In criminal trials, forensic experts analyze physical evidence such as firearms, ammunition, and autopsy findings to establish facts. Firearm and tool mark examiners compare bullets and cartridge cases to identify which weapons fired them, while forensic pathologists determine cause and manner of death through autopsy examination. The trajectory of a bullet can be determined by analyzing the entrance wound location and path through the body, which helps reconstruct the shooting incident. Expert testimony is permitted when the witness is qualified through education and experience, and the court determines whether such testimony is necessary to assist the jury in resolving factual questions.
Installez notre extension pour rechercher instantanément dans n'importe quelle vidéo
Rick Chow murder trial day two continuesAjouté :
So, we got everybody we need now.
>> Yes, sir. All right. Break the jury, please.
That's what Yes.
The jury is seated. Thank you, Mr. Mr. Witness.
>> We are at St. Amanda Mets.
Do you swear or affirm the testimony given in this case be the truth and also help you die? I do.
>> Thank you. Seat in the witness stand for the record by your last name.
Amanda Mets, MZ.
>> Okay.
Investigator Meds, >> right?
>> Um, sort of. It It's examiner.
>> Examiner Matts. Okay. Where are you employed?
>> I work at the Richland County Sheriff's Department in the Forensic Sciences Laboratory in the Firearm tool Mark section.
>> Okay. How long have you worked with the sheriff's department in that capacity?
>> I've been at the sheriff's department for 16 years and in that capacity for 14.
>> Okay. Tell us generally, I mean, I know this is a broad kind of question, but what what goes on in the uh forensic science laboratory, specifically the firearm and tool marking section. So, uh, the firearm and tool mark section primarily examines firearms and ammunition components, um, and then re report our findings to the court. So, we're examining them for forensic evidence. Uh, what this means is primarily we're doing a bullet to bullet comparison, bullet to firearm comparison, cartridge case to cartridge case comparison, cartridge case to firearm comparison. That's our main bread and butter. We have a lot of other kind of smaller disciplines that we do.
Uh so tool marks such as um uh bolt cutters to a padlock um that sort of thing as well as serial number restoration um muzzles with target distance determination. And then we also participate in the national integrated ballistics information I imaging network um also called NIB. It's a lot easier to say. Um and we we do that all with either evidence cartridge cases or evidence firearms.
>> Okay. any clue I don't know how many firearms you examine in any given year.
>> Um the laboratory or myself?
>> You >> I can probably tell you over my career I've examined thousands 5,000 myself. Yearly we examine um well over um 3,000 4,000 firearms each year in the the laboratory.
>> Okay. Are you ever asked to um match a fired cartridge casing to a firearm?
>> Yes, all the time.
>> Are you ever asked to match a projectile to a firearm?
>> Yes, all the time.
>> Okay. Well, I guess before we get going too much farther, what is a cartridge case?
>> So, a cartridge case, well, we'll start out. A cartridge is the unfired ammunition. So, it's the the whole piece. It's it contains the projectile or bullet that sits inside the cartridge case which is what holds the gunpowder as well as the primer. Um so the primer and the gun powder are what have that combustion that allow the the firearm to to actually function. uh meaning it allows the bullet to be pushed down and out the barrel and towards the target.
And sometimes depending on the type of firearm, the cartridge case to be pushed back and extracted and ejected.
>> So um a fired cartridge casing is what would be left behind after a projectile is fired.
>> Yes. After a cartridge is fired, a cartridge cases could be what's left behind. Um, so in some situations such as a revolver, the cartridge cases aren't extracted and ejected. They remain inside the cylinder. But the cartridge case and a projectile are what we call fired components. They're what happens after you fire the cartridge.
They're the remaining components. So the cartridge case will no longer have the gunpowder and the primer's been expended. Um, and then the projectile obviously will have passed through uh the barrel of a firearm. And so those are two fired components.
So like uh this was an intact cartridge or unfired bullet. Um when it's fired, the projectile travels away and meets its target, whatever it may be. And what's left is this casing.
>> Correct. Cartridge case. Yes.
>> Okay. And the projectile wherever it goes, you can sometimes recover it too and match it back.
>> Some sometimes obviously it just depends on how far it's gone and where what it's gone into. Um, same thing with cartridge cases. Sometimes you can recover them and sometimes you can't.
>> All right. Were you asked to in this particular case examine uh a Glock 45 and a Taurus 9mm pistol?
>> I was. Yes.
>> Were you asked to examine a projectile?
>> Yes.
>> Were you asked to examine a fired cartridge casing?
Uh yes.
>> Um have you been qualified as an expert before in firearm and tool marking ID?
>> Yes, I have.
>> All right. Approximately how many times?
>> Uh approximately more than 20 times. 20 25 times.
>> Okay. Now at this time the state does offer examiner Amanda Mets as an expert firearm and tool marking.
>> Objection.
>> No objection. All right. Ladies and gentlemen, oh I'll tell you something about experts in a minute. I need I need to make this finding though that expert testimony is necessary to assist the jury in resolving certain factual questions. Um Miss Mets is qualified in the area of firearm and tool and the methodology and testimony is reliable.
Ladies and gentlemen, normally a person cannot give you opinion testimony. Uh their testimony must be what they heard, saw, smelled, touched, something of that nature. Um, however, there's an exception when somebody is qualified because of their education experience.
They are permitted to give you their opinion in certain areas if if I find that they are um qualified. As I've stated, Miss Meth will be qualified in the area of firearm and tool mark. Um, and that does not mean you must accept her opinion. um to put his evidence for you to use in any way you see fit and give it whatever weight and credibility you deem necessary during your deliberations.
>> Okay, Mr. Scott. All right. Uh Examiner Mets, I have that your uh analyses took place between May 13th of 2024 and June 10th of 2024.
>> Yes, correct.
>> All right. During that time period, did you have an opportunity to examine states number 11, which has been admitted into Yes. I recognize um and identify states exhibit 11 as my Richland County items 21 and 22.
>> Oh, okay. Well, states number 11 for this trial's purpose, but you recognize >> Yes, correct. As as Richland County items 21 and 22.
>> Okay. I'm going to need to refer to it as state number 11.
>> Yes.
>> Um, >> what is state number 11?
>> Uh, it is a Taurus model G3 9mm Luger caliber pistol. The serial number is ADG488788.
And the other part of that, which is a separate item number for us, but still states exhibit 11, is a Taurus 9mm Luger caliber magazine assembly and 10 unfired 9mm Luger caliber cartridges.
>> Okay. So, the mag you had not only the pistol, but the magazine and 10 unfired bullets.
>> Well, I Yes. However, they're not in this box.
>> Okay.
>> But for course safety purposes, we don't typically enter a gun in >> Correct.
But um you received 10 unfired cartridges.
>> That's correct. Yes.
>> And did you find states number 11 to be in working order?
>> I did. Yes.
>> Miss something keeps popping up on the lap screen. It's like someone's computer is logged in and it keeps making noise up. I don't know who's plugged into it.
>> Anybody plugged into the system?
>> Somebody It's not me.
Somebody's in your house and it keeps popping up.
Somebody logged in.
>> We're not.
>> Well, at least just muted.
Oh, that's that's the >> we that's the monitor for >> the house.
>> Ladies and gentlemen, we're having some technical difficulties.
They don't work down.
>> Mr. Uh, we're talking about you had 10 unfired.
I'm going to call them bullets, but that's a cartridge. And >> so yes, cartridges is the correct term for unfired.
>> Bullet is what comes out and down and out the barrel of a firearm.
>> You had 10 unfired cartridges.
>> Yes.
>> You had a magazine and then you had 9mm pistol.
>> Correct.
>> U did you test the 9mm pistol?
>> I did.
>> Was it in working order?
>> It it was functioning properly. Yes.
>> Okay.
You did did you or did you not have a chance to look at states number six?
This is a tack light.
>> Um I did not have the chance to to look at states exhibit six.
>> Okay. We met last week >> week before week before that.
>> Week before and I showed you states number six attack >> and we were able to put it on the Taurus. Were we not?
>> Yes. Uh, well, this is a solo fish laser flashlight combination.
Um, and the way they design it is so that it has rails that can expand and contract. They're designed to fit most pistols, even compact pistols, as long as the firearm has an accessory rail.
They could even fit a rifle depending on, again, if it has a correct accessory rail. Um, they're really universal.
They're meant to go on quite a few different firearms. Okay, with stakes number 11 forest, it would be compatible with a solo fish tack lake.
>> It's compatible with just about every every pistol that has accessory rails, which the Taurus does have accessory rails.
>> Okay. Are you familiar with the Solo Fish brand?
>> I'm familiar that I've seen it attached to firearms and know how it works. Yes.
>> Okay. Are laser point laser pointers attached to firearms? Is that an uncommon thing?
>> No.
>> Okay.
>> Um, what about flashlights attached to gun?
Is that uncommon?
>> That's not uncommon. Uh, I mean, this is a very popular brand uh flashlight and almost all of their flashlights are flashlight laser combinations. So, you have the option of either having a laser or a flashlight or both at the same time.
>> I mean, could I buy one of those like at Dicks or Academy?
>> You could get it off of Amazon if you wanted to.
>> Amazon. Okay.
>> Um, did you have an opportunity to Well, you already said the Glock 45, that's stage number 10.
An opportunity to examine that.
Uh, yes. I recognize and identify states exhibit 10 as Richland County items 19 and 20.
>> 10 is the Glock 45 caliber.
>> That's correct. It's uh states exhibit 10 is the Glock model 30 or 30S uh 45 autoc caliber pistol serial number is XRP 621 as well as a Glock 45 autoc caliber magazine assemble assembly and eight unfired 45 autoc caliber cartridges but again I don't have the unfired cartridges in this box now with the Glock were Were you asked to test it against a fire cartridge case?
>> I I was asked to to do a general examination which is when we get this evidence um we look at the fired evidence first. Uh look at class characteristics. So, class characteristics for fired evidences, the caliber, um what sort of for for cartridge cases, we're looking at firing pin shape, um ejector shape, any breach face markings, uh for projectiles, we're looking at the caliber again, as well as the rifling type. Once we determine that, then we would look at the appropriate firearms that we have.
>> Okay. So the Glock number states number 10. Uh was it in working order?
>> It was working order. Yes.
>> You just described a general kind of um analysis of >> Yes. So we don't get fired evidence and only compare it to a singular firearm.
Um you know like that's not our main goal. Our main goal is to look at the fired evidence first, see what characteristics fit, and examine the firearms that could have fired it. So in this instance, we have two different caliber firearms and then we would compare our fired evidence to which firearm has the correct class characteristic or caliber.
>> Let me see if I can ask that another one. This is states number seven. It's been admitted into evidence and it is a fired cartridge casing from a 45 caliber pistol.
So, did you examine states number seven and compare it to states number 10, the Glock pistol?
>> Yes.
>> Can I have some scissors, please?
Uh, yes. I recognize and identify states exhibit 7 as Richland County item five, which is one fired 45 auto caliber cartridge case.
>> Oh, you have it open.
I'm >> just going to set it here. So, Okay. So that we kind of talked about there. That's that's a fired cartridge casing.
>> Correct. So there's nothing inside of it. When it's unfired, gunpowder is housed inside of it with the bullet kind of like holding it all in.
>> My analogy, that would be the pin part that's left behind on the projectile.
>> Uh that that fired cartridge casing.
>> Yes.
>> Did it match out of one of those guns you tested? It did identify to um states exhibit 10 >> which is >> the Glock 45 autoc caliber pistol.
>> Okay. That fired cartridge casing match states number 10 which is the Glock 45 caliber pistol.
>> Yes.
>> All right. You still got your scissors.
So this is stage number nine.
