but at the time that decision was made, whoever made it, you were down at the public safety center, correct? You also, sir, are you saying that they brought the car asking if they brought the crime scene truck to the scene and still assures? OK, yeah, I'm not helping you here. My apologies. You. [14:56:51][35.7] [14:56:52] Asked Mr Brian to bring his pickup truck from Seattle Offshores down to the Glynn County Police Department. Public Safety Center. Yes, just on the other side of the interstate. Yes. You asked Mr Brian to do that? Well, no, I just asked him to come for an interview. He happened to drive the truck and he told me about, you know, the dings and the smudges while I was there interviewing him. OK, and this is several hours after the shooting, this point, is it not? Yes. This is after Mr Brian has been sent home. To your knowledge that I process Two-stroke know that by the time he requested him to come downtown, he's already gone home with his truck. [14:57:31][39.1] [14:57:33] I don't think his truck was still on scene. I think from the scene he came from the scene to the PD for the interview and the truck to be processed. OK, so you don't know whether he went home with it first? I don't know. OK, is it fair to say that Glynn County has no shortage of carwashes? [14:57:48][15.6] [14:57:49] I don't know. Did you did you observe any effort on the part of Mr Raddy, Brian, to tamper with or destroy the evidence in this case? No. Mr Brian wanted you to have the evidence. Objection. Is. [14:58:04][14.5] [14:58:04] There anything more? Thank you. Is there anything more that Mr Brian could have done to help you with your investigation of Butler? Thank you, sir. Yes, sir. No further questions the that before. Of course, Mr Close could do that. [14:58:36][32.0] [14:58:37] In general. Let's take a fifteen minute recess and we'll come back for continuation of the evidence from jury and the Magistrate's Court attention before we bring them back in for questioning. I'm going to go ahead and have you step down. If you could. Please be back in fifteen minutes for continuation of Roger Underoath. Do not discuss your testimony with anyone during the break. Yes, sir. Thank you. I love you. And I can do that. I don't. To the matters this year, we had some testimony by this officer when the state asked the question on March 5th. Twenty, twenty, you were not getting much traction in the case and the case went inactive. No, that testimony there was an objection was objection to as well. But that I mean, the testimony in the court and that was it was an objection. I'm sure that was one. That was when the objection was in purpose. That's right. And so. [15:00:31][114.5] [15:00:32] I was at that time stepping into my brain. Yes. And he said, yeah. What she says it was in fact. Yes, So I'm asking for permission to cross this officer on the fact that that's not actually true. This officer did a lot more investigation and action in the case all the way up through July of twenty or twenty. And I would like to go into the things that he also did. Now that's going to cause some issues maybe with the state, because what he did are some of the things that the court has said we can't get into. For example, some of them are not things that the court said we can't get into. But the state has now given the jury the impression that this officer didn't do anything after three, five and that the case wasn't getting traction, was inactive until the case was handed over to the GBI. That's simply not true. It's also been a lot more, Your Honor, In fact, on three twelve, he received documents from the coroner's office that were gateway records for the AMA, Mr Aubury on three seventeen. He received a report about the blood in the case, the toxicology on 317 I'm sorry, on March 12th, he got some of the Gateway behavioral records about probably on April 1st, he got the autopsy report from the medical examiner. On May twenty nine, he got the full records of Gateway and on July 14th, he got the heart blood results back that said there was positive THC. And whether he did this before the GBI got involved or later, he was still working with the GBI, dealing with some of these issues. And so it would not be accurate or fair to leave the jury with the impression that this officer ended his investigation within 12 days of the shooting. That is simply not the case. And I intend with the court's permission, to bring the truth to light for the jury. Now, if the court says I can't do it in the way that I want to do it, then I just want to be clear about what I can and cannot do. But I believe the state has opened the door to us talking about what he's done here are the state's intention was once again to just smoothly transition this because nobody wanted to go into anything that took place about the real reason that everything stopped, because it's messy and irrelevant as to the guilt or innocence of these defendants in this case, simply asking him, did you receive additional records on March 12th, March 17th, April 1st, May 29th and July 14th, by the way, the July 29th and July 14th records came to him, even though they were requested by the GBI is a simple way to go. Oh, yeah. There were some other stuff I did. This [15:04:00][207.1] [980.4] [15:04:00] appears to be a very good strategy by the defense to try and circumvent your order and then put into play evidence that you have ruled inadmissible, such as the gateway records, the blood toxicology, and then the additional blood and the heart blood results. So the state would object fully to going into all of this because what they want is how do I put this nicely? What they say they want is to show that this officer did some more stuff. But what they want to do is go into stuff that you've already ruled inadmissible in order to show this officer did more stuff. It's very easy to ask one simple question. Did you receive additional documents on this date, the state, the state, the state and the state? Because all he did was receive stuff in he didn't actually do anything but receive documents. And it was never the state's intention by asking that question [15:04:00][0.0] [15:04:59] because it's our understanding that when we asked him, he basically said, yeah, it kind of went inactive. Those were his words to the state during the interview. Is that [15:05:07][8.5] [15:05:05] to the state during the interview. Is that correct? He said much traction. And I said, OK, that's what he said when we interviewed him yet. So this is something that we don't feel opens the door to any of this. And if this is solely what the defense claims it is, which is, oh, this officer did do some more stuff, then it's really easy to just ask him. You receive documents in the state, the state, the state, the state, the state didn't use part of the investigation. Doesn't matter what the documents are, because you've already ruled that that evidence is inadmissible. For other reasons and it really doesn't have anything to do with the credibility of this officer or the investigation, because obviously Richardville will come in and testify that on May eight, he may he received the case and began his investigation as part of the GBI, which this officer has already also testified to the GBI came in and took over the investigation. So we ask that you deny the motion if you're going to grant the motion to go ahead and ask these questions, then the question should simply be on these dates. Did you receive additional documents on floor? [15:06:16][70.9] [15:06:17] We now have to refer to presentations by the state to this jury. That case and the investigation by the Glen County Police Department has stalled and nothing happened. That was what they were told in opening by Mr McCaskey. And now the lead investigator on this case has been asked to testify that they weren't giving any traction and the case went acted. And it is still, your honor, it's March 5th that they established that happened. We still have the rest of the month of March. We still have the entire month of April and we still have a week into May before the GBI is the case. It is our responsibility to help the jury understand the total investigation done by this department, the fact that they were thorough in their investigation, the fact that they did all this work and their investigation is important to establish. I understand the court has ruled. And if the court says yes, you can ask them what they got for the documents or they got, unquote, records from various sources, or if you prevent us from saying what the sources are and we just are able to establish they continue to work on this case and follow up, I suggest that that's not love. I still think we need to correct this. And I would just ask the court to consider they've now done it twice. It was intentional and that is putting us in the position. We were not meant to be a fair trial. We're in recess for at least another ten minutes. I'll come back and I'll let you know where you are. Thank you [15:08:06][109.7] [180.6] [15:21:39] So I would back on his present, represented by counsel. He's back in place. All right. As to the opening the door, the court's not going to permit getting into the evidence that has been excluded. The defense does want to follow up on the investigation. You're wanting to ask if there were any additional documents or any additional well, any additional documents that came in. It didn't sound like he went and did additional work. So just so that I understand the scope. [15:23:03][84.4] [15:23:04] Well, I. I think what these documents reflect and what his reports reflect is that he was interacting with the medical examiner's office. Still, that he was interacting with the crime lab still, and that he was also working with the GBI to obtain information and pass information along to them. And he was interacting with subpoenas about, you know, these gateway records through the coroner's office. So he was interacting with individuals with particular agencies, and he was receiving documents and information before the GBI got involved. And then after the GBI got involved. So there's several pieces of information in there. Judge, you just you know what I want to get into and I guess you would just be telling me I can identify the agency, I can identify the place the documents came from. Why I can't I those and yes and no. I mean, the courts excluded certain evidence. And so, no, we can't for example, even if you're not going to get into the gateway documents, we're not going to talk about Gateway. We're not going to talk about the evidence that's been excluded in the case. So I can't say even medical records. No,. [15:24:33][89.1] [15:24:33] It's getting into the evidence in the car. Just want to be clear. Aubrey's medical records have been excluded. Right. So I can't give that the lab toxicology received reports back from toxicology from the Georgia crime lab. There's still interacting with the Georgia crime at this point. I've not heard of any other way that they're coming in and they've been excluded based on the court's order. And this is not open the door to them. So I can't say that he received documents from the Georgia crime lab. What what other documents are there? Those. Yeah, that's just the toxicology reports. I'm sorry. I'm just trying to make sure I'm understanding what we're talking about. The courts, you know, don't want to go back and figure out all of the specific rules again, how they how they would relate directly to these documents. So they could just be. And just to be clear, because I'm trying to make sure there's no ambiguity in the court's order. So the court's order exists. You're now asking me what you can put in. What I keep saying is the court's ordered and I want to be so specific that the record reflects what I'm not allowed to do. And I remember the court's order that said we could not get in the toxicology records. That would be the blood alcohol and the THC. And you said we can't go into that. Now, what I'm asking is, can I at least say that he received documents from the crime lab? Are there any other documents? Let's see. He got toxicology and second tox. No. So if we say the what the documents are. No. Yes. Short answer, y. [15:26:22][109.3] [15:26:22] Es Or no. Documents are irrelevant, so it wouldn't matter either way. So, of course, them are relevant so. [15:26:27][4.7] [15:26:28] And so. I can't even say that he interacted with the crime. [15:26:31][3.0] [15:26:31] Lab. I'm asking counsel that under the court's order that I'm not coteries understand the only thing he could be referring to is evidence that has been excluded. Adam? Well, we can get around it, but I hear what the court's saying. So I can't inform the jury that he interacted with the Georgia crime lab and he also interacted with the coroner's office. What was the I don't understand that we can get around that well, but I don't the court's ruling I don't understand. What I'm suggesting is the court doesn't want the jury to know that there are blood toxicology records about alcohol or THC. But I certainly could say crime lab records. I just want to show that this gentleman is doing work with state agencies about this case. I think you missed what I said. No, you're not going to get into that, because if the only crime lab records are excluded, excluded evidence, the. No, it's just not relevant. I got that. I got it. I just wanna make sure that our record is clear about that. And so that's a no receiving toxicology on three seventeen. That's a no receiving toxicology on 714 twenty. That's in the receiving gateway records. From the coroner or giving records to the coroner, just that he's even interacting with the coroner for that he's interacting with the coroner on three twelve and that he's interacting with the coroner on five twenty nine. Will the court allow me to ask him or or have him stay? Yes. I continue to interact with the coroner on three twelve and I continue to interact with the coroner on five twenty nine. The cour. [15:28:09][98.0] [15:28:09] Ts Rule. I would suggest a simple way for the four defense counsel to avoid violating the court's order is to simply say that there was some additional work done and he talked to some additional agencies, got some additional documents, OK, additional work, additional agencies and additional documents as on it. And I will be clear about it because I heard in their a statement that made me concerned when you said there's a way to get around that I am not going to engage on prior orders that have been very clear. And so in order to avoid that and based on where this is going, that's what I'm going to counsel to. All right. So it's a perfect of course, we are joining in this. But there is also one other piece of work that this investigator did, and that is that he is the individual who carried the Half-Blood from the autopsy to the crime lab for toxicology. That's just to complete the record of all the things that the court has ruled cannot come in. But were would have otherwise been responsive to the state's question. OK, and then judge, the one I missed is on on April 1st, he got he received the autopsy report from Dr Donohue. I don't think that violates the court's order to say that, Dr Tony. He was going to be testifying. Oh, yeah. Oh, yeah. So I can tell the jury he got the autopsy report that I won't get any toxicology, I won't get into the medical records and Gateway, just that he received the top. He received the autopsy report on April 1st. So I was like, that's not violative of the court's order. Perfect. All right, I'm ready. Thank you, Judge. West, thanks. All right. Welcome back. You get up. Juries coming in and you stay standing. You want your friend back. I remind you that you under oath. Yes, sir. All right. We got everybody instruct the witness, Your Honor, that I'm asking very general questions that are not and include the details that we don't get here. Well, why not ask leading questions? Because that would that anything you wouldn't ask a question that requires a response that violates the court's order, particularly after discussion with her, because although there may be an inadvertent disclosure under these circumstances, the court's not going to make an inadvertent disclosure. Yeah, I'm not making a port Said. Like I said, I know if we wanted to inform the witness how we were limiting his testimony, I'd be happy to do it to avoid the problem. Or let's thank goodness. No, it's all right. From jury [15:32:01][231.5] [620.0] [15:32:01] and say thank you. Hi. Welcome back, ladies and gentlemen. We are ready to proceed with the evidence. Mr Shepherd, take the afternoon. Clarrie. Afternoon, sir. I'm Jason Sheffield. I represent Travis Michael. We haven't spoken yet on this case. I know, OK, but I have listened very carefully to your testimony, cross-examination, all that and just want to bear down on a couple of things. OK, first of all, you are the lead investigator in this case. Is that fair? Yes. OK, and that's a special designation that you have been given, which means sort of all the information in this case is going to flow to you. Yes. While you wear that designation, is that right? Yes, sir. So in terms of doling out assignments or responsibilities, that is something that a lead investigator does? Yes. Once those things are completed, then you work to coordinate the receiving of all that information back to yourself. Yes, right within. You review it, right? Yes, sir. And then that could cause you to make additional decisions on what to do next and who to tell to do those things. Yes, sir. It's sort of an honor to be the lead investigator. Comes a lot of work, though, right? Yeah, yeah, yeah. A lot of work. Not a lot of work to that. OK, so in this particular case, how long after the shooting was it before you arrived on. [15:33:54][113.0] [15:33:54] The scene? I don't think very long. Maybe thirty minutes to two hours somewhere in there. OK, and when you got on scene you began to do what a lead investigator does. You go around and you start talking to the officers on the scene to try to get an understanding of what's going on. Yes, sir. OK, and at that point, you begin to formulate kind of a plan to say, ah, here's what we need to do now. We need to follow up on this desert. OK, and essentially, is it fair to say in your mind, at least within those first 30 minutes to an hour, you're trying to figure out who were these two gentlemen on the scene? Mr. Greg, Michael and Travis being Michael? Right. [15:34:34][39.8] [15:34:34] One of the most familiar with Mr. Gregory. Michael just from and previously worked, knew him previously. But you're trying to figure out what they're doing. Yes, sir. You're on that day. Yes, sir. And you're also trying to understand what happened to the deceased. Yes, sir. OK, you're trying to figure out what they're intent was that they missed him, that Michael's in specific. Yes, right. And you're trying to figure out what was going on with the decedent on that day, Mr. Harper? Just what he was in the neighborhood, right? Yes, sir. OK, and so in this case, you assigned the interviews, did you not? I did. So you took on interviewing, as we now know, Mr. Rodney Brian, and you assign interviews to be done to Greg and Michael as well as trying to make. Yes, right. OK, now you were talking about with the state that right around March 5th of twenty twenty that the case kind of went inactive, right? Yes, sir. OK, but that's not exactly 100 percent accurate because you still were involved in doing some work on the case. Yeah. You were involved in some, as I'll characterize it, additional work, right? Yes. OK, working with additional Georgia state agencies. Yes, sir. Right. And obtaining documents and didn't stop this work in March 5th. You continued in the month of March, in the month of March to do this kind of work, right? I think so. I don't remember the times, but yeah, but you also continue to do it in April, OK, right? Yes, sir, I guess. And well, do you need to go back over your notes? I do. I didn't wanna interrupt you one. Palantine me the all I've got is the the transcript. It's on the table there. OK, what about your reports and things like that. I was told I couldn't bring anything up so I didn't. I have nothing with me on this walk. Do you have your reports here upstairs on the third floor. OK, well, I'm happy to try to refresh your memory, OK, with the reports that I have of yours, unless the state wants to give you reports, OK, and guess what we're after here? What I'm trying to understand is that Madam may have actually asked the wrong person under show. My force something, but you don't necessarily need to read my notes. But you can just take a look at these reports, OK? Yeah, The the the last date I'm seeing on here, I don't see anything. It goes into April. I see March 12th. OK, yeah. Now ask me to come forward. I'm going to show you these things just to show you the dates. And I don't want you to read what outflowing thing is. I'm going to show you dates and I just want to make sure that because they're not meeting today, we're not looking at the jurors behind you. Right. That's what I'm trying to block it right here in front of to show you these dates. Yes. All right. Put that last one I we'll talk about what it is. I'm just showing you a date you don't have to agree with. I'm just going to show it to you. OK? OK. So just essentially for purposes of dates, your involvement in the case continued into May and then into July. Would you agree with that? Yes. On someone. OK, now in terms of what you did in the case, I want to be able to be very specific about, OK, OK, I like to write things down. All right. All right. So in terms of the work that we did it, no one includes going to the scene. Right? I'm going to have to say yes. Oh, I'm sorry. Yes, sir. All right. Interviews of witnesses. Yeah. Yes, photographs. Agree. Yes. All right. We're collecting clothing, right? Not under your leaders. Yes, sir. That's part of the investigation. Right. To do analysis on clothing, on gun show, shotgun shells. Yes, I believe it's work. They would have went, I think, to the GBI, but. Right. But it's under your leadership that you consider that this has to get done. Yes, sir. OK, any kind of blood collection, right? Yes. All right. Videos from the neighborhood. That's something that you were interested in. Yes. Objection to mischaracterization. Judge, Mr Lowry is saying that he didn't personally to any of and Mr. Sheffield is making it look like he didn't as the lead detective in the case we've established. I think that you're directing people to do and collect various forms of evidence. Yes, OK, are these the things that you're directing people to do and collect videos from the neighborhood? Not all the normal directions would have been for me. Some of them would have come from supervisors as well. Like the videos. I don't think I necessarily even had to ask for that. I think other investigators just kind of started chipping in and collecting everything that needed done. But as you're the lead investigator, I guess then you would be aware that these things are being done. Yes, And you would then have looked at these things to determine what next steps to take. Yes, OK, that would include obtaining records just generally speaking. Yes. That would include obtaining CAD and nine one one calls. Yes, Cell phone data. Yes. Any kind of social media if relevant. I don't remember any social media. Cross that off. We got the fibers. Yes. White fibers that you talked about. We've got fingerprints. Yes. Which you did. And we've got mappings kind of mapping out. This interaction took place on that day. Yes, sir. OK, you actually went to 220. So tell us to do some investigation there as well. Yes, sir. Right. You work with the ethics office. Been a medical examiner and the coroner. Right. Yes. OK, and neighborhood kings. And so the neighborhood canvass is where you go around and you ask questions of all the neighbors to figure out if they know. Yes, sir. So this is what you did for put in the detective, OK? Right. This is this is what you did. Have I missed anything in terms of the type of work that you did? Generally speaking? No, sir, I don't think so. OK, you were asked a lot of questions about Mr Bryan's description of his interaction with Mr Aubry. You call that? Yes. And and just to know a little bit of what he was describing about his interaction, there was this one thing that you noted where he yells out, you've got to remember that. Yes. OK, there's nothing that Mr Brian told you that led you to believe that Travis or Greg, even heard him say, yes, that's correct. Or that there was any kind of communication with him about this, right? Yes. So if I put it down here, no communication TNG you would agree with that? Yes. OK, the the time where he says the rock. Right. Says he changed direction and changed his angle. You recall that. I know he said that several times. Yes, sir. I'm an old science major, so I used the filter for change. And about the angle, again, no communication with Travis or Greg about this this thing. Correct. OK, I'm talking about we're still in this particular area. And for a second time this year for some movement with Mr. Aubury goes and steps off the road. Right. So if I say stear off road again, no communication with Travis about that. Correct. Now. And he says then again, Mr Harbury was trying to get into the truck and he pulled away from him. Do you remember that? Yes, of course. I did. And Posawatz, again, no communication with Travis regret about that. Correct. Communication me. No phone calls, no hand signals. No, no, sir. Essentially. Then it's your understanding that Mr Brian says that Mr Aubury begins to run up Holmes Road and he begins to then follow at that point. Do you recall that? Yes. So Lewis, call up homes and files again. No communication by Travis are good about that. No, sir, not that I'm aware of. Sorry. And then when he turns around, Mr Mr Bryant discusses his turn around trying to back up and he heads back in the other direction. So let's just call this [15:45:56][681.2] [834.0] [15:45:56] turnaround on houses. Again, no evidence that he was in communication with Travis or Greg, and those are you asked a question about the white fibers on the truck. Yes, OK. And they were on that sort of plastic strip area. Yes. Put back up Exhibit 242 for you to take a look at talking about these white fibers. Yes. Or up here, we have a little bit more of a close up around here, Mr. Sheffield. Yes. I can't see that. All right. I got my three legged and ask Mr. Robinson here, hold this for 30 years prior to this is what he's been reduced to hold the pole. I think what you said about these fibers, though, is that they were located kind of above a dent. Yes. OK, you were asked whether or not it appeared that those things could have happened at the same time in the dent in the fibers. Yes. You have zero evidence to suggest to you when that didn't happened. Right. I believe Mr O'Brien said it wasn't there prior to this incident. OK, yes, sir. But you don't know when the dent was made? No, sir. Or when the fibers were made? No, sir. So it's hard for you to conclude that the dent in the fibers happened in the same time. Yes, the. Yes, yeah. Now neither do some print collection. Yes. Talked about that actually. I mean this I don't want you to stand up to use the gold. Yeah, The prints that you collected, obviously you were told that there was some kind of interaction between Mr Aubrey and the truck. And so then you kind of focused in on whether or not you could determine whether there were usable latent prints on the truck. Right? Yes. Or latent prints. We've learned a little bit about it. Meaning left there on the surface, naturally they belong to. But they're there for collection purposes. Yes, right. And one of the things that you can do with prints is as you look at them, you can try to begin to get an idea of how the hand was oriented when it touched the object. But sometimes sometimes depending on if there's multiple parts of the hand weaving impressions on something, then you might be able to tell how the hand was oriented when it touched the object. Yes. And in this case, you've got not only a a palm print, but also the thumb print. The same judge, Mr Lowry, did not test the smudges in this case. So lack of personal knowledge that prints off for sure how to describe it. He said he lifted prints. I've heard Paul print, which just need to clarify. I think you're asking could you repeat it, sir? I'm sure I'll show you the I'll show you the. [15:49:58][243.0] [15:50:02] Looking here at State's Exhibit two one two two zero zero six. Let's start with this one. This is state's exhibit two zero one. All right. And you can lean into your monitor there. Can you begin to see that there is a smudge here? You see that? Yes. OK, and can you see also that there is a smudge here? Yes. OK, now you took it upon yourself to collect these smudges here and here, is that correct? Yes. OK, so the first smudge is what appears to be a palm print. Objection, Your Honor. He did not test me so much as to see what have you gotten the results back from the lab about what these are? I can't speak to the actor. I'm just asking if you got the results of the results, got the results back from the lab of what it is. Yeah, but I don't remember what they were. I think there was no match on either of them. Oh, did you say that you collected a palm print? I don't know. I might have testified that you collected a palm print from the truck, but I might have, sir. I've been up here a while. I don't remember what I said. I'm very sorry. But it was your understanding that these could be prints from Mr Arkley, which is why you collected. Yes. OK, and in looking at this now or when you were collecting them, did you have any kind of thought as to what that might be? Objection. Your Honor, to relevance about what he thought it might be. It was tested at some point to get the picture for a reason. He could explain kind of what was Mr Shukla? I thought it was some sort of poem just because it was bigger than OK, fingerprints would be. And then you took a collection of this because you thought it was a digit of some sort, some kind of a digit. Right. OK, are you at any point trying to do an analysis of how that got a suspected palm print and suspected? Did you got there? Are you trying to come to figure that out in any way? Yeah, just trying to look at it while it was there. And processing it. But the only way I could I guess invasion would be something like hand upside down. But I'm not a fingerprint expert. Yeah, that's just my own my own imagination at face value, looking at it while I was there. All right. It's possible or it's consistent, is it not, with your experience in collecting these types of [15:52:52][170.9] [413.8] [15:52:52] things? That this could be a palm print and that could be, let's say, a thumbprint? Objection. [15:52:59][6.1] [15:52:59] Asked and answered, Your Honor, what I'm talking about the orientation. I understand. So it could be. Yes, right. It could be that the if this is the door jamb here, this is the door jamb here, that the hand is like this. That's a consistent explanation. That's one explanation. I don't I don't know. I don't think so because the larger print on the side, it looks like it's much higher than that. I don't think it would be upright. But, you know, I'm speculating at this. That's not what we're trying to get into your mind as you're trying to figure this out. Yeah, OK. But at least it could be its own independent print of a digital. It could be including a thumb. Yes. OK, I'm this is a closer picture. This is two zero six. And again, do you see where we were talking about what we think might be a palm print? And then this right here, what could be a digital print. Yes. See in there now to OK, did you notice when you were examining the truck? I'm going to show you again to a one. OK, look real close and maybe I'll do this, maybe bring the photograph to you. You could look closely at two one right up here, this part of the door. A look at do you see what could be smudges up there as well? I do. Did you fingerprint or print the I don't remember the specific sections that I printed. If I saw it, I knew it was there. I collected it, OK, but I just I can't remember specifically if I took anything from that pillar. I think that might have been one of the photos. You think that might be one? Yeah, you'd be sure whether or not you collected that or not. I think on the fingerprint cards, it would have had sort of a legend like a map on the car where it would have been collected, the fingerprint cards. I didn't I didn't create them. I just filled them out. Yes. Or manufactured the paper. You press it and do all that stuff. All right. That was what we're talking about here. Are these smudges? Yes. OK, but you collected it and it should be documented somewhere. Yes. OK, and the information now, I believe that you had in terms of making this potentially relevant to your investigation is we were testifying, I think, earlier that Mr Brian was saying that Mr Aubury was coming for his door. Yes. Actually on page 18 lines 10 through 13. So every transcript I saw on the corner of the table right here. Yes, sir. To he's kind of describing this moment to you, right? Yes. He says, I probably got passed in a little bit and he comes up on me. Right. And I could see him in my mirror and he was coming for the door. So he says the. Can you give me the line number? You think it's ten? Thirteen. I probably got yes. A little bit. Yes, that's that's what he says. He's coming up on me. Yes, he was coming for the door and I seen his hands on right behind the door. Right. Yes. So this inform you that these prints that we just looked at could be highly relevant to his claim that Mr Harvey was trying to get into his truck? Yes, Did you check for prints on the other side of the truck? I think I did a walk over it, but those were that was the side that Mr O'Brien indicated to me that contact was made. So I kind of focused my efforts there. OK, I want to ask you again, do you recall whether or not you had ever decided that that one finger smudge that we think could be a finger smudge was actually the thumb print? Do you recall having that opinion or thinking that I don't you don't recall some Mrs refresh your memory with this document? Still does. And what I'd like for you to do. Thank you for stepping down. The problem is see if this refreshes your memory as the lead agent in the case. About whether or not you were working to determine if that was a right thumbprint. And I don't want you to read it. I don't want to look to see if that clarifies anything in your memory. Don't read it because see if it refreshes your memory to see whether or not you were considering that that could be a thumbprint right from. Yes. Specifically, does that refresh your memory? Yes. OK, so one of the things that you consider is that this print next to this we could think is a palm print could actually be the right of Mr Order based on that. May that refresh your memory that that is what you were considering. That wasn't that wasn't mine. That was just someone else's suggestion that completed that. I got lead investigators. One of the things that we're working. Yes, sir. That you could do. That could be a text in your honor. He just said that that was his report. That was someone else's. It was just used for my personal knowledge. You finish your question that as part of you being the lead investigator and some of that track to help make it all right. That you are relying on others to do work. Yes. Comes back to you this week and in the inquiry about whether or not this could be the right thumbprint, you said I don't recall. Yes, I showed you a document to see if it refresh your memory that that is a subject that you were thinking and considering as a refresh your memory. Yes. And did you consider that that was the right thumbprint of a moderate? Yes. I don't have any further questions. Yes, sir. I think you've already gone back. OK, let me just get my stuff on the meter reader. Just straight for Judge. So that report that was you, Mr Lowry, whose report was that? I was Investigator Louthan. Did you play any role in authoring that report at all? No, OK, so the findings in that report, were they your findings that all these findings were Christopher Lauter? That's all after you said you release for the day, which you were subject to recall? Yes, sir. Thank you. I did, Mr Swan ready to move forward, but I also don't want to put this back. That's fine. I don't want to cut a witness off too badly. So does the state have another available witness? Yes, I believe I have actually two and I think they're both short that, but I'm crossing my fingers and how can I be sure of that for the. OK, let's go ahead and say Sedgwick's we call this PA. Oh, I'm not sure where it went. It was under the bar where Rubinow was going to. [16:03:15][616.0] [16:03:15] Tell you to remember not to lock your knees if you're going to stay in there to long, we're going to pass out there. You apparently the witnesses are on the other side of the [16:04:11][56.4] [678.5] [16:04:11] courthouse. No go in. If we get somebody to go and check and move the process along, there we go. Oh, thank you for asking. Just what everybody's. So I told you the whole truth and nothing but the truth. I do see. Yes. OK, All right. Please state your name for the record and spell it, please. Kelly pa kelly p r r. Right. And please give us the name of your parents, Randall and and PA. All right. And are you familiar with the location of two, three, two satellite drive. Very familiar. I grew up there. OK, so I hate to ask you about what years were you there when you grew up? Oh, no, let's see. Sixty nine through 85. 86. Yeah, right. So about 85. 