GUILTY Ca - Becky Friedli, 18, Vicki, 53, & Jon Hayward, 55, Slain, Palm Desert, 17 Sep 2006

[shellykirk]

They aren't guilty. At this stage it isn't necessary to find out who is, instead only that these young men are not. Perfect in theory but the DA usually does want the guilty party handed to him. which is just fine.

 

[shellykirk]

I am just glad a verdict was reached... I kept thinking it would end up a hung jury.

I thought so too. For the longest.

 

[tmar]

I thought so too. For the longest.

I keep coming here, waiting for more news, but nothing.

 

[JMarsh]

The news coverage on this case was disturbingly poor. That creates a real problem for anyone trying to get a handle on what the evidence actually was on this case-as well as being able to have any confidence in the reliability of that evidence. I have read some of the recent motions and there is a ton of information never given to the public that exists, right there in those motions. It's public record yet I have yet to find one reporter who wrote up anything on the huge discrepancies in the evidence-and how much evidence never made it into court.

For example:

What did the expert from Gladiator test for? What even is a "drive-test" and how has the accuracy of this type of testing in relation to historical ping data been established?

How on earth was the importance of cell sector readings, to placing an individual at a location in relation to a cell tower, just ignored by the DA?

There were two labs that found no DNA match to Cristin Smith and that Pro-life Ministries business card. The lab that did finally get some kind of match, and it was pretty weak, did conclude that they could not exclude but they also could also not definitively say that it was Cristin's DNA on that card. How exactly did the numbers change on this for trial, when the DNA sample had been exhausted and retesting was impossible at that time?

And just thinking logically why would a 17 year old kid have a business card for a service that trains volunteers in helping pregnant women choose not to have an abortion? Those cards were given out over both the high and low desert areas. The card could have come from anywhere. And why, if he did carry such a card around, would he have had it in his pocket on his way to murder three people?

Cristin had just gotten off work. He was a life guard so he probably changed clothes before heading out with Robert. I find it a bit of a stretch to think that a 17 teen, who just changed into clothes, is going to keep a Pro-life business card in his pocket.

Not to mention that business card was found far from the murders, yet DNA on Becky Friedli's socks (which excludes both Robert and Cristin) isn't given much weight. We don't even know if that DNA was run through CODIS.

I have lots more questions, and some answers. This case is frightening in how little evidence there actually was.

Watching Making a Murderer 2 and I see striking parallels between the cases.

 

[JMarsh]

This case was built primarily on four factors:

1) Robert and Cristin were mistaken as to exactly where they were when calls came in from Becky 9/17/2018-between the times of 6:53 & 7:34

2) They turned their phones off (or didn't ping a tower, for whatever reason), and then their phones ping again, close to the same time

3) There was a business card found over 200 yards from the Friedli home that had DNA which excluded Robert, but could not exclude Cristin

4) Phone pings place Robert and Cristin at a location where they might have driven to the Friedli residence. if they continued to Highway 74, and ascended up that highway​

Because this is a website for sleuths, and I have read some great analysis here, I'll give those interested, something to ponder.​

Regarding 1):
Robert and Cristin were mistaken at to exactly where they were when the calls came in from Becky

This error in recollection was actually very small. It was just a mile, or so, difference between being at Cristin's home in Cathedral City and driving in route to Sacred Heart Church (Palm Desert). And if they were driving, and talking to one another while this was going on, it seems it would be easy to confuse.

But here is a question: How often do any of us recall where we were when a call comes into our cell that we choose to ignore?

[Of the calls that Becky made to Robert and Cristin that night-from 6:53 and after (and she made all the calls except one-Robert initiated NONE of the calls), all the calls went to voicemail. And the phones pinged towers for all but the last call. So these calls could not have been received while the two were ascending 74-there is no cell service there.]

And why would Becky, who had made that drive from Palm Desert to her home hundreds of time, continue to call Robert and Cristin if she thought they were headed to her? She knows there is no cell reception on 74 once you ascend-and there won't be service from that point forward, because there was no cell reception in Pinyon Pines either.