Ask if you had a chance to examine states number nine.
Um, yes. I recognize and identify states exhibit nine as Richland County item 16, which is one fired metal jacketed bullet.
>> Okay.
>> Do you want that, too?
>> Well, we got Is that what this is? Stage number 74.
>> Um, I have to That's not my photo. So, it looks similar. Yes.
>> Okay.
as a projectile.
>> It's a project. A bullet. Projectile.
Yes.
>> Um, >> is that how the the projectile the bullet looks um when it's attached to the cartridge before it's fired?
>> Um, no. That's that's not how it looks when it's intact before firing.
>> Okay. What what causes a projectile?
>> So, this is a jacketed hollow point, which means that the that the inside is lead and surrounded by a metal jacket, usually copper or brass. And jacketed hollow point means that the point the top of the bullet um the nose of the bullet is open. And those are designed to when upon impact spread so that it doesn't travel through your target and possibly hit something you're not meaning to shoot at.
Okay.
>> So, this is what happens. It expands into this pretty starfish.
>> Okay. So, states number nine projectile.
Were you able to match that to out of the firearm you tested?
>> Uh, yes. I identified it to states exhibit 10, the Glock 45 autoc caliber pistol.
>> Okay. So the Glock 45 fired this casing that we heard some testimony about before and it fired the projectile shown in state 74 but also uh what you got in front of you is stage number nine.
>> Yes. Correct.
>> Okay. So is it your expert opinion the Glock 45 the casing states number seven and fire the projectile states number nine?
>> Yes. Correct.
>> Thank you.
Is there any questions that have >> so firearms expert are you familiar with the I guess it's states 11 which is the Taurus 30 pistol >> uh the Taurus G3.
>> G3.
>> Yes.
>> I don't know where I got to there. G3.
And you examined it.
>> I did.
>> Now, you testified that there were 10 bullets submitted to you, though they're not in the same box.
>> Yes. 10 unfired cartridges.
>> So, you agree that this uh this weapon, this 9 mm pistol, semi-automatic. Is that right?
>> Yes. A 9mm Luger semi-automatic pistol.
Yes.
>> So, it holds one in the chamber.
>> Yes.
>> And nine in the magazine?
No.
>> All right. How many in the magazine?
>> Um, give me one second because sometimes it can be submitted with extended magazines. One second and I'll refer.
>> That would mean more bullets.
>> I'm sorry.
>> That would mean more more cartridges.
>> Yes, more cartridges. Um, this particular firearm was submitted with um a magazine that could hold 17. So, if you fill the magazine, it's 17. And then if you carry one in the chamber, the firearm itself can hold up to 18.
>> 17.
>> Yes.
>> And um now you mentioned that this uh Taurus weapon was compatible with what you were asked about being a solo fish.
>> Yes, the solo fish uh flashlight laser combination. Um it it is compatible with the Taurus. is also compatible with the clock. Both of these firearms could have that flashlight on them.
>> Are you aware that your department concluded this weapon belonged to the to the uh young man Belton who was deceased in this incident?
>> I don't pay attention to the particulars. I just look at the evidence.
>> Do you examine the Taurus to see if it had markings that would indicate that all this was attached to it?
No, I did not.
>> And u what's the function? Well, we we can assume a tactical light is a flashlight.
>> Yes, it's a flashlight and a laser. Um it just has buttons. You can turn either one on >> and and this had also in combination meaning one accessory that attaches to this weapon >> and it would attach to the bottom of the barrel of the jar.
>> It It attaches to the frame. The frame has like kind of grooves cut out that's called accessory rails. Um, and it's it's underneath the barrel, but it's actually attached to the frame.
>> Okay. As consistent with the Taurus, which had those rails?
>> Taurus and Glock both have those. Yes.
>> And the red dot laser.
Uh, is this a red and green or just a red dot laser?
>> I did not examine this, so I don't know what color the laser is.
>> What's the What's the point of this?
accessory, a red dot laser.
>> Well, it's not necessarily a red dot laser. So, a red dot laser is actually a brand. So, this solo solo fish flashlight laser combination. Uh the point is so that you could possibly shoot in the dark if you needed to um to illuminate anything that you plan on shooting at. Um and then the laser can be used to to help shoot what you're intending to shoot. So, targeting So, with a gun not equipped with a uh a laser sight, is that fair? One, not equipped with a laser sight, you have to look down the barrel and try to hit what you're aiming, right?
>> You would look down the the sights which are on top of the the firearm. Um, again, it it doesn't matter really. It it is helpful, but it can also not be helpful. It depends on what scenario you're in. Um, if you're in a scenario, >> what is it? I'm sorry.
>> I'm sorry.
>> I I'm not sure what it meant. You said it.
>> The the flashlight laser combination.
>> That's not my question. My question is without that equipment of a of a laser sight.
>> Yes.
>> You're relying on your aim.
>> Well, you're running the weapon, looking down the barrel, and the two sights that are metal pieces on the top of the barrel.
>> You're relying on your aim either way, I guess, is what I meant. is it your aim >> is not necessarily made better with a flashlight laser combination. Um aim is not everything. Um when you fire a gun, if you are anticipating firing that gun, you are going to usually miss what you're aiming for. Um >> let me ask you to get back to my question if you don't mind. That's not really responsive to my question which was pretty simple.
with a gun.
>> I'm just asking that he's interrupted a couple times. Let her explain her answer.
>> Well, it's because she her answers are not responsive to my question.
>> I understand sometimes you don't like it, but you need to let it finish and then we can move on from there.
>> Okay. Have a >> I'm sorry. I don't know where I'm at now. So, I don't remember what I was saying. You can rephrase your question >> again. Can we agree that a laser site fires a beam of laser light?
>> Correct. Yes.
>> And the purpose of the laser light is to allow the person, whether it's nighttime or daytime, to put that light on whatever you intend to shoot to improve your ability to hit what you intend to shoot. Isn't that the purpose of >> It does help. Yes.
>> Okay. Thank you. only if you are competent with a firearm. If you are not competent with a firearm, it is not going to help you.
>> And you don't know about the owner of this.
>> I don't know who own this and I don't know their competency. But having a flashlight laser compet uh laser combination does not make you a suddenly a magically gifted shooter.
>> Do you have a red laser or a laser sight on your fire your service?
>> I do not. All right.
Thank you, John.
I'll redirect.
>> You familiar with the Smith and Wesson bodyguard 380 pistol?
>> Yes.
>> Oh, that load off.
>> Yes.
>> I got one of those and it came equipped with a red dot.
>> Yes, it comes with the crimson trace laser. Yes.
>> I don't think that's proper direct. I don't know that it's relevant what he owns at home.
Oh, I'd be happy to go into his gun collection if you deem that old rule.
>> You familiar with that gun?
>> I am familiar with >> mass. It's a mass- prodduced pistol.
>> Correct. Yes.
>> Um and it actually comes from the factory with a built-in laser.
>> It does. Yes.
>> Uh do you have any firearms with lasers?
>> I don't. No.
>> Do they help you shoot any better?
>> No.
>> Okay. Thank you.
>> Nothing. All right, you step down. Thank you.
Ready to go, please.
>> Yes, sir. State calls Todd George.
The testimony in this case I do please have seen the witness stand for the Taima Jordan.
>> Mr. Jordan, where are you employed now?
>> I'm currently employed with Garfield Wilson Associates.
>> Okay. You um and what are you doing over there? I'm now a poly representative and property investigator.
>> Okay. Uh you used to be where did you used to work?
>> Richton County. I retired in September of last year.
>> Okay. And do you miss me working with me?
>> Actually I do. Actually I do. Kind of one of my favorites.
>> How how many how many years did you work for the sheriff's department?
>> Uh 22 with the sheriff's department and three years with Camden Police Department.
>> Okay.
um 25 years in law enforcement altogether. Is that right?
>> Yes, sir.
>> And you know, just generally, I'm not asking for specifics. Did you see a lot of change during your time in law enforcement? Just in investigations, just crimes, investig everything.
>> Absolutely.
>> Okay. Um and when when you did retire from the sheriff's department, what unit were you in? I was actually in the uh narcotics unit.
>> Okay. Uh but but at times did you investigate uh violent crimes as well?
>> Yes, I did.
>> You had occasion on May 28th, 2023 to become involved in this case, did you not?
>> Yes, I did.
>> Okay. And May 28th, 2023 was the date of this incident. Correct.
>> Yes, it was.
>> Okay.
would you walk us through how you became involved in the case?
>> So, um, that was Memorial Day weekend.
So, I was actually supervisor on call.
So, the way that works is from Thursday midnight to the following Thursday midnight, um, there's a team of investigators that handle calls after 5:00. I happen to be the uh, supervisor on that particular shift. So, we were um, responsible for handling any calls after 5:00 that require an investigation.
>> Okay. And at some point uh did you get a call to respond to either Springtree Drive or 7441 Parkland Road?
>> I did.
>> Okay. And what was the nature of the call?
>> It was a shooting hit.
>> Okay. Where did you respond first?
>> Actually, I was on the way to uh Ranch Road. Um we were called there because they have um found some juveniles in a vacant apartment uh with firearms. So, I was actually headed there to help um the other investigator um at that time.
>> Okay. So, you were redirected. You're going to an instant involving juveniles and firearms. Is that what you just said?
>> Yes, sir.
>> While we're at it, you talked about a lot of changes in 25 years in law enforcement in the year 2023.
Um, was it uncommon for the sheriff's department to get calls regarding people under 18 being involved with firearms?
>> It was not >> being in possession of firearms.
>> It was not.
>> Okay. Um, and that that's illegal, is it not?
>> It is.
>> Um, but is it your testimony that's become something that has become more and more prevalent as as time has gone on from when you started law enforcement?
>> Yes. Over the years it has.
Um, okay. So, the call for service at Parklane Road was shots fired. You said >> shots fired or or someone hit um from gunfire.
>> And are you familiar with Shot Spotter?
>> Yes, I am.
>> What is Shot Spotter?
>> So, Shot Spotter is a system um that's that we use or that we did use before I retired. Um it's a system that's placed around the county uh with sensors and those sensors are able to detect fire um gunfire.
>> Um were you familiar with a shot spot or head in this particular incident?
>> Yes, I was.
And so essentially it is that's just microphones that they're set up around Colombia, Richmond County, and certain places that they're basically microphones on the tower.
>> Correct. Microphones and sensors >> and they're trained to pick up gunfire.
>> That is correct.
>> Let me show you stage number five. Do you recognize this?
Yes, I do.
>> Okay. Is that just a copy of the shot spider that was picked up on this occasion?
>> It is.
>> State officer states for evidence.
>> Objection.
>> No objection.
>> All right. Without objection.
Okay. So that that would be something that shot spotter pick up and then does that um shot spider detects gunfire. Do they alert local law enforcement?
>> Right. That's what happens.
>> Okay. And so is a time attached to those shot spotter alerts?
>> It is.
>> Okay.
When you respond to 7441 Parkland, do you go directly there or did you go to the scene on Springtree Drive?
>> Uh to the scene on Spring Tree Drive.
>> Okay. And what was going on on Spring Tree when you got there?
>> Uh I think EMS has already left. Um there were several other investigators already there and also uh deputies that were there as well.
>> Okay. Was crime scene there yet?
>> I don't recall seeing them yet.
>> Okay. Was Mr. child there at Springtree or had he already gone back to Parkland?
>> I don't remember seeing him at the scene.
>> Okay. Um All right. So, you probably didn't spend too much time at the Spring Tree Road incident, did you?
>> No, I did not.
>> Did you go to 7441 Parkland then?
>> Yes, we did.
>> Okay. And who was there when you went there?
>> Uh it was Mr. Rick Child, the defendant, um Andy Child, and Alice Chow.
