June 13, 2025 • 50 mins
With Wilson’s blood planted at the scene of the crime, the DA has all evidence related to third person culpability excluded from the jury. The evidence is overwhelming that Wilson did not commit this crime. Transcripts show an evasive and eluding roommate that leaves the country, and may be the murderer himself. New info on drug trafficking and money laundering surrounding the victim and her family who abscond with 300k of Wilson’s money while he goes to jail for a crime he did not commit.
Hit the Road Jack: Finding the Zodiac is broadcast live Fridays at 10AM PT on K4HD Radio - Hollywood Talk Radio (www.k4hd.com) part of Talk 4 Radio (www.talk4radio.com) on the Talk 4 Media Network (www.talk4media.com). Hit the Road Jack: Finding the Zodiac TV Show is viewed on Talk 4 TV (www.talk4tv.com).
Hit the Road Jack: Finding the Zodiac Podcast is also available on Talk 4 Media (www.talk4media.com), Talk 4 Podcasting (www.talk4podcasting.com), iHeartRadio, Amazon Music, Pandora, Spotify, Audible, and over 100 other podcast outlets.
Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/hit-the-road-jack-finding-the-zodiac--5297837/support.
Hit the Road Jack: Finding the Zodiac is broadcast live Fridays at 10AM PT on K4HD Radio - Hollywood Talk Radio (www.k4hd.com) part of Talk 4 Radio (www.talk4radio.com) on the Talk 4 Media Network (www.talk4media.com). Hit the Road Jack: Finding the Zodiac TV Show is viewed on Talk 4 TV (www.talk4tv.com).
Hit the Road Jack: Finding the Zodiac Podcast is also available on Talk 4 Media (www.talk4media.com), Talk 4 Podcasting (www.talk4podcasting.com), iHeartRadio, Amazon Music, Pandora, Spotify, Audible, and over 100 other podcast outlets.
Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/hit-the-road-jack-finding-the-zodiac--5297837/support.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
This program is designed to provide general information with regards
to the subject matters covered. This information is given with
the understanding that neither the hosts, guests, sponsors, or station
are engaged in rendering any specific and personal medical, financial,
legal counseling, professional service, or any advice. You should seek
(00:22):
the services of competent professionals before applying or trying any
suggested ideas.
Speaker 2 (00:52):
Good morning, True Seekers and true crime junkies. Welcome back
to another episode of Hit the Roadjack Finding the Zodiac.
Speaker 3 (01:00):
Friday the thirteenth.
Speaker 2 (01:01):
We are going to continue back with the wrongful conviction
of Peter Wilson. I'm going to be going over some
transcripts today. I will be briefly reading, or at least
just highlighting some points in it, but I will be
showing the presentation. So if you want to read that
entire transcript yourself, you're welcome to pause it and go
back and take a look.
Speaker 3 (01:22):
It gets extremely.
Speaker 2 (01:23):
Interesting at this point because we are going to be
talking and discussing things such as laundering money and drug
trafficking and all the things that we actually find in
the Zodiac. Podcast kind of runs in suit with this
stuff that is happening the law enforcement that are being
either paid or are just bad at hard I suppose,
(01:46):
because they're definitely not protecting the public when they're doing
some of these things. And you're going to get to
hear a bit more about that throughout today's transcripts. We're
going to be looking over the testimony of William William Coleman,
which is the second roommate in the household in which
Hawk To Kim was killed, and my client Peter Wilson
(02:09):
believes that he is the likely suspect. So we'll be
finding out some of those reasons today because his testimony
is just a bit sketchy and a whole lot fishy.
So I'd like to welcome to the show, Harriet Souchet.
Speaker 4 (02:23):
Yes again, Happy Friday the thirteenth to you too. We
always love that I'm usually lucky on Friday the thirteenth
because everything about my birthday, my name, everything is either
at thirteen or twenty two. If you follow anything about neurology,
you'll understand what I'm talking about.
Speaker 2 (02:43):
I don't, and yeah, then we'll then congratulations on your day.
All right, So I'm climbing right back in. Last week
we just good morning, Nolan let's welcome Nolan to the show.
Speaker 3 (02:58):
Good morning.
Speaker 2 (02:59):
I'm just climb, I mean right back in we left
off last week. I think the last thing we talked
about in this was that Linda Condra and the DA
argues it's a waste of time to introduce the exculpatory
evidence such as the cigarette bud and the seamen and
the sperm, because she doesn't want the jury to hear
anything that would confuse anything other than an indictment on
Peter Wilson. So following up with that, we're going to
(03:22):
talk about we're going to hear what she has to
say in regards to third party evidence. So I'm not
sure where I lost one eighty two, but it starts
off on I'm sorry nine, I'm missing the first page
that starts this paragraph. But she's stating that a significant theory.
But the question isn't the significance of the theory his
(03:43):
preferred evidence is supposed to support. The question is the
significance of the evidence. And although it's true if he
had legitimate, reasonable evidence that gave a suggestion not only
of the mere opportunity for there to have been a
third party culpability, but that creates an actual nexus between
a third party and the commission of the crime such
that there is significant evidence.
Speaker 3 (04:05):
That's one thing. That's not what we have got here.
Speaker 2 (04:09):
I have read this paragraph Nolan several times, and I
honestly do not.
Speaker 3 (04:13):
I feel like she just confused everybody. Did that make
sense to you?
Speaker 5 (04:19):
No?
Speaker 3 (04:20):
I mean.
Speaker 6 (04:24):
She's speaking politicians speak. She's just trying to convince you
that the world is flat.
Speaker 2 (04:30):
Yes, that's how I felt. I was like, which way
are you going with this? I mean, it doesn't really
make a lot of sense to me, And I just
don't understand if he had a legitimate, reasonable evidence we do,
you're trying to block it.
Speaker 5 (04:44):
Yeah, why would the prosecution wanted?
Speaker 3 (04:49):
What's that?
Speaker 6 (04:50):
The only reason is because she made up her mind
that she wants to convict this one guy and this
and damn.
Speaker 2 (04:56):
Justice exactly, and that that's the kind of the way
I look at it, and I get it.
Speaker 3 (05:02):
I understand. This is the second trial, and the.
Speaker 2 (05:04):
First trial was a hung jury, likely because there was
that third party culpability that was introduced. Now she's trying
to block that altogether and wants them to focus on
the fact they found his blood at the scene, but
with no explanation for how that blood got there, because
he's not covered in blood when they show up, he's not,
you know what I'm saying.
Speaker 3 (05:24):
And as we go through this advantage though he's.
Speaker 2 (05:28):
Bandaged up, but he bled in San Francisco, he didn't
bleed in Palo Alto, So I mean, yeah, well we
know how the Michael Yore, the arresting officer, took one
vial of his blood out of the property evidence on
Sunday when the forensics department isn't even open till Monday,
and he had no cause to do that. I've actually
(05:49):
spoken to a couple former law enforcement officers the last week,
and none of them can make any sense of it.
They cannot make sense of the expopable evidence being removed
from its file. They don't scan that page that says
removed due to teriffs. They said that they've never seen
anything like that before. Once it goes in the file,
it doesn't come out of the file. So we definitely have.
Speaker 3 (06:12):
Some foul play here.
Speaker 2 (06:14):
So to go on, the court says, after she responds
this way, that's what's involved. There is no question as
to the holding and the law as regard to this matter.
Speaker 3 (06:24):
It is totally fact driven.
Speaker 2 (06:26):
There was an item that has not been referred to
by council, and that is the reference to a car
that there was a taxi driver described a covered car
when he picked up the defend in round two PM
that date. Now, that matches Peter Wilson's statements that when
he got home from the restaurant that he saw a
vehicle covered in with a car cover and miss Kim's
(06:48):
BMW was gone.
Speaker 3 (06:49):
So I'm going to take.
Speaker 2 (06:51):
That inference to mean that mister Wilson knew exactly what
shape and style her car was, and that likely whatever
car was underneath that car cover did not match that
same style for him to have said that it was
not her BMW.
Speaker 3 (07:06):
So we know that at two.
Speaker 2 (07:08):
O'clock, based on both the taxi cab driver's testimony and
Peter Wilson's testimony, is that there was a vehicle in
that driveway that was covered by a car cover and
Miss Kim's car was gone.
Speaker 3 (07:21):
So he says a taxi.
Speaker 2 (07:24):
This is the court saying a taxi driver described a
covered car when he picked up the defendant around two
PM that date. What does that have I'm not sure
the inference I'm.
Speaker 3 (07:33):
To draw from that.
Speaker 2 (07:35):
Mister Parsku, which is the public defender, says, well, the
evidence will also show that, according to Miss Kim's family,
Miss Kim did not have a car cover for her car,
so it's certainly and he gets cut off. The court says,
I'm sorry, a car cover for her car like this
is this is He's like, I don't under It's like
he's saying, I don't understand the inference to this. Mister
(07:57):
Perisco says, for her car now, the taxi cab driver,
she owned a BMW. She parked it in the driveway.
She did not have a car cover to cover it.
So he's basically trying to relate to the court and
somehow doesn't manage to get it out that there was
a second vehicle in the driveway when mister Wilson was
picked up by the taxi cab driver, which they both
testified to. So that being said, we're going to move
(08:24):
on TOFF. It's extremely important evidence. It's it's another sign
of third party culpability. So we've got a cigarette butt,
we've got an alleged rate based on semen and sperm
found on the victim. We've got a vehicle that is
not identifiable by the tenants. Well, actually, the only person
who's it's later not there, and we're going to get
(08:45):
into that when we get into Coleman's testimony. It's absolutely
the more I read his testimony, the more I can
see why mister Wilson is convinced that he was the
perpetrator of the crime.
Speaker 3 (08:55):
But I also played Devil's advocate on that side.
Speaker 2 (08:58):
So this particular and as I go through these, I'm
not going to read everything on these transcripts. I'm just
going to read the highlighted or brief what it is
that I know. But everybody will be able to see
the actual transcripts on their own end. They can pause
and read them for themselves that they'd like. This particular
slide number forty four is what I call states bad
collection of evidence. So basically, they collected the leaves in
(09:21):
the basement, and they provided them to a leaf expert
who identified them as being the same leaf that was
found stuck to the buttocks of Kim underneath her underwear
and her pants, which would indicate that somebody had pulled
those down in the basement, and after redressing her, accidentally
scooped up a leaf that became stuck to her buttocks.
But then the state turns around and sends an investigator
(09:44):
back out to the property to go around the property
trying to find leaves that match those in the basement,
which I don't even understand what their purpose of this was,
because the investigator while at the property, now mind you,
it's owned by a new person. He's out they're taking
clippings from a bush when that new residence says, that's
(10:04):
a tree I planted, so there would this wouldn't be
related to whatever crime that occurred here at the house.
And even then he only takes that sample and one
other sample from another tree. And I'm not, again, not
sure why they would do that. If you're going to test,
you should test all the trees. Which is mister Pariscu's
point in regards to the state's collection of bad evidence,
(10:27):
is that they should have pulled something from every single
living bush and tree in that in and around that
property if they wanted to determine if those those leaves
in the basement actually came from the property or if
they were carried in by somebody else.
Speaker 5 (10:41):
Leaves in the basement as well.
Speaker 2 (10:43):
Yes, then those leaves match the ones stuck to her buttox.
But the two that the state collected from outside the
house on the property did not match right, And one
of them, he was specifically told by the current resident,
is not I planted that tree. It wasn't here the
crime happened. But that person, that investigator, still proceeded to
take a clipping of that tree and take it back.
Speaker 3 (11:06):
Very strange.
Speaker 5 (11:07):
Why I don't know.
Speaker 2 (11:08):
Yeah, no, that's it's totally irrelevant. It has no bearing.
So what was the state attempting to do with this
leaf evidence would be extremely interesting to me. So basically
we need to start out with some of the things
that are going on here. This is the William Coleman
testimony is going to be read, and it's from the
nineteen I wrote nineteen ninety six, but it's a nineteen
(11:29):
ninety eight trial that they read into the two thousand trial.
