Lisker Case Analysis

Section VI

The Jail House Informant,Police Complicity

In April 1983, police moved a 17-year-old from juvenile hall to the Los Angeles County Jail’s notorious snitch tank — the 7000 Module — in defiance of a juvenile court order. Within days, three veteran jailhouse informants surfaced claiming Bruce had confessed. The convergence was not coincidence. In 1989, a Los Angeles County Grand Jury confirmed what defense attorneys had long suspected: county jails were running a confession-manufacturing apparatus — staff deliberately placed informants alongside targeted defendants, and prosecutors used the resulting testimony to win convictions ³⁴⁸ ³⁴⁹. The near-total absence of perjury prosecutions ³⁵⁵ told the rest of the story.

The court order that was defied. On April 4, 1983, Sylmar Juvenile Court Judge Martha Goldin ordered Bruce retained in juvenile hall ⁶⁷⁹, acting on a probation report that found juvenile hall appropriate to his case and emotional state ^455C. Four days later, without the required court order ^455B, police moved him to the adult ³³² County Jail’s 7000 Module — the “hospital floor” ⁴²⁷ — the very unit the Grand Jury would later identify as the place where staff seeded targets for informants to book ⁶⁷⁷. To police it functioned as a black-box amplifier: place a defendant, wait, and “sooner or later” ³⁵⁴ a snitch would surface claiming a confession.

The State has called this an accident. The “accident” required paperwork filed in defiance of an order entered four days earlier; placement not in general population but in the 7000 Module specifically; and within that module, a four-man cell isolated from every other juvenile, flanked by cells holding three known adult informants — with holes two to three inches across bored through the dividing walls, giving all three unrestricted contact with a 17-year-old. The arrangement violated Welfare and Institutions Code §§ 207b, 208a, and 707.1, which forbid placing juveniles in adult jail without a court order and prohibit any contact, even momentary, with adult prisoners.
The un-taped first visit to Hughes. Roughly two weeks before Hughes’ taped interview, detectives paid him a first visit that was neither recorded nor transcribed ⁴⁵⁹. No legitimate purpose explains that decision. The most plausible explanation is the most damning: a coaching session — assess his capabilities, correct inconsistencies, align his claims with the prosecution’s theory. The rough spots were smoothed, but because the foundation was a lie, contradictions remained. [Cf. § V]
The music-and-money motive — and where it came from. Informants Dowtu and Wallace both claimed Bruce had confessed the attack grew from an argument over money and loud music ⁴⁵⁶. That was also, not coincidentally ³⁵¹, Monsue’s early theory of the crime ⁴⁵⁸. It is fabrication.
When I moved out of my family’s home I took my stereo receiver and albums with me. No albums, tapes, working stereo, or speakers were found in or around my former bedroom during the six-plus hours police searched the house on March 10 ⁵⁴⁸. There was an old broken Sanyo turntable in that room — which I mentioned to Monsue at interrogation ⁴⁵⁷. Monsue is the only link connecting that statement, his own report, and Dowtu and Wallace, whom he interviewed at County Jail on April 21 ⁴⁵⁶. With Hughes’ first interview unrecorded [Cf. § V (2)] and almost certainly a coaching session ⁴⁵⁹, picturing Monsue seeding the “music” and “theft” elements before the tape ran takes no leap.

He may not have needed to. At 17, naive and trusting, I answered enough of Dowtu’s and Wallace’s probing questions to lay out virtually the entire police theory — not knowing they were taking notes ⁶⁷⁸. Monsue also volunteered his music ⁴⁵⁸ and theft ⁴⁶⁷ theories to suspect John “Mike” Ryan, Jr. in Gulfport, Mississippi. And next-door neighbors, home that day, told Monsue they heard nothing unusual ²⁷¹. No independent evidence supports the music claim.
Rabichow’s “only the killer knew” claim — false on three counts. To shore up Hughes’ credibility, prosecutor Rabichow asserted the snitch knew details “only the killer” could know. He made the claim in open court ⁴⁵⁰ and repeated it in writing — to the California Department of Corrections, that Hughes possessed details “THAT COULD HAVE COME ONLY FROM SOMEONE PRESENT AT THE LOCATION AT THE TIME OF THE MURDER” ⁶⁷⁴, and to David Disco of the District Attorney’s Office, that Hughes “TESTIFIED TO DETAILS OF THE KILLING THAT ONLY THE KILLER KNEW, INCLUDING WHICH ROOMS DIFFERENT ALTERCATIONS TOOK PLACE AND THE ORDER IN WHICH THEY TOOK PLACE.” ⁶⁷⁵ Tellingly, his later petition to Orange County Superior Court Judge Donald A. McCartin for Hughes’ early release contained no “only the killer knew” language — perhaps because everything Hughes testified to could be found in Monsue’s reports or heard in his April 4 hearing testimony.
(a) The State said Hughes’ knowledge of blood spatter was something only the killer could know ⁴⁵⁰. In fact, “spatter,” “spattered,” “spatterings,” “spot,” and “spots” of blood were spoken twenty-three times at the April 4 detention hearing ⁴⁵¹. I sat through that hearing and encountered Hughes as few as four days later.

(b) The follow-up police report names each room where bloody weapons were recovered ³⁶⁴. I shared my copy of that report with Hughes. His ability to name the weapons and rooms ³⁶³ is not insider knowledge — it is evidence he read the report and lied. Steak knives found in the hallway; Hughes placed the stabbing in the hallway. Trophy and exercise bar found in the master bedroom near blood spots and stains ^{636, 637, 640, 641}; Hughes placed the shirt-ripping there. But blood-spatter patterns showed blunt-force blows in the entry hallway ⁶⁴⁸, the living-room hallway ⁶⁴³, the master-bedroom hallway ⁶³⁶, and the hallway adjoining the three back bedrooms ⁶³² — locations Hughes never specified.

(c) Rabichow got the sequence wrong. The physical evidence and Rosie Lisker’s observed injuries establish that the attack order Hughes described — the RKTB sequence — is physically impossible. [Cf. § V (3) (a) (b) (c) (d)]

Tested against the record, nothing Hughes “knew” survives. The blood-spatter “secret” was aired twenty-three times in open court. The room-and-weapon details came from a police report. The motive was Monsue’s theory, planted or parroted. The sequence was physically impossible. The State’s presentation of Hughes was a Potemkin’s Village — a facade with nothing behind it, assembled from an ailing six-year plea-bargain case, an informant desperate for freedom, and a prosecution determined to convict at any cost to the truth.

Footnotes

271.

Testimony of LAPD detective Andrew R. Monsue (No. 20927)

Trial

November 5, 1984 – Page 45

A:"I SPOKE BRIEFLY WITH THE NEIGHBORS WHO LIVE DIRECTLY EAST OF THE LOCATION..."

Q:"DID YOU ASK THEM IF THEY HAD SEEN ANYTHING?"

A:"BASICALLY THAT AND I ASKED THEM IF THEY HAD HEARD ANYTHING AND SEEN ANYTHING UNUSUAL IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD THAT DAY AND THEY INDICATED THEY HAD NOT."

