IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
SOUTH BEND DIVISION

CHRISTOPHER PARISH, KYLUP PARISH,
KHADIJAH PARISH, CHRISTOPHER
PARISH, JR., LETICIA GARY and

GLORIA PARISH,

Plaintiffs,
Case No.

CITY OF ELKHART, STEVE REZUTKO,
STEVE AMBROSE, TOM CUTLER, and
JOHN DOES 1?12,

Defendants.








?vs- 








The DepoSition of STEPHEN R. REZUTKO

Date} Wednesday, March 26, 2008
Time: 11:08 a.m.
Place: Midwest Reporting, Inc.

1448 Lincolnway East
South Bend, Indiana 46613

Called as a witness by the Plaintiffs in accordance with the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Rules of the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana,
South Bend Division, pursuant to Notice.

Before Jeanne R. Drust, AAS
Notary Public, Elkhart County, Indiana

MIDWEST REPORTING, INC.
1448 Lincolnway East
South Bend, Indiana 46613
(574) 288?4242

 

 

 

 

 

APPEARANCES:

MR. JON LOEVY
Loevy Loevy
312 North May Street
Suite 100
Chicago, Illinois 60607

For the Plaintiffs;

MS. LYNN E. KALAMAROS
Hunt Suedhoff Kalamaros LLP
Post Office Box 4156
120 West LaSalle Avenue
Twelfth Floor
South Bend, Indiana 46634?4156

For the Defendants.

 

 

 

I 

THE DEPOSITION OF
STEPHEN R. REZUTKO

DIRECT EXAMINATION
By Mr. Loevy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..Page 4

I I 

 

NO. DESCRIPTION PAGE
1 Letter to Ms. Horn from Ms. 116
Kalamaros with Police and Medical Reports
2 Composite Drawing of Suspect #2 126
3 10w29~96 Statement of Eddie Lashawn Love 127
4 1?8?97 Statement of Eddie L. Love 133
5 10?29?96 Statement of Jason G. Ackley 140
6 10?29-96 Statement of Jennifer.A. Dolph 140
7 10?30?96 Statement of Nona V. Canell 145
8 1?29w97 Statement of Nona v. Canell 158
9 1?29?97 Statement of Michael Kershner 160
10 1?30?97 Supplementary Report on Offense of 166
Attempted Murder/Robbery by Det. Rezutko
11 Three Documents Containing Photo Spread 173
12 2?10~97 Statement of Debery Coleman 176
13 Elkhart City Police Department Tech. Report 179

Of Ptlm. M. DeJong

14 Handwritten Notes 181

 

 

 

 

 

 

STEPHEN R. REZUTKO,
called as a witness by the Plaintiffs, having been first duly
sworn, was examined and testified as follows:
DIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MR. LOEVY:
Sir, could you state and spell your name for the record,

please?

A. My name is Stephen Rezutko, Stephen with a p?h, Rezutko,

R?e?z?u?t~kmo.

What do you do for a living, sir?

.A I am a corrections officer with the St. Joe County

Sheriff's Department.
MR. LOEVY: And I guess before we go further,
I should ask your attorney, yesterday we made an
agreement on the record that I wasn't going to do
discovery into personal information, and that there
wasn't going to be personal information in the
trial. Should we have the same agreement with this
witness?
MS. KALAMAROS: That would be fine.

MR. LOEVY: All right. That would be fine to
both sides then.

BY MR. LOEVY:

And I don't want to ask you questions about your family

When did you

or your present employment. Let's back up.

 

 

 

 

join the Elkhart Police Department?

January 1, 1969.

How old were you then, sir?

How old was I then?

Yes.

Twenty?seven.

What had you done before then?

Worked in mobile home industry.

Did you attend college?

No. Well, part?time after -- after I was on the police
department, but not prior.

What year did you graduate high school?

1959.

And after that what did you do?

I was in the Army.

How many years?

It was three years.

And after that?

Just worked in the mobile home industry till I went on
the police department.

What was your you know, what did you do in the mobile
home industry?

Mostly framing, shelling coaches. I was a group leader
of the side wall department for a couple years.

So building them?

 

 

 

 

Pardon?

Building them, maybe?

Yes.

How many years did you do that?

Let me see.

I was at Nickles Bakery for a while, for a

couple of years after I got out of the service. I'm

sorry, I forgot.

after that.

That was probably four or five years

And did you apply to any police departments besides

Elkhart?

No.

Why just Elkhart?

I don't know. Never thought about it.
department I applied at.
department at that time. I had friends on
department, and I just applied there.

Did you attend the police academy?

We had no formal academy.

When did that get instituted, do you know?
I want to say I want to say 1970, '71.
went on, you had to attend an academy that

training sessions that were put on by your

department or area academies.

The only

They were expanding the police

the police

I think when I
could or

local

We had I can?t remember

how many weeks of classroom training that was sponsored

by the police department, or put together by the police

 

 



 

 

 

department.

Was that do you know approximately how many weeks?

No.

Was it more than a month?.

Yes.

And what year did you start?

'69, January.

And can you walk me through your career progression then
in terms of ranks and such?

I worked uniform division for 15 years. One year I was a
sergeant on the midnight shift. Politics changed, jobs
changed, and I went back to being a patrolman. Then
after 15 years, I went into the detective bureau.

What year was the detective bureau?

I don't know.

Approximately.

I guess when I had 15 years to 1969, what was that?
Midw'BOs.

That would be about right, I guess.

What were your duties when you were in the uniform
division?

Just routine patrol.

What year did you make sergeant?

In that area.

I?d have to say somewhere around '74, '75.

And did you like lose the rank of sergeant?

 

 

 

 

 

Yeah. The politics changed.

What were the circumstances?

And at that time ?u nothing. It was an election. A new
mayor appoints a new chief, who appoints a new captain,
who appoints the new lieutenants, who appoint the
sergeants. 

Was there any union objection to that?

There was no union at the time.

Are the sergeants unionized now?

Well, the statutes changed after that to the point where
you could only change the top three command positions
within the police department, and everybody else you had
to leave alone.

Who was the new mayor who changed the chief? Do you
remember the name?

Dan Hayes I believe was the mayor.

And who was the chief who took you away from being a
sergeant?

Oh, it wasn't the chief. It was my uniform captain, Burt
Tuttle, who had the option of keeping or replacing
people.

So you were a sergeant for one year?

Yes.

And you haven't been a sergeant since?

NO.

 

 

 

 

 

When you went to the detective bureau in the mid?'BOS,
did you receive any specialized training?

NO.

How did you know how to be a detective?

OJT.

What does that mean?

On?the-job training. Learn from the others.
Anybody in particular mentor you?

No.

Fast?forwarding to the '905 when the Kershner shooting
happened, were you a detective continuously from the time
you joined in the mid?'BOS through the Kershner shooting?
Yes.

Did your rank at all change?

No.

Approximately how many shootings were you investigating
in a given year in the mid?'90s?

I don't believe I was investigating very many at that
time.

What would that be? More than ten or anything in that 
I don't know.

Well, let's see if we can get some kind of range on it.
We're talking about mid?'QOS, a whole year's worth.

I if I said ten, I don't know at that time.

That would be just an estimate?

 

 

 

 

 

Maybe, yeah. I don't know.

All right. Were there some years where you had as few as
zero?

Well, early in the bureau, I didn't work people crime at
all. I didn't work shootings. There was other
detectives working shootings.

When did you graduate to the point where you were working
shootings?

I'd have to u? I?d have to say right around that Kershner
era, at the time of that Kershner shooting.

Which was what year?

Our department, our bureau worked people crime, worked
homicide, people crime, burglaries. And for the most
part, I worked I was working burglaries, I believe, at
that time.

So what year was the Kershner shooting?

I don't know.

About '97? That sound right? Does that sound right,
sir?

I 

Actually '96. November or October '96, does that sound
right?

If you got it written there, that's when it was. I have
no recollection of the date.

.All right. Well, in that time frame then, had you just

 

 

 

 

started investigating shootings?

I don't remember any before it, but I don't remember.
80 this might have been your first shooting?

Very well could be.

By the time you left Elkhart, were you doing more
shootings?

Yes. I was working homicide at that time.

What year did you start working on homicides?

Well, you always assisted at some point when you start
working people crime primarily. We never had a homicide
division then, so several people might have been working
them probably the last three, four years I was working
homicides.

And how are you defining people crimes?

Well, shootings, stabbings, clubbings, involved injury
during a robbery or whatever.

So before in the period before the Kershner shooting,
it was more burglaries, you said?

Yes.

What other kinds of crimes?

At what when? Before that, or during that?

Before the Kershner shooting.

Well, you work your way through probably thefts before
that.

And before that would be misdemeanor batteries,

minor thefts, accidents, that sort of thing.

 

 

 

 

 

Did you know Chris Parish before the Kershner shooting?
No.

You never heard the name?

I don't believe I ever saw him or heard of him before

that accident.

All right. Tell me more about what you were doing in the
mid to early '903. You said you listed the crimes
there. Were you -- you were working full?time during
that time?

Yes.

Were you out there meeting people in the community during
that time?

Out there doing what with the people?

Meeting people in the 

Meeting, I don't know. Meet people in the course of your
investigations.

That was part of your job?

Not specifically to meet people. My job was to
investigate crime. And during the investigations, of
course you meet some people.

Did you ever have any investigations in the mid?'90s that
involved gangs?

Not specifically. No.

Did you have some investigations in the mid?'90s where

gangs were involved at all?

 

 

 

 

 

Well, maybe gang members. Not I don't recall anything
specifically to do with I was looking for gang members
specifically.

But sometimes the witnesses in your cases would be gang
members?

Yes.

How about drugs? Did you have any involvement in crimes
involving drugs?
Probably 80 percent of the cases we worked involved drugs
at some level.

And this was in the mid-'90s we're talking about?

Yes.

Tell me more about that, please.

Just usually the crimes crimes were being committed to
obtain money for drugs, or to keep someone from selling
drugs in their area. That -- just those kinds of things.
What kind of drugs were prevalent in the mid~'903?
Crack cocaine.

Was there when did meth start becoming common?

After I was gone.

So there was no meth when you were there?

I don't know about no, but it was crack cocaine was the
hot drug on the street.

Much more so than regular cocaine?

Yes.

 

 

 

 

And you thought about 80 percent of the -- the crimes
involving persons had a drug tie?in?

Had -- yes. Some 
That's just a rough estimate, obviously.