86. You left the family home to go to college. Right. All right. Did your parents leave at that time? No. Now they've been there. Well they were there for about fifty years. When did they eventually sell the house and move out. Jilli sent 2000, 19 or 20. Oh gosh. I guess I didn't think about that. Was it during the pandemic or before the pandemic could question. It was during. So it was twenty twenty. That's it. All right. So you still live in Brunswick County? I do. St. Simons. And I'm going to direct your attention specifically into the fall of 2008. Into the first two months of twenty twenty. How often would you go over to your parents house at two three to settle a drive? Usually about once a week, usually on Sundays. What time on Sundays would you usually go over afternoon to? We'd stay until seven or eight sometimes. Now, specifically, when you say we are you two, are you talking about me and my son, my six year old son? And were your parents at this time living alone? Just the two of them at two, three to still drive? Yes. All right. So I am going to director attention specifically to February 23 of twenty twenty, that particular Sunday for you at two, three, two satellite drive that day. I was not there that day. And had you been at the house previous to that, like in the week or two beforehand. Most likely, like I said, we usually would go there about once a week on Sundays. So most likely. All right. So prior to February 2013 or twenty, was there a bullet hole in your parent's front window? No, definitely. Right now on that particular day of February. Twenty third. Twenty twenty. Were you talking to your dad on the phone? I was. I was. And I guess the reason I know that we I was not out there well, for obvious reasons, but also my son's birthday was two days later. We made plans to see them Tuesday instead of Sunday. So, yes, I was talking to him on the phone and he was telling me about what he was seeing out the window and during the conversation, he said, oh, my God, there's a hole in the hole in the window. It's cracked. And so he kind of was shocked and then hung up and said, I'll call you back. I said, Yeah. Did you ever get over there to see the hole in the window? Eventually, eventually, I think maybe a week later or a few days later, I'm not sure. I can't remember exactly the time. So hard for you to testify. You and I have met. We've talked. Right. All right. And did you get a review, some photos of the house? Yes. All right. So I'm going to show you what's already been admitted into evidence. State's exhibit one oh five. What is the jury looking at here? Six zero five. That's my parents house or formerly my parents house. Right. So what we're looking at, what else is is that the evidence right there? Two, three, two. Still drive right. Plus the jury looking there. That's also the front of my parents house. And then was this the window at, I believe, that your father was talking to you about? Right. That's the one at the far end, the left side of the house as you're looking at it. Yeah, this one, I believe it was the one on the end there. Yeah, that one. The left. One right. That's the. Now, when we take a look at state's exhibit 114 and we see this right here, had that hole been there before now? No, Now when you're over on Sunday, where do you and your son and your parents generally congregate? We usually say in the back of the house, in the family room, there's glass. The doors back there looks over the river. So we spend most of the time back there and ever any time here in this front room, sometimes we would go in that room. I play music, I play guitar and sing, and my mom does, too. So sometimes we would go in that room and sing and play so Dad could watch the TV and we wouldn't bother him right. So I want to ask you now is at some point in time prior to February, twenty third of twenty twenty. Do you recall ever seeing a young man at the construction site that's on the way, your parent's house? Yes, I do recall that. I'm not exactly sure when it was if it was maybe December or January. I'm not really sure exactly when it was. But I do remember driving by and I believe it was a Sunday, as usual, afternoon. It was still light outside. And I looked over and I saw someone in the the doorframe. There wasn't a door there. And he was just standing in the doorframe and we just kind of looked at each other as I drove by, it was this young man, white, black, Asian or Hispanic. He was a black man. He was very tall. You going to keep going? Well, describe him. Sure. Go ahead and get a description. He from what I remember, he had like I guess they were like basketball shorts on and I believe high top sneakers and a T-shirt. And, yeah, he just he looked very tall. I remember thinking that because of the the doorframe where the location of it was him to what kind of hair he had hair. You I don't remember exactly. I think it was fairly short, maybe a little I guess medium length. It's fuzzy, you know, but yeah. So you're driving your car. It was still light out. Right. OK, any idea what time I mean, you're talking January and December. It was. It was so yeah. So it probably was getting darker at that time. So it must have been maybe four or five I guess. Yeah. But still light out. Still light out. Yeah. Not real bright but it was definitely light out. OK, now to kind of pin this down, do you remember who it was before Christmas or after Christmas. That's a good question. I wish I could remember, but I'm just not totally sure. I'm not sure. Yeah. I think most likely after Christmas I feel like it was late December, early January. I'm not totally sure. OK, and I'm going to show you one twenty six. Would that help you standing right. Those in that door on the right side there, I believe. Yeah. I'm going to go put it up there soon, OK. Yeah, that's good. All right, let's look at states one twenty six. So I'm just going to point was it the store. Right that door right there. And when you drove by, did you make eye contact with them? I did. OK, any waving or saying hi now? OK, I just I, I remember having a dialog in my head. Should I tell you about that. Like, just what I thought. I thought I was driving by and I thought, what is he doing there? And then I thought, no, Kelly, don't be racist. He's probably working on the house and then Adult will know he doesn't have a tool belt on. So I wonder what he's doing there, you know, just the whole thing. So we were just looking at each other and I wasn't really sure. And I just, you know, kept driving so that that was like a split second thought process in my head, like one or two seconds. So. Yeah, but no. Yeah, no rule. He didn't like, hide or anything. He was just looking at me so. [16:16:18][726.5] [16:16:18] OK, so tell me about that. So, so his reaction, he makes eye contact with you. Was he. Yeah. He just, just looks at me. Yeah. I just, I, you know, I felt like I guess I could have waved but you know. Did he try and duck inside. No. Now just because look. And he did run away. No. Just stood there. Just stood there. And you were interviewed. I just want to make sure on May 7th, 2020 does. That's about right. That sounds about right. All right. All right. One question on. I'm going to go ahead and pass over to the defense attorneys. They may have some questions for you. OK, thank you. Was I was or my name is Bob Rubin and I represent Travis MacMichael. As I understand it, your parents, do they still live in Seattle? Assures no. They sold their house in July twenty twenty and moved to Florida, to Jacksonville. OK, but you grew up there at least for a good number of years. And then I went off to college and eventually came back to Glen County and lived right on the act. Right, exactly. But you would go check on your parents, celebrate anniversaries, birthdays, holidays, and then just make sure that their general welfare was good, right? Exactly. Very close with your parents. How long did they live in satellite shores before they moved to Florida? I believe is about fifty years. So a long time. So they're getting up there in age by twenty twenty in the eighties. Right, exactly. And there came a point where they and you were concerned about crime in the neighborhood. [16:18:29][131.1] [16:18:30] They had told me a few things had happened here recently or before that previous to that time. Yeah. Previous to to February 24th. Right. Right, right. And and as their daughter, I assume that concerned you, Dan, did you ask them to install any surveillance cameras or alarm system or anything like that? [16:18:51][20.9] [16:18:52] They did actually have an alarm system. They didn't have cameras, but they did have an alarm alarm system that they had been in disrepair for a long time. And then I think maybe six months before this happened, they did start it up again. So, yeah, it made you feel better, that's for sure. Absolutely. So when you would go visit them over the preceding, let's say, from February 2013, twenty back six, 12 months, you go during the evening and then you would go in the daytime depending on why you would go. Most of the time it would be in the afternoon and then we would stay until the early evening actually. And you'd be there and sometimes you'd be inside celebrating with them or hanging out with them. Sometimes you'd be outside enjoying the weather. Right, for a walk with them. I assume you have children? I do. I have one son. So sharing your grand your son with the program right there. Grant with them. Yeah, exactly. Yeah. Yeah. During. [16:19:58][65.9] [16:19:58] The times that you were there in satellite stores at their house walking around the neighborhood, would it be fair to say that you never saw a moderate jogging in the neighborhood? I don't believe so, no, I don't think so. And when you were interviewed by I believe it was agents Hamilton and Carns back in May, if you had seen Mr. Aubury prior to February 2013, you would have told them. Well, I did see him. You know, I think it was him in the house, but I didn't. Yeah, right. I would have said. I would have said I saw him. John Right. Exactly. Yeah. So the one time that you did see him happen to be this one time in late December and January in the afternoon. Right. Right. And you saw a man standing in the door frame without the door at 220 satellite drive. Right. No toolbelt now. No reason you could discern from looking at him why he would be in an empty house. Right. That was under construction, right? I guess so. Yeah. OK, in fact, if you checked yourself, but it did cross your mind, why is this guy in that house right. Right on up. Was it. We think it was a Sunday, so that's why I was kind of questioning it, right. Yeah. And then you checked yourself and you know, one to make sure they weren't stereotyping or. Exactly. Exactly. Um, did you talk to your. [16:21:32][93.7] [16:21:32] Parents about that, that you saw this man in the house? I don't think I did. I think I just really drove away thinking no big deal. You know, I don't think so. But you were aware of their concerns not only about crime in the neighborhood, but specifically about break ins at [16:21:50][18.1] [1056.1] â?<â?<[16:21:50] Mr. Englishes house. [16:21:51][1.0] [16:21:52] I think about that. I'm trying to think if it was specific to that house, what I had heard, I think I just had heard that that was just General things being stolen. I'm trying to think of when I actually found out about the things that they have, that house being stolen. It's a good question. I think it was more just a general. There had been some things stolen in the neighborhood that made me concerned. I don't know that it was specific to that house. So at that time, you drove by in December, January, you were not you personally were not aware of items being stolen from Mr. Anderson? I don't think so. Yeah. All right. I know it's I'm trying to answer as truthfully as I can. I'm just trying to remember. I understand. Yeah. Did you at some point, I believe it was in June of to meet with Mr. Lee Wilson reformats that operacion. Yeah. Uh, I was on well OK. I was gonna say, what would that be? And reference to that in reference to this case, telephone conversation with Mr. Wilson to remember. I can't remember. I'm sorry. That's OK. I'm sorry. When you learned about this case in the shooting incident on February 23, did you reach out to the Glynn County police to tell them that you saw a man you were pretty certain was a robbery at that house? [16:23:41][108.4] [16:23:42] I don't think I reached out. I do think somebody did call me and ask me about that, though. Now that you're saying I think I remember talking to somebody about it, but I did. I don't think I reached out to anybody. I think they called me because I think they talked to my dad who said Dr. Kelly. Right. Who said, call me. Yeah, OK. OK, give me one second. OK, thank you, Mr. Powell. That's all I know is that OK, Your Honor, redirect. Please do not say that Mr. Ricci also subject to. Yes. Sorry, you're going to long and you can you're free to leave. You are subject to recall. OK, thank you. Thank you. From State and this time of state. Recall. Mr. Richardson. Richardson. Yes. I thought you said just put your hands on a try to tell the truth, whole truth and nothing but the truth. I did receive. OK, all right. Please state your name and spell it for the record. Kara Richardson, ccra RISC JRD so with. All. [16:26:54][191.6] [16:26:54] Right, And how are you currently employed? I'm the director of the Glen and Brunswick number one center of what does the Glen Brunswick 911 Center do. So we process all were responsible for the primary. Well, actually, the only piece at which the public safety answering point for going county. So all 911 calls go through us and we do all sorry, public safety despatching as well. OK, so what's the difference between public safety despatching and all the 911 calls that come in? So the calls are processed by well, there's a myriad of technology that makes the calls come to us, but essentially we have call takers and we have dispatchers. So we have call takers that process the calls that are inbound and dispatchers that will send the appropriate response. OK, so so that I'm clear for I'm the 911 operator. I'm taking the call for somebody is calling for an emergency. Right. Right. Am I also at that time, sir, typing in stuff into the report or my dictating it to somebody else or how's this work right. So we don't do an actual report. We do a record, a call, which is, you know, it's a it's a public record of an inbound call. And the police officers or fire department, the respective agencies will do a report based off of the audio, their observations and the notes. And these calls. So, yes, that's what happens. So someone while they're so say someone calls in. Is someone typing this in? Yes. OK, now the dispatcher person, are they the one who is now going, hey, EMS, you need to go here, fire. You need to go there sometimes. If you're busy. If we're busy, everybody can answer the radio or excuse me, the phone and or the radio. But we try to keep the respective particularly the police dispatchers off the phones. But if we have an accident on and five or something like that where we get inundated with calls, anybody can be answering that and directing responders at the same time. Gotcha. And you oversee this entire process. Yes. Are you also the custodian of record for these records? Generated from the 911 call center? Yes. And within the 911 call center, how many people generally work a shift like a daytime shift? We have to have a minimum of six on the floor, but we typically have between six and eight. And as part of the record keeping in the normal course of business for the Glen Brunswick 911 Center, do you keep both the written record as well as the audio file? We have five and the audio file is basically what the the 911 caller and the person receiving the call. Correct. We also have audio files of radio traffic that we keep on record as well. Right. So prior to coming to court today, have we met? We have. All right. And have we also kind of gone over the relevant 911 one calls that were given to the GBI in regard to the investigation at the homicide of Watari? Yes, ma'am. All right. And if you had the opportunity to review those calls as well as review the CAD reports? Yes, [16:30:24][210.4] [511.4] [16:30:24] ma'am. And any extractions? Yes, ma'am. OK, so let's go ahead and at this time, for expediency sake, the state is going to tender State's Exhibit 141 and 142. The 911 call from February. Twenty third twenty twenty made by Matt L. Benzi. Which one is it? Which one is sure. Forty 141 and 142. 141 being the audio call four nine one one four. Matteo Renzi on February 2013. Twenty twenty and 142 being the Associated Press reports. Got no objection. No objection, no objection. Next, the state will enter into evidence state's exhibit 144 being the nine one one call by Greg McMichael from February 2013 Twenty twenty and the Associated CAD Report 145 nine one one can report for rank and file. In addition, State's Exhibit 146, the sequential export extraction from that CAD report. No objection. Objection, no objection. The statement tendered to evidence as State's Exhibit 147, the nine one one call made by Greg Bikel from July 13th of 2010 team along with 148 the Associated Attacapa. No objection. No objection. No objection. The state will tender into evidence state's exhibit 149, 150 and 151 one the nine one one call by Larry English from October 25th. Twenty nineteen parts one and two, along with the Associated CAD report at 151 149 and one to the other to call one ten twenty one. The objection. No objection. The third stable will to enter into evidence state's exhibit one fifty three point fifty four one fifty five being the nine one one calls for Larry English from November 17th. Of twenty nineteen along with the Associated CAD Report States Exhibit 156. I got 156 calls noted. No objection. Objection. The state will enter into evidence that state's exhibit 157. The 911 call by Larry English from November 18th. Twenty nineteen along with the Associated CAD report 158 of actions. No objection, no objection. The state will enter into evidence state's exhibit 159 and the associate had reported 160 of the nine one one call by Larry English from December 1st, 2019. Objection. No objection, no objection. Write and the state will tender in a state's exhibit 161, the nine one one call by Travis McMichael from January 1st of twenty, twenty and 162 The Associated CAD Report. Objection. No objection. No objection admitted. In addition, the state will tendered to evidence that state's 163 the nine one one call by Travis McMichael from February 11th, 2020 and the Associated CAD report as State's Exhibit 164. Objection. Your objection. No objection. All right. So, Mr. Richardson, if I live in Brunswick and or Glen County and I call nine one one, how does it get to you in April from our you know, most of our calls are now wireless. It'll hit off of a tower and it's supposed to roll due to the appropriate P. S. So I believe on the county line, there is a chance sometimes that you might hit Camden, but for the most part, they're routed as they should be. All right. So if somebody is a tourist and they're out on St. Simons Island and they want to dial 911 one for something in Savannah, that's not going to work right? It doesn't work that way. They're going to get nine one one here in St. Simons and Oakland County. It's been all right now. Is there also a non emergency line that can be called in order to get to basically the police to report something? There is, right. And so if someone were to call that non-emergency line, would they go to the exact same dispatch location? It depends if they're calling the three six, four or five number, which is our primary non-emergency number for because we are a separate entity, it will go directly to us. Some of the departments will for their calls to us after hours. So it does get bored it to us. But, you know, for the most part, they are going to be answering their own calls during normal their non-emergency calls during normal work work hours. So somebody calls Brunswick PD just directly, but no one's there to pick up. It could get routed to you. Right? Right. Now, if somebody is, for instance, in Douglas, Georgia, OK, but they want to call that something is happening in Glynn County. Do they call they call nine one one in Douglas. They're going to get Douglas, right? Correct. So they need to call a non-emergency line to get to dispatch. Right. And just to clarify, the only time that could happen is if you are on a VoIP, because VoIP will basically bring to no one location that [16:36:28][363.3] [16:36:28] you're registered at. So that's that's the only exception. Of course, landlines are a direct mail go directly to the piece of their respective peace out. All right. So I'm on a landline and I'm in my house in St. Simons. That's just going to automatically tell you where I am and that's where you're going to sue the staff. Yes, ma'am. OK, all right. So first thing I want to go ahead and take a look at is going to be state's exhibit. Have you look at 142 and 143? All right. Take a look at one forty three and 142 and go ahead and tell us what the difference is between those two documents. OK, this is the computer. This is the one we intercept. They get to our we're basically telling the story when we enter anything into CAD, which is their computer aided dispatch. And it's it's a chronological story of events as we are are told are unfolding or happening. So this is a CAD report and this is going to be the script that is annotated along with you. We said this was the document that you're referring to, 142. I'm sorry. Thank you. Thank you, Judge. So 142 is the story. It is. And 143 is going to be. I can't remember the specific name of this, but this is what comes with we download our audio from from our I'm sorry, our reporter. OK, my apologies. That's all right. I'm going to go ahead and take state's 142 and 143 back from you. I don't know that that has a technical name, [16:39:00][152.8] [16:39:00] but what we've got so the jury can kind of see this is 142. I'm sorry, who's going to make sure 143. It's I don't have a list of this new tenderhearted. Oh, I apologize if I failed to tender 143, the state will tender State's Exhibit 143 as a sequential export of the CAD report 142 being the recording from one forty one. He has no objection to. So when we're looking here at at the CAD report, we end up first with what? Right here. What is this a call like that. That your name. Oh, the serial number. And then what's the nature. The nature is suspicious person activity package, all encompassing vehicle. And then when we're looking down here in this particular instance, what is the date we're looking at in state's exhibit one? Forty two to twenty of 2020. And then what is the time, thirteen point twenty four. Is that military time? It is. All right. And who is our caller, Matt? So when we look down below, this is just something someone else typed in as they were speaking with Mr. about say? Yes, ma'am. All right. So then when we look at one forty three, which is the export, does this give us the same date and time right here? It does. And then what's d you are the duration. I believe that's the duration. [16:40:50][109.2] [16:40:51] Of the call. All right. And then it says it came into Glynn County. Mean what does that mean. So that actually came for that didn't come from number one line that came into our main line at. So our non-emergency line, non-emergency line. So then direct your attention to state one forty five states, one forty five. Is that the exact same call number as the previous one as well. Put them up so that you can see my place. So that's exactly call it is. OK, so when two people end up calling in minutes apart, but it seems to be about the same incident, does it end up on the same category? Typically, yes. Oh, I love it at once. It's hard to determine if that in fact does is the same incident that's going on. So for instance, you can have a part two car wrecks that has to do with each other. Right. OK, but in this case, we have this combined CAG report. Yes. Been all right. So when we look at this and we go down here, we actually have right here. What are those words? Another caller. All right. So just so I know this type, this is related to this time of day. Yes, ma'am. OK, so then this type would be related to that time of day? Yes, ma'am. And then another caller that we relate to this time of day. Correct. OK, so I got a question for you here. This time and date says thirteen, fifteen, forty eight. Right. All right. Is being taken in by Parker. Is that Philip Parker? He's one of our own. If you're not gonna want people. Yes, ma'am. All right. But when we look at state's exhibit one forty six, I related to the specific phone call from Greg McMichael. What time do we actually have right there? Thirteen. Fourteen 09. Right. And what was the duration on that? Four minutes. Forty six seconds. OK, why is there a discrepancy showing this as a thirteen fourteen nine call versus this one where it says another caller at fourteen fifteen forty eight. Right. So I believe what happened and again they don't necessarily remember exactly what they did with the thousands of calls they process. But when that caller called in, he was naming that he was in the neighborhood. So we don't create a residence hall. We can't really create a record, a call without having a good idea at the location. And the location has got to go in and validated a lot of the nature of call before that call is created. And I think what happened and what he believes happened is when he was trying to get where that was at, he realized, OK, this is related to this call. And so instead of instead going with that particular particular cat event, he went ahead and put the information on the existing record a call. OK, so there was a time lag between the hey, this is coming in at 13, 14 or nine. And I think it's related to this. So there's a later time when he actually types it in. Yes, ma'am. Right. But they got associated correct. From at this time, the state is going to publish state's exhibit 140 for oh, nine one one was the address emergency. Oh, I'm not here. So what's yours is a white male running down the Delaware where we're at fertilizer's. I don't know. What's he. Well, it's not that bad, is it? Right. Sir. Hello, sir. Sir, we. Hello. Hello, Hello. Stopping. [16:46:25][334.0] [16:46:26] In the noises and voices we hear in the background of that, where's that from? That's from inside the center right. Does anyone ever come back on the line in this call? No, ma'am. Moving forward now to state's exhibit one forty eight, one forty seven. Let's take a look at one forty eight. So what is our call number up here on state's exhibit 148 eight eight seven two three zero? And what do we have? Seven. Thirteen to twenty nineteen. And what time? 1814. Ten. Right. And is this Mr. Parker taking us again? It is. And what address do we have making the 911 call, two three zero Sotelo drive. And who is the person? I think Michael, this time the state will publish one forty seven. Your brother and communications operator, 94 four. My sister. Hey, this is my and let's that the VA's office is there a supervisor available. I might be able to speak short just a moment. And now you can in the dispatch supervisor or police supervisor, please. Supervisor. It will be fine. OK, I wanted to make it OK and. All right. And what was your name? Greg Smith. Michael. OK, and a contact number for you now. What do you want, seven one seven to serve. Then call me back. OK, and then in your address, sir. Thirty oscillograph. We've got a lot of places in this area who are automobile Reykjanes and my son and I just discovered a guy we think he may be living a creek bridge on seventeen. We just want to make contact with real shady looking fella and, you know, possibility he may be a witness and breaking into all of his automobile. I just want to make somebody aware, somebody there were no anyone. You won't talk to a supervisor or any anything, but that would be fine. OK, just ah, I'll have somebody give you a call now when they give you a call is going to come in as walked unknown or unregistered. So be prepared to answer that. OK, at nine one two two one seven one seven two six. That's correct, yes. OK. All right. Thank you. Thank you so now referred to State's Exhibit 161 and 162, looking at one sixty two right now. What is our call number nine eight nine one eight zero and what is our day. It is one one or two thousand twenty. What time. Eleven oh five thirty nine. And what is the location of the call. Two three zero sitilides. And who's making the call? Travis MacMichael. At this time, the state will publish State's Exhibit 161. Lambros Communications operated the United States. Yes, I need a police officer. I got a little from self E, which I'm a police officer. I need to report a stolen pistol. OK, what's the address? It was stolen from two thirty until they dropped it to three. Also to address our you name McMichaels phone number misselling Michael Namwon to four two three one three four. What kind of dollars is the weapon in the formula twenty is stolen about an hour. Where were you when it got stolen from my father? Is you found this out here? Oh yeah. Right here at the house. End of the you had a number four by any chance of paperwork on it at all? I can get it for right now. I might have got it from around here. My there's nothing more. I might have thought I would probably go in the I could today or I'm pretty certain it was within the house. My my father for me. I came out an hour later and the whole school thought that this is in what kind of trouble is stolen out of a 2011 for nothing else. How you transfer from what the child with. I believe we should have asked to come out. All right. I'll be out here with the AFIRM. Thank you for that. And then direct your attention to state's exhibit one. Sixty three and one sixty four. What is our number one zero one two one six four. All right. And what time do we have? Nineteen twenty seven thirteen and February 11, two thousand twenty five. And what location to two zero Sotelo Drive. And who is making the phone call? Travis Michael. Right. And what is this address here? That's the lat long that is affiliated with the phone. So he called nine one one from a cell phone from his cell phone. This time the state will publish state's exhibit 163. No one was the address of your emergency. It's a telegraph to the Telegraph. What's going on? We've got a we've had a string of burglaries. I was live in the neighborhood and I just got a gun running into a house, built two houses down from me. When I turned around, he took off running into the house. OK, what did it look like? The black male red shirt, white sort of thing. You saw the House of the is being built. This house was vacant. Right now he's in the house. What's your name? Phone number, sir. Travis met Michael down to forty three point thirty seven four. All right. Where are you at now? I am sitting right across the street in watching the house, watching the house right now. I hear it's about what kind of truck are you in for [16:58:25][719.4] [1162.7] [16:58:18] I hear it's about what kind of truck are you in for responsibility? You OK? Yeah. Yeah, well, and I just thought of me when I turned around, when I turned around and saw him back up, he reached into his pocket. He ran into the house. So I don't know if he's armed or not, but he looked like he was acting like he was demand for that. OK, what's pocket? Any reason to believe? OK, and now so two thirty in the making it address. It's no, it's my address. Your address is a 246, maybe twenty six possibly. How many houses down is it from here. It's two towards the Howard you got. I guess you don't realize we're here. He's got the lights on right now. He's got a flashlight in the house and the OK, you just stay where you're at so the officers will know we'll do. Now stay on the line with you until they get there, just in case anything changes your. So you said he was a black male. Did he have hair on his head? Any other features you can tell me about? I couldn't tell you how he was really short hair. OK, when he. Tall, short. Yeah, he's tall. About six foot. There's the neighbors I guess that's the other neighbors showed up for the service alone, but there's no guy. So what happened when you first saw him? He looked behind a bus driver. He was coming through somebody's door. And I looked back and and he was just verbal by got behind a portal to it. And then I backed up and he looked at me when I headed back up to the road and Bruce's pockets kind of watching me, he ran off into the house and back out, went back into the house. And that's what I called Callejo. But we've been having a lot of burglaries and break ins around here lately. And I had a pistol. So on January 1st, actually. And, you know, he he's I've never seen this guy before in the neighborhood, Kitahara. And sure enough, there's water here pretty large. You know, like you say, I'm pulling up. They're not OK, you can go ahead and let me go. OK, but thank you. Bye bye. I will go ahead. Test with his family as the custodian of records for the Public Safety Dispatch. And this may seem like an obvious question to you. Is there any mechanism by which you collect or record phone calls that people make directly to officers? There is not. And are you aware of officers who give out their cell phone numbers to members of different bakers, residents in those different patrol areas? No, I'm not aware. OK, so there isn't anything. If an individual were not to call the regular Glynn County PD, no non-emergency or nine one one, those phone calls would not be collected in any place that you care for. Yes. Thank you. I appreciate it. For the additional folks. [17:04:15][357.0] [17:04:16] I got a redirect on that point. No, Judge. Thank you, ma'am. You may step down. Is she subject to recall? Yes. All right, ma'am, you're free to go today. You are subject to recall. Yes. Thank you, ma'am. All right, ladies and gentlemen, we're at a breaking point for the day. So we're going to go ahead and recess until nine o'clock tomorrow morning. During the break. Again, do not discuss this case as much as they probably start saying it with me. Sandra, do not discuss this case among yourselves or with anybody else. Don't go looking for any information about the case. If anybody approaches you about the case, please notify the court immediately upon your return to the court and we'll see whether that needs to be addressed. So, again, don't go looking for any information. Don't go picking up newspapers or news feeds or social media or whatever it is that may be out there with those instructions. And again, all of the instructions I've given you. Thank you again for your service today. It is appreciated. You're free to go. And we'll see you tomorrow morning at nine o'clock. All right. Anything from the state before we recess? No, just a scheduling update for the quarter. Like when we get rid of anything from the ah,. [17:06:38][141.9] [17:06:38] From Travis. No. Are grateful to you for me. I take it none of the jurors had an issue with Veterans Day on a then we have that schedule we can state. Yes, Your Honor. [17:06:51][12.6] [17:06:51] I believe that we will. I know it's going to be hard to believe we have a stipulation and it's in writing and signed by everyone, which we will publish first thing tomorrow morning and then segue into, I believe, Larry Englishes deposition. We have reviewed the timing of the deposition. It is in three separate videos, but it totals about three hours and 45 minutes. So I want the court to be aware of that. Mr. Camarena will be handling that. And what we're probably going to do is have him seated more here because he needs to be able to put up the evidence at the same time on the split screen for the jury. And we've coordinated that as well. So that's outside the court to be aware. That's why he's probably gonna move his chair up and sit here and that we'll see how that that day goes with our technology tomorrow. And I just wanted the court to be aware of that lengthy deposition presentation. [17:07:45][53.5] [17:07:45] Sue says they're going to break for lunch, but that's my understanding, Your Honor. That way, Mr. Cambria plays the video. I'm sorry. He plays the 911 calls. We have a transcript for the jurors. For each of those calls is for four or five or six Caulfield's. These are these are transcripts created by the district attorney's office that we've all read and reviewed and agreed upon. But I've just asked what was the best way to translate what we charge jurors on transcripts. And I'll tell you the charge to fix normally. And again, this is just generally so I'll run through some of that apply at this time. So I'm going to have to probably give them the charge before we get into it. But at some point during the deposition, you're going to hear a recorded statement. In this case, the only recordings they were talking about are the 911 calls. OK, this is proper evidence for you to consider. Please listen to it very carefully. I'm going to allow you to have a transcript of the recording. So we actually giving them a transcript of the recording. [17:08:58][73.1] [17:08:58] . We only made one copies. [17:09:01][2.5] [17:09:01] So I'm going to lie to have a transcript of the recording prepared by the state. I think the joint exhibit and maybe but let me just get through this just to help you identify speakers and as a guide to help you listen to the recording, if you believe at any point in the transcript says something different from what you hear on the recording. Remember, it is the recording that is the evidence, not the transcript. At any time there is a variation between the recording and the transcript. You must be guided solely by what you hear on the recording and not by what you see in the transcript. Please and please do not read ahead what's generally the charge. [17:09:37][36.5] [17:09:38] I give. I'll tailor that. If there's no objection to using that, I'll go ahead and give that to them. No objection from the state and the defendant, Phil Jackson. No objection. Your. All. [17:09:48][10.0] [17:09:48] Right. Well, it's 10:00 in the morning of OK. I don't think there's anything else. Do we have any idea of doing for the rest of the afternoon? And how would you like about if you want to hear it out? The court planning to start discussing the charge issues at any point this week where we are with the evidence. I have not made that plan yet. We're still preparing a draft charge and the court still working on everything that was given to the. But one of the reasons I'm asking is because I'm anticipating that by the end of the week, we're going to be doing the motions for directed verdict and I'm not going to talk about this. I don't need to talk about the schedule on the record at this point, depending on where we are towards the end of the week. I may ask the state where we are, but at this point, just be clear, still the presentation of evidence, I understood that it would take at least at least a week, possibly two, for the state to get its evidence up. I've got a draft charge that I'm working on and we'll continue to do so. So any insight I can get. But I hope that at this point I need to start putting on the record where we are with the evidence and what we're expecting. Communism. I'm not sure that that's necessary at this point. All right. Thank you, everybody. Based on all of that, then we are in recess. We will reconvene at nine o'clock tomorrow morning. Have a good evening [17:09:48][0.0] [687.1]

