Blog

Mar
29
2016
Grim Sleeper Trial ~ Week 6. Not very interesting today… DNA analysts yet again…
Posted by Victoria Redstall on 29 Mar 2016 / 0 Comment

Monday March 28th
Lonnie arrived wearing a very bright yellow shirt and black trousers.  The Courtroom was very empty today presumably because most people know that testimony of DNA and ballistics experts can be quite boring and repetative.
Going back to last Monday (the 21st March), after Mr Amster completely lost the plot, his opening statements in front of the Jury was quite good, I might add.  
Amster listed a number of victims and the areas in which each were tested for DNA.  He went on to explain that the DNA Lab which they/he used which confirmed that Lonnie Franklin’s DNA was not found on a number of areas which were tested.  This of course raises doubt in the minds of the Jury.
The few days that I missed of Trial last week were, according to my sources, very boring and repetative.  Today we continued dealing with the Defense’s Witnesses and most of last week (and also today) consisted of various Analysts from the Sorenson DNA Lab which are located in South Salt Lake, Utah.
Today, Emily Jeskie from the Sorenson Lab was on the stand all day long giving her testimony of how she and her colleagues collect and analyze the DNA.
She talked of the analyzing process which her Lab undertook for 3 of the victims: Barbara Ware, Enietra Washington and Jenecia Peters.
Amster opened with:
Amster: “Was saliva tested done by your Lab?”
E.J: “Yes”
Amster: “What were the results?”
E.J: “Negative.”
Amster: “Was blood testing done?”
E.J: “ Yes”
Amster: “And what were the results of that testing?”
E.J: “It was positive but insufficient DNA so it was inconclusive.”
Even though most of her answers were ‘negative’, I was confused when she replied with the word ‘positive’ in her testimony as I thought that would mean that Franklin’s DNA was found.  However, afterwards she stated that it was ‘inconclusive’ which I will explain why this is so later on in this piece.
Mr Amster went on and asked if sperm was tested and she responded with a ‘yes’ and that it was proved to be ‘negative for Franklin’s DNA’.   A lot of times she stated that there was ‘insufficient DNA detected to determine a contributor and/or a profile.”
Ms Jeskie said that there were 30 items tested from the Barbara Ware case and they are each listed below:
1. Left hand finger nail scraping kit
2. Left hand finger nail clippings
3. Glass from left leg
4. Glass from right leg
5. Pubic hair
6. Vaginal esprit
7. Vaginal swab
8. External genital swabs
9. External anal swabs
10. Oral swab
11. Right nipple swab
12. Left nipple swab
13. Pubic hair combing
14. Vaginal slide
15. Anal slide
16. External genital slide
17. Oral slide
18. Panties
19. Bra
20. Shirt
21. Pants
22. Shoes
23. Jacket
24. Victims head hair
25. Victim’s facial hair
26. Hair removed from victim’s shirt
27. Right hand fingernail scraping kits
28.  Right hand fingernail clippings
29. Pubic hair
30. Reference sample for Barbara Ware
Each one was analyzed and the results were most times all ‘negative’ or either ‘inconclusive’ or ‘insufficient DNA was found’.   She explained that the more ‘male DNA that is present’ reduces the DNA that can be analyzed to determine who the contributor could be.  So basically it could not confirm that Lonnie Franklin’s DNA was present but it also could not exclude him.
Most items tested, especially the vaginal areas had at least 4 males DNA present when tested, so this weakened the confirmation of a known contributor.
Amster was still questioning the Witness, his Witness, all morning.  Then we broke for lunch.
At 1.35pm we were all seated back in the Courtroom and the Jurors entered.  Ms Jeskie was patiently waiting on the stand.
Mr Amster kept asking the rhetorical question of “Were the steps (testing of the DNA he meant) done in a competent manner?”  Referring to the testing of the DNA on the various items.   I hardly think she would have responded with the fact that ‘No, it was actually all done by an ‘incompetent fool!’ She responded with the obvious – “Yes, they were.”
Amster rustled about, pacing back and forth with his feet never leaving the ground… shuffling as always.  
Looking as though he was racing to catch a train, Amster kept pacing with his white hair blowing all around the place as he raced back and forth.   After at least 10 minutes of silence except for the sound of his shuffling, the Judge spoke up and said, “Let’s go Mr Amster, come on!”
He responded that he’s ‘lost an exhibit’ and was looking for it.  Presumably one that he was about to put on the Elmo…. So we continued waiting.. and waiting.. and waiting.   Then he finally found what he was looking for, as he always does.   It was placed on the Elmo and depicted a graph of the DNA and how it peaks up and down and shows the parents who are the contributors of a person’s DNA.   Not very interesting to me at all.
Then Marguerite Rizzo was allowed to cross examine the Witness.  Ms Rizzo is an attractive and soft spoken lady.  Sometimes one can hardly hear her.  She comes across with a very gently demeanor and she seems like a very nice person.  I have not yet spoken with her, so I wouldn’t know.  I do know that I’m a good judge of character so I assume that I might be correct on this.
Ms Rizzo: “How many times have you testified as an expert in Court in your life?”
E.J. “About 37 times”.
Ms Rizzo: “How many times have you testified in California?”
E.J. “This is the 5th time.”
Ms Rizzo: “Did you perform the analysis on 3 victims by the names of: Barbara Ware, Enietra Washington and Jeneicia Peters?”

E.J: “Yes I did”

Ms Rizzo, in her cross examination, then pointed out that if she ‘leaned over Mr Atherton (the 2nd Defense) or Detective Dupree right now and touched their jacket’, wouldn’t her DNA be present on their clothing.  She also used the analogy of being in a Starbucks getting coffee and if she leant on the counter, “Wouldn’t my DNA be on the counter and vice versa, wouldn’t the DNA of the person who sat there, be on me?”  Again I didn’t quite see the point of this but it’s basically to weaken the testing abilities of the DNA which were performed by the Sorenson Lab.
Mr Amster kept Objecting to so many of Ms Rizzo’s comments that it almost became ridiculous, she could hardly get her words out.
He Objected with: “Objection. Speculation.”….. “Objection. No evidence.”…”Objection. Vague.”… “Objection. Relevance.” ….”Objection. Compound” and the list went on.  Judge Kennedy, ‘Overruled’ most of them with a sigh showing complete frustration, as she always does, with Mr Amster.
Ms Rizzo continued on with her questioning. Then, suddenly a very loud and tuneful cell phone went off and carried on ringing for a number of rings.  This is a well known ‘pet peeve of Judge Kennedy’s so we all looked around at each other in fear and trepidation.  Ringing phones and Sheriff’s loud radios are things she will not stand for and we all know that we will know that she will throw anyone out on these grounds.   
Everyone looked around at each other not knowing who and where it was coming from.  Then the Clerk raised her arms up, cell phone in hand, apologizing profusely.  The Judge laughed and said, “Well I guess I can’t throw her out can I?”  We all laughed along with her.
Ms Rizzo wanted to know what the ‘Sorenson DNA Lab’ charge for someone to be a Witness.  The answer is they charge $2,000 per day for a Witness and on top of that are the charges to test for DNA on the items to be tested.
For example in Barbara Ware’s case there were at least 24 items tested and the cost for that was $21,670.00!  Whatttttt I couldn’t believe it!  Then for Enietra Washington who had at least 18 items tested, I believe I heard it was a charge of $26,000.00 for those tests to be made.  For Jenecia Peters, there were only 9 items tested and it came to a whopping bill of $8,665.00″!  I must be in the wrong line of work then I thought.
Anyway, it was a long day and a long week prior, as we were still covering the private Lab that the Defense hired to do the DNA testing.  Sorenson Lab.
Tomorrow I will be in the Paul Tanaka Trial

starting at 8am.  Even though my Publisher has not yet commissioned me to write a book on this case (like I have been commissioned for the Grim Sleeper Trial) I feel compelled to write this book which I started over a year ago.  I have tentatively titled it: “Just Following Orders”.

So, tomorrow, I will be juggling my day between the Federal Building and the the Criminal Court Building, thankfully the hours are slightly different so I hope to gain as much information in both places, as I can.
To be continued…………………


Read more →
Mar
24
2016
Grim Sleeper Trial: More shocking outbursts from the Defense ~ Seymour Amster should be held in contempt of Court!
Posted by Victoria Redstall on 24 Mar 2016 / 0 Comment

March 21st was the first day of Opening Statements from the Defense ~ Seymour Amster ~ and his out of control outbursts.
At 9.15am when we were all seated in the Courtroom, excluding the Jurors, the Judge said that The People could state their concerns before the Jury would be brought in.  And she ~ Beth Silverman ~ certainly did that!

 

DA Silverman: “We have a number of things to discuss your Honour:  We asked Counsel last week, multiple times for a list of Witnesses they would be calling today.  They informed us that they wouldn’t be ready and have only just given us a partial list in Court.  On Friday we received an email from the Defense indicating that Mr Wanderlust (spelling?) would be testifying after saying that he would not.  That is just the beginning of the problems.

Over the weekend, as I’ve warned this Court over the last several years, this is going to be a Trial by Ambush by the Defense.  As the Court enquired last week of Mr Amster, regarding whether or not he was going to give a new report of witnesses, we received an email indicating that they would be calling a new expert in a completely new area of statistics and firearm analysis, which was not brought up in The People’s case.

The Defense have known all along, for the last 5 ½ years, who the firearm analysts and all the people who were going to be testifying.  Not only do I have all of the reports and all of the communication and multiple copies, but they had the Grand Jury testimony.  We also filed motions in January indicating exactly what our experts would testify to.  Not at any point in time have the Defense Counsel, either of them, ever mentioned this area.

