Kenneth L. Kinsey — Direct/Cross/Redirect/Recross/Voir Dire
1,212 linesTHURSDAY, FEBRUARY 16, 2023
(Court resumed at 9:34 a.m.)
JUDGE NEWMAN: Mr. Griffin?
MR. GRIFFIN: Yes. Thank you, Your Honor. Before we bring the jury in, I would like to put on the record the basis of my objection to the redirect of Agent Owen regarding the roadside shooting, understanding the Court's ruling was that I opened the door to that based on my cross-examination. This is the first case I've had the benefit of being able to go back to YouTube and see exactly what was asked on direct and what was asked on cross. I have typed it out, Your Honor. It's very brief. On direct examination, Mr. Meadors asked Agent Owens, question: At some point in 2021 in the fall, did a financial investigation begin into Alex Murdaugh? His answer was: Yes, sir. Question: Would it be fair to say that the investigations overlapped with each other? Answer: It did. Question: Would be it be fair to say that the two investigations fed off each other? The answer is: Yes, it did.
From the information I was learning from the financial investigation, it gave me additional people to consider and to look at Mr. Murdaugh as a reason why or why not. The next question: Were there individuals in the finance investigation that you also interviewed in this investigation? He said: Yes, I did. And the question: Did you learn information from the grand jury testimony? He says: Yes, I did. And then the question: Did you follow up on that information? He said: Yes, I did. That was elicited on direct examination. My cross- examination, I began on this topic: You also testified in the fall of 2021 there was a -- there started up a financial investigation. Yes. You said it fed off and overlapped with the murder investigation. Yes. You developed information that Alex was stealing money to support a drug addiction. Yes, that was reported. Question: You learned that Alex was paying up to $50,000 a week to buy drugs. Yes, that is what was reported.
You learned that Alex was buying from Curtis Eddie Smith. Yes. You learned that Eddie was buying from the Sandhill drug gang. Yes. You learned that Eddie owed the Sandhill drug gang a lot of money. Yes. But they were not worried about getting their money because it was Murdaugh. Question: Did you ever conduct a cell phone analysis of the Sandhill drug dealer's cell phones to see if they were at Moselle on June the 8th? Answer: No. Because in my experience they use burner phones. Question: You never got DNA from them to cross-check against the unknown DNA on Maggie's fingernails. Answer: No. Question: You never put them in the investigative circle, did you? Answer: My understanding is that investigation is continuing. And is being conducted by the DEA. And from that, Your Honor, there were no questions related to the roadside shooting, no questions related to whether Alex lied to the police in connection with the roadside shooting. It was all about him stealing money from clients to support his drug addiction, which is evidence that was already in the case. Your Honor, I sent the Court a -- via email earlier today the case of State v. Heyward, 426 SC 630, which is a 2019 case where the Supreme Court reversed Judge Young on an opening the door theory --
JUDGE NEWMAN: The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals.
MR. GRIFFIN: Excuse me. The Supreme Court reversed the Court of -- sure.
JUDGE NEWMAN: Yes, sir.
MR. GRIFFIN: The defendant was convicted. It went -- the Supreme Court -- the Court of Appeals affirmed and the Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals, that's right.
JUDGE NEWMAN: Yes.
MR. GRIFFIN: And vacated the conviction based upon the introduction of propensity evidence, 404B -- 404 evidence on the theory of opening the door. And in that opinion, Justice Hearn was very specific to state that courts have been very careful and very wary of thinly failed attempts to show propensity while -- by way of the Open Door Doctrine, and the testimony in response must be proportional and confined to the topics to which counsel had opened the door. And, again, I go back. We did not open the door to any roadside shooting, any insurance fraud, anything with regard to Alex lying to the police, and so that was the basis. I just objected, so I wanted to put that in the record. Today they intend to present a full panoply of evidence on the roadside shooting. And, Your Honor, we would oppose that --
JUDGE NEWMAN: What do you mean a full panoply?
MR. GRIFFIN: Well, they've asked to -- that they're going -- my understanding is they're putting up Agent Kelly to talk about his investigation of the roadside shooting. We got a request this morning for them to play the hospital videotape of Alex in the Savannah Hospital, which is over an hour, where he is being interviewed by SLED agents, and he is meeting with a sketch artist to draw up a sketch of the roadside shooter, and that they plan to introduce that evidence. They plan to introduce, as we understand it, follow-up evidence of when Alex gets to detox in Atlanta and when he calls back with Mr. Harpootlian and I and gives a full statement about the roadside shooting, and about how he had lied to them previously.
JUDGE NEWMAN: Is that the same video or different?
MR. GRIFFIN: Two separate. I mean, the second is just an audiotape. But, Your Honor, I just go back to State v. Heyward where the Court says testimony in response must be proportional and confined to the topics which counsel has opened the door. And so they intend to spend 3 hours of testimony here today, and it's not proportional, and it's not related to the topic for which the Court, I believe, should find that -- I don't think I opened any door because I think the evidence was already in the case.
JUDGE NEWMAN: All right.
MR. GRIFFIN: And it was in response to direct. It wasn't something I brought up.
MR. WATERS: May it please the Court, Your Honor? To go back, obviously we had this issue and we addressed it yesterday morning.
JUDGE NEWMAN: At this time, we're dealing with the issue and the Court's exception or statement for the record that Mr. Griffin wanted to make concerning the Court's ruling yesterday, we're not dealing with any anticipated testimony today at this time. I'm not ruling based on what -- well, I've already ruled, but I am entertaining these comments for the record regarding yesterday's ruling. So, go ahead.
MR. WATERS: I think, Your Honor, if you listened obviously to the excerpts that Mr. Griffin just read, if you put that into context of everything that had developed, starting with Marian Proctor, that the door is more than opened, and the State's intent in that regard is to fully respond to and flesh out the very examination --
JUDGE NEWMAN: I don't care about the State's intent in that regard. We're talking about yesterday's ruling so we can close the door on that. Do you have anything else to say about the Court's ruling yesterday?
MR. WATERS: Other than the examination, or redirect examination clearly was in response to an appropriate opening the door after that examination, and that's -- I think that Your Honor's ruling was appropriate in that regard, and I think that, again, that has opened the door to exploration of those issues.
JUDGE NEWMAN: Concerning the Court's ruling yesterday, and also State v. Heyward, with Mr. Owens in questioning Mr. Griffin in cross-examination -- cross-examining Investigator Owen got into this circle of interest, that Alex was in the circle. He then crossed the witness regarding, well, did you take -- consider Eddie Smith to be in the circle? Did you consider some unknown gang members, whoever they might be, to be in this circle? Did you know that Alex was spending $50,000 per week supporting a drug habit presumably with -- through Eddie Smith and that he owed money, he was indebted? So, Mr. Griffin introduced the relationship between the defendant and Eddie Smith. The State, when the Court conducted a pretrial hearing outside the presence of the jury, addressed the issue. Made it clear that the roadside shooting was a bridge too far.
Then the defense decided to build a road over that bridge and decided to just go right there as if they can advance through fire without getting burned, scarred, or anything. The door was opened. It's not the same as a situation in State v. Heyward where a codefendant's -- a cooperating codefendant is being questioned about unrelated matters, totally unrelated to the case, and the Supreme Court felt judge -- the presiding judge went too far in allowing evidence not proportional to what was opened and which he already ruled should not have -- should not be introduced. I find that what this Court allowed on yesterday was proportional because it was in relation to evidence elicited not by the State but by the defendant, and the State is entitled to explore this relationship with or between the defendant and Eddie Smith.
If the -- and then we'll have further discussion at some point regarding this limitation, just randomly throwing out the names of people, suspicion and speculation regarding the issue of third party guilt. But to the extent that the defense sought to introduce the relationship between the defendant and Eddie Smith, and then to seek to infer that Eddie Smith might have been or should be a suspect in the murder, then to prohibit the State from saying, well, if he's a -- if Eddie Smith should be a suspect and Mr. Murdaugh, who at the outset engaged in this form of problem solving by telling the State what this case was all about and the murder was all about, meaning the boat crash, then later engaging in what appears to be a conspiracy along with a person that the defense seeks to insinuate to be, or should have been, a suspect, the State is entitled to explore that.
The extent of which the State should be entitled to explore that, you know, that's open for discussion today but not based on the Court's ruling yesterday. The Court in the Heyward case did indicate that the Court should be careful with the nature and extent to which these other matters should be allowed to go into, and I intend to do that. But the record is protected to the extent that Mr. Griffin went through YouTube and citing what his version of what he said yesterday, excluding the portion that's more relevant and important to the Court's ruling, but the record speaks for itself on all of that, and the Court's ruling stands that was given yesterday.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Your Honor, obviously we except to your ruling, but --
JUDGE NEWMAN: Well -- okay. We have a ruling, we have a for the record, now we have an exception to the ruling, and another comment. Go ahead.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: So, what I would like to discuss now is what the State will be allowed to submit in support of this position. Now, clearly there is a taped statement by Mr. Murdaugh from a detox facility in Atlanta, which was initiated by Mr. Griffin and I, so certainly there's no objection to that. I mean, there could be but there's no real objection to that. Secondly --
JUDGE NEWMAN: So, no objection to the statements.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Well, no objection to the statement pursuant to and conditioned by our previous objection to -- I want to make the record clear we're objecting to any of this.
JUDGE NEWMAN: Well, I understand. You have objected to everything throughout the trial, I understand.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Well, there's a couple of things we missed.
JUDGE NEWMAN: All right.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: If you would like to rehear some of those. But, Your Honor, so -- but then -- and again, Mr. Waters and I discussed last night after your ruling a way perhaps, and I know this is shocking, to expedite this process. For instance, there is a statement made to EMS, the statement they're wanting to get to which is, you know, a drive-by shooting, you know, all of those sorts of things which he later on admitted in a telephone conversation, or a statement that was taken was not true. We get that. He didn't need to be Mirandized on the side of the road by EMS. However, there are two recorded statements taken at the Savannah Hospital by Agent Kelly after he is -- and we've got the medical records here if you want to look at them. He clearly has suffered a wound to his head, a fracture skull.
JUDGE NEWMAN: And I'm always suspect of that word clearly and clear when everything is in controversy.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: I don't think this is in controversy.
JUDGE NEWMAN: Tell me what's clear again?
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: A bullet wound to the head, fracture skull, brain bleed. I think that's it. The medical records indicate medications that he was under while at the hospital. We would think there would have to be a Jackson v. Denno hearing on that -- those interviews just under the issue of was he competent, a competency hearing. To do that, we would have to bring the physicians and the treating physicians from Savannah here to testify. And again, and I think Mr. Waters will concede, it was at 6 I emailed him and said all good, what we talked about yesterday, and he came back a little while later and indicated that he would like to put those in. Mr. Griffin and I over a cup of coffee said there's competency issues, and we informed him of that this morning. Nobody is playing gotcha here. So, we don't believe those should come in without Your Honor being able to rule that he is competent, to hear from the doctors. And I think we may have worked out a compromise on that, and I just wanted to confirm that for the record. But what we have worked out is this. The statement that he would not -- he would not have to bring the EMS people. There's a statement that they made. Agent Kelly can publish that statement without having them the need to be here. There were -- there was a knife recovered at the scene. They don't have to bring and show -- I mean, Kelly can identify that. There was a --
MR. WATERS: Your Honor, so what we talked about yesterday, just to kind of wrap this up, was, again, my intent to do this in a very expedited and focused fashion, not get into every detail or litigate that entire matter. I suggested to the defense, and they agreed yesterday, that I could have Agent Kelly, who's the lead investigator on the side of the road, come up and essentially and in a very abbreviated fashion walk through the case without the need to call the 911 operator or the ambulance driver or the roadside deputy or the DNA analyst or the person who found the knife and so forth and so on. And I plan to do that, again, in a very expedited fashion. I'm not talking about anything 3 hours or the like. We also discussed this morning that I do need to be able to relate to the jury, though, the defendant's claim, which I have argued to you is particularly relevant, that he was attacked by an unknown assailant on the side of the road when, in fact, he knew exactly who it was. He had actually arranged for it. And so in our discussion that I thought we had an agreement on it, and I think we still do, is that Agent Kelly -- there was an interview in the hospital on 9/4 and one on 9/6, and that I would have Agent Kelly just summarize and reiterate the defendant's claim about what happened on the side of the road, as well as the fact that he worked with a sketch artist and show that sketch picture, and then just move through it like that. And then we will play for the jury, which I think they -- so they don't object to, there were no additional objections, the telephone interview in which he ultimately admitted to law enforcement in the presence of his attorneys that had been a lie.
JUDGE NEWMAN: Yes, sir.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: That's the deal. But I feel a little more comfortable if we could just have -- and I'm not trying to delay court, but this recording is 47 minutes long --
MR. WATERS: 41.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Whatever, 40 plus. So many recordings I'm confusing them, but 41 minutes long. Could we take -- I mean, if you could just -- and by the way, I've agreed to allow him to lead unless I see something reprehensible going on, which for me is difficult to restrain myself from objecting which would expedite it even more. But at 6:30 in the morning, we were not in the position to discuss what Agent Kelly's -- what is sort of acceptable what had happened at the hospital thing. I would just like 5 or 10 minutes just to review that with him, and then I think we're on go. Although, just for the record, we are objecting to any of this. I don't want this kumbaya moment to confuse any waiver of our objections.
MR. WATERS: The only thing I just want to put on the record is, again, this is in the discussions with defense counsel, moving expeditiously with Agent Kelly without raising hearsay and that sort of thing. Making us go through that pace has been a strategic decision that the defense has made.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Pursuant to -- I just want to make it clear. I hate to sound like a broken record, but I don't think want any appellate record ever to look at this and say, well, you agreed to it. We're agreeing to this process pursuant to Your Honor's ruling this morning.
JUDGE NEWMAN: I have not reviewed any of the evidence that you all are now referencing. So, to the extent that you all have an agreement on it, moving forward with this evidence, considering the objections, I'm fine with taking 5 or 10 minutes if that would expedite things. I deal with what you all disagree on, not what you all agree on.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Yes, sir.
MR. WATERS: Yes, sir, Your Honor.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: If you're going to -- Your Honor, when you take this recess, we're going to take -- myself, Mr. Griffin, and maybe even Mr. Barber -- he seems busy -- to a room where we can have some peace and quiet and have a discussion without being interrupted every 2 minutes.
JUDGE NEWMAN: All right. We'll be in recess then for hopefully about 10 minutes.
(A break was taken.)
JUDGE NEWMAN: Mr. Waters?
MR. WATERS: Yes, sir. I believe we're ready to proceed. I know we still have cross on that other witness. Just so the Court knows, we do have Dr. Kinsey, who's our expert who will go after that, so we can get him on the way. And then after that, we would move to Mr. Kelly -- excuse me, Special Agent Kelly, and I think we've had a discussion and have the same sheet of music so that there is at least no additional objection to the ones they've already read.
JUDGE NEWMAN: Mr. Harpootlian?
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Sounds reasonable to me. And, Your Honor, my goal here is to be reasonable.
JUDGE NEWMAN: Yes, sir. You may bring the jury.
(The jury returned to the courtroom.)
COURT BAILIFF: The jury is present, sir.
JUDGE NEWMAN: All right. Good morning.