That answer doesn't survive the rest of the record. By the time the paramedics arrived I was in the driveway in front of our house, screaming at them — independently confirmed by both law enforcement and fire department personnel on scene. The neighbors directly east apparently heard none of it.

↩

332.

Testimony of jail house informant Robert Donald Hughes

Trial

November 6, 1985 – Page 549

A:"WELL, WHEN THEY LET US OUT FOR SHOWERS I NOTICED A TAG ON HIS DOOR ... AND THE TAG MEANT JUVENILES AND THEY ARE SUPPOSED TO CHECK ON THEM A LOT. IT IS AN ADULT JAIL AND YOU KNOW THEY HAVE JUVENILE JAILS AND ADULTS. HE IS IN THE ADULT JAIL..."

↩

348.

Report of the 1989-90 Los Angeles County Grand Jury: Investigation of the Involvement of Jail House Informants in the Criminal Justice System in Los Angeles County

Page 10-11

"The myriad benefits and favored treatment which are potentially available to informants are compelling incentives for them to offer testimony and also a strong motivation to fabricate, when necessary, in order to provide such testimony. This premise is a basic concept to the understanding of the jail house informant phenomena. The courts have sometimes lacked adequate factual information to fully realize the potential for untrustworthiness which is inherent in such testimony because of the strong inducements to lie or shape testimony in favor of the prosecution.";

and:

continued at page 12

"Jail house informants want some benefit in return for providing testimony. The more sophisticated may attribute their willingness to testify for law enforcement to other motives, such as their repugnance toward the particular crime charged, a family member having been a victim of a similar occurrence, the lack of remorse shown by the defendant, or other explanation to account for their assistance to law enforcement. Nevertheless, in the vast majority of cases it is a benefit, real or perceived, for the informant or some third party that motivates the cooperation."

↩

349.

Report of the 1989-90 Los Angeles County Grand Jury: Investigation of the Involvement of Jail House Informants in the Criminal Justice System in Los Angeles County

Page 16

"THIS DISINCLINATION TO FOLLOW SOCIETAL RULES EXTENDS TO THEIR WILLINGNESS TO DEFILE AN OATH. INFORMANTS TESTIFIED BEFORE THE GRAND JURY TO REPEATED INSTANCES OF PERJURY AND PROVIDING FALSE INFORMATION TO LAW ENFORCEMENT. WITH ONE EXCEPTION, EACH INFORMANT WHO TESTIFIED CLAIMED THAT HE HIMSELF HAD COMMITTED PERJURY OR PROVIDED FALSE INFORMATION INCRIMINATING ANOTHER INMATE ONE OR MORE TIMES.";

and:

continuing at page 8

"Inasmuch as the evidence heard by the Grand Jury was replete with examples of informants' own descriptions of perjuring themselves or otherwise fabricating information, this Grand Jury has refrained from making any findings based solely on the testimony of the informants."

and:

continuing at page 7-8

"Based on other evidence presented to it, the Grand Jury believes that the experiences and perceptions of these informants generally reflect those of the informant population at large."

and:

continuing at page 8

"Whether or not the informants' testimony is believed, the conclusion must necessarily be disturbing: either 1) egregious perjurers have been used as prosecution witnesses, or 2) law enforcement officials committed shocking malfeasance.

"Regardless of how this testimony is evaluated, it cannot be ignored. But for one informant's public exposure of these practices the Special Counsel would probably not have been appointed to investigate and present evidence before the Grand Jury and the extent of this problem within Los Angeles County would not have been examined by the Grand Jury."

↩

351.

Report of the 1989-90 Los Angeles County Grand Jury: Investigation of the Involvement of Jail House Informants in the Criminal Justice System in Los Angeles County

Page 95

"WHEN THE COOPERATING INFORMANT IS TOLD THAT IT WILL BE REPORTED IN HIS FAVOR IF HE GIVES 'TRUTHFUL' TESTIMONY, IT IS ONLY REASONABLE THAT 'TRUTHFUL' TO THE INFORMANT MEANS CONSISTENT WITH THE PROSECUTION'S THEORY OF THE CASE. OTHERWISE, OF COURSE, THERE IS NO POINT IN CALLING THE INFORMANT AS A WITNESS. SUCH AN INCENTIVE TO PROVIDE TESTIMONY MAY HAVE A SIGNIFICANT INFLUENCE ON THE INTEGRITY OF THE FACT-FINDING PROCESS."

↩

354.

Report of the 1989-90 Los Angeles County Grand Jury: Investigation of the Involvement of Jail House Informants in the Criminal Justice System in Los Angeles County

Page 118-119

"WHETHER ALL [District Attorney's Office] PARTICIPANTS AT THE MEETING [discussing whether or not to create an informant index to assist in tracking future informant performance and reliability] SUSPECTED THE SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT OF INTENTIONALLY PLACING INFORMANTS NEXT TO DEFENDANTS WAS ALSO DISPUTED BY SOME GRAND JURY TESTIMONY. HOWEVER, ONE MANAGEMENT OFFICIAL WHO ATTENDED THE MEETING TESTIFIED AS FOLLOWS: 'IT IS JUST MY EXPERIENCE THAT OVER THE YEARS IN TOUGH CASES WHERE . . . WE HAVE FILED A CASE AND WE KNOW THE DEFENDANT DID IT,* BUT THE AMOUNT OF AVAILABLE EVIDENCE THAT WE CAN PRESENT IN COURT IS A LITTLE ON THE THIN SIDE AND A STATEMENT [from an informant] WOULD CERTAINLY BE HELPFUL, THAT SOONER OR LATER THOSE STATEMENTS BECOME AVAILABLE TO US . . . . THAT [it] IS MY SUSPICION THAT IT IS A FAIRLY COMMON PRACTICE [of the Sheriff's Department to intentionally place inmates in proximity to obtain incriminating evidence].'"

* “We know the defendant did it.” Police and others in law enforcement who somehow "know the defendant did it" are not a rare or recent development. They are the very reason for due-process jurisprudence — the reason we do not lock people up, or summarily execute them, on mere suspicion, "gut feeling," or whim. They are why we demand a higher standard of justice. The fact that even those more stringent safeguards sometimes fail is why we have courts of appeal and a two-tiered (state and federal) legal system to hear petitions for redress. It is why Habeas Corpus — the so-called "prisoner's last chance" — not only exists but was incorporated by the Framers into the most important document in the land: the Constitution of the United States. This is no small afterthought and no trifling matter of "legal technicality." It is an essential component of all our freedom.