And this is the instructions of the judge to the jury.
And I wanted everybody to hear this. So the court says,
all right, ladies, yes, okay.
Speaker 6 (11:43):
So he was there for the first trial, but he
split and was out of the country for the next one.
Speaker 5 (11:48):
I think that once her testimony in the next one.
Speaker 2 (11:52):
Correct and this is where I say I kind of
played devil's advocate, because if Coleman didn't kill Kim and
the first jury came back hung, he realized what law
enforcement and the system could do to mister Wilson. When
he knew mister Wilson hadn't killed her, I might have
cut my bracelet and run for the hills myself, because
(12:14):
that meant I was next on the firing line. So
I think that when mister Wilson didn't get indicted for
I'm sorry, convicted of this crime, that he thought he
had to now worry about himself and he got out
of town. Now, if he was the killer and he
got out of town, it is likely because he felt
that mister Wilson wasn't going to be convicted of the
crime and that they were going to proceed to look
(12:36):
for other suspects, but they stopped short.
Speaker 3 (12:38):
And in fact, in Coleman's.
Speaker 2 (12:40):
Own testimony, they didn't take any evidence from him that night.
Speaker 3 (12:44):
So it does appear.
Speaker 2 (12:45):
At a later date that he did some type of
a rape kit for the city, but in the beginning
they took nothing from him, and they just absolutely hemmed
up Wilson and pinned everything on Wilson, and he's the
one that found the body. So the judge says to
the jury, all right, ladies and gentlemen, we will be
back on the record, which will reflect counsel or present,
(13:06):
the defending his present, and all members of the panel.
What we're going to do, ladies and gentlemen, at this
time is to read into the record the individual who
is not available to testify. And it is important for
you to understand it's not for you to wonder why,
or to in any way concerning yourselves with the reason
for this witness not being present. Okay, the parties have
(13:27):
stipulated that he is unavailable to testify, and in lieu
of his physical presence here in court, the parties have
agreed that they will read into the record testimony that
this witness has given in a previous proceeding, and the
process will be to have an individual who is actually
a deputy district attorney and a colleague to Miss Condren
play the part of the witness, and Miss Condron will
(13:47):
play her role of the district attorney, and mister Pariscu
will play the part of the defense attorney, and they
will merely question and the witness will respond.
Speaker 3 (13:57):
Is that typical Nolan? You left Nolan?
Speaker 7 (14:07):
I think he's grabbing a cup of coffee.
Speaker 5 (14:09):
Right question.
Speaker 2 (14:12):
So basically, well, you've just missed everything I said, and
I don't want to reread that for them.
Speaker 5 (14:16):
I heard, I heard, I was in the room.
Speaker 7 (14:18):
I had to.
Speaker 2 (14:20):
Okay, Well, they're they're literally assigning characters, you know, actors
to a test to a trial transcript, and asking them
to play a role as if they are capable of
literally questioning and getting real answers. They're really just going
down this like they were reading a script for a movie,
(14:42):
basically for the jury to hear, which I don't know.
Speaker 3 (14:45):
Have you ever seen that happen?
Speaker 6 (14:49):
No, normally you would have the judge read it.
Speaker 5 (14:52):
Into the record.
Speaker 3 (14:53):
Yeah, No, Here they played the part.
Speaker 2 (14:55):
So Condurin acted as the DA, one of her colleagues
acted as as William Coleman, and then mister Parisco acted
as the public defender in the questions and the testimony
were about to read.
Speaker 5 (15:08):
Is Condord not the original DA anyway?
Speaker 3 (15:10):
No?
Speaker 7 (15:11):
She was.
Speaker 5 (15:12):
She was, okay, So she.
Speaker 3 (15:15):
Played herself.
Speaker 2 (15:17):
And so the court continues to say, so what you
are to do is to take this testimony in the
same sense, with the same credibility. Oh my god, I
don't even understand saying.
Speaker 3 (15:28):
The man is gone.
Speaker 2 (15:29):
You've told the jury don't worry about why he's not here,
but take this with the same credibility as if he
was here on the stand. This sounds like a complete
freaking like Twilight Zone movie.
Speaker 6 (15:41):
Yeah, they have no way of judging his credibility. You
can't hear his am, you can't see here his facial expression.
Speaker 3 (15:49):
No nothing, You've got nothing.
Speaker 2 (15:52):
Same rules that I previously explained to you in determining
what this witness says. In other words, his credibility, his
entire like everything is to put So basically I wrote,
jury is deprived of seeing mister Coleman respond and his
demeanor during that response. So further instructions from the judge was,
in other words, his credibility, his entire probative value of
(16:14):
his evidence is under the same rules, under the same
limitations as any witness that would be called to testify
in person. So there's no difference in that at all.
Now this is going to be read into the record,
but you won't have a copy of it to follow,
because it's not for you to feel that it's any
more important because it has been transcribed, or there's any
more to significance to it because a written copy has
(16:36):
been made of it. And you're again just to base
your determination of the issues in this case solely upon
the testimony, just as if this individual were physically present.
I understand that the full name of this individual it
is William and mister Pariscu. Yes, your honor, the court says,
William Coleman. So that causes us to climb right on in.
And I thought some of the most important parts of
(16:58):
this testimony is his arrival at home, so he gets
off work at seven o'clock.
Speaker 3 (17:02):
He makes his way to safeway. Yes, good point.
Speaker 6 (17:07):
Yeah, it's by doing it this way it almost is
more credibility to this testimony and makes it really really important,
and it almost goes down as fact when it's just
necessarily be fact.
Speaker 3 (17:21):
And there's no way right.
Speaker 2 (17:24):
And I can tell you that the average adult will
remember about forty five minutes of being spoken to, whether
you're in a class setting or on zoom or otherwise.
Speaker 3 (17:35):
You really can't feed too.
Speaker 2 (17:37):
Much at somebody and expect them to remember all aspects
of it. And the court said specifically we're not giving
you a copy of this, so they have nothing to
take back with them to moll Over to read how
ridiculous this is. And I'm sure with all the confusion,
you know how it works in the courtroom. Sometimes there's objections.
Sometimes there's you know, you didn't say that correctly, or
(17:58):
you and everybody gets all fused right about what was
really said? What was really the question? And now how
am I supposed to answer that. You're going to see
a lot of that in these transcripts, which makes it
very complicated for a jury to understand how many times
this man lied. If they could have taken this twenty
eight page transcript back to the jury room and highlighted
all the different lies as I have actually highlighted in
(18:20):
this presentation, they would have had a better understanding of
what Coleman and Coleman not once implicates Wilson. So let
me just make that clear. This testimony does nothing but
make him look fishy and squirmy. So he gets off
work at seven o'clock. He goes to a safe way
to pick up some food. He then takes his bike
(18:41):
and he's riding a bike back, so he rides it
down Colorado in midtown Colorado Avenue and Middlefield. And then
he returns home and he says, yep, I parked my
bike in the driveway where she parked her car and
around the side of the bushes. And mister Parisk, I'm sorry.
Misscondurance says, now, tell me about her car. Was it
in the driveway at that time? And and he says,
(19:03):
Coleman says, when I got home that Saturday at eight thirty,
between eight thirty and eight forty five, her car was
in the driveway.
Speaker 3 (19:09):
Yes.
Speaker 2 (19:10):
Now, now we have that paradox right when the taxi
cab driver picks up Wilson and Wilson both testify to
a car being under the car cover that was not
miss Kim's car. That car and car cover is now gone,
and Coleman has never seen that car and car cover
because he's been gone at work all day. But he's
(19:30):
now home and the car, the BMW, is back in
the driveway. So we know that up until this point
that and we're going to hear in this testimony he
actually has dinner with her this night, which makes.
Speaker 5 (19:41):
It even So what point what time does Wilson get home.
Speaker 2 (19:46):
He doesn't get home until approximately I want to say,
approximately almost three am.
Speaker 5 (19:53):
Okay, the next day.
Speaker 6 (19:54):
So so the woman, the victim, and Coleman are the
only two people there from eight forty five to three am.
Speaker 5 (20:04):
Correct, So why focus on Wilson over Coleman. I would
look heavily into both of them.
Speaker 3 (20:11):
Yeah, exactly.
Speaker 5 (20:12):
The third party the other car with the cover on it.
Speaker 3 (20:15):
Yeah, it makes me wonder who who who Coleman was.
Speaker 2 (20:19):
So anyways, he says, let's see.
Speaker 3 (20:24):
The uh.
Speaker 2 (20:26):
Canduran shows him some exhibits and marks these photographs and
asks if this is miss Kim's car, and Coleman says, yes,
that is her car. And the question is okay, is
that where it's part? And he said, put them back here.
That's correct. Was it covered at the time you lived there?
Was it covered with a car cover? Nope, the car
(20:47):
was never covered. It was the paint was you could
see the paint color. It was never covered. So this
is Coleman stating that she's never had a car cover.
Speaker 3 (20:57):
Her family says, she's never had a car cover.
Speaker 2 (20:59):
So why is this whole car cover and the vehicle
with the car cover being kept from the jury because
again it's third party culpability.
Speaker 5 (21:10):
So by the prosecution and bad by the judge.
Speaker 3 (21:14):
Exactly right, he did, but they didn't.
Speaker 2 (21:19):
They were again conduring was so hot and heavy on
excluding every piece that would identify somebody else as being responsible.
Speaker 5 (21:27):
Well, the defense attorneyshire jumped all over it. And it's
a judge, No, it's mister Condon doesn't run this courtroom.
Speaker 3 (21:34):
You do right, right.
Speaker 4 (21:37):
Or not?
Speaker 6 (21:39):
Yeah, that's grants for appeal right there. Exclusion im courtant evidence,
you know, by the prosecution and by the judge.
Speaker 5 (21:48):
Well inevidently, oh did you ever find out if there
was an appeal?
Speaker 3 (21:54):
I have not yet, as a matter of fact. That
is one of those questions.
Speaker 2 (21:57):
I was trying to remember everything that we asked last week,
and I did shoot off a couple letters to mister
Wilson this week.
Speaker 3 (22:05):
Good, But in this long entire one it well.
Speaker 2 (22:09):
Yeah, it most definitely is so basically theory. This could
have been the killer and they didn't want their car
to be viewed by anyone who passed. As I've said before,
the time frame also supports that Kim was alive when
mister Wilson left home, and that she left with the
owner of said car under cover in her own BMW.
That then came back long after Wilson had left. Mister
(22:30):
Cloming could have merely been scared that he would have
come under scrutiny if this second trial acquitted mister Wilson,
and he saw first hand what the law enforcement and
the DA were capable of doing, because he knew that
mister Wilson couldn't have committed the crime yet was being
tried for it. So cutting the ankle base that I
did get that question out to find out why he
was on an ankle bracelet.
Speaker 3 (22:51):
Was this something that the city that the.
Speaker 2 (22:53):
Police department had done to keep track of him as
a second possible suspect, or was he on parole or
probation of some sort that required him to wear an
ankle monitor. I'm hoping to get that answer here soon.
Either way, he cuts that ankle.
Speaker 6 (23:10):
If any of the neighbors were questioned about the car
and what time they arrived and what time it.
Speaker 2 (23:15):
Left, I haven't seen any of that investigative work. I
haven't seen any of those reports by.
Speaker 6 (23:22):
The ieive go teh.
Speaker 3 (23:27):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (23:28):
And when they talked to the neighbors, it seemed like
they were more collecting, you know, personal information in regards
to the attitude of miss Kim, in which case they
all said she was rather aggressive. People didn't really talk
to her, she kept to herself, but they had seen
some different acts from her that showed and supported that
she was an aggressive and almost even violent person who
(23:48):
will hop on a vehicle and chase people down. Coleman
arrives home at thirty eight forty five, seven hours before
miss mister Wilson finds her body. So we want to
keep that seven hour time frame in our mind because
of that nine to one one call when Wilson, when
Coleman says that that she had been dead for four
to five maybe four to five hours, maybe even longer.
(24:13):
This at least supports at a minimum that Coleman knew
she was dead before mister Wilson found her.