Very rough. But it was people using, or wanting to use,
or selling, or dealing, 

How many cases would you be investigating in the mid?'QOs
on your caseload there?

Off the top of my head, I?d say we'd maintain 25 to 30
cases.

Which would be active at any one time?

Were all active at some point.-

And obviously, sometimes more, sometimes less?

Yes.

How many of those would be homicides? Well, I guess
none.

Right.

At that time period. Can you tell me again when you
started doing homicides?

Well, I left there in '01, so I'm guessing somewhere
around '97.

And did your status change between the Kershner
investigation and the time you left in '01? Any other

changes in rank or anything?

No.

 

 

 

 

 

And why did you leave in '01?

Been there 33 almost 33 years. A lot of changes going
on at that time. I had worked several homicides that
were particularly emotional. Had problems between myself
and the prosecutor's office, and the prosecution of those
cases, and I just decided I was working for quarter pay.
It was time to go.

Any other reasons?

I was called into the chief?s office, and they said there
had been an investigation by a complaint filed by
somebody I have no idea who, they wouldn't tell me 
of improper activity with actually, they had a whole
several names of people they had spoken to.

Witnesses or policemen?

No, people in the community. And rather than go through
the rather than go through the defense of that, I just
decided time to go.

What was the accusation?

Well, there were several allegations that was of
course, all had to do with sex, innuendo. Be quite frank
with youcan't tell you specifically
because I don't remember specifically. But it was just
an investigation at that point, and was tired and didn't
want to I didn't want to put up with defending it,

because once they go public, they're hard to no matter

 

 



 

 

what happens to you, they're hard to defend to your
friends, and family, and general public, so 

But getting back to the question, which was what exactly
were you accused of, what do you recall being accused of?
What did I just tell you?

Sex?

Not having particularly had sex with anyone. It was just
innuendo, and there were several people they had talked
to.

Well, were you accused of asking people that you
shouldn't have asked, or w- I mean, you got to tell me
the answer.

I'm sorry?

I'm here trying to get the answer.

I know you are. I'm trying to give it to you.
All right.

And I think I've done about as good as I can do, because
there was no specific allegation. Did I have sex with
her, did I want sex with her, or did I ask for sex from
this one, I?ve never that wasn't the case. It was
just they had been talking to people, and I always
thought the investigation was really based on the
complaint out of the prosecutor's office more. It was

nobody that walked in off the street complained about it.

It was just something that may have come out of the Drug

 

 

 

 

 

Task Force or the prosecutor's office. There was no
specific allegation that I had done something with this
person or that person. It was just talk on the street
was this, and talk on the street was that.
Well, what was the talk on the street?

That I was having sex, or wanting to have sex.
Well, which? Wanting to or 
Maybe both. I don't remember specifically.

Well, that's you know, the answer I guess is either
you don't recall we

I don't recall.

All right. So you don't recall if you were accused of
having sex with somebody or wanting to have sex with
somebody?

Now, I told you what I said. I told you I was accused,
said that I was wanting to have sex, or asking for it, or
something, but there was no Specific allegation. No
specific allegation that I had sex with anyone.

Did you 

It was just general stuff, so that's what I remember.

Did you know the person that you were accused of the
innuendos with?

Well, yeah, you know the names. I don't know if I know

them, but I the names of people you deal with on the

street in the course of your investigation.

 

 



 

 

 

Was there anything improper about you wanting to have sex
with the person that you were being accused of? For
example, was it a witness in a case, or someone who was a
suspect?

I don't know if there was a specific rule or regulation
against it on the department, 

I mean, police officers are allowed to have sex, so
that's 

I'm just telling you but in the course of your
investigations, you're not supposed to have 

So it was something 

And the climate had changed. We had a mayor that was
very religious, and a chief that was taking her leave
from men, I guess., I don't know. She was afraid
something might happen, and or might have happened. I
don't know. These people didn't say specifically what
their reason was. They never gave me a name of who made
the complaint, so I can't tell you there's someone out
there making the complaint. I just assume that it came
out of the prosecutor's office or task force, just from
word on the street, or some information they had
gathered. I don't know.

Do you know how many people it was you were accused of
this with?

No, not really.

 

 

 

 

 

more than one?
Probably.

Was it more than two?

I don't know. I don't recall.
You don't recall or --

I don't recall.

Was there a time you did know how many people you were
accused of this with?

Not really. The conversation was general in nature, not
specific.
Did you ever know the names of the people that you were
accused of this misconduct with?

NO.

I mean, I understand you're saying now you don't

recall 

I don't recall.

Was there a time you knew the names of these people?

The names that were cited in the conversation I had with
the chief were names that were familiar to me as part of
other investigations, or just names you pick up off the
street.

Which chief were you having a conversation with?

Pam Westlake.

Excuse me?

Pam Westlake.

 

 

 

 

Can you spell that for the court reporter?

P?a?m, Pam, Westlake, W?e-s?t?l?a?k?e.

)Did the chief indicate that they were going to fire you

if you didn't resign?

Said they were going to go to the board. They said
they'd take it to the board.

To try to fire you?

Yes.

And were the people that you were being accused of doing
what you were accused of doing, were they witnesses in an
ongoing investigation?

Not that I'm aware of.

Now, you said you thought this thing got out of the
prosecutor's office. Why? Why do you think it came from
the prosecutor's office?

There was a trial, jury trial in Goshen, and they had
brought over a female witness. After she had testified,
it was just about noon. We adjourned. We were walking
out, and she was walking from Goshenasked her. I said, "You got a ride?" And she
said no. And I asked the prosecutor. I said, "How did
you get her over here? You going to take her home?" He
says, "She's your girlfriend. You take her home."

She wasn't your girlfriend?

She was not my girlfriend, but that was his comment to

 

 

 .,
. when this all came down later, I'm just in and
just conversations that I had with the internal
investigator and Pam Westlake, it was all about your
veracity as a witness if this comes out, oh, this and
that. It was always the prosecutor, prosecutor,
prosecutor, so I'm just assuming that. I don't know

that.

Was this thing with the trial in Goshen, was that what

'you were accused of?

No. It was just a trial. I can't remember what it was.

I just remember the incident. And then later on, after
after I was accused of that activity, and in the
chief's office, then I couldn't get anybody to tell me
who is complaining, where's where's the complaint.
Well, there's nobody specifically complaining off the
street, so it had to be internal or the prosecutor's
office, because that's the name they just kept saying.
That's just my assumption.

Who was the prosecutor in Goshen there?

Mike Christofeno.

Had you ever had any other problems with Christofeno?
Mike and I argued over the homicides that he wouldn't
file warrants on.

So you and him were not friends?

Toward the end, we weren't speaking.

 

 

 

 

 

Not even speaking?

No.

When did the first problem with Christofeno arise?
Well, over the course of and I can't tell you
specifically. Probably the last let's say two years 
So I 

of investigating homicides, I had referred three or
four cases over to the prosecutor's office to be
prosecuted, and they wouldn't issue warrants. One in
particular involved a girl that had been murdered on
Cassopolis Street whose family was very adamant that the
case be prosecuted, and they kept calling me about it,
and I advised them to call the prosecutor's office.

Did you catch the guy you thought did it?

Yes.

And the prosecutors wouldn't prosecute?

Yes.

Why wouldn't they prosecute?

I don't know. They didn't you know, they didn't
discuss it with me. The reality is the paperwork was
there and he never read it. That's my assessment.
But you don't know, but that's what you think?

That's my assessment, because the information was all
The family was was very determined that this

there.

case go forward, and kicked Mike around a little bit in a

 

 

 

 

meeting, and he was upset. That's the only reason.
Did anybody ever get prosecuted for that murder?

Yes.

Different person, or the one you foundfound.

Who did you find?

I can't remember his name offhand. I can't remember the
victim's name.

What were the circumstances of the murder, briefly?

It was a business office on Cassopolis Street. She was a
granddaughter of a of Harvey Smith. And they were in
the process of closing this business outyou-work?you?ride kind of place, so she was in
there collecting on I believe it was a Saturday morning.
Gilstrap is the last name of the suspect.

And was the guy convicted?

Yes.

Did Christofeno do the prosecution?

No. It was after he was out of office.

What reason did he give you for why he didn't want to
prosecute it?

He didn't give any reason.

You said there were three or four cases?

There was a Mexican that had been murdered that we had 

we had witness information, so forth on it, and evidence

 

 

 

 

 

D?zoh?ro?szotho

10



24

that another Mexican killed him. And we were trying to
get a warrant issued so that if we could locate him, we
could bring him back from wherever we found him.

He wouldn't issue a warrant?

No. Far as I know, there's no there may be a warrant
issued on it now. I don't know, but there were four
cases that were just close together.

So nobody was prosecuted for the murder of the Mexican
man?

No. One case was the AJ Williams murder case. He
wouldn't I always assumed that he was running for the
prosecutor's office, that he was going to wait until he
was elected prosecutor, and then he would then file those
cases, and to so he'd have credit. I don't know that.
These are just assumptions.

He was just an assistant when you were "m
Yes. He was the assistant.

And then he won eventually?

NO.

He didn't win?

No, he didn't win.

Did he run?

Yes.

Do you remember the fourth case?

No. It was a robbery~murder on Washington Street, and we

 

 

 

 

 

did make an arrest in that case, but he didn't want to
arrest him. His name is last name is I think the
name of the suspect was Alvin Christmas. There were like
two or three people involved in that.

Was Christmas ever prosecuted?

I don't know if he was prosecuted under Christofeno or
Curtis Hill, the new prosecutor.

But somebody ?m

Seems to me Curtis prosecuted that. Tameka Robinson was
the victim in the Mexican case, and the victim in the one
murder where Alvin Christmas was arrested was a Mexican
also.

Did you say to Christofeno on these four cases, you know,
I think we got the right guy, we should prosecute?
Christofeno didn't talk to us. He talked to the
lieutenants, captains. He didn't call me specifically to
say, this is what I want. I tried to get that
information out of him, what more information you want,
but he never responded to me.

When did you and him stop talking altogether?

Well, it wasn't a formal thing. It was just something
that evolved. He was angry over the Tameka Robinson
case. Tamara Robinson. Tamara Robinson. And he was
angry over that case because I keep referring the family

over to him, because I had no more answers I could give

 

 

 

 

them. He called and asked me why, why did I send people

over to his office. You got the answers, you tell them
what you want. Referred that he was a public servant,
heaven forbid, like me.

You can't prosecute him.

Exactly. There's nothing I could tell them. You have to
tell them why you won't issue warrants.