>> Okay. at that particular time. What was your understanding of what you were investigating?
>> Uh, apparently the uh the the victim in this case apparently allegedly has stolen some water and so we went back to the uh store to try to look at surveillance video to see if that actually occurred.
>> Okay.
Uh so Mr. Child was there, you said?
>> Yes, he was.
>> Okay. And was he cooperative with you as far as trying to obtain video? Oh, he was. Yes.
>> All right. There there was some testimony earlier about uh a room that he had his equipment in. Do you remember that room?
>> Yes. So, you walk in the store. You pass the front counter kind of make a small left. Slightly I'm a small right and it's right there in the back.
>> Okay. What do you remember about that room?
>> Monitors and hard drives everywhere.
>> Okay. And did you uh direct Mr. child to look up a certain time period.
>> Correct. That'll be correct.
>> And what was that time period? What were you trying to watch and review on the video?
>> Uh try to see the time that the uh victim came into the store and also the alleged uh shoplifting that they said that occurred.
>> Okay. Uh did you have multiple angles to choose from as far as video camera surveillance footage?
>> Yes, we did.
>> Okay. Oh, and did you review multiple angles?
>> Yes, we did.
>> Okay. We had earlier a um series of clips of states number three which has been admitted in evidence. Um then we have a number of slides that came from that that were also been in evidence. Um I'm going to walk through those with you and um just see these videos that you would have reviewed. Well, first of all, let me uh was uh Deputy English in there in the room with you and Mr. Chow when you were looking at the video?
>> Yes, he was.
>> Okay. Uh and he was wearing his body worn camera.
>> Correct. He was Okay. Um, we're going to it's it's in evidence as uh Deputy He's body cam. We haven't published this portion yet. This, but it's in evidence. It's his body cam.
We're going to publish a section just of them back in the security.
So, we're going to call that state number 84.
and permission to publish states 84.
Yes, sir.
I say it it's Nothing.
Yeah.
>> Okay.
>> Yes.
>> Ty, just real quick, did you find Mr. Chow being uh to be adept at navigating through his security system?
>> Very much so.
>> Okay. Was it We just saw some of was he able to fast forward his video?
>> Fast forward, rewind, slow it down.
>> Okay.
>> Enlarge.
>> Able to speed it up?
>> Yes.
>> Put in reverse?
>> Yes.
>> Zoom in?
>> Yes.
>> Zoom out?
>> Yes.
>> Toggle between different cameras?
>> Yes.
>> Was he able to do that for you rather quickly?
>> Yes.
>> Okay, I continue. I'm sorry.
camera.
Yes. Yes. You want to see Heat.
Heat.
You can stop here or Nice.
Heat.
Welcome to the classroom.
Go back to working here.
Heat.
Heat.
Yeah.
Heat.
Heat.
Heat.
outside.
You really.
Can you go back to that the video we just watched beforehand?
>> Yeah.
>> Ty, what did you just say?
>> Ask him, could he go back to the uh angle where he was at the water cooler?
>> All right. So, you just asked him, can you rewind and go back to the angle where he's at the water cooler?
>> Correct. Why did you ask him? Why'd you direct him to do that?
>> Well, wanted to uh look at it um to see exactly what the young man did to make sure um that we saw what we thought we saw.
>> Okay.
To your knowledge, was any stolen merchandise found on or around Mr. Cyrus Carmarmac building?
>> No.
>> Okay.
And you're asking him now to go back to the scene where he's at that water cooler is what you're saying?
>> Yes. I'm gonna continue claiming now.
Okay.
>> Yes, sir.
Can you go back? I want to count how many you picked up and how many you put down.
>> I think there's no more Heat. Heat.
How long did your last um 2 years? So I guess for months everybody come back tomorrow.
You remember that moment when you realize Cyrus never took anything? Do you remember that?
>> I do.
And >> and in the video, Mr. Chow turns, he just sort of does that.
>> He does that.
Did was anybody shown any emotion during this time to your recollection?
>> Not to my recollection. No.
>> And so he's fast forwarding, he's reversing, he's zooming in, and he's pausing.
He's putting it in slow motion. Is that Is that what you remember?
>> That's what he was doing.
All right. I'm going to show you some videos now that that came from states number four. That's a number of slides and we haven't published them yet, but you saw them that night. You've seen them since. Is that true?
>> Yes.
>> So, I'm going start with slide two states number four.
Okay, I'm going to go now to slide three of the four Next is slide four of states. I mean, yeah, slide four of states number four.
Moving on to stage five. Another slide on stage number four.
Slide six of states number four.
Put down the ice cream chest.
Yep.
Okay, going on to slide seven, mistakes number four.
Let me see that.
Let me know.
Not me.
Uh, slide eight, mistakes number What are you doing?
far outside.
Investigator George, while we're watching that, who who is this woman that we're seeing right here on this this screen? Alice Chow.
>> Alice Chow.
>> Yes.
>> Okay. And then the other male we've seen in the videos with the hat on backwards, too.
>> Andy Chow.
>> Okay. Thank you.
Who is that individual >> in the PL shirt?
>> In the PL shirt.
>> Rick Chow.
>> Moving on to slide 10 of stage number four.
Slide 11 number four is next.
I'm going skip slide 11 goes for now. Go to slide 13 of stage four.
I don't have no water in my coffee.
All right. Next is slide 14 of stage four.
Let me ask you, investigator, you reviewed a video, uh, did Cyrus Carmarmac Belton ever brandish a firearm inside of 7441 Parkland Road, the Shell gas station owned by Rick Child? He did not.
Did >> Cyrus Carmarmac Belton ever point a red laser that was attached to a Taurus pistol while he was in the Shell station at 7441 Parkland Road?
>> He did not.
>> To your knowledge, has anybody ever said he did that?
>> In the store.
>> In the store?
>> No. No one.
I want to go now to slide 15.
Next is slide 60 stage number four.
Okay. State 17 or slide 17 or states number four.
You have one pocket. You have your pocket.
>> In your pocket.
>> In my pocket.
>> I don't got no water in my pocket.
Moving on to states or slide 18 of states number four.
Do you agree with that? There was multiple angles that you were able to review of the same incident.
>> That is correct.
>> Okay.
>> Um, next on my list is slide 19 of states number four.
Slide 20 stage number four.
Next is slide 21.
No, did you ever recover? Did you ever see the shoe that popped off of him in that slide?
>> Uh when I went back to the store, um it was on the counter along with two cell phones.
>> Okay. And who had collected those cell phones in that shoot?
>> Alice Chow.
>> And she had taken it from the scene and brought it back to the gas station.
>> That is correct.
>> Uh do you know if she took any other evidence from the scene?
>> I do not.
>> Okay.
But crime scene was unable to collect the shoe and the cell phones from where they originally found because Alice child had already moved them.
>> That is correct.
>> All right, I'm going to skip a couple here. Do slide 24 of states.
Slide.
Slide 25.
What did that just depict?
>> Uh, Miss Child with the shoe and two cell phones.
Going now to um slide 31 of states 4, which is these videos kind of stitched together as um Justin Martin described before.
Jack needs to blow on the ice cream chest.
Yep.
Welcome back.
natural.
9:00.
You have one in your pocket. You have one in your pocket.
In your pocket.
>> Yeah.
>> I don't got no water.
Let me show you a couple pictures invest. This is states 67 and 68.
Do you recognize those just to be screenshots from videos?
>> They are.
>> 7071.
You recognize those to be screenshots from the viewers?
>> Yes, they are.
>> Okay. Now the state offer states 67 to 68 permission in the evidence.
>> Yeah, I think there screenshots. They already put in on >> Oh, they're already in.
>> Well, there videos that they just played from the video.
>> And then um also 701.
>> All right.
67 68 701.
Ty, let me show you 6162.
>> You recognize those also to be just strange shots from here?
>> Yes, they are.
>> Okay. And what about 63 and 66?
>> Yes, they are.
>> Okay.
state author stated 61 62 63 and 66 for mission evidence objection >> Mr. Scott me those not those two the two that you just that are still in front of you just make sure I don't need to renew my okay you want to just no objection but just renew our pre-trial objection >> sure will be as states 6123 and 66 subject to pre-trial objection >> thank you let me put up states 63 three.
All right.
Investigator Jordan, 25 years in law enforcement.
Um, have you had occasion to handle a case where you had video or a picture of a suspect um that you were trying to identify?
>> Yes, I have.
>> Okay. And is it common to eventually identify subjects based on surveillance video or or photography for that matter?
>> It's very common. And is it helpful if you have high definition video or or screenshots of an individual?
>> Yes, it is.
>> Is it helpful in your experience to have uh good descriptions of the clothing they're wearing?
>> Yes.
>> Okay. Would it be helpful in in a case like this if you're trying to identify somebody who was suspected of shoplifting to be able to do freeze frames to be able to reverse to be able to zoom in on their picture, would that be helpful in identifying them?
>> Yes, it would.
>> Okay. Um, let me ask you this. If you were looking for a suspect and they were accused of something and you had the video footage of them from multiple angles, said that would be helpful.
What if you had their shoe? Would that be helpful?
>> Yes, it would.
>> What sorts of things could you do if a suspect left their shoe behind at a scene and you were trying to identify them?
>> Uh, DNA or fingerprints.
>> You could request DNA or fingerprints.
>> Yes.
>> All right. What if a suspect um you had multiple camera angles of their face, highdefin videos of their face, you had their shoe. What if they left behind two cell phones? Would that help you in identifying that person if they did commit a crime? Would that be helpful to you?
>> Yes, it would.
>> Have you ever responded Or has your department ever responded to a call for service to a convenience store because there was a complaint of shoplift?
>> Yes.
>> And is that common?
>> Unfortunately, yes.
>> But that's your job. Is that not the sheriff's department's job to respond to calls for service if somebody is accused of theft at a store?
>> It is.
And is it your job to investigate if you were called to a convenience store for the crime of shoplifting?
>> Yes, it is.
>> Do you have any knowledge of your department instructing employees or owners of convenience stores to follow suspected shoplifterss and chase them down? Not that I'm aware of.
>> Okay. Not that you're aware of. Have you ever heard of anybody in your department instructing anybody to do that?
>> No.
You familiar with facial recognition technology?
>> I am.
>> And what is that?
Jessica Jordan, do you think it would be you would have some tools to work with if you had gotten a call that this guy, this boy right here, had stolen? Do you think you would have some tools to help identify him?
>> Yes.
>> And investigate whether or not he had stolen water?
>> Yes.
Do you feel confident law enforcement could have handled this?
>> Absolutely.
>> Thank you. All right. Answer any questions Mr. >> All right. We're going to take a break.
Um been going about an hour and a half.
So we will take our afternoon break. We will um leave these let's just say until 3:45 please don't discuss the case amongst yourselves research remain seated please.
All right. Anything before we break?
>> Nothing.
>> Nothing on behalf of Mr. Chow.
>> Be at ease and um testimony.
84 with the body camera right here.
>> Oh, okay. Yeah, it's already right.
Yeah, it's just been a physical representation.
Is this going to be the last day?
We got another long You're >> seated.
Investigator, I want to give you your proper title.
Could you tell me what you would like me to call you?
>> Ty fine.
>> Ty.
>> Yes, sir.
>> Okay. I want to make sure I give you your proper title and your respect that you are due. You have been sitting in the courtroom, so you understand normal questions I ask people at the beginning, so I don't think that's necessary.
You've testified many times before. Is that a fair statement?
>> That is correct.
>> And the two of us have never met. Is that an also a fair statement?
>> That's correct.
>> Okay. Focus over here. While I ask you these questions, I want to go through a little background to make sure I understand a little bit more about you.