Speaker 3 (24:17):
And we'll get into that testimony as well.
Speaker 5 (24:20):
And Wilson didn't kill her because he didn't get home
till three and he found her shortly thereafter.
Speaker 3 (24:24):
Right, correct, Yes, yeah, he couldn't have killed her.
Speaker 2 (24:28):
And even the forensics support this time frame or this
this uh purported time frame that Coleman is given to
nine one one operators, and what he testifies to fits
in line and the only people that would have been
home at that point in time would have been Kim
and Coleman.
Speaker 7 (24:47):
Real quick. What can I ask a question?
Speaker 4 (24:49):
Is it is this evidence coming from the medical examiner
connected to the DA whatever, it is Everything that they're saying,
the that she was estimated to be deceased, the time frame, everything,
they their witnesses, their forensic expert witnesses based on the
(25:11):
US attempted to state that she was killed between twelve
forty eight pm and one fifty eight pm on Saturday,
when in fact she was killed more like, based on
actual forensics, she was killed more than about probably midnight,
eleven o'clock midnight more sense, how the rigormortis played itself out,
(25:33):
and she was completely out of rigor at nine thirty
am on Monday mornings, So that twenty four hour period
and even even a few hours extra. For the consideration
that she was in a cool basement which would have
slowed the process, and that she was then taken to
the morgue where she was kept in a refrigeration unit,
that would have slowed the rigormortis process again, but that
(25:54):
would have put it properly in a timeframe at about
eleven PM midnight of Saturday night.
Speaker 7 (26:01):
So that's why I asked that, because I'm seeing that
a lot in some very corrupt and local governments.
Speaker 3 (26:12):
When you're narrating your story, you get your.
Speaker 2 (26:14):
Experts to testify if they're hired guns, as it sounds
like these individuals were. You get them to testify to
the affirmative of your theory.
Speaker 6 (26:24):
Theory of Wilson being cupable. It actually exonerates Wilson.
Speaker 2 (26:31):
It was future testimony by these same experts in other
cases after the fact, where they actually correctly testified to
the proper hours and time that rigamortis took to set in.
Speaker 3 (26:41):
Okay, they tried to sit.
Speaker 2 (26:43):
Yes, So once you narrow win the actual time frame
that it takes for rigamortis to occur and to leave
the body that would have already have happened had she
been in let's say, a room temperature room, but you
got to add some time to it because she was
in cool places like the basement and the refrigeration unit.
So another thing that Coleman testified to was the other
(27:06):
than saying I found oh, so he's being asked how
he was being asked how it was that he was
dressed when Wilson walked into his room and asked whether
or not Wilson said anything to him through the door.
My client's interpretation of this evening is that he yelled
for Coleman to come come help me. I found Gene,
(27:27):
and he got no response, and he knocked on the door,
no response. Then he opened the door and walked in
on Coleman, and he sees Coleman standing there fully dressed, shoes, pants, shirt, sweatshirt,
as if he's going to be leaving the house when
it's four am. And he works more of a midshift.
As we know, he doesn't get off till seven pm
every night, so we probably start somewhere around I'm going
(27:49):
to guess eleven am in the morning. There's no reason
for him to be fully dressed at four am. So
he's trying to tell the jury that other than saying
I found did he say anything else Coleman said, nope.
Speaker 3 (28:03):
Did he say come with me, Coleman, nope? Did you say.
Speaker 2 (28:06):
Anything to him Coleman, nope? Did you say where the minute?
Coleman says, the minute he mentioned Jean's name, I followed him,
so he claimed, So you're gonna hear him go back
and forth, saying that Wilson didn't say anything about Gene
to all he did.
Speaker 3 (28:21):
Was knock on the door once to how he was dressed.
Speaker 2 (28:25):
So there's a whole lot of back and forth, like
I said, in this So now he's being asked if
there's a light switch that controls a light down in
the hallway, and he indicates where is that light switch
located downstairs? Where downstairs? I think on the right hand
side of the steps on the stairway. Yeah, how far
down do you have to go? Almost to the bottom,
he says. But this light and door, the door to
(28:48):
the basement was opened and the light was on when
when Wilson found Gene. That's how he even noticed that
she was there, because it was odd for that door
to be open and a light to be on, And
he looked down saw Jane at the bottom of the stairs,
and then proceeded to attempt to get Coleman to come
assist him in checking on her and calling nine to
one one.
Speaker 6 (29:07):
So why wouldn't why wouldn't Golmand notice the light and
the door of basement being open, And then didn't he
have dinner.
Speaker 3 (29:17):
With a woman?
Speaker 2 (29:18):
So why would we're gonna get anymore, we're gonna get
into that testimony.
Speaker 3 (29:24):
You're absolutely correct.
Speaker 2 (29:25):
His room does not have a secondary door on the
rear side to get out like Wilson's does. So Wilson
has a good explanation. He usually leaves by the outside
doorway to his room that allows him to exit and
come in without even coming into the main part of
the house. The difference is is that Coleman's bedroom, right
next to Kim's bedroom, does not have a separate exit
(29:46):
entry to the outside, so he literally has to.
Speaker 5 (29:49):
Come through the house.
Speaker 3 (29:53):
All right, let's see.
Speaker 2 (29:58):
So now he being question as to whether or not
the stairway stair stairway is wide, and that's because Coleman
states that he entered the basement stairwell and he only
went two steps down, went down to take the third
step and looked down and claims that he saw the lifeless,
pale white body of miss Kim, half dressed, knew that
(30:21):
she had been dead for hours, because he claimed her
legs were stiff, and that appeared to be riga mortis,
which I couldn't tell you what rig mortis looks like.
And if you've never studied these things, it's not something
that the average person is going to be aware of.
But the question is is that a wide stairway or not?
He says yes, question is it wide? How wide do
(30:41):
you want it to be? Coleman says, like.
Speaker 3 (30:45):
How is that? An sir?
Speaker 2 (30:49):
Would you describe it as wide or describe it as
as narrow? He says wide? So do you know how
wide it is? No, I have no idea how wide
it is. But this all plays into his visibility of
miss Kim, what he can see that mister Wilson is doing.
Speaker 3 (31:05):
But and also the timeframes are going.
Speaker 2 (31:07):
To flip flop back and forth about how long he
actually stood on that third step.
Speaker 3 (31:11):
So it says what condition was she? Her head or
she was?
Speaker 2 (31:16):
Okay, I'm sorry he's the question is in what condition
was she? And Coleman says, what condition was she? Her
head or she was fully exposed from the waist up,
but the robe she was wearing covered the lower part
of her. Did you see any blood? Yes, there was
blood on her was lying on the steps. The blood
was thicker and darker than the outside perimeter of the
(31:37):
floor of the basement was lighter, but it was pretty
far out. I'm like, I don't even know what to
make I can't make sense of his answers sometimes right, So.
Speaker 3 (31:48):
Did you want it? Says?
Speaker 2 (31:50):
Let's see, he says, At anytime when you went down
the stairs, did you say anything to mister Wilson. Coleman says,
I told Peter Peter, don't touch anything.
Speaker 3 (32:00):
Why did you say that? Because I don't know what
was wrong? I tell him don't touch it.
Speaker 2 (32:05):
And some of his answers also makes me feel like
he English is in his first language, because the court
reporter is supposed to be recording what he says precisely,
and a lot of times it sounds like he's speaking
missing a lot of linguistics in there that would indicate
that he English was his first language. Didn't you want
to help miss Kim? She was already dead. There wasn't
(32:28):
anything I could do for. How does he know this?
In the even if we talked off at the two minutes,
he said he stood at the top of that stairwell
where he couldn't see anything, and what mister Wilson was doing,
He has noticed that this woman is dead and there's nothing.
Speaker 3 (32:43):
I can do for. Why did you think that?
Speaker 2 (32:46):
Because her legs were perfectly straight and I figured I
figured Rigamortis set in, So that means he must have
known she was dead in order for him to have
figured Mortis said set in.
Speaker 5 (32:59):
I don't want to be too.
Speaker 4 (33:01):
Gross, but the position I mean, my mother used to
teach us what Rigamortis looked like when the animals were
ceased in the park.
Speaker 7 (33:10):
Okay, well, but most people you can see the difference.
Speaker 5 (33:14):
You can tell.
Speaker 3 (33:16):
Most people don't.
Speaker 5 (33:17):
Don't.
Speaker 7 (33:17):
Look.
Speaker 3 (33:18):
Here's the thing. I'm not gonna argue whether or not
he knew what.
Speaker 2 (33:21):
Brigham wort looked like. The fact that he told nine
to one one she'd been dead four to five hours.
The fact that he says leave Rigamorties had already said
you know that, yeah, exactly. He never went down the stairs.
He never it was an ill lit h stairwell. There
was mister Wilson in the way. We heard Coleman just
(33:43):
say that it is a wide stairwell, as if he
to say that he can stare right straight down it.
And you're going to find that his testimony later does
not indicate that. So his knowledge of this sounds more
to me like he was aware she was dead either
by the time he got home or he did it himself.
Speaker 3 (34:01):
All right.
Speaker 2 (34:02):
So here they ask him how long he was there standing.
He says a couple minutes, and the Linda Condron says
a couple minutes, as if a question, and again he says, well,
maybe a minute. I looked at it and I talked
to and then he cut off. She says, I'm sorry,
I don't believe that was read correctly. He says, again, well,
(34:24):
maybe a minute. I looked at it and I talked
and again cut off. So Coleman never finished the statement,
just I looked at it and eh. But he was
saying he was there for a couple minutes. So now
she says, uh, you said, in talking just a moment
ago he said the board. He said he was trying
to get the board off her. Now physically at the time,
(34:47):
was he trying to get the board off of her?
Coleman says, yeah, did you see that?
Speaker 3 (34:54):
Yes? Well, then was he not to the right? Then
was he?
Speaker 2 (34:58):
No, he be spelled incorrectly, to the left. He was
moving about. Coleman says, he was down there walking around.
So in some statements he says that that Wilson never
left the actual landing pad at the bottom of the steps.
But now he's saying that he's walking around, So he
was down there walking around would be to the left.
(35:21):
Did you ever see him when he touched the board, well,
because mister Wilson was trying to help her. Well, it
was a four x twelve. I don't think anybody's wilding
a four by twelve. That's a pretty dark big beam.
Mister Wilson told me that when he saw her at
the bottom of the stairs, she had a four x
twelve laid across her chest. He said he attempted to
(35:42):
remove the four by twelve, but it was too heavy
for him to pick up and get off of her.
Speaker 3 (35:47):
So that's telling me it's quite large.
Speaker 2 (35:52):
And if you've ever lifted I've lifted four by fours
and four by sixes that are eight to twelve feet long,
and I'm telling you that is no joke. That is
a lot of stinking weight. So a four x twelve
is going to be even even heavier. It says, Did
you ever see him leave the stairway and go into
the basement. No, So again, he's always stood right on
the stoop of these stairs. Did you ever see him
(36:12):
step on the landing? Nope, So he never came off
these stairs. Yet just previous to that, the questions was,
as I saw him walking around to the left, it says,
you did see him trying to move the board. I
seen him try to move the board. So that's Coleman's testimony.
And then he's asked, during the time that you lived
(36:33):
at that residence and during the time that mister Wilson
lived at that residence, do you recall him ever going downstairs? No,
he never went down there. Ever, there wasn't anything down
there that was his. Why would he go down there?
So evidently nobody goes into this basement. But there's that
cigarette butt, and there's those leaves that we can't explain
how they get there. It says, does that house, old
(36:56):
house get drafty sometimes?
Speaker 3 (36:57):
Yes?
Speaker 2 (36:59):
Is that because if you left the door open to
the basement, did that make a draft come in and
bring in cold air or damp air or anything.
Speaker 3 (37:06):
Like that from the basement.
Speaker 2 (37:07):
He says, nope, Let's see if there's anything.
Speaker 3 (37:20):
Okay.
Speaker 2 (37:20):
So in this next one he says, well, then when
I asked you if you told mock.