Did you have any other problems with Christofeno?
Not specifically.

Was he a good prosecutor?

Yeah. Well, he's the only one I had experience with
between him and Mike Cosentino. I think he was fairly
aggressive on cases.

Did you have any problems with his honesty in prosecuting
cases?

In what?

His honesty in prosecuting cases.

NO.

Did he have any problems with you?

Not that he voiced to me.

At any point, did Christofeno ever communicate to you
that he had problems with the way that you brought cases
to him or 

NO.

or or witnesses in cases, or tried to get

 

 

 

 

 

prosecutions 

No.

-- successful? Nothing like that?

He would he would not have come to me anyway. He

would have come to a supervisor.

Did it ever come to your attention that he was
complaining to your supervisors about you?

No.

All right. Do you remember the Kershner shooting?

I remember a little of it. I don't remember a lot of it.
Have you had a chance to review anything to prepare for
this deposition?

No. Just general conversation with counsel.

Which we're not going to talk about, but have you seen
any paperwork to prepare for the deposition?

She showed me a copy of a photo lineup and asked if I
remembered it, and I thought, not specifically remember
that --

You don't have to tell me what you and her talked about.
Okay.

Let's talk about what she showed you.

Yeah.

Showed you a photo --

Just that she showed me some publication, some group,

advocate group, talking about this case and why it was

 

 

 

 

 

overturned.

What kind of thing?

MS. KALAMAROS: Just for the record, it was
produced by you in the pre?discovery disclosures.

MR. LOEVY: Okay.

BY MR. LOEVY:



A

r) :w 0

Tell me what you remember about that thing.
Well, I specifically remember I remember the comment
of Eddie Love where he said I put a gun to his head and
threatened to kill him if he didn't identify Chris
Parish, I think is just paraphrasing. I don't remember
the quote exactly. And I remember the part when Mark
Doty admitted that he didn't do a very good job in
defending his client.

How many pages was what you reviewed?

I just I can't remember. Just remember those comments
out of it. I didn't read it cover~to~cover, and I'm not
too sure they weren't highlighted, as I think about it,
that specifically pertained to me.

Any police reports you reviewed?

No. I don't remember reviewing any case report.

This obviously would have all happened within the last 
Yes. I don't remember reviewing any no. I don't

specifically remember any of the reports.

Well, you said you didn't review reports, or you can't

 

 

 

 

remember?

I don't remember reviewing any reports.

So you're not ruling out that you reviewed reports?

I'm sorry?

You're not ruling out that you reviewed reports, but --
Can't rule it out 

because you --

w" because I don't remember.

All right. And we're both doing not a great job of
talking and answering, because she's trying to write it
down, so let's both try to do better. But are you saying
that to prepare for this deposition, you can't rule out
that you might have reviewed the police reports, but you
just can't remember?

I don't believe I reviewed police reports. I was asked
about police reports, where they were, who would generate
them. No, I don't remember specifically reading any
police reports.

.Are there any police reports missing, to your knowledge,
in the Kershner --

I have no idea.

investigation?

I've not reviewed the case.

Have you looked for reports that you 

I may not know 

 

 

 

30

 

1 MS. KALAMAROS: You need to wait till he
2 finishes his question.
3 BY MR. LOEVY:
4 Are you aware of any police reports related to this case
5 that you can't find?
6 .A No. I haven't looked for any. I personally have not
7 looked for any case report.
8 Well, have you have you come to your attention that
9 there's stuff missing that you've thought about where it
10 might be?
11 .A Just from conversations with my counsel.
12 Well, without getting into conversation with counsel, to
13 your knowledge, what?s missing from the file?

14 .A My understanding is a the only thing I can tell you

15 what's missing is what she told me was missing.

16 That's interesting.

17 A 80 well, I mean, that's the way it is. I haven't

l8 dealt with this case in many years. She mentioned a

19 couple things that couldn't be located. That was the

20 conversation. You want me to cite the conversation I had
21 with her, I'll cite the conversation I had with her, if
22 it's all right between the two of you.

23 Well, it's all right with me.
24 MS. KALAMAROS: I don't want to get into

25 conversations 

 

 

 

 

 

 

31
a 1 THE WITNESS: Okay.

2 MS. KALAMAROS: that I had with my client.
3 BY MR . LOEVY:

4 Yeah. I think that's legitimate and reasonable to not

5 want to get into conversations, but the fact that stuff

6 is missing, and you know about it, and you know 

7 A I only know 

8 MS. KALAMAROS: Just for the record, what we

9 were what the issue arose with the photo lineup
10 is who was the photo lineup of, which suspect, and
11 whether it was Christopher Parish or Keith Moreland.
12 And you'll probably get into this. Initially he

13 thought both of them were in there, and so that's --
14 that was the u? that's the issue.

15 MR. LOEVY: All right. We'll get to that.

16 MS. KALAMAROS: He says 

17 MR. LOEVY: That's fair.

18 BY MR. LOEVY:
19 Let's do it later when we're not talking about what you
20 talked about with your attorney. Let's start with the
21 investigation itself. You have some memory of the
22 investigation?
23 A Some.
24 You remember what Kershner looked like?
25 .A Seemed like he was well, he's young, white. It seemed

 

 

 

 

 

like he had some tattoos and some piercings and that sort
of thing.

Was he a guy that was involved with drugs?

I have no idea. Never met him before that case.
Do you remember what anybody else involved looked like,
anybody else who was in the apartment?

His mother, Nona, was there. She's seemed to me she
was quite ill at the time. Had difficulty moving,
walking, that sort of thing.
Remember what she looked like?

White female, probably in her 403. Not much past that.
Anybody else you remember?
Kershner's girlfriend was in the apartment.
Jennifer Dolph?

Jennifer Dolph.

What did she look like?

White female.

Fairly attractive. Tall, if I remember

right. Slender. Didn't look like she belonged with

Kershner. I mean, they were to look at them, they
were opposite physically, the dress and piercings, and
that sort of thing.

She was sort of more --

She looked she looked relatively normal.

That's what we're getting at. And he looked sort of like

a tough kid?

 

 

. - . . . 

 

 

 

Well, I don't know about tough. It was a lifestyle. He
was into iguanas, and he was just a different kid.
Iguanas, did you say?

He had a big iguana in the apartment. I mean, he was
just just that kind of kid. Doesn't make him a bad
kid. Just makes him different than what my children
were, what I was.

And who else did you remember from the apartment, what
they looked like?

Eddie Love was in the apartment. Young, juvenile black
male. Kind of smallish, if I remember right.
Anybody else?

That's all I remember. Those are the people I remember
in the apartment.

All right. Had you ever met any of them before this?
No, I hadn't.

What did you do to like look them up?

What do you mean by look them up?

Well, you know, I know now they have computers. In the
mid?'90s, they were probably starting to have computers.
Did you take steps to see if they had a record or that
kind of thing?

Eddie Love was involved in the juvenile bureau. Juvenile

officers were familiar with him, I believe.

From prior juvenile problems you mean?

 

 



 

 

 

Yes. I had never dealt with him. I don't know that

Kershner was involved. I didn't specifically run any
criminal records check on the victim because I just don't
normally do that.

Is that something you remember not doing, or you don't 
No, I didn't do that.

How is it you remember that you didn't do that?

Because I just don?t do criminal background checks on
victims as a rule unless I suspect there's some
involvement in their part in what had taken place other
than just being a victim.

Well, let's list the things that you remember just from
your mind about the investigation, and then we'll talk
about each of them. What do you remember?
Apparently the case was either a Saturday or Sunday
because the on call detective had came in initially.

Who was the on call detective?

I don't recall.

Not you though?

It wasn't me. And then after the after I got to work,
at some point, I was assigned that case to work.

Do you know why call detective?
Well, no.

Everybody get cases. I mean, I luck of the

draw. I don't know. Bad luck of the draw.

Do you know is mm I thought it went to the on call

 

 

 

 

 

 

detective. Am I confused about that?

On call detective might work come in and take initial
statements on several cases over a weekend.

I see.

If it was a holiday weekend, it'd be a long weekend, he
might be in there and take information on ten or 15
cases. He wouldn't work them all.

I got it. You don't know anymore who assigned you the
case?

No. Well, I would assume my lieutenant at the time.
Cutler?

It could have been Cutler. They change hats so fast it's
hard to tell. It might have been Peggy Posthuma.

In any event, you think it probably would have been the
lieutenant that would have done the assigning?

Exactly. They did it as a rule.

All right. What else do you remember?

Well, of course he interviewed Eddie Love in the initial
interview with the on call detective had brought Chris
Parish's name in it. That's why I put his name and his
picture in a photo lineup.

All right. We'll talk about that in a minute, but what
else do you remember?

Just talking to the victim, talking to Mom, talking to 

interviewing the persons that were there.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Anything else you remember?

I don't remember what specifically was taken in the
robbery except there was a rifle, SKS rifle, that was
supposedly stolen, and it was reported stolen in that 
in that case.

And that's something you remember not from having looked
at police reports, but just from your memory?

Yeah.

What else do you remember?

That's pretty much it.

How did Parish's name first become part of this?

Eddie Love brought it in.

Were you there?

Was I where?

When Parish's name first got brought into this.

His name came up in the in the on call detective's
information.

Were you there when Parish's name first got brought up?
No.

Who was the person who first was present when Parish's
name came up?

I'd have to think at that time it was Eddie Windbigler
might have been the on call, but there were a couple
people in, so I don't know who the original on call

officer would be.

 

 

 

 

How did you first find out Parish was a suspect?

When they came in Monday, and talking about the case,


What were you told?

I was told about the shooting, subsequent robbery, and
there were no suspects in the case other than Chris
Parish's name was brought in by Eddie Love as looking
like the robber.

Who told you that?

I don't know. I don't I don't remember specifically
which of the detectives who had called in told me that,
and there ought to be. I'm assuming it's in a report
somewhere also, but I don't know that.

Did they show you a report, or just give you 

I don't remember.

Would it have been protocol if this case got assigned to
you to read the reports?

Would I read the report if it was assigned to me? Yes.
Okay. So can we assume you saw the police report where
Eddie Love was interviewed and said what he said?

I don't specifically recall a report.

I'm just asking 

I don't know I don?t know if it was in a written
report, or verbal. I just don't recall.

If there was a written report, you would have made it

 

 

 

 

 

your business to read it?

Yes.

Were you told that Love said that the robber looked like
Parish, or the robber was Parish?

No. He looked like Parish.