(The jurors responded good morning.)
JUDGE NEWMAN: Day number nineteen. State's case. Cross-examination, Mr. Barber.
MR. BARBER: No questions, Your Honor.
JUDGE NEWMAN: All right. Thank you, sir. Call your next witness.
MR. WATERS: Thank you, Your Honor. We call Dr. Kenny Kinsey.
The witness, KENNTH L. KINSEY, was first duly sworn and testified as follows:
COURT CLERK: If you would, please, sir, be seated in that witness chair over there. State your full name for the record, spell your last name, and try to talk in the mic as good as you can.
VOIR DIRE EXAMINATION
BY MR. WATERS:
MR. WATERS: Dr. Kinsey, how are you doing today?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Kenneth Lee Kinsey. K-i-n-s-e-y.
MR. WATERS: All right.
KENNETH L. KINSEY: I am fine, sir.
MR. WATERS: Good. Dr. Kinsey, let's talk a little bit about your career and who you are. First of all, just kind of introduce to the jury a little bit and tell them where you grew up and where you went to school, and then we'll start to talk about your law enforcement career and your expert qualifications.
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Yes, sir, happily. I grew up a long way from here in a little county called Orangeburg. I was there about fifty-four years, my whole life. I went away for college a couple of times and came back, and I'm currently the chief deputy of the Orangeburg County Sheriff's Office. And I'm also a professor of criminal justice at Claflin University, where I teach crime scene related classes.
MR. WATERS: All right, and pull that mic a little bit closer to you. And, first of all, before we get to the professorship and what led to that, let's talk about your law enforcement career. So, walk me back to the beginning, and if you could just kind of walk through the various stages of your career and the things that you did along the way that led you to become the chief deputy for Orangeburg.
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Yes, sir. I began my law enforcement career approximately thirty years ago, and I've held many positions in those thirty years, but for the last twenty- two years my concentration, other than administrative, has been crime scene investigations and working violent crime scenes. I have ran the Crime Scene Unit in Orangeburg for six or seven years, and then I went on to SLED for approximately four years, and then I came back and now I directly supervise the captain of investigations, and investigations includes the Crime Scene Unit. So, I'm still hands on the crime scenes, either as a primary or a backup crime scene investigator. And as I mentioned earlier, I teach crime scene investigation and other criminal justice related courses. I received my Bachelor's Degree from Clemson University in 1991, my Master's Degree in Science from Troy University in 2011, and my Ph.D from Walden University in 2019, with a concentration on use of force cases involving police officers. And my research is use of force and crime scene investigations.
MR. WATERS: So, we could call you Dr. Kinsey, correct?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: My grandmother told me it's what you answer to, but yes, sir, I'll answer to that, Kenny, or Chief Kinsey.
MR. WATERS: And we can call, too -- we can call you Professor Kinsey, correct?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Yes, sir, that is correct.
MR. WATERS: And then we can call you Chief Kinsey as well.
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Yes, sir.
MR. WATERS: Well, let's talk a little bit more about the law enforcement. Then I want to talk a little bit more about the education. Now, you mentioned that you've done a lot of administration. And tell the jury just a little bit about what it is to be the chief, and just what that entails, and then we'll talk a little bit more sort of about the crime scene stuff, if you will.
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Yes, sir. I answer directly to an elected sheriff, I'm the number two man at the sheriff's office. And I supervise approximately, when we are full, when every slot is full, I supervise over 127 people. 105 are certified law enforcement men and women. And that encompasses about nine different divisions at the sheriff's office, including narcotic special operations, criminal investigations, civil, courtroom, school resource officers -- there are several groups in there -- and our civilian employees.
MR. WATERS: All right. Now as you already testified, you don't just do the administration stuff as the number two man, but over your career you've also extensively done actual law enforcement work, processing homicide and other major crime scenes. Is that correct?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Yes, sir, I have. I have boots on the ground processed north of 800 death scenes. Not all of those are homicides. That also includes suicides, accidental deaths, and unexplained deaths. That is either as a primary investigator or as a secondary investigator in my career. And I still have a directive that I placed with my coworkers eleven, approximately eleven years ago. I still go to every death scene if possible.
MR. WATERS: All right. Over that time, you said over 800 death scenes over the course of your career. Is that correct?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: That is correct.
MR. WATERS: And then, you know, how many pieces of forensic evidence do you think you've processed over the years?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: That would be hard to determine. Multiple pieces for each scene. But part of my duties --
MR. WATERS: Homicides then.
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Yes, sir. Part of my duties when I was at SLED was to also process evidence that was submitted through the door. And what through the door means, these are items of evidence from other agencies that have worked their on crime scenes and they send their items to SLED for an analysis, and that's in the thousands. I would have no way to give you a quantitative number.
MR. WATERS: In the thousands.
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Yes, sir.
MR. WATERS: Is it also over the years, have you attended autopsies as part of your investigative work as it relates to death scenes?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: That is correct. Every agency I have worked at had a mandate that you attend autopsies to collect evidence, to major case prints, GSR, and that kind of thing, and also to give the pathologist an idea of your interpretation of what happened.
MR. WATERS: And have you ever had to -- been asked to consult on death cases in jurisdictions throughout the state or even in other states?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Yes, sir, I have.
MR. WATERS: And describe that to the jury, please.
KENNETH L. KINSEY: As a consultant I work for -- to be frank and honest, sometimes it's against the law enforcement, sometimes it's defending law enforcement, just depending on what I believe is wrong and right, and I have participated with private attorneys in the civil process doing both. And I have also been asked for colleague -- by colleagues and comrades across the country to review a piece of evidence if they may have needed a qualified examiner to technically or administratively review that piece of evidence or their findings.
MR. WATERS: All right. Before I come back to the specific crime scene training and experience that you have, I just want to go back again to your education. You want to Clemson, right?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Yes, sir.
MR. WATERS: All right, and started your law enforcement career not long after that?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: That's correct.
MR. WATERS: And what year did you graduate Clemson?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: I was on a five year plan. , I graduated in 1991, and I started as a reserve deputy. The records are a little shaky because back then you worked until they had a certification class, but best I can guess was somewhere around '92, '93.
MR. WATERS: So, '91 Clemson.
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Yes, sir.
MR. WATERS: I was '92 Carolina, so -- all right, and then you went on to Troy University at some point later in your career?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: I did, yes, sir. I attended Troy's satellite campus, which is in Sumter, an actual brick and mortar school. The purpose of Troy being placed in Sumter is because of Shaw Air Force Base. A lot your -- our men and woman who protect our country use their GI bills to further their education at such campuses, and I had to travel three nights -- well, one night a week and two days a week for approximately a year and a half to complete that and pass proficiency.
MR. WATERS: All right. That competency exam, is that a pretty tough exam?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: It's the second toughest thing I've ever done, yes, sir.
MR. WATERS: Is the pass rate very low on that the first time?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: It is very low. We probably had thirty people in our class, and I only know of four that passed the competency the first time.
MR. WATERS: And were you one of them?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Yes, sir.
MR. WATERS: All right, and then you went on and got your doctorate. Is that right?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: I did, yes, sir.
MR. WATERS: And that was at Walden University, a program there?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: It was, yes, sir.
MR. WATERS: Did you have to do any residencies with that?
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Your Honor, I hate to interrupt. We'll stipulate to him as a qualified expert if we can just go ahead and move on.
MR. WATERS: Your Honor, the State is entitled to explore the extent of his qualifications. That goes directly to the value of his opinion to the jury. I'll do it expeditiously, but I think we're entitled to do that.
JUDGE NEWMAN: Do you accept the stipulation or not?
MR. WATERS: I do accept the stipulation. I would like to very quickly finish up the qualification process so that the jury understands it.
JUDGE NEWMAN: Ladies and gentlemen, he is so qualified. You may proceed.
MR. WATERS: Thank you, Your Honor.
MR. WATERS: All right. So real quick, you did some residencies in your doctorate. Is that correct?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: I did four residencies in Atlanta, yes, sir.
MR. WATERS: And ultimately did a dissertation and all that comes with getting your doctorate relevant to criminal justice and criminology. Is that correct?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: I defended my prospectus and my dissertation, yes, sir, successfully.
MR. WATERS: All right. Now, let's get to the last thing I want to cover as far as your qualifications, but what specific areas of crime scene investigation and reconstruction have you had training and experience and previous qualifications in?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Yes, sir. I have been certified internationally by the International Association for Identification as a crime scene technician. That's a five year deal, and then five years as a crime scene investigator where you have to do oral -- not oral, practical and written examinations, and you have to have statistics in your background, a certain number of each item, to even be able to take the test.
MR. WATERS: All right.
KENNETH L. KINSEY: And that encompasses all of the different aspects of crime scene investigation. My training also encompasses footwear and tire tread examination, blood stain pattern analysis, crime scene reconstruction, fingerprint examination, and fabric impression, but I haven't done a lot of the fabric impression.
MR. WATERS: All right. Have you ever been qualified in courts of record as a expert in crime scene examination and reconstruction?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Yes, sir, I have.
MR. WATERS: How many times?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Approximately thirty-five, thirty-six times.
MR. WATERS: Have you ever been qualified as an expert in fingerprint examination?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: I have, yes, sir.
MR. WATERS: How many times?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Maybe twenty or twenty-five. Sometimes -- and let me explain why. Sometimes it's not individually. Sometimes you'll qualify for two or three of the different disciplines, and I didn't keep track of which time, you know, was singular or which time was multiple qualifications.
MR. WATERS: All right, and then have you ever been qualified as an expert in footwear examination?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: I have, sir, approximately eight times.
MR. WATERS: And tire tread as well?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Yes, sir.
MR. WATERS: All right.
MR. WATERS: I believe that that's what I wanted to go through with the qualifications, which I believe you stipulate in those areas. Is that correct?
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Yes.
DIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MR. WATERS:
MR. WATERS: All right, let's move on. Did you have an opportunity to review, at the request of the State, the crime scene here as it relates to Maggie and Paul?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: I did, yes, sir.
MR. WATERS: All right, and just very quickly, what are some of the types of things that you reviewed as part of your process?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: When I do a reconstruction, I look at the available evidence as I feel it's pertinent to help me answer some questions. And the questions that I -- or the things I wanted to accomplish from this reconstruction, you can determine sequence, you can determine movements. A lot of times you can determine the number of blows or -- in the event of a hand to hand combat or a firearm was used, those kind of things. So, I examined forensic reports that were issued by law enforcement laboratories. I also examined extensively photographs that were taken on the scene, measurements, that kind of thing. And I also responded to the scene -- it was rather close -- and I took my own measurements.
MR. WATERS: When you say responded to the scene, when did you first get involved in this case?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: The end of 2022. And I'm not talking about when the scene was actually going on. I went after the fact and did my own measurements.
MR. WATERS: All right, and when you were retained by the State in this case, were you told any particular goal, or were you told to just take a fresh look at it and offer your opinions?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: I was told to look at all of the evidence and determine what I may be helpful on, and to use my own judgment objectively, independently, and come up with my own conclusions.
MR. WATERS: All right. Let's talk about, if we can -- and again, we're going to have to deal with some of -- maybe not the images as much, but deal with some of the injuries that Maggie and Paul suffered, correct?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Yes, sir.
MR. WATERS: Okay. Let's, if you could, just remind the jury. What were the injuries that Paul suffered, please?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: They were very, very severe firearms injuries. One was a shotgun wound to just a little anatomical left of the midline of the body. One was to the shoulder, and it proceeded into the jaw and ultimately into the head.
MR. WATERS: And was that the first injury or the second?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: The first injury was the shotgun wound to the middle of the chest and it was nonfatal, at least not fatal immediately.
MR. WATERS: All right, and then what about the second injury?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: The second injury was immediate. Immediate death.
MR. WATERS: All right, and then were you able to, in reviewing crime scene evidence, to come to any conclusions as to the order in which Paul suffered those gunshot wounds from the shooter?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Yes, sir, I was.
MR. WATERS: All right, and please relate that to the jury.
KENNETH L. KINSEY: My conclusion was that the first nonfatal wound to the midline of the body occurred as Paul was standing with his body canted in the middle of that dog food room pointed slightly southwest, and the shot entered the midline of his chest, exited his underarm, entered his underarm, on the actual arm, and exited the outside of his arm. And most of those nine pellets proceeded through the back window of that dog food room. He's --
MR. WATERS: All right, and then just real quick, you said nine pellets. So, explain that to the jury why you say nine pellets.
KENNETH L. KINSEY: That double ought buckshot shotshell contains nine pellets, and they -- I guess you could describe it as styrofoam packing to keep it tight so it doesn't shake. And when that cartridge is expelled out of the end of that barrel, the styrofoam packing dissipates, or goes its own way, and those projectiles continue in the correct path.
MR. WATERS: And hold on for me real quick. I want to get a couple of things marked.
(Break in proceedings.)
MR. WATERS: All right. I'm going to show you --
MR. WATERS: Can I have the ELMO, please?
(Break in proceedings.)
MR. WATERS: I'm going to show you what's been marked as State's 531, 532, and 533 and see if you recognize these particular images.
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Yes, sir, I do.
MR. WATERS: All right, and tell the jury just generally what these are, please.
KENNETH L. KINSEY: These are views of the floor of the feed room, and a view from the entrance to the feed room, and some digitally placed foot -- footprints -- not footprints, legs that I place in there to show Paul's approximate position in that food room at the time of the shooting.
MR. WATERS: Your Honor, at this time I would offer State's 531, 532, and 533, I believe without objection.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: No objection, Your Honor.
JUDGE NEWMAN: They're admitted.
(PHOTO MARKED AS STATE'S EXHIBIT NUMBER 531 WAS RECEIVED INTO EVIDENCE.)
(PHOTO MARKED AS STATE'S EXHIBIT NUMBER 532 WAS RECEIVED INTO EVIDENCE.)
(PHOTO MARKED AS STATE'S EXHIBIT NUMBER 533 WAS RECEIVED INTO EVIDENCE.)
MR. WATERS: All right, I'm going to put 531 up on the screen here, make -- and we can see it all right.
(Break in proceedings.)
MR. WATERS: All right, Dr. Kinsey, you were talking a little bit about Paul's position and his location when that shot first happened. And if you could, tell the jury your conclusion as to where he was located when that shot was fired, and then if you want to step down, and if you could maybe point out what was added to this image to kind reflect your conclusion in that regard.
KENNETH L. KINSEY: May I step down, Your Honor?
JUDGE NEWMAN: Yes, sir.
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Thank you.
MR. WATERS: There's a dowel stick right behind you if you want to use that.
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Okay. As you see here, those are the digital legs that I placed there showing Paul's approximate position as he was standing when he had the first gunshot wound. Here along the floor, what you see are passive or 90 degree blood droplets. And when blood -- you can tell a lot of from the direction of blood by the way it strikes an object. Blood has a cohesive factor; it's viscous. You've probably heard that term before with the motor oil for your car. It's thicker than water. And the things that causes that blood droplet to change shape is the friction and the direction and how much force was used. Well, a 90 degree drop just is exactly that, it's perpendicular to the ground. So, these 90 degree drops right here tell me that Paul was standing there for a moment. Can't tell you how long, but those drops were running down from that wound on his arm, more than likely his arm because his chest area had a shirt on it and it takes a little while for that blood to make it through the shirt, but it'll run down the outside of your arm and drip off your fingers. And you can see these 90 degree droplets here, here, and then they actually lead to the door. You can follow the path to the door. He's not moving very fast because most of them are almost perfectly circular, or 90 degrees. Had he been moving real fast, you could see some directionality in them, a tail, because the tail always tells you the direction with a blood drop. So, I know he was moving slowly, and I know he was standing in the middle of this room for some time after he -- after the first shotgun wound.