TVU 22 AHMAUD ARBERY MURDER TRIAL BRUNSWICK GA CAM 2 POOL 11102021 084500 [09:06:00] >> ---Father to for the flavor issue. We did have brief testimony on that for Mr. Bryan for the record and I'm not suggesting it's going to change anything, but we we don't want to waive that issue or fail to make a record. What's I'm also going to address the panel when they come out this morning on Veterans Day. Just make sure nobody has any bad as they need to address family matters, pay respects or something first thing in the morning. So folks do that. But I do intend to move forward on Veterans Day and continue with the case as to the two open matters, the let me address the can reports first, the working through the testimony and what I understood the investigator to testify to yesterday was that he had pulled information from the Glynn County police database. And my notes and I don't have the actual name of it, but it was not the Glynn County police database. What was a bit confusing to me and what I think we were doing in cross-examination. Mr. Sheffield, you had had reports, correct? They are. They are fair reports. And were the cat reports limited to the satellite George neighborhood? They were limited to the satellite, Shaw's neighborhood and in particular particular addresses. OK, so what I what I heard and this is where the disconnect started in my mind, we were talking about the Glynn County database. I initially thought he had pulled information only because the state had requested it. But then it appears from his testimony associated with Greg McMichaels statements that he actually did do some follow up in that database in order to follow up. When I didn't hear that he had pulled any CAD data, which is a different database. So what you've got is different information than what I heard him testify that he had done done, that he had put, which to the court is important because the question for him then is simply, did he pull the cat ports? Does he know about the if he does or doesn't, then I think that answers the question. If he does know about them, then I think it's wide open to the cross. If it's limited to chores. The explanation from the court is I understand part of what the defense is trying to put up is that in support of Greg MacMichael statement, that there was some there were some things going on in the neighborhood. What those are, I don't know, and how important it is to the case. Ultimately, it's for the jury to determine. So just to be clear, and I think I said this last night, the court's position is not that those CAD reports can't come in. I just don't think this is the witness for it. He never indicated that he pulled the report. You would have any knowledge of it. And he wasn't asked about whether or not he would have knowledge of those reports. So the court indicated, I would think that through a little bit more we were getting a little sidetracked last night. So to clarify, that's where the court is on the California. Thanks for taking a look at what the courts say on the 404. Be opening the door. The court is not at this point that the state is open the door. I understand the arguments of counsel. I've heard them. I understand the testimony about whether or not he was looked at as a suspect is something that I don't think is an argument that's just being thrown out there for the sake of throwing out there. I see that as a serious issue. And I understand that. I understand I think the parties understand the court is very cognizant of whether that door gets opened at some point, in fact, has been told over and over again that that is a flag that may be raised. And if it comes up under appropriate circumstances, the court might rule differently. But at this point, based on the testimony that's been provided, the court is not going to get into it or allow the parties to get into the forum for the evidence. I believe those are the two open matters courthouse. Hopefully, if there are any additional open matters from yesterday, the statement that, you know, my notes did correspond to the conclusions that you reached, with one exception that I wanted to place on the record. It does not seem that there was any indication that either Mr. McCaskey or the officer Marsi was ever pooling the reports for the purpose of seeing if, quote, Ahmad R.E. was a suspect i in those cases. They were fooling the reports to follow up either on the information Greg MacMichael had provided about other crimes in the neighborhood and or the request that Mr. McCaskey had made of that officer to go back to the reports. They failed to address the issue of rising crime in the neighborhood, which the state rejects. So the insertion of the phrase whether Imod artery was assessed is what has tainted that evidence. And I wanted to place that on the record and is what we would argue. The reason why ---------- [09:12:46] In Seattle assures Royal Oaks Fancy Glass, or Highway 17, as the state has indicated, its all big one big, very close area. So to intimate that Ahmad was not a suspect in these reports, we all could tell that was kind of a useless question because the officer there's no way that he went and investigated a suspicious person report and we're not allowed to get into the content of those suspicious persons reports in case those identifying characteristics are consistent with a modern breed. We're we are following the court's ruling that we are not talking about Ahmad Arborists criminal history or suspicions of criminal [09:13:36][49.5] [09:13:35] acts outside of what was taking place at 20 Satullo Drive. So with that caveat, I wanted to state opposition from the defendant's position. The court has already ruled this, but I understand that we're ready for the panel to start having your next witness ready. Yes, sir, we do. OK. All right. Let's go to all rights reserved. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. All right. Welcome back. We are ready to proceed. Before we do, I do want to take care of just a little bit of housekeeping and make sure everybody's aware of what the court's plan is as far as the schedule. Normally, Veterans Day is a holiday and the court is closed. But given the way this case is moving forward, what I'm planning on doing is keeping the court open on Veterans Day and moving forward on that day with testimony. Now, I do know that some and obviously for good reasons, do pay respects or do other things on Veterans Day. So I'd like to know from you and you don't you don't need to tell me now, but send me a note if there's an issue that you have on Veterans Day, and I'll go ahead and see if I can get that addressed and make sure I understand exactly what that that need is. But at this point, for planning purposes, do plan to be in court on Veterans Day. So, again, if you need to get a note to me, you're welcome to do so. But with that, it's all the housekeeping I've got for this morning. We are ready to proceed with the evidence, as I understand. Again, I want to thank you for being here with us in Glynn County. And in the Superior Court state. Ready to proceed. Yes. On this said at this time, the state will call Detective Roderick Nogo sort of truth, whole truth and nothing but the truth that. All right, Detective, please state your name is spelled for the record. Broadridge No, Hili are ODP risc last name and no h i l l y all right, detective. No. How are you currently employed? I'm a sergeant patrol the Gwinnett County Police Department. And how long have you been with the Glynn County Police Department? For six [09:18:16][280.8] [09:18:16] years. And your entire time in law enforcement. Has it been with the Glynn County Police Department? No, I worked for Brunswick Police Department before and for about three and a half years. So you're coming up on twenty years? I am. All right. And are you currently a post certified law enforcement officer? I am. And you're a sergeant over patrol. So what do you do now? Supervise patrol shifts and at those the officers who drive around the cars? Yes. All right. Do you drive around in a car? I drive around. Oh, yes. All right. Do you respond to nine one one calls? I do. Are you assigned to any particular baker? No. You're over all of them. Yes. All right. So at any point time with your tenure in Glynn County, have you been assigned to CID or in any capacity investigating things like homicides, armed robberies and things like that? Yes, I was assigned as a criminal investigator in the Criminal Investigation Division. And when was that? The first time? From 2000 to end of 2014. Second from twenty eighteen to two months of this year, being of twenty twenty one. Gotcha. All right. So I'm going to direct your attention specifically to February. Twenty third, twenty twenty in the evening at the Glynn County Police Department headquarters where you present there that time. Yes. All right. So what we're going to talk about specifically is an interview with Greg McMichael. OK, yes. All right. Now, you're not the one who conducted the initial interview with Greg McMichael. Did you know? All right. You then became involved because you stopped by. Yes, I just stopped by. I was standing by while someone else was doing a statement for I was just waiting and did you know Greg McMichael prior to February? Twenty third of twenty twenty. I did tell the jury how you knew Greg Microclimates, February five that twenty twenty. I knew him as one of the investigators at the DA's office here. He would come to our station, deliver subpoenas here and there, and I would talk to him, you know, professionally. And how long had you known him professionally? Since at least 2005. So any personal relationship like out to dinner or anything like that? No, So when you stopped by, was he still in the interview room and was the recording still going? This was when Jesse was sorry. That was a bad question. So he was still in the interview room? Yes, he was. And you stopped by to talk to him? Yes. Did he? Great to speak with you. Freely. Voluntarily, yes. And what was kind of the nature tone of the conversation you had with them? We were just talking about what happened and he was telling me what happened. All right. So I'm going to hand you what has already earmarks and admitted into evidence as state's exhibit two to five a night prior to coming to court today. Have you had an opportunity to chance to find a transcript of the interview with Greg and Michael? All right. And I'm going to direct your attention at this time specifically to page fifty nine of that transcript. All right. All right. Now, I'm going to have you specifically give the jury the quotes from your conversation with him starting at line two. What did you ask Greg MacMichael? What's his name, the one who owns this house now? We say the one who owns this house. What house are you referring to? The house that was under construction, a few doors down from his home. And what was his answer to you? I have no idea. I never met him. Never met him. I what is the next question that you asked Greg MacMichael? Did this guy break into a house today? And what did Greg Michael say in response from line eight to line thirteen? Well, that's just it. I don't know. That's what I told. I told what's your name out there? I said, listen, you might want to go knock on doors down there because this guy had just done something that he was fleeing from. And I don't know, you know, [09:18:16][0.0] [09:23:29] you might have gone he might have gone in somebody else's house, OK, somebody's house. So when he says that's just it, I don't know. That's what I told. What's her name out there? Do you have any idea who what's her name out there is? I'm suing at times. Sergeant Oliver. OK, so he's talking about is telling the law enforcement officer out there that they needed to go figure out what he might have done. Yes. OK, I'm going to go ahead and direct your attention then to the very next page. Sixty of the transcript for your attention specifically to line seven. What did you ask him? Have you ever seen him before? And we say, have you ever seen him before? Who you referring to? A lot of the time we didn't know his identity. So, you know, his name was at this time. So have you ever seen him before? What did Gregory Michael say? No, no. I'd never laid eyes on the guy. You then say, OK, what does Mr. Michael then say? Nobody in that neighborhood, or at least nobody that has seen the video that this guy has, that this guy has has has a clue who he is. I know that that was difficult. OK, so nobody in that neighborhood or at least nobody that has seen the video that this guy has has a clue who he is. Yes. What did you ask next? Did he put it out on Facebook or something? The video now, who is he that you're talking about? Did he put it out on Facebook? The owner of the house on the construction site? What was Mr. Gregory Michael's response? I don't know. He may have, but so he says I don't know about this video being put out on Facebook. Correct. And then did you ask how many people in the neighborhood have seen this video? What was his response? I know that Diego has and and then you asked him who Diego was. Right. It's Diego, the guy that the other guy that came in. He says Phragmites says no, that is so. Then you ask him who Diego was, right? Yes. All right. So going on to the next page at the top, you ask him who Diego is on line three. What does drug use Michael say? So he can tell you who Diego is. Diego is the little short Hispanic guy that lives two doors down from the open house, the construction house that was able to give you Diego's last name. Not so [09:23:29][0.0] [09:26:36] So I'm going to go ahead and then direct your attention to specifically page sixty five. And at this point in time, are you asking Greg McMichael to speculate as to what was going through the mind of moderate? If you look at the line on page sixty with that recollection about what you're talking about here, which take a look at lines 22 through twenty four on page 64. Yes. 092640 PROSECUTOR>> So when asking Greg McMichael to speculate about what's going through the mind of Ahmaud Marbury, what does Greg McMichael say on lines three through six? >> â?oHe -- he was -- he was trapped like a rat. I think he was wanting to flee and he realized that something you know, he was not going to get away. PROSECUTOR>> Ok, and then I think you indicated and well -- well --- I'll ask you, what did you then say to him based on this: â?oHe was trapped like a rat. I think he was wanting to flee and he realized he was not going to get away?â?? [09:27:15] But you said, yeah, but he could have run around your son, right? What's he say? Sure. Right now, would you say? From what I can tell in the video, I mean, the whole road is there. So you had seen the video at this point time that you're talking to? Grab me myself. I had seen it on scene briefly. So at that point, time was great. If I could say to you is lines twelve through sixteen. [09:28:36][120.0] [09:28:41] Faster. [09:28:41][0.0] [09:28:42] Than Travis would ever be, he had opportunity to flee further. You know, we had chased him around the neighborhood a bit, but he wasn't winded at all. Continue and what's the next line? Just on sticks? I mean I mean, this guy was he was in good shape. Five now, after speaking with Greg, if Michael was Greg, Michael then free to leave and did he, in fact, leave? Yes, of course. The witness is, you know, actually moving this program is going to apply that. When is and I work. Thank you. On this year. And really, I'm Franco. Got to represent Greg MacMichael. This is my wife. Law partner. She represents him with police. Have a few questions for you today. And I want to go back to where you were with the state just now. And let's start excuse me. Let's start on. [09:30:16][94.4] [09:30:20] Page fifty nine. And. [09:30:23][3.4] [09:30:23] You were asked to read the section from lines two to thirteen. You tell me when you're with me [09:30:23][0.0] [217.8] [09:30:31] And this is the topic concerning no clue who he was. He referring to Ayman arbitrary that time on that day when this all happened right at the contact. You repeat that. I'm sorry, I was looking OK, this is a section where I just called it. No clue who he was. That was the point of it. Right. The section you were in. Right. All right. Well, we can reread it then. If it's summing it up isn't good enough, let's just make sure he's on the same page right here. Page fifteen, blind to go ahead and read to 313 to yourself. That's what he read to the jury. Spumante, particularly Lyons, a thirteen or Greg McMichaels telling you that's just it. I don't know. That's what I told. And you said it was Sergeant Oliver that he was talking to What's-Her-Name. He said I said, listen, you might want to go knock on doors because this guy has just done something that he was fleeing from. And I don't know, you know, he might have gone in somebody's house. And you're understanding and the content was when Mr. McMichaels telling you, I don't know, he didn't know the person's name action as to this officer's understanding of the context, it's not relevant. It's his context of what Mr. MacMichael was saying to him, that I'm trying to establish. Well, again, you're right. You're asking him about what Greg MacMichael was thinking and to explain his statements. Let's just rely upon his statements. If it's relevant in any other way, that's fine. But let's not characterize this witness. Characterize somebody else's statements, statements and records. All right. Mr. Michael couldn't tell you a Marbury's name could be correct because he said he didn't know his name, didn't he? Correct. All right. Well, let's go on with that page to get further context here. [09:32:51][140.0] [09:32:53] You go on to ask him. I'm in line fourteen. You were the first one to see him. That was a question from you. And Mr. MacMichael said, yeah, well, I guess I don't know if somebody else saw him running. I think anything about it. But when he came past my house, Mr. Monk is just now reading this section as opposed to asking this officer what it is. In addition, it has absolutely nothing to do with the real complete. This has nothing to do with what was above at all. I was talking about context for statements and said these are the words of Greg McMichael that come in a couple different ways. Let's get to the context question, because I just make sure let's get to the question part of it. This is the question. This is what. [09:33:45][52.6] [09:33:46] Greg McMichael was saying to you immediately after telling you he didn't know the name of the person he saw running in his neighborhood. Right. That's the context of what we're talking about. Correct. As far as line sixteen on the right. Yes. OK, and so what I'm doing with you investigating Haley, is I'm just reading the words on the transcript and you're affirming. Yes, that's what Greg McMichaels said to me. That's the form of all these questions. All right. You with me? Yes. OK, good deal. So going on, he says, but when he came past my house, he was he met the description of the guy that Travis had seen run in that that empty house, you know, two weeks ago or however long ago it was, you say. Yeah, and Mr. Right. Michael, so far I'm reading accurately, am I not? Yes. And then line twenty three, Greg. Michael, I mean, to a T plus he met the description of the video I had seen of this guy being in their short dreads and over the line one on page sixty you say. Yeah. And Mr. Greg MacMichael says white t shirt, short pants. I mean plus he was hauling ass and and you know, this he was running like people don't run normally. He wasn't out for a Sunday jog. He was getting the hell out of there. I read all that accurately. Yes. And context. You know, he's told [09:33:46][0.0] [192.6] [09:35:32] you he doesn't know this person's name. He's telling you, in effect, why he suspected him and then chased characterization, suspect. OK, you understood what he was talking about, right? I knew you were involved in the conversation and the words he was conveying back to you in response to your questions to him were understandable to you, were they not? You knew what he was talking about. Yes. OK, very good. So now let's go over to page sixty five. The other part of the transcript, the state distributed, they. [09:36:27][54.4] [09:36:27] Read the part on sixty five, page three, line three, rather, down to line sixteen. In. [09:36:41][13.9] [09:36:41] Line sixteen is where the conversation was in the middle of Greg McMichaels comments to you about Aubrey, where he said, I mean, this guy, he was in good shape. You with me. Yes. OK, and then he goes on to say in that same context, completing his thoughts to you. And there was no no hesitation on his part when he came to Travis. I mean, it was I think he was his intention was to grab that gun and probably shoot Travis. That's in my mind. That's what I saw. You know, and with that in mind, if he if he had gotten that shotgun and there was any separation between Travis and him, I was going to cap his ass. And you understood he was describing to you the fight right at the very end of the confrontation that you perhaps had seen on video by this point. Is that what you understood the context of this to be know his understanding of the context? These are just words recompile. His understanding is about that. Well, then that is the context in which he's saying these words. He's describing the final encounter between Imada, Aubrey and Travis and that he thought a lot was trying to get the shotgun away from Travis to shoot him with it. That's what he's telling you, right, counsel? Is that testifying? So let's look at this. This statement is coming through. The witness statements in context. She can ask the witness what he believes he was describing. But let's let the words Mr. MacMichael. All right. For context, investigator. No, really, you understand what he's describing right? Yes. And you understood what he was describing was his own thoughts that he was about to see his own son shot and killed by a Harbury with his own shotgun. Objection. Speculation as to what this means by Michael. This is exactly what the witness understood based on his interview with the Mr. Big Michael. Go ahead. You need me to repeat it. You're allowed. The answer is OK. In the context of this conversation. You understood Greg Michael to be telling you that what he thought when he was watching a Madama attack, his son Jackson mischaracterization counsel's testifying that is not at all afraid of. Michael said he didn't use the word attack at all. OK, I'll use his words. His intention was to grab that shotgun and probably shoot Travis. That's in my mind. Those were his words, right? Yes. And. [09:40:02][201.0] [09:40:03] You understood that what he was conveying to you was that he thought he was about to witness his son's death at the hands of a minor corrections escalation. The statement said the statement speaks for itself. He sustained. All right. Over to page sixty seven. Excuse me, get through this one. I'm sixty seven thousand four hundred sixty seven. That's not something he's testified to at all because there's [09:40:03][0.0] [269.2] [09:40:39] this here is the second page on topic. That's not the case. If I need to the defendant without the jury here, I'd like to do so. We go and see what it is. Let me see if I have a I have No. Three. Mm. I'll show you my computer. Does anyone just have a clean copy of it? This is the easiest way to do it. Nobody's got a clean copy of page six to seven. I do have something for you after it. Yes, we have one as you. That's true. Detective, did you get it to judge Protector's page problems? Every time I move, I pull a cord out at page sixty seven lines, a three seventy. [09:41:45][65.8] [09:41:47] Four peeked through eighteen sixty seven said page sixty seven line date through seventeen through seventeen. OK ultimately because you could write now before we read it. Investigator No. Here in your twenty years experience and in your training and education, you've heard of a phenomenon before called auditory exclusion where a person is so focused in a traumatic event, their vision. Fox is testifying. He has even given him an opportunity to say whether he knows what that word auditory to whoever was is to don't cross-examine. And leading questions are allowed in. Twenty four, six, six, eleven, B and C, we can look that up. These are proper questions. Well, you asked him whether news, what something was and you're about to define it for him. That's the objection to the question. Yeah. To give him the orientation of what I'm talking about. He might know by some other term. It has several different times. I've used one of those terms. Do you know auditory exclusion? If you heard that I have. I don't recall what it means. Well, when you see this refreshes your recollection that you've heard of it, it's the occasion when a person in traumatic situation at this point is testifying by telling him what this means. Yes, it's a legal question. It's a so. [09:44:35][167.4] [09:44:35] An auditory exclusion when you're in a traumatic situation and of your senses, your vision will retain its best abilities. But you're hearing and other senses auditory hearing in particular, might tune out sounds and you don't hear and you don't recall accurately, but you can also describe what you saw, but not what you heard. That's what you recall from your training happens sometimes to people in highly traumatic or unusual situations. Like the shooting. I don't recall if that's exactly what I learned. Is the phenomenon you're familiar with by whatever name, the term is. OK, so let's go to this paragraph here, 67 page partyline a you ask Michael, was he hit all three times or you know that he is Marda brain, right? Yes. [09:44:35][0.0] [233.2] [09:45:40] And then it means hit with three shots from Travis's shock. Right. Correct. And Greg MacMichael answers. There was only two shots. See that? Yes. And you say no. There were three right. Correct. And he says, were there three shots asked you that, right? Yes. And you say on the video, it sounds like there's three. You'd seen the video, right? Yes. It sounds like there's three great. Michael says I. I don't think so. I mean, it may have been three. I don't know. But I like I say, it was it was furball. It was a hairball. But he thought he heard two and three. And there's three on the video, right. From what I remember. Yes. 094603 DEFENSE COUNSEL>> And when you -- you've probably arrested many people through your twenty year career, right? >> I have. DEFENSE COUNSEL>> And when you do that, and you try to keep the person from fleeing from you, you will use verbal commands like â?ostop,â?? â?odon't run,â?? â?ostay where you are,â??that kind of thing? >>Yes. DEFENSE COUNSEL>> And if you have to raise your voice to give a stronger verbal command, you will do that? >> Yes. 094634 DEFENSE COUNSEL>> And if the person is still not compliant, you'll sometimes draw your weapon if you need to, wonâ?Tt you? >> Only in certain circumstances. DEFENSE COUNSEL>> Like when they're not listening to you and your verbal commands are not stopping. >> No. DEFENSE COUNSEL>> Yeah, no, what. >> No, I don't just pull my gun. DEFENSE COUNSEL>> OK, you'll do other steps before you pull your gun to get them to comply with you? 094704 >> Yes. DEFENSE COUNSEL>> Like --- raising your voice even higher. Louder. >> Maybe DEFENSE COUNSEL>> Alright. Well, you'll do whatever the circumstances require youâ?Tre not just gonna forget about it and go home, all right? >> Correct. DEFENSE COUNSEL>> Alright. And if the person is still not complying with your verbal commands, and you're waiting for someone to come back you up, like other police officers at some point, if you think the person is either going to attack you or flee, you will use your weapon. Will you not? 094744 >> Not always, no DEFENSE COUNSEL>> If the person is attacking you? >> Depends on how he's attacking or she. DEFENSE COUNSEL>> All right. If you have a gun on you and the person is attacking you, you would have a concern that the person might take your gun from you and use it to harm you or kill you? >> Once again, it depends on the circumstances and the person. DEFENSE COUNSEL>> If the circumstance includes being attacked by someone who seems to be trying to take your gun from you, putting his hands on it, you might use your gun, wouldn't you? >> At that point itâ?Td make me (?) threshold, yes. DEFENSE COUNSEL>> Thank you. [09:48:26] An ongoing ship this morning. The more I guess the strategy, I hope we can move forward and I don't believe so. I'd like to talk generally with you about the investigation and your role in this particular investigation. Who was it that you were charged with? And if not, we'll do it. Was it that you were charged with gathering just information from the great MacMichael Travis? My home. And that was the sole job that you had in this particular case. Yes. Just to perform the interviews. Yes. OK, and you were directed to do so by investigator Blowering. I'm not sure exactly. I was told seem to go back to the station. Didn't speak up just a little bit. You'd have dropped him off. That's what I was told. I'm not sure exactly by who I think it was. One of my supervisors asked to go to the station and do the interviews. Prior to the interviews, you had a debriefing with whoever was in charge so that they could give you some background information about what had happened that day based on their observations know. So did you go into these interviews not knowing what had happened out there and Sitel Shores? Correct. Literally. You didn't know outside world events or anything like that right outside seeing that video. OK, so seeing the video, the video that you saw was did it include Mr. Harbury running and then turning around and the car driver of the car dropping the phone for about a minute and then it being picked back up and then filming as Mr. Aubrey comes around the corner towards the shooting? Or did you just see the shooting? I think I just saw the shooting part because not even the entire video. Right. I didn't see. OK, so you're stepping into a situation. We really don't know much other than that there's been a shooting. Correct. And did you say you were on the scene that I had gone up to the senior zone. How long were you on the scene before you left to go do interviews? By two or three minutes. OK, so you're really kind of an open book when you get into these interviews, not having anything in your mind that you're trying to get out of these individuals, that you're trying to understand what happened. Correct. OK, so in your mind then, you are trying to understand the dynamics of what McMichael and Travis MacMichael were doing out there that day. Correct. And what Mr. Barberi was doing out there that day. Correct. What Greg McMichaels intent was based on what he told you. Right? Correct. And you conducted an interview with Travis Michael as well. So what Travis, my original intent was out there that I'm objective this time. We're not going into Travis Alexander at all. So what we're talking about is what this starts to build on it. Yeah, he's interviewing Travis. You might want to ask him about the statements made. OK, that you were trying to determine what Travis McMichaels intent was that correct and what Mr. Aubrey's intent was that day? Correct. OK, in doing so, you got some information about ongoing crime in the. I'm going to now we're going to contact it. We're I'll rephrase it. So thank you. But when you talk to Greg McMichael, you got information that there was some ongoing crime. The neighborhood have to do a lot of recall. Exactly. OK, just as you sit here, do you recall whether or not you talked with Greg McMichael about crime in the neighborhood? I yes. Yes. OK, did you endeavor after this interview to go and follow up about the crime in the neighborhood to pull any reports or anything like that? I don't think it was me that did it. I think I passed out on the information on to other investigators and they did OK. That's what we didn't do it. That's in stepping into a situation where you're going to be conducting an interview of a person just involved in a violent situation like this one, you have been trained how to interview individuals, correct? Correct. Yeah. You have some basic training that you go through about how to interview people. Have you had more advanced training on how to conduct interviews of suspects or people involved in traumatic situations? Have is it fair to say that it's important to have that training because interviewing someone can be a bit of a chaotic experience? Correct. The person that you're interviewing could be all over the map in terms of the timeline of the event? Correct. You may have to stop them because it can get very confusing and kind of redirect them back to moments that they can then break down and further explain to you. Correct. And is it fair to say that your training has helped you become the person in charge of that process? Correct. To help that person through their statement so that it can ultimately be understood by you? Correct. Because what you what you know is that whatever the garbled or asynchronous timeline that you could get needs to be understood eventually. By lawyers in the case. Correct. So you may have to follow back up on something to get more clarity so that it can be further fleshed. Yes. And not only do you know that the lawyers in the case are going to rely on it, but you know that it's going to be used here in court, possibly. Correct. And that the work that you're doing to flush out these subjects and to dig deeper into what's being said is possibly going to need to be understood by the court as well as a jury. Yes. All right. So you're you're going to do your best to try to follow up on things so that the interview that you conduct is as accurate and complete and truthful as it can be. Correct. OK, now, you did interview Travis. Yes. We spent a good bit of time with him, maybe an hour or longer. Yes. He was speaking quickly during that interview. The Times wasn't on it. Once again, we're not introducing the statements of Travis and myself. So going through all of this, I would have checked as some relevant. Here's this. Here's what he I couldn't the objective, because I think I need to work out exactly what's going on here. I'm going to ask that you go ahead and step into the jury room for just a moment or address matters before the court. All right. For the juror, I would say. Right, Sergeant, if I get you to just step down, if you just step out of the courtroom, we'll bring you back in for further testimony about get somebody to give me a little context here. Sure. At this point. Well, maybe the way to do it, let me explain what I understand and it's so Travis MacMichael statement, I'm guessing, is not being used because it's just there's too many issues to work through with Brewton that is just not being used, is that correct? Yes. Yesterday morning, we informed the defense that we had made a decision not to tender or present any statements of Travis McMichael. Once they informed us that because we wanted the entire thing in for completeness and we made the decision from them, weâ?Tre [09:58:46][786.1] [09:58:46] not tendering. In Travis McMichaels statement at all as currently right now. Hearsay. I talked to Mr. Rubin this morning. I said, listen, I don't even want to go into the fact that he went ahead and interview Travis McMichael because we're not handwritten, because now the jury is looking at us like we're hiding his statement. And my I it's my fear, of course, is that I go back up the states a little frustrated because the state has endeavored to communicate to the defense that we were not going to put this in. In fact, this morning I told Mr. Reuben, I'm not even going to ask this witness about Travis McMichaels statement at all. I'm going to just strictly have him on the stand to talk about Greg McMichael. I informed them of that and I was told, that's fine. We can recall him at a time if it becomes necessary, if Travis McMichael takes the stand. So at this point in time, having not gone into it, the state's fear is that it appears to the jury that, oh, there's the statement of Travis McMichael out there and I've been put in the position of having to object about the contents of it and tell them we're not tendering it, which, of course, makes it look like the state's hiding the statement from them. Well, that's not the intention. State's been put in an awkward position. The state would like a curative instruction, and that's what we're asking for. So as I understand it, the state has to put in certain statements of Travis McMichael. We responded and said we think this helps the rule of completeness. They chose not to put the statement in. And I'm not offering any of his statement. I'm not going to say anything that Travis McMichaels said, although there are probably some exceptions under excited utterance. I'm still not putting those. And that being said, the state's decision not to tell the jury that he was even interviewed, that's on them. I'm not I'm not hiding something. It would be as if in a car accident case, a police officer testifies about something through the plaintiff and the defense comes up and says, hey, officer, didn't you also talk to a witness? And didn't you also collect this information? Didn't you also investigate these other things? They chose not to bring it up. I'm not doing anything that's untoward. I'm simply informing the jury that no. One, he was interviewed. No to certain conduct and behavior was was was seen by this officer that he voluntarily, voluntarily cooperated in the interview. OK, we're not going to get into the problem with asking him about the way he was react is it opens the door to what questions were being asked at the time in the context of those reactions, which then possibly gets us into the state. That's my concern about that, the fact that he's interviewed. But that's fine or the fact that he cooperated is fine. But once we start describing his actions during the interview, I'm not sure how you separate that from what was going on in the interview at the time, he appeared stressed he was speaking quickly. Those are my questions in the hour long interview. What point during the interview, what was he being asked about? And knowing that when the jury left without the information about it. But Judge, that that doesn't make it impermissible? I would I would say for the court without a context. I understand the state was not coming in. We're not going to talk about it. It's an hour long statement. I don't know when the jury doesn't know what was going on. The moments that he could possibly be described. Because what you are implying is that during that entire one hour period, he was acting exactly the same way. I can clear that up. I mean, I feel like the court is telling me how to conduct if the subject matter is relevant. That's my that's my I don't believe it. [09:58:46][0.0][10:02:31] Is because without the statement coming in describing his conduct while giving that statement, without explaining what the statement is, the court finds impermissible. So the beginning of this and the end of that court is not going to allow you to go into. But as far as what he was doing, how this officer was perceiving his reaction excuse me, reactions, we're not going to get into that to cooperate. You're going to get a statement. That's fine. Will the court allow me to ask the witness the subjects that he inquired of? No, because then we're getting into the statement that he asked about, not what Travis said in response, because then we're getting into the statement, OK, I think those would be permissible areas. But I'll follow the ruling of the court and I will ask those questions. But I would like to say, in light of the state's comments, that it was the BREWTON problem that primarily drove their decision not to go into any of Travis thing. Michael's statement regarding the problem, of course, being that he would incriminate Greg McMichael. We don't have a proven problem in Travis McMichaels statement. There's many parts of it that have been highlighted in yellow that were worked out. But this looks to me like every bit as much as was in Greg with Michael statement that we just spent part of yesterday and part of today doing so. Our position is that for us, I was under the impression that it was probably not going to be introduced because it's so exculpatory and that the state was making a decision. Well, he'll have to get out there and tell his family himself, we're not going to do it through our witnesses. But if it's a brewton problem, then any issue we have made before regarding Travis MacMichael statement with respect to BREWTON, we withdraw. And so that's not an impediment for our client. But did that make you it for the state? And then we want to get back up and do it? Travis, you can't take this hearsay. It would come in if the state chose to tender it as the statement about party opponent. The state is choosing not to tender it as a statement of party upon it. So none of those issues apply. It's the state's decision not to tender in that hearsay. Under that, it's like the church reports on the corpse for for construction at this point. Yeah, we're going to bring the panel back. You know, quickly, Judge, I was also going to ask him whether or not Travis demonstrated positions with how he was holding the firearm. And that demonstration, again, I thought would be not a statement, but just in response to the question of how