Corporal Yuri Melich's testimony

3:43

DIRECT EXAMINATION OF YURI MELICH BY JB

Lead detective in this case. He's executed several search warrants. The first in August. He didn't recall finding any papers, containers, rags, receipts, chemistry kits relative to chloroform at that time. The second search warrant in December. He didn't find anything related to chloroform at that time either.

He was shown the search warrant of December 11 and agreed they looked for those items at that time. He was then shown the third search warrant from December 20. That one did not have anything to do with chloroform because they had searched for it on December 11. If they had come across something, they would have stopped and gotten an addendum to the search warrant.

They did not find anything relative to chloroform at any time in the A's house.

CROSS EXAMNATION BY LDB

On August 8 when they did their first result, they did not have any results from Oakridge Labs about high levels in the trunk. They earned that at the end of August 2008 and ICA was out of jail at that time.

No further questions.

REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY JB

He can get a search warrant at any time he believes one is necessary. He received the preliminary results from Oakridge in late August and then got the computer results shortly thereafter. The next search warrant would have been December 11. This was significant, but he did not use this one item to get a search warrant.

Both searches found not chloroform.

Also, in August, they were still looking for a live child - even though there were the results from the trunk.

ICA was re-arrested on October 14 because they were no longer looking for a live child.

Witness excused.

4:11

DIRECT EXAMINATION OF YURI MELICH BY JB

He is the lead investigator in the case, but he has a supervisor.

He was first called out on July 16, 2008.

He was made aware of the smell at some point by GA, but doesn't know if it was early on.

He did not do anything with that information until later that day.

They had the car brought to their central operations center later the night of the 16th.

In the early morning hours of the 16th he stayed a little over an hour and then went back to drop ICA after she showed him the locations. At the driveway at that time GA wanted to speak to him. YM was in his car. The purpose of that conversation was to focus on ICA?

OBJECTION - speculation of state of mind - SUSTAINED

What was the purpose of the meeting?

OBJECTION - OVERRULED

He did not know what GA's purpose was. He noted in his report what GA had said.

He left the house around 7:00 a.m. He then met with ICA at Universal.

While he was at the A's he recalled that there were 2 uniformed officers and himself. He saw sergeant Hosey, but didn't recall who else was there. He didn't believe there were 7 or 8 officers there that evening.

Did any officer tell him the car should be confiscated due to smell?

OBJECTION - SUSTAINED

He did not go get the car. He had already made arrangement with GA.

It wasn't until she was under arrest that he decided to look for evidence in the car.

She was arrested because she had the elements of the crime. Part of his determination of the arrest was that he was concerned that she might hurt herself, based on another case that was in the media at the time.

She had already fulfilled the element of the crime he arrested her for.

After the arrest, the focus of the investigation was to find the child. They did focus on the car, but it wasn't the sole focus.

They were going off of what they were told happened which included that the child was kidnapped.

He was told initially that the child went missing on June 9 - including GA. A few days later they found out that the correct date was June 16.

At that time they had knowledge of Zanny from ICA and family. They had not talked to friends and associates and outcry witnesses.

It took a while to determine that Zanny did not exist. ICA never changed her story. In jail visits, she was still talking about the nanny. He did not know exactly when he determined she did not exist.

He did not have any contact with the A's prior to July 16, 2008.

He had a detective subpoena ICA's cell phone records. He ultimately got GA's cell phone records. He did not recall what time period he requested for GA. He then said he did, and that they had been working with the MBI also.

He requested GA's multiple times - also for June and July. He gave them to the prosecutors. He now says he specifically remembers the March ones and not the June and July. Only the home phone records for June or July.

OBJECTION - relevance - OVERRULED

Cell records will give calls dialed, received, duration, towers carried and text messages. The towers would tell him generally where the phone was when a call was made. He has used it to track a person's movements. They used that for ICA. They subpoenaed the records and the MBI plugged the towers in. They did not do that for GA or CA or LA - just ICA.

He also pulled these records for RK. On 12/11 he discovered the remains. He called his communications and 911 was called They responded to Suburban Drive and interviewed RK. He asked him what happened and what he did. He also asked for any other important information. It was all recorded. And he didn't tell you that he had call the police 4 months earlier?

OBJECTION - hearsay - SUSTAINED

When did you first become aware of prior calls to 911 by RK?

OBJECTION - APPROACH

SIDEBAR #12 (4:27-4:29)

During August 2008 he was approached by Officer Gerald White about a tip off of Suburban Drive. Did you tell him he did not need to follow up?