Speaker 3 (37:26):
That, why are you saying Why are you saying yes?
Speaker 2 (37:29):
He says, I don't think I told him that Okay, Well,
did I mention Let's see wait a minute, let me
see what that first question was. Okay, that piece of
wood that was lying across Geen. Had you been in
the basement before? Did you ever see that piece of
wood before?
Speaker 3 (37:43):
No?
Speaker 2 (37:44):
I have never seen it. Did you speak to besides
Officer Trihio? Did you speak to and were you interviewed
by Dennis Burns?
Speaker 3 (37:52):
That's correct?
Speaker 2 (37:53):
Did you also speak to and were you interviewed by
Detective your I'm not certain about that. How are you
not about that? He's the arresting officer. I mean he's
the one in charge.
Speaker 3 (38:04):
Well, then, when.
Speaker 2 (38:05):
I asked you if you told Mock that, why are
you saying? Why are you saying?
Speaker 3 (38:08):
Yes? I don't think I told him that.
Speaker 2 (38:11):
Okay, Well, did I mention you two when we had
a conversation at one point this afternoon that you may
have said several things about different issues? Yes, that is correct.
I'd like, so this is Condrin coaxing. You've said different
things about different issues. Yes, that's correct. I'd like to
show you a portion of Mox report, Counsel. This is
(38:32):
page two of Mox report, page three of all of
the reports, and I've highlighted the first full sentence of
that report and the second sentence as well. Please read
that to yourself. Now, I wish I knew what that was,
because she doesn't. They don't ask these questions. Just read
it to yourself. And these are reports that he's given
in previous testimony.
Speaker 3 (38:50):
To laun.
Speaker 5 (38:52):
Lead.
Speaker 7 (38:53):
Where's the judge basically saying shut it up?
Speaker 2 (38:57):
Well, you got to remember at this point this is
now being just read off the transcript. There is no
judge interaction, there's no this.
Speaker 5 (39:05):
Is so wrong's for Coleman, a deputy.
Speaker 2 (39:10):
DA colleague of Linda Condren, is speaking his media that
the answers.
Speaker 3 (39:17):
So he says okay, and she says okay.
Speaker 2 (39:19):
Do you see that now? He says, yes, I see that.
She said, did you tell Officer Mark that yes, sir,
that's correct. Is that the stairway was narrow, and he
answers that the stairway was narrow.
Speaker 3 (39:33):
So here he just said wide.
Speaker 2 (39:35):
And this is the reason why he could see everything
standing from the top three steps. Now he's saying that
it was he originally told everybody it was narrow, and
did you tell Mak because it was narrow you could
not see past Peter Wilson. That is correct, So this
is what he's told the officers.
Speaker 6 (39:53):
But why does it need to ask if it was
narrow or wide if the officers obviously were on that
stairwell making the size of it right, right, I.
Speaker 5 (40:03):
Guess they're just asking to determine.
Speaker 2 (40:04):
His right well because he he's later stating there he saw, yeah,
that he saw Kim dead, he saw the pale face,
he saw her undressed. But now it's showing that he
has already told police officers in the first stage that
it was a narrow thing or a narrow hallway or stairweale,
(40:25):
and he can't see Pass Wilson, who is basically on
this side on the stairwell side of miss Kim, who's
at the bottom of the landing pad. So basically it's
narrow and he can't see what's going on because.
Speaker 3 (40:37):
He can't see past Wilson.
Speaker 2 (40:40):
Did you tell Officer Mark that because you couldn't see
pass Wilson, and did you tell him that is one
of the reasons that Wilson was moving about around back
and forth at the bottom of the stairway.
Speaker 3 (40:50):
That is correct.
Speaker 2 (40:51):
So now by no cross examination by mister Parisco says,
did you report to your employer that you had your
hand or had hurt your hand on the espresso machine.
So there's this great big thing about him hurting both
of his knuckles, and he claims that he was riding
his bicycle, ran into a wall accidentally scraped up his knuckles.
(41:13):
Then at work while doing dishes and other things, that
those cuts just became even more prominent and wider and
cracked more so that he then actually only told the
police department that he had injured his hands on the
espresso machine, totally forgetting the fact that he never injured
he never injured his hands on the espresso machine. And
(41:33):
that's what we're going to hear. He said, I told
her I hit it first. I told her I laid
my bike scratched against the building. I told her from
this scratch and see I am. And then she I
told her when I worked with the machine, gripping the thing,
it sort of, I got to some pharmacy, got some
medicine and put it on it, and it was okay,
(41:53):
I don't Again, he's not answering the questions. It's like
he's dancing around with these these aers. Okay, so you
told your employer. Basically, he said, Miss Kim, I mean
Miss Chung, Maryon Chung, Maryon Chung. You told Marion Chung
that you had injured the finger while on your hand
while on a bicycle. He says, that's correct. So he
(42:15):
tells his employer he hurt his hands on a bicycle
and later reinjured it on the coffee machine. Well, when
you gripped it when I working there, gripping it so
again when I working there. His linguistics is just not
like it's English. And maybe mister Wilson is correct that
(42:37):
he is not American, but he couldn't identify his race. So,
mister Parsku, when you were talking to any of these
police officers after Miss Kim was found dead, did you
tell them about hurting your hand on the bicycle? Coloman
says no, I told them, no. I told them Miss Chung,
I heard it on the machines. It was on the machines.
Why didn't you tell them how you heard it on
(42:58):
the bicycle? Miss Kan objection, that's not correct. Now she's objecting,
mister Parscut, Why didn't you tell him how you heard
it on the bicycle. I didn't think that at the moment,
what you didn't think to tell them how you originally
injured your hands, because washing dishes is yeah, can irritate
(43:22):
it absolutely on grabbing something, especially if it's on your knuckles,
can cause the knuckles to expand and crack and bleed
old hurt wounds. But he says nothing and mentions nothing
of this bicycle at the time. Let's see, I guess
my hand, both my fists on the side of the building.
Both is hard like this like this. Oh, and this,
(43:44):
I'm sorry, I should have read the question first. It
says which of those cuts were caused by the bicycle?
I guess my hand, both my fist on the side
of the building.
Speaker 3 (43:53):
Both is hard like this like this and cuts off again.
Speaker 2 (43:58):
So he's again, which the question was, which of those
cuts were caused by the bicycle? And he dances around
it in a way that doesn't even identify which one's
occurred from that all right, so mister Pariscu says, okay.
And the injury that is depicted in this photograph, Coloman
(44:19):
says comes from hitting the building and bending. And then
I put stopped it from bleeding when I was working
in the cleaning machine making espresso. The cuts seems to
get wider and more deeper. Pariscu says, you didn't cause
any new injuries on the espresso machine. No, it just
irritated the one that was already on my hands. So now,
(44:42):
oh gosh, we did not make it near as far
as I thought we were going to make it today.
So now he's stating that it just irritated it, but
he told the police officers that he injured it on
the espresso machine.
Speaker 3 (44:57):
Let's see what kind of things do you do at
the CA. I don't think we need to know that
he washes dishes.
Speaker 2 (45:04):
We already discussed that, says, Wait until I finished for
the whole three.
Speaker 3 (45:11):
Or four hours.
Speaker 2 (45:11):
Your hands are in water, he says, when I was
washing dishes, Yes, but not your hands are not in
the water for the whole three hours. Take them out,
then do something else and I wash again, put them
back in the thing. Is there a particular reason why
you didn't tell the police when they asked you about
the cut on your hand about this bicycle incident. I
didn't think of it, I said, I didn't think of
(45:33):
it because I for I got from there. I was
making this espresso and you opened it up and again,
he doesn't answer the questions, Wait until I finish. Was
work on this espresso machine? He says, yes, because.
Speaker 3 (45:50):
It was scratches at first, or a scratch.
Speaker 2 (45:52):
Then I went on the machine, it opened, the cuts
made it more of a cut than a bruise. Not
a bruise, but a scratch. So again, it's not ears question.
I know, I know that it's That's why I just
picked out some of these pieces so people could kind
of get an idea of how Coleman is answering these
questions and how confusing all of this is. Now, mister Pariskus,
(46:18):
it's oh, and it gets even shadier, like this just
gets even shadier as we go.
Speaker 3 (46:22):
He says, what did you get Friday night? Do you remember?
Speaker 2 (46:24):
Now this is in regards to the meal. He says, no,
I don't remember Friday night. He says, when you came
in at four o'clock in the morning to go to
work on Saturday morning, did you notice whether or not
the light was on in a room? He says it wasn't,
It was not on. Was the door closed? The door closed?
And is that usually the way it was when she
went to bed to keep her door closed? Her door
(46:46):
is always closed. She went to bed, she closed the door.
Her door is immediately next to the bathroom door. Colman says, yes, okay,
mister Wilson doors right next to hers at the end
of the hallway, and he answers one door, one of
his doors. Yes, So this confirms my client's testimony that
he states he has a back entry. So we now
know that he does have a way to access his
(47:08):
room without coming through the house, right.
Speaker 3 (47:11):
He says.
Speaker 2 (47:12):
Question, Now, it seems that to you that it was
about three o'clock in the morning when you heard mister
Wilson banging on your door, knocking on your door. Is
that correct? Will Coleman says, I'd say about three o'clock.
To me, I don't have my watch on. I think
about three o'clock, he said. And you said that when
you heard that, you immediately put some clothes on because
you assumed it might be Jane.
Speaker 3 (47:33):
He says, that is correct.
Speaker 2 (47:35):
Isn't it true that when mister Wilson knocked on the door,
he said, I found Jean, hurry up and come with me. Nope,
but that's what he told the officers. We just read
that out of his own transcript. Nope, he didn't say that.
Speaker 3 (47:48):
He did not say that. No, okay, is.
Speaker 2 (47:50):
Your testimony that he didn't say anything until you came
and opened the door. He knocked on the door and said, William.
By that time I did I already got my pants
on and shirt, so I opened the door a little bit.
He is standing there. How many times did he knock
before you put your pants on? He knocked once like that.
I have jumped up, put my pants on and went
(48:11):
to the door, opened it, and he is.
Speaker 3 (48:13):
On the other side.
Speaker 2 (48:14):
Do you remember telling Officer Mocked that Peter Wilson was
knocking on your bedroom door and mister Wilson told you
I found Jean, hurry.
Speaker 3 (48:20):
Up and come with me. Nope.
Speaker 2 (48:26):
Do you remember telling Officer Burns that mister Wilson actually
opened the door and said I found Jane. That's what
my client states was the story that night.
Speaker 3 (48:35):
Nope. Are you saying you didn't say that he didn't
say that.
Speaker 2 (48:39):
So he's asking whether or not Coleman said it, and
Coleman saying no, Wilson didn't say that. He's not answering
the questions. He says, Okay, did you not say to
that to Officer Burns, he says no. And he says
this is in regards to a question as to him
having his shoes on. So now he's only said I
put my pants on once, I put my pants and
(49:02):
shirt on a second time, and now he's got shoes on.
And his answer when asked if he's got shoes on,
he says, yes, she had if he was allowed to
wear shoes in the house. Yes, she had shoes in
these boxes behind the door. I take my shoes off
and put them on top of the dryer. When you're
in the house, you always keep your shoes on the dryer.
Miss Kim said, I can't wear shoes in the house.
I wear my socks.
Speaker 3 (49:22):
When you got up.
Speaker 2 (49:23):
Early Sunday morning with mister Wilson, you didn't have your
shoes on in your room, he said. I had put
my work shoes, the shoes I go to work on
top of the dryer. Other shoes I have in my
room and I put by my bed. So when you
went to bed Saturday night, you took the shoes from
your closet out and put them by your bed. Yes,
by the bed. I think that's all we're going to
be able to get to. We've got about ten seconds
(49:43):
to sign off. You guys, we did actually make it
a lot farther than I thought we would.
Speaker 7 (49:47):
Yay.
Speaker 2 (49:49):
But we still have about ten or fifteen slides, including
the laundering of money and drug trafficking that we'll be
going through next week.
Speaker 3 (49:55):
So I'm going to thank you all for being here.