Now suddenly at the beginning of the Defense’s case, they’re indicating that they’re going to bring in entirely new Witnesses.  And (he tells us) by the way, they will be testifying next week.  I’m… I’m at a loss for words!  I don’t understand why these Defense Counsel cannot follow the rules and the law. 
Time and time again this Trial has been continued because of the fact that they have ‘sandbagged’ The People and the Court has been forced, on multiple occasions, to continue the Trial.  This Trial was supposed to be tried over a year ago.  I also proposition the Court, that we should be billing them for extra time, because I knew this was coming and in fact I don’t even believe that this is the last of it!

I think these 2 Attorneys don’t give a Damn about ethics, the rules and professionalism.  They’ve shown this time and time again with false allegations and representations to the Court!  How can you trust anything that comes out of their mouths!” 

This went on and on… Ms Silverman was absolutely brilliant and articulate in her delivery of what we have all been thinking for over 5 ½ years.  Thank God someone said all that and she should be commended for her strong yet exasperated speech.   She spoke for everyone especially the victims’ family members and law enforcement.

In a monotone voice, Mr Amster got up slowly this time from his seat.  This time with his hands firmly placed on the desk, not flailing around as usual, he responded with:

Amster: Your Honour one of our Witnesses was not responding to us … so at that point we decided to have Mr Wanderlust  (spelling?) testifying.   If there is an issue we are happy to postpone and we are happy to co-operate with The People.  As far as Mr Spiegleman, he was never considered by the Defense…….

Ms Silvmeran interjected with “And never disclosed to us.  Right?”

Amster then shouted to the Judge to block her interruption, “May I your Honour?”

Judge, “Well I don’t know a Mr Spiegleman?”

Amster’s tone went up a full octave and doubled the decibels and he screamed, “I KNOW THAT, SO IF I MAY RESPOND, I WOULD APPRECIATE IT!”

This went on and on as he railed on the Prosecution and also stated something in the lines of being overworked and underpaid.  This was not the wording he used, but it was implying this fact.  The Judge then interrupted with, “I never said anything like that.   I…. SAID.. THAT … YOU … HAVE … BEEN … WELL… FUNDED!”
Shouting again, Amster said “THE RECORD IS WHAT THE RECORD IS AND THE COURT HAS STATED WHAT’S ON THE RECORD!”

DA Silverman: Your Honour, again for the record, Counsel is yelling!

Amster: I’m not yelling but I don’t appreciate the Court and the Prosecution interrupting me when I don’t do it to you. 

Judge: Oh please Mr Amster!

Amster: And again the Court allows the audience to laugh at me and the Witnesses…..

Ms Silverman, interrupting, stated also in a high pitched voice, “Because you have turned this in to a circus!”

Judge: “QUIET Ms Silverman.!”

Amster: The Circus is being allowed because the audience is being allowed to laugh at Witnesses and anything and everything and the Court will continue not to control it!

Judge: Mr Amster… Mr Amster…

Amster: (speaking to the Judge) And again I am being interrupted!

Judge: Mr Amster I can interrupt anybody I want!  Now the point of the matter is that I don’t know who in the audience is laughing or why they’re laughing but you made a representation that you never interrupt anyone.  You’ve been in this Court for the past 5 ½ years and saying that you don’t interrupt, is simply not the case!  

More of this testimony will be documented in my book…
This continued and then Amster went on about the 2 new Witnesses that he plans to call to the stand and why he had not disclosed it to The People.  Then he talked about another Witness entirely and then the Judge interjected with,  “Did you disclose this to The People?” to which he responded that he had disclosed it to them. 

Ms Silverman came back immediately with, “No he did not!  That’s yet another lie!”

Amster: And I appreciate the fact that I am being interrupted yet again! 

Silverman: Your Honour…. He…..

Amster: (in a rapid high pitched squeal)… AND I APPRECIATE THAT I AM BEING INTERRUPTED AGAIN AND IT IS NOT BEING STATED BY THE COURT!

Judge: Ms Silverman stop it!  You will have a chance to respond.

Amster went on to slyly imply that the Judge had something to do with some kind of rebuttle and I’m not clear what he was talking about as he talks in circles and what comes out of his mouth is usually nonsensical anyway.   The then Judge responded with,

“So… you know… you act like I had something to do with this?  I had nothing to do with this Mr Amster.  That is a misrepresentation with you just trying to turn things around.  I don’t know Dr Spiegleman.  I don’t know if he’s a reliable person or an unreliable person.  I’ve never heard of him.  I don’t appreciate your insinuation that I had something to do with this when you hired Mr Spiegleman.”

He continued on with his voice elevating to a high pitched level, his head protruding over his desk and his arms flailing to the left and right of him.  He was screaming, but no-one really knew who or why he was screaming.  In fact, yet again, the entire Courtroom audience all were looking around at each other- me included – as to whether he is going to go completely off this time.  He continued and didn’t seem to back down.  The Judge certainly let him get away with it…again.

Ms Silverman came back with the fact the the Defense Counsel was supposed to submit the list of Witnesses at least 30 days prior to Trial ‘which is required by law’.   She then said that it is a simple case of ‘Buyers remorse’ referring to the Defense.  She makes perfect sense.

Ms Silverman went on to say, regarding Mr Amster,

“He chose, despite the warnings from The People over the years, that this Witness was not only a fraud but apparently a criminal.  We told him over and over and over on the record that he better make sure that he has somebody else…….” 

….more testimony here will be in my book…

“…….. Now he has to stick by the consequences of those decisions.

 

Now, yet again it comes down to 2 choices: Exclusion, or the Jury goes home so The People can prepare!”

Brilliantly said Ms Silverman… I couldn’t have said it better myself!

Amster came back very calmly at first trying to defend himself.  However, the Judge wasn’t buying it either.  Amster was trying to defend himself about it not being ‘Trial by ambush by the Defense’.  He went on, in a very high pitched and loud tone of voice, defending the 2 individuals who he was going to call as a Witness that were completely unknown and had been ‘undisclosed to The People’.  After he breathed in for a moment, he said and “I’m just going to leave it at that.”

Ms Silverman came back calmly with this:

“Your Honour, this has nothing to do with the fact that we are being sandbagged by this Defense.  These are 2 individuals that we have never heard of before.

Amster: (screaming loudly) AGAIN I’M BEING INTERRUPTED!  THE SAME RESPECT, I GIVE, IS NOT BEING GIVEN TO ME IN THIS COURTROOM.

First of all Ms Silverman didn’t interrupt.  He’d ended with “I’m just going to leave it at that.”  Secondly the tone he continuously uses is that of an angry little child that doesn’t get his way on the school yard so he just stands in the middle of the playground screaming and shouting at nothing.  When this stance is then used by a grown man he then appears to be a raving, unbalanced lunatic, hence this is why I refer to him in this way.

Amster continued on defending one of his Witnesses, Dr Corell (spelling?) who had not been ‘disclosed’ and who also had a criminal record which had not been found out until Jury selection.  Ms Silverman interrupted quietly with something I couldn’t hear and the Judge became very enraged and with a high pitched squeal she jumped on her and said,

Judge Kennedy: “MS SILVERMAN STOP IT! STOP IT!  STOPPPPPPPPPP IT! YOU CAN TALK BUT WAIT!”

Amster went on and on, waving his arms, leaning forward over his desk, screaming at the Judge and telling her about his experts and how important they are to this case.  It still astounds me that the Judge doesn’t discipline him for his complete and utter brazen disrespect to her.  Yet if Ms Silverman interjects with anything, the Judge jumps on her immediately.  Meaning it takes a lot of crazy behavior for the Judge to discipline Mr Amster, yet with Ms Silverman, who doesn’t act like a lunatic at all, is disciplined by the Judge if she ever speaks out of turn.

After he continued his rant for 10 minutes and Ms Silverman didn’t say a word this time, she then responded with,

DA Silverman: I don’t know what to say your Honour.  He can dress it up  any way he likes.  You can put lipstick on a pig but it’s still a pig (one of my favourite expressions). 

All I can say is that this is a Trial by ambush! I am absolutely disgusted! And if The People had behaved anything like the Defense, with his level of screaming and shrieking by Mr Amster that we hear, I can only imagine what we would have been hearing about us in this Courtroom.   

More testimony here that will be in my book…..

Amster calmly responded with more drivel saying that he had to prepare for the Witness and that he was not ready for him and….

Ms Silverman interrupted with, “That’s false!”

Judge Kennedy had no choice but to say, “Ms Silverman you are doing that again..”

Ms Silverman, “But he just…”

Judge Kennedy,  (as if speaking to a child that is about to but in on a parent): “Ah!!  Ahh!!”  I always turn to you and ask you if you have anything to say but don’t keep piping up!  STOP IT!”

The Judge responded to Mr Amster stating that one of his 2 new Witnesses, Mr Spieglman, is ‘completely out of left field’.  “You called upon him only last week and I am very much disinclined to allow his testimony.  The other one, you’ve been working on is ok, but Mr Spiegleman is too late. 

You, Mr Amster, have known about all this evidence and to then wait until the end of the Prosecution’s case and to then come up with some expert and expect them (The People) to get ready on this expert when you’ve had this case for over 5 ½ years.  You could have dotted your eyes and crossed your tee’s and disclosed them to the Prosecution 30 days prior to Trial, which you did not do, so I will allow one (La Magna (spelling?) but I will not allow the other witness to testify. That is my ruling.”

This continued and Amster pretended to back down for a short time.  When Judge Kennedy asked Ms Silverman if she had any other issues, she was certainly forthcoming in stating that she did have ‘quite a few more issues.’  One of the many is that the Defense have called in at least ‘2 thirds of the Witnesses that the Prosecution had already brought in’ as their Witnesses.  Therefore he intended to cross examine them further with his case.  This was, of course, ‘not acceptable to the Prosecution.’  Ms Silverman said that there was no way they would listen to what they have already gone over before when the Prosecution presented their case with these Witnesses.