OBJECTION - leading - SUSTAINED

He recalled the tip to be very general and that they had already sent the cadaver dog in that general area and that it had already been searched.

RK's phone records - he can't recall the dates requested. He believed he got them for June thru December of 2008. He turned them over to the SAO. They included cell tower info. He did not give it to the MBI. He did not instruct anyone to observe RK's movements during that time.

After the remains were found, he recalled there was duct tape found near the remains. He agreed that several months later there was video taken of duct tape at a command center where GA was working with the same Henkel logo markings. He had never seen duct tape with a logo on it. He did not interview GA about why he had such duct tape.

OBJECTION - asked an answered - SUSTAINED

The only duct tape with the Henkel marking found at the A's home was on the gas can. There was no other duct tape found at the time of their search warrants. The only Henkel tape he knew of was at the command center - on the gas can and at the remains scene. The gas cans were reported stolen by GA?

OBJECTION - leading - SUSTAINED

He determined that the gas can in evidence was the one that was reported stolen. He looked at Exhibit 107 and stated it appeared to be the same gas can but he did not see the tape on it.

You interviewed GA on 7/30/08? Yes. That was when he first informed you of a fight with ICA about the gas can?

OBJECTION - hearsay - SUSTAINED

Did GA inform you he reported the can's stolen?

OBJECTION - hearsay - I'll WITHDRAW

Were the gas cans first collected on 8/1/08? Shortly after GA would have told us...

OBJECTION - hearsay - SUSTAINED

How long would you have waited to collected the cans after being notified of the cans? Hard to answer - he can't recall. Would have been within a reasonable time - days. He was asked to check his report. He did not have a record of that and asked JB to show him. JB showed him something and he agreed the gas cans were collected on August 1, 2008.

RK's phone records from June thru December of 2008 - did you also get his computer? No. Could that have told you more?

OBJECTION - speculation - SUSTAINED

As a general rule he will confiscate a computer if he feels it will give him information. That can tell emails, internet searches and map searches.

What else did you do to investigate RK or his actions? They obtained statements from his and his co-workers an got his cell phone records.

CROSS EXAMINATION BY LDB

Tip by Det. Gerald White? Tip was general? It did mention Suburban Drive - swampy area across from a six foot fence. He was aware it was near the A's. OCSO had dealt with the dead end where Suburban stops just short of woods - the far east side where the school is. The remains site was between the school and the A's - closer to the A's. His response to the tip info was baed on his belief that the end of Suburban being searched by the cadaver dog.

Detective is excused (4:48)

Jury excused at 4:45
HHJBP - Defense estimate of when you are winding up?

JB - Thursday

HHJBP - State rebuttal?

LDB - one or two days.

HHJBP - Closing arguments?

JB - Interesting issue. State had requested to split up the closing arguments among lawyers, this would give the State four opportunities to give closing arguments. We would object and I would like the Court's guidance.

HHJBP - 4 closing arguments? Opening and rebuttal.

JB - If split up - it's 2 for opening and 2 for rebuttal.

HHJBP - he only intends on allowing 1 lawyer. He can understand splitting the opening argument, but not rebuttal.

JA - they can have as many attorneys as they like on their closing.

HHJBP - how much time will you be requesting State?

LDB - a half a day (?) (Couldn't hear what she said)

JB - I was thinking less, but..

HHJBP - half a day or until the jury goes to sleep?

I will give you an instruction on Monday. Are you familiar with former Judge Farrerre's (sp) info on closing argument?

HHJBP - Discovery violations?

JB - YM's comment abut RK's phone records. He has only received two weeks of them. YM also said he had the phone records of GA during that time period or any other A's. "I am quite shocked to hear this".

LDB - My speculation is that the records are on the disks that they have been provided. However, JB has subpoenaed all of RK's records and RK's lawyer responded and the Court put parameters on that. She will inquire of YM. She believes YM testified he had home phone records for the A's, not GA's, but she will work with JB to compare info.

HHJBP - Anything else Mr. Baez?

JB - I will work with LDB and possibly recall YM

HHJBP (haha - I think he just called RK Mr. Krunk) He did not recall the State trying to introduce any phone records that they did not give to the Defense. It's a little late in the day to be going after red herrings
.

HHJBP - Anything else?