Van Nuys police probably would have reported that they also "knew the defendant did it" after encountering me disheveled, long-haired and bloody-handed, hysterical and ranting outside the home in which my mom — with whom I'd had a history of disagreements — lay beaten, stabbed, unconscious, and near death. And in remarkable accord with the Grand Jury's report, law enforcement in my case did, in fact, find that "sooner or later those [snitch] statements become available" to them.

and, from page 121:

Id. — senior management official of the District Attorney's Office, testifying before the Grand Jury

Page 121

"I KNEW THAT INFORMANTS, ESPECIALLY THOSE IN THE JAILHOUSE VARIETY, WERE LIABLE TO SAY ANYTHING THAT WOULD GET THEM ANY ADVANTAGE, AND SO I NEVER EVEN GOT TO THE POINT . . . . I JUST PRETTY WELL ASSUMED THEY WERE ALL UNTRUSTWORTHY AND THAT ANYTHING THAT THEY EVER GAVE ME OR I EVER USED WOULD HAVE TO BE IN SOME MANNER VERY THOROUGHLY CORROBORATED. I GUESS, IN SHORT, I NEVER BELIEVED ANYTHING ANY OF THEM SAID . . . ." [emphasis added]

A senior officer in the Los Angeles District Attorney's Office, under oath, admitted that he assumed every jailhouse informant was a liar — and used them anyway. Not as deterrents. As tools. The State's own management knew the men it was putting on the witness stand could not be believed. They used them in my case all the same.

↩

355.

[Footnote 355 is not present in the source Footnotes - 1-719.docx. Bruce — please add the citation here.]

↩

363.

Monsue/Hughes Interview Transcript

July 6, 7983, (version with page numbers at top) – Page 2

"HE SAYS TO ME FIRST, WHEN HE FIRST, I GUESS THE FIRST HAND TO HAND CONTACT WAS IN THE MOTHER'S BEDROOM. NOW HOW, YOU KNOW, IF THE PURSE WAS IN THERE OR SOMEWHERE ELSE, AND HE SAID IT STARTED IN HIS MOM'S BEDROOM. SHE KIND OF GOT AFTER HIM. [1] SHE GRABBED HIS SHIRT AND RIPPED IT, YOU KNOW. AND SHE WAS TRYING TO SLAP HIM AROUND AND THEN HE WAITS FOR, UH, OH, [2] HE GETS SOME STEAK KNIVES AND CATCHES HER IN THE HALL AND WHAM, HE STABS HER WITH TWO STEAK KNIVES, AND HE LEAVES THEM IN, LEAVES THEM IN HER BACK. SHE WAS HURT PRETTY BAD, AND HE STARTED BLOWING IT, BUT, I MEAN, HE WAS BLOWING IT ALREADY. AND HE STARTED GETTING PARANOID ABOUT, YOU KNOW, WHAT HE WAS GOING TO D0, SO HE STARTED SMASHING HER HEAD. [3] HE TOLD ME HE USED A TROPHY TO SMASH HER HEAD IN, HE WAS BEATING HER, YOU KNOW, HE WAS... IT WAS ALL HEAD BLOWS FROM THE WAY HE RAN IT DOWN TO ME. [4] HE SAID HE USED ANOTHER ITEM TO SMASH HER HEAD [Copy obscured, alternate copy passage reads: "... IN. HE CALLED IT A BOWL WORKER."

Copy again readable] IT'S AN EXERCISE MACHINE. IT'S GOT TWO GRIPS ON IT, TWO HANDLE GRIPS AND THERE'S A BIG STRING IN THE MIDDLE AND IT'S KIND OF, YOU KIND OF DO ISOMETRICS WITH IT. WHALED ON HER WITH THAT FOR A LITTLE WHILE, AND HE MENTIONED SOMETHING, HE REALLY STARTED PANICKING THEN CAUSE SHE WAS STILL ALIVE, SAID SHE WAS STILL BREATHING. HE STARTED BLOWING IT, SO HE SMASHED HER HEAD IN TO MAKE SURE THAT, YOU KNOW, HER BRAIN WAS PRETTY WELL GONE SO SHE WOULDN'T BE, YOU KNOW, ABLE T0, HE WAS GETTING SCARED SHE'D TELL ON HIM." [emphasis added]

↩

364.

Reading the LAPD Follow-Up Investigation report from beginning towards end, the following passages are encountered, in the sequence indicated:

LAPD Follow-Up Investigation

Page 2

"DETECTIVES OBSERVED THE SUBJECT IN THE BACK OF A POLICE UNIT. HE APPEARED TO BE HIGHLY EXCITED AS HE WAS TALKING VERY LOUDLY BUT WAS NOT DIRECTING HIS CONVERSATION TO ANYONE IN PARTICULAR. DETECTIVES OBSERVED THAT SUBJECT HAD WHAT APPEARED TO BE DRY BLOOD ON BOTH HANDS. [1] DETECTIVES FURTHER NOTED THAT HIS SHIRT WAS TORN IN SEVERAL PLACES." [emphasis added]; and Id., at top of page 3 "DETECTIVES ENTERED THE CRIME SCENE AND OBSERVED A LARGE AREA OF BLOOD ON THE FLOOR AT THE END OF THE ENTRY HALLWAY. DETECTIVES OBSERVED A BLUE/GREEN BATH TOWEL LAYING ON THE FLOOR NEAR A CEMENT BLOCK PLANTER BOX WHICH SEPARATES THE DINING ROOM FROM THE LIVING ROOM AND ENTRY HALLWAY. ACCORDING TO THE OFFICERS, THE VICTIM'S HEAD HAD BEEN RESTING ON THE TOWEL WHEN THE PARAMEDICS ARRIVED. [2] DETECTIVES OBSERVED TWO KNIVES THAT APPEARED TO BE THE COMMON TABLE STEAK KNIFE TYPE [sic] LYING IN THE HALLWAY WHICH LEADS INTO THE DINING ROOM. THESE KNIVES WERE APPROXIMATELY THREE FEET FROM WHERE THE VICTIM HAD BEEN LYING. DETECTIVES NOTED THAT BOTH KNIVES APPEARED TO HAVE BLOOD ON THEM." [emphasis added]; and Id. at middle of page 3 "DETECTIVES NOTED BLOOD SPOTS ON THE WALLS [3] AND OBSERVED A BASEBALL TROPHY LAYING INSIDE THE MASTER BEDROOM, AGAINST THE CLOSET. JUST INSIDE THE MASTER BEDROOM, THERE WAS A LARGE CLOSET ALONG THE EAST WALL OF THE MASTER BEDROOM." [emphasis added]; and Id. near bottom of page 3 "[4] ALSO IN THE MASTER BEDROOM, RESTING AGAINST THE WESTERN WALL, NEXT TO THE DRESSING TABLE, WAS AN EXERCISE BAR. THE BAR WAS APPROXIMATELY 3 FEET LONG AND 21 OR THREE INCHES IN DIAMETER. ON ONE END OF THE BAR, THERE WERE BLOOD STAINS." [emphasis added]

↩

427.

Testimony of jail house informant Robert Donald Hughes

Preliminary Hearing

October 6, 1983 – Page 150

A:"WHEN THEY LET ME OUT FOR A SHOWER HE HAD -- THEY HAD A TAG, RED TAG, ON HIS DOOR THAT SAID 'SUICIDAL JUVENILE' AND HE WAS KIND--"

and:

Preliminary Hearing

November 14, 1983 – Page 237

A:"THE SIGN THAT SAID SUICIDE IT SAID 'JUVENILE SUICIDAL.' THAT'S HOW I KNEW HE WAS A JUVENILE."