Amster continued raising his voice higher and higher stating that there needs to be preparation on this case (if he cannot call in the Witnesses that he wants to) and there needs to be ‘time off’.  He then raised his voice again and said,  “I am not going to get a stroke on the job.”

Judge: You’re not going to get what?

Amster: I’m not going to get a stroke!  I’m not going to get a stroke.

Judge: Well I might!

Amster: I’ve been working here 6 hours a day or more in all reality, under stressful situations and the Court asks me to go home at night to outline transcripts and I’m not taking my mind off this, which would be the best thing.  I’m sorry but we are doing the best we can.

Judge: Well Mr Amster you have the entire testimony from everybody, and you have it every day.

Amster: I… I…. I… I agree.  I’m not… the areas of cross examination…. I’m not looking to ‘re-ask’ the same questions.  Does that mean I might make a mistake and ask the same question that’s already there….. (his voice goes up 2 octaves over these 2 sentences)… yes IT COULD HAPPEN…and I expect there to be an Objection with the answers so we are bundled in the right direction.

Judge:  So as long as you understand… and moreover… When you accuse Ms Silverman of interfering with Witnesses… your Witnesses….
Amster (in a very condescending tone)  “Your Honour, STOP with this statement of ‘accusations’!” 
The Courtroom all looked around at each other. I have never heard anyone speak to anyone with such disrespect, let alone a Judge!

He went on about the Witnesses are all ‘subject to recall’, so he can do what he wants to.

He then said in a very aggressive and confrontational tone, “She is not the Law! (-Referring to Ms Silverman). You are the Law! (-Referring to the Judge).”  So my question is this:  The Constitution gives us the Right to the subpoena power of the Court.  (Raising his voice even louder)  A Witness who has come on the stand before and is then subject to recall is under the jurisdiction of this Court and we have the 6th Amendment right to exercise that recall.  (Shouting even more and more disrespectfully than before)  SO MY QUESTION TO YOU… YOUR HONOUR….. AND THAT IS WHY WE HAVE NOTIFIED THE PROSECUTION TODAY…TUESDAY WE WANT THESE WITNESSES: “HOW DO YOU WANT US TO EXERCISE THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT, UNDER THE 6TH AMMENDMENT, TO BRING THESE WITNESSES BACK IN?!”

She calmly answered, but Amster wasn’t having any of it.  It was his way or no way apprantly!
Then Amster in such a high pitched thrill butted in again on the Judge as he always does (without being reprimanded) with, “Ok, but we don’t know where they are assigned right now… and this tantrum went on and on from the mouth of Mr Amster.  He was stating that he never interfered with Witnesses and vice versa.  It was nothing less than 2 vindictive school kids fighting over a bag of chips in a school cafeteria yet coming out of the mouth of grown adults is a complete shock.

Ms Silverman implied that the Defense are too lazy to do such a thing and then everybody started raising their voices.  Even Ms Silverman almost started to lose it.

Again Judge Kennedy was screaming at Ms Silverman, “Stop, STOP…. STOP… with this screaming back and forth with each other!”… It got to the point where the Judge became so irate with Mr Amster that she screamed, “Mr Silverman!” Everyone erupted in laughter as we all knew she meant “Mr Amster!”  Even the Judge had to laugh at that one!  I’m sure Ms Silverman felt sick because one thing she wouldn’t do is laugh even at a crazy mistake like that one.

“I mean Mr. Amster!  I’m done with that issue now Mr Amster!  I’m done with it!  I know what she said, I know what you said now stop it the both of you!  I AM DONE!!”

She told Amster that he has to find the Witnesses on their own and basically contact them the normal way.

There were many more issues that Ms Silvmeran came up with and the Judge went through them quickly and at the end responded with, “Next?” each time.

Just as we all thought that this screaming match would end soon or at least grow calmer, Amster chimed in again with his now booming lower decibal tone.  Still leaning over the desk and shaking physically all over.

Amster: “I now believe that the City Attorneys’ Office who I believe IS NOW INTERFERING WITH THE 6THAMENDMENT RIGHT ON THE HUGE CASE AND PROBABLY DOESN’T HAVE ANY AUTHORITY FROM A SUPERVISOR TO DO THIS…”

Ms Silverman interrupted with, “Your Honour for the record Counsel appears to be yelling.

Amster: “I’M NOT YELLING!!!!”

Judge: “Oh you are too!”

There was more discussion here in a screaming tone as Amster was demanding the Detective Dupree should be the ‘appointed Custodian of the records!…. etc”
Judge “Mr Amster The City Attorney is not in a position to designate someone to be a Custodian of records.. but if there is a specific item that you know about and… Don’t shake your head at me Mr Amster!”
Amsster “Sorry Your Honour!”

Judge: “… that you say there is a Witness who is deceased or you couldn’t find or whatever on a specific item, then …. You know .. GET YOUR HANDS AWAY FROM YOUR FACE MR. AMSTER AND PAY ATTENTION AND DON’T BE DISRESPECTFUL…. AND…”

Amster: “In all my years I’ve never…

Judge: “STOP IT!! STOP IT!!!”

Amster: (screaming at the top of his lungs now) “I’VE GIVEN THEM THE PROPERTY REPORT!  I’VE GIVEN THEM THE DOCUMENTS THAT WE NEED FOR ALL THE PUBLIC RECORDS!  WHAT MORE DO THEY NEED? IT’S THE DOCUMENTS THAT WE NEED TO REFER TO!  IT’S NOT GOING TO BE ANY ‘ONE SPECIFIC ITEM’, THAT’S NOT GOING TO DO ANY GOOD!  THEY ….. NEED …. THE ….. DOCUMENTS! THEY COULD PRINT IT OUT AND IT COULD HAVE BEEN DONE IN AN HOUR.  SO WE WENT THE EXTRA STEP AND WE GAVE THEM THE DOCUMENTS.  THE INDIVIDUAL ITEM IS NOT GOING TO DO THE JOB, THEY NEED THE DOCUMENTS.  I DON’T KNOW HOW MUCH MORE WE CAN SPOON FEED THEM.

THESE HURDLES THAT ARE BEING PLACED IN FRONT OF THE DEFENSE, FOR THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT OF THE DEFENDANT,  I HAVE NEVER SEEN IN ALL OF MY PROFESSIONAL CAREER EVER HAVE HAD THIS!”

This went on and on with a screaming match between Mr Amster and Judge Kennedy

Judge: “I think, Mr Amster, that you are of the opionion that if you say it louder then it’s more persuasive…”

Butting in again he continued to say…..

Amster: “Your Honour I apologize for talking loud but I have never been more frustrated in my professional life than I am right now and…..”

Judge: “Please Mr Amster you are being to broad and I have asked you to narrow it down.  You have a transcript of every moment from this Trial and every item is referenced there.  You don’t need to get those items over again.  I’ve asked you to narrow it down…..

Amster:  “Your Honour I do not want to have a stroke… I went to a doctor last week and the point of the matter is this…

Judge: “I’m not asking you to have a stroke, I’m asking you to do your job.  Your subpoena to the LAPD is too broad and I need you to narrow it down to just those item. I  ….

Butting in again, the then said…

Amster: “Ok I’m now going to wrap!  We have no Defense.  The Court has put us in a position and I cannot represent this man any further!  The Court has put me in a position without even looking at the letter… ok?….

Screaming in a very elevated way he then slammed his chair in to the desk head protruding even further, all the Sheriffs gathered around with their hands on their hips and guns.  Less than a foot from the raving lunatic who is called Mr Amster… Yet he continued and went on to say,

Amster: “I’VE STATED WHAT I’VE STATED!  WE ARE NOW RESTING!  WE ARE RESTING… WE ARE RESTING!!  I HAVE A LIST OF WITNESSES THAT ARE COMING IN AND I NOW NEED TO CALL THEM ALL OFF!!!”

Judge: “Stop yelling at me! STOP IT!  STOP IT!”

She went on to say that he has to ‘narrow it down’ and she said this numerous times that he  must narrow it down and not be so broad.  To which he continued to scream back at her continuously.  The Sheriffs were all still standing around and Amster, still screaming and screaming and screaming he went on with,

Amster: “The Court has no Defense!  The Court just lost its’ Defense!”

Ms Silverman: Your Honour, can we take a break?”

Amster: “NO!!”

The Court became so out of control that the Judge didn’t even stop him from shouting back and Ms Silverman.  It was so out of control which is something I have never seen in my life…

I will continue over the next few days with what happened the rest of the day with the Defenses’ opening statements…….



Read more →
Mar
21
2016
WEEK 5 IN THE GRIM SLEEPER CASE….. Shocking behaviour by the Defense that beats all of his other lunacies from before..
Posted by Victoria Redstall on 21 Mar 2016 / 0 Comment

March 21st
First day of Opening Statements from the Defense.
At 9.15am when we were all seated in the Courtroom, excluding the Jurors, The Judge said that The People could state their concerns before the Jury would be brought in.  And boy they/Beth Silverman certainly did that!
One of her main concerns is: the complete lack of ‘ethics’ ‘professionalism’ and ‘respect’ shown by the Defense.  She went completely off, and quite rightly so, on the way that Seymour Amster has conducted himself over the years and up to this point.  The Defense are bringing in Witnesses in the ‘11th hour’ to testify yet not even disclosing them to The People.     
DA Silverman: “The Defense Counsel do not follow the rules and also the Law.  I think that these two Attorney’s just don’t give a damn about ethics, the rules, professionalism.  How can you trust anything that comes out of his (Amster’s) mouth? This is a Trial by Ambush by the Defense.
Ms Silverman was completely correct on everything she said and she certainly didn’t hold back.  It was about time someone stood up to this lunatic ~ Seymour Amster ~ and there was no better person to do the job than Ms Silverman.  