JA - request for instruction regarding Dr. Rodriguez. It's a comment on evidence not before the jury - that his employer - the DOD - won't allow him to testify is not true. It is because his testimony is prohibited by the rules of the DOD and therefore he is in violation. He did not believe the Defense wanted that instruction. They could have subpoenaed him and ruined his life and they didn't and JA applauds the Defense for that.

CM - It was JA who said that he had received a phone call from the DOD saying Dr. Rodriguez would be terminated if he testified and they weren't told that until after his depo. He could have been forced to testify and/or put in jail.

HHJBP - it is also true, is it not, that what was represented was that he did not get the DOD to testify.

CM - I don't know that. JB talked to him.

JB - We don't know that. All we know is that he came, he started his testimony, there was a break, he gave his depo, JA had a call from the DOD on a Saturday.

JA - he received a phone call from Dr. Rodriguez's employer at the DOD and informed him that he had seen it on tv and that it was a violation of the DOD and he had not sought permission and if he continued, he would be fired.

JB - JA also requested an additional 24 hours to review the depo, knowing full well that Dr. Rodriguez was in the hot seat. We have a motion forthcoming.

JA - The Court simply needs to inform the jury that the witness is withdrawn and to disregard the testimony. If Counsel wants to file something - bring it on.

JB - We will.

HHJBP - He will need Dr. Rodriguez's employer to testify and Dr. Rodriguez also and we can find out if it is a DOD regulation and whether he sought permission to do this. If not, because I offered on Saturday, to order him to be held over until Monday to testify because he was in the jurisdiction of the court and he would have been held here on his own. If they had reason to believe he would have fled, he would have ordered him to be held in the jail. If memory serves me, the defense then said they did not want the man's job in jeopardy and they had another witness who would testify. So, if we are going to tell the whole story, we are going to tell the complete story or tell a very benign thing that his testimony will be stricken and they should not consider it or speculate as to why and that would be the end of the story.

HHJBP - I will have instructions for you to start looking at on Tuesday. It looks like the Defense will wrap up Wednesday and the state to have witnesses on standby so that we can get started Wednesday and you said you would take 1/2 to 1 day and that means that if you take Wednesday, Thursday and you are going to take a whole day to close?

LDB - the openings took a full day. I don't expect the closing plus instructions - should be less.

HHJBP - I'm trying to decide if I want to send them out Friday evening or whether or not I would like to bring them in fresh Saturday morning and then instruct them and send them out. Because if we send them out, hypothetically, Friday starting at 5:00 - we are going to probably end their deliberations between 6:30 and 7:00 and send them back and I have to keep them separate from each other from that point on. So let me think about that - whether or not I want to get them started or whether or not I want to bring them in and instruct them on Saturday morning. Instructions will probably take 45 minutes. But that is something I need to think about.

LDB - lesser include offenses?

HHJBP - the ones I had included - depending on renewed motions for DV, currently now is in there both theories of first degree murder and felony murder, after that - second degree murder, manslaughter, going to count 2 aggravated child abuse, with the lesser child abuse, battery - I may or may not have battery there, under aggravated manslaughter there will be an instruction on interlocking verdicts I will have to give them. There are no lessers for providing false information to law enforcement officers. Think about any other lessers you may be inclined to ask for. Did you provide the State with the new motion you filed? When do you intend to argue this? I'll set it for hearing.

Remember folks that this particular motion to dismiss is an evidentiary hearing and you are going to need more than the attorneys flapping their gums. I'm not going to interrupt the trial. If you need 30 minutes you can do it in the morning starting at 8:25 - if not, you can do it at the conclusion of any day's testimony.

JB - We'll inform the court when we are ready to have that heard.

HHJBP - in recess.

6/27/11 (9:43)

Jury comes into the courtroom for the first time since Friday afternoon


DIRECT EXAMINATION OF YM BY JB:

(9:45)

He was called on Friday to testify and he misspoke regarding cell phone records. Regarding the cell phone records of RK, he was thinking of a different set of records. They subpoenaed June 1 to July 1 of 2008.

RK first called August 11, 2008

OBJECTION - hearsay - SUSTAINED

August thru December is the time frame of RK's involvement.

He did not seek phone records for the 8/08 to 12/08 time period.

RK lives in St. Cloud and works off of Curry Ford.

Had he gotten the August to December cell phone records, could have shown movement?

OBJECTION - OVERRULED

Yes, they would have given him movement of where the phone was.

He could have told if Mr. Kronk had gone to Suburban Drive on August 14?
Yes, but only a general idea.

He did not recall when RK had the Suburban Drive route other than August and December.