he demonstrated certain things for him, that he cooperated, he demonstrated, he spoke, those kinds of things. Let's be consistent again to [10:02:31][0.0][10:05:32] explain the context of that, you'd have to get the statement why he was doing that at a particular time and what the questions were that led him to that. So, again, that gets into the statement itself. So not. [10:05:41][9.1] [10:05:42] Do It based on the court saying, I can't. I mean, I can. Correct. Let's go get the wish and this. Did we lose that are. Welcome back, Sergeant. NBC or under Craig, I see you soon. I think you're going to stand up just a second, please. Go get panel. All right. For the jury. But you say keep. Thank you, ladies and gentlemen, Mr. Shepard, thank you. So. [10:09:53][251.9] [10:09:55] We're talking about you conducted an interview of Travis and Michael. Yes. Yes. And one of the things that you do when you conduct interviews is you want to make sure the person you interview understands that they don't have to speak to you, right? Correct. As we call this the Miranda admonition that they have the right to be silent. Right. And the right to a lawyer. Objection. At this point in time, we're going into the interview. I'm just going to in some flexibility here, wants to be sure Travis agreed to be interviewed. Yes. OK, he cooperated with that interview fully and freely. Yes. [10:09:55][0.0] [260.9] [10:10:37] But one of the things you were asked about just a moment ago is Greg's statement to you and Greg's expressions to you about Mr. Rahman arbitrary and whether he was trying to run or flee or how he could have run or taken other routes or whatnot. You recall that line of questioning by Mr. Hobe. Yes. OK, did you ever undertake it yourself after speaking with Greg and Michael to try to figure out any background on Mr. Ami and on the test? I did not. You do not not me. Not you, but you're aware that others may have. Yes. OK, lastly, when your you've been an officer for how many years did you say? Just under 20 years, 20 years doing patrol control. Yes. And you have investigated crimes of break ins? I have crimes of theft. I have crimes of burglary. I have. And one of the things that you've come to understand is that burglary doesn't just happen at night, right? Correct. It happens in the middle of the day sometimes. Yes. In particular on Sundays. I don't know if it's particularly on Sundays. If you look at page 72, isn't that what you discussed with Greg McMichael from starting the line ten? Yes, usually on Sunday. Yeah, that's what I said. Yes, I think for thank you. I know you are very, very sure that your investigator. No, Kelly, right after you said usually on Sunday. What? Greg Michael said. That's right. That's right. Then what do you say people are home on Sundays. People are home on Sundays. All right. And at the time of this interview, this was how many hours after the incident had taken place? A couple of hours, I think. I'm not exactly sure what was in two or three hours of the incident. So two or three hours of the incident. Yes, people are coming down the road. There's limited issues. There are no question I think somebody messed up down there. You are to use for the subject to recall. So that's your uncle. Yes. Thank you. Mr. Mason. So early, right. All right, ladies and gentlemen, let's go ahead and take a fifteen minute recess. We'll come back for the continuation of evidence in this case. Call Roger. We said, all right, if we can have the state's next witness ready to go in fifteen minutes. To ten thirty, I think everybody feel like that to me would be seven [10:10:37][0.0] [10:33:28] Sorry, we are back on defense present represented by counsel. There we go. We actually need her for this with my as I said, with that background represented by counsel. Is the state ready to proceed? Yes. Let's go ahead and get the panel. So Rasmusen heard. All right. Welcome back, ladies and gentlemen. We are ready to proceed with the evidence in this case from the state. Thank you, Judge. This time, the state will call Mr. Maxwell Benzal once the search for him was running. I swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth is a good sir. Please state your name and spell it for the record, Matthew all Benji and Sam THC w it'll will be in Z and Mr Albanese, what neighborhood do you live in? St. George. How long have you lived in fertilizer's since July. Eighty nine. Thirty two years. Thirty three years. Thirty two years. Thirty one years of art. And what's the specific address. The truth. About three or nine Jonge Group. What do you do for a living calibration technician and what are the normal hours that you work? When do you leave to go to work? And when do you leave to go to work and when do you come home? Leave around five thirty five forty to morning. Get around [10:33:28][0.0] [10:36:55] for thirty four. Forty five in the afternoon. Right. So prior to February of twenty twenty of moving from your work. I don't know. It appears that it might be. I'm not sure you maybe you just pushed that maybe just a little bit of work. OK, let's try that. Thank you Judge. So prior to February of twenty twenty, did you know Mr. William Raddy, Brian, that we'd met before you asked how many times have you met before? Was casual passing at a hardware store or maybe up in Zachary's. [10:37:36][41.1] [10:37:39] How would you describe your relationship with him? Just an acquaintance of had you ever been to his home instillations, you know, had he ever been to your house and still assures you? Did you even know where he lived? I had no idea. With regard to Greg. Michael, did you know Mr. Greg MacMichael prior to February of twenty? Yes. How did you know him? Neighbors. Had you ever been over to your house? I know you've been over to his house for, like, dinner or anything. You know, and Travis like Michael. Did you know him? Yes. And how did you know Travis? And so that same type of relationship neighbors talk in the driveway. I think most time we ever spoke with each other in the driveway, just friendly conversation about, you know, trucks and boats, fishing and stuff like that. And back in February of twenty twenty, you knew where the McMichaels lived. Yes. Now, with regard to Mr. Amort, Aubrey, did you know him? You know, had you ever seen him in the neighborhood before? No. Had you ever seen period before? No. Now, in relationship to your house, where is the open unsecured construction site at 220 satellite drive to the end of the street I live on. And how long has that location been under construction? Two and a half years, maybe. At that point, I'm not sure. So at that point, two and a half years, what was there before it became a construction site? Is it a vacant lot? So I'm going to show you marked as state's exhibit 284 a take a look at two, four and eighty five and see if you're able to recognize what's depicted in those photographs. Yep. Are they fair and accurate at this time? The state retender into evidence to a four and two eighty five. No questions, no objection. No objection there, Mr. Spencer. You'll be able to see it here on your screen. So I'm looking at two eighty four. What is the jury looking at here? Mr. Inglis's house just above the garbage cans there are here and that and to the right. So all of this English property is right. And so where are we kind of standing? Looking down the street. The end of my driveway, I think, approximately. All right. And what road is this road for Jones right now? Whose house is this? [10:37:39][0.0] [41.1] [10:41:15] Anyway? What do you know what Mr. Ray does know? I think he's retired, so they're looking at two eighty five. So it's just a further close up shot. Yes, great. It's just our corporate needs to take down everything we're saying. Thanks. Now, do you know where he was personally? We've met. Yeah, I introduced myself to my mailbox is the white mailbox here. So I walk down here every afternoon and check my mail. So that's your mailbox? Yeah. OK, so how many times do you think you've met or talked with Larry English prior to February. Twenty third. Twenty twenty a half dozen, ten times. Maybe a dozen. I'm not sure he ever come to your house. You ever go to his house. No, I talk to him. He's read the mailbox or you know, spoke to him in his backyard. He had an excavator putting some concrete on the riverbank. You know, I'm right. And had you ever seen various people at his open unsecured construction site? Maybe some contractors every now and then, any looky loos, people just stopping by to look at the property? No, you didn't see that? No, I did not see the car. And from about October of twenty nineteen through February of twenty twenty, what condition was the open unsecured construction site? Was it fully open that you could walk in. Yeah. That no garage doors from the front door was on. Were there any no trespassing signs up. I don't know. Now at some point in time. [10:43:41][146.2] [10:43:41] When you talked to Larry English, did he show you a video? Did he show you a video of someone who had come onto his property at night? Yes. And what was that person doing as looking around walk around on his dock? The dock video? Yes. Do you show you any other videos other than the dock video? No. Do you remember what day it was that he showed this video to, you know, maybe October or November time frame of nineteen and at any point in time do their English talk to you about items that had been stolen off of his boat like some fishing equipment and a cooler? Yes. And who did he suspected taken those things? He didn't really say. Just told me there'd been some contractors were objective hearsay from Mr. English. What he told this witness, Mr. Now, did you repeat what Mr. English had told you to anyone else? Not that I recall the all to direct your attention, Mr. Burns, specifically to February. Twenty third, twenty twenty approximately one p.m. in the afternoon. Tell the jury what you were doing that day. I was running a log splitter in my front yard, splitting wood. And how are you dressed? And on boots and gloves and over of what did you see? Um, I just stood up to move some wood and I noticed Mr. Breeze standing in the front yard of that house. [10:45:40][118.7] [10:45:41] Now, at that point time, did you know his name? No. OK, so he was a stranger to you? Yes, I you saw him standing in front of the house? Yes. How was he dressed? Uh, maybe a t shirt and shorts. Did he have any bags with him? No, not that I recall the backpack on him, no. What did you see the young man do was just standing there looking around. This is a good distance away. So what did you decide to do? What happened next? What came to mind was Mr. Englishes video, something that looked like that on his docket night. So Splinter off, grabbed my phone, walked down to the corner. And did you go in the house and get something else, too? Yeah, I had a pistol in my pocket. OK, so you got your phone, you got your gun and you walked down to the end of the drive. Or the end of the street. Right. All right. So on state's exhibit twenty five, where did you stand [10:45:41][0.0] [264.9] [10:46:47] stand by an oak tree next to the stop sign? Right here on the tree. Like right here? Yeah, well, behind it. But the truth is between myself and the house. So more like light here. Yeah. Got it. And what did you do then? I saw someone moving around inside the house, so I pushed the send button. Kind of. Please. All right. So when you hit the send button, what number did you dial? The seventy eight hundred number. What's the seventy eight hundred number is the county police department. So you did down that one. No, All right. Why didn't you dial 911? And it was I did not see an emergency. So you dialed the non-emergency Glynn County number and were you connected to an operator of have you had the opportunity to listen to that 911 call? I've heard of the time to you and you and I've met before. Right. And I played for you. Yes, you did. OK, and at that time, was it a fair and accurate depiction of what you said to 911 immediately? It's a recording, so. Yeah. All right. So, Your Honor, at this time, the state will tender into evidence and make sure I get the right number for state's exhibit 143 tonight. No objection. No objection. Your statement published. This is no for I quit. My job is going outside my house for a hundred years. And you have your father and I have to address that night. Peter Zoom's wanted to address some of the money right now. It's all over the place and he drove around this very differently. What did you do in this section? That's fine. I'll get it out there. I didn't even know what he was doing, what he did on the ground [10:49:37][169.8] [10:49:37] . And first. And you think on camera both before I go on living out your stuff, OK, that's fine. And she told me I was watching the white shirt, black like that. I my Villamor to tell or something. Bull's eye for an eye for my. I am sorry to come here to go but thank you. Were you able to see Mr. Aubrey inside the house when you were standing behind kind of the oak tree area? Could you tell what he was doing inside the house? No, Yeah. You can't read minds right now. All right. So you have no idea what he was doing inside the house. And do you have any idea why he ran from the house? No, don't. Now, after you hung up with someone, what happened next? Welcome back to my house. Do you recall at all walking down the street a little further in front of, I guess, Suvi Lawrence on one side and Diego Perez on the other side, down that street a little bit. Yeah, right. And do you remember making any sort of motion I saw in the video? You know, there goes and who are you doing that to? I was just thinking to myself running down the street, were you intending to communicate to anyone in particular at that time? No. And after you stood the street and made the motion, what did you do that at any point in time? Did you call Greg or Travis like Michael? You communicate them with communicate with them in any way, shape or form. After you went home. What happened next? Uh, few minutes I heard gunshots. How many gunshots did you hear? Three. What did you do once you heard those three gunshots? My bicycle out of the shop and rode down around four, you say down the corner where you go down to to drive left. So you came down Jones and then went down satellite. Right. Is that the same way that Mr. Aubrey had run? Yes. What you find I saw police car seems to be laying on the street. I saw his grave and crash there. What did you do? I stopped and went on. As you know, it's kind of shocking scene. You know, enjoyed your bicycle back home. Later that evening. Were you contacted by officers from the Glen County Police Department? Yeah, And did you speak with them at that time, I suppose? Yeah, I did. Do you recall that at all? Not really. At that point in time, just to put it politely, had you had an adult beverage or cocktail that went time, sir? Now, have you personally ever been the victim of property theft within? Sattell assures my daughter's car was broken into twenty years ago. Maybe it's been a long time, but nothing in 2019 or 2020? No, And do you subscribe to the Sattell Shaw's Facebook page? Yeah. Do you occasionally post there? Yeah, And do neighbors post about their concerns about crime in the neighborhood on that Facebook page? Yeah, they did. And is that normal for people to be concerned about property thefts and crime in a neighborhood? Objection is asking this witness to speculate what other people Mr.. Were you concerned about property thefts in satellite shores? Of course, my wife, Saro. Now,. [10:55:52][194.9] [10:55:52] Did you have any personal knowledge about any burglaries that had taken place in Sattell Shores? In my 19 or 20 Haubrich in Minnesota? So we'll talk about did you know about some Capricorns? Yeah. And how would you found out? How did you find out about the car break ins on the Facebook page? Had anybody actually personally spoken to you about their car break in like one on one and you interviewed them and you got information about it? No, And I feel I need to show you state's exhibit 127 127 Semester of NC. I'm going to show you state's exhibit 127. See if you're able to recognize this particular image. I do. All right. And is it fair and accurate? Was then you all right? At this time, the state would enter into evidence state's exhibit 127. [10:57:20][88.2] [10:57:21] OK, no objection, no objection to this with regard to state's exhibit 127. Go ahead, orient the jury. Where are you facing self to drug? And so when you were standing behind the oak tree, was it about here? Yes, right. And you said it's fair and accurate at the time, meaning back in spring of twenty twenty. Right. For the porta potties gone now. But it was there back then. Yeah. I remember my. Mr. Benzi, I'm going to pass you over to the defense. They may have some questions for you. Thank you very much. Mr. Monzur. One Mr Albanese. We've met before. Yes, we met about a month and a half ago, two months ago now. Spoke out near your house. Yes. OK, we talked about testimony you're giving here today is OK. You don't want to be here for the Beatles elsewhere, almost anywhere else. Probably this. [10:59:42][141.3] [10:59:42] Has been very difficult for you, correct? Yeah. It's cause you personally some problems as a result. As a result of your role in calling 911, what is you've had some concerns at work is you've had concerns about your neighborhood. Still a source. Yes. And even personal attacks on you, phone calls, things like that. Recently you recently, even though all you did was call nine one one, not nine one one, but the non-emergency number. Right. OK, and that's that's put you in a difficult spot in general. Yeah. I mean, it's put me in a spot. I wouldn't say it's really [11:00:30][47.8] [472.3] [11:00:30] difficult, but it is something I'm not used to. OK, well, let's talk about your your call to Glynn County Police Department for a second and orient the jury a little bit. When you were in your yard cutting the wood, you'd already gotten most of the tree down. You were you were continuing to split logs from a fallen tree in your yard. Right? Right. You're out in your front yard and you're you can see down from your house down towards Larry Englishes house right now. You had talked to Larry in English before, right? Yes. She said six to 12 times somewhere in that ballpark. Can you share mailboxes with him? Russ? I don't mean the same mailbox, same area. So there's a group of mailboxes at the end of the road. Right here behind the stop sign. Right. And multiple neighbors have to go to that spot to get their mail. Every day you get to walk down Jones to the corner of Jones and Satellite to get your mail. Yes. And of course, Mr. English has a mailbox there as well. But I don't think he has a mailbox yet. OK, he didn't have one yet, but that's where you would see him and talk to him occasionally. Yes, OK. And on. [11:02:01][90.8] [11:02:01] Those occasions, when you would see him, you would discuss housing construction coming. How's things going? Right. Right. You knew he had a heart problem. Yeah. So you knew his health was impaired. You know, he knew he was building the house as kind of a second home for him. Yes. You knew he lived some distance away. Right. And you knew he stored valuables on the property. I suppose you knew he had a boat on the property, right? You knew he had a camper on the property. Yeah. You he stayed in the camper when he would come to work on the house. Right. And the garage where he kept the boat. He had a regular car garage, but he also had an RV garage, the bigger garage to fit his boat or an RV or whatever you want [11:02:47][46.0] [136.8] [11:02:47] to put in it. Yes. OK, he had talked to you about this intruder on his in his house, right? Yes. And he even went so far as to show you the video of a black male behind his house on his dock. Right. And you understood that on the dock was about ionized? I don't know. I'm not I can't tell you what was on it. I don't know the arrangement of his golf, you know? OK, so you weren't aware there was a boat back there, right? I couldn't tell if the boat was on the dock or in the garage or where at the time did you know if Mr. Inglis had multiple boats? Yeah, I think he had two or three boats that he stored on the property from time to time, even though he was open and unsecured. This this house, it was still his property. So you understood, right? He wasn't inviting people to come onto the property when he's not there. Right. But I'm aware of this mail he showed you in the video. Did Mr. English tell you he was authorized to be on the dock? No. OK, as far as you understood, he was not authorized to be on the dock. That's right. And you understood that even though the house had no doors on it, it was still Mr. Inglis's property, right? Yes. And he could decide who was allowed to come and not come on the property. Yes. You were aware that and you even tell the Glynn County police this guy, meaning the man you're seeing on the property on February twenty third, has been to the house multiple times. And that's what it said on the call. But it might have been a heated moment. You know, I can't say who it was, that guy or just someone who looks like it's what I probably meant to say. OK, so you didn't know who that male was standing in the yard when you saw Lookdown Jones, you know, but to you, he looked like the guy you had seen in the video. Right. And you knew that this guy who you saw in the video had actually been to the house, not just that one time, but a bunch of times. Right. Again, you didn't know if it was the same guy, but it was enough to peak your interest to walk down. JONES Yes, OK. In fact, you tell the Glenn County non-emergency number he's been caught on the camera a bunch before at night. That's what you said in the call. We just search what I said, OK? It's kind of an ongoing thing out here and had been from that guy. I can't I can't say it was that guy, just somebody that description in. So you felt like this guy had been there before. You saw a video of it and he's here again. Or at least you suspected he's here again. I suppose. And that's what you told the police. Yeah, OK. He also told the police that the guy's building a house, the guy being Larry English, he's got heart issues. Right. Again, information you got from Mr. English. Right. And you knew of Mr. Englishes frustration at this guy or the guy you saw on the video not being caught. [11:06:14][206.6] [11:06:14] I don't really know, frustration. I can't speak to the man's state of mind. Explain to you how frustrated. [11:06:21][7.1] [11:06:22] He was. I don't recall. I mean, nobody's happy when somebody stopped running or stuffs, right. You know, he's not happy. This man is on his dog. I suppose not. Express that to you. I don't recall. You. [11:06:41][19.0] [11:06:41] Say that to the L.A. County police operator. We've had some break ins out here. Right? Right. One of the first things you said, this is Matt al-Fassi. We've had some break ins out here. Right. OK, now, what you're talking about is what is done. In case he asked you, you were aware from the Facebook page that there was crime, property crime in the neighborhood. Yes. And people were posting. [11:07:11][29.9] [11:07:11] About it on the Facebook page and next door page, if you're aware of that. Right. Do you subscribe to both of think? I logged in to that, but I can't get back into it. It's just kind of wonky. I know, but. [11:07:29][17.9] [11:07:30] But people had shared their own personal experience with property crimes and still a source. Right. And it seemed to be an ongoing problem in twenty nineteen now twenty twenty. It was around the same time that this man that you saw on the video was coming to Larry Englishes house. [11:07:50][20.6] [11:07:51] Right. And in fact, you were not only were you aware of it, but but many people in the neighborhood were aware of this intruder and that same direction. Mr. Me, what other people are aware of this speculation that this person, Mr. Offense's Park System, did you. [11:08:12][20.7] [11:08:12] Ever tell the GBI when you were interviewed that everyone in the neighborhood is aware of it, not a prior consistent statement or prior inconsistency? And once again, him saying to someone else does not get it out of speculation on his part question, simply whether he he was told the GBI, whether he told the GBI that that's OK. Could you remember being interviewed by the GBI? I do. Do you remember telling the GBI that you're aware of the guy back at the house and everyone in the neighborhood was aware of it? I can't say everybody, but it was, you know, people that were posting things and people neighbors talk to neighbors. So I suppose most neighbors were aware that there were break ins occurring and not just break, but break ins and Larry Englishes house, I don't know what who knew about that. But you. [11:09:13][60.5] [11:09:13] May not know who in particular were aware of it, but you told the GBI that everyone in the neighborhood was aware of. And I understand it's a figure of speech. Right. But you told the GBI that it's correct. OK, you were also aware that not only was this black male on the dock and that larynxes house on multiple occasions, but that things were missing from Mr. Englishes house. Right. In fact, you were aware that electronics were stolen and Akula was stolen. Objection. To what? Larry English. I know the form of the question is you're aware of this, that the only way to start, Nancy, would be aware of this is if it was hearsay coming from Mr. Bush. And I believe Mr. Rubin previously, it's my asking. This witness was very much told him. So anything he's aware of, Mr. English, would come from a state should be hearsay. And I'm. [11:10:09][56.4] [11:10:09] Not asking I'm not offering it for the truth of the matter, whether the items were actually stolen. But to go to this witness's knowledge and to explain why he did what he did on February 23, it's not being admitted for the truth of the statement itself. Just to explain the witness. But go ahead. OK, so Mr Albanese, you had knowledge, you were aware that items were stolen from Mr. Englishes House. Yes. Items were were in his boat, stored at the house. Right. And those items were electronics. Right. Any any cooler. And so you were aware of. Well, let me back up to your knowledge those items had never been recovered. I do not know. OK, were you present at Mr. Englishes house on February 11th? Twenty twenty. When police arrived at the house, take a walk down solid. The blue lights, you know, they flash all over the place. I went down and she was going on and this is at night, right? Is dark out. You know, the same. It was dark from the video you saw. I'm sorry. I'm going back to the previous video from the stranger's house. It was dark that time to. [11:11:42][92.5] [11:11:45] Can't if there was lighting, there was a lamp back there. What I don't I don't recall. But it was at night. It was at night. OK, so now February 11th, twenty twenty, you see blue lights in front of Mr. Englishes house at 220 Centella Drive, correct. Right. You were curious what you knew about Mr. Inglis's previous problems with theft at his house right. So you went down to see what was going on, right. Did you see Travis MacMichael down there? If you there or not? I think he was there. Did you see Greg McMichael there? I don't remember. OK, but you do remember Travis pretty. Do you remember talking to any officers there? I think that's I do remember talking to one officer after you went down there on the eleventh, did you have any more conversations with Larry English about his house? I don't recall. OK, did you ever talk to Suvi Lawrence about the thefts in the neighborhood? Possibly your friends with Miss Lawrence or least Neighborhood Inheritances blueprint? Diego Perez. Yeah, Ronnie Olson and Ronnie lives at the corner of Ronnie's garbage cans there. Right. So the property, the oak tree where you stood behind to make the call. This is right. And Ronnie Olsen's front yard. That's right. And if Mr. Englishes 220 Centella Drive, Ronnie Olson to nineteen sitting across from Mr. Mr. English. Yes, he is. Do you ever talk to Brooke Perez occasionally about theft in the neighborhood? I don't know what all we talked about. OK, the man you saw in the videos that Larry English showed you and the man you saw on February. Twenty third, twenty twenty, you had not seen either of those men before in the neighborhood? No. You never saw either man. If they're different, to your knowledge, jogging in the neighborhood and how long you've lived there. Thirty two years. Yeah. OK, I'm not aware of that. Man or man fitting that description jogging in the neighborhood. You know, the man that you saw when you first saw him on February twenty third was not jogging. No. In fact, he was just standing in the yard. That's right. Did you see him look around? It seemed like he was just looking around. OK, wasn't bent over out of breath, you know, wasn't time his shoes. No, not that I recall him. OK, you. [11:15:18][213.8] [11:15:19] Didn't know if that man was armed or not? No. OK, before you went down to make your phone call at the corner of Citilink, you grabbed two things. Cell phone and your nine millimeter. That's right. But the nine millimeter, your pocket, that's for [11:15:36][17.1] [762.1] [11:15:36] your protection because you just didn't know what was going on there. Nope. OK, you call 911 one. I mean, I'm sorry. You call the non-emergency number. And as you're calling, you're looking at the house. Correct. And you see a person in the house. I saw the person that I called saw a person through the window of the house right. The window. I'm trying not to get in anybody's way. The front the front of the house is is over here. Here's the garage is right for the windows over here. Right. You saw the man that you suspected as being an intruder walking through the house through those windows. Right. At some point you stepped out from behind the tree and that man came out and then took off. Yeah. You suspected he saw you and that's why he took off. I don't know. I know you don't know, but you suspected it. I don't know why he took off running. I don't know if he saw me or not. You told Diego Perez you suspected he saw you. OK, then, right. You know, OK. And you told the GBI that you suspected he saw you. This was possible in your mind. You felt some guilt over that. I did. Because you felt like you put into motion these events that turned tragic. I thought maybe if he hadn't seen me, he wouldn't have run away. I don't know. Right. And that, of course, it still weighs heavy on your heart. It's OK. After you were while you were making your call and you watched him run off into the neighborhood like you continued to walk down scintilla path. Mr. Wade's house was right there, right to at least in front of Diego Perez's house. So that's two houses down from Larry Englishes house. And that's where you made your motion, right? Right. At that point, your only two houses from the McMichaels house. Correct. Two or three spoons. OK, prior to a modern robbery, the man we now know to be running out of the house, did you ever see him through the window? Duck down? I don't know. I don't you don't recall. I don't recall. Excuse me one minute, Mr. Evans. Thank you. Is Armstrong Williams said sort of thing for all the other defendants. Yes. You're on. Good morning, Mr Albanese. I'm just going by her name cocounsel Verratti. Brian, first, I understand you might know my cocounsel, Kevin Goff helped my brother clean some trees up at his yard after one of the hurricanes several years ago. [11:19:39][243.3] [11:19:39] . OK, so then you have not spoken with Mr Goff then about your testimony today? No. OK, did you speak with Roddy Brian on February. Twenty third. Twenty twenty prior to the incident. No. OK, and at that point you hadn't spoken with him for several years at that point is that correct. I suppose that's correct. OK,. [11:20:00][20.5] [11:20:01] And on February twenty third, twenty twenty prior to the incident you also did not see him correct. OK, that's all I have for you. Thank you. Any redirect for the state. Yes. Judge. So when we're talking about what you're aware of with regard to Larry English, you are aware that he suspected his contractors of stealing items off the boat? I would say he suspected them, but maybe that is a possibility. And how'd you learn about that possibility? I mean, he we spoke about it. And you are aware that he had no idea if the items were stolen off the boat while the boat was at that construction site or somewhere else. I have no idea. And you don't know what's in the mind of the other neighbors within this Intellichoice neighborhood? Do you know? You have no idea. Who knows? What about Larry Englishes property? Do you know? And the video he showed you was the one on the dock. And I think you said between October and November. Yeah, I think defense counsel asked you if you were friends with Stephen Lawrence. Right. OK, I think it was unclear. Did you talk to Supai Lawrence at all about Larry Englishes house? I don't recall. We don't speak very often. And Diego Perez, you're you know him, right? Did you talk with him about Larry Englishes House? I may have, but I don't I couldn't tell what the conversation was or when it was or what it was about. But I mean, we talk about these things. You know, it's they share concerns about what's going on. But you don't have any specific recollections of these things. And what Ronnie Olson is one of your good friends, right? Yeah. And at one point in time, did you and Mr. Olson believe that the crime that was happening is still tell shortage was due to a homeless guy under a bridge? I don't know. I heard people talk about homeless people under the bridge. I never saw I don't know. But this was something else that people in the neighborhood talk to you about. Right? Right. OK, and that homeless guy under the bridge, he was a suspect in the 2019 and risottos, right? I don't know. Well, did you suspect him? No. I mean, I don't even know if there was a homeless guy under the bridge. So, no, this is all just rumor and innuendo going around, I suppose you just testified you don't know if Mr. Arborists saw you or not from inside the house where you're standing under the tree right? I don't know. Guy. And you told Diego Perez that you didn't know whether he saw you or not. Is that what you told Diego Press? I don't remember. I told Diego I and the direction Mr Abbott ran when he left the house, he went towards the McMichael House, right? Yes. OK, if you go gone the other way, where would you go? Out towards Highway Seventeen outfits, highway seventeen out of Sattell Shores for past witness. If there's any group of individuals. Mr Albanese. Hello. Quick question. [11:24:22][261.8] [11:24:23] Objection. It's two separate footage. Party right there. We're not questions and it's not you. It's OK. I'll ask Rebecca Franck's. He's the man that does what we had was on CROSSFIRE, Mr Ruban. No Cross and we'll we'll discuss it before I can see it. You're much on the same page with our offering, Mr Benzi. The direction you saw the man we now know is a man run was to your left, right. Yes. Away from the entrance to Satellite Shores Highway seventeen. Yes. You're on the phone calling the police to come to the neighborhood and check this out. The police would be coming from the direction of Highway Seventeen. Yes, Coming into the neighborhood, but going down the street again in the direction of Mr Ahmadinejad. Yes. Thank you, sir. If it was from familiar. Thank you, Mr Carr. We are with police witnesses. They were subject to recall. See. Subject to recall. Yes. Yes, I you are released for the day. You are subject to recall. Thank you. Thank you sir. Thanks for try to work through time. Yes. Yes. I believe our next witness will be Stephen Lowry and I think it's going to take awhile. I would say so maybe this would be a good time. But another matter on the record, so if you get in for an hour and then break for lunch, whichever, the court faces the house playing the breakfast. You're sticking around noon. They got you a timing standpoint to play to get into a full hour. So that being the case, break the witness in about 30 minutes. So thats fine. So six weeks as they call Stefen, Larry him, I swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. I think, sir, good morning. Please go ahead and introduce yourself to the jury, tell them your name and spell it for the court reporter. My name is Stephan Lowry, S-T. P.H. and LSW. Are you OK? And Mr Lowry, how are you currently employed? I do contract work at a local business for computer repairs. OK, part time. Part time. Are you also in school at the moment? Yes, my full time student. OK, and what are you studying? Network operations and security. So your computer does computer science? Yes, ma'am. How long have you held your current job? Oh, I started there in May. In May of this year. Twenty twenty one. Yes, ma'am. What were you doing before that? I worked at FedEx for a short while as a career and prior to that I was in law enforcement. OK, where were you employed when you were in law enforcement? Originally with BPD and Brunswick Police Department and then Glynn County PD. How long were you with Brunswick PD? I think roughly like four and a half or five years. [11:28:46][263.0] [11:28:46] . OK, do you recall when you started with them? Late 2012. 