You could see Amster squirming in his seat and waiting to interrupt, as he always does, but for most of the time he waited.  I, of course, was thinking this would finally put this buffoon in his place and he would shrivel up and possibly apologize.  Much to the contrary.
After Ms Silverman finished pointing out every area where the Defense have ‘lied’ ‘been lazy’ ‘unethical’ ‘disrespectful’ etc, she finally rested.  Then the Judge let Amster speak.
Amster shot up like a bullet from a gun, hands flailing all over the place, his face so red it looked like he could explode, saliva flying out of his mouth, his neck protruding out from his shoulders and his mouth protruding even further out than that.  

Amster screamed back at Silverman with all sorts of excuses as to why he is a raving lunatic.  None of which made any sense.  The Courtroom were all looking around at each other as if to say how come someone isn’t restraining him or, better still, throwing him out of the Courtroom.

Amster went on to say that he is “very upset that there are people in the audience that are laughing at him and the Witnesses”.   He told the Judge that “she ‘should control her Courtroom’ and not let people laugh at him.”  

Judge Kennedy stated that the audience in her Courtroom are all being very well behaved and that “it is YOU Mr Amster that is laughing at all the inappropriate times.”
To which he screamed more and more and more… hands waving around so much he almost hit Dale Atherton in the head…. Then Silverman interjected… then the Judge said to her “Quiet.. BE QUIET MS SILVERMAN…. you’ve had your turn”!  
It became so much worse than this…. Amster threatened that he was about to have a stroke!  Then the Judge told him to “Take a seat Mr Amster, it is me that is about to have a stroke with your behaviour, not you.  You just need to do your job!”  Then Amster continued on and said:

“That’s it!  I’m done.  The Defense has rested.  We are done.  Mr Franklin can get a new Attorney, I”m walking off the Case now.”

Beth Silvmeran retorted:  “He’s just bluffing”

Judge Kennedy: “DON’T INTERRUPT MS SILVERMAN. I WILL DECIDE THAT.”
All the Deputies and the Bailiff all gathered around Mr Amster as it looked as if he was going to completely ‘lose the plot’ right there and then in the middle of the Courtroom.  With an unbalanced lunatic like Mr Amster, one really doesn’t know what to expect so the Sheriff’s were correct in swarming in on him as he continued to flail and scream in a high pitched wail showing the true individual that he really is and always has been.
This went on and on and I will update my blog in its entirety by this coming Wednesday 23rd,  there is just too much to say here right now.  We are on a lunch break right now and I wanted to update the Proceedings from today as best I could for now…
To be, very much continued………..



Read more →
Mar
16
2016
Grim Sleeper Trial. Week 4….The ‘alleged’ serial killer MISSED THE BUS today and the 2 lead detectives testified
Posted by Victoria Redstall on 16 Mar 2016 / 0 Comment

Criminalist/Ballisitics Expert ~ Alison Manfreda was on the stand again, as well as last Friday, giving her testimony very well indeed.   Lonnie Franklin was wearing a deep blue, almost denim looking shirt staring straight ahead.Seymour Amster usi…



Read more →
Mar
12
2016
Grim Sleeper Trial. The hatred between the D.A. and the Defense can no longer be hidden….
Posted by Victoria Redstall on 12 Mar 2016 / 0 Comment

Well the last few days have been interesting more so with the contentiousness between the D.A. Beth Silverman and the Defense Seymour Amster.  On Wednesday the underlying hatred the two of them have for each other came to the forefront and nothing was going to stop them attacking each other publicly in front of the Jury.

Quoting below from LA Time Reporter ~ Stephen Ceasar who put it very eloquently:

The defense and the prosecution clashed Wednesday over whether prosecutors should have previously disclosed that an earlier witness had a conviction for attempted murder. The witness, Ray Davis, a former friend of Franklin’s, testified that he once saw Franklin with one of the victims in the case.
Defense attorney Seymour Amster complained that he had never seen such an oversight by a prosecutor and called the late notification “egregious.” Davis’ testimony, he argued, should be stricken from the record.
Superior Court Judge Kathleen Kennedy rejected his request, saying Davis could return to testify about his conviction.
“She doesn’t matter enough,” the defense attorney responded. “I feel pity for her, but that’s as far as it goes.”“I know you and Ms. Silverman don’t much care for each other,” Kennedy said, referring to Deputy Dist. Atty. Beth Silverman.
Some in the audience gasped and others laughed.
Silverman shot back, asking the judge to silence Amster for his comments and allow her a chance to respond. Nothing improper had occurred, and Amster was engaging in pointless, personal attacks, she said.
“I don’t care what he thinks,” Silverman said.
Amster complained that the judge was characterizing his personal feelings toward the prosecutor, but Kennedy interjected.
“I haven’t been living under a paper bag for the last five years,” Kennedy said. “I have observed hours and hours and hours of your conduct, her conduct, everyone’s conduct — personal attacks, raising your voice.”
It is quite shocking as to how this has been going on in the Courtroom for over 5 1/2 year between these two.  Sometimes the Judge has even thrown them both out until they can come back in and ‘leave their egos at the door’.  She has told them both, in no uncertain terms, to basically grow up. However this was the very first time that the Jury had to become part of their ongoing hatred for each other.  Although this doesn’t help the case at all, I suppose it does add some humour to a very dark subject that they will are forced to endure for at least a few months more.  

District Attorney, Beth Silverman is an attractive, tough yet brilliant woman and to watch her in action you can’t help but respect her.  Seymour Amster on the other hand is…. I didn’t think I’d write it publicly but…. let’s just say some might call him ‘the Village Idiot’. At least they would where I come from.  There is nothing professional or ‘attorney-like’ about him.  This is compounded by all his games, stalling tactics and complete lack of professionalism which is why this case has been delayed for so long.  At the present time and since we are now in full swing of the Trial, he seems to want to delay it even further by asking the same redundant question over and over again. (I will get to this later on as it happened again in the Courtroom today).

Every day the Alexander family are in the Courtroom patiently waiting for Justice to be served.  They seem like a very close knit, loving family who sadly lost their precious daughter back in 1988, Alicia “Monique” Alexander at the tender age of only 18 years old.  So far they have not missed one day of Court since the Pre-Arraignments all began over 5 1/2 years ago.  God Bless them all.
Over the past few days we have seen numerous Criminalists testify, Henry Tuazon, Jeffrey Lowe and Daniel Rubin.  Tuazon and Lowe found all sorts of womens’ underwear strewn across the garages at the back of Franklin’s residence.  Yesterday a good friend of Franklin’s testified, Ray Davis, however it upset the Defense a lot due to his criminal background.  He was not on the stand for long and might return if he is called upon again.
Today, Witness Daniel Rubin took the stand again and for the entire day this poor man was under scrutiny and abuse generated by Seymour Amster, once he was allowed to cross examine him.  
Mr Rubin is a tool mark expert and Criminalist.  He sounded as though he is either from back east somewhere or Chicago.  My guess would be that he is from Brooklyn New York due to his strong accent and very apparent disdain for Mr Amster’s antics.   After being questioned by Amster for hours and hours with redundant, degrading, offensive and an argumentative line of questioning, his demeanor made it very clear that often time he would like to reach over the Witness stand and strangle him.
After withdrawing the question over a dozen times and being told by the Judge repeatedly that his line of questioning makes no sense, Amster continued breaking down Mr Rubin’s very professional examination of the bullet with:
Amster: Did you identify one of the bullets from the test fire with some type of number or something you could refer back to for comparison purposes?
Rubin: Yes
Amster: And what did you call them?
Rubin: I called them test fire 721A
Amster: How many reproducible marks did you find on 721A?
D.A: Objection. 
Judge: Sustained.  Mr Amster he’s told you already several times that he doesn’t count marks.  
Amster went on to ask the same question again 8 more times in different ways and it was clearly making Mr Rubin more and more frustrated.  Finally he just turned to the Jury and shook his head and wiped his brow all in one motion.  What made it more outrageous was when Mr Rubin had to answer the same question and he did it with the same answer each time.  It got to the point that he would then put a period in between each word of his answer when he spoke.  For example, “I have answered this question numerous times before, I… DID… NOT.. NEED.. TO.. COUNT.. THE.. MARKS.. ON… THE …. BULLET!”… And again Amster, who refuses to ever give up, keeps pressing on with:
Amster: Ok so the bullet you….. I withdraw the question… I want to confirm that the bullet that you were examining was from a 25 calibre hand gun, right?
Rubin: Yes
Amster: So how many 25 calibre firearms….. I withdraw the question… How many firearms in the County of Los Angeles could this bullet have been placed in to could have discharged that particular bullet?
Rubin: I .. DO … NOT … KNOW!
Amster: Is the 25 calibre automatic firearm a readily accessible firearm for purchase?
D.A: Objection.  Irrelevant.
Judge: Overruled
Rubin: Well that would depend on the circles that you travel with.
And the Courtroom erupted in laughter, to which Amster relished the attention and laughed for the longest time as if he’d just received a standing ovation for his performance at the Comedy Store.
More of this testimony will be in my book…..
Amster: And you cannot say that the pattern you saw on the Jackson bullet number 4 that you felt existed on the Wright bullet number 111 was the same pattern you saw on the Washington bullet number 10?
Rubin: Correct
Amster: Nor on the Alexander bullet number 14?
Rubin: CORRECT!
Amster: Nor on the Sparks bullet number 57 ?
Rubin: CORRECT!
Amster: Nor on the Lowe bullet number 3
Rubin: C.O…RRRR…E…C..T!!
Amster: Nor on the Ware bullet?
Mr Rubin became stronger and stronger with each obvious answer.  He then rolled his eyes yet again for the umpteenth time facing the Jury.  This time he was wiping his brow in a very overt way showing his complete exhaustion from Mr Amster’s unrealistic questions.
After more lengthy and repetitive questioning by the Defense, which went round and round all day. And after ‘withdrawing his question’ numerous times.  And after breaking down and roaring in to uncontrollable laughter at nothing.  