OBJECTION - hearsay - SUSTAINED

Is this the first time you have given

OBJECTION - irrelevant - SUSTAINED

Are there any other times you have given misinformation to the Jury?

OBJECTION - OVERRULED

No. You are suggesting I intentionally misinformed the Jury - I did not. He did not recall giving any other misinformation.

Regarding GA cell phone records, he can't recall what he testified to. Couldn't recall if it was the home phone or cell phone and after he left, he determined that he had the records for June and July 2008.

He has not since subpoenaed more of GA's records.

Other people's records have been subpoenaed - including AH, JG, RM, TL, CS, and Diane Taylor. This was a number they found in ICA's phone while looking for ZG. Stephanie Kastakis - he recalled the name. JPC - he recalled the name. Ronald Westenberger, Troy Brown, Jenna Prentice - a shot girl at Fusion. Jammy Relander, Brittany Sheiber - both friends of ICA.

He has not reason to pull RK's cell phone records from August to December 2008.

Would the reason be he did not tell you.

OBJECTION - SUSTAINED

He did not get RK's computer.

Do you recall a search warrant for Joy Ray's computer? Yes. She claimed to have taken photos off of Suburban and claimed to be a spy of George Bush. He did not recall OCSO Baker Acting her, but it did happen.

Mental issues?

OBJECTION - relevancy - SUSTAINED

He got RM's computer and that was how they found he was selling photos to the Globe.

On 12/13/08 he received an email from Joe Jordan - he didn't recall the date. He was giving info regarding the area?

OBJECTION - SUSTAINED

When did you turn that email over? He doesn't recall.

OBJECTION - relevance of turn over dates - OVERRULED

YM - may I see the email in questions?

Was the email only tured over after the Defense had found Mr. Jordan? He did not want to answer any more regarding the email until he saw it.

LDB - wants the exhibit marked. JB agreed. E-mail was given Defense FA.

After reading email - did you only turn the email over after the Defense had found Mr. Jordan? He did not recall when it was turned over. Was it during the normal course of discovery?

OBJECTION - asked and answered - SUSTAINED - question withdrawn

Two search warrants of A's house. First included items to do with Winnie the Pooh blanket. He has to leave a copy of the search warrant and what was taken. That was done on December 11. On 12/20 - he did not recall what they spoke to the A's about when they executed their search warrant. It is not normal, in general, to share info with victims's families. He does not recall if he did. It was an on-going investigation.

Did you disclose any items that you found on Suburban Drive with the A's? He did not recall the specifics of conversation.

Cadaver dog used on other two cars at A's? No - never.

Did the issue come up that ICA may have driven CA's car? Yes - GA told him that. They weren't able to determine that it occurred, so they don't think it happened.

GA's E-pass records received. He did not recall if he requested them from GA?

OBJECTION - hearsay - SUSTAINED

He recalled getting the records from E-pass. They indicated to him...

OBJECTION - hearsay - SUSTAINED - questions withdrawn

He did not deploy a cadaver dog in the A's house.

He was shown Defense Exhibit EZ - a blow up map of the area.

LDB asked to look at the photo - subject to prior discussion - photo conditionally admitted as Defense Exhibit 57.

YM circled and initialled the area where the remains were found and where the A's home is.

ICA was arrested on 7/16/08. She was out on bond for a little over a month. She was subject to electronic monitoring at that time. There were media trucks outside her house. The only time she could leave was to check in with the jail and to her attorney's office. He can't say if the media followed her every time.

No further questions by JB. (Then wanted a moment becuase he forgot to confer with AF)

ICA has been in jail since the indictment on 10/14/08

CROSS EXAM BY LDB (10:12)

Email was received 24 to 36 hours after remains were found. OCSO was very busy with the recovery effort. They had been receiving hundreds to thousands of tips that they had to wade through.

Did you ever receive a report that GA or CA's car smelled like a dead body had been in it? NO

Phone records of AH, JG, RM, TL - they all focused on the June-July 2008 time period - the critical time period of when Caylee had been last seen and then reported missing.

ICA's phone records were initially subpoenaed for the same time to determine where she was on any specific date during that time.

Initially, his effort was based on info given to him by ICA about ZG - info subsequently determined to be false. Also Rachael Farrel, Juliet Lews..

REDIRECT EXAM BY JB

Regarding the email in question, this person had specific info?

OBJECTION - hearsay - SUSTAINED

This person had info?