Were you told whether Love knew Parish?

Well, in the course of the investigation, talking to
Eddie Love, he said he knew Parish.

All right. So he said he knew Parish, and he also said
that he had recognized the guys who were shooters, right?
He recognized one. He recognized one of them, and it
looked like Chris Parish. Didn't say it was Chris, but
he said looked like Chris Parish. I don't think he ever
told me that it definitely maybe after he saw the
photo lineup. I don't remember. But prior to that, it
was looked like Chris Parish.

All right. So prior to the photo lineup, what he was
saying is a guy who looks like Chris Parish?

Yes.

And after the photo lineup, then he said it was Chris
Parish?

Yes.

All right. When when it was communicated to you I
think you said that he knew one of the guys but not the

other guy?

 

 

 

 

 

Yes.

Which guy he didn't know Cooper then is what you
understood, Cooper Moreland?

Right. The only name -- the only name that I started an
investigation with was Chris Parish.

Was it ever communicated to you that Love said he didn't
know either of their names?

No.

If you would have learned that Love was claiming he
didn't know either of the suspects' names, would you have
done anything differently?

I don't know.

I suppose that's a fair answer. Hard to say, huh? When
we say looks like Chris Parish, was it ever communicated
to you that's like looks like George Bush, or 

NO.

looks like Michael Jordan?

No. The environment, he said, "Looked like Chris Parish
to me," so looks like Chris Parish to him.

And understand what I mean by looks like George Bush or
looked like Michael Jordan, the analogy I'm making? In
other words, if you see somebody on the street and say,
well, that guy looks like Michael Jordan, you're not
saying he's Michael Jordan. You're saying a guy who

physically resembles Michael Jordan. That's what I'm

 

 

 
. . ?getting at. Do you understand what I'm getting at?

I.

Do you understand what I'm getting at?

I do understand what you're getting at, but that wasn't
my conversation with with Eddie Love.

Well, I'm talking about conversation with the detective,
when you got briefed ?m

Oh, I don't know, because I don't know if I had a
conversation with the detective. I probably did, but I
just don't recall Specifically if it was a report I got,
or a verbal. At some point there would have been a
written report. At the initial -- at the initial onset
of the investigation, Christopher Parish was not
positively identified in my mind past the point of Eddie
Love saying it looked like Christopher Parish, or Chris
Parish.

So this first detective who was who you're not sure
who it is, who interviewed Love, never got past the point
he's a guy that looks like Parish?

Yes.

And when you talked to Love, you had him identify Parish?
Well, not I'm he at some point, I did show him a
photo lineup, but I've had conversation with him first.
Looked like Christopher. In my mind, that's who he was

identifying.

 

 

 

 

Well, let's 

That's the way I took the that's the way I took his
answer.

Let's talk about it. Let's break it down a little bit
more slowly. Before you showed Love pictures, was Love
communicating to you a guy who looks like Michael Jordan,
or Michael Jordan? And I guess I'm asking you to make a
jump with me. Do you understand what I'm asking?
The conversations that I had before the photo lineup was
shown was that Eddie Love was saying it looked like Chris
Parish.

Was he saying w"

He was saying it looked like Chris Parish.

Was he saying it?s a guy who resembled Chris Parish?

I don't know.

You don't know?

I don't know specifically. He identified Chris Parish in
my mind.

Well, hold on. We're -- you're jumping around. Let's
get to the conversation before he identified Chris
Parish.

I don't remember the specifics of line?bywline
conversation.

Before you ever showed Love photographs, was he telling

you that the man physically resembled Parish, or the man

 

 

 

 

 

 

was Parish?

What I remember was Eddie Love saying one of the robbers
looked like Chris Parish.

As in?

Looked like Chris Parish.

All right. Well, that's that's 

We didn't break it down to was it more like Michael
Jordan or George Bush. It had to do with Christopher
Parish. That was our conversation.
Well, let me ask the next question then. When he said
it's a man who looked like Chris Parish, did you do any
further follow?up to say -- to determine whether he was
saying it could be Chris Parish 

NO.

Let me just ask the question, sir. When he said it was a
man who looked like Chris Parish, did you do further
questioning to determine if he was saying it's a man who
physically resembles Parish but was not Parish, or if he
was saying it might be Chris Parish?
I asked him how he knew Chris Parish. He just said from
the streets.

Okay. But my question is, when he told you it's a man
who looks like Chris Parish, did you do further

interrogation of him to determine whether he was saying

it could be Chris Parish, or he was saying it?s a man who

 

 

 

 

looked like Chris Parish looks?

I don't specifically remember. I didn't parse the I
didn't parse the sentence with him, if that's what you're
asking me.

Yeah, that is what I'm asking.

Yeah. No, I 

Did you get into it with him, the difference between
those two things?

No.

You understand there is a difference between those two

things?

I do understand that when a man when I ask a man or a
young man who this who it was, and he says it looks
like Chris Parish, it looks like Chris Parish. He knows
him from the street. That?s good enough for me. Chris

it looked like Chris Parish. He never said that was

Chris Parish. He said that looked like Chris Parish.
Was he saying, I don?t know who it is, and I don't know
his name, but he looks like a guy I know named Chris
Parishsaid it looked like Christopher Chris Parish.

So to you, he was communicating to you that he thought it

might be Parish?

 

 

 

 

 

Communicated to me that he thought it was Parish.

Did you do any further questioning to determine if he was
just saying he was a guy he didn't know who looked like a
guy he knew named Chris Parish?

(Shaking head.)

No?

No.

Went straight to the photos?

Went to the photos.

And then you showed him a picture of Parish?

I don't know at what point Eddie Love came back down. I
don't know if it was before I just know -- yeah, at
some point I showed him a photo lineup. I just can't
tell you exactly when it was.

Okay. Should there be some documents memorializing that?
Yes.

Why do you say that?

Well, because I'd showed him the photo lineup, and then I
take a statement identifying the photo lineup.

And is there like a procedure where if you show a photo
lineup and take a statement, you write that down?

Yes. Should be a typed statement.

Okay. Are you supposed to preserve the photo lineup?

Yes.

What are you supposed to do with the photo lineup?

 

 

 

 

 

Goes in an evidence bag, and is turned in to the evidence
room.

And it's given a number?

It's yeah, there's a case number goes with it, I'm
sure.
Okay. Is it like every piece of evidence gets a number,

or everything in the case number?
Everything gets the same case number.
I see. And then how do they log 
Unless it's used in multiple cases, and at that point,
you duplicate the copy, change the number for the case it
pertains to, but the original but the original
document maintains that same case number, and then you
just refer to that in whatever other paperwork is
generated.

Does it get logged somewhere?

It gets logged into the evidence room.

What document is that? Is there like a book?
Well, there's a log if m~ yes. They log it in, put in
the computer.

Was the computer back in '97?
Yes.

So have to like check check it out if you want to see

it again, 

Yes.

 

 

 

 

 

And there's a chain of custody maintained for it?

Yes.

Did you do that with your photo lineup that you showed to
Eddie Love?

Yes.

Where did you get the photos that you put in the photo
lineup that you showed to Eddie Love?

We had a drawer where we kept old pictures, Polaroid
pictures, different photographs. We didn't have a system
in place where we could type in a suspect description and
get general names, and then pick those pictures, so you
go through the pile of pictures and pick them out the
best way you can.

Now, when you say a drawer, were these mug shots?

Some mug shots, some Polaroids.

What kind of Polaroids?

Polaroid Polaroids, except take the picture, Polaroid
picture of you.

Well, I mean w~

But I don't know that I don't know that the Polaroids
were used in the photo lineup. I'm just telling you the
drawer that had multiple kinds of pictures in it. I
wouldn't use ?w I wouldn't have used different pictures.
Like different kinds, you wouldn't me

Different kinds. I would not I'd stuck with either

 

 

 

 

 

 

all Polaroids, or I would have stuck with all mug shots.
Because it would have been suggestive to show a guy five
mug shots and one Polaroid?

Would be to me.

All right. So you wouldn't have done that?
NO.
All right. What did the mug shots look like physically?

Just the mug shots were blue background. They were at
the bottom would have a date and number on it of when the
picture was taken. The number would maybe it was just
a date.

When you did photo lineups, did you generally use the mug
shots?

Tried to. Yes.

Would there be any reason why you wouldn't use mug shots?
Not unless something wasn't available, and the only
picture I had of the suspect would have been a Polaroid,
I might have went with Polaroid then. I would have gone
to the Polaroid. But generally speaking, I'd use the mug
shots, because they're all consistent.

And you're required to make a careful record of whose
picture you're putting in the photo lineup, correct?

Yes.

And that's true --

Unless you?re talking about I believe I wrote the

 

 

 

 

 

numbers and the names on the back of the photo lineup
itself.

So there's a record?

Yes.

And if you're using that's true whether you're using
Polaroids or mug shots, you have to make a careful record
of what's in the lineup card?

Only if only if I knew the names of the people in the
Polaroid, in the Polaroid picture.

Well, you would have known at least one of them?

Yes. Would have known one of them.

And would and you would have had to make a record of
what pictures you showed them, right?

Well, the pictures would go in evidence.

Okay.

Any time you do a photo lineup, you use it in a case, it
goes into evidence.

And then were there photocopies of the pictures?

Yes.

What went into the evidence, the photocopy or the
picture?

The pictures.

And then how did you get more pictures then, do you know?
If you used the guy?s mug shot to go into evidence,

that's not 

 

 

 Well, you use the same photo lineup for all the
witnesses.

I see. So this drawer had just spare mug shots?

I don't know where they came from. I can?t tell you
that. But maybe the evidence room people who did the mug
shots put them out there. Why, if they were excess
pictures, more than they needed, I don't know.

How many pictures were in the drawer?

Oh, geez. Hundreds.
And was it mostly mug shots rather than Polaroids?
Yes.

Now, you would make a record of who was shown to the
suspect whether they made an ID or didn't make an ID,
correct? In other words, what I'm asking is 

The -- the 

let's say they're shown a photo lineup and don't pick
somebody out, didn?t pick out Parish, you still make a
record of it?

On the back of the I would have written -- at that
time, on the back of the photo lineup itself, I would
have written the numbers of the pictures, the mug shots I
was using.

Would you have made a record if someone viewed a photo
lineup and didn't make an 

I don?t know if I take I don't know. No. I don't

 

 

 

 

know as I specifically would take a statement saying he

didn't identify.

Was there any rule at the Elkhart Police Department that
required you to memorialize if someone looked at a photo
ID and didn't make an 

NO.