Is that a fair statement?
>> Yes, ma'am.
>> Okay. As I ask you these questions, I just want to make sure I understand a little bit of everything. You have been you were with force for how long?
>> 25 years. In those 25 years, you started out with your training at the criminal justice academy.
>> That is correct.
>> And at the criminal justice academy, they gave you training.
>> They did.
>> They training on how to become a police officer, if you will, >> essentially. Yes.
>> Um training on report writing.
>> Yes.
>> Investigative techniques.
>> Yes.
>> Witness interviewing.
>> Yes.
>> And in conjunction with that, the other thing that we also work on is you go to seminars, >> continue education classes. Yes.
>> And you've been to many continuing education classes, I'm assuming.
>> Yes. To keep certification.
>> And we do all of these things to make sure that we are good investigators, officers, stewards of the community. Is that also a fair statement?
>> That's fair.
>> And when we go through these classes and things of this nature, we want to make sure that we uphold a certain standard so that we treat every case the same. Is that a fair statement?
>> That's fair.
>> And when we look at these things, we talk about the investigative techniques, the witness interviews, investigation, collecting evidence. We want to make sure we uphold a specific standard so that later we can sit down and talk to a jury or a judge about what has happened in a case.
>> That's fair.
>> We want to make sure when we're looking at these cases that we don't use our memories and use the evidence and information that we find on scene or from witnesses. So, we do everything correctly.
>> That's fair.
>> Because we do not want to rely on witnesses memories and we do not want to rely on emotions when we're trying to make decisions. Is that a fair statement?
>> That's fair. And we do not want emotions to get in the way of actual critical evidence and police work. Is that also fair?
>> That's fair.
>> You have been put on the stand and is it safe to assume that you are the case agent in this case?
>> For lack of better words. Yes.
>> And as the case agent, I am free to ask you questions about this case. You're pretty familiar with it as the solicitor just did.
>> I am. and you have looked at all of the information, the files, the witnesses, the evidence, everything that I was just asking you about that we do in a very specific way to make sure we can do things critically. Is that a fair statement?
>> Yes.
>> And so I'm free to ask you questions about what has happened, the investigation, the evidence, and the other witnesses that were talked to in response to this specific case.
>> Yes, you are.
>> And so, first I want to talk to you about um and we spent some time talking about the story in question. So again, I want you to tell the jury where is this store?
>> 7441 Parkland Road here in Richland County, Columbia.
>> And one of the things that we started talking about in crossexamin and the direct examination from the state is they were talking to you about the victim in this case. Correct. Remember they're talking to you about him?
>> Yes.
>> And when they were talking to you about him, they were talking about him going inside of the store. Correct.
>> Yes. And there was questions about when he walked inside of the store, what was he doing?
>> He's walked in the store.
>> He's walking into the store, >> correct?
>> And through the course of your investigation, is that something that you looked at to make sure that he was just walking into the store, not anything else? We just investigate or we just say he's just walking into the store, we don't investigate any further. I'm just asking >> walk into the store, then we observe whatever else is on the video. Okay. And so you watched the young man walk in throughout the store.
>> I did.
>> And as you walked through the store, did you think anything when you watched the video yourself? Did you see him walking around the store and you say, "Look, this is a little strange." You had mentioned that you had studied and looked at shoplifting for many times.
Did you look at the video and thought there was something there?
>> No.
>> You didn't think there was anything suspicious or anything strange about his behavior patterns, walking around, or how he acted in the store?
>> No. And this is you have testified to this jury that you have investigated how many shopliftings in your time?
>> I can't give you a count on that. I've investigated numerous cases.
>> And when we investigate shoplifting cases, one of the things that we look at is we watch the behavior patterns and how individuals walk around the business. And as your testimony, there was nothing odd or strange about this.
>> No. So when we watch the investigation and look into the behavior patterns of a young man who walked inside of the store, you watched him go to a water cooler. Is that correct?
>> I did.
>> And when you watched him go to the water cooler, you saw him take water bottles out and put water bottles back in.
Correct.
>> Did.
>> And as a matter of fact, when you saw him taking the water bottles in and back out immediately the first time, you could not tell what was done. And you asked to rewind it and watch it again.
Just to make sure that I saw what I thought I saw the first time.
>> And you had them zoom in so you could look a third time to make sure you saw what you thought you saw.
>> Yes. Yes.
>> And so you saw the long young man put water bottles in, put water bottles back out several times or twice maybe, I think.
>> Well, he took him out and then put him back.
>> And you thought there was nothing peculiar about this?
>> No. And I'm looking at this case, looking at the background that you know everything about. You know, your young man went into the store with an empty book bag >> with an empty book bag.
>> Yes, sir.
>> Okay. Yes.
>> Well, I'm asking you. You're the case.
>> I mean, I miss other contents in there, but I mean, it was essentially empty.
Yes, >> it was essentially empty. Yes.
>> And you've heard testimony that he went in there with a firearm.
>> Yes.
>> Okay. So, this young man and there's also been testimony that there was no money on it. There was no finances on him whatsoever. That is correct.
>> So, this young man went into the store with no money, an empty book bag, and a loaded firearm. And you're telling this jury there was nothing suspicious about that?
>> Well, we don't know they didn't have any money on him at all. There was no money found on him.
>> Again, my question was, you're telling this jury there's nothing suspicious about that?
>> Absolutely not.
>> And that is normal and that happens.
>> It depends on who you are, what your normal is.
>> I'm asking you as the investigator.
>> Well, I can't speak on behalf of him.
that would it's okay. I would probably do the same thing. I don't think there's anything wrong with that.
>> You would go into a business with an empty book bag, a loaded firearm, with a bullet in the chamber with no money in your pocket.
>> No, you asked me about the question.
>> Let me finish.
>> Okay. I guess what happened is officer, if you'll allow me to ask me a question, I promise you I'll give you opportunity to answer. You simply allow me to finish the question, I'll give you as much time as you want. Is that a fair statement?
>> Fair. So, as I was saying, what you said to this jury right now is you probably would have done the same thing. And my question was, as in going into a business with an empty book bag and a firearm, pick water in and out of a cooler with no finances or no money on you to pay for it. That's something that you would have done is what your testimony was >> to that question? No.
>> Okay.
And it's your testimony that that behavior that I just described was nothing that caused you any concern whatsoever and watching the videos and rewatching them.
>> Well, that was determined or found out after the fact as far as the book bag being empty and him having a firearm.
>> Well, officer, when we talk about investigation, one of the things we talked about is we investigate the entire thing, the totality of the circumstances. We don't peace meal investigation, do we?
>> We do not.
>> And so we investigate the totality of the circumstance. So are you telling me you did not investigate the totality?
>> We did, but go ahead.
>> No, no, you go ahead.
>> But you asked about the store. At the time we was in the store, there was no indication that he had a firearm, that the book bag was empty, and that he had no money.
>> No one knew that.
>> But you did when you investigated because you're the investigator. You're not you're not a witness in this case.
Correct. Correct.
>> You are an investigator. Correct.
Correct.
>> We do not try with emotions. Correct.
>> Correct.
>> We try to utilize evidence and look at the full scene so we can present the full story to the jury as I just asked you. Correct.
>> That's correct.
>> And so looking at the totality of the circumstances, your testimony to this jury, there was nothing strange about that behavior.
>> Once again, >> as an investigator, >> him going into the ask your question because you do a lot of word salad. So, can you give me the actual question?
>> That behavior is not strange >> for him to have a book bag, >> an empty book bag, a loaded firearm, a bullet in the chamber, going inside with no money to pay for anything, pulling water in and out of a cooler, putting it back back and forth.
>> Objection, your number one has to answer. Number two is opinion testimony as do you find this to be strange in your opinion?
>> I'll uh put just The firearm being on him is the only thing that I would find that would be not right.
>> Okay. And so now let's go to the firearm. Through the course of your investigation, one of the things we have to figure out is ownership of said firearm. Is that a fair statement?
>> Yes, it is.
>> And the solicitor was asking you questions about 14 year olds in the community with firearms. You remember talking about that a little bit?
>> I do. And you are aware that Richland County or sheriff's office or sheriff has a problem with children and minors with firearms.
>> That is that is correct.
>> And it is not your testimony to get on the stand and normalize it and say it's okay. It is a problem.
>> It is a problem.
>> And so we're not trying to sit here and say it's okay for a minor to have a firearm with a bullet in the chamber going into a store. That is not your testimony.
>> No, it's not okay.
>> And as we are trying to figure out, there's little things that we have figured out about that firearm. Do you agree that we figured out and found DNA on that file?
>> We did.
>> And the DNA belonged to who?
>> Syrus.
>> So there we had that and then during you utilizing your investigation, you have testified prior before that you looked and utilized and went through the social media of Cyrus. Is that a fair statement?
I didn't go through his actual stuff, but what was given to be through extractions and through uh their findings, I was told what was in there.
>> As the investigator, the lead investigator on this case, one of the things we went through is to look to try to figure out the ownership of the firearm.
>> Correct.
>> And one of the things we utilize is went through his social media page to figure out ownership of the firearm.
>> Social media wouldn't tell me that he actually owned that gun. He's 14, so he would be able to purchase a gun.
>> I apologize. That's a bad question.
Ownership and or possession. Is that a better statement?
>> Yes.
>> And through the course of your investigation, you discovered that he had possessed that exact firearm within 24 hours of this incident.
>> It appeared to be the same, though. Yes.
>> And this is something you have testified to prior. Is that a fair statement?
>> Yes.
>> I'm going to show you this picture and ask if you recognize it and have been asked to testify to that prior under oath before.
You can look at me. You don't have to ask permission.
>> Excuse me.
>> Yeah, you can look at me and ask >> the question. Do I need to repeat the question, officer?
>> Yes.
>> Do you recognize the picture based upon the questions that I just asked you about your investigation? And have you testified about it formally under oath before?
>> Yes.
>> Okay.
>> And what is it a picture? What does it depict?
>> Picture of uh Cyrus holding a gun.
>> Which gun?
>> It's a black gun with a light on it.
>> Does it appear to be the gun in the case that we're talking about today?
>> It does appear to be the gun.
>> And that is a picture from his social media that was posted on his social media.
He >> was on his social media.
And that picture, could you describe what he's wearing?
A >> red hoodie with Chucky on the front.
>> Is it the exact same outfit he was wearing when he went into the store on the date that we're talking about?
>> The hoodie? Yes.
>> At this point in time, we move this in as defense number one.
>> I'm sorry, Judge.
Foundation we discussed before.
>> Okay. All right. Based on the pre-trial motions, I'll allow it as defense one substitute state.
Now, before we get into a little bit more about the ownership of the firearm now, the picture that we're talking about and actually taking a The picture that we had just exhibited from defense exhibit number one, that comes from a social media page, correct?
As you just testified to >> Yes.
>> Okay. And that was from his Instagram page and that was actually a a larger post that was posted. Is that a fair statement?
>> Correct.
>> It's a screen grab from a larger post.
>> Correct. Can you describe the jury what that post was that you saw when you looked?
>> I don't remember the exact >> You don't remember what the post was?
>> No.
>> Um, if I show you the post, would I help refer pressure?
>> Yes. Thank you.
show you.
Does that video help refresh your recollection as to the question I just asked you about where did the screen grab of that picture actually come from?
uh a video.
>> And could you describe the jury what was in that video?
>> Uh the gun in his hand.
>> And what was he doing with the gun in his hand?
>> He sat in his hand. I The light was on, so I couldn't see what he was doing behind the light, but he had that gun in his hand.
>> You're a 25-y year officer. You've been doing this a long time, correct?
>> Correct.
>> You know firearms?
>> Yes.
>> You understand firearms?