And consider the testimony heard by the Grand Jury, wherein a certain inmate was placed in the jail's "hospital section" (i.e., the 7000 Module, where I met Hughes), and said to be suicidal so that jail staff could place a snitch in his cell, ostensibly to alert jailers if he attempted to harm himself. But of course the snitch presented almost immediately with an alleged confession:

And:

Report of the 1989-90 Los Angeles County Grand Jury: Investigation of the Involvement of Jail House Informants in the Criminal Justice System in Los Angeles County

Page 65-66

"CASE NO. 5: "IN EARLY 1984, AN, INMATE WAS ARRESTED ON CHILD MOLESTATION CHARGES AND WAS BOOKED AT THE CENTRAL JAIL [the same facility in which I was placed in contact with the snitches]. DUE TO THE HIGH PUBLICITY SURROUNDING HIS CASE, THE INMATE WAS CLASSIFIED AS A K-10 [Keepawayl AND HOUSED IN A SINGLE MAN CELL IN THE HOSPITAL SECTION OF THE JAIL (i.e., the 7000 Module, where I encountered Robert Hughes, Sherman Wallace and Michael Dowtul. "A FEW DAYS LATER, A SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT DEPUTY CAUSED THE INMATE TO BE MOVED FROM HIS ONE MAN CELL TO A TWO MAN CELL. THE DEPUTY ALSO CAUSED A SECOND INMATE, WHO WAS A KNOWN INFORMANT AND CLASSIFIED AS A K-9 [Hughes, Dowtu and Wallace were all classified K-9; Informant], TO BE PLACED IN THE CELL WITH THE FIRST INMATE. WITHIN TWENTY-FOUR HOURS, THE INFORMANT CONTACTED THE DEPUTY AND CLAIMED THE INMATE HAD MADE SEVERAL SELF-INCRIMINATING STATEMENTS TO HIM. "THE DEPUTY CONTACTED A SERGEANT FOR A LOCAL POLICE AGENCY WHO TRAVELED TO THE JAIL AND INTERVIEWED THE INFORMANT [Van Nuys homicide detective Landgren visited Hughes approximately two weeks before Hughes' first taped interview, with Monsuel. DURING THE INTERVIEW, THE INFORMANT WAS ASKED TO OBTAIN ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ABOUT SPECIFIC AREAS OF INQUIRY FROM THE INMATE. THEREAFTER THE INFORMANT RETURNED TO THE CELL HE SHARED WITH THE INMATE [Hughes was also returned to the 7000 Module]. "THE DEPUTY TESTIFIED BEFORE THE GRAND JURY THAT IT WAS 'AN ERROR' TO HAVE PLACED THE INFORMANT WITH THE INMATE [as it was a violation of law to place a juvenile inmate in contact with an adult inmate -- see Welfare & Institutions Code citations at Note #455B], BUT HE CLAIMED HE HAD DONE SO BECAUSE HE NEEDED THE INMATE'S ROOM FOR SOMEONE ELSE, AND HE FEARED THE INMATE POSSIBLY HAD SUICIDAL TENDENCIES [Hughes claimed to have seen a "suicidal juvenile" tag on my cell door] AND THAT THE INFORMANT COULD PREVENT A SUICIDE BY NOTIFYING JAILERS IF THE INMATE ATTEMPTED TO TAKE HIS OWN LIFE. THE DEPUTY TESTIFIED HE COULD NOT RECALL, WHO, IF ANYONE, WAS PLACED IN THE 'VACATED ROOM. "

↩

450.

Trial

November 14, 1985 – Page 1003-1004

MR. RABICHOW:"I WILL TELL YOU EXACTLY WHERE I AM HEADED.' THE INFERENCE [by Defense Counsel] IS THROUGH THE TESTIMONY OF ROBERT LISKER AND [juvenile proceedings attorney] DENNIS RILEY THAT BRUCE LISKER WAS GIVEN ALL OF THESE REPORTS AND ALL OF THIS INFORMATION AND THEREFORE, HE HAD THE KNOWLEDGE NECESSARY TO TELL ROBERT HUGHES FACTS FROM WHICH ROBERT HUGHES COULD FRAME HIM. THAT IS THE GENERAL ARGUMENT."

THE COURT:"THE POINT IS, WHAT EVIDENCE ARE YOU GOING TO BE ABLE TO ARGUE FROM THAT? LET'S BE SPECIFIC."

MR. RABICHOW:"WHAT EVIDENCE? IT [the police report] DOESN'T MENTION ANYTHING ABOUT THE BLOOD SPATTERS."

THE COURT:"WHAT DOESN'T?"

MR. RABICHOW:"THE REPORTS THAT WERE HAD AT THAT TIME. NOTHING ABOUT THE BLOOD SPATTERS."; and Id. "HE [Hughes] TESTIFIES TO CERTAIN EVENTS THAT YOU WOULD ONLY KNOW AFTER LISTENING TO LINHART TESTIFY ABOUT THE BLOOD SPATTERS. I DON'T WANT TO GIVE AWAY MY ENTIRE ARGUMENT. BUT WHAT I AM POINTING OUT IS THAT THE DEFENSE HAS BROUGHT IN --"

THE COURT:"WHAT REPORTS SPECIFICALLY, BECAUSE THAT IS THE ISSUE?"

MR. RABICHOW:"YOU TELL ME WHAT HE HAD BESIDES THE INITIAL REPORTS, EVEN INCLUDING THE FOLLOWUP..."

MR. MULCAHY:"ABOUT 12 OR 13 PAGE FOLLOWUP REPORT. THERE IS A WHOLE NARRATIVE OF WHAT MONSUE SAYS."

↩

451.

Testimony of LAPD detective Andrew R. Monsue (No. 20927)

Dennis H./William M. Juvenile Detention Hearing, April 4, 1983, page 52-53

Q BY MR. TRAPP: "DID YOU EXAMINE THE SHIRT THAT THE MINOR HAD BEEN WEARING, THE YELLOW SHIRT, AT THE TIME YOU INTERVIEWED HIM?"

A:"YES."

Q:"AND SUBSEQUENTLY DID YOU HAVE THE SHIRT ANALYZED BY YOUR LAB FOR THE PRESENCE OF BLOOD?"

A:"YES, SIR, I DID."

Q:"AND DID THE LAB INFORM YOU THAT THEY HAD IN FACT FOUND BLOOD?"

A:"YES, SIR, THEY DID."

Q:"SPATTER INGS?"

A:"YES."

Q:"ARE THOSE BLOOD SPATTERINGS INDICATED AT VARIOUS LOCATIONS ON PEOPLE'S [Exhibits] 6, "

A:"YES, SIR, THEY ARE."

Q:"ALL RIGHT. NOW, CALLING YOUR ATTENTION TO THOSE PARTICULAR BLOOD SPATTERINGS, IN YOUR EXPERIENCE AS A HOMICIDE INVESTIGATOR, HAVE YOU HAD PREVIOUS CONTACT WITH THAT TYPE OF BLOOD INDICATION?"

A:"YES, SIR, I HAVE."

