6.Nick Stahlke — Direct (Part 2)
152 linesTHE COURT: You may be seated. And Mr. Gahn you may continue.
DIRECT EXAMINATION CONTD BY ATTORNEY GAHN:
MR. GAHN: Mr. Stahlke, this pattern that you observed on the dashboard of Teresa Halbach's RAV4, is this pattern consistent with someone who could be actively bleeding on their right hand?
NICK STAHLKE: Yes, it's consistent with that.
MR. GAHN: I would ask if you could pick up the next exhibit, please, and identify it for the jurors?
NICK STAHLKE: Exhibit 294.
NICK STAHLKE: This is the passenger side, rear entry, or the threshold of the door frame.
NICK STAHLKE: Yes, it does.
NICK STAHLKE: Yes, I did.
NICK STAHLKE: Sure.
NICK STAHLKE: This is a stain that is indicative of passive bleeding; it's a passive drop.
NICK STAHLKE: Passive drop is a particle of blood, or a drop of blood that is only influenced by the gravity, or the force of gravity.
MR. GAHN: And is this type of drop consistent with being left by a person who is actively bleeding?
NICK STAHLKE: Yes, it is.
NICK STAHLKE: Exhibit 295.
NICK STAHLKE: Yes, it does.
NICK STAHLKE: This is the rear cargo area of the Toyota RAV4. This would be a view looking through the back entry door and looking at the passenger side just behind the right rear seat. In this area, there are numerous stains and they all are basically described as contact transfer stains.
NICK STAHLKE: Exhibit 296?
NICK STAHLKE: This view is a close up view depicting the same stains that we saw on the previous exhibit, Exhibit 295.
NICK STAHLKE: These are contact transfer stains, a bloody object coming in contact with an unstained surface. And there is a stain in this grouping of stains that is a classic stain for as far as a transfer contact stain.
NICK STAHLKE: This stain right here has a wave like appearance to it. It is indicative of bloody hair transferring the blood from those -- from that head here onto this surface.
NICK STAHLKE: Well, it has this crescent shaped or wavy appearance to it. And this is just a classic example of bloody hair transferring onto an unstained surface. It is -- has enough blood there that it also shows a bit of a flow pattern off of the bottom of that. But you can see that it is thicker here and it -- as it -- the length draws out, it comes to a point. This is -- is indicative of blood hair -- bloody hair transfer.
NICK STAHLKE: Exhibit 297.
NICK STAHLKE: Yes, it is.
NICK STAHLKE: Yes, I did.
NICK STAHLKE: These stains here, as well, are all contact transfer variety of stains. And along the base of this is a flow patterns which is indicative of a passive stain -- or type of a passive stain, whereas gravity is the only thing that is influencing it.
So there's enough blood that has contacted this surface that it will drain on its own, with the gravity, only gravity influencing that stain. Along the base of this is pretty heavily stained and it appears that it's all contact transfer.
MR. GAHN: Based upon the combination of these stains, that you observed in the rear cargo area, are they consistent with a body with bloody hair being present?
NICK STAHLKE: Yes, they are.
NICK STAHLKE: Yes, I did.
MR. GAHN: And when I ask you to pick up the next exhibit, next photograph, identify the exhibit, please.
NICK STAHLKE: Exhibit 298.
NICK STAHLKE: Yes, it is.
MR. STRANG: Maybe we can -- Where are we? What threshold area? I wonder if we can orient it.
NICK STAHLKE: I can explain that. It's the cargo door, or the rear door of the RAV4. So, if this is the cargo area at the top of the -- this photograph, this would be the opening to the rear -- rear end of this vehicle. And this being the threshold, and I will use this as the general term, as far as the threshold, but this -- this threshold had not only transfer contact stains, but it also had impact stains.
MR. GAHN: Could you point out for the jurors the -- we can even zoom in here for you -- where you observed the different stains and describe them again, please.
NICK STAHLKE: This is an example of an impact stain. There's -- this is transfer. If you want to rotate more to the right. More staining right in here that would be indicative of a transfer. And then right -- as -- right there, more contact transfer. And these stains actually are -- this stain right here can be caused by -- as a swipe pattern, which is a bloody object that has come in contact with an unstained surface that is showing motion. So a swipe will show motion of that bloody source.
MR. GAHN: Just for the record, Mr. Stahlke, I would like you to identify each of these stains. Could you point out the impact stain that you observed?
NICK STAHLKE: The most obvious impact stain would be this stain right here. Impact stains are generally circular or elliptical. They show that a particle of blood or a drop of blood that has been in flight, has been airborne, and when it contacts a surface or impacts that surface, it leaves a stain that's either circular or elliptical indicating the angle of impact. This is a transfer stain.