>> I do.
>> And you're telling the jury you do not know what he was doing in that video?
the light was flashing. So, it appeared that it could have been pointed at the camera and that's the way it appeared, but I can't say that for sure because of the the glare of the light behind the the flashlight.
>> But this is a video from his Instagram that goes with the screen grab that we're just talking about now. Correct.
>> Yes.
>> And this is one of the things that we utilize to determine and prove ownership of the firearm that we're talking about in question.
Once again, he's 14, so he can't actually, you know, own or buy the gun, but he had in his possession >> and his DNA is on the firearm.
>> Correct.
>> Your honor, at this point in time, we would move the full video at defense exhibit two based upon what he just testified to understanding the defenses and the prosecution's pre-trial.
>> Yeah, that it's a foundation issue. Uh that that's not how this this evidence comes in. And we talked about this talked about we addressed that in pre-trial motions and I think that >> thank you and it's not coming in >> there's an email number one >> sure Let me shrink that down.
There was a question for some time about the the the light that was found on the scene that was attached to the firearm.
Looking at defense exhibit number one, is that one of the things that will aid us in discussing where that light came from?
>> It could.
>> It could or it does?
You asked, "Could it aid?" I said, "They could aid." Okay.
>> Did it?
>> Yeah, it did.
>> So, is that from your example, from looking at defense exhibit number one, is that the light that was on the firearm that was found on scene that day?
>> It appears to be.
>> And that would be the firearm that we believe is in states exhibit number 11.
And I'll show that to you all.
Yes.
So again, through the course of your investigation, do you not find it strange, weird, peculiar that on the day before this or within 24 hours, this is posted and then he goes into the store through your investigation?
You shouldn't have had a gun. Period.
Okay.
>> Now, I want to talk about the things that happened inside of the store. Okay.
>> Is that fair?
>> Okay.
>> And talking about what happened inside of the store and the videos that we just watched. We watched actions of different individuals. We watched actions of Andy Chow.
>> Yes.
>> I don't know if you're asking me a question or making a statement, sir. Did we watch the actions of Andy Chow?
>> We did.
>> Did we watch the actions of Rick Chow?
>> We did.
>> Did we watch the actions of Alice Chow?
>> We did.
>> And did we watch the actions of Cyrus?
>> We did.
>> We've already established that Cyrus would have had a firearm when he walked inside of the business.
>> That's correct.
>> We've already established that he legally did not have a right to either own that firearm or walk into the business with that firearm.
>> That is correct.
And then one of the questions comes up and we're going to talk about Andy Child's action that we watched in the video first. Okay.
>> You have been at the front of that store before and looking back to where the cooler are the coolers are >> on that day.
>> Yeah. Anytime like in part of your investigation anytime >> I may have been in that store in my time in Richmond County maybe three times if that >> and one and that's fine. And one of the things that we have talked about is that Andy Chow had made a determination that he believed that Cyrus was stealing from the store.
>> Okay.
>> Is is that a fair statement?
>> It is.
>> And then you went and looked back and forth at that video and it appeared as though nothing had been stolen.
>> That is correct.
>> And that he was putting water back and forth, but it did not appear that he had stolen something.
>> That is true.
>> And so, but still from Mr. chow and I mean Andy's vantage point that's what he had told you he had thought. Is that a fair statement?
>> I hear you're saying and what somebody else thought >> this case is all about if shoplifting occurred according to the state.
Correct.
>> It is >> when he went back up to the counter from the videos we watched.
The question is did he have anything in his front hoodie? Is that a fair statement?
>> They asked me if he had any water in his front hood.
>> And it appeared as though there was something heavy in his front hood.
>> I believe so. Yes.
>> Could you see how someone could have mistaken water for a firearm?
>> Objection. I was going to cross the question.
>> Um, yeah, I was saying that speculation.
>> And watching the videos at the front that we've replayed, were you able to see something petty in that front hoodie?
>> Not necessarily. But >> what do you mean? Did you look?
>> I did.
>> Okay. And were you able to see and check if there was anything heavy from your vantage point looking at these videos?
He had his hands in his pocket.
>> And in your 25 years of experience, was that suspicious behavior?
>> Keep your hands in your pocket?
>> Yes, sir.
>> Nope.
>> When you went back and looked at the videos, we can agree based upon your testimony that Rick Chow was being very helpful in letting you see the videos.
>> He was.
>> And when he was talking to you about the videos, as we were watching them on the screens, he was asking Alice, "When did the shoplifting occur?" or something like that. Do you remember that >> vaguely?
>> Okay.
And so is it safe to say I'm sorry. And in watching the videos that we watched, most of the actions that happened inside of the store are Alice Chow, Andy Chow, and Cyrus.
>> That is correct.
>> And Rick Chow was in the back.
>> Yes.
>> And Rick Chow is the one who was showing you the videos.
>> He was. And then once the three of you, and I think it was you, Officer English, and Rick were looking at the videos, I think you had made the impression when he saw nothing was taken, he put his hands up or something like that.
>> He did >> genuine shock.
>> I don't know if it was genuine.
>> Did you think it wasn't?
>> I didn't know, did they? Did you indicated that in a report anything of that nature that I felt that he was faking or anything of that nature?
>> No.
>> And we had talked about when we do report writing that we want to make sure we have specifics. Would you agree with me there?
>> That's true.
>> And we don't want speculation.
>> Don't.
>> And we don't want to rely on our memory from 3 years ago.
>> Well, the video showed what it showed.
>> And what I'm asking you is the shock. Did you indicate anywhere in his report that he looked like he was faking? This was not genuine. He was making this up.
>> Well, I didn't say any of those words, but the video showed what he showed.
>> And when he talked to you, he had no lawyer with him.
>> He did not.
>> He didn't request a lawyer.
>> Not to my logical.
>> He just was talking to you and helping you and aiding you on what was going on.
>> That is correct.
And the conversations that were happened at the front of the store were between Rick, between Alice Chow and Andy Chow concerning the potential shoplifting.
Would you agree with me there?
>> That is true.
>> And none of the conversations were between Rick Chow and this young man.
>> Not that I'm aware of.
>> And not that we saw in any other video.
>> That is correct.
And officer, we've gone back and forth um and I understand how you feel about following someone out of the store. Um that this is not something you would advise anyone to do. Is that a fair statement?
>> Absolutely not.
>> And you would definitely not advise anyone to follow anyone, chase anyone for 130 yards. You agree that?
>> Absolutely not.
>> But you would also agree that that's not against the law.
>> It's because not against the law if you have to use common sense sometimes.
>> Correct. But we're not sitting here and saying following out of the store is against the law.
>> It is not. But once again, common sense has to be applied.
>> And in certain situations, we have, and you've been asked this question before, officers sometimes have to follow individuals. Would you agree with me there?
>> We do. And we're trained to do so. And we are uh once again trained to to do that. And that that's our job as law enforcement officers >> to to go into danger so that you as other citizens do not have to do so. And sometimes officers make mistakes.
>> We all make mistakes.
>> We all make mistakes.
>> Absolutely.
>> And we can only take the information that is presented to us as we are paying attention at that point in time. Is that fair?
Meaning the officer walks in a situation, he can just take the situation as he sees it.
>> Okay.
And in a situation, if and this question was asked to you before, if you are following someone and they turn and point a gun at you and or your partner, what would you do?
>> Tell them to drop it.
>> And if they did not, what are you trained to do?
>> Fire. Stop the threat.
>> Mr. Child has a concealed weapons permit.
>> He does.
>> And that was part of the investigation that you looked into, >> correct? And that is something that we also teach in the concealed weapons classes. Would you agree with me there?
>> What's that?
>> That the same thing that they teach you officers on how to be proper and how to assess threats and things of that nature.
>> Correct.
>> Have you had an opportunity to look at all of the interviews and everybody who's given an interview in this case?
>> I have.
>> Um, are you pleased with the way that other officers conducted and did their interviews?
We all do things differently. Um, but I have confidence in all my fellow co-workers and did it to the best of their ability.
>> To the best of their ability, >> but there's some things that could always be done different. Is that a fair statement?
>> Some things we all could do different.
All do better. You're human.
>> And when I started talking to you, the one of the things I was asking you about, Todd, is trying to Well, maybe I didn't ask this question while I ask him. When we try to get statements, do we try to get them as close to the incident time as possible?
>> We do >> almost always. That is one of the things that is paramount to being an officer. You try to get as close to the incident as possible.
>> Try to. Yes.
>> And I'm not trying to cut you off. Like, could you explain to the jury why do we want to get something so close?
Well, we want to um do it also, I guess, to um capture the the time um so that nothing is possibly forgotten um to help with the investigation.
>> And that is a great answer and a great question. We want to make sure nothing's forgotten.
>> Is that a yes?
>> Yes. I'm sorry. Yes.
>> I I apologize. Sometimes I do make statements instead of questions, but one of the questions we want to make sure witnesses do not forget.
>> That is correct.
>> We want to make sure that witnesses memories aren't merged with someone else's memories.
>> True. We want to make sure that social media and things of that nature don't influence an individual's memories.
>> That's correct.
>> And these are the things that we're taught at the criminal justice academy as well as the seminars and classes that you've attended. Is that a fair statement?
>> Yes.
>> And we try to make sure that when we interview witnesses, and I think we watch some of the body camera, we want to separate people. We don't want them interviewed together.
>> Correct.
>> I mean, that's one of the first things I tell you. Do not interview witnesses together.
>> Correct.
>> Why don't you want witnesses interviewed together? You want um each person's authentic statement and what they saw and not have them impact each other.
>> And as an investigator, as an officer, as a gentleman who's doing this a long time, you have seen situations when other statements influence other individuals when done incorrectly. Is that a fair statement?
>> I haven't.
>> You I know you've never done it, but have you ever seen a situation where someone's statement can be influenced by someone else's statement?
>> That I can recall. You do not believe that actually happens.
>> You ask me if I've seen it. Yeah. And I have not. I said I I don't I have I can't recall ever seen it.
>> Correct.
>> Have you seen a situation where an officer interviews two individuals at the same time?
>> I have not.
>> And we've watched all the body cams in this case.
>> Yes.
>> Would you agree with me sometimes some of the officers are actually talking to individuals as they're together getting statements at the same time?
>> In this case, >> yeah, >> I don't recall seeing that. But if that did happen, that would be a no no.
>> It would. It would be.
>> We talked Well, we haven't talked yet, but 911 calls are something that's also very important.
>> That is correct.
>> Because 911 calls, that's when we get the I use a legal phrase that all of us know, the excited utterance. That's when we get the person's true emotion when they're talking and what really happened. And that's as close to the incident as possible. A lot of times >> that can depend. And um sometimes people emotions and what they see can cause them to maybe uh how can I say it? Um maybe forget things that they they saw, but once they calm down and think about it all the time, they start to remember things. And so that's why we try to bring them back sometimes so they can get a more detailed statement.
>> But don't we worry about witnesses coming in and getting two, three different types of statements? Isn't that a concern that we have as office?
>> It is. Um, and you were in here. We worry about individuals giving different statements. We want things to be consistent. Is that fair?
>> That that is true.
>> And when we're talking to the jury, our goal is to try to present all facts to a jury so they can have everything so they can understand what happened on the scene so they're not taking our opinion.
>> To the best of our ability. Yes.
>> Did you interview either Rick or Andy?
And I don't know. I'm literally asking.
>> Andy, >> you did interview Andy Child.
>> Yes. Okay.
Thank you for There was a question asked of some witnesses and you may or may not be able to answer this, but since you are the investigator who knows the full file, there's a question asked that if anyone on scene was told that Cyrus pointed a gun at Andy Chow or if Andy or Rick Chow ever said that. Do you remember?