MR. WATERS: All right, and approximately how far was Paul inside the feed room? Can you describe a little bit about the dimensions of the feed room and your conclusion as to how far within the room Paul was when he was struck by that first blast?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Yes, sir. Well, the feed room is 10 foot deep by my own calculations and by looking at the other sketches, and where you see his feet here is just on the other side of the halfway point. So, I went -- you know, I'm guessing, because I have no way of running a tape measure, because when I went there, everything was moved. But this door is 36 inches, and it's approximately a foot and a half or 2 foot past the door, so that's how I come up with that determination. And he's just on the other side of that 10 foot room.
MR. WATERS: Which is about how far from the doorway?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: 5 foot.
MR. WATERS: All right, and I'm going to show you what's been marked for 534, State's 54, and see if you recognize that.
KENNETH L. KINSEY: I do, yes, sir.
MR. WATERS: All right, and tell the jury what that is real quick.
KENNETH L. KINSEY: That is a general view from outside the feed room that was taken at the time the crime scene was originally processed, and I added a digital enhanced arrow showing the reader, or the viewer, the direction of the shot path.
MR. WATERS: Your Honor, at this time I would offer State's 534 into evidence.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: No objection.
JUDGE NEWMAN: Admitted.
(PHOTO MARKED AS STATE'S EXHIBIT NUMBER 534 WAS RECEIVED INTO EVIDENCE.)
MR. WATERS: All right, I'm going to put 534 up on the screen. And if you would, just show the arrow that you're talking about that's been added to this image.
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Yes, sir. Right here.
MR. WATERS: All right, and then as well just show generally where those blood spots are. It's not the best image in the world, but where those blood spots are that led to your conclusion about Paul's location within the feed room when the first blast struck him.
KENNETH L. KINSEY: The placard hasn't been moved, although it's hard to see the droplets, and, of course, I didn't add the legs to this, but just on the other side of that placard. And then you have here a quantity of 90 degree blood droplets with a partial footwear impression in it. And then you can follow the blood droplets to the door.
MR. WATERS: Going back to State's 531, again point out to the jury, if you would, the sort of digitally added feet that you had added.
KENNETH L. KINSEY: (Witness complied.)
MR. WATERS: All right, and if you would, if you could, just if that's the feed room doorway, can you just sort of position me in your opinion how Paul was standing when that first blast happened?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: That's the doorway coming in?
MR. WATERS: Yes.
KENNETH L. KINSEY: About right here.
MR. WATERS: All right, and let me ask you this. In your review of the evidence and the available crime scene evidence that you have reviewed, in your expert opinion, is there any way that Paul's arms were raised when he shot -- when he suffered that first blast to the chest?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: I see no possible way his arms were up when he suffered that first shotgun wound.
MR. WATERS: And can you explain the basis for your conclusion to the jury in that regard?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Yes, sir, I can.
MR. WATERS: All right.
KENNETH L. KINSEY: The shot pellets are real close because they stayed together. They went in as one, as a unit, and then they did what a shot pellet does: they separated once they struck the skin, made entry, run along inside his body cavity, and exited his underarm. If his arms would have been up, he would have had no entry wounds on the bottom of his arm and then more exit wounds on the outside. He had over twenty entry and exit wounds, and you've only got nine pellets, so the only way the math works out is if his arm was down. And additionally the wad stopped and was under his arm. Had his arms been up, in my opinion that wad would have went on and exited his body because it's only plastic. It doesn't take as much resistence to stop that wad as it does a shot pellet, and the wad stopped. It was right -- you could grab it with your fingers if you would have been medical personnel and needed to. It was right there.
MR. WATERS: All right, and let me ask you this. Do you have a lot of general experience with firearms?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: I do. I'm a firearms instructor for handguns, shotguns, patrol rifles, sub-guns, and fully automatic patrol rifles. Everything but a precision rifle.
MR. WATERS: All right, and when you say an instructor, where is that?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: I'm certified. I have credentials through the South Carolina Criminal Justice Academy. I've also been certified as an NRA law enforcement instructor, and I currently have a CWP endorsement to teach concealed weapon permits from the South Carolina Law Enforcement Division.
MR. WATERS: And you testified how many buckshot are typically in your buckshot shell?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: According to the literature, and according to my experience, there are nine in that particular buckshot shotshell.
MR. WATERS: Did you see any evidence -- and I think you've already mentioned this, but did you see any evidence from the crime scene as to what happened to some of those pellets as Paul was struck as they continued on?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Yes, sir, I did. They exited on through the back window.
MR. WATERS: All right, and I'm going to show what's already been admitted as 532 and put that up on the screen. And if you could describe to the jury what you're talking about in that regard, please.
KENNETH L. KINSEY: This is that window at the back of the feed room, and you can see the shotshell pellet defects here as they went through the window and continued on their path.
MR. WATERS: And those are kind of big holes. Are those consistent, though, with a buckshot pellet striking that?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Yes, sir, they are. And some are bigger than others because it's just the make up of glass. I mean, sometimes you'll get one individual hole and sometimes it'll take out, you know, a large portion. So, I have no way to know that.
MR. WATERS: All right, and just real quick, I've got 533, and I'm going to put that up on the screen. And, again, is that just a close-up of where Paul was standing about 5 feet or so inside that feed room?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: It is, yes, sir.
MR. WATERS: Based on your review of the blood evidence that you saw?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Yes, sir. And here is a partial footwear impression, here you can see the 90 degree blood droplets, and some other biological materials.
MR. WATERS: All right, and in your conclusion, what's the most -- just again, what's the most likely explanation for those 90 degree blood drops? How is that physically happening?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: It's the arm wound. Even though it was nonfatal, there's less restriction from clothing or anything else on the arm. You know, here you've got the T-shirt that's got to be completely saturate before it gets to the bottom and drops, but here on the arm you've got nothing. So, once those pellets exited, entered, and exited again, that blood is free pouring -- or not free pouring. Free running down his arm, and then they'll drop off the ends of your fingers.
MR. WATERS: One thing I want to ask you about is you've testified as to your conclusions as to the position of Paul when that first shot struck him. Is there anything about the entrance wound itself that supports your conclusion as to the shape of the entrance wound?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Yes. It's oblong instead of completely round, and had he been standing facing that door and took that double-ought buckshot to the middle of the chest -- I've seen it dozens and dozens the times. Instead of coming out this side, a shotshell or a projectile doesn't make a 90 degree right generally; it's going to follow the same path unless it hits something hard enough to make it ricochet. It would have went on through his body. It still would have exited the window. It just wouldn't have done the damage to his arm and his underarm. So, he had to be canted in this direction. And the wound is not perfectly circle, it's more oblong, which tells you that he was canted to some degree.
MR. WATERS: All right. In your review of the crime scene evidence, did you come to any conclusion about the location of the shooter when that first buckshot blast struck Paul in his chest?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: It would be hard to say exact, but I can say to a bare minimum the breach of the shotgun -- because I don't have the shotgun, I don't know the length of the barrel, that kind of thing, or I could run it from the door. But the breach of the shotgun where it ejects the shotshell casing after it fires was somewhere inside the door because had it been on the other side of the door, the shotshell would have been located outside. So, depending on the length of the shotgun, at least I can say the ejection port was inside the door of the shed.
MR. WATERS: All right, and then the shooter -- I have this image up here, which I apologize, is State's 534, and can you kind of illustrate what you're talking about to the jury using that image?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Yes, sir. The breach, the ejection port where you load and unload that shotgun, which is a little less than midpoint from the shooter, was inside this doorframe, at least to some degree inside.
MR. WATERS: All right, and where were the extended shotshells found on this crime scene?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: According to the photographs and the original crime scene, behind this door.
MR. WATERS: All right, and is that consistent with your review of the evidence? Does that support your review of the evidence that you just -- that conclusion you just related to the jury?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Very easily. This is -- if you look, this room is kind of cluttered, and I measured that door myself. It had been pressured washed, but the same door, found the same shotshell pellet defects in that door an inch and a half at the bottom of the door. That's plenty of room for a shotshell to bounce and roll under the door. So, I have no reason to believe it didn't end up there because of the location of the shooter.
MR. WATERS: All right. Let me get a couple of other things marked. You can kind of head back to your home base and let me just get these marked real quick.
(Break in proceedings.)
MR. WATERS: All right, Dr. Kinsey, I want to show you what has been marked as 535, 536, 537, and 538, State's Exhibits, and see if you generally recognize those images.
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Yes, sir, I do.
MR. WATERS: All right. Generally explain to the jury what these images are and then we'll talk about them specifically.
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Those are images at the door that I've added some visual enhancements to help the reader understand the flight path of the second shot, and the different elements that I looked at in determining where the shooter was for the second or the fatal shot to Paul.
MR. WATERS: All right.
MR. WATERS: Your Honor, at this time I would offer State's 535, 536, 537, and 538 into evidence, I believe without objection.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: No objection.
JUDGE NEWMAN: They're admitted.
(PHOTO MARKED AS STATE'S EXHIBIT NUMBER 535 WAS RECEIVED INTO EVIDENCE.)
(PHOTO MARKED AS STATE'S EXHIBIT NUMBER 536 WAS RECEIVED INTO EVIDENCE.)
(PHOTO MARKED AS STATE'S EXHIBIT NUMBER 537 WAS RECEIVED INTO EVIDENCE.)
(PHOTO MARKED AS STATE'S EXHIBIT NUMBER 538 WAS RECEIVED INTO EVIDENCE.)
MR. WATERS: All right, let's look first at 535. And before we get to that, generally describe, again, to the jury your conclusion as to that second injury suffered by Paul, the fatal shot as you've described it.
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Well, the first thing is once Paul received that second shot, he never walked again; he never made any movement. Any movement he made was involuntary and it was due to gravity pulling his body down to the ground. When you sustain an injury to your brain like that, that ceases all movement. So, he was found outside the feed door. He fell over forward after sustaining that movement. Some wounds are fatal later. You can actually see someone that receives a fatal wound and they -- I've seen them run 100 yards. They can move for a little while. This is not that type of wound. Once he received this wound, it ceased all movement.
MR. WATERS: All right, and did you -- I'm going to put attachment -- excuse me, State's 535 up on the screen. And tell the jury what this particular image reflects, please.
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Yes, sir. If you can look at the green funnel that I've added just visually, if you look at that green funnel, that is approximately the shotshell path -- the shot path from the shotshell after it did the injuries to Paul, or the direction of the shot from the shotshell. And I determined that by shotshell pellet defects that are still in the door even though the door had been cleaned. I went and looked at it myself, run my own measurements, took the width of the door. I took Paul's approximate height. It's listed as several different things. DMV shows him at 5-6; the pathologist listed him, I believe, at 5-9. So, I had to split the difference. I went somewhere in the middle. Then I deducted the distance between the top of your head and the top of your shoulder, so I took another foot off. Then I took the width of the door. It was one other thing I looked at, and that was a void pattern that's on the doorframe of the door. A void pattern is caused by something being there when the blood and biological materials are let. We call it a bloodletting from the wound, and there's a void pattern, which tells me something was in that way, and because of the narrow door, in my opinion, it was Paul. So, that's what caused that void pattern on that door. So, I used all of that. And I used a dowel rod, and I used a protractor on the doorknob side of that doorframe, and I ran it up, and that's what helped me establish the angle of that shot pattern.
MR. WATERS: All right, and we're going to use the images to kind of talk about that a little bit more specifically, but quickly I want to show you 539 and 540 and see if you recognize these images.
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Yes, sir, I do. 540 is my photograph when I visited the scene. And 539 is also my photograph, and it shows that top hinge of that door is approximately 72 inches at the top of the hinge.
MR. WATERS: All right.
MR. WATERS: Your Honor, at this time I would move into evidence, I believe without objection, State's 539 and 540.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: No objection.
JUDGE NEWMAN: They're admitted.
(PHOTO MARKED AS STATE'S EXHIBIT NUMBER 539 WAS RECEIVED INTO EVIDENCE.)
(PHOTO MARKED AS STATE'S EXHIBIT NUMBER 540 WAS RECEIVED INTO EVIDENCE.)
MR. WATERS: All right. Let's -- if you could, I'm going ask you to step down again. I know I just sent you back there, but come on down. I'm going to put 539 up on the screen, and if you could tell me what this image reflects if you could, please.
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Yes, sir. These are 36 inch standard yellow yard sticks. We use them to measure certain things. And it -- right here is the top of the top hinge. It's a three hinge door, and this is the top of the hinge. And then four inches above this are where those shot pellet defects were that I used to figure out my angle.
MR. WATERS: All right, and looking at 540, who took this particular image?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: I took this image.
MR. WATERS: So, this would have been long after -- this would have been long after the actual event occurred. Is that correct?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: This was last December, yes, sir.
MR. WATERS: All right, and tell the jury what this image reflects.
KENNETH L. KINSEY: You can still see the pellet defects in the door, and this is the approximate center of it here. So, that's 4 inches above 72. That's approximately 76 inches on an 80 inch door.
MR. WATERS: I'm going to show you State's 536, and explain to the jury what this is, and in particular how that's relevant to your conclusion about the angle in which Paul suffered the fatal head wound.
KENNETH L. KINSEY: This is the original crime scene pictures, and this is where the pellets took their path. This is where they struck and did damage to the door. And you can actually still see the dents that are documented in my photograph. You can see them in the original crime scene. This is a concentration of blood that's caused by the brain exiting Paul's body in the path of the shotshells. And then you also have biological material, hair and blood, here at the top of the doorframe, and that's where I drew my conclusion. At some time those body parts made contact with these sections of the door, and my opinion is that it hit here, hit here, and then landed on the sidewalk.
MR. WATERS: Looking at State's 537, can you explain what the jury is seeing in image and how it relates to your opinion about the manner in which Paul suffered that fatal wound?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: I can. With a major bloodletting --
MR. WATERS: And, Dr. Kinsey, let me ask you to -- I'm going to move this podium and actually ask you to actually step back just a hair so that the jurors over here can see what you're saying.
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Yes, sir. With a shotgun wound, you know, you've got hundreds -- well, not hundreds. You've got over a hundred pellets that are making damage. It's not like a projectile, a single projectile from a pistol or a rifle, so there's mass damage, and it throws body fluids and blood in several different directions, but they follow the path. When I mentioned that it was a void pattern, this is the last blood drop -- you can see it in the photograph -- that I can see, and it's approximately 5 feet right there. And this is not green tape. That is a digital affect I put on the photograph to show the void I was talking about. So, at some time it's my opinion that Paul was up against that door, or real close to that door, to keep that blood from striking the door at the point in time that he was shot.
MR. WATERS: All right, and the green tape reflects that blood path or that void area that is consistent with Paul blocking that area. Is that correct?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Yes, sir, digital tape. It's not really tape. Yes, sir.