Thank you Nolan, thank you Harriet.
Speaker 5 (50:00):
We'll pick up.
Speaker 3 (50:01):
We'll have a better question series next week.
Speaker 7 (50:04):
We got it.
Speaker 5 (50:05):
Haven't ask you about the peel.
Speaker 3 (50:08):
I will.
Speaker 2 (50:11):
Good weekend, Have a good weekend, Happy thirteenth guys.
Speaker 7 (50:15):
Yeah,
This program is designed to provide general information with regards
to the subject matters covered. This information is given with
the understanding that neither the hosts, guests, sponsors, or station
are engaged in rendering any specific and personal medical, financial,
legal counseling, professional service, or any advice. You should seek
(00:22):
the services of competent professionals before applying or trying any
suggested ideas.
Speaker 2 (00:52):
Good morning, True Seekers and true crime junkies. Welcome back
to another episode of Hit the Roadjack Finding the Zodiac.
Speaker 3 (01:00):
Friday the thirteenth.
Speaker 2 (01:01):
We are going to continue back with the wrongful conviction
of Peter Wilson. I'm going to be going over some
transcripts today. I will be briefly reading, or at least
just highlighting some points in it, but I will be
showing the presentation. So if you want to read that
entire transcript yourself, you're welcome to pause it and go
back and take a look.
Speaker 3 (01:22):
It gets extremely.
Speaker 2 (01:23):
Interesting at this point because we are going to be
talking and discussing things such as laundering money and drug
trafficking and all the things that we actually find in
the Zodiac. Podcast kind of runs in suit with this
stuff that is happening the law enforcement that are being
either paid or are just bad at hard I suppose,
(01:46):
because they're definitely not protecting the public when they're doing
some of these things. And you're going to get to
hear a bit more about that throughout today's transcripts. We're
going to be looking over the testimony of William William Coleman,
which is the second roommate in the household in which
Hawk To Kim was killed, and my client Peter Wilson
(02:09):
believes that he is the likely suspect. So we'll be
finding out some of those reasons today because his testimony
is just a bit sketchy and a whole lot fishy.
So I'd like to welcome to the show, Harriet Souchet.
Speaker 4 (02:23):
Yes again, Happy Friday the thirteenth to you too. We
always love that I'm usually lucky on Friday the thirteenth
because everything about my birthday, my name, everything is either
at thirteen or twenty two. If you follow anything about neurology,
you'll understand what I'm talking about.
Speaker 2 (02:43):
I don't, and yeah, then we'll then congratulations on your day.
All right, So I'm climbing right back in. Last week
we just good morning, Nolan let's welcome Nolan to the show.
Speaker 3 (02:58):
Good morning.
Speaker 2 (02:59):
I'm just climb, I mean right back in we left
off last week. I think the last thing we talked
about in this was that Linda Condra and the DA
argues it's a waste of time to introduce the exculpatory
evidence such as the cigarette bud and the seamen and
the sperm, because she doesn't want the jury to hear
anything that would confuse anything other than an indictment on
Peter Wilson. So following up with that, we're going to
(03:22):
talk about we're going to hear what she has to
say in regards to third party evidence. So I'm not
sure where I lost one eighty two, but it starts
off on I'm sorry nine, I'm missing the first page
that starts this paragraph. But she's stating that a significant theory.
But the question isn't the significance of the theory his
(03:43):
preferred evidence is supposed to support. The question is the
significance of the evidence. And although it's true if he
had legitimate, reasonable evidence that gave a suggestion not only
of the mere opportunity for there to have been a
third party culpability, but that creates an actual nexus between
a third party and the commission of the crime such
that there is significant evidence.
Speaker 3 (04:05):
That's one thing. That's not what we have got here.
Speaker 2 (04:09):
I have read this paragraph Nolan several times, and I
honestly do not.
Speaker 3 (04:13):
I feel like she just confused everybody. Did that make
sense to you?
Speaker 5 (04:19):
No?
Speaker 3 (04:20):
I mean.
Speaker 6 (04:24):
She's speaking politicians speak. She's just trying to convince you
that the world is flat.
Speaker 2 (04:30):
Yes, that's how I felt. I was like, which way
are you going with this? I mean, it doesn't really
make a lot of sense to me, And I just
don't understand if he had a legitimate, reasonable evidence we do,
you're trying to block it.
Speaker 5 (04:44):
Yeah, why would the prosecution wanted?
Speaker 3 (04:49):
What's that?
Speaker 6 (04:50):
The only reason is because she made up her mind
that she wants to convict this one guy and this
and damn.
Speaker 2 (04:56):
Justice exactly, and that that's the kind of the way
I look at it, and I get it.
Speaker 3 (05:02):
I understand. This is the second trial, and the.
Speaker 2 (05:04):
First trial was a hung jury, likely because there was
that third party culpability that was introduced. Now she's trying
to block that altogether and wants them to focus on
the fact they found his blood at the scene, but
with no explanation for how that blood got there, because
he's not covered in blood when they show up, he's not,
you know what I'm saying.
Speaker 3 (05:24):
And as we go through this advantage though he's.
Speaker 2 (05:28):
Bandaged up, but he bled in San Francisco, he didn't
bleed in Palo Alto, So I mean, yeah, well we
know how the Michael Yore, the arresting officer, took one
vial of his blood out of the property evidence on
Sunday when the forensics department isn't even open till Monday,
and he had no cause to do that. I've actually
(05:49):
spoken to a couple former law enforcement officers the last week,
and none of them can make any sense of it.
They cannot make sense of the expopable evidence being removed
from its file. They don't scan that page that says
removed due to teriffs. They said that they've never seen
anything like that before. Once it goes in the file,
it doesn't come out of the file. So we definitely have.
Speaker 3 (06:12):
Some foul play here.
Speaker 2 (06:14):
So to go on, the court says, after she responds
this way, that's what's involved. There is no question as
to the holding and the law as regard to this matter.
Speaker 3 (06:24):
It is totally fact driven.
Speaker 2 (06:26):
There was an item that has not been referred to
by council, and that is the reference to a car
that there was a taxi driver described a covered car
when he picked up the defend in round two PM
that date. Now, that matches Peter Wilson's statements that when
he got home from the restaurant that he saw a
vehicle covered in with a car cover and miss Kim's
(06:48):
BMW was gone.
Speaker 3 (06:49):
So I'm going to take.
Speaker 2 (06:51):
That inference to mean that mister Wilson knew exactly what
shape and style her car was, and that likely whatever
car was underneath that car cover did not match that
same style for him to have said that it was
not her BMW.
Speaker 3 (07:06):
So we know that at two.
Speaker 2 (07:08):
O'clock, based on both the taxi cab driver's testimony and
Peter Wilson's testimony, is that there was a vehicle in
that driveway that was covered by a car cover and
Miss Kim's car was gone.
Speaker 3 (07:21):
So he says a taxi.
Speaker 2 (07:24):
This is the court saying a taxi driver described a
covered car when he picked up the defendant around two
PM that date. What does that have I'm not sure
the inference I'm.
Speaker 3 (07:33):
To draw from that.
Speaker 2 (07:35):
Mister Parsku, which is the public defender, says, well, the
evidence will also show that, according to Miss Kim's family,
Miss Kim did not have a car cover for her car,
so it's certainly and he gets cut off. The court says,
I'm sorry, a car cover for her car like this
is this is He's like, I don't under It's like
he's saying, I don't understand the inference to this. Mister
(07:57):
Perisco says, for her car now, the taxi cab driver,
she owned a BMW. She parked it in the driveway.
She did not have a car cover to cover it.
So he's basically trying to relate to the court and
somehow doesn't manage to get it out that there was
a second vehicle in the driveway when mister Wilson was
picked up by the taxi cab driver, which they both
testified to. So that being said, we're going to move
(08:24):
on TOFF. It's extremely important evidence. It's it's another sign
of third party culpability. So we've got a cigarette butt,
we've got an alleged rate based on semen and sperm
found on the victim. We've got a vehicle that is
not identifiable by the tenants. Well, actually, the only person
who's it's later not there, and we're going to get
(08:45):
into that when we get into Coleman's testimony. It's absolutely
the more I read his testimony, the more I can
see why mister Wilson is convinced that he was the
perpetrator of the crime.
Speaker 3 (08:55):
But I also played Devil's advocate on that side.
Speaker 2 (08:58):
So this particular and as I go through these, I'm
not going to read everything on these transcripts. I'm just
going to read the highlighted or brief what it is
that I know. But everybody will be able to see
the actual transcripts on their own end. They can pause
and read them for themselves that they'd like. This particular
slide number forty four is what I call states bad
collection of evidence. So basically, they collected the leaves in
(09:21):
the basement, and they provided them to a leaf expert
who identified them as being the same leaf that was
found stuck to the buttocks of Kim underneath her underwear
and her pants, which would indicate that somebody had pulled
those down in the basement, and after redressing her, accidentally
scooped up a leaf that became stuck to her buttocks.
But then the state turns around and sends an investigator
(09:44):
back out to the property to go around the property
trying to find leaves that match those in the basement,
which I don't even understand what their purpose of this was,
because the investigator while at the property, now mind you,
it's owned by a new person. He's out they're taking
clippings from a bush when that new residence says, that's
(10:04):
a tree I planted, so there would this wouldn't be
related to whatever crime that occurred here at the house.
And even then he only takes that sample and one
other sample from another tree. And I'm not, again, not
sure why they would do that. If you're going to test,
you should test all the trees. Which is mister Pariscu's
point in regards to the state's collection of bad evidence,
(10:27):
is that they should have pulled something from every single
living bush and tree in that in and around that
property if they wanted to determine if those those leaves
in the basement actually came from the property or if
they were carried in by somebody else.
Speaker 5 (10:41):
Leaves in the basement as well.
Speaker 2 (10:43):
Yes, then those leaves match the ones stuck to her buttox.
But the two that the state collected from outside the
house on the property did not match right, And one
of them, he was specifically told by the current resident,
is not I planted that tree. It wasn't here the
crime happened. But that person, that investigator, still proceeded to
take a clipping of that tree and take it back.
Speaker 3 (11:06):
Very strange.
Speaker 5 (11:07):
Why I don't know.
Speaker 2 (11:08):
Yeah, no, that's it's totally irrelevant. It has no bearing.
So what was the state attempting to do with this
leaf evidence would be extremely interesting to me. So basically
we need to start out with some of the things
that are going on here. This is the William Coleman
testimony is going to be read, and it's from the
nineteen I wrote nineteen ninety six, but it's a nineteen
(11:29):
ninety eight trial that they read into the two thousand trial.
And this is the instructions of the judge to the jury.
And I wanted everybody to hear this. So the court says,
all right, ladies, yes, okay.
Speaker 6 (11:43):
So he was there for the first trial, but he
split and was out of the country for the next one.
Speaker 5 (11:48):
I think that once her testimony in the next one.
Speaker 2 (11:52):
Correct and this is where I say I kind of
played devil's advocate, because if Coleman didn't kill Kim and
the first jury came back hung, he realized what law
enforcement and the system could do to mister Wilson. When
he knew mister Wilson hadn't killed her, I might have
cut my bracelet and run for the hills myself, because
(12:14):
that meant I was next on the firing line. So
I think that when mister Wilson didn't get indicted for
I'm sorry, convicted of this crime, that he thought he
had to now worry about himself and he got out
of town. Now, if he was the killer and he
got out of town, it is likely because he felt
that mister Wilson wasn't going to be convicted of the
crime and that they were going to proceed to look
(12:36):
for other suspects, but they stopped short.
Speaker 3 (12:38):
And in fact, in Coleman's.
Speaker 2 (12:40):
Own testimony, they didn't take any evidence from him that night.
Speaker 3 (12:44):
So it does appear.
Speaker 2 (12:45):
At a later date that he did some type of
a rape kit for the city, but in the beginning
they took nothing from him, and they just absolutely hemmed
up Wilson and pinned everything on Wilson, and he's the
one that found the body. So the judge says to
the jury, all right, ladies and gentlemen, we will be
back on the record, which will reflect counsel or present,
(13:06):
the defending his present, and all members of the panel.