>> I don't recall. So, you do not remember if that was said?
>> I don't recall at that time.
>> That was such a bad question. It could have like six different answers. So, that's on me. You do not recall the question being asked of anybody or Well, first let's start there. Do you recall that question being asked?
>> I don't.
>> Okay. Um, to the best of your knowledge, did Ricky or Andy Chow on that night indicate that Cyrus had pointed a gun at Andy Child?
>> Objection.
>> That's fine.
You've heard the testimony of some of the witnesses who have testified. Were there as the case agent, was there ever any concerns about the veracity of any of the witnesses who had testified?
>> No.
Did any of the officers under your steward when we were looking at this case questioned any of the off any of the witnesses veracity?
Objection again to hear >> I promise you I'm almost done. I promise you I am. I think the courts have told you from Yes, sir.
and I very much appreciate your testimony. I know this is a difficult time, a difficult situation, and I don't want to take that from Brandon. Um, but just to make sure I go back and finish, Cyrus Felton went into the store with a firearm.
>> He did.
>> It was illegal for him to walk into the store with a firearm.
>> It was illegal.
>> Through the course of your investigation, you showed that he had possession of that firearm within 24 hours before going into that store.
>> Correct.
>> The firearm was equipped with the light that we see on the TV now. Yes.
>> Through your investigation, you found no money or payment ability for Cyrus to pay for anything in that store?
>> Did not.
>> The book bag you found had nothing inside of the book bag.
>> There's some papers in there, but essentially No.
>> Um, your testimony is there was nothing strange that you thought of going inside of that store with nothing in it.
Nothing in the book bag other than the gun. I'm sorry. Right on. You thought it was strange going into the store with a gun.
>> Correct.
>> Rick Chow immediately talked to you that evening.
>> Not. Um, he talked to, I guess, other people there, but then spoke to me at the store to show me the video. Yes.
>> No attorney.
>> No.
>> Um, he went down and showed you the video surveillance.
>> He did.
>> He comported with everything that you asked >> as far as the video. Yes. When you were watching the video, you had to watch it not one, not two, but three times. And on the third time, you had to blow it up.
>> You didn't have to, but >> he said that he could.
>> He said he could.
>> Yes.
>> And then when it was shown that it appeared as though this person may not have taken anything.
He said something that showed shock, but you're not sure if it was genuine or not.
>> The video speaks for itself.
And he was not in the store when the shoplifting occurred or the alleged shoplifting occurred.
>> Who?
>> Mr. Chow. He was in the back. I'm sorry.
He was not in the main area of the store. Is that a better question?
>> Yes.
>> Um Andy Chow and Alice appeared to be the one having conversations with Merman.
>> That is true.
>> Andy and Alice are not charged with anything.
>> No.
>> Um Andy Chow is the one who went out of the store first.
>> Yes. You conducted an interview with Andy and we can't get into that of course but you conducted the interview with Andrew.
>> I did >> on the scene.
>> No.
>> So he conducted an interview with him later.
>> Correct.
>> You're aware he gave several interviews on scene.
>> I learned that. Yes.
>> You learned that? Yes. Yes. Not later.
That he gave several interviews on scene >> and Rick Chow gave several interviews on scene and we saw a portion of one already.
>> I I learned that.
>> Yeah. But you saw we saw one of them at least one of them all there together.
>> And then finally, you have testified. We may disagree with it. We may not like it. But you would agree it is not against the law to follow and or chase somebody from leaving.
>> Not against the law, but once again use used and exercise common sense.
>> And you are not sitting here testifying even with any suggestion that you believe it is okay for a 14-year-old in Brooklyn County to have a gun with a bullet in the chamber.
>> It's not okay.
>> Thank you. I appreciate you so much.
Thank you, Tom.
>> Yes, sir. Anything I want to direct uh if you saw two grown men t chasing a child down the road, one armed, would you intervene?
>> I would.
>> Okay. Uh was Rick Child licensed law enforcement?
>> He was not.
>> Um 2023, were you licensed law enforcement?
>> I was.
>> In 25 years of being a licensed law enforcement officer, have you found yourself in dangerous situations before?
Yes.
>> How many times have you shot people?
>> Never.
>> Have there been times in these dangerous situations where you were um felt compelled to have restraint instead of pulling out a firearm and shooting somebody?
>> Yes. In 25 years of law enforcement in Richland County, you never aimed a gun at anybody and pulled the trigger.
>> I have not.
>> Let me ask you something. Investigator, Jordan, I'm still calling you investigator. That's what you are to me.
When Cyrus Carmarmac Bethl walked out of 7441 Parkland Road May 28th, 2023, was he walking or running?
>> Walking.
>> Was he combative with the chows or was he polite to them?
>> He's very polite.
>> Okay. Uh, in contrast, what were Rick Chow and his son Andy doing when they left the store?
>> Hastily running after him or hurrying out of the store to try to catch him.
>> They're hauling ass.
>> Yes.
>> What did Cyrus do when he saw two grown men running at him and screaming? You know, the video for itself and now we're uh editorializing.
a road.
>> On the other hand, when Cyrus turns the corner after he's walking, what does he do when grown men are running after him, screaming at him?
>> Fear to be scared, I didn't take off running.
>> Where again was Cyrus Carmarmac shot and killed?
>> On his body.
>> Where was his body found?
>> On spring on Spring Tree Drive. Do you know how far away >> over a football field?
>> You were asked a lot of questions and about what you find suspicious and what could have happened here and there.
Cyrus Carmarmac did not steal anything from that store.
>> He did not.
Had he been left alone to walk away, not been chased?
If everybody stayed in a store whose name was Chad, would this situation have occurred?
>> No.
>> Thank you.
>> Thank you.
The solicitor just asked you. Uh, I only really have one question.
He asked you in your 25 years, you have never had to pull your firearm.
>> The XBF had to shoot somebody.
>> The answer is no.
>> Never shot anybody.
>> Have you ever been in a position where somebody has pointed a firearm at a loved one while you were sitting there watching?
>> Actually had a firearm pulled on me on a loved one. No.
>> On a loved one. No.
>> No.
>> Different situation.
>> It is.
>> Thank you so much.
All right, you step down, sir. Thank you.
Call Dr. Do you swear? There testimony in this state the truth and truth to help you God.
>> I do.
>> Thank you. See you in the witness stand and statement for the record and please your last name. Sure.
>> Amy Derso. Duro.
>> Dr. Derso. Where are you employed?
>> Um I'm currently employed by the Medical University of South Carolina as a forensic pathologist.
>> What is forensic pathology?
>> So pathologists, forensic pathologists are medical doctors. We go through medical school and we go through pathology training, but we're specifically trained um to do autopsies.
So to look at bodies after death to determine the cause and manner of death and also we're educated about patterns of injuries um and different mechanisms of death.
>> Okay. You you perform autopsies on people who have passed away to determine cause and manner of death is what you testified to.
>> Yes. All right.
>> Approximately how many autopsies have you done?
>> Um, I'm up over 4,000.
>> And you are a medical doctor?
>> Yes, I have a medical degree.
>> And how many times do you think you've been qualified as an expert?
>> You know, I have no expert expertise.
Never.
>> All right. Um, I find that expert testimony is necessary to assist the jury in resolving facts questions. Dr. Verso is qualified in the area of forensic methodology. The methodology and testimony of reliable ladies and gentlemen same applies as what I told you earlier. Um Dr. Derso has been qualified as expert in the uh area of forensic pathology. You can um accept her testimony and opinion um and give it whatever way you deem necessary during your deliberation.
>> Mr. Scott, >> thank you. Dr. Derso, did you have occasion to perform an autopsy on uh Cyrus Carmarmac on May 29th of 2023?
>> Yes.
>> Okay.
Let me start with a couple questions.
Um, one of your notes show that Mr. Belton, what was his weight?
>> Um, Mr. Belton weighed 114 pounds.
>> Okay.
And it looks like he was about 5'6. Does that sound right?
>> Um I have him as 5'8, but >> 68 inches in your uh >> Yeah.
>> Okay.
Um 5'8 114 pounds.
>> Yes.
>> And his listed age >> is 14 years old.
>> Okay.
Um initially when when you examine a body, what what is the first thing you do? Um, so the coroner's office identifies the body, brings it out, um, and then we look at the outside of the body, and we notate everything. Um, eye color, hair color, scars, tattoos, any injuries, height, weight, um, post-mortem changes. Um, and after we complete that, we start opening the body and looking at all the internal organs.
>> Okay. Uh initially what were your your um observations uh before you began um dissection?
>> Um the most notable um finding was a gunshot wound entering his right back.
>> Okay. What about other superficial type wounds?
>> Um there was a partially healed injury on his right hand and there were some abrasions on his right lower leg.
>> I want to show you stage 77.
>> Does that accurately reflect any abrasions on the slab?
>> Yes.
>> Okay. And did these appear to be recent wounds?
>> Yes.
>> Okay. The location of the wound on his back. Say that one more time. It was on his kind of right back area just below kind of midback.
>> Okay. And that states 80. Does that fairly and accurately represent what you yourself uh witnessed?
>> Yes.
>> Okay.
I want to show you what's been introduced. State 79. You recognize that?
>> Yes. This is um a photo of one of the X-rays we took um before we started the autopsy. So before we do autopsies on gunshot wounds, we x-ray the body to make sure we know where the bullet is if there's a bullet in them to make sure we recover that so we can hand it over to law enforcement.
>> He's on his side.
>> Okay. I was about to say, so where his head would be to the right of the screen?
>> Yes, his head's to the right. His legs are to the left.
>> Okay. Yeah. And his I guess his buttocks would be at the bottom left corner there.
>> Correct. And he's kind of boosted up on a body block so he can shoot across the table.
>> And Okay.
>> What is this object right here that we're seeing 79?
>> That's the projectile we recovered from the body at autopsy.
>> Okay. And this is just another this is an angle different angle but this is stage eight here. Do you recognize that?
>> Yes. That's upside down but um this is um an X-ray going front to back of the body again showing where the projectile is located. So it's just left of midline as you can see.
>> 83 is not in the but we're all from states 83 for admission now.
>> No objection already states 83.
>> Okay. This is a little in stage 83. Again, this is what >> that's the projectile. And you can see the shadow of his heart just above that.
>> This is his heart.
>> Yes.
>> Okay. And correct me if I'm wrong, but his head would be This is basically looking at his head being up down.
>> I I even see I think an arm right here.
>> Yes.
>> Okay.
>> What were your general findings as far as any the uh bullet wound. Did it have an exit?
>> It did not exit. No.
>> Okay. Um let me show you. It hasn't been introduced yet, but do do you often or I guess rather probably all the time, do you draft something like that when you do an autopsy?
>> Yes. So, we have a stack of blank male, female, all sorts of diagrams that we take notes on when we do the autopsy.
Um, and then I kind of do my report based on some of the notes I take on there.
>> Okay. And this is not not scale, right?
Is it this is just kind of >> No, it's a generic mail diagram.
>> You want to state offer state 73 for mission?
>> No objection. Be states 73 without objection. Oh.
What were your general findings as far as the uh we already said didn't have an exit wound. Um but a bullet wound that was found in his back. You said it was his right lower back, >> right? So it's the right lower back. It was just under 2 in right of midline. Um 46 and 12 inches above the heel. Um it was a classic entrance wound. Um, so entrance wounds have a what we call an abrasion collar. So as the bullet enters the skin, it kind of rubs the edge of the skin and drags it for a split second on the way in. So that's a typical entrance wound um which this had. The other things we look for when we're um looking at um bullet wounds um in autopsy is we look for soot and stippling because that's going to kind of tell us if there's a clue as to how close the shooter was when they were shot. So, if there's soot like in the wound, that's usually a contact wound.