2012. OK, so for about four to five years, you said somewhere there? Yes, ma'am. And what did you do when you were with Brunswick PD? Mostly patrol. I was assigned narcotics for a while and a aggressive patrol division. OK, so mostly dealing with like drug cases. Narcotics. Yes, ma'am. OK, after you left Brunswick PD, where did you go? I went to Glynn County. I was already working out of that building because we shared an office. It was a joint drug unit, OK? And I remained working as a drug investigator for the county for another, I think, eight or nine months before I went back to patrol. OK, do you remember when you started in terms of the year with Glynn County PD? I don't for sure. OK, all right. So when you started with Glynn County PD, what was your position of narcotics investigator? OK, I want to turn your attention to February. Twenty third. Twenty twenty. OK, OK. Were you with Glynn County PD at that time? I was. OK, what was your position at that time. Criminal investigator. OK, and were you with a specific department. Yes, ma'am. Local and county PD. OK, department within that agency. Division of the Criminal Investigation Division. OK, all right. And can you just please tell the jurors what were your primary duties, investigating crimes that surpassed, I guess, what patrol officers can handle with their equipment and their training? And were you police certified that time? Yes. Does that essentially mean that you had arrest powers under Georgia law? Yes. OK, now, before February, twenty third of twenty twenty. Had you worked homicide cases,. [11:30:36][109.6] [11:30:37] An assisted listen. But never any of my own and therefore never any of your own. Yes, ma'am. OK, do you remember how many you had assisted with, like a ballpark number, maybe between one and five? I don't think we had many. OK, so between one and five homicide cases. Yes. Maybe that's very, very rough. And homicide, meaning someone's dead. I. [11:31:00][23.6] [11:31:00] Can think of one that I did work on just in the sense of someone being dead, but it was on a drug sale kind of thing, OK, and were usually on any of these homicide cases, the drug overdose case. I was. But that wasn't kind of what I was thinking about with homicide. I've never had a homicide involving like a prior to this any sort of, I guess, violent act touching shooting or anything like that. OK, so no shooting homicide, is that correct? Yes and no. Like stabbing homicide. Yes, ma'am. OK,. [11:31:32][31.4] [11:31:33] So did you become actually strike that how many citizen's arrest cases had you worked prior to February? Twenty third. Twenty, twenty nine now. OK, did you become involved in the investigation into the death of Ahmad Aaberg. I did. Can you tell us how you became involved in that? Yes, I was the on call investigator that day. I was called out to the scene in which there are we talking about February. Twenty third of twenty twenty. OK, so do you remember what time you were called out? I don't. I think it was somewhat early afternoon. OK, so early afternoon. Yes, ma'am. OK, and do you remember who called you out? I believe was Sergeant Oliver. Sergeant Oliver. OK, so when you're called out, what do you do? I got dressed in my uniform, got into my car and responded to the scene. When you say uniform, describe that for us. At the time it was for us and the idea was khaki pants and a green polo with a badge. And yeah, I'm sorry I spoke over you. Go ahead. Just a green polo with the county badge. OK. [11:32:42][68.2] [11:32:42] , Were you wearing any kind of body cam? No. OK, explain why not. The body cams were using a fix with magnets. I wasn't wearing a Laker that had my magnet inside of it, so I wasn't recording. [11:32:56][13.7] [11:32:56] OK, and what car where you driving? Would you drive to the scene? It would have been an unmarked county car. I don't remember to make and model, but it was probably a Ford Fusion. OK, and when you say unmarked, what does that mean? It's equipped with police equipment like lights, sirens, all that. But it's unmarked. It doesn't have Glynn County PD markings or any any police markings. [11:33:15][19.2] [11:33:16] OK, and was that car equipped with dash cam? No. OK, so no dash cam today. Correct. OK, so where was the scene located that you were called out to in Seattle? Over here in Glenn County. OK, and. [11:33:31][15.1] [11:33:32] When you arrived on scene, tell the jury what it looked like. What did you see? I arrived on scene. I saw the decedent laying in the roadway with caution tape or police, police, crime scene tape surrounding them. I I spoke to Officer Roberts, who briefed me on the information that she had gathered at that point. OK, so you spoke to Officer Roberts, that Officer Roberts hand anything over time? She did. What did she hand was a thumb drive that was containing video footage from a, I think, Diego Perez. OK, and did you come to find out that there was a certain cell phone that was in another officer's car? I did. OK, whose cell phone was that? That was Mr William Brian's cell phone, and it was in Sergeant Lescott car. OK, and what did you do after that? I spoke briefly with Mr Brian, who was on scene. I was told by another officer that he had already given consent for us to view a video that he had taken on his phone. I spoke to him and just reconfirmed that verbal consent and I viewed it on scene and then I spoke with him a little longer. I got him to agree to come back to Glynn County headquarters for an interview so we could speak to him a little bit more into Vandar, a download of the phone. He agreed. [11:34:55][83.3] [11:34:56] Where was Mr Brian on scene when you spoke with him? [11:34:59][2.8] [11:35:00] He was standing on the corner of I believe it was Holmes and Burford next to a bicycle in a tree. [11:35:06][6.5] [11:35:07] OK, all right. And just going back for a moment, did you recognize any other than the law enforcement officers who you obviously know because she worked with them? Did you recognize anyone else on scene that day? Yes, I recognized Greg with Michael. OK, and do you see him in court today? And if you need to stand up, you can do that. No, This September. Where are you pointing to? To the to my right of the woman in the yellow shirt. I haven't seen him in a while. He looks a little different. He looks a little different and I apologize. OK, and what color was he wearing for the record? Blue jacket and I think a blue tie. OK, Your Honor, let the record reflect that he has just identified Greg Michael, so how did you recognize Greg McMichael? [11:36:07][59.7] [11:36:08] I've seen him before coming to the police department to I always assumed he was delivering subpoenas, but I saw him coming in the back door and paper, sometimes not. I knew that he was an investigator for the DA's office. So. OK, and what was your relationship with him, if any? There wasn't one maybe. Hey, man, as far as I'll pass them if I happen to be coming in as he's going out or something. OK, all right. Did you all ever kind of go over to each other's houses or anything like that? No. OK, do you recognize William Bryan? Yes. Scene. OK, can you just point him out, describe where he was going to be. Mr there he's got. [11:36:43][35.0] [11:36:43] On a blue jacket and a gray area. I can't make out the tie color. OK, let the record reflect that has just identified William Bryan so Mr Lowry so you said you got the phone and you said you've seen the video. Yes, that's correct. Yes. And then you spoke with Mr Bryan to ask him if he would come to headquarters for an interview, is that correct? Yes. OK, when you spoke with him, did you pressure him in any way to talk to you? OK, did you object? We put that in context. When and where is this taking place? I can ask specifically, sharkskin. So the questions I'm asking now, are you still located on the scene? Yes. OK, they're at the intersection of homes and satellite. Yes. And satellite course. Right. OK, so at the point where you're [11:37:32][49.1] [1305.9] [11:37:32] talking to Mr Brian, you testified that he was near a bicycle. Yeah. OK, so at that point, did you pressure him in any way to come talk to you at headquarters? No pressure. I just asked if you would mind if he would mind coming to talk to you or something to that effect. What did he say? It wasn't a problem or. OK, you seem willing to go OK. Did you promise him anything of benefit or anything like that at that point? Was he under arrest? No. Was he detained? Was he in any kind of custody? OK, so what happened next? I went back to headquarters and I conducted an interview with Mr Bryan. OK, and how did Mr Brian get back to headquarters? He drove. He drove his own vehicle. He drove his own vehicle by chance. Do you recall what vehicle he was driving? It was a Chevy Silverado thing. It was quite dark gray. You said what now? Chevy Silverado? I think it was dark gray. OK, and when he got back to headquarters where he go for that interview, one of our interview rooms. OK, and are those rooms equipped with video? Yes. To record an audio as well? Yes. OK, now, in the beginning of your video, interview, did you go over any kind of forms with Mr Bryan? Yes, I think I went I went over a consent to search one, even though he had already given verbal concern. I think I just filled out a written form. Your Honor, may I approach this? Thank you. Now, Mr. [11:39:24][112.6] [11:39:25] Lowry, I'm showing you what's been marked for identification purposes as state's exhibit 298. Take a look at it and tell me if you recognize it. Yes, this is a this is the form that I filled out,. [11:39:38][13.4] [11:39:39] OK? And is it a true and accurate copy of that form? Yes. Appeared to be altered in any way? No, Your Honor. At this time we would tender states to ninety eight. No objection. Your objection. It's permission to publish. Yes. Go ahead. OK, so I. So Mr Larry, I'm going to ask you, can you see this on your form. Yes, ma'am. On your monitor. So if you can just make sure you're projecting your voice and speaking into the microphone, can you just go ahead and read this? What does it say here at the top? The Glynn County Police Department, General Investigations Unit. OK, and. [11:40:22][42.6] [11:40:22] I won't ask you to read all this fine print. That's the address and all that, right? Yes. OK, so start from here and just read that for us. Consent to search form cellular phone. I just got a blank where I filled in Mr Brown's name, William C Brian. Having been advised that law enforcement officers wish to make a search of my cellular telephone under my control over custody, I hereby permit investigator Lowry and any other officers designated by him or her to assist in the search. On my phone, the location of the phone is listed as one fifty seven Public Safety Boulevard make as an iPhone. It's a model eight and I didn't list the serial IMEI service and there was no pin underneath that. It says I understand the purpose of this consent to search is for the express purpose of searching, said cellular telephone for evidence relating to the crime of aggravated assault or homicide. I have not been promised a reward of any type. I have not been threatened in any manner. I freely and voluntarily give my consent to conduct, said search of the above described telephone to the above officer. With full understanding of my rights and actions. I understand that this consent is voluntary on my part and may be revoked at any time. Sign this twenty third day of February. Twenty twenty signed by Mr. Brian. OK, and did you pressure him or force him in any way to sign that you didn't promise him anything. OK, yeah, you may just they're a little finicky today so. Yes sir. Get too close to give you some feedback. So Mr. Lowry, you talked about the interview, the audio and video recording. OK, now, before coming to court today to testify, were you able to review that recording of Mr. Bryant's interview in its entirety? Yes, this is appear to be accurate, yes. OK, at this time, we timber states one ninety five. OK, get no objection. Thank you. Now, in conjunction with that audio recording and video recorded interview, did you also look at the transcript prepared of that interview? I did. OK, and did you look at it in its entirety? I did. Did it seem to match up the interview itself? It did. What's the wording? Identical. Oh, yes. OK, and my approach. [11:43:07][164.6] [11:43:07] So I'm showing you what's been marked for the purposes of identification. State's Exhibit one ninety five A is that the same transcript that you reviewed that we just talked about? [11:43:16][9.1] [11:43:18] Yes. It looks like it is. OK,. [11:43:20][1.4] [11:43:21] At this time. Judge, we would tender one ninety five. [11:43:23][2.5] [11:43:25] No objection. Right. Just for the record, for it's the record. How would you get. OK, Mr. Larysa, let's go ahead and go through some of these statements that Mr. Brian made ti OK, so you have the transcript there. And I'm also going to put excerpts up on this screen right here so you can find a transcript or you can follow up on the screen. OK, all right. So just starting with the basics. Did Mr. Brian tell you what he was doing on the day question on the twenty third of February? Twenty twenty around 1:00 pm or so. I can't read what's on the screen. There's nothing on there right now. But I was I was looking for the page and line reference. OK, not for this but I start putting it up. It should be ok. So did he tell me what he was doing around 1:00 p.m. on February. Twenty third point in time? Yes, I believe he was working on his porch or his garage or something like that. OK, and Wood, do you remember specifically what he said he was doing? OK, if looking at the transcript, probably go ahead and look at that [11:45:37][131.7] [477.8] [11:45:37] and oh, yes, he did say on front porch, OK, so he's working on his front porch. And did he say that something happened to kind of catch his attention? Yes, he's working on his front porch. Yes. What did he say happened? I looked up. Can I quote it OK? Yes. Let me direct you to the line. OK, so go to page four. Yes, my lines. Eleven through twelve and stop at that period there after road for good. Oh, Mr. Brown says front porch of the house. I looked up, see a black guy running down the road. OK, and did he also say something about a truck nearby? Yes. OK, you don't have to quote. You can just speak from your memory of the transcript at this point. Oh, yes. He saw a truck paralleling or following the other person he identified as the black guy running. Yes, ma'am. OK, all right. And after this, what did he do? He said y'all got him like a question, OK? And did he say that to the black guy or to the truck? To the truck. Did he ever ask the black guy if he was OK? Not that he told me that he ever asked the black guy if he needed help. No, OK, so after he hollered y'all y'all got him. What did he do? He went to go to his truck to assist and realized he didn't have his keys. So he went back into his house to retrieve the keys and got in his truck and kind of joined. OK,. [11:47:44][126.8] [11:47:44] And 307 Burford, Mr. Bryan's address. What neighborhood is that located in Cincinnati. So I'm going to put up here on a screen right here. So at the point where Mr. Brian gets in his truck, that he go out onto the road. [11:48:08][23.4] [11:48:10] No, he should hurry to get in. Or just my words. Your own words? No, he sat there for a second and kind of assessed. Oh, he waited for Mr. Aubrey to come back towards him. OK, and what road is directly in front of Mr. Bryan's house? BURFORD OK, so if you can just read here page five lines eighteen through twenty five. [11:48:33][23.0] [11:48:34] OK, so I just kind of sat there for a minute and didn't really object. I think we got a to take up that secretary. OK, well let's do this thing in general. Probably a good break for lunch. We're going to break until we're going to be addressing some matters. Problem one o'clock, this one on one o'clock for the continuation of the evidence. Again, during break to discuss the case among yourselves or with anybody else. Don't go looking for any information about the case. And again, if somebody is talking about it in your presence of hearing, please let the court know that. We'll see if we need to address that. Thank you. All right, Terry. All. [11:49:58][83.8] [11:49:58] Right, sir. I'm going to ask that you go ahead and step down. If I could have you back here just before one o'clock for continuation of evidence in the case, I remind you that you are under oath. So do not discuss your testimony with anyone during the break. Yes, sir. Thank you. Yes. Mr. Matter, the state is cutting these statements and I understand the desire to satisfy the McMichael defendants and their root concerns. But the state is cutting up the statement so they are fundamentally being changed. And then when I cross-examine and cross-examine, the answer's going to be, oh, well, we didn't have any choice. And. [11:50:52][53.5] [11:50:52] I'm saying that there isn't some truth to that. But we're cutting up the statements to the point where what's being presented is consciously or unconsciously misleading. We're also, instead of asking, as I thought we did the other day with the Mr. Minshew, we're not asking directing your attention to page so-and-so line so-and-so. Do you recall what happened next? We're editorializing. We're changing the meaning of what's being said. For example, Roddy Brian never said in the transcript that he hollered at any one more to the point. It's clear from the transcript itself that it was evident to Mr. Brian that nobody could hear him, that the characterization of what he's doing is hollering is unsupported by the record. It's unsupported by. [11:51:44][52.4] [11:51:44] The transcript. And then I have to try and get into that. We're talking about seeing the black guy going by. It's not clear that he's being followed by the truck. Now that I understand the state wants to present that through other evidence. We've got the night owl video and so forth. But this is for Mr. Brian. This is a critical witness. [11:52:01][16.4] [11:52:01] In the case. And this material is being cut up and presented in a way that's troubling. For example, Miss Oliviera and I'm not saying it's done intentionally. I understand the difficulty here. But for example, we've heard reports Chase used the police report, used the words follow. Now, all of a sudden, Mr. Brian is saying that he joined in Mr. Brian. [11:52:21][19.7] [11:52:21] Knepper used those words. [11:52:24][2.5] [11:52:25] And I would point out, Your Honor, that the weight of all this is happening is that the state is leading former Detective Lowery through the statement that he's leading him to pages and lines. And he simply directed to that point to present evidence to the court. That's one thing, but could be leading the witness into statements like Holler and joined in. That is not simply allowing the state to get the evidence in front of the jury. It is leading to twist the narrative in ways that I would respectfully submit. Whether the state pardoned or not are simply unfair and violate of my client's rights. And I it's not that we're not trying to work through it and maybe over lunch, some of these issues will go away and I'm not asking the court at this point to bring the jury back in and give a curative instruction. I'm not asking for any admonishments, but I would just urge the state and maybe the court could provide some guidance that if we're going to go beyond asking page and line references and what was actually said, then we're not going to be able lead him there. I can lead all day long. I can do that. But they can. [11:53:33][68.0] [11:53:36] Join in this because the statements that are being made. Did he indicated he joined in? Yes, he did. What did he say? I got in my car and pulled him to the road. That's a problem. He's not saying to join and he just says, I got in my car because of the questions. So we join in that motion. It is unfair characterization. I think the court should say from this point forward, you just need to say redlined one or two through line four or five and leave at that without characterizing it beyond what's actually regulated. Michael joins this motion as well. So, you know, the defense are going to editorializing either one, he say, is the question, not the prosecution. So let me just let me hear from say I do want to add we're doing it a little differently with this witness. And I think that may be where most of this objection seems to be coming from, but from the state. Your Honor, on page four of the transcript, in terms of Mr. Goff's complaint that I use the word Hollard, his client actually used the word invalid, his client said. So I started running towards my truck and I hollered at that point, I said, y'all got him. So that was a word from Mr. Bryan himself. And I understand that I didn't have excerpts for officer mensches testimony, but it's essentially the transcript that the witness is reading from. It just helps as a visual aid for the jurors as well. So I went ahead and got excerpts from the transcript. But nothing has changed in terms of me adding or deleting anything. Here's what I heard that this counsel is aware of. The struggle with doing the statements in this way is we're having witnesses testify to individual statements that aren't coming in because of these BREWTON issues and other discussions that the court was not privy to before we got into trial. So this is a different it's not the normal way. It's not that. And it's permissible to do it this way. It just creates a lot of issues like this. What I think I heard and I agree with is what happened just a moment ago is the witness effectively summarized what he thought the statement was and then was asked again what the statement was in the statement got presented on the screen. That's how I heard it. That the objection to that is similar to objections I was getting about getting into the minds of the individual who's making the statement. And from my perspective, sort of mixing up true statements by individuals and what they're what other people thought they may be saying. And that's been going round round, I think, with a number of different witnesses here that I'm trying to figure out how to bring this together in a nice bow, to be clear. But where I'm going with it is if we've got a witness up on the stand and he's putting up the defendant's statement, we need to ensure for the jury and for the clarity, the transcript, what the defendant's statement is, as opposed to somebody else's interpretation. Y'all can argue whatever you want about those statements at some point later in the trial. And that's starting to be what's going on here. You'll have that opportunity. I'll give you that full opportunity at some point. But that's not what we're doing here. And so what I'd like to do is instead of getting somebody to interpret the statement, if it exists in the transcript, present the statement that, yes, there is a rule of completeness issue. Let's go ahead. Put the complete statement out there if you believe that there is more to the statement than has been presented. [11:57:39][243.0] [11:57:39] Yes. And if I may just add one thing I know in the course of preparing for this trial and preparing for statements to come in, we've spoken with the defense attorneys regarding, you know, some statements will be specific quotes, while others will be generally what did he say or what did he do? And they seemed to agree with that. Am I not correct that we have a conversation? So here's here's what I've discovered about all these agreements that were made before trial. Was that the moment the evidence started coming, all these agreements, everyone says, oh, your honor, we're not holding everybody to the agreements we had before trial. I will point out none of these agreements were presented to the court in writing. There's nothing that I have to enforce them or not enforce them. I had encouraged counsel to go ahead and agree to whatever could be agreed to. Apparently, some of those agreements weren't as clear as counsel believed they were. There is very little the court can do about that. What I'm telling you, though, for clarity, given this way that we're presenting the evidence, I think it's only fair that the jury understand what the statements of the defendants actually were. If they're coming in this way, if there's some clarity that needs through completeness, the court's going to permit that, as I indicated in my previous rulings. But as far as editorializing on them, that y'all are welcome to do that, you will have the facts and evidence. And again, in closing, if they're reasonable deductions that can be reached from that evidence, go ahead and argue them. We don't need to be arguing at all. Now, I. [11:59:12][93.1] [11:59:13] Don't contest the state's need at some point to get into context. That's going to be an issue. And it may be as as the evidence develops, it becomes appropriate even during the examination of this witness. Part of the problem is I think it was an agreement by one or more of the MacMichael defendants with respect to rootin issues in Mr. Bryant statements. And I don't have a problem with BREWTON issues being addressed, but what's happening as you go through the red versus the blue versus the yellow is the the mclachlin defendants agreements with respect to the BREWTON issues that my client doesn't have standing for do impact the rule of completeness where we're passing the statements like I killed him and leave out in self-defense, if that's that's where we're coming from over the break, I'll certainly do what I can to try to minimize those issues going forward. But I do think that I understand where the state's coming from with agreements on BREWTON, with cocounsel, but they can't resolve those issues without creating rule of completeness problems for Mr. Bryan. And I shouldn't have to spend hours going back through line by line, word by word doing that. But we'll see. [12:00:28][74.6] [12:00:29] Well, Judge, just you know, it's an important player in whatever Mr. Larry is not going to send you to a microphone. I have about 12. [12:00:38][9.4] [12:00:39] Excerpts taken directly from the transcript that I intend to place right there. And they're right from the transcript. So will be quotations again, of course, instruct counsel. I would like for this to proceed. If we can do it that way, then it's pretty clear to the court how we. [12:00:55][15.6] [12:00:55] Can move along. If we start deviating, then we'll see the reasons for deviating and whether we'll allow that to come in. But it is [12:01:05][10.3] [915.7] [12:01:05] just about one o'clock sorry, 12 o'clock. We're going to go ahead recess until one o'clock for lunch. And if they can stay for recess from Travis McMichael and Greg and Michael for Mr. Bryant, we will see at one o'clock. Take your recess. [12:01:19][14.2] [13:07:16] Time. All right. Mr. President, represented by counsel, I believe we are ready to proceed really from state before we proceed and state, your honor, Travis McMichael from Brinkley. Michael. Your Honor. Mr. Brown, you're all right. Let's go ahead and get the witness back on the Stamoulis. Oh, they're watching. I miss when we did Matt out of envy, you guys. You read his phone number? Yes. Let's talk about it's not cool. I think. Yeah, I meant it in the context of triplets. Second, sir, Yeah, I noticed that I didn't want to actually to show and do this on record. But if we could maybe discuss if there is some personal information like that, that's part. [13:08:23][67.7] [13:08:24] Of a recording or let's figure out whether that's something that can be removed. I don't think it needs information like that needs to come up in questioning. Unless you can explain to me, I'm looking at everybody how it's material to the case. But under the circumstances of this case, I do ask that if personal identifier, well, personal identifying information, things as specific as a telephone number are out there, I ask that they not to be injected into the case unless they are material in some way. Yes. OK, thank you for reminding me, Mr. Come. Often I'll remind you of Copsey. All right, let's go get the panel. [13:11:00][155.7] [223.4] [13:11:00] Osram. All right. Good afternoon. Welcome back. Hopefully everybody enjoyed their lunch. We are ready to go ahead and proceed with the evidence in this case from the state. Thanks,. [13:12:05][65.4] [13:12:05] Your Honor. So, Mr. Larry, to follow up on something we talked about before, what was your role in this investigation? In this case? [13:12:14][9.3] [13:12:15] I was initially lead before I was given or taken by the GBI because I was on call about the evidence that you were leaving. Yes, ma'am. OK, so before we took a break, you testified that Mr. Brian hollered at the truck y'all got. Yes, I do. And then he proceeded to get into his truck. Yes, correct. Yes. So let's talk about what happened after that. If you can just look at his screen. Sure, I can. And Mr. Larry, you saw have you seen these excerpts of the transcript? Have we gone through them together in preparation for your testimony [13:12:15][0.0] [74.7] [13:12:55] Yes. OK, all right. So if you can just read there on page five, starting at line 18 and down the line twenty five. So. [13:13:05][10.5] [13:13:06] I just sat there for a minute and didn't really know what to do. And he was and then he was trucking. So I mean he closed in on me quick and as soon as he got up to me, I overshot the road. I was kind of angled, I overshot the road and forced him to go down into the ditch right there. I say, OK. And the Mr. Brian says, I don't know if he went through OK. [13:13:25][19.6] [13:13:26] So starting from line. [13:13:27][1.7] [13:13:28] Eighteen, who is talking there? Mr. Brian. OK, so he's saying I'm the kind of angled and then overshot the road and forced a man to go. [13:13:38][10.2] [13:13:39] Into a ditch, is that correct? Yes. OK, and which road are we on here? Which road is he talking about, Mr. Brian? I think this is still on Birchard Murphysboro. OK, is that right outside his driveway? Yes. OK, and so let's now talk about the second incident with Mr. Brian and Alan. If you can just read here, starting from line one, the water or over it or what. But he bounced around me, so I was hanging on pretty good. And I think I backed up into my driveway and came back this way. OK, so I'm going to stop you. There is this page, a continuation of the one that we just went over? Yes, I believe so. OK, so can you start then reading from twenty five and then go straight on to the second page. OK, OK. [13:14:39][60.4] [13:14:40] Mr. Brian, I don't know if he went through the water or hybrid or what, but he bounced around me so I was hanging on pretty good and I think I backed up into my driveway and came back this way. OK, and what did you say. I say OK. And then Mr. Brian says and I angled my truck at him again. I think he kind of turned around. I missed him or whatever. But that's when he I told the other officer this. We were still right about in this area right here. And I say, OK, so this second incident here, when Mr. Brian is talking about angling my truck at him again, which road are we on? Are they on with the second incident? [13:15:19][39.3] [13:15:19] I believe this is still on Berghofer, just maybe a little bit further down. OK,. [13:15:23][3.6] [13:15:23] So far for Greg, leading characterization, second incident that was with the witness said, which he responded. So when we talk about a second incident, Mr. Lowry, what are we talking about? What are we referencing? [13:15:49][26.5] [13:15:50] The the second time that Mr. Brian would have tried to use this vehicle to steer Mr. Aubrey off the road? OK, from your interview with Mr. Brian, was there a third time he tried to do that? Yes. OK, let's talk about that. OK, so looking at what I see, what page we're on here, page six lines eleven through twenty. Can you go ahead and read that, please? OK, Mr. Brian says not back to the road that it happened on yet. I think I backed up and kind of went at him a little bit. And I can see that he was coming towards the truck. I mean, I had my window down. He was coming. He was trying to get in a truck at that point. So I slammed it in a drive and jumped out away from him. I mean, and me and the other officer looked, my truck's dirty. You can see where his hands were on the side, almost at the door where he was, you know, trying to get it open. So, OK, so here when Mr. Brian says that back to the road that had happened on yet, which road did it happen on? I mean, the homes road. OK, so at this point, Mr. Ryan saying he's not back on that road yet. So which road was Mr. Brian on when this happened? Still Burford retrogressed. OK, is there another time in the interview that Mr. Brian doubles back to talk about here again with his belief that the victim tried to get into his truck? I object to the characterization doubles back. We find another way to ask that question. That's a little less loaded. I can I can drive. So Mr. Lowry, does during the course of your interview with Mr. Brian, does he mention for a second time that his belief that the victim tried to get into his truck? [13:18:01][131.1] [13:18:02] I don't believe he mentioned it a second. You're talking about during the sit down interview, he did say it there. Yes, OK, I just I don't remember if that was the first or a second time. OK, so go ahead and look in your transcript. Don't read anything. Just look to refresh your recollection at page eighteen lines one through thirty. Oh yes. OK, OK. So in this quote that we just read, Mr. Brian is talking about backing up and going at the victim and saying his belief that the victim was trying to get into his truck is really going at. Well, that's what he's saying here. I don't believe she's got the correct transcript on the screen. So let's turn to the transcript if you want to find the statement. Oh, so Mr. Ryan again mentioned something about the victim, his belief that the victim was going into his truck on page 18, right? Yes. OK, so let's look that one. If you can just read that starting from line one, I'm going to line thirteen, OK? I. [13:19:24][82.2] [13:19:25] Say, OK. All right. And you said that you had you had handprints on your truck from where the guy was trying to get into it. Mr. O'Brien says, I feel pretty sure that's what he was doing. I mean, I can't say for sure that he he wasn't on the door. I didn't give him a chance to get to the door. But after I angled him off the side of the road, you know, and I kind of went on past him because I didn't hit him, I wish I would have might have took him out and not get him shot. But, you know, I probably got past him a little bit and he come up on me and I could see him in my mirror and he was coming for the door and I seen his hands on right behind the door. OK, so in this one, Mr. Bryan's talking about wishing he had hit the victim. Right. OK, now, was. [13:20:09][43.4] [13:20:09] There a fourth incident where Mr. Brian is talking about making contact with the victim in the case? [13:20:16][7.1] [13:20:17] Yes, I believe the one you're referring to is the the intersection of homes and settler homes and. OK,. [13:20:23][6.1] [13:20:24] So let's look for that one. So going to page thirteen lines nine through twenty five. Go ahead and read that for us. Pusher Bronson. I think I backed into my drive and then continued on Burford towards and I say the entrance because you said you passed the road first. Mr. Brown says towards the entrance. Towards the entrance. But I, I, I, I confronted him Angella him again before we got to the road he was lying on. I say Mr. Brian says right at the house that's on the left hand side. If you're headed towards the entrance of the neighborhood and I say you're talking about before that, before the intersection of the road where it actually happened on Mr. Brian says, right. And I say, OK, OK, so which street were they on when this happened? This would have still been Barford at the intersection of homes. OK, so that corner there on Barford. Yes, ma'am. OK, is there another time in your interview where Mr. Brian talks about this incident that we just looked at? Again,. [13:21:43][79.1] [13:21:48] Can you refresh me? I can go ahead and turn to page fourteen, lines one through eighteen and just read it to yourself and let me know if your memory has been refreshed, OK? Yes. OK, so at some point you kind of talked about that some more during the interview, right? Yes. OK, let's look at that. So page fourteen, lines one through eight. Go ahead and read that, please. [13:22:26][37.9] [13:22:28] Mr. Brian. Says yes. I mean, before I angled at him again, I say, OK, Mr. Brian says. And he jumped out of the way. And I went on past and I say, and then you pass the intersection of the road that actually took place on. And Mr. Brian says, Right. I say, did you back up or just U-turn? Because you said you and then Mr. Brian said, I was fixing I put it in reverse and was going to back up. And I say Mr. Brian says that's when he made his move to go down the road. It happened on and I say, OK, so you backed up and then turned down that road. And Mr. Brian says, yep, OK, so what area are they in? Meaning Mr. Brian and the victim, what area are they in right here when this is going on,. [13:23:11][43.8] [13:23:12] On believing this is still the intersection of Burford and Homes or where it turns into satellite homes? OK, because Mr. Brian is saying that he jumped out of the way and I went past them. And then when you passed the intersection of the road, it actually took place on and then [13:23:32][20.5] [622.9] [13:23:32] he says, right. And what's the intersection where it took place? [13:23:35][3.2] [13:23:35] Berber homes or satellite homes? Satellite homes. [13:23:38][3.0] [13:23:39] OK, and then you ask them, did you back up or just U-turn? And Mr. Brian says, I was fixing I put it in reverse and and it was going to back up at him, is that correct? Yes. OK, and then Mr. Brian says and that's when he made his move to go down the road, it happened on. And what road did it happen on? Handwrote. So this right here is when the victim made his move to go down Holmes Road where he was ultimately killed. Yes. So was there another incident of attempted contact between Mr. Brian and the victim? The was there another mine is a different direction and I'll let you respond to that. We're telling the witness, telling the witness to answer. We're not just referring to the number of the incident with the use of transcripts. So let's see if we're narrowing it on a portion of transcript. OK, so here we've been extremely patient, but there was a pretrial order regarding the overuse of the word victim. They can come out incidentally or by accident, but it is better to use the name of the person we're talking about. Victim is a characterizati. [13:25:01][81.9] [13:25:01] On Just to be consistent here. The court's ruling is already in the record. I'll try to lessen my use of the word victim judge. So Mr. Lowry did something also happen from Mr. Bryan's statement on Holmes Road? Yes, let's talk about that. OK, so I want to point you to page fifteen, actually, before we get there. Page seven lines nine through six. And Aspey to read right here. What's on the screen? OK,. [13:25:49][48.0] [13:25:50] Mr. Brown says, all right. So I backed up and started going down that way. I think angled at him again, kind of forced him off the road or something right in here. And he turned around. He turned around right here. The black guy, did he turn around maybe down this far or so? But he turned around and started running back the other way. And I pulled into a drive or something and started to turn around. I say, OK, OK. And was there a continuation of things happening on Holmes Road? Yes. OK, let's talk about that. So now I'm looking at page fifteen lights. Thirteen through twenty. Sorry, Object to the characterization of continuing with these statements [13:26:34][44.3] [180.4] [13:26:34] are eight pages apart from page page seven to page 15. It's a continuation. I just couldn't rephrase that. OK, the last one, the last quote that we put up on the screen was that the last thing that happened on Holmes Road? Not this one, but the one of the four. Oh, I'm sorry. Could you put it back on our feet? If you want me to put it back up here for, just repeat it, OK? Yeah. So when we talked about this last quote, was that essentially the end of what happened on hold? Was that OK? Did something happen after that? Yes. Let's talk about that. So going to Page, I'm going to clarify, since the state has already acknowledged that through multiple times, but we re mixing dictator two different statements in the same statement. What are we doing here? I'm I believe that's something that we go across. You can go ahead and clarify that to clarify what it could be. Clarify microscopist So, Mr. Larry, can you please read page fifteen from line thirteen to twenty five. Yes,. [13:27:57][82.9] [13:27:58] I say so. You went straight and missed the intersection, Mr. O'Brien says. Right, I say. And you were going to back up, Mr. Brian says. And then I backed over on that other road and I say, went up this road. And Mr. Brian says, Yeah. And he at that point he's still running from me, OK? He's running from me and I'm coming at him. But in any case, he turned around and started coming back. At that point, I think I may have angled at him again or something, but I didn't put much emphasis on it. I just wanted to get turned around. OK,. [13:28:28][30.1] [13:28:28] And what road is Mr. Brian and Imod on when when we see this happening? This is on Jones Road. On Holmes Road. OK, and Mr. Brian says he's running from me and I'm coming at him. Is that right? [13:28:44][15.4] [13:28:44] Yes. OK, now, was there something else that happened on Holmes Road after what we just