Was there any practice that required you to do that?

No.

Was there any training that required you to do that?

NO.

All right. Have you do you know what happened to the

photo lineup you showed Love that had Parish's picture in
it?

Do I know specifically what happened to it?

Yes.

NO.

When was the last time you saw it?

I don't remember specifically ever seeing it again.

After that day?

After that. I would assume at his trial it was
introduced, since the identification was the key to the

defense. I would assume that the photo lineup was there
at the trial.

But that's not what you were in charge of doing was

getting it to --

 

 

 

 

 

 

\er-(niwpNo. Evidence people produce the evidence.

Assuming it was in evidence, though, right?

Well, I'm guessing if it wasn't in evidence, it wouldn?t
have been at trial. The whole thing was based on the
identification of Christopher Parish.

And so 

Well, if there wasn't a photo lineup, I'm guessing as
maybe as poor a defense as Mark Doty might have put on,
it wouldn't went any further than that, in my mind. I'm
not an attorney, but I just just an assumption.

That the actual physical pictures, the photo lineup, was
a critical piece of evidence?

Yes. The copies the copies were just working copies,
as a rule, because especially in black suspects, they
don't come out well.

So the actual 

You almost have to w"

photo lineup let me get the question out. So the

actual photo lineup itself would be a critical piece of

evidence?

Yes.

And do you -- yeah. I've seen the copies. You can't see
anything.

Exactly. And just "w they're just working copies to

memorialize that the -- the photo lineup was shown to

 

 

 

 

 

 

'so-and?so, and they initialed the picture they identified
in the photo lineup, but that's 

Did any witnesses in the course of this not pick people
out of your 

I think the only person who did not identify of
course, the only picture I had the only photo lineup I
had was the one consisted Christopher Parish, Chris
Parish.

Didn't you do one with Moreland too?

Well, that would be later.

Okay.

That?d been later. But during the initial investigation,
Parish photo lineup was the only one I had.

Where did you get Parish's photo?

I'm guessing we had it on file. I?m not I mean, I
don't know. I'm guessing that at this point in time.
You just don't know where you --

I just don't remember. I'm assuming that it was ther
was a file.

Did you take it from a juvenile file?

I could have.

You're not claiming to remember that you had a Polaroid
of Parish, right?

No.

Do you remember if the picture you showed Love looked

 

 

 

i 

 

 

 

 

like Parish? The picture of Parish that you showed Love,
did it look like how Parish looked?

I don't know. Never saw Christopher Parish before
talking to --

So before showing the lineup to Love, you had never seen
Parish?

No recollection ever seeing himknow if the picture resembled how he
looked presently at the time?

(Shaking head.)

MR. LOEVY: Are you able to get it, because
we're kind of being choppy again. .Are you able to
get answers to the questions?

COURT REPORTER: Yes. If I didn't, I would
interrupt.

MR. LOEVY: All right. Sorry. We'll both do
better.

All right. Was Love the first person you showed your
photo lineup?

I don't know. I don't know the sequence.

Why did you show Love a photo lineup with Parish's
picture in it?

Same reason I'd show Nona, or same reason I'd show
Michael, the victim, or his girlfriend. Just get a

positive identification.

 

 



 

 

 

your understanding that Love knew who Parish was?
Yes.

What was your understanding of how he knew him?

Just from the streets.

So if he knew who Parish was, why did you make him look
at pictures of Parish?

I didn't make himwitness to the case.

All right. Why was it a good idea to show Love pictures
if you already knew who Parish was?

You document everything you can about a case at that
point. Put him on the record as this is who he's
identified.

Was he identifying Chris Parish, or was he identifying
the person who was in the apartment?

I don't know. All the same in his mind, I would guess.
I don't know.
Well, I 
He identified the picture, Christopher Parish as being
the person that he believed was in the apartment.
That's what I?m asking.

Yes.

When you showed him the photo lineup, were you asking him

to identify which one is Chris Parish, or were you asking

 

 

 

 

him identify the guy who was in the apartment?

No. Identify the person who was in the apartment.

You were not saying just tell me which guy is Chris
Parish?

NO.

Did you offer Love anything in exchange for his
cooperation?

No.

Did Love get any benefit in exchange for his cooperation?
I don't know. I don?t think so.

How might he have gotten a benefit in exchange for his
cooperation?

Well, if he'd have been involved in some criminal
activity, but I don't remember that. He had been in
trouble, but at that particular time, I don't recall that
he was in any particular trouble.

You don't remember him being in a juvenile detention
facility?

I don't remember. Do I know he had been there before and
after? Yeah, I know he had been there before and afterthe juvenile detention facility?

I don't remember.

There's certainly some circumstances where you would

offer a witness leniency in exchange for cooperation,

correct, in the abstract?

 

 

 i?The reality of how we operated is if he was going to get
any benefit, I could not give him anything.

You couldn't promise it?

I couldn't promise him a thing.

But you could go to the prosecutor and put in a word for
him?

Yes. Best thing I can do. I don't know if but like I
said, I don't Love wasn't in trouble at that
particular time.

All right. But I'm asking a different question. Just as
a police officer, interviewing witnesses, one thing you
could offer them is you'd put in a good word with the
prosecutor?

Yes.

And you don't remember either way whether you did that
with Love here?

I didn't do it with him.

And that's something you remember not doing?

Well, I mean, I don't remember doing. That's I just
can't imagine m" I don't remember.

So you might have, you might not have, you don't
remember?

I don't remember.

All right. Did you ever go to the apartment where the

shooting happened?

 

 

 

 

 

Yes.

Why and when? Two questions. Let's start with when.
I don't know if it was the day I got the case or couple
days after that. At some point, I if I didn't call
and make arrangements for them to come in, I would go
there, but I did go there.

That would be part of standard investigating procedure is
to go see the scene?

Yes.

And would you have tried to go 

Time dictated what I did. Yeah.
But I mean, relatively that would have been one
of the early steps you took?

Sure.

What did you see when you went there?

Well, the apartment was in the subsidized housing area on
It was

Middlebury Street. I don't remember the address.

an upstairs apartment, second floor, maybe. I remember
the iguana.

Who well, did they close off the apartment, or did
they let those guys go back in?

No, they they were never out of the apartment. They
stayed there.

Did you see any evidence that corroborated what Kershner

was saying?

 

 

 

 

 

What I what I saw was a box that the SKS rifle was
supposedly in.

So the SKS rifle supposedly got taken?

Yes.

By the by the perpetrators?

Yes.

Did Kershner ever come up with any corroboration that the
gun was legal?

As I recall, it was his mother bought the rifle.

Did she ever come up with any corroboration that it was
legally purchased and owned?

Seems like there was a sales slip, and it had her name,
and that's why I was kind of surprised that she bought a
SKS rifle for a juvenile.

For his birthday or something like that?

Seems like it was she bought it. I can't tell you
why.
All right. What was the law at the time? Were you

allowed to own SKS rifles?

I don't believe he was old enough to specifically own it,
but that's why she had her name on it.

Would she be legally able to own it at the time?

Didn't investigate it. She had the sales receipt and the

rifle.

And you know, because assault rifles are obviously not

 

 

 

 

 

handguns, I mean, can people own assault rifles?
Yes.

Can anybody own an assault rifle?

Yes.

Is that true today too?

I don't know. There may be a time limit now, where
before it was just considered a rifle.

And your understanding was she had bought it for him as a
gift?

Yes.

And it was in her name?

It was in her name.

But she was saying that it was his, or she was going to
give it to him, or had given it to him?

No, had given it to him.

So that -- that's a crime, isn't it?

I don't know.

Why don't you know?

I don't know. I don't do federal firearms crimes, so at
this point in time, I don't know.

All right. Did you see any evidence that corroborated
what Kershner was claiming happened in the apartment?
I don't recall.

Did you look?

I don't recall.

 

 

 

 

 

Would that have been part of your regular protocol to
look for evidence to corroborate what they were talking
about?

Generally speaking, I wouldn't be a evidence seeker. We
had evidence techs that went in and gathered evidence,
and that sort of thing.

Did you ask him to see where the gun hit the wall, for
example, the gunshot?

I don't recall.

That something you would have done?

Yes.

Do you remember him giving you any explanation for why
there was no gunshot in the wall?

I don't recall asking him to show me a gunshot. I don't
remember a gunshot in the wall. No. I don't remember
that.

You remember ever having any doubts as to whether or not
the Kershners were telling the truth about how the
shooting went down?

Meaning that did Hm the event did happen?

Well, they claim they got shot in the apartment, and did
you ever have any doubts that was true?

My my doubts in that case centered around the rifle.

Tell me about that.

That if he didn't initiate the come in, he he grabs

 

 

 . .

 

 

 

the rifle and gets shot, that was kind of what I went
through my otherwise, there was no reason to shoot
him.

I don't understand.

Well, I'm sorry.

Can you explain what you mean?
You asked if I had any doubts. I didn't have any doubts

that he got shot, because obviously he did get shot. How

it happened, other than I in my mind, he grabbed
this 

Who?

SKS rifle. Mike Kershner.

So Kershner says I grabbed my rifle 
No, he didn't say that. You asked me if I had any
doubts, and I'm trying to tell you my doubts.

All right.

He didn't tell me any of this.

Got it.

That maybe he they came in to rob him, he grabbed the

rifle. Maybe a kid would have a tendency to do it.
That's how these the shooting occurred. He never said
that to me.

I see.

He didn't make any admissions like that to me. You asked

about any doubts. That was about the only doubt I had

 

 

 

 

 

 

:J?zotc'rote

62

about what I was being told.

Because that would make more sense why he got shot?
To me.
Yeah. Well, did you have any doubts about whether it
happened at all?

No. He was shot.

Whether it happened in the apartment?

Well, we looked around for no. I didn't have any
doubts that it occurred elsewhere.
All right. You said you looked around, correct?

Well, as I'm thinking about it, I don't know if I was
looking for an alternate crime scene, or I was just
looking around the area.

And when you looked around, did you find anything that
corroborated what Kershner was telling you?

No.

So did that cause you to have doubts?

NO.

Why not?

Told his story. Told

No evidence there. He was shot.

you I had my doubts. Possibly he might have grabbed the
rifle first. I don't know that.
All right. But you said you looked around, and you know,
when you looked around, there was no blood in the

apartment, there was no gunshot in the wall?

 

 

 .Well, I don't know if there was any blood in the
apartment, because by the time I got there two, three
days later, it might have been cleaned up. I don't know
without reviewing the evidence that was gathered at the
crime scene. They would have took a sample of whatever
they found.