If there's soot more on the skin around the wound, um that means the gun was usually within 6 in. If there's sippling, which is actually the gunpowder that comes out of the end of the gun and has tiny little tiny little abrasions on the skin surrounding it, that's usually within around 18 to 24 inches. Um the exceptions to those are of course if it goes through like an intermediate object like a car door or a a wall of some kind. Um and also very thick clothing can block those things.
Um on this case um I did not see any sitter or stippling. So this is what I call indeterminate range meaning I don't know if it was 2 feet away or 20 feet away.
>> Okay. So no no no no indication of soding or settling. And then so after we track the bullet, it comes in, it goes through, it kind of hits the 11th rib.
So we have 12 ribs. So just above the bottom rib, um it hits um part of the rib and part of the T11 vertebrae. So the 11th vertebrae going down the thoracic vertebrae there. Um it then goes through the right lower lobe of the lung and then it goes through the right ventricle of the heart. So, this is the most deadly thing that happened is that it goes through his heart. That's not a survivable wound. Um, it then goes and it after it goes through the heart, it hits the inside of his rib cage. We're actually able to see when we remove the front of his rib cage, um, where the bullet impacted. Um, so it's actually a little higher up than where the bullets found. So the bullet because of the way it kind of mushroomed got caught on the paricardial sack which is the soft tissue sack that surrounds the heart. So kind of pulled it back down but it actually um impacted further up and to the left.
>> Would it have been immediately fatal or would you expect to see somebody live for some time period after this?
>> Um so it's not immediately fatal. Those are more and he would not lose consciousness immediately. Those are more with wounds to the head. So with a heart wound um maybe a minute or two he could have there's been reports of people being able to run um with the adrenaline in their system but not far.
Um they collapse pretty quickly because um the blood every heartbeat is the blood's coming out of their heart and not circulating.
>> What what is it that kills you?
the blood loss. So instead of the blood circulating in your vessels um and going to provide oxygen and energy to your cells such as your heart, brain, vital organs, the blood is accumulating in his chest.
>> Tell me about uh midline is his backbone is that >> yes. Uh, how far from midline, left or right, was the wound?
>> Um, the entrance wound was 1 and 3/4 in right of midline.
>> And as far as the trajectory, uh, was it I guess assume back to front?
There's one there's no exit and it's the holes in it back.
>> Correct. So, it's back to front. It was going a bit upwards and it's going just slightly right to left. So it goes from just right of midline to just left of midline.
>> Okay. Um >> let me uh of course permission Dr. Nurser to set down for a minute.
>> Sure.
Show me kind of on my back. Just use me as a model where would that entrance room be?
>> So if we go midback just underneath that just right of midline I would say approximately in this location here.
>> Okay.
>> You can figure show the jury.
>> Um I would say right around here.
It's an old shirt.
>> Okay.
>> You want me to draw on you?
>> Okay. Um, never drawn on an attorney before. Um, >> okay. And the trajectory was upward, you say?
>> Yes. Okay.
Show me with an X on the front of me.
Where would it be on? This side or this side?
>> It's going to be um on the right side.
>> Okay. And do you need any names or do you >> Turn around again?
>> Oh, the left side. Sorry. Okay. So, left and it's Can I feel the bottom of your sternum?
So it would be approximately hereish.
>> Okay. Now with this rod, stand at the side.
Show during my profile generally where that would be how that would look going into Mr. Carmarmac's body.
>> Say it like this if he was standing straight up.
>> Okay. Um, the problem is like my diagram, everyone's standing in anatomical position. No one is ever really standing in anatomical position when they get shot. So, >> I got one more. The judge, you've seen my toy gun. It's not a workable gun.
It's >> You've seen this, too, Dr. >> I have. Yes.
If you're in a shooter stance, if that was testified to. Okay.
>> Okay.
>> Stand with the jury or where they can see you. And I'm over here.
>> Do you want me to put this down?
>> Yes.
>> Would you expect to see that trajectory if you're in the shooter stance and you're behind me and I am upright?
Um, so a lot of times we get people if someone is behind you with a gun in general, someone's not going to stand there. A lot of times, um, we have upwards trajectories from people bending over.
>> Okay. The the victim bending over, you mean?
>> Yes.
>> Let's just for just for for argument sake, you're the shooter and you're in a standard uh gunman stance. I am upright.
Would you expect to see the trajectory that you observed on Mr. Bell?
>> No. So, either the shooter would have had to be below you shooting upwards or the victim would have had to be at an angle downwards or you would have been uphill. There's a few different variables, but generally not straight.
If we're on flat ground and I'm directly behind you, >> testimony is we're on flat ground.
>> Okay.
>> Okay. And you're standing upright in a shooter stance.
>> Got it. Would you expect this trajectory if I'm hunched over running?
>> Yes, that would make more sense.
>> Okay. Now, would you expect this trajectory if I was turned in any way like this?
>> Um, not from right behind you. No.
>> Okay.
But you would expect this trajectory.
Would it be consistent with somebody running away in a runner stance with their back directly towards you?
>> Yes. If I fired the weapon from here with you in that stance.
>> Okay.
>> Especially with you just twisted just a tiny bit, that would be consistent.
>> If I'm for some reason turning around aiming at you like I'm doing now, >> is it is it possible to have this trajectory?
>> No.
Thank you Dr. >> In your expert opinion, were you able to determine the cause of death?
>> Yes.
>> Okay. What was the cause of death?
>> Um the cause of death um was a gunshot wound to the torso. In your expert opinion, were you able to determine a manner of death?
>> Um, this is considered a homicide.
I think that's all the questions I have for you.
>> I promise it was sir.
>> Okay. I hope so. Sharpie, it will not wash out.
Thank you. Nothing perfect.
Dr. Dao, how are you?
>> Good. How are you?
>> I don't think we've ever met.
>> I have not met you before. No, >> I can just go through a couple of things. One, my name is Sean Kent. It's a pleasure to meet you.
>> Nice to meet you.
>> And under no circumstance are I going to let you draw on me.
>> I I'm good with that.
>> Okay. I can promise you that that might happen.
>> That's great.
>> Dr. Dr. Derso, I just want to go through some of your testimony to make sure that I understand that everything that you have said. And of course, I have no challenge to your expertise whatsoever.
And so, please don't take offense to any of my questions. And if I am wrong, feel free to correct me. Is that a fair statement?
>> Fair enough.
>> Um, and you do not have anyone to reward, anyone to punish. We consider you a neutral witness. Is that fair? You don't work for the solicitors.
>> Oh, correct. No, no. I'm I'm just here to explain the autopsy findings and what it means and that's it. I do not take sides.
>> And I'm definitely not going to disrespect or ask you how much you make or anything of that nature. That's completely improper. But you work for a living, correct? You work for the medical university of South Carolina.
>> Yes.
>> And how long have you been there?
>> Um, well, I've only worked directly under them for about a year now. Um, for 15 years before that, I worked for a private group of pathologists and they just bought our practice. So I'm doing the same job for 16 years with with MUSC for only a year now.
>> And doctor, as we talk about, you are a doctor. You are say correctly because that is a rude phrase but they want to make sure that they can look at it challenge it and see if it's done a consistent way.
>> Yes.
>> Is that a fair statement?
>> Yes. Um, and as a matter of fact, there are specific standards that are utilized in doing autopsies.
>> Yes.
>> And that comes from the forensic autopsy. Forensic autopsy performance standards.
>> Yes.
>> Are you familiar with those?
>> Yes.
>> And we utilize those to make sure that if somebody else is looking at the work that we've ever done that we can have a standard so not necessarily it can challenge so they can make sure.
>> Well, tell me why we have standards.
Tell me the point. just so we don't have people making stuff up and creating havoc.
>> And we want to endeavor to make sure that if we utilize and follow the standards at all times, that's when we know things are done exactly correctly.
>> Yes.
>> What happens when we don't follow standards?
>> Is that a problem?
>> I I'm not sure what you're getting at to be honest.
>> Question. Do you know I mean how about let's make this looking at the picture of the autopsy.
Do you believe that all standards were followed properly?
>> I believe I did.
>> Okay. When we're looking at the human body, I think you mentioned that we take it from the anatomical position.
>> Correct.
>> Um, we take the height of the individual.
>> Yes.
>> Because we want to be very specific.
>> Yes.
>> And then we measure where the wound is, the defect I think some call it, but wherever the wound is.
>> Yes.
>> We measure it exactly because we want to have very precise measurements.
>> Correct. And then in this situation, we are very specific that the wound path in this situation is back to front. And because we can tell that because we can tell the entry wound, >> correct?
>> And it's going front. Back to front. And it's going I think you mentioned right to left.
>> Yes.
>> And it's going slightly up.
>> Yes.
>> Now, first I want to deal with the word slightly. Um, in my research and looking and talking to other doctors, they have mentioned that that's generally not a word that we utilize when dealing with autopsy because we want specificity. Is that a fair statement?
>> I use it and so do my colleagues.
>> But with a word like slightly, that's not a question where we can get a specific what number that we are dealing with now.
>> I guess not. No.
>> Okay. And without having a specific using a word like slightly, slightly on a small human being could be different than slightly on a large human being.
>> Yes. And when we're dealing with standards and making sure we can make a point of what has happened, it makes it almost impossible for another doctor, another pathologist to look at our work and say, "What does slightly mean?"
Would you >> That's why we take photos.
>> And that's the next thing I wanted to get into. That's why we take photos.
>> Correct.
>> And when we take photographs in situations, we don't just take photos, we follow the standards to make sure it's done the exact same way. Correct.
>> Okay.
And you're familiar with the forensic autopsy standards.
Are you familiar with them?
>> Yes.
>> Okay. And are you aware that utilizing the forensic autopsy standards, there are specific things that we are supposed to do when we take pictures of injuries?
>> I'm not the one taking photographs, >> but you would agree with me. There's some specifics that we're supposed to have when deal with an autopsy. What are you saying we were missing?
>> I'm asking. Are you aware >> because I can see what >> And if it's done, please correct me if I'm wrong.
Okay.
>> Now, what are we supposed to do when we take pictures of injuries?
>> I don't understand what you're >> And it looks like I am completely on the wrong No. Yeah. In section E2, it talks about what happened when we have injuries.
>> Would you agree with me?
>> Yes.
>> Okay. And just generically, what are we supposed to do when we take pictures of injuries?
>> This isn't saying pictures. It's describing.
>> Okay. But what are we supposed to do?
>> It says, "Describe an injury by type, location, size, shape, pattern, and color."
>> Okay. And if we turn to page 15, >> that is where our industry standards talk about photographic documentation of injuries. Are you familiar with that section in the standards?
>> Yes.
>> And if we go to the forensic pathologist or representative SHA, there's E31 and E3.2.
What does E3.2 require us to do? It says photograph major injuries with a scale.
>> Do we do that in this situation?
>> The sheriff's department or police department is the one that does that.
And typically they do. I do not supervise them directly.
>> Do we have a picture of any of the injuries with the scales?
>> There should be some.
>> We haven't testified or seen any of that yet.
>> Mr. Mr. Kent going down a road you might not want to go.
Now wait for >> Yeah.
Thank you so much.
>> And doctor, I think I understand what you were saying that you did not take the pictures, these pictures that we have.
>> Correct.
>> And if you would have taken the pictures, you would have had a scale next to the pictures as required by the industry standards.
>> Right. So the sheriff's department always uses a scale. Oh, I guarantee you.
>> Sorry.
>> Let's ladies and gentlemen, we're going to take a short break. I'll be right back with you. I promise.
>> Don't discuss the case.
I'm trying to calm down.
It's been turned over.