discussed? Yes. That the shooting in the murder itself took place right after. OK,. [13:29:06][21.9] [13:29:07] And is there another portion of Mr. Bryant's interview where he talks about something leading up to that? And I'll direct you to refresh your recollection to page seven lines nineteen through twenty five. But yes, from and from seven. Nineteen four. Twenty five to see it. Yes. OK, so that was a yes. Yes, Larry. OK, let's talk about that. Go ahead and read this to the jury. Mr. [13:30:03][55.4] [13:30:03] Brian says, at this point I didn't really know, but I got turned around good. And by that time is when I rented that corner enough to see the black guy was right there but really wasn't running anymore. Look, like at this point, like I say, he just had enough of the running and he was confronted. OK, so Mr. Brian is saying when he rounded the corner enough to see the black guy really wasn't running anymore, is that correct? Yes. And it looked like at that point he was confronted. Yes. Who was confronting Mr. Aubrey? At. [13:30:49][45.9] [13:30:49] Some point during your interview that you asked Mr. Brian whether he had ever seen Mr. Aaberg before? Yes, And what did he tell you? No. OK, did you ask him if you can just go ahead and read page eighteen on to nineteen, starting from Lyons. Twenty three. So is this where you ask him, have you seen him. [13:31:15][26.2] [13:31:16] Before. Yes. OK, just read what he says. He says, I have not seen him. I say OK. Do you know of him being involved in any past instances. Mr. Brian says that I know of. No I say OK. And he says, I mean I just hear stuff that's been happening around the neighborhood. [13:31:31][15.2] [13:31:33] So you're in the course of your interview. Did Mr. Brian tell you that there might be some some sort of evidence on his truck? Oh, yes. OK, what did he tell you about that? That. [13:31:45][12.0] [13:31:45] He believed there were some prints or fingerprints and dents on his truck? OK, and what did you do with that information after. [13:31:53][8.2] [13:31:54] The interview, I went outside and processed his truck, photographed and collected fingerprints and fibers. OK, and where was that truck located? It was in the front of the Oakland County Police Department. OK, did you also take you said you took photographs? Yes, ma'am. I said yes. All right, Larry, I'm showing you what's been more private information purposes and some numbers are missing, but we'll go to the state's two hundred to a one to two to six two oh, five to seven to a nine to 10 to 11. To fourteen to 13 and to fifteen. OK, go ahead and look at these and tell me if you recognize. Yes, OK. Like the pictures that I took that you took in, are they fair and accurate? Yes, ma'am. OK, do they appear to be altered in any way at this time? We would hinder state's two hundred to two, two to five to two or seven to a nine to 11 and to 13 to 15. So objection. No objection, Your Honor. No objection. Thank you. Permission to publish. Yes, thank you. OK, so looking at state's 200, Larry, can you tell us what we're looking at here. [13:33:56][122.8] [13:33:57] ? Yes, that's kind of a far away shot of a dent that was on the driver's side of Mr. Bryan's truck, on the the bed part of it over the tailgate forever. The the gas cap. OK, and. [13:34:09][12.2] [13:34:10] Judge, is it OK if he can step down just to point to where all this stuff is? [13:34:14][4.3] [13:34:15] It makes you very careful with that statement. Just OK. And just make sure maybe we can kind of use this microphone. You don't have to point on the screen just one point, maybe like this hand or your finger however you want to use. So where are we looking at? What's what part of the truck are we looking at here? This is the driver side of the truck on the back by the bed. OK, and what did you find on that side of the truck? Oh, there were several smudges. Look like fingerprints of a dent and some fibers. OK, so in states. Two hundred. What do we see here in this? You can see one of the dents that's going to be that right there. OK, and you also mentioned some fibers. That's correct. OK, do we see the fibers or what you believed to be fibers in state's 200? I don't think. [13:35:19][63.6] [13:35:19] You can really see him in this, but there's a closer shot it on there right above the stand on this black strip of plastic. OK, so they're in that area. We just can't see them in this picture. Yes, ma'am. OK, so I'm going to slide one more past you. So looking at state's 201, what do we see here in this picture? Oh, I see some of the the smudges and prints that I was talking about and see a little bit of one right here on the front of the back driver's side door. And another one right here, just above the handle on the driver's door. OK, so looking at two to what are we looking at in two or two? This is just a close up of the last picture that was shown with the same smudge right at the start of the back driver's side door and then the smaller smudge over the handle of the driver's door to six. This is the same shot again, just from a different angle. I was trying to work with the reflection and everything in the background, but a larger smudge on just the very start of the back driver's side door and a smaller smudge on the driver's door just above the handle. OK, and looking at states to 205, this, I believe, is two or two smudges that were just above the I guess you call it weatherstripping between the door and the window of the driver's door. OK, states to seven. And this is just a closer shot of the same bigger smudge that we saw on the start of the back side driver's door. Yeah. So this area right here, what area says that to be the driver's door, driver's door. And then what's in the rear side or your driver's door? What about states two or nine oh two nine is I. [13:37:34][135.3] [13:37:34] Believe it was a smudge in the middle of the door right here. Then which door? This would be the driver's side, rear door and state's 210. That to be aware of the door behind you sort of is moving. She's still this is another smudge, I believe this was also on the driver's side door. I just don't recall if this was from the front door. The back door. OK, so driver's side either. Front door backdoor. Yes, my. OK, all right. And state's 211 in this picture. You can't really see what I was trying to capture. But right about here, there was there some kind of weird impression that it looked like it came from a volleyball? I could see the looks like y shapes that would be like hexagonal on a volleyball or a soccer ball or something. OK, but it's not visible in states 211. No, you can't see it at all. It was very, very faint. OK, did you process that at all? No, I think I just photographed it. OK, and just tell the jury why not? I thought it was a ball close impact with a soccer ball or something because it looked like a ball shape states to fourteen. This is going to be closer of the the white fibers that I mentioned above. And above the gas cam on the driver's side of the vehicle. And can you just point to where those supposedly white fibers are? Could be right here on this plastic strip. OK, and 213, this is the same photo just closer to the white fibers on the plastic strip. OK, And state to fifteen. This is the same the white fibers on that same area of the same plastic strip. OK, and you can have a seat. Thank you so much. So did you know anything about the fibers as compared to that bent that you saw that it was directly above it? It looked like they could have happened at the same time? OK, are you able to say just by looking at all this when any kind of contact happened? No. OK, so you just saw whatever it was on the truck? Yes. OK, now you talked about processing the smudges, as you call them. Is that correct? Yes. Tell us how you go about doing that. Are used black fingerprint powder of a fingerprint brush? I use the black powder and they call it developing the latent prints or the details. OK, after they become more visible with the black powder so collected with certain brand tape and placed on a it's basically an index card and fingerprint cards, I think there's like a light layer of lamination or something on them. OK, so do you take a brush, put powder on the prints and brush it? Essentially, yes. OK, and they you lift it with the tape. Correct. OK, and what do you do after that? Those are submitted into a fingerprint box for those that have believe it's either the certification allows them to the fingerprint match ups and fingerprint searches. OK, now what about the fibers? What did you do with those those. [13:41:08][213.7] [13:41:09] I collected with tape? I fix those to a black index card and I submitted those the GBI. OK, all right. So after your interview with Mr. Brian, did you find out that the person who was killed was identified? Yes. OK, and how was he identified? Through fingerprints. OK, and what was the identification, Mr. Marberry? OK, now, after talking to Mr. Brian, did you submit his phone for anything? Oh, yes, I did. OK, what did you do with his phone? After you signed the consent waiver or consent form headed off to Sergeant Oliver for downloading? OK, and did Sergeant Oliver then and turn it over to another investigator. Yes. Who investigator? Marci. OK, now after that, do you recall ever going over to 220 Atila Drive? I'm sorry, I forgot the number watchhouse was 220. Do you recall a construction site, a house under construction, being a part of this investigation? [13:42:21][72.0] [13:42:21] Yes, it was. It was much later that evening that I went there, though. But. Yes, but you went there. Yes. OK, and who did you go with? I believe it was investigator Marci investigate Ramos' and Sergeant Oliver. OK, and did you see any, like, expensive tools there in in that construction site? I. [13:42:42][20.5] [13:42:42] Think I remember seeing saws or drills or something like that. OK, so you saw multiple tools there. I don't know about multiple. I don't remember how many I saw, but I do remember seeing tools are OK. And how did the structure appear to you on the inside? It was mostly just framing. There were I don't think walls were erected in all the building. It was missing missing doors and windows. OK, did it appear that it was rummaged through in any way? OK, how did it appear? Like a house under construction. OK, just on rummaged I guess and rummaged. Could you tell if anything had been moved or destroyed or anything like that. I couldn't. You couldn't tell now. And is that still on February 2013 that we're talking about? Yes. OK, so the next day, February 24th, after meetings in the morning, what did you do? I think I had training for the rest of the day. I think I had SWAT training. Other other investigators went out and did a canvass in the neighborhood while I was in training. But yeah. OK, so you were doing SWAT training? Yes, ma'am. OK, after that, did you do anything else on the case? I'd have to go back and review. I can't I can't remember in detail immediately. OK, so I want to direct your attention to March 4th. Twenty twenty and a person by the name of Danielle Allcott. Oh yes, ma'am. I know exactly what you're talking about. OK, so did you meet with Mr. ALCA? Yes, ma'am, I did. OK, I believe it. It arose because he I guess he was concerned about the number of vehicles stopping around his house at the site and he was concerned that the public was going to think that he was somehow involved. OK, so he had a young child at home, his wife and all that when I spoke to them. Heard your concerns, got kind of a an additional, I guess, a first time statement for Mr. Allcott. I was never sure somebody else had spoken to him that day. But I'm just a I think he said that he. [13:44:45][123.0] [13:44:45] So we're not going to get into what he said. I apologize. No, that's fine. But you met with them on March 4th. Yes. OK, so on March 5th, did you send the fibers off to GBI for testing? Yes. OK, and had the prints been sent already. Oh, man. That you left it. I don't know. I don't know if those were reviewed in-house or if they were done by the GBI. I think it's all in-house review, but I'm not I'm not sure you're not sure about that. OK, now, on March 5th, what was the status of of your case as the lead detective at that time? Was it a closed case? Was it an open case? What was the status? It was still open, but not getting much traction. OK, so it was sort of inactive. Yes, but objection is not what he's what he said to us. OK, when you say not getting much traction, what do you mean? I think, in fact, it was a fair summary. OK, now, before this case, had you ever looked at the citizen's arrest law that was on the books in Georgia? I'm sure I did actually read Your Honor. It goes to how he handled the case, given the fact that Citizen's arrest is a part of the case. I thought the state was making the same objection yesterday to another witness. I'm not asking him to get into the law and what it is, but had he ever looked and what's that relevant to this? We we'll show you the relevance of the action, what he knows about citizen's arrest warrants, the question of what to go along with that law. That's it. And that's all he's ever looked at the law. That's a state and it's so did the word citizen's arrest come up at any point during any of the interviews? Of the defendants in this case? No, actions need to be brought in. But it's interesting that the word citizen's arrest come been Roddy [13:46:59][133.2] [1213.6] [13:46:59] Bryans interview. No. So at some. [13:47:02][4.0] [13:47:03] Point, did you become aware? I think you mentioned that the GBI took over the investigation. Yes. OK, and did you turn your file over to them after that? I don't know. [13:47:13][9.7] [13:47:13] If it was me specifically. They handed it over, but it was relinquished. Everything that we had was provided to them. OK, now, going back to your interview with Mr. Brian, did he have a cell phone on him during this incident where he was chasing in his truck? He than he ever say that he called 911. Did Mr. Brian ever say that Imod had a weapon on him that day? No, ma'am. OK, then, Mr. Brian, ever say Imod made any verbal threats towards him or any other person that they know? OK, did he make any threatening gestures towards Mr. Brian or anybody else that, I don't know have checked out for leading questions going around? I think that's number five. Can we find a way to ask the questions that doesn't suggest the answer to the witness? It's not suggesting the answer. He can say yes or no. In this context. No, she can't. But they are leaving questions on, OK, Yeah, So, Mr. Larry, what, if anything, did Mr. Brian say about seeing a mob commit a crime before he jumped in his truck? He didn't he didn't say anything about that. No, What, if anything, did Mr. Brian say about arresting or telling Ahmad he was under arrest for criminal trespass? He didn't. What, if anything, did Mr. Brian say about telling a mod he was under arrest for loitering? He did. What, if anything, did Mr. Brian say about telling a mod he was under arrest for burglary? He didn't. What, if anything, that Mr. Brian say about telling a mod he was under arrest for attempted burglary? He didn't. What, if anything, did Mr. Brian say about telling a mod he was under arrest for carjacking? He didn't. OK, what, if anything, did Mr. Brian say about telling a man he was under arrest for aggravated assault? He didn't. OK, did Mr. Brian ever tell a man during that chase that he was under arrest for anything? Not that I was made aware of. So at the point where your file was turned over to GBI, did that injury involvement in the case? No, it didn't end your involvement in the case? No. OK, I still I had to keep taking calls as I came in regarding the case, but I would just forward that information to the GBI, to GBI. So that calls as the lead detective that you had for it, did you? Yes. OK, other than that, did you do anything else of. [13:50:27][194.2] [13:50:28] Those calls for other concerned citizens and calls from the defendants in the case for their security, stuff like that? OK, I'll just forward it to the GBI. OK, one moment, Aaron. One more question. What, if anything, did Mr. Brian say about seeing Ahmad throw anything from his person during the entirety of that chase? On that day? He didn't he didn't say anything about that. That's all I have for you. The defense might have some questions for you. [13:51:13][45.0] [252.8] [13:51:13] OK,. [13:51:13][0.0] [13:52:05] One more. Good afternoon, Stephanus. Or have we met before? Just when I work at the county, I think we see each other in the courthouse. Very good. Well, my first question for you is this. Wouldn't you agree, based on your training and experience, that context is a key to understanding the truth behind someone's words? Yes. And that's something that you personally think is very important in your context. Yes, I think it can be if. [13:52:59][54.5] [13:53:00] You understood Roddy Brian, to have meant that he deliberately attacked Mr. Aubrey with his. [13:53:07][7.0] [13:53:07] Truck. If you understood him to say that he made an aggravated assault with a motor vehicle upon Mr. Aubrey, could you have ignored that note? That wasn't the way I interpreted it at the time. The rest? Well, obviously, that would be a very serious, serious, violent felony. That wasn't your understanding? No, sir. OK, Roddy. [13:53:39][31.9] [13:53:39] Ryan never denied following Mr. Aubrey. Did he know Sir Roddy Ryan never denied angling his vehicle ahead of Mr. Aubrey? No, sir. Roddy Ryan never denied blocking the path of Mr. Aubrey. No, sir. Roddy Ryan never denied cutting in ahead of Mr. Aubrey or cutting him off. That's correct. He never denied trying to steer Mr. Aubrey. [13:54:04][25.0] [13:54:05] Off the road. Yes, sir. But beyond that, all you can really do is speculate as to exactly how many times or exactly where Mr. Ryan did various things. That fair to say. I don't know that I can say at Speccy. It was what he told me. OK, I'll rephrase. Is it fair to say that Mr. Ryan had trouble relating the events of that day in detail or in sequence? I think everybody probably had trouble. Was a lot going on. Fair enough. I had a few other questions. And if I bounce around and you're not, you don't understand a question, you don't hesitate to say so. OK, do you have any personal relationship with Roddy Brown? Have you ever seen him in the break room at the Gwinnett County Police Department? Roddy O'Brien? Yeah, no. Have you ever seen him in the break room in the DA's office? No. OK, you've certainly never taken classes with him. No. OK, is there any reason why you would give special treatment to Roddy Ryan? Look, OK. And your decisions in this case personally about how you went about your investigation, did they have anything whatsoever to do with whether Mr. Marbury was black or white? [13:55:33][87.5] [13:55:33] No, sir. I'm going to ask a few questions about Mr. Bryan's demeanor, if I may. Look, did Roddy Ryan appear to you to be at the time you spoke with him, mentally unstable? No. Did he appear to you to be under the influence of alcohol or drugs or other toxicants? Did he come across to you? Is loud or boisterous? No. Did he come across to you as gleeful or braggy? Or boastful about his conduct that day. [13:56:07][34.0] [13:56:08] In the did Mr. Ryan strike you as someone seeking attention or seeking the spotlight? No. Did Mr. Brian drop F bombs for other profanity during this interview? I don't think so, but I'm not certain it was. Mr. Ryan in any way disrespectful to you? No, sir. Is it fair to say that you personally in your department wanted Roddy Bryan's help to get to the truth about what happened to a man? Aubrey Yeah, I hope for compliance and cooperation from everybody. I deal with at this point in time. You are not, quote unquote, after Mr. Right? No, sir. At this point, he's just a witness in your case? Yes, sir. And you're trying to reassure him that he's not the target of your investigation of. I don't really know that I can agree with that. Fair enough. Is it fair to say that you were somewhat concerned? Yes. Mildly concerned about whether Mr. Brian would, quote unquote, freak out when you went through the consent form? Oh, yes, sir. OK, because you wanted his help. Yes. Now, efforts had already been made to extract data from Mr. Ryan's cell phone. Am I correct? I think that you're talking about on scene on the roadside. Well, certainly on the roadside that had just a verbal consent. But the actual Cellebrite download wasn't until after after the forum. And Mr. Right. Didn't know anything about cell, right, to your knowledge? Yes. Speculation about it. I'll rephrase. Did you explain Selmer, Tennessee. Right. I don't remember asking you to go to before you went to school, did you know it? Cellebrite was no. Okay. But the bottom line is, notwithstanding the fact that he's already giving you his cell phone, that your department, his cell phone on the scene, you know that you need more than that, not just to consent. You need a different kind of a vat of extraction of the material. Then, Mr. Minshew, can do on the side of the road. That's correct. OK, now, in that c [13:58:36][147.9] [387.9] [13:58:36] context, again, I need an exhibit from figure from Shroeder I approached. You wouldn't want to put it. And I've never done this before. I just lied and said, look, OK, all right. Sir, I'm showing you what's been marked. State's Exhibit 290. That's a consent form in this case, is it not? Yes. OK, and Mr. Ryan signed that for you, correct? Correct. OK, and when you had when you were advising him in the consent form, whether you were thinking about it at the time, you indicated that you were looking at aggravated assault and homicide. OK, in context, the aggravated. [13:59:39][63.8] [13:59:40] Assault that you're investigating is the tragic shooting of a Marberry. Was that a question? Yes. Yes. OK, that that was your understanding? Yes. And you would assume, based on what you said, that that would be Mr. Bryan's. [13:59:56][15.8] [13:59:56] I understand. Objection. Speculation. I'll rephrase the question. Did. [14:00:00][4.1] [14:00:00] You give Mr. Brian any reason to believe that you were investigating anything different. [14:00:03][2.7] [14:00:04] Than an aggravated assault in the shooting of a moderate? No, I don't I don't think so. OK, and on this same line in your police report, you summarize the salient facts about what Mr. Ryan was relating to you, did you not, in a written report? Yes. Yes, I summarized them OK. Is. [14:00:43][38.6] [14:00:43] It fairly, fairly safe to say you've been trained in writing police reports a little bit? Yeah. I guess you went to school and you certainly seem capable of using big words. Am I correct? Sometimes your summary of the testimony you related today amounted essentially to one sentence in that report. I'm going to direct your attention to the. [14:01:19][35.6] [14:01:20] Bottom third of the third paragraph, if you'll take a moment. Look at that. Do you see the sentence Mr. Brian described? Yes. Does that refresh your memory as to what you wrote in your report? [14:01:43][22.7] [14:01:46] Yes. Hi. Mr. Brian described manoeuvering instructions to your say. You can't just read the report. Did you write in your report, your summary of all this discussion about what Mr. Ryan is doing out there on the street that day as maneuvering his trial? Objection. The judge just read the report. It's hearsay because that's the police narrative, correct? That's his state's describing what he heard in the statement. He summarized all his testimony today from his report that I mean, OK, you got the statement and that's what I was discussing. The brain. I stand corrected. You were the lead agent in this case, am I correct? Yes. OK, and if at any point can I come back to that in a second? Now,. [14:03:03][76.8] [14:03:03] Is it fair to say that homicide cases are not like other cases, but I guess in some ways they're not? OK, Is. [14:03:13][10.3] [14:03:14] It fair to say you tried to explain the process to Mr. Brian as best you could, the process of what of your investigation, what you were doing of perhaps OK, now, you did not Mirandize Mr. Bryan at this time. Am I correct? I don't recall. I don't think so, but I'm not sure the consent that Mr. Bryan gave you was for the the consent form. Now, if Mr. Bryan, in your presence, had admitted to the commission of a major felony, would you not have felt obligated to Mirandize him at that time? Yes, because at that time, had he said something like that, have you or he understood it that way, he might not have been free to leave. Objection. Speculation. That's that's speculation as fact. It's restate the question now, Mr.. If Mr. if you had understood where Mr. Bryan appeared to you to believe that he had admitted to a major felony, at that point, you would have been obligated in your training to Mirandize him. Yes, because at that point, questions might have arisen as to whether he was free to leave. Yes. And you certainly wouldn't want to mess up your first murder investigation by failing to Mirandize a subject or a target of your investigation. Sir, at the time. [14:04:48][94.2] [14:04:48] That this case was transferred from Glynn County Police Department to the Georgia Bureau of Investigation, Mr. Bryan was still considered by your agency. Well, after the date of this interview, a witness in this case. Yes, OK, and that's memorialized in the report that your agency provided to the Georgia Bureau of Investigation. [14:05:09][21.1] [14:05:10] Yes, So. [14:05:18][8.5] [14:05:19] Is it fair to say that among the words that didn't come up in this interview, besides citizen arrest, was false imprisonment? I'm sorry, can you repeat that among the legal terms that did not come up in this interview, in addition to citizen arrest, the phrase false imprisonment never came up in this interview? No, because that wasn't your focus. No. And that wasn't what you heard [14:05:41][22.1] [416.4] [14:05:41] No, And you I believe you reassured Mr. Bryan that your agency is required to investigate any homicide regardless of justification. But maybe I don't remember for sure. OK, I've been. [14:06:11][30.3] [14:06:12] A long time that you'd conducted this investigation. OK, we have a future. Yes. Directing your attention to the bottom third page to OK. Yes, So basically, you assured Mr. Brian that you were required to investigate any homicide, no matter what evidence there was justification at your duty. Yes. And that's, in fact, what you were doing. Yes. In that context that you're talking to a witness in this case, you didn't ask Roddy, Brian, how far he got in school. No, you didn't ask Roddy Ryan if he had, for example, any learning disabilities? No. OK, you didn't technically, you didn't even ask him if they could read and write the English language, although that was presumed from the execution of the consent form. [14:07:50][98.7] [14:07:51] OK, now there's been some discussion in this case of maps. And I'm not going to show you all of the maps, but I'm going to ask you if you recognize this document, which I believe is already in it. I want once if I can, you know, bring let's stick together and figure out where it is so it can be clear that I be with the storage space. Our files are here and there, so I'll try not to be distracted. All right. But I would working with Brian. Fifty fifty. I don't think. I think that works. In your honor. Technically this exhibit in the record has a state exhibit number as well, but we're not going to use that for our purposes right. [14:10:01][130.0] [14:10:02] Now as long as it's clear where we are in the records that Brian, 15, identifies, let the record reflect that shown what's been marked as defendant Brian's fifty two opposing counsel. What number is it, Brian? 550 has a different of approach. Which are. Yes, sir. I'm showing you what's been marked as Ryan exhibit fifty. Have you seen that or a copy of that before? Yes, that is that the map that you used during the interview of Mr. Raddy, Brian? Yes. All right. Now, that map isn't as pretty as some in this case, but that's the map that in your interview in the transcript you referenced showing, Mr. Bryan. Yes. And you reviewed the actual video of this interview, have you not? Yes, hopefully recently. Yes. Is it not fair to say that at times Mr. Brian appears to be so focused on this map and these squiggles on there that his answers are not always responsive. [14:11:31][89.1] [14:11:31] To your actual questions? I don't remember enough detail to to say one way or another. Fair enough, Paul. This map is not color coordinated. It's all color coded. It's all one color. Am I correct? Aside from the blue, I. Yes, yeah. And would it be fair to describe the blue ink by the end of this interview? Is the chicken scratch. Yes. This time I would tender defendants. Brian. Fifty. No objection Your Honor. It's a bit, you know, bit. Now you at the end this interview, you went through the events with Mr. Brian at least twice. Am I correct? Maybe parts. Wow. OK, that was kind of all over. Were you. [14:12:36][64.7] [14:12:36] Ever able to get a complete statement from start to finish for Mr. Brian exactly what happened? I believe so. So that's why you went over more than once, always double check, make sure things that are OK. I'm not saying I've got a perfectly clear understanding. The first time he answered a question. [14:12:54][17.4] [14:12:55] OK, And you did go over some things more than once. Yes. All right. [14:12:59][3.7] [14:13:00] Is it fair to say that Mr. Brian struggled at times to find the right words? Objection. Speculation. Did he appear to struggle at times to find the words he wanted? Yes. OK, [14:13:12][12.0] [445.9] [14:13:12] yeah. And at one point you acknowledged that. Is that correct? I don't remember. Well, at this point, you're trying to get to the truth, right? Yes. And anything that interferes with your ability to do that, you're going to try to rectify. [14:13:34][21.4] [14:13:35] Yes, OK. All right. And reassuring. [14:13:37][2.4] [14:13:38] Mr. Brian as part of that, kind of like a kid at a ballgame. Good job that boy. No, never mind. I'll withdraw the question. [14:13:46][8.1] [14:13:46] He didn't have a chance to say there. I'm sorry. I trying to prevent from Mr. Clay. Sir, please explain. I didn't understand what you asked you. That's what I thought. So I'm just going to address in a different way, directing your attention to page nine lines thirteen. [14:14:11][25.5] [14:14:13] Through. I have no objection. Judge me, reapproach. This is something that Mr. Goff and I talked about before we did this. And if we may approach, that would be great. And maybe this would be a good time for a break. I'm interested. Loose job if I can just have you step out in the jury room for just a moment. Breuker we leave the witness on the stand or do I need to have the witness step down. [14:15:31][78.3] [14:15:32] There way? I feel comfortable with what is what is the issue here? I'm trying to elicit what I'm trying to elicit is page nine lines fourteen to nineteen. Question from investigator Lourey. I do understand where you're coming from because we've all not necessarily this exact situation. We've all been there where crazy stuff happens that quick and you're still trying to process what just happened. Mr. Bryan responds affirmatively. Yeah, I mean, that's exactly the kind of way it was. He's acknowledging that he's having problems processing these events that day. And that's in response to the detective's question. And it certainly goes to the rule of completeness. We've been bouncing all over this witness statement, and it's only fair that the jury know that he's having trouble processing what's going on. And because he can't process it, he's having trouble relate it to the officer. He's not trying to deceive the officer. He's struggling with his answers. And it goes to the way the jury is going to give the answers that they have picked and chosen [14:16:36][64.3] [199.9] [14:16:36] from this interview to present to the jury. [14:16:38][1.9] [14:16:40] Your Honor, then Detective Larry, his words aren't relevant to what Mr. Brian stood or didn't understand. If Mr. Goff wants to get into what Mr. Bryant himself said, that's a different story. But I don't see how Mr. Lowery's words are relevant here. And essentially, the part that Mr. Goff wants to get into is all what investigator Larry said. And it does not go to the rule of completeness, not completeness, goes to the conversation. Does it matter who started the conversation? What matters? Is it the conversation is complete. And for the conversation to be complete, that question and that answer, this jury needs to hear that you are going to permit it from the state. He will follow up on redirect. You're welcome to do so. Let's go get the panel, which is that I think is you. That's right. I said yes, that's right. And Snake through the witness actually has a transcript. So I'm sorry, Jeff, I have one more thing as it pertains to that. Can I mention that now, if anybody start with Dawn. So whatever it is, a quick OK, the door opens, we need to stop. So at the point where this statement comes in that we just discussed, that was Mr. Brian, that was Mr. Brian relaying the shooting portion of this incident. So Investigator Larry was asking him about the actual shooting portion, what he saw, you know, what happened first? What happened second, when was the gun pulled, et cetera. So it would be unfair to the state because then I can't get up there and ask him specifically what Mr. Brian was confused about, because, of course, I can't get into that because of Brewton. So it would be one thing if Mr. Brian was saying, well, I'm confused about what I did with my truck, but that is not the context of the statement that Mr. Goff is trying to get into, because that's not that. Understand, sir, and it's why it's 13 to 14 May 13 to 19, I think 14, 13. But it starts this. The full transcript indicates the state is reflected. There is a at least a page where there is a discussion almost more than page a discussion about the incident at the truck. And Investigator Lowry's question on page nine, starting at 1:00 to yeah, no, I get where you're coming from. It's stuff like this. It happens in a blink of an eye and and then we start getting into all of this appears to be directly related to the description of what occurred at the truck. There's no question that, as the state says, the immediately preceding part says that. But rule of completeness demands [14:22:00][320.4] [322.3] [14:22:00] more. And, you know, it's putting us in a evidence posture here where, again, we can't get to the meaning of what my client said, having read through it. Again, the context. [14:22:13][12.5] [14:22:13] Of the quote that you are asking the court to permit is clearly with regard to the truck and the incident at the truck. I know you want to read that more broadly, but it's directly it is the investigators comment to his description of what occurred at the truck that then results in this statement to court. We're not going to permit it. Understand the context now. Much better than I did before. And it's not coming in. And I'm not questioning the court's ruling. But I do want to make it clear we're objecting to the rule of completeness that we should be allowed to ask specifically the question and answer reflected at page nine lives thirteen to nineteen. The transcript interview, the detective already had with Roddy. Brian, thank you. Let's go get the panel. All right. All right. Ladies and gentlemen, welcome back again. I thank you for your patience. We've addressed the matters that we need to address before the court and we ready to proceed. Mr. Sir, I believe when you interviewed Mr. Brian, he discussed his becoming involved in this matter more than once. Yes. And the first time, if I recall your testimony correctly from earlier today, he used the word overshot the road. I think, of directing your attention to page twelve lines. Twenty three to twenty five, page thirteen lines one to seven. Okay. Okay. The second time that you reviewed this with him, he described what he did as creeping out of the driveway, is that correct? Yes. That he just crept out of the driveway. Good. Unquote. Yes. OK, were you able to ascertain what creeping out of the driveway means as opposed to overshooting it? Did you follow up on that? No, I just I took Cryptome slowly. OK, all right. And certainly that didn't have a whole lot to do with the shooting itself, did him creeping out of the driveway slowly? No, Now, there were several. [14:25:49][216.1] [14:25:50] Points in time where he didn't seem to follow your question, whether or not objection, the speculation. This is the rephrasing can do you recall asking him whether he backed out of the ditch? Yes. OK, and what was his answer? No, I think I backed back into my drive. Did that really answer your question? Uh, no. OK, was he looking at the map while he was doing this? I don't I don't remember. OK, directing your attention to page seven, is it fair to say that Mr. Brian is fond of the word kind of what kind of objection is speculation if you're referring to the transcript itself? Right. I am. I'm referring to the portion of the transcript I thought the state had already gone into. So directing your attention to page seven, line eleven, does Mr. Bryan use the word Kott phrase? Kind of, yes. OK, we were you able to ascertain what Mr. Bryan meant when he said kind of. No, I don't know that I saw clarification on that. OK, directing your attention to page fifty, page fifteen. I'm sorry, it's not page fifty eight, fifteen and trying to find a line that number for you sir. All right. Directing your attention to line three. [14:28:20][149.6] [14:28:22] Again, Mr. Bryan's using the word kind of angled. Yes. All right. And then. [14:28:29][7.1] [14:28:34] On. [14:28:34][0.0] [14:28:34] The following page, I'm to page sixteen and lines one and two and I believe you already testified before that. Mr. Bryan didn't put quote unquote much emphasis on it, that being angry. Yes, that's what he said to do. You have any idea what he meant by much emphasis, objection to speculate? I'll rephrase. What did you take it to me? Objection to relevance about what? Detective Larry took it to me. Mr. directing your attention to Page fourteen can have lead that statement over part of this on direct examination. Mr. Bryan. [14:29:44][69.8] [14:29:44] Told you that he was going to back up, that Mr. Harbury. Correct. Yes. But to do that, he'd be backing he'd be following Mr. Harbury in reverse. Mr. Tyler, I think we've got to draw the rates of water necessary because we've got some water like that in Salt Lake. Water for moving at that point, Mr.. Whether he used the words or not, he was saying he would be following him in reverse. That he would be. No, no, I don't think that's what he says. He says I was fixing I put it in reverse. I was going to back up Adam. [14:30:47][62.6] [14:30:48] All right. And then before he could do that, he tells you that Aubrey had run up the road. My correct he called, quote, Paul made his move to go down the road. It happened off. [14:31:02][14.6] [14:31:11] Yes. With attention back to the map, such as it is that you're working with during this interview in order to follow Mr. Augury of the Street, he's basically backing off away from him to do that. Or are you asking that? Yes, I. I don't I don't understand what you're saying. You're asking if he is reversing up the road, following him. Well, I believe you've testified that Mr. Brian is fixin'. I think that's the word Mr. Brown uses to back up at him. But by this time, Mr. Aubrey has already