Q:"ALL RIGHT. AND CALLING TO YOUR MIND THE VARIOUS MANNER IN WHICH A SPOT OF BLOOD CAN BE PLACED, AS INDICATED ON THOSE THREE EXHIBITS, HAVE YOU FORMED AN OPINION AS TO HOW THESE SPOTS OF BLOOD ARRIVED AT THE LOCATIONS THAT ARE EXHIBITED ON THE PEOPLE'S EXHIBITS?"

and:

Id. at page 54-55

Q:"ALL RIGHT, HAS YOUR TRAINING ALSO TAUGHT YOU THE VARIOUS MANNERS IN WHICH BLOOD CAN BE DEPOSITED AT PARTICULAR LOCATIONS?"

A:"YES."

Q:"AND WHAT ARE SOME OF THOSE MANNERS?"

A:"WELL, WHEN YOU WERE [sic] TO STRIKE AN INDIVIDUAL, DEPENDING ON WHAT PORTION OF THE BODY AND WHAT WITH, DIRECTION AND WHAT FORCE YOU WERE USING, IT COULD RESULT IN A SPATTERING OF BLOOD THAT WOULD FLY. DEPENDING ON THE TYPE OF BLOW AND WEAPON USED WOULD DETERMINE THE DIRECTION AND VELOCITY AND THE VOLUME OF BLOOD THAT WOULD FLOW. YOU CAN LOOK AT A PARTICULAR SPOT OF BLOOD AND GET SOME INDICATION AS TO HOW FAR THAT BLOOD FLEW BEFORE IT HIT WHATEVER IT DID, THE AMOUNT OF FORCE THAT THAT BLOOD HIT WHATEVER OBJECT IT DID AND SPATTERED ON, AND YOU GET A REASONABLY GOOD IDEA OF WHAT DIRECTION THAT BLOOD CAME FROM WHEN IT HIT ANY GIVEN TYPE OF SURFACE."

Q:"NOW, BASED ON YOUR BACKGROUND, TRAINING AND EXPERIENCE, WHEN YOU VIEWED THE SPATTERINGS THAT APPEAR IN THE PEOPLE'S EXHIBITS BEFORE YOU, EXHIBITS 6, 7 AND 8, DID YOU FORM AN OPINION AS TO HOW THOSE SPATTERINGS ARRIVED AT THEIR LOCATIONS?"

A:"IN MY OPINION IT'S --"

MR. RILEY:"SAME OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR; NO FOUNDATION, NOT SUFFICIENT FOUNDATION."

THE COURT:"OVERRULED."

THE WITNESS:"MY OPINION IS THAT THIS SHIRT WAS BEING WORN BY SOMEONE THAT STRUCK SOMEONE, CAUSING BLOOD TO SPATTER IN THE DIRECTION OF THE CLOTHING AND BEING PICKED UP BY THE CLOTHING AS IT SPATTERED. BASED ON THE BLOOD ON THIS PARTICULAR SHIRT, I WOULD HAVE THE INDICATION THAT HE WAS PROBABLY STANDING OVER SOMEONE BECAUSE OF THE AREAS ON THE SHIRT THAT IT'S ON.";

and:

Id. at page 55-56

Q BY MR. TRAPP: "I CALL YOUR ATTENTION TO PEOPLE'S [Exhibit] 9 MARKED FOR IDENTIFICATION. DID YOU CAUSE AN ANALYSIS TO BE DONE OF THE TROUSERS THAT WERE WORN BY THE MINOR AT THE TIME --" A: "YES, SIR, I DID." "Q: YOU ARRESTED HIM?" A: "YES, SIR, I DID." Q: "ALL RIGHT. AND THE SMALL WHITE PAPER MARKS, WHICH APPEAR THEREON, ARE THOSE LOCATIONS OF BLOOD SPATTERINGS THAT WERE DISCOVERED BY THE LAB?" A: "YES, SIR, THEY ARE." Q: "WERE YOU -- DID YOU EXAMINE THOSE BLOOD SPATTERINGS?";

and:

Id. at page 56-57

Q BY MR. TRAPP: "AFTER YOU EXAMINED THE BLOOD SPATTERINGS ON THE TROUSERS, DID

YOU FORM AN OPINION AS TO HOW THE BLOOD SPATTERINGS ARRIVED ON THE TROUSERS?"

A:"AGAIN--"

MR. RILEY:"SAME OBJECTION."

THE COURT:"OVERRULED."

THE WITNESS:"AGAIN, I FORMED THE OPINION THAT THESE -- THIS PARTICULAR GARMENT WAS IN CLOSE ROXIMITY WITH SOMEBODY THAT WAS STRUCK WITH AN OBJECT CAUSING THE BLOOD TO SPATTER AND WITH THE BLOOD HITTING THIS PARTICULAR GARMENT." Q

BY MR. TRAPP:"CALLING YOUR ATTENTION TO THE SPATTERINGS THAT APPEAR ON 6, 7, 8 AND 9, AND FURTHER CALLING YOUR ATTENTION TO THE TYPE OF SMEAR OR BLOOD SPOT THAT MIGHT RESULT FROM CRADLING OF A BLEEDING PERSON, WOULD YOU INDICATE TO THE COURT WHAT THE DIFFERENCE MIGHT BE IN THOSE BLOOD SPOTS?"

A:"THE SPOTS THAT APPEAR ON THESE PARTICULAR SHIRTS WOULD INDICATE TO ME THAT THEY WERE -- HAD FLOWN THROUGH THE AIR FOR X NUMBER OF FEET OR SO AND HIT THIS GARMENT. IF I WAS TO GO UP AND TOUCH SOMEONE THAT WAS BLEEDING SEVERELY, FIRST OF ALL I WOULD HAVE A LARGE QUANTITY OF BLOOD PRESENT AND YOU WOULD HAVE A -- I DON'T KNOW HOW TO DESCRIBE THIS -- A SMEARING EFFECT MORE THAN A CIRCULAR, UNIFORMLY SHAPED SPOT ON THE GARMENT."

Q:"AND THE CIRCULAR, UNIFORMLY SHAPED SPOT, IS THAT WHAT WAS FOUND -- THE SPOTS TO BE ON 6, 7, 8 AND 9?"

A:"YES, SIR, THAT WAS THE INDICATION FROM THE LAB." [emphasis added]

I was present at all times in the courtroom when this testimony was given, and thus heard: 1) What a 'spatter' and 'blood spot' are; 2) What types of forces/actions cause spatters and blood spots; 3) The fact that police claimed to have found blood spatters on my T-shirt, outer shirt, pants and shoes; 4) The relative number of these alleged spots (assuming I had a view of the small tags police had attached to the clothing (I did have); and 5) That a large part of the police allegation rested on the allegedly inculpatory spots and spatters. When I was questioned by Hughes, these were all pertinent facts which flowed freely from my naive lips into the ears of the liar.

↩

455B.