MR. WATERS: All right. So, that's been added to --
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Yes, sir.
MR. WATERS: Okay. To illustrate your opinion, correct?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Yes, sir.
MR. WATERS: And then 538. I'm going to show you this image, and again, if you can point out what's been added and how this relates to the conclusion that you're offering to the jury?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Yes, sir. One thing that I looked at to determine that it happened in the doorway and a little bit outside the doorway, more outside than inside -- you don't just look for the presence of biological material in blood. You look for the absence of biological material in blood. Here at the top it didn't have a scale or a ruler, so I can't tell you exactly, but looking at some of these other objects, I was able to scale it. Approximately 4 inches up here you have a void, so I know that it happened -- the second wound happened far enough outside of that doorframe that the actual frame kept the biological material from hitting at the very top right here. I also looked at these items. You've got some medication, K-9 medication, or some cleaning materials and that kind of thing up here. You can see all of the spatter at the front of those containers, and then we've got what I call a demarcation line right here, here, and I drew it through most of these cans, and that separates the blood -- the blood contaminated area and the clean area. So, that tells me that it was at least forward of the angle on those containers, and that's why I believe he was shot -- the second wound happened just outside of the doorframe, but his feet were probably still in the doorframe.
MR. WATERS: All right. Just quickly point to the jury, can we see part of the doorframe in this particular image?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: You can, yes, sir, right here.
MR. WATERS: All right. Once -- and going back now to State's 535. And just for the record, we were just looking at State's 538 and 537. Going back to State's 535, did you reach a conclusion as to the location of the shooter on that second fatal shot that Paul suffered to his head?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Yes, sir, I did.
MR. WATERS: All right, and explain this to the jury, if you would, please.
KENNETH L. KINSEY: The shooter was right here. If you're facing that door, to the right of the doorway outside.
MR. WATERS: All right, and would you have expected there to be in that particular range any sort of biological evidence in that area in proximity to the shooter?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Yes, sir, I would.
MR. WATERS: Would the doorframe have potentially blocked any of that as well?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: It would block some, and just depending on the positioning how much of the body of the shooter was exposed. Because, you know, once you have that kind of catastrophic injury, it's real, real, real fine blood particles and biological fluids that go in all directions, and the closer the shooter was to the muzzle, to the exit end of that firearm, the more stuff you would expect.
MR. WATERS: Let me ask you this. In your expert opinion, is there any way that Paul's fatal head injury came from the top in a contact fashion, or a close fashion?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: No, sir. I see no possible way for that.
MR. WATERS: And explain your conclusion in that regard for the jury if you would, please. What factors weigh against that in your expert opinion?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Well, number one, I don't know of a way to mimic this blood evidence on this door, that pattern where that shot traveled through Paul's shoulder into his jaw, into his brain, and then took a path up and placed the biological material here at the top of the door. If he was shot in the head, then you would have biological material out here on the ground, or at least going down, you know, on the sidewalk in front of him. And it would be different than just free pouring blood. You would see this pattern, and you would see those high velocity blood droplets there on the ground. And plus the shooter would have to be on the roof to shoot down into him. But you wouldn't have this on the door.
MR. WATERS: In your expert opinion, did you see any support -- or evidence in this crime scene that could support that the injuries suffered by Paul were in any manner a suicide or self-inflicted?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: I don't see the possibility, knowing that it's not a contact shotgun wound. And I'm fairly strong and I'm bigger than Paul was, and I don't know of any way you could hold that shotgun out and shoot yourself in that direction at that angle and put that biological material on top of that door like that. I don't think it's possible.
MR. WATERS: All right, thank you. All right, and I hate to keep sending you back and forth, but I'm going to send you back one more time. Now, let me ask you this. The second wound, the fatal wound that Paul sustained to his head, was that buck or was that birdshot?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: The second wound was birdshot.
MR. WATERS: All right, and can you describe to the jury the difference between the composition of a buckshot round as it relates pellets and a birdshot round?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Yes, sir, I can.
MR. WATERS: All right. Please do that.
KENNETH L. KINSEY: With buckshot you've got a number of larger pellets, approximately 30 or 36 caliber pellets, and you've got fewer of them. They're made for bringing down larger game. So, in the typical double-ought buckshot, you're going to have nine pellets. In your typical number two -- and it's called many things, you know, bird -- the typical person calls it birdshot, birdshot, chill shot, steel shot, coded shot. I've heard it called it many things, so I just typically called it birdshot. But in this particular shot there's approximately 150 to 156 pellets in that Drylok shotshell, so that's the difference. With the buckshot you've got fewer and they're larger, and with the birdshot you've got many, and that they're greater. They're for bringing down winged animals, squirrels, rabbits, dove, quail, turkey, duck. I mean, just depending on the number of shot, that's what that's for.
MR. WATERS: All right, and about how many approximately birdshot might be in an average shotgun shell?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: The literature says it's 156 in a Drylok. I cut one open and I only counted 150, but that may have been human error.
MR. WATERS: Around 150.
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Yes, sir.
MR. WATERS: In your expert opinion, when you have birdshot, is, is there a forensic value for collecting every single pellet, or can you explain those concepts to the jury when you're dealing with birdshot?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: I always try to collect enough that the firearms examiner can weigh it and he can have a good representative sample of what was used to cause this injury. With a projectile, or a bullet, you have what's called lands and grooves, markings, rifling. Some people call it rifling, and it's caused from that projectile spinning as it goes down the barrel. You don't have that in a shotgun, and a pellet is so small that you couldn't -- probably couldn't find it if you could have it in a shotgun. So, in my opinion there's no forensic value as long as you have enough to determine what type of shot or what type of shell and the weight of it.
MR. WATERS: In your opinion, was the -- and you've talked about this, but was the shooter, when that fatal shot was fired, inside or outside of that doorframe?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: The second shot?
MR. WATERS: The second shot.
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Yes, sir, it was outside the doorframe.
MR. WATERS: All right, and where was that second shotshell located?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: It was also located under the door.
MR. WATERS: All right, and is that still consistent with your opinion?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Absolutely.
MR. WATERS: And can you explain that to the jury, please?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Yes, sir. Like I mentioned earlier, the ejection port on a shotgun typically -- and there are left-handed shotguns, but typically the majority of shotguns, the ejection port is on the right side. So, as long as that shooter had it at an angle, and had that ejection port pointed toward the door even just the least little bit, that would give plenty of opportunity for that shotshell to be ejected and go inside that door.
MR. WATERS: All right. I know I just sent you back. I'm going to bring you back down. I'm sorry. Before we move on from Paul, I would -- and if you could just use me an manakin, but can you sort of describe to me your conclusions about the positioning of Paul when he suffered that fatal head wound and just how -- the trajectory of that wound and that shot as you've described and as supported by the evidence as you see it?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Can I describe it --
MR. WATERS: Yes.
KENNETH L. KINSEY: -- and demonstrate it?
MR. WATERS: Yes, please.
KENNETH L. KINSEY: I'm going to step back so the jurors can see me. The second wound, as I mentioned, went in his arm and caused an injury here, a large entrance, exit, entrance, and then, of course, exit here. So, it had to be -- typically with the kind of nonfatal wound Paul suffered to his chest and his arm, it's my belief that now his 5-foot-8 frame is dipping or favoring that arm because, as you know, that's over 20 something entrances and exits. I believe it would have hurt him; I believe he would have been in pain, and I believe he would have been somewhat affected. And the reason I believe that is because I've got the 90 degree blood drops moving really, really slow. If he wasn't feeling it, or if it hadn't a affected him some way, I believe his youthfulness would have allowed him to get out of there faster, but he's moving real slow to the door, so that's going to drop that angle just a couple inches. And I can demonstrate --
MR. WATERS: All right, and if we can make sure that juror can see.
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Yes, sir, absolutely.
MR. WATERS: All right.
KENNETH L. KINSEY: That wound went in approximately right here. It traveled in, out, in, and out in a straight line, in a straight line.
MR. WATERS: Then when you're pressing the dowel stick there, you're showing the projection of the wound, not implying that was a contact wound. Is that right?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: No, I'm not. I'm not implying it's contact. I'm just showing the level of the wound.
MR. WATERS: All right. While I'm thinking about it, the wound to Paul's chest, did it show evidence of stippling?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: It did, yes, sir.
MR. WATERS: All right, and just very quickly, what is stippling?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Commonly referred to as tattooing. It's particles and material that's in that shell that don't burn up because it's super heated at the time that the powder charge ignites. It doesn't explode. It ignites and burns rapidly, and that's unburnt particles of powder and other contents of that shell. They're hot and when they hit the body, they cause stippling, or in the old days they called it tattooing, and that's basically what it is. It works as an ink.
MR. WATERS: Looking at this particular image, Paul is about 5 feet in the feed room when he suffers the first wound, correct?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Yes, sir, that is correct.
MR. WATERS: And then he moves towards the door. Is that correct?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: That is correct.
MR. WATERS: And suffers the second wound somewhere near the doorframe on the inside of it, correct?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Yes, sir. With his shoulder just outside of that doorframe.
MR. WATERS: And when he suffers that second wound, what happens to Paul?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: He falls immediately.
MR. WATERS: All right, and where does he fall?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: He falls outside of the feed room.
MR. WATERS: All right. Let's move on now and let's talk a little bit, if we can, about the injuries to Maggie Murdaugh. And if you could, start out by reminding the jury of the injuries that she suffered, and then let's talk about your conclusions as to the manner and the order in which those were suffered.
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Yes, sir.
MR. WATERS: All right. So, if you could, just remind us again of those injuries, and if you could go ahead and describe them in the order that in your expert opinion they were suffered.
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Yes, sir. Ms. Maggie Murdaugh suffered three nonfatal injuries from a firearm. One was through her wrist. One was her left upper thigh above the knee. One was at her abdomen here and it exited somewhere around her kidneys. Now, I'm not that kind of doctor. I can't tell you all the damage it did inside, all of those organs and things, but it ran a straight line through her body. This one on her left leg and this one on her midsection were approximately same angle, and they were really, really close in distance. One had stippling that said that it was a foot closer than the other, but that would probably fit. This was either a total separate, nonfatal wound, or it could have been a continuation of one of the two fatal wounds. Her fatal wounds were she had an abrasion or a burn on the left side of her abdomen from the outside in. That bullet followed a straight path. It entered the end of her breast and did extensive damage to the end of her breast, entered her left jaw side of her face area, and went into her brain. That's the first fatal injury. And it was immediate and she dropped right where she was at. I saw no evidence that her body had been manipulated, moved, or rolled over. The second fatal injury was down into her head, and it actually did what in the day they call a keyhole injury just from appearances. The entrance and exit in the top of her head were so close it made one big injury, and then it entered into her upper shoulders and went down into her body. That would have also been a fatal wound, but it was second. In my opinion, that one came second.
MR. WATERS: All right. Let's talk about that a little bit -- in a little bit more detail. Those first two wounds that you described, you believe those are the first two wounds she suffered?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Yes, sir, and possibly three. I can't tell you much about this because the arm could have been moving or it could have been here.
MR. WATERS: All right. Well, let's talk about the thigh wound and abdomen wounds. Can you -- did you have any conclusions about the location of THE shooter as those two wounds were suffered?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Yes, sir, I did.
MR. WATERS: All right, and explain that to the jury if you would, please.
KENNETH L. KINSEY: About here and here. Here and here.
MR. WATERS: All right, and in your opinion, were those two shots fired at a fairly quick succession, or around the same time?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: I think it would have been really, really difficult to get a similar angle if they weren't. All the shooter had to do was raise the weapon or lower the weapon and you're still on the same plane.
MR. WATERS: And did those wounds to the abdomen and to the thigh reflect the presence of stippling?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: They did.
MR. WATERS: And what does that indicate to you about the distance between Maggie and the shooter when those wounds were suffered?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: I guess 4 or 5 feet.
MR. WATERS: Okay. Fairly close?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Yes, sir.
MR. WATERS: All right, and after those two wounds were suffered -- and again, we'll put aside the wrist wound for a bit -- what would have happened after that in your expert opinion?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: In my opinion, at bare minimum she would have bent over. She would have been in pain. I believe some time in close proximity she fell to the ground, and that's when the first fatal wound was delivered.
MR. WATERS: Would she have been prone on the ground or still somewhat raised above the ground or in a bent over position when that first fatal wound was suffered?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: In my opinion, from the angle she would have been on her knees and had at least one hand on the ground.
MR. WATERS: All right. Those first two shots -- well, let me ask you this. There were obviously six shell cases that -- of 300 Blackout that were used to murder Maggie Murdaugh found at the scene. Is that correct?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: That is correct.
MR. WATERS: Explain to the jury. Is there -- what conclusions, if any, can you draw about the location of those shell cases, if anything? Explain that to the jury a little bit, if you will.
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Once again, just like with a shotgun, I'm not saying it doesn't exist, but I don't think there are many left-handed AR platforms, so generally speaking, the ejection ports will be on the right side. I own seven. Some of them throw it -- the shell -- the shell casing a little bit forward. Some throw it a little bit back. Some throw it a perfect 90 degrees to the ejection port. If they were always uniform where they came out, if you go target practice you could place a bucket there and all of your shell casings would drop in the bucket. You wouldn't have to bend over and pick up your shell cases. Unfortunately, that's not a real world. So, I don't put a lot into that unless I have the actual weapon, and we can test the weapon with the same ammunition, and you can generally get an idea where that shell casing is going to go. So, no, sir, I don't pay a lot of attention to it, and I definitely don't think the sequence from one end to the other, or from this end to this end, means that's necessarily the movement of the shooter.
MR. WATERS: Got you. All right. You said that when she suffered that first fatal wound in your opinion, I mean, she would have been bent over and perhaps been on her hands and knees. Is that correct?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Yes, sir.
MR. WATERS: All right. I'm going to get down on my hands and knees, and if you could come around here and kind of show me they where the trajectory of that wound would have gone, the first wound that was fatal for Maggie Murdaugh. I guess you can come behind me?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Yes, sir.
MR. WATERS: All right.
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Right there. The shooter was right here, approximately right here.
MR. WATERS: All right, and show us the trajectory as it went through Maggie into her brain.
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Yes. It burnt or abrased her stomach outside to inside, went through the end of her breast, into her jaw, and then into her brain.
MR. WATERS: Okay, and what would have been the effect on her once that shot was suffered?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: She would have immediately fell down with the front of her body.
MR. WATERS: All right.
KENNETH L. KINSEY: And that is the position her arms were in the original crime scene photographs.
MR. WATERS: And while I'm down here so I don't have to get up again, tell me about the fatal shot and position of the shooter as the evidence indicates to you.
KENNETH L. KINSEY: The second shot was not as close, but it still wasn't a long distance. It was approximately here into the crown of the head.
MR. WATERS: And use the dowel stick to show that injury that Maggie suffered.
KENNETH L. KINSEY: In, out, in, in that line.
MR. WATERS: Thank you. All right. I need to go to the dry cleaner after this. The first shot, the first fatal shot, that would have immediately been fatal. Is that correct?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Yes, sir.
MR. WATERS: The second shot also would have been fatal had she still been living, but in your opinion she was not at that point. Is that correct?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Yes, sir.
MR. WATERS: All right.
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Well, she may have had a sign of life, but there was no movement; she was not capable of any movement at that time.