Would you have expected based on what Kershner was
telling you that there would be blood in the apartment?
Kind of depends on the wound. Sometimes you get a lot of
bleeding. Sometimes the bleeding is internal. You don't
get a lot of blood evidence.

Do you remember the mother describing that he was gushing
blood, and they had to get a towel to plug him up?

Not specifically. I'm sure they put something on there
to stop the bleeding, but I don't specifically remember
what she told me.

Based on your understanding of how this crime went down,
would you have expected there would be at least some
blood in the apartment?

He's fully clothed. I don't know if there would be blood
in the apartment or blood on the Clothes. I don't know
how soon before they stopped the bleeding. I just don't
know. I wasn't, like I said, in the initial
investigation of the evidence gathering by the techs to

so I I don't know.

 

 

 

 

 

Well, do you remember there ever being any issue, you and
the evidence techs and your supervisor saying this guy is
describing a bloody shooting, we didn't find any blood,
was that ever an issue?

Never had a conversation like that, that I can remember.
So that just wasn't an issue?

NO.

How about how about the absence of a bullet hole? Was
that ever an issue that you guys discussed?

Bullet hole in what?

In the wall.

No. I don't recall.

All right. The manner in which the photo lineup that you
did with the various witnesses, was that consistent with
the policies and practices of the police department?

It was consistent with the practices of the detective
bureau. I don't know if there was ever a policy and
procedure in any kind of a written form or a manual.

All right._ And when I say the police department, I'm
talking about the detective bureau too. But it sounds
like what you're saying is that there was no written
policy.

There was no written. There was no written policy that
dictated how you put a lineup together, how you no.

There was no written.

 

 

 -.

 

 

informal practice?

Very informal.

Did it vary from detective to detective?

Yes.

How did you learn how to do it the way you did it?
Watching other people do it.

Did anybody ever give you any specific training on that?
No.

Did you ever get any specific training like at police
academies or oh, you didn't go to the police academy?
NO.

Do you know if you have any reason to believe the way
that you documented the photo identifications that you
performed in this case were inconsistent with the
practices of the detective division of the police
department?

I don't understand your question, sir.

Do you have any reason to believe that you deviated from
what yOur bosses expected of you?

NO.

Excuse me?

No. I don't think I did anything wrong in assembling the
photo lineup.

Well, I don't mean wrong. I mean inconsistent with what

the police department expected of you.

 

 

 

 

 

 

don't know what the police department expected of me
other than what I did.

They didn't would it be fair to say that the police
department didn't exactly communicate to you the way they
wanted it done?

The police department never communicated through verbal
instruction or written instructions how to put a photo
lineup together.

And how about how to document a photo lineup?

NO.

Did you ever have any other suspects other than Parish,
and I'm calling him Cooper?

MS. KALAMAROS: Keith.

MR. LOEVY: Keith? Let's just call him Keith.

BY MR. LOEVY:



Keith Moreland and Keith Cooper, same person, right?
Same person, sir?

I don't know.

All right.

Well, what do you know him as?

I don't remember him at all, to be quite frank with you.

Other than Moreland, I the name I don't remember
that that part of the investigation at all.
MR. LOEVY: All right. Well, I'll refer to

him as Cooper, if you don't mind, Lynn, since I'm

terrible at names, and it's going to be hard enough

 

 

 

 

 

is.

MS. KALAMAROS: That's fine.

MR. LOEVY: All right.
MS. KALAMAROS: I just want to be consistent.

MR. LOEVY: All right.

BY MR. LOEVY:



t) r) 

All right. So when I use the name Cooper, I'm talking
about the guy who was also referred in the documents as
Moreland. But did you guys ever have any suspects other
than Parish and Cooper?

At what point?

At 

At one point, only had only had Chris Parish.

Well, I'm asking a different question. Were there ever
any people specifically who were suspected of this crime
other than these two?

No.

Was there did you ever develop any leads at all about
people other than these two?

No.

The manner you conducted this shooting investigation, was
that consistent with the practices of the Elkhart Police
Department?

I have to answer your question yes.

You're not aware of any deviations from the practices of

 

 

 

 

the police department?

I don't know. I don't think there were practices at the
police department.
The what?

Detectives did what detectives did. I don't know as

there was a common there was no written policy. There
was no no instructions as to how to do an
investigation. I mean, they give you the case, and you

went and did what you could do.
Best you could?

Exactly right.

All right. This rifle, didn?t they recover a rifle from
the apartment after the shooting?

Well, I don't know.

What would have been the protocol for checking if the
rifle was lawfully owned if they recovered one?

Well, they'd run the serial number through NCIC.

Is that something that would have been done?

Been done by whoever recovered it. Yeah.
How about the lead detective, would that person be
responsible for this?

No.

That would not be your jurisdiction as the lead

detective?

No.

 

 

 

 

 

Did you ever make any attempt to find out if the gun they
found in the apartment was legal?
I don't recall another gun being found in the apartment.
You don't remember anything about that?
(Shaking head.)
If there was a gun found in the apartment, that would
have come to your attention back at the time, correct?
I'm sure I would have been told. I just don't remember
it.
All right. If you had learned at the time that there was
a gun found in the apartment, a rifle, what would you
have done?
I would have inquired as to how how it was recovered,
where it was recovered. I would have they would have
whoever recovered the rifle would have done the NCIC
check 
You would have 
?w of the rifle.
You would have reviewed that?
Probably 

COURT REPORTER: Excuse me, I didn't 
MR. LOEVY: The NCIC check of the rifle, and
then I said, "You would have reviewed that." Sorry

about that.

I don't know if I would have reviewed reviewed the

 

 

 

 

printout of the w? or just been told, I mean, by the
person who did it.

Was there ever any question that the people in the
apartment had committed a crime?

I don't know if it was a question. The ?u what I was
told in the investigation that they came in wanting the
money and the dope.

No, those were the suspects.

That was the suspect.

How about Kershner or the other people that were in the
apartment before the suspects got there, was there ever
any question as to whether they were committing any
crimes?

Not that I know of. I don't remember.
You remember any drug paraphernalia in the apartment?
No.

Do you remember if this guy Kershner was on home arrest?
I don?t recall.

Was that ever an issue that you thought about or talked
about, that Kershner had a motive to say he was in the
apartment because he was on house arrest?

I don't remember him telling me that, so no, it wouldn't
be an issue. I just don't remember.

Did you ever learn that Kershner was on home arrest?

I don't remember.

 

 

 

 

Did you ever talk to the people who were identified
during the canvass?

What was that? What was your question?

A canvass of the neighbors. You know what a canvass is,
correct?

Yes.

Did you conduct the canvass?
I did not.

One was conducted?

I don't know.

Would one usually be conducted in a shooting?

Probably in the nearby apartments in the same hallway,
possibly.

Did you ever talk to anybody who was discovered through
the canvass?

I don't remember.

Wouldn't that have been your part of your responsibility
to talk to people who were canvassed?

Not necessarily. .All depends who did the canvass. I
don't remember the canvass, but if'I did the canvass, I
would talk to people, certainly, put that information in
the report and forward it. I just don't recall any of
that being done.

Do you remember creating a composite sketch?

I remember a composite sketch being created. I didn't do

 

 

 

 

 

it.

What do you remember about that?
Very little. It was generated.

How were composite sketches generated?

You have a person who had been to school have a kit of
facial features that they put together for until a
witness is happy with the composite.

Like describe the nose, and this kind, and that kind?
Yes.

Was this before they did it on computers?

Boy, you know, I don't know.

Well, the whole time you were in Elkhart, was it always
by kit, or was it by 

No. No. There was a -- there was a time when they were
computer generated, but I don't remember if this one was.
I had forgotten about the transition.

Did you ever personally get involved in the creating of
composites?

NO.

That's not something you were trained on how to do?

No.

Did you ever refer witnesses for a composite creation in
your cases?

 I

Was that common?

 

 

 

 

 

Yes.

That happened here?
There was a composite generated. Yes.

For what purpose?

Well, we didn't know who the second suspect was in the
case, and didn't have any information on it, trying to
get an idea who we should be looking for if we could get
a good picture.

Was there ever a composite created of the suspect who was
later determined to be Chris Parish?

No. Of Chris?

Yes.

NO.

Why not?

Didn't need one.

Did you ever discover any connection between Parish and
Cooper?

NO.

Did you try?

Don't remember Cooper. Somewhere in there, there is a ~w
if there were statements taken from Cooper, they'd ask if
he knew Chris Parish. I mean, people in that case would
have been in common thread. If I referred if I

referred Cooper case over to be prosecuted for Kershner,

I would certainly have asked the question, do you know

 

 

 

 

 

Christopher Parish.

And you don't remember ever developing any corroboration
that they knew each other?

No.

Did you make any attempts other than just asking the
other one if they knew each other?

Like how?

Well, that would be something you would try to prove,
right, that these two men were connected?

Well, like how? I mean, I --

Talking to other witnesses, interviewing people.

Well, you -- going on assumptions, I would assume that
the photo lineup of Cooper was shown to all the witnesses
in the Kershner case.

By you?

By me. That would be establishing a connection to Cooper
if they said they were both together in that case. I do
not recall anyone specifically saying to me I saw those
guys together all the time.

Or ever?

Or ever. Yeah.

Did you make any attempt to prove that these guys had
ever been in each other's presence?

No.

Why not?

 

 

 

 

 

Street street stuff is pretty transitory. A lot of
stuff is done spur of the moment. They may not have
known each other before, you know, and just met each
other. I don't know.

Who was in charge of this investigation?

I guess I was in charge of the investigation as far as
conducting the investigation. You don't have a lot of
oversight until you're you do your final report and
refer it to the prosecutor, and they supervisors read
the report, and they tell you if it will go or not, if
they want more or not.

So the supervisors don't really start reading the reports
till you're closing the case?

Well, they may generally look through the case. But no,
they don't do minute?to?minute supervision, or they
didn't then.

Did they then sign off on the police reports as they were
created?

No, not routinely. I mean, they reviewed the cases.

But they didn't sign like a report?

No, but they're the ones responsible for taking it to the
prosecutor's office. We did not take our own cases over.
So at what point did you w? and which supervisors did you
involve in this investigation?

I don't know.

 

 

 

 

 

chansons

76

Did you involve any?

Did I involve a supervisor?

Yes.

No. Did I ask a supervisor for anything?

Yeah.