Welfare & Institutions Code Section 707.1 "IF THE MINOR IS DECLARED NOT A FIT AND PROPER SUBJECT TO BE DEALT WITH UNDER THE JUVENILE COURT LAW, THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY OR OTHER APPROPRIATE PROSECUTING OFFICER SHALL ACQUIRE THE AUTHORITY TO FILE AN ACCUSATORY PLEADING AGAINST THE MINOR IN A COURT OF CRIMINAL JURISDICTION. THE CASE SHALL PROCEED FROM THAT POINT ACCORDING TO THE LAWS APPLICABLE TO A CRIMINAL CASE, PROVIDED THAT UNLESS THE JUVENILE COURT SPECIFICALLY ORDERS THE INDIVIDUAL MINOR DELIVERED TO THE CUSTODY OF THE SHERIFF UPON A FINDING THAT THE PRESENCE OF THE MINOR IN THE JUVENILE HALL WOULD ENDANGER THE SAFETY OF THE PUBLIC OR [...] BE DETRIMENTAL TO THE OTHER INMATES DETAINED IN JUVENILE HALL, THE MINOR, IF DETAINED, SHALL REMAIN IN THE JUVENILE HALL PENDING FINAL DISPOSITION BY THE CRIMINAL COURT. IF A PROSECUTION HAS BEEN COMMENCED IN ANOTHER COURT BUT HAS BEEN SUSPENDED WHILE JUVENILE COURT PROCEEDINGS ARE BEING HELD, IT SHALL BE ORDERED THAT THE PROCEEDINGS UPON SUCH PROSECUTION RESUME. WHEN A PERSON UNDER 18 YEARS OF AGE IS DETAINED PURSUANT TO THIS SECTION IN A FACILITY IN WHICH ADULTS ARE CONFINED, IT SHALL BE UNLAWFUL TO PERMIT SUCH PERSON TO COME OR REMAIN IN CONTACT WITH SUCH ADULTS." [emphasis added] First, the Sylmar Juvenile Court did not find that my presence in the juvenile hall would "endanger the safety of the public" or "be detrimental to the other inmates detained in juvenile hall." The Court also did not"specifically order [me] delivered to the custody of the Sheriff." Go figure. And in further violation of the statute, once I was delivered, in defiance of a court order, into the custody of the Sheriff, I .was illegally permitted "to come or remain in contact" with the adult snitches. and consider Welfare & Institutions Code Section 207 (b) "NO COURT, JUDGE, REFEREE, OR PEACE OFFICER SHALL KNOWINGLY DETAIN IN ANY JAIL OR LOCKUP ANY PERSON UNDER THE AGE OF 18 YEARS, UNLESS A JUDGE OF THE JUVENILE COURT SHALL DETERMINE THAT THERE ARE NO OTHER PROPER AND ADEQUATE FACILITIES FOR THE CARE AND DETENTION OF SUCH PERSON, OR UNLESS SUCH PERSON HAS BEEN TRANSFERRED BY THE JUVENILE COURT TO ANOTHER COURT FOR PROCEEDINGS NOT UNDER THE JUVENILE COURT LAW AND HAS BEEN CHARGED WITH OR CONVICTED OF A FELONY. IF ANY PERSON UNDER THE AGE OF 19 YEARS IS TRANSFERRED BY THE JUVENILE COURT TO ANOTHER COURT AND IS CHARGED WITH OR CONVICTED OF A FELONY AS HEREIN PROVIDED AND IS NOT RELEASED PENDING HEARING, SUCH PERSON MAY BE COMMITTED TO THE CARE AND CUSTODY OF A SHERIFF, CONSTABLE, OR OTHER PEACE OFFICER WHO SHALL KEEP SUCH PERSON IN THE JUVENILE HALL OR IN SUCH OTHER SUITABLE PLACE AS SUCH LATTER COURT MAY DIRECT, PROVIDED THAT NO SUCH PERSON SHALL BE DETAINED IN OR COMMITTED TO ANY HOSPITAL EXCEPT FOR MEDICAL OR OTHER REMEDIAL CARE AND TREATMENT OR OBSERVATION." [emphasis added] The Sylmar Juvenile Court judge did if fact determine that a “proper and adequate facility" for my care and detention existed -- the juvenile hall she ordered me retained in: DDA Rabichow's reading of the Sylmar Juvenile Court discussion on April 4, 1983, concerning where I was to be housed

Preliminary Hearing (Clerk's Transcript -- Supplemental)

December 7, 1983 – Page 274-275

MR. RABICHOW:"... THE DISCUSSION AND ORDER BY THE [Sylmar Juvenile Court] AS TO THE HOUSING OF THE DEFENDANT WAS AS FOLLOWS…

THE COURT:"ALL RIGHT, I FIND THAT THE MINOR IS NOT FIT ON GROUND NO. 5. YOU [Bruce] WILL BE DETAINED IN JUVENILE HALL IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE PROBATION OFFICER [Rickerson] AND APPARENTLY, YOU ARE DOING ALL RIGHT IN JUVENILE...' 'PENDING THE TIME WHEN THE CASE IS PICKED UP BY THE ADULT COURT, HE STAYS IN JUVENILE HALL. BUT, WE HAVE TWO CHOICES IN THIS MATTER. PENDING THAT DATE, A MINOR CAN BE HOUSED AT COUNTY JAIL OR JUVENILE HALL AND, BECAUSE THIS YOUNG MAN IS APPARENTLY DOING ALL RIGHT IN JUVENILE HALL AND THEY THINK THEY CAN WORK WITH HIM, TEMPORARILY HE WILL STAY HERE.' " [emphasis added]

'THERE ARE NO ADULT PRISONERS IN JUVENILE HALL.' "; Yet on April 8, just four days after this very unambiguous court order, I was illegally transferred to the County Jail. There, staff who knew that I was a minor (per Hughes' testimony of a "juvenile"

tag on my door? and were thus obligated to keep me away from -all adults, placed me in continuing contact with the snitches Hughes, Dowtu and Wallace. Welfare & Institutions Code Section 208 (a) WHEN ANY SUCH PERSON UNDER 18 YEARS OF AGE IS DETAINED IN OR SENTENCED TO ANY INSTITUTION IN WHICH ADULTS ARE CONFINED, IT SHALL BE UNLAWFUL TO PERMIT SUCH PERSON TO COME OR REMAIN IN CONTACT WITH SUCH ADULTS. [emphasis added]

↩

455C.

Probation Officer's Report (Rickerson), dated March 29 ,1983

Page 12, "PLACE OF DETENTION" section

"IN VIEW OF THE JUVENILE HALL STAFF REPORT THAT THE MINOR IS COOPERATING WITH ALL PHASES OF THE PROGRAM AND NOT VIEWED AS A PHYSICAL THREAT TO THE STAFF OR OTHER WARDS, JUVENILE HALL REMAINS THE APPROPRIATE PLACE OF DETENTION. FURTHER, HIS ISOLATION IN THAT FACILITY AND CLOSE SUPERVISION ARE VIEWED AS APPROPRIATE GIVEN HIS CURRENT MENTAL HEALTH STATE."

↩

456.

Landgren/Dowtu Interview Transcript

April 21, 1983 – Page 4

DETECTIVE:"DID HE SAY THAT THE ARGUMENT STARTED OVER SOME MONEY THAT WAS MISSING?"

THE WITNESS:"HE SAYS SOME MONEY AND THEN HE SAYS SOME, ABOUT THE MUSIC BEING UP TOO HIGH."

and:

Monsue/Wallace Interview Transcript

April 21, 1983 – Page 2

WALLACE:"... I SAID WHAT STARTED THE ARGUMENT, HE SAID SOMETHING ABOUT SOME MONEY AND THE MUSIC WAS REAL LOUD..."