What we're going to do, ladies and gentlemen, at this
time is to read into the record the individual who
is not available to testify. And it is important for
you to understand it's not for you to wonder why,
or to in any way concerning yourselves with the reason
for this witness not being present. Okay, the parties have
(13:27):
stipulated that he is unavailable to testify, and in lieu
of his physical presence here in court, the parties have
agreed that they will read into the record testimony that
this witness has given in a previous proceeding, and the
process will be to have an individual who is actually
a deputy district attorney and a colleague to Miss Condren
play the part of the witness, and Miss Condron will
(13:47):
play her role of the district attorney, and mister Pariscu
will play the part of the defense attorney, and they
will merely question and the witness will respond.
Speaker 3 (13:57):
Is that typical Nolan? You left Nolan?
Speaker 7 (14:07):
I think he's grabbing a cup of coffee.
Speaker 5 (14:09):
Right question.
Speaker 2 (14:12):
So basically, well, you've just missed everything I said, and
I don't want to reread that for them.
Speaker 5 (14:16):
I heard, I heard, I was in the room.
Speaker 7 (14:18):
I had to.
Speaker 2 (14:20):
Okay, Well, they're they're literally assigning characters, you know, actors
to a test to a trial transcript, and asking them
to play a role as if they are capable of
literally questioning and getting real answers. They're really just going
down this like they were reading a script for a movie,
(14:42):
basically for the jury to hear, which I don't know.
Speaker 3 (14:45):
Have you ever seen that happen?
Speaker 6 (14:49):
No, normally you would have the judge read it.
Speaker 5 (14:52):
Into the record.
Speaker 3 (14:53):
Yeah, No, Here they played the part.
Speaker 2 (14:55):
So Condurin acted as the DA, one of her colleagues
acted as as William Coleman, and then mister Parisco acted
as the public defender in the questions and the testimony
were about to read.
Speaker 5 (15:08):
Is Condord not the original DA anyway?
Speaker 3 (15:10):
No?
Speaker 7 (15:11):
She was.
Speaker 5 (15:12):
She was, okay, So she.
Speaker 3 (15:15):
Played herself.
Speaker 2 (15:17):
And so the court continues to say, so what you
are to do is to take this testimony in the
same sense, with the same credibility. Oh my god, I
don't even understand saying.
Speaker 3 (15:28):
The man is gone.
Speaker 2 (15:29):
You've told the jury don't worry about why he's not here,
but take this with the same credibility as if he
was here on the stand. This sounds like a complete
freaking like Twilight Zone movie.
Speaker 6 (15:41):
Yeah, they have no way of judging his credibility. You
can't hear his am, you can't see here his facial expression.
Speaker 3 (15:49):
No nothing, You've got nothing.
Speaker 2 (15:52):
Same rules that I previously explained to you in determining
what this witness says. In other words, his credibility, his
entire like everything is to put So basically I wrote,
jury is deprived of seeing mister Coleman respond and his
demeanor during that response. So further instructions from the judge was,
in other words, his credibility, his entire probative value of
(16:14):
his evidence is under the same rules, under the same
limitations as any witness that would be called to testify
in person. So there's no difference in that at all.
Now this is going to be read into the record,
but you won't have a copy of it to follow,
because it's not for you to feel that it's any
more important because it has been transcribed, or there's any
more to significance to it because a written copy has
(16:36):
been made of it. And you're again just to base
your determination of the issues in this case solely upon
the testimony, just as if this individual were physically present.
I understand that the full name of this individual it
is William and mister Pariscu. Yes, your honor, the court says,
William Coleman. So that causes us to climb right on in.
And I thought some of the most important parts of
(16:58):
this testimony is his arrival at home, so he gets
off work at seven o'clock.
Speaker 3 (17:02):
He makes his way to safeway. Yes, good point.
Speaker 6 (17:07):
Yeah, it's by doing it this way it almost is
more credibility to this testimony and makes it really really important,
and it almost goes down as fact when it's just
necessarily be fact.
Speaker 3 (17:21):
And there's no way right.
Speaker 2 (17:24):
And I can tell you that the average adult will
remember about forty five minutes of being spoken to, whether
you're in a class setting or on zoom or otherwise.
Speaker 3 (17:35):
You really can't feed too.
Speaker 2 (17:37):
Much at somebody and expect them to remember all aspects
of it. And the court said specifically we're not giving
you a copy of this, so they have nothing to
take back with them to moll Over to read how
ridiculous this is. And I'm sure with all the confusion,
you know how it works in the courtroom. Sometimes there's objections.
Sometimes there's you know, you didn't say that correctly, or
(17:58):
you and everybody gets all fused right about what was
really said? What was really the question? And now how
am I supposed to answer that. You're going to see
a lot of that in these transcripts, which makes it
very complicated for a jury to understand how many times
this man lied. If they could have taken this twenty
eight page transcript back to the jury room and highlighted
all the different lies as I have actually highlighted in
(18:20):
this presentation, they would have had a better understanding of
what Coleman and Coleman not once implicates Wilson. So let
me just make that clear. This testimony does nothing but
make him look fishy and squirmy. So he gets off
work at seven o'clock. He goes to a safe way
to pick up some food. He then takes his bike
(18:41):
and he's riding a bike back, so he rides it
down Colorado in midtown Colorado Avenue and Middlefield. And then
he returns home and he says, yep, I parked my
bike in the driveway where she parked her car and
around the side of the bushes. And mister Parisk, I'm sorry.
Misscondurance says, now, tell me about her car. Was it
in the driveway at that time? And and he says,
(19:03):
Coleman says, when I got home that Saturday at eight thirty,
between eight thirty and eight forty five, her car was
in the driveway.
Speaker 3 (19:09):
Yes.
Speaker 2 (19:10):
Now, now we have that paradox right when the taxi
cab driver picks up Wilson and Wilson both testify to
a car being under the car cover that was not
miss Kim's car. That car and car cover is now gone,
and Coleman has never seen that car and car cover
because he's been gone at work all day. But he's
(19:30):
now home and the car, the BMW, is back in
the driveway. So we know that up until this point
that and we're going to hear in this testimony he
actually has dinner with her this night, which makes.
Speaker 5 (19:41):
It even So what point what time does Wilson get home.
Speaker 2 (19:46):
He doesn't get home until approximately I want to say,
approximately almost three am.
Speaker 5 (19:53):
Okay, the next day.
Speaker 6 (19:54):
So so the woman, the victim, and Coleman are the
only two people there from eight forty five to three am.
Speaker 5 (20:04):
Correct, So why focus on Wilson over Coleman. I would
look heavily into both of them.
Speaker 3 (20:11):
Yeah, exactly.
Speaker 5 (20:12):
The third party the other car with the cover on it.
Speaker 3 (20:15):
Yeah, it makes me wonder who who who Coleman was.
Speaker 2 (20:19):
So anyways, he says, let's see.
Speaker 3 (20:24):
The uh.
Speaker 2 (20:26):
Canduran shows him some exhibits and marks these photographs and
asks if this is miss Kim's car, and Coleman says, yes,
that is her car. And the question is okay, is
that where it's part? And he said, put them back here.
That's correct. Was it covered at the time you lived there?
Was it covered with a car cover? Nope, the car
(20:47):
was never covered. It was the paint was you could
see the paint color. It was never covered. So this
is Coleman stating that she's never had a car cover.
Speaker 3 (20:57):
Her family says, she's never had a car cover.
Speaker 2 (20:59):
So why is this whole car cover and the vehicle
with the car cover being kept from the jury because
again it's third party culpability.
Speaker 5 (21:10):
So by the prosecution and bad by the judge.
Speaker 3 (21:14):
Exactly right, he did, but they didn't.
Speaker 2 (21:19):
They were again conduring was so hot and heavy on
excluding every piece that would identify somebody else as being responsible.
Speaker 5 (21:27):
Well, the defense attorneyshire jumped all over it. And it's
a judge, No, it's mister Condon doesn't run this courtroom.
Speaker 3 (21:34):
You do right, right.
Speaker 4 (21:37):
Or not?
Speaker 6 (21:39):
Yeah, that's grants for appeal right there. Exclusion im courtant evidence,
you know, by the prosecution and by the judge.
Speaker 5 (21:48):
Well inevidently, oh did you ever find out if there
was an appeal?
Speaker 3 (21:54):
I have not yet, as a matter of fact. That
is one of those questions.
Speaker 2 (21:57):
I was trying to remember everything that we asked last week,
and I did shoot off a couple letters to mister
Wilson this week.
Speaker 3 (22:05):
Good, But in this long entire one it well.
Speaker 2 (22:09):
Yeah, it most definitely is so basically theory. This could
have been the killer and they didn't want their car
to be viewed by anyone who passed. As I've said before,
the time frame also supports that Kim was alive when
mister Wilson left home, and that she left with the
owner of said car under cover in her own BMW.
That then came back long after Wilson had left. Mister
(22:30):
Cloming could have merely been scared that he would have
come under scrutiny if this second trial acquitted mister Wilson,
and he saw first hand what the law enforcement and
the DA were capable of doing, because he knew that
mister Wilson couldn't have committed the crime yet was being
tried for it. So cutting the ankle base that I
did get that question out to find out why he
was on an ankle bracelet.
Speaker 3 (22:51):
Was this something that the city that the.
Speaker 2 (22:53):
Police department had done to keep track of him as
a second possible suspect, or was he on parole or
probation of some sort that required him to wear an
ankle monitor. I'm hoping to get that answer here soon.
Either way, he cuts that ankle.
Speaker 6 (23:10):
If any of the neighbors were questioned about the car
and what time they arrived and what time it.
Speaker 2 (23:15):
Left, I haven't seen any of that investigative work. I
haven't seen any of those reports by.
Speaker 6 (23:22):
The ieive go teh.
Speaker 3 (23:27):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (23:28):
And when they talked to the neighbors, it seemed like
they were more collecting, you know, personal information in regards
to the attitude of miss Kim, in which case they
all said she was rather aggressive. People didn't really talk
to her, she kept to herself, but they had seen
some different acts from her that showed and supported that
she was an aggressive and almost even violent person who
(23:48):
will hop on a vehicle and chase people down. Coleman
arrives home at thirty eight forty five, seven hours before
miss mister Wilson finds her body. So we want to
keep that seven hour time frame in our mind because
of that nine to one one call when Wilson, when
Coleman says that that she had been dead for four
to five maybe four to five hours, maybe even longer.
(24:13):
This at least supports at a minimum that Coleman knew
she was dead before mister Wilson found her.
Speaker 3 (24:17):
And we'll get into that testimony as well.
Speaker 5 (24:20):
And Wilson didn't kill her because he didn't get home
till three and he found her shortly thereafter.
Speaker 3 (24:24):
Right, correct, Yes, yeah, he couldn't have killed her.
Speaker 2 (24:28):
And even the forensics support this time frame or this
this uh purported time frame that Coleman is given to
nine one one operators, and what he testifies to fits
in line and the only people that would have been
home at that point in time would have been Kim
and Coleman.
Speaker 7 (24:47):
Real quick. What can I ask a question?
Speaker 4 (24:49):
Is it is this evidence coming from the medical examiner
connected to the DA whatever, it is Everything that they're saying,
the that she was estimated to be deceased, the time frame, everything,
they their witnesses, their forensic expert witnesses based on the
(25:11):
US attempted to state that she was killed between twelve
forty eight pm and one fifty eight pm on Saturday,
when in fact she was killed more like, based on
actual forensics, she was killed more than about probably midnight,
eleven o'clock midnight more sense, how the rigormortis played itself out,
(25:33):
and she was completely out of rigor at nine thirty
am on Monday mornings, So that twenty four hour period
and even even a few hours extra. For the consideration
that she was in a cool basement which would have
slowed the process, and that she was then taken to
the morgue where she was kept in a refrigeration unit,
that would have slowed the rigormortis process again, but that
(25:54):
would have put it properly in a timeframe at about
eleven PM midnight of Saturday night.