changed direction and is running up the other street. OK, yes. So at that point when Mr. Brian is backing, backing up, he's technically he's got to back away from Mr. Aubrey to follow. [14:32:05][54.2] [14:32:07] I wasn't I didn't see where he turned up. Fair enough. It's hard to tell from what you're describing, exactly what he's doing. That fair can be a and in fact, if I understand you're the future. All right, sir. I'll try and use this device here again. Can you see the map, sir? The kind of it's upside down. Does this help you to table if you see it now? Kind of. It's it's just you're it looked like. Oh, wow. So much better. Thank you. Thank you, Mr.. All right. That's the only. Oh, oh, look at that. Garage. Detective. Larry, do you see this kind of el the squiggle off to the side. Do get that reflects Mr. [14:33:44][97.4] [14:33:45] Ryan telling you that he's basically going down that road while Mr. Aubrey is going up the road behind. But that's what that means. I don't know what that squiggle means. This was almost two years ago now. Objection. Judge, if you could just let him finish his answer. I thought you said go ahead. Hey, I don't want to cut you off, sir. I thought I was done to get behind, do that thing again. Now, did you ever ask Mr. Ryan what I meant when he said ankle? But I don't think so. It wasn't germane to the investigation at that point. And I believe earlier today you described it as dear. Yes, I think OK. And at no point did Mr. Brian identify to you a mathematical angle. Did he know? So what we're talking about emphasizing angles or good angles or bad angles, we don't know whether that's a ninety degree. [14:34:58][73.5] [14:35:00] Forty five degree, 180 degree, and even know the one in between ten point five hundred. There's been no discussion any of that, my friend. Yes, OK. And for the purposes that the stated when the state was examined you earlier this morning, did they ever ask you the distance between Mr. Ordinary and Mr. Bryan when these angling events or steering events took place? Not OK. That would make a difference to you, wouldn't it, if you were if you were investigating an aggravated assault with a motor vehicle that made a difference? Yes. I mean, if I say, for example, you're in a patrol car and you want to talk to somebody, maybe they don't want to talk to you. And you and will your flawed car in front of them, if you do that six inches away from then that's a little bit different than if they're sixty feet down the road, isn't it? Objection. Irrelevant relevance. Hypothetical as it pertains to this case. Relevant, you. So let's stick to what he knows and what was testified to in the statements, if you can read that together. I think that. Yes, Your Honor, thank you. Did Mr. Brian ever relate to you tearing up any of his neighbors yards? I don't think so. OK, did he ever relate to you making skid marks or other marks on the roadway when he stopped Sean OK, so it would be fair to say then that any angling that was done had to be a relatively low speed objection to speculation. I'll rephrase that. Did you ever ask Mr. Brian and I think I know the answer I have to ask, did you ever ask Mr. Ryan at what speed he was traveling when any of these angley maneuvers took place? No, but you are out there to assure us that day where you know. Yes, OK, I think at one point you testified you went down to 20 to tell the president. And of course, you were not very far from Mr. Ryan's house at that time. Did. [14:37:29][148.9] [14:37:30] You notice any unusual marks in the road that you thought might be related to this case in front of 220 anywhere on the scene that day? Did you see it? I'm not talking about the body. That is six minutes. That's a different I'm talking about tire tracks, road marks, skid marks. Did you observe anything out there that day that been suggested? Aggressive driving? Not that I can recall. That. [14:38:06][36.4] [14:38:06] Mr. Bryan never used the word chaos in his interview with you. I don't think so. I have to go back and reread it. But from his description of the events, would you characterize that description as chaotic objection to relevance about how he would characterize the description of events that sustained. [14:38:28][22.1] [14:38:31] A move on? I heard you describing based on Mr. Bland statement, for he was at the scene, I should be clear, based on his statement, what Mr. Ryan is related to that system of. Did Mr. Bryan express to you uncertainty as to what he should do that day before the shooting, before the shooting? I vaguely think so. I'd have to go back and review, if you could, directing your attention. I have a lot of page folk directing your attention to page five to lines eighteen nineteen. Yes. Did Mr. Ryan express to you that he didn't know what to do? He did. [14:40:09][98.5] [1063.2] [14:40:09] When saw the Aubrey coming back. Yes. Did he did he express any eagerness to confront Mr. Gardner at that time? No. [14:40:09][0.0] ---[14:41:36] When he come to find out later. You remember that? I'll have to look. All right. Did he describe moments when he can't see anybody else out there other than Mr. Arber? I don't remember [14:41:56][20.3] [14:41:56] fair. Yeah. I believe you've already testified to Mr. Bryan or me, Mr. Bryan. Statement about Mr. Aubrey trying to get in his truck. And I believe directing your attention to page 18. Do you remember the state asking you, suggesting that Mr. Ryan wished that he had hit Mr. Armorer? Yes, that may. That's not it. That's not accurately reflecting the nature of that statement, is it? I don't know. Did you take Mr. Bryan to be wondering aloud whether he might have, in fact, saved Mr. Armories life? [14:43:28][91.6] [14:43:28] Objection. The speculation here, if you're asking him what he thinks the statement might mean. I'm asking that he took the statement sustained when Mr. Ryan said that did in. Was there anything about his demeanor or body language suggesting that he intended to? No, I don't remember which time he might have said that, but I didn't see I don't know what body language would look like indicative of him actually doing that. He didn't seem any more distressed. Somebody would be. And, you know, this kind of stressful situation, would you describe his demeanor as remorseful? I don't know that I was around him long enough to see remorse or just kind of shocked. Shocked, certainly not gleeful. No, a few easy ones. Mr. Bryan. Or you observed in examining this yourself, in examining Mr. Bryant's cell phone, did you observe whether it was Password-Protected? I don't recall. I just know from seeing the consent form earlier that I think it said in a password or no passcode. Directing your attention to the top part of page two of the transcript line can correct. You recall asking him whether it was password. Yes. And he told you no. Yes. And if there had been one, you would have asked him for. Yes. I believe. [14:45:46][137.4] [14:45:46] Mr. Bryan told you that there was lumber in the back of his truck during this incident. Yeah, I think so. Mr. Bryan told you that he got the keys from his house? Yes. Inside the house. I got to ask you about the now famous video that Mr. Bryan made to assure us that day. I'm directing your attention to Page sixteen lines nine. Twenty five to page seven, lines one through twelve. The state has no objection. I'm simply going to ask you to read that portion of the transcript beginning at line sixteenth line nine patients said page sixteen, line page sixteen, line nine. Excerpt five. Pretty. [14:46:52][65.9] [14:46:52] Good understanding of it now. So I think if I'm recalling correctly, when you're on the side of the road, you were telling me you might have had another video of the same guy on your phone from a previous incident. And Brian says, no. I say, OK, I misunderstood that. Then Brian says, no. I thought those two videos of on there, [14:46:52][0.0] [294.9] [14:47:11] of and I must not have been recording. And I say, well, the first you do, you said stop at nineteen eighty. I continue to page seventeen line to well the first you do you do have two videos of the same incident today. Brian says well one of the all copied it somehow or another or something. Maybe I say OK he says, I mean the exact same incident and I say yeah it's weird. [14:47:35][24.0] [14:47:37] I'm. [14:47:37][0.0] [14:47:38] Sorry. You're turning the page. Yes. What did you want me to stop? I don't. Seventeen start with. So you've got I think it's at the top of the page. He he asked stop. Oh line twelve. Got like the. [14:47:51][13.5] [14:47:52] Very last two videos, photos, anything. One is a longer video that contains the same. Mr. Brian says they tried to cross it and send it to the original officer Minshew. I said OK. And he said tried to profit and send it and he couldn't do it. So I thought there is two those. I thought I started filming him right before we got to the fork, before we go or before we got to the major intersection right there. I thought I had started filming there, but apparently I didn't. Apparently I didn't hit the button. I say so you don't. From what I recall watching the video, it looks like it starts as you're like. Coming up, this road catching back up to them, like going back towards that intersection. To Brian says, yes. I say, OK. So, yeah, like roughly the you know, there somewhere seems like you start recording because Brian says probably. Yeah, I say coming up that road and watching as you around the corner, you can see him running. Mr Ryan says thank you so you were asked a number of questions earlier about things in history. Brian didn't didn't say Mr. Brian did say that he'd heard stuff that's been happening in the neighborhood that B page nineteen. [14:49:09][77.4] [14:49:18] Yes, right. But at that time, you didn't follow up with him about that, did you know? Not not there, because I don't remember if it was before or after, but I already asked if he knew Mr. Aubury recognized him and ever seen him before. Fair enough. You didn't ask Mr. Brian whether his family had been victims of theft and property crimes and still a shortage. Did you. [14:49:42][24.0] [14:49:44] Know? Not specifically. You didn't ask whether Roddy Brian had installed a home surveillance system? No, I have no no reason at the time. I'm not questioning your judgment, your techniques. I'm just covering a few facts. Almost done. You never, ever afraid, Brian, about his night owl video, his night owl video in a do you know. [14:50:21][36.9] [14:50:21] How rowdy Brian's cell phone wound up in Sergeant Alaskas car? I don't recall. Do you know how many officers besides yourself were on the scene that day without functioning body cams? Or dashboard videos? I don't. OK, and it's not your job to keep track of that, is it? Mr. Now you're I'm going to use the word interview, but you feel free to explain. OK, but your interview with Mr Brian, my word for it on the scene is not recorded. Correct. OK, and I don't believe it's documented is it. It wasn't a very detailed, thorough interviews, just really viewing the video and then getting him to agree to come back and sit down, speak with me. Yes. Is there any way for you to say how many other brief other undocumented statements might be out there that day? No, I have no way of guessing. OK, so is it fair to say by the time you finish interviewing Mr. Brian that evening, I think it's evening. Yes. By the time you finish interviewing Mr Ryan that evening, he has been back and forth through the events of that day several times with multiple police officers. [14:51:48][86.5] [14:51:49] I don't know what other officers he went through it with, but I could say probably I know we spoke with him briefly on scene about it and then again at headquarters. So I would say at least at least twice with me. OK, and you may have been privy to some of that information, but probably not all of. Yes. OK, things that you didn't ask a lot of time spent on that earlier. You didn't ask Roddy Brian whether he was armed or unarmed at the time of the shooting in your interview, am I correct? Yes. Would that be because you've already covered that out on the scene? Yes. Or so I thought. I don't know that I asked him that on the scene. Well, from the circumstances, it seemed clear to you that he was unarmed. Yes. [14:52:35][46.1] [14:52:37] You didn't ask Roddy Brian about Matt Albanese? No. OK, I won't ask ask him about Matt Albanese. What about mental Binsey? [14:52:48][10.8] [14:52:49] Well, in terms of. [14:52:52][2.5] [14:52:52] Trying to understand why Mr. Aubrey was running in the way that he did, did you ask him whether he and Mr Albanese had any contact? No, no. Did you ask him if he could see Mr Albanese? No. OK, did you and of course, you didn't interview Mr Albanese. You don't know? No, sir. OK, you didn't ask Roddy Brian whether he called nine one one, did you? I don't I don't remember if I did OK. And partly that would be because under Georgia law, Mr Brian had no legal obligation to do so. Under Georgia law, which I rephrase, it was the subject. [14:53:41][49.4] [14:53:42] Of 9/11. Never came up with Mr Bryan. Did it? No, I don't think so. You did. You did proceed to be pertinent to your investigation at that time? No, Is it fair to say that when you examined Mr Brian's truck that you did not recover any prints or possible prints from either the front or the back of the truck on? Everything that I recovered was from the driver's side, aside from the unknown volleyball, soccer ball print on the back, you did not recover any cotton fibers from the front or back of the pickup truck. Just for clarification, you're saying like just the very, very front and the very back, excluding the sides, the grill and the front bumper, the back bumper and the tailgate collected nothing from the front or the back. OK, and did the state even show you a picture of the front of the truck today? I don't think I. I don't think I did or I don't think I saw it. I don't remember there being one in there. There's certainly no physical evidence to suggest it. The Mr Bryan's vehicle made any contact on the front of the back or on the corners with Mr Arber. I don't I don't understand what you're can you paraphrase what you said? It kind of like a there OK. There are no fingerprints on the on either of the front corners of the truck. None, the none that I was aware of. None that I processed. No cotton fibers on either corner of the front of the truck. None that I was aware of. No, I processed no fingerprints or cotton fibers on either of the back corners of the truck. No the prints that you recovered or suspected prints and the cotton fibers are all on the driver's side of the vehicle behind or at the the door on the driver's side. Yes, OK. And that would be consistent with the testimony or the statement that Mr Brian gave you. Yes, All right. And. [14:56:13][150.6] [14:56:16] Technically, see, if I understand the sequence of events, you all decide on the scene that you want to do it, do a crime scene, work on the truck. Right. I didn't make that call. I don't I don't know if somebody made the call. OK, but at the time that decision was made, whoever made it, you were down at the public safety center, correct? You also, sir, are you saying that they brought the car asking if they brought the crime scene truck to the scene and still assures? OK, yeah, I'm not helping you here. My apologies. You. [14:56:51][35.7] [14:56:52] Asked Mr Brian to bring his pickup truck from Seattle Offshores down to the Glynn County Police Department. Public Safety Center. Yes, just on the other side of the interstate. Yes. You asked Mr Brian to do that? Well, no, I just asked him to come for an interview. He happened to drive the truck and he told me about, you know, the dings and the smudges while I was there interviewing him. OK, and this is several hours after the shooting, this point, is it not? Yes. This is after Mr Brian has been sent home. To your knowledge that I process Two-stroke know that by the time he requested him to come downtown, he's already gone home with his truck. [14:57:31][39.1] [14:57:33] I don't think his truck was still on scene. I think from the scene he came from the scene to the PD for the interview and the truck to be processed. OK, so you don't know whether he went home with it first? I don't know. OK, is it fair to say that Glynn County has no shortage of carwashes? [14:57:48][15.6] [14:57:49] I don't know. Did you did you observe any effort on the part of Mr Raddy, Brian, to tamper with or destroy the evidence in this case? No. Mr Brian wanted you to have the evidence. Objection. Is. [14:58:04][14.5] [14:58:04] There anything more? Thank you. Is there anything more that Mr Brian could have done to help you with your investigation of Butler? Thank you, sir. Yes, sir. No further questions the that before. Of course, Mr Close could do that. [14:58:36][32.0] [14:58:37] In general. Let's take a fifteen minute recess and we'll come back for continuation of the evidence from jury and the Magistrate's Court attention before we bring them back in for questioning. I'm going to go ahead and have you step down. If you could. Please be back in fifteen minutes for continuation of Roger Underoath. Do not discuss your testimony with anyone during the break. Yes, sir. Thank you. I love you. And I can do that. I don't. To the matters this year, we had some testimony by this officer when the state asked the question on March 5th. Twenty, twenty, you were not getting much traction in the case and the case went inactive. No, that testimony there was an objection was objection to as well. But that I mean, the testimony in the court and that was it was an objection. I'm sure that was one. That was when the objection was in purpose. That's right. And so. [15:00:31][114.5] [15:00:32] I was at that time stepping into my brain. Yes. And he said, yeah. What she says it was in fact. Yes, So I'm asking for permission to cross this officer on the fact that that's not actually true. This officer did a lot more investigation and action in the case all the way up through July of twenty or twenty. And I would like to go into the things that he also did. Now that's going to cause some issues maybe with the state, because what he did are some of the things that the court has said we can't get into. For example, some of them are not things that the court said we can't get into. But the state has now given the jury the impression that this officer didn't do anything after three, five and that the case wasn't getting traction, was inactive until the case was handed over to the GBI. That's simply not true. It's also been a lot more, Your Honor, In fact, on three twelve, he received documents from the coroner's office that were gateway records for the AMA, Mr Aubury on three seventeen. He received a report about the blood in the case, the toxicology on 317 I'm sorry, on March 12th, he got some of the Gateway behavioral records about probably on April 1st, he got the autopsy report from the medical examiner. On May twenty nine, he got the full records of Gateway and on July 14th, he got the heart blood results back that said there was positive THC. And whether he did this before the GBI got involved or later, he was still working with the GBI, dealing with some of these issues. And so it would not be accurate or fair to leave the jury with the impression that this officer ended his investigation within 12 days of the shooting. That is simply not the case. And I intend with the court's permission, to bring the truth to light for the jury. Now, if the court says I can't do it in the way that I want to do it, then I just want to be clear about what I can and cannot do. But I believe the state has opened the door to us talking about what he's done here are the state's intention was once again to just smoothly transition this because nobody wanted to go into anything that took place about the real reason that everything stopped, because it's messy and irrelevant as to the guilt or innocence of these defendants in this case, simply asking him, did you receive additional records on March 12th, March 17th, April 1st, May 29th and July 14th, by the way, the July 29th and July 14th records came to him, even though they were requested by the GBI is a simple way to go. Oh, yeah. There were some other stuff I did. This [15:04:00][207.1] [980.4] [15:04:00] appears to be a very good strategy by the defense to try and circumvent your order and then put into play evidence that you have ruled inadmissible, such as the gateway records, the blood toxicology, and then the additional blood and the heart blood results. So the state would object fully to going into all of this because what they want is how do I put this nicely? What they say they want is to show that this officer did some more stuff. But what they want to do is go into stuff that you've already ruled inadmissible in order to show this officer did more stuff. It's very easy to ask one simple question. Did you receive additional documents on this date, the state, the state, the state and the state? Because all he did was receive stuff in he didn't actually do anything but receive documents. And it was never the state's intention by asking that question [15:04:00][0.0] [15:04:59] because it's our understanding that when we asked him, he basically said, yeah, it kind of went inactive. Those were his words to the state during the interview. Is that [15:05:07][8.5] [15:05:05] to the state during the interview. Is that correct? He said much traction. And I said, OK, that's what he said when we interviewed him yet. So this is something that we don't feel opens the door to any of this. And if this is solely what the defense claims it is, which is, oh, this officer did do some more stuff, then it's really easy to just ask him. You receive documents in the state, the state, the state, the state, the state didn't use part of the investigation. Doesn't matter what the documents are, because you've already ruled that that evidence is inadmissible. For other reasons and it really doesn't have anything to do with the credibility of this officer or the investigation, because obviously Richardville will come in and testify that on May eight, he may he received the case and began his investigation as part of the GBI, which this officer has already also testified to the GBI came in and took over the investigation. So we ask that you deny the motion if you're going to grant the motion to go ahead and ask these questions, then the question should simply be on these dates. Did you receive additional documents on floor? [15:06:16][70.9] [15:06:17] We now have to refer to presentations by the state to this jury. That case and the investigation by the Glen County Police Department has stalled and nothing happened. That was what they were told in opening by Mr McCaskey. And now the lead investigator on this case has been asked to testify that they weren't giving any traction and the case went acted. And it is still, your honor, it's March 5th that they established that happened. We still have the rest of the month of March. We still have the entire month of April and we still have a week into May before the GBI is the case. It is our responsibility to help the jury understand the total investigation done by this department, the fact that they were thorough in their investigation, the fact that they did all this work and their investigation is important to establish. I understand the court has ruled. And if the court says yes, you can ask them what they got for the documents or they got, unquote, records from various sources, or if you prevent us from saying what the sources are and we just are able to establish they continue to work on this case and follow up, I suggest that that's not love. I still think we need to correct this. And I would just ask the court to consider they've now done it twice. It was intentional and that is putting us in the position. We were not meant to be a fair trial. We're in recess for at least another ten minutes. I'll come back and I'll let you know where you are. Thank you [15:08:06][109.7] [180.6] [15:21:39] So I would back on his present, represented by counsel. He's back in place. All right. As to the opening the door, the court's not going to permit getting into the evidence that has been excluded. The defense does want to follow up on the investigation. You're wanting to ask if there were any additional documents or any additional well, any additional documents that came in. It didn't sound like he went and did additional work. So just so that I understand the scope. [15:23:03][84.4] [15:23:04] Well, I. I think what these documents reflect and what his reports reflect is that he was interacting with the medical examiner's office. Still, that he was interacting with the crime lab still, and that he was also working with the GBI to obtain information and pass information along to them. And he was interacting with subpoenas about, you know, these gateway records through the coroner's office. So he was interacting with individuals with particular agencies, and he was receiving documents and information before the GBI got involved. And then after the GBI got involved. So there's several pieces of information in there. Judge, you just you know what I want to get into and I guess you would just be telling me I can identify the agency, I can identify the place the documents came from. Why I can't I those and yes and no. I mean, the courts excluded certain evidence. And so, no, we can't for example, even if you're not going to get into the gateway documents, we're not going to talk about Gateway. We're not going to talk about the evidence that's been excluded in the case. So I can't say even medical records. No,. [15:24:33][89.1] [15:24:33] It's getting into the evidence in the car. Just want to be clear. Aubrey's medical records have been excluded. Right. So I can't give that the lab toxicology received reports back from toxicology from the Georgia crime lab. There's still interacting with the Georgia crime at this point. I've not heard of any other way that they're coming in and they've been excluded based on the court's order. And this is not open the door to them. So I can't say that he received documents from the Georgia crime lab. What what other documents are there? Those. Yeah, that's just the toxicology reports. I'm sorry. I'm just trying to make sure I'm understanding what we're talking about. The courts, you know, don't want to go back and figure out all of the specific rules again, how they how they would relate directly to these documents. So they could just be. And just to be clear, because I'm trying to make sure there's no ambiguity in the court's order. So the court's order exists. You're now asking me what you can put in. What I keep saying is the court's ordered and I want to be so specific that the record reflects what I'm not allowed to do. And I remember the court's order that said we could not get in the toxicology records. That would be the blood alcohol and the THC. And you said we can't go into that. Now, what I'm asking is, can I at least say that he received documents from the crime lab? Are there any other documents? Let's see. He got toxicology and second tox. No. So if we say the what the documents are. No. Yes. Short answer, y. [15:26:22][109.3] [15:26:22] Es Or no. Documents are irrelevant, so it wouldn't matter either way. So, of course, them are relevant so. [15:26:27][4.7] [15:26:28] And so. I can't even say that he interacted with the crime. [15:26:31][3.0] [15:26:31] Lab. I'm asking counsel that under the court's order that I'm not coteries understand the only thing he could be referring to is evidence that has been excluded. Adam? Well, we can get around it, but I hear what the court's saying. So I can't inform the jury that he interacted with the Georgia crime lab and he also interacted with the coroner's office. What was the I don't understand that we can get around that well, but I don't the court's ruling I don't understand. What I'm suggesting is the court doesn't want the jury to know that there are blood toxicology records about alcohol or THC. But I certainly could say crime lab records. I just want to show that this gentleman is doing work with state agencies about this case. I think you missed what I said. No, you're not going to get into that, because if the only crime lab records are excluded, excluded evidence, the. No, it's just not relevant. I got that. I got it. I just wanna make sure that our record is clear about that. And so that's a no receiving toxicology on three seventeen. That's a no receiving toxicology on 714 twenty. That's in the receiving gateway records. From the coroner or giving records to the coroner, just that he's even interacting with the coroner for that he's interacting with the coroner on three twelve and that he's interacting with the coroner on five twenty nine. Will the court allow me to ask him or or have him stay? Yes. I continue to interact with the coroner on three twelve and I continue to interact with the coroner on five twenty nine. The cour. [15:28:09][98.0] [15:28:09] Ts Rule. I would suggest a simple way for the four defense counsel to avoid violating the court's order is to simply say that there was some additional work done and he talked to some additional agencies, got some additional documents, OK, additional work, additional agencies and additional documents as on it. And I will be clear about it because I heard in their a statement that made me concerned when you said there's a way to get around that I am not going to engage on prior orders that have been very clear. And so in order to avoid that and based on where this is going, that's what I'm going to counsel to. All right. So it's a perfect of course, we are joining in this. But there is also one other piece of work that this investigator did, and that is that he is the individual who carried the Half-Blood from the autopsy to the crime lab for toxicology. That's just to complete the record of all the things that the court has ruled cannot come in. But were would have otherwise been responsive to the state's question. OK, and then judge, the one I missed is on on April 1st, he got he received the autopsy report from Dr Donohue. I don't think that violates the court's order to say that, Dr Tony. He was going to be testifying. Oh, yeah. Oh, yeah. So I can tell the jury he got the autopsy report that I won't get any toxicology, I won't get into the medical records and Gateway, just that he received the top. He received the autopsy report on April 1st. So I was like, that's not violative of the court's order. Perfect. All right, I'm ready. Thank you, Judge. West, thanks. All right. Welcome back. You get up. Juries coming in and you stay standing. You want your friend back. I remind you that you under oath. Yes, sir. All right. We got everybody instruct the witness, Your Honor, that I'm asking very general questions that are not and include the details that we don't get here. Well, why not ask leading questions? Because that would that anything you wouldn't ask a question that requires a response that violates the court's order, particularly after discussion with her, because although there may be an inadvertent disclosure under these circumstances, the court's not going to make an inadvertent disclosure. Yeah, I'm not making a port Said. Like I said, I know if we wanted to inform the witness how we were limiting his testimony, I'd be happy to do it to avoid the problem. Or let's thank goodness. No, it's all right. From jury [15:32:01][231.5] [620.0] [15:32:01] and say thank you. Hi. Welcome back, ladies and gentlemen. We are ready to proceed with the evidence. Mr Shepherd, take the afternoon. Clarrie. Afternoon, sir. I'm Jason Sheffield. I represent Travis Michael. We haven't spoken yet on this case. I know, OK, but I have listened very carefully to your testimony, cross-examination, all that and just want to bear down on a couple of things. OK, first of all, you are the lead investigator in this case. Is that fair? Yes. OK, and that's a special designation that you have been given, which means sort of all the information in this case is going to flow to you. Yes. While you wear that designation, is that right? Yes, sir. So in terms of doling out assignments or responsibilities, that is something that a lead investigator does? Yes. Once those things are completed, then you work to coordinate the receiving of all that information back to yourself. Yes, right within. You review it, right? Yes, sir. And then that could cause you to make additional decisions on what to do next and who to tell to do those things. Yes, sir. It's sort of an honor to be the lead investigator. Comes a lot of work, though, right? Yeah, yeah, yeah. A lot of work. Not a lot of work to that. OK, so in this particular case, how long after the shooting was it before you arrived on. [15:33:54][113.0] [15:33:54] The scene? I don't think very long. Maybe thirty minutes to two hours somewhere in there. OK, and when you got on scene you began to do what a lead investigator does. You go around and you start talking to the officers on the scene to try to get an understanding of what's going on. Yes, sir. OK, and at that point, you begin to formulate kind of a plan to say, ah, here's what we need to do now. We need to follow up on this desert. OK, and essentially, is it fair to say in your mind, at least within those first 30 minutes to an hour, you're trying to figure out who were these two gentlemen on the scene? Mr. Greg, Michael and Travis being Michael? Right. [15:34:34][39.8] [15:34:34] One of the most familiar with Mr. Gregory. Michael just from and previously worked, knew him previously. But you're trying to figure out what they're doing. Yes, sir. You're on that day. Yes, sir. And you're also trying to understand what happened to the deceased. Yes, sir. OK, you're trying to figure out what they're intent was that they missed him, that Michael's in specific. Yes, right. And you're trying to figure out what was going on with the decedent on that day, Mr. Harper? Just what he was in the neighborhood, right? Yes, sir. OK, and so in this case, you assigned the interviews, did you not? I did. So you took on interviewing, as we now know, Mr. Rodney Brian, and you assign interviews to be done to Greg and Michael as well as trying to make. Yes, right. OK, now you were talking about with the state that right around March 5th of twenty twenty that the case kind of went inactive, right? Yes, sir. OK, but that's not exactly 100 percent accurate because you still were involved in doing some work on the case. Yeah. You were involved in some, as I'll characterize it, additional work, right? Yes. OK, working with additional Georgia state agencies. Yes, sir. Right. And obtaining documents and didn't stop this work in March 5th. You continued in the month of March, in the month of March to do this kind of work, right? I think so. I don't remember the times, but yeah, but you also continue to do it in April, OK, right? Yes, sir, I guess. And well, do you need to go back over your notes? I do. I didn't wanna interrupt you one. Palantine me the all I've got is the the transcript. It's on the table there. OK, what about your reports and things like that. I was told I couldn't bring anything up so I didn't. I have nothing with me on this walk. Do you have your reports here upstairs on the third floor. OK, well, I'm happy to try to refresh your memory, OK, with the reports that I have of yours, unless the state wants to give you reports, OK, and guess what we're after here? What I'm trying to understand is that Madam may have actually asked the wrong person under show. My force something, but you don't necessarily need to read my notes. But you can just take a look at these reports, OK? Yeah, The the the last date I'm seeing on here, I don't see anything. It goes into April. I see March 12th. OK, yeah. Now ask me to come forward. I'm going to show you these things just to show you the dates. And I don't want you to read what outflowing thing is. I'm going to show you dates and I just want to make sure that because they're not meeting today, we're not looking at the jurors behind you. Right. That's what I'm trying to block it right here in front of to show you these dates. Yes. All right. Put that last one I we'll talk about what it is. I'm just showing you a date you don't have to agree with. I'm just going to show it to you. OK? OK. So just essentially for purposes of dates, your involvement in the case continued into May and then into July. Would you agree with that? Yes. On someone. OK, now in terms of what you did in the case, I want to be able to be very specific about, OK, OK, I like to write things down. All right. All right. So in terms of the work that we did it, no one includes going to the scene. Right? I'm going to have to say yes. Oh, I'm sorry. Yes, sir. All right. Interviews of witnesses. Yeah. Yes, photographs. Agree. Yes. All right. We're collecting clothing, right? Not under your leaders. Yes, sir. That's part of the investigation. Right. To do analysis on clothing, on gun show, shotgun shells. Yes, I believe it's work. They would have went, I think, to the GBI, but. Right. But it's under your leadership that you consider that this has to get done. Yes, sir. OK, any kind of blood collection, right? Yes. All right. Videos from the neighborhood. That's something that you were interested in. Yes. Objection to mischaracterization. Judge, Mr Lowry is saying that he didn't personally to any of and Mr. Sheffield is making it look like he didn't as the lead detective in the case we've established. I think that you're directing people to do and collect various forms of evidence. Yes, OK, are these the things that you're directing people to do and collect videos from the neighborhood? Not all the normal directions would have been for me. Some of them would have come from supervisors as well. Like the videos. I don't think I necessarily even had to ask for that. I think other investigators just kind of started chipping in and collecting everything that needed done. But as you're the lead investigator, I guess then you would be aware that these things are being done. Yes, And you would then have looked at these things to determine what next steps to take. Yes, OK, that would include obtaining records just generally speaking. Yes. That would include obtaining CAD and nine one one calls. Yes, Cell phone data. Yes. Any kind of social media if relevant. I don't remember any social media. Cross that off. We got the fibers. Yes. White fibers that you talked about. We've got fingerprints. Yes. Which you did. And we've got mappings kind of mapping out. This interaction took place on that day. Yes, sir. OK, you actually went to 220. So tell us to do some investigation there as well. Yes, sir. Right. You work with the ethics office. Been a medical examiner and the coroner. Right. Yes. OK, and neighborhood kings. And so the neighborhood canvass is where you go around and you ask questions of all the neighbors to figure out if they know. Yes, sir. So this is what you did for put in the detective, OK? Right. This is this is what you did. Have I missed anything in terms of the type of work that you did? Generally speaking? No, sir, I don't think so. OK, you were asked a lot of questions about Mr Bryan's description of his interaction with Mr Aubry. You call that? Yes. And and just to know a little bit of what he was describing about his interaction, there was this one thing that you noted where he yells out, you've got to remember that. Yes. OK, there's nothing that Mr Brian told you that led you to believe that Travis or Greg, even heard him say, yes, that's correct. Or that there was