↩

457.

Testimony of LAPD detective Andrew R. Monsue (No. 20927) concerning my statements during my interrogation

Trial

November 4, 1985 – Page 399

Q:"ALL RIGHT. THEN IT SAYS DOWN AT THE BOTTOM IN THAT SAME PARAGRAPH, 'MAYBE A DUST COVER TO A TURNTABLE,' AND SO FORTH AND BELOW THAT 'A SANYO.' IS HE DRAWING SOMETHING?"

A:"YES. HE DREW A PICTURE OF A TURNTABLE COVER FOR ME AND INDICATED IN THAT DRAWING WHERE IT WAS BROKEN. DREW A PICTURE OF THE BROKEN PORTION."

Q:"AND DID HE DRAW THAT?"

A:"HE DREW IT ON THE BACK OF THE PIECE OF PAPER."

Q:"THE DIAGRAM THAT IS [People's Exhibit] 53?"

A:"THAT IS CORRECT."

↩

458.

Monsue/Ryan Interview Transcript

May 4, 1983 – Page 11

MONSUE:"... YOU [and Bruce] LEFT [the Lisker residence together] BECAUSE SHE WAS GETTING ON EVERYBODY'S CASE ABOUT THE MONEY AND THE MUSIC THAT YOU WERE PLAYING IN HIS ROOM. O.K. YOU WENT OUT AND GOT HIGH. YOU DID SOME FREE BASE AND HE CAME BACK TO THE HOUSE AND THAT'S WHEN IT HAPPENED..."

This is either an early police theory of the crime or Monsue's scare tactics for Ryan. I had no contact with Ryan after March 8, when I encountered him on Orion Avenue approaching our street, and drove him to the Haskell onramp to the westbound Ventura Freeway.

↩

459.

Testimony of jail house informant Robert Donald Hughes concerning his two County Jail interviews with Van Nuys police; the first one, unrecorded, with detective Landgren, and the second, his first recorded, with Monsue.

Preliminary Hearing

October 6, 1983 – Page 202

Q:"WHEN OFFICER LANDGREN CAME TO SEE YOU THE FIRST TIME, DID HE RECORD THE CONVERSATION?"

A:"NO, SIR. I DON'T BELIEVE HE DID."

Q:"HOW MUCH TIME WAS IT BETWEEN THE FIRST TIME THAT OFFICER LANDGREN CAME TO SEE YOU AND WHEN OFFICER MONSUE CAME TO SEE YOU?"

A:"I DON'T RECALL. IT COULDN'T HAVE BEEN MORE THAN TWO WEEKS."

↩

467.

LAPD Follow-Up Investigation

Page 10

"MR. LISKER ALSO WAS ASKED IF HIS WIFE USUALLY HAD MONEY IN HER PURSE. HE INFORMED DETECTIVE THAT SHE SHOULD HAVE HAD APPROXIMATELY $150.00 BECAUSE THURSDAY WAS HER NORMAL SHOPPING DAY.";

and:

Monsue/Ryan Interview Transcript

May 4, 1983 – Page 33 MONSUE: "THERE WAS MONEY MISSING AT THE HOUSE.";

and:

Id. at page 30

RYAN:"O.K. HOW MUCH MONEY WAS SUPPOSE TO HAVE BEEN RIPPED OFF FROM MRS. LISKER?"

MONSUE:"WELL, I KNOW THAT MR. LISKER GAVE HER ON WEDNESDAY AFTERNOON, WEDNESDAY NIGHT, $150 TO BUY GROCERIES WITH ON THURSDAY."

↩

548.

Testimony of Robert B. Lisker Trial

November 13, 1985 – Page 918

Q:"WHEN YOU WENT TO YOUR RESIDENCE, YOU ARRIVED AT ABOUT 4:30 IN THE AFTERNOON?"

A:"BETWEEN 4:00 AND 4:30."

Q:"WHEN YOU ARRIVED THERE IN THE AFTERNOON, WAS ANYBODY AT YOUR HOUSE AT THAT TIME?"

A:"YES, QUITE A FEW PEOPLE."

Q:"WAS DETECTIVE MONSUE THERE ABOUT THAT TIME?"

A:"YES, HE WAS."

Q:"HOW ABOUT DETECTIVE LANDGREN?"

A:"HE WAS THERE."

Q:"WERE THERE ANY OTHER POLICE OFFICERS THERE AT THAT TIME WHEN YOU ARRIVED BACK?"

A:"DETECTIVE PIDA WAS THERE AND A NUMBER OF OTHER PEOPLE IN PLAINCLOTHES, CIVILIAN CLOTHES." ...

Q:"HOW LONG DID ALL THE POLICE OFFICERS REMAIN AT THAT LOCATION BEFORE DEPARTING THAT DAY?"

A:"MOST OF THE PEOPLE LEFT WITHIN AN HOUR AFTER MY GETTING THERE."

↩

632.

Preliminary Hearing

October 6, 1983 – Page 140-141

BY MR. RABICHOW: "... PHOTOGRAPH 9-D HAS A NUMBER 100 ON IT AND PURPORTS TO BE THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF A HALLWAY WALL WHICH PURPORTS TO BE NEXT TO THE SEWING ROOM, OR A PORTION OF THE SEWING ROOM, AS ON THE DIAGRAM, PEOPLE'S #1.";

and Testimony of State blood expert Ronald R. Linhart id. at page 145 - A: "WITH REGARD TO THE PATTERNS PRESENT ON THE WALL AS DEPICTED IN PHOTOGRAPH DESIGNATED AS 9-D, I CONCLUDED THAT THERE WERE AT LEAST THREE SEPARATE EVENTS THAT GAVE RISE TO THE BLOOD PATTERNS PRESENT ON THIS WALL.” And "[1.] ONE OF THOSE EVENTS WAS A BLUNT FORCE BLOW OR BLOWS STRUCK TO A SOURCE OF BLOOD WITH A POINT OF ORIGIN SOMEWHERE TO THE LEFT OF THE CENTER OF THE PHOTOGRAPH. [2.] ADDITIONAL PORTIONS OF THE PATTERN WERE THE RESULT OF AN OBJECT BEING WET WITH BLOOD MOVING LIGHTLY ACROSS THE WALL IN A DIRECTION FROM LEFT TO RIGHT AS IT APPEARS IN THE PHOTOGRAPHS. [3.] AND A THIRD EVENT LEADING TO BLOOD -- TO THE PATTERNS PRESENT ON THAT WALL ARE AS THE RESULT OF A FORCE OF A UNDETERMINED NATURE APPLIED TO A SOURCE OF BLOOD SOMEWHERE TO THE RIGHT OF THE CENTER OF THE PHOTOGRAPH ... THE THIRD EVENT WAS A RESULT OF -- THE PATTERN IS A RESULT OF A FORCE OF UNDETERMINED NATURE APPLIED TO A SOURCE OF BLOOD, THAT SOURCE BEING SOMEWHERE TO THE RIGHT OF THE CENTER OF THE PHOTOGRAPH."