MR. WATERS: All right. Go ahead and have a seat for me. Of course as soon as I tell you -- say that to you, I'm probably going to have you get back up. Let me talk about something else real quick before we come back to this.
(Break in proceedings.)
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: No objection.
MR. WATERS: I'm going to show you what's been marked as State's 541 and see if you recognize this document.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Is it under seal?
MR. WATERS: I'll bring it back to you. Hold on.
(Break in proceedings.)
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Yes, sir, I do.
MR. WATERS: All right. Tell the jury generally what this document is, please.
KENNETH L. KINSEY: That's a comparison and presentation that I put together over an unidentified impression on Ms. Maggie Murdaugh's left calf.
MR. WATERS: Okay.
MR. WATERS: Your Honor, at this time I would move State's 541 into evidence under seal.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: No objection.
JUDGE NEWMAN: It's admitted without objection.
(PHOTO MARKED AS STATE'S EXHIBIT NUMBER 541 WAS RECEIVED INTO EVIDENCE.)
MR. WATERS: If we could make sure the monitors are secured, please.
MR. WATERS: All right. I'm going to --
MR. WATERS: Are all monitors secured?
MR. WATERS: I want to put State's 541 up on the screen. Moving to 541 and putting it up on the screen, if you could tell me, first of all, what do we see here before we can get to your analysis on this particular issue?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: This is a general photograph of an impression on Ms. Maggie Murdaugh's left calf.
MR. WATERS: Okay, and do we also see a wound on this particular -- in this picture?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: You can see the exit wound from that thigh wound that I described earlier.
MR. WATERS: All right, and what, if anything, did you notice about or conclude from the sort of blood pattern on the back of her thigh there?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: She stood a little while. I can't tell you how much time, just like with Paul, but she was standing after she suffered that thigh wound because the blood is running down the leg, and gravity always pulls it to the earth.
MR. WATERS: All right, and then -- you know I sent you back there. I'm just going to bring you back on down. I'm sorry about this.
KENNETH L. KINSEY: That's all right.
MR. WATERS: Bring your stick, if you would, and again make sure you're out of the way of the jurors. Was there any sort of mark, or any sort of mud mark on the back of her leg?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Yes, sir, it was.
MR. WATERS: All right, and point that out to the jury, please.
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Right here, an unknown impression on her leg.
MR. WATERS: Okay, and did you engage in an analysis of that particular impression?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: I did, yes, sir.
MR. WATERS: All right. If you would just stay there, I think it probably would be easier than sending you on back. I'm going to move to the next slide, and just tell me what this is, if you would, please.
KENNETH L. KINSEY: That is the same impression, unknown impression. I just cropped everything out so you can concentrate on the actual impression.
MR. WATERS: All right. Moving on to the third page of this exhibit, what is this?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: This is a , all terrain vehicle that was in close proximity to Ms. Maggie Murdaugh's body where she -- the final spot where they located her, and this is in close proximity to where she was located.
MR. WATERS: All right. Stand by for me real quick.
(Break in proceedings.)
MR. WATERS: And I'm going to show you what's previously been admitted into evidence as State's 70 and State's 71. And can you tell me what these images reflect?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: That is that Polaris ATV that I mentioned.
MR. WATERS: All right. Generally remind the jury where this was located.
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Ms. Murdaugh was laying face down. That was to her left underneath a overhang or a -- I don't know what you call it, a shed that was attached to that airplane hanger. A lean-to, that's what I was trying to think of.
MR. WATERS: All right, and do you see any indication of any biological material in the crime scene images that were taken of that Polaris?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: That was my first indicator. That's what made me concentrate on a specific tire, yes, sir.
MR. WATERS: Okay. We can see how washed out that is if I can maybe fix it. And can you point out an example of what you're talking about on that image?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Yes, sir, I can.
MR. WATERS: And I can bring you the original image if that's better.
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Right here we've got some kind of biological material, and I'll tell you the reason I believe that it be so. Like I said, blood has viscosity, or a cohesive factor to it. That's why a blood drop stays together. You know, if you throw a drop of water on a tire, what's going to happen? It's going to run down. But here, here, here, and actually here on the front of that four wheeler, in my opinion, that's some type of biological material.
MR. WATERS: All right. I'm going to do one other thing. I'll slide by you real quick.
(Break in proceedings.)
MR. WATERS: All right, looking now at Defense 29. Again, if you could just -- this is the feed room right here. Is that right?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Yes, sir.
MR. WATERS: And just, if you could, just point to the general location of this ATV and where it was located in the crime scene.
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Right here in this area.
MR. WATERS: All right, and that would again on this -- this is not the scale, but that would be at least on this diagram where Maggie was. Is that correct?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Yes, sir, that's her approximate location.
MR. WATERS: All right, thank you. All right. Let me -- going back this particular slide and your analysis of this tire, if you would, explain a little bit about what you see here and what an examiner looks at in looking at sort of this particular tire as it relates to your analysis.
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Yes, sir. What we look at as footwear and tire tread, or tire tracks examiners, we look at the actual tread pattern and design of that tire or that shoe, and there are a couple of different conclusions you can come up with. We compare known and unknown. It's not like you see on TV where you take a picture of a shoe and feed it into a computer. Some people have footwear data bases, but it still has to be examined by a human. There's no magic machine. If there is, I've never seen it. What we look at, we look at the dimensions of the tread pattern. We look at the shape, the sole, the outsole design, the tread design, the measurements, and we try to find class characteristics. That's shape, size, sometimes depth, or the physical properties included in that pattern, and then to make a complete identification. That's a class characteristic. That's saying there's an association.
Either this shoe or this tire could have made this unknown impression, or another one just like it could have made this unknown impression. So, that's a class or an association. Then you've got an identification. That's where you say to the exclusion of all others this shoe or this tire made this print. Now, to make an actual complete identification to the exclusion all others, you've either got to have a -- you've got to have what's a random, unique characteristic: a thumbtack in the bottom of someone's shoe, bubble gum, damage to the tread pattern on that tire. You know, you hit something and it then cut a tread pattern. So, that's pretty difficult unless you have the actual tire, the actual shoe, and then you take it and compare it to the unknown. And what you'll do is take that tire and you -- three dimensional comparisons are always better than two dimensional. Two dimensional is a photograph. You can't tell depth.
If you have the actual cast of that footprint or that tire, now you've got three dimensional: you've got the width, the length, and the depth. So, it's a little bit better to have a three dimensional to compare with, but you can do a lot with a two dimensional. You can -- if you can get it scaled to the size, you can associate it with another thing. You're looking for them: unique, random characteristics. They call them accidentals. It's something that happens by accident -- just because of the way you walk, the way you drive, what you might hit -- and that's what you look at when you do a tire or footwear impression analysis.
MR. WATERS: All right. I'm going to move on now to the next page in your exhibit, and tell the jury what these two images are, please.
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Yes, sir. This is the unknown impression on Ms. Maggie Murdaugh's left calf, and this is a photograph of the known front driver's side tire of that .
MR. WATERS: All right, and when you were starting to compare those two, did you have to make any account for the relationship of Maggie's thigh and this ATV tire?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: I did.
MR. WATERS: And explain that to the jury, please.
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Just like if you're driving in your car and an ambulance comes up behind you and you look in the rear view mirror, you can read ambulance. But if you look at the front of that ambulance, it's written backwards because you're looking through a mirror. Well, with a shoe, a tire, or Ms. Maggie Murdaugh's leg, you can't see through her leg, you can't see through the tire, so you have to flip one of them or the other. So, flipping the tire, in my opinion, because it has some characteristics on it that I wanted the reader to be able to look at, I chose to flip the impression on her leg to do the comparison because unless you do footwear and tire tread examinations, you're not going to be able to look at something in reverse and find those points.
MR. WATERS: So, this is the original orientation. Is that correct?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: It is, yes, sir.
MR. WATERS: And then flipping over to your next slide, that's where you reverse the image. Is that correct?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Same photograph. I just pulled it over. In the old days with 35-millimeter film -- and I'm from the old days -- we just flip the negative. That's all you had to do. It's a little bit more complicated in the digital world but not that hard to do. But this is a direct representation. It's just in reverse.
MR. WATERS: All right. Continuing on as we go through your analysis, what does this reflect?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: This is just a so you could understand the orientation here, here, here, and here. Those are the two treads that we're talking about now.
MR. WATERS: All right.
KENNETH L. KINSEY: And, by the way, those on the tire are the only treads at that level on her calf that I believe needed to be examined.
MR. WATERS: All right, and again, these are just additional images illustrating the -- what you were focusing on in your analysis?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Yes, sir.
MR. WATERS: Okay, and then this one right here?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Yes, sir. That's a side by side view once again with all the background cut out of it.
MR. WATERS: All right, and then the final one. Is this -- explain this to the jury, how this supports your opinion.
KENNETH L. KINSEY: This is my actual comparison, and we use a process called ACE-V where you analyze, compare, evaluate, and verify. It's a peer review process. I never go by just my results. I always have another competent examiner with like experience and like skills look at my work because if you're going to make a mistake, that's where the mistake is found. You don't want to put a conclusion out for something important and you miss that, and that is a very important process in the examination world that you use peer review process. You have someone else look at it. And so what I do so that person and the jury and the Court, Your Honor, so that person can look at these details, I've got a markup here showing some unique, random characteristic that I've used, but I've also put the actual impression there so you can make your own decision. I didn't want to look like I was being deceptive and put enhancements in there and point things -- you can look at it and make your own conclusion. But I wanted to put it right next to mine so you know I'm being straight, or here you can make your own opinion.
MR. WATERS: All right, and very quickly, is it your expert opinion that this mark on the back of Maggie's leg is a tire impression and not anything else?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: That is a tire tread impression. That is my opinion.
MR. WATERS: All right. Now, I see you have a number of arrows here that have different colors, and so I would like to move through those and explain what you're pointing to with those arrows in this image, okay?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Absolutely.
MR. WATERS: Let's start with the baby blue one, and tell the jury what that indicates to you.
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Now, you're going to have to tell me because I can't tell shade from here.
MR. WATERS: All right.
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Okay. The top one?
MR. WATERS: Yep.
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Yes, sir. All right. Here you've got your unknown impression. Can you see down there? Here you've got your unknown impression. And what I pointed here is that the start of that impression -- and it's in mud, by the way, it's in mud, and so it's really, really fragile but it's still here. You've got an unknown impression. And here is approximately where it starts in the unknown, and here is where it starts in the known. And you can look at both, the markup one and the actual impression itself.
MR. WATERS: All right.
KENNETH L. KINSEY: And it's here.
MR. WATERS: All right, and then moving on to the -- to this right here, kind of -- we've got a purple one and then kind of that --
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Yes, sir, I see it.
MR. WATERS: -- whatever that one is.
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Yes, sir.
MR. WATERS: But explain to the jury what you're seeing there and how that supports your conclusion.
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Right here is the other side of that tread, and this tread is this tread is this tread. Those two are the same. And right here you can see it come up, and it actually makes a complete corner there, comes up and it curves out just a little bit there.
MR. WATERS: All right, and is that consistent with the sort of unique shape of that top tire track?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Yes, sir, it is. Right here and then it comes up. Now, it's not -- it's exaggerated a little bit in the drawing, but that's the best I can do with a stylus trying to get it there.
MR. WATERS: All right, and are those very distinct patterns that you see in the mud that match up with that particular tire track?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Yes, sir. Not so much the corner there, but these in here are. You can see a unique, random characteristic here, and all that is, is a void pattern in the mud. You can also see it here, I mean, almost perfect. You can see one here where the yellow arrow is. You can see it here. It's right there.
MR. WATERS: All right. You're kind a doing a little mountain or a little hump, and expand on that with the jury. Why is that particular -- why is that significant to you?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Because that's not in the -- that's not in the process of making the tire. That's because whoever drove that last hit some dirt or some mud, and that is a pattern that's left in mud on the tire, and in my opinion it transferred to Ms. Maggie Murdaugh's calf.
MR. WATERS: All right, and show the jury where you're talking about the little hump --
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Yes, sir.
MR. WATERS: -- on this image right here, if you can show it and --
KENNETH L. KINSEY: It's marked with a yellow arrow, and here it is right here. I've marked it there, but you can look at the one that's not marked, and you can also see it here.
MR. WATERS: All right. Talking about this bottom impression, we've got a white arrow to that line right there. Explain that to the jury and what's significant in your analysis about that.
KENNETH L. KINSEY: I mark that because unless you examine, you might -- unless you've got really, really good eyesight, you might not pick up on that, but here you've only got a partial line. The whole line didn't show through in the transfer of the mud or dirt or debris. And I kept myself honest. I only highlighted the length of that, but you can also see it here, and here you can see that side of the tire tread.
MR. WATERS: All right, and moving on now to the -- this green one right here and -- kind of green to the baby blue to that blue, just kind of going around that there, if you could explain that to the jury and the significance, if any, to your analysis.
KENNETH L. KINSEY: It's just a continuation. And there's a little break in there, but they're still the same angle, same lines, and they match up, and that's just because the dirt didn't transfer completely. But you've got plenty of skeletonized line here to show the outline of that tread here, here, and here, and that's here, here, and here.
MR. WATERS: In your opinion, that's a tire impression. Is that correct?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: That is a tire impression; that's my opinion.
MR. WATERS: And in your opinion, based on these very significant mirror images and accidentals and that sort of thing, is that most likely that specific tire tread that's on the back of Maggie's calf?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: It is most likely that tire. If it's not that tire, it's a similar tire with the same tread design.
MR. WATERS: And that particular tire was in close proximity to where Maggie was found, correct?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: In close proximity.
MR. WATERS: All right. Looking at how you had Maggie in that first shot, I think you had it kind of angled a little bit like that. Is that correct?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Yes, sir.
MR. WATERS: And if she was angled that way near that front tire, would she be facing toward the feed room?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Yes, sir.
MR. WATERS: All right, and are those two shots that were suffered in the abdomen and the thigh, are those consistent with the shooter coming from the direction of the feed room?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: It certainly could be, yes, sir.
MR. WATERS: All right. Go ahead and have a seat for me, if you would; I'm sure I will have you back up in a minute. All right, additionally with this particular tire tread impression on the back of Maggie's calf, is that consistent with her running into it or backing up into it with her calf hitting that tire as it was parked --
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Your Honor, I object. Leading. I have not -- this is my first leading objection on this, but I object to leading.
MR. WATERS: I'll rephrase, Your Honor.
JUDGE NEWMAN: All right. Yes, sir, restate the question.
MR. WATERS: All right. With -- let me ask you this. With this particular tire impression and what you see on Maggie's calf, is there a reasonable explanation as to how that impression got on her calf?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: At some point in time, Ms. Maggie Murdaugh's left calf made contact with the inside of that front driver's side tire, or one just like it, and I saw no evidence that she was run over. So, she had to make some contact at some point in time.
MR. WATERS: Got you. All right. Hold on for me one second. We've just got a few more matters.
(Break in proceedings.)
MR. WATERS: All right, I'm going to show you -- and I want you to be careful.
MR. WATERS: This one will be under seal, so can we secure the monitors, please?
MR. WATERS: I'm going to show you what's been marked as 542 and see if you recognize this image.
KENNETH L. KINSEY: I do.