It seems much more likely that there was a cancellation of the plans to hike (during an earlier call), Becky kept calling because she knew that Robert was in a location where there was cell reception, and Robert and Cristin turned off their phones because they didn't want to talk to her anymore.

Regarding 2):
Robert and Cristin turned their phones off and on again, around the same times

Basically the resolve to this is to be had in the response to number 1.

If you look at the phone log (I post this below) Becky called Robert and Cristin a combination of 8 times. And seven of these calls occur after 6:53, which would have been too late for Robert and Cristin to get to her home for a hike. The sun set around 6:30ish that night. Becky had to work that night. Is she really going to go on a hike that starts at 7:30 or 8:00? She was more likely calling for another reason. And we'll never know what the reason was, because Robert and Cristin, being teenage boys, just let the calls go to voicemail.

Key aspects of Robert and Cristin's alibi were never looked into by LE. Including the timestamp on the x-box game they said they played. They also said they stopped at an AM/PM, and LE waited 13 days to get the surveillance recording. It was taped over by then. In addition, no one in the family who could have verified that Robert and Cristin went to certain homes, was ever questioned. (One of those witnesses passed away in 2008.)

But all the above would explain why their phones were off together, they were busy, playing xbox, etc. And it wasn't until later that they chose to check their messages. Not really all that suspicious.

Why give an alibi that could be so easily negated? Robert and Cristin would have zero way of knowing the cops wouldn't follow up.

Regarding 3):
There was a business card (the purpose of which was to recruit volunteers, interested in pro-life endeavors) found over 200 yards from the Friedli home. It contained DNA which excluded Robert, but did not exclude Cristin

There was DNA on the wheelbarrow handles and Becky's socks, as well. This DNA, is on items where there is no question that they are at the scene of both the murders and the fire.

The business card, which is the only DNA that comes close to matching either Robert and Cristin, (and seems out of keeping with ownership by a 17 year old boy), is one that comes from Diocese of San Bernardino (Diocese of San Bernardino: About the Diocese). That card is distributed to parishes in the cities listed below, plus Palm Desert, Sacred Heart:
Adelanto, Chino, Alta Loma.Chino Hills,Anza,Coachella,Apple Valley, Colton
Banning/BeaumontCorona, Barstow, Crestline, Big Bear, Desert Hot Springs, Bloomington, Eastvale, Blythe, Fontana, Cathedral City, Grand Terrace,Guasti

There were two labs that found no match, the third could not exclude Cristin. Then suddenly at trial, that match is more exact. But how? There was no retesting. The DNA sample had been exhausted. How suddenly is there a new outcome, when no re-testing was performed? I can't figure it out. If you know, please enlighten me.

But the real question is, when and how did that business card even arrive at that spot? No one knows. So DNA on Becky's socks and the wheelbarrow handle, that isn't a match to either Robert or Cristin, is ignored, and a card--that could have dropped from a pocket a day before, a week before or even a month before--takes center stage. Why?

And then there is this little thing that everyone in forensics is talking about: Touch DNA! That doesn't appear to have been factored into the equation of possibilities by investigators, at all.

I don't get it.

Can someone here sleuth this for me?

Regarding 4):
Phone pings place Robert and Cristin at a location where they might have driven to the Friedli residence, if they had continued to Highway 74, and ascended up that highway.

But there is no proof that they did continue onto 74. None.

And as I mention above, alibi evidence that could have easily been followed up on, wasn't.

And sector data (that basically shows from which direction a person pings a tower) was never asked for by LE. So no one has any idea from where these pings originated: north, south, east, west, who knows?

Gladiator Forensics generated some fancy looking, multi-colored maps, intended to show the coverage of each tower pinged; but without sector data, what do they really indicate?