Speaker 7 (26:01):
So that's why I asked that, because I'm seeing that
a lot in some very corrupt and local governments.
Speaker 3 (26:12):
When you're narrating your story, you get your.
Speaker 2 (26:14):
Experts to testify if they're hired guns, as it sounds
like these individuals were. You get them to testify to
the affirmative of your theory.
Speaker 6 (26:24):
Theory of Wilson being cupable. It actually exonerates Wilson.
Speaker 2 (26:31):
It was future testimony by these same experts in other
cases after the fact, where they actually correctly testified to
the proper hours and time that rigamortis took to set in.
Speaker 3 (26:41):
Okay, they tried to sit.
Speaker 2 (26:43):
Yes, So once you narrow win the actual time frame
that it takes for rigamortis to occur and to leave
the body that would have already have happened had she
been in let's say, a room temperature room, but you
got to add some time to it because she was
in cool places like the basement and the refrigeration unit.
So another thing that Coleman testified to was the other
(27:06):
than saying I found oh, so he's being asked how
he was being asked how it was that he was
dressed when Wilson walked into his room and asked whether
or not Wilson said anything to him through the door.
My client's interpretation of this evening is that he yelled
for Coleman to come come help me. I found Gene,
(27:27):
and he got no response, and he knocked on the door,
no response. Then he opened the door and walked in
on Coleman, and he sees Coleman standing there fully dressed, shoes, pants, shirt, sweatshirt,
as if he's going to be leaving the house when
it's four am. And he works more of a midshift.
As we know, he doesn't get off till seven pm
every night, so we probably start somewhere around I'm going
(27:49):
to guess eleven am in the morning. There's no reason
for him to be fully dressed at four am. So
he's trying to tell the jury that other than saying
I found did he say anything else Coleman said, nope.
Speaker 3 (28:03):
Did he say come with me, Coleman, nope? Did you say.
Speaker 2 (28:06):
Anything to him Coleman, nope? Did you say where the minute?
Coleman says, the minute he mentioned Jean's name, I followed him,
so he claimed, So you're gonna hear him go back
and forth, saying that Wilson didn't say anything about Gene
to all he did.
Speaker 3 (28:21):
Was knock on the door once to how he was dressed.
Speaker 2 (28:25):
So there's a whole lot of back and forth, like
I said, in this So now he's being asked if
there's a light switch that controls a light down in
the hallway, and he indicates where is that light switch
located downstairs? Where downstairs? I think on the right hand
side of the steps on the stairway. Yeah, how far
down do you have to go? Almost to the bottom,
he says. But this light and door, the door to
(28:48):
the basement was opened and the light was on when
when Wilson found Gene. That's how he even noticed that
she was there, because it was odd for that door
to be open and a light to be on, And
he looked down saw Jane at the bottom of the stairs,
and then proceeded to attempt to get Coleman to come
assist him in checking on her and calling nine to
one one.
Speaker 6 (29:07):
So why wouldn't why wouldn't Golmand notice the light and
the door of basement being open, And then didn't he
have dinner.
Speaker 3 (29:17):
With a woman?
Speaker 2 (29:18):
So why would we're gonna get anymore, we're gonna get
into that testimony.
Speaker 3 (29:24):
You're absolutely correct.
Speaker 2 (29:25):
His room does not have a secondary door on the
rear side to get out like Wilson's does. So Wilson
has a good explanation. He usually leaves by the outside
doorway to his room that allows him to exit and
come in without even coming into the main part of
the house. The difference is is that Coleman's bedroom, right
next to Kim's bedroom, does not have a separate exit
(29:46):
entry to the outside, so he literally has to.
Speaker 5 (29:49):
Come through the house.
Speaker 3 (29:53):
All right, let's see.
Speaker 2 (29:58):
So now he being question as to whether or not
the stairway stair stairway is wide, and that's because Coleman
states that he entered the basement stairwell and he only
went two steps down, went down to take the third
step and looked down and claims that he saw the lifeless,
pale white body of miss Kim, half dressed, knew that
(30:21):
she had been dead for hours, because he claimed her
legs were stiff, and that appeared to be riga mortis,
which I couldn't tell you what rig mortis looks like.
And if you've never studied these things, it's not something
that the average person is going to be aware of.
But the question is is that a wide stairway or not?
He says yes, question is it wide? How wide do
(30:41):
you want it to be? Coleman says, like.
Speaker 3 (30:45):
How is that? An sir?
Speaker 2 (30:49):
Would you describe it as wide or describe it as
as narrow? He says wide? So do you know how
wide it is? No, I have no idea how wide
it is. But this all plays into his visibility of
miss Kim, what he can see that mister Wilson is doing.
Speaker 3 (31:05):
But and also the timeframes are going.
Speaker 2 (31:07):
To flip flop back and forth about how long he
actually stood on that third step.
Speaker 3 (31:11):
So it says what condition was she? Her head or
she was?
Speaker 2 (31:16):
Okay, I'm sorry he's the question is in what condition
was she? And Coleman says, what condition was she? Her
head or she was fully exposed from the waist up,
but the robe she was wearing covered the lower part
of her. Did you see any blood? Yes, there was
blood on her was lying on the steps. The blood
was thicker and darker than the outside perimeter of the
(31:37):
floor of the basement was lighter, but it was pretty
far out. I'm like, I don't even know what to
make I can't make sense of his answers sometimes right, So.
Speaker 3 (31:48):
Did you want it? Says?
Speaker 2 (31:50):
Let's see, he says, At anytime when you went down
the stairs, did you say anything to mister Wilson. Coleman says,
I told Peter Peter, don't touch anything.
Speaker 3 (32:00):
Why did you say that? Because I don't know what
was wrong? I tell him don't touch it.
Speaker 2 (32:05):
And some of his answers also makes me feel like
he English is in his first language, because the court
reporter is supposed to be recording what he says precisely,
and a lot of times it sounds like he's speaking
missing a lot of linguistics in there that would indicate
that he English was his first language. Didn't you want
to help miss Kim? She was already dead. There wasn't
(32:28):
anything I could do for. How does he know this?
In the even if we talked off at the two minutes,
he said he stood at the top of that stairwell
where he couldn't see anything, and what mister Wilson was doing,
He has noticed that this woman is dead and there's nothing.
Speaker 3 (32:43):
I can do for. Why did you think that?
Speaker 2 (32:46):
Because her legs were perfectly straight and I figured I
figured Rigamortis set in, So that means he must have
known she was dead in order for him to have
figured Mortis said set in.
Speaker 5 (32:59):
I don't want to be too.
Speaker 4 (33:01):
Gross, but the position I mean, my mother used to
teach us what Rigamortis looked like when the animals were
ceased in the park.
Speaker 7 (33:10):
Okay, well, but most people you can see the difference.
Speaker 5 (33:14):
You can tell.
Speaker 3 (33:16):
Most people don't.
Speaker 5 (33:17):
Don't.
Speaker 7 (33:17):
Look.
Speaker 3 (33:18):
Here's the thing. I'm not gonna argue whether or not
he knew what.
Speaker 2 (33:21):
Brigham wort looked like. The fact that he told nine
to one one she'd been dead four to five hours.
The fact that he says leave Rigamorties had already said
you know that, yeah, exactly. He never went down the stairs.
He never it was an ill lit h stairwell. There
was mister Wilson in the way. We heard Coleman just
(33:43):
say that it is a wide stairwell, as if he
to say that he can stare right straight down it.
And you're going to find that his testimony later does
not indicate that. So his knowledge of this sounds more
to me like he was aware she was dead either
by the time he got home or he did it himself.
Speaker 3 (34:01):
All right.
Speaker 2 (34:02):
So here they ask him how long he was there standing.
He says a couple minutes, and the Linda Condron says
a couple minutes, as if a question, and again he says, well,
maybe a minute. I looked at it and I talked
to and then he cut off. She says, I'm sorry,
I don't believe that was read correctly. He says, again, well,
(34:24):
maybe a minute. I looked at it and I talked
and again cut off. So Coleman never finished the statement,
just I looked at it and eh. But he was
saying he was there for a couple minutes. So now
she says, uh, you said, in talking just a moment
ago he said the board. He said he was trying
to get the board off her. Now physically at the time,
(34:47):
was he trying to get the board off of her?
Coleman says, yeah, did you see that?
Speaker 3 (34:54):
Yes? Well, then was he not to the right? Then
was he?
Speaker 2 (34:58):
No, he be spelled incorrectly, to the left. He was
moving about. Coleman says, he was down there walking around.
So in some statements he says that that Wilson never
left the actual landing pad at the bottom of the steps.
But now he's saying that he's walking around, So he
was down there walking around would be to the left.
(35:21):
Did you ever see him when he touched the board, well,
because mister Wilson was trying to help her. Well, it
was a four x twelve. I don't think anybody's wilding
a four by twelve. That's a pretty dark big beam.
Mister Wilson told me that when he saw her at
the bottom of the stairs, she had a four x
twelve laid across her chest. He said he attempted to
(35:42):
remove the four by twelve, but it was too heavy
for him to pick up and get off of her.
Speaker 3 (35:47):
So that's telling me it's quite large.
Speaker 2 (35:52):
And if you've ever lifted I've lifted four by fours
and four by sixes that are eight to twelve feet long,
and I'm telling you that is no joke. That is
a lot of stinking weight. So a four x twelve
is going to be even even heavier. It says, Did
you ever see him leave the stairway and go into
the basement. No, So again, he's always stood right on
the stoop of these stairs. Did you ever see him
(36:12):
step on the landing? Nope, So he never came off
these stairs. Yet just previous to that, the questions was,
as I saw him walking around to the left, it says,
you did see him trying to move the board. I
seen him try to move the board. So that's Coleman's testimony.
And then he's asked, during the time that you lived
(36:33):
at that residence and during the time that mister Wilson
lived at that residence, do you recall him ever going downstairs? No,
he never went down there. Ever, there wasn't anything down
there that was his. Why would he go down there?
So evidently nobody goes into this basement. But there's that
cigarette butt, and there's those leaves that we can't explain
how they get there. It says, does that house, old
(36:56):
house get drafty sometimes?
Speaker 3 (36:57):
Yes?
Speaker 2 (36:59):
Is that because if you left the door open to
the basement, did that make a draft come in and
bring in cold air or damp air or anything.
Speaker 3 (37:06):
Like that from the basement.
Speaker 2 (37:07):
He says, nope, Let's see if there's anything.
Speaker 3 (37:20):
Okay.
Speaker 2 (37:20):
So in this next one he says, well, then when
I asked you if you told mock.
Speaker 3 (37:26):
That, why are you saying Why are you saying yes?
Speaker 2 (37:29):
He says, I don't think I told him that Okay, Well,
did I mention Let's see wait a minute, let me
see what that first question was. Okay, that piece of
wood that was lying across Geen. Had you been in
the basement before? Did you ever see that piece of
wood before?
Speaker 3 (37:43):
No?
Speaker 2 (37:44):
I have never seen it. Did you speak to besides
Officer Trihio? Did you speak to and were you interviewed
by Dennis Burns?
Speaker 3 (37:52):
That's correct?
Speaker 2 (37:53):
Did you also speak to and were you interviewed by
Detective your I'm not certain about that. How are you
not about that? He's the arresting officer. I mean he's
the one in charge.
Speaker 3 (38:04):
Well, then, when.
Speaker 2 (38:05):
I asked you if you told Mock that, why are
you saying? Why are you saying?
Speaker 3 (38:08):
Yes? I don't think I told him that.
Speaker 2 (38:11):
Okay, Well, did I mention you two when we had
a conversation at one point this afternoon that you may
have said several things about different issues? Yes, that is correct.
I'd like, so this is Condrin coaxing. You've said different
things about different issues. Yes, that's correct. I'd like to
show you a portion of Mox report, Counsel. This is
(38:32):
page two of Mox report, page three of all of
the reports, and I've highlighted the first full sentence of
that report and the second sentence as well. Please read
that to yourself. Now, I wish I knew what that was,
because she doesn't. They don't ask these questions. Just read
it to yourself. And these are reports that he's given
in previous testimony.