And after flapping his arms about so much with his elbows firmly at his side (as if trying to take off). And after referring to items by the wrong names and being corrected by the Judge numerous times.  And after putting the wrong photographs on the Elmo…… Mr Amster finally gave up and said that he had ‘nothing further’.  You could hear a subtle sigh of relief from everyone in the Courtroom.

The Judge looked at D.A. Beth Silverman to see if she wanted to ask the Witness any more questions… and she did.
D.A: Mr Rubin at some point in the Defense questioning I think there was the question that asked …. that long question…. whether or not you know the number of firearms in Los Angeles County that could have fired this unique bullet that you matched to this gun, what was your answer?
Rubin: ONE!
D.A: Ok, as I wasn’t sure what your answer to his question was.  So as you understood the question regarding how many guns there were whether we’re talking about Los Angeles County or all of California, you’re saying there’s only one gun that could have fired that particular bullet, right?
Rubin: Yes!
D.A: And that would be that Titan FIE 22 calibre handgun that we looked at yesterday and today.  The only gun we’ve looked at? 
Rubin: Yes!
Defense: Objection. Vague
D.A: Of all the guns that exist in the world how many guns could have fired that particular bullet that was pulled out of the body?
Rubin: One!  The only gun that we have examined here in the Court.  YES! (he blurted out as clearly as he could).
She went on to confirm the answers that Amster had asked him but in a much clearer way, to clarify the main points for the Jury.  In the 5 minutes she asked the questions, she made more sense to everyone in the Courtroom than Amster has done throughout the entire Trial so far.
Most of his responses were a firm, “YES!”
She had nothing further.
And if you can believe it possible…. Amster got up again to ask more questions even though it was at the end of the day.   I couldn’t take another minute of his drivel, even though we had only 4 minutes to go, so I left.
To be continued…..






Read more →
Mar
10
2016
Updates in the Grim Sleeper Trial + Video Blog…. from March 8th 2016
Posted by Victoria Redstall on 10 Mar 2016 / 0 Comment

March 8th (yesterday)Ricky had called me early yesterday morning saying that the Defense had subpoenaed both him and Paul to be in Court that day and for me to hurry up and get there.   I arrived by 9.45am as I knew that we weren’t going to be in …



Read more →
Mar
8
2016
Grim Sleeper Trial. Week 3. The events of the day (and the days I missed)….
Posted by Victoria Redstall on 08 Mar 2016 / 0 Comment

After having to miss four days of Trial last week due to my other career I arrived at the Courtroom this morning and caught up as much as I could on all I missed.From one of my sources, I won’t say her name, she told me that on the days I missed last w…



Read more →
Feb
27
2016
Grim Sleeper Trial Coverage: Even Reputable Newspapers are Getting The Facts Hopelessly Wrong!
Posted by Victoria Redstall on 27 Feb 2016 / 0 Comment

I don’t often read newspapers and choose to watch the news on television instead.  Today, I decided to read what has been written in the Grim Sleeper Case and to see what the papers are saying about the Trial.
Mentioning no names, I was shocked to see the blatant mistakes in some well respected Newspaper publications.  To make matters worse, the same 6 or 7 mistakes are the exact same mistakes that are in the other Newspapers and online magazines!  Now, I may not be great with my grammar, punctuation or even keeping the continuity with spacing, quotes, itallics etc, but I do the job I am paid/commissioned to do ~ GET THE FACTS OUT THERE AND SPEAK FROM MY OWN WORDS.  Meaning that once my book is completed, I am given assigned to an ‘on staff’ editor to fix the mistakes I will probably be making, from time to time, and to also make my writing flow better. However one thing you can be sure of with me is that I won’t be changing the facts, or sugar coating anything.  Most of all, I won’t be ‘copying’ anyone else’s writing out of respect to my fellow ‘writers’ and their hard work.

To name just a few mistakes of today, I will write them below:

Various Newspapers stated that:  

1. Washington said that during the attack she lost her purse containing her driver’s license 

This is very wrong!  When Enietra Washington rolled out of the Pinto after being shot almost to death, she did have her purse with her.  She very clearly stated this on the stand 2 days ago that she had it when she was taken to the hospital.  However it was not returned to her (by the Hospital) when she was released from the hospital to return back home.

2. “That’s what’s wrong with you black women.  Men can’t be men to you.”  

According to the Newspapers this was the ‘exact’ quote of the words quoted by Franklin to Enietra Washington when she kept tying to reject his suggestion of driving her to her friends house.
This is wrong!  The correct quote was in fact: “That’s what’s wrong with you black women, people can’t be nice to you.”

3.  ….She said the man went inside and when he came back out he told her to toss her cigarette out the window before heading off in the wrong direction.

This is wrong!  In actual fact, after ‘the man’ got back in the car, he headed in the right direction for a few blocks and then after a while he turned in the wrong direction.


Ok, maybe you don’t think these mistakes aren’t really that bad even though there were quite a few other errors made like this that I read this morning on a number of other online publications, including getting the ages wrong for some of the victims.    I won’t mention them here as I certainly don’t want to appear petty.  


However, the most outrageous of all is this next one:

4.  After Franklin was arrested, police searched his property and say images of Washington were found inside.

This may be true but this hasn’t even been mentioned in the Trial yet.  This is very damaging indeed for the Prosecution.  Yes, District Attorney Beth Silverman put a picture of Enietra on the Elmo (the Projector) showing when she lay dying in the assailant’s car.  However she made no mention of the fact that this picture was taken from Franklin’s home during the search!  This was written in one Newspaper and then blatantly copied to a whole load of other publications.  I do hope that Seymour Amster doesn’t read this or he’ll have a very good reason to say that the Jury might be ‘tainted’.


The moral of the story, according to me ~ Victoria ~ is:  

“If you are going to copy another persons’ hard work, make sure you have the correct facts and you don’t also copy their inaccuracies too.”

 ***









Read more →
Feb
26
2016
Grim Sleeper Trial February 25th… The Star Witness and Only Known Living Survivor testified today!
Posted by Victoria Redstall on 26 Feb 2016 / 0 Comment

February 25th


I got to Court a little later today, about 10.45am.  It was the morning recess so everyone was in the corridor.  I had a chat with a homicide detective that I recognized who I’d helped with some information on the Chester Turner case but I had forgotten his name though.  
Also Detective Dupree, one of the nicest detectives I’ve ever met in my life, was in the corridor and he always says hello and has a chat with me.  Usually we have a long chat, of which none of it will I post here, nor in my book, out of respect for him.  However, I will detail a lot more about the person Detective Dupree is in my book.. but just to say here that he is as honest as the day, incredibly hard working and shows respect to everyone even when they don’t deserve it.   After knowing him over the Pre-Trial motions for the past 5 years 7 months and 3 weeks, I can safely say that he is a truly outstanding human being and I would challenge anyone to tell me I’m wrong about that!

I sat with the same girl I always sit with ~ M.W.  She’s a writer for television and I always give her as much tips as I can because she wasn’t covering this case from the beginning.  I told her that  Enietra Washington, the star witness, is sitting 2 people away from us on the bench.  She subtly looked over and I said that this will mean she will be the next witness to testify.  I made it in perfect time this morning.  I was told that Paul has also been ‘excused from the Courtoom’ only that morning.  What?  I thought!  Now both Ricky and Paul have been excused, they are both Lonnie’s lifelong friends.  It seems the reason is they both will be called as a witness.  Well, I won’t say anymore here as I’ve been asked not to and I will respect that, but I do know that Ricky won’t talk to any of them anymore and certainly will not be a witness for the Defense.

Enietra Washington was sworn in at 11.08am

Enietra is a big lady and carried herself with confidence.  She breezed in to the room wearing a short dress, her hair was up, long blue fingernails, blue dangly earrings and a blue bag to match.  She was wearing glasses and had an air about her that you knew not to mess with a lady like this.  Lonnie kept his gaze fixed to the back wall of the room and didn’t look over at her, not even once. 

I know and I know of most people in the Courtroom now, but I didn’t recognize a man and a woman who were sitting in front of me holding each other tightly when Enietra began testifying  I do know that at least one of them were her children.

D.A. Beth Silverman opened the questioning:

DA: Ms Washington can you please tell us how old you are?

E.W: I am 57 years old

DA: Could you tell us what you do for work?

E.W: I  work for LA Unified as a CAN – a nurses’ assistant.

D.A:  I want to draw your attention back to the evening of November 19th,   early hours of the morning of November 20th 1988.  How old were you at that time?

E.W: I was 28 or 29.  Well my birthdate is 10.17.1958.

D.A:  On that evening were you walking near or on Normandie and 91st street?

E.W: Yes I was

D.A: Where were you coming from?

E.W: A friend’s house

D.A: Where were you going?

E.W: To a my friend Linda Lewis’s house to change clothes to go to a party at 84th and Dinka (spelling?) in the South LA area.

DA: Were you going somewhere together?

E.W. We were going to a party

D.A: As you were walking to your friends house to change your clothes, did you notice anything that caught your eye ?