These maps do not appear to delineate the coverage of each individual sector, of the antennas being tested (the method used to generate these maps is commonly known as a "drive-test", and was designed to monitor subscriber coverage. The use of this "drive-test" for criminal trials and is different than the type of map more commonly used. The accuracy of this type of testing as it relates to historical ping data does not seem certain. In real-time, it appears to be accurate, but with all the factors that go into why a cell phone pings a given tower, looking back 12 years, by way of a test designed for real-time measurements-seems a little iffy. At least it does to me.)

AND, did Gladiator check to see if any of the antennas in question were either manually or digitally down-tilted, in a small or big way, in the past decade?

Alter the down-tilt of an antenna, even slightly, this will alter the coverage. (This isn't something that necessarily requires a building permit.)

I'm afraid this post is getting too long. So more on the ping evidence later. And then there was some very iffy witness testimony...

This case is rife with contradictions.

Maybe there is still a mystery to be solved here...

 

[JMarsh]

We have a 6th amendment right to face our accusers at trial.

Anyone have any thoughts as to why this right was denied Cristin Smith in regard to a "confidential informant", Jeremy Witt, who previously was unknown to the case, even though he'd called his tip into LE in 2011?

(This informant was known to LE in 2014 when they first charged Robert and Cristin, why didn't they find him then? How did they find him, all of a sudden, in 2016?)

Jeremy Witt was allowed to forgo taking the stand, even though the only way for the jury to judge his credibility was to observe him, especially under cross.

There was absolutely no corroboration to statements Witt claims Cristin made. Witt didn't wear a wire.

No one else, in all these years, claimed they heard anything resembling the remarks Witt says Cristin made to him-and Witt was not a close friend-he was a co-worker. Why would Cristin confide in Witt and no one else? If Cristin is just blabbing to people he doesn't know well, why aren't there more people he blabbed to?

Witt didn't even report the statements until 4 years later (Witt "heard" the statements in 2007). And I've looked at Witt's court records, he has some interesting legal problems of his own. I won't post them here, but look them up.

Didn't the jury have a right to know all of this?

The jury is the decider of the facts, how can they decide if vital information is kept from them?

Why wasn't Witt required to testify?

 

[JMarsh]

They aren't guilty. At this stage it isn't necessary to find out who is, instead only that these young men are not. Perfect in theory but the DA usually does want the guilty party handed to him. which is just fine.

I agree. There is enough evidence indicating that Robert and Cristin are innocent, there is no need to produce an alternate suspect. It would help, but it shouldn't be necessary.

This case scares me. In every other case of wrongful conviction (or what seems like it might be a wrongful conviction) I've followed (and I follow a lot of cases-have been for decades now) there has been something one can point to that explains why the jury convicted.

Adnan Syed-co-conspirator/eye-witness
Ryan Ferguson-co-conspirator/eye-witness
Steven Avery-DNA
Brandon Dassey-confession
Michael Morton-victim stomach contents (turned out to be junk science, but at the time it was accepted)
Kevin Green-eye witness

In the case against Robert and Cristin there is nothing. No evidence. Scares me in a big way. If this case stands, it would appear any of us, could be convicted based on absolutely nothing.

Gossip and coincidence aren't evidence. At least, they shouldn't be.

 

[hanover]

The news coverage on this case was disturbingly poor. That creates a real problem for anyone trying to get a handle on what the evidence actually was on this case-as well as being able to have any confidence in the reliability of that evidence.

I suspect that the followers of this thread have a pretty accurate view of the events, as these were tweeted live from the courtroom by KESQ reporters, and generously recorded verbatim here for us by Websleuths' member Niner. The original Grand Jury indictment transcript has also been available for a long time now.

With regard to evidence, the defendants' family and friends have started both a website and an internet based petition, where they are making similar points to yours. If these points are factual, pertinent and compelling, then I can't help but wonder why they weren't presented as evidence by the defense team at the trial. They had almost 12 years to prepare their case.

If you're looking for a rebuttal, an argument for the defendants' guilt is summarized by Shanda80 back in post #585. It answers some of the points that you made. Presumably the jury thought along similar lines, as they deliberated thoroughly for 10 days before reaching unanimous agreement.