No. I don't recall that information. I don?t recall
that happening.

That wouldn't be typical for you to go to a supervisor
and 

NO.

and get supervision?

The reality of that case is fairy routine. I mean,
there's a lot of innuendo and a lot but if I remember,
fairly routine case. There is no evidence that I had
linking Chris Parish to this case. .All I had was verbal
identification, which I converted to a formal case.
All right. Well, you said a couple things there, but it
is true, is it not, that the only evidence you had
linking Parish to this case was this identification?
That's true.

There was no physical evidence?

Not that I'm aware of.

No basically no other evidence other than witness 

That's true.

And same is true for Parish I mean Cooper?

 

 

 

 

 

don't remember Cooper. The I just don't remember
the Cooper case. If if memory serves me at all, he
was involved in another case.

What do you remember about that?

Nothing.

Remember about a hat? Remember something about a hat, a
Jay hat or something? Does that refresh your
recollection?

There was a I guess there was recovered from the
apartment by evidence people. It was supposedly left
behind by one of the robbers or something on the way out.
Did you have anything to do with that piece of evidence?
The only thing I would I mean, I'd ask the evidence
people to have it sent and processed for whatever
evidence was in, DNA or whatever.

Do you remember the results?

No, I do not.

'Why would you have been the one who would have been

sending the evidence for processing?

I did not send it for processing. I would have been the
one, as my mm as my case, to ask the evidence people if
they had sent it to be processed.

I see.

Evidence was processed by the evidence techs.

What does it mean to be, you know, in charge of the

 

 

 

 

 

rewrote

78

investigation? Can you tell me more about that?

Just the guy assigned the case. You're just the
detective who is assigned the case.

Did other detectives at the Elkhart Police Department
work on this?

I don't think anyone else worked on it past the 

The initial?

the initial callings.

Why were other detectives involved at the very, very
beginning?

Because we have a calling policy. That's on call. On
call detective takes a weekend. The next weekend will be
a different on call detective, and the next weekend will
be till it comes back around.

But then getting back to the question, why is it that
other detectives were involved? Like Ambrose told us
yesterday, he came in and talked to a witness. Can
you --

Someone called him, I assume the supervisor in charge
that week. The supervisors do the same thing we did.
There were maybe three supervisors. You had a couple
lieutenants and a sergeant, or a lieutenant and two

And they took

sergeants. I just can't remember offhand.

turns who's who's on call, so on. On call, they leave

the information with the radio room who to contact. They

 

 



 

 

 

call that lieutenant, and the lieutenant would call in
who he wanted to call in right there, or who would pick
up the phone.

Did you interact with Ambrose on this investigation?

I don't remember Steve being part of the investigation,
so I have to say no.

Did you ever talk to Parish with Ambrose present?

I don't recall that at all.

When was the last time you talked to Ambrose?

Oh, last spring at the retirees banquet.

How about before that?

Probably at the retirees banquet before that. I don't
recall seeing Steve outside of those social events.
Those are once a year?

Those are once a year.

Do both of you generally go every year?

I didn't go I didn't go last year. It would be two
years ago. I didn?t go last year, so it would be two
years ago.
Did both of you generally go both years?

I probably have gone more than more than not, but it's
not a just depends what else is going on at the time.
How about Cutler, when was the last time you talked to
him?

Couple weeks ago.

 

 

 

 

What were the circumstances?

He was coming out of the attorney's office. Said hi,
shook hands, can't talk to you, bye, and that was our
conversation.

So you made it a point not to talk to Cutler about the
case?

Yes.

Have you ever talked to Cutler about the case?

NO.

You ever talk to Ambrose about the case?

NO.

Other than that, when was the last time you saw Cutler?
Shortly after he retired. Called him up and bought him
breakfast, and we chatted, and that was it.

What year was that?

Last year, early '07.

Is Cutler a friend?

Yes. We were neighbors at one point.

You socialize with him outside of work sometimes?
We haven't socialized in a long time.

How about Ambrose, is he a friend?

NO.

Why not?

Too young.

Different generation?

 

 

 

 

 

Yes.

Are Cutler and you more contemporaries?

Yes.

When I asked you if you, Cutler or Ambrose had talked
about the case, had you ever were you ever present at
a meeting together to talk about the case?

No.

How long was your meeting when you got ready for the
deposition, just length of time?

Meeting with who?

Your attorney.

Oh, maybe 20 minutes. Maybe 25 minutes.
Were there other meetings since the litigation has begun?
NO.

All right. Let me finish one area, then we'll think
about a break, which we haven't taken yet, but who was
the person primarily responsible for the case that was
put together against Parish?

Me.

And who was the person primarily responsible for having
the case prosecuted?

Mike Christofeno.

Who was the person primarily responsible for bringing the
evidence to Christofeno for prosecution?

Well, we had at that time two evidence techs. Be Clyde

 

 

 

. .Brown and Joel Bourdon. So which one of them produced
the evidence, I don't know. I don't remember.

And I don't mean physically brought over the bag. I
mean, who created who put together the case that got
prosecuted?

I put together the police part of it, I guess.

So who was the person responsible for developing the case
that got Christopher Parish prosecuted?

Me.

Was there anybody else responsible other than you?

Well, through the process, you know, I do my report, I
hand it to the supervisor. SuperviSors review the
report. They take it over and discuss it. I assume
discuss, or just give it to Christofeno, who as chief 
as chief deputy would review the case to see if it was a
case he wanted to prosecute or not.

When you said your supervisors reviewed it, do you mean
-- you talking about the time after you closed it, you
hand the package to your supervisors?

Yes.

So the supervisors are not reviewing you on a daily
basis?

No, they are not.

And when it was all done, who did you hand it to?

I don't know.

 

 

 

 

 

Would any any supervisor have to sign something?

Not that I'm aware of.

In Chicago, every police report is signed by the person
who creates it, and then a supervisor signs it. You
don't have a comparable thing?

I don't think they had to sign anything.

Let's take a break.

MR. LOEVY: All right.

(Recess taken.)

BY MR. LOEVY:



All right. Sir, could you tell us your practice as far
as notetaking when you're talking to witnesses?

Take notes.

As the person is talking, or you know, tell us more about
that.

It kind of depends. If we're doing an interview and the
statement is going to be taken during a
question?and?answer type of statement, wouldn't take
written notes. If I were --
Type while they're talking, you mean?

Yes. Type the information, and at some point, put it in
the statement.

Do you know if we were talking about typewriters or word
processors?

Yeah.

Computers.

It was word processors?

 

 

 

 

Word no, it was a computer.

So it was in the station?

Yes.

You had a keyboard?

Yes.

And they would be talking and you would be typing?

Ask one question, and I might take a minute and type the
statement. Yeah.
Are you a fast typer?

NO.

So what if you were outside the station, how did you take
notes?

Well, I'd take make notes on a pad.

And what kind of pad? Just a notebook or 
Whatever.

And what would you do with the notes?

Transoribe them to whatever I wanted to transcribe them
to. If it was a information report, put it in the
information report, and if it's going to be a statement,
type a statement.

Then what would you do with your notes?

Throw them away.

What would you do with your notes that didn't make it
into a report?

Throw them away.

 

 



 

 

And did you keep like a file, a personal file on a case
if it was an active case?

Of notes?

Yeah, that kind of thing.

I did not keep notes after a case is done 

Sent along to --

Sent to the prosecutor after everything was formalized.
I'd just throw the notes away.

Well, how about while you were working a case, looking
for leads, trying to solve it, where did you keep them?
You have a notebook, or folder, or drawer?

Folder. Yeah.

Tell me about that.

It was a folder, and it had a notepad in it.

Did you have one for each case or 

No.

all your we

No.

Okay.

Just take notes on the case I'm working.

And then at the end, you did what?

Threw them away.

What about the stuff that didn?t pan out into leads that,
you know, became part of the case?

Well, your notes never became part of the case.

 

 

'But like notes on a subject that didn't pan out, what
would you do with those?

Toss them.

Was that inconsistent or consistent with the Elkhart
Police Department's policy?

There was no policy on notes, notetaking.

So you weren't violating any rule of the department by
tossing notes resulting to leads that didn't pan out?
I never knew of any rule that existed.

Was there any practice that prohibited that?

No.

Did you ever interview Chris Parish?

Yes, I did.

What do you remember about that?

It sticks in my mind, it was very short interview. Near
as I can recall, there were no admissions made.

What do you remember about anything other than that?
You mean involving Chris Parish?

Right.

I mean, I don't quite what do I remember anything
about anything?

About that.

About that incident?

Right.

No, I I really don't. It was he made no

 

 

 

 

 

admissions, no statement was taken, and that ended the --
the interview, as far as I can remember.

Do you remember what he looked like?

Heavyset black male, 19, 20 years old. Short hair.
Remember anything else about his physical appearance?
Nothing that I recall.

Was anybody in the apartment African American?

I didn't hear you.

Was anybody in the apartment black?

Was anybody in the apartment black?

Yeah, other than the purported suspects.

Eddie Love.

Anybody else?

I don't know. Not that I remember.
Kershner, Nona and Dolph, those were all they were
white people?

Yes.

Did you ever approach this shooting as if it was a gang
or a drug-related thing?

NO.

Why not?

Because I approached it as a shooting. My victim was
shot, and the reality is I didn't care how he got shot.

He was shot, so if he was doing something illegal, well,

if it came up, it came up, but the my focus was on the

 

 

 

 

shooting.

Well, why wouldn't it have made more sense to investigate
whether Kershner was a drug dealer, or maybe there were
drug dealers out trying to shoot him?

Meaning why would it make more sense?

Yeah. Why wouldn't the police investigator tag it that
way?

Well, I don't know if it would make more sense. I don't
know if it would be pertinent. I had a suspect, I had a
case, and I had a victim. How how it all evolved for
these people to come to the house to shoot him may be --
may be okay information to have, but the fact that he was
shot, and Christopher Parish or Chris Parish was
identified as being one of the shooters, to me, I don't
know as it mattered if they were gang related or turf
battle or whatever. I mean, I don't know that a
victim is still a victim, and that's how I approached it.
Once you decided that Parish was the person you were
looking for, person number two, did you, from that point
on, consider the possibility that somebody other than
Parish could be the purported shooter?

At this time, I don't remember who did the shooting,
whether it was Parish 

I think well, let's be clear. I think the allegation

was that Cooper was the guy with the gun 

 

 

 

 

 

Okay.

and Parish was the other 

Because I don't remember which one of them 
Yeah. I'm not trying to trick you, but I'm just saying
once you decided Parish was the guy, the number two guy,
Or whatever guy he was, did you ever entertain the
possibility that he wasn't, and maybe somebody else was
that guy?