Speaker 3 (38:50):
To laun.
Speaker 5 (38:52):
Lead.
Speaker 7 (38:53):
Where's the judge basically saying shut it up?
Speaker 2 (38:57):
Well, you got to remember at this point this is
now being just read off the transcript. There is no
judge interaction, there's no this.
Speaker 5 (39:05):
Is so wrong's for Coleman, a deputy.
Speaker 2 (39:10):
DA colleague of Linda Condren, is speaking his media that
the answers.
Speaker 3 (39:17):
So he says okay, and she says okay.
Speaker 2 (39:19):
Do you see that now? He says, yes, I see that.
She said, did you tell Officer Mark that yes, sir,
that's correct. Is that the stairway was narrow, and he
answers that the stairway was narrow.
Speaker 3 (39:33):
So here he just said wide.
Speaker 2 (39:35):
And this is the reason why he could see everything
standing from the top three steps. Now he's saying that
it was he originally told everybody it was narrow, and
did you tell Mak because it was narrow you could
not see past Peter Wilson. That is correct, So this
is what he's told the officers.
Speaker 6 (39:53):
But why does it need to ask if it was
narrow or wide if the officers obviously were on that
stairwell making the size of it right, right, I.
Speaker 5 (40:03):
Guess they're just asking to determine.
Speaker 2 (40:04):
His right well because he he's later stating there he saw, yeah,
that he saw Kim dead, he saw the pale face,
he saw her undressed. But now it's showing that he
has already told police officers in the first stage that
it was a narrow thing or a narrow hallway or stairweale,
(40:25):
and he can't see Pass Wilson, who is basically on
this side on the stairwell side of miss Kim, who's
at the bottom of the landing pad. So basically it's
narrow and he can't see what's going on because.
Speaker 3 (40:37):
He can't see past Wilson.
Speaker 2 (40:40):
Did you tell Officer Mark that because you couldn't see
pass Wilson, and did you tell him that is one
of the reasons that Wilson was moving about around back
and forth at the bottom of the stairway.
Speaker 3 (40:50):
That is correct.
Speaker 2 (40:51):
So now by no cross examination by mister Parisco says,
did you report to your employer that you had your
hand or had hurt your hand on the espresso machine.
So there's this great big thing about him hurting both
of his knuckles, and he claims that he was riding
his bicycle, ran into a wall accidentally scraped up his knuckles.
(41:13):
Then at work while doing dishes and other things, that
those cuts just became even more prominent and wider and
cracked more so that he then actually only told the
police department that he had injured his hands on the
espresso machine, totally forgetting the fact that he never injured
he never injured his hands on the espresso machine. And
(41:33):
that's what we're going to hear. He said, I told
her I hit it first. I told her I laid
my bike scratched against the building. I told her from
this scratch and see I am. And then she I
told her when I worked with the machine, gripping the thing,
it sort of, I got to some pharmacy, got some
medicine and put it on it, and it was okay,
(41:53):
I don't Again, he's not answering the questions. It's like
he's dancing around with these these aers. Okay, so you
told your employer. Basically, he said, Miss Kim, I mean
Miss Chung, Maryon Chung, Maryon Chung. You told Marion Chung
that you had injured the finger while on your hand
while on a bicycle. He says, that's correct. So he
(42:15):
tells his employer he hurt his hands on a bicycle
and later reinjured it on the coffee machine. Well, when
you gripped it when I working there, gripping it so
again when I working there. His linguistics is just not
like it's English. And maybe mister Wilson is correct that
(42:37):
he is not American, but he couldn't identify his race. So,
mister Parsku, when you were talking to any of these
police officers after Miss Kim was found dead, did you
tell them about hurting your hand on the bicycle? Coloman
says no, I told them, no. I told them Miss Chung,
I heard it on the machines. It was on the machines.
Why didn't you tell them how you heard it on
(42:58):
the bicycle? Miss Kan objection, that's not correct. Now she's objecting,
mister Parscut, Why didn't you tell him how you heard
it on the bicycle. I didn't think that at the moment,
what you didn't think to tell them how you originally
injured your hands, because washing dishes is yeah, can irritate
(43:22):
it absolutely on grabbing something, especially if it's on your knuckles,
can cause the knuckles to expand and crack and bleed
old hurt wounds. But he says nothing and mentions nothing
of this bicycle at the time. Let's see, I guess
my hand, both my fists on the side of the building.
Both is hard like this like this. Oh, and this,
(43:44):
I'm sorry, I should have read the question first. It
says which of those cuts were caused by the bicycle?
I guess my hand, both my fist on the side
of the building.
Speaker 3 (43:53):
Both is hard like this like this and cuts off again.
Speaker 2 (43:58):
So he's again, which the question was, which of those
cuts were caused by the bicycle? And he dances around
it in a way that doesn't even identify which one's
occurred from that all right, so mister Pariscu says, okay.
And the injury that is depicted in this photograph, Coloman
(44:19):
says comes from hitting the building and bending. And then
I put stopped it from bleeding when I was working
in the cleaning machine making espresso. The cuts seems to
get wider and more deeper. Pariscu says, you didn't cause
any new injuries on the espresso machine. No, it just
irritated the one that was already on my hands. So now,
(44:42):
oh gosh, we did not make it near as far
as I thought we were going to make it today.
So now he's stating that it just irritated it, but
he told the police officers that he injured it on
the espresso machine.
Speaker 3 (44:57):
Let's see what kind of things do you do at
the CA. I don't think we need to know that
he washes dishes.
Speaker 2 (45:04):
We already discussed that, says, Wait until I finished for
the whole three.
Speaker 3 (45:11):
Or four hours.
Speaker 2 (45:11):
Your hands are in water, he says, when I was
washing dishes, Yes, but not your hands are not in
the water for the whole three hours. Take them out,
then do something else and I wash again, put them
back in the thing. Is there a particular reason why
you didn't tell the police when they asked you about
the cut on your hand about this bicycle incident. I
didn't think of it, I said, I didn't think of
(45:33):
it because I for I got from there. I was
making this espresso and you opened it up and again,
he doesn't answer the questions, Wait until I finish. Was
work on this espresso machine? He says, yes, because.
Speaker 3 (45:50):
It was scratches at first, or a scratch.
Speaker 2 (45:52):
Then I went on the machine, it opened, the cuts
made it more of a cut than a bruise. Not
a bruise, but a scratch. So again, it's not ears question.
I know, I know that it's That's why I just
picked out some of these pieces so people could kind
of get an idea of how Coleman is answering these
questions and how confusing all of this is. Now, mister Pariskus,
(46:18):
it's oh, and it gets even shadier, like this just
gets even shadier as we go.
Speaker 3 (46:22):
He says, what did you get Friday night? Do you remember?
Speaker 2 (46:24):
Now this is in regards to the meal. He says, no,
I don't remember Friday night. He says, when you came
in at four o'clock in the morning to go to
work on Saturday morning, did you notice whether or not
the light was on in a room? He says it wasn't,
It was not on. Was the door closed? The door closed?
And is that usually the way it was when she
went to bed to keep her door closed? Her door
(46:46):
is always closed. She went to bed, she closed the door.
Her door is immediately next to the bathroom door. Colman says, yes, okay,
mister Wilson doors right next to hers at the end
of the hallway, and he answers one door, one of
his doors. Yes, So this confirms my client's testimony that
he states he has a back entry. So we now
know that he does have a way to access his
(47:08):
room without coming through the house, right.
Speaker 3 (47:11):
He says.
Speaker 2 (47:12):
Question, Now, it seems that to you that it was
about three o'clock in the morning when you heard mister
Wilson banging on your door, knocking on your door. Is
that correct? Will Coleman says, I'd say about three o'clock.
To me, I don't have my watch on. I think
about three o'clock, he said. And you said that when
you heard that, you immediately put some clothes on because
you assumed it might be Jane.
Speaker 3 (47:33):
He says, that is correct.
Speaker 2 (47:35):
Isn't it true that when mister Wilson knocked on the door,
he said, I found Jean, hurry up and come with me. Nope,
but that's what he told the officers. We just read
that out of his own transcript. Nope, he didn't say that.
Speaker 3 (47:48):
He did not say that. No, okay, is.
Speaker 2 (47:50):
Your testimony that he didn't say anything until you came
and opened the door. He knocked on the door and said, William.
By that time I did I already got my pants
on and shirt, so I opened the door a little bit.
He is standing there. How many times did he knock
before you put your pants on? He knocked once like that.
I have jumped up, put my pants on and went
(48:11):
to the door, opened it, and he is.
Speaker 3 (48:13):
On the other side.
Speaker 2 (48:14):
Do you remember telling Officer Mocked that Peter Wilson was
knocking on your bedroom door and mister Wilson told you
I found Jean, hurry.
Speaker 3 (48:20):
Up and come with me. Nope.
Speaker 2 (48:26):
Do you remember telling Officer Burns that mister Wilson actually
opened the door and said I found Jane. That's what
my client states was the story that night.
Speaker 3 (48:35):
Nope. Are you saying you didn't say that he didn't
say that.
Speaker 2 (48:39):
So he's asking whether or not Coleman said it, and
Coleman saying no, Wilson didn't say that. He's not answering
the questions. He says, Okay, did you not say to
that to Officer Burns, he says no. And he says
this is in regards to a question as to him
having his shoes on. So now he's only said I
put my pants on once, I put my pants and
(49:02):
shirt on a second time, and now he's got shoes on.
And his answer when asked if he's got shoes on,
he says, yes, she had if he was allowed to
wear shoes in the house. Yes, she had shoes in
these boxes behind the door. I take my shoes off
and put them on top of the dryer. When you're
in the house, you always keep your shoes on the dryer.
Miss Kim said, I can't wear shoes in the house.
I wear my socks.
Speaker 3 (49:22):
When you got up.
Speaker 2 (49:23):
Early Sunday morning with mister Wilson, you didn't have your
shoes on in your room, he said. I had put
my work shoes, the shoes I go to work on
top of the dryer. Other shoes I have in my
room and I put by my bed. So when you
went to bed Saturday night, you took the shoes from
your closet out and put them by your bed. Yes,
by the bed. I think that's all we're going to
be able to get to. We've got about ten seconds
(49:43):
to sign off. You guys, we did actually make it
a lot farther than I thought we would.
Speaker 7 (49:47):
Yay.
Speaker 2 (49:49):
But we still have about ten or fifteen slides, including
the laundering of money and drug trafficking that we'll be
going through next week.
Speaker 3 (49:55):
So I'm going to thank you all for being here.
Thank you Nolan, thank you Harriet.
Speaker 5 (50:00):
We'll pick up.
Speaker 3 (50:01):
We'll have a better question series next week.
Speaker 7 (50:04):
We got it.
Speaker 5 (50:05):
Haven't ask you about the peel.
Speaker 3 (50:08):
I will.
Speaker 2 (50:11):
Good weekend, Have a good weekend, Happy thirteenth guys.
Speaker 7 (50:15):
Yeah,
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
My Favorite Murder with Karen Kilgariff and Georgia Hardstark
My Favorite Murder is a true crime comedy podcast hosted by Karen Kilgariff and Georgia Hardstark. Each week, Karen and Georgia share compelling true crimes and hometown stories from friends and listeners. Since MFM launched in January of 2016, Karen and Georgia have shared their lifelong interest in true crime and have covered stories of infamous serial killers like the Night Stalker, mysterious cold cases, captivating cults, incredible survivor stories and important events from history like the Tulsa race massacre of 1921. My Favorite Murder is part of the Exactly Right podcast network that provides a platform for bold, creative voices to bring to life provocative, entertaining and relatable stories for audiences everywhere. The Exactly Right roster of podcasts covers a variety of topics including historic true crime, comedic interviews and news, science, pop culture and more. Podcasts on the network include Buried Bones with Kate Winkler Dawson and Paul Holes, That's Messed Up: An SVU Podcast, This Podcast Will Kill You, Bananas and more.
The Joe Rogan Experience
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.