MR. WATERS: All right, and just generally tell the jury what that is.
KENNETH L. KINSEY: It's a cell phone sitting up on the back right hand side pocket of the victim Paul Murdaugh.
MR. WATERS: All right.
MR. WATERS: Your Honor, at this time I would move State's 542 into evidence under seal.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: No objection, Your Honor.
JUDGE NEWMAN: It's admitted.
(PHOTO MARKED AS STATE'S EXHIBIT NUMBER 542 WAS RECEIVED INTO EVIDENCE.)
MR. WATERS: All right, are the monitors secured?
MR. WATERS: I'm going to put this image up on the screen. All right, and again, is this your understanding of how Paul's phone was found at the crime scene?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: It is.
MR. WATERS: All right, and did you make any assessment or analysis of whether or not Paul's phone could have popped up and be found in that position?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: I did.
MR. WATERS: All right, and can you relate that to the jury, please?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: It's my opinion that his phone was placed there by someone else.
MR. WATERS: All right, and tell the jury your basis for that conclusion, please.
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Well, after I mentioned the fatality, the fatal shot, at that point in time you have no movement, even involuntary movement, and there's no way Paul could have retrieved that phone from his pocket and placed it on top of the back of his pants.
MR. WATERS: All right, and in your opinion, if he had been carrying that in his hand, could it have landed in that fashion following the fatal shot he suffered to his head?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Mathematically you may could have made it happen, but I don't believe it's possible. I believe the phone would have fell to the ground, and it wouldn't have fell behind him up in the air and landed on him.
MR. WATERS: A couple of other things. You've testified about your experience in crime scene and that sort of thing. Is that correct?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Yes, sir.
MR. WATERS: All right. Is there any forensic value in a residence belonging to certain family members and doing any sort of DNA swabs of the bathroom sink or the shower drain or anything like that?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: If it's an unknown person maybe, but not if someone lives there. I see very little forensic value in that.
MR. WATERS: And why is that? Can you explain that to the jury?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Because we as humans, we swab -- we lose biological material every day. We brush our teeth, or we should, we brush our teeth, and we shampoo, and we wash, and there's commonly blood and other bodily fluids in our drains, in our tub drains, and generally everywhere except in the toilet bowl.
MR. WATERS: Generally.
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Generally, yes, sir, under black light.
MR. WATERS: You've talked about your experience and your certifications with firearms. Is that correct?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Yes, sir.
MR. WATERS: Do you own yourself any AR style platform rifles?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: I have seven complete rifles, and I also own a couple of strip lowers that I'm just holding for a rain day.
MR. WATERS: Got you, and what are those chambered in?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: 223, 556.
MR. WATERS: In the AR flat form, is that the most common chambering for an AR platform?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Believe it is, yes, sir.
MR. WATERS: Do you personally own a 300 Blackout?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: I do not, but I have trained and shot a 300 Blackout.
MR. WATERS: And why do you have a 223 instead of a 300 Blackout?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: The cartridges were a little bit more difficult -- well, they were a lot more difficult to find during Covid, and they are a lot more expensive than 223 and 556.
MR. WATERS: 300 Blackout pretty loud?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: I think they're all loud, yes, sir. I have to wear hearing protection around my rifles.
MR. WATERS: 300 Blackout louder than a shotgun?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Absolutely. I don't wear hearing protection when I hunt. I'm an avid hunter, but I have to wear ear protection with my rifle.
MR. WATERS: Hold on for me one second.
JUDGE NEWMAN: Ladies and gentlemen, I'll have you go to the jury room for a break. Please do not discuss the case.
(The jury left the courtroom.)
JUDGE NEWMAN: We'll be in recess for 10 minutes.
MR. WATERS: Thank you, Your Honor.
(A break was taken.)
JUDGE NEWMAN: You may bring the jury.
(The jury returned to the courtroom.)
COURT BAILIFF: The jury is present, sir.
JUDGE NEWMAN: Okay. You may continue.
MR. WATERS: May it please the Court, Your Honor?
JUDGE NEWMAN: Yes.
CONTINUED DIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MR. WATERS:
MR. WATERS: Dr. Kinsey, I just have a few more questions on direct examination. Did you see any evidence or anything that would reflect a struggle between Paul and the shooter?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: I did not.
MR. WATERS: Could you explain that to the jury, please?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Typically if -- when you observe defensive wounds, what's called defensive wounds, you would see signs of a struggle. I saw none on Ms. Maggie Murdaugh or Paul Murdaugh in any of the autopsy or crime scene photos.
MR. WATERS: Thank you. Please answer any questions the defense may have.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Please the court, Your Honor?
JUDGE NEWMAN: Yes, sir.
(Break in proceedings.)
CROSS-EXAMINATION
BY MR. HARPOOTLIAN:
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: So --
(Break in proceedings.)
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: So, do I call you Doctor or Deputy or Chief, or what?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: I haven't been a deputy in about twenty-five years, Mr. Harpootlian, but I'll answer to whatever you call me, sir.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: You may regret that. So, you've been -- when did you start in law enforcement?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Around '93.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Okay, and you were in Orangeburg?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Yes, sir.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: You know, back then I was the solicitor in the Fifth circuit; I was the prosecutor there. Do you remember that?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: I've testified for you a couple times, Mr. Harpootlian.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: I thought -- I mean, I thought you looked familiar. So, you actually were my witness a couple of times.
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Yes, sir.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Okay, and I don't know if we're going to have much dispute today, but I'm going to try to understand a couple of things, if that's okay with you.
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Absolutely.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: So let's understand the wound to Paul, the two wounds to Paul, and as I understand it, you were saying that he was standing how far back when the first -- when he got shot -- strike that. For his bloody footprints to be there, those footprints had to have been made after he had the shot in the chest, correct?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: That is correct, yes, sir.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: And so how far back in the room were those footprints?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: The footprints are approximately -- because I have no way, once everything was pressure washed and cleaned out -- but looking at the actual crime scene photographs and then taking my own measurements, the placard, the yellow placard that's in the photographs is approximately at 5 foot, and he was on the other side. So, he was occupying that 6 foot area.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: And there were no scales in any of those pictures, were there?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: They were not, no, sir.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: And let me just talk about this generally before we get to that. You teach a course on crime scene processing?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Yes, sir.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Do you teach a course on how one should photograph a crime scene?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Yes, I do.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: And I'm going to try to oversimplify this. There's basically two or three things that you want on any crime scene photo. The first is a scale, correct?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Well, there's three types of photos. One of those includes a scale, yes, sir.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Okay. I mean, obviously you don't have a scale if it's a long shot out like from outside the feed room in. But for something like bloody footprints, you would want a scale.
KENNETH L. KINSEY: I would, yes, sir.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: And you would want multiple lighting sources so that it's well lit.
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Well, if you operate the camera correctly, you have your light source --
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Okay.
KENNETH L. KINSEY: -- and that's why you do it from 90 degrees over perpendicular to the footprint because you can hit all of the angles and then choose the best exposure that takes those shadows out.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: So if you do 90, do you do -- do you recommend taking more than one shot?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Yes, sir, typically.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: I mean, at different perspectives of the same item?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Yes, sir.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Okay. So, you recommend multiple shots, including one -- got to have one 90 degrees, right?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: If you -- for comparison evidence you do, yes, sir.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Right, and in the sense of the shoes, the prints you think that you saw there were definitely Paul's shoes, you did that comparison?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Just like with the tire tread --
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Right.
KENNETH L. KINSEY: -- they share class characteristics with Paul's shoes.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: And were those shoes facing towards the front or the back of the feed room?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: When they were made, it appears they were facing toward -- they were going toward the door.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Right.
KENNETH L. KINSEY: But it would be hard for me to tell you without some kind of mark on that pavement to be able to orient them.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: I'm sorry, I couldn't hear that. Say that again.
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Without a mark on the pavement or some type of landmark, it would be hard for me to orient them from the photograph.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Okay, and again, if you'd had a scale or multiple pictures of that one shot -- I mean, straight down and multiple pictures, you could have done a little bit more in terms of that, could you not?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: An examiner possibly could have, yes, sir.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: And the trail of blood leads towards the front door, right?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: It does.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: And how long was that trail?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Well, if he was in the 6 foot and you've got 3, you know, 4 past him, at least 5 foot from where he starts dripping blood, then he steps in it, and then he makes his way to the door.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: So, you think he was a foot, foot and a half inside the door when he got shot with the second shot?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Well, his feet were inside the door, but his shoulder and his head was slightly outside the door.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Leaning forward.
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Yes, sir.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Okay. So, how -- okay. The first shot, as I understand it, hit his shoulder.
KENNETH L. KINSEY: The second shot is the one that hit the shoulder.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: No, no, no. I'm talking about -- let's talk about --
KENNETH L. KINSEY: The fatal one.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: -- the fatal one.
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Yes, sir.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: It hits his shoulder.
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Yes, sir.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: So based on -- now, you met with Dr. Riemer, the pathologist.
KENNETH L. KINSEY: I did.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: And she showed you her photos. Did y'all talk about her photos?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: I offered to go over the photos with Dr. Riemer, and she told me that she had limited crime scene experience and that I would have to determine that. That she looked at the wounds and she makes her determinations, and that wasn't really her forte.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Okay. So -- but she said shot in the shoulder, and I'm talking about the fatal shot.
KENNETH L. KINSEY: The path, yes, sir.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Right. Into the neck, out the top of the head.
KENNETH L. KINSEY: That is correct.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Okay. So -- and how -- you said you had some difficulty determining Paul's height.
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Well, the DMV record, the printout showed 5-6 and the autopsy information showed 5-9, and I know a young man like that will hit a growth spurt. That's not my area, so --
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: But would you consider Dr. Riemer's measurement probably more accurate than what he told the DMV?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Or he could have grown since he registered with the DMV, yes, sir.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: So, why don't we just use 5-9? I mean, is that fair?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Well, but then he's got the damage to the top of his head, so I asked myself how could Dr. Riemer get it exactly right when the top portion of his head is gone. So, I had to guestimate, and I figured the best way to do is, is split the two.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: And the two were -- so, you had him at what height?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: DMV showed 5-6 on the printout and Dr. Riemer showed 5-9, so I figured somewhere around 5-7 and a half to 5-8.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Okay. So, 5-7 and a half.
KENNETH L. KINSEY: And then you took the foot from there to the actual wound.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Right. I guess -- so what -- where the wound occurs, the initial in the -- I guess it's this shoulder?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Yes, sir.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: How high was that?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: That was proximately 4-7.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: 4-7.
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Yes, sir.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Okay. So -- give me a second here. We're going to do a --
(Break in proceedings.)
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: I haven't touched a protractor in fifty years. I've done it twice this week. So, let's do -- if you'd step down here for just a minute, please. Oh, you walk around with one?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Yes, sir.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: That's really sad, really, really sad. So, why don't you take this from me and I'm going to hold this. I'll hold the bottom, and put a dot on here at 4 -- whatever the shoulder -- the height of the shoulder. Okay. I'm going to take it straight -- can you hook it down? Okay, and we're going to -- okay. Let me just get it up here to 4 -- let me do this. 4 foot -- we're saying 4-foot-7?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Yes, sir.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Do you know how to lock that? Okay. So, that's 4-foot-7, right?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Yes, sir.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Okay. Let's go straight up. Okay, and that would have been the height of the wound.
KENNETH L. KINSEY: That's the height, approximate height of the shoulder depending on how far he was dipping.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Do you think it's lower?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: It could be, yes, sir. Like I said, when you've got a wound to that side, I would expect him to be favoring that shoulder.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Okay. So, what is your opinion of how -- I mean, you're the professional. I'm just holding it.
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Well, looking at the defects on this side of the door --
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Yeah.
KENNETH L. KINSEY: -- and it's several of them there even though they had been pressure washed, if I run a string back in the area of 4-7, somewhere in the middle gave me 135 degree angle. That's give or take 5 or 6 degrees.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: And that's what Dr. Riemer said in her report, 135 degrees.
KENNETH L. KINSEY: I don't know if she said that in the report, sir.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Okay.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Can you undo that? Thank you.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Give me 2 seconds and let me find her --
KENNETH L. KINSEY: But that's not absolute. Like I said, a lot of variables could change that a couple of degrees one way or the other.
(Break in proceedings.)
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Here we go. So while I'm looking for this, was there any evidence of stippling, soot, powder burn, anything? Is soot the same thing as a powder burn?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Soot is a byproduct, yes, sir.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Okay. Around the --
KENNETH L. KINSEY: But soot can wipe off. A powder burn and stippling doesn't easily wipe off. It's actually --
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: And that would indicate a pretty close shot, right?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Yes, sir, it would.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: And you would agree Dr. Riemer said there was no evidence of any of that, any stippling, anything to indicate it was a close-in shot?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: That is accurate.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: And she testified -- I don't know if you saw her. Did you see her testimony?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: A little bit of it.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Okay. She testified that the muzzle of the gun, the weapon, the shotgun, would have had to have been at least 3 feet away, perhaps 4, but at least 3 feet away. Is that consistent with your experience?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: I don't know if that's consistent with my experience. I'm not trying to disagree with the pathologist, but I don't see how the angle would work out. Unless it was a pretty short shotgun, I don't see the angle working out 3 feet away. It may have been within 3 foot.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Well, then, how far away was it? There was not -- I mean, at what point in the --
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Well, the angle -- the bullet defects would have been here at 76 inches.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Right.
KENNETH L. KINSEY: So, you've got quite a difference there. If I could get that dowel? You want to swap places with me?
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Yeah. I'm trying to find that 135 degree comment by her, but --
KENNETH L. KINSEY: To make that axis --
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Yeah, go ahead.
KENNETH L. KINSEY: -- at 3 foot, we're here.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Right.
KENNETH L. KINSEY: At 2 foot, we're here.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Right.
KENNETH L. KINSEY: I believe it would be more in line with 2 foot, but I'm not contradicting a pathologist.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Okay. I know it's in here. Give me 2 seconds. I thought I had it marked.
(Break in proceedings.)
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Well -- so, assume that you said and you relied on Dr. Riemer's 135 degree shot. Let's follow that down.
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Now, Mr. Harpootlian, I reviewed her stuff, but I went and measured my own angle on that door. I didn't rely on her angle.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Well, but she actually -- you're going based on where those pellets were --
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Yes, sir.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: -- and she would be going on the measurements on the shoulder?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Yes, sir.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: And she's actually looking at the wound.
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Yes, sir.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: And she would have maybe more accurate angles because she knows -- she sees what the wound is.
KENNETH L. KINSEY: She knows the angle to him --
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Right.
KENNETH L. KINSEY: -- but she can't -- she can't relate that to the defect at the scene.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: But do you think it's -- I mean, 135 degrees basically is a 45 degree angle, correct?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Not quite, but yes, sir, close, yes, sir.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Okay. So, is 45 degrees off of that dot?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: I did my measurement from a little bit lower on the doorframe. I took my a protractor and placed it on the doorframe, inside the doorframe.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: So, you don't think it's that far down?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Well, that's where his shoulder is at. But the angle of the gun, depending on the length of the barrel --
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Right.