>> We have what? No one is saying anything not turned over. No one was accusing anyone of any type of I don't want to use the word discovery violation, but it has been handled. We've addressed it. I know how to address it with this witness. She didn't do it anyway. So, it was fine. My question was going to stop because she didn't put it on there. The sheriff's office would have done it.
come through this with me.
>> She's exactly right. She didn't do it.
And that's where we're going to stop anyway inquiry. She put the picture in there.
>> No, they have some No, they have some >> Can we approach?
>> Yeah. I'm a little concerned.
um that is standard practice and what she testified to is I don't take pictures the sheriff's department corner's office do and she's asking that should have been done has it been done it has been done it's been turned over and we've called out all these pictures because I thought we were all in agreement that couple pictures of his leg and two pictures we were limited to two pictures of his fatal wound, which we agreed to, and now we're kind of being punished for that. So, I mean, it's a little I don't there's no attempt to punish at all. I'm still in the middle of the direct this witness. If there's not and they have a right to recross and if it's not handled properly, I think the court can address it.
>> Okay. We just need to print up this picture and introduce it.
>> She didn't take it anyway.
It doesn't exist though. We don't >> It's just I don't like the >> Why don't we let finishes cross examination see where that goes if it is rectified during the cross examination we'll be fine if not maybe we will discuss something something curative for me.
Yeah. And I think she did a good job of correcting it right there. And I think that's where we were going, but I'll make it up a little more.
>> She's smarter than me.
>> In there, so I think we're fine.
>> You told me I could correct you.
>> And you corrected the heck out of me. So I think that's where we're going.
>> It's court.
Just for the record, John, all of this information was turned over to current council, at least portion of current council on what they January 30th, 2025. They do have that.
>> All right, let's give the jury about five more minutes.
the restroom and stuff like that.
The opportunity to do that real quick.
Go ahead.
Can you take this one?
>> Okay. Thank you.
Let's go.
You don't think I do?
You can check on >> You are not writing me.
>> I feel very comfortable. You'll never also hear me say it's no shirt.
I don't know.
All right, Mr. Br, please. Sir, >> quick moment. Do we need to do a curative to show that this information was sent to the defense January 30th, 2025?
>> Let's see how the cross goes.
>> Yes, sir. Thank you.
Okay.
>> Yes. In the morning.
You're the president.
>> Go ahead, Mr. >> Thank you so much. And Dr. Dura, I want to make sure I understand completely and I think as we've talked about, if I say something incorrect, you have every right to correct me. But I want to make sure I'm clear. You don't take the pictures. And I think that's where my confusion was. You don't take pictures, >> right? I don't take the photos. I'm honestly gloved up in full PPE the whole time. So, um, the coroner's office has a representative that takes photos. And in this case, I believe it was the sheriff's department sent one of their crime scene investigators to take photos, and they typically they always take pictures with and without scale of the wounds. And you understand why that was a concern of a question that I had to make sure who actually took the pictures and that's why I'm glad you can explain that.
>> Right. I'm happy to correct you.
>> No problem. And I want to give you a chance to make sure to clarify. Is there anything wrong with someone different taking the pictures other than you? That way you can clarify to the jury cuz I >> No, there's no problem. And typic that's very typical because I've worked in medical examiner's offices in North Carolina during training and it's always someone else that's usually taking the photo. It's very infrequent in my experience that the actual pathologist has the camera because once again we're in full gear um doing the work and that way we can just call someone over and say take a picture of this >> and to make sure so I don't look like I just tried to beat you up with a bunch of papers. I asked you the question about those forensic standards you can understand it says something different.
Do you want to explain why that's not at issue in this because of course I read the forensic standards to the court.
>> Right. So, it actually says the forensic pathologist or pathologist in training shall and it literally says um photograph injuries. Um so, it literally does say that which I I think that's something probably name should correct because I don't know any forensic pathologists that take the photos.
>> So, you can understand where my confusion comes from that it says that you should and I'm not blaming you, not blaming the solicitor's office, but you understand when I read the standards it says that you should, but you're like nobody does that. Correct.
>> Okay.
>> I want to talk about and again if I use words or say things incorrectly, please talk to me because one of the things we have to figure out is the laterality of the bullet as it enters into the body.
That's something important. Would you?
>> Yes.
>> Do you have a copy of your report in front of you?
>> I do.
>> Is that something that we measured to figure out inside the body? The laterality of the movement of the bullet when it went inside of the body.
>> Um, so there's no exit wound. So, typically there's an exit wound that's pretty easy to measure, but you know, it's inside the body. Um, so I described it. We took lots of photos and I actually put a trajectory throd through his body to show the trajectory. Um, that's our standard of what we do.
>> And you understand why I asked the question because that could be something important, the laterality, the bullet going into the body, especially as we're talking about a right to left path.
>> Correct. And that's why I described where it was located and why I put the trajectory rod through the body. But of course, the body at that point has been opened because again, it's not a through and through. So, it's not a picture that most people would be okay seeing.
>> Yes, ma'am. And of course that's one of the questions that when I brought up at the beginning utilizing I want to make sure I say this correctly utilizing words like slightly when we then talk about we don't have a measurement of the laterality of how the bullet moves in the body. That would be something we'd have trouble determining how right to left something is actually moving. Do you understand why I had that concern?
>> Yeah. And that's why we have the pictures with the trajectory rods and all of the descriptors.
>> And how are the pictures of those trajectory rods? Are they taken from the angles or are they just taken straight on?
>> They're supposed to walk around the body and take them from multiple angles.
>> And if it's not, then is that an issue?
>> It's not ideal.
>> Okay, just ask me. Well, is it not ideal because we can't tell how right to left something is >> Well, I know how right to left, but for someone reviewing, like you said, I just like to be thorough.
the solicitor was asking you questions again about the right to left um movement of the path. Now, when I was doing my studies, it says something and again, this is where you correct me because you're smarter than me. When a bullet is moving like 3 to 4 in almost equates to like 30 to 40% uh turn to the torso. Do you understand what I'm saying? When the bullet inside of the body, you look like you know where I'm going, so I'll let you explain. Um there's all sorts of theories about measuring angles and degrees, but the problem is there's so many variables, right?
>> And so, you know, is the body twisted or is the person just standing to the right of them? There's a lot of different variables. So, there's not, you know, unless you were physically there at the scene.
>> And that's and I'm glad >> and know exactly where everyone is standing, it's hard. I can tell you whether something's consistent with the pattern and the angle, but I can't say, well, this person had to be standing here because I don't know exactly what angle even the victim's body was at.
Nobody can unless you were there.
>> And that's why going back while we talk about we do the body in an anatomical position and then you just talk about possibilities and not possibility. And the sad part is a lot of things are possible.
>> Correct. And so when we say this is imp it's it's almost rare to say something's impossible because we don't know because you're not there.
>> Correct. I can say if it's consistent or not. Clearly he was not shot from the front. He was shot from the back. So there are certain things we can say.
>> And when we talk about the slightly right to left there's a a degree solicitor said he couldn't have done that which we understand but there can be a slight turn. Correct.
>> Correct.
>> Like there can be a slight turn this much.
>> True.
>> Okay. If the shooter's directly behind, >> if the shooter's directly behind and let's so we're going to do that thing, but you are not going to draw on.
>> I'm good at it now.
>> Would you come up here and show me again because I want to make sure I understand. I'm going to have you come on down again.
And just so you don't take the chance, I'm going to take Kenny Rogers if he'll come over here and utilize him.
So what I want to talk about so if we turn the body this way and this is where we're going to be this individual.
>> Okay.
>> This is going to be the individual who had passed.
>> Okay.
>> Okay. Now the solicitor asked you if this was possible and you said no.
>> Correct.
>> But this is possible.
Um, slightly. Yes.
>> So, that's possible.
>> Yes.
>> So, a human could be turning this way and that's possible.
>> Yes. Slightly to the right. Maybe not quite that much.
>> I mean, that's assuming like if I'm to the right of you, that changes, but directly behind.
It goes just right to just left. Okay.
Say more than about there.
>> If I'm directly, >> if you're directly behind.
>> Yes.
>> So, that's awesome.
>> Yes.
>> Okay.
Thank you so much.
>> Yeah, you can go back. I see you didn't get to draw on me and they've introduced X-rays. Again, I'm not brilliant. We One of the things that we always have to make sure of is the X-rays and so forth just shows where the bullet comes to rest. It doesn't feel like the bullet is trampoline or anything like that when it's in the human body.
>> Right. And um because of that impact on the inside of his rib cage, I could tell that it didn't come to rest exactly at the direct angle cuz you know bullets don't turn. You know, they go straight.
Um and then it got again snagged on the soft tissue around the heart and it kind of yanked it back down.
>> And so I think the phrase I use a bullet can trampoline back. Is that a proper phrase that I just used?
>> That's a word. Yep, you can use that.
>> Look at me looking words. Look like I have no stuff. Um, >> and again, I first want to apologize completely if I have misconstrued anything you have testified to and I have not challenged your expertise whatsoever.
>> Please apologize if it seems like I have done anything to do that. Have I given you opportunity to answer all the questions that I have?
>> Yes. Um, and do you feel as though you've gotten perfect opportunity to respond properly to everything that I have asked?
>> Yes.
>> Um, have you given opportunity to see?
>> You don't believe that I've tried to trick you in any way whatsoever?
>> No.
>> And you would agree with your testimony that we've talked about. There are different possibilities that could have happened and you are not there.
>> Absolutely. And one of the things the solicitor talked to you about if the two individuals are on flat ground that takes a situation that you don't know.
>> Correct?
>> Because you're not there.
>> Correct.
>> And so if somebody's on a flat ground or raised ground or something like that, all of that changes our equations.
>> Correct. There's several variables as long as that angle stays true, but you can stay the shooter, the shooty, and everyone else around. So, and so the best way to do it is take the science that you have offered and put it with witnesses, evidence, and so forth and let them decide what >> Thank you so much. I appreciate your time.
>> Oh, I've been told I don't I've been told I have another question.
>> Okay.
So apparently I am done. I apologize.
Thank you so much for your time. I appreciate you being here.
>> Thank you for being here. Good to see you again.
>> All right, ladies and gentlemen.
Ladies and gentlemen, we're going to adjourn for the day. Um, same rules apply. Don't discuss the case with anyone or amongst yourselves. Don't do any research or anything like that overnight. And we will get started tomorrow morning at 9:30. Y'all have a good evening.
Stop just a second. Any more witnesses from the state?
>> Not for today.
>> Oh, so you're okay. Sorry about that.
Vidéos Similaires
Trump Impeachment STORM IGNITES as 29 Judges Vote for Conviction!!
DanielBriefDaily
2K views•2026-06-02
सुप्रीम कोर्ट में 5 जजों का शपथग्रहण समारोह #supremecourt #judges #oathceremony #shorts #ytshorts
Bharat24Liv
4K views•2026-06-02
THE STREISAND EFFECT AT BARBARA STREISAND’S HOUSE! - First Amendment Audit
KULTNEWS
1K views•2026-05-30
Jury seated in the Frisco Track Meet stabbing trial — opening statements set for tomorrow
Wfaa8
343 views•2026-06-03
Monkton family worries husband who murdered wife could inherit all of her assets
WMAR2news
152 views•2026-06-02
ترمب وأسواق المال الأميركية.. كيف أنعش "رأسمالية المطلعين"؟ - شرق غرب
AsharqBusiness
282 views•2026-06-04
They Dismissed Every Black Juror in the Karmelo Anthony Trial — Every Single One
Tim_Black
406 views•2026-06-04
How a Court Clerk Broke the Murdaugh Verdict: How Becky Hill Primed the Jury
GuiltyWords
192 views•2026-05-30