MR. GAHN: Just stop for one moment. May the record reflect that when Mr. Stahlke pointed to the impact stain, it was a bloodstain that was at the top of what he referred to as the threshold area and to the left of what appears to be a screw or a bolt in that threshold area.
THE COURT: Does the defense agree?
MR. STRANG: Sure. But, you know, really all of this is for the jury.
THE COURT: All right. All right. The record will so reflect.
NICK STAHLKE: Additional stains are present are contact transfer variety. Here to the left of that bolt and to the right of the bolt here.
NICK STAHLKE: Yes. And that's down and to the right, in relationship to that bolt.
NICK STAHLKE: Exhibit 299.
MR. GAHN: And does the photograph you have in your hand, that exhibit, is that being displayed on the big screen?
NICK STAHLKE: Yes, it is.
MR. GAHN: And did you observe any bloodstain patterns to -- I'm sorry, please, describe what this photograph shows.
NICK STAHLKE: This is the rear door of the RAV4. And when -- This is the type of door that has a hinge on its side so it opens like a regular car door, but on the rear end of the vehicle. This is the interior panel of that door.
MR. GAHN: And did you observe any bloodstain patterns on the interior panel of the rear cargo area?
NICK STAHLKE: Yes, I did.
MR. GAHN: And could you explain those for the jurors and we would be more than happy to zoom in on any stains you would like.
NICK STAHLKE: There were a number of impact stains on the rear panel of this door and some of the stains had associated flow patterns.
NICK STAHLKE: If you want to zoom in right here. This is some of the better stains as far as groupings. Okay. That's good. You can see here, these are impact stains; they are circular or near circular. And, then, some of these stains have a flow pattern, meaning they had enough quantity or volume that once they impacted the surface, gravity influenced them and drew that blood down -- down toward the ground. So this is an example of a impact stain with an associated flow pattern and this one as well and these are all impact stains.
NICK STAHLKE: No.
MR. GAHN: And are you able -- Were you able to determine how those would be deposited, the ones that you observed, the impact stains with the flow pattern?
NICK STAHLKE: Yes, I have seen these stains at other scenes where -- where we assume that a bloody object was being handled and that these stains -- or this blood was -- was -- appeared to have been flung off or released from a bloody object.
MR. GAHN: Would that be consistent with a body with bloody hair being put into the back of this vehicle?
NICK STAHLKE: Yes, it would. And in this particular case, this -- these stains don't necessarily require the -- the bloody hair component; however, it is consistent with a bloody object such as a body being comploded (phonetic) into the rear end of this vehicle.
NICK STAHLKE: Exhibit 300.
NICK STAHLKE: Yes, it is.
NICK STAHLKE: This is an overall view of the rear cargo area or storage area of this RAV4.
NICK STAHLKE: Yes, I did.
NICK STAHLKE: I measured from door frame to door frame. And it was 42 inches.
NICK STAHLKE: Yes, it would.
MR. GAHN: Did you do any other examination or processing of this vehicle, besides the bloodstains?
NICK STAHLKE: We were asked to give the odometer reading on the vehicle.
NICK STAHLKE: Well, looking at the instrument panel, we couldn't determine what the odometer reading was, since there appeared to have been a dead battery.
NICK STAHLKE: Yes. We thought we needed to charge the battery so we opened up the hood of the vehicle and discovered that the battery cables had been disconnected.
NICK STAHLKE: Exhibit 302.
NICK STAHLKE: This is the disconnected battery cable.
NICK STAHLKE: Yes, it is.
NICK STAHLKE: That's correct.
NICK STAHLKE: Released the interior latch on the vehicle and then opened up the hood, releasing the latch on the hood, or the front of the vehicle. And propped it open with its -- its a -- with a prop, I guess, on the hood itself and saw this battery.
NICK STAHLKE: Well, that -- that was the reason for the problem with no power to the instrument panel, is that the battery was disconnected.
NICK STAHLKE: Yes.
NICK STAHLKE: Latex.
NICK STAHLKE: Exhibit 303.
NICK STAHLKE: Yes, it is.
MR. GAHN: And has this been identified to you as the vehicle owned by Steven Avery, a 1993 Grand Am?
NICK STAHLKE: Yes.
NICK STAHLKE: Yes, I did.
NICK STAHLKE: Yes, I did.
NICK STAHLKE: Exhibit 305.
NICK STAHLKE: Yes, it is.
MR. GAHN: And could you point out for the jurors any bloodstain patterns that you observed in this vehicle?