OBJECTION - SUSTAINED

Mr. Jordan had given them info before? He believes it was all thru email.

He was helping?

A lot of people were trying to help. He was one of many?

Did you use any of his info? He doesn't recall.

Do you recall him giving CA's brother's blog? He didn't recall if it came from Mr. Jordan or if he put him in contact with CA's brother.

CA's brother told you about the wedding?

OBJECTION - SUSTAINED

Regarding CA and GA's car not smelling - he had never got any info if there was any garbage in their car - he never had any reason to ask.

He was present when Deputy Forgey and dog examined the Sunfire. He was shown Defense Exhibit EM - a drawing YM made at a previous hearing (3/23/11). He believes he was drawing the forensics bay garage and ICA's car. He only put one car originally. Then, after the fact, JB had him put a second car.

OBJECTION - SUSTAINED

He only recalled Deputy Forgey being deployed on one car.

This drawing was marked as Exhibit 58 with no objection

No recross

Witness excused subject to recall at 10:21

11:19

DIRECT EXAMINATION OF YM BY JB:

Regarding 12/20/08 search warrant at the A's - did CA say that she had her people walk the area where the body was recovered and nothing was in that area? He recalls her saying something to that extent.

He looked at his report and he recalled she made that comment in front of Corporal Edwards. He did not personally recall, but it was written down.

Witness excused subject to recall at 11:21

3:32

Jury back in

DIRECT EXAMINATION OF YURI MELICH BY JB

He responded to Suburban Drive and made contact with RK. He spoke to him for 10 or 15 minutes total. He had already completed a written statement. He then did a recorded statement. RK did not advise him that he had called any time in August.

It was 12/17/08 when he first learned that RK had first called in August. They then got the tapes of those calls.

Did you have to clarify about the skull rolling out of the bag?

OBJECTION - OVERRULED

He obtained another statement on December 17 to clarify if the skull rolled out or dropped out of the bag.

Was it at that time he changed his story? YM stated he added information.

He would have to refer to the transcript to say what RK said about the skull in his recorded statement. He was shown the transcript by JB - the 12/11 statement.

OBJECTION - LDB requests sidebar SUSTAINED

SIDEBAR#9 (3:38-3:41)


12/17/08 is the first time he had realized that RK had called previously and a few days later he learned that he had called 4 times.

Witness excused subject to recall (3:41)

LDB: I have three stipulations to move into evidence.

4:22

DIRECT EXAMINATION OF YURI MELICH BY LDB

Exhibits 347, 348 and 349 were entered into evidence.

#347 is the home phone records for the A's. He subpoenaed them earlier. The number in June of 2008 was 407-275-4909.

#348 is the cell phone records for GA. The number was 407-403-3564 for June through July of 2008.

#349 is the cell phone records for CA for June 1 to July of 2008. The number was 407-808-4731.

He examined them to determine if there were any calls from the home to GA's cell phone during the week of June 16, 2008 and there were not.

There were no calls from CA's cell to GA's cell the week of June 16, 2008.

CROSS EXAMINATION BY JB

He never knew that GA had more than one cell phone. GA did not tell him that.

OBJECTION - hearsay - OVERRULED

KH never told him GA had multiple cell phones.

OBJECTION - hearsay - OVERRULED

He was shown a statement given to him by GA on 7/24/08.

OBJECTION - SUSTAINED

Does GA tell you have another cell phone?

OBJECITON - SUSTAINED

Does he tell you he had a company cell phone?

OBJECTION - SUSTAINED

Did you ever pull records for a company cell phone? He did not recall that he ever had one. After reading that...

NO - CAN'T DO THAT - NEXT QUESTION

Do you recall KH telling you that he had multiple cell phones?

OBJECTION - SUSTAINED

Were you ever aware that all the A's had boost phones at any given times?

OBJECTION - SUSTAINED

At any time during 2008 were you aware the A's had boost cell phones?

OBJECTION - SUSTAINED


Witness is excused.

THE STATE HAS NO FURTHER REBUTTAL TO PRESENT

LET ME SEE THE ATTORNEYS AT SIDEBAR ALONG WITH THE COURT REPORTER

Yuri's back!

Home phone records for the A's.
LDB: Did you testify about these earlier?
Yes.
LDB: I refer you to this exhibit: do you recognize that?
Tel. records for GA.
And what was the cell phone number? Silence.
Covering June-July 2008.
And this exhibit?
These are cell phone records for CA from June to July 2008.

NO TIME FOR A COMMERCIAL HLN!