I don't know if I was introspective at that time or not.
Was it basically case closed once you got your ID on
Parish?

Once I got my paperwork together, and got the statements
I needed for the case that I knew to take, and went to
the prosecutor?s office, that I just didn?t dwell on
it. No.

After Love identified Parish, was there any point that
you considered anybody other than Parish to be the guy
that Love was describing?

I had no other names.

Did you continue to investigate whether someone other
than Parish might be suspect number two?

NO.

Why not?

I had only

I would have to get a phone book of suspects.

I only investigated the names I had identified by a

 

 

 

 

 

person who Chris Parish knew. There was no reason for me
to just arbitrarily start looking for people. No names
came to me. No witnesses came forward with other names.
Would it be fair to say that Love was not really
comfortable with the identification?

Love was comfortable with the identification when I spoke
with him. I don't know if he ever became uncomfortable
with the identification, or he became reluctant to
testify to there was something going on with the
prosecutor's office and him, and whatever it was, but I
didn't know.

He didn't Love didn't want to go through with
testifying, correct?

Yes. That's my yes.

But when you were dealing with Love, was there any
reluctance on his part let me ask the question. Was
there any reluctance on his part to implicate Parish?
No.

Was he comfortable that he had got the right guy?

I don't know what he was. He said what he said, and he
said that a couple of times that that I talked with
him, and he said that to other people besides me, 
Who else did he say it to besides you?

The m? whatever the investigators were that were called

in 

 

 

 

 

 

The initial guy?

on the weekend. The initial people. Yeah.
Anybody else besides the initial guy and when you got the


No. Not that I'm aware of.

Was was this a certain ID on Eddie Love's part? Was
he positive?

Eddie Love said this looks like the one of the robbers
looked like Christopher Parish.

That's what he said to the other 

That's what he said to me too.

Okay.

I don't know as until after the photo lineup, then he
said Christopher Parish was the guy, if I'm and I
shouldn't say that, because I don't remember him
specifically what he exactly said. My memory serves
that he identified him from the photo lineup as one of
the two did the shooting.

So you don't remember the exact words that 

No, I 

that he used at the photo 

No, I do not.

But was he making a positive 

In my mind, he was making a positive ID.

Was he equivocal at all?

 

 

 

 

 

was equivocal, I wouldn't have put in there that he
made a positive ID, but if he'd have told me if he'd
have told me, I don't know, but I think it's him, that's
what would be in the report, whatever the reports say. I
had no ax to grind with Chris Parish.

All right. Obviously you show someone a photo, someone
could look at the picture and say I'm positive that?s the
guy. Some guy could say, oh, could be the guy, or I'm
not sure. There's a difference, right?
Yes.

And would you memorialize the difference in your report?
Yes, I would.

How would you do that?

Well, I don't "w just the way it said. Positively, you
know, would have put in there that he generally "n he
believed generally that this was the suspect or whatever.
As a matter of fact, I think in Dolph's statement, it's
that way. I don't think she ever positively identified
Chris Parish. She said it looked like him, but she
couldn't be sure, and I believe that's in her statement.
Of course, you didn't do Dolph's statement, right?

Yeah.

Ambrose did?

I did her statement.

Oh, you remember doing Dolph's statement?

 

 

 Yes.

Okay. What do you remember about that?

Of the three -- of the four people I believe that I took
statements from in that case, there was only one that did
not identify Chris Parish positively in my mind, as my
memory serves me, is Dolph.

And what do you remember about Dolph's identification?
Just that she didn?t identify him positively. Looks like
him or whatever it was. It was not a positive
identification.

She was saying it looks like him, but she wasn't sure?
She wasn't sure.

Did you tell Dolph anything about the case and what you
had discovered?

NO.

Why not?

I don't remember telling her anything. I don't know why
I had to tell her why I would tell her anything. She
m? she was a witness in a case. There was no reason for
me to tell her anything.

So there would be no reason for you to be telling any of
the witnesses anything about Chris Parish or the case?
Well, some of the one of the witnesses was a victim.
Okay.-

His mother, so I'm assuming that she know she knew

 

 

 .-.A.some things, but and I know she talked to the
prosecutor's office, so I don't know what she knew.
All right. But I asked you was there any reason why you
should have been telling witnesses anything about Chris
Parish.

I don't remember there should be any reason why I would.
Why you would?

Yes.

In fact, wouldn't it be improper if you were telling the
witnesses things about Chris Parish?

Depends on what we're talking about. They were victims
and he's a suspect. I mean, at some point there's a
conversation. I'm guessing the gist of your question is
did I tell him to identify Chris Parish or did I 
I don't suppose you're w?

"m describe Chris Parish to him. I didn't do that.
Okay. But did you at any point 

I 

I don't suppose you're going to tell me, yeah, I told
them pick out Chris Parish.

I didn't do that.

All right. Well, what I'm asking now is did you have any
conversations with them about Chris Parish?

I don't recall any conversations with them about Chris

Parish.

 

 

 

 

 

Would there have been any reason for you to be talking
about Chris Parish?

I may have made some comment. We might have said
something after the identification was made. But I
didn't know anything about Chris Parish, so I mean, I
don't know -- I don't know what you're asking other than
I didn't know him.

You knew his name?

Not a whole lot I could talk to them about.

You knew his name, right?

I knew his name.

Did you ask the witnesses if they knew Chris Parish's
name?

I don't think I specifically asked that.

Would you have memorialized it if you did?

If it was part of the if it was part of the
identification process, I -- I would have I won?t ask
him do you know Chris Parish. I would ask, is the guy
who robbed you and shot Michael Kershner in this photo
lineup? That's what I would ask.
But at any point, did you ask the witnesses if they knew
Chris Parish?

No.

Is that something you would have documented if you did?

I don't know.

 

 

- . . . Might have, might not have?
I don't know why I'd ask them that. They all if I
remember the preliminary investigation, I know no one
knew him.except Eddie Love, so no reason to ask him, do
you know Chris Parish. No one knew him but Eddie.
But you wouldn't have known that unless you asked them.
Well, just probably from the initial investigation, he's
the only one that gave the name. No one else said they
knew him. Eddie Love said he knew him from the street.
Tell me about your procedure for doing a photo lineup.
How did you go about doing them?

MS. KALAMAROS: Other than what he's already

said?

BY MR. LOEVY:



I'm talking generally, when you would do a photo lineup,
what's I think did you told us how you picked the
photos. Okay. So let's say you got a witness in the
room, you got your spread, what do you do?

Show them a photo lineup and ask them if the suspect in
their case is shown in, if they believe the suspect in
the case is there.

And then what's the next thing that happens?

They identify it or they don't. If they identify it,
they I run a copy of the photo lineup, and they

initial or sign the picture they identify.

 

 

 

 -,

 

 

 

you ever interact with them about what about one, what
about two, what about three?

No.

You say anything else to them other than what you just
said?

No.

Is that the way you were trained by Elkhart?

Trained by anybody. I mean, it seemed to me that would
be the right thing to do. I'm not interested in w? I'm
not interested in them identifying somebody who is not a
suspect in the case.

I understand, but I'm just asking, you never got any
training about doing it differently than that?

No.

Have you ever trained anybody on how to do a photo 
No.

Are you aware --

I mean, other than maybe someone watching, new detective
seeing how I did it, but I didn't specifically ever train
anybody.

Are you aware of any of the, you know, literature on
identification people being not as good as they think
they are in identifying people? Is that something you've
ever read about?

Since that time, there have been several things come out

 

 

 

 

about personal identifications, I visual
identifications not being as accurate as they were first
thought to be.

What do you know about that?

Nothing.

You ever read those articles or anything?

I don't -- other than the that's what they said, no.
Generally I didn't "w I didn't read books on it or
anything. No.

Do you have any personal belief on the subject?

That probably people see different things. Witnesses in
a bank robbery will give different descriptions of
clothing. And general stuff is pretty consistent, but
they'll put sweatshirt on a guy when he may have been
wearing a tuxedo, and then that's what I know just from
experience.

In this case, if Eddie Love said the guy looks like Chris
Parish, and if he wasn't saying it is Chris Parish, he
physically resembles Chris Parish, would it have been
suggestive to put Chris Parish's photo in the lineup?

I don't know. He suggested the name to me, so whose
picture am I going to put in there if I'm looking for
Chris Parish?

He's not saying

Well, let's assume a different universe.

he's saying didn't know the people's names.

 

 

 

 

 

didn't say the people's names, we wouldn't be
sitting here.

Well, let me just stay with me here. He says I don't
know the person's name, hypothetically, but I've seen him
around, and he looks like a guy I know, Chris Parish.
Okay. That's the hypothetical I want to you answer. If
that's true, that the perpetrator who he didn't know
looked like Parish, wouldn't it be suggestive to put
Parish's picture in there?

No. What are you going to do with the information? Just
let it go? I 

Do you see the danger, thoughquestion. In my hypothetical, he's
saying it's not Chris Parish, because I know Chris Parish
and I know these guys, and you know, and this guy isn't
Chris Parish, but it looks like Chris Parish.

He didn't say that.

Okay. But in my hypothetical he said that. Under my
hypothetical, wouldn't it be suggestive then to turn
around and put Parish's picture in a lineup?

Well, it would be no -- if it went that far, probably.
But I wouldn't I wouldn't have acted on that
information if he said I don't know I don't know Chris

Parish, but it looked like Chris Parish, we wouldn't be

 

 

 

 

 

100

having this discussion.

In my hypothetical, he says I've seen these guys around.
I don't know their names, but it looked like Parish.
Under that hypothetical, it would have been suggestive to
put Parish in the lineup, right?

Well, no. Put it in a lineup, and then you discuss is
the guy who was in the apartment shown in this photo
lineupidentified who he identified.

But in my photo lineup, the guy in the apartment looked
like Parish.

Then they look alike.

Right. So wouldn't it be suggestive in my hypothetical
to put Parish's picture in there?

I don't I don't know if it?s suggestive or not. I
don't think it would be suggestive. Either he looks like
Chris Parish, or it is Chris Parish. He says it's Chris
Parish.

All right. But my ID, my hypothetical, he said I know
the guys. I don't know their names, but it's a guy who
looks like Parish. That's my hypothetical. Okay.
That's I understand you're saying that's different
than the information you got, right?

Exactly.