E.W: Yes, as I was walking in front of a store and I noticed an orange Pinto that was parked in fron’ of the store as I was walking by.  It was on the corner of Normandie and 90’th or 91st.  It reminded me of Hot Wheels, you know those l’il miniature cars, I know coz my kids used to have them.  I was shocked that it was a Pinto as you jus’ din’ see them no more. It was orange and it was all fixed up, it had rims and a racing stripe and the flares.

D.A: You said it had racing stripes?  What does that mean?

E.T:  A car design.

D.A: Where were they?

E.T. Down the side of the car and up the middle of the hood.  They were white stripes.  The rims were Crager (spelling?) and the tires were Corellis (spelling?).  Corellis are usually on Porches.

D.A: How do you know all this?

E.T: Coz I like cars and my ‘play brothers’ liked cars and would teach me about cars.

D.A: What are ‘play brothers’?

Someone I grew up with in the neighbourhood that didn’t have no brothers or sisters.  Someone you can learn about girls and guys.

D.A: Did you have a ‘play sister’?

E.T: I had a couple.  Linda was a play sister and a friend too.

The testimony went on and she explained that the Pinto was not on the main street, it was parked in front of the store on a side street.  It was on the street 91st, it wasn’t on the main street.  She said that she saw a short man leave the store and go to this vehicle, she wasn’t sure how short as she didn’t pay much attention to that.  He walked around the side of the car and caught her looking at it so then he said something but Enietra didn’t pay him any attention, she just kept walking. 

The next thing that happened as Enietra was walking by was the man yelled at her, so she turned around to see who he was yelling at.  She still kept walking towards where she was staying on 90th or 91st (with Linda).


H then drove up to her within about a minute after yelling to her.  She was still on the sidewalk and he then drove along side her.  
He was on her left hand side as she was walking on the sidewalk, therefore the passenger side of his car was closest to her.  

When he pulled up alongside her, he spoke to her through the rolled down passenger window. 


Enietra recanted:
“He was hollerin’ at me through the car window and I said, “Excuse me, you cannot holla at me through a car window you have to get out if you want to talk to me.”  

She really didn’t hear what he had said when he was ‘hollering’at her like that.  So he stopped the car and got out.  When he approached Enietra, the only thing she noticed was that he was short. 

“And I don’ like short men”, Enietra giggled when saying her response.


She noticed this individual was dressed ‘kinda’ neat, he wasn’t scruffy or raggity lookin’, he looked approachable, like someone who had just come from work.  


He had a khakis on and a short sleeved buttoned down uniform shirt which made her think he’d just got off work.  The man asked Enietra what she was doing and where was she going.  

Enietra responded with a vague answer saying that she was heading over to her friend’s house then on to a party.  He even had the nerve to ask her if he could drive her to her friends house before the party?  She laughed at him and said “No, I’m good!”


He kept on asking her where exactly where she was going as he seemed to really want to take her.  She kept telling him, a little stronger each time, that she was ‘good and didn’t need a ride’.  In fact, Linda lived only a few blocks away so she could have even walked!

It was strange that neither of them had ever met each other before yet neither of them asked for each other’s name.  

The man continued to push and push asking if he can also go to the party.  At that time she said that it would be fine for him to go to the party too because those kind of parties were open for anyone to go without an invitation.

He then pushed for the 4th time, asking to drive her to her friend’s house and she responded, almost laughing at his insistence, that she was fine and that’s she’s good and really doesn’t need a ride.

Then he seemed to suddenly change on a dime and said the words “See that’s what’s wrong with you black women.  People can’t be nice to you!”


What the hell she thought!
DA Siverman repeated these words,  ‘See that’s what’s wrong with you black women. People can’t be nice to you!, and then asked Enietra what did she do next?

Enietra thought about it and felt that she might have come off wrong so then she gave in and told him that he could take her over to her friend’s house.

Silverman was curious as to why Enietra would change her mind so she said that it was because of his remark.   She felt that she might have come off standoffish to him and she didn’t want him to think that, especially as she felt sorry for him because he was so short.  “That’s when my attitude changed toward him”, she said.

Silverman wanted to know why it changed and Enietra explained:

“See I have a theory about short men”… we all were waiting with baited breath to hear what she was going to say next… “they all have a Napoleon complex!”

Silverman pressed this issue about her ‘theory’ on short men and she was quick to respond.

“Look, I’m a big woman and most short men have this attitude about themsel’s like ‘I’m gonna take you down and I have this Napoleon complex’ or somethin’ like that, and I’m like…. Ughhh no thank you.  I just don’t even get myself involved with them in the first place.”

Even though Enietra is only 5 feet 7, she still speaks of herself as a ‘big woman’.  I would tend to agree with her.  She has a very large presence and she has a lot of self confidence and great posture so she appears even bigger and taller than she actually is.

Right before getting in the car with this man, he kept asking Enietra where the party is as he seemed to really want to go.  She said the party was open and he was welcome.  The man wasn’t overweight, he seemed ‘fit’ to her.  However as she was wearing tennis shoes she knew he was short because she was towering over him.  He was African American and only a little older than her.

Enietra was carrying her purse at the time and inside her purse was her ID, a few dollars and some make up.  She let herself in the passenger side door of his car and he removed some childrens school books off the seat so she could sit down.  She noticed a toolbox on the floor, a mechanic or plumbing toolbox.

When she got into the car, she noticed that the interior had white diamond tux (spelling) leather seats.  That’s material that’s laid in to a diamond shape with leather tucked in the pattern.  They were personalized seats not standard.  It was customized.  There was a pearl ball handle on the gear shift. 

“There was fur across the dashboard too.  “He had it all ‘pimped out’ too coz I was looking.” Pimped out in layman’s terms simply means ‘customized.’  It was also a low rider but without the dice on the rear view mirror.  Enietra asked who made the car all ‘pimped out’ and “he said he did it hisself.”

More of this testimony will be added to my book….

The next thing that happened, was he called her somebody’s name, like Brenda or something, not her name.  Enietra responded quickly with “that’s not my name.” He then said something and I turned to him again and, “Everything just went really, really eerily quiet.  Like one minute the music was blasting then all of a sudden it wasn’t blasting no more.” 

Silverman wanted her to try to remember what exactly happened when the man called her Brenda and right before things went really quiet. 

Silverman asked, “What did he do at that time?”

Enietra said, “I thought I saw him reach across hisself, but I didn’t really pay no attention I didn’t really seen nothing.”  

He reached across himself towards the drivers door with his right hand but she didn’t see if he retrieved anything or not. 

She felt it was strange so she needed to get out of the car, so she started to reach for the passenger door to open it, to which them man became very sinister and said

“Don’t you touch that door bitch or I’ll shoot you again!”

Enietra was shocked as she’d felt nothing so she said “Oh?  You shot me? You shot me?”  She carried on and said again, “Oh ok so he shot me?”
Back to Silverman she said,  “You know when you hear when people get shot, you feel burning, but I din’ feel nothin’!  I din’ see him shoot me! I din’ feel no gun shot!  I din’ even hear no gunshot!  His voice sounded angry but wasn’ yellinl he was just ….. he was just….menacing.”
Silverman asked, “Did he seem out of control or calm?”  Enietra said that he was calm and didn’t even raise his voice.

Enietra asked the man why he had shot her and he said because “You bin’ doggin’ me out!”

Silverman asked her to clarify that statement and she explained that it meant that he said he thought she had been disrespecting him.   But he kept calling her someone else’s name.  Enietra couldn’t understand how she was accused of ‘doggin’ him out when she didn’t even know him!  She kept laying in to him with, “I don’t even know you so why would you shoot me?”  Enietra never wanted to look down on herself as she was afraid what she would see, at some point she did look down and saw some blood on her chest and her jacket.  Then she figured she had to get out of the car. 

More testimony from here will be in my book…..

“Were you raped?” Silverman asked.

“Yes I was”, Enietra responded quietly… “Then how do you know you were raped?”

Enietra explained that because his face was down there and him being on top of her made her feel she was raped.  It became a lot more descriptive with the DA’s line of questioning, as you can imagine she was asking Enietra if she felt for certain that she’d been penetrated but she couldn’t recall as she was going in and out of conciseness at the time.  She said he must have done so when she was passed out.

We then broke for lunch at about 12noon and we returned at 1.30pm

For the longest time Enietra was sitting on the stand sometimes staring straight at Mr. Franklin, yet he kept his fixed gaze looking straight ahead, at the wall in front of him.  Not moving a muscle.

Starting again with the sexual assault that had occurred before he started driving the car again, Enietra, in her dying state, reached as best she could for the passenger door handle.  Once she got it slightly open he then pushed her completely out of the moving car.   This Pinto was a 2 door car by the way.  She then landed on the cold hard street and just laid there for and indefinite amount of time, she then talked to herself in her head telling herself she’s got to “get my ass outa’ the street!”  She rolled on to the curb, almost dead at this time and losing blood fast.  All this time, in was dark out so it was hard for anyone to see her laying there.  She didn’t know where she was, she just wanted to get to the main street, she started “feeling on cars’, she was holding on to the parked cars to guide the direction in which she was dragging herself and she finally pulled herself along the road near to a street called Genker (spelling?).  She was still fading in and out of consciousness as she was making her way to the main street.   She finally made it to Linda’s house and, “I started beatin’ on her door, but she weren’ there.   I jus’ kept beatin’and beatin’ on her door coz I wanted her to call the police.  But she was at the party.  So I figured I’d wait on her porch.. I just laid down on one of the steps on her porch… I was still fading in and out.”