any kind of communication with him about this, right? Yes. So if I put it down here, no communication TNG you would agree with that? Yes. OK, the the time where he says the rock. Right. Says he changed direction and changed his angle. You recall that. I know he said that several times. Yes, sir. I'm an old science major, so I used the filter for change. And about the angle, again, no communication with Travis or Greg about this this thing. Correct. OK, I'm talking about we're still in this particular area. And for a second time this year for some movement with Mr. Aubury goes and steps off the road. Right. So if I say stear off road again, no communication with Travis about that. Correct. Now. And he says then again, Mr Harbury was trying to get into the truck and he pulled away from him. Do you remember that? Yes, of course. I did. And Posawatz, again, no communication with Travis regret about that. Correct. Communication me. No phone calls, no hand signals. No, no, sir. Essentially. Then it's your understanding that Mr Brian says that Mr Aubury begins to run up Holmes Road and he begins to then follow at that point. Do you recall that? Yes. So Lewis, call up homes and files again. No communication by Travis are good about that. No, sir, not that I'm aware of. Sorry. And then when he turns around, Mr Mr Bryant discusses his turn around trying to back up and he heads back in the other direction. So let's just call this [15:45:56][681.2] [834.0] [15:45:56] turnaround on houses. Again, no evidence that he was in communication with Travis or Greg, and those are you asked a question about the white fibers on the truck. Yes, OK. And they were on that sort of plastic strip area. Yes. Put back up Exhibit 242 for you to take a look at talking about these white fibers. Yes. Or up here, we have a little bit more of a close up around here, Mr. Sheffield. Yes. I can't see that. All right. I got my three legged and ask Mr. Robinson here, hold this for 30 years prior to this is what he's been reduced to hold the pole. I think what you said about these fibers, though, is that they were located kind of above a dent. Yes. OK, you were asked whether or not it appeared that those things could have happened at the same time in the dent in the fibers. Yes. You have zero evidence to suggest to you when that didn't happened. Right. I believe Mr O'Brien said it wasn't there prior to this incident. OK, yes, sir. But you don't know when the dent was made? No, sir. Or when the fibers were made? No, sir. So it's hard for you to conclude that the dent in the fibers happened in the same time. Yes, the. Yes, yeah. Now neither do some print collection. Yes. Talked about that actually. I mean this I don't want you to stand up to use the gold. Yeah, The prints that you collected, obviously you were told that there was some kind of interaction between Mr Aubrey and the truck. And so then you kind of focused in on whether or not you could determine whether there were usable latent prints on the truck. Right? Yes. Or latent prints. We've learned a little bit about it. Meaning left there on the surface, naturally they belong to. But they're there for collection purposes. Yes, right. And one of the things that you can do with prints is as you look at them, you can try to begin to get an idea of how the hand was oriented when it touched the object. But sometimes sometimes depending on if there's multiple parts of the hand weaving impressions on something, then you might be able to tell how the hand was oriented when it touched the object. Yes. And in this case, you've got not only a a palm print, but also the thumb print. The same judge, Mr Lowry, did not test the smudges in this case. So lack of personal knowledge that prints off for sure how to describe it. He said he lifted prints. I've heard Paul print, which just need to clarify. I think you're asking could you repeat it, sir? I'm sure I'll show you the I'll show you the. [15:49:58][243.0] [15:50:02] Looking here at State's Exhibit two one two two zero zero six. Let's start with this one. This is state's exhibit two zero one. All right. And you can lean into your monitor there. Can you begin to see that there is a smudge here? You see that? Yes. OK, and can you see also that there is a smudge here? Yes. OK, now you took it upon yourself to collect these smudges here and here, is that correct? Yes. OK, so the first smudge is what appears to be a palm print. Objection, Your Honor. He did not test me so much as to see what have you gotten the results back from the lab about what these are? I can't speak to the actor. I'm just asking if you got the results of the results, got the results back from the lab of what it is. Yeah, but I don't remember what they were. I think there was no match on either of them. Oh, did you say that you collected a palm print? I don't know. I might have testified that you collected a palm print from the truck, but I might have, sir. I've been up here a while. I don't remember what I said. I'm very sorry. But it was your understanding that these could be prints from Mr Arkley, which is why you collected. Yes. OK, and in looking at this now or when you were collecting them, did you have any kind of thought as to what that might be? Objection. Your Honor, to relevance about what he thought it might be. It was tested at some point to get the picture for a reason. He could explain kind of what was Mr Shukla? I thought it was some sort of poem just because it was bigger than OK, fingerprints would be. And then you took a collection of this because you thought it was a digit of some sort, some kind of a digit. Right. OK, are you at any point trying to do an analysis of how that got a suspected palm print and suspected? Did you got there? Are you trying to come to figure that out in any way? Yeah, just trying to look at it while it was there. And processing it. But the only way I could I guess invasion would be something like hand upside down. But I'm not a fingerprint expert. Yeah, that's just my own my own imagination at face value, looking at it while I was there. All right. It's possible or it's consistent, is it not, with your experience in collecting these types of [15:52:52][170.9] [413.8] [15:52:52] things? That this could be a palm print and that could be, let's say, a thumbprint? Objection. [15:52:59][6.1] [15:52:59] Asked and answered, Your Honor, what I'm talking about the orientation. I understand. So it could be. Yes, right. It could be that the if this is the door jamb here, this is the door jamb here, that the hand is like this. That's a consistent explanation. That's one explanation. I don't I don't know. I don't think so because the larger print on the side, it looks like it's much higher than that. I don't think it would be upright. But, you know, I'm speculating at this. That's not what we're trying to get into your mind as you're trying to figure this out. Yeah, OK. But at least it could be its own independent print of a digital. It could be including a thumb. Yes. OK, I'm this is a closer picture. This is two zero six. And again, do you see where we were talking about what we think might be a palm print? And then this right here, what could be a digital print. Yes. See in there now to OK, did you notice when you were examining the truck? I'm going to show you again to a one. OK, look real close and maybe I'll do this, maybe bring the photograph to you. You could look closely at two one right up here, this part of the door. A look at do you see what could be smudges up there as well? I do. Did you fingerprint or print the I don't remember the specific sections that I printed. If I saw it, I knew it was there. I collected it, OK, but I just I can't remember specifically if I took anything from that pillar. I think that might have been one of the photos. You think that might be one? Yeah, you'd be sure whether or not you collected that or not. I think on the fingerprint cards, it would have had sort of a legend like a map on the car where it would have been collected, the fingerprint cards. I didn't I didn't create them. I just filled them out. Yes. Or manufactured the paper. You press it and do all that stuff. All right. That was what we're talking about here. Are these smudges? Yes. OK, but you collected it and it should be documented somewhere. Yes. OK, and the information now, I believe that you had in terms of making this potentially relevant to your investigation is we were testifying, I think, earlier that Mr Brian was saying that Mr Aubury was coming for his door. Yes. Actually on page 18 lines 10 through 13. So every transcript I saw on the corner of the table right here. Yes, sir. To he's kind of describing this moment to you, right? Yes. He says, I probably got passed in a little bit and he comes up on me. Right. And I could see him in my mirror and he was coming for the door. So he says the. Can you give me the line number? You think it's ten? Thirteen. I probably got yes. A little bit. Yes, that's that's what he says. He's coming up on me. Yes, he was coming for the door and I seen his hands on right behind the door. Right. Yes. So this inform you that these prints that we just looked at could be highly relevant to his claim that Mr Harvey was trying to get into his truck? Yes, Did you check for prints on the other side of the truck? I think I did a walk over it, but those were that was the side that Mr O'Brien indicated to me that contact was made. So I kind of focused my efforts there. OK, I want to ask you again, do you recall whether or not you had ever decided that that one finger smudge that we think could be a finger smudge was actually the thumb print? Do you recall having that opinion or thinking that I don't you don't recall some Mrs refresh your memory with this document? Still does. And what I'd like for you to do. Thank you for stepping down. The problem is see if this refreshes your memory as the lead agent in the case. About whether or not you were working to determine if that was a right thumbprint. And I don't want you to read it. I don't want to look to see if that clarifies anything in your memory. Don't read it because see if it refreshes your memory to see whether or not you were considering that that could be a thumbprint right from. Yes. Specifically, does that refresh your memory? Yes. OK, so one of the things that you consider is that this print next to this we could think is a palm print could actually be the right of Mr Order based on that. May that refresh your memory that that is what you were considering. That wasn't that wasn't mine. That was just someone else's suggestion that completed that. I got lead investigators. One of the things that we're working. Yes, sir. That you could do. That could be a text in your honor. He just said that that was his report. That was someone else's. It was just used for my personal knowledge. You finish your question that as part of you being the lead investigator and some of that track to help make it all right. That you are relying on others to do work. Yes. Comes back to you this week and in the inquiry about whether or not this could be the right thumbprint, you said I don't recall. Yes, I showed you a document to see if it refresh your memory that that is a subject that you were thinking and considering as a refresh your memory. Yes. And did you consider that that was the right thumbprint of a moderate? Yes. I don't have any further questions. Yes, sir. I think you've already gone back. OK, let me just get my stuff on the meter reader. Just straight for Judge. So that report that was you, Mr Lowry, whose report was that? I was Investigator Louthan. Did you play any role in authoring that report at all? No, OK, so the findings in that report, were they your findings that all these findings were Christopher Lauter? That's all after you said you release for the day, which you were subject to recall? Yes, sir. Thank you. I did, Mr Swan ready to move forward, but I also don't want to put this back. That's fine. I don't want to cut a witness off too badly. So does the state have another available witness? Yes, I believe I have actually two and I think they're both short that, but I'm crossing my fingers and how can I be sure of that for the. OK, let's go ahead and say Sedgwick's we call this PA. Oh, I'm not sure where it went. It was under the bar where Rubinow was going to. [16:03:15][616.0] [16:03:15] Tell you to remember not to lock your knees if you're going to stay in there to long, we're going to pass out there. You apparently the witnesses are on the other side of the [16:04:11][56.4] [678.5] [16:04:11] courthouse. No go in. If we get somebody to go and check and move the process along, there we go. Oh, thank you for asking. Just what everybody's. So I told you the whole truth and nothing but the truth. I do see. Yes. OK, All right. Please state your name for the record and spell it, please. Kelly pa kelly p r r. Right. And please give us the name of your parents, Randall and and PA. All right. And are you familiar with the location of two, three, two satellite drive. Very familiar. I grew up there. OK, so I hate to ask you about what years were you there when you grew up? Oh, no, let's see. Sixty nine through 85. 86. Yeah, right. So about 85. 86. You left the family home to go to college. Right. All right. Did your parents leave at that time? No. Now they've been there. Well they were there for about fifty years. When did they eventually sell the house and move out. Jilli sent 2000, 19 or 20. Oh gosh. I guess I didn't think about that. Was it during the pandemic or before the pandemic could question. It was during. So it was twenty twenty. That's it. All right. So you still live in Brunswick County? I do. St. Simons. And I'm going to direct your attention specifically into the fall of 2008. Into the first two months of twenty twenty. How often would you go over to your parents house at two three to settle a drive? Usually about once a week, usually on Sundays. What time on Sundays would you usually go over afternoon to? We'd stay until seven or eight sometimes. Now, specifically, when you say we are you two, are you talking about me and my son, my six year old son? And were your parents at this time living alone? Just the two of them at two, three to still drive? Yes. All right. So I am going to director attention specifically to February 23 of twenty twenty, that particular Sunday for you at two, three, two satellite drive that day. I was not there that day. And had you been at the house previous to that, like in the week or two beforehand. Most likely, like I said, we usually would go there about once a week on Sundays. So most likely. All right. So prior to February 2013 or twenty, was there a bullet hole in your parent's front window? No, definitely. Right now on that particular day of February. Twenty third. Twenty twenty. Were you talking to your dad on the phone? I was. I was. And I guess the reason I know that we I was not out there well, for obvious reasons, but also my son's birthday was two days later. We made plans to see them Tuesday instead of Sunday. So, yes, I was talking to him on the phone and he was telling me about what he was seeing out the window and during the conversation, he said, oh, my God, there's a hole in the hole in the window. It's cracked. And so he kind of was shocked and then hung up and said, I'll call you back. I said, Yeah. Did you ever get over there to see the hole in the window? Eventually, eventually, I think maybe a week later or a few days later, I'm not sure. I can't remember exactly the time. So hard for you to testify. You and I have met. We've talked. Right. All right. And did you get a review, some photos of the house? Yes. All right. So I'm going to show you what's already been admitted into evidence. State's exhibit one oh five. What is the jury looking at here? Six zero five. That's my parents house or formerly my parents house. Right. So what we're looking at, what else is is that the evidence right there? Two, three, two. Still drive right. Plus the jury looking there. That's also the front of my parents house. And then was this the window at, I believe, that your father was talking to you about? Right. That's the one at the far end, the left side of the house as you're looking at it. Yeah, this one, I believe it was the one on the end there. Yeah, that one. The left. One right. That's the. Now, when we take a look at state's exhibit 114 and we see this right here, had that hole been there before now? No, Now when you're over on Sunday, where do you and your son and your parents generally congregate? We usually say in the back of the house, in the family room, there's glass. The doors back there looks over the river. So we spend most of the time back there and ever any time here in this front room, sometimes we would go in that room. I play music, I play guitar and sing, and my mom does, too. So sometimes we would go in that room and sing and play so Dad could watch the TV and we wouldn't bother him right. So I want to ask you now is at some point in time prior to February, twenty third of twenty twenty. Do you recall ever seeing a young man at the construction site that's on the way, your parent's house? Yes, I do recall that. I'm not exactly sure when it was if it was maybe December or January. I'm not really sure exactly when it was. But I do remember driving by and I believe it was a Sunday, as usual, afternoon. It was still light outside. And I looked over and I saw someone in the the doorframe. There wasn't a door there. And he was just standing in the doorframe and we just kind of looked at each other as I drove by, it was this young man, white, black, Asian or Hispanic. He was a black man. He was very tall. You going to keep going? Well, describe him. Sure. Go ahead and get a description. He from what I remember, he had like I guess they were like basketball shorts on and I believe high top sneakers and a T-shirt. And, yeah, he just he looked very tall. I remember thinking that because of the the doorframe where the location of it was him to what kind of hair he had hair. You I don't remember exactly. I think it was fairly short, maybe a little I guess medium length. It's fuzzy, you know, but yeah. So you're driving your car. It was still light out. Right. OK, any idea what time I mean, you're talking January and December. It was. It was so yeah. So it probably was getting darker at that time. So it must have been maybe four or five I guess. Yeah. But still light out. Still light out. Yeah. Not real bright but it was definitely light out. OK, now to kind of pin this down, do you remember who it was before Christmas or after Christmas. That's a good question. I wish I could remember, but I'm just not totally sure. I'm not sure. Yeah. I think most likely after Christmas I feel like it was late December, early January. I'm not totally sure. OK, and I'm going to show you one twenty six. Would that help you standing right. Those in that door on the right side there, I believe. Yeah. I'm going to go put it up there soon, OK. Yeah, that's good. All right, let's look at states one twenty six. So I'm just going to point was it the store. Right that door right there. And when you drove by, did you make eye contact with them? I did. OK, any waving or saying hi now? OK, I just I, I remember having a dialog in my head. Should I tell you about that. Like, just what I thought. I thought I was driving by and I thought, what is he doing there? And then I thought, no, Kelly, don't be racist. He's probably working on the house and then Adult will know he doesn't have a tool belt on. So I wonder what he's doing there, you know, just the whole thing. So we were just looking at each other and I wasn't really sure. And I just, you know, kept driving so that that was like a split second thought process in my head, like one or two seconds. So. Yeah, but no. Yeah, no rule. He didn't like, hide or anything. He was just looking at me so. [16:16:18][726.5] [16:16:18] OK, so tell me about that. So, so his reaction, he makes eye contact with you. Was he. Yeah. He just, just looks at me. Yeah. I just, I, you know, I felt like I guess I could have waved but you know. Did he try and duck inside. No. Now just because look. And he did run away. No. Just stood there. Just stood there. And you were interviewed. I just want to make sure on May 7th, 2020 does. That's about right. That sounds about right. All right. All right. One question on. I'm going to go ahead and pass over to the defense attorneys. They may have some questions for you. OK, thank you. Was I was or my name is Bob Rubin and I represent Travis MacMichael. As I understand it, your parents, do they still live in Seattle? Assures no. They sold their house in July twenty twenty and moved to Florida, to Jacksonville. OK, but you grew up there at least for a good number of years. And then I went off to college and eventually came back to Glen County and lived right on the act. Right, exactly. But you would go check on your parents, celebrate anniversaries, birthdays, holidays, and then just make sure that their general welfare was good, right? Exactly. Very close with your parents. How long did they live in satellite shores before they moved to Florida? I believe is about fifty years. So a long time. So they're getting up there in age by twenty twenty in the eighties. Right, exactly. And there came a point where they and you were concerned about crime in the neighborhood. [16:18:29][131.1] [16:18:30] They had told me a few things had happened here recently or before that previous to that time. Yeah. Previous to to February 24th. Right. Right, right. And and as their daughter, I assume that concerned you, Dan, did you ask them to install any surveillance cameras or alarm system or anything like that? [16:18:51][20.9] [16:18:52] They did actually have an alarm system. They didn't have cameras, but they did have an alarm alarm system that they had been in disrepair for a long time. And then I think maybe six months before this happened, they did start it up again. So, yeah, it made you feel better, that's for sure. Absolutely. So when you would go visit them over the preceding, let's say, from February 2013, twenty back six, 12 months, you go during the evening and then you would go in the daytime depending on why you would go. Most of the time it would be in the afternoon and then we would stay until the early evening actually. And you'd be there and sometimes you'd be inside celebrating with them or hanging out with them. Sometimes you'd be outside enjoying the weather. Right, for a walk with them. I assume you have children? I do. I have one son. So sharing your grand your son with the program right there. Grant with them. Yeah, exactly. Yeah. Yeah. During. [16:19:58][65.9] [16:19:58] The times that you were there in satellite stores at their house walking around the neighborhood, would it be fair to say that you never saw a moderate jogging in the neighborhood? I don't believe so, no, I don't think so. And when you were interviewed by I believe it was agents Hamilton and Carns back in May, if you had seen Mr. Aubury prior to February 2013, you would have told them. Well, I did see him. You know, I think it was him in the house, but I didn't. Yeah, right. I would have said. I would have said I saw him. John Right. Exactly. Yeah. So the one time that you did see him happen to be this one time in late December and January in the afternoon. Right. Right. And you saw a man standing in the door frame without the door at 220 satellite drive. Right. No toolbelt now. No reason you could discern from looking at him why he would be in an empty house. Right. That was under construction, right? I guess so. Yeah. OK, in fact, if you checked yourself, but it did cross your mind, why is this guy in that house right. Right on up. Was it. We think it was a Sunday, so that's why I was kind of questioning it, right. Yeah. And then you checked yourself and you know, one to make sure they weren't stereotyping or. Exactly. Exactly. Um, did you talk to your. [16:21:32][93.7] [16:21:32] Parents about that, that you saw this man in the house? I don't think I did. I think I just really drove away thinking no big deal. You know, I don't think so. But you were aware of their concerns not only about crime in the neighborhood, but specifically about break ins at [16:21:50][18.1] [1056.1] â?<â?<[16:21:50] Mr. Englishes house. [16:21:51][1.0] [16:21:52] I think about that. I'm trying to think if it was specific to that house, what I had heard, I think I just had heard that that was just General things being stolen. I'm trying to think of when I actually found out about the things that they have, that house being stolen. It's a good question. I think it was more just a general. There had been some things stolen in the neighborhood that made me concerned. I don't know that it was specific to that house. So at that time, you drove by in December, January, you were not you personally were not aware of items being stolen from Mr. Anderson? I don't think so. Yeah. All right. I know it's I'm trying to answer as truthfully as I can. I'm just trying to remember. I understand. Yeah. Did you at some point, I believe it was in June of to meet with Mr. Lee Wilson reformats that operacion. Yeah. Uh, I was on well OK. I was gonna say, what would that be? And reference to that in reference to this case, telephone conversation with Mr. Wilson to remember. I can't remember. I'm sorry. That's OK. I'm sorry. When you learned about this case in the shooting incident on February 23, did you reach out to the Glynn County police to tell them that you saw a man you were pretty certain was a robbery at that house? [16:23:41][108.4] [16:23:42] I don't think I reached out. I do think somebody did call me and ask me about that, though. Now that you're saying I think I remember talking to somebody about it, but I did. I don't think I reached out to anybody. I think they called me because I think they talked to my dad who said Dr. Kelly. Right. Who said, call me. Yeah, OK. OK, give me one second. OK, thank you, Mr. Powell. That's all I know is that OK, Your Honor, redirect. Please do not say that Mr. Ricci also subject to. Yes. Sorry, you're going to long and you can you're free to leave. You are subject to recall. OK, thank you. Thank you. From State and this time of state. Recall. Mr. Richardson. Richardson. Yes. I thought you said just put your hands on a try to tell the truth, whole truth and nothing but the truth. I did receive. OK, all right. Please state your name and spell it for the record. Kara Richardson, ccra RISC JRD so with. All. [16:26:54][191.6] [16:26:54] Right, And how are you currently employed? I'm the director of the Glen and Brunswick number one center of what does the Glen Brunswick 911 Center do. So we process all were responsible for the primary. Well, actually, the only piece at which the public safety answering point for going county. So all 911 calls go through us and we do all sorry, public safety despatching as well. OK, so what's the difference between public safety despatching and all the 911 calls that come in? So the calls are processed by well, there's a myriad of technology that makes the calls come to us, but essentially we have call takers and we have dispatchers. So we have call takers that process the calls that are inbound and dispatchers that will send the appropriate response. OK, so so that I'm clear for I'm the 911 operator. I'm taking the call for somebody is calling for an emergency. Right. Right. Am I also at that time, sir, typing in stuff into the report or my dictating it to somebody else or how's this work right. So we don't do an actual report. We do a record, a call, which is, you know, it's a it's a public record of an inbound call. And the police officers or fire department, the respective agencies will do a report based off of the audio, their observations and the notes. And these calls. So, yes, that's what happens. So someone while they're so say someone calls in. Is someone typing this in? Yes. OK, now the dispatcher person, are they the one who is now going, hey, EMS, you need to go here, fire. You need to go there sometimes. If you're busy. If we're busy, everybody can answer the radio or excuse me, the phone and or the radio. But we try to keep the respective particularly the police dispatchers off the phones. But if we have an accident on and five or something like that where we get inundated with calls, anybody can be answering that and directing responders at the same time. Gotcha. And you oversee this entire process. Yes. Are you also the custodian of record for these records? Generated from the 911 call center? Yes. And within the 911 call center, how many people generally work a shift like a daytime shift? We have to have a minimum of six on the floor, but we typically have between six and eight. And as part of the record keeping in the normal course of business for the Glen Brunswick 911 Center, do you keep both the written record as well as the audio file? We have five and the audio file is basically what the the 911 caller and the person receiving the call. Correct. We also have audio files of radio traffic that we keep on record as well. Right. So prior to coming to court today, have we met? We have. All right. And have we also kind of gone over the relevant 911 one calls that were given to the GBI in regard to the investigation at the homicide of Watari? Yes, ma'am. All right. And if you had the opportunity to review those calls as well as review the CAD reports? Yes, [16:30:24][210.4] [511.4] [16:30:24] ma'am. And any extractions? Yes, ma'am. OK, so let's go ahead and at this time, for expediency sake, the state is going to tender State's Exhibit 141 and 142. The 911 call from February. Twenty third twenty twenty made by Matt L. Benzi. Which one is it? Which one is sure. Forty 141 and 142. 141 being the audio call four nine one one four. Matteo Renzi on February 2013. Twenty twenty and 142 being the Associated Press reports. Got no objection. No objection, no objection. Next, the state will enter into evidence state's exhibit 144 being the nine one one call by Greg McMichael from February 2013 Twenty twenty and the Associated CAD Report 145 nine one one can report for rank and file. In addition, State's Exhibit 146, the sequential export extraction from that CAD report. No objection. Objection, no objection. The statement tendered to evidence as State's Exhibit 147, the nine one one call made by Greg Bikel from July 13th of 2010 team along with 148 the Associated Attacapa. No objection. No objection. No objection. The state will tender into evidence state's exhibit 149, 150 and 151 one the nine one one call by Larry English from October 25th. Twenty nineteen parts one and two, along with the Associated CAD report at 151 149 and one to the other to call one ten twenty one. The objection. No objection. The third stable will to enter into evidence state's exhibit one fifty three point fifty four one fifty five being the nine one one calls for Larry English from November 17th. Of twenty nineteen along with the Associated CAD Report States Exhibit 156. I got 156 calls noted. No objection. Objection. The state will enter into evidence that state's exhibit 157. The 911 call by Larry English from November 18th. Twenty nineteen along with the Associated CAD report 158 of actions. No objection, no objection. The state will enter into evidence state's exhibit 159 and the associate had reported 160 of the nine one one call by Larry English from December 1st, 2019. Objection. No objection, no objection. Write and the state will tender in a state's exhibit 161, the nine one one call by Travis McMichael from January 1st of twenty, twenty and 162 The Associated CAD Report. Objection. No objection. No objection admitted. In addition, the state will tendered to evidence that state's 163 the nine one one call by Travis McMichael from February 11th, 2020 and the Associated CAD report as State's Exhibit 164. Objection. Your objection. No objection. All right. So, Mr. Richardson, if I live in Brunswick and or Glen County and I call nine one one, how does it get to you in April from our you know, most of our calls are now wireless. It'll hit off of a tower and it's supposed to roll due to the appropriate P. S. So I believe on the county line, there is a chance sometimes that you might hit Camden, but for the most part, they're routed as they should be. All right. So if somebody is a tourist and they're out on St. Simons Island and they want to dial 911 one for something in Savannah, that's not going to work right? It doesn't work that way. They're going to get nine one one here in St. Simons and Oakland County. It's been all right now. Is there also a non emergency line that can be called in order to get to basically the police to report something? There is, right. And so if someone were to call that non-emergency line, would they go to the exact same dispatch location? It depends if they're calling the three six, four or five number, which is our primary non-emergency number for because we are a separate entity, it will go directly to us. Some of the departments will for their calls to us after hours. So it does get bored it to us. But, you know, for the most part, they are going to be answering their own calls during normal their non-emergency calls during normal work work hours. So somebody calls Brunswick PD just directly, but no one's there to pick up. It could get routed to you. Right? Right. Now, if somebody is, for instance, in Douglas, Georgia, OK, but they want to call that something is happening in Glynn County. Do they call they call nine one one in Douglas. They're going to get Douglas, right? Correct. So they need to call a non-emergency line to get to dispatch. Right. And just to clarify, the only time that could happen is if you are on a VoIP, because VoIP will basically bring to no one location that [16:36:28][363.3] [16:36:28] you're registered at. So that's that's the only exception. Of course, landlines are a direct mail go directly to the piece of their respective peace out. All right. So I'm on a landline and I'm in my house in St. Simons. That's just going to automatically tell you where I am and that's where you're going to sue the staff. Yes, ma'am. OK, all right. So first thing I want to go ahead and take a look at is going to be state's exhibit. Have you look at 142 and 143? All right. Take a look at one forty three and 142 and go ahead and tell us what the difference is between those two documents. OK, this is the computer. This is the one we intercept. They get to our we're basically telling the story when we enter anything into CAD, which is their computer aided dispatch. And it's it's a chronological story of events as we are are told are unfolding or happening. So this is a CAD report and this is going to be the script that is annotated along with you. We said this was the document that you're referring to, 142. I'm sorry. Thank you. Thank you, Judge. So 142 is the story. It is. And 143 is going to be. I can't remember the specific name of this, but this is what comes with we download our audio from from our I'm sorry, our reporter. OK, my apologies. That's all right. I'm going to go ahead and take state's 142 and 143 back from you. I don't know that that has a technical name, [16:39:00][152.8] [16:39:00] but what we've got so the jury can kind of see this is 142. I'm sorry, who's going to make sure 143. It's I don't have a list of this new tenderhearted. Oh, I apologize if I failed to tender 143, the state will tender State's Exhibit 143 as a sequential export of the CAD report 142 being the recording from one forty one. He has no objection to. So when we're looking here at at the CAD report, we end up first with what? Right here. What is this a call like that. That your name. Oh, the serial number. And then what's the nature. The nature is suspicious person activity package, all encompassing vehicle. And then when we're looking down here in this particular instance, what is the date we're looking at in state's exhibit one? Forty two to twenty of 2020. And then what is the time, thirteen point twenty four. Is that military time? It is. All right. And who is our caller, Matt? So when we look down below, this is just something someone else typed in as they were speaking with Mr. about say? Yes, ma'am. All right. So then when we look at one forty three, which is the export, does this give us the same date and time right here? It does. And then what's d you are the duration. I believe that's the duration. [16:40:50][109.2] [16:40:51] Of the call. All right. And then it says it came into Glynn County. Mean what does that mean. So that actually came for that didn't come from number one line that came into our main line at. So our non-emergency line, non-emergency line. So then direct your attention to state one forty five states, one forty five. Is that the exact same call number as the previous one as well. Put them up so that you can see my place. So that's exactly call it is. OK, so when two people end up calling in minutes apart, but it seems to be about the same incident, does it end up on the same category? Typically, yes. Oh, I love it at once. It's hard to determine if that in fact does is the same incident that's going on. So for instance, you can have a part two car wrecks that has to do with each other. Right. OK, but in this case, we have this combined CAG report. Yes. Been all right. So when we look at this and we go down here, we actually have right here. What are those words? Another caller. All right. So just so I know this type, this is related to this time of day. Yes, ma'am. OK, so then this type would be related to that time of day? Yes, ma'am. And then another caller that we relate to this time of day. Correct. OK, so I got a question for you here. This time and date says thirteen, fifteen, forty eight. Right. All right. Is being taken in by Parker. Is that Philip Parker? He's one of our own. If you're not gonna want people. Yes, ma'am. All right. But when we look at state's exhibit one forty six, I related to the specific phone call from Greg McMichael. What time do we actually have right there? Thirteen. Fourteen 09. Right. And what was the duration on that? Four minutes. Forty six seconds. OK, why is there a discrepancy showing this as a thirteen fourteen nine call versus this one where it says another caller at fourteen fifteen forty eight. Right. So I believe what happened and again they don't necessarily remember exactly what they did with the thousands of calls they process. But when that caller called in, he was naming that he was in the neighborhood. So we don't create a residence hall. We can't really create a record, a call without having a good idea at the location. And the location has got to go in and validated a lot of the nature of call before that call is created. And I think what happened and what he believes happened is when he was trying to get where that was at, he realized, OK, this is related to this call. And so instead of instead going with that particular particular cat event, he went ahead and put the information on the existing record a call. OK, so there was a time lag between the hey, this is coming in at 13, 14 or nine. And I think it's related to this. So there's a later time when he actually types it in. Yes, ma'am. Right. But they got associated correct. From at this time, the state is going to publish state's exhibit 140 for oh, nine one one was the address emergency. Oh, I'm not here. So what's yours is a white male running down the Delaware where we're at fertilizer's. I don't know. What's he. Well, it's not that bad, is it? Right. Sir. Hello, sir. Sir, we. Hello. Hello, Hello. Stopping. [16:46:25][334.0] [16:46:2