NICK STAHLKE: This seems to be zoomed in a bit, can we zoom out. Yes, there's stains present in this particular photograph. There's some stains on the backside of this gear shift here. And two circular stains, one here and one here. Now, off this photo, that you can't see, are additional stains, right along here, on the passenger side of the center console.
MR. GAHN: Do the blood stain patterns that you observed in this 1993 Grand Am, are they consistent with the operation of this Grand Am by a person who was actively bleeding?
NICK STAHLKE: Yes, they are.
MR. GAHN: And the bloodstain patterns that you observed in Teresa Halbach's RAV4, are those consistent with the operation of the RAV4 by a person who is actively bleeding?
NICK STAHLKE: Yes, they are.
THE COURT: All right. Members of the jury, it's almost 4:30, since I'm sure you got up a little early this morning, it's a good enough reason to let you go a little early today. I will remind you not to discuss this matter among yourselves or with anyone else and we'll see you tomorrow morning.
(Jury not present.)
THE COURT: You may be seated. Counsel, I will ask you to see me in chambers a little after 8:30 again tomorrow morning to let me know what we will be doing.
MR. FALLON: Yes, Judge, could we put another matter on the record at this time.
THE COURT: Sure.
MR. FALLON: In light of this afternoon, or should I say this morning's developments, the State would like to renew a motion previously made and ruled upon by the Court. And that is, again, we would renew our Richardson motion for disclosure and evidence, if there is to be any more frame-up allegations, or should we say wild speculation, that we at least be given notice and a new offer of proof with respect to that type of evidence.
This morning's example, the buccal swabs or buccal swabs, is a perfect example of evidence not covered by the original offer of proof and the Court had already noted that any such evidence should be the subject of at least pre-trial notice. Obviously, that's not possible since we're in trial at the moment. But the existence of those swabs and those conditions was well known to the defense and disclosed.
So if there was to be any more Richardson evidence, then we would demand a notice, and an offer of proof, and a ruling outside the presence of the jury, before it is presented to the jury. We have that ruling from the Court. It did not include the buccal swabs, it included only the blood vial. We will be certainly hearing more about that in the next couple of days.
But any other evidence, we renew our motion to exclude and prohibit that evidence. As this morning's example demonstrated, there was no basis and no reason to present that evidence today. It's entirely irrelevant. Conjecture, speculation, and wild accusation, that's all it was. We object.
THE COURT: Mr. Buting.
MR. BUTING: Judge, then the State has to give advance notice of any of their theories and any type of evidence that their expert will testify ahead of time. And in this instance they elicited an opinion from an expert, that was not in the report, in which she was saying -- they had her try to say that this DNA on the key, for instance, was -- she didn't like my use of the word trace, I can't remember what word she used -- but they tried to raise an issue that somehow it could not have come from a blood source.
So they brought into the trial a completely different issue. We were simply responding to that, and that's going to happen, if they bring in, you know, additional opinions like this one. You know, this is not irrelevant the jury can draw from it what they want, but it was a relatively minor point, given the length of the whole cross-examination, so I don't see that it's worth arguing too much about.
I don't know that there's going to be anything else at this point, that I'm aware of, but if some other witness comes up here and presents some kind of testimony that may require it, then I think it's fair game.
THE COURT: All right. Mr. Fallon, I'm not going to hear from you, because you are going to win this one. I know from conferences in chambers before that the State had already made the point when the blood vial thing came up first, that the key, and I believe the hood latch, were alleged to involve DNA that did not consist of blood.
I let the defense evidence in today about the buccal swabs, but I agree with the State that although -- although I would have determined it was relevant had we had a Richardson hearing about it, that if there is any other Richardson type evidence that the defense intends to introduce, I'm going to require from this point forward that the State get advance notice of it. And that if the State objects, the Court has a chance to evaluate it for whether or not it is admissible as frame-up evidence.
I think that the defense had notice ahead of time that the State was claiming that there was some DNA evidence which the State could not say didn't come from blood, as we heard from the expert witness today, but didn't appear to be. I assume that was the reason why the defense sought to introduce the buccal swab evidence, which I did let in.
But I think the State's point is well taken, they are entitled to notice if there's any other evidence like that that the defense will be seeking to introduce. Anything else before we adjourn today?
MR. KRATZ: You wanted us in chambers, Judge, is that what you said?
THE COURT: Before trial tomorrow morning.
MR. KRATZ: Oh, I'm sorry. That's fine. Thank you.
THE COURT: All right. We'll see you tomorrow morning.
(Proceedings concluded.)