KENNETH L. KINSEY: -- it would have to be here because it's not a contact wound, so it would have to be down a little bit. But the angle doesn't change, just the distance changes.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Right, right. So, but -- sorry -- but if you come off of this 45 degrees for the sake of argument --
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Okay. For the sake of argument.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Okay. That would show you the angle of whatever hit his shoulder, correct?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: As long as the angle stays the same, yes, sir.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Well, the angles --
KENNETH L. KINSEY: I've got it on 135, by the way.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Well, 135 would be -- wouldn't it be 45 degrees off of straight up and down, so don't you have to take it over this way?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Well, you've got 90 in the middle. It depends on where your axis is. You've got 90 in the middle. This is 180. All the way around is 360. So, here we've got 135 off of the door.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Going that way. Can you make it go this way for me?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: I don't quite understand what you're asking.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: I want the line not going this way. I want to be able to draw it out this way.
KENNETH L. KINSEY: You just flip it.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: There you go.
KENNETH L. KINSEY: And you go back above it.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Okay. Would you do me a favor, and let me get a ruler.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Can I have that long ruler, please?
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: And let's take it -- just -- I'll hold it. Like that. If you'll just get that. Okay, and so -- and again, it could be with -- somewhat lower if he turned?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Yes, sir.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: But -- so --
KENNETH L. KINSEY: And that would change the angle. That's why I said approximately 135. It could change a little.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: How much?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: A few degrees. You know, as -- well, if you figure this is 135 and if he's 2 inches lower, that would, you know, take probably 5 degrees off.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: So, that would be 130?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Maybe. If you sit it up there, we'll measure it and I can tell you for sure.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: So, let me -- what do you want me to do?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: You hold that protractor up next to -- there you go.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: So, we've got to go this way. No --
KENNETH L. KINSEY: You had it.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: There you had -- but your line is going to go that way?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Which way you want to go? Flip it, there you go.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: There we go. That's why you're the --
KENNETH L. KINSEY: No. I've got a feeling you're fooling with me, Mr. Harpootlian.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: You got that feeling?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: I got that feeling.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: So, that's 130 --
KENNETH L. KINSEY: 135, yes, sir.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: What do you want to make it?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: I'm not measuring it this way. I mean, you tell me what you want me to make it because I measured it this angle.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Yeah, but this is just the flip side of that. Do you remember how you were talking about the negative?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: All right. Put it back.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Okay. Which way you want it? This? That? That's 135. What do you want it make it? Oh, wow, there you go.
KENNETH L. KINSEY: All right. So, if it was -- let's say this end was down a little bit. That would make it what -- now you're on the bottom half now, so that changes it. Now we're at 40.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Yeah, it was 45?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Right.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Now it's 40.
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Right.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: See, I went to Clemson, too.
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Yeah.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: And so this is sad. So, if you make it 40 instead of 45 degrees, what is it?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Here.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Okay. So, do you want to draw that in? And write on the --
KENNETH L. KINSEY: If I poke you in the eye, it's not intentional.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Okay. So, those are basically -- what you're saying is those are the two possible paths and there may be one in the middle.
KENNETH L. KINSEY: It could be, yes, sir.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Okay. Now -- and you believe that the shooter was how far away from him with that shotgun?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: I think 3 foot is a stretch without having some damage to the doorframe.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Right.
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Because those shot pellets immediately -- when they leave that barrel of that gun, at 3 foot that shot pellet is going to spread 1 inch. There's no damage to the outside of that doorframe.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Why would there be?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Why would there be what?
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: If it's spreading how far, 1 inch?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: If Paul's shoulder is barely reaching that doorframe, and that's what the blood evidence tells me --
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Right.
KENNETH L. KINSEY: -- if you're further back, then shot pellets are going to do what they're supposed to do. They're going to open up, and there's no shot damage to that doorframe.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Okay. So, here we go. Do you recognize that?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Yes, sir, from photographs.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: And it's a Benelli shotgun. Is that right?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Yes, sir, it is.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: All right.
(Break in proceedings.)
KENNETH L. KINSEY: I have some.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Well, I guess I'm living dangerously here.
(Break in proceedings.)
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Okay. Would you take that shotgun, and unlike these boys back here, I don't mind if you point it in my direction, okay?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Okay.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: So if you take that -- the muzzle of that gun and follow the line down, and let me turn this just a little bit so this juror back here can see. Okay. Follow this down, either one of those down. So, that would be the position the shooter had?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: That's the angle. I mean, I'm on the opposite side, you know, of where the shot came from, but -- and I don't know the length of the barrel, but that would be the angle.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: If I'm standing -- I'm Paul and I'm standing in the door, why is that the opposite side? Bent down a little bit. I don't understand what you mean by the opposite side.
KENNETH L. KINSEY: The shot came from over here. It didn't come from --
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Well, this is a two dimension representation of a three dimensional, but I'm trying to figure out just the angle from the muzzle --
KENNETH L. KINSEY: All right, if you're coming out of the door --
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Right.
KENNETH L. KINSEY: -- and you have damage to your right shoulder --
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Right, there you go, same --
KENNETH L. KINSEY: -- instead of the left shoulder.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Same --
KENNETH L. KINSEY: All right. Turn this way.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Okay.
KENNETH L. KINSEY: And that is -- the doorframe --
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Right.
KENNETH L. KINSEY: -- was here.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Right, and that distance there is how far from the barrel to my --
KENNETH L. KINSEY: 2 and a half to 3 foot.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Just to be -- so actually that is --
KENNETH L. KINSEY: We're going to your shoulder now.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Okay.
KENNETH L. KINSEY: You've got to turn. You've got to turn.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Yeah. So, that's about 24 inches.
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Well, you stepped closer, but yes, sir, about 24 inches.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Again, we both went to Clemson. Okay, so this is getting complicated. So -- but what you're saying is whoever shot him was holding the shotgun that low?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Really low, yes, sir. Not from the shoulder. From some position other than the shoulder.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Why? Wouldn't it be easier to go boom right in the head?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Sir, I can't figure out why people do what they do --
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Okay. So, the person with the shotgun has just shot him in the chest, and he would have been turned to the left.
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Uh-huh.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: And that would have gone through under his armpit out the window.
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Right.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: And then he shuffles over to the right of that position?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Toward the door.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Towards the door.
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Yes, sir.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: And then whoever has just shot him -- you would agree with me the first shot was inside the -- I mean, the shooter would have been inside the feed room for shot number one.
KENNETH L. KINSEY: At least to here. If this is the doorframe --
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Right.
KENNETH L. KINSEY: -- the ejection port of that shotgun was in at least this far.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: And how far back was he in the room when he got shot?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Paul?
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Yeah.
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Just on the other side of the 5 foot mark.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Okay. So, how far would it be from that 5 foot mark to the doorframe?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: 5 foot.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: No, no. But, I mean, how far would the barrel have been if that was just inside --
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Well, it depends on the length of the shotgun.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Assume is that Benelli, whatever the name --
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Well, if this represents 5 foot.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Right.
KENNETH L. KINSEY: And I've got the ejection port inside the door, what, 2 foot? I mean, you own the ruler, but 2 foot maybe.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Okay. So, I'm going to move this this way just so it's even with me, with that candy dish. Thank you. So, this is 5 feet, right?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: I don't know what's on that end. If this is the door -- there we go.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: This is actually 6 feet. No, that's 5 feet, I'm sorry.
KENNETH L. KINSEY: For demonstrative purposes, if it's this gun --
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Right.
KENNETH L. KINSEY: -- and that breaches, so that's what -- how far are you from --
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: I'm 5 feet.
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Okay. Step just a little bit behind 5 foot --
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Okay.
KENNETH L. KINSEY: -- because he's occupying that next foot.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Okay.
KENNETH L. KINSEY: There you go. How far is that?
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: This is 5 foot.
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Okay.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: This is a little bit back from 5 feet.
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Yes, sir. Now, turn your body.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: This way or this way?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Yes, sir.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: This way. Okay.
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Come on.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: What do you mean? Turn my feet, too?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Yes, sir.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Okay.
KENNETH L. KINSEY: A little bit more.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Okay.
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Right there.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Okay. Now, and you're shooting me in the chest.
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Yes, sir.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: And the distance between that barrel and my chest is -- well, that's 29, 30 inches, would you agree? 30 inches? That's what this says to me, 30 inches.
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Yeah, with this shotgun.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Okay. Right, and so I would get -- I mean, just a minute ago we said at 36 inches -- or you said maybe it was closer. I mean, is this consistent with stippling?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Yes, sir. Within the -- yes, sir.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Okay, and when we had it before and you were shooting up at me, it was about the same distance, maybe 6 more inches between the barrel and me, right?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Uh-huh.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: And there's no stippling.
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Okay.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: You're the expert. What does that mean?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Well, he also has -- I don't know if I can answer that.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Could it be -- well, I mean, on that first shot we know you say that he was -- you say he was the -- whatever you call the thing ejects, what's it called?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: The ejection port.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: There you go. The ejection port had to be inside the room --
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Yes, sir.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: -- or --
KENNETH L. KINSEY: The second shot, all it had to be was pointed towards the room.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Why?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Because it's going to eject to the right. So, if this is the doorframe and I've got the ejection port pointed towards the room, it's going to eject into the room. The first shot that he was straight on had to be at least half the doorframe.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Right, but the second shot if the ejection port was --
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Point toward the room.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: -- pointed towards the room?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: I could be this far away from the room the second shot, and the ejection port would still throw it that direction.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: So, doesn't that change the calculations here on how far away that gun was because the ejection port on this was -- is that how far it was down there? There it is right there. The ejection port is, you agree or disagree with me, about 28 inches from the barrel.
KENNETH L. KINSEY: On that shotgun, yes, sir.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Well, assume this was a possible shotgun.
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Okay.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Although it doesn't match up with the ejector marks on the shells found in the room, the feed room, but there's some theory that this would be about the same shotgun. So, you would agree with me that the shooter would have been -- how about show me again how low they would have been holding this.
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Other side, but here.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Down --
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Well, I mean, I don't know how long their arms are. There's a lot of variables there. But, you know, it could have been here. It could have been here. I mean, I can't tell you the mechanics of it. All I can look at is the angle.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: And that angle, you would agree with me, is an unusual angle. Typically people shoot a shotgun from their shoulder.
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Typically, unless you and I are both occupying nearly the same space.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Wouldn't there be stippling or powder burns?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: I can't explain that, Mr. Harpootlian.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Okay. So, you can't explain it. I'll take that answer.
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Yes, sir.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: And -- but it would be inconsistent for them to be that close, wouldn't it?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Well, you figure if Paul made it to the door, whoever fired the first shot could have retreated or could have backed up, a better word for it, could have backed up, or even was taking cover to see what was going to happen, and then I believe the angle would fit, or could fit, that two persons could be that close to that doorframe.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Hand me the weapon again, please. You might want to step that way. Well, you're blocking the jury. That's better. So, we both agree that the first shot is square into his chest.
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Well, I can't say square, but it's directly on, yes, sir.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Okay. Which is at shoulder height, boom.
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Well, it could have been shoulder height. It could have been like I was just holding it just now. No, no, no, no, right before. I mean --
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: I'm sorry, I'm just --
KENNETH L. KINSEY: It could have been -- it could have been here, could have been here. I mean, I can't tell you the mechanics.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: But he's holding -- whoever is shooting him in the chest is holding it --
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Parallel to the ground, or near parallel.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Parallel to the ground?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Yes, sir.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: And we know it wasn't down here.
KENNETH L. KINSEY: I don't believe so, no, sir, not the path of the bullets going out the back window.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Okay.
KENNETH L. KINSEY: The pellets, not the bullets.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: So either at his shoulder or just under his shoulder. Now, a shotgun has a pretty good kick to it, doesn't it, a buckshot?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Yes, sir, I'm guessing.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: So, I guess what I don't understand and you have no explanation for it is why the second shot would be like this. I mean, we agree the normal height person would have to crouch to make that shot, correct?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: I don't know where they wanted the end of that barrel placed, Mr. Harpootlian. I can't tell you that part. With my science I can't -- all I can look at is the angle.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Which is about like this.
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Well, it's here but in reverse.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Which is about like this, correct? The barrel would have to be -- okay, like that, but you would agree with me I'm bent over to do that.
KENNETH L. KINSEY: You are, yes, sir.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: So, the shooter was a very short person?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: But here I'm not bent over that far and I'm almost 6 foot --
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: So, what I don't understand -- you can go ahead and take the stand. I don't understand what circumstance would cause a person to -- you might want to move that way a little to do this or this, and then immediately do this, or do this to put that second shot in.
MR. WATERS: Objection. Asked and answered.
JUDGE NEWMAN: You said what you don't understand. The question is --
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: The question is that your position is that the first shot was like this, and the second shot would have been like -- if I'm standing up straight like this, not a very good aim, or crouched down if it's a normal size person, right?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: The first angle was almost parallel with the ground.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Right.
KENNETH L. KINSEY: The second angle was somewhere between a hundred and -- somewhere around 135 degrees from the doorframe. I can't tell you the psychology of any more or any less. That's --
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Okay. So, what height was the entrance wound on that chest?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: On the chest?
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Yeah.
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Approximately 4-foot-3, or 4-foot-4, I believe, according to the --
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: 4-foot-3?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Yeah, 4-foot-3 or 4-foot-4.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Because it's under -- it's -- that would have been below the shoulder wound, right?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Yes, sir.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: So, it would be -- let me see how that works for me. 2, 3, 4, 4-foot -- you think 4-foot-3?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: I'm fairly certain, yes, sir.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Would you trust me that's 4-foot-3?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: I believe, yeah.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Okay. I'm about 5-10 --
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Uh-huh.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: -- on a good day. So, that would be about right for me, wouldn't it?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Yes, sir.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Okay. So that first shot, if it was on that person's shoulder, if they put it on their shoulder, they would have been approximately -- was there any way to figure out --
KENNETH L. KINSEY: I don't know a scientific way, Mr. Harpootlian, unless you had a tripod that you could hold the gun and shoot it many times, the actual gun and measure it. I don't know a scientific -- if it is one, it's way out of my purview. I look at the angles and I look at the damage and develop my angles. That's what I do.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Okay. Okay. I think I'm done with the gun. You can have a seat.
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Can I take the gloves off or you want me to --
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: I think we're done with the gun, but I've got to tell you --
(Break in proceedings.)
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: So --
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: And I don't think I need this anymore, Mr. Barber. I'm sorry.
(Break in proceedings.)
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Okay. So, let me go a couple of other places with you. You were hired on -- were you hired on December 22nd?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: I think it was in November when I first got to review the evidence, and I think I was hired in October. I can't tell you the actual date on my retainer, but it was several weeks after that before I ever got access to evidence.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Okay. So, you were -- read a crime scene reconstruction done by a guy named Bevel from Oklahoma, did you not?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: I did refer -- I did read that, yes, sir, but I did not depend on that to make my determinations.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: No, no. I'm just saying --
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Yes, sir.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: -- for purposes of --
KENNETH L. KINSEY: I did review that, yes, sir.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Okay. Do you remember when he generated his report?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: I don't, Mr. Harpootlian.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Would it surprise you if he generated it in 2022 early? Several months before you were even asked, right?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Yes, sir.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Okay, and you were their second choice?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: I don't know if I was their second choice. I was a choice.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Okay. Let me make sure I understand the date. So, he issued a report in March of 2022, and you were not asked to get involved until October of 2022.