↩

636.

- 639

↩

637.

Testimony of State blood expert Ronald R. Linhart, Trial

November 12, 1985 – Page 732

A:"THE SECOND EVENT IS A RESULT OF AN OBJECT WET WITH BLOOD COMING IN CONTACT WITH THE WALL THAT APPEARS ON THE PHOTOGRAPH AS LARGER AREAS OF VARYING DENSITY OF BLOOD."

↩

640.

Testimony of LAPD detective Andrew R. Monsue (No. 20927)

Dennis H./William M. Juvenile Detention Hearing

April 4, 1983 – Page 19

A:"... THERE'S A LARGE CLOSET HERE THAT HAS TWO OR THREE SLIDING DOORS ON IT. THERE WAS BLOOD ON THE CLOSET DOORS AND THERE WAS A RATHER LARGE SPOT OF WET, DAMP BLOOD, MAYBE A FOOT BY ABOUT SIX INCHES RIGHT NEXT TO THE CLOSET ON THE CARPET."

↩

641.

Testimony of LAPD detective Andrew R. Monsue (No. 20927) Trial

October 31, 1985 – Page 298

A:"PHOTOGRAPH NO. 42 DEPICTS THE FRAME TO THE DOOR OF BATHROOM NO. 1. THIS PARTICULAR PHOTOGRAPH DEPICTS AS YOU LOOK INTO BATHROOM NO. 2 FROM THE VANITY AREA OF THE MASTER BEDROOM, THE RIGHT DOOR FRAME."

A:"THAT AREA APPEARED TO BE BLOOD TO ME."

and:

Testimony of LAPD detective Andrew R. Monsue (No. 20927) Trial

id.

A:"[Photograph] 43 DEPICTS THE OPPOSITE OF THE DOOR FRAME OF BATHROOM NO. 1 ON THE LEFT-HAND PORTION AS YOU ARE LOOKING INTO THAT BATHROOM AND IT ALSO DEPICTS SEVERAL SMEARS AND STAINS THAT RESEMBLE BLOOD."

Q:"ON THE DOORJAMB?"

A:"ON THE DOORJAMB, YES."

and:

Testimony of LAPD detective Andrew R. Monsue (No. 20927) Trial

Trial, December 4, 1984 – Page 526

A:"THERE WAS BLOOD ON THIS DOORFRAME HERE AND ALSO A SMALL AMOUNT ON THE WALL JUST ADJACENT TO THE ACTUAL DOORFRAME."

A:"YES."

↩

643.

Testimony of State blood expert Ronald R. Linhart, Trial

November 7, 1985 – Page 712 - A: "OKAY. I WAS ABLE TO IDENTIFY THREE SEPARATE EVENTS LEADING TO THE PATTERNS THAT ARE PRESENT ON THIS WALL ... [Depicted in People's 10-D] IS A PATTERN OF DROPLETS IN THIS REGION MOST OF WHICH AT THIS POINT HAVE A DOWNWARD MOTION AS THEY ARE TRAVELING IN THIS DIRECTION THAT WERE THE RESULT OF A BLUNT FORCE STRUCK TO AN AREA WET WITH BLOOD SOMEWHERE OUT FROM THE WALL AND TO THE LEFT OF THE AREA DEPICTED IN THE PHOTOGRAPH." Q: "THAT WAS PRODUCED BY BLUNT FORCE STRIKING AN OBJECT THAT HAD BLOOD ON IT." A: "THAT WAS WET WITH BLOOD."

↩

648.

Testimony of State blood expert Ronald R. Linhart Trial

November 7, 1985 – Page 713

A:"... ADDITIONALLY, THERE ARE SOME BLOOD DROPS ON THE WALL NEAR THE BOTTOM OF THE PHOTOGRAPH THAT HAVE A POINT OF ORIGIN TO THE RIGHT OF THE PHOTOGRAPH. IN OTHER WORDS, THEY ARE APPROACHING THE WALL FROM AN AREA TO THE RIGHT. I COULD NOT IDENTIFY A DISTINCTIVE ENOUGH PATTERN TO DETERMINE THE NATURE OF THE FORCE THAT LED TO THAT. ONLY THAT THOSE ARE BLOOD DROPS THAT ARE THE RESULT OF SOME FORCE BEING APPLIED TO AN AREA WET WITH BLOOD CAUSING THOSE BLOOD DROPS TO BE PROPELLED TO THE WALL."

↩

674.

DDA Rabichow Letter to Chuck Marshall

September 21, 1983

↩

675.

DDA RabichoW°s Memo to David Disco, November 4, 1988

↩

677.

Grand Jury

Page 16 (Footnote 9)

'° 'BOOK' IS A TERM USED BY INFORMANTS TO MEAN ' TO PROVIDE LAW ENFORCEMENT WITH EVIDENCE AGAINST AN INMATE.' INFORMANTS TESTIFYING BEFORE THE GRAND JURY TENDED TO USE THIS TERM WHEN THE INFORMATION PROVIDED WAS FABRICATED."

↩

678.

Landgren/Dowtu Interview

L.A. County Men's Central Jail

April 21, 1983 – Page 2

Dowtu:"I SAYS I KNOW HOW IT IS, MAN, HE DIDN'T HAVE NOBODY TO TALK TO. I'LL TALK TO YOU, YOU KNOW, IF YOU WANT SOMEBODY TO TALK TO, SO HE WAS TALKING, YOU KNOW, AND HE WAS JUST, LIKE LAST NIGHT, HE WAS JUST KEPT CRYING, WAS UPSET AND WANTED A CIGARETTE, YOU KNOW, AND HE WAS JUST TELLING ME, YOU KNOW, THE THINGS THAT I HAD WROTE ON THAT PAPER RIGHT THERE."

↩

679.

DDA Rabichow's reading of the Sylmar Juvenile Court discussion concerning where I would be housed

DDA Rabichow reading the Order of the Sylmar Juvenile Court into the record

Preliminary Hearing (Clerk's Transcript -- Supplemental)

December 7, 1983 – Page 274-275

MR. RABICHOW:"... THE DISCUSSION AND ORDER BY THE [Sylmar Juvenile Court] AS TO THE HOUSING OF THE DEFENDANT WAS AS FOLLOWS" ...

"THE COURT: ALL RIGHT, I FIND THAT THE MINOR IS NOT FIT ON GROUND NO. 5. YOU [Bruce] WILL BE DETAINED IN JUVENILE HALL IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE PROBATION OFFICER [Jerry Rickerson] AND APPARENTLY, YOU ARE DOING ALL RIGHT IN JUVENILE" ... "PENDING THE TIME WHEN THE CASE IS PICKED UP BY THE ADULT COURT, HE STAYS IN JUVENILE HALL. BUT, WE HAVE TWO CHOICES IN THIS MATTER. PENDING THAT DATE, A MINOR CAN BE HOUSED AT COUNTY JAIL OR JUVENILE HALL AND, BECAUSE THIS YOUNG MAN IS APPARENTLY DOING ALL RIGHT IN JUVENILE HALL AND THEY THINK THEY CAN WORK WITH HIM, TEMPORARILY HE WILL STAY HERE."

↩