This trial started November 24, 2003 and is
ongoing.
February 17, 2004
by
hbm
When I arrive
today, there are 7 spectators present. This is the most I
can recall seeing. All are young- I would say between 16 and 20
years old. They're taking notes. Are they from a high school
class? I later decide there must be some sort of school project
going, perhaps career related, since the
young people
are frequently with what appears to be a parental counterpart.
(Seriously. Some of these people really looked alike.
But I could be wrong).
It’s the morning,
and Roger Davidheiser is questioning Jeff Gomes about the
investigation of the case. They are in the process of further
clarifying and refining testimony he gave previously. In
response to questioning, Gomes says he made many trips to Canada
during the extradition talks, & several between July 1994 and
January ‘95. I believe I hear the term Mutual Relocation Assistance
Program (it’s somewhat hard to hear, because I’m sitting farther
back than usual, part of my attempt to not cause a ruckus with my
mid-morning arrival). This refers to the “program,” arranged and
agreed upon, whereby the Canadian Royal Mounted Police (CRMP) and
the Bellevue Police Department would coordinate their efforts
on both sides
of the border in hopes of successfully “reining in” Sebastian Burns
and Atif Rafay.
The
program was formalized in a January 11th, 1995 meeting between both entities.
Gomes' testimony
is providing the jury with greater detail about the course of
events, and methods used, during the investigation, with respect to
pinpointing Burns and Rafay's whereabouts, permits to obtain DNA
evidence, communicating with customs officials regarding the
potential and actual border crossing of the two defendants, and so
on. Gomes now is explaining that the
Bellevue police were NOT successful in obtaining DNA samples of
Burns & Rafay before Canadian police became involved in January of
1995. He goes on to explain typical methods available to US police
to obtain DNA: voluntary, court ordered/search warrant (which was
obtained in this case), etc. Gomes further clarifies the
events prior to Atif and Sebastian's arrest. These include a
road trip (with a stop at Mt. Rushmore) for AR and SB, Gomes' work
to obtain an affidavit allowing the collection of DNA samples,
coordination efforts with the customs officers, who were on the
look-out for the early-90's Ford Mustang they were driving on their
road trip, and probably a few other sundries I can't quite hear or
write down fast enough.
Everyone appears to be in (what I
would characterize) as "full battle mode" today. The mood in
the room is intense. The answers are as intense as the
questions- Gomes seems edgy and on guard (fearful, perhaps, of words
that could be mis-spoken). The attorneys are vigilant and
prepared. During Roger's questioning, Song objects several
times: each time she believes the witness is wandering away from the
question, or when the question will result in hear-say. Judge Mertel
sustains some of these objections, but not most- several times
testimony is allowed to continue with a yes or no answer.
More spectators
come in: an older man & a young, semi-rotund woman. Another
possible father-daughter duo, working on the mystery school project?
(If you know whether there is a high school project going on, or
something along those lines, and you wish to share it with me so I
can quit speculating,
please email me.)
Roger's
questioning continues. I learn that a Detective Fontaine, W
Vancouver PD, checked license information on AR and SB so that
border patrol could look out for the mustang convertible they were
driving: narrowed it to 2 to look out for.
Davidheiser
finishes, and it is Song Richardson's turn. Mertel tells everyone
to stand & stretch, which the jury gladly does.
Song starts off,
keeping with the full battle mode vibe of the day. She brings
up a meeting amongst the prosecutors, possibly investigators, and
(what sounds to me to be the names of) some top Seattle area
lawyers, which Gomes denies having attended. Song seems
surprised at his denial, but proceeds to the next topic: the issue
of contact information left by Sebastian Burns before his move back
to Canada. Gomes does not appear quite as cooperative with
Song as with Roger. He borders on defensive and indignant,
keeping the tension of the testimony high. Song says that SB left
contact info with the Bellevue Police Department for him in Canada,
in case he went back. Song asks if Detective Gomes said SB did not
give him this information. This is a point of clarification,
to which Gomes responds "No he did not leave it with me."
Song found it necessary to clarify this, because Sebastian did in
fact leave information for the BPD to contact him in Canada (she
brings out a form he filled out, to prove it), and Gomes' previous
testimony could have been misleading to the jury, as it might be
taken to mean that Sebastian didn't leave contact information at
all. To illustrate that Gomes knew about the contact
information, Song read portions of Gomes' previous testimony until
he agreed that his previous testimony had been inaccurate.
This is a significant clarification, as it could have unfairly cast
Burns in a negative, and highly suspect light, if the jury were left
to assume that Burns had not left contact information in an attempt
to prevent police from finding him in Canada.
Song also wishes
to clarify a testimony of Gomes' trip to Canada to research SB and
AR's criminal history. She is sure to state clearly that the two
defendants have no criminal history. Gomes also tried to "research"
AR and SB's friends, to question them, but apparently couldn't
locate any. Song brings into question whether he just didn't
bother asking for their friends' contact information, which she
suggests might gladly have been given had he asked.
Song is a complete dynamo today.
Gomes
had said in
past testimony that he was surprised AR could remember a CD player
missing from his room. He also had testified earlier that he felt
SB was being evasive (as though he "feared being to specific") when
asked about whether or not the television in the Rafay home was on
when they came into the house. Song attempts to demonstrate
the innocent nature of AR's "good memory" and SB's strange responses
about the television by reading transcripts of the interview between
Gomes and each of the individual defendants. According to
Song's interpretation of the transcripts, they suggest that AR
wasn't so overly concerned with the CD player that he actively
noticed it was gone, but rather, he didn't recall seeing it.
Also, Burns' response to the question of whether the television was
on in the Rafay home suggests (in Song's rendition) more that he was
simply unsure, not aloof. He was trying to be clear
that it wasn't something he knew for a fact, but rather something he
had a general impression in his memory of entering the house.
Song finishes, and Judge Mertel
adjourns for lunch. He talks lightly about the court room
temperature. It seems a perfectly normal temperature to me,
but others are apparently chilly. I wonder if the mild chatter
is an attempt to elevate the mood, make everyone loosen up a bit
(perhaps the jury is at risk for burning out otherwise?). I
have a chance to speak with Veronica and Marc briefly, and formally
introduce myself, before departing.
I notice at one point in the
morning that, bizarrely, all the spectators are women. When I
leave, there are quite a few spectators present- would I be
flattering myself to think Trial Diary played a part?
|