 

[JMarsh]

I suspect that the followers of this thread have a pretty accurate view of the events, as these were tweeted live from the courtroom by KESQ reporters, and generously recorded verbatim here for us by Websleuths' member Niner. The original Grand Jury indictment transcript has also been available for a long time now.

With regard to evidence, the defendants' family and friends have started both a website and an internet based petition, where they are making similar points to yours. If these points are factual, pertinent and compelling, then I can't help but wonder why they weren't presented as evidence by the defense team at the trial. They had almost 12 years to prepare their case.

If you're looking for a rebuttal, an argument for the defendants' guilt is summarized by Shanda80 back in post #585. It answers some of the points that you made. Presumably the jury thought along similar lines, as they deliberated thoroughly for 10 days before reaching unanimous agreement.

Thank you for your response. And I would agree, for what news coverage there was, there are persons here who did an excellent job of archiving and organizing that coverage.

Not sure that you actually read my posts, though.

I am very familiar with the Grand Jury Hearing (have you read that transcript?). I read the transcript for that hearing a number of times, and it was that transcript that first caused me concern as to the viability of the state's case against the Robert Pape and Cristin Smith. I have also purchased court docs. I've read Attorney John Dolan's 995 motion to dismiss the case against Cristin Smith (2016)-which gives details about evidence not covered in the news; And, I read the DA's response to that motion to dismiss. Both of these documents were very elucidating. And it is because I read these motions that I know how poor the news coverage was. These documents are public and any journalist could have accessed them. (I have also visited the website on this case, there is a lot of useful information there, as well.)

I think you are also, perhaps, not familiar with how trials work. The defense did not have 12 years to prepare for trial. The state did. The state always has this advantage over the defense. Always. Because it is state's investigators who control who is interviewed, what evidence is collected, what goes into the final written reports.

The defense attorneys at trial, Jeff Moore and John Dolan, were hired when the defendants were arrested for a second time in 2016. (There were a different set of lawyers involved with this case in 2014.) The defense for the most recent trial had 2 years to prepare, in contrast with the state's 12 years time to prepare. Though the burden is technically on the prosecution to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt, the way the court is actually set up, the prosecution has huge advantages over those being prosecuted: both in terms of financial resources and complete and unfettered access to all evidence.

If you do read the the Grand Jury Transcript you will note that there is a very important piece of evidence missing from that hearing. Evidence that appears at trial, that isn't revealed two years previous. And I can't tell what actual "new" evidence allowed this case to be brought back in 2016. Can you tell me what was new?

As to what the defense did or did not present:

1) it's hard to tell because the news coverage was so superficial (it may have been accurate, but it was not in depth)

2) there were rulings by the judge that I question, that may have hindered the defense's ability to put on their case in full

That said, I think this may be the wrong forum for me to post on. I thought because this site was called "Websleuths" that readers here were looking beyond just what is reported, and trying to take it upon themselves to ascertain if justice has really been served. It may be that this is more about just following the news? Websleuths at one time had a reputation for digging deep into the subject matter presented, but maybe the focus here has changed?

So I'll check back in from time to time. If there is anyone reading here who would like to engage in a more in depth discussion on this case, I'd love to take part.

And thank you to all those who organized what news coverage there was. Well done.

 

[hanover]

If anybody is still following this case, you can read the latest developments here.

Robert's sentence of second degree murder (Rebecca) has been reduced from life without parole to 15 years to life (although the two first degree murder charges (Jon & Vicki) remain life without parole). Cristin's parole revocation fine has been struck off as he is sentenced to life without parole on both charges of first degree murder (Jon & Vicki).

 

[Niner]

https://www.davisvanguard.org/2021/...-years-later-despite-suspicions-of-innocence/

Jan. 25, 2021

PALM SPRINGS, CA- In the aftermath of a triple homicide, Robert Pape and Cristin Smith became the prime suspects. However, there are several prosecutorial and investigative issues in this case that suggests it was a wrongful conviction of innocent men.

long article - a lot more in there...