Linda and her husband then finally pulled up in the car, in their driveway.  She got out of the car ‘fussing’ at Enietra, saying that they’d waited all that time for her and she didn’t show up.   Enietra just kept trying to interject with, “Call 911!  Call 911!”  Lisa seemed confused and asked why on earth she would have to call the police.

“I’ve been shot.  I’ve been shot.   Call 911!  She didn’t see at first and then she came up and saw that I’d been shot and then she started screamin’ and hollerin’ and everyone came out of their doors.  They were all hysterical and then she called 911.”

More testimony here which will be in my book….

D.A:  On that date of November 19th 1988, prior to the time you got in to this Pinto had you pursued any type of drugs that day?
E.W: Yes

D.A: What did you consume?

E.W: Cocaine and marijuana.  Marijuana laced with cocaine.  I took it about 3 or 4 in the afternoon.

D.A: Did you have any alcohol?

E.W: No

D.A: How many hours had passed between you taking the marijuana laced with cocaine that you got in to the Pinto?

E.W: About 4 or 5 hours later

D.A: Did you feel when you were walking and before you got in to the Pinto, that you were under the influence of anything or unaware of your surroundings?

E.W: No

D.A: When was the last time you consumed any illegal drugs since that date?

Amster: Objection

Judge: Overruled… ok Sustained on irrelevance grounds.

D.A.  Have you consumed any illegal drugs last night or today?

E.W: No

On the Elmo, the projector, Silverman placed a picture of the  photograph taken by the assailant the day she was in the Pinto.  Enietra was asked if she pulled up her blouse or her skirt while she was in the Pinto, to which she responded with a firm ‘No!’ both times.

Silverman asked Enietra if she ever saw the individual, the man who shot her, again after her release from the hospital?  

“I believe I did”, she said. “By my house in Inglewood, nowhere near where she was staying before.” The address that was on her Drivers Licence.

D.A:  Where did you see this individual?

E.W. He was walkin’ down my street, I happen’ to be standing outside.

D.A: Did he look familiar to you

E.W. Kind of

D.A: What was said?

E.W. He said to me, ‘Do I know you’? And I said ‘Am I s’posed to?’ Then he turned and walked away.   I didn’t think it was the man at first and then I thought ‘Oh my God’ it was him, I just shook it off.  This was about a year after I left the hospital.

Then there was a picture Silverman put on the Elmo and asked Enietra does she recognize who the person is.  She said she did and Silverman asked who is he and Enietra immediately said “The person who shot me!”  There were gasps in the Courtroom as she makes no qualms about anything that comes out of her mouth.  
Good for her she seems to be a lady with absolutely no fear.

She remembered testifying in 2011 for a Grand Jury at this same Courthouse and was shown this same photograph and identified him as the person who shot her.  Silverman asked if this is how the person looked in 1988 to which Enietra confirmed that he did. 

D.A:  Looking at this photograph, do you see this person in the Court today?

Enietra: Yes I do!

D.A: Can you please point him out.

Enietra, with great force, threw her right arm out in front of her and pointed the to the

Defendant Lonnie Franklin, who was still looking straight ahead at the wall behind the Judge.   She described his clothing and that he was sitting at the end of the table.

Silverman asked very slowly and surely “How certain are you that this was the person who shot you?” To which Enietra shouted back before Silverman could finish her question with, “100%!”   Silverman then asked, “Does he look the same to you as he did in 1988?” 

“Minus the hair”. Enietra chuckled.   But he still looks the same she continued.

The Judge called for Seymour Amster for the Cross:

Here we go, the entire Courtroom thought.  What nonsense can he come up with today?

Def: I believe you testified today that sometime you saw the individual outside of your house.  Now I won’t ask you the address of your home….. She butted in on him before he finished his sentence with, “Well you ain’ gonna get it anyway!”
Most of us in Court laughed at that one.  Good for her we all thought.  It was very evident the disgust she had ou could for Mr Amster before he even arrived at the podium.
Trying to discredit her testimony as much as he could, he asked her all sorts of daft questions to which her response for each of them she responded with a firm ‘No, I didn’t!’,  or ‘No!’  or ‘I doubt it!’  Mr Amster then went over to show her the document that he had from the police report which was made to see if it would refresh her memory. 

Of course when he got to where she was sitting he then tripped, of course, and said he was sorry.  She immediately retorted with ‘No you’re not!’  Again, the Courtroom chuckled.

Amster: Did you see the individual sitting on the bus with you one day?

E.W: Yes he did a couple of times but that was before he came to stand outside my house.

Mr Amster constantly kept fumbling around after he asked each redundant question.  Pacing between his chair and the podium and then back again, sliding across the floor as he went, his neck jutting straight out in front of him as the rest of his body then followed.

Mr Amster: At any time did you say to Linda, ‘they shot me’?

E.W: No I did not!

Amster: At any time did you say to Linda, ‘they raped me’? 

E.W: No I did not!

Amster:  At any time when you were telling Linda about what happened to you did you use the word ‘they’?

E.W: No!

This continued on and on with similar questions.  Then he went on and asked an important question:

Amster: At any time after the incident did you tell law enforcement that this individual had acne scars on his face?

E.W: I may have as I thought I’d scratched him.

This was an interesting answer as I know from Lonnie himself and all of his friends that Lonnie never had any acne at any time in his life.


Most of the testimony I left out here will be in my book along with the rest of the day when Enietra was on the stand.  
However I will update this part with some more of her testimony when I write again.

This will be continued….


Read more →
Feb
25
2016
The Grim Sleeper Trial. February 25th. The ‘Mystery Woman’ in the Courtroom. The Defense acting like they are in a bad sitcom.
Posted by Victoria Redstall on 25 Feb 2016 / 0 Comment

February 24th

Lonnie was wearing the same blue shirt and beige slacks as yesterday, his trousers seemed way to big for him due to the weight he’s lost by being in jail.

Cristina Gonzalez was still on the stand from yesterday afternoon testifying about her collection and research with the DNA taken from the victims.  She’s basically having to defend her professionalism and the correct procedures and protocol she used in collecting and analyzing the DNA. Same as she did yesterday.
In the lunch break, my goal was to get Ricky back in to the Courtroom as I had promised him yesterday.  So, at about 1.10pm, long before we were due back, I very graciously went up to Seymour Amster who was doing his usual pacing of the corridor.  I asked him if Richard Harris could please be allowed back in to the Courtroom, he had said yesterday that he’d ‘let me know’. 

Well because he had an audience in the corridor, he immediately raised his voice, flapped his hands and shouted “Would you stop interfering with my procedure”.  His face was all red as if he was about to explode, but that’s normal for him every time he speaks.   I responded with the fact that I am sorry however I am speaking on his behalf as (‘you have clearly told him that’) he is not allowed in the Courtroom.  

“After all”, I continued to say “he has flown here from Atlanta for the Trial and he blatantly refuses to be a witness for you…. the Defense.”   Amster just shouted back at me in his flustered way, “Mr Harris has been excused and that’s all there is to it.  Now stop interfering with my process.”  Ok well, after that I certainly don’t want to get myself in trouble so I sat back on the bench waiting to go in.


I find it strange that every time we wait in the corridor, on each recess and on lunch, we are sitting next to all of the Jury members, victim family members, Lonnie’s friends, reporters, etc.  In my humble opinion I feel there is some kind of danger to that as Jurors aren’t deaf and everyone is talking to each other.
We all walked back in at about 1.38pm followed by Lonnie Franklin, who again was putting his tie on in his seat.  Wearing the same blue shirt and beige slacks as yesterday that seemed way to big for him due to the weight he’s probably lost being in jail.

The Bailiff was in a very heated discussion with a black woman who was seated in front of me.  She was sitting where the victims’ family  members usually sit.  The Bailiff was asking her nicely who she is and her association with the Trial.  Was she a family member of a victim or the Defendant?

Bailiff: Would you please identify who you are?  I am coming at you nicely and professionally and asking you who you are here for?  If you don’t tell me who you are I will have to remove you from the Courtroom.”

Woman:  I don’t have to tell you nothin’ I’m a family member of someone.  I was a kid when she died. I ain’ telling you who she was”

Bailiff: “You are being uncooperative and I’m going to have to remove you from my Courtroom.  This is my Courtroom and I need to know who is sitting here.”

She sat there with her arms folded as the Bailiff lent in to her very closely and said “Ok step out of the Courtroom right now.”  She resisted and I could see all the other Sheriff’s closing in, including the Defense and Detective Dupree.  It looked like a takedown was about to happen but she got up and stormed out being escorted with no less than 4 Sheriffs, one of them being the Bailiff. 

At 1.43pm the Jurors walked in the main door.

Amster gets up for cross examination with Ms Gonzalez who is still on the stand.

Amster:  So are you saying that it’s not at all possible in the entire world’s population for there to be the same….

Judge Kennedy cut him right off sternly and said “Mr Amster we’ve been through all this the last time you cross examined”.

With that, he didn’t say another word, he gathered his papers and stormed back to his chair sliding his feet as he does with his neck protruding forward at least a foot ahead of the rest of his body.


Finally the poor lady was released from the day.
1.52pm   The LAPD Seargant Allan Seeget came to the stand. 

Sgt. Seeget currently works out of Rampart Division and oversees the training Unit.  He’s been with the LAPD for 32 years.  He used to work at Newton station in South Central Los Angeles where he was a patrol officer.

This crime scene is where Barbara Ware was found.  At 1356 East 56th Street.

DA: Sgt Seeget On Saturday January 10th1987 at 12.30am, just after midnight, were you called to an alley located in the 1300 block of East 5th Street? (Later I spoke with Cliff Shepard who said there is no such address, it was in the 1300 block of 56th street and not 5th street… him that’s 51 blocks discrepancy, oh well I’ll just leave it as what Cliff said as he was there from the very start of this case).