KENNETH L. KINSEY: I had a phone call early shortly after. I don't even remember who I talked with, but someone called me shortly after the homicides and asked me if I would mind taking a look at stuff, and I said I'm always available to help if I can.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Okay. Now, the other things that you looked at -- let me just make sure we understand what you looked at. You had a David Greene recording of June 7, 2021. Do you remember looking at that?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Body camera, yes, sir.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: And in that body camera interview when they talked to Mr. Murdaugh, he indicates the phone had fallen out of Paul's pocket when he tried to check his pulse and he put it on -- it didn't explode out of anywhere. He put it on -- that picture that you introduced a moment ago, he put it on his rear end, correct?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: He may have said that in the body cam.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Okay. So, there was no exploding out of any pocket, right?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: I don't believe it did. And that's what I said, someone other than Paul put it there.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Okay. Now, you had a SLED crime scene investigator summary. Was that by Agent Worley?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: I read several SLED reports, but Agent Worley's report was one of them, yes, sir.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Okay, and you digested everything in that report that was relevant to your inquiry?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: I read those reports just so I have the knowledge of it, but what I can work out on my own, even if it contradicts their results, I like to make my own.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: For instance, she had very distinctive measurements on shell casing location, right?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Yes, sir, I believe they did.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: And you relied on that certainly in looking at shell casing placement.
KENNETH L. KINSEY: When you say shell casing, are you talking about --
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: I'm talking about where the Blackout 300 shell casings were.
KENNETH L. KINSEY: I looked at the path. I did not look at the measurement per se because, like I said, the shooter moving, the victim moving, not having the rifle and be able to say exactly where it throws that shell casing, I don't get too involved in that. I'll look at the general path where they're at. But as far as so many feet, so much inches, I don't pay a lot of attention to that.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: And I'm not asking you that, but it would show you the path of the shooter, would it not?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Well, like I said earlier in my testimony, it could or it may not. You can't look and say a shooter started here and ended here because he might have went from here to here and back to here, so --
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Well, let me rephrase that. Not necessarily the path, but at least you would know generally where the shooter was during -- if you looked at the -- at the -- at the coagulation of all of those shots. For instance, what we see, if you remember correctly, is a number of these shell casings, there's one sort of back on the gravel road, and then all of the rest of them are located in a fairly small area on the grass, and then there's one under her, right?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Yes, sir.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Okay, and that would show you at least generally -- I mean, the one under her had to have been a shot that was fired while she was upright and fell on it, correct?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: I would agree with that assessment.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Okay, but it would give you some general idea where the shooter was. General idea, not --
KENNETH L. KINSEY: General idea, somewhere within 5 foot, 5 or 6 foot. Knowing what I know about those rifles, it's not going throw it 20 foot or 30 foot. It's going to be confined to that area, and all I can do is probably put a general perimeter within, you know, a couple of yards at the most from Ms. Maggie Murdaugh.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Did you look at the autopsy report?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: I did, yes, sir.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: And the autopsy report, Dr. Riemer indicated the angle of the shot -- we talked this to death -- was 135 degrees.
KENNETH L. KINSEY: I really wasn't aware of that, but I look at the photos more than the report part.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Okay.
(Break in proceedings.)
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: So, let me ask you what else you looked at, and you list a bunch of things here. You looked at lab photos of victims' clothing, trace reports, DNA, CS -- what's CS photos evidence? What does CS mean?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Crime scene, yes, sir.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Okay. So, you looked at the crime scene photos. There were 449 of those, or least the ones that were relevant to your -- what you were looking at, right?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Yes, sir.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: And the -- a number of interviews with people, right?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: I had access to it, and I may have looked at some of them, yes, sir.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Okay. Now, the -- let me ask you this. Does the wound on Paul's shoulder indicate to you how far the shooter was? I mean, what was the spread at that point?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Your typical full choke on a shotgun, and it depends -- once again, it depends on the choke. At 3 foot it's going to spread 1 inch. With an improved choke at 3 foot, it's going to spread entry 1.75 inches. So, I don't know the --
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Well, you looked at the autopsy photos, correct?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: I did, yes, sir.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Was the wound on his shoulder bigger than 1 or 1.75?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: It's a massive wound, it's massive, but a lot of that can be taken into the angle, too, Mr. Harpootlian.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Did you look at the x-rays?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: I did, yes, sir.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: And there's a whole bunch of pellets in his shoulder.
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Along the path, yes, sir.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Along the path. But it would -- wouldn't it indicate that the spread of those pellets is significantly more than 1 inch or 2 inches? Like I think we determined, it was about a 6 inch spread.
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Well, I don't think with the angle it would be possible for someone to be 12 yards away and shooting up that direction, so obviously that's got something to do with the close proximity and the way those number twos work.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: So, do you have an explanation for why the spread would have been that big based on what we just did? I don't want to pull the shotgun out again.
KENNETH L. KINSEY: I'm not a firearms examiner, Mr. Harpootlian. I'm just familiar with how they work.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: So, your position is that spread is not inconsistent with what you've testified to.
KENNETH L. KINSEY: I do not believe so. I have had people shoot themselves in front of me, and I have worked a number of crime scenes where I've seen the same damage.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Okay. So, here we go. I knew I had seen this somewhere. This is your report.
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Thank you.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Okay. Let me ask you. Did you say Paul's height at 5-8 and the sharp angle upwards, approximately 135 degrees -- I knew I'd find this -- support the Paul's left side was dipping slightly, head slightly forward as he was standing or exiting the feed room at the time of the second shot?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: I think that's what I testified to, yes, sir. That's still my findings.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Okay. I just want to make sure this 135 degree thing I didn't imagine. That's what you said, right?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Well, that's why I was saying I was hoping you didn't say I copied someone else. But yes, sir, that's my measurements.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Okay. So, you also said that the length of the shotgun would be needed for a reasonable degree of certainty, but it's unlikely the shooter was standing with a shouldered weapon at the time of the second discharge. We've already established that, correct?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Yes, sir.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: They would have been crouched or holding it down in some awkward position --
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Yes, sir.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: -- rather than having it up at their shoulder. Also -- let me see if I can finish this. You don't have -- you do in your opinion IQ 7: It is my opinion that the exact position of the shooter cannot be determined in relation to Margaret. Correct?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Yes, sir.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: You have the most accurate information available to narrow down the position of the shooter -- the shooter's position is the physical location and position of the deceased, the bullet path of known wound, stippling, or lack of physical damage caused by those wounds. So, you had -- you came across no data that would allow you to determine trajectory with any degree of certainty as to Maggie.
KENNETH L. KINSEY: No, because the victim and the shooter could possibly have been moving. So, that's -- there's no way, to my knowledge, scientifically to prove either one.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Okay, and I guess that wasn't my question. My question was you saw no data in the material you looked at that would allow you to do that, to --
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Other than the pathologist measuring the angle of her stomach wound and her thigh wound, and they were very similar angled. That's about all I can tell you, Mr. Harpootlian.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Okay. Let me deal with a couple of issues. Let's go to the -- what you testified to about the impression on her leg, right?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Yes, sir.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Now, this -- again, was there a photo taken of either her leg or the tire that you're talking about that would have been what you would expect if you were trying to make a comparison, that is a 90 degree shot of either one.
KENNETH L. KINSEY: No, sir, and that's why I explained that I can't call this to the exclusion of all others. If I was going to make an absolute identification, I would require a scaled photograph.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Right, and there's no scale in either one of those.
KENNETH L. KINSEY: No, sir, but I got it close but still not close enough for me to call. I used the scale at autopsy the pathologist used on the back of Ms. Margaret Murdaugh's leg, and I went and did research on the tire, and I actually know the type of tire, and it comes -- the only problem is it comes in a 9, a 10, and an 11 inch front tire. So, I have no way to scale that without the actual tire.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: So, you're not telling this jury that it's your opinion that that -- I mean, that that tire caused that impression on the back of her leg.
KENNETH L. KINSEY: What I'm telling the jury is that is a class -- they share the same class, it's called an association, and in my opinion either that tire or a tire just like it caused that impression.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Well, let me ask you this. That -- by the time it got to the autopsy, her leg, whatever mud was on there was washed off, right? There's no -- in those autopsy photos all you see is a bruise, correct?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: That is correct.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Okay, and so the only evidence you have is that there was some mud stuck on the back of her leg and -- with those specific details, right?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: It's an impression in mud, yes, sir.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Okay. When you looked at the tire pictures, was there any mud on them?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: There are, specifically those treads. And like I pointed out earlier, you can actually see unique, random characteristics. In a perfect world, if I would have had a scale myself, I would have called that all day, and my technically reviewer would have called it all day also, but I'm not allowed to do that.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: You're not allowed to do that because you may be close, but you can't say with affinity that tread caused that defect on the --
KENNETH L. KINSEY: What I can say is that in my opinion, that impression was created by that tire, or a tire with similar characteristics.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Did you look at any black and white images of that, that -- what you call a tire impression or the mark on the back of her leg?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: I did. I made it black and white, yes, sir.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Okay, and so -- okay. We can go round and round about how sure you are, but I'm not going to do that. Let me ask you sort of in closing. I had a couple of more shots but -- a couple of more questions. The -- strike that. Let me check one thing with my folks over here and I'm probably done.
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Can I stand for a moment, please, Your Honor?
JUDGE NEWMAN: Yes, sir.
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Thank you.
JUDGE NEWMAN: Let's everybody stand for a minute.
(Break in proceedings.)
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: No further questions, Your Honor.
JUDGE NEWMAN: Any redirect?
MR. WATERS: Yes, sir, just real quick.
REDIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MR. WATERS:
MR. WATERS: A couple of things real quick. You were contacted by SLED to do a review of this case. Is that correct?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Yes, sir, I was.
MR. WATERS: And were you told any particular conclusions to come to, or did you do a fresh review and then arrive at your own conclusions of your own independent judgment?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Every conclusion I came to was in spite of any preexisting conclusions. I made my own conclusions.
MR. WATERS: You were asked a little bit about the tire mark impression. And were you relying on the crime scene photographs of Maggie Murdaugh at the scene?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Yes, sir.
MR. WATERS: And did you see mud, which is the impression that you examined?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: It is, yes, sir.
MR. WATERS: And from your review of the crime scene, was there any other ATV in the vicinity of where Maggie Murdaugh was found except that tire you looked at, the picture of it?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: That's the only one I observed.
MR. WATERS: And you said it had to be a tire, that tire or a tire with similar characteristics.
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Yes, sir, that's my opinion.
MR. WATERS: On the ATV that was at the scene.
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Yes, sir.
MR. WATERS: You were asked a lot about shell casings, and you pointed out that they can be thrown different feet and can move around, and the shooters can move as well. Is that correct?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: That is correct.
MR. WATERS: The shell casings, though, that were located, were they located in this area around the feed room as to where Maggie Murdaugh was found?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: They were.
MR. WATERS: And you said them shell casings ain't going to get thrown 30 feet, right?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: No, sir, not in my experience.
MR. WATERS: In your experience, having done 850 homicide scenes, can shooting events be fluid situations?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: That's death scenes, but the answer is yes, sir.
MR. WATERS: The victims can move?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Yes, sir.
MR. WATERS: The shooter can move?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Absolutely.
MR. WATERS: People can change their aspect of how they're positioned at any given time?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Because of the moment.
MR. WATERS: I don't know if I can get to it on my easel. Y'all went through a whole thing and drawing and the rest of it, but what y'all were drawing, that was actually reversed from how everything happened. Is that correct?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: It was.
MR. WATERS: And if I -- if this were the door to the feed room going out to the outside and I was standing in it, which direction was the trajectory of the shot to Paul's head?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Where I'm at, up at 135 degree angle.
MR. WATERS: And what did you observe up here?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: I observed body fluid, a concentration of body fluid as a result of a gunshot wound.
MR. WATERS: Defects in the door as well?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Absolutely.
MR. WATERS: And what's a defect? What does that tell you?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: A defect is damage caused by a projectile, whether it be a pellet or a bullet.
MR. WATERS: That easel drawing y'all did, that was reversed from the reality of the situation, correct?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Yes, sir.
MR. WATERS: All right, and that easel also was slanted as well, was it not?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: It was.
MR. WATERS: And if it were actually standing straight up, that dot y'all were marking would actually be higher than it was when it was demonstrated to the jury. Is that correct?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Yes, sir, and that's why you use approximate. Because I can't tell you how Paul was positioned, I can only go by the angle.
MR. WATERS: All of that stuff that you and Mr. Harpootlian did with the easel and the shotgun and all the rest of that, does any of that change your opinion about what happened to Paul on the night of June 7th of 2021 when he was fatally shot in the head?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: It does not.
MR. WATERS: Thank you, Your Honor. Nothing further.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Just one additional question.
JUDGE NEWMAN: Yes, sir.
RECROSS-EXAMINATION
BY MR. HARPOOTLIAN:
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: We agreed that what I did there a moment ago with the easel was a mirror image, or a negative of what actually occurred, right?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: It was the opposite side of the door, yes, sir.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Okay, go get in that door, please.
(Break in proceedings.)
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: And Mr. Barber, in the interest of justice, has allowed me to point the shotgun at him, Your Honor. It is --
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: So, we agree that if he's standing in the doorway, the shooter would have had the --
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: And how about turn a little bit to your --
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Turn that way?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Little more.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: A little bit more?
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Yes, sir.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Okay. The shotgun would have been about like this. About like this.
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Yes, sir.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Okay. So, that's the trajectory. That's where the barrel of the shotgun would have had to have been.
KENNETH L. KINSEY: In my opinion, yes, sir.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Okay. Thank you. No further questions.
JUDGE NEWMAN: You may step down.
KENNETH L. KINSEY: Thank you, Your Honor.
(The witness exited the stand.)
JUDGE NEWMAN: Ladies and gentlemen, we're going to break for lunch at this time. Members of the jury, I'm appointing Juror Number 826 to be the foreperson of the jury. The foreperson has the responsibility of serving as the spokesperson for the jury from this point forward. They'll have a responsibility of presiding over the jury deliberations, and will have the responsibility of completing the verdict form representing the unanimous verdict of the jury when we reach that point, and also sit in the first seat, which is the seat designated for the foreperson. Do you understand? Very good. We'll see you all at 2:15.
(The jury left the courtroom.)
JUDGE NEWMAN: We will be in recess until 2:15.
(A lunch break was taken.)
JUDGE NEWMAN: Ready for the jury?
MR. WATERS: The State is ready, Your Honor.
MR. HARPOOTLIAN: Defense is ready.
JUDGE NEWMAN: You may bring the jury.
(The jury returned to the courtroom.)
COURT BAILIFF: The jury is present, sir.
JUDGE NEWMAN: Very good. Welcome back. Ladies and gentlemen, I have appointed Juror Number 826 to serve as the foreperson of the jury. In various places and various states, it's done differently. In some places the jury selects a foreperson. It's my practice to appoint a foreperson. The fact that the person is appointed as foreperson does not give that jury -- juror any more authority than any other juror. All jurors are equal participants, and each juror has an equal voice in the process, and while certainly I welcome you to this role as foreperson, and look for all of you to continue with your role in the process from now until the end. And with that, we will have the State call its next witness.