Sgt: Yes I was

DA: Was it a call for a dead body?

Sgt: Yes it was a call for a ‘possible’ dead body?

DA: What were the weather conditions?  Was it dark out?  What did you see?

Sgt: It was very cold that night and it was still dark, in fact me and my partner had to use our flashlights and walk up the alley. Robert Diaz was my partner at that time.  We saw lots of trash and debris all over the alley.

Judge:  Sgt Seeget you can say what ‘you’ saw but you cannot say what ‘we’ saw.  He turned to look over to the Judge who was sitting directly to his right.

Sgt: Yes your Honour I understand.

Turning back to Beth Silverman again he said:

Sgt:  I then saw a dead body?

DA:  Could you show us? (motioning for him to use his laser pointer on the monitor)

With his pointer he showed us the position the body was found which was to the right of the picture on the side of the alley.  He pointed to a leg wearing a pair of jeans.  He explained that the debris was stacked up on top of her.  He called for additional units to come to the crime scene and put up the yellow tape so that no one else could enter that area without signing in and signing out of a log.  At least one Coroner, one Criminalist and at least one Investigator always shows up to a crime scene that appears to be of a homicide.

Every day, by the way, Lonnie Franklin looks straight ahead.  He never looks left or right when he is seated on his chair, he also never looks at the monitor.

DA:  Did a serial killer task force arrive at the scene?

Sgt: Yes at least 8 officers arrived at the scene.

Whattttt??  Hang on a minute, I thought, the serial killer task force wasn’t even formed until 2007, so how could it have been possible for ‘a serial killer task force’ to be on hand all the way back 2 decades before?  Something doesn’t make sense here and I planned to ask Detective Dupree about this in the afternoon recess.   Plus I will also ask Cliff Shepherd about it today too.   More to come on this later……

More horrifically graphic crime scene pictures were shown of Barbara Ware and her lifeless body.  We saw close ups on her face which had blood all over it even though she was shot in the chest, my guess is the blood on her face came from when she was fell to the ground somehow after being shot.  I am so glad that Ms. Diana Ware wasn’t in the Courtroom today, she was noticeably missing.   I’m sure she was advised not to come in today as it would have been too difficult for her to see.  God Bless that lady, I’m sure her daughter is looking down at her from heaven knowing how much her mother loved her and has dedicated these past 3 decades to putting her daughter’s killer away.

Silverman asked Sgt Seeget how many homicide crime scenes he’d been called out to over the years, to which he responded, “Well over a hundred, but that’s a tough one to be exact on that!”

Silverman asked the question which she has asked most first responders, ‘What exactly is a body dump’?  She wants to drive this answer home for us, the Jury and everyone in the Courtroom to be perfectly clear on what it means.  It will prove that, without a shadow of a doubt, that each of these bodies were killed somewhere then transported to the various crime scene locations.

Seeget answered the same way as everyone else – She was killed elsewhere then brought to the dumping location, our investigators did numerous tests that would confirm this.

Amster was due to take the stand, we waited and we waited and we waited while he was banging around on his desk with all his large, overly full, manila envelopes he had piled on top of each other.  

He was making a heck of a lot of noise yet saying nothing.  Then he started looking under the desk for something,  then he was slapping documents down on the desk, clearly making a spectacle of himself, however none of us knew why.  No one said anything, but all of us looked at each other, the Judge rolled her eyes subtly as she often does when Mr Amster does something that is so out of character for a normal professional lawyer.  If Stan Laurel, from the television show Oliver and Hardy, were to be re-incarnated as a lawyer, his name would be Seymour Amster.   He is a caricature of Stan Laurel.

Then he stayed at his seat, he didn’t go to the podium, he just stood up from his seat and shouted to the witness on the stand in his typical rude manner:

Amster:  Did you receive a call to go to that location?

Seeget: Yes I received a radio call which was a possible 187 (penal code for murder). The P.R. (person reporting) stated that it was the dumping of a body.


Amster wanted to focus on the graffiti on the wall near the body and ask if the graffiti appeared to be fresh graffiti.  We all know what he was implying and the Sgt responded with a definitive ‘no’.  

Graffitti was everywhere all over almost every wall in South Central Los Angeles, especially in the 80’s.

DA Silverman then cross examined the witness with only a few ‘to the point questions’

DA: Did the graffiti appear fresh to you?

Seeget: No

DA: Did the graffiti appear to be typical of all the other graffiti in South LA?

Seeget: Yes

DA: Thank you, no further questions.

Donald Hrycyk was called to the stand.  A Detective who’d been with LAPD for 42 years.

Hrycyk was stationed at 77th Division for 3 ½ years.   He responded to a homicide call on August 12th 1986.  His partner was Jay Johnson.  He responded to the scene at about 1.15pm.  The victim turned out to be Henrietta Wright.

He described the scene to be filled with trash, trash bags, mattresses, looks like a transient could have been sleeping there.   It was clearly a ‘body dump’.

Hrycyk has covered well over 60 homicides.

Right before we took the afternoon break the Judge got a little irate with Beth Silverman saying she didn’t want her to use the names of the victims.  To which Silverman responded that “But every time a slide is shown, the victims’ name is always at the top so the Jury see it anyway.”

Judge:  I’m not going to argue with you Ms. Silverman, when I make a ruling, it stands.  That’s it.

DA: Fine!

And with that heated exchange we were released on a break.

I saw Detective Dupree in the hallway and went up to him.  He is so easy to talk to and always has time for people.  I told him that I was confused that a ‘serial killer task force would show up to a crime scene in 1987 yet as far as I knew the serial killer task force wasn’t formed until 2007?   He knew why I was confused and stated, “That’s what Margaret Prescod would like you to think,  but we had various ones formed earlier on.” 

Hmmmm, ok I didn’t know about that.  So I needed to get to the bottom of this as I have never heard of one being formed before 2007… I’m calling Cliff Shepard tonight!


The ‘mystery woman’ that was thrown out of the Courtroom was sitting right outside the whole time we were on break.
We came back after the break and Hrycyk explained that he responded to a crime scene at 9.15am at 9414 South Western Avenue, South LA a parking lot adjacent to an alley way, with his partner Jerry Collins .

When he showed up there were already uniformed officers on the scene.  There was a dumpster on the south east corner was adjacent to the alley with two lids, one lid was open and one was closed.  It was an overly full dumpster.  He saw a foot with a grey sock on the open side of the dumpster.

They made sure to always wear gloves to preserve the integrity of the crime scene.  There were ligature marks on the right side of her neck.

DA:  Were there similarities between this crime scene of Bernita Sparks and the homicide we spoke about before, Henrietta Wright?

Seeget:  Yes, both were shot in the chest.  Both were African American women. Both were dumped in the South Central area location.  Both were dumped in trash or covered in trash.  Neither had any identification.  Both were either in or adjacent to an alleyway.  Both were covered to disguise the body and there were no 25 calibre casings at either crime scene.

Amster:  Good afternoon Detective.  On January 10th 1987 you were responding to the crime scene of….. oh… no wait…. Ha ha ha….” Seymour exploded again in hysterical laughter leaving all of us sane people in the Courtroom trying to piece together where the potential joke was.  “ha ha ….I must’ve gone back too far.. sorry about that.   Ha ha ha….  I meant on August 12th 1986 you went to a crime scene with your partner Detective Collins, correct?  

Seegret:  Yes
Amster:  Part of your duty is to request a latent fingerprint analyst to come to the scene. Correct?
Seegret:  I don’t recall

Amster: Well do you recall seeing an examiner there?

Seegret: I don’t recall

More hysterical laughter as he rummaged through his paperwork frantically searching for something that nobody besides Mr Amster himself could have any idea what he was looking for.  What could possibly be so funny?  This is not a joke!

Amster: So you mentioned that when you arrived on the scene that a transient might have been sleeping there? 

Seegret:  Yes it’s possible that that area might be an area where a transient might sleep there.

Amster:  Are you familiar with the types of people that frequent that area?

 After much of a mess going around and around in a circle so that he could make his question more clear, the Sgt responded with:

Seegret:  Well yes it’s an area where there are people on drugs, it’s an African American area, there are transients there and a lot of graffiti..

That was where we adjourned for the day.  As we left, that ‘mystery woman’ was still sitting on the bench with her earphones in right outside the Courtroom, very strange.

Once I arrived home to write up my events of the day, I decided to call my friend Cliff Shepard to clarify my confusion regarding this ‘serial killer task force’ and when it all began.
Cliff:  In 2007 I was working for Homicide supervisor Rob Bub in the cold case unit at that time, he was aware of cases that occurred in the 80’s.  When Janecia Peters murder came in (in 2007) Cliff was on a day off and Captain Jackson was told that the same DNA matched 6 0r 7 other victims, Kilcoyne overheard this conversation and they all decided to form a task force from that day forward, which began at approximately the end of April in 2007.

Where my confusion was is how come a ‘serial killer task force’ was also around in the 80’s?  Cliff let me know that that was the ‘Southside Slayer task force’.  (The Southside Slayer is another serial killer I have interviewed extensively by the name of Chester Turner, he is currently on Death Row.  Yet the twist here as that in some of the Franklin murders, Turner’s DNA was also found on/in the body, that hasn’t come up yet so I’m just waiting for that.   
Turner was also killing women in South Los Angeles at the same exact time as the Grim Sleeper so this would make sense.   So yes, there was a serial killer task force that came to the scene of the murder of Barbara Ware, however it wasn’t the ‘serial killer task force’ that was assigned to the Grim Sleeper.  This is very interesting as I had no idea that there were 2 serial killer task forces.  We will see what transpires next….

Off to Court for another long day.

